[00:00:01]
UH, GOOD EVENING,[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON-LINE VIA ZOOM AGENDA THURSDAY, February 18, 2021 – 6:00 P.M. ]
UH, CHAIRPERSON BUNTING AND MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARDS OF APPEAL.I'M THE CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING BOARD WITH ME THIS EVENING, ISSUES SCHWARZ.
HE'S THE VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
UH, WE PLAN TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPEAL.
UM, UH, I WILL START OFF AND, AND MAKE, UH, ABOUT HALF OF THE POINTS THAT WE LIKE TO PRESENT TO THE ZONING BOARD AND USE SLOTS WILL FOLLOW UP WITH THE REMAINING POINTS.
UH, UH, I, I SEE BOB BERNSTEIN HERE IS HERE, THE ATTORNEY FOR THE COUNCIL OF GREENBURG CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
UH, HE WILL OFFER ADDITIONAL RULES, SUPPORT OF, UH, OF THE APPEALS THAT WE, UH, WE WERE MAKING.
UH, FIRST BEFORE I GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF THE APPEAL, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TWO POINTS FOR THE RECORD.
UH, THE FIRST POINT IS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WAS NOT TIMELY NOTICE OF THE, OF THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY LETTER OF FEBRUARY THE 10TH.
UH, THAT LETTER WAS NOT RECEIVED UNTIL YESTERDAY, AND YESTERDAY WAS A PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
AND OBVIOUSLY BEFORE THESE MEETINGS, THE CHAIR IS, UH, PREOCCUPIED WITH MAKING SURE EVERYTHING IS IN MEETING.
UH, TODAY, UH, BOTH THE VICE CHAIR AND MYSELF HAD A NUMBER OF MEETINGS TO ATTEND.
UH, THE VICE CHAIR, IN FACT WAS, WAS ON ABOUT FOUR MEETINGS TODAY.
UH, HOWEVER, WE ONLY HAD ABOUT A MAXIMUM OF TWO HOURS TO PREPARE FOR TONIGHT.
IN FACT, UH, THE VICE CHAIR MYSELF DIDN'T, UH, UH, WRAP UP OUR COMMENTS, UH, UNTIL ABOUT 20 MINUTES AGO.
SO WE, UH, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT POINT THAT WE WERE NOT TIMELY NOTICED.
UH, THE OTHER POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE FOR THE RECORD IS THAT THE, BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE, AND THE COUNCIL OF GREENBURG CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS ARE APPEALING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, NOT THE CODE ITSELF, IT'S INTERPRETATION.
AND THEREFORE, I THINK, UM, UH, THE, EXCUSE ME, THE APPEALS IS REALLY ONE APPEAL AS OPPOSED TO TWO SEPARATE, UH, ITEMS. SO, UH, BECAUSE WE ARE APPEALING THE SAME THING.
SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THOSE TWO POINTS FOR THE RECORD.
OBVIOUSLY, IT IS UP TO THE, THE CHAIR AND THE, UH, AND THE Z B A TO DETERMINE HOW THAT WILL BE DONE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT POINT FOR THE RECORDS.
UH, GOING TO THE, THE PARTICULAR POINTS ITSELF, I WOULD LIKE TO START OFF BY SAYING THE PLANNING BOARD AS A LEGISLATIVE BODY, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO FILE AN APPEAL.
THIS IS, IN FACT, CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF 2 67, A FIVE, UH, A AND B, BECAUSE THERE ARE COMMENTS THAT, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD HAD NO STANDING IN FILING THE APPEAL.
UM, IN FILING THE APPEAL, THE ACTIONS OF THE CHAIRMAN AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING BOARD WERE NOT THE ACTIONS OF TWO UNINVOLVED INDIVIDUALS AS WHAT WAS, UH, UH, INDICATED IN THE APPLICANT'S LAWYERS LETTER.
THE ACTIONS WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE PLANNING BOARD'S JANUARY 6TH, 2021, DECISION TO APPEAL THE BUILDING'S, INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE.
THIS OCCURRED AFTER THE TOWN BOARD DECIDED NOT TO APPEAL THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION.
IN ADDITION, TWO ADDITIONAL BEST, UH, PROPOSALS SURFACED AT THAT TIME.
AS A RESULT, ON JANUARY 6TH, 2021, THE PLANNING BOARD VOTED TO FILE AN APPEAL.
THE VOTE IS DOCUMENTED IN THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING, WHICH APPEARED IN THE TOWN'S WEBSITE, AND WERE ALSO SENT TO THE Z B A SO THAT THE IDEA THAT IT WAS NOT,
[00:05:02]
UM, UH, UH, LEGALLY, UH, UH, NOTICE OR SIGNED IS WITHOUT MERIT.IT IS IN OUR MINUTES AND ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE AND IN THE Z B A RECORDS.
UH, UH, THE OTHER POINT IS THAT THE BUILDING'S INSPECTORS CHECK OFF WITH NO COMMENT, IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION, WHICH THE PLANNING BOARD CAN EVALUATE.
SHORTLY AFTER RECEIVING A REFERRAL FROM THE TOWN BOARD, THE PLANNING BOARD REQUESTED A WRITTEN OPINION FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND RECEIVED IT ON NOVEMBER 12TH.
SO THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT THE PLANNING BOARD COULD OPINE ON WHETHER OR NOT IT SHOULD MAKE AN APPEAL WAS ON NOVEMBER THE 12TH, WAS WHEN WE GOT A WRITTEN OPINION.
THIS IS, IS APPLICABLE DATA FOR STARTING, UH, UH, THE CLOCK IN TERMS OF THOSE 60 DAYS.
I THINK THIS IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT BECAUSE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FAILED TO RESPOND TO THE PLANNING BOARD'S REQUEST FOR A WRITTEN OPINION? IT COULD NOT BE FILED, UH, IF, OKAY, IT COULD NOT FILE IN A, UH, BASED ON A, A SIMPLE NO COMMENT CHECK MARK, OBVIOUSLY, AND I WANNA MAKE THIS POINT VERY CLEAR.
OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS NOT WHAT THE CURRENT BUILDING INSPECTOR DID, NOR AM I IN ANY WAY IMPLYING AN INTENT TO DO SO IN THE FUTURE.
BUT RATHER I'M FOCUSING ON THE ISSUE THAT, UH, IN, IN, IN ALLOWING THE CLOCK TO JUST EXPIRE THE, UH, UNDER THE CURRENT TERMS, WE, WE'LL BE SETTING THE PRECEDENT THAT A, UH, THAT A PLANNING BOARD REQUEST FOR A WRITTEN OPINION COULD SIMPLY BE IGNORED FOR 60 DAY, UH, WINDOW FOR APPEAL AND WAIT FOR THE APPEAL TO EXPIRE.
NOT TO IN ANY WAY IMPLY THAT THAT IS WHAT THE CURRENT, UH, UH, BUILDING INSPECTOR WAS DOING OR INTENDING TO, INTENDED TO DO, BUT RATHER, UH, UM, THE CONCERN OF SETTING A PRECEDENT WHERE A FUTURE, UH, BUILDING INSPECTOR COULD HAVE IN A ESSENTIALLY POCKET VETO IT, AND THEN IT WOULD JUST RUN OUT, AND WE WOULD NEVER HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE AN APPEAL.
SO I JUST WANNA STRESS THAT, THAT THIS IS NOT ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CURRENT, UH, UH, BUILDING COMMISSION.
UH, THE OTHER POINT I WISH TO MAKE IS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS NO OBLIGATION, IN FACT, SUPPORTS GREEN ENERGY INITIATIVE, WHICH INCLUDES BATTERY STORAGE, SOLAR PANELS, AND WINDFALL.
HOWEVER, OUR CURRENT CODE DOES NOT ADDRESS THE USE OF THESE TECHNOLOGIES.
THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE TOWN BOARD, THE PLANNING BOARD, THE C A C, AND THE COMMISSION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, MR. DUQUE.
AS A RESULT, THE TOWN HAS FORMED A COMMITTEE TO DRAFT LEGISLATION TO ACCOMMODATE, AND LET ME STRESS THE WORD ACCOMMODATE, TO ACCOMMODATE NOT TO OPPOSE, TO ACCOMMODATE THIS TECHNOLOGY IN HARMONY WITH THE MASTER PLAN, WHICH TAKES THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF A COMMUNITY IN ADDRESSING ANY NEW DEVELOPMENTS.
IN FACT, THE CHAMPIONS, MYSELF AND THE VICE CHAIR IS ON THAT, UH, BEST COMMITTEE TO DEVELOP A, A, UH, A CODE THAT WILL ENABLE THE TOWN TO BRING THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY INTO THE TOWN WITH ASSOCIATED WITH A PROPER CODE.
UM, YOU KNOW, OF, UH, OF NOTE, A DISCUSSION WITH, IN FACT, WE HAD A DIS, THE COMMITTEE HAD A DISCUSSION WITH MY SERTA TODAY, AND I HAD A WEBINAR CONCERT, A WEB WEBINAR CONFERENCE WITH, UH, ERDA REPRESENTATIVE, AND A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE SCENIC HUDSON, MAYBE TWO OR THREE WEEKS AGO.
AND, UH, AND, AND BOTH OF THESE ORGANIZATIONS INDICATE THAT DRAFTING A NEW LAW TO ADDRESS THIS FACILITY IS THE PROPER APPROACH FOR LOCAL COMMUNITIES, AND, IN FACT, DRAFTED A MINOR LAW THAT
[00:10:01]
COMMUNITIES COULD USE TO DRAFT THEIR OWN BEST LAW.SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS WIDELY RECOGNIZED THAT THE BEST WAY TO BRING IN THIS NEW AND IMPORTANT TECHNOLOGY INTO A TOWN IS TO DRAFT APPROPRIATE LEGISLATION.
SO IT COULD BE DONE IN AN ORDERLY MANNER.
UH, UH, WITH THAT SAID, I WILL NOW, UH, TURN IT OVER TO SCHWARTZ AND HE WILL OUTLINE THE REMAINDER OF THE COMMENTS WE WISH TO MAKE.
UH, THANK YOU, UH, MEMBERS OF THE, UH, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, UH, FOR HEARING US TONIGHT.
I'M VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING BOARD, AND ALSO, UH, 32 SHER IN PLACE, IF YOU CARE, IN EDGEMONT SCOTTSDALE.
UM, I'M GONNA ADDRESS WHY THE SPECIAL PERMIT DOESN'T APPLY.
UH, TO START, I'M GONNA AGREE WITH, UM, MR. SHE, AT ONE POINT IN HIS, UH, IN HIS DOCUMENT WHERE HE SAYS, QUOTE, SILENCE DOES NOT INFER BATTERY STORAGE FACILITIES ARE TO BE EXCLUDED.
IT DOESN'T, THAT IN ITSELF WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH TO SAY THEY'RE EXCLUDED.
HOWEVER, THE FACT IS, THE LAW THAT WAS WRITTEN, UH, THIS SPECIAL PERMIT LAW THAT HE'S USING WAS WRITTEN WELL BEFORE ANYBODY EVEN THOUGHT OF THESE KIND OF FACILITIES.
SO THEY WEREN'T EXCLUDED, THEY WEREN'T EVEN ANTICIPATED, UM, AT THE TIME.
UM, USING THIS SPECIAL PERMIT AT THIS POINT FOR THIS PURPOSE, SETS A PRECEDENT AS WELL.
IT OPENS THE DOOR, FOR INSTANCE, ON ANY RESIDENTIAL AREA, BECAUSE THE, THE, UH, SPECIAL PERMIT AS WRITTEN HAS NO CRITERIA IN, IT'S PARTICULARLY LIKE THINGS LIKE F A R OR SETBACKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN IT.
IT JUST DOESN'T HAVE ANY OF, ANY OF THOSE THINGS IN IT AND COULD OPEN THE DOOR, DOOR TO SERIOUS OTHER THINGS.
BUT THE LAW JUST DIDN'T, DIDN'T EXIST.
BUT IF YOU EVEN LOOK AT THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW, SPIRIT OF THE CODE, IT SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES STRUCTURES THAT, UM, ANY SUBSTANTIAL SIZE, SUCH AS OFFICE BUILDINGS, STORAGE YARDS, OR A SUBSTATION, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS MANY TIMES DESCRIBED THIS AS BEING SIMILAR IN SIZE TO A SUBSTATION.
THEY'VE ALSO DESCRIBED IT AS A BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY.
UM, SO THERE IS, THINGS ALONE WOULD LEAD YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THE SPIRIT OF LAW WAS LINKED TO TALK ABOUT THINGS LIKE UTILITY POLES AND MAYBE A SMALL TRANSFORMER, NOT A STRUCTURE THAT TAKES IT, THAT'S TAKING UP A, AN ACRE OF LAND.
SO THIS USES MUCH, MUCH SIMILAR TO A SUBSTATION OR STORAGE YARD THAN IT IS TO A UTILITY POLL.
UTILITY POLLS ARE NOT EXCLUDED.
AND THE, AND I BELIEVE THAT WAS, IT APPEARS THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT.
THERE WAS NO LEGISLATIVE INTENT ABOUT THESE, AS I SAID BEFORE, OF THESE SPECIFICALLY, 'CAUSE THEY JUST DIDN'T EXIST.
THE THIRD, UH, THE THIRD POINT IS THE LAW REFERS TO A PUBLIC UTILITY.
UM, AND IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE MR. SHORTES SAYS, WELL, THIS IS A PUBLIC, UH, UTILITY BECAUSE IT SELLS TO THE PUBLIC.
WELL, IF YOU REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPTS, UH, THAT OCCURRED IN BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE TOWN BOARD, THERE IS NO DISCUSSION OF SELLING TO THE PUBLIC.
THEY ARE BUYING, THEY ARE BUYING ENERGY OFF THE, THE CONED GRID AT TIMES WHEN DEMAND FOR ENERGY IS LOW, STORING IT IN BATTERY FACILITY AND THE BATTERIES, AND THEN RESELLING IT AT PEAK TIMES BACK TO CONED, NOT TO ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC.
BY THE WAY, THIS IS DIFFERENT THAN WE HEARD ON THE APPLICATIONS ON CENTRAL AVENUE, WHERE THEY DID TALK ABOUT DIRECTLY SELLING IT TO THE PUBLIC.
IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THEY DIDN'T.
ALSO, AN INTEREST IS, UM, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION ON THIS, I MEAN, THEY SAY IN HERE THAT IT'S THE APPLICANT IS A PRIVATE ENTITY.
IT'LL BE PROVIDING SERVICES BENEFITING THE PUBLIC INTEREST AND THE UTILITY.
IT'S BENEFITING THE PUBLIC IN BECAUSE IT'S GOING THROUGH THE UTILITY.
IT'D BE THE SAME AS SAYING, WELL, SOMEBODY IS PROVIDING, YOU KNOW, WIRE OVERHEAD WIRES,
[00:15:01]
TRANSMISSION WIRES TO CONED.OKAY, WHY ISN'T THAT? WHY ISN'T THE WIRE COMPANY A PUBLIC UTILITY? THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE SELLING SOMETHING TO THEM.
IN THIS CASE, THEY HAPPEN TO BE SELLING ENERGY, BUT IT'S TO CONED AND NOT TO THE PUBLIC.
IN FACT, IT'S NOT ONLY A PRIVATE ENTITY.
IT'S SET UP BASICALLY AS ITS OWN CORPORATION JUST FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT.
OKAY? EAGLE ENERGY, IT'S SET, SET UP AS A SEPARATE CORPORATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, WHICH IN ITSELF HAS SOME ISSUES THAT THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE TOWN WOULD'VE BEEN TRYING TO ADDRESS.
UM, THE OTHER THING THAT'S INTERESTING IS THE SPECIAL PERMIT PROVISION ALSO EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS THIS DETERMINATION OF THE TOWN WHERE THERE'S NO REASONABLE LOCATION IN THIS DISTRICT, A LESS RESTRICTED DISTRICT THAT CAN BE USED FOR THE PROPOSED FACILITY.
THERE IS VIRTUALLY NO EVIDENCE IN THE RECORD THAT THEY EVEN REALLY NEED AN ATTEMPT TO ANALYZE THIS.
THEY SAID THEY, I THINK AT ONE POINT THEY DID, SAID THEY TALKED TO CONED.
NOW, THAT ISN'T THE TOWN BOARD'S DETERMINATION, BUT IT'S STILL A VERY, VERY IMPORTANT POINT.
THERE IS NO THING THEY'VE EVEN LOOKED IN AN ALTERNATIVE.
AND FINALLY, AND I THINK VERY IMPORTANTLY, UH, I QUESTION WHETHER THEY EVEN HAVE STANDING TO FILE THE APPLICATION.
THE APPLICANT IS NOT THE LANDOWNER.
THEY ARE NOT PURCHASING THIS LAND FROM NORWOOD.
THEY ARE LEASING THIS LAND, I THINK FOR A PERIOD OF 10 YEARS.
THEY'RE LEASING THE LAND FROM NORWOOD.
WHY IS THAT IMPORTANT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE? WELL, ONE OF THE PROBLEMS WITH THIS PARTICULAR, UH, SPECIAL PERMIT, WHICH IS UNLIKE ANY SPECIAL PERMIT I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN HEARING OR DRAFTING IN THE 20 YEARS I'VE BEEN ON THE PLANNING BOARD, IS THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE KIND OF CRITERIA THAT YOU TYPICALLY SEE IN A, A SPECIAL PERMIT.
LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, SETBACKS, PROXIMITY TO A MAIN ROAD, UM, DENSITY.
NONE OF THAT, OR BUFFER OR BUFFER REQUIREMENT.
NONE OF THOSE EXIST WHATSOEVER IN THE SPECIAL PERMIT THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO USE FOR THIS PRO PROCESS, WHICH IN ITSELF IS SCARY.
WELL, TYPICALLY IN A SPECIAL PERMIT, YOU CAN, IF, IF THOSE PARAMETERS AREN'T THERE, WELL, YOU CAN STILL RELY ON THE UNDERLYING ZONE FOR SETBACKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
WELL, IN THIS CASE, YOU CAN'T BECAUSE THEY'RE COUNTING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY OF NORWOOD AND THEIR CALCULATIONS WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, THEY'RE ONLY RECEIVING PROPERTY.
SO I EVEN QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAVE STANDING IN TERMS OF THIS.
SO THOSE ARE THE REASONS WHY THIS, THIS SPECIAL PER PERMIT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO, TO THIS, THIS, UH, APPLICATION.
AND TWO, AS I SAID, THE RISK OF ALLOWING THIS TO GO FORWARD THE WAY IT IS, WHICH CLEARLY, CLEARLY WAS WRITTEN BEFORE ANY OF THE, ANY OF THESE ASSAULTS WERE CONSIDERED COULD CAUSE, UH, A TIDAL WAVE OF THESE KINDS OF FACILITIES.
IMAGINE IF SOMEONE HAD TWO, TWO ACRES OF LAND.
I DON'T CARE WHERE IN FAIRVIEW, WELL, THEY COULD BE LEASE THAT LAND FROM THE LANDOWNER.
AND AS LONG, LONG AS THEY LET THE SETBACKS OF THE, OF THE, UH, UNDER UNDERLYING ZONE, HEY, THEY SHOULD BE ABLE TO GET A SPECIAL PERMIT IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, THAT WAS CLEARLY NOT, WAS WHAT WAS INTENDED BY THE SPECIAL PER PERMIT.
FINALLY, I JUST WANNA SAY SOMETHING BRIEFLY ABOUT DELAY.
MR. REVA TALKS VERY MUCH ABOUT DELAY, UH, IN HIS, HIS DOCUMENT HERE.
UM, FOR THE RECORD, THE, THE APPLICANT STARTED TALKING TO THE TOWN IN SEPTEMBER, I BELIEVE, OF 2019, DIDN'T FILE THE, THEIR APPLICATION FOR OVER A YEAR.
AND BY THE WAY, AT THE TIME THEY FILED THE APPLICATION, THEY HAD GOTTEN AN OPINION, NOT FROM MR. SHETA, BUT FROM ANOTHER ATTORNEY ABOUT USING, ABOUT USING A SPECIAL PERMIT.
AND IT WAS QUESTIONED BY MR. MCC CAIN AT THAT TIME AS WELL.
SO THERE WAS ALWAYS A QUESTION ABOUT IT TO BEGIN WITH, UH, AND THE DELAY.
AND RIGHT NOW, FRANKLY, WHAT, WHAT IS DELAYING THIS PROJECT IS NOT, NOT THIS, THIS APPEAL.
WHAT'S DELAYING THE PROJECT RIGHT NOW IS THIS IS BRAND NEW TECHNOLOGY OF WHICH THE PLANNING BOARD, THE TOWN BOARD, AND EVEN OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND, AND OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT HAVE NOT HAD TO DEAL WITH BEFORE.
[00:20:01]
EXPERTISE TO LOOK INTO WHAT MAY BE WHAT, WHAT, WHAT ARE SAFETY ISSUES? LIKE HOW DO YOU FIGHT A FIRE WITH A, WITH BATTERIES? WE DON'T KNOW THAT TESLA TELLS US, WELL, YOU DON'T PUT IT OUT, YOU LET IT BURN AND JUST KEEP IT COOL WITH 3000 GALLONS OF WATER.BUT DON'T TRY TO POINT IT OUT.
WELL, THAT'S NICE, BUT YOU NEED SPECIAL TRAINING.
THAT IS WHAT THE TOWN BOARD, THE PLANNING BOARD, THE C A C, AND NOW THIS COMMITTEE SET UP TO ESTABLISH A NEW LAW ARE DEALING WITH RIGHT NOW, AND THE TOWN HAS HIRED A CONSULTANT.
THAT IS WHAT'S TAKING THE TIME.
THAT IS WHAT'S TAKING THE TIME HERE.
THIS IS NEW TECHNOLOGY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANTICIPATED AND WAS NOT ANTICIPATED IN OUR TIME CODE.
HEY, UH, NOW SHARON, IS YOUR MIC MEETING OR, SORRY, THERE YOU GO.
AND DO WE HAVE A RESPONSE, UH, TO WHAT WE'VE HEARD? OKAY, THERE ARE THREE THAT HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK AND, UH, I'M GOING TO STATE THAT THOSE, THOSE, THOSE, UM, SPEAKERS, AND IF YOU DON'T HEAR YOUR NAME AND YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, JUST SEND ME A CHAT AND INDICATE SOME AND WE'LL CALL ON YOU SHORTLY THEREAFTER.
SO I HAVE, UH, LENO RETA, JAMES ROBINSON, AND, UH, MURRAY BOIN BEFORE YOU.
I, I, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD THEN.
I, I RAISED A POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
WELL, I'LL, I'LL LISTEN TO WHAT BOB
UH, BECAUSE THE C G C A AND THE PLANNING BOARD ARE APPEALING THE IDENTICAL INTERPRETATION FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO, UH, HEAR US BOTH, UM, BEFORE MR. SHERETTA AND HIS TEAM RESPOND BECAUSE, UM, THAT WAY THEY HAVE, UH, ALL OF THE ARGUMENTS BEFORE THEM, RATHER THAN HAVE IT DONE PIECEMEAL.
UH, AND SINCE THE ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL, UM, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE AND BE MORE EFFICIENT THAT WAY AND IN MORE ORDERLY PROCESS FOR THE ZONING BOARD TO HEAR.
SO I WOULD REQUEST THAT WE BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
UM, AND, AND THEN, UM, CERTAINLY, UH, LET MR. RETA AND HIS TEAM RESPOND.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT BOB BERNSTEIN AND I ACTUALLY AGREE.
SO I WOULD CONCUR WITH THAT, AND HOPEFULLY, UH, WE'D BE ALLOWED TO PRESENT AFTER MR. BERNSTEIN PRESENTS SO WE CAN ADDRESS THE ISSUES THAT HAVE BEEN RAISED BY BOTH APPELLANTS THIS EVENING.
I HAVE TO REF DEFER TO COUNSEL AT THIS POINT.
UM, MY CONCERN OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WOULD BE THAT WE WOULD HAVE RECORDS HERE THAT WOULD BE REALLY COMBINED AS OPPOSED TO TWO DIFFERENT APPLICATIONS.
SO I'M NOT CERTAIN THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD DO OR SHOULD DO.
MADAM CHAIR, CAN YOU HEAR ME? YES.
I WAS, AS A MATTER OF FACT, BEFORE BOB SPOKE, I WAS ABOUT TO MAKE THE SAME SUGGESTION.
UH, THE REQUEST WAS MADE, UH, BY THE PLANNING BOARD TO, IN EFFECT CONSOLIDATE THE TWO, UH, APPEALS, AT LEAST FOR HEARING PURPOSES.
AND I DON'T SEE THAT THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM.
IF WORSE COMES TO WORSE, WE COULD JUST REPRODUCE THE, UH, REPRODUCE THE RECORD, UH, IN THE SECOND, UH, IN THE SECOND CASE.
I, AND I SEE BENEFITS, UH, TO CONSOLIDATING FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS HEARING, UH, BOTH CASES.
SO THEN I WILL JUST HAVE, HAVE THE REPORTER NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE ARE BOTH NOW ADDRESSING NOT ONLY THE CASE, 2103, TOWN OF GREENBERG PLANNING BOARD THIS APPEAL, BUT ALSO 2104, THE COUNCIL GREENBERG CIVIC ASSOCIATION'S, UH, APPEAL.
SO, THE ONLY THING I WOULD ASK MM-HMM.
UM, I, I THOUGHT THAT I HAD DONE THAT, BUT I WILL ASK AGAIN.
UM, SINCE WE ARE NOW JOINING, JOINING 2104, IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO MS. OBEE SITTING,
[00:25:01]
UM, AND, AND ALSO DELIBERATING AND HEARING THIS MATTER GIVEN FACT OF WHAT SHE HAD STATED ON THE RECORD EARLIER TONIGHT? I BELIEVE MADELINE, OSHA, UH, IS ON THE CALL AND SHE IS THE, UH, CHAIR OF THE C G C A.SO I THINK, UH, UH, WELL, I HAVE NO PROBLEM.
I THINK IT SHOULD PROPERLY COME FROM MS. OSHA.
IS ANYONE ELSE WHO WISHES TO COMMENT OR NOT? YES, MR. SIMON.
I'D JUST LIKE TO THANK THE CHAIR FOR ENTERTAINING THE POSSIBILITY OF COMBINING THESE TWO, UH, APPEALS.
YES, MR. BROWNSTEIN, YOU WANT IT TO BE HEARD FROM NOW? YES.
UM, FOR THE RECORD, I AM, UH, COUNSEL FOR THE, UH, C G C A OF THIS APPEAL, AND I WANT TO, UH, RESPOND AS BEST I CAN ORALLY AT THIS TIME TO THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY MR. SHERETTA, UH, IN HIS, UM, UH, A PAGE, SINGLE SPACE LETTER TO THE Z B A THAT MR. SIMON REFERRED TO.
THAT WAS DATED FEBRUARY 10TH, UH, 2021.
I ALSO DID NOT GET A COPY OF THIS LETTER UNTIL YESTERDAY MORNING, UH, A WEEK AFTER IT WAS, UH, DATED AND PRESUMABLY SENT.
UM, AND, UH, BECAUSE I'VE ONLY HAD A DAY TO RESPOND TO THIS, WHICH RAISES A NUMBER OF LEGAL ARGUMENTS, I WOULD LIKE TO RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THE CHAIR OR THE Z B A FOR PERMISSION TO FILE A MORE WRITTEN, FORMAL WRITTEN RESPONSE, UM, SO THAT, UH, THE ARGUMENTS, UM, CAN BE ADDRESSED WITH APPROPRIATE CITATIONS TO THE RECORD DOCUMENTS, CASE, LAW, TOWN CODE, AND, AND, AND TOWN LAW.
I'M GONNA REFER TO THOSE IN WHAT I SAY TONIGHT, BUT I WANNA BE ABLE TO HAVE THOSE ATTACHMENTS, UH, SUBMITTED FORMALLY TO THE Z B A.
SO I'D ASK FOR INDULGENCE THAT I'D BE ALLOWED TO DO THAT.
UM, UH, IN A NUTSHELL, UH, WE BELIEVE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION AS SET FORTH IN HIS NOVEMBER 12TH, 2020 LETTER, UH, THAT THE INSTALLATION OR OPERATION OF A BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM, UH, IS A SPECIAL PERMITTED USE IN THE TOWN'S RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, UH, PURSUANT, UH, TO TOWN CODE SECTION 2 85 DASH 10 A FOUR B OF THE ZONING CODE IS BASED ON A MISREADING OF THE TOWN CODE AND MUST THEREFORE BE VACATED AND REVERSED.
THE DISPOSITIVE ISSUE BEFORE THIS BOARD IS WHETHER A 20 MEGAWATT BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM QUALIFIES AS A QUOTE, PUBLIC AND UTILITY STRUCTURE, UNQUOTE, WITHIN THE MEANING OF THAT TOWN CODE PROVISION, WHICH ALLOWS SUCH STRUCTURES SUBJECT TO SPECIAL PERMIT IN ITS RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
BUT BEFORE I ADDRESS THE THRESHOLD ISSUES, UH, THAT MR. SHERETTA RAISED OF TIMELINESS AND STANDING, LET ME FIRST MAKE CLEAR OUR OVERALL POSITION BECAUSE IT IS SQUARELY ENCAPSULATED BY MR. SHEA'S OWN LETTER IN THE MIDDLE OF PAGE SIX OF HIS LETTER.
UNDER THE HEADING, UH, SILENCE DOES NOT INFER THAT BATTERY STORAGE WAS INTENDED TO BE EXCLUDED CLOSE.
MR. SHERETTA MAKES THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT QUOTE, WHILE IT IS TRUE THAT ZONING CODE SECTION 2 85 10 A FOUR B DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS, THIS SILENCE DOES NOT PERMIT AN INFERENCE THAT THIS TECHNOLOGY WAS INTENDED TO BE EXCLUDED.
THAT ONE STATEMENT IN MR. SHEA'S LENGTHY LETTER THAT THE RELEVANT CODE PROVISION HERE AT ISSUE DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS IS DISPOSITIVE OF THIS APPEAL BY REASON OF SECTION 2 85 DASH THREE OF THE TOWN'S ZONING CODE, WHICH IS A VERY SHORT ONE-LINER AND STATES AS FOLLOWS, QUOTE, ANY LAND USE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN THIS
[00:30:01]
CHAPTER IS PROHIBITED.OUR BUILDING INSPECTOR DID NOT CITE TO THAT AND SHOULD HAVE CITED TO THAT BECAUSE HAD HE TAKEN THAT INTO ACCOUNT, HE COULD NOT HAVE RENDERED THE OPINION THAT HE RENDERED ON NOVEMBER 12TH.
UM, YOU CANNOT INFER OR OR FROM SILENCE, UH, THAT SOMETHING MAY OR MAY NOT BE PERMITTED ON.
UH, YOU CANNOT ARGUE THAT IT SHOULD OR SHOULDN'T BE PERMITTED.
UH, YOU CANNOT ARGUE THAT THERE'S AN AMBIGUITY AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE PERMITTED BECAUSE GREENBERG'S TOWN BOARD HAS DECREED IN ITS CODE THAT IF IT'S NOT EXPRESSLY PERMITTED, IT'S PROHIBITED.
WELL, SO THERE ARE MANY OTHER REASONS WHY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION MUST BE REVERSED, BUT THAT I WOULD SUBMIT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT OF ALL AND THE EASIEST TO UNDERSTAND AND APPLY.
IF THE CODE DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY PERMIT IT, THEN MR. RETTA ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT CONCEDES IT DOESN'T, THAT SUCH USE IS PROHIBITED.
ALRIGHT, BUT MR. SHERETTA ARGUES THAT THIS BOARD CANNOT EVEN GET TO REACH THAT RESULT BECAUSE HE CLAIMS THE APPEALS BY BOTH THE C G C A AND THE PLANNING ORDER UNTIMELY.
HE ARGUES ON PAGE THREE OF HIS LETTER THAT PURSUANT TO NEW YORKTOWN LAW 2 67 A FIVE B, AN APPEAL SHALL BE TAKEN WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF THE ORDER, UH, OR, UH, OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN QUESTION ORDER, DECISION, INTERPRETATION, UH, OR DETERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN QUESTION.
HE THEN SAYS THAT THE EARLIEST DETERMINATION MADE BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WAS HIS HAVING CHECKED A BOX ON SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2020 WHEN HE SAID HE HAD QUOTE, NO COMMENT ON THE LETTER FROM THE TOWN'S ASSISTANT PLANNER, MATT BRITTEN DATED SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2020.
THIS DOCUMENT, BY THE WAY, IS ATTACHED TO MR. SHEA'S LETTER AS EXHIBIT ONE.
MR. RETA THEN ARGUES THAT IF AN APPEAL WAS TO BE TAKEN, IT HAD TO BE TAKEN WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THAT LETTER HAVING BEEN FILED IN THE OFFICE OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT EXHIBIT ONE, YOU CAN SEE THAT IT BEARS A FILE STAMP, UH, OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT.
SO NOW, MR. SHEA'S LOGIC, THE APPEAL HAD TO HAVE BEEN FILED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE THAT THAT LETTER WAS FILED IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT OFFICE, UH, AND THAT, THAT THE LAST DATE TO HAVE DONE THAT APPEAL WAS NOVEMBER 23RD, 2020.
IT THEN GOES ON TO SAY THAT BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE C G C A TRIED TO RESURRECT THE 60 DAY CLOCK BY REQUESTING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S NOVEMBER 12TH, 2020 LETTER, UH, THAT MR. RETTA SAYS, QUOTE, SIMPLY CONFIRMED WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD AND C G C A ALREADY KNEW IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, 2020.
THAT'S, UH, NOW HE SAYS THE PLANNING BOARD WAS WELL AWARE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S SEPTEMBER 18TH DECISION AT ITS NOVEMBER FOUR WORK SESSION, BUT FAILED TO TAKE TIMELY ACTION.
AND THAT THEREFORE THE JANUARY 11, 21, 20 21 APPEALS BY BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE C G C A MUST BE DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY.
MR. SHERETTA, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, MISSTATES THE RELEVANT FACTS, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, HE MISSTATES THE RELEVANT STATUTE.
THE RELEVANT STATUTE HERE IS TOWN LAW 2 67 DASH A FIVE, BUT INSTEAD OF STARTING WITH SUBSECTION B, AS MR. SHERETTA DID, THE Z B A MUST START WITH SUBSECTION A OF THAT STATUTE, WHICH MR. SHERETTA OMITS SUBSECTION A STATES THAT EACH ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION, INTERPRETATION OR DETERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE LOCAL ZONING CODE OR ORDINANCE SHALL BE FILED IN THE OFFICE OF SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WITHIN FIVE BUSINESS DAYS FROM THE DAY IT'S RENDERED AND SHALL BE A PUBLIC RECORD HERE.
HOWEVER, THAT LETTER WITH MR. SHE'S MR. FEZS
[00:35:02]
CHECK BOX DATED SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2020, WAS NOT FILED IN THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OFFICE.IT WAS NEVER FILED IN THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OFFICE.
AND YOU CAN PLAINLY TELL THAT MR. RETA HAS NOT PRODUCED A COPY OF ANYTHING THAT WAS FILED IN THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OFFICE AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES.
SUBSECTION B THEN STATES THAT AN APPEAL SHALL BE TAKEN WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF ANY ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION INTERPRETATION, OR DETERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
THE KEY HERE IS THAT THE 60 DAY CLOCK STARTS TO RUN AFTER THE FILING OF THE INTERPRETATION, UH, OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL IN THE OFFICE OF THE, OF THE, OF THE ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL SUBSECTION A SPECIFIES THAT IT HAD TO BE DONE WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF US HAVING RENDERED IT, AND IT SHALL BE A PUBLIC RECORD.
UH, AS I'VE MADE CLEAR, THERE'S NO EVIDENCE THAT THAT WAS EVER DONE.
AND IF THAT WAS NEVER DONE, THE 60 DAY CLOCK FROM THE CHECKBOX LETTER NEVER STARTED TO RUN.
SO, AND BY THE WAY, AND THE C G C A NEVER KNEW ABOUT ANY OF THIS BECAUSE THIS WAS NEVER A PUBLIC RECORD.
NOBODY KNEW IT, NOBODY KNEW ABOUT IT AT ALL.
UH, BUT THE PLANNING BOARD KNEW ABOUT THE CHECKBOX, HAD A QUESTION ABOUT IT, WANTED TO KNOW WHAT IT MEANT, AND REQUESTED THE INTERPRETATION, UH, OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SO IT WAS CLEAR THAT HE HAD FOCUSED ON THE ISSUE SO THEY WOULD KNOW WHAT THE BASIS FOR HIS OPINION WAS.
BECAUSE ACCORDING TO THE MINUTES OF THE BUILDING OF THE PLANNING BOARD, THEY THEMSELVES WERE STUNNED THAT THIS WOULD EVEN BE CONSIDERED, UH, SOMETHING THAT CAME WITHIN THE PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE CLAUSE, UH, ALLOWING THESE THINGS TO BE BUILT IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
SO WHAT MR. SHERETTA IS ASKING THE Z B A TO DO HERE IN FINDING THESE APPEALS TO BE UNTIMELY, IT'S NOT ONLY CONTRARY TO THE STATUTE, BUT IT'S ALSO CONTRARY TO THE CASE LAW IN THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, THE LEADING CASE, AND I THINK ONLY CASE IN THE SECOND, UH, IN THE COURT OF, IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WHICH IS IN THE SECOND DEPARTMENT.
UM, AND IT, THAT CASE WAS IN 2018, AND IT WAS DECIDED ON FACTS ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE ONES PRESENTED HERE.
UH, THE, THE, THE NAME OF THAT CASE IS CORRALES, C O R R A L E S, VERSUS Z B A, UH, VILLAGE OF DOBBS FERRY ONE SIX FOUR A D THIRD 5 82, AND IT WAS SECOND DEPARTMENT 2018.
AND THE DISCUSSION I'M TALKING ABOUT IS AT 5 86, PAGE 5 86 OF THAT OPINION.
BUT LET ME JUST TALK ABOUT THAT CASE.
UH, IN THAT CASE, THE SECOND DEPARTMENT UPHELD A LOWER COURT DECISION REVERSING A D Z B A THAT HAD DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY AN APPEAL OF A BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INHERENT DETERMINATION THAT AN APPLICATION WAS ZONING COMPLIANT.
AND BY THE INHERENT, THE COURT EXPLAINED, JUST LIKE THE CHECKED BOX HERE, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IN THAT CASE FORWARDED TO THE MUNICIPALITY'S PLANNING BOARD AND APPLICATION FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL WITHOUT REJECTING IT AS NON-COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING CODE.
UM, BASICALLY IT INVOLVED BUILDING A MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING, UH, IN A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR JUST DIDN'T OBJECT.
SO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNERS CHALLENGED THAT BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION TWO YEARS LATER BEFORE THE VILLAGE'S Z B A.
SO THE Z B A, YOU KNOW, DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS UNTIMELY BECAUSE AS FAR AS THEY WERE CONCERNED, THE, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAD DECIDED THIS TO YEARS PRIOR, THE LOWER COURT REVERSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INHERENT DETERMINATION, UH, WAS NEVER FILED AS THE STATUTE REQUIRED.
THEREFORE, THE 60 DAY CLOCK NEVER STARTED TO RUN.
NOW, THIS IS A CASE THAT MR. SHERETTA KNOWS VERY WELL BECAUSE MR. SHERETTA, I'M SURE WILL TELL YOU, UH, THAT HE WAS THE LAWYER FOR
[00:40:01]
THE APPLICANT ON THAT MULTI-FAMILY PROJECT, AND HE WAS THE LAWYER, UH, THAT THE SECOND DEPARTMENT IDENTIFIES AS THE LAWYER ON THIS MATTER WHO HAD SOUGHT TO GET THE Z B A TO, UH, REVERT TO, TO, UH, DISMISS THE APPEAL AS UNTIMELY.SO HE KNOWS THIS LAW, AND HE'S MAKING THE EXACT SAME ARGUMENT HERE THAT WAS REJECTED BY THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, BY THE, BY THE WESTCHESTER SUPREME STATE SUPREME, AND THEN BY THE SECOND DEPARTMENT TWICE REJECTED.
HE'S MAKING IT HERE, AND HE DOESN'T EVEN TELL YOU ABOUT THE CASE.
SO DID I, BY THE WAY, THAT NOVEMBER, UH, 12, 20 20 LETTER FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THE APPEAL HERE, THAT WAS NEVER FILED IN THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OFFICE EITHER.
UM, I KNOW THIS BECAUSE I, ON DECEMBER 10TH, 2020, UH, I SENT AN EMAIL TO MR. FRETA WHO'S ON THE CALL HERE, UH, SPECIFICALLY REQUESTING A FILE STAMPED COPY OF HIS NOVEMBER 12TH, 2020 LETTER SHOWING THAT IT HAD BEEN FILED IN HIS OFFICE AS THE STATUTE REQUIRES.
AND I POINTED OUT TO MR. FRETA THAT BECAUSE THE STATUTE MAKES THE FILING IN HIS OFFICE OF THAT LETTER A PUBLIC RECORD, I DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO COMPLY WITH FOIL TO GET IT.
MR. FERREIRA, UH, WHO I HAVE, UH, A GREAT DEAL OF RESPECT FOR, UM, UH, HE NEVER RESPONDED TO THAT EMAIL.
UH, AND THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS RECORD THAT SHOWS IT WAS EVER FILE STAMPED.
WHAT THAT MEANS IS THAT THERE ISN'T EVEN A 60 DAY TIME CLOCK ON THAT LETTER.
UH, AND UNDER THAT SECOND DEPARTMENT CASE, UM, IT'S CONCEIVABLE THAT IT, THIS APPEAL COULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN, YOU KNOW, SIX MONTHS FROM NOW, AND IT WOULD STILL BE TIMELY, BUT IT'S HERE NOW, AND IT IS TIMELY.
SO THAT, I THINK, DISPENSES WITH MR, SHE'S TIMELINESS ARGUMENTS AS AGAINST THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE C G C A.
NOW, HE MAKES STANDING ARGUMENTS.
IT SAYS THAT NEITHER THE C G C A NOR THE PLANNING BOARD HAVE LEGAL STANDING TO APPEAL ANY DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HERE.
THAT'S NOT LEGALLY CORRECT EITHER.
MR. RETA BEGINS BY ARGUING THAT AN OPPONENT TO A LAND USE APPLICATION LACKS STANDING TO OPPOSE THE APPLICATION WHEN THEIR PROPERTY IS NOT IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE PROJECT AND WHERE THEY HAVE OTHERWISE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY WILL SUFFER ANY INJURY, WHICH IS IN SOME WAY DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
UH, HOWEVER, THE C G C A AND PLANNING BOARD ARE NOT HERE BEFORE THE Z B A TO OPPOSE A LAND USE APPLICATION.
THEY ARE HERE TO CHALLENGE THE BUILDING INSPECTORS INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING CODE THAT ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS ARE ESPECIALLY PERMITTED USE AS PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES.
UM, THAT INTERPRETATION, IF UPHELD APPLIES TO ALL 14 OF THE TOWN'S RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO THE CONCERNS THAT MR. SCHWARTZ RAISED ABOUT THIS SETTING, A PRECEDENT THAT CAN BE APPLIED BY OTHERS TO ANY, UH, IN ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING AREA, A ZONING DISTRICT IN THE TOWN IS REAL.
AND IT'S, IT'S A CONCERN, UH, HERE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 20 MEGAWATT BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM IN, IN R 30 RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, UM, 20 MEGAWATTS, BY THE WAY, THAT'S 20 MILLION VOLTS.
SO A 20 MILLION VOTE FACILITY IS BEING PROPOSED AT BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, UH, AS, UH, WITHIN THE, THE PURVIEW OF THE TOWN BOARD TO ALLOW A SPECIAL PERMIT IN ANY ZONING RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITHOUT REGARD TO ANY, UH, BUFFERS REQUIREMENTS OTHER THAN THE, PERHAPS THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS THERE FOR THAT PARTICULAR ZONE.
UH, THE, THE, THE IDEA HERE IS THAT THAT DECISION IS ONE THAT WOULD HAVE PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS FOR ALL PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE ENTIRE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF GREENBURG.
UH, AND, AND THEREFORE, UH, THE C G C A, WHICH HAS SINCE 1955, BEEN REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF UNINCORPORATED
[00:45:01]
GREENBERG HOMEOWNERS, UH, IS CERTAINLY CAPABLE OF REPRESENTING THE INTERESTS OF THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS ON THIS APPEAL.UH, IT IS, IT IS SOMETHING THAT, IT'S WHAT THE C G C A DOES, UH, THAT MAY HAVE BEEN AROUND, AS I SAID, FOR A LONG TIME.
UM, IN FACT, THE LAST TIME I WAS BEFORE THIS BOARD, I WAS HERE BEFORE THE, UH, ON BEHALF OF THE C G C A, UH, WHEN WE CHALLENGED, UH, ANOTHER BUILDING INSPECTOR DETERMINATION, UH, INVOLVING, UH, THE DEFINITION OF, UH, TOWN RIGHT OF WAY, STATE, RIGHT OF WAY, UH, IN THE ASSISTED LIVING ORDINANCE, UH, IN CONNECTION WITH THE SHEHORN APPLICATION.
SOME OF YOU ON THIS BOARD, I'M SURE REMEMBER, UM, THE, THE, UH, THE EFFORT THAT WAS PUT IN BY C G C A THERE, UM, MR. SHERETTA REMEMBERS IT BECAUSE HE WAS COUNSEL TO THE APPLICANT THERE AS WELL.
UH, BUT, UH, IN THAT CASE AS MS. Z B A, REMEMBER THE Z B A UNANIMOUSLY, UH, AGREED WITH THE C G C A, THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION, THERE WAS AN ERROR.
THEY VACATED, YOU VACATED AND REMANDED IT, UH, VACATED AND, AND REVERSED IT.
UH, AND, AND, UH, VARIANCES IN THAT PARTICULAR APPLICATION HAD TO BE FILED.
BUT THAT JUST SHOWS THE, THE, UM, INVOLVEMENT OF THE C G C A AND WHY IT IS SO IMPORTANT THAT THEY BE ALLOWED TO, UM, ADVOCATE FOR THE INTERESTS OF PROPERTY OWNERS AND UNINCORPORATED GREENBURG WHEN AN INTERPRETATION, UH, IS RENDERED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT THEY DISAGREE WITH, THAT COULD HAVE PROFOUND IMPLICATIONS FOR THE ENTIRE UNINCORPORATED AREA IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
SO, UM, MR. RETA CITES, UH, A NUMBER OF CASES FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT THE C G C A LACK STANDING.
NONE OF THESE CASES INVOLVES A CHALLENGE TO ABILITY THE INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF MUNICIPALITY ZONING CODE, UH, OR THE IMPACT OF THAT.
THE EFFECT OF THE INTERPRETATION WOULD IMPACT CODE ENFORCEMENT IN EVERY ONE OF THE MUNICIPALITIES, RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
UM, SO I DON'T THINK THOSE CASES ARE, UH, ARE ON POINT.
UH, MR. SHEA'S CHALLENGE TO THE PLANNING BOARD STANDING IS, UH, EQUALLY WITHOUT MERIT.
UH, THE RELEVANT STATUTE HERE IS TOWN LAW SECTION 2 6 7 DASH A FOUR, WHICH DEFINES THE EBAS AUTHORITY TO HEAR APPEALS.
IT SAYS IN PERTINENT PART THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS SHALL BE APPELLATE ONLY, AND SHALL BE LIMITED TO HEARING AND DECIDING APPEALS FROM AND REVIEWING ANY ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION INTERPRETATION, OR DETERMINATION MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH ENFORCEMENT OF ANY ORDINANCE OR LOCAL LAW ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE.
AND THEN IT SAYS, AND THIS IS THE CRUCIAL PART, SUCH APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN BY ANY PERSON, AGGRIEVED OR BY AN OFFICER, DEPARTMENT, BOARD, OR BUREAU OF THE TEMP.
THE WORDS AND PUNCTUATION HERE MATTER BECAUSE IT STATES THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN, UH, BY AN OFFICER, DEPARTMENT, BOARD, OR BUREAU.
THE PLANNING BOARD IS OBVIOUSLY A BOARD OF THE TOWN, UH, AND IT'S ENTITLED TO APPEAL THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION, EVEN IF THE BOARD ITSELF IS NOT AGGRIEVED, IF THEY FEEL, UH, IN THEIR CAPACITY AS A BOARD OF THE TOWN THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR MADE A MISTAKE WHEN HE INTERPRETED THE CODE, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD AND ASK FOR YOUR INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES.
UM, AND, AND SO THEY HAVE STANDING, UH, AND AS, UH, UH, MR. SIMON, CHAIRMAN SIMON SAID, MADE CLEAR, UH, THE, THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, TOOK ITS ACTION.
THEY VOTED, IT WAS A PUBLIC ACTION.
IT'S, IT CAN BE WATCHED ON, UH, ON, ON THE ZOOM, IT'S, UH, ON THE TOWN WEBSITE.
UH, IT WAS, UH, WELL KNOWN THAT THEY TOOK THE ACTION, THEY TOOK THE VOTE AND AUTHORIZED THE FILING OF THIS APPEAL, WHICH THEY THEN PERFECTED.
SO STANDING IS NOT A REASON WHY THE Z B A CAN'T REVERSE THIS DECISION BY THE PLANT BUILDING INSPECTOR.
NOW, TURNING TO THE MERITS, THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS WHY MR. SHIRE'S DEFENSE IS WITHOUT MERIT, AND I SAID AT THE OUTSET, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, BECAUSE ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED, UH, UH, UNDER SECTION 2 85
[00:50:01]
DASH THREE, THE USE IS PROHIBITED.AND AS I SAID EARLIER, THAT'S THE WHOLE BALLGAME HERE.
UM, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT MENTIONED, UH, THAT MEANS THEY'RE NOT PERMITTED.
AND, AND, UH, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE AGAINST THEM OR THE C G C A IS AGAINST THEM.
UM, UH, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT, UH, EVEN THE C G A OPPOSES THEY'RE BEING LOCATED IN THE TOWN'S RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
ALL IT MEANS IS THAT THERE'S NO LAW AUTHORIZING THEIR USE AT PRESENT.
THERE COULD BE, AND AS, AS, AS CHAIRMAN SIMON EXPLAINED, MAY WELL BE A LAW, UM, PUT IN PLACE TO GOVERN THEIR USE THAT WOULD HAVE THE MITIGATIONS NECESSARY TO PROTECT PUBLIC SAFETY, PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.
WHEN YOU'RE LOCATING A 20 MILLION VOLT FACILITY IN A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THE COMMITTEE WILL RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THEY BE ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, BUT I AM CONFIDENT THAT IF THEY DO RECOMMEND IT, IT'LL BE WITH THE MITIGATIONS NECESSARY TO ENSURE FAIRNESS.
UH, AND, AND, AND PRACTICALITY, UH, BECAUSE THIS WAS CERTAINLY NOT SOMETHING THAT, UH, UH, ANYONE WOULD'VE CONTEMPLATED WHEN THIS LAW WAS FIRST, UM, WHEN THIS LAW WAS ENACTED.
UM, THE, UH, UH, THE, THE ENERGY SYSTEMS LIKE THIS, UH, OBVIOUSLY, UH, WERE NOT AROUND WHEN THIS LAW WAS ENACTED.
WHEN WAS THIS LAW ENACTED? I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT IN A FEW MINUTES.
UM, BUT THE CURRENT ZONING CODE IN GREENBURG WAS ADOPTED IN 1980.
UH, AND THIS PROHIBITION ABOUT THIS, THIS, UM, UH, PROVISION ABOUT PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES BEING ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL, IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, UM, WITH THE EXCLUSIONS FOR STORAGE, UH, UH, YARDS AND ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS.
I WANNA TALK ABOUT WHAT EXISTED BEFORE 1980 IN A FEW MINUTES, BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT THE LAST TIME THIS WAS AMENDED, WHICH WAS IN 1996, UH, WE WERE ALL GETTING OUR VIDEOS FROM BLOCKBUSTER BACK THEN, NOBODY EVER CONCEIVED OF, OF, OF THIS TECHNOLOGY AS SOMETHING THAT WOULD NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
UH, BUT THEY DID CONCEIVE OF ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS, AND I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT THAT IN A FEW MINUTES.
UH, THE, BEFORE I GET TO THAT, MR. SHERETTA SAYS THAT THE, IN HIS LETTER, THAT THE Z B A SHOULD NEVERTHELESS FIND A WAY TO UPHOLD THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION.
IN DOING SO, UH, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I THINK HE, AGAIN, MISSTATES THE RELEVANT LEGAL STANDARD.
HE STATES AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE FOUR OF HIS LETTER, THAT QUOTE, BECAUSE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION WAS A RATIONALLY BASED INTERPRETATION, HIS DECISION SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED.
THAT'S NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT OF THE LAW.
THE ZBA A'S DECISION MAKING AUTHORITY WHEN REVIEWING A DECISION OF A BUILDING INSPECTOR IS SET FORTH IN TOWN LAW SECTION 2 67 DASH B ONE, UH, UNDER ENTITLED PERMITTED ACTION BY THE BOARD OF APPEALS AND DEALING WITH ORDERS AND INTERPRETATIONS, IT AND INTERPRETATIONS, IT SAYS THE BOARD OF APPEALS MAY REVERSE OR AFFIRM WHOLLY OR PARTLY OR MAY MODIFY THE ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION INTERPRETATION OR DETERMINATION APPEALED FROM, AND THAT'S THE IMPORTANT PART, SHALL MAKE SUCH ORDER REQUIREMENT DECISION INTERPRETATION, AS IN ITS OPINION, OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE MATTER BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF SUCH ORDINANCE OR LOCAL LAW.
AND TO THAT END, SHALL HAVE ALL THE POWERS OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE FROM WHOSE ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION, INTERPRETATION, OR, UH, DETERMINATION.
UH, IN OTHER WORDS, THE ZONING CODE IS TO BE INTERPRETED BY THE Z P A AS IN ITS OPINION, IT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WHOSE ORDER IS BEING APPEALED.
UM, IN THE LAW, WE SAY THAT THAT'S FULL DE NOVO JURISDICTION FOR THOSE LAWYERS ON THE Z B A AND FOR, FOR, FOR THOSE NON-LAWYERS.
UH, AS YOUR COUNSEL WILL ADVISE YOU, I'M SURE, UH, THAT MEANS THAT YOU GIVE IT YOUR BEST SHOT AS TO WHAT YOU THINK THE LAW IS, BUT YOU DON'T DEFER TO WHAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DID.
UM, IT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION OF GREENBERG'S CODE AND GREEN, AND THAT INTERPRETATION IS THE LAST WORD ON WHAT THE CODE SAYS.
UM, IF SOMEBODY DOESN'T LIKE IT, THEY CAN APPEAL IT TO A COURT.
UH, BUT, UH, THIS IS A MATTER OF STATUTORY
[00:55:01]
INTERPRETATION, WHICH YOU ARE CHARGED WITH, UH, UNDERTAKING TO DO, AND IT'S YOUR JOB TO MAKE THAT DECISION, UH, WITHOUT REGARD TO WHAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR MAY HAVE DONE.UM, MR. SHERETTA NEXT ARGUES THAT THE PROJECT MEETS THE, MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE, UM, TO COME WITHIN ITS TERMS, I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THE APPLICANT MUST BE A PUBLIC UTILITY AS THAT TERM IS DEFINED, MR. SHERETTA ARGUES THAT HIS CLIENT IS IN FACT, A PUBLIC UTILITY BECAUSE HE CLAIMS IT IS REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION KNOWN AS FERC.
UH, HE SAYS IT SELLS ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC AS A WHOLESALER BY SELLING TO CON ED, WHICH IN TURN PASSES ON THE COST TO CONSUMERS IN ITS BILLS.
THAT'S, THAT'S, UH, WHAT HE'S SAYING IN HIS LETTER, AND THAT BECAUSE THE PROJECT, PROJECT, IN QUOTES, HIS WORD, NOT MINE, AS OPPOSED TO THE APPLICANT ITSELF, IS REGULATED BY THE NEW YORK STATE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OR P SS C.
UH, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, AGAIN, TO MR. SHETA, I THINK HE'S PLAYING FAST AND LOOSE WITH THE RELEVANT STATUTES AND THEIR DEFINED TERMS, AND THEY REALLY MATTER.
HERE, THE TERM PUBLIC UTILITY, WHICH HERE MODIFIES THE TERM STRUCTURE, IS DEFINED.
TOWN CODE 2 85 DASH FIVE IMPERTINENT AS FOLLOWS, ANY PERSON, FIRM CORPORATION OR GOVERNMENT AGENCY DULY AUTHORIZED TO FURNISH ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC UNDER GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
THE TOWN CODE FURTHER STATES, AND THIS IS CRITICAL, THIS DEFINITION SHALL NOT BESTOW ANY SPECIAL STATUS OR STANDING NOT ALREADY PROVIDED BY STATE OR FEDERAL LAW.
WE'LL HEAR THE TERM PUBLIC UTILITY IS DEFINED BY NEW YORK STATE LAW, SPECIFICALLY NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE LAW SECTION 22, SUBSECTION 23, WHERE IT SAYS IN PERTINENT PART THAT IT IS, QUOTE, ONE OR MORE PERSONS OR CORPORATIONS OPERATING IN AGENCY OR AGENCIES FOR PUBLIC SERVICE, OR WHO OR WHICH IS, OR ARE SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION, SUPERVISION AND REGULATIONS PRESCRIBED BY OR PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER.
TO BE CRYSTAL CLEAR ABOUT IT, THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK PUBLISHES ON ITS WEBSITE A LIST OF THE 50 ELECTRICAL UTILITIES IN NEW YORK, LARGE AND SMALL, WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO ITS JURISDICTION, SUPERVISION, AND REGULATION.
WHEN I PUT IN A FORMAL RESPONSE, I'LL SHOW YOU, I'LL ATTACH THAT LIST SO YOU CAN SEE IT FOR YOURSELVES.
NOT SURPRISINGLY, THE APPLICANT HERE IS NOT LISTED.
THIS IS PRESUMABLY WHY MR. SHERETTA WAS CAREFUL TO SAY IN HIS LETTER, NOT THAT THE APPLICANT IS REGULATED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, BUT RATHER THAT THE PROJECT IS, AND THE ONLY SUPPORT FOR THAT HE CITES EVEN FOR THAT PROPOSITION, IS THAT ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS, LIKE PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE SEPARATELY DEFINED IN SUB SEC IN SECTION TWO OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER THEY ARE, UH, UNDER THE JURISDICTION AND REGULATED, UH, AND SUPERVISION, JURISDICTION, SUPERVISION AND REGULATION OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, WHICH IS WHAT NEW YORK STATE REQUIRES FOR AN ENTITY TO BE A PUBLIC UTILITY, UH, IN, IN THIS STATE.
AND THE DEFINITION IN THIS STATE OF PUBLIC UTILITY IS WHAT'S INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN GREENBERG'S TOWN CODE WHEN IT COMES TO PUBLIC UTILITY.
UM, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS WE KNOW, ALL, ALL THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, SAYS ABOUT ITSELF IS THAT THEY'RE A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY WITH THEIR PRINCIPAL PLACE OF BUSINESS IN NORTH CAROLINA.
UM, SO, UH, AND AS FAR AS THEY'RE BEING REGULATED BY FERC, I THINK ALL FERC DID WILL SAY THAT THOSE ENTITIES, UM, SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO SELL ELECTRICITY ON A WHOLESALE BASIS TO ELECTRIC UTILITIES IN THE STATE OF
[01:00:01]
NEW YORK AND ELSEWHERE, WHICH ARE REGULATED BY VARIOUS STATES, UH, UM, UH, PUBLIC SERVICE OR PUBLIC UTILITY COMMISSION.UM, IT'S, UH, VERY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THE TOWN CODE.
COULD BE A PUBLIC UTILITY FOR PURPOSES OF THEIR HOUSE BEING A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE, BUT THAT'S NOT THE ONLY PROBLEM.
UM, THERE IS THE MATTER OF THE SO-CALLED EXCLUSIONS FROM THE PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE PROVISION.
NOW, THE EXCLUDED THOSE EXCLUSIONS ARE QUOTE, UTILITY BUSINESS OFFICES, GARAGES, OR STORAGE YARDS AND ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS.
I THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS FASCINATING BECAUSE I WANTED TO KNOW WHY THERE WAS THE, THERE WERE THESE EXCLUSIONS, UH, AND HOW THEY MIGHT, WHAT THEY MIGHT TEACH US ABOUT, UH, THE ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM THAT IS ARGUABLY, UM, UH, A STRUCTURE WITHIN THE MEANING OF THIS CLAUSE.
UH, MR. SHERETTA SAYS, WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT A GARAGE OR A STORAGE YARD.
UM, THIS IS AN ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM, BUT IT SAYS IT'S QUOTE, NOTHING LIKE ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS.
WELL, THE TERM ELECTRIC SUBSTATION IS NOT DEFINED IN THE CURRENT ZONING CODE.
UM, MR. RETA EXPLAINS THAT, UH, WHAT ELECTRIC SUBSTATION DOES IS IT TAKES EXTREMELY HIGH VOLTAGE, UH, DISTRIBUTION LINES THAT CONED RUNS, UH, UP AND DOWN THE, THE AIR IN THE STATE REGION.
UM, AND IT TAKES THAT HIGH VOLTAGE AND IT REDUCES IT TO A LOWER VOLTAGE, WHICH THEN GETS TRANSMITTED TO TRANSMISSION LINES AND ULTIMATELY TO TELEPHONE POLE.
WELL, THEN THERE ARE TRANSFORMERS THAT REDUCE THE ELECTRIC VOLTAGE EVEN FURTHER, SO IT CAN BE PIPED INTO PEOPLE'S HOMES.
UM, AND WHAT AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION IS, UH, WAS SOMETHING THAT, REMEMBER I SAID, I LOOKED AT THE HISTORY HERE.
WELL, IN 1957, THE GREENBERG TOWN CODE PERMITTED ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS UNDER THE 1957 CODE.
THE TERM ELECTRIC SUBSTATION THAT WAS PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WAS DEFINED.
IT WAS DEFINED TO NOT HAVE ANY MORE THAN 10, UH, THOUSAND K V A, WHICH TRANSLATES TO 10 MILLION VOLTS.
SO THEY WERE ALLOWING A SUBSTATION IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, UH, AS LONG AS IT DIDN'T EXCEED 10,000, 10 MILLION VOLTS.
UH, ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS WERE STILL PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, BUT THE DEFINITION WAS CHANGED TO ALLOW FOR A MAXIMUM TRANSFORMER CAPACITY OF AS MUCH AS 500 MILLION VOLTS.
BUT I THINK THAT MUST HAVE BEEN A BRIDGE TOO FAR FOR THE TOWN BOARD, BECAUSE BY 1980, I THINK THAT WAS THREE YEARS BEFORE JUDGE ALER JOINED THE BOARD.
UH, BUT, UH, BY 1980, UH, THEN THE CURRENT CODE WAS ADOPTED.
ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS WERE NO LONGER PERMITTED IN ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, PRESUMABLY TO REFLECT CHANGING STANDARDS.
UM, THE CODE NO LONGER DEFINED THOSE THINGS, BUT IT WAS CONSIDERED TO BE SUCH HIGH VOLTAGE THAT IT WAS FAR TOO DANGEROUS TO BE ALLOWED IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
THEY'RE STILL ALLOWED IN A COUPLE OF ZONING DISTRICTS IN GREENBURG, BUT, UH, BUT, BUT GENERALLY THEY'RE NOT.
UM, AND SO THE, THE, UH, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS THE TOWN.
BY REPEALING WHAT THEY ONCE ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, THEY WOULDN'T EVEN ALLOW THE 10 MILLION VOLT ELECTRIC SUBSTATION THAT THEY HAD, UH, ALLOWED BACK IN, YOU KNOW, UNTIL, UH, IN 1957.
THEY WOULDN'T EVEN ALLOW THAT IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
AND HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A 20 MEGAWATT FACILITY, WHICH IS DOUBLE THE SIZE OF WHAT GREENBERG WOULDN'T ALLOW ANYMORE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, UH, SOMETHING THAT IS 20 MILLION VOLTS.
NOW, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION AND A
[01:05:01]
B E S SS? WELL, AN ELECTRICS, THEY BOTH HAVE, ARE BOTH DESIGNED WITH VENTS TO, UM, DEAL WITH, UH, FIRES OR, YOU KNOW, LEAKING GASES AND THINGS LIKE THAT FROM SUCH TREMENDOUS VOLTAGES BEING STORED.UM, THEY'RE JUST BOTH DESIGNED THAT WAY.
BUT HERE'S THE CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE.
A ELECTRIC SUBSTATION CAN BE RENDERED, UM, IN INACTIVE AND SAFE.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A PROBLEM HEARING? NO, WE CAN HEAR YOU AND, UH, THANK YOU.
THE, THE, UM, UH, JUDGE ADLER, DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM HEARING? WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
UM, I, I HEARD, I HEARD IT WENT OUT FOR A FEW SECONDS, BUT I'M UP TO DATE.
UM, SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION AND A B E S S IS THAT IN THEIR, IN THE EVENT OF A, OF ANY KIND OF CATASTROPHIC EVENT, UM, YOU CAN SHUT THE POWER OFF TO AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION BY FLIPPING A SWITCH.
AND WHEN YOU FLIP THE SWITCH AND SHUT THE POWER OFF, ALL THE EQUIPMENT IN THE ELECTRIC SUBSTATION BECOMES SAFE TO HANDLE BECAUSE THERE'S NO ELECTRICITY FLOWING THROUGH IT.
THE DIFFERENCE WITH A BATTERY, ELECTRIC STORAGE SYSTEM IS THAT IF YOU CUT THE SWITCH OFF, YOU STILL HAVE, IN THIS CASE, A 20 MILLION VOLT, UM, STORAGE, UH, UH, FACILITY CONTAINING 20 MILLION VOLTS OF ACTIVE ELECTRICITY.
THAT 20 MILLION VOLTS, ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, IS ENOUGH POWER TO PROVIDE ELECTRICITY FOR 5,000 HOMES OVER A 24 HOUR PERIOD.
IT'S ALSO ENOUGH ELECTRICITY TO KILL PEOPLE, KILL CHILDREN WHO MIGHT WANDER TOO CLOSE, KILL FIREFIGHTERS WHO MIGHT BE RESPONDING IN THE EVENT OF A, OF, OF, OF A CATASTROPHE.
IT'S, IT'S THE KIND OF DANGER THAT IS SO INHERENTLY, UM, DANGEROUS WITHOUT SAFETY PRECAUTIONS AND TRAINING, UH, THAT, THAT IS THE DISTINCTION THAT MAY, THAT SETS THE B E S S SYSTEM APART FROM, UH, THE KIND OF ELECTRIC SUBSTATION THAT EVEN GREENBERG SAID IT DID NOT WANT IN RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES, EVEN AFTER ALLOWING THEM UP TO 10 MILLION WATTS, 10 MILLION VOLTS, UH, IT NO LONGER ALLOWS THEM AT ALL.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOT THAT THESE THINGS ARE SO INHERENTLY DANGEROUS THAT WE CANNOT ALLOW THEM, IT'S THAT THESE THINGS ARE SO INHERENTLY DANGEROUS.
THEY'RE NEW TECHNOLOGY, BUT WE EMBRACE THEM BECAUSE WE KNOW THEY'RE IMPORTANT FOR GOING FORWARD FOR THE FUTURE.
BUT THE TOWN FATHERS AND MOTHERS NEED TO PUT TOGETHER A LAW TO ALLOW THEM TO, TO, UH, EXIST IN HARMONY WITH THE EXISTING USES IN THE TOWN, BE THEY IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, PERHAPS, OR OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS.
BUT IT IS THE TOWN BOARD THAT HAS TO DECIDE HOW TO BALANCE THE EQUITIES, UH, UH, AND, AND DO THAT WORK.
AND THIS STATUTE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THOUGHT ALLOWED THIS USE DOESN'T FIT FOR ALL OF THE LEGAL REASONS I'VE GIVEN YOU.
IT JUST DOESN'T FIT, IT WASN'T CONTEMPLATED.
AND HIS OPINION THAT IT, THAT IT IS AND COULD FIT, UM, IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE TOWN CODE'S PROVISIONS, UH, IN PARTICULAR, AS I SAID, 2 85 DASH THREE.
UM, AND WE, ARE WE READY TO PROCEED? ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM ZONING BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE THE PUBLIC? I, I, I, I DO.
I THINK, I THINK THE COUNCIL OF GREENBERG CIVIC ASSOCIATION WANTS TO BE HEARD.
OKAY, ALL, LET'S HEAR FROM YOU, PLEASE.
MADELINE OSHA, CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF BLOOMBERG STATE ASSOCIATION, THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY USES
[01:10:01]
NO STANDING AS AN INTERROGATION TACTIC.OUR CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS ALLOWED TO REPRESENT THEIR MEMBERS WITHOUT BEING SUBJECTED TO THE BULLYING TECHNIQUES OF THE OPPOSING LAWYERS.
C G C O REPRESENTS CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS ACROSS THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
IT'S IMPRACTICAL FROM MANY STANDPOINTS FOR THE MEMBERSHIP OF EACH CIVIC ASSOCIATION TO ASK TO BE HEARD.
YET, IF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION STANDS, THERE ARE ENOUGH R DESIGNATED PARCELS IN TOWN, OR 40, 30, 20 15, 7 0.5 AND FIVE TO AFFECT EVERY HOMEOWNER.
IF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISIONS STANDS, IT CREATES A PRECEDENT, WHICH IN TURN AFFECTS EVERY HOMEOWNER IN THE TOWN.
IF HOMEOWNERS ARE AFFECTED AND THEIR C G C A REPRESENTS THEM, WHY SAY THAT C G C O DOESN'T HAVE STANDING? OR IS MR. SHERETTA TRYING TO INTIMIDATE THE RESIDENTS AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES? THE ZONING BOARD IS BEING ASKED TO MAKE A DECISION ON A PRECEDENT SETTING ISSUE.
THE IMPLICATIONS OF WHICH COULD AFFECT A LARGE PORTION OF TOWN NOT ENOUGH IS KNOWN ABOUT STORAGE BATTERIES.
THEIR SAFETY ISSUES THEY EFFECT ON POPULOUS, ALLOWING BATTERY STORAGE FACILITIES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS IS EXPERIMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTING ON OR WITH PEOPLE'S LIVES IS CONDEMNED BY THE CIVILIZED WORLD.
UNTIL, AND UNLESS ALL QUESTIONS BEING RAISED BY EVERYONE ARE FULLY EXPLORED AND ANSWERED, THE COUNCIL OF GREENBERG CIVIC ASSOCIATION AGREES WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION SHOULD BE VOIDED.
I HAVE, I HAVE, UM, A REQUEST FROM, UH, TO BOB.
AND IT, IT, IT FOLLOWS CLOSELY WITH WHAT MADELINE JUST, UM, SPOKE ABOUT ON PAGE THREE, UNDERSTANDING, UH, THERE'S A CASE CITED, UM, COUNSELOR OF GREENBERG CIVIC ASSOCIATION VERSUS TOWN BOARD.
UM, I KNOW YOU JUST GOT THIS, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH THIS CASE.
IF YOU HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO PULL IT, IF YOU WANTED TO, UM, YES.
COMMENT, GIVE A COMMENT ABOUT THAT.
'CAUSE I KNOW MR. SHERE IS GONNA GO AHEAD AND GET INTO IT.
UM, THAT DECISION IS ON APPEAL.
UM, SO I'M THEREFORE VERY FAMILIAR WITH IT.
UM, THAT WAS A CASE INVOLVING THE STANDING OF THE C G C A, UM, TO, UM, CHALLENGE, UH, THE GRANTING OF A SPECIAL PERMIT, UM, BY THE TOWN BOARD IN THE SHE BOARD MATTER.
AND THE ARGUMENT RAISED, THERE WAS A NUMBER OF ARGUMENTS RAISED, BUT THE ARGUMENT THAT, THAT THE DECISIONS HELD THAT, UH, THE, UH, BECAUSE THE INDIVIDUALS WHO, UH, WERE PARTIES TO THE CASE, UM, DID NOT HAVE STANDING IN THE COURT'S VIEW, UH, THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, UM, COULD NOT LEGALLY REPRESENT THEIR INTEREST, UH, ON, ON THEIR BEHALF.
AND WE ION WITH THAT AS CONTRARY TO, UH, THE LAW, UH, IN, IN, IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
UH, AND I'M, I THINK WHAT I SHOULD DO IS, UH, UM, CITE AND GIVE COPIES OF THE BRIEF SO THAT PEOPLE CAN SEE THE ARGUMENTS THAT WERE RAISED.
UM, ESSENTIALLY WHAT JUDGE CADE DID IN THE LOWER COURT IN THAT CASE, WHICH HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CHALLENGING STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE INTERPRETATION OF A BUILDING INSPECTOR, UH, ON A MATTER AFFECTING, UM, UH, HOMEOWNERS TOWN WIDE.
BUT IT, IT REALLY HAD TO DO WITH THE STANDING TO CHALLENGE THE GRANT OF A SPECIAL PERMIT SOLELY WITH RESPECT TO THAT APPLICATION, BECAUSE JUDGE A CASE FOUND THAT THE, UH, HOMEOWNERS IN THAT CASE WHO WERE SUING TO, UH, CHALLENGE THE SPECIAL PERMIT, UM, DID NOT IN THEIR COMPLAINT MEASURE THE DISTANCE FROM THEIR HOMES TO THE SITE OF THE PROJECT.
AND SHE THOUGHT THAT WAS, UH, THE CRITICAL ISSUE.
UH, WE POINTED OUT THAT, UH, JUDGE CA CASE, UM, ERR IN THAT FINDING BECAUSE THE CASE SHE RELIED ON WAS A CASE WHERE, UM, THE, UH, MATTER AT ISSUE INVOLVED, UH, A,
[01:15:01]
I THINK A 2000 ACRE PARCEL.AND THE HOMEOWNERS WERE ADJACENT TO THAT 2000 ACRE PARCEL WHERE IT WAS CLEARLY VERY MATERIAL TO THE, WHETHER THEY HAD STANDING TO KNOW HOW FAR THEIR PROPERTIES WERE FROM WHERE THE CONSTRUCTION WAS TO TAKE PLACE WITHIN THAT 2000 ACRE PARCEL.
THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE STANDING WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH A THREE, UH, UH, UM, UH, UH, A BARELY FOUR, ALMOST FOUR ACRE PARCEL, UH, WHERE THE HOMEOWNERS HAS, UH, HAD PROPERTIES THAT WERE ADJACENT TO THAT PARCEL.
SO THAT IN ESSENCE, WAS WHY WE FELT THAT JUDGE CADE GOT IT WRONG.
UM, AND, UH, WE BELIEVE THAT IF WE ARE CORRECT, THAT JUDGE KKAY SU APPLIED, UH, THE WRONG STANDARD WITH RESPECT TO THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNERS, UH, IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT THE, HER RULING WITH RESPECT TO THE CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS WAS LIKEWISE ERRONEOUS AND SHOULD BE REVERSED.
THAT'S ALL BEEN BRIEFED BEFORE THE SECOND DEPARTMENT.
UH, AND, UH, I'M HAPPY TO SHARE WITH YOU AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD COPIES OF THOSE BRIEFS.
UM, AND, UH, UH, AND I THINK THAT, THAT I PROBABLY SAID ENOUGH ABOUT THAT.
BUT THAT IS THE, UH, WHAT THAT CASE WAS ABOUT, UH, WHAT THAT ISSUE WAS.
UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE CASE LAW HAS ANY APPLICATION TO THE STANDING OF A CIVIC ASSOCIATION TO CHALLENGE THE INTERPRETATION OF A BUILDING INSPECTOR WITH RESPECT TO, UH, MATTERS INVOLVING ALL, UH, UH, PROPERTIES IN THE 14 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, UH, OF THE TOWN.
WELL, I JUST WANTED TO, TO ADD TO WHAT BOB SAID, 'CAUSE WE, HIS LAST SENTENCE WAS, I THINK, THE MOST IMPORTANT IN REGARDS TO THIS CASE.
THE ISSUE BEFORE YOU IS NOT SPECIFICALLY ABOUT EAGLE ENERGY.
WE JUST HAPPEN TO BE, BE THE APPLICANT AT THE MOMENT.
THE ISSUE IS THE PRECEDENT THAT, THAT, THAT THIS SETS, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR THESE STORAGE FACILITIES VIRTUALLY IN ANY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
SO IT REALLY IS A GLOBAL ISSUE, NOT AN ISSUE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THAT.
AS MR. SIMON SAID, THE POINT WOULD ACTUALLY ISSUE A MUTUAL RECOMMENDATION.
WE HAVEN'T TAKEN A POSITION ON THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT YET.
'CAUSE FRANKLY, WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE THAT DECISION AT THIS POINT.
OUR CONCERN WHEN WE FILED THE APPEAL WAS A GLOBAL CONCERN OF WHAT THE IMPACT COULD BE ACROSS THE ENTIRE TOWN.
I WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR, WHICH IS WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT, BECAUSE IT'S VERY UNUSUAL FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO EVEN CONSIDER APPEALING A BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION.
BUT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE OF THE GLOBAL NATURE AND POTENTIAL IMPACT TO OUR TOWN, WE FELT WE HAD NO CHOICE.
WELL, AFTER 23 YEARS, THIS IS THE FIRST APPEAL.
I'M, I'M, UH, I'M HEARING FROM THE PLANNING BOARD BEFORE THE Z B A.
AND WHO'S NEXT? WANTED TO BE HEARD AND THERE WERE TWO, TWO MEMBERS, UH, OR TWO PEOPLE TO SIGN, ASKED TO SPEAK.
AND, UH, FIRST WOULD BE LI RETA.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME OKAY? YES.
UH, MY NAME IS LEO SHERETTA, UH, PARTNER WITH THE LAW FIRM, BLAKELY PLAT, REED AND WHITE PLAINS ON BEHALF OF EAGLE ENERGY STORAGE.
UM, WITH ME THIS EVENING, WE HAVE JAMES ROBINSON FROM EAGLE ENERGY, WHO WILL ALSO, UH, COMMENT THIS EVENING.
UM, WE'VE HEARD A LOT FROM THE RESPECTIVE APPLICANTS THIS EVENING, AND I WILL RESPOND TO THOSE ISSUES.
BUT BEFORE I DO THAT, I JUST WANT TO GO AND, AND GIVE OUR POINT, UH, ON THIS MATTER.
UH, YOU HAVE OUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 10TH, 2021 FOR THE RECORD, WHICH CONTAINS THE ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDING THAT WE BELIEVE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION SHOULD BE UPHELD.
EAGLE ENERGY SPENT MONTHS BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD REGARDING THIS PROJECT, ONLY TO BE SIDETRACKED AT THE END OF THE YEAR TO THIS APPEAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD AS TO THE USE OF THIS PROJECT, OF THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS NOT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD, YOU, YOU HAVE MY LETTER, AND YOU SAW THE RESOLUTION THAT THE TOWN BOARD PROVIDED, UH, THAT SAID THE, THE SPECIFIC ROLE OF THE PLANNING BOARD HERE WAS TO RENDER REPORTED RECOMMENDATION ON THE SITE PLAN.
BUT WHEN YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE RECORD BEFORE THE, THE PLANNING BOARD, THEY GOT INTO ISSUES OF USE AND WHETHER OR NOT THE SPECIAL PERMIT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE OR NOT.
AND I, AND I, AND I SUBMIT TO EVERYONE ON THIS BOARD, UH, THAT'S COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE AND WAS NOT THEIR MANDATE.
THEIR MANDATE WAS SIMPLY TO REVIEW THE SITE PLAN AND PROVIDE THE TOWN BOARD
[01:20:01]
WITH A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION.NOW, I KNOW THOSE OF YOU ON THIS BOARD HAVE, HAVE KNOWN ME FOR, FOR OTHER PROJECTS THAT BOB AND I, UH, BERNSTEIN HAVE BATTLED BACK AND FORTH.
SO YOU, YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH, WITH, UH, WITH ME AND WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST AND REFUTING A LOT OF WHAT MR. BERNSTEIN HAS SAID.
BUT WE ARE HERE TONIGHT NOT AS APPLICANTS, BUT AS RESPONDENTS IN OPPOSITION TO THESE APPEALS, UH, BOTH BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND BY THE C G C A REGARDING EAGLE ENERGY'S PROPOSAL TO INSTALL THIS 20 MEGAWATT BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM ON A PORTION, A SECLUDED PORTION OF THE NORWOOD COUNTRY CLUB SITE.
NOW AT ISSUE HERE, AND WHAT I, WHAT I HEARD, AND WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME HERE, OKAY, ALMOST ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF OR SO ON, ON THIS, ON, ON THIS PRESENTATION FROM THE APPELLANTS.
THE, THE, THE CRUX HERE IS WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE FROM THE CLAIM READING OF THE TOWN CODE, THE BILLING INSPECTOR WAS CORRECT, AND WE SUBMIT THAT BASED ON A CLEAN READING OF THE TOWN ZONING CODE AND ITS DEPOSITION DEFINITIONS, THE BILLING INSPECTOR GOT IT RIGHT.
ALSO, WHAT I DIDN'T HEAR FROM THE APPELLANTS IS TO THE EXTENT THERE IS ANY AMBIGUITY OR VAGUENESS IN THE CODE LEGAL ENERGY, AS THE APPLICANT STILL GETS THE BENEFIT OF A READING OF THE CODE IN ITS FAVOR, AND THAT WE CITED THOSE BEDROCK PRINCIPLES IN OUR LETTER.
NOW, MR. BERNSTEIN SAID THAT, YES, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND HIS ZONING BOARD ARE VESTED WITH THE POWER TO INTERPRET THE ZONING CODE.
AND IT'S WELL ESTABLISHED THAT THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE OF ORDINANCES IS PRECISE AND UNAMBIGUOUS WHEN PLAIN LANGUAGE IS DETERMINATIVE OF THAT FACTOR.
'CAUSE WE ALL KNOW THERE'S ALSO BEGA ROCK PRINCIPLE THAT ZONING RESTRICTIONS, WHICH ARE IN INTERROGATION OF COMMON LAW PROPERTY RIGHTS SHOULD BE STRICTLY CONSTRUED.
AND AGAIN, THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT, IF THERE'S ANY AMBIGUITY, SUCH AMBIGUITY IN THOSE REGULATIONS HAVE TO BE RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF EAGLE ENERGY.
HERE, THE Z B A IS SUPPOSED TO USE ITS PRECEDENT TO THE EXTENT THERE IS HERE, THERE IS NO PRECEDENT.
SO THE Z B A CAN APPLY THE FACTS AND MAKE SUCH DETERMINATION AS IT HAD ALSO BEEN MADE BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
NOW, HERE, BUILDING INSPECTOR MR. HAM DETERMINED THAT EAGLE'S USE IS CONSISTENT WITH SECTION TWO EIGHTY FIVE TEN FOUR B FOR WHO'S USE PERSPECTIVE WITH THE DISCRETION LINE WITH THE TOWN BOARD, AND AGAIN, THE TOWN BOARD, NOT THE PLANNING BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS.
NOW, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME IN, UH, TALKING ABOUT THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS AND STANDING, AND A LITTLE MORE ABOUT THAT.
WE BRIEFED THAT IN OUR, IN OUR LETTER.
BUT AGAIN, UH, WE, THE PLANNING BOARD KNEW ABOUT THIS REAL COMMENT, WHICH WE VIEW AS BUILDING INSPECTORS TESTED, OKAY? THAT THIS USE WAS PERMITTED IN THE R 30 RESIDENTIAL ZONE DISTRICT, OKAY? THEY KNEW ABOUT THIS BACK IN SEPTEMBER AND OCTOBER, AND YET NEVER RAISED THIS ISSUE.
AND IT WASN'T UNTIL THE, THE NOVEMBER 4TH BEING WHEN THEY REQUESTED THAT THE BILLING INSPECTOR PROVIDE, UH, THIS, THIS ISSUE AS TO THE USE.
SO AGAIN, WE BRIEFLY ABOUT IN OUR LETTER, AND YOU KNOW, SPECIFICALLY THAT THE PLANNING BOARD REQUESTED THIS, THIS MEMO FROM THE BILLING INSPECTOR.
WE BELIEVE THAT IT WAS AN ATTEMPT TO JUST RETRIGGER THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WHICH HAD ELAPSED NO CHALLENGED, WHETHER IT BE THE C C G C A OR THE PLANNING BOARD, THE SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2020 DECISION FROM THE BILLING INSPECTOR, WHICH WAS STAMPED ON SEPTEMBER 24TH AND FILED WITH THE, UH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, UH, ADVISORY BOARD.
NOW, EXCUSE ME, THE, UH, THE DEPLOYMENT DEPARTMENT WITH THE TOWN.
NOW, I KNOW MR. BERNSTEIN SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT THE, THE CASE IN DOBBS FERRY, WHICH I WAS THE ATTORNEY ON.
BUT WHAT HE FORGETS TO MENTION, AND WHAT HE DID NOT, UH, STATE, IS THAT THAT PARTICULAR CASE INVOLVED A SPECIFIC ISSUE AND A SPECIFIC LOCAL LAW WITH RESPECT TO FILING, AND SPECIFICALLY IN THE VILLAGE OF DOBBS FERRY CODE SECTION 300.
SO THAT WAS THE ISSUE IN THAT CASE.
AND THE OTHER ISSUE IN THAT CASE WAS HAVING TO DEAL WITH THE FACT THAT THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, EXCUSE ME, THE CLIENT BOARD FAILED TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING WHEN THEY SHOULD HAVE IN THAT MATTER.
SO AGAIN, I DON'T APPRECIATE, UH, THE MIS ATION OF THE, THE LAW HERE BECAUSE I WAS INVOLVED IN THAT CASE, AND I KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT THAT CASE WAS RE REVERSED ON, AND IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH, WITH THE ISSUE THAT MR. BERNSTEIN WAS, UH, STATING.
NOW, GOING BACK TO THE ISSUE AT HAND, AND AGAIN, I'M GOING TO ADDRESS THE POINTS MADE BY MR. SIMON AND MR. SCHWARTZ AND MR. BERNSTEIN, BUT I WANT TO GET INTO THIS, UH, TO OUR POINTS THAT WE, WE RAISED
[01:25:01]
IN OUR LETTER.SO GOING BACK TO THE TIMELINESS, WE BELIEVE THESE APPEALS ARE UNTIMELY AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED TO THE EXTENT THAT THE ZONING BOARD BELIEVES THAT THEY WANT TO HEAR THE, THE SUBSTANCE OF THIS.
NOW, WE, WE HOPEFULLY THAT THE, THE, THE ZONING BOARD WOULD CON CONSIDER THESE PROCEDURAL STANDING AND, UH, STATUTE OF CONTAGIONS ARGUMENTS AND, AND, YOU KNOW, DELIBERATE UPON THEM WHEN IT COMES TIME TO DO SO.
NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE STANDING ARGUMENT, NOW I KNOW, UH, MR. BERSON AND I HAVE, HAVE GONE ABOUT STANDING, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT JUDGE QUE FOUND THAT THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND HAD NO STANDING.
NOW WE SUBMIT THAT THIS APPEAL BY THE COUNSEL AMOUNTS TO A, BASICALLY, NOT JUST AN INTERPRETATION, BUT AN A, THE OPPOSITION TO EAGLE ENERGY'S PROJECT.
NOW, I CITE THAT CASE NOT TO BULLY, AS WAS STATED, BUT SIMPLY TO SHOW THAT THE, A COURT OF LAW HAS FOUND THAT THE COUNSEL DID NOT HAVE STANDING, AND IT WASN'T JUST ONLY A DISTANCE AND A LINEAR MEASUREMENT REQUIREMENT.
IT ALSO HAD TO DO WITH THE FACT THAT THERE WAS NO INJURY, IN FACT, SEPARATE IN PART, THAN THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
AND THE COURT ALSO SAID THAT THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION HAD NO INJURY THAT WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
ANOTHER REASON WHY THEY WERE FOUND NOT TO HAVE STANDING AGAIN, WE, WE RAISED THOSE ISSUES FOR THE ZONING BOARD TO CONSIDER IN THEIR DELIBERATION WITH RESPECT TO THIS APPLICATION.
NOW, GOING ON TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A MOMENT.
NOW, THE PLANNING BOARD'S INTERESTING BECAUSE IN, IN, IN MY TIME, UH, I GET TO SEE A PLANNING BOARD APPEAL BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION, WHETHER IT'S IN TOWN VILLAGES I REPRESENT, OR, OR, OR ON BEHALF OF DEVELOPERS.
NOW, THEY NOTE THAT, YES, THIS WAS VOTED UPON BY RESOLUTION, BUT IN TERMS OF ORGANIZATIONAL STANDING, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE, AND HOPEFULLY I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE, THERE ARE MINUTES, WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE VOTE OF THIS AND PRESENTED IN THE RECORD, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE PART OF THIS RECORD, THAT THERE ARE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND THAT THIS AUTHOR, THIS APPEAL, WAS AUTHORIZED BY THAT BOARD.
BECAUSE AS WE, WE QUOTE IN OUR LETTER, THE INDIVIDUAL BOARD MEMBERS DO NOT HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACT ON THEIR OWN.
SO AGAIN, WE RAISED THAT AS A POINT OF PROCEDURE, AND WE HOPE THE Z B A WOULD WOULD CONSIDER THIS.
NOW, NOW TO THE MERITS OF, OF THIS, THIS APPEAL HERE, THE BUILDING INSPECTORS FOUND THAT EAGLE'S PROJECT FITS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE.
AND YOU ALSO HAVE TO READ THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY BASED ON A PLAIN READING OF THE TOWN CODE SECTION 2 85, 10 A FOUR B, AND THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY IN 2 85 5.
NOW, BECAUSE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION, WE BELIEVE WAS BASED ON A RATIONAL INTERPRETATION, THERE'S NO REASON THIS SHOULD BE DISTURBED.
NOW, I'M GONNA REVIEW THE TOWN CO PROVISION, 10 A FOUR B, WHICH PROVIDES PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES AND UTILITY RIGHTS OF WAY EXCLUDING UTILITY BUSINESS OFFICES, GARAGES OR STORAGE YARDS AND ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS.
WHEN SET FACILITIES ARE NEEDED TO SERVE THE TOWN OR THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD SUBJECT TO DETERMINATION BY THE TOWN BOARD THAT NO OTHER REASONABLE LOCATION IN THIS DISTRICT OR IN A LESS RESTRICTED DISTRICT CAN BE UTILIZED FOR THE PROPOSED FACILITY.
NOW, WHEN YOU READ THAT WITH DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY, PUBLIC UTILITY IS DEFINED ZONING CODE AS FOLLOWS, ANY PERSON, FIRM, CORPORATION OR GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY THAT'S DULY AUTHORIZED TO FURNISH THE PUBLIC UNDER GOVERNMENTAL REGULATION, ELECTRICITY, GAS, WATER SOURCE, TREATMENT STREAM, OR COMMUNICATION SERVICE.
NOW, THIS DEFINITION SHALL NOT BE STILL ANY SPECIAL STATUS OR STANDING NOT ALREADY PROVIDED BY STATE OR LOCAL LAW SECTION TOWN CODE 28 2 85 DASH FIVE.
NOW, WHEN YOU READ THESE PROVISION TOGETHER, EAGLE ENERGY QUALIFIES.
AND AGAIN, HOWEVER, THIS DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER WE COMPLY WITH THE SPECIAL PERMIT IS LEFT TO THE TOWN BOARD TO ME, AND THEREFORE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THIS APPEAL.
NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT WHETHER THIS PROJECT AND HOW THIS PROJECT NEEDS A DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE.
THE PROJECT IS REGULATED BY THE FEDERAL ENERGY REGULATORY COMMISSION, THE FERC I WILL CALL, AND IT SELLS ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC.
I KNOW THE PLANNING BOARD TO P L E SAYING THAT WE DON'T SELL ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC, AND THIS IS FLAT OUT WRONG.
AND, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR THE MOST PART, THE COMMENTS THAT I HEARD TONIGHT, AND, AND I
[01:30:01]
UNDERSTAND IT, IT REPRESENT A FUNDAMENTAL MISUNDERSTANDING, UH, OF THIS TECHNOLOGY.AND, AND HOPEFULLY WE CAN EDUCATE THE BOARD MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC AND THE, THE APPELLANTS AND STEVE ON, ON WHAT IN FACT ENERGY STORAGE IS ALL ABOUT.
NOW, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE, FERC, THIS PROJECT IS RUNNING BUT REGULATED BY FERC AND SELLS ENERGY, ENERGY TO THE PUBLIC VIA THE NEW YORK STATE INDEPENDENT SYSTEM OPERATOR NY O WHOLESALE MARKET.
SO UNDER CON EGG BILL, THE COST OF PROJECTS LIKE EAGLE ARE ADDRESSED UNDER THE QUOTE, YOUR SUPPLY CHARGES.
THEY'RE NOT ITEMIZED IF YOU, IF YOU'RE GETTING ENERGY FROM INDIAN POINT, IT DOESN'T SAY IN, UH, ENERGY FROM INDIAN POINT.
IT DOESN'T SAY ENERGY FROM WIND FARM.
IT DOESN'T SAY ENERGY FROM BATTERY STORAGE, BUT IT'S INCLUDED IN YOUR BILL UNDER YOUR SUPPLY CHARGES.
SO APPELLANTS ARE WRONG WHEN THEY SAY, WE DO NOT SELL ENERGY TO THE PUBLIC.
AND THIS WHOLE WHOLESALE ENERGY DEVELOPED FOLLOWING THE RESTRUCTURING OF UTILITIES BACK IN THE 1990S.
SO BACK THEN, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY BROKE IT UP.
AND WHAT HAPPENED WAS CONED IS NO LONGER A PROVIDER OF ENERGY.
THEY, THEY TRANSMIT ENERGY, OKAY? AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT A LITTLE BIT LATER.
ENTITIES LIKE BATTERY ENERGY AND EVIL ENERGY ARE ENERGY PROVIDERS.
THEY, THEY STORE ELECTRICITY, OKAY? AND THEN THEY PUT IT BACK OUT INTO THE GRID.
BUT AGAIN, WE DO PROVIDE AND DO SELL TO CUSTOMERS.
NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE, THE REGULATION.
OKAY? SO WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THIS IS REGULATED BY FERC, OKAY? VIA S O.
NOW, THE PROJECT, BECAUSE IT STORES ELECTRICITY, IS ALSO REGULATED BY THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION UNDER THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW, WHICH INCLUDES DEFINITION OF ENERGY STORAGE DEVICE UTILIZING BATTERIES.
NOW, PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS THAT P S C IS ISSUED, THESE ORDERS ESTABLISH SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW TO WHICH ELECTRIC CORPORATIONS ARE ENGAGED IN GENERATING POWER FOR SALE IN THE WHOLESALE MARKETS.
NOW, AS I STATED EARLIER, UH, ELECTRICITY MARKETS IN NEW YORK HAVE CHANGED DRAMATICALLY IN THE PAST 25.
SORRY, IT'S DEBBIE, IT'S THE COURT REPORTER.
GO BACK NOW, PURSUANT TO THE ORDERS OF WHO AND SLOWDOWN.
SO THE ORDERS ESTABLISH THE SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE LAW TO WHICH ELECTRIC CORPORATE CORPORATIONS ARE ENGAGED IN GENERATING POWER FOR SALE IN THE WHOLESALE MARKETS.
NOW, WHAT I WAS SAYING, AND I'LL REPEAT THIS, ELECTRICITY MARKETS IN NEW YORK CHANGED DRAMATICALLY IN THE LAST 25 YEARS.
NEW CUSTOMERS ARE NO LONGER SERVED BY WHAT WE CALL A VERTICAL INTEGRATED UTILITIES THAT GENERATE, TRANSMIT, DISTRIBUTE, AND SELL ELECTRICITY.
THE NEW YORK ELECTRICITY MARKET IS NOW BIFURCATED, WHICH MEANS THAT UTILITIES LIKE CONED ONLY TRANSMIT AND DISTRIBUTE ELECTRICITY TO RETAIL CUSTOMERS.
THEY'RE NO LONGER ENGAGED IN WHAT WE DO, WHICH IS GENERATING ELECTRICITY.
INSTEAD, INDEPENDENT COMPANIES LIKE EAGLE ENERGY COMPETE TO PROVIDE ENERGY.
WE NEED TO KEEP THE LIGHTS ON IN NEW YORK.
NOW, THE PROJECT FURNISHES ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC UNDER GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS, AND THEREFORE UNDER COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION, THE PROJECT QUALIFIES AS A PUBLIC UTILITY OR PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE UNDER THE TOWN'S OWN ZONING CODE, WHICH IS A PRETTY BROAD DEFINITION.
AND I, AND I READ THOSE DEFINITIONS INTO THE RECORD.
SPECIFICALLY, THE PROJECT WILL SERVE TO STABILIZE THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY OF THE GRID BY PROVIDING ELECTRICITY THROUGH ITS PARTICIPATION IN THE FERC REGULATED S O WHOLESALE POWER MARKETS.
NOW, A LITTLE BIT ABOUT NYS O THEY WERE FORMED IN 1999 AFTER THE RESTRUCTURING OF THE ELECTRIC INDUSTRY.
THE CHARGE OF NYS O IS TO DESIGN, DEPLOY, ADMINISTER, AND MONITOR NEW YORK'S WHOLESALE ELECTRICITY MARKETPLACE.
THEY ALSO MANAGE THE FLOW OF ELECTRICITY THROUGHOUT THE STATE TO ENSURE IT'S PRODUCING SUFFICIENT QUANTITIES AND TRANSMITTING WHERE IT NEEDS TO GO.
NOW, THIS PROJECT THAT WE PROPOSE BY EAGLE ENERGY IS NECESSARY NOT ONLY TO MEET MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ADMITTED TO NEEDS FOR RELIABLE ELECTRICITY, BUT ALSO TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE POLICY AND MANDATE TO HELP ACCOMPLISH THE STATE'S RENEWABLE ENERGY COMMITMENTS.
NOW, STORAGE PROJECTS SUCH AS THE ONE THAT EVIL ENERGY IS PROPOSING INCREASES GREEN EFFICIENCY AND RELIABILITY, AND REDUCES THE NEED TO RELY ON TRADITIONAL CARBON EMITTING ENERGY SOURCES TO THE BENEFIT OF TOWN AND ITS RESONANCE.
NOW, AS SUCH, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT AND YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION, THIS PROJECT FITS WITHIN THAT DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE SET FORTH IN SECTION 2 85, 10 A FOUR B.
NOW, WE, WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT SUBSTATION, OKAY? AND, AND
[01:35:01]
HOW WITH THE CODE EXCLUDES, IT'S NOT SUPPOSED TO EXCLUDE, BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SUBSTATION FOR A SECOND.SECTION 2 5, 10 A FOUR B SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDES THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES, UTILITY BUSINESS OFFICES, GARAGES OR STORAGE YARDS AND ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS, BUT MAKES NO MENTION OF ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS OR OTHERWISE PROVIDES ANY INDICATION THAT THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY IS PROHIBITED.
NOW, MR. BERNSTEIN STATED SUBSTATIONS PROVIDE AND FULFILL A VERY SPECIFIC PURPOSE DAY TRANSFERRING VOLTAGE, WHICH IS CORRECT FROM HIGH TO LOW OR THE REVERSE.
THIS IS ENTIRELY DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT FROM EAGLE'S PURPOSE, WHICH IS TO BUY ENERGY FROM MERCHANT GENERATORS DURING OFF PEAK PERIODS AND TO SELL IT TO THE PUBLIC DURING ON PEAK PERIODS.
AS WE DESCRIBED, BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS ARE OWNED AND OPERATED BY INDEPENDENT THIRD PARTY ENTITIES THAT PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE NICER GRID AND ARE REGULATED BY FERC.
NOW, IN CONTRAST, SUBSTATIONS ARE TYPICALLY OWNED BY THE LOCAL DISTRIBUTION OR TRANSMISSION UTILITY.
IT'S THEREFORE INAPPROPRIATE TO INCLUDE ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM AMONG THE LIST OF THOSE STATED EXCEPTIONS.
THAT, AND, AND IT WOULD VIOLATE THE RULES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION TO READ THAT.
NOW, UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS CODE SECTION WAS ENACTED BEFORE ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS WERE COMMON IN PLACE.
AGAIN, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE STATUTE CANNOT BE READ BROADLY AS APPLYING TO THIS PROJECT.
NOW, RECOGNIZE THAT ANY OF YOUR STORAGE SYSTEM FALLS WITHIN THIS DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY.
IT, IT CAN BE, IS A COMMON SENSE READING OF THE CODE, OKAY? WE STATED IN OUR LETTER THAT THERE ARE STATUTES THAT PREDATED THE INVENTION OF COMPUTERS, BUT WHEN YOU INTERPRET THEM, THEY ARE SPECIFICALLY INTERPRETED BY INCLUDING IN COMPUTERS WHEN, WHEN THE STATUTE WAS ENACTED, THEY, THEY DID NOT HAVE SUCH WORDING IN STATUTE, BUT THEY ARE INTERPRETED AS INCLUDING TODAY.
NOW, THE CASE LAW THAT I SIGNED IN THE LETTER ALSO SUPPORTS THE FINDING THAT THIS PROJECT MEET THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE AS A MATTER OF LAW.
NOW, I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH THOSE CASES THIS EVENING, I KNOW WE'VE BEEN HERE A WHILE, BUT THE BOARD COULD READ THEM.
BUT THIS PROJECT FITS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE.
AND BECAUSE ANY AMBIGUITY IN THE STATUTE MUST BE RESOLVED IN THE APPLICANT'S FAVOR, AGAIN, THESE ARE CONCEPTS THAT ARE BEDROCK PRINCIPLES THAT I DID NOT HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AT ALL, OR APPLICANT'S, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THIS APPEAL.
NOW, I, I WANNA GO TO FOR A MOMENT JUST TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE RAISED BY THE APPELLANTS.
NOW, MR. SIMON, IN, IN HIS INITIAL COMMENTARY STATED, AND I WROTE THIS DOWN BECAUSE, UH, I WAS, I WAS, IT SURPRISED ME, HE STATED, THE PLANNING BOARD IS A LEGISLATIVE BODY.
AND, AND I PUT THAT IN QUOTES BECAUSE THE PLANNING BOARD IS NOT A LEGISLATIVE BODY, OKAY? THEY HAVE A SPECIFIC, THEY ARE EMPOWERED BY SPECIFIC RULES AND REGULATIONS IN THE TOWN CODE.
THEY ARE CHARGED WITH SITE PLAN SUBDIVISION, AND ON OCCASION OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS THAT THEY HAVE TO MAKE BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD.
SO FOR THEM TO GO INTO THIS WHOLE BUSINESS OF A SPECIAL PERMIT, WE SUBMIT THAT THEIR ROLE IS MISPLACED HERE.
NOW, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE PLANNING BOARD, THEY DO A FINE JOB.
BUT THIS CASE HERE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, AND IT'S OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S POWERS, BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A LEGISLATIVE BODY.
NOW, THEY ALSO STATE THAT IN NO COMMENT THAT WAS MADE IN MR. FRIDA'S LETTER, UH, IS NOT A LEGAL OPINION.
HE SPECIFICALLY MEANT, AND AGAIN, HE'S ON THE LINE TONIGHT, SO I WOULD DEFER TO MR. MR. FTA, BUT IF THERE'S NO COMMENT, THAT MEANS THAT THIS PROJECT UNDER THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S EYES IS THAT HE'S PERMITTED BY SPECIAL PERMIT UNDER THE R 30 ZONE.
NOW, WE HEARD A LOT ABOUT, UM, THE WORD ACCOMMODATE WITH RESPECT TO THE TOWN BOARD, UH, LOOKING AT IN ACTIVE LEGISLATION TO ACCOMMODATE THESE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS. NOW, WE, WE APPLAUD THAT.
WE, WE THINK THAT IT, IT IS, IS A, IS A GOOD THING, BUT FOR THIS APPLICANT WHO'S BEEN IN THIS PIPELINE AND WHO'S BEEN, UH, BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN BOARD UNDER WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE A RATIONAL FAIR AND, AND A BASED INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE, YES, IF THE BOARD WANTS TO ADDRESS PRECEDENT, THEY CAN DO THAT WITH LEGISLATION THAT THEY ARE LOOKING TO ENACT.
BUT THAT LEGISLATION AND OUR PROJECT ARE, ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.
THIS PROJECT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS GOING TO BE LOCATED IN A PORTION OF NORWOOD COUNTRY CLUB.
THAT'S, IF YOU'VE HEARD, BEEN THERE, AND I, AND I SUGGEST YOU ALL VISIT, IT'S IN THE PARKING LOT SECLUDED WHERE THE OLD TENNIS COURTS USED TO BE.
AND I'M GONNA HAVE JAMES ROBINSON
[01:40:01]
AT THE END OF MY PRESENTATION WHEN HE SPEAKS, IS TO PULL UP WHAT THESE THINGS LOOK LIKE.BUT WHILE WE FIND IT VERY, UM, GOOD NEWS AND A LOT OF GOOD NEWS THAT THE TOWN BOARD IS LOOKING TO ACCOMMODATE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE, THAT'S GREAT.
BUT WE AS THE APPLICANT HERE, DESERVE TO BE PROCESSED UNDER THE INTERPRETATION, UNDER THE LAW THAT'S ON THE BOOKS TODAY WITH RESPECT TO THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY AND PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES.
NOW, UH, MR. SCHWARTZ, UH, SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON, ON, ON SOME ISSUES AND TALKING ABOUT SAFETY AND TALKING ABOUT, UM, A BUNCH OF ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO THE BATTERY AND YOUR STORAGE SYSTEM.
AGAIN, NONE OF THESE ISSUES THAT, THAT, AND FOLKS, DUE RESPECT TO MR. SCHWARTZ, THE ISSUE IS ABOUT SAFETY.
THESE WERE ALL ISSUES THAT ARE NOT BEFORE YOUR BOARD.
WE ADDRESSED SAFETY ISSUE AT
WE HAD OUR OWN FIRE CONSULTANTS AND ALSO AN EX FIRE CHIEF FROM THE NEW YORK CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT ADDRESSED ISSUES OF SAFETY, THAT ADDRESSED ISSUE OF THE BATTERY, UH, ENERGY STORAGE AND HOW SAFE THESE FACILITIES ARE.
SO, AND WE, WE PRESENTED A TON OF INFORMATION ON RECORD BEFORE THE PLANNING AND TOWN BOARD, HOW THESE ARE, THESE ARE SAFE.
NOW, WE ALSO SAID, WHICH I TAKE EXCEPTION TO THAT, THE PLANNING BOARD ISSUED A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.
AGAIN, NOT RELEVANT, BUT, UH, I, I WOULD VENTURE TO SAY THAT THERE'S NOTHING NEUTRAL ABOUT WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD STATED HERE.
YOU CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE, THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
WHEN THEY VOTED ON THIS, THERE WAS NOTHING NEUTRAL ABOUT IT.
UM, IF IT WAS NEUTRAL, AND WHEN IT SAID, LISTEN, WE, WE DEFER TO THE PLANNING BOARD, I MEAN TO THE ABILITY INSPECTORS DETERMINATION, AND WE'LL COMMENT ON THE SPECIFICITY OF THE SITE PLAN.
I, I WOULD SAY A RECOMMENDATION, BUT THAT'S NOT A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE WE'RE HERE AND THEY TAKE EXCEPTION TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION.
SO AGAIN, I WOULD NOT CALL THAT NEUTRAL.
UH, HE MENTIONS THINGS ABOUT SAFETY.
AGAIN, NOT AN ISSUE FOR THIS BOARD.
WE'VE ADDRESSED THOSE ISSUES BEFORE THE PLANNING AND, AND THE TOWN BOARD, MR. SCHWARTZ ALSO TALKED ABOUT THE SUBSTATION.
AND AGAIN, WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THIS IS NOT A SUBSTATION, AND NOW WE DO STATE, AND HE BELIEVES, I AGREE WITH THIS STATE.
HE SAID THE CODE IS WRITTEN BROADLY ENOUGH, AND THOSE ARE HIS WORDS.
YES, THE CODE HERE IS WRITTEN BROADLY ENOUGH TO INCLUDE THIS TYPE OF FACILITY.
IT'S NOT FARFETCHED UNDER YOUR TOWN CODE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE AND PUBLIC UTILITY THAT THIS PROJECT FITS PRETTY NEATLY IN, IN THE TOWN'S DEFINITION.
SO AGAIN, UM, THIS IS AN ISSUE FOR THE TOWN BOARD, NOT THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO, TO THE PLANNING, UH, BOARD, THEIR, THEIR ROLE WAS STRICTLY TO LOOK AT THE ISSUE OF THE SITE PLAN, NOT THE USE.
SO AGAIN, THAT'S WHY WE OBJECT TO THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPEAL ON THOSE GROUNDS AS WELL.
NOW, WITH RESPECT TO MR. BERNSTEIN, UM, THERE WERE MULTIPLE MISCHARACTERIZATIONS, AND I KNOW JAMES WILL ADDRESS IT, BUT HE'S CONFUSING VAULTS WITH WATTAGE.
UH, AND IT WAS BASICALLY THE KITCHEN SINK APPROACH, UH, OF TRYING TO SAY, LET, LET'S JUST CONFUSE AND, AND MAKE THIS, UH, JUST RUN THE RECORD AND SEE WHAT WE GET HERE.
HE CITES NEW YORK UTILITY LAW.
BUT AGAIN, THE, THE, THE ISSUE IS NOT THE NEW YORK UTILITY LAW, IT'S THE TOWN'S OWN CODE.
SO, YOU KNOW, MR. MR. BRUSTEIN WITH TOTAL RESPECT, YOU KNOW, I THINK HE'S GRASPING AGAINST STRAWS.
HE CITES A CASE THAT I HANDLED THAT I WAS FAMILIAR WITH, AND, AND IT GIVES YOU A HOLDING THAT WAS NOT THE HOLDING THAT, THAT, THAT THE CASE STOOD FOR.
AND, AND I KNOW BECAUSE IT WAS MY CASE, I'D ARGUED IT, I HANDLED IT, AND I LIVED IT FOR A FEW YEARS IN GOD'S FEAR.
SO AGAIN, COMPLETELY OFF THE MARK WITH RESPECT TO WHY THAT CASE WAS REVERSED AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE HERE.
NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT ANOTHER POINT THAT MR. BERNSTEIN SAID ABOUT 2 85 DASH THREE.
AND BY THE WAY, FOR THE RECORD, I, I, I, I WANNA STATE THAT FOR NOT HAVING HAD MY RECORD.
UH, MY LETTER ALLEGEDLY, MR. BERNSTEIN SPENT AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT MY LETTER AND, AND GOING THROUGH IT, YOU KNOW, WORD BY WORD.
SO, UH, THANK YOU MR. BERNSTEIN.
BUT, UH, FOR SOMEONE WHO JUST GOT MY LETTER, UM, KUDOS TO YOU, UH, ON THE POLICE THAT YOU RAISED.
SO, UH, TO HIS, TO HIS POINT ABOUT FURTHER SUPPLEMENTING THE RECORD, I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY.
I THINK HE DID IT ALL TONIGHT.
SO, SO LEMME TALK ABOUT THAT SECTION.
LET MR. BERNSTEIN NOTES 2 85 DASH THREE.
ANOTHER CASE I HANDLED TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT VERSUS LEGION OF CHRIST HAD TO DO WITH THE CIVIL PROVISION OF LAW.
WHERE, AND BY THE WAY, THAT PROVISION IS PRETTY MUCH IN EVERY ZONING CODE, ALMOST EVERY ZONING CODE, UH, AT LEAST IN WESTCHESTER ROCK AND ORANGE, WHERE FOR USE IS NOT, UH, INCLUDED.
[01:45:01]
WHAT I MENTIONED, WENT UP TO THE APPELLATE DIVISION.THE APPELL DIVISION BASICALLY DIDN'T BUY THAT.
THEY SAID, NOW LISTEN, UH, YOU, YOU GOTTA LOOK AT THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE CODE.
YOU GOTTA LOOK AT THE TERMS, UH, BECAUSE AGAIN, DEFERENCE TO THE APPLICANT, DEFERENCE TO THE READING DRUG READING OF THE CODE.
IF IT'S AMBIGUOUS, IF YOU, IF IT'S VAGUE, IF THE COURT DOESN'T ADDRESS, I MEAN, TO, IF THE CODE DOESN'T ADDRESS IT, WE'RE NOT GONNA EXCLUDE USES JUST BECAUSE IT'S NOT THERE.
OKAY? WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT THE PLAIN IN READING, WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT DEFINITIONS, AND WE'RE GONNA MAKE A CALL.
SO, UH, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. BERNSTEIN'S POINT ABOUT 2 85 DASH THREE OF THE CODE, UH, WE THINK IT IS COMPLETELY CORRECT AND NOT APPLICABLE.
NOW, WE, WITH RESPECT TO THIS ISSUE OF THE, THE, UM, CALLING ME A BULLY, UM, AGAIN, NOT, NOT A BULLY.
UH, I, I RAISED THE STANDING ARGUMENTS BECAUSE I'VE, I'VE HAD, UH, HAD SOME, UM, LEGAL CASES WITH THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
SO IN THAT CASE, AS MR. BERNSTEIN NOTES IS ON APPEAL, I BRIEFLY AS WELL BE HAPPY TO SHARE IT WITH YOU.
BUT AGAIN, UH, THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE PUT IN FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE AGAIN, WE BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A STANDING ISSUE HERE, WHICH IS WHY WE INCLUDED NOW, UH, WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, I, I WOULD LIKE JAMES, UH, JAMES, IF YOU WILL, TO PLEASE PUT UP, AND IF YOU CAN HAVE, UH, GARRETT, UH, HAVE, UH, JAMES THE ABILITY TO SHARE HIS SCREEN, THAT'S ENABLED.
SO JUST, JUST SO THE BOARD HAS HERE, THIS IS A RENDERING OF, OF WHAT THIS FACILITY, UH, WILL, WE HOPE, ULTIMATELY LOOK LIKE.
OKAY? YOU'LL SEE IT'S TUCKED AWAY, UH, WHERE, WHERE THE OLD TRANSPORTS USED TO BE AT NORWOOD.
UM, SO THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM.
AGAIN, I, I JUST WANTED THE, THE Z B A TO HAVE THE BENEFIT OF A RENDERING.
I THINK IT'S HELPFUL FOR ALL OF YOU TO VISUALIZE IT.
UH, AGAIN, WE KNOW THE ISSUE HERE IS AN INTERPRETATION, BUT I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR YOU TO HAVE THAT AND, AND TO, TO HAVE IT ON THE SCREEN SO YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE.
SO, UH, I WILL RESERVE MY, MY COMMENTS, BUT I WOULD LIKE, UH, I KNOW JAMES WANTED TO SPEAK, SO, UM, IF, IF JAMES CAN, UH, COME ON AND I WILL JUST, UH, HOPEFULLY GUIDE UP BACK, CLEAN UP AFTER, UH, AFTER JAMES.
UH, MY ADDRESS IS 46TH EIGHTH AVENUE, BROOKLYN, NEW YORK, AND I REPRESENT THE APPLICANT.
UM, I, I'LL MAKE THIS RELATIVELY BRIEF, UM, JUST THREE POINTS THAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
UM, THE FIRST IS THAT WE, WE DO SELL ENERGY TO THE PUBLIC.
WE DO NOT SELL ENERGY TO CONEDISON IN, IN FACT, WE PAY CONEDISON TO CARRY OUR ENERGY THAT WE USED TO CHARGE THE BATTERY, AND THEN WE PAY CONEDISON MORE TO CARRY THE ENERGY THAT WE USED TO DISCHARGE THE BATTERY TO GET THE ENERGY TO THE PUBLIC.
UM, AT NO POINT ARE WE PAID BY CONEDISON.
UM, THE ONLY REASON FOR EXISTING IS TO SELL ENERGY TO THE PUBLIC.
AND WE PROVIDE CRUCIAL SERVICES LIKE GRID BALANCING AND CAPACITY, UH, TO MAKE SURE THAT THE LIGHTS STAY ON, WHICH, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE IN THE NEWS, IT, IT IS SOMETHING THAT IS, YOU KNOW, VERY IMPORTANT AND, AND NOT TO BE TAKEN FOR GRANTED IN THIS, IN THIS DAY AND AGE, LOOKING AT WHAT'S HAPPENING BOTH IN TEXAS AND, AND LAST SUMMER IN CALIFORNIA.
UM, SECOND POINT I WANTED TO MAKE IS THAT, UM, I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS A CONFUSION THAT MR. STEIN'S CONFLATING VAULTS AND WATTS, UM, UH, HE SAID THAT OUR SYSTEM HAS 20 MILLION VOLTS.
WE ARE ACTUALLY INTERCONNECTED AT 13,400 VOLTS.
UM, SO I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THIS 1950S LAW ABOUT SUBSTATIONS UP TO 10 MILLION VOLTS.
BUT IN ANY CASE, UM, WE, WE ARE 13,400 VOLTS.
THAT'S OUR INTERCONNECTION VOLTAGE, AND THAT IS ALMOST A THOUSAND TIMES LESS THAN 10 MILLION VOLTS OF SUB CAP FOR A SUBSTATION, UM, IN THE FIFTIES.
UH, AND THEN THE LAST THING THAT I WANTED TO POINT OUT IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THIS APPEAL WERE TO BE REJECTED, IT'S NOT LIKE WE CAN GO AND THEN BUILD THIS SYSTEM.
WE WOULD GO BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD, UH, WHO ARE ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES, AND THEY ARE ABLE TO IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON OUR PROJECT THAT CAN ENSURE THAT NO PRECEDENT THAT, THAT THEY DON'T WANNA SET IS SET.
UM, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT IS MORE THAN 400 FEET FROM ANY OFFSITE BUILDING, MEANING A BUILDING NOT OWNED BY THE COUNTRY CLUB WHERE WE ARE CITED.
UM, AND SO THERE'S CERTAINLY, WE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SENSITIVE TO NOT WANTING TO HAVE THESE BATTERIES PUT EVERYWHERE.
AND THE WAY TO DO THAT WOULD BE NUMBER ONE, YOU KNOW, GET, GET A LAW IN PLACE.
AND, AND THEN FOR THIS PROJECT, UM, FOR THE CONDITIONS THAT, UH, THAT THE TOWN COURT SETS TO BE RESTRICTIVE ENOUGH TO, TO NOT BE APPLIED, UM, AT, AT SITES THAT YOU DON'T WANT THEM APPLIED AT.
AND, AND JAMES, AND ALSO THE LEASE, SOMEONE MENTIONED THAT WE HAD A 10 YEAR LEASE TERM, AND, AND THAT'S ALSO INCORRECT.
CAN YOU PLEASE CLARIFY THAT? UM, YEAH,
[01:50:01]
THAT'S RIGHT.THE, THE LEASE TERM IS, UH, 30 YEARS.
AND, AND JUST LASTLY, UH, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AND TOWN STAFF, UH, FOR ALL THOSE REASONS THAT WE, WE STATED IN OUR LETTER OF FEBRUARY 10TH AND THIS EVENING, YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THAT THE ZONING BOARD SHOULD UPHOLD THE DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, BECAUSE AGAIN, BASED ON THE LANGUAGE OF THE CODE, WE BELIEVE THAT HIS INTERPRETATION WAS SPOT ON.
AND WE ASK THAT THE APPLICANT HERE, OKAY, WHICH IS NOT EAGLE, OKAY? WE, WE'D LIKE TO HOPEFULLY RESERVE ALL OF OUR RIGHTS GOING FORWARD DEPENDING ON WHAT OTHER FURTHER SUBMISSIONS THAT MIGHT BE MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS.
WE ALSO WOULD ASK FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT ANY, ANY RESPONSE TO ANY FURTHER SUBMISSIONS MADE BY EITHER THE PLANNING BOARD OR THE THE COUNCIL.
SO, UH, WITH THAT SAID, WE THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
UH, AND AGAIN, WE ASK THAT THESE APPEALS BOTH BE DENIED AND THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION BE UPHELD.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO CORRECT THE RECORD, MR. RETTA, UH, MISCONSTRUES SEVERAL THINGS ABOUT THE PLANNING BOARD, AND I'D LIKE TO, TO CORRECT THE RECORD IF I COULD POSSIBLY DO THAT.
I CHAIR, I JUST WANT TO NOTE IF THERE WERE TWO, TWO MORE SPEAKERS, OKAY.
WHAT, UM, MR. SHETA, MR. SHETA INTIMATED THAT THERE WERE NOT MINUTES AND THAT WE DIDN'T VOTE.
UM, I AM READING YOU A, FROM PAGE EIGHT OF THE MEETING OF THE JANUARY 6TH, 2021 MEETING, UM, QUOTE ON A MOTION MADE BY CHAIRPERSON SIMON AND SECONDED BY MR. SCHWARTZ, THE PLEAING BOARD BY COUNT OF FOUR IN FAVOR, TWO OPPOSED, AND WITH ONE ABSTENTION VOTED TO APPEAL THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THE EAGLE ENERGY BOUNDARY STORAGE SYSTEM.
UH, PROPOSAL, MR. GOLDEN AND MR. TTAG WERE OPPOSE, AND MR. DESAI, UH, ABSTAINED, UM, THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC RECORD.
MR. SHORT, I THINK ACTUALLY WAS AT THE MEETING WHEN THAT HAPPENED.
SO I AM VERY, VERY SURPRISED THAT HE WOULD SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I, I FIND THAT A LITTLE OFFPUTTING, FRANKLY.
SECONDLY, I WAS NOT AT THAT MEETING, MR. SCHWARTZ, JUST SO YOU KNOW, AND WELL, WELL, IT'S, IT'S A NARROW PUBLIC RECORD, MR. RETA, AND THEN IT SHOULD, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN IN YOUR, I I ASKED THAT THOSE MEETING BE PUT ON.
THEY'RE ALREADY IN THE RECORD, MR. SHETA.
I SENT THEM TO, TO THE, TO THE ZONING BOARD.
THEY'RE ALREADY IN THE RECORD, AND THAT'S WHY I READ IT INTO THE RECORD.
OKAY? UM, SECOND, THERE HAS NO INDICATION FROM THEM.
THIS IS NEW NEWS TO THE PLANNING BOARD THAT THEY SELL DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC.
THIS IS DISCUSSED IN DETAIL AT THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING, AND WE WOULD TOTALLY RESELL THE ENERGY TO CON ED.
DOES, UH, WHAT I'D LOVE TO KNOW, DO CONSUMERS ACTUALLY WRITE A CHECK TO EAGLE ENERGY? WHERE, WHERE DID THE REVENUE ACTUALLY COME FROM? THEY'RE A WHOLESALER.
THEY SAID THEY'RE A WHOLESALER.
SO IF THEY'RE A WHOLESALER, BY DEFINITION, THEY'RE NOT SELLING TO THE PUBLIC.
YOU CAN'T HAVE IT BOTH, BOTH WAYS.
UM, THAT, THAT'S THE SECOND THING.
THIRD, THE, THE, THE, UH, HE MISCHARACTERIZED THE RECOMMENDATION AS WELL.
FIRST OF ALL, AS A LAND USE, SOMEBODY'S BEEN DOING LAND USE FOR OVER 20 YEARS.
WHEN I REVIEW A SITE PLAN, OF COURSE, I LOOK AT SETBACKS, I LOOK AT SAFETY.
IF I DIDN'T, I WOULDN'T BE DOING MY JOB AS A MEMBER OF THE PLEADING BOARD.
AND MR. BER, WHO IS A VERY EXPERIENCED LAND USE ATTORNEY, SHOULD KNOW THAT JUST BECAUSE IT'S INCONVENIENT FOR HIM DOESN'T MEAN IT ISN'T WHAT WE SHOULD DO.
SECOND, I GUESS THE LAW DOESN'T MAKE, MAKE A DIFFERENCE, BUT THE LAW CLEARLY STATES THAT WE HAVE THE ABILITY AND THE RIGHT TO APPEAL A BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT WAS REQUESTED BY THE TOWN BOARD.
IN FACT, WE ACTUALLY, IN OUR RECOMMENDATION, WENT BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD AND ASKED THEM TO DO IT BECAUSE THEY WERE THE LEADER IN AGENCY.
AND IT WASN'T UNTIL AFTER THEY DIDN'T DO IT THAT WE DECIDED TO TAKE THIS UP.
BUT WE CLEARLY, UNDER THE LAW, HAVE JURISDICTION THAT'S UNAMBIGUOUS.
AND AS MR. SHEDA LIKES UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE THAT IS VERY, IS UNAMBIGUOUS IN THE CODE.
AS REGARDS TO THE NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION, THE RECOMMENDATION WAS ABSOLUTELY NEUTRAL.
WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION SAID, IF YOU ACTUALLY READ IT, IT SAID VERY SIMPLY THAT WE CANNOT MAKE IT OPINE ON THIS.
WE CANNOT APPLY ON THE SITE PLAN 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TECHNICAL INFORMATION ABOUT SAFETY.
AND SPECIFICALLY RECOMMENDED THREE THINGS TO THE TOWN BOARD AT THE TIME.
[01:55:01]
THEY, UH, LOOK AT THE, THE, UH, BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION.TWO WAS THAT THEY HIRE A CONSULTANT THAT WAS TWO THREE, THAT THEY FORMULATE A COMMITTEE TO ACTUALLY CREATE A LAW ON THE RECORD.
THE TOWN BOARD, THE C A C, THE PLANNING BOARD AND OUR PLANNING COMMISSIONER HAVE ALL SAID THAT WE NEED A LAW, THAT WE DON'T HAVE A LAW THAT, THAT, THAT DOES THIS.
THEY ALL SAID THAT ON THE RECORD.
ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS LOOK AT, AT, AT, AT THE RECORD TO, TO SHOW THAT.
SO OUR RECOMMENDATION, AND FRANKLY, WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO THIS PROJECT, WHAT WE'RE OPPOSED TO IS USING THIS SPECIAL PERMIT TO DO IT.
GARY, COULD YOU PLEASE PUT UP THAT RENDERING AGAIN FOR A SECOND? CHAIR, MISSPOKE.
YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW I'M NEW TO THE BOARD, OKAY? AND I APOLOGIZE IF I'M OUT OF WORK.
DO WE GET IT? DOES DESIGN BOARD GET TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS OR DO WE LISTEN TO ALL THESE OTHER PEOPLE FOREVER? ALL DUE RESPECT, IF YOU TELL ME I'M OUT OF ORDER, UH, I WOULD, I WILL CONTINUE TO LISTEN.
I APOLOGIZE IF I OFFENDED YOU IN ANY WAY.
I'M ALMOST DONE, MADAM HONOR, I, I WOULD LIKE, I KNOW THAT THERE ARE TWO OTHER INDIVIDUALS WHO WANTED TO SPEAK TONIGHT.
IT IS UNUSUAL, MR. ADLER, THAT WE WOULD HAVE THIS MUCH TIME DEVOTED TO A MATTER, BUT FORTUNATELY OR NOT, UH, WE HAD A VERY SHORT CALENDAR.
THIS IS A VERY CONS CONTENTIOUS, UM, ISSUE, AND I WANTED TO GET AS MUCH INFORMATION INTO THE RECORD AS I COULD THIS EVENING.
OKAY? I WOULD BE, I HAVE ONE MORE POINT, POINT, MS. UH, MS. CHAIRPERSON, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
AND I, I WOULD LIKE TO PUT UP THAT RENDERING THAT, UH, WAS SHOWN BY THE APPLICANT.
GARRETT, DO YOU HAVE THAT? THAT WAS NOT PUT UP BY ME.
THAT WAS PUT UP BY THAT APPLICANT.
WOULD THE APPLICANT, IF THEY DON'T WANT DO IT, DON'T, THEY CAN'T.
THE REASON WHY I WANT YOU TO PUT, PUT UP THAT RENDERING, REMEMBER, WE'RE NOT ONLY TALKING ABOUT MILLWOOD COUNTRY CLUB.
YOU SEE ALL THOSE TREES AROUND THERE.
IMAGINE THOSE LITTLE HOUSES IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE'S ONLY TWO ACRES OF LAND AND THEY MEET THE ZONING SETBACK OF THE TWO ACRES OF LAND.
HOW WOULD YOU FEEL THEN? HOW COMFORTABLE WOULD YOU BE THEN TO HAVE THAT FACILITY THERE? AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
ONE OF THE REASONS THAT NORWOOD HAS TALKED ABOUT THIS IS A CONCERN ABOUT ECONOMIC HARDSHIP.
AND, AND INDEED THE GOLF CLUBS IN OUR TOWN HAVE HAD SOME, WE'VE SEEN ONE OF THEM SOLD ALREADY.
ANOTHER ONE WILL BE SOLD OFF LAND, RIGHT? WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE.
SO ARE WE GONNA BUILD MORE LEASE ON, ON THE SAME PROPERTY? AGAIN, IT COMES DOWN TO THAT LEASE.
I DON'T CARE IF IT'S 10 YEARS OR 30 YEARS, IT'S A LEASE.
THEY DON'T OWN THE PROPERTY YET.
THEY'RE USING THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, UH, AS THE BASIS FOR, FOR THEIR CALCULATIONS.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR.
CAN I JUST STATE ONE POINT TO, TO RESPOND TO MR. SCHWARTZ? I WOULD PREFER THAT YOU WAIT UNTIL WE LIST, LISTEN TO THESE LAST TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAVE BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY.
UM, I'M GONNA TRY AND KEEP IT BRIEF.
I THINK MOST OF THE POINTS I WAS HOPING TO MAKE HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE, UH, BY VARIOUS PEOPLE.
UM, GREENBERG, RESIDENT OF AT SIX SUNDALE PLACE HERE IN EDGEMONT.
UH, I DO WANNA RESPOND TO A FEW POINTS THAT MR. RETA MADE.
UM, THE SUGGESTION WAS MADE, AND THIS IS ECHOING WHAT MR. SCHWARTZ JUST SAID, THAT IT WAS SOMEHOW INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO APPEAL, UH, SOMEHOW OUTSIDE OF THEIR MANDATE.
BUT AS MR. SCHWARTZ, AND I BELIEVE MR. BERNSTEIN ALSO POINTED OUT, THE CODE CONFERS STANDING UPON THE PLANNING BOARD TO DO EXACTLY THAT.
2 85 48 A SAYS ON AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER REQUIREMENT DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL OR ON A REQUEST MADE BY AN OFFICIAL BOARD OR AGENCY OF THE TOWN, THE BOARD OF APPEALS SHALL HAVE THE POWER TO DECIDE ANY QUESTION INVOLVING INTERPRETATION.
SO THEN THE ONLY QUESTION, THE ONLY QUESTION OF THAT COULD BE MADE ABOUT WHETHER THE PLANNING BOARD HAS STANDING IS WHETHER THEY'RE A BOARD.
I THINK THEY ARE, IT'S RIGHT IN THEIR NAME.
JUST LIKE YOU'RE A BOARD THAT SHOULD END THAT INQUIRY ENTIRELY AND FAR FROM BEING OUTSIDE THEIR MANDATE.
I PERSONALLY, JUST AS A RESIDENT OF THE TOWN, I THINK THE PLANNING BOARD SHOULD BE COMMENDED FOR BRINGING THIS APPEAL, UH, BECAUSE THE TOWN BOARD DIDN'T, AND THAT CREATED A RISK THAT THE DECISION WOULD BE, WOULD BECOME CEMENTED AND BECOME A PRECEDENT, NOT BECAUSE THERE'D BEEN ANY, UH, CAREFUL THOUGHT ABOUT WHETHER IT WAS CORRECT, BUT MERELY BY DEFAULT.
[02:00:01]
PLANNING BOARD STEPPED INTO THE BREACH TO MAKE SURE THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE ONE OF THE REASONS WE'RE HERE TONIGHT AS WELL AS THE C G C A, OF COURSE, AND I THANK THEM AS WELL.UM, MR. SHERETTA SAID IN HIS REMARKS SOMETHING THAT WAS ALSO IN HIS LETTER, WHICH WHERE HE SAID THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION SHOULD BE UPHELD BECAUSE IT WAS RATIONAL AND WITH RESPECT, AS MR. BERNSTEIN POINTED OUT THAT THIS ISN'T HORSESHOES.
UM, IT, IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF WHETHER THEY WERE RATIONAL OR CLOSE ENOUGH, IT'S WHETHER THEY WERE CORRECT.
THE, THE ZONING BOARD'S AUTHORITY IS PLENARY IN THIS REGARD.
THEY, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IS ENTITLED TO NO DEFERENCE WHATSOEVER IN ITS INTERPRETATION.
AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT.
I DID NOT HEAR AN ANSWER FROM MR. SHERETTA TO MR. BERNSTEIN'S POINT THAT THERE IS A PUBLISHED LIST OF THE PUBLIC UTILITIES UNDER NEW YORK LAW AND THAT THE APPLICANT IS NOT ON THAT LIST.
THE CLOSEST MR. RETTA CAME WAS TO SAY, IT'S NOT A QUESTION OF NEW YORK UTILITY LAW, IT'S A QUESTION OF THE ZONING CODE.
BUT THE, THE TOWN CODE REFERS TO THE UTILITY LAW.
THE TOWN CODE REFERS TO THE NEW YORK UTILITY LAW AND MAKES CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT INTENDED TO EXPAND IT IN ANY WAY.
SO THAT'S THERE, THERE'S NO WAY OUTTA THAT ONE.
UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE ONE OVERARCHING POINT.
A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HAVE NOTED THAT UNDER THE CODE, UNDER 2 85 3, ANY USE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IS PROHIBITED.
AND THAT'S AN IMPORTANT POINT.
AND, AND THE PURPOSE OF THAT, THE OBVIOUS PURPOSE OF THAT IS THAT BEFORE A LAND USE IS PERMITTED IN THIS TOWN, THERE OUGHT TO BE A LEGISLATIVE PROCESS TO DETERMINE THAT IT IS APPROPRIATE.
AND THAT IS IMPORTANT, PARTICULARLY IN INSTANCES WHERE PUBLIC SAFETY IS CONCERNED, AS THEY CLEARLY ARE.
THIS IS NEW TECHNOLOGY, IT HAS DANGERS THAT ATTEND TO IT, AND THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT OUGHT TO GO THROUGH A LEGISLATIVE PROCESS.
WHY? BECAUSE IN THE LEGISLATIVE PROCESS, IT CAN BE STUDIED, THERE CAN BE HEARINGS ABOUT IT, THE TOWN CAN HEAR FROM EXPERTS, THERE CAN BE PUBLIC COMMENT ABOUT IT, AND THE LEGISLATURE CAN CRAFT APPROPRIATE LIMITATIONS TO ENSURE SAFETY AND TO WEIGH THE RISKS AND BENEFITS OF THESE TYPES OF FACILITIES.
THAT'S THE PROCESS THAT OUGHT TO HAPPEN THROUGH ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO ARE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PEOPLE OF GREENBURG.
AND WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THAT PROCESS OF STUDY AND BALANCING HAS NEVER TAKEN PLACE WITH RESPECT TO BATTERY STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
IT DID NOT HAPPEN AT ANY POINT IN OUR LIVES.
CERTAINLY IT DID NOT HAPPEN IN 1996 WHEN, AS MR. BERNSTEIN POINTED OUT, IF WE WANTED TO WATCH A MOVIE AT HOME, WE'D BE GOING TO BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO.
AND IN FACT, WE WOULD BE GOING TO BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO AND RENTING A TAPE BECAUSE DVDS WERE NOT AROUND YET.
AND WE'D BE HOPING THAT WHOEVER HAD IT LAST REWOUND, YES, SOME OF US WERE AROUND IN 1996 AND 97, BUT THAT PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH THE CAREFUL BALANCING IS WHAT OUGHT TO HAPPEN HERE.
AND IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED, AND IT OUGHT NOT TO BE DONE THROUGH THE GUISE OF SO-CALLED INTERPRETATION OF A STATUTE THAT WAS NEVER MEANT TO COVER THIS SORT OF FACILITY WHEN THERE HAS BEEN NO INVESTIGATION OF WHETHER THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
SO WITH THAT, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL STOP.
THANK YOU FOR LETTING ME BE HEARD.
UH, THERE WERE, UH, FULL SIGNUPS, UH, MURRAY BODEN, UM, DOUG WINSTON AND NICK GREDO.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD ASK YOU, AND I REALIZE THAT WE ALL WANT TO BE HEARD, BUT IF AS MR. O'CONNELL JUST DID, UH, MS. CONNELL DID, IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN COVERED, PLEASE ELIMINATE IT FROM WHAT YOU PLAN TO PRESENT.
UM, THERE'S SOME ISSUES THAT YOU'RE NOT AWARE OF.
ONE, ONE OF FOREMOST EXPERT ON BATTERY STORAGE IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK WORKS FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
HE'S THE, UH, PUBLIC WORK COMMISSIONER.
HE KNOWS MORE ABOUT INDIVIDUAL STORAGE UNITS AND ESPECIALLY THE TOWN OF BATEN IN, IN YORKTOWN.
HE'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE TOP THREE KNOWLEDGEABLE PEOPLE.
SECOND, THE LEY SCHOOL DISTRICT IS INSTALLING THREE
THIRD, I INVESTIGATED A COMPANY THAT'S MADE THIS APPLICATION.
THE LAST PROJECT THEY HAD IN FLORIDA WAS TO BUILD A SIMILAR FACILITY LIKE THIS.
IT WENT BUSTED PROPERTIES FOR SALE, AND NOBODY EVER MENTIONED THE FACT THAT THEIR LAST PROJECT WENT BUST.
THIRD, FURTHER ON THE ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE TO THE ENVIRONMENT CAUSED BY BUILDING THIS
[02:05:01]
MASSIVE, WHATEVER YOU WANT TO CALL IT, IS NOT WORTH THE DAMAGE.ECOLOGICALLY, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE WOO, DIRT MOVING IN IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE.
WHEN THEY STARTED THE PROJECT, IT PROBABLY WAS A GOOD THOUGHT.
WHAT'S GOING ON IN TEXAS RIGHT NOW WITH THE SNOWSTORMS AND THE LACK OF ELECTRICITY? THEY DIDN'T PLAN.
BUSINESS MODEL OF THIS COMPANY IS FAULTY AND OUTMODED.
BASICALLY, THE WHOLE IDEA FOR THIS KIND OF PROJECT NO LONGER IS VALID.
EVEN TALKING ABOUT, SHOULD WE DO THIS? SHOULD WE DO THAT? AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO THIS.
AND THE GOLF COURSES WENT IN, HARRISON, WERE JUST TAKEN OVER BY THE TOWN.
GOLF COURSES ARE GOING BELLY UP BECAUSE THE YOUNG PEOPLE DON'T PLAY GOLF PLAY.
SO THE ISSUE, WOMEN, YES, THERE NEEDS TO BE LAW.
AND YES, THERE IS A PROTOTYPE, AND YES, YOU'LL EVENTUALLY DO ONE.
BUT WHAT YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT, YOU THINK THIS HAS VALID OF BUILDING THIS.
IF A BUSINESS MODEL THAT IS NO LONGER VALID, GLOBAL WARMING IS A REALITY.
A GLOBAL WARMING STORAGE UNITS OF VARIOUS TYPES WILL BE EVERYWHERE, AND THEY WILL BE DISTRIBUTED.
ONE IN NEW YORKTOWN IS IN THE BACK OF A SHOPPING CENTER, NO CONSTRUCTION, 30 YARDS, 30 FEET, 40 FEET FROM THE BUILDING.
I WAS THERE, I TOOK PICTURES OF IT, I LISTENED TO IT.
THE ONE ON SEACO ROAD AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL, THAT LITTLE GRAY BOX IS BIGGER AND MORE OBTRUSIVE AND MAKES MORE NOISE THAN THE ONE THAT'S GOING TO BE BEHIND LEY HIGH SCHOOL.
SO STOP KIDDING YOURSELVES AND TALKING ABOUT A PROJECT THAT DOESN'T EVER GOING TO HAPPEN BECAUSE IT'S OUTMODED.
THE WORLD CHANGED WITH HOME DELIVERY.
IT CHANGED WITH THIS KIND OF A PROJECT.
THE PROJECT BASICALLY, AND IT WAS A GOOD IDEA WHEN THEY THOUGHT ABOUT IT, BUT THEY FAILED IN FLORIDA.
NOWHERE IN THIS CONVERSATION DID ANYONE EVER SAY THAT THIS COMPANY'S LAST PROJECT FAILED MISERABLY.
THE BIGGEST THING IS TO CONSTRUCT IT.
THE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE, TO, TO DIG THE EARTH UP AND BRING IT IN.
AND EVERYTHING ELSE IS ENORMOUS.
WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE ENVIRONMENT.
LISTEN TO WHAT'S COMING OUTTA WASHINGTON.
UH, I AM A PROFESSIONAL WITHIN THE, UH, ELECTRIC UTILITY INDUSTRY, UH, IN OWNER OF D N M ELECTRICAL CONTRACT AND D N M UTILITY CONSTRUCTION.
UH, WE'RE LOCATED IN, IN ELMSFORD, SO WE'RE, WE'RE WITHIN THE FOOTPRINT OF WHERE THE PROJECT'S GOING TO BE.
UM, LITTLE BACKGROUND ON OUR ORGANIZATION IS, UH, WE, WE INSTALLED THE FIRST BATTERY STORAGE PROJECT, UH, IN, UH, IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY IN HARRISON IN, UH, 2018.
UH, MUCH SMALLER SCALE, UH, OBVIOUSLY PROBABLY ONE 20TH OF WHAT WE'VE GOT HERE.
UH, WE ALSO PUT THE FIRST BATTERY PROJECT IN GREENBURG, UH, LAST YEAR, WHICH IS, UH, RIGHT ON, UH, TARRYTOWN ROAD OR LIKE WHITELANDS ROAD THERE, UH, ADJACENT TO THE RAFT HOTEL.
SO THERE IS PRECEDENT OF BATTERY SYSTEMS WITHIN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG HERE.
IT'S NOT, UM, ALL THAT NEW, BUT IT IS NEW TECHNOLOGY AND WE, WE CERTAINLY ADMIT THAT THAT'S EMERGING TECHNOLOGY THAT'S GONNA BECOME MORE PREVALENT.
WE SEE, UH, MY ORGANIZATION LONG SEASON IS 10 OF THESE PROJECTS, UM, IN THE, UH, NEW YORK AREA THAT WE ARE INVOLVED WITH.
UM, I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO THE BENEFITS OF THESE BECAUSE, UM, WE WE'RE HEARING A LOT OF THESE MOTHER MAY I RULES ABOUT ZONING AND, AND, UH, THIS RULE AND THAT RULE.
AND I, I, I'D LIKE TO GET AWAY FROM THAT.
UM, WHAT WE'RE SEEING IN TEXAS RIGHT NOW.
UM, WHY ARE THEY HAVING BROKE? THERE'S, THERE'S TWOFOLD SITUATION.
WE'VE GOT AN ICE STORM THAT CAUSED SOME DAMAGE AND THAT'S WHY SOME PEOPLE ARE OUT.
BUT THE REAL PROBLEM IS LOAD SHEDDING.
WHY ARE THEY SHEDDING LOAD? THEY'RE CUTTING OFF THE CUSTOMERS BECAUSE THE HOMES IN
[02:10:01]
TEXAS WEREN'T DESIGNED FOR ELECTRIC HEAT TO BE RUNNING IN 10 DEGREE WEATHER.THEY'VE EXCEEDED THE DEMANDS THAT THEY NORMALLY SEE IN THE SUMMER WITH AIR CONDITIONING LOADS.
WHY IS THAT RELEVANT TO US? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, ANY POINT NUCLEAR POWER PLANT IS GONNA BE GOING OFFLINE SHORTLY, THAT'S GONNA LEAVE A THOUSAND MEGAWATT DEFICIT HERE IN THE, IN THIS AREA, IN THE NEW YORK AREA.
UM, WE'RE GOING TO NEED OTHER METHODS OF STORAGE FOR THIS DEMAND RESPONSE WHEN IT'S A HUNDRED DEGREES OR 95 DEGREES IN THE SUMMERTIME, AND EVERYONE'S RUNNING THEIR AIR CONDITIONING.
UM, ROLLING BLACKOUTS LIKE YOU SEE IN CALIFORNIA ARE DEFINITELY A POSSIBILITY.
UM, PEOPLE WOULD'VE SAID, WELL, IT'S NEVER GONNA FREEZE IN TEXAS.
WELL, UM, AS WE TAKE ENERGY AWAY FROM THE GRID, WE HAVE TO REPLENISH THAT ENERGY SOMEHOW.
AND THERE'S MUCH, UH, RENEWABLE PROJECTS THAT ARE, ARE GOING ON THROUGHOUT THE STATE OF NEW YORK, WHICH WE'RE ALSO INVOLVED.
UM, THERE WAS A LOT OF SOLAR FARMS BEING BUILT.
AND PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST IDEAL WAYS TO TAKE THAT SOLAR ENERGY AND UTILIZE IT AT THE CORRECT TIME IS TO HAVE BATTERY STORAGE UNITS WHERE WE CAN TAKE AND STORE THAT ELECTRICITY.
SO IT CAN BE USED TO RESPOND WHEN THE, YOU KNOW, THE DEMAND IS NEEDED.
SO THESE ARE THE IMPORTANT FACETS THAT WE LOOK AT.
SO WHY IS IT IMPORTANT TO OUR COMMUNITY? WELL, WHERE DOES THAT ENERGY, UH, FROM THE BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEM GONNA CONNECT TO? IT'S GONNA CONNECT TO THE
I'M FAMILIAR WITH THAT BECAUSE OUR ORGANIZATION WAS THE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR THAT BUILT THE EXPANSION TO THAT IN 20, UH, 2010.
UM, WHERE DOES THAT ENERGY GET DISPERSED? WELL, THE ELMSFORD SUBSTATION OBVIOUSLY SERVES THE GREENBURG WHITE PLAINS TARRYTOWN AREA.
SO THE DIRECT BENEFICIARY OF THAT ELECTRICITY THAT'S GONNA BE STORED BOTH BATTERIES IS OUR COMMUNITY.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE LOOKING AT THE LOSS OF ENERGY SOURCES, YOU KNOW, THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITY AND IN, IN INDIAN POINT, GOING OFFLINE.
AND WE'RE LOOKING AT A LOT OF RENEWABLE RESOURCES IN OTHER PLACES.
BUT, UH, IN ORDER TO KIND OF SHORE UP AND HAVE SOME REINFORCEMENT OF OUR UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE HERE AT HOME, THE BATTERY SYSTEM IS, IS CRITICAL TO THIS.
UM, AND AGAIN, THERE, THERE WAS A LOT OF STATEMENTS HERE THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, I'M NOT GOING TO RESTATE THEM.
THERE WAS A LOT OF MISINFORMATION ABOUT BOLTS AND WATTS AND A LOT OF TECHNICAL INFORMATION THAT THE AVERAGE PERSON, UH, REALLY DOESN'T MEAN MUCH TO THEM, BUT I'LL LEAVE IT WITH ONE THOUGHT.
UM, UH, OVER A HUNDRED YEARS AGO, THERE WAS SOME EMERGING TECHNOLOGY CALLED AUTOMOBILE, AND IT WAS A RADICAL CONCEPT.
WE WERE GONNA FILL A 30 GALLON TANK OF GASOLINE, STICK IT INSIDE THE VEHICLE THAT WE WERE GONNA RIDE IN AND HAVE INTERNAL COMBUSTION MOVE THIS VEHICLE.
AND, YOU KNOW, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, WOW, IT'S 30 GALLONS OF EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL WE'RE DRIVING AROUND WITH.
BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS WE DRIVE AROUND EVERY DAY AND CARS DON'T JUST SPONTANEOUSLY COMBUST.
AND THEN WE STARTED BUILDING PARKING GARAGES.
SO WE HAD TENS OF THOUSANDS OF GALLONS ALL WITHIN ONE FOOTPRINT, BUT PARKING GARAGES DON'T BLOW UP EITHER.
THERE, IT SOUNDS VERY INTIMIDATING, AND YOU COULD PROBABLY MAKE A COMPELLING ARGUMENT THAT A PARKING GARAGE IS AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS ENTITY.
BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS TECHNOLOGY.
AND, UM, TODAY'S BATTERY TECHNOLOGIES, UH, MITIGATE RISK.
AND, AND ONE OF THE GREAT WAYS OF MITIGATING RISK IS PUTTING THESE THINGS OUT OF THE WAY OF RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES AND, AND OTHER THINGS.
AND MIDDLE OF THE GOLF COURSE WHERE THERE'S NO OTHER STRUCTURES AROUND AND, AND NOTHING BUT SOME TREES THAT ARE SHADING IT.
UM, I CAN'T THINK OF A BETTER LOCATION.
SO, UM, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH ALL I'D LIKE TO OFFER TONIGHT.
AND, UH, LIKE TO THANK YOU FOR, UH, GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
LETTING FOR, LETTING ME SPEAK TONIGHT.
UM, I'M ALSO A MEMBER AT NORWOOD COUNTRY CLUB AS WELL AS A BOARD MEMBER.
AND I JUST, WE, I'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS PROJECT FOR ALMOST TWO YEARS NOW, AND I'VE GONE THROUGH A LOT OF THE SAFETY THINGS AND, AND, AND AS A CLUB WE'VE SUPPORTED THE PROJECT ON MULTIPLE FRONTS.
ONE, OBVIOUSLY IS A FINANCIAL BENEFIT TO, TO OUR CLUB, AND, AND IT IT'S PART OF WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO TO SURVIVE THERE.
AND I THINK WE'VE COME UP WITH A GREAT PLAN TO DO THAT.
'CAUSE ALONG WITH THIS, WE'VE ALSO, UH, LEASED OUR CLUB TO AN OPERATOR WHO'S GONNA COME IN AND RUN THE CLUB BETTER THAN WE HAD AS MEMBERS.
AND, AND THEY'RE ALSO GONNA BE PUTTING A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF CAPITAL INTO OUR FACILITY.
THEY'RE GONNA SPEND $4 MILLION OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS TO INCREASE THE, UH, UH, GET OUR MEMBERSHIP UP BY INCREASING THE,
[02:15:01]
THE, UH, UH, I'M, I'M SORRY, IMPROVING OUR FACILITY.SO, UM, THIS, I BELIEVE, I, I, AGAIN, I, THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF HERE THAT WAS MISSTATED AND SOME STUFF HAS BEEN CORRECTED, SO I DON'T WANT TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD.
BUT THIS, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT PROJECT FOR OUR FACILITY TO SURVIVE.
AND I THINK HAVING OPEN SPACE IN GREENBURG, EVEN AS, EVEN IF I WASN'T A MEMBER THERE, I THINK IS REALLY IMPORTANT TO MAINTAIN.
SO I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT WITH, WITH, WITH EVERYBODY.
I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT WITH STRATO SOLAR.
I'M COMING AGAIN JUST TO SPECIFICALLY RESPOND TO MR. BODEN'S COMMENT ABOUT OUR BUSINESS MODEL AND BUSINESS PRACTICES.
UH, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY, UM, BUSINESS INTERESTS, UM, IN FLORIDA THAT HAVE, UH, FAILED IN ANY WAY.
UM, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH WHAT HE'S REFERENCING.
IN FACT, OVER THE LIFE OF OUR COMPANY, UH, WE HAVE INVESTED $3.5 BILLION IN SOLAR AND BATTERY STORAGE PROJECTS.
WE'RE CURRENTLY COMPLETING THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE OF THE LARGEST BATTERY STORAGE PROJECTS IN THE UNITED STATES.
IT'S ABOUT FIVE TIMES LARGER THAN THE ONE IN NEW YORK.
GOT PROJECTS IN CALIFORNIA AND WE HAVE A VERY LONG TRACK RECORD OF, OF SUCCESSFUL PROJECTS.
AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE RECORD IS CLEAR AS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE ANY, UM, UH, ISSUES WITH ANY PROJECTS, UH, IN ANY MANNER THAT MR. BOWDEN REFERENCED.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT.
ALRIGHT, MS. MR. RADDA, GO AHEAD.
WELL, I JUST WANNA CONCLUDE JUST BY MAKING, UM, JUST A COUPLE OF JUST BRIEF LAST POINTS.
UH, MR. SCHWARTZ MENTIONED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SAFETY.
I, I WAS NOT OBJECTING TO THE PLANNING BOARD'S ABILITY TO LOOK AT SAFETY ISSUES.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I WAS GETTING AT.
IT WAS REALLY THE POINT OF MY POSITION IS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOWN BOARD'S RESOLUTION THAT GOT REFERRED TO THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD, IT WAS TO REFER THE AMENDED SITE PLAN APPLICATION, NOT ABOUT THE SPECIAL PERMIT.
UH, AND AGAIN, I WASN'T TAKING EXCEPTION TO MR. SCHWARTZ'S REVIEW POWERS.
YES, WE KNOW HE CAN REVIEW SAFETY BULK AND THOSE, THOSE THINGS WITHOUT QUESTION, BUT IT'S THE, THE ACTUAL WHAT THEY WERE CHARGED TO DO.
AND THAT'S WHAT I TAKE EXCEPTION WITH.
UH, LASTLY JUST THERE, THERE'S A COMMENT BY A RESIDENT TALKING ABOUT THE, ABOUT ELECTED OFFICIALS AND WHO HAS RESPONSIBILITY HERE.
IT'S, IT'S THE TOWN BOARD HERE THAT HAS THE, THE ABILITY TO GRANT OR DENY THE SPECIAL PERMIT.
AND INHERENT IN THAT SPECIAL PERMIT AUTHORITY IS THE ABILITY TO PUT CONDITIONS ON THE TYPE OF PROJECT.
AND AGAIN, THOSE ARE ISSUES THAT WILL BE ADDRESSED.
UM, WE HOPE AT THE TOWN BOARD, UH, WE STARTED THERE AND AGAIN, IT WAS, UM, UH, PAUSED BECAUSE OF, OF THIS APPEAL.
BUT THOSE ARE THE TYPE OF ISSUES THAT YOU ARE RIGHT.
YOUR, YOUR YOUR TOWN HAS, HAS CHOSEN THE TOWN BOARD TO REVIEW THIS SPECIAL PERMIT, UH, FOR WITH RESPECT TO THIS TYPE OF FACILITY.
AND AGAIN, WE BELIEVE THAT THAT IS THE PROPER PLACE FOR IT.
AND AGAIN, WE ARE THERE BECAUSE WE BELIEVE THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR CORRECTLY READ THE STATUTE THAT'S ON THE BOOKS IN TOWN AND CORRECTLY DETERMINE THAT THIS WAS, UH, A, A, THIS PROJECT FELL WITHIN THAT DEFINITION.
SO AGAIN, I KNOW WE'VE BEEN ON A LOT, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR COURTESY, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, FOR RESPONDING AND FOR ALLOWING US TO SPEAK THIS EVENING.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, I BELIEVE, UM, LES AND MAYBE ANOTHER ZONING BOARD MEMBER MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO I JUST WANNA TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, IF THAT WAS THE CASE, THAT THAT, UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE YOU AWARE OF THAT IT'S NOT MISTAKEN AT BEAR ALL INTENTIONS OF ASKING THE BOARD MEMBERS TO COME FORWARD NOW WITH ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY HAVE.
AND I SEE MR. BERNSTEIN ALSO, WE SEE YOUR HAND UP.
I ALWAYS HAVE SOME BRIEF COMMENTS.
UM, I'M TRYING TO WANNA STICK WITH THE ISSUES BEFORE.
SO MUCH HAS BEEN SAID AND SAID WELL ENOUGH.
WHAT DO I DO? WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU.
YOU CAN'T HEAR ME? I CAN HEAR YOU.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO ABOUT IT.
IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE OKAY NOW.
UM, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE ALL CAN AGREE WITH IS WHEN THIS STATUTE WAS WRITTEN, UM, THE TYPE OF THE SUBJECT WE'RE DISCUSSING TONIGHT WAS CLEARLY NOT CONTEMPLATED.
AND WHILE I DON'T THINK THAT'S THE POSITIVE OF
[02:20:01]
OBLIGATION BEFORE US, I STILL THINK THAT THERE'S SOME RELEVANCE.I ALSO WANNA SAY, UM, TO MISS C LEONARD IS VERY COGENT ARGUMENT.
UH, FOR MYSELF, I WAS NOT CONVINCED THAT THE COMPANY PROVIDES ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THE EXTENT THAT IT PROVIDES ELECTRICITY, IT'S MY, IT'S MY BELIEF, IT'S SULI, IT'S SUPPLIED TO CON ED AND MAYBE CON ED WILL EVENTUALLY SEND IT TO THE PUBLIC.
UM, ALSO IN YOUR LETTER, MR. SEA, AND AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN TOUCHED UPON WHEN YOU STATE THAT, UM, THE STATUTE MAY BE SILENT ON THIS SUBJECT, THAT'S AN UNUSUAL THING, UH, FOR AN ATTORNEY TO SAY.
UM, AND IT SUGGESTS TO ME THAT YOU ARE CONCEDING THAT THIS PARTICULAR, UH, PARTICULAR USE IS NOT CLEARLY INCLUDED IN THE STA IN THE STATUTE.
AND, UM, SO I WOULD SUBMIT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THAT'S A STRETCH OF THE STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN ONE THAT I, FOR ONE SO FAR HAVE NOT ADOPTED.
NOW, UM, WHAT I, THERE'S SOMETHING I READ AND MAYBE SOMETHING CAN CLARIFY FOR, FOR ME.
UM, AND HERE, AND I'M READING FROM THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED, THERE'S SO MANY DOCUMENTS, I APOLOGIZE IF I GET THIS WRONG.
2 85 DASH TEN FOUR B PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES.
IT GOES INTO DESCRIBE WHAT THEY ARE, AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY, WHEN SUCH FACILITIES ARE NEEDED TO SERVE THE TOWN OR THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IS THAT I'M ASKING, IS THAT APPLICABLE TO WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TONIGHT? BECAUSE IF IT IS, UM, YOU'LL HAVE TO CONVINCE ME THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE TOWN ARE GETTING THE BENEFITS OF HAVING THIS, UH, BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY AS OPPOSED TO JUST EVERYONE IN THE COMMUNITY.
SO IF I READ THAT CORRECTLY, I'M NOT PERSUADE YET THAT THIS, UH, BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY WILL BENEFIT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE TOWN.
AND, AND MAY I COMMENT TO THAT JUDGE? I'M SORRY MR.
I MEAN, I
UH, JUST REAL QUICK, SO THE, THE ISSUE THAT YOU JUST RAISED ABOUT YOU SIGNING THE STATUTE AGAIN, AND I SAID THIS EARLIER, BUT THAT'S NOT A DETERMINATION THAT YOUR BOARD HAS TO MAKE, THAT IS A DETERMINATION.
WHAT YOU JUST READ IS SOMETHING SPECIFIC TO THE TOWN BOARD.
THEY HAVE TO MAKE THAT FINDING, THAT FINDING IS NOT TO BE MADE BY YOUR BOARD.
THE, THE, THE BOARD, YOUR ROLE TONIGHT IS REALLY AS A QUESTION OF WHETHER DE NOVO, WHETHER IT'S AGREEING WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IS THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
THAT IS YOUR, YOUR, YOUR ROLE WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.
AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO THAT POINT ABOUT THAT IT'S SILENT, ALL THAT IS MEANT TO SAY IS THE TURN ON BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY IS NOT LISTED IN, IN THE, IN THE CODE.
IT TALKS ABOUT BROADLY PUBLIC UTILITY.
SO THAT'S ALL THAT WAS TRYING TO, TO CONVEY IN THAT LETTER.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PRINCIPLES OF STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION IN TERMS OF WHAT'S, WHAT'S ON THE WRITTEN, THE WRITTEN PAGE, AND WHEN YOU HAVE TO READ IT, WHETHER IT'S VAGUE, WHETHER IT'S NOT AMBIGUOUS OR NOT, AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO READ THAT TO OUR BENEFIT REGARDLESS.
UM, AND AGAIN, HAVING LITIGATED LAND USE CASES ON THESE TYPES OF ISSUES.
UM, AND THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT OF CASES, AS YOU KNOW, UH, JUDGE LES, SORRY, THAT
THAT'S, AND THAT'S ALL THAT WAS GETTING AT THERE.
I JUST, I JUST WANNA SAY I SEE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AMBIGUOUS AND SILENT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT.
SO THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? I CAN DO, IF I COULD GO THEN CHAIRMAN, CERTAINLY.
UM, SO MR. RETTA, AM I PRONOUNCING THAT RIGHT? YOU ARE.
UM, SO FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION.
UM, I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS AROUND, UM, THE DEFINITION OF, UH, PUBLIC UTILITY AND PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE.
AND SPECIFICALLY IN WHAT YOU PUT IN YOUR LETTER, UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT, UH, PUBLIC UTILITIES, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED IS, AND YOU,
[02:25:01]
UH, IT'S IN THE SECOND PARAGRAPH UNDER THE PRO, THE PROJECT MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY.AND ABOUT, UM, HALFWAY THROUGH IT SAYS, THESE ORDERS ESTABLISH SPECIFIC ASPECTS OF THE P S L TO WHICH ELECTRIC CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN GENERATING POWER FOR SALE.
HOW ARE YOU GUYS ENGAGED IN GENERATING POWER? I UNDERSTAND YOU STORE POWER, RIGHT? BUT HOW ARE YOU? IT, HOW DID, HOW IS THAT WORKING WITH HOW DID YOU'RE FREEZING.
NO, UM, I KNOW I'M SAYING YOU WERE BREAKING UP.
YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, I CAN HEAR YOU NOW.
YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT IT? DO YOU WANT ME TO REPEAT IT? YEAH, IF YOU DON'T MIND, PLEASE.
UM, IS IT, AM I OKAY NOW? AM I BREAKING UP OR? YEP, YOU'RE GOOD NOW.
SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE, AND THIS IS STRICTLY WITH REGARD TO THE DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY AND WHAT THE ORGANIZATION EAGLE IS IN A PUBLIC UTILITY AND A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE.
SO IN YOUR OWN LETTER, YOU TALK ABOUT THAT IT'S, UM, SPECIFIC TO THE, TO ELECTRIC CORPORATIONS ENGAGED IN GENERATING POWER.
SO YOU EXPLAIN TO ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW THAT PERTAINS TO YOU AND WHY YOU WOULD CITE THAT.
ARE YOU GENERATING POWER? ARE YOU STORING POWER? HOW DO YOU DEFINE YOUR ROLE AND HOW IS THAT RELEVANT? SURE.
SO FIRST THING, AGAIN, OUR, AND I'LL RESPOND AND I THINK I'M GONNA ASK ALSO, UM, MR. ROBINSON ALSO TO ADDRESS THAT, BUT UNDERSTAND THAT FIRST THE PROJECT PROVIDES ENERGY, PROVIDES POWER TO NISO.
AND THEN THE SECOND THING WE HAVE, JAMES, RESPOND SPECIFICALLY TO YOUR, TO YOUR QUESTION.
SO JAMES, CAN YOU, CAN YOU, UH, ANSWER DAN'S QUESTION? YES, ABSOLUTELY.
UM, SO WHEN BATTERY STORAGE BECAME A, A TECHNOLOGY THAT, THAT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE REGULATORS, THEY, THEY HAD TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO TREAT IT SINCE IT, SOMETIMES IT IS CHARGING AND SOMETIMES IT'S DISCHARGING.
AND WHAT THEY DETERMINED IS THAT THEY WOULD TREAT A BATTERY SURGE SYSTEM, UH, AS A GENERATOR AS, AS FAR AS THE REGULATIONS ARE CONCERNED.
SO WE HAD TO APPLY FOR INTERCONNECTION WITH THE NEW YORK ISO, WHICH IS THE MARKET THAT BRIDGES GENERATORS TO THE PUBLIC.
AND, UM, WE, WE APPLIED TO THEM FOR INTERCONNECTION EXACTLY THE SAME WAY THAT A GENERATOR OF OUR EQUIVALENT SIZE, UM, LIKE A NATURAL GAS PLANT WOULD APPLY, UH, FOR INTERCONNECTION.
IT'S THE EXACT IDENTICAL PROCESS.
WE'RE IN WHAT'S CALLED THE CLASS HERE WITH A GROUP OF GENERATORS, WHICH ARE SOLAR, GAS AND BATTERIES AND MAYBE SOME WIND NOW.
UM, AND, UH, THE, THE ENTIRE PROCESS AND REGULATIONS ARE IDENTICAL TO, TO A GENERATOR.
AND THAT, THAT'S HOW NEW YORK STATE DECIDED TO TREAT BATTERIES.
UM, AND THEN I HAVE, UM, ONE MORE QUESTION WITH REGARD TO, UM, EXACTLY WHO IS YOUR BUYER AND YOUR MARKET.
UM, AND THIS, UM, MR. SERTA, YOU MIGHT WANT TO ANSWER THIS ONE.
YOU TALK ABOUT THAT YOU ACTUALLY SELL TO THE PUBLIC, BUT IF YOU GO TO PAGE FIVE, IT ACTUALLY SAYS THAT YOU SERVE BY PROVIDING ELECTRICITY TO THE WHOLESALE POWER MARKET.
SO ARE YOU AN ESCO? LIKE HOW DO YOU DEFINE YOUR BUSINESS? YES.
ARE YOU A SUPPLIER OR ARE YOU YEAH, YEAH.
AND WHAT I'LL DO IS, AND JAMES, I'LL HAVE JAMES, UH, ADDRESS THAT POINT SPECIFICALLY.
SO THE, THE GENERATION IN NEW YORK IS PROVIDED BY COMPANIES SUCH SUCH AS OURS.
SO IN ESCO, WE WOULD BUY ENERGY FROM US AND, AND MAKE THE BRIDGE AND MAKE THAT PUBLIC CONNECTION, BUT THEY'RE BUYING ENERGY FROM COMPANIES OF THAT LIKE OURS.
AND SO ALL ENERGY IN NEW YORK STATE IS PROVIDED, IS PRODUCED BY COMPANIES SUCH AS OURS, AND THE PUBLIC THEN USES IT.
UH, THEN THE NEW YORK ISO POWER MARKET IS BASICALLY THIS, IT'S, IT'S A MARKETPLACE.
SO WE BID INTO THE MARKET AND SAY, WE WILL SELL ENERGY FOR WHATEVER, 10 CENTS A KILOWATT HOUR, AND THE EVERYONE BIDS INTO THE MARKET, AND THEN THEY DECIDE HOW MUCH ENERGY IS NEEDED.
AND, UH, THE PUBLIC THEN GETS THAT ENERGY FOR THE MARKET CLEARING PRICE.
AND THAT'S HOW ALL ENERGY IS PROVIDED IN, IN NEW YORK STATE.
UM, WE ALSO ARE SELLING OTHER THINGS, CAPACITY AND ANCILLARY SERVICES, WHICH ARE ALSO VERY IMPORTANT FEATURES OF WHAT IS NEEDED TO PROVIDE 24 7 ELECTRICITY TO EVERYONE IN NEW YORK STATE.
AND OUR PROJECT SELLS ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE THEN PAID FOR BY THE PUBLIC.
CON EDISON IS A TRANSPORTATION ENTITY, AND THEY ARE A BILLING AGENT, BUT THEY ARE NOT THE ACTUAL PRODUCERS OF THOSE COMMODITIES THAT ARE, THAT ARE BEING USED BY THE PUBLIC.
[02:30:01]
BUT THEY OWN THE INFRASTRUCTURE, THE DISTRIBUTION INFRASTRUCTURE, WHICH IS KIND OF WHAT DEFINES A PUBLIC UTILITY.AND THAT'S WHERE I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE AS YOU EXPLAIN YOUR BUSINESS, I WOULD THINK OF YOU GUYS AS MORE AS A SUPPLIER OR A VENDOR TO A PUBLIC UTILITY VERSUS A PUBLIC UTILITY.
SO I'M VERY CONFUSED BY, AND I'D LIKE TO SEE, HOW DO YOU GUYS DEFINE IT? WHAT MAKES YOU A PUBLIC UTILITY? I MEAN, I'LL LEAVE THIS WITH A LEAN, BUT I, I THINK WE'RE GOING BY THE DEFINITION IN THE GREENBERG CODE.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
WE'RE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE, THE CLAIM, THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR CODE, SPECIFICALLY THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC PERFORMING STRUCTURES.
WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT AND READING IT WITH THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY.
AND IT'S OUR, IT'S OUR POSITION THAT WHEN YOU READ THOSE TWO TOGETHER, THEY ARE BROAD ENOUGH TO CAPTURE WHAT IN FACT, EAGLE ENERGY IS DOING HERE.
WHICH IS, AGAIN, IT, IT IS PROVIDING ENERGY.
SO IT, IT'S NOT A TRANSMISSION.
AGAIN, CONED DOESN'T GENERATE ELECTRICITY.
THEY, THEY, LIKE, LIKE JAMES SAID, THEY DISTRIBUTE IT, BUT PEOPLE LIKE, YOU KNOW, FOLKS LIKE INDIAN POINT, UH, LET'S SAY FOLKS LIKE, UH, EVEN ENERGY, UH, WIN THOSE, THOSE ARE THE ENTITIES THAT PROVIDE AND GENERATE THE ENERGY.
SO WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT AND YOU LOOK AT THAT CONSTRUCT AND YOU LOOK AT YOUR DEFINITION, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING UNDER.
AND THAT'S ALL WE CAN GO UNDER, BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE APPLYING UNDER YOUR ZONING CODE FOR THIS PROJECT AS A SPECIALTY PERMITTED USE.
THOSE WERE THE ONLY QUESTIONS I HAD.
UH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE MR. ROBINSON, UH, PROVIDE THE BOARD WITH THE DOCUMENTATION, UH, THAT HE WAS REFERRING TO WHEREBY, UH, HIS, UH, THESE BATTERY SYSTEMS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE GENERATORS CI SOME, BUT I'D JUST LIKE TO SEE THOSE IN, UH, IN BLACK AND WHITE.
YEAH, I CAN CERTAINLY, I'LL TRY TO PULL THEM UP NOW, BUT IF, UH, NOT, I WILL SEND THEM.
JUST SEND THEM AND WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL SUPPLEMENT THE RECORD.
UM, I WANTED TO JUST REITERATE MY REQUEST AT THE OUTSET OF MY COMMENTS FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT MY RESPONSE TO MR. RETTA IN WRITING.
UH, IN PARTICULAR, BECAUSE I WANT THE ATTACHMENTS THAT I WAS REFERRING TO TO BE BEFORE THE BOARD, UM, INCLUDING, FOR EXAMPLE, THE CASE I CITED CORRALES, UM, WHICH HE WAS INVOLVED IN.
I CAN QUOTE FROM IT, BUT MOST OF SEVERAL OF YOU ARE LAWYERS.
I, I GAVE YOU THE SITE TO THE CASE, BUT I'D BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF YOU HAD THE OPINION AND YOU CAN READ IT FOR YOURSELVES.
UM, AND I, I WOULD ALSO ASK THAT, UM, MR. SHERETTA, UM, RESPOND, UH, TO WHAT WE SAY, UM, BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, TONIGHT I MADE THE POINT, UH, REPEATEDLY ABOUT, UH, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF TOWN CODE 2 85 3, UH, ON WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE CODE IS SILENT, UH, ABOUT A PARTICULAR USE.
AND HE SAID, OH, THAT'S NOT IMPORTANT.
THERE'S A CASE HE LITIGATED, UM, UH, AND, AND HE GAVE THE NAME OF THE CASE BUT DIDN'T SIGN IT.
I, I'D LIKE TO READ IT AND KNOW WHAT IT IS AND KNOW WHETHER IT APPLIES HERE.
AND, AND I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THAT AS WELL.
SO I, I, THERE NEEDS TO BE A MECHANISM FOR US TO EXCHANGE OUR VIEWS IN WRITING.
UH, LASTLY, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I APOLOGIZE FOR ANY CONFUSION ABOUT MEGAWATTS AND BOLTS.
UM, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO DO, AND THIS WILL BE APPARENT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION, WAS COMPARE THE, UM, UH, POWER INVOLVED IN THE BATTERY STORAGE UNIT, UH, THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED WITH THE, UH, POWER IN THE ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION THAT WAS, WAS ONCE PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS IN GREENBURG AND THEN WAS FORBIDDEN.
UM, AND WHAT I WAS DOING THERE WAS TRYING TO MAKE AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON.
UM, BUT IF I MISSTATED IT, I THINK THE, IF YOU SEE THE DOCUMENTS, YOU'LL SEE THAT WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IN TERMS OF, UH, VAULTS VERSUS WATTS AND AMPS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
UM, AND SO THAT'S WHY IT, I, I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT THAT STUFF AND IF THE BOARD, UH, IS WILLING TO CONSIDER HOLDING THIS OVER TO THE NEXT MONTH.
UM, THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES, UH, BACKGROUND ISSUES THAT I DIDN'T GET TO ADDRESS, UH, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS AND SPECIFICALLY, UM, MR. SHERETTA HAS SAID REPEATEDLY THAT
[02:35:01]
HIS CLIENT AND, AND HAS BEEN BEFORE THE GREENBERG BOARD, UH, FOR A VERY LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND, UH, BEFORE THEY SUBMITTED THEIR APPLICATION, WHICH WAS IN SEPTEMBER OF 2020.AND WHAT I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO BECOME AWARE OF IS THAT HISTORY, WHICH IS DOCUMENTED.
AND THE REASON THAT DOCUMENTATION IS IMPORTANT IS THAT IT WILL SHOW THAT WHEN THIS APPLICATION'S IDEA OF INSTALLING A BATTERY ELECTRIC STORAGE SYSTEM WAS FIRST PROPOSED TO THE TOWN IN NOVEMBER OF 20, UH, 1919, OKAY, I THINK IT WAS 2019.
2019 WHEN IT WAS FIRST PROPOSED, MR. DUQUE, IT WAS HERE, UM, PUT IN WRITING THAT THIS IS NOT A USE THAT IS AUTHORIZED UNDER GREENBERG'S CODE.
AND THE APPLICANT RESPONDED WITH AGREEMENT THAT IT WAS NOT A USE AUTHORIZED UNDER GREENBERG'S CODE.
AND THEN THEY, UH, THE APPLICANT TRIED TO DRAFT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE USED AS AN AMENDMENT, UH, TO GREENWOOD'S CODE, BUT, UH, ULTIMATELY A LAWYER, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT, THEN NOT THEIR LAWYER NOW APPARENTLY, UH, DRAFTED AN OPINION LETTER THAT SAID THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED, UH, A, A ZONING CHANGE.
THEY COULD, UM, SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT WITHOUT IT.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THAT.
THAT LETTER, BY THE WAY, THAT ATTORNEY'S OPINION LETTER IS DATED, I BELIEVE NOVEMBER 25TH, 2019.
SO THAT HISTORY NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE RECORD BEFORE YOU, IN MY OPINION, IN LIGHT OF WHAT WAS SAID.
UH, AND, AND I'D LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT, BUT THE HOUR'S LATE AND IT'S DOCUMENTARY, AND I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT THAT AND HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT IT.
I THINK THAT YOU'VE, YOU'VE COVERED A LOT AND I THINK OTHERS HAVE ALSO, AND CLEARLY THERE ARE A LOT OF ISSUES HERE THAT ARE STILL NOT TOTALLY, UM, VETTED OUT TO THE POINT THAT SOME OF YOU WISH TO DO.
WE HAVE NO OBJECTION TO YOU PRESENTING ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, ANY OTHER ISSUES YOU HAVE.
AND CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, AS YOU KNOW, WE, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE SUBMISSIONS IN WRITING BECAUSE THEN WE CAN SEE CLEARLY WHAT IS BEING SAID, WHAT IS BEING HOPEFULLY MEANT AND FOR US TO HAVE DELIBERATIONS ON.
SO I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO, UM, AT LEAST ON MY BEHALF, SAYING THAT I SEE THE NEED FOR US TO, UH, CONSIDER THIS CASE VERY CLOSELY AND THAT WE DON'T HAVE ALL OF THE INFORMATION AT THIS MOMENT THAT I BELIEVE WE SHOULD HAVE BEFORE US.
MADAM CHAIR, CAN YOU GIVE ME A DATE CERTAIN BY WHEN SOME SUB SUBMISSIONS SHOULD BE BEFORE YOU, SO THAT THEY CAN BE CONSIDERED IN TIME FOR THE NEXT MEETING, AND THAT I HAVE TO REFER TO OUR SECRETARY, MS. WALKER, AND MAD AND MADAM CHAIR.
AGAIN, JUST WITH RESPECT TO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, OBVIOUSLY, UH, WE ASK THAT WHATEVER IS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS HERE, THE, THE COUNCIL AND PLANNING BOARD, THAT WE ALSO BE PROVIDED WITH A COPY SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS IT, UH, AS WELL GOING FORWARD.
JUST IN TERMS OF PROCEDURE, MS. WALKER, I BELIEVE, UH, EVE, YES, I BELIEVE THE RULES AND PROCEDURE OF THE BOARD IS THAT WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE DUE 10 DAYS BEFORE THE MEETING.
I COULD BE WRONG ON THAT, BUT I'M ALMOST CERTAIN THAT THAT'S THE, UH, THE RULE.
UM, AS, AS FOR ME, UM, WHATEVER CASE, UH, YOU CITE TO, UH, AS A COURTESY, IF YOU CAN JUST APPEND IT TO YOUR SUBMISSION, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
SOMETIMES I WILL PULL THE CASE MYSELF IF THEY'RE NOT INCLUDED, BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE HELPFUL IF YOU CAN APPEND IT.
I, I THINK ALL, ALL AUTHORITIES SHOULD BE HYPERLINKED.
I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, UH, ASK MR. SORETA, UH, HE ASKED FOR A COPY OF EVERYTHING SENT TO HIM.
I WOULD ASK THAT A COPY ALSO BE SENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, AND THE C A C.
SO WE DID NOT HAVE A REPEAT OF ME FINDING OUT A POSITION OF MR. SORETA THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING.
WELL, I THINK YOU HEARD YOUR REQUEST.
CLEARLY WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER THAT.
[02:40:01]
IS THERE ANYTHING FURTHER AT THIS TIME? UH, I'M SORRY.UM, WELL, YEAH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
WE, WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF STUFF, UH, THIS EVENING, UM, WHICH I FOUND TO BE EXTREMELY INTERESTING AND, UM, INFORMATIVE.
UM, BECAUSE WE RECEIVED THIS PACKAGE WITH THE, UH, TWO CASES IN THEM, UM, JUST A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO AND TRYING TO READ THROUGH THEM AND ALL THE LEGALESE, UM, I MADE SURE I REACHED FOR MY BATTLE OF ADVIL SO THAT, UM, I COULD TRY AND I'LL GET THROUGH IT ALL.
AND I DID FIND IT EXTREMELY CONFUSING.
SO TONIGHT WAS VERY HELPFUL IN GETTING ME TO UNDERSTAND, UH, WHAT THE PARAMETERS ARE, UM, ABOUT THIS CASE OR THE TWO CASES.
UM, BUT I, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT MEETING SIDE OF THE FACT THAT, UH, WE ARE HERE TO REALLY JUST DETERMINE, UM, WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE IS VALID OR NOT, AND THAT THERE WERE THREE, UH, DISTINCT, UH, FACTORS THAT WE HAD TO, UH, TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION.
ONE WAS, UM, THE TENUS, WHICH WAS BROUGHT UP BY, UH, MR. RETA, UM, WHETHER IT HAD PROPER LEGAL STANDING AND, UM, TO TRY AND DETERMINE THE MERITS.
UM, I THINK THAT I'VE HEARD ENOUGH NOW THAT I'VE UNDERSTAND, UM, WHAT'S GOING ON, SO THAT NOW WE, AS THE BOARD CAN GET TOGETHER AND TRY AND MAKE SOME KIND OF, UM, INFORMED DECISIONS.
ALTHOUGH, UH, I THINK THERE'S STILL QUITE A BIT OF INFORMATION THAT WILL ONLY NEED TO GATHER, UH, BEFORE WE CAN MAKE THAT DECISION.
BUT, UH, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE NOT, WE'RE, WE'RE FULLY UNDERSTANDING THAT WE'RE NOT HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THIS, UM, A STORAGE FACILITY WOULD BE GRANTED, UH, OR PLACE WHERE IT WANTS TO BE.
UM, THAT IS FORCED SOME OTHER BOARD, UM, MOST LIKELY, I THINK IT WAS BROUGHT UP A LEGISLATIVE BOARD TO MAKE THAT DETERMINATION.
SO, UM, I'M, I'M GLAD THAT I HEARD EVERYTHING THAT WAS GOING ON.
THERE WAS A LOT THAT WAS, UM, MISINTERPRETED OR, OR MISREAD, BUT, UH, I THINK THE, THE GENERAL UNDERSTANDING IS CLEAR, UM, AT LEAST IN MY MIND.
SO, UM, WITH THAT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T GET TOO FAR OFF BASE IN TERMS OF WHAT DOES, UH, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS HERE TO DO.
ANY OTHER VERY SPECIFIC SHORT COMMENTS BEFORE WE ADJOURN FOR DELIBERATIONS? ARE YOU TAKING COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC? I SEE A AT LEAST ONE HAND UP.
AND CONNOLLY, THANK YOU, MA'AM.
UH, VERY BRIEFLY, I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND TO THE SUGGESTION WAS MADE THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS WOULD REVIEW THE SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION WITH RESPECT THAT ASSUMES THAT THEY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT IN THE FIRST PLACE, AND IT DOESN'T ADDRESS MR. SCHWARTZ'S POINT AND OTHER PEOPLE'S POINTS ABOUT THE PRECEDENT THAT WOULD BE SET BY ADOPTING OR UPHOLDING THIS INTERPRETATION.
AND MY POINT WAS THAT THE DETERMINATION THAT SHOULD BE MADE BY A LEGISLATIVE BODY OF ELECTED OFFICIALS IS WHETHER THIS USE IS APPROPRIATE AT ALL.
AND IF SO, WHAT ARE THE APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS UNDER WHICH IT, IT CAN BE ALLOWED IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
ANYONE ELSE HAVING HEARD SUFFICIENT SILENCE? OKAY, WE'LL NOW ADJOURN FOR OUR DELIBERATIONS, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO ANNOUNCE WHATEVER WE HAD DETERMINED THIS EVENING.
SO, UM, ONCE YOU SEE THE RECORDING, UH, GO BACK LIVE, THEN WE CAN START TO, GEORGE, IF YOU COULD PLEASE RUN LIVE.
WELL, I HAVE TO SAY WE, UH, ARE, I'M, I'M LOVING THIS NEW BOARD WE HAVE HERE,
[02:45:01]
SO LET'S JUST GO THROUGH THE LIST HERE.
UM, 2029, I THINK WE HAVE TO, IF I'M, IF I'M CORRECT, ED, WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THIS MATTER BEING WITHDRAWN.
DO WE HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO IT BEING WITHDRAWN? WELL, YOU'RE ALL MUTED, SO I ASSUME NO, WHAT YOU THINK? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO OBJECTION.
AND, UM, NOW GOING ON TO THE NEXT CASE OF TONIGHT, THAT, UH, WE DO HAVE, UH, TO DISCUSS 2101 RICARDO AND ANGEL, UH, ESTES, THAT IS THE PROPERTY WITH REGARD TO THE SWIMMING POOL IN THE REAR YARD.
ANY COMMENTS? YOU HAD A LOT OF COMMENTS WHEN WE HAD THIS CASE ON PREVIOUSLY.
WELL, IT APPEARED AS IF, UM, YOU STILL WANTED THEM TO, UM, MAYBE MOVE THE POOL OVER A LITTLE FURTHER AND MAYBE GET RID OF THE, ALL THE VARIANCES ALTOGETHER.
UM, AND I THINK, WAS IT ROHAN? WAS IT YOU WHO ASKED WHAT NEXT SIZE LOWER SWING POOL, UH, WOULD BE, UM, MM-HMM.
UM, BUT, UM, FROM, FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, I, I THINK THAT, UM, I WOULD FEEL OKAY WITH, UH, WITH THE REVISIONS THAT THEY'VE MADE AND THEY'VE GOTTEN RID OF ONE OF THE, UH, VARIANCES AND REDUCED THE SECOND ONE.
SO, UM, I, I THINK THEIR HEART IS IN THE RIGHT PLACE.
I AGREE WITH LOU HOW TO GET DOWN THERE.
SO IT'S MOVING AROUND
WHERE, WHERE WILLIAM? QUIET OVER HERE.
AND, AND THE REMOVAL OF WHATEVER THEY REMOVED THE VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR THE SIDE YARD AND JUST ASKING FOR A SMALLER VARIANCE IN TERMS OF THE REAR, UH, YARD SETBACK.
SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE PROPOSAL.
I'M GONNA PUT MY, UM, COMMENTS ON THE RECORD.
ONE THING THAT BOTHERS ME ABOUT THIS IS, AGAIN, AND I'M ONLY THINKING PRECEDENT NOT WHAT THEY DID, BUT, UM, IT WASN'T WELL PRESENTED.
SHE TALKED ABOUT HOW THE POOL COULD PERHAPS BE MOVED ANOTHER TWO FEET, BUT SHE DIDN'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
SHE ALSO MENTIONED THERE BEING, UM, THE STONE PATIO, BUT DID NOT PUT IT ON THE PLAN SO THAT WE COULD SEE EXACTLY WHERE IT WAS.
SO THOSE WERE THE ONLY THINGS THAT REALLY DISTURBED ME ABOUT IT.
I, I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO APPROVE OF VARIANCES WHERE THE OWNERS OR OR PRES PRESENTERS HAVE GIVEN US SUFFICIENT INFORMATION SO THAT WE SEE THAT THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO BASED UPON THE INFORMATION WE ARE PRESENTED WITH, AS OPPOSED TO WHAT INDIVIDUALS SOMETIMES SAY THEY WANT, UH, WITHOUT REALLY SUPPORTING IT VERY WELL.
SO I'VE SAID WHAT I'VE HAD TO SAY, UH, GOOD POINTS.
UM, BECAUSE IN ACTUALITY, IT'S, UM, ONLY IN LOOKING BACK ON LAST, LAST MONTH'S INFORMATION AND LOOKING AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS THAT I HAD A SENSE OF, UM, WHAT SHE WAS TALKING ABOUT.
BUT IN TERMS OF A GOOD IMPROPER PRESENTATION, UM, IT WASN'T LIKE WHAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH NOW WITH THE, UM, BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION.
BUT, AND, AND CONSIDERING THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, SHE'S A LAY PERSON, UM, AND NOT EXPERIENCED WITH PRESENTING INFORMATION, UM, I KIND OF LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, OVER, LOOKED OVER THAT, UH, SLIGHT LACK OF PROPER PRESENTATION.
ALL THE QUESTION IS, IS IT INFORMATION? SO THEN LET'S JUST REQUEST IT.
THEN I SAY WE JUST REQUEST THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY, WILLIAM.
THE QUESTION IS, IS IT SOMETHING WE SHOULD REQUEST TO COVER OURSELVES? BECAUSE AFTER ALL, WE'RE
[02:50:01]
MAKING THESE DECISIONS, AND THEN THE NEXT TIME ANOTHER CASE COMES ALONG, WE, WE DON'T HAVE THESE FACTORS THAT ARE REALLY PART OF OUR RECORD TO RELY UPON.AND IN THIS CASE, WE KNOW, WELL, SHE TOLD US THAT THERE ARE GONNA BE OTHER CASES.
I MEAN, WE HAVE A HISTORY OF, OF, UH, OF DOING THAT REQUESTING THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
AND THE, AND SHE SAID THAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN PUTTING IN POOLS.
MAYBE NOT REQUIRING A VARIANCE, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S BESIDES THE POINT.
I AGREE WITH YOU THAT WE SHOULD THEN THEREFORE REQUEST, UM, A, A PROPER, UH, RECORD, I GUESS WITH, UM, DOCUMENTATION THAT SHOWS THE POOL, THE PATIO, THE DECK, UM, SO THAT IT, IT'S PROPERLY PRESENTED.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO GET AN ANSWER TO THAT TWO FEET IF WE CAN, SO THAT WE REALLY KNOW THE VARIANCE THAT SHE'S ASKING FOR.
IF THERE'S A WAY FOR HER TO FIND OUT FROM THE MANUFACTURER, DOES SHE NEED THAT TWO FEET? DOES SHE NOT NEED THAT TWO FEET WITHOUT HAVING THEM? LIKE SHE HAD MENTIONED THAT, WELL, THEY WON'T EVEN COME UNLESS YOU HAVE A VARIANCE.
BUT HOW DO YOU GET A VARIANCE IF YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU SAID PERMIT SAID? THAT'S A VARIANCE OF PERMIT, BUT SORRY, PARDON? YEAH.
THAT IS, THAT HAD AN AWFUL LOT OF POOLS THAT WE'VE HAD TO, UH,
SO I, I THINK IT'S GREAT THAT THERE ARE, WHOEVER SHE'S WORKING WITH HAD SAID THAT.
BUT I DO AGREE WITH YOU, UH, DIANE, THAT SHE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE, SOMEONE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GIVE AN IDEA OF WHETHER THE POOL THAT SHE'S ORDERING, UM, WOULD, YOU KNOW, IS CONSTRUCTED IN THAT MANNER THAT SHE WOULD HAVE THE EXTRA TWO FEET OR NOT.
WE'VE DONE VERY FEW ABOVE GROUND POOLIES A LOT OF IN GROUND, YES.
BUT I, I, I RECALL VERY FEW ABOVE GROUND POOL.
WE'VE HAD SOME AND YEAH, BUT WHAT BOTHERS ME WITH THE ABOVE GROUND POOLS ARE THAT THE POOL IS THE POOL, BUT THEN THEY START ERECTING SOMETHING AROUND THE TOP OF IT THAT THEN EXPANDS BEYOND THE QUOTE SIZE OF THE POOL.
AND WE'RE PUTTING IT NOW CLOSER TO THE LINE.
AND, UH, LOU, UH, YOU DIDN'T SAY WHICH SIZE POOL YOU WERE IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE BIGGER ONE.
NO, I DIDN'T,
I FIGURED IT WAS THE BIGGER ONE.
YEAH, IT'S, UH, IT'S THE BIGGER ONE.
I MEAN, ALTHOUGH SHE ADMITTED THAT IF THEY COULDN'T GET THE VARIANCE, THEY'D BE WILLING TO LOOK AT THE SMALLER POOL.
BUT, UM, I WOULD LEAVE THAT, I WOULD WANNA LEAVE THAT DECISION UP TO THE HOMEOWNERS AND WELL, UH, YOU WEREN'T HERE THEN, LOU, I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT WAS IN THE OLD TOWN HALL.
MR. O'BRIEN FROM, UH, IRVINGTON DEFINITELY WASN'T THERE.
UM, AND WE SENT POOR MR. O'BRIEN BACK WITH FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE SO MANY TIMES FOR HIM TO COME BACK.
AND HE CAME BACK, I DON'T KNOW, AFTER SO MANY TIMES.
AND THAT FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVE, I HEARD HER SAY SHE HAD A
I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, IF THE BOARD'S GOING TO POSE ADDITIONAL QUESTION OR TWO, UM, YOU MAY WANNA POSE, YOU KNOW, WHAT WOULD PROHIBIT THE POOL FROM BEING ROTATED, UH, 90 DEGREES SUCH THAT THE, UH, LENGTH OR LEFT TO RIGHT, UM, FOR LACK OF EXPLAINING IT BETTER.
UM, SO I, I MEAN, I, I CAN DISPLAY THE PHOTO, UH, WHICH, WHICH, WHICH MIGHT MAKE SENSE, BUT IF THE POOL ROTATED 90 DEGREES, I THINK THEY COULD AVOID THE REAR YARD VARIANCE.
YOU MAY WANNA JUST UNDERSTAND WHY THAT CAN'T BE DONE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WOULD EVEN NEED TO BE 90 DEGREES.
I HAD THOUGHT OF THAT ALSO, AND I THOUGHT I HAD READ SOMEWHERE THAT THERE, THAT IT WASN'T EVEN ROUND.
BUT IF SHE COULD JUST CLARIFY THAT OF WHY SHE'S NOT DOING THAT, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
WELL, WHERE ARE WE? YOU'RE ADJOURNING IT.
THAT'S WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE I HAVE, I, I STILL DON'T HAVE FOUR PEOPLE SAYING WE WANNA VOTE FOR TONIGHT.
AJOUR, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO ALLOW TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION EVE, LIKE WE ALWAYS DO.
AND I, YES, FOR THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, YES, CAROL, YOU DID.
YOU, YOU HEAR, YOU HEARD THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THE SIZE OF THE POOL, WHETHER OR NOT IT COULD BE ROTATED IN ANY WAY AS TO MINIMIZE OR, UM, AVOID THE VARIANCE AND THE TWO FEET, WHETHER OR NOT THE TWO FEET, WHETHER IT COULD BE DETERMINED WHETHER THAT EXTRA TWO FEET IS AVAILABLE TO MOVE IT IN TOWARDS THE DECK.
[02:55:01]
AND WAS THERE ONE OTHER THING? IF THE SMALLER POOL SUITS ARE NEAT.DID YOU GET THOSE? WE'RE ALL SET.
SMILE
THIS IS BEING RECORDED SO WE CAN CATCH IT AGAIN.
UH, THEY HAVE ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT, AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE TO VOTE ON THAT, WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL GRANT THEM AN ADJOURNMENT.
DO THEY GIVE A REASON OR WE JUST, THEY JUST ACTUALLY, I, I COULD ANSWER THAT.
WE, SPEAKING WITH ANTHONY, UH, WE, WE HAD INDICATED THAT, UM, WE THOUGHT IT WAS PRUDENT THAT THEY SEEK A DETERMINATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COMMISSIONER ON WHETHER OR NOT THE ZONING BOARD GRANTED THE VARIANCE THAT THE CURB CUTS WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
SO WE FELT, IN TERMS OF ORDER OF OPERATIONS, LET'S FIND OUT IF THE, UH, D P W COMMISSIONER WOULD BE OKAY WITH THE CURB CUTS.
AND THEN IF SO, YOU KNOW, THEN THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE VARIANCE APPLICATION WOULD COME TO YOU AS IS IF THE, UH, D P W COMMISSIONER'S NOT INCLINED TO GRANT THOSE CURB CUTS.
WE FEEL THAT THAT'S VALUABLE INFORMATION THAT YOU NEED TO KNOW.
SO WE ACTUALLY REACHED OUT TO THE APPLICANT AND THEY THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA.
SO, UH, I'M JUST WORKING TOGETHER AND TRYING TO DO IT MAKE SENSE FOR THE BOARD.
SO THEN WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THAT ADJOURNMENT, AND NOW WE MOVE TO THE CASES OF THE NIGHT 2103 AND 2104.
I, I WAS WAITING FOR YOU TO JUMP IN ON THE STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION.
I, I, I RECALL READING SOMETHING LIKE THAT WAY BACK WHEN, AND I FIGURED YOU'VE GONE THROUGH A LOT OF THOSE.
WELL, NOT THE OTHER SIDE, BUT, WELL, YOU WOULD, YOU KNOW, A LOT ON IT, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE I HEAR IT GOING BACK AND FORTH AND I HEAR THE EXCEPTIONS.
I ALWAYS THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, UH, THAT WHICH IS, UH, INCLUDED RIGHT.
IMPLIES THAT WHICH IS EXCLUDED.
BUT I COULD, YOU KNOW, I LISTENED TO THEM.
THE, THE, THESE TWO HAVE BEEN AT IT, AND IT'S ALWAYS A PLEASURE HAVING BOTH OF THEM, UH, BEFORE US.
ALWAYS A PLEASURE BECAUSE THEY GO RIGHT AT IT AND KEEPS YOU ALERT.
UM, CAN ANYBODY HEAR ME NOW? YES.
SO EVE, OH, I THOUGHT, CAROL, WHAT DO YOU WANNA SAY? CAROL?
WHAT DID YOU WANNA TELL US?
UM, UH, WOULD IT BE AT ALL APPROPRIATE TO ASK, UM, MR. FRETO WHY HE WANTED TO, UH, TAKE ON THAT INTERPRETATION? HE STATED THAT IN HIS LETTER IN EXHIBIT THREE, HE STATED THAT YEAH, IN HIS LETTER THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, UM, THE NO COMMENT MEANS NO VARIANCE IS NEEDED.
IF YOU LOOK ON THE EXHIBIT THREE TO MR. SHEA'S, UM, SUBMISSION.
NOT RIGHT NOW THOUGH, RIGHT? OR IT WOULD HAVE TO BE NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
I KIND OF KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT, BUT IS THAT A QUESTION THAT YOU WANT US TO PUT IN THE LETTER AMONG OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WE MIGHT HAVE? WELL, UM, I, I THINK IT'S A PRETTY, UH, IT'S THE BASIS BEFORE WHICH WE'RE TRYING TO DETERMINE, UM, WHETHER OR NOT TO ACCEPT THAT INTERPRETATION OR NOT, RIGHT? IS TO, OTHER THAN JUST SAYING, WELL, HE JUST PUT IN NO COMMENT.
THAT DOESN'T TELL ME, OR I GUESS ANYBODY, WHAT THAT REALLY MEANS.
I MEAN, I GUESS THERE'S A LEGAL RE MEANING FOR WHAT THAT MEANS, BUT, YOU KNOW, I, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO ME AS THE, UH, LAY PERSON HERE, UM, TO GET A SENSE OF, YOU KNOW, WHY HE FELT THAT IT WAS NECESSARY OR NOT NECESSARY, WHY HE FELT IT WAS OKAY TO, UM,
[03:00:02]
CHECK THAT NO COMMENT BOX.ALRIGHT, SO WHO ASKS HIM THAT? WHO, WHO'S, WHO QUESTIONS THE BUILDING? YOU CAN EITHER PUT IT IN THE LETTER OR YOU CAN ASK HIM MORALLY AT THE NEXT MEETING.
RIGHT? DO YOU WANT ME TO WRITE A LETTER TO HIM?
SO ANY QUESTION THAT THE BOARD HAS FOR STAFF, I'LL DOCUMENT AND WE WILL SUPPLY THAT TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WHO, UM, YOU KNOW, WILL DECIDE WHAT TO DO WITH THAT.
RIGHT? SO, OR, OR COULD WE DO AN OPEN LETTER OF, BECAUSE THE, THE QUESTIONS GO TO DIFFERENT INDIVIDUALS.
YOU SHOULD PUT ONE LETTER TO ALL SI ALL PARTIES.
SO THE, THE ONE QUESTION, AND I THINK DIANE WAS, WOULD BE JUST A CHAIN IN CUSTODY OF THE POWER.
UM, IN FACT WE HEARD THE ATTESTATION IN TERMS OF IT BEING A GENERATOR BEING SOLD TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH THEN GIVES EYES TO VARIOUS AREAS IN OUR CODE.
SO WHO ACTUALLY PUBLICLY IS RECEIVING THE POWER AND HOW THAT POWER IS BEING RECEIVED.
UM, IF IT'S JUST GOING INTO GENERAL GRID, THEN IT, IT FALLS UNDER A DIFFERENT, UM, INTERPRETATION.
SO I THINK THAT CUSTODY OF THE POWER IN TERMS OF HOW IT ACTUALLY LEAVES THAT BATTERY, I UNDERSTAND HOW THEY'RE PURCHASING THE ENERGY INITIALLY.
AND THEN AT TIMES WHEN THE GRID IS CALLING FOR MORE POWER THAN HAS BEING SOLD BACK TO THE GRID, IS IT TO THE GRID OR IS IT TO WILLIAM BLAND IN MY HOME AT MY ADDRESS? SO THAT CHAIN OF CUSTODY IN TERMS OF THE POWER, I THINK JUST NEEDS TO BE CLARIFIED.
YOU GOT ALL THAT CAROL? ALRIGHT.
WELL AT THIS TIME OF THE NIGHT, LET CAROL, CAROL DO THE BEST YOU CAN.
AND THE QUESTIONS YES, WE'RE ON TOP OF IT.
ANYTHING YOU SAY, I'M, I'VE GOT IT.
I SPECIFICALLY LET ME SUGGEST THAT YOU ALL SUBMIT YOUR QUESTIONS, ANYTHING OTHER THAN THEY THINK OF WITHIN THE NEXT WEEK TO, UH, CAROL AND OR GARRETT.
BECAUSE GARRETT WILL PROBABLY KNOW, AS HE JUST SAID, EVEN BEFORE YOU THINK OF THE QUESTION HE'S GOT.
ANYTHING ELSE? I WAS GONNA SAY THAT WHAT STUCK IN MY CRAWL WAS, UM, THAT, UH, THEY BOUGHT THE POWER FROM CONED WHEN IT WAS CHEAPER AND IT BACK TO CONED WHEN IT WAS MORE EXPENSIVE.
THAT'S WHAT I TRY NOT TO HOLD THAT IN AGAINST THEM.
IF THEY DID IT OTHER WAY AROUND BLUE, THEY WOULDN'T BE IN BUSINESS.
BUSINESS, THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY NOT A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ORGANIZATION.
NO, JUST THINK OF IT THAT THEY'RE SELLING SHORT.
YOU'RE YOU'RE GOOD TONIGHT, ED.
REALLY? WELL, SO I HAVE TO INCLUDE, NOT ONLY IS OUR BOARD ON THE BALL, BUT OUR ATTORNEY IS ON THE BALL TONIGHT.
IT'S THAT VICTORY HE GOT WITH, UM, RIGHT HERE BY ME AT THE CEMETERY.
I I I THINK ED'S SUGGESTION IS RIGHT.
I DIDN'T KNOW HOW LONG WE WOULD HAVE TO SUBMIT A QUESTIONS, BUT A WEEK IS, I THINK A GENEROUS AMOUNT OF TIME AND CERTAINLY ANYTHING ELSE THAT SPARKS YOUR MIND, YOU CAN SAY IT NOW BECAUSE WE ARE BEING RECORDED SO THAT INFORMATION WILL BE AVAILABLE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT CAROL WEARING HER FINGERS OUT TONIGHT,
SO ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANNA JUST, YOU KNOW, GO FOR IT.
UH, I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE WHOLE TIMELINESS ISSUE.
UM, WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T REALLY GET INTO THAT THAT MUCH.
I MEAN, THIS IS ALL MOVED IF, IF IT'S DETERMINED THAT THEY DIDN'T FILE THEIR APPEALS IN TIME.
SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE HAD ANY COMMENT ABOUT THAT.
I, I MEAN ABOUT THE APPEAL AND THE TIMELINESS AND WHEN I MEAN EXACTLY WHAT DATE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO USE AND
OTHERWISE WE HAVE TO RELY ON ED
[03:05:01]
UM, BUT CHRIS, THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT.
UH, THE, THE TIMELINESS OF IT IS, IS A FACTOR THAT WE HAVE TO, UH, MAKE SURE WE'RE CLEARING.
UM, WELL I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY GOING TO GIVE US A GOOD SYNOPSIS, UM, WITH HYPERLINKS OF THAT ONE ISSUE.
I NEED A GOOD ARGUMENT ON THE TIMELINESS
TIMELINESS IS NOT JUST THE LEGAL QUESTION, IT'S ALSO A FACTUAL QUESTION.
UH, DO YOU REALLY SHOULD BE ASKING THE PARTIES EITHER IN WRITING OR AT THE HEARING, WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME AWARE OF THE DECISION OF THE, EITHER THE CHECKBOX OR WHATEVER, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO WORD THAT QUESTION.
BUT BECAUSE THAT IS CENTRAL ISSUE NOW, IT'S TRUE THAT THE, UH, ONE OF THE APPELLANTS, UH, MADE THE, MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT IT'S IRRELEVANT BECAUSE IT WASN'T FILED THE, BECAUSE THE, UH, THE PAPER WASN'T FILED.
WELL, THAT'S ANOTHER QUESTION YOU CAN ASK OF THE, UM, OF THE, UM, UH, BUILDING DEPARTMENT AS TO WHEN OR IF AND OR WHEN THE, UH, THAT DOCUMENT WAS FILED AND, AND WHETHER OR NOT AND WHERE AND WHETHER OR NOT EDITS A DECISION IF, IF THAT QUALIFIES AS A DECISION.
WELL THAT'S A, THAT'S A DIFFERENT, THAT'S FOR YOU TO DECIDE.
I KNOW THAT'S MORE A LEGAL QUESTION.
I'M TALKING ABOUT IF YOU ARE THINKING ABOUT ASKING QUESTIONS ON, ON TIMING THIS RIGHT.
AND IF YOU'RE GONNA ASK FACTS, THEN YOU'VE GOTTA ASK ABOUT FACTS.
YOU KNOW, WHEN DID YOU FIRST BECOME AWARE, WHEN WAS THIS DECISION FILED AND WHERE ALRIGHT.
ABOUT WHY WAS IT FILED BY THAT METHOD? WELL, FIRST YOU HAVE TO ESTABLISH WHETHER IT WAS FILED.
I THINK ONE OF THE PARTIES SAID IT WAS NEVER FILED.
UM, THE TWO DATES IN QUESTION ARE THE SEPTEMBER 18TH, RIGHT.
WHEN IT WAS WRITTEN THEN, THEN THE PLANNING BOARD GOT WRITTEN NOTIFICATION AND A RESPONSE ON NOVEMBER 12TH, WHICH CLEARLY IS THE DAY THEY'RE USING, WHICH IS WHY THEY FILED THEIR APPEAL 60 DAYS LATER.
SO, YOU KNOW, I DO HAVE QUESTIONS LIKE WHAT ARE THE, WHAT'S THE DATE THAT WE SHOULD BE USING, IF ANY DATE? RIGHT.
THAT ALSO, UM, BRINGS TO MIND THE FACT THAT WE'RE, WE'VE COMBINED THE TWO CASES, BUT IN FACT, ONE IS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE OTHER IS FOR THE, UH, C G C A.
AND THEY, UH, THE TWO MAY HAVE GOTTEN THE NOTIFICATION OF THIS AT DIFFERENT TIMES.
LIKE YOU COULD SAY THAT THE PLANNING BOARD GOT IT.
UM, NOT, MIGHT HAVE BEEN AWARE OF IT BACK IN SEPTEMBER, BUT THEY ASKED FOR A CLARIFICATION FROM, OR THAT THE NOTIFICATION FROM, UH, THE BILLING INSPECTOR SO THAT WE GOT THE LETTER IN NOVEMBER AND THEN THE CLOCK STARTS TO BE RUN
BUT THEN WHEN DID THE, UH, GREENBERG CIVIC ASSOCIATION GET FIRST ON, UH, FIRST NOTICE THE, UM, THIS WHOLE THING? AND DOES THE CLOCK START AT A DIFFERENT TIME FOR THEM? I DUNNO IF I SAID THAT CORRECTLY, BUT I I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I MEAN.
AND THAT, THAT'S A REALLY GOOD POINT.
'CAUSE THAT'S THE ONE DATE WE DON'T HAVE IS WHEN THEY ACTUALLY FOUND OUT.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? WELL, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT YOU GUYS, BUT ALL I'VE HAD TODAY WAS BREAKFAST AND, AND I HAVE DINNER THERE THAT I'M SUPPOSED TO BE COOKING, SO, OH GOD, I'M SORRY.
WHO ASKED TO HAVE THIS AT SIX O'CLOCK? WOULD'VE BEEN WORSE.
WOULD'VE BEEN WORSE AT WE WERE GONNA HAVE IT AT FIVE.
THAT WOULD'VE BEEN FOUR WOULD'VE BEEN WORSE AT FOUR.
WELL, I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA, I DON'T WANNA RUN UP, UH, EVE, BUT I HAVEN'T HAD BREAKFAST OR LUNCH.
OH, YOU OR DINNER YET? OH S**T.
I, I DIDN'T EVEN HAVE A CHANCE TO, YOU KNOW, PUT ON SOMETHING MORE, UH, SUITABLE FOR BEING A Z B
[03:10:01]
A MEMBER, BUT I, I HAD, I HAD A CLOSING IN LONG ISLAND.I HAVE TO DRIVE IN THE SNOW TODAY.
OH,
THANK GOODNESS WE'RE NOT IN TEXAS.
LISTEN, WHEN WE START TALKING ABOUT YOUR MEALS, I THINK THE MEETING'S OVER
I THINK YOU, I THINK YOU SHOULD RELEASE, YOU'RE RIGHT.
AND BY THAT I MEAN MR. BERNSTEIN AND, UH, MR. ROBINSON AND MR. SHERETTA RELEASE THEM.
OH, WE HAVE TO GO BACK ON THE RECORD.
E GO BACK ON BECAUSE WE HAVE TO VOTE.
I HAVE ONE QUE I HAVE, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION.
SO WE HAVE A WEEK TO PROVIDE QUESTIONS.
WHAT IF WE GOING THROUGH ALL OF THIS IN OUR NOTES, FIND WE HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS.
DO WE SEND 'EM TO CAROL? DO WE COPY EVERYONE? AND THEN WHAT, WHEN DO WE NEED TO GET THEM TO HER IN A WEEK? MY SUGGESTION IS YOU GET THEM TO CAROL AND GARRETT IN A WEEK.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE HAD TO GET THEM TO THE, TO THE PARTIES IN A WEEK.
THEN THEY'RE GONNA DRAFT THE LETTER TO ALL THE PARTIES WITH ALL THE QUESTIONS.
AND DI DIANE AND DIANE AND LES, UM, UM, JUST JUMP IN.
EVA'S PRETTY GOOD WITH THAT, WITH JUST LETTING US JUMP IN.
UM, YOU KNOW, ASK THE APPLICANT, STOP THEM, ASK THEM EVEN THE ATTORNEYS, AT LEAST I'VE DONE THAT SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE, SO I JUST JUMP IN.
SOMETIMES I, YOU KNOW, SIT BACK AND I'LL LISTEN AND LET THEM PRESENT.
SOMETIMES, SOMETIME IT JUMPS IN.
LET'S, LET'S GET BACK ON THE RECORD, PLEASE.
SO WE JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT THIS STENOGRAPHER IS, UH, AVAILABLE AND READY, DEBORAH, AND I'M LOOKING AROUND FOR CONFIRMATION.
SHE PUT MUTE MYSELF, TONY, UM, LET SEE.
BARBARA, IF, IF YOU CAN CONFIRM, CONFIRM ALL SET TO GO, UH, CAROL, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO CALL THE, UH, STENOGRAPHER AND JUST, UH, MAKE SURE SHE'S READY? OKAY.
YOU PROBABLY DIDN'T EXPECT YOU TO BE READY FOR ANOTHER HOUR.
YEAH, I DON'T SEE, I DON'T
UH, DEBBIE, IF YOU'RE, IF YOU CAN HEAR US, IF YOU CAN UNMUTE AND LET US KNOW YOU'RE READY TO GO.
OTHERWISE, CAROL'S GONNA CALL YOU IN A MOMENT.
I'M WATCHING YOU GUYS, BUT THERE SHE IS.
THE HOST HAS STOPPED IT, SO IT'S NOT LETTING ME, IT'S NOT LETTING ME GO IN, SO I MIGHT HAVE TO JUST GO OUT AND GO IN AGAIN, BUT THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS.
YOU CANNOT START YOUR VIDEO BECAUSE THE HOST HAS STOPPED IT.
SO SEE IF HE CAN, DOES SHE NEED THE VIDEO? YEAH.
SO AS LONG AS SHE CAN HEAR WHAT'S GOING ON AND STARTS TO TRANSCRIBE, THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT.
SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE ALL SET TO GO AND THIS IS BEING RECORDED, SO, UH, CAROL SOUNDS LIKE SHE'S GOOD TO GO, RIGHT? NO, KEEP IN MIND GUYS, BECAUSE SHE'S CAN'T SEE US JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST STATE.
LET'S, LET'S DO OUR SECONDS AND OUR VOTES IN ORDER.
AND I, I TEND TO THINK SHE WOULD BE ABLE TO SEE US, BUT WE SHOULD STILL DO THAT.
I'M GOING TO, WE'RE STILL RECORDING, SO, UH, PLEASE PROCEED.
AND NOW WE ARE BACK ON THE RECORD WITH THE RESULTS OF OUR DELIBERATIONS FOR THE EVENING.
AND THE FIRST CASE WE HAD WAS CASE 2029.
ERIC UCCI, WHO HAS ASKED TO, UH, WITHDRAW.
AND DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
I'VE HEARD SINCE YOU'RE ON ZOOM, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO HELP THE, UH, STENOGRAPHER BY GOING HANDS UP IN ADDITION.
[03:15:01]
AYE.MOVING ON TO THE NEXT CASE, CASE 2101.
THAT IS BEING ADJOURNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 18TH, AND THE NEXT CASE IS CASE 2102, EVO WAKOWSKI, WHO HAS ASKED FOR, UH, AN ADJOURNMENT.
UM, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
AND DO WE ALL VOTE
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE ADJOURNMENT? CAN AYE? AYE.
AND NOW FOR THE LAST TWO CASES ON THE AGENDA CASE, 2103 AND 2104, UH, THOSE ARE ADJOURNED FOR ALL PURPOSES, ALSO TO THE MEETING OF MARCH 18TH.
AND WITH THAT WE ARE ADJOURNED FOR THE EVENING.
THANK YOU ALL FOR GETTING THROUGH THE SNOW AND GETTING TO YOUR SCREENS.
AND EVERYONE HAVE A GOOD NIGHT AND SEE YOU SOON.
GOOD TIME, GOOD NIGHT, GOOD EVENING.