[00:00:01]
ALL RIGHT, LET ME TRY AND FIND MY, THERE WE GO.
OH, NO, I THINK I GAVE HER, SO THANK YOU ALL
[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA THURSDAY, April 15, 2021 – 6:00 P.M. ONLINE VIA ZOOM 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. ]
FOR BEING HERE, THIS DAMP AFTER I'M, I WAS GONNA SAY AFTERNOON, BUT I GUESS IT'S INTO EVENING NOW.UM, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WILL NOW COME TO ORDER FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
WE HAVE SIX CASES SCHEDULED ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
PLEASE NOTE THE ZONING BOARD WILL HAVE OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY, MAY 20TH.
AS USUAL, IF WE CANNOT COMPLETE HEARING ANY CASE TODAY, IT WILL BE ADJOURNED TO ANOTHER MEETING TO HOPEFULLY BE COMPLETED AT THAT TIME.
ALSO, AS IS USUAL TO SAVE TIME, WE WILL WAIVE THE 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 OF TODAY'S CASES, THE BOARD WILL MEET IN THE ZOOM ROOM TO DISCUSS CASES WE HAVE 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 GO BACK ON THE FORMAL RECORD TO ANNOUNCE THE BOARD'S DECISION FOR THAT WHATEVER WE HAVE, UM, ACCOMPLISHED THIS EVENING AND PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE COMMUNITY.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK TODAY, 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 THE CASES AT PRIOR MEETINGS.
AL PRIOR TESTIMONY IS ALREADY IN THE RECORD, AND PLEASE SHOULD NOT BE REPEATED TODAY'S FIRST CASE TO BE HEARD.
ACTUALLY, TWO CASES SINCE WE ARE HEARING THEM IN CONJUNCTION ARE CASES 2103 AND 2104, WHICH ARE TOWN OF GREENBURG PLANNING BOARD, AND ALSO THE COUNCIL OF GREENBURG CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
AND WHO IS GOING TO SPEAK THIS EVENING TO START THINGS OFF.
CHRIS SIMON, UH, CHAIRMAN, UH, CHAIRWOMAN, UH, SMITH, I WOULD LIKE TO START, OKAY.
UH, HOWEVER, PRIOR TO MY PRESENTATION, I REQUEST THAT THAT THE CHAIRMAN ALLOW MR. BERNSTEIN TO PROVIDE A BRIEF PRESENTATION OF A CRITICAL POINT OF LAW THAT HAS DIRECT BEARING ON THE QUESTION OF THE PLANNING BOARD, TIMING FOR FILING AND APPEAL.
THIS WILL LEAD INTO MY AND MR. SWARTZ COMMENTS.
IN ADDITION, AFTER MY AND MR. SWARTZ COMMENTS, I REQUEST THAT MR. BERNSTEINS PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COMPLETE HIS PRESENTATION WITH COMMENTS REGARDING ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OF HIS CLIENT, THE COUNCIL OF GREENBERG CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
OKAY, MR. BERNSTEIN, GOOD EVENING, UH, CHAIRWOMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UM, MR. SHERETTA ON BEHALF OF HIS CLIENT HAS REPEATEDLY ARGUED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CANNOT ASK THE Z B A FOR ITS INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING CODE BECAUSE ITS REQUEST IS UNTIMELY.
UH, HE BASES HIS TIMELINESS ARGUMENT ON CONTENTIONS THAT THE ZBA A'S JURISDICTION TO HEAR REQUESTS BY THE PLANNING BOARD FOR INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CODE IS LIMITED TO APPEALS OF INTERPRETATIONS OF THE CODE BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, AND THAT SUCH APPEALS MUST BE FILED WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE FILING BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR OF HIS INTERPRETATION, WHICH BY THE WAY, MUST ITSELF BE FILED IN HIS OFFICE WITHIN FIVE DAYS OF IT'S HAVING BEEN ISSUED AND WHICH, AND WHICH MUST BE A PUBLIC RECORD.
UH, THERE HAS BEEN MUCH DISCUSSION BY MR. SHERETTA, BY THE Z B A AND BY THE PLANNING BOARD REPRESENTATIVES AS TO WHETHER THE PLANNING BOARD KNEW THE BUILDING INSPECTOR MADE THE RELEVANT INTERPRETATION AS EARLY AS SEPTEMBER 18TH, 2020 WHEN HE CHECKED THE BOX ON A FORM HE FORWARDED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER, INDICATING HE DID NOT BELIEVE ANY VARIANCES WERE REQUIRED, OR AS EARLY AS NOVEMBER 4TH, 2020, WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD WAS TOLD IN MR. SHIRE'S, UH, PRESENCE ON ZOOM, THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAD GIVEN A VERBAL OPINION THAT THE APPLICATION WAS CODE COMPLIANT, THAT IT APPEARED TO SATISFY THE REQUIREMENTS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS OF A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE.
HOWEVER, NONE OF THIS MATTERS BECAUSE THE Z B A IN
[00:05:01]
GREENBERG HAS THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO INTERPRET THE ZONING CODE UPON A REQUEST BY THE PLANNING BOARD TO DO SO WITHOUT REGARD TO WHETHER THE PLANNING BOARD SATISFIES, UH, TIMELINESS REQUIREMENTS FOR AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION, WHICH IN ANY EVENT, THEY DO SATISFY.BUT THE, THE POINT HERE IS THEY DON'T NEED TO, THEY HAVE A SEPARATE BASIS TO BE HEARD BY THE Z B A UPON THEIR REQUEST FOR AN INTERPRETATION.
LET ME EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS SO UNDER TOWN LAW 2 67 A FOUR, UH, IT STATES, QUOTE, UNLESS OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY LOCAL LAW OR ORDINANCE, THE JURISDICTION, THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS SHALL BE APPELLATE ONLY AND SHALL BE LIMITED TO HEARING AND DECIDING APPEALS FROM AND REVIEWING ANY ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION INTERPRETATION, OR DETERMINATION MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY ORDINANCE OR LOCAL LAW ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE HERE, HOWEVER, THE GREENBERG TOWN CODE DOES PROVIDE OTHERWISE, JUST AS THE STATE LAW PROVIDED, IT COULD IF IT WANTED TO.
TOWN CODE SECTION 2 85 DASH 48.
A ENTITLED INTERPRETATION STATES THAT PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 67 OF THE TOWN LAW, THE POWERS OF THE Z B A ARE EXPANDED AS PERMITTED BY TOWN LAW, UH, UH, 2 56 DASH A SO THAT THE Z BSS QUOTE, POWER AND AUTHORITY TO DECIDE ANY QUESTION INVOLVING THE INTERPRETATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER MAY OCCUR ON AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER REQUIREMENT DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.
AND HERE ARE THE KEY WORDS OR ON A REQUEST MADE BY AN OFFICIAL BOARD OR AGENCY OF THE TOWN.
ON A REQUEST MADE BY AN OFFICIAL BOARD OR AGENCY OF THE TOWN WERE THE WORDS ADDED TO THE TOWN CODE TO GIVE THE Z B A, THE AUTHORITY TO DECIDE INTERPRETATION QUESTIONS THAT ARE RAISED BY THE PLANNING BOARD TO THIS A, THIS BOARD, THE Z B A.
THOSE WORDS ADDED TO THE TOWN CODE MEAN THAT THE Z B A HAS LEGAL JURISDICTION TO CONSIDER A REQUEST FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE TOWN CODE CODE MADE BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND THAT SUCH AUTHORITY IS NOT LIMITED BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN APPEAL LIKE THAT.
THE REQUEST BE MADE WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE FILING OF THE DECISION OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL WHOSE INTERPRETATION IS BEING QUESTIONED OR INDEED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD EVEN BE AGGRIEVED DOESN'T HAVE TO, IT JUST NEEDS TO MAKE A REQUEST, WHICH IT DID.
THIS CLEAR DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE RIGHTS OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO ASK THE Z B A FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE TOWN CODE AND THE RIGHTS, LET'S SAY, OF A CIVIC GROUP LIKE THE C G C A TO FILE AN APPEAL FROM THAT DECISION IS REFLECTED IN THE ZBA A'S AGENDA FOR THIS CASE, WHICH CLEARLY DELINEATES THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS SEEKING AN INTERPRETATION OF THE TOWN CODE WHILE THE C G C A IS APPEALING FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION.
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO BRING TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION.
UH, AND WITH THAT, I WILL, UH, DEFER TO MR. SI.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. BERNSTEIN FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
BASED ON, UH, MR. BERNSTEIN, EXCUSE ME, WALTER GARRETT, COULD YOU, UH, GIVE ME CONTROL OF THE SCREEN, PLEASE? THAT THAT'S ENABLED.
BASED ON MR. BERNSTEIN'S CITING OF THE APPLICABLE LAW, THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT AS TO WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD CAN REQUEST A Z B A RULING ON THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION
[00:10:01]
OF THE CODE.CONSEQUENTLY, I BELIEVE THAT THE TIME LIMIT ISSUE IS MOOT AS APPLIED TO THE PLANNING BOARD'S EAGLES APPLICATION.
I DID, HOWEVER, GATHER ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT DEMONSTRATES THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MET THE 60 DAY WINDOW, EVEN IF IT WAS REQUIRED BY LAW, WHICH IT IS NOT UNLIKE A TRANSCRIPT.
THE MINUTES ARE A SUMMARY, NOT VERBATIM DESCRIPTION OF EVENTS OF THE MEETING.
AND WHILE JUDGE ATLER WAS CORRECT IN NOTING THAT THE MINUTES IN THE NOVEMBER 4TH, 2020 SAID, CONFIRMATION THE EMPHASIS BY THE C B A AND THE WORD CAUSE ME AND OTHERS, YOU SCHWARTZ, AARON SCHMIDT, DAVID FREE, MATT BRIT, UH, BRITTON TO GO BACK AND WATCH THE TAPE AND OR READ THE TRANSCRIPT.
IT CONFIRMED THE CONVERSATION BETWEEN MR. SCHWARTZ AND DEPUTY COMMIT, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT REGARDING THE EXISTENCE OF AN OFFICIAL REPORT OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION.
YOU, COULD YOU INSERT THAT? YOU, ARE YOU ABLE TO PLAY THAT INSERT? OH, YOU DIDN'T HEAR IT? HOLD ON.
AM I ON MUTE? DID YOU HEAR SEE MY SCREEN? NO, I DIDN'T SEE YOUR SCREEN.
YES, I NEED TO, I NEED TO SHARE THE SCREEN.
LET ME START OFF FROM THE BEGINNING.
WHEN YOU SHARE A SCREEN, I THINK THERE'S A, UM, YOU HAVE TO ENABLE SHARE AUDIO.
OH, DOES IT SHARE AUDIO? HOLD ON.
GARRETT, I HAVE TO SHARE AUDIO.
I'M TRYING TO, YES, I'M TRYING TO GET BACK TO THE BIG SCREEN NOW IS THE PROBLEM YOU, ARE YOU ON, ARE YOU ON POWERPOINT? YES.
IF YOU GO INTO PRESENTATION MODE, IT SHOULD SHARE WHEN YOU CLICK THROUGH AND IT SHOULD SHARE THE AUDIO.
I CAN'T, LET ME LET, I WASN'T DOING IT IN PRESENTATION MODE, BUT I CAN DO THAT.
YEAH, IT'S IF YOU, WHEN YOU'RE IN SLIDE MODE, IT WON'T SHARE VIDEOS AND STUFF OFTEN.
SO I HAVE TO GO TO SLIDESHOW? YES, YOU GO TO PRE GO INTO PRESENTATION MODE.
WHAT THE HECK? IT'S NOT GOING INTO PRESENTATION MODE FOR ME.
SO HUGH, I WOULD RECOMMEND STOP SHARING AND THEN RE-SHARING ONCE YOU HAVE A QUEUE.
I MEAN, I GUESS IF YOU'RE READY, YOU CAN GIVE IT A SHOT NOW.
HOPEFULLY IT WILL, GUYS, I'M SORRY.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD STOP SHARE WHEN YOU RE-SHARE IT.
YOU DID SHARE AUDIO AS WELL? YEAH, NO, WE'RE NOT HEARING IT.
PROBLEM I'M HAVING IS GETTING BACK INTO THE, THE WHOLE SCREEN NOW.
NOW ON SHARE SCREEN, WHAT DO I DO? OKAY, GARRETT, SHARE SCREEN BEFORE YOU HIT THE SHARE.
IN THE LOWER LEFT, IT SAYS SHARE SOUND,
[00:15:01]
YOU WOULD ENABLE.THIS IS FRUSTRATING OPINION FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REGARDING THIS PROJECT.
HEAR THAT, HEAR THE USE OF THAT SPECIAL PERMIT.
AARON, I KNOW YOU WERE PURSUING THAT.
I WILL CHECK IN BACK WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER DUQUE.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE DID GET A VERBAL FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT IT DOES MEET, UH, THE SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA, UM, AND DOES FALL UNDER THE SPECIAL PERMIT.
I SHOULD SAY, FIRST OF ALL, I, I THINK THAT, THAT THE BUILDING INS THAT WE'RE OUT OWED A OR SHOULD HAVE IN WRITING AS PART OF THE RECORD, A WRITTEN, UH, DECISION FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT, THAT IT FITS THE CODE AS WRITTEN.
AND THIS JUST VERIFY THAT WE GOT NOTHING.
UH, WE JUST HAD VERBAL COMMUNICATION.
UH, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON, UM, TO THE NEXT POINT, UH, IN THE, IN THE TRANSCRIPT AT ONE HOUR AND ABOUT 15 MINUTES INTO THE VIDEO, UH, RECORDING, UH, MR. UH, SCHWARTZ REQUESTED AN I VIA DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SMITH ASKED FOR A WRITTEN OPINION FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
COULD YOU GO OVER THAT PART OF THE, THE RECORD WHERE I SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR A WRITTEN OPINION? I HAVE THE CLARIFICATION, WALTER.
SO WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL DO THAT.
BUT BEFORE I, UH, I, UH, SAY WHY I WANNA PUT THAT IN, IF WE GO TO THE, IF WE GO BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT, WHICH I, UH, WENT THROUGH THE TRANSCRIPT AND WHAT I DID IS I FOUND EIGHT DIFFERENT REFERENCES TO THE WORD CONFIRMATION AS OPPOSED TO CLARIFICATION.
AND, UH, UH, IF WE WENT BACK TO THE TRANSCRIPT OF PAGE 25, CHAIRPERSON BUNTING, UH, REFER TO THE INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT COULD BE, USE THE WORD CONFIRM ON PAGE 25 AND 26 OF THE TRANSCRIPT.
AGAIN, CHAIRMAN BERT, UH, UH, BUNTING, SMIT REFERRED TO CONFIRMED IN WRITING.
ON PAGE 26, AGAIN, THE CHAIRMAN AND MR. SCHWARTZ REFERRED TO CONFIRMATION ON PAGE 27.
UH, MR. ATLER REFERRED TO THE WORD CONFIRM.
UH, AND AGAIN, ON PAGE 27, THE, UH, CONFIRMATION WAS USED BY MR. SCHWARTZ.
UH, MR. SORETA USED, UH, REFER TO, UH, THE QUOTE CONFIRMATION.
SO ALL DURING, UH, UH, THE LAST PRESENTATION, THERE WAS A FOCUS ON THE WORD CONFIRMATION AND CLARIFICATION.
UM, HOW, UH, HOWEVER, PLAY THAT CLIP AND, AND THE IDEA THAT AT ONE POINT, UH, IT WENT AS FAR AS, UM, UH, JUDGE ATLER SAYING THAT CONFIRMATION IN, UH, AND LET ME, MIGHT NOT MISQUOTE THE JUDGE, BUT HE SAID, UH, CONFIRMATION.
OH, I HAVE THE ACTUAL QUOTE IN FRONT OF ME.
AND WHILE JUDGE ATLER WAS CORRECT IN NOTING THAT THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 4TH SAID, CONFIRMATION, THE EMPHASIS BY THE Z B A AND THE WORD CAUSE ME AND OTHERS TO, UH, UH, UM, GO BACK AND LOOK AT THE RECORD.
BECAUSE ONE OF THE STATEMENTS THAT WAS MADE BY, UH, JUDGE ATLER, THAT CONFIRMATION IMPLIES THAT I HAD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE AND I REALLY UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE PLANNING, WHAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WAS SAYING, UH, BY THE USE OF CONFIRMATION.
BUT IF YOU GO BACK IN THE RECORD, WHICH WE DID AND LISTENED TO THE TRANSCRIPT,
[00:20:01]
I DID NOT ASK FOR CONFIRMATION.I ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE BUILDING'S INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION, AND THAT'S WHAT I LIKE, UH, TO BE PLAYED.
SO YOU COULD SEE I NEVER SAID CONFIRMATION AND THE RECORDS, UH, AT THE LAST MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD, WE WENT OVER THAT AND WE AMENDED THE MINUTES OF THE NOVEMBER 4TH MEETING TO WHAT THE STATEMENT I ACTUALLY MADE, AND A COPY OF THE AMENDED MINUTES WAS SENT TO THE Z B A.
SO THOSE ARE NOW THE OFFICIAL MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING BOARD BOARD THAT IS CORRECTED AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE TRANSCRIPT, AND IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE AUDIO.
I NEVER SAID CONFIRMATION, I REQUESTED CLARIFICATION.
SO COULD YOU PLAY THAT? YOU IT NOT SO, SO WE'LL HAVE THE STAFF DO, UH, TWO RECOMMENDATIONS, ONE SPECIFIC TO THE APPLICATION, UH, AND WE WILL FIND OUT AND GET THAT CLARIFICATION FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, UH, THAT THIS, UH, QUALIFIES, UH, BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT QUALIFIES AS A SPECIAL PERMIT.
AND WE WRITE THAT UP AS THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION.
THAT IS THE OFFICIAL RECORD THAT I ASKED FOR CLARIFICATION.
SO ANY DOUBT IN, UH, IN AND AMONG THE, UH, THE Z B A OR THE APPLICANT THAT I SAID CONFIRMATION AND HAD PRIOR KNOWLEDGE OF THE INTENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS, UH, IS JUST NOT THE CASE.
UH, YOU SHOULD THEN CONCLUDE THAT IF THERE IS ANY QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE PLANNING BOARD SOUGHT A CONFIRMATION INDICATING THAT IT KNEW EXACTLY WHY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THOUGHT THE SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA APPLIED.
IT IS NOW CLEAR FROM WATCHING, UH, OR, UH, THE MEETING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, DID NOT WATCHING THE MEETING IN THIS CASE, LISTENING TO THE, THE VIDEO, UH, UH, DID NOT, THIS WOULD COUNTER JUDGE ATLAS COMMENT ON PAGE 22 OF THE TRANSCRIPT WHEN SOMEONE ASKED FOR SOMETHING.
CONFIRMING IN WRITING IS ARGUABLY THAT THEY KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON.
THEY ARE NOT ASKING QUESTIONS.
THEY HAVE BEEN TOLD SOMETHING, BUT WE WANT TO SEE IT OFFICIALLY IN WRITING.
SO I'M HAVING TROUBLE FOLLOWING THE LOGIC THAT YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF FINDING OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
THAT IS THE DIRECT QUOTE THAT I WASN'T AWARE OF THE FINDING OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
SO THE RECORD THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE RECORD, THAT'S NOT SO, AND, AND WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO THE, THE JUDGE ATLA, I HAVE TROUBLE WITH THE REFERENCE TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION IS A FINDING.
SO I CONCLUDE BY AFFIRMING THAT THE REASON FOR THIS APPEAL IS TO OBTAIN Z B A FINDING OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION REGARDING THE EAGLE SUBMISSION.
WHILE IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE THAT THE APPEAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD IS UNPRECEDENTED, THAT FACT IN AND OF ITSELF IS NOT GERMANE TO THE Z B A FINDINGS, AND NEITHER IS MR. TTAS REFERENCE TO THE CASE THAT CAME BEFORE THE Z B A IN THE TOWN OF WHITESTONE, WR WHITESTOWN, NEW YORK, AND THE VILLAGE OF, UH, DALE, NEW YORK AT THIS POINT, YOU SWARTZ WILL ADD ADDITIONAL PLANNING BOARD.
UM, GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD, BOARD.
I WOULD JUST LIKE THE RECORD TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE REFERENCES THAT MR. SIMON MADE TO, UH, JUDGE ADLER, UH, PERHAPS SHOULD HAVE BEEN BETTER PHRASED AS BOARD MEMBER ADLER.
AND THE ONLY REASON I'M SAYING THAT IS WE DON'T WANNA HAVE THERE BEING CONFUSION IN SOMEONE LOOKING AT THIS RECORD, ASSUMING THAT, UM, THE BOARD MEMBER ADLER MADE SOME TYPE OF, UH, IN INVOLVEMENT IN THIS AS A JUDGE.
CAN I BE HEARD? I THANK, JUST FOR THAT CLARIFICATION, I'LL BE VERY CAREFUL NOT TO USE A PHRASE AGAIN.
CAN I MAKE, CAN I MAKE A STATEMENT PLEASE ABOUT THAT? YES, EXACTLY.
[00:25:01]
IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.HOWEVER, WHAT NOBODY ON THE BOARD PROBABLY KNOWS.
I TOLD, UH, UH, ED LIEBERMAN, THE CHIEF JUDGE OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK YESTERDAY, MADE AN ANNOUNCEMENT THAT SHE'S CALLING BACK THE 60 JUDGES THAT SHE RELIEVED OF THEIR RESPONSIBILITY BECAUSE OF BUDGETARY CONCERNS.
AS I SIT HERE NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER I WILL GO BACK OR NOT.
IF I GO BACK, I'LL SAY GOODBYE TO YOU.
IF I DON'T GO BACK, I'M LESS ALER FOR THE REST OF MY CAREER.
I THINK
I'M HUGH SCHWARTZ, VICE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
UM, I'M GONNA REALLY ADDRESS SOME OF THE MOST RECENT CORRESPONDENCE IN MY PRESENTATION, UH, THAT CAME IN IN THE LAST WEEK OR SO.
UM, HAVE TO PUT SOME OF IT IN PERSPECTIVE, HOWEVER, AS WELL.
MR. SHE'S MOST RECENT LETTER TO THE Z B A AND CONTINUE OF HIS ATTEMPT TO MOVE THE DATE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION.
UM, FIRST IT WAS SEPTEMBER WITH THE INITIAL DOCUMENT THAT WAS PRODUCED WHEN THE RECORD CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD NEVER EVEN RECEIVED THIS DOCUMENT.
HE PIVOTED AT THE LAST HEARING TO NOVEMBER 4TH, THE FIRST TIME WE BECAME AWARE AT ALL OF THE OPINION.
THEN IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT NEW YORK LAW REQUIRES A DECISION TO BE IN WRITING.
AND IN HIS MOST RECENT LETTER TO THE Z B A, HE PIVOTED AGAIN TO THE PLANNING BOARD STAFF REPORT OF OCTOBER 16TH, 2020.
THAT REPORT HAD ONE LINE THAT REFERRED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION, AND IT'S A VERY INTERESTING LINE.
IT SAYS IT'S A, IT'S UNDER THE, THE HEADING OF VARIANCE.
IN THE REPORT, WE GET A STAFF REPORT BEFORE WE MEET WITH, WITH THE APPLICANT, UH, IN WORK SESSION.
AND THAT CAME IN ON OCTOBER 16TH THAT THE QUOTE FROM THAT WAS AND HIGHLIGHTED IN MR. RETOS LETTER, UH, EXHIBIT FIVE VARIANCE.
THE APPLICATION HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR WHO HAS DETERMINED THAT NO AREA VARIANCES REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT AREA VARIANCES UNDERSTAND THAT THIS MAY BE RELEVANT, EXCEPT THE ISSUE AT HAND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH AREA VARIANCES.
THE ISSUE IS USE, WHICH IS WHY ON THE DAY I FIRST READ THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH WAS A DAY OF OUR FIRST MEETING WITH EAGLE ENERGY, OCTOBER 21ST.
I QUESTIONED THAT USE IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE DESPITE SEVERAL REQUESTS FOR A WRITTEN DETERMINATION.
NOTHING, NOT EVEN THE INITIAL DOCUMENT ON WHICH MR. STRETTA HAS CLAIMED HE RELIED WAS PRODUCED BY THE PLANNING STAFF, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR OR MR. SHERETTA, UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH, 2020.
HENCE, IF A START DATE IS REQUIRED, WHICH IS REALLY IN SERIOUS QUESTION BASED ON MR. BERNSTEIN'S GOOD RESEARCH, THE DATE WOULD HAVE TO BE NOVEMBER 12TH, AND OUR APPEAL WOULD BE TIMELY.
NOW, I WANNA TURN TO WHETHER THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION WAS CORRECT.
UH, MR. SHERETTA RELIES IN PART ON DECISIONS FROM THE TOWN OF WHITESTOWN AND THE VILLAGE OF BLAZEDALE APPROVING ON ONE CASE OF SOLA FARM.
IN THE OTHER CASE OF BETH, I WON'T GO INTO DETAIL, BUT IN NEITHER CASE DO THEY HAVE SPECIFIC, A SPECIFIC DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY AS GREENBERG CODE HERE IS.
WHITESTONES TOWNS PUBLIC UTILITY, IT SAYS INCLUDES OFFICES AND SECONDARY USES OF GAS, ELECTRICITY, WATER, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
IT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT WHETHER IT'S TO THE PUBLIC, IF IT HAS TO BE DIRECTLY TO THE PUBLIC, SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THAT.
BLAZEDALE HAS ABSOLUTELY NO SPECIFIC DEFINITION IN THEIR CODE ON, ON PUBLIC UTILITY.
I COULDN'T FIND ONE ANYWAY, THE CODE REFERS TO A UTILITY WITHOUT A SPECIFIC DEFINITION AND ALLOWS UTILITY STRUCTURES PROVIDED THEY MEET THE MINIMUM SETBACKS FOR THE ZONE FOR THAT PARTICULAR ZONE, AS WELL AS SOME OTHER SPECIFIC, UH, PARAMETERS LIKE SCREENING, CONTRARY TO WHAT WE HAVE IN GREENBURG, WHICH IS VERY SPECIFIC SAYING THEY HAVE TO BE AUTHORIZED TO FURNISH IT TO THE PUBLIC.
IT SAYS IT VERY, VERY CLEARLY IN OUR CODE.
SO WHAT ARE THE, WHAT ARE THE ISSUES, UH, WITH, HOW DO WE DETERMINE WHAT THE EAGLE
[00:30:01]
ENERGY UNDER THE GREENBURG CODE, WHICH IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS HERE.UM, YOU KNOW, THE COMMENTS BY MS. MS. BRUCKNER AT THE LAST MEETING WERE REALLY NOT RELEVANT.
NEITHER IS WHITESTOWN OR BLAZEDALE.
WE DON'T LIVE IN EITHER OF THOSE TOWNS OR VILLAGES.
WE LIVE IN GREENBURG AND WE ARE BOUND TO THE CODE OF GREEN BAY.
AND THAT'S THE ONLY THING IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT.
UNDER THAT, THE FIRST THING IS EAGLE ENERGY IS NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER GREENBERG CODE.
FIRST OF ALL, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT AT THE, AT THE NOVEMBER 4TH MEETING, UH, MR. ROBINSON ACTUALLY WHEN ASKED ABOUT THIS, SAID THEY WEREN'T.
LET'S TAKE A LISTEN, JUST A SUGGESTION.
THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS THIS FACILITY REGULATED BY, BY SOME GOVERNMENT AGENCY.
NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE, I THINK IS THE NUMBER ONE.
UH, JAMES, AGAIN, I'D LIKE YOU TO WEIGH IN ON, ON THIS WITH REGARDS TO THE ELECTRICAL PIECES, RIGHT? I, I BELIEVE THAT THE NATIONAL ELECTRIC CODE IS THE MAJOR STANDARD THAT WE WOULD BE FOLLOWING.
THERE'S ALSO STANDARDS THAT CON EDISON, UH, PUTS IN PLACE FOR US, UM, THAT, THAT WE'LL NEED TO BE FOLLOWING.
AND THAT'S PART OF OUR INTERCONNECTION AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE.
U UTILITIES I THINK, ARE REGULATED BY CERTAIN AGENCIES, FEDERAL AND, AND STATE AGENT THAT CORRECT.
AND I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS WERE ALSO, SORRY, I MIGHT HAVE GOOD LUCK TONIGHT WITH THIS SHOOT.
THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS COMPLY WITH THE CONED REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES, BECAUSE WE ARE CONNECTING TO THEM AND, AND ALSO NATURAL ELECTRIC.
SO THOSE ARE REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY.
UH, AND AGAIN, IF, IF, IF CONED IS SUBJECT TO IT WITH REGULATIONS, WE ALSO AS PROVIDING THAT, THAT ENERGY SOURCE WOULD ALSO BE SUBJECT TO THOSE MANDATES.
SO YOU GUYS ARE CONSIDERED A UTIL PART OF A UTILITY NETWORK THEN, CORRECT? CORRECT.
WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT REGULATED.
WE'RE NOT A REGULATED UTILITY BECAUSE WE'RE NOT PUTTING ANY RATE PAYER MONEY AT RISK.
THE MONEY THAT'S BEING THAT'S GOING INTO THIS PROJECT IS MONEY THAT IS COMING FROM OUR COMPANY AND OUR INVESTORS.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO, LIKE CON EDISON NEEDS TO PROVE THAT THEY'RE SPENDING MONEY WISE.
WE ARE NOT A REGULATED UTILITY.
THAT'S JAMES ROBINSON EAGLE ENERGY, HIS WORDS, NOT MINE.
THE SECOND ONE IS IN THEIR, UH, THEIR, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM, WHICH WAS DONE BY, UH, FARINO ASSOCIATES.
THEY ALSO SPECIFICALLY SAY THEY'RE REGULATED AS A WHOLESALER, NOT A RETAILER.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK, THEY'RE REGULATED UNDER FERC, WHICH IS THE FEDERALLY ENER FEDERAL ENERGY, UH, REGULATORY COMMISSION.
AND WHAT DOES IT SAY UNDER THE DESCRIPTION? IT, UH, SAYS, ALLOWING ENERGY STORAGE RESOURCES TO PARTICIPATE IN WHOLESALE MARKETS.
AND THEY'RE ALSO REGULATED UNDER NYS O, WHICH IS THE INDEPENDENT SERVICE OPERATOR WHO ACTUALLY DISTRIBUTES ENERGY IN NEW YORK, AND THEY'RE AUTHORIZED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE WHOLESALE MARKET, NOT A RETAIL MARKET.
NEXT, NO BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY IS LISTED AS AN ELECTRIC UTILITY ON THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICE SITE.
THEY HAVE A LIST, AND I DON'T HAVE THE WHOLE LIST HERE 'CAUSE IT WOULD BE TOO LARGE, BUT IF THERE'S A LINK YOU CAN USE IF YOU WANT IT.
THERE IS NOT ONE BATTERY STORAGE FACILITY ON THIS LIST OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
SO THE STATE DOESN'T EVEN THINK OF THEM AS ELECTRIC UTILITY.
NEXT, NOT ALL ISO PARTICIPANTS SELL TO THE PUBLIC.
SO THE THING THAT IT EVENTUALLY GOES TO THE PUBLIC ISN'T NECESSARILY TRUE EITHER.
IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THEIR SITE, OTHER PARTICIPANTS IN THE NI ON THE NY O MARKETPLACE INCLUDE THREE M, CONOCO, CONOCO PHILLIPS, CUMMINGS, ENGLEHART, NIAGARA UNIVERSITY, NORTH STAR, SIEMENS, UNIVERSITY OF ROCHESTER, AND WARNER MEDIA.
BI ARE NOT THE PUBLIC, AND NY O SELLS TO THEM.
SO YOU CAN'T EVEN BE SURE IT GOES TO THE PUBLIC.
SO WHERE, WHERE THE ENERGY IS USED IS ACTUALLY DETERMINED BY NYS O, NOT CONED.
SO YES, THEY PUT THE ENERGY BACK ONTO THE GRID, AND THEN NY O DECIDES WHERE THE ENERGY GOES.
IT COULD END UP BACK WITH CONED, BUT ANOTHER WHOLESALER OR, OR IT COULD BE PURCHASED BY SOMEONE IN THE MARKETPLACE THAT DOESN'T SUPPLY ENERGY TO THE PUBLIC AS
[00:35:01]
THEY JUST DEMONSTRATED.I'M ALSO A MEMBER BESIDES BEING THE PLANNING BOARD, A MEMBER OF THE BATTERY LAW COMMITTEE FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
AND THE REASON I KNOW THIS TO BE A FACT IS WE HAD CONED AT OUR MEETING, AND THEY CONFIRMED THIS AS SUCH, THE CONCLUSION THAT THIS FACILITY BENEFITS THE TOWN AND ITS RESIDENCE, WHILE THAT IS POSSIBLE, IS SPECULATIVE AT BEST.
NEXT, LET'S FOCUS ON THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION.
AND FRANKLY, WHEN I REVIEWED HIS LETTERS, UM, THEY'RE REALLY BASED ON INCORRECT AND INCOMPLETE INFORMATION.
THE PLAN, THE PLANS ALSO SHOW, THIS IS A QUOTE FROM, UM, MR. RE'S LETTER.
THE PLANS ALSO SHOW HOW THE BEST WOULD BE CONNECTED TO THE CONED SUBSTATION ON ROUTE ONE 19.
AND ELMER EAGLE ENERGY WOULD BE STORING THE ELECTRICITY, THEN FEED IT BACK TO THE SUBSTATION.
THIS SUBSTATION SERVES THE PUBLIC WELL, THAT'S ALL TRUE.
HOWEVER, THE SUBSTATIONS ARE PART OF THE GRID THAT SERVE THE PUBLIC, BUT THEY ALSO SERVE AS A DISTRIBUTION POINT FOR ENERGY TO BE PURCHASED ON THE ISO WHOLESALE MARKETPLACE.
SO THERE IS NO GUARANTEE WHATSOEVER IT'LL GO BACK TO CONED OR GO TO THE PUBLIC.
THE PURPOSE OF THE EAGLE ENERGY IS TO SELL ITS ELECTRICITY ON THE ISO WHOLESALE MARKETPLACE AS THEY SET IN THEIR APPLICATION.
THERE IS NO GUARANTEE THAT THIS ELECTRICITY WILL BE CONSUMED BY THE PUBLIC, AND NEITHER CONED OR EAGLE ENERGY COULD CONTROL THIS.
UM, BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION BASED.
ALSO ON HIS APRIL 8TH LETTER, HE TALKS ABOUT THE DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY IN 2 85 5, WHICH SAYS, ANY PERSON COOPERATION, GOVERNMENT AGENCY DULY AUTHORIZED TO FURNISH TO THE PUBLIC.
AND HIS INTERPRETATION OF THAT SAYS IN QUOTE, IT'S MY INTERPRETATION THAT THIS APPLICATION FALLS UNDER THIS DEFINITION BECAUSE IT SERVES THE PUBLIC WELL.
EAGLE ENERGY ISN'T AUTHORIZED TO SELL TO THE PUBLIC.
IT'S AUTHORIZED AND REGULATED AS A WHOLESALER OF ELECTRICITY.
AS I SAID, THIS WAS CONFIRMED IN THE APPLICANT'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM A ABOVE.
FINALLY, WHAT'S THE IMPLICATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION? IT'S REALLY OVERLY BROAD AND EXTREMELY DANGEROUS FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS WHAT HE WROTE.
AND I, I REMEMBER, I THINK IT WAS YOU, MR. ALER WHO BROUGHT UP, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT THIS COULD BE USED FOR SOLAR PANELS? I THINK, I THINK IT WAS YOU WHO BROUGHT UP THAT QUESTION AT THE LAST MEETING.
THERE ARE OTHER USES THAT ARE NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THERE'S NO MENTION OF SOLAR PANELS IN THE TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT THEY HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN PERMITTED AND GOVERNED BY NEW YORK STATE BUILDING CODE, AS WELL AS BATTERY, BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS. SOME OF THESE SOLAR PANEL APPLICATIONS, WHICH SERVE THE PROPERTIES THAT WERE INSTALLED UPON WITH ELECTRICITY ALSO SEND ANY UNUSED POWER BACK INTO THE ELECTRIC GRID SYSTEM.
THAT'S THE SECOND PART OF THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
WELL, THAT CLEARLY STATES THAT SOLAR, SOLAR PANELS ARE ALSO COVERED BY THE SPECIAL PERMIT PROVISION.
AND THE FEAR THAT, THAT MR. SIMON AND MYSELF BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MINUTE IS REAL.
THAT IF YOU ALLOW THIS TO GO THROUGH, YOU COULD HAVE THEM IN ANY, ANY PLACE, IN ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONE.
HIS OPINION WILL ALSO APPEAR TO ALLOW OTHER THINGS LIKE WIND FARMS OR OTHER POWER GENERATING SYSTEMS IN RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
FURTHER, AND THIS IS REALLY INTERESTING, IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT HIS RATIONALE FOR SAYING IT'S OKAY, UNDER TWO 80, UH, UNDER THIS PROVISION, RESIDENTIAL, RESIDENTIAL HOUSING WOULD ALSO BE COVERED BECAUSE SOLAR SYSTEMS THAT ARE INSTALLED IN RESIDENCES TYPICALLY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO FEED BACK INTO THE ENERGY GRID.
SO BY DEFINED, BY UPHOLDING, UH, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION, WHAT YOU WOULD ACTUALLY BE DOING IS SAYING THAT EVERY RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITH A SOLAR PANEL IS NOW A PUBLIC UTILITY.
A IMAGINE THE RAMIFICATIONS OF, OF THAT DECISION.
FINALLY, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT, UH, MR. SHEA'S ARGUMENT ABOUT PLAIN LANGUAGE IN HIS APRIL 8TH LETTER.
AND, AND, PARDON ME, I'M NOT A LAWYER, AS YOU ALL KNOW, I JUST TRY TO PLAY ONE AT ON TV AND, AND I STAYED IN A HOLIDAY INN ONCE, BUT I'LL DO MY BEST.
UM, THE PRIMARY GOAL IN STATUTE INTER UH, STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IS TO ATTEMPT TO EFFECTUATE
[00:40:01]
THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE.AND HE GOES ON TO, TO CITE A COUPLE OF CASES THERE AND THEN COMES TO THE CONCLUSION.
THUS, THE PLAIN MEANING OF THE STATUTE SHOULD BE THE STARTING POINT FOR THIS DISCUSSION.
I HAVE NO DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT, WITH WHAT HE SAID THERE.
THE PROBLEM IS YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT.
TO ANALYZE THE INTENT OF THE LAW, ONE MUST NOT ONLY LOOK TO WHETHER THE SPECIFIC USE WAS NOT PROHIBITED UNDER THE LAW, BUT ALSO TO THE NATURE OF THE USES THAT WERE PROHIBITED IN THEIR SIMILARITIES TO THIS SPECIFIC USE.
BEST COULD NOT HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED FROM A LAW, THE LAW SINCE THE, THEY DIDN'T EXIST AT THE TIME.
HOWEVER, THE SPECIFIC EXCLUSIONS ARE ALL FACILITIES THAT CONSUME A SUBSTANTIAL FOOTPRINT, AS DOES THIS BEST FACILITY.
THEREFORE, IT COULD EASILY BE CONCLUDED THAT THE INTENT OF THE LAW AND SHOULD BE CONCLUDED, IN MY VIEW, WAS TO EXCLUDE USES THAT CONSUME A LARGE FOOTPRINT AND INCLUDES SMALL ITEMS LIKE UTILITY POLES AND TRANSFORMERS.
JUST BECAUSE IT WAS EXCLUDED DOESN'T MEAN IT'S INCLUDED.
UM, I JUST WANT TO REINFORCE WHAT WALTER SAID.
IT WAS A DIFFICULT DECISION FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO EVEN BRING THIS APPEAL BECAUSE IT CREATES, UH, SOME STRESS BETWEEN PEOPLE WHO GENERALLY WORK TOGETHER.
WE WORK REALLY WELL WITH THE, THE, THE, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ON A REGULAR BASIS, HAVE THE UTMOST RESPECT FOR THEM.
WE JUST HAPPEN TO AGREE TO DISAGREE ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE.
AND, BUT WE TAKE, THAT'S WHY WE TAKE IT SO SERIOUSLY.
AND THE ONLY REASON WE BROUGHT THIS ONE FORWARD IS ONE, WE THINK IT'S CLEAR THAT HE WAS INCORRECT IN HIS DECISION, AND WE THINK PART OF THE REASON IS HE WASN'T GIVEN THE RIGHT INFORMATION AT THE TIME HE MADE THE DECISION.
AND MAYBE NOW HE WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENT ONE.
AND SECOND, AS I SHOWED YOU ABOVE, THE IMPLICATIONS FOR ALLOWING THIS ARE HUGE.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. BERNSTEIN, UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, I, I, I DON'T WANNA REPEAT THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID, BUT I HAVE A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT TAKE ON SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID.
UM, HE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN HIS REASONING, UH, IN DETERMINING THAT EAGLE FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY, UH, RATHER THAN ADDRESS HOW EAGLE ENERGY THE FIRM QUALIFIES AS A PUBLIC UTILITY.
UH, UH, UH, HE INSTEAD ARGUES THAT THE APPLICATION FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION BECAUSE IT SERVES THE PUBLIC.
UH, THAT IS A, UM, UH, A TURN OF PHRASE THAT, UM, ELIDES THE KEY WORDS, WHICH IS THAT IT HAS TO BE A FIRM WHICH FURNISHES ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC UNDER GOVERNMENT REGULATION.
UM, AND SO BY, BY OMITTING OR NOT CONSIDERING THAT HE'S DEALING WITH AN APPLICATION RATHER THAN THE FIRM, WHICH THE CODE SAYS HE'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK AT, HE, HE ARGUES THAT BEST THE, THE BATTERY FACILITY WOULD BE CONNECTED TO THE CONED SUBSTATION EAGLE WILL BE DESTROYING ELECTRICITY, FEEDING IT BACK TO THE SUBSTATION, AND THAT THE SUBSTATION SERVES THE PUBLIC.
HOWEVER, THE SUBSTATION SERVES THE PUBLIC WITHIN THE MEANING OF THE TOWN'S TOWN CODE'S DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER 2 85 5, ONLY BECAUSE IT'S OWNED AND OPERATED BY CONED, WHICH IS, IS A PUBLIC UTILITY REGULATED BY THE, UH, NEW YORK.
P S C EAGLE HAS NO SUCH OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN THE SUBSTATION AND IS MERELY AN ELECTRICITY WHOLESALER, AS YOU'VE HEARD, UH, THAT SELLS ITS ELECTRONS TO THE NI O TO UTILITIES AND OTHER CONSUMERS FROM O BUT NOT TO THE PUBLIC.
UM, BECAUSE MR. FRETA DID NOT PROPERLY APPLY THE TOWN CODE'S DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY, UM, UH, AND INSTEAD LOOKED TO SEE WHETHER THE APPLICATION WOULD INVOLVE ELECTRICITY BEING FURNISHED TO THE PUBLIC UNDER GOVERNMENT REGULATION WITHOUT REGARD TO THE SPECIFIC LEGAL ENTITY THAT'S DOING THE FURNISHING.
MR. F FRED'S INTERPRETATION WAS WRONG AND SHOULD BE VACATED.
HE WAS ALSO ASKED TO EXPLAIN HIS REASONING IN DETERMINING THAT
[00:45:01]
EVEN THOUGH NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN THE TOWN CODE, AND EVEN THOUGH SECTION 2 85 3 OF THE TOWN CODE STATES THAT QUOTE, ANY LAND USE NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED IN CHAPTER 2 85 IS PROHIBITED, HE ARGUES THAT THE, UH, BATTERY FACILITY SHOULD NEVERTHELESS BE DEEMED INCLUDED AS A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE.UM, AND HE WAS ASKED WHY, AND HE SAID, UH, WELL, THERE ARE OTHER USES NOT SPECIFICALLY LISTED IN THE TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH THE TOWN HAS ALLOWED BECAUSE THEY HAVE BEEN HISTORICALLY PERMITTED AND GOVERNED BY THE STATE BUILDING CODE.
BUT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DOES NOT HAVE THE DISCRETION TO DISREGARD TOWN CODE 2 85 THREE'S RULE GOVERNING LAND USES NOT SPECIFICALLY PERMITTED WHEN HE FINDS SUCH USE PERMITTED BY STATE BUILDING CODES BECAUSE HE DID THAT, THAT INTERPRETATION IS WRONG AND SHOULD BE VACATED ON THAT GROUND AS WELL.
FINALLY, MR. FRETA WAS ASKED WHAT DATE HE FILED AND MADE PUBLIC HIS DETERMINATION AND TO DESCRIBE THE PROCESS FOR FILING THE DETERMINATION, INCLUDING HOW IT BECAME PART OF A PUBLIC RECORD OR PART OF PUBLIC RECORDS.
BUT HERE, MR. FRETA DOES NOT MENTION AT ALL HIS NOVEMBER 12TH, 2020 MEMORANDUM, WHICH EXPLAINED HIS REASONS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE BATTERY FACILITY QU QUALIFIED AS A, UH, PERMITTED USE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS AS A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE.
INSTEAD, HE RECITED A PROCESS BY WHICH THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION SENT HIM A COPY OF THE DEVELOPER'S APPLICATION.
HE THEN CHECKED THE BOX SHOWING HE HAD NO COMMENTS ON THE APPLICATION, AND THEN RETURNED THE FORM TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONSERVATION WHERE IT IS STAMPED RECEIVED BY THAT DEPARTMENT.
HE THEN STATES THAT A COPY OF WHAT HE SUBMITTED IS KEPT IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FILES, BUT HE NOWHERE STATES THAT SUCH DOCUMENTATION IS STAMPED RECEIVED BY HIS DEPARTMENT, NOR DOES HE EXPLAIN HOW THAT DOCUMENT IN HIS FILES BECAME PART OF PUBLIC RECORDS.
THE VERY QUESTION THIS BOARD ASKED, IN FACT, IT WAS NEVER PRODUCED IN RESPONSE TO CGCAS FOIL REQUESTS, NOR WAS IT MADE PART OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S DOCUMENTATION, NOR WAS IT EVER POSTED ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE WHERE ALL OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THIS APPLICATION ARE POSTED.
SO THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM MR. FRETA TO THE ZBA A'S QUESTION AS TO HOW HIS INTERPRETATION BECAME PART OF PUBLIC RECORDS, THAT'S IMPORTANT BECAUSE IT'S STATUTORY, AT LEAST AS TO THE C G C A.
I WANNA NOW MAKE A FEW COMMENTS ON MR. SHEA'S RESPONSE TO THE Z B'S QUESTIONS.
UM, MR. SHERETTA WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE DATA AND OR DOCUMENTATION TO SHOW HOW EAGLE MEETS THE DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY UNDER THE TOWN'S CODE, AND QUOTE SPECIFICALLY HOW EAGLE ENERGY WOULD FURNISH ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC.
IN HIS RESPONSE, MR. SHERETTA FIRST CITES CON THE CONED BILLS SUPPLY CHARGE ITEM, WHICH IS THE WHOLESALE COST OF ALL ELECTRICITY THAT THE PUBLIC RECEIVES.
HOWEVER, THE SAMPLE BILL HE PROVIDES STATES UNDER SUPPLY CHARGES, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER SEVEN THAT YOUR ELECTRICITY IS SUPPLIED BY.
AND THEN IN ALL CAPS, SAMPLE ESCO COMPANY.
BUT EAGLE ENERGY IS NOT AN ESCO.
IT DOES NOT INTERFACE WITH THE PUBLIC, IT DOES NOT INTERFACE WITH CON ED'S CUSTOMERS IS INSTEAD, AS WE'VE SAID, A WHOLESALER THAT CAN SELL TO AN ESCO, BUT IT IS NOT AN ESCO.
SO THERE'S NOTHING IN THE CONED BILL THAT SUPPORTS EAGLE'S, UH, UH, CONTENTION THAT IT FURNISHES ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC.
MR. SHERETTA NEXT ARGUES THAT QUOTE, OTHER JURISDICTIONS HAVE UTILIZED LOCAL MUNICIPAL DEFINITIONS OF PUBLIC UTILITY TO SUPPORT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
UM, MR. SCHWARTZ, UH, CORRECTLY QUOTED FROM THE, UM, UH, TOWN CODE OF THE TOWN OF WHITESTOWN, WHICH HAS A DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY, WHICH MR. SHERETTA DID NOT ATTACH TO HIS SUBMISSION, BUT WHICH I,
[00:50:01]
UH, WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT TO THE, UH, Z B A AS PART OF THE RECORD HERE.SO YOU CAN SEE FOR YOURSELF THAT THE PUBLIC, UH, THAT THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY IN THEIR CODE IS NOT THE SAME AS GREENBERG'S.
MR. SCHWARTZ READ IT, UH, INTO THE RECORD, BUT I'M, I THINK WE, YOU SHOULD HAVE IT AS WELL.
UM, AND, AND BY THE WAY, IF YOU READ THE MINUTES OF THAT MEETING, UM, IT'S A MEETING OF THE Z B A IN WHITESTOWN ON WHETHER TO GRANT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A BE, UH, FOR A FACILITY THERE.
AND, AND, UH, THE PROBLEM, UH, WAS THAT THE, UH, CHAIRMAN OF THAT Z B A, UH, IN THAT JURISDICTION, THE Z B A ACTUALLY GRANTS THE SPECIAL PERMITS, UNLIKE OURS, WHERE THE TOWN BOARD GRANTS THE SPECIAL PERMITS, BUT THERE, THE Z B A WAS, WAS DEALING WITH THAT.
AND THE CHAIR COULDN'T BELIEVE THAT THIS, UM, UH, APPLICATION MET THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY EVEN UNDER THEIR CODE.
AND, AND HE WAS VERY TROUBLED BY IT, BUT HE WAS PRECLUDED FROM DOING ANYTHING ABOUT IT BECAUSE THE MATTER HAD ALREADY BEEN BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD IN THAT TOWN, AND THE PLANNING BOARD HAD GRANTED SITE PLAN APPROVAL, AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION HAD ALREADY BEEN ISSUED, AND IT HAD BEEN 60 DAYS, LONGER THAN 60 DAYS, AND NO ONE OBJECT, NO ONE APPEALED.
SO THE, THE ZONING BOARD CHAIR THERE WAS SAYING, I DON'T SEE HOW THIS COMPLIES, BUT SINCE NO ONE APPEALED, I CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
THE Z B A CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
WE THEREFORE HAVE TO GRANT THE SPECIAL PERMIT.
WELL, HERE, THE, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED, AND BECAUSE IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, DOESN'T HAVE TO APPEAL, THEY CAN JUST REQUEST AN INTERPRETATION.
SO, UNLIKE THE SITUATION THAT WAS FACING, WHITESTOWN GREENBERG IS, UH, HAS THE Z B A, UH, UH, READY AND ABLE TO ADDRESS THESE FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION WAS RIGHT OR WRONG.
UH, SO I FOUND THAT THOSE MINUTES, WHICH MR. SHERETTA DID ATTACH, ARE VERY USEFUL.
UM, THE, UH, THE BLAZE, THE BLAZEDALE VILLAGE ORDINANCE, UM, WHEN YOU READ THEIR CODE, AGAIN, MR. SHREDDER DIDN'T ATTACH IT.
UH, BUT THEIR CODE, UM, ALLOWS FOR, UH, CERTAIN FACILITIES BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT IF THEY'RE DEEMED QUOTE, ESSENTIAL, UH, FACILITIES, WHICH IS NOT UNDEFINED TERM.
AND, AND CASE LAW HAS SUPPLIED DEFINITIONS FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES OR ESSENTIAL FACILITIES.
UM, BUT THAT HAS NO APPLICATION IN GREENBURG BECAUSE OUR CODE DOESN'T USE THAT TERMINOLOGY.
UH, AND HE WAS RIGHT, PUBLIC UTILITY WAS NOT AT ISSUE THERE.
UM, NEXT, MR. SHERETTA WAS ALSO ASKED WHY, GIVEN THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY SHOWING THAT THE TOWN OF GREENBURG IN 1997 SPECIFICALLY AMENDED THE PROVISION GOVERNING SPECIAL PERMITS IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS FOR PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES TO ADD CELL PHONE COMMUNICATION TOWERS AS AS, AS A PERMITTED USE UNDER THAT STATUTE, UNDER THAT CODE PROVISION.
WHY IF THE TOWN BOARD UNDERTOOK TO AMEND THE STATUTE TO ADD THAT SPECIFIC USE, SHOULD THE Z B A UNDERTAKE NOW TO ADD BATTERY STORAGE FACILITIES AS A SPECIAL PERMITTED USE AS A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE? I THOUGHT THAT WAS AN EXCELLENT QUESTION FROM THE Z B A.
IN HIS RESPONSE THOUGH, MR. SHERETTA ARGUED THAT THE Z B A SHOULD DO SO BECAUSE THE CONCEPT OF A PUBLIC UTILITY OR ENERGY PROVIDER NOW INCLUDES A MUCH BROADER SCOPE OR ENTITIES, AND THAT QUOTE, IT IS THEREFORE A COMMON SENSE INTERPRETATION THAT THE PROJECT WHICH IS PART OF THE DELIVERY PROCESS FOR A TRADITIONAL UTILITY QUALIFIES AS A PUBLIC UTILITY OR A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE.
WELL, THAT IS A, MAYBE A GOOD REASON WHY THE TOWN BOARD MIGHT WANNA AMEND THE STATUTE JUST AS IT DID IN 1997 TO ADD CELL PHONE TOWERS.
BUT THAT IS NOT A GOOD REASON WHY THE Z B A SHOULD SUBSTITUTE
[00:55:01]
ITS JUDGMENT FOR THE TOWN BOARD IN REWRITING THE CODE TO DO JUST THAT.I MEAN, I THOUGHT THE C B A EXPRESSED IT VERY WELL.
UM, THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE THE C B A, UH, WHERE THE C B A RECOGNIZED THAT THE TOWN KNOWS HOW TO ADD SPECIFIC USES TO THE PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE SECTION OF THE CODE.
IT DID SO IN 1997, IT MAY WELL DO SO NOW, UH, THAT THE, THE BATTERY ELECTRIC STORAGE TECHNOLOGY IS BEFORE IT, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE DONE BY THE ZONING BOARD ON AN INTERPRETATION.
UM, FINALLY, MR. SHERETTA WAS ASKED WHY THE CORRALES CASE IS NOT DISPOSITIVE ON THE ISSUE OF TIMELINESS.
UH, AND HERE, UH, HE ARGUES THAT, UH, IN CORRALES THERE WAS NO WRITTEN DETERMINATION BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT THE PROJECT THERE WAS ZONING COMPLIANT, ONLY AN INHERENT DETERMINATION.
HE ARGUES THAT, UH, BASED ON THAT, UM, DOCUMENT, UH, MR. SHERETTA OBTAINED FROM THE TOWN, UH, THAT, UH, WE'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE, THAT HE NEV THAT WAS NEVER PRODUCED BY THE TOWN IN RESPONSE TO OUR FOIL REQUESTS.
UH, THAT'S THAT STAFF REPORT, UH, THAT MR. SCHWARTZ REFERENCED.
UH, MR. SHERETTA HAS THIS DOCUMENT, UH, I'M AMAZED THAT HE HAS IT BECAUSE, UH, WE FOILED ALL THE DOCUMENTS THAT WASN'T PRODUCED.
UH, AND, UH, IT'S NOT FILE STAMPED RECEIVED BY THE ANYBODY.
UM, BUT MR. SCHWARTZ SAID HE SAW IT.
UH, BUT AS I SAID, WE NEVER GOT IT.
BUT THE, THE POINT THOUGH IS THAT DOCUMENT MERELY SAYS THAT MR. SHERETTA, I MEAN, MR. FRETA, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, UH, MADE A DETERMINATION, AND THIS IS THE PLANNING, UH, DEPARTMENT REPORTING THAT MR. FRETA, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, MADE A DETERMINATION AS TO AREA VARIANCES.
AND AS MR. SCHWARTZ CORRECTLY POINTS OUT, UM, THE ISSUE HERE, UH, IS USE VARIANCE BECAUSE THE QUESTION IS USE, UH, HOW IS IT THAT MR. FRETA, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, CONCLUDED THAT THIS USE B E S S QUALIFIED AS A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE, UH, THAT IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WAS, UH, UM, DECIDED EXCEPT PERHAPS INHERENTLY, PERHAPS WHEN THE BUILDING INSPECTOR CHECKED, UH, THE BOX SAYING HE HAD NO COMMENTS.
UH, AND PERHAPS IMPLIEDLY WHEN, UH, THE PLANNING STAFF PREPARED THIS, UH, REPORT, UH, FOR THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE, UH, BUT, BUT, UH, IF ANYTHING, IT'S AN INHERENT DETERMINATION, WHICH THEREFORE IS THE VERY THING THAT WAS DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE CORRALES CASE, WHICH IS NOT A BASIS FOR STARTING A 60 DAY CLOCK ON ANYTHING WHEN APPEALING A BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION.
SO, UH, THE CORRALES CASE, I BELIEVE, CONTINUES TO BE DISPOSITIVE OF THAT ISSUE AND THE, UH, ATTEMPT TO DISTINGUISH THAT CASE, UH, THAT MR. SHERETTA OFFERED TO THE Z B A IN HIS LETTER IS WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, WITHOUT MERIT.
UH, I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
OTHERWISE, UH, IT'S TIME FOR OTHERS TO BE HEARD.
I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AT THIS TIME IF WE COULD, BECAUSE WE DID NOT GET AN OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM HIM PREVIOUSLY.
WELL, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF, UH, INFORMATION THAT'S BEEN PUT OUT THERE WITH RESPECT TO, UM, STATEMENTS YOU'VE HEARD THIS EVENING.
AND I THINK ONE OF THE, WELL, THERE'S A FEW QUESTIONS GOING BACK TO THE FILING.
UM, WHERE, WHERE WAS THIS, UM, DETERMINATION BY YOU FILED, UH, MR. FREADA? UM, THE WAY I EXPLAINED IT IN, IN MY, MY LETTER TO YOU IS, UM, THESE APPLICATIONS DON'T START IN MY DEPARTMENT.
OKAY? THEY START IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, THEY GENERATE THAT, THAT FORM OR THAT MEMORANDUM, AND THEY SEND IT TO ME AND THEY, I READ IT.
I LOOK, I READ THROUGH THE PLANS, I LOOK AT THE DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SENT TO ME, AND I MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT NO VARIANCES
[01:00:01]
WERE NEEDED OR ANY TYPES OF VARIANCES WERE NEEDED.UM, I SEND IT BACK TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT WHERE THEY STAMP IT IN THAT THEY RECEIVED IT, AND I KEEP A FILE.
UM, I, I KEEP A COPY OF THE PLANS AND, UM, THE LETTER IN MY OFFICE.
SO THERE'S NO FORMAL FILING, REALLY.
THE, IN OTHER WORDS, YOU, ONCE YOU CHECK THE BOX, YOU, YOU SEND IT BACK.
AND THEN YOU JUST KEEP A COPY OF WHAT YOU SENT.
NOW, NOW, IF THERE WERE VARIANCES, LET'S TAKE A HYPOTHETICAL.
NOW, IF, IF THERE WERE VARIANCES OR ANY OTHER, UH, ITEMS THAT MADE, HAD TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD, I WOULD'VE GENERATED ANOTHER MEMO, UM, TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, UM, LISTING THE PROPERTY AND THEN LISTING THE VARIANCE THAT WOULD, THAT THE VARIANCES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED.
UM, WE SEND THAT DOCUMENT OFF TO, UM, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THEY STAMP IT IN AND SEND IT, USUALLY SEND IT, I BELIEVE THEY SEND IT TO, UM, TO THE BOARD AT THAT TIME, THE PLANNING BOARD.
NOW, IF A, IF A APPLICATION BEGINS IN MY DEPARTMENT, UH, OR THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, I SHOULD SAY, YEAH, IT'S, THE PLANS ARE SENT TO US.
EVERYTHING GETS STAMPED IN, PHYSICALLY STAMPED IN, UM, THEN WE PUT IT UNDER, YOU KNOW, WE GO THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS.
SOME OF THEM MAY NEED A VARIANCES.
THEY MEET THE ZONING AND WE SEND THEM OFF, UH, FOR THEIR PERMITS.
OTHERS THAT DON'T, UH, THAT DO, UH, REQUIRE VARIANCES.
I GIVE MY NORMAL, UM, DENIAL LETTER, UM, THAT'S SENT OFF TO THE APPLICANT AND TO YOU ACTUALLY SENT TO CAROL.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, AS THE ZONING SECRETARY.
SO WHERE ARE THOSE? I JUST WANNA CLEAR UP.
THAT'S THE WAY SINCE I'VE GOTTEN, SINCE I CAME BACK HERE, OR SINCE I BECAME BUILDING INSPECTOR, THAT IT'S ALWAYS BEEN DONE.
EVEN MY PREDECESSOR DID IT THE EXACT SAME WAY.
SO THE COPY OF THE DOCUMENT THAT YOU CHECKED THE BOX ON, WAS THERE ANY REQUEST EVER MADE, UH, OF YOU TO, UM, TO PRODUCE THAT DOCUMENT? UH, NOT THAT I RECALL, NO.
SO, IN HINDSIGHT, UM, STEVE, WHEN YOU CHECKED THAT BOX, DID YOU EVER THINK THAT IT WOULD BECOME THIS KIND OF A COMMOTION? OH, NO.
I, I, I REALLY THOUGHT THIS WAS GOING TO BE VETTED OUT IN FRONT OF THE TOWN BOARD.
UH, THAT WAS MY, THAT WAS MY ASSUMPTION THAT THIS WAS GONNA GO TO THE TOWN BOARD, AND THEY WOULD DO ALL THIS PROCESS AND THEY WOULD DECIDE WHETHER, HEY, DOES THIS BELONG HERE OR IT DOESN'T BELONG THERE, UM, BY GRANTING THE SPECIAL PERMIT OR NOT.
THAT'S, BELIEVE ME, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
I WOULD NOT WANNA PUT EVERYBODY THROUGH ALL THIS
BUT WHEN YOU CHECKED THE BOX, YOU DID KNOW THAT THIS PROJECT WAS GOING TO NEED THE SPECIAL PERMIT.
SO YOU, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT I WANT, THAT I SAID I CAN, I CAN ULTIMATELY GRANT A PERMIT FOR.
I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DO THAT.
I, I SAW THAT, HEY, LOOK, I FELT IT, IT MET THE DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE, AND IT MET, IT MET ALL THAT PART WHERE IT CAN MOVE FORWARD TO THE TOWN BOARD TO MAKE THE DECISION.
SO YOUR OPINION AT THAT, TO MY INTERPRETATION AT ALL? SO YOUR OPINION? NO, I WOULD DO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT MY, I DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO JUST GO AHEAD AND GRANT THE PERMIT.
UM, THIS WAS GOING, I FELT THAT THIS WAS, THERE WAS ENOUGH INFORMATION, RIGHT, WHERE I MADE MY DECISION WITH HELP WITH OTHERS, BUT I MADE MY DECISION THAT, OKAY, I THINK THIS IS ENOUGH INFORMATION HERE THAT GO TO THE TOWN BOARD TO BE VETTED OUT, NOT THIS.
DID YOU FINISH YOUR, YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, THAT ONE I DID.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF, UM, FULLY INSPECT AT THIS TIME? UH, JUST ONE MORE ACTUALLY.
WHAT, SO WHEN THE TOWN, THIS IS MAYBE FOR THE TOWN IN GENERAL, WHEN THE TOWN GETS A A, A LARGER DEVELOPMENT PROJECT, DOES IT TYPICALLY COME GO INTO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND NOT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO IT COMES INTO THE BUILDING TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, AND THEY SEND OUT THAT LETTER, THEY SEND IT TO YOU, THEY SEND IT TO D P W TO SEND IT TO PUBLIC SAFETY.
AND EVERYBODY KIND OF GETS THE SAME SUMMARY LETTER WITH THE BOX AT THE BOTTOM THAT SAYS, CHECK IF YOU HAVE A COMMENT.
AND SO IF YOU HAVE THE COMMENT AT THE TIME, YOU WOULD THEN
[01:05:01]
PUT IN WHATEVER YOUR COMMENT IS, AND AGAIN, GIVE IT BACK TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.IF I HAD A COMMENT, I WOULD WRITE IT OUT.
NOT BE CHECKED THAT I PRESUME I WOULD WRITE A COMMENT, I WOULD WRITE MY RESPONSE.
USUALLY IT GOES, HAS TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD, AND I WOULD SPECIFICALLY WRITE OUT WHAT VARIANCES WOULD BE REQUIRED.
AND SO THEN ANYBO, ANY DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS, GO BACK TO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
AND THEN, SO THEN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, DO YOU THEN ASSEMBLE THOSE COMMENTS EVEN IF THERE'S NO COMMENT AND THEN YOU GIVE THEM ALL TO THE PLANNING BOARD? OR, OR WHAT EXACTLY DOES THE PLANNING BOARD RECEIVE WHEN IT GETS THE PACKAGE FROM YOU GUYS TO REVIEW? YEAH.
WHAT WE DO IS WHEN WE SEND OUT THE, UH, APPLICATION THAT'S FILED AND THE REQUEST FOR COMMENTS, WE COMPILE THEM.
THEY EITHER WILL, UM, BE STRAIGHTFORWARD AND NOT REQUIRE CHANGES TO AN APPLICATION.
OR SOMETIMES, UH, DEPARTMENTS WILL ASK FOR VARIOUS INFORMATION AND WE WILL EITHER, UM, SEND THOSE COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT IF THERE'S A REQUEST FROM A DEPARTMENT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, OR IF, LET'S SAY THERE'S NO COMMENTS, UM, WE WOULD WORK WITH THE APPLICANT FURTHER THE APPLICATION ALONG AND THEN SEND THE APPLICATION IN ITS ENTIRETY TO THE APPLICABLE BOARD.
SO, UM, IN THIS CASE, THE TOWN BOARD, UH, ALONG WITH, UM, STAFF REPORT, AND, UM, THAT COMPRISES THE FORMAL APPLICATION THAT GOES TO THE LAND USE BOARD FOR THE RECORD FOR EVERY PROJECT.
I'M SORRY,
BECAUSE I CAN TELL YOU IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, WE SEARCHED OUR FILES.
WE NEVER EVER GOT THE INITIAL DOCUMENT.
AND I ASKED FOR, AND BY THE WAY, FOR THE RECORD, IT WAS ASKED FOR, UH, WHEN I GOT THAT STAFF REPORT, AND I SAID THE STAFF REPORT WAS STRANGE 'CAUSE IT ONLY TALKED ABOUT USE VARIANCES.
I MEAN, ONLY ABOUT AREA VARIANCES, NOT USE VARIANCES.
AND I KNEW THE ISSUE WAS A USE VARIANCE IN THIS CASE.
AFTER ALL, IT'S A HUNDRED ACRES AND AN R 30 ZONE.
I DIDN'T THINK THE THINK PARAMETERS, YOU KNOW, THAT DIMENSIONAL PARAMETERS WOULD BE AN ISSUE.
IT WAS A USE ISSUE, NOT AN AREA ISSUE.
AND THAT WASN'T, THAT WASN'T IN THE STAFF REPORT.
WE NEVER GOT THE INITIAL THING I ASKED ON AT LEAST TWO OCCASIONS.
THE LAST TIME IN WRITING TO AARON SCHMIDT THAT I WANTED A WRITTEN THING FROM MR. RETA, HE COULD HAVE PRODUCED THE INITIAL DOCUMENT THEN THAT WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
IT WAS NOT PRODUCED BY MR. RETTA.
MR. RETTA HEARD ME SAY IT AT NOVEMBER 4TH MEETING.
THE FIRST WRITTEN CORRESPONDENCE WE GOT FROM MR. RETTA WAS A NOVEMBER 12TH LETTER PERIOD IN THE LAW IS VERY CLEAR.
BY THE WAY, THE LAW TOWN LAW TWO, I THINK IT'S 2 67 A TOWN LAW CLEARLY STATES IT IS A DECIDING AGENCY THAT IS SUPPOSED TO STAMP AND FILE THE DECISION IF WE'VE BEEN DOING IT WRONG ALL THESE YEARS, MIA COPA.
OKAY? BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY, NO POSSIBLE WAY WE COULD HAVE APPEALED THIS UNTIL WE GOT THAT LETTER ON NOVEMBER 12TH.
AND I THINK OTHERWISE IT MAKES NO SENSE WHATSOEVER.
BUT WE NEVER GOT, WE NEVER SAW THAT INITIAL LETTER TILL, I BELIEVE IT WAS, IT, IT WAS SHOWN TO US BY MR. RETTA, OR MAYBE IT, IT WAS REFERRED TO BY MR. RETA IN HIS NOVEMBER 12TH LETTER.
THAT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT WE KNEW ABOUT THAT.
SO, ONE OTHER QUESTION THEN, UH, WHY, WHY GIVE A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION ON THIS TO THE TOWN BOARD GIVEN YOU KNOW HOW SERIOUS YOU ARE? GOOD QUESTION.
FIRST OF ALL, THE NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION, AS WE'VE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING OF THIS, AND IT'S SEVERAL MONTHS.
SO IT, SO IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS.
WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY AGAINST THIS PROJECT.
OKAY? AND THE REASON WE GAVE A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION AT THE TIME WAS ON THE SITE PLAN.
OKAY? WE GAVE A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE WHAT HAPPENED AS THIS THING WENT ON, WE GOT MORE INFORMATION, INCLUDING GOT A HOLD OF THE SAFETY MANUAL FROM TESLA, WHICH SAID IT NEEDED 3000 GALLONS OF WATER TO PUT OUT A CAR FIRE AND SAID, GEE, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH YET OF WHETHER OR NOT WE CAN MANAGE THIS FROM A SAFETY POINT OF VIEW.
AND OUR RECOMMENDATION BACK WAS, HEY, THIS LOOKS GOOD, BUT WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT THE SAFETY ISSUES.
AND WE RECOMMENDED AT THE TIME THAT THE TOWN BOARD HIRE A CON A SAFETY CONSULTANT, WHICH IN FACT, THEY DID.
THEY HIRED A SAFETY CON CONSULTANT IN TERMS OF
[01:10:01]
THIS.WE MADE A SEPARATE RECOMMENDATION IF YOU HEARD WALTER TALK ABOUT TWO RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE SECOND ONE WAS WE QUESTIONED THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION.
OKAY? WE DIDN'T AGREE WITH IT.
WE QUESTIONED IT, DIDN'T THINK IT WAS OUR PLACE TO, TO, UH, APPEAL IT SINCE THE TOWN BOARD WAS THE LEAD AGENCY AND SUGGESTED THAT THE TOWN BOARD LOOK INTO IT AWAKE LATER.
WE, UH, MR. AND IT WAS AFTER OUR, OUR MEETING.
SO MR. SIMON AND I WROTE ANOTHER LETTER TO THE TOWN BOARD SAYING, YOU REALLY NEED TO CONSIDER APPEALING IT.
THEY HAD THREE WORK SESSIONS, I THINK BETWEEN THEN AND, AND THE NINTH OF, OF JANUARY, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
RIGHT AFTER NEW YEAR'S, WE ONLY HAD, WE ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING IN DECEMBER, THE FIRST WEEK IN DECEMBER.
SO OUR NEXT MEETING WAS IN JANUARY.
AND AT THE THREE WORK SESSION, ULTIMATELY THE TOWN BOARD DECIDED NOT TO APPEAL IT, AT WHICH CASE, AT OUR NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING, WE SAID, THIS NEEDS TO BE APPEALED.
AND THAT'S WHEN, WHEN WE DID WHAT WE, THAT WE TOOK THE ACTION WE DID, BUT WE HAD NO WAY, THERE WAS, WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY BASIS FOR AN APPEAL ON BEFORE NOVEMBER 12TH.
AND THAT'S JUST, JUST A FACT, ASSUMING AND ASSUMING THAT THE, THE CLOCK, UH, WE ONLY HAD THAT 60 DAY CLOCK WAS RUNNING OUT, WHICH WE FIND NOW THAT IT WAS NOT.
BUT WE'VE OPERATED ON THE PREMISE THAT IT WAS, AND, AND AS MR. SWARTZ SAID, ALL OF OUR EFFORTS WITH THE TOWN BOARD BEING THE LEAD AGENCY, THEY DECIDE NOT TO APPEAL.
SO WE WAS QUITE FRANKLY, FORCED INTO THAT POSITION TO APPEAL BECAUSE WE KNEW THAT IT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE TOWN IF IT W IF THIS APPLICATION WAS APPROVED UNDER THE SPECIAL PERMIT LAW BECAUSE OF ALL SORTS OF A, UH, UH, UH, IMPLICATION TO THE REST OF THE TOWN, WHICH MR. UH, SCHWARTZ JUST, UH, ARTICULATED.
AND AGAIN, WE NEVER SAW THAT CHECKOFF, A APPRO, UH, UH, A DOCUMENT THAT WAS GENERATED, UH, BY, UH, UH, MR. RETTA.
AND THAT'S WHY WE REQUESTED SOMETHING IN WRITING BECAUSE WE NEVER SAW THE DOCUMENT.
WE KNEW OR WE WERE TOLD THAT, UH, UH, MR. RETTA, UH, FELT THAT IT WAS APPROVED.
IT WILL, IT'S OKAY UNDER THE SPECIAL PERMIT LAW.
BUT WE DID HAVE NO UNDERSTANDING OF THE LOGIC THAT WENT INTO MAKING THAT DECISION.
SO WE COULD NOT MAKE A DECISION ON OUR OWN BEFORE WE HAD APPROPRIATE INFORMATION AND DOCUMENTATION.
SO THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE DELAYED WHAT WE WERE DOING.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE ASKED FOR SOMETHING IN WRITING.
SO WE WILL HAVE A BASIS FOR MAKING OUR OWN DECISION REGARDING THE APPEAL.
THIS IS FOR, UM, MR. BERNSTEIN.
CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN AGAIN, WHEN THE VERY FIRST THING THAT YOU SPOKE ABOUT THIS EVENING ABOUT SECTION, UM, 2 85 48 A AND HOW Y THE TIMELINESS ISSUE WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE HERE? SURE.
UH, THE, THE WAY THE STATUTE WORKS IS THAT THE JURISDICTION OF THE Z B A IS DEFINED UNDER, UH, TOWN LAW, STATE LAW, TOWN LAW 2 67, A FOUR, AND IT SAYS, QUOTE, UNLESS OTHERWISE, PROVIDED BY LOCAL LAW OR ORDINANCE, THE JURISDICTION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS SHALL BE APPELLATE ONLY AND SHALL BE LIMITED TO HEARING AND DECIDING APPEALS FROM AND REVIEWING ANY ORDER REQUIREMENT, DECISION INTERPRETATION, OR DETERMINATION MADE BY THE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL CHARGED WITH THE ENFORCEMENT OF ANY ORDINANCE OR LOCAL LAW ADOPTED PURSUANT TO THIS ARTICLE.
BUT HERE, GREENBERG, THE GREENBERG TOWN CODE DOES PROVIDE OTHERWISE, AND THE TOWN CODE SECTION 2 85 DASH 48, A ENTITLED INTERPRETATION,
[01:15:02]
STATES THAT, UH, PURSUANT TO SECTION 2 67 OF THE TOWN LAW, THE POWERS OF THE Z B A ARE EXPANDED SO THAT THE ZBA POWER AND AUTHORITY TO DECIDE ANY QUESTION INVOLVING THE INTERPRETATION OF ANY PROVISION OF THIS CHAPTER MAY OCCUR, QUOTE ON AN APPEAL FROM AN ORDER REQUIREMENT DECISION OR DETERMINATION MADE BY AN ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICIAL.THAT'S THE PART THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH STATE LAW.
AND THEN THESE WORDS, OR ON A REQUEST MADE BY AN OFFICIAL BOARD OR AGENCY OF THE TOWN, THOSE WORDS, OR ON A REQUEST MADE BY AN OFFICIAL BOARD OR AGENCY OF THE TOWN ARE WORDS THAT APPEAR IN THE GREENBERG TOWN CODE.
THEY DO NOT APPEAR IN THE STATE LAW, BUT THE STATE LAW AUTHORIZED MUNICIPALITIES TO, TO, TO EXPAND THE JURISDICTION OF THEIR EBAS IF THEY SO CHOSE TO DO SO.
SO WHEN GREEN, WHEN, WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD FILED, ITS, UH, WHAT, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, WE'LL CALL IT, APPEAL.
THE Z B A RECOGNIZED THAT THEY HAD, THEY, THE PLANNING BOARD HAD THE RIGHT TO REQUEST AN INTERPRETATION, WHICH IS WHY THE AGENDA FOR THIS TONIGHT'S MEETING AND THE LEGAL NOTICE ALL STATE THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE PLANNING BOARD, THEY'RE SEEKING A REQUEST, THEY'RE REQUESTING AN INTERPRETATION FROM THE Z B A.
BY CONTRAST, THE C G C A IS SEEK IS, HAS FILED AN APPEAL.
SO WHILE THE PLANNING BOARD KEEPS TALKING ABOUT THEY'RE HAVING APPEALED AND HAVING MADE A DECISION TO APPEAL UNDER THE LAW, THEY HAVE A RIGHT THAT THE C G C A DOES NOT HAVE, WHICH IS TO REQUEST AN INTERPRETATION FROM THE, UH, UM, Z B A.
AND THIS NOTION THAT BOARDS, UM, UH, UH, AS LAND USE BOARDS OR THE TOWN BOARD OF A TOWN CAN INDEPENDENTLY REQUEST SUCH AN INTERPRETATION IS, HAS, HAS ROOTS IN THE TOWN, IN THE STATE LAW TOO.
BECAUSE FOR ONE THING, IT SAYS THAT UNDER THE STATE LAW THAT A, UH, A BOARD OF A TOWN CAN FILE AN APPEAL, BUT IF IT DOES, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO SHOW THAT IT'S AGGRIEVED.
WHERE SAY, A CIVIC GROUP LIKE THE C G C A, THEY HAVE TO SHOW THAT THEY'RE AGGRIEVED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO HAVE STANDING AN ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED BY, UH, UH, JUDGE, UH, BY, BY OTHERS ON THE Z B A CONCERNING WHETHER THE C G C A HAS STANDING.
WE THINK IT DOES, BUT, BUT THAT'S IN THAT ISSUE GOES TO WHETHER THE C G C A IS SUFFICIENTLY AGGRIEVED TO BE ABLE TO FILE THIS APPEAL.
BUT THE BOARDS OF THE TOWN, BE IT THE PLANNING BOARD OR THE TOWN BOARD, UH, OR ANY OTHER DULY APPOINTED BOARD OF THE TOWN, THEY DON'T HAVE TO SHOW THEY'RE AGGRIEVED.
THEY CAN FILE AN APPEAL WITHOUT SHOWING THAT THEY HAVE, ARE, ARE AGGRIEVED, JUST THE MERE FACT THAT THEY ARE AN A, A BOARD OF THE TOWN.
NOW, THE ADDITIONAL WRINKLE HERE IS THE TOWN BOARD IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG AMENDED ITS CODE AT SOME POINT IN THE PAST TO SAY THAT HERE IN GREENBERG, WE WANT THE ZONING BOARD TO HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO HEAR REQUESTS FOR INTERPRETATIONS WITHOUT HAVING TO BE SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF AN APPEAL.
THAT'S WHY THEY ADDED THOSE WORDS.
THAT'S ALL THAT'S NEEDED IS A REQUEST FOR BY MADE BY AN OFFICIAL BOARD OR AGENCY OF THE TOWN.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHY WE ARE WHERE WE, WE, WHY WE ARE WHERE WE ARE, THAT, UH, UM, YOU KNOW, ALL THIS TALK ABOUT WHETHER THE NOTICE WAS DONE PROPERLY, WHETHER IT WAS AN INHERENT, UH, DETERMINATION OR A WRITTEN DETERMINATION WHETHER, UM, MR. FRETA, UH, SHOULD HAVE FILED, STAMPED HIS, UH, CHECKED BOX OR NOT.
ALL THOSE ARE INTERESTING ISSUES,
[01:20:01]
AND THEY PROBABLY SHOULD RE RESULT IN A CHANGE IN THE WAY THE TOWN AND PARTICULARLY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DOES BUSINESS.BUT AS FAR AS THE ZBA A'S AUTHORITY TO DECIDE THE QUESTION RAISED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, WHICH IS AN INTERPRETATION OF THIS SECTION OF THE CODE REGARDING, UH, SPECIAL PERMITS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS FOR, FOR, FOR PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES, THAT DECISION IS ZBA AND ZBA ALONE TO DECIDE UPON HAVING RECEIVED THAT REQUEST.
DOES THAT ANSWER THE QUESTION? YEAH, I UNDERSTAND.
I'M JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED, UH, CHRISTIE, THAT YOU'RE FOCUSING ON THAT.
I MEAN, I'M, I'M GLAD BOB FOUND IT, BUT I WANNA MAKE IT VERY CLEAR, THE LAW, NEW YORK STATE LAW SAYS FOR US TO APPEAL DECISION, DECISION NEEDS TO BE IN WRITING.
SO, UM, IF YOU TAKE A LOOK AT THE ROADMAP OF MR. SERTA'S ARGUMENTS, INCLUDING MOVING THE DATE TO NOVEMBER 4TH AT THE LAST, THE LAST HEARING OF THE, UM, OF THE ZONING BOARD ON THIS SUBJECT, UM, IT IS NOW CLEAR FROM THE VIDEO THAT YOU SAW TONIGHT.
I WAS A LOUSY PRODUCER, BUT, BUT I'M PRETTY GOOD EDITOR.
UM, THAT WE HAD, NOT ONLY HADN'T WE SEEN IT, BUT YOU COULD HEAR ME SAYING WE NEED IT IN WRITING AT THE MEETING.
I HAD SAID THAT THERE'S AN EMAIL WHICH I PRODUCED AT THE LA IN MY LAST RESPONSE FROM APRIL 30TH, ASKING FOR IT IN WRITING.
WELL, IF HE HAD IT, WHY DIDN'T HE PRODUCE IT? IF IT, IF, IF THIS WAS A REAL DECISION, WHY DIDN'T, WHY WASN'T IT PRODUCED? WHY FROM THE TIME I, WE FIRST ASKED FOR IT TILL THE TIME WE GOT THE NOVEMBER 12TH LETTER, IT WAS OVER THREE WEEKS.
I ASKED FOR, WE ASKED FOR IT WAY BEFORE THE NOVEMBER 4TH MEETING.
SO TO TO CONCLUDE ANYTHING THAT THE CLOCK, IF THERE IS A CLOCK, AND IT'S QUITE QUESTIONABLE, GIVEN MR WHAT MR. BERNSTEIN HAS TOLD YOU, IF THERE IS A CLOCK, IT COULDN'T POSSIBLY HAVE STARTED BEFORE NOVEMBER 12TH.
NO RATIONAL PERSON CAN THINK OTHERWISE.
BUT THAT'S THE WAY I FEEL ABOUT IT.
HOW CAN I MAKE A DECISION BASED ON AIR? HOW CAN I, AND WITH A CONFLICTING STAFF REPORT THAT TALKS ABOUT AREA VARIANCES, THAT'S WHAT I WAS FACED WITH.
AND TESTIMONY FROM THE APPLICANT'S PRINCIPLE, MR. ROBINSON, THAT CLEARLY STATES THEY ARE NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY AND EXPLAINS WHY THEY'RE NOT, WE HAD NO CHOICE.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE, BY THE WAY, GIVEN THE INFORMATION THAT CAME OUT, UH, FROM NOVEMBER 4TH THROUGH ABOUT JANUARY, AND A LOT OF IT CAME OUT ACTUALLY NOT ONLY IN THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT IN THE BATTERY ENERGY, UH, STORAGE LAW COMMITTEE, UM, THEN MR. FERER HAD THE CORRECT INFORMATION TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.
AND I'M NOT SURE IF HE HAD ALL THE INFORMATION WE HAVE NOW, WHICH CLEARLY STATES WHAT WHAT CON IS, IS A DISTRIBUTION CENTER FOR THEM.
THEY MAY END UP BUYING ENERGY BACK AT SOME POINT, THEY MIGHT, BUT WHAT THEY DO IS PROVIDE LINE, PROVIDE A TRANSMISSION LINE SO THAT EAGLE ENERGY COULD, COULD SELL INTO THE ISO MARKETPLACE.
AND WHAT HAPPENS BEYOND THAT IS ALL UP TO THE WHOLESALE MARKETPLACE AND NOTHING ELSE.
I, FROM WHAT I READ FROM MR. RE'S DECISION, HE ASSUMED THAT IT WAS GONNA BENEFIT THE PUBLIC AND LOCAL PUBLIC.
AND SO DID WE, BY THE WAY, WHEN WE FIRST HEARD IT ON THE 21ST OF OCTOBER, THAT WAS OUR IMPRESSION TOO, TILL WE GOT INTO IT MORE IN THAT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE THE CASE.
AND HE, AND, AND MR. FRED AT THAT POINT WASN'T, WASN'T PRIVY TO THAT INFORMATION CLEARLY, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT HE WASN'T, AND THAT MADE, IT WOULD'VE MADE HIS DEC MAY HAVE, MAY HAVE CHANGED HIS DECISION.
I I DON'T, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HIM, BUT IT CLEARLY IS A CHANGE AND MORE INFORMATION CAME OUT AS WE WENT ALONG, WHICH IS WHY, AND AS I SAID, THIS IS REALLY A CRITICAL DECISION FOR THIS BOARD AND THE IMPLICATION OF ALLOWING THIS AND WOULDN'T ALLOW SOLAR, PA, SOLAR FARMS, WIND FARMS TO GO IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS UNLESS WE CHANGE THE LAW.
IT'S THE ONLY REA THAT'S THE REASON I FEEL SO PASSIONATE ABOUT IT AND WHY THE PLANNING BOARD TOOK AN UNPRECEDENTED, UNPRECEDENTED MOVE TO, TO APPEAL A, A, A BILLING INSPECTOR'S OPINION.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD DO ON MOST CASES, WE JUST WOULDN'T, OR VIRTUALLY ANY CASE, WE'VE NEVER DONE IT BEFORE.
[01:25:01]
THANK YOU.ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT? NO, I HAVE, I'D LIKE TO, UH, BRIEFLY DISCUSS, UH, SOMETHING, UH, WHICH I, I ADDRESSED.
UH, WELL, I HAD SENT TO THE ZONING CHAIRMAN, I MEAN THE COMMISSIONER, UH, ABOUT SOMETHING THAT CONCERN, YOU KNOW, STILL CONCERNS ME ABOUT THE ARGUMENTS MADE HERE BY MR. RETTA.
AND SOME OF IT WAS TOUCHED UPON BY BOTH MR. SCHWARTZ AND MR. BERNSTEIN.
AND, UH, SO MUCH OF WHAT MR. CRETER HAS SAID UP TO NOW, UH, AND PROBABLY WILL SAY LATER, IS THAT WHENEVER A STATUTE, UM, IS AMBIGUOUS, IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT.
MY POINT IS THAT BEFORE YOU CONSIDER AMBIGUITY, IT IS THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF A STATUTE WHICH IS CONTROLLED.
UH, IF I MAY CITE THE TWO CASES I HAVE TO COME ACROSS FERRIS F T E R E S V C OF ROCHELLE, 68, NEW YORK, SECOND 4 46, ANOTHER CASE I CAME ACROSS PEDERSON, P E T T E R S O N.
I'M SORRY, I DON'T HAVE THE OTHER NAME, BUT IT'S 17 NEW YORK SECOND AT 32.
NOW, BASED ON WHAT I READ IN THOSE CASES, I WOULD MAKE THE FOLLOWING ARGUMENTS.
LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS THE GREAT AND CONTROLLING PRINCIPLE, IN ANY CASE INVOLVING STATUTORY INTERPRETATION, THE SPIRIT PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVE OF THE STATUTE MUST BE CONSIDERED BY THE COURT IN THIS JUDGE'S VIEW.
WHERE THERE IS, IS HERE A PUBLIC OFFICER HAS INTERPRETED AN AMBIGUOUS STATUTE ADMINISTERED BY HIM.
THAT INTERPRETATION SHOULD SERVE AS A STARTING POINT FOR THE COURT'S ANALYSIS, BUT NOT AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE COURT'S PRIMARY FOCUS ON LEGISLATIVE INTENT AS GLEANED FROM THE WORDING OF THE STATUTE, AN ANALYSIS OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME, AND IF NECESSARY, AN EXAMINATION OF THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.
THE POINT I'M TRYING TO MAKE IS, AS, AS THESE CASES CITE, NOW, AS I SAID IN THE QUESTION, I SUBMITTED THESE THREE LINES, AND THE 1997 STATUTE WERE THREE LINES AND A 20 PAGE STATUTE THAT WAS CONSUMED WITH THE ISSUE OF CELLULAR TOWELS.
AND, UH, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, UM, I, I DON'T SEE HOW WE COULD EVEN ASSUME THAT THESE FOUR LINES, WHICH APPEAR IN A 20 PAGE STATUTE, UM, WHICH CLEARLY DEALS WITH CELLULAR TERRORISTS, UM, I WOULD SAY THE LEGISLATIVE ATTEMPT, THE SPIRIT AND PURPOSE OF THE STATUTE TRUMPS THE AMBIGUITY ARGUMENT MADE BY MR. SOTTA.
NOW, IT IS MY BELIEF THAT IT WAS NOT THE LATEST STATE OF INTENT OF THE JURORS OF THAT STATUTE TO DEAL WITH THIS KIND OF ISSUE.
I'M ADVISED THAT A STAT PROPOSED STATUTE HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE ZONING BOARD, AND I'M TOLD TO MR. RETTA, IS IT APPROPRIATE, MADAM CHAIR, THAT I ASKED MR. RETTA IF HE HAS, IF HE'S WILLING TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THAT STATUTE? WELL, YOU CAN CERTAINLY ASK HIM.
I'M ASKING, AND, AND THANK YOU, MR. MR. ALLEN, WE, WE, WE WILL ADDRESS IT.
AND AGAIN, WE'VE BEEN, BEEN WAITING FOR ABOUT AN HOUR AND A HALF NOW.
WE'VE HEARD A LOT FROM THE APPLICANT BEING THE, THE PLANNING BOARD AND THIS COUNCIL.
SO WE'LL ADDRESS THOSE ISSUES, AND I WILL GET TO YOUR QUESTION, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE PREPARED TO ANSWER A LOT TONIGHT, SO WE'RE JUST WAITING FOR OUR TURN.
AND I'D LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO BEGIN THE PRESENTATION BY ADDRESSING A LOT OF WHAT WE HEARD THIS PAST HOUR.
SO, BUT I, I WILL GET TO YOUR QUESTION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO FORWARD? ALL RIGHT, LET'S HEAR WHAT, UH, YOU HAVE TO SAY.
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD TOWN COUNCIL STAFF, MY NAME IS LE SHERETTA, PARTNER WITH THE LAW FIRM, BLAKELY PLAT AND SCHMIDT ON BEHALF OF EAGLE ENERGY.
UH, ALSO WITH ME ON THE LINE THIS EVENING, WE HAVE NEIL AND BRUCKNER FROM HODGSON RUSS AND JAMES ROBINSON FROM EAGLE ENERGY STORAGE.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE HEARD A LOT TONIGHT, AND I HEAR A LOT OF EXPLANATION AND, YOU KNOW, MY SON'S STUDYING SHAKESPEARE,
[01:30:01]
AND YOU KNOW, THE TERM, YOU KNOW, THE LADY DO FOR TEST TOO MUCH COMES TO MIND.SO WHY DO I SAY THAT? BECAUSE I, I'VE HEAR I'VE HEARD ABOUT AN HOUR'S WORTH, MAYBE LONGER OF, OF EXPLANATIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE COUNCIL AT THE END HERE, WHAT WE'RE REALLY GETTING AT AND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS WHAT I STATED FROM, FROM DAY ONE.
THIS, THIS WHOLE APPEAL HERE IS BASED ON THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION AND HIS READING OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE CODE.
AND BASICALLY WHETHER HE GOT IT RIGHT, WHETHER HE, HE SAID THAT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT FALLS UNDER THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY AND PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES UNDER THE GREENBERG TOWN CODE.
AND I'M GONNA PUT A A PIN IN THAT, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE GREENBERG TOWN CODE.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT ANYTHING ELSE.
AND I'LL EXPLAIN TO YOU ABOUT THOSE OTHER CASES IN THE, IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS WE CITE AND THE REASON WHY WE DID.
BUT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE HAVE HERE, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TOWN STATUTE, AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE TWO DEFINITIONS IN WHICH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SAID WE FALL UNDER.
NOW, I'VE BEEN DOING LAND USE A LONG TIME, AND IT'S, I'M IN AN UNUSUAL SITUATION WHERE I HAVE BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS AND THE COUNCIL BOTH SAY THAT THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT.
I'M USUALLY GETTING, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, OBJECTORS SAYING, WE DON'T LIKE YOUR PROJECT.
BUT YOU KNOW, WHEN I KNOW WE HAD THE VIDEOTAPE PLAY TONIGHT, OR THE AUDIO FROM THE LAST MEETING FROM THAT WAS THE PLANNING BOARD'S MEETING OF NOVEMBER 4TH, 2020, WHERE, YOU KNOW, MR. SCHWARTZ IS PLAYING BACK.
BUT YOU LOOK AT THOSE SAME MINUTES, UH, WHICH THEY DIDN'T PLAY FOR YOU, AND I'M GONNA JUST CITE IT FOR THE RECORD.
BUT AT MINUTE POINT, ONE HOUR AND TWO SECONDS, YOU HAVE, UM, MR. SIMON SAYING, QUOTE, IN MY OPINION, THE CURRENT CODE WORKS.
YOU ALSO HAVE MR. SCHWARTZ AT ONE HOUR AND EIGHT SECONDS SAYING HE'S NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF INTERESTING THAT WE ARE HERE TALKING ABOUT, WHICH ULTIMATELY IS A QUESTION OF, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, SEMANTICS.
AND, YOU KNOW, WE GET TO A POINT TOO, WHICH IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE SEEN WHERE WE'VE ACTUALLY HAD MINUTES CHANGED.
SO WE HAVE MINUTES FROM THE PLANNING BOARD THAT HAVE BEEN CHANGED OR CORRECTED TO HELP OUT THE PLANNING BOARD SITUATION HERE.
SO WE, WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN A MINUTE.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE IN AN UNUSUAL SITUATION WHERE EVERYONE'S SAYING THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS CO-PRO PROVISION.
SO, AGAIN, LIKE I WAS SAYING, THIS ALL STEMS ON MR. FRODO'S INTERPRETATION OF THE TOWN CODE.
NOW, LET'S TALK ABOUT THOSE MINUTES.
YOU KNOW, THE MINUTES OF THE PLANNING BOARD FROM NOVEMBER 4TH, 2020 WAS CHANGED.
AND I UNDER, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY THEY WERE CHANGED.
YOU KNOW, I'VE, I WENT BACK AND LISTENED TO THOSE MINUTES.
I ENCOURAGE THIS BOARD TO DO SO AS WELL.
BUT YOU KNOW, THEY SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT CLARIFICATION, UH, VERSUS CONFIRMATION.
YOU KNOW, THE BOTTOM, THE BOTTOM LINE IS YOU HEAR IT, YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T HEAR THAT WORD SAID, OKAY.
AND ON THE VIDEO, YOU HEAR, MR. YOU HEAR MRS. SCHMIDT SAYING THAT HE WAS, HIS UNDERSTANDING THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THERE WAS A VERBAL DETERMINATION.
BUT IN FACT, HERE WE ARE TODAY, WE KNOW THERE WERE WRITINGS BY THE BILLING DEPARTMENT THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WAS WELL AWARE OF.
SO IT WASN'T A VERBAL, THESE WERE WRITINGS THAT WERE IN THE RECORD.
WE HAVE THE NO COMMENT CHECKOFF BOX BY MR. FRETA OF, OF SEPTEMBER 18TH, FILED WITH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ON THE DECEMBER, I MEAN, SORRY, SEPTEMBER 24TH, 2020.
WE ALSO, SO THEY WERE NOTIFIED.
I ALSO PUT INTO THE RECORD THE OCTOBER 16TH, 2020 MEMO, STAFF MEMO TO THE PLANNING BOARD, BECAUSE IT ALSO IS ANOTHER IMPORTANT IN TIME WHEN THEY WERE AWARE OF IT.
SO IN BOTH INSTANCES, THEY KNEW THAT A DETERMINATION WAS MADE BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, AND YET THEY DIDN'T APPEAL WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME, WHICH IS PROVIDED FOR STATE LAW.
AND I, I KNOW MR. BERNSTEIN'S COMMENTS ABOUT THAT, AND WE'LL GET TO THAT SHORTLY.
SO KNOW WHAT YOU HAVE HERE IS, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU, I, I APPRECIATE THE PLANNING BOARD GOING BACK AND SAYING THAT THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY WANNA CORRECT THEIR MINUTES.
I APPRECIATE THEM ALSO, MR. SCHWARTZ AND, AND MR. SIMON SAYING THAT THEY LIKE OUR PROJECT.
AND THAT'S A, THAT'S A GREAT THING.
BUT AGAIN, THE ISSUE HERE IS, YOU KNOW, NOT WHETHER THEY LIKE OUR PROJECT, BUT IT'S WHETHER THE BILLING INSPECTOR GOT IT RIGHT AND WE SUBMIT THAT HE DID.
NOW, WE SUBMITTED SUBMISSIONS HERE DATED FEBRUARY 10TH, 2021, MARCH 10TH, 2021, AND THE LATEST OF APRIL 8TH, 2021.
THERE'S A LOT OF INFORMATION THERE.
IT'S ALL ON THE RECORD, AND YOUR BOARD CAN REVIEW IT.
AND AS PART OF YOUR DELIBERATIONS.
NOW, COUPLE OF THINGS I WANNA SAY ABOUT THE COMMENTS THAT I HEARD FROM MR. BERNSTEIN.
SO WE TALKED, FIRST, WE TALKED ABOUT THE 60 DAY WINDOW.
WE SPENT THE LAST THREE MEETINGS TALKING ABOUT THE TIMELINESS OF THIS,
[01:35:02]
UH, YOU KNOW, WHETHER, WHETHER OR NOT THE PLANNING BOARD WAS TIMING AND BRINGING THEIR APPEAL, WHICH BY THE WAY, THE LETTER TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE Z B A CALLS IT IN APPEAL.SO FIRST, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH, OR WHETHER THEY WERE TIMELY.
AND NOW FOR THE FIRST TIME TONIGHT, I'M HEARING THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT, FORGET THAT THERE IS NO TIMEFRAME.
IT'S WHENEVER THEY WANNA APPEAL.
THEY COULD DO IT AT ANY TIME, AT ANY STAGE DURING THE PROCESS.
AN APPLICANT COULD BE BEFORE THE BOARD FOR A YEAR, TWO YEARS, AND THEN YOU CAN FILE AN APPEAL ON AN INTERPRETATION AT ANY TIME.
THAT'S NOT WHAT TOWN LAW 2 67 SAYS.
NOW, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO MR. BERNSTEIN, I, I WROTE DOWN SOMETHING HE SAID, AND IF WE COULD RERO REWIND THE VIDEO, THE VIDEOTAPE, BUT WE WON'T.
HE SAYS THE TOWN CODE, UH, THEY ARE, THEY ARE EXPANDED, THE POWERS ARE EXPANDED, AND HE CITES 25 DASH 48, WHICH STARTS OFF SAYING, PURSUANT TO TOWN LAW 2 67, TOWN LAW 2 67 A FIVE B PROVIDES FOR THAT 60 DAY TIMEFRAME FROM A FILE DETERMINATION, OKAY, OR DECISION OR WRITING.
THERE'S NO WAIVER OF THAT PROVISION BY THE TOWN OF GREENBURG LOCAL CODE.
IT DOESN'T SAY THAT YOU CAN READ 2 85 DASH 48.
AND IT STARTS OFF BY SAYING, PURSUANT TO TOWN LAW 2 67, TOWN LAW 2 67 ON INTERPRETATIONS, AND THERE'S A WHOLE WEALTH OF BODY OF CASE LAW.
SO I, I APPRECIATE WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION ARE TRYING TO DO HERE WITH RESPECT TO TIMING, BECAUSE THERE, IT'S, IT IS AN ISSUE.
SO, UH, IT'S A CONVENIENT ARGUMENT TO SAY, WELL, GUESS WHAT? WE, THERE'S NO TIMEFRAME NOW.
SO WE JUST COULD PUT THAT ASIDE.
SO ANOTHER THING THAT I WANNA GET TO IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CORRALES CASE, SO THE CORRALES CASE, AND I, AND I SENT IN MY MEMO, THERE WAS NO WRITTEN DETERMINATION THERE.
THAT DETERMINATION WAS AN INFERENCE THAT WE ARGUED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, BY THE BILLING INSPECTOR IN DOBBS FERRY FORWARDING AN APPLICATION TO THE ZONING BOARD, OR TO THE PLANNING BOARD, RATHER, THAT WAS DEEMED A DETERMINATION.
THE COURT SAID IT WASN'T HERE.
HOWEVER, I HAVE TWO INSTANCES.
I HAVE THAT NOVEMBER, THAT LETTER FILED, NOVEMBER 24TH, 2020, AND I ALSO HAVE THE STAFF MEMO, OKAY, THAT THEY WERE AWARE OF WHICH THE PLANNING BOARD ACKNOWLEDGED, BUT DID NOTHING ABOUT.
SO IN FAIRNESS TO THE APPLICANT HERE, YES, THERE IS A TIMEFRAME, AND IT'S OUR POSITION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MISSED OUT ON WHETHER IT WAS A SEPTEMBER, UH, MEMO, OR WHETHER IT WAS THE OCTOBER 16TH, THEY MISSED THE STATUTORY TIMEFRAMES ON BOTH THOSE INSTANCES.
NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE INTERPRETATION OF PUBLIC UTILITY AND ALSO PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE, YOU KNOW, WE SPENT SOME TIME, AND I KNOW MILA WILL GET INTO THIS BRIEFLY, BUT YOU KNOW, NOWHERE IN THE TOWN OF GREENBERG CODE DOES IT SAY WHOLESALE VERSUS RETAIL.
IT TALKS ABOUT PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES AND PUBLIC UTILITY.
IT'S IN OUR, IT'S IN THE LETTERS, IT'S IN THE RECORD.
THE ZONING BOARD IS AWARE OF THOSE, THOSE DEFINITIONS.
SO WITH RESPECT TO WHAT MR. ALLER WAS SAYING ABOUT THE LOCAL LAW, I UNDERSTAND.
AND WHAT WAS PROVIDED TO ME, UH, TODAY, OR I BELIEVE YESTERDAY FOR THE FIRST TIME, WAS A DRAFT OF THE LOCAL LAW THAT THE TOWN BOARD IS CONSIDERING WITH RESPECT TO BATTERY AND ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS, SYSTEMS. NOW, I, I WILL SAY, WHILE IT'S ENCOURAGING TO SEE THAT IT HAS NO BEARING ON THIS BOARD'S DELIBERATIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE INTERPRETATION OF THE BILLING INSPECTOR WA WAS CORRECT OR RATIONAL FOR, FOR, FOR THAT MATTER, UH, IT'S, IT'S A GOOD THAT THEY'RE DOING IT.
THE E EVEN WITH THE, WITHOUT THE LOCAL LAW, THE TOWN BOARD UNDER THE SPECIAL PERMIT POWERS STILL HAS THE POWER AS PART OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT TO IMPOSE REASONABLE CONDITIONS ON THIS PROJECT.
SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT PARAMETERS AND METRICS OF THESE BATTERY, BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS, AND IT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD TO HAVE A LOCAL LAW, BUT IT'S NOW PART OF YOUR RECORD WITH RESPECT THAT WHILE THE TOWN BOARD MAY HAVE A LOCAL LAW THAT THEY'RE CONTEMPLATING IT, IT HAS NO BASIS WITH RESPECT TO YOUR DELIBERATION AS TO THIS PROJECT, AS TO THIS INTERPRETATION.
BUT AGAIN, THE, THE TOWN BOARD, EVEN WITHOUT THE LOCAL LAW, STILL HAS THE POWER TO, TO GRANT AND TO IMPOSE CERTAIN CONDITIONS ON BAT BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE.
SO I'D LIKE TO DO, NOW, I'D LIKE TO GO TO MILA TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE ABOUT PUBLIC UTILITY AND PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURES.
AND THEN I, I'D LIKE IT TO COME BACK TO ME JUST ON A COUPLE OF OTHER POINTS.
UM, MILA BUCKNER FROM THE LAW FIRM, HODSON RUSS ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, I THINK THERE'S A, A FEW POINTS I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS.
SO, UM, STARTING WITH SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT MR. BERNSTEIN MADE, UM, HE MENTIONED HOW WE HAD, UM,
[01:40:01]
SUBMITTED EXAMPLES OF, UM, APPROVALS THAT HAD OCCURRED IN THE VILLAGE OF BLAST EL, AS WELL AS WHITESTOWN.SO IN THE VILLAGE OF BLA, UM, THEY APPROVED A 20 MEGAWATT BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM THAT'S ALMOST IDENTICAL TO THE ONE, UM, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU HERE.
AND MUCH A, A VERY SIMILAR, UM, DISCUSSION INCURRED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, WHAT IS THIS PROJECT? HOW DOES IT FIT UNDER THE TOWN CODE? UM, AND SPECIFICALLY THEY LOOKED TO, TO THE PROVISION AND THE TOWN CODE THAT ALLOWED FOR ESSENTIAL SERVICES.
AND UNDER THE DEFINITION OF ESSENTIAL SERVICES IS MENTION OF UTILITIES.
UM, AND IN BLASS, I THINK IT, IT WAS JUST, IT'S A, A DIFFERENT WAY OF LOOKING AT THE VILLAGE CODE.
YOU KNOW, RATHER THAN TREATING THIS AS A STRAIGHT JACKET, THEY LOOKED AT THE INTENT, UM, AND THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW AND SORT OF QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, IS THIS AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE? IS ELECTRICITY ESSENTIAL TO OUR, UM, CONSTITUENCY AND, AND FOUND THAT BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS FIT PERFECTLY WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A UTILITY? UM, AND IN FACT, POINTED EVEN TO THE WORD ELECTRICITY WITHIN THAT, WITHIN THAT DEFINITION, UM, AND APPROVED THE PROJECT.
UH, SIMILARLY IN WHITESTOWN, UM, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY LOOKED AT THE INTENT OF THE CODE HERE.
UM, THE USE GROUP WAS SPECIFICALLY FOR PUBLIC UTILITIES.
AND AS MR. BERNSTEIN POINTED OUT, THE MEETING MINUTES SHOW THAT THERE WAS A LOT MORE BACK AND FORTH HERE.
THERE WAS A LOT MORE QUESTIONING ABOUT WHETHER THIS WAS APPROPRIATE OR NOT.
BUT WHAT ULTIMATELY WENT TO WAS, UM, THE, THE TOWN LOOKED TO THE ROSENBERG CASE, UM, AND AUTHORITY IN NEW YORK LAW, THAT'S DEMONSTRATES THAT PUBLIC UTILITIES ARE AFFORDED, UH, SPECIAL CONSIDERATION UNDER ZONING.
UM, AND IN ROSENBERG, THERE'S THREE, THREE FACTORS THAT, UH, DETERMINE WHETHER SOMETHING IS A PUBLIC UTILITY.
AND TO BE CLEAR OR NOT ALL THREE FACTORS NEED TO BE SATISFIED.
IT COULD JUST BE, UM, THE MAJORITY OF THEM.
BUT IN FACT, A BATTERY PROJECT DOES SATISFY ALL THREE.
SO IT NEEDS TO FIRST PROVIDE AN ESSENTIAL SERVICE, SECOND, BE SUBJECT TO PUBLIC REGULATION.
AND THIRD, UM, PROVIDE MINUTE TO MINUTE SERVE, MINUTE TO MINUTE DEMAND.
UM, AND I THINK WE'VE SUBMITTED QUITE A BIT OF MATERIAL TO THIS BOARD DEMONSTRATING THAT WE MEET ALL THREE OF THOSE PRONGS.
UM, BUT IN WHITESTOWN, WHEN, WHEN REALLY LOOKING INTO CASE LAW AND HOW COURTS HAVE INTERPRETED THIS, THEY REALIZE THAT A PUBLIC UTIL A BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEM, AGAIN, FITS SQUARELY WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF A PUBLIC UTILITY.
UM, AND FINALLY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT THERE'S THIS CONFUSION HERE, MAYBE THAT, YOU KNOW, A PUBLIC U PUBLIC UTILITY ISN'T JUST AN INVESTOR OWNED UTILITY.
SO YOU THINK OF NATIONAL GRID, YOU THINK OF, UM, CON EDISON, COMPANIES LIKE THAT, BUT IT REALLY, THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY IS SOMETHING MUCH BROADER.
AND IN THE 25 YEARS SINCE DEREGULATION HAS OCCURRED, UM, THE, THE UTILITY SYSTEM IS MUCH MORE, UM, UH, BROKEN DOWN AND, AND, UM, MADE UP OF SMALLER COMPONENTS, INCLUDING THINGS LIKE BATTERY STORAGE SYSTEMS THAT HELP, UM, HELP CARRY ELECTRICITY TO THE PUBLIC.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, I, I FEEL LIKE I'VE HEARD THIS BOARD ACKNOWLEDGE THAT AN ESCO IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED A PUBLIC UTILITY.
AND WE JUST WANNA POINT OUT ONE MORE TIME THAT WE ARE A PART OF AN ESCO THAT THEN SERVICES THE PUBLIC.
SO AGAIN, WE'RE, WE'RE ALL WITHIN THE FAMILY OF PUBLIC UTILITY AND APPROPRIATELY FALL WITHIN THAT USE GROUP.
MILLIE, WILL YOU DONE, OR? YEAH, I'M OFF.
SO JUST, JUST COMING BACK TO ANOTHER POINT THAT, THAT I HEARD, YOU KNOW, AND IT, IT'S INTERESTING 'CAUSE THE PLANNING BOARD AND, AND THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION UTILIZE TOWN LAW 2 67.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT WORKS FOR THEM, THEY'LL CITE IT, BUT THEN WHEN IT DOESN'T, UH, THEY WILL NOT.
UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE LOOKED AT, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMENTS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WAS FORCED TO APPEAL, I'VE HEARD THAT THAT WAS STATED, AND THEY DIDN'T THINK IT WAS THE PLANNING BOARD'S PLACE TO APPEAL.
THEY WANTED THE TOWN BOARD TO APPEAL, YOU KNOW, IN, IN OUR, IN OUR VIEW, BASICALLY THAT THAT MEMO, THAT LATER MEMO OF NOVEMBER FROM THE, FROM THE BILLING DEPARTMENT AND BILLING INSPECTOR, YOU KNOW, WE BELIEVE THAT THAT CLARIFICATION THAT WAS SOLVED BY THE BUILDING, BY THE PLANNING BOARD WAS REALLY JUST AN ATTEMPT TO REALLY JUST HAVE THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS JUST CONTINUE BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT THEY COULDN'T MEET THE 60 DAY WINDOW, AND THEY ALSO KNEW THAT THE TOWN BOARD WASN'T GOING TO APPEAL.
SO THEY WERE STUCK AT THAT POINT.
SO THEY NEEDED SOMETHING FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD IN ORDER TO GET THEM INTO THE, INTO THE DOOR WITH RESPECT TO THE APPEAL.
NOW, YOU KNOW, I, I HEARD ALSO ABOUT MR. BERNSTEIN TALKING ABOUT STANDING AND ALSO TALKING ABOUT THE, THE, THE COUNCIL FOR
MR. MR. RETTA, MRTA, CAN I INTERRUPT YOU FOR A MINUTE BEFORE YOU MOVE ON, ON THIS POINT? UM, SO IS IT YOUR POSITION THAT THE PUBLICATION OF THE BILLING INSPECTOR'S MEMO, UH, CHECKING THE BOX WAS PUBLISHED WHEN IT WENT BACK TO THE, UH, DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION COM, UM, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION?
[01:45:01]
YEAH, I'M, SO, I'M SORRY, WHICH I, I CAN'T SEE WHICH MEMBER, UH, I'M SPEAKING TO.IT'S, UH, IT'S, UH, IT'S, UH, HARRISON.
HI, HOW ARE YOU? MY VIDEO IS, IT'S FINE.
UM, I JUST WANNA FIND OUT, HOW WERE YOU ASSESSING THAT? IT WAS PUB, IT WAS PUBLISHED AND IT WAS IN PUBLIC RECORD.
BEFORE YOU GO ON TO YOUR OTHER POINT, THE STATUTE DOESN'T SAY IT HAS TO BE PUBLISHED.
IT SAYS IT HAS TO BE FILED AND AT, AT, AT FILING.
I'M AT THAT POINT, I'M SORRY, UH, BECOME, BECOME PUBLIC RECORD AND CORRECT IS ACCESSIBLE FOR, FOR, FOR THE PUBLIC TO REVIEW.
SO, UH, JUST GOING BACK TO WHAT I WAS SAYING ABOUT MR. BERNSTEIN'S STANDING ISSUE.
SO IN, IN, IN MR. BERNSTEIN'S MARCH 10TH 21, SUBMISSION ON PAGE TWO, NO, NO, NO.
BEFORE, BEFORE, I'M SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING YOU AGAIN.
I JUST WANNA FIND OUT IF YOU CONSIDER THAT IT'S PUBLIC RECORD AND IT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC AFTER THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, UH, CHECKED THE BOX, NO VARIANCES NEEDED, AND IT WENT BACK TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT.
IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT IT SATISFY NOW, UM, IT'S A PUBLIC RECORD AND IT'S AVAILABLE FOR INSPECTION.
AND THE, AND THE 60 AND YOUR POSITION IS THAT THE 60 DAYS START TO RUN FROM THEN? CORRECT.
NOW, HOW, HOW IS THE PUBLIC MADE AWARE THAT IT'S NOW IN THAT DEPARTMENT AND WHOEVER IS AGGRIEVED, UH, WOULD KNOW THAT THE 60 DAYS START SO THAT THEY CAN APPEAL IT OR, YOU KNOW, JUST LEAVE IT? WELL, BECAUSE WE, WE KNEW ABOUT IT, AND YOU HAVE A PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS WHO ARE PRETTY SOPHISTICATED, WHO WERE AWARE THAT A DETERMINATION WAS MADE BY THE ZONING, BY THE BILLING INSPECTOR.
SO THEY, THEY KNEW A DETERMINATION WAS MADE.
SO AGAIN, HA, HAVING THAT DETERMINATION MADE, WE WERE ABLE TO GET A COPY OF IT.
SO IT MUST HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE IF, IF WE DIDN'T, OBVIOUSLY IT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC 'CAUSE WE WERE ABLE TO OBTAIN IT.
SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE FILED THEN WITH THE, WITH THE BILLING DEPARTMENT, JUST WITH, WITH, WITH, UM, THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION DEPARTMENT, THAT YOUR POSITION THAT RIGHT.
YOU HEARD, YOU HEARD MR. RA'S TESTIMONY THAT HE DID FILE THAT LETTER WITH THE BILLING DEPARTMENT IN ADDITION TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT.
IT WAS ALSO FILED THERE AS WELL.
AND, AND THAT SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENT.
IT DOESN'T SAY PUBLISHED, AND I KNOW THAT THERE, THERE, NO, YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
UM, BEFORE, DID YOU ADDRESS, ARE YOU GOING TO ADDRESS LATER WHAT, UM, LES SAID ABOUT LEGISLATIVE INTENT? I DON'T WANT TO, I IF YOU, IF YOU ADDRESSED IT AND I MISSED IT, UM, CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT? IF YOU HAVEN'T ADDRESSED IT, THEN I'LL WAIT FOR YOU TO ADDRESS IT LATER.
NO, I'M, I'M GONNA GET TO IT, BUT I KNOW MILA TOUCHED ON IT BRIEFLY, BUT I WILL GET TO IT.
SORRY FOR INTERRUPTING YOU GO AHEAD.
SO CERTAINLY, SO WHAT I WAS SAYING, THE, THE STANDING OF THE COUNSEL, OKAY, SO BACK ON MARCH 10TH, 2021, IN MR. BERNSTEIN'S SUBMISSION ON PAGE 22, HE STATES THAT, THAT THE STANDING, OKAY, HE GETS FROM A MR. YOGESH BALL AND SAYS THAT THE MAYFIELD KNOLLWOOD IS A CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
I'M QUOTING HERE CLOSEST TO THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM.
NOW, I ALSO WENT ON TO THE GREENBERG, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION WEBSITE TOOK A SCREENSHOT OF IT.
AND I CAN SHARE THIS WITH YOUR BOARD, BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE COUNCIL OF GREENBERG CIVIC CIVIC ASSOCIATION, YOU DON'T SEE THE MAYOR MAYFAIR KNOW WHAT ASSOCIATION AS ONE OF THE MEMBERS.
SO, AGAIN, WITH RESPECT TO THE STANDING OF THE, THE COUNCIL HERE, WE BELIEVE THEY DO NOT HAVE STANDING BECAUSE THE, THAT CIVIC ASSOCIATION OKAY.
IS NOT, IS NOT A PART OF THAT GROUP.
SO NOW GOING ON TO THE QUESTION OF THE STATUTORY INTENT, YEAH, I HAVE NOT SEEN THAT CASE THAT YOU SIGNED MR. ALER, BUT I WILL, I WILL STATE IN
BUT YOU HAVE TO LOOK THE, THE STATUTORY 10.
THEREFORE, WITH RESPECT TO THIS STATUTE, AT LEAST FROM WHAT I'VE SEEN THERE, THERE'S NOT A LOT THERE WITH RESPECT TO THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.
NOW, GO BACK 25 YEARS AGO, AND THAT'S WHY WE CITE THE ROSENBERG CASE.
[01:50:01]
LOCAL CODE DIDN'T HAVE CELL COMPANIES IN THE REGULATIONS AS WELL, BUT THEY WERE TREATED.AND THAT ROSEBERG CASE SAYS THEY WERE TREATED ULTIMATELY AS A PUBLIC UTILITY.
SO WITH RESPECT TO YOUR, YOUR POSITION ON INTENT, WHEN THERE ISN'T TOO MUCH INTENT TO LOOK AT, YOU HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE PLAIN LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOU START WITH.
AND I KNOW YOU'RE SHAKING YOUR HEAD, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU'VE LITIGATED I'VE LITIGATED THIS TOO.
WE COULD, WE COULD AGREE TO DISAGREE, BUT I WILL SAY, YEAH, NO, I CAN'T HEAR YOU, BUT I, I, I HEAR, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
BUT WHEN THERE'S NOT ALLOWED OUT THERE ON THIS, YOU GOTTA LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE.
BECAUSE US LAND USE GUYS, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE OF THE CODE TO MAKE A, TO MAKE A CALL.
SO THAT'S WHAT WAS WE DID HERE.
THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DID THAT HERE.
SO THEY LOOKED AT THE PLAIN LANGUAGE.
'CAUSE YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE A LOT OF STATUTORY INTENT ON A BATTER BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM.
NOW TO YOUR POINT ABOUT THE LOCAL LAW THAT, THAT THEY'RE LOOKING AT, YES, I, I TOOK A LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE WE JUST RECEIVED IT.
THE PREAMBLE ABOUT THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM AND, AND WHERE IT'S PERMITTED.
SO YES, YOU KNOW, WHEN THAT LAW, IF THAT LAW EVER GETS ADOPTED, THEY, THEY CAN GO BACK AND LOOK TO THE STATUTORY INTENT WITH RESPECT TO THAT STATUTE.
BUT HERE YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT HERE.
SO WHAT ARE WE LEFT WITH? WE'RE LEFT WITH A BROAD DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY AND PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO GO BY.
THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT.
AND JUST LIKE THE, THE OTHER MATTER THAT WE, THAT I LOOKED AT AND WE CITED WHEN, WHEN IT'S PRETTY CLEAR, OKAY, IT, IT, WE AGREE, IT'S CLEAR ON ITS FACE THAT WE, WE COMPLY, WE FIT INTO THOSE DEFINITIONS AS A BUILDING INSPECTOR DETERMINED.
BUT ON THE FLIP SIDE OF THAT COIN, IF THERE'S ANY AMBIGUITY, AND WE HEARD A LOT OF EXPLANATIONS TONIGHT ABOUT WHETHER A WHOLESALER RETAILER OR WHETHER OR NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE PROVIDE ENERGY TO THE PUBLIC.
WE SUBMIT, WE, WE COMPLY WITH ALL OF THAT.
BUT IF THERE'S ANY AMBIGUITY, AND YOU SAID, I WOULD SAY IT, I'M GONNA SAY IT AGAIN.
IF THERE'S ANY AMBIGUITY, WE GET THE BENEFIT OF THAT AS THE APPLICANT.
THE, THAT BOX GETS CHECKED OFF, NO PUN INTENDED, IN OUR FAVOR BECAUSE THERE'S AMBIGUITY.
AND FROM WHAT I'M HEARING FROM, FROM THE, THE APPLICANT HERE, THE APPLICANT BEING WHO FILED THE APPEAL, THE PLANNING BOARD, AND THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION THERE, YOU KNOW, YOU HEARD MR. SCHWARZ SAYING, WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT THIS, WE DON'T COMPLY, WE'RE NOT.
HE, HE CITED A SNIPPET OF A, OF A MEETING WHERE, YOU KNOW, TAKEN OUTTA CONTEXT, JAMES ROBINSON WAS NOT SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY.
YES, WE ARE A PUBLIC UTILITY IN RESPECT TO THE GREENBERG TOWN CODE.
THOSE TWO CASES UP IN DALE AND WHITESTOWN ARE EXAMPLES TO SHOW YOU THAT YES, THOSE ARE PRETTY BROAD DEFINITIONS SIMILAR TO WHAT GREENBERG HAS.
AND IN THOSE JURISDICTIONS, THEY WERE, THEY WERE INTERPRETED AS BEING PRETTY MUCH ENCOMPASSING TO ALLOW FOR A SOLAR FARM TO ALLOW FOR A BATTER BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM, JUST LIKE THE GREENBERG TOWN CODE DOES.
AND AGAIN, WHAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DID HERE HE IS SAYING, YES, WE COMPLY.
WE CAN GET A SPECIAL PERMIT FROM THE TOWN BOARD ON THIS.
HE DIDN'T SAY WE CAN GET A SPECIAL PERMIT OR THAT, THAT WE, THE SPECIAL PERMIT SHOULD BE GRANTED.
HE'S SAYING, WE GET TO GO TO THE TOWN BOARD AND THEY MAKE THE CALL AS TO WHETHER WE MEET THOSE CRITERIA.
SO AGAIN, GOING BACK TO HOW THIS ALL STARTED, THIS ALL STARTS ON A QUESTION OF INTERPRETATION.
AND I HEARD A LOT TONIGHT AND A LOT OF EXPLANATION AND E E EVEN SO FAR AS TO GO THAT CERTAIN STATE LAW PROVISIONS DON'T APPLY.
AND TO ME, THAT WAS JUST ASTONISHING TO ME THAT I, I HEARD FOR THE FIRST TIME THAT A 60 DAY LIMITATIONS DOES NOT APPLY WITH RESPECT TO INTERPRETATION.
JUST THINK ABOUT THAT FOR A SECOND TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, AND I KNOW THERE ARE SOME LAWYERS AND JUDGES, FORMER JUDGES ON THIS BOARD.
WHAT THAT MEANS THAT THERE'S NO STATUTORY TIMELINE SO THAT ANYONE COULD FILE AN APPEAL ANYTIME IN THE PROCESS.
THAT'S CLEARLY NOT WHAT IT SAYS.
AND YOU KNOW, WHEN, WHEN MR. BERNSTEIN SAID, QUOTE, ARE EXPANDED, THAT LANGUAGE IS NOT IN THE CODE.
SO AGAIN, IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU IGNORE THE TIMEFRAMES THAT ARE SET FORTH IN TOWN LAW 2 67.
SO AGAIN, I WANNA THANK THE BOARD FOR HEARING US TONIGHT.
I THINK YOU HAVE ENOUGH FROM, FROM BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD FOR MR. BERNSTEIN AND, AND EAGLE ENERGY TO MAKE A DETERMINATION WITH RESPECT TO THIS APPLICATION, WHICH AGAIN, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA BE, I'M GONNA SAY, I'M GONNA COME OUT LOUD HERE AND SAY IT FROM, FROM OUR STANDPOINT, THIS IS A SIMPLE, IS A SIMPLE QUESTION HERE WAS BILLING INSPECTOR, DID HE MAKE THE RIGHT CALL OR NOT? AND THAT, AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO.
SO, AGAIN, UNLESS, AND I'M GONNA TURN TO MY COLLEAGUES, UH, MR. JAMES ROBINSON.
EMIL, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD AT THIS POINT, I, NOTHING FURTHER.
[01:55:01]
OKAY.SO AGAIN, THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.
I KNOW YOU HAVE A LONG AGENDA TONIGHT, BUT AGAIN, WE WANNA THANK YOU FOR, FOR LISTENING TO US TONIGHT AND LETTING US COMMENT ON THIS.
MADAM CHAIRPERSON, I NEED TO CORRECT THE RECORD.
HE JUST, THE COMMENT PLEASE, JUST A MOMENT.
UM, WE HAVE SPENT AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF TIME ON THIS CASE, UH, SO FAR THIS EVENING.
AND WE DO HAVE OTHER CASES WAITING.
I JUST WANTED TO KNOW WHETHER THERE ARE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WANTED TO ADDRESS THIS THIS EVENING.
UM, IF YOU COULD, MR. SWARTZ, PLEASE MAKE YOUR, UH, RE REMARKS VERY BRIEF.
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CORRECT THE RECORD.
IF WE, IF WE LOSE THIS ON THE FACTS THAT'S FOUND, BUT WHEN YOU PUT IN FACTS THAT AREN'T IN EVIDENCE, I GET ANGRY.
UH, HE SAID THAT WE SAW THE, THE INITIAL, THE INITIAL DOCUMENT, I WILL STATE ON THE STACK OF BIBLES AS HIGH AS THE HIGHEST BUILDING IN THE, IN THE CITY THAT WE NEVER EVER SAW THAT DOCUMENT NUMBER ONE.
TWO, THE OCTOBER 16TH DOCUMENT REFERRED TO AREA VARIANCES, NOT USE VARIANCES.
WHEN IT REFERRED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION.
OKAY? SO AGAIN, WE DIDN'T HAVE THE INFORMATION AND THEN HE SAID WE DID NOTHING.
THAT'S ABSOLUTELY NOT TRUE EITHER.
I IMMEDIATELY CALLED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND ASKED FOR WHERE, WHAT, UNDER WHAT CODE.
GARRETT DUANE WROTE BACK TO ME SAYING IT WAS PROPERLY FILED, DIDN'T GIMME THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION, PROPERLY FILED UNDER THE CODE.
AS FOR MS. BRUCKNER, THIS IS THE SAME PERSON WHO IN 19, IN 2019 AGREED TO, TO, FOR HER FIRM TO WRITE A REVISED CODE SIMILAR TO WHAT WE NOW HAVE IN FRONT, IN FRONT OF THE, BY THE WAY, IT'S IN FRONT OF THE TOWN BOARD.
UM, THAT, THAT, THAT LEGISLATION AND IN, IN THERE SAID THEY TRY TO FIND A LAW THAT AVOIDS PUBLIC HEARING.
WELL, GEE, I GUESS SHE'S NEVER WORKED IN GREENBURG BECAUSE PUBLIC HEARING IS THE WAY WE DO THINGS IN GREENBURG.
AND IF SHE LOOKED AT OUR LAW, THERE WOULD'VE BEEN A PUBLIC HEARING ANYWAY AS A RESULT OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT IN THE SITE PLAN, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER THAT WAS THE LAW.
AND I HAVE THAT I, I'LL BE HAPPY TO SUBMIT MS. BRUCKNER'S LETTER TO YOU, TO YOU, AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL BE AS HORRIFIED AS I WAS.
AS I SAID, CAN WE MAKE THIS ON THE FACTS, NOT ON SOME FANTASY THAT MR. SHEENA HAS SAID AND, AND QUESTIONS THE CREDIBILITY OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
THIS IS A GROUP OF VOLUNTEERS JUST LIKE YOU ARE.
AND I DON'T APPRECIATE BEING, BEING QUESTIONED IN TERMS OF THE INTEGRITY OF A, OF US CHANGING, CHANGING, UH, CHANGING, UH, THE, THE, THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING FOR OUR BENEFIT.
WE CHANGED IT 'CAUSE WE WENT BACK AND RESEARCHED IT.
AND I, I ACTUALLY DEMAND AN APOLOGY FROM MR. SHERETTA FOR HIS BEHAVIOR TONIGHT IN ATTACKING THE CREDIBILITY OF A PLANNING BOARD.
I DON'T APPRECIATE IT AND I DON'T APPRECIATE IT MISREPRESENTING THE FACTS IN TERMS OF YOUR DECISION.
IT'S A TOUGH DECISION ON YOUR PART, AND I FULLY APPRECIATE ALL THE TIME YOU'VE GIVEN US.
I DID MISSPEAK ONE MEMBER REPUBLIC DID INTEND SPEAK ON.
MADAM CHAIR, I JUST LIKE TO REITERATE WHAT MR. SWARTZ HAS SAID.
I I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S NECESSARY, MR. SWART.
WELL, WELL, BUT HE DID IN ATTACK OUR INTEGRITY IMPLYING THAT WE WERE CHANGING THE MINUTES WITHOUT, WITHOUT THE DUE FACTS, WITHOUT GOING BACK TO REC.
I THINK THAT'S INSULTING TO IMPLY THAT WE MANIPULATED THE MINUTES.
THE RECORD IS CLEAR, THE VIDEO IS CLEAR.
THE, THE, UH, UH, THE RECORDS, UH, UH, OF THE MEETING IS CLEAR.
ONE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, PUBLIC DID INDICATE IN THE CHAT THEY DID SEEK TO SPEAK.
SINCE THIS PROJECT HAS STARTED, WE'VE BECOME MUCH MORE AWARE OF GLOBAL WARMING VOLKSWAGEN.
OTHERS ARE GOING ALL ELECTRIC.
WHEN THIS PROJECT STARTED, THAT WASN'T SO THE QUESTION THEN BECOMES, WHAT ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE IS DONE BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT? MUCH THIRD HAS MOVED IN, MUCH THIRD HAS MOVED OUT.
AND THE OTHER QUESTION IS, IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE THAT DOES LESS ECOLOGICAL DAMAGE TO CONSTRUCT? AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES, UP ON, UH, SOUL RIVER ROAD WHERE CONEDISON HAS THE FACILITY
[02:00:01]
AND THERE IS SPACE, THE SAME TYPE OF THING COULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITH LESS ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGES.THIS PROJECT PRESENTS AN ENVO AN ONGOING ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECT BECAUSE IT HAS TO BE MAINTAINED.
FIRE DEPARTMENTS HAVE TO BE COORDINATED, AND IT'S IN A RESIDENTIAL, BUT THAT'S NOT REALLY THE ISSUE.
CAN A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE BE DONE WITH LESS ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE? AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS YES.
THE WORLD HAS CHANGED INCREDIBLY SINCE THIS PROJECT STARTED.
I HEARD THE PRESIDENT OF R P I DISCUSS MODULAR NUCLEAR PLANTS.
THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I HEARD THAT.
AND THE FIRST ONE WILL BE ONLINE THIS FALL.
THAT INFORMATION IS NOT WIDELY KNOWN YET.
THE WORLD HAS CHANGED, AND WE HAVE TO SAY WHAT WE DID LAST YEAR MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE ANYMORE.
AND THIS PROJECT HAS TO BE LOOKED AT IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE DONE TO CONSTRUCT.
UM, I'D LIKE TO GO TO OUR NEXT CASE ON OUR AGENDA TONIGHT, WHICH IS CASE 2107, UH, THE LOCAL OIL SERVICE STATION AT 2 58 TERRYTOWN ROAD.
AND WHO IS HERE TO ADDRESS THAT MATTER? I AM MADAM CHAIRPERSON.
UH, CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, JUST IDENTIFY YOURSELF, MR. ZAMBRANO? YES.
MY NAME IS MATT ZAMBRANO OF ZAMBRANO ENTERPRISES.
I AM REPRESENTING POETS CORNER REALTY AND LUKE OIL NORTH AMERICA REGARDING A SIGN VARIANCE.
UH, THIS PERTAINS TO AN ID PRICE SIGN AS WELL AS A CANOPY SIGN ON OUR EAST ELEVATION OF THE CANOPY WE HAD MET LAST MONTH.
UM, OUR PROPOSAL AT THAT TIME WAS FOR A 53.91 SQUARE FOOT SIGN.
THIS IS AGAIN, THE ID AND PRICE SIGN.
UM, THE VARIANCE WOULD BE AN INCREASE OF THE 20 FOOT, UH, CODE, 20 SQUARE FOOT CODE, EXCUSE ME.
AFTER DELIBERATING WITH MY CLIENT, WE HAD GONE BACK AND FORTH AND WE CAME UP WITH A REVISED PROPOSAL OF A NEW SIGN OF 29.31 SQUARE FEET.
THIS IS A REDUCTION OF 24.6 SQUARE FEET.
SO MY CLIENT IS MAKING A SUBSTANTIAL DECREASE TO WHAT THEY ARE, UH, REQUESTING.
IF I MAY SCREEN SHARE? YES, PLEASE.
AGAIN, THE STATION IS LOCATED AT 2 5 8 TERRYTOWN ROAD IN WHITE PLAINS.
SO ON THE LEFT WE HAVE A PICTURE OF THE EXISTING ID AND PRICE SIGN.
UH, IN THE MIDDLE IS A, THE PROPOSED PRICE SIGN.
UM, I BELIEVE RENDERINGS WERE SENT OVER TO YOU GUYS, UM, EARLIER THIS WEEK.
AGAIN, THE THE NEW SIGN THAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS 29.31 SQUARE FEET.
THE LUKE OIL SIGN WILL BE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED, AS WILL THE MINI MART SIGNAGE AND THE PRICE SIGNS FOR THE DIFFERENT FUEL TYPES WILL BE L E D ILLUMINATED.
THIS PROPOSED SIGN MATCHES UP WITH THE SIZE OF THE, THE SIGN CURRENTLY AT THE PROPERTY.
ALSO A PART OF OUR PROPOSAL FOR THE A SEPARATE VARIANCE.
UM, THIS IS FOR THE, THE LUKE OIL SIGNAGE ON THE CANOPY.
CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO SIGNAGE ON THE CANOPY, AND WE ARE LOOKING TO PUT A 14.05 SQUARE FOOT L OIL SIGN ON THE EAST ELEVATION OF THE CANOPY.
THAT SIGN WILL ALSO BE INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED.
SO THERE ARE A FEW REASONS WHY WE'RE LOOKING TO, UH, MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, OUR PROPOSAL FOR THIS VARIANCE.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THESE PICTURES, UM, TYPICALLY THE GAS STATIONS WOULD HAVE THEIR ID AND PRICE SIGNS ON THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, AT THIS LOCATION, IT IS A LITTLE BIT ON THE TIGHT SIDE.
WE ALSO HAVE AN EXISTING UTILITY POLE AS WELL AS TRAFFIC SIGNAGE AT THE CORNER.
UM, THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD ASSIST OUR, UH, POTENTIAL CUSTOMERS TO SEE OUR PRICE SIGNAGE, UH, OUR PRICES, EXCUSE ME, AS THE SIGN WOULD BE AT THE, THE END OF THE LOT INSTEAD OF ON THE CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
AS YOU CAN ALSO SEE IN SOME OF THE OTHER PICTURES, THERE ARE, UH, TREES LINING THE SIDEWALKS THAT WOULD BE BEHIND OUR ID AND PRICE SIGN.
THAT IS THE THE LARGEST REASON WE ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR THE CANOPY SIGNAGE, UM, TO ALLOW FOR
[02:05:01]
ANY POTENTIAL CLIENTS OR DRIVERS TO, UH, BE ABLE TO SEE THAT IT IS A LOCAL OIL GAS STATION.SO AGAIN, YOU CAN CHECK ALL THESE OTHER PICTURES.
IT'S, IT'S DIFFICULT TO, TO SEE THE EXISTING SIGN AS IS.
UM, BUT HAVING THE LOCAL OIL SIGNAGE ON THE CANOPY WOULD ALLOW FOR, UH, MORE BRANDING AND JUST ALLOW OUR CLIENT TO ADVERTISE PROPERLY.
UM, I WILL SHOW YOU A REAL QUICKLY THE, THE MOBILE GAS STATION THAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT LAST HEARING.
UM, CAN EVERYBODY SEE THIS? OKAY? I DON'T SEE MOBILE, BUT
DO YOU GUYS SEE THE GOOGLE STREET VIEW OR ALL I, ALL I SEE IS YOUR STATION.
SO WE, WE SPOKE ABOUT THIS MOBILE GAS STATION AND THE, UH, THE SIGNAGE HERE BEING 20 SQUARE FOOT.
UM, THIS MOBILE SITE DOES HAVE THEIR ID SIGN ON THE CORNER AS IT'S, YOU KNOW, FEASIBLE FOR THEM TO INSTALL IT THERE.
SO THEY HAVE A MUCH, YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T HAVE AS MUCH OF A NEED FOR THAT VARIANCE AS SOMEONE LIKE, UH, L OIL WOULD.
AND SIMILARLY, THE GULF STATION THAT IS ALSO NEARBY, THE L OIL STATION ALSO HAS A CORNER AREA WHERE THEY CAN HAVE, YOU KNOW, THEIR SIGN.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT MY CLIENT DOES NOT HAVE THE, UH, LUXURY OF HAVING.
UM, I BELIEVE I ALSO SENT OVER A SPEC SHEET FOR DIMENSIONS.
UH, THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
AND THESE ARE THE DIMENSIONS OF ALL THE SIGNAGE.
I'D LIKE TO JUST OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION.
I'LL HEAR FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD FIRST.
UM, SINCE I AM CERTAINLY ONE OF THE INDIVIDUALS WHO PASSED BY THIS, UH, LOCATION AT LEAST TWICE EVERY DAY, SOMETIMES MORE THAN TWICE EVERY DAY, AND I FIND THAT YOUR PUTTING THE LUKE OIL AS PRESENTED ON THE CANOPY, UM, TO ME IS MORE INTRUSIVE, UH, VISUALLY, I THINK, THAN IS NECESSARY.
IS THERE ANY WAY THAT YOU COULD HAVE THE LOOP OIL, BUT PERHAPS NOT HAVE THE SIGNAGE AS LARGE AS IT IS? AND I SAY THAT BECAUSE THE STATION IS VERY CLOSE TO THE STREET, IT'S VERY VISIBLE AND IT'S PROBABLY ONE OF THE MOST DUE TO ITS, UH, THE COLORS THAT IT USES DUE TO THE, THE LOCATION.
AND, UH, DUE TO THE FACT THAT, UM, IT'S PROBABLY THE, THE BUSIEST GAS STATION WE HAVE IN THIS FAIRVIEW AREA HERE, UM, FOR VARIOUS REASONS.
SO I UNDERSTAND WANTING TO PRESENT YOUR BRAND, BUT I I JUST FIND IT A LITTLE MORE INTRUSIVE.
UM, SINCE YOU WOULD NOW HAVE THE YARD SIGN IN ADDITION TO THAT LARGE CANOPY SIGN AS PERHAPS IF IT, THE CANOPY COULD BE REDUCED SOMEWHAT IN SIZE, IT WOULD BE MORE ACCEPTABLE TO ME, CERTAINLY.
AND, UM, I BROUGHT INTO CONSIDERATIONS WHAT, UH, TESLA DID NEXT DOOR TO YOU, WHICH IS, UM, THEY HAVE A VERY LARGE BUILDING WITH A CONSIDERABLY AS YOU PUT THE TWO TOGETHER, A SMALL SIGN.
UH, AND, AND THEY OF COURSE WANTED A LARGER SIGN, WHICH REALLY WOULD'VE FIT, UH, WITH THE BUILDING.
BUT, UM, WE EXPLAINED THAT, UM, THERE WAS REALLY NO NEED TO HAVE IT BECAUSE WHAT THEY HAVE IS CERTAINLY, UH, VISIBLE AND HAS PROVEN TO BE SOMETHING THAT, UH, DOES SHOW THEIR BRAND.
AND I THINK THE SAME THING WOULD HAPPEN HERE.
SO THOSE ARE THE, THE COMMENTS THAT I, THAT I'M THROWING OUT AT THIS POINT.
I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR YOUR, YOUR, YOUR YARD SIGN, UM, OR DESIRE FOR IT, I GUESS I SHOULD SAY.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NEEDED NECESSARILY, BUT, UM, IT DOES FALL IN LINE WITH WHAT OTHER GAS STATIONS DO WITH RESPECT TO YARD SIGNS.
YES, AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ARE COMING FROM.
UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THE, THIS, THE LUKE OIL SIGN THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED ON THE CANOPY IS CONSISTENT WITH ALL LUKE OIL GAS STATIONS.
UM, ALSO GOING THROUGH THE SECTION OF THE CODE THAT WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE ON, ASIDE FROM THIS BEING ZONED, UM, AS A, I GUESS IN A UR ZONING AREA,
[02:10:01]
THIS SIGNAGE WOULD MEET ALL OTHER CODE REQUIREMENTS UNDER SECTION OR CHAPTER TWO 40, SECTION THREE C NINE.UM, SO THE CANOPY SIGN WOULD BE, UH, LESS THAN TWO FEET IN HEIGHT, SO IT WOULD NOT EXCEED TWO FEET.
UM, IT WOULD ALSO ONLY BE SEVEN FEET, EIGHT INCHES LONG, WHICH WOULD BE LESS THAN HALF OF THE LENGTH OF THAT CANOPY RUN.
UM, SO THOSE, FOR THOSE REASONS, YOU KNOW, WE, WE FEEL LIKE WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR IS, IS REASONABLE.
UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, IT, IT DOES MEET EVERY OTHER ASPECT OF THE CODE THAT WE ARE ASKING, UH, FOR VARIANCE.
UM, I JUST WANT A CLARIFICATION, UM, AND I MIGHT'VE MISSED THIS, BUT DID YOU SAY THAT THE SIGNAGE ON THE CANOPY WOULD BE ON THE EAST SIDE ONLY OR ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE CANOPY? THE SIGNAGE WOULD BE ON THE EAST AND WEST SIDE OF THE CANOPY.
I BELIEVE THE EAST SIDE IS THE ONLY SIDE OF THE CANOPY THAT REQUIRES A VARIANCE.
IN OUR ORIGINAL PROPOSAL THAT WE HAD SENT OVER, WE, WE PROVIDE A SIX PAGE, UM, RENDERING SET.
THE FIRST PAGE WOULD'VE SHOWN THE WEST, UM, THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE CANOPY.
I CAN ALSO BRING IT UP OVER HERE.
SO THIS IS THE, THE WEST SIDE OF THE, THE CANOPY WHERE WE'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE A LUKE OIL SIGN.
UH, PAGE TWO IS WHAT WE WERE JUST DISCUSSING, WHICH IS THE, THE EAST SIDE ELEVATION.
UM, THERE'S ALSO ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON THE BUILDING, A MINI MART AND A SERVICE SIGN, WHICH WE ARE ALSO AN UNDERSTANDING THERE WOULD NOT BE A VARIANCE FOR EITHER OF THOSE SIGNS.
UM, PAGE THREE IS ANOTHER MINI MART RENDERING.
UH, FOUR IS THE SERVICE AND MINI MART RENDERING AGAIN.
UM, THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER SERVICE SIGN ON THE, UH, THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING ON PAGE FIVE.
AND THEN PAGE SIX, UM, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN REVISED IN THE RENDERINGS WE SUBMITTED, UH, FOR THIS HEARING.
ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? IF NOT, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WANTED TO, UH, ADDRESS THIS APPLICATION? MARIE VOTED YES.
CAN THIS, UH, SIGN BE SOLAR SINCE IT'S GONNA BE 24 HOURS A DAY, CAN IT BE SOLAR POWERED WITH A BATTERY BACKUP TO STORE THE ENERGY NEEDED FOR THAT SIGN AT NIGHT? MR. ANO, DO YOU KNOW, UH, I'M SURE IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE, BUT THAT IS, UH, YOU KNOW, NOTHING THAT MY, MY CLIENT HAD HAD DISCUSSED, OR, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THOUGHT ABOUT.
UM, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE ON TODAY'S AGENDA.
G H P TAXER, L L T PROPERTY AT 55 55 TAXTER ROAD IN SCARSDALE.
UH, UH, GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD COUNSEL AND STAFF.
I'M AN ATTORNEY AT, UH, BLAKELY PLATINUM SCHMIDT, AND I'M JOINED BY, WELL, I THINK I, I'M NOT SURE.
IS JOE STILL HERE BY LANZA? FROM, FROM SIGN DESIGN IS ON WITH YOU.
UM, SO I'M HERE WITH, UH, JOE LANZA FROM N Y SIGN DESIGN, AS HE STATED.
WE'RE HERE ON BEHALF OF G H P TAXTER, UH, THE OWNERS OF 5 55 TAXTER ROAD.
AND THAT WHOLE, UH, CORPORATE OFFICE COMPLEX THERE ON TAXER.
UH, WE'RE SEEKING RELIEF FROM A SIGN ILLUMINATION RESTRICTION AND A VARIANCE THAT THIS BOARD GRANTED IN 1990.
UH, AND IF I, IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO SHARE MY SCREEN.
PLEASE DO, DO I HAVE TO WAIT TO GET THE PERMISSION OR NO, YOU'RE ALL SET.
UH, IS THAT VISIBLE? YES, YES.
UM, SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS 5 55 TAXTER, THAT'S THE BACK OF THE BUILDING.
AND THE SIGN IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER IS THE MONTEFIORE SIGN AT ISSUE HERE.
THIS IS THE NORTH FACING SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
[02:15:01]
ONE SECOND.UH, THIS IS, UM, THE INSIDE LOBBY OF 5 55 TAXERS.
YOU SEE, IT'S, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL BUILDING.
THE, UM, THE LANDLORDS TOOK OVER THE, THE OFFICE PARK IN EARLY 2019, UH, AT A FORECLOSURE.
AND SINCE TAKING OVER THE, THE COMPLEX, THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND MONEY AND EFFORT IN REVITALIZING THE, THE UNITS AND REALLY TURNING IT INTO A, A PRIMO CLASS, A OFFICE PARK, UH, FOR WESTCHESTER COUNTY.
THEY SPENT MILLIONS OF DOLLARS REFURBISHING IT, UH, WHICH HAS BROUGHT SUBSTANTIAL REVENUE TO THE TOWN, UH, THROUGH PERMIT FEES, TAXES.
UH, THEY'VE, THEY'VE ATTRACTED NEW TENANTS, INCLUDING MONTEFIORE, WHICH IS REALLY THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION HERE TODAY.
I'M GONNA SCROLL DOWN, TALK ABOUT THE PRO PROPERTY IN GENERAL AND ZOOM IN.
I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH THE GENERAL AREA, BUT BEAR'S GOING OVER FOR THE PUBLIC, IF ANYONE'S LISTENING.
SO THE, THE SIGN IS ON THIS NORTH FACE OF THE BUILDING, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, THE PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY 2 87 TO THE NORTH 87 TO THE WEST, TAXI ROAD TO THE SOUTHWEST, AND, YOU KNOW, SORT OF STRINGED ALONG UP TO THE NORTHEAST CORRIDOR THERE.
BY ONE 19, THE BUILDING, UM, IS SET BACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE SIGNIFICANTLY, UH, I THINK A COUPLE HUNDRED FEET IN CERTAIN PLACES.
THERE ARE RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, BUT AS, AS WE CAN SEE, THE, THE SIGN'S GONNA BE ON THE NORTH FACE, SO IT WOULD HAVE NO IMPACT.
UM, AND THE APPLICATION WOULD'VE NO IMPACT ON THE RESIDENCES SOUTH.
THERE ARE ALSO RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH, AND I WILL SCROLL DOWN AGAIN AND LET ME FIX THIS.
UM, THE RESIDENCES TO THE NORTH ARE TH THOUSANDS OF PLURAL FEET AWAY, AND OBVIOUSLY SEPARATED, UM, BY THE ONE 19 COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR.
UM, THE ONE 19 COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, AS YOU KNOW, YOU FOLKS PROBABLY KNOW, UM, HAS SIGNIFICANT SIGNAGE AT NIGHT.
UM, YOU KNOW, NOT ALL THAT DISSIMILAR TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE APPLICATION HERE IS TODAY.
YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE MARRIOTT SIGN THAT IS LIT AT NIGHT.
THIS IS, I THINK, AN EARLY MORNING PHOTO DURING THE WEEK.
UH, THESE ARE SOME OF THE BUSINESSES ON ONE 19.
THIS IS AN ACTUAL, A SIMILAR, ALTHOUGH MUCH SMALLER MEDICAL FACILITY THAT HAS A, YOU KNOW, WALL SIGN THAT'S, THAT'S LATE AT NIGHT.
UM, SO THAT'S SORT OF THE CONTEXT.
UM, TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SIGN ITSELF, YOU KNOW, MR. LANZA IS PREPARED TO ADDRESS THAT.
BUT JOE, MAYBE YOU COULD JUST GIVE HIM A QUICK RUN THROUGH OF THE SIGN.
I MEAN, IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T BLINK OR ANYTHING.
IT'S A FAIRLY, UH, INNOCUOUS SIGN.
UM, IT, IT IS AN L E D, UH, POPULATED, UH, SIGN BOX, UH, ALUMINUM EXTRUSION.
UM, THERE WERE SOME SIGNS UP THERE BEFORE THAT WERE, WERE NOT VERY SAFE.
WE, WE REMOVED THEM WHEN WE SAW THAT WE, UM, THEY WEREN'T OURS.
THEY, UH, WE PUT THESE UP AND THROUGH PULED, THROUGH THE PARAPET THERE FOR SAFETY SAKE.
UH, AND ONCE AGAIN, THIS, THE SIGN WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS FACING, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S 2 87, MOSTLY FOR, TO JUST IDENTIFY THE LOCATION OF BONFIRE.
SO IF THERE'S ANY OTHER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, IF YOU, IF YOU WANT TO HEAR ABOUT THINGS LIKE LUMENS, UM, IT'S HARD TO COMPARE LUMENS WITH, WITH, UH, INCANDESCENT OR OTHER KIND OF LIGHTING, BUT WE'RE LOOKING AT ABOUT, UM, FOUR OH LUMENS.
IT'S A VERY EVEN LIGHT TO LIGHT THE MONTEFIORE SIGN.
AND, AND JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE CONTEXT ON MONTEFIORE, THIS FACILITY, THEY, THEY ENTERED INTO THE LEASE IN LATE DECEMBER 19, RIGHT BEFORE, EFFECTIVELY, RIGHT BEFORE COVID.
AND, AND THE IDEA WAS THIS LOCATION IS GOING TO BE THE, THE CENTERPIECE OF THEIR WESTCHESTER COUNTY PRESIDENTS.
THEY'RE GONNA HAVE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT SERVICES THERE, BUT BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC, THE, THE, THE PLANS WERE DELAYED A BIT.
UM, THEY HAVE OPENED SOME OPERATIONS THERE.
THEY HAVE AN IT OPERATION THERE.
THEY ARE DOING SOME PHYSICAL THERAPY, BUT LONGER TERM, THEY'RE GONNA FILL OUT THE APPROXIMATELY 130,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE THAT THEY HAVE WITH A VARIETY OF, OF, YOU KNOW, MEDICAL SERVICES, YOU KNOW, DIAGNOSTIC CAPABILITIES.
I CAN KIND OF GO THROUGH THEM MORE DETAIL IF THERE'S INTEREST.
UM, BUT ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GONNA BE, AS I SAID, THE CENTERPIECE OF THEIR WESTCHESTER COUNTY OPERATION.
UM, AND THEY REALLY WANT TO PROMOTE THAT THROUGH THE USE OF THE SIGN, UM, DURING, DURING THE NIGHTTIME HOURS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, HAS AN AWARENESS OF THE PRESENCE, UH, THAT IT'S EASILY, UH, LOCATED, YOU KNOW, FROM 2 87, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN SEE IT, UH, THAT SORT OF THING.
UH, AND WE THINK THAT BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S ESSENTIALLY GONNA BE NO IMPACT, UH, PARTICULARLY GIVEN THE CONTEXT OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, AND, AND THE COMMERCIAL AREAS THAT WOULD, YOU KNOW, SORT OF INTERVENE.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE THINK WE MEET THE STATUTORY CRITERIA
[02:20:01]
FOR VARIANCE, ALTHOUGH IT TECHNICALLY, I THINK IT'S JUST MODIFYING THE CONT THE CONDITIONS OF AN ALREADY GRANTED VARIANCE.UH, I THINK WE, WE MEET THE STATUTORY CRITERIA.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION, UM, REGARDING THE EXAMPLES THAT YOU SHOWED OF OTHER LOCATIONS WITH, UH, LIGHTED SIGNS LIKE THE MARRIOTT AND THE OTHER HEALTHCARE CENTER.
UM, THEY WERE OBVIOUSLY TAKEN AT NIGHT, BUT WERE THOSE SIGNS LIT 24 HOURS? UM, OR WERE THEY JUST ON AT SIX O'CLOCK AT NIGHT WHEN IN THE WINTERTIME IT'S DARK? SURE, IT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
I COULDN'T TELL YOU WHETHER THEY WERE ON 24 HOURS, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, TO BE FRANK, WE DIDN'T HAVE SOMEONE SIT OUT THERE FOR 20 HOURS, BUT THEY WERE TAKEN IN THE EARLY MORNING HOURS, UH, I WANNA SAY AROUND 5, 5 30.
I COULD GET, YOU KNOW, EXACT TIMES, BUT, BUT THAT'S, IT WAS, IT WAS GENERAL.
I THINK IT WAS AROUND FIVE 30, MAYBE CLOSER TO SIX IN THE MORNING.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE PRESUMPTION WAS THAT THEY WERE ON ALL NIGHT.
BUT, BUT I CAN'T, I COULDN'T VERIFY THAT.
IF I MAY ADD, UH, A NUMBER OF THE MEDICAL LOCATIONS THAT WE'VE DONE, FURE HAS INCLUDED, THE WHITE PLAINS HOSPITAL IS ANOTHER, THEY'RE, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR JUST IDENTIFICATION SO PEOPLE CAN FIND THEM AND OFTEN DO LOOK FOR THAT A LONGER, UM, A LONGER TIME OF LIGHTING THEIR LOCATION.
UM, DOES THIS FACILITY ACCEPT ANY EMERGENCY, UH, CARE SITUATIONS? I MEAN, IF SOMEONE WERE TO GET SICK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT AND HAVE TO BE TAKEN FOR MEDICAL ATTENTION, WOULD THEY BE GOING TO THIS FACILITY? WELL, RIGHT NOW, THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO.
THE ONLY OPERAT, THE ONLY MEDICAL SERVICES THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED ARE PHYSICAL THERAPY, PHY, EXCUSE ME, PHYSICAL THERAPY, UH, AND A PARTNERSHIP WITH BURKE REHABILITATION.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE MORE, THE MORE SHORT AND MEDIUM TERM, I THINK ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS NO.
ALTHOUGH THERE IS A POTENTIAL AND POSSIBILITY FOR THAT IN THE FUTURE.
SO THIS IS A PLACE WHERE PEOPLE COME AND THEN THEY GO HOME, CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
RIGHT? THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE ANTI, I MEAN, THAT'S THE ANTI, THAT'S THE ANTICIPATION.
I'M TALK, I'M, EXCUSE ME, I'M TALKING NOW.
AND SO, UM, YOU SHOWED US THE MARRIOTT, UH, WHITE PLAINS HOSPITAL.
YOU MENTIONED, UH, YOU TALKED ABOUT URGENT CARE.
AS FAR AS I KNOW, THESE ARE PLACES THAT ACCEPT PEOPLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT IF NEEDED.
NO, THAT'S THINK CORRECT, SIR.
NOT URGENT CARE DOESN'T TAKE YOU.
I APOLO TELL ME WHAT, THEY DON'T TAKE YOU.
THEY, THEY, THEY'RE OUR, THEY, THEY CLOSE AT EIGHT.
THE URGENT CARE HOURS ARE, UH, MONDAY THROUGH FRIDAY, EIGHT TO EIGHT, AND SATURDAY, SUNDAY NINE TO FIVE.
BUT THEY DO IN THE WINTER TIME, THEY DO TAKE PEOPLE WHO ARE IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS, I BELIEVE.
UH, I MEAN, I, YEAH, WELL, I SUPPOSE THAT'S, I SUPPOSE THAT'S PO YEAH, I SUPPOSE THAT'S TRUE.
AND CERTAINLY WHITE PLAINS HOSPITAL TAKES PEOPLE IN EMERGENCY SITUATIONS.
UH, SO I MEAN, ARE YOU TRYING TO ATTRACT BUSINESS, UH, FROM 2 87 IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT? I, I'M, THESE ARE PEOPLE, IF THEY COME, I THINK THEY COME, EXCUSE ME.
IF THEY COME DURING THE DAY FOR TREATMENT, IT'S MORE THAN LIKELY THE NEXT TIME THEY COME, THEY'LL KNOW WHERE THEY JUST WAS.
I MEAN, WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE LIT UP ALL NIGHT LONG? WELL, IT'S TO ESTABLISH A BRAND, TO ESTABLISH AWARENESS IN THE COMMUNITY.
AND AGAIN, THIS IS GONNA BE THE CENTERPIECE OF, OF MONTEFIORE'S WESTCHESTER PRESENCE.
AND, YOU KNOW, THEY REALLY WANT TO, TO ESTABLISH THAT GOODWILL, IF YOU WILL, CONNECTION WITH THE, WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD LIKE TO JUST POINT OUT, YOU KNOW, THE, THE VARI, THE VARIANCE THAT'S UNDER, THAT'S, THAT WAS ALREADY GRANTED, RIGHT? TO GRANT THE SIGN THE ERECTION OF THE SIGN IN THE FIRST INSTANCE IN 1990, THE RATIONALE WAS 19 90, 19 90, JULY 19, NINE.
THE RATIONALE WAS TO FACILITATE VISIBILITY AND IDENTIFICATION OF THE BUILDING.
I MEAN, IT GOES ON, YOU KNOW, FOR THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE TRAVELING TO THE BUILDING TO MAKE THAT TRAVELING SAFER AND MORE EASILY CARRIED OUT.
AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS IN CONNECTION WITH FUJIFILM FOR A PHOTO LAB.
YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A MEDICAL FACILITY, AND TO YOUR POINT, THERE'S NO, AT THIS POINT, THERE IS NO INTENTION TO TURN IT INTO AN EMERGENCY SERVICES, UH, LOCATION.
BUT I, BUT I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, GIVEN THAT THE MEDICAL NATURE OF IT, YOU'RE GONNA BE DEALING WITH FOLKS THAT STILL ARE GONNA BE, UM, COMPROMISED IN SOME WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM.
I THINK THAT THE, THE RATIONALE HOLDS, AND FRANKLY IS, IS MORE, UM, IS ON SOLID, SOLID, MORE SOLID GROUND IN CONNECTION WITH THIS USE THAN IT WOULD'VE BEEN FOR FUGE FILM.
[02:25:01]
WHY WOULD SOMEONE GO TO THIS FACILITY, UH, AFTER IT'S DARK, BEFORE IT GETS, YOU KNOW, DURING THE NIGHT? WELL, IT, IT'LL, IT'LL BE OPEN.IT WILL BE OPEN AT NIGHT AND OUTSIDE THE RESTRICTIONS THAT CURRENTLY STAND ON THE VARIANCE.
SO THERE WILL BE A SCENARIO IF, IF THE VARIANCE IS NOT MODIFIED, THE CONDITIONS ARE NOT LIFTED, WHERE IT'S DARK AND THE SIGN HAS TO BE OFF.
CAN I, CAN I JUST, CAN I ASK WHAT THE BUSINESS HOURS ARE THEN EXACTLY WHAT THE, THE HOURS OF THE BUILDING ARE? YES, SURE.
SO, UM, RIGHT NOW BURKE IS OPERATING MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY, EIGHT TO SIX, WITH THE INTENTION TO EXPAND TO SUNDAYS.
AND THEN THE IDEA IS THAT, UH, MONTEFIORE WILL BE OPERATING 8:00 AM TO 8:00 PM MONDAY THROUGH SATURDAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTS TO ADDRESS THIS APPLICATION? I DO, YES, GO AHEAD, MR. BOWDEN.
UH, MR. RODRIGUEZ, I UNDERSTAND YOU'RE FROM YORKTOWN, AND, UH, YOU'RE THOROUGHLY FAMILIAR WITH THE BATTERY STORAGE UNIT AT THE SHOPPING CENTER THERE, WHICH I SAW, AND IT'S VERY NICE.
IS THIS COMPLEX THAT YOU HAVE HERE, UH, DO YOU THINK THAT THAT SAME TYPE OF STORAGE SYSTEM WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO EVERYBODY TO HAVE THAT INSTALLED IN THIS UNIT? THANK YOU.
I, I'M NOT, I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION, TO BE HONEST.
UM, I'LL REPEAT, I'LL REPEAT THE QUESTION.
WELL, BUT, BUT LEMME JUST SAY, UH, MR. BODEN, JUST REAL QUICKLY, IF I COULD, UH, THERE IS A BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM AT THIS LOCATION PRESENTLY.
UM, LET ME ASK THE OBVIOUS QUESTION.
WHY DOESN'T 8:00 PM WORK FOR YOU? I'M SORRY, SIR.
WHY DOESN'T 8:00 PM WORK FOR YOU? WELL, AS I, AS I SAID EARLIER, I MEAN, WORKS, THE, THE INTENTION, THE DESIRE IS TO PROMOTE THE MONTEFIORE BRAND BROADLY AND CONSISTENTLY TO ESTABLISH THE NEW PRESENCE IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY GOING FORWARD INTO THE FUTURE.
THERE, THERE'S A, IT'S A, SO THE, THE, THE LEASE IS A VERY LONG-TERM LEASE.
YOU KNOW, MONTEFIORE HAS AN INTENTION TO BE THERE LONG-TERM AND, AND AGAIN, ESTABLISH THIS AS ITS HALLMARK, UH, OF ITS PRESENCE IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY.
MAY I SAY SOMETHING AS WELL, ADAM? I, I, I DON'T WANNA STEP ON YOUR SURE.
THOUGHTS HERE, BUT TYPICALLY WE DON'T STOP AT 8:00 PM WHEN WE DO SIGNAGE AND PUT TIMERS ON THEM.
WE'LL GO A NUMBER OF FOUR OR SIX HOURS AFTER, UM, DUSK.
UH, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THE WINTER AND THE SUMMER.
BUT BESIDES THAT, I THINK THIS IS A REQUEST OF MONTEFIORE.
AND IN THIS CASE, WE'RE NOT IMPACTING THE PUBLIC SO MUCH.
IT'S, YOU'RE, YOU'RE MAYBE SEEING IT FROM 2 87.
IT'S, IT'S NOT THAT BIG WHEN YOU'RE SEEING THIS IN THAT DISTANCE AND THE HOMEOWNERS, IT, IT DOESN'T IMPACT.
SO WE THOUGHT IN THIS CASE, IT'S A SITUATION WHERE WE CAN GIVE OUR CLIENT WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR, A LITTLE EXPOSURE WITHOUT IMPACTING THE PUBLIC.
BUT THIS IS A MULTI-TENANT, UH, FACILITY.
CORRECT? IT'S NOT JUST MONTEFIORE.
BUT, BUT MONTEFIORE HAS 130,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH I, I, I DO BELIEVE IS MORE THAN HALF OF THE BUILDING, BUT I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT FOR CERTAIN.
SOUNDS LIKE A LOT JUST TO CREATE A, UM, A PRESENCE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WELL, I MEAN, AS I SORT OF INDICATED EARLIER, THERE ARE OTHER SIGNS.
OTHER BUSINESSES HAVE THEIR SIGNS ON 24 HOURS A DAY THAT ARE NOT URGENT CARE FACILITIES, NOT MEDICAL FACILITIES.
THE ONE, THERE'S, IF I, I COULD PULL BACK UP THE SCREENSHOT, BUT THERE WAS A, A, THE BUSINESS NEXT TO THE URGENT CARE ALSO HAD TO SIGN ON AT FIVE 30 IN THE MORNING.
UM, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I THINK THIS IS A SPECIAL CASE DEALING WITH THE MEDICAL NATURE OF IT.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, WE THINK WE'VE MET THE CRITERIA AND HAPPY TO ANSWER, YOU KNOW, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE PEOPLE GO TO THE MARRIOTT LATE, RIGHT? UH, PRESUMABLY THEY DON'T GO TO THE URGENT CARE LATE.
[02:30:01]
RIGHT.THAT'S WHY, YOU KNOW, IT MAKES SENSE THAT MARRIOTT WOULD HAVE TO SIGN ON, UM, SO THAT THEY, THE GUESTS COME IN, THEY COME IN IN LATE TO CHECK IN, WOULD BE ABLE TO FIND IT.
BUT THE, THE URGENT CARE ON ONE 19 CLOSES AT EIGHT, AT FIVE, I THINK ON SUNDAYS.
UH, AND THEIR, THEIR SIGN IS ON.
DO YOU KNOW IF, UM, THEY REC THEY RECEIVE THE VARIANCE FOR THAT? I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW.
WHAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING? IT'S FOUR STORIES.
I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT HEIGHT.
I'M GONNA GUESS BECAUSE WE HAD CRANES THERE, UH, IN THE PAST.
UM, IN THE BACK, IT'S ABOUT, UH, 75 OR, OR MAYBE AS MUCH AS 80 FEET.
THE OTHER LOCATIONS OF THE BUILDING ARE, UH, ARE DIFFERENT ONES ABOUT 60, UH, 65.
AND THE NEXT CASE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS CASE 2108, JART AND GISELLE LINDSEY PROPERTY AT 2 48 FORT HILL ROAD.
AND WHO DO WE HAVE? UH, I AM HERE.
I'M THE, UH, ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT.
I BELIEVE MR. LINDSAY IS HERE, THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND, UH, DAVE KARNEY, THE CONTRACTOR.
COULD YOU SPELL THE NAMES, PLEASE, MR TI? UH, SURE.
MY NAME IS RALPH ALFON ZETI, SPELLED A L F O N Z E T T I.
UM, DO YOU NEED EVERYBODY'S NAME SPELLED, OTHER THAN THE, WELL, THE APPLICANT'S NAMES WE HAVE IS ANYONE ELSE THAT YOU MENTIONED? UH, DAVE S THE CONTRACTOR.
UH, LAST NAME IS SS A C A R N Y.
ALRIGHT, SO HERE WE HAVE, UM, A SINGLE FAMILY, UH, RESIDENTIAL LOT.
IT'S ADDRESS 2 48, UM, FORT HILL ROAD.
IT IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF FORT HILL ROAD, UH, IN THE R 20 ZONE.
UH, IF I CAN SHARE MY SCREEN, LET'S SEE HERE.
UM, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SUBDIVISION MAP THAT I'VE PULLED UP, UM, THAT WAS FILED IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY LAND RECORDS, UM, IN MARCH OF 1966.
IT IS LOT NUMBER TWO ON THIS MAP.
UM, IF EVERYONE CAN SEE THAT, I'M GONNA SWITCH OVER TO OUR PROPOSED SITE PLAN.
WE ARE PROPOSING A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.
UM, IT IS ZONING COMPLIANT IN EVERY WAY OTHER THAN THE EXISTING FRONTAGE.
UM, WHEN THE LOT WAS SUBDIVIDED IN 19 66, 15 FEET WAS APPROVED AS OUR FRONTAGE.
UM, NOW THE REQUIREMENT IS 25 FEET.
UM, ESSENTIALLY THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN DO ABOUT THAT.
UM, IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND WE, WE ARE HERE TO REQUEST A VARIANCE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
SO I SUPPOSE YOU CAN'T WIDEN THE DRIVEWAY, 10 FEET CANNOT DO ANYTHING THERE.
OUR PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT OUR PROPERTY.
I WASN'T TRYING TO BE FACETIOUS, I JUST WANTED TO GET THAT IN THE RECORD.
UH, IF THE LOT WAS APPROVED, 1966, UH, WHY YOU CANNOT DEVELOP WITH THIS 15 FOOT WIDE? WHY WE CANNOT? YEAH, WHY YOU NEED THE VARIANCE.
UM, WELL, BECAUSE NOW THE FRONTAGE IS 25 FEET AND SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 1966 AND, AND NOW I BELIEVE, UM, THE ZONING VARIANCE CAME INTO A, UH, THE VARIANCE WITH, NO, I'M SORRY.
THE, THE FRONTAGE LAW CAME INTO EFFECT IN 87
[02:35:01]
OR 88.SO ESSENTIALLY IT'S AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING LAW.
I'M SORRY, YOU ASKED THE QUESTION.
COULD YOU PLEASE PUT YOUR NAME ON THE RECORD, PLEASE? YEAH, RODRIGUEZ, SPELL IT FOR THE, UH, YEAH, IT'S D R O R G E Z.
WHAT IS YOUR ADDRESS? 10 PHE FRONT.
SO DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THIS PROPERTY BEING DEVELOPED AND A HOUSE GOING THERE? I HAVE A QUESTION.
UH, SINCE THIS, IT'S A PROVABLE BUILDABLE LOT, AND IT'S BEEN, OBVIOUSLY IT'S A FLAG LOTT AND IT DOESN'T HAVE THE 40,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIREMENT TODAY.
WHY YOU ASK HIM TO APPLY FOR VARIANCE IF IT'S ALREADY BEEN, UH, UH, UH, CONFIRMING LOT.
WE WERE, WE WERE TOLD THAT WE NEEDED A VAR, A FRONTAGE VARIANCE IN ORDER TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT.
AND YOU DON'T NEED THIS, UH, UH, UH, BUILD BILLABLE SIZE.
IT MEETS THE CRITERIA AS FAR AS LOT AREA.
THE ONLY, THE ONLY THING
IF YOU WANT, WE COULD PERHAPS HAVE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, UH, DO YOU WANNA YES, YES, I WILL.
IT'S A DIFFERENT SECTION OF THE CODE THAT REQUIRES THAT EVERY LOT THAT IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED HAVE A MINIMUM OF 25 FOOT FRONTAGE ON A TOWN APPROVED ROAD, OR A TOWN APPROVED TO, OR A ROAD, A TOWN ROAD APPROVED TO TOWN STANDARD.
SO THAT HAS TO BE 25 FEET FRONTAGE ON A TOWN APPROVED ROAD, OR A ROAD APPROVED TO TOWN STANDARD.
IT'S SEPARATE FROM THE REGULATIONS AND CONDITIONS OF A FLAG LOT SECTION OF THE CODE.
AND THIS PARTICULAR SECTION DOES NOT GIVE ANY YEAR WHERE IF PRIOR TO THAT YEAR, IT WAS GRANDFATHERED IN.
SO ANY LOT FROM THE ADOPTION POINT OF, OF THIS CODE SECTION HAS TO ADHERE TO THAT.
SO WHAT YOU SAY, BASICALLY THE GRANDFATHER IN IT, JUST FOR THE SIZE, SO IT CAN BUILD ON
FOR THE SIZE, FOR THE, FOR THE SIZE, SIZE OF A LOT.
SO, SO IT'S GRANDFATHERED FOR THE 20,000, BUT THAT, THAT, THAT PROVISION THAT WAS ADDED AT THE LATER POINT, YOU KNOW, WAS NOT EXEMPT FROM THAT.
SO THE SIZE OF THE LOT IS OKAY.
AND BECAUSE IT WAS CREDITING BEFORE THE ZONING CHANGE.
SO IT'S GRANDFATHER IN ON THE SIZE OF THE LAD, BUT YOU CANNOT GRANDFATHER IN THE SIZE OF THE FRONTAGE E EXACTLY, BECAUSE THE SECTION DOES NOT ALLOW THE SECTION APPLIES TO ANY BUILDING PERMIT THAT'S ISSUED, OR ANY DEVELOPMENT OF A NEW LOT HAS TO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
SO BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, ANY LOT THAT WAS EXISTING, THAT, THAT WAS, UH, UH, UM, CONFORMING LOT PRIOR TO 1987? YES.
DOESN'T NEED TO MEET THE AREA, BUT DOES NEED TO MEET THE, THE FRONTAGE? YES.
IT HAS TO MEET THE FRONTAGE ANY LOT, EVEN IF IT WAS CREATED PRIOR TO.
BUT THAT SECTION, IF YOU, YOU LOOK IN THE FLAG LOT, THERE'S EXEMPTIONS FOR LOT AREA, AREA BY THE YEAR.
THIS SECTION OF THE CODE THAT IS APPLYING TO THIS FOR VARIANCE DOES NOT HAVE AN EXEMPTION.
IT IS, IT IS, YOU KNOW, THE SECTION READS, YOU KNOW, STRAIGHTFORWARD THAT ANY, I'M JUST GONNA GRAB THE SECTION FOR YOU.
SO THE SECTION OF THE CODE IS 2 85 DASH 39 9 A AND IT STATES THAT LOTS HAVE TO HAVE 25 FOOT FRONTAGE ON A TOWN APPROVED ROAD.
AND IT BASICALLY GOES ON TO SAY AN ACCESS THEREOF.
BECAUSE ACROSS THE STREET, UH, CLOSE TO, WHAT IS IT, 2 52 ACROSS THE STREET, THERE'S ANOTHER FLAG LOT THAT THEY ALL, THEY ALSO, THOSE HAVE A, UH, LESS THAN 25 FOOT, UH, FRONTAGE THAT HAVE AN EXISTING HOUSE.
I THINK IT WAS BUILT LIKE, UH, FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO.
IS THAT THE SAME CASE? BASICALLY? I, I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT RIGHT NOW.
I DON'T HAVE THOSE DOCUMENTS, SO I WOULD'VE TO RESEARCH THE WHOLE THING.
IT MAY HAVE BEEN GRANTED A VARIANCE.
[02:40:05]
ALL RIGHT.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANY COMMENTS FURTHER FROM ANYONE? NOTHING ELSE? OKAY.
LAST CASE, WE HAVE ON TODAY'S AGENDA CASE, 2109 HAMPSHIRE MANAGEMENT COMPANY PROPERTY AT 2 15 3 0 5 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE.
MICHAEL SANTO OF SAND SIGNS AND AWNINGS IN YONKERS, NEW YORK REPRESENTING HAMPSHIRE MANAGEMENT.
UH, WE'RE REPRESENTING HAM HAMPSHIRE MANAGEMENT AND THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT TWO 15 THROUGH 3 0 5 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE.
UH, THIS PROPERTY IS ALSO KNOWN AS WESTCHESTER SQUARE AND CURRENTLY HOUSES BEST BUY, MARSHALLS TRADER, JOE'S CITY, MD, AND BEAR BURGER TO NAME A FEW.
WE'RE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT WITH PROPOSAL FOR A NEW PYLON SIGN.
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE RENDERINGS, WHICH WE PROVIDED, WE ARE REQUESTING FOUR VARIANCES IF YOU'D LIKE.
I'LL, I COULD SHARE MY SCREEN.
THAT'S NOT WHAT I WANTED TO, IT'S NOT IT EITHER.
DO YOU SEE THE PYLON SIGN NOW? YEAH.
UM, SO ONE VARIANCE RE WE'RE REQUESTING IS TO INCREASE THE SIZE FROM AN EXISTING 65 SQUARE FEET TO THE PROPOSED SIZE OF 144 SQUARE FEET.
AS YOU KNOW, THE TOWN CODE ONLY ALLOWS FOR A 30 SQUARE FOOT, 30 SQUARE FOOT PYLON.
SO THIS EXISTING SIGN HAS AN, HAS AN EXISTING VARIANCE.
THE SECOND VARIANCE WE ARE REQUESTING IS IN REGARDS TO THE HEIGHT OF THE OVERALL SIGN.
THE CURRENT SIGN IS 20 FEET TALL.
THE NEW PROPOSED SIGN WILL ALSO BE 20 FEET TALL, WHEREAS THE CODE REQUIRES A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 12 FEET TALL.
SO WE'LL BE REQUESTING AN EIGHT FOOT VARIANCE.
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE FROM MY IMAGES TO SCALE, THEY'RE BOTH AT 20 FEET IN HEIGHT.
THE THIRD VARIANCE WE'RE REQUESTED IS REGARDS TO THE OPEN SPACE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN.
THE CURRENT PYLON IS EIGHT FEET TO THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN, AND WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE TO BRING THE HEIGHT FROM GRADE TO SIX FEET, AND THEN TO HAVE A 27 INCH PLANTER AT THE BASE WHERE WE COULD PLANT SOME PLANTS AND BEAUTIFY THE PROPERTY.
OUR FOURTH REQUEST IS FOR THE OVERALL WIDTH OF THE SIGN, WHERE A VARIANCE WOULD INCREASE IT FROM SIX FOOT MAXIMUM ALLOWED TO 12 FOOT AS IT'S CURRENTLY SHOWN.
UM, OUR SITUATION HERE IS UNIQUE AND WE'RE LUCKY TO BE CURRENTLY FULL WITH 16 TENANTS.
OUR CURRENT SIGN ONLY HAS 13 TENANTS LATS AT 6.5 INCHES ON THE SMALL AND 11 INCHES ON THE LARGE.
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM SOME OF THE PHOTOGRAPHS, WHICH I WILL ATTEMPT TO SHARE, I AM ASSUMING THAT YOU COULD SEE THAT, OR SOMETIMES IT'S HELPFUL TO STOP, SHARE AND THEN RE-SHARE.
SO I'M GONNA STOP FOR YOU AND THEN GO AHEAD AND RE-SHARE YOUR PHOTOS.
WE SEE A PHOTO NOW FROM THE VEHICLE.
SO, UH, LIKE I SAID, OUR SITUATION IS UNIQUE AND WITH THE SMALL SIGNAGE THAT'S ON HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THIS PHOTO COMING NORTH ON CENTRAL PARK AVENUE, IT'S NOT EVEN VISIBLE.
AND AS I PROGRESS CLOSER, YES, YOU COULD START TO READ BEST BUY AND MARSHALLS, BUT THE REST OF THEM ARE REALLY USELESS.
UM, I TOOK SOME PHOTOS FROM WITHIN THE PROPERTY FOR
[02:45:01]
YOU TO SEE HOW 90% OF 'EM YOU CAN'T READ.NOW WE ALSO HAVE A FAR SETBACK HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE FROM, AND THERE'S NO SITE DISTANCE AT THE BOTTOM.
UM, THE MAIN REASON WHY WE'RE SEEKING THE VARIANCE FOR 65 SPEED, 65 SQUARE FOOT TO THE 144 SQUARE FOOT IS TO CREATE MORE TENANTS AND TO INCREASE THE SIGN SLOTS TO MAKE THEM FUNCTION.
IN REGARDS TO THE HEIGHT VARIANCE, I SUSPECT THERE'S ALREADY ONE IN PLACE BECAUSE THE EXISTING SIGN IS ALMOST 20 FEET TALL.
SO I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN GO AHEAD AND CONTINUE THAT VARIANCE AND KEEP IT AT THE SAME HEIGHT.
IN REGARDS TO THE THIRD VARIANCE IN THE OPEN SPACE, IF THE TOWN BOARD WANTS US TO REMOVE THE PLANTER, THEN WE CAN CERTAINLY REMOVE THE PLANTER, AND THEN WE WOULD BE AT THE SIX FOOT HEIGHT.
BUT AS YOU CAN SEE IN THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION, FROM THE PHOTO THAT'S HERE, THE, THE CLEAR SPACE UNDERNEATH THE PYLON IS A MOOT POINT DUE TO ALL THE SHRUBBERY AND THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T AFFECT CLEAR LINE OF SIGHT AS WE'RE PULLING OUT OF THE MALL.
UM, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, THE REASON FOR THE EIGHT FOOT OR SIX FOOT ABOVE GRADE, UH, UH, CODE REQUIREMENT IS SO A VEHICLE CAN SEE NORTH AND THE ONCOMING TRAFFIC, AS YOU COULD SEE, THAT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE HERE WITH THIS PARTICULAR SIGN.
UM, OUR FINAL V VARIANCES IN REGARDS TO THE WIDTH OF THE SIGN, WE'RE SEEKING A VARIANCE FROM SIX FEET TO 12 FEET, ONCE AGAIN TO INCREASE OUR PANEL SIZES HERE.
UM, WE ARE NOT GOING ANY CLOSER TO THE STREET.
WE WILL BE INFRINGING ON OUR PROPERTY, BUT IT IS DOUBLE THE WIDTH.
IT IS DOUBLE THE WIDTH OF THE EXISTING SIGN.
UM, AND AS YOU KNOW, THE PETRILLO'S HAVE BEEN IN TOWN AND KEPT THIS MALL OCCUPIED.
I THINK YOU'RE ALSO AWARE THAT WE JUST BUILT A BUILDING, UH, NORTH WITH CITY MD.
CURRENTLY, THEY HAVE NO SIGNAGE.
WE APPROACH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IN, IN THOUGHTS AND IN HOPES THAT WE COULD ERECT A SECOND SIGN FOR THEM AND TAKE THEM OFF OF THE MAIN PYLON.
BUT DUE TO THE WAY THIS PROPERTY IS SITUATED, WE ARE ONLY ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE SIGN.
SO NOW WE'RE AT, AT 16 TENANTS AND WE'VE GOT 13 SLOTS.
SO WE HAVE A PREDICAMENT AND SOMETHING THAT WE NEED TO SOLVE HERE.
UM, THE, I THINK THAT THE RENDERING OF OUR SIGN IS ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL.
YES, IT WILL BE A INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED LIT LIGHT BOX WITH LEDS.
THE UPPER PANEL WILL BE NEGATIVE CUT, SO THE ONLY THE EDGES OF WESTCHESTER SQUARE WILL ILLUMINATE, BUT WE'VE KEPT THE FACES AND THE LOGO BRANDING TO A SIZE THAT WILL FUNCTION ON CENTRAL AVENUE.
UM, I DON'T THINK THAT THERE'S ANY IMPACT TO THE PUBLIC AROUND US.
WE ARE ON CENTRAL AVENUE, AND THIS SIGN WILL HAVE A TIMER ON IT, WHICH WILL GO OFF AT 11 O'CLOCK.
AS PER LOCAL ORDINANCES, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.
IF YOU HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS ON WHAT ELSE WE COULD DO HERE, I'D BE HAPPY TO LISTEN TO THEM.
UM, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE BOARD.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE TWO EMPTY SLOTS FOR SIGNS AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR, UH, PROPOSED LON SIGN.
UM, BUT I COUNT 16 SIGNS THERE ALREADY.
ARE YOU EXPECTING TO BUILD MORE BUILDINGS ON YOUR SITE AND NO, LOUIS HERE IS OUR, HERE IS OUR PREDICAMENT WITH COVID.
THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATIONS WITH MARSHALS DOWNSIZING.
UM, THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATIONS WITH BEST BUY DOWNSIZING WITH THE WAY RETAIL IS SET UP AND THE MARKET.
WE WERE JUST PREPARING FOR THE, WHAT WE THINK IS THE INEVITABLE THAT WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO SUBDIVIDE AT ONE POINT OR ANOTHER HERE.
UH, SO INSTEAD OF DOING WHAT WAS DONE IN THE PAST, AS YOU COULD SEE, CHOICE PET CAME IN HERE AND ADDED A LIGHT BOX AT THE BOTTOM.
SO I'LL ASSUME THAT CHOICE PET DOES NOT HAVE A PERMIT FOR THAT.
SO IN ORDER TO AVOID THAT, AND SOMETHING THAT WE DO AS A RULE OF THUMB IS WE TRY TO GO AHEAD AND PUT A COUPLE OF EXTRA SLATS BECAUSE
[02:50:01]
WHAT IF THERE'S SPACE AVAILABLE HERE OR, UM, LIKE I SAID, WE SUBDIVIDE IN THE NEAR FUTURE, BUT IT'S A CONVERSATION THAT'S ALREADY HAD BEING HAD WITH THE PEOPLE AT MARSHALLS.NOW THAT'S A VERY LARGE SPACE.
UM, AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS IN THE WIDTH OF EACH INDIVIDUAL SIGN, IN ACTUAL, IN ACTUALITY, EVEN THOUGH YOU ARE DOUBLING THE WIDTH OF THE ENTIRE PYLON SIGN, UH, THE, EXCEPT FOR THE BEST BUY TRADERS, JOE'S MARSHALS AND C V S, THE REMAINING SIGNS AREN'T ANY WIDER.
UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GONNA BE ANY MORE READABLE.
THEY'RE DOUBLE, THEY'RE DOUBLE IN HEIGHT.
THEY'RE DOUBLE IN IN HEIGHT OF WHAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY EXISTING.
UM, AND IF YOU NOTICE, IF, I MEAN, IF YOU COULD JUST LOOK AT CITY MD OR JERSEY MIKES OR EVEN BEAR BURGER IN REGARDS TO THE, UTILIZING THEIR LOGOS, CENTRAL SEAFOOD WOULD BE ANOTHER ONE.
YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY SOME FONTS COULD BE CHANGED ON GARINO DENTISTRY TO MAKE HIM HIM WORK OUT BETTER.
UM, BUT IT'S A MATTER OF ADDING FOR OUR TENANTS AND GIVING THEM SOME VISIBILITY FROM CENTRAL AVENUE.
UH, MICHAEL, UM, WITHOUT REVEALING HOW I MIGHT VOTE ON THIS ISSUE,
UM, OH, I GUESS IT'S A MATTER OF OPINION.
I DON'T, I, I DON'T THINK I, I, I BELIEVE, UH, WILL FOLLOW THAT.
UM, IN YOUR PACKAGE THAT YOU SENT TO THE BOARD, YOU HAVE, UH, PHOTOS OF OTHER, UH, SIGNS.
IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT? UH, YOU KNOW, THOSE WERE OTHER SIGNS THAT I INCLUDED UP AND DOWN CENTRAL AVENUE.
MY INTENT WAS THEIR LOCATION TO SHOW HOW THEIR LINE OF SIGHT IS UNDERNEATH THE SIGN, AND IT'S THERE FOR A REASON.
I WAS ALSO SHOWING IN REGARDS TO SIZE, RELATIONSHIP OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, THAT THERE ARE EXISTING SIGNS THAT ARE, ARE BIGGER THAN THE 34 SQUARE FEET THAT ARE BIGGER THAN 65 SQUARE FEET OF OUR EXISTING SIGN.
I MEAN, I THINK OUR TENANTS ARE AT, ARE, ARE, ARE HINDERED BY NOT HAVING A SIGN THERE.
UM, OR DEFINITELY THE THREE THAT ARE AN EXISTING ON THE EXISTING ONE.
BUT, UM, LIKE I SAID, SUGGESTIONS ARE WELCOME.
UH, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE BOARD OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE ALWAYS SEEMED TO WORK WELL TOGETHER.
SO IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD LIKE TO SEE AND THEN YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO DO TO GO BACK TO MY, MY CLIENT AND ADVISE THEM, UM, SO BE IT.
BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING HERE FITS CENTRAL AVENUE.
SO I HAVE A QUESTION WITH REGARD ON THE COLORS ON THE BACKGROUND.
ON THE ORIGINAL SIGN, THERE WERE A LOT OF COLORS WITH EVERYBODY USING THEIR KIND OF OWN UNIQUE, UM, BRANDING COLORS AND BACKGROUNDS AND FONTS.
UM, ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE THIS WITH MORE UNIFORMITY AS YOU'VE SHOWN? UM, THE ONLY ONES YOU SEEM TO HAVE TO BE ABLE TO USE THEIR INDIVIDUAL COLORS, LIKE AS A WHOLE ON A BACKGROUND OR BEST BUY AND MARSHALS.
UM, IS IT GOING TO HAVE THE CLEANNESS OF THIS WHITE BACKGROUND OR, OR WILL THE INDIVIDUAL SLOTS LOOK MORE LIKE THE ORIGINAL SIGN? NO, THAT'S WHAT WHAT YOU WERE LOOKING AT CURRENTLY AT WHAT WE'RE SHOWING IN THE PROPOSED WOULD BE WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE INTENDING ON USING.
THE ONLY ONES THAT WE HAVE CONTROL OF WHERE I COULD SAY TO YOU FROM A DESIGN POINT OF VIEW, AND IF, MAYBE IF, UH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THE PET SUPPLY, WHAT'S UP EUROPEAN, THAT WE COULD MAKE THOSE POSSIBLY INTO A NEGATIVE PANEL AND MAKE THEM INTO THE SAME FONTS AND MAKE MORE UNIFORM? NO, I JUST, I I I, I MEAN, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE AWAY HOW I'M GONNA VOTE EITHER.
UM, THE WHITE LOOKS CLEANER THAN THE ORIGINAL SIGN WHERE YOU HAVE AN ORANGE, A BLUE, A LOT OF DIFFERENT COLOR BACKGROUNDS.
AND YOU KNOW, A LOT OF TIMES PEOPLE WILL SHOW SIGNS AND IT'LL ALL LOOK MORE UNIFORM, BUT WHEN IT'S ACTUALLY PRODUCED, WE'LL GO BACK TO CHOICE PET LOOKING GREEN AND, YOU KNOW, FIRST NAIL SALON HAVING THEIR NAME AND HAVING IT BE AN ORANGE.
SO IS IT GOING TO BE THIS CLEAN IT DIANE? YEAH.
IT WILL BE EXACTLY LIKE THIS RENDERING SHOWS.
[02:55:01]
OKAY.THERE'S NEVER BEEN A SIGN I'VE EVER PROPOSED TO YOU OR ANY BOARD IN MY 28 YEARS THAT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE, IF NOT BETTER.
I DO THINK THERE COULD BE IMPROVEMENTS DONE ON NAIL AND SPA, TARRYTOWN JEWELERS CENTRAL SEAFOOD IN THE BAKERY REGARDING FONTS, BUT FONT CHOICES.
AND IF WE, I'M SORRY, I THINK YOU GOT CUT OFF.
UM, WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY IS, IS THAT IF I LOOK AT THIS RENDERING NOW, LIKE THE RENO AND EUROPEAN AND FINE ITALIAN SHOES, WE COULD DO EVEN WORK FURTHER THERE WITH FONT CHOICES TO MAKE IT MORE FUNCTIONAL AND MAYBE EVEN APPEASE THE BOARD MORE WITH COLORS AND OR, OR LACK COLORS THERE.
AND THEN YOU, UM, UP AT THE TOP, THE WESTCHESTER SQUARE WITH THE NUMBERS IS MUCH LARGER THAN IT HAD BEEN IN THE PAST.
IS THERE A REASON BEHIND THAT? IS THERE A NEED FOR THAT? UH, LISTEN, I WANTED TO FINISH OFF THE TOP OF THE SIGN.
I THINK SOMEONE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIGN ON THE RIGHT, THAT WAS NEVER PART OF THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL EITHER SOMEONE STUCK A BANDAID ON TOP OF THAT SIGN THAT SAID WESTCHESTER SQUARE AND WIRED IT IN WITHOUT A PERMIT, JUST LIKE CHOICE PETS.
UH, TO ME IT'S BRANDING OF THE MALL.
IT'S BRANDING THE LOCATION WHERE YOU'RE LOCATED.
DOES IT NEED TO BE THAT BIG? WE COULD DOWNSIZE IT.
IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE CONTEMPLATED ON, ON, ON WHAT TYPE OF CONCESSIONS THAT WE COULD MAKE WITH YOU.
I'M COMING TO YOU WITH MY HOPES, DREAMS, AND ASPIRATIONS TO THINK I COULD SATISFY EVERYBODY'S NEEDS AND STILL MAKE A NICE LOOKING FUNCTIONAL SIGN.
BUT ONCE AGAIN, I'M ALWAYS LOOKING FOR DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS.
I MEAN, I'M AT 144 SQUARE FEET IF THAT'S NOT DOABLE, ULTIMATELY I WANNA BE ABLE TO GO AHEAD AND GET SOME INPUT ABOUT WHAT WE THINK COULD FUNCTION AND WOULD WORK HERE.
AND I KNOW WE'RE NOT NECESSARILY ALLOWED TO TELL US HOW WE'RE GONNA VOTE, BUT SOMETIMES WE DO.
I KNOW I'VE GOT ENOUGH EXPERIENCE WITH YOU, EVE, I'M SURE.
UM, WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT, UH, BEST BUY POSSIBLY GOING OUT AND AT THAT SPACE BEING RENTED OUT TO SOMEONE ELSE, I'M NOT SURE THAT I GOT A AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION THAT WAS RAISED REGARDING THE COLORS HERE, BECAUSE YOU ARE SAYING THE SIGN WOULD BE AS PRESENTED HERE AS PRESENTED HERE SHOWS US A YELLOW BACKGROUND FOR BEST BUY, AND MARSHALL'S HAS THE BLUE.
SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WOULD NECESSARILY BE PASSED ON TO ANOTHER TENANT OR WOULD ALL OF THE SIGNS POTENTIALLY CONVERT TO THE WHITE BACKGROUND IF IN FACT THOSE, THE, THOSE CURRENT TENANTS WERE, WERE NO LONGER BE THERE? WELL, EVE IT COMES DOWN TO NATIONAL BRANDING COLORS AND WHAT, WHAT THEIR CRITERIA WOULD BE.
AND THE BEAUTY OF A SIGN LIKE THIS, LET'S SAY MARSHALLS DID GET SUBDIVIDED, C V S COULD SLIDE UP AND THEN YOU COULD FURTHER DIVIDE THE C V S PANEL.
BUT COLOR SCHEME WITHIN THE NATIONAL BRAND, I CAN'T CONTROL, I CAN ONLY CONTROL, I CAN ONLY CONTROL THE NON-NATIONAL BRANDED TENANTS.
AS I WAS TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO DIANE, OKAY, BEST BUY, BEST BUY MARSHALLS AND TRADER JOE'S STILL HAVE 10 YEARS LEFT ON THEIR LEASES.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT AS RETAIL CHANGES, THAT THEY MAY BE FURTHER GO AHEAD AND PURSUE DOWNSIZING.
I MEAN, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF CLOSURES OF SOME BIG, OF BIG COMPANIES LIKE LORD AND TAYLOR'S.
I KNOW THAT, THAT THAT WAS A BIG HIT FOR US HERE IN YONKERS, IN EASTCHESTER.
SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS, ALTHOUGH I, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THE, UH, DESIGN OF THE SIGN PER SE, I THINK IT'S AN ATTRACTIVE SIGN BECAUSE THE ONE THAT'S THERE NOW IS SO HORRIBLE,
I KNOW, I I WHAT YOU DIDN'T SAY.
AND I, I THINK WE, I'M NOT SURE THAT THE NEW MEMBERS ARE AWARE THAT THE SIGNS NOW DO HAVE TO HAVE THE NUMBERS, THE STREET, UH, NUMBERS FOR THE LOCATIONS.
THAT'S ONE REASON THAT, UH, THOSE NUMBERS ARE THERE.
AND THEY DO REQUIRE SOMETHING TO BE ADDED TO THE SIGN, UH, JUST FOR THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE.
BUT, UM, THE SPACE THAT'S BELOW WESTCHESTER SQUARE AS NICE LOOKING AS IT IS, LOOKS LIKE JUST A LOT OF AIRSPACE THAT'S MADE THE SIGN TALLER THAN IT NEEDS TO BE.
[03:00:02]
UH, YEAH.IT ACTUALLY IS CREATED AS AIRSPACE AS FOR VISUAL IMPACT.
SO WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT COMING AND GOING, THE TOP SECTION IS FLOATING.
BUT CERTAINLY YOU CAN GET RID OF THAT 12 INCH GAP AND, AND DECREASE THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN BY A FOOT.
IT'S MORE OF A DESIGN ELEMENT THAN IT IS ANYTHING ELSE.
IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE HEIGHT.
'CAUSE LIKE I SAID, WE WERE ALREADY AT 20 FEET AND I WAS ASKING FOR SO MUCH AS IT WAS, BUT CERTAINLY THAT COULD YEAH, I WAS, I THINK, SORRY, GO AHEAD.
CERTAINLY THAT COULD BE ELIMINATED IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU, THE BOARD CHOOSES.
WELL, WE WOULD PROBABLY CHOOSE TO SQUEEZE IT DOWN A BIT IF YOU COULD, BUT SURE.
SO, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WHAT WE SUGGEST DOESN'T NECESSARILY WORK.
UM, YEAH, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT I, I WOULD, I, THE, WHERE I WAS QUESTIONING THE TOP IS IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S THE LARGEST FONT OF ALL THE FONTS THERE.
UM, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT BOLD LIKE SOME OF THE OTHERS.
SO THAT'S, I WOULD, THE OLD SIGN IT WASN'T AS LARGE.
SO I WAS WONDERING IF THAT COULD BE MADE A LITTLE SMALLER.
I ALSO WOULD SAY FROM A NATIONAL BRANDING PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S NOT A BRAND THAT EXISTS THAT DOESN'T HAVE OPTIONS WITH WHITE BACKGROUNDS OR A BLACK BACKGROUND BECAUSE THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS.
I WAS IN BRANDING AND DESIGN FOR YEARS, SO I KNOW THEY ALL HAVE THOSE OPTIONS, EVEN IF THEY DON'T WANT TO USE THEM.
UM, SO I, I'D LIKE TO SEE FOR UNIFORMITY, THE WHITE BACKGROUND.
I WOULD HATE TO SEE IT GO BACK TO A PLACE WHERE THERE WERE ALL THOSE COLORS.
AND I GO THERE PRETTY MUCH EVERY DAY I LIVE OVER IN THAT AREA.
AND, UM, EVERY TIME I DRIVE BY THAT SIGN, I JUST CRINGE AT ALL THE DIFFERENT COLORS.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE HAPPY TO SEE THIS THEN.
BUT I THINK MARSH, LISTEN, I, I KNOW MARSHALLS HAS A BLUE, WE COULD DO MARSHALLS WITH A BLUE LETTER AND A WHITE BACKGROUND BEST BUY.
I THINK THAT WOULD LISTEN BEST BUY, THAT WOULD BE A SUGGESTION.
AND IF IT HA AND MAYBE IF THEY NEEDED YELLOW, WE DID A YELLOW OUTLINE.
I'M SURE THEY HAVE OPTIONS THAT, UM, THEY ALL HAVE OPTIONS FOR, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, HOWEVER, TO BRING THEIR COLORS IN.
I KNOW THAT WE COULD PROBABLY PULL THESE FILES AND I, I JUST DON'T RECALL, I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF THE OTHER MEMBERS RECALL WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE TWO SIGNS THAT ARE FURTHER, UH, NORTH THAT YOU SHOW IN YOUR RENDERINGS HERE.
THE, THE ONE WHERE H MART IS, AND, UM, I GUESS IT WOULD BE, I'M TRYING TO LOOK TO SEE WHICH ONE THIS IS.
IS THIS THE MCDONALD'S THAT I'M LOOKING AT? YES.
UM, WE KNEW THAT THIS WAS COMING WHEN, UH, THOSE SIGNS THAT WERE APPROVED RECENTLY.
SO I'M JUST WONDERING HOW SQUARE FOOTAGE WISE THEY COMPARE.
UM, CERTAINLY THOSE, UM, LOCATIONS ARE MUCH CLOSER TO THE STREET THAN THE TENANTS IN WESTCHESTER SQUARE FOR THE MOST PART.
WE HAVE NO IMPACT FROM OUR BUILDING SIGNAGE FROM THE ROAD.
SO DO YOU, I I KNOW YOU DON'T KNOW THAT, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW THAT, BUT I CERTAINLY EVE I'D, I'D CERTAINLY BE WILLING TO, UH, GET THAT INFORMATION.
UNLESS THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT CAN PROVIDE IT AT THEIR FINGERTIPS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.
SO, UH, I'M HEARING ANY NOISE AT THIS POINT.
I DO, GIVEN THE TIME OF EVENING, WE'RE, I THINK WE NEED TO ADJOURN SO WE CAN DELIBERATE IF WE CAN.
UM, UH, I, CONSIDERING THE ECONOMIC, UH, CLIMATE WE'RE IN, AND, UH, I THINK THE LINE IS EXCELLENT.
UH, THE, UH, BY THE WAY, I'M A SCULPTOR AND AN ARTIST AND MY SENSE OF PROPORTION LOOKS AT THAT SIGN AND SAYS IT'S EXCELLENT.
SECOND, AS A DRIVER, THANK YOU.
AND THE COLORS ARE SOMETHING THAT WE NEED.
IF SOMEBODY WERE GIVING ME DIRECTIONS TO GO THERE, THEY'D SAY, GO TO BEST BUY.
I DON'T HAVE TO READ THE BOTTOM.
I NEED THE DIRECTION TO WEST BUY.
WHEN I PULL IN A LOT, THEN I NEED TO READ WHAT THE BOTTOM IS.
BUT THERE'S NO REASON TO READ THE BOTTOM OF THE SIGN 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR.
COMMERCIAL, UH, REAL, UH, BUYING STUFF IN, IN, IN REAL ESTATE IN SOURCE TODAY IS VERY DIFFICULT.
[03:05:01]
THEM SURVIVE AND PROSPER, WE SHOULD DO.BUT I NEED TO SEE BEST BUY AND TRADER JOE'S THEN WHEN I GET IN THERE, I KNOW WHAT TO DO.
THE NUMBERS ON THE TOP ARE EXCELLENT.
THAT SPACE BETWEEN WESTCHESTER SQUARE AND BEST BUY IS CORRECT VISUALLY, AND I WANT TO COMPLIMENT THEM ON DOING A VERY GOOD JOB.
SHOULD THEY COMPROMISE NO COLOR.
THE RULES THAT WERE USED LAST YEAR AND BEFORE DON'T WORK TODAY.
YOU'VE HEARD ME SPEAK BEFORE ABOUT VARIOUS THINGS.
THE SPACE BETWEEN THE WESTCHESTER SQUARE AND BEST BUY IS CORRECT.
AND ONCE I GET IN THERE, I'LL DECIDE WHERE I HAVE TO GO.
UM, MY COMPLIMENTS ON A VERY WELL DESIGNED SIDE.
CAN, CAN WE, UM, CAN YOU HEAR ME EVE? YES.
I HAVE TROUBLE WITH MY AUDIO, UH, SINCE IN THE EVENT THAT YOU SUBDIVIDE, UH, BEST BUY AND, UM, IS IT TRADER JOE MARSHALL, I BELIEVE.
AND YOU WOULD BUMP UP C V SS AND, UM, SPLIT WHERE C V SS IS NOW? YEAH.
THE, THE THE FOUR TOP PANELS ARE THE SAME SIZE.
WELL, IF THAT IN THE EVENT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PLANNING FOR THAT, WHY, WHY DO YOU STILL NEED THE TWO EMPTY ONES AT THE BOTTOM THAT LOU LOU, UM, REFERENCED? WELL, WE'VE ALSO, YOU, YOU, YOU'VE ALSO GOT 12 OTHER TENANTS THAT ARE THERE.
YOU'VE GOT OTHER TENANTS THAT ARE THERE, AND SOME OF THOSE SPACE, SOME OF THOSE SPACES ARE 36 4200 SQUARE FEET.
WHICH CAN VERY EASILY BECOME A SUBWAY OF, OF 1200 SQUARE FEET.
SO IT'S JUST LOOKING FOR OPTIONS.
BUT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, IF THAT'S SOMETHING TO HINDER THE APPLICATION, BY ALL MEANS, YOU KNOW, GREG, THE PETRILLO'S ARE VERY REASONABLE IN THEIR THOUGHT PROCESS AND GRACIOUS FOR WHATEVER.
YOU GUYS ARE GONNA GO AHEAD AND, AND, AND GRANT US HERE.
SO WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH YOU AS WE ALWAYS ARE.
ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY, LET'S, LET'S TAKE DELIBERATIONS.
CAN WE TAKE A BREAK? CAN WE TAKE A GOOD, OKAY, WE'RE ALL SET.
SO TAKING THAT ADVICE, LET'S START FROM THE BOTTOM AND GO BACKWARDS.
UM, STARTING WITH HAMPSHIRE, WHICH IS THE SIGN ON CENTRAL AVENUE, UM, IF POSSIBLE, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF WE CAN GET THE DECISION THAT WE MADE ON THE, UH, SIGNS DOWN THE ROAD THERE TO SEE WHAT WE DID.
I, I, I AGREE WITH WHAT, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS SAID THAT THEY ARE, IT IS AN ATTRACTIVE SIGN AND THE SIGN THAT'S THERE IS REALLY HORRIBLE.
SO WHATEVER SUGGESTIONS YOU GUYS WANNA MAKE, IF SOME, SOME OF YOU WANNA LEAVE IT AS IT IS, SOME OF YOU WANNA MAKE CERTAIN CHANGES, NOW'S THE TIME TO SPEAK UP SO WE CAN PUT IN A LETTER AND SEND IT TO THE APPLICANT.
UNLESS YOU ARE PREPARED TO PASS ON IT TONIGHT.
YOU TELL ME, UM, EVE, AS A RECENT APPOINTEE, I MEAN, I WOULD YIELD TO THE EXPERIENCE OF PEOPLE SUCH AS YOURSELF, NOT NECESSARILY HAVING SO MUCH, PARDON ME, BUT NOT NECESSARILY, I MEAN, YOU HAVE THE HISTORY WITH ALL THESE SIGNS AND WELL, I'M A, I'M A, I'M A SIGN, UH, YOU KNOW,
ANTHONY, CAN YOU HEAR ME? UNMUTE YOURSELF.
ON THE BOTTOM, UH, SIGN THE SPACE UNDERNEATH THAT SIGN IS IF THEY MM-HMM.
DO THEY STILL NEED THAT VARIANCE? I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION.
IN OTHER WORDS, INSTEAD OF HAVING THE PLANTER RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE SIGN, THEY NEED A VARIANCE MM-HMM.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE YES, THE SIGN IS SIX FEET OFF THE GROUND, BUT HE'S PUTTING A PLANTER IN BETWEEN, ON UNDERNEATH IT.
WHAT I'M SAYING IS, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT IF THE GRADE UNDERNEATH IS STILL TO THE SAME HEIGHT
[03:10:01]
OF AS THE WALL, IT WOULD STILL BE THE SAME HEIGHT.UNLESS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT BUILDING A RETAINING WALL AND HAVING THE GRADE ON THE INTERIOR AT A LOWER LEVEL.
NO, HE'S TALKING ABOUT, YEAH, WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE CLEARANCE UNDER THE SIGN.
THAT'S ALL HE'S ADDRESSING, I BELIEVE.
BUT HE'S, HE WAS SIX FEET, IF I UNDERSTAND RIGHT.
ED, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PULLING THE WALLS OUT FURTHER.
IN OTHER WORDS, TO ME, THE WALLS, YOU SAID HE, WELL, PLANTER IS A WALL.
THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
SO YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT MAKING THAT THE PLANTER WALLS WIDER? NO.
BUT IF THE GRADE IS STILL THE SAME NO, NO, NO, NO.
MY UNDERSTANDING IS HE NEEDS THAT VARIANCE BECAUSE THE PLANTER IS RIGHT UNDERNEATH THE SIGN.
IF IT'S SIX FEET, HE WOULD NOT NEED THE VARIANT.
WHAT WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF YOU TAKE THAT, THAT PLANTER AND MOVE IT AWAY FROM THE SIGN, EITHER IN FRONT OF IT, YOU KNOW, AWAY 3, 4, 5 FEET AWAY, YOU STILL HAVE THE, THE, THE FLOWERS THERE, BUT THEY'RE NOT RIGHT UNDER THE SIGN.
AND THEN HE WOULDN'T NEED THE VARIANCE.
IF I'M CORRECT, WHAT I WAS, WHAT I WAS GONNA SUGGEST IS THAT HE ELIMINATE THE BRICK PLANTER ALTOGETHER.
THERE'S EXISTING SHRUBBERY THERE THAT HE MADE MENTION.
IT WAS ALREADY AT THE HEIGHT OF WHAT THE, UH, PLANTER WITH WHATEVER FOLIAGE HE PUTS IN IT WOULD BE.
UH, SO I, I REALLY THINK THAT THE PLANTER IS UNNECESSARY.
UM, AND THEN YOU WOULD STILL, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE THE SIX FOOT CLEARANCE THAT YOU WOULD NEED AND ELIMINATE THE, UM, THE NEED FOR THAT VARIANCE FOR THE CLEARANCE UNDER THE SIGN.
I MEAN, UNLESS HE'S GONNA BUILD, I'M NOT SO SURE THAT'S THE CASE.
BECAUSE THE, THE, IF YOU LOOK AT THE, THE OLD SIGN, YOU STILL HAVE IT UP OFF THE GROUND SO THAT YOU CAN SEE IT ALL HIS, THE VEGETATION THAT'S THERE NOW IS ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN THE PLANTER THAT HE HAS.
AND HE IS GOTTA ALLOW ROOM FOR THE PLANTS.
'CAUSE THEY'LL START TO GROW AND BLOCK THE SIGN.
SO WE WOULD, HE WOULD THEN HAVE TO TAKE OUT THE CURRENT VEGETATION TOO.
UM, NO, I THINK THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE, UH, BRICK PLANTER IS, ENDS UP BECOMING A STRUCTURE AS OPPOSED TO THE PLANTINGS, WHICH IS NOT A STRUCTURE.
GO FROM THE GRADE TO THE UNDERSIDE OF THE NEW SIGN.
UM, HE WOULD, HE WOULDN'T NEED THE CLEARANCE.
HE WOULDN'T NEED THE VARIANCE FOR THE REDUCED CLEARANCE.
HE, BY PUTTING IN THAT PLANTER IT'S 3.58 FEET.
BUT ANTHONY, YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT EVEN IF THE PLANTER WERE MOVED, IT'S STILL, YOU CALL IT A WALL, IT'S STILL PART, IT'S CONSIDERED STILL PART OF THE SIGN.
WELL, NO, ED, ED WAS TALKING ABOUT PULLING THE WALL OUT FURTHER SO THAT IT'S FURTHER AWAY FROM THE SIGN.
YEAH, I WAS TALKING ABOUT, LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT IT AS A PLANTER THOUGH.
LET'S USE THAT WORD WALL THAT YOU USE.
IF IT'S, IF IT'S JUST A WALL IN FRONT TO GIVE IT SOME VISUAL, WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT, IT'S NOT A PLANTER AND IT'S NOT UNDERNEATH THE SIGN.
DOES THAT MAKE THE CLEAR HEIGHT HAS TO BE, THE CLEAR HEIGHT WOULD HAVE TO BE FROM THE GRADE UNDERNEATH THE SIGN TO THE OPENING, YOU KNOW, THE LOWEST PART OF THE SIGN.
SO IF YOU WERE TO, I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT, LEWIS? NO, UH, IRREGARDLESS OF THE BRICK PLANTER.
WELL, IF THE BRICK PLANTER'S WHERE IT IS NOW, YEAH.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, IMPEDING INTO THAT SIX FEET.
IF YOU TAKE, IF YOU WERE TO TAKE IT OUT, DEPENDING ON HOW FAR THIS WALL WOULD BE FROM THE SIGN, LET'S SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE, YOU'RE BUILDING A LARGER SQUARE IS WHAT ED HAD SAID AROUND THE SIGN, BASICALLY.
BUT IF THE GRADE LEVEL IS STILL HIGH WITHIN THAT, WHAT YOU CALL THE PLANTER AND I CALL THE WALL, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE THAT SPACING UNDERNEATH THE SIGN TO THE BOTTOM.
UNLESS THAT GRADE WAS LOWER BEHIND THE WALL.
WELL, HERE'S ANOTHER SITUATION WHERE I'M TORN, UH, BECAUSE I, I ACTUALLY LIKE THE BRICK PLANTER BECAUSE IT GIVES A NICE BASE TO THE PYLON SIGN.
UM, BUT I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT IS, IT IS NECESSARY, UM, AS FAR AS THE SIGNAGE GOES.
BUT I JUST LIKE THE FACT THAT THEY'RE, THEY REALLY PUT SOME EXTRA THOUGHT INTO THIS SIGN.
[03:15:01]
REGULAR UGLY SIGNS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE ON CENTRAL AVENUE, THE REGULAR UGLIESI, I LIKE THE PLANNER ALSO, BUT THAT'S WHY I WAS LOOKING FOR OTHER PLACES WHERE WE COULD PERHAPS REDUCE SOMETHING.
AND I THINK WHAT DIANE SAID ABOUT THE, THE TOP, I THINK IT COULD BE REDUCED A LITTLE AT THE TOP.
UM, I, AS MUCH AS I LIKE THE VISUAL SPACE, UM, I'M NOT ENOUGH OF AN ARTIST TO SAY WHETHER IT'S SOMETHING THAT I WOULD SAY LATER.
SO I DON'T, I I, I LOVE THE VISUAL 12 INCH SPACE BETWEEN A SIGN AND THE ADDRESS.
I MEAN, WHEN YOU THINK OF WHAT IT'S DOING TO THE SIGN, IT'S 12 INCHES BY 12 FEET.
BUT LOOK, THIS, THIS IS ONE OF OUR EASIER ONES TONIGHT.
LET'S TRY TO MOVE THINGS ALONG HERE, GUYS.
WHAT DO YOU WANT, WHAT DO YOU WANNA ASK THE APPLICANT TO CONSIDER OTHER THAN THEN LEAVING IT UP TO THEM TO SAY, OKAY, WHAT CAN YOU DO THAT'LL MAKE IT STILL ATTRACTIVE AND, UH, PERHAPS ELIMINATE SOME OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR? HOW MUCH SQUARE FOOTAGE WOULD PEOPLE WANT TO SEE REDUCED? I LIKE IT WHATEV.
IT'S NOT GONNA BE SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO MAKE ANY REAL DIFFERENCE.
AND I THINK IT'S A PRETTY NICE SIGN.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE LES WAS COMING FROM IN TERMS OF, YOU KNOW, WHAT
UM, WELL FAR ABOUT WHAT ABOUT THE TWO SPACES THAT THEY'RE LEAVING THERE THAT ARE, THAT DON'T HAVE TENANTS? I THINK HIS RATIONALE WAS, UH, A GOOD ONE.
EVE, EVE, YOU HAD, YOU WANTED TO SEE THE SIGN, UM, THE DECISIONS WE MADE, UM, ON THE OTHER SIDE, UH, OVER BY H MARTIN ANYWAY.
SO, SO WE STILL HAVE TO BOUNCE AT ANY, IN ANY EVENT, SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT WE DID THERE.
I MEAN, I, I DO AGREE AND I SAID, I THINK I SAID IT ON THE RECORD THAT THE DISTANCE OF THESE TENANTS,
YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT IT.
AND THE OTHER THING I DIDN'T PUT ON THE RECORD IS THAT, UM, BECAUSE THEY DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THIS OTHER, THE CITY AS THEY PUT IN THERE, AND THEY MENTIONED POSSIBLY HAVING A SIGN, AND THEN THEY HAVE THE LITTLE INS AND OUTS.
SO THERE'S ARE OTHER LITTLE SIGNS THERE WITH RESPECT TO DIRECTION AND ALL.
I JUST WOULD SAY, PLEASE, NO MORE SIGNS.
IF WE COULD PERHAPS GET THAT GUARANTEE FROM THEM, THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
BUT IF YOU GUYS DON'T HAVE ANY SPECIFICS THAT YOU WANT US TO PUT IN THE REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT, THEN I GUESS WE'LL KIND OF LEAVE IT UP TO THEM.
OTHER THAN WHAT I'VE MENTIONED, IS IT POSSIBLE TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE OTHER SIGNED DECISIONS YOU'VE MADE? OH, YEAH.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE GONNA GET THAT TONIGHT, BUT WE'LL GET IT.
THE, DO WE HAVE TO PASS IT TONIGHT OR VOTE? NO, NO, NO, NO, WE DON'T.
AND, UM, NO, FROM MY, FROM MY OWN EDUCATION, I'D LIKE TO KNOW HOW YOU RULED ON THE OTHER SIDES.
AND, AND WE GENERALLY WILL BOUNCE THE CASE SO THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT THAT.
IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY, WE, WE, UM, GRANTED THE OTHER SIGNS WITH SOME CONDITIONS THAT, UH, EITHER REDUCE THE SIZES OR DID SOMETHING TO REDUCE THE SIZES OF THE SIGNS.
BUT, UH, I'D RATHER HAVE THAT FORMALLY STATED AS OPPOSED TO BY MY VERY POOR MEMORY.
UM, I'M, I'M FOR THE SIGN I CAN TELL I'LL SAY THAT.
UM, BUT I THINK WE SHOULD HOLD IT OVER TILL NEXT MONTH UNTIL WE GET THAT INFORMATION FROM THE BILLING DEPARTMENT.
ANTHONY, WOULD IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF YOU, IF WE SUGGESTED MAYBE THEY COULD DO A SIMULATED WALL, YOU KNOW, LIKE A, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WITH TWO LITTLE SIDES TO IT, BUT IT DOESN'T GO PAST THE SIGN.
IN OTHER WORDS, IT DOESN'T ENCOMPASS ANY PART OF THE SIGN.
IT KIND OF SITS IN FRONT OF IT, LIKE JUST A LITTLE HALF BOX OR SOMETHING.
VISUALLY YOU WOULD THAT MAKE A DIFFERENCE? YOU COULD HAVE THEM, YOU COULD HAVE THEM SUBMIT SOMETHING FOR REVEAL.
THAT WOULD GIVE, THAT WOULD GIVE, AT LEAST BECAUSE OF THE STRAWBERRY BEHIND IT, YOU DON'T REALLY SEE THE BACK OF IT.
SO IF WE JUST SAW SOMETHING THAT APPEARS, LOOKED LIKE A BOX FROM THE FRONT, BUT ISN'T MAYBE THAT COULD GET PAST THAT, UH, CLEARANCE UNDERSIGNED, UH, VARIANCE THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.
[03:20:01]
PROBLEM WITH THE WIDTH OF THE SIGN AS MUCH AS THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE CAN DO TO TRY AND GET IT REDUCED, MAYBE SLIGHTLY.I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT ONE, THAT 12 INCHES OF VISUAL, UH, SPACE WOULD LOOK LIKE IF IT WENT DOWN TO SIX INCHES OF VISUAL SPACE.
SO NOT, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE VERY BALANCED BECAUSE IT WOULD BE SO MUCH SMALLER THAN ALL THE INDIVIDUAL SLOTS.
SO I'M NOT SURE THAT WOULD WORK.
IT WOULD BE OUT OF PROPORTION.
DIANA DOES GET A, A DIMENSION ON WHAT, I GUESS HOW MUCH THE, THE, UM, THE METAL TAKES UP SOME OF THAT SPACE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF IT SINCE THERE'S A METAL IN THERE.
I MEAN, FROM A DESIGN PERSPECTIVE, THE ONLY THING THAT I COULD SEE THAT THEY COULD REALLY DO TO REDUCE THE SIGN OF THE SIGNAGE PORTION IS TAKE OUT THAT LITTLE RED AREA.
UM, THAT'S BETWEEN THE, THE WESTCHESTER SQUARE AND THE EMPTY SPACE AND REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE TOP A LITTLE.
BUT AT THE MOST, THAT'S GONNA GAIN YOU FIVE INCHES.
I'M NOT REALLY SURE WHAT IT WOULD DO.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE WORTH THE EFFORT.
WHAT DID YOU SAY, LOU? UH, IT'S NOT WORTH THE EFFORT.
LET'S, UH, MOVE ON NOW TO, UM, THE PROPERTY AT 2 48 FORT HILL ROAD.
THAT'S THE, UM, DECREASE IN THE STREET.
ANY COMMENTS ON THIS? NONE HERE.
WHO WANTS TO, UH, STRAW VOTE? DO WE HAVE ANY, ANY NAYS? OKAY.
WHO WANTS TO TRY AND WRITE THIS UP TONIGHT? THIS IS A EASY ONE.
LES, I DON'T HAVE THE MATERIALS.
OH, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S A GOOD ANSWER.
I'LL WORK ON IT FOR THE NEXT TIME.
I WAS, I WAS GONNA SAY, I'D BE HAPPY TO DO THAT SOMETIMES, BUT I DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANY SAMPLES OR WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO PUT IT ON.
CAROL SEND YOU DIANE SENT THEM TO US.
SHE SENT US SOME IN THE SECOND MEETING, SHE SENT US SOME AND ACTUAL SAMPLE, I GUESS IT'S ROWAN.
I APOLOGIZE TO, I'LL GO BACK AND LOOK TO THE EMAILS, DIANE, UNLESS WE'LL GET YOU TEMPLATES.
LIKE OTHER, OTHER, YOU KNOW, ONES THAT ARE WRITTEN UP THAT WE CAN USE.
DIANE, I'D BE HAPPY TO SEND IT TO YOU.
SO MEANWHILE, CHRISTIE WAS RAISING HER HAND.
SO NOW WE GO BACK TO 5 55 TAXI ROAD, WHICH IS MONTEFIORE.
AND I THINK THAT YOU ALL HIT THE, THE NAIL RIGHT ON THE HEAD.
UM, CLEARLY THE MARRIOTT SIGN IS A NECESSARY SIGN BECAUSE PEOPLE DO CHECK IN AND OUT ALL TIMES OF THE DAY AND NIGHT, GETTING AIRPLANES COMING IN LATE, UH, COMING IN JUST LOOKING FOR LODGING, WHATEVER IT IS.
AND CITY MD, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THEIR, UM, THEIR CURRENT HOURS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THEIR CURRENT HOURS ARE GONNA CHANGE.
I KNOW A LOT OF THESE, UM, URGENT CARE CENTERS WITH VACCINE AND OTHER THINGS HAVE EXTENDED THEIR TIME A LOT LATER.
SO, UM, THE ONE THING I WILL SAY ABOUT THE CITY MD SIGN, EVEN IF THE, THEIR HOURS ARE AS RESTRICTED AS WE'RE BEING TOLD, THEY ARE, THEY ARE IN THAT CORRIDOR WHERE YOU HAVE ALL OF THOSE VARIOUS MOTELS, HOTELS, WHATEVER.
AND THEY ARE LOOKING FOR SOME TYPE OF EMERGENCY CARE AT TIMES.
AND IT'S, I THINK THAT SIGN DOES LEND ITSELF TO ADVISE PEOPLE IF YOU DO HAVE AN INJURY OR SOME TYPE OF ILLNESS OR WHATEVER, THERE IS A PLACE THAT YOU CAN GO THAT'S, YOU KNOW, RIGHT AT HAND.
SO, EXCEPT IT'S NOT GONNA BE OPEN, WELL, IT WON'T BE OPEN AT NIGHT, BUT IT IS, IT, IT IS OPEN AND, YOU KNOW, SO I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE SIGN IS THERE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW LO HOW WHAT THE HOURS ARE THAT THOSE SIGNS ARE ON.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S ON ALL NIGHT, SO I CAN'T REALLY COMMENT ON IT.
AND HE DIDN'T SEEM TO REALLY KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TIME YEAH.
[03:25:01]
YOU KNOW, AND PEOPLE MIGHT GET IN THERE AT SEVEN O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING OR EVEN SIX 30 IF THEY OPEN, YOU KNOW, TO AND TURN ON THE LIGHTS WHEN THEY ARRIVE IN THE BUILDING.SO WE DON'T REALLY KNOW IF IT'S ON ALL NIGHT LONG.
UM, I THINK OF, UM, ED, WHAT WAS THE BUILDING THAT HAD THE BUTTERFLY ON IT? I DON'T REMEMBER.
I CAN'T THINK OF, OF WHAT IT WAS NOW.
AND IT WAS SIMPLY THERE JUST FOR THEIR LOGO.
IT WAS VERY ATTRACTIVE THOUGH,
AND I DON'T RECALL IF IT WAS ON ALL NIGHT OR NOT.
I HAVE A QUESTION IN THE CASE OF, OF, WITH, WITH THIS CASE ON MONTEFIORE, COULD WE EXTEND THEIR HOURS OH, SURE.
AND NOT GIVE THEM THE FULL REQUEST.
'CAUSE THEY'RE NOT OPEN 24 HOURS.
I THINK
THEY JUST WANT IT AS A BRANDING.
AND YOU KNOW, WE, AS OPPOSED TO GENERALLY TO THE, UH, THE ANIMAL HOSPITAL, UH, DOWN BY, UH, OLD BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO, NOT DOWN BY, IT WAS OLD BLOCKBUSTER VIDEO.
UH, THAT ACTUALLY WAS AN EMERGENCY CARE FOR ANIMALS.
SO THEY WERE OPEN, UM, ALL NIGHT LONG.
UH, SO IF YOUR DOG OR CAT OR PET WERE ILL, UM, YOU KNEW WHERE TO GO.
AND I THINK WE AGREED TO THAT SIGN, UM, BECAUSE OF THAT PURPOSE.
BUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS NOT EMERGENCY CARE.
UM, IT'S USUALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, EITHER WALK-IN OR BY APPOINTMENT.
UM, I THINK IT SAID IT WAS LIKE PHYSICAL THERAPY, UH, BURKES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, BUT NOT, YEAH, HE SAID BURKE LOOKS HAS A, I GUESS SOME PHYSICAL THERAPY THAT THEY USE THERE.
SO I, I DIDN'T SEE ANY EMERGENCY REQUIREMENTS THERE THAT WOULD SAY, OKAY, YOU NEED, YOU KNOW, SOMEPLACE WHERE, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY JUST HAD THEIR ARM CUT OFF, UM, AND THEY NEED TO GO SOMEWHERE.
THEY'RE GOING TO GO TO, YOU KNOW, WHITE PLAINS HOSPITAL OR, UM, A, A REAL EMERGENCY ROOM.
SO, UM, I, I DON'T REALLY SEE THE NEED FOR A 24 HOUR LIGHTED SIGNAGE AT, AT THE TOP OF A, WAS IT FOUR STORY BUILDING? YEAH, SEVEN STORY BUILDING.
UM, BUT THEY WANTED IT TO, UM, TO ANNOUNCE THEMSELVES AND, YOU KNOW, PUT THEMSELVES OUT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THEY WANT IT AS A BRAND.
SO THE QUESTION IS, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU WANNA GIVE THE SIGN? WELL, WE COULD START WITH WHEN THEY CLOSE, THAT'S WHEN IT, THE LINE, THE LIGHT SHOULD BE TURN, THE SIGNS SHOULD BE TURNED OFF.
NO, BECAUSE THE, UM, SIGNAGE GUY SAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO ALLOW FOR, UM, THE TIME, YOU KNOW, THE DIFFERENCE DIFFERENTIAL OF THE SUN SETTING, SUN RISING, THAT KIND OF THING.
SO, YOU KNOW, AT, AT FOUR O'CLOCK IN THE, IN THE WINTER IT'S DARK.
I WOULD SAY IF THEY'RE, THEY'RE OPEN AND THE LIGHT SHOULD, THE SIGN SHOULD BE ON TILL 8:00 PM EVEN IN THE DEAD OF WINTER WHEN IT'S DARK AT FOUR O'CLOCK.
THAT'S THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF IT.
IN, IN, UH, AUGUST WHEN IT'S, UH, BRIGHT AT, UM, EIGHT 30 QUARTER TO 9:00 PM
BUT IF THEY CLOSE AT EIGHT O'CLOCK, THEN WHY IS THERE A NEED FOR THE LIGHT, THE SIGN TO BE ON AT EIGHT O'CLOCK AT NIGHT AFTER EIGHT O'CLOCK AT NIGHT? WELL, I WOULD, I AGREE.
BUT I WOULD GIVE THEM A LITTLE EXTRA TIME BECAUSE IF PEOPLE ARE COMING OUT OF THE BUILDING LATE OR WHATEVER, I MEAN, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T, THIS ISN'T, UM, LIGHTING FOR THE PARKING LOT.
THIS IS A SIGN AT THE TOP OF A BUILDING THAT YOU'RE ONLY GONNA SEE IN ONE DIRECTION.
FROM WHAT, WHAT DID HE SAY? 87 OR 2 87.
I, I WOULD, I'M JUST THINKING OF YEAH, NO, I MEAN, I, I'M JUST THINKING SOMEBODY GOING TO PICK SOMEBODY UP AND THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THE BUILDING AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE THERE.
WE SHOULD LIGHT UP A LOT OF BUILDINGS.
I MEAN, THERE'S, THERE'S JUST NO NEED FOR THIS LIGHT.
I DON'T THINK YOU SHOULD GIVE A VARIANCE TO IMPROVE A BRAND.
AND I, I JUST SEE NO NEED FOR IT.
UM, LES THEY JUST WANNA EXTEND THE HOURS THAT'S, THEY HAVE IT FROM EIGHT TO, DID I HAVE IT FROM EIGHT TO SIX? YES.
AND THAT'S WHAT I THINK THEY'RE OPEN UNTIL EIGHT AT NIGHT.
I DON'T SEE WHY IT HAS TO BE ON UNTIL LATE AT NIGHT.
NO ONE'S GOING THERE AT EIGHT AT NIGHT.
WELL, THEY'RE OPEN NOW UNTIL EIGHT.
[03:30:01]
FOR, FOR THERAPY, THERE ARE PLACES THAT ARE OPEN UNTIL EIGHT.I'M NOT SAYING THEY ARE NOW, BUT THERE ARE.
I WENT ONLINE AND I LOOKED UP THEIR HOURS AND THEY'RE OPEN UNTIL EIGHT O'CLOCK NOW.
CAN I GET, CAN I GET 10? SURE, YOU CAN.
NAH,
EXPLAIN WHY CHRISTIE SO THEY CAN HEAR IT.
UM, IN MY OPINION, THE BUILDING IS MORE OR LESS IN THE MIDDLE OF NOWHERE.
I MEAN, BUT GOOD VISIBILITY FROM THE HIGHWAY.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO 24 HOURS, BUT MONTEFIORE IS SORT OF, IT'S SOMEWHAT NEW TO THE COUNTY.
I KNOW THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO EXPAND THEIR PRESENCE, AND I UNDERSTAND NOT WANTING TO PUT, GET A ZONING, UH, OF A VARIANCE FOR A BRAND.
BUT TO ME, I, I JUST DON'T SEE THE, THE IMPACT.
IT'S NOT GONNA AFFECT ANYONE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S SORT OF ON ITS OWN LITTLE AREA.
IT IT'S ACTUALLY AT A LOWER ELEVATION THAN, THAN THE SURROUNDING, YOU KNOW, THAN ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
YOU KNOW? SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE NOT EXPLAINING WHY TILL 11.
OH, WHY TILL 11? I DON'T KNOW.
JUST GIVEN THAT THEY SAID IT TAKES TIME TO SHUT DOWN THE SIGN.
AND I, I JUST THINK 11 IS NOT AN OFFENSIVE TIME TO HAVE A SIGN UP UNTIL, WELL, USUALLY ANOTHER THING IS USUALLY THEY CLEAN THE BUILDINGS AT NIGHT, SO YOU WOULD HAVE SOME LIGHTS ON IN THE BUILDING FOR A PERIOD OF TIME.
AND IT DOES LOOK KIND OF STRANGE THAT THE, THE SIGN FOR THE BUILDING IS NOT ON.
HOW DO WE DISTINGUISH IT DOWN THE ROAD? 'CAUSE WE ALWAYS GET THESE THAT WE SET HOURS OF OPERATION.
MOST OF THESE, MOST OF THESE SIGNS ARE ALL ABOUT BRAND ANYWAY.
IT'S A QUESTION OF WHAT THEIR LOGOS ARE AS TO HOW MUCH MM-HMM.
YOU KNOW, I, I'LL NEVER FORGET, UM, SCARSDALE 40, THEY CAME WITH THE MONSTROSITY AND WE GAVE THEM THE ONE THEY HAVE THERE NOW, AND IT'S BEEN WORKING.
SO, I MEAN, EVERYBODY'S ABOUT BRAND.
THE QUESTION IS THIS, IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT OBTRUSIVE, EXCESSIVE? UH, IS IT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SAY, OKAY, WE'LL GIVE YOU, UM, SO THAT YOU HAVE A PRESENCE AND, AND YOU KNOW, IT'S RECOGNIZED THAT THIS IS A MEDICAL FACILITY HERE OR WHATEVER IT IS TO GIVE YOU UNTIL SAY, 10 O'CLOCK AT NIGHT OR SOMETHING? UM, YOU KNOW, I'M FROM EIGHT TO SIX, BUT, UH, UH, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M STAYING.
SO CAN YOU GRANT IT EVEN THOUGH THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR THAT? WELL, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL, I GUESS WE CAN.
SO WHO'S GONNA DO IT? WHAT DO YOU GUYS WANNA, DO YOU WANNA GRANT IT AT WHAT THOSE HOURS? OR DO YOU WANNA GO BACK TO THEM WITH SOMETHING ELSE? GO BACK.
AND GENERALLY, GENERALLY DON'T SAY THAT.
WE, WE SOMETIMES, AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT'S MAKES, IT MAKES SENSE TO, UH, GIVE THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO YEAH.
MAYBE, UH, REVISE THEIR REQUEST.
THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT, THEY HAVEN'T EXPANDED THE BUSINESS YET.
THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS COMING AS THEY SIT.
SEND THEM A LETTER AND TELL THEM THAT, UH, WE'RE NOT INCLINED TO GRANT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
BUT IF THEY COULD PERHAPS, UM, AGREE UPON SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE OF A LESSER TIME, SHORTER TIME, WE WOULD CONSIDER IT.
[03:35:01]
MY GOOD OLD GAS STATION.IT REALLY, IT, IT JUST GETS ME, EVERY TIME I DRIVE BY THERE, EVERY MORNING I LOOK AT IT AND I GO, THAT SIGN IS GOING TO BE SO INTRUSIVE WITH THOSE BIG RED LETTERS RIGHT ON THE STREET THAT IT JUST MAKES ME CRAZY.
AND HERE YOU HAVE TESLA NEXT DOOR THAT LOOKS SO CONSERVATIVE.
UM, I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO SEE IF THEY COULD, AND WE'VE DONE THAT WITH OTHER CANOPIES.
WE'RE NOT TAKING THEIR BRANDING AWAY.
WE'RE JUST SAYING DO IT SMALLER.
WE DID IT WITH THE SHELL WHERE THEY HAD A, A BIGGER LOGO.
WE MADE 'EM MAKE IT SMALLER LOGO.
YOU DID WITH, YOU DID IT WITH CAPITAL ONE.
THE BANK THAT BACKED UP INTO, THEY WANTED THE SIGN IN THE REAR.
AND YOU DID THE ONE, ALSO THE BANK ON CENTRAL AVENUE, UH, WITH THE SWOOSH.
THEY TOOK THEIR LOGO OFF, WHATEVER THEY DID REDUCE IT.
THE OTHER OPTION, UM, YOUR ISSUE IS WITH THE SIGN ON THE CANOPY, NOT WITH THE PYLON SIGN WITH THE PRICING PRIMARILY, YES.
UM, AND SINCE THEY WANT THE PYLON SIGN, WE DON'T HAVE TO GIVE IT TO THEM.
WE CAN MAKE IT SMALLER, BUT, UH, THEY ALREADY MADE IT SMALLER.
AND I ACTUALLY THINK THAT THE REDUCTION IS A, UH, A GOOD SIZE.
UM, AS FAR AS THE LETTERING ON THE CANOPY GOES, UM, I BELIEVE IT COULD BE SMALLER.
I, I THINK THAT BASED UPON THE HEIGHT OF THE CANOPY, UH, THE LETTERS SEEM, SEEM TO BE A BIT OVERWHELMING.
UH, I DON'T THINK IT LETTERS NEED TO BE THAT BIG.
I, I'M AGREEING WITH YOU EVE, THAT, UH, ON THE CANOPY, THE LETTERS SHOULD BE, UH, SMALLER ONLY SO THAT IT'S IN BETTER BALANCE WITH THE HEIGHT OF, OR THE THICKNESS OF THE CANOPY ITSELF.
WELL, YOU KNOW HOW TO EXPLAIN IT BETTER.
KRISTI, WHAT WERE YOU GONNA SAY? I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT THEY ALREADY HAVE, THEY'RE, THIS IS A, THEY, THEY HAVE, UM, THE LUKE OIL, I THINK IT'S ON THE, I DON'T KNOW, ON THE NORTH SIDE ALREADY.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO GRANT THE, THE, THE SIGN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CANOPY IF YOU DON'T WANT, LIKE, WE COULD JUST HAVE THE PI, THEY HAVE THE PI, THE PYLON SIGN, WHICH I THOUGHT THEY DID A NICE JOB.
AND THEN THEY HAVE THE LUKE OIL ON ONE SIDE OF THE CANOPY.
I FORGET IF IT'S WEST SIDE WEST OR, OR, SO IF YOU WANT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE APPROVE THE SIGN, THE, YOU KNOW, ON THE, ON THE OTHER SIDE.
UH, OR YOU COULD ASK THEM TO MAKE IT SMALLER.
AND I, YOU KNOW, JUST SAYING, I, I'M, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THEM HAVING IT NECESSARILY ON BOTH SIDES.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT LOOSE THOUGHTS ARE, BUT I JUST DIDN'T LIKE IT.
I'M JUST THROWING THAT OUT THERE.
THEY ALREADY HAVE A SIGN ON THE PYLON SIGN AND ON THAT SIDE OF THE SIDE.
SO WHAT DO THEY NEED THE SECOND PYLON? THE, BECAUSE THE TREES ARE GONNA BLOCK A LOT OF THAT SIGN A LOT OF THE YEAR.
THE PYLON SIGN? I THINK SO, YES.
I MEAN, WE CAN LOOK AT IT AGAIN, BUT THAT'S WHAT I THINK, UH, I JUST WENT BY THERE TODAY.
AND YOU'RE RIGHT, IT WOULD, UM, THE FOLIAGE THERE DOES OBSCURE THE PYLON SIGN.
WHAT WAS THAT? CAROL
SO, UM, WE WILL GO BACK TO THEM WITH THE SUGGESTIONS OF POSSIBLY, YOU KNOW, ELIMINATING THE, THE SIGN ON THE ONE SIDE IF YOU, IF YOU KNOW, MOST OF YOU WANNA DO THAT, UM,
I THINK AS SENT WEST SIDE OF THE CANOPY IS FINE.
I JUST THINK THE LETTERS SHOULD BE SLIGHTLY SMALLER AND NOT, HE, HE MADE THE POINT THAT THE, THE SIZE OF THE SIGN ON A CANOPY ALREADY MEETS THE, UH, SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE TOWN.
UH, SO THIS IS MORE JUST AN AS AESTHETIC, AN AESTHETIC THING, RIGHT? YES.
SO WHICH ONE ARE WE, WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT ME TO DO? WELL, LET'S TAKE A STRONG VOTE.
[03:40:01]
JUST THE ONE, THE, THE LETTERING ON THE ONE SIDE? IF WE'RE GONNA GIVE THEM THE PYLON? I, NOBODY'S SPEAKING UP.I REALLY, I DON'T FEEL THAT STRONGLY ABOUT IT, SO I'M FINE WITH REDUCING THE, THE SIZE.
IS THERE, AND IS THERE ANYONE WHO IS OPPOSED TO HAVING THE SIGNAGE ON BOTH SIDES? IF IT, IF THEY CAN REDUCE IT? I AM NOT OPPOSED TO THAT.
SO THEN THAT'S WHAT WE WILL ASK THEM AND SEE WHAT THEY COME BACK WITH.
WHERE DO YOU WANNA START WITH, AND, AND WE DO WANNA GET OUTTA HERE TONIGHT.
GEEZ, I'M, I'M BEGINNING TO THINK THAT THIS ISN'T VERY HARD AT ALL.
THERE'S JUST BEEN A LOT OF TALK, A LOT OF STUFF BEING THROWN UP ON THE WALL TO SEE WHAT STICKS, BUT IT'S NOT REALLY THAT DIFFICULT AT ALL.
OH, I, I, I CAME TO MY DECISION AS SOON AS STEVE ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
EXPLAIN LOU IT SINCE IT'S REAL EASY.
I ASKED THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, DID HE FEEL THAT BY CHECKING THAT BOX, THAT IT WAS GONNA CAUSE THIS MUCH COMMOTION.
AND HE, UM, EXPLAINED THAT HE FELT THAT THE TOWN BOARD WAS GOING TO VET THIS PROJECT AND THE TOWN BOARD DIDN'T.
SO I FEEL THAT THE PLANNING BOARD DID WHAT THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE TO ASK FOR A, WHAT, WHAT WAS THE WORD? CLARIFICATION OR CONFIRMATION? I, I CAN'T REMEMBER NOW.
WHICH WORD THAT THEY WERE STRESSING.
UM, WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE BILLING INSPECTOR'S? UM, INTERPRETATION.
UM, I FEEL THAT THERE'S A PERCEPTION THAT BY TRYING TO SAY THAT THE BILLING INSPECTOR WAS, UM, INTERPRETING THIS TO BE OKAY, IS A SHORTCUT TO A PROCESS THAT NEEDS TO TAKE PLACE IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THIS PROJECT MEETS OR SHOULD MEET THE PROPER REQUIREMENTS.
SO DOES THAT MEAN AMENDING THE TOWN, UH, ZONING ORDINANCE? UH, QUITE POSSIBLY.
IS DOES IT MEAN GOING AFTER A USE VARIANCE? UH, QUITE POSSIBLY.
BUT TRYING TO SAY THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, UM, INTERPRETATION MEANS THAT WE SHOULD JUST MOVE FORWARD.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.
WAS WAS THAT AGREE? THANK YOU.
CHRISTY, YOU'RE ANOTHER ONE WHO ALSO HAD SOME PRE UH, DETERMINED THOUGHTS ABOUT THIS.
SO WHERE ARE YOURS STUCK TONIGHT? YOU WANT ME TO GIVE YOU MY WHOLE YES, YES.
UM, SO LIKE, STARTING WITH THE TIMELINESS ISSUE, UH, WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, I ORIGINALLY THOUGHT, NO, THAT IT'S NOT TIMELY BECAUSE IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THAT THE, THE PROCESS IN GREENBERG, RIGHT OR WRONG, IS THAT AN APPLICATION COMES IN, IT'S DOLED OUT TO THE AGENCY OR TO THE DEPARTMENTS TO REVIEW IT.
UM, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR CHECKED THE BOX, NO COMMENT.
HE SAID HE, HE KNEW IT NEEDED THE SPECIAL PERMIT IN HIS OPINION.
YOU KNOW, HE GAVE HIS OPINION THAT IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF PUBLIC UTILITY AND DAH DAH CHECK THE BOX.
I I, IT APPEARS THAT WHEN SOMETHING THEN GOES TO THE PLANNING BOARD AFTER IT'S, EVERYTHING'S BEEN COMPILED BY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.
SO THEY'RE COMPILING EVERYTHING FROM ALL THE DEPARTMENTS.
SO IT SEEMS THAT THEY THEN SORT OF COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF LIST OR, OR WHATEVER THEY, WHAT I, IT WAS CALLED SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED ON OCTOBER 16TH OR SOMETHING THAT GOES TO THE PLANNING BOARD THAT SUMMARIZES EVERYTHING THAT THE DEPARTMENT SAID.
AND IF SOMETHING OF SIGNIFICANCE HAS COME UP, IT'S IN THAT MEMO.
SO WHEN THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SAID HE HAD NO COMMENT, NOTHING WAS PICKED UP IN THAT MEMO THAT WENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
SO IF YOU GOT VERY TECHNICAL WITH THIS, I FEEL THAT THAT SEPTEMBER 16TH COULD BE SEEN AS THE, THE, THE, THE COMMENT.
SO HIS, THAT WAS HIS OPINION THAT IT, THAT HE DIDN'T NEED TO HAVE AN OPINION BASICALLY ON THE, THE,
[03:45:01]
WHETHER OR NOT IT MET THAT CRITERIA.'CAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT IT DID SO LONG.
AND THE SHORT OF IT IS THAT I THOUGHT THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WAS, WAS A NO.
NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THAT LETTER IN THEIR FILE.
HOWEVER, THIS IS THE GREENBERG PROCESS.
SO I FEEL LIKE IF YOU REALLY GOT TECHNICAL AND THIS WENT TO COURT OR SOMETHING, THAT, THAT SEPTEMBER 16TH DATE MIGHT ACTUALLY BE, UM, LOOKED AT WHEN THE BUILDING, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE CLOCK STARTED TICKING.
UM, SO I THOUGHT WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, IT WAS A NO ON THE TIMELINESS WITH THE GREENBERG COUNCIL OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, I THOUGHT, YES, THEY WERE TIMELY BECAUSE HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHEN, YOU KNOW, ANY OF THIS INFORMATION WAS AVAILABLE? THEY DON'T KNOW THE PROCESS.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE, THE OUT THE COMMENT LETTER.
SO FOR THEM, I, I GAVE THEM THE YES, THEY WERE TIMELY BECAUSE I DON'T, THEY FOIL THEY DIDN'T GET THE INFORMATION.
SO FOR THEM, I, I FEEL THEY THAT THEY COULD SAY THEY WERE TIMELY.
I ALSO THINK THEY HAVE STANDING, EVEN THOUGH THAT ONE MAYFAIR OR ISN'T A MEMBER, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN ISSUE THAT DOES AFFECT THE WHOLE TOWN.
SO I WOULD ARGUE THAT, THAT THEY DO HAVE STANDING.
UM, THEN REGARDING THE ACTUAL, UH, ISSUES ON THE WHOLE THING, UM, I WOULD SAY IS IT A PUBLIC UTILITY? I WOULD ARGUE YES.
IS IS IT A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE PER THOSE SPECIAL PERMIT REQUIREMENTS? I WOULD SAY NO.
I DON'T THINK IT FALLS WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE.
THAT'S HOW I, THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IT CAN BE ARGUED IT'S A PUBLIC UTILITY.
I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF NUANCE AND I, BUT YES, IT'S BASICALLY A PUBLIC UTILITY, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S A PUBLIC UTILITY STRUCTURE BASED ON THE, THE, THE CRITERIA IN THE CODE AT THIS TIME, ESPECIALLY AFTER I SAW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.
THAT'S A, THAT'S A STORAGE FACILITY.
UH, THAT'S NOT LIKE A, A SUBSTATION THAT, THAT WAS A MASSIVE STORAGE FACILITY THAT I DON'T THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN MANY RE ALL RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE TOWN.
I THINK IT'S FINE IN NORWOOD, AND, YOU KNOW, THAT'S A APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR IT.
BUT I WOULD AGREE THAT YOU WOULDN'T WANT THAT, YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T WANT IT OVER HERE IN SOME OF THE VACANT PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, IN THIS AREA WHERE I LIVE.
SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE WHAT THEY STARTED DOING, PUTTING IN, YOU KNOW, RESTRICTIONS COMING UP WITH, UH, WELL, I, I, I THINK THE PLANNING BOARD ALSO, UM, MADE A GOOD POINT IN THAT THEY WERE TAKING A NEUTRAL POSITION ON THE PROJECT ITSELF, BECAUSE THERE'S NO ONE THAT'S REALLY SAYING YAY OR NAY ABOUT THE PROJECT ITSELF.
IT'S JUST ABOUT THE INTERPRETATION OF A BUILDING INSPECTOR.
UM, I, I WENT TO THE SITE AGAIN AND, UM, LOOKED AT IT AND WHERE IT WOULD BE SITUATED.
IT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT IN A BAD LOCATION.
UM, ONE OF MY MAIN CONCERNS WAS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GONNA PUT A CONDUIT FROM THAT LOCATION TO THE SUBSTATION ON ONE 19, UM, NEXT TO, UH, NEXT TO BEST BUY.
UM, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT'S QUITE, THAT'S QUITE A, UH, CHALLENGE.
UM, BUT THAT'S ALL STUFF THAT SHOULD COME UP WHEN, IF AND WHEN THE PROJECT COMES BEFORE THE BOARD, EITHER THE PLANNING BOARD OR THE ZONING BOARD, UM, AS A REAL PROJECT, BUT NOT AS SOMETHING THAT'S TRYING TO GET, UM, UH, SQUEEZED THROUGH WHAT SHOULD BE A, A FAIRLY, UM, REGIMENTED PROCESS OF DETERMINING THE VALIDITY OF THE PROJECT ITSELF.
WELL, I DON'T THINK, UM, I THINK THE PLANNING BOARD HAS STANDING, UM, UH, CHECKING THAT BOX IS, IT DOESN'T TELL YOU WHAT THEIR, WHAT THE, UM, BILLING INSPECTOR'S THINKING IS.
AND THEY WERE RIGHT FOR ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION, AND THEY GOT THAT ON NOVEMBER 12TH.
AND I THINK THAT THEY'RE TIMELY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S A PUBLIC UTILITY BECAUSE, UM, IF THEY'RE A WHOLESALE, THEY'RE PROVIDING AT WHOLESALE, THEY'RE NOT, I'M NOT GETTING ELECTRICITY FROM THEM.
AND THEY'RE NOT LIKE UNESCO, WHO I HAVE THAT USES, UH, CONED.
[03:50:01]
I DON'T SEE THE CODE DOESN'T EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZE IT.SO I TAKE THE OTHER POINT, IF IT'S NOT EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED, THEN IT'S PROHIBITED.
AND I LIKE LESTER'S ARGUMENT TONIGHT ON LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT YOU COULDN'T FATHOM WHEN THE STACK, WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS DRAFTED, THAT, UH, IT WOULD ENTAIL WHAT THEY'RE DOING NOW, YOU KNOW, THIS APPLICATION.
SO, UM, I'D FIND STANDING AND IT'S NOT A PUBLIC UTILITY, YOU KNOW? SO, AND THE BOTTOM LINE BEING, WHAT DO YOU FEEL IN TERMS OF THE INTERPRETATION? MY, MY TURN? YEAH, GO AHEAD, LES.
I THINK THE BUILDING INSPECTOR MISINTERPRETED THE STATUTE.
WELL, I WAS TO THE POINT THAT WAS EASY.
AND I WOULD ADD TO IT THAT WHEN I LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE AND I LOOK AT THE INTENT, IT'S, I THINK IT'S NARROWER THAN, UH, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO BE LED TO BELIEVE.
IT DOESN'T SAY SUPPLY FOR THE PUBLIC.
IT DOESN'T SAY EVEN SUPPLY TO THE PUBLIC.
IT SAYS FURNISH TO THE PUBLIC.
AND IT, IT LITERALLY, IT, IT'S MORE OF A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP.
SO WHEN I LOOK AT THE INTENT OF THAT, AND IT'S NOT FOR, SO THEY'RE NOT PART OF, THEY'RE PART OF THE SUPPLY CHAIN, BUT IT'S TWO, IT'S, THERE'S A DIRECT RELATIONSHIP WITH THE PUBLIC.
SO AS IT STANDS NOW, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE DEFINED AS A PUBLIC UTILITY.
I THINK THE, WHO MATTERS IN THIS, IF IT WAS CON ED REQUESTING THIS, I THINK IT COULD FALL WITHIN IT, POTENTIALLY AS A AS, BUT IT, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE A PUBLIC UTILITY.
AND JUST BEING PART OF A PROJECT DOESN'T DEFINE THEM AS A PUBLIC UTILITY.
IF I THINK THAT THE, UM, I THINK THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TOOK, YOU KNOW, A COMMON SENSE APPROACH TO IT AND THAT, OKAY, IT'S ELECTRICITY AND THEREFORE, UM, I COULD SEE IT AS A PUBLIC UTILITY BECAUSE OF WHAT, UH, THEY'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.
AND CONNECTING THAT WITH THE FACT THAT THE FEELING WAS THAT THE TOWN BOARD WOULD ADDRESS THE, THE MATTER.
UM, YOU KIND OF PASSED, IT GOT PASSED ALONG, BUT, UM, OBVIOUSLY IT DIDN'T WORK.
DIDN'T QUITE WORK OUT THAT WAY.
SO WE WERE LEFT WITH THIS CONUNDRUM THAT, UM, I THINK YOU'VE ALL COME UP WITH, UM, A VERY SENSIBLE APPROACH AND RESPONSE TO THE QUESTION IS HOW DO WE WANNA VOTE ON IT? OH, WHAT, WHAT
IT'S BEEN YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA ASK RIGHT AT US
UM, I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD.
HE DOESN'T WANT US TO OVERRULE THE BILLING INSPECTOR.
SO WE WOULD VOTE TO OVERRULE THE BILLING INSPECTOR.
AND JUST AS LES SAID, HE MISINTERPRETED THE STATUTE.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE ISSUE WE HAVE TO DO, WHETHER IT'S TIMELY, WHETHER THEY HAVE STANDING OH, YES.
AND WHETHER THE FACILITY FITS WITHIN THE LANGUAGE OF THE TWO SECTIONS OF THE CODE.
SO THEN WE HAVE TO VOTE ON EACH OF THOSE FACTORS IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH WHAT OUR DECISION IS GOING TO BE AND HOW IT'S WRITTEN.
AM I CORRECT, ED? WELL, TIMELINESS AND STANDING ARE NOT PART OF THE APPEAL.
AND THAT'S A PRELIMINARY MATTER.
IF YOU FIND THAT IT'S NOT TIMELY, THEN YOU DON'T GET TO THE INTERPRETATION.
IF YOU FIND THAT THEY DON'T HAVE STANDING, YOU DON'T GET TO THE INTERPRETATION.
THE ONLY THING THAT'S BEFORE YOU NOW IS THE INTERPRETATION.
UNLESS YOU FIND, UNLESS YOU FIND THAT IT'S NOT TIMELY OR, OR, UH, ONE OR THE OTHER DOESN'T HAVE STANDING GOOD.
SO I, I THOUGHT THAT I HAD UNDERSTOOD ED CORRECTLY, UM, IN THE LAST TWO MONTHS WHEN HE WAS TRYING TO KEEP US FOCUSED ON WHAT WAS BEFORE US.
IS THAT THE END OF THE SENTENCE? YES, IT WAS.
SO WE HAVE TO TAKE EACH ONE SEPARATELY THEN.
[03:55:03]
SO WITH RESPECT TO, UM, WITH RESPECT TO, SORRY, YOU SAID WE HAVE TO TAKE EACH ONE.SO, SO WE SEEM TO BE UNANIMOUS WITH REGARD TO, UM, US SAYING THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, UH, MISINTERPRETED THE CODE.
IS THAT, WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE? IN MY MIND, YES.
SO THEREFORE NOW WE GO TO THE ISSUE OF WHO HAD, DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ISSUE NOW OF STANDING? NO.
IN ORDER TO CHALLENGE THIS INTERPRETATION.
THEY NEED STANDING, YOU KNOW THAT EVE.
SO NOW WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE TWO, UM, APPLICANTS SEPARATELY.
WE HAVE THE PLANNING BOARD, AND WE HAVE THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
SO WE'VE HAD COMMENTS ABOUT, I, I THINK BETWEEN ROWAN AND CHRISTIE, YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE PLANNING BOARD WERE IN OPPOSITION IF I'M, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY.
I SAID THEY HAD STANDING AND CHRISTIE SAID NO.
I THOUGHT THE PLANNING BOARD DEFINITELY HAS STANDING.
WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE TIMELINES.
SO, SO IS THERE ANY DISAGREEMENT THAT BOTH, I, I'M SORRY.
SO YOU WERE THE, IN THE DIFFERENT POSITION.
SO WHY, WHY LES HOW COME THIS CIVIC ASSOCIATION, IS IT 'CAUSE OF THE DISTANCE OR NOT HAVING PEOPLE LIVING CLOSE ENOUGH? YEAH.
WHY DO YOU THINK THEY HAVE STANDING LES, TAKE YOURSELF OFF MUTE.
THEY'RE NOT A MEMBER OF THE CIVIC COUNCIL.
THERE'S NOBODY NEARBY WHO'S IMPACTED.
RIGHT? I MEAN, IT DOESN'T MEET THE, UH, REQUIREMENT.
NO, I JUST, I, I I WANTED TO HEAR YOUR OPINION.
AND CHRIS, WHY WOULD YOU SAY IT DOES HAVE STANDING? I WOULD SAY BECAUSE THEY REPRESENT, UM, ALL OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS IN GREENBURG AND THAT THIS HAS THE POTENTIAL OF IMPACTING OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT, THAT WOULD AFFECT CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS THAT ARE IN, UH, IN THE COUNCIL OF THE GREENBURG CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS LAST BACK TO YOU,
YOU'RE, YOU'RE TALKING, YOU GET TO COME ON.
I, MY POSITION IS FIRM THAT THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION DOES NOT HAVE STANDING.
HOW THAT MAKES US ALL TURN OUT, I DON'T KNOW.
AND THAT AGAIN, IS THE DISTANCE EVE.
DIDN'T WE GO THROUGH THAT WITH THE, WITH WITH THE ONE THAT'S STILL PENDING WITH MR. SERTA? UM, THE, THE, THE, THE NURSERY HERE WHEN THEY'RE PUTTING THE, UM, THE, UM, ASSISTED LIVING.
DIDN'T WE HAVE THAT ISSUE TOO WITH THE DISTANCE? I, I'M, I'M, I, MAYBE I, I DON'T REMEMBER ALL THE ISSUES IN IT NOW SO LONG.
BUT THE DISTANCE ROWAN WAS THE VARIANCE.
THAT WAS THE VARIANCES FOR THE DISTANCE.
IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION AS TO WHAT STANDING REQUIREMENTS ARE, THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO ASK FOR A EXECUTIVE SESSION AND YOU KNOW, IT'S A LEGAL ISSUE.
YOU GUYS WANNA GO THERE? ANYONE? UH, I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE GOOD, ED.
WELL PUT IT, UH, LOU CHRISTIE, UM, DID YOU SAY YOU THINK WE'RE GOOD OR YOU THINK WE NEED TO GO THERE? NO, I THINK WE'RE GOOD, BUT, WELL, YOU KNOW, I'M SPEAKING FOR MYSELF.
IF YOU THINK WE NEED TO THEN TO GO TO, WELL, WELL, OH, NO, I UNDERSTAND.
I UNDERSTAND THE, UH, REASONING BEHIND STANDING.
BUT EVERYBODY ELSE, YEAH, WE'LL, WE'LL GO AHEAD.
EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO WEIGH IN.
'CAUSE THEN, OKAY, WELL IF, ACTUALLY, IF YOU'RE GOING TO RULE ON THE INTERPRETATION, THEN YOU'LL NEED NEED ONE OF THE APPELLANTS TO HAVE STANDING.
IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER IF, IF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION HAS STANDING OR NOT.
IF YOU FIND THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS STANDING, UH, THEN RATHER THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION HAS STANDING IS IRRELEVANT.
BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA CONTINUE ON, IT'S GOING TO COURT.
[04:00:01]
CAN FIND BOTH, IF IT'S THERE FOR, FOR, FOR THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION ALSO.'CAUSE IT'S GONNA GO ON IN ANY, WELL, THEY'RE GONNA APPEAL THAT.
IN ANY EVENT, IF WE FIND THAT IT DOESN'T, THEY'LL APPEAL IT TO, TO THE ISSUE SORT ITSELF OUT.
NO, I'M CONCERNED THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA FIND THE PLANNING BOARD WAS TIMELY.
WE, WE GIVE THEM STAND IT, YOU KNOW,
I MEAN I, I I I I LOOK AT IT AND THINK THEY'RE, THEY'RE TIMELY.
I LOOK AT, YEAH, I LOOK AT THEY'RE TIMELY ALSO.
AND, AND, AND, UM, UH, LES WILL DO THIS.
LE LET L LES WILL KNOW THIS TOO.
'CAUSE YOU KNOW, WHEN, UM, I'VE APPEALED A TON OF DECISION LES, WHERE THEY JUST, THEY DON'T PUT ANY FINDINGS.
AND I SAID, WELL, HOW AM I GONNA FIGURE OUT WHAT TO APPEAL? I NEED, YOU KNOW, I NEED AN ORDER AND GIMME SOME FINDINGS SO I CAN APPEAL IT.
OH, NOT GIVING YOU, OKAY, WELL I'LL GO AND APPEAL IT.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS REMIND ME OF.
THE FIRST TIME, UH, MY FIRST IMPRESSION OF THIS WITH THE CHECKBOX, I'M LIKE, WELL, HOW, HOW ARE THEY GONNA KNOW WHAT THE FINDINGS WERE, THE DECISIONS WERE, YOU KNOW? BUT, UM, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR EXPLAINED THAT THIS IS WHAT HE DOES.
THIS IS HIS CUSTOMER PRACTICE.
UM, WE MAY WANNA EVALUATE THAT SINCE PEOPLE ARE OUT HERE, THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION AND FOR THE FIRST TIME THE PLANNING BOARD THAT'S LOOKING FOR CLARITY SO THAT THEY CAN APPEAL IT.
SO THEY HAD EVERY RIGHT TO GO BACK TO THEM TO ASK FOR CLARIFICATION.
'CAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GONNA APPEAL.
AND THEY GOT THAT CLARIFICATION, UH, IN NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 12TH.
SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, UH, IT'S TIMELY.
WHICH, WHICH, WHICH APPELLANT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT NOW? THE, THE, THE PLANNING BOARD.
WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
DOES EVERYBODY AGREE WITH LESS THAT THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION DIDN'T HAVE STANDING? WELL, LET'S HEAR YOU DIANE.
WELL, WHAT DO YOU THINK? WELL, 'CAUSE I QUESTION, AND I WENT THROUGH, AND I, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT I READ THROUGH ALL THE PRECEDENTS AND THE ONE THAT WAS CITED WAS, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS A SHOPPING MALL, BUT IT WAS ABOUT NOISE AND IT WAS ABOUT TRAFFIC.
AND THE PEOPLE WERE WITHIN 500 FEET AND THEY SAID NO.
THAT YOU DON'T HAVE, YOU KNOW, STANDING BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE, UH, YOUR, UH, UH, ANY, ANY HARM THAT YOU WOULD HAVE IS NOT ANY GREATER THAN THE PUBLIC.
IN THIS CASE, THE PERSON THAT THEY BROUGHT TO US WAS I THINK A THOUSAND FEET AWAY, WHICH WAS DOUBLE THE DISTANCE, BUT THE HARM IS ACTUALLY GREATER FROM A STORAGE FACILITY AND THE POTENTIAL OF AN EXPLOSION.
SO I THINK THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION REPRESENTING THAT PERSON COULD HAVE STANDING ABOVE AND BEYOND THE PRECEDENT BECAUSE THE, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT NOISE AND TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, HAVING BEEN IN CALIFORNIA DURING PG AND E, LIKE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOODS WENT UP.
SO I WOULD THINK A THOUSAND FEET IS CLOSE ENOUGH TO HAVE STANDING.
THAT'S KIND OF WAS MY, 'CAUSE I QUESTIONED THAT ALSO WITH THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
SO I WENT BACK AND I READ ALL THE MATERIALS AND I EVEN LOOKED BEYOND THE EXCERPTS THAT WE WERE GIVEN TO THE WHOLE CASE ONLINE.
AND THAT'S KINDA WHERE I WAS, THAT THEY HAD STANDING.
SO I'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU GUYS ON SPECIFICALLY LES, WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THAT.
IS THAT SET? IS THAT SET? LES? THE THE 500, UM, ZONE.
LES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO MUTE YOURSELF.
WE'RE IN, WE'RE IN NEGOTIATIONS NOW, SO I I DIDN'T MEAN TO, UM, I I AM, I AM, I AM NOT CHANGING MY OPINION ABOUT THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
I, YOU'RE ASKING FOR WHETHER OR NOT IT'S SET IN STONE.
IS THAT HOW I WAS THINKING ABOUT IT? LIKE IS IT 500 FEET ROOM? YOU KNOW WHAT CIRCUMSTANCE YOU HAVE TO UNMUTE AGAIN, MY ANSWER TO THAT IS I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE AN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
AND DISCUSS WITH OUR ATTORNEY.
I MOVED THAT WE GO IN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION SECOND.
WE ARE BACK ON, UM, THE RECORD WITH REGARD TO OUR DELIBERATIONS AND THE RESULTS OF THEM FOR THIS EVENING.
AND I WILL TAKE THE CASES IN THE ORDER THAT THEY ARE ON THE AGENDA CASES 2103 AND CASES 2104, WHICH I'M MENTIONING TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY BOTH ADDRESS, UH, AN INTERPRETATION WITH RESPECT TO THE BUILDING.
UM, INSPECTOR, UH, THOSE WILL BE ADJOURNED FOR ALL PURPOSES
[04:05:01]
TO THE MEETING OF MAY 20TH.UM, BECAUSE ALTHOUGH WE DID HAVE QUITE, UH, I THOUGHT EXTENSIVE DELIBERATIONS ON THE RECORD AFTER HAVING A MEETING WITH, UM, COUNSEL WITH REGARD TO, UM, OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION, SOME OTHER ISSUES CAME UP WITH RES WITH RESPECT TO THE PARTIES THAT, UM, LED US TO BELIEVE THAT WE REALLY DO NEED TO, UM, COME TO SOME UNANIMITY THAT WE DO NOT HAVE AT THIS POINT.
AND THAT WE WISH TO READ THE LAW AND DETERMINE IF THERE MAY BE, UH, MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE PARTIES AT THIS POINT SO THAT OUR, OUR DECISIONS ARE VERY CLEAR AND BACKED BY THE INFORMATION THAT, UH, DOES SUPPORT WHAT, UH, ULTIMATELY THEY WILL BE.
UM, THE NEXT CASE THAT WE HAVE IS CASE 2107 POETS CORNERS, UH, KOAL SERVICE STATION.
AND THAT IS ADJOURNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE MEETING OF MAY 20TH.
THE NEXT CASE IS G H P FAXER L L P.
AND THAT CASE ALSO IS ADJOURNED TO THE MEETING OF MAY 20TH.
THE NEXT CASE IS CASE 2108 DUR AND GISELLE LINDSEY AND I HAVE, WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS DETERMINED THAT THE ABOVE REFERENCE APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO C A COMPLIANCE AND WHEREAS GREENBERG'S Z B A HAS DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICATION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE APP SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRED.
NO FURTHER SECRET CONSIDERATION.
AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION? UH, YES.
I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE NUMBER 2108 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT WILL OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE.
SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
THAT CONSTRUCTION BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY.
SORRY, I'M JUST MOVING THIS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS DATED OCTOBER 6TH, 2020 AND REVISED FEBRUARY 25TH, 2021, SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, VARIANCES BEING GRANTED ARE 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'VE APPROVED HEREIN.
IN GRANTING THIS APPLICATION, THE ZONING BOARD HAS WEIGHED THE BENEFIT TO BE DERIVED BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE PROPOSED 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 APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A HALF ACRE PIECE OF PROPERTY IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, THE LOT IS CONSIDERED A FLAG LOT.
SO THE LOT FRONTAGE IS LESS THAN THE 25 FEET REQUIRED.
THIS NARROWER LOT FRONTAGE WILL NOT DETRACT FROM THE OVERALL LOOK OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPOSED HOME WILL BE SIMILAR IN SIZE TO HOMES IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES ON THE SITE.
THE GOAL OF THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER FEASIBLE MEANS WITHOUT REQUIRING THE VARIANCE WE ARE GRANTING.
BECAUSE, BECAUSE, UM, BECAUSE THE LAW WAS CREATED IN 1966 PRIOR TO WHEN THE REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE OF THE CODE WAS AMENDED, THE EXISTING FRONTAGE IS 15 AND NOT THE REQUIRED 25 FEET.
THERE IS NO OTHER FEASIBLE WAY TO ENTER THE PROPERTY EXCEPT FROM THE 15 FOOT DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE ON FORT HILL ROAD.
DENYING ACCESS AT THIS LOCATION IS NOT AN OPTION TO HAVE ACCESS ONTO THE PROPERTY.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL IN RELATION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SOUGHT TO BE VARIED IN THAT THE REQUESTED RELIEF IS 15 FEET COMPARED TO 25 FEET REQUIRED A 40% DECREASE IN THE REQUIRED LOT FRONTAGE.
HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT OTHER THAN REQUIRED LOT FRONTAGE, THE PROPOSED HOME IS FULLY ZONED AND COMPLIANT.
THE APPLICANT'S NEED FOR THE VARIANCE WAS SELF-CREATED BECAUSE, UH, 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.
[04:10:01]
THANK YOU.AND THE LAST CASE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDAS CASE 2109 HAMPSHIRE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, WHICH IS ADJOURNED FOR ALL PURPOSES, ALSO TO THE MEETING OF MAY 20TH.
AND WITH THAT, WE HAVE COMPLETED OUR EVENING.
I WISH YOU ALL WELL AND, UM, SAFE HOME.
GOOD WEEKEND, AND SEE YOU NEXT MONTH.