[00:00:01]
[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH OFFICE OF THE TOWN BOARD 177 Hillside Avenue, Greenburgh, NY 10607 Tel: 914-989-1500 Fax: 914-993-1541 Email: JDudek@Greenburghny.com https://ny-greenburgh.civicplus.com/485/Watch-Live-Board-Meetings]
TOWN BOARD WORK SESSION.AND, UM, I GUESS THE FIRST ITEM WILL BE ELMWOOD.
AND, UM, WE HAVE SOME PEOPLE FROM THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL, SOME OF THE MEMBERS, UM, MIKE SIEGEL IN TERRITORY, UH, MARGARET BEAL.
IS THAT WAS, THAT WAS VERY GOOD.
YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS IT WITH US.
ARE THEY, MARGARET BEAL IS ON YOU.
DID YOU WANT GET OUT OF ORDER AND TERRITORY WHO YOU KNOW, WOULD PROBABLY WANNA SPEAK? DO WE WANNA DO THAT? WHAT'S THAT? WE WANNA TAKE? IT SAYS WE DON'T HAVE MIKE SIEGEL AND TERRY TORY.
MAYBE WE WANT TO TAKE SOMETHING OUT OF ORDER AND MAYBE THEY'LL COME ON AND THEN, UM, THEY BY ZOOM OR
UM, IS IT, SHOULD WE ASK MARGARET IF THAT'S OKAY? THAT'S FINE WITH ME.
I THINK TERRY THOUGHT WE WERE GONNA START THIS AT SIX.
SOMEBODY SENT HER A MESSAGE THAT, OKAY.
UM, WE WERE GONNA BE THE FIRST ON THE EXECUTIVE SESSION, WHICH SHOULD STARTED AT SIX.
I JUST HAPPENED TO NOTICE, UH, AGENDA.
YOU WANT TO MAKE IT AN EXECUTIVE SESSION RATHER THAN A YES.
I WAS TALKING WITH ABOUT THAT HE THINKS EXECUTIVE SESSION AND TIM SEEMS TO THINK EXECUTIVE SESSION MIGHT BE BETTER.
SO LET'S, LET'S, WHY DONT WE DO THAT? SO, MARGARET? WE'LL, WE DO IT AT SIX.
I'LL, I'LL JUST, YOU KNOW, I'LL, I'LL JUST LISTEN.
SO THE FIRST ITEM WE HAVE IS, UH, YOU KNOW, THE RECOMMENDATION BY SOME PEOPLE, UH, TO, UH, EXTEND AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENTS TO SINGLE FAMILY, UM, YOU KNOW, HOME DEVELOPMENTS.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE IS, UH, IF WE TAKE ACTION NOW, THEN, YOU KNOW, MANY PEOPLE FEEL THAT IT COULD APPLY, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, ELMWOOD.
UM, I MEAN THERE, IT'S A GRAY AREA WHERE OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY MAY SAY IT DOESN'T APPLY BECAUSE THEY ALREADY SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION, BUT THERE'S PEOPLE WHO FEEL THAT, UM, IT WOULD APPLY BECAUSE THEY DOUBLE, YOU KNOW, WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS IF THEY'RE, IF THEY'RE GOING TO SELL THE PROPERTY, RIGHT? AND THE, IF WE HAVE THAT LAW ON THE BOOKS, IT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO THE PURCHASER PROPERTY WHO SUBMITS PLANS FOR DEVELOPMENT.
RIGHT? LIKE, WHY ARE WE NEGOTIATE, WHY, WHY WOULD THIS BE SIGNIFICANT TO THESE PARTICULAR PURCHASERS? WELL, LEMME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
WE HAVE A TIME LIMIT RIGHT NOW WITH RESPECT TO, UM, TIM, CAN YOU BRING THE MICROPHONE CLOSER? YEAH.
SO WE HAVE A TIME LIMIT RIGHT NOW WITH RESPECT TO MAKING THE DECISION, CORRECT? YES.
WELL, YEAH, THE SECRET DECISION IS IMMINENT.
SO, UM, IN LIGHT OF THAT, WOULD YOU HAVE TO, LET'S ASSUME WE WERE GONNA ADOPT A REGULATION LIKE THAT.
WOULDN'T YOU HAVE TO DO SEEKER TO ANALYZE THE IMPACTS OF THAT, OR NO? WOULD YOU SAY, UH, WITH REGARD TO NEW LEGISLATION FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING? YES.
IT WOULD BE A PROCESS THAT WOULD INVOLVE ITS OWN SEEKER PROCESS.
AND, UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S A SIMPLE LOCAL LAW.
SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME FOR SURE.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU PUT ONE LINE IN IN YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE AND YOU, YOU WALK AWAY AND YOU'RE FINISHED MM-HMM.
BUT IT BASICALLY IS A PROPOSED LAW THAT WOULDN'T APPLY.
ONLY
WE ARE, WE'RE, WE'RE, WE'RE CONSIDERING WE'RE, IF WE IMPLEMENT THIS LAW, UM, RIGHT NOW, THERE'S NOTHING IN FRONT OF US TO, TO THAT THERE'S NO, UM, UH, LEGAL IMPEDIMENT.
NO, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO PLAN TO BUILD ANYTHING.
LIKE IT SEEMS, I, ALL OF A SUDDEN, IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT ALL OF US WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL OF THIS STUFF AS IF THE PERSON WHO'S DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY IS GONNA BUILD SOMETHING, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BUILD ANYTHING.
BUT I, I, I, I, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS, UM, A FACTOR BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THROUGH APPROVALS, APPROVALS GO WITH THE LAND, MANY PROCESSES, APPROVALS GO WITH THE LAND, APPROVALS GO WITH THE LAND, NOT THE OWNER.
AND IN FACT, WE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT.
THERE'S ACTUALLY, I BELIEVE, UH, A REVERTER CLAUSE, WHEREAS IF THE PROJECT'S NOT BUILT WITHIN A SPECIFIED TIME, AND THIS IS IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, THAT THE, UH, PUT APPROVAL GOES AWAY.
SO, UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, YEAH.
SO WE'RE WORKING ON ALL OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE IN THE PUD THAT THE, THE CURRENT OWNERS WOULD THEN MARKET
[00:05:01]
TO THE THIRD PARTIES AS THIS IS WHAT YOU CAN BUILD HERE.SO THESE, THIS IS INCENTIVE FOR THE THIRD PARTIES TO BUY THE PROPERTY TO BUILD.
HYPOTHETICALLY, THERE'S SO MANY, UH, OPTIONS.
THE THIRD PARTY COULD STEP IN RIGHT NOW AND TAKE OVER THE WHOLE PROCESS.
OR THE DAY AFTER SEEKER'S DONE.
OR THE DAY AFTER THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS IS DONE.
SO IT'S REALLY NOT FOR, FOR THE MUNICIPALITY TO SORT OF RATIONALIZE WHEN THAT, WHAT WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT OCCUR, BUT OKAY.
THE RULES AND REGULATIONS WILL APPLY MM-HMM.
BUT, BUT GARY, THE THING, BUT, YOU KNOW, CONCERNS MAY IS THAT WHEN DURING THIS WHOLE PROCESS, THEY KEPT SAYING THEY WILL DO WHATEVER THE TOWN BOARD WANTS.
SO THEY SAID, YOU HAVE OPTION A, WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IF THE BOARD PREFERS THAT, THEY SAID THEY COULD LIVE WITH THAT.
SO IF WE BASICALLY AT THE END OF THE FIVE WEEKS, IF WE BASICALLY SAY, OKAY, WE ARE REJECTING THE TOWNHOUSES, WE WANT THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, UH, THEN WE, WE HAVE, WE THEN WE MADE THE DECISION.
WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, REZONING IT.
IF WE THEN, IF WE'RE PROCEED, COULD PROCEED LIKE IMMEDIATELY WITH, UM, SENDING, UM, UM, PROPOSED LEGISLATION RELATING TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UM, YOU KNOW, TO, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD DOING THE SEEKER AND ALL THAT, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'RE IN PLACE TAKING STEPS TO, UH, UH, REQUIRE A SINGLE, YOU KNOW, UH, SOME WORKFORCE, YOU KNOW, HOUSING AT EVERY FUTURE, YOU KNOW, COMPLEX.
YOU KNOW, I BASICALLY FEEL THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO NEGOTIATE WITH THE, UM, WITH THE DEVELOPER AND GET AFFORDABLE HOUSING, AND AT THE SAME TIME SHOW THE COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE COMPLYING WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UH, THAT WE BASICALLY ARE SUPPORTIVE OF, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE COMMUNITY, YOU KNOW, WANTS, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY, THEY, PEOPLE FEEL THAT, I MEAN, IT WAS LIKE UNANIMOUS REALLY.
I'VE BEEN GETTING CALLS ALL WEEKEND, AND, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE REALLY UPSET.
AND I, I FEEL THE TOWN SHOULD BEND OVER BACKWARDS TO TRY GETTING WORKFORCE HOUSING.
BUT AT THE SAME TIME, TO, UH, SEE IF WE COULD COMPLY WITH, UH, THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
CAN I MAKE A DISTINCTION HERE, UM, THAT YOU, YOU KEEP TALKING ABOUT WORKFORCE HOUSING, UM, AND CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE, UM, THERE ARE THREE LEVELS OF, OF A M I THAT'S, THAT'S THE ADJUSTED MEDIAN INCOME, AND THAT'S 40%, 60%, 80%.
I'M ASSUMING THAT WORKFORCE HOUSING IS TANTAMOUNT TO ABOUT 80% OF THE A M I.
AND CERTAINLY YOU CAN GET THAT, UM, WITH, WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WHO CAN SPECIFY THAT 80% A M I.
BUT I THINK, CAN I JUST ASK GARRETT, WHAT WASN'T IT 60% THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT? SO
I MEAN, I HAVE A LOT OF THOUGHTS, YOU KNOW, THAT I CAN YEAH, YEAH.
I MEAN, I, I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO CLARIFY WHAT IT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND THE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT'S NOT SO MUCH, UH, WORKFORCE HOUSING, ALTHOUGH THAT'S WHAT WE CALL IT, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT, MY, MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT FOR A FAMILY THAT EARNS $90,000, THE HOMES, UH, UH, THE, THE WORKFORCE HOUSING WOULD BE THAT $260,000, UH, THAT WOULD BE WHAT THEY WOULD PAY FOR THE HOMES INSTEAD OF LIKE A MILLION DOLLARS.
SO JUST JUST TO, JUST TO BACK UP A BIT, UH, UH, JUST FIRST OFF TO, TO THE ORIGINAL POINT ABOUT THE POTENTIAL TO INSERT A, AN AFFORDABLE SETASIDE THAT WOULD APPLY TO THE ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS, YOU KNOW, AS PLANNING COMMISSIONER, I WOULD ABSOLUTELY SUPPORT THAT.
SO IF THAT'S, IF THE BOARD THINKS THAT THAT'S A GOOD DIRECTION TO GO, BY ALL MEANS WE WILL START WORKING ON A LOCAL LAW.
AND I, I APPLAUD THAT DIRECTION THAT YOU WERE, IF, IF YOU ARE, SO TO GIVE IT BEING ON THE GREENBERG AGAINST SYSTEMIC RACISM HOUSING COMMITTEE, UM, YOU KNOW, OVER THE PAST YEAR PLUS I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT MANY AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUES.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S CLEAR THAT IT'S BY TIMES ON THAT COMMITTEE, THERE ARE OTHER CHANGES THAT IT'S, IT'S OBVIOUS THAT, YOU KNOW, IT'S TIME TO TAKE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH.
SO, UM, THERE ARE GOING TO BE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE CAN DO TO IMPROVE THE TOWN OF GREENBURG WITH RESPECT TO AFFORDABILITY.
UM, TO BE VERY TECHNICAL, THE ONLY WAY AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WORKFORCE HOUSING IS DISTINGUISHED IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG CODE RIGHT NOW IS THAT THERE'S NO LOW END CAP.
[00:10:01]
M I.THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING WE CAN DISTINGUISH.
PERHAPS MAYBE WE DO WANNA MAKE A TIER THAT, UH, WORKFORCE HOUSING IS THE 80% A M I, MAYBE WE DO WANNA SPECIFY, UH, AFFORDABLE HOUSING IS UP TO 60% A M I, PERHAPS LOW INCOME HOUSING, 50 OR 40%.
SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF CHANGES WE CAN MAKE TO, UM, I THINK CLARIFY OUR LAW.
YOU KNOW, I WAS RECENTLY FORWARDED SOMETHING FROM THE CITY OF WHITE PLAINS.
I SAW SOME INNOVATIVE APPROACHES THERE.
SO, UM, YES, WE, WE
THERE'S, THERE'S SOME WORK TO DO IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, AND I THINK WE'LL BE WELL INFORMED WITH SOME RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THE G A S R HOUSING COMMITTEE.
I THINK THEY'RE GOOD STEPS TO TAKE FOR THE NEAR TERM AND LONG TERM OF THE TOWN, UM, TO BE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SPECIFICS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF THE LOCAL LAW IS DONE BY THIS DATE, HOW WILL IT'LL APPLY TO, UM, THE PROJECT ON ELMWOOD? I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE FORUM TO DISCUSS THAT RIGHT HERE.
BECAUSE I WOULD DEFINITELY HAVE SOME LEGAL COMMENTS AND ADVICE I WOULD WANNA GIVE TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH RESPECT TO THIS APPLICATION AND THE APPLICABILITY TO THAT.
BUT IN GENERAL, I THINK I ECHO, YOU KNOW, GARRETT'S COMMENTS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
WOULDN'T WE BE, WOULDN'T IT MAKE SENSE, UH, TO PROCEED AND SAY WE WANT TO EXTEND, UH, OUR AFFORDABLE HOUSING REQUIREMENT, THE SAME LAW THAT WE HAVE FOR MULTIFAMILY HOUSING, UM, YOU KNOW, SHOULD GO, SHOULD APPLY TO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING, MOVE THAT.
NOW, IF WE BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE COULD MOVE THAT ALONG WITH THE PLANNING IN THE PLANNING PROCESS.
AND THEN, UM, IF THE COMMITTEE THAT, UM, GINA, YOU KNOW, FORMED, YOU KNOW, HAS OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS WE HAVE TO TWEAK THE LAW, YOU KNOW, LATER ON, THEN WE, THEN WE COULD.
BUT WE'VE ALREADY LIKE, STARTED THE, WE, WE ALREADY STARTED THE, YOU KNOW, THE PROCESS.
'CAUSE I SORT OF FEEL THAT, YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, IF, UM, IF WE, THERE'S NO DOWNSIDE TO EXTENDING, UH, WHAT WE REQUIRE FROM MULTIFAMILY HOUSING TO EVERYONE.
I GUESS THE MAIN COMPLICATION IS THIS, UM, WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY, WITH THE POTENTIAL FOR A SINGLE FAMILY SET ASIDE OF 10% OR SOME NUMBER, AGAIN, I SUPPORT IT.
UM, BUT TAKE A, A PROJECT LIKE GRAYSTONE, RIGHT? WHERE YOU HAVE 12 HOMES APPROVED IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG BY THE TOWN OF GREENBURG PLANNING BOARD, ALL OF THOSE HOMES ARE ON THE ORDER OF, YOU KNOW, 7,500 SQUARE FEET.
UM, THEY'RE SELLING BETWEEN FIVE AND $13 MILLION.
LIKE, WOULD IT MAKE SENSE IN THAT DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE ONE OF THOSE HOMES BE FOR SALE AT $265,000? YES, IT WOULD BE WONDERFUL FOR THE PERSON THAT ACQUIRED THE HOME, UH, AT THAT PRICE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S REALLY PROBABLY NOT LOGICAL.
IS IT LOGICAL TO THEN SAY, OKAY, AMONGST THE 12, UM, YOU KNOW, 7,500 SQUARE FOOT HOMES, LET'S DO A 3000 SQUARE FOOT HOME.
THAT'S GONNA BE THE AFFORDABLE SET ASIDE.
SO THEN IT BEGS THE QUESTION, OKAY, WELL, FOR A UNIQUE PROJECT LIKE THAT, WOULD YOU HAVE, UH, A FEE IN LIEU? AND MAYBE YOU DO, BUT YOU KNOW, TO PENCIL THAT IN QUICKLY TO THE CODE WITHOUT REALLY A STRUCTURE TO WHAT TO DO WITH THE MONEY FOR FEE IN LIE, THERE'S JUST SOME OTHER THOUGHT PROCESSES THAT NEED TO BE FLESHED OUT, AND MAYBE A FEE AND LIE OVER TIME COULD ALLOW SOMETHING GOOD TO HAPPEN WITH REGARD TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, GIVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN OTHER PORTIONS OF THE TOWN.
SO I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU COULD QUICKLY PENCIL IT IN.
UH, MAYBE YOU CAN, AND MAYBE WE WON'T EVER HAVE A UNIQUE PROJECT LIKE GREYSTONE AND IT WILL NEVER BE AN ISSUE, BUT MAYBE YOU WILL.
SO I'M JUST, I JUST DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S, NO, I UNDERSTAND.
YOU JUST WANNA START THE PROCESS.
I'D LIKE TO START THE PRO, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF WE ALSO FORWARD SOMETHING TO THE PLANNING BOARD, DOESN'T THE PLANNING BOARD USUALLY REVIEW IT? I MEAN, SAY, LET'S SAY WE COME IN WITH A BASIC THING, AND THEN YOU GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS IS ONE OF THE CONCERNS, AND THE PLANNING BOARD ALREADY HAS THE REFERRAL.
THEY'RE STARTING THE PROCESS OF REVIEWING IT.
THEN THEY COULD ALWAYS MAKE, UH, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS AND, YOU KNOW, GIVE, YOU KNOW, DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS, WE'RE NOT LIKE WASTING TIME BECAUSE WE'RE MOVING, YOU KNOW, MOVING THIS ALONG.
I THINK GREENBERG WAS THE FIRST COMMUNITY IN THE STATE TO REQUIRE 10% AFFORDABILITY.
AND THIS IS LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, A FEW DECADES AGO.
THE ONLY OTHER THING I WOULD ADD IS, YOU KNOW, I LOOK ON YOUR AGENDA AND I SEE LEAF BLOWERS, AND I SEE THE REGULATION OF MARIJUANA, AND IT'S JUST A LOT THAT THE BOARD IS TAKING ON.
BUT THIS IS REALLY IMPORTANT, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WORKFORCE.
AND I FEEL THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS REALLY GREAT WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT IT.
WE HAD PEOPLE FROM EVERY NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE TOWN, YOU KNOW, UH, DIFFERENT DIVERSE NEIGHBORHOODS.
PEOPLE SAID THEY WANT AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO WE LIVE IN A COMMUNITY THAT IS WELCOMING FOR WORKFORCE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO I SORT OF FEEL THAT WE SHOULD REALLY JUMP BEFORE PEOPLE CHANGE THEIR MIND.
AND, UM, AND YOU AND I FEEL RIGHT NOW, THE MOOD OF THIS COMMUNITY IS PEOPLE WANT US TO MOVE FORWARD.
AND IF EVERYBODY WORKS TOGETHER, WE, WE
[00:15:01]
HAVE A REALLY DECENT CHANCE OF GETTING SOMETHING, UM, YOU KNOW, PROVE THAT THIS WOULD BE A REAL CREDIT TO THE TOWN, YOU KNOW, BORA, TO EXTEND IT TO LARGER SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS, WE COULD REAL, I MEAN, THIS IS A REAL CHANCE TO GET SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T WANNA DO IT, RIGHT? NO, WE WANT, BUT I'M SAYING YOU, WE DO IT.IF WE SAY WE WANT TO EXTEND IT, IT HAS TO GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD, PLANNING BOARD.
DURING THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW PROCESS, THEY COULD COME UP WITH ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
YOU KNOW, THERE'LL BE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS, AND THEN, AND THEN IT GOES TO THE TOWN BOARD, AND THEN WE PASS SOMETHING.
BUT WHY, WHY WAIT AND WAIT AND WAIT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IT'S UP TO THE BOARD.
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THEY REALLY HAVE TO LOOK AT WHAT IS GOING TO WORK, UM, MOST EXPEDITIOUSLY.
WHAT IS GOING TO WORK BETTER LONG TERM? WHAT'S GONNA WORK BETTER SHORT TERM? WHAT IS MOST LIKELY TO GET SUPPORT RIGHT AWAY TO GET GOING? I MEAN, AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND WORKFORCE HOUSING IS SO GREATLY NEEDED IN THIS TOWN.
BOTH OF THEM, YOU KNOW, WHERE WILL THEY BE BUILT? UM, WHAT ACCESS WOULD THEY HAVE TO TRANSPORTATION? UM, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST A LOT TO CONSIDER.
AND I THINK YOU NEED TO LOOK AT EACH OF THE OPTIONS, THEIR STRENGTHS, WEAKNESSES, AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE NEVER HAD PROBLEMS WITH THE 10% AFFORDABILITY IN MULTI-FAMILY HOMES.
THE COMMUNITY HAS EMBRACED IT.
10 PERCENT'S NOT ENOUGH, BUT THE COMMUNITY'S NEVER EMBRACED.
AND BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD SOME SUCCESS STORIES.
BUT, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES IF YOU'RE ABOVE THE RADAR, IF YOU'RE BELOW THE RADAR SCREEN, THEN PEOPLE BASICALLY ARE, ARE SUPPORTIVE.
IF, UH, IF PEOPLE START GETTING, UH, YOU KNOW, ALL RILED UP OR WHATEVER, THEN YOU COULD GET END UP GETTING NOTHING.
SO I SORT OF FEEL IN MY, IN MY OPINION, IF WE HAD LEGISLATION REFER TO THE PLANNING BOARD, AND THEN WE'LL AGREE THAT IT'S SUBJECT TO TWEAKING MODIFICATIONS, YOU KNOW, IMPROVEMENTS LATER ON, NOTHING'S SET IN STONE.
I THINK THAT MY PREDICTION IS, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE'LL BE MORE, UH, UH, WORKFORCE HOUSING BUILT, BECAUSE WE'LL HAVE SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS SOON.
YOU KNOW, I, I TAKE, YOU KNOW, THE THING IS, I'VE ALWAYS BEEN, YOU KNOW, I'LL TAKE WHAT I COULD GET, BUT WE'VE RECENTLY HAD PEOPLE WHERE SOMEBODY WANTED TO DO ONE HOUSE AS AFFORDABLE, AND PEOPLE OBJECTED IN THE, IN THE COMMUNITY.
SO THERE'S A CURRENTLY, PARTICULAR WHAT I, WHAT I'M HAVING DIFFICULTY IS TYING THIS TO A, A CURRENT DEVELOPER, UM, THIS LATE IN THE PROCESS.
UH, WE'VE BEEN THERE AND IT HASN'T WORKED OUT FOR THE TOWN WHEN, WHEN THINGS LIKE THIS HAPPEN.
BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL.
IT'S ONE THING TO HAVE NEW LEGISLATION, BUT CLEARLY, I MEAN, YOU CAN SEE IT'S ELER PRESERVE AND EXTEND AFFORDABLE HOUSING TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, AND LET'S DO IT AS FAST AS WE CAN.
SO THAT, UH, THE IMPLICATION HERE IS CERTAINLY THAT'S WHAT IT'S GONNA COME ACROSS IN DEPOSITIONS, IS THAT THE, THERE'S A NEXUS BETWEEN THE TWO OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY FOR, YOU KNOW, I DON'T REALLY THINK THERE'S A LAW.
WE HAVE THE RIGHT TO SAY WHATEVER WE WANT.
AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO SUE, AND THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO GET SUBSTANTIAL JUDGMENTS WHEN, WHEN THE TOWN IS WRONG.
WELL, WHY ARE WE TYING IT TO A SPECIFIC PROPERTY? I MEAN, I THINK THAT THE, IF WE'RE CHANGING THE LAW AND WE ARE INCLUDING WORKFORCE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THAT APPLIES TO THE WHOLE TOWN.
AND IF IT APPLIES TO E WITH, AND WE CAN DO THAT LEGITIMATELY GREAT.
BUT REGARDLESS, I THINK IT'S AN IMPORTANT, UM, THING TO DO FOR THE TOWN.
I'M JUST, AND THE PROCESS WILL TAKE AS LONG AS IT TAKES TO GET IT RIGHT AND NOT HIRING UP FOR THE SPECIFIC,
[00:20:01]
UM, SPECIFIC ENTITY, THE SPECIFIC, UH, ELMWOOD SPECIFICALLY, BUT FOR, UM, FOR THE TOWN, AND IF IT ENDS UP APPLYING TO ELMWOOD, SO, SO MUCH THE BETTER.I JUST, I JUST, I CAN'T EMPHASIZE ENOUGH THAT THIS IS NOT REALLY ABOUT ELMWOOD.
IT'S JUST THAT WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THESE TYPES OF DISCUSSIONS CAME UP, AND THEY'RE INTERESTING DISCUSSIONS, BUT I JUST DON'T WANT TO LINK ELMWOOD AND THIS DISCUSSION TOGETHER, EVEN IF YOU COULD DO IT AND, YOU KNOW, ON THAT PROPERTY.
BUT IT'S NOT TARGETED TO THAT PROPERTY.
I THINK I'M ALLUDED TO, YOU ARE 1000% CORRECT, BECAUSE BASICALLY, UM, THE GOAL IS TO, THERE'S GONNA BE, UH, 5, 6, 7, UH, HOMES BUILT ALL OVER THE TOWN.
SO IF THE SOONER WE GET SOMETHING ON THE BOOKS MM-HMM.
UH, AND, UH, AND, UH, AND THEN PEOPLE ARE GONNA BE USED TO IT.
AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S LIKE ONE SMALL STEP AT A, AT A TIME.
SO I REALLY FEEL THERE'S LIKE, NO, I MEAN, AND YOU COULD, YOU COULD COME UP AND SAY, UM, MAYBE A SUPER MAJORITY OF THE BOARD COULD, UH, AUTHORIZE, UH, UH, PAYMENT IN LIEU, OR THAT THEY HAVE TO PAY FOR LAND AND MM-HMM.
YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S, THERE'S A WALL, THERE'S A WAY.
BUT I, I JUST SORT OF FEEL, LET'S JUST REFER SOMETHING TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND, AND GET THE PROCESS MOVING AND, AND WE'LL KEEP WORKING TOWARDS IMPROVE, GETTING MORE AND MORE WORKFORCE HOUSING.
BUT I MEAN, I SHOULD ALSO MENTION, UM, YOU KNOW, AND I EMAILED EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD THAT RIGHT AFTER THE HEARING, I GOT A CALL, AN EMAIL, WHICH I SENT TO THE BOARD, UH, SOMEBODY ON SOME RIVER ROAD.
UH, THEY WANT TO, UH, TURN AN ABANDONED PROPERTY INTO A HUNDRED PERCENT WORKFORCE HOUSING.
EMAILED THE MAYOR OF ELMSFORD.
THE MAYOR SAID THAT THE VILLAGE AND CONCEPT, YOU KNOW, LIKED IT.
BUT THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ONE UNIT OF HOUSING.
YOU KNOW, THEY WANT, I THINK GARRETT, HE WANTS TO COME TO THE, THE WORK SESSION, YOU KNOW, AND, AND SPEAK TO THE BOARD.
BUT THIS IS A, A, AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE WE COULD GET A NUMBER OF UNITS, UH, UNIT BUILT AND, YOU KNOW, AND IT'S AN, AN ICE SIDE, THE BUILDING WHICH, WHICH BUILDING IS THIS? I THINK IT'S 1 74 NORTH, 1 72, UM, SAWMILL RIVER ROAD.
IT'S, IT'S A PROPERTY THAT, UM, WAS BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD SEVERAL YEARS AGO.
AND HE KEEPS ASKING FOR MORE AND MORE DENSITY.
WELL, I, IT'S A NICE SIZED BUILDING.
IS THIS THE ONE THAT THEY HAD COMMERCIAL AND THEY CONVERT, UH, UNITS AND THEY WITHOUT PERMITS CONVERTED TO APARTMENTS? UH, I'D HAVE TO LOOK INTO THAT.
THERE, THERE, THE PRIOR OWNER MAY HAVE HAD SOME DUNKING DONUTS.
THE PRIOR OWNER MAY HAVE HAD SOME VIOLATIONS.
I THINK THE NEW OWNER, NEWER OWNER MAY NOT HAVE, BUT THERE'S DEFINITELY SOME VIOLATIONS IN THE PAST BY NEW OR WHAT, HOW LONG AGO? YEAH, NO, I, I, I, I DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFICS OF, 'CAUSE WE HAVE THE GUY SITTING RIGHT IN THAT CHAIR WHEN I POINTED IT OUT TO HIM THAT THAT'S WHAT HE DID.
AND, YOU KNOW, HE COULDN'T DENY IT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT SAY, THAT PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, I'M NOW LOOKING AT PERSONALIZING, UH, YOU KNOW, THE ISSUE, YOU KNOW, HE MAY BE A GREAT GUY OR NOT A GREAT GUY, OR WHATEVER.
I'M SAYING, WE MAY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, YOU KNOW, LET'S SAY HE HAS FOR A HUNDRED, WE MAY HAVE A OPPORTUNITY.
IT COULD BE 50 UNITS, IT COULD BE 60 UNITS.
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE IN ONE, YOU KNOW, QUICKLY, UH, UP TO A HUNDRED OF WORKFORCE, UH, UH, UH, APARTMENTS FOR RESIDENTS OF, OF GREENBURG.
UM, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS, I MEAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE.
AND WE COULD SAY, LISTEN, WE ACTUALLY ARE ACHIEVING, YOU KNOW, RESULTS.
YOU KNOW, I MEAN, BUT I FEEL WE SHOULD SIT DOWN WITH HIM AND THEN, YOU KNOW, IF WE LIKE IT, YOU KNOW, PROCEED.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO SAY, DO WE REALLY WANT WORKFORCE HOUSING? AND WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO? YOU KNOW, HOW AGGRESSIVE ARE
[00:25:01]
WE GONNA BE? AND YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IF THE VILLAGE IS IN CONCEPT SUPPORTING IT, WE MEET WITH THEM, WE TWEAK IT, YOU KNOW, WE COME UP WITH A REALLY GOOD PLAN.WE COULD HAVE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE A REALLY GREAT, UH, GREAT ASSET TO THE, TO THE TOWN.
IS THIS, IS THIS V IS THIS BUILDING VILLAGE OR UNINCORPORATED? IT'S UNINCORPORATED.
SO IF HE'S OFFERING IT, WHY NOT SIT DOWN AND MEET WITH HIM? NO.
'CAUSE HE HAS A HISTORY IN THE PAST OF DOING THINGS ILLEGALLY.
IF IT'S THE SAME, IF IT'S NOW, IT MAY BE A NEW OWNER.
UH, BUT I HAVE A HISTORY IN THE PAST AND CONSTANTLY, I'M NOT GONNA USE THE EXPRESSION, BUT IT'S, IT'S CONSTANTLY ASKING FOR MORE AND MORE AND MORE.
AND SO IT'S NOT THAT AFFORDABLE HOUSING OR WORKFORCE HOUSING.
THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS WORKFORCE HOUSING.
YOU CAN'T BE HOMELESS, UM, ACCORDING TO OUR CODE.
AND THEN, UH, YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY HAVE AN INCOME.
UH, BUT IT'S WHETHER OR NOT WHAT HE'S ASKING FOR IS A REASONABLE ASK FOR THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY.
BECAUSE IN ZONING, YOU KNOW, THAT'S ZONED FOR A PARTICULAR, IT HAS THIS PARTICULAR ZONING ON IT.
AND ARE WE THEN GOING TO MAKE THAT ZONING, UH, TOWN WIDE? CERTAINLY NOT GONNA SPOT ZONE ON THAT PARTICULAR ZONE.
I MEAN, THERE ARE ISSUES THAT HAVE TO BE LOOKED AT.
AND IT MAY SOUND GREAT INITIALLY, BUT IT'S LIKE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE, IS MANY OF THESE NEED TO HAVE CONSIDERABLE DISCUSSION IN THE STU IN THE STUDY TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE AREN'T UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES TO, HEY, LET'S PUT A THOUSAND AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS ON THIS, YOU KNOW, POSTAGE SIZE STAMP IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT.
WELL THEN YOU HAVE TO ALLOW IT IN OTHER ZONING, UH, OTHER PARCELS IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT ELSEWHERE.
AND THAT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE.
I'M ONLY SUGGESTING THAT, UH, UH, UH, A NEXT STEP TO WHAT THIS PERSON IS OFFERING WOULD BE JUST WHAT FRANCIS MENTIONED, A DISCUSSION TO EXPLORE ALL OF THOSE VARIABLES.
I MEAN, AT AT LEAST A, A DECISION WOULD BE MADE AT THIS POINT TO HAVE A TANGIBLE, CONCRETE TAKEAWAY FROM THIS PARTICULAR DISCUSSION ITEM.
AND THAT WOULD BE A NEXT STEP BE TO HAVE THIS DISCUSSION.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT, I'M NOT SAYING DEVELOPERS ALWAYS ASK FOR MORE THAN THEY'LL GET.
THERE'S NO DEVELOPER WHO'S EVER ASKED FOR LESS.
SO THE THING IS, I FEEL LET'S MEET WITH HIM.
LET'S SEE IF IT, IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT COULD MAKE SENSE.
BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF SOMEBODY'S OFFERING A HUNDRED PERCENT WORKFORCE HOUSING AND EVERYBODY IN THE, AND THE COMMUNITY SAYS WE WANT WORKFORCE HOUSING, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WE COULD HAVE A DIALOGUE AND MAYBE WE COULD GET SOMETHING THROUGH.
IS THERE A WRITTEN PROPOSAL? YEAH, I SENT IT TO EVERYBODY ON THE BOARD.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, MY UNDERSTANDING THAT SPECIFIC PROPOSAL, IT'S ABOUT CREATING A LAW THAT WOULD GO ON THE BOOKS FOR ANYONE WHO WANTS TO BUILD SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING MOVING FORWARD.
RIGHT? THIS WOULDN'T BE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING.
THIS WOULD BE, WELL, SO THIS WOULD NOT FALL UNDER THE RIGHT, SO THEY WOULDN'T FALL UNDER THE NEW LAW ANYWAY.
SO REALLY WE'RE MIXING TWO METAPHORS.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT SUCH A LAW THAT WOULD PERTAIN TO SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DEVELOP.
SO WE SHOULD MOVE THAT TRAIN OUT OF THE STATION.
SO I JUST WANNA KEEP YOU ON KIND OF SCHEDULE AND IT'S, UH, 'CAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE THE REGULATION OF MARIJUANA ON THE AGENDA, AND THEN YOU HAVE A FIVE 30 SPECIAL MEETING AND LEAF BLOWER.
SO, SO GARRETT, WHAT WOULD YOUR RECOMMENDATION BE? LIKE, HOW LONG DO YOU THINK IT WOULD TAKE TO HAVE LIKE A DRIFT? I KNOW YOU HAVE TO DO RESEARCH, THERE'S STILL STUFF THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE.
I JUST, I JUST, MY CONCERN IS THAT WE MOVE SO QUICKLY AND THEN WE GET OURSELVES CAUGHT.
HAVE YOU LOOKED TO SEE WHAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES DONE WITH THAT'S CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, YOUR HONOR.
I'M CURIOUS TO SEE WHAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES HAVE ATTEND A SET ASIDE FOR SINGLE FAMILY ZONING.
IT'S, IT IS A, UH, WHEN I AF OBVIOUSLY I WAS HERE AT THE MEETING THE OTHER NIGHT AND I, I HEARD THE SUGGESTION, YOU KNOW, THE 20%.
UM, AS MUCH AS I WOULD LOVE TO SAY, LET'S, LET'S GO THAT ROUTE, THAT ITSELF NEEDS, UH, A LOT OF RESEARCH BECAUSE 20% COULD STIFLE BOTH SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTI-FAMILY MARKETS.
THERE'S A FEW MARKETS THAT CAN ABSORB 20%, LIKE NEW YORK CITY WHERE YOU SELL THE PENTHOUSE FOR 13 MILLION.
UM, SO THAT'S SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T JUST QUICKLY FOLLOW THAT RECOMMENDATION AND SAY, WE'RE 20% ACROSS THE BOARD AS MUCH AS I WOULD LOVE TO, AND MAYBE WE CAN GO HIGHER THAN 10, BUT THAT NEEDS INTENSE RESEARCH.
UM, BUT YEAH, THERE, THERE NEEDS TO BE RESEARCH ABOUT 10%.
AND WE MAY BE THE FIRST MUNICIPALITY IN WESTCHESTER THAT HAS THAT SET ASIDE FOR SINGLE FAMILY OR ONE OF THE FIRST FEW.
SO, UM, WE'LL LOOK AT OTHER CODES.
I THINK IT'S, IT'S A COUPLE MONTHS TO CREATE A LOCAL LAW.
[00:30:01]
IT'S NOT A ONE-LINER IN THE CODE.IF IT WAS, THEN I WOULD SAY, I'LL HAVE YOU SOMETHING, UM, FRIDAY.
AND I SHOULD MENTION YONKERS HAS A 12% SET ASIDE FOR, UH, MULTIFAMILY A CITY.
SO KA LET US KNOW, LET US KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY TO TALK TO US ABOUT IT.
AND YOU'VE DONE, WHEN, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, A LOT OF OF MUNICIPALITIES HAVE LOOKED AT INCREASES.
I THINK HASTINGS HAS A 12% OR PERCENT INCREASE, BUT GOING HIGHER GETS TO BE DIFFICULT BECAUSE IT'S A, IT DISCOURAGES DEVELOPERS.
UM, AND THAT IS COUNTERPRODUCTIVE.
LET ME, LET ME ASK A QUESTION.
WOULD WE, JUST TO MOVE THIS, YOU KNOW, ALONG, DO YOU, COULD YOU HAVE GIVEN US LIKE AN ESTIMATED DATE WHEN YOU THINK YOU COULD DO SOMETHING AND THEN WE COULD PUT IT ON, SAY A SUBSEQUENT WORK SESSION, WOULD SAY? YEAH, SO I MEAN, FOR INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, AS WE, UH, DELVE INTO THE MARIJUANA LEGISLATION DISCUSSION NEXT, UH, I DO HAVE A TARGETED DATE FOR THAT LOCAL LAW.
UM, AND JUST TO JUMP THE GUN A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, IT'S APPROXIMATELY ONE MONTH FROM NOW.
SO, I MEAN, IF I'M, IF OUR DEPARTMENT'S STARTING TO DO RESEARCH ON THIS, THAT THROWS THAT INTO MAYBE TWO MONTHS AND IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MAKE THE LOCAL LAW FOR SINGLE FAMILY GO FASTER.
UM, I TEND TO, WOULD LIKE TO MEET A GOAL OF ONE MONTH FROM NOW ON MARIJUANA LEGISLATION AS A DRAFT TO GET THAT INTO THE PROCESS.
AND THEN I WOULD START THEREAFTER WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY, WHICH I ESTIMATE TO BE, UH, PROBABLY A TWO MONTH ENDEAVOR.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I HAVE A LOT TO EVALUATE.
YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT FOUR QUARTERS ONGOING, BEGINNING OF THE REGENERON PROJECT.
THERE'S JUST SO MUCH GOING ON.
SO SAY BY THE BEGINNING OF JULY,
YEAH, NO, I'M NOT COMMITTING TO ANY DATE RIGHT NOW.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT GIVE AN UPDATE.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, GIVE YOU AN UPDATE SOON.
WHY DON'T WE DO THAT? BECAUSE I DON'T WANNA PUT YOURSELF AND, YOU KNOW, BOX YOURSELF INTO SOMETHING'S.
IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING NEW THAT'S BEEN HURLED AT YOU, YOUR DUE DILIGENCE.
LET US KNOW WHEN YOU'RE READY TO, WE'LL GET THERE.
WE, WE WILL GET THERE AND YEAH, WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO DO DISPENSARY, SO WE HAVE TO GET THAT GOING.
SO YOU BASICALLY, YOU INDICATED THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE, UM, UM, COMING UP WITH A PROPOSAL IN A MONTH OF, IN THAT DISCUSSION,
UH, YEAH, NO, WE DISCUSSED THAT.
OH, DID WE? HIS GOAL IS TO HAVE SOMETHING TO US IN A, A MONTH.
HIS GOAL IS TO HAVE SOMETHING TO US IN A MONTH.
YOU WANNA DO THE SPECIAL MEETING OR DO YOU WANNA WAIT? UM, WE COULD DO THE SPECIAL MEETING NOW.
DO YOU HAVE ONE? I SO YOU HAVE, SO GIMME, GIMME THAT NOT USING.
YEAH, WE'RE NOT USING S I HAVE IT.
SO WE READY TO OPEN THE MEETING? TO OPEN THE MEETING? YEP.
I'D LIKE TO OPEN THE MEETING AND THE TOWN CLERK WILL DO, UH, THE ROLL CALL.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SPECIAL MEETING ON TUESDAY, MARCH 15TH AT 5:30 PM SECOND.
JUDITH, WILL YOU DO THE ROLL CALL? YES.
PRESENT COUNCILWOMAN GINA JACKSON.
COUNCILMAN FRANCIS SHEEN, PRESENT AND TOWN ATTORNEY TIM LEWIS.
PRESENT, UH, FIRST ITEM APPOINTMENT OF HILLARY LEVY TO THE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT REVIEW TO FULFILL A NON EXPIRED TERM TO EXPIRE SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2024.
UH, THE TOWN BOARD ACCEPTS WITH REGRET THE RESIGNATION OF CAROLYN SHEER A 25 YEAR PLUS MEMBER PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY BOARD.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT AND THANK CAROLYN FOR HER HARD WORK AND DEDICATED SERVICE OVER THE YEARS.
[00:35:01]
AYE.RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG ADOPTING THE 2022 CAPITAL BUDGET AND 20 23 20 24.
RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN BOARD AUTHORIZING THE TOWN SUPERVISOR, UH, TO ENTER TO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT FOR PAYMENT OF $21,275 TO THE TOWN ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE COWA PARK DISTRICT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF A SMALL PARCEL OF TOWN PROPERTY FOR ROADWAY AND TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT SECOND IN FAVOR, AYE.
I WAS GONNA LET ELLEN, OH, ISHA.
KEN, DID YOU SECOND THAT? YES.
UM, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SETTLEMENT OF PROPERTY DAMAGE RELATED CLAIM.
FILE NUMBER 1 0 7 21 C BY GEICO INSURANCE, ROSEMARY FA, REBECCA, ALCON, FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $6,748 AND 77 CENTS.
RESOLUTION TO APPROVING THE RETENTION OF DANIEL SEYMOUR TO REPRESENT, UM, UH, GREENBURG PERSONNEL IN THE MATTER OF KRISTEN STEIN FOR AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED 25,000.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONTINUED RETENTION OF TOM FRATY TO REPRESENT GREENBURG POLICE OFFICER DAY, DAVEY JACKELL, UH, SERGEANT ED OLSSON, CAPTAIN DAN VALENTINE.
DETECTIVE DAN O'MALLEY, SERGEANT CARL WAN AND DETECTIVE MARIA PACINO IN THE AMOUNT OF, UH, LAKEISHA WALKER AND OTTO ADE ARMSTRONG VERSUS TOWN OF GREENBURG FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $50,000.
RESOLUTION APPROVING THE CONTINUED RETENTION OF TOM TRUDY TO REPRESENT GREENBERG POLICE, DETECTIVE EDUARDO, UH, DE MALE IN THE MATTER OF MICHAEL MARONE.
UM, NOT TO EXCEED $50,000, A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS, UM, IN TOTAL.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CLOSING OF OLD COLONY ROAD CLUB WAY.
EDGEWOOD ROAD, EDMOND ROAD AND WHITE OAK LANE.
AS WELL AS CLOSED THE INTERSECTIONS OF OLD COLONY ROAD WITH BROOK LANE WEST.
WITH BROOK LANE, EAST WITH MIDVALE COURT, WITH CLUB WAY ON INTERSECTIONS OF FENIMORE ROAD AND EAST ELLI AVENUE.
AND WITH PIPELINE ROAD INTERSECTION OF, UM, PIPELINE ROAD WITH EDMOND PLACE.
INTERSECTION OF EDGEMONT PLACE WITH UCT DRIVE AND INTERSECTION OF THE TRIANGLE.
INTERSECTIONS OF EDGEMONT ROAD WITH BARKLEY ROAD, WITH ARTILLERY LANE, WITH GROUND HILL ROAD AND WHITE OAK LANE.
UM, ON, UM, SUNDAY MAY 1ST FROM SEVEN TO 12:00 PM HUH? AGAINST YOU, YOU JUMPED OVER A BUNCH OF STREETS THERE.
UM, SO GO BACK TO, WITH BOUND HILL ROAD, BOTH ENDS AND WHITE OAK LANE AND ANY OTHER CLOSINGS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE GREENBERG POLICE DEPARTMENT TO PROVIDE APPROPRIATE PROTECTIONS TO THE RUNNERS ON SUNDAY.
ON SUNDAY MAY 1ST MEANT TO SAY 2020.
AND IF WE MISSED ANYTHING, IT'S, UH, WHATEVER C ONE SAYS.
AND JUST AS A CORRECTION ON THE DATE, IT SHOULD READ 2022, NOT 2019.
ALL THE, THE RESOLUTION IS CORRECT.
UH, RESOLUTION SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR WE STATE MARCH 23RD, UH, 2022 AT 7:30 PM TO CONSIDER A LOCAL WILL.
CHAPTER FOUR, FOR THE, UH, TAX TAXATION OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, INCREASING THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE AMOUNT FOR THE VETERANS ALTERNATIVE AND COLD WAR VETERAN EXEMPTIONS.
SCHEDULING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR WEDNESDAY, MARCH 23RD TO CONSIDER A LOCAL LAW AMENDING THE DEFINITION, UH, SECTION OF CHAPTER FOUR 60 OF THE CODE OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG ENTITLED VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC.
ACCEPTING ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES A $500 DONATION FROM LESLIE AND LANIE REAL TO HELP SUPPORT THE PROGRAMS AT THE YOUNG COMMUNITY CENTER.
UH, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PERSONNEL FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY RESOURCES TO TRAVEL TO VARIOUS COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES IN UPSTATE NEW YORK FROM MARCH 31ST TO APRIL 3RD AT A TOTAL COST NOT TO EXCEED 11,705 OF WHICH 4,800 WILL BE PAID BY PROGRAM PARTICIPANTS.
[00:40:01]
SECOND.RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING FISCAL YEAR 2021.
UH, RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING RELEASE OF TRUST AND AGENCY PARKLAND FUNDS FOR PARKING LOT AND PLAYGROUND PROJECT AT TEXT ROAD PARK.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING EXECUTION OF A 44,677 GRAND AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TOWN OF GREENBERG AND THE COUNTY OF WESTCHESTER.
UM, H D C FIVE OF THE CONSOLIDATED APPROPRIATION ACT FUNDS FOR TITLE, UH, THREE C TWO NUTRITION PROGRAMS. I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT SECOND.
UM, ACCEPTING GRANT IN THE AMOUNT OF 1500 FROM GEORGIA AND, UH, RACHEL MINA.
UH, ROCKEFELLER PHIL PHILANTHROPY ADVISORS DESIGNATED FOR C OVID 19 RESPONSE.
RESOLUTION A APPOINT ALEX ARIA AS PROBATIONARY POLICE OFFICER.
RESOLUTION APPROVING TYLER TECHNOLOGIES SALES QUOTATIONS TO PROVIDE WATER UTILITY BILLING RELATED SERVICES FOR THE GREENBURG CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT AT REQUEST NOT TO EXCEED $124,930.
AND LAST RESOLUTION APPROVING A PROFESSIONAL SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH, UH, TU FINANCIAL CONSULTANTS, UH, TO PROVIDE AS NEEDED FINANCIAL SERVICE CONSULTING TO THE GREENBERG CONSOLIDATED WATER DISTRICT FOR AN AMOUNT, UH, NOT TO EXCEED $35,000.
WHO SECONDED THAT? WAS THAT ELLEN? ELLEN.
AND WE ONLY HAVE ONE OTHER ITEM, UH, RELATING TO THE, WAIT A MINUTE.
SO IN TERMS, SO WE, I MOVE, WE ADJOURN.
UH, THAT MEETING? CLOSE THE MEETING.
YOU KNOW, WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP? NOW WE'RE GONNA GO BACK.
GOTTA GO BACK TO WORK SESSION A SECOND ON P1, A1 SECOND.
I DID NOT THAT IT MATTERS, BUT ON CL THREE RESOLUTION, UM, JUST MINOR SPELLING.
UM, IT'S A MINOR SPELLING ISSUE.
IT'S MISSING AN L ON C L THREE.
YEAH, I WAS JUST TRYING TO GET MY VIDEO.
'CAUSE ALL OF THESE HAD TO BE HAND TYPED AGAIN BECAUSE, BECAUSE OF THE SERVER.
SO JOAN HAD TO RETYPE THIS AS OPPOSED TO CUTTING BASE, BASICALLY SERVER CONNECTIVITY ISSUE.
SO NEXT, UH, UM, WE'VE PUT ON THE AGENDA LEAFBLOWER LEGISLATION.
WE TALKED, UH, A FEW WEEKS AGO.
AND, UM, ELLEN, YOU, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES ARE DOING.
THAT'S, I THINK WAS YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
IS THERE LIKE ANY, UH, NEXT STEPS THAT WE WANT TO TAKE? SO MAYBE WE COULD GET SOMETHING DONE FOR THIS YEAR? WELL, PAUL, YOU HAD TALKED ABOUT A COMPROMISE IN TERMS OF LET'S SAY THE HOURS PER DAY THAT SOMEONE MIGHT BE ABLE TO, UM, USE A LEAF BLOWER WITH A VIEW TOWARDS SEEING HOW THAT WORKS AND MAYBE REVISITING IT IN THE FUTURE.
OR, OR DOING WHAT, IF THERE'S A CONSENSUS FOR THAT.
YOU KNOW, TO SAY WE, I'M JUST SORT OF WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY POSSIBILITY THAT WE COULD GET SOMETHING DONE LIKE THIS YEAR.
UM, ANYBODY HAVE ANY THOUGHTS OR, BECAUSE I GET A LOT OF EMAILS FROM PEOPLE.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE BEEN AROUND THE BLOCK ON THIS KIND OF AD NAUSEUM.
UH, WE'VE LOOKED AT WHAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES HAVE DONE IN THE PAST, I BELIEVE.
YOU KNOW, UM, I I I THINK WE JUST
[00:45:01]
NEED TO BITE A BULLET AND ENACT SOMETHING.GIVE IT A SUNSET AND SEE HOW IT ROLLS OUT IN THE PUBLIC.
WE KNOW IT SPLIT ABOUT 50 50 WITH REGARD TO PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT IT, PEOPLE WHO DON'T.
SO WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO ROLL IT OUT, SEE WHAT HAPPENS, AND GIVE IT, YOU KNOW, GIVE IT A SEASON, SEE WHAT HAPPENS, AND THEN REVISIT PERHAPS.
NO, I THINK THAT'S, THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT FOR THIS STARTING OFF WITH THIS SEASON, AND WHAT DOES THAT ROLLOUT LOOK LIKE? I MEAN, IT MIGHT BE, UM, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THIS SEASON, YOU KNOW, BEING ALREADY UPON US IS A GOOD, YOU KNOW, IS A GOOD TIME TO ROLL IT OUT.
IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE NOW TO ENACT FOR, UH, YOU KNOW, THE FALL.
YOU SHOULD TRY, WE COULD ACTUALLY ENACT SOMETHING AND THEN HAVE, UH, THE, THE POLICE GIVE WARNING LETTERS, UH, FOR THE FIRST YEAR.
UM, YOU KNOW, SO BASICALLY SAY PLEASE BE ADVISED, YOU KNOW, AS A COURTESY, YOUR NEIGHBORS PEOPLE, UH, UH, WANT TO HAVE, UH, ENJOYMENT.
AND, UH, WE'RE AS A COURTESY, NOT GIVING SUMMONS IS NOW, BUT WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO EDUCATE PEOPLE.
UH, WE COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO WHAT'S THE INCENTIVE? WHAT'S THE INCENTIVE TO NOT, UM, DO THE BLOWING IF YOU DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT? 'CAUSE IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA ISSUE ANY TYPE OF SUMMONS, HOW ARE YOU GONNA KNOW WHAT'S GOING ON OR NOT? NO, I'M JUST, I'M JUST, I'M JUST SAYING WHAT'S THE INCENTIVE BEHIND THAT? WELL, WHAT'S THE LAW? WELL THEN, WELL THE INCENTIVE IS EDUCATION.
BECAUSE BASICALLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS WE WANNA GET PEOPLE, UH, NOT EVERYBODY, YOU KNOW, READS THE EMAILS.
NOT EVERYBODY GETS THE NEWSPAPERS OR WATCHES THE NEWS ON TV.
SO IT'S VERY, VERY HARD TO GET PEOPLE TO CHANGE HABITS.
SO YOU COULD BASICALLY HAVE LIKE A ONE YEAR, YOU KNOW, ROLLOUT WHERE WE ARE BASICALLY, UM, UH, ENFORCING IT THROUGH ENCOURAGEMENT.
AND IN THE SECOND YEAR, YOU KNOW, AFTER PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, WE, AFTER WE'VE NOTIFIED LANDSCAPERS AND EVERYTHING, THEN WE, WE START ENFORCING, I'M NOT SURE, WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WOULD WANT TO DO.
SO WE'RE NOT PUT UP, WE'RE NOT PUTTING UP PROPOSED LAW.
I, SO WHAT ARE WE PUTTING FORTH? ARE WE, ARE WE TRYING TO PUT A NO, WE HAVE A TEMPORARY LAW.
UM, SO WHAT WOULD THE LAW BE LOOK LIKE? WELL, SCARSDALE THE LAW, SO THAT'S ALL ELECTRIC.
SO WE WOULD WANT EVERYBODY, UH, WHO OWNS A GAS POWER BLOWER THIS YEAR TO STOP USING IT AND GO OUT AND BUY AN ELECTRIC ONE AND MAKE SURE THAT THEIR CONTRACTORS HAVE AN ELECTRIC ONE WHEN THE SEASON'S ABOUT TO START.
BUT YOU CAN'T DO THAT WITH SUNSET COSTS.
YOU CAN'T EXPECT PEOPLE TO MAKE THAT KIND OF INVESTMENT.
THAT I DON'T, I I, RIGHT NOW, 50% ARE OPPOSED TO DOING ANYTHING.
50%, UH, WANT US TO DO SOMETHING.
SO IF WE DO SOMETHING RIGHT, THEN WHAT YOU'RE, WHAT WE'D BE REALLY SAYING IS THAT YOU CAN'T USE THE EQUIPMENT THAT YOU'VE STORED IN YOUR SHELF.
UH, SHED ALL WINTER GO OUT AND BUY ANOTHER ONE.
UH, I THINK IF WE'RE GOING TO DO ALL ELECTRIC, UH, WE SHOULD ENACT IT FOR THE FOLLOWING SEASON AS OPPOSED TO THE CURRENT SEASON.
SO IT GIVES PEOPLE A, YOU KNOW, TIME TO GO OUT, MAYBE LOOK AT SALES AND, UH, FIND OTHER WAYS OF DOING IT.
NOW, THE C A C, CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL, AS OPPOSED TO US DOING ELECTRIC, UH, BECAUSE IT STILL PUTS THE PARTICLES AND THE PARTICULATES INTO THE AIR.
UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THEN, BUT IT'S OKAY FOR OUR TOWN EMPLOYEES TO USE IT FOR, UH, DOING MUNICIPAL PROPERTIES UNDER, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND THEN WE GET BACK INTO THE SAME DISCUSSION OVER AND OVER AGAIN THAT WE GET INTO ALL THE TIME.
SO BEFORE YOU DECIDE THOUGH, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A CHANGE IN HOURS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING WE COULD DO THIS YEAR.
BUT THEN WE GET INTO PEOPLE WANTED ON, YOU KNOW, ON, ON THE WEEKDAYS AND THEY WANT TO HAVE A SERENE ENVIRONMENT DURING THE WEEKEND, BUT THAT'S WHERE MANY HOMEOWNERS ARE HOME AND CAN DO IT BECAUSE THEY WORK DURING THOSE WEEKDAY HOURS.
SO YEAH, I LIKE A, I LIKE, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, A COMPROMISE WITH THE HOURS BECAUSE IT'S A WAY TO TRY SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T INVOLVE AN INVESTMENT.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU THINK OF THE TIMELINE OF THIS, RIGHT? YOU GOTTA DRAFT A LAW, THEN YOU'RE PROBABLY GONNA HAVE MULTIPLE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS TYPE OF LAW BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF IT.
AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE PROBABLY INTO JUNE BY THAT TIME WHEN YOU HAVE THAT DISCUSSION.
BUT AT LEAST IF YOU LIMIT THE HOURS, LET'S SAY, AND YOU CONDENSE THEM, YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT WORKS, MAYBE IT DOESN'T WORK, BUT AT LEAST WE'RE TRYING SOMETHING AND THEN IT HAS A SUNSET CLAUSE IF WE WANT THAT.
AND THEN WE CAN SAY, OKAY, THIS DIDN'T
[00:50:01]
WORK, OR IT DID WORK AND, YOU KNOW, THEN YOU TRY SOMETHING ELSE.ELLEN, DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT, UH, UH, HASTINGS HAS DONE? NO.
WE'D HAVE TO GIVE THAT LEGISLATION.
DIDN'T, DON'T, DON'T WE HAVE, UM, A SUMMARY OF ALL THE DIFFERENT LEGISLATION? YEAH.
BUT AS TIM SAID, LIMITING THE HOURS ACROSS THE BOARD EVERY DAY OF THE WEEK BRINGS ABOUT A SENSE OF EQUITY BECAUSE EVERYBODY, WHETHER THEY'RE HOME DURING THE WEEK OR HOME ON THE WEEKENDS, EVERYBODY IS EXPERIENCING SOME LIMIT IN HOURS.
THAT AS AN INITIAL, UM, UH, PILOT PLAN AT LEAST BRINGS WITH IT FAIRNESS AND EQUITY.
EVERYBODY IS EXPERIENCING SOME ADJUSTMENT IN THE HOURS.
AND AT LEAST I MAY KNOW, LIKE UNTIL 10 O'CLOCK I HAVE PEACE AND MAYBE I LEAVE AND LET'S SAY AT 4:00 PM OR 5:00 PM I HAVE PEACE AGAIN.
SO I KNOW THAT THERE'S SOME CONTROL.
SO WOULD IT MAKE SENSE IF I ASKED KRISTA, UM, TO GET US THE SCARSDALE LAW AND SAY ONE OF THE VILLAGE LAW, YOU KNOW, TO I'LL TELL, ASK HER TAKE A LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THE LAW, UH, YOU KNOW, THE LAWS TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, TO SAY, WORK WITH ALL OF US.
SEE IF WE COULD COME UP WITH A, A FIRST DRAFT AND YOU KNOW, DO LIKE A TEMPORARY ONE YEAR LAW.
YOU SAID HAVE KRISTA RUN WRITE THE LAW.
NO, I'M GONNA ASK HER TO, TO, OH LOOK AT, TO LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, WHAT EVERYTHING, UM, WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE DONE AND TO SEE IF WE COULD TAKE THE BEST, UH, OF THE, YOU KNOW, OF THE LAWS AND, AND YOU KNOW, THEN I'LL, YOU KNOW, I'LL WORK.
SHE MAY, YOU KNOW, WE'LL ALL WORK TOGETHER AND THEN WE COULD SUBMIT A PROPOSAL TO THE BOARD THAT, YOU KNOW, MIGHT NOT BE GREAT, BUT IT WILL BE BETTER THAN COMPROMISE.
WE ALSO HAVE TO LOOK AT THE DECIBEL LEVEL THAT'S CURRENTLY IN OUR LAW BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE, THE DECIBEL LEVEL IS BASICALLY AMBIENT, UH, LEVELS, RIGHT? SO AS SOON AS YOU TURN ON ANYTHING, WHETHER IT'S BE YOUR, THE, YOUR, UM, LEAF BLOWER OR YOUR, YOUR, YOUR MOWER OR JUST ABOUT ANYTHING RIGHT? CAR THAT GOES TURN ON RADIO
SO IF WE'RE GOING TO DO IT, WE MIGHT AS WELL MAKE IT SO THAT WHATEVER THEY'RE DOING AS LEGAL, WHICH MEANS YOU'D HAVE TO ADJUST THAT AMBI THAT, UM, NOISE LEVEL, THAT THRESHOLD THAT'S IN THERE.
I THINK THE C A C FOUND THAT THERE'S ONLY THREE LEAF BLOWERS, ALL ELECTRIC THAT CAN COMPLY WITH OUR, OUR NOISE DECIBEL LEVEL THREE OF ALL THE DIFFERENT BRANDS THAT ARE OUT THERE.
AND THEY'RE BOTH ELECTRIC AND THEY'RE, THEY'RE BOTH SMALL.
AND AS THE CAC C SAYS, IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT NOISE AS YOU LEAD TO IT, IT'S OTHER ISSUES AS WELL.
WELL, THE MAIN THING IS TO GET SOMETHING DONE THAT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE.
AND SEE IF WE COULD REACH SOME SORT OF CONSENSUS.
AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT FOR, SINCE ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
OH, YOU HOPE IT'S BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAVE.
'CAUSE REMEMBER THAT AS YOU NARROW THE WINDOW OF OPPORTUNITY, OF OPPORTUNITY FOR PEOPLE TO BLOW, THAT'S WHEN IT'S GONNA BE DONE.
SO IT MAY BE MAKING THAT AS, AS OPPOSED TO HAVING IT SPREAD OUT, YOU NOW HAVE A, YOU KNOW, AN ABSOLUTELY INTOLERABLE NARROW WINDOW WHERE EVERYBODY'S OUT BLOWING THEIR LEAVES.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S BETTER OR NOT.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO FIND OUT.
THAT'S WHY THIS HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE THIS HAS BEEN AROUND SINCE BEFORE I WAS ON THE BOARD.
IT'S BEFORE, YOU KNOW, LES ADLER, I REMEMBER WHO'S NOW A SUPREME COURT JUDGE.
UH, AND WHEN I ASKED, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE ISSUE THAT YOU KNOW WAS THE MOST TROUBLING, IT'S LEAVES AND THIS HAS BEEN GOING ON FOR DECADES AS TO WHAT'S THE RIGHT ANSWER.
'CAUSE I'M, I'M NOT SO SURE THERE IS A RIGHT ANSWER.
RIGHT? AND THEN COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE THE LAWS DON'T ENFORCE 'EM AND THEN THEY DON'T ENFORCE IT.
BUT AT LEAST THEY'RE ON THE BOOKS.
AND THEN, BUT PEOPLE THEN CALL UP AND SAY, WHY AREN'T YOU ENFORCING IT? YOU KNOW, I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TOO FOR KRISTA TO CHECK IN WITH THE COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE HAD THE LAWS ON THEIR BOOKS FOR A WHILE TO SEE HOW EVERYTHING IS WORKING OUT.
YOU KNOW, UM, HOW MANY VIOLATIONS.
THE WAY TO KNOW IS HOW MANY VIOLATIONS.
'CAUSE IF YOU ASK THEM ARE YOU ENFORCING IT, THEY'RE PROBABLY GONNA SAY YES.
RIGHT? 'CAUSE THEY CAN'T SAY NO, WE'RE NOT ENFORCING OUR LAW.
BUT HOW MANY VIOLATION NOTICES THAT THEY'VE BEEN GIVEN WOULD BE, YEAH.
YOU ARE ASKING WHAT THE COMPLIANCE IS AND, AND HOW, HOW THEY'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH.
[00:55:02]
SO, ALRIGHT.SO NOW WE'RE UP TO, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSING PERSONNEL MATTERS INVOLVING SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS AND TO SEEK LEGAL ADVICE IN VARIOUS MATTERS.
MAY YOU NOT BE RETURNED TO OPEN SESSION.
AND WE'RE NOW COMING BACK THIS EVENING AND WE'RE ACTUALLY ON.