[00:00:01]
[ FINAL TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, May 4, 2022 – 7:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ]
YOU KNOW, I, I ALWAYS HAVE THE TENDENCY TO WANNA LEAVE THE MEETING WHEN THAT STARTS.I GUESS I CAN'T DO THAT, BUT, UH, OKAY.
GOOD EVENING, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.
WELCOME TO THE, UH, MAY 4TH, 2022 MEETING OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, COULD YOU CALL THE ROLE PLEASE? SURE.
NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT OUR ALTERNATE BOARD MEMBER, MS. DAVIS, WILL BE WITH US IN ABOUT 15 MINUTES.
I HAD ONE CHANGE WHERE I ADDED ON PAGE SIX.
UM, THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, DID YOU PUT THAT LANGUAGE IN, IN AARON? LET'S SEE.
SO IF YOU WOULD, OKAY, NOW I HAVE TO GO FIND, GO FIND IT.
I JUST DIDN'T, I HAVE IT IN MY, MY NOTES, BUT I DON'T HAVE IT IN THE MASTER COPY YET.
FIRST, FULL PARAGRAPH, THIRD LINE DOWN.
UH, I'LL JUST READ THE ENTIRE SENTENCE.
CHAIRPERSON SCHWARTZ ENCOURAGED THE PUBLIC AT THE TIME.
AN ADDITIONAL PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER IS SCHEDULED TO PROVIDE ITS INPUT WITH FACTS ON THE PROJECT.
AND THIS RELATES TO THE ZCO PROJECT AS THE PLANNING BOARD VALUES PUBLIC INPUT, BUT CAN ONLY CONSIDER FACTS.
AND WE'RE ADDING COMMA, NOT OPINION WHEN REVIEWING PROJECTS.
SO WE JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.
DIDN'T TO, TOM HAD A, I THINK A, A CHANGE AS WELL, TOM? NO, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT LANGUAGE THAT AARON SAID WAS APPROPRIATE.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY CHANGES TO, UH, THE MINUTES? OKAY, IN THAT CASE, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS AMENDED.
SECOND IS, UH, TOM AND THEN BEN JOHAN.
I I HAVE SAME BECAUSE I WASN'T THERE, SO NOW, OKAY.
MONA, WHAT'S UP? UH, ALTHOUGH I DIDN'T ATTEND, I DID WATCH THE ENTIRE, UM, MEETING ON.
YOU DON'T REALLY HAVE TO ATTEND.
I DID WATCH AND READ THE MINUTES, SO I'M GOING TO VOTE.
LET'S MOVE ON TO CORRESPONDENCE.
SO FIRST ITEM UNDER CORRESPONDENCE IS PB 21 DASH SEVEN GRAYSTONE ON HUDSON LOTS, FOUR THROUGH SEVEN.
WE HAVE A, UH, THE FIRST PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION EXTENSION REQUEST.
THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IS SET TO EXPIRE ON MAY 17TH, 2022.
WE DID GET A REQUEST FROM MR. ANDY TODD, UH, SEEKING A 180 DAY EXTENSION, AND HE DID NOTE THAT, UH, THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT HAS HELD, YOU KNOW, HELD UP, UH, THE SIGNING OF THE PLATT.
SO THEY EXPECT THAT SOON, BUT THE 180 DAY EXTENSION WOULD BE APPRECIATED.
CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, GRANT THE EXTENSION THAT THEN FOR, UH, SIX MONTHS? IS THAT ONE RETRO? IS THAT PROTON? OR IS THAT THE NEXT ONE? THAT'S THE NEXT ONE.
UM, I'M SORRY, WHO, WHO, WHO? THE OWNER MOVED IT.
WHAT ARE YOU VOTING? ARE YOU STATING NO, I'M, YOU'RE, YOU ARE IN FAVOR? YES.
NEXT ONE IS CASE NUMBER PB 16 DASH 25.
AND I SEE THE FOLKS TRYING TO JOIN, SO I'M SURE THEY WANNA LISTEN IN.
THAT'S A TEVA BOW PROJECT ON VAN KOTT AVENUE.
AND THIS IS THE FOURTH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION EXTENSION REQUEST.
THIS WOULD BE A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION NUN PROTON.
UH, AS IT DID EXPIRE ON APRIL 16TH, THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE SOME, UH, INFORMATION RELATIVE TO THE DELAY THAT THE COUNTY LEVEL.
I CAN TELL YOU, I SPOKE WITH MR. ENO'S OFFICE ON THIS, AND MR. CSOR DID INDICATE THAT THE PLATT WAS PROVIDED TO THE COUNTY.
[00:05:01]
PROVIDED SOME COMMENTS, UH, TO MAKE SOME VERY MINOR MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLATT THAT, UH, IN FACT ADDING A SIGNATURE BLOCK AND SOMETHING ELSE VERY MINOR THAT THEY EXPECT TO BE ABLE TO SUBMIT WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.THIS 180 DAYS SHOULD BE MORE THAN ENOUGH TO WRAP THINGS UP WITH THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND BE ABLE TO COME BACK FOR FINAL.
IS THERE ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS EXTENSION? I'LL MAKE ONE COMMENT.
AND AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, MARTY, YOU AGREE WITH THAT? THAT'S WHAT YOU SAYING? YEAH.
IS THIS IT? I KEEP SAYING, IS THIS IT? IS THIS IT? THIS IS THE LAST EXTENSION.
WALTER, I AGREE IN, IN, IN, IN THEORY THAT IT SHOULD BE THE LAST EXTENSION, BUT IF IN FACT, WESTCHESTER COUNTY IS, DOESN'T FOLLOW THROUGH AND, AND DON'T DO THEIR PART OF THE, OF THE PROCESS, I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD HOLD THE APPLICANT RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT.
THEN I'LL SAY THIS IS THE LAST EXTENSION.
UNLESS THEY COME OUT WITH SOME PRETTY GOOD DOCUMENTED EVIDENCE OF WHY THEY DIDN'T, DIDN'T COMPLETE THE TASK WITHIN, WITHIN THE PERIOD, LET'S PUT IT THAT WAY.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME IN MR. SENIOR, AND THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO COME IN TO EXPLAIN IT AT THAT POINT, BUT FOUR EXTENSIONS IS A LOT.
DO I HAVE A MO MOTION TO APPROVE THIS EXTENSION? UH, RETROACTIVE TO APRIL 17TH.
SO I MOVED, UH, JOHANN MOVED IT.
UH, MICHAEL, YEAH, LOOK, IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE MOTION IS SIMPLY TO GRANT THE EXTENSION.
THE MOTION IS NOT TO GRANT THE EXTENSION AS A FINAL EXTENSION? NO.
YOU'RE ALL WITH THAT? YOU COMFORTABLE? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
AND WE ALSO HAVE CASE NUMBER PB 15 DASH ZERO SIX SHELBOURNE.
THAT'S A SITE PLAN PLANNING BOARD, STEEP SLOPE PERMIT AND WETLAND WATER COURSE PERMIT EXTENSION REQUEST.
UH, WE RECEIVED THE REQUEST BY LETTER FROM MR. LENO SHERETTA, AND THOSE APPROVALS ARE SET TO EXPIRE ON MAY 17TH OF THIS YEAR IS A TWO YEAR EXTENSION REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, JUST FOR DISCLOSURE, UM, DURING THE SHELL BOARD HEARINGS IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD, I HAD RECUSED MYSELF.
THE REASON WAS THAT MY WIFE, UH, WAS AN ATTORNEY AT ONE TIME AT BLEAKLEY PLATT, WHO NOW REPRESENTS SHELL BOARD.
UM, SHE HAS BEEN OUT OF THERE SEVERAL YEARS NOW, AND I DID NOT PLAN TO RECUSE MYSELF TONIGHT UNLESS ANYBODY HAS AN OBJECTION TO THAT.
MS. COUNSEL FOR, UH, SHELOR ON DO BELIEVE THEY HAVE REP REPRESENTATION? YES.
UH, MR. CHAIR, UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS DANIEL FIX WITH, UH, BLAKELY PLATTEN SCHMIDT, UM, REPRESENTING, UH, THE APPLICANT FORMATION SHELBURNE SENIOR LIVING SERVICES, L L C.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OBJECTION FOR ME? NOT RECUSING MYSELF TONIGHT? I DON'T HAVE AN OBJECTION.
LET ME JUST EXPLAIN, I, I DID GET AN UPDATE AND TELL ME, MR. FIXES, THIS IS CORRECT.
THE, THE, THERE'S STILL LITIGATION GOING ON.
UM, THE C G C A ET ALL
THAT'S OUR HIGHEST COURT, UM, THAT WAS FILED, I BELIEVE IN THE END OF APRIL, UH, END OF MARCH OR EARLY APRIL.
AND AS I UNDERSTAND IT, MR. FIX, YOU GUYS HAVE ASKED FOR AN EXTENSION TO ANSWER THAT.
IS THAT THAT WHERE WE'RE AT WITH THIS? NO, NO, THAT, THAT SHOULD BE FULLY SUBMITTED.
WE OPPOSED, WE WE'VE OPPOSED THAT MOTION.
IT'S BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS AND, UH, WE'RE JUST AWAITING A DECISION ON THAT.
SO THE, OBVIOUSLY WHILE THAT'S STILL HANGING IN BALANCE, UH, IT WOULD NOT BE PRUDENT TO MOVE AHEAD WITH CONSTRUCTION AND THAT THAT'S WHY, WHY THEY'RE DOING THIS.
SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, UH, GIVE THEM THE EXTENSION, THE TWO YEAR EXTENSION.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND OR SECOND? SECOND.
CAN SOMEBODY MOVE IT? LET SOMEBODY MOVE IT.
[00:10:02]
AYE.ANYTHING ELSE IN CORRESPONDENCE? THE ONE THING THAT WE GOT TODAY FROM MADELINE WE'LL BRING UP WHEN WE GET TO THAT PROJECT.
AND THE ONLY OTHER ITEM WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE WAITING ON MS. DAVIS FOR.
SO I, I SUPPOSE WE COULD DO THAT AT THE END OF THE MEETING.
I'M, YEAH, I'D LIKE TO JUST BECAUSE I'D LIKE PEOPLE TO CREDIT HER WHAT SHE DID, OF COURSE.
UM, SO WE CAN WAIT AND VOTE THAT WAY WHEN, WHEN SHE GETS HERE.
WE'LL JUST, WE'LL JUST STOP AND, AND DO THAT.
SO WHY DON'T WE THEN MOVE ON TO, UH, OLD BUSINESS, WHICH WOULD BE PB CASE, UH, 22 DASH TWO, I BELIEVE, RIGHT? YEP.
AT AT 14 HIGH POINT LANE, UH, SCARSDALE.
IT'S FOR WETLAND, WATERCOURSE PERMIT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
WHAT ELSE WOULD YOU LIKE TO TELL US, MR. SCHMIDT? UH, JUST TO STATE THAT, UH, THE, THE PROJECT WAS LAST DISCUSSED AS PART OF A PUBLIC HEARING ON APRIL 20TH, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED RESPONSES TO COMMENTS ISSUED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND, UH, TO NOTE THAT BEFORE CONSIDERING THE DECISION, THIS PROJECT DOES QUALIFY AS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER, AND THAT VOTE SHOULD BE TAKEN BEFORE THE DECISION'S CONSIDERED.
SO WHY DON'T, BEFORE WE DO THAT, CAN, BEFORE WE JUST, UH, TO TALK ABOUT THE DECISION, COULD I HAVE A MOTION TO DECLARE THIS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER? NO MOVE.
AND WITH, WITHIN THE DRAFT DECISION, I JUST WANTED TO CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION SECTION FOUR ON PAGE FOUR OF THE DOCUMENT, WHICH INCLUDES SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS RELATED TO THE PROJECT.
SO, UM, IF YOU'VE REVIEWED THOSE, WE HIGHLIGHTED THEM FOR YOU, I'M HAPPY TO RECITE THEM.
IF YOU WISH THAT DURING QUESTION, COULD YOU BRIEFLY RECITE BRIEFLY RECITE THEM, MR. SCHMIDT, PLEASE? SURE.
SO, UH, CONDITION 4.1 ON PAGE FOUR STATES THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL ENSURE THAT IF AND WHEN A POOL IS CONSTRUCTED, 'CAUSE THERE IS A POOL ON THE PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT, THE POOL WATER IS REMOVED FROM THE POOL.
IT'S TRUCKED OFFSITE TO BE PROPERLY DISPOSED OF IN ENVIRONMENTALLY ACCEPTABLE MANNER.
AS WE KNOW, THERE'S A WATER COURSE ON THE PROPERTY, AND WE WANNA BE SURE THAT THAT'S NOT IMPACTED AT ALL WHEN THEY DE-WATER THE POOL.
4.2, THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH SECTION 2 85 DASH 36 G OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH SETS FORTH REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SUPPLEMENTARY USE OF SWIMMING POOLS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO APPROPRIATE FENCING AND GATING AS SET FORTH IN SUBSECTIONS FOUR AND FIVE.
WE HAVE 4.3, WHICH STATES THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL RECORD THE REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN THE RAIN GARDEN IN THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE AS PROVIDED IN SECTION TWO 80 DASH 10 G OF THE TOWN CODE.
SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT CAME UP AT THE PUBLIC HEARING.
HE AGREED TO, UH, THAT REQUEST OF THE BOARD AND 4.4 STATES THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL PLANT THE RAIN GARDEN AND WATERCOURSE BUFFER AREA WITH NATIVE SPECIES OF FERNS, PERENNIAL SHRUBS, TREES, AND OTHER PLANTS, WHICH MAY INCLUDE FRUIT TREES.
THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION OF THE C A C, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAD NO OBJECTION TO.
SO THOSE ARE THE FOUR SITE SPECIFIC.
OTHER THAN THAT, UM, AS YOU CORRECTLY NOTED, IT'S A WETLAND WATER COURSE PERMIT AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT THAT GIVES THE, BUT WE NEED, WE NEED TWO, TWO VOTES.
4.1, IF THEY CAN PROPERLY PUT IT INTO THE, UM, TO SORT OF DRAIN, THEN IT IS.
BECAUSE IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, WE APPROVED ONE OF THE, UH, APPLICATION WITH THE POOL, AND THEN THEY WERE GOING TO DISCHARGE INTO THE, UH, SYSTEM WHERE, INTO THE SAN, INTO THE SANITARY SEWER.
SO THE, THE, THAT CAN BE DONE IN THAT OTHER PROJECT.
THE APPLICANT DEMONSTRATED THAT TO THE PLANNING BOARD DURING THE REVIEW OF THE PROJECT.
IN THIS CASE, THEY HAVE NOT DONE IT.
SO WE PUT IN OUR FORMER STANDARD CONDITION, I'M OKAY TO ALLOWING IT TO BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY,
[00:15:01]
YOU KNOW, THE TOWN'S DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS SUBJECT TO ITS SATISFACTION.OBVIOUSLY, THEY'RE GONNA MAKE THE APPLICANT COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE CODE.
SO IF THE BOARD WISHES TO MAKE THAT MODIFICATION, I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
NO, I THINK, UH, I THINK, AND I, I FIRST THOUGHT THAT IT HAS A LOT OF, UH, UH, UH, THE SORT OF, UH, UH, CHEMICALS OR MOSTLY AMMONIA.
SO, BUT THAT, UH, WALTERS SAYING THAT IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR CLEANUP THE SEWER SYSTEM AND, UH, YEAH, ALSO THE, UH, UH, FOR, FOR THE, IT WOULD NOT HURT THE, UH, KIND OF THINGS, BUT IT WOULD BE SORT OF, UH, BENEFICIAL TO THE, TO THE CLEANUP OF THE SEWER SYSTEM.
SO CAN WE MAKE IT LIKE, SAY, UH, IT SHOULD BE APPROVED DISPOSAL SHOULD BE APPROVED AS PER THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, INSTEAD OF SPECIFICALLY SAYING THAT IT HAS TO BE TRUCKED YEAH.
TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS? YEAH, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE THE STANDARD LANGUAGE.
IS THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THIS? UM, THEN I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE WETLAND WATER COURSE PERMIT, UH, AS AMENDED.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I'LL MOVE.
ALL OPPOSED? OKAY, THAT CARRIES.
AND THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT CHAIRPERSON CHOICE.
AND NOW, UH, CAN WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TREE REMOVAL PER PERMIT FOR, UH, HIGH POINT 14? HIGH POINT LANE.
AS AMENDED? AS AMENDED? SO, MOVE, MOVE, UH, MR. MR. HAY? HAY, I THINK WAS FIRST.
NOBODY, UH, ANY ABSTENTIONS? NO.
OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT, NEXT PROJECT, PLEASE.
YES, WHICH IS CASE 20 DASH 23, WHICH IS ANI, UM, FIVE ROBIN HILL ROAD IN SCARSDALE.
THIS IS WHERE THEY WERE PUTTING THE PORTICO AND THE ADDITION ON THE SIDE OF THE SIDE OF THE HOUSE.
UM, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DISCUSS, UH, ON, ON THIS? DID WE DO SEEKER ON THIS, AARON, BEFORE? OR DO WE NEED TO DO SEEKER? SO WE DIDN'T, SO I WAS GONNA GET TO THAT, UH, VERY QUICKLY, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD LAST REVIEWED THIS PROJECT ON APRIL 20TH AS PART OF A PUBLIC HEARING.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS RECEIVED SINCE CLOSURE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AND BEFORE CONSIDERING THE DECISION, THE PROJECT QUALIFIES AS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER.
COULD I HAVE A MOTION TO DECLARE THIS? A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER.
MR. MR. DESAI? DO I HAVE A SECOND PLEASE? SECOND.
UH, CAN I HAVE A, A MOTION, OR ACTUALLY ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS BEFORE WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE STEEP SLOPE PERMIT ON THIS? SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION SECTION, UH, LET'S SEE, SECTION FIVE OF THE DRAFT DECISION ON PAGE SEVEN OF THE DOCUMENT, WHICH IDENTIFIES ONE SITE SPECIFIC CONDITION FOR THE PROJECT.
I'M HAPPY TO RECITE THAT QUICKLY.
THIS STATES THAT THE APPLICANT OR SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST MUST ABIDE BY THE STANDARDS RELATED TO THE TRANSPLANTING OF TREES AS OUTLINED IN SECTION FIVE DASH 11 OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG TREE TECHNICAL MANUAL.
YOU MAY RECALL THAT I BROUGHT UP THE QUESTION OF WHETHER OR NOT ONE OF THE TREES IN THE BACKYARD NEAR TO THE DISTURBANCE WAS GOING TO BE REMOVED AND THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT IT WAS NOT GONNA BE REMOVED, AND WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY FOLLOW THE APPROPRIATE STANDARDS IN TRANSPLANTING THE TREE.
SO WE HAVE THOSE OUTLINED IN THE TREE TECHNICAL MANUAL AND WANTED TO IDENTIFY THAT AND THE DECISION.
ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ON THIS? NO, I, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TECHNICAL MANUAL.
SO IT IS A PART OF THE PICK DOWN TREE LAW? IT IS, IT IS A COMPANION DOCUMENT TO THE ORDINANCE.
UM, IT IS SO IT IS, IT IS A REQUIREMENT UNDER THE CODE TO FOLLOW THE STANDARDS WITHIN THE TECHNICAL MANUAL? YES.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE STEEP SLOPE PERMIT? OKAY, I'LL ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION THEN.
[00:20:01]
ALL SPEAK AT ONCE.YOU OKAY, MOVING ON NOW TO, UH, THE ROBBIN SUBDIVISION AND AARON WILL GIVE YOU MORE DETAILS ON THIS.
THIS, UM, IS ACTUALLY A REVIEW OF A SUBDIVISION THAT WAS DONE, I BELIEVE, IN 2008.
APPROVED AARON, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AT 2008, THE PROPERTY WAS SUB SUBSIDIZED.
AT THE TIME IT WAS SUBSIDIZED, IT WAS BY THE SUB SUB SUBDIVIDED SUB, NOT SUBSIDIZED, SUBDIVIDED SUB
UM, WE PUT A CONDITION IN THERE THAT THEY HAD TO COME BACK AND REVIEW WHAT THEY WERE ACTUALLY GONNA BUILD.
'CAUSE AT THE TIME, THEY WERE JUST SUBDIVIDING IT OFF AND THEY HADN'T HAD A PLAN TO, TO BUILD.
UM, SO THAT'S WHY THEY ARE IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT.
I DO, BEFORE WE GET INTO THE PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT, DO WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE THAT, UH, TODAY, I GUESS IT WAS, WE RECEIVED A LETTER FROM, UM, OUR HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD, UH, SUGGESTING THAT THEY SHOULD BE INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT BECAUSE THE OF THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR, WHICH I DATES BACK PROBABLY 18 HUNDREDS, IT'S AN OLD HOUSE, THE OLD FARMHOUSE.
UM, AARON AND I DISCUSSED THIS THIS AFTERNOON, UM, AND I THINK WE'RE IN AGREEMENT THAT THE, THE TIME FOR THAT DISCUSSION WAS WHEN, WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS SUBDIVIDED, NOT NOW.
WE'RE NOT AFFECTING ANYTHING THAT'S LEFT ON THE PROPERTY THERE.
THAT HOUSE HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED A HISTORIC LANDMARK AS OF NOW EITHER.
SO, WHICH MAKES IT DIFFERENT THAN BRODSKY, WHERE IT WAS A HISTORIC LANDMARK, WHICH IS WHY BRODSKY CAME IN AT THE TIME.
UM, AND SO I, I DON'T SEE A NEED ANYWAY, AND I DON'T THINK MR. SCHMIDT SEES A NEED TO, UH, INVOLVE THE HISTORIC BOARD, BUT I'M OPEN TO DISCUSSION FROM ANYBODY ELSE ON THE PLANNING BOARD.
I JUST WANTED TO INDICATE THAT, UM, YES.
SO WE DID DISCUSS, AND IT, THIS SITE IS NOT A LANDMARK.
THE STRUCTURE ON THE SITE IS NOT A LANDMARK.
THERE'S ALSO A BARN, THOUGH, THAT I WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION.
AND THE HISTORIC BOARD HAS REVIEWED CERTAIN SUBMISSIONS BY, UH, THAT PROPERTY OWNER WITH RESPECT TO THE BARN.
AND, AND, UM, AT THIS TIME, THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR DESIGNATION, ALTHOUGH THAT COULD CHANGE IN THE FUTURE.
I DID WANT, I DID MENTION THIS, UH, TO THE A UH, TO THE APPLICANT'S COUNSEL.
AND I DID JUST WANNA ADD THAT, UM, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT FROM, YOU KNOW, A POTENTIAL IMPACT TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, THAT CLEARLY THERE WOULD BE NO SITE DISTURBANCE ON THE ADJACENT LOT THAT'S BEEN CONFIRMED.
THERE'S ALSO GONNA BE VEGETATION PUT IN FOR SCREENING THE NEW HOUSE, FROM THE EXISTING HOUSE TO BE RETAINED ON THE SEPARATE LOT SO THAT THERE WOULD BE CLEAR SEPARATION BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS AND I, THAT'S REALLY ALL I WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION.
WELL, I ALSO WANNA ADD THAT THE BARN IS ACTUALLY ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE, THE, UH, HISTOR, THE OTHER PROPERTY, THE HOUSE.
IT'S NOWHERE NEAR, IT'S NOWHERE NEAR THIS, THIS CONSTRUCTION.
AND CAN I, I I I'M NOT QUITE FOLLOWING THIS, THIS HISTORIC HOUSE, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNATED AN HISTORIC LANDMARK IS WHAT IT'S AN ADJACENT PROPERTY TO THIS APPLICATION.
ORIGINALLY, MICHAEL, WHAT WHAT HAPPENED ORIGINALLY WAS IT WAS ALL ONE PROPERTY BACK IN 2007.
THEY APPLIED, THE, THE OWNERS AT THE TIME APPLIED TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROP PROPERTY AND, AND CREATE A BUILDING LOT, WHICH IS WHAT IT ONE 90 OLD ARMY IS NOW.
IS THE UN UNPRO IMPROVED BUILDING LOT.
AT THAT TIME, THE PLANNING BOARD SAID, WELL, GEE, WE'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE GONNA BUILD THERE BEFORE YOU DO IT.
AND THAT WAS NO, BUT I'M, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT THE HISTORIC BOARD.
WHERE, WHERE IS THIS OLD HOUSE THAT THE HISTORIC BOARD IS CONCERNED ABOUT? IT'S ON ALL, IT'S ON ARMY ROAD.
UM, I THINK MICHAEL, YOU WAIT, WAIT.
UM, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU AND HUGH AND AARON, THEY HAD A TIME, THE, THE HISTORIC BOARD HAD A TIME TO OBJECT.
THEY DIDN'T, UM, THIS OLD HOUSE MAY OR MAY NOT BE HISTORIC, I DON'T KNOW, HAS NOT BEEN DESIGNATED IN HISTORIC SITE.
AND I ASSUME THERE'S NO APPLICATION TO DESIGNATE AN HISTORIC NOT AT THIS POINT, NO.
[00:25:01]
LAW OR WHATEVER THAT SAYS.THE HISTORIC BOARD CAN DECIDE WHAT HOUSES NEXT TO AN HISTORIC SITE CAN LOOK LIKE.
AND NOR DO WE HAVE AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD IN, IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
I THINK, I THINK WE SHOULD JUST MOVE ON.
NO HISTORIC BOARD ON THIS CASE.
COR, JUST BEFORE YOU START GROUND RULE, IF YOU WANT TO TALK, LET ME RECOGNIZE YOU.
I WANNA KEEP THINGS GOING, BUT MR. MR. DESAI, WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY? WELL, I HAVE A KIND OF A COMMENT IN TERMS OF, UH, THE OVERALL, UH, OVERALL SORT OF COMMENTS FROM THE HISTORICAL BOARD, WHICH ALSO I'M PART OF IT.
UH, AND MICHAEL, IT'S NOT A, UH, KIND OF, UH, UH, DECIDING THAT THEY'RE GONNA DECIDE WHAT THEY CAN DO IT OR NOT.
BUT IN PREVIOUS, UH, CASE WHERE THE, UH, THE PROPERTY WAS SUBDIVIDED AND ONLY THING THAT, UH, UH, PROB HISTORICAL BOARD HAS DONE IT WHILE I'M ON IT, IS THAT THEY JUST WANTED TO HAVE WHAT KIND OF THINGS THAT THEY ARE TRYING TO GET BUILT.
YES, THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO DO WITHIN THE LAW THAT CAN DO IT.
UH, FOR EXAMPLE, ON FORD HILL, UH, THERE WAS THIS, UH, HISTORICAL HOUSE BUILT IN, UH, 1850 OR SOMETHING.
SO THE PERSON WHO BOUGHT IT, HE RESTORED THE HOUSE, UH, REASONABLY GOOD.
AND THEN THE, HE ASKED FOR SUBDIVIDING THE LOT AND ONLY THINGS THAT HISTORICAL BOARD REQUESTED WAS THAT BE, UH, KIND OF RESPECTFUL OF THE HISTORICAL HOUSE NEXT DOOR TO IT.
SO DON'T, IN OTHER WORDS, DON'T BUILD A, A MEGA MANSION AND, AND MAKING IT KIND OF A HOUSE THAT IS REALLY, UH, GOES AGAINST WHAT IS A NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR.
SO IT'S IN A WAY, IT'S A GOOD NEIGHBOR POLICY AND ALL THEY WOULD LIKE TO SORT OF POINT IT OUT.
MICHAEL IS NOT TO OVERRULE THE, OR TO BYPASS ANYTHING AND CREATE A DELAY INTO THEIR WHATEVER THEY WANT TO BUILD.
IT'S THIS, THEY'RE REQUESTING TO HAVE A PRIVILEGE OF REVIEWING IT WITH THE GUY WHO IS GONNA GET BUILDING IT ON.
MY VIEW IS, THAT'S A, AND ALSO ONE MORE THING.
THEY HAVE HIRED A, UH, CONSULTANT TO, UH, DESIGNATE AND TO REVIEW AND UPDATE THE OFFICIAL LARSSON, UH, UH, THE HISTORIC RESOURCES, HISTORICAL REVIEW THINGS.
SO ONE OF THE THINGS THEY LOOKED AT IT OVERALL OLD ARMY ROAD, IS TO BE WORTHY OF A KIND OF HISTORICAL DISTRICT, WHICH WILL ALLOW THE PEOPLE WHO WANTS TO RENEW, RESTORE, RENEW IT, OR BUILD, GET SOME FEDERAL MONEY.
AND WITH THAT OVERALL PICTURE, IT'D BE A GOOD IDEA FOR, UH, THE OWNER TO KIND OF, UH, UH, PRESENT THEIR PLAN OR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO IT.
SO, AND AS YOU SAY, WE DO NOT HAVE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S A SORT OF A, SOME OF THE POINT THAT THE HISTORICAL BOARDS WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT, NOT THAT THEY WOULD SAY YOU CAN'T BUILD THAT.
RIGHT, MICHAEL? THEY HAVE A PROPERTY.
LIKE I DON'T, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK THEY, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S ALL THE BACKGROUND I WOULD GIVE.
CHRIS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT.
I, I DON'T, HOLD ON FOR ONE SECOND, WALTER.
I DON'T, I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
FIRST OF ALL, THIS, THIS PROPERTY'S BEEN AROUND FOR 15 YEARS.
IT'S PRETTY OF THE, HIS, IT'S VERY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HAPPENED ON FORT HILL ROAD.
THAT WAS IN THE PROCESS OF A SUBDIVISION AT THE TIME ON FORT HILL ROAD.
AND IN FACT, THERE WERE SOME THINGS IN THERE THAT WERE QUITE INTRUSIVE, INCLUDING WHERE, WHERE THE, SOME OF THE PARTS WHEN THEY WERE RENOVATING THE HOUSE WERE DONATED.
THERE WAS A BACK AND FORTH CORRESPONDENCES, FRANKLY, UH, A LITTLE BIT CONCERNING TO ME, BUT THE, IN TERMS OF THAT, BECAUSE THE PERSON WHO WAS RESTORING IT ACTUALLY HAD A CONNECTION WITH THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY IN NEWBURGH, WHICH HAD SIMILAR ARCHITECTURE HOUSES THAT WANTED THE, WANTED THE STUFF, WHICH WAS A GREAT PLACE FOR THE STUFF TO GO.
AND THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS DIFFERENT.
THIS, THIS WAS APPROVED 15 YEARS AGO, 15, UM, IT'S OUR JOB WAS THERE.
WAS THE HISTORICAL, UH, CODE WAS HISTORICAL SET OF REQUIREMENTS WAS, I HAVE NO IDEA.
AARON, DO YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T, I'M JUST ASKING AARON IF HE KNOWS IT.
AS I SAID, THE ANSWER IS PLEASE ASK ME ME THINGS.
THE CODE WAS IN PLACE, UM, AT THE TIME THAT, IN
[00:30:01]
FACT, THE HISTORICAL RESOURCES ANALYSIS WAS DONE IN 2006, I BELIEVE, JULY, 2006.SO THIS PROJECT CAME IN OH SEVEN.
I DID WANNA ADD ONE THING, IF I MAY.
I KNOW MR. SIMON HAS A COMMENT OR QUESTION AS WELL.
THE ONLY THING I WAS GONNA ADD THAT WHAT THIS BOARD HAS DONE IN SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, I CAN THINK OF THE MARKS SUBDIVISION ON MOUNTAIN ROAD, WHICH HAD AN OLD HOUSE ON IT, AND THEY WERE SUBDIVIDING OFF, BUT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO BUILD ON IT.
SO THEY WERE ASKING ANYONE THAT MUCH LIKE THIS LOT, ANYONE LOOKING TO DEVELOP THAT NEWLY CREATED LOT COME BACK TO THE BOARD.
ONE OF THE OTHER CONDITIONS IN THAT APPROVAL WAS THAT, UM, IF ANY, ANYTHING RESEMBLING, UH, AN A HISTORICAL OR HISTORICALLY SIGNIFICANT ARTIFACT BE UNCOVERED BY THE CONTRACTOR DURING THE COURSE OF WORK, THAT THEY SET IT ASIDE SO THAT SOMEONE CAN PHOTOGRAPH IT, TAG IT, AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, YOU KNOW, KEPT PROPERLY.
UM, THAT'S, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THIS BOARD HAS DONE IN THE PAST, AND I THINK IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS INSTANCE.
MR. I DO ALSO WANT, I'M SORRY, I ALSO, WALTER BEFORE, I'M SORRY, I JUST WANTED TO ANNOUNCE THAT MS. ALBANO IS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT'S TEAM.
SO WHEN, WHEN SHE'S ABLE, SHE CAN'T GET, UH, THE HAND RAISED, BUT SHE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AFTER MR. SIMON.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY.
THE, THE LAND THAT WE, UH, PROPERTY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HAS, UH, UH, UH, UH, NO HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE OTHER THAN IT'S ADJACENT TO A HOUSE THAT COULD HAVE HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE.
SO IN THAT CASE, ONE COULD ASSUME THAT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THAT HOUSE, THERE MIGHT HAVE BEEN SOME ARTIFACTS THAT CROSSED THE BOUNDARY LINE.
SO YOU WOULD DO EXACTLY WHAT AARON SAID, AND I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT.
I WANNA SAY ONE OTHER THING AND THEN I ACTUALLY, FOR THE RECORD, I WANNA MAKE, ACTUALLY HAVE A VOTE ON THIS TO, TO MAKE IT OFFICIAL.
I, I FIND THAT THE MCMANSION COMMENT, FRANKLY, TO BE QUITE DISINGENUOUS, WE HAVE ZONING CODE.
UM, THEY HAVE A RIGHT, THEY HAVE LEGALLY SUBDIVIDED THIS PROPERTY AND THEY HAVE TO MEET THE F A R STANDARDS AND ALL OF THOSE KIND OF STA ALL THE STANDARDS THAT ARE IN THE ZONING CODE FOR THIS, THIS DISTRICT.
SECOND, UM, YOU KNOW, THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSES ON THAT, ON, ON THAT STREET ARE NOT HISTORIC.
THERE ARE SEVERAL HOUSES THAT WERE BUILT IN THE SIXTIES AND THE SEVENTIES ON THAT STREET, INCLUDING THE ONE NEXT DOOR ON THE SOUTH SIDE.
IT'S A COLONIAL THAT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS BUILT PROBABLY IN THE SIXTIES AND SEVENTIES.
IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT AN OLD HOUSE.
UM, SO THOSE THINGS DIFFERENTIATE THIS AS WELL.
UM, MONA, YOU WANTED TO SPEAK? I, I THINK, UH, THE, UH, APPLICANT HAS IT CORRECT.
I ASKED MONA'S RECOGNIZED, IF YOU WANNA BE RECOGNIZED, PLEASE RAISE HER HAND, MONA.
I HAD SEVERAL NOTES AFTER READING THROUGH THIS TRANSCRIPT THAT WAS IN THE PACKET.
UM, ONE WAS ABOUT THE BARN, ONE WAS ABOUT THE HISTORICAL NATURE OF THINGS, AND THE OTHER ONE WAS ABOUT FLOODING.
THERE WAS SOME MENTION OF FLOODING GOING ON.
UM, AND I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S STILL TAKING PLACE, THAT THERE WAS SOME FLOODING THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WITH WHAT'S GOING ON.
UM, SO I AGREE WITH THE, UM, UH, DISCUSSION ABOUT ANY, UM, ARTIFACTS THAT MAY BE FOUND.
AND I THINK WE SHOULD ASK THAT THEY BE SET ASIDE AND, YOU KNOW, HANDED OVER TO THE HISTORICAL SOCIETY, YOU KNOW, PRESERVATION, UM, GROUP.
UM, CERTAINLY IF THERE'S ANYTHING OF SIGNIFICANCE WE WOULD ASK THAT THEY BE SET ASIDE FOR THEM.
BUT WE NEED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SOMETHING WITH FLOODING THAT HAPPENED WAY BACK WHEN THAT HAPPENING.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT LESLIE DAVIS, OUR ALTERNATE HAS JOINED, JOINED OUR MEETING.
COR DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY? I DIDN'T MEAN TO INTERRUPT, BUT I JUST WANNA KEEP THINGS ORGANIZED.
NO, I THINK WHAT, UH, AARON SAID SOMEBODY FROM THE APPLICANT'S GROUP TO BE ONE.
THEY WILL, THEY WILL, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THE, ON THIS FIRST.
I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE GO AHEAD WITH THIS APPLICATION AS PLANNED WITH THE PROVISO THAT THE APPLICANT AGREED TO, UH, TO, UH, THE, THE CONDITION THAT, UM,
[00:35:01]
MS. RETAG AND MR. SIMON AND MR. SCHMIDT BROUGHT UP.AARON, I WOULD JUST ADD THAT, UH, PERHAPS BEFORE DOING THAT, YOU MAY WANT TO CONSIDER MAKING THE SEEKER DETERMINATION.
THAT IS WHAT KICKED THIS BACK TO THE BOARD.
THAT, SO THAT THE BOARD COULD CONDUCT ITS SEEKER RESPONSIBILITIES.
AND UNDER SEEKER SECTION SIX 17 C C FIVE, I HAVE IT HERE, 11, UH, CONSTRUCTION OF A ONE OR TWO FAMILY RESIDENCE CONSTITUTES A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER.
SO THE BOARD WOULD WISH TO CONSIDER THAT.
UM, AND I WANNA DO ONE OTHER THING BEFORE WE GET, BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE MOTION ON THE, ON THE SECOND MOTION, COULD I HAVE A MOTION TO DECLARE THIS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER PLEASE? SO ALL SECOND THEN.
MS. MR. MS. FRY FREITAG, UH, MADE THE MOTION ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
ANY, ANY, UH, EX UH, ABSTENTIONS? NO.
UM, I'D LIKE MS. ALBANO, ARE YOU, ARE YOU THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT? YES, I AM.
I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, AND THEN I WANT YOU GUYS TO DO A PRESENTATION.
THIS IS SOMETHING WE HAD TO DEAL WITH FIRST, UH, BUT I WANTED TO KNOW IF THE APPLICANT WOULD BE AMENABLE TO THE CONDITION THAT WA WAS GONNA PUT UP IN THE PROPOSED MOTION ABOUT TO BE MADE.
SO, UH, CHAIRMAN SCHWARTZ, UM, DAVID STEINZ IS THE LEAD COUNSEL ON THIS MATTER, AND HE'S, HE HAD A CONFLICT THIS EVENING AND IS, UH, PRESENTING ON ANOTHER MATTER.
IS IT POSSIBLE WE CAN MOVE THIS, UM, PRESENTATION TO LATER ON IN THE AGENDA AND MOVE FORWARD WITH, UH, THE NEXT APPLICATION, WHICH IS SOMETHING, WHICH IS WHAT I'LL BE PRESENTING ON, UM, THE NEXT APPLICATION IS, UH, RENAR? YES, WE CAN DO THAT.
I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
IF THE BOARD DO DOESN'T, WE'LL HOLD OFF ON THIS BECAUSE WE'D REALLY LIKE TO GET THAT CONDI CONDITION IN IF WE CAN.
MS. ELBA ANDO, AND OBVIOUSLY HE KNOWS WHAT HE'D WANT TO DO ON THIS, AND I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT TIME MR. STEIN IS GOING TO, RIGHT? HE HE SHOULD BE SHORTLY.
HE WAS ON THE BEGINNING OF THE AGENDA AND THE OTHER MUNICIPALITY, SO, UM, OKAY.
SO WHY DON'T WE JUST, WHY DON'T WE JUST DO THIS? THE ONLY THING I WARN YOU, THERE'S ONE PROJECT ON OUR, ON OUR SITE, UH, ON OUR, ON OUR DOCKET AFTER YOU THAT MAY TAKE AN AWFUL LOT OF TIME.
SO HOPEFULLY HE'LL GET HERE BEFORE THAT, OR HE IS GONNA BE WAITING IN A LONG TIME TONIGHT.
THAT'S, I JUST WARN YOU ABOUT THAT.
AND I, I MADE MR. STEINITZ AWARE THAT WE DO HAVE THAT PROJECT ON, SO HE KNOWS WE MAY NOT GET TO HIM TILL HE, YOU KNOW, AROUND EIGHT 30 OR EVEN AFTER.
YEAH, WELL, I'D SAY PROBABLY IT COULD BE AFTER NINE.
WE HAVE A LOT TO DO ON THAT PROJECT.
SO WHEN WE COME BACK, WE PREPARED TO PRESENT.
WELL, WE'LL GO, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE, UH, AFTER WE HEAR A RESPONSE TO MY QUESTION, WE'LL TAKE A VOTE ON THAT.
SO WHY DON'T WE MOVE ON AND SUSPEND DISCUSSION ON THIS PROJECT UNTIL MR. STEINMAN ARRIVES AND GO ON TO PB 21.
BY THE WAY, YOU'RE SCREWING UP MY TIMING, MS. ALBANO.
JUST SO YOU KNOW THAT NOW I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO AND I'M ALL CONFUSED.
UH, 2127, THE SELF STORAGE, UH, FACILITY.
THIS IS FOR A SITE PLAN REVIEW, AS YOU RECALL.
THIS IS THE STORAGE FACILITY THAT IS, UH, PARTIALLY IN GREENBURG, PARTIALLY IN ELMSFORD.
UM, WE HAVE SEEN THIS, UH, BEFORE IN FRONT OF US.
UM, THERE WERE A FEW ISSUES THAT CAME UP THE LAST TIME, AS I RECALL.
PROBABLY THE LARGEST ISSUE AT THE TIME WAS THE, THE FACT THERE WAS NO SETBACK FROM THE, I GUESS IT'S THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE, THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, I BELIEVE.
OH, THE REAR OF THE BUILDING OR THE NORTHERN SIDE? THE REAR.
NORTHERN DIEGO DIDN'T GET ME A NEW COMPASS.
I TOLD YOU I NEED A NEW, SORRY.
OKAY, SO THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING WHERE THERE WAS ZERO SETBACK AND, AND THEY GOT, THEY GOT THE MESSAGE, I THINK FROM THERE.
SO, UM, THE OTHER ISSUE THAT, UH, WAS I THINK MR. DESAI ASKED OR MR. HAY CAN'T REMEMBER, WHICH AT THIS MOMENT WAS ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING RELATIVE TO THE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE AREA.
AND HOPEFULLY YOU'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION FOR US TONIGHT.
AM I MISSING ANY QUESTIONS? MR. SCHMIDT? ARE THE BOARD.
THERE WAS THE, UH, E D A PARKING SPOT LOCATION, WHICH WE ASKED TO BE MOVED CLOSER.
AND MR. SCHMIDT, WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? UH,
[00:40:01]
NO, I THINK YOU PRETTY MUCH HAVE IT COVERED.I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT, UM, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE, I'M SORRY, I WANTED TO NOTE I CAN'T, YOU, WALTER, HOLD ON FOR ONE SECOND.
WANTED TO NOTE THAT THE, THE TOWN BUILDING INSPECTOR ACTING BUILDING INSPECTOR ISSUED A REVISED VARIANCE DETERMINATION MEMO BASED ON THE REVISION MADE BY THE APPLICANT.
IT ALSO AT THAT TIME IDENTIFIED THE FACT THAT IT HAD MISSED ONE VARIANCE IN THE INITIAL, UH, WHICH WAS DETERMINATION MEMO, WHICH WAS BOTH SIDE YARDS REQUIRE A REDUCTION DOWN FROM 50 FEET TO, I BELIEVE IT WAS 12 AND A HALF FEET.
THEY ONLY IDENTIFIED ONE SIDE YARD IN THE INITIAL.
OKAY, MR. SIMON, I THINK THE OF THOSE QUESTION I HAD IS THAT, UH, THE BUILDING IS THE ABSOLUTE MAXIMUM BUILD OUT.
AND WHY DO THEY NEED TO, IN ADDITION TO, UH, THE BACK, THE REAR SETBACK, WHY IS THE REST OF THE BUILDING HAVE TO BE TO THE MAXIMUM POSSIBLE BUILD OUT AND COULD NOT, COULD THEY NOT BUILD A ECONOMICALLY VIABLE BUILDING WITHOUT MAXING OUT, UH, UH, THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING? OKAY.
NOW THAT WE'VE LOADED UP YOUR PLATE, MR. VIAL AND MS. ALBANO, COULD YOU ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS FOR US? GOOD EVENING, MR. EYUS.
WE WILL, WE SUSPENDED WORK ON INE UNTIL YOU GOT HERE.
YOU'RE JUST GONNA HAVE TO WAIT TILL THIS OTHER PROJECT, WHICH IS YOURS.
AND MS. ALBAS AS WELL GETS DONE.
I WAS TIED UP IN IRVINGTON, BUT GOT HERE AS QUICKLY AS I COULD.
WELL, MAKING IRVINGTON A PRIORITY IS A PROBLEM, BUT WE'LL DISCUSS THAT LATER.
I FIGURED THAT WOULD BE THE EASY PART OF THE EVENING.
OKAY, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU GUYS TO, TO ANSWER THE QUE THOSE FOUR QUESTIONS FOR US, PLEASE.
DIEGO, YOU WANT TO KICK OFF? AND, AND I'LL SING BACK UP.
UH, CERTAINLY I COULD JUMP RIGHT IN.
UM, UH, LET'S TICK THESE OFF ONE AT A TIME.
PROBABLY START WITH THE, SOME OF THE EASIER QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD.
UH, JUST TO BEGIN WITH FOR THE RECORD, DIEGO VI WITH J M C, UH, THE PLANNING AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANT HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, THANK YOU AGAIN FOR HAVING US MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
UH, WE DID GO BACK TO WORK ON THE PLAN AND TRY TO ADDRESS A NUMBER OF THE COMMENTS THAT, UH, THE BOARD DID HAVE.
UH, WE DID WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AS, UH, AS, UH, AS HAD BEEN INDICATED, UH, DURING THE INTRODUCTION.
WE DID, UH, ULTIMATELY REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING SPECIFICALLY ON THAT NORTHERN SIDE.
I AM GONNA SHARE MY SCREEN JUST TO SHOW THE EXHIBITS.
UM, CAN EVERYBODY SEE MY SCREEN? YES.
SO THIS IS THE NEW, UH, SITE PLAN RENDERED SIMILAR TO WHAT WE PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING.
AND, UH, IT DOES SHOW ON THAT NORTHERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING, UH, THAT BUILDING HAS BEEN PULLED BACK FIVE FEET TO ALLOW FOR, UH, ACCESS ALONG THE ENTIRE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, CONNECTING, UH, NE ABRAHAM AVENUE TO HAZE AGAIN TO ALLOW FOR, UH, ACCESS AND MAINTENANCE, UH, FOR THAT NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING THERE.
UM, THE SECOND COMMENT, REALLY, UH, ANOTHER SIMPLE ONE.
THE, UH, ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE.
ORIGINALLY IT WAS LOCATED CLOSER TO WHERE THE SIXTH WAS, THAT PARKING SPACE DID GET SHIFTED.
UM, JUST TO REORIENT EVERYONE, UH, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT DOING THIS FIRST NEERAM AVENUE ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE.
HAYES STREET ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE, HAVEN STREET IS HERE OFF THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE PAGE.
THIS BLACK LINE IS THE TOWN OF, UH, GREENBURG VILLAGE OF ELMSFORD, UM, UH, MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY.
THE SOUTHERN PORTION, OR THE BOTTOM HALF OF THE SITE IS WHAT'S LOCATED IN ELMSFORD.
AND THEN THE TOP PORTION OF THE SITE, UH, WHICH IS BASICALLY THE, A GOOD PORTION OF THE BUILDING, IS THE PIECE OF THE BUILDING THAT'S LOCATED WITHIN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
ALL OF THE PARKING AND ACCESS IS LOCATED WITHIN THE VILLAGE OF ELS HERB.
UM, BUT AGAIN, THOSE, UH, THAT ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE WAS SHIFTED OVER FURTHER AWAY FROM THE DRIVE AISLE ITSELF.
UM, NOW THE LAST TWO COMMENTS KIND OF, UH, GO HAND IN HAND TO A CERTAIN DEGREE.
UM, I THINK I CAN TAKE THE FIRST ONE REGARDING THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
UM, YOU KNOW, SELF STORAGE PROJECTS RELY ON SQUARE FOOTAGE, AN AREA THAT IS NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE PROJECT.
UM, THE, THE AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE DICTATES THE AMOUNT OF UNITS THAT THEY HAVE AND WHAT'S RENTABLE, UH, FOR THE, FOR THE COMMUNITY TO USE AS A WHOLE.
UM, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE SIZE THAT'S NEEDED.
I KNOW DINO, UH, THE APPLICANT IS HERE TODAY.
UH, I MIGHT ASK HIM TO TOUCH A LITTLE BIT MORE ON, YOU KNOW, WHAT DRIVES THE OVERALL SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
[00:45:01]
IS TO PROVIDE A BUILDING, UH, TO TRY TO MAXIMIZE ITS FOOTPRINT ON THIS SITE WITHIN REASON, UH, MAXIMIZING IT, UH, RESPECTING THE SETBACKS, PROVIDING SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE, HAVING THE MAINTENANCE, HAVING THE PARKING THAT'S NECESSARY TO SUPPORT THE BUILDING, UM, WHILE PROVIDING A BUILDING WITH, UH, ENOUGH UNITS WITHIN IT TO MAKE IT FINANCIALLY VIABLE.SO IT IS A BALANCING ACT WITH ALL OF THOSE ITEMS.
UM, WALTER, I THINK THE, THE, THE ISSUE FOR US IS MAKING EFFECT FOR OUR CLIENT IS MAKING EFFECTIVE ECONOMIC AND BENEFICIAL USE OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE IS, INTERESTINGLY ENOUGH, AS WE'VE TALKED TO YOU AND THEN WE SUBMITTED DATA, THERE IS, UM, STRONG DEMAND IN THE AREA FOR THIS USE.
UH, THE COST OF LAND IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, WE HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AND RECOGNIZE IS A REAL BARRIER TO ENTRY FOR ANY USE IN OUR COUNTY, INCLUDING THIS USE, EVEN IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA.
UM, AND UNFORTUNATELY THE REALITY IS COST OF CONSTRUCTION ON EVERY PROJECT, INCLUDING SOMETHING OF THIS, UM, SUBSTANTIAL, UH, CONSTRUCTION TYPE, UH, WOULD IN, WOULD INCUR A, A GREAT DEAL OF RESOURCES AS A RESULT OF WHICH OUR CLIENT CLEARLY WOULD LIKE TO, AS DIEGO JUST EXPLAINED, MAKE THE MOST APPROPRIATE AND, AND YET STILL ATTRACTIVE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS POSSIBLE.
SO THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, WE'RE CHALLENGED BECAUSE THE SITE IS BIFURCATED BY A MUNICIPAL LINE.
WE'RE ZONING COMPLIANT WITH REGARD TO HEIGHT, UM, IN ELMSFORD.
IN FACT, AS WE ALL KNOW, THE ELMSFORD HEIGHT THEORETICALLY COULD GO TWICE AS HIGH, MAYBE EVEN MORE THAN TWICE AS HIGH.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT A DESIRE AND THAT'S NOT THE APPLICATION.
IN ADDITION, JUST USING WALTER'S QUESTION TO KIND OF ALSO BACK INTO A, ANSWERING A QUESTION FROM THE CHAIR LAST MONTH, WE DID SHARE WITH YOU, UM, SOME AT LEAST PRELIMINARY ANALYSIS OF A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS TO JUST SHOW THAT SOME OF THE CONSTRAINTS IN THE GREENBERG CODE ARE A BIT, ARE SIGNIFICANTLY MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN IN MANY OTHER MUNICIPALITIES IN TERMS OF SETBACKS AND F A R, ET CETERA.
SO, LONG STORY SHORT, WE THINK THE BUILDING WORKS, WE THINK IT'S GONNA WORK EFFICIENTLY FOR CUSTOMERS.
WE THINK IT'S GONNA MEET DEMAND, AND MOST IMPORTANTLY IT IS GOING TO BE THE MOST ATTRACTIVE BUILDING IN THAT WHOLE AREA.
MR. SIMON, DOES THAT SATISFY YOUR QUESTIONS? WELL, PARTIALLY, UH, THE OTHER PART THAT WAS MISSING WAS THAT, UH, UH, UH, I UNDERSTAND FROM YOUR DATA THERE IS A MARKET FOR THE, FOR THESE, UH, UH, STORAGE FACILITIES.
SO YOUR DATA SHOWS IT SURELY DEMONSTRATE THAT.
BUT THE ISSUE IS, DOES IT NEED TO BE A CONCENTRATION IN GREENBURG? YOU SHOWED US A MAP OF, OF THE VARIOUS FACILITIES AROUND THE TOWN, BUT IF YOU, BUT IF YOU, I THINK THE MAP IS, BUT THERE'S THREE IN VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO EACH OTHER.
EVEN IF YOU TAKE A RADIUS, A LARGER RADIUS IN GENERAL, YOU SEE THERE'S A, THERE'S A DI UH, A, A, UM, DIVERSIFICATION OF MM-HMM.
IT, IT'S NOT OVERCROWDED, BUT IF YOU TAKE STORAGE FACILITIES RIGHT AROUND THIS PARTICULAR, UH, UM, UH, BUILDING YOU, YOU COME TO, AT LEAST I COME TO A DIFFERENT CONCLUSION IN TERMS OF CONCENTRATION.
SO I'M NOT GONNA DISAGREE WITH YOU ON, ON YOUR CONCLUSION, WALTER, AND THE CONCENTRATION, I'M JUST GONNA MAKE A LAND USE OBSERVATION.
UM, THINGS DO TEND TO CONCENTRATE FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE WHEN ZONING TELLS US WHERE THEY CAN GO.
ZONING TELLS US THAT SELF-STORAGE IS AN APPROPRIATE USE IN A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE.
THIS IS A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONE, AND THE NINE A CARTER EXTENDING UP TO THE WESTIE AND THE WESTIE ANNEX ARE ALL SIMILAR CONDUCIVE COMMERCIAL TYPE USES.
SO YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS IS NOT BEING PLOPPED DOWN IN THE MIDDLE OF UNINCORPORATED GREENBERG IN EDGEMONT.
UH, THAT'S NOT A LAWFUL USE IN THAT SECTION OF THE TOWN.
SO YOU, YOU'RE, I, I CAN'T ARGUE WITH YOU, UM, IF THE, IF THE FATHERS AND MOTHERS OF THE TOWN DECIDED TO CREATE
[00:50:01]
A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN THE ZONING SCHEME THAT ALLOWS FOR THIS USE IN THIS AREA, THAT'S WHERE MY CLIENT HAS TO SEEK OUT REAL ESTATE.BUT IT JUST STILL HAD, I HAD THIS CONCERN ABOUT GREENBERG BEING THE, UH, THE STORAGE CAPITAL OF THE COUNTY.
AND IT'S NOT SO MUCH THAT GREENBERG'S THE STORAGE CAPITAL OF THE COUNTY, IT'S JUST THIS SECTION OF, OF ELMSFORD CONVERGING ON GREENBURG.
UM, I'M SURE IF YOU WANT TO ZONE SOUTHERN GREENBERG, UH, IN EDGEMONT FOR SELF-STORAGE, YOU'LL HAVE THE E C C IN TELLING YOU WHY YOU SHOULDN'T BE PUTTING IT THERE.
WELL, UM, I SEE TODD MONT, NO, BUT I THINK, OKAY.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S A RELATIVE COMPARISON.
BECAUSE WE TOOK TALKING ABOUT EXISTENT, UH, LIGHT, MR. SIMON, THIS ISN'T THE WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS THOUGH.
BECAUSE I'LL GIVE YOU TWO EXAMPLES OF HOW WE HAVE DEALT WITH THIS.
MR. STEINS WAS INVOLVED IN, AND THE OTHER ONE HE WASN'T, UM, CCS, WE WERE WORRIED ABOUT THE CONCENTRATION OF CCCS.
SO WHAT DO WE DO? WE LIMITED THE NUMBER OF CCS AND, AND THE RADIUS OF WHICH THEY COULD BE, THEY COULD BE PUT YEAH, PUT IN THE NEW LAW.
AND THAT WAS BY SPECIAL PERMIT, UM, AUTO DEALERS.
ACTUALLY, IT WASN'T BY SPECIAL PERMIT.
WE JUST CHANGED THE ZONE AND REQUIRE SEPARATION BETWEEN AUTO DEALERS, WELL, LIKE ON CENTRAL AVENUE WHERE THEY HAVE TO BE A CERTAIN DISTANCE APART.
SO THE WAY TO DEAL WITH THIS ISSUE, IF IT IS A CONCERN, WHICH MAY BE A REAL CONCERN AND THAT YOU DON'T WANNA SEE JUST STORAGE FACILITIES IN THIS PART OF TOWN OR PARTICULAR PART OF TOWN, IS TO DO THE SAME THING AND GO BACK AND FIX THE LAW.
BUT IN TERMS OF THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, I DON'T, AS LONG, I DON'T SEE US HAVING AN ALTERNATIVE UNTIL TO TAKE THE PROJECT AND MOVE IT, YOU KNOW, MOVE IT, UH, 15, YOU KNOW, FIVE MILES SOMEWHERE ELSE.
BUT, BUT IT'S A POINT, IF IT'S A CONCERN, WE SHOULD DISCUSS IT AND RECOMMEND SOMETHING TO THE TOWN BOARD.
WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE AND WE COULD DO IT AGAIN.
AND I THINK I'VE MADE MY POSITION CLEAR THAT I'M NOT SAYING I GOT YOUR WORD THAT SHOULD PREVENT THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION, BUT AS A CONCERN.
AND I AGREE WITH, WITH YOU THAT, UH, UH, MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD DO FOR THE FUTURE IN TERMS OF LIMITING THE CONCENTRATION OF THAT.
BUT GOOD, GOOD COMMENT, WALTER.
AND I THINK THOSE ARE THE KINDS OF THINGS WE HAVE TO BE LOOKING AT MORE AND MORE AS WE HAVE LESS AND LESS LAND TO USE THESE, USE THESE THINGS.
YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU DON'T WANT TOO MANY RETAIL PLACES NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
WE GOTTA LOOK AT PLANNING A LITTLE BIT MORE ON A MICRO BASIS THAN BEFORE WHILE STILL NOT HAVING SPOT ZONING.
WE, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO DO THAT.
SO IT'S A, IT'S A BALANCE AS EVERYTHING WE DO IS, BUT THERE ARE WAYS TO DO IT AS WE'VE SUCCESSFULLY DONE IT WITH AUTO MOBIL DEALERSHIPS AND CCS.
AARON, I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT.
WELL, I WANTED TO SAY THAT I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT UP BECAUSE THAT IS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO DO THAT.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT IF THE PLANNING BOARD WANTS STAFF TO LOOK INTO WITH THE TOWN BOARD, WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT IN THE FUTURE TIME IF THE PLANNING BOARD MAKES A RECOMMENDATION.
UH, SWITCHING GEARS FOR A MOMENT, THERE WAS ALSO COMMENTS THAT CAME IN, IN THE LAST WORK SESSION ABOUT THE ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING AND IT RELATIVE TO EXISTING BUILDINGS IN THE AREA.
AND I WANTED THE APPLICANT IF IT WOULD, TO TOUCH ON THAT.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE DRAWINGS OR SOMETHING YOU CAN SHOW THE BOARD AT THIS TIME.
THAT WAS THE LAST ITEM YEAH, WE NEEDED TO TOUCH ON IF WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE EXHIBITS TO SHARE WITH YOU THIS EVENING THAT SPEAK TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT RELATIVE TO SOME OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS, BUT WE DID RESEARCH IT.
WE DID GO OUT THERE AND LOOK AT THAT.
AND, UM, FROM A COMPARATIVE STANDPOINT, IT'S, IT'S A BIT DIFFICULT ON OUR END BECAUSE THERE ARE NOT, UM, IN THIS IMMEDIATE AREA, OTHER FIVE STORY BUILDINGS TO COMPARE THIS TO YOUR ZONING, UH, LIMITS WHAT'S PERMITTED, UH, IN, IN THIS DISTRICT TO THE, UH, THREE STORIES.
UH, BUT IT REALLY LIMITS IT TO 45 FEET.
IF WE PUT ASIDE THE NUMBER OF STORIES FOR A MINUTE, UM, IT'S REALLY THE 45 FOOT HEIGHT THAT YOU'RE LIMITED BY NOW.
THE, THE NUMBER OF STORIES COULD VARY, UM, SELF-STORAGE USES, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE DEAL WITH ON A REGULAR BASIS, DON'T REQUIRE AS MUCH OF THAT FLOOR TO FLOOR IN CLEAR HEIGHT AS SOME OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS DO.
SO SOMETIMES YOU'RE ABLE TO SQUEEZE MORE WITHIN THAT OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT.
NOW WE ARE PERMITTED IN THE VILLAGE OF ELLENSBURG TO IRONICALLY GO UP TO 150
[00:55:01]
FEET.IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S PERMITTED OBVIOUSLY IN GREENBERG, BUT THAT'S WHAT THEIR ZONING PROVISION ALLOWS.
NOW WE'RE OBVIOUSLY, WELL WITHIN THAT ON THE GREENBERG SIDE, WE'RE PERMITTED TO GO UP TO 45 FEET.
OUR BUILDING, AFTER DOING ALL THE CALCULATIONS, IT'S 58 AND A HALF FEET HIGH.
AND THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED IS TO GO TO THAT 58 AND HALF FOOT HIGH, UM, UH, BUILDING HEIGHT WHEN WE COMPARE IT TO THE SURROUNDING LAND USES, AGAIN, THE NUMBER OF THE BUILDINGS THAT SURROUND THIS PROPERTY AND DRIVING AROUND, LOOKING AT GOOGLE EARTH AND LOOKING AT THE OTHER AREAS, THEY'RE SINGLE AND TWO STORY MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS, MAINTENANCE GARAGE BUILDINGS.
YOU HAVE A LOT OF TALL ONE STORY BUILDINGS WITH OVERHEAD GARAGE DOORS AND TRUCK STORAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
THAT IS THE DOMINANT LAND USE IN THIS AREA.
IT'S BUILDINGS THAT GO CURB TO CURB, UM, PARKING UP AGAINST THE STREET AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND IT'S SPRAWLING LAYOUTS THE HEIGHTS OF THE BUILDING, AS YOU APPROACH 2 87 A LITTLE FURTHER SOUTH ALONG, UH, THE ELMSFORD CORRIDOR, THAT'S WHEN YOU START RUNNING INTO SOME OF THE BIGGER BUILDING HEIGHTS.
UM, BUT AGAIN, NORTH OF THE 2 87 CORRIDOR, YOU'LL FIND BUILDINGS THAT RANGE TWO AND A HALF, THREE STORIES MAX.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE, THE TALLEST BUILDING THAT YOU'LL SEE, UM, UP AGAINST THE 2 87 CORRIDOR.
BUT AGAIN, FROM AN OVERALL HEIGHT STANDPOINT, IT'S A TALLER TWO STORY OR THREE STORY BUILDING.
UM, BUT REGARDLESS, THERE IS NOT A, THERE'S NOT A COMPARABLE FIVE STORY BUILDING ADJACENT TO WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE.
UM, AARON, I JUST WANNA DO THE HOUSEKEEPING PART.
WHERE ARE WE ON SEEKER IN THIS PROJECT? WELL, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
THE PLANNING BOARD DISCUSSED THIS, UH, LAST MEETING AND BASICALLY THE BOARD DECIDED, THIS BOARD DECIDED THAT IT WOULD NOT SEEK TO ESTABLISH ITS ROLE AS LEAD AGENCY, BUT RATHER LEAVE THAT, UH, TO THE APPLICANT TO DISCUSS WITH EITHER THE ZONING BOARD WITHIN THE TOWN OR THE VILLAGE OF ELMSFORD.
SO I TURNED THINGS OVER TO MR. STEINMAN TO SEE IF THERE'S BEEN ANY PROGRESS IN THAT REGARD.
SO, UM, NO, NO OFFICIAL PROGRESS BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO GET ON THE ZONING BOARD'S AGENDA AND WE HAVE NOT SECURED A PLACE, UM, IN THE MONTH OF MAY.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE WE WILL BE APPEARING THERE IN THE MONTH OF JUNE.
UM, ELMSFORD IS MORE THAN HAPPY TO, UM, PROCESS AND TAKE ON LEAD AGENCY SHOULD THAT BE NECESSARY, BUT, UH, WE DID A PRIZE, THE ELMSFORD OFFICIALS THAT WE WERE COMING, UM, TO GREENBERG FIRST, AND, UH, AND, AND THEY UNDERSTOOD.
SO, UH, SO WE'LL, WE'LL REPORT BACK ON THAT.
UM, I, I THINK MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOUR BOARD WOULD ALLOW AARON TO HAVE SOMETHING IN WRITING THAT YOUR BOARD TO DECLINES TO ASSUME LEAD AGENCY.
SO THAT WE CAN CARRY THAT TO THE ZONING BOARD AND TO ELMSFORD AND, AND LET THEM DECIDE, UM, WHICH BOARD WISHES TO, TO SERVE.
THAT'S A GOOD, VERY GOOD SUGGESTION.
MR. SCHMIDT, WE HAVE THAT, UH, WE HAVE THAT IDENTIFIED WITHIN OUR LAST MINUTES, I BELIEVE.
AND WE'RE HAPPY TO SHARE THOSE MINUTES IF THAT YOU THINK THAT WOULD BE
I I THINK IT'D BE EASIER IF WE HAD SOMETHING SIMPLE RATHER THAN KEEP IT IN THE HAVE TO WAIVE MINUTES AROUND MR. STEM.
JUST TAKE THE VOTE THAT WE'RE DECLA.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE, HAVE SOMEONE I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION THAT WE DECLINE TO BE LEAD AGENCY ON THIS PROJECT.
CAN I HAVE THAT MOTION PLEASE? SO MOVED LORNA AND SILENT AND MIME.
WHO MOVED IT? I SAID I WAS MUTE MYSELF TONIGHT.
I THINK, BUT USUALLY WE HAVE SOME DISCUSSION.
I MEAN, NO, WE CAN DISCUSS THIS.
IF YOU'D RATHER HAVE, SHOULD WE SAY WE DECLINE OR SHOULD WE SAY WE DEFER TO ELMSFORD? WE'RE NOT DEFERRING TO ELMSFORD.
IT'S REALLY UP TO, IT'S BETWEEN THE ZONING BOARD AND ELMSFORD.
WE DEFERRED TO THE OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES.
AS OUR LEGAL, LEGAL COUNSEL TONIGHT, HE'S SERVING AS DAVE TONIGHT.
I WOULD SAY PLAYED THE ROLE OF DAVID FREE AS MICHAEL GOLDEN IN TONIGHT'S EPISODE.
SO IF WE WERE TO REWORD THE MOTION TO DEFER TO THE OTHER INVOLVED AGENCIES INVOLVED, NOT INTERESTED INVOLVED AGENCIES, CAN I HAVE A MOTION, UH, TO DO THIS AS AMENDED ANOTHER MIME MOTION FROM MS. FRY TAG? CAN I HAVE A SECOND? SO MOVED.
ALL OPPOSED? ABSTENTIONS? NONE.
MICHAEL, THAT WAS A VERY GOOD SUGGESTION.
[01:00:01]
WAY.NOW THE ONLY OTHER THING WE NEED TO DO FROM A HOUSEKEEPING POINT OF VIEW, VIEW IS DECIDE ON A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD.
UM, I'M OPEN FOR DISCUSSION OF HOW PEOPLE FEEL.
ON, ON WHAT KIND OF RECOMMENDATION DO WE WANNA MAKE? POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, UM, NEGATIVE DEC UH, RECOMMENDATION.
MR. SIMON? UH, I WOULD PROPOSE A NEUTRAL, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
YOU KNOW, IN, IN SPITE OF THE CONCERNS I HAVE, THERE IS NO LEGAL BASIS FOR ME TO OBJECT TO IT.
SO, AND, UH, AND SO I WOULD HAVE TO SAY I RECOMMEND A NEUTRAL, A RECOMMENDATION.
MO, DID YOU EVER COMMENT? IS THERE SOMETHING HOLDING YOU BACK FROM SAYING IT'S A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION? THERE IS NO REASON FOR IT.
WELL, MR. I THINK MAYBE WE GO AROUND THE ROOM.
UH, LET'S TAKE IT ONE AT ATI TIME.
MR. SIMON, YOU'RE NEUTRAL? YES.
IT'S NOT A VOTE, IT'S JUST A STAR POLL.
DON'T WORRY, WE'RE NOT VOTING, MICHAEL.
WE'RE JUST GETTING PEOPLE'S OPINIONS.
MS. FIG, YOU'RE, YOU'RE POSITIVE MR. SNAGS? I'M, I'M POSITIVE AS WELL.
UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, MS. HEIGHT IN THE AREA, THIS IS WHAT GONNA BE 56 FEET? NO, 58 AND A HALF.
58 AND A HALF FEET AND FIVE STORIES.
AND AGAIN, IN THE, ANY OTHER BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR HEIGHT IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA NORTH OF 2 87, WEST SIDE OF NINE A? NO, YOU HAVE TO STRAY OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA TO START SEEING BUILDINGS OF THAT HEIGHT ALONG THE ONE 19 CORRIDOR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
BUT IN THIS IMMEDIATE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT IS PREDOMINANTLY OLDER BUILDINGS, NONE OF THE PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA HAVE BEEN TOUCHED OR REDEVELOPED IN RECENT, IN RECENT YEARS.
AND IF THEY HAVE BEEN, IT'S BEEN MINIMAL IMPROVEMENTS.
NO, YOU DON'T HAVE THAT BUILDING.
BUT HAVING SAID THAT, UNDER OUR CODE, IT COULD BE 45 FEET.
WE'RE ACTUALLY TALKING ABOUT 45 FEET HEIGHT, CORRECT? A VARIANCE OF 13 FEET.
AND, AND IN ELMSFORD, YOU'RE PERMITTED TO GO JUST ON.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT, I DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT THAT.
IT'S JUST, I THINK THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE IS, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT LINE, WHAT'S PERMITTED BY CODE IS UP TO 150 FEET.
SO IT'S NOT, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEORETICAL, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT OUR, OUR JURISDICTION.
WOULD, UH, I THINK, HOW DO YOU FEEL? UH, TO ME IT'S LIKE A, WE ARE DIFFERING NOT TO BE LEAD AGENCY, BUT SAME TIMES WE ARE TRYING TO SHOW OUR OPINION ABOUT THE DIRECTIONS THAT WE WANTED TO HELP PROJECT TO GO.
SO TO ME, I THINK I AGREE WITH WALTER THAT JUST GIVEN NEUTRAL, LET THE, UH, LEAD AGENCY KIND OF, UH, DECIDE WHAT THEY THINK ABOUT IT, AND THEN WE PUT OUR INPUT INTO IT.
SO, UH, I, I, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO KIND OF RECOMMEND TO THE ZONING BOARD IN THIS CASE, BUT IF WE MUST DO IT, OR IF HE, IF THE CHAIR WANTS TO HAVE THIS THING, I THINK WE SHOULD SEND YOU DRUG AT THE BEST.
TOM, WHY CAN I ASK, WHY CONVINCE US?
NO, BUT WHY, WHY WOULD YOU GIVE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION? I THINK IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT, AND BECAUSE IT STRADDLES THE LINE ALMOST IN HALF.
I'M GIVING THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT TO THE, AND EVEN THOUGH WALT, UM, SORRY, HE WAS DISMISSING IT, THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, IF IT WERE A FEW FEET FURTHER SOUTH, IT COULD BE GINORMOUS HERE.
IT'S 13 FEET HIGHER THAN, THAN WHAT OUR CODE ALLOWS.
UM, AND ALTHOUGH I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT, AND I'M, I'M NOT IN LOVE WITH IT, LOOKING AT EVERYTHING AROUND THERE, I DO THINK IT'S, IT'S A VAST IMPROVEMENT IN TERMS OF APPEARANCE AND USE OF THE LOT WITH LANDSCAPING.
UM, NONE OF THE BUILDINGS THERE HAVE THE PROPER SETBACKS.
UM, SO I BELIEVE IT'S A POSITIVE ADDITION.
I, I, I THINK IT'S A NEUTRAL, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY.
AND IT'S NOT, HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MERITS OF, OF THE PROJECT.
I THINK THIS IS TOTALLY A ZONING BOARD RESPONSIBILITY HERE AND NOT OURS.
[01:05:01]
WAY I FEEL ABOUT IT.AND SIMILAR, I THINK COR, THAT'S SIMILAR WAY COR FEELS ABOUT IT.
UM, LET THEM DO THEIR THING WITH IT.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN I SAY, UM, WHEN WE MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION, GENERALLY IT'S BECAUSE THE VARIANCE IS SOMETHING THAT WE THINK IMPROVES THE PROJECT.
THAT'S GENERALLY WHEN WE MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
IN THIS CASE, IT MAY BE NECESSARY TO GO TO 58 FEET FOR COMMERCIAL REASONS, AND I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH IT.
JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE'VE MADE THIS CLEAR TO THE ZONING BOARD BEFORE AND MAKE SURE THEY KNOW THIS AARON.
AND IF WE DO DO A NEUTRAL, WHICH WE HAVEN'T DECIDED YET, BUT IF WE DO, THEN A NEUTRAL IS NOT A NEGATIVE.
WE'RE JUST SAYING, THIS IS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY, NOT OURS TO INE ON THIS.
AND WE'D RATHER YOU DO, YOU TAKE CARE OF ALL, ALL THE VARIANCES ON THIS.
THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S A NEUTRAL.
MR. STEINERS, YOU HAD SOMETHING TO SAY.
I, I APPRECIATE YOU ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
I REALLY WANTED TO ADDRESS, UH, MICHAEL AND, AND SEE IF I COULD MAYBE PROVIDE SOME HELP.
MICHAEL, I, I DON'T RECALL WHETHER YOU WERE AT THE LAST MEETING FOR SOME REASON.
I FEEL LIKE YOU MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN.
OKAY, SO, SO MICHAEL, THAT'S EXACTLY WHY I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I HAD A CHANCE TO TELL YOU WHAT, WHAT WE THINK WE TOLD THE BOARD LAST TIME J M C DID, ALONG WITH, WITH MY, MY COLLEAGUE DOMINIQUE DID A FAIRLY EXTENSIVE ANALYSIS OF ALL THE PROPERTIES IN THE IMMEDIATE AREA.
WE TALKED TO YOUR BOARD ABOUT THE FACT THAT WE WERE GONNA DO THAT, AND WE DID THAT BECAUSE BEFORE WE EVEN FILED THIS APPLICATION, DIEGO AND I LOOKED AT AN AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH, UM, AND SAID TO THE CLIENT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A FEELING LIKE NONE OF THE PROPERTIES IN THIS AREA COMPLY WITH ZONING.
TO MY SURPRISE, IT WASN'T MAYBE A FEW, IT WAS NONE.
THERE ARE NO PROPERTIES THAT COMPLY WITH ZONING BULK.
SO WHAT DOES THAT TELL ME? AS A LAND USE PRACTITIONER, WHAT THAT TELLS ME AS A LAND USE PRACTITIONER IS THAT THE CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA IS NOT AS OTHERWISE REPRESENTED IN THE ZONING.
THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR PEOPLE BUYING, SELLING, DEVELOPING, FINANCING.
AND WHILE I HATE TO DISAGREE WITH HUGH ON ISSUES, I AM GONNA DISAGREE WHEN HE, WHEN HE WAS, WHEN HE WAS DISMISSIVE OF, OH, DON'T LOOK AT ELMSFORD.
I UNDERSTAND WHY MOST OF THE TIME THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE.
THIS PROPERTY, AS TOM EXPLAINED, IS BIFURCATED BY A MUNICIPAL LINE.
YOU CAN'T IGNORE THE FACT THAT ANOTHER GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER ZONING LAW IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SAME PIECE OF PROPERTY.
SO WHAT I'M ASKING YOU TO DO IS LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES, LOOK AT THE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE AREA, AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THAT'S WHAT'S, THAT'S WHAT ELMSFORD ZONING IS.
AND AS DIEGO HAS JUST TOLD US IN 10 YEARS, THERE MAY BE 10 BUILDINGS THAT ARE 10 STORIES TALL IN THAT AREA.
SO WE ARE COMING IN WITH A FIVE STORY BUILDING.
IT'S CONSISTENT AND COMPLIANT WITH THE ADJACENT MUNICIPALITY ZONING.
AND QUITE FRANKLY, I AGREE WITH TOM, THAT IF YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE RESPONSIBLE, ATTRACTIVE, AND ECONOMICALLY PRODUCTIVE DEVELOPMENT IN THIS SECTION OF THE COMMUNITY, AND I USE THE WORD COMMUNITY BROADLY, ELMSFORD AND GREENBERG, I THINK A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE.
AND HAVING APPEARED IN FRONT OF YOUR ZONING BOARD, AND YOU GUYS ARE THE PLANNERS, IT'D BE REALLY NICE TO WALK IN THERE AND SAY THAT THE PLANNERS IN THIS COMMUNITY THOUGHT, YOU KNOW WHAT? THIS IS ACTUALLY A GOOD USE.
IT, IT WORKS IN TERMS OF USE UNDER THE CODE AND IT, AND IT CAN WORK TO START TO MODERNIZE THIS AREA.
SO I'LL GO IN WITH A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION AND, AND I'LL QUOTE THE CHAIR THAT IT'S NOT A NEGATIVE.
NO, YOU KNOW, MADAM CHAIR, DON'T ASSUME IT'S A NEGATIVE, BUT I REALLY, AND MY CLIENT WOULD REALLY LIKE TO GO IN THAT THE, THAT THE SEVEN PLANNERS IN THIS TOWN LOOKED AT THIS CAREFULLY AND THOUGHTFULLY.
AND THE MAJORITY OF THIS BOARD SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT? STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
AS I SAID, IF YOU WANNA TALK, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TALKING OUT OF ORDER.
I HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY FIRST, AND THEN I WILL GET TO YOU.
I HAVE AN IDEA, AN OUT OF THE BOX IDEA.
I THINK THE ONLY ISSUE THAT, THE ONLY THING I'M UNCOMFORTABLE NOT BEING A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION IS THE BUILDING HEIGHT.
SO WHY COULDN'T WE SEND A RECOMMENDATION TO THEM SAYING, OBVIOUSLY THE SETBACKS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THE USE AND EVERYTHING LOOKS GREAT.
WE REALLY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH ANY OF THE, WITH THAT STUFF.
WE'RE A LITTLE BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, NOTING THAT WHAT NOTE, WHAT ELMSFORD IS D DOING, ALTHOUGH
[01:10:01]
THEY SHOULD MAKE THE DECISION, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY DON'T WANT OPINE ON THAT.AND THAT REALLY THEY SHOULD, THEY SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
MR. UH, CRIT WAS FIRST, I BELIEVE.
AND THEN YOU, AARON, I THINK I, I AGREE WITH YOU, YOU THAT, AND THERE IS ALSO ONE MORE CONCERN THAT WHAT WALTER HAD SAID.
IT'S THAT IT IS, IT, IT IS THE KIND OF, UH, OVERALL AS DAVID, YOU ARE SAYING THAT WE, YOU KIND OF, I'M, I'M REALLY BEING, UH, FLATTERED BY SAYING THAT WE ARE SUCH A, SUCH A BALANCED, UH, UH, VERY QUALIFIED PLANNERS FOR, I DIDN'T SAY BALANCED.
UH, YOU LIKE, LIKE YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE RUNNING FOR A MAYOR OR SOMETHING.
BUT, UH,
WHAT MAKES ME TO GIVE, UH, UH, KIND OF NEUTRAL, UH, IS THAT ONE, IS THAT IT IS THE, UH, ONE OF THESE KIND OF, UH, ISSUES THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A, UH, ZONING BOARD, WHICH IS THEIR PREROGATIVES TO REALLY SAY THAT WHAT IS THE, UH, ZONING, UH, WHOLE ZONING KIND OF, UH, TAX AND ZONING REGULATIONS HAVE SOMETHING TO DO WITH IT.
AND THAT HAS TO BE GIVEN A DUE RESPECT.
AND I THINK THAT IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT.
AND I THINK WHAT WALTER HAS A KIND OF A CONCENTRATION OF ALL THESE NOT AN ISSUE LAND USE INTO ONE AREA.
SO YES, YOU COME BACK WITH A, UH, FROM THE ZONING BOARD AND WE WILL BE OPEN-HANDED.
WE'LL RECEIVE AND RECOMMEND, UH, RECOMMEND THIS PROJECT.
WELL, THE RECORD, THE CONCENTRATION, WE ARE SAYING IT'S A NEGATIVE ATION.
CHRIS AND AARON, I'LL GET YOU A SECOND CRIT, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE CONCENTRATION IS NOT AN ISSUE.
WE, IT IS NOT AN ISSUE WE CAN CONSIDER.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CURRENT LAW.
SO TAKE THAT ONE OFF THE TABLE.
I, I THINK I WAS RESPONDING TO, UH, DAVID'S COMMENT ABOUT WE BEING VERY NI VERY, VERY GREAT PLANNERS.
SO THIS IS, WELL, WE ARE, THAT'S WHY WE, WE, WE, WE HELP, WE HELP MODIFY LAWS IN THIS.
ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAVE BEEN DOING AS A BOARD, UH, UNDER LEADERSHIP OF MR. SIMON, AND I'VE TRIED TO KEEP KEEP THAT GOING, IS WE'VE BEEN PROACTIVE IN CHANGING LAWS AND, AND RECOMMENDING CHANGING LAWS TO THE TOWN BOARD.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING I HOPE WE CONTINUE TO DO.
AND THIS MAY BE ONE OF THOSE ISSUES, MR. SCHMIDT.
'CAUSE I WANT TO GET TO VOTE ON, UH, VOTE ON THIS.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT YOU ABSOLUTELY HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO THROUGH THE VA, THE VARIANCES ONE BY ONE.
AND IF THE BOARD WANTS TO GO PERHAPS POSITIVE ON ONE OR MORE, YOU CERTAINLY CAN.
AND IF YOU WANT TO GO NEUTRAL ON ONE OR MORE, YOU MAY DO THAT.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ALL OF THEM UNDER ONE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD.
SO THANK YOU, MR. I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU WERE TRYING TO GET TO BEFORE, BUT YEAH, THE ONLY ONE, I MEAN MYSELF, I THINK IT'S THE CHARACTER'S CLEAR.
IN TERMS OF SETBACKS AND ALL OF THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE ANY, ANY TIME IN OUR LIFETIME.
UM, THE HEIGHT IS A, IT'S GONNA STICK OUT WHETHER IT'S A NICER LOOKING BUILDING, IT'S GONNA STICK OUT.
AND BY THE WAY, I PROBABLY, THIS IS DIAMONDS.
I REACTED THAT WAY BECAUSE I'VE SEEN SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BUILT, BEEN BUILT THAT IF IT WERE OUR PLANNING BOARD, I'M NOT SURE WE WOULD'VE WANTED BUILT.
I WON'T TELL YOU WHAT THEY ARE, BUT THERE ARE SOME, THERE ARE EXAMPLES.
SO I TRY WHERE, WHERE WE CAN HAVE JURISDICTION, WE SHOULD HAVE JU WE, WE SHOULD EXERCISE A JURISDICTION, NOT DEFER MM-HMM.
NO, YOU KNOW, ELSE'S GET, IT'S THEIR JURISDICTION OVER THERE.
WHATEVER GOES OVER AND OVER THE BORDER, NOT MUCH I CAN DO ABOUT IT.
MR. SIMON IS YOUR HAND UP? YES, GO AHEAD.
UM, VENUE YOU'RE NEXT, MICHAEL.
I I, I, I, I THINK WHAT, UH, THE TWO HAVE ADVOCATED AND WHAT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMID ADVOCATED, I THINK THAT'S THE RIGHT WAY TO GO.
AS I SAID, THE, THE CONCERN ABOUT CONCENTRATION IS REALLY ISN'T AN ISSUE.
I COULD INTERJECT AT THIS TIME.
AND THEN, UH, THE IDEA THAT, UH, THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT, UH, UM, WE COULD, AND I COULD VOTE POSITIVE ON IT.
AND THERE ARE THE OTHER THINGS THAT AT BEST I COULD, UH, VOTE NEUTRAL.
SO PERHA, UH, SO IN OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARDS,
[01:15:01]
WE SAID THIS IS HOW WE VOTED ON THESE SPECIFIC ISSUES, AND THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE DID IT.BUT, YOU KNOW, WE FEEL THE ULTIMATE DECISION IS UP TO THE, THE ZONING BOARD.
LOOK, YOU, I, I AGREE WITH YOU.
I MEAN, THAT'S, THE HEIGHT TO ME IS THE ONLY ISSUE, CERTAINLY NOT THE SETBACKS.
UM, YEAH, IT, IT, IT MIGHT STICK OUT.
I THINK DAVID'S COMMENT WAS ALSO PERSUASIVE, WHICH IS THAT ELMSFORD, WHAT DO THEY ALLOW A HUNDRED FEET? I MEAN, IN THE NEXT FIVE OR 10 YEARS, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD BE, YOU COULD BE HAVING BUILDINGS SPROUTING UP ALL OVER THE PLACE.
LOOK, I THINK MY PERSONAL OPINION WITH RESPECT TO THE SETBACKS AND THE, LIKE, WE SHOULD GIVE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE OF THE, YOU KNOW, UH, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER WITH RESPECT TO THE HEIGHT.
WE SHOULD POINT OUT, YOU KNOW, ELMSFORD CODE, WE SHOULD POINT OUT THAT NO OTHER BUILDINGS ARE THIS HIGH.
BUT IN THE FUTURE, THEY MAY, AND I AGREE THAT BASICALLY THIS HEIGHT QUESTION, UH, FOR ME IS A DETERMINATION BY THE ZONING BOARD.
I I WOULD, I WOULD GO ALONG WITH, WITH ACTUALLY ALMOST YOUR EXACT LANGUAGE.
MICHAEL, DO YOU WANNA MAKE THAT IN FORM OF A MOTION? SO MOVED.
DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND, MR. SIMON? SECOND.
ALL EVERYBODY UNDERSTAND THE MOTION.
SO IT WOULD BE POSITIVE ON EVERYTHING EXCEPT, EXCEPT THE HEIGHT, WHICH WOULD BE A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.
BUT IN THE NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION, REFER TO THE FACT THAT ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT OUR, OUR NEIGHBORS, UH, ALLOW 150 FEET AND THE POTENTIAL FOR THAT RIGHT OVER THE BORDER.
SO WE ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN OUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT DEFER TO THE, COMPLETELY DEFER TO THEM ON THAT WITH A, A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.
BUT WE, WE ALSO HAVE TO INCLUDE THE FACT THAT IT WOULD STILL HAVE APPROVED TO BE THE TALLEST BUILDING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WE GIVE THE PROS AND THE CONS TO THAT.
UM, WE HAVE A SECOND I THINK FOR MR. SIMON.
DO I HA UH, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE.
THEY CAN STILL, OUR OURS IS NOT A BINDING THING, IT'S JUST AN OPINION.
WHICH IS WHY I AM VOTING NEUTRAL ON THE, ON THE HEIGHT.
UH, BUT I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHY YOU SHOULD, WE JUST SHOULD GIVE IT TO THEM AND DON'T SAY ANYTHING.
SO IT'S SIX ONE AND ANY, UH, ANY ABSTENTIONS? NO.
MO YOU HAD SOMETHING TO SAY? YES.
I ALSO WANNA US TO ADD THAT WE'RE ONLY EXCEEDING OUR HEIGHT REQUIREMENT BY, WHAT, 15 FEET? 13.
AND THAT'S PART OF THE MOTION, I THINK.
WE'LL, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO TAKE ANOTHER VOTE.
I THINK THAT'S ALL WE NEED TO DO ON RENARD TONIGHT.
AND THEN WE GOTTA WAIT TO SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE ZONING BOARD.
YES, AARON, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
YOUR BONUS TIME, MR. STEINMAN'S.
LET'S GO BACK INTO TALKING ABOUT, UH, INE BEFORE YOU CAME.
UH, WHERE WE, WHERE WE WERE AT.
WE'RE ABOUT TO MAKE A GOODNIGHT, EVERYBODY.
UM, WE WERE ABOUT TO, TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO SAY THAT WE DIDN'T FEEL IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO SEND THIS BACK OVER TO THE HISTORIC BOARD WITH SEVERAL REASONS.
WITH THE PROVISO THAT YOUR, YOUR APPLICANT, UH, OH YEAH.
MONA, DO YOU WANNA SEE WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS THERE? 'CAUSE YOU I THINK PROPOSED IT.
IF WE FIND ANY ARTIFACTS WHERE TO IDENTIFY THEM, AND I'VE BEEN BRIEFED.
WE HAVE NO PROBLEM COMPLYING WITH THAT REQUEST, MONA.
UM, IF THERE ARE ANY ARTIFACTS OF, OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE, WE WILL NOTIFY THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITIES.
ALSO, THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT FLOODING IN THERE.
I, I'M TRYING TO GO BACK HERE IN TIME.
UM, THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT I READ IN THE, UM, TRANS THAT SOMETHING ABOUT FLOODING, AND I'M NOT, NOW I'M JUMPING BACK IN CASES.
SORRY, WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO THE SITE.
WE HAVEN'T DONE THE SITE PLAN YET.
THIS JUST GETS A HISTORIC BOARD OFF OUR DOCKET.
SO I'D LIKE TO TAKE, I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN THAT MOTION NOW THAT WE HAD BEFORE.
WE, NO, WE'RE GONNA GET TO THAT.
THAT'S WHY THE ENGINEER'S HERE.
UM, SO YES, ANYTHING THAT'S UNDERCOVER WITH, UH, IN THE FACT WHILE YOU'RE WORKING WITH ARTIFACTS NEEDS TO BE SENT TO THE HISTORIC BOARD.
[01:20:01]
AND YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT, CORRECT, DAVID? YES.ARE YOU GONNA MAKE THE MOTION THEN, MONA? YES.
SO DO I HEAR A SECOND? SECOND, MR. SIMON SECONDS.
NOW LET'S TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT YOU GUYS ACTUALLY WANNA BUILD THERE AND TALK ABOUT THE DRAINAGE PLAN AND, AND PLANTINGS AND WHAT'S GOING ON THE SITE PLAN THERE.
SO I'M GONNA BE VERY BRIEF ON, I THINK ON THIS, UM, DAVID STEINMETZ FROM THE LAW FIRM OF ZAIN STEINS HERE REPRESENTING WELCOME HOMES.
AND, UH, AS I THINK YOU ALL KNOW, I AM HERE THIS EVENING PINCH, PINCH HITTING FOR MY PARTNER JODY CROSS, UH, WHO WAS UNABLE TO, UH, TO BE HERE.
I'M HERE ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUE, UH, DOMINIQUE ALBANO.
UM, I BELIEVE MY CLIENT IS ON SOMEWHERE, UH, ANDREW, UH, VA.
UM, AND, UH, OUR PROJECT ENGINEERS FROM HEARTLAND ENGINEERING ARE PRESENT.
WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ABOUT DRAINAGE AND TREES.
I JUST, I, I WANT TO TRY TO PUT THIS ALL IN CONTEXT.
UM, I WAS INTERESTED IN AND SOMEWHAT FASCINATED TO READ THE TRANSCRIPT FROM, I DUNNO, 14 YEARS AGO, 16 YEARS AGO, WHATEVER, WHATEVER IT WAS.
UH, SEVERAL OF YOU WERE ON THE BOARD FOR THE, AT THE TIME OF THAT, UH, SUBDIVISION, THIS PROPERTY WAS THE SUBJECT OF A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION TO YOUR PLANNING BOARD.
YOUR PLANNING BOARD GRANTED IT, YOUR PLANNING BOARD EXPRESSLY, AS YOU ALL OBVIOUSLY KNOW, IMPOSED A SOMEWHAT INTERESTING BUT NOTHING IMPROPER, UH, REQUIREMENT THAT THIS PARTICULAR LOT COME BACK, UM, FOR FURTHER, UH, REVIEW.
UH, I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE JURISDICTIONALLY, WHETHER THE PLANNING BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AN ORDINARY SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON A LOT.
HOWEVER, UM, YOU DID ASK THAT IT COME BACK THAT MY PREDECESSOR, THE, THE SUBDIVIDED AND JOEL SACHS REPRESENTING THEM CONSENTED VOLUNTARILY, MY CLIENT UNDERSTOOD THAT.
SO WE ARE, WE ARE HERE, WE'RE HERE TO, AND WE'RE HERE TO COOPERATE.
WE THINK, UM, THAT THE LOT, UH, I IS, UM, IS AN IMPORTANT AND AN INTERESTING LOT.
WE THINK THE DESIGN THAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED IS ENTIRELY ZONING COMPLIANT.
AND WE BELIEVE, UH, THAT THE DRAINAGE ISSUE THAT OBVIOUSLY EXISTED 14, 16 YEARS AGO ON OLD ARMY ROAD, AND I AM, I CAN ONLY HOPE HUGH, THAT THE TOWN IN THE LAST 14 OR 16 YEARS HAS DONE SOMETHING TO ADDRESS THAT EXISTING CONDITION.
UM, BUT I HAD, I'M KIDDING, ASIDE, ASIDE, MR. STEINITZ, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
THERE'S STILL A LOT OF FLOODING IN THAT AREA.
THERE AREN'T A LOT THAT THERE AREN'T STORM DRAINS, FRANKLY.
SO THE GOOD NEWS FOR US IS THAT WE DIDN'T CONTRIBUTE TO IT 'CAUSE IT WASN'T DEVELOPED.
THERE WAS A PRE-EXISTING CONDITION THAT'S IN THE RECORD THAT WE ALL KNOW ABOUT.
AND THE MOST IMPORTANT THING FOR ME AND MY CLIENT, WE ARE NOT GOING TO EXACERBATE THAT CONDITION.
WE ARE GOING TO CONTROL ALL OF THE STORM WATER ENTIRELY ON OUR PROPERTY.
MAYBE IF EVERYONE IN THE WHOLE AREA WAS DOING THE SAME THING, YOU IN THE TOWN WOULD NOT HAVE HAD A DRAINAGE ISSUE FOR THE LAST 16, 18 YEARS.
WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION, BUT MONA, SPECIFICALLY, I WANNA MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I GOT VACANT PROPERTY.
UM, AND, AND, AND, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA DEVELOP IT, WE'RE GONNA DEVELOP IT IN A RESPONSIBLE FASHION, SO, RIGHT, SHARON, DON'T WORRY.
AARON, I JUST WANTED TO ADD, AND DAVID, I'M SURE YOU WERE BROUGHT UP TO SPEED, BUT THE BOARD DID VOTE TO CLASSIFY THIS AS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER, WHICH IS APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE FACT THAT CONSTRUCTION OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES DO FALL UNDER THAT CATEGORY.
SO I WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF THAT.
AND THEY, WHEN YOU, AARON, YOU SAID THAT THEY VOTED, BUT THEY ALREADY VOTED EARLIER THIS EVENING.
DID IT BEFORE YOU SHOW THAT? GOT IT.
THAT I HAD NOT, SO I WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF THAT.
AND THEN I WAS ONLY GONNA ADD THAT I HAVE, UH, UH, AN EMAIL INTO OUR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND BUREAU OF ENGINEERING TO SEE IF THERE HAD BEEN ANY UPGRADES, MODIFICATIONS, ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO THE DRAINAGE IN THAT AREA OVER THE LAST, YOU KNOW, 10 OR 15 YEARS.
I'VE YET TO HEAR BACK, 'CAUSE ONE OF OUR FOLKS WAS OUT.
BUT I'M HAPPY TO REPORT TO THE BOARD WHEN AND IF I DO FIND OUT.
HOWEVER, MR. STEINS, I BELIEVE IS CORRECT.
AND THE FACT THAT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY IS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S LESS RUNOFF AFTER THE, AFTER CONSTRUCTION THAN THE EXISTING CONDITION NOT TO SOLVE SOME PROBLEM THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO, DO WITH THEM.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S NICE IF YOU, SOMETIMES THAT HAPPENS WHERE YOU CAN DO BOTH, BUT, UM, THAT'S NOT A RESPONSIBILITY.
CLEARLY THIS IS VERY UNUSUAL SITUATION.
AND, AND IT'S JUST, I IT HAPPENED BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PLANS TO BUILD.
I WAS ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME.
[01:25:01]
I SAW, I READ YOUR COMMENTS.YEAH, WELL, I WAS ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME.
THEY BUILT THE FARMHOUSE NEXT DOOR AS WELL.
WALTER PROCEEDED ME ON THE BOARD JUST FOR, AT THAT TIME, JUST, JUST SO YOU KNOW, THAT HE ACTUALLY BUILT THE FARMHOUSE.
UM, SO I, I DO REMEMBER THE REASON WAS BECAUSE THERE WERE NO PLANS TO BUILD IT, AND THEY ACTUALLY SOLD THE HOUSE AND KEPT THE PROPERTY.
THEY, THEY SOLD, THEY SOLD OFF THE FARM, THE OLD FARMHOUSE AND KEPT THE PROPERTY.
AND THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO SEE IT.
GENERALLY WHEN, AS YOU KNOW, WHEN WE DO SUBDIVISIONS, WE DO AT LEAST SEE A BUILDING ENVELOPE AND SOME IDEA OF WHAT WAS GONNA BE BUILT THERE.
AND THEY DIDN'T REALLY HAVE ONE AT THE TIME.
WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO NOW IS TURN IT OVER TO YOU GUYS TO SHOW US WHAT YOU WANT, BUILD WHAT YOU CAN.
UM, UM, YOU KNOW, I KNOW DAVID MENTIONED IT, UM, AND, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WAS PUT AS A CONDITION BECAUSE THERE WERE NO PLANS OR SCHEMATICS, WHATEVER.
BUT, UH, I DO QUESTION WHETHER THIS BOARD HAS ANY JURISDICTION OVER THIS APPLICATION.
UM, AND I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS COMING VOLUNTARILY.
WE'RE GONNA LOOK AT WHAT YOU'RE GONNA PRESENT, THAT'S FINE.
BUT I THINK, I THINK DAVID SHOULD BE ASKED TO GIVE AN OPINION AS TO WHETHER WE HAVE ANY JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROJECT, WHETHER WE CAN MAKE ANY BINDING SUGGESTIONS OR CERTAINLY AS WE ALL KNOW, NOT AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD.
AND I JUST, I JUST, I THINK DAVID SHOULD, YOU KNOW, BE RE THIS SHOULD BE REFERRED TO DAVID.
WELL, MR. FRIED'S NOT HERE TONIGHT.
BUT YOU KNOW, BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING, I GOT THAT RIGHT.
YEAH, WE MAY, WE MAY, WE ACTUALLY MAY, WE MAY CLOSE THIS BEFORE, BEFORE THAT.
IT WAS A CONDITION OF THE RATIONALE IS IT WAS A CONDITION OF VOLUNTARY CONDITION AGREED TO BY THE ATTORNEY AT THE TIME, UH, FROM THE APPLICANT, MR. SACHS, MAY HE REST IN PEACE, UM, WONDERFUL MAN.
UM, AND, UM, THAT HE AGREED TO AT, AT THE TIME, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE.
YOU'RE RIGHT THOUGH, TO UNDERSCORE THE FACT WE ARE NOT AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD.
AND WE WILL NOT LOOK AT IT THAT WAY.
WE JUST WANT TO SEE DOES IT REALLY FIT ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY CORRECTLY, LIKE THEY SAY IT DOES.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE COULD ASK THEM TO DO? AND, AND IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE SEE THAT MAY BE HELPFUL AND MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER? WHAT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO.
NOT NOT TO DICTATE, UM, THE COLOR OF THE BUILDING OR THE SIZE OF THE WINDOWS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO I'D REALLY LIKE TO GET TO THE PRESENTATION.
UH, SO I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU, MR. STEIN, AND, AND YOUR TEAM.
WE WE'RE, I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS AND MICHAEL, I APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR, YOUR JURISDICTIONAL COMMENTS.
BUT HAVING SAID THAT, WE'RE HERE, UH, WE DO WANT TO, MY CLIENT DOES WANT TO BE, UH, AS COOPERATIVE AS, AS, AS WE CAN BE.
SO I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER FOR A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION OF THE ENGINEERING AND DESIGN.
AND YOU CAN UNMUTE YOUR MIC AND WE'VE ALLOWED THE SHARE SCREEN.
DOES, UH, DOES EVERYBODY SEE THE SCREEN? YES.
SO, UH, MY NAME IS MIGUEL LA SOFIAS, UH, WITH HEARTLAND, UH, ENGINEERING THAT PREPARED THE SITE ENGINEERING PLANS FOR THE PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED, UH, ALONG ARMY ROAD.
UH, THE PROPOSED HOME IS LOCATED WITHIN THE R 7.5 ZONE AND CONSISTS OF A TWO STORY BUILDING WITH THREE BEDROOMS AND A WALKOUT BASEMENT.
THE HOME IS ACCESSED BY A SINGLE TO NORTHWEST WEST END OF THE SITE.
THE PROJECT, UH, AS JUST DISCUSSED, IS, UH, FULLY CONFORMING PER THE, UH, PER THE SCHEDULE OF ZONING REQUIREMENTS, UH, WHICH CAN BE FOUND ON THIS SHEET.
UM, OVER HERE WE HAVE THE, THE TABLE OF ALL OF THE, UH, THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS, AND WE LIST THEM, OF COURSE, AND, UH, NOTATE THAT, UH, THEY ARE CONFORMING.
UM, THE PROJECT ALSO CONSISTS OF TWO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS LOCATED IN THE FRONT YARD AND, UH, THE SIDE YARD, UH, WHICH WILL MANAGE ALL THE IMPERVIOUS, THE PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS COVERAGES, UH, IN RESULT OF, UH, THE NEW BUILDING AND, UH, DRIVEWAY, UH, THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS ALSO PROVIDING A SERIES OF, UH, SHADE AND SCREEN TREES, UH, ALONG THE NORTHWEST AND SOUTH LIMITS OF THE SITE.
UH, THAT IS ON THE PREVIOUS, UH, PREVIOUS DRAWING.
[01:30:01]
TREES ALONG THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE.UH, WE ALSO HAVE A SERIES OF SHADE TREES, UH, ALONG, UH, UH, OLD ARMY ROAD AND THE CENTER LIMIT LIMITS OF THE SITE.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE A SERIES OF BUSHES, UH, THAT, UH, ARE ADJACENT TO THE DRIVEWAY AND AT THE, UH, FRONT ELEVATION OF, UH, THE NEW HOME.
UM, IN ADDITION TO, UH, THESE, UH, PARAMETERS, UM, THIS SITE HAS ALSO BEEN REVIEWED, UH, FOR THE STEEP SLOPE ANALYSIS AND COUNTED FOR IN THE FLOOR AREA RATIO AS SHOWN HERE.
SO WE ARE CONFORMING WITH THAT AS WELL.
UH, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT, UH, THE SITE PLAN ITSELF.
UM, SO THE, THE SETBACK, THE, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT ON THE, UM, THE REQUIREMENTS, THE BUILDING ITSELF IS LOCATED WITHIN, UH, THE, UH, REAR SIDE AND FRONT YARD SETBACKS.
UM, AND THAT IS, UH, ANNOTATED BY THIS, UH, LINE OVER HERE, WHICH I CAN MAKE, I AM HIGHLIGHTING IT, UH, AS SUCH.
AGAIN, MOVING TO THE, THE NEXT SLIDE AGAIN, UH, JUST HIGHLIGHTING THAT, UH, ALL THE STORM WATER FROM THE BUILDING ITSELF, THE DRIVEWAY, UH, WILL BE CONVEYED TO A SERIES OF, UH, RETENTION SYSTEMS, UH, THAT ARE COLLECTED VIA, VIA A CATCH BASIN AND ROUTED AND PIPED FROM THE BUILDING THROUGH THE, UH, THE GUTTER SYSTEM DIRECTLY INTO THESE, UH, RETENTION SYSTEMS. UM, THE, THE NEXT SLIDE WE HAVE HERE, THE NEXT SHEET IS OUR SITE UTILITY PLAN, UH, WHICH JUST, UH, PROVIDES THE INFORMATION, UM, HOW THE, THE BUILDING WILL BE SERVICED, UH, VIA, VIA SANITARY SEWER AND THE, THE NEW WATER SERVICE.
UM, THAT IS, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY A, A QUICK, UH, SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS.
UM, ONE QUICK QUESTION ON THERE.
ANY QUESTION ON THE DRAINAGE, PLEASE.
LEMME KNOW ONE QUICK QUESTION ON THE DRAINAGE.
PRESENTLY, THERE IS NO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT FEATURE ON THE PROPERTY TODAY, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO ANY, ANY SHEET DRAINAGE FROM THIS PROPERTY IS, SOME OF IT CONCEIVABLY IS SHEET DRAINING ONTO OLD ARMY ROAD.
AND WE WILL BE, UM, TO ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, SORT OF THE, THE COMMENTS THAT WE GOT EARLIER, WE WILL BE ACTUALLY IMPROVING AN EXISTING CONDITION FROM OUR OWN PROPERTY.
WE HAVE A NATURAL SITE THAT OBVIOUSLY DRAINS WHERE IT DRAINS.
WE WILL, HOWEVER, BE CONTROLLING DRAINAGE FROM THIS PROPERTY AS A RESULT OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
WE WILL NOT BE ADVERSELY IMPACTING OUR, UH, OLD ARMY ROAD.
WE'RE HAPPY MR. CHAIRMAN, TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT, UM, THE, THE DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND, AND SO THAT YOU'RE ALL CLEAR, BUT AGAIN, JUST, JUST FOR GRINS, DO YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF A, ANY KIND OF A DESIGN FOR THE BUILDING YET? YES.
THAT WE COULD SEE? UM, I, THE ANSWER IS YES.
DO DO WE HAVE IT AVAILABLE TO DISPLAY ON SCREEN RIGHT NOW? VIGA? UH, WE DO HAVE IT.
UM, JUST THE ONE THING THAT WE JUST TO NOTE HERE IS THAT, UM, THIS, THIS, UH, THIS RENDERING HERE, WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY BUILDING IS, IS MIRRORED, UM, WHERE THAT'S FINE.
IT'S A FLIP SIDE, IT FLIP SIDE OF THIS ON THIS SIDE.
BUT THIS, THIS IS THE ARCHITECTURAL VERNACULAR AND THE KIND OF THE COLOR AND MATERIALS.
BUT THIS IS, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS WHAT THE CONCEPT IS.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? UH, MR. SCHMIDT, YOU YOUR HEAD UP FIRST? COULD YOU TAKE IT DOWN PLEASE? 'CAUSE I CAN'T SEE EVERYBODY WHEN THAT'S UP.
MR. UH, MR. SCHMIDT, THEN I SEE, I SEE MR. SIMON AND MR. HAY.
AND THEN I WAS ONLY GONNA INDICATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BOARD MEMBERS THAT THIS PROPOSAL AND THIS APPLICATION WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE VARIOUS ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, THE TOWN CODE.
SO WE DISCUSSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO BEFORE, FULLY BEFORE THE BUREAU OF ENGINEERING FOR AN APPROVAL OF A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONTROL PERMIT, WHICH AS DISCUSSED MUST MEET TOWN CODE AND INVOLVE NO NET INCREASE IN RUNOFF FROM THE SITE OVER PRESENT CONDITIONS.
SAME THING WITH THE TREE REMOVAL AND
[01:35:01]
LANDSCAPING.THE APPLICANT'S GONNA BE REQUIRED TO OBTAIN A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND COMPLY IN FULL WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN TREE ORDINANCE, UM, IN ADDITION TO ALL OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
SO I WANTED THE BOARD MEMBERS TO BE FULLY AWARE OF THAT.
UM, I'LL, AS YOU KNOW, UH, OUR CODE, UM, SPEAK TO A 25 YEAR STORM.
WHAT IS YOUR CAL TAX DESIGNED TO DO? THAT IS WHAT WE WE'RE, WHAT WE WILL BE, UM, SUBMITTING TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THAT THE STORMWATER, UM, MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WILL COMPLY WITH THE 25 YEAR, UM, STORM EVENT.
IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE YOU, WE ALL KNOW THAT, UH, BECAUSE OF, OF CLIMATE CHANGE, UH, UM, UH, THE, THESE STORM REQUIREMENTS ARE REALLY OUT OF DATE.
WE HAVE NOT UPDATED OUR CODE, SO YOU'LL FULLY MEETING THE CODE, BUT I WOULD ASK IF YOU'D BE WILLING TO TAKE A LOOK AND TO SEE IF IT CAN BE BUMPED UP TO THE 50 YEAR STORM LIMIT.
UH, THE OTHER POINT IS THAT I SEE YOU HAVE A 500 GALLON PROPANE TANK.
I GUESS THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A GAS LINE IN THAT, UH, IN THAT FACILITY.
CAN'T PUT NEW GAS IN IN, OKAY.
SO I NO RESIDENTIAL GAS ANYMORE.
AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, THE SAME WAY YOU HAVE DETAILS ABOUT THE, UH, THE STORM WATER, UH, THE CALTECH, I THINK IT'LL BE, I THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD IF YOU COULD PUT MORE DETAILS ABOUT THE PROPANE TANK AND SHOWING THAT IT'S MEETING ALL THE CODES AS A, JUST A, A DETAIL.
UM, THE OTHER POINT IS, UM, YOU HAVE A, I I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHERE THIS FENCE IS GOING.
AND YOU HAVE A, UH, ON THE LEFT ONE C 1 0 6 DASH ZERO ZERO, YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF A FENCE, BUT THAT'S ON A LEVEL, UH, UH, GROUND.
AND THEN YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF A FOUR FOOT RETAINING WALL.
SO IF YOU HAVE A FOUR FOOT DROP, THEN I WOULD THINK YOU WOULD NEED SOME SORT OF FENCE ON TOP OF THAT.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE FENCE AND THIS FOUR FOOT DROP.
AND IF IT IS A FOUR FOOT DROP, SHOULDN'T THERE BE A FENCE, UH, ACROSS IT? AARON, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT PARTICULAR POINT? YES, I DID.
SO IF IT'S GREATER THAN FOUR FEET, THE REQUIREMENT, UH, I'M SORRY IF IT'S FOUR FEET OR GREATER, THERE'S GONNA BE A REQUIREMENT THROUGH OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT THERE BE FENCING PLACED ON TOP.
SO IF THERE'S MORE THAN A FOUR FOOT DROP, UH, OKAY, THAT WILL BE COVERED.
IN ADDITION, THE UTILITIES WOULD BE COVERED THROUGH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S REVIEW.
IS THAT IT? MR. SIMON? THAT'S IT.
I THINK, UH, MR. HAY WAS NEXT.
AND THEN, THEN MONA, UH, I HAD JUST ONE QUESTION.
AND IN REGARDS THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL THAT'S OUTSIDE, UM, JUST SLIGHTLY SOUTH OF THE DRIVEWAY NOW.
I ONLY LOOKED AT IT ON A GOOGLE STREET VIEW.
I DIDN'T HAVE A CHANCE TO DRIVE OVER THERE, BUT FROM WHAT I CAN TELL, WHEN YOU'RE COMING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, THAT TRAFFIC SIGNAL IS, YOU KNOW, ON THE SAME SIDE OF THE STREET AS THE HOUSE, JUST A LITTLE BIT TO THE RIGHT.
IS THERE A WAY FOR SOMEONE COMING OUT OF THAT DRIVEWAY TO TELL WHAT THE LIGHT IS
I THINK IT'S ONLY GOING ON THE ANSWER.
AARON, DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? I BELIEVE THERE MAY HAVE BEEN, AND THERE STILL MAY BE, UH, A TRAFFIC RELATED LIGHT, BUT IT'S NOT A SIGNAL.
IT'S NOT A, YOU KNOW, STANDARD YELLOW, GREEN, RED.
IT MAY BE A, THOSE, IT'S A FLASHING RED OR SOMETHING.
I THINK IT'S A FLASHING TO ALERT THAT IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, A SCHOOL ZONE OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
WE CAN LOOK INTO IT TO SEE IT HAS ANY EFFECT, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY NOT A TYPICAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL, MR. HEAD.
YEAH, IT WASN'T AT AN INTERSECTION, SO IT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
IT IS ON THE PLAN AS A SIGNAL.
I THINK IT MAY BE A CROSSWALK TO SEAL IT TO SEAL PLACE, MONA.
ONE IS ON THAT TRANSCRIPT, THEY TALKED ABOUT A ROCK WALL, AND I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHERE THIS ROCK WALL IS OR
[01:40:01]
IF IT STILL EXISTS ANYWHERE.IS IT ON THAT PROPERTY OR THE NEXT DOOR PROPERTY? DOES ANYBODY KNOW? AARON? IT'S IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY ALONG THE FRONTAGE WITH OLD ARMY ROAD.
I BELIEVE IT DOES STILL EXIST.
IS IT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, AARON, OR IS IT ON MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY? UH, I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SURVEY.
IT'S, I DIDN'T SEE IT ON THE PLAN.
IT'S ON, IT'S ON, YEAH, I DON'T THINK IT'S THE PROPERTY MON.
I THINK IT MIGHT BE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? UH, IT, IT'S, IT'S LOCATED AT, IN THE, IN THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO ARE YOU KEEPING THAT ROCK, ROCK WALL OR YOU'RE DESTROYING THE ROCK? LIKE WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THIS ROCK WALL? UH, WE'RE, WE'RE MODIFYING IT IN ORDER TO INSTALL THE DRIVEWAY.
AND, AND THAT, THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS DISCUSSED, UH, IN THE TRANSCRIPT THAT THE REQUEST OR THE DISCUSSION AT THAT TIME WAS, COULD THE REMAINDER OF THE STONEWALL BE PRESERVED WHILE CUTTING OUT A PORTION OF IT TO ALLOW FOR THE DRIVEWAY ACCESS? OKAY.
SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT'S DOING IN THIS CASE.
AND THE SECOND ONE IS I'M GOING TO ASK IF YOU'RE GOING TO BE INSTALLING ANY, UM, ELECTRICAL OUTLETS FOR, UM, POTENTIAL, UM, ELECTRIC VEHICLES IN YOUR GARAGE? I DON'T THINK WE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT YET, AND I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT YOU DO THAT.
UH, DAVID, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
HI, MY NAME'S, MY NAME'S ANDREW BACKER.
I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER WITH WELCOME HOMES.
HI, UM, MONA, IN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, ALL THE HOMES ARE, ARE GONNA COME WITH A STANDARD, UH, ELECTRIC CHARGING UNIT FOR, UH, AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE.
SO YES, THAT WILL BE INCLUDED WITH THE HOME.
AND ARE YOU DOING ANYTHING ELSE FOR SOLAR? UM, CONSIDERATIONS HAVE BEEN MADE, BUT IT IS NOT PLANNED AT THIS TIME.
UM, CONSIDERATIONS ARE MADE FOR FUTURE INSTALL, BUT IT'S NOT PLANNED AT THIS TIME TO INSTALL SOLAR ON THE ROOF.
OR ANY GREEN ENERGY AT ALL FOR THIS PARTICULAR HOUSE.
WE'RE GONNA FULLY COMPLY WITH THE ENERGY CODE REQUIREMENTS.
THERE'S GONNA BE A, A COMPLETE RES CHECK THAT'S GONNA BE SUPPLIED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
SO WE'RE GONNA, UM, ABSOLUTELY MEET THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS THERE.
BUT, UM, UH, THAT, THAT'S THE BEST THAT I CAN, I CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION AT THIS POINT.
YEAH, I HAVE A, UH, COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
SO, IS THE HOUSE GOING TO BE LIKE A MODULAR HOUSE CONSTRUCTION, UH, MR. VACA? AND IF IT IS, UH, HOW THEY GOING TO STAGE IT TO BUILD IT AND HOW THEY GOING TO KIND OF, UH, BRING THIS MODULE AND, UH, CONSTRUCT IT ON, ON A SORT OF A NARROW, NARROW STREET? SURE.
UH, SO THAT'S ONE, ONE QUESTION.
UH, YOU CAN ANSWER IT, SAY IF IT'S A MODULE.
SO, UH, IN ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NO, THE HOUSE IS NOT PLANNED TO BE MODULAR CONSTRUCTION.
IT'S GONNA BE A STANDARD, UH, STICK-BUILT HOME, FULLY CONSTRUCTED ON SITE.
SO IT DOES NOT PLAN TO BE A MODULAR INSTALLATION.
THE SECOND QUESTION IS THAT YOU HAVE A DRIVEWAY THAT IS SHOWING ITS ASPHALT AND THE, UH, THE ENTRY TO THE HOUSE IS ALSO ASPHALT ON YOUR PLAN, UH, HAVE YOU CONSIDER, UH, PERMEABLE PAVERS SO THAT IT WOULD NOT, WOULD NOT HAVE A, UH, RUNOFF AND, UH, MAYBE ABLE TO, YOU CAN REDUCE THE SIZE OF, UH, UH, THE, UM, PREVIOUS TECH UNITS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING CRETE THAT, THAT WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT.
UH, UH, BUT I'M, YEAH, WHILE I'M, I, I KIND OF FEEL TOO, HANG ON, LEMME JUST FINISH MY ANSWER.
I, I, I WANT SO BADLY MR. CHAIRMAN TO BE AS COOPERATIVE AS POSSIBLE, BUT I JUST FEEL OBLIGATED TO MY CLIENT TO SIMPLY SAY THERE IS A REASON THAT THE D E C DETERMINED THAT THIS IS A TYPE TWO ACTION.
AND I HOPE
I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT THESE ARE JUST HELPFUL SUGGESTIONS AND NOT REQUIREMENTS.
I, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT.
YOU'RE NOT REQUIRED TO DO, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY NOT REQUIRED TO DO IT.
HOWEVER, WE HAVE HAD PEOPLE VERY SUCCESSFULLY, AS MR. DESAI SAID, PARTICULARLY NOW, THE TECHNOLOGY WASN'T THAT GREAT A FEW YEARS AGO, BUT NOW IT IS, THEY'RE ACTUALLY VERY ATTRACTIVE.
AND ALTHOUGH IT DOESN'T CHANGE YOUR, IT DOESN'T CHANGE YOUR PERMEABLE SURFACE CALCULATIONS 'CAUSE OUR, OUR CODE NEEDS TO BE UPDATED FOR CHANGE, BUT NEEDS TO BE UPDATED.
IT IS A WAY OF REDUCING RUNOFF.
[01:45:01]
THAT, UH, UH, HAVE YOU SORT OF THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, SO HOW DOES THAT HOUSE DESIGN OR THE RENDERING I SAW FITS INTO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? IT, IT'D BE GOOD, AND IF YOU DO HAVE THEM AVAILABLE, IT'D BE HELPFUL, BUT MS. CROSS PROVIDED PHOTOGRAPHS OF SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.THEY'RE IN THE APPLICA, THEY'RE IN THE APPLICATION, CORRECT? THEY'RE IN THE APPLICATION.
AND I CAN TELL YOU, AND FRANKLY, IT'S GETTING LATE AND I REALLY WANNA MOVE ON.
SO I CAN TELL YOU MY QUESTION.
I'M GONNA ANSWER CAN LET ME FINISH, I WILL ANSWER YOUR QUESTION BECAUSE I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT IS A MIXED BAG ON THAT STREET.
THE HOUSE ON ONE SIDE OF IT IS A SOLD FARMHOUSE.
THE HOUSE ON THE OTHER SIDE IS A 1960S COLONIAL.
NEXT TO THAT THERE'S A, I THINK A SPLIT LEVEL HOUSE.
THERE IS A RANCH HOUSE, A GRAY RANCH HOUSE, THEN THERE'S AN OLDER HOUSE, AND THEN THERE'S THIS AL ULTRA MODERN THING THAT LOOKS OUT OF, KIND OF LIKE OUT OF FRANK LLOYD, RIGHT? THAT'S DOWN THE HILL A LITTLE BIT.
FROM THAT ACROSS THE STREET, THERE WAS A HOUSE THAT WAS A FREE PREFAB HOUSE.
SO THERE AND THERE ARE TUTORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TOO? IT IS, IT IS AN ARCHITECTURAL MIX.
SO IT'S HARD TO SAY IF IT'S IN, IN CA WITH THE CHARACTER OF THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IS IT, IS AN ARCHITECTURAL MIX.
ANYTHING ELSE, MR. CHAIRMAN? UM, MR. SIMON, IS YOUR HAND UP FROM BEFORE? OH, YES.
UH, THAT, NO, YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
MR. MR. DEA, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD BEFORE WE MOVE ON? IF YOU DON'T, PLEASE TAKE YOUR HAND DOWN.
AND WHAT DO WE DO? WE WANT TO TAKE A VOTE.
JUST SAYING THAT WE, WE SAW THIS AND, AND ARE MO AND REFERRING IT TO THE APPROPRIATE, UH, TO THE APPRO APPROPRIATE, UH, DEPARTMENTS WITHIN THE TOWN.
THAT'S ENTIRELY UP TO THE BOARD.
I CAN TELL YOU THAT YOUR REQUIREMENTS, THE WAY THAT MYSELF AND MR. FRIED READ THE PRIOR DECISION WAS THAT YOU CONSIDER THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND THAT YOU MAKE A FOLLOW-UP SEEKER DETERMINATION, WHICH YOU'VE NOW DONE.
I THINK YOU MADE THAT ADDITIONAL, UH, FINDING THAT, UM, ANY ARTIFACTS BE SET ASIDE, UH, PHOTOGRAPHED AND TURNED OVER.
DOES THE BOARD FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO TAKE A VOTE ON THE, THIS JUST TO MEMORIALIZE IT OR CAN WE GO ON, ON THE MINUTES? MICHAEL'S CHECKING HIS HEAD.
EVERYBODY ELSE AGREEMENT? TOM'S SAYING NO, NO.
TO PUTTING ON THE MINUTES OR NO TO VOTING? NO TO VOTING.
MEANING, MEANING THE MINUTES WOULD BASICALLY THE MINUTES WILL BASICALLY CARRY THE MINUTES WILL CARRY THE DAY.
MINUTES AND, AND THE SECRET DETERMINATION.
AND THE PREVIOUS MOTION THAT WE, WE PASSED TO WHERE, WHERE THEY AGREED, WHERE THE APPLICANT AGREED TO, UH, COLLECT THE ARTIFACTS, THAT'S ALREADY PASSED.
SO WE'LL HAVE THAT ALL IN MINUTES AND WE'RE HAPPY TO SHARE THOSE ONCE ADOPTED BY THE BOARD WITH THE APPLICANT AND WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS.
SEEING HOW WE NOT TAKING A VOTE AND THE MINUTES, THE MINUTES IS SUFFICE.
UH, WE SHOULD MAKE IT, I LIKE TO MAKE IT CLEAR IN THE MINUTES THAT WE MADE SUGGESTIONS THAT YES, THAT THE, THAT THE APPLICANT IS MEETING ALL THE CODES, BUT WE MADE SUGGESTIONS AND, AND WHICH, YOU KNOW, THE COURSE FAVORS AND THE, AND THE, AND THE 50 YEAR STORM THAT THESE WERE SUGGESTIONS,
BUT IF WE SAY IF WE ARE PUTTING IT IN THE MINUTES, THEN WE SHOULD, YEAH.
SO YOU SHOULD LIST THE SUGGESTIONS IN THE MINUTES.
KURT, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP BRIEFLY OR SOMETHING? YEAH.
UM, MY ONLY SUGGESTION IS THAT SHOULDN'T WE WAIT FOR THE STAFF TO REVIEW AND REPORT THIS BACK? NO.
ABOUT WHAT? FOR WHATEVER THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY THAT WOULD BE CUSTOMARY FOR STAFF TO REVIEW THE ADMINISTRATIVE, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF ANY PROJECT.
UM, THEY'RE GONNA CARRY OUT THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF STAFF PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND THEN THROUGHOUT THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS, MAKING SURE THAT THE APPLICANT'S FULLY COMPLIANT.
SO I DON'T ANY REASON FOR THAT.
THIS IS REALLY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THIS IS UNUSUAL AND TRUTHFULLY AND GENERALLY IN THESE THINGS, EXCEPT FOR THE, THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT AGREED TO THIS 15 YEARS AGO.
THIS WOULD'VE JUST BEEN IN THE PURVIEW OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND NOBODY ELSE AT THIS POINT.
[01:50:01]
WAS IN THERE.SO, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE NOT GONNA TAKE A VOTE.
WE DID THE TYPE TWO, MR. SCHMIDT AND I THIS'S GOTTA BE THE LAST QUESTION.
I WOULD JUST SAY THAT, AS YOU'VE SAID SO MANY TIMES, MR. BRITTON DOES A GREAT JOB ON THE MINUTES.
SO I'M CONFIDENT HE'LL CAPTURE EVERYTHING AS REQUESTED BY THE BOARD AND AS DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT.
HAVE A GREAT EVENING EVERYONE, AND THANK YOU DAVID.
AND MY APOLOGIES TO MY FRIEND MS. GARRIS.
SHE'LL, SHE'LL TAKE SHE, THANK YOU.
STILL HAS A PLENTY OF TIME TO GET THROUGH OUR NEXT PROJECT, SO IT'S OKAY.
JANET, WE HAVE ONE OTHER THING I WANNA DO VERY QUICKLY BEFORE GOODNIGHT EVERYBODY.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO, TO JUST QUICKLY, IT'LL TAKE ONLY A COUPLE MINUTES.
THE LAST THING IN CORRESPONDENCE, WE WAITED, UH, FOR LESLIE TO COME BACK.
UM, LESLIE, OUR, OUR ALTERNATE AND OUR NEWEST MEMBER, UH, I BELIEVE DID A FANTASTIC JOB IN WRITING UP A PROPOSAL, UH, FOR, UH, AN ALTERNATE E ENERGY COM COMMITTEE.
AND I WANNA TELL YOU HONESTLY THAT I HAD ALMOST NOTHING TO DO WITH THAT.
SO IT WAS LESLIE WHO WROTE IT, NOT ME, NOBODY ELSE.
AND IT WAS A VERY, VERY WELL DONE AND IMPRESSIVE DOCUMENT.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT DOCUMENT TONIGHT TO SEND IT TO THE TOWN BOARD AS A RECOMMEND IN THE FORM OF A RECOMMENDATION.
UM, LESLIE, DO YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE ON THAT? NO, BUT I, WELL BASICALLY JUST THANK YOU FOR THE INPUT THAT EVERYONE GAVE BECAUSE IT, IT MADE IT MORE, UH, SPECIFIC TO WHAT WE NEED AND SO THAT WE, I WASN'T ASKING FOR THINGS THAT WOULD NOT WORK.
SO I LIKE THE WISDOM THAT WAS GIVEN TO ME.
CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO, TO, UH, SEND, UH, THE LETTER ON RECOMMENDING A, UH, ALTERNATE A, A GREEN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GONNA CALL THIS.
A GREEN ENERGY, UH, COMMITTEE PROPOSAL TO THE TOWN BOARD.
CAN I HAVE THAT MOTION PLEASE? SO MOVE SUSTAINABLE A SECOND.
WHAT DID YOU CALL IT? JOHAN? SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY.
MR. SNAGS, YOU, YOU HAVE WAY, WAY WITH WORDS, SIR.
I WAS OVERDUE, SO I'M TOLD YOU HAVE A WAY WITH WORDS.
WE'RE HAPPY TO GET THAT ONTO, UH, YOU KNOW, TOWN LETTERHEAD AND OFF TO THE TOWN JUST LIKE WE DID THE OTHER, JUST LIKE WE DID THE OTHER ONE AND WE HAVE NO, NO IDEA WHEN THEY, IF THEY, WHAT THEY'RE DOING WITH THE OTHER ONE YET.
I'LL HAVE TO FOLLOW UP WITH MR. FINER AND, AND THE TOWN BOARD.
WELL, HOPEFULLY IT'LL TAKE LESS TIME THAN THE SIGN.
OUR SIGN RECOMMENDATION DID THAT TOOK SEVEN YEARS.
SO HOPEFULLY THIS ONE
AND IT'S A PERFECT SEGUE ACTUALLY TO MS. GARRIS BECAUSE SHE'S GONNA BRING US INTO THE LAND OF, UH, SUSTAINABLE ENERGY.
THAT'S WHERE, WHERE SHE IS BRINGING US TONIGHT.
SO WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO GO TO OUR LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PROJECT OF THE EVENING, WHICH IS PV 2024, WHICH IS BLOOM ENERGY 1 51 FULTON STREET, WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK.
THERE ARE SEVERAL THINGS WE NEED TO DO TONIGHT ON THIS PROJECT.
AND, UM, MS. GARRIS, UH, AS YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY THIS PROJECT W THEY WERE NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNCIL.
MS. GARRIS FIRM, UH, HAS BEEN RETAINED, UH, AND THEIR EXPERTISE HAS BEEN EXTREMELY HELPFUL IN TR AND MOVING THE BALL AHEAD HERE, I BELIEVE.
AND, UH, WE HAVE ALSO RETAINED A CONSULTANT WHO THE APPLICANT'S BEEN WORKING WITH FOR THE LAST FEW WEEKS, AND I BELIEVE OUR CONSULTANT IS HERE.
UH, MR. KIN, I SEE YOU IS HERE AS WELL, AND WE'RE GONNA GET INTO THAT.
WE DO HAVE SOME SEEKER THAT WE NEED TO DO ON THIS, AND I'D LIKE TO GET THE SEEKER OUT OF THE WAY.
MS. GUAS, I KNOW YOU'VE GOT A POINT OF VIEW ON THAT, SO I'M GONNA LET YOU MAKE YOUR POINT OF VIEW FIRST AND THEN, THEN I, I'LL DISCUSS HOW, HOW I'D LIKE TO HANDLE THAT.
I WASN'T SURE IF, UH, YOUR DEPUTY COMMISSIONER WANTED TO START OR YOU WANTED ME TO START.
UM, SO THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME THIS EVENING.
AS YOU MENTIONED, WE WERE RECENTLY RETAINED BY BLOOM ENERGY CORPORATION IN CONNECTION WITH THEIR APPLICATION THAT'S CURRENTLY BEFORE YOU.
UH, THIS IS RELATED TO THE PROPERTY AT 1 51 FULTON, UH, STREET, WHICH IS ACTUALLY, UH, TOWN OF GREENBURG, BUT WHITE PLAINS PO.
UH, AND AS YOU KNOW, UH, THEY'RE LOOKING TO PERMIT THE CONSTRUCTION OF
[01:55:01]
SIX ENERGY FUEL CELLS AT THE LTSS DATA CENTER THAT IS THERE.AND THAT WOULD PROVIDE THEM, UH, YOU KNOW, AN ALTERNATIVE, UH, TO, UM, TO THEIR, UH, ELECTRICITY THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY DRAWING FROM, FROM THE CONED GRID.
UM, AS YOU MENTIONED, UM, WE WERE RECENTLY RETAINED.
WE HAVE REVIEWED ALL OF THE DIFFERENT APPLICATION MATERIALS THAT HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU BY THE APPLICANT AND ALSO THE MATERIALS THAT, UH, THEY RECEIVED FROM THE TOWN, UH, FROM THE C A C AND THE COMMENTS THAT THEY RECEIVED FROM THIS BOARD PREVIOUSLY.
WE DID PROVIDE YOU WITH A REVISED, UH, SUBMISSION, UH, UH, AT THE BEGINNING OF APRIL.
UM, AND I KNOW THAT IN CONNECTION WITH, UH, THAT WE WERE ASKED TO ALSO PROVIDE YOU WITH A LONG FORM E A F.
I THINK THAT WHEN THIS, UH, APPLICATION WAS FILED, UM, IT WAS, UH, EVERYBODY THOUGHT OF THIS AS A TYPE TWO ACTION, OR I DON'T KNOW ABOUT EVERYBODY, BUT, UH, CERTAINLY THE APPLICANT, CERTAINLY THE APPLICANT THOUGHT OF IT AS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER CCRA.
UH, I DO THINK THAT IT CAN BE CLASSIFIED AS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER CCRA.
IT IS AN ACCESSORY USE THAT IS LESS THAN 4,000 SQUARE FEET AND IT DOES FALL INTO THAT CATEGORY.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT THE BOARD DOES HAVE, UH, A DIFFERENT OPINION REGARDING THAT AND, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, IF, IF IT WERE A TYPE TWO ACTION, WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT AN E A F, BUT WE DID PROVIDE YOU, UM, A LONG FORM E A F AS REQUESTED.
UH, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE BOARD MAKING A DETERMINATION HERE.
IF YOU DON'T CONCUR WITH MY INTERPRETATION, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION OF THIS, UH, APPLICATION AS AN UNLISTED ACTION.
UH, IF YOU DO CLASSIFY IT AS AN UNLISTED ACTION, I WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT WE DO NOT DO COORDINATED REVIEW, UH, AS PART OF THIS.
IT'S, UH, IT'S REALLY A MINOR APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO THE ACCESSORY USE.
UM, IT'S, IT'S A MATTER THAT, UH, EACH OF THE INVOLVED AGENCIES CAN REVIEW AND CONDUCT THEIR OWN SECRET PROCESS.
AND WE ARE COMFORTABLE THAT, UH, THERE WILL BE, UH, NO OTHER INVOLVED AGENCY WHICH WOULD HAVE, UM, WHICH WOULD, UH, UM, CLASSIFY THIS AS A TYPE ONE ACTION.
SO WE ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT UNCOORDINATED REVIEW AND HAVING EACH AGENCY I'M LISTED ACTION, MS. MS. GI NOT TYPE ONE.
I LISTED MY, MY MY POINT IS THAT IF EVERYBODY DOES THEIR OWN, SO THE RISK IN DOING UNCOORDINATED REVIEW IS THAT YOU WILL GET THROUGH A PROCESS, SOMEBODY WILL DO AN UNCOORDINATED REVIEW, AND THEN YOU'RE ALSO SUBJECT TO EVERY OTHER INVOLVED AGENCY MAKING THEIR OWN DETERMINATION UNDER SECRA.
MY POINT IS THAT I AM COMFORTABLE WITH THIS BOARD MAKING ITS OWN DETERMINATION.
I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE ZONING BOARD MAKING OKAY.
SO WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH DOING UNCOORDINATED REVIEW.
SO I'M NOT SURE IF YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE GET INTO THE REST OF THE APPLICATION.
UM, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO, 'CAUSE I THINK THERE IS THREE THINGS.
THERE ARE THREE THINGS WE NEED TO DO OR A COUPLE THINGS WE NEED TO DO.
I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST GET OUR, THE NOT, I, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA MAKE A, WE'RE NOT GONNA MAKE A DECISION ON SEEKER TONIGHT, THE, A FINAL DECISION IN TERMS OF DECLARATION, BUT I THINK WE CAN MAKE A DECISION ON LEAD AGENCY TONIGHT.
UM, WE ALSO, UM, THIS, THIS OBVIOUSLY NEEDS TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD, SO HOPEFULLY AFTER TONIGHT WE WILL BE IN A POSITION TO MAKE A RE POTENTIALLY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD, UH, ON THIS PROJECT AS WELL.
THOSE ARE THE TWO THINGS I'D LIKE TO ACCOMPLISH FROM OUR SIDE TONIGHT AFTER YOUR PRESENTATION, AND THIS IS THE THIRD THING, WHICH IS HEAR FROM MR. LARKIN, HEAR YOUR RESPONSES TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS.
MR. LARKIN SAYS, I APOLOGIZE TO SOME EXTENT ON THIS MS. GARRIS, BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED PROJECT FOR US.
WE'VE NEVER SEEN THIS TECHNOLOGY BEFORE, OKAY.
AND, UM, SO WE'VE, WE'RE, WE'VE BEEN LEARNING ON THE FLY.
OKAY? UM, I COMPLETELY DISAGREE THAT THIS IS A TYPE TWO FOR US FOR SURE.
THE REASON IS, UH, IN THE CODE, AND I THINK YOU HAVE THAT CODE, UH, MR. SCHMIDT, I THINK UP, UM, AND HE CAN CITE IT, WHICH TALKS ABOUT IF, IF IT, IF A PROJECT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT IN ALL SORTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL WAYS, A RESIDENTIAL AREA, THEN IT IS UNLISTED ACTION BY DEFINITION UNDER OUR CODE.
UM, AND THIS BORDERS ON A, ON A RESIDENTIAL AREA, UM, MR. SCHMIDT, YOU HAVE THAT, THAT COURT, THAT SITE, I, I WILL PULL THAT UP.
I KNOW IT'S IN OUR SITE PLAN REGULATIONS, SUBSECTION
[02:00:01]
K, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO TAKE EVEN A HARDER LOOK WHEN A USE OF BUTS, A RESIDENTIAL AREA.UM, AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THIS BOARD REQUESTED THAT THE LONG FORM E A F BE PROVIDED.
UH, OBVIOUSLY WE'VE HEARD FROM MS. SCARIOUS THAT SHE DOESN'T OBJECT TO THE PLANNING BOARD, CLASSIFYING THE ACTION AS AN UNLISTED ACTION.
THAT WOULD BE, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF THAT YOU MOVE FORWARD WITH A CLASSIFICATION AND THAT, AS YOU MENTIONED, CHAIRPERSON SHORT, THAT YOU'LL HOLD OFF ON ACTUALLY CONDUCTING OR, UH, CONTEMPLATING WHETHER YOU GO WITH A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR SOMETHING ELSE FOR A FUTURE DATE.
RIGHT? SO IT'S JUST SIMPLY CLASSIFYING THE ACTION THIS EVENING.
WE WOULD, IF YOU WANT ME TO QUOTE THE CODE, I'M HAPPY TO, I WILL PULL IT UP.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S NECESSARY.
IS IT, WOULD YOU LIKE THAT, MS. GARRIS, FOR THE RECORD? NOT NE IT'S NOT NECESSARY.
I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT PLACED IN THE MINUTES, HOWEVER THAT, THAT, THAT PARTICULAR PIECE OF CODE OKAY.
UNLESS THERE'S AN OBJECTION TO THAT.
MATT, PLACE THE CODE AS AN EXHIBIT TO THE MINUTES.
THE OTHER THING IS, WE, WE WOULDN'T HAVE HIRED MR. LARKIN IF WE DIDN'T HAVE AN, AN UN UH, SOME CON QUESTIONS, NOT NECESSARILY CONCERNS, QUESTIONS ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF, OF THIS PARTICULAR FACILITY.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE REASON IT WAS.
NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THE SECOND PART OF, OF WHAT YOU SAID, WHICH IS HOW DO, HOW DO WE TREAT THIS IN TERMS OF IT COORDINATED AND UNCOORDINATED? UM, I, I HEAR YOUR ARGUMENT ON WHY IT WOULD, SHOULD BE A TYPE TWO IN TERMS OF THE PLACEMENT OF, OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, THE VARIANCE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
AGAIN, I, I'M NOT GONNA OPINE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, WHETHER I AGREE OF DISAGREE WITH YOUR OPINION, FRANKLY, I THINK THAT'S UP TO THE ZONING BOARD TO DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT THEY THINK THE ENVIRONMENTAL, THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE IS SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT TO TAKE UP.
SO I, IT'S REALLY UP TO, TO THE ZONING BOARD TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
AND, AND SO I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO THEM AND NOT MAKE ANY RECORD OF OURS AS TO WHICH WAY THEY SHOULD GO ON THAT.
JUST THAT FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, FROM A SITE PLAN PER PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, IT, IT IS, UH, I'D LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO MAKE THIS AN UNLISTED ACTION.
CAN I HAVE A SECOND PLEASE? SECOND MR. HAYES.
ALL OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? NO.
I ALSO AGREE WITH MS. GARRIS BECAUSE THERE MAY BE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, UM, THE PLACEMENT OF IT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE THAT YOU MAY BE ABLE TO BIFURCATE THAT.
AND, AND I DO THINK IT'S A ZONING BOARD ISSUE.
I I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO MAKE THIS AN UNCOORDINATED REVIEW.
DO I HAVE THAT MOTION? SO MOVED.
SO WE KIND OF SPLIT THE BABY THERE, THERE, MS. GARRIS, IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'RE DOING, WE'LL JUST LET, WE'LL LET THEM DO THAT.
BUT DO YOU KNOW, ARE YOU ON THE CALENDAR, UH, WITH THE ZONING BOARD? SO, YES, WE'VE, UH, SINCE WE WERE, UM, RETAINED, WE HAD TO ADJOURN IT FOR THE MONTH OF APRIL.
UH, SO I THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY, WE HAD TO, TO ADJOURN IT IN MARCH AND APRIL.
UH, SO WE'RE CURRENTLY SCHEDULED ON THE MAY AGENDA.
WHAT WE ARE HOPING FOR THIS EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, IS IN ORDER FOR US TO BE ABLE TO GO FORWARD WITH THE APPLICATION, WITH THE ZONING BOARD, UH, WE NEED YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THE APPLICATION ITSELF.
AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE STILL TALKING ABOUT THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION AND THIS PARTICULAR USE, BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD ON THE VARIANCE, WHICH IS SIMPLY A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR AN ACCESSORY USE.
AND, AND, AND SO WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT YOU ARE ABLE TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THEM THIS EVENING TO ALLOW US TO GO FORWARD WITH THEM, UH, THIS MONTH.
I, AND, AND I, I'M, I'M BELIEVING WE WILL BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING THAT'S THE GOAL BEFORE, BEFORE 10 O'CLOCK TONIGHT TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
SO, UH, IF, BUT IF IT'S ONE PAST 10, WALTER, TAKE WAL WALTER SHUTS OFF MY COMPUTER, SO HE ACTUALLY COMES OVER, PULLS UP MY PLUG.
UM, I GOTTA GET TO STOP AND SHOP BY THEN FOR THE COOL CUTS FOR LUNCH TOMORROW, SO, OKAY.
THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NOT, THERE'S ALWAYS SUBWAY, GARRIS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ALWAYS SUBWAY.
UH, I THINK THE NEXT THING I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM ON THIS IS, UH, MR. LARKIN,
[02:05:01]
IN TERMS OF WHERE YOU ARE WITH THIS, THIS, I WANT A STATUS REPORT FROM BOTH SIDES.OKAY? I WANNA KNOW, FIRST OF ALL, MR. LARKIN, WHERE YOU ARE AND, AND WHAT YOU'VE SEEN.
BECAUSE AGAIN, WE'RE WHERE, WHERE ROOKIES IN, IN THIS REGARD.
SO WE'RE LOOKING FOR YOUR EXPERTISE, AND THEN I WANNA HEAR FROM MS. GARRIS AS TO WHERE THEY ARE RELATIVE TO WHAT YOU WROTE.
THAT'S THE WAY I'D LIKE TO HANDLE IT.
I'M A REGIONAL MANAGER OF BUILDINGS ENGINEERING FOR LABELLA ASSOCIATES.
WE WERE RETAINED BY, UM, THIS BODY TO PERFORM A TECHNICAL REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION.
FIRST SUBMISSION WE RECEIVED WAS AN APRIL 13TH, UM, CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE APPLICANT.
THIS CORRESPONDENCE WAS A RESPONSE TO PREVIOUS COMMENTS ISSUED BY THIS BODY.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT'S WHERE OUR REVIEW STARTED.
SO JUST AS A, AS A, AS A BASELINE FROM AN OVERALL, UM, STANDPOINT, THE APPLICATION WAS FOUND TO BE THOROUGH, UM, AND COMPLETE.
WE ISSUED OUR REVIEW LETTER TO YOU DATED APRIL 26TH, 2022.
SO I KNOW IT'S, IT'S, IT'S FRESH.
I'M SURE THE APPLICANT HAS RECEIVED IT, BUT HASN'T HAD A LOT OF TIME TO DIGEST IT.
UM, I'M, I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH ALL THE COMMENTS BECAUSE OF THE, UM, UH, BEAR WITH ME FOR ONE MOMENT HERE.
OF THE 22 COMMENTS THAT WERE ISSUED, UM, YOU KNOW, MANY WERE, WERE MINOR IN NATURE AND, AND CLARIFICATION THAT I'LL LET THE APPLICANT RESPOND TO.
I WILL, FROM A HIGH LEVEL TALK ABOUT, UM, AS I, AS I CATEGORIZE IN THREE MAIN COMPONENTS.
AND, AND BEFORE I DO, SO, I, I DO WANT TO BACK UP AND SAY THAT OUR, OUR TEAM REVIEWED THIS APPLICATION.
THIS IS A, A NEW TECHNOLOGY, UM, NOT, NOT, NOT EXTREMELY NEW, BUT A, A, A MORE MODERN TECHNOLOGY.
UM, WE HAD AN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENIST FOCUSED ON NOISE AND AIR EMISSIONS.
WE HAD A SPECIALIST IN FIRE SAFETY, WHICH FOCUSED ON THE, THE BUILDING FIRE CODE AND FIRE SAFETY ASPECTS OF ASPECTS OF IT, AS WELL AS ENGINEERING.
SO, UM, MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS ON MY TEAM PARTICIPATE IN REVIEW.
UM, SO I'LL TRY TO BE, UM, AS HELPFUL TONIGHT IN ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS OR ELABORATING ON THEIR COMMENTS AS I CAN BE.
UM, OF THE THREE ITEMS I WANNA HIGHLIGHT BEFORE I TURN IT OVER, UM, TURN IT BACK OVER TO YOU AND OR THE APPLICANT.
UM, AIR QUALITY, AIR EMISSIONS.
UM, OUR ASSESSMENT IS THAT FROM A, FROM A, UM, MACRO VIEW, FROM A, FROM A 30,000 FOOT VIEW, THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY TOOK A CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TO THIS PROJECT.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT EMISSIONS, UM, PRODUCED ON A HOLISTIC SCALE, UM, THERE'S ACTUALLY FURTHER, UM, I'LL CALL IT, UM, A MORE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH TAKEN IN THAT IT DOESN'T CONSIDER THE EMISSIONS CAUSED BY STANDARD MORE MODERN ENERGY PRODUCTION PRACTICES.
SO WE TAKE NO EXCEPTION TO THE APPROACH THEY TOOK ON A MORE MICRO SCALE.
UM, THE APPLICANT, I'M SURE HAS SEEN THE COMMENTS THAT, UM, GO INTO DETAIL ABOUT DISPERSION MODELING.
SO THE, THESE UNITS DO CREATE, UM, REGULATED EMISSIONS, UM, AT LOW VOLUMES.
AND WHILE WE DON'T HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, ANY MAJOR CONCERNS ABOUT THE DISPERSION, WE HAVE REQUESTED THAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL MODELING ON HOW THAT DISPERSION WOULD TAKE GREAT PLACE PRIOR TO THE EMISSIONS REACHING A PROPERTY BOUNDARY OR A LOCATION WHERE A PEDESTRIAN COULD BE.
SO WE ASKED FOR ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATIONS THERE.
UM, THE SECOND ITEM THAT WAS, UM, I WANT TO KNOW OUR VISUAL IMPACTS.
THERE IS A SCREENING COMPONENT TO THESE FROM A NOISE POLLUTION STANDPOINT.
UM, YOU KNOW, FROM OUR TECHNICAL REVIEW, THE PRODUCT SEEMS TO BE ADEQUATE AND APPROPRIATE TO MITIGATE THE NOISE CONCERNS.
HOWEVER, THERE WASN'T A LOT OF DETAIL ON WHAT THAT PRODUCT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
THERE'S SOME, THERE'S SOME OPTIONS, UM, IN THE LITERATURE PROVIDED.
SO WE HAD JUST ASKED THAT THE APPLICANT COULD PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON THAT PRODUCT AND ALSO PROVIDE SOME RENDERINGS BECAUSE IT WILL HAVE A, UM, YOU KNOW, A MAJOR VISUAL IMPACT AS THIS IS, UM, PREVIOUSLY NOTED WILL BE A, A SIDE YARD, UM, ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
AND THEN THE, THE LAST ITEM THAT WE NOTED, UH, OR THAT I WILL NOTE, I SHOULD SAY, IS DEALING WITH THE HAZARDOUS WASTE COMPONENT OF THIS.
UM, THERE'S A WATER SUPPLY TO THESE UNITS, ALTHOUGH FROM OUR, UM, REVIEW WATER IS NOT REGULARLY USED.
SO WE ASK THEM TO CLARIFY THE USE OF THE WATER AND IF, AND HOW THAT CONTRIBUTES TO WASTE GENERATION.
AND THEN, UM, TO ELABORATE ON HOW THE WASTE IS HANDLED AND DISPOSED OF, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE ARE QUANTITY LIMITS FOR HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
WE ARE WELL BELOW THOSE, BUT WE WERE LOOKING FOR THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAIL ON THE PROCESS AND, UM, PROCEDURES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT WASTE REMOVAL AND HANDLING.
SO THOSE ARE THE THREE, UM, LARGE AREAS I, I WANT TO NOTE.
AND OTHER THAN THAT, I'M HAPPY TO, UM, YOU KNOW, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE OR PROVIDE CLARIFICATION TO THE APPLICANT.
MR. LOCKIN, BEFORE WE GO, GO TO YOU, MS. GARRIS AND YOUR TEAM, UH, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU, MR. LOCKIN, RIGHT NOW.
[02:10:01]
THINK WE'LL COME BACK AND ASK QUESTIONS TO BOTH SIDES, BUT I, I WANTED TO CLARIFY SOMETHING.I HADN'T EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT THIS TILL YOU MENTIONED IT, WHICH IS PEDESTRIANS, UM, BECAUSE ONE OF THE THINGS HERE CLEARLY IS THAT, THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE, UM, PLANNING TO PUT THIS, UH, THEIR PROPOSAL IS TO PUT THIS REALLY ALMOST UP AGAINST THE SIDEWALK, YOU KNOW, PRETTY CLOSE TO THE SIDEWALK, RIGHT? SO I, I GUESS WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE, HOW THIS STUFF DISSIPATES TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER IT HAS AN IMPACT ON OTHER PEDESTRIANS, CORRECT? YEAH.
SO WE REFERENCED SOME MODELING THAT CAN BE DONE BY THE APPLICANT TO CLEARLY SHOW THAT THAT'S NOT A CONCERN.
THAT, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO KNOW, BECAUSE IT MAY BE YOU HAVE TO MOVE IT ANOTHER FIVE FEET IN, IN, WE DON'T KNOW THAT UNTIL WE SEE, SEE THAT THOSE KIND, THOSE THAT KIND OF, THAT KIND OF INFORMATION CORRECT.
THERE, THERE'S MULTIPLE VARIABLES, UM, BASED ON WHERE THE EMISSIONS ARE GENERATED, THE HEIGHT OUT WITH THEIR RELEASE.
SO WHEN THEY MODEL THE DISPERSION, THEY CAN, THERE'S MORE THAN JUST MOVING THE LOCATION THAT THEY CAN LEVERAGE TO MAKE THIS A, A SAFE CLIENT INSTALLATION.
AND WHAT ABOUT HEAT RELEASE? IS THAT AN ISSUE? 'CAUSE I THINK THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF HEAT THAT COMES OUT OF THAT STACK.
IS THAT AN ISSUE IN ANY WAY THAT WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT? UH, HEAT POLLUTION WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT WE HAD FLAGGED.
UM, IT'S, UM, NO, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, NO, WE DID NOT IDENTIFY THAT AS A CONCERN.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MS. GARRIS.
UM, DO YOU WANNA RESPOND TO WHERE YOU AND THE APPLICANT ARE RELATIVE TO WHERE THE CONSULTANTS MR. LARKIN'S COMMENTS ARE? AND THEN I WANT THE BOARD QUESTION.
THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND I, I, I FAILED TO INTRODUCE OUR TEAM THIS EVENING WHEN I STARTED, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT.
AS I MENTIONED, I WAS EXPECTING THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO START, SO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF CAUGHT ME A LITTLE OFF.
I SCREWED UP IT, I TOOK THE BLAME, BLEW OFF MY BEAT.
UM, BUT, UH, JOINING ME THIS EVENING, JAMES MATTHEWS, KRISTIN GUILLO, BRIAN NUNAN, ALL FROM BLOOM ENERGY.
UM, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT, AND YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I, I WASN'T INVOLVED AT THE BEGINNING, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I WANT THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A GREEN ENERGY COMPANY.
UM, SO I, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW THAT YOU HAVE CONCERNS AND I, I KNOW THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE BOTH HAVE CONSULTANTS WHO, UH, WILL TRY TO PUT YOUR CONCERNS TO REST.
UM, UH, ALSO JOINING US THIS EVENING ARE OUR CONSULTANTS FROM, UH, RAMBLE U S A CONSULTING, US CONSULTING, STEVEN BRANHOFF, TED BOWIE.
THEY'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH THE, UH, MATERIALS THAT THEY SUBMITTED TO YOU AND TRY TO EXPLAIN ALL OF THIS.
UM, I THINK THAT IN TERMS OF THE LOCATION OF, UH, THE ENERGY SERVERS, THEY'RE BEING LOCATED ON THE SITE IN THE MOST IDEAL LOCATION BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO THE EXISTING UTILITIES THAT ARE AVAILABLE TO THE SITE.
AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE BEING PROPOSED WHERE THEY ARE.
UM, AND THIS WILL ALSO RESULT IN THE LEAST AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE TO THE SITE.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I JUST WANT YOU TO KEEP IN MIND.
UM, BUT, UH, WITHOUT SPENDING MORE TIME THAN I NEED TO TO DISCUSS THIS AND LET'S LET THE EXPERTS, UH, GET TO IT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF, UH, JAMES, IF YOU HAD ANYTHING TO ADD, UH, BUT IF, IF NOT, WE CAN, OR KRISTEN, WE CAN GO RIGHT ON TO, TO STEVEN AND, UH, AND HAVE HIM GO THROUGH THE MATERIALS THAT WE SUBMITTED AND RESPONSES TO MR. LARKIN'S COMMENTS.
KRISTEN, YOU WANT TO GIVE A OVERVIEW? JUST, UH, WELL, AS, UM, UH, THE, UH, LABEL BELLA REPRESENTATIVE MENTIONED, UH, THERE WERE THREE MAIN TOP CONCERNS IN HIS REPORT, WHICH WAS THE AIR QUALITY AND EMISSIONS.
UM, STEVEN AND TED COULD, YOU KNOW, UH, OBVIOUSLY EVALUATE ON THAT.
UM, BUT FROM, UH, BLOOM, THE OTHER ONE WAS SCREENING.
UH, WE DO HAVE, UH, WE, WE DID START PREPARING A, A, A LOT OF RESPONSES TO LABEL'S, UM, UH, COMMENTS.
UH, THERE'S JUST SOME, AS FAR AS THE MODELING THAT THEY HAVE REQUESTED, WE, UM, IT, IT'S STILL A LITTLE BIT INCOMPLETE, SO WE'RE WORKING ON THAT.
UM, BUT WE DO HAVE SOME RESPONSES AS FAR AS, UM, THE SCREENING AND THE, THE CONCERN OF THE, THE WATER DISCHARGE.
UM, IF THE BOARD DOESN'T MIND, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO SHARE MY SCREEN TO SHOW THAT SCREEN SCREEN RIGHT AHEAD.
I FEEL LIKE THIS WILL GIVE EVERYBODY AN IDEA.
THE LOCATION, UM, SORRY, I'M JUST PULLING UP.
IT'S, UH, THERE'S TWO RENDERINGS ACTUALLY, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I HAVE BOTH AVAILABLE.
UM, CAN EVERYBODY SEE MY SCREEN? YEP.
SO, UH, THIS IS, UM, THE FULTON STREET
[02:15:01]
SIDE VIEW OF, UH, WHERE THE SYSTEMS ARE GONNA BE PLACED IN THE, UM, PROPOSED SCREENING.UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DOWNWARD VIEW FROM THE STREET LEVEL.
UM, IF I ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT, YOU COULD SEE THE RENDERING OF, UH, WHERE THE SYSTEMS WILL BE, AS WELL AS THE SCREENING THAT'S GOING TO BE PLACED AROUND THE SYSTEMS. UM, SO RIGHT NOW THIS IS JUST THE RENDERING IS SHOWING THE PRIVACY SLATS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO PUT AROUND THE SYSTEMS, BUT IT DOES NOT SHOW, UM, THERE IS SOME ADDITIONAL NOISE MITIGATION PER THE REPORT.
UM, UH, I BELIEVE LAA HAD A, UM, REVIEWED THAT AS WELL.
UM, BUT THE, IN ADDITION TO THE, THE VISUAL SCREENING THAT'S GONNA BE PLACED ON THE FENCE, THE PRIVACY SLATS, THERE IS GONNA BE SOME MATERIAL NOISE, UM, MITIGATION MATERIAL AS WELL.
UM, INCLUDED, INCLUDED IN THAT.
SO, YOU KNOW, OTHER THAN THE FENCING, THESE SYSTEMS WILL PRETTY MUCH BE BARELY VISIBLE TO ANYBODY FROM THE STREET LEVEL, UM, BEING ABLE TO SEE IT.
IT ALSO ADDS AS A LAYER OF PROTECTION AGAINST THE SYSTEMS. EVEN THOUGH THE SYSTEMS THEMSELVES, THEY'RE, AS WE'VE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, THEY'RE, THEY'RE TAMPER PROOF.
UM, THEY ARE NOT, UH, ACCESS ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC, UH, AS A SPECIAL KEY, UM, IS NEEDED TO ACCESS THE SYSTEMS THEMSELVES.
AND ONLY A BLUE REPRESENTATIVE, UH, CUSTOMER SERVICE REPRESENTATIVE WOULD BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE SYSTEMS. UM, THERE IS ANOTHER VIEW, UH, FROM THE OPPOSITE SIDE.
UM, CAN EVERYBODY SEE THAT DIFFERENT VIEW OR IS IT THE SAME VIEW? I THINK SAME VIEW, SAME, SAME, SAME, SAME VIEW.
LEMME SEE IF I CAN SWITCH THIS OVER.
SO THEN, SO THIS IS THE, UH, YOU KNOW, WHERE THE SERVANT ENTRANCE IS.
THIS IS THE VIEW FROM THAT SECTION ON THAT, ON THAT CORNER.
UH, SAME AS YOU CAN SEE, SAME SORT OF DEAL.
THE, PRETTY MUCH IT'S THE FENCING AND THE SCREENING THAT'S BEING PLACED AROUND THESE SYSTEMS. UH, YOU WOULD NOT EVEN KNOW THAT THE SERVERS ARE THERE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS ABOUT THE EXAMPLE THAT WE HAVE? I THINK WE SHOULD GONNA JUST ALSO CLARIFY, YOU KNOW, THE SOUND MITIGATION MATERIAL WE HAVE, WE SUBMITTED A NOISE STUDY, UM, AND JUST TO ADDRESS, UH, MR. LARKIN'S CONCERNS THOSE PANEL LIKE SOUND, YOU KNOW, SOUND MUFF BUFFERING, MUFFLING PANELS WILL BE ADDED TO THE INTERIOR OF THE SCREEN.
UM, SCREEN WALL THERE, THE SCREEN FENCING IN ORDER TO PRESENT, UH, IN ORDER TO KEEP THE, UH, PROJECT WITHIN NOISE CODE.
UH, UH, OUR SYSTEMS ARE NOT COMBUSTION SYSTEMS, SO IT'S NOT LIKE A DIESEL GENERATOR BURNING.
IT'S, UH, UH, DONE THROUGH FUEL CELLS, INTERESTING TECHNOLOGIES THROUGH A CHEMICAL REACTION THAT'S ALL ENCASED WITHIN THE SYSTEM.
SO THERE'S NO COMBUSTION AT ALL.
THAT'S WHY THE EMISSIONS ARE LOWER THAN WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM, YOU KNOW, A SYSTEM THAT REQUIRES BURNINGS.
AND, AND WHY THE, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, UM, IT'S TANTAMOUNT TO, UH, A NET, UH, CLEANER TECHNOLOGY.
THEN WHAT IS, UM, WHAT IS A POWER THAT COULD THE SAME EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF POWER THAT COMES FROM THE GRID? OKAY, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UH, GOING UP, UH, GOING UP THE HILL, UH, THERE'S A LOT OF LOT, THERE'S A LOT OF TREES WITH VERY LITTLE VEGETATION UNDER IT TO ACT AS A SCREEN.
IS THERE ANY OPPORTUNITY THAT SOMETHING WILL GROW A BUSH OR ANYTHING? IT WOULD GROW ALONG THAT FENCE IN, IN, UH, SPITE OF THE FACT THIS IS A REALLY SHADY AREA, CAN TAKE A I THAT'S MORE DIRECTED AT AARON TO GIVE HIS OPINION ON THAT? WELL, IF YOU GO, IF YOU GO TO THE FIRST SCREEN, YOU CAN SEE WHAT I'M SPEAKING, TALKING MR. SIMON, DO YOU MEAN THE POTENTIAL TO ADD MORE VEGETATION? IS THAT WHAT YOU YEAH, UH, UH, ALONG, IF YOU GO, IF YOU GO TO THE FRESH SHOP, YOU SEE THERE'S PLENTY OF TREES, BUT THERE'S A BIG, UH, SRI I DON'T KNOW IF ANYTHING WILL GROW UNDER THERE.
IT, IT, IT, THERE'S A FAIRLY NARROW STRIP BECAUSE IT DOES DROP DOWN.
SO THERE ARE TREES AS YOU GO FROM THAT ANGLE, NOT AS MUCH.
BUT AS YOU MOVE, IF YOU WERE TO MOVE FURTHER UP THE STREET, THERE'S MORE OF A ROW OF TREES WHERE THERE'S IVY KIND OF GROWING UP THE TREES, UM, THAT WOULD PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL SCREENING.
THERE'S LIMITED SPACE BECAUSE RIGHT BEYOND THAT FENCE AND IT, IT REALLY DROPS DOWN QUICKLY.
UM, COULD THERE BE A POTENTIAL, I'LL
[02:20:01]
LEAVE THAT UP TO THE APP APPLICANT.I DO KNOW THAT THERE, UM, I BELIEVE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR KEEPING VEGETATION AT A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM THE UNITS.
I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL.
WHY COULDN'T, WHY COULDN'T YOU JUST PUT, PUT UP SCREENING ON THE FENCE? WELL, YOU COULD, AND I THINK THAT WAS DISCUSSED.
MAYBE IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.
IT'S ORIGINALLY PROPOSED WANTED FROM A VISUAL STANDPOINT, THE THOUGHT WAS, YOU KNOW, SLATS WITHIN THE FENCE WOULD NOT BE ATTRACTIVE AND THE APPLICANT BACKED OFF OF THAT.
WELL, YOU HAVE A CHOICE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I THINK YOU EITHER, I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T GIVE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD HERE.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, ABOUT WHAT IS ALREADY A, A, YOU KNOW, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SITE KIND OF.
I I, I I REALLY THINK THE VISUAL ISSUE IS THE LEAST OF OUR PROBLEMS TO QUITE HONEST.
ONLY BECAUSE THAT, THAT, UH, HEADS UP TO A, UH, A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
AND I WAS SPECIFICALLY TALKING ABOUT THE, UH, THE SPACE BETWEEN THE FIRE HYDRANT AND THE FIRST TREE.
WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S THE SPECIFIC AREA I WAS TALKING ABOUT, WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR A HEDGE OR SOMETHING.
BECAUSE AS YOU GO FURTHER UP, YOU HAVE MORE COVERAGE.
A, UM, AND THE ISSUE IS THAT AND THE ISSUE, YOUR HONOR, FOR THE SAKE OF, OF, UH, OF, OF, UH, BEING TRANSPARENT.
UH, WHEN I FIRST MOVED TO THE TOWN, I LIVED ON THE TOP OF THAT HILL ON MIDWAY ROAD, AND I WAS THE VICE PRESIDENT OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
AND, UH, ISSUE WAS, UH, MOVING THAT INDUSTRIAL AREA SOUTH UP THE HILL TO A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
AND, AND THERE WAS A SITE RIGHT ABOVE THAT, THAT THERE WAS A, SO THAT ALWAYS HAD BEEN A CONCERN OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE TOP OF THE HILL ABOUT HOW THAT STREET LOOKED AS THEY APPROACHED THEIR, UH, THEIR HOMES FURTHER UP.
SO THAT'S, YEAH, I JUST WANNA BE, BE COGNIZANT OF THE TIME.
THERE ARE THREE, THREE HANDS UP RIGHT NOW, AARON.
AND IF IT'S A POINT OF ORDER, YES.
IF NOT, I'M TAKING JOHANN FIRST.
PLEASE TAKE, PLEASE TAKE JOHANN FIRST.
YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, GO AHEAD, JOHANN.
YEAH, THAT, THAT ACTUALLY IS A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD TO WALTER'S POINT THERE, THERE'S A SMALL INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE HILL, RIGHT BEYOND THAT, RIGHT BEYOND THAT FENCE, THERE'S AN EMPTY LOT.
AND ACROSS THE STREET FROM THAT, THERE ARE HOUSES THAT BEGIN AS WELL.
UM, TOWARDS HIS POINT ABOUT GROWING TREES, I THINK THIS IS TOWN PROPERTY WHERE THE FIRE HYDRANT IS UP TO THE FENCE.
AND THEN BEYOND THAT IS A PRIVATE PROPERTY OF THE COMMERCIAL AREA, BUT THERE'S A DROP DOWN HILL THERE, UM, AFTER THE FENCE, BEFORE THE ASPHALT THAT THERE MIGHT BE A ROOM, MIGHT BE ROOM FOR, UH, SCREENING, UH, TREES POINT ARE PROVIDING OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
IF THE, IF THERE'S ENOUGH SUN BECAUSE OF THE TREES THAT YOU GOT THERE, BUT GOOD POINT.
GOOD POINT, LESLIE AND THEN AARON.
AND I WANTED TO KNOW, I COULDN'T SEE IT FROM THE OTHER PIC PICTURE, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE OUTSIDE FENCE AND YOUR PRIVACY FENCE, BECAUSE IF IT'S A CONCERN ABOUT SECURITY, I CAN'T SEE HOW THAT'S MAKING IT SECURE.
IF IT'S TRYING TO HIDE IT, POSSIBLY.
BUT, UM, THAT DOES NOT LOOK SECURE TO ME AT ALL.
AND NOT TO SAY THAT SOMEONE CAN ACTUALLY GO IN THERE AND MESS WITH THE FUEL CELLS, BUT IS THAT SUPPOSED TO BE PROVIDING SECURITY? NO, IT'S, IT'S MOSTLY PROVIDING SCREENING, UM, FOR, FOR PRIVACY.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT THERE'S, I MEAN, WE HAVE THE OVERALL, THE PROPERTY IS FENCED, RIGHT? WITH THE, WITH THIS FENCE.
AND THEN THIS IS, THE SYSTEM IS THEN FENCED WITHIN THE FENCE WITH THE, WITH THE SLATS, WHICH WILL ALSO HAVE THESE PANELS ON THEM.
AND THEN THE ACTUAL EQUIPMENT ITSELF IS LOCKED AND ENCASED AND CAN'T BE OPEN.
SO I MEAN, BETWEEN THOSE THREE LEVELS IT'S ACHIEVING SECURITY, BUT WE'RE NOT INSTALLING IT FOR THE SAKE OF NECESSARILY SECURITY.
BECAUSE, I MEAN, WE HAVE THESE SYSTEMS IN OPEN AND PARKING LOTS AND STOP AND SHOP AND HOME DEPOT AND ALL OVER THE PLACE.
SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE, BECAUSE THEY'RE LOCKED AND SECURE, THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF SECURITY.
SO THEY'RE, THEY CAN'T BE VANDALIZED.
THA THANK YOU LESLIE, AARON, AND THEN COR I WAS ONLY GONNA SAY THAT, UM, WELL FIRST OFF, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE APPLICANT SHOULD EXPLORE OPPORTUNITIES.
MAYBE THE BOARD IS AGREEABLE TO, UH, EITHER SOME
[02:25:01]
VEGETATION IF IT CAN BE TUCKED UP AGAINST THE FENCE OR AS YOU MENTIONED BEFORE, SOMETHING THAT IT COULD PUT ON THE FENCE.I DIDN'T WANNA TAKE UP TOO MUCH TIME 'CAUSE I KNOW THE HOURS GETTING LATE.
AND I JUST WANNA REMIND YOU TO, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY CONSIDER THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD.
YEAH, WELL THAT'S BECAUSE THIS IS A SITE PLAN ISSUE AND THAT CAN BE DISCUSSED AT A, OUR FUTURE.
YOU'RE HAPPY TO, WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND, UH, TRY TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION FOR YOU.
COR, IF THIS IS ON THE VISUAL, THIS GONNA BE THE LAST COMMENT ON VISUAL.
IF THIS IS ON VISUAL, BUT CORT, UH, TAKE YOURSELF OFF SPEAKER AND MR. SNAGS AND MR. DAVIS KINDLY TAKE, AND MR. SCHMIDT KINDLY TAKE DOWN YOUR HANDS UNLESS YOU'RE GOING TO TALK AGAIN.
YEAH, IF, IF THE, UH, THANK YOU, UH, THE SCREENING, IF THIS, IF THIS IDEA OF THE SCREENING TO WHAT, UH, AND IF THAT'S A VISUAL SCREENING, THEN I THINK IT'S VERY UGLY.
IT ALSO, IT ALSO HAS SOUND ATTENUATION MATERIAL ON THE INSIDE.
I WAS GONNA MAKE THAT SAME POINT.
LIKE, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY FOR SOUND ATTENUATION, UM, IT'S, IT, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE VERY FRONT AND CENTER.
IT IS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS SET DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
SO YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS AT AN ANGLE THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA PAY A LOT OF ATTENTION TO.
AS FAR AS THE, UM, THE SUGGESTIONS OF, OF PUTTING UP, YOU KNOW, SOME ADDITIONAL, HE A HEDGEROW OR PERHAPS A TREE OR, UH, WITHIN THE INSIDE OF THAT FENCE ON THE HILLSIDE.
IT'S NOT A HILL TO DIME FOR US.
IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN EXPLORE.
UH, WE WOULDN'T WANT A TREE THAT WILL GROW MASSIVELY, WOULD NEED A LOT OF MAINTENANCE.
UM, IT'S A WORKING, YOU KNOW, INDUSTRIAL PLACE.
IT'S VERY UTILITARIAN, AND SO THEY DON'T, WOULDN'T NECESSARILY WANT TO YEAH.
DEDICATE ALL I'D TO LANDSCAPE, BUT MR. MR. HOLD, MR. MR. MATTHEWS, I'LL SHUT UP.
WE DON'T, WE DON'T NEED TO DEAL, DEAL WITH THIS TONIGHT.
WE HAVE MUCH, I THINK, MUCH MORE CRITICAL ISSUES TO DEAL WITH TONIGHT THAN THE SIGHT LINE ISSUE.
I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DEAL WITH A SITE PLAN, AND I'D LIKE TO GET TO SEE IF WE CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE NEED TO ACCOMPLISH TONIGHT.
UM, SO, AND I, THERE ARE ISSUES TO ME THAT ARE MUCH LARGER THAN THIS ONE.
THIS ONE IS FIXABLE BY PUTTING STUFF OUTSIDE THE FENCE, YOU KNOW, IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND YOU DONATE, DONATE THE TREES OR WHATEVER TO THE TOWN, THAT CAN BE DONE TOO.
SO I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THIS RIGHT NOW.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON, UH, FOR YOU TO ADDRESS THE OTHER THREE THINGS, UH, THAT MR. LOCKIN BROUGHT UP, PLEASE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S GONNA BE E UH, STEVEN, I THINK YOU'RE GONNA START OFF WITH THAT.
UM, THANKS VERY MUCH, FIRST OF ALL, FOR, UH, FOR HAVING US AND ALLOWING US TO, TO, UM, PRESENT TO YOU.
UM, I, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, THAT TIME IS, UM, IS RUNNING SHORT, THAT YOU DON'T WANT US TO SPEND TOO MUCH TIME.
BUT I, BUT I DO WANT TO PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION KIND OF AT A HIGH LEVEL OF, UH, WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE'VE PROVIDED TO YOU AND ANSWER.
I THINK SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ARE, PROVIDE FEEDBACK FROM, UH, WHAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT.
UM, SO FIRST OF ALL, MY NAME IS STEVE BRANHOFF.
I'M A PRINCIPAL OUT OF OUR SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE, UH, AND WORK EXTENSIVELY WITH BLOOM ON INSTALLATIONS SIMILAR TO THIS ONE AND FRANKLY, LARGER ONES, UH, ALL, ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
UM, SO WE'VE, YOU KNOW, EVALUATED AIR QUALITY IMPACTS FROM SIMILAR BLOOM INSTALLATIONS, UM, UH, ALL OVER THE PLACE, UM, JUST AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL TO, TO RESPOND TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS ABOUT AIR QUALITY.
I MEAN, THESE TYPES OF FUEL CELLS.
IN MY EXPERIENCE, I'M, I'M AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT.
I DEAL WITH SIMILAR SYSTEMS AND, AND MUCH LARGER, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL SCALE, INDUSTRIAL SCALE SYSTEMS ALL THE TIME.
UM, THESE TYPES OF FUEL CELLS, AT AT LEAST ON A, LET'S SAY PER UNIT OF FUEL OR PER UNIT OF POWER BASIS, HAVE MUCH LOWER EMISSIONS THAN ALMOST ANYTHING ELSE YOU, YOU CAN THINK OF THAT, THAT USES A FUEL.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, NATURAL GAS, THE WRONG EQUIPMENT, UM, IS, YOU KNOW, KNOWN TO BE ONE OF THE CLEANEST FUELS, UH, AROUND, UM, AND THIS SYSTEM ITSELF DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY COMBUSTION AS, AS JAMES WAS MENTIONING.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, EVEN, UH, LOOKING AT A, A SIMILAR SCALE, UH, POWER GENERATION, THAT THAT DOES INVOLVE NATURAL GAS COMBUSTION.
THIS, THIS HAS, UH, LOWER EMISSIONS THAN THAT.
SO JUST, YOU KNOW, THE, THESE TYPES OF FUEL CELL SYSTEMS, I KNOW THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT AS FAMILIAR TO YOU, BUT, UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERY CLEAN OPERATIONS.
UM, AND ESPECIALLY THEY'RE CONSIDERED, YOU KNOW, REALLY TO BE ONE OF THE, UM, UH, AN, AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT OF HELPING, UM, THE STATE AND THE COUNTRY AND THE WORLD ADDRESS CLIMATE CHANGE.
UM, AND MR. BOFF, I WANNA STOP YOU FOR ONE SECOND JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE.
THE ISSUE IS WE'RE PUTTING THIS CONTIN RIGHT NEXT TO A RESIDENTIAL
[02:30:01]
AREA, AND THERE'S WHAT IS THE IMPACT? 'CAUSE THERE'S NO WAY I'M PUTTING ANY OTHER, I'M NOT GONNA GO PUT A DIESEL, BIG DIESEL GENERATION PLANT, YOU KNOW, RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL AREA.SO THE QUESTION IS WHAT THE IMPACT OF THIS IS ON THE RESI ON THE SURROUNDING AREA, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS.
I DON'T REALLY CARE ABOUT HOW IT COMPARES TO ANYTHING ELSE.
AND I, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING TO TRY TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
UM, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT FOR, YOU KNOW, WHAT THESE SYSTEMS ARE AND THE LEVEL RELATIVE LEVEL OF AIR POLLUTION.
BUT YEAH, I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN HERE AND YOUR CHARGE IS TO, UM, CONFIRM THAT, UH, THERE'S GONNA BE NO IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
UM, I GUESS, YOU KNOW, REGARDING THAT, WHAT I CAN SAY IS, FIRST OF ALL, THE LEVEL OF THE QUANTITIES OF AIR POLLUTION ARE, ARE COMPARABLE TO WHAT YOU'D SEE FROM, UH, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL FACILITIES THAT COULD BE PUT AT THE SAME LOCATION.
UM, SO THAT'S ONE THING, AND I THINK WE'VE TRIED TO ADDRESS THAT IN OUR REPORT.
WE'VE DONE, UH, YOU KNOW, QUITE A BIT OF, YOU KNOW, UM, UH, CALCULATION TO LOOK AT DIFFERENT TYPES OF SYSTEMS. UM, FIRST OF ALL, COMPARING TO, UH, UH, RESIDENTIAL, UH, SOURCES OF AIR, AIR EMISSIONS AND, AND COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS OF DIFFERENT TYPES, OKAY? MM-HMM.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO REHASH THAT, BUT JUST AT, AGAIN, AT A VERY HIGH LEVEL, THE, THE QUANTITIES OF AIR POLLUTE, WELL, I SHOULD SAY BOTH THE, THE NATURE OF THE AIR POLLUTION, THE TYPES OF POLLUTANTS, AND ALSO THE QUANTITIES ARE COMPARABLE, IF NOT LOWER TO WHAT YOU'D SEE FROM SIMILAR COMMERCIAL SYSTEMS THAT YOUR BOARD PROBABLY THROUGH, UH, ALL THE TIME.
LIKE A HEATING SYSTEM, FOR EXAMPLE, IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
LET'S SAY A, A SMALL NATURAL GAS THAT IS HELPFUL.
LET'S SAY A, A SMALL NATURAL GAS FIRED BOILER, UM, YOU KNOW, AT A COMMERCIAL FACILITY WOULD HAVE COMPARABLE EMISSIONS, NATURE AND QUANTITY TO WHAT'S BEING EMITTED.
BUT I UNDERSTAND YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU DO WANT, UH, CONFIRMATION THAT, UM, THE NEW YORK STANDARDS ARE, ARE GONNA BE MET.
I I WANT TO THROW ONE OTHER THING IN THERE TOO, IS, IS THAT, UM, THESE TYPES OF FUEL CELLS HAVE A, AN EXEMPTION FROM REGULATION FROM, UH, THE, UH, THE, UH, NEW YORK, UM, STATE ENVIRONMENTAL, UH, COMMISSION.
SO THERE, THERE'S NO PERMITS THAT ARE REQUIRED FROM THESE FUEL CELLS.
UH, NO, NO AIR PERMITS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, ARE, ARE COMMONLY REQUIRED FROM COMMERCIAL POWER SYSTEMS, UH, AND NO APPLICABLE REGULATIONS EITHER AT THE, THE STATE OR FEDERAL LEVEL.
UM, IT IN MY MIND, THAT IN AND OF ITSELF IS, IS SIGNIFICANT WHEN YOU, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU HAVE ANY TYPES OF EQUIPMENT, UH, THAT EMITS LARGER AMOUNTS OF AIR POLLUTION AND NEEDS TO BE REGULATED.
YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU'LL SEE REGULATIONS ADOPTED BOTH AT THE STATE AND FEDERAL LEVEL, THE FACT THAT NONE OF THOSE REGULATIONS EXIST AND THAT THE STATE HAS PROVIDED A BLANKET EXEMPTION FOR, FOR, FOR FUEL CELLS FROM AIR PERMITS.
YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I I HOPE YOU TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION ABOUT THE, THE TYPE OF AIR EMISSION SOURCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UH, BUT THEN JUST LAST THING, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, ONE OF THE REQUESTS THAT'S STILL OUTSTANDING IS TO DO AIR DISPERSION MODELING TO SHOW THAT WE'RE COMPLIANT WITH THE NEW YORK, UH, DAR ONE STANDARDS.
UH, AND, AND WE'RE WORKING ON THAT MODELING RIGHT NOW.
SO WE HOPE TO HAVE THAT SUBMITTED SOON.
I, I THINK THE OTHER ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM IS THE HAZARDOUS WASTE.
I KNOW THAT THERE IS SOME HAZARDOUS WASTE GENERATED HERE THAT HAS TO BE DRUMMED.
UM, DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT GENERATES, HOW OFTEN IT GENERATES, HOW IT'S STORED, HOW MUCH IS STORED, HOW IT'S STORED, HOW, HOW OFTEN IT'S TAKEN OFF THE PREMISES.
THOSE ARE ALL THINGS THAT, THAT I THINK I'D LIKE YOU TO ADDRESS.
I'M NOT THE HAZARDOUS WASTE EXPERT.
WE, WE CALL OURSELVES AIRHEADS.
SO, UM, THAT, THAT'S GONNA HAVE TO BE SOMEBODY ELSE, UH, ON OUR TEAM.
SO MAYBE I'LL, I'LL ASK JAMES.
SO WE HAVE THE, THE, THE ISSUE OF THAT IS, UH, UH, DIESEL IZATION OF THE GAS THAT COMES IN THE, BASICALLY IT'S, YEAH, IT'S REMOVED FROM, UH, THE SULFURS FROM ADDED TO NATURAL GAS IS NOTING, AND THEN IT'S REMOVED FROM THE SYSTEM BECAUSE IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T WORK WELL WITH OUR SYSTEM.
SO WE HAVE, UM, WE HAVE REALLY WHAT WE, WE HAVE BASICALLY, UH, CANISTERS WITHIN THIS.
WE HAVE A MODULE MODULE OF THE, OF THOSE FUEL, OF THE FUEL CELL MODULES, THOSE BOXES THAT YOU SAW.
WE HAVE, UH, CANISTERS THAT, UM, COLLECT THAT.
I DON'T HAVE THE ACTUAL SCHEDULE FOR WHEN THEY'RE CHANGED.
I THINK THEY'RE CHANGED ABOUT LIKE SIX MONTHS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I ACTUALLY, I THINK IT'S BETWEEN ABOUT 15 AND 36 MONTHS.
AND THAT'S DONE ALMOST LIKE CHANGING, ALMOST LIKE AN INK CARTRIDGE ON A PRINTER, BUT ON A OBVIOUSLY MUCH IT'S TAKEN DIRECTLY OFF WHEN IT FILLS UP THAT IT'S TAKEN DIRECT COMPLETELY OFFSITE IMMEDIATELY.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT HANDLED LEFT AT ALL, AT ALL.
BUT WE DO HA WE DO, WE WILL, OKAY.
[02:35:01]
A, LIKE A HAZMAT BOOKLET THAT WE OFTEN PROVIDE, AND WE, WE DO IT ALL THROUGHOUT CALIFORNIA, FOR EXAMPLE.UH, WHEN WE CLOSE OUT A PROJECT AND KIND OF DO OUR PUNCH LIST ON THE PROJECT, WE CAN, WE CAN HAND THAT OVER.
SO THAT'LL BE ALL IN LINE WITH, YOU KNOW, HAZMAT RECORD.
AND I SEE MR. LARKIN SHAKING HIS HEAD YES.
IS THAT CORRECT, MR. LARKIN? YEP.
WHAT, WAS THERE ONE OTHER ISSUE THAT THEY DIDN'T ADDRESS YET? MR. LARKIN, OUT OF THE FOUR, WE'VE COVERED THE, I HAVE MY THREE MAJOR ONE, HOLD ON FOR A SECOND.
MR. LARKIN, WOULD YOU FINISH WHAT I ANSWER MY QUESTION? I'M SORRY.
UH, NO, THE THREE MAJOR, MAJOR COMMENTS WERE ALL ADDRESSED BY THE TEAM.
MR. SIMON, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? YES.
UH, I, I'M JUST CURIOUS OF THE NATURE OF THE CHEMICALS THAT BEING TRAPPED IN THE CARTRIDGE.
UH, I ASSUME THAT YOU KNOW, OXIDE, THE CARBON AND NITROGEN SULFUR THINGS THAT YOU FIND IN NATURAL GAS.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, IT'S WHAT'S IN THE DIESEL AUTHORIZATION, AND THERE'S A MEDIA THAT'S TIED TO THE DIESEL AUTHORIZATION'S A LITTLE BIT OVER MY HEAD 'CAUSE I DON'T DEAL WITH IT BUT THAT MUCH.
BUT THERE'S, UM, I BELIEVE IT'S WHAT'S CALLED A COPPER CATALYST, IS THE TYPE OF MEDIA THAT'S USED IN THIS SYSTEM.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS ALL IN CASE WITHIN THE SYSTEM.
SO THIS IS SORT OF SHUFFLED OFF SITE AND NOT DONE AT THE SITE.
SO YOU JUST KIND OF TAKE IT IN AND TAKE IT OUT.
SO IF, IF I'M, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, UH, UH, YOU, UM, YOU HAVE A SYSTEM TO SCRUB WHATEVER, UH, UH, UH, UH, CHEMICALS THAT'S IN THE GAS THAT YOU'RE NOT UTILIZING AND, UH, AND THAT THE NOSE ARE TRAPPED IN A CARTRIDGE.
AND SO, AND THEN YOU TAKE, YOU REMOVE, SO ALL THE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL IS TRAPPED IN THE CARTRIDGE, AND THAT CARTRIDGE IS JUST KEPT AND TURN AND BROUGHT AND, AND TAKEN AWAY.
SO IF I UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM, THERE'S LITTLE POSSIBILITY OF THESE TOXIC MATERIAL REACHING THE ENVIRONMENT.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT WOULD BE A CORRECT STATEMENT.
UM, WHERE WE'RE GONNA GO FROM HERE.
ANYTHING ELSE THE BOARD WANTS TO ASK EITHER SIDE RIGHT NOW? I JUST WANNA, I JUST WANNA SAY WHERE I THINK WE ARE AND MS. GUAS, TELL ME IF I'M WRONG.
UM, WHERE I, I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE THE LOOSE END AT THIS POINT IS TO GET THIS DISPEN, THE AIR DISPENSA, HOWEVER YOU PRONOUNCE THAT.
UM, IT'S MY LONG COVID IS DOING THIS, I THINK DISPERSION, UH, STUDY DONE.
THAT SEEMS TO BE THE, THE OUTSTANDING ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE.
WOULD, WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT MR. LARKIN? YES.
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS WITH THAT MODEL WILL, UM, WE HAVE NO CONCERNS THAT THE APPLICANT CAN RESPOND TO ALL OF OUR COMMENTS.
SO THAT'S REALLY WHAT'S OUTSTANDING FROM THE, THAT PERSPECTIVE.
ONE OTHER THING I DID WANNA MENTION WHEN I WAS LOOKING THROUGH THE AAF, THERE IS A MISTAKE RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING OF THE E A F WHERE IT SAYS THIS REQUIRES A SPECIAL PERMIT.
IT SHOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL PERMIT IN OUR TOWN.
BUT WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THERE YET BECAUSE LESLIE HAS BEEN SO LAZY IN, IN WRITING HER LETTER THAT IT HASN'T BEEN APPROVED.
AND WE HAVEN'T WRITTEN ANY LAWS YET.
SO EV EVENTUALLY THIS WILL BE A SPECIAL PERMIT, I'M SURE IN OUR TOWN FOR THE, THE, AND IT SHOULD BE RIGHT NOW, THERE IS NO SPECIAL PERMIT REQUIRED IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
I THOUGHT THAT HAD BEEN REVISED, AND IF IT HASN'T BEEN, I WILL MAKE SURE IT IS THE ONE I OKAY.
JENNIFER, THE ONE I HAVE HASN'T BEEN THE ONE I SAW.
THERE WAS A REVISION PROVIDED LATE THIS AFTERNOON, BUT I DIDN'T CIRCULATE IT.
'CAUSE THAT, THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT.
EVENTUALLY IT WILL BE, THE REASON YOU CAME IN FRONT OF US IN THE FIRST PLACE IS BECAUSE OF THE SITE PLAN REVIEW AND THE VARIANCE.
SO, BUT IT, UH, IT ISN'T, ISN'T ONE TO BE CLEAR.
UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM OTHER PEOPLE ON THE BOARD RIGHT NOW? I ACTUALLY REFER TO MS. KI.
ARE YOU FEELING THAT WE'RE, THAT EVERYBODY'S IN, WE'RE IN THE SAME PLACE? I THINK WE ARE.
IN TERMS OF WHAT'S OPEN? UH, WELL THAT DEPENDS ON WHAT YOU THINK IS OPEN
SO I I JUST SAID THE DISPERSION, I THINK THE DISPERSIONS STUDY.
THAT AND, AND THE SCREENING STUFF WE'LL WORRY ABOUT WHEN YOU COME BACK FOR SITE PLAN.
WE'LL FIGURE THAT, THAT SHOULDN'T BE HARD TO FIGURE OUT.
IT'S AN ISSUE, BUT WE CAN FIGURE IT OUT ANY, SO THAT'S GOOD.
ANY OTHER QUE I WANNA HEAR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS FROM
[02:40:01]
ANYBODY ON THE BOARD? MR. MR. SCHMIDT? AND WAS YOU RAISING YOUR HAND OR JUST RELAXING, UH, THERE, MR. GOLDEN? I'M NOT SURE.ONLY WANTED TO QUICKLY ASK IF THE APP, AND I'M SORRY IF I MISSED IT, IF THE APPLICANT HAD A ROUGH TIMEFRAME ON WHEN IT THINKS IT MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET MORE INFO ON THE DISPERSION.
UM, JUST SO WE HAVE A SENSE OF FOR SCHEDULING PURPOSES.
WH WHEN'S THE HEARING? JANET? IT'S 18TH.
WELL, THERE, THERE HASN'T, SO THERE HASN'T BEEN A HEARING SET.
I KNOW THAT THE BOARD HAS ANOTHER MEETING, UM, IN, IN, IN THE MONTH OF MAY.
UH, I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE'LL BE ADEQUATE TIME FOR US TO COMPLETE THAT MODELING AND THEN FOR YOUR CONSULTANT TO REVIEW IT TIMELY FOR US TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, UH, IN MAY.
UM, BUT I DON'T THINK THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO BE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOING TO THE ZONING BOARD ON THE 26TH OF MAY, RIGHT? ISN'T THAT THEIR DATE? I BELIEVE IT'S THE 19TH.
THE, THE WEEK BEFORE THE 19TH.
SO IN TERMS OF THAT, THE MODELING TO ME IS MORE IMPORTANT TO GET BEFORE THE, THE ZONING BOARD AT THIS POINT.
I, IT DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT US.
I WOULD BE VERY SURPRISED IF YOU'RE GONNA GET A DECISION FROM THE ZONING BOARD ON THE 19TH.
IF YOU DO, I HOPE, YOU KNOW, I, I KNOW YOU'RE GONNA TRY.
UM, SO YOU MAY GET A DECISION ON THE 19TH, AND IF YOU DON'T, YOU'RE NOT GONNA GET A DECISION UNTIL THE THIRD WEEK IN JUNE.
SO JUST, JUST UNDERSTAND THAT.
SO THE CRITICAL PATH ITEM FOR YOU AFTER TONIGHT, SINCE WE DID THE SEEKER THING, IS, IS THE ZONING BOARD, UH, GETTING TO THE ZONING BOARD AND GETTING THEM TO DO WHATEVER THEY'RE GONNA DO WITH THE FRONT YARD SETBACK FOR, WITH THE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE.
AARON, I, I THINK THE QUESTION BECOMES THE APPLICANT WILL BE, YOU KNOW, WOULD LIKE TO OBTAIN A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, RIGHT.
GOING INTO THAT C B A MEETING.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE DISPERSION STUDY, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THIS BOARD WANTS TO SEE AND UNDERSTAND AND GET FEEDBACK FROM MR. LARKIN BEFORE IT MAKES RECOMMENDATION? I DON'T, THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD.
JUST TO REMIND THE BOARD AGAIN, THE VARIANCE RELATES TO SITING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
AND, AND I KNOW WE SAID SIDE YARD, BUT IT'S A DOUBLE FRONT YARD, SO IT'S ACTUALLY THE FRONT YARD.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT STUDY'S GONNA IMPACT, YOU KNOW, YOUR RECOMMENDATION ON THE VARIANCE.
AND, AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA SAY.
I DON'T THINK THAT THAT STUDY IS GOING TO MAKE A DIFFERENCE, YOU KNOW, WITH REGARD TO, UM, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THE, WHETHER IT'S SIX FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE OR 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE RESPECTFULLY.
UM, SO WE ARE HOPING THAT, UM, GIVEN THAT, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, UM, THE LOCATION OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES, UH, TO THE SITE AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THE CURRENT CON CONDITION OF THE SITE AND THE IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SITE, THIS HAS BEEN, UH, PROPOSED IN THIS LOCATION BECAUSE IT RESULTS IN THE LEAST AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE.
TO ME, THE ONLY, THE ONLY POSSIBLE REASON IT COULD, COULD MATTER.
FROM, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE AS TO WHERE IT IS, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT AESTHETICS RIGHT NOW.
I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL POINT OF VIEW IS IF FOR SOME REASON WHEN THE DISPERSION STUDY CAME BACK, WE SAW THAT WITHIN 20 FEET, IT'S, UH, NOT A GOOD THING.
TO, TO, AND SO YOU HAVE THE PEDESTRIAN WOULD'VE THEN THE PEDESTRIAN ISSUE.
AND THERE ARE A LOT OF SCHOOLS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THERE PEOPLE WALK THROUGH THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ON A REGULAR BASIS.
THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING I WOULDN'T, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, HOLD UP, YOU GO TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR THAT.
THAT'S UP TO THE ZONING BOARD.
UM, I WOULD THINK WHAT WE WOULD DO IS SAY THE ZONING BOARD IS SAY FROM OUR VIEW, UM, THIS IS WHAT WE FOUND.
THIS IS THE ONE THING WE DON'T KNOW YET WHETHER IT'S IMPORTANT TO YOU OR NOT.
I DON'T, HOW DOES ANYBODY ELSE FEEL ON THE BOARD ABOUT THAT? MICHAEL, YOU ALWAYS HAVE GOOD PERSPECTIVE.
TAKE YOUR ARM DOWN AND TALK TO ME.
WHAT DO YOU THINK? YOU'RE MUTED.
BUT, BUT TAKE YOURSELF OFF MUTE WHEN YOU TALK.
OKAY, SO, SO WHAT EXACTLY IS THE ZONING, UM, VARIANCE REQUESTED? JUST THAT, THAT FRONT YARD SETBACK, THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT PLACEMENT, IT'S ACCESSORY USE REQUIRED THE PLACEMENT, WHAT'S REQUIRED, WHAT'S THE REQUIRED AND WHAT'S THE PROPOSED, IT'S NOT PERMITTED IN THE FRONT YARD AND IT'S PROPOSED IN THE FRONT YARD.
THERE'S NO PARTICULAR SETBACK.
IT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT'S PERMITTED.
ALSO, I JUST WANNA MAKE A NOTATION BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF THE, THE PLANNING BOARD IS AWARE OF THIS.
WE DID ACTUALLY HAVE A ZONING BOARD MEET WITH, UM, UM, MS. CAROL WALKER IN THE, IN THE, IN THE
[02:45:01]
BOARD BACK IN LIKE OCTOBER.AND WE DID DISCUSS THE FRONT WHY WE WERE PLACING IT IN THE FRONT.
UM, IT'S THE MOST, NOT ONLY IS IT THE MOST IDEAL LOCATION AS FAR AS UTILITIES ARE CONCERNED, BUT THERE IN THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, THE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH ACCESS, UM, TO ACCESS IF YOU WERE TO PUT LIKE, YOU KNOW, PROPOSE IT TO PLACE THERE, UH, FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES TO ACCESS IT IN CASE OF SOME SORT OF EVENTS.
THEY, SO, UM, THEY, THEY WERE, THEY UNDERSTOOD THAT.
SO, UH, FORGIVE US, FORGIVE ME FOR NOT MENTIONING THAT SOONER.
UM, AS FAR AS IT JUST SENT ME THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE DID MEET WITH THEM AND, AND DISCUSS, YOU KNOW, WHY THIS WAS GOING IN THE FRONT AND THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE IN FAVOR OF THAT.
OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A VERY IMPORTANT POINT.
LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE WANT ACCESS TO THIS.
UM, FOR EMERGENCY PURPOSES MORE THAN ANYTHING.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S JUST NO OTHER REASONABLE LOCATION FOR THAT SPECIFIC SPECIFICALLY ON THIS SITE.
SO THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE FAVORABLE TO THAT.
THAT WAS A VERY IMPORTANT POINT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MICHAEL, BACK TO YOU.
WHAT WERE YOUR THOUGHTS AGAIN? SO, SO, SO LOOK, IF I RECALL THE PHOTOGRAPHS OR THE RENDERINGS CORRECTLY, THERE'S NO SIDEWALK GOING NEAR THIS THING.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE DISPER DISPER DISPERSION, DISPERSAL DISPERSION, DISPER DISPERSION, DISPERSION, THE DIS WHATEVER THAT MEANS.
THE DISPERSION ANALYSIS, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IF IT'S ON THE SIDE, THE FRONT, WHATEVER.
I MEAN, UM, UM, YOU KNOW, AS FOR A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD, I, I, I DON'T REALLY KNOW IF THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION.
I GUESS I WOULD GO FOR NEUTRAL.
UNLESS SOMEBODY CONVINCES ME IT SHOULD BE A POSITIVE.
UM, I, I GUESS THE ONLY REASON FOR A POSITIVE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, LISTENING TO THE APPLICANT, I'M CONVINCED IT'S THE BEST LOCATION FOR THIS FROM A FIRE POINT OF VIEW FOR SURE.
MAYBE, MAYBE THAT'S THE REASON TO GIVE IT POSITIVE.
THAT'S A VERY, THAT'S A VERY GOOD POINT.
MR. DESAI, YOU'RE OUR ENVIRONMENTAL GURU.
WHAT DO YOU SAY ON THIS? YOU ASKING MY OPINION ON THIS ONE? YEAH, I'M, I'M ARCHITECT BY TRAINING, SO, AND PLANNER.
SO, BUT, UH, I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING, UH, UH, THE SORT OF, UH, YOUR CONCERN HERE FROM THE BEGINNING.
IT'S THAT, UH, UH, THIS IS THE FIRST, UH, THIS KIND OF TECHNOLOGY BEING PROPOSED OR BEING PROPOSED PROJECT IN TOWN OF BLOOMBERG AND, UH, UH, THE, THE UNCERTAINTY AND, UH, UH, POSSIBLE, UH, PROBLEMS IN THE FUTURE COULD BE A, COULD BE A MAJOR ISSUE.
SO I WOULD GO FOR, IF YOU HAVE TO DO RECOMMENDATION, I WOULD GO FOR NEUTRAL TO ZONING BOARD AND THEN LET'S THEM TAKE A, TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHETHER THEY THINK THIS PROJECT OKAY.
UM, ONE MORE COMMENT I HAVE IS THAT THE SIDEWALK, WHICH MICHAEL MENTIONED TO IT, AND HE USUALLY LIKES TO ADD A SIDEWALK WHENEVER THE NEW APPLICATION COMES TO IN FRONT OF OUR BOARD.
SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT, UH, WE CAN REQUEST THE APPLICANT CONSIDER AS PROVIDING, UH, FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO DO THAT? AARON ANSWERED QUICKLY, THEN I WANNA GO TO MR. HAY.
YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA SAY THAT, UH, THAT WAS REVIEWED PREVIOUSLY AND YOU KNOW, AND I KNOW THIS HAS GONE ON FOR A WHILE AND WE HAVEN'T SEEN IT, UH, BEFORE THE BOARD MEETING IN, YOU KNOW, ALMOST SIX MONTHS, BUT A SIDEWALK WAS DISCUSSED.
THERE'S ONE ACROSS, UH, THE STREET FROM THIS SITE.
SO IT, IT WAS DEEMED THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THAT SEEMED ADEQUATE FROM THE LOCATION OF THIS, UH, PROPERTY AND WITH RESPECT TO HAVING THE SIDEWALK ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE.
I WANNA FOCUS, 'CAUSE WE HAVE 10, 10 MINUTES LEFT, SO I WANNA FOCUS THAT HAS REALLY LITTLE TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, WHICH IS SENDING IT TO THE ZONING BOARD.
WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT AND MAYBE WE CAN CONVINCE ALTS THAT IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO BUILD A SIDEWALK THERE BECAUSE WE, WE'VE REALLY BEEN TRYING, ANYTIME WE'VE SEEN PROPERTY IMPROVEMENTS TO BUILD SIDEWALKS WHERE WE CAN AND THAT IS A PLACE THAT'S A, THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THERE.
THERE'S A, AND IT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE A SIDEWALK THERE, WHETHER OR NOT THEY DO IT OR NOT.
AGAIN, THAT'S MORE OF AN OPTION THAN NOT, BUT IT SURE AS HELL CAN'T, CAN'T HURT TO ASK THEM TO DO IT.
BUT WE'LL DO THAT AS A SITE PLAN, MR. HAY.
I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT
[02:50:02]
RECOMMENDING TO THE ZONING BOARD.MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SEPARATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL AS AN OPTION FOR THEM, BUT BASED PURELY ON THE LOCATION AND PLACEMENT OF AN ACCESSORY USE, I SEE NO ISSUE WHATSOEVER.
IF THERE WAS NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, I DON'T THINK WE'D BE SPENDING MUCH TIME ON THIS AT ALL.
UM, IT'S NOT PARTICULARLY INTRUSIVE, I WOULD SAY.
I WOULD GIVE IT A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
HOWEVER, THERE IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL ASPECT, SO I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU DO THAT.
YOU SAY WE'RE POSITIVE WITH THE PLACEMENT, BUT YOU NEED TO CONSIDER THIS ENVIRONMENTAL, OR WHEN YOU WRAP IT UP
I I GUESS WE COULD DO THAT, TOM.
UM, I WANT TO GET MR. UH, SNAGS HAND AWAY FROM MS. CHIN.
AND DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THIS? AND I WANT
CAN I HAVE DAVIS AND MS.
UM, WALTER, BECAUSE HE RAISED HIS HAND, THEN THE TWO OF YOU IN THE, UH, ON MY BOTTOM RIGHT AREN'T GETTING AWAY WITHOUT ANSWERING IT TOO.
MS, MR. SIMON? UH, UH, I WOULD GIVE IT, I I WOULD GIVE IT A POSITIVE BECAUSE, BUT I DO HAVE A RESERVATION SO WE COULD FIGURE OUT HOW WE CAN DO THAT.
SIMILAR TO HOW WE DID SOME PREVIOUS APPLICATION.
MY MAKE, MY BIGGEST CONCERN WAS THE, THE, THE, THE DEGENERATION OF THE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL.
UH, AND UH, THE, THE SYSTEM SEEMED TO BE AN ADEQUATE SYSTEM OF TRAPPING IT AND REMOVING IT.
SO I DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS, UH, AT THIS POINT WITH THE HAZARDOUS MATERIAL.
UH, THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE, THE, THE ADJUSTMENTS WE COULD DO WHEN TO THE SITE PLAN THAT THAT'S NOT AN ISSUE HERE.
SO, BUT UH, BUT THE ISSUE, THE ONLY OUTSTANDING THING IS THE DYSPHASIA.
WHAT IT, SO IF, OH, SO WE COULD, WE COULD DO THE SAME SORT OF THING IF TO SAY IT IS A POSITIVE, UH, UH, UH, RECOMMENDATION, BUT WE DO HAVE THIS CONCERN BECAUSE THE DATA IS NOT IT.
MICHAEL, I SEE YOUR HAND, BUT I WANT TO HEAR FROM MONA AND LESLIE AND THEN I WILL GET TO YOU.
I PROMISE, MONA, I, I HAVE TO GO ALONG WITH WALTER.
I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO GIVE IT A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION, BUT I CANNOT GIVE IT AT THIS TIME WITHOUT HAVING THE INFORMATION ABOUT THE DISPERSION.
SO WE COULD GIVE A CONDITIONAL POSITIVE WHAT WE COULD DO.
AND THEN I WANTED TO HEAR FROM LESLIE WHO ACTUALLY DOES THIS STUFF FOR A LIVING.
UM, WE COULD GIVE IT A CONDITIONAL POSITIVE CONDITION OH, ON, ON KNOW KNOWING THAT AND WHICH IS A SIGNAL TO THEM THAT MAYBE THEY SHOULD MAKE A DECISION AND TELL THE DISPERSION RESULTS.
THAT'S ONE WAY WE COULD DO IT.
AND I THINK THAT SOLVES A PROBLEM.
OKAY, LESLIE, AND THEN MICHAEL.
SO I'M GONNA GO WITH WHAT YOU JUST SAID IN TERMS OF A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
'CAUSE IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LOCATION, THEN IT'S FINE, BUT, UM, AGAIN, OUR CONCERNS BEING ON THE ENVIRONMENT, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE CONDITIONAL.
OKAY, I I, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS AND THEN I MAY HAVE A COMMENT.
SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS TO AARON.
HEY, UM, IS THERE ANYTHING ON THE PROPERTY THAT THIS COULD BE LOCATED WITHOUT A VARIANCE? NO.
UH, UM, I WOULD ACTUALLY LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT VERSUS MYSELF.
WE DON'T HAVE THE SITE PLAN UP AND I DON'T HAVE THE SETBACKS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT, SO I WOULD DEFER TO THE APPLICANT.
I MEAN, CHRIS, WHAT, KRISTEN, YOU'VE BEEN OUT TO THE SITE, YOU KNOW, IT'S CONSTRAINED.
WE, WE'VE EXPLORED THAT AND I, IT WAS VERY, VERY MUCH IN THE BEGINNING WHERE WE DID DISCUSS SOME DIFFERENT AREAS, BUT DUE TO THE SETBACKS AND THE SIZE OF THE SYSTEM THERE, UM, THERE WAS NO OTHER OPTION.
AND AGAIN, IN THE REAR YARD WITH THE EMERGENCY ACCESS, THIS WAS THE MOST, UH, IDEAL LOCATION FOR THOSE.
AND, AND, AND, AND LET'S NOT LOSE SIGHT OF THE FACT THAT IT'S IRREGULARLY SHAPED AND IT'S GOT THE TWO FRONT YARDS AND I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I'M NOT, I'M, NO, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
SO, SO, SO ANY LOCATION WE NEED TO VARIANCE.
OKAY, THAT'S QUESTION NUMBER ONE.
QUESTION NUMBER TWO, IT IS WHAT IS BEING DISPERSED THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? IS THIS CARBON DIOXIDE OR WHAT EITHER ED OR, OR STEVE, ANSWER THAT PLEASE.
STEVE, DO YOU WANT TO ANSWER IT? YEAH, I, I THINK I CAN ANSWER IT.
SO, UM, SO YES, CARBON DIOXIDE IS, IS EMITTED, UM, FROM THESE FUEL CELLS AS WELL AS OTHER, UM, COMMON AIR POLLUTANTS.
I MEAN INCLUDING, UM, NITROGEN DIOXIDE, SULFUR DIOXIDE, UH, CARBON MONOXIDE,
[02:55:01]
PARTICULATE MATTER.UM, SO, BUT SIMILAR TYPES OF AIR POLLUTION THAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM, UM, FROM ANY COMBUSTION SOURCE, EVEN THOUGH THIS SORT, THIS PROCESS ITSELF DOES NOT INVOLVE COMBUSTION.
MICHAEL, YOU HAVE A COMMENT NOW THAT WERE TWO QUESTIONS? WELL, NOW YOUR COMMENT LOOK, I I, I, I'M NO CHEMIST LIKE, UH, WALTER IS, BUT UM, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO ME LIKE THESE POLLUTANTS ARE SIGNIFICANT CONSIDERING, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS IN THE AREA, THE CARS GOING THROUGH, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
UM, I GUESS I'D BE INCLINED TO GIVE IT A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE, UM, OKAY.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO PROPOSE WHAT I PROPOSED, WHICH IS GIVE IT A POSITIVE CON JUST WITH CONDITION ON THAT.
WE DON'T FIND ANYTHING EXTRAORDINARY.
'CAUSE I DID LOOK AT THE, THE EMISSIONS AND SOME OF THEM ARE ON THE NASTY LIST ON THE STATE.
I, I, I LOOKED THAT UP MYSELF A FEW WEEKS AGO, BUT THEY PROBABLY, BECAUSE OF WHAT STEVE JUST SAID, THEY PROBABLY NOT IN A CONCENTRATION THAT MAKES ANY DIFFERENCE.
I, WE DON'T KNOW THAT, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE DOING THE DISPERSION.
IF YOU, MAYBE, IF YOU'RE RIGHT NEXT TO IT DOES PROBABLY DOESN'T, YOU'RE PROBABLY RIGHT.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANNA DO PROBABLY, PROBABLY THE DOING THE STUDY ANYWAY.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA SLOW ANYTHING DOWN.
THE ZONING BOARD CAN DECIDE IT OR NOT.
'CAUSE WE, IT'S EITHER A NEUTRAL TO ME OR WE'D GIVE IT A POSITIVE, WHICH I'D RATHER DO SAY WE THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT LOCATION FOR IT, FOR OF THE REASONS KRISTEN MENTIONED, WHICH IS VERY HELPFUL, AS I SAID, BECAUSE I ALWAYS WORRY ABOUT FIRE ACCESS.
AND ED, DO YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
WHAT, WHAT DO YOU THINK? YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA ADD TO THE BOARD'S BENEFIT THAT I THINK THE DISPERSER MODELING IS GOING TO TELL YOU HOW TO PUT THIS IN THE, IN THE SIDE YARD, NOT IF YOU CAN OR CAN'T, RIGHT? IT'S NOT A MATTER OF JUST MOVING THE LOCATION OF THE, OF THE PROPOSED, UM, FUEL CELLS, BUT MORE, YOU KNOW, MODIFYING HOW, HOW THEY'RE INSTALLED THERE.
SO I THINK FROM THE, FROM THE ASPECT OF PASSING US ONTO THE ZONING BOARD, WHAT'S, WHAT STEVE'S GONNA PRODUCE IS NOT GONNA CHANGE LOCATION.
SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THEY COULD POTENTIALLY REDIRECT IT SOMEHOW HOW, WITH HOW THEY, HOW THEY DO THE STACK, FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? EXACTLY RIGHT.
HOW THEY'RE, HOW THEY'RE CONFI.
ALL I GOT ONE MINUTE LEFT BEFORE WALTER STARTS YELLING AT ME.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE, UH, UH, SOMEONE GIVE ME A MOTION TO GIVE A PRO A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE BELIEVE THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR IT.
UM, THERE ARE SOME, A LITTLE BIT OF UNKNOWNS IN TERMS OF, OF DISPERSION, BUT OUR CONSULTANT HAS SAID THAT, THAT ANY ISSUES WITH THAT WOULD BE, COULD BE MITIGATED WITHOUT MOVING, WITHOUT MOVING THE SITE.
THAT WOULD BE WHAT I PUT INTO THE MOTION.
WE HAVE A SECOND FROM TOM MONER MOVED IT ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
ALL OPPOSED? NONE AND NO ABSTENTIONS.
IT PASSES AND IT'S 10 O'CLOCK.
IN TERMS OF SCHEDULING, JANET, I THINK WE OUGHT TO WAIT TO, UH, AARON, WE, THERE'S NO REASON FOR THEM TO RUN BACK HERE IN, IN MID-MAY FOR SURE.
BASED ON THE ACTIONS YOU TOOK THIS.
AND IT WOULD EITHER BE THE FIRST OR SECOND MEETING IN JUNE AND YOU AND I HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SCHEDULE.
AND WE HAVE TO AND, AND WE, WE, WE NEED TO GET THE DISPERSION STUDY.
WE NEED OUR CONSULTANT TO LOOK IT OVER AND THEN WE CAN REPORT BACK, WHICH, WELL, IT ALSO DEPENDS ON WHAT HAPPENS TO THE ZONING BOARD ON, ON, ON MAY 19TH.
I MEAN, IF THE MAY, IF THEY MAKE A DECISION ON MAY 19TH, WE CAN DO IT IN IN JUNE.
IF THEY DON'T MAKE A DECISION ON MAY 19TH, THERE'S ALMOST, THERE'S NO REASON FOR US TO DO IT IN JUNE BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING.
WELL, YEAH, MY THOUGHT WOULD BE LET'S, LET'S, LET'S WAIT ON THE DISPERSION STUDY.
LET'S SEE WHAT MR. LARKIN AND HIS TEAM COME BACK WITH.
BECAUSE IF IT COMES BACK FAVORABLE, IT MAY BE SOMETHING WHERE, YOU KNOW, AT, IN THE FUTURE WE DO A COMBO WORK SESSION.
WE HEAR FROM MR. LARKIN THAT EVERYTHING'S COVERED, WE HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT AND THEN WE TRANSITION INTO A PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT THAT WOULD ONLY COME AFTER THE ZONING BOARD'S RENDERED A DECISION.
THAT, THAT, WELL THEN, 'CAUSE WE ALSO HAVE TO STILL DO SEEKER, WHICH WE CAN'T DO TILL WE HAVE THE DISPER DISPERSION STUDY.
APPRECIATE YOUR NIGHT, JEN, AND THANK YOU, UH, BLOOM TEAM.
REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR, YOUR CANDOR AND YOUR WORKING WITH MR. LARKIN.
IT SEEMS LIKE IT'S GOING VERY WELL, SO I APPRECIATE THAT.
[03:00:01]
AND THANK YOU PLANNING AND THANK YOU PLANNING BOARD.HAVE A GREAT THANK YOU FOR ENDING ON TIME.
ONE MINUTE OVER SO YOU CAN GLOAT.