7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, NY 13027
February 2007 Plaaning Board
February 5, 2007
The Regular Meeting of the Planning Board of the Town of Van Buren, held at the Town Building, 7575 Van Buren Road, Baldwinsville, New York, was called to order at 7:00 pm.
Those present joined in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
Roll Call: Harold Crandon present
James Virginia present
James Ruddock present
Eric Knapp present
Fred Thomas present
Mary Frances Sabin present
Anthony Geiss, Chairman present
Also present: Brad Hunt, Attorney
James Billings, Engineer
Dave Pringle, Codes Enforcement Officer
Vera Cavallaro, Planning Board Secretary
MINUTES:
Ms. Sabin made corrections to a few typos found throughout the minutes.
Motion Mr. Crandon made a motion to accept the January minutes as amended. Ms. Sabin seconded the motion, there was no further discussion; motion carried, unanimously on a roll call vote that follows:
Mr. Thomas yes
Mr. Knapp yes
Mr. Crandon yes
Mr. Ruddock yes
Ms. Sabin yes
Mr. Geiss, Chairman yes
KASSIS SUPERIOR SIGNS (Representing Meyer's Properties)
7030 Interstate Island Rd. Tax Map ID# 056-03-01.1 IND-A Zoning District
Mr. Jim Williams was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss said that this was held over last month due to the ZBA and they have obtained their variance from the ZBA for the sign and that was what the Board was waiting for.
Mr. Pringle said that County doesn't comment on variances for signs.
Mr. Geiss asked if anyone had any questions concerning the sign and that this application has been before the Board several times before. This application is for a free standing sign and it is on the back corner of the property along the Thruway and the size of the sign is 10' x 20' and the overall height is 40 feet.
Mr. Williams said that the other questions that arose with the ZBA were the setback and they have a 70ft side yard setback and a 40ft front yard setback from the Thruway right of way.
Mr. Geiss asked if that is where the sign is located.
Mr. Williams said yes, the ZBA was concerned that if the sign ever fell over would it fall on someone else's property.
Motion #07-17 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion concerning the Meyer's Campers sign which is to be located in the back corner of the property. The overall sign has received approval from the Thruway Authority. The sign is 10 foot by 20 foot and there is no adverse environmental impact with regard to this proposal. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
The Board and the applicant had a discussion about the previous mishaps with the size of the sign that was in the applicant's application.
Motion #07-18 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to approve the free standing sign proposed for Meyer's Campers at 7030 Interstate Island Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 056-03-01.1 in an Industrial A zoning district. This sign which is to be the colors as submitted by the applicant and is a 10' x 20' sign with an overall height of 40ft off of the ground and is to be located in the back corner of the property approximately 70ft off of the side yard property line and 40ft off of the back yard property line. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board has two public hearings this evening which are Sun Meadows final plat Section Two and modification to Section One. He asked the audience if there was anyone here for that because the Board is waiting for the engineer to arrive for that presentation and second is Cannata Meadows and he asked if there was anyone in the audience for that application.
Mr. Geiss opened the public hearing for Cannata Meadows subdivision.
Motion #07-19 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to waive the full reading of the Public Notice. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Geiss informed the audience of how the Public Hearing was going to be conducted.
Mr. Hal Romans (surveyor for the applicant) was present to address the Board.
Mr. Romans said that this is a proposed subdivision of 55.506 acres that is on the west side of Route 48 just south of where O'Brien Rd. comes in and intersects it on the north. It involves three tax parcels; the first one is 64-01-27 which is owned by Ermina Ortlieb; 54-01-33.1 which is the big parcel in the back that is comprised of PUD residential in the back and PUD Commercial in the front and 64-01-33.2 which is the existing Cannata Auto facility. The intent is to make four lots. Lot One would be an increased size of the existing tax parcel and it goes from approximately 3.33 acres to 5.45 acres by adding this 107ft strip and the existing parcel.
Mr. Romans said that there is a zone change line between the PUD Commercial and the PUD Residential which is being retained as a buffer for the car care facility. Lot Two would be a new PUD Commercial lot which he pointed out on the map that is 6 acres. Lot Three would be Residential and the original tax map parcel was 50.85 acres and it is going down to 43.04 because that included the parcel out front. Lot four is the Ortlieb parcel and the original tax map parcel for them was 1.33 acres and the new lot would be 1.02 acres. The lot up front is currently zoned local business and that lot does conform to the zoning.
Mr. Romans said that the intent for lot 6 is that it is going to be sold and developed and lot 3 at this time will remain undeveloped and lot 4 is being created because the original tax parcel came out over into here. There was a 20ft strip that was part of lot 3 and they are giving the 20ft strip to the Ortlieb's and picking up the 60ft strip in order to have a road access if lot 3 ever gets developed as a residential project.
Mr. Romans stated that the New York State DOT has seen this plan with the 60ft access strip and with a proposed driveway for lot 2 at the north end of its boundary and the proposed drive way location is shown on the map per the NYS DOT. At the last Board meeting they went through it and County DOT has said that there can't be a road access for lot 3 until such time as the speed limit reduction is given and he believes that the Town has asked the County to make that petition to the State. The State controls the speed limit there; right now it is not posted and when it is not posted it means it is 55mph. They have provided a letter from County DOT that states that the speed limit should go down to at least 40mph.
Mr. Romans said that any development on lot 2 would be subject to a site plan and at that time they would come in with the proposed drainage area that they have to mitigate for the Speedy's Permit from NYS DOT. There are wetlands that are shown which were flagged and they picked them up and showed the wetlands. There is drainage that comes through the property and they are showing a 30ft drainage easement going through it and a 30ft drainage easement going through the other portion. The facility has an existing access easement for ingress and egress through the existing parcel so there will be no new access point. The only new access point will be when lot 2 comes in for access. Lot 3 will remain undeveloped at this time.
Mr. Thomas asked Mr. Billings if most of the Town's drainage easements are 40ft.
Mr. Billings said that most are 20ft but 30ft was requested on this one.
Mr. Geiss opened up the meeting for comments from the public and asked anyone who wished to speak to come up to the microphone and tell the Board their name and address.
Mr. McKeen of 7414 O'Brien Rd was present to address the Board. He stated that he is surrounded by three sides of the proposed property and his concern is that he believes the map is incomplete.
Mr. McKeen said that Mr. Romans stated that the speed limit is not posted but the sheriff's department will give out tickets on O'Brien Rd. for doing 40mph. It is considered residential and it is a 30mph zone and from his drive way up it is a 15mph zone. He showed the Board on the map the location of his property and where the school is located and stated that the Sheriff's department will give people tickets for doing 40mph and that according to the Sheriff's department it doesn't have to be posted.
Mr. McKeen said that his main concern is the water drainage which he showed the Board on the map and it is currently not cleaned; the Town of Van Buren used to clean it out for Village Green water drain off and McNamara School and the Town Board has pictures of how bad water runs down this hill on both sides of O'Brien Rd. Currently the lot is pretty much flat land and for the last three years it has been under water and half of his property is under water from the property not draining. In the past when the Town Board has cleaned out the ditch the golf course got flooded out and before this property gets developed someone should have to take long term responsibility for water drainage.
Mr. McKeen said that the Town has not taken care of Village Green. The whole side is plugged up and the other side is all filled in and is not draining and he is getting flooded out from the water coming from both the School and the Hillview Baptist Church next to him.
Mr. McKeen stated that there is a big hill right in this area and he is in the flat land and the house next to him who are new owners do not know that if there should be a flash flood they are going to be under water. He has been trying to get a hold of his neighbors to advise them of that. The people across the street are getting flooded in Village Green when there are flash floods, the water goes right up to there doorsteps on the back side where the creek goes through. So far no one has taken any responsibility with cleaning this ditch out and most of that land for the last three years has been under water and no one can walk in it and it is about half way into his property now. This is the only chance he has of making it mandatory that someone takes responsibility to get this cleaned from O'Brien Rd. to State Fair Blvd in regards to the
golf course because he knows what happens when it gets cleaned out the golf course gets flooded and no one can play golf on there. That has happened many of times when they first did this clean out when they did Village Green's last three phases. The last three or four times the Town of Van Buren had the right through the Van Ness people but since the property got sold they do not have the right to clean the ditch out anymore so it goes back to the owners.
Mr. McKeen asked when they develop all of this property who is going to take care of all of the mess. Since it is pretty much flat land it is really slow moving and that has to be addressed before the Board does anything here. The area that is the biggest concern is not even on the map so before they go dividing this up he would like to see some major effort being done to dry this property up and keep it dry.
Mr. McKeen said that Onondaga County has come through and put an asphalt ditch on his side of the road because the road is so fierce that the water comes down so much that when it hits here it will fill the ditch. They have stopped and asked him why he has a thirty inch culvert underneath his drive way and he has told them it is because the water fills it up that high and it does that at least twice a year so this part here is his main concern and as the Board can see he is surrounded on all three times and he is getting wet from all three sides. Nothing has been taken care of on either fence line since they posted the property up. Something needs to be done about the water and that is the water that comes from Village Green, up top because that no longer comes from the swamp because the piping has been redirected to come to the other side of
the lake. Across from the school people have filled in the ditch so the water is compromised up top even more because it runs up to the school property and then comes across the road. They just have a small area of wetland and this is all wet and it has been for over three years. When he first moved here it was nice and firm land that someone could actually walk on and now it can't be walked on at all.
Mr. Geiss thanked Mr. McKeen for coming in and asked if there were any other comments concerning this proposal.
Mr. Pringle said that he spoke with Mrs. Ortlieb today and she is up in Camden, NY stuck in the weather and could not be here tonight but she is requesting that the Board not take any action until next month because she would like time to review the paperwork.
Mr. Geiss said that he also has a letter which has no date on it from a Patricia Burke at 310 Snowdale Dr. regarding the subdivision. The letter says that she has received notification of pending action in regards to the proposed subdivision request for Commercial development which would back up to her property and because she is disabled and can not attend the February 5th meeting she is writing this letter to oppose the proposed action. She hopes that the Board will take this into consideration when taking action on this matter. Again that was from Patricia Burke.
Mr. Crandon asked where that is located.
Mr. Geiss said that Snowdale would be way up on top and the property in question was pointed out on the applicant's map.
Mr. Geiss asked if there were any other comments concerning this.
Motion #07-20 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Ruddock. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously
Mr. Geiss opened the regular session.
CANNATA MEADOWS - SUBDIVISION
State Fair Blvd. Tax Map Parcel Id# 064-01-33.1
Mr. Hal Romans was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss said that concerning Patricia Burke nothing is being done on the property that backs up to Snowdale; that is still residential and the action that the Board is taking here doesn't change that zone and there is no proposal for development back there.
Mr. Geiss told Mr. McKeen that he wasn't aware of the drainage and the Board needs to look into that a little further and that the Board is concerned about the drainage coming through the property that is being subdivided out and the Board can look at what the drainage ways through lot number three are.
Mr. Billings said that he doesn't believe that there is an easement in the Town's name across lot 3 so the Town has no legal ability to go in and make improvements and if the Town has done that in the past he doesn't know.
Mr. McKeen said that they used to and then the property was sold.
Mr. Billings said that the easement goes with the property.
Mr. McKeen said that when the Van Ness people owned the property it was good.
Mr. Billings said that he doesn't know if it is in the Town's name.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board can look at extending that easement across.
Mr. Billings said that the easement that is being proposed for lot 2 will be an easement for drainage that will be in the Town's name and whoever does something with that property which the Board will be talking about further tonight is going to have to address the drainage issue. The drainage on the new lot, lot two is going to be addressed by site plan. The drainage across lot three he doesn't know if the Town has the ability and the drainage along O'Brien Rd. is a County road so again the Town has no ability to do anything with a County road.
Mr. Geiss said that Mr. McKeen mentioned that water from the rectory flows over O'Brien Rd. and on to the school and on to their side.
Mr. McKeen said not the catholic church; Hillview Baptist Church is right next door to him and they are up higher than he is and the school got redesigned over the last two years and they have put more water outlets on the back side of their property and now it runs down the hill across the flat of the parking lot and is taking the parking lot stone and filling in the ditch and going all the way down to the stream.
Mr. McKeen and the Board discussed exactly where his property is located.
Mr. Geiss asked if there was a drainage district over in that area.
Mr. Billings said that there is a drainage district but the easements are not in the Town's name so there is nothing the Town can do about it. When lot 3 is developed if it is developed whoever develops that property will have to take into account drainage and make whatever improvements are necessary. The lots are in a drainage district but he doesn't think the Town has any mechanisms physically to improve this unless that easement is in the Town's name and he is not sure of that.
The Board discussed having an easement placed in the Town's name but decided against it since it is unknown what will be developed on the lot.
Mr. Geiss said that with regard to this the Board has heard the comment from Mr. Pringle that Mrs. Ortlieb isn't available; the Cannata's were going to get a letter from the Ortlieb's. He asked Mr. Romans if he had anything like that.
Mr. Romans said that he does not and he assumed that the Cannata's were bringing that in.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board can ask questions but the Board is going to have to hold off until the next meeting to make any decisions.
Mr. Thomas said that he agrees with what Mr. McKeen said about the golf course that there needs to be consideration taken down stream because over the years they have been flooded out down there so as this gets developed there is going to be more and more water showing up.
Mr. Geiss said that they are going need drainage basins.
Mr. Billings said that even if there is a problem at Route 48 which there may very well be that is something that the State needs to address because it is their ditch system.
Mr. McKeen said that it comes from the property; right now the big lot is holding all of the water but it is not supposed to.
Mr. Billings said that he understands that but that is private property and unless the Town has an easement through there, there is nothing the Town can do.
Mr. McKeen said that they shouldn't let this go forward until that gets cleaned out.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board is not going to let the big property get developed.
Mr. McKeen said or the small ones because one goes with the other. They should straighten up that small end on Route 48 because on the big part the property owners aren't taking care of it. It should be taken care of all at one time regardless so that all the drainage is done before they go and develop it.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board can't because there is no proposal for the development of the large parcel at this time and if the Board touches that parcel or if the applicant does the Board doesn't know what they will do; the Town is not going in there to do it because there is no proposed development.
Mr. McKeen asked what his recourse is for being flooded out.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board is going to look at that as well; the Board is not making a decision tonight but the Board is going to look at this further. The Board does recognize that water flows though lot 2 and that there are drainage easements there so when development occurs first of all that no development is on those easements or on the wetlands in those areas and that if anything else needs to be done in those areas and if any developments happen on lot three that would be taken care of at that time but nothing is happening in lot three at this time.
Mr. Billings asked Mr. McKeen if he has made this known to the supervisor at this time.
Mr. McKeen said that he has made this known to everyone in the Town of Van Buren since they went through the last phase of Village Green across the street from him. At one time there was supposed to be a holding pond across the street and he was stranded in a storm up in the Adirondacks and he missed the meeting and now there is a house where the pond is supposed to be to control water from Village Green. He said that he has all sorts of complaints for over three years with Village Green.
The Board and Mr. McKeen had a discussion over which phase of Village Green was being referred to.
Mr. Billings said that there was no district in place when that was built years ago but now there is a mechanism in place for drainage improvements but Mr. McKeen should make this known to the supervisor that there is a problem here.
Mr. McKeen said that the supervisor has been told and nothing has been happening.
Mr. Billings said that the Town doesn't have the ability to do anything because it is private property.
Mr. McKeen said the Town used to but they don't now.
Mr. Geiss said that he doesn't know if the Town ever had the ability but they might have gone in there and regarding speed limit that was raised the applicant has a letter from the Department of Transportation stating that they require a speed zone of 40mph and to do appropriate planning it has to be down to 40mph or lower; now they were recognizing that as a speed limit of 55mph and this is from the County DOT. It is an un-posted road. The school has a speed limit during school hours but the rest of it is 55mph because it is un-posted. The Board is interested in lowering the speed limit and in order for the applicant to get a driveway permit which the Board requires they have to request that the speed limit be lowered.
Mr. Geiss asked if there were any other questions.
Motion #07-21 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to table any decisions concerning Cannata Meadows until the Board's next meeting. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously
Mr. Geiss said that the Board will be discussing this at the next meeting and the Board needs word on the speed limit.
Mr. Pringle said that the application in front of the Board doesn't require the speed limit to be changed.
Mr. Geiss told the applicant that they need to look at drainage and discuss that and the Board needs something from Ortlieb without question in writing. No action will be taken unless the Board sees something in writing.
Ms. Sabin asked Mr. Geiss if the applicant can verify the easement or if there is an easement on lot 3.
Mr. Romans said that he didn't see any on the abstract.
Mr. Geiss said that he doesn't think the Board has ever seen one and prior to the Cannata's buying the property he understood that land would be forever wild and no one would develop it before Cannata bought it and the prior owners were not going to sell it to anyone because they wanted to keep it wild but they ended up selling it which surprised him. He knows other people who have tried to buy it and the prior owners were unwilling to sell it.
Mr. McKeen said that he wanted to buy a little piece of it and they wouldn't sell it. He said that they used to come on his property all the time, the sisters, when the field was walkable. They used to park in his driveway and go walk the fields and they said that they would keep it forever wild.
Mr. Geiss thanked Mr. McKeen for coming in.
Mr. Geiss opened the public hearing for Sun Meadows.
SUBDIVISION - SUN MEADOWS - SECTION 2 & MOD. OF SECTION 1
Downer St and Rt. 690 Tax Map Parcel ID # 33-05-01 and 33-05-15
Motion #07-22 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to waive the full reading of the Public Notice. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Geiss explained the way the public hearing was going to be conducted.
Mr. Jason Kantak was present to address the Board.
Mr. Kantak said that they are coming in for the next section of Sun Meadows Section Two which is a continuation of Sun Meadows Way and Cross Country Drive the original loop.
The Board and the applicant had a discussion about the date of the map that the applicant was presenting.
Mr. Kantak said that this is a continuation for Section Two final plat approval; the preliminary approval for the whole project was completed several years ago. Their design is no different from the original preliminary plat approval; two roads, drainage infrastructure and sewers connecting into what has already been built, storm water management area in a central location and that really concludes the engineering related items. The survey related items are the reason why they came in and also modification for Section One because there was a discrepancy on Section One which was the bearing and distance for a line that goes along Route 690. That is the reason why Section One was adjusted and will be re-filed accordingly.
Mr. Geiss asked if there were some adjustments in lots in Section One.
Mr. Kantak said that on Section One during the discussion the original layout they had lost three lots in Section Two and adjusted the lot line accordingly between Section One and Section Two to make lots 25, 101, 43, and 10 bigger and wider so they could accommodate the bigger houses.
Mr. Geiss asked if anyone had any comments concerning this proposal.
No one spoke.
Mr. Geiss asked again if anyone had any comments concerning this proposal.
Motion #07-23 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to close the Public Hearing. Ms. Sabin moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Geiss stated that the applicant does not have final approval from the Town because they still have to set the bond.
Mr. Kantak said that there were two things at the conclusion of the last meeting. The first was the County referral and the second was a security amount was set with a combination between the applicant, Pooler, and Barton and Loguidice and that was set at the Town Board meeting.
Mr. Geiss read the County comments aloud.
Mr. Geiss said that two items have come to mind; the modification that the County recommended about the storm water management area.
Mr. Billings said that there is a district in place.
Mr. Geiss said since that is covered then the other item is County's assumption that Sun Meadows and Walgreen's have an agreement. He asked if that was true.
Mr. Kantak said that he has spoken with Pooler on that regard and they have discussed this issue with Walgreen's and his understanding is that they have been working mutually since day one with the County DOT on that according to that letter. He said that he doesn't know where that has gone from there but he does understand that Walgreen's, DOT, and Pooler have all discussed this with County DOT. There are going to be subsequent sections further to come so this isn't the last of the project.
Mr. Geiss said that the future sections are going to impact the Village on Meigs Rd.
Mr. Kantak said yes, that will be in Section Three because there is a connection there.
Mr. Geiss said that the Town has not moved this forward yet so the Board needs to condition the approval for the final plat on the fact that they satisfy the Town Board and the Town attorney with their requirements for bonding and other things.
Mr. Billings said that the Town Board did set the bond at the last meeting.
Mr. Geiss said that the Town Board didn't do a final approval.
Mr. Billings said that he believes the Town Board conditioned it on the Planning Board's approval and he read the Town Board minutes aloud and said that it is a bond issue.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board should just condition it on the Town attorney's approval of the bond.
Mr. Billings said that the amount was set and approved by the Town.
Mr. Geiss said that the traffic light was the other issue; he doesn't know where Walgreen's has gotten with the County DOT one of the things that he is looking at with this traffic light is that the Board approve this and some portion of this can be built but the rest of it will not go forward until the traffic light goes in. The Board could approve the subdivision of Section Two but the traffic light has to move forward however the Board wants. The Board could say 50 percent of Section Two could be developed; not drawing a line but 50 percent of the lots of which there is 35 lots.
Mr. Billings said just to refresh the Board's memory originally when the Sun Meadows development was approved it was given preliminary approval for the entire site and at which time a traffic study was performed by the applicant and it was deemed that a light was not required then the Board moved forward with the Walgreen's project and that project triggered the need for a traffic signal and their approval is conditioned upon the traffic signal.
Mr. Geiss said very much so.
Mr. Billings said that at the time that the Sun Meadows project was originally approved there was some discussion or an offer he guesses was made by the developer that they would participate if a signal was needed so he guesses there are some back door discussions going on between the two but officially Walgreen's is responsible for the light, he just wanted to point that out. On the record Walgreen's is responsible for the light.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board hasn't conditioned any approvals other than Walgreen's and the Planning Board put that condition in; the Board is doing an approval here and he would like to know what the favor of the Board is; does the Board want to put a condition here is what he is posing as a question. He understands what Mr. Billings has said that the Board had not done anything there but conditions have changed does the Board wants to put anything in the motion.
Mr. Virginia said that no one spoke at the public hearing so he thinks that in itself says to him that traffic isn't of a big concern and the Board has gone ahead and on the record has stated that Walgreen's is responsible for that traffic light and he doesn't see how this Board should make this developer responsible for that traffic light. If they want to agree to that outside of what the Board does here by all means go ahead but he would think if people would have stepped up here and said that they can't turn left to get on to Route 690 in the morning he would be more inclined to tie a stipulation to this approval.
Mr. Geiss said that there is a lot involved here and it goes all the way back to McDonald's moving across the street and at that time there was discussion which Mr. Pringle reminded him of and he also has the paperwork that he hasn't had a chance to read yet but McDonald's loses its entrance on Downer St. and they must get an entrance on Sun Meadows Way.
Mr. Geiss said that he brought this up to get Mr. Virginia up to speed and for everyone's information so the Board could discuss this; there was traffic control and the Board was greatly concerned when Hess came in, in fact the Board was greatly surprised that County didn't ask for anything when Hess came through.
Mr. Pringle said County's claim was that gas stations do not generate that much traffic.
Mr. Crandon said that Hess actually helped the situation more than it hurt it surprisingly.
Mr. Pringle said he thinks everyone that lives in Sun Meadows has been in his office or has called complaining about that intersection and three or four of them have been involved in accidents down there and he thinks that they are not here tonight because they didn't realize tonight was an opportunity for them to speak.
Mr. Geiss said that the Board has had these complaints of the accidents on the corners.
Mr. Virginia said that he doesn't disagree; he travels down there quite a bit and to turn left to take the back way through the village is problematic and a lot of times he just continues down Downer St. because he can't get left.
The Board discussed other business's that are currently on Downer St. and County's reaction to a signal light in each of the proposals.
Mr. Virginia asked how much of Section One was built out right now.
Mr. Kantak said 75 percent.
Mr. Virginia asked how many houses are up in Section Two right now.
Mr. Kantak said about 50 percent.
Mr. Crandon asked how many lots are in Section One.
Mr. Kantak said 36.
Ms. Sabin asked how many lots are proposed for Section 3.
Mr. Kantak said at this time he is not sure but he believes the whole project is around 120 total; when they went through the clarifications on the setbacks and also revising the lots based on the models that Ryan homes has up there.
Mr. Billings said that Mr. Kantak wasn't the engineer at the time and Pooler has preliminary plot approval for the entire site so if there are any significant changes to section three it is going to have to come back in front of the Board.
Mr. Crandon said that the discussion here is does the Board want to put a restriction on Sun Meadows in regards to the traffic light.
Mr. Billings asked if Mr. Price was aware of the Board's concerns.
Mr. Kantak said that he has talked to him about it.
Mr. Billings asked if Mr. Price has shown a willingness to participate.
Mr. Kantak said that he can't speak for Mr. Price but it is his understanding that they have talked about it although they haven't agreed to anything.
Mr. Kantak and Mr. Billings discussed the punch list that needs to be completed.
Ms. Sabin said wasn't there some sort of discussion about it being shared between Onondaga County, Sun Meadows, McDonald's, and Walgreen's for the traffic light.
Mr. Crandon said that there was discussion but no motions were passed.
Mr. Billings said that the County never offered to pay for it, to his understanding they have never been willing to pay for it. It is from a large degree developer driven and if it wasn't for all the development going on there wouldn't be a need for a light.
Mr. Geiss read a paragraph out of a letter dated in 2000 from Onondaga County DOT about the McDonald's driveway being removed if the County should pay for and put in a signal light. The County is saying what McDonald's needs to do but not that the County would do it.
Mr. Billings said that there is some reference to the discussion that he recalls during the Sun Meadows project; there was a similar discussion.
Mr. Crandon said that he would like to see the language in the conditions that the Board set in Walgreen's approval before the Board moves a motion with Sun Meadows.
Mr. Geiss said a summary of the conditions was that Walgreen's is responsible for getting the design done for the facility and that they could not get a CO until everything was constructed. They could not occupy or open until the facility was constructed.
Mr. Pringle said that the also can not get a building permit until the funding has been approved and no certificate of occupancy until the light was completed.
The Board discussed the Walgreen's conditional approval.
Mr. Crandon said that if the board reopens that door relative to Sun Meadows is the Board somewhat relieving Walgreen's of the condition that was placed on them.
Mr. Geiss said that he has seen correspondence from Walgreen's attorney's in asking about how this was going to happen and basically he reiterated the Board's stance that they desired to proceed and the Board told them that it hadn't been a resolved item and therefore they are responsible for getting it done and Walgreen's agreed to that.
Mr. Crandon said that their representative agreed to that.
Mr. Geiss said that is right; they wanted it that evening and the Board told them that there would be conditions if the Board approved it that evening and they said that they would take the conditions.
Mr. Billings said that B&L has the designs for the signal and they are reviewing them as is Onondaga County so there has been progress made along the line of design but funding is a separate issue and he doesn't know what is happening as far as funding; it sounds like there has been some back door discussions.
Mr. Geiss said that there has been some back door discussions but no meetings because at the time that he saw the passed emails there was no design, no cost, no nothing and he commented back to Walgreen's engineer that nothing was going to move until they say what the cost is; what it's going to involve and what is the cost going to be and that they need to get that much before they can go to the table because they are asking the Town to get involved and he told them that there is nothing for the Town to do.
Mr. Billings said that the Board has given them conditions on their approval and it is entirely in Walgreen's hands for the signal and who they get to fund it is a separate issue.
Mr. Crandon said that if the Board reopens the door and makes a condition on Pooler now he is afraid that the Board is opening Pandora's Box. He thinks the pressure is on and it should be left there.
Mr. Geiss said that is why the Board is discussing it and because he wanted to bring Mr. Virginia up to date.
Mr. Virginia said that a traffic study for Walgreen's triggered the light and the only other thing that he is going to say is there has been no traffic study with Section Two.
Mr. Geiss told Mr. Virginia that there has been a traffic study done for all of Sun Meadows.
Mr. Virginia said that nothing triggered it at that point.
Mr. Billings said that the County stated that they would review it.
Mr. Virginia said that if the Board goes back an attaches a stipulation the Board in a sense is making their own traffic study but he does agree that a light is needed there but he doesn't think it is appropriate to attach that to Sun Meadows.
Mr. Geiss and the Board discussed park fees.
Mr. Geiss asked if there were any other comments.
Motion #07-24 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion with regard to SEQR which the Board has already taken lead agency concerning this project. This is for the final plat submittal Section Two and the modification for Section One; this has been before the Board as a overall project and SEQR has been done for the preliminary plat and the reason for looking at this again is because some lots were dropped out of Section Two and some lines were modified in Section One and some lot lines changed slightly in One with what was going on in Section Two. There is no significant adverse environmental impact with regard to this action. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Motion #07-25 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to approve the subdivision for the final plat for Sun Meadows Section Two and for the modification of Section One as shown on the applicants map entitled "Final Plat Sun Meadows Section Two" dated 12/21/06. Conditions of this approval are that the applicant submits the park fee which is $350.00 per lot times 35 lots to the Town and that they meet the requirements concerning submitting their letter of credit that is approvable by the Town attorney and concerning the County comments on drainage that a drainage district has been formed and will be the one to do the operation and maintenance of the drainage facility. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Ruddock. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Billings said that is should be noted that the developer instead of constructing the infrastructure has chosen to provide a letter of credit.
Motion #07-26 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain the following motion:
WHEREAS Town Code Section 175-5 (C) establishes the criteria for the reservation of parkland on residential subdivision plats or the imposition of a sum of money in lieu thereof; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of such a provision is to prevent deterioration in the quality of park and recreational services to residents in the Town of Van Buren as a result of a new residential development; and
WHEREAS, based on the present and anticipated future needs for park and recreational facilities in the Town relative to the projected population growth in the Town to which the Sun Meadows Section Two subdivision will contribute, a proper case exists for requiring that a park or parks be suitably located for playground or other recreational purposes within the Town; and
WHEREAS, a suitable park or parks of adequate size to meet the Town's requirements can not be properly located within the Sun Meadows subdivision, nor is there a need for such additional facilities in the immediate neighborhood,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a proper case exists regarding the Sun Meadows Subdivision development for requiring the developer pay a park fee of $350 per lot. Mr. Crandon moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
DAVID & LAURIE CLIFTON - SUBDIVISION
6721 State Route 31 Tax Map Parcel Id# 047-01-13.1
Mr. David Clifton was present to address the Board.
Mr. Clifton said that there was a question with the wetland boundaries so they have been delineated on the drawing which was recommended by the County.
Mr. Geiss asked if any lot lines have been changed.
Mr. Clifton said yes.
Mr. Geiss said that the applicant originally had lot number 2's lot line at 220 feet and it has now been reduced to 200ft. at the building line. The applicant also has a permit from the State highway for a driveway cut.
Mr. Clifton said that he also has an approved septic system which was approved by the County.
Mr. Geiss asked if anyone had any questions.
Mr. Crandon and the Board had a discussion on the building line on the current and proposed lot.
Motion #07-27 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion with regard to SEQR concerning the subdivision for 6721 State Route 31 Tax Map Parcel Id# 047-01-13.1. This is the subdivision of 12.7 acres into lot number one of 6.2 acres and lot two of 6.5 acres. The applicant has subdivided so that it meets the requirements of the Town and there is no adverse environmental impact with regard to this subdivision. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Motion#07-28 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain the following motion:
WHEREAS Town Code Section 175-5 (C) establishes the criteria for the reservation of parkland on residential subdivision plats or the imposition of a sum of money in lieu thereof; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of such a provision is to prevent deterioration in the quality of park and recreational services to residents in the Town of Van Buren as a result of a new residential development; and
WHEREAS, based on the present and anticipated future needs for park and recreational facilities in the Town relative to the projected population growth in the Town to which the Clifton subdivision will contribute, a proper case exists for requiring that a park or parks be suitably located for playground or other recreational purposes within the Town; and
WHEREAS, a suitable park or parks of adequate size to meet the Town's requirements can not be properly located within the Clifton subdivision, nor is there a need for such additional facilities in the immediate neighborhood,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that a proper case exists regarding the Clifton Subdivision development for requiring the developer pay a park fee of $150 per lot. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Ruddock. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Motion #07-29 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to approve the subdivision for 6721 State Route 31 Tax Map Parcel Id# 047-01-13.1. This is the subdivision of 12.7 acres into lot number one of 6.2 acres and lot two of 6.5 acres as shown on the applicant's subdivision plan entitled "Clifton Subdivision" dated 11/06/06 with latest revision dated 12/26/06. It should be noted that County Planning had comments that lot number two lacked sight distance for road access and the applicant has obtained a highway permit to comply with that and also that the wetlands boundaries and 100ft buffers show and these are shown on the map submitted by the applicant. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Ms. Sabin. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
ARROW SPACE - SITE PLAN
Route 31 and West Sorrell Hill Rd. Tax Map Parcel Id # 033-03-15
Mr. Joseph Mastroianni was present to address the Board.
Mr. Geiss asked if this was a new proposal on this project.
Mr. Mastroianni said that was correct and that the applicant was before the Board previously in 2006 for this parcel of land that is located at the intersection of Rote 31 and W. Sorrell Hill Rd. Due to the change in the complexity of the project with the uses and everything else they have retracted that application and are now presenting a brand new application to the Board. Similar to before they are looking to put an access drive up the side of the property which will lead in to a public storage facility. There will be six buildings for storage including one office. As previously proposed they will be fenced in with either black chain link fence or decorative wrought iron. It will allow for 24/7 hour access except for a small portion which would be secure access of 8 to 5. The portion that was going to be an Arrow fence facility is just
going to be kept in reserve for the future but there is nothing planned for it at this time. The area has increased in depth somewhat but the front portion is going to be left alone and they are not going back quite as much as before. Since that time they have received their driveway permit from the DOT and there was a traffic study done through Napoleon and they reviewed the project in its entirety and they have been informed that they are going to be receiving a smaller build out. They also had the Archeological done previously on the area and there was nothing found of any significance which has been presented to the Town already and they are in the process of having the lighting simulation completed; each of the buildings will have lighting around it. They have not put the lighting on the plan pending the decision by the lighting supplier as to what they should put up.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they are required to have eight parking spaces total and they are showing a few more than that. Paving will be the entrance road and though the back part for now and the fence will go down and meet with the DOT fence and go over.
Mr. Geiss asked what the reason was for the fence going so far back.
Mr. Mastroianni said for the detention pond, safety and things like that.
Mr. Geiss said that area is not going to be gravel or parking.
Mr. Mastroianni said right and also to back track in the last proposal that was made they were talking to DOT about replacing the fence and that is also still being looked at by the DOT so they might be replacing the DOT fence with something newer and better.
Mr. Geiss asked what the landscaping and other things that are being proposed are.
Mr. Mastroianni said that on sheet P3 they are showing landscaping or a screen along the drive and the access on the west side of the property which will be blue spruce, pine, ornamental pairs, shrubs, and things like that.
Mr. Geiss asked if they were going to put anything along W. Sorrell Hill Rd.
Mr. Mastroianni said not at this time but they can add something if the Board requires it.
Mr. Geiss said that they are going to need something along there since it will be visible.
Mr. Billings said that the applicant is showing gravel all the way to the fence.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they are going to go from gravel going into a transition and then the just into regular earth back there for the pond.
Mr. Geiss said it is not going to be gravel.
Mr. Mastroianni said no and he will mark that on the map.
Mr. Geiss said that a packet has already been sent down to County but the Board would like the gravel delineated on the drawing.
Mr. Virginia asked if they were going to build basin number two even if they don't do anything with the front.
Mr. Mastroianni said yes they are just going to take their original drainage calculations and tweak them a little bit and it is going to be down sized from what they had before.
The Board had a discussion about B&L reviewing the drainage calculations.
Mr. Billings said that they are going to need the new calculations and the 24 inch pipe under Downer St. needs to be checked for capacity, they should check with the DOT and see if there is any trouble there since he has been told that there is and he doesn't know if it needs to be cleaned out or if the width isn't enough.
Mr. Mastroianni said that he will bring it back to their attention.
Mr. Billings said that they have a 30ft drop from one end to the other. They have a 450 contour up in the corner and then 420 down at the other corner.
Mr. Billings and Mr. Mastroianni had a discussion about the contours.
Mr. Geiss said that they have a drainage basin that drains out into the road.
Mr. Billings said that it goes to the existing concrete line ditch along the road and pre versus post they should be ok; his concern is the water going through that pipe.
The Board had a discussion about the existing and proposed drainage.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they know they are going to be exceeding the limit on signage so they are going to hold that for a separate application.
Mr. Billings asked about the parking spaces.
Mr. Mastroianni said that was based on the office only.
Mr. Billings asked about visitors.
Mr. Mastroianni said that there should be no problem.
Mr. Ruddock asked about the signage.
Mr. Mastroianni said that the signage that they are looking at right now is going to exceed what is allowed therefore they are going to bring that in as a separate application.
Mr. Ruddock said that he is going to have a hard time with that; when there was a corporate office and something that was going to attract the eye down here at the corner he was saying ok because they were going to have the storage sheds in the back on the hill and people's eyes would be down on to a place that is attractive like their current place but now that is not being proposed and the Town of Van Buren at every crossroads where someone enters the Town they are going to see a storage facility which to him is really unsightly and they have 12ft of cut and 14ft of fill on the corner and this is going to be like a plateau; the buildings are just going to scream that they are storage buildings. Coming in with additional signage to scream it 10 decibels higher just doesn't make sense to him.
Mr. Geiss said that it needs more screening and planting because they will have a plateau there so they will need screening and planting along that.
The Board had a discussion about what they would like to see landscape wise and talked about the other storage facilities in Town.
Mr. Thomas asked what pitch they would be using for the roof.
Mr. Mastroianni said that they could do any kind of pitch that the Board would like to see.
Mr. Mastroianni said two on twelve pitch possibly.
Mr. Thomas said that he thinks that they would want a pitch on the roof so when the snow sheds; it sheds away from the building they could go down through the alleys and plow it. If they have a one on two pitch there it is just going to dribble down by the doors.
Mr. Geiss asked what the separation was between buildings.
Mr. Mastroianni said 25ft.
Mr. Geiss said that they have heard the Boards comments and the Board would like to look at the landscaping and lighting plan and the Board also needs to wait for County comments.
Motion #07-30 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to declare the Town of Van Buren lead agency, a single agency uncoordinated review for the unlisted action under SEQR for the site plan for Arrow Space Inc at Route 31 and W. Sorrell Hill Rd. Tax Map Parcel ID# 33-03-15 which is in a PUD Zoning district. Mr. Thomas moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Crandon. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Geiss told the applicant to come back next month with the gravel area defined and more planting on the other sides and say what the fence is going to be; the drainage needs to be given to the engineer and the Board needs to see the lighting plan.
Mr. Billings asked if this area was in a water district.
Mr. Mastroianni said that he wasn't sure.
Mr. Geiss said that if it isn't that they need to form a water district.
Mr. Billings said that the detention pond will be the applicant's responsibility unless it is put in the drainage district.
The Board discussed whether or not the Town would want to take that over since it is one property.
Mr. Geiss asked if it was in a sewer district.
Mr. Mastroianni said that it is.
Mr. Virginia said that he went back to the October 2005 minutes where Mr. Mastroianni asked that the PUD be changed to include Commercial under the pretense that it would be developed to move their business off of 31 and moving it over here and on the November 2005 minutes of the Town Board that went through so he guesses his question is did the PUD initially include commercial space or as he read the minutes it looked like the Board moved for a motion to add additional outdoor commercial storage displays, outdoor sales and storage not to include vehicles or equipment and wood product manufacturing as permitted uses under the pretense that they were going to move their business along with Mr. Dombrowski's who owns some type of saw mill. So his question to the Board would be is this conforming based on what they went in front of the Board with
in November 2005.
Mr. Geiss said that in 2005 they added that into the PUD; the PUD at that time was for storage and it might have been commercial before that and they asked for the PUD for self storage and it was many years ago and he doesn't know the date but it was formed back then and in order for them to bring the other business's in they had to amend the PUD and add those uses into the PUD because the original PUD was just for self storage and he remembers them coming in but doesn't remember the date.
HARBOUR HEIGHTS - SECTION 7
Waterfront Dr. to include Silverside and Dolphin
Mr. Doug Beachel was present to address the Board.
Mr. Beachel said that he is here for additional final approval for Harbour Heights Section 7 and they will be in front of the Town Board tomorrow evening.
Mr. Geiss asked how many lots are there.
Mr. Beachel said 32 lots and they had approval for their preliminary plan amended one year ago and then they had further environmental approvals to receive and now they have those so they are ready to go.
Mr. Geiss said that he was amazed by the land that is being conveyed to the Town of Van Buren as shown on their map. He saw the final detention basins was going to be located down in there and when he started looking at his file and he has a map dated November 22, 2005 which was the final plan revised and down where the detention basins are there was a pavilion, play equipment, and a small detention basin and the detention basin takes quite a chunk out of that park now and he didn't appreciate how big it was back then in 2005; he just wanted to comment to the Board about that.
Mr. Billings said that he thinks the calculations were preliminary back then and the size was based on preliminary calculations.
Mr. Beachel said that it could be that the type of pond may have changed.
Mr. Billings said that the DEC changed their regulations about half way through the process.
The Board had a discussion about the difference between a dry pond and a wet pond.
Mr. Thomas asked when the lands are being conveyed to the Town can the Town look at it and say that they don't want it.
Mr. Crandon said that the Town wanted it.
Mr. Geiss said that the Town has already accepted it and there is also a provision they have 32 lots and $707.00 per lot must be paid to the Town for park fees.
Mr. Beachel said that he has a line of credit established and a draft form that their bank could issue tomorrow or the next day or they could pay the fees up front. They are not going to do much to the park because the Town doesn't really want it until they move on with the other sections and or get their top soil put in.
Mr. Geiss said that a bond needs to be submitted for the road improvements as required and approved by the Town attorney.
Mr. Billings said they have done that and they are at a point now where they are ready for road dedication; the Town Board simply wanted the final plot to be in place prior to the road dedication which will be tomorrow night.
Mr. Geiss asked if there were any other questions.
Motion #07-31 Mr. Geiss asked the Board to entertain a motion to approve the final plot for Harbour Heights Tract Section 7 which includes the extension of Waterfront Drive, Silverside and Dolphin with the provision that the applicant submit either a check or a line of credit for approximately $700 per lot times 32 lots which have been previously agreed upon as part of this entire subdivision. This is the final plot for the plan submitted by the applicant dated February 10, 2006 which latest revision date of 1/31/07. The applicant must also submit to the Town a bond or other requirements the Board may have which meet the Town attorney's approval. Mr. Ruddock moved to accept the motion, seconded by Mr. Thomas. There was no further discussion, motion carried; unanimously.
Mr. Geiss had a discussion with the applicant about when they would be coming in for the next section.
OTHER BUSINESS
B&C STORAGE - INFORMATIONAL
Proposed lot 2 of Tax Map Parcel Id# 064-01-33.1
Mr. Bruce Pollack and Mr. Charlie Lockwood were present to address the Board.
Mr. Pollack said that they listened to the comments on the other self storage place that was in front of the Board so they already have some comments and they brought some pictures of the site that they completed on Morgan Rd in the Town of Clay and they are also currently finishing a site up in Skaneateles and have received approval in the Town of Onondaga. They have also supplied a sketch for the Board of a plan that they have laid out and they wanted to come to the Board and find out what the Board's comments and concerns are before they get too far down the road so they can implement those things into the plan. Certainly they heard loud and clear about landscaping but they would like to hear what else the Board might be thinking in terms of what might help them develop their plan.
Mr. Geiss said that this generated a lot of discussion at the pre-agenda meeting and if the Board remembers what they did on Downer St. when the Board put the chiropractor's in next to an existing residence. Along the north side the Board is going to need to see more landscaping there because they are going up against a residential property and it becomes very critical because there is still residential in this area so they are going to need landscaping around the north edge and there might be a need for future landscaping along the back so room needs to be left for that. Right now that is wild but it might get developed into a residential area so landscaping will be needed back there. Some of this they may want to fence for total light with the neighbor out in the front because their original landscaping will not block that. A lot of the
complaints were of cars and trucks that were coming in and out and their headlights aimed at the neighbor's so they should block that right off.
The Board had a discussion with the applicants about what would block the light to the North.
Mr. Pringle said that the front building which is considered their office is the principal building and it is Local Business so it has to have a 50ft setback and the rest of the structures have to stay in line with that.
The Board discussed the setbacks on the buildings that were shown on the sketch that the applicant provided.
Mr. Geiss said that they have some parking in the setback and the Board would be looking for something greener coming in and that the parking be behind the setback and to the north it is all residential. Across the road is residential and how much roadways or doorways are out on that end of the building the Board is very concerned with and they can look up the street to Village Green where that building had all access from the back and they also did a little treatment to that side of the building as well to dress it up rather than just metal siding.
Mr. Thomas asked if they would be renting U-Hauls.
The applicant said that they would not.
Mr. Billings said that the applicant came to B&L and they talked a lot about drainage and ponds and he doesn't see any on the sketch or room for any drainage and ponds and asked if that would change their building lay out.
Mr. Pollack said that it may change slightly; tonight they just wanted to come in for comments and he showed the Board an area where they are considering retention.
Mr. Billings said that they also discussed a secondary retention in the back and he doesn't see any room for that and it may change their building lay out.
The Board and the applicant discussed the wetlands in the back and the permits that would be needed if the wetland were to be disturbed.
Mr. Billings said that they are going to need to pin that down before they come back with their application.
Ms. Sabin said that she would like to see a few more trees on the State fair Blvd side but she understands that they are also going to put signage up there as well.
Mr. Pollack said that the signage in self storage in not really that critical; they only do 4 by 8 signs with their name and phone number. The buildings sell themselves so it is not necessary to have huge signs out there.
Mr. Geiss said that they have to make sure they have sight distance when planting trees along the right of way because people need to be able to see up and down the road.
Mr. Billings asked if this was going to be a gated facility.
Mr. Pollack said that it will be gated and when they do the final configuration they will have it laid out and they also discussed where they might put the gate and fencing and about combining some of the buildings.
Mr. Thomas asked about the pitch of the roof they plan on using.
Mr. Pollack said that he heard Mr. Thomas mentioning that before and they certainly could by the road but generally they use the flat roofs but if it is the Board preference that the three buildings along the road have a pitched roof that's fine.
Mr. Geiss stated that Village Green is a good example of what the Board is looking for and Route 48 is one of the prime highways for the Town and the Board is concerned about that.
The Board and the applicant discussed other self storage businesses that they have built.
Mr. Ruddock asked what the buffer zone is between residential and commercial.
Mr. Pringle said 25ft.
Ms. Sabin said that on the earlier map there was a wetland in the right corner and now there is a building right next to it. She asked if they could build that close.
Mr. Billings said yes with a permit; they should sit down with DEC as soon as possible. They have lots of room to mitigate it but the DEC will help them with that.
Mr. Geiss asked if there were any other questions or comments.
OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Geiss informed the Board that River Ridge asked to come in and Ron Merle and Jim Kelly came in to the pre agenda meeting to get information and they first started talking that they didn't know if they could do 80,000sq ft lots and they were looking into 50, | ||