Planning Board - Regular Meeting

versus

whether it's grand 7:00 fair to China beyond Good. Good. All right. At 6:30, we'll call the meeting to order. Kelly, would you please call the role? Here. Johny here. Al here. Steve here. Danielle here. John here. Here.

Here. So, I'm going to change the agenda up just a little bit tonight, Kelly. We're going to add um a very short presentation by myself on meet meeting dynamics before we get into action items and then we'll add um a few of and discussion of moratorum um before we adjourn. Um so members of the board um several years ago we had some different controversial um agenda items that we dealt with and um in response to that. We now have uh what to expect at at a town board meeting. You'll see that on the uh website and also what to expect at a planning board meeting. Um so I'm just going to read this briefly. Please help the planning board and the public by coming prepared with written comments. If possible, sign in on both attendance sheet and speaker sheet. Please only speak if you have the floor. Always identify yourself by name and municipality. Please silence your cell phone. Turn off any alarms upon entering the room. Please make the planning board aware of any disability you have that may require accommodation for you to fully participate in the meeting prior to the start of the meeting. If as a speaker you run up against the three limit the threeminut time limit, you may submit the remainder of your comments in writing or via email. The planning board carefully considers information and comments provided by the public in regard to a proposed project or application. Whether submitted in writing or given verbally during a public hearing, meeting or privilege of the floor, the planning board and its members may ask for clarification of comments from the public. But the board board will not engage in dialogue or question and answer sessions with the public. Likewise, applicants are directed to answer questions from the board members and may address any response to public comments directly to the board. The board works within

strictctures of state and local laws, but is not a judicial or policy body, cannot address legal issues outside its purview. Example, code enforcement, trespassing issues, leases, etc. Please keep in mind that the site plan approval is not a guarantee that a building permit will be issued or that a project will be built. Like any public meeting, come prepared to hear comments and opinions that may conflict with your own and engage in civil discourse. Treat others with dignity and respect through your comments and actions, whether listening or speaking. The planning board has multiple agenda items to work through. Please keep that in mind when planning board is finished with items of interest to you. The audience must remain quiet to allow the meeting to continue. If you need to converse with parties about a particular item or items, respectfully take the conversation outside the room. Make sure the doors are closed to allow the meeting to continue without interruption. Please familiar familiarize yourself with local laws and land use ordinances as they directly affect your property rights. Please contact the planning department with any questions or concerns. We welcome your engagement in the process as the town updates and creates new laws, land use ordinances that impact property rights. Our goal is to include you in the process, gather facts, and gather public comment to be taken to into account and used in the decision-making process. While the planning board reviews and recommends changes to the local laws and land use laws, the town board is the only legislative body with the authority to create or amend local laws. All right, we'll move on to our action items. Uh, our first project tonight is 130 Aspbury Road. Come on up, please.

Welcome, Craig. Hello. Uh, what I wanted to do, a refresher course is I got 4 acres of land and I want to divide it two uh acres uh in the front and two acres in the back. Okay, board. Did we still have questions? We had we had a question from Carolyn out here. Do you want to state that again? Your concern, Carolyn? You want to come up first? Dean, what do you think? Yeah, come on up. Carolyn, come on up and and sit down so we can hear you on the microphone, please. those at home.

Um, I have no objection to Mr. Christopher dividing his h his property in half. Um, our concern is that if the property is ever sold in the future, the would be grandfathered in the use of the property as a business and the use of the electronic sign in front as part of the business. and that would convey as a grandfathered in and I don't know if the planning board has any control over that but that was our concern and I wanted to raise it today. Okay, John, can you speak to that for us please?

Yes. So the the [clears throat] use would be grandfathered in I believe non non-performing uses are uh the period of time is one year. So that if they're if they're not used for a year, then that use discontinues. I'm not sure how this property was originally classified and whether or not we have to look through our record and whether or not it would be non-conforming use or conforming use. Um, [snorts]

so if Mr. Christopher didn't sell for a year, it would revert [clears throat] to that R1 designation where it wouldn't. So if a business weren't used for a year then then it would go it would be under today's existing is you're retired right? No. No. So your business is still in progress. Still in progress. So I don't plan to retire.

Okay. Well and you look pretty healthy to me. So I guess that's a continuing concern then if if he's if he sold in even today or tomorrow or in 5 years if he sold the business it would be conveyed with the um it being a business property and the sign being potentially turned on by and it doesn't have to be a signed business it could be a cannabis business any kind of business if if Mr. person sells it. He has no control over what kind of business moves in there.

Well, there won't be any business there due to the fact that we got my grandson on the left hand side and the shop is there for myself and my wife and then we got to the right we want to build our house. So, if anything, it'll be great. I'll be taken over by the grandson. He's got nothing to do with sign business. But John, that doesn't mean any business could go in there, right? It's it's just it has to stay the same type of business.

That's correct. So, it would have to be a similar type of business. So, you're you're fabricating and selling signs out of there. So, it have to be something akin to that nature. So, a canvas [clears throat] business would just be well, I mean, canvas in itself as it let's just say a hobby shop, right? Like somehow a retail it couldn't be just that. have to be somebody sort of retail craft or something of that nature to be similar similar to the use that was already happening. Well, I guess that's still a concern.

Sure. Yeah. So, unfortunately for this board, you can only review the subdivision and if it conforms to those minimum requirements for subdivision, whether adequate utilities and access exists for that lot. Nonconforming use regulations are there for for a reason. Those uses can continue until they're abandoned. So by the regardless of the lot size. So you're saying we don't we don't have any control over that? The board doesn't. Okay. All right. Carolyn, thank you for your input. I appreciate that. Carolyn, did I see your name in the paper? Yeah.

Do you want to share with us your achievement? No. No. I went to the world triathlon. Not everything you read in the paper is true. But I did a go and was successful in the world in Australia. Congratulations. That's awesome. Can I remind you to speak into the microphone?

All right. We have a I think we have closed the public hearing. Yeah. Do we hear a motion to close the hearing? So move.

Sorry. That's okay. Tom, yes. Al, [clears throat] yes. Christine, yes. Danielle, yes. John, yes. Dean, yes. [snorts] Got that close enough for now. [clears throat] Before you move further, um, if you're missing one of your normal members tonight, you should decide who's going to Who was on last time? Do we remember? Was it you, John? No, I don't remember. I think Freddy is the vote if I remember correctly. You think Freddy was the one last night? No, I think he

that it's his turn tonight. Okay. So, yeah, we'll put Freddy on as voting. Yes. Okay. So, we've got to go through the part two of the seeker. You want me to read it? Yeah. Go ahead. Um, number one, will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations?

What do you think, board?

That's no. Number two, will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? No. Number three, will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? No. Number four, will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of a critical environmental area? No. Five. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkway? No. No.

Six. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? No. Seven. Will the proposed action impact existing a public private water supplies? No. B. Public, private wastewater treatment utilities? No. Eight. Will the [snorts] proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources? No. Nine. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources, for example, wetlands, water bodies, groundwater, air quality, flora, and fauna? No.

10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage problems? No. And 11. Will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? No. All right. So, we have a negative deck and um plat approval resolution. in front of us. I move to approve the resolution for subdivision. Second. Any discussion?

No. Okay. You want to call the rule? Tom, yes. Yes. Yes. Danielle, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. You're all set,

Chuck. 178 Wilson Road. Come on up. Welcome back. Yep. Did we do a public hearing on this? Well, it says anticipated action is to do public hearing. So, it is open. We have We did.

Oh, it is not open. Oh, today we will. Okay. Thanks. Yep. So, do I hear a motion to open public hearing? So moved. Second. Second. [clears throat] Okay. All in favor? I.

Anyone from the public like to speak about this project or have any questions about this project? All right. All right, we'll leave the public hearing open here for a minute or so. Anybody in the board have questions at this point? All right. You want to speak about this project?

I just wanted to know if we can ask a question after we hear more about it. Would you like to give us a synopsis of your project? Me? Yes. It's a subdivision. Yep. Were you able to get online? Uh the the person in the back, were you able to get online and take a look at the uh the plat? Okay. Did you have any questions about it? It was presented to this board what, two years ago? Yeah. Actually, it's sort of passed, but I failed to do one extra step.

Right. and then and then it's been brought back to the board again and we've considered it for two two different at two different meetings. So, this is the third third time around. So, if there's any questions that you have, now's now is the time during the public hearing. Come on up. Tell us who you are. I'm down. I'm sorry. Can you come up because we'd like to have you talking into the microphone for the folks at home or on YouTube. How you doing? Nice to meet you. Nice to meet you. Yeah, we're neighbors.

Um, Donna Nigan. I'm I live on Wilson Road 154 and um it wasn't clear to me what the I I saw the the lot layouts and uh is it going to be residential? Is there a stipulation for what it's going to be used for? I couldn't clear get that clarity online. So that's my overall question. Is it going to be residential [clears throat] and are they going to be individual residential units? So any lots that are developed there would have to be developed within the zoning requirements of that zone. Do we know what zone that is?

It's the RA zone. So, anything that's allowed in the RA zone is allowed to be built there as long as it meets things like setback requirements, height requirements, etc. Where is the RA zone? Rural agricultural zone. So, it allows there's a variety of uses. Uh, single family housing, two family housing are allowed as by right, which just means building permit. Agricultural uses are still permitted there. There's just a there's a hole in me. Okay. And is that revisited again once it's decided what is going [music] to be built or No,

it depends on what he wants to construct. So if they if if Mr. J sold one of those lots and somebody bought it and they wanted to build something that needed um a different approval, then they have to come back to the transite plant. If it was something that was just as by right HSD is a building permit such as a single family home or a single family home and they could just apply for that permit. Okay. Okay. Thank you. And [clears throat] then uh the um easement off of the main road of Wilson is that going to be consistent with the rest of the housing that is is that part of the zoning we can talking about setbacks. Sorry. Setback. Yeah.

Yes. Okay. So that's part of that that zoning district has setbacks from front rear sides. So what we experience now on that road we would expect that same you expect. [laughter] Yes. So so not necessarily. So if the setback for instance is 150 ft and you meet that 150 ft setback you could set it back farther as long as you meet the Yeah. Right. I was just looking at the minimum. But the but if uh it could be that all the houses on the street are farther back than the minimum. So

okay, it's a good point. They're very consistent if that's the case. [laughter] Um and then I guess I have one final question. Um with this additional I guess it's not necessarily residential though is it is I guess now that we're talking here. I was wondering if there's going to be a a re uh visiting of the um speed limit on that road. since it's mainly residential and it's speed speed limits are the purview of the uh town board to uh go before the state with a proposal for speed limit changes on roads and then it's the state that decides whether for instance

but we just had two we had one on Feral Road that was changed and I'm not sure if the state approved the one on Wilson or um uh water wagon or not but that that's up to the town board. you can go before them and okay ask them for consideration. Okay, I appreciate that. Thank you. Those are my questions. Okay, great. Anybody else want to speak on this project? Do I hear a motion to close? Close. Public hearing. Second. Second. So moved. All in favor? I

Freddy, do you have a copy of the the part two over there? if you don't want. Yeah, it's an out for him because we need [music] to go through the part two. Would you read that for us? Sure. Number one, will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? No. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? No. No. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? No. No.

Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that caused the establishment of a critical environmental area? No. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking, or walkway? No. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and it fails to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? No. Will the proposed action impact existing a public private water supplies? No.

B public private wastewater treatment utilities? No. Number eight. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources? No. No. Number nine. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change to natural resources, wetlands, water bodies, groundwater, air quality, flora, and fauna? No. No. Number 10. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage problems? No.

And number 11, will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? No. Excuse me. resolution. Yes. Quick question for parcel uh four is the road frontage I don't remember off the top I had the road frontage requirement it's only showing what 82 ft from 81 ft

it's not continuous but continuous I think the requirement there was was 60 ft 60 ft yeah Okay. And I think we meet meet that at both the east and the west. Yeah. Or north and south, whichever way that goes. We should So the uh the minimum frontage would be 150 ft and our code doesn't require it to be contiguous. Oh, it doesn't have to be. Okay. Okay. And then uh parcel one, the area is 1.36 acres. What's the minimum lot size? I 40,000 square ft. [snorts] trying to brain fart today. [laughter]

Thank you. That's all. Okay. Any other questions, board? So, we have a resolution uh minor subdivision plat approval and negative declaration. Somebody want to move that? Second. Tom, yes. Gale, yes. Christine, yes. Danielle, yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. You're all set. Thank you,

Kelly. Do you need anything from him in terms of final plats to be signed off? He'll submit the final. Okay. Just make sure you follow up. All right. Thank you very much. George, you want to come up?

Tell us about your project. Yes. Um, subdivide of 124 acres into a 118 acre egg plot and a 5 1/2 acre house plot. [snorts] So, you initially had three lots. You combined it to two. Is that correct? Yes. I I I had some concerns by one of the neighbors that if I sold that for a house, it would ruin their view.

Uhhuh. And then I was had lunch on the deck and I says, "Damn, it would ruin my view too." So I [laughter] just took it right out. I mean, I called up TG Ver. I said, "Take those stakes out of race line and redo it." Okay. So that's why we're here now. Kind of. It's a beautiful parcel. Excuse me. It's a beautiful parcel. Thank you. It really is. Yeah. pretty cutting off board. Any other questions?

John, did you get a chance to look at this in terms of um uh setbacks? We don't need to set this. So size requirements. Well, I'm thinking about the um the north lot line here to the to the house. There's nothing on here for the dimension on the plan. I just want to make sure that there's no issue with sideyard set. Oh, okay. No problem. [laughter] Yeah. I mean, the house has been there for 200 years. So,

I don't know what the code was then. [laughter] Coach didn't come in until 782 somewhere in there. It was all by gosh and by God. Let's uh schedule that public hearing. Okay. Yeah. schedule that for next time and we'll see you next time. Yes. Thank you.

Thanks, George. Okay, Andy and company. Come on up, guys. Guys, your package here was well done. Is well done. I wish everybody was this thorough. A lot of work. A lot of meat here. This is nice. That would be Andy. So we uh just quickly uh Dean and John, myself and Andy met for for a work session and the the output of that is this package. Um so Andy and George work together with Delta Engineering and so we can answer questions and talk things through. Now I'm Erica is not one of the partners in C associates.

Yeah. So the package we tried to address all the comments that we received for two previous meetings. We have a letter from John on additional to be addressed. Um did a lot of work with wetland delineations getting indications from the DOT on driveway locations. Um got a letter from Shipoto historic preservation impact for the project. um added the screening plants that you asked for previous meetings and the signage for tenants and for the address. U so I feel like we've addressed comments from previous meetings. So we have any questions?

Go ahead. Um along your south boundary there's a yearround stream but it's on the town's property. Is that a federal? Is that designated federal stream? Is there a protection? State regulated stream, class A stream. Is there a setback on that stream? There may be. We're not. That's actually off. Right. But wouldn't the setback fall in the property in the part of your property? No, we're far out north. Is it? Oh, you are? So, if it's like a 50 foot or 100 foot, you're still far enough away from that stream that it wouldn't encumber any of your property. Correct.

Okay. And I have one other one. Go ahead. Sure. You guys ever cons Did you guys consider now or in the future about a um an EV charging system? Did that ever cross? Did you ever consider that

it is not something that we would put in into unless a tenant asked for it? So, I was I was just thinking that, you know, if you put the conduit in and then like 5 years down the road you wanted to put it put it um put it install it, it would be a lot easier than, you know, tearing it up in retro if you actually just ran the conduit now. And I was thinking maybe if you put on the drawing that you know future site of the EV unit and then you wouldn't have to come back to the planning board in 5 years or 7 years or whenever you you decided to if you decided to put that in. Do you think you think that's a good anybody is that

yeah bearing the conduit is pretty cheap compared to you not installing it. Yeah. So, you know, run the conduit, put it on the survey map and say future use of future site of an EV station. We're not going to hold you to it. It just says it's there and it's been approved. What do you guys think? I'm always for that because that means you don't have to come back if you want to make that change. Installing a electric dedicated space and state coming back to the plane board. Is that Yeah, it's usually going to be two spaces. [clears throat] I don't know, John. Would Would they have to come back?

I mean, that's really up to you whether or not you want to see it. Where where do you want to see it? Yeah. See, that's what I was I was thinking it just it's easier now to do it now. Put it on the plans and then you you don't have to come back in case you did have to come back. It's already been approved. It's I mean, it's just putting wording on the plan is what I was thinking. Yeah. designate the spots, then they're then they're approved. No, don't like that idea, huh? Yeah, I think we would prefer to wait until we knew what a tenant wanted and what the systems would Okay, I just threw that out there that Okay, thank you though. Board, other questions, comments?

I'm very impressed you got you heard from Shipo. So, that's very impressive. Sorry. It's always okay. Um, I did appreciate you revisiting the treatment of that rear uh face of the building. So, there's just a little bit more detail to that. Breaks it up a little bit more and makes it more pleasant in case it's visible. I would also point out that the space is like roughly 5,500 ft. Yeah, we've set it up. We don't know how many tenants. There's no idea. It's set up so it could have four tenants. We show no windows in the back, but a tenant maybe one window. No, it could be further delaying. Great. And all those all those light fixtures on the back are motion sensor.

And the one on the north is motion sensor. So the neighbor to the north res. They'll they'll know when the deer are out. And they're shielded as well, too. So there won't be. Great. Thank you. Yeah, I read through the planting plan. plan. I thought was Yeah, that was nice. Nice plan.

So, we need to schedule public hearing for next time. That's up to this board. That's up to the board whether we want to do a public hearing or not. Say yes. Yeah. Yeah. Let's get it scheduled. Did you have any more questions? Well, the only thing I was asking is I know we can't get a building permit, but we have plenty more to do.

And the building code is going to change January 1st and it's going to change some fairly rigorously. So, I'm really pushing to get drawings in before Christmas to Scott, but I know he won't look at them. We don't have plenty to work through. So, so we could probably do that next meeting, right? Yeah. I was going to say, you heard the questions from the board tonight. There are a lot. Is it is a public hearing required?

No, but we wanted to hear from the public. I mean I don't I mean we definitely what's next next next month we could definitely get that approved. There shouldn't be any any reason and it still gives you enough time right another month. It's been on the agenda and it's uh certainly on the on the website all the submittals. So there's no reason that the public doesn't hasn't had an opportunity to take a look at the the project or see this meeting. Indeed. the uh the next meeting will be bumped up to November 17th due to right it'll be early because of Thanksgiving

Georgia maybe you can tell uh the reviewer to put a placeholder tell hopefully it's coming independent you know recommendation there's some things that will definitely change most of the things aren't going to affect us but we're planning on pumps anyway It's the fire code we're talking about this June January 1st window fenestration almost going to need to be triple yeah okay tilt turns or pwnings or fixed or smaller or whatever. Yeah, gliders and double hungs are going to have a hard time with the fenistration requirements.

Houses will only get more expensive.

Mhm. That's right. All right. All right, I think we're all set for tonight, gentlemen. Thank you. Thank you for the level of detail. Okay, who's here for 430 Crewville Road? Come on up, gentlemen. Hello, my name is Stephanie.

Hi, Scott. 430 approval road for stretch plan review. Um, before we get started, I just have a question. And I got a letter from the zoning office stating that uh um this the sketch plan was approved evaluated and move to the next step of site plan with paying the invoice. I'm not sure why I got that. Not sure either, Scott, you're here in front of me playing more for schedule tonight, right? So that's why I'm kind of confused. I got the invoice and the letter stating that. Okay. Don't worry about that. Don't worry about that.

Okay. [clears throat] So, I'm I'm proposing uh have a site on 430. It's had an existing business since 2011. It's a satellite distribution center for Tools Gravel. And I'm proposing a a new floor uh 50x 80 hoop house, a small uh camper for to use for like an office, and a set of inground scales. I didn't see the map in the packet.

Yeah, I don't remember the was I don't probably was like two months ago or three months. Yeah. That was what was in the submitt. Yeah. So, John, this is this is all we got.

This is just a sketch. So, there are minimum requirements for site plan applications, but the first step is just a a first flush in front of the board for you to determine what you think of the project. ask for any more information that is outstanding of the normal site plan requirements to raise issues ahead of time for the applicant or they invest a lot in the application. Um I think it's important that we clarify the use um because we do have what we discussed before was a contractor yard. I think we did discuss how that plays into a satellite distribution for the the mine stop.

Yes. um and just clarify those things. So, who's will you do that? Clarify it to us or in other words, there was a there was an approval in the past for one use and we've got a potential different use now. Is that correct? I think we need to discuss what that what that means. So, so the previous use, the way I understand it, and if I'm wrong, do you Well, can I can I explain?

Yeah, why don't you go ahead? So, just just to give you kind of a history of the sites, it's been there, like I said, it started in 2011. Came to the uh zoning office, explained what I was doing, and uh they said it was in allowed use. No site plan review required. There was existing buildings up there from the the previous barn. And the what I used it for was screening top soil. We stored in the in the existing barn. We brought in concrete, black top, used a crusher to crush that and separate the steel from the concrete, the black top and and sold that and different gravel items. Um, from that point on, we uh it was at that point it was allowed use, no site plan required. In the spring of 2024, a little over a year ago, I came to the zoning office again, asked for a hoop house, same size, 50 by 80. um was told no no sight plan required. It's a loud goose. So I got my permit, put the hoop house in and uh the fall of 2024. I was told by the head of the planning department and the uh Scott Russell that you guys um asked them to send a letter to me stating that I need to close the site down or go to ZBA or be fined. and uh no phone call, no email, nothing and called them, ask for a meeting, wasn't allowed to have a meeting with anybody. So it changed from allowed use with no site plan to not allowed use CBA approval. Then in the spring of this year had a meeting of finally allowed to have meeting with lawyers involved and the zoning office determined now it's an allowed use site plan required. So I've been kind of a you know I know people change zoning office planning

boards but I've been given mixed information for over a decade here. So Scott get so your attorney met with the town's attorney over this. you guys. So, so we had we were finally getting the attorneys involved. We were able to set up a meeting with Mr. Zupo and two zoning officers, the um town supervisor and the town attorney and the town attorney. And then what did the what did guys say as a result of that meeting? What was that's why we're why we're here tonight? So, if I if I can speak.

Yes. Go ahead. So we have on file a letter somewhere around 2015 or so from the former code enforcement officer sending the applicant a notice of violation of the contractor's yard was not permitted and needed site plan review. Uh looks like they became Mr. Piny or whoever owned the property at that point came came in for that site plan review at that time along with I think 15 duplex units on the portion of the property to the west. It was all approved together. the [clears throat] duplexes and the contractor yard. Um, from what I can tell, there wasn't even a definition of a contractor yard at that point. So, I'm not certain how it was approved in that manner. Um, but there was very specific conditions attached as to uh there was a map attached to it showing the approximate area. Uh there was uh very specific conditions to the type of material that should be there as well as the specific hours of of when grinding and things of that nature could occur, the duration that it could occur on. Uh we did issue a notice of violation um when we perceived that it was now open to the public as activity for the mine. Uh however, [clears throat] part of what Mr. Penny says is true. we we didn't have a phone conversation because it's not like we keep a database of property owners telephone numbers. We send letters um and and that's how we were able to communicate uh to you were out of the country at that time. So, we were not able to link up until probably January or so when we heard a response from the lawyer and then we didn't were not able to schedule a meeting until May when we and we did at that point in time and we agreed that it was a contract in the yard was a permitted use with site plan approval. It's a little ambiguous to us whether because the duplexes were never

constructed, the site plan is is void. So it was as though it never had a site plan approval, but the use still was there. The use still existed. So the best way to get to compliance was recite approval, which is why Mr. Kenny agreed to put an application in. And that's where we are today. So let me add a little bit that. So what happens is just one sec. I I'm a little bit slightly younger. Were you a town supervisor at one point? Yes. Okay. Thank you for your service. You're welcome. Understand it might be a little confusion there. Maybe why

Yeah, here we are. Thank you guys. You understand our position too. We're catching up here. So, thank you. Just wanted to make sure.

Yep. You're welcome. So, it was a little bit different than that. The uh site plan review was for the uh apartments and along when I was trying to do the apartments, they wanted restrictions on the the town halls, the contractor's yard. I call it a satellite. um yard. But so I agreed to certain restrictions on that business to allow the to get the permitting to put the apartments in. And when I was going to finish the apartments, then I would actually close the contracting shop cuz I had a lot of apartments right next to it. Um unfortunately, when I tried to build apartments, I only had a year left and they refused me a a building permit. So then I I didn't build them. So, in zoning law, those restrictions all go away. So, it wasn't like I was trying to get site plan review for the contractor's yard. So, when we had our meeting, it was something the zoning off didn't quite understand that those restrictions go by. So, that's main reason why they closed me down. And I did call the zoning as soon as I got the letter. I called the zoning office right away requested meeting meeting and no meeting until we got the lawyers involved which is and they blamed it on you guys. They said that the letter was written by the planning board which I don't know if that's true or not. I find that hard to believe that a group of people would write a letter so nasty close your business and go to ZBA and that's something that's one of the reasons why I became supervisor way back when because they would write letters like this. And to a person that doesn't have the resources and the knowledge to fight this, it's devastating. It destroys businesses. Uh, fortunately, I was trained very well by Guy Crow about zoning. So, I understand the letter immediately when I got it. People don't. And so, in the meeting when Guy Crow said that the zoning officer was wrong on all these things, Guy Crow personally asked me if I'd come in front of you guys to mitigate some of the concerns about the neighbors. I

said, "Absolutely. I have no problems with He said, "Please put in, you know, something else into your project so that they actually have something to approve." So that's why I put a few things in there that so I had a reason to come to the site plan review. But I want to be a good neighbor. I want to mitigate certain things. I came to to the zoning office said, "Hey, I you know, there's noise, dust, all, you know, I got different things we can do to mitigate these issues." I've talked to a lot of neighbors and and listened to the concerns, you know, so I'm not I'm not here trying to be a bad neighbor, but there's a lot of history in this site right here. So the the town the violation you're still in operation though right now, correct?

But but I was shut down for almost eight eight months, I think, John. That was that was a long time. I was shut down. I I don't know that you actually shut down for that amount of time, but but you're but again the town is not forcing the violation. You're still able to operate right now currently because the town lawyer said that was not a violation. The town board said this. No, the town the legal council sounds like this might be a little disputed and maybe we should stick to the topic of a sketch plan review. I I just Is that all right? Uh yes, I just I understand the history. It sounds complicated. uh which is why maybe some lawyers were involved. Yes.

Uh and I'm still playing a new guy card here for two years in now. But [laughter] um just want to say so the sketch plan review uh one of the basic questions about a contractor fill site. Does it say you can have as much fill as you want there as a dumping grounds or are you to process material or I'm just kind of curious what I don't know that. So actually the fill site is actually full right now. So there's no more material coming in other than the material that's resold. So well there's always materials coming in and out as a yes not not for fill not for fill materials coming in to resold but not nothing for actually filling the site anymore. Oh okay for changing the grade of the yes site itself not business of moving material.

Right. So John I have a question for you. You said that the um site plan review for the apartments was back in 2015 2016.

2016 [clears throat] because I was here for that. I I may have been an alternate at that time, but my recollection at that at that time was of course we were concentrated on what was potentially the the roadway and where the apartments were going to be and all that, but um there was at that time to my recollection there was no discussion that this was going to be any kind of retail and that it was going to be a contractor yard for your business to use for your business, not to retail to the public at large. Uh, so I was actually I was retail from 2011 on. So that's

John. So regardless of the history of that is actually listed. It's in 270-37 code of barcode retail and service is the category. Okay.

Okay. and an contractor/landscaping yard. Any space inside or outside a building used for the storage or keeping of construction supplies, building materials, landscape supplies, rock, stone, bricks, fencing, mulch, etc. Construction equipment, machinery, vehicles, parts thereof, which are in operable condition and in an active use by a construction contractor. So [clears throat] it's it's listed as a a retail and service under under that category. Now buy site plan review. Mhm. When did that when was that put in place? I believe 2023.

Okay. And so those those are the rules that we're operating under right now. Those are the rules you're operating under right now. Okay. Well, when I saw the um what the submitt that you brought, so some of the uh concerns that I have, of course, are talking to the neighbors, finding out what neighbors concerns are, of course. But as I drive out there on Scoffield Road, um you know, there's some uh apartments there to the northeast on Scoffield Road. Are those your apartments? No.

Scott Morgan's maybe. um he's done a nice job of, you know, planting trees and what have you, but for I know that for residents along Scoffield Road, there are certain places where you can see your operations. So, I mean, there's a lot of um existing uh vegetation there, some big, you know, willows or whatever growing there. So, I'm I'm thinking that we're going to want to see additional screening. Um, I think that we want to have some dimensions here and really see what kind of, you know, delineation there is, um, for the contractor yard because we want that to be well defined. Um, I think we're going to want to see topo map. Um, we definitely want to see the entire the entire parcel, not just not just this one little corner. Um, the location of the sign. Yeah. Yep. Yeah. And you know, dimensions on the sign where exactly it's going to be located. Uh what do you show here? So you show the barn, the hoop houses, the proposed office and scales,

the entrance and exit. Entrance. Exit. Well, there there is none over here as far as I know. There's no entry or exit on Scoffield. No. No. And you took down the old Mosley barn that was there. There's one left. There's one left. Yes. Did the DOT give you the okay on that for the entrance and exit on the state highway? Uh, no. It was existing. It was existing. Okay. So, board, what other things are we going to be looking for to move forward with the review the next meeting? And what other questions do you have now?

It' be nice to see a a more detailed sketch plan. And how about community? Would that be would we open it up now or next next meeting? We got demand more detail. Well, I'm assuming that once we [clears throat] have more submitts in that we would uh open it up at the next meeting for public hearing. So, we won't be able to submit then. No. Okay.

John, that's all in addition to what our minimum requirements are. So um on 93 um I sent the uh just in preparation of of your eventual snow I sent Mr. Penny and I copied you Dean as well on the on the requirements and site plan review. So I just want to be clear a lot of the a lot of the detail map scale that sort of thing is already covered in the minimum requirements but the the things that you mentioned screening dimensions showing the entire parcel location of the sign that's that's all in addition to that. I just want to be clear that you're not you're not waving portions of No, absolutely not.

So um just a question about is this is coming back before us for site plan review and we don't have a lot of detail on the map currently. Um, do we have storm water concerns with this? How much is how much disturbed site are we talking about? I think the site's already disturbed like disturbed to the max kind of already. Yes. Yeah. But my understand like we are looking at it as a site plan review. There's existing storm water facility on the site. So it would be so that should be reflected on this map then too. Yeah. One of the things you need to look at is to determine if storm water is not. It's just to the west right of the Yes. Okay. Yes.

Yes. So, the relationship to this current site plan review and the existing storm water, I I would be concerned about that and want to see that. Is there is there a concern about the existing storm water other than just showing up? I don't know because I don't see it. So, I uh can't remember if you've been tracking debris with large trucks on the road like a stabilized construction entrance. That's more temporary, but this is more of a long-term. Yes. Should a short section be paved or how do you handle that currently? So, I actually got a paver up there, but I didn't dare pave it until I actually met with you guys. You don't want to have I just kind of waited to see what you guys So, I wanted to kind of make that part of the site plan review after. Okay.

Yes. And I apologize. I was supposed to hear be here last month, but unfortunately things came up. I couldn't make it. So, issues. So, one concern I got, so my surveyor said the topo is uh very difficult because there's there's obviously probably 70% of the property is covered with these huge piles. So, and the topo would you I think we're concerned with the base. So, if he just shot so you wouldn't be a real topo because you'd go around the kind of round the piles. Is that what you'd want? Yeah. And I think that we want to understand how many piles and you know approximate heights of those because they change. Well, yeah. And I and I get that, but yeah,

you know, we're going to want to know elevations on the hoop houses. I was thinking, you know, how tall those are. Okay. And and what do you want for screening? You want more trees? What do what are you thinking? Is it something you want to work out with with them in a contractor's meeting or Yeah, potentially. I mean, I want to hear from from neighbors because I think that the screening there's a lot of good screening there already. Yes. But there are some holes in it and I think we want to address those holes. Okay. Yeah. Is there any chance you can talk to some of the neighbors now so you get an idea what they want for screening?

I mean, we've got to we've got to we've got to advertise a public hearing before we can have a public hearing. I think since there's more than two people in the room, we should stick to what's on the agenda. for us. I mean I mean that the public's welcome to submit comments in writing. You want to write it in and make comments either any outside of a hearing? Oh, really? Outside of a public hearing? You can't do that. No, because how do you guarantee that everybody's comments are being considered? You have stopped time. Okay. Okay. Just like that. Then Scott would have an idea what you're looking at. Well, Scott's free to talk to the neighbors. Yes.

No, nobody's stopping him from, you know, uh, showing up showing up with, uh, donuts and flowers at somebody's front door to talk to them about his project. Okay. Can I just ask for clarification? Given that we were just told neighbors can't comment outside a public hearing, what if the neighbors actually disagree factually with some of the history that was just shared and the board doesn't have that information? You're welcome to share that at the public hearing.

Yeah. So, there's an appropriate time for for that, just not right now. Okay, board. Any other questions or comments for this? N I I think it it might be helpful actually if the board did have a written history um from the town's perspective of communications and approvals. We can do our best. Okay. As much as you can. That would just be very helpful for me because then I'm not relying on information submitted by the public or by the applicant. Okay. Yeah. And I will include the the 2023 law. I mean, it's probably also Yeah. [laughter] other code. Yeah, thanks Scott.

Thank you guys. See you next month and we'll get a public hearing set up for next month. So just change it.

Uh so board members, I wanted to just um make sure you're aware of a couple things. One was the um comments from uh the town board on the um proposed law number seven, the moratorum in addition to the draft of that. And then also John Dooy had some um copies made and handed out of um was that uh from the town board back in 2020 and 2019. [clears throat] some resolutions from the town board back at that time regarding the um closing of the cold fired plant. Yeah. I I was I had some I have a I was confused about uh some verbiage in the proposed moratorum and I was hoping maybe John could clarify it regarding the [clears throat] undeveloped lands and how it's how it's used to calculate the potential lots. So my understanding is there's a maximum of eight lots. Correct John? [clears throat]

Yes. And then the way I read it was that if you had a parcel say of say if it's 10 acres and you subdivided one lot off that was an acre lot, you would divide that one acre into the remaining nine. You'd have nine lots added to the one. It would be a 10 lot subdivision and it wouldn't be viable. It's on 6E. I think if you'll go down through it right now. So that I that's it's confusing. Why why even include the unused or undeveloped acreage in the calculation of potential lots?

Board members, did anybody get a change? Tom, you I looked at it. I I guess I didn't see it that way. I didn't see it that if you had a 1acre lot then you assume that the rest of it could be nine subdivisions but then you'd add that to the one it' be 10 and then that one wouldn't be right.

But what but why would it have to be a one acre subdivision one acre parcel? The other parcels or the the the main parcel could be split up into 4 acre parcels. It said it says that you have to use whatever was the original acreage split out assume that was going to be applied to all the remaining acres the way it originally was. But if somebody actually proposed something, they wouldn't have to make it one acre. I mean, that that's the way I I read it.

Yeah, that is that is very confusing language. I'm not certain how you interpret that. I don't think that the undeveloped acreage should even be involved in the in the moratorum. I mean, who why do we care what what the So, the way I'm saying is is that if you had a 50 acre parcel and you just wanted to sell one acre off for whatever reason, you should be able to do that in my opinion. You know, if it's in the egg zone or our zone, the R1, two or three. Yeah. Well, when we do a subdivision review, we do we then we would count that as two lots. So, that would be the 1acre lot and then the parent parcel and we look at access for both.

Right. But I agree the language is is pretty confusing. I I the way we want to use the way originally was worded is you take the size of the lot that you're proposing and use that assumption for the remaining acreage. It just doesn't make sense. Well, it seems like it's written to try to avoid segmentation in a way and then to but for one for a one-year moratorum, it doesn't make any sense to me to then try to project out additional subdivision on the parent parcel based on the average of the That's what I'm saying. I'm saying the same thing. Yeah.

Yeah. And then this the second question I had was Drake Road is in a B zone and the rema and this area around town hall is a B zone. So you can do a subdivision on one side of the road but not the other. Why isn't the B zone included in the in the R in the um egg zones? You follow what I'm saying? So as opposed to industrial or

Yeah. I mean, I think B should be added in there as well along with the R and the AG. No. So, if you look at the zoning map, as I said, all Drake Road is is zone B. Why is it not allowed in Drake Road, but is allowed across the street? Mhm. Well, to be clear, um, my I I didn't draft this,

right? I know. So, but what I what I think is the reasoning is that the Bzones are highly likely to change during the zoning update. They're more likely to change. Those are the areas that are kind of focused on in the gap analysis. So, that's that's my belief. I I just I don't think it's fair. You know, if you live on Drake Road and you're in a B zone, you can't, but across the street, you can. I would say include the Bzone in it, in my opinion, to be fair and equitable. So, to to back up for a minute, this board is going to make official comment to the town board, correct?

Yes. Okay. And and and which of you is going to be compiling those comments? And you willing to do that? Yeah, it's going to be L. [laughter] Thank you. Alonso, I guess I missed on the agenda. Is the goal that we kind of we have our discussion now and then you compile the notes and you submit it. But do you want to do like after a discussion do you kind of straw whole yay or nay or just say these are the edits we want to see and it's just factors considered? I guess what?

Well, I I think we want to we want it's I think there's it's two goals here tonight. one is to to clarify the the the moratorum as it's written. There's I think there's concerns and two I think we need to discuss whether this board really wants to support the moratorum or not and that can be done via a straw vote or we can even do a resolution I believe if if we wanted to

I mean it's up to Dean and and the rest of the members here. So I would say to begin with our the my concern is the verbiage on the undeveloped or the remaining acreage is one concern that needs to be revised the way the way it's written right now is one concern. The other the other one is the B zone. Does anyone else on the board feel that that that is inequitable that some areas of the town can be subdivided and other areas can't that are residentially related? Even though it's a B zone, it's mostly residential.

That sounds reasonable. Yeah, I honestly I wouldn't I wouldn't [clears throat] res um residential related subdivision in any zone where it's allowed for minor subdivisions. And I would keep the current standard we use for minor subdivision as opposed to so minor versus major subdivision as opposed to kind of writing a whole new standard for it. John, what's your experience been with special use permits in residential zones, act zone, B zone? Do you see very Do you see very many at all? And

I'm not certain. I've seen one special use permit uh since I hired out of the town in 2021. There there's always been a question in Guy's mind whether special use permits are even allowed by by law or not. Well, that's another if you're asking me about my professional opinion of special use permits. He says it's either allowed of writers or it's not.

Yeah, I think I think we could just handle it all through site plan review, but but I don't think that's a subject of the moratorum. That's a subject of the zoning. Well, that's that's one of the things that would not be permitted under the moratorum is any special use permits or review of those. I mean, I did one for my property because I have 11 acres now, but I had 10 acres at the time just so that I could have animals there. And other than that, I don't think any other special use permits have come before the plan board since I've been on the board.

That's that's because they're handled by the town board, but I still haven't seen Well, they they kind of they typically come Well, yeah, I guess you have to be approved there, but you have to come back to the planning board for approval as well. So So what's your concern then with special use permits and and the moratorum? How's that related? Well, the moratorium would not allow any special use permits. Okay. So, you believe that should be added or there should be some verbiage in there to allow review of those.

Yeah. For residential for for sure. Another thing that would not be allowed would be any signs. And I think that if that's a real concern that temporary signs for instance could be allowed something that's not permanent with the understanding that hey if the zoning changes you're not allowed to put in a permanent sign but you can have a temporary sign there until uh the new zoning is put in place that meets the existing sign law in terms of size. For instance, a number of signs. So with the moratorum if it does get approved I guess there is concerns that there's something else that we may not have thought about or you know may actually resurface or surface that may appear not to be fair or equitable I guess is that is our concern there you kind of follow what I'm saying

I don't so I'm just saying so if the moratorum was approved and somebody wanted there was something there was some action that wanted to be taken and all of a sudden it wasn't it wasn't um it wasn't discussed or wasn't outlined in other words if we would have thought about that we would have said oh we should have had that that should have been included or addressed in the moratorum I guess it's as either allowed or whatever I mean I'm always concerned with non-conforming lots

because you know the state's view on non-conforming lots is that, hey, you bought it, so too bad. But, you know, we don't live in Kansas, so it's not like a grid here. We've got gullies and hills and and streams and all that. And so, something that your neighbor could do because their lot conforms, you might not be able to because you have a non-conforming lot. and you would basically not even be able to come before the board to get approval, whether it's, you know, the CBA or the planning board to be able to do something that everybody else on the street can do because we can't even consider it. Yeah.

Because it's not conforming and wouldn't be allowed under the moratorum. And I don't think the Z going [clears throat] to the ZBA is going to be very very restrictive because it's it's essentially three pages of legal writing on all these do all these things you have to check for for some you know a lot that's that no one's thinking about. If the moratorum goes through, someone's going to be stuck for a year for a very small reason. But the way it's written, people are going to have a very very hard time getting anything done through the ZBA.

Yeah, I've heard that comment from others that that the the uh the application process and the review process for a variance is very restrictive the way it's written in the moratorum. I don't know. I mean just saying that I'm just reflecting what I was was passed on to me. I don't know if that's true or not. Has anyone had a That's what it seems to me. What's that? It's got a lot of It seems way more restrictive than it is currently.

I mean the ZBA seems to be the appropriate place for a variance. That makes a lot of sense to me that this is a moratorium is a land use law and so you go to the ZBA for relief uh from that land use law. But it does um there's there's a lot in here that I'm not sure I mean I understand it sounds like people are trying to cover their bases but say you know for example item seven um you have to do a seeker anyway. So it goes without saying that you the action needs to be supported by the seeker by the seeker process. So I just I think it complicates it more than it it needs to be. So comments that I'm hearing is that the planning board feels that that possibly the um the the um outline for um application for um variance is is should be reviewed and possibly the verbiage softened or lightened or however the word.

Yeah, that seems reasonable. Something like that is what the board feels exactly. streamline or whatever the word is. Restrictive.

I can't help but ask from the quieter members of our group. uh Freddy or Christine any uh make sure we hear from everyone any initial thoughts on the whole poratorium or going with the flow is fine or well I I mean for me personally I think that part of the discussion that we're having is what the moratorum is trying to address you know and so there seems to be a lot of gray area around many of these topics whether they're too restrictive or not restrictive enough um you know so I I think I think we needed to to finalized I think we're doing it in two phases here we're talk we're looking at the moratorum the way it's written

and are there recommendations from the planning board on cleaning it up revising it or making it better is the one thing and then two we need to talk about is there a need in how the in in that discussion is there a need for it. How does the board feel? And then maybe we make a recommendation one way or the other, whether we're for it or against it, or we don't even want to make it. We can say, "No, we don't want it to make a a formal opinion." But let's let's finish up with the way it's written. Is there anything else in the the verbiage and the in the description of the law that you think needs attention, cleanup, revision? I did have a I had a few questions, but I'm not sure. So, given that they probably be directed to John and John, I know you haven't you didn't write it, so [laughter] you might have the same questions. So, thinking about how homebased businesses would be handled under the moratorum. Again, you know, there's the we've moved the threshold for commercial uses from 3,000 to 6,000 ft in the proposed language. I think that would be helpful. But homebased businesses as they might end up in front of this board. Um, not by use. I haven't seen one yet so I don't know the scenarios where that would necessarily come about. Um, but I was just trying to think of things like so what comes before this board normally in which we don't really have a hard time making a decision or recommendation and those are the things that I think really shouldn't be subject to the moratorum but there are things that do come before this board and there have been so few in the two years I've been on the board um but that which I I don't as a planning board member I don't necessarily feel like I have the um the legal backing I would want to ask the questions of the applicants to be able to protect um community standards basically. So that would be like a major subdivision. We haven't se I haven't seen that in my time here, but I under the current law based on what I've heard from comments around community standards in other

projects. I don't know whether I would have um the guidance in the current legislation to be able to review that appropriately think reflecting on the comprehensive plan and what we have available. Um the same would hold true for major commercial, major industrial uses. Um, those are the areas that have been concerned outside of areas where we just may need some actual reasoning of uh, you know, districts like where we had a potential use that was located right next to a residential area and and would have been allowed, but it was the con the conflict in that case was baked in to the current uses that we have and the way the zoning map was reviewed. So, that, you know, that I'm hoping will be will be covered in the rewrite of the zoning law. Um, but I I mean I would I would support a moratorum that would help give us some time to address those areas where the planning board might not have the information and the backing we need to protect the town the way that's being reflected in the comprehensive plan. But I would say the majority of the actions that come before us currently in the in the two years I've been here would not would not really fall under that. It's basically you know where we get into asking applicants like so for example we have applicants who came for a commercial property um and you know because they're local and have you know have a history of working within the community and we're able to have a very productive conversation with them where we expressed our concerns and they came back and said here we go that was a conversation we were able to have but if that applicant wasn't as friendly and didn't have the [clears throat] same sort of interests in mind we might not have gotten the same result and I don't know if we have the legal backing in our current zoning law to be able to really force the issue on say storm water or um you know schedules for planting or something like that.

So I think I think probably most of us on the board would agree that we would agree that zoning needs polishing and cleaning up right everybody here we all agree to that. So the question is is a moratorum necessary to do that cleanup and so I would say you know first I think we need to discuss market conditions in the past what's what's what's been happening in the past what's happening presently and what do we anticipate in the next year so as I as I said in the past we really haven't had any major subdivisions in years correct anybody remember just PDA for,

you know, we've had a PDA with village solars, but yeah, I mean, subdivisions have been nobody wants to build them out. Nobody wants to pay for all the infrastructure, right? And and so in my opinion, the the the the way the market is today, like when we 10 years ago, 5 years ago, 10 years ago, 20 years ago, where somebody bought a track of land and and subdivided it up and put in housing, I don't think that's realistic today or even in the near future. In other words, the cost to put in, as Dean said, the infrastructure for the roads, the electric lines, the storm water

storm, and then you add storm water to that. And then you also add in carrying costs. In other words, if you did subdivide it, you're not going to get them. Say you had a 20 lot subdivision, you're not going to sell them all in the same year. So you've got to carry, you got taxes to pay on the unused lots for three, four, five, six or whatever the absorption time is. So when you look at the costs, the soft costs of engineering, surveying, you know, legal, architect, and the hard cost of putting in the roads in the in the infrastructure and the cost of storm water, there's no money there. It's not realistic. I don't think you're going to get anybody to to develop a track of land in the near future.

If it if it was super profitable right now, the Youngs would be doing it in several different places in the town. So I I think the worry about taking farmland and and having it subdivided and improved upon I I don't I think the market has already taken care of that. We don't need a moratorum to protect us from that. That's my opinion. Anyone else? John, what do you Yeah, I agree with a lot of [clears throat] a lot of that. Um I did call because I'm on the zoning committee with Dean and and Tom. Um I did call call yours which is the the company that's doing the rewrite and they said they didn't they did not recommend a moratorum. Um they said it can be used in certain instances. They said out of the last 30 zoning rewrites they've done, there's only been five moratoriums. And moratoriums can be very specific for good or for bad on something a town doesn't want like a data center. But I agree with you that the market is acting like its own moratorum because it's so expensive.

[clears throat]

Not we don't have many projects in lancing at the moment. So my question is can we prove that [clears throat] now the it's I I I think it's there's two separate issues. There's a land use moratorum for lancing um and a data center issue. I think they're two separate. I think if you separate the two, I don't know if there's enough evidence to say that we would institute a moratorum that's so restrictive on property rights because I don't know if we have like we're saying there's not enough proof in the last few years and not enough proof currently to where we we should have a moratorum. The data center is a separate issue. Um, but I think without the data center, I don't know if we'd be talking about a moratorum to begin with.

Yeah, let's back up a second. So, we're we we're talking about residential sub large tracks of subdivision. I don't think that's economically feasible, no probable in the next year. That's my opinion. you know, yes, you may want to have just like we're seeing in the last few years, an acre here or a lot here, a lot there or or um all road front

road front existing road funds because that's that's feasible to do. Um so, but then the next step, the next thing we should probably talk about a little bit is either industrial or commercial. Um in the last few years, yes, we had a couple dollar stores and we did have the Danny Mart and that's what, five years, six years. There hasn't been a heck of a lot of commercial other than the strip mall we talked about today. And I I wouldn't say that those [clears throat] aren't, you know, changing the character of Lancing. I they're very they're used by a lot of people. There's a lot of people in Lancing that don't have a lot of money and use those stores. We lost the Lancing market probably

because of we we lost the Lancing market because the basket of goods each individual bought didn't increase. So, but they are built on you know main roads with and

yeah just the history that I remember uh last two years maybe or so the board was uh our town board leaison would tell us you know well to back up even further bring up Dollar General for instance if I wanted to ask for a safe pedestrian path for in front of Dollar General say a sidewalk we couldn't mandate that when I work in the city of Ithaca we say you build a sidewalk up for anything because it's in our town code. So I I like like your uh beginning say we all agree the town code yes needs to be updated and when I told that to our lison he said all right we're going to win a grant we're going to go for a grant to help rewrite this and that's why we have this grant to rewrite this code that will help update our laws

right maybe it's is it too extreme not extreme but I just think that's I think that's the history that I remember my perspective that we all agree to watch but do we need a moratorum to rewrite the zoning laws That's the question. No one else is

I I'm sorry I don't have a very good voice so I'm trying not to talk too much but I I guess I see a moratorum in as more of an emergency stop order sort of situation in the city you get a great deal of projects and development happening and proposals for things. If we look at college town in Ithaca for example, prime example of where a moratorum probably was somewhat necessary but then you in the town of Lancing as we've pointed out there has not been a considerable amount of commercial um or or residential development of any considerable size. That to me warrants an emergency. Stop work, stop development in a small town like Lancing.

Right. And that's essentially what the mor moratorum is saying. It's a it's an emergency. We need to stop it. And I don't see any aggressive

and I think the downsides of potential emergency stop development could ultimately and you you can see this today in in College Town. There is there's no business happening. I mean there's some it's starting to come back but that the those moratoriums started in 2007208 it's 2025 and they're you can't walk the street and hit a throw a stone and hit a business in in most cases anymore. It's disappeared. The people you know that used to visit those businesses have gone elsewhere. You see a lot of development happening down on Elmyra Road. um none of it and none of the community really participating in in college town. A lot of the community has dissipated and gone elsewhere and it's a bunch of students and that the students don't create enough business activity to bring business back into that area. So I I think there's some really significant development and economic downsides to a moratorum and if we I in my feeling it needs to be an emergency in the town to to stop that that sort of level of development. Um I'm not seeing that level of in in my mind I'm not seeing enough of that development in what we've seen in the last two years to warrant this being an emergency. Um and and for a moratorum that's my personal opinion. I'm sorry.

I think you also I think you do have to look like Christine said about financial I can't hear.

You do have to consider the financial impact um and the current state of the town. Um I I know that we're going to be paying on the highway department barn and it's in 2027 it's 1.2 2 million for a number of years. It's that's going on the budget and the moratorum. We have to think about that any pro if if there's no moratorum any projects coming in front of all of us anyway. Is there enough things that are is there enough, you know, evidence and projects to state that is is it an emergency is the question? But the town also needs money. It needs it and needs a base to be able to afford the highway department. Um and that there [clears throat] is this is a separate issue but there um there is these resolutions from 2019 and 2020 um talking about when the AES the coal plant was shut down. Um it was a resolution saying shut it down and we're supporting um a data center back then and the town board at the time voted unanimously um to support this um and it's it's changed now but as you read it you can see what they supported it it was a smaller type project and I'm not advocating one way or the other. I'm just saying there's some history behind that power plant and where the town was heading and what the town was thinking um five or six years ago. Um for good or

for bad, you can read it. Um but it talks about um jobs, what it would create, talks about um broadband helping the Lancing community. So, it's just history that can be used. Um, at one point it it was recommended to the town of Lancing that this was a something that they should consider and the board urged the governor, the power authority um to support this in Lancing, although it never happened. But

can can I I I want to uh build upon what you said earlier. So board members um not only will the tax base, you know, it may not grow much, but also the moratorum could actually cause the tax base to decrease. And here's my example. Um so there's a lot of large tracks of land in Lancing that that were bought for development purposes. And so the the buyer paid a price per acre for development. So in other words, let's say they paid $10,000 an acre for the large track of land and it was a fair sale and the assessment office put $10,000 an acre as an assessment. If their moratorum is in place, [clears throat] the developer, the owner can no longer develop that property. Is it still worth $10,000 an acre or is it worth less until the moratorum is is uh rescended or or gone? So if the moratorum is in place, I could see developers coming into the assessment office and saying, "Hey, I want my land that's valued as development land possibly revised or reduced until the the zoning is revised and changed again." So that's something else that should be considered is a possible reduction in the tax base.

Anyone? I I don't know that that's general practice. The moratorum is usually limited in time. It's a not a great example of that [laughter] one. It's so it's reassess once a year. You can you can greet your assessment annually. You can you can but it's a moratorium is not a permanent change in the status of the

land and it you're talking about market rate so it whether the de it's allowed to be developed or not developed probably doesn't necessarily relate to the market rate entirely there's c I'm sure there's certain situations it's vacant land is the value of vacant land is based on its highest and best legal use if it's legally cannot be developed then the question is should it be reduced than that. I'm not I'm just I don't argument at all. But no, I could be wrong. Not for not for 365.

John, uh do you know who wrote this or a team or committee which which guy promotion? [clears throat] Thank you. So some of the things that that I'm concerned with if if I was going to do a moratorum um I would probably go with type one actions which are very large actions would be the kinds of things that I would potentially want to restrict. Um I I'm definitely very concerned about any kind of emergency action. So, if there's a storm or even if it's not an emergency, um, and you decide you want to tear down your the house that you just bought because it's really not in very good shape and you just want to rebuild. Um, you want to use the same footprint. I mean that that's allowed, but it would potentially not be allowed uh under this if you had to, for instance, come before the the zoning board um for some reason. Um I'm concerned about places like um is it LIFA, LIFA? What do they call it? The um soccer field. The soccer field. Well, what if they want another field? You know, they're not residential. They're going to have to come before this board. and sorry, you know, you got a grant to put another field in. Oh well, you know, you're just not going to be able to do it. Maybe you'll lose your grant money. Um, customer or um companies like High Gear came in, you know, and wanted to put it put an addition on. So if we're looking at uh existing businesses like that that want to increase their capacity and want to be able to grow and stay here in Lancing um that would potentially not be allowed during the moratorum. Sorry, you got to wait another year or two years

depending if the moratorum gets kicked down the road farther. um you wouldn't be able to to build that because it's outside of the residential um allowed you know um development.

And I think that brings in the idea of you know existing infrastructure and in buildings where you you already have things that are there. It's not just vacant land where you know you're repurposing something that may already exist and the data center could be considered sort of in that repurpose area where it's repurposing a industrial uh site that into another industrial site. I don't know that, you know, um, uh, it would require a lot of site plan approval, but I I think that it kind of follows your idea of there's existing businesses and existing infrastructure and things that um could be sustainably used um during moratorum that might not be able to be used later.

Right. And I and I'm very concerned that we would discourage those businesses from staying here where whether it's um you know high gear or um and they could easily move to dry test IMR. Yeah. They don't have to move very far

you know um if you need more space and you want to keep everybody under the same roof that that can be an important consideration can really affect your business. Um, so yeah, my my personal um straw poll is is I would I would say no unless we have something that we can really identify specifically that we think is an emergency that needs to be addressed. Um, and if we do or if the the town board does, then I think they should express that in a very uh tighter form and not not as broad as what we see in the proposed moratorum.

Yeah, I could I could get behind something a little more targeted and well well planned um in advance. What do you think, son?

Well, let me just read the statement that I sent to the board. I understand the intent of the law to develop a new zoning code to fulfill the vision of the comprehensive plan and and do it without major land use and development changes happening while the zoning is being rewritten. However, the Lancing business community has had and I would have predicted to have had a very strong negative reaction to the temporary moratorum. Many or most members of the business community already feel that lancing is too restrictive for them to operate effectively. For example, site plan review takes a while and see this as another potential major burden on business operations. On the other hand, many most town residents want to see development safeguards to prevent helter skelter commercial development which will negatively impact the pastoral beauty that they enjoy and make Lancing a desirable place to live. I don't believe the Lancing business community is at all interested in despoiling the landscape for their sole profit. I also don't believe that Lancing residents in general are opposed to wellplanned commercial development so the town can prosper. And furthermore, the town board works very hard to benefit both the business and the residents in the community is not an easy task and is often unappreciated. The new temporary moratorum law is certainly a big improvement over the initial one. for example, 6,000q ft² development versus the original 3,000 ft² maximum to avoid triggering the moratorum. This allows for the vast majority of projects I have seen come before the planning board for for review in the last few years. Exceptions Dandy Mart dollar generals of course we do have a big one in the

form of the data center but that is an issue onto itself. As a plan board member, I am not sure this temporary moratorum is going to help the town. There are certainly two sides to the argument. It has been clearly a polarizing influence in the last month. In addition, the moratorum has been distracting the town from progressing with the zoning rewrite, which is the ultimate goal of all this. So, that's just sort of my general feeling about this whole thing. uh you know, we're dividing we're dividing the town, polarizing it. I think we can get the zoning done without any huge changes going on in the town that's going to alter the character of it in one or two years. And so I'm I'm not a big fan of the moratorum. I think we should uh edit the last sentence. I'll sign Tom's letter. What was that?

Said maybe edit the last sentence or so and I'll sign it sign that letter.

Do you want do you want a straw vote or what do you want to do? Anyone else want to speak on this before we take a straw vote whether we think the the moratorum is is an emergency situation and maybe it should not be uh we're not going to support it or how we how are you going to word that? Uh well I've given the the poll result results from here what our discussion was and if they go ahead with the moratorum the things that we would suggest that they change in in their um not necessarily specific language but just overall broad concepts of what we think should be changed. So you're going to take a vote asking whether we support or we how you just do a a straw poll right now saying who would be in favor of the mortorium and who would

So who is not in favor you take a vote and then who is in favor you take a vote anyone else more discussion before dean's vote. So, are we voting on how it is as presented or as we've discussed? Because that would have a pretty big influence on [laughter] my response to the straw poll. Well, I think it's as as it's written now because that's what they've presented

with the very short list of changes um which are change square footage from 3,000 to 6,000. Removes more uh no more than 10 versions. Clarify some ambiguities. Add RA and egg zones to the list of zones in first sentence regarding residential subdivisions. replace the term police power with something not so alarming. Um,

change language that's more in line with the status quo rather than a freeze in place. Those those are the only changes that I've seen coming out of the board at the moment. So given given those, would you vote uh that you would uh be in favor of that moratorum or not? So, and I don't want to belabor the discussion because we all want to get home as well too. Um, but so you brought up the you brought up the two examples that you so high gear for example or IMR. So, um, how are those currently classified? Is that light manufacturing, manufacturing industrial? What's the put me on the spot?

I'm sorry. That's why I also why maybe I didn't ask that question. But again, like I I think if I wasn't clear before, I can I can hopefully be clear now. I support residential.

They're not residential. They're not residential. I would support a moratorum that gives both the town and the planning board the space to be able to have legislation that gets us to the goals that we have in our comp plan and reflect some of the comment that we've had around community standards um over multiple um multiple reviews. However, what I think I've seen is that the majority of the business we see that is locally generated would not be touched by not they it would be impacted by the current moratorum. But if we can get to a point where the moratorum would really just cover those things where it's like [snorts] I don't I don't know if we really have the right laws in place now to handle that, I would feel much better with it. I would also be really concerned if we did get a large proposal in like again the data center came in and I don't know that we have the laws in place to be able to deal with that

or type one action

a type one yeah a type one action again you know and honestly I don't want to have to review I don't have to rely on the seeker review to get at things that are essentially site plan review elements as well too that would be affiliated with a larger project so that's that's my concern with no moratorum would I do I think that those projects are likely likely to come in in the, you know, 1 year, 18 months. No, probably not given the, you know, the current, you know, the current um economic environment and the history of what we've seen. So, I'm not as concerned about those potentially being impacted. We don't see them a whole lot. But I do want to make sure that the majority of the business we do see, which is as substantially in line with the character of the town, [clears throat] it probably wouldn't change under revised, you know, laws, wouldn't really be affected by the moratorum. That would be my goal. That's okay. If I can be just clear.

So back to what Dean said, we can take a vote the way it's wr We need to take a vote the way it's written right now. Should the bo should the town board recognize [clears throat] some of our concerns and want to revise the moratorum the way it's written and then bring it back to us. I guess then we can reconsider that again. Is that possible Dean or? Yeah. So I so I think the first vote is going to be targeted towards the way it is now and then we'll take another straw vote on if our concerns as a board are addressed um would we feel comfortable with a more targeted moratorum like type one yeah exactly type one actions

type one is a great threshold one one note that I remember from when fracking was really popular uh and there was like a road preservation law And uh that whole history was you can't specify a specific industry I believe. So to avoid future legal matters I think we should well type one action doesn't that's why I think that's the ver verbiage to use for sure and not talk about a data center but no uh yeah legally moratorum you can specifically um target a specific use in a moratorum. It doesn't have to be broad-based if the town board wanted to do that. Yes, I believe so.

Well, yeah. I mean, it's obviously got to be based in some kind of reality like uh our comp plan, right? You know, that that kind of thing, I think. Um All right. So, here's our straw poll. Um are you for the moratorum the way that it's written right now? No. Okay. So, I'm not seeing any hands for that. Um are you for the moratorum uh if it included um the kinds of changes that we want to make in including uh basically just saying no type one actions. Yeah.

But but we have to be careful on that how how much how many of these concerns are going to be included in there? All of them. Part of them. I think we need to to say would we would we I think if you review so if you're talking about only type one actions I think that the things that we discussed would would all then be uh ameliated. Oh you mean all these other things? Yeah. I think you nailed it with the type one that

can you [clears throat] I don't know I don't know necessarily the process and maybe John there's more but if you say I want a moratorium on type one actions I don't know where the the data center is on that but if you vote for moratorum on that if have they started a process enough to where you would be infringing on their rights to that property as is currently, but you're voting for a moratorum. Now, are you voting and you will you have a a lawsuit in front of you if you vote on a moratorum and they've started the process spent a cons you know I think if you spend a considerable amount of money talk with the town submit things and this is what I mean John knows more about is that going to affect the town legally is the question I happen.

Well, that's definitely some those are the kinds of questions the town board is going to have to be

thinking about and acting upon for sure. So, just in when I was looking at the um the seeker law, it's 6ycr7.4 where it talks about type one action. Type one actions are things like greater than 100,000 square ft of floor space. uh unlisted actions in the A district that are non-ag um greater than 10 acres of um um yeah new work in non-residential. So that would be like potentially business or industrial. Um, and a lot of the things that we talk about in terms of egg, those are covered by egg and market laws. And so, a lot of things there you can't you can't stop. Um, greater than 50 residential units that are not connected to water and sewer. Those those are the kinds of big projects that would be type one actions and that might change the character of the town.

Yeah. and potentially pinned. So Dean to review the it's a consensus of the board that the moratorum as proposed to us it we do not support. Is that correct board members? Yes. Yeah. That's what I that's what I saw from all. Okay. And then the mo should the town board consider revising the moratorum to to only include type one actions, we we would consider supporting that. Yeah. How many how many out of the eight here would consider that?

But wouldn't you want to know more? You you can say that, but then wouldn't you want to be able to have the opportunity to read what those restrictions would be? Oh, yeah. Absolutely. So you're not just saying type one, you're [clears throat] saying I want to be able to review what type one's and what the the actual language of the law would say. Yeah. Absolutely. Yeah. We would want any moratorum proposed to come back to this board for for review and comment. Okay, we're good. So, uh, if it was tailored more to a type one, who would support that?

Show of hands. One, two. I think I'd still say three, four, yes, no. Okay. All right. that that gives us any other questions or discussion or input. I think my only reason for not supporting is we just don't see enough of that activity. I just don't see it being realistic that during that moratorum it's going to be such a big issue. I I could be very wrong. Regret that decision. Okay.

Okay. I think that we're good on that. So Al, you're going to type something up, send it to me. I'll review it and then we'll make sure everybody sees it before I send it out and we'll send my recommendation to the town board. I hear a motion to adjourn on board. Oh, Joe, do you He's hiding in the back there.

Okay. And uh I want to thank the town board, three of the town board members that that attended the meeting tonight. Thank you for showing up. Thank you. Okay, we're checking