TOWN OF BALLSTON PLANNING BOARD

Transcription

1 Page 1 of 17 TOWN OF BALLSTON PLANNING BOARD Monthly Meeting: Present: John VanVorst, Chairman James DiPasquale Patrick Maher Audeliz Matias, Vice-Chair Laura Muschott Nicole Rodgers Dan Shorey Dave Blair, 1 st Alternate Peter Solberg, 2 nd Alternate Sophia Marruso, Senior Planning/Storm Water Management Officer Brian Theriault, Building Inspector Matt Chauvin, Esq. Kathryn Serra, P.E. Members of the General Public ABSENT: None Chairman VanVorst called the September26, 2018 meeting to order at 7:30 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. Chairman VanVorst reviewed the agenda. Chairman VanVorst stated the Board did not receive the August 26, 2018 minutes. OLD BUSINESS: Rossi PUDD Lot # 1/Hannaford Rossi PUDD Lot # 1/Via Rossi Dr. SBL # Site Plan Review - New 38,000 sf Supermarket & Pharmacy Brandee Nelson, PE with Tighe & Bond was present on behalf of Hannaford. Ms. Nelson stated since the last meeting, received comments from C. T. Male with regard to the SWPPP and is in the process of reviewing the submitted plans; revised information will be provided at the next meeting.

2 Page 2 of 17 Ms. Nelson stated included in the packet is drawing (C-103) for the Board to review. Ms. Nelson stated proposed is a multi-tenant monument sign located at the south side of the Via Rossi intersection and Church Avenue. Ms. Nelson stated this sign is really critical for Hannaford and wants to make sure it is part of their Site Plan Approval the way the store is situated back from the roadway. Ms. Nelson stated drivers on Church Avenue heading north cannot see the store from the roadway; so having a sign out on Church Ave is very important. Ms. Nelson stated that Hannaford will be one of the anchor stores for the rest of the PUDD and wants to set a tone with signage and provide an opportunity to get a sign approved, that could be added to, as additional tenants coming to the PUDD. Ms. Nelson stated a concept elevation plan was submitted of what that sign would look like; the PUDD is relatively silent on particulars of the design of a sign. A proposal was submitted to the Board to get their feedback. Ms. Nelson stated similar Hannaford multi-tenant signs were submitted to the Board, but in the absence of tangible guidelines from the Zoning Code, the applicant is just putting an idea out and feels it would be a good option at this location. Ms. Nelson said, It s tall in part because of the limits on the site line when going north bound, there is some development that is fairly close to the road and wants to try and be above that; the sign is also wide enough to accommodate the other lots that are proposed in the PUDD. Ms. Serra asked the dimensions of the proposed sign. Ms. Nelson stated the dimensions on the sign that were submitted as a concept 20 4 above grade to the top of the architectural decoration of the sign and the width of the sign is 18 2 (overall width of the framework of the sign). Ms. Muschott stated the proposed sign looks nicer than the other options. Mr. Maher asked if the sign is internally backlit. Ms. Nelson stated it s internally illuminated. Ms. Serra asked if the light will turn off. Ms. Serra asked that is something the Board has asked for in the past, that way, there is not something illuminated for the residents in the area at all times.

3 Page 3 of 17 Mr. DiPasquale asked is it just 10 from the adjacent property and relative close proximity to a residence. Mr. DiPasquale said, It is an important question as to when the sign is lit and for how long. Ms. Nelson stated illumination would be during business hours. Ms. Matias stated it s close to the residence to the south and asked what is the reason to have it on the south and north end. Ms. Nelson stated the concern for having the sign on the north side of the intersection is that there are utility lines running through there and the way the roadway curve is configured, has a larger sweep to accommodate tractor trailer turning; it pulls the sidewalk back and creates a much smaller area to put the sign, but it s very complicated because of the power lines; concerned for the height of the sign and the conflict of the power lines. Chairman VanVorst stated there will be no light spillage off of property. Ms. Nelson stated no, the sign has only indirect internal illumination. Ms. Serra stated there will be other directional signs off Via Rossi. Ms. Nelson stated in the original application, also proposed a monument sign at the first driveway entrance into the Hannaford. In discussions with Ms. Marruso, it was said, why do you need that once you turn onto Via Rossi you will be able to see the sign on the face of the building. Ms. Nelson stated because the northern part of the site may have future development and may make sense to have a sign there to direct people, but at this point, for the applications purposed, we really are more interested in getting that sign off Church Ave. Ms. Nelson stated if the Board would like the applicant to show both and maybe not putting in the second one, can certainly have that and would be included with this Site Plan application; it was on the original plans. Chairman VanVorst asked Ms. Nelson if a consensus from the Board is necessary. Ms. Nelson said, We just want to have it included as part of their Site Plan approval and if this concept for the dimensions and the design is acceptable to the Board.

4 Page 4 of 17 Chairman VanVorst polled the Board; The Board concurred there were no issues with the proposal. Ms. Matias asked if an agreement was made between the owner and the resident located to the south about some type of screening. Mr. Rossi stated a fence extension will be installed and Ms. McGinn did not seem to have any real problems about the size and location and understood the visibility issues. Mr. Rossi said, She is actually excited about the store and wants to go shopping there as much as anybody. Ms. Marruso stated she has identified in the last set of comments - a few miscellaneous items; details, additional feedback and are waiting for the Jurisdictional Determination from ACOE with regard to the wetland application. Ms. Marruso asked Ms. Nelson if she has had progress or updates from ACOE at this time. Ms. Nelson stated no, but can tell you that the site has two different types of wetlands on it; one is a bigger wetland to the east of the site and are staying entirely out of that (ACEOE and NYSDEC wetland) and the second wetland is north of the site due west of the Groski s pond and that wetland had been previously determined to be isolated according to the ACOE and then the Jurisdictional Determination had expired when trying to renew the determination had found out weeks ago that the rules changed. Ms. Nelson stated she is working with ACOE to interpret the new rule and making sure we are providing them with the information they need to renew their determination. Ms. Marruso stated we have now on record what the building mounted lighting height is by the egress door and overhead door; roughly 8.6 and 18 respectively. We now understand the minimum 30 buffer that is required of the PUDD is upheld due to the storm water reconfiguration and that the compacter is enclosed and shielded from the entire building. Ms. Serra asked about natural gas to the site. Ms. Nelson said, National Grid did confirm that they can provide natural gas to us. Ms. Nelson will update the plans to remove the propane tanks. Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 7:46 p.m. Frank Rossi, Jr., 1 Constitution Ct. on behalf of the Rossi family stated with respect to signage back in the days of the old application, Mr. Doyle (former Chairman) reached

5 Page 5 of 17 out to us with a question, Wouldn t it be nice to have a sign at the Dominic Drive point at Route 67 as well. (Conditional dedication was granted by the Town Board last night for Via Rossi and Dominic Drive Ext.). Mr. Rossi stated we have not lost sight of the desire to do that and obviously built that road to pull traffic off of the road before it hit V-Corner s, if it s intended to go into the development. Mr. Rossi stated the current rules in the however, do not allow for a large multi-tenant sign there; maybe not as large as the one shown, but some size to show that a Hannaford and other tenants are in there, since those tenants do not face the highway in any way, shape or form. Mr. Rossi stated Ms. Marruso stated is working to amend the code; so at some future date, that it is amended to embrace the idea of a multi-tenant sign, will be back at that time to discuss another sign that will be useful to get the traffic off of the road and help V-Corner s station. Chairman VanVorst closed the public hearing at 7:50pm Ms. Serra stated she had prepared a DRAFT Part 2 of a full Environmental Assessment Form for a SEQRA determination. 1, Impact on Land Ms. Serra stated this asks the Board to look at, how does the Impact on Land occur the answer to all the general questions, were no, the site was being developed in a reasonable manner; not physically altering the site to a point where it would cause environmental degradation. 2. Impact on Geological Features Ms. Serra stated the Town does not have any - such as landforms; cliffs, dunes, fossils or caves the answer to that question is no. 3. Impact on Surface Water Ms. Serra stated generally all projects could impact a surface water body; in the case of this particular project, the action is not creating a new water body, it s not filling in wetlands. If the contractor follows and SWPPP and Erosion and Sediment Control Plan, it lessens the impact from construction activities on the two water bodies on the site the project is not

6 Page 6 of 17 constructing a waste water treatment plant. Ms. Serra stated there is no to small impact surface water from this project. 4. Impact on groundwater Ms. Serra stated this proposal is not proposing to draw water from wells or it does not have a septic system, and not proposing to have bulk storage of petroleum or chemical product s on the site; it will be deemed that there is no impact to ground water resources. 5. Impact on Flooding Ms. Serra stated this property is not subject to lands in a floodplain. 6. Impacts on Air Ms. Serra stated this is not a project that would require an air permit from the State. Ms. Serra stated this is a firm no on this item. 7. Impacts on Plants and Animals Ms. Serra stated the guidance from the State is if you are in a municipality that has a known, threatened or endangered species that you automatically answer yes is listed that it has a presence of a Long Eared Bat, which is an endangered species; so the Board has answered yes on all applications however, have provided documentation from the State that there is no roosting habitats for the bat on that property. Ms. Serra stated it would have no or small impact on that resource.

7 Page 7 of Impact on Agricultural Resources Ms. Serra stated this property is not located in the Ag District. 9. Impact on Aesthetic Resources Ms. Serra stated the project is not on a property that is considered a Scenic or Aesthetic resource in the community no impact. 10. Impact on Historic and Archeological Resources Ms. Serra stated in the Town all the studies that were done starting with the Rossi PUDD, there was no identification of any Historical or Archeological Resources on the entire PUDD therefore, we would answer no; there is no impact to those resources. 11. Impact on Open Space and Recreation Ms. Serra stated this project is not resulting in a loss of designated recreation area. 12. Impact on Critical Environmental Areas Ms. Serra stated there are none in the. 13. Impact on Transportation Ms. Serra stated this is obviously something that has been discussed in perpetuity in the last decade for this particular area. Ms. Serra suggests that there are five questions under this subject and they are as follows:

8 Page 8 of 17 Ms. Serra stated does the project projected traffic increase exceed the capacity of the existing road network. Ms. Serra suggests the Board deem that as a potential or large impact; the reason without these proposed traffic mitigation measures, there would be a significant impact to the road networks; the Board would identify that as a Large to Moderate Impact and then in Part 3 of the EAF explain all of the traffic studies that have been done to date, from beginning, through the Wal-Mart, through to here and then site the off-site mitigation measures that are being required of the Board for Hannaford as the applicant, but inherently would require Hannaford to actually bear the brunt of those and would not receive a Certificate of Occupancy until NYSOT is satisfied with those improvements. Ms. Serra stated her suggestion is to have C. T. Male perform a write up explaining all the past traffic studies and the off-site traffic mitigation measures; Ms. Serra guided the Board through the 12 pages of text that were prepared for the Wal-Mart application that would be consistent with how the Board would proceed. Ms. Serra stated Hannaford is its own application and the Board to review it on its own merit. Ms. Serra said the State also asks us to look at large parking areas, which this does not have, a parking area of 500 or more vehicles. Ms. Serra stated it asks will the project degrade existing transit access. MS. Serra stated it looks if the project will degrade pedestrian facilities. Ms. Serra stated it talks about Would the proposed action alter the present pattern of movement, people or goods. Ms. Serra stated she indicated that the project has a no to small impact on transit and still has not received word from CDTA if they intend on having a bus stop at the Hannaford that they committed to at the Wal-Mart. Ms. Serra stated the sidewalks to be extended per the Rossi PUDD. Ms. Serra stated all original studies that were done for the Rossi PUDD and the Wal-Mart and the 20 th amendment that the Board has seen specific to the Hannaford will clarify that there are some off-site traffic mitigation measures that are not necessary for the Hannaford; left turn lane at V-Corner s, timing of V-Corner s and the extension of Via Rossi to the Trustco Bank.

9 Page 9 of Impact on Energy Ms. Serra stated this would be geared towards and applicant that would be creating a new substation or creating a very large development that would use a lot of MWh s or electricity and Hannaford does not fall into that category. 15. Impact on Noise, Odor, and Light Ms. Serra suggests that the Board discuss this as a potential impact due to the discussion we had on the delivery trucks, noise and lighting. Ms. Serra stated the Board has asked Hannaford to mitigate the noise from the delivery area to the maximum extent and lighting being done the same, but note, that this could be a potential impact the developer has mitigated. 16. Impact on Human Health Ms. Serra stated that there would be impact on human health based upon the 13 questions the State asks; most of it is resulting if work is being done by a school or hospital even though this is approximate to a school, it does not meet that criteria. Ms. Serra stated if this is a brown field site cleanup, a remediation site cleanup or is it a hazardous waste site. Ms. Serra stated the answer is no, and does not meet that criteria. 17. Consistency with Community Plans Ms. Serra stated no; this project meets the zoning and is not asking for a zoning variance. 18. Consistency with Community Character Ms. Serra stated is the proposed project inconsistent with the existing community character. Ms. Serra stated no; it meets the zoning and meets the general density of that area.

10 Page 10 of 17 Ms. Serra stated with that, will finalized Part 2 of the EAF, which goes into the record and will work to draft Part 3 of the EAF, to include traffic mitigation and provide it to the for their blessing. Ms. Serra suggests this Board discuss whether or not to grant this Negative Declaration to Hannaford tonight. MOTION: Mr. Maher motioned to declare this an Unlisted Action under the SEQR process therefore will declare this a Negative Declaration under the SEQR process for the construction of the Hannaford. Ms. Matias seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. NEW BUSINESS: Frank & Denise Volpe 366 Schauber Road; Minor Subdivision Divide existing 5.47 acre lot into two new single-family lots Duane Rabideau with VanGuilder and Associates presented on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Rabideau stated the proposal is to subdivide the existing 5.47 acre parcel into two singlefamily residential lots. Lot A 3.34 acres and Lot B 2.13 acres; both proposed parcels would have individual wells and septic systems and both lots would meet the spatial requirements of the Residential District. Mr. Rabideau stated the applicant is requesting a waiver for requirements of as it pertains to the Watershed Protection Overlay District (WPOD). Mr. Rabideau feels the new proposed impacts of the project and the parcel is not in close proximity to Ballston Lake. Mr. DiPasquale asked if the drainage easement on Lot B is to the County. Mr. Rabideau stated that is an existing County drainage easement. Mr. DiPasquale stated for road drainage. Mr. Rabideau stated yes. Mr. DiPasquale asked if the perc test Lot A of 46 minutes was accurate. Mr. Rabideau stated yes, that was the original perc test from the original subdivision in the late 1990 s. Mr. DiPasquale stated the other lot is 9 minutes.

11 Page 11 of 17 Mr. Rabideau stated the soils vary. Mr. DiPasquale asked if there is enough room for the septic system. Mr. Rabideau stated yes. Chairman VanVorst stated in the applicant s narrative, comments were made on the wells and septic systems on the neighbors. Mr. Rabideau stated yes. Chairman VanVorst stated they are not shown on the map. Mr. Rabideau stated the well was shown of the Doherty piece in the back and the rest of the wells and septic systems are more than 100 away from the property lines. Chairman VanVorst asked about the location of the well and septic systems on the East side of the road. Mr. Rabideau stated they are more than 100 from the power line across the road. Chairman VanVorst stated because the two proposed wells on Lot A & Lot B are fairly close to the road and there is no indication as to where the septic system is on the East side of Schauber Road. Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 8:09 p.m. No one wished to speak. Chairman VanVorst closed the public hearing at 8:10 p.m. MOTION: Mr. Maher motioned to name The the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Ms. Muschott seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Mr. Maher motioned to declare this an Unlisted Action under the SEQR process therefore will declare this a Negative Declaration under the SEQR process. Ms. Rodgers seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Mr. DiPasquale asked if the Board needs to discuss the need for the waiver or acknowledge that the Board has granted it. Ms. Marruso stated if the Board thinks it s appropriate that the Board might site waiver provision that is identified in the text that was provided in the staff review. Ms.

12 Page 12 of 17 Marruso stated if you feel it is appropriate to waive the requirements for that additional information, as it relates the subdivision request, but not that the applicant will need to return for Site Plan Review as proposed development part of the Ballston Lake Waterfront District. Chairman VanVorst asked if the Board should mention the sewer district and connections that need to be made as well. Ms. Marruso stated if you want to put the applicant on notice now; maybe not as a condition, but as a matter of record. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion that the Board approves the Subdivision of Lands of Frank & Denise Volpe as shown on the map AH dated, August 29, The document requirements pursuant to be waived solely for the approval of the subdivision, the applicant be aware of their obligations to the sewer connections to this sewer district and Park and Rec fee of one thousand dollars per lot payable at issuance of building permit. Ms. Rodgers seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Michael J. & Charlotte A. Busone Lake Road; & -3.2 Lot Line Adjustment adjust the common line between the two properties. Duane Rabideau with VanGuilder and Associates presented on behalf of the applicants. Mr. Rabideau stated the applicant is proposing a Lot Line Adjustment between two parcels of land that is owned by the applicant. The parcels are located at 272 & 276 Lake Road. The proposal is to annex the rear 2.99 acre portion of Lot 272 to 276 Lake Road; Lot 272 Lake Road would be reduced from 5 acres to 2.1 acres and Lot 276 would go from 5.23 acres to 8.22 acres. Mr. Rabideau stated proposed is a 25 wide ingress/egress easement along the existing driveway between the two parcels; created alongside a crushed stone driveway on the lot line between the two lots that both lots will utilize and are subject to all the restrictions of that easement. Mr. Rabideau stated no new lots are being created and both lots meet all the spatial requirements of the rural zone. Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 8:15 p.m.

13 Page 13 of 17 No one wished to speak. Chairman VanVorst closed the public hearing at 8:16 p.m. MOTION: Mr. Maher motioned to name The the Lead Agency in the SEQR process. Mr. Shorey seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Mr. Maher motioned to declare this an Unlisted Action under the SEQR process therefore will declare this a Negative Declaration under the SEQR process. Ms. Matias seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Ms. Marruso asked if the applicant may want to know the desire for a cross-access easement to be filed. Chairman VanVorst stated this should be made as part of the motion. Mr. Maher asked Ms. Marruso to repeat her last comment. Ms. Marruso stated that the Board might condition that the LLA with the submittal with the cross-access easement to ensure legal access for both lots considering the shared driveway. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion that the Lot Line Adjustment between 272 Lake Road & 276 Lake Road as shown on map # dated, August 24, 2018 and conditioned that the applicant provide a cross-access easement to the existing driveway to ensure access for both parcels. Mr. Shorey seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Kelley Farms Mixed Use TND 253 Eastline Road; Site Plan Review modify the previously approved plans from 10 buildings to 7 buildings for a total of 70-units; the remaining sections of the Kelley Farms Mixed use TND have not changed. Ms. Muschott recused herself. David Blair, 1 st Alternate succeeded Ms. Muschott. Scott Lansing, PE with Lansing Engineering was present on behalf of the applicant s, Geoff Booth and Jeff Knox.

14 Page 14 of 17 Mr. Lansing stated the applicants are before the Board for a Site Plan amendment for the Kelley Farms TND; a modification of the originally approved plan. Mr. Lansing stated for the Board s reference the map on the left side is what currently is approved for the site and shown on the right hand side is what the applicant is proposing as a modified plan. Mr. Lansing stated there are portions of the approved plans that are under construction; the townhouses in the North West corner are currently under construction. Mr. Lansing stated the parcel is located at 253 Eastline Road and is approximately 26.5 acres. The approved plan includes 97 residential units, 27 of those are the townhouses, 70 multifamily units as well as 44,000 square feet of commercial space. Mr. Lansing stated also associated with the approved plan are 2.75 acres of active passive park land. Mr. Lansing stated the proposed change is just in the multi-family units. Mr. Lansing stated there is no change to the density for the project, no change to the townhouses, no change in the amount of commercial square footage and no change in the number of multi-family units; simply taking the buildings that were previously approved, condensing those buildings and maintaining the same number of units. Mr. Lansing stated the originally approved plan had another ten buildings on the revised plan shows seven 10-unit buildings. Mr. Lansing stated the previous overall green space for the parcel is approximately 74.1% green space; the green space is being increased to 77.4%. Mr. Lansing said, Another change in the plan is the number of lots; the number of lots will decrease originally approved for 31 lots; the shifting from the multi-family to the western side and will consolidating the lot that did have the multi-family on the east side. Mr. Lansing stated there are storm water changes with the reduced amount of impervious area and will provide documentation to the Board and on the eastern side of the parcel is the commercial structures; the original approved plans had a somewhat elaborate storm water treatment system where it had jellyfish filter system and underground storm water detention system, those would be eliminated and substituted with a conventional storm water basin on that eastern side.

15 Page 15 of 17 Mr. Lansing said, If the Board does deem the proposal appropriate, would ask for consideration for approval conditioned on providing storm water calculations for the site. Mr. Shorey asked Mr. Lansing to briefly describe the parking for the seven 10-unit buildings. Mr. Lansing stated the 10-unit buildings there are garages associated with the buildings as well as ancillary parking; the Town requires 2.5 spaces for multi-family units. Mr. Shorey stated to the south of building #4, the plan has labeled eight parking spaces, but the plan only shows four parking spaces. Mr. Lansing stated they can check on that. Ms. Serra stated that it is not common for an applicant to come in and significantly reduce their building footprints and supports if from an engineering standpoint. Ms. Serra asked if smaller individual units in each unit being proposed. Mr. Booth stated each one of those units has an interior garage; the other buildings were attractive, but some were rather large and gives us an ultimate product that we thought could trigger the market as well as separating out the commercial from the residential. Mr. Booth stated even though the other project worked, we feel it s a better project to separate out that commercial from the residential. Ms. Matias asked if they are still two-story buildings. Mr. Lansing stated yes. Mr. DiPasquale asked if the exterior architecture different. Mr. Booth stated it is different, it s a different style building it s quite attractive with a lot of peaks and gables with a lot of exterior appeal. Ms. Serra stated at the next submission, could the applicant provide renderings to the Board for their review. Ms. Serra stated this proposal maxes out your allowable density on this lot. Mr. Booth stated yes, that is correct.

16 Page 16 of 17 Chairman VanVorst stated there are a couple of questions on the EAF that were not answered on page 3, D.1. Proposed and Potential Development 3 d. Is the proposed action a subdivision, or does it include a subdivision? ii. Is a cluster/conservation layout proposed? Chairman VanVorst stated the answer is not given. Mr. Lansing stated the answer is no. e. Will proposed action be constructed in multiple phases? Generally describe connections or relationships among phases, including any contingencies where progress of one phase may determine timing or duration of future phases: Chairman VanVorst stated there is nothing listed there (no narrative). Mr. DiPasquale stated its 30-lots and the Board would be approving a new project. Ms. Serra stated the actual lots that are created are part of Pasture Place, which has been sold off to a different owner that is currently under construction. Ms. Serra said, You are only amending the lands that New York Development currently owns and have sold off Pasture Place, which was that subdivision and to make sure that is clarified. Mr. Booth stated it was just to show the Board the scope of the original project that was approved and the only changes are relative to the commercial and the residential. Mr. Lansing stated as far as the project, are not proposing a subdivision; it is a consolidation of the two lots Lots 1 &2. Ms. Serra stated overall this is a 30-lot subdivision for the whole TND. Ms. Marruso stated the SEQRA findings at the time of approval would be consistent with those of originally accompany the project; especially for minimizing impacts of impervious surface. Mr. Chauvin stated the Board could do a reaffirmation of the SEQRA findings from the original with a note that there is decrease in the environmental impacts, increasing the green space and still maintaining the storm water onsite.

17 Page 17 of 17 Chairman VanVorst asked Mr. Chauvin if that was his recommendation. Mr. Chauvin stated it can be done either way, but a simple fix is a reaffirmation, but if the Board would be more comfortable going to the long form EAF again, given the change, then there is nothing wrong with looking at it. Ms. Serra stated she can agree with Mr. Chauvin just knowing the history of this particular part of the Kelley Farms project that it is a change in the Site Plan better for the environmental impacts. Chairman VanVorst opened the public hearing at 8:32 p.m. No one wished to speak. Chairman VanVorst closed the public hearing at 8:33 p.m. Ms. Serra stated she believes what the applicants submitted from an engineering standpoint is at a concept level and will still need to provide engineering plans. Chairman VanVorst asked the Board how they feel about SEQRA. Mr. Maher agrees with Mr. Chauvin of a reaffirmation. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion to reaffirm the Negative Declaration of significance for this project that was approved previously subject to check the minutes by the Building Department. Ms. Serra stated there was a full EAF. Ms. Rodgers seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. MOTION: Mr. Maher made a motion to adjourn the meeting. Mr. Shorey seconded the motion and all present voted in favor. CARRIED. Meeting adjourned at 8:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Michelle L Dingman Secretary