[00:00:02]
[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ONLINE VIA ZOOM AGENDA THURSDAY, December 16, 2021 – 7:00 P.M. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, there will be no public gathering in Town Hall for this meeting. If you would like to watch the meeting, you may do so via the Town's website or via cable television. If you would like to participate in one or more of the public hearings, you must pre-register through the Department of Community Development and Conservation by emailing publichearing@greenburghny.com or calling 914-989-1538, specifying the applications that you would like to speak on. Instructions to participate will then be emailed to you or you will receive a return phone call. ]
SO IT IS DECEMBER 16TH, 2021, AND THIS IS THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AND THE MEETING WILL NOW COME TO ORDER.WE HAVE, HAVE TO COUNT MY CASES AGAIN.
WE HAVE SIX CASE SIX, NOT SIX CASES.
WE HAVE SEVEN CASES SCHEDULED FOR TONIGHT'S AGENDA.
HOWEVER, UH, CASE 2126 BLOOM ENERGY HAS ASKED THE QUESTION AND, AND ADJOURNMENT TO FEBRUARY 17TH AND ALSO CASE 2111 LAUREL STREET PROPERTY HAS REQUESTED AN ADJOURNMENT AND CASE 21 0, 21 30, I'M SORRY, IS CLOSED FOR DECISION ONLY.
UH, PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ZONING BOARD WILL HAVE OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY, JANUARY 11TH, MOST LIKELY AT THE SAME TIME AND IN THE SAME METHOD.
WE ARE DOING IT NOW IN LIGHT OF THE CONTINUING, UH, C OVID 19 PANDEMIC.
AS USUAL, IF WE CANNOT COMPLETE HEARING ANY CASE TODAY, IT WILL BE TO ANOTHER MEETING, HOPEFULLY TO BE COMPLETED AT THAT TIME.
ALSO, AS IS USUAL TO SAVE TIME, WE WILL WAIVE THE READING OF THE PROPERTY LOCATION AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT FOR EACH CASE.
HOWEVER, THE REPORTER WILL INSERT THAT INFORMATION IN THE RECORD.
THIS INFORMATION ALSO APPEARS ON THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.
AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING OF TODAY'S CASES, THE BOARD WILL MEET IN THE ZOOM ROOM TO DISCUSS THE CASES WE HAVE HEARD TODAY.
EVERYONE IS WELCOME TO LISTEN TO OUR DELIBERATIONS, BUT THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK OR PARTICIPATE DURING OUR DELIBERATIONS.
AFTER OUR DELIBERATIONS, WE WILL GO BACK ON THE FORMAL RECORD TO ANNOUNCE THE BOARD'S DECISION AND FOR, AND FOR, AND THAT TO BE ALSO PROVIDED INFORMATION BE PROVIDED TO THE COMMUNITY.
UH, I BELIEVE YOU MET, YOU SAID THAT, UH, CASE NUMBER THREE, CASE 2126, BLOOM ENERGY HAD REQUESTED AN ADJOURNMENT TO FEBRUARY ACCORDING TO THE, UH, AGENDA.
THEIR REQUEST IS TO THE JANUARY MEETING.
BLUE MANAGER REQUESTED TO JANUARY AND, UH, THE LAUREL STREET PROPERTY, UH, OWNERS REQUESTED TO FEBRUARY 17TH.
UM, IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK, UH, TONIGHT, PLEASE CLEARLY STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OR YOUR PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION.
IF YOU'RE NOT A NAMED APPLICANT, PLEASE ALSO SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
WE'VE HEARD TESTIMONY ON SOME OF THE CASES AT PRIOR MEETINGS.
ALL PRIOR TESTIMONY IS ALREADY ON THE RECORD AND SHOULD NOT BE REPEATED.
THEREFORE, THE FIRST CASE WE DO HAVE SCHEDULED ON OUR AGENDA IS CASE 2111, UH, PROPERTY LOCATED LAUREL STREET.
AND I HAVE BEEN TOLD THAT THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WANT IT TO BE HEARD.
IS THE APPLICANT PRESENT HERE TONIGHT? UH, I DO NOT BELIEVE SO.
UH, THE INDIVIDUALS WHO WISH TO BE HEARD, IS IT POSSIBLE YOU COULD, UM, COMMIT YOUR REMARKS TO WRITING OR, OR COME BACK AT THE MEETING THAT, UM, IF, IF WE ADJOURN, I ASSUME THE MEETING THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED TO ADJOURN TO, WOULD THAT BE A HARDSHIP FOR YOU OR AN INCONVENIENCE IN ANY WAY? I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU, SO I DON'T DUNNO TO ADDRESS THAT MEETING WOULD BE THE FEBRUARY 17TH MEETING.
I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH IT BEING ADJOURNED UNTIL FEBRUARY.
JUST, JUST TO LET THE BOARD KNOW THAT THEY HAVE, THEY SPENT THE OTHER DAY, THEY CLEANED THE LOT OF ALL SMALL TREES AND DEBRIS, UM, CLEANED THE LOT UP VERY WELL AFTER IT WAS LOOKING REALLY HORRIBLE.
THEY LEFT 12 LARGE TREES THAT THEY WILL NEED PERMITS FOR IF THEY GET APPROVED TO PUT THIS HOUSE UP.
UM, SO THEY'VE CLEANED THE LOT UP SO THAT IT, AT LEAST THEY CAN PROBABLY PLOT OUT THE HOUSE.
AND THE OTHER A UH, THE OTHER, UH, COMMENT WAS FROM WHOM? I'M SORRY.
I THOUGHT THERE WAS MORE THAN ONE INDIVIDUAL.
NO, I THINK, UM, MORE SO THE RESIDENTS JUST WANTED TO ENSURE THAT IT WAS ADJOURNED.
SO, UM, HEARING THAT INFORMATION, UH, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN UNTIL FEBRUARY 17TH FOR, FOR LAUREL STREET? YES.
CHRISTIE
AND THE CHAIR VOTES? I BELIEVE EVERYONE VOTED FOR
[00:05:01]
THE ADJOURNMENT, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.IF SO, WE CAN CORRECT THE RECORD.
SO THAT WILL BE PUT ON THE AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 18TH.
LAST NIGHT WAS A VERY LONG NIGHT.
UM, THE NEXT CASE WE HAVE IS CASE 2125.
PETER A STRATIGOS PROPERTY AT 29 HAWTHORNE WAY.
UM, YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE FOURTH MEETING I'VE ATTENDED OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, BUT IT'S THE SIX MONTHS THAT I'VE HAD AN APPLICATION ON FILE WITH THE TOWN OF GREENBERG.
UH, IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT, UH, SO MUCH HAS TRANSPIRED, I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE BRIEFLY REVIEWED, UM, EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN INVOLVED WITH THIS APPLICATION.
I, I REALLY THINK, SIR, THAT WE'RE VERY INFORMED AT THIS POINT BECAUSE WE HAVE, I BELIEVE, HEARD THE FACTS.
WE'VE MADE QUESTIONS, WE'VE LISTENED TO WHAT THE, UH, ANY NEIGHBORS HAVE HAD TO CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS THIS.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A NEED, AT LEAST FROM PERSONALLY MYSELF, I CAN ASK MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS AS TO WHETHER WE NEED TO HAVE A RENDITION OF WHAT THE CASE IS ABOUT AND WHERE WE ARE.
AT THIS POINT, WE WERE JUST LOOKING FOR CERTAIN, UH, INFORMATION, UH, TO REALLY KIND OF FILL OUT SOME OF THE CONCERNS OR, OR, I, I SHOULDN'T SAY CONCERNS, I SHOULD SAY FACTS THAT WE WOULD NEED WHETHER TO DECIDE THE CASE.
I DON'T THINK IT WOULD TAKE VERY LONG IF YOU DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION.
UM, OR I CAN GIVE YOU A VERY BRIEF SUMMARY OF EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN INVOLVED IN THE CASE, AND MAYBE THAT WOULD BE YES, SIR.
WHEN YOU INDICATE EVERYTHING, UM, THERE'S, THERE'S A FULL RECORD THAT'S BEEN ESTABLISHED AT EACH MEETING, SO, UM, THAT WOULD JUST BE REDUNDANT.
UM, BUT MADAM CHAIR, I DON'T MEAN TO SPEAK OUTTA TURN.
I JUST NO, NO, I, I APPRECIATE THAT, MR. GO ON.
WELL THEN, IN VERY BRIEF SUMMARIES, LET ME GO THROUGH ALL OF THE INPUT THAT'S BEEN AFFORDED TO THE, UH, BOARD.
BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE THAT, SIR, YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL US WHAT WE HAVE.
IT'LL TAKE ME LESS THAN A MINUTE TO READ ALL THESE.
HERE'S NUMBER ONE, GUILTY LEGAL PENDING OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG COMMUNICATION ATTORNEY.
NUMBER TWO, A STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT PREPARED BY LICENSED NEW YORK PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER.
THREE STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS REPORT REVIEWED BY TWO TOWN OF GREENBURG BUILDING INSPECTORS FOUR FALL ZONE SURVEY PROVIDED, PREPARED BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER AND SURVEYOR HI, JOHN GREENBERG, POLICE AND RADIO DEPARTMENT TO OPINE WHETHER ANY TRANSMISSION WOULD INTERFERE WITH THEIR COMMUNICATIONS.
NUMBER SIX, UH, A BALLOON WAS FLOATED AT 55 FEET FROM MY REAR YARD, AND PHOTOS TAKEN FROM VARIOUS LOCATIONS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT BALLOON WAS OBSCURED FROM MOST NEIGHBORING VIEWS, NEIGHBORS TO MY IMMEDIATE NORTH MRGO.
I JUST WANNA NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT MR. BLAND IS ON THE, UM, PROCEEDING AT THIS POINT.
UH, THE BALLOON WAS FLOATED AT 55 FEET IN MY REAR YARD.
PHOTOS WERE TAKEN AND DEMONSTRATED TO THE BOARD.
UM, THE RESULTS WERE THE BALLOON COULD BE OBSERVED FROM VERY FEW, UH, WERE BASICALLY OBSCURED FROM MOST NEIGHBORHOOD VIEWS.
MY NEIGHBORS TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH AND SOUTH VOLUNTARILY SUBMITTED EMAILS STATING THEY DID NOT OBJECT TO THE ERECTION OF THE TOWER AND ANTENNA.
NUMBER SEVEN, THE ANTENNA REVIEW BOARD SUBMITTED RECOMMENDATIONS TO ALLOW INSTALLATION OF THE TOWER AND ANTENNA, UH, IN ADDITION, REQUIRED AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE, UH, REMOVAL OF THE ANTENNA, THE TOWER AND ANTENNA AND FOUNDATION UPON SALE OF THE HOME TO A NON AMATEUR RADIO OPERATOR.
NUMBER EIGHT, EXPERT OPINION PREPARED BY MR. DAVIDSON SCOTT, A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER TO THE EFFECT OF MY TRANSMISSION, WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH POLICE, FIRE, AND EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS
[00:10:01]
AND WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH CELL PHONES.UH, NUMBER NINE, VIEWS OF THE, UM, CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROLS AND PREVENTION, THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, AND THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION AS TO CONCERNS WITH NON-IONIZING, THE MICHIGAN RADIATION NUMBER 10 EXPERT OPINION PREPARED BY MR. ED HARE, A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, TO THE EFFECT THAT SPURIOUS EMISSIONS MUST BE REDUCED TO 5E-05% OF FUNDAMENTAL TRANSMITTER OUTPUT IN THE CASE OF A 1000 WATT TRANSMISSION THAT WOULD RESULT IN A ONE HALF OF ONE WATT SPURIOUS OMISSION THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED, UH, NUMBER 11 F C C OPINION LETTER DATED OCTOBER 25TH, 1994, TO THE EFFECT THAT LOCAL GOVERNMENT MAY NOT BASE THEIR REGULATION OF AMATEUR RADIO, AMATEUR SERVICE AND ANTENNA STRUCTURES ON THE CAUSATION OF INTERFERENCE TO HOME ELECTRIC ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT, AN AREA REGULATED BY THE COMMISSION.
THIS IS A NEW PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT, UH, I JUST SUBMITTED TO THE ANTENNA, UH, THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL BY EMAIL, UH, NUMBER 12 PUBLICATION BY THE COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER.
AS TO THE CONTRIBUTION AMATEUR RADIO MAKES IN, UH, TIMES OF EMERGENCY WHEN OTHER FORMS OF COMMUN COMMUNICATIONS ARE DOWN.
NOW, WCA AND ACKERMAN STANDING FOR WESTCHESTER EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION IS MENTIONED AS PLAYING A SIGNIFICANT ROLE IN THE TRAINING OF AMATEUR OPERATIONS.
I AM A MEMBER OF WCA NOW, AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, YOU SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED ME TO PROVIDE INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO M I E R, UH, AS REQUIRED BY THE, UM, TOM ORDINANCE ON, UM, AMATEUR RADIO STATIONS.
THE N I E R STANDS FOR, UH, NON IONIZATION REMISSION REPORT, AND IN THE WORDS OF THE CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION, AND ALSO THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, N I E R STANDS FOR NON-IONIZING EMISSION RADIATION.
THE C D C AND E P A NOTED THAT NON-IONIZING EMISSION RADIATIONS MIGHT RESULT IN, UM, EXCUSE ME, MIGHT RESULT FROM MANY DEVICES INCLUDING HIGH POWERED, HIGH TENSION POWER LINES, MICROWAVE OVENS, CELL PHONES, COMPUTER MONITORS, TVS, WIFIS, AND AMATEUR RADIO TRANSMITTER.
THE C D C AND E P A WARNED THAT EXPOSURE TO NON IONIZING EMISSION RADIATIONS MIGHT HEAT BODY, BODY ISSUE RESULTING IN POSSIBLE IMA INJURY.
THE AMATEUR RADIO RELAY LEG HAS ALSO STUDIED THIS ISSUE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE F C C AND RECOMMENDED THAT NON-IONIZING EMISSION RADIATION FROM AMATEUR RADIO STATIONS WOULD NOT BE HARMFUL TO HUMANS, PROVIDED THAT THE AMATEUR RADIO AND ANTENNA WERE PLACED ON A TOWER AT A HEIGHT OF AT LEAST 35 FEET.
NOW, COPIES OF THE, UM, C D C E P A AND A R R L DOCUMENTS WERE SUPPORTED WERE SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD ON DECEMBER 3RD, 2021.
HARD COPIES ARE ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD.
UH, AS A PART OF THAT PACKAGE, UH, A COPY OF THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY PUBLICATION COVERING AMATEUR RADIO COMMUNICATIONS IN THE EVENT OF EMERGENCY IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY.
UH, THE ARTICLE AND OTHERS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED, EXPLAINED THE ROLE OF AMATEUR RADIO OPERATORS IN THE EVENT OF EMERGENCY RADIO COMMU COMMUNICATIONS, UM, SUCH AS WHEN ALL OF THE USUAL MEANS OF COMMUNICATIONS ARE DOWN, CELL
[00:15:01]
PHONE TOWERS ARE DOWN, LANDLINE COMMUNICATIONS ARE DISRUPTED BECAUSE OF TORNADOES, HURRICANES, OR STRONG WINDSTORMS. PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE SAW IN THE MIDWEST AND IN PARTICULAR KENTUCKY THIS PAST WEEKEND.UM, NOW THE WESTCHESTER HAS EXPERIENCED SIMILAR CASES SUCH AS SUPERSTORMS SANDY, WHEN MEMBERS OF THE WESTCHESTER EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATION, CCA WERE PRESENT PROVIDING EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS AT WESTCHESTER EVACUATION SHELTERS.
I AM A MEMBER OF WESTCHESTER COMMUNICA EMERGENCY COMMUNICATION ASSOCIATES AND WILL PARTICIPATE IN SUCH EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS.
NOW, THERE WAS ONE OTHER NEW PIECE OF INFORMATION THAT, UH, EMAILED YOU, UM, JUST THE OTHER DAY, UM, LET ME JUST FIND IT.
THERE WAS A, UM, A, UH, OCTOBER 25TH, 1994, UH, ANNOUNCEMENT.
WELL LETTER OCTOBER 25TH, 1994, F C C LETTER TO THE TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD, NEW YORK.
AND THE LETTER WAS THE RESULT OF A DENIAL BY THAT ZONING BOARD TO ALLOW A AMATEUR RADIO OPERATOR TO INSTALL A 55 FOOT TOWER, BECAUSE A NEIGHBOR, EXCUSE ME, WAS CONCERNED THAT TRANSMISSIONS WOULD INTERFERE WITH HIS, UM, THE HOME ELECTRONIC DEVICES.
WELL, THE F C C IN ISSUING ITS LETTER STATED THAT, UM, INTERFERENCE TO HOME IS ELECTRONIC COM EQUIPMENT, EXCUSE ME, INTERFERENCE TO HOME ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT COULD NOT BE A CONDITION OF THE Z B A OR ANY OTHER ZONING BOARD TO THE ISSUANCE OF A VARIANCE.
IT'S A MATTER OF EXCLUSIVE FEDERAL JURISDICTION.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE F C C HAS DEVELOPED A SERIES OF COMPLAINT REPORTS WHICH PERMIT THE, UM, CONSUMER TO FILE COMPLAINTS CONCERNING, UM, AMATEUR RADIO OPERATIONS.
IF THEY ARE, IF THEY BELIEVE THAT, UM, THOSE COMMUNICATIONS ARE THE SOURCE OF THEIR INTERFERENCE.
NOW, THERE'S ANOTHER FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS CONSUMER GUIDE TO ASSIST WITH INTERFERENCE WITH RADIO, TV, AND CORDLESS TELEPHONE SIGNALS.
AND ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS IS TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE INTERFERENCE IS CAUSED BY A TRANSMITTER OR ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT.
UNPLUGGING ONE HOUSEHOLD ELECTRONIC COMPONENT AT A TIME TO SEE IF YOU CAN ISOLATE ANY ELECTRIC INTERFERENCE SOURCE.
AND THEN IN ANOTHER PARAGRAPH, THE F C C LISTS THE SOURCES OF INTERFERENCE THAT MIGHT OCCUR WITHIN THE HOUSE, SUCH AS HAIR DRYERS, SEWING MACHINES, ELECTRIC DRILLS, DOORBELL TRANSFORMERS, LIGHT SWITCHES, SMARTPHONE CHARGERS, POWER SUPPLIES, COMPUTING DEVICES, WASHING MACHINES, CLOSED DRYERS, FLUORESCENT LIGHTS, L E D LIGHTS OR GARAGE DOOR OPENERS.
NOW, THE ONE THING THEY FORGOT WAS WIFI, WHICH HAS BECOME EVEN MORE COMMON, UM, IN THIS DAY AND AGE.
SO IF A NEIGHBOR HAS A COMPLAINT OR THINKS HE HAS A COMPLAINT CONCERNING MY OPERATION OF AN AMATEUR RADIO STATION, HIS CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION IS TO FILE A COMPLAINT WITH THE FEDERAL COMMUNICATION COMMISSION.
AND THEIR FORM COMPLAINT FORMS ARE READILY AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET BY GOING TO THE FCCS WEBSITE.
UM, NOW I BELIEVE THAT CONCLUDES EVERYTHING THAT'S NEW.
[00:20:01]
OTHER PIECE OF INFORMATION.WE DID RECEIVE A SECOND OPINION OF A, UH, ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, A MAN NAMED MR. ED HARE, WHO IS THE MANAGER, THE LABORATORY MANAGER OF THE AMERICAN RADIO LEAGUE.
AND HE PROVIDED A COPY OF THE F C C REGULATIONS TO APPLICABLE TO AMATEUR RADIO STATIONS, NOTING THAT ONLY A MINUSCULE PORTION OF A TRANSMISSION WAS PERMITTED FOR SPURIOUS SPURIOUS EMISSIONS.
NOW, MR. HARE, AN ELECTRICAL ENGINEER, HAS OVER 30 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE IN THIS FIELD, AND IT SERVES ON INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS DEALING WITH THE THESE ISSUES.
UM, IN OTHER WORDS, HE'S VERY WELL INFORMED NOW, EVEN THOUGH A NEIGHBOR CANNOT COMPLAIN ABOUT MY AMATEUR RADIO TRANSMISSIONS TO THIS BOARD, UM, BUT ONLY TO THE F C C, I AM NOT OFF THE HOOK WITH REGARD TO OPERATING MY MY AMATEUR RADIO STATION.
THE F C C UM, EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION HOME EQUIPMENT DOES NOT GET ME OFF THE HOOK FOR PROPERTY, FOR PROPERTY OPERATING MY STATION.
MR. HARE'S ATTACHMENT ALSO QUOTES SECTION 97.307 OF THE F C C REGULATIONS, CAPTIONED EMISSION STANDARDS.
AS A LICENSED AMATEUR RADIO OPERATOR LICENSED BY THE F C C I AM BOUND TO OBSERVE THESE REGULATIONS.
SUBPARAGRAPH C OF THAT SECTION REQUIRES THAT I MUST REDUCE SPURIOUS EMISSIONS TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE.
FURTHERMORE, IF THE OPERATING IS ING HARMFUL INTERFERENCE TO THE RECEPTION OF ANOTHER RADIO STATION, THE OPERATOR MUST TAKE STEPS TO ELIMINATE THE INTERFERENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICES.
YOU KNOW, IF I FAIL TO ABIDE BY THOSE RULES, MY LICENSE, MY AMATEUR RADIO LICENSE IS AT STAKE.
THE F C C CAN REVOKE IT IF I WANTONLY IGNORE THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
I'VE BEEN AN AMATEUR RADIO OPERATOR FOR 37 YEARS.
I HAVE ALWAYS ABIDED BY THE RULES JUST AS I HAVE ABIDED BY THE RULES OF THE GREENBERG ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE ERECTION OF MY TOWER AND ANTENNA.
IT IS NEVER MY INTENTION TO SHORT CYCLE ANY RULE OF LAW THAT I AM OBLIGATED EITHER AS A A, UH, CITIZEN OF THIS STATE AND TOWN OR AS AN AMATEUR RADIO OPERATOR.
SO, WITH THAT, IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE GLAD TO RESPOND.
I'M SORRY, I CANNOT HEAR YOU, MADAM.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS FROM ANY BOARD MEMBER? ALL RIGHT.
NOT HEARING ANY, ARE THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTED TO, UH, ADDRESS THIS APPLICATION THIS EVENING? UH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
THIS IS ANDREW
SO, UH, AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, I HAD MADE A COMMENT ABOUT, UM, HAVING THE SGO, UM, EVALUATE THE DEGREE OF INTERFERENCE THAT HIS ANTENNA COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE.
AND A LOT OF THE COMMENTS I RECEIVED FROM HIM WAS THAT THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO INTERFERENCE THAT COULD BE MADE.
UM, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE, UM, AFTER GETTING HIS, UH, EXPERTS TO REVIEW AND KIND OF DI DIVING MORE DEEPLY INTO THIS MATTER, THEY IDENTIFIED THAT HE CAN'T FOR CERTAIN SAY THERE WON'T BE ANY.
A LOT OF WHAT IS ARGUMENT HAS BEEN MADE NOW IS THAT THIS BOARD HAS NO RIGHT TO INTER TO SAY THAT HE IS CAUSING INTERFERENCE AND TO GET HIM TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
AND THAT IF THERE ARE ANY COMPLAINTS, HE'S JUST KIND OF SHUFFLING OFF, UM, THE NEIGHBORS TO GO, UH, EVALUATE THEIR COMPLAINTS WITH THE F C C, WHICH IS FINE, BUT, UH, JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT HE ACKNOWLEDGES HE WILL COMPLY WITH.
IF NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAPPY TO EVALUATE THIS ON THE FEDERAL LEVEL.
IF THE BOARD CURRENTLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING TO STATE THAT, HE HAS TO MAKE SURE THAT HIS NEIGHBORS ARE HAPPY WITH THE ANTENNA, THEN I'D LIKE THAT JUST TO BE STATED FOR THE RECORD, AND THAT TO BE VALIDATED
[00:25:01]
IS TRUE.UM, RATHER THAN JUST KIND OF GETTING, UM, YOU KNOW, ANECDOTAL INFORMATION FROM CASES HE PULLED FROM 30 PLUS YEARS AGO, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS ACCURATE.
WE'RE NOT JUST GETTING SOME KIND OF OPINION FROM HIM AND THAT THIS IS THE CASE.
AND THEN IF THERE IS AN ISSUE THAT WE WILL GO TO THE F C C TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS NO INTERFERENCE WITH OUR USE AND THAT HE WOULD COMPLY WITH THAT AS HE STATED.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, ARE YOU ASKING FOR LEAVE TO, UH, INQUIRE ON THE, ON BEHALF OF YOURSELF AND THE NA NIG OTHER NEIGHBORS? OR ARE YOU ASKING FOR THE APPLICANT TO SPECIFICALLY PROVIDE CERTAIN INFORMATION TO SUPPORT YOUR CONCERNS OR, OR DEFEAT YOUR CONCERNS? WELL, I, I GUESS IN AN ATTEMPT, UH, TO DO SO, HE STATED THAT THERE WAS REALLY NOTHING AT THIS BOARD THAT WE CAN DO TO BRING UP ISSUES, AND THAT IT HAD TO BE THROUGH THE F C C AS LONG AS HE CONFIRMS THAT WHEN THESE ARE BRINGING, THESE ISSUES ARE BROUGHT UP, IF THEY'RE BROUGHT UP THROUGH THE F C C, THAT HE WILL COMPLY WITH, YOU KNOW, UH, WITH ENSURING THAT HE WILL NOT BE CAUSING AN INTERFERENCE FOR OTHERS.
UH, I DON'T KNOW IF, IF HE WOULD CONFIRM THAT OR NOT, BUT YOU KNOW, IT'S CLEAR THAT LAST MEETING WE SAID THAT THIS WASN'T AT ALL EVER GOING TO BE AN INTERFERENCE, AND THAT DOESN'T SEEM THE CASE AT ALL.
SO WHEN I BROUGHT UP MY ISSUE ABOUT INTERFERENCE, I WAS, I FEEL LIKE I WAS SOMEWHAT VALIDATED BY THAT FACT.
AND NOW THE ARGUMENT IS THAT THERE'S NO, UH, LEGAL AVENUE THAT THIS BOARD COULD TO EVALUATE HIM AND MAKE SURE THAT HE'S GOING TO, UM, ADDRESS ANY, ADDRESS ANY INTERFERENCE, AND THAT NOW THE AVENUE IS THROUGH THE F C C.
SO I JUST WANNA CONFIRM THAT THAT IS THE APPROPRIATE AVENUE FOR ME TO TAKE IF THERE'S ANY CONCERN I I HAVE AND THAT HE WILL COMPLY WITH WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, WHATEVER MEANS THE F C C HAS TO ENSURE THAT HE'S NOT INTERFERING WITH HIS NEIGHBORS.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD HAVE ANY INVOLVEMENT IN.
WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO FOLLOW OUR CODE TO SEE THAT HE CERTAINLY COMPLIES TO THE GREATEST EXTENT POSSIBLE, UH, TO COMPLY WITH IT.
BUT THERE, I GUESS MY QUESTION THEN, TO STREAMLINE IS WE HAD MENTIONED THAT IN ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS FOR HIM TO PUT UP HIS ANTENNA, THAT HE WOULD ENSURE THAT HE WAS ADDRESSING ANY CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE ORIGINAL STIPULATIONS THAT WE HAD MENTIONED FOR HIM TO BE ABLE TO PUT UP THE ANTENNA AND MONITOR AND, AND MANAGE HIS RADIO STATION.
NOW IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A CHANGE THAT THAT IS NOT AN ACCURATE WAY FOR US TO BRING UP CONCERNS.
AND NOW THIS SHIFT IS, IS THAT IT SHOULD BE THROUGH THE F C C ONLY.
WHAT IS THE CORRECT AVENUE AND WHAT IS HIS RESPONSIBILITY IN THE BOARD, IN THE EYES OF THE BOARD TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS ABOUT INTERFERENCE? MADAM CHAIRMAN, MAY I RESPOND? SURE.
ALRIGHT, MADAM CHAIRMAN, WE HAVE TWO EXPERT OPINIONS, ONE BY MR. SCOTT AND ONE BY MR. HARE TO THE EFFECT THAT MY RADIO TRANSMISSIONS WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH CELL PHONE OPERATIONS, WHICH WAS, I THINK MR. KOOT'S PRINCIPAL CONCERN.
AND NUMBER TWO, HE IS CORRECT THAT HIS SOLE RECOURSE IS THROUGH COMPLAINT WITH THE F C C.
OBVIOUSLY, IF THE F C C COMES OUT AND FINDS THAT MY, UH, TRANSMISSIONS EXCEED THOSE THAT, UH, ARE SET FORTH IN 97, UH, 3 0 7 OF THE F C C REGULATIONS, THEN I WILL, I'M CORRECT.
IT, IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
AND AGAIN, I HAVE ATTACHED A COPY OF THE F C C LATER LETTER, EXCUSE ME, DATED, UH, OCTOBER 25TH, 1994, WHICH SAYS, BASICALLY THE LOCAL BOARDS ZONING BOARDS CANNOT CONDITION THE GRANT OF VARIANCES UPON INTERFERENCE WITH ELECTRONIC EQUIPMENT.
NOW, THERE WAS ONE OTHER ELEMENT THAT I SHOULD MENTION WITH REGARD TO INTERFERENCE WITH OTHER EQUIPMENT.
YOU'LL RECALL THAT THE ANTENNA REVIEW BOARD, AS ONE OF THEIR CONDITIONS STATED THAT I WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE, AND I THINK, UH, MR. LIEBERMAN RE RECALL RECALLS THIS ALSO THAT I WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO ELIMINATE, UH, ANY INTERFERENCE WITH THIS IS CRITICAL.
F C C COMPLIANT, UM, ENTERTAINMENT EQUIPMENT AND DEVICES,
[00:30:01]
AND THE WORDS F C C COMPLIANT ARE VERY MEANINGFUL IN THIS CONTEXT BECAUSE IT MEANS THAT THE ENTERTAINMENT DEVICES THAT ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE COMPLAINT INTERFERENCE MUST COMPLY WITH THE SHIELDING REQUIREMENTS THAT THE F C C HAS SET FORTH FOR THOSE PIECES OF EQUIPMENT.THAT'S WHAT F C C COMPLIANT MEANS.
NOW, WHAT DO WE LEARN, UH, IS THAT MOST MANUFACTURERS DO NOT INCUR THE EXPENSE OF PUTTING ON THE SHIELDING THAT THE F C C SAYS THEY SHOULD PUT ON IN ORDER TO PREVENT THAT INTERFERENCE.
SO THAT'S THE PART ALSO, I DON'T THINK THAT KIND OF LANGUAGE, UH, AS CONTAINED IN THE ANTENNA REVIEW BOARD'S, UH, LETTER CAN BE INCORPORATED INTO A, UM, UH, A VARIANCE FOR THE, UH, INSTALLATION OF MY TOWER AND ANTENNA.
I THINK, I HOPE THAT, UH, RESOLVES MR. KOOT'S QUESTION.
THE OTHER THING, THE OTHER POINT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE FOR MR. KOOT'S, YOU KNOW, IF HE THINKS I AM INTERFERING WITH HIS CELL PHONE, UH, CELL PHONE, UH, RECEPTION OR TRANSMISSION, YOU KNOW, IT'S A SIMPLE MATTER TO WALK A COUPLE HOUSES DOWN THIS ROAD FROM ME TO ME, KNOCK ON THE DOOR OR SEND ME A TEXT MESSAGE SAYING, GEE, ARE YOU IN ON THE RADIO NOW? UH, I'M GETTING THIS INTERFERENCE.
CAN YOU HELP ME RESOLVE THE QUESTION ABOUT WHERE THE INTERFERENCE IS FROM? AS I JUST NOTED, THE PLACE THE F C C RECOMMENDS AN INDIVIDUAL SUBJECT TO INTERFERENCE START IS IN HIS OWN HOME.
AND THEY SUGGEST UNPLUGGING ONE ELECTRICAL DEVICE AFTER THE OTHER TO SEE IF ANY OF THE DEVICES IN HIS OWN HOME ARE THE SOURCE OF THAT INTERFERENCE BEFORE, BEFORE HE GOES OUT SUGGESTING THAT SOMEONE ELSE'S ACTIVITIES ARE CAUSING HIS INTERFERENCE.
I READ IT ONCE AND I CAN READ IT AGAIN.
PLEASE DON'T, CAN I, CAN I RESPOND TO THAT? PLEASE, MS. MS. COL BEFORE YOU RESPOND.
I, I JUST HAVE TO SAY ONE THING.
AND AND I APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION THAT WAS MADE TODAY RE REGARDING THE ANTENNA, AND I WON'T BE VERY LONG REGARDING IT TO THE POINT THAT'S BEING RAISED.
THE INTERFERENCE WAS JUST ONE CAVEAT, AND THE PART THAT I DISLIKE ABOUT THIS IS THAT THE SHELL GAME IS THAT THAT IS THE ONLY CAVEAT FOR WHICH WE COULD POTENTIALLY NOT ALLOW THE ANTENNA WAS THE INTERFERENCE.
THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS, AND THAT'S WHAT MS. UH, MS. BUNTON WAS GETTING READY TO GET TO, UH, CHAIRMAN BUNTON WAS GETTING TO, IS THAT THERE ARE OTHER FACTORS THAT WE ARE HELD TO BEYOND JUST THE INTERFERENCE THAT COULD PROHIBIT THAT ANTENNA GOING UP.
SO IT COULD BE, AND THAT'S WHY WE BEGAN BY TALKING ABOUT THE TEST BALLOON AND OTHER MATTERS RELATED TO THE ANTENNA, THE TEST STRENGTH OF THE ANTENNA, THE SAFETY OF THE ANTENNA.
AND IT WAS VERY INTERESTING THAT WE BROUGHT UP THE ISSUE OF WHAT HAPPENED IN KANSAS, BECAUSE THAT ANTENNA WOULD BE FLYING ALL AROUND AND THROUGH SOMEONE'S WINDOW.
SO THE POINT TO THAT THAT'S BEING MADE IS VERY WELL TAKEN, BUT THE INTERFERENCE IS NOT THE ONLY CRITERION BY WHICH THIS VARIANCE COULD BE, UM, DENIED.
AND THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO ADD, MR. TIGO, IS THAT WHAT IS IN EFFECT TODAY IS NOT NECESSARILY THE SAME TOMORROW, AS WE KNOW WITH THE ADVANCES THAT ARE BEING MADE IN TECHNOLOGY, UH, THINGS CAN CHANGE.
SO YOU CAN'T RELY UPON NECESSARILY WHAT IS WRITTEN NOW.
WELL, THAT'S THE BEST WE CAN DO.
AND QUITE HONESTLY, YOU KNOW, THE TECHNOLOGY IS ADVANCING.
I JUST READ IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL THAT THE AIRLINES HAVE REAL CONCERN ABOUT INSTALLING FIVE G BROADBAND ON AIRCRAFT BECAUSE OF CONCERN THAT IT MIGHT AFFECT THE ALTIMETER, UH, ON THE PLANES.
SO THE F C C AND THE, UM, F A A ARE BOTH PURSUING THAT INQUIRY BEFORE FIVE G IS GOING TO BE PERMITTED TO PUT ON THE PLANES.
ANYTHING ELSE? ANYONE ELSE? UH, MAY I RESPOND TO THE PREVIOUS COMMENT THEN? CERTAINLY.
SO, I MEAN, MR. JIGO SAID THAT, OF COURSE, IF WE'RE EVALUATING FOR ANY INTERFERENCE IN OUR CELL PHONE, WE NEED TO CHECK IN OUR HOUSES FIRST.
CLEARLY WE'VE BEEN LIVING IN OUR HOUSE FOR
[00:35:01]
A NUMBER OF YEARS AND HAVE NOT HAD ISSUES, UH, WITH ANY INTERFERENCE PATTERN.I WOULD CERTAINLY BE LOOKING TOWARDS A 55 FOOT ANTENNA.
THAT'S A FEW, YOU KNOW, A FEW DOZEN FEET AWAY FROM MY HOUSE, WHICH WOULD BE MUCH MORE CONCERN FOR ANY APPEARANCE.
I'M NOT TRYING TO BLOCK IN ANY WAY IF ANY OF THESE COMMENTS, UM, GOES AS PLANNED.
I CAN SEE THROUGH THE EFFORT HE IS GONE THROUGH TO PREPARE THIS INFORMATION, TO HOLD THESE DOCUMENTS, TO DISCUSS WITH EXPERTS THAT HE IS VERY ADAMANT AND VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO CREATING A TOWER AND A RADIO STATION FOR HIMSELF.
I HAVE NO INTENTION OF BLOCKING THAT.
I JUST SIMPLY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT HE, THAT A DUE DILIGENCE IS DONE TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO INTERFERENCE AND THAT I HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT.
AND I NEVER HAVE TO, UH, WALK, WALK DOWN A FEW BLOCKS TO HIS HOUSE, OR A FEW STEPS TO THIS HOUSE TO BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY, IS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOUR ANTENNA IS INTERFERING, UM, WITH? AND IS IT CAUSING INTERFERENCE FOR MY CELL PHONE? I'M, I, I HAVE NO QUALM WITH DOING THAT.
I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH HIS PLAN AND HIS DESIRE TO CREATE A STATION.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, MAKE SURE THAT SOME MEANS OF COMMUNICATION IS, ARE IN PLACE SO THAT I CAN ISSUES THEY NOT BRUSH OFF.
I DON'T HAVE TO NECESSARILY GO TO THE GOVERNMENT TO HAVE THEM, UM, YOU KNOW, ATTACK HIM IN TERMS OF, AND EVALUATE HIM IN, IN, IN IMMEDIATE DEATH TO BE ABLE, IF HE'S CAUSING ME RETURNS FROM ME, I JUST WANT, UH, SOME SIMPLE PROCESS IN PLACE SO THAT IF THERE'S AN ISSUE, HE IS IN SOME WAY INTERESTED IN RESOLVING THE ISSUE, NOT JUST PRE CONTINUING ON HIS, UH, HIS PATH TO, YOU KNOW, HAVING HIS RADIO.
THAT'S ALL, NOT TRYING TO BLOCK HIM.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT I KNOW EXACTLY HOW, UH, I WOULD GO ABOUT BRINGING UP CONCERNS AND, UH, THROUGH WHICH HE WOULD ACTUALLY LISTEN AND WORK WITH.
MAY I RESPOND VERY QUICKLY? UH, MADAM CHAIR, I JUST WANTED TO ASK, UH, MADAM CHAIR, I JUST WANTED TO POSE ONE QUESTION, UH, PERHAPS FOR ED OR ANTHONY, UH, ZACH ROWLEY.
I MEAN, I THINK OUR EXPECTATION, OUR EXPECTATION AT THE TOWN WOULD BE, UH, UPON THIS, THIS, UH, DEVICE GOING UP.
IF CELL PHONE COVERAGE, UH, BECOMES, UH, ABNORMAL, UM, WE WOULD BE RECEPTIVE TO HEARING COMPLAINTS FROM RESIDENTS, AND WE WOULD FOLLOW UP, UH, B YOU KNOW, ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN WITH MR. STRATIGOS SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T FEEL AN OBLIGATION TO HAVE TO GO TO THE GENTLEMAN'S HOUSE.
I MEAN, WE CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE AS A TOWN, WE WANNA REPRESENT THE HEALTH AND WELFARE OF, YOU KNOW, ALL NEIGHBORS AS WE DO POLICE COMMUNICATIONS AND WHATNOT.
SO I JUST WANNA, UM, YOU KNOW, ALERT MR. TSON, ANY NEIGHBORS IN THE AREA THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOUR OBLIGATION WOULD NOT BE TO, YOU KNOW, WALK DOWN THE STREET TO MR. STRATOS, ALTHOUGH YOU COULD, BUT YOU SHOULD ALSO KNOW THAT YOU COULD CONTACT THE TOWN AT ANY TIME.
AND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WE WOULD REACH OUT TO MR. STRATIGOS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, TRY AND FIGURE OUT WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THE ISSUE IS, WANTED TO SAY TO MR. COLBECK, BECAUSE I REALIZED HE DROPPED OFF FOR A MOMENT THAT THE
AND WHEN HE HEARS THE RECORDING, HE WILL SEE THAT HIMSELF.
SO IT'S, AND I LITERALLY, I JUST CAME TO MY HOUSE ACTUALLY, SO
AND I JUST WANTED MAKE SURE THAT IN THE FUTURE I CAN TALK THE, THE BOARD, WHICH I DO VERY MUCH THANK YOU FOR BEING ABLE TO KIND OF BE THAT MEDIARY IF WE DO HAVE ANY ISSUES IN THE FUTURE.
UH, MR. ELLI, DID YOU WANNA ADD SOMETHING? NOW? I JUST AGREED WITH MR. DUQUE AND SAID THAT IS CORRECT THAT THEY CAN COME TO THE TOWN, YOU KNOW, AND NOT GO TO THE APPLICANT'S HOUSE, THAT WE WOULD LOOK INTO THEIR COMPLAINTS.
ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS CASE? ALL RIGHT, MR. STRATIGOS, I THINK WE'VE HEARD A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO AMATEUR RADIOS AND CELL TOWERS AT AT LEAST RADIO, RADIO TOWERS, I SHOULD SAY, UH, AMATEUR RADIO TOWERS.
SO, UM, OBVIOUSLY WE WILL BE DELIBERATING THIS, UH, LATER THIS EVENING.
AND THE NEXT CASE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS AGENDA KEEPS MOVING ON ME CASE 2126 BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION, WHO HAS ASKED FOR, UH, AN ADJOURNMENT TO JANUARY 16TH, JANUARY 11TH, I BELIEVE.
IS THAT THE CORRECT, UH, DATE, MS. WALKER? THAT IT'S JANUARY 11TH,
[00:40:02]
J JANUARY 11TH IS A TUESDAY.WHY DO I HAVE, WHERE DID I GET THAT FROM? OH, WELL, IN ANY EVENT, SO IT'S THE 16TH.
IN ANY EVENT, UM, DO I HAVE, IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON, IS THERE ANY, UH, I SHOULD ASK FIRST, IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WANTS TO COMMENT ON THIS MATTER OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT HAVING SO SEEN NO ONE RAISING THEIR HANDS OR SPEAKING UP? I WOULD ASK WHETHER THERE IS ANY, UM, WHETHER WE CAN, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS OR NOT? I GUESS NOT.
MERYL, IS THIS AN AS OF RIGHT? NO, NO, IT'S NOT.
SO I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR TO ADJOURN TO THE JANUARY, JANUARY 2ND, SECOND.
THAT WILL BE FOR JANUARY 20TH, AND THE NEXT CASE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS CASE 2130, WHICH IS CLOSED FOR DECISION ONLY, AND THE NEXT CASE IS 2131 PETER GAINOR, PROPERTY AT SIX VISTA PLACE.
AND DO I HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE OR SOMEONE SPEAKING ON THEIR BEHALF? YES.
MADAM CHAIR, THIS IS PETER GAINOR.
YEAH, GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR AND BOARD MEMBERS.
I LIVE IN 2 37 LOCUST ROAD, YORKTOWN HEIGHTS.
I'M REPRESENTING MY SISTER, ELIZABETH GAINOR, WHO'S INCAPABLE OF, UH, COMING TO THIS MEETING.
UH, THE, THE HOUSE IN QUESTION WAS HERS SIXTH VISTA PLACE.
UM, SHE OWNED THAT HOUSE 15 YEARS AND RECENTLY SOLD.
AND, UH, IT WAS UNCOVERED AT THE, UH, CLOSING PROCESS THAT THE, THE, THERE WAS NO CO FOR THE EXISTING DECK THAT YOU SEE HERE.
UM, FURTHER, UH, THE BUMP OUT TO THE LEFT OF THAT PICTURE WHERE THE STAIRS ARE, THAT VIOLATES THE SETBACK.
THE, UH, THERE IS A VARIANCE, UH, GRANTED, I JUST GOT FROM CAROL, UM, BACK IN 1967 FOR THAT BUMP OUT THAT YOU SEE THERE.
SO WHAT'S IN QUESTION IS THIS AREA HERE WITH THE STAIRS? UM, UM, I, THE, THE WHOLE PROCESS INVOLVES AN ESCROW I'VE PUT OUT FOR THE BUYER TO REMEDIATE THIS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
AND, UM, SO I'M REQUESTING HERE AT THIS MEETING, UH, FOR VARIANCE TO OBTAIN THE CO.
HOW, HOW LONG HAVE THE STEPS BEEN THERE? UH, THIS OVER 20 YEARS.
UM, THE, THE DECK WAS EXISTING WHEN THE HOUSE WAS PURCHASED BY MY SISTER BACK IN 2005.
UM, AT THAT TIME, THE CO TOPIC NEVER CAME UP.
UH, THE HOUSE CLOSED, AND HERE WE ARE.
UH, THE CURRENT CLOSING DID UNCOVER IT.
UM, I THINK THAT'S, AND HAS, HAS THE DECK BEEN, UM, REBUILT AT ANY POINT, OR IS THIS ESSENTIALLY THE DECK THAT WAS THERE? UH, MY SISTER DID RE REPLACE THE, UH, THE TWO BY THE, UH, PRESSURE TREATED DECKING WITH TREX, I THINK ABOUT EIGHT YEARS AGO OR SO.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE, UH, BOARD? ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE NEIGHBORS OR OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS? DO YOU KNOW WHETHER OR NOT YOUR SISTER HAD ANY, UH, FEEDBACK FROM HER NEIGHBORS WITH RESPECT TO THIS REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE? I KNOW, I KNOW THAT TWO OF THE NEIGHBORS VERY WELL ON EITHER SIDE, AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE FINE WITH THIS.
UM, UH, THEY ALL HAVE THE SAME SIZE PARCELS, UM, AND NO COMPLAINTS.
UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALL, THEY'RE ALL FRIENDS IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.
ALL RIGHT, THEN WE WILL TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT THIS EVENING AND LET YOU KNOW WHAT THE OUTCOME WILL BE.
[00:45:01]
THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.AND THE NEXT CASE TONIGHT IS CASE 21, 28.
I'M SORRY, I HAVE THE WRONG NUMBER.
UM, I MUST SAY THAT DONNA JOB IS MY NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR.
SO, UH, I WOULD, IF, UH, DESIRED, I WOULD REMOVE MYSELF FROM THIS PROCEEDING.
AND I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE ENOUGH MEMBERS WHO COULD VOTE ON IT.
SO HOW, HOW, HOW SHOULD WE DO THIS? MR. LIEBERMAN? RECUSE YOURSELF.
I MEAN, IF THAT'S YOUR DESIRE, IT'S UP TO YOU.
I, I, I WOULD FEEL BETTER IF I DID.
RIGHT? WE, UH, THEN, UH, PICK A, AN ACTING CHAIR.
I JUST LEFT ONE OFFICE AND I'M, I'M IN ROUTE TO ANOTHER, BUT GO AHEAD.
IF YOU CAN'T DO IT, YOU CAN'T DO IT.
I, I DON'T HAVE THE, THE, THE STATEMENT IN FRONT OF ME TO READ.
UH, MS. NACK, COULD YOU DO IT? SURE.
IS DONNA ONLINE? SHE WAS HAVING A PROBLEM? YES.
AM I, UM, I GUESS I'M SUPPOSED TO SAY SOMETHING.
UM, MY, MY DECK WAS DAMAGED IN A STORM BY MY NEIGHBOR'S TREE.
UM, AND SO IN REPAIRING IT, I THOUGHT THAT, OKAY, LET'S DO IT AND PUT IT UP TO CODE BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT IN 1986, SO IT'S NOT UP TO CODE.
UM, SO I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, REPLACE THE RAILING AND THE ACTUAL DECKING IN THAT PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR THE PERMIT.
WHILE THERE IS A VARIANCE FOR THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, WHICH IS TO, IT IS CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, THERE IS APPARENTLY NOT THE VARIANCE FOR THOSE STEPS THAT GO UP AND THE PART OF THE DECK THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, ACCOMMODATES THOSE, THOSE STEPS.
UM, ALTHOUGH IT WAS ON THE ORIGINAL SURVEY THAT WAS SUBMITTED IN 1985.
UM, SO, AND I'VE TURNED THAT IN.
I, THAT THAT DOESN'T, DOES THAT SHOW THE ACTUAL YEAH, IT SHOWS THE ACTUAL WOOD DECK.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE I BOUGHT THE HOUSE IN 2005.
UM, SO I, I, I WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE EVERYTHING EXACTLY AS IT IS ON THE FRAME AND THE, THE POSTS IN THE GROUND, THEY'RE ALL GOOD.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO REPLACE THE RAILING AND THE DECKING.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE A COMMENT.
UM, THE REASON THAT, UH, SHE, THAT, THAT THE HOUSE WASN'T BUILT ACCORDING TO WHAT THE SPECS WERE WHEN I BELIEVE IT WAS PUT IN, IS THE BUILDER, UH, DID NOT FOLLOW THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN CORRECTLY.
HE MOVED THE HOUSE BACK FOR SOME REASON.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE REASON WAS, AND THAT'S WHAT PUT HER IN, NOT HER, BUT THE PRIOR OWNER IN THIS PREDICAMENT WHERE THEY WERE REALLY TOO CLOSE TO THE LINE.
SO THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE THAT THE DECK IS CONSTRUED THE WAY IT IS, AS OPPOSED TO BEING FURTHER OUT FROM THE HOUSE, BECAUSE IT COMES OUT AS YOU SEE FROM THE KITCHEN WHERE THE STEPS ARE, BUT THEN YOU HAVE TO GO AROUND TO THE SIDE TO GET TO IT.
SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT HAPPENED.
THE HOUSE WAS JUST PUT IN THE WRONG SPOT.
ANYONE ELSE? UH, YES, I, I'M STILL TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE IS THAT 8.4 INCHES? IT'S, IS IT RIGHT WHERE THE STAIRS GO UP TO THE YES, EXACTLY.
[00:50:01]
I'M SORRY.AT THE BOTTOM, YOU HAVE TO SCROLL DOWN.
LEWIS, THE FOUR FOOT THREE INCHES, SO THE VARIANCE IS FROM FIVE FOOT TO FOUR FOOT THREE INCHES, IS THE VARIANCE BEING ASKED FOR AT THE BOTTOM LEFT? OKAY, GOT IT.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS LOOKING AT THE RIGHT THING GIVEN THE, THE CASE THAT JUST HAPPENED BEFORE THIS, IT'S VERY INTERESTING THAT THIS WASN'T DISCOVERED AT THE TIME OF SALE.
UH, I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, IF A NEW SURVEY WAS DONE, THAT MAY HAVE BEEN THE PROBLEM.
YEAH, THE, THE SURVEY THAT I GOT A FEW YEARS LATER, UM, I THINK I GOT IT IN 2008.
IT SHOWS THE DATE OF BEING 1985, WHICH WAS JUST A FEW MONTHS PRIOR TO THE HOUSE BEING BUILT.
SO I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY I DON'T KNOW THE HISTORY OF ALL OF THAT.
BUT, UM, NO, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REPLACE THE RAILING IN THE DECKING, NOT CHANGE ANYTHING.
I WILL SAY ON DONNA'S PART, SHE'S AN EXCELLENT NEIGHBOR AND WE GET MUSIC ALSO.
SHE TEACHES CLARINET,
AND I KNOW WHO TAKES, I KNOW WHO TAKES LESSONS FROM YOU.
I DON'T KNOW WHY I SAID CLARINET.
IS THERE, 'CAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT THE, THE PICTURES.
IS THERE ANY OTHER ENTRANCE FROM THE BACK OF THE HOUSE EXCEPT FOR THIS DECK? DIDN'T LOOK LIKE THERE WAS ANOTHER ENTRANCE THERE TO THE DECK? NO, NO.
OH, THE HOUSE YOU CAN ENTER FROM THE FRONT, WHICH IS RIGHT OFF OF OLD ROAD, OR THE BACK GARAGE DOOR, WHICH IS RIGHT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE STAIRS.
THERE IS A, THERE IS AN ENTRANCE.
JUST TO, TO CLARIFY, ARE YOU, WHEN YOU SAY THE DECKING, YOU WERE INCLUDING THE STEPS TOO? YES.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I DON'T KNOW.
SO WE'LL TAKE IT UNDER ADVISEMENT IN OUR DELIBERATIONS.
AND YEAH, EVE, IT DOESN'T TAKE YOU OFF THE HOOK.
UM, JESSE ANTONELLI AND LEXI ANO.
AND WHO IS HERE TONIGHT ON, THERE SHE IS.
OUR ARCHITECT IS HERE WITH US.
WHO'S GONNA SPEAK? JOSH IS GOING TO KICK US OFF.
UH, GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
UM, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO SHARE MY SCREEN? YES, YES, PLEASE DO.
IS THAT WORKING OUT HERE? IT COMES.
ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE THE SITE PLAN? YES.
AGAIN, MY NAME IS JOSH HEIDER FROM HE HOUSTON ARCHITECTS, UH, REPRESENTING THE HOMEOWNERS FOR 100 HEATH.
UM, THE SITE PLAN HERE, UH, SHOWS HOPEFULLY ILLUSTRATES WHAT WE THINK IS A RELATIVELY, UH, STRAIGHTFORWARD REQUEST.
UM, THE, UH, HOMEOWNERS WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SMALL ADDITION, UH, WITHIN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING.
UM, AND I'LL SHOW YOU IN A MINUTE, UH, WHAT THE ADDITION COMPRISES IN TERMS OF THE GROUND FLOOR, BUT HERE YOU CAN SEE THAT THE PORTION OF THAT, UM, ADDITION IS, UH, OVER THE SITE, THE SIDE SETBACK.
SO WE ARE ASKING FOR TWO VARIANCES ON THE SINGLE SIDE SETBACK REQUIRED IS 12.
UH, THE EXISTING IS, UH, 3.83, WHICH OCCURS OVER HERE.
AND THIS PROPOSED ADDITION, UH, WOULD CONTINUE, UH, THIS 8.4, UH, OFFSET.
AND THEN WITH THE TOTAL OF TWO SIDE YARDS REQUIRED IS 26 FEET.
[00:55:01]
14, AGAIN, THAT INCLU THAT OCCURS IN THIS, UM, WIDER PART OF THE HOUSE.UH, AND THE, UH, REQUEST IS FOR A CONTINUATION OF 18.58 FEET.
UH, WHAT THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF, THIS IS THE EXISTING FLOOR PLAN HERE ON THE TOP AND THE PROPOSED FLOOR PLAN ON THE BOTTOM.
AND THE PROJECT CONSISTS OF, UM, ENCLOSING WHAT IS NOW A COVERED PATIO SPACE.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF COLUMNS THERE.
THE SECOND FLOOR, UH, FOOTPRINT IS ABOVE THAT, AND THE ROOF IS ABOVE THAT.
SO IT'S WITHIN THE EXISTING BULK OF THE BUILDING.
AND THE PROPOSAL IS TO EXPAND AND MODERNIZE THE KITCHEN INTO THAT SPACE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW IT TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE FAMILY ROOM, UH, ALLOW THEM TO SUPERVISE THEIR YOUNG CHILDREN.
AND WHILE THEY'RE IN THE KITCHEN, UH, IN ADDITION, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ADD A POWDER ROOM ON THIS FLOOR.
UH, THERE ISN'T CURRENTLY A BATHROOM ON THIS FLOOR.
THE TOTAL ADDITION IS ABOUT 98 SQUARE FEET, SO RELATIVELY MODEST, UH, THIS IS THE EFFECT IT WOULD HAVE IN ELEVATION.
YOU'RE SEEING THE EXISTING REAR ELEVATION.
SO THIS IS THE OPEN, CURRENTLY OPEN PART NOW, WHICH WOULD BECOME FILLED IN.
AGAIN, YOU'RE SEEING THE OPEN OVERHANG OF THE SECOND FLOOR, AND WHICH WOULD NOW BE FILLED IN ALL OF THE MATERIALS, UH, WOULD MATCH THE EXISTING.
UM, THE ADDITION PROPOSED EDITION IS NOT VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, SO IT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU CAN SEE, UH, THIS IS THE AREA THAT WE ARE LOOKING TO FILL IN AGAIN, WITHIN THE EXISTING, UH, BULK MASSING OF THE, UH, EXISTING HOUSE.
UM, CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE HISTORY AS TO WHY THIS HOUSE IS ALREADY NON-CONFORMING? UH, I BELIEVE THAT, UM, IT, IT STEMMED FROM THE FACT THAT IT IS A VERY NARROW LOT.
UM, THERE WAS A PRIOR VARIANCE, UH, BACK IN, UH, 1987 WHERE THIS TWO STORY EDITION WAS GRANTED.
UM, AND AGAIN, THAT'S THE, IT'S THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT OF THAT TWO STORY EDITION, UM, THAT WE ARE CONTINUING.
CAROL, DID YOU SEND OUT THE, UH, THE PRIOR VARIANCE TODAY? YES.
BUT I'M NOT SURE IF I DID IT TODAY OR PRIOR TO THAT, BUT IT WAS SENT OUT.
THAT WAS THE ONE, ED, I TOLD YOU THAT.
NOT SURE IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE COULD ADD THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
AT THE MOMENT I WAS ASKING, WAS THERE, THE, THE APPLICANT HAD INDICATED SHE MIGHT HAVE WANTED TO ADD SOMETHING, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF SHE DID.
IF THERE WAS ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, I'M HAPPY TO, HAPPY TO ADDRESS THEM.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU OWNED THE HOUSE? OH, UM, SINCE 2016.
MR. BOWDEN, ARE YOUR HANDS UP OR DOWN? WE'RE NOT HEARING YOU, SO I'M NOT SURE.
I KNOW I JUST GOT BACK FROM THE BOTANICAL GARDENS
HOW WERE THE LIGHTS? FANTASTIC.
THE TRAFFIC WAS GETTING THERE WAS DIFFICULT, BUT THE LIGHTS ARE BEAUTIFUL.
ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO CONTRIBUTE TO THIS PROCEEDING AT THIS MOMENT OR NOT? GIMME A MINUTE TILL I FIGURE OUT WHERE I AM.
WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE ABOUT TO GO INTO DELIBERATIONS, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING YOU.
[01:00:01]
UH, MADAM CHAIR, I JUST DID WANT TO NOTE, UM, AND I APOLOGIZE TO THE APPLICANT.I DID NOT HAVE A CHANCE TO REACH OUT TO YOU.
UM, YOUR NEIGHBOR, WHO I THINK YOU'VE SEEN ON A, A COUPLE OF EMAILS HAD INDICATED THAT THEY HAD INTENT TO HAVE SURVEY WORK DONE.
AND I FEEL LIKE THEY INDICATED THAT THAT WOULD BE DONE SOON.
THEY, THEY HAD REQUESTED AN ADJOURNMENT, SO I CALLED THEM UP JUST TO MAKE SURE THEY UNDERSTOOD THE PROCESS.
UM, SO TO NOT HAVE YOU LOSE A MONTH AND ALLOW YOU TO AT LEAST CONVEY YOUR PROJECT TO THE BOARD SO THAT IF THEY DID HAVE ANY CONCERNS, I DIDN'T WANT YOU TO LOSE THAT OPPORTUNITY.
UM, BUT OUTTA RESPECT FOR, UM, WHAT I REPRESENTED TO THE NEIGHBOR, UM, I INDICATED THAT, UH, I WOULD RELATE TO THE BOARD THAT ESSENTIALLY THEY AGREED TO NOT DO AN AS OF RIGHT ADJOURNMENT IN LIEU OF THE HOPE THAT THIS WOULD BE EXTENDED ONE MORE MONTH SO THEY COULD CONTRIBUTE IF THEY HAVE ANY COMMENTS NEXT MONTH.
SO, UM, APOLOGIZE, I DIDN'T GET A CHANCE TO SPEAK WITH YOU ABOUT THIS BEFORE THE MEETING, BUT I DID WANNA ALERT YOU OF THAT.
WELL, I DO THINK WE, UM, AND MAYBE, UM, JESSICA WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO THIS AS WELL.
UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THIS HAS BEEN A LONG PROCESS FOR THE HOMEOWNER.
UM, WE DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE NATURE OF THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERN IS.
THEY, THEY HAVEN'T SHARED THAT WITH US.
AND BECAUSE WE FEEL THIS IS A, A VERY, UM, CONSIDERED APPLICATION.
I MEAN, THE INSTRUCTIONS FROM THE HOMEOWNERS TO US WERE TO SOLVE THIS PROBLEM FOR THEM, THAT IN, UH, IN NO WAY AT ANY DETRIMENT TO ANYBODY ELSE.
AND, AND WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE DONE THAT.
SO, YOU KNOW, ABSENT OF AN ACTUAL CONCERN, WE, WE WOULD PREFER, IF POSSIBLE, TO, TO HAVE THE BOARD GIVE US A DECISION TODAY SO WE COULD CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD.
UM, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, WE'RE NOT EVEN QUITE SURE WHAT THE SURVEY OF HER PROPERTY WOULD AFFECT THIS VARIANCE REQUEST.
WE, WE HAVE OBVIOUSLY A SURVEY AS PART OF OUR APPLICATION THAT SHOWS THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE AND I THINK PROVIDES ALL THE INFORMATION THAT'S RELEVANT TO OUR APPLICATION.
SO, AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA ADD ANYTHING, JESSICA, BUT I THINK RESPECTFULLY, UH, WE WOULD, WE WOULD PREFER IF THE PROCEEDING COULD MOVE FORWARD.
YEAH, JUST ECHO THAT, THAT IS OUR PREFERENCE, THAT THE PROCEEDING MOVE FORWARD AS WE HAVE BEEN WAITING A REALLY LONG TIME FOR THIS TO GET ON THIS MEETING AND WOULD REALLY LIKE TO MOVE FORWARD TONIGHT.
I, I UNDERSTAND THAT MR. DECA WAS THE NEIGHBOR MORE SPECIFIC THAN WANTING TO HAVE THIS SURVEY AND TO WHAT END? NO, THEY WEREN'T.
UM, BUT THEY, THEY WERE JUST VERY ADAMANT THAT, UM, IF THIS, THEY KNEW THIS WERE NOT TO BE, UH, IF THIS HAD A POSSIBILITY OF BEING CLOSED, UH, THEY WOULD'VE EXERCISED THEIR RIGHT TO AN AS OF RIGHT ADJO.
I GUESS WE'LL HAVE TO, UH, DELIBERATE ON THAT ISSUE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? AND DID THE NEIGHBORS SAY THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO SPEAK TONIGHT OR TO PROVIDE SOMETHING TO IT INDICATED THAT I INDICATED THAT THEY WERE IN TRAVEL.
I, IT WAS AN EMAIL AND I FORWARDED IT TO THE BOARD.
AND AS YOU'LL SEE, IT'S VERY UNCLEAR WHAT THE CONCERN IS.
UM, WHICH IS WHY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, UH, WE'VE MADE OURSELVES VERY READILY AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS.
UM, BUT WE JUST, IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THE, THE, THE SURVEY HAD ANY RELATION TO THE VARIANCE THAT WE ARE REQUESTING HERE TONIGHT, WHICH IS WHY WE'D REALLY LIKE TO CONTINUE TO MOVE FORWARD, IF POSSIBLE.
WHEN DID YOU FIRST HEAR ABOUT IT? WHEN THEY WROTE THE LETTER OR DID THEY CONTACT YOU BEFORE WHEN THE, UM, WHEN THEY, THE EMAIL, THE SIGN THAT WAS IT WHEN WE SENT THE NOTE.
I MEAN, WE, I THINK WE, UM, UH, WELL, NOT ME PERSONALLY, BUT THROUGH, UH, THE NEIGHBORS, OBVIOUSLY THESE ARE NEIGHBORS WHO KNOW EACH OTHER.
WE DID SUGGEST TO THE NEIGHBOR THAT THEY WRITE A LETTER.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE FAMILIAR WITH THESE PROCESSES AND ESPECIALLY IN THE TIMES OF COVID, NOT EVERYONE'S BEEN ABLE TO COME TO EVERY MEETING AND THERE IS AN OUTLET TO EXPRESS A CONCERN AS FAR AS WE UNDERSTAND.
I SPOKE TO HER, UH, SEVERAL TIMES AND I SUGGESTED SHE WRITE A LETTER WITH HER CONCERNS.
BUT IN THE END, THE EMAIL THAT, THE LAST EMAIL THAT SHE SENT JUST REPEATED EVERYTHING THAT SHE SAID BEFORE, BUT DID NOT GIVE ANYTHING.
SHE DOESN'T HAVE ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT SHE'S AGAINST OTHER THAN SHE WANTS HER SURVEY.
I THINK SHE WANTS TO VERIFY THAT THE BOUNDARIES ARE CORRECT.
THAT WAS THE IMPRESSION I GOT.
THANK YOU MS. WALKER FOR THAT BIT OF INFORMATION.
UM, CAROL, UH, DID YOU RECEIVE, I JUST DUG THROUGH MY EMAILS.
THE, UH, DECEMBER 13TH LETTER.
UM, SO THIS IS FROM THE NEIGHBOR, UH, MS. SILVER.
I'M WRITING TO REQUEST THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AREA VARIANCES,
[01:05:01]
UM, BE RESCHEDULED, UH, TO ANOTHER DATE, UM, IN TRAVEL.I'M PARAPHRASING FOR BREVITY, UM, HISTORY ABOUT RECEIVING THE JOURNAL NEWS AD HISTORY WITH SPEAKING WITH, UM, Z B A SECRETARY CAROL WALKER.
UM, I'M REVIEWING THESE DOCUMENTS AND COMPILING QUESTIONS.
UM, AS I WROTE TO MS. WALKER EARLIER TODAY, THE SURVEY PROCESS FOR MY PROPERTY IS UNDERWAY AND I EXPECT IT TO BE DONE, UH, BY EARLY JANUARY.
UM, AND THAT'S WHERE WITH THE CONTINUAL EMAILS GOING BACK FORWARD, BACK AND FORTH, I, I INTERVENED AND CALLED JUST TO, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, JUST CHECK IN THERE.
AND THAT'S WHEN THE NEIGHBOR, UH, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS THE, AS A RIGHT ADJOURNMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, WAS ESSENTIALLY READY TO, UM, EXERCISE THAT.
UM, BUT YOU KNOW, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS APPLICANT, UM, YOU KNOW,
UM, I ALWAYS FEEL IT'S BEST TO GET THE APPLICATION PRESENTED IN CASE THERE ARE ISSUES.
SO ISSUES DON'T COME UP NEXT MONTH AND THEN PUT YOU INTO FEBRUARY.
SO IT'S JUST, I WAS JUST TRYING TO INTERVENE AND BE HELPFUL, BUT I, I, AS I MENTIONED, WOULD'VE LIKED TO HAVE CALLED YOU TO INDICATE TO YOU WHETHER YOU, YOU KNOW, WANTED TO ADJOURN SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO BRING YOUR PROFESSIONAL ALTITUDE MEETINGS.
SO I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING THE CHANCE TO, TO DO THAT.
ANYTHING ELSE? ANY OTHER COMMENTS? HEARING QUIET? UM, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THAT WE NOW ADJOURN FOR OUR DELIBERATIONS.
AS YOU KNOW, WE GO INTO, UM, A WHAT WE CALL A ZOOM ROOM, WHERE YOU CAN CERTAINLY OBSERVE AND LISTEN, BUT NOT AT THAT TIME PARTICIPATE.
DID YOU WANT TO TAKE A TWO MINUTE BREAK OR DO YOU WANNA GET RIGHT TO IT? I'LL, I, I, WHATEVER TIME.
DOES ANYONE NEED A BREAK? JUST SAY SO.
YEAH, THERE'S NOT MUCH YOU CAN DO IN TWO MINUTES.
WOULD YOU LIKE FIVE, FIVE MINUTE BREAK IS, I THINK IT'S BOARD'S TYPICAL PROTOCOL.
UH, TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RESTROOM BREAK AND IT'S EIGHT 15.
WE'LL BE BACK AT, UH, EIGHT 18.
[01:13:22]
ALL RIGHT.SO, UM, WE HAVE A CONDENSED EVENING TODAY.
WE DIDN'T HAVE A LOT OF, UH, ARGUMENTATION TO DEAL WITH ARGUMENT.
I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE THE HOUSE BECAUSE IT'S TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
CAN YOU SUGGEST THAT SHE MOVED HER HOUSE BACK? NO, I DON'T THINK SO.
ACTUALLY, THE, THE, THE NEIGHBOR WHO OWNED IT BEFOREHAND WANTED TO BUY A STRIP OF LAND FROM ME, AND I SAID, FINE, BUT THEY WANTED ME TO GIVE IT TO 'EM.
AND I SAID, NO, IT'S A HUNDRED LONG PIECE STRIP.
SO IT'S STAYED THE WAY IT IS, BUT SHE, SHE IS A GOOD NEIGHBOR, SO.
WE HAVE A REVISED, UM, SOMEWHAT REVISED DECISION ON THAT MATTER.
HAVE YOU ALL HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT? YES.
ANY COMMENTS, ANY QUESTIONS, ANY CONCERNS? I THOUGHT IT WAS FINE.
YEAH, I THINK ED DID A GOOD JOB.
YEAH, HE DID VERY, HE ADDRESSED ALL OF THE, I THINK THINGS YOU COULD POSSIBLY ADDRESS TO, UH, WITH RETURN, WITH VIEW TOWARDS COVERING HOPEFULLY ANY ISSUES IN THE FUTURE.
[01:15:01]
SINCE THE TOWN CO-SIGN, SHALL I SAY THAT THEY WOULD STEP IN AND HELP THE NEIGHBORS SHOULD THERE BE ANY ISSUES.SO YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO RUN TO THE F C C, WHICH IS KIND OF A DAUNTING THING TO HAVE TO DO, I WOULD IMAGINE, ESPECIALLY IF YOU'RE NOT HEARING ON YOUR CELL PHONE.
SO, UM, THIS IS A TYPE TWO CAROL, OR DO I HAVE A PLANNING, I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT THAT'S A SPECIAL PERMIT.
I HAVE A, A HISTORY OF, UH, A, A NEIGHBOR WHO WAS A HAM RADIO OPERATOR.
AND, UH, WHEN I FIRST MOVED INTO MY HOUSE, HE, YOU COULD HEAR HIM ON THE TELEPHONE, YOU COULD HEAR HIM ON OUR TELEVISION, YOU COULD HEAR HIM ON OUR STEREO.
AND SO I WAS STARTING THIS OFF ALREADY, NOT BEING VERY MUCH IN MR. STRAND'S FAVOR, BUT I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT, UM, EVERYTHING THAT HE HAS SAID THAT HE WOULD DO, UM, KIND OF SHOWS ME THAT HE, HE, HIS ATTITUDE IS THE PROPER ONE TO HAVE IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THAT HE CAN DO WHAT HE CAN DO, BUT HE WON'T TRY TO DISRUPT, UM, ANY OF HIS NEIGHBORS IN DOING SO.
UM, I LIKE ALL OF THE INFORMATION THAT HE HAS, UM, PUT FORTH FOR US TO PERUSE.
AND, UM, I THINK TONIGHT, EVEN THOUGH HE WENT ON WITH THE SUMMARY, WHICH WE DIDN'T NEED TO HEAR, UM, IT WAS VERY GOOD TO HEAR HIM SAY THAT, UM, IF THERE WAS ANY DISRUPTION THAT HE HAD TO OTHERS, HIS NEIGHBORS WITH, UM, WITH HIS, UH, RADIO OPERATION, HE WOULD DO WHATEVER HE COULD TO MITIGATE THAT.
UM, AND I, I REALLY FEEL THAT THAT IS WHAT HE WOULD REALLY DO IF THE TIME CAME.
BUT SOME OF THE OTHER INVESTIGATING THAT I'VE DONE, UM, I REALIZED THAT THE, THERE PROBABLY SHOULD NOT BE ANY INTERFERENCE IN CELL PHONE USAGE BECAUSE OF HIS RADIO OPERATION.
SO I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH HIS APPLICATION.
THE, THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE, AND I, I KNOW WE BRIEFLY ADDRESSED THIS BEFORE, BUT MY BRAIN IS TIRED TODAY, WAS IF HE SHOULD HAVE A BUYER THAT IS ALSO A RADIO OPERATOR, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO INHERIT THIS ANTENNA, SO TO SPEAK? UM, OR WOULD IT BE SOMETHING THAT IS SPECIFIC TO THE APPLICANT, UM, AND THE PERMIT WOULD EXPIRE AT THAT TIME? I ADDRESSED THAT IN 0.9 OF THE CONDITIONS.
SO HE WOULD DEFINITELY, THE OTHER PERSON WOULD HAVE TO ACTUALLY APPLY FOR AND GET THE SPECIAL PERMIT.
AND UNTIL HE DID SUCH, I ASSUME THAT, WELL, I SHOULDN'T ASSUME THAT.
WOULD THAT MEAN THAT HE COULD SELL THE PROPERTY AND BE IN CONTRACT AND THE PERSON WHO'S IN CONTRACT TO BUY THE PROPERTY COULD APPLY FOR THE PERMIT SO THAT WHEN THEY GO IN THE HOUSE, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO USE IT? OR WOULD THEY HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL THEY ACTUALLY TOOK CONTROL AND, UH, OF, OF THE PROPERTY AS THEIR OWN AND THEN HAVE TO APPLY FOR IT? I THINK THEY COULD REPLY.
IT, IT, IT'S A CON IT COULD BE A CONDITION PROCEEDING TO THE SALE IF IT'S THAT IMPORTANT TO THE BUYER.
UH, WELL, FIRST OF ALL, HE WOULDN'T, HE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO OPERATE IT, I DON'T BELIEVE UNDER THE, UH, F C C REGULATIONS.
THE, THE, THE LICENSE IS GIVEN IS, IS GIVEN TO, UH, MR. STRATUS.
[01:20:01]
OKAY.AND THAT'S THE POSITION THAT THE TOWN IS TAKING.
SO EVEN IF HE WERE TO, LET'S SAY,
THE SAME WOULD APPLY BECAUSE THE LICENSE IS PERSONAL TO THE APPLICANT HERE.
THOSE ARE THE ONLY CONCERNS I HAVE.
NOW, WHETHER THE TOWN WOULD FIND OUT ABOUT IT IS A DIFFERENT STORY.
BUT THE NEIGHBORS WOULD KNOW, AND I THINK WE HAVE A NEIGHBOR LISTENING IN.
ONLY IF THERE'S INTER INTERFERENCE, THOUGH.
WELL, NO, NO INTERFERENCE T NO, NO.
THE NEIGHBORS WOULD KNOW IF THERE'S SOMEBODY ELSE IN THE PROPERTY.
MR. STRATUS LEAVES THE PROPERTY, SELLS THE PROPERTY, AND LEAVES.
THE NEIGHBORS WOULD KNOW THAT THERE'S A NEW OWNER, PRESUMABLY, OR SOMEONE ELSE LIVING IN THE HOUSE, I SHOULD SAY.
AND, AND THE ANTENNA'S STILL BEING UP ONE OR THE OTHER AND USING THE ANTENNA? OR WOULD THAT UH, WELL, I THOUGHT THEY ANTENNA HAD TO BE THOUGHT, THOUGHT HE WAS REQUIRED TO REMOVE IT.
I BELIEVE IF YOU LOOK AT THE TRANSCRIPT OF THE LAST MEETING, MR. STRATUS RECOGNIZES THAT THIS IS A PERSONAL LICENSE.
AND I BELIEVE HE EVEN SAID IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY THAT HE WOULD FIND A BUYER THAT IS ALSO, UM, LICENSED.
AND SO HE'S WELL AWARE OF THE OBLIGATION THAT HE WOULD HAVE TO REMOVE THE, UH, ANTENNA ON SALE, EXCEPT MR. BLAND POINTED OUT THAT THIS SEEMS TO BE A GROWING, UH, HE WILL BE.
SO THERE'S NOTHING ELSE ANYONE CAN THINK OF.
NOW I'VE GOTTA MAKE SURE THAT I'M READING THE RIGHT, RIGHT DRAFT, BUT I'LL, I'LL GET THAT STRAIGHT.
YOU MAY NOT, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO READ IT TONIGHT, BUT I HAVE TO GET THE MOTION.
SO I WANNA MAKE SURE I HAVE THE RIGHT MOTION.
I'LL CHECK TO MAKE SURE I HAVE THE RIGHT ONE.
SO WE MOVE ON TO, UH, BRODSKY PROPERTY.
AND AGAIN, THAT'S A, UH, GOOD DECISION BY OUR ESTEEMED COUNSEL.
I ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE? NO.
ANY IN ADDITIONS? ANY COMMENTS? ANY ANYTHING? NO.
EVERYBODY'S LIKE, WE'VE HAD IT
THE WEATHER'S GOOD, BUT WE'VE JUST HAD IT
AND NEXT WE HAVE 2131, THE PROPERTY AT SIX VISTA PLACE TO LEGALIZE THE DECK.
AND THE DECK HAS BEEN THERE FOR 20 YEARS, AND IT'S A QUESTION OF THE YARD SETBACK BEING 21 FEET TO 12.4 FEET PROPOSED, WHICH IS WHAT'S BEEN THERE ALL THIS TIME.
ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? OKAY.
IS THERE, IT'S VERY SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD TO ME.
MR. CRITCHLOW, CAN YOU DO THIS ONE SINCE YOU'RE A DECK PERSON? OKAY.
HE MAY POTENTIALLY HAVE ONE MORE.
WHAT YOU MEAN? ONE MORE, WILLIAM.
YOU MEAN THERE'S ONE MORE DECK TODAY, ISN'T THERE?
THAT, THAT, THAT'S YOUR WORDS.
I'LL, I I'LL DO THE NEXT DECK ONE.
I'LL VOLUNTEER, MOVE THE HOUSE.
SO I GUESS WE'RE, I GUESS WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR.
I GUESS WE'RE ALL IN FAVOR OF THE DECKS BEING, UM, GRANTED.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT INCLUDES
[01:25:01]
2131 AS WELL AS 2132.UH, I DON'T HAVE THE FILE FOR 2131.
UM, I DIDN'T THINK, WELL, YOU'RE NOT DOING, YOU'RE DOING, UM, OH, YOU ARE DOING 2130.
DO YOU HAVE 2132 LOUIS? UH, OKAY.
IS THAT A YES, LOUIS, WHAT WOULD, LOUIS WHAT WOULD YOU NEED TO HELP YOU COMPLETE THAT? DO YOU NEED THE PLAN DATES AND, UM, WELL, FOR 21, 32.
WHICHEVER, WHICHEVER ONE YOU'RE DOING.
NO, NO, I, YEAH, I HAVE ALL THE INFORMATION FOR THAT ONE.
I PRETTY MUCH ALREADY GOT 2132 DONE, GUYS.
DIANE,
YEAH, NO, I, I ALREADY HAD THAT ONE PRETTY MUCH DONE.
YEAH, SOMEBODY NEEDS TO DO 31 30.
IT, IT, THIS ONE, THIS ONE WAS AN EASY ONE, GUYS.
NOBODY WHO'S CONFUSED? YEAH, WE HAVE BOTH OF THOSE.
I WAS ASKING LOU, DID HE HAVE, UH, 2131? HE DOESN'T HAVE, HE DOESN'T HAVE 2131, SO HE CAN'T DO IT.
YOU WANT ME TO DO IT? ALL RIGHT.
CHRISTY, MR. KRISTY, YOU'RE JUST A, SUCH A TROOPER.
UM, WHILE, WHILE YOU ARE ALL WRITING AWAY, LET'S DISCUSS THE LAST CASE, THE 2133.
UM, I'M, I'M A LITTLE PUT OFF BY THE FACT THAT THE NEIGHBOR IS NOT BEING CLEAR AS TO HER WHAT HER CONCERN IS.
UM, TO GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE FOR ME, MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IF WE WERE TO GRANT THIS, COULD WE PUT A CONDITION IN THAT, IF THERE WERE ANY, UH, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT ADJECTIVE TO USE, BUT DISCREPANCIES WITH RESPECT TO THE DIMENSIONS, UH, THAT WE HAVE GRANTED WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIANCE THAT THE CASE COULD BE REOPENED OR ADDRESSED OR SOMETHING, BECAUSE THAT SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY ISSUE HERE IS THAT THEY'VE STATED THAT THERE'S CERTAIN, UM, SETBACKS, AND THAT'S BASED ON THEIR SURVEY.
THE NEIGHBOR APPARENTLY WANTS TO HAVE ANOTHER SURVEY BECAUSE THEY'RE QUESTIONING SOMETHING, BUT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT EXACTLY WHAT IT IS THEY'RE QUESTIONING.
AND I HATE TO SEE THIS HELD UP FOR SOMETHING THAT WE DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC, UM, HANDLE ON.
SO I COULDN'T AGREE WITH YOU MORE.
EVE, UM, ESPECIALLY SINCE THE, UH, THE BUILDING IN 2133 IS ALREADY NON-COMPLIANT, UM, A NEW SURVEY LINE ISN'T GOING TO CHANGE THAT IN ANY WAY.
AND SINCE THE WORK THAT'S BEING DONE DOES NOT ACTUALLY INCREASE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE, UH, OF THE HOUSE, OF THE STRUCTURE IN ANY WAY, UM, I, I'M, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY WE WOULD NEED TO HOLD THIS OVER FOR A MONTH.
UH, I, I, I REALLY WANTED TO BRING THIS UP DURING OUR DELIBERATIONS BECAUSE I, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT AT ALL.
UM, WHY THERE WAS ANYTHING THAT WOULD REQUIRE US HOLDING THIS OVER FOR A MONTH BECAUSE THE NEIGHBOR IS GOING TO HAVE A SURVEY OF THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
WHAT DOES ONE HAVE TO DO WITH THE OTHER? WELL, I DO KNOW SOMETIMES BECAUSE MY SON ACTUALLY RAN INTO A SITUATION LIKE THIS WHERE HIS SURVEY COMPETED WITH A NEIGHBOR SURVEY AND IT BECAME A REAL ISSUE.
SO MUCH SO THAT THEY STILL DON'T SPEAK TO EACH OTHER.
BUT IT CAN HAPPEN THAT, YOU KNOW, SOME ERRORS ARE MADE.
SO IT'S POSSIBLE THAT IF THE LINE CHANGE, IF THERE IS A DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THE TWO SURVEYS,
[01:30:01]
IT COULD AFFECT THE, THE VARIANCE.IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S ONE THING IF THE LINE MOVES CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBOR, IN WHICH EVENT, THE, UH, THE SETBACK WOULD ACTUALLY BE GREATER THAN WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
BUT IF IT MOVES IN THE OTHER DIRECTION, THEN THEY WOULD BE SEEKING IT.
WOULD THE, THE DISTANCE WOULD BE S SMALLER AND THEY WOULD NEED A LARGER VARIANCE.
AND REMEMBER, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THIS CASE HAS BEEN ON NUMBER ONE.
AND NUMBER TWO, WE HAVE A MEMBER OF THE STAFF WHO HAS INDICATED, UH, AND GARRETT, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT WHAT I TOOK GARRETT TO MEAN WAS THAT THE, THE NEIGHBOR WOULD'VE ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT BUT DIDN'T WANT TO HOLD UP THE APPLICANT AND HER PROFESSIONAL SINCE IT WAS SO CLOSE TO THE MEETING THAT SHE SAID, LET IT, LET'S GO FORWARD WITH THE HEARING AND WE'LL PUT IT OVER, UH, TO THE NEXT MONTH FOR A DECISION.
IS, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT THAT'S WHAT, NO, I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S VERY ACCURATE.
THE WAY YOU DESCRIBED THAT WAS VERY ACCURATE, EXCEPT CAROL SAID SOMETHING ABOUT THE FACT THAT THERE HAD BEEN SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH HER.
AND I, I DIDN'T GET A SENSE OF WHETHER OR NOT THOSE DISCUSSIONS HAD BEEN DURING THIS PERIOD OF TRAVEL OR WHETHER THEY HAD PROCEEDED IT.
SHE HAD ORIGINALLY, UH, CONTACTED ME AND I DIDN'T REALIZE, I MEAN, AT THE TIME, I JUST THOUGHT SHE COULD PUT HER HER FEELINGS IN WRITING LIKE MANY, MOST OTHER PEOPLE DO.
AND, UM, BUT THEN SHE REALLY WASN'T THAT SHE WAS AGAINST IT.
SHE SAID SHE'S FRIENDLY WITH HER NEIGHBORS.
IT'S JUST THAT SHE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO READ THE PLANS.
AND SHE ALSO HAD THE SURVEY THAT SHE WANTED, SHE WAS HAVING DONE.
AND CAROL, WHEN DID SHE INDICATE SHE EVEN FOUND OUT ABOUT, FIRST FOUND OUT ABOUT THE APPLICATION? UM, I'M NOT SURE.
THE MAILING OR THE SIGN, EXCUSE ME.
AND HOW LONG AGO WOULD THAT HAVE BEEN? UH, I MAILED OUT DECEMBER 6TH.
UM, I PROBABLY MAILED OUT THE NOTICES ON DECEMBER 5TH, AND THEN THE FOLLOWING WEEK THEY PUT THE SIGN IN THE FRONT OF THEIR PROPERTY.
SO IT WAS EITHER THE MAILING OR THE SIGN THAT SHE, SO IT CERTAINLY WASN'T MORE THAN, UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU ONLY MAILED IT OUT ON THE, ON THE FIFTH, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN IT BEFORE THE SIXTH OR SEVENTH OR POSSIBLY CORRECT.
SO YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A LARGE AMOUNT OF NOTICE.
AND THEN I DID EMAIL HER THE INFORMATION, YOU KNOW, THE PLANS AND STUFF, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT IT WAS.
I, I, I REALLY, I TRY TO GET IT OUT OF HER, BUT I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT SHE JUST WANTED TO HAVE IT ADJOURNED.
'CAUSE I THOUGHT IF SHE, IT WASN'T LIKE SHE WAS AGAINST THEM OR AGAINST THE PROJECT.
SHE'S FRIENDLY WITH THEM AND SHE DIDN'T WANT TO HOLD THEM UP ON ONE HAND.
ON THE OTHER HAND, SHE WASN'T GONNA BE AROUND, SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW.
THEN GARRETT CALLED HER TOO TO, TO CONFIRM IT AND SAID SHE COULD ADJOURN IT.
SHE DOESN'T WANNA HOLD THEM UP, BUT SHE DOES WANT TO HOLD THEM UP.
DOES THAT MAKE ANY SENSE? AND SHE'S NOT REALLY TELLING US WHY, PARTICULARLY.
NO, IT, WELL, IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE SHE DOESN'T KNOW.
SHE WON'T KNOW UNTIL SHE GETS A SURVEY.
WHETHER SHE HAS ANYTHING TO OBJECT TO.
BUT NOTHING ABOUT WHAT THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO DO RIGHT.
WHERE, WHEREVER THE SURVEY LINE LIES, NOTHING CHANGES WITH WHAT THE APPLICANT IS ATTEMPTING TO DO.
THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING THE QUESTION THAT, IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT A CONDITION IN IF WE GRANT IT SO AT LEAST THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND GET THEIR PERMIT? UM, BECAUSE IT, IT CAN'T TAKE THAT LONG TO GET A SURVEY.
BUT THE OTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD, AND MAYBE ANTHONY, I KNOW YOU OVER THERE IN THE CORNER, MAYBE GARRETT, YOU CAN ANSWER.
THIS IS ONE, THIS IS ONE OF THE FEW ONES THAT I'VE SEEN THAT DID PUZZLE ME.
HOW IS THE EXISTING, IF THIS IS BEING PUT IN THE EXACT SAME FOOTPRINT, HOW IS THE EXISTING MORE? UM, I MEAN LESS, I MEAN, EXCUSE ME.
WHAT WOULD'VE REQUIRED A GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IF IT'S IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT? LIKE THOSE TWO NUMBERS ARE NOT THE SAME.
IT'S A DIFFERENT PART OF THE HOUSE.
WELL, I'LL ANSWER, I'LL LET, UH, ANTHONY ANSWER, BUT THAT'S BASICALLY,
[01:35:01]
SO WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WILLIAM, IS WHY WAS THE ORIGINAL VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED GREATER? WELL, NO.SO EXISTING, IT SAYS 3.83 FEET AND THEIR PROPOSAL WILL BE 8.1 FEET.
THE, THE ADDITION IS SET BACK AND THE ORIGINAL HOUSE WAS CLOSER AT 3.84.
AM I SAYING THAT AGAIN WITH THE UNIT YOU'D LIKE TO CONVERT TO? SO WHERE ARE WE ON THIS? I HEAR, YEAH.
I MEAN, I, IF I, IF I HAD KNOWN THAT THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, IS GOING TO CLOSE TONIGHT, I THINK I WOULD'VE ADVISED THE NEIGHBOR TO, UM, YOU KNOW, EXPRESS THEIR RIGHT TO, UM, HAVE THE MEETING ADJOURNED.
BUT I WAS TRYING TO DO A SERVICE TO THE APPLICANT SO THEY COULD PRESENT AND, UM, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S ANY CONCERNS OF THE BOARD.
BUT, UH, CLEARLY I JUST WANNA CONVEY THAT THE INTENT OF THE NEIGHBOR WAS TO HAVE USE IN AS OF RIGHT ADJOURNMENT BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO BE PRESENT.
UM, AND THEY WANTED TO DO SOME MORE DUE DILIGENCE.
I WILL, LET'S HAVE A STRAW VOTE ON THIS.
UM, IN FAVOR OF WHAT? ADJOURNING OR FAVOR OF GRANT? I, I THOUGHT SHE HAD A STRAW, A VOTE IN TERMS OF WHO WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE APPLICANT'S DESIRE TO HAVE THIS DONE.
I JUST WANNA, NO, I WANT YOU TO, I JUST WANNA KNOW EVERYONE TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE VOTING ON.
I DON'T KNOW HOW TO RULE ON WHETHER THE, THE AS OF RIGHTS SHOULD BE GRANTED OR NOT.
UM, BECAUSE I THINK JUST LISTENING TO WHAT, UM, GARY HAS SAID IS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT SURE YET WHICH WAY THEY WANNA GO.
SO I'M IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE APPLICANT THEIR, UH, VARIANCE ONCE WE DECIDE WHETHER WE'RE GONNA DO IT NOW OR DO IT IN A MONTH FROM NOW.
SO CAN I GET A VOTE FROM YOU ON WHETHER WE WANNA DO IT NOW OR A MONTH FROM NOW? WHICH IS WHERE I WAS GOING.
SEE, THAT'S WHY, THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T VOLUNTEER TO BE THE FIRST ON A STRAW VOTE, WILL
WELL, I VOTED ON THE PART OF THE STRUGGLE THAT I UNDERSTOOD THAT I THOUGHT WE WERE VOTING ON.
WELL, WAIT, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THE VARIANCE.
WE JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHETHER WE NEED TO CONSIDER IT TONIGHT AND MOVE FORWARD OR NOT.
THAT'S WHAT I'M FOCUSED ON RIGHT NOW.
I I I WOULD SAY IF WE HADN'T HAD CONVER, IF WE HADN'T HAD CONVERSATIONS, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE FROM THE TOWN WITH, UM, THIS NEIGHBOR, I PROBABLY WOULD HAVE VOTED, UM, TO MOVE FORWARD.
BUT I FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY SHE FELT LIKE WE WERE GOING TO ADJOURN IT.
AND I, I JUST THINK WE NEED TO GIVE HER THE SPACE TO SAY WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY, EVEN IF WE VOTE TO MOVE FORWARD AT THE NEXT MEETING.
SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF AN ADJOURNMENT TILL NEXT MONTH.
SO WE COULDN'T CLOSE IT FOR DECISION ONLY.
AM I CORRECT, ED? WELL, YOU CAN, BUT, BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE.
DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN THAT CONTEXT.
DOESN'T, IF YOU'RE HOLDING IT OPEN FOR THE NEIGHBOR TO OPINE, I MEAN, IT DOESN'T, I DON'T KNOW IF SHE'S GONNA SAY ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, CHANGE ANYTHING, BUT I FEEL LIKE SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO SPEAK IF, IF THE BOARD ADOPTS DIANE'S OPINION THERE.
WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND THOUGH, IS THAT STAFF REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBOR AND HAVE THEM VERY EFFICIENTLY CONVEY THEIR COMMENTS IN WRITING.
UH, YOU KNOW, NOT BEGINNING OF JANUARY.
SO THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE ADEQUATE TIME.
I WOULD SAY, UM, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS, UH, BEFORE THE END OF THE YEAR OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
THAT'S, SORRY, THAT'S ASSUMING A LOT IN THIS.
THAT SAID, SOMEONE SAID EARLIER BETWEEN COVID AND THE HOLIDAYS, SHE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET A, A SURVEY BY THE END OF THE YEAR, OR I GUESS WITHIN A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF TIME SO THAT THE INFORMATION'S NOT CONVEYED THE NIGHT BEFORE THE MEETING.
WELL, YOU, WHAT SHE SHOULD DO IS THAT 10 DAYS BEFORE, WHICH IS THE, WHICH IS THE RULE OF THE BOARD, ANYTHING IN WRITING SHOULD BE SUBMITTED 10 DAYS BEFORE.
AND SINCE THE MEETING IS THE 20TH, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S MORE THAN A MONTH AWAY.
SO THAT'S THREE, THAT'S THREE WEEKS INTO THE NEW YEAR.
SO DO WE HAVE AGREEMENT ON THIS AT THIS POINT? HEARING ALL THE SILENCE? NO, I DON'T LIKE IT AT ALL.
CHRISTIE, YOU'RE A NICE PERSON.
[01:40:01]
I'D PROBABLY BE MORE COMFORTABLE.I ADJOURNING IT ONLY 'CAUSE USUALLY WE DO GIVE DEFERENCE TO THE NEIGHBORS.
LET, LET'S, LET'S PUT IT AS A HYPOTHETICAL.
IF WE HAD A SITUATION LIKE THIS WHERE A NEIGHBOR REALIZED THEY HAD GOTTEN THE PERMIT, THEY HAD HAD GOTTEN THE PERMIT, AND THEN, UH, REALIZED THAT THE, UH, VARIANCE THAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR WAS NOT ACCURATE FOR ONE REASON OR ANOTHER, AND THE NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR POINTED THAT OUT WITH THEIR SURVEY, UM, COULD THE CASE BE REOPENED OR ADDRESSED OR ANYTHING? IT COULD, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS VOTE.
WELL, I, I WOULD THINK THAT UNDER A CIRCUMSTANCE LIKE THAT, IF WE WERE PRESENTED WITH THAT, THAT THIS IS WHAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE VARIANCE ACTUALLY SHOULD HAVE BEEN BECAUSE THE SURVEY WAS ERRONEOUS, THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO HAVE A UNANIMOUS VOTE.
I WOULD THINK, I MEAN, IN ALL FAIRNESS, ANYTIME SOMETHING HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS, IT'S KIND OF LIKE, UH, THE SENATE, US SENATE.
I'M JUST, I'M, I'M TRYING TO FIND A WAY AROUND.
THIS IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO GUYS.
FINE WITH WHAT IF WE VOTED TO GRANT, BUT THE CONDITION THAT IF, IF THE, IF IT WERE TO, YOU KNOW, IF BASED ON THE NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNS, UM, SHE COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT THE VARIANCE IS NOT WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT THEN, OR IF THERE'S A PROBLEM THAT THE, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT EVE IS THAT ONCE THERE'S AN, ONCE THERE'S AN APPROVAL MM-HMM.
JUST LIKE ANOTHER HYPOTHETICAL COMMENT, OR LET'S JUST SAY THAT THERE'S NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE SURVEY ONCE IT'S OBTAINED, AND THE COMMENT IS SIMPLY, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A GAP IN LANDSCAPING THAT WOULD OBSCURE THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
IF THAT WERE THE COMMENT, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO, UH, I GUESS RETROACTIVELY, UM, ADD THAT TO YOUR FINDING IF YOU MAKE A DECISION TONIGHT.
BUT JUST ONE HYPOTHETICAL, BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I, I, I, I, I DON'T, I MEAN, I SHOULDN'T SPECULATE WHAT A COMMENT WOULD BE.
I HAVE NO IDEA THE, YOU KNOW, CIRCUMSTANCES HERE, BUT, UM, IF THAT WERE A COMMENT AND IT WERE VALID AND GERMANE TO THE VARIANCE, UM, IT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, UM, GO BACK AND REOPEN AND AMEND YOUR FINDINGS.
BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT WAS, WHAT WE HEARD WAS THE CONCERN.
SO WE DIDN'T HEAR ANY CONCERN.
NO, WE, WE HEARD THAT IT REQUIRES A SURVEY.
I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SURVEY.
AND I THINK, UH, WHAT I, UM, THE LETTER THAT WAS, UM, I BRIEFED EVERYONE ON IT, SAID WE'RE COMPILING A LIST OF QUESTIONS.
BUT, UM, IT SAY THAT, GARRETT, DON'T FORGET YOUR FACE IS ON CAMERA.
COMPILING A LIST OF QUESTIONS.
I I, I CAN UNDERSTAND IF THIS WERE A REALLY COMPLICATED OR, OR A DIFFICULT APPLICATION, BUT IT, IT'S LIKE SO SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW A NEIGHBOR COULD JUST ADD AN OUT OF, UH, AS OF RIGHT ADJOURNMENT WITH NO SPECIFIC REASON OTHER THAN THE FACT THAT THEY WISH TO HAVE A SURVEY DONE OF THEIR OWN PROPERTY.
I I, I'M, I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME GETTING MY MIND AROUND THIS ONE.
IT, IT JUST DOESN'T SEEM FAIR TO THE APPLICANT.
UM, IT, IT KIND OF BOILS DOWN LOU TO, WELL, WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS, SO WE DON'T REALLY WANT IT TO GO THROUGH TONIGHT THAT THAT'S REALLY WHERE IT ENDS UP.
WHO, WHO DOES CONCERN? WE'RE NOT SURE WHAT THE CONCERNS ARE.
THE BOARD HAS A CONCERN OR THE NEIGHBOR HAS NO, THE NEIGHBOR, BUT SHE'S NOT REALLY EXPRESSING A CONCERN.
IF SHE HAD COME UP WITH A CONCERN, THAT WOULD BE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT STORY.
BY SAYING THAT SHE HAS, SHE DOES NOT WANT TO PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM MOVING
[01:45:01]
FORWARD, BUT JUST WAIT 30 DAYS.THAT, THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO ME WITHOUT AN ABSOLUTE AC ACTUAL CONCERN TO PUT FORWARD.
I I, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THAT.
WELL, EXCEPT FOR ONE THING, JUST TO PUT IT INTO SOME CONTEXT, AND THAT IS, AND AS OF RIGHT, ADJOURNMENT IS EXACTLY THAT.
YOU DON'T NEED AN, YOU DON'T NEED TO HAVE A REASON TO ASK FOR AN AS OF RIGHT ADJOURNMENT.
WELL, I ALWAYS THOUGHT IT WAS THE APPLICANT WHO HAD THE RIGHT, BOTH, BOTH SIDES AS OF RIGHT ADJOURNMENT.
THERE'S ONE ADJOURNMENT ON EITHER SIDE.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANY OPPOSITION ON THIS WHERE THERE IS ANOTHER SIDE.
WELL, ALSO THERE'S EMAILS THAT ARE SENT OUT THAT THERE IS, IT, IT ALSO LOOKS LIKE, I THINK FROM THE DATES OF THE ACTUAL WRITTEN RECORD, THE LAST ONE, GARRETT, WAS THE 13TH WHERE SHE ACTUALLY ASKS FOR AN ADJOURNMENT AND THEN AFTERWARDS FROM SUBSEQUENT CONVERSATIONS, SHE SAID, OH, NO, MOVE FORWARD.
BUT THE LAST WRITTEN REQUEST ACTUALLY ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT ON THE 13TH, IF I REMEMBER RIGHT.
THAT'S WHAT IT'S STATED IN THE EMAIL.
THAT'S WHY I'VE INDICATED, YOU KNOW, SEVERAL TIMES NOW, SHE HAD A VERY, VERY SPECIFIC INTENT TO EXERCISE THE AS OF RIGHT.
BUT THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, OUT OF UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT WANTED TO AT LEAST EXPRESS THEIR PROJECT TO THE BOARD, UM, YOU KNOW, TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER OR NOT THE BOARD HAD ISSUES, SHE WAS NOT LOOKING TO SLOW THAT UP.
UM, BUT I BELIEVE THAT HAD SHE, YOU KNOW, KNOWN THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A DECISION TONIGHT, SHE WOULD'VE REQUESTED THAT AS A RIGHT ADJOURNMENT.
BUT THAT WAS ALL IN CONVERSATIONS THAT YOU HAD THAT SHE COULD COME BACK AND SAY SHE DIDN'T REALLY UNDERSTAND.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I WANT ADJOURN.
LOU, LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE A COLLEAGUE
YOU HAVE A WHAT? A COLLEAGUE JOINING YOU,
UM, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, DIANE? WHAT? THAT WE, WE SHOULD AD DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? YOU AGREE WITH LEW THAT THERE SHOULD NOT BE IN ADJOURNMENT? NO, WE SHOULD ADJOURNED BECAUSE THE LAST THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING.
THAT'S WHY YOU CONFUSED ME, BECAUSE I GET THAT.
THE LAST WRITTEN COMMUNICATION WE HAVE WAS ON, SHE WAS THE FIRST ONE WHO SAID REQUEST.
I KNOW SHE DID, BUT I WAS OKAY, SWAY YOU SWAY HER, LOU YOU SWAY THERE AND SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO DO THAT.
SO I, I, I DON'T THINK WHAT I, I AGREE THAT I DON'T THINK IN THE, IN 30 DAYS WHEN WE COME BACK THAT SHE'S GONNA SAY ANYTHING THAT'S PROBABLY GONNA CHANGE OUR MINDS, BUT SHE HAS THE RIGHT TO ACT.
SO THAT'S WHY I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE HER HER ADJOURNMENT.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS, WILLIAM? NO.
WHATEVER CAROL SAYS, LET'S GO WITH IT.
I GUESS WE WILL ADJOURN IT TO, UH, THE MEETING OF JANUARY 20TH WITH THE PROVISO THAT WE WANT THE APPLICANT TO HAVE HER SPECIFICS, THE NEIGHBOR OBJECT.
THE NEIGHBOR NEIGHBOR, CORRECT.
TO HAVE THE SPECIFIC OBJECTIONS, UH, THAT SHE WISHES TO RAISE BY THE, WHAT DID WE SAY, THE 10TH OF THE MONTH.
WHAT'S THE, UH, WHAT'S THE, UH, DEADLINE FOR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS? UH, JANUARY 10TH.
ARE WE DOING ON THE DECISIONS, DON? I'M DONE.
CAROL, SHOULD I SEND IT TO YOU? UH, DO YOU HAVE, UM, YOU CAN SEND IT TO ME.
OH, SO I WAS, UH, ALL RIGHT, I'VE GOTTA MAKE SURE I HAVE THE RIGHT DECISION FOR TEGO.
UM, WHAT'S THE RESOLUTION SE SEEKER ON ON THAT? I BELIEVE IT'S A TYPE TWO.
WELL, GAR CAN TELL YOU, YEAH, I WAS LOOKING AT THE LIST.
I MEAN, IT, IT'S A, IT'S AN ACCESSORY
[01:50:01]
USE TO THE PROPERTY.YOU CAN TELL THE LATEST, UH, REVISION, I BELIEVE ON PAGE TWO AT THE VERY BOTTOM IT SAYS 50 MILES AN HOUR, THE LAST LINE.
OKAY, THEN THAT'S NOT THIS ONE.
I'LL, I'LL GO TO THE OTHER ONE.
I, I BELIEVE I SENT IT YESTERDAY.
I JUST, I PRINTED OUT ONE AND I DON'T DUNNO IF I PRINTED OUT THE RIGHT ONE, SO, OKAY, I'LL GET IT, I'LL GET IT YESTERDAY.
LET ME SEE IF IT SAYS 50 MILES AN HOUR.
YEP, I GOT THE 50 MILES AN HOUR.
AND LET ME SEE IF I HAVE THE PLANS DATED.
I BELIEVE IT'S WHEN THE APPLICATION WAS MADE.
WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE, ED, TO GO BY THE APPLICATION DATE? THE, I'M SORRY, YOU LOST ME.
WHICH APPLICATION? THE APP, THE APPLICATION DATE WAS AUGUST 2ND.
SO WOULD THAT BE THE PLANS DATED? OH, I DON'T KNOW.
I, I DEFER TO, UH, CAROL OR ANYONE.
UH, WHICH, WHICH SPECIFIC APPLICATION? I HAVE THEM HANDY.
OH, CAROL, DO YOU HAVE THOSE DATES HANDY? HOLD ON, BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANOTHER PLAN SINCE THEN.
IT MAY BE A PLAN, A LATER PLAN, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THE ORIGINAL PLAN HAD A FENCE ON IT.
SEE WHAT HAVE OVER HERE, ISN'T IT? OKAY, HE SUBMITTED ON AUGUST 2ND, NOVEMBER 3RD.
THERE'S A, THERE'S A SEPARATE FINAL FORM.
I CAN INCORPORATE BOTH OF THEM IF THAT HELPS.
WELL, HE SUBMITTED A LOT OF THINGS, SO I KNOW, WHO KNOWS? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PLANS, CAROL, IT SAYS SOMETHING.
THE PLANS WERE SUBMITTED FORM, THAT'S WHY HIS PLANS WERE SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION ON SEPTE ON AUGUST 2ND.
SECOND, I, I KNOW YOU SAID THAT.
MY, MY QUESTION IS, DID THAT PLAN HAVE THE FENCE? MY, MY UNDER? NO, MY RECOLLECTION, I CAN ANSWER THE, I CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION.
THE SUPPLEMENTAL APPLICATION, WHICH IS REALLY A ONE PAGE, UM, SUPPLEMENT, I GUESS MENTIONS IN C, IT'S AN A, B, C, D, E F C IS ALL FENCING REQUIRED.
TWO SURROUNDS NEED TO BE SITUATED, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, EIGHT FEET UNLESS THE VARIANCE IS OBTAINED.
SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING I SEE MENTIONED HERE ABOUT FENCING.
HE PUT ON THE RECORD THAT, LEMME GO CHECK.
ANTHONY DID, UH, WAS THERE A PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SHOW THE FENCE? I'M SORRY.
YEAH, THAT WAS IN THE MIDDLE OF SOMETHING.
WE'LL, WE'LL GET YOU THAT DATE.
[01:55:16]
DOES, THIS JUST SHOWS FENCE ON ONE LINE, ACTUALLY ON TWO LINES, PERIOD.AND IT DOES SAY IN HIS SUPPLEMENT, I ACCEPT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING AUTHORIZATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS AS SET FORTH IN THE ARBS MEMO OF SEPTEMBER 21ST, WHICH INCLUDES ALL FING REQUIRED TO SURROUND THE MONOPOLE NEEDS TO BE SITUATED ON THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AND BE EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT AND LESS THE VARIANCES OBTAINED.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A VERBAL, NOT A PLAN? NO, NO, THIS IS, THIS IS WHAT HE SUBMITTED IN THE SUPPLEMENT.
THE LI THE PAGE ATTACHED TO IT IS HIS STATEMENT WHERE HE SAYS, I ACCEPT AND AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE FOLLOWING AUTHORIZATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS.
NO, I CAN'T SEE WHAT YOU'RE, UH, WHATEVER.
WELL, I THINK THAT'S FINE AT THE TIME OF BUILDING NO, THAT'S DATED, NO, IT'S FILED NOVEMBER 3RD.
AND THEN THE PLANS THAT COME INTO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, WE WILL ENSURE HAVE THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE IMMEDIATELY SURROUNDING THE, UM, THE SETUP.
IT HAS THAT THE CONDITION THAT ANY INTERFERENCE NEEDS TO BE RE REMEDIED BY THE APPLICANT IS ALSO A CONDITION THAT HE, ACCORDING TO THIS, HE AGREED TO AND ACCEPTED.
YEAH, I HE, HE HAS AGREED TO, UH, ABIDE BY ALL THE, UH, CONDITIONS.
THE ONLY QUESTION IS WHETHER THERE'S A PLAN THAT SHOWS DEFENSE.
THE ONLY CONDITION ON HERE THAT I DON'T LIKE THE WAY IT'S PHRASED, BUT I THINK IT'S COUNTER IT'S COUNTER, UH, ACTED BY YOUR DECISION, IS IT ALSO SAYS A CONDITION SHOULD BE IMPOSED.
IT MUST BE THE INSULATION MUST BE REMOVED IF THE PROPERTY NO LONGER BE OCCUPIED BY AN F C C LICENSED AMATEUR RADIO OPERATOR, WHICH IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE SUGGESTING.
WE WERE SAYING THAT IT WAS, THIS VARIANCE GOES WITH MR. STRATIGOS.
THE, THE, THE SPECIAL PERMANENT VARIANCES ARE GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT, PETER STRATIGOS STRATIGOS.
SO IN MENTIONING WITH THE, THE PLANS DATED AND SUPPORT, UM, SHOULD THERE BE SOME MENTION THAT THE, THE, THE ANY WHATEVER'S CONTAINED IN THE PLANS NOT BE A VARIANCE WITH WHAT, UM, IS IN THIS DECISION? IN OTHER WORDS, IN OTHER WORDS, THE THE PLANS DON'T, AREN'T NECESSARILY, UH, AGREED WITH FOR EVERY, EVERY DETAIL THAT HE'S MENTIONING HE WOULD DO IF THE ORDER STATES DIFFERENTLY.
HOW DO, HOW DO WE PHRASE THAT? I'M NOT SURE I'M FOLLOWING BECAUSE THE ISSUE OF, OF SALE IS NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING DEALT WITH IN THE PLAN.
THE PLAN JUST SHOWS THE SITE AND THE SETBACKS AND THE STRUCTURES WHERE THE STRUCTURES ARE, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CONDITION SUBSEQUENT, WHICH WOULD BE THE SALE.
EXCEPT WHEN YOU USED THE WORD PLAN, HIS PLANS ARE REALLY THESE FORMS THAT HE SUBMITTED AND THE, THE TWO HELP ME OUT, LANCE.
UH, I'M SURE WHAT YOU'RE READING WAS SILENT AS TO WHAT HAPPENS ON SALE.
IT IS SILENT, BUT IT, IT DOES SAY THAT, UM, A CONDITION SHOULD BE IMPOSED THAT THE INSULATION BE REMOVED.
SHOULD THE PROPERTY LONG LONGER BE OPERATED BY AN
[02:00:01]
F AN BY AN F C C LICENSED MANAGER, CHAIR, RADIO OPERATOR? IT DOESN'T SAY BY HIM.WELL, HE'S LEAVING THAT OPEN, BUT WE HE'S LEAVING THAT OPEN IN HIS SUBMISSION.
WE ARE SAYING THAT, THAT IT, THAT WHEN IT'S SOLD.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'VE KIND OF CLEARED UP ANY CONFUSION.
YEAH, I DON'T SEE THAT AS A CONFUSION.
I FRANKLY, I JUST, I THIS TAKES PRE PRECEDENCE OVER THE PLANS.
THE CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLANS, BUT THE CONDITIONS THEMSELVES TAKE PRECEDENCE.
I'M READY TO READ THE MOTION THEN ON THAT ONE.
SO, UH, WHERE ELSE ARE WE? ARE WE ALL READY? OTHERWISE? YES.
I JUST WANNA ENSURE THAT OUR ST STENOGRAPHER'S BACK LOOK LIKE IT LOOKS LIKE SHE'S GETTING SET AND WE CAN START WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
I HAVE FOUR PIECES OF PAPER IN FRONT OF ME.
WHY DOES THE AGENDA ALWAYS DISAPPEAR ON ME? THAT HAPPENS.
SO IT WAS RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME.
I GUESS I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SCREEN.
IT ENDED UP IN SOMEBODY'S FILE.
BACK TO, UH, LET ME BRING UP THE SCREEN SO I CAN GET IT DRIVING NUTS.
SORRY, I, I HAVE THE, UH, AGENDA UP NOW IF, IF THAT'S HELPFUL.
I JUST DRIVING MEAN NUTS THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHERE IT HAPPENED AND I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T BLOW IT AWAY.
AND UM, FIRST CASE THAT WE HAVE, UH, HAD DISCUSSIONS ON THIS EVENING WAS CASE NUMBER 2125 PETER AND ALICE STRATIGOS.
AND I HAVE A MOTION AND I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE 2125.
NO, LET ME GO BACK TO IT SO I MAKE SURE I HAVE THE RIGHT MOTION.
OH, WHERE IS IT? THERE IT IS THERE.
IT'S THE APPLICATION IN 2125 FOR VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
THE APPLICANT'S OBTAINED ALL NECESSARY, OH WAIT, I GOTTA DEAL WITH THE C A RESOLUTION.
UM, AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG C B A HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE-REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD WITH REGARD TO C A COMPLIANCE, AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG C B A HAS DETERMINED THAT THE APPLICATION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SECRET CONSIDERATION.
AND NOW TO THE MOTION, I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE 2125 FOR VARIANCES AND A SPECIAL PERMIT BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS.
THE APPLICANT'S OBTAINED ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILED SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS DATE STAMPED AUGUST 2ND, SECOND 2021 AND NOVEMBER 2ND.
IT'S DISAPPEARING ON ME NOVEMBER 3RD, 2021, SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION, OR AS SUCH, PLANS MAY HEREINAFTER BE MODIFIED BY ANOTHER PROVING BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICE OF THE TOWN.
PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCES THAN WHAT WE ARE GRANTING HEREIN, THE VARIANCE IS BEING GRANTED OR FOR THE IMPROVEMENT SHOWN ON THE PLAN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.
ONLY ANY FUTURE OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH
[02:05:01]
THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES.EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT, SETBACK, OR OTHER VARIANCES WE HAVE APPROVED HEREIN, APPLICANTS SHALL RETRACT THE ANTENNA WITHIN 72 HOURS AFTER THE LAST USAGE THEREOF.
AND OR WHEN THE WEATHER FORECAST INDICATES EXPECTED WINDS IN EXCESS OF 50 MILES PER HOUR, APPLICANTS SHALL PROVIDE A SECURITY FENCE ON THEIR PROPERTY OF NOT LESS THAN EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT AROUND THE PROPOSED ANTENNA AND CONFORMITY WITH THE PLAN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THE APPLICATION SO AS TO PREVENT CHILDREN OR UNAUTHORIZED ADULTS FROM ASSESSING THE ANTENNA PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
THE PROFESS FOR THE PROPOSED ANTENNA APPLICANTS WILL SATISFY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT THE ANTENNA WILL NOT INTERFERE WITH CABLE, RADIO, TV, CELL PHONE, OR OTHER COMMUNICATIONS IN THE AREA, AND SHALL CEASE OPERATIONS AND REMOVE THE ANTENNA AND ITS PERTINENT STRUCTURES IF IT IS FOUND TO INTERFERE WITH SUCH FACILITIES AND OPERATIONS AFTER ITS ERECTION.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, APPLICANT SHALL PRESENT A CERTIFICATION BY A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER CERTIFYING THAT THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION IS STRUCTURALLY SAFE AND SECURE AND THE MAXIMUM WINS THAT THE PROPOSED INSTALLATION CAN SAFELY WITHSTAND, WITHSTAND.
AND FINALLY, BECAUSE THE PROPOSED USE IS A REGULATED ACTIVITY REQUIRING LICENSING, THE SPECIAL PERMIT AND VARIANCES ARE GRANTED TO THE APPLICANT, PETER STRATIGOS, PERSONALLY, APPLICANTS SHALL REMOVE THE ANTENNA AND ITS PERTINENT STRUCTURES UPON SALE OR TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION.
UNLESS THE TRANSFEREE OF SUCH PROPERTY IS LIKEWISE F C C LICENSE TO OPERATE AN IT ANTENNA RADIO STATION AND APPLIES FOR AND RECEIVES A SPECIAL PERMIT TO DO SO FROM THIS BOARD AND OR THE ANTENNA REVIEW BOARD RIGHT BEFORE YOU CALL THE QUESTION, UH, EVE YOU OMITTED TO READ NUMBER SIX.
NOW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DID THAT ON PURPOSE OR I DID, I FORGET.
UM, PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE, THIS IS A DIFFERENT, AN AN, AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE PROPOSED ANTENNA.
APPLICANTS SELF SELF SATISFY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT THE ANTENNA WILL NOT EXCEED N I E R EMISSIONS DURING OPERATIONS OPERATIONS.
AND I BELIEVE THAT COVERS ALL OF THE CONDITIONS.
AND DO I HAVE A MOTION? YOU MADE THE MOTION.
YOU NEED A SECOND? YOU HAVE A SECOND? I'M TIRED.
DO I HAVE SECOND? I SECOND IT.
UH, BECAUSE THE FINDINGS ARE RATHER EXTENSIVE AND DETAILED, I WILL NOT READ THOSE, BUT THEY WILL BE INSERTED IN THE RECORD AND AVAILABLE TO ANYONE, UH, WHO WISHES TO HAVE, UH, ACCESS TO, TO THAT INFORMATION.
GOING ON TO THE NEXT CASE THAT WE HAVE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS CASE 2130 PAGE BRODSKY, WHICH IS CLOSED FOR DECISION ONLY, AND I KNOW I HAVE A RESOLUTION ON IT SOMEPLACE, WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE ONE.
DO I HAVE THIS CORRECT? I'M SORRY.
NOW DO I HAVE, I DIDN'T PRINT OUT THE RESOLUTION ON THIS.
YOU WANT ME TO SEND, YOU WANT ME TO SEND IT? NO, I'M LOOKING FOR IT NOW TO GET IT.
FOR, FOR, UM, BROAD BRODSKY SUBDIVISION, IT'S A COORDINATED REVIEW, UNLISTED ACTION, AND THE PLANNING BOARD HAS MADE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, THEREFORE THERE'S NO FURTHER, UH, SEEKER, UM, FINDINGS NEEDED FROM THE ZONING BOARD.
ALL RIGHT, I WILL ADAPT THE STATEMENT THAT HAS JUST BEEN MADE BY MR. DUCA AND WE'LL MOVE ALONG AND LET ME FIND THE DECISION NOW.
I HAD A VERY LATE NIGHT YESTERDAY, SO I'M LOOKING FOR IT.
UH, I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE 2130 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ANY FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS
[02:10:01]
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION AND OR RENOVATION TO EITHER LOT IN THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OR TO THE STRUCTURES HEREON BE SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE HISTORIC AND LANDMARK PRESERVATION BOARD FOR REVIEW BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR SUCH OPERATION.AND I WILL ALSO VOTE, I I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARY TO READ THE FINDINGS ON THIS AGAIN, UM, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THESE TWO STRUCTURES AND THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON WHAT WAS DONE HERE, SO I WILL NOT READ THEM THIS EVENING, BUT I AGAIN WOULD STATE THAT THEY ARE AVAILABLE IN THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANYONE IN THE COMMUNITY WHO WISHES TO HAVE UH, ACCESS TO THAT INFORMATION.
GOING ON TO THE NEXT CASE WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING, WHICH IS CASE 2131 PETER GAINOR PROPERTY AT SIX VISTA PLACE, WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE-REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO C A COMPLIANCE AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS DETERMINED THE APPLICATION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER C A CONSIDERATION.
I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE NUMBER 2131 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE, SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS DATED AUGUST 12TH, 2021, SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION OR AS SUCH, PLANS MAY BE HEREAFTER MODIFIED BY ANOTHER APPROVING BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICER OF THE TOWN.
PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT WE ARE GRANTING HEREIN, THE VARIANCES BEING GRANTED ARE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.
ANY FUTURE OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT, SETBACK, OR OTHER VARIANCES WE HAVE APPROVED HEREIN.
AYE UH, FINDINGS IN GRANTING THIS APPLICATION, THE ZONING BOARD HAS WEIGHED THE BENEFIT TO BE DERIVED BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE PROPOSED PROPOSED VARIANCE AGAINST THE IMPACT THAT THE VARIANCE WOULD HAVE ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE HAVE FOUND THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN A DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES AND WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE CHARACTER OR PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT BECAUSE, UH, THE DECK HAS EXISTED FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS AND IS TYPICAL OF MOST HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAVE AN OPEN DECK AT THE REAR OF THE HOME.
THE GOAL OF THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER FEASIBLE MEANS WITHOUT REQUIRING THE VARIANCE WE ARE GRANTING NOW BECAUSE DECK ALREADY EXISTS, HAS EXISTED WITHOUT INCIDENT FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS AND IT WOULD BE FINANCIALLY BURDENSOME AND DISRUPTIVE TO THE ENVIRONMENT TO REMOVE AND REBUILD THE DECK TO CONFORM WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL IN RELATION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SOUGHT TO BE VARIED AND THAT THE REQUESTED RELIEF IS 12.4 FEET COMPARED WITH 21 FEET REQUIRED, A 41% DECREASE IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK.
HOWEVER, IT IS ONLY THE STEPS TO THE DECK THAT ENCROACH IN THE REAR YARD SETBACK NOT THE ENTIRE DECK.
THE APPLICANT'S NEED FOR THE VARIANCE WAS SELF-CREATED BECAUSE, UH, SHE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT AN APPLICANT'S NEED FOR AN AREA VARIANCE IS SELF-CREATED, DOES NOT BY ITSELF REQUIRE US TO DENY AN AREA VARIANCE.
AND THE NEXT CASE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA IS CASE 2132.
AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE-REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO SECRET A COMPLIANCE, AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS DETERMINED THE APPLICATION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SECRET CONSIDERATION.
I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN, IN CASE NUMBER 2132 BE GRANTED
[02:15:01]
PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE, SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS, UH, DATED 11 10 21, UH, SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION OR AS SUCH, PLANS MAY BE HEREAFTER MODIFIED BY ANOTHER APPROVING BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICER OF THE TOWN.
PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT WE ARE GRANTING HEREIN, THE VARIANCES BEING GRANTED ARE FOR PLANS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION ONLY.
ANY FUTURE OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT, SETBACK, OR OTHER VARIANCES WE HAVE APPROVED HEREIN.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? OH, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.
DID LOU, UH, SECOND IT? HE DID.
UM, IN FINDINGS, IN GRANTING THIS APPLICATION, THE ZONING BOARD HAS WEIGHTED THE BENEFIT TO BE DERIVED BY THE APPLICANT FROM THE PROPOSED VARIANCE AGAINST THE IMPACT THAT THE VARIANCE WOULD HAVE ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE FIND THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN A DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES AND WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE CHARACTER OF PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE DI IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT PROVIDED THE CONDITIONS ARE FULLY COMPLIED WITH BECAUSE THE VARIANCE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL.
NEIGHBORS OR OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES HAVE NOT EXPRESSED CONCERNS OR OPPOSE THE VARIANCE BEING GRANTED TO THE Z B A.
THE, UH, GOAL OF THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER FEASIBLE MEANS WITHOUT REQUIRING THE VARIANCE WE ARE GRANTING NOW BECAUSE THE REQUEST IS TO REPLACE AN EXISTING DECK AND STAIRS WITHIN THE EXISTING FOOTPRINT, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS NOT SUBSTANTIAL IN RELATION TO THE REQUIREMENTS SOUGHT TO BE VARIED AND THAT THE, SORRY I JUST SCROLLED DOWN ON MY PHONE.
IT'S ON MY PHONE THAT I'M READING IT.
UM, THE REQUIREMENTS SOUGHT TO BE VARIED IN THAT THE REQUESTED RELIEF ONE SIDE 4.3 FEET EXISTING AND PROPOSED COMPARED WITH FIVE FEET REQUIRED, WHICH IS AN 11% DE DECREASE, THE EXISTING DECK HAS BEEN IN PLACE FOR 35 YEARS.
EXISTING TREES AND LANDSCAPING PROVIDE A BUFFER TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
THE APPLICANT'S NEED FOR THE VARIANCE WAS SELF-CREATED, THE HOME SINCE THE HOME WAS PURCHASED WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SETBACKS REQUIRED.
BUT THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT'S NEED FOR AN AREA VARIANCE IS SELF-CREATED, DOES NOT BY ITSELF REQUIRE US TO DENY THE VARIANCE.
AND THE LAST CASE WE HAVE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA'S CASE 2133, WHICH IS ADJOURNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE MEETING OF JANUARY 20TH, 2022.
RIGHT BEFORE YOU LEAVE, BEFORE YOU LEAVE, I, I WAS DISTRACTED FOR A MOMENT WHEN EVE WAS RIGHT READING THE MOTION ON BRODSKY 2130 AND I CAME IN AT THE VERY LAST SECOND AND IT, I THOUGHT I HEARD A WORD THAT WASN'T IN THE DRAFT, SO I'M JUST WONDERING IF YOU, IT'S JUST THE 1, 2, 2 SENTENCES.
I WAS WONDERING IF EITHER EVE OR DEBBIE CAN READ IT BACK TO ME.
WANNA MAKE SURE YOU HAD THE RIGHT DRAFT.
WHICH LINE? WHERE, WHAT NUMBER? IT'S THE MOTION.
UM, GRANTED, PROVIDED THAT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, ANY FUTURE IMPROVEMENTS INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION AND OR RENOVATION TO EITHER LOT IN THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OR TO THE STRUCTURES? THERE ARE, THAT'S THE WRONG, THAT'S THE WRONG DRAFT.
I WILL HAVE TO, UM, DO A REDO ON THAT ONE THEN.
LET ME CLOSE THIS ONE AND GO BACK TO MY, OKAY.
I OPENED THIS ONE AND THEN I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T SEE THE MOTION SO THAT'S WHY I CLOSED IT AGAIN, THIS IS NOT THE MOTION.
TELL YOU WHAT, I'LL READ IT AND DEBBIE WILL PUT IT IN YOUR NAME.
I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE 2130 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD GRANTS SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO DIVIDE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION INTO TWO LOTS AS
[02:20:01]
SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.ANY VARIANCE GRANTED HEREIN WILL LAPSE IF THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IS DENIED OR IF APPLICANT'S PLANS ARE CHANGED OR MODIFIED SO AS TO REQUIRE GREATER OR DIFFERENT VARIANCES THAN THOSE SOUGHT HEREIN.
SOMETIMES THINGS GO INTO JUNK HERE.
ALL RIGHT, SO GETTING BACK TO 2022, WHICH WILL BE WHEN OUR NEXT MEETING IS.
I WISH EVERYBODY A JOYOUS HOLIDAY, NEW YEAR COMING UP AND HOPEFULLY WE KEEP THIS WEATHER.
I'M, I'M, I'M NOT SURE I WANNA STAY, KEEP THE WEATHER THE WAY IT IS BECAUSE THAT WOULD MEAN GLOBAL WARMING I THINK SO THAT WE HAVE PLEASANT WEATHER GIVEN THAT IT IS WINTER AND THAT WE ALL ARE ABLE TO ENDURE AND ENJOY.
HAPPY HOLIDAY AND HAPPY HOLIDAY RECORDING.