Planning Board - Regular Meeting

It's somebody besides.

It could be somebody. It could be nothing. Yeah.

All of that is outside of the town's regulatory authority.

Right.

It's not a town action. It's part of town zoning. It's not part of town administration. If an outside agency tells the owners later at some point, keep in mind it's been... 14 months in holding, waiting for the DEC to do something and just write a letter whether they care or not. And they've done nothing of the sort. So at this stage, they obviously don't care if they can take an action. Possibly. They just haven't gotten around to writing anything on paper.

It could be something in their...

world. They've had a change of leadership.

Right. Could be something. But anyway, even if we did approve the site plan and that turned out to be an issue, then he would have to, the town tavern folks would have to redo their site plan and come back and start over if they were to say, hey, you've got to remove some parking or whatever. Whatever they might say. They might say nothing. I don't know.

That would have been a problem.

Like, that's what Ron's saying. It's really not a tone.

They came out there, and I called them on myself. Came out there. This is nothing to do with us.

Who was they? Who was they?

I called myself on them. Lovely. They told me I had to. They said, you have to call them.

And they came out and looked at it?

Two people came out and looked at it. Yeah. And I said, I get it right. They go, we want nothing to do with it. I said, okay. When was that?

Hang on one second.

When was it?

Is it at the same time frame as the March 31st emails in here from DEC?

We're all... Well, prior to that. That was a town engineer reaching out to the DEC to say... Why not? They said, we'll get back to you.

I know they're backlogged. I mean, I know that they're way behind. Well, they came out with everything.

Somebody else came out a few weeks ago and said, do this. I can't say in terms of, I don't know what they asked me to do. I just did what they told me to do.

Now, the other thing is there still is some outstanding items on the site plan that we could make as conditions that aren't completed. And then they're also asking for an awning over the existing, the old building. So I really think if we- Not an awning replacement. If we're gonna move forward with this thing tonight, I think we need to split the site plan with the new building in the back and the awning separately. Because I think joining them all together is a little confusing here. Because there's a lot of stuff about the awning that's really not spelled out here.

Back to DHC, this last email that Bob sent to me, he's asking DHC for advice on anything. So they might have told them.

Yeah. It would be nice to have had a letter from them, but again- They said they don't want to be in the middle of- They're in the middle of some lawsuit too, I wanted to understand.

The DHC's in the middle of some big ass lawsuit about their new policies going back to the old policies.

Jim, you wanted to say something real quick?

Yeah. So, Cam has been looking at this for a while. I've spent a bunch of time looking at it. I've talked to Mike. First of all, there's a lot of issues there. This DEC issue is a non-issue. That's a Class C stream. The DEC has no jurisdiction over that stream. That's why they're not getting back to you. They were interested in the wetland because on the wetland map, if you look at the environmental mapper, there's what's called an informational wetland layer. The property. They were out here before the Albany Supreme Court shot down the law. And they were investigating. When the Albany Supreme Court shot down the law and didn't follow secret properly, they stopped. At this point, they have no jurisdiction over anything. We saw out there the Corps has jurisdiction. That's a river and wetland by the Corps. So they had jurisdiction. But the other questions that CAB has, and we've been working with the town board on this group once, is how that site got developed without site plan review. The only permit issued here was for the accessory building. Before all of that, the wetlands were backfilled, the blacktop was put in there, the volleyball courts were moved, and from what Google Earth tells us, there's 1.4 acres of disturbance out there from what we call the original site condition. The existing site conditions plan that you have on the accessory building application shows all this work that was done without a permit, and that's CAB's problem.

Okay. Just for our knowledge, weren't there volleyball courts there when you bought it?

Yes.

So that was existing? No, but they've been moved.

They were along this way. We put them this way. But basically the same area. You just, yeah.

So Jim, are you saying the wetlands were where the volleyball courts were?

No, I'm saying that when you go out there and look, it's clearly wet. When you look at the DEC's environmental mapper, it's on their informational layer as a wetland. The EAF or the building, application said there's jurisdictional wetland on a property. So that's the problem now is that you've got all this information and disinformation heavy going around here now.

So Ron, when you bought the existing building, it was already operational. There was a restaurant prior.

There was a bar before. They turned it into a bar again. There was no blacktop for the parking lot. There was no gravel for the parking lot. The acreage that was disturbed, including the volleyball court, is better than 1.4 acres. The only thing that was approved by this board or the town was approval of an accessory building. None of the site development work that was done, we know this, Rod, Was it reviewed by the planning board or issued a grading permit?

The reason being is the way they did this, it was broken apart into two years. When they did the volleyball court was not last year, but the year before. So they did that reorientation, completed it, done, moved on, then got a permit to build the accessory building. What about the blackboard?

Well, the accessory building, the parking was all in that site plan.

It was shown as existing site condition. For that accessory building, when that came to this floor, it showed some of that parking and that building.

Right. But not what they have now, though. Not what they did. It was only showing, and they didn't really require any additional parking because that was supposed to be a storage building.

He told me I had to put an additional part. I don't want to spend another $55,000.

So, I mean, to get back, so we're not all going to get off track here and I don't want to get into a he said, she said thing. Originally, we approved the site plan. Unfortunately, they didn't follow that plan and went somewhat of a different route. They're back here tonight with existing site plan. That's there now. Looking for approval now, we did approve the new building as a restaurant. And the CD now, I understand some of the interior got moved, but it really doesn't matter, Brad, because it goes by the square footage for parking. It doesn't matter how the tables are laid out. So when you go through the parking requirements, they needed 88. They're supplying 88, but they didn't even need 88. They only needed 71 by the code. And I went there and counted today. I came up with 92. Now, I don't know if... if I missed something or miscounted, but they've got more than parking than what they need for both buildings and the whole setup. They're good on their parking. They've given us a new site plan on the building of what they have, which is in our packet.

What if that parking they put in has to be removed?

That's on the owner, not on you.

No, but I'm just saying, how many spaces are they going to lose? Well, while they remove the parking.

Well, let's just say the Corps or the DEC comes forward and says, hey, those parking spaces along the ditch have got to get removed. You either have to retry to reconfigure your parking lot.

That would only be right along the ditch in the front of the place. That would stop.

That would be, and you already agreed that you would do almost anything to start over. I did what everybody told me to do.

I always did everything they asked. One thing I want to say, when we came in, the last part that we just paid showed just gravel. And then there was some questions. They were like, well, why didn't you do that? And we showed that we had enough parking without that. Then they wanted us to do that. So then we ended up doing that. And then now...

Well, you needed 71 parking places. You had at least 88. If something was to come up that you had to lose seven, you're still good.

You're still good. Let me just interject. I would challenge that there's enough parking. Because I don't really feel like you counted the people that are playing volleyball in that parking. You count the people that are sitting there, but he's got three courts. There's going to be 12 people in each court. That's 36 more people that aren't accounted for in here. I don't think there's enough parking.

But the way the parking schedule works. based on the building, the building layout, seating, tables and chairs, freestanding space within a building. I can't fit the tables. tennis courts, volleyball courts. I can't count them.

Well, we've counted it in the past. It's not in the building. Let me finish. We counted it with Anderson's when we made Anderson's count the outside tables that were there as part of the parking requirements. And I think we're slipping into a gray area of the code by not considering what's going on with the volleyball courts. If you just had three volleyball courts out in a field, would you have no parking? Because it's not required?

That's correct, but where would- That's correct. That is correct.

That doesn't make sense.

It's not in the code. So we're not gonna rewrite the code, are you?

Well, the planning board has some jurisdiction here to consider what's in the best interest of the town.

There are exterior picnic tables there.

And I'll be honest, I drove through there when they were having an event, there was a lot more than 30 people back there.

So I mean- Okay, back to- Do we want to talk about site plan approval? Does someone want to make a motion to table? Do we want to split this into site plan approval and awning situation? What does the board want to do?

As far as the money, I feel like it's a whole separate discussion. Yeah, I think that you should just be separated.

We can either do them.

Everybody agrees that the audience should be separate from the site plan. Everybody agree anyone disagree.

Okay, so that would be.

Now, a, is the site plan. Do we want to. Before we're looking at the site plan with conditions. I'm going to bring up a couple of things. But Jen even mentioned this, that our code requires the dumpster to be screened. It's not screened. There's also a, what is it called, a grease container?

Well, here's the thing. We get this. This is what we're doing. We seem to have a problem going back and forth with communication and building their site plan, what the business is trying to do and trying to figure out where it's right areas and why this seems to be getting so messed up. So I sat down today and tried to go through the checklist that we are given and try to look at if the checklist is complete. And the few items that I had mentioned today when we met briefly were things that are not on the site plan that have not been checked beforehand. And my question to that was, I don't understand how These things haven't been caught or haven't been done that are coming back to us that when we're here trying to make arguments on code. I have to sit here and argue the code when we already made our decision here at the planning board. As to what the site plan should have looked at at. And there seems to be a lot of gray areas in between everything. As to how some of the things beforehand that code and planning or the. Building department wanted versus what we said, that's why I mentioned things like the garbage. The grease, because we are talking about the things that were on the original site plan that were asked to be done and weren't done.

Well, let's see. They have a garbage out here, the grease trap. You don't have to have a. Container container, which is probably.

I mean, I don't every restaurant I ever did.

Well, generally, if you're going to screen the dumpster, your grease containers, the dumpster, you would screen.

To mess with the grease trip, or do they have to put a tank increase tanking?

No, no, that's an exterior a second because they changed the site plan. There's no grandfather anymore. Everything's up to new code. because they've added that back building. If they just left the front, never did nothing, then you're right, they're grandfathered in. But because they did the back building, they're under all the new codes. That's the law. I mean, I didn't make up the law. That's the way it works. So yes, what Jen brought up was the screen, the dumpster, and the grease trap. There's a shipping container that when we gave them approval on the original site plan, we made a notation that they had to remove it, but we said we'd let them leave it there during construction. But now it's tucked behind the new building in the back. That's got to go before CVO. That's got to be removed. The other thing is there's a sign location on the site plan, but that would be by permit. They would have to go to the building department and get a sign permit. We're not approving any sign, even though there's an area showing a sign.

I went through the zoning fields for that. For the sign? The town tower sign? Yes.

So you did that already. So we have none of that information. That's the gray areas, I'm confused. Yeah, I don't have it.

Dave Kuntz, Okay, the cba but still that we don't do signs, as long as the cba works with building he gets assigned permit that's gone.

Karen Hollweg, yeah I get that.

Dave Kuntz, So we know we got the sign down so it's really good. Dave Kuntz, Is there another di back farther towards the new building, I know there's one on your drawing up by the old building. Drainage. Hedge basin. Is there one back towards the new building somewhere?

I believe there is, yes.

And is that what we think? Is this pipe going to the stream or ditch or whatever?

It only shows one DI on the drawing.

It only shows one on the drawing. Well, we think there's a second one down further.

That's probably going to say there's going to be.

There should be at least two. Another thing that we saw that you have blue handicap striping facing the old building on the left. With the size of this parking, you would need three handicap spaces. So you'll have to stripe another one. I would probably say somewhere close to the new building.

Pick a spot and call it a handicap spot.

Just have a stripe. The section that's not on your property, the pizza shaped piece that you have an easement slash contract of some type, but you're not even using.

I thought it was going to be brownie. There's vehicles back there tonight.

Not on that stone. No, he's got the cement blocks all the way.

I just drove back.

I literally didn't throw back there.

Right here. Yeah, they're right here.

Oh, you're big cement stones. Don't go all the way back.

They go all the way back. Yeah, we can add more of a little. We don't need more. It just doesn't make sense. but it's a slice.

Okay, I got it.

I have the agreement in my car, actually.

No, I got it here. It's here.

We have that. The thing is, because that's not agreed, you're now allowed to let customers park there. You can put your employees only there. Yeah, Terry commanded to put employee parking only there. Usually it's just band drop-off. Like people, equipment, caterers, whatever.

Okay, so we went through most of the stuff, but again, where are we with the LWRP? Do we want to have them before us?

Well, in my mind, we need to have the LWRP before us as well as correcting some of these other things that we've talked about here tonight.

Okay. Do you want to make the motion? Do you want me to make the motion? Because I got, I was writing all this stuff.

Well, there's, there's a few other things that I would add and I sort of piggyback on what Jen was talking about. Looking through there, the checklist. To me, there's a number of things that were checked off. Well, I don't really find. Um, number two, with the name of the person who prepared the drawings. Drawing number three, professional stamp on the drawings at the appropriate scale. Do you have that, Ron? Number five, a property survey. I don't see a property survey. Oh, I have that in my car.

Ron says he's got one to build.

It should be part of the package. Shouldn't be something to go out and get out of your car. um the site plan with dimensions and front yard side yard coverage um building elevations this building elevation i don't understand you got a foundation that's 12 feet below grade what's that all about doesn't make sense is there a basement under the building yeah okay original building there it is Okay. That doesn't show on the forefront.

We would only be talking about the back building.

There's no landscape planning. There's no landscaping that's been going. We don't have any site lighting that I see on the drawings. We mentioned the garbage screening and enclosures. So there's just a number of other things that I would add to that list that You should go through this very carefully and make sure we have all the documentation that we're looking for. And I would move that we table it until we have the LWRP as well as all those other items.

A great spreading plan would be great too.

Yeah. So do we want to... Are we going to...

This is kind of the thing I'm talking about and why I went through the checklist, Mr. Chairman, because it's the back and forth and it's the list that we have. So I don't want Mike and Brian to leave and then come back in a month and ask for 15 more things. That's why I'd like to clarify what exactly the town needs and what the clarification is as to what our checklist was. That's why I wanted to do that.

that's good are we talking both buildings are we talking the front now no no no we haven't touched the canopy yet we're just talking about that building on the second we're not talking about the end of the car no no yeah i know we're going to do that next sort of time i think jeff and then that's why we're doing it one at a time should we mention in that laundry list dave about uh cab's concern with

the wetland disturbance area. I'm sure there must be some documentation.

We could add the wetlands disturbance to it. I believe that's something LWRP will address also. But certainly adding it to the list makes sense, yes.

I mean, John, are we going to be

I don't know, but that's, you know, it's, I, I don't want them like the last go around and they came back here three and four times. So that's why I'm trying to clarify everything they're to do. And they can work that out with building and whatever they need to do that needs to fulfill what we're supposed to be getting or what they're supposed to be doing, because this just causes too much.

Ryan and Mike walk out of here. Again, we don't add five more. Thank you.

So, Robin, here's the motion. You don't mind, Dave? I'll make the motion that we table this site plan application that first it goes to the LWRP to get their determination. and then to have the checklist completed in full with all the appropriate things that were mentioned here, which they can look up on YouTube. So we don't have to do a laundry, big laundry list. And then I would suggest that when they're come back before they hit the planning board to let's have an informational meeting with building engineering, me and anyone else on the planning board that wants to come, go through your drawing, So when you come back to this board, we can hopefully approve you and this is done.

It's just putting the hard roof on, or do you need a proof of that?

So Mike, what we're looking at right now, yeah.

The back of the site plan at this point. The back part.

Okay, okay.

Basically what you have there now, that it complies with what the town has in your mind.

Did you catch my- Before you go forward. You got it? Yeah. Second, anyone? I second. Second by Dave. Any further discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

So it's full vote. Okay, now on B, of their application, is the roof system over the back building, which is just this. I'm gonna make the same motion to this table that we did full drawings and that the whole checklist be completed on this part of the project. colors, elevations, footprints, drawings, columns. I mean, what are you using for columns to hold this thing up? Is the clock gonna be there?

You know, like... There you go.

What we did.

This was the roof we put this because. They did drawings just showing. Just the roof system. Yep. But we didn't know if we could get approved to put just something on here just to. As a documentary to make it a little bit more not playing like it. So that's why. In this drawing right here. It's just out of that.

Right.

But this shows. It's.

Oh, right.

Yeah, Dave, nothing stamped. It's not stamped.

It looks like a prelims.

Oh, there's a stamp. There's a stamp. There they are. A one or only one or two. These three are stamped.

Do you know what the total height of that will be? I think we kind of tried to look. I tried to look on the other one. I was like 20.

I think we came up with 26, I think.

Yeah. So that shouldn't be a height problem.

Not on central business.

Yeah.

This roof here shouldn't be. In the pitch? In the pitch.

At 406. The peak is 269.

Well, that's .

So it's very shallow, very, very shallow.

So I know this is only about 12 or 14 feet from ground level.

You're probably trying to stay away from the wall.

I had them do on top of the block that was there. I built this up just because it would just look to give it a little bit more aesthetics. I mean, if the corner thing's going to be a problem.

The corner thing's not a problem, but whatever you give us is what you got to do. So if it's not going to have a clock, let's take the clock out of there.

I can say Blackberry's on it, but here's my concern. You guys, or whoever, gave us this old drawing, and maybe it's just for reference because you used it as a base for the rest of the drawings, but in order to approve it, I don't want to approve something in five seconds that I had to look at during the meeting if I didn't

Well, when we first came in, you got to come up with all these conceptual drawings right away.

Yeah, no, I understand.

And then we went through a couple months.

And the concept is fine.

I think the problem is, Brian, that what the board is trying to say to you is that when this got submitted in our packet, we needed an engineering drawing. So whatever that disconnect was from when you, if you submitted this to building and if it made it to us or not, because really what we're supposed to do is we're supposed to see some kind of engineer drawing like this. Now that we're approving what you're building versus the concept idea. So we need, we needed to see this to be like, cool, this looks great. We have no problems.

You know, another situation is, is, The building department doesn't want to say, let's go ahead and do this when that's not finished. That's why we didn't. We didn't get that.

That's what I'm trying to say.

It's that gray area. I'm saying it then because you said, we're not going to let you afford it. You figured out this problem.

Yeah, no, I get that.

So what I'm saying is let's table this for them to apply for this separately.

I agree. Possibly, and in concept, we're just looking at, like, general, like, okay, they're doing a hard scape roof rather than whatever they're supposed to give us color. Yeah, exactly. You know, so we're in the column where the initial pass, but we're looking at a Blackberry.

Okay. So here's my motion. We're going to table on. For instead of. or a separate application process with all the information in the checklist. And then we'll have, then we'd have other things. Correct?

So, yeah, and I'd like to get recommendations on that, however you want to work with all these checklist items and try to get them completed or helped out.

If they want to meet ahead of time, that's, I'll be happy to do it.

Otherwise it's going to turn into a three or four and maybe we can make this a month.

Okay, I'll be happy to donate my time. You want a colored drawing?

Yeah, I'll talk.

When you see the checklist, you'll have to run through the checklist to see what just lies to the hard rule of fat. You know, colors, drawings, stamp drawings, the whole 10 yards.

I mean, obviously we're doing black, but I mean, the color of the poster, I mean, I'm not sure. It's going to be the same color of everything we have.

What the poster made of? Uh-huh. They should show all the detail.

The engineered 6x6.

I think it's just, I think within the next 30 days, it's getting all those action items and the things that we need that I know you have and getting them put together and getting them so that the next board meeting, it's all put together in a packet. And I can help with that list.

Verified. Obviously, full engineering drawing, which I think we're all set, but

colors of the it's all in the checklist you get that checklist that you did on your site plan just roll through that what applies to the front roof building only give me a checklist okay good all right i made the motion anyone second that one second second second any further discussion in favor you said you'd meet with before how it'll hold on You get a hold of round, then round will set it up.

Okay.

Okay.

But as of right now, this plan, we don't even care about this plan until trouble. Like, well, if we want to change, put it by our biggest line of credit.

Nope.

Okay. Whatever we do.

Whatever you're going to do now. Don't tell us you're going to do A and do B, and we end up in a mess.

Okay.

Okay. I know things could change. I've been a builder all my life. I understand that. I've been building houses forever.

I got it.

Special use permit. You're all set.

So you guys will get in contact with Ron and then they'll set up a free one.

Thanks guys.

Yeah. Special use permit the bakery.

Is anyone here for the bakery? I was hoping for some samples.

Yeah.

Were they notified, Ron?

All right, guys. Generally, we don't go forward unless the applicant's here. Okay, motion to favor. So moved. Motion by Brad. Second. Second by Amy. Any discussion? All in favor? Aye. Okay, published three. Conservation pre-law. If we have any questions.

Tim, would you like to give a quick overview to make this board understand if that's okay, Dave? Great. A quick one.

Very quickly, I understand that you do have the latest provision that was handed in by CAB. There were, that was a markup of June 18th. At the June 25th meeting, CAB added or had a couple other comments I just want to be aware of. TAB, as a proposed different title because. TAB, There's public trees and street trees. TAB, So that the title needs to reference both not just public trees, I guess in markup is in here, but also there was a request to change the title to be something like the tree conservation. tree conservation and management law, because when searching for a law, it'd be helpful if it started with a T. So that was one of the counts. We have reduced the size of the tree down to three inch caliper breast height, because there are significantly aged and mature trees. That's at three inches, I'm sorry, six inches. These trees could be 80 feet high and 50 years old. So that's a change that Florida wants to see. Also, there were comments on the tree board. I think it was Parks and Rec that had said you should limit the tree board to two cab members. So that was a comment that's out there. This law has not been changed in that regard. And then there was a question about whether or not an arborist should be included on the tree board. We have an arborist now, but we may not in the future. So there was a concern about referencing an arborist. Could the arts and rec comment be made? What would happen to section 51-4 on tree advisory board is that the PAM members would be knocked down from nine to two. The highway superintendent would be added to the tree board since he's got a lot of, or that position has a lot to say about pre-management or not. And then we also propose to put in, let's see, that's six or five, a town arborist if available. That way if the town does not have an arborist, then the law is still consistent. So those were the differences. There was also a lot of discussion on tree replacement. CAV, of course, is interested in not having the applicant pay and then have this fund be spent on, excuse me, such funds collected shall be used for activities consistent with this chapter. Chris Catt is in here saying if you need a tree replacement, you should not pay. You should replace the tree. This is needed for the Tree City application. Arbor Day Foundation is all into planting trees. That's what they're all about. So a law that suggests that the money might be used for something else, in our opinion, isn't necessarily what Our Everyday Foundation is looking for. Let me see if I have any other questions.

So Jim, are those comments reflected in what we're reading here or not?

No, because what you've got is a markup from June 18th, right? These changes I just discussed were from the CAB meeting on the 25th, I believe. I got you, okay. So that's what I'm... So those are the things that Kev talked about and would like to see written out.

So you're good, Jim? Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. I'm gonna make a motion that we table this and have CAB redo the law and send it back to us. Not get something on our agenda and then come in the last two seconds and say, let's add a following 10 things. So we all have some time to digest what we're doing. In the meantime, is there anything that someone would like to make a comment?

One comment I would make, I think we've all gotten a letter from the post office saying they got new trucks and that the trees have to be trimmed so that the new truck doesn't impact the trees on the street. And the highway superintendent has said that that's the responsibility of the owners. Of the property, even though that the tree is in the town right away that seems in conflict with a. Capital a little a here where it says. Yeah, where it says. The highway superintendent. He's, according to that letter from the post office, the highway superintendent is saying that's the house owner's responsibility.

Okay. Okay. Now, one thing I'd like to mention under purpose, in keeping with the residents' expressed desire, I think that should be removed. Unless you did a vote. I mean, they didn't ask me. So how do you say the residents express desire? That's just a general nothing. And then Tom, do we have a budget for this tree? Not currently. So that means you would have to come up with funds to supply a budget. which would relate, okay, relate into higher taxes. Someone's gotta pay for the budget.

I mean, there's money. That you can steal from. Okay, it's okay.

And then the word street tree is trees within the right of way of all town streets, avenues, or highways within the town of Grand Island. The town of Grand Island can't tell Erie County and DOT and New York State what to do with their highways.

It should be stated in the easement right away. What easement? It should have an easement. In between the sidewalk and the street. Those are town streets.

But there's no easement. That's the right of way up the road. So you would have to further define...

There's no reason well, to me, it seems like all street trees are public trees. If it's next to the street, it's part of the public right-of-way, which is the town.

Okay, so I- But near, if it's- Or on Long Road. But is that the positive possibility to take care of it? I'm going to use my house for an example.

I get you on that level, but I'm, yeah.

I have to look at my tree that goes all over. Yeah. If it's next to the road, I'd love it to come down.

I have a tree in the front of my house. It's in the county's right-of-way. Right.

It's full of carpenter ants. It's dying.

I would get a $50 permit from the county, give them my insurance and cut the tree down.

This law says that I've got to get all this approval and then I have to replace the tree.

Or if I can't replace the tree for whatever the reason, I have to plant the tree somewhere else as designated by the town.

But are we accountable for those trees that are in the so-called right-of-way that, whether it's county or state or town, those are really town, those are all... No, they belong to them.

But it's not... I know the definition says street tree. Do you understand what I mean? 325-251-7888. No. It says we've moved down to the Asian tree topping, 3G. within the bounds of a town highway. So it does limit .

This is a town ordinance law.

So it's gotta be, and then my question is, street tree definition, if I'm putting in a subdivision, all the trees in the right-of-way, when I'm building the road, I'm gonna level To be able to put the utility corridor in.

So, I was going to consider. Yeah, I have 1 comment on that street. Well, that was going to be my question just in general question. I thought it was actually frowned upon.

It's not technically right. dedicated to be accepted, which is after the work is done.

Okay. And then you're right. I thought this was frowned upon about putting trees in the right of way because all the utilities are there.

Engineering doesn't want trees in the right of way.

Sure. So if I plant a tree, I plant a tree in my right of way, there's a sewer issue, the town, or a water line issue, the town's going to come in and cut that tree down. And now it's my responsibility to replace it. There's a water main issue in front of my house and there happens to be a tree in the right of way. property. No.

But it's going to be his problem.

Yeah, but the trees there is going to be my, now it's my problem.

You got to fix it.

Now tree USA status needs, to my recollection, when this was before the board, prior to COVID, was public trees. Street trees are really not public trees. His street trees kind of belong to whoever's living in front of him.

Has engineering a highway behind him on this? We're behind him.

Thank you.

Engineering wants no trees in the right.

There is a law somewhere. I gave it to Cab a long time ago. There is a law on the books that if you build, I must just talk about new builds for a minute. If you build a new home, every 50 feet, you have to plant a tree. That just never got enforced. but it has to be on your property, not the right-of-way. Right. So if something happens, there's no question about whose tree that is.

My wife always wanted one on the right-of-way, and I wouldn't plant one. You're not supposed to plant trees in that.

Now, me, on East River, if I've got gas, foam, sewer, water line, And they're not all together. They're sprawled out over 30 feet.

But it's a right-of-way for a reason. It's a utilizer.

So if we start saying we're putting trees in the right-of-way.

We're creating a new problem.

If a tree dies or gets removed, we're not replacing trees in the right-of-way. There's no replacement then.

This law, there is.

That's what we're trying to clarify. The only, the one comment I had was that I think somewhere in here, maybe conservation should think about that, you know, when highway or whatever replaces trees, that they should look at the site plan.

that was in place, so I don't know.

They also want to under- Like TOPS loses a bunch of trees and then they're gonna force them to replace them. It would be good if the highway engineer, whoever looked at that site plan, that would prove where those trees and how many trees are supposed to be on that property.

Under G, third page here. Roman numeral 11. They want to require that cab goes over the landscaping requirements on any. Site plan project we do that. So now you're going to have another board overlook and what we're doing.

Well, I think can look at it, but. The thing is, is we have to, we look at this, we can bring that information. To us, they can give their comments and then it can come to us, but then the town boards, ultimately the 1 that decides along with the code.

What's the building feel about that? Because you get a site plan with a whole landscape plan in the site plan.

I know there's some discussion already with a lot of these advisory boards and trying to get. their input to this board prior to you guys holding your meeting. So it would be beneficial for you guys to have that happen in a manner where the advisory boards get their stance, which it has to be limited. It could be, let's say, 30 days. They get 30 days to see it, review it, and comment on it. If they don't, They lost their opportunity and now it comes to your board and here's your input with how you at least have all the input.

They also, so there also was the discussion of the board members of the board. Jim brought that up as well. So that should be because right now they got all the cab members on the board. So there should be a little more of a mix. They already mentioned that. And then. When you talk about tree, Jim, you can maybe clarify, you said breast height. What do you mean by breast height?

At the caliber of a tree, when you talk about a two-inch tree or whatever, it's diameter of breast height. So that's measured, I think, about four feet off the ground.

Okay, because when I go to Russell's Tree Farm, they count caliber at the bottom of the, right on top of the roof.

I might have my terms with this. It might not be caliber, but the diameter. What the tree law talks about is a diameter at breast height, which this law, it's talked about six inches in can, three inches. So that's, it's not caliber.

It's dimension. Okay. And then last page, it says something on You mentioned something about your rights up on private property that may affect public safety. Isn't there something now that if, don't we have a law that if.

We just debated that for months.

Yeah, don't we have a law that if my tree falls over and I don't, the town has the right to go in there.

Circumstances. A dangerous tree that could be falling. Remember the one that was on Huth Road? On Huth Road it was falling. Yumpy Law.

the tree was like leaning over the lady's car on her house.

Yeah, but that was a town board action, not a law.

Okay, okay. Okay. Okay, so I made the motion for CAB to redo the tree log with all their changes and consider some of our comments. Second. Second by Brad. Any further discussion? All in favor?

Aye.

Thanks again for coming in. Appreciate the help. My pleasure. OK. Next on our board is a review for all of our boards. OK. What they're trying to do, and Tom, I hope I'm not being offensive to you, Tom wants all of us to stay in our lane, to do what our board does, not add 20,000 comments to our part of what we're doing. Your opinion, my opinion. Those are the things, like I brought this up at the long range meeting, actually to a CAB member that they saw the e-bike law had no comment, so they should send us a letter, no comment, because the e-bike law is on our agenda. But they had a lot of opinions of what the e-bike law things should have. I don't know what they were. Those opinions, I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, Tom, should go to the- Troubled safety. No, those comments should go to- Open hearing.

This is trying to thread the needle between the town board receiving plenty of complaints that things have not been referred to boards that they should have been referred to. Because we typically make those, not so much you guys, because they come in here as a matter of law, but some of the other boards, they typically get referred to the town board fields that comments from that particular board would be appropriate. So inevitably it's led to some things that were missed and maybe should have been referred there. This is going in the opposite direction. when we send these things to the boards, the expectation is that the comments that come back to the town boards will reflect the expertise of that board and not just the attendance of the members. All members have opinions.

Stay in your lane. Yeah. I got it. So Jen and myself and Ron had a discussion today and we kind of said that Currently, you have to be in, let's say, June 24th. To be on the July 2nd week of the month, which is called the 10th. Just be at the playing board. So, if the applications come in on June 24th. That application should go to all the boards. for all of their comments, whether they're, like Tom said, whatever their lane is, give us their comments and happen to us by our July 10th meeting. Because historically, in the past, we would pass something and traffic and safety would send us their comments 2 months later.

And it's already passed, so then that that date should be back further.

Well, we have to, you should have, you should have the dates.

Yeah, you have to, you should, we're talking, we're talking a full month.

We're talking about these triggers and the problem is, is something that I came in to talk to Ron with today. interrupted your conversations, is that every month the due date for things that have to be on the planning board always fluctuates. And then sometimes things come in like literally the night before the due date, but then they need to be on our planning board. And then there's no gap in between. There's no time for the secretary to get things together and what that. So we were having a conversation as to if we can make a more definitive discussion time for when planning board items need to be submitted by so one of the suggestions we talked about today was maybe it's the first of the month so you have to have like dave was saying the first of the month you have to if anything's going to make it to the next planning board you had to have it in that 1st of the month. If you get it in July 2nd, then you're going to be two months because the due date was due on that 1st.

But that's still not enough time. It will be on the trigger item. If it goes on July 1st, it's going to be just by July 10th?

No. Brad caught my mistake. If it comes on July 1st,

they would have all of July, two weeks into August before our meeting. So they roughly have five to six weeks. We got to back it down a little bit because we got to give Robin a chance to get it in our packets. Or another thing we thought about is if they can't make the deadline for the packets, that they could maybe possibly email us just their comment, which could be no comment. It's not like they're going to be sending us a book. They're going to be sending us a one-page document.

Does that interfere with that 30-day bill?

Not until the application is fully complete. So we have to have everything. The application needs to be complete.

I think this adds 60 days to a process. Yeah, this is what we're talking about. That's not bad, Dave. I'm not saying it's bad. But the process is engineering department reviews things. Let's say that takes two weeks. Then there's scheduled information meeting. That maybe takes another two weeks. Then it goes to the individual boards. So let's say that takes 30 days. Then it gets to us. That takes another 30 days. Well, I think this is a, you know, basically a 2 to 3 month process. I think it's a good process. I like it. For once you feel like the other boards have input that we can rely on and take advantage of, but it does add some time to the process. I think it's good.

well i think we just said some of that process could happen sequentially or simultaneously and sometimes it's going to have to because this is like sometimes there are without making changes to the law there aren't going to be deadlines that need to be complied with regardless of this so that's one thing that i talked around about this is a rough draft once we get through this portion of it i think there would be some refining to clarify the instances where, you know, especially with you guys, where you're going to have the opportunity and the time to get the comments from everybody before you guys make your decision. There may be other times where that's not potentially as possible as it is in some cases.

Remember, this is about those triggers. This isn't the smallest, you know, like, whatever. This is about the things that this review process for large developments, over 5,000 square feet, these bigger trigger criteria.

the ones that should take longer to get through the system.

Like how we did Aldi's is what everyone keeps using as how that worked. It didn't go through 15 advisory boards. It didn't take six months. It was an opportunity to do the presentation because it was a bigger project. So then every board was notified we're having a presentation on this day and then go forward.

It's not Aldi's fault though.

No, I understand it's not Aldi's fault. It's the property owner's fault.

But it seems like the, I think what the councilwoman is trying to do is find process and procedure for these bigger things that.

Tom, I read some of the emails you guys were, town board was sending around about the vessel looking for a meeting. Is that an information meeting that. So here's what I'm confused about. When Rhonda says number three, information meeting is scheduled, all the boards are to be at that meeting. Is that?

No, that's something that apparently all the people who had comments on the best law seem to have not read because they requested the application meeting pursuant to the process that is defined in the best law. That has its own thing. When there is a pre-application meeting that they can request 30 days, 30 days before they submit their application, that law requires them to ask for that meeting.

Okay. That's where I'm confused. That's where I'm confused.

You're not the only one. So, I mean, it would be, ultimately, it would be very similar in purpose and scope, but when we drafted that law, this was baked into that law, so there is no question that they have to at least request the meeting.

So when Rhonda's talking, a councilwoman deal is talking about an information meeting is scheduled.

That would be something more along the lines of exactly what happened.

Kind of like what we did with Mazar.

I think once something's placed on the agenda.

Didn't we do that with Mazar with the apartment complex? We had like a little powwow in here where you were maybe out of town. You were out of town, I think.

Yeah, that was like, I think what you guys information meeting. No, that's just that's the Pre application sit down. I think the thing that we were that the clarification, maybe we talked about wrong. Today, or maybe this is the right definition of it. The information meeting is when all of that stuff is compiled all the information, those things were that when that's all completed and they're like, all right, we're going to start we're going to send this to the planning board and we're going to present this to all the advisory boards. It's have 1 meeting. at that point and be there's not 14 different presentations going on so it wouldn't be until all the information that at the packets put together all these has all their design i'm sorry all these but i'm just using example because it worked out good everything is there and everything is ready to go So, what you're talking about are these when, when developers can come in and ask to sit down and look how to fill out an application, see what they need, see if this is something that would be even in a fit for a grand island that has nothing to do with what this is.

Okay. On the town board and how they, so when she has, when we have this information meeting. And we have, I don't know how many boards we have a lot. So let's just say we got a dozen. I mean, we'll be here all day if everybody's chiming in.

I don't think the idea is to get the comment there. The idea is to go and see what it is.

The guy's going to present. We're just going to listen.

Am I following it right? Yes. And then you can go back to your board and say, okay, I was the representative, the chair. I went and saw that. This is where I think our board needs to comment on something. And then it's all done. The discussion or the presentation part has happened at the information meeting.

Okay. That's what I was confused about. Okay.

And correct me if I'm wrong, I hope I'm explaining it.

So, we kind of came up the 3 of us with the timeframe thing that seemed to work. Like, Ron says, I think you have to be in currently by the 24th. To is the end to be on June, August 24th to be on the September meeting.

Correct we were looking at July for August, right? You know. Yeah, it's business day cutoff, but that's for submitting the formal documents, you know, for what normally went through.

Right.

Obviously, we can't use that same cutoff date for all, put all the advisory board and stuff.

Right. Yeah, you got to go back a month. You got to go back up a month.

Back up the first of the month date made more sense, depending upon when all those advisory boards meet. that should give them enough time to meet, comment, gather their opinions, and then respond. It's not like each board, because they meet at a different date during the month, it's 30 days from that meeting. They don't get 30 days, they get 30 days from the start of the month.

What's the schedule for the advisory boards now?

That's a quick one.

Yeah, but so if we're the second Monday.

Conservation, I think, is the best one before us.

We should be. We're the last.

Conservation is like the third.

Yeah. Or Thursday.

Exactly.

Third's the end of the month.

Right. That's the problem. Theoretically, you guys...

Well, that's fine because if we move that date back to the first of the previous month, that gives them time to review it and get it to us.

They would meet like the 23rd or 24th of the month and our meeting wouldn't be until the second Monday of the next month.

Right.

So they would have to get online and get it in to get into our packet. Right.

But it's something we specifically, Dave, brought up today when we were talking was the conservation, because we know they are at the end of- I wasn't picking on them. I just used some- No, no, right.

Because that was the last one of the month.

We're thinking specifically of that time.

To make sure that- So now, is this something that she's looking for us to make a motion on?

Well, I think she wants you to go through in there if there's- I'm going to leave here tonight. Yeah. If there's comments on what, so I think Rhonda did it that way because remember I kind of brought this to you guys and said, oh, this came from long range. They wanted to see if there were any added triggers. Well, the fact is really no comments came in from any of the boards. So I think this was her way of going back around detailing this out more and saying, listen, I'm giving y'all one more chance to throw your hat in the ring before town board makes their decision on how they want to go about doing this. So I think that's why she laid it out, trying to get more feedback.

Not through until the 21st.

Yeah. August 20th.

Is this something that we want to put our comments together and

probably better so we don't have to be keeping together some of those.

Can you email to me or something?

You can ask them and see if we have the same thoughts. OK, we don't need 15 of us.

Right. So everybody will email me their. I'm going to hand in my guys' guys. They just got yours all done already? OK. Okay, let's get number two. It's no motion. It would just be information only. We'll get this filled out. Okay, now what we did with communications to cut down saving trees and labor, that any of this stuff that's in communications is on the website. So if you're interested, you look up and look at it. It really does have a lot.

Talking about saving trees, man, we're making a lot of copies here.

It doesn't have a lot to do with us. We have something to look at. I don't know how you guys want to attack this.

Well, I thought we were going to guess that we were an inch. One thing I thought, why are we even making a town law when we have a state law that covers it? It's not a law that's not going to be in court.

Here's, I had a long conversation with, what's his name? Oh, Officer Peck.

PYC, I think is the name. They're very concerned. Community relations officer too.

With the e-bikes. The kids aren't behaving. And I guess the parents aren't overseeing.

But that should be covered under state law. There is state law. We still have state law. Why is the town going to make its own law?

They want to go above and beyond the state law.

Are they going to enforce it?

That's the thing, if they're gonna make a law, who's gonna enforce it?

Supposedly, well, I talked to the sheriffs and I talked to the state troopers and they said, we're not enforcing town law. We're only enforcing state law. So tell your Grand Isle Police Department to enforce it. So last night I had two e-bikes, a skateboard scooter, a little bitty mini bike was pretty cool, and three small dirt bikes fly down East River Road. They don't have pedals on it. They don't need to stay gone. Why down East River Road? No helmets, no police.

They don't know how to drive, so they're just going. They're not looking. They don't know the look. It's everywhere.

Try to drive to the city and there's a kid that's flying in front of you on an e-bike doing 20-some miles an hour. I don't understand what the difference is between that thing that's going 20-some-odd miles an hour or a moped or a motorcycle with an engine on it. It's still an electric motor.

And these don't have licenses. You don't have to have a license to drive it.

You're supposed to be 16 years old, too. There's a state helmet law. Obviously... Now, what I said is, I brought up to him is that, like, Councilman Dugatti made a comment one time that the bleachers at Veterans Park were close to a sidewalk. And if your child was to, you know, you blink and you get a little kid and they're gone and they're on the sidewalk, some kid's coming down the sidewalk on an e-bike or scooter or whatever. Yeah. So I said to the police officer, why are we allowing e-bikes in town-owned parks? They should have a designated e-bike parking area and then walk into the field to their game. And that would alleviate that problem. He thought that was a phenomenal idea.

They're not right in there to... maybe they have to play, but a lot of them are just whizzing around because that's what they're doing.

Yeah, but a lot of them don't take time. Do you go there with the kids?

No. I back up to the park. Yeah. They're all there all day, every day. Going to games. In the street, on the wrong side of the road, on the bike path. Just messing around.

I mean, some of them do use it as a means of transportation. It seems to be there's more of it. It's just something recreational. But not on the bike path.

No. It also mentions in this law snowmobiles.

That's where you were going. Because they ride on town property on the bike path.

And they cross town roads.

They're going to limit it. So what are you going to do?

So really, I think snowmobiles should be removed from the law.

I mean.

But I think this whole conversation goes back, and we talked about this last time, where does this apply to the planning board?

Well, under town law, yes. All laws come through the planning board under town law. Well, it might not be our expertise, but it's in that book.

We go back to opinions again.

Well, a lot of what we do is

My only thought would be that I hope that... You've got parents here.

That's a little more than an opinion, I think.

That the town board puts a resolution together that if they do go forward with this and the bikes are impounded, that we have a clear, definitive way on where the fines are going and how they can get impounded or whatever. Or if those bikes don't get picked up, where they end up going, auction or whatever. But I just... That would be the comment I have, that if they decided to pass whatever this, that they have a clear pattern of where those are going.

The fines would kick in at the court.

So, Tom, where does the court go?

I'm just saying, make sure that that's... To the town's money.

So, to your answer to that is when you go to court and you get one of these fines... Yeah, I just haven't heard that discussion, so I'm kind of saying it out loud, Dave, that once they do that, that it gets... It doesn't need to be in that law.

It's here, though. The fines are here by a judge.

No, no, but where the money, like, that other stuff is not stuff that would typically end up out there.

It's stuff that would be... Now, the police officer told me that if they're going to confiscate an e-bike, they're calling a tow truck.

Toe charge.

And then the parent would end up with the toe charge and that he looked up the law. It showed me in the law, New York state law that says they can, you can't ticket a child 16 or under can't give him a ticket, but you can send a ticket to the parent. It's right in the law. He showed it to me right in the law. We read it. We went over it. So that's already there.

I don't think the town needs a law. We have to stay at law. I think it's just something that can be enforced, and it's just going to be the law on the books.

I think the spirit of what Officer Pick was trying to do is the fact that they can't really do anything for kids that are under 16. Now, if it's right or wrong, that's to be determined, but it's the fact that there's so many legal bikes that are even sold out there that aren't legal, but it's so easy to buy them.

But they have a law that he... He's not going to enforce.

So what good is it? But that's what I'm saying. I think that's how this conversation got started for the bad actors or the kids that are ripping up places or flying through the vet parks or that. That's some kind of tool for them to go after the bad actor kids now where that that's why i'm like whatever however this works out with attorneys and all that i see where it's going i just want to make sure if we do go forward i just want to say it out loud that we have a system of one if this does go forward where these bikes go and all these fines are collected but that's up for the town board but i want to say our business we don't care

Another thing it says in the law is they're going to post areas where you can ride an e-bike.

So someone's got to figure out where is that going to be.

Someone's got to pay for the signage. Someone's got to install the signage.

Kind of interesting, they use the west side bike path. Of course, that's on state property. And I don't ever see any state police over there enforcing it. And there's a lot of speeding. And currently under the law, if the

street is posted over 30 you're not allowed to ride an e-bike on that anything posted over 30. there's guys people i know that got golf cards that go 30 in their road legal as long as it's 30 miles an hour road they could probably understand the bike west river service road is 30.

Yes, the service road, but the bike path is on state property. Right, on the other side.

Yeah. But a lot of your subdivisions are 30. So would they be able to ride in the subdivisions? They just wouldn't be able to get off like on Whitehaven, East River.

So you really wouldn't be able to go anyplace but in a circle. Right. I'm going to keep it a year.

Under the age of 16, you're not even supposed to be on, according to the law.

And then this law also says that they can come on private property for you riding around your e-bike on private property, unless you can prove you had permission. I mean, a lot of that is just removed, which if I'm under the understanding by Godfrey, and I think that you hear this, Tom, that that was in an old, old law from the 80s.

That's when they banned three-wheelers.

And they just never got removed.

When I was a kid, I had a three-wheeler, and we were cruised all over the island, and then they banned them. It's your fault. Well, I mean, just because kids used to get, remember the three-wheelers, you know what I'm talking about? Yeah. Yeah, of course. Yeah, so we were doing wheelies down the road. We did all sorts of crazy things.

They were dangerous.

Well, you know what? I never really got hurt on it, but what are we doing? We turned it tight a flip.

Yeah, that's... And we talked about this last time that we could make a motion that

Make a motion.

So for the standard lane, and yes, it came to us because it used to have to come to us, but where on the planning board do we feel that we have any comment on the actual planning aspect of comments in the law?

We don't. Where do we have any comment on the law? Well, trees, we can look at site plan. None of us are attorneys. The code says that any law.

Oh, I'm not saying it shouldn't have come here, but I'm saying is.

For us just to kick it back and say, well, no comment.

Yeah, what do you want to, yeah, so what would you like to do, Dave?

Well, make your motion for what you wanted out of it.

So could the town not just adopt the state law?

And so they don't have to adopt it. It's already there.

No, but if the town police need a town ordinance to enforce, they don't, they can enforce it.

It was to be more restrictive than the state law and also to add some regulation regarding town parks and lands.

Parks are not in here.

It's town lands. It's town lands. It's all town lands.

So how do we?

Make a motion that you think it should be revised. There's a lot of corrections. There's a lot of redundancy in it. There's a lot of opinion.

There's opinion.

One of the things that if you have recommendations about what changes you'd like to see, make them. If not, you think it's a dumb idea, do it. But don't expect to get it back.

One of the things that was... Are you guys poised to pass this?

I have no idea what other people want. Personally, my opinion is that I think we need something. It might not be that, but I'm inclined to adopt some law regulating this stuff. And I can tell you right now, I don't know who you guys have talked to. When I talked about it at the one-time board meeting, this sheriff's resource officer that's assigned to the island was at the meeting and came up to me and gave me his card and said, let me know what places you're getting complaints about because it's a huge deal for them. This isn't just a Grand Island thing.

No, it's everywhere. Like I said, it's everywhere. It is. I mean, you go in the city of Buffalo, they're riding dirt bikes down the road. And nobody says anything about it.

I don't know.

But if we pass a more stringent law, post-COVID now, I mean, that's just, it's a freaking, do whatever you want.

Are we? Chris is one of our officers who proposed this thing. And Tom Brown's officer in charge of support of this.

I would be happy to get the guy, Darvin, for you through the park.

Look at, I mean, it could be as simple as everything the state law says and this. No one under 16 years of age riding an e-bike on a public road. I don't think it'll get them. Period. No, what do you see as going on?

Oh, no.

I mean, I back up to Veterans Park. I mean, it's on the bike path. It's kids, obviously, who are underage all over the street. We, you know, and which... If everybody drove 15, which is supposed to speed them in the park, that's probably not a big deal. But like I was saying before the meeting, there's one individual who lives in Windstream who cuts through the park. It's a longer physically route, but he drives like 40 miles, 45 miles an hour through the park because he knows he can speed. Because every time my neighborhood has ever complained about traffic and there's been quote unquote step up enforcement, it's always been on the other side of the park. Yeah, does anybody have any so that. This is not going to change anything.

Does anybody snowmobiles have to come out right?

Okay, Robin, we'll start here. Want to make a motion to approve the law. Remove snowmobile vehicles from 386 dash 4. It says motorcycles and go-kart, but we'll just leave that out. Those are already banned anyway. I'll try. 3864A, to remove the private property section. No, these are my notes. And to add no, no, what do they call this? What section are you on? Is this an e-bike law? It's an e-bike law. So under the law to add no e-bikes or scooters or the definition of the certain vehicles in any town parks. And it says on here, they're gonna post, this is not you Robin, they're setting here, they're gonna post rails where you can ride them on the trails.

Road trip.

No, there won't be none. Well, wherever they decide to post it.

So it says in here they're going to do that.

It says electric bicycles may be operated on town bike paths and multi-use paths unless prohibited by posted signage.

Is there a speed limit then?

Yes, there's a speed limit in here of 20 or less.

We enforce that.

750-watt vehicle. 750-watt is the max, and I think that only goes 20, Dave. Oh, no, they can hack them.

So these things come, and they're like a governor on it, and then there's all back to our South Korea, but they can go as fast as 24.

It's crazy. They're not...

I don't think this, I think it says 15 in the law.

It says 20 miles an hour and we need like in 50 on an e-scooter.

It's 15, but if you look at it.

We're staying with 15? No, 386.4 sub C. 386.4 sub C, yep.

It's at a rate greater than 15 miles an hour on any property owned by the town. So are in a part in, on the trail.

Tom 15. Where did you see that?

386 for the rest of the scene to you don't have a seat to see. Oh, you got to see.

So you want to say 15 miles an hour, correct?

There is one. I don't have that.

We'll just add that to the motion, that the speed not to exceed 15 miles per hour. Anybody else want to add anything else?

Say something in there about yielding to pedestrians or things like that.

Could it just be common traffic? Yeah. Oh, we kind of...

Yes, well, that would be on respect to... other solar operators and users. That's how long you got. My question is, which one do you have?

I got the one that they sent me, proposed amendments to Chapter 386.

I think that's the one that they revised like twice before.

No, we got 386-4, A through F. I don't have no Cs or C2, he said. No C2? He's got a different law.

Do you guys have dates on those laws? Are there dates ever put on in different revisions and stuff? That would be a nice idea.

Is there anything anybody else would like to add?

I want to strike out everything that isn't in that one. How's that?

Well, you can vote no. Vote no, Doug.

I was just cool.

Ron, is there anything that building keeps the chime?

No, Tom, is there anything that I don't see how you expect us to?

But well, yeah, it was unfinished business, and not in our packet this month. So

Well, I'm going by the one they gave us last time.

You're the good one who brought the one from before.

This was last week. They're being actual revisions to it because we sent it to you guys.

I got it.

It's right here. I know, but we sent one version to you and the traffic safety and some other boards. We wouldn't have revised it until we got all the stuff fixed.

I wonder why we can't follow the checks. We're all getting different versions. I'm only kidding, Tom.

It was the same thing with the basketball, wasn't it? Yeah.

Well, give us some direction, Tom. Do we table it to get the new one or do we just go forward with the old one? I don't think it's...

I think we got enough there. I don't know what a virgin is, but I don't think a lot of things are true.

I mean, I think that's constructive, and it's probably enough if nobody else has anything to add.

Everybody good? All right, I made the motion. Who's second?

I'll second.

Sandy's second. Any further discussion? All in favor? All in favor. Brad, you're voting yes? Yes. for a big note.

I think I have my pen back. Is that Chair Spaniel's Chamber of Commerce? Where did you get it? You stole it from me. I did? Like the heavy pen and he took it. It isn't like that. We have good pens. Robin, could you do something on unfinished business? Is there any way when you put it on our agenda that you could put the date from the original meeting so we can go? Because I'd save these so I can go back and I can find it rather than trying to.

Would you want a new one on unfinished business? Ever send us out all new stuff? Because maybe she would have got the newer one from time Can we do that, Robin?

What's that?

Forget what Brad told you. He drives three-wheel scooters illegally.

You can sell me what you want me to do.

When it's unfinished business, send out a new copy of whatever that is. But you would have probably got the newer one from Tom and not the old one that I had. The 6.2 version.

From the previous.

So we would get a new copy. In the agenda. So unfinished business, we'll get whatever the e-bike thing, another copy in our packet. Okay. Fair enough. Motion to adjourn.

We did. You were on some of those emails. We did get an application or a request for the application meeting for We're working. You guys are a part of that. So stay on the lookout. But in full disclosure, it's likely going to be something that occurs during the day because it will be in code enforcement.

It's the 19th of this month at 11 o'clock.

Well, see, I might get old laws, but I get new reports. Yeah.

Right.

When was that scheduled? I just got it today.

I asked if I should add you.

Oh, no, you don't.

Motion to adjourn, folks. Motion to adjourn.

Second. Motion by me, second by Brad. All in favor?