[ FINAL TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, August 3, 2022 – 7:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ]
[00:00:04]
OKAY.UM, GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 3RD, UH, 2022 PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
UH, MR. SCHMIDT, COULD YOU CALL THE ROLE PLEASE? SURE.
WE KNOW FOR THE RECORD THAT BOARD MEMBER, UH, MR. HAY, AS WELL AS OUR ALTERNATE LESLIE DAVIS, ARE NOW PRESENT THIS EVENING.
UH, BEFORE WE GO ON WITH THE AGENDA, UH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE AN ANNOUNCEMENT.
UM, TONIGHT'S KIND OF A BITTERSWEET MOMENT.
UM, IT'S EXCITING FOR ONE PERSON GOING ON TO THE NEXT PHASE OF LIFE.
IT'S, UH, GOING TO BE A GREAT LOSS TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, DAVE FREE.
THIS IS, WILL BE HIS LAST MEETING UNTIL WE, UH, BRIBE HIM BACK FOR THE, THE NEXT 10 YEARS.
BUT DAVE IS RETIRING, UH, FROM, FROM THE TOWN OF GREENBURG AFTER SOME ILLUSTRIOUS SERVICE.
UM, PEOPLE DON'T REALIZE HOW HARD, HOW DIFFICULT IT IS TO BE A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND BECAUSE WE END UP HAVING TO WEIGH, UM, THE RIGHTS OF A LANDOWNER AGAINST THE WELFARE OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, THAT'S NOT AN EASY THING TO DO.
UM, AND HAVING DAVE, UH, HERE AS A, HAS BEEN A STEADY INFLUENCE FOR ME IN MY SHORT TENURE AS, AS CHAIRPERSON.
BUT BEFORE THAT, AS VICE CHAIR, AND I'M SURE MR. SIMON WILL TELL YOU THE SAME THING, THAT HAVING DAVE HERE HAS BEEN JUST TERRIFIC.
IT GIVES YOU CONFIDENCE INTO IT, YOU KNOW, AND THAT WE'RE MAKING THE RIGHT DECISIONS.
AND I THINK, UH, THERE'S A REASON WHY WE GENERALLY DON'T GET CHALLENGED, AND IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE A WELL THOUGHT OUT STRATEGY GOING FORWARD.
HE'S BEEN WONDERFUL TO WORK WITH.
UM, BUT HE, HE'S GONNA BE MISSED NOT ONLY BY THIS BOARD, BUT I THINK BY THE TOWN IN GENERAL.
UM, ONE LAST THING I WANNA SAY.
IF YOU WANNA USE DATA AFTER THAT, HIS CELL PHONE NUMBER IS FIVE FIVE FIVE THREE TWO THREE FIVE.
UM, DAVE, WE ARE GONNA MISUSE ALL KIDDING ASIDE, OKAY, YOU WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING BEFORE WE GO ON, DAVE? I, I GUESS I SHOULD DEFENSE.
I GUESS I SHOULD UNMUTE, RIGHT? UM, IT'S BEEN A PLEASURE WORKING.
UH, I THINK WHEN I STARTED, UH, FRAN MCLAUGHLIN WAS CHAIR, UH, AND I THINK SHE, UM, STRUCK THE FEAR OF GOD IN ME AND, UM, AND SORT OF HELPED ME LEARN THE ROPE ROPES AS NOT BEING SOMEONE WHO, UH, USED DID MUCH IN LAND USE.
UM, BUT HER FRIENDSHIP AND HER MENTORING, UH, REALLY HELPED.
AND THAT CONTINUED BOTH, UH, WITH WALTER AND HUGH.
AND YOU, YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT.
UM, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, I'VE LEARNED FROM YOU AS, UH, I HOPE YOU'VE LEARNED FROM ME.
UM, THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES WHEN I THOUGHT, WHAT THE HECK IS HE THINKING? AND WE TALKED IT OUT, AND I UNDERSTOOD WHERE HE WAS.
AND YOU'VE CHANGED MY MIND ON MORE THAN ONE OCCASION.
UM, UH, AS, AS YOU, UH, INDICATED WHEN YOU FIRST STARTED WITH FRED MCLAUGHLIN, YOU DID NOT HAVE A STRONG LAND USE, UH, UH, UH, BACKGROUND.
UH, UH, UM, TIM LEWIS SAID, YOU ARE A QUICK LEARNER, AND DON'T WORRY, HOOK, GET UP TO SPEED VERY RAPIDLY.
I MUST ADMIT THAT BOTH FRAN AND I, WE HAD SOME TREPIDATION.
WELL, WOULD HE GET UP TO SPEED FAST ENOUGH? AND MY FEARS WERE TOTALLY UNWANTED.
IT PROVED TO BE, UH, NOT A CONCERN AT ALL.
YOU QUICKLY CAME UP TO SPEED AND, AND BEEN A MARVELOUS, UH, UH, COUNSELOR TO THIS PLANNING BOARD.
AND I, I THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL THE HARD WORK SUPPORT, UH, YOU'VE GIVEN ME, GIVEN ME WHILE I WAS CHAIR.
I ALSO RECOGNIZE THE SLAP ON THE RISKS YOU CONTINUALLY GIVE US.
WHEN WE START MAKING, WE'RE TEMPTED TO MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON POPULARITY AND NOT, UH, INTERPRETING
[00:05:01]
THE LAW.YOU BRING UP THOSE CASES AND PERIODICALLY AND SAY, THIS IS WHY I TELL YOU, FOLLOW THE CODE.
THIS IS NOT A POPULARITY CONTEST.
IT'S BASED UPON THE FACTS, THE CODES, UH, NOT WHAT YOU SHOULD FOLLOW.
SO I APPRECIATE THE GUIDANCE THAT YOU HAVE GIVEN THIS O UH, THIS, UH, BOARD OVER THE YEARS IN, IN FAIRNESS TO WHAT WALTER SAID, IT'S NOT BECAUSE YOUR BOARD, THIS BOARD DID THAT.
I JUST GIVE, UH, WALTER AND, UH, HUGH AND THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS EXAMPLES OF WHEN OTHER BOARDS DON'T DO THINGS ON AS A RESULT OF, UH, POPULARITY AND NOT BASED ON THE LAW.
OKAY? I, I THINK, UH, UH, HUG DON'T MIND.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD, UH, TO WHAT, UH, YOU AND WALTER SAID, AND DAVID, I HAD, UH, WORKED ON A, A LOT OF, UH, LAND USE THINGS WITH PORT AUTHORITY.
AND WE HAD A PORT AUTHORITY ONE TIME, ABOUT A HUNDRED LAWYERS, AND WE USED TO DO A LOT OF, UH, REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT.
OUR PORT AUTHORITY OWNED ABOUT 30% OF THE, UH, NEW YORK CITY AND NEW JERSEY WATERFRONT.
AND SO I KNOW THAT THE HOW IMPORTANT IT IS THAT THE LAWYERS ARE SITTING NEXT TO YOU AND TELLING, UH, WHAT YOU MOSTLY WHAT YOU SHOULD NOT DO OR CANNOT DO.
AND I THINK, UH, YOU, YOU, UH, YOU HAVE ALL MY RESPECT AND YOU ARE UP THERE WITH ONE OF THE SMART LAWYER I HAD WORKED WITH.
SO, UH, THANK YOU AND, UH, WISH YOU THE BEST IN WHATEVER YOU'RE GONNA DO.
THANK YOU, KURT, MICHAEL, OR JOHANN, HAVE ANYTHING TO SAY BEFORE WE MOVE ON? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
ALL THE BEST TO YOU IN YOUR RETIREMENT.
IT'S BEEN FUN WORKING WITH YOU.
UM, I CAN'T WAIT TO SEE WHAT YOU DO WITH YOUR PHOTOGRAPHY SKILLS WHILE IN RETIREMENT.
I WAS TALKING TO HUGH ABOUT A PROJECT.
I HAVEN'T PAINTED A LOT THIS YEAR AT ALL, BUT I HAVE AN IDEA FOR SOMETHING THAT I'D LIKE TO DO FOR YOU AS A GIVEAWAY.
AND IT'S BASED ON ONE OF THE, UH, PHOTOGRAPHS THAT YOU'VE ALREADY, UH, TAKEN.
SO WE'LL TALK MORE ABOUT THAT IN NEAR TERM.
YEAH, I, I JUST, JUST BRIEFLY, I MEAN, DA DAVID AND I HAD DISAGREED ON A FEW OCCASIONS, NOT MANY.
BUT DAVID, WHAT I REALLY MOST APPRECIATED ABOUT YOU IS THAT YOU ARE THOUGHTFUL.
YOU DID YOUR RESEARCH, YOU ARE INTELLECTUALLY HONEST, AND YOU TOOK CARE OF US.
I, MICHAEL, I WANNA NOMINATE YOU TO BE THE NEXT PLANNING BOARD ATTORNEY, BUT YOU WANNA AGREE WITH ME ON THAT?
MONA
I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO ENJOY RETIREMENT AS MUCH AS I'M GOING TO LOOK FORWARD TO ENJOY.
THANK YOU, MOA, ENJOY YOURS AS WELL.
UM, FIRST OF ALL THE MINUTES, AARON, WERE THERE ANY CHANGES? AARON? AARON HAD SOMETHING TO SAY HERE.
OH, AARON, I WAS ONLY GONNA SAY THAT, UH, IT WAS A PLEASURE WORKING WITH DAVID OVER THESE LAST, I'D SAY ABOUT SEVEN YEARS WITH THE PLANNING BOARD.
HE WELCOMED ME WHEN I TOOK OVER THE POSITION FOR GARRETT.
UM, HE'S BEEN A PLEASURE TO WORK WITH, AND WHILE HE'S MADE MY LIFE, MY WORK LIFE EASIER, MANY TIMES HE IS ALSO MADE IT MORE DIFFICULT.
SO
I LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING TOGETHER, UM, YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU'RE THROUGH AND, AND, AND CELEBRATING YOUR TIME WITH THE TALENT.
AND MAYBE, MAYBE METS YANKEES GAME.
BEAUTIFUL WORLD SERIES METS IN THE YANKEES THIS YEAR.
OKAY, UH, MOVING ON TO THE AGENDA.
NOW, BY THE WAY, IF WE GO 10 MINUTES PAST 10, WALTER, IT'S YOUR FAULT FOR YOUR LONG SPEECH ABOUT DAVE.
JUST SAY IT, DAVID DECIDE TO RETIRE.
SO IT'S DAVID'S FAULT IF WE GO OVER TONIGHT.
UM, DIDN'T, UH, TOM HAVE, HAVE A CHANGE TO THE MINUTES? YES.
AND THEN I'LL ASK EVERYBODY ELSE.
SO, UH, MR. HAY IDENTIFIED THAT ON PAGE FOUR IN THE DISCUSSION ON, UH, DI NAPOLI, THE WORTHINGTON ESTATES PROJECT.
UH, FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH THERE WAS MENTION THAT, UH, A STOP SIGN WAS RECOMMENDED EXITING THE NEWLY PROPOSED CUL-DE-SAC
[00:10:01]
ROADWAY.SO THAT IS SOMETHING WE WILL ADD IN TO THAT SECTION OF THE MINUTES.
AGAIN, PAGE FOUR, FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH UNDER THE DI NAPOLI WORTHINGTON ESTATES PROJECT.
UM, ON PAGE THREE, THE FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH AT THE END, WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT THE ARTIFACTS FROM THE CEMETERY, I'D LIKE TO, UM, WHEN I WAS DISCUSSING THAT, I WAS TALKING ABOUT ARTIFACTS NOT ONLY IN THE CEMETERY, BUT BEYOND THE CEMETERY.
IF ANY ARTIFACTS WERE FOUND THAT THEY SHOULD ALSO, UM, BE PRESERVED.
SO IF THEY COULD ADD THE WORDS AND OR THE HOUSING EXCAVATION.
LEMME JUST, ANY ARTIFACTS FROM THE CEMETERY AND OR THE HOUSING EXCAVATION BE PRESERVED? UH, WE'LL SAY THE, THE SITE EXCAVATION WORK, THAT WOULD BE FINE.
ANYBODY ELSE? IF NOT, I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE, UH, MINUTES AS AMENDED.
I'LL ABSTAIN 'CAUSE I WASN'T THERE.
I THINK WE HAVE A COUPLE OF THINGS IN CORRESPONDENCE.
SO FIRST WE HAVE CASE NUMBER PB 19 DASH 26.
THAT'S THE KAUFMAN SUBDIVISION AT 36 HILLCREST AVENUE IN ARDSLEY.
WE RECEIVED A REQUEST BY LETTER DATED JULY 26TH, 2022.
IT WAS FORWARDED TO THE BOARD MEMBERS IN YOUR PACKAGES REQUEST FOR AN ADDITIONAL EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
THE, UM, APPLICANT HAS BEEN, UH, AND HIS ENGINEER HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE TOWN'S BUREAU OF ENGINEERING.
UM, AND, UH, WORKING TO, TO IRON THINGS OUT, THERE'S SOMETHING TO DO WITH A TWO INCH LINE ON SPRINGWOOD AVENUE.
AND THEY WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE THE SUFFICIENT SIZE LINE TO SERVICE THE NEW HOME THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUBDIVISION.
SO THAT'S BEING IRONED OUT AND, UH, HE EXPECTS TO BE ABLE TO HAVE IT DONE WITHIN THE 90 DAY EXTENSION WINDOW.
SO IT'S CURRENTLY SET TO EXPIRE AUGUST 1ST, UH, OR IT WAS SET TO EXPIRE, PARDON ME, AUGUST 1ST.
HE SUBMITTED THE REQUEST AHEAD OF TIME, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE DIDN'T HAVE A MEETING BETWEEN THEN AND NOW.
SO IT WOULD BE RETROACTIVE TO THE FIRST OBJECT.
AND HOW MANY MONTHS IS IT FOR? IT WOULD BE 90 DAYS.
UM, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, GRANT THE EXTENSION TO MOVE FOR, FOR A, UH, FOR THE SUBDIVISION, UH, APPROVAL, RIGHT? FOR A PRELIMINARY FOR THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, MR. SNAG SECOND.
ALL OPPOSED? NONE ABSTENTIONS.
SOMETHING ELSE IN THE CORRESPONDENCE TO AARON.
WE DID HAVE ONE OTHER ITEM, AND THIS RELATES TO AN OLDER CASE.
IT'S CASE NUMBER PB ZERO NINE DASH 12, KNOWN AS THE, UM, 66 BEACH STREET PROJECT.
AND I'M GONNA BRING UP THE PLAN WHILE I'M SPEAKING.
BUT, UM, SO YOU MAY RECALL THAT THERE HAVE BEEN SOME EXTENSIONS ON THIS PROJECT AND THAT THE MOST RECENT EXTENSION INVOLVED A NEW BUYER THAT INDICATED THEY ARE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CONSTRUCTION OF THIS, UM, MULTI-FAMILY UNIT.
I BELIEVE IT'S FIVE UNITS, UM, OFF MANHATTAN AVENUE ON BEACH STREET, P O Y PLAINS, THE, I'LL SHARE THE SCREEN, BUT THE CONTRACTOR ALERTED TOWN STAFF OF OUR DEPARTMENT, SPECIFICALLY THE TOWN FORESTRY OFFICER, THAT THERE WERE A FEW TREES IN THE BACK CORNER OF THE LOT THAT WERE CONCERNING.
AND THAT, UM, GIVEN THE SIZE OF THE TREES AND THEIR EXTENSIVE ROOT SYSTEMS, HE WAS CERTAIN THAT THE ROOT SYSTEMS WOULD BE UNDERMINED CREATING A POTENTIAL FUTURE HAZARD FOR THESE TREES.
AND LET ME JUST SHOW THE SCREEN AND I'LL PAN OVER THE, UH, AREA.
SO THIS WAS THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED, UM, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 UNITS, UM, GARAGES IN THE FRONT HERE COMING OFF OF.
SO MANHATTAN AVENUE IS OVER HERE.
THIS IS BEACH STREET, AND IT'D BE, UH, ENTRY AND EXIT OVER HERE.
UH, THE TWO TREES IN QUESTION ARE THESE TWO, THEY'RE LARGE SILVER MAPLE TREES IN THE REAR CORNER, BUT THE CANOPIES EXTEND WELL INTO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE
[00:15:01]
PROPOSED BUILDING, AND THERE WOULD BE VERY LIMITED ACCESS TO GET BACK TO THOSE TWO TREES IN THE FUTURE.ONCE, UH, THESE UNITS ARE CONSTRUCTED AND GIVEN, GIVEN ALL THAT AND THE FACT THAT, UH, THAT YOU CANNOT GET ACCESS TO THEM FROM THE SIDE OR FROM THE UP ABOVE, UH, 'CAUSE THERE IS A CHANGE IN TOPOGRAPHY AND A, AND A RETAINING WALL BACK HERE, UM, IT MAKES SENSE TO CONSIDER TO HAVE THEM REMOVED AT THIS TIME AND REPLACED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN'S TREE ORDINANCE.
UH, THE TOWN FORESTRY OFFICER CONDUCTED A SITE VISIT AND DOES FRANKLY AGREE WITH THE CONTRACTOR THAT THE ROOT SYSTEMS COULD CERTAINLY BE UNDERMINED AND IMPACTED TO THE POINT WHERE IT COULD RESULT IN A, IN A PROBLEM, UH, AND IN, UH, A PROBLEM DOWN THE ROAD FOR THESE UNITS AND THESE UNIT OWNERS.
SO, BEING THAT THEY WERE SHOWN TO BE PRESERVED ON A PLAN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, WE WANTED TO BRING IT TO YOUR ATTENTION.
THEY'RE IN REASONABLE HEALTH, BUT TREES OF THIS SIZE, AND THEY'RE ABOUT, THEY'RE OVER 40 INCHES DIAMETER, YOU KNOW, UH, TRUNK SIZE.
SO DAMAGING THE ROOT SYSTEMS, THEY'RE NOT TREE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE FULLY MATURE TREES.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT, UM, THEY'RE LIKELY TO BOUNCE BACK AND, AND BEGIN TO PUSH OUT NEW ROUTES AND COMPENSATE.
SO IT'S STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE FORESTRY OFFICER'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CONSIDER PERMITTING THEM TO MOVE FORWARD SUBJECT TO ADDITIONAL PLANTINGS ON THE SITE AND OR CONTRIBUTION TO THE TOWN TREE FUND FARM.
ARE THOSE TWO TREES PROVIDING ANY SCREENING TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES? THEY ARE PROVIDING SOME, SOME SCREENING, BECAUSE THEY ARE LARGE CANOPY TREES.
THEY'RE NOT PROVIDING MUCH SCREENING FOR, YOU KNOW, THE SIX MONTHS, FIVE OR SIX MONTHS IN THE WINTERTIME AFTER LEAF TROUT AND INTO THE SPRING.
BUT THE OTHER FROM APRIL THROUGH NOVEMBER, THEY CERTAINLY ARE.
SO THE THOUGHT WAS TO REPLACE TREES IN THAT LOCATION WITH, WITH NEW YOUNG HEALTHY TREES THAT CAN GROW AND PROVIDE SIMILAR SCREENING AND BENEFITS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? WALTER? UH, COULD YOU PUT THE SCREEN BACK UP, AARON? YES.
YOU INDICATED THAT YOU CAN'T EFFECTIVELY GET TO THOSE TWO TREES, SO IF YOU CUT 'EM DOWN AND PUT TWO, UH, SMALLER TREES THERE, HOW WILL YOU GET TO THOSE SMALLER TREES? YOU STILL HAVE THE ISSUE OF ACCESS.
BUT IF YOU GO, IF YOU'RE STARTING FROM THE LEFT HAND SIDE, YOU SEE THOSE FOUR TREES, WHAT IS BETWEEN, WHAT OBSTACLE IS BETWEEN THOSE FOUR TREES AND THAT CORNER? THAT WHY, WHY YOU CANNOT SERVICE THAT TREE TODAY? OH, SO YOU, I CAN SERVICE THE TREES TODAY BECAUSE THIS ISN'T, HASN'T BEEN BUILT OUT YET.
THEY'RE JUST NO, NO, NO, BUT, BUT BASED ON YOU, YOU INDICATED THAT ONCE THAT IS UP, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE TWO TREES.
SO IF YOU CUT DOWN THOSE TWO TREES AND YOU PUT DOWN SMALLER TREES, HOW DO YOU GET ACCESS TO THOSE NEW PLANTINGS IN THE FUTURE? SO LET ME ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT, UH, AND QUICKLY.
SO THE, WHEN I, I SHOULD HAVE SAID BEYOND ACCESS, UM, REASONABLE, I SHOULD HAVE SAID REASONABLE ACCESS TO ACTUALLY TAKE DOWN TREES OF THIS SIZE.
COULD THEY POTENTIALLY GET A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT ALONG THE SIDE OVER THIS SYSTEM? THIS IS A, UM, THIS IS A BIO SWELL.
SO THEY'RE GONNA BE PLANTINGS ALL ALONG THIS EDGE TO FUNCTION AS THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
AND THERE'S UNDERGROUND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT HERE.
THESE ARE ACTUALLY FLOWERING TREES THAT ARE GONNA BE PLANTED.
SO THEY'RE SMALL AND YOU DON'T REALLY NEED A LARGE PIECE OF EQUIPMENT.
BUT IF DOWN THE ROAD THESE TREES WERE TO REMAIN, YOU'D NEED A CRANE TO TAKE THEM DOWN.
AND YOU'VE HAVE VERY LITTLE ROOM TO OPERATE.
SO THEY'D BE TRYING TO LOWER LIMBS AND NOT DAMAGE DECKS OR UNDERGROUND STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS. OKAY.
SO IF WE REPLACE THEM WITH NOT, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT, I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE TO REPLACE THEM WITH, YOU KNOW, OAK TREES OR NEW SILVER MAPLE TREES THAT ARE GONNA GROW IN 50 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, BECOME A SIMILAR ISSUE POTENTIALLY, BUT PERHAPS SOME EVERGREENS THAT GROW TALL BUT DON'T GET SO WIDE OR GET LARGE LIMBS, THEY COULD PROVIDE THAT SCREENING EFFECT AND STILL BE MANAGEABLE IN WHEN IT'S TIME TO TAKE THEM DOWN,
[00:20:01]
YOU KNOW, IN THE FUTURE.ANYBODY, OTHER COMMENTS? KURT? YEAH.
YEAH, I THINK, UH, AARON, I REMEMBER WHEN THIS, UH, PROPO APPLICANT CAME WITH THE PROPOSAL AND WE HAD A SIMILAR CONCERNS AND QUESTIONS ABOUT ACCESS.
AND, UH, SO THEY SAY THAT THEY COULD ACCESS AND MAINTAIN THE TWO TREES.
AND, AND THE SECOND POINT IS THAT THEY, UH, THE, THIS KIND OF A BIG TREE IS A REALLY A, UH, VALUABLE ASSET TO THE TOWN.
I MEAN, TO GET TO THAT SILVER BEACH IN, IN THE AREA, I MEAN, YOU ARE, YOU ARE ARBORIST, SO YOU KNOW THAT, AND IT IS A, IT IS A SO IMPORTANT FOR THE, UH, NOT ONLY THE SHADES AND SCREENING, BUT, BUT THE WHOLE ECOSYSTEMS THAT THEY DO IT.
I HAVE ONE TRAY IN MY BACKYARD AND IT BEEN USED BY SOME OF THE BIG PREY TO NEST ON IT BECAUSE THEY NEED A HEIGHT TO REALLY DO THAT.
SO BEFORE WE KIND OF, UH, UH, RECOMMEND TO CUT IT DOWN THESE TREES IS WE SHOULD BE REALLY THINKING WHAT OTHER THINGS COULD BE DONE.
UH, SO I'M, I'M REALLY SAD IF YOU HAVE TO DO, CUT DOWN THE TREES AS MUCH AS YOU AND EVERYBODY ELSE WOULD BE.
UH, AND SECOND THING IS THAT WHEN WE APPROVED THIS FILE, UH, SORT OF A, UH, PROPOSAL FOR THE FIVE KIND OF, UH, ROW HOUSES AND WAS, UH, WAS THEY COULD HAVE DONE IT WITH FOUR AND HAD A PROVIDED ACCESS, AND THEY SAID, NO, IT IS OKAY, WE STILL HAVE IT AND WE WILL MAINTAIN IT.
AND NOW THEY'RE COMING BACK HAVING A SECOND THOUGHT ABOUT IT.
SO I WOULD WONDER WHETHER THEY CAN DO IT WITH A FOUR UNIT RATHER THAN FILE.
AND SO, TO ME, AS I AGREE WITH, UH, WALTER, THEY COME BACK WITH CRYING KIND OF, UH, UH, UM, HARDSHIP.
BUT WHEN THEY ORIGINALLY PROPOSED THERE WAS NO HARDSHIP ABOUT THAT.
SO I'M KIND OF, UH, NOT VERY CLEAR WHERE THEY'RE COMING FROM.
WELL, THIS IS A NEW, SO I WOULD RECOMMEND TO KIND OF FIGURE OUT WAYS TO DO IT.
IF THEY HAVE TO BRING A, UH, SOME SORT OF, UH, WAYS TO MAINTAIN IT, LET'S DO IT.
SO THREES ARE GOOD IN A GOOD HEALTH, AND THEY AT LEAST THEY HAVE ANOTHER FIVE TO 10 YEARS, LIKE MINIMUM.
THAT'S MY, IT IS A NEW, IT IS A NEW OWNER AND A, AND A DIFFERENT BUILDER THAN, THAN THAT'S NOT OUR PROBLEM.
I WOULD SAY THAT IT WAS ALSO ABOUT 10 YEARS AGO, THERE WERE IDENTIFIED DEFECTS IN THE TREES.
UH, THEY'RE NOT HAZARDOUS, BUT OVER TIME THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOING, THEY'RE BASICALLY HOW I WOULD DESCRIBE IT.
NOW, THE ARBORIST, THE TOWN FORESTRY OFFICER DESCRIBED IS THAT THEY'RE ON THE DOWNSWING.
AND, AND, AND THEY'RE ON THE DOWNSWING OF THE, OF THEIR LIFECYCLE.
OKAY, MICHAEL, I, I, I THINK I'M WITH CURED ON THIS.
LOOK, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE TREES ARE HEALTHY.
MAYBE THEY'RE PAST THEIR PRIME.
UM, THEY COULD LIVE ANOTHER 50 YEARS.
AND THE NOTION IS THAT THE CONSTRUCTION MAY DAMAGE THE ROOTS AND MAY LEAD TO THE TREES DYING.
I'VE GOT 'EM ALIVE, BUT THEY'RE ALIVE.
I'M WILLING TO TAKE THE RISKS THAT THEY'RE NOT GONNA DIE.
AND IF THEY DO DIE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET HEAVY EQUIPMENT BACK THERE.
THEY GOTTA CUT A PIECE BY PIECE DOWN, BUT THEY CAN REMOVE THAT TREE IF ONE, IT DIES.
SO, UM, I WOULD VOTE NO, LEAVE THE TREES ALONE.
ANYBODY ELSE? OKAY, WHY DON'T WE TAKE A STRAW OUT FIRST.
WHO'S FOR APPROVING THIS? HUGH.
HUGH, JUST BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT.
IT SOUNDS AS THOUGH AARON'S RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO TAKE THE TREES DOWN, BE BEING THAT THEY PASSED THEIR PRIME, IT CREATES AN ACCESS ISSUE OVERALL AND THE OPPORTUNITY TO REPLANT, UH, SIMILAR TREES STILL EXIST, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
BUT THE SIMILAR TREES ARE GONNA TAKE 20 YEARS BEFORE YOU'RE GONNA GET ANY NEAR THE IMPACT OF WHAT'S THERE NOW.
YEAH, I WOULD SAY THAT, WELL, LET ME SAY THIS.
IF THE BOARD AND IT, IT'S UP TO THE BOARD, OBVIOUSLY, BUT, UM, IF WE WERE TO PUT EVERGREENS IN THEIR PLACE, THE BOARD COULD SAY THAT WE WANT SUBSTANTIALLY SIZED EVERGREENS THAT CAN PROVIDE SCREENING ON THE FRONT END.
AND, UM, THEY WOULD PROVIDE YEAR ROUND SCREENING VERSUS THE TREES THAT ARE COMING OUT THAT ONLY PROVIDE, UM,
[00:25:01]
YOU KNOW, HALF YOUR SCREENING.I WOULD SAY THAT IF I, I UNDERSTAND THE CHAIR CALLED FOR A STRAW POLL AND THAT'S FINE.
UM, BUT I WOULD PROBABLY SUGGEST THAT IF YOU WERE GONNA VOTE TONIGHT, MAYBE YOU WANNA HOLD OFF AND ASK THE APPLICANT OR THE CONTRACTOR TO COME IN AND SPEAK WITH THE BOARD.
THAT'S WHY I ASKED FOR A ARAVO TONIGHT.
SO CAN I HAVE ARAVO ALL IN FAVOR OF THE RECOMMENDATION TO TAKE DOWN THOSE TREES? SAY, AYE, RAISE YOUR HAND.
WALTER, ARE YOU OPPOSED? UH, NO, I'M SAYING BECAUSE I'M AMBIVALENT.
HE'S A, IT'S 2, 2, 1, SO WE'RE TIED TOO ON TOP OF IT ALL.
SO TWO, THREE, YOU, I, I, I, I WOULD LIKE, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE, UH, DEVELOPER AND I'D LIKE TO SEE PICTURES.
SO WHY DON'T WE HAVE 'EM COME IN THE NEXT TIME, MICHAEL? OKAY.
WE'LL HAVE, HAVE 'EM COME IN FOR THE NEXT MEETING, AARON.
I'M CONFUSED SINCE I HAVE, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THE RIGHT, UH, AGENDA.
WE GONNA DO BRIGHTVIEW BEFORE WE'RE DOING NEWMAN, WE'RE GONNA DO NEWMAN FIRST.
SO WE'RE IN CASE, UH, PB 2020, NEWMAN SUBDIVISION ON SOUTH, UH, ON SOUTHWOOD PLACE.
WE HAD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS, AND, UM, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
AND ADAM, WERE THERE ANY SPECIAL CONDITIONS IN THE, UH, APPROVAL? NO, THERE ARE NOT ANY THAT I WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION.
AND FURTHER, THERE HAVE BEEN NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS SUBMITTED SINCE THE CLOSURE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SO THE BOARD MAY WISH TO VOTE ON THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION.
I WANNA SEE IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS AT ALL ON THIS PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION BEFORE WE HAVE THE VOTE.
I THEN, UH, WOULD, UH, AGITATE A MOTION TO, UH, LET'S DO THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION FIRST TO APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION FOR THIS PROJECT.
CAN I HAVE A MOTION? SO, MOVE MR. SIMON, UH, MR. SNAGS QUICK ON THE DRAW TONIGHT.
THE SECOND VOTE IS APPROVING THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FOR THIS PROJECT.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO DO THAT? NO.
UM, CHAIRPERSON SCHWARTZ, WE DON'T HAVE TO CONSIDER THE TREE REMOVAL UNTIL FINAL SUBDIVISION FOR THIS DIVISION.
THAT WAS ACTUALLY ON OUR AGENDA FOR THE RECORD.
SO WE HAD ANOTHER, IT WAS ON THE DRAFT, SO WE TOOK, WE TOOK, I NEVER SAW THE OTHER ONE.
UM, LEMME LEMME EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BIT.
UH, UH, MR. CHAIR, WHEN WE PUT THEM ON THE AGENDA THEMSELVES, ACTUALLY, WE PUT ALL THE APPLICATIONS THAT ARE BEFORE IT, THE TREE PERMIT AS WELL AS, OKAY, WE SUBDIVISION.
BUT WHEN YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT THE OPINION, IT ONLY IS FOR, UM, SUB SUB DAVE, DON'T COVER, YOU KNOW, I HAD TO GET THAT IN.
SO, SO WE'RE DONE, DONE WITH THAT.
AND THEN AT THE FINAL SUBDIVISION, WE WILL, UH, APPROVE THE TREAT TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO BRIGHTVIEW.
I DON'T HAVE THE CASE NUMBER IN FRONT OF ME, AARON, SO YOU CAN DESCRIBE IT IS THE FINAL SUB.
WE HAVE APPROVED IT IN PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION BEFORE.
I GUESS YOU'RE HERE FOR THIS, RIGHT? THAT'S RIGHT.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, UH, DAVID COOPER LAW FIRM AND THE PARTNER, UH, PARTNER OF THE LAW FIRM IS AARON AND STEINS HERE REPRESENTING BRIGHTVIEW SENIOR LIVING.
MR. SCHMIDT, DO YOU WANNA, UH, GIVE THE, UH, CASE NUMBER AND TELL US IF THERE HAVE BEEN ANY CHANGES SINCE THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION? IF SO, WHAT ARE THEY? ABSOLUTELY.
SO CASE NUMBER PB 20 DASH 21 BRIGHTVIEW METROPOLIS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT TWO EIGHTY NINE DOBBS FERRY ROAD, PO O WHITE PLAIN IN THE R 15 AND R 21 FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONING DISTRICTS AS MENTIONED, THE PLANNING BOARD WILL BE CONSIDERING A DECISION ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION FOR A PROPOSAL INVOLVING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 155 UNIT 186 BED, APPROXIMATELY 174,571 SQUARE FOOT CONTINUUM OF CARE FACILITY, FIVE ACRE LOT TO BE KNOWN AS LOT ONE OF WHAT CURRENTLY IS PART OF THE METROPOLIS COUNTRY CLUB PROPERTY PROJECT INCLUDES AN APPROXIMATELY 3.17 ACRE LOT KNOWN AS LOT THREE CONSISTING OF AN
[00:30:01]
ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA TO MEET THE REQUIRED EIGHT ACRES FOR A CONTINUUM OF CARE FACILITY LOT TWO CONSISTING OF APPROXIMATELY 123.86 ACRES WOULD CONTINUE TO OPERATE AS THE METROPOLIS COUNTRY CLUB.ON FEBRUARY 21ST, 2021, THE TOWN BOARD ADOPTED A RESOLUTION APPROVING WITH CONDITIONS, THE APPLICANT'S SPECIAL PERMIT, SITE PLAN, AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS UNDER CASE NUMBER TB 20 DASH 10.
THERE HAVE BEEN NO SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE SUBDIVISION PLATT SINCE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WAS ISSUED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
ALL CONDITIONS OF THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL HAVE BEEN CARRIED OVER INTO THE FINAL SUBDIVISION DECISION BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING.
BEFORE THE BOARD CONSIDERS A VOTE ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION, IT MAY WISH TO VOTE TO WAIVE, TO CONSIDER WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION.
DID ANYBODY HAVE ANY COMMENTS BEFORE WE TAKE A VOTE ON THIS? OKAY.
UM, SINCE THERE ARE NO COMMENT, I DON'T SEE ANY COMMENTS.
I WILL TAKE A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE FINAL SUBDIVISION.
NOW I WILL TAKE A, UH, MOTION TO APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION.
CAN I HAVE A MOTION PLEASE? SO, MOVED.
ALL OPPOSED, ABSTENTIONS PASSES.
SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY WANNA TELL ME WHY MR. FREE LOOKS SO, SO RELAXED TODAY? I MISSED THE, I MISSED THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
AND, AND, AND GOOD WORKING WITH YOU, BUT LUCK.
LOOK AT, LOOK AT THE NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA.
THE NEXT, THE NEXT, UM, THING ON THE AGENDA IS CASE 2202, WHICH IS THE REFERRAL OF THE, UM, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT APPROVING, UH, MARIJUANA, BOTH CULTIVATING AND PROCESSING FACILITIES AS WELL AS, UM, UH, RETAIL OPERATIONS FOR MEDICAL, AND THEN SEPARATELY FOR RESIDENTS SEPARATELY FOR RESIDENTIAL.
UM, THIS IS A, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THIS OVER THE LAST SEVERAL MEETINGS.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO TRY TO DO IS SEE IF WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS IN 45 MINUTES OR LESS.
I'M GONNA TRY TO SET FOR THAT.
THAT WAS A SUGGESTION MONA GAVE ME ON THE PHONE TO TRY TO HAVE AN EXPECTATION THERE.
AND IT'S A VERY GOOD SUGGESTION.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TARGETING IS 45 MINUTES FOR THIS.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE IT BECAUSE WE ARE GOING TO VOTE ON THIS TO, WE NEED TO VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT.
UM, I DO HAVE, DID, DID TOM SEND YOU A COPY OF HIS CORRESPONDENCE ON THIS, UH, AARON OR DO YOU WANT ME TO PULL IT UP? UM, NO, I DID NOT SEE IT.
I JUST WANNA RE, MR. HAY IS NOW WITH US TONIGHT.
HE HAD A PREVIOUS ENGAGEMENT AND HE SENT ME, I CAN FIND IT.
YOU'RE SAYING AN EMAIL, RIGHT? I DID SEE THAT.
UM, HE, MR. HAY COULD NOT BE WITH US, BUT HE DID WANNA WEIGH IN ON HIS OPINION.
OBVIOUSLY HE CAN'T VOTE TONIGHT NOT BEING HERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHY IN THE MIDDLE OF A PLAY HE CAN'T BE BE ON ZOOM.
BUT WHAT CAN I TELL YOU? BUT WHAT HE DID SAY WAS, HE WILL NOT BE AT THE MEETING TONIGHT, BUT HE SUPPORTS THE CANNABIS LOCAL LAW ZONING TAX AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION AS CIRCULATED BY AARON YESTERDAY AFTERNOON.
AND HE ATTACHED A COPY OF WHAT WE CIRCULATED YESTERDAY.
SO THAT'S JUST GET MR. UH, HAY'S OPINION OUT OF THE WAY THERE.
SO THAT'S ON THE PUBLIC RECORD.
I WANNA TAKE THIS IN PARTS BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S A COMPLICATED ISSUE.
UH, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF TALKING ABOUT IT.
SO I'M GONNA TAKE IT IN PARKS AND, AND DEAL WITH IT AND TRY TO DEAL IT IN FOUR PARTS.
ONE I WANNA DEAL WITH FIRST IS ON THE MANUFACTURING AND PROCESSING SIDE OF IT.
THEN I WANNA DEAL WITH THE MEDICAL MAR MARIJUANA RETAIL OUTLETS.
THEN I WANNA DEAL WITH THE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA RETAIL OUTLETS.
AND FINALLY, WITH WHAT WE WANT TO SAY IS AN OVERALL RECOMMENDATION IN TERMS OF POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, AND NEGATIVE.
[00:35:01]
THE EASIEST WAY TO BRING EVERYTHING TOGETHER.EVERYBODY WITH ME ON THAT? MR. SIMON? UM, THE DRAFT OF THE, THE DRAFT, UH, ZONING DOCUMENT, WE PRETTY MUCH, WE ALL ARE IN AGREEMENT, BUT THERE'S ONE LITTLE TECHNICAL CHANGE CLARIFICATION I'D LIKE TO MAKE ON IT.
WE COULD DO IT NOW OR AT THE END.
IF IT'S ABOUT THE DRAFT ITSELF, COULD YOU JUST HOLD THAT TO THE END AND LET'S GO THROUGH THE PARTS FIRST AND THEN, THEN, THEN WHEN WE GO PUT EVERYTHING TOGETHER IN THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION, THE FOURTH POINT I MADE, MAKE THAT, MAKE THOSE COMMENTS.
THE FIRST PART, UM, AND I'LL HEAR FROM EVERYBODY ELSE, I, I AGREE WITH THE RECOMMENDATION.
I JUST DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH TECHNICAL INFORMATION YET TO REALLY MAKE A LAW WITH A SPEC, WITH SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR THESE THINGS.
NOT THAT WE DON'T WANNA DO THEM, BUT WE NEED TO DO MORE RESEARCH.
AND THAT IS BASICALLY, UH, WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION SAYS.
DO I HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR SEC SECTION? NO.
I'D LIKE TO TAKE A VOTE ON THIS SECTION, ON THE RECOMMENDATION ITSELF.
ON, ON THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT SECTION PARTICULARLY, I'M JUST FOCUSING ONLY ON PROCESSING.
EVERYBODY SEEMS TO BE IN AGREEMENT ON THAT.
I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF MICHAEL CAME BACK.
NOT WE HAVE ENOUGH PEOPLE TO TAKE A VOTE IF HE COMES BACK BEFORE THE VOTE'S OVER.
THE, THE SECTION JUST ON THE MAR JUST ON THE PROCESSING AND CULTIVATION, WHICH ESSENTIALLY SAYS, I'M SUMMARIZING HERE THAT THERE'S INSUFFICIENT TECHNICAL, UH, INFORMATION NOW TO, TO CREATE, UH, A LAW ON, ON THIS, ON THIS PART OF, UH, THE LAW.
CREATE A LAW ON THE CULTIVATION AND PROCESSING, AND RECOMMENDS THAT, THAT A CONSULTANT BE HIRED BY THE TOWN BOARD TO DO THAT.
'CAUSE WITHOUT THAT, IT'S VERY HARD TO CREATE SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA, FACT AND POSSIBLE.
AND THAT'S BEGINNING ON PAGE AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO OF THE DRAFT.
YEAH, THOSE FOUR ARE BULLET POINTS.
SO, UM, COULD I JUST HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THAT SECTION OF THE DOCUMENT? SO MOVED.
JOHANN, UH, MOVED IT ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
ALL OPPOSED? AND MICHAEL IS OUT OF THE ROOM, SO JUST DECLARE HIM ABSENT FOR, FOR THAT, UH, VOTE.
YOU CAN WE, WHEN MICHAEL COMES BACK, CAN YOU JUST ASK HIM IF HE WANTS TO VOTE ON IT? SURE.
UM, THE SECOND ONE, I THINK WE ALL AGREE THAT THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MEDICAL AND, AND RECREATIONAL OUTLETS, RETAIL OUTLETS FOR THESE.
UM, AND THERE WERE SPECIFIC REASONS WHY WE FELT IN OUR DISCUSSIONS THAT LIMITING IT TO A PARTICULAR AREA OF THE TOWN WAS ACTUALLY, UM, HOW WOULD I PUT THIS? UM, NOT A GOOD THING, I GUESS.
UH, FOR THE PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY NEED ME, MEDICAL MARIJUANA MADE, MADE THEIR ACCESS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND THAT WE'RE JUST PUTTING IT IN THE, IN THE, YOU KNOW, NORTHWEST PART OF TOWN.
AND THAT WAS THE REASON THAT WE LOOKED SPECIFICALLY AT MEDICAL MARIJUANA.
THE OTHER THING WE SAID THAT EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T AGREE WITH OUR NEXT RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS BROADEN, UH, RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA OR TWO OTHER ZONES, AT LEAST THEY SHOULD CONSIDER MEDICAL MARIJUANA FOR THE REASONS I JUST STATED.
THAT, THAT, THAT YOU'RE CREATING A HARDSHIP FOR PEOPLE WHO ACTUALLY NEED THIS STUFF BY, BY THAT ACCESS.
THAT'S WHAT THAT SECTION SAYS.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE DO THAT? MR. SIMON? YEAH, I, I THINK WE SHOULD EMPHASIZE, UH, UH, THE MEDICAL MAL THE NECESSITY OF THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO BE LOCATED IN ANY AREA WHERE WE WOULD NORMALLY LOCATE A PHARMACY.
AND FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, IT SHOULD BE ANY PLACE WHERE YOU CAN, UH, UH, UH, A PHARMACY
[00:40:01]
COULD BE LOCATED, A MEDICAL MARIJUANA FACILITY SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO BE LOCATED OKAY.WITH THE, UH, WITH, UH, WITH THE ADDITIONAL, I KNOW THE STATE HAS SOME ADDITIONAL RULES ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA, SO I THINK IT SHOULD BE WHAT OUR CODE ALLOW CONSISTENT WITH ANY STATE LAW.
DAVE, LET ME ASK YOU A QUESTION.
UM, IN THE STATE LAW, CAN YOU PUT A MEDICAL ME DISPENSARY INSIDE A PHARMACY OR NO? I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
HAS TO BE STANDALONE, RIGHT? I'M NOT GONNA GO THAT FAR BECAUSE THERE, THERE STILL MAY BE RULES AND REGULATIONS THAT THE CANNABIS, UH, OFFICE OF CANNABIS MANAGEMENT MAY, UH, DEVELOP OVER TIME.
BUT IT, RIGHT NOW, IT WOULD APPEAR THAT IT WOULD NOT BE, UH, YOU COULD NOT DO THAT IN A PHARMACY.
IT COULD HAVE A SECTION IN A PHARMACY THAT WAS CANNABIS.
BEFORE WE GO ON, I WANNA GO BACK TO MICHAEL.
MICHAEL, YOU WERE OUT OF THE ROOM.
WE TOOK A VOTE ON THE SECTION OF THE, UM, OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
WE'RE DOING IT IN FOUR SECTIONS.
UM, WE'RE DOING THE PROCESSING CULTIVATION SECTION, THE MEDICAL SECTION, THE RECREATIONAL SECTION, THEN AN OVERALL RECOMMENDATION.
UM, THE PROCESSING SECTION, WHAT WE'VE SAID IN, IN, IN THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE HAVE INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AT THIS TIME UNDERSTANDING OF THE, OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES TO ACTUALLY IMPLEMENT A SPECIAL PERMIT LAW AND RECOMMEND THAT THE TOWN BOARD HIRE A CONSULTANT TO GET THE INFORMATION NECESSARY TO WRITE THAT, TO WRITE THAT, THAT'S WHAT THAT RECOMMENDATION SAYS.
RIGHT? WE HAD A VOTE AND I NEED YOUR, YOUR COMMENTS AND VOTE ON THAT.
SO, UM, JUST NOW GOING TO, TO WHERE YOU WERE HEADED WITH THE MEDICAL, UM, AND YOU HAD ASKED ABOUT COMMENTS.
I THINK JOHAN HAD A COMMENT AND SUGGESTED, UH, LANGUAGE THAT FALL, THAT WASN'T FOR MEDICAL, THAT WAS FOR RECREATIONAL.
UM, I BOTH PLACES, BUT IT'S REALLY FOR RECREATIONAL.
I, I THINK IT WAS FOR BOTH, BUT, UH, I COULD BE WRONG, JOHANN.
I THINK FOR BOTH, BOTH PLACES.
IF YOU WANNA BRING IT UP HERE, DAVE, YOU CAN.
IT'S, IT'S A I'LL LET, I'LL, I'LL WELL, I'LL YOU AHEAD.
DO YOU, I I THOUGHT WE COULD HANDLE THAT WHEN WE DO THE FINAL VOTE BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE IT BELONGED.
'CAUSE I DO, I THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY GOOD.
ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE I DO WANNA INCLUDE IN THE RECOMMENDATION, WALTER.
YEAH, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO, BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, IS TO HAVE A CLEAR STATEMENT ABOUT ME, UH, UH, UH, MEDICAL MARIJUANA BECAUSE WE'RE SAYING THAT IT IS A MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS A DRUG.
SO IN OUR RECOMMENDATION, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, WE SHOULD TREAT IT, UH, LIKE ANY PHARMACY THAT, BUT CONSISTENT WITH, UH, ANY ADDITIONAL STATE LAW, IT'S CLEAN.
WE ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA AND THEN WE COULD GO ON TO RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.
I THINK WE SHOULD AVOID MIXING THE TWO BECAUSE THERE, THERE, UH, I I THINK IT SHOULD BE A CLEAR RECOMMENDATION FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA.
DAVE, THOUGH, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, LOOK AT THE THIRD BULLET POINT.
UM, AT TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF, OF NUMBER TWO.
WHAT PAGE, DAVE? UH, PAGE TWO.
THE, OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
WE, AND WE HAVE SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS SHOULD BE GIVEN TO MEDICAL, ALLOW MEDICAL DISPENSARIES BY SPECIAL PERMIT USING THE SAME CRITERIA ESTABLISHED, ESTABLISHED FOR THESE USES IN THE PD DISTRICT, UH, IN CA, C B D S I B L L D AND OB DISTRICTS THAT SAYS MOST OF WHAT YOU WANT.
DO YOU WANT TO INCLUDE A SENTENCE THERE? THE PLANNING BOARD BELIEVES, UM, THAT, UH, MEDICAL DISPENSARIES SHOULD, UH, SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ANY PLACE, UH, PHARMACY.
THAT'S MY, YEAH, THAT'S MY RECOMMENDATION.
ASSIST WITH ANY OTHER STATE REG, UH, UH, REGULATION THAT MIGHT BE IMPOSED.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING, RIGHT? BECAUSE AS LONG AS IT'S CONSISTENT WITH STATE.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WALTER'S SUGGESTION? NO.
I, UH, I JUST ONE CLARIFICATION.
IT'S DOING THE, DOES THE, UH, PHARMACY REQUIRES A SPECIAL
[00:45:01]
PERMIT? NO.NO, BUT THERE'S NO SPECIAL NO, NO SPECIAL PERMIT.
NO SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE TOWN? NO.
IT'S A PROVE USE IN A COMMERCIAL ZONE, A RETAIL ZONE.
SO, SO IF WE RECOMMEND THAT IT SHOULD BE TREATED SIMILAR TO A PHARMACY, THEN THEY WOULD NOT REQUIRE TO HAVE A SPECIAL PERMIT.
I THINK IT STILL MAKES SENSE TO HAVE A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR OH YEAH.
I'M NOT SAYING IT SHOULDN'T HAVE, THEN YOU HAVE TO WRITE THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
COR THEN YOU NEED TO BE A LITTLE ARTFUL IN HOW YOU WRITE IT.
UM, YOU HAVE TO BE TO MAKE SURE THAT, EXCEPT THAT WE BELIEVE THIS SHOULD BE RIGHT.
SINCE IT'S A A NEW THING, WE SHOULD RECORD, WE SHOULD BE DOING IT VIA SPECIAL PERMIT.
EVENTUALLY THINK IT SHOULD BE A SO SUGGEST WHAT? I'M SORRY.
THE LANGUAGE THAT I SUGGESTED, THAT'S WHY I HAD IT AS A SEPARATE, UH, SENTENCE RATHER THAN INCLUDED IN THAT SENTENCE.
BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT WE STILL, WE STILL BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE A SPECIAL PERMIT.
SO, SO I'M STILL NOT CLEAR THERE.
SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IF IT'S TREATED AS A PART OF PHARMACEUTICAL, UH, OR DISPENSING IT, THEN THERE IS NO NEED.
NO, WHAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IT IT SHOULD BE ALLOWED IN ANY ZONING AREAS OR PHARMACIES ARE ALLOWED, HOWEVER, ONLY BY SPECIAL PERMIT.
YOU STILL WANT THE SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA THERE FOR IF, FOR SOME REASON RIGHT.
THAT THAT'S HOW I HAVE IT WRITTEN.
SO, SO IF, IF THERE IS AN EXISTING PHARMACY LIKE C V SS WANTS TO HAVE, IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHETHER WELL LET, LET ASK THE QUESTION.
YEAH, SO C V S DECIDES TO APPLY FOR, UH, TO THE STATE AND GETS A PERMIT TO DISPENSE MEDICAL MARIJUANA.
THEY HAVE TO COME BACK AND HAVE TO HAVE A SPECIAL PERMIT TO, TO THEORETICAL? YES.
I DOUBT, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT'S A VERY BIG AT THIS POINT, BUT MAYBE DOWN THE ROAD IT'S NOT, IT'S A LONG SHOT, UH, BECAUSE OF HOW THE OFFICE OF CANNABIS CANNABIS MANAGEMENT IS DISTRIBUTING THE LICENSES.
BUT LET'S SAY 10 YEARS FROM NOW, UH, IT'S MUCH MORE COMMONPLACE.
YOUR QUESTION IS YES, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND MEET THE SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA AND THAT SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA MAY THINGS THAT MAY BE BE AND WHY IT'S DIFFERENT, WHY YOU MAY NOT WANT IT.
THERE IS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO SCHOOLS OR OTHER, OR OTHER MA MAYBE OTHER THINGS, RIGHT.
IN CVS OR WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SCHOOL.
IT COULDN'T BE THERE, FOR EXAMPLE.
AND DURING THAT PERIOD OF TIME, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE TOWN BOARD IN THIS BOARD COULDN'T, YOU KNOW, IN 10 YEARS, UH, MAKE DIFFERENT, MAKE CHANGES TO THE SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA AS AS IT NEEDS BE.
RIGHT? BUT, BUT ISN'T THAT WOULD BE KIND OF, UH, CONSIDERED TO BE OVERREACHED BY THE TOWN? NO, NO, NO.
BECAUSE I I ALSO THINK YOU MAY WANNA, THEY MAY WANNA LIMIT THE NUMBER OF THESE THAT WE HAVE IN THE TOWN TOO, AND IT, IT, WE NEED TO, TO ALLOW FOR THEM, I THINK MORE FREEDOM THAN WHAT THE LAW THAT WAS PROPOSED BY THE TOWN BOARD DOES FOR SURE.
BUT WE DON'T NEED TO HAVE 40, YOU KNOW, 20 OF THEM ALONG CENTRAL AVENUE, FOR EXAMPLE.
I THINK THAT, I THINK WE COULD PROBABLY LIMIT THE NUMBER OF OF THEM, RIGHT? WHAT, WHAT'S THE JUSTIFICATION? YOU, I JUST DON'T THINK YOU NEED THAT MANY OF THEM.
AND I JUST THINK IF THEY CAN SELL THE NARCOTICS ON WITH THE PERMITS, UH, ON ALL OF THE CVS OR ALL OF, ACTUALLY, ACTUALLY I TAKE IT BACK.
A MEDICAL MARIJUANA, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT TRUE ON RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.
I THINK WE SHOULD PROBABLY REGULATE THE NUMBER.
I'M, I'M, I THINK IT'S, IT'S GOING BE CHALLENGED BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE ANY GROUND TO JUSTIFY THAT ME MEDICAL MARIJUANA IS WORSE THAN, UH, SELLING A, UH, SOME OF THE PRESCRIPTION.
UH, IT'S ACTUALLY NOT AS BAD OBVIOUSLY THAN LIKE OXYCODONE FOR EXAMPLE.
BUT, BUT I, THE ISSUE, THE THING IS IT'S BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY BY THE STATE RIGHT NOW.
I, I, UH, I'M JUST SAYING IT'S BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY BY THE STATE AND THEREFORE WE NEED TO TREAT IT AS A SEPARATE THING.
IF IT WAS JUST SOMETHING THEY APPROVED AND PUT IN A PHARMACIES, THEY COULD HAVE DONE THAT.
MON EVEN WENT IN A TALK AND I SEE JOHANN'S HAND.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY MADE SPECIFIC, UM, ACCOMMODATIONS FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA PATIENTS WITHIN THE RECREATION AS WELL.
THEY, THEY GAVE THEM SPECIFIC PARKING UP CLOSE FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA.
THEY GAVE THEM EARLY HOURS WITHIN THE RECREATIONAL.
WE HAVE TO TREAT THESE MEDICAL
[00:50:01]
MARIJUANA PATIENTS DIFFERENTLY THAN WE TREAT THE RECREATIONAL PATIENTS.AND WE HAVE TO MAKE SPECIFIC ALLOCATIONS FOR THEM.
WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS, UM, THESE, THESE ARE ALMOST LIKE PRESCRIPTION DRUGS FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE HURTING, FOR PEOPLE WHO HAVE SPECIFIC NEEDS THAT HAVE, UM, MEDICAL CONDITIONS, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER DRUG THAT THEY NEED THAT WE, THAT THEY TAKE, UM, MEDICATIONS FOR.
AND WE HAVE TO STOP THINKING OF IT AS SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE ARE USING TO GET HIGH WITH.
THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED MEDICAL MARIJUANA.
AND WE HAVE TO STOP STIGMATIZING IT THE WAY WE HAVE BEEN.
I THINK THAT'S A GREAT, THAT'S MY COMMENT.
I THINK, YEAH, MON TOOK SOME OF THE WORDS OUTTA MY MOUTH, BUT I WOULD
I WOULD GO A STEP FURTHER AND SAY THAT WHILE NEW YORK IS MAKING THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN MEDICAL AND RECREATIONAL BEING THAT WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF, OF CREATING, YOU KNOW, REGULATIONS FOR OUR AREA, I THINK WE, IT MIGHT BE IN OUR INTEREST TO BE A LITTLE BIT FORWARD THINKING SO WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK AND HAVE THIS CONVERSATION DOWN THE ROAD.
THE WAY THIS INDUSTRY'S PROGRESSING RIGHT NOW, THIS WOULD BE AS COMMONPLACE AS BARS WHERE PEOPLE GO TO BUY ALCOHOL AND DRINKS LOUNGES WHERE PEOPLE PARTAKE EITHER VIA, VIA EDIBLE OR SMOKING.
SO IT WOULD BE, IN MY OPINION, IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO, UM, MAKE, ALTHOUGH WE'RE MAKING THE DISTINCTION ACCORDING TO LAW, BUT UH, ESSENTIALLY MAKE IT IDENTICAL IN TERMS OF WHERE THE, UM, WELL, THAT'S WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATION DOES WHEN WE GET TO THE THIRD ONE.
EXCEPT I THINK, EXCEPT MONA BROUGHT UP A POINT THAT I THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE ADDED TO THE, TO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THESE PEOPLE NEED THE, THE, THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PEOPLE NEED EASY ACCESS, WHICH IS ANOTHER REASON TO PUT IT IN A RETAIL LOCATION.
NOT SOME FAR AWAY PLACE IN THE CORNER OF, OF GREENBURG.
I THINK IT'S A, YOU HAVE AN POINT OPPORTUNITY TO THING I'D TO HAVE THAT LANGUAGE.
I'M SORRY, MONA, I DIDN'T MEAN TO YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THE RIGHT THING HERE AND WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD AT LEAST TRY FOR SURE.
CORT AND THEN DAVE, YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP AT CORT FIRST.
UM, UH, MY CONCERNS FROM THE BEGINNING THAT, UH, UH, WHEN WAS WHAT, 40 YEARS AGO WHEN ROCKEFELLER WAS A GOVERNOR AND CRIMINALIZED THE WHOLE, UH, UH, MARIJUANA BUSINESS AND SO MANY PEOPLE WERE INCARCERATED BECAUSE OF THAT LAW.
AND I THINK, UH, UH, WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS TO LEGISLATE WHAT WAS ACTUALLY, UH, UH, AVAILABLE.
ALL OTHER THINGS AND, AND TRYING TO KIND OF MAKE A DISTINCTION, UH, GOING TO REALLY HURT ON A LONG TERM, WHICH HAPPENED WITH THE LAST TIME THEY TRIED TO LOG IS TO MINORITIES AND POOR PEOPLE.
SO THEY USUALLY GOES WHEN THIS KIND OF THINGS IS, UH, NOT BEEN PROPERLY MANAGED OR, OR DONE.
THE SIDE EFFECTS WITH THE, WITH THE HISTORY.
IT'S AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO KIND OF, UH, UH, CREATE, I THINK THIS IS THE WHOLE THING IS, IS JUST THE EXERCISE IN, UH, PUNISHING UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES, WHICH WILL BE, UH, POOR AND MINORITY.
SO I KIND OF DON'T LIKE ALL THESE THINGS THAT NEW JERSEY IS TRYING TO DO AND NEW YORK IS TRYING TO DO.
I THINK WE SHOULD JUST PUT VERY SIMPLY THAT WHATEVER THE STATE LAWS DICTATES, WE SHOULD JUST FOLLOW IT.
AND NOW THE STATE LAW DOESN'T IS SILENT.
DO THAT IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
I, WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THIS RECOMMENDATION, WHEN WE GET TO THE THIRD PARTY, DAVE, I'LL GET TO YOU.
I HAVEN'T FORGOTTEN ABOUT YOU.
WELL, WE'VE GIVEN THIS RECOMMENDATION.
THE THIRD PART IS ACTUALLY VERY CONSISTENT WITH THE MEDICAL MARIJUANA PART, BUT WE ALSO UNDERSTAND THE ENVIRONMENT AND WHERE THE TOWN BOARD WAS AS OF A FEW WEEKS AGO, WHICH THEY DIDN'T, THEY WEREN'T DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN MEDICAL AND RECREATIONAL.
ALTHOUGH THERE'S A GOOD REASON, AND WE'LL GET TO IT IN A FEW MINUTES.
WHY I COULDN'T AGREE MORE WITH WHAT YOU'VE JUST SAID, THAT WE NEED TO SEPARATE OUT MEDICAL TO EDUCATE THE TOWN BOARD AT LEAST NOT TO EDUCATE THEM.
THAT'S NOT FAIR FOR THEM TO UNDERSTAND OUR POINT OF VIEW.
AND THAT EVEN IF THEY DON'T AGREE WITH US ON RESIDENTIAL AND RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA, AT LEAST THEY AGREE WITH US ON MEDICAL MARIJUANA.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE 'EM SEPARATE.
IN TERMS OF HOW WE AGREE THEY SHOULD BE TREATED.
THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE IN OUR RECOMMENDATION
[00:55:01]
BETWEEN HOW WE TREAT, UH, RECREATIONAL AND MEDICAL OUTLETS.IT'S THE SAME IN OUR RECOMMENDATION.
IT JUST SAYS IF FOR SOME REASON THE TOWN BOY DOESN'T AGREE WITH OUR RECREATIONAL, UH, RECOMMENDATION, THEY GET A SERIOUSLY FOR THE REASONS MOTOR STATED.
SO WELL JUST NOW THEY NEED TO, THEY NEED TO, UM, REALLY SEE, TAKE A SERIOUS SECOND LOOK AT MEDICAL MARIJUANA IF THEY CHOOSE TO DO WHAT WE WON'T AGREE WITH TONIGHT, I DON'T THINK ON THE RECREATIONAL PART.
THAT'S ALL DAVE AND THEN WALTER.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, COR, YOUR POINTS ARE VERY WELL TAKEN.
THEY ARE REALLY, BUT A LOT OF THAT, UM, IS SOMETHING THAT HAS TO BE DONE AT, AT THE STATE LEVEL.
AND, AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S PLACE FOR THAT, BUT I, I, I THINK, UH, IF, IF THERE'S SPACE RATHER FOR THAT, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO LOOK MORE CLOSELY AT WHAT THE, UM, OFFICE OF CAN CANNABIS MANAGEMENT IS DOING AND THE, UH, CANNABIS CONTROL BOARDS ARE DOING BECAUSE THEY'RE SETTING THE REGULATIONS.
AND I THINK THEY'RE IN A MINDSET OF YOU AND, UH, MANY OF THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD ON THIS AND YOUR COMMENTS TO THEM, YOU KNOW, YOU SHOULD GO ON THEIR WEBSITE, YOUR COMMENTS TO THEM I THINK WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
AND MAYBE, UM, COMMENTS TO WHO? DAVE? TO THE OFFICE OF CANADA CANNABIS MISMANAGEMENT AND THE CANNABIS, UH, CONTROL BOARD.
UM, AND I'LL, UH, TOMORROW SEND YOU SOME, SOME LINKS TO IT BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, UM, I I I I RECOGNIZE WHY YOU'RE, UH, YOU KNOW, WHY YOU'RE UPSET THE HISTORICAL BASIS FOR IT.
AND THOSE BOARDS SEEM TO GET IT IN, IN, IN DOING THEIR REGULATIONS.
THEY'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE COME UP WITH LEGACY, UM, UH, UH, WITH PARTNERS WITH LEGACIES, PEOPLE WHO HAD, UM, WHO HAD BEEN ARRESTED OR WERE FAMILIES THAT HAD BEEN AFFECTED BY THE ROCKEFELLER DRUG LAWS.
SO I'M GONNA SET, PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO YOU.
UM, THE OVERALL EMPHASIS THAT I WANT TO GET TO EVERYONE ON, ON THE BOARD AND, AND I I KNOW THE CHAIR IS, IS MOVING IN THE, THEIR DIRECT THAT DIRECTION IS, YOU'VE GOT TO, UH, GET THAT THE, THIS BOARD'S JOB IS NOT TO REWRITE THE LAW, NOT TO DO, UH, TO, TO FOLLOW EVERY, UH, OR OR MISDEED THERE.
YOU'RE GONNA RAISE IT IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT YOU GOTTA GET THAT RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD IN THE PROCESS.
ONE, I MEAN THE, THE, UH, MEDICAL DISPENSARY ISSUES ARE, ARE, ARE ONE ISSUES AND YOU HOPEFUL, HOPEFULLY YOU'LL PERSUADE THE BOARD TO GO WITH YOUR, YOUR POINT OF VIEW ON EXPANDING IT.
UM, THEY, THEY MAY NOW NEED A SUPER MAJORITY FOR THAT.
UM, BUT THE OTHER IS THE OTHER ASPECT, THE DISTRIBUTION AND, AND, AND PRODUCTION, UH, ASPECT OF THIS IS WE'RE NOT COMING UP REALLY WITH RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE'RE TELLING THEM, YOU KNOW, YOU GOTTA GO BACK AND DO YOUR HOMEWORK ON THIS.
THOSE, THAT LOSS STILL HAS TO BE PASSED.
IF IT IS NOT PASSED, THEN THERE IT'S A FREE FOR ALL AS TO WHAT THEY CAN DO.
AND THAT'S WHY YOU WANT THE, YOU DON'T WANT THIS HELD UP IN COMMITTEE.
YOU WANT TO GET THIS BACK TO THE BOARD.
I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT ON THAT, DAVE.
THE ONE THING I WANTED TO SAY AND KIND OF BUILDING OFF WHAT DAVE SAID, WE'RE A LAND USE BOARD.
THAT'S WHAT WE WE'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
UM, A LOT OF THE FOCUS, I THINK OF THE, THE STATE HASN'T BEEN ON THE LAND USE ISSUES.
IN FACT, IT HASN'T BEEN ON THE LAND USE ISSUES AT ALL.
UM, IT'S BEEN ON THE OVERALL THING WHEN DAVID AND I WE WERE YESTERDAY, IT WAS INTERESTING 'CAUSE I ASKED DAVE TO LOOK UP THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT TO SEE IF INDEED THE LAW THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY, UH, THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE TOWN BOARD FIT WITH THE LI LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF, UM, THE STATE OF, OF THE STATE LAW.
AND IN FACT THE, THE STATE LAW IS REALLY FOCUSED ON THE ROCKEFELLER ISSUE AND IS PRETTY SILENT ANY ON, ON EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO WE COULDN'T, I COULDN'T MAKE THAT CONNECTION EVEN THOUGH I WOULD'VE, I WOULD'VE LIKED TO SEE US MAKE THAT CONNECTION.
SO AGAIN, JUST REMEMBER WHAT OUR JOB IS.
OUR JOB IS A LAND USE BOARD AND WHERE WE THINK THE MOST APPROPRIATE PLACES IN TOWN ARE FOR A PARTICULAR USE.
THAT IS OUR JOB TO COMMENT BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
[01:00:01]
UH, BREAK OUT, UH, MEDICAL MARIJUANA FROM EVERYTHING ELSE.BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE DOING, WE'RE SAYING LET'S FOCUS ON MAR MEDICAL MARIJUANA, BUT THEN WE BRING IN, IN THE DISCUSSION WHERE WE BRING IN RECREATIONAL VALID ISSUE.
WE BRING IN THE ROCKEFELLER LAWS, VALID ISSUE, BUT LET'S TAKE THIS, GET THIS OFF THE TABLE AND THEN WE MOVE TO THE NEXT STEP.
BECAUSE WHAT WE ARE DOING IS MIXING THE TWO UP.
WE ALREADY GOT RID OF PRODUCTION OF, UH, WE ADDRESSED THAT.
AND THEN WE GO TO RECREATION MARIJUANA.
IT ACTUALLY IN THE, IN THE DOCUMENT, IT DOES DIFFERENTIATE THE TWO BECAUSE AGAIN, IT HIGHLIGHTS IF INDEED THEY REJECT OUR RECOMMENDATION ON RECREATIONAL, THOUGH THEY SHOULD STILL ACCEPT IT FOR MEDICAL, FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA, FOR VERY PARTICULAR REASONS THAT HAVE TO DO WITH THE USERS OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA.
SO THAT'S WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATION SAYS.
BUT IN TERMS OF DISCUSSION, YOU'RE A HUNDRED PERCENT RIGHT.
SO COULD I HAVE A VOTE ON APPROVING THE RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED WITH MOTORS LANGUAGE AND, AND WALTER'S LANGUAGE.
JOHANN, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
NOW THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, RIGHT? RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, WITH ALL THE DISCUSSION, AND I WISH LESLIE WERE HERE, UH, AS WELL.
'CAUSE LESLIE I THINK WAS VERY ELOQUENT ABOUT THIS, UH, ON ONE OF THE MEETINGS.
I CAN'T EXACTLY REMEMBER HER EXACT WORDS.
UNFORTUNATELY SHE COULDN'T BE WITH US TONIGHT.
UH, BUT TALKING ABOUT, AND I THINK MONA SAID SOMETHING TOO ABOUT THERE SHOULDN'T BE A STIGMA.
I THINK THOSE ARE YOUR WORDS', STIGMA WORDS OR IT SHOULDN'T BE, THERE SHOULDN'T BE A STIGMA FOR BUYING THIS.
IT'S LEGAL, IT'S A LEGAL BUSINESS, THEREFORE IT DOESN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE FROM A LAND USE POINT OF VIEW TO LIMIT IT TO A PART OF TOWN THAT HAPPENS TO BE VERY CLOSE TO, UH, A HOUSING PROJECT, VERY CLOSE TO A SKATING ACADEMY, WHICH IS JUST FULL OF KIDS ALL THE TIME.
ANOTHER PLAY PLACE, WHICH IS FULL OF KIDS ALL THE TIME.
UM, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO THAT PERSPECTIVE.
WHY ARE WE STIGMATIZING SOMETHING THAT'S LEGAL, RIGHT? BUT ALSO WHERE WE'RE PUTTING IT.
AND, AND JOHAN, COULD YOU, THERE ARE A COUPLE WORDS HE WANTED TO ADD, JOHANN, COULD YOU, AND THAT'S WHAT WALTER WAS REFERRING TO.
COULD YOU, COULD YOU TELL US WHAT THEY WERE SO THAT EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THAT? YEAH.
WELL OTHER THINGS, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE WAS SOME CONSIDERATION TAKING OUT SOME OF THE LANGUAGE.
SO RATHER THAN DOING THAT, I RECOMMENDED THAT WE REPLACE THE, AN ISOLATED AREA OF HIGH CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE OF COLOR AND LOWER INCOMES TO HISTORICALLY MARGINALIZED GROUPS.
COMMUNITIES IS THAT USED ONE MORE TIME? COMMUNITIES, NOT GROUPS.
HISTORICALLY MARGIN MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES, RIGHT? CORRECT.
HISTORICALLY MARGIN MARGINALIZED COMMUNITIES INSTEAD.
HOW DOES EVERYBODY ELSE FEEL ABOUT THAT CHANGE? I THINK IT'S ELEGANT.
I THINK IT SAYS EVERY, I THINK IT SAYS EVERYTHING WE WANNA SAY.
WHICH IS, IT DOESN'T BELONG IN JUST OUR COMMUNITY.
AND NUMBER TWO, THE OTHER POINT WE MAKE IN THIS, AND I HAVE SOME LANGUAGE WHEN WE GET TO, TO ADD ON ON THIS, IS IF WE DON'T DO IT ON CENTRAL AVENUE AND ONE 19 YONKERS AND WHITE PLAINS WILL AND WHITE PLAINS AND EL WILL, OKAY, SO WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE? EXCEPT TAKING, TAKING REVENUE AWAY FROM OUR OWN TAX BASE.
IN ADDITION, IN ADDITION, WE'RE TAKING REVENUE AWAY FROM OUR OWN SCHOOL DISTRICT BECAUSE THE PD ZONE, I BELIEVE IS IN EL ELM SORTT OF A VAL HOWA SCHOOL DISTRICT.
IT'S NOT IN CENTRAL SEVEN, THAT'S FOR SURE.
IN GREENBURG CENTRAL, THAT'S FOR SURE.
SO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SHOOTING OURSELVES IN THE FOOT AND ACCOMPLISHING NOTHING BY ISOLATING IT IN THAT AREA, WHICH IS WHAT THE LANGUAGE IS.
I WANTED TO BEEF UP THAT LANGUAGE.
THIS IS MY PROPOSAL, I WANTED TO SAY.
UM, IT WILL RESULT IN THE MAJORITY OF, UH,
[01:05:01]
CANNABIS SALES BEING SOLD OUTSIDE OF GREENBURG.IT WAS UNDER, I'M TRYING TO THINK WHERE WE PUT IT.
I THINK IT'S THAT THIRD PAGE, PAGE TWO, UNDER THE PAGE TWO.
I THINK WE COULD DO IT ON THE SECOND BULLET POINT.
ACTUALLY, NO, I PUT IT IN THE THIRD BULLET POINT, I BELIEVE.
WHAT'S YOUR, WHAT'S YOUR, YOUR LINE AGAIN? 'CAUSE WE HAVE THE, IT, IT WILL RESULT 'CAUSE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT REC.
IT'S THE ONLY TIME ABOUT RECREATIONAL HERE.
IT WILL RESULT IN THE MAJORITY OF CANNABIS SALES BEING SOLD OUTSIDE THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
SO I THINK ACTUALLY THE SECOND ONE, BECAUSE YOU, YOU TALK ABOUT, UH, TAKING AWAY REVENUE FROM MOST OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT INCORPORATED.
SO YOU PUT IT, YOU CAN PUT IT THERE, YOU PUT IT RIGHT AFTER THAT.
THAT, AND I JUST HAD ONE LITTLE CHANGE, AARON, AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE ON TWO, INSTEAD OF THE PLANNING BOARD AS AN AGREEMENT.
THAT MORE RESEARCH I WOULD'VE SAID BELIEVES.
AND WE PICKED THAT UP IN THE, UH, RECIRCULATED UPDATED VERSION.
UH, ANY DISCUSSION, ANY MORE DISCUSSION ON THE RECREATIONAL BEFORE WE VOTE ON THE RECREATIONAL PART? CORRECT.
LARRY, CORRECT FIRST THEN WALTER.
I THINK, UH, ALL, ALL I'M SORT OF, UH, STRUGGLING TO FIGURING OUT, UH, UH, WITH LIKE ONLY TWO PAGE OF RECOMMENDATION.
UH, AND I WOULD, UH, SUPPORT WALTER'S, UH, SUGGESTIONS THAT WE VERY CLEARLY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR RECREATIONAL AND MEDICAL AND IT JUST SHUFFLING THE, SHUFFLING THE INFORMATION AND JUST KEEPING IT VERY INDEPENDENT.
VERY, UH, ALTHOUGH THERE IS A LOT OF, UH, OKAY.
REPUTATIONS AND DUPLICATION, BUT HAVING IT VERY CLEARLY DEFINED FOR RECREATION AND MEDICAL, I THINK WILL MAKE A POINT BETTER WITH THE, WITH THE DOWN DOWN BOARD.
UH, AND THE SECOND THING IS THAT, JUST TO CLARIFY, CAN WE NUMBER IT AND SUBTEXT AARON SO THAT IT'S A DIFF EASIER TO, UH, SAY ONE THREE MEDICAL RECREATION AND THE, UH, PRODUCTION AND THEN HAVE A SUB CATEGORY SO THAT WE CAN EASILY, UH, TALK ABOUT IT AND COMMUNICATE WHAT I HEAR COR SAYING.
AND I SEE EVERYBODY'S HAND UP TOO.
SO JUST BE PATIENT FOR A SECOND.
I HEAR HIM SAYING, JUST TAKE THE RECOMME, LET'S JUST SPLIT THEM LIKE WE'RE VOTING ON IT.
SO SPECIFICALLY MEDICAL DISP, MEDICAL MARIJUANA SHOULD BE PUT IN THESE ZONES FOR THESE REASONS.
AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE OBVIOUSLY THE PRIMARY ONE BEING ACCESS, BUT ALSO YOU'RE GONNA LOSE THE REVENUE ANYWAY BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE ACCESS.
BUT THEY WOULD, THEY NEED ACCESS BECAUSE OF THE TARGET.
AND THEN THE REVENUE ARGUMENT.
AND THEN AFTER THAT, DO ANOTHER ONE ON RECREATIONAL USING THE SAME ZONES WITH THE ARGUMENTS WE HAVE FOR RECREATION IS THAT IT'S NEAR THESE THINGS.
I KNOW THEY BOTH ARE, BUT I JUST REPEAT, I'D RATHER BE REPETITIVE AND SEPARATE THEM OUT.
I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I HEAR.
I SEE WALTER NODDING HIS HEAD ON THAT TOO.
AND I JUST SAW A THUMBS UP FROM JOHANN.
SO BE REPETITIVE, BUT SE YEAH, SEPARATE AMOUNT, BE REPETITIVE ON THE REASONS ON THE ONES THAT ARE COMMON.
AND THEN FINALLY AFTER THAT, SAY IF FOR SOME REASON THE TOWN BOARD DECIDES TO OVERRULE US ON THE RECREATIONAL.
WE WOULD STILL, FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, STRONGLY URGE THEM TO DO THE MEDICAL.
SO AT LEAST WE GET THAT OUT OF IT.
AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT LOGISTICS IN AFTER WE'RE DONE.
I SEE MONA AND UH, MICHAEL, WOULD YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING TO WALTER? YEAH, BUT UH, BUT AFTER WE FINISH IT, BUT JUST A SENTENCE I WANNA ADD.
MONA, FIRST MICHAEL, THEN WALTER, I WOULD STILL LIKE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WITHIN THE, UM, RECREATIONAL THAT MEDICAL MARIJUANA USERS GET CERTAIN PREFERENCE THAT THEY GET TO HAVE PREFERENTIAL
[01:10:01]
PARKING, THAT THEY GET PREFERENTIAL HOURS AND THEY GET PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT IF THEY DO PER MAKE PURCHASES AT A RECREATIONAL FACILITY.I BUT THOSE ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THAT THOSE PRODUCTS ARE AVAILABLE TRADITIONALLY AT RECREATIONAL, UM, FACILITIES.
I DON'T, NO, I DON'T THINK THEY ARE.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF, OF, BECAUSE GO AHEAD DAVE.
'CAUSE IT LOOKS, THE WAY THE STATE HAS SET IT UP IS THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE SEPARATE DISPENSARIES.
UM, SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IF YOU COME IN WITH A MEDICAL MARIJUANA CARD, WHICH I'M NOT EVEN YEAH.
UH, OR A PRESCRIPTION, ARE THEY EVEN GOING TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT AT A RECREATIONAL? I DON'T THINK I, I, I DON'T DUNNO.
I DON'T KNOW HOW NEW YORKERS GONNA, I, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND ACTUALLY THAT YOU DON'T DO THAT IF IN, IF IN FACT WE FIND OUT THAT THERE, FIRST OF ALL, WE GOTTA HOPE THAT THE TOWN BOARD APPROVES THIS.
BUT ASSUMING THEY DO, UM, IF AND WHEN THE STATE, UH, ALLOWS FOR RECREATIONAL TO SERVICE MEDICAL, UH, PATIENTS, THEN I THINK WE CAN, WE, WE, WE COULD TWEAK THAT LANGUAGE.
OR WE CAN ALSO HANDLE WHAT MO NINE, THE SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVALS AND, AND ON SITE PLAN.
WELL, IF THERE IS A SITE PLAN, MICHAEL, RIGHT.
UM, WITH REGARD TO MONA'S, UH, PROPOSAL, YOU KNOW, SUGGESTING GIVING PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT TO, UH, MEDICAL MARIJUANA USERS, I'M TOTALLY AGAINST THAT.
I MEAN, SOMEBODY GOES IN WITH A PRESCRIPTION TO C V SS, THEY DON'T GET ANY PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.
THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THAT.
NUMBER TWO, ON THE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE MEDICAL, BUT ON THE RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA, I INTEND TO, UM, ABSTAIN BECAUSE I'M AGAINST RECREATIONAL MARIJUANA.
I UNDERSTAND THE STATE HAS PASSED IT.
I DON'T GIVE A HOOT THAT TAX REVENUE MAY BE GOING TO YONKERS OR WHITE PLAINS.
SO THAT'S WHY I'M GONNA ABSTAIN.
THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S YOUR PREROGATIVE.
WALTER, DID YOU WANT I, UH, I AGREE WITH MICHAEL THAT THERE SHOULD BE NO PREFERENTIAL, UH, BECAUSE HERE AGAIN, WE MIX INTO IT TOO.
WE MIXING ME, UH, MEDICAL FOR RECREATION AND WE WANNA KEEP THAT SEPARATE.
SO WHEN YOU START TALKING ABOUT PARKING, THEN YOU, YOU, YOU'RE BORROWING THE LINES AGAIN.
NOW, IN, IN TERMS OF A GENERAL STATEMENT, IN TERMS AND CONSISTENT WITH THE CONCERNS THAT CURT RAISED, I, I THINK I, I, LET ME READ SOMETHING I THINK SHOULD BE ATTACHED AS PART OF OUR RECOMMENDATION, AND I'LL READ IT.
SPECIAL LICENSING CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GRANTED TO APPLICANTS FROM GROUPS WHO HAVE BEEN DISPROPORTIONATELY IMPACTED BY PRIOR PROHIBITION OF THE GROWTH PROCESSION AND DISTRIBUTION OF CANNABIS.
SUCH CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW YORK STATE LICENSING LAWS.
I THINK I REC WALTER, THE ONLY PROBLEM WITH THAT IS WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH WHOSE LICENSING HERE ISN'T.
SO I DON'T, WE'RE JUST APPROVING WHERE THEY GO.
I DON'T, I I SEE THAT YOU'RE MIXING TWO.
I AGREE WITH THE CONCEPT, WHICH IS WHAT THE STATE IS DOING, BY THE WAY.
I THINK THAT THE FIRST ONES ARE GONNA BE PEOPLE WHO ARE ACTUALLY CONVICTED OF, OF SELLING MARIJUANA, BUT I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BELONGS IN OUR LAW.
'CAUSE WE HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH LICENSING.
BUT DAVE, WHAT DO YOU THINK? OKAY, GOOD.
SO WE HAVE NOTHING TO BUT IN GRANTING A PERMIT, PERMITS, SHOULD THAT BE A PACKAGE? YOU GRANT THE PERMIT AFTER THE SOMEBODY COMES WITH A LICENSE.
SOMEBODY GETS A LICENSE, THEY THEN COME TO US AND SAY, THIS IS WHERE I WANNA PUT IT.
THAT'S WHEN WE GET GRANT, GRANT A PERMIT.
WE DO NOT HAVE ANY THAT THEY GET THAT FROM THE STATE, BUT ONCE THEY GET THE LICENSE FROM THE STATE, THEN AT THAT POINT, UH, UH, WE KEEP, KEEP IT AWAY FROM, WE KEEP IT AWAY FROM SCHOOLS AND, RIGHT.
I WAS, UH, I WAS JUST GONNA RESPOND TO WALTER.
DO I HAVE A, A MOTION TO ACCEPT, UM, THE
[01:15:01]
LANGUAGE OF ON RE RECREATIONAL AS WELL AS THE WHOLE THING NOW AS AMENDED? THAT'S, THAT WOULD INCLUDE JOHANN'S, UH, COMMENTS.INCLUDING JOHANN COMMENTS WERE MADE.
AND I'LL EXPLAIN THE LOGISTICS AFTERWARDS.
I JUST WANT CLARIFICATION BEFORE WE TAKE THE VOTE.
NOW, IN THIS, IN THIS DOCUMENT, THIS IS THE DOCUMENT WE'RE SENDING.
HOW ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION? OKAY, SO THIS, OKAY, THAT'S JUST A REPORT.
IN THIS REPORT, THE REPORT IS NOT, BECAUSE IN THE REPORT, THERE'S SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT, THAT, THAT GETS CARRIED THROUGH IN OUR RECOMMENDATION.
BECAUSE THERE'S A STATEMENT HERE THAT, UM, THAT, UH, YOU, YOU KNOW, SHOULD LOOK AT WATER, USES ENERGY, CARBON EMISSIONS.
THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THAT, THAT'S CARRIED THROUGH ANOTHER, THE RECOMMENDATION.
WE'RE NOT WORRYING ABOUT CARBON EMISSIONS BECAUSE CARBONS DON'T EMISSION EMIT ANYTHING.
SO WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT AIR EMISSION BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE NITROGEN.
SO IT'S AIR EMISSION, NOT CARBON AIR, AIR QUALITY.
JUST, YOU KNOW, AIR EMISSIONS.
HOW ABOUT EMISSIONS INTO THE AIR? HOW'S THAT? AIR EMISSIONS IS THE STANDARD TERMINOLOGY.
SO THAT'S ON PAGE THREE TOWARDS THE TOP.
MICHAEL, GIVEN YOUR SITUATION, WHAT YOU SAID AND THE WHOLE THING, WE'RE GONNA RECORD YOUR, YOUR POSITIVE VOTER MEDICAL, YOUR POSITIVE VOTE ON, UM, ON, UH, THE, UH, PRODUCTION, THE VOTE ON THE FACILITIES AND STUFF.
HOW DO YOU, I WAS ABOUT TO TAKE AN OVERALL VOTE ON THIS.
DO YOU WANNA VOTE ON THAT OR WOULD YOU RATHER ME VOTE? UH, WOULD YOU RATHER SORT OF RECREATIONAL FIRST SO YOU CAN EXPRESS HERE? I THINK WE SHOULD BE RECREATIONAL FIRST.
ALL IN FAVOR OF WHERE WE'RE GO, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO SAY ON RECREATIONAL AS AMENDED.
COULD I HAVE A MOTION, PLEASE? OKAY.
OKAY, NOW THERE'S ONE LAST ITEM AND THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT HOUSEKEEPING AND HOW WE'RE GONNA DO THIS.
UM, WE HAVE AN OPTION AS WE HAVE IN THE PAST OF A POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, OR NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION IN THIS CASE.
IT HAS A LOT OF, MAKES A LOT OF DIFFERENCE.
WE SEND IT BACK TO THE PLANT, TO THE TOWN BOARD AND THEY JUST VOTE ON IT AND THEY HAVE A MAJORITY VOTE AND IT'S OVER.
IF WE MAKE A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION, UM, THEY NEED A SUPER MAJORITY.
THEY NEED FOUR OUT OF FIVE TO OVERTURN OUR RECOMMENDATION.
YOU, IT'S A, IT'S A RECOMMENDATION ON WHAT IN PARTICULAR, IS THERE A RECOMMENDATION ON ALL THE WHOLE LAW OF WHETHER OR NOT TO THE LAW? THE LAW THAT THEY SENT US SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED.
THEY REFER THE LAW TO US FOR RECOMMENDATION.
I I WANT TO HEAR FROM EVERYBODY ELSE FIRST.
UH, I WILL, I'LL ENTERTAIN IT, BUT I, I HAVE A FEELING I KNOW WHERE I'D LIKE TO DO IT AND THEN WHY, BUT I WANTED TO EXPLAIN TO THE RAMIFICATIONS BEFORE PEOPLE COMMENTED ON IT.
SO THE DIFFERENCE IS THEY WOULD NEED A SUPER MAJORITY VERSUS JUST A SIMPLE MAJORITY, MICHAEL.
SO IF, IF, IF THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION ON WHETHER OR NOT WE LIKE THEIR LAW PERMITTING CANNABIS TO BE SOLD IN GREENBURG, I GO, NO.
WELL, YOU BETTER TELL ME AGAIN WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.
THE, THE REASON OUR, THIS IS WHAT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT COMPLICATED.
WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IS OUR OVERALL, WHAT OUR OVERALL FEELING IS.
IF YOU FEEL STRONGLY, IF SOMEONE FEELS STRONGLY THAT, UM,
[01:20:03]
THE, UH, THAT, THAT THE PRODUCT SHOULD BE SOLD OUTSIDE THE PD DISTRICT, RIGHT.YOU MAY VOTE ONE WAY VERSUS OKAY.
AT LEAST IT'S BEING IN THE PD DISTRICT, YOU MAY VOTE ANOTHER WAY.
SO IF WE LIKE THE LIMITATIONS TO THE PD DISTRICT, WE VOTE POSITIVE.
IF WE THINK IT SHOULD BE SOLD THROUGHOUT THE TOWN, MEDICAL AND MAR AND MEDICAL AND RECREATIONAL, WE VOTE NEGATIVE BECAUSE WE DON'T ARE NEUTRAL.
WE COULD VOTE NEUTRAL IF, DEPENDING ON HOW STRONGLY PEOPLE FEEL.
THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
AND THEN, MONA, I THINK, UH, THE STRATEGY THAT YOU HAVE IS GOOD.
WE WORK NEGATIVE AND THEN THEY HAVE TO HAVE A SUPER MAJORITY TO REALLY EXPLAIN BECAUSE THEY, WHAT THEY ARE REALLY DOING IS, IS TO, UH, WORDING, UH, VERY NARROWLY TO HAVE THIS, UH, THE, THE PRODUCT BEING BEING SOLD OR FOR RECREATION OR MEDICINAL, UH, AND THEY'RE NOT VERY CLEAR.
AND ALSO FOR MANUFACTURING AND, UH, UH, SURE TOO PROCESSES.
SO I THINK THEY HAVE VERY CONFUSING, UH, KIND OF, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS THEY HAVE PUT IT IN FOR IN FRONT OF US.
AND I THINK WHAT WE HAVE DISCUSSED IS MORE THOROUGHLY, MORE NUANCED WAY.
SO TO, TO MAKE THEM TO DO THE SAME THING.
I THINK I WOULD RECOMMEND TO WHAT? NEGATIVE AND THANK YOU.
MONA, YOU HAD A COMMENT? I JUST WANTED TO KNOW, CAN THIS BOUNCE BACK AND THEN THEY CAN VOTE AND NOT ALLOW THE CANNABIS AT ALL? THEY ALREADY NO, THEY ALREADY OPTED IN.
RIGHT? THEY'RE EITHER GONNA OVER, THEY'RE EITHER GOING TO ACCEPT OUR RECOMME IF YOU VOTE NEGATIVE, THEY'RE EITHER GONNA ACCEPT OUR RECOMMENDATION OR THEIRS OR MAYBE MODIFY THEIR RECOMMENDATION A BIT.
BUT THEY CAN'T JUST SUDDENLY OPT OUT, RIGHT? NO, THEY CAN'T COME BACK AND BITE US IN THE BUTTON.
IF THEY DID THAT, IF THEY DIDN'T PASS THE LAW, AS DAVID SAY, SAY IT'S THE WILD WEST AS TO WHERE IT GOES.
'CAUSE WE'RE, THE CODE WOULD BE SILENT AND THEN IT WOULD GO ACTUALLY IF THEY WERE, IF THEY WERE, IF IT WAS SILENT, IT WOULD GO IN ALL THE AREAS OF RECOMMEND PROBABLY RECOMMENDING ANYWAY WITHOUT PERMIT.
BECAUSE THEY GO RETAIL LOCATION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE VOTE ON THIS? OKAY.
I WILL, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO MAKE A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD BASED ON THE FACT THAT, UH, WE THINK THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES THAT NEED TO BE MADE TO THE LAW, NOT THE LEAST OF WHICH IS THE AREA, THE LIMITED AREA IN WHICH THEY'VE RECOMMENDED, AS WELL AS THE LACK OF ENOUGH EN SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION TO MAKE A, TO CREATE A ADEQUATE SPECIAL PERMIT.
ADEQUATE SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA.
HOW'S THAT? I, I WILL SAY, I, I, I'LL MAKE A MOTION WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT, UH, WHATEVER YOU SAID HERE, WE SHOULD PUT IT AS WHY WE ARE VOTING NEGATIVE.
IT SHOULD GO UP FRONT, AARON, RIGHT? THE MO THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.
SHOULD I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND.
ALL IN FAVOR? JUST A COMMENT BEFORE DISCUSSION.
WELL, DID YOU DO THIS EVERY TIME? NO, NO, NO.
WE'LL, I SAID, AND, AND, AND, AND I KNOW FOR ME PERSONALLY, UH, UH, WHETHER OR NOT IT, THE BOARD, UH, IT CAN OVERTURN IT, HOW MANY, UH, VOTES IT TAKE TO ME IS IRRELEVANT.
OUR JOB IS TO LOOK AT THE FACTS AND IF THE FACTS CALLS FOR A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION, WE SHOULD DO A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
IF THE FACTS CALL FOR A NEGATIVE, WE DO A NEGATIVE.
HOW THE TOWN BOARD TREATS THAT AND HOW MANY VOTES THEY NEED TO ME IS IRRELEVANT.
OUR JOB IS TO MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THE FACTS AND BASED ON THE FACTS, I VOTE NEGATIVE.
SO, ALL IN FAVOR SAY AYE AGAIN, WALTER.
UH, MICHAEL, ARE YOU ABSTAINING OR NO? I'M VOTING.
AARON, WHAT I'D SUGGEST, MAY I JUMP IN FOR ONE SECOND HERE? SURE.
IT'S UNANIMOUSLY IT'S A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION.
[01:25:01]
HOWEVER, IN FAIRNESS TO MICHAEL, DID MICHAEL WANT TO, UH, EITHER ABSTAIN OR, UH, OR, OR, OR VOTE, UH, DIFFERENTLY? I GUESS IT'S REALLY ABSTAIN ON THE ISSUE OF RECREATIONAL.SO I THINK THAT SHOULD BE REFLECTED IN THE ABSOLUTELY.
YEAH, NO, THAT'S WHY WE HAD THAT VOTE.
I ASKED MICHAEL THAT BEFORE, IF YOU WEREN'T ALREADY HALF IN RETIREMENT MODE, YOU WOULD'VE HEARD IT.
I JUST DIDN'T, UH, UNDERSTAND IT.
UH, NO, I'M, I MADE SURE, 'CAUSE I KNOW MICHAEL FELT STRONGLY ABOUT THAT, AND IT SHOULD BE RECORDED.
LOGISTICALLY, AARON, WHAT I'D SUGGEST IS TRY TO GET ANOTHER DRAFT OUT THAT WE CAN JUST CIRCULATE TO MAKE SURE WE'RE OKAY BEFORE WE SEND IT TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH ALL THESE CHANGES.
OKAY? WE DON'T NEED TO VOTE ON IT AGAIN, BUT JUST, JUST GET IT, TRY TO CIRCULATE IT.
YOU CAN SEND IT TO, YOU KNOW, TOM AND ME ACTUALLY SEND IT TO THE WHOLE BOARD AT THE SAME TIME.
AGAIN, REALLY GOOD JOB ON THIS, GUYS.
UM, AND THE OTHER, HELLO? YOU GOTTA VOTE ON THE REPORT ALSO
SO I'D LIKE TO VOTE TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AS AS AMENDED, RIGHT? BECAUSE, UH, WALTER HAD A, HAD A CHANGE TO THE REPORT.
JUST TO CHANGE THE AIR MISSION.
SO I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AS AMENDED.
I JOHANN SECOND HERE IN FRONT OF YOU.
WE DIDN'T FINISH IN 45, BUT WE DID FINISH IN UNDER, UNDER AN HOUR, SO THAT'S GOOD.
AND I WAS A VERY GOOD OPEN DISCUSSION.
UH, THE NEXT, UH, ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS PB 20 DASH 24, WHICH IS BLOOM ENERGY.
WE HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE, UH, SEVERAL MONTHS AGO NOW.
UH, WHEN WE LAST DID THIS, SAW THIS, AND GOOD EVENING, MS. GARRIS, UM, THE LAST TIME MR. MATHS, THE LAST TIME WE SAW THIS.
UM, FRANKLY, WE DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH TECHNICAL INFORMATION TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF, UH, A FUEL CELL, UH, RUN WITH NATURAL GAS WOULD BE.
SO, UM, THESE FOLKS AT BLOOM ENERGY WENT BACK AND DID THEIR HOMEWORK, AND ALSO WORKED WITH OUR, OUR CONSULTANTS, UM, WHO ARE ON, ON THE CALL AS WELL.
AND SO I'D LIKE TO DO IS, UH, KIND OF, UM, AARON, I THINK THE BEST WAY TO DO IT IS HAVE MS. GARRIS SPEAK FIRST AND PRESENT THIS, AND THEN IF THEY CAN, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A QUESTION BY QUESTION.
UH, IF THERE'S SPECIFIC HIGHLIGHTS YOU WANNA MAKE, GIVEN WHAT WE KNOW, WHAT THE ISSUE IS, IS ONE ISSUE REALLY.
UH, WHICH IS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
THAT'S REALLY THE BIGGEST ISSUE HERE.
UM, SO IF YOU CAN COMMENT ON THAT, WHAT YOUR REPORT SAYS.
I KNOW THERE WAS A DISPERSION STUDY DONE, I BELIEVE AS PART, PART OF THIS, THIS, WHAT YOU GUYS DID.
AND THEN I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM OUR, OUR CONSULTANT TO CONFIRMING OR, OR COMMENTING, I SHOULD SAY, ON, ON THE WORK THAT'S BEEN DONE BY BLOOM ENERGY.
MS. GARRIS, THE FLOOR IS YOURS.
UH, FOR THE RECORD, I'M, MY NAME IS JANET GARRIS.
I'M A PARTNER WITH DELBELLO, DANNEL AND WEINGART AND WISE AND WHITAKER, AND I'M HERE THIS EVENING ON BEHALF OF BLOOM ENERGY.
WE'VE GOT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE JOINING US THIS EVENING FROM BLOOM, KRISTEN GRILLO, UM, JAMES MATTHEWS, BRIAN NEWNAN.
WE ALSO HAVE OUR CONSULTANT WITH US THIS EVENING.
AS YOU SAID, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE LAST MET WITH YOU ON MAY 4TH.
UM, AND THERE WERE, UM, A NUMBER OF COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE BY THE TOWNS CONSULTANT LABEL.
WE'VE TAKEN THE TIME SINCE THEN TO RESPOND TO THOSE COMMENTS.
UH, WE'VE HAD A NUMBER OF CORRESPONDENCE BACK AND FORTH WITH, WITH LABEL AND BLOOM.
UH, I SUBMITTED ALL OF THAT CORRESPONDENCE TO YOU, WHICH SHOULD BE IN YOUR PACKAGE THIS EVENING, UM, WHICH INCLUDES NOT ONLY OUR RESPONSES TO THOSE COMMENTS, AND THEN THE MOST RECENT RESPONSE BACK FROM LABA INDICATING THAT ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS WERE ADDRESSED.
UM, I'M NOT THE TECHNICAL PERSON HERE, SO I AM NOT SURE IF KRISTEN WANTS TO TALK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT, UM, HOW WE RESPONDED TO THAT LAST ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED BY LABEL, BELLA.
WE'RE HAPPY TO ALSO JUST HAVE YOUR CONSULTANT SPEAK TO IT, MR. CHAIRMAN, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME THIS EVENING.
I, I, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE JUST TO GENERAL CON HOW WHAT YOU DID ADDRESS THE CONCERN, THE KEY CONCERN OF THE BOARD.
[01:30:01]
I'D LIKE THAT ADDRESSED.YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH LINE BY LINE, BUT OBVIOUSLY WE TALKED YOU ABOUT THIS BEING, UH, VIR VIRTUALLY ON TOP OF A, A RESIDENTIAL AREA.
MAYBE GO A LITTLE BIT THROUGH THE DISPERSION STUDY OF, OF HOW FAR THE, THE EMISSIONS GO.
AND THEN IF THERE'S A SPECIFIC QUESTION FROM OUR CONSULTANT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED THAT HE ASKED THE LAST TIME, I WOULD ALSO DO THAT.
AND THEN I'D LIKE OUR CONSULTANT TO RESPOND.
SO, SO STEVE, DO YOU YEAH, I'VE, STEVE, DO YOU ACTUALLY WANNA COMMENT ON, BECAUSE SINCE YOU ADDRESSED THE, WITH THE MODELING THAT WE DID, I THINK THAT TO THE NUTS AND BOLTS OF WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR HERE.
UM, I, STEVE BOFF WITH RAMBLE, UH, CONSULTANT TO BLOOM ENERGY.
UM, SO AS, AS PART OF THE WORK THAT WE DID, YOU KNOW, WE, WE WERE INVOLVED WITH, UM, UH, ESTIMATING EMISSIONS, QUANTIFYING EMISSIONS THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT, UM, AND RESPONDING TO ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT AIR QUALITY, INCLUDING DOING THAT DISPERSION MODELING STUDY.
UM, SO BASICALLY WHAT WE DID WAS E EVALUATED HOW EMISSIONS DISPERSE, AND THERE'S AN E P A APPROVED, UH, MODEL THAT'S ALSO APPROVED IN THE STATE OF NEW YORK FOR EVALUATING AIR QUALITY IMPACTS, UM, FROM ANY SORT OF COMMERCIAL INDUSTRIAL PROCESS.
UH, WE USED THAT MODEL TO, UH, ESTIMATE OFFSITE IMPACTS.
AND THE, THE BASIC CONCLUSION WAS THAT, UH, THE OFFSET IMPACTS FOR ANY POLLUTANTS WHERE NEW YORK HAS STANDARDS, UH, THAT YOU CAN EVALUATE, WE MODELED THOSE EMISSIONS FOR DIFFERENT AVERAGING PERIODS.
AND, UH, ALL, ALL OF THE IMPACTS WERE BELOW ALLOWABLE LEVELS ADOPTED BY THE STATE OF NEW YORK.
I, I'M HAPPY TO PROVIDE DETAILS, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE, I KNOW THERE IN THAT HUGE STUDY THAT YOU SENT TO ASIDE, I KNOW IT'S IN THERE SOMEWHERE.
JANET'S GONNA EXPLAIN IT TO ME OVER IT, TO ME, O OVER COFFEE SOMETIMES SHE SAID SHE'LL GO THROUGH IT IN DETAIL.
UM, THERE WAS A SPECIFIC QUESTION YOU SAID, UH, MS. GARRIS THAT, UH, OUR CONSULTANT ASKED AS WELL THAT NEEDED TO BE ADDRESSED.
I BEG YOUR PARDON? YOU SAID THERE WAS A SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT WAS ASKED BY A CONSULTANT THAT HAD HAD TO BE ADDRESSED TO NO, NO, NO.
I THINK THAT I, I, I THINK THAT STEVE JUST ADDRESSED IT.
I THINK THAT, UH, THERE WERE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, WE HAD GONE BACK AND FORTH WITH RESPONSES, ADDITIONAL RESPONSES, AND THEN IN THE MOST RECENT COMMUNICATION FROM LABEL, THEY WERE SATISFIED WITH THE RESPONSES.
ONE OF THOSE ITEMS WAS THE MODELING.
UH, THE OTHER ISSUE HAD, UH, YOU KNOW, WAS RELATED TO WHETHER THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, AUTOMATIC SHUTOFFS AND OTHER THINGS.
AND, AND, YOU KNOW, WE RESPONDED THAT IN FACT, THERE ARE, AND I ALSO SAW THE TESTING THAT, THAT YOU PUT IN, THE MONITORING IN I SAW, WHICH I WAS VERY HAPPY TO SEE THAT YOU HAD THE MONITORING SYSTEM IN THERE AND THE SHUTOFFS.
I, I SAW THAT AS I WENT THROUGH THE REPORT.
I'M GONNA JUST, IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, I JUST WANT TO HEAR FROM A CONSULTANT, THEN ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD CAN ASK, EITHER THE BLOOM SIDE OR A CONSULTANT.
ED LARKIN WITH LABELLA ASSOCIATES, UM, I'D JUST LIKE, WOULD LIKE TO THANK BLOOM ENERGY AND THEIR TEAM.
WE, WE DID A PRETTY DEEP DIVE ON THIS PROJECT.
THEY, THEY DID, UM, CERTAINLY, UH, SUFFICIENT AND, AND A VERY IN-DEPTH DIVE INTO THE EMISSIONS AND OTHER SAFETY COMPONENTS OF THIS.
UM, ALL THAT IS IN THE RECORD THAT YOU GUYS HAVE.
UM, THE EMISSIONS MODELING AS STEVE, UM, NOTED, YOU KNOW, DEFINES THAT ALL, UM, ALL TESTING AT THE PROP OR ALL EMISSIONS AT THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY ARE WELL WITHIN, WELL WITHIN ALLOWABLE LEVELS IN THAT LAST ITEM THAT WAS REFERENCED, DEALT WITH, UM, FIRE SAFETY AND HOW THE, HOW THE UNIT WILL OPERATE IN AN AUTOMATIC SHUTDOWN.
SO, UM, THAT WAS SATISFIED AS WELL.
SO YEAH, WE, WE HAVE ADDRESSED ALL THE CONCERNS.
UM, WE FEEL LIKE THE APPLICANT HAS, HAS GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND TO DEMONSTRATE THIS IS A SAFE, UM, YOU KNOW, SAFE INSTALL FOR THE, FOR THE TOWN.
AND, AND WE HAVE NO FURTHER COMMENTS.
UH, JOHANN? YEAH, I, I JUST WANTED SOME CLARIFICATION ON PAGE SIX, UM, ABOUT TRYING TO READ MY OWN HANDWRITING HERE ABOUT, UH, DISC POTENTIALLY BURSTING.
THE RELIEF, A PRESSURE FROM A RELIEF DISC MAY BURST, ALLOWING GAS TO RELEASE INTO THE ATMOSPHERE.
IF THIS HAPPENS, BLOOM WILL SHUT OFF THE GAS PIPELINE.
UM, THERE WAS A REFERENCE JUST BENEATH THAT, THERE BEING A PORTABLE, UH, LEAK DETECTOR.
UM, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BECAUSE ON PAGE 27, IT MENTIONED SOMETHING ABOUT AN AUTOMATIC GAS CONCENTRATION, UH, DETECTOR THAT SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO BE CONTROLLED REMOTELY AND SHUT OFF.
BUT ON PAGE SIX, IT GIVES THE IMPLICATION THAT IT WOULD ONLY BE DURING
[01:35:01]
INSPECTION AND OR MAINTENANCE, THAT THAT DETECTION WOULD BE, UM, UH, SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE RECOGNIZABLE.CAN, CAN SOMEBODY OFFER SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT, PLEASE? YEAH.
IT'S, THE SYSTEM IS, IS MONITORED REMOTELY 24 7.
SO THAT, AND IT HAS INTERNAL DETECTORS WITHIN IT THAT WOULD, UM, NOTE A PRESSURE LOSS.
AND SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE ALL THE TIME.
I, I'M, UH, I'M NOT ACTUALLY SURE WHICH DOCUMENT YOU'RE LOOKING AT, UM, UH, UH, THAT HAS THOSE PAGES ON IT, BUT, UM, IT, IT'S 24 7, WE HAVE, UH, DETECTION BUILT INTO THE SYSTEM AND IT'S REMOTELY MONITORED AS WELL.
I'M LOOKING AT THE, THE BEO, UH, DON WEINGARTEN, WIS AND DENKER, L L P
JANET, HOW MANY PARTNERS? HOW MANY PARTNERS DO YOU HAVE? JANET
BUT THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.
SO ON PAGE SIX, UM, THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE THAT KIND OF IMPLIED THAT IT COULD BE MONITORED.
IS, IS THIS PARTICULAR UNIT THAT'S GOING TO BE INSTALLED DEFINITELY GOING TO BE MONITORED? YES.
ALL OUR SYSTEMS ARE MONITORED AND THEY ALL HAVE THIS, THESE BUILT IN FEATURES AS SAFETY FEATURES.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO, ARMONA, GO AHEAD.
UM, I HAD SPOKEN TO AARON ABOUT THIS, UM, UH, ON PAGE, THEY HAD SOME RESPONSES AND, UM, ONE WAS NUMBER 18, RESPONSE NUMBER 18 TO PAGE 10, ITEM E WITH THEY INDICATED YES.
UM, THEY SAID THEY WERE INDICATING YES, BUT INSTEAD THEY CHECKED BOX NO
WE'VE CORRECTED THAT SINCE THEN AND WE'VE RECENTLY OKAY, THANK YOU.
SO AARON ALREADY SPOKE WITH YOU ABOUT THAT? YES.
IT WAS AN OVERSIGHT AND WE CORRECTED IT.
AND IT'S, AND ALSO THE WESTCHESTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE, WHICH IS NOT WESTCHESTER COMMUNITY COLLEGE.
BUT INSTEAD IT'S THE COLLEGE OF WESTCHESTER.
SO ALL OF THOSE RECORDS HAVE BEEN CORRECTED.
UM, THERE IS SOME SOLID WASTE THAT'S GENERATED, I BELIEVE, UM, BY, BY THIS UNIT.
RIGHT? WHEN YOU, YOU HAVE THE FILTRATION AND YOU END UP WITH SO SOME WASTE, UH, HOW IS THAT WASTE HANDLED? SO, UM, IT'S HANDLED OFFSITE, SO IT'S, IT'S A CANISTER WITHIN THE SYSTEM THAT IS TOOKEN OUT.
WHAT HAPPENS IS, UM, IN ORDER FOR THE SYSTEM TO WORK PROPERLY, SULFUR'S PUT INTO GAS TO, TO CREATE A SMELL, TO, TO CREATE AN ODORANT MM-HMM.
AND SO WE, WE TAKE THAT OUT, BUT IT'S TOOKEN OUT IN A, IN DIESEL IZATION CANISTERS THAT ARE REMOVED OFFSITE,
AND THEN WE DID IN THE, IN THE COR IN THE SUBSEQUENT CORRESPONDENCE, PROVIDE SOME DETAILS, UH, TO LABA WITH THAT.
A ALSO, ARE THERE ANY TOXIC LIQUIDS AT ALL IN, IN THIS OPERATION? THE TO, NO, THE, IT'S, IT'S, THERE'S A SPEC SHEET THAT CHRONICLES THE, UM, THE, THE COPPER CATALYST INVOLVED IN THAT.
THAT'S ALL PART OF THAT CANISTER SYSTEM THAT IS DONE OFF IT.
IT'S NOT REALLY, IT'S NOT HANDLED AT THE SITE.
SO IS THERE ANY, ANY POTENTIAL FOR LEAKAGE OF, OF ANY OF THAT? AND IF SO, DO YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF A CONTAINMENT SYSTEM IF ONE OF THOSE CANISTERS MIGHT LEAK? UM, I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A, WHAT WOULD CALL A SYSTEM.
I MEAN, THAT IT'S A, IT'S A PRETTY WELL CON IT'S A WELL CONTAINED SYSTEM THAT THEN SITS INSIDE A MODULE IN A OP, YOU KNOW, IT'S TRANSFERRED OP SIDE.
IF THERE WAS A, SOMEHOW IT CAME OPEN OR WHATNOT, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE DEALT WITH ACCORDINGLY BY SAFETY STAFF THERE.
I'M JUST WONDERING, I MEAN, IT COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS A BERM, FOR INSTANCE, TO JUST TO CONTAIN IT WITHIN THAT AREA AND NOT LEAK SOMEWHERE ELSE.
IT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY THING I'M THINKING ABOUT.
I THINK IT'S FULLY CONTAINED TOO.
I THINK THAT THAT'S WHAT JAMES'S TRYING TO SAY.
UM, ONE OTHER QUES QUESTION, UH, FOR AARON.
UH, WHAT DID THE FIRE, WHAT DID OUR FIRE DISTRICT SAY ABOUT THIS? ANYTHING THEY REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND HAD NO ADDITIONAL REQUESTS OR CONCERNS.
UH, THEY FELT THAT THE LOCATION WAS ACCESSIBLE AND DIDN'T ISSUE ANY, ANYTHING ELSE BEYOND THAT.
[01:40:01]
IT'S, THAT'S, IS THAT FAIRVIEW? I BELIEVE IT IS, YES.I THINK IT WOULD BE FAIRVIEW, YEAH.
MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE, THE CONTAINERS CORRECT.
I DON'T THINK IT, IT, IT, UH, PRESENT ANY REAL PROBLEM, BASICALLY, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THE H TWO S SCRUBBER THERE THAT'S CAPTURED AND WHAT A SMALL AMOUNT OF MOISTURE, MOISTURE NOT LIQUID, IF THAT'S CORRECT.
THAT'S CAPTURED IN THE CONTAINER.
SO IF YOU ARE JUST SCRUBBING THE GAS AND CAPTURING MOISTURE, THEN WE SHOULDN'T HAVE ANY REALLY LIQUID.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, I'M NOT AWARE OF A, A LIQUID AS PART OF THAT.
I, I, I'M, I'M NOT, I'M NOT INVOLVED WITH CHANGING THE SYSTEM.
I JUST KIND OF HAVE THE, THE SPEC AND THE DETAILS OF, OF YEAH.
WHAT THEY DO WITH THE HASH APP.
BUT I KNOW THAT IT'S DONE OFFITE, THAT IT'S A CANISTER THAT'S TRANSFERRED BACK AND FORTH.
AND THEN WE FOLLOW, YOU KNOW, WE FOLLOW CERTAIN CRITERIA.
WE'LL PROVIDE A, A BOOKLET, YOU KNOW, TO THE FIRE INSPECTOR AND ALL THAT.
UM, UH, AND THAT WE'VE INSTALLED THESE, YOU KNOW, TIME AFTER TIME ACCORDING TO THIS PROTOCOL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? 'CAUSE I, I WANNA MOVE ON IF WE DON'T.
JANET, WHERE ARE WE WITH, UH, THE, UH, ZONING BOARD? SO WE ARE SCHEDULED ON THE ZONING BOARD'S AUGUST AGENDA.
WE WERE SUPPOSED TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD IN JULY, UH, I'M SORRY, IN JUNE AFTER WE LAST MET WITH YOU.
UM, THEY ADJOURNED IT, UH, TO AUGUST BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS BOARD WAS SATISFIED.
I KNOW THAT YOU SENT A RECOMMENDATION TO THEM WHEN WE WERE HERE IN MAY.
UM, BUT THAT RECOMMENDATION WAS SORT OF CONDITIONAL.
UH, AND I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED TO ASK OF YOU TONIGHT WAS TO REVISIT THAT RECOMMENDATION.
AND JUST TO INDICATE TO THE BOARD THAT WE'VE SATISFIED THE CONCERN WITH THE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT WE PROVIDED.
UH, AND THEN WE, UH, THEY CHANGED THE DATE OF THE ZONING BOARD MEETING.
I THINK IT WAS INITIALLY, I THINK THE 18TH, AND THEY'VE CHANGED IT NOW TO THE 11TH.
UH, AND WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT THEY WILL, UH, AT, AT A MINIMUM CLOSE THE HEARING AND, UH, AND, AND EITHER RENDER A DECISION THAT EVENING OR HOPEFULLY RENDER A DECISION AT THEIR MEETING IN SEPTEMBER.
IF THEY, IF THEY HOLD IT OVER FOR DECISION AND RENDER THE DECISION IN SEPTEMBER.
AARON AND I TALKED ABOUT IT, THEIR, THEIR MEETING IS BEFORE OUR SECOND MEETING.
SO WE MAY HAVE ENOUGH, IF WE HAVE ENOUGH NOTICE TIME, WE MAY BE ABLE TO DO IF THIS BOARD AND ATTENDS US TONIGHT, A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SECOND, THE SECOND MEETING IN SEPTEMBER.
WE WERE HOPEFUL MR. CHAIRMAN, FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE FIRST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER.
AND THEN, UH, A DECISION FROM THIS BOARD AT THE SECOND MEETING IN SEPTEMBER.
UH, DON'T FORGET, THIS IS UNCOORDINATED REVIEW.
SO WE DON'T NEED TO WAIT FOR THEM.
YOU DON'T NEED TO WAIT FOR THEM TO MAKE A DECISION.
UH, OR IT WOULD BE, OBVIOUSLY IF WE APPROVED, IT'LL BE CONDITIONED ON, ON THEIR APPROVE.
THERE OBVIOUSLY HAS TO BE CONDITIONED ON THEIR APPROVAL.
I THINK WHAT WE WOULD HOPE IS THAT IF WE COULD DO A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE FIRST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER, WE WOULD GO TO THE ZONING BOARD IN BETWEEN YOUR FIRST AND SECOND MEETINGS AND THEN HOPEFULLY HAVE THAT DECISION AND THEN COME BACK TO
DAVE, CAN WE DO THAT FROM A PROCEDURE PROCEDURAL POINT OF VIEW? ACTUALLY, I WAS JUST, YES.
UH, UM, UH, BUT AARON HAD RAISED HIS HAND.
I JUST WANTED TO ALERT TO THAT.
WE CAN DO THAT PROCEDURALLY, AND WHAT I WAS PREPARED TO DO WAS CLOSELY FOLLOW, UH, THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE ZONING BOARD NEXT WEEK.
AND IF THEY DO CLOSE, BUT DO NOT MAKE THE DECISION NEXT WEEK AND HOLD IT OVER FOR A DECISION IN SEPTEMBER, WE CAN GET AN IDEA OF WHERE THE ZONING BOARD AT IS AT IN TERMS OF ITS DECISION.
AND THEN I CAN COMMUNICATE WITH THE CHAIR AND WE CAN DISCUSS, WELL, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT GONNA VOTE ON IT ANYWAY.
IT WOULD ONLY BE A PUBLIC HEARING.
WE EVEN, SO I DON'T SEE HOW THAT WOULD HURT.
WE COULD STILL HAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING THE, UH, ON THE FIRST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER AND 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT, AND WE WOULDN'T BE VOTING ON IT UNTIL AFTER THEIR, THEIR, THEIR MEETING IN SEPTEMBER.
WOULDNT WOULDN'T BE AN, IT WOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE.
THERE'S REASON WE CAN'T HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THAT WOULD BE, THAT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
AND I, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE.
UH, BE BEING THAT WE HAVE AN OPEN SCHEDULE FOR THE FIRST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER AT THIS POINT.
THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS THE ONLY, THE ONLY WAY THAT WOULD NOT HAPPEN WOULD BE IF THE ZONING BOARD ADJOURNS LET'S NEGATIVE ADJOURNS IT.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT'LL BE THAT FAR.
SO WE DON'T HAVE TO SCHEDULE IT TONIGHT BECAUSE THE PLANNING BOARD DOESN'T OKAY.
NEED TO SCHEDULE IT, YOU KNOW, AT A MEETING.
[01:45:01]
WE CAN JUST KEEP THE LINES OF COMMUNICATION.WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO NOW, 'CAUSE I, I, I, I HEAR, UH, MS. GARY'S COMMENTS AND I ACTUALLY AGREE WITH THEM, UM, THAT WE HAVE A LOT MORE INFORMATION NOW THAN WHEN WE MADE THE RE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION.
THE POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION BEFORE WAS THAT WE ACTUALLY PREFERRED IT IN THE FRONT YARD THAN THE SIDE YARD FOR THE REASONS YOU GUYS SAID WITH AC THERE WAS AN ACCESS ISSUE.
I THINK IF YOU PUT IT BACK BEHIND THE BUILDING, WE LOOKED AT OPTIONS AND THIS WOULD SEEMED TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE ACCESS WAS THE BEST.
SO WE WERE DOING IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE AND IT REALLY DIDN'T AFFECT THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE.
BUT I THINK THAT WE CAN ADD, I THINK WE SHOULD AMEND OUR RECOMMENDATION AGAIN, UH, REITERATE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
AND NOW THAT, UH, AND SAY THAT WE'VE HAD HAD A MEETING WITH, UH, WITH THE APPLICANT AND OUR CONSULTANT WHO ARE SATISFIED THAT ALL OF OUR, OUR ALL HER ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
WHICH I THINK WILL, SHOULD HELP HELP EXPERT, YOU KNOW, GET THINGS MOVING IN THE, UM, IN THE ZONING BOARD AS WELL.
UH, COULD I HAVE A MOTION TO THAT EFFECT TO AMEND OUR RECOMMENDATION WITH THAT LANGUAGE PLEASE? SO, MOVE.
WALTER, DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND MO SECONDS.
ALL OPPOSED? DID YOU VOTE JOHANN? YES.
SO WE'LL AMEND IT TO THAT EFFECT.
WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME BEFORE WE EVEN HAVE TO SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR SEPTEMBER, EVEN THE FIRST WEEK.
SO, UM, AARON, IF WE KNOW THAT THINGS ARE GOING THE CORRECT WAY AFTER THE MEETING ON THE AUGUST 11TH, WE COULD THEN YOU AND I, IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A VOTE.
I'LL A AARON JUST NEEDS TO TALK TO ME FOR THE SCHEDULE.
AND THEN THEY HAVE TO TALK TO YOU 'CAUSE YOU, YOU NEED TO OBVIOUSLY NOTICE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I I THINK WE CAN PUT OFF SECRET AND DO SECRET.
AN ANY OTHER ISSUES ON THIS FOR TONIGHT? NO, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I JUST WANTED TO EXTEND MY CONGRATULATIONS TO DAVID ON HIS RETIREMENT.
UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE TO SAY THAT I KNEW HIM WAY BACK WHEN
SO, UH, WISH HE HAD BEST DAVID.
WELL, I HAD BIG SHOES TO FILL.
'CAUSE UH, YOU HAD THE POSITION.
YOU KNOW WHAT'S INTERESTING THAT SHE WENT PRIVATE, YOU STAYED.
SHE HAS A FULL HEAD OF HAIR AND YOU DON'T
THEY MUST TREAT HER WELL AT DEO.
HAVE A GREAT REST OF THE THANK YOU SO MUCH.
WE'RE INTO OUR LAST CASE, WHICH IS, UM, A NEW CASE, WHICH IS, WE'VE HEARD ACTUALLY IN A, A, UH, A PRE-SUBMISSION SESSION A WHILE AGO.
IT'S, UH, OLD ARMY ROAD RIGHT NEXT TO ONE 90, I THINK IS ADJACENT TO IT.
THERE'S NO ADDRESS ON THE SLOT, CORRECT? CORRECT.
IT'S ZERO OLD ARMY ROAD BECAUSE THERE'S, IT'S VACANT.
SO IT HASN'T BEEN A, UH, ASSIGNMENT.
IT HASN'T BEEN ASSIGNED AN ADDRESS YET, BUT IT'S LEGALLY SUBDIVIDED.
IN 2008, IT WAS LEGALLY SUBDIVIDED IN 2008.
UH, IT'S PB 2213 ANDERSON BALL, VACANT LOT OLD ARMY ROAD FOR A PLANNING BOARD.
STEEP SLOPE PERMIT AND TREE PERMIT.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING AT.
I'M, I'M DOING WELL AND I FEEL GOOD ABOUT THAT.
WHY DON'T YOU GET THE REST OF THE DESCRIPTION HANDED ON WITH THE APPLICANT.
SO AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED, CASE NUMBER PB 2213 ANDERSON AND BALL, UH, STEEP SLOPE PERMIT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION INVOLVING THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITH RELATED IMPROVEMENTS ON AN APPROVED BUILDING LOT, UH, VIA SUBDIVISION IN 2009.
THE SITE FEATURES STEEP SLOPES IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO OLD ARMY ROAD ALONG THE SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE AND TO THE REAR OF THE SITE.
[01:50:01]
APPROXIMATELY 1,352 SQUARE FEET OF DISTURBANCE TO REGULATED STEEP SLOPES AS DEFINED IN THE CODE.APPROXIMATELY 310 SQUARE FEET OF DISTURBANCE TO VERY STEEP SLOPES AS DEFINED IN THE CODE.
AND APPROXIMATELY 409 SQUARE FEET OF DISTURBANCE TO EXCESSIVELY STEEP SLOPES AS DEFINED IN THE CODE.
THE APPLICATION REQUIRES APPROXIMATELY 140 CUBIC YARDS OF EXCAVATION AND APPROXIMATELY 360 CUBIC YARDS OF IMPORTED FILL REQUIRING A FILL PERMIT THROUGH THE BUREAU OF ENGINEERING.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSES THE REMOVAL OF TWO REGULATED TREES REQUIRING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FROM THE PLANNING BOARD AND IS PREPARED A LANDSCAPING PLAN PROVIDING FOR THE PLANTING OF 19 TREES AND 14 SHRUBS AS REPLACEMENTS.
THE BOARD MAY RECALL THAT A FEW MONTHS AGO, THIS PROPERTY WAS BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD AS A CONDITION OF A PRIOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
THE ONE JUST REFERENCED, UM, WHICH REQUIRED THAT ANY PROSPECTIVE BUILDER COME BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD SO THAT IT COULD COMPLETE ITS SEEKER RESPONSIBILITIES.
FOLLOWING THE BOARD'S DISCUSSION THAT EVENING, IT VOTED TO CLASSIFY THE PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE LOT, A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER.
IT ALSO CONDITIONED THAT ANY HISTORICAL ARTIFACTS UNCOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF EXCAVATION BE PHOTOGRAPHED, SET ASIDE, AND THAT THE TOWN BE NOTIFIED.
UNLESS THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL NOW TURN THINGS OVER TO THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE.
I'LL WAIT AND SEE IF THERE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE I START.
WE HAVE ALLOWED THE SHARED SCREEN FUNCTION TO SHOW THE PLANS, OTHERWISE I HAVE MS. CROSS, IT'S ALL YOURS.
JODY CROSS FROM Z AND STEINMETZ, UM, HERE ON BEHALF OF WELCOME HOMES, THE BUILDER FOR THE OF THE HOME WELCOME HOMES IS A TURNKEY PROVIDER OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
UH, THEY, UM, ARE PROPOSING, UH, THIS HOUSE ON THIS LOT, AND I THINK AARON JUST TOOK EVERYTHING THAT I WAS GOING TO PRESENT TO YOU AND DID MY JOB FOR ME.
SO, UM, YOU COULD CALL DAVID STEINMAN AND TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, YOUR NEW POSITION.
SO I'M HERE WITH, UH, ANDREW VA FOR MALCOLM HOLMES.
I'M ALSO HERE WITH, UH, AL SOFIS FROM COMMON ENGINEERING.
I HOPE I PRONOUNCED THAT CORRECTLY.
UM, AND AS AARON MENTIONED, WE'RE SEEKING A STEEP SLOPE PERMIT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
WE WERE HERE, UH, OR DAVID STEINITZ WAS HERE BACK IN, UH, MAY.
SO REALLY, UM, I GUESS REGARDLESS IF YOU WANNA BRING UP THE PLAN AND WE COULD JUST DISCUSS THE PLAN, UH, IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
WE'RE HOPING TO GET, UH, SLOPE APPROVAL AND TREE REMOVAL APPROVAL.
WE'RE HOPING TO, THAT THE BOARD WILL SET THIS DOWN FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS SO WE CAN GET THIS GOING.
SO THAT'S THE EXISTING CONDITIONS, CORRECT.
SO THESE ARE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS AND, UH, UH, AS MENTIONED, THE TWO ITEMS FOR DISCUSSION TONIGHT IS, UH, THE TREE REMOVAL, THE TREE REMOVALS, AND, UH, THE DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE, UH, THE STEEP SLOPE.
SO IF WE WERE, UM, TO ADDRESS EACH ONE AT A TIME, UH, THE, THE TWO TREES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE ARE ALONG, UH, THE PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO OLD ARMY ROAD.
THIS IS ONE AND TWO TREES, UH, THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.
THEN IF WE GO TO THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, UH, WHAT, CAN YOU EXPAND THAT A LITTLE BIT SO WE CAN SEE IT BETTER? IS THAT BETTER? YEAH, FINE.
UM, SO MOVING TO THE SITE PLAN AND, UH, LANDSCAPING PLAN.
SO, UH, WE ARE REMOVING THE TWO TREES AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS, UM, 19 NEW TREES.
WE HAVE THEM SITUATED ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, UH, 1, 2, 3, AND FOUR.
ESSENTIALLY THESE TWO, UH, ESSENTIALLY IN THE SAME LOCATION AS THE ONES BEING REMOVED.
AND THEN WE HAVE A SERIES OF TREES ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, UM, SPANNING FROM ESSENTIALLY, UH, OLD ARMY ROAD ALL THE WAY TO THE, THE, THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY, UM, PROVIDING SOME SCREENING, UH, ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE A SERIES OF SHRUBS.
UM, JUST TO, TO FURTHER, UH, TO FINISH THE, THE STORY OF THE LANDSCAPE PLAN, WE HAVE A SERIES OF SHRUBS, UM, ALONG THE DRIVEWAY AND AT, AT THE BASE OF THE BUILDING OF THE HOME ITSELF.
AND THEN THE, THE NEXT, THE NEXT COMPONENT IS THE, THE STEEP SLOPES.
[01:55:02]
THIS IS, UH, A CROSS SECTION OF, OF THE PROPERTY.THIS RIGHT HERE WOULD BE REPRESENTING, UH, OLD ARMY ROAD.
UM, ALONG OUR PROPERTY LINE, THERE IS AN EXISTING RETAINING WALL THAT IS APPROXIMATELY THREE TO FOUR FEET.
A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THESE STEEP SLOPES THAT, UH, WE ARE IMPACTING WAS CREATED, WAS ESSENTIALLY CREATED AT SOME POINT WHEN THESE RETAINING WALLS, UH, WAS INSTALLED.
UM, SO AGAIN, THERE'S A RETAINING WALL ON THIS PROPERTY LINE.
THERE IS, UH, A GENTLE, MORE GENTLE SLOPE WHERE WE ARE SITUATING THE HOME ITSELF.
AND THEN, AND ON THE REAR OF THE YARD, IT, IT DOES DROP OFF, UH, QUITE A, QUITE A BIT, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, WE ARE NOT, UH, IMPACTING THIS.
AND WE, WE KIND OF TOOK IT, WE TOOK THE, THE DEVELOPER AND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE DESIGN TEAM TOOK ADVANTAGE OF, OF THIS.
AND, UH, WHAT WE, WHAT WE, WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS A WALKOUT BASEMENT, UM, TO TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
DID YOU SAY THAT THE SLOPES WERE MANMADE? THE OLD ARMY, THE SLOPE? I HAVE ANOTHER SLOPE EXHIBIT.
SO, SO THIS IS, UH, UH, ONE OF THE EXHIBITS THAT WE PRESENT THAT WE PREPARED.
UM, AND WHAT IS SHOWING IS KIND OF IS, IS ESSENTIALLY HIGHLIGHTING WHERE YOU HAVE THE, THESE STEEP SLOPES THAT ARE ALONG THE SITE.
SO AS YOU, AS YOU CAN SEE, THERE ARE THE, UH, THE STEEPER AREAS ARE ADJACENT TO THE RETAINING WALL THAT I MENTIONED ALONG OLD ARMY ROAD.
THERE'S ALSO, UM, A BLOCK RETAINING WALL ON, ON THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH, UM, WHICH THIS, THESE, THIS IS THE AREA THAT WE'RE ESSENTIALLY IMPACTING.
UM, BUT THE, THE, THE REMAINING PORTION OF THE, THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE REAR, WHICH THERE IS, WHERE IT NATURALLY SLOPES, UM, TOWARDS THE REAR, WE, WE ARE NOT IMPACTING.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
WHEN YOU'RE BUILDING A HOUSE LIKE THIS, UM, AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A WALKOUT BASEMENT, THERE'S NO INTEREST AT ALL IN LEVELING THAT YARD SOMEHOW? THIS RIGHT HERE? YEAH.
UM, AT THIS TIME, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING THAT.
I WOULDN'T BE SURPRISED IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AFTERWARDS AND DOES THAT, 'CAUSE WE, WE SEE PEOPLE RUNNING TO LEVEL YARDS ALL THE TIME OR TERRACE IT WITH A, WITH A RETAINING WALL.
IT WOULD SEEM LIKE IT MAKES SENSE TO, IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SOMETHING TO DO IT ALL AT ONCE, BUT THAT'S NOT MY CALL.
I JUST, I'M VERY SURPRISED THAT YOU WOULD HAVE A WALKOUT BASEMENT WITH, CAN YOU PUT UP THE, UH, THAT, UH, SIDE VIEW OF THE, UH, TOPOGRAPHY? NOT THIS ONE.
I HAVE A WALKOUT BASEMENT IMMEDIATELY GOING DOWN, DOWN A HILL LIKE THAT.
THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A AND NO DECK.
SO I, NONE OF THAT MAKES SENSE.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
WELL, I MEAN THE, THE, THE, THE HOME ITSELF DOES HAVE A DECK OVER HERE.
BUT BELOW THAT'S A WALKOUT BASEMENT.
YEAH, IT IS A WALKOUT BASEMENT.
IT'S JUST, IT'S THIS OVER HERE.
IT'S JUST THE, THE SMALL AREA.
THAT'S SO ALSO, COULD YOU POINT OUT THE COMPONENTS OF THAT WOULD BE, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I JUST WANTED YOU TO POINT OUT THE DRIVEWAY TO ME AGAIN.
UM, AND WHILE YOU'RE PANNING OVER, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT WE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS.
THERE WERE CONSIDERATIONS GIVEN REGARDING TREES.
THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT TREE IN THE BACK BEFORE YOU GET TO THAT FINAL SLOPE.
UM, AND THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS REVIEWED BY THE BOARD BACK IN OH 7, 0 8, AND THAT TREE WAS BROUGHT UP FURTHER.
THE APPLICANT WANTED TO TRY AND MINIMIZE DISTURBANCE TO SLOPES IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER 2 45 OF THE CODES.
SO JUST WANTED TO BRING THAT, I, I KNOW THAT, BUT PEOPLE LIKE TO HAVE BACKYARDS, PARTICULARLY ON BUSY STREETS.
THAT THE OLD ARMY'S A VERY BUSY STREET AND NOT TO HAVE A BACKYARD I THINK IS, UH, A LITTLE BIT ODD.
THAT'S JUST, THAT'S MY OPINION.
I, I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO YOU'S COMMENTS.
I MEAN, BASICALLY THERE'S NO YARD, THERE'S A DRIVEWAY IN THE FRONT, MAYBE THERE'S A LITTLE LAWN IN THE FRONT, WHICH IS REALLY NOT IDEAL SINCE IT'S RIGHT ON AN OLD ARMY.
THERE'S A LITTLE STRIP ALONG THE SIDE AND THERE'S NOTHING IN THE BACKYARD.
'CAUSE WE'VE, WE'VE HAD THIS, WE'VE HAD THIS SITUATION, OH NO, NO ONE'S GONNA DO IT.
AND THEN THEY COME BACK OR DO IT, OR WORSE YET THEY
[02:00:01]
DO IT ILLEGALLY.WE'VE HAD THAT TOO AND HAD TO LEGALIZE THEM.
I HAVE A, UH, SAME CONCERN AS WHAT, UH, YOU AND MICHAEL HAS THAT, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE, UH, NOT, UH, COMPLETELY THOUGHT OUT, UH, SITE PLAN THEY'RE PROPOSING, UH, BUT ALSO IS IT POSSIBLE THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE US A, UH, SORT OF SECTION THROUGH ACTUALLY HOUSE RATHER THAN HAVING THIS DIAGRAMMATIC? AND ALSO HOW IT IS GOING TO LOOK FROM ALL THE SIDE SO THAT WE KNOW THAT HOW YOU CAN PROPOSE THIS TO BUILD THIS HOUSE AND HOW DOES IT FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CONSIDERING THAT ONE 90 IS A, UH, NOT, NOT ON A LOCAL OR STATE OR NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTER, BUT IT IS A VERY SIGNIFICANTLY, UH, UH, 1800, UH, HOUSE THAT IS REALLY BEAUTIFUL.
AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE SORT OF STREET ELEVATION, UH, OF THE HOUSE.
AND HOW DOES IT FIT INTO THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE, PARTICULARLY ONE 90.
A, A AARON, I, I WENT TO TAKE A SITE VISIT OF THIS, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY A COUPLE OF DAYS AGO AND I COULDN'T GET IN BECAUSE THERE'S A FENCE EXTENDING THE ENTIRE LENGTH, YOU KNOW, UH, ON THE OLD ARMY ROADSIDE IT EVEN EXTENDS ONTO THE PROPERTIES ON EITHER SIDE OF IT.
AND I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE WALKING ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY TO GET INTO THE BACK.
IS THERE ANY WAY, YOU KNOW, I COULD GET INTO THAT PROPERTY TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE SITE? I'M SURE THERE IS.
WE CAN ARRANGE, UH, WE CAN ARRANGE FOR THAT WITH THE APPLICANT SO I CAN, UM, LOOK TO SET SOMETHING UP.
CAN YOU DO THAT? JUST SEND ME AN EMAIL BECAUSE I REALLY DON'T HA DON'T KNOW HOW TO GET ON IT.
I, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I'M, I'D LIKE TO GET MICHAEL, IF YOU TAKE A FEW PICTURES WHEN YOU'RE BACK THERE FOR THE BOARD, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
'CAUSE I REALLY WANNA SEE HOW, HOW, HOW, WHAT THAT SLOPE LOOKS LIKE FROM, YOU KNOW, THE, WHAT WOULD BE THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
I, I HAVE, TO ME, THAT'S A BIG CONCERN.
YOUR CONCERN IS THAT IT DROPS OFF IN THE BACK.
DETERMINE YOU HAVE NO BACKYARD.
YOU'RE BUILDING A BRAND NEW HOUSE WITH NO BACKYARD ON, ON A BUSY, ON A BUSY STREET.
I, IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
AND MY UNDERSTANDING, I THINK, I THINK WHAT THE BOARD IS, IS SAYING IS FROM PAST EXPERIENCE, THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE A DO A STEEP SLOPE PERMIT NOW THAT'S A MINOR ONE, AND THEN A YEAR OR TWO COME BACK FOR SOMEONE WHO NOW WANTS THIS, THIS TERRORIST OR SOMETHING, WHICH IS, UH, WHAT WE'VE SEEN OR HAVE A MAJOR, YOU KNOW, UH, MAJOR CHANGES.
THEY'D RATHER SEE IT ONE TIME AND HAVE A WELL-DEVELOPED PLAN.
I MEAN, THERE ARE OTHER RAMIFICATIONS FOR THAT BECAUSE LET'S SAY THEY HAVE TO, UM, THEY HAVE TO BUILD A, A RETAINING WALL.
THEN YOU HAVE THE ISSUE OF DRAINAGE CHANGE.
IT CHANGES THE CONTOURS AND CHANGES THE DRAINAGE ON TOP OF IT ALL.
I DON'T WANT, I REALLY DON'T WANT TO SEE THIS TWICE.
WE'VE SEEN THIS TOO MANY TIMES IN THE PAST WHERE PEOPLE COME IN OR AS I SAID, DON'T COME IN.
WE FIND OUT ABOUT IT AFTER THE FACT, WHICH WE WILL, BECAUSE PEOPLE DO DRIVE BY THINGS AND LOOK OKAY, AND THEY FIND OUT ABOUT IT AFTER THE FACT, AND THEN WE HAVE TO HAUL THEM IN, IN TO FIX IT.
I JUST DON'T, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S REALISTIC TO SELL A HOUSE IN, IN ANYWHERE, BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR NEIGHBORHOOD ON THAT PARTICULAR STREET WITHOUT A BACKYARD.
UM, MA UH, UH, THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN AND, UH, BOARD MEMBERS FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
ANDREW, THERE, THERE IS A, THE, THERE IS A CONTRACT EE HERE WHO HAS BEEN PART OF THIS DESIGN, UM, DISCUSSION.
MY NAME'S ANDREW REL WITH WELCOME HOMES.
UM, JUST TO PROVIDE A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT.
SO, UM, MY COMPANY'S IN CONTRACT WITH THE, THE PROPERTY OR TO, TO CONSTRUCT THIS HOME.
UM, BUT REALLY THE SCOPE OF WHAT THIS, THIS OWNER IS LOOKING TO DO IS REALLY LIMITED JUST TO, UH, THE HOME AND, AND THE IMPROVEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THAT HOME.
AND REALLY NOTHING EXTENDED BEYOND THAT.
UM, THERE'S BEEN NO DISCUSSION, NO INTEREST TO, UM, TO
[02:05:01]
LEVEL THAT BACKYARD OR PROVIDE ANY RETAINING WALLS IN THAT BACKYARD.AGAIN, I, I THINK OUR CLIENT WAS DRAWN TO THE PROPERTY 'CAUSE OF THE NATURAL AESTHETIC AND WANTING TO TRY AND KEEP SOME OF THAT AESTHETIC.
AND, AND SOME OF THE BUFFERING, ESPECIALLY THE LARGE TREE, WAS UM, KIND OF A DRAWING POINT.
THEY DON'T WANNA REMOVE THAT TREE.
AND SO, UM, THAT WAS, UM, ONE OF THE CONSIDERATIONS WITH, WITH LAYING OUT THE SITE AS WELL AS TRYING TO MINIMIZE IMPACT TO THE STEEP SLOPES AND, UM, AND, AND THESE OLDER TREES IN THE AREA.
SO, UM, HOPEFULLY THAT PROVIDES A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT OF THE, THE REASONING FOR THE SITE.
BUT FRANKLY, IF THEY HAVE KIDS, I DON'T BELIEVE IT.
THE FIRST, FIRST TIME THE KIDS WANNA GO PLAY SOCCER IN THE BACKYARD AND THE BALL ENDS UP, UH, WHAT'S THE STREET? I DON'T DUNNO WHAT'S BEHIND THERE, WHAT STREET'S BEHIND THERE? SEA PLACE? I'M NOT SURE.
IT'S, IT'S ANOTHER, UH, IT'S ANOTHER, UH, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.
AND DORA, IT'S THE BACK OF DORIS LANE.
I, YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA END UP IN SOMEBODY ELSE'S YARD.
I'M SURE THEY WOULDN'T, LIKE IF WE PUT A COVENANT TO, IN THAT THEY CAN'T DO IT FOR FIVE YEARS.
WANNA FIND OUT WHAT KIND OF COMMITMENT THEY HAVE TO IT.
ASK THEM, BECAUSE I REALLY, I'M, I'M TRYING TO JUST BE REALISTIC AS TO WHAT I KNOW HAS HAPPENED IN THE PAST AND I DON'T WANNA SEE IT HAPPENING.
I'M SURE THERE'S A WAY AROUND THAT TREE, UM, TOO, BECAUSE YOU'RE ONLY LEVELING IT.
I HAVE, I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING WHAT WAS JUST SAID.
UM, WHO IS THE CONTRACT EE FOR THE HOUSE? IS IT GONNA BE THE PERSON WHO'S GONNA LIVE IN IT? THE, UM, I MAY HAVE MISSPOKEN ANDREW IS, UH, ARE THEY ALREADY THE OWNERS OR ARE THEY IN CONTRACT? YEAH, SO OUR, OUR CLIENT IS ALREADY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
SO, UM, MY FIRM WELCOME HOLMES, IS, IS REPRESENTING HIM AS THE APPLICANT.
BUT, UM, THEY DO OWN THE PROPERTY AT THIS POINT.
THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY IS NOT GONNA LIVE THERE.
HE'S GOING TO IN TURN SELL THE HOUSE ONCE IT'S BUILT TO SOMEBODY ELSE, RIGHT? THAT IS NOT CORRECT.
NO, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY INTENDS TO MOVE INTO THIS PROPERTY.
I, I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE SAYING.
I THINK THE BEST YOU CAN DO AT THIS POINT, UH, ANDREW, IS JUST TO LET THEM KNOW IF THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT WATCHING, THEY CAN WATCH THIS ON THE INTERNET.
UH, AND THIS WILL BE CLOSE TO TOMORROW TO ADDRESS, YOU KNOW, TO BE AWARE OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S CONCERNS, UH, ABOUT THIS.
WE CAN, WE MAKE THEM AWARE OF THE PLANNING BOARD'S CONCERNS.
UM, BUT AGAIN, I'LL REITERATE THAT THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PLANS TO, TO DO ANY DEVELOPMENT IN AN AREA IN THE BACK.
WELL, MICHAEL, YOU'RE GONNA GO OUT AND KURT, I SEE YOUR HAND OUT.
UH, YOU'RE GONNA GO OUT AND TAKE A LOOK.
WE'LL COORDINATE WITH, UH, AARON TO MAKE SURE THAT GETS, UH, SCHEDULED.
UH, AND AARON, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.
I WOULD SEE IF I COULD FIT DOWN TO MY SCHEDULE ALSO.
UH, ONE IS THAT, IS THAT, UH, UH, THE NEIGHBOR KNOWS WHAT KIND OF THINGS YOU ARE BUILDING.
SO, UH, WHICH IS WHAT WE ALWAYS AT PLANNING BOARDS WANTS TO UNDERSTAND THAT HOW YOU COMMUNICATE WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS AND DOES YOUR CLIENT, THE ACTUAL OWNER KNOWS THAT HE NEEDS TO REALLY UNDERSTAND.
SO YOU DO NOT GET A LOT OF, UH, PUSHBACK FROM NEIGHBORS WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU GO FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, SECOND QUESTION IS, DOES, UH, DID THE HISTORIC, I, I SAW THE COMMENTS FROM ALL OF THE, UH, STAKEHOLDERS AND INTERESTED PARTIES.
DID THE, UH, HISTORIC BOARD CUT A, UH, CHANCE TO MAKE A COMMENT ON IT? AARON, QUESTION? YEAH.
SO I DID RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM MS. OSHE, THE, UH, CHAIR OF THE HISTORIC AND LANDMARKS PRESERVATION BOARD.
UM, I DID INDICATE AND REMIND MS. OSHE THAT THIS SITE WAS BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD A FEW MONTHS AGO, UH, AS I MENTIONED IN MY OPENING COMMENTS, AND THAT THE PLANNING BOARD AT THAT TIME AGREED AND CONDITIONED THAT AS PART OF THE SITE EXCAVATION AND SITE WORK.
AND IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE LESS, THERE'LL BE MORE FILL THAN CUT, BUT THERE WILL BE SOME CUT THAT IF ANY HISTORICAL ARTIFACTS ARE UNCOVERED, THAT THEY BE PHOTOGRAPHS SET ASIDE AND THE TOWN BE NOTIFIED.
SO THAT'S CERTAINLY GONNA BE A CONDITION IF THIS PROJECT WERE TO MOVE FORWARD.
[02:10:02]
I REMEMBER WHEN, WHEN WE, WHEN WE SAW THIS ON, ON PRE-SUBMISSION, DIDN'T, UM, TOM HAVE A COMMENT ABOUT THE CURB CUT BEING AWFULLY CLOSE TO A TRAFFIC LIGHT? YEAH.IT TURNS OUT THAT THAT'S NOT A TRAFFIC LIGHT, IT'S A TRAFFIC NOTIFICATION SIGN.
IT'S NOT A ACTUAL TRAFFIC SIGNAL.
THE OTHER THING THAT CAME UP, I BELIEVE, UH, MS. F*G WANTED TO BE SURE THAT THE STONE WALL, UH, ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THE SITE WAS ONLY GONNA BE DISMANTLED WHERE THE DRIVEWAY'S GOING AND IT WOULD BE RETAINED, UH, FOR THE REMAINING PORTION.
AND AT THAT TIME IT WAS VERIFIED, BUT WE SHOULD GET ADDITIONAL VERIFICATION THIS EVENING.
DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT, MS. CROSS? UM, I'LL, I'LL DEFER TO, UH, LES, ARE WE KEEPING THAT STONEWALL STILL? AND I ALSO, I WANNA NOTE THAT I THINK THERE'S A, A, A MINOR CHANGE WE STILL HAVE TO MAKE TO THE PLAN.
IT SAYS RIGHT NOW THAT THE WIDTH OF THE DRIVEWAY IS 30.8, IT WILL BE REDUCED BACK TO 30 BASED ON COMMENTS WE RECEIVED.
BUT I'M NOT SURE, CAN SOMEONE ANSWER THE STONEWALL? I SEE YOU, DAVE.
COULD, UH, THE APPLICANT COMMENT ON, ON WHAT AARON WAS JUST DISCUSSING, THEN? ALICE IS THE STONEWALL STAY? YEAH, THE, WE WILL BE REMOVING A PORTION OF THAT WALL IN ORDER TO FACILITATE, UH, THE DRIVEWAY AND FILLING IN, UH, THE ADJACENT AREAS.
ADJACENT AREAS BEING ADJACENT TO, UH, THE DRIVEWAY, AND THEN ALSO THE, THE TURNAROUND DRIVEWAY THAT WE HAVE HERE.
SO ESSENTIALLY THE RETAINING WALL THAT WILL BE REMOVED IS, UH, ESSENTIALLY LIKE, RIGHT.
WHY, WHY ARE YOU, UH, REMOVING ITSELF OF THE DR WHY DO YOU NEED TO REMOVE ITSELF OF THE DRIVEWAY? UM, BECAUSE OF THE, THE, THE SITE DROPS OFF BECAUSE OF THIS RETAINING WALL.
SO WE NEED TO, WE ARE FILLING IN THIS, THIS AREA.
SO THIS PORTION WILL BE FILLED IN.
SO IN ORDER FOR WHEN VEHICLES LOAD IN THIS LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY, THIS DOESN'T CAUSE A HAZARDOUS CONDITION.
SO ULTIMATELY THIS PORTION OF THE WALL IS BEING, IS GONNA BE TAKEN OFFLINE.
WELL, CAN YOU REPLACE THAT PORTION OF THE WALL WHEN YOU FINISH CONSTRUCTION? IT'S GONNA BE LEVEL, SO THE WALL IS NOT GONNA BE, SO THIS LOCATION WILL BE, UM, LEVEL WITH THE, UH, IT'LL BE LEVEL WITH THE RE IT'LL BE LEVEL WITH THE STONE WALL.
OTHERWISE, IF WE DO SOMETHING LIKE THEN, UH, WATER, UH, WILL, WILL COME DOWN, WILL FROM THIS DRIVEWAY, WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING IN ORDER TO MITIGATE WATER AND ANY ISSUES WITH THE BUILDING, IS THAT WE WANT THE WATER TO, UH, DRAIN AWAY FROM THE BUILDING AND TOWARDS THIS CATCH BASIN.
SO THESE ARE, UH, MULTIPLE REASONS, UH, UM, FOR, FOR IT.
I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU HAD TO LOWER THE GRADE OF THAT FRONT YARD.
I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU DID IT WITH IN THE DRIVEWAY, BUT I'M NOT SURE WHY YOU HAD TO, TO LOWER THE, THE GRADE IN THAT OTHER PIECE OF FRONT YARD TO MAKE YOU LOWER THE STONE WALL.
I'M NOT SURE WHY THAT WAS, WHY YOU COULDN'T HAVE LEFT IT AND THEN PUT A RETAINING WALL ALONG THE DRIVEWAY.
SO WE WE'RE ACTUALLY, WE'RE NOT, UM, WE'RE ACTUALLY FILLING IN THIS AREA HERE.
SO IN ORDER TO, IF, IF YOU NOTED FROM THE, UM, THE PROFILE ITSELF, WE'RE ACTUALLY DROPPING OFF FROM THE GRADE AT STREET LEVEL TO THE BUILDING PAD AREA IS ABOUT A FIVE, A FOUR FOOT, FOUR TO FIVE FOOT DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? SO WE'RE FILLING IN THAT AREA TO MAKE IT A LEVEL OF, MOSTLY LEVEL AREA FOR A CAR TO TRAVERSE AND GET IN TOWARDS THE GARAGE AREA.
I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THE DRIVEWAY.
I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY.
I FULLY UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE DOING THAT.
BUT THE GRASSY AREA DOESN'T HAVE TO BE LEVELED WITH THE DRIVEWAY, DOES IT NECESSARILY? WELL, IT'S GONNA HAVE A NICE GRADUAL SLOPE BACK TOWARDS THE EXISTING GRAVES, AND THAT'S THE INTENT TO, UM, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT, THAT LITTLE FRONT PIECE ON, ON THE, THAT PIECE.
THE INTENT IS TO GET THAT AS, UM, FOR, FOR THE GRADING TO WORK OUT ALS.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WANNA TOGGLE TO THE GRADING PLAN ITSELF TO GIVE MORE CONTEXT, BUT THE INTENT IS FOR THAT TO TIE IN AS, AS SMOOTHLY AS POSSIBLE, NOT HAVE, UM, ANY LIKE ERRATIC GRADING, UM, IN, IN THAT AREA TO TRY AND SMOOTH IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
BUT THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A BUMP UP TO
[02:15:01]
THERE, BUMP UP OR BUMP DOWN.NOW, WHEN YOU GET BEYOND THAT PIECE, YOU HAVE THE STONEWALL, WHAT'S, WHAT'S THE LEVEL BEHIND THAT STONE WALL? I SEE TWO.
THIS, THE GRADING PLAN, WHERE'S WHERE, WHERE THE NUMBERS OF THE GRADING GRADE? JUST 2 97.
THREE EXISTING? THE EXISTING 2 97.
WHAT, WHAT IS, WHAT IS THE DRIVEWAY? 3 0 2.
AND THEN IT, SO IT'S FIVE FEET UP, AND THIS IS LIKE 3 0 3 0 1, 3 0 2 HERE GOING DOWN.
SO YOU'VE GOT ABOUT A SIX FOOT DIFFERENCE AFTER YOU, AFTER THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY, IS THAT CORRECT? NO.
SO I I, TO FURTHER CLARIFY, I'M SORRY I WASN'T CLEAR BEFORE, BUT ESSENTIALLY THERE'S PHIL BEING PROPOSED BETWEEN THE, THE DRIVEWAY AND THE TURNAROUND AREA IN THE DRIVEWAY TOWARDS THE BACK END OF WHERE THAT EXISTING WALL IS LOCATED.
SO REALLY THE SIDEWALK AREA THAT'S IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY IS PRETTY MUCH GONNA BE CLOSE TO WHAT, UM, IF YOU FURTHER TRAVERSE INTO THE SITE, UM, YOU'RE GONNA BE AT A VERY SIMILAR GRADE AS THE SIDEWALK AND THE STREET LEVEL.
NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT, AND WE'RE JUST FILLING AGAINST THE BACK OF THAT WALL.
BUT I'M SAYING EXCEPT WHERE YOU'RE FILLING, RIGHT? YOU'RE FI BUT IF YOU'RE FILLING IN AGAINST THAT WALL, WHY COULDN'T YOU LEAVE THAT WALL THERE? OH, BECAUSE IT'S IN THE SAME GRADE.
THAT DOESN'T BE, IT WOULD BE, I HAVE TO GO OUT AND LOOK AT IT.
I HAVE TO GO OUT AND LOOK AT IT TO BE SURE.
THE WALL WOULD BE BURIED IF WE DID LEAVE IT IN PLACE.
THE WATER OF HANDS UP, AARON, BEFORE YOU, DAVID, THEN AARON, THEN MICHAEL, IS YOUR HAND STILL UP FOR OTHER COMMENTS? YEAH, IT'S STILL ON.
LEMME, UH, MY HAND IS STILL UP.
MY HAND IS, I SEE, I, WALTER, I SEE YOU.
DAVID, AARON, MICHAEL AND WALTER, GO AHEAD.
YEAH, FIRST I WANTED JUST MAKE ONE CORRECTION.
THIS WAS NOT, THIS PROJECT WAS NOT SEEN, UH, FOR PRELIMINARY, UM, UH, APPROVAL.
UH, WHAT HAPPENED WAS THE OLD CASE, THE INE CASE, UH, UM, HAD TO COME BACK WHEN, UH, THEY DID THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
SO YOU SAW THAT THREE MONTHS AGO.
UM, AT THAT TIME THERE WAS, THERE WAS NO APPARENT STEEP SLOPE ISSUE.
SO YOU HAD YOUR MEETING, YOU DISCUSSED WHAT, UH, HAPPENED, AND, AND YOU MADE A RECOMMENDATION ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS, INCLUDING ARCHEOLOGICAL, UH, FINDINGS.
NOW, UH, WHEN THEY WENT OUT TO LOOK AT THE SITE, THEY DETERMINED THAT, UH, THEY WOULD HAVE TO, UH, DO SOME SHIFTING AND IT EXCEEDED THE 500 SQUARE FEET.
AND SO THAT TRIGGERED TWO PERMITS.
AND BECAUSE YOU HAVE THE STEEP SLOPE NOW, A TREE PERMIT, HAD THEY NOT DONE THAT, UH, NONE OF THE, AND I'M JUST, JUST FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES, NONE OF THE DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'RE HAVING ABOUT DRIVEWAYS OR SLOPES OR ANYTHING WOULD EVEN HAVE BEEN IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.
UM, SO, UH, WHILE IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THE DISCUSSIONS.
YOU STILL HAVE TO REMEMBER WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT SUBDIVISION.
UM, UH, AND SO THE CONVERSATIONS REALLY NEED TO FOCUS ON THE STEEP SLOPE.
AND YOU HAVE, UH, YOU, YOU'VE DONE SOMETHING THAT IS SOMEWHAT, UH, UNUSUAL IN WHICH YOU'VE GONE NOW TO THE APPLICANT AND SAID, UH, GEE, MAYBE THAT 700 STEEP SLOPE ISN'T ENOUGH.
MAYBE YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND CONSIDER MORE, WHICH IS WITHIN, YOU KNOW, YOUR, UH, DISCRETION TO BRING THAT UP.
I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF PUT THAT ALL IN PERSPECTIVE.
THE ONLY, THE ONLY THING THAT'S DIFFERENT IS THAT WE TOLD THEM THEY HAD TO COME BACK WHEN THEY HAD A DEVELOPED PLAN.
I DID WE EVEN SEE ANY, UH, BUILDING ENVELOPE WHEN THE SUBDIVISION WAS DONE BACK IN, IN THOSE DAYS IN MAY.
I, YOU, I WASN'T AT THAT MEETING.
SO A NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT MAY, 2008.
THE 2008 PLAN HAD BASICALLY A SQUARE.
WITH NO GRADING PLAN OR ANYTHING.
IT HAD, THAT'S WHY THERE WAS THAT UNIQUE PROVISION IN THE APPROVAL BACK IN 2008 THAT HAD US COME BACK, WHICH IS WHY WE WERE HERE IN MAY, WHICH IS WHY WE DO HAVE SOME SITE PLAN, WHY WE'RE ALLOWED TO MAKE, SHOOT, IT'LL BE ALLOWED TO MAKE SITE PLAN COMICS NOW.
AND THEY DO RELATE TO THE STEEP SLOPE 'CAUSE EVERYTHING'S IN THE STEEP SLOPE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO TAKE DOWN, IF WE COULD, THIS VIEW, I CAN SHOW A STREET VIEW, I THINK AT LEAST MY STONE, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THERE WAS A STONE WALL ACROSS THE FRONTAGE OF THE SITE THAT FACED OUT TO OLD ARMY ROAD UHHUH.
THAT DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE THE CASE.
[02:20:01]
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THE EXISTING WALL FACES INTO THE SITE.THAT MAKES MORE SENSE WHEN YOU FILL THE SITE, IT WOULD JUST, IF YOU LEFT THE WALL, IT WOULD BE BURIED.
SO I WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT 'CAUSE I THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION.
THAT MAKES A LOT MORE SENSE, MICHAEL.
SO HERE'S EXISTING ONE 90 OLD ARMY, THE VACANT LOCK STORE WALL'S IN FRONT OF ONE 90, NOT IN FRONT OF THIS.
FENCE AREA IS WHERE MICHAEL COULD NOT GAIN ACCESS.
AND I COULD SEE HOW IT DROPS OFF BEHIND THE FENCE TOO.
MICHAEL, YOU'RE ON MUTE, RIGHT? UH, COULD YOU PUT UP THE EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN WITH THE, UH, TOPOGRAPHY? YEAH.
THAT'S EXISTING, RIGHT? YEAH, THAT'S IT.
SO THERE, THERE APPEARS TO BE A STONE WALL, YOU KNOW, WHERE, YOU KNOW, TO THE RIGHT OF THE, UH, EXISTING STONE WALL.
WHY IS THAT BEING REMOVED? MOVED? ANDREW, YOU WANNA SPEAK TO THAT THE APPLICANT WANTED TO, OR THE PROPERTY OWNER WANTED TO REMOVE THAT STONEWALL AS PART OF THE PROJECT? WELL, WE KINDA LIKE STONEWALL BECAUSE THEY'RE HISTORIC.
I THINK THIS ONE IS IN PRETTY, PRETTY BAD SHAPE, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY.
ALRIGHT, WE'LL GO TO THE SITE AND TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
YEAH, YOU KNOW WHAT, WE HAVE SOME CONTEXT.
I ACTUALLY HAVE SOME SITE PHOTOS I CAN SHARE WITH THE BOARD, UM, AND SHARE MY SCREEN TO JUST PROVIDE CONTEXT OF WHAT'S GOING ON IN THIS BACK AREA.
UM, IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU JUST ALLOW SCREEN SHARE, I CAN, UM, OR AL IF YOU STOP SHARING, I CAN PUT THOSE UP.
UM, SO THAT'S JUST HERE NUMBER A NUMBER OF PHOTOS.
UM, AGAIN, WHAT, UH, THIS IS, UH, FROM OLD ARMY ROAD LOOKING TOWARDS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
UM, AND THEN THIS IS A SHOT IN THE ACTUAL PAD WHERE THE BUILDING'S GONNA BE PROPOSED.
AND THIS IS THE FENCE THAT'S, UM, RIGHT ALONG THE STREET THAT'S KIND OF BLOCKING THE VIEW, WHICH IS ALSO GONNA BE REMOVED.
ANOTHER SHOT OF THAT STONEWALL ALONG THE, THE STREET ITSELF AND SOME ADDITIONAL AREAS TO JUST SHOW THAT THIS IS A, A GRASSED FLAT AREA, WHICH IS WHERE THE, UM, THE BUILDING PAD IS PROPOSED.
UM, AGAIN, A SHOT JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER BACK TOWARDS THE, THE, UH, TOP OF THE SLOPE THERE BEFORE IT DROPS DOWN.
IT DROPS THOUGH, DOESN'T IT? MY BACK NOW THIS IS THE REAR OF THE SITE WHERE THE, THE, THE SLOPE STARTS TO COME DOWN.
IF I ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT, YOU CAN NOTE I THINK THIS IS THE STONE WALL THAT WE'VE BEEN REMOVING.
IT'S A TOUGH PHOTO TO ACTUALLY MAKE IT OUT.
UM, AND THEN I DID WANT TO NOTE THE LARGE, UM, TREES OVER HERE THAT WE ARE TRYING TO SAVE AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, UM, THE, UM, THE OWNER, YOU KNOW, DID FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT SAVING THESE TREES AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
UM, AND THEN JUST SOME PHOTOS HERE OF, UH, JUST RIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE SHOWING, UM, THAT FENCE THAT KIND OF, UH, DIVIDES THIS PROPERTY FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AT ONE 90 OLD ARMY.
SO, UM, JUST TO GIVE A LITTLE CONTEXT OF, UM, WHAT THAT'S, HOW, THAT'S VERY HELPFUL.
WALTER'S BEEN WAITING PATIENTLY.
I, I HAVE A SERIES OF QUESTIONS.
MOST ABOUT HALF OF THEM HAVE ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED, SO I JUST CONCENTRATE ON THE ONES I THINK ARE STILL OUTSTANDING.
ONE WAS THE SITE DISTANCE AND THAT YOU HAD TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, YOU MAINTAIN THAT SITE DISTANCE.
I THINK THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING IN OUR DECISION THAT THAT'S MANDATING, UH, THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT, UH, OF THE, THE VEGETATION TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT.
SO YOU MAINTAIN THE SITE DISTANCE BECAUSE YOU COULD DO IT NOW IN THREE YEARS, IT GROWS UP AND REWRITE BACK TO THE SAME CONDITION.
SO I THINK SOMEHOW YES, WE NEED TO THANK YOU WALTER.
UM, NICK RESON FROM OUR TRAFFIC AND SAFETY DEPARTMENT MADE THE SAME COMMENT.
SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT STAFF WAS PREPARED TO IN INSERT INTO ANY DECISION.
NOW THE OTHER THING IN TERMS OF SAVING THAT TREE,
[02:25:01]
I SAW, UH, THE CONCERN OF PUTTING TOO MUCH DIRT TO THE, UH, ON, UH, THE ROOT SYSTEM.AND I THINK IT WAS THE COMMENT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU MADE IT OR NOT, THAT YOU SHOULD, UM, MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF DIRT THAT YOU BRING UP ALONG THE BULK LINE, BUT I THINK SOMEHOW WE SHOULD QUANTIFY IT AND SAY, UH, UH, UH, YOU PUT IT DOWN NOT TO EXCEED 10 INCHES, 12 INCHES, WHATEVER NUMBER YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE, THE SECOND WHATEVER NUMBER THAT YOU THINK IS APPROPRIATE, RATHER THAN TO SAY, TO MAKE A GOOD FAITH EFFORT OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT.
SO TO RESPOND TO THAT, WE DID, WE DID PULL IN THOSE CONTOURS TO LIMIT, UM, ANY, ANY FILL OVER THOSE TREES IN THE REAR OF THE LOT.
YEAH, BUT I'M JUST SAYING YOU NEED TO QUANTIFY IT.
WHEN YOU SAY WE REMOVED IT, WE REMOVED THE CONTOURS.
SO WE, WE ARE STANDING CLEAR OF THOSE TREES IN ORDER TO DO EVERYTHING, UM, POSSIBLE TO SAVE.
SO THERE'S NO FILL GOING BY THE TREES.
AND, AND THEN MY, UH, ANOTHER QUESTION.
IN YOUR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, UH, UNFORTUNATELY AL CODE LIMITS IT TO A 25 YEAR STORM.
SO I'M WONDERING TO WHAT STANDARD IS YOUR, UH, YOUR BILL STANDARD, DOES IT EXCEED THAT TO MAYBE A 50 YEAR STORM OR WHAT, WHAT IS IT DESIGNED TO DO? SURE.
UM, I, I, YOU DID MENTION THAT LAST TIME I BELIEVE, AND UH, WE DID GO UP TO THE 50 YEAR STORM FOR THIS, FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
SO WE ARE EXCEEDING THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS, AREN'T YOU? THAT'S MY QUESTION, MONA.
UM, SO NOW WE HAVE A FENCE ON TOP OF THAT FRONT ROCK WALL THAT I SEE.
IS THAT FENCE GOING? IS, IS THAT FENCE GOING TO REMAIN ON THAT FRONT ROCK WALL OR YOU PLANNING ON REMOVING THAT FENCE? FENCE? IT'S GONNA BE REMOVED, RIGHT, ANDREW? THAT FENCE IS PLANNED TO BE REMOVED.
AND THE ROCK WALL WILL REMAIN IN THE FRONT, CAN BE REMOVED BECAUSE YOU, YOU'RE BUILDING UP THE, YOU AT LEAST HALF OF THAT'LL BE REMOVED.
WE'RE RAISING THE GRADE IN THE FRONT OF, IN, IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, SO ULTIMATELY THAT WALL WILL BE COVERED.
AH, BUT AS WE SAW IN THE, IN THE, IN THE STREET VIEW, THE, THE PUBLIC WILL, WILL IS NOT ABLE TO SEE THAT WALL REGARDLESS.
IT'S NOT VISIBLE TODAY AMONG THE STREET SCAPE.
SO THAT WHOLE WALL IS JUST GONNA BE DESTROYED THAT, THAT'S ABOUT HALF THE WALL.
YOU'RE NOT FILLING IN UP THE WHOLE WALL FROM WHAT YOU SHOWED US.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S, IT'S ABOUT 60%, 60, 65% IT WILL BE, UH, FILLED.
AND THE BACK ROCK WALL, THE OWNER DOESN'T WANT.
SO THAT'S ALSO GONNA BE DESTROYED.
IT WILL BE AT, AT, AT THIS POINT THE OWNER OWNERSHIP HAS EXPRESSED THEY WOULD LIKE FOR THAT TO BE REMOVED.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE DID RECEIVE.
UM, AND, UH, WE, WE RESPONDED THAT WILL BE REMOVED, UH, CAREFULLY IN ORDER TO PRESERVE, UH, THE, THE LARGE TREES BACK THERE.
UM, ONE IS WE'D LIKE TO SEE SOME KIND OF, OF DRAWING THAT TELLS US LOOKS AT THE HEIGHT OF THE, THE, UH, CONSTRUCTION, THE, THE HOUSE AND RELATIVE TO THE NEIGHBORS ON BOTH SIDES.
THAT'S ONE THING WE WANNA SEE, JUST SEE COMPATIBILITY IN THAT AREA.
UM, THAT'S ONE THING, UH, I THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR US TO SEE WITH THIS.
I CAN'T REMEMBER THE SECOND THING.
SO CORRECT
YEAH, I THINK AS I UNDERSTAND, UH, THE HOUSE IS GOING BE PREFAB OR, AND IT'S GOING TO BE SORT OF BROUGHT TO THE SITE AND ON THE FOUNDATIONS AND GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED, UH, I'M NOT CLEAR.
SO IF YOU CAN PROVIDE A SEQUENCE OF CONSTRUCTION AND HOW THAT NARROW BUSY STREET YOU GONNA MANAGE THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOUSE AND THE SITE WORK.
THIS IS ALL CONSTRUCTED LIKE A STICK BUILT, FRAMED HOME, UM, ALL CONSTRUCTED ON SITE.
[02:30:03]
SO ARE THERE GOING TO BE ANY HEAVY EQUIPMENTS AND HOW YOU GOING STAGE IT? ARE YOU GOING BLOCKING THE TRAFFIC, HOW THE NEIGHBORS HAS BEEN INFORMED AND ALL THE RELATED ISSUE, BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY SENSITIVE STREET YOU ARE BUILDING IN.SO HAVE, HAVE YOUR, UH, CONSTRUCTION GUYS TO REALLY, UH, PUT TOGETHER.
AND I, I WOULD REQUEST THAT YOU, YOU PROVIDE US SO THAT WE ARE CON WE ARE ALSO COMFORTABLE UNDERSTANDING THAT HOLLYWOOD
SO MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WILL BE, UH, PROCESSED THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
'CAUSE THIS IS NOT A SITE PLAN APPLICATION.
IT'S JUST SLOPES AND UM, TREE REMOVAL.
SO I WASN'T, IT'S NOT QUITE TRUE, TRUE MS. CROSS AS, AS STATED BEFORE THE THERE, THIS IS AN UNUSUAL, AS, YOU KNOW, SUBDIVISION AT WHICH YOU REQUIRED TO COME BACK AND REVIEW THESE WHERE REALLY SITE PLAN ISSUES AT THE TIME, AT THE TIME THAT'S WAS, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.
IT MAKES THIS A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL VERSUS A REGULAR, A REGULAR PLACE WHERE SOMEONE COMES IN JUST FOR A THING.
SO I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE FOR US TO GET A BETTER UNDERSTANDING OF UNDERSTANDING OF THAT, OF THOSE THINGS NOW BECAUSE THIS IS OUR ONLY CHANCE AS A BOARD TO DO IT.
WE'RE, WE'RE CERTAINLY HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A BETTER UNDERSTANDING, BUT WE ALREADY CAME BEFORE THIS BOARD TO GET THAT CONFIRMATION IN CO IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE APPROVALS OF THE SUBDIVISION.
AND THAT WAS GRANTED
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT DAVID, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT THEY CAME FORTH.
THEY CAME FORWARD IN MAY, IN MAY FOR THAT WITH THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
AND THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
THIS, THIS ISN'T EXACTLY WHAT WE SAW IN MAY, IS IT ACTUALLY, I CAN CLARIFY.
THIS PLAN IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS PRESENTED BACK IN MAY.
WELL IRRESPECTIVE OF THAT, I, I I THINK LEAVING, NOT GETTING, GETTING THAT INFORMATION AND LEAVING IT TILL GETTING TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, GIVEN THAT THERE, THERE ARE, THERE ARE CONCERNS.
LOOK, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THAT WALL.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WALL'S HISTORIC OR NOT.
AND YOU KNOW, THOSE WALLS COULD HAVE BEEN PUT UP, YOU KNOW, IN THE 18, THAT WALL, EVEN IF IT'S BAD, COULD HAVE BEEN PUT UP IN THE 18 HUNDREDS.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
I MEAN THE HOUSE NEXT DOOR IS FROM, FROM REALLY EARLY, THAT'S FOR SURE.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHO PUT THAT UP.
THE OTHER THING IT LOOKED LIKE IF YOU WALKED THE PROPERTY AREA, IS THERE ANY WATER BACK THERE? BECAUSE THE VEGETATION REALLY LOOKED LIKE IT WAS A WET ENVIRONMENT BACK THERE.
IT'S QUITE SHADED, BUT UH, THAT IS ACTUALLY, UH, JAPANESE KNOT WEED, WHICH IS AN INVASIVE OKAY, SO THERE NO, THERE'S NO WATER.
THERE'S NO WATER BACK THERE? NO.
ASIDE FROM SURFACE WATER FLOW.
UM, LOOK, I'M LOOKING, I'M LOOKING AT MY MATERIALS.
THE, THE OWNER, IF I UNDERSTAND IT CORRECTLY IS MICHAEL ANDERSON AND JONATHAN BALL.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.
AND YOU ARE, YOU ARE THE CONTRACTOR BUILDING THE HOUSE FOR THE OWNERS? THAT'S CORRECT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE THE OWNERS.
I, I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE OWNERS, IF WE HAVE ANOTHER WORK SESSION, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE HERE.
THEY'VE CONTRACTED FOR THESE PEOPLE TO BUILD A HOUSE.
YOU KNOW, THEY DON'T WANT A FLAT AREA IN THE BACK.
I'D KIND OF LIKE TO HEAR ABOUT THAT.
THEY WANNA GET RID OF THE WALLS.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE THE OWNER TALK TO US.
IS THE APPLICANT, ON WHAT BASIS, HOW CAN THEY BE THE APP? HOW CAN THEY BE THE APPLICANT IF THE O THE LAND IS OWNED BY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE BUYING IT? OR IS IT JUST IN CONTRACT? WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE STATUS? THEY, THEY OWN THE PROPERTY.
WHO IS THEY? THE UH, UM, SORRY, BALL AND ANDERSON.
ANDERSON, IF THEY OWN THE PROPERTY, THEY SHOULD BE THE APPLICANT.
THEY DO NOT SO FREQUENTLY APPLICANTS ARE NOT THE OWNERS, BUT WE DO HAVE AUTHORIZATION FROM THE OWNER FOR THE APPLICANT TO APPLY.
DAVID, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
BUT UH, I THINK THE MAIN POINT, WHICH IS IF THEY'RE THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, UH, THAT THEY SHOULD BE EITHER BE HERE FOR A WORK SESSION OR PUBLIC HEARING DEPENDING
[02:35:01]
ON HOW THE BOARD IS GOING FORWARD ON THIS.NOW THAT THE BOARD'S ASKED FOR THEIR, YOU KNOW.
WALTER, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY? AND I THINK MICHAEL IS YOUR HEAD.
THE ONE OTHER QUESTION I FAILED TO, UH, ADDRESS BEFORE WAS THAT, UH, THAT WILL INTERF WHAT WILL HAPPEN TO SCHOOL KIDS BECAUSE THEY USED THAT SIDE OF THE ROAD TO MY UNDERSTANDING, GET BACK AND FORTH TO SCHOOL.
SO HOW, UH, DOES THE APPLICANT PLAN TO ADDRESS THAT, YOU KNOW, ONCE SCHOOL OPENS? I'M SORRY, COULD, COULD YOU REPEAT THAT QUESTION? CURRENTLY THERE ARE CHILDREN THAT'S WALKING ACROSS THAT ASPHALT AREA AREA TO GO BACK AND FORTH TO SCHOOL.
NOW THAT CONSTRUCTION WILL TAKE PLACE, HOW DO YOU PLAN TO MANAGE THAT? HOW WILL THOSE CHILDREN GET BACK AND FORTH TO SCHOOL WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS TAKEN PLACE, TAKEN PLACE? I, I'M SURE EVERY SAFEGUARD IS GOING TO BE PUT IN PLACE FOR THE PUBLIC WHEN CONSTRUCTION IS GOING ON.
JUST LIKE FOR ANY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE BEING CONSTRUCTED.
YEAH, I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE MORE DETAIL.
YOU KNOW, OR WHETHER THAT YOU HAVE A FLAGMAN RIGHT.
THAT COULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONDITIONED.
WALTER, WE WE'VE, WE'VE BEEN, WE'VE BEEN AT THIS FOR ALMOST AN HOUR NOW AND I, I THINK THE CONCLUSION IS THE FOLLOWING.
I THINK, UM, THERE SHOULD BE ACCESS TO THE SITE FOR MICHAEL WALTER IF I'M AROUND, I MAY WANT TO GO OUT.
UH, I, I DON'T THINK WE WANT NOTICE SITE 'CAUSE IT'S, WE WANT A MOTOR SITE VISIT.
SO WE GO OUT IN SMALL, SMALL GROUPS INSTEAD AARON.
I MEAN I LIVE LIKE FOUR BLOCKS IN THERE, SO IT'S, I GO BY IT ALL THE TIME.
UM, JUST TO, TO GET A BETTER IDEA OF, UH, AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN TOPOGRAPHY AND WHAT THE POSSIBILITIES MIGHT BE.
THE ONE THING I WOULD APPRECIATE WHEN WE DO THAT, IF SOMEONE COULD STAKE OUT JUST WHERE THE END OF THE HOUSE IS PROPOSED TO BE, THE BACK OF THE HOUSE IS PROPOSED TO, TO BE, SO THAT WE CAN SEE HOW MUCH LAND IS BEYOND THAT.
UM, I THINK THAT BECAUSE IT'S A PRETTY DEEP LOT, SO THERE MAY BE A SOLUTION THAT, THAT IT'S IN THE, THAT MAKES SENSE FOR, FOR EVERYBODY THERE.
I DON'T KNOW, BUT WE NEED TO DO THAT.
SECOND, UH, I'D LIKE TO PUT IT BACK ON, ON IN SEPTEMBER, THE FIRST MEETING IN SEPTEMBER WITH, UH, THE APPLICANT HERE TO DISCUSS SOME OF THESE ISSUES.
SO WE KNOW EXACTLY THE RATIONALE, MS. MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT WE ARE THE APPLICANT.
WELCOME HOLMES IS THE APPLICANT AUTHORIZED PROPERTY.
I THINK YOU HEARD THE, EXCUSE ME, THE OWNERS THAT THAN, THAN THIS COST.
I THINK YOU HEARD VERY CLEARLY FROM MR. GOLDEN AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MEET WITH THE OWNERS BECAUSE THE ISSUES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE DECISIONS IN MADE.
THEY'RE KIND OF SURPRISE US AND I DON'T WANT, WE DON'T WANT THEM TO BE SURPRISED OR US TO BE SURPRISED IN THE FUTURE.
WE HAVE LOTS OF EXPERIENCE WITH THESE KINDS OF SITUATIONS AND INVARIABLY WHAT ENDS UP HAPPENING IS THEY SAID EITHER SOMEBODY GOES AND LEVELS THE YARD, REALIZES A YEAR LATER THAT THEY DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH MONEY RIGHT NOW TO LEVEL THE YARD.
MAYBE THAT'S WHY THEY'RE NOT DOING IT.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THEY'RE NOT DOING IT NOW.
OR IF THEY WANT, I DON'T KNOW THAT 'CAUSE I HAVEN'T SPOKEN TO THEM DIRECTLY.
I DO WANNA AUTHORIZED, WANNA SPEAK TO THEM DIRECTLY.
MR. CHAIRMAN, THEY AUTHORIZED THE PLANS, THEY'VE SIGNED OFF.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN BE ARGUMENTATIVE OF ALL YOU WANT MS. CROSS.
WE WOULD REQUEST THAT THEY COME THE NEXT TIME.
OUT OF A COURTESY TO US, WE LOOK, WE DON'T WANT, SO WE WILL TALK TO THE ANSWER WE WANT, WE WANNA EXPEDITE THIS, BUT WE WANNA UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION.
I THINK THAT'S, I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST.
WE'LL CERTAINLY BRING YOUR REQUEST BACK TO THE OWNERS.
SO I WOULD PUT IT ON THOUGH FOR SEPTEMBER 3RD, WHICH IS OUR NEXT MEETING ANYWAY, SEPTEMBER 7TH.
UH, SEVENTH, I'M SORRY, I'D PUT IT ON FOR OUR NEXT MEETING ANYWAY.
UM, GET THE SITE VISITS, WHOEVER WANTS TO GO OUT AND THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS.
MAYBE WE COULD EVEN HAVE THEN, THEN MAYBE YOU, YOU, UH, SINCE YOU ARE FLYING SOLO AFTER THE 10TH OF AUGUST, UM, CAN CON CONTACT THE APPLICANT AND SAY, GEE, THEY SAW THIS WHEN THEY WENT OUT THERE AND TELL THEM WHAT WE SAW.
THEY, I MEAN, HAPPY IF THEY'RE THERE.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE THERE, BUT THEY COULD BE ALL RIGHT.
I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN RESOLVE THOSE THINGS.
THEN FINALLY, I KNOW THE HISTORIC BOARD IS MORE, MORE CONCERNED THAN JUST THE ARTIFACTS.
[02:40:01]
NOT SURE I AGREE WITH THEIR CONCERN.JUST SO YOU GUYS KNOW THAT, I'M NOT SURE.
BUT CLEARLY ANY INFORMATION YOU CAN GIVE THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO DETERMINE THAT IT'S IN, WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT DOESN'T MEAN IT HAS TO BE DESIGNED LIKE AN 1890 FARMHOUSE, BECAUSE AS WE KNOW, THAT STRIP OF HOUSES HAS RAISED RANCHES, RANCHES, CAPES.
YOU KNOW, IT, IT, IT'S ON THAT SIDE OF STATE.
SO WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE IT'S SETBACK AND THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.
AND YOU SAID YOU HAVE ELEVATIONS, I THINK YES, WE DO.
IN FACT, WE DID SHOW THEM TO YOU IN MAY ALSO.
AND YOU DID, UH, CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE WAS CONSISTENT WITH OTHER HOUSES.
BUT IF WE, IF YOU WANT US TO PUT THEM UP NOW, ANDREW, IF YOU WANT FOR TWO MINUTES, IF YOU COULD JUST TO REINFORCE THAT, DO YOU HAVE IT RELATIVE TO THE HOUSES ON THE OTHER SIDE? SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT, ANDREW.
SO DO, DO THAT NEXT TIME YOU CAN.
YEAH, WHY DON'T YOU DO IT QUICKLY NOW AND THEN AND, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE IT OKAY.
AFTER THAT YOU PUT UP WHAT YOU GOT NOW, BUT I'D LIKE TO SEE IT RELATIVE TO THE, TO THE TWO HOUSES ON THE OTHER SIDE.
SO THE FRONT PAGE, I REMEMBER THAT.
ARCHITECTURAL PLAN SHOWS JUST A RENDERING OF WHAT THE HOME WILL LOOK LIKE.
AND THEN IF I TOGGLE OVER TO THE, UM, UH, THE SECTIONS OF THE ELEVATIONS OF THE HOME MM-HMM.
UM, A HEIGHT FROM THE, UH, THE TOP RIDGE TO, UH, FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION, 30, 30 FEET, NINE INCHES.
UM, YOU KNOW, JUST SHOWING WHAT THE FRONT FACADE OF THE HOME IS GONNA LOOK LIKE.
AND WE'LL, WE'LL PROVIDE TO YOU, UH, THE CONTEXT THAT YOU ASKED FOR THAT, THAT THAT'S ALL.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE DO A PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS LIKE WHEN SOMEONE'S DEVELOPING A PIECE OF PROPERTY, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ANY DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON EITHER SIDE ABOUT THIS, THIS PROJECT OBJECT, ANDREW DO HAVE YOU, I WE HAVE NOT HAD DISCUSSION WITH THE NEIGHBOR
HEY, I AGAIN, TO, TO MAKE THINGS SMOOTHER.
IT'S REALLY GOOD AND WE REALLY ENCOURAGE YOU DON'T HAVE TO, BUT WE DO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE TO, TO EXPLAIN WHAT YOU'RE DOING AND SHOW THEM, SHOW THEM THINGS, YOUR NEIGHBORS SO THEY CAN BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT.
THAT MAKES LIFE A LOT EASIER FOR EVERYBODY.
IT'S ALWAYS A LOT EASIER WHEN THE NEIGHBORS AREN'T FIRST LEARNING ABOUT IT AT THE MEETING.
OR THE NOTICE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE, WE, IT'S REALLY NICE WHEN THE NEIGHBORS GOVERNMENT, HEY, THEY CAME OUT AND, AND DID THIS AND THEY DID THIS LITTLE THING FOR US.
WE DON'T MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON POPULARITY.
WE MAKE THEM BASED ON THE LAW.
BUT YOU KNOW, IT STILL MAKES THE THINGS SMOOTHER WHEN THAT HAP WHEN, WHEN WE COULD DO THAT.
LET ME TAKE THAT UNDER ADVISE.
I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT, MR. APPRECIATE THAT.
MR. I KNOW YOU HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT WHAT THE NEIGHBORING HOMES WOULD LOOK, UM, DO LOOK LIKE.
I DO HAVE AN EXHIBIT I CAN PULL UP EASILY IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT, OR WE CAN WAIT TILL NEXT TIME.
BUT I DO HAVE NEIGHBORING, UH, HOME PHOTOS THAT I CAN SHARE WITH THE BOARD AT THIS TIME IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IT.
IF YOU'VE GOT SOMETHING THAT SHOWS THE COMPARISON.
I I WOULD, YOU KNOW, I, IT DOESN'T LOOK TO ME LIKE IT'S ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE, THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THIS, THIS EXHIBIT WAS SUBMITTED FOR THE MAIN MEETING, UM, AND IT JUST SHOWS A NUMBER OF HOMES ALONG OLD ARMY ROAD THAT HAVE OH YEAH.
UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE VERY CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE, UH, THE HOME.
SO, UM, A NUMBER OF THEM ALL DIFFERENT TYPES OF ARCHIVES.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S ANY REAL, UH, COHESIVE, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE ARCHITECT.
YOUR ARCH, WHETHER I LIKE OR LIKE YOUR ARCHITECTURE, DON'T LIKE YOUR ARCHITECTURE.
WE'RE NOT AN ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD.
WE'RE NOT GONNA MAKE A DECISION BASED ON THAT.
AS LONG AS IT FITS WITH THE CHA IN OUR CASE, THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SETBACK HEIGHT.
THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR.
THAT'S ALL THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE BEGINNING AND END OF OUR RESPONSIBILITY IN THAT, THAT CASE.
WE'RE NOT A, WE'RE NOT A, UH, ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD.
SOME OF THESE TRY TO STAY COOL.
IT'S GONNA BE AWFUL TOMORROW FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.
I THINK MY PHONE JUST TOLD ME IT'S GONNA BE 93, UH, WHICH IS BETTER THAN 98, BUT STILL 93.