* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] OKAY. WELL, GOOD EVENING, UH, [ DRAFT TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, October 6, 2021 – 7:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ] TO THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING OF OCTOBER THE SIXTH. I'D LIKE TO START WITH A, UH, THE ROLL CALL BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT. SURE. CHAIRPERSON SIMON. HERE. MR. SCHWARTZ? HERE. MR. GOLDEN. HERE. MR. DESAI? HERE. MR. HAY? HERE. MR. TTAG? HERE. MR. SNAGS HERE. UH, I WOULD LIKE TO START BY MAKING, UH, UM, TWO STATEMENTS. THE FIRST ONE, UH, YOU SEE JOINING US THIS EVENING IS JONATHAN CAPANO. UH, HE IS A, A LAWYER WITH, UH, THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY GOVERNMENT. UH, HE WENT THROUGH THE SCREENING PROCESS TO BE AN ALTERNATE ON THE PLANNING BOARD. UH, THE, UH, THAT WAS SENT TO THE TOWN BOARD. HE HAD INTERVIEWED WITH THE TOWN BOARD, UH, BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD MAKING A, UH, UH, UH, DECISION. THEY ASKED THAT HE COME AND TAKE PART IN A PLANNING BOARD MEETING, WHICH IS WHAT HE'S DOING THIS EVENING. AND THEN AFTER THAT, HE WILL GO BACK AND HAVE A, A, ANOTHER DISCUSSION WITH THE, WITH THE TOWN BOARD. SO, I WELCOME MR. CAPANO TO TODAY'S MEETING, TO HERE AND, AND, UH, AND, UH, AND I HOPE EVERYTHING GOES WELL. OKAY. UH, UH, THE OTHER ANNOUNCEMENT, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT, UH, EFFECTIVE, UH, DECEMBER 31ST OF THIS YEAR, I WILL BE STEPPING DOWN AS THE CHAIR OF THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT I WILL RETAIN MY SEAT ON THE PLANNING BOARD. SO I STILL WILL BE A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD, BUT AS OF DECEMBER 31ST, I WILL STEP DOWN AS THE CHAIR. OKAY. UM, WITH THAT SAID, SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, REVIEW THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14TH. I KNOW THERE WAS ONE CO MINOR TYPO THAT, UH, UH, MYRNA FREIGHT TAG, UH, APPOINTED OUT. UM, I THINK THAT WAS ON PAGE TWO. YES. AND THAT CORRECTION WAS MADE AND THE DRAFT WAS RECIRCULATED TO ALL MEMBERS. THANK YOU, MONA. YOU'RE WELCOME. ARE THERE ANY OTHER CORRECTIONS, UH, UH, TO THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 14? IF, IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED. IT IS AS CORRECTED. THEN, AARON, OR DO WE STILL DO IT AS THAT AS CORRECTED? I'LL MAKE THAT MOTION. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, TOM. TOM. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR BY SAYING YES OR RAISING YOUR HAND? OKAY, FINE. UM, NEXT THING ON, UH, THE AGENDA IS, UH, UM, CORRESPONDENCE, BUT, UM, THE CORRESPONDENCE THAT WE GOT RELATES TO A PARTICULAR APPLICATION THAT WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS EVENING. SO THERE'S NO POINT IN TALKING ABOUT THAT NOW. BUT WHEN THAT TOPIC COMES IN, THAT WILL BE PART OF, UH, THE DISCUSSION OF THE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION. OKAY. UM, THE NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA IS OLD BUSINESS CASE PB 1912, WHICH IS A FINAL SUBDIVISION. UH, THERE ARE TWO, UH, ACTIONS THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO TAKE. THE FIRST ONE, WELL, UH, THREE. THE FIRST ONE IS THE CERTIFICATION FROM, UH, THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, THAT THE FINAL SUBDIVISION AS, AS SUBMITTED, IS THE SAME, UH, AS THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION DOCUMENT THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US. YES. THANK YOU, CHAIRPERSON SIMON. SO, UH, THE PLATT IS SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME AS NOTED IN THE COVER LETTER SUBMITTED BY, UM, CHRISTA MOTEL OF CUDI AND FADER. UH, THERE WERE SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS [00:05:01] MADE AT THE REQUEST OF THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, AND THOSE RELATE TO INCLUDING WATER AND SEWER SERVICE DETAIL, UH, ON THE PLATT, AS WELL AS INCLUDING AN ADDITIONAL SIGNATURE BLOCK. SO NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES. UH, THE PLAT ITSELF REMAINS, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS APPROVED PREVIOUSLY. AND THE BOARD IS IN A POSITION TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION. AND I THINK AT THIS POINT, WE DO NOT, I SEE NO NEED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS, AND I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A PUBLIC ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING ON OUR FINAL DECISION. SO, MOVE, MOVE, DO ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. AND SO THE, THE LAST DECISION IS APPROVAL OF THE FINAL, UH, SUBDIVISION FOR PB 1912. MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION. SO MOVED. SECOND. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ASCENSION? NO. OKAY. THAT'S APPROVED. OKAY. NOW WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE OF A SLIGHT CHANGE IN THEIR AGENDA THAT WE WOULD, UH, UH, LIKE TO THE NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA, WE'D LIKE TO PUT IN GRAYSTONE. UH, DO WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE FROM GRAYSTONE HERE? SO THAT WE DO, OKAY, GO AHEAD. AND THAT, AND THAT IS, UM, PB 2107. THAT'S CORRECT. CHAIRPERSON SIMON. SO, AS YOU NOTED, PB 2107, THE GRAYSTONE, UH, PLANS UNIT DEVELOPMENT. THIS PROJECT RELATES TO LOTS 4, 5, 6, AND SEVEN WITHIN THAT HUD OR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT. UH, THE REQUEST IS FOR AN AMENDED SITE PLAN AND PER PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, UH, FOR PROPOSAL CONSISTING OF THE RE SUBDIVISION OF FOUR BUILDING LOTS AND ONE ADDITIONAL LOT CONTAINING A ROADWAY WITHIN THIS DEVELOPMENT SITE IN ORDER TO REMOVE THE CUL-DE-SAC ROADWAY AND REVEGETATE IT AND DISTRIBUTE THE, THE LAND THAT COMPRISES THAT AMONGST LOTS 4, 5, 6, AND SEVEN WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. UM, SO WE HAVE ANDY TODD HERE THIS EVENING. I HAVE, UM, DRAWINGS AND I'VE COLORIZED THAT I THINK WILL BE HELPFUL. UM, IF YOU DON'T MIND ME SHARING, IF YOU HAD A PRESENTATION LINED UP THAT YOU WANT TO SHARE, BY ALL MEANS, FEEL FREE TO DO THAT. OKAY. YEAH. I COLORIZED A LOT OF STUFF TOO. COULD I, COULD I START AARON AND THEN MAYBE JUMP IN? YEAH, PLEASE DO THAT. THAT WILL SAVE, SAVE ME PROBLEM TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR, FOR HEARING ME RIGHT AWAY. I TO VERY, VERY, VERY MUCH APPRECIATE IT. I'M GONNA SHARE MY SCREEN NOW, UH, HERE. IT'S OKAY. YEAH, LET'S JUST SIT WHILE TOUCH IT. OKAY. AND YOUR MICS. WHEN, WHEN NOT SPEAKING, MR. ESCALADES, IF YOU COULD MUTE YOUR MIC. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO WE'RE PR BASICALLY WHAT THIS IS IS A LAND SWAP. UM, THERE'S TWO NEIGHBORS THAT WANNA, UM, AND AN H O A CUL-DE-SAC THAT WE WANNA REDISTRIBUTE THE, THE ROAD AND THE, AND THE, UM, PROPERTY LINES SO THAT IT MAKES MORE SENSE THAN WHAT IT DOES TODAY. WE'RE NOT PROPO PROPOSING ANY ADDITIONAL LOTS, UM, BUILDINGS OR ACCESSORY STRUCTURES IN THIS PROPOSED LAND SWAP. WE'RE JUST PROPOSING TO MOVE THE LOT LINES. AND THAT'S IT. EVEN THOUGH OUR, WHAT WE SUBMITTED WAS A LITTLE COMPLICATED, IT WAS JUST BECAUSE WE HAD TO PROVE THAT THE LOTS WERE LEGAL. AND THAT'S WHY IT LOOKED, THERE WAS SO MANY LINES ON THERE. BUT, UH, WHAT I'M GONNA SHOW YOU IN A SECOND IS WE WILL, I THINK WE'LL SIMPLIFY IT ALL. UH, THERE'LL BE LESS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DUE TO REMOVAL OF A CUL-DE-SAC, UM, AS WELL AS REMOVAL OF A FIRE HYDRANT AND ASSOCIATED PLUMBING. AND WE'RE GONNA, UH, TURN THAT GREEN. UM, AND THEN THIS IS A MAP OF, UM, OKAY, SO THIS IS A MAP OF THE CURRENT CONDITIONS. OKAY. SO, SO JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR, THE GREEN AREA THAT'S OWNED BY ONE PERSON THAT'S OUTLINING GREEN. OKAY. THE BLUE AREA IS OWNED BY ANOTHER HOMEOWNER AT GRAYSTONE. SO THE, SO THAT'S IN BLUE. AND THEN THE CUL-DE-SAC IS OWNED BY THE H O A. AND, UM, JUST TO SHOW YOU WHAT THESE LOTS, THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERY, UM, THEY'RE VERY GREEN RIGHT NOW. SO THIS WHOLE ENTIRE LOT IS, UM, IS A ONE HOLE PUTTING, UM, GOLF GREEN. UH, THERE'S A HOUSE WITH A, THERE'S A HOUSE WITH A POOL BEHIND IT. AND THEN THIS IS A, IT'S CALLED A PUMP TRACK, WHICH IS BASICALLY, UM, A BICYCLE PATH FOR LITTLE [00:10:01] KIDS TO DRIVE OR, UH, RIDE THEIR BIKES ON. AND THIS IS, UM, IMP, THIS IS PERVIOUS. SO, UM, THERE'S REALLY NOTHING THAT'S, UM, IMPERVIOUS ON THIS LOT OR THIS LOT. ONLY A HOUSE AND A POOL ON ALL THREE OF THESE LOTS. IT'S, IT'S A TOTAL OF 10 ACRES. SO, UM, SO JUST TO SHOW YOU THE FIRST TWO LOTS OF THE THREE LOTS THAT, THAT, UH, HOMEOWNER ONE OWNS IS BASICALLY HERE'S THE HOUSE, THE POOL, AND THEN THIS IS WHERE YOU PUT FROM, AND THIS IS THE GREEN. OKAY. AND THEN THIS IS, UM, THIS IS THE GREEN UP CLOSE, SO YOU CAN SEE HOW COOL IT IS. UM, AND THEN, UM, AND THEN GOING BACK UP, IT'S GOTTA MOVE SOMETHING ON MY SCREEN SO IT'S NOT IN THE WAY OF ME MOVING QUICKER. OKAY. SO NOW GOING BACK TO THE PUMP TRACK. THE PUMP TRACK IS THIS LOT, AND BASICALLY THIS IS IT, IT'S HARD TO SEE FROM THIS PICTURE. I TOOK IT WITH MY PHONE. BUT, UM, IT'S BASICALLY A BICYCLE PATH THAT GOES UP AND DOWN, UM, WITH PERVIOUS SURFACE. SO ON THE THREE LOTS, THERE'S ONLY ONE. UM, THERE'S, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, JUST A HOUSE AND A POOL. THEN ON THE OTHER LOT THAT'S DEVELOPED, UM, THERE'S A HOUSE AND A POOL. AGAIN, THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. THIS IS THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE TWO LOTS KIND OF TOGETHER RIGHT HERE. UM, WHERE, SO THE GOLF COURSE IS KIND OF DOWN HERE. THE CUL-DE-SAC IS RIGHT BELOW THIS HILLSIDE. AND THIS IS THAT OTHER, THIS IS THAT OTHER HOUSE. UM, OKAY, THIS IS THE CUL-DE-SAC. SO THIS CUL-DE-SAC IS GONNA TURN, UM, IS GONNA TURN GREEN. UM, AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF REASONS THAT, THAT THE HOMEOWNERS WANNA DO THIS. UM, AND I'M GONNA SHOW THAT TO YOU NOW. THE FIRST IS BECAUSE THIS GUY BOUGHT THREE DIFFERENT LOTS, BASICALLY HE DOESN'T OWN LOT. THERE'S, THERE'S NO NEED FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC ANYMORE, FIRST OFF. SO IT'S BETTER TO, BETTER TO NOT HAVE IT IF WE DON'T NEED IT. UM, AND THEN HE WOULD CONTROL, UM, YOU'LL SEE IN THE PROPOSED PLAN, HE WOULD CONTROL WHAT'S IN FRONT OF HIM, UM, ALL THE WAY TO CARRIAGE TRAIL. SO THAT'S THE FIRST THING. THE SECOND THING IS THERE'S THIS FLAT AREA UP HERE WHERE YOU SAW THE POOL IN THE LAST PICTURE, BUT THE PROPERTY LINE NOW KIND OF CUTS THE HILLSIDE. SO THEY OWN, SO THIS OWNER OWNS THE TOP, BUT THE HILLSIDE IS ACTUALLY OWNED BY THE GUY WHO OWNS THREE OF THEM. SO IT'S NOT PERFECT. 'CAUSE IF SOMETHING, IF THE GUY WHO OWNED THREE OF 'EM EVER WANNA DO SOMETHING TO THE HILLSIDE, UM, YOU KNOW, IT COULD AFFECT THE GUY UP ABOVE. I'M NOT SAYING THAT THEY WOULD, BUT IT'S JUST BETTER IF THEY OWN THEIR OWN. SO IN THE PLAN THAT WE'RE GONNA, THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, WE'RE FIXING THE PROPERTY LINES TO BASICALLY KIND OF COME AROUND THE BOTTOM OF THE HILLSIDE. SO THE GUY, SO THIS GUY WOULD OWN EVERYTHING, AND BASICALLY IT'S GONNA MAKE THIS LOT MORE, MORE OF A SQUARE AND COME OUT A LITTLE BIT, AND IT'S GONNA, UM, GIVE THE REST TO THE THREE LOT OWNER. OKAY. SO THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN IS KIND OF WHAT I JUST SAID. UM, WHERE YOU ELIMINATING THE CUL-DE-SAC, YOU HAVE BUMPED THE LAND OUT A LITTLE BIT OVER HERE, MOVED IT BACK A LITTLE BIT TO, SO THAT HE CONTROLS THE WHOLE HILLSIDE. UM, AND THEN, UH, THIS GENTLEMAN OWNS THE REST OF IT. OKAY? SO NOW COMPARING THEM SIDE BY SIDE, YOU, UM, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE, SO THIS IS THE EXISTING, UM, CONDITIONS RIGHT HERE. AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS, WHICH BASICALLY JUST KIND OF MADE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE USABLE. RIGHT NOW, THIS WHOLE SIDE YARD IS NOT USABLE ANYWAY FOR THIS GUY. AND THIS GUY WANTS TO HAVE FRONTAGE OVER THERE. AND LIKE I SAID, THE, IT'S, IT'S NOT SET UP WHERE HE CONTROLS THE HILLSIDE. SO IT'S BETTER, BETTER TO DO THAT IF WE CAN. UM, EXCUSE ME. SO SOME POSITIVES ARE, THERE'D BE LESS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE CUL-DE-SAC. THERE'S LESS, LESS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OBVIOUSLY MEANS LESS STORMWATER RUNNING INTO THE TOWN. UM, AND VILLAGE. 'CAUSE THIS, THIS ACTUALLY GOES INTO TARRY TOWNS, UH, STORMWATER SYSTEM. UM, THE ELIMINATION OF THE FIRE HY. SO THERE'S A FIRE HYDRANT. I'M SORRY, I FORGOT TO TO POINT THIS OUT. UM, THERE'S A FIRE HYDRANT RIGHT HERE. IF YOU COULD, IF YOU COULD SEE IT, UM, THAT FIRE HYDRANT NO LONGER NEEDED BECAUSE RIGHT AT THE END OF WHERE THE CUL-DE-SAC IS RIGHT NOW, PRETTY MUCH RIGHT HERE, THERE'S A FIRE HYDRANT THERE. IT'S ALREADY WENT, AARON'S ALREADY SENT THIS TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND THEY'VE APPROVED THAT WE DON'T NEED THIS FIRE, THIS HYDRANT ANYMORE. SO THAT HYDRANT WILL BE ELIMINATED AND ALL ITS ASSOCIATED, UH, PLUMBING. UM, SO IT'LL CREATE LESS MAINTENANCE FOR THE TOWN. AND OF COURSE, AS YOU KNOW, THIS IS A PRIVATE ROAD, BUT IF THE TOWN EVER HAD TO TAKE IT OVER FOR ANY REASON, UM, BY NOT HAVING THAT CUL-DE-SAC, IT WOULD ELIMINATE, UH, FUTURE MAINTENANCE OF THE ROAD, WATER, SEWER, AND STORMWATER SERVICES. AND EVEN IF NOT, THERE'S NO REASON FOR THE H O A TO CONTROL IT. IF IT'S NOT NEEDED ANYMORE, IT'S BETTER TO BETTER TO TURN IT GREEN. UM, SO THAT IS, THAT IS, THAT'S BASICALLY MY PRESENTATION. IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO, UH, ANSWER [00:15:01] IT OR ANY CONCERNS. YEAH, I OH, GO AHEAD WALTER. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. WELL, EITHER ONE, I, WE HAD THIS, WE HAVE THE SAME POINT, SO FEEL FREE TO MAKE I ACTUALLY HAVE A DIFFERENT POINT THAN YOU CAN OKAY. WELL THAT, OKAY, LET, OKAY. UH, IF NOW ONE OF THE THINGS THAT RIGHT NOW ALL THREE LOTS, IT'S ONE LOT AND YOU HAVE A PUTTING, UH, PUTTING, PUTTING GREEN AND YOU HAVE A, SOME SORT OF BIKING ACTIVITY THERE. OKAY? BUT NOW WHEN YOU SUBDIVIDE, YOU HAVE A HOUSE AND YOU HAVE A PUTTING GREEN ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, AND IN THE OTHER PROPERTY IT IS A BICYCLE PATH OR, OR SOME SORT OF, UH, A, UH, ATHLETIC, UH, UH, ACTIVITY ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. AND THE HOW, SO, SO THE QUESTION IS, HOW DOES THAT FIT IN, FIT INTO OUR CURRENT BUILDING CODE? THAT THOSE TWO LOTS WILL NOT BE NON-CONFORMING. THEY'RE ALREADY SUBDIVIDED. THEY'RE ALREADY SUBDIVIDED. YEAH. BUT THEY THEY'RE SUBDIVIDED UNDER ONE ONLY. NO, BUT THEY ALWAYS HAVE BEEN THAT I JUST WANT, WANTED TO JUST CLEAR UP THE RECORD, AND THIS DOESN'T CHANGE THE SUBDIVISION, THAT PART OF THE SUBDIVISION CURRENTLY, THOSE TWO, UM, ACTIVITIES, AND I'M NOT SURE I CAN CALL THEM STRUCTURES, WHICH MAY BE MAYBE A QUESTION IN ITSELF, BUT ARE ON LOTS THAT DON'T SUBDIVIDED LEGALLY SUBDIVIDED LOTS THAT DON'T CONTAIN A HOUSE, JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT. RIGHT. CURRENTLY EVEN BEFORE HE MAKES A CHANGE. RIGHT. AND THE, AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE PUT ALLOWS, THE PUT WOULD ALLOW FOR, EVEN IF WE DIDN'T, BECAUSE, BECAUSE WE WERE MOVED TO A PUT, IT WOULD ALLOW FOR THIS ANYWAY, SO, BUT AS, AS YOU WERE JUST POINTING OUT, IT'S ALL LEGAL. UM, THESE ARE ALREADY BUILT AND, UM, THEY'VE BEEN THROUGH TOWN, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN HAS ALREADY APPROVED IT, INSPECTED IT, AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALREADY, THEY'RE ALREADY THERE. SO WE'RE, WE'RE NOT REALLY CHANGING ANYTHING. ALL WE'RE DOING IS SAYING INSTEAD OF THE, INSTEAD OF THIS BLUE, IT'S REALLY ALL HAPPENING OVER BY THIS BLUE HOUSE. IF YOU WERE JUST CHANGING THE LOT LINES TO, TO BE DIFFERENT ON THEIR LOT SO THAT THEY CAN, SO THAT, UM, FOR THE TWO, FOR THE REASON OF THAT HILLSIDE THAT, THAT I SHOWED YOU. AND SO THAT THE GUY WHO OWNS THREE LOTS NOW HAS THIS FRONTAGE OVER HERE, UM, ON THE ROAD. OKAY. SO THE ISSUE OF WHETHER OR NOT ALL THREE LOTS ARE OWNED BY ONE INDIVIDUAL, OR THE THREE LOTS ARE OWNED BY SEPARATE INDIVIDUALS, YOU'RE, IT DOESN'T MAKE A DIFFERENCE. YEAH. 'CAUSE THEY'RE OWNED, THEY ARE OWNED BY ONE INDIVIDUAL RIGHT NOW. THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH. SO THEY'RE OWNED BY ONE INDIVIDUAL. SO IT'S, THE CONDITIONS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME AS THEY WOULD BE AS THEY ARE CURRENTLY TODAY. WE'RE JUST SHIFTING SOME LOT LINES. YEP. RIGHT NOW THEY HAVE FRONTAGE ON THE CUL-DE-SAC AND UNDER THE PROPOSED PLAN THEY'LL HAVE FRONTAGE DIRECTLY ON CARRIAGE TRAIL EX. EXACTLY. AND IT, AND IT WRITES A MISTAKE THAT WE, THAT WE MADE WHEN WE FIRST DID THIS, WE SHOULD HAVE, WE SHOULD HAVE MADE, THIS IS HOW WE SHOULD HAVE MADE IT IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUT ANYWAY, REGARDLESS, THE, AND IS THERE ANY REASON WHY THE OWNER DIDN'T CHOOSE TO MERGE THOSE THREE LOTS? UM, JUST ASKING. HE WANTS THE ABILITY TO BE ABLE TO SEPARATELY, UM, USE THEM IF YOU WANTED TO. BUT AGAIN, HE SPENT, UH, YEAH, I'M NOT AT LIBERTY TO SAY WHAT IT COSTS TO BUILD THIS PUMP TRACK, BUT IT WAS, I'M SURE A LOT THE COST OF A SMALL, THE COST OF A SMALL HOUSE AND THE GOLF COURSE WAS NOT THAT EXPENSIVE, BUT VERY EXPENSIVE. UM, SO HE, YEAH, HE WANTS TO KEEP THEM SEPARATE AND, AND AS LEGAL LOTS. BUT OBVIOUSLY BY DOING THIS, I THINK THIS, THIS IS GREAT FOR WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD WANTS, WHICH IS NOT A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT ON, ON A LOT OF LAND. YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY IN, ON HIS, ON THE, ON THE, THIS, THESE THREE HOUSES, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING LIKE SEVEN AND A HALF ACRES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UM, AND HE ONLY HAS A HOUSE AND A POOL, YOU KNOW, AND THE REST OF IT IS, IS PERVIOUS. I, I THINK JUST, JUST UNDERSTAND, I, I DON'T THINK IT HAS TO DO DIRECTLY WITH WHAT YOU'RE DOING NOW. IT DOESN'T, OKAY. THE QUESTION FOR US, AND IT MAY AT THIS POINT BE JUST US ASKING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, UH, THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THIS IS TYPICALLY WE DO NOT ALLOW AN ACCESSORY USE. THE LAW SAYS WE DON'T ALLOW AN ACCESSORY USE ON A SEPARATE PIECE OF PROPERTY, SUBDIVIDED PIECE OF PROPERTY. SO TECHNICALLY, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUS [00:20:01] TECHNICALLY, BUT ON A PUD BUT IN A PUD IN OUR PUD WHEN WE DID THAT LAST YEAR, UM, IT ACTUALLY ALLOWS FOR THIS. SO, OH, OKAY. THAT, THAT IS HELPFUL. COULD WE, AARON, COULD WE JUST GET A COPY OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OPINION ON THIS? OR, OR HAVE HIM, UM, COME AND JUST EXPLAIN, WE CAN GET, EXPLAIN IT. WHAT WE'LL DO, I'LL, I'LL SPEAK WITH TOWN STAFF. UM, AS YOU MAY KNOW, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, MR. FRETA IS NO LONGER THE BUILDING INSPECTOR. I IMAGINE HE WAS THE ONE THAT HAD THIS ORIGINAL DETERMINATION. BUT WE'LL PULL THE FILE AND WE'LL CERTAINLY GET SOMETHING OUT TO THE BOARD, INCLUDING THE PUD LANGUAGE, WHICH I THINK IS GONNA CLEAR THINGS UP FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS WITH RESPECT TO THIS QUESTION. SOUNDS LIKE IT WILL, UH, YEAH. CALL MR. BRINGING THIS UP AND GOING THROUGH THE TOWN BOARD. AND A BENEFIT OF THIS MORE RECENTLY ENACTED PUD IS THAT THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AS OPPOSED TO SOME OF THE OLDER PODS WHERE YOU JUST DON'T HAVE, SO THAT MAY HAVE SUPERSEDED IT IN, IN THE POD AND THAT WOULD, I JUST WANT, WE JUST WANNA KNOW FOR THE RECORD SO THAT WE'RE CONSISTENT WITH, WITH WHAT WE KNOW CODE IS. THAT'S ALL ALL, YEAH. IT'S PART OF, PART OF THE, I HAVE AN ISSUE ALSO. WALTER, MAY I ASK MY, UH, OKAY, GO AHEAD. MY QUESTION. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD. UH, IT'S A VERY SIMPLE QUESTION, ANDY. UH, DO YOU HAVE TO MOVE A DRIVEWAY OR ANYTHING TO DO THIS? TO GET ACCESS TO, TO THE ROAD? NO, THE RI NO, THE DRIVEWAY STAYS WHERE IT IS. THE CUL-DE-SAC GETS ELIMINATED, BUT NO, WE DON'T HAVE TO MOVE ANY DRIVEWAYS. OKAY. THERE'S NOTHING, THERE'S NOTHING THAT CHANGES OTHER, OTHER THAN ON PAPER. OKAY. RAMONA HAD A QUESTION? YEAH. OKAY. I HAVE ONE QUESTION AND IT'S REGARDING THE ELIMINATION OF THE, UM, THE FIRE HYDRANT HYDRANT. THANK YOU. . I'M LIKE LOSING ALL MY WORDS 'CAUSE I CAN'T GET IT. . UM, DO WE HAVE TO HAVE ANYBODY FROM FIRE COME OVER AND TAKE A LOOK AT THIS AND SIGN OFF ON LOSING A FIRE HYDRANT? BECAUSE I DON'T WANNA PUT ANYBODY AT RISK BY HAVING ONE LESS FIRE HYDRANT. RIGHT. SO MS. F*G, AS PART OF, UH, THE REVIEW, WHICH IS DONE PRIOR TO THE PROJECT COMING ON WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, WE DID CIRCULATE THIS TO THE TERRYTOWN FIRE DEPARTMENT. THEY LOOKED AT IT, UH, THEY HAD NO OBJECTION TO THE HYDRANT TEAM ELIMINATED. THEY PREDOMINANTLY JUST WANTED TO ENSURE THAT SHOULD AT ANY FUTURE POINT LOTS FIVE AND OR SEVEN BE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THAT THERE'D BE APPROPRIATE ACCESS FOR FIRE APPARATUS. YES. AND WHICH WAS PROVIDED THE PLAN. YES. YES. AND WHAT, OKAY, THANK YOU. YES. AND WHAT ENGINEERING WANTED US TO DO OR TOLD US TO DO, WAS TO CAP IT ALL, IT'S ALL REMAINING UNDER THE GROUND CA SO IF WE EVER NEEDED TO PUT IT BACK, WE ALWAYS COULD PUT IT BACK. BUT, UM, IT'S, THERE'S NO REASON TO HAVE AN EXTRA FIRE HYDRANT IF YOU DON'T NEED IT. IT'S JUST, ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS ALL. I, THAT WAS JUST ONE OF MY CONCERNS. I DON'T WANNA FIND OUT DOWN THE ROAD THAT WE APPROVE SOMETHING AND THEY SAY IT WAS OUR FAULT. . OKAY. DAVID, DO YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? I THINK, UH, MR. TODD PARTIALLY ANSWERED THIS, BUT UH, ORIGINALLY WHEN THE SUBDIVISION WAS CONCEIVED, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT HOW MANY HOMES, UH, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. THERE'S 12 LOTS, 12 HOMES. AND NOW ASSUMING AT LEAST AT THIS MOMENT, THAT THIS, UH, THAT THIS IS NOT GONNA BE, UH, SUB OR THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE THREE HOMES THERE, HOW MANY NOW DO YOU, UH, ANTICIPATE FOR THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION? UH, IT'S LOOKING LIKE NINE OR EIGHT. IT'S HARD TO, IT'S, THERE'S, THERE'S A FEW THINGS THAT ARE IN THAT ARE WORKING, BUT THEY'LL, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THIS, THERE'S ON THERE WOULD BE A MAXIMUM OF 10. AND I THINK THERE'S GONNA BE TWO MORE THAT ARE NOT GONNA DO. SO ACTUALLY, YOU, YOU, WHEN WE WERE GOING THROUGH THIS WHOLE THING, WE WERE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT, ABOUT EXACTLY, UM, EXACTLY THIS, THAT THERE WAS GONNA BE OVERDEVELOPMENT. AND IN, IN FACT, UM, IN THIS CASE, IT'S HAVING, OWNING THREE HOMES, THE PUTT ACTUALLY, UM, WORKED IN EVERYBODY'S FAVOR BECAUSE THERE'S, THERE'S WAY LESS DEVELOPMENT GOING ON. SO IT'S, SO I THINK THE FORESIGHT THAT EVERYBODY HAD WAS GOOD. AND THIS, THIS JUST KIND OF PROVES IT ALL OUT. OKAY. AND JUST TO CONTINUE TO CONTINUE, MY POINT IS THE HYDRANT THERE, UH, IS NOT, I MEAN, YOU ARE REMOVING THE PHYSICAL HYDRANT, BUT IT'S CAPPED. SO IF THERE, IF YOU GO BACK AND IF YOU KNOW, 10 YEARS DOWN THE LINE, UH, YOU HAVE THREE , PUT THE CARROT HOUSE OR SOMETHING ON ONE OF THESE LAWS, WE HAVE THE CAPACITY. WE HAVE THE CAPACITY. ALRIGHT, THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY UNDERSTANDING IS IT'S NOT NEEDED AT ALL THAT ACTUALLY THAT OTHER ONE, AS LONG AS THERE'S NO, IT'S ONLY THERE BECAUSE THERE'S A CUL-DE-SAC, BUT THAT OTHER ONE IS PLENTY [00:25:01] FAR, IS, WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT I COULD BE WRONG. I DID HAVE ONE. THANK YOU. UH, CHAIRPERSON, SIMON. SO MY QUESTION TO ANDY IS, IF WE LOOK AT THE PLAN SIDE BY SIDE, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE JUST ELIMINATING THE BULB OF THE CUL-DE-SAC, BUT NOT KIND OF LIKE THE ROAD THAT COMES IN BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAY COMES OFF THE ROAD. IS THAT ACCURATE OR IS THAT GONNA CHANGE? THAT'S YES, THAT'S CORRECT. THE, THE CUL-DE-SAC IS BEING REMOVED. THE, THE REST OF IT IS BASICALLY JUST CREATE IS THE DRIVEWAY OUT TO, TO CARROTS TRAIL. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD UNDERSTOOD THAT. YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO, UH, IN TERMS OF MOVING FORWARD, WE NEED TO, HAS A QUESTION, I BELIEVE. OKAY, I'M SORRY. YEAH. UH, ANDY, UH, I LIKE, UH, ELIMINATING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. SO THAT'S REALLY PLUS FOR, UH, THE ENVIRONMENTS AND THEN REDUCING THE, UH, FLOW INTO THE TOWN'S STORM WATER SYSTEM. UM, AND BUT MY QUESTION IS THAT HOW DOES THIS, THE PROPOSED THREE LOT OR THE CHANGE OF LOT LINE, EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOW OWNED BY THE SAME GUY, HOW DOES THE KIND OF, IF IT GOES BACK TO THE THREE LOTS, HOW DOES THE EXCESS WILL LOOK LIKE? IT WILL BE REVERT BACK TO WHAT, WHAT IS THERE NOW? OR NO, IT'S ON THE RIGHT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PROPOSED PLAN, THIS IS ONE LOT. YEAH, THIS IS ONE LOT. THIS IS ONE LOT. THIS IS ONE LOT. AND THESE ARE THE BORDERS ALL AROUND IT. SO THIS, THERE'S THREE LOTS. THERE'S JUST SHAPED DIFFERENTLY OR FOUR TOTAL LOTS HERE, FOUR TOTAL LOTS HERE, THEY'RE SHAPED DIFFERENTLY. THERE'S MORE GRASS BECAUSE YOU'RE GETTING RID OF THE CUL-DE-SAC. UM, AND YOU'RE WRITING A MISTAKE THAT WE MADE IN THE BEGINNING WHERE WE SHOULD HAVE PUSHED THIS OUT FARTHER ANYWAY. OKAY. SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT EVERY, EVERY LARGE HAVE A, UH, WOULD HAVE A ACCESS DIRECTLY FROM THE, UH, WHAT IS IT, CARNEGIE THAT THE ROAD IS YES. FOR, CORRECT. THIS IS, THIS IS CARRIAGE TRAIL, WHICH IS THE MAIN ROAD ROAD, OKAY. CARRIAGE TRAIL. YEAH. WE'RE, WE'RE ELIMINATING THIS CUL-DE-SAC OR THIS, THIS, THIS IS BEING ELIMINATED. THIS IS CONTINUING AS A, AS A DRIVEWAY. AND, UM, AND NOW EV ALL OF THE LOTS HAVE FRONTAGE ON CARRIAGE. OKAY. OKAY. AND I HAVE ONE QUESTION. OKAY. UM, I THINK I HEARD THE ANSWER, BUT I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM IT. UM, ANDY, IN THE PLANS THAT YOU SENT, THERE WAS ONE THAT SHOWED A SCHEMATIC, UH, WITH THREE HOUSES, ONE ON EACH LOT WITH A, A DRIVEWAY GOING TO EACH HOME. I THINK I HEARD THAT THAT WAS JUST FOR FIRE ACCESS PURPOSES. IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, WELL, YEAH, WHEN YOU'RE APPLYING, YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO SHOW THAT IT'S ILLEGAL LOT. SO THAT'S WHY THERE WAS SO MUCH NOISE ON ALL THOSE PLANS. BUT IN TRUTH, THIS IS, THIS IS ALL THERE IS AND THIS IS ALL THAT'S PLANNED. SO, UM, SO YEAH. SO THERE'S NO EXACTLY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO MR. HAY, IT WAS, IT WAS FOR PURPOSES OF DEMONSTRATING, UM, COMPLIANCE WITH THE CODE, IF THE LOTS WERE TO BE DEVELOPED AT SOME FUTURE TIME. SO, UH, GOOD QUESTION. UH, MY LAST QUESTION IS, ANDY, IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, THE CUL-DE-SAC WAS EITHER 80 OR 96 FOOT DIAMETER CUL-DE-SAC, DEPENDING ON WHEN IT WAS BUILT. UM, SO THAT'S A LOT OF PAVEMENT COMING OUT, WHICH IS GREAT. MY QUESTION IS, UM, RATHER THAN, AND, AND MAYBE YOU'VE ALREADY THOUGHT ABOUT THIS OR, AND OR SPOKEN WITH THE OWNER, BUT RATHER THAN IT NOW BEING, YOU KNOW, 96 FOOT DIAMETER BALL FIELDS, UM, COULD THERE BE ANY LIKE, TREES ADDED INTO THE AREA TO, YOU KNOW, ADD MORE CANOPY? YEAH, WELL, THEY'RE PLANNING PART OF ANOTHER, THERE'S A LOT OF REASONS. LET ME GO BACK TO A DIFFERENT PICTURE. UM, THE, BASICALLY THE AREA THAT THEY CAN BOTH SCREEN EACH OTHER OFF IS KIND OF LIKE RIGHT HERE. UM, BUT THIS IS VERY CLOSE TO THE POOL. THIS IS LIKE THIS, THE SHALLOWEST THING. SO NOW IT'S GONNA BUMP OUT, KIND OF CALL IT LIKE THIS. AND THEY'RE PLANNING ON PUTTING SCREENING BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES A LOT, YOU KNOW, A BUNCH OF, A BUNCH OF TREES IN ORDER TO NOT, SO THAT THEY DON'T SEE EACH OTHER. UM, SO, SO YES, THAT THE PLAN IS THAT, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO SAY THAT WE'RE GONNA PUT SOME TREES ON THAT HILLSIDE. OKAY. THANK YOU. CAN YOU, CAN YOU SHARE, UH, UH, WHEN THE PLAN IS READY, CAN YOU SHARE THAT WITH US? THE LANDSCAPE PLANNING YOU MEAN? YEAH, YEAH. UH, YEAH, I GUESS [00:30:01] I WOULD'VE TO GET IT MADE, BUT THERE, YES. UH, WE'LL GET A, WE'LL GET A LANDSCAPE PLAN MADE FOR THE NEXT MEETING. UM, UH, ACTUALLY IT WASN'T NECESSARILY FOR THE NEXT MEETING, IT WAS JUST SO THAT, UH, THAT AARON IN HIS CAPACITY, UH, HAVE, YOU KNOW, BE AWARE OF IT AND HE, YOU KNOW, UH, OH, SURE. DEFINITELY. GOT IT. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS APPLICATION? OKAY, SO IF NOT, I, I HAVE, UH, UM, A FEW THINGS THAT WE WOULD LIKE, UH, UH, UH, TO BE PRESENTED OR ACTIONS THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE. NUMBER ONE IS TO GET FEEDBACK FROM, UH, THE, FIRST OF ALL, TO GET AN UPDATE ON THE, THE, THE , THAT'S NUMBER ONE. AND THEN GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE BUILDING COMMISSIONER THAT, UH, THESE ARE, I'LL CALL 'EM, UH, AUXILIARY STRUCTURES ON THE, ON THESE, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF LEGALLY YOU COULD DEFINE THEM AS THAT, BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS EXPLANATION IS THAT, ARE THOSE STRUCTURES CONSISTENT, UH, WITH OUR BUILDING CODE? SO JUST GET CLARIFICATION ON, ON THAT. AND THE OTHER THING I HEARD IS THAT WE WILL GET A, UH, A LANDSCAPING PLAN TOGETHER AND, UH, AND, AND, UH, UH, FOR THIS PROJECT NOW, OUR SCHEDULE IS TO HAVE THE BUILDING, UH, INSPECTOR HERE AT OUR NEXT MEETING ON A DIFFERENT TOPIC. BUT IF HE, BUT, UH, UH, IT'LL BE GOOD THAT WHILE HE'S HERE, HE COULD ANSWER THE QUESTION. UH, WE PERTAIN IT TO GRAYSTONE SO WE COULD GET THE TWO QUESTIONS ANSWERED. UH, IF YOU COULD GET THE, DO YOU THINK YOU WOULD HAVE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN AVAILABLE IN TWO WEEKS? UM, IF YOU WANTED, I THOUGHT THAT DAVE SAID THAT I, HE JUST WANTS ME TO SHOW IT WHEN, LIKE, WHEN THE WORK IS DONE, BUT, UH, WE, WE CAN GET, I, I THINK PERSON, SIMON, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S NOT A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT THAT, UM, THERE'S NO TREES COMING OUT, SO THERE'S NOT OKAY. AN OBLIGATION ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT. I JUST WANTED TO ASK THE QUESTION BECAUSE I ALWAYS ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT TREES AND, AND ADDING CANOPY AND SCREENING, AND MR. TODD SAID THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE TWO OWNERS PLANNED TO DO BETWEEN THEMSELVES. I THINK WHAT MR. FREE WANTED IS JUST TO HAVE THAT DOCUMENTED FOR TOWN STAFF AND FOR THE FILE, AND TO GIVE ME AND MY OFFICE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT BEFORE IT'S CARRIED OUT. OKAY. AND, AND I THINK WE CAN, THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION. I THINK IT, IT DOESN'T CHANGE ANYTHING ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION. IF THERE, IF, WHEN WE GO TO FINAL SUBDIVISION, IF AT THAT TIME MR. TODD AND THE HOMEOWNERS CAN PRESENT THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL SO THAT AARON CAN, UH, YOU KNOW, TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND COMMENT AS NECESSARY. OKAY. SO, SO WE WILL HAVE A FOLLOW UP MEETING ON THE 16TH WHERE THESE OTHER TWO QUESTIONS CAN BE ADDRESSED, AND, AND HOPEFULLY THEY WILL BE ADDRESSED TO THE SATISFACTORY OF THE PLANNING BOARD, AND WE COULD MOVE FORWARD THE 20TH. AND AARON, THE NEXT, THE 20TH IS, YES, THE NEXT MEETING WILL BE THE 20TH, TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT. MY QUESTION WOULD BE, UM, GIVEN THAT IT, IT, IT VERY WELL MAY BE THE CASE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ALL JUST PERMITTED UNDER THE LANGUAGE ADOPTED WITH RESPECT TO THE PUD. YES. UM, VERSUS, YOU KNOW, SOME, YOU KNOW, INTERPRETATION BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR. THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE VERY CLEAR. MY THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT, AND I THINK WE CAN GET RESPONSE TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, IN A VERY TIMELY FASHION, AND THEN STILL HAVE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PRESENT TO BE ABLE TO ANSWER ANY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS. MY QUESTION TO, TO YOU AND THE BOARD IS, YOU KNOW, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A SECONDARY WORK SESSION OR ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THIS MOVING TOWARDS A PUBLIC HEARING? AND I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THAT AS A QUESTION. WELL, THE KEY THING IS TO GET THOSE, UM, UH, UH, TWO PIECES OF DOCUMENTATION. THE ONE ABOUT MAKE SURE WE GET THE UPDATED POD SO WE KNOW WHAT LAW WE ARE LOOKING AT, AND TO GET, UH, UH, VERIFICATION THAT THOSE TWO, LIKE I SAID, UH, ITEMS I DON'T, LIKE I SAID, I DON'T [00:35:01] KNOW, YOU COULD LEGALLY CALL 'EM ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, BUT THOSE REMAINING ITEMS ON THE LAND IS CONSISTENT WITH, UH, WHAT WE'RE DOING AND, AND, UH, UH, UH, REALIGNING, UM, UH, THOSE, UH, SUBDIVISION LINES. THAT'S IT. NOW IF, YEAH, UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, I, I THINK WHAT AARON'S ASKING IS IF WE COULD GET THOSE REALLY QUICKLY. YEAH. IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO NOTICE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE 20TH? IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, AARON? YEAH. NOW, WHEN, WHEN, WHEN DO YOU NEED, WHAT'S THE TIMELINE FOR THAT? WHEN DO YOU NEED THE NOTICE WOULD GO INTO THE PAPER ON FRIDAY AND THE MAILINGS WOULD GO OUT FRIDAY OF THIS WEEK. OKAY. OF THE DEADLINE. OKAY. AND, AND SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM IN DOING THAT WITH THE CLEAR RESPONSIBILITY, UH, UH, TO ANDY THAT THESE QUESTIONS WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED PRIOR TO CLOSING THE HEARING. SO IF WE DON'T GET ALL THE INFORMATION SATISFACTORY TO THE PLANNING BOARD, WE WILL ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ANOTHER DAY. BUT PROVIDING WE GET ALL THAT INFORMATION IN, THEN WE CAN, THAT, UH, WILL BE, WILL BE IN A POSITION TO CLOSE THE HEARING. OKAY. THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH. I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, THIS IS A PIN IN A PIECE IN, IN A GRASS WITH A SANDBOX. YEAH. AND THEN ON THE, YOU KNOW, AND THE OTHER ONE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN APPROVED, WE WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN A BUILDING PERMIT AND A C OF O ON IT IF WE DIDN'T, UM, IF IT WASN'T LEGAL. SO I'M VERY CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL BE, BUT IT'S TOTALLY FAIR ENOUGH TO SAY THAT. YEAH. AS LONG AS WE HAVE THE DOCUMENTATION ON RECORD, I'M FINE WITH THAT. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO WE'LL PUT IT ON FOR PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NEXT MEETING AND, UH, AND, UH, UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT WILL MAKE SURE THAT THOSE, UH, UH, ANCILLARY INFORMATION WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE PLANNING BOARD. YES. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY. I APPRECIATE IT. OKAY, THE NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA IS P P 1815. OKAY. UM, THIS, UH, WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE YES, WE DO CHAIRPERSON TIME. WE DO HAVE, UH, MR. ELLIOT SINOR HERE ON BEHALF OF, UH, THE APPLICANT OR THE OWNERS. AND, AND WE DO HAVE THE OWNERS HERE AS WELL. AND JUST AS A REMINDER AND TO THE BOARD AND, AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, THIS IS CASE NUMBER PB 18 DASH 15 COLUCCI GALLUS, UH, LOCATED AT 1 35 OLD ARMY ROAD PO. SCARSDALE. UH, AND THIS IS A REQUEST OR REALLY A DISCUSSION, UH, AMONGST THE BOARD AND, AND WITH THE APPLICANT AT THE REQUEST OF THE BOARD, UH, TO CONSIDER AN EXTENSION OF THE APPLICANT'S PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. SO THE BOARD HAD ASKED AT THE LAST MEETING FOR MR. SINOR AND EVEN POTENTIALLY THE OWNERS TO BE HERE. UH, THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS THAT CAME UP. SO I WILL TURN THINGS OVER TO MR. SENOR, AND, AND THEN WE HAVE THE OWNER AS WELL. THANK YOU. UH, YEAH, GOOD EVENING. UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. SO THIS, UH, SUBDIVISION, UH, WE HAD SUBMITTED, UH, BACK IN, UH, 2000 TO 2019, UH, PRIOR TO COVID. AND IT WAS A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. AND AT THE TIME, UM, AND THINGS REMAINED THE SAME AS THEY, THEY DID, THE PLAN IS STILL THE SAME, BUT AT THE TIME, UH, WE, UH, THE OWNERS WERE PLANNING ON MOVING THE SOLAR PANELS THAT, UM, WERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEWLY CREATED LADDER, THAT WHAT WAS GONNA BE THE VACANT LOT. AND, UM, AT THE TIME, SOMEBODY, ONE OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SAYS, WELL, WHY DON'T WE APPLY FOR A VARIANCE? UH, WE'LL LEAVE THEM, UH, ESSENTIALLY ACCESSORY USE ON A LOT WITHOUT A PRIMARY USE. AND, UM, AT THE TIME, UM, THEY HAD EVERY INTENTION OF MOVING IT TO THE, TO THE HOUSE LOT, UH, RELOCATING IT, BUT IT BECAME PROBLEMATIC, UM, ONCE COVID STARTED, UH, GETTING A CONTRACTOR, THE PRICE TO MOVE, IT WAS, UH, MORE THAN THE COST, UH, TO CREATE NEW. UM, AND SO, UH, WE ENDED UP GOING TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR A VARIANCE TO LEAD THE, UH, ACCESSORY USE IN A VACANT LOT, UH, WITH THE ASSURANCE. I THINK THAT IF THEY EVER SOLD A VACANT LOT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE, UH, RECTIFIED AT THAT TIME. [00:40:01] THEY DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE ANY, UH, PLANS ON SELLING THE VACANT LOT AT THIS TIME. UH, AND SO WE'RE BACK HERE TO, UM, I THINK, UH, UM, AARON, IF, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I THINK THE, UH, THE EXTENSION RAN OUT AND WE WERE HERE FOR, UH, EXTENSION OR, OR RE SUBDIVISION IT, IT, RIGHT. SO DURING C O I D, THE EXTENSION LAPS, SO IT WOULD BE A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION THAT YOU'D BE SEEKING. AND I BELIEVE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IF THE BOARD ENTERTAINED THAT AND APPROVED IT, UM, THEN YOU WOULD BE LOOKING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A FINAL SUBDIVISION. CORRECT. OKAY. UH, ONE OF, OKAY. THAT'S YOUR, YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE? YEAH, THAT WAS, UH, THAT WAS THE PRESENT. I HAVE THE PLAN HERE. IF YOU WANTED ME TO PUT IT UP, I CAN CERTAINLY PUT IT UP. UM, THIS IS THE, UH, YOU CAN SEE THAT NOW. THIS IS THE PLAN. THIS IS THE SOLAR PANELS HERE, UH, IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY. UH, OKAY. THAT'S THE PROPOSED DWELL THAT YOU PUT. ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS BY ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS ABOUT YEAH, I, I JUST WANTED TO CORRECT, UM, WHAT MR. CSOR SAID. I BELIEVE, BASED ON WHAT I'VE, I'VE READ, AND IF I'M WRONG, CORRECT ME. I DON'T THINK, UH, ANYONE ON THE PLANNING BOARD SUGGESTED YOU GO FOR A VARIANCE. I THINK, UH, MICHAEL BROUGHT UP, WELL, CAN'T YOU, UM, CAN'T YOU KEEP THEM THERE? AND I BELIEVE MR. CINO, IT WAS YOU WHO SAID, WELL, WE'D HAVE TO GO FOR A VARIANCE. SO THAT ISSUE WAS BROUGHT UP, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE PLANNING BOARD EVER SUGGESTED OR RECOMMENDED IT, UNLESS I'M WRONG. I'VE LOOKED AT THE RECORD. MAYBE I'M MISSING . RIGHT. I THINK THAT, UH, SOMEBODY SAID SOMETHING ABOUT, ABOUT LEAVING A MAYOR AND, AND GOING FOR A VARIANCE, BUT I DIDN'T, IT'S BEEN THREE YEARS. I DON'T REMEMBER THE TRANSCRIPT. I DIDN'T REMEMBER THE TRANSCRIPT. WELL, IF, IF I MAYBE HEARD MR. CHAIR, UH, YES. UH, MR. SS AND, UH, TO THE APPLICANTS, UM, I, I THINK I, UH, I SPEAK FOR EVERYONE, WHICH WE, WE, WE UNDERSTAND THE PROBLEM. ELLIOT, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU DO GO BACK IF YOU WANT US TO REVIEW THE MEETING. UH, IT WAS A QUESTION ASKED AS WHETHER YOU CAN, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE WAS ANY POSITION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. BUT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT, AND, UH, THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, UH, RAISED AT THE LAST MEETING IN, IN A QUESTION, UM, WE HAVE A, UM, SOME PROBLEMS HERE, AND THAT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY CAN'T, WE CAN'T FIND A WAY OF RESOLVING IT AT SOME POINT. BUT, UH, THIS IS NOT AS EASY AS IT SOUNDS. UH, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, UM, THE, UM, 2 77 6 OF THE TOWN LAW CLEARLY STATES THAT Z B A IS SUPPOSED TO GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, FOR RECOMMENDATION WHEN THERE IS AN AREA OF VARIANCE. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS HAS BEEN, UH, CAT CLASSIFIED BY THE Z B A AS AN AREA OF VARIANCE. THEY, UH, EVEN THOUGH A SUBDIVISION, UM, UH, A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION WAS GRANTED, AND IN FACT YOU NOTED THAT IN, IN YOUR APPLICATION TO THE Z B A, THEY NEVER CAME TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, FOR A RECOMMENDATION. AND, UH, I BELIEVE THE PLANNING BOARD HAS SOME, YOU KNOW, CONCERNS ABOUT IT. UM, I'M NOT SPEAKING ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. THE PLANNING BOARD MAY GO AHEAD AND MAKE A RECOMMENDATION OR MAY NOT. BUT IF THAT WERE IT, UH, THIS WOULD BE VERY SIMPLE, AND I WOULD, UH, UH, JUST SAY, TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. UM, BUT IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS THAT. UM, THE VARIANCE THAT THEY GRANTED, UM, BOTH ON THE NOTICE AND ON THE APPROVAL WAS UNDER 2 85, 36 G TWO, WHICH RELATES TO SWIMMING POOLS AND SAYS, SAID, POOL SHALL BE USED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO A DWELLING. THIS CLEARLY IS NOT A SWIMMING POOL. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, YOU KNOW, UM, THINGS GOT CROSSED, UH, BUT THAT, BUT YOU KNOW, IN LOOKING AT IT, I, I DON'T SEE A VALID VARIANCE FOR THIS PROJECT. AND THEN THERE'S A FINAL, UM, MATTER AND, UH, WHICH ALSO WAS RAISED AT, AT OUR LAST MEETING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS IN FACT AN AREA VARIANCE OR A USE VARIANCE IN THE DECISION BY THE Z B A. UH, THEY NOTED TWO THINGS. UH, THE FIRST IS, UH, THAT THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE IS SELF-CREATED, WHICH WE UNDERSTAND. I THINK EVERYONE KNOWS [00:45:01] THAT. UM, BUT ALSO THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL IN THAT IT IS NOT PERMITTED BY ANY MEANS UNDER THE ZONING CODE. I AM NOT, IT'S NOT MY JOB AND OR THE PLANNING BOARD'S JOB TO OPINE ON THE, ON THE ZONING CODE THAT GOES, THAT GOES TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND THE Z B A ULTIMATELY. BUT IF IT'S NOT PERMITTED, THAT DOES NOT SOUND LIKE IT'S AN AREA VARIANCE. AND, UH, IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S A USE VARIANCE. AND IN LOOKING THROUGH THE ALL THIS, AND, UH, I THINK THE, THE BEST COURSE IS TO GO BACK TO THE Z B A, UM, AND FIND OUT EXACTLY WHAT SORT OF VARIANCE THIS IS. AND I KNOW THAT THIS PUTS A LITTLE BIT OF STRAIN ON THE APPLICANT, BUT WE WANNA DO THIS RIGHT. WALTER, CAN I, CAN I, YES, GO AHEAD, MIKE. UM, IT, IT SEEMS, LOOK, IT, IT, DAVID, I'VE, I'VE LISTENED TO WHAT YOU SAID. UM, AND I REALLY, I DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL OF IT BECAUSE I'M NOT A ZONING EXPERT. UM, BUT IT SEEMS TO ME IF THE Z B A MADE AN IMPROPER DECISION, THE REMEDY IS FOR SOMEBODY TO TAKE AN ARTICLE 78, YOU KNOW, AND CHALLENGE THE ZBA A'S DECISION, AND I TAKE IT, THE PLANNING BOARD IS NOT GONNA DO THAT. UM, NUMBER TWO, UM, I MEAN, IF THE Z B A WRONGFULLY MADE A DECISION WITHOUT GETTING OUR RECOMMENDATION, WE COULD CERTAINLY WAIVE OUR RIGHT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THEY DIDN'T THINK THEY NEEDED IT. UM, NUMBER THREE, WHAT IS THE HARM IN LEAVING THIS STUFF ON THAT, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY NEXT DOOR? SO LONG AS THE APPLICANT PROMISES, AND I ASSUME THEY DO TO REMOVE IT, IF AND WHEN THE PROPERTY IS SOLD, I MEAN, IT'S BEEN THERE FOR HOW MANY YEARS? NOTHING'S CHANGED EXCEPT THERE'S BEEN A SUBDIVISION WITH AN IMAGINARY PROPERTY LOAN. SO, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IF YOU PARSE THROUGH THE STATUTES AND PARSE THROUGH THE CODE, IT GETS COMPLICATED. BUT TO ME IT'S SIMPLE. THERE'S NO HARM DONE. IF THE PROPERTY IS SOLD, THEY'LL GET RID OF THIS STUFF UNLESS THE NEIGHBOR WANTS IT. UM, AND IF THE ZBA DECISION IS WRONG, IT'S REALLY NONE OF OUR BUSINESS, I DON'T THINK. WELL, WELL, LEMME, LEMME RESPOND. FIRST OF ALL, UH, I DO WANNA RESPOND. FIRST OF ALL, WE ARE AT THE POINT WHERE, UH, THE SUBDIVISION HAS LAPSED, AND THE QUESTION GOES BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD, AND IT'S CERTAINLY WITHIN THEIR ITS DISCRETION. DO YOU WANT TO NON PRO NUN, PRO TRUNK APPROVE, UH, THE SUBDIVISION THAT'S COMPLETELY WITHIN YOUR DISCRETION? UM, AND IF THAT IS THE WILL OF THE BOARD, THEN THAT'S FINE. UH, BUT THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THE BOARD HAS TO BE AWARE OF. UM, AS FOR, UH, AN ARTICLE 78, WHILE I WOULD GENERALLY AGREE WITH YOU, THE FACT IS THAT WE ARE NOT, WE HAVE NOT GRANTED A FINAL SUBDIVISION. SO EVEN IF THERE WAS NO, THERE WAS NO NEED FOR AN EXTENSION, THE PLANNING BOARD COULD GO BACK AND NOT APPROVE THAT. BUT THAT'S A DECISION, UH, THAT IS MADE BY THE PLANNING BOARD WITHIN ITS DISCRETION. UM, YOUR SECOND POINT WAS, UM, SORRY, UM, WAS, UH, UH, ON WITH RESPECT TO THE ISSUE OF, WELL, YOU KNOW, IF WE ALL, YOU KNOW, ARE IN FAVOR, WE CAN GIVE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION ON IT. ABSOLUTELY. RIGHT. YOU CAN GIVE A POSITIVE, NEGATIVE OR NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION ON IT. UM, GOING BACK TO THE, UH, Z B A IF, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANTED. WELL, I THINK HE SAID EVEN TO WAIVE RECOMMENDATION, WELL WAIVE A RE WELL, I, I THINK YOU GIVEN THAT, UH, UH, UH, TO ME, A A A SIMPLER WAY OF DOING IT IS, IS, UH, UH, WITHOUT TALKING, UH, ABOUT, WITHOUT GETTING INTO WHETHER NOT THE, THE ZONING BOARD, UH, DID IT CORRECTLY OR NOT, OR WHETHER OR NOT ANY HARM IS DONE, UH, THE SIMPLE THING IS, IS THAT THE PERMIT HAS EXPIRED. THAT SIMPLE. AND, AND THE, THE ISSUE, WE COULD JUST SIMPLY DECIDE NOT TO RENEW IT. AND THEN, UH, YES, THEN THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO GO BACK AND DO IT THE CORRECT WAY. AND THEN, UH, AND, UH, AND, UH, IF THEY NEED A VARIANCE, THEY DO IT LIKE YOU, NORMALLY THEY COME TO US AND THEY TELL US WHAT, THEN WE GIVE A [00:50:01] POSITIVE, A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION ON THE VARIANCE. AND, AND IT'S CLEAN AND IT'S SIMPLE. WE, BECAUSE THERE IS A CHANGE FROM WHAT OUR ORIGINAL, UH, UH, PERMIT, UH, UH, UM, HAD IN IT, IT IS A CHANGE. SO WE, WE, I WOULD THINK, AND DAVID, YOU CORRECT ME THAT WE ARE PERFECTLY LEGAL GROUNDS TO SAY, YOU KNOW, YOU START OVER, THERE HAVE BEEN CASES WHERE, UH, A PERMIT HAS CHANGED. THE APPLICANT MADE NO CHANGES AND, AND, AND THAT APPLICATION. AND SO IF WE WERE TO SAY WE WERE NOT GOING TO RE, UH, RENEW IT, I MEAN, WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A CLEAR CASE NOT TO APPROVE IT THE SECOND TIME. SO ALL WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IS THAT THE APPLICANT SPEND TIME AND MONEY TO COME UP WITH A NEW APPLICATION. THIS ISN'T THE CASE HERE. THERE HAVE BEEN A CHANGE. SO IS ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT? DID I, DID I UNDERSTAND DAVID'S, UH, POINT ACCURATELY WHEN, WHEN YOU MENTIONED ABOUT THE VARIANCE THAT THERE'S NO APPLICABLE MM-HMM. VARIANCE THAT COULD BE APPLIED TO THIS PROPERTY. IS THAT ACCURATE OR NOT? UH, I, LET ME ANSWER THAT. AND I, I KNOW MR. SCHWARTZ HAS BEEN LAYING TO SPEAK WHAT, SORRY, WHAT? UH, NO, THERE, THERE IS, THERE ARE POSS THERE IS A POSSIBILITY OF AN, UH, OF A VARIANCE. THERE'S A POSSIBILITY OF THE A USE VARIANCE, UH, THAT'S MORE DIFFICULT TO GET. UH, IT IS POSSIBLE. UM, I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA RULE OUT, BECAUSE I CANNOT, UH, I DON'T INTERPRET THE ZONING AUDIENCE OR AUDIENCE. THERE MAY BE A WAY THAT, THAT, THAT THIS IS AN AREA VARIANCE, BUT IT'S NOT THE AREA VARIANCE THAT THEY, UH, NOTICED. THEY APPROVED, FORM APPROVED. AND, UM, I THINK IT'S WISE TO GET, UH, AN INTERPRETATION. AND JUST TO FOLLOW UP A MOMENT WITH WHAT THE, THE CHAIR SAID, THE IDEA IS NOT, YOU KNOW, IS TO GO BACK TO THE Z B A, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK. IF THIS BOARD, UH, SAYS WE'RE NOT GOING TO, UH, EXTEND THE TIME, IT'S THE, YOU KNOW, TO, YOU KNOW, SAVE THEM THE MONEY AND THE, UH, UH, THE GRIEF OF DOING THAT. IF THERE, IF IN FACT, UH, THERE'S A WAY OF DOING IT, UH, THROUGH THE Z B A. MR. SCHWARTZ. SORRY, HUGH, I DIDN'T SEE YOUR HAND UP. YOU, YOU, YOU'RE MUTED. YOU'RE MUTED. HUGH. HUGH? YEAH, THANK YOU. I'M NOT MUTED NOW. THANK YOU. UM, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME AGREE WITH MICHAEL. AND I THINK WHAT THE ZONING BOARD WAS TRYING TO DO WAS IT'S STATUS QUO. SO WHY DOES ANYBODY CARE? AND SO THEY WERE TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE, UH, THE APPLICANT, AND I FULLY UNDERSTAND THAT PART OF THE DECISION. UNFORTUNATELY, OUR LAW ZONING CODE AS WRITTEN DOESN'T ALLOW FOR THAT. IT, THE, IT'S VERY, IT'S VERY CLEAR, MICHAEL, IN THE, IN THE ZONING CODE, UM, THAT YOU CANNOT HAVE AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE ON A SUBDIVIDED PIECE OF, IN OUR PIECE OF PROPERTY WITHOUT A PRIMARY STRUCTURE. OKAY? AND AS ELLIOT SAID, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, HE CALLED IT A PRIMARY USE AND AN ACCESSORY USE, I EMPHASIZE USE, IT SEEMS TO ME THE SIMPLEST WAY TO SOLVE THIS, UH, THERE ARE TWO THINGS WE CAN DO. FIRST OF ALL, WE CAN GO BACK AND ASK FOR AN, FOR AN OPINION FROM THE ZONING BOARD WITHOUT GOING FOR AN ARTICLE 78. WE DON'T NEED TO DO AN ARTICLE 78. WE CAN COMMUNICATE WITH THEM. THAT'S THE FIRST THING WE COULD DO. BUT THE SIMPLEST SOLUTION, YOU'RE NOT SELLING THE PROPERTY ANYWAY. THE THIS HAS LAPSED APPLY FOR IT WHEN YOU'RE SELLING IT. I MEAN, YOU, YOU'VE GOT A, A, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A, A PRETTY MUCH A PLAN THAT WE'VE ALL LOOKED AT AND DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH. OKAY? WE HAVE A, YOU HAVE A RECORD THAT YOU'VE CREATED ON THAT. IT WAS PROVED ONCE YOU COME BACK AGAIN AT THE TIME YOU'RE SELLING IT. YEAH. OKAY. IT MAKES THE MOST SENSE TO ME. AND THEN YOU DON'T GO THROUGH THIS. THE PROBLEM IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE TO ME IS THE FACT THAT WE APPROVED A SUBDIVISION, ASSUMING THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE REMOVED AS IT NEEDS TO BE UNDER THE LAW. AND BY THE WAY, WHETHER OR NOT WE INTERPRET THE ZONING CODE, WE SHOULDN'T BE BLIND TO IT EITHER ON THIS BOARD. WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THE ZONING CODE. AND IF WE SEE SOMETHING THAT ISN'T WITHIN THE ZONING CODE, I THINK IT IS OUR DUTY AS OFFICERS OF THE TOWN TO POINT THAT OUT. OKAY? WE, WE [00:55:01] DO, DO WE WORK UNDER THE SAME CODE AS THE, AS THE ZONING BOARD DOES? WE ALL WORK UNDER THAT CODE, BUT IT'S, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THEY ARE THE ULTIMATE ARBITER OF THE CODE. OKAY? SO I THINK THE BEST IDEA AT THIS POINT WOULD BE, UM, LEAVE THE THING WHERE IT IS, DON'T GRANT, AND THE EXTENT IT'S BEEN 11 MONTHS, THIS THING HAS BEEN EXPIRED ANYWAY, YOU'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT SELLING THE PROPERTY ANYWAY, SO COME BACK TO US WITH A PLAN WHEN YOU'RE SELLING THE PROPERTY. THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE, BE THE BEST WAY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE. OKAY. UM, KA UH, YEAH, MY QUESTION. YEAH. UH, I'M LOOKING AT THE, UH, ZONING BOARD DECISION, AND THEY'RE SAYING IT'S A TEMPORARY VARIANCE. SO, UH, MY QUESTION IS THAT, IS THAT, UH, UH, AND THEN THEY, UH, KIND OF SAID IN THE NEXT PAGE THAT IT IS, UH, WHEN THEY SELL IT, THEY HAVE TO KIND OF, UH, REMOVE, UH, WHEN THEY SELL THE LOAD, NOT, SO, DAVID QUESTION IS THAT, WHAT IS THE TEMPORARY VARIANCE AND DO THEY HAVE A, A PROVISION IN THE TOWN CODE TO ALLOW SORT OF TEMPORARY VARIANCE THAT EXPIRES WHEN THEY SELL THE LOT? DAVID, I , I'M, I KNOW, I KNOW. YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT A ZONING BOARD. THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION. THAT'S MY CONFUSION. THAT IS ANOTHER QUESTION THAT CAN BE POSED BACK TO THE Z B A, UM, BECAUSE I CANNOT GIVE ONE, I CANNOT GIVE AN OPINION ON IT. 'CAUSE IT'S NOT MY PLACE TO DO THAT. UH, I THINK IT IS A, I THINK IT'S A VALID QUESTION. LIKE THE OTHER ONE, I MEAN, I LIKE, UH, MR. SCHWARTZ'S, UH, SUGGESTION, BUT THAT ULTIMATELY IS UP TO THE APPLICANT AS THEY WANT TO DO. WHAT? IF THEY WANT TO DO, IF THEY WANNA PURSUE IT, UM, THEN THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD. AND IF THERE IS A JUSTIFICATION OR IF THERE'S A WAY BY A USE VARIANCE, IF, UH, IF WE ARE RIGHT IN OUR BELIEF THAT IT'S A USE VARIANCE, THEN THAT'LL HAPPEN. I THINK WHAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM THE BOARD, UM, UH, IS THAT I DON'T THINK THERE IS A GENERAL CONCERN AS TO WHAT YOU WANNA DO, BUT, UH, THAT IT'S GOTTA BE DONE THE RIGHT WAY. UM, BUT DAVID, IF, IF, UH, CONSIDERING THAT WHAT ZONING BOARD DID IS LEGAL AND IT'S, UH, PROPERLY VETTED BY THE ATTORNEY, UH, OF THE ZONING BOARD, UH, SO IN THAT CASE, I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT WE HAVE TO REALLY, UH, CONCERN, I KNOW THERE IS SOME MINOR DETAILS, BUT IF THIS IS IN FACT, LIKE WHAT MICHAEL'S SAYING, UH, IS, IS IS SOMETHING THAT IS ALREADY HAPPENED, ONE OF, WE SORT OF, UH, LET THEM LET THE ZONING BOARD STAND AND, UH, WE KIND OF GIVE THEM AN EXTENSION OF THE PERMIT PERMIT. I'LL LET MR. SCHWARTZ ANSWER THAT. GO AHEAD. THANK, THANK YOU, DAVID. IT'S VERY SIMPLE. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING. RIGHT. OKAY. THE ANSWER IS WE APPROVED A PLAN, CORRECT. THAT HAD THIS BEING REMOVED. AS I SAID, THE, WHAT THEY TRIED TO DO IN THE ZONING BOARD, I THINK WAS LAUDABLE. AND I THINK MAYBE WE NEED TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT OUR TOWN CODE TO ALLOW FOR THIS. OKAY. UM, WHAT THEY DID, I THINK THAT'S FINE. THE PROBLEM WAS IF THEY, IF THEY HAD DONE IT THE CORRECT WAY, WE WOULD'VE REVISED THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION TO INCLUDE THE VARIANCE. THEY DIDN'T EVEN GO, THEY APPLIED FOR VARIANCE, BUT DIDN'T APPEAL THE DECISION OF THE PLANNING BOARD EITHER. SO CAN I FINISH PLEASE? WELL, LET'S DO FINISH, PLEASE. I'LL FINISH. AND THEN ELLIOT, YOU CAN TALK. UM, THEY DID, SO THEY DIDN'T EVEN OVERTURN THE PLANNING BOARD DECISION AND WHAT THEY DID, THEY PUT A VARIANCE ON SOMETHING WE HAD A MUTUAL AGREEMENT FOR, AND THEY DIDN'T EVEN APPEAL OUR DECISION. SO THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT ISSUES HERE THAT FRANKLY HAVE LITTLE TO DO WITH THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY, BUT IT COULD ALSO BE PRECEDENT SETTING FOR THE FUTURE. IT ISN'T ONLY ABOUT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND THE SIMPLE SOLUTION TO THIS IS DON'T APPROVE THE EXTENSION, LET THEM FILE THE PAPERS CORRECTLY, LET THEM THEN GO BACK TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR THE VARIANCE IF THAT, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WANT AS PART OF THE, THE NEW, THE NEW PROCEDURE. I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN, IF WE EXTEND WHAT, DAVID, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IF WE TRY EXTEND WHAT'S THERE, THERE, [01:00:01] NOW IT'S IN CONFLICT WITH THE ZONING BOARD. IT'S NOT EVEN, WELL, WE, WE WE'RE ONLY EXTENDING WHAT OUR APPROVAL WAS. SO WHAT? RIGHT. SO PLAYING THIS OUT, THEORETICALLY, UH, WE, UH, WE EXTEND IT, WE EXTEND IT FOR 90 DAYS, AND UH, AND 30 DAYS THEY COME TO US AND THEY SAY, OKAY, HERE, WHAT, HERE'S WHAT WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE THIS, UM, UH, BUT WE'RE GONNA LEAVE THESE ON. WELL, THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL CHANGE. WELL, DID YOU, UH, YOU KNOW, DID YOU, UH, WHEN YOU, UH, GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD, AND, AND I'M REALLY ASKING MORE FOR THE Z B A, BUT DID THE Z B A GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND ASK ITS OPINION ON IT? UH, AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO. SO THEY DO. SO LET'S, LET'S SAY THEY THEN COME TO US AND THEY STILL, UM, AND, UH, AND WE GAVE FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION ON THIS. OKAY? WE COULD GIVE A POSITIVE, WE COULD GIVE, BUT WE GIVE A NEGATIVE ONE. UM, THEY STILL CAN COME TO US WITH THE REQUEST TO HAVE THIS CHANGE SAYING, WAVING, HEY, WE'VE GOT A VARIANCE HERE. BUT THE QUESTION IS, THE PLANNING BOARD IS WITHIN ITS DISCRETION. NOW. THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE. DO YOU WANT TO APPROVE IT? THE ANSWER IS YOU MAY WANNA APPROVE IT. THE ANSWER IS YOU MAY NOT, BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER ISSUES INVOLVED, SUCH AS WHETHER OR NOT, UH, YOU'RE SETTING A PRECEDENT. SO ALL THOSE THINGS, AND THAT'S WHY WHEN I STARTED WITH THIS, I SAID IT WAS TROUBLING. UM, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I I, I FELT A NEED TO ADDRESS THIS TO THE BOARD BECAUSE, UH, IT IS A, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE, UM, ERRORS THAT WERE MADE, UM, YOU KNOW, W WITH EVEN JUST NOTICING THE VARIANCE AND, AND THE TYPE OF VARIANCE, I THINK ELLIOT WAS NEXT. HE WANTED TO RESPOND, AND I SEE THAT. YEAH. AND THEN WE HAVE MICHAEL, MICHAEL AND, AND ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS. WELL, WELL, YEAH. ALL RIGHT. I, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT WE DIDN'T DO THIS IN A VACUUM. WE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT THE PAPERWORK THAT, THAT, AND IN DISCUSSION WITH THEM, WHAT DO WE DO TO APPLY FOR A VARIANCE? SO IT'S NOT THAT WE, UM, JUST WENT AHEAD AND SUBMITTED TO, YOU KNOW, ASKED THE ZONING BOARD FOR THIS. IT WAS ALL IN DISCUSSION WITH TOWN, TOWN, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, PROFESSIONALS. UM, WHAT THEY GRANTED WAS WHAT THEY GRANTED. THEY, THEY KNEW WHAT WE WANTED AND THEY, YOU KNOW, CAME UP WITH AN APPROVAL, WHETHER TEMPORARY. IT'S TEMPORARY BECAUSE IN THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING BOARD, UM, UH, VARIANCE IS IT SAYS THAT IT HAS TO BE MOVED IF ANYTHING'S EVER SOLD. AND AS FAR AS WAITING FOR SOME FUTURE DATE, WHEN WE WANNA SELL THIS, I MEAN, EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT COUNT CODES CHANGE, UM, BEFORE WE SUBDIVIDED. YOU CHANGE THE, CHANGE, THE, YOU KNOW, SETBACKS, UH, AREAS OR SOMETHING. UM, YOU DID AWAY WITH FLAG LOTS, YOU INCREASED, UH, BUILDING SETBACKS, THEY CHANGE. AND WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT WHETHER WE REALIZE THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE CODE IN SOME 10 YEARS, FIVE YEARS, TWO YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. UM, THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO SUBDIVIDE IT NOW, BECAUSE EVERYTHING PEOPLE ON THE BOARD CHANGE. SO, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY IN THE FUTURE MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME, UH, THE SAME THOUGHTS ABOUT IT, WHETHER OR, OR THE CODES. UM, SO THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SAY. WE DIDN'T DO THIS IN A VACUUM. WE DID IT WITH THE KNOW FULL KNOWLEDGE OF THE TOWN, UH, PROFESSIONALS. AND, UH, THAT, AND THAT'S WHY WE WANNA TRY AND DO IT NOW. I MEAN, THE, THERE'S, WELL, THERE'S ANOTHER ALTERNATIVE. THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS THAT, UH, IS THAT IT GETS REMOVED ALSO CONSISTENT WITH THE, UM, UH, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION. I KNOW IT'S, MICHAEL WANTS TO GO, OH, LET MICHAEL, MICHAEL, UH, LEMME SEE. OKAY. I'M OFF MUTE. OKAY. SO I HAVE A QUESTION, AND AT LEAST ONE COMMENT PROBABLY SCORES MORE MY MY QUESTION TO AARON IS THIS, LET'S ASSUME, LET'S ASSUME, UH, AARON, THAT THE, UH, Z B A DECISION WAS COMPLETELY KOSHER. THERE'S NO OBJECTION TO IT. WHAT ARE WE VOTING ON? SO, WILL YOU, WOULD, YOU WOULD BE VOTING SITTER, A RETROACTIVE YOUNG PROP EXTENSION OF THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, WHICH INVOLVED AND AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN ON THE SCREEN FOR THE SOLAR PANELS TO BE REMOVED. OKAY. BUT THEY DON'T WANT THEM REMOVED. THEY WANT AN EXTENSION LEAVING THEM THERE. SO WE WOULD, WOULD WE HAVE TO AMEND, WE'D HAVE TO AMEND THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, RIGHT? [01:05:02] NO, I THINK YOU WOULD'VE TO FA FACE THAT. WAIT, ALLOW THE PANEL. WHY NOT TIME, PLEASE. IS, UM, IF YOU RETROACTIVELY EXTENDED THE PRELIMINARY, THEN WHEN THEY COME IN FOR FINAL AS CHAIRPERSON, SIMON ASKED ME ON ANOTHER CASE EARLIER THIS EVENING, HAS ANYTHING CHANGED BETWEEN PRELIMINARY AND FINAL MM-HMM. IN THIS CASE? I WOULD INDICATE THAT YES, THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE. THE PLANS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED, UH, TO RETAIN THE SOLAR PANELS AND THE APPLICANT OBTAINED A VARIANCE, AND THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD THEN HAVE TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD PERMIT, UH, THIS AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SUBDIVISION OR SOMETHING ELSE. AND I WOULD ENVISION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD END UP HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE THERE'S BEEN A CHANGE TO THE PLAN. OKAY. WHICH IS ALLOWED AND, AND ACTUALLY REQUIRED UNLESS WAIVED, UH, UNDER THE CODE. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF THINGS IN MOVING PIECES HERE. OKAY. HOW, HOW MUCH OF AN EXTENSION ARE THEY ASKING FOR? NOW? IT IS CUSTOMARY TO REQUEST, UH, 90 DAYS NOW. IT WOULD BE 90 DAYS FROM TODAY. SO IT WOULD BE RETROACTIVE FOR ROUGHLY 11 MONTHS, AND THEN 90 DAYS FROM PRESENT DATE. OKAY. ACTUALLY, I THINK, I THINK IT EXPIRED LAST SEPTEMBER. SO, OH, I'M SORRY. 13. WE'RE TALKING OVER A YEAR, UH, OVER A YEAR IN 90 MONTHS. 15. ALRIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. WHAT, WHAT? BUT, BUT I HAVE A COMMENT. MY COMMENT IS THIS. LOOK, UM, I, I AM TROUBLED, I'M TROUBLED BY THE NOTION THAT WE DON'T LIKE THE Z B A DECISION. WE SHOULD CHALLENGE IT, AND WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD LET OUR DISAGREEMENT WITH THE Z B A DECISION AFFECT OUR CURRENT DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION. I MEAN, I COULD THINK OF AT LEAST TWO Z B A DECISIONS IN RECENT MEMORY, WHICH SEEMED RIDICULOUS TO ME AND PROBABLY TO OTHER MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD. AND I'M NOT GONNA MENTION 'EM, IT'S NO POINT. BUT NOBODY CHALLENGED THEM BECAUSE WE KINDA LIKED THE RESULT. OKAY. UM, YOU KNOW, LET'S ASSUME THE Z B A MADE A WRONG DECISION. I MEAN, A FEW PEOPLE TONIGHT SAID, YOU KNOW, I'M IN NO POSITION TO CHALLENGE A Z B A DECISION. I'M IN NO POSITION TO MAKE A, YOU KNOW, LEGAL DETERMINATION AS TO WHAT THE ZONING CODE SAYS. WHATEVER THAT'S UP TO THE Z B A. AND AS MUCH AS IN OUR OWN HEARTS, WE MAY THINK THE Z B A DECISION WAS WRONG, AND I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS OR NOT. UM, I REALLY DON'T THINK THAT THAT SHOULD GUIDE SOMEBODY. SOMEBODY'S NOT ON MUTE. I DON'T THINK THAT SHOULD GUIDE OUR DECISION HERE. AND I'LL JUST REPEAT WHAT I SAID BEFORE. THERE'S NO HARM IN LEAVING THESE BLOODY THINGS THERE. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T SEE THEM FROM THE ROAD. THE NEIGHBORS CAN'T SEE THEM. THEY'VE PROBABLY BEEN THERE FOR YEARS. WHAT'S THE HARM WHEN THEY SELL THE PROPERTY? THEY'LL COME FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME KIND OF AMENDMENT AMENDED FINAL SITE PLAN AND, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD DEAL WITH IT THEN. AND I DON'T, I DON'T REALLY SEE PUSHING THE APP, PUTTING THE APPLICANT THROUGH A WHOLE NEW PROCESS, GOING THROUGH THE Z B A. AGAIN, MAKING AN APPLICATION AGAIN, IT SEEMS COMPLETELY POINTLESS TO ME. THAT'S IT. OKAY. OKAY. SO MS. , PARDON? YOU UNMUTE AND SPEAK. HI. I'M SORRY. I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT THE UNMUTE. UM, WE APPRECIATE YOU HAVING US AT THE BOARD MEETING. UM, SO WE CAN MAYBE UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS. UM, THE SIMPLE, I DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL THE RULES. I'M NOT A LAWYER. I CERTAINLY DON'T UNDERSTAND HALF THE LAWYERS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. UM, BUT THE SIMPLE THING IS, IS THAT SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE WE GOT, I GUESS, PRELIMINARY APPROVAL FOR A SUBDIVISION UNDERSTANDING THAT THE SOLAR PANELS HAD TO BE MOVED. UM, COVID HIT TRYING TO GET SOMEBODY, NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT WAS IMPOSSIBLE. UM, WHEN WE FINALLY DID GET PEOPLE, THE COST IS ASTRONOMICAL. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE COST TO MOVE THEM TO OUR SIDE IS BECAUSE OF COVID ON TOP OF EVERYTHING ELSE. UM, BUT IT'S ASTRONOMICAL AND CERTAINLY WAY MORE THAN WHAT WE PAID FOR THE SUB, FOR THE, UH, SOLAR PANELS. AND CERTAINLY ISN'T WORTH TRYING TO SAVE ENERGY OR SAVE MONEY AS FAR AS ENERGY IS CONCERNED. SO WHAT IT COMES DOWN TO IS, DO WE THROW THESE OUT? THAT GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING, AT LEAST THAT I STAND FOR AS FAR AS REUSE, REDUCE, RECYCLE, AND TRYING TO PUT THE GREEN BACK IN GREENBERG, UM, WHEN WE BUILT OUR HOUSE, WE BUILT IT SO THAT WE COULD PUT AS LITTLE A CARBON FOOTPRINT AS WE COULD. AND WE DID. [01:10:01] I MEAN, BESIDES THE SOLAR PANELS, WE HAVE GEOTHERMAL HEATING, WE HAVE A, UM, TANKLESS WATER HEATER. SO AGAIN, THE WHAT IT COMES DOWN FOR US WHEN IT COMES TO COST IS DO WE THROW THEM OUT? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY MOVING THEM IS REALLY NOT GONNA BE AN OPTION. UNFORTUNATELY, I WISH IT WAS, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO BE. UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE CAN AFFORD TO GO BACK AND START DOING THIS ALL OVER AGAIN EITHER. SO IT REALLY WOULD COME DOWN TO THROWING THEM OUT, WHICH AGAIN, GOES AGAINST EVERYTHING. I DON'T WANNA SEE THEM GO INTO A LANDFILL. THERE'S VERY LITTLE OF IT THAT YOU CAN RECYCLE ACCORDING TO WHAT PEOPLE TELL ME WITH OUR RESEARCH. SO AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWERS. I DON'T KNOW IF WE DID SOMETHING WRONG OR SOMETHING WENT WRONG WITH THE Z B A OR WHOEVER THEY ARE. BUT THAT'S THE BOTTOM LINE. I MEAN, THE BOTTOM LINE IS THEY'VE BEEN THERE, LIKE MR. GOLDEN SAID, THEY DON'T DO ANYTHING. THEY JUST PRODUCE ELECTRICITY FOR US, SELL IT. THEY, WE SEND IT BACK TO CON EDISON AND WE PAY IT BACK. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO PAY TO GET THE ELECTRICITY BACK, WHATEVER IT IS. BUT, UM, IT CERTAINLY WAS SOMETHING WE ALWAYS WANTED TO DO. WE DID, ALONG WITH OTHER THINGS THAT WE DID WHEN WE BUILT THE HOUSE, LIKE I SAID, UM, TO TRY TO REDUCE THE CARBON FOOTPRINT THAT WE WERE PUTTING, IF ANYTHING ON THE LAND WHEN WE WERE BUILDING. UM, AND THAT ALSO INCLUDED DOING A MODULAR BECAUSE THAT WAS A LOT LESS WASTE. THERE WAS HARDLY ANY WASTE AS FAR AS WOOD OR ANYTHING ELSE. UM, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW THE RIGHT ANSWERS. I'M NOT ON THE BOARD. I DON'T WANT IT TO BE BREAKING LAWS OR ANYTHING. BUT THIS IS EVENTUALLY, IF WE DO SELL THE LOT, WE DO UNDERSTAND THAT, OR THE PLAN FOR US IF WE SELL THE LOT, QUOTE UNQUOTE, IS TO SELL IT TO OUR SON BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE WANTED. WE WANTED TO SUBDIVIDE SO THAT ONE SON WOULD GET A HOUSE AND ONE SON WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD A HOUSE. HOPEFULLY THAT SECOND SON WHO GETS THE SOLAR PANELS WOULD WANT THEM IF THAT WAS EVEN POSSIBLE AT THAT POINT. BUT THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE PLAN, OUR PLAN IS. IT'S NOT REALLY A FANCY PLAN, IT'S JUST WHAT IT IS. AND I'M SORRY IF IT BROKE A LAW OR WHATEVER IT DID, SOMETHING WENT WRONG ALONG THE WAY, I'M NOT SURE. BUT THAT WASN'T OUR INTENTION IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, LET ME ASSURE YOU. OKAY. YOU HAVE NOT, YOU HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING WRONG. OKAY. BUT THERE'S A PROCESS THAT WE, WHAT WE WERE DISCUSSING. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION, UM, FOR YOU, AND THIS MAY HELP, UH, THE BOARD, UH, MOVING FORWARD IS ARE YOU USING THE SOLAR PANELS NOW? AND IS IT YOUR INTENTION TO USE THEM, UM, EVEN AFTER THE SUBDIVISION? BEFORE YOU, JUST BEFORE YOU, UM, ABSOLUTELY SELL THE HOUSE. OKAY. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. WE HAD PLAN, I MEAN, THE PLAN WAS NEVER TO NOT USE THEM. WE LOVE HAVING THEM. IT WAS THE GREATEST THING WE PROBABLY EVER DID. UM, SO, UH, BUT WE DID UNDERSTAND THAT IF IT, WE SOLD THE PROPERTY AGAIN, THE PLAN WAS IF WE SOLD IT WAS GONNA BE TO A SON, UM, THAT, UM, IT WOULD EITHER HAVE TO BE REMOVED IS WHAT WE WERE TOLD. I'M JUST THINKING AS I'M SITTING HERE TALKING TO YOU ALL, IF IT COULD STAY TO BE USED ON A SECOND HOME THAT WAS BEING BUILT THERE, GREAT. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT CAN BE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LAW WILL BE AT THE TIME OR WHAT THE RULES ARE AT THE TIME. UM, BUT YES, WE PLAN ON USING THEM. WE'RE USING THEM NOW. I LOVE THEM. I THINK EVERYBODY SHOULD HAVE 'EM, BUT THAT'S MY OWN PERSONAL OPINION. OKAY. MONA HASN'T SPOKEN YET. LET SPEAK. OH, MONA, MAYBE IT'S JUST ME, BUT I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THEY WERE NO LONGER BEING USED. THE SOLAR PANEL. OH, NO. THEY'RE BEING USED. NO, THEY'RE BEING USED. OKAY. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT WAS JUST ME, BUT I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THEY WERE NO LONGER BEING USED. THE SOLAR PANELS. THIS IS THE FIRST I'M HEARING THAT THEY ARE STILL CURRENTLY BEING USED. AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION INTENT. THE INTENT WAS TO JUST GET RID OF THE SOLAR PANELS. SO I AM SO HAPPY THAT YOU CHOSE TO SPEAK JUST NOW. AND THAT DAVE, YOU ASKED HER THAT QUESTION, THE FACT THAT THEY ARE CURRENTLY BEING USED AND THE INTENT IS TO HAVE THEM BE USED AND YOUR INTENT IS TO SELL THE OTHER PORTION TO YOUR SON AND TO HAVE THEM CONTINUE TO BE USED HAS ME IN SUCH A BETTER PLACE RIGHT NOW. YOU HAVE NO IDEA. , YOU HAVE NO IDEA. I'M VERY HAPPY TO HEAR THAT. . OKAY. I HAVE A SOLUTION. I'M VERY HAPPY TO HEAR THAT. IS THERE ANY WAY WE CAN KEEP THESE SOLAR PANELS STILL? I HAVE A SOLUTION, GUYS. THANK YOU. GO . LET ME GIVE YOU A SOLUTION. OKAY? FIRST OF ALL, AGAIN, IT WASN'T ANY, YOU DIDN'T BREAK ANY LAWS. WE HAVEN'T BROKEN ANY LAWS. WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO IS THE RIGHT THING. OKAY? LET ME SAY THAT, AND I APOLOGIZE THAT WE HAVE LAWS THAT MAKE THIS DIFFICULT, BUT WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO FIX THIS LAW. IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT WE NEED TO FIX THE LAW. UNFORTUNATELY, WE HAVE A LAW THAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED. SO HOW DO WE GET AROUND IT? THIS IS WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND, THAT WE JUST CONTINUE TO EXTEND THE SUBDIVISION UNTIL THE TIME OF SALE. EXACTLY. THAT'S ALL PERFECT. CAN WE EXTEND IT FOR MORE [01:15:01] THAN 90 DAYS? ARE WE, WE CAN EXTEND IT AS LONG AS WE WANT. CAN WE, DAVE? YEAH, I MEAN, I, I DON'T WANNA GO WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE HOPING THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA GO 20, 30 YEARS DOWN THE LINE. . UH, I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THE PLAN IS. UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW OLD YOUR SONS ARE, BUT, UM, THE, THE PURPOSE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE REASON WHY WE SOMETIMES LET THESE THINGS LAPSE IS BECAUSE AS, AS MR. SENIOR SAID, THINGS CHANGE OVER TIME. THERE MAY BE A TREE LAW, THEY MAY, MAY BE SOMETHING HERE, HERE, WE'RE PRETTY SURE WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. WE'RE PRETTY SURE, UM, YOU KNOW, THE REASONS WHY, UM, THE FAMILY WANTS TO KEEP THIS AND THE, AND THE FACT THAT THEY'RE USING THIS, UM, AND THAT IF WE FORCE 'EM INTO A DEC DECISION THAT, UH, THEY HAVE TO SELL IT OR, YOU KNOW, BEFORE IT'S TIME. UM, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT SERVING, UH, THE PUBLIC. IT'S NOT, UH, BENEFITING THE PUBLIC. UM, SO ASSUMING ALL THINGS, UH, REMAIN SAME, AND THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGES, UH, TO THE PLAN AS WE GO FORWARD FROM, UH, YOU KNOW, 90 DAYS HERE, 90 DAYS THERE, I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY, UH, I'LL HAVE TO CHECK THE CODE, UM, UH, AS TO WHETHER OR NOT, UH, I MEAN WE, UH, I WOULD PROBABLY SUGGEST, UM, WE DO 180 DAYS IF IT'S, IF IT'S EVEN, UH, THE LONGEST WE COULD POSSIBLY DO. OKAY. CAN I, CAN I, CAN I SUGGEST THE LANGUAGE, WALTER? YEAH. BUT FOR A SECOND. OKAY. BUT BEFORE THAT, I JUST WANT TO GET CLARIFICATION ON WHAT YOU PROPOSED. YOU ARE SAYING THAT WE EXTEND THE PERMIT. UH, SO YOU'RE NOT SAYING THAT WE HAVE A PERMIT. I MEAN, EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY PRELIMINARY. WE EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY, UH, SUBDIVISION. RIGHT? BUT WE DO NOT AT THIS TIME, GRANT THE FINAL SUBSIDY. RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOU PROPOSED? 'CAUSE THAT'S, BECAUSE EXACTLY. OKAY, FINE. I JUST WANNA GET THAT IS WENT. THE REASON I'M SAYING THAT IF IT'S KIND OF LIKE EX WHAT THE Z ZONING BOARD TRIED TO DO. OKAY. WHICH W WERE A TEMPORARY VARIANCE, WHICH IF IT'S IN THE LAW, I HAVEN'T FOUND IT, BUT LET'S SAY, BUT WHAT THEY TRIED TO DO WAS SMART, AND THEY WERE TRYING TO FIGURE A WAY OF, OF DOING IT. SO IT DIDN'T LOOK, IT WASN'T REALLY IN VIOLATION OF LAW, BUT THEY REALLY COULDN'T DO THAT. RIGHT. BUT THEY, BECAUSE ALL THEY CONTROL IS, WELL, AT THE TIME OF SALE, THIS VARIANCE GOES AWAY. OKAY. WELL, WE JUST SAY AT THE TIME OF FINAL SUBDIVISION THAT IT HAS TO BE REMOVED. THAT'S WHAT WE SAY IN OUR DECISION TONIGHT TO EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION. THAT, THAT THE PRELIMINARY, THE, THE CONDITIONS OF THE EXI, OF THE PRELIMINARY SUB SUBDIVISION QUILT WOULD HAVE TO BE ENFORCED TO GET THE FINAL SUBDIVISION THAT GETS AROUND, UM, ELLIOT'S ISSUE WITH THE, UH, CHANGING ANYTHING, AS YOU SAID, DAVE, I DON'T THINK ANYTHING IS GONNA CHANGE HERE, BUT YOU KNOW, WHO KNOWS? SO THAT GETS AROUND THAT, THAT THAT'S THE ONLY REASON IT'S NOT BEING GRANTED. WE PUT THAT INTO THE RECORD. THAT'S WHY WE WOULD NOT GRANT A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION UNTIL, I MEAN, A FINAL SUBDIVISION, UNTIL, UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS SOLD. IN WHICH CASE, THE, THE, WHAT WE HAVE IN THEIR STANCE. I THINK THAT SOLVES IT, WALTER. OKAY. SO, UM, I HAVE A COMMENT, A QUESTION, THEN A MOTION. THE COMMENT IS THIS, YOU KNOW, EVERYBODY'S BEEN ASSUMING, INCLUDING MYSELF AND THE Z B A WITH THEIR TEMPORARY, YOU KNOW, VARIANCE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE SOLAR PANELS WILL BE REMOVED UPON SALE OF THE PROPERTY. BUT THAT'S RIDICULOUS. WHAT IF THE NEW BUYER, WHETHER IT BE, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT'S SON OR ANYBODY WANTS TO KEEP THE SOLAR PANELS? MICHAEL, CAN I ANSWER THAT? THE ANSWER THAT IS VERY SIMPLE. THE ANSWER IS VERY SIMPLE. MICHAEL CAN LET MICHAEL FINISH AND GET YES, I CAN ANSWER IT. LET ME ANSWER IT. PLEASE. NO, I DON'T WANT YOU TO ANSWER. WAIT, WAIT. OKAY. YOU, I DON'T FINISH TALKING. I DON'T INTERRUPT YOU. OKAY. OKAY. I WAS GONNA, LET'S ASK YOU, I SPEAK TO THE POINT NEVER MIND LET MICHAEL FINISH AND THEN, OKAY. YOU, YOU COULD, UH, UH, PROVIDE THE ANSWER. GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD, MICHAEL. OKAY, SO, SO I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD VOTE NOW ON ANY CONDITION THAT REQUIRES THE REMOVAL, YOU KNOW, OF THE SOLAR PANELS WHEN THE PROPERTY IS SOLD. WE COULD DEAL WITH THAT WHEN THE TIME COMES. CAN I MAKE A MOTION PLEASE? HERE'S MY MOTION. MY MOTION IS TO EXTEND, LET [01:20:01] ME INTERRUPT FOR ONE SEC. SECOND. I DOUBLE CHECK THE LAW. MICHAEL. IT SHOULD BE 90 DAYS. I JUST WANTED YOU TO MAKE THE RIGHT MOTION. THAT'S IT. THAT'S IT. SO IT COULD BE 90 DAYS FROM TODAY GOING NON PROTON. NON PROTON PLUS 90 DAYS. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I MAKE THE MOTION. NON PROTON PLUS 90 DAYS TO EXTEND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. THAT'S MY MOTION. WHAT IS IT? NON, WHAT'S THAT? TOM? RETROACTIVE. RETROACTIVE. WAIT A MINUTE. EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU. WILL WE GET A SECOND AND THEN WE OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION? DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO MICHAEL'S MOTION? I SECOND IT. OKAY, NOW WE OPEN UP FOR DISCUSSION. Q THE SIMPLE ANSWER TO MICHAEL'S QUESTION, IF THEY'RE SELLING THE LAND FOR IT TO BE DEVELOPED, OKAY, THEY COULD KEEP, THEY WOULD THEN BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW BECAUSE THAT SUBDIVISION'S GONNA HAVE A HOUSE ON IT, AND THEN WE DON'T HAVE THE ACCESSORY USE ISSUE. AS LONG AS THE LAND'S BEING DEVELOPED, IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. SO IT DOESN'T AFFECT THESE PEOPLE AT ALL. THAT'S THE ANSWER TO THAT. THE FACT IS, YOU CAN'T PROLIFERATE BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THE ZONING BOARD DID ANYWAY. MICHAEL'S IGNORING THAT. 'CAUSE READ, YOU HAVE TO READ THE DECISION, MICHAEL. THEIR DECISION, THEIR DECISION IS A TEMPORARY VARIANCE ONLY TILL THE PROPERTY IS SOLD. IT'S ON THAT IS THE, THE DECISION OF THE ZONING BOARD. WHAT I'M ASKING FOR IS WRITE WRITING SOMETHING THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE, WITH WHAT THE VARIANCE IS IN A WAY THAT, THAT IS COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAW. THAT'S ALL I'M DOING. IF YOU JUST DO IT WITHOUT THAT, YOU'RE IGNORING WHAT THE, WHAT THE ZONING BOARD DID. THE VARIANCE DOESN'T GO A AFTER IT'S SOLD. THEY HAVE TO REMOVE THEM AFTER THE SOLD ACCORDING TO THE ZONING BOARD'S OWN DECISION. OKAY. OKAY. THERE'S A, THERE'S, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. AND, AND NOW IN THE DISCUSSION PERIOD, THEN WHAT WOULD YOU, HOW WOULD YOU CHANGE THE MOTION THAT WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON HUGH PROVIDED THAT THEY COMPLY WITH THE ORIGINAL CONDITION OF THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AT TIME OF FINAL SUBDIVISION? THAT'S ALL. DO YOU WISH TO AMEND YOUR MOTION, MICHAEL? OR YOU STICK TO THE WORDING THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? I'M STICKING. OKAY. DID YOU, DID, DID, COULD YOU, FOR, COULD YOU EXPLAIN WHY YOU THINK THAT ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE WOULD NOT ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU ARE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? YEAH, BECAUSE, BECAUSE I THINK, I THINK WE SHOULD LET THIS GO AS IT IS. YOU KNOW, UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS SOLD, UNTIL THEY WANT A FINAL SUBDIVISION. WHEN THEY WANT A FINAL SUBDIVISION, WE COULD DECIDE ON THE SOLAR PANELS WHETHER THEY SHOULD STAY THERE OR NOT. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. OKAY. BUT, UH, SO I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED. THAT SEEMS TO ME YOU SPOKE SAYING THE SAME THING. YOU'RE SAYING THE SAME THING, BUT I, I, I THINK, UH, NO, WAIT A MINUTE. MINUTE. IS THAT, JUST A MINUTE. LET, LEMME GET CLARIFICATION ON, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO YOU, AS, AS HAS, HAS SAID SOMETHING IS SLIGHTLY, THE WORDING MIGHT SLIGHTLY BE DIFFERENT, BUT I, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S THE SAME MOTION. NO, NO. MICHAEL CAN, I THINK I'LL REPEAT YOUR WALTER MOTION. OKAY. WAIT A MINUTE. WAIT A MINUTE. LET'S GET LET. KURT QUI HAS A POINT. GO AHEAD. BECAUSE I, I SECOND IT. SO I JUST WANTED TO HAVE, LIKE MICHAEL HAS, SO WHY, WHY ARE WE TRYING TO COMPLICATE THE SIMPLE THINGS HERE? THAT'S NUMBER ONE. SECOND THING IS THAT, ARE WE KIND OF DOING THIS SIM SAME KIND OF TEMPORARY APPROVAL UNTIL, UH, SIMILAR TO WHAT THE ZONING BOARD HAS DONE IT? AND AGAIN, UH, I THINK GOING INTO THIS, UH, LEGAL TECHNICALITIES, WHY DON'T WE KEEP IT SIMPLE AND JUST MOVE ON. HERE'S MY PROBLEM. CORRECT. AND DAVID, HELP ME HERE. OKAY. HOW CAN WE EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION THAT WE KNOW THEY HAVE A VARIANCE TO AND HAVE NO PLANS OF COMPLYING WITH? I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE CAN DO THAT. THAT WE NEED TO, WE NEED TO HAVE LANGUAGE THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING BOARD LANGUAGE. I WOULD THINK BECAUSE OF THAT. THAT'S THE PROBLEM. IT WAS DONE BACKWARDS. IF IT WAS DONE THE NORMAL WAY, WE WOULDN'T HAVE APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION UNTIL WE GOT THE VARIANCE AND WE WOULD'VE INCLUDED THE VARIANCE IN THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION. RIGHT? THAT'S WHERE WE NORMALLY DO THINGS. THIS GOT DONE BACKWARDS. OKAY. FOR WHATEVER REASON, ELLIOT, I'M NOT IT, IT IT'SS NOT A PROBLEM. I'M NOT BLAMING YOU FOR IT, IT JUST DID. OKAY, GO. THAT'S HOW I KNOW WHY [01:25:01] IT DID. IT'S NOT THE PROBLEM. IT DID. NO, IT GOT DONE BACKWARDS. I UNDERSTAND THAT. I JUST, UH, IF I, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY, I THINK IT, UM, MAYBE AARON SAID IS THAT IT GRANT THE EXTENSION OR COME BACK WITH A FINAL APP APPRO, UH, UH, FOR A FINAL APPROVAL, WHICH WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. AND, UH, YOU'LL WAIVE YOUR RIGHTS TO THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD. WE'LL HAVE OUR FINAL APPROVAL WITH THE SOLAR PANELS THERE, WITH THE SAME TYPE OF RESOLUTION SAYING YOU GOTTA REMOVE IT AND THEN, UH, WE WILL HAVE A IT. BECAUSE IT SOUNDED TO ME LIKE, UM, DAVID SAID THAT YOU CAN'T GRANT MORE THAN 90 DAY EXTENSIONS, AND THAT MEANS AT A TIME COME BACK 90 AT A TIME. AT A TIME, AT A TIME, AT A TIME. WE COULD DO IT OVER AND OVER AGAIN, DAVID. ALRIGHT. BUT WE GOTTA COME BACK. EXPLAIN TO ME HOW WE CAN EXTEND SOMETHING. SO PLEASE EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD, OKAY. HOW WE CAN APPROVE AN EXTENSION ON SOMETHING THAT IS NOW MOOT AS A RESULT OF THE VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD. WELL, IT, WELL, I MEAN, I SUPPOSE YOU CAN BY DOING THIS, UH, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, COVERING YOUR EYES, UH, AND YOU CAN, UH, I MEAN, THEORETICALLY YOU CAN, BUT THEN YOU AL YOU WILL HAVE TO PICK THAT UP SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE, WHETHER IT'S IN 90 DAYS, A HUNDRED A, YOU KNOW, REPEATEDLY AS, AS YOU'RE GOING TO THIS. AND SO THE CLEANER COURSE, I WON'T SAY IT'S THE PROPER COURSE BECAUSE I THINK YOU COULD DO IT THAT WAY, BUT I THINK THE CLEANER COURSE IS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THERE IS A VARIANCE IN THERE, THERE, AND THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH THAT WAY THERE'S NO QUESTION ABOUT IT, RIGHT? VARIANCE. IF YOU READ, IF YOU READ THE VARIANCE, IT SAYS TILL TIME OF SALE. CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT I HAVE THE VARIANCE IN FRONT OF ME. IF NO ONE ELSE READ IT, I HAVE IT SENT TO EVERYBODY AND THE VARIANCE SAYS TILL TIME OF SALE. YEAH. THE ONLY CHANGE I WOULD HAVE IS AT THE TIME OF TRANSFER. TIME TRANSFER. OKAY. OKAY. BUT AT SOME POINT NOW, WE GOING AROUND THE CIRCUIT, SO WE GOT TO, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. AND IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IN ESSENCE, WE HAVE THE SAME GOAL. SO MICHAEL HAS THE SAME GOAL AND HUGH HAS THE SAME GOAL. SO WHAT, SO WHAT IT IS, IS, AND IS FOR US TO COME UP WITH APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. WE KNOW THAT WHEN IT COMES INTO FINAL SUBDIVISION, AS THE, UH, DEPUTY SCHMIDT CORRECTLY NOTED THAT WE ASKED THE QUESTION, HAVE THERE BEEN A CHANGE AND THERE WILL BE A CHANGE. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO ALREADY BEEN MADE. OKAY? SO WHERE, AS WE AND DAVID, YOU COULD OFFER THE APPROPRIATE LANGUAGE IF YOU WISH YOU TO. BUT WHAT I SEE IS THE INTENT OF THIS BOARD IS TO GRANT AN EXTENSION OF THE PERMIT. AND WE HAVE LANGUAGE SOMEWHERE. WE HAVE LANGUAGE IN OUR MOTION THAT SAYS AT THE, THE TIME OF, UH, SUBDIVISION THAT, AND, AND THERE ARE PLANS FOR A HOUSE OR WHATEVER YOU'RE GOING PUT THERE. IT INCLUDES THE SOLAR PANELS. SO YOU WILL NOT HAVE TO REMOVE THEM. SO THE ISSUE TO ME IS HOW LONG WE CAN DO THAT? IS IT, YOU KNOW, FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS? SO THAT'S THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE IS HOW LONG WE COULD DO THAT. BUT IF WE ALL AGREE THAT IN THE FINAL SUBDIVISION, WHEN THEY HAVE PLANS FOR A HOUSE THAT INCLUDES THE SOLAR PANELS PROBLEM SOLVED, WALTER, I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD DECIDE NOW WHAT WE'RE GONNA DECIDE IN A NUMBER OF YEARS REGARDING THE FINAL SUBDIVISION. I THINK THAT'S JUST VERY BAD. POLICY NUMBER TWO. UM, THIS ISN'T GONNA GO ON FOR 10 OR 20 YEARS. I MEAN, IF SOMETHING ISN'T DONE, YOU KNOW, IF WE DON'T HAVE THIS FINAL SUBDIVISION IN THREE OR FOUR YEARS OR TWO OR WHATEVER IT IS, WE'RE NOT GONNA GRANT AN EXTENSION ANYMORE. WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE. UM, AND NUMBER THREE, I MEAN, IF THE MOTION, IF YOU WANT ME TO ADD TO THE MOTION THAT WE'RE EXTENDING A NON PROTON 90 DAYS AND WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE ZBA A'S, YOU KNOW, VARIANCE. SURE, WE COULD DO THAT. WE DON'T HAVE TO. IT'S ON THE RECORD. UM, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT TAKES TO GET THIS THING DONE. I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO ADD. IT'S BECOMING, IT'S BECOMING, IT'S BECOMING. LET'S ON IT LAWYERS, LET'S [01:30:01] NIGHTMARE. DO YOU HAVE A SUGGESTION FOR WORDING? YEAH, BECAUSE WE HAVE, MICHAEL SAID IS FINE, WE HAVE A FULL AGENDA. WE HAVE TO MOVE ON. WE HAVE TO COME TO SOME DECISION AS TO HOW WE GONNA HANDLE THIS. I THINK, UH, UH, THE WHOLE BOARD IS, UH, UH, IS SUPPORT THE, THAT, UH, THAT REVELATION THAT, UH, THAT THE SOLAR PANEL WILL BE USED IN THE INTERIM, WHICH IS 'CAUSE I TOO WAS UNDER IMPRESSION THAT IT WASN'T USED OR THAT MR. FOX A PIECE OF, A PIECE OF JUNK ON THE PROPERTY THAT, YOU KNOW, I DIDN'T KNOW WAS STILL BEING USED. SO THAT'S IMPORTANT INFORMATION. UH, BUT CONSIDERING THAT, HOW DO WE MOVE FORWARD? AND I WOULD THINK, LIKE I SAID, UH, IF WE COULD COME UP WITH SOME WORD IN THE SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THEY WILL GET THESE EXTENSIONS AND, AND THEN, UH, UH, UH, BUT WHEN THE FINAL SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED, EITHER THAT HAS TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN OR BE REMOVED. I HAVE A SOLUTION. WALTER. I, YEAH, I GO, FIRST OF ALL, I, I THINK, I THINK MICHAEL'S ON THE RIGHT TRACK. OKAY. OKAY. I THINK WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE DAVID. I THINK IT'S, THE PROBLEM IS IT'S ALREADY HAPPENED. IT ISN'T LIKE THE CH THE CHANGE ALREADY HAPPENED. THAT'S THE PROBLEM WE HAVE. OKAY. LEGALLY, I THINK WE WE'RE, WE CAN'T APPROVE, WE CAN'T SAY IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. IT DID HAPPEN. SO WE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. ALL WE NEED TO DO IS SAY, WE GRANTED ACKNOWLEDGING THE VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD ATTACHES EVA'S DECISION AND WE'RE DONE. YEP. THAT'S FORWARD DONE. SOUNDS GOOD TO MEMA. DAVE, MOVE ON. Q ONE. MICHAEL, DO YOU WISH TO AMEND YOUR, UM, MOTION? YES, HONOR, I THINK, I THINK IT'S THE SAME THING I JUST SAID. GOOD. LET'S MOVE ON. AGREED WITH YOU. SO IT LOOKS SECOND A VOTE. OKAY. ALL ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? UH, GRANTING AN EXTENSION. GOOD. AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. WITH THE LANGUAGE? WAIT, ARE YOU OPPOSED? OR MONA, YOU'RE, YOU'RE FOR RIGHT? I'M FOUR. LET'S MOVE ON. . OKAY. SHE WAS A LATE, SHE WAS A LATE EYE. SHE WAS A LATE EYE. OKAY. ALL OPPOSED? NONE. OKAY. UH, WE, WE TOOK A LOT OF TIME. WE WENT THROUGH SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS THAT I, BUT I THINK AT THE END WE MANAGED TO COME UP WITH A, A, A GOOD SOLUTION. AND I THANK, UH, ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE INPUT. IT, IT, IT WAS LONGER THAN WE EXPECTED, BUT I THINK IT WAS WORTH THE EFFORT. AND, AND I THINK WE WIND UP WITH A, YOU KNOW, A, A REASONABLE CONCLUSION CONSIDERING THE CIRCUMSTANCES. SO THANK YOU. THE REVELATION THAT THE SOLAR PANELS WERE STILL IN USE WAS THE BEST INFORMATION OF ALL AFTER. YEAH, THAT WAS A, I I'M SORRY. I DIDN'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY THOUGHT THEY WEREN'T, BECAUSE THE WHOLE, NO ONE KNEW THEY WERE STILL IN USE. WE JUST THOUGHT THAT, LIKE I SAID, WE THOUGHT THEY WERE JUNK WAS A PIECE OF JUNK SITTING ON THE PROPERTY. THAT'S WHAT WE ALL THOUGHT. WE WOULDN'T YEAH. IF IT WAS JUNK, WE WOULDN'T BE ARGUING ABOUT IT. YEAH. BUT WE ALL THOUGHT THEY WERE JUNK. ELLIOT. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO ELLIOT, MOVING FORWARD, UM, PLEASE, UH, WE WILL PUT IT IN OUR, IN OUR SYSTEM AS WELL. BUT PLEASE, UM, EVERY, UH, 60 DAYS OR SO, UH, YOU KNOW, REMIND US SO THAT WE'RE GOING TO EXTEND THIS, UM, MRS. PAULUCCI, UH, IF YOU HAVE A GENERAL IDEA AS TO WHEN, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU MAY HAVE THIS TRANSFER, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT WILL BE HELPFUL. YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL US TODAY, BUT MAYBE ON THE NEXT EXTENSION, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, FIVE YEARS, 95 YEARS, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER, WHATEVER IT IS, SO THAT THE PLANNING BOARD KNOWS MOVING FORWARD. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL, THANK YOU. I'M GONNA TYPE UP, UH, I'M GONNA TYPE UP A SERIES OF A COUPLE OF DOZEN LETTERS AT DIFFERENT DATES AND JUST, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, MAIL 'EM OUT OR, UH, GIVE THEM ALL AT ONCE. I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. YOU ARE YOUR OWN STRONGEST AVERAGE. THANK YOU. I MEAN, IT WASN'T, IT'S NOT THAT HARD, BUT I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND ALL THE LAWS, SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. YOU TAKE CARE. BYE-BYE. HOW HALEY, STAY AWAKE. OKAY. SO WE, WE WILL GO INTO PUBLIC HEARING NOW. UM, UH, COULD YOU TAKE THE, UH, A, A VOTE FOR THE MEMBERS? YEAH, FOR THE RECORD. I, BARBARA'S, ARE YOU READY, BARBARA? OKAY, FINE. YEAH. CHAIRPERSON SIMON HERE. MR. SCHWARTZ, [01:35:03] YOU'RE MUTED HERE. YOU SOUND WAIVED, BUT SHE CAN'T, BUT BARBARA CAN'T HEAR YOU. SO UNMUTE HERE. THANK YOU, MR. GOLDEN. HERE. MR. DESAI. HERE. MR. HAY. HERE. MS. F*G. HERE WE NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT MR. SNAGS IS NOT HERE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS THIS EVENING. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, A A AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PUBLIC RECORD, THERE'S A STATEMENT THAT WE MAKE, UH, UH, BEFORE PUBLIC HEARING. I, I WON'T READ THE WHOLE STATEMENT, BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT, UH, TWO VERY IMPORTANT FACTS. THE FIRST ONE, UH, DECISIONS, UH, UH, ON IT. UH, ADJUSTMENTS TO PROPOSAL PLAN ARE BASED ON FACTUAL EVIDENCE. FACTUAL EVIDENCE, AND REVIEWED FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE TOWN CODE AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S BASED ON FACTUAL EVIDENCE, UH, AND THE REGULAR. AND THE OTHER IMPORTANT, AND THE OTHER IMPORTANT THING IS THE RELATIVE POPULARITY OF AN APPLICATION IS NOT A FACTOR IN THE PLANNING BOARD DECISIONS. DECISIONS ARE BASED ON THE FACTS PRESENTED. AND SO WE TAKEN THE FACT, UH, WE TO WHAT THE PUBLIC HAS TO SAY IN ANY, UH, UH, UH, UH, PROPOSAL. BUT THE KEY THING IS THE FACTS. SO, 10 PEOPLE STATING ONE FACTS IS NOT AS POWERFUL AS ONE PERSON STATING 10 FACTS. SO REMEMBER, IT'S THE FACTS THAT COUNT. THANK YOU. OKAY. THE FIRST THING ON THE AGENDA IS CASE BB 21 DASH 15. YES. THANK YOU, CHAIRPERSON TIME. AND, AND BEFORE I MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A REPRESENTATIVE HERE. IT DOES LOOK LIKE THEY'RE HERE. OKAY, GREAT. SO, AS CHAIRPERSON TIME MENTIONED, NEXT CASE IS 20 PB 21 DASH 15, THE FOUNTAIN HEAD APARTMENT, UH, LOCATED AT FOUNTAIN LANE PO SCARSDALE. THE REQUEST IS AN AMENDMENT TO A CONDITION OF A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SITE PLAN UNDER CASE NUMBER PB 79 DASH ZERO ONE, WHICH REQUIRED THAT A SIX FOOT HIGH WOODEN FENCE BE PROVIDED ALONG THE ENTIRE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE, UM, THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HERE THIS EVENING. I KNOW WE HAVE THIS ON FOR WORK SESSION PREVIOUSLY, WE'VE HAD BOARD MEMBERS OUT TO THE SITE. NOW WE DO HAVE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT'S INTERESTED IN SPEAKING. SO I JUST WANTED, UH, TO MAKE THE BOARD AWARE OF THAT AND WE CAN TURN THINGS OVER TO MR. RETTI AND MR. UM, CARELLI. THANK, THANKS FOR HAVING US. UM, SO WE JUST WOULD LIKE SOME DIRECTION ON WHERE WE'RE GONNA GO WITH THE FENCE AT THIS POINT. I THINK, UH, THE BOARD HAS SEEN THE AREA THAT, UH, THAT W WAS, WAS OF CONCERN AND WHY WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THE CODE CHANGED. SO, UM, I, WE HAVE ANYTHING ELSE THAT, I MEAN, THAT KIND OF COVERS IT, RIGHT? NO, THAT, THAT'S ALRIGHT. YOU SAID THE CODE CHANGE, IT'S NOT A CODE CHANGE. WELL, IT'S NOT A CODE CHANGE. WHAT IS IT? IT'S REALLY MITIGATING A CODE DESCRIPTION, RIGHT? A DESCRIPTION OF A CODE. OH, IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE PREVIOUSLY REQUIRED CONDITION OF PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. I'M GONNA SHARE THIS SO THAT WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT AN AERIAL, BUT YEAH, I, THERE'S REALLY NOT MUCH MORE THAN THAT. THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT. UM, THIS PROPERTY IS ALREADY DEVELOPED AND HAS BEEN FOR A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. THE, THE, THE DIRECT AND REALLY THE ONLY THING THAT THEY'RE SEEKING RELIEF FROM IS A CONDITION FROM 1979 THAT I CITED. UH, THERE, AND LET ME SHARE THE SCREEN. WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, IF, UH, MR. RETTI, UH, IF YOU CAN JUST SORT OF EXPLAIN TO THE BOARD AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC WHY IT IS YOU WANT RELIEF FROM HAVING A WOODEN FENCE THERE AND WHAT IT IS YOU ARE PROPOSING TO PUT IN ITS PLACE. OKAY. WELL, WE PROPOSE TO PUT IN ITS PLACE IS A CHAIN LINK FENCE. THE REASON WHY WE'RE GOING TO CHAIN LINK FENCE IS 'CAUSE THE, THERE'S SO MUCH VEGETATION IN THAT AREA THAT THE WOOD FENCE, UM, SEEMS TO DETERIORATE QUICK, QUITE QUICK, FAST. AND, UH, IT'S, IT'S JUST A COST FACTOR. IT'S A LOT OF FENCE. IT'S OVER LIKE A HUNDRED FEET, RIGHT? YEAH. THE WHOLE FENCE IS BASICALLY, UH, ABOUT 700 FEET, 700 FEET. SO YEAH, IT'S, IT'S HONESTLY, I DON'T [01:40:01] SEE THE REASON WHY WE, WE WOULD PUT IT A WOOD FENCE BACK, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION. THE, THE NEXT QUESTION IS, ARE YOU, UH, ARE YOU PROPOSING FOR THE ENTIRE LENGTH, UH, FULLY CHAIN LENGTH, UH, THAT IT'S SEE-THROUGH? OR IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE, UM, THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING EITHER FOR THE LENGTH, THE FULL LENGTH OF PART OF IT? YEAH. AND WHY? OKAY. SO, SO FOR A COMPROMISE, UM, WE WOULD, FOR PART OF IT WHERE THE, UH, I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE WENT OUT AND SEEN IT, UH, WE WOULD, WE WOULD, UH, PUT IN A MESH IN SO IT COULD, CAN'T BE SEEN THROUGH, UM, AT BLACK MESH. YEAH. SE 75, OKAY, LEMME LEMME INTERJECT YOU FOR A MINUTE. UH, UM, A A NUMBER OF BOARD MEMBERS HAVE BEEN OUT THERE, UH, TAKE A LOOK AT THE PROPERTY AND, AND, UH, THE, THE STATEMENT THAT WAS MADE ABOUT THE WOOD FENCE, I, I THINK IS VALID. IT'S, UH, A DARK, A DAMP, A DAMP AREA BACK THERE. UH, AND, AND I THINK THE, THE KEY IS TO WHAT IS EFFECT OF THE FENCE ON THE, UH, ADJOINING HOMES. AND I THINK IF WE SHOW THOSE PICTURES WHERE THOSE HOMES ARE, WHERE THERE IS IN MANY PORTIONS OF THAT AREA, THE, THE HOMEOWNERS ALREADY PUT UP A, UH, UH, A VINYL FENCE. AND SO THE, UH, THE CHAIN, THE EXTENT OF FENCE YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE. AND ON ANOTHER AREA, THERE ALL THE WAY TO THE RIGHT OF THAT, UH, UH, UH, UH, HERE, I THINK THAT'S LOT. COULD YOU GO BACK? ONE, COULD, COULD YOU JUST, UH, SCROLL BACK UP? THAT IS LOT. UH, WHAT IS THIS? THAT'S LOT. NO, THE NEXT ONE GO TO GO HERE. THIS GO TO THE NEXT LOT. UH, WELL, I CAN, UH, OKAY. UH, WELL, LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM, THE HOUSE ALL THE WAY TO THE RIGHT IS AT A SUBSTANTIAL HIGHER GRADE THAN THE FENCE. SO IN LOOKING FROM THAT PROPERTY, YOU'RE LOOKING OVER THE FENCE. AND, AND I SAY IF YOU JUST LOOK AT THE PHOTOGRAPHS, HERE'S ANOTHER ONE. THE FENCE IS BELOW, UH, THE VINYL FENCE. I THINK THE, THE ONLY CONCERN THAT I HAVE, AND MAYBE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD COULD TALK ABOUT IS THIS HOME RIGHT THERE. THAT THERE, THAT, UH, THEY COULD SEE IN, BECAUSE THE VINYL IS, IS A CHAINING FENCE. SO IF YOU PUT THOSE MESH OR THOSE VINYL WEAVING, UH, BLACK, UH, UH, SLATS BETWEEN THE FENCE, YOU SHUT THAT OFF. ALSO, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO SEE THROUGH HERE. SO JUST LOOKING AT, AND ANYBODY, ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS WHO WERE OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, PLEASE, UH, UH, CHIME IN THAT, UH, UH, UH, THIS WAS THE ONLY AREA OF CONCERN I SAW, AND THERE'S A SIMPLE REMEDY FOR DEALING WITH. YEAH. AND CHAIRPERSON SIMON, IF I MAY JUST CONTINUE OFF OF WHAT YOU SAID AND PIGGYBACK OFF THAT, WHAT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE FIELD WAS THE POTENTIAL ALONG THIS PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS APPROXIMATELY 87.44 FEET, UM, WHICH IS FROM THIS CORNER TO THIS CORNER WHERE THERE'S CURRENTLY NO VINYL FENCE IN THE REAR YARD OF LOT ONE HERE ON PENNY LANE IS TO RETAIN THE CHAIN LINK, BUT ADD THE VINYL NETTING, RIGHT. THAT WOULD PROVIDE THE SCREENING. SO THERE ARE VINYL, THERE ARE SLATS OR METAL SLATS THAT WERE USED YEARS AGO, MORE RECENTLY, I THINK AT THE NEWER MATERIAL. WE USED IT AT A PROJECT ADJACENT TO CAPTAIN LAWRENCE, UH, ON THAT ROADWAY A FEW YEARS AGO WHERE, UH, THE TRUCKING COMPANY, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER WAS LOOKING TO REMOVE A SECTION OF FENCE AND WE HAD SOME RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET. AND ULTIMATELY TO BLOCK IN THAT CASE, THE TRUCK HEADLIGHTS FROM SHINING ACROSS INTO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ACROSS THE STREET. THEY PUT UP THE VINYL, UH, NETTING WITHIN THE FENCE. AND WE HAVEN'T, MY OFFICE AND, AND TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HASN'T GOTTEN ANY COMPLAINTS FROM THAT SITUATION. SO I THINK THAT WAS A GOOD REMEDY AND THAT COULD CARRY AS A REMEDY INTO THIS PROJECT AS WELL. OKAY. ANY OTHER BOARD [01:45:01] MEMBERS LIKE TO COMMENT ON THAT? YEAH, MICHAEL FIRST. RAMONA. ALL RIGHT. SO, SO I WAS OUT THERE TODAY AND I, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. UM, IS THE CHAIN LINK, DOES THE CHAIN LINK FENCE CURRENTLY EXTEND THE ENTIRE 700 FEET? NO, IT WAS, NO, THE, I MEAN, THE ENGINEER, UH, JIM CARELLI, UH, 75% OF THE FENCE, UH, IS LOWER THAN THE PROPERTY, UH, OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE WEST PROPERTIES. THERE'S THREE PROPERTIES THERE. THE ONE ON THE NORTH, IT WOULD BE, LET'S SEE, THE, THE NORTHWEST CORNER PROPERTY HAS THE CHAIN LINK THAT WAS PUT BACK. SO ABOUT HALF OF THE CHAIN LINK WAS PUT BACK RIGHT IN, IT WAS STOPPED BY, BY, BY, BY GREENBERG, I THINK BUILDING APARTMENT. SO WE HAVE A TOTAL OF BASICALLY ABOUT 700 FEET AND ABOUT HALF OF THAT ALRIGHT, IS BASICALLY, UH, ABOUT HALF OF THAT IS FENCED IN ALREADY WITH THE CHAIN LINK. THE OTHER HALF, WHICH IS THE SOUTHWEST IS, IS NOT, THEY, THEY JUST HAVE THE, THE POSTS THAT WERE THERE BEFORE THE PIPING. THAT WAS BEFORE WITHOUT THE CHAIN LINK. BUT I MEAN, THE REASON I HAVE IS I WALKED THE SITE TODAY AND MAYBE I DIDN'T GO FAR ENOUGH DOWN THERE, BUT I MUST HAVE GONE A COUPLE HUNDRED YARDS AND I SAW THE CHAINLINK FENCE GOING ALL THE WAY. BUT LOOK, I, I MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THE PURPOSE OF THE FENCE IS TO BLOCK THE NEIGHBOR'S VIEW OF, OF THE APARTMENT BUILDING. NOW, UM, THAT NORTHWEST PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, UP AT THE TOP, I KNOW IT'S GOT ONLY A CHAIN LINK FENCE, IT SEEMS TO ME WHAT YOU GUYS SHOULD DO IS ASK THAT PROPERTY OWNER WHAT THEY WANT. OKAY. AND BUILD IT FOR THEM. YOU KNOW, MOST THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S HUNDREDS OF FEET OF, UM, THAT PLASTIC UGLY KIND OF FAUX WOODEN FENCE. BUT I GUESS THE PROPERTY OWNER BUILT IT. I MEAN, IF, IF THAT PROPERTY OWNER WITH JUST THE CHAIN LINK, YOU KNOW, WANTS THAT KIND OF FENCE, I THINK YOU SHOULD BUILD IT FOR HIM. YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS, YOU KNOW, WHAT THIS VINYL STRIP THROUGH THE CHAIN LINK LOOKS LIKE, BUT I'M TRYING TO IMAGINE IT, AND ALL I CAN IMAGINE IS SOMETHING UGLY. OKAY. SO, UM, WE'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THAT IS OR SHOW THE PROPERTY OWNER WHAT IT IS NOW DOWN TOWARD THE SOUTH SIDE. I MEAN, AS FAR AS I COULD SEE, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE THESE WHITE PLASTIC FENCES, SIX TO EIGHT FEET, WHATEVER IT WAS. UM, AND I GUESS, I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS THERE'S ONE ISSUE AND, AND AARON, HAVE ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS COMPLAINED? UM, CHIME IN FOR A SECOND AND I APPRECIATE THAT. UM, FIRST I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS ASK THEIR QUESTIONS FIRST. UM, AND I THINK MONA HAS A QUESTION, BUT WE DO HAVE, UH, A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK. I THINK IT'S, AND, AND I BELIEVE IT'S THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER WHERE WE'VE HAD MOST OF THE QUESTIONS IN THE, IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER, UM, SO WE CAN HEAR FROM THEM, HEAR WHAT THEIR QUESTIONS ARE, WHAT THEIR CONCERNS ARE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO, UM, I THINK THAT WILL BE VERY HELPFUL. UH, BUT FIRST WE WANT TO HEAR THE REMAINDER OF THE BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS. SO LET'S, UH, MICHAEL, UNLESS YOU HAVE ANY OTHERS, WE'LL TURN IT OVER TO MONAN . AND THERE WERE, JUST TO FINISH UP THE AARON'S ANSWER, AND THERE WAS SOME CORRESPONDENCE IN THE FILE AS WELL. UH, YOU ASKED ABOUT, UH, OBJECTION. SO THERE'S SOMEONE WHO'S GONNA SPEAK, I BELIEVE THEY SENT CORRESPONDENCE, BUT I THINK THERE WAS ADDITIONAL CORRESPONDENCE ALSO THAT CAME IN. OKAY, LET, AND THEN WELL LET MONA LET MONA SPEAK AND THEN GO AHEAD, MONA. I, I WAS OUT THERE, UM, TWO WEEKS AGO WITH HUGH AND AARON, AND THERE IS THAT ONE PROPERTY THAT, UM, WALTER REFERENCED THAT HAS NO FENCING UP THERE. UM, AND I'M PRETTY SURE THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE NOT HAPPY. UM, AND THEY'RE SAYING THEY WANT THE WOOD FENCE AND THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT NOISE. THEY'RE TALKING, THEY HEAR A LOT OF NOISE AND BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS GONNA HELP. REALLY, LIKE THE METAL FENCING IS NOT GONNA HELP WITH NOISE CONTROL. SO IF YOU PUT UP WHITE FENCE TO THE ONE PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THAT WHITE PLASTIC FENCING, WILL THAT HELP WITH NOISE CONTROL? I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. ANY OTHER POINT? THERE'S ONLY ONE PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T HAVE THAT WHITE PLASTIC FENCING. WILL THAT HELP WITH VOICE CONTROL? IT'S ABOUT FROM THE NORTH, THE NORTH, UH, PROPERTY, NORTHWEST PROPERTY, WHICH IS ABOUT 87 [01:50:01] FEET LONG, HAS THE CHAIN LINK. ALRIGHT. AND THAT THE DISTANCE FROM PENNY LANE TO CENTRAL AVENUE IS OVER 600 FEET. AND THERE'S TWO BUILDING THERE, THERE ARE TWO BUILDINGS IN BETWEEN, WHICH IS THE, UH, THE COMPLEX THAT IS PUTTING UP THAT FENCE, WHICH IS THE FOUN FOUNTAIN HEAD COMPLEX APARTMENTS. SO 600 FEET TO, TO CENTRAL AVENUE. CENTRAL AVENUE. YEAH. BUT WHEN THERE'S A WOOD FENCE THERE, DOES A WOOD FENCE DO ANYTHING FOR NOISE CONTROL? LIKE HOW DOES THAT GIVE THEM NOISE? NO, NO. I, I DON'T THINK THAT, I DON'T THINK IT DOES. OKAY, OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. COR COR YEAH, I, I THINK THE REAL QUESTION IS THAT, UH, THEY ACCEPTED THE, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT'S CONDITION AND THEY WANT GO BACK TO CHANGE THAT. AND THE ONLY REASON IS NOT ANYTHING ELSE, BUT SHOWING THE HARDSHIP AND THE COST. UM, SO IT, IT'S KIND OF SETS UP A WRONG PRECEDENCE BY ALLOWING, PARTICULARLY A LARGE PROPERTY OWNER, IF IT'S A SMALL HOUSE, SMALL PROPERTY OWNER OR A HOUSE OWNER, IT'S UNDERSTAND. BUT THIS IS THE BIG CORPORATIONS THAT ARE RUNNING THIS PROPERTY. UH, AND ONE LAST QUESTION ABOUT THE NOISE. I THINK WHAT THEY REALLY, UH, UH, LOOKING FOR IS LESS OF IT. I UNDERSTAND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ANYTHING KIND OF, UH, SOUNDPROOF, BUT HAVING A SOLID FENCE, IT'S DEFINITELY BETTER THAN THE CHAIN LINK FENCE. THE LAST POINT I WANT TO MAKE IS THAT AARON, UH, AND I MEAN, WHOEVER PROPOSING THIS PLASTIC INSERT INTO THE CHAIN LINK FENCE IS UGLY AND NOBODY MAINTAINS IT. AND, UH, I I DON'T THINK, UH, GOING FROM A NICE WOODEN FENCE TO A UGLY CHAIN LINK FENCE WITH A PLASTIC INSERT IS A INSERT TO THE, WHATEVER THE DECISION AT THAT TIME THE BOARD MADE. SO, OKAY, SO LET ASK, LEMME JUST FINISH WHAT I, I THINK WE SHOULD REALLY ASK THE, UH, UH, THE APPLICANT TO GO BACK AND TALK TO THE NEIGHBOR AND, AND KIND OF COME OUT WITH THE SOLUTIONS THAT IS A, UH, APPROPRIATE. SO I, I THINK I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO THE, TO, TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE APPLICANT TO DECIDE LIKE WHAT KIND OF FENCE AND OTHER STUFF. SO THANK YOU. THAT'S YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. YEAH. UH, AARON, DID YOU HAVE, WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO SAY BEFORE, BEFORE I TALK? JUST KINDA WANT TO QUICKLY RESPOND TO CAR'S COMMENTS. UM, FIRST OFF IS THAT, UH, I WASN'T SUGGESTING THE, THE UGLY SLACK. I THOUGHT I WAS VERY DIRECT AND, AND SPECIFIC ABOUT THE VINYL NETTING, WHICH IS NOT UGLY. AND, UM, I ACTUALLY CAN PULL UP AN IMAGE. I, I THAT GOOD? I DID ASK NO, WE DIDN'T HAVE PREPARED FOR THE MEETING, BUT, UM, AS WE MOVE INTO THE OTHER BOARD MEMBER COMMENTS, I WILL PULL ONE OFF THE INTERNET AND BE ABLE TO SHOW IT TO YOU ALL. OKAY. SECOND, I WOULD SAY THAT THE DEVELOPER OF THE SITE, UM, 40 PLUS YEARS AGO AGREED TO THE CONDITION OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO PUT IN A WOODEN FENCE, UM, , I GUESS FOR SOMEWHAT AESTHETIC PURPOSES. BUT WE DID READ THROUGH THE MINUTES AND THERE WASN'T AS MUCH VEGETATION IN THAT AREA, 42, 43 YEARS AGO. UH, NOW THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF VEGETATION IF YOU'VE BEEN BACK THERE. UM, THERE'S ALSO QUITE A CHANGE IN ELEVATION, AND I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE MR. SCHWARTZ OR ONE OF THE OTHER MEMBERS WILL SPEAK TO THAT WHO WERE OUT AT THE SITE WHEN WE HAD THAT MEETING. SO I, I JUST WANTED TO RESPOND, UH, BRIEFLY AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE BOARD MEMBERS. I'LL LOOK TO PICK UP, UH, AND FIND THAT, UM, VINYL NETTING ON THE, UH, INTERNET TO BE ABLE TO SHARE THAT WITH YOU. SO MR. SCHWARTZ FIRST, AND THEN I THINK MR. GOLD SECOND. THANKS AARON. UM, YEAH, I DID WALK THE PROPERTY. FIRST OF ALL, IT'S REALLY QUIET BACK THERE. YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T HEAR CENTRAL LAUGHING YOU AT ALL THE ENGINEERS. ABSOLUTELY RIGHT. WE WERE THERE IN, IN THE MIDDLE. WE WERE THERE IN THE LATE MORNING AND IT WAS, IT WAS LIKE YOU WERE IN SOME FOREST BACK THERE. IT'S VERY QUIET. SECOND OF ALL, IN TERMS OF THAT ELEVATION, THERE REALLY IS NO ISSUE TO PUT BACK A WOODEN FENCE ON THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE PROPERTY. JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING WAS DECIDED 40 YEARS AGO TO ME IS A TERRIBLE IDEA. THERE IS NO REASON FOR IT. THEY CAN'T, THE NEIGHBORS WITH THE VINYL FENCES CANNOT SEE THE [01:55:01] FENCE WHATSOEVER. THE ONLY ISSUE IS THE FENCE ON THE RIGHT. I THINK THE ANSWER THERE IS, AND I DON'T THINK MICHAEL'S WRONG THERE EITHER. I THINK THEY, THEY, I THINK MICHAEL'S GOT A GOOD SUGGESTION. GIVE THEM SOME ALTERNATIVES FOR THAT 87 FEET, THAT'S ALL. AND COME UP WITH AN ALTERNATIVE. THEY'RE ACCEPT, THAT'S ACCEPTABLE. 'CAUSE IT'S THE ONLY PLACE WHERE THEY REALLY SEE THE FENCE. MICHAEL? YEAH, JUST ONE QUICK COMMENT. UH, THE, THE REASON IT'S MAINLY QUIET BACK THERE, AND I I AGREE WITH YOU, IS THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS BLOCK THE NOISE. YOU KNOW, THE ROOFS ARE PRETTY HIGH AND THE NOISE BOUNCES OFF THE FRONT OF THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS FROM CENTRAL AVENUE EXCEPT FOR THAT NORTHERN PROPERTY THAT 87 FEET WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS THERE OPPOSITE THE DRIVEWAY COMING UP TO THE PARKING GARAGE. NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE NOISE IS. I HAVE NO IDEA. BUT IF THERE IS NOISE, IF THERE ARE LOUD MUFFLERS, A FENCE WILL HELP, YOU KNOW, MITIGATE IT SOMEWHAT. I'M DONE. OKAY. UH, UH, A COMMENT THAT I LIKE TO MAKE THIS IS IN, IN, IN, UH, RESPOND TO ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT, THAT THE CURRENT MADE IS, IS THAT IS A LARGE CORPORATION, SO THEY CAN EAT THE COST, BUT THAT IS NOT A FACTOR FOR, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID AT THE BEGINNING, WE HAVE TO MAKE THE DECISION BASED UPON THE FACTS AND THAT'S IT. WHETHER OR NOT THE CORPORATION HAS DEEP POCKETS OR WHETHER OR NOT AN INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER, UH, HAVE TO PAY FOR IT, IS THE QUESTION IS, IS A FENCE JUSTIFIED PERIOD? THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION THAT WE SHOULD DO. IS A FENCE JUSTIFIED? WOULD A WOOD FENCE CUT DOWN THE NOISE MORE THAN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED OR A VINYL FENCE? YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE ISSUE HERE. AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SHOULD FAIL, IS WHETHER, UH, UH, OR NOT, UH, WHATEVER FENCING WE PUT ON UP THERE IS NOT A NOISE BARRIER. IT'LL NOT BE A NOISE BARRIER. IT WILL BE FOR, IT HAS AESTHETIC VALUE. SO THAT'S WHAT, AND THAT'S WHY I WOULD AGREE WITH MICHAEL, THAT YOU KNOW, THAT YOU SPEAK TO THAT NEIGHBOR AND SEE WHAT YOU COULD COME UP WITH THAT HAS, UH, YOU KNOW, COST EFFECTIVE, UH, AESTHETIC VALUE. YOU KNOW, IT, IT, WE DON'T EXPECT THEM TO PUT UP A FENCE THAT IS SUBSTANTIAL MORE THAN THE, THE OTHER FENCES THERE. I MEAN, WITHIN REASON TO COME UP WITH. AND I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY ISSUE WE HAVE HERE. GO AHEAD. I, I WAS JUST GOING TO JUMP IN AND I, YOU MENTIONED THE NEIGHBORS. YEAH. AND WE DO HAVE A, FOR THE PUBLIC, AND I THINK IT'D BE APPROPRIATE TO HEAR FROM THAT MEMBER PUBLIC SHOULD THEY WISH TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME. YEAH, DAVID THAT, GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. I KNOW COMMENT OR A QUESTION FIRST, BUT, UM, I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC AND THERE, THE OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC, BECAUSE THERE WERE TWO, AS DAVID POINTED OUT, THERE WAS ALSO CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED, WHICH WAS SENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS AND ALSO SENT TO THE APPLICANT. THE OTHER MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC INDICATED THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO SPEAK, BUT THEY'D BE WATCHING AT HOME. SO I JUST WANTED THE BOARD TO BE AWARE. THANK YOU, DAVID. AND THEN WE'LL TALK TO THE, TO THAT NEIGHBOR WHO, WHO'S WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. OKAY. AND, UH, JUST, UH, SO THE NEIGHBOR WHO'S WATCHING AT HOME, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, IF WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, THERE'LL BE A RECORD KEPT OPEN AND THEY CAN, UH, SUBMIT SOMETHING, UH, DURING THE RECORD PERIOD. MY ONE COMMENT IS, UM, I APPRECIATE, UH, MR. DESI'S, UH, CONCERNS ABOUT, UH, WHAT HAPPENED 40 YEARS AGO. I WOULD URGE THE BOARD, AND I SAID THIS PRIOR TO READ THE TRANSCRIPT FROM THAT, UH, PUBLIC HEARING TO SHOW WHAT CONCERNS WERE AT THAT TIME AND NOT TO SPECULATE ABOUT OTHER THINGS THAT MIGHT HAVE HAPPENED SOMEWHERE ALONG THE LINE. UH, BUT TO READ WHY THE FENCE WAS PUT IN AT THAT TIME. OKAY. THANK YOU DAVID. OKAY. WE HAVE, UM, OH, JUST A MINUTE FOR A MINUTE. JUST FOR, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC WHO MIGHT NOT HAVE, CAN YOU QUICKLY SUMMARIZE WHAT WAS IN THAT OR DAVID? I THINK OF THE PEOPLE, I THINK EVERYONE SHOULD READ THE WHOLE THING, BUT I THINK THE PRIMARY OR THE BIG CONCERN AT THE TIME AS TO WHY [02:00:01] THE WOOD FENCE WAS PUT IN THAT TIME, UH, IS IT WAS BECAUSE THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT, AND, AND THEY, THEY WERE SPECIFIC ABOUT THE TIMING OF IT. THEY WANTED THAT FENCE IN PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. SO THE NEIGHBORS ALL ALONG THE RIDGE UP THERE WOULD NOT BE DISTURBED DURING THE CONSTRUCTION. BUT I DON'T WANT, OKAY, , EVERYONE SHOULD READ THE WHOLE LANGUAGE, UH, THAT'S THERE AND NOT JUST, UH, RELY ON WHAT I SAID. OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU. AND THE OTHER ISSUE I WOULD ADD THAT, UH, THE VEGETATION 40 YEARS AGO WAS NOT AS DENSE AS IT IS TODAY. OKAY. WITH THAT SAID, COULD UH, THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK SPEAK YES. CORRECT. RECOGNIZE? YEAH. WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? HELLO? I'M HERE. YES, YES. I WOULD LIKE, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK. CAN I SPEAK? YES. JUST PLEASE ANNOUNCE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. OKAY. AND IF YOU HAVE A CAMERA, YOU TURN ON YOUR CAMERA. ALRIGHT. UH, I DON'T HAVE A CAMERA HERE, BUT I'M GOING TO SPEAK. ALRIGHT. MY NAME IS, OKAY. MY NAME IS ARUN CHARI. MY ADDRESS IS 26 PENNY LANE, DALE, NEW YORK. I AM LEAVING RIGHT BEHIND THE COMPLEX, YOU KNOW, LET ME START MY, MY SPEECH. HELLO EVERYONE AT THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD MEETING. MY NAME IS ARUN. I'M LIVING AT 26 SINCE OCTOBER, 1995. I BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, FOUNTAIN HEAD COMPLEX HAD AGREED TO BUILD AND MAINTAIN THE WOODEN TRS, UH, BEFORE THEY WERE GIVEN PERMISSION TO BUILD THE COMPLEX. I HAVE BEEN LIVING AT THIS ADDRESS FOR ALMOST 26 YEARS. THEY HAD TRIED TO REMOVE THE WOODEN TRANDS ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO, AND THE TOWN FORCED THEM TO PUT IT BACK TO WOODEN FENCE WITH, WITH THE WIRE FENCE. THERE IS NO PRIVACY. WE CAN SEE THROUGH AND HEAR THE CENTER PARK TRAFFIC. I BELIEVE YOU SHOULD LOOK INTO IT AND GET, FORCE THEM TO PUT BACK THE WOODEN FENCE. HELLO? YEAH, YOU HEAR ME? YES, WE HEAR YOU. AARON. CAN, CAN YOU PUT, DO YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF THE PROP OF, OF THE, THE PROPERTY SO WE CAN SEE WHAT'S BEHIND, UH, THE GENTLEMAN'S PROPERTY? HE, HE LIVES IN, UH, GO AHEAD. YES, SO I JUST, I I PUT UP THE TAX MAP, WHICH SHOWS 26 PENNY IN RELATION TO THE, THE DEVELOPMENT. SO IT IS THAT NORTH WESTERLY LOT THAT CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE THE, UM, THE VINYL, THE WHITE VINYL FENCE. IT ONLY HAS THE CHAIN LINK. SO I'M GONNA STOP THIS SHARE AND THEN I'M GOING TO PULL UP THE VISUAL THAT WE HAD FROM THE APPLICANT. SO JUST BEAR WITH ME JUST FOR A MOMENT AND, AND I WANT TO SPEAK TO THIS, THIS REAL QUICK AND, UM, MR. ELLI CAN ADD TO IT AND, UH, IF NEED BE, AND, AND THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, I MEAN THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THAT I WAS OUT WITH ON THE PROPERTY, THIS PHOTO SHOWS THE CHAIN LINK FENCE AND SHOWS THE REAR PROPERTY OF 26 PENNY LANE. WHAT IT DOESN'T SHOW IS THAT, UM, AT GRADE LEVEL, AT THE REAR OF THE BUILDINGS, WHEN YOU'RE OUT AT GRADE ON THE SMALL LITTLE PATIOS THAT ARE OUT BACK OF THE UNITS THAT ARE, THAT ARE AT GRADE IS ABOUT 15 TO 20 FEET LOWER THAN THIS IMAGE. SO THIS IMAGE WAS TAKEN WITH A 15 FOOT LADDER AND A CAMERA ON TOP OF THE LADDER TO TRY AND JUST SHOW AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THE REAR PROPERTY. BUT IF YOU'RE STANDING DOWN OUTSIDE THE PATIO, THERE'S ABOUT A 12 TO 15 FOOT WALL WHERE TERRORIST WALL OF BOULDERS AND, AND THERE'S VEGETATION AND WHATNOT. UM, SO I JUST WANTED ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS TO BE AWARE OF THAT AT THIS HEIGHT. YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING INTO THE SECOND OR THIRD STORY OF THE BUILDING. AARON. THERE'S A PICTURE WITH THE LADDER, WITH THE LADDER THAT HE SHOWED, OR MAYBE NEXT DOOR, BUT IT AT LEAST GIVES YOU AN IDEA OF THE HEIGHT. THERE YOU GO. NO, BUT THAT'S SENT FROM BACK OF THE PROPERTY. NO, BUT, BUT THAT COULD TELLS YOU THAT THAT IS THE BACK, THE, THE NEXT PROPERTY. WHAT THAT DOES IS SHOW YOU THE GRADE THOUGH, HOW HIGH THAT IS. OKAY. UH, OKAY. WHAT, WHAT I'M PROPOSING TO DO THAT, UH, UH, RIGHT NOW, THE WHOLE ISSUE IS WITH THIS PARTICULAR [02:05:01] PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND, AND, UH, I, I THINK, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, AND, AND YOU COULD CHIME IN IF YOU, IF YOU WANT, I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ISSUE OF NOISE. NOISE IS NOT THE ISSUE HERE. UH, I I I DON'T THINK, UH, YES, WE PUT THE FENCE IN AS WOOD 40 YEARS AGO, BUT THE, THE CONDITIONS 40 YEARS AGO IS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT THAN THE KIT THAN THE ISSUES ARE TODAY. SO I THINK THE ONLY ISSUE HERE IS A VISUAL ONE. AND I WOULD, AND I WOULD, UH, SAY THAT THE, THAT THE, UH, THAT THE APPLICANT, UH, UH, SIT DOWN AND FIGURE OUT WHAT TYPE OF FENCING SHOULD BE THERE, YOU KNOW, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S ALREADY, UH, IN THAT AREA. AND THAT, UH, UH, UM, WE SHOULD, UH, I WOULD PROPOSE WE JUST, UM, ADJOURN THAT, NOT CLOSE IT, BUT ADJOURN, UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE COULD COME BACK AND REVIEW THAT. AND THEN AT THAT POINT WE, UH, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, AND WE'LL LEAVE IT FOR, FOR SCHEDULE. WE, BECAUSE TO ME THIS IS THE ONLY ISSUE. SO ANY, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS? YEAH, WALTER, I, I, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I THINK WE COULD CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH A VERY STRONG SUGGESTION TO THE APPLICANT THAT HE SIT DOWN, I GUESS IS IT'S MR. VERI. YEAH. YES, SIR. YEAH, I'M SORRY. YES. MY NAME IS MR. VERI, RIGHT? YEAH. I, I THINK THE APPLICANT, MR. VERI, I THINK YOU, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS, MR. JAVARI, ARE YOU WILLING TO SIT DOWN AND TALK WITH THE APPLICANT AND AGREE ON A REASONABLE FENCE FOR THE BACK OF YOUR PROPERTY? YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT WITH THE WIRE FENCE, THERE IS NO PRIVACY. THAT IS MY MAIN CONCERN. THE WOMAN PRIVACY. NO, ALL, ALL I'M SAYING IS, OKAY, SO, SO LOOK, HERE'S WHAT I SUGGEST. WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE STRONGLY URGE THE APPLICANT TO SIT DOWN WITH MR. VERI AND COME UP WITH A MUTUALLY AGREEABLE SOLUTION FOR OFFENSE. MR. VERI DOESN'T LIKE THE, YOU KNOW, CHAIN LINK FENCE. NEITHER WOULD I. OKAY. I'M NOT SURE I LIKE THAT RIBBON STUFF GOING THROUGH IT, SO I'M SURE THE TWO, YOU KNOW, BOTH PARTIES CAN COME UP WITH SOMETHING REASONABLE AND IF THEY DO, BY THE TIME, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE OUR NEXT WORK SESSION, IT'S RESOLVED. OKAY. UH, IF THEY COME UP WITH A SOLUTION, THEN WE'LL HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION. OKAY? THAT'S REASONABLE. UH, DAVID, CAN WE KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING, THE REC IS OPEN FOR A, AN EXTENDED FOR TWO MEETINGS TO MAKE SURE THAT'S RESOLVED. SO INSTEAD OF CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING PRIOR TO THE NEXT MEETING, WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING PRIOR TO THE MEETING AFTER THAT. AND THAT WILL GIVE THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBOR MORE, UH, A SUFFICIENT TIME TO COME TO A CONCLUSION. WE CAN DO THAT. RIGHT. THAT, THAT WAS MY RECOMMENDATION WAS. OKAY. SO WHAT WOULD BE, WHAT WILL BE THE DATE? WHAT WILL BE THE DATE THAT WE KEEP THE RECORDS OPEN TO ACCOMPLISH THAT? I GO DEFER TO AARON, BUT I WOULD GUESS IT WOULD BE AROUND THE, UM, 10TH OF NOVEMBER OR SO. OKAY. LET'S, WELL GIMME A DATE, BECAUSE I'M GONNA MAKE A MOTION. I'D LIKE, I'M GONNA GIVE YOU A DATE OCTOBER 26TH, WHICH WOULD BE 20 DAYS. SAY THAT'S PRACTICALLY THREE WEEKS. OKAY. UM, I THE WRONG DAY. OKAY. SO I, THE NEXT MEETING, THE NE THE NEXT MEETING FOLLOWING THE 26TH WOULD BE NOVEMBER 3RD. SO, OKAY. I THINK THAT'S, BUT, UH, MR. SCHWARTZ DOES HAVE A COMMENT BEFORE YOU GO TO COURT. YEAH, YOU'RE ON MUTE. HUGH, GO AHEAD. GO AHEAD HUGH. YOU'RE ON MUTE. YEAH. OKAY. WHAT, WHAT IS, IF WE CLOSE THE HEARING TONIGHT, HOW MUCH TIME DO WE HAVE BEFORE WE HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION? THAT'S WHY I JUST SAID THAT, THAT'S WHY I ASKED DAVID THE QUESTION. NO, NO, NO. IT, IT, IT'S DIFFERENT LEAVING THE RECORD OPEN FOR ANOTHER 20 DAYS. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS IF WE OFFICIALLY CLOSED THE HEARING TONIGHT. OKAY. IT'S FROM THE, IT'S FROM THE POINT OF, UH, THAT THE RECORD'S CLOSED. YOU WHAT'S WHEN THE RECORD'S CLOSED, NOT WHEN THE HEARING. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. YEP. OKAY. SO I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND KEEP THE RECORD OPEN TO OCTOBER 26TH. SECOND, HAVE THE SECOND. ALL, UH, ALL IN FAVOR? [02:10:01] AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? AYE. NONE. OKAY, FINE. OKAY. UM, LET'S MOVE ON, UH, TO CASE. PARDON ME. LET'S MOVE ON TO CASE PP 1926. WALTER, JUST ONE THING, I MEAN, I HOPE IT'S CLEAR BOTH TO THE APPLICANT AND, UH, MR. JAVARI, THAT WE EXPECT THEM TO GET TOGETHER AND TALK ABOUT THIS BEFORE, YOU KNOW? YES. YEAH. YEAH. I THINK YOU MADE THAT QUITE CLEAR, BUT I'M GLAD YOU GRABBED WATERED UP AGAIN TO RE-EMPHASIZE IT. THAT IS THE EXPECTATION. TALK, TALK. THANK YOU. SO, UH, THE NEXT CASE ACTUALLY IS, IS, AND I JUST WANNA REMIND THE BOARD THAT THERE ARE STILL THREE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA. THAT'S RIGHT. TWO HEARING WORK SESSION ITEM, AND IT'S NOW 9:16 PM RIGHT, RIGHT. UM, IS PB 21 DASH 10 PIUS LOCATED AT 23 SPRINGWOOD AVENUE, P O LEY, AND IT'S FOR A PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A TWO CAR GARAGE, AS WELL AS FRONT AND REAR ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE. THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ALREADY DISCUSSED THIS, UM, MULTIPLE TIMES MEMBERS HAVE GONE OUT TO THE SITE AS WELL. AND, UM, THE REQUEST AT THE LAST MEETING WAS, THE SUGGESTION WAS THAT IT MAY MAKE SENSE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, SEE IF THERE ARE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT HAVE ANY COMMENTS, UH, BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD DECIDES THE NEXT PROCEDURAL STEP, WHICH IS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE Z B A. SO, FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, THE PLANNING BOARD SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT THE NEXT STEP IS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD, THEN ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING, PROBABLY FOR A MONTH AND A HALF. I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE ZONING BOARD HAS THIS PROJECT SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 21ST. IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE ZONING BOARD MAKES A DECISION ON THE 21ST? SURE. I, I DO NOT KNOW WHAT THE INTENTIONS OF THE ZONING BOARD ARE AT THAT TIME, BUT THEY'RE CERTAINLY WAITING ON A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD MEETING FOLLOWING THE 21ST OF OCTOBER IS NOVEMBER 3RD. SO IF YOU WERE GOING TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT WOULD BE TO AT LEAST OCTO, UH, NOVEMBER 3RD, AND I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. RAJAS AND MR. DAVENPORT. BUT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ALREADY HEARD AND UNDERSTANDS THE PROJECT QUITE WELL, I THINK JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC IN ATTENDANCE OR WATCHING AT HOME THAT YOU GO THROUGH IT, UM, IN DETAIL, BUT QUICKLY ENOUGH WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE HAVE OTHER PROJECTS ON THIS EVENING. SO THANK YOU. AND I'LL TURN IT OVER. YEAH. THANK YOU, AARON. THAT'S A VERY GOOD PROCEDURAL OF SUGGESTION SO WE COULD, UH, MOVE THROUGH THIS AGENDA. HELLO EVERYBODY. UM, I'M GONNA SHARE MY SCREEN FOR THE FIRST, UH, JUST INTRODUCTORY DIAGRAM BASED ON THE SITE MEETING THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS WENT OUT TO. AND NICK AND JOSIE WILL JUST WALK THROUGH THAT DIAGRAM. AND THEN I'M GONNA SPECIFICALLY A ADDRESS ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED BY THE BOARD MEMBERS FOR THE RECORD, JUST BEAR WITH ME WHILE I PULL UP THE, THE IMAGE. IS THAT VISIBLE? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT, NICK. OKAY. SO, UM, I WAS A LITTLE EMBARRASSED BY MY HAND SKETCH LAST TIME. SO WHAT I DECIDED TO DO IS KIND OF SHOW YOU MY, UH, QUICK LEARNING SKILLS ON MY COMPUTER AND SHOW YOU A BASIC STREET WIDTH OF SPRINGWOOD AVENUE AS YOU'RE APPROACHING RIGHT HERE. UM, ON THE LEFT SIDE, YOU SEE 13.8 IS THE BOTTLENECK, AND IT OPENS UP TO, UP TO MY PROPERTY WHERE YOU START TO SEE THAT BLOCKED OUT WHERE IT SAYS 29 THERE, THAT'S 29 FEET WIDE ON MY STREET. UM, THAT'S WHERE THE PROPOSED GARAGE WILL KIND OF LIKE BE IN THAT 29 FOOT WIDTH OF THE STREET, AND IT WILL OPEN UP UNTIL 33 FEET WIDE. UM, THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT CAME OUT TO MY HOUSE, I WAS ABLE TO SHOW THEM EVERYTHING. I SKETCHED OUT SOME STUFF ON THE STREET, STREET WIDTH SO THAT THEY COULD SEE. UM, AND BASICALLY, I GUESS THE, THE POINT OF THIS WAS TO SHOW THAT WHEN CARS ARE COMING DOWN THE STREET, OR MY CAR, SPECIFICALLY WHEN YOU PULL INTO THE GARAGE, YOU COULD GO DIRECTLY RIGHT INTO THE GARAGE WITHOUT MAKING ANY TURNS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO IF YOU LOOK ON THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT, THERE'S A TRUCK WITH A, UH, BIKE RACK ON THE BACK OF IT WITH A CAR PARKED BEHIND IT, AND THE TRUCK IS ABOUT [02:15:01] THREE FEET AWAY FROM THE RETAINING WALL. UM, AND THE PROPOSED GARAGE, WHICH WE ALTERED FROM ON STREET AT ZERO, WHERE THE RETAINING WALL IS. AFTER SPEAKING WITH THE, UH, THE BOARD, WE MOVED IT BACK TWO AND, UH, 2.4 FEET TO ACCOMMODATE THE BOARD AND TRY TO, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH, UM, THE MEMBERS THAT HAD CONCERNS AS FAR AS COULD YOU, YOU KNOW, PULL RIGHT INTO THE GARAGE, IS IT SAFE AND WHATNOT. SO WE MOVED THAT BACK AS PER THE BOARD'S REQUEST, AS FAR AS WE THINK THAT WE COULD FEASIBLY DO, UM, WITHOUT DISTURBING TOO MUCH OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND, YOU KNOW, STAYING AS EQUAL AS POSSIBLE. UM, SO THAT'S BASICALLY IT RIGHT THERE. UM, THERE WERE SOME, UH, BOARD MEMBERS THAT ASKED FOR US TO MOVE IT BACK FURTHER. COULD WE MOVE IT BACK? UM, THE ISSUE IS THAT WE REALLY DIDN'T WANNA IMPACT THE ENVIRONMENT AS MUCH. UH, WE WANTED TO KEEP IT AS MINIMAL AS POSSIBLE, AND THEREFORE THAT'S WHERE WE CAME UP WITH THE CONCLUSION OF A 2.4 FOOT OR 2.5 FOOT BACK ON THE GARAGE. NOW, UM, WHEN THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT, UH, THERE WAS NO OFF STREET PARKING. THEREFORE, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE REST OF THE STREET LEADING UP INTO OUR HOUSES WHERE THERE IS NO PARKING, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE WHOLE SPRINGWOOD AVENUE IS 18 TO 20 FEET WIDE, RIGHT? AS SOON AS THERE'S HOUSES ON TOWN OF GREENBURG, UH, SPRINGWOOD AVENUE THAT DON'T HAVE, UM, OFF STREET PARKING, THERE IS A SIX AND A HALF FOOT REDUCTION TO THEIR FRONT PROPERTY LINE. SO THAT'S WHERE YOU SEE THE DOTTED LINES. CAN YOU WANNA SHOW THAT CURSOR ON THERE, ERIC? WHERE, WHERE THAT DOTTED LINE IS? THAT'S SIX AND A HALF FEET BACK. YEAH, THERE YOU GO. SO THIS DOTTED LINE IS SIX AND A HALF FEET BACK, RIGHT? SO IF THERE WAS PARKING, LIKE A GARAGE OR A DRIVEWAY, THIS SIX AND A HALF FOOT LINE WOULD BE PROPERTY. IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN SPACE FOR CARS TO PARK ON THE STREET. BUT BECAUSE OF THE SITUATION, THAT'S WHAT IT'S NOW, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE GARAGE AT TWO AND A HALF FEET BACK OFF OF THE RETAINING WALL, IT'S NOT REALLY TWO AND A HALF FEET. IT'S REALLY NINE FEET BACK IF YOU LOOK AT THAT NUMBER. SO, UM, LOOKING AT THAT KIND OF DIAGRAM, THAT WAS KIND OF THE CASE THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW THAT IT'S NOT JUST TWO AND A HALF FEET OFF THE STREET. IT'S REALLY LIKE NINE FEET, BECAUSE WHEN THEY BUILT THIS HOUSE, THEY BUILT IT FOR ON STREET PARKING. SO, AND THAT'S BASICALLY IT. UM, I DON'T REALLY HAVE THAT MUCH MORE, UNLESS THERE'S A QUESTION REGARDING THAT, BUT, UH, I THINK WE'RE PRETTY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY BY NOW. OKAY. UH, LET ME, LET ME STATE ONE THING. GO AHEAD, WALTER. I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD. BECAUSE I THINK IT WAS HELPFUL FOR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT EXACTLY IS, IS, YOU KNOW, BEING REQUESTED OF THE PLANNING BOARD. AND WHAT THAT IS, IS A STEEP SLOPE PERMIT TO DISTURB SOME STEEP SLOPES ON THE PROPERTY IN CONNECTION WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS TWO CAR GARAGE. UH, THE ADDITIONS AT THE FRONT AND THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. UM, THE APPLICANT, UH, LET'S SEE, YOU KNOW, CURRENTLY DO NOT HAVE A DRIVEWAY, AND THAT WAS INDICATED. UM, THERE IS EXCAVATION THAT'S PROPOSED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT. SO THEY'LL BE REMOVING SOME EARTH TO PUT IN THE GARAGE, AND THEY'RE PROPOSING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, UH, IN THE FORM OF TWO DRY WELL UNITS TO CAPTURE WATER FROM ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. UM, THEY DO NEED FIVE AREA VARIANCES. UM, AND I CAN GO THROUGH THOSE FOR THE BOARD AND THE PUBLIC PO POSSIBLY AFTER, UH, ALL YOUR QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED, ASKED AND ANSWERED, I SHOULD, I SHOULD SAY, UM, AND THERE IS, I BELIEVE ONE TREE PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT. SO I'LL, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE BOARD MEMBERS IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. RIGHT. AND ALSO THREE, LIKE SPECIES TREES ARE PLANTED IN THE BACK TO MAKE UP FOR THAT ONE, UH, PROPOSED REMOVAL, AND I'M GOING TO TRY TO SAVE THAT TREE. HOPEFULLY, I DON'T KNOW. I'M, I'M GONNA TRY MY BEST, AARON. OKAY. CAN YOU, CAN YOU PUT UP THE DRAWING SO THAT, UH, WHAT YOU EXPLAINED, BE MORE VISUALLY UNDERSTOOD, LIKE WHAT YOU'RE DOING IT AND DAVENPORT HAS THE PLANS HERE? YEAH, PLEASE. SO WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, OKAY, SO ON THE LEFT IS THE PLAN, THE SITE PLAN, OKAY. WITH THE GARAGE IN A LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER. OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A, UH, ANALYSIS OF THE SLOPES THAT YOU ARE IMPACTING ON IT? UM, I THINK THAT CROSS SLOPE FORMS, YEAH. DRAWING, IF I CAN INTERRUPT YOU FOR ME, CORRECT. IF, IF YOU, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO SAY IS, UH, OKAY, LET'S PUSH IT BACK FURTHER. AND IF YOU PUSH IT BACK FURTHER IN, IN THAT RED OUTLINE BOX, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE AMOUNT OF ADDITIONAL ROCK YOU HAVE TO DIG INTO, UH, TO THE SLOPE, [02:20:01] WHICH IS, I THINK OF THE NUMBERS THAT I THINK, UH, UH, THIS WAS 70, IF, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THIS WAS ABOUT 75 SQUARE FEET OF ROCK. IF YOU DO IT THIS WAY, IT'S ABOUT 200 AND SOME, IT'S ABOUT THREE AND A HALF TIMES MORE ROCK YOU WOULD HAVE TO EXCAVATE TO MOVE THAT FURTHER BACK, BECAUSE THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL, UH, QUESTION THAT WE POSED. WHY DON'T YOU JUST MOVE IT BACK? WELL, THAT IS THE REASON WHY YOU DON'T, WELL, THIS IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF MOVING IT BACK. PLUS YOU, UH, UH, HAVE TO BILL A WALL FOR YOUR NEIGHBOR PLUS, YOU KNOW, IF, UH, UH, THERE'S A, A WHOLE LIST OF REASONS, I THINK THE APPLICATION THE APPLICANT GAVE TO THE BOARD MEMBERS TO, TO, THEY COULD QUANTIFY WHAT WILL BE THE EFFECT OF MOVING THAT BACK. UH, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IF, IF THERE'S ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WANT TO COMMENT, SO THAT'LL BE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT THIS BOARD WOULD HAVE AND, AND, AND, AND MAKING ANY SORT OF RECOMMENDATION FOR TO THE PUBLIC. IS THERE A MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK TO? AND, UM, I APOLOGIZE FOR CUTTING YOU OFF K BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO, WALTER, I HAD, I HAD ASKED SPECIFIC THREE QUESTIONS. OKAY. AND I, I WANTED TO HAVE THE APPLICANT ANSWER IT, THAT'S ALL. OKAY. BUT WERE THERE, WERE THERE QUESTIONS THAT WERE NOT IN THE, THE, UH, THE, THE WRITEUP THAT THE APPLICANT MADE? CORRECT. OKAY, FINE. TO SEND IT IN. SO, SO IF YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION, THE, THE ARCHITECT HERE, SO HE CAN SORT OF ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AND THAT, THAT WOULD BE SORT OF, YEAH, I, I THINK MR. DESAI, THESE ARE THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU SENT, UH, RECEIVED THEM THIS AFTERNOON. YEAH. AND, UH, THE FIRST QUESTION WAS A CLARIFICATION ABOUT THE, THE NUMBERS THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FOR THE REMOVALS. OKAY. AND I CAN SEE WHY THERE'S CONFUSION. THE NUMBER THAT WE GAVE WAS JUST FOR THE GARAGE LOCATION COMPARISON. THE 178 CUBIC YARDS THAT'S IN THE REPORT INCLUDES THE ENTIRE PROJECT OF THE FRONT ENTRY STEPS, REAR ADDITION, ET CETERA. SO THE GARAGE IS, WE USE THOSE NUMBERS JUST AS A COMPARISON TO ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MOVING IT BACK FURTHER FROM THE PROPOSED AREA. UM, BUT I'M, I'M READING YOUR THINGS THAT YOU SUBMITTED, AND THAT'S CONFUSED ME BECAUSE YOU HAVE 75 CUBIC YARDS INCLUDED. 39 FOR GARAGE, 36 YARDS FOR THE STEPS TO THE FRONT ENTRY. SO WHICH ONE IS RIGHT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING NOW? HE'S RIGHT OR WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED, WHICH IS LIKE, UH, ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, WAS IT 200 AND IT'S A HUNDRED AND, UH, WHERE THAT THING IS AT, UH, 1 78, WAS IT? SO IT IS, THAT'S, THAT'S ONE QUESTION I HAVE. SO, AND, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M REALLY HAVE A CONTINUOUS PROBLEM IS THAT YOU SAY SOMETHING WHILE YOU HAVE IT, RETURN UP IS DIFFERENT. AND SO PLEASE EXPLAIN. AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HAVE, ERIC. OKAY. CONFIRM IT. SO, BECAUSE YOU OKAY. LEMME ASK YOU THE QUESTION THAT'S, YEAH. OKAY. SO, SO PLEASE CON PLEASE CLARIFY, AND THAT'S ALL MY QUESTIONS WERE, UH, SO ERIC WOULD BE, WOULD BE GOOD TO COMPARE WHAT IS THERE AND, UH, WHAT, WHAT YOU ARE SAYING NOW. AND I UNDERSTAND THE, THE WELL LET HIM ASK YOU THE QUESTION. YOU, YOU, YOU HAVE YOUR QUESTION. LET THE APPLICANT A PROVIDE YOU WITH THE ANSWER. SO, SO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL WITH THE GARAGE AND THE, YOU KNOW, CLOSER TO THE STREET THERE WOULD BE THE 178 COMPUTE CUBIC CARDS REMOVAL FOR THE ENTIRE PROJECT, THE GARAGE, THE STEPS, THE FRONT ENTRY AND THE REAR ADDITION. IF WE WERE TO MOVE, SO LEAVE THAT ALONE FOR A MINUTE. IF WE WERE TO MOVE THE GARAGE BACK AND JUST THE GARAGE JUST TALKING, IT IS ABOUT 261 CUBIC YARDS OF REMOVAL. IS THAT WHAT YOU HAD SAID? BUT IT'S NOT, THERE'S, THERE'S A, UM, WHEN YOU LIKE THAT, THAT 2 61 WOULD INCLUDE EVERYTHING [02:25:01] ELSE AS WELL. SO WHAT WE DID TO HELP CLARIFY IS JUST SHOW THE DIFFERENCE IN JUST THE YARDS OF THE GARAGE AND ONLY THE GARAGE, BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER THINGS, THESE REMOVALS LIKE DRIVEWAY AND STEPS THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT. UM, IN ORDER TO, LIKE WE BA BASICALLY HAVE TO DESIGN TWO PROJECT DESIGN TWO PROJECTS TO GIVE YOU A FULL ANSWER FOR ALL THE REMOVALS. SO THE EASIEST SOLUTION TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, LIKE WHY DON'T WE MOVE THE GARAGE BACK WAS THIS ONE, AND, AND JUST SAY, HEY, THERE'S, THERE'S QUITE A BIT MORE REMOVALS AND SO THERE'S 79 ADDITIONAL WITH THE, WITH THE GARAGE BEING PUSHED BACK FROM 39 TO ONE 18. IS THAT ACCURATE? YEAH. YEAH. 'CAUSE THE STEPS WOULD HAVE TO BE DIFFERENT. AND THEN THERE'S DRIVEWAY AND THE RETAINING WALLS ON THE SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S OKAY. COULD YOU ANSWER THE SECOND QUESTION? CAN YOU ADDRESS THE SECOND? SO, SO LET ME JUST, SO IT IS 80, SO IT'S NOT LIKE WHAT YOU SAY IT'S A ONE THIRD, RIGHT? IT'S A, IT'S 80, RIGHT? SO IT'S 80 CUBIC YARD MORE THAN SORRY, WHAT IS BECAUSE, BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST FOCUSED ON THE GARAGE WITH THESE YEAH, YEAH. NO, UNDERSTAND. SO, OKAY, SO IT'S THREE, THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT IS WHAT IT IS. IT'S 200% MORE FROM 40 TO ABOUT ONE 20. YES. AND THAT'S NOT THE TOTAL AMOUNT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO INCLUDE THE STEPS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO THIS IS JUST, I'M SAYING JUST FOR THE GARAGE, RIGHT? CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY. OKAY. COULD WE MOVE ON TO THE SECOND QUESTION? SO THE SECOND QUESTION, UM, WAS ABOUT COST. AND, UM, NICK AND JOSIE WERE ABLE TO PROVIDE, UH, TWO QUOTES THAT A CONTRACTOR HAD DONE FOR THEM ORIGINALLY LOOKING AT. UM, SO THE, EACH QUOTE HAS TWO PAGES. SO WHAT YOU'RE SEEING IS THE FIRST QUOTE WITH SITE WORK, AND THEN THE GARAGE TOTALING AT, UH, 56,000. AND THAT'S THE PROPOSED GARAGE NEAR MORE CLOSE TO THE STREET. IF IT WERE TO BE MOVED BACK, UM, THE PRICE PROVIDED BY THE CONTRACTOR IS ALMOST ONE 50, SO ABOUT ABOUT THREE TIMES THE AMOUNT. OKAY. AND THAT'S JUST FOR EXCAVATION AND THE FOUNDATIONS THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE, RIGHT. SO LIKE THE SITE, THE SITE PREPARED WORK IS MORE THAN THREE TIMES, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU JUST LOOK AT, BREAK IT DOWN, IT'S, IT'S MORE, YEAH. YEAH. AND THEY DID THAT FOR, FOR THEM, WHICH WAS REALLY GREAT WITHOUT WHAT TO DO. SO, OKAY. AND THEN YOU PUT UP PRETTY QUICK. OKAY. AND THE THIRD QUESTION THERE WAS A, UM, WHAT, WHERE IS THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS FOR THE PROPOSED DESIGN AND ALSO FOR THE ALTERNATE? SO THE, THE CURRENT PROPOSED DESIGN IS, UM, SHOWS THE, YOU KNOW, SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS ON IT THE CALCS FOR THE POLY VIEW METRICS AND THE SIZING OF THE, UH, CISTERNS THAT ARE THERE. UM, CAN YOU SHOW THAT SLIDE? I, HI MICHAEL. I SEE YOUR HAND. SO I'M TRYING TO GET THROUGH THIS SO YOU CAN MAKE YOUR COMMENT. I KNOW YOU DO BEAR WITH ME GUYS. I'M SORRY. OKAY. THAT'S THE ONE. YEP, RIGHT THERE. OKAY. SO THE TWO CIRCLES IN THE FRONT ARE THE CISTERNS THAT ARE SIZED FOR, UM, THE, THE TANKS WITH SOME, SOME RUNOFF EMPLOYEE METRIC COUNTS. SO WE NEED TWO OF 'EM TO GET THE CUBIC FEET OF RETAINAGE THAT WE NEED FOR THE, UH, IMPERVIOUS SERVICES. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THERE AND WAS REVIEWED BY THE TOWN ENGINEERS ALREADY, AS FAR AS I KNOW. UM, YEAH. AND WE, YOU KNOW, TO ANSWER THE, THE SECOND PART OF THAT QUESTION, UM, DID WE, DID WE DO A STORMWATER DESIGN FOR AN ALTERNATE? UH, NO, WE DID, WE DID NOT. UM, BUT I DID DO A QUICK CALCULATION THAT IF YOU KNOW THAT AN ALTERNATE [02:30:01] LOCATION PUSHING IT BACK, WE JUST ADD ANOTHER 486 SQUARE FEET OF IMPERMEABLE SURFACE. SO IT WOULD, IT WOULD INCREASE THE, THE RUNOFF. UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, BY WHATEVER, WHATEVER RAINFALL WOULD LAND ON THAT AREA. AND THAT'S MY MAINLY JUST BECAUSE OF THE, THE DRIVEWAY, YOU KNOW, LIKE MORE, MORE LAND WOULD BE EXPOSED AND PAVED. OKAY. UM, YEAH, SO, SO YOU GOTTA KEEP THE EXISTING, UH, DRYWALL IN PLACE AND THEN ADDITIONALLY YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TWO MORE, UH, CORRECT. YEAH. SO WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA KEEP THE EXISTING DRY, WELL, 'CAUSE IT'S KIND OF UP IN ELEVATION NEXT TO THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE THAT TAKES CARE OF ALL THE RUNOFF IN THE BACK. THE TWO IN THE BEGINNING ARE JUST FOR THE GARAGE ROOF DRIVEWAY AND STEPS AND ENTRYWAY ROOF. THAT'S GONNA BE PART OF LIKE THE, THE, THE FRONT PART OF THE HOUSE. RIGHT. AND I WOULD JUST, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO ADD THAT DURING THE LAST HURRICANE THAT WE HAD AND THAT IMMENSE AMOUNT OF RAINFALL WHERE EVERYTHING FLOODED, WE WERE GOOD ON OUR HOUSE. OKAY. EVERYTHING FILTERED OUT VERY NICELY. NO, NO NEIGHBORS COMPLAINED ABOUT ANY OF OUR WATER RUNOFF, AND IT HELD UP PERFECTLY TO THAT, THAT EXISTING DRYWALL ON THE SIDE AND ALL THE DRY. OKAY. UM, OKAY. UH, UH, I THINK WE COVERED, COVERED THESE THREE QUESTIONS. MICHAEL. YEAH. WA WALTER, UH, QUESTION FOR YOU. YES. UM, DO I RECALL CORRECTLY THAT THE MAIN CONCERN OF THE PLANNING BOARD, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO PUSHING THE GARAGE BACK WAS THE SAFETY ON ENTERING THE GARAGE WHEN IT WAS SO CLOSE TO THE STREET? YEAH. THAT WAS ONE OF THE, THE CONCERNS. BUT AFTER THE, BUT WHEN YOU GO OUT THERE AND LOOK AT, AT HIS PROPERTY LINE, THE STREET WIDENS, YOU SEE, AND, AND THAT PRETTY SAID THAT, SO THAT AT LEAST ON MY PART, THAT CONCERN EVAPORATED. OKAY. SO, SO THAT WAS THE MAIN CONCERN. I TAKE IT, WHETHER IT WAS WARRANTED OR NOT. HAVE WE RECEIVED ANY REPORTS FROM THE POLICE OR ANYBODY ELSE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE TURNING INTO THIS GARAGE FROM THE, UH, STREET? NO, UH, I'M, I'M PULLING THEM UP RIGHT NOW ACTUALLY. UM, THE, UM, BOTH THE POLICE AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, UM, SIGNED OFF ON THE PLAN WITHOUT COMMENT. OKAY. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, ARE WE ARGUING ABOUT THIS? I MEAN, IF, IF, IF IT'S SAFE, IF THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT SAY IT'S SAFE, IF WALTER SAYS IT'S SAFE, I FRANKLY HAVEN'T BEEN OUT THERE. I'M SORRY. UM, AND IF IT COSTS THREE TIMES AS MUCH AND MUCH MORE DISTURBANCE TO THE SLOPES TO MOVE IT BACK, YOU KNOW, 15 OR 20 FEET, WHY ARE WE EVEN DISCUSSING THIS? WELL, WE, WE HAVE TO DISCUSS TO GET THE INFORMATION ON THE RECORD, BUT NOW THAT THE INFORMATION, IT'S A INTERNAL QUESTION IS ON THE RECORD, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION WHAT TYPE OF RECOMMENDATION WE SHOULD GIVE TO THE ZONING COURT. RIGHT? RIGHT. SO NOW WE HAVE THIS INFORMATION, WE KNOW WHAT THE COST OF ALTERNATIVES ARE. I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE GIVE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING COURT. OKAY. BUT WE HAVE TO GIVE REASONS. YEAH. THE REASONS WHY THE POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION IS WHAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE A SIGNIFICANT, UH, UH, UH, AMOUNT OF STEEP SLOPE DISTURBANCE. THE, UH, THE DISTANCE AT THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY WIDENS. SO ACTUALLY HIS PLACE IS, IS, IS, IT WOULD BE QUITE SAFE IN TERMS OF THE TURNING RATIO AND EVERYTHING. OKAY. SO THE APPLICATION, THE APPLICATION, IT, IT'S A SAFE PLAN ACCORDING TO THE POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENT. AND ANY ALTERNATIVE, YOU KNOW, IT IS PARTIALLY WOULD BE ENVIRONMENTALLY GRUESOME. RIGHT. I SECOND THE MOTION. A ANY DISCUSSION ON THE MOTION BEFORE I ASK FOR A VOTE? LET'S VOTE. OKAY. I FEEL COMFORTABLE IN PUTTING TOGETHER A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD. OKAY. LET'S VOTE. VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? CARRIED. THANK YOU. OKAY. PROCEDURALLY, I THINK, I THINK YOU WOULD, UM, WANT TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO NOVEMBER 3RD AS A PLACEHOLDER. UH, THAT WOULD, SO IF THE Z B A MAKES A DECISION ON OCTOBER 21ST, YOU'D BE IN A POSITION TO PICK THIS MATTER UP ON THE THIRD. IF FOR ANY REASON THE Z B A DOES NOT MAKE A DECISION, THEN ON THE THIRD WE'LL JUST BUMP IT TO THE NEXT AVAILABLE DATE. THAT'S GOOD. DID [02:35:01] NO ONE WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS FROM THE PUBLIC? NO, WE OFFERED NO ONE TO SAY. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM. OKAY. SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT, UH, THAT WE, THIS IS THE LAST THING ON PUBLIC HEARING. CLOSE THE PUB. OH, WELL, ON THIS CLOSE, I'LL CLOSE THE RECORD. ON, ON, UH, NO, NO, NOT CLOSING RECORD. WE'RE JUST MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO, UH, WE ADJOURNING, WE'RE ADJOURNING THIS HEARING TO THE DOJO NOVEMBER. DO WE NEED A MOTION FOR THAT, AARON, OR JUST ADJOURN? WE DO, I'LL MAKE THE MOTION. THANK YOU. SECOND NOVEMBER 3RD. SECOND NOVEMBER 3RD. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. OKAY. UM, ONE MORE, ONE MORE PUBLIC HEARING. YEAH, CORRECT. OR PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. I, I, I JUST WANNA MAKE A ANNOUNCEMENT. UH, WE, IN CASE PP 21 DASH 23 IS A PRE-CONFERENCE MEETING, UH, I WILL JUST LIKE TO INDICATE THAT, UH, LOOKING AT THE TIME, WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GET TO THAT TONIGHT. SO, UH, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE APPLICANT WHO WAS HERE, UH, LOOKING FOR THAT TO TAKE PLACE TONIGHT, BUT WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO DO IT, UH, BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING CASE PB 19TH 26. ALRIGHT. AARON WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING. SO I, I DID SO CHAIRPERSON TIME AND, UM, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE, AND, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I'M GOING TO, UH, ANNOUNCE CASE NUMBER 1926, DEPENDING, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S, UH, SIX MINUTE PUBLIC HEARING, PERHAPS THERE MAY BE TIME TO BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THE OTHER PROJECT. DO HAVE, YEAH, WE'LL SEE MI MR. ESCALADES IS REPRESENTING BOTH APPLICANTS, SO, OKAY. AND WE ALREADY HAD A PUB, WE ALREADY HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE NEXT PROJECT EARLIER, SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE PROJECT. OKAY. MR. ESCALADE PREPARED. WE'LL GIVE IT A TRY. RESPOND TO COMMENTS. RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. ALRIGHT, GENTLEMEN. PB 19, PB 1926, UH, KAUFMAN LOCATED AT 36 HILLCREST AVENUE, NEAR P O ARDSLEY. THIS IS A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AT PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE PRO PROPOSAL TO SUBDIVIDE THREE EXISTING TAX LOSS, UM, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CREATING TWO BUILDABLE LOTS TO CONSTRUCT ONE NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME FRONTING ON SPRINGWOOD AVENUE. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO MR. ESCALADES, UH, YEAH. TO EXPLAIN THE RESPONSE TO COMMENTS, AND I THINK HE MADE SOME REVISIONS TO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, WHICH I CAN BRING UP. OKAY. GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. AS, AS AARON SAID, THE, UH, THE, THE LOT IS, AS OF RIGHT, THERE WERE CERTAIN ISSUES AND QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED. UH, IN TERMS OF, UH, FIVE ISSUES. I'M GONNA GO THROUGH 'EM QUICKLY. ONE WITH ONE WAS THE ACTUAL NARROWNESS OF THE EXISTING PRIVATE ROAD. UH, FOR THAT PARTICULAR INSTANCE, WE HAVE SUBMITTED, UH, A WIDENING, UH, SCHEME THAT WILL ALLOW A SAFER PASSAGE, A SAFER, WIDER, UH, UH, CONDITIONS OF PARKING AND, AND THOROUGH TRAFFIC. UM, THE DRAWINGS SHOW THE WEDGE THAT, UH, IS BEING CONSIDERED. WE SPOKE TO THE VILLAGE OF ARLEY THAT WILL INHERIT A PIECE OF THIS WIDENING, AND THEY WERE IN CONTACT IN, IN COMPLETE, EXCUSE ME FOR A MINUTE, AARON, COULD YOU JUST SHOW OKAY, THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. CONTINUE. SO THAT WEDGE, THAT WEDGE IS THE, UH, UH, FOR PURPOSES OF WIDENING. UM, THAT WAS ITEM ONE, ITEM TWO, THE WHAT GOES ALONG WITH THE PAVEMENT, THE ABOUT THE, THE TYPE OF, UH, LOSS THAT THE NEIGHBORS WOULD INCUR BY LOSING 20 FOOT OF DRIVEWAY. UM, MEANING THE ENTRANCE TO OUR HOUSE, UH, WILL, WILL ELIMINATE THE POSSIBILITY OF ANYBODY PARKING THERE. UH, AND THAT IS TRUE, AND THAT'S OF COURSE TRUE FOR ALL THE RESIDENCES THAT HAVE A, THAT HAVE A DRIVEWAY ONTO THAT STREET. THAT'S THE SAME SITUATION. SO WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING THAT IS NOT, UH, UH, A, A REQUIREMENT OR, UH, A NECESSITY FOR ALL THE HOUSES THAT, THAT MAY HAVE A DRIVEWAY. IN ADDITION, THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A DRIVEWAY AND TWO CAR GARAGE, WE ARE ABLE TO STORE FOUR VEHICLES ONTO OUR PROPERTY. SOMETHING THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, SOME OF THE OTHER HOMES CANNOT, UM, UM, CANNOT DO. SO WE ARE, WE ARE, UH, ADDING FOUR PARKING, UH, SPOTS. UM, AND, AND, UH, UM, AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A POSITIVE TO THE NEIGHBORS, I BELIEVE. UH, THE, THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE AND THE TYPE OF THE HOUSE. THE HOUSE IS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. THERE WAS SOME CONCERNS WHETHER WE WERE GONNA RENT IT OR NOW THIS WILL BE, UH, UH, BUILT. IT WILL [02:40:01] BE SOLD TO A FAMILY, UH, THAT WILL MOVE IN AND ENJOY THAT NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORS. SO IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY SITUATION, UH, AND IT WON'T BE, UH, MORE THAN 22, 2300 SQUARE FEET. THE, UM, UH, THE DRAINAGE WAS ALSO ANOTHER CONCERN. UM, WE HAVE, UH, INSTALLED AND AND SUBMITTED PLANS FOR, UM, 30 TO 40% MORE DRAINAGE CAPACITY THAN IS REQUIRED BY A HUNDRED YEAR STORM, UH, IN TOWN. UH, IN ADDITION TO THAT, WHICH WE DIDN'T COUNT INTO, THE, UH, UH, COMPUTATIONS IS THE VOLUME THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO STORE UNDERNEATH THE, UH, ANY PATIOS THAT WE DO IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. UH, IT'S GONNA BE EIGHT INCHES OF GRAVEL, 30% OF THAT VOLUME WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR STORAGE. SO IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S AN ABSOLUTE POSITIVE, POSITIVE IN TERMS OF, OF REMOVING ADDITIONAL STORMWATER. I MADE A COMMENT IN MY RESPONSE IN SAYING THAT WHATEVER WE COVER WITH, UH, IN TERMS OF HOUSE AND DRIVEWAY AND PATIO IS BASICALLY ELIMINATED FROM THE AREAS THAT WOULD BE SHEDDING WATER INTO THE, ONTO THE STREET, BECAUSE THAT AREA THAT WE'RE COVERING IS BEING COLLECTED BY OUR SYSTEMS OF DRAINAGE AND BASICALLY BEING DISTRIBUTED INTO OUR UNDERGROUND STORAGE SYSTEM. SO WE ARE BENEFITING JUST BY BUILDING, WE ARE BENEFITING THE OVERALL MASS EXODUS OF WATER ONTO, UH, ONTO THE STREET. AND THE BIG ITEM, UH, THAT WAS, UH, UH, EMOTIONAL FOR EVERYONE, AND AS WELL AS IT IS FOR US, IS THE AMOUNT OF TREES THAT HAVE TO BE CUT. UM, UH, AND WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A NEW, UH, SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE, UH, WITH THE ADVICE OF, OF STAFF THAT INCREASES, UH, THE POPULATION OF NEW PROPOSED TREES BY, I BELIEVE FIVE, IF NOT SEVEN. UM, PLUS THE ADDITIONAL ONES THAT WE HAD. I THINK THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES THAT WE'RE PLANTING ARE 2022. SO IT, IT'S A, IT'S AN INCREMENT. UH, IT'S A SPECIES THAT, UH, WOULD MAKE, UH, UH, GOOD FLANKING WITH NEIGHBORS, UH, AND SECURE THE SOIL AND SO ON. SO THE, THE, THE I, WE ALSO DID, UH, UH, UH, UH, ROPE THE TREES THAT WERE TO BE, UH, TAKEN DOWN. A LOT OF THEM ARE INVASIVE SPECIES AND SOME OF THEM WERE DEAD AND, AND, AND, AND LEANING ON THEIR SIDES. UM, UH, THE, UH, THE, UH, THE ROPING WAS DONE, UH, TWO DAYS AGO. AND THEN I ALSO PROMISED THE NEIGHBORS THAT I WOULD GIVE THEM A COPY OF THE PLANS. UM, AND I DID, I MADE FIVE SETS OF COPIES THAT I PUT THEM IN THE MAILBOXES AND I INVITED THEM TO CALL ME. AT ANY TIME. I WOULD PERSONALLY WALK THEM THROUGH THE PROJECT, SIT IN THEIR HOMES AND EXPLAIN, UH, THE, THE, THE, THE PROCESS THAT'S GOING TO BE USED IN THE CONSTRUCTION AND, UH, UH, AND THE EDIFICATION OF THIS STRUCTURE. THAT'S IT, BASICALLY. MM-HMM. , ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS FROM THE BOARD MEMBER? IF NOT, UH, AND, AND ANYONE QUESTION FROM THE PUBLIC, UH, UH, IS ANYONE IN THE PUBLIC WISHES? MR. HAY HAS A QUESTION AND THEN IT LOOKS LIKE MR. PIUS OKAY, GO AHEAD, PAUL. UM, EMILIO, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS DRAWING IS OUTDATED OR IF THIS IS CURRENT. IN YOUR WRITTEN COMMENTS, YOU SAID THAT THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD, UH, WOULD BE, UH, WIDENED THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE LOT IN QUESTION. IT SAYS THE ENTIRE EDGE ALONG THE PROPERTY WILL BE IMPROVED, BUT THE DRAWING HERE LOOKS AS IF YOU ARE WIDENING THE ROAD UP TO THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE IT DIVIDES BETWEEN GREENBURG AND ARDSLEY AND NOT BEYOND THAT. SO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S THE ENTIRE LINE. THERE IS A, THERE IS A DRAWING THAT I SUBMITTED TO AARON TODAY THAT INCREASES THE WEDGE AND IT, IT'S, IT INCREASES THE TRANSITION INTO LEY. UM, I, I DIDN'T WANT, I DIDN'T, UH, I DON'T KNOW. AARON, DID YOU, ARE YOU ABLE TO IT WAS, IT WAS A SECOND MA? YEAH. UH, UM, NO, IT WAS THE SECOND MAILING I SENT TO YOU. UM, OH, I, I DIDN'T SEE THAT. I ONLY SAW THE FIRST ONE WITH THE LANDSCAPING, BUT, UM, I CAN SHARE THAT WITH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC, I MEAN, I'M SORRY, WITH MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. AND WE CAN POST IT ON THE WEBSITE TOO. WHAT I DO RECALL IS THAT THERE WAS CONVERSATION WITH, UH, MR. TOMASO FROM THE VILLAGE OF ARDSLEY, AND WE DO HAVE DOCUMENTATION THAT HIS OFFICE, UH, AND THE VILLAGE DO NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSED WIDENING BEYOND AND INTO THE VILLAGE SUBJECT TO ALL NECESSARY PERMITS WITH THE VILLAGE. UM, SO CORRECT, CORRECT. THEY'RE, THEY'RE COMPLETELY FINE WITH IT, BUT, UH, OBVIOUSLY MUCH LIKE THERE WOULD BE IN GREENBURG, THERE'S GOING TO BE PERMITS THAT THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO OBTAIN FROM THE VILLAGE IN ORDER TO CARRY THAT OUT. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU'LL MAKE THE IT AVAILABLE TO BOARD MEMBERS AND WE'LL PUB PUT, PUT IT UP ON THE WEBSITE? YES. UH, SO IT CAN BE REVIEWED DURING THE, UM, COMMENT PERIOD? YES. YEAH. GREAT. THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU. [02:45:01] ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE WE TURN IT OVER TO THE PUBLIC? OKAY. UH, UH, AARON, COULD YOU RECOGNIZE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO SPEAK? YES, . AND THEN WE WILL TURN IT OVER TO MR. DIXON. OKAY. HI. UM, THANK YOU MR. OTTA FOR PROVIDING THOSE FORMS YESTERDAY. I DID RECEIVE THEM AT 5:00 PM WHICH WAS GREAT FOR ME TO LOOK AT, AND I APPRECIATE THAT VERY MUCH. UM, THERE WAS DEFINITELY A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT LIKE THE PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY THE TREES AND, AND STUFF LIKE THAT. UM, I NOTICED ONE QUESTION THAT I DID ASK WAS, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR YOU GUYS TO LOOK AT AN ENTRANCE WAY FROM HILLCREST AVENUE TO WORK DOWNHILL INSTEAD OF WORKING UPHILL AND SO THAT THIS STREET WILL NOT BE DISTURBED? AND IF THAT IS POSSIBLE, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO SAVE A LOT MORE TREES AS WELL. UM, I'M NOT AN ARBORIST. I DON'T REALLY KNOW A LOT ABOUT TREES EXCEPT FOR THE STUFF THAT I HAD TO GO THROUGH WITH MY OWN PLANNING. AND I AM TRYING TO SAVE AS MUCH OF THE ENVIRONMENT ON MY PERSONAL PROPERTY THAT I CAN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS YOUR PROPERTY, YOU GUYS COULD DO WHAT YOU WANT ON ME OF THE COFFMAN'S PROPERTY, BUT I DO HAVE SOMEBODY WHO IS SOMEWHAT OF AN EXPERT ON TREES, AND I JUST WANTED TO HAND THAT TIME OVER TO HIM. UM, BECAUSE, UH, BY THE WAY, I'M NICHOLAS PRECIOUS, 23 SPRINGWOOD AVENUE, AND, UH, THIS IS OMAR, UH, DIAZ, AND HE'S MY RELATIVE. AND I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MY TIME, UH, DEVOTED TO HIM SO HE COULD JUST DO SOME EXPLAINING AS FAR AS SPECIES OF TREES, REPLACEMENT OF SPECIES OF TREES, AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. SO PLEASE GO AHEAD, OMAR. YES. HI, GOOD EVENING. SO I JUST TO PREFACE, LIKE THERE ISN'T STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. YES, MY NAME'S OMAR DIAZ. I'M RELATED TO PARISH'S FAMILY. OKAY. YES. SO JUST TO PREFACE THAT THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE WITH THE SUBDIVISION OR THE CREATION OF BANKING PROPOSED ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF. THE MAIN CONCERN IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND IMPLICATIONS AS IT RELATES TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE WILDLIFE PROPOSED PROJECT INVOLVED REMOVING 24 TREES AS NOTED. UM, ALTHOUGH I JUST RECENTLY HEARD THAT, UM, UH, PREVIOUS GENTLEMAN STATED THAT MOST OF 'EM WERE, UH, INVASIVE. HOWEVER, ON THE, ON THE PROPOSAL IT SHOWED THAT MOST OF THEM WERE OAK TREES, UM, WHICH ARE BEING REMOVED. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY THAT ARE INVASIVE. UM, AND THESE TREES IN, UH, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF SIGNIFICANCE TO THE COMMUNITY AND TO THE WILDLIFE. I KNOW THERE WAS ALSO MENTIONING OF WATER RUNOFF, AND THAT'S SOMETHING I'M GONNA TOUCH UPON AS WELL. UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF HAVING SO MANY OF THESE TYPES OF TREES IN THE VICINITY IS THAT, UM, THEY CUT DOWN ON HEATING AND COOLING COSTS FOR THE SURROUNDING AREA AND FOR THE HOMES. UM, AND ALSO REMOVING THEM, UM, WILL POTENTIALLY INCREASE WATER RUNOFF, SOIL EROSION, EVEN POSSIBLE FLOODING. I'M NOT SURE IF THE CALCULATIONS THAT, UM, THE PREVIOUS GENTLEMAN STATED, UM, ABOUT INCREASING THE WATER COLLECTION BY 30 OR 40% THAT ORIGINALLY ESTIMATED WOULD BE ENOUGH. UM, HOWEVER, I'LL CONTINUE THAT, YOU KNOW, BY REMOVING ALL OF THESE TREES AND ONLY ADDING A SELECT FEW, WHICH REALLY DOESN'T SEEM TO BENEFIT. UM, LIKE I SAID, THE COMMUNITY OR THE WILDLIFE, I MEAN, YOU'RE CONSIDERING THAT EVEN JUST ONE OF THESE LARGE OAKS, UM, IN COMBINATION WITH ALL THE OTHER TREES THAT ARE THERE, CAN POTENTIALLY HOLD THOUSANDS OF GALLONS OF WATER AND, AND HOLD ONTO TENS OF THOUSANDS OVER THE COURSE OF A YEAR. UM, REMOVING THAT, EXCUSE ME, MAY I INTERRUPT YOU FOR A MINUTE? SURE. UH, ARE YOU AWARE OF THE TREE OF ORDINANCE THAT WE ADOPTED, WHAT A YEAR AGO THAT TAKE THE THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED INTO ACCOUNT? ARE YOU FAMILIAR WITH THAT? NO, I'M, I'M NOT, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY NEW ORDINANCES THAT WERE PUT IN PLACE. OKAY. SO AARON, COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT, BECAUSE SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED, YOU KNOW, THAT THE PURPOSE OF THAT NEW TREE CODE WAS TO ADDRESS THE EXACT THINGS HE'S TALKING ABOUT, THE NUMBER OF TREES, THE TYPE OF TREES, THE CONDITION OF TREES. SO COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT? SO MAYBE THAT WOULD ABSOLUTELY. UH, YEAH. OKAY. SO THE, THE, THE NEW TOWN TREE ORDINANCE WAS ADOPTED, UM, OR ACTUALLY TOOK EFFECT JANUARY 4TH OF THIS YEAR. AND IT DOES TAKE INTO ACCOUNT, UM, STORMWATER ABSORPTION BY THE TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED VERSUS THE TREES THAT, UM, ARE BEING PLANTED. UM, IT ALSO HAS DIVERSITY REQUIREMENTS. SO THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S ACTIVELY BEING MARKED ON, UM, BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND TOWN STAFF TO ENSURE THAT THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NEW CODE. WHEN THEY INITIALLY SUBMITTED THE PROJECT, IT WAS UNDER THE OLD ORDINANCE, AND THAT WAS DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT. IT DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS SUCH AS, AS I MENTIONED, STORMWATER ABSORPTION, BUT ALSO C O TWO REMOVAL FROM THE ATMOSPHERE. UM, THE NEW ORDINANCE DOES, AND [02:50:01] THE APPLICANT MUST COMPLY WITH THE NEW ORDINANCE, UH, BECAUSE IT DIDN'T HAVE APPROVALS IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE ORDINANCE TAKING EFFECT. SO THE APPLICANT'S AWARE OF THAT, THE APPLICANT HAS, UM, MODIFIED ITS DRAWING AND REVISED IT TO MEET THE DIVERSITY REQUIREMENTS. AND THEY DO BELIEVE, AND STAFF DOES BELIEVE, ALTHOUGH IT HASN'T BEEN CONFIRMED, THAT, UM, IT WILL MEET THE STORMWATER, UH, ABSORPTION REQUIREMENTS. AND IF IT, IF THE CURRENT PLAN DOES NOT, THEN IT WILL HAVE TO BE ENHANCED. AND SO THAT IT DOES, UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IS PROBABLY GONNA BE FINALIZED NEXT WEEK. UM, CERTAINLY BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD CONTINUES, UH, OR CLOSES THE, IF IT WERE TO CLOSE BEFORE THE WRITTEN RECORD WOULD CLOSE, THAT WOULD BE IRONED OUT. UM, SO THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING. THE, THE STONEWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE THAT THE TOWN HAS DOES NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TREE REMOVAL AND THE GALLONS OF WATER THAT TREE'S ABSORBED. THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY IT WAS BUILT INTO THE TREE ORDINANCE, SO THAT WE ARE COVERING IT JUST UNDER A SEPARATE CODE. SO I WANT YOU TO BE AWARE OF THAT. IF YOU DO TAKE A LOOK AT OUR TREE ORDINANCE AND HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, I'M, I'M AVAILABLE IN MY OFFICE AND, AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT, HOLD ON, HOLD ON. ONE MORE, ONE MORE. I HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, ONE, UH, OR BASICALLY TWO QUESTIONS. FIRST OF ALL, ARE YOU AN ARBORIST OR WHAT ARE YOUR QUALIFICATIONS LICENSE? YEAH. AND, AND, AND SECONDLY, UM, UH, HAVE YOU DONE ANY STUDIES? AND IF YOU HAVE NOT DONE ANY STUDIES, THERE IS A WRITTEN COMMENT, UH, PERIOD THAT IF YOU, UH, HAVE NOT, THAT WE WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO SO. THE BOARD CAN TAKE A LOOK AT SCIENTIFIC DATA, NOT SIMPLY JUST SAYING IT'LL, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT SURE IF IT WILL COVER THIS. OKAY. WELL, I'M A, I'M A BIOLOGIST WITH A BACKGROUND IN FUEL BIOLOGY, PLANT ANATOMY AND PHYSIOLOGY AND PLANT MORPHOLOGY. OKAY. SO YOU'LL PUT THAT IN, IN, UH, YOU'LL, YEAH, I'D BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO, BUT CAN I GET SOME CLARIFICATION AND CAN I COMPLETE WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY BEFORE? ABSOLUTELY. WELL, WELL, OKAY. YOU KNOW, IN, IN THE INTEREST OF PINE, WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE CURRENT CODE BEFORE YOU OPINE ON WHETHER OR NOT THE STANDARDS ARE, ARE ADDRESSING ALL YOUR CONCERNS. AND THAT IF YOU ARE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CURRENT CODE, UH, UH, A CONVERSATION WITH AARON SCHMIDT WILL BE HELPFUL. AND THEN BASED UPON THAT, YOU'LL BE IN, HEY, YOU ARE A SCIENTIST. I'M A SCIENTIST. WE KNOW WE OPERATE ON FACTS. OKAY. AND ON DATA. YEAH. LET'S, OKAY. SO RATHER THAN HAVING THAT DISCUSSION NOW, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S, IT'S IT'S APPLICABLE WITHOUT BEING FAMILIAR WITH THE CODE, WHY DON'T YOU SIT DOWN WITH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT AND MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT'S IN THE CODE AND THEN YOU'LL BE A, IN A BETTER POSITION TO MAKE A COMMENT BASED UPON THE FACTS. OKAY. UH, SO I THINK THAT'S A BETTER WAY OF DOING IT BECAUSE WE ARE NOT GONNA ACCOMPLISH THAT IN THE NEXT FEW MINUTES. SO I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO PROCEED. WELL, I, LIKE I SAID, MY, MY COMMENTS WERE GOING TO JUST BE MORE SO GENERAL. UM, WELL, LIKE I SAID, AND THEN GO INTO SOME OF THE SPECIFICS. I CAN HOLD OFF ON THE SPECIFICS, BUT I CAN'T MAKE UP, CAN I AT LEAST MAKE WHAT I'M SAYING? WE DON'T HAVE TIME. UH, I MUST INSIST WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO, TO DEBATE WHAT ONE THINK TO BELIEVE WE SHOULD BE DEBATING BASED UPON THE CODE. BUT IF YOU HAVEN'T, IF YOU'RE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE CODE, HOW COULD YOU HAVE THAT CONVERSATION? SO, UH, AGAIN, I REPEAT THE BEST WAY IS TO GIVE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, WHO IS A CERTIFIED ARBORIST, WHO THE AUTHOR OF THE, THE, THE TREAT THE TREAT ORDINANCE TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT IS IN THERE. BECAUSE WHAT IS IN THERE MIGHT, MIGHT, OR MIGHT NOT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. SO I THINK THAT'S A MUCH MORE EFFECTIVE WAY OF DOING IT. AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS IS A COMMUNITY FORUM AND, AND, AND THIS IS GONNA BE BOTH. YES. IT'S TIMES A WEEK. THEN, UM, I THINK IT'S JUST SOME GENERAL STATEMENTS SHOULD BE PUT OUT THERE TO, FOR THOSE WHO ARE CONCERNED. WELL, YOU, WELL, WALTER, I, I, I HONESTLY, I THINK HE HAS A RIGHT TO TO TO AT LEAST GET HIS, NOT THE SPECIFIC COMMENTS, SIR, BECAUSE I WON'T GO INTO THE SPECIFICS. OKAY. BUT IF YOU HAVE OTHER, OTHER THINGS TO SAY IN A COUPLE OF MINUTES, I THINK IT'S FAIR. IT MIGHT BE FAIR, BUT WE RAN OUT OF TIME. IT'S 10 O'CLOCK. [02:55:02] SEE, THAT'S WHAT, HOLD ON. AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD FOCUS ON, YOU KNOW, AND NOT RUN THE CLOCK OUT, WHICH WE JUST STATE. THEN WE HAVE TO PUBLIC HEARING YOU WERE JUST SPEAKING FOR THE PAST FIVE MINUTES. THAT'S ALL. THE CLOCK JUST RAN OUT OKAY. FOR FINE. SO NEVERTHELESS, IT HAS RUN OUT MM-HMM. . WELL, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S SO WHAT, THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN DO NOW IS TO, UH, IN NO, WE CAN, AGAIN, THE WAY WE DID IT IN THE, IN THE OTHER, UH, APPLICATION, WE COULD KEEP THE PUBLIC RECORD OPEN FOR A EXTENDED PERIOD OF TIME TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO, UH, UH, UH, MEET WITH, UH, A DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT. AND THEN IF YOU FEEL THAT, UH, UH, IT'S NOT APPROPRIATELY ANSWERING YOUR CONCERNS, THEN YOU COULD SUBMIT THAT AND THAT WILL BE ADDED TO CORRECT. WALTER, I DON'T THINK THAT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I DON'T THINK THAT'S CORRECT. UM, I, I HATE TO DISAGREE WITH YOU AND I NORMALLY DON'T, BUT I THINK THE PUBLIC HAS A RIGHT TO SPEAK. I DON'T THINK HE FINISHED HIS SPEECH. SO IF HE, IF WE DON'T EXTEND THE TIME TONIGHT AND IT IS 10 O'CLOCK AND THAT WE ALL HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO, I'M SURE. UM, I THINK THAT WE NEED TO KEEP THE, UH, ADJOURN THE HEARING AND CONTINUE THE HEARING AT THE NEXT MEETING. NOT CLOSE THE HEARING TONIGHT. J JUDGE. THANK YOU. VICE CHAIR SCHWARTZ, UH, CHAIRPERSON SIMON. SORRY, I ACCIDENTALLY MEANT TO UNMUTE MYSELF, BUT MUTED YOU. SO WE, WE CAN'T HEAR YOU. BUT MY SUGGESTION TO THE BOARD IF IT'S AGREEABLE, IS TO RUN THE MEETING FOR ANOTHER FIVE OR SIX MINUTES, UM, HEAR FROM MR. P'S REPRESENTATIVE VERY QUICKLY. AND THEN ALSO WE DO HAVE MR. DIXON WHO'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, PATIENTLY WAITING, HASN'T INTERRUPTED, AND I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE HIM A FEW MINUTES OF OUR TIME AS WELL. OKAY. IF IT'S AGREEABLE TO THE BOARD. OKAY. UH, UH, EARLY ON, THE BOARD MADE THE DECISION THAT WE COULD END ON TIME UNLESS THERE IS AGREEMENT AMONG THE BOARD TO EXTEND. THAT WAS A RULE THAT WE MADE. THAT'S A RULE I INTEND TO FOLLOW. IF WE GET AGREEMENT TO EXTEND ADDITIONAL 15 MINUTES, THEN WE'LL DO THAT. IF WE DON'T HAVE AGREEMENT TO EXTEND THAT TIME, THEN WE WILL, UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, UH, ADJOURN THE MEETING AND THEN WE COULD DO IT AT THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR IN EXTENDING THE, UH, THE MEETING ADDITIONAL 15 MINUTES, PLEASE INDICATE. AYE OKAY. AYE. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OBJECTIONS TO THAT? I DON'T THINK, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD, 'CAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA FINISH THIS IN 15 MINUTES. I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT'S ENOUGH TIME TO DO OKAY. THEN GET THIS MAN TO FI GET HIS COMMENTS. 'CAUSE HE OKAY THEN AND START OR START THE OTHER, AND THEN START THE OTHER ONE FOR TWO MINUTES. THAT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME. IT'S A WASTE OF TIME. OKAY. THEN THE OTHER, THE OTHER THING, IF WE ARE NOT GOING TO EXTEND THE OTHER THING IS TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC, UH, HEARING TO THE, THE NEXT DAY TO, UH, OCTOBER 20TH. OCTOBER 20TH. WALTER, WHAT I'D RATHER DO IS ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING THIS PUBLIC HEARING TO THE NEXT MEETING. EXTEND THE MEETING FOR 15 MINUTES TO HEAR THE PRE-SUBMISSION OF THE, THE FINAL APPLICANT. THAT MAKES MORE SENSE, THIS APPLICANT. OKAY, FINE. BUT, BUT THAT'S WHAT I DO. YOU NEED TO VOTE ON BOTH. YOU NEED A VOTE ON BOTH. OKAY. IS, UH, UH, UH, IS THE, THE FIRST ONE IS TO A VOTE TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL OCTOBER THE 20TH. UH, DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO DO THAT? SO MOVED. DO WE, UH, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. OKAY, FINE. SO WE, WE, AND THE NEXT THING IS, UH, IS A, UH, A VOTE TO EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, UH, A FOR A, UH, NOT THE PUBLIC HEARING EXTEND TONIGHT MEETING UNTIL, YOU KNOW, FOR 10 MINUTES TO 10 15. JUST TO, SO THE, THE GENTLEMAN COULD FINISH WHAT HE'S SAYING, YOU KNOW. OKAY. IS THAT WE DON'T NEED BARBARA FOR, FOR THIS NOT PUBLIC HEARING SESSION. WHAT YOU WANNA DO IS TAKE A VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SESSION RIGHT. AND GO BACK INTO WORK SESSION. I THINK WALTER GAR, [03:00:01] I THINK WALTER HAD, UH, I, LET ME EXPLAIN. I THINK WHAT, WHAT WHAT I SAID WAS THAT WE GET THE PRE-SUBMISSION CONFERENCE OUT OF THE WAY TONIGHT. YES. AND JUST EXTEND THE PUBLIC HEARING. UH, AND I'M SORRY, AURN, THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE 20TH WALTER, SO WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO, SO, OKAY. I, I AGREED. OKAY. QUESTION IS, HOW LONG DO WE GET? HOW LONG WILL YOU STAY HERE FOR TONIGHT? 15 MINUTES. 15 MINUTES. DON'T WE HAVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST? YES. YES, SIR. YEAH, WE DO MOVE TO DO THAT. MICHAEL, I MOVE, I MOVE. WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SECOND. WELL IN ADJOURN IN, ADJOURN IT TILL THE, TILL THE 20TH. YOU ALREADY DID THAT PART. I THINK WE DID. OKAY. OKAY. CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. TOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. OKAY. NOW THE, THE QUESTION IS, WE'RE BACK IN WORK SESSION. HEY, I'M SORRY. WHO SECONDED THAT I DIDN'T HEAR? I DID, I DID, BARBARA. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, WE'RE BACK IN WORK SPACE. GOODNIGHT NIGHT. BARBARA, WAIT A MINUTE. HI. EXTEND FOR WORK SESSION. OKAY. WE DID THE OTHER THING IS JOE, NO, WE DIDN'T. OKAY. WAIT A MINUTE. HOLD ON. WAIT, WE'RE BACK IN. WE, WE, THE QUESTION IS, DO WE GO BACK IN WORK SESSION? YES. AND, AND THE QUESTION IS FOR HOW LONG? 15. I PROPOSE THAT WE GO BACK INTO WORK SESSION FOR 15 MINUTES TO HEAR. HERE I HAVE THE PRE-SUBMISSION DISCUSSION WITH THE LAST APPLICANT ON THE AGENDA. YOU, BUT YOU CANNOT, CANNOT EXPECT EVERYTHING DONE IN 15 MINUTES. WELL, WELL, IT'S JUST A PRE SUBMISSION. WE WA WE'RE WASTING 15 MINUTES. DEBATING ABOUT 15 MINUTES. I CAN, OKAY, LET'S MAKE A DECISION. I DON'T AGREE. I CAN DO GUYS. HUH? I CAN DO IT. TOM DID NOT. TOM DOES NOT AGREE. TAKE A, WELL, I DON'T EVEN HAVE A SECOND. SO THEN IT'S NO. OKAY. I'M READY TO KILL MYSELF. PARDON ME. WE READY? YOU DON'T HAVE UNANIMITY ON. WE DON'T HAVE, WE'RE WE'RE DONE FOR TONIGHT BECAUSE THERE IS, YEAH. WE DON'T HAVE A POSITIVE. YEAH. BECAUSE WHAT THE AGREEMENT WAS, UNLESS THE BOARD WANNA CHANGE SOME LATER DATE, IS THAT UNLESS WE HAVE A UNANIMOUS, UH, AGREEMENT TO EXTEND, WE WILL NOT EXTEND AND SEEING HOW TOM, UH, DOESN'T AGREE. SO THAT'S IT. I DO WANNA SAY SOMETHING TO MR. PIUS JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND. UM, THE REASON I DIDN'T WANT TO CONTINUE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING IS I WANT TO GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO LEARN TO MEET WITH MR. UH, SCHMIDT FIRST, BUT I ALSO DIDN'T WANT TO REQUIRE YOU TO, TO JUST PUT IT ALL IN WRITING AND NOT GET TO VERBALIZE IT IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD. OKAY. SO IT'S TO YOUR ADVANTAGE ACTUALLY AT THIS POINT THAT WE, UH, ADJOURN THAT HEARING TILL THE 20TH. I JUST THOUGHT YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND IT'S ACTUALLY COURTESY TO YOU TO DO THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THE, AND THE OTHER REASON WE CANNOT CONTINUE BECAUSE WE HAVE A FIRM RULE THAT WE MADE SOME TIME AGO THAT UNLESS WE HAVE THE UNANIMOUS, UH, AGREEMENT, WE WILL NOT EXTEND THE MEETING. OKAY. OKAY. I THINK THE ANSWER IS GOOD NIGHT NOW, RIGHT? YEAH. GOOD NIGHT. GOOD NIGHT. THANKS EVERYONE. AND UH, GOODNIGHT. OKAY. TAKE CARE. AND THANKS. GOOD NIGHT EVERYONE RECORDING. GOOD NIGHT EVERYONE. LIO. UH, YOU STILL THERE? RECORDING STOPPED. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.