[00:00:01]
YOU.[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GREENBURGH TOWN HALL AGENDA THURSDAY, March 18, 2021 – 6:00 P.M. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there will be no public gathering in Town Hall for this meeting. If you would like to watch the meeting, you may do so via the Town's website or via cable television. If you would like to participate in one or more of the public hearings, you must pre-register through the Department of Community Development and Conservation by emailing publichearing@greenburghny.com or calling 914-989-1538, specifying the applications that you would like to speak on. Instructions to participate will then be emailed to you or you will receive a return phone call. ]
OF APPEALS.THE MEETING FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBERG WILL NOW COME TO ORDER.
UH, WE HAVE SEVEN CASES THAT WERE SCHEDULED ON TODAY'S AGENDA, HOWEVER, CASE 2101 HAS ASKED TO WITHDRAW AND CASE 2105 AS REQUESTED AND AS OF RIGHT ADJOURNMENT.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ZONING BOARD WILL HAVE OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY, MAY 20TH.
AS USUAL, IF WE CANNOT COMPLETE HEARING ANY CASE TODAY WILL BE ADJOURNED TO ANOTHER MEETING, HOPEFULLY TO BE COMPLETED AT THAT TIME.
AS IS USUAL, TO SAVE TIME, WE'LL WAIVE A READING OF THE PROPERTY LOCATION AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT FOR EACH CASE.
HOWEVER, THE REPORTER WILL INSERT THIS INFORMATION IN THE RECORD.
THIS INFORMATION ALSO APPEARS IN THE AGENDA FOR TODAY'S MEETING AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING TODAY'S CASES, THE BOARD WILL MEET IN THE ZOOM ROOM TO DISCUSS THE CASES WE'VE HEARD TODAY.
EVERYONE IS WELCOME TO LISTEN TO OUR DELIBERATIONS, BUT THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK OR PARTICIPATE DURING OUR DELIBERATIONS.
AFTER OUR DELIBERATIONS, WE WILL GO BACK ON THE FORMAL RECORD TO ANNOUNCE THE BOARD'S DECISION, AND FOR THAT TO BE BROADCAST AND PROVIDED TO THE COMMUNITY.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK, PLEASE CLEARLY STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OR YOUR PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION.
IF YOU'RE NOT THE NAMED APPLICANT, PLEASE SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
WE HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY ON SOME OF THESE CASES AT PRIOR MEETINGS.
ALL PRIOR TESTIMONY IS ALREADY IN THE RECORD AND SHOULD NOT BE REPEATED.
AND TODAY'S FIRST CASE THAT WE ARE GOING TO HEAR IS CASE 2102, EVA LU.
UM, NICE TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN.
UM, I HAVE PREPARED A COUPLE OF PAGES, SO I WOULD LIKE TO REMIND EVERYONE WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT AND THEN, UH, GIVE MY PROPOSAL, UH, AS AN ANSWER TO THE MEETING WE HAD BACK IN JANUARY.
CAN I SHARE MY SCREEN? YES, PLEASE DO.
UH, JUST WHILE YOU'RE DOING, SETTING THAT UP, I JUST WANT EVERYONE TO BE, UH, AWARE THAT THE LAST COUPLE OF MEETINGS, WE HAVE NOT HAD A HEAVY AGENDA.
UH, OUR AGENDA TONIGHT IS A LITTLE, UH, MORE NORMAL, NORMAL, I SHOULD SAY.
AND WE MAY HAVE TO LIMIT THE TIME OF SOME OF THE, UM, OKAY.
SO PLEASE DON'T REPEAT YOURSELVES ANYTHING WE'VE HEARD, AND JUST BE MINDFUL THAT WE MAY HAVE TO CUT YOU OFF AFTER A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO ALLOW EVERYONE WHO IS ON THE AGENDA TO BE HEARD.
SO THIS IS JUST A REMINDER OF A SITUATION.
UM, ON THE LEFT IS MY PROPERTY WHEN I BOUGHT IT.
AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE PROPERTY, HOW IT LOOKS TODAY.
WE HAD, UH, DISCUSSIONS IN JANUARY ABOUT, SO MY PROPOSED, MY ASK WAS TO, UM, ASK FOR A VARIANCE APPROVAL.
UH, ON THE NORTH SIDE, THERE IS 7.75, UH, FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE, ZERO FEET.
UH, DURING A DISCUSSION IN JANUARY, THERE WAS NOT MUCH DISCUSSION ABOUT THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT THERE WAS A LOT OF QUESTION ABOUT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD WERE AROUND, UM, THE FACT, IF I NEED THAT SPACE, IS HAVING THIS SPACE SAFE AND THEN WHAT I AM PROPOSING, UH, BECAUSE THE BOARD WAS NOT WILLING TO, UH, LEGALIZE THE DRIVEWAY AS IT IS TODAY.
SO HERE ARE MY ANSWERS TO THE QUESTIONS.
FIRST OF ALL, IF THE SPACE IS NEEDED.
AND MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS, YES, IT IS VERY MUCH NEEDED.
THERE IS NOT A LOT OF PARKING SPACE AVAILABLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, NEXT TO MY HOUSE, THERE WILL BE, THERE IS A SUBDIVIDED PROPERTY.
WE'LL HAVE THREE MORE PROBABLY CARS IN THAT PROPERTY, SO THE PARKING SPACE WILL BE EVEN LESS AVAILABLE.
UM, SO, UM, YES, I DEFINITELY NEED THAT SPACE FOR PARKING.
ALSO IN THE SITUATION THAT, AND WE HAD A LOT OF SNOW THIS WINTER, HAVING ANY PARKING SPOT IS SUPER IMPORTANT.
THEREFORE, AGAIN, I REALLY WOULD LOVE TO KEEP THE THREE PARKING SPACES THAT I HAVE TODAY, UH, RATHER THAN GETTING RID OF ONE OF IT ALTOGETHER.
UM, SECOND QUESTION WAS ABOUT THE SAFETY.
IS IT SAFE TO PARK IN THAT SPACE? AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THERE IS A TRAFFIC, THERE IS A CROSSING HERE IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY.
UM, WHAT I AM SEEING IS THERE IS A TRAFFIC AND PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY, BUT DURING THAT TIME, THERE IS A TRAFFIC GUARD IN PLACE.
AND OUTSIDE OF, UH, THOSE HOURS
[00:05:01]
WHEN, YOU KNOW, THERE IS NO SCHOOL BACK AND FORTH, THERE IS ACTUALLY VERY LIMITED PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.THERE IS A LOT OF CARS, BUT NOT A LOT OF PEDESTRIANS CROSSING, UM, THE STREET.
THERE IS ALSO A SLOW ZONE HERE.
AND NOT ONLY THERE IS A SLOW ZONE, BUT ALSO WE HAVE A STOP SIGNS AROUND.
SO AGAIN, IT'S QUITE SAFE AND SLOW AROUND MY PROPERTY.
UH, SO HAVING THOSE SPACES AND PARKING THERE AND GOING BACK AND FORTH NEVER HAS CREATED ANY PROBLEM TO THE, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SAFETY OF THE, OF ALARM CITIZENS.
THERE IS ANOTHER REASON WHY I BELIEVE IT'S SAFE TO KEEP THIS PARKING SPACE.
THERE IS THIS 12 FEET DISTANCE BETWEEN THE ROAD AND THE PARKING SPACE, WHERE IS A LOT OF SPACE FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE TO, TO WALK.
AND, UH, IT IS ACTUALLY, IF I REMOVE THE WHOLE SPACE ALTOGETHER, THE PEDESTRIANS WILL HAVE MUCH LESS SPACE, UH, TO WALK AND CROSS THE STREET.
HERE, THEY CAN STAND ON THIS, UH, BIG ASPHALT SPOT AND WAIT FOR CROSSING THE STREET.
SO AGAIN, IF I SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING, UM, I HEARD YOU AND I WITH REPLY TO, TO, TO WHAT YOU TOLD ME IN JANUARY.
UH, NOW MY PROPOSAL IS TO NARROW THE SPACE BY FOUR FEET.
SO THERE WILL BE LESS VARIANCE.
ASK NOT ZERO, LIKE, UH, AT THE BEGINNING, BUT THERE WILL BE A FOUR FEET BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE BEGINNING OF THE PARKING SPOT.
UM, THIS IS GOING TO ALLOW ME STILL TO PARK THE CAR.
AND, UH, ANOTHER REASON I BELIEVE IT'S, IT, IT'S ADDRESSING YOUR QUESTIONS, IS THAT BECAUSE IT'LL BE EVEN MORE NARROW THAN IT'S TODAY.
IT'LL BE REALLY USED BY ME, LIKE THE LAST RESORT.
SO I WILL FOCUS USING THE OTHER TWO PARKING SPOTS, BUT IF THERE IS A NECESSITY OR I CAN ALLOW THE TRAFFIC GUARD OR THE POST OFFICER OR WHOEVER IS, IS NEEDING THAT, THAT SPACE, THEY CAN STILL USE THE SPACE.
SO INSTEAD OF ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE, 7 75 FEET AND ZERO, I'M ASKING FOR THE VARIANCE OF A SETBACK, 7 75 ON THE NORTH SIDE AND FOUR FEET ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
AND THIS IS THE PROPOSAL IN DETAILS.
SO WHAT I AM PLANNING TO DO IS TO REMOVE, UH, THAT RED SPACE AND JUST EXTEND THE, UH, GARDEN, THE MULCH WITH SOME, UM, WITH SOME FLOWERS OR BUSHES.
SO IT'LL BE, UM, WELL INCORPORATED INTO THE, INTO THE CURRENT DESIGN.
I ALSO, UM, AS ADVISED BY YOU, I HAVE ALSO ADDRESSED THE CARP SITE, UH, CARP CUTS VARIANCE.
AND I HAVE PROVIDED ALL THE INFORMATION TO D P W AND I GOT THE, UH, RESPONSE FROM THE COMMISSIONER THAT IF YOU ALLOW ME TO DO WHAT I'M PROPOSING NOW, THEY ARE ALSO IN FAVOR, UM, TO THAT PROPOSAL THAT THIS IS EVERYTHING I HAVE PREPARED.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? UM, I HAVE NO QUESTIONS.
I THINK THAT WAS A VERY WELL, UM, VERY WELL PRESENTED PRESENTATION.
UH, I MAY, I LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION.
UM, HOW DO YOU GET IN AND OUT OF THE PARKING SPACES? DO YOU GO IN FRONT WITH THEM BACK OUT, OR DO YOU GO BACK IN FROM OLD ARMY ROAD? SO AGAIN, IT DEPENDS ON THE PREFERENCE OF THE DRIVER.
I PREFER TO GO IN FRONT, BUT I KNOW THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, OUR TRAFFIC GUARD WHO ACTUALLY IS ON THE, ON THE ZOOM WITH US, SHE IS GOING BACKWARDS AND THEN SHE PREFERS TO DRIVE OUT, UM, FROM THE FRONT, UM, USING FRONT OF THE HEART OF HER CAR.
SO IT'S REALLY UP TO THE QUALITIES OF THE DRIVERS.
UM, CHAIR, I BELIEVE THERE ARE TWO, UM, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
[00:10:01]
YOU'RE ON MUTE THERE.THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
SO THEN, UH, WHOEVER THAT WAS THAT WANTED TO SPEAK FROM THE AUDIENCE, PLEASE COME FORWARD.
SO THERE IS BOTH, UH, PATRICIA PACE AND MJ CARIA.
UM, SO I, MA'AM, ARE YOU READY MJ TO SPEAK? YES.
I LIVE IN THE HOUSE TO THE RIGHT.
SO 1 96 OLD ARMY WHERE THAT DRIVEWAY SHE'S TALKING ABOUT IS, WE'RE THE CLOSEST NEIGHBOR.
WE THINK THAT WHAT AVA DID WITH THE PROPERTY LOOKS WAY BETTER THAN HOW IT LOOKED BEFORE.
UM, AND HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH LEAVING IT THE WAY IT WAS.
IF SHE WANTS TO NARROW IT, THAT'S FINE WITH US TOO.
HI, UM, I'M THE CROSSING GUARD FOR SEALY PLACE SCHOOL, AND IT WAS ACTUALLY, HAS BEEN KIND ENOUGH TO LET ME PARK IN THAT SPOT.
AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU, I BACK IN IT EVERY DAY.
I MEAN, THERE'S THE STOP SIGNS ARE THERE, THERE'S THE 20 MILES PER HOUR TO SLOW DOWN.
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO PARKING WHATSOEVER IN THE AREA, SO YOU'RE REALLY STUCK AS FAR AS WHERE YOU'RE GONNA PARK.
AND THE ROADS ARE VERY NARROW THERE.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE KIDS ARE COMING, THEY'RE WITH THEIR PARENTS AND WALKING, BUT EVERY EVERYTHING'S ORGANIZED.
IT'S, IT'S JUST THE WAY THE SPOT IS.
IT'S, IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH ANYTHING.
IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.
THE KIDS WALKING BY, CARS GOING BY.
I PULL OUT AFTERWARDS, AFTER MY SHIFT EVERY DAY.
THERE'S A THREE-WAY STOP SIGN, YOU KNOW, THREE STOPS.
IT'S JUST LIKE PULLING OUT OF ANY OTHER DRIVEWAY.
IT'S IT, LIKE I SAID, I THINK IT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WAS THERE BEFORE.
UM, IT DOESN'T DISTURB THE PEDESTRIANS.
IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH ANYTHING.
I THINK IT'S SAFE THE WAY IT IS.
I REALLY DON'T OBJECT TO, YOU KNOW, I, I PERSONALLY DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ISSUE AS FAR AS, UM, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING THE AREA, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE AROUND THE AREA, IT'S USUALLY DEAD ANYTIME THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
I MEAN, I LIVE IN GREENBURG ALSO, SO I AM FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA.
UM, IT'S NEVER REALLY BEEN AN ISSUE.
SO, AND LIKE I SAID, ME BEING THE CROSSING GUARD, I WOULD HAVE NO PLACE TO PARK MYSELF AND, AND THEM BEING THE OWNERS OF THE HOUSE, AT LEAST TO GIVE THEM THE OPTION OF HAVING THE HOUSE, ESPECIALLY NOW WITH THE SNOW AND THE ORDINANCES WHERE YOU CAN'T PARK ON THE STREET.
I THINK IT'S, YOU KNOW, INVALUABLE TO THEM TO HAVE THAT AS PROPERTY OWNERS.
AND LIKE I SAID, I DON'T THINK IT INTERFERES, YOU KNOW, WITH ANYTHING.
I MEAN, EVEN THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBORS, I KNOW YOU HAVE VARIANCES WITH SETBACKS AND EVERYTHING, BUT IT DOESN'T INTERFERE WITH THEIR PROPERTY.
IT, YOU KNOW, I THINK IT'S, IT'S AN ASSET FOR EVERYBODY, FOR THEM AS PROPERTY OWNERS.
I WORK FOR THE TOWN AND, YOU KNOW, AND EVERYBODY IN THE AREA, I'M ABLE TO STAND BY MY CAR.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE KIDS COME AS A GROUP OF KIDS, THEY'RE ABLE TO STAND THERE AS A GROUP.
I CAN KEEP THEM TOGETHER IN AN AREA, KEEP THEM BACK IN, AWAY FROM THE STREET.
UM, THEY'RE NOT RIGHT ON TOP OF THE STREET.
WHEREAS IF THAT WASN'T THERE, THEY WOULD BE RIGHT ON TOP OF THE STREET.
'CAUSE THE SIDEWALKS ARE VERY NARROW.
SO IT DOES GIVE THAT EXTRA AREA OF SAFETY FOR THEM AND FOR, AND FOR ME ALSO, YOU KNOW, JUST STANDING THERE AND LIKE I SAID, THE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A THREE-WAY STOP SIGN.
IT'S 20 MILES PER HOUR EACH WAY.
SO I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INPUT.
UH, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS BASED UPON, UM, FROM THE BOARD THAT IS BASED UPON WHAT WAS JUST STATED? IS THERE ANYTHING, UM, THAT THE APPLICANT WANTS TO ADD AT THIS POINT? NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
WE'LL TAKE THIS UNDER CONSIDERATION LATER, THIS LATER THIS EVENING, AND OUR NEXT CASE TODAY IS CASE 2103 AND 2104, WHICH I ASSUME WE ARE GOING TO HEAR TOGETHER AGAIN.
SO WHO ARE WE STARTING WITH TONIGHT?
[00:15:01]
OKAY.CHAIR PER OR, UH, WALTER SIMON OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
CHAIRPERSON OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
DID YOU INTEND TO START? UM, GARRETT? UH, DID MR. RETA WANNA START EITHER WAY? I DON'T CARE.
I MEAN, I WOULD, I WOULD DEFER, UH, TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS THE PLANNING BOARD IS THE APPLICANT'S, UH, GARRETT, AND YOU CAN RESPOND.
UH, UH, UH, CHAIRMAN, UH, WOMAN BUNTON SMITH, THE MEMBERS OF THE Z B A, UH, THIS EVENING, WE WILL, UH, ADDRESS THE TWO QUESTIONS THAT WAS ASKED OF THE ZONING BOARD.
UH, THE FIRST QUESTION WILL BE ANSWERED BY DEPUTY VICE CHAIR OF VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, UH, HUGH SCHWARTZ.
I WILL ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION AND THEN, UH, UH, WE WILL HAVE A FINAL COMMENT AFTER THAT.
SO, AT THIS POINT, I WISH TO TURN IT OVER TO, UH, HUGH SCHWARTZ.
HUGH SCHWARTZ, VICE CHAIRMAN OF, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE, UH, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
UH, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO CONTINUE OUR DISCUSSION ON WHETHER SECTION 2 85 10, PARAGRAPH FOUR A CAN BE USED TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY.
THIS IS NOT ABOUT THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSED FACILITY PROJECT, BUT RATHER IF OUR TOWN CODE AS WRITTEN ALLOWS SUCH A FACILITY TO BE BUILT IN A RESIDENTIAL CELL.
UM, THE QUE THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS YOU ASKED, AND WE'RE GONNA ANSWER THE SECOND ONE FIRST, OF COURSE.
UM, AND THE, THAT QUESTION WAS, UM, REGARDING THE TIMELINESS OF YOUR APPEAL, PLEASE STATE HOW AND WHEN, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD BECAME AWARE OF THE DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REGARDING THE PROPOSED USE AND WHETHER IT NEEDS A VARIANCE AND CONFIRM YOUR DATE OF APPEAL.
UM, THE ANSWER TO THAT, UH, IS THE FIRST TIME WE BECAME AWARE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION WAS ACTUALLY ON NOVEMBER 12TH, 2020.
WE, UH, REVIEWED ALL OF OUR FILES, OUR PACKETS, UM, AND THAT, UH, LITTLE SIGNATURE THAT, UH, WAS SHOWN AT THE LAST MEETING FROM SEPTEMBER WAS NOT IN THE PACKETS OF ANY MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
UH, SO I SUSPECT IT WASN'T IN PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD EITHER, IS THAT SHOULD HAVE ALL BEEN TURNED OVER TO US.
UH, WHAT HAPPENED WAS, WE GOT OUR PACKAGE, THE FIRST TIME WE WERE EVEN AWARE OF THE PROJECT WAS WE GOT OUR PACKAGE ON A, ON OCTOBER 16TH OF, UH, LAST YEAR, 2020, WE HAD OUR FIRST MEETING ON, ON THIS PROJECT ON THE 21ST OF, UM, OF OCTOBER.
ON THAT DATE, I WAS, I GENERALLY REVIEW MY PACKET THE DAY OF THE MEETING OF THE DAY BEFORE I NOTICED THERE WAS NO DETERMINATION IN THE, UH, IN OUR PACKET.
I ASKED, UH, THE, UH, DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
I CALLED AND ASKED, UH, WHAT THE STORY WAS.
I GOT AN EMAIL BACK FROM, UH, MR. DUQUE SAYING THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT HAD PROPERLY FILED UNDER THAT, THAT, UM, UNDER THAT STATUTE.
HOWEVER, HE DID NOT MENTION WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAD APPROVED IT OR NOT.
THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ON THE 21ST, UH, SOMETIME AFTER THAT, BUT BEFORE THE 30TH, I, AGAIN CALLED THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ASKED THAT THEY, THEY REQUEST A DETERMINATION FROM THE PLANNING FROM THE, UH, BUILDING INSPECTOR.
AND, UH, I DID NOT, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ONE ON OCTOBER 30TH.
AND THERE'S AN EMAIL THAT WAS ATTACHED TO WHAT WE SENT YOU, UH, FOR ME TO, UH, AARON SCHMIDT FI AND SAID HE WOULD FOLLOW UP.
SO AS OF OCTOBER 30TH, WE HAD NOT GOTTEN ANYTHING.
UH, FINALLY, MR. SIMON AND I HAD DISCUSSED THIS.
WE DECIDED TO PUT IT ON THE ON PUBLIC RECORD AT OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH WAS NOVEMBER 4TH.
UM, AND MR. SIMON REQUESTED A WRITTEN DETERMINATION ON THE RECORD NOVEMBER 4TH.
AGAIN, YOU HAVE THOSE MINUTES.
AND WE FINALLY RECEIVED A DETERMINATION ON NOVEMBER 12TH.
UM, WE DISCUSSED IT FOR THE FIRST TIME AT OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH WAS THE 18TH.
UH, WE ONLY HAD ONE OTHER MEETING BEFORE, THAT WAS DECEMBER 2ND, WHERE WE BELIEVED THAT THE, THE DETERMINATION WAS NOT CORRECT, BUT DID NOT FEEL IT WAS OUR PLACE TO, UH, TO MAKE THE APPEAL TO, UH, THE Z B A AND REPRIMANDED THE, THAT THE TOWN BOARD DO THAT
[00:20:01]
IN A LETTER TO THEM ON DECEMBER 3RD, UH, MR. SOR AND I APPEARED BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD ON DECEMBER 9TH TO PRESENT THIS RECOMMENDATION AND FOLLOWED UP WITH A YET ANOTHER LETTER REQUESTING THE, UH, APPEAL IT ON DECEMBER 13TH.ON THE 5TH OF JANUARY, THEY DECIDED NOT TO APPEAL IT.
ON THE 6TH OF JANUARY, THE PLANNING BOARD MET, AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE AMENITY, UH, VOTED ON A, UH, VOTE AFFORDED TWO WITH ONE ABSTENTION TO APPEAL THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION.
OF NOTE, THE TWO NEGATIVE VOTES WERE NOT BECAUSE THEY DID, THEY AGREED WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION, BUT THEY FELT IT WAS A PLANNING BOARD, NOT THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT THE TOWN BOARD'S RESPONSIBILITY TO APPEAL, NOT OURS, BUT IT DID PASS FORWARD TO TWO.
ON JANUARY 7TH, WE FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY CAROL WALKER ON THE EIGHTH BY EMAIL.
ALL OF THIS IS IN THE EXHIBITS.
I DO WANNA ADJUST ONE OTHER THING BEFORE I TURN IT OVER TO, UH, MR. SIMON, A LETTER FROM MR. FRITA, UM, TALKING ABOUT THE FACT, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT WAS FILED AND STAMPED IN THE, THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
WELL, WHETHER THAT'S TRUE OR NOT, THAT ISN'T CONSISTENT WITH NEW YORK STATE LAW, WHICH SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT, UM, AN APPEAL SHALL BE TAKEN WITH IN 60, I'M SORRY, I'VE GOT THE WRONG ONE.
IT'S 2 67 5 FILING OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE DECISION AND TIME OF APPEAL.
EACH ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION, INTERPRETATION, OR DETERMINATION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CHARGE WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE ZONING LOCAL OR ORDINANCE, SHALL BE FILED IN THE OFFICE OF SUCH ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WITHIN FIVE DAYS FROM THE DAY IT WAS RENDERED AND SHALL BE PUBLIC RECORD.
SO IT, WHATEVER THE WAS DONE IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT WAS TOTALLY IRRELEVANT UNDER NEW YORK STATE LAW.
THAT'S, THAT'S ALSO IN OUR FILING.
I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER RIGHT NOW TO, UH, MR. SIMON, UH, TO DISCUSS, UH, THE IMPACT.
UH, BEFORE I ANSWER THE QUESTION DIRECTLY, THAT WAS POSED TO THE PLANNING BOARD, I'D JUST LIKE TO COMMENT ON A STATEMENT THAT MR. BLAND MADE WHERE HE INDICATED IN ALL HIS 23 YEARS ON THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, THERE WAS NEVER A CASE WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD APPEALED A DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
I AM NOT AT ALL SURPRISED BY MR. BLAND'S, UH, QUESTION.
IT IS A PERFECTLY LOGICAL QUESTION TO ASK.
UM, AS, UH, VICE CHAIR SCHWARTZ INDICATED, UH, IN THIS TIMETABLE PRESENTATION AND DOCUMENTS, UH, UH, PREVIOUS SUBMITTED, UH, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, DID NOT TAKE IT LIGHTLY TO CHALLENGE THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
IN FACT, I BELIEVE THE PLANNING BOARD WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE 1920S.
SO, AND TO OUR RECORDS IN THAT PERIOD OF TIME, UH, UH, THERE WAS NEVER A CHALLENGE BY THE PLANNING BOARD TO, UM, OF A BUILDING'S INSPECTOR'S DECISION.
SO, THE OBVIOUS QUESTION, WHY WOULD WE DO THAT? NOW, ONE OF THE THINGS IF YOU LOOK AT THE TIMELINE IS THAT AS THE PLANNING BOARD, WE MADE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS TO ENCOURAGE THE TOWN BOARD TO, UM, APPEAL THE DECISION, WHICH, AND, AND WITHIN THEIR RIGHT, THEY DECIDED NOT TO DO THAT.
NOW, UP UNTIL THE DAY THAT WE ACTUALLY FILED THE APPEAL, WE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE THAT THE, THE, UH, THE COUNCIL OF GREENBERG CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS WOULD FILE AN APPEAL.
SO WHAT WE, SO OUR POSITION WAS THAT WE WAS THE LAST POSSIBLE OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAL THIS DETERMINATION, WHICH WE FELT THAT WAS DETRIMENTAL TO THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
AND I'LL GO INTO THOSE SPECIFICS.
SO WITH THAT IN LINE, WE SAID, WE MADE THAT DECISION.
WE DID NOT DO THIS IN THE CAVALIER ATTEMPT.
WE RECOGNIZED THAT WE BE, WE WILL BE SET IN THE PRECEDENT, BUT WE AT THAT POINT HAD NO OTHER CHOICE BECAUSE WE WEREN'T AWARE OF THE, THE APPEAL THAT WAS BEING MADE BY THE COUNCIL OF
[00:25:01]
CIVIC ASSOCIATION.SO IT WAS IN THAT SENSE THAT WE SAID, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE CANNOT ALLOW TO STAND WITHOUT CHALLENGE.
NOW, QUITE FRANKLY, IF WE KNEW THAT THEY, UH, THE CIVIC, UM, THE COUNCIL OF CIVIC ASSOCIATION WAS FILING THE APPEAL, WE WOULDN'T HAVE FILED IT BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT IT WAS SET IN THE PRECEDENT, BUT WE JUST COULD NOT STAND BY AND ALLOW IT TO STAND UNCHALLENGED.
SO THAT IS WHY WE, WE TOOK THAT STEP.
SO, SO, SO THAT'S TO ANSWER MR. BLAND'S, UH, VERY PROPER QUESTION TO ASK OF THIS BOARD.
UH, UH, SO WHAT I WOULD DO, UH, UM, I WOULD JUST HIGHLIGHT SOME OF THE POINTS.
I WON'T GO THROUGH THE WHOLE, UH, RESPONSE THAT WE MADE TO THE ZONING BOARD THAT'S ON RECORD.
BUT WHAT I WILL DO IS GO THROUGH EACH POINT AND HIGHLIGHT IT TO ANSWER, UM, UH, THE QUE THE QUESTION THAT WAS PUT, THAT WAS DIRECTLY PUT TO US.
AND THAT, UM, WHAT WAS THE, THE EFFECT OF, UH, OF THIS PLANNING, UH, OF THIS, UH, WHAT EFFECT WILL IT HAVE ON, UH, THE COMMUNITY IF THIS WAS A ALLOWED TO STAND? AND, UM, AND TO PUT IN A ZONING BOARD O OWN WORDS.
THE SPECIFIC QUOTE WAS, WHAT ADVERSE IMPACTS DO YOU CLAIM WILL BE VISIT UPON THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IF THE USE IS DEEMED BY THE ZONING BORDER FOR PAS TO PERMIT UNDER SECTION, UH, 2 32, I'M TRYING TO 25, 10 A FOUR H.
UH, THE DECLARE AND DIRECT ANSWER WOULD, IS THAT THE SPECIAL PERMITS HAS AS DEFINED SETBACKS, UM, REQUIREMENTS, AND OTHER CONDITIONS SPECIFIC TO THE SITE AS SUBMITTED.
THE EAGLE, A BLISS B E SS APPLICATION DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE STANDARD SETBACKS AND OTHER SITE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS OF A SPECIAL PERMIT TO PROCEED WITH THE BIS.
I'M SORRY THAT THE PRINTING ON MY PAPER IS VERY BAD TO PROCEED, AND, AND IT'S NOT.
AND THE OTHER POINT, IT IS NOT CONSISTENT, UH, WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, UM, SECTION 12.1, IT IS, UH, UH, IT CLEARLY STATES IT HAS TO BE CONSISTENT IN, IN RELATIONSHIP TO INDICATED PLAN, USE AND APP AND IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
THAT IS TAKEN OUT OF THE 12, UH, CHAPTER, UH, 12.1 OF THE PLANNING BOARD OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
NOW, I SPENT, WHAT, SEVEN YEARS OR SO AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE.
SO I WAS ACUTELY AWARE OF THE ISSUES THAT, UH, SURROUNDING THE IMPACT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO THERE WAS TWO ISSUES FOR ME.
ONE WAS THE IMPACT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE OTHER WAS THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A, THAT THE CURRENT CODE WAS NOT APPLICABLE, UH, TO A, THIS FACILITY BECAUSE WE NEVER IN, WE NEVER ENVISIONED SUCH A FACILITY.
NOW, WE, WE HAD A SIMILAR SITUATION WITH, UH, THE CCS, UH, UH, IN, IN THIS TOWN.
THERE WAS, THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN OUR SPECIAL PERMITS FOR, UH, SENIOR, UH, CARE FACILITIES IN THE TOWN.
WE, AND THEREFORE, WHAT WE DID, RATHER THAN TA TRYING TO FORCE THE SPECIAL PERMIT LAW TO BE APPLICABLE TO C C F, WE DID THE APPROPRIATE THING.
WE SAT DOWN, WE WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT, WORKING WITH THE TOWN, WORKING WITH THE, UH, UH, UM, RESIDENT.
IT WASN'T THAT WE, WE DIDN'T SAY THE LAW DID NOT ACCOMMODATE THESE FACILITIES.
WE SAID, LET'S MAKE A, A LAW TO MAKE IT WORK.
NOW, THE APPLICANT HAD THE, HAD THE SAME OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE EXACTLY THE SAME THING.
[00:30:01]
WAS DONE IN THE C C F LAW, AND THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT.AND, AND, AND, BUT THEY CHOSE NOT TO DO THAT BECAUSE THEY FELT THAT SOMEHOW THEY COULD, UH, UH, SLIP IT IN UNDER THE SPECIAL PERMIT LAW AND THERE'LL BE NO ONE AROUND TO CHALLENGE IT.
AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT, BECAUSE THE CURRENT LAW IS JUST NOT APPLICABLE.
THE OTHER THING IS THAT UNDER THIS CURRENT LAW, UM, THIS FACILITY COULD BE REPLICATED THROUGHOUT, UH, UM, SINGLE FAMILY ZONES.
IF YOU ALLOW IT HERE, YOU, YOU COULD, UH, DUPLICATE THAT EVERYWHERE.
NOW, IT COULD BE, IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IT MIGHT WORK, IT MIGHT, BUT THEN CRAFT A LAW THAT THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION WOULD HAVE TO FIT.
WE ARE NOT SAYING THAT WE DON'T, THAT WE DON'T RECOGNIZE THE NEED FOR, UH, NON FOSSIL FUELS IN THE TOWN.
WE'RE NOT SAYING THAT AT ALL, BUT SAYING, IF WE COULD GO DOWN THAT ROAD, WE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE APPROPRIATE LAWS IN PLACE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
THIS DOES NOT, YOU KNOW, IF, FOR EXAMPLE, IF THIS LAW, UH, IS, UH, UH, UH, THE SPECIAL PERMIT IS APPLIED TO THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, AND BECAUSE THEY USING THE ENTIRE MOLD, WOOD, UH, GOLF COURSE AT THE SITE, THEY COULD THEORETICALLY THEN GO BACK AND TURN THE ENTIRE GOLF COURSE INTO A SOLAR, UH, FARM.
NOW, LONG TERM, WE ONE COULD ARGUE, WELL, THAT'S WHAT IT WE NEED, BUT THEN HAVE A LAW IN PLACE TO PROPERLY REGULATE IT.
SO WE'RE NOT SAYING THE SOLAR FARMS OR WIND FARMS OR BATTERY PATCH SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE TOWN, BUT IF WE DECIDE TO DO IT, WE SHOULD DO IT UNDER A WELL THOUGHT OUT LAW THAT'S GONNA SET BOUNDARIES OR SET SETBACKS WILL INDICATE WHAT ZONE IS, COULD BE PLACED IN.
THAT'S THE WAY YOU DO IT, NOT THE WAY THAT'S BEING PROPOSED NOW.
AND, AND, AND EVEN THE CURRENT LAW AS WRITTEN, THAT IT, IT DOES NOT ACTUALLY ENCOURAGE THE CURRENT SPECIAL PERMIT.
IT DOES NOT ENCOURAGE THE ORDERLY INTEGRATION OF THIS TECHNOLOGY INTO THE TOWN.
YOU KNOW, I HAVE A TECHNICAL BACKGROUND, SO I'M NOT AGAINST TECHNOLOGY, BUT WE SHOULD HAVE AN ORDERLY WAY OF DOING IT.
AND, AND IF THIS IS, UH, THE SPECIAL, UH, PERMIT CODE DOES NOT CREATE AN ORDERLY WAY OF ADOPTING THIS TECHNOLOGY INTO THE TOWN.
IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT TECHNOLOGY, BUT IT'S NOT AN ORDERLY WAY OF DOING IT.
AND, AND THE TOWN ITSELF RECOGNIZED THAT THERE IS A, A, A NEED FOR A ORDERLY WAY OF INTEGRATING THIS TECHNOLOGY INTO THE TOWN.
SO THE TOWN CREATED A BISS COMMITTEE THAT MR. SWARTZ AND I, AND OTHER MEMBERS FROM THE CA, UH, A C AND OTHER MEMBERS ARE ON THAT COMMITTEE FOR THAT SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF CRAFTING A LAW THAT WILL BE A WELL THOUGHT OUT LAW THAT WILL IN, UH, ALLOW THESE TECHNOLOGIES TO COME INTO THE TOWN.
AND AT THE SAME TIME, TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT IS, UH, THAT WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE RESIDENTS OR THE TOWN ITSELF.
IN FACT, UH, WE MEET, UH, WE'VE BEEN MEETING, UH, EVERY WEEK BECAUSE WE HAVE A APRIL DEADLINE, AND WE HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, WORKING DILIGENTLY TO COME UP WITH LAW.
WE HAVE SPOKEN TO THE STATE NYSERDA, WE HAVE SPOKEN TO CON EDISON.
WE HAVE A, A, A A CONSULTANT WORKING WITH US.
SO WE'RE SERIOUS BECAUSE WE KNOW
[00:35:01]
THERE IS A NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF TECHNOLOGY TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE TOWN.BUT WE NEED TO BE DONE UNDER A WELL THOUGHT OUT CONSTRUCTED LAW, AND TO, TO, UH, UH, APPROVE THIS APPLIC APPLICATION WITHOUT PUTTING IT TO THE RIGORS OF A WELL THOUGHT OUT LAW IS A MISTAKE AND A MISTAKE THAT I HOPE THAT WILL BE RECOGNIZED BY THE ZONING BOARD AND APPEALS AND, AND, AND VALIDATE THE PALE THAT WE'RE MAKING.
OKAY, UH, UH, UH, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY FOR NOW, AND I'LL TURN IT BACK TO, UH, MR. SCHWARTZ.
YEAH, I, I HAVE A SHORT PRESENTATION.
GARRETT, CAN YOU ALLOW ME TO SHARE MY SCREEN, PLEASE? UH, THAT'S ENABLED.
NOW I JUST GOTTA FIND THE RIGHT THING ON MY SCREEN.
OKAY, LET ME JUST GO OVER A SLIDESHOW.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO ADDRESS A FEW OF THE THINGS IN MR. SHERIDAN'S LETTER.
UM, AND, UM, HE, HE WROTE A, A AND HIS RESPONSE TO HIS ANSWERS, UM, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS ASKED HIM WAS, PLEASE DOCUMENT YOUR COMMENT THE CO THAT THE COMPANY IS CONSIDERED TO BE A GENERATOR OF ELECTRICITY.
AND HE RIGHTLY, S SO SAID, AND HE'S, I AGREE WITH MR. SCHRODER ON THIS.
IT REALLY ISN'T RELEVANT TO THE, TO OUR DISCUSSION WHETHER IT'S A GENERATOR OR NOT.
UM, WHAT IS RELEVANT IS, MR. SCHROER CLEARLY SAYS, IS WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A PUBLIC UTILITY.
UM, MR. SCHROEDER GOES ON AND GIVES HIS DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY, UH, PURPORTEDLY FROM OUR CODE, WHICH SAYS THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY INCLUDES ENTITIES DULY AUTHORIZED TO FURNISH ELECTRICITY.
IN FACT, IT DOES SAY EXACTLY THAT.
UNFORTUNATELY, MR. SHERETTA, AS YOU CAN SEE BELOW, WHICH IS FROM OUR CODE LEFT OUT, THREE REAL KEY WORDS.
THOSE THREE WORDS ARE TO THE PUBLIC, A PUBLIC ACCORDING TO OUR CODE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
A PUBLIC UTILITY HAS TO BE DULY AUTHORIZED TO FURNISH ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC.
MR. SHEREA EVEN ADMITS IT DOESN'T, THEY DON'T SELL TO THE PUBLIC.
HE SAYS THAT THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE UNITS, WHICH ARE COMMITTED IN DISPATCH BY NYS O, WHICH IS AN INDEPENDENT ORGANIZATION, UH, WHOSE JOB IT IS TO, UH, DISTRIBUTE ELECTRICITY ACROSS THE ENTIRE GRID TO SUPPLY ENERGY TO THE ENTIRE GRID, WHICH IS THE N Y C A.
THEN THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT PUBLIC REGULATION.
IN FACT, MR. SHERETTA IS RIGHT.
UM, THE, THIS, UH, BEST FACILITY WOULD BE, UH, UM, UH, SUBJECT TO, UH, GOVERNMENT AGENCIES.
AND, BUT IT'S AUTHORIZED, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE HIGHLIGHTED PART TO PER, TO PARTICIPATE IN WHOLESALE MARKETS.
UH, IT SAYS THAT RIGHT ABOVE IN THE FERC, IT SAYS AT NY O, WHERE THEY TALK ABOUT THE NY O WHOLESALE MARKET.
THEY'RE SELLING TO THE WHOLESALE MARKET.
THEY'RE A WHOLESALER, NOT RETAILER.
UM, FINALLY HE SAID, WHEN YOU RELEASE THE ELECTRICITY OR STEERING, WHO PAYS YOU FOR THE POWER? HE SAYS, WELL, IT ULTIMATELY COMES FROM THE CONSUMER WHO BUY THE SSO FROM THE SSO MARKET.
WELL, I BUY A CAR, BUT I DON'T BUY IT FROM GENERAL MOTORS.
GENERAL MOTORS DOESN'T SELL DIRECTLY TO ME.
OKAY? SO THE CONSUMER, THE PERSON WHO'S SELLING TO THE CONSUMER IS THE DEALER.
HE, THIS FACILITY IS NOT SELLING DIRECTLY TO THE CONSUMER.
AND FINALLY, I LOOKED UP ON THE NEW YORK DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE, LISTINGS OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
AND CON EDISON IS LISTED, A LOT OF TOWNS ARE LISTED, BUT THE ONE THING THAT ISN'T LISTED IS EAGLE ENERGY OR ANYTHING LIGHT, OR ANY BEST FACILITY LISTED ON THAT, ON THAT LIST.
ASSUMING FOR A SECOND, LET'S PUT ASIDE THAT IT ISN'T A PUBLIC UTILITY.
I THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT IT ISN'T, EVEN IF YOU DECIDE IT'S NOT A PUBLIC
[00:40:01]
UTILITY.LET'S GO TAKE A LOOK AT OUR CODE.
OUR CODES IS VERY PARTICULAR, SPECIFICALLY PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES AND UTILITY RIGHTS OF WAY EXCLUDING UTILITY BUSINESS OFFICES, GARAGES IN STORAGE YARD, EXCLUDING STORAGE YARDS WHEN SAID, FACILITIES ARE NEEDED TO SERVE THE TOWN OR THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THERE ARE TWO ISSUES THERE.
ONE IS THE STORAGE YARD ISSUE, AND TWO IS THIS TRULY NEEDED TO SERVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO LET'S ANSWER THOSE TWO QUESTIONS.
AGAIN, I'M GOING TO ANSWER THEM BACKWARDS.
I'M GONNA TALK ABOUT WHETHER WHAT IT'S IMPACTING THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN FACT, NONE OF THIS POWER GOES DIRECTLY TO THE LOCAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE, UH, FACILITY ITSELF HAS ABSOLUTELY NO CONTROL OF WHERE IT GOES.
UH, IT MAY INDIRECTLY, IF THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF THESE FACILITIES SOMEDAY HELP US IF THE, IN THEORY, BUT THERE IS, IT GOES INTO A COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE AND HAS NO DIRECT GLI IMPACT.
AND IT SURELY, AT THIS POINT, ISN'T SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO BE NEEDED BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HELP THE LOCAL COMMUNITY SPECIFICALLY.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS AGAIN FROM MR. SHE'S LETTER.
HE ADMITS IT'S DISPATCHING INTO THE COMPETITIVE MARKETPLACE.
HE ADMITS THAT IT'S DISPATCHED BY ISO TO SUPPLY ENERGY TO THE GRID, WHICH IS THE N Y C A GOING ON.
UM, HE SAYS, WELL, IT DOES HAVE LOCAL BENEFITS IN THE EVENT OF A MAJOR POWER OUTAGE.
UH, THESE KINDS OF FACILITIES, LIKE DURING A WINTER STORM, COULD BE USED TO DIS DISPAR ENERGY WHEN ORDINARY ENERGY SUPPLIES REMAIN INOPERABLE.
WELL, I'VE LIVED THROUGH A FEW POWER OUTAGES IN MY TIME, 20 SOMETHING YEARS IN GREENBURG, AND NONE OF THEM HAVE TO DO WITH, UH, THE NUCLEAR INDIAN POINT GOING DOWN.
THEY ALL HAVE TO DO WITH WIRES GOING DOWN.
SO WHETHER IT'S A BAT A SOURCE, EVEN IF IT'S A SOURCE OF ENERGY, WHICH IT WOULD, WOULD ONLY BE FOR 24 HOURS IN A VERY SMALL PART OF THE TOWN, YOU'D HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GET IT TO SOMEBODY.
AND YOU CAN'T IF THE WIRES ARE DOWN.
SO THAT IS THE REASON WHAT, WHY POWER GOES DOWN, NOT BECAUSE THE SUPPLY GOES DOWN, THE OTHER THINGS THEY SAY ARE, ARE TRUE.
OKAY? UH, CAN MINIMIZE THE NEED FOR GENERATING NEW GENERATION INFRASTRUCTURE AS PART OF A BIGGER SYSTEM, WHICH THIS WOULD BE, AND ALSO MAY BE USED FOR LOW LIFTING ONLY IF IT WAS BEING USED LOCALLY.
BUT UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S NOT THE WAY IT WORKS AND WOULD BE HELPFUL, THERE IS THE ONE THAT'S IN CONCERT WITH A, SO WITH SOLAR PANELS, WHICH IS IN FACT WHAT THE PARENT COMPANY FOR EAGLE ENERGY DOES.
THEY'RE A SOLAR COMPANY, AND MAYBE ULTIMATELY THAT'S THEIR GOAL IS PUT SOLAR PANELS WITH THIS BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY.
THAT MAKES SENSE RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST ARBITRAGE THEN, THEN LET'S TALK ABOUT STORAGE YARDS.
MR. SHERETTA SAYS THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEFINITION IN OUR TOWN CODE OF STORAGE YARDS.
BUT THERE IS ONE OF YARDS THAT'S ALSO TRUE.
UM, AND IT'S DEFINED AS OPEN SPACE WHERE BUILDINGS ARE NOT LOCATED.
IN FACT, THAT'S A GOOD PARAPHRASE AS YOU CAN SEE OF WHAT'S BELOW.
BUT YARD AND STORAGE YARD ARE TWO DIFFERENT WORDS.
AND TO PROVE THAT, TAKE A LOOK AT, AT THIS PART OF OUR CODE, THIS IS 2 85 42, WHICH WAS WRITTEN, I THINK PROBABLY AT THE SAME TIME IN 1997.
IN ANY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, ANY NON-CONFORMING USE OF VACANT LAND, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, SUCH AS THIS IS PARKING LOTS.
TRAILERS ARE OPEN STORAGE YARDS FOR MATERIALS OR EQUIPMENT MAY BE CONTINUED FOR THREE YEARS AFTER THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THIS CHAPTER, PROVIDED THAT AFTER THE EXPIRATION OF THAT PERIOD, SUCH NON-CONFORMING USES SHALL BE TERMINATED.
IN OTHER WORDS, STORAGE YARDS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS, BUT I DON'T KNOW, KID, I KNOW A LOT OF KIDS WHO PLAY IN YARDS ALL THE TIME.
YARDS ARE, ARE ALLOWED IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
FINALLY, WHAT IS THE LEGAL DEFINITION OF A STORAGE YARD? I WENT TO THE INTERNET AS I THINK MR. SHERETTA DID, AND THIS WAS THE FIRST ONE THAT CAME UP.
STORAGE YARDS MEAN AN OUTSIDE AREA OF ENCLOSED, OF AN ENCLOSED BUILDING WHERE CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT, SOLID FUELS AND LUMBER, NEW BUILDING MATERIALS, MONUMENTS AND STONE PRODUCTS, PUBLIC SERVICE AND UTILITY
[00:45:01]
EQUIPMENT ARE STORED, WHETHER PRINCIPLE OR ACCESSORY USE, WELL, THIS IS OUTSIDE AND IT IS UTILITY EQUIPMENT.THIS IS NOT IN INSIDE ANYTHING.
THIS COULD CLEARLY BE DE DEFINED AS A STORAGE YARD IF THEY GET OVER THE HUMP, WHICH I DON'T SEE HOW THEY DO OF THIS BEING A PUBLIC UTILITY, WHICH THERE IS NO WAY.
IT IS UNDER OUR CODE, AND YOU CAN CITE EVERYTHING YOU WANT.
BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS INTERPRETING OUR CODE.
AND UNDER OUR CODE, IT IS NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY FULL STOP.
AND NEW YORK STATE HAS NOT RECOGNIZED THEM AS A PUBLIC UTILITY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED OVER SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT, UH, YOU, YOU DID MAKE, UH, AGAIN THIS EVENING.
UM, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT, UM, WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD BECAME KNOWLEDGEABLE OF THIS, UH, OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION, YOU INDICATE THAT IT WAS, UH, UM, SUBSEQUENT TO YOUR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 10, UH, NOVEMBER 4TH, I'M SORRY, BUT THE MINUTES THAT WE WERE, THAT, THAT EXISTS FROM THAT NOVEMBER 4TH MEETING STATE THAT A QUESTION WAS, WAS DISCUSSED AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION COULD BE, UH, CONFIRMED IN WRITING.
DOESN'T THAT MEAN THAT THERE HAD BEEN A DETERMINATION THAT YOU, THAT THE BOARD WAS AWARE OF AT THAT TIME, THAT YOU WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THAT WAS IN FACT, THE FACT THAT WASN'T FACT HAPPENED? WHAT WAS, WHAT WHAT THERE WAS, WAS HEARSAY CHAIRPERSON, UH, BONNIE SMITH, UH, WHAT WE HAD HEARD.
WE HAD NEVER GOTTEN ANYTHING FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
WE WERE TOLD THAT NIGHT BY AARON SCHMIDT, OKAY.
WHO GO, WHO IS AT OUR, OUR MEETINGS, THE DEPUTY, UH, COMMISSIONER THAT MR. RETA HAD MADE THAT, THAT HAD THAT DETERMINATION, BUT WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT WHAT THAT WAS, HAD NEVER SEEN IT, AND SURELY COULDN'T APPEAL SOMETHING WITHOUT SEEING, SEEING HIS RATIONALE FOR IT.
THERE WAS NO WAY WE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE APPEALED BASED ON, ON, ON THAT, THAT MEETING, THE FIRST TIME WE SAW ANYTHING WAS THEN, AND AGAIN, I REFER YOU TO, TO STATE LAW AS TO WHAT A DETERMINATION IS, AND THIS DETERMINATION WAS NEVER FILED CORRECTLY.
WHETHER HE DOES THAT EVERY DAY, GEE, THAT'S, THAT'S PROBABLY A SUBJECT FOR ANOTHER MEETING WITH THE TOWN BOARD.
AND WE MAY, MAYBE WE NEED TO REVIEW OUR PROCEDURES.
THE OTHER THING I FIND VERY, VERY CURIOUS IN THIS WHOLE THING IS IN, IN, I BELIEVE IT WAS NOVEMBER, UH, SEPTEMBER OF 2019, THE, THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER, COMMISSIONER OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, MR. DECAY, WHEN THIS CAME UP IN 2019, SAID THAT THIS COULD NOT BE, THIS LAW COULDN'T BE USED FOR THIS YET.
UM, I DON'T, DIDN'T SEE THE, I WOULD THINK IF THAT IS POTENTIALLY AN ISSUE, YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THE, AND YOU ARE THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT, YOU WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS DONE, DONE, AND YOU HAVE IT LOCKED UP RATHER THAN, GEE, HOPE THAT NOBODY FIGURES IT OUT.
THE FACT IS, IT WAS NEVER FILED CORRECTLY.
WE DID NOT HAVE ANYTHING THAT WE COULD GO ON UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH.
THAT IS JUST AN ABSOLUTE FACT.
BUT YOU WERE CONSIDERING THIS AS A DETERMINATION THAT PERHAPS WAS OUT THERE, CORRECT? WELL CONSIDER CONSIDERING THAT THERE MAY BE A DETERMINATION THAT WE HAD NOT YET BEEN MADE AWARE OF, AND WHICH IS WHY WE ASKED FOR THE DETERMINATION.
NO, YOU ASKED, WE HEARD THERE WAS A DETERMINATION.
YOU ASKED FOR A CONFIRMATION OF IT.
NO, WE ASKED FOR THE DETERMINATION.
IN FACT, LEGALLY IT STILL DOESN'T EXIST.
YEAH, I'D JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT THE, THE, THE DISCUSSION WAS THE DECISION, APPARENTLY, UH, A DECISION WAS MADE, UH, AND WE COULD, WE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE DECISION.
WE, WE JUST, WE WERE SAYING TO OURSELVES, YOU KNOW, HOW COULD THAT BE? AND THAT'S WHEN WE SAID, LET'S GET READ EXACTLY WHAT THE DECISION IS SO WE KNOW WHAT WE ARE LOOKING AT.
[00:50:01]
AND WE DID NOT GET THAT TO THE 12TH.THE FACT THAT, UH, UM, UH, UH, WORD OF MOUTH STATEMENT WAS GOING AROUND THAT IT IS OKAY TO GO UNDER THE SPECIAL PERMIT, BUT WE CAN'T OPERATE THAT WAY.
WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THE FACTS ARE.
AND WE DID NOT KNOW UNTIL, UM, UH, NOVEMBER 12TH.
ONE OTHER POINT ON, ON THAT, MS. BUNNY, IS THAT, THINK ABOUT THIS.
IF YOU USE THE SEPTEMBER 16TH DATE, OUR FIRST MEETING AFTER WE GOT THAT, WE, WE GOT THE ACTUAL RATIONALE AND THE FIRST INKLING OF WHAT THE ACTUAL DECISION WAS.
UM, ACTUALLY IT WAS AFTER THE TWO MONTH DATE OF THAT FIRST LITTLE INITIAL THAT MR. RETTA PUT, PUT HIS NAME ON.
SO WE WERE OUTSIDE THE SEPTEMBER 16TH DATE WHEN WE, WE, WHEN WE ACTUALLY COULD FIRST EVEN ACT ON THIS, EVEN IF THAT WERE A VALID, VALID DETERMINATION, AS I SAID, UNDER NEW YORK STATE LAW, IT'S JUST NOT A VALID DETERMINATION AND NOT ONE THAT ANYBODY COULD MAKE A DECISION ON, THAT'S FOR SURE.
UM, WELL, I'D LIKE TO ASK FOLLOW UP ON THAT, MADAM CHAIRPERSON, IF I MAY.
UM, WHEN SOMEONE ASKS FOR SOMEONE SOMETHING TO BE CONFIRMED IN WRITING IT, IT'S ARGUABLE THAT THEY, THEY, THEY KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON.
THEY, THEY'VE BEEN TOLD SOMETHING, BUT WE WANNA SEE IT OFFICIAL IN WRITING.
UM, SO I'M HAVING TROUBLE, UH, FOLLOWING THE LOGIC THAT, UH, YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF THE FINDING OF THE BUILDING INSPECTORS.
MAYBE YOU COULD ELABORATE ON THAT TO ASK FOR CONFIRMATION.
WE DIDN'T ASK FOR CONFIRMATION.
THAT'S, CAN I MAY, MAYBE YOU DIDN'T.
I THOUGHT THE MINUTE SAID CONFIRMATION, IF I'M WRONG, I APOLOGIZE.
WE ASKED FOR A, FROM A WRITTEN OPINION IS WHAT WE ASKING A WRITTEN OPINION CONFIRMATION.
I, I MUST HAVE READ THE MINUTE IT'S WRONG.
I THOUGHT IT SAID CONFIRMATION.
UH, IF, IF IT'S POSSIBLE AT THE END OF, I'D LIKE TO JUST ADDRESS A FEW POINTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE.
IF THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS ARE FINISHED.
I I WANTED TO, UH, I KNOW THAT MR. SIMON, YOU SPENT A LOT OF TIME SAYING THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CODE TO ADDRESS THIS TYPE OF, UM, STRUCTURE.
UM, THAT, THAT MAY WELL BE, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT THE ZONING BOARD IS HERE FOR.
THE ZONING BOARD IS HERE TO LOOK AT THE DETERMINATION THAT WAS MADE AND ACCORDING TO THAT DETERMINATION.
UM, AND THE, AND ALSO THE ARGUMENTS THAT, THAT YOU PRESENTED AS TO WHY THERE NEEDS TO BE A CODE.
IT APPEARS THAT THE ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE ALLOWS THE TOWN BORDER, IN FACT, AUTHORIZES THE TOWN BOARD TO CONDITION ANY PUBLIC UTILITY FACILITY FOR THE PROTECTION OF ADJOINING USES AND THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT IN WHICH IT'S PROPOSED.
AND IT HAS TO BE ORDERLY IN, UH, IN, IN DEVELOPMENT WITH THE, UH, DISTRICT IN WHICH THE PROPERTY CONCERN IS SITUATED WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE ORDERLY DEVELOPMENT OF ADJACENT DISTRICTS.
AND THIS ALL APPLIES TO SPECIAL PERMITS.
AND IT HAS TO BE LOCATED SO THAT IT WILL NOT IMPAIR THE USE ENJOYMENT AND VALUE OF ANY ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
WE'VE BEEN DOING SPECIAL PERMITS FOR MANY, MANY YEARS, AND THE TOWN BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO ADDRESS THESE THINGS.
WHY CAN THAT NOT HAPPEN HERE? WHY SHOULD THERE BE, WHY SHOULD WE NEED TO HAVE A CODE AT THIS POINT? WELL, CAN I ADDRESS THAT? BECAUSE THE SPECIAL PERMITS, UH, COME WITH SETBACKS.
AND BECAUSE THIS IS A LEASE AS OPPOSED TO A, A SUBDIVISION, THE SETBACK, YOU USED THE ENTIRE 100 AND WHATEVER, UH, TWO ACRES OF THE ENTIRE GOLF COURSE IN TERMS OF DEVELOPING YOUR SETBACKS, BECAUSE IT IS PART OF THE GOLF COURSE.
IT'S NOT A SEPARATE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
WHEN PEOPLE COME IN FOR, UH, A SPECIAL PERMIT THAT'S ON A DEFINED PIECE OF PROPERTY.
AND WITH ALL THE SETBACKS, UH, IT'S APPLICABLE TO THAT APPLICATION.
IN THIS CASE, THE SETBACKS ARE APPLICABLE TO THE ENTIRE GOLF COURSE BECAUSE IT'S A LEASE.
YOU, YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT? YEAH.
[00:55:01]
FIRST OF ALL, TO JUST BUILD ON WHAT MR. SIMON SAID UNDER THE LAW, WHAT HAPPENS WITH A SPECIAL PERMIT IS IT'S STILL SUBJECT TO THE UNDERLYING, UNDERLYING ZONING.THAT IT IS STILL SUBJECT TO THAT AT A MINIMUM.
UNFORTUNATELY, BECAUSE THIS IS A LEASE, IT REALLY ISN'T BECAUSE THEY'RE USING THE ENTIRE GOLF COURSE.
SO WHAT COULD HAPPEN LATER IS IT COULD BUILD A HUNDRED HOUSES ON THE REST OF THE GOLF COURSE.
AND THIS THING COULD BE RIGHT NEXT TO IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO BUFFER.
THE, THE MS CHAIRPERSON, UM, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE SPECIAL PERMITS THAT WE HAVE WRITTEN IN THE PAST FIVE TO 10 YEARS, THEY ALL HAVE VERY SPECIFIC PARAMETERS IN TERMS OF, UH, DENSITY, IN TERMS OF PROXIMITY TO, TO ROADS.
ALL OF THOSE THINGS ARE PUT IN THERE BECAUSE, SO THERE ISN'T ALL THE AMBIGUITY THAT THIS PARTICULAR, UH, PIECE OF LEGISLATION HAD.
AND THE REASON IT HAVOC IS YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THIS LEGISLATION.
A BATTERY WAS A LITTLE EVER, IT WAS CARRIED AROUND BY A LITTLE EVER READY BUNNY.
THAT'S WHAT A BATTERY WAS IN 19, 19 97.
THE, THAT LAW WAS MEANT FOR THINGS LIKE, IMAGINE YOU HAVE A THREE, A THREE LAP SUBDIVISION, WHICH IS 200 FEET FROM THE NEAREST TELEPHONE FROM THE NEAREST UTILITY POLE.
IT WAS SO THAT YOU COULD PUT UTILITY POLES OF TRANSFORMERS CLOSE ENOUGH, SAFELY ENOUGH ON OUR PROPERTY.
IT CLEARLY EXCLUDES LARGE STRUCTURES, CLEARLY EXCLUDES IT CLEARLY.
AND AS I SAID, WHAT WE DO IN SPECIAL PERMITS IS IT, WE'VE WRITTEN, AND I WAS INVOLVED IN WRITING THE C C F LAW AS WERE SEVERAL OTHER PEOPLE ON THE, ON, ON HERE TONIGHT.
UM, WE WERE VERY, WE'RE VERY PRECISE ABOUT HAVING CERTAIN PARAMETERS THEY HAVE TO MEET, THRESHOLDS THEY MEET BEFORE THEY EVEN QUALIFY FOR THAT.
NONE OF THOSE PARAMETERS ARE IN THIS LAW, NONE OF THEM.
IN FACT, WHAT HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST WHEN IT CAME TO C C F AND ASSISTED LIVING, AS MR. SIMON SAID, THE THE ATTORNEY, IF THERE WAS A QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT WE COULD USE THE CURRENT LAW, WE DRAFTED A NEW LAW.
IT HAPPENED WITH ASSISTED LIVING.
IT HAPPENED WITH C C F IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
NOW IT SNUCK THROUGH TILL IT GOT TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UNFORTUNATELY.
OKAY? AND WE WERE THE ONES WHO FINALLY QUESTIONED IT.
BUT CLEARLY THIS, THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS LAW WAS INTENDED FOR.
AND AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE FACT THIS JUST IS NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY.
AND YOU'RE RIGHT, WE'RE HERE TO INTERPRET.
WE'RE HERE BECAUSE OF THE CODE AND THE, AND THE LAW AS IT'S WRITTEN AND AS WRITTEN, THAT LAW CANNOT POSSIBLY APPLY TO THIS PROJECT.
'CAUSE THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER OUR LAWS, UNDER OUR CODE.
SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT, UM, FOR ANY FUTURE SITES THAT, UH, PERHAPS MIGHT BE LESS SUITABLE THAN MILLWOOD SITE, THE TOWN BOARD COULDN'T JUST REJECT IT WITHOUT HAVING THIS CODE? I DON'T, I DON'T, I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.
IF SOMEBODY HAD THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, TRUTHFULLY, IS ONLY, I THINK THEY'RE ONLY LOOSENING A COUPLE OF ACRES.
SO WHAT, SO, SO WHAT, THANK YOU, WALTER.
SO IMAGINE A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT SOMEBODY HAS AN EXTRA TWO ACRES OF LAND IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
IN FACT, THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE THEM, OKAY, TECHNIC, HOW COULD YOU NOT ALLOW IT THERE? IF YOU ALLOW, ALLOW IT HERE, IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.
YOU'D HAVE TO BE ABLE TO OVERCOME THE SPOT ZONING ISSUE.
THEN YOU ARE OPENING YOURSELF UP FOR PUTTING THIS THING IN LOTS OF PLACES YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT THEM.
AND THAT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH BECAUSE THESE ARE THE FUTURE BATTERY, THESE BATTERY STORAGE FACILITIES.
THEY'RE AN IMPORTANT PART OF OUR FUTURE.
AND I SAID, I'M NOT EVEN OPPOSED TO NORWOOD.
WE HAVEN'T MADE UP OUR MIND ON NORWOOD YET.
OKAY? WHAT SHOULD HAPPEN WITH NORWOOD? WE DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION.
THIS ISN'T REALLY ABOUT THE MERITS OF NORWOOD.
IT'S ABOUT THE LAW AND THE NEED TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE THESE THINGS AND PUT THEM IN THE APPROPRIATE PLACE IN THE TOWN.
AND WHAT IS, THERE COULD NOT HAVE IMP ANTICIPATED THIS, AND IF IT DID, IT WOULD'VE CAUGHT UP, CALLED IT A STORAGE YARD AND, AND REJECTED IT.
'CAUSE STORAGE YARDS ARE FLAT, UH, OUTSIDE OF OUR CODE IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
SO, SO GO BACK TO THE, YOUR QUESTION, UH, UH,
[01:00:01]
UM, MEMBER CHAIR IS, UH, YOU, THE ROLE OF THE ZONING BOARD IS TO INTERPRET THE CODE.AND, AND, UH, UH, AS, AS I SAID, EVEN THOUGH I, I, I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE CREDIBLE ARGUMENT WHY A CODE IS, IS NEEDED.
BUT TONIGHT, THE, THE ROLE OF THE ZONING BOARD IS TO INTERPRET THE CURRENT CODES.
AND IN INTERPRETING THE CURRENT CODE, THE POINTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP, UH, BY MR. UH, MR. SWARTZ, UH, AND LOOKING AT THE CODE, THE CURRENT CODE DOES NOT COVER THIS TYPE OF FACILITY, ESPECIALLY, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S ON LEASED PROPERTY.
AND YOU COULD TAKE IN THE ENTIRE 102 ACRES IN JUSTIFYING, UH, BUILDING THIS PARTICULAR SITE.
THE CODE JUST DOESN'T, UH, PERMIT THAT.
SO YES, YOU INTERPRET THE CODE, BUT I, I WOULD THINK IT'D BE IT ENORMOUS CHALLENGE TO SAY THAT THE CURRENT CODE, UH, IS APPLICABLE TO A LEASE PROPERTY ON 102 ACRES.
AND YOU CAN, AND WHAT THE RESULT OF THAT, THAT YOU COULD JUST TAKE IT AND PUT THAT SAME FACILITY ON A HYPOTHETICAL, UH, UM, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OF, UH, HAS A TWO ACRE SITE.
I, YOU, YOU'VE SAID WHAT MR. SWARTZ JUST SAID DIFFERENTLY.
I DISAGREE WITH THE SIMPLICITY OF HOW YOU'VE PRESENTED THIS, THIS NORWOOD UH, GOLF COURSE COMPARED TO A TWO ACRE O'CLOCK, BUT I DON'T WANNA GET INTO THAT NOW.
UM, AND WE CAN'T SPEND ALL NIGHT ON THE CASE, UNFORTUNATELY.
I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM, UH, ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS AT THIS POINT WITH RESPECT TO QUESTIONS.
WELL, I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS.
UM, AND THE MAIN ONE IS THAT EVEN LAST MONTH WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THIS, UM, I FELT THAT MOST OF THE, UH, SESSION LAST MONTH WAS HELPING ME TO I, UM, IDENTIFY AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE DIFFERENCES WERE BETWEEN BATTERY STORAGE AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
WHAT IT FINALLY CAME DOWN TO MY MIND WAS THAT WHY DOES THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FEEL THAT HE CAN BASICALLY WITH A STROKE OF A PEN OR WITH HIS DETERMINATION, CHANGE THE CODE? BECAUSE BASICALLY, AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS HAVING A HARD TIME WITH, AND THE G GREENBERG CIVIC ASSOCIATION IS HAVING A HARD TIME WITH.
'CAUSE IT KIND OF PUTS US BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE.
WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT THESE BATTERY STORAGE, UH, FACILITIES ARE NEEDED.
UH, THEY'RE PART OF THE FUTURE.
THE QUESTION IS THOUGH, WHY SHOULD IT BE PLACED IN THIS AREA ON A NORWOOD COUNTRY CLUB? AND IT'S NOT IN ANY OF OUR CODES TO DATE.
SO HOW CAN THERE JUST BE A SIMPLE DETERMINATION TO CHANGE THE CODE? SO ALL MONTH I'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT THIS AND THE FACT THAT, UM, IN POLITICS AS IT STANDS TODAY, AND IT'S IN THE FOREFRONT, UM, THERE WAS ALWAYS NOW THE UNDERSTANDING THAT A PRESIDENT CAN VERY EASILY MAKE VERY QUICK CHANGES BY AN EXECUTIVE ORDER.
SIGN IT WITH YOUR SIGNATURE AND YOU CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE.
BUT THEN THERE ARE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES THAT ARE NOT THAT SIMPLE.
AND YOU HAVE TO PREPARE A BILL, IT HAS TO GO IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE, IT HAS TO GO IN FRONT OF THE SENATE.
IT THEN HAS TO BE APPROVED BY MAJORITIES OF BOTH BEFORE IT CAN GO BACK IN FRONT OF THE PRESIDENT FOR A SIGNATURE, AND THEN IT'S MADE PERMANENT.
SO I THINK WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS TRYING TO SAY, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, IS THAT THIS IS A VERY SPECIFIC DETERMINATION THAT CHANGES THE CODE AND IT SHOULD BE DONE LEGISLATIVELY AND NOT BY A DETERMINATION.
I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT EVERYONE IS HAVING A HARD TIME WITH.
AND I THINK THAT IS WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THE ZONING BOARD.
IT'S NOT WHETHER OR NOT THIS STORAGE FACILITY BELONGS IN THIS LOCATION.
UM, WHETHER THERE'S A VARIANCE THAT'S BEING, UH, REQUESTED OF THE BOARD FOR SUCH A PURPOSE.
NO, WE ARE HERE TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR
[01:05:01]
HAD THE RIGHT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT WOULD CHANGE THE CODE, UH, STRAIGHT AND SIMPLE.SO I DON'T FEEL THAT I'VE HEARD ANYTHING YET THAT WOULD MAKE ME FEEL THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAS THAT RIGHT AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED LAST MONTH IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO FIND OUT FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
NOW, BOY, I HATE IT WHEN STEVE IS LOOKING ME RIGHT IN THE FACE LIKE THIS AS I'M TALKING WHY HE FELT THAT THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT HE COULD OR SHOULD DO VIA A DETERMINATION.
BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.
AND WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT DETERMINATION.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DECIDE.
WHETHER HE WAS RIGHT IN DOING THAT OR WHETHER HE WAS WRONG IN DOING THAT.
IF HE WAS WRONG IN DOING THAT, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THAT BATTERY FACILITY CAN'T GO AND THE NORWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE.
SO AFTER THE TOWN HAS TO DETERMINE LEGISLATIVELY THAT THERE'S A RIGHT TO PUT IT THERE, AND THEN IT COMES IN FRONT OF THE ZONING BOARD, WHETHER OR NOT THERE ARE ANY VARIANCES REQUIRED TO PUT IT THERE IN, IN MY SIMPLE MIND, THAT'S WHAT I THINK THIS IS ALL ABOUT.
I DO NOT WANT THIS TO GO BACK TO BEING AN ASSISTED LIVING, UM, UH, UH, THING THAT WE HAD TO GO A WHOLE YEAR TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE, THAT THE VALUE OF IT IS RIGHT OR WRONG.
SO THAT, THAT'S WHAT MY FEELING IS, IS THAT THIS IS REALLY SIMPLE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE ZONING BOARD HAS TO DECIDE RIGHT NOW.
AND I DON'T WANNA GO THROUGH FIVE MONTHS OF LISTENING TO WHY THAT BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY BELONGS THERE OR DOESN'T BELONG THERE, BECAUSE THAT IS NOT WHAT IS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD RIGHT NOW.
I DON'T WANNA GO THROUGH FIVE MONTHS OF IT EITHER.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT THERE IS A TIMELY APPEAL FOR US TO EVEN TO CONSIDER.
AND I DON'T WANNA DWELL ON THAT AT THIS POINT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO, UH, WELL, I ALSO WANNA SAY THAT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE WE COMBINE BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION CASES TOGETHER, WE WERE LOOKING TO DETERMINE WHEN WAS THE FIRST TIME THAT THE, UH, PLANNING BOARD HEARD OF THIS DETERMINATION.
BUT WE ALSO HAVE TO PUT IN THAT CALENDAR.
WHEN DID THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, UM, UNDERSTAND OR HEAR OF THIS DETERMINATION? AND THAT ALSO HAS TO COME INTO PLAY.
I KNOW WE DIDN'T GET TO THEM YET.
I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF THERE WERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AT THIS POINT.
WELL, HEARING QUIET, LET'S, LET'S MOVE TO PACIFIC ASSOCIATION.
LEON SHERETTA HERE FOR THE, FOR EAGLE ENERGY.
UH, THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS MADE.
AND, AND AGAIN, FOR THE SAKE OF HAVING THIS GO TOO LONG WITHOUT ADDRESSING, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE IF WE COULD JUST ADDRESS SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED BY THE PLANNING BOARD? BECAUSE AGAIN, WE, THIS IS GONNA GO ON A LONG TIME AND I DON'T WANNA LOSE, AND WE HAVE SOME ISSUES.
I JUST WANNA RAISE SPECIFICALLY AS, AS IT PERTAINS TO THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPEAL.
'CAUSE THERE WERE SOME THINGS THAT WERE STATED THAT I'D LIKE JUST GET ON THE RECORD FOR THIS APPEAL AS OPPOSED TO WAITING.
'CAUSE I, I, I HAVE A FEELING THAT THE, THE COUNSEL WILL GO ON FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
SO, UM, AND THEN BEFORE DOING THAT, I JUST DO NOT WANNA LOSE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO AT LEAST STATE A COUPLE THINGS FOR THE RECORD AS TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS MADE.
DO YOU KNOW MORE THAN I KNOW
SO I'M TRYING TO SEE WHO, WHO IS SPEAKING ON BEHALF FOR THE COUNCIL.
OKAY, MR. BERNSTEIN, UM, WOULD YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO MR. SORETA GOING TO ENTER THESE COMMENTS AT THIS TIME OR NOT? I, I DON'T OBJECT THAT HE WANTS TO INTERJECT.
UH, I WANTED TO CONTINUE WITH THE TRAIN, UH, WITH A THOUGHT WITH MR. CRITCHLOW, BUT IF THE CHAIR WOULD PREFER TO HEAR FROM MR. SHERETTA, LET HIM MAKE HIS RECORD, UH, I WOULD LIKE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD, IF NOT TONIGHT, THEN AT THE NEXT MEETING.
IT WOULD HELP FOR ME SINCE IT WAS JUST DONE AND FRESH IN MY, IN MY, UM, MIND JUST TO HAVE MR. RETTA.
UH, EVERYONE, UH, FOR THE RECORD, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD, MY NAME IS LENO SHERETTA, PARTNER WITH THE LAW FIRM OF BLAKELY PLAT AND SCHMIDT ON BEHALF OF EAGLE ENERGY STORAGE.
AND I DO APPRECIATE THIS OPPORTUNITY, UH, WITH ME ON THE LINE THIS EVENING FROM EAGLE ENERGY, UH, ALSO IS, UH, JAMES ROBINSON.
[01:10:01]
AND ALSO ON THE LINE WITH THE TEAM, UH, SPECIFICALLY ON THE ENERGY ISSUE IS, UH, MILA BRUCKNER FROM FIRM HODGKIN RUSH, WHO'S EXPERIENCED IN ENERGY MATTERS.SO, UH, THEY'RE BOTH ON THIS EVENING, AND I WILL DEFER TO THEM JUST ON, ON THOSE, THE POINTS THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
SO, JUST REAL QUICK, AND I'LL, I'LL TRY TO BE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, BUT YOU KNOW, THE FIRST INCH DISTANCE THAT, UM, I KNOW MR. ADLER HAD RAISED ABOUT TIMING, UH, AND BEFORE I EVEN GET INTO THAT IS LET, LET'S TALK ABOUT QUICKLY WHAT THIS IS ABOUT.
AND I KNOW I, WE'VE HEARD IT FROM THE BOARD.
THIS IS ABOUT AN INTERPRETATION OF THE BILLING INSPECTOR AND WHETHER HE DID, BASED ON THE CURRENT READING OF THE LAW, WHAT WAS CORRECT OR NOT BASED, BASED ON THE INTERPRETATION YOUR BOARD'S GONNA, IS, IS CHARGED NOW TO LOOK AT THAT INTERPRETATION, BUT IT, IT TURNS ON SIMPLY THE TOWN CODE DEFINITION AND ITS TERMS. I KNOW THE COUNCIL HAS STATED THAT IN THEIR, IN THEIR SUBMISSION.
AND AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
NOT WHETHER OR NOT, LIKE, AND I'M GLAD THAT THE BOARD POINTED OUT WHETHER BATTERY ENERGY IS, IS, IS, YOU KNOW, RIGHT AT THIS LOCATION.
AND I'M GLAD TO HEAR THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS NEEDED.
BUT AT, AT, AT THE END, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
WE'RE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIMPLY AN INTERPRETATION.
NOW, JUST TO GO TO THE POINTS THAT WERE RAISED, UH, MR. ADLER STATED, YOU KNOW, WHEN DID THE, THE PLANNING BOARD BECOME AWARE OF THIS? AND I'M LOOKING AT THE MINUTES FROM MARCH, UH, FROM NOVEMBER 4TH, 2020, THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO YOUR BOARD.
AND, AND THE, AND IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT CHAIR PUT, SIMON REQUESTED.
AND I QUOTE CONFIRMATION IN WRITING, THAT'S WHAT THE MINUTES STATE, AND IT'S, IT'S, IT'S VERY CLEAR THAT THAT WAS REQUESTED IN WRITING.
SO, WHICH MEANS, AND LEADS US TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF THAT DETERMINATION WHEN THEY DISCUSSED THIS.
SO AS FAR AS
THE, THE SEPTEMBER 18TH LETTER, OKAY.
FROM MR. FRETA, THAT, THAT, THAT LETTER I'LL CALL WHEN HE CHECKED OFF THE BOX.
SO THEY, I BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE AWARE OF THAT AND THE MINUTES SHOW THAT THE, THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING BOARD KNEW OF THAT DECISION ON, ON NOVEMBER 5TH.
SO WHEN YOU FACTOR THAT IN, AND I, AND I BELIEVE THE MOST RECENT SUBMISSION FROM THE BILLING INSPECTOR IN HIS LETTER, UH, I THINK THAT LETTER STATES THAT YES, THAT LETTER WAS INDEED OR FILED WITH, WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WAS OF RECORD, IT WAS FILED AND THEY HAD KNOWLEDGE OF IT.
SO AGAIN, NOT TO BELABOR THE POINT ON THE, THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS, WE BELIEVE THAT THE APPEAL WAS UNTIMELY BECAUSE 60 DAYS FROM NOVEMBER 5TH IS JANUARY 4TH, AND I BELIEVE THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPEAL WAS FILED ON JANUARY 7TH.
SO AGAIN, RE REQUESTING THAT CONFIRMATION OF AN EXISTING DECISION IN WRITING TO ME IS, IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO RESTART THIS 60 DAY APPEAL WINDOW.
SO AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO GET THAT OUT FOR THE RECORD BECAUSE IT IS IN THE MINUTES.
THE, THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO ADDRESS IS, IS THIS WHOLE THING ABOUT, UM, THIS PRECEDENT SETTING, UH, ISSUE THAT I, I'M HEARING THE PLANNING BOARD MENTION THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A FACILITY THAT THAT CAN'T BE, THAT, THAT, THAT CAN BE DUPLICATED ELSEWHERE.
AND, AND WHAT I'LL SAY TO THAT IS THIS, THIS IS THE FIRST APPLICATION UNDER THIS PARTICULAR PROVISION WITH RESPECT TO THE, UH, AS A BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE FACILITY AND, AND HOW YOU ADDRESS AND, AND, AND TAKE CARE OF PRECEDENT IS, IS VIA DISTINCTION.
SO THE CONCERN THAT, YOU KNOW, THE, THAT OUR ARRAY WITH RESPECT TO, YOU KNOW, WELL, WE'RE SETTING A PRECEDENT HERE, I, I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT IS THE CASE, BECAUSE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER FACILITY THAT COMES DOWN THE PIPE, I KNOW THE TOWN IS LOOKING AT A, A POSSIBLE LOCAL LAW, BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT FOR EAGLE ENERGY, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE HEARING ALL THESE THINGS ABOUT IT, A LOCAL LAW, AND WE, YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD MAYBE DONE THE LOCAL LAW, THAT'S NOT OUR ROLE AS EAGLE ENERGY.
WE, WE LOOKED AT THIS CODE, WE, WE SOUGHT, YOU KNOW, WE LOOKED AT THE, AND WE SAID, LOOK, THE BILLING INSPECTOR THINKS THAT THIS IS A USE THAT IS ALLOWED BY SPECIAL PERMIT.
THIS WAS, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN GOING FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
BUT TO GO BACK TO THE PRECEDENT CONCERN, YOU'RE NOT SETTING A PRECEDENT HERE BECAUSE YOU'RE, YOU'RE GONNA LOOK AT EVERY APPLICATION THAT COME BEFORE YOU AS, AS IT STANDS ON ITS OWN.
SO HERE YOU HAVE A FACILITY THAT, AND WE, WE'VE SHOWN THIS BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, YOU KNOW, WHY IT'S SUCH A GOOD FIT FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA.
AND THE NEXT APPLICATION THAT MAY COME, MAY, MAY NOT BE SO GREAT.
YOU KNOW, THE, THE, YOU'RE NOT GONNA TAKE AWAY THE FACT THAT THE TOWN BOARD HAS TO MAKE A, A DETERMINATION ON THE SPECIAL PERMIT.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA TAKE AWAY THE FACT THAT IF IT HAS TO COME BEFORE YOUR BOARD FOR ANOTHER APPLICATION, YOU'RE STILL GONNA HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT, THIS B E S S FACILITY AND NO WOOD WORKS BECAUSE IT'S TUCKED AWAY FROM THE PUBLIC.
IT'S ABOUT 800 FEET FROM A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
AND IT'S, IT'S IDEAL AT THIS LOCATION.
MAYBE THE NEXT APPLICATION THAT COMES BEFORE YOU.
IT'S NOT, AND AGAIN, YOU TAKE CARE OF PRECEDENT BY MAKING THAT
[01:15:01]
DISTINCTION IN YOUR RECORD.SO THE CONCERN THAT THERE IS SOME TYPE OF PRECEDENT SET BY AGREEING WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND UPHOLDING HIS DETERMINATION, I JUST BELIEVE DOES NOT EXIST.
NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE OTHER COMMENT THAT WAS RAISED ABOUT, AND I KNOW MR. ENSLOW SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, HE PREFACE IT BY SAYING THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTORS CHANGING THE CODE, AND I I WILL SAY THIS, I DON'T, WE DON'T BELIEVE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IS CHANGING THE CODE.
THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAS A DEFINITION, AND AGAIN, WE BELIEVE THAT THIS CASE TURNS ON THE DEFINITION, AND HE'S NOT CHANGING.
HE'S JUST MAKING A DETERMINATION THAT WE, WE EAGLE ENERGY QUALIFIES AS A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE AND AS A PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER THE CODE.
NOW, WE CITED CASES IN OUR LETTER LAST MONTH, AND, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE TWO CASES THAT WE CITED, UH, WHEN WE CITED THE GOLDBERG CASE, THAT THERE WERE, THERE WERE TWO WIND, UH, FARM PRIVATE ENTITIES THAT WERE DEEMED PUBLIC UTILITIES PURSUANT TO THAT PARTICULAR TOWN'S LOCAL CODE.
SO THE, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR MADE A DETERMINATION, LOOKED AT OUR APPLICATION AND SAID THAT THE LANGUAGE IS BROUGHT ENOUGH.
AND IT'S THAT WE FIT UNDER THE DEFINITION OF THE TOWN CODE.
NOW, WITH RESPECT TO, TO THAT COMMENT, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT CHANGING.
WE ARE WORKING WITHIN THE DEFINITION AND THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
NOW, I HAVE MS. MILA, UM, BRUCKNER ON THIS BECAUSE THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE ENERGY AND THE POWERPOINT THAT WAS PRESENTED, UH, BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
SO I, I WOULD JUST LIKE, 'CAUSE THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS MADE THAT WERE NOT CORRECT AND, AND I WOULD LIKE THE RECORD TO STAND CORRECTED ON THAT ISSUE.
SO IF, IF MILA, YOU CAN, I KNOW M LASAN, IF YOU COULD JUST BRIEFLY ADJUST THOSE POINTS.
UM, MADAM I'M CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I JUST WANTED TO, UM, SPEAK TO A FEW THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING.
UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, GOING OFF, UM, LENO'S COMMENTS WE'RE, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ISN'T CHANGING THE CODE HERE.
HE'S INTERPRETING THE CODE AND FINDING THAT THIS PROJECT FITS SQUARELY WITHIN THE DEFINITION.
UM, AND I THINK ONE OF SEVERAL OF THE WORDS THAT WERE CHALLENGED AT THE START OF THIS HEARING WAS WHETHER OR NOT THIS PROJECT FURNISHES ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC.
AND I WOULD STATE PLAINLY THAT OF COURSE IT DOES.
I MEAN, WITHOUT THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, WHO ARE WE SERVING? WHAT IS THIS BUSINESS? WHY WOULD WE BE BUILDING THE PROJECT IN THE FIRST PLACE? AND AND USING THE ANALOGY THAT WAS OFFERED UP EARLIER ABOUT GENERAL MOTORS, UM, IT'S, IT'S, I WOULD USE THE SAME EXAMPLE, BUT TO, TO MY OWN CONCLUSION.
YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, GENERAL MOTORS MIX CARS.
IT BRINGS THEM TO A DEALERSHIP AND SELLS THEM TO THE PUBLIC.
I THINK EVERYONE WOULD, WOULD FIND THAT GENERAL MOTORS IS FURNISHING CARS TO THE PUBLIC.
THERE MAY BE A MIDDLEMAN OR AN INTERMEDIARY, BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE PUTTING ELECTRICITY ONTO THE GRID AND THE PUBLIC'S TAKING IT OFF.
UM, THE PUBLIC NEED IS WHAT DRIVES THE INTEREST IN THE PROJECT, THE NEED FOR IT, UM, AND ALL OF THAT.
AND, AND I GUESS I WOULD JUST FURTHER ADD THAT WHEN WE GET INTO THAT SORT OF LIKE HAIR SPLITTING AND, AND REALLY LOOKING AT EACH INDIVIDUAL WORD IN THE CODE, IT SUGGESTS THAT THERE'S SOME, SOME AM AMBIGUITY HERE.
UM, AND FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT SENT BY THE SECOND CIRCUIT, SPECIFICALLY THE CASE ALAN B ADAM, ANY AMBIGUITY IS, UH, RESOLVED IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT.
SO WHETHER THERE'S, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S UNCLEAR WHETHER WE'RE FURNISHING ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC, THERE'S SOME SORT OF QUESTION IT, THE, THE BALANCE TIPS IN OUR FAVOR.
UM, AND HERE I THINK IT'S BOTH, YOU KNOW, SORT OF A MATTER OF COMMON SENSE, UM, AS WELL AS, AS ONE THAT'S FURNISHED BY LEGAL PRECEDENT.
AND, AND JUST JUST TO THAT POINT, MILA, IF, IF, IF YOU'RE DONE I'LL, BUT I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU, UH, BUT I WAS, I WAS GONNA ADD ANOTHER COMMENT.
SO JUST, JUST TO THAT POINT, AND LOOK, WE, I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE ASSISTED LIVING AND THE LOCAL LAWS THAT THE TOWN OF GREENBURG HAS IMPLEMENTED, AND I UNDERSTAND ALL THAT.
BUT AGAIN, YOU KNOW, WHETHER OR NOT WE HAVE TO DO A LOCAL MALL OR NOT IS REALLY NOT THE ISSUE FOR THIS EVENING.
UH, AND THAT TAKES ME TO MY, MY OTHER POINT ABOUT THIS WHOLE DEFINITION OF, OF STORAGE YARD, YOU KNOW, AS A PRACTICING LAND USE ATTORNEY, I, YOU KNOW, I, I'VE DEALT WITH STORAGE YARDS AND YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE STORAGE YARD, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT STORAGE OF MATERIALS, STORAGE OF, I MEAN, I'VE REPRESENTED CONTRACTORS.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT STORAGE OF CONCRETE, OF, OF LUMBER, UH, OF THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
THIS BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM, I, I IS NOT A STORAGE YARD.
I MEAN, THESE, THESE ARE NOT SHIPPING CONTAINERS AS THEY'VE BEEN CALLED.
I MEAN, THESE ARE CABINETS AND IT'S NOT, AND THESE CABINETS ARE NOT THINGS THAT YOU CAN WALK INTO OR, OR, OR OPEN OR SPEND TIME IN.
THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, THERE, THERE ARE BATTERY COMPONENTS IN THIS, IN THIS CABINET.
SO TO CALL IT A STORAGE YARD IS REALLY NOT, NOT ACCURATE, NOR DOES IT GO TO ITS PLAIN MEANING, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT A STORAGE YARD, YOU KNOW, WHETHER YOU'RE STORING MULCH, WHETHER YOU'RE STORING ANY TYPE OF, UH, CONTRACT CONTRACTOR MATERIALS, THAT'S WHAT NORMALLY A PLAIN MEANING OF STORAGE YARD WOULD BE.
AND AGAIN, THE DEFINITION, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE, THE COUNCIL GOT THE DEFINITION, I'M SURE THEY
[01:20:01]
GOT IT FROM THE INTERNET, BUT TO ME, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE PLAIN MEANING OF, OF STORAGE YARD, WE DON'T FALL INTO THAT DEFINITION.SO AGAIN, I, I JUST WANTED THESE REALLY CLARIFIED FOR, FOR THE RECORD, BECAUSE AGAIN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT NOT THE MERITS OF, OF WHETHER, YOU KNOW, BATTERY ENERGY IS SUPPOSED TO BE HERE, BUT REALLY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIMPLY LANGUAGE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MADAM CHAIR, IT'S ABOUT LANGUAGE.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE OF THE CODE, YOU KNOW, WE, WE FALL INTO THAT.
AND AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE, AND LIKE THOSE, THE ROSENBERG CASE ALSO CITED, YOU KNOW, PRIVATE COMPANIES CAN BE DEEMED PUBLIC UTILITIES.
AND WITH RESPECT TO THIS SYSTEM, WE QUALIFY BECAUSE WE ARE FURNISHING ELECTRICITY.
OKAY? AND WE ARE A, A PUBLIC UTILITY AS THE TOWN OF GREENBURG DEFINES, YOU DON'T NEED TO GO OUTSIDE THE TOWN OF GREENBURG DEFINITION TO DEFINE THAT WE MEET THAT DEFINITION.
SO AGAIN, UM, JAMES, DID YOU WANNA HAVE ANYTHING ELSE WITH RESPECT TO ANYTHING ELSE THAT WAS SAID? UM, I'LL, I'LL JUST BRIEFLY, UH, ADD THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S BEEN STATED THAT OUR BUSINESS MODEL IS SELLING HIGH AND BUYING LOW, UM, AND, AND, AND THAT IT MAY NOT BE ACTUALLY ENHANCING ACCESS AND SUPPLY TO THE PUBLIC ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
UM, AND I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT THAT THAT'S A, UH, MISCHARACTERIZATION, IT'S AN INCOMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF OUR BUSINESS MODEL.
UH, WE'LL ACTUALLY BE PROVIDING AT LEAST THREE DISTINCT PRODUCTS TO THE PUBLIC.
UM, THE ONE THAT I CAN HIGHLIGHT, I'LL ONLY HIGHLIGHT ONE IN THE INTEREST OF TIME.
UM, IT, IT IS CAPACITY, UH, WE'LL BE PROVIDING CRITICAL CAPACITY TO THE NEW YORK, UM, ISO MARKET AND TO THE PUBLIC, UH, AT TIMES WHEN ENERGY USAGE IS AT ITS HIGHEST.
AND AS YOU SAW RECENTLY IN THE NEWS IN TEXAS, LIKE THAT IS A VERY IMPORTANT FUNCTION THAT THE PUBLIC NEEDS.
IT, UH, CAN PREVENT BLACKOUTS.
UM, AND, UH, IT, IT'S NOT CONTROVERSIAL THAT THAT BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE CAN PROVIDE THIS.
IT'S NOT SELLING IT AND THEN, OR BUYING IT AND THEN SELLING IT.
IT'S JUST, JUST SELLING IT, UM, TO THE PUBLIC.
AND, UH, I'LL ALSO ADD THAT THROUGH SUPPLY AND DEMAND, THE MORE GENERATORS, UH, SUCH AS OURS THAT ARE CAPABLE OF SUPPLYING THIS CAPACITY, THE LOWER THE PRICE OF THE CAPACITY.
SO, UM, THAT, THAT'S JUST TO POINT OUT THAT, UH, IN ADDITION TO ALL THE OTHER THINGS THAT WE'RE DOING, THERE ARE MULTIPLE PRODUCTS THAT WE'RE SELLING TO THE PUBLIC THAT ARE OF BENEFIT SPECIFICALLY TO THE, UM, PUBLIC ELECTRICITY SUPPLY.
AND, AND LASTLY, MATTER CHAIR, UH, JUST TO YOUR POINT, YOU KNOW ABOUT THE SPECIAL PERMIT, YES, SPECIAL PERMITS CAN BE CONDITIONED.
UH, WE, WE SEE THIS HAPPEN ALL THE TIME.
SO IF AND WHEN THIS SHOULD GO BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED ABOUT BUFFERS OR WHAT HAVE YOU, THOSE CONDITIONS CAN BE ADDRESSED AT THE TOWN BOARD.
THEY CAN CONDITION THIS FACILITY AND THIS APPLICATION WITH CERTAIN CONDITIONS AS PART OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS.
SO AGAIN, UH, WE AGREE WITH, WITH THAT STATEMENT, IT, IT, IT'S, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, UH, THAT WAS STATED.
SO AGAIN, I THANK YOU FOR TAKING US, UH, AT THIS MOMENT.
AGAIN, WE RESERVED A COMMENT FOR WHEN THE ASSOCIATION, UM, COMES TO, COMES AND SPEAKS.
AND I ALSO THANK MR. BERNSTEIN FOR NOT OBJECTING TO, TO US, UH, SPEAKING AT THIS TIME AS TO THE PLAN BOARD ISSUES.
UM, I'LL TRY TO BE BRIEF FOR ME AND, UH, GOOD
UH, I DID SUBMIT A LENGTHY PRESENTATION IN WRITING ON MARCH 10TH, RIGHT? WHICH I TRUST YOU ALL HAVE READ.
ONE IS THE ISSUE BEFORE THE BOARD IS WHETHER THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE WAS CORRECT, BUT THE IMPLICATION OF THAT INTERPRETATION IS THAT THIS TYPE OF FACILITY IS A PERMISSIBLE USE IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE TOWN.
HE HAS OPINED THAT BECAUSE THIS BUSINESS WILL PROVIDE ELECTRICITY TO AN ALREADY EXISTING PUBLIC UTILITY, THAT IT SERVES THEREFORE A GOOD PURPOSE AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE DEEMED A PUBLIC UTILITY FOR PURPOSES OF A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE.
AND THAT RATIONALE, UH, WHICH ACTUALLY WAS SUPPLIED TO HIM BY MS. BRUCKNER, UH, IN AN OPINION THAT RATIONALE IS JUST WRONG WHEN IT COMES TO THE TOWN'S CODE.
BUT THE IMPLICATION HERE IS NOT THAT, YOU KNOW, OF COURSE THE TOWN BOARD CAN CONDITION IT.
IT'S IF THIS BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION STANDS, IT MEANS THAT ANYONE, ANY BUSINESS THAT GENERATES
[01:25:01]
ELECTRICITY FOR, UH, SUPPLY TO CON ED WOULD BE, THAT BUSINESS WOULD BE A PERMISSIBLE USE IN ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OF THE TOWN.UH, AND THAT'S WHY WE FOCUS ON THE DEFINITIONS.
THE FIRST DEFINITION, OF COURSE, IS PUBLIC UTILITY.
AND WE EXPLAINED WHY GREENBERG'S CODE BY USING THE WORDS SELLING OR FURNISHING TO THE PUBLIC UNDER GOVERNMENT REGULATION, THOSE WORDS HAVE MEANING.
THOSE WORDS WERE NOT IN THE CODE OF THE TWO CASES THAT MR. SHERETTA JUST REFERRED YOU TO.
I DISTINGUISHED THOSE CASES IN MY SUBMISSION, BUT THE COURT ITSELF IN THOSE CASES MADE CLEAR THAT IT WASN'T DEALING WITH A ZONING CODE THAT DEFINED THE TERM PUBLIC UTILITY.
AND I ALSO EXPLAINED THAT FURNISHING TO THE PUBLIC UNDER GOVERNMENT REGULATION IN THIS CONTEXT, MEANS THAT YOU'RE SUBJECT TO REGULATION BY THE NEW YORK PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, WHICH REGULATES THE RATES BY WHICH, UH, UH, UH, THE PUBLIC MUST PAY FOR THAT ELECTRICITY.
EAGLE IS NOT SUBJECT TO ANY SUCH REGULATION.
UH, THEY ARE NOT DEEMED A PUBLIC UTILITY.
I ATTACHED IN MY PROCEEDING IN MY SUBMISSION, A COPY OF THE WEBPAGE, WHICH YOU COULD LINK TO THAT LISTS THE ACTUAL PUBLIC UTILITIES IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK, ACCORDING TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION.
AND EAGLE IS OF COURSE NOT ON IT.
NOW, WHAT I ALSO DID WAS I EXAMINED THE OTHER DEFINITIONS.
THE DEFINITIONS ARE, UM, EXCLUDED FROM PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE ARE STORAGE YARDS AND ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS.
NOW, OUR CODE SAYS THAT IF IT'S NOT A DEFINED TERM IN THE CODE, YOU GO TO THE DICTIONARY.
SO I WENT TO THE DICTIONARY FOR STORAGE YARDS.
I GAVE YOU A DEFINITION FROM THE DICTIONARY, AND THEN I SHOWED YOU A PICTURE OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING, UM, WHICH IS A FENCED IN YARD WITH A, WITH, WITH, WITH THESE STORAGE CONTAINERS IN THEM AND STORAGE CONTAINERS.
THOSE AREN'T MY WORDS OR MY DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IT IS.
THEY ARE WHAT THEY THEMSELVES SAID, WHAT IT LOOKED LIKE, STORAGE CONTAINERS.
UM, AND I QUOTED FROM THEIR OWN, UH, UH, SUBMISSION, UH, TO THE TOWN AS TO WHAT THEY WERE DOING WITH RESPECT TO, UM, ENERGY, UH, THE ELECTRIC SUBSTATIONS.
AGAIN, I WENT TO THE DICTIONARY FOR A DEFINITION.
I ALSO GOT A MORE SPECIALIZED DEFINITION FROM OSHA.
UH, BUT UNDER EITHER DEFINITION, IT'S CLEAR THAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING QUALIFIES AS AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION BECAUSE IT INVOLVES TRANSFORMING ELECTRICITY IN THIS CASE, UH, CONVERTING, UH, ALTERNATING CURRENT INTO DIRECT CURRENT FROM THE BATTERIES AND VICE VERSA, FROM THE BATTERIES TO ULT, UH, DIRECT CURRENT TO ALTERNATING CURRENT FOR TRANSMISSION ON THE WIRES.
AND WE'RE TALKING HIGH VOLTAGE HERE.
THAT'S WHAT MAKES AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION.
BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, STORAGE YARD AND SUBSTATION, ARE EXPRESSLY EXCLUDED FROM THE DEFINITION.
AND AS MR. SCHWARTZ POINTED OUT, IF IT'S A STORAGE YARD AT ALL, IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NON-CONFORMING AFTER THREE YEARS AND HAS TO BE REMOVED.
THAT'S JUST NOT A PERMISSIBLE USE IN THE TOWN.
SO WE'RE DEALING WITH THE ANOMALY OF A BUILDING INSPECTOR WHO SAID, THIS IS A PERMISSIBLE USE, NOT JUST AT THE NORWOOD CLUB, BUT IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IN THE TOWN.
AND AS SUCH, WE'RE DEALING WITH A, A FACILITY THAT LOOKS LIKE A STORAGE YARD, AND THAT FUNCTIONS AS AN ELECTRIC SUBSTATION.
THE OTHER POINTS I WANTED TO MAKE ARE THAT SEPTEMBER, UH, 18TH NOTATION FROM MR. FRETA WHERE HE CHECKED THE BOX THAT WAS NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.
HE DID NOT FILE IT AND HAVE IT STAMPED WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S FILE, UH, SO THAT ANYONE COULD REQUEST IT BECAUSE NO ONE WOULD KNOW THAT IT EXISTED.
UM, IN FACT, THE C G C A FILED A FOIL REQUEST TO GET ALL THESE DOCUMENTS, AND THAT DOCUMENT WASN'T PRODUCED.
[01:30:01]
UH, SO WE NEVER GOT IT.UH, AND, AND, UH, THE ONLY TIME WE SAW IT WAS IN THIS PROCEEDING.
SO, UH, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT JUST BECAUSE MR. FRETA FILED IT IN HIS OWN FILES WITH NOBODY EVER KNOWING IT.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT A PUBLIC DOCUMENT.
UH, WHEN DID YOU FILE, WHEN DID YOU FILE YOUR FOIL REQUEST AND WHEN DID YOU GET THE DOCUMENTS FROM THAT? UH, WE FILED OUR FOIL REQUEST ON DECEMBER 23RD.
I I GET THE, THE, ALRIGHT, THAT'S FINE.
IT'S TOTALLY AFTER THAT WE GOT THE DOCUMENTS.
THE DOCUMENTS THAT WE DID GET WERE, WERE, WERE VERY INTERESTING.
UH, AND I'LL JUST BRIEFLY TALK ABOUT THAT.
UM, THE DOCUMENTS WE DID GET SHOWED THAT WHEN THIS, I, UH, THE IDEA OF PUTTING IN A B E S SS UH, FACILITY WAS FIRST PROPOSED TO THE TOWN WAS IN NOVEMBER OF 2019.
AND MS. UH, BUCK BUCKNER, WHO WAS ON THE CALL TONIGHT, UH, WROTE A LETTER, WHICH I QUOTED FROM, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE GOT IN THE FOIL.
AND SHE POINTS OUT IN THE LETTER THAT, UH, SHE WAS THINKING OF FILING AN APPLICATION JUST UNDER THE CODE AS IS.
BUT MR. UH, DUQUE TOLD HER THAT THIS, UH, UM, USE WAS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THAT CODE.
AND THAT ONE OF HER, UH, ONE OF HER CLIENTS, OR HER CLIENT, I SHOULD SAY, UM, SAID, YEAH, IT'S NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE CODE.
MAYBE WE SHOULD DRAFT SOMETHING FOR THEM SO THAT THEY COULD ADOPT IT SO THAT IT, IT WOULD BE PERMITTED.
AND THEN HE DRAFTED SOMETHING AND I I, I ATTACHED THAT TO MY, UH, TO, TO OUR SUBMISSION AGAIN, WHICH WE GOT IN THE FOIL REQUEST.
AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS IS MS. BUCKNER EVIDENTLY DECIDES THAT BASED ON CASE LAW, THEY COULD MAKE AN ATTEMPT TO ARGUE THAT THEY DON'T NEED THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE.
THEY COULD TRY TO COME WITHIN IT, BUT THERE WAS NO ASSURANCE THAT THAT WOULD WORK.
UH, BUT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR EVIDENTLY SAID, THAT'S OKAY, BUT HE DIDN'T LOOK AT THE DEFINITIONS.
HOW DO WE KNOW THAT? BECAUSE HIS OPINION DOESN'T CITE THEM.
HE DOESN'T CITE THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY, DOESN'T CITE THE DEFINITION OF STORAGE.
YARD DOESN'T CITE THE DEFINITION OF, UH, OF, OF ELECTRIC SUBSTATION.
UH, HE DOESN'T GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF INTERPRETING THE CODE THE WAY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IS SUPPOSED TO DO THAT, AND THE WAY THE ZONING BOARD IS SUPPOSED TO DO IT, WHICH IS GO TO THE DEFINITIONS, IS THE DEFINITION STATED IN THE CODE.
IF IT'S NOT STATED IN THE CODE, GO TO THE DICTIONARY AND USE THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. FERTA, WHO I, I, I, I THINK DOES A FABULOUS JOB.
AND WE KNOW THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE HIS NOVEMBER 12TH, 2020, UH, LETTER, WHICH, WHICH EXPLAINS HOW HE DID GET TO THE CONCLUSION HE GOT TO.
SO THE PROBLEM IS THAT ONCE YOU ADDRESS THAT, ONCE YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITIONS, YOU SEE THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE, HE DOESN'T COME WITHIN WHAT'S NECESSARY TO MAKE THIS A PERMISSIBLE USE, NOT JUST AT THAT LOCATION, BUT IN ANY LOCATION.
IT'S JUST NOT A PERMISSIBLE USE UNDER THAT STATUTE OR ANY OTHER STATUTE THAT GREENBERG HAS.
UM, AND THAT'S THE KEY ABOUT HAVING A SPECIAL PERMIT.
A SPECIAL PERMIT IS, IS THE TOWN BOARD'S DEEMING PERMISSIBLE, THE USE SPECIFIED THEREIN AND UNDER GREENBERG'S CODE, IF IT'S SPECIFIED, IF THE R 40 ZONE, IT'S ALSO EQUALLY APPLICABLE IN ALL THE OTHER ZONES.
THAT'S WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT TO THE COUNCIL OF GREENBERG CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS, WHICH REPRESENTS THE HOMEOWNERS IN CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS THROUGHOUT UNINCORPORATED GREENBERG.
UH, I POINTED OUT THAT THERE OVER 8,000 ACRES OF, OF, OF LAND THAT ARE ZONED IN THE RESIDENTIAL ZONES AT 75% OF THE LAND IN UNINCORPORATED GREENBURG IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL.
THAT'S THE LAND THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DECISION IF IT WERE UPHELD.
NOW, I EXPLAIN IN RESPONSE TO YOUR QUESTIONS THE, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE.
AND I, I WENT ON AT LENGTH IN THE, IN THE SUBMISSION ABOUT THE SAFETY ISSUES.
UH, AND THE SAFETY ISSUES ARE, ARE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE GRAPPLED WITH,
[01:35:01]
OF COURSE.BUT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT DEEMING THE USE, PERMISSIBLE DEEMING.
THE USE PERMISSIBLE MEANS IT'S ALSO COMPATIBLE, IT'S, IT'S COMPATIBLE SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS THE TOWN BOARD MAY ASSERT, BUT IT'S, IT'S A USE THAT'S DEEMED TO BE PERMISSIBLE AND COMPATIBLE AND IN HARMONY WITH THE REST OF THE, UH, ZONING DISTRICTS.
UH, COMPATIBILITY AND HARMONY ARE ALL PART OF THE CONCEPT OF SPECIAL PERMIT.
THAT'S WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT THIS USE, HOWEVER BENEFICIAL IT MAY BE TO THE COMMUNITY TO HAVE IT WAS NOT A USE THAT'S PERMITTED UNDER THIS CODE.
UH, AND YOU KNOW, WHILE I APPRECIATE ALL THE EFFORTS BEING DONE TO AMEND THE CODE, THE SOLE ISSUE BEFORE YOU IS WHETHER THIS USE IS A PERMISSIBLE USE UNDER THE CODE, KNOWING THAT IF IT IS, IT'S, IT'S NOT JUST B E S S THAT'S GETTING A GREEN LIGHT HERE.
IT'S ALSO WIND FARMS AND, AND, AND, UH, UH, SOLAR, UH, FARMS. UH, THESE ARE ALL BUSINESSES WHICH GENERATE ELECTRICITY THAT COULD SERVE THE WHOLESALE MARKET, WHICH SELLS TO CONED OR THROUGH THE GRID, UH, AND, AND, AND, AND CAN BE DISTRIBUTED THAT WAY UNDER, UNDER MR RE'S INTERPRETATION.
THEY'RE ALL PUBLIC UTILITIES, EVERY ONE OF THEM.
AND THEY'RE ALL EQUALLY ENTITLED.
THESE PRIVATE BUSINESSES ARE ALL EQUALLY ENTITLED TO BE LOCATED IN ANY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
AND THAT UNFORTUNATELY, IS NOT WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS, BUT THAT'S WHAT THIS INTERPRETATION WOULD, UH, UH, ALLOW, UH, TO, TO HAPPEN, WHICH IS WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT.
UH, I THINK, UH, THE OTHER QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED BY THE BOARD OF THE C G C A, AGAIN, I THINK I ADDRESSED THEM IN MY SUBMISSION.
UH, YOU ASKED US TO IDENTIFY AN INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNER.
UH, I SUPPLIED MAP A MAP, UH, TO SHOW WHERE THE HOMES ARE LOCATED.
I SUPPLIED, UH, PICTURES SO YOU COULD SEE WHAT THE FACILITY IS.
UH, AND I, UH, I THINK I'VE DONE EVERYTHING I CAN TO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU, UH, EVERY SINGLE DOCUMENT THAT COULD BE GERMANE HERE.
UM, BUT THE ONE THING I, I REALLY WANNA STRESS IS THAT WE COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THIS UNTIL, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD DECIDED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT HAPPENED HERE.
BECAUSE WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD RAISED THE QUESTION AT ITS NOVEMBER 4TH MEETING, THEY HEARD FOR THE FIRST TIME ORALLY FROM AARON SCHMIDT THAT THERE WAS SUCH AN INTERPRETATION FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT WE KNOW FROM THE MINUTES.
AND THE CHAIRMAN ASKED FOR A CONFIRMATION AS IF, DID HE REALLY DO THAT? DID HE REALLY MAKE THAT FINDING? AND THEY, WHAT THE RESULT WAS THE NOVEMBER 12TH, 2020 LETTER, WHICH WE DIDN'T SEE UNTIL THE AGENDA FOR THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF NOVEMBER 18TH WAS POSTED.
THEN WE SAW THE LETTER 'CAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE AGENDA, UH, ODDLY ENOUGH THAT THAT AGENDA ISN'T THERE ANYMORE.
BUT WE'VE, WE'VE ATTESTED THAT'S, THAT'S WHEN WE FOUND OUT, UH, UH, SOMETIME BETWEEN NOVEMBER 12TH AND NOVEMBER 18TH IS WHEN WE FIRST HEARD ABOUT IT.
SAW IT, UH, AND, AND LOOKED AT IT AND SAID, THIS CAN'T BE RIGHT.
UH, AND THEN IT WAS THE SUBJECT OF DISCUSSION AT THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING ON NOVEMBER 18TH.
IT WAS THEN, UH, THE SUBJECT OF, UH, QUITE A BIT OF DEBATE AMONG THE, THE PLANNING BOARD AT THEIR FOLLOWING MEETING.
I, UH, BOB BERNSTEIN ON DECEMBER 10TH FILED MY OWN FREEDOM OF INFORMATION REQUEST TO GET A COPY OF MR. ADA'S, UH, OPINION WITH THE BUILDING STAMPS FILE STAMP ON IT.
SO WE KNOW WHEN IT WAS, IT WAS FILED IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S OFFICE, AND THAT REQUEST WAS NEVER ANSWERED.
THE LAW IN THIS AREA IS CLEAR.
THE LAW REQUIRES THAT THERE BE PUBLIC NOTICE OF THE DETERMINATION BECAUSE THE CLOCK STARTS RUNNING WHEN THE PUBLIC IS NOTIFIED.
UH, IN MY PRESENTATION, I, UH, UH, DISCUSSED AGAIN THE CORRALES CASE THAT MR. SHERETTA WAS INVOLVED WITH.
I ATTACHED THE OPINION FOR YOU ALL TO SEE IT'S A SECOND DEPARTMENT CASE.
IT CLEARLY LAYS OUT EFFECT SCENARIO VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT OCCURRED HERE.
[01:40:01]
POINT OF THE, THE, THE DECISION WAS THAT UNLESS THE INITIAL DETERMINATION, WHATEVER IT WAS, IS FILED PUBLICLY, THERE IS NO WAY A 60 DAY CLOCK CAN START, UH, TO, TO COUNT TO RUN.SO WITH THAT, I THINK I'VE SAID AS QUICKLY AS I COULD, UM, WHAT I SAID IN, IN, IN THE LETTER, UH, AND I RESPONDED, I THINK TO, UH, MR. T'S, UH, PRINCIPAL COMMENTS.
UM, BUT AGAIN, I RESERVED MY RIGHT AND I WELCOME ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE OR WE CAN PUT IT OFF FOR NEXT MONTH.
I, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION, ROB, IF, UM, I JUST WANNA, TOWARDS THE END, YOU TOUCHED UPON SOMETHING I WANTED TO ASK YOU ABOUT.
MAY FRIENDED, MILLWOOD CIVIC ASSOCIATION, ARE THEY MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF GREENBERG CIVIC ASSOCIATION? IS THAT ENTITY A MEMBER? I, I BELIEVE THEY ARE.
UH, I BELIEVE THAT ALL, UH, CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS IN THE, UH, UNDER, UNDER THE CGCAS CHARTER ARE MEMBERS.
UM, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE PAID THEIR DUES ON TIME OR, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT.
BUT, UH, ANY, ANY CIVIC ASSOCIATION THAT IS DULY ORGANIZED AND EXISTING UNDER, UH, UH, IN THE TOWN IS A, IS A MEMBER OF C G C A, UH, WELCOME TO ATTEND THEIR MEETINGS.
AND ON WHOSE BEHALF RESIDENTS, UM, UH, C G C A HAS, HAS ACTED IN THE PAST.
YOU MENTIONED, UH, ON PAGE 22, AND YOU TOUCHED UPON IN THE END, AN INDIVIDUAL NAMED MR. BALL, B A H L I DON'T WANNA MISPRONOUNCE HIS NAME.
COULD YOU, COULD YOU TELL ME HOW FAR YOU, LIZ, FROM THIS PROJECT? UM, IF YOU LOOK, UH, ON THE MAP, UH, WHICH IS, I'M SCROLLING THROUGH TO FIND OUT WHERE I PUT THE MAP.
THE MAP IS ON PAGE 23, UM, AND YOU SEE THE SITE, AND THEN IF YOU, I'M SORRY, I'M WAITING TO, FOR YOU TO GET THERE.
SO, UH, DO YOU SEE THE NUMBER SIX AND SEVEN THOSE AT YES, I DO.
SO AS YOU RUN YOUR, RUN YOUR FINGER UP ALONG SEVEN ALONG THAT ROAD THERE, UM, YOU'LL SEE SOUTH MANOR DRIVE AND GOT IT.
22 IS, UH, IN THE EARLY PART, UH, OF, UH, HE LIVES AT 22.
SO IT'S ONE OF THE HOUSES IN THE, IN THE BEGINNING, UH, OF THE SUBDIVISION.
SO, BUT LIKE, IT BEGS THE QUESTION, THOUGH, HOW DOES IT, HOW DOES THIS SITE IMPACT THIS GENTLEMAN ANY MORE THAN IT WOULD IMPACT ANYBODY ELSE? THE ANSWER LIES IN THE, UH, UH, EXPLANATION THAT'S BEEN GIVEN TO US BY THE SAFETY EXPERTS ABOUT THE IMPACT OF A FIRE OR EXPLOSION.
UH, NOXIOUS FUMES, UH, WILL GO DOWNWIND.
AND I DESCRIBE IN THE LETTER THIS PARTICULAR KINDS OF NOXIOUS FUMES AND, AND, UH, UH, UH, I CAN'T PREDICT WHETHER DOWNWIND WILL BE TO HIS HOUSE, BUT IF, UH, UH, HE LIVES THERE AND HE'S CONCERNED ABOUT IT, UH, I DARE SAY IT AFFECTS HIM MORE THAN IT AFFECTS ME LIVING IN EDGEMONT.
BUT, BUT, UH, THAT'S, UH, THE, THE MAIN CONCERN, UH, AND I I DID GO ON AT LENGTH ABOUT THIS, IS THE, IS THE, IS THE FIRE RISK AND THE, THE, UH, THE, THE FUMES THAT COULD RESULT.
NOW, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THE TECHNOLOGY, UH, CAN'T BE, UH, PROTECTED AGAINST THOSE RISKS.
UH, THE MITIGATION, THERE ARE MITIGATIONS, UH, AND THEY NEED TO BE, UM, UH, OBVIOUSLY APPLIED HERE.
BUT, BUT THEY'RE NOT FOOLPROOF.
NOBODY IS GUARANTEED A COMPLETELY SAFE UNIT, UH, A SAFE, COMPLETELY SAFE INSTALLATION.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE OF THOSE RISKS AND BECAUSE THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON THE SAFETY PROTOCOLS TO DEAL WITH THEM.
THAT'S WHY THERE IS SUCH A CONCERN ABOUT THIS NEW TECHNOLOGY.
PEOPLE WANT IT TO BE SURE, I MEAN, THIS, THIS TECHNOLOGY, UM, YOU KNOW, MAY EVENTUALLY FIND ITS WAY INTO EACH AND EVERY ONE OF OUR HOMES, UM, UH, BUT ON A MUCH SMALLER NON-COMMERCIAL SCALE.
BUT WE HAVE TESLA CARS, THEY SOMETIMES EXPLODE.
THAT'S WHAT THE TESLA PEOPLE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
BUT TESLA BATTERIES MAY BE INSTALLED IN OUR HOMES TO, TO CONSERVE ELECTRICITY.
BUT BOB, BOB, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I JUST, I, I'D JUST LIKE TO KNOW, 'CAUSE I'M NOT VERY GOOD AT FIGURING OUT THE DISTANCE ABOUT HOW FAR AWAY DOES THIS GENTLEMAN LIVE?
[01:45:01]
UM, I HAVE TO GIVE YOU THE EXACT DISTANCE.I CAN'T, I DON'T HAVE THE
I, I WAS GOING TO LET THIS, UH, STOP AT EIGHT O'CLOCK SO WE CAN GET TO THE OTHER TWO APPLICANTS WE HAVE, BECAUSE YOU STILL HAVE TO DO DELIBERATIONS.
UH, I JUST WANNA KNOW, HOWEVER, FROM THE BOARD, IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTED TO ASK ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? I'M JUST GONNA MAKE ONE COMMENT
UM, I WORKED, YOU KNOW, FOR THE CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, AND I KNOW HOW THINGS KIND OF WORK THERE, AND I JUST, I JUST, THERE HAD TO HAVE BEEN ANOTHER WAY.
LIKE, I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW WE GOT HERE AT THIS POINT.
I MEAN, THE, THE USE, OBVIOUSLY, THE PLANNING BOARD IS NOT AGAINST THAT USE IN THAT LOCATION, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE NO, UM, PARAMETERS WITHIN THE SPECIAL PERMIT THAT IS SORT OF REGULATING IT.
I JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE THE COMMENT THAT I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW WE GOT HERE
BUT BESIDES THIS, I, THAT'S, I JUST AM MAKING THAT COMMENT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO HAVING THE FACILITY THERE, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ISSUES.
I UNDERSTAND THE GLOBAL ISSUES WITHIN THE TOWN OF HAVING IT THERE.
AND I JUST, UH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF HOW THE PROCESS WORKS IN GREENBURG AND APPLICANT COMES IN AND THEY SUBMIT A SITE PLAN, AND IT'S REVIEWED BY THE, THE DIFFERENT AGENCIES IN THE, UM, IN THE TOWN, AND THEN IT'S REFERRED OUT.
AND I UNDERSTAND LIKE CHECKING THE BOX, YOU KNOW, I HAVE, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAS NO COMMENT, THERE'S NO VARIANCES REQUIRED, YOU KNOW, AND THEN, SO THERE'S A SPECIAL PERMIT, AND THEN WE GO THROUGH THE SPECIAL PERMIT, AND IT, I, I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS, THIS HAS GOTTEN TO THIS POINT, AND NOW THE PROJECT IS GETTING DELAYED, AND I FEEL LIKE THERE COULD HAVE JUST BEEN A BETTER COLLABORATION BETWEEN TOWN THE APPLICANT, CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS THAT WE DIDN'T NEED TO GET TO COMING TO THE Z B A ON AN INTERPRETATION ISSUE, HOLDING UP A PRO, A PRO, EXCUSE ME, A PROJECT THAT'S NOT REALLY THAT OBJECTIONABLE GIVEN IF IT HAD CERTAIN, YOU KNOW, REGULATIONS THAT WERE MORE CURRENT.
CHRISTIE, CHRISTIE, IF I MAY SAY
WE NEVER, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD NEVER SAID THAT WE SUPPORT THIS PROJECT.
WHAT WE SAID VERY SPECIFICALLY WAS THAT WE HAD A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE PROJECT BECAUSE A LOT OF QUESTIONS NEEDED TO BE ANSWERED BECAUSE IT WAS NEW TECHNOLOGY, WHICH IS WHY A CONSULTANT WAS TO BE HIRED, AND WE RECOMMENDED THAT ON DECEMBER 3RD.
THAT IS THE REASON, REASON FOR THAT.
JUST SPECIFICALLY IN TERMS OF PROCESS, YEAH, WE COULD HAVE BEEN A LOT MORE UPFRONT.
WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN A COPY OF, UH, A BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION A LOT EARLIER THAN WE DID THE, THE, THE TOWN BOARD COULD HAVE TAKEN ACTION ON IT.
WE CAN ALSO GO LOOK AT OUR PROCEDURE AND TRY TO BE, AS BOB SAID, IN COMPLIANCE WITH NEW YORK STATE LAW, WHICH WE'RE NOT CURRENTLY IN TERMS OF HOW WE'RE DOING THAT.
MADAM CHAIR, IT'S, YEAH, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, THE MADAM CHAIRMAN MILLER BUCKNER, UM, FROM HODGSON RUS ON BEHALF OF EAGLE ENERGY, IF I MAY, I WORK IN QUITE A FEW COMMUNITIES ACROSS THE STATE, UM, ON THE PERMITING CITING OF RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS.
AND I WOULD SAY IT'S INCREDIBLY COMMON FOR MUNICIPALITIES TO CITE THESE PROJECTS UNDER THE PUBLIC, PUBLIC UTILITY USE GROUP WITHIN THEIR CODE.
SO WHEN WE FIRST CAME BEFORE THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, AND WE WERE HAVING THIS CONVERSATION ABOUT, OKAY, THIS IS A PROJECT THAT'S WELCOME IN THE COMMUNITY, IT HAS GREAT BENEFITS FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, AN IMPORTANT PIECE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE.
IT PROVIDES REAL, REAL PROPERTY TAX BENEFITS THAT ARE GOOD, UM, FOR ALL MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY.
THE QUESTION WAS LOOKING AT THIS CODE, YOU KNOW, HOW THIS IS A NEW TECHNOLOGY THAT NOT ALL COMMUNITIES ARE FAMILIAR WITH, CODES WEREN'T WRITTEN AT THE TIME TO ACCOUNT FOR BATTERY STORAGE PROJECTS.
HOW ARE OTHER PEOPLE HANDLING THIS? AND THE ANSWER IS, OTHER PEOPLE PERMIT THESE PROJECTS UNDER THEIR PUBLIC UTILITY USE GROUP.
THERE'S CASE LAW IN NEW YORK USING THE ROSENBERG ST.
ROSENBERG STANDARD AND FACTORS SHOWING THAT A BEST, A BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM CLEARLY MEETS THE THREE PRONGS TO BE CONSIDERED A A PUBLIC UTILITY.
THE CASE LAW SUPPORTS IT, THE CODE SUPPORTS IT.
COMMON, COMMON BEST PRACTICE ACROSS NEW YORK SUPPORTS IT.
THIS IS A TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE, APPROPRIATE LEGAL WAY FOR YOU, YOU TO PERMIT THIS PROJECT.
THAT WAS HOW THIS, THIS CONVERSATION STARTED, AND THE GENESIS OF, OF THIS WHOLE THING.
MADAM CHAIR, I, I UNDERSTAND YOU, YOU HAVE AN EIGHT O'CLOCK STOP ON THIS, BUT JUST, JUST IF I COULD JUST A COUPLE QUICK POINTS, UH, UH,
[01:50:01]
IN RESPONSE TO MR. BERNSTEIN AND I'LL, I'LL MAKE IT, I HAVE, I THINK I HAVE JUST THREE MINUTES AND I'LL TRY TO GET IT DONE QUICKLY.AND WHILE, YOU KNOW, A B E S SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, HAS AN INVERTER THAT CHANGES VOLTAGE FROM AC TO DC, THE PRIMARY USE OF THAT SYSTEM IS TO STORE ELECTRICITY.
AND MANY MODERATE APPLIANCES SUCH AS COMPUTERS, CELL PHONE, REFRIGERATORS, WASHERS, DRYERS, THEY ALL INCLUDE CONVERTING GRID SUPPLIED ELECTRICITY FROM AC TO DC.
SO UNDER THAT INTERPRETATION TO ANY, ANY APPLIANCE, ANY EQUIPMENT THAT INCIDENTALLY HAS AN INVERTER WOULD BE CONSIDERED A SUBSTATION.
THE OTHER, THE OTHER POINT I JUST WANT TO RAISE WITH RESPECT TO THE, THE CORRALES CASE, WHICH MR. BERNSTEIN MENTIONED.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT IN THAT CASE WAS DISTINGUISHABLE HERE, HERE WE HAVE A LETTER FROM, FROM THE BILLING INSPECTOR.
IN THAT CASE, THERE WAS AN INHERENT IMPLICATION THAT BY THE BILLING INSPECTOR, UH, AND THE PLANNING BOARD RANTING SITE PLAN, THAT, THAT THAT USE WAS DEEMED ACCEPTABLE IN THAT CASE.
AND THE COURT SAID, NO, YOU, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NO LETTER IN THAT, IN THAT INSTANCE.
HERE WE HAVE THE SEPTEMBER 18TH CHECKOFF BOX FROM AND LETTER FROM THAT WAS ACKNOWLEDGED THAT MR. FRYER HAS FILED.
AND ALSO IN THAT CASE, THERE WAS NOT SUCH A LETTER.
UH, AND LASTLY, WITH RESPECT TO YOSHI, AND THEN I, I THINK I SAID THIS EARLIER, MR. BALLS, HE'S 1200 FEET FROM THIS FACILITY, SO HE'S NOT WITHIN THE ZONE OF INTEREST OR SHARES ANY, HAS ANY SPECIAL DAMAGES THAT THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT OR ANY TYPE OF HARM DIFFERENT IN THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.
AND WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AT THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE TOWN BOARD TALKING ABOUT SAFETY ISSUES, UH, FIRE SUPPRESSION.
THESE WERE ALL DISCUSSED AT LENGTH AT THOSE BOARDS.
AND WHILE NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE ZONING BOARD, BECAUSE AGAIN, IT'S ABOUT AN INTERPRETATION, THERE WAS A LOT OF TIME SPENT ON MITIGATION MEASURES AND HOW THESE FACILITIES ARE SAFE, AND THERE WAS TESTIMONY QUITE AMOUNT OF IT, A, AS TO THAT EFFECT.
SO AGAIN, I KNOW IT'S 7 59 ON MY WATCH AND I DIDN'T WANNA GO PAST IT.
SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, MADAM CHAIR, COULD I HAVE 30 SECONDS BEFORE AND STAY WITHIN YOUR EIGHT O'CLOCK? WELL, I, UH, THE PROBLEM I HAVE MR. SIMON AT THIS POINT IS WE HAVE NOT EVEN HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ON THIS ISSUE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE ON IF WE COULD BECAUSE, UM, WE HAVE A LOT OF THINGS TO DISCUSS HERE.
IF WE, IF WE COULD GET THROUGH PERHAPS THE OTHER TWO APPLICANTS AND I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THEY'LL TAKE AND WE CAN GET BACK TO THIS.
I CERTAINLY WOULD LIKE TO DO SO.
SO THE NEXT CASE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS CASE 20.
MADAM CHAIR, I THINK THERE WAS ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT SOUGHT TO SPEAK.
UM, I JUST DIDN'T, WAS THAT AWARE OF THAT? UH, MARIE BOWDEN.
UM, BESIDE THE MIS I USE FIRST NAMES BECAUSE I'M DYSLEXIC AND HAVE DIFFICULTY PRONOUNCING WORDS, UH, ESPECIALLY LAST NAMES.
THIS SEEMS TO COME DOWN TO WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR CORRECTLY CHECKED ONE BOX ON ONE SHEET OF PAPER.
AND THE CHARGE TO THIS COMMITTEE TONIGHT IS TO SAY YES OR NO.
HE WAS CORRECT IN CHECKING THAT ONE BOX.
THAT'S ALL IT WAS, IS ONE BOX AND A CHECK MARK.
EVERYTHING ELSE IS SUPPOSITION.
DID YOU ADEQUATELY AND CORRECTLY DEFINED THE PARAMETERS INVOLVED IN THIS CASE? THE MISINFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT IS ENORMOUS, AND THIS IS NOT THE TIME FOR ME TO REFUTE THAT, BUT I'M PREPARED TO DO THAT AT ANOTHER TIME.
THE ONE QUESTION AS I SEE IT, THAT YOU WERE ASKED TO DETERMINE WAS WHETHER OR NOT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WAS CORRECT TO PUT THAT CHECK MARK IN THAT ONE BOX.
IT IS MY OPINION, AND MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPOKEN TONIGHT THAT HE WAS INCORRECT AND HIS DECISION WAS NOT CORRECT, AND YOUR CHARGE WAS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR MADE A MISTAKE.
AND WE GO ON FROM THERE AT ANOTHER TIME.
WHEN THERE IS MORE TIME, I WILL REFUTE THE MISINFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE ACCIDENT.
IS THERE ANYONE ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE AT THIS POINT? OKAY.
LET'S GO ON TO CASE 21 0 6, 29 CLUB.
[01:55:03]
UH, THERE'S 2105.2105 HAD ASKED FOR, UM, OH, AND ADJOURN RIGHT OUTRIGHT ADJOURNMENTS OKAY.
IS AN APPLICANT FOR, UM, 2029 CLUB WAY PRESENT, Z B A CASE 2106.
AND LISA, BRO? YES, CHRISTOPHER MONY HERE.
I, I'M THE ARCHITECT, UH, FOR CHRIS MOONEY.
UH, I'D LIKE TO PRESENT TONIGHT.
IF YOU WOULD LIKE, GIVE YOUR NAME, PLEASE, SIR.
I, I'D LIKE TO SHARE MY SUBPOENA AT THIS POINT.
UH, THE, UM, CHRIS IS INTERESTED IN, IN CLOSING THIS AREA OF, OF HIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS, THERE'S ALREADY A, A STRUCTURE ABOVE IT.
SO IT'S BELOW, UM, YOU CAN SEE HERE, IT'S ACTUALLY THE GARAGE, UH, THE, THE EXISTING POSTS THAT ARE RIGHT HERE.
AND HE JUST WANTS TO ENCLOSE THIS AREA SO HE COULD CREATE A LITTLE FLAVOR FOR HIS, FOR HIS CHILDREN.
UH, PUSHING OUT THE GARAGE TO THIS POINT STILL ALLOWS HIM TO HAVE A GARAGE.
AND ALSO, WHILE DOING, SO, WE'RE GONNA NEED A, UH, EGRESS WINDOW 'CAUSE IT IS IN THE BASEMENT.
UM, THIS IS THE HOUSE AS IT IS, AND PROPOSED.
SO THIS IS THE AREA WHERE WE ARE PLANNING TO ENCLOSE.
AND, AND THIS IS THE AREA WHERE HE ORIGINALLY HAD THE TWO, TWO GARAGES, TWO GARAGE DOORS.
WE'RE GONNA MAKE IT A SINGLE GARAGE DOOR.
UM, LEMME SHOW YOU PICTURES OF, CAN YOU SEE THIS? YES.
SO THIS IS THE, THE BACK OF THE GARAGE.
A ABOVE HERE IS THE STRUCTURE I WAS SPEAKING ABOUT.
UM, THESE ARE THE EXISTING POSTS THAT ARE THERE THAT WE'D LIKE TO ENCLOSE, AND THIS IS THE SIDE VIEW OF THAT SAME POST, THAT SAME AREA.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S BASICALLY IT.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? DO YOU HAVE, UM, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS, SIR, EITHER YOURSELF OR THE, UH, OR THE, UH, HOMEOWNER? UH, THIS IS CHRISTOPHER MONI, THE HOMEOWNER.
I HAVE, I'VE SPOKEN TO, UH, TWO OF MY NEIGHBORS, UH, ONE ON EITHER SIDE OF US, UM, THAT WE KNOW WELL, AND THEY HAVE NOT, YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T FIND ANY OBJECTION TO IT, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE INTERESTED TO SEE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN WITH IT.
I MEAN, IT'S, AS THE, AS MR. GONZAGA HAS POINTED OUT, IT'S, UM, UH, A VERY LIMITED, UM, ENCLOSURE.
UH, MOSTLY IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY ENCLOSED ON THREE SIDES, AND I THINK ONLY A PARTIAL PIECE OF ONE WALL WOULD BE EVEN, WOULD BE VISIBLE TO ANYONE.
UM, SO IT'S, YEAH, NO ONE, NO ONE ELSE HAS, HAS TALKED TO US ABOUT IT.
IN TERMS OF, UH, ANY NEGATIVE REACTIONS TO IT, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTED TO ADDRESS THIS MATTER? OKAY.
UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING YOU WISH TO ADD, UM, WE WILL TAKE IT UNDER, UH, ADVISEMENT THIS EVENING.
AND THE NEXT CASE IS CASE 2107 TOWARDS CORNER REALTY, 2 58 CHERRYTOWN ROAD.
AND WHO DO WE HAVE ON THIS MATTER PRESENTING THIS EVENING? IF THE APPLICANT CAN PLEASE UNMUTE AND IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
IS THAT, UH, MATT, MATT SAN BRUNO? YES.
UH, IS YOUR AUDIO WORKING? IT LOOKS AS IF IT SHOULD BE.
MATT, DO YOU WANNA TRY NOW? CAN YOU, CAN YOU SPEAK FOR US? UNFORTUNATELY, UM, THE
[02:00:01]
AUDIO'S NOT COMING IN THERE AND LOOKS LIKE HE'S ON MUTE.YEAH, HE JUST ASKED TO UNMUTE THERE.
YEAH, BUT THIS OCCURRED BEFORE, AND I, SO MATT, CAN YOU TRY? SO MATT, THERE IS A CALL IN OPTION.
YOU CAN, UH, TOGGLE DOWN ON YOUR SCREEN TO THE MICROPHONE, AND IF YOU HIT THE ARROW, YOU CAN, UH, SWITCH TO PHONE AUDIO, AND THEN THERE'S A DIAL-IN PROMPT.
UM, THAT'S THE ONLY ADVICE I, I CAN GIVE.
UM, OR YOU CAN USE ONE OF THE PROMPTS THAT COME UP TO, UH, TRY AND ENABLE YOUR, YOUR SOUND THERE.
OR MAYBE YOUR MACHINE'S MUTED.
YEAH, I WAS, CAN YOU STILL NOT HEAR ME? OKAY, NOW WE CAN HEAR YOU.
UH, MY NAME IS MATT ZAMBRENO OF ZAMBRENO ENTERPRISES.
I AM, UH, REPRESENTING POETS CORNER REALTY AND LUCA OIL NORTH AMERICA.
UH, THIS IS REGARDING A SIGN PERMIT VARIANCE AT 2 5 8 TERRYTOWN ROAD IN WHITE PLAINS.
UM, BEFORE I GO ANY FURTHER, I WANTED TO ASK IF, UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WERE ABLE TO OR HAVE THE, UH, SIGN RENDERINGS THAT WE PROVIDED BEFORE THIS MEETING? WE HAVE THEM, YES.
UM, SO I CAN ALSO SCREEN SHARE IF THAT MAKES THINGS EASIER JUST TO DISCUSS.
THAT ALLOWS THE AUDIENCE TO SEE THEM.
SO THE, UH, ONE OF THE TWO VARIANCES THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS REGARDING A, UH, CANOPY SIGNAGE.
UM, THIS IS A RENDERING OF, UH, WHAT IS EXISTING CURRENTLY AND BELOW IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING.
UH, THE LUKE OIL SIGN ITSELF IS 14 SQUARE FEET.
IT HAS A HEIGHT OF LESS THAN TWO FEET AND A LENGTH OF SEVEN FEET, EIGHT INCHES.
THIS SIGN WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE, THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE EAST SIDE, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE.
SO IN THE TOP LEFT CORNER IS WHAT WE HAVE EXISTING AND BENEATH IT IS WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING.
THE OTHER VARIANCE WE ARE APPLYING FOR CAN BE FOUND ON THE LAST PAGE, WHICH IS OUR ID AND PRICE SIGN.
UM, BEFORE I, UH, GO INTO MORE DETAIL WITH THE, UH, THE ID AND PRICE SIGN, I DID WANNA SHOW, UM, WHAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED.
UH, THIS IS BACK IN, UH, AUGUST OF 2020.
UM, SO THIS, THIS IS THE, THE UNIFORM SIGN FOR LUKE OIL, UH, AT GAS STATIONS ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
THIS IS WHAT MY CLIENT, UH, WISHED TO, UH, INSTALL AT THE SITE.
UM, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO FOOTINGS CURRENTLY AT THE SITE THAT WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO SUPPORT THIS SIGN.
UH, HERE IS A RENDERING OF SAID SIGN AT THE PROPERTY.
UM, THIS SIGN WAS JUST UNDER A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.
UM, SO BEFORE WE CAME TO THE ZONING BOARD, WE WANTED TO, UH, MAKE SOME CHANGES AND MAKE IT CLOSER TO THE 20 SQUARE FOOT NUMBER, UM, AS BEST WE COULD.
UH, THIS CURRENT SIGN THAT WE HAVE PROPOSED IS JUST UNDER 54 SQUARE FEET.
UM, AND THIS IS ALSO STILL UNIFORM WITH LUKE OIL'S, UM, BRANDING THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY, ALTHOUGH MUCH SMALLER THAN WHAT THEY TYPICALLY DO.
UM, WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO, YOU KNOW, OPEN UP TO ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE.
SO WHAT, WHAT PROMPTED, UM, THE COMPANY TO SUDDENLY MAKE ALL OF THESE CHANGES TO THIS GAS STATION? AND THE REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS BECAUSE I PASS BY THIS EVERY DAY, EVERY SINGLE DAY.
AND IT IS ONE OF THE BUSIEST GAS STATIONS THAT I HAVE SEEN IN THIS, PROBABLY WITHIN THE ENTIRE AREA.
SO AS FAR AS THE SIGNAGE GOES, UM, WELL, THIS, THIS PROPERTY, UM, THEY DID A UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK REPLACEMENT PROJECT BACK IN 2016.
UH, THEY REPLACED ALL THE TANKS WITH, YOU KNOW, THE LATEST AND GREATEST, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL, ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY, UM, TANKS, AS WELL AS UNDERGROUND PIPING, NEW DISPENSERS.
AND THE SIGNS WERE THE ONLY THING THAT,
[02:05:01]
UH, YOU KNOW, WE COULD NOT PROCEED WITH AT THAT TIME.UM, YOU KNOW, SO WE'RE AT THAT POINT NOW TRYING TO, UH, TO WORK TOWARDS, UH, CONTINUING TO, YOU KNOW, I GUESS BEAUTIFY THE SITE, SO TO SPEAK.
I I DO RECALL THAT THIS WAS THE SITE WHERE THE TANKS WERE LEAKING, AND I THINK FOR ABOUT 18 MONTHS THEY WERE CLEANING UP THE, UH, GROUND UNDER THIS AREA AND ACROSS THE STREET BECAUSE OF THE LEAKAGE.
I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY COULD USE SOME SPRUCING UP SINCE THERE SEEMS TO BE, UH, A LOT GOING ON IN THIS, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND UP IN, IN THIS AREA VERY CLOSE BY THAT IS ENHANCING THE LOOK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I JUST SEE THIS SIGN, HOWEVER, AS SOMETHING THAT SIZE-WISE, IT'S JUST NOT NECESSARY.
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S MY OPINION.
UH, MRS. RA, IS THIS A 24 7 OPERATION, THIS GAS STATION? IS IT OPEN ALL NIGHT, IS WHAT I MEAN? UM, I DO NOT BELIEVE SO, BUT I DO HAVE NUMBERS OF, UH, LUKE OIL ON THE CALL.
IF, UH, IF IT IS, THEY CAN CHIME IN NOW.
IT'S OPEN FAIRLY LATE, BUT NOT ALL NIGHT.
HAS IT
UM, NOW WITH REGARD TO PRICING.
WHERE'S THE SIGNAGE TODAY? WITH PRIOR IT'S, IT'S ON, IF YOU LOOK BACK, I'M SORRY, I'M TAKING UP THE APPLICANT'S CASE RIGHT HERE.
IF YOU LOOK BACK ON THE, UM, WHAT THEY PROVIDED WITH US, I DROVE BY IT AND I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING EITHER.
THERE'S A LITTLE, THERE'S A SIGN THAT SITS IN FRONT OF THE PUMPS.
THE ONLY ISSUE WOULD BE THAT IT'S NOT GIVING A GREAT ADVERTISEMENT OF THE GAS PRICES.
UM, SO LUKE OIL'S NOT ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, ATHLETE, YOU KNOW, PRESENT OR ADVERTISE THEIR PRICES.
YOU KNOW, NOBODY CAN READ THOSE SIGNS, YOU KNOW, DRIVING ON THE ROAD.
THEY HAVE TO BE AT THE STATION TO SEE THOSE, THOSE PRICES.
SO OBVIOUSLY THE NEW SIGNAGE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO ADEQUATELY SEE ALL PRICING.
UM, MY QUESTION IS THAT IF YOU GO WITH THE, UH, NEW AND IMPROVED YARD SIGN, IS THERE A NEED FOR THE LUKE OIL SIGNAGE ON THE CANOPIES, BOTH ON THE WEST AND EAST SIDE? YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, IT'S UH, IT'S REALLY A BRANDING AND UNIFORM, UM, YOU KNOW, SET UP FOR LUKE OIL.
YOU KNOW, ANY GAS STATION, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY ALL GAS STATIONS THAT DO HAVE CANOPIES, THEY DO HAVE CANOPY FASCIA AND CANOPY SIGNAGE.
UM, THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, ANOTHER WAY FOR THEM TO, TO BRAND AND TO ADVERTISE THAT IT IS A LUKE OIL STATION.
UM, I WOULD REFER YOU TO THIS MOBILE GAS STATION ON NORWOOD ROAD AND, UH, AT TERRYTOWN ROAD WE OFTEN, UM, SUGGEST THAT GAS COMPANIES LOOK AT THAT SIGN
UM, 'CAUSE THAT'S TYPICALLY THE, THE SIGN, UM, THAT WE APPROVE FOR GAS STATIONS.
UM, SO THAT WOULD JUST BE MY SUGGESTION AND I'LL MAKE A SIMILAR SUGGESTION ALSO, UH, CHRISTIE, UM, ON NORWOOD ROAD, ALSO AFTER YOU GO OVER 2 87, THAT'S THE ONE I'M TALKING ABOUT.
OH, THE ONE THAT, NO, NOT THE, THE SHELL OR THE MOBILE.
OH, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE MOBILE.
I THINK IT'S A SHELL THAT'S FURTHER DOWN.
AFTER YOU GO OVER TWO 80, YOU PASS THE MOBILE AND, AND GO OVER 2 87.
YEAH, RIGHT ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE PAST THE RED BUILDING.
UM, I KNOW WE RAN THE VARIANCE FOR THAT CANOPY THERE.
UM, AND I THINK THEY HAVE THE PRICE IN THERE.
I DON'T, I CAN'T REMEMBER IF THE SHELL AT, UH, DOBBS FERRY AND HARTSDALE HAS IT AT THAT CORNER, BUT YOU CAN TRY THERE AS WELL.
WHAT, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IN ESSENCE, AS YOU CAN HEAR IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR WE
[02:10:01]
THINK IS A LITTLE EXCESSIVE AND, AND NOT NECESSARILY NEEDED.UH, JUST SOMETHING THAT THE, UH, YOUR COMPANY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE.
I CAN ASK, DO WE KNOW ROUGHLY THE SIZE OF THE SIGNAGE THAT IS AT THE MOBILE GAS STATION? I DID PULL IT UP ON UM, GOOGLE STREET VIEW.
UM, BUT I'M CURIOUS IF, UH, IF WE DO KNOW WHAT THE, UH, WHAT THE SIZE OF THAT THAT SIGN IS.
OUR, OUR SECRETARY COULD PROVIDE YOU WITH THAT INFORMATION BY PULLING THAT APPLICATION HELPED.
I WOULD, I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO FORWARD THAT APPLICATION IN DECISION.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT FOR THE SIGN THAT, THAT THE, THAT THEY NEEDED A VARIANCE.
I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE CANOPY PIECE.
THEY WOULD, I BELIEVE THEY WITHDREW THEIR APPLICATION FOR THE SIGN AND THEY HAD ALREADY HAD A SIGN ON THE CAN.
SO I'M GONNA SAY IT WAS PROBABLY 20 SQUARE FEET
SO I WILL TAKE YOUR WORD REPORT.
AND IT WAS OKAY, IT WAS LARGER THAN 20 SQUARE FEET.
I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT SIZE, BUT IT'S A LOT SMALLER THAN WHAT THEY WERE PROPOSING IN THEIR INITIAL APPLICATION.
SO WE REDUCED IT TO A LEVEL THAT, UM, WE FELT WAS ADEQUATE.
AND I PASS THAT SIGN FAIRLY FREQUENTLY AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM IN IDENTIFYING IT AS A MOBILE GAS STATION.
UM, I ALSO PASS THAT LUKE OIL GAS STATION FAIRLY FREQUENTLY.
NOT EVERY DAY AS THE SHERIFF PERSON DOES, BUT UM, I THINK ANY SIGNAGE THAT YOU PUT THERE AS A YARD SIGN, UM, IS BETTER THAN THE ONE THAT'S THERE NOW.
AS THE PICTURES THAT YOU PRESENTED INDICATE.
UM, WHETHER 54 SQUARE FEET IS NECESSARY, UM, I'M NOT SO SURE OF THAT, BUT, UM, THAT THERE IS A LOT OF BUSINESS GOING THERE TO LOOP OIL ONE BECAUSE OF THEIR PRICING.
SO, UH, PEOPLE WHO GO THERE KNOW WHERE TO GO.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF PEOPLE WOULD BE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET AND SAY, OH, THERE'S A LOOP OIL, UH, LET'S PULL IN THERE.
SO I'M NOT SURE THAT, UH, THE SIZE IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY AND I'M NOT SURE WHETHER OR NOT A NICE LAR A LARGER NICE YARD SIGN WOULD THEN REQUIRE A NEED FOR SIGNAGE ON THE CAN.
AND MADAME CHAIR, JUST AS A POINT A CLARITY IN THE PROPOSAL, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNAGE OBVIOUSLY FOR BOTH SERVICE ENTRANCES AND THE MINI MART.
AND I'M JUST CONCERNED IS THAT PART OF THIS SUBMISSION OR THAT'S JUST THE F Y I FOR SOMETHING THAT'S FUTURISTICALLY COMING TOWARDS US? YEAH, SO I BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, THE WALL SIGNS ON THE BUILDING, UH, DO NOT REQUIRE VARIANCE.
SO, UM, THEY'RE INCLUDED WITH OUR RENDERING.
SO YOU GUYS CAN SEE AN OVERALL, YOU KNOW, VIEW OF WHAT THE, WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE THE SITE TO LOOK LIKE.
UM, BUT WE DO NOT BELIEVE A VARIANCE WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR ALL SIGNS.
SO WE, UH, YOU KNOW, ARE NOT DISCUSSING THEM OR I HAVEN'T BROUGHT THEM UP BECAUSE OF THAT.
AND, AND I WANNA ADD LASTLY THAT THIS LOOP OIL IS NOT JUST A LOOP OIL GAS STATION, IT IS A CASH MACHINE WHEN IT COMES TO LOTTERY.
THERE IS NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
THERE USED TO BE ANOTHER SMALL GAS STATION DOWN RIGHT ACROSS FROM GREENBURG POLICE HEADQUARTERS THAT WAS LIKE, UH, I THINK PEOPLE JUST WENT THERE TO BUY LOTTERY TICKETS AS OPPOSED TO MY GUESS.
AND SINCE THAT HAS BEEN, UM, CLOSED DOWN, EVERYONE IS NOW LUKE OIL.
SO LUKE OIL IS DOING VERY WELL AT THIS SITE ONE WAY OR ANOTHER.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WANNA ADDRESS? THIS APPLICATION.
I'M SURE THERE WAS ONE COMMENT THAT WAS SENT IN VIA EMAIL.
SO THIS IS FROM PATRICIA WEEMS, PRESIDENT FAIRGROUND CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
LUKE GOYLE IS ON THE CORNER OF ROSEMONT BOULEVARD AND TERRYTOWN ROAD, ROUTE ONE 19.
IT'S THE PRESIDENT OF THE FAIRGROUND CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
I WAS NEVER NOTIFIED OF ANY OF THE CHANGES THAT WERE TAKING PLACE AT LUKE OIL.
AS EXAMPLES, THEY SELL LOTTERY TICKETS ALONG WITH CIGARETTES, SNACKS, AND BEVERAGES.
THIS CAUSES AND ADDS TO THE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. THAT INTERSECTION HAS A LOT OF CONGESTION AND ACCIDENTS.
SMALL INCONVENIENT FENDER BENDERS.
IT CAN MAKE A 90 DEGREE RIGHT TURN ONTO ROUTE ONE 19 TERRYTOWN ROAD, WHERE A 135 DEGREE RIGHT TURN ONTO DOBBS FERRY ROAD.
IF YOU MAKE A LEFT TURN, YOU NEED TO TURN INTO THE RIGHT LANE AND IMMEDIATELY TURN LEFT INTO FAIR STREET.
EXITING FROM ROSEMONT BOULEVARD ONTO TERRYTOWN ROAD IN ANY DIRECTION
[02:15:01]
IS A MESS.THE LAST THING NEEDED AT THIS INTERSECTION IS A 54 FOOT SIGN, WHICH IS MEANT TO BE AN EYE CATCHER.
EVERYONE NEEDS TO BE KEEPING THEIR EYES ON THE TRAFFIC.
THIS INTERSECTION IS DANGEROUS FOR PEDESTRIANS AND ALSO TO THE CARS EXITING LUKE OIL GAS STATION.
I'M OPPOSED TO ANY CHANGES WITH THE EXISTING LAW, ESPECIALLY AT THIS LOCATION.
I'D ALSO LIKE TO ADD THAT THIS SIGN WILL NOT BEAUTIFY MY COMMUNITY.
HAVING SAID THAT, UM, WE NEED TO ADJOURN FOR OUR DELIBERATIONS.
UH, PRIOR TO HOWEVER, UH, GOING INTO DELIBERATIONS, WE, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR AN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO DISCUSS A LEGAL MATTER WITH COUNSEL, NOT REGARDING ANY CASE THAT'S ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
WE HAVE A FUTURE CASE THAT, UM, DEMAND SOME ATTENTION FROM THE BOARD AS TO WHAT, UH, WE MAY HAVE TO DO OR NEED TO DO.
AND, UH, I WANNA TAKE THAT UP FIRST BEFORE WE DO OUR DELIBERATION.
SO, UH, HAVING SAID THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF YOU KNOW WHAT EXECUTIVE MEETING MEANS, BUT IT MEANS THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT ALLOWED, UH, DURING THAT EXECUTIVE SESSION WHEN WE SPEAK TO THE COUNCIL.
UM, YOU NEED A MOTION? I'M JUST ASKING.
WHAT I, WHAT I WAS GONNA SUGGEST IS I WILL, UM, YOU CAN MAKE THE MOTION AND I WILL PUT, UM, ALL THE PARTICIPANTS THAT ARE NOT THE ZONING BOARD INTO THE WAITING ROOM.
SO PLEASE BE PATIENT IN THE WAITING ROOM AND, UM, YOU'LL BE BROUGHT BACK IN WHEN THE EXEC EXECUTIVE SESSION CONCLUDES.
UM, SO GOING BACK, UH, TO OUR AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING, UH, CASE 2101 IS THE FIRST CASE THAT WE WERE TO HEAR TONIGHT.
HOWEVER, 1 75 HOLLAND ROAD HAS REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW.
SO AS, IS THERE ANY OPPOSITION FROM THE BOARD TO THEM BEING PERMITTED TO WITHDRAW? NO OPPOSITION.
SO WE WILL, WE WILL VOTE ON THAT WHEN WE GO BACK ON THE RECORD, EXCUSE ME.
AND CASE 21 0 2 20 O ARMY ROAD IS THE NEXT CASE.
THAT IS THE CASE WHERE THERE'S A DRIVEWAY ON ONE SIDE AND A DRIVEWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE.
SO WHAT I WAS SAYING WAS THAT I, UH, IN OUR LAST MEETING I HAD, UM, SAID THAT I WAS OPPOSED TO THE DRIVEWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE BECAUSE IT WAS, UM, DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE CROSSWALK ON HENRY STREET, WHICH IS WHERE ALL OF THE KIDS COME FROM THE STEELY PLACE SCHOOL.
THEY CROSS THE STREET RIGHT INTO HER DRIVEWAY AND THEN, YOU KNOW, GO ON THEIR WAY.
UM, MY OPPOSITION WAS THAT THE CROSSWALK LED INTO A DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS A PEDESTRIAN, UH, TRAFFIC KIND OF CONFLICT THERE.
AND GIVEN THAT THE TOWN IS, UM, VERY EAGER TO BUILD SIDEWALKS, I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO ACTUALLY JUST HAVE A SIDEWALK EXTENSION THERE INSTEAD OF A DRIVEWAY.
UM, HOWEVER, I DO SORT OF SEE THAT THAT DRIVEWAY PROVIDES A LARGER AREA FOR THE KIDS TO ACTUALLY STAND AND NOT BE ALL CRAMPED ON THE LITTLE SIDEWALK.
SO I, YOU KNOW, I, IF, IF I'M NOT THAT, UM, OPPOSED TO HER REDUCING THE SIZE OF IT AND LEAVING THE DRIVEWAY THERE, GIVEN THAT IT IS A RESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY, NOT AN ACTIVE, UM, DRIVEWAY.
UM, SO THAT'S JUST WHERE I AM.
DON'T EVERYONE SPEAK AT ONCE, PLEASE.
YEAH, WELL I ALSO FELT THAT IT WAS A, UH, A, A VERY GOOD FOLLOW UP PRESENTATION.
UM, I LIKE THE FACT THAT, UM, THERE'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE VARIANCE BY FOUR FEET.
UM, AND I, I THINK IT'S A, WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER A WIN-WIN SITUATION.
MR. BLAND, YOU'RE, YOU'RE FREE TO SPEAK NOW.
SO YOUR THOUGHTS? UM, AGAIN, UH, I BELIEVE THE REVISION THAT CAME BACK, I WOULD CONCUR WITH THE THOUGHTS THAT WERE OUT AT THE MOMENT.
UM, GIVEN THE NATURE OF THAT COMMUNITY AND THIS, THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY, IF WE ARE REDUCING AS MUCH AS SHE'S INDICATING THAT SHE IS AT THIS POINT, UM, IT'S DEFINITELY LESS OF A VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED BEFORE.
SO I'M NOT NECESSARILY OPPOSED TO, IT LOOKS LIKE LES IS GONNA SAY SOMETHING.
DOES ANYBODY, UH, HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THREE CARS BACKING ONTO OLD ARMY ROAD FROM ONE HOUSE OR PULL, YOU KNOW, BACKING ON OR GOING IN FORWARD AND BACKING OUT INTO THE CURVY ROAD?
[02:20:01]
UM, WHEN SHE BOUGHT THE HOUSE WITH CIRCULAR AND THERE WAS ROOM, I GUESS WITH TWO CARS, OKAY, NOW SHE WANTS THREE CARS, BUT MAYBE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT SHE SAID.THAT YOU'RE THE ABSOLUTE BEST.
I, ANYWAY, I WAS WONDERING IF ANYBODY HAS A CONCERN FOR SAFETY AND WHEN I'M NOT SO CONVINCED THAT THE NECESSITY IS THERE.
IT'S NICE TO HAVE THREE CARS IN THE PARK, YOU KNOW, IN THE, IN DRIVEWAYS, BUT IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT THAT THERE BE SAFETY IN BACKING ON TO OLD ARMY ROAD, WHICH IS A, HE NOT HEAVILY TRAVELED.
CERTAINLY A RATHER DANGEROUS, MAYBE THAT'S STRONG, NOT VERY, YOU KNOW, CAREFULLY DRAWN ROAD.
I'M JUST SHARING MY OPINION, BUT I CAN BE PERSUADED OTHERWISE.
I, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE PRECEDENTS THAT IT SETS FOR THE TOWN.
WE HAVE SO MANY PEOPLE NOW WHO WANNA PARK ON THE STREETS IN THE WINTERTIME 'CAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ROOM, UM, IN THEIR DRIVEWAYS FOR ALL THEIR CARS AND PEOPLE PARKING ON THEIR LAWNS.
IS EVERYBODY GONNA WANT TO DRIVEWAYS? AND WHAT KIND OF PARAMETERS DO WE PUT IN THAT ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU KNOW, WE GET A LOT OF REQUESTS FOR TWO DRIVEWAYS MOVING FORWARD.
I'M NOT TOTALLY OPPOSED, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT THE RAMIFICATIONS MOVING FORWARD.
AND I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM YOU GUYS WHO HAVE A LOT MORE EXPERIENCE WITH THIS THAN ME.
LIKE DOES THAT OFTEN HAPPEN? WILL THAT HAPPEN? LIKE WHEN WE LOOK TOWARDS THE FUTURE? THIS IS THE FIRST, UM, I HAD THAT SAME SIMILAR CONCERN YOU JUST EXPRESSED.
'CAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST CASE THAT I REMEMBER WHERE WE GET A REQUEST FOR TWO DRIVEWAYS.
UM, EVE, I THINK THE ONLY, THE ONLY, UM, CASE THAT I THINK, AND IT'S NOT EVEN SIMILAR, WAS BACK IN, UM, UH, EVANDALE WHERE THE COUPLE CAME UP FROM NEW YORK CITY AND KNOCKED THE HOUSE DOWN AND THEY FLIPPED THE DRIVE.
THEY FLIPPED THE DRIVEWAY FROM ONE SIDE TO THE OTHER.
AND UM, I BELIEVE WE TURNED THAT DOWN.
YOU KNOW, THEY WERE BUILDING A NEW A MCMANSION.
THEY WERE A NEW CONSTRUCTION, BUT THIS IS TWO DRIVEWAYS AND I'VE NEVER SEEN THAT BEFORE.
SO I, I AGREE WITH YOU WITH THAT.
THE PRECEDENT THAT IT'S GONNA SET IN THE TOWN.
AND JUST LIKE, UM, WITH THE F A R CASES, UH, WE HAD A PROLIFERATION OF THOSE WITH THE MCMANSIONS.
I THINK WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA OPEN, UH, IT'S, IT'S GONNA BE A SIMILAR SITUATION WITH THESE TWO DRIVEWAYS.
SO I, I, I AGREE WITH THAT CONCERN, BUT THEN I, I BELIEVE I MISSPOKE.
'CAUSE I THOUGHT IN THE LAST MEETING SHE HAD SAID THAT SHE WAS GOING TO CLOSE THE OTHER DRIVEWAY UP AND NO LONGER USE IT.
NO, SHE'S NOT GONNA CLOSE THE NORTH DRIVEWAY THAT'S ATTACHED TO HER GARAGE.
SHE CAN'T THAT'S WHAT I JUST SAW THE PICTURE.
I JUST SAW THE PICTURE AND I COULDN'T WAIT A MINUTE.
NOW, A GARAGE THERE? NO, THE GARAGE IS THERE.
SHE'S REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE, THE GARAGE GIVES HER TWO PARKING SPACES, ACTUALLY GIVES HER MORE PARKING SPACES.
BUT WHAT SHE, BUT SHE'S STILL GONNA, SHE'S STILL GONNA, SHE DOING AT THE LAST MEETING, I THOUGHT SHE WAS GONNA CLOSE UP THE SOUTH DRIVEWAY, WHICH NOW SHE'S GONNA LEAVE OPEN.
BUT NOW SHE'S NOW, HER PROPOSAL IS TO LEAVE IT OPEN AND MAKE IT SMALLER.
I I DON'T RECALL HER SAYING SHE WAS GONNA CLOSE IT UP.
SHE JUST WANT, THAT WAS WHAT I WANTED
YEAH, WELL I I, 'CAUSE I DIDN'T LIKE THE CROSSWALK GOING RIGHT INTO HER DRIVEWAY.
YEAH, I I TOTALLY AGREED WITH YOU IN THAT MEETING.
AND THEN I THOUGHT ABOUT IT AND SAID, WOW, IT'S PROBABLY SAFER, LIKE AS YOU STATED EARLIER.
BUT MY, MY CONCERN IS, I MEAN, I HAVE A NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR WHO PARKS HIS CAR ON THE GRASS AND HE PUT DOWN PAVERS IN THE GRASS SO IT'S NOT A DRIVEWAY.
IF ALL OF A SUDDEN WE START HAVING TWO DRIVEWAYS, IS EVERYBODY GONNA WANT AN ADDITIONAL PAVED AREA, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED, YOU KNOW, IN THE TOWN GOING TO THE STREET.
AND THAT, THAT'S KIND OF MY CONCERN.
THERE, THERE WAS SOME THINGS SAID ON THE RECORD THAT, AND I'M, I'M, I'M SORRY, I'M JUST JUMPING IN AT THIS POINT.
THERE WAS SOME THINGS SAID ON THE RECORD TONIGHT THAT DISTURBED ME SO MUCH THAT I'M THINKING OF FUTURE CASES THAT PEOPLE ARE GONNA PICK THOSE, THOSE, THOSE SOUNDS OFF THE RECORD AND, AND USE THEM.
ONE OF THEM WAS, UH, SOMETHING ABOUT IT'S TYPICAL FOR, YOU KNOW, HOUSES WITH FOUR BEDROOMS TO HAVE THREE CARS.
UM, SHE SAID THAT SHE ONLY HAS, YOU KNOW, SHE, SHE, THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT SHE WAS HOPING TO HAVE MAYBE ANO A, A CHILD, SOMEONE ELSE WHO WOULD USE THE DRIVEWAY OR THERE WOULD I I'M HOPING FOR THREE CARS.
I MEAN, IT WAS THINGS LIKE THAT.
WE HAVE BEEN VERY GENEROUS WITH SITUATIONS WHERE WE ARE NOT NECESSARILY SOLD ON THEM, BUT THE NEEDS OF THE HOMEOWNER
[02:25:01]
REALLY DICTATE US TO BIN, YOU KNOW, AND SAY, OKAY, WE'RE GOING TO MAKE AN ACCOMMODATION BECAUSE WHAT YOUR NEEDS ARE REALLY RE YOU KNOW, SOMEWHAT COMPEL US TO SAY, LET'S GIVE YOU THE VARIANCE THAT DOESN'T APPLY TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC TO GET THE VARIANCE.BUT SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY WERE PRESENTING TONIGHT REALLY DISTURBED ME SAID, AND SHE, I WROTE DOWN NOT, NOT NEED IT NOW, SOMETHING ABOUT IN THIS AREA, ALL THE RESIDENTS CAN USE MORE PARKING.
SO SHE'S REALLY SELLING SOMETHING THAT'S SORT OF WHOLESALE THAT, THAT DISTURBED ME A BIT.
AND I, I APPRECIATE THE CROSSING GUARD USING THE, THE SPACE, BUT THE CROSSING GUARD CAN ALSO PARK ON THE SIDE AND STILL DO HER JOB.
UM, AND SHE, SHE'S, SHE, UH, NOT ONLY TONIGHT, BUT IN THE, IN THE PAST ALSO, SHE WAS KEPT SAYING THAT THE REPAIRMAN AND OTHER PEOPLE USE IT AND IT'S A CONVENIENT SPOT AND ALL OF THAT.
AND MAYBE THAT'S WHAT PEOPLE HAD SAID.
BUT THAT'S NOT A REASON FOR HER NOW TO HAVE TO HAVE THESE THREE PARKING SPACES.
UH, I I'M JUST BEING PARTICULAR TO THIS, YOU KNOW, TO, TO WHAT WE HAVE.
THAT'S ALL I, THAT'S ALL I'M GONNA SAY.
AND THE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY DIDN'T GIVE HER THREE PARKING SPACES.
SO, BUT SHE, BUT IT WAS, BUT SHE COULDN'T, SHE COULDN'T MANEUVER.
BUT SHE BOUGHT THE HOUSE WITH THE TWO CURB CUTS ALREADY AND A CIRCULAR DRIVE.
AND THEN SHE TOOK OUT THE CENTER PART AROUND THE HOUSE AND HAD TWO DRIVEWAYS.
THE ORIGINAL HOUSE BUILT, JUST HAD THE NORTH DRIVEWAY BY THE GARAGE.
IT DID NOT HAVE THE SOUTH DRIVEWAY.
AND THEN THE PREVIOUS OWNER HAD PUT IN THE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY.
I DON'T KNOW WHY IT WASN'T CAUGHT WHEN THEY SOLD THE HOUSE, BUT IT WASN'T, AND THEN SHE TOOK THAT OUT AND PUT IN THE TWO DRIVEWAYS.
SO I, I, I JUST, I, I DON'T, SHE'S NOT USING IT NOW HERSELF.
SO I DON'T SEE A SPECIAL NEED FOR HER PERSONALLY USING THE DRIVEWAY EVE AS YOU HAD SAID.
UM, AND, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK SHE'S THINKING PROBABLY POTENTIALLY MORE OF RESALE VALUE.
UM, AND THEN AGAIN, LIKE, I DON'T KNOW, I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH, YOU KNOW, TWO DRIVEWAYS ALL, ALL OVER THE PLACE.
YOU KNOW, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE DRIVEWAY SPACE ALSO, YOU KNOW, MOST, MOST PEOPLE DO.
SO, UM, WITH THE, WITH THE, WITH THE, UM, THE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY, RIGHT? IF THAT COULD HOLD THREE CARS AND THE ONE BY THE GARAGE WAS EXISTING AND THAT CAN HOLD WHAT ONE OR TWO CARS KE KEEP IN MIND THE, THE TOWN ALSO ALLOWS YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN PUT A CAR IN THE GARAGE AND HAVE A CAR OR TWO CARS IN THE DRIVEWAY.
THEY ALSO CONSIDER THE GARAGE PARKING, YOU KNOW, SO FIVE, SO SHE COULD HAVE FIVE OR SIX THERE
OR AT LEAST THEN, YOU KNOW, THE THREE THAT SHE'S CONCERNED WITH.
SO YOU PUT TWO IN THE CIR WELL, THE CIRCULAR'S GONE NOW, BUT YOU KNOW, SHE COULD ADD TWO IN THE CIRCLE AND ONE IN THE DRIVEWAY OR TWO? NO, SHE CAN PUT TWO IN THE DRIVEWAY IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE AND PUT ANOTHER CAR IN THE DRIVE IN THE GARAGE.
IF SHE WAS WORRIED, IF SHE WAS WORRIED ABOUT BACKING OUT ONTO OLD ARMY, BUT I GUESS SHE ALREADY TOOK OUT THE, UM, CIRCULAR RIGHT.
SOUNDS LIKE SHE DID THAT A LONG TIME AGO.
YEAH, SHE'S BEEN THERE A WHILE.
I THINK, DIDN'T SHE ORIGINALLY GET A LETTER FROM THE TOWN LIKE A FEW YEARS AGO? I BELIEVE SO, YEAH.
THAT SHE HAD, I DON'T HAVE MY FILE IN FRONT OF ME, SO, UH, YEAH, WHAT DID THE LETTER SAY? LIKE, SHE DID THE WORK WITHOUT A PERMIT AND LIKE, OH, SHE HAD TO GO IN AND, YOU KNOW, AND SHE PUT IT OFF FOR A FEW YEARS AND NOW SHE'S KIND OF AT THIS POSITION.
YEAH, SHE TOOK, YEAH, SHE TOOK IT OUT.
SHE DID WHAT SHE WANTED TO DO AND THEN SHE KIND OF, YOU KNOW, SO, YOU KNOW, SHE'S PROBABLY NOT AWARE OF EVERYTHING.
YOU KNOW, SHE PROBABLY THOUGHT THAT SHE COULD DO THAT BECAUSE THERE ALREADY WERE THINGS, TWO THINGS ON THE STREET.
I COULD GO EITHER WAY ON THIS ONE, BUT, UM, YEAH, I FELT THE SAME WAY, BUT NOW I'M NOT HEARING THAT MUCH.
THAT'S CONVINCING ME TO GRANT THE SOUTH.
SO WHAT WOULD BE, I MEAN, WHY CAN'T SHE PUT BACK IN THE CIRCULAR THEN? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, OH, SHE'S, SHE'S NOT GONNA DO, THAT'S NOT DO THAT LIKE BEAUTIFUL STONE WORK AND OH, OKAY.
YEAH, SHE REALLY MADE THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE
[02:30:01]
VERY NICE.IT SOUND LIKE YOU'LL BE SAFER THOUGH.
UH, IF LES IS TELLING US, UH, HOW OLD ARMY IS BUSY AND HAVEN'T BEEN ON THERE, IT SOUND LIKE YOU WOULD'VE BEEN SAFER, BUT YES.
THE CROSS, THE CROSSING GUARD IS GONNA KEEP THE KIDS SAFE.
THEY CAN STAND, THEY CAN STAND IN THE OTHER DRIVEWAY.
THE CARS DON'T COME OUT TO THE STREET.
NO, BUT WELL, IT LITERALLY SPILLS INTO HER DRIVEWAY.
CHRISTY, CHRISTY LIFE IS NOT ALL ROSES.
THEY'RE GONNA STAND ON THE LAWN.
I HAVE MY, MY NEIGHBORS ARE GROWN UP NOW AND THEY WERE LITTLE AND WALKED THEIR DOG, THEY WALKED THEIR DOG ON THE LAWN.
THOSE KIDS ARE GONNA STAND ON THEIR LAWN WHEREVER THEY FIND, WHEREVER THEY WANT.
THEY'LL PROBABLY BE SITTING ON THE STONE WALL TO BE HONEST.
OKAY, SO WHERE ARE WE? MM, LET'S TAKE A STRAW VOTE.
I'M NOT, I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE NOR THE NORTH, BUT NOT THE SOUTH.
OKAY, WELL I'M DON'T WANT THE, THE TWO, THE THREE CARS.
I, I THOUGHT IT WAS HAVING TWO CARS WAS SUFFICIENT.
WE CAN'T GRANT ONE AND DENY THE OTHER.
SO I WOULD GRANT THE NORTH AND DENY THE SOUTH.
CAN YOU SAY WHAT THE ONE BY THE, THE ONE BY THE DRIVEWAY IS THE NORTH? YEAH.
ONE BY THE, I MEAN THE GARAGE.
THE GARAGE, YEAH, THAT'S THE NORTH.
YEAH, I WOULD DEFINITELY GRANT THE NORTH.
YEAH, IT DOES MEAN IT'S ONLY A FEW FEET ANYWAY.
SO WILLIAM, AGAIN, I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING ONE.
SO IF THE NORTH IS WHAT WE'RE IN FAVOR OF, I'M IN FAVOR OF THE NORTH.
SO THAT SEEMS TO BE WHERE WE ARE.
THAT I, ANTHONY, IS THAT ACCURATE? UH, WE JUST GOT UP, UP
YEAH, I THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS SOME ERROR AND WE CORRECTED IT, BUT I DON'T SEE WHERE WE CORRECTED IT.
YEAH, BUT HER, HER SUBMISSION TONIGHT, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I HAVE.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE FILE IS, BUT WHATEVER THE SUBMISSION SUBMITTED ON, UH, MARCH 10TH ON PAGE SEVEN HAS THE NORTH SIDE AT 7.5.
THE ORIGINAL, THE ORIGINAL ERROR ING WITH THE LETTER OF DENIAL.
I THINK IT WAS WITH THE POSTING IN THE NEWSPAPER, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
I DON'T HAVE MY, I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE FILE IS.
SO DO I FEBRUARY ON PAGE, ON PAGE SEVEN, ON MARCH 10TH ON PAGE SEVEN OF THE ONE THAT WE RECEIVED TODAY.
MARCH, I MEAN, I'M SORRY, MARCH 10TH.
ON PAGE SEVEN IT SAYS 7.75 AND YES.
AND THE AGENDA, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE LEGAL NOTICE, BUT THE AGENDA SAYS SEVEN 8.85.
ALRIGHT, I'M, I DON'T HAVE MY FILE.
I DON'T HAVE, I DON'T HAVE THE DENY YEAH, I DON'T HAVE THE DENY LETTER.
SEE I DON'T HAVE THAT 'CAUSE I DON'T HAVE, I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T BELIEVE.
YEAH, THE ONLY ONE I HAVE IS THE ONE THAT WAS RECEIVED FEBRUARY 10TH, 2021.
UH, IT COULD, IT CORRESPONDED TO THE AGENDA.
WHAT PAGE IS THAT? IT'S JUST THIS THING THAT WE GOT HERE.
NO, BUT IF YOU GO TO SET PAGE SEVEN, IT SAYS 7.75.
THAT'S, SHE SUBMITTED THAT, SO WE'LL TELL HER WHAT IT DID THEN.
I'M TRYING TO SEE A DATE ON IT.
WE, WE DID ANOTHER DENIAL, NOT BECAUSE OF THE NUMBERS SO MUCH AS THAT IT WAS, I REVERSED IT.
THE NORTH AND SOUTH WAS WOULD WERE CORRECT.
[02:35:03]
SO ISN'T THAT WHAT WAS RECEIVED FEBRUARY 10TH? YES.ANTHONY, WHAT DO YOU HAVE, EVE? YES, I'M GOING TO EAT MY DINNER FROM NOW ON BEFORE WE COME TO THE MEETING.
YOU CAN EAT IT DURING THE DELIBERATIONS IF THAT MAKES YOU FEEL BETTER.
GAR COULD JUST SHARE THE SITE PLAN.
IT'LL SHOW THE NORTH ARROW AND IT'LL CLEAR UP THE, WHICH IS WHAT? WHERE'S GARRETT? HE'S LOOKING FOR IT.
DOES ANYONE HAVE THE UH, THE, IF THEY COULD JUST SHARE THE SCREEN.
WHY DON'T WE CHECK BACK? I'LL, I'LL CONTINUE TO LOOK THROUGH THE FILE.
I'LL, I'LL GET, I'LL VERIFY THAT NUMBER.
UM, WHO WANTS TO WRITE THIS UP?
WELL, HOW DO WE DO THE DENIAL PART? IT WOULD BE THAT THE, UM, IT ALL ONE OR NOT TO WRITE TWO SEPARATES.
I BELIEVE YOU CAN DO IT ON THE SAME ONE, CORRECT.
WE, WE WOULD, UM, DENIED EXCEPT FOUR.
YOU GRANT AND THEN, BUT DENY THE, UH, BUT DENY THE REQUEST TO ON THE SOUTH.
OH, IN THE BEGINNING YOU JUST SAY BE GRANTED BUT DENY JUST EXPLAIN IT.
YEAH, BECAUSE YOU'RE ONLY YOU.
THE GRANTING IS FOCUSED ON WHAT WE HAVE GRANTED.
AND THEN IT IS SIMPLY A DENIAL, WHICH IS VERY SHORT WITH REGARD TO THE, UM, APPLICANT'S REQUESTS TO REDUCE, YOU KNOW, UM, THE SETBACK ON THE SOUTH SIDE WITH THE, THE DRIVEWAY SETBACK ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
ALRIGHT, SO I CAN FIDDLE WITH THE LANGUAGE IN THE VEHICLE? YEAH.
OR YEAH, BECAUSE THEY'RE ASKING TO LEGALIZE THE DRIVEWAY AS REFERENCE.
SO OUR POET LAUREATE WILL, WILL CLEAN IT UP FOR US.
I DON'T HAVE TO SAY WHY WE'RE DENYING IT OR WE I DO.
UH, 'CAUSE WHEN WE VARY STUFF, WE NEED TO, TO SUPPORT WHY WE'RE VARYING IT, BUT IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE, SO, OKAY.
WHEN, WHEN, UM, YOU ASKED FOR THE VOTE SINCE I WAS WILLING TO VOTE, UM, FOR HER CURRENT APPLICATION, YES.
WHICH MEANT THAT I WAS A GOING ALONG WITH THE NORTH DRIVEWAY AS WELL.
SO WHEN THE TIME COMES TO SAY YAY OR NAY, UM, YOU, YOU WOULD SAY THAT, THAT YOU, UM, DO NOT, OBVIOUSLY YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE VOTING NAYYY WITH REGARD TO THE APPLICANT, APPLICANT, UH, BEING DENIED THE, UM, YOU, YOU, IT'S A, IT'S, YEAH, YOU ARE FUMBLING FOR WORDS, JUST THE WAY I'M TRYING.
SO, SO IT READS WELL HERE, BUT YOU'RE, YOU'RE VOTING YES FOR THE APPLICANT AND YES.
[02:40:01]
YOU NO, HE'S NOT VOTING.BECAUSE OUR VOTE HAS NO MEANING.
WE'RE GONNA SAY NO FOR THE, WE'RE GONNA SAY WE DENYING IT.
SO WE'RE GONNA SAY NO FOR THE SECOND VARIANCE.
AND LOU'S GOTTA GOTTA SAY YES.
WHY DON'T I JUST ABSTAIN,
WELL, YOU COULD JUST AGREE WITH, WITH THE REST OF THE VOTE.
WELL, YOU ALREADY HAVE THE VOTES.
SO WHAT THE DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE LESSENS THE COMPLICATION? IT DOES MAKE A DIFFERENCE.
THE TWO, UM, PUT ME IN THE WAITING ROOM OR SOMETHING.
WHEN, WHEN, WHEN I, WHEN I CALL THE VOTE, I CAN CALL THE VOTE FOR THE SOUTH SIDE.
ALL IN FAVOR? AND EVERYONE CAN SAY, UM, THE NORTH SIDE.
AND THEN AS TO THE SOUTH SIDE, THE, THE VARIANCE SOUGHT BY THE, BY THE, UH, HOMEOWNER, EVERYONE WILL SAY NAYYY AND THEN YOU'LL SAY, YES, YOU GOT IT.
ED, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOUR AUDIO'S OKAY.
YOU'RE MUTED IN CASE YOU NEED TO SPEAK.
WE HAVE NOT OBVIOUSLY GOTTEN TO HEAR EVERYTHING YET.
WE HAVEN'T HAD, EVERYONE WAS, THERE WAS A LOT OF RUSHING TONIGHT WITH PEOPLE TRYING TO GET THINGS ON THE RECORD, WHICH IS FINE.
AND WE'LL BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT THE RECORD SHOWS, BUT WE DO HAVE TO HEAR FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
SO ARE THERE ANYTHING, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE NEED TO, UM, RUMINATE ABOUT, I GUESS THAT WE STILL WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON AT THIS TIME? LET, LET ME SU LET ME SUGGEST YOU DO THE SAME THING YOU DID LAST TIME, WHICH IS GIVE YOURSELVES FIVE DAYS A WEEK, WHATEVER YOU, IT IS YOU WANT TO THINK ABOUT.
ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO HEAR? OKAY? WHEN WOULD CAROL, WHEN WOULD WE HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT? ALRIGHT, YOU'RE MUTED.
SO, I MEAN, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MUCH HERE TO DIGEST THAT, UM, DOES THAT GIVE US ENOUGH TIME? BECAUSE FIVE DAYS WE'RE NOT GONNA HAVE THE TRANSCRIPT.
YEAH, I'M GONNA NEED THE TRA I'M GONNA NEED THE TRANSCRIPT TO GO THROUGH IT.
RIGHT? UM, AND AT LEAST HAVE IT FOR A FEW DAYS.
SO TIME-WISE, DOES THAT, HOW DOES THAT IMPACT US? GETTING IT BACK ON THE AGENDA AND ALSO GETTING THE LETTER OUT AND GIVING THEM TIME TO RESPOND IN TIME SO THAT WE HAVE THEIR RESPONSE BEFORE IT GOES ON.
COULD WE GET ANY QUESTIONS WE HAVE IN 10 DAYS, WHICH GIVES US THREE DAYS TO GO THROUGH THE AGENDA AND THEN GET IT OUT TO THEM.
IS THAT ENOUGH TIME BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING? AND THEN CAROL, HOW LONG WOULD CAROL WOULD IT TAKE TO GET IT OUT ONCE WE SEND IT? I'M WAITING FOR HER TO TELL US, BUT SHE'S KIND OF MUTED.
BUT TO ANSWER THE BOARD'S QUESTION, I'M SORRY.
YOU, YOU YOU WANT TO KNOW, UM,
[02:45:02]
WHAT, WHEN WOULD BE THE CUTOFF DATE TO, UM, GET RESPONSES BY FOR THE NEXT MEETING AND, AND, AND WHEN YOU AN ANTICIPATE THE TRANSCRIPT IN, WELL, SHE SAID ABOUT SEVEN DAYS FOR THE TRANSCRIPT.AND THEN THE QUESTION IS GIVING US A FEW DAYS AND THEN GIVING THE APPLICANT TIME.
THEN WE HAVE TO GET THE LETTER OUT AND HAVE THEM RESPOND, AND THEN WE HAVE TO HAVE TIME, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER TO SEE WHAT THEIR RESPONSE IS, AT LEAST PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
SO IT'S, WE ARE CONSUMING A LOT OF TIME.
IS THIS WORKABLE? WELL, IF THE, UH, TODAY'S THE 18TH, IF THE TRANSCRIPT COMES IN THE 25TH, UM, WOULD IT BE REASONABLE FOR THE Z B A TO FORMULATE QUESTIONS TODAY BY THE MONDAY THE 29TH? UM, KEEP IN MIND THAT'S EASTER.
ALRIGHT, SO WE GET THE, NORMALLY WE GET THE TRANS TRANSCRIPT BY WEDNESDAY, AND THEN I EMAIL IT OUT TO EVERYBODY.
THE NEXT MEETING'S ON THE 15TH OF APRIL, AND, UM, IT'S 28 DAYS FROM TODAY.
H HOW MUCH TIME DID IT TAKE US TO GET THE LETTER OUT BEFORE AND, AND GET A RESPONSE BACK? WELL, IT TOOK A COUPLE OF DAYS TO GET OUT, BUT, UH, AFTER THE DEADLINE, UM, AND THEN WE, UH, THEY SENT THEIR RE WE, I DON'T REMEMBER GARRETT.
HOW MANY DAYS DID WE GIVE THEM TO RESPOND? UM, THEY HAD TO DO IT BY THE 10TH, BY MARCH 10TH, WHICH WAS, UM, I THINK YOU'D WANNA GIVE IT, YOU KNOW, A WEEK MINIMUM ONE.
AND RESPONDENTS, WELL, LET'S, LET'S GO BACKWARDS.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT, UH, 10 DAYS, THAT WOULD BE SEVEN, EIGHT, IT WOULD BE APRIL 5TH WOULD BE THEIR RESPONSE.
IF YOU WANNA GO, YOU KNOW, SEVEN DAYS, THAT WOULD BE APRIL 8TH.
WE WOULD GET ALL ALL THE RESPONSES IN BY APRIL 8TH.
AND YOU'LL HAVE IT IN YOUR HANDS, PRESUMABLY ON THE NINTH.
AND THAT'LL GIVE YOU ALMOST A WEEK BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING.
I THINK THAT'S BETTER THAN LAST MONTH.
I DIDN'T THINK THEY HAD ENOUGH TIME TO LOOK THROUGH ALL THAT MATERIAL.
SO THE EIGHTH, UM, SO IF YOUR DEADLINE FOR THE APPLICANT'S OR THE APPELLANTS IS THE EIGHTH, UH, WE WOULD HAVE TO GET THE LETTER OUT BY THE, UM, WELL YOU, TO BE FAIR, TO GIVE THEM, UH, A WEEK WOULD BE THE FIRST, AND YOU'RE SAYING WE ARE GOING TO GET THE, UM, WE'RE GOING TO GET THE TRANSCRIPT BY WHEN THE 24TH, CORRECT? WELL, THAT'S PLENTY OF TIME, IF ANY, YOU COULD EVEN GIVE THEM MORE TIME, IT SEEMS TO ME.
IF WE GET THE LETTER OUT BY THE 26TH, THAT GIVES THEM PLENTY OF TIME.
WELL, UNTIL THE FIRST, OR, YEAH.
THAT, THAT SHOULD GIVE 'EM A COUPLE OF WEEKS.
IF WE GET THE LETTER OUT BY THE 26TH AND WE'RE GETTING THE TRANSCRIPT ON THE 24TH, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? TWO DAYS TO WRITE THE LETTER? THAT DOESN'T, DOESN'T, NO, BUT WE NEED THE INFORMATION.
YEAH, WE NEED, THAT DOESN'T WORK.
WE NEED TO REVIEW THE TRANSCRIPT.
RIGHT? WELL, WE'RE GETTING THE TRANSCRIPT ON THE 24TH THAT CAROL SAID.
SO THEY'LL HAVE TWO DAYS TO GET THE QUESTION.
THE 29TH WOULD GIVE THEM 7, 8, 9, 10 DAYS TO, UH, RESPOND.
IF WE GET THE LETTER OUT ON THE 29TH, WHICH IS A MONDAY, THEY WOULD HAVE UNTIL THE FOLLOWING THURSDAY.
DID ANYONE OF THE PARTIES CAROL COMPLAIN THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME? NO.
AND HOW MANY DAYS DID THEY HAVE? I DON'T REMEMBER.
[02:50:01]
WE, THE LETTER WAS WRITTEN PRETTY QUICKLY AND, UM, EVERYBODY GOT IT.WELL, THE QUESTION IS HOW MUCH TIME DID THEY HAVE? DOES ANYBODY, I HAVE A FEELING THAT THAT WAS LESS TIME THAN WE ARE GONNA GIVE THEM THIS TIME.
THE MEETING WAS ON MARCH 18TH.
YOU MEAN FEBRUARY THE MEETING? FEBRUARY, UH, 21ST.
I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE MEETING WAS THEN THE FOLLOWING WEDNESDAY AGAIN, WE GOT THE TRANSCRIPT.
AND FEBRUARY WAS A SHORT MONTH, SO THEY HAD A FEW LESS DAYS.
SO I MEAN, WE'RE, YOU'RE ASSUMING THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, RIGHT? WE DON'T KNOW THAT.
THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT THIS TIME THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THIS.
I THINK IT'S A LOT OF PAGES AND I THINK YOU NEED TIME TO GO THROUGH IT.
YEAH, I MEAN, LAST TIME IT WAS, I HAD MY QUESTIONS BEFOREHAND, BUT THERE'S SO MUCH DETAIL THIS TIME AND WHAT THEY PUT THROUGH.
I REALLY NEED TO READ THROUGH IT BEFORE I CAN LOOK THROUGH, YOU KNOW, AND SEE WHAT IT, WHAT QUESTIONS I HAVE.
SO, DIANE, HOW MANY DAYS WOULD YOU SAY MAKE SENSE? I CAN DO IT IN LIKE THREE DAYS.
I CAN, YOU KNOW, I, I HAVE THE LUXURY OF HAVING A LOT OF TIME, SO I THINK IT'S UP TO YOU GUYS WHO HAVE VERY, VERY BUSY WORK SCHEDULES.
IF I NEED TO DO IT IN A DAY, I CAN DO IT IN A DAY.
WELL, IT SAID THAT TO GET THE LETTER OUT ON THE 29TH, WHICH MEANS IF WE GOT IT ON THE 24TH NOW I, I DON'T KNOW, WHEN WOULD I WRITE THE LETTER? IF IT'S ON A MONDAY, I DUNNO IF THAT'S RIGHT.
IT STILL GIVES THEM EIGHT DAYS.
YOU WANNA SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE? MAKE IT THE 30TH.
WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DO YOU THINK EVE? WHATEVER YOU SAY.
I MEAN, UM, 28TH THIS PASSOVER, GOOD.
SO WE'VE GOT THOSE DAYS IN BETWEEN.
WELL THEN MAKE IT THE 30TH OR THE 31ST AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE MORE TIME.
YEAH, I MEAN IT SHOULDN'T BE AS MUCH INFORMATION I DON'T THINK AS WHAT WE HAD THIS RIGHT, RIGHT.
SO MIGHT BE EASIER FOR THEM TO GET THE ANSWERS.
SO LET'S MAKE IT THE 31ST AND WITH THE ANSWERS DUE FROM THE, UH, APPELLANTS BY THE, UH, LOST THE EIGHTH.
I WAS GONNA SAY YEAH, THE EIGHTH OR EIGHTH OR NINTH.
BUT IF, OKAY, BUT IF SHE GETS IT ON THE NINTH, WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY GET IT ON THE NINTH.
WE WOULDN'T GET IT UNTIL THE 12TH THEN.
SO MAYBE IT SHOULD BE MAKE IT THE EIGHTH.
IT'S NOT A LOT OF, ONCE WE GET THEM, IT'S JUST TURNING IT OVER.
TURNING IT AROUND AND SENDING IT OUT TO YOU.
AND IF A PARTY NEEDS MORE TIME, THEY CAN ASK.
ARE WE CLEAR ON IT? KYLE? WHERE'D SHE GO THERE? I'M HERE.
OKAY, SO I THINK YOU'RE UP TO THE 31ST, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE THESE DATES.
UH, THE 31ST, THE LETTER'S GONNA GO OUT ON THE 31ST.
UM, SO LET'S MOVE ON TO 2105 TAXI ROAD.
THEY ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT.
AS OF RIGHT NOW, YOU, OKAY, SO WE DON'T, WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON THAT AND THEN WE GO TO, PROVIDED THAT, PROVIDED THAT THE REQUEST WAS ON TIME.
[02:55:01]
ON IT.ANY OBJECTION TO THEM HAVING AN ADJOURNMENT? NO.
IS IT OKAY IF IT GOES ON NEXT MONTH, CAROL? I BELIEVE THAT WAS THEIR REQUEST.
SO NOW WE GO TO CLUB WAY 21 0 6 29 CLUB WAY.
AND HAS, UH, HAS ANYONE WRITTEN THIS UP YET SINCE THERE WAS NOTHING TO BE STATED,
NO, THERE WAS NO OBJECTION TO IT.
UM, DOES THAT MEAN CHRISTIE WANTS TO WRITE IT? NO.
CHRIS'S STILL WRITING THE OTHER ONE.
WELL PROBABLY WENT TO HAVE SOMETHING TO EAT.
WILLIAM, CAN YOU DO THIS ONE FOR US, PLEASE? IT'S A EASY ONE.
I HAVE TO FIND MY DOCUMENTATION.
AND LET'S, WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING FOR YOUR DOCUMENTATION, LET'S GO TO 2107, UH, 2 58 TARRYTOWN ROAD, THE LOOK OIL, THE SIGNAGE.
UM, CLEARLY WE HAVE SOME DISAGREEMENT WITH WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR, SO WHAT DO WE WANT TO TELL THEM OTHER THAN TO SEE IF IT IS POSSIBLE TO REDUCE THE, UM, THE YARD SIGN.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? YEAH, FIRST, FIRST TO FIND OUT WHAT THE SIZE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS OF THE SIGN FOR THE MOBILE STATION ON, UM, YOU'RE BREAKING UP.
I THINK YOU SAID, ASKED WHAT THE, UM, SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS OF THE MOBILE SIGN ON 19 ROAD.
WELL, THAT WOULD BE UP TO THEM.
USUALLY WE ASK THEM TO LOOK AT, UH, THOSE DECISION DECISIONS THAT, UH, WERE NOT GRANTED.
AND CAROL USUALLY CAN GIVE THEM THOSE AND THEN THEY TAKE A LOOK AT THEM.
AND I, AM I CORRECT ON THAT, CAROL? YES, YOU ARE.
I, I STARTED, I I STARTED DOING THIS ONE.
I DON'T KNOW, I THINK THAT'S THE LAST THING I HEARD.
IF ANYONE STARTED DOING IT AND YOU STARTED.
SO, BUT, UM, WE HAD GRANTED A VARIANCE.
I WAS ABSENT THAT FOR THAT MEETING.
WE HAD GRANTED A VARIANCE BACK IN 2017.
I MAY HAVE MISSED, UM, MISSED IT ALSO.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT WAS FOR, BUT THE SIDE YARD WE GRANTED IS FOR WHAT HE'S REQUESTING NOW, IT SEEMED LIKE IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE EXACT SAME DIMENSIONS.
UH, IT IS, IT IS NOW, BUT IT'S A NON-PERFORMING STRUCTURE AND THAT'S WHY THEY HAD TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD.
BUT I BELIEVE THAT THE DECISION, THE PRIOR DECISION SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET IF YOU WANNA GET IT RIGHT.
IT WAS NO, YEAH, IT, IT, IT IS, IT IS.
'CAUSE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT THEY, THIS IS THE SAME, THE ONLY THING THEY NEED IS THE ADDITIONAL VARIANCE.
SINCE I MEAN THE SAME, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THE NONCONFORMING.
RIGHT? THEY'RE CLOSING OFF ONE OF THE SIDE OR ONE OF THE SIDES, I THINK.
HE SAID THERE'RE THREE SIDES AND THEY'RE PUTTING UP A FOURTH SIDE.
THEY'RE THEY'RE PUTTING UP A WHAT, FOURTH SIDE.
SO THEY'RE CLOSING, THEY'RE NOT MOVING THE POST OR ANYTHING.
THEY'RE NOT MOVING THE, THE POST.
ARE YOU DOING IT? OR, OR YOU SAID YEAH, I MEAN, I, YEAH, I'M, HUH? YOU STARTED IT? UH, YEAH, I TRY.
I STARTED, BUT WE COULD JUST USE THE OLD DECISION.
[03:00:01]
UH, DON'T WORRY, ROWAN, WHAT YOU ALWAYS SAY.THE POET LAUREATE WILL, WILL CORRECT IT.
SO THE REQUEST OF ANSWERS IS, I DIDN'T HEAR A STRAW VOTE ON THAT.
I SAID, IS THERE ANYBODY VOTING AGAINST IT? AND NO ONE RESPONDED.
UH, SO CAROL, HOW MANY, WHAT ELSE DO WE HAVE ON FOR NEXT MONTH BESIDES, UM, THE ONE CASE THAT WE HAVE ADJOURNED? UM, AS A, AS A, UH, BASED UPON, UH, THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, THE 20, I KNOW WE HAVE OH THREE, WE HAVE OH FOUR, WE HAVE, UM, OH SIX.
WHAT ELSE IS COMING UP? NO, OH SIX.
WE JUST GRANTED NO, I MEANT TO SAY OH SEVEN.
ARE YOU ADJOURNING OH SEVEN? NO, I'M, I'M, I'M, YES.
OH 7 0 7 IS THE ONE THAT WE HAVE STATED THAT WE'RE GOING TO SEND THEM A LETTER SO THAT, UH, THAT THEY SHOULD CONTACT THE SECRETARY TO LOOK AT THE OTHER SIMILAR REQUEST.
THAT'S GAS STATIONS HAVE MADE IN THE AREA AND HOW WE, UM, WHAT, WHAT WE HAVE FILED ACCEPTABLE.
UH, WE HAVE, UH, UH, ONE OTHER CASE OTHER THAN THE ONE ON FORT HILL ROAD, UH, AND THAT'S AT THE, WHAT'S IT CALLED? WESTCHESTER HILL SHOPPING CENTER ON, UM, WHERE TRADER JOE'S IS.
THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A NEW PILE ON SIGN TRADER JOE'S AND THAT SHOPPING CENTER.
YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR THE SHOPPING CENTER, NOT THE TRAILER.
OTHER THAN THAT, I, I DON'T THINK I, I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE AT THE MOMENT.
SO THAT, I MEAN, I HAVE OTHER PEOPLE WHO ARE WORKING ON THINGS, BUT I HAVEN'T RECEIVED THEM.
SO THAT GIVES US, HOPEFULLY WE CAN DEVOTE SOME CONSIDERABLE TIME AGAIN TO THREE AND OH FOUR TO TRY AND MOVE THAT ALONG.
DID EVERYONE GET THEIR SHOTS? NOT ONE.
WELL, YOU YOUNG HEALTHY PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN WAIT A LITTLE LONGER.
I I, I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THOUGH, THAT YOU HAVE THE SAME RISK THAT I HAVE AS AN UNVACCINATED.
YOU DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN, AND YOU STILL CAN GET THE DISEASE AND YOU STILL CAN DIE FROM IT.
WELL, HEY, YOU CAN'T HAVE EVERYTHING RIGHT.
BUT I'M, I DO KNOW ONE THING WHEN I GET THAT OF A SHOT, I'M, I'M GOING SOMEWHERE.
UM, I'M SORRY, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT CASES OH THREE AND OH FOUR.
UM, I HAD ASKED ABOUT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S, UH, RATIONALE IN THE DETERMINATION THAT HE MADE.
UM, DO, DO WE HEAR FROM HIM DIRECTLY? DO WE HEAR FROM HIM IN WRITING? HOW, HOW DO WE HEAR HIS, UM, RATIONALE? ASK ANTHONY LOU.
WE'RE GONNA BRING HIM HERE AND LET YOU CROSS EXAMINE HIM.
WE'VE ADDED, WE'VE DIRECTLY, IF YOU LIKE, WHETHER YOU PUT IT IN WRITING.
YOU, YOU COULD PUT IT IN WRITING ALONG WITH THE, UH, THE OTHER PARTIES.
AND THEN IF YOU HAVE FURTHER QUESTIONS OR YOU NEED MORE INFORMATION BASED ON WHAT HIS WRITTEN ANSWER IS, THEN YOU CAN, UH, QUESTION HIM AT THE MEETING.
[03:05:01]
THAT'S WHAT I PREFER, BECAUSE THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS HOPING TO HEAR THIS MONTH.UH, 'CAUSE RIGHT NOW I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
UM, I, I FELT THAT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND WHY, UH, STEVE DECIDED THAT, UH, JUST A SIMPLE CHECKBOX, A CHECK MARK ON A BOX FOR SOMETHING THAT MAY MAYBE AT THE TIME IT, HE JUST DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS GOING TO BE, UH, THIS EXPLOSIVE A, UM, A SITUATION.
AND AGAIN, ED, YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME.
UM, MAYBE I USED THE WRONG WORD WHEN I SAID EXPLOSIVE, BUT, UM, OH YEAH, I THINK THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT, UH, I MEAN THE WORD EXPLOSIVE OR THAT YOU DIDN'T THINK IT WAS GONNA BE EXPLOSIVE AND I SHOULDN'T BE, UH, BOTH TO BOTH.
DON'T SAY ANYTHING ELSE, BUT, UM, THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO FIND OUT.
AND, UM, THAT MIGHT GIVE SOME INSIGHT INTO WHY, UM, THIS IS BEFORE THE BOARD RIGHT NOW IN THE SITUATION THAT IT IS RIGHT NOW.
UH, AS I SAID BEFORE, I AGREE WITH, UH, KRISTEN
THIS ISN'T THE TIME FOR, FOR YOU AS SUCH.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU PUT THAT IN THE, IN, UH, IN WRITING.
WELL, I GUESS YOU CAN, YOU COULD ASK, STEVE CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION NOW 'CAUSE IT'S OFF THE RECORD, RIGHT? NO, NO, NO, NO.
I'M SAYING, I GUESS I'M TALKING ABOUT IN THE LETTER.
I GUESS YOU COULD ASK, UM, ESSENTIALLY WHAT LOU, WHAT BOTH YOU AND CHRISTIE RAISED, THE WHY QUESTION YOU COULD ASK THAT AS AN OPEN QUESTION OF ALL OF THEM WAS WHAT THOUGHT WAS GIVEN TO, UM, THE POTENTIAL FOR, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE ONCE, ONCE THERE WAS RUMBLINGS, I, I ASSUME FROM THE PLANNING BOARD THAT KIND OF SET THE TONE FOR THERE WAS UNHAPPINESS WITH, UH, WHAT WAS HAPPENING HERE AND THEREFORE PERHAPS WHAT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE AT THAT POINT THAT WOULD ADDRESS IT IN THE WAY THAT CHRISTIE KIND OF, UH, TRIED TO SAY WHY, YOU KNOW, WHY WASN'T IT, THERE WAS SOME COLLABORATION THERE AT THAT POINT TO, YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN GETTING IT WHAT WE HAVE NOW.
UM, SO NOT, NOT THAT THAT SOLVES THE PROBLEM, BUT AT LEAST IT GIVES YOU INSIGHT INTO WELL, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THE WHOLE THING IN MY MIND IS THAT INSIGHT.
UM, BECAUSE WITH THAT UNDERSTANDING, THEN I CAN HAVE A SENSE OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT KIND OF DECISION TO MAKE IN TERMS OF THAT DETERMINATION, RIGHT? 'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT THIS WHOLE THING IS ABOUT, IS THE DETERMINATION NOT ABOUT THE STORAGE FACILITY OR ITS LOCATION OR AREA VARIANCES OR SPECIAL PERMITS, BECAUSE NONE OF THAT IS IN FRONT OF THE BOARD RIGHT NOW.
SO I, I'LL WRITE THAT ALL UP AFTER I READ THE TRANSCRIPT.
YEAH, NO, NO, I WAS JUST SCANNING THE DECISION.
TO CAROL KRISTA, DID YOU GET THE NUMBERS THAT YOU NEEDED THE NUMBER? YEAH.
WAS THAT CLARIFIED? I'M JUST USING 7.85
WELL, GAR GARRETT WENT TO GET THE, OKAY.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE PART WHERE IT SAYS I MOVE THAT THE VARIANCE, UH, PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT DO THOSE THREE THINGS? YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO INSERT THE LANGUAGE I USE THAT, THE VARIANCE THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING ON THE SUCH AND SUCH SIDE.
WELL, I, I DID ALL OF THAT, BUT OH, OKAY.
YOU KNOW, WHERE IT SAYS LIKE, I MOVED THAT THE VARIANCE BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT, AND THEN THERE'S LIKE THOSE 3, 1, 2, AND THREE MM-HMM.
WHENEVER THERE'S A LEGALIZATION, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO DO THAT SECOND PARAGRAPH WITH, UH, CONSTRUCTION MUST BEGIN.
YEAH, ED AND I, WE ALWAYS TAKE IT OUT.
SO JUST READ THOSE FOR WHAT? FIRST AND THE THIRD ONE, WHATEVER.
[03:10:01]
THE THIRD ONE IS THE VARIANCEANY FUTURE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION.
UM, YEAH, I DIDN'T HAVE A SPECIFIC SITE PLAN FOR THIS, IT WAS JUST THE SURVEY, SO I DON'T, I'M USING THE 7.85 NUMBER.
THAT'S WHAT IT SAID ON THE, THE DENIAL.
YOUR MOTION COULD BE, CHRISTIE, YOUR MOTION COULD BE TO GRANT THE, THE NORTH SIDE VARIANCE AND DENY THE SOUTH SIDE.
YEAH, I, I, YOU'LL, I THINK IT'S GOOD, BUT YOU CAN, OKAY.
I, YOU CAN, UH, EDIT AS NEED AS NEEDED.
SO CHRISTIE'S READY? WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR YOU.
ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE WANTS TO BRING UP BEFORE WE GO BACK INTO UH, SESSION? OKAY.
ALRIGHT, GARRETT, WE'RE READY.
WE'VE BEEN RECORDING SO AS LONG AS, UH, DEBBIE'S ALL SET, WE'RE GOOD.
SO, YES, WE ARE NOW BACK IN SESSION WITH REGARD TO, UM, OUR DELIBERATIONS OF THIS EVENING AND STARTING WITH FIRST CASE ON THE AGENDA CASE 21 0 1, 1 75 HIGHLAND ROAD.
UM, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO WITHDRAW, UH, THAT UM, COULD I HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION ITEM CHAIR? I SECOND THAT MOTION.
THE NEXT CASE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE 21 0 2 200 OLD ARMY ROAD AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO C A COMPLIANCE AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS DETERMINED THE APPLICATION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED SUBJECT APPLICATION AS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SECRET CONSIDERATION.
UM, APPLICATION 21 0 2 INVOLVES THE LEGALIZATION OF TWO DRIVEWAYS ON THE PROPERTY WITH TWO CURB CUTS.
ONE DRIVEWAY IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE OTHER DRIVEWAY IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TWO VARIANCES TO AN ACCESSORY SET AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK, SPECIFICALLY THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM THE TWO DRIVEWAYS TO THEIR RESPECTIVE PROPERTY LINES.
I MOVE THAT THE VARIANCE PERTAINING TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK DRIVEWAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE BE DENIED.
I MOVE THAT THE VARIANCE PERTAINING TO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK DRIVEWAY ON THE NORTH SIDE BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT WILL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE.
SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
THE VARIANCE BEING GRANTED, BEING GRANTED IS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.
ONLY ANY FUTURE OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT, SETBACK, OR OTHER VARIANCES WE HAVE APPROVED HEREIN.
ALL IN FAVOR WITH RESPECT TO THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE ON THE, UH, NORTH SIDE.
UM, THE FINDINGS IN GRANTING THIS? YEAH, GO AHEAD.
OH, IN GRANTING THIS APPLICATION, UM, FOR THE VARIANCE ON THE NORTH SIDE, THE ZONING BOARD HAS WEIGHED THE BENEFIT TO BE DERIVED BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE PROPOSED VARIANCE AGAINST THE IMPACT THAT THE VARIANCE WOULD HAVE ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE FOUND THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN A DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES AND WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE CHARACTER OR PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE AND PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE GARAGE FROM THE STREET IN A SIMILAR FASHION TO SEVERAL OTHER, OTHER HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
THERE IS ALSO ADEQUATE SCREEN SCREENING BETWEEN THE DRIVEWAY AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
THE GOAL OF THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER FEASIBLE MEANS WITHOUT REQUIRING THE VARIANCE WE ARE GRANTING BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAY IS ALREADY EXISTING AND THERE WOULD BE NO OTHER WAY TO ACCESS THE GARAGE OR TO PARK A CAR ON THE SITE.
THE REQUESTED ACCESSORY STRUCTURE SETBACK VARIANCE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL IN RELATION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SOUGHT
[03:15:01]
TO BE VARIED AND THAT THE REQUESTED RELIEF IS 7.85 FEET, UM, REQUESTED COMPARED WITH 10 FEET REQUIRED.A 22% DECREASE IN THE SETBACK.
THE APPLICANT'S NEED FOR THE AREA VARIANCE WAS SELF-CREATED BECAUSE THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT AN APPLICANT'S NEED FOR AN AREA OF VARIANCE IS SELF-CREATED DOES NOT BY ITSELF REQUIRE US TO DENY AN AREA OF VARIANCE.
WELL, WHAT DO I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THE DENIAL
NO, YOU NEVER ASK US ABOUT BUY
I DON'T HAVE BUY, I HAVE TO WRITE THOSE
WELL, THEN YOU CAN SAY THE DENIAL IS BASED ON, UH, THE FACT THAT SHE'S NO NEED FOR THE, HER GOAL IS NOT EVEN TO USE IT AT PRESENT.
I MEAN, I KNOW WHAT I COULD SAY.
YOU WANT ME TO WRITE IT OR YOU WANT ME TO JUST YOU CAN SAY IT.
WE BRING DENYING THE REQUEST FOR THE AREA OF VARIANCE ON THE SOUTH SIDE, UM, OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE A NEED FOR IT.
SHE DOES NOT CURRENTLY USE IT.
IT ALSO PRESENTS A PEDESTRIAN VEHICULAR CONFLICT FROM A CROSSWALK ACROSS THE STREET.
UM, AND FOR THOSE REASONS, WE FEEL SHE DOESN'T NEED TO DRIVE TWO SEPARATE DRIVEWAYS CREATING TWO CURB CUTS ON OLD ARMY ROAD.
DO I HAVE A, DO I HAVE A A SECOND? DO I HAVE A SECOND ON THE DENIAL OF THE, FOR THE, THE GRANT AND THE DENIAL GRANT.
GOING TO, UH, CASE 2103 AND 2104.
UH, THE APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THOSE MATTERS WILL BE ADJOURNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE NEXT MEETING OF APRIL 15TH.
AND I NEED TO CORRECT MYSELF AT THIS POINT.
UH, MS. RINALDI ON THE RECORD, I HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THAT OUR NEXT MEETING WAS MAY, I SKIPPED A MONTH, BUT IT IS APRIL 15TH.
UM, THE NEXT CASE IS CASE 2105.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED, UM, AN ADJOURNMENT AND BECAUSE OF THE LATENESS, UH, IN TIME OF THAT REQUEST BEING MADE, WE WOULD, WE WOULD NEED A VOTE.
DO I HAVE A SECOND AS TO PERMIT THE APPLICANT TO, UH, ADJOURN THIS MATTER? SECOND.
AND THAT CASE 2105 WILL BE ON FOR THE APRIL 15TH AGENDA.
THE NEXT CASE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS CASE 21 0 6 29 CLUB WAY.
AND DO WE HAVE A RESOLUTION? YES, WE DO.
WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE-REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO SECRET COMPLIANCE AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS DETERMINED THE APPLICATION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRED.
NO FURTHER SECRET CONSIDERATION.
DO HAVE A SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE AYE.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES, I HAVE A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE NUMBER 26 21 0 6 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT NUMBER ONE, THE APPLICANT OBTAINED ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE, SAME WITH THE BILLING DEPARTMENT.
CONSTRUCTION BEGINS NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OFF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BILLING PERMIT PROCEEDS DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER AND CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS DATE STAMPED BY THE Z B A JANUARY 20TH, 20 JANUARY 20TH, 2021, UH, SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION OR AS SUCH, PLAN MAYBE YEAR AFTER, MODIFIED BY ANOTHER PROVEN
[03:20:01]
AGENCY, OR I'M SORRY, BY ANOTHER PROVEN BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICER OF THE TOWN, PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT, UH, WE ARE GRANTING HEREIN.UH, NUMBER THREE, THE VARIANCES ARE BEING, THE VARIANCE IS BEING GRANTED OR FULLY IMPROVEMENT SHOWN ON THE PLAN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION ONLY IN A FUTURE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT, SETBACKS, OR OTHER VARIANCES WE HAVE APPROVED HEREIN.
FINDINGS AND GRANTING THIS APPLICATION, THE ZONING BOARD HAS WEIGHED THE BENEFIT TO BE DERIVED BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE PROPOSED VARIANCE AGAINST THE IMPACT THAT THE VARIANCE WOULD HAVE ON SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
UH, WE HAVE FOUND THAT NUMBER ONE, UH, GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN A DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES AND WILL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE CHARACTER OF PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT BECAUSE THE PROPOSED ADDITION TO THE HOME WILL BE LOCATED ON THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT.
AND AT THE BACK OF THE, THE, THE HOUSE, THE HOUSE IS LOCATED ON AN 18,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND THE EXTENSION OF THE GARAGE TO ALLOW A PLAYROOM AND AN EGRESS WINDOW OUR APPROPRIATE AND SIMILAR TO EXISTING HOMES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
NUMBER TWO, THE GOAL OF THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT THE VARIANCE WE'RE GRANTING NOW BECAUSE THE HOME IS PRE-EXISTENT, NON-CONFORMING AND THE APPLICANT IS, IS BUILDING THE ADDITION ON THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT, UH, WHICH WILL MINIMIZE THE CONSTRUCTION IMPACTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES TO THE PROPERTY.
NUMBER THREE, THE REQUESTED SIDE YARD VARIANCE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL IN RELATION TO THE REQUIREMENT SOUGHT TO BE VARIED AND THAT THE EXISTING TOTAL OF THE TWO SIDE YARDS, UH, IS 26 FEET REQUIRED COMPARED TO 23.25 PROPOSED OR A 10.5% DECREASE IN THE TOTAL OF THE TWO SIDE YARDS.
UH, BUT THIS IS ONLY 2.75 FEET LESS THAN WHAT IS PERMITTED.
IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE EXISTENCE SIDE YARD SETBACKS FOR THE REST OF THE HOUSE, UH, ARE 20.9 FEET CLOSER TO THE SIDE LOT LINE THAN THE PROPOSED NEW CONSTRUCTION.
NUMBER FOUR, THE APPLICANT'S NEED FOR THE VARIANCE WAS SELF-CREATED BECAUSE THEY PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT AN APPLICANT'S NEED FOR AN AREA VARIANCE ITSELF CREATED DOES NOT BY ITSELF, REQUIRES TO DENY THE AREA VARIANCE.
AND THE LAST CASE ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT IS CASE 21 0 7 2 58 TERRYTOWN ROAD LOCAL OIL SIGNAGE.
AND THAT IS ADJOURNED FOR ALL PURPOSES ALSO TO THE MEETING OF APRIL 15TH.
AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE COMPLETED OUR AGENDA FOR THE EVENING.