[00:00:02]
[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GREENBURGH TOWN HALL & on Zoom AGENDA THURSDAY, November 17, 2022 – 7:00 P.M. Please Take Notice that the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Greenburgh will hold a Public Hearing on Thursday, October 20, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. The meeting will take place in the Town Hall auditorium and also online via Zoom. If you would like to participate via Zoom please pre-register through the Department of Community Development and Conservation by emailing publichearing@greenburghny.com or calling 914-989-1530, specifying the application(s) that you would like to speak on. Instructions to participate will then be emailed to you. All persons interested in viewing the meeting live can do so via the Town’s website at https://ny-greenburgh.civicplus.com/485/Watch-Live-Board-Meetings or local Altice Channel 76 and Verizon/FiOS Channel 35. In addition, individuals may submit comments via email to publichearing@greenburghny.com, or regular mail to Town of Greenburgh, attn: CD&C, 177 Hillside Avenue, Greenburgh, NY, 10607, and such comments will be made part of the record. Application materials can be found at the following link: https://greenburghny.com/596/_-Active-Applications---Zoning-Board-of-Appeals ]
GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.WHAT, I'M SORRY, I HAVE A BIG MEETING.
TIME IS FLYING MUCH FASTER THAN, THAN WE CAN IMAGINE.
UH, THE MEANING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF THE TOWN APPEALS FOR THE TOWN OF GREENVILLE WILL NOW COME TO ORDER BEFORE WE GET TO THE BUSINESS AT HAND, UM, I'D LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR OUR SECRETARY, CAROL WALKER, WHO RECENTLY PASSED, UH, UNEXPECTEDLY.
AND SHE CLEARLY IS A PERSON WHO WE WILL MISS AND THE COMMUNITY WILL MISS THE THINGS THAT SHE DID.
MADE OUR JOBS EASIER, MADE THE COMMUNITY ABLE TO DO THINGS, GET INFORMATION TOGETHER, UNDERSTAND WHAT'S GOING ON, AND FOR MANY PEOPLE NOT HAVE TO PAY TO HAVE INDIVIDUALS HELP THEM WITH THEIR, UH, APPLICATIONS.
SHE WILL BE SORELY MISSED AND WE WOULD LIKE A MOMENT OF SILENCE.
IN ADDITION, WE HAVE ALSO, UM, HAD A BOARD MEMBER RESIGN BECAUSE HE HAD MOVED AWAY.
AND THAT IS ROWAN HARRISON, WHO HAD BEEN WITH US FOR 24 YEARS.
SO THAT HAS CHANGED THE DYNAMICS OF OUR BOARD CONSIDERABLY BECAUSE HE CONTRIBUTED IN CERTAIN WAYS THAT NO ONE ELSE EVER DID
SO, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I'M GLAD THAT WE DO HAVE MORE THAN A QUORUM TONIGHT
WE DO HAVE THREE CASES, WHICH MAKES IT A LITTLE EASIER FOR US TO PERHAPS GET TO EVERYTHING AND PERHAPS GET EVERYTHING ACCOMPLISHED.
OUR NEXT MEETING WOULD BE ON THE, ON DECEMBER 15TH.
IF WE CAN'T COMPLETE A HEARING TONIGHT, AS IS USUAL, WE WILL ADJOURN IT TO ANOTHER MEETING TO HOPEFULLY BE COMPLETED AT THAT TIME.
TO SAVE TIME, WE WAIVE THE READING OF THE PROPERTY LOCATION AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT FOR EACH CASE.
HOWEVER, THE REPORTER WILL INSERT THIS INFORMATION IN THE RECORD AND IT ALSO WILL APPEAR IN THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.
AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING OF TONIGHT'S CASES, THE BOARD WILL MEET.
WHERE'S OUR TABLE? WELL, WE WILL MEET
WE WILL MEET AND YOU'LL BE ABLE TO, UH, LISTEN TO OUR PARTICIPATIONS WHEN WE'RE DOING OUR DELIBERATIONS AT THAT TIME, HOWEVER, YOU'LL NOT BE ABLE TO SPEAK OR TO, UM, INVOLVE YOURSELVES IN ANY WAY.
AFTER OUR DELIBERATIONS, WE THEN COME BACK ON THE RECORD TO ANNOUNCE THE DECISIONS, IF ANY, WE'VE MADE FOR THE FORMAL RECORD AND TO HAVE IT BROADCAST TO THE COMMUNITY.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT, PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE, CLEARLY STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, OR YOUR PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION.
IF YOU'RE NOT A NAMED APPLICANT, PLEASE SPELL YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.
WE HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY ON SOME OF THESE CASES AT PRIOR MEETINGS.
ALL PRIOR TESTIMONY IS ALREADY IN THE RECORD AND SHOULD NOT BE REPEATED.
TONIGHT'S FIRST CASE IS CASE 2205 ORLEY GAS PROPERTY AT CLARATON PLACE AVENUE, SCARSDALE.
UH, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS DANIEL FIX WITH THE LAW FIRM OF BLAKELY PLATT SCHMIDT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS JOINING US, UH, VIA ZOOM, AND, UH, WE WERE HOPING TO HAVE OUR ENGINEER AS WELL TO BE AVAILABLE TO ASK, ANSWER ANY, UH, TECHNICAL QUESTIONS, BUT UNFORTUNATELY, HE'S, UH, INDISPOSED.
UM, BEFORE I START, JUST FIRST AND FOREMOST, I'D LIKE TO ECHO MADAM CHAIRMAN'S SENTIMENTS, UH, TOWARDS CAROL WALKER.
UH, WE ONLY HEARD THE NEWS EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON, AND, UM, ON BEHALF OF MY FIRM, ON BEHALF OF LINO SHERETTA, WHO KNEW CAROL VERY WELL, UH, WE JUST OFFER OUR CONDOLENCES TO THE BOARD, TO THE TOWN, AND OF COURSE TO CAROL'S FAMILY.
UM, I WON'T GO, I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT IN TERMS OF WHAT THE, THE RELIEF WE'RE SEEKING THAT'S ALREADY IN THE AGENDA, AND AS MADAM CHAIR SAID THAT, THAT'S IN THE RECORD AS WELL.
UM, ON APRIL 29TH, 1947, THE ZONING CODE WAS AMENDED TO UPWARDLY ADJUST THE MINIMUM BULK REQUIREMENTS FROM R FIVE TO R 7.5 ZONING.
TWO MONTHS LATER, THE TOWN KNOWINGLY CREATED THE NON-CONFORMING SUBJECT LOT FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF BUILDING
[00:05:01]
A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, AND THEN SOLD THAT LOT BY DEEDED DATED JUNE 24TH, 1947.THIS LOT WAS TAILOR MADE FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
THIS IS EVIDENCED THROUGH THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEEDED, WHICH SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES CERTAIN METRICS AND CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS AS TO THE SIZE OF THE DWELLING AND ALSO TO THE COST OF THE DWELLING.
THE FACT THAT THE TOWN SOLD THIS DEEDED AND CREATED THIS LOT, WELL, LET ME BACKTRACK.
THE FACT THAT THE TOWN CREATED THE, THE LOT THROUGH THE DEEDED THEN SOLD IT TWO MONTHS AFTER THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
AND THE BULK REQUIREMENTS OF R FIVE WERE CHANGED TO R 7.5 SHOWS THAT ANY VARIANCE FROM THE R 75 BULK REQUIREMENTS, UM, WERE IMPLICITLY INCLUDED IN THIS DEEDED.
NOW, WHEN OUR APPLICANT PUT IN THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE, UH, PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF THIS, UH, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THIS LOT, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, UH, REFERRED IT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS SAYING THAT IT REQUIRED VARIANCES FOR, UM, THE MINIMUM LOT REQUIREMENT AND FRONTAGE.
UNFORTUNATELY, UH, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DIDN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF CONTEMPLATING THE LANGUAGE OF THIS DEED.
NOW THIS DEED IS VERY UNIQUE, AND SO WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US HERE IS WHAT IS CALLED A A CASE OF FIRST IMPRESSION.
YOU'RE PROBABLY ONLY GONNA HEAR IT ONCE TONIGHT, AND YOU PROBABLY WON'T HEAR IT EVER AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S VERY RARE WHERE YOU SEE A DEEDED THAT CREATES A LOT BY THE TOWN, THE ORIGINAL OWNER SPECIFICALLY FOR, YOU KNOW, UH, A NON-CONFORMING LOT.
NOW, WHY DID THAT HAPPEN? BECAUSE ON THIS LOT THERE'S A SPECIFIC SEWER EASEMENT, AND WHEN THE TOWN SOLD THE, THE LOT, THEY GOT THE BENEFIT AND THE TOWN GOT THE BENEFIT OF THIS SEWER EASEMENT.
NOT ONLY DID THE TOWN GET THE BENEFIT, BUT ALL THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS AND THE, AND THE REST OF THE TOWN GOT THE BENEFIT OF THE SEWER EASEMENT.
SO HERE WE HAVE A, A BUILDABLE LOT, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY HAS, YOU KNOW, REMAINED VACANT AND IT'S NOW OVERGROWN AND IT IS ACTUALLY A BIT OF AN EYESORE.
UH, AND WHAT WE PROPOSE WILL HAPPEN HERE WITH THIS CONSTRUCTION IS THAT IT WILL MARKETABLY IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NOT JUST THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ALSO THE STORM, THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE, WHICH IS A BIG CONCERN OF THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS, WHICH WE'VE HEARD IS THAT THERE'S A LOT OF FLOODING THAT GOES ON IN THIS AREA.
UM, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS UNANIMOUSLY SIGNED OFF ON THIS PROJECT STATING AND ACKNOWLEDGING THAT EVEN THE, EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE, UM, NON-CONFORMING LOTS IN THE SPECIFIC IN, UH, VICINITY, IN THE, IN THE SPECIFIC AREA OF, OF WHERE OUR LOT IS, UM, THIS WILL BE A MARKETED IMPROVEMENT, IT WILL IMPROVE THE, THE FLOOD WATER, UM, RUNOFF AND WILL OBVIOUSLY IMP IMPROVE THE CONDITION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, SO THE FIRST ASPECT OF OUR RELIEF THAT WE'RE REQUESTING HERE IS WE'RE APPEALING THE BUILDING, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED, LIKE I JUST SAID, AND AS WE PUT FORTH IN OUR SUBMISSION, UM, VARIANCES ARE NOT REQUIRED.
VARIANCES WERE ALREADY GRANTED THROUGH THIS DEEDED BECAUSE, AND I'LL JUST REPEAT, IT WAS CREATED, IT CREATED THIS LOT TWO MONTHS AFTER THE ZONING CODE, UH, WAS AMENDED UPWARDLY.
SO THE TOWN KNEW THAT IT WAS GRANTING A DEEDED WITH SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON IT IN A NON-CONFORMING LAW.
UH, MR. FIX? YES, JUST, AND I DON'T HOPE I DON'T THROW YOU OFF TRACK.
UM, YOU HAD INDICATED THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT UNANIMOUSLY, I JUST WANNA CORRECT FOR THE RECORD, DID YOU INTEND TO SAY THE PLANNING BOARD? OH, NO, YOU'RE RIGHT.
THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THAT, AND THAT LETTER'S ALREADY IN THE RECORD AS WELL.
UM, IT WAS WHEN THE, UH, THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS, UH, WAS SUBMITTED.
THERE'S NO ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OR NO NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT'S GOING TO OCCUR BECAUSE OF THIS CONSTRUCTION.
AND AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, IT IS GOING TO IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THE FIRST PART OF OUR BELIEF THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT A VARIANCE IS REQUIRED.
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THE DEEDED ITSELF, UM, GRANTED ANY VARIANCES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT THIS LOT WAS CREATED FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF BUILT OF CONSTRUCTING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
NOW, IN THE EVENT THAT THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT, UH, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WAS CORRECT AND VARIANCES ARE NOT REQUIRED, ALTERNATIVELY, WE ARE REQUESTING THE TWO VARIANCES, UM, BE GRANTED AS WELL, WHICH IS FOR MINIMUM LOT SIZE AND FOR FRONTAGE.
NOW, WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE FIVE FACTORS ALREADY.
WE'VE PUT THAT FORTH IN ALL OF SUB IN ALL OUR SUBMISSIONS.
I CAN BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THEM, UM, SPECIFICALLY, YOU KNOW, WILL THIS, WILL THIS PROJECT HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD? OF COURSE IT WON'T.
IN FACT, IT'S ALREADY BEEN DETERMINED THAT IT WON'T.
UM, THE VARIANCES ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL EITHER.
[00:10:01]
16%.THERE IS PRECEDENT IN THE DIRECT VICINITY WHERE WE HAVE UNDERSIZED LOTS WITH SIMILAR SIZED, UM, HOUSES AS WELL.
AGAIN, I WOULD ARGUE THAT THIS IS NOT A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP AS WELL.
UM, AND EVEN IF IT IS, THAT'S NOT A DETERMINING FACTOR.
UH, THE TOWN CREATED THIS LOT.
THE TOWN CREATED A LOT BY DEEDED.
IT CREATED A LOT FOR THE SPECIFIC PURPOSE OF BUILDING A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
AND WHILE EVERYONE'S, YOU KNOW, SAYING, WHAT, WHAT'S THIS HOUSE GONNA LOOK LIKE? IT'S GONNA LOOK WEIRD.
WELL, I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU SOME RENDERINGS THAT WE'VE PUT TOGETHER THAT COULD SHOW YOU THAT THIS IS GONNA BE A BEAUTIFUL, CONSTRUCTIVE HOUSE.
IT'S GONNA BE NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND IT'S GONNA MAKE THIS NEIGHBORHOOD LOOK EVEN BETTER.
SO, FOR A SECOND, I'M JUST GONNA SHARE MY SCREEN.
NOW, THE FIRST THING I'M GONNA SHOW YOU IS SORT OF AN ANIMATION, AND IT'S ABOUT 11 SECONDS, AND IT'S GONNA KIND OF TAKE YOU DOWN DOWN THE ROAD TO SHOW YOU WHAT THIS, UH, WHAT THIS WILL LOOK LIKE.
THIS IS GOING DOWN CLARENDON ROAD, AND IT'S GONNA COME RIGHT UP TO HERE WHERE THE PROPOSED HOUSE WILL BE.
NOW, I COULD SHOW YOU, THIS WAS A PART OF OUR, ONE OF OUR LAST SUBMISSIONS, AND THIS WILL JUST GIVE YOU A VIEW OF THE FRONT VIEW.
THIS IS THE LEFT SIDE, AND THAT'S THE LEFT VIEW FROM THE STREET.
THIS IS THE RIGHT SIDE, AND THIS IS THE RIGHT VIEW FROM THE STREET.
I CAN, UH, I CAN STOP SHARING THE SCREEN NOW IF I, SO THERE YOU HAVE IT.
UM, THIS IS GONNA BE A, UH, A NEWLY CONSTRUCTED HOUSE ON A LOT THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY CREATED FOR THAT PURPOSE.
UM, WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED, UH, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE INITIALLY ASKING FOR THE, UM, BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION TO BE APPEALED, UH, TO, TO BE OVERTURNED AS PART OF OUR APPEAL.
BUT IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THEN UH, THIS IS A FAIRLY ROUTINE GRANTING OF VARIANCES.
UM, IT'LL ONLY MAKE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BETTER.
AND, UM, WITH THAT, IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, THAT'S WHERE I'LL END.
SO, UH, I, I'VE SEEN THE AREA DEFINITELY AGREE THAT IT WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT, UM, IF THE, THE, THE BUILDING THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD, DOES THAT MEET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF A 7.5, UH, ZONING AREA OR, OR NOT? I MEAN, IF WE OVERTURN THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION, WILL THE HOUSE THEN BE BUILT ACCORDING TO ALL OF THE, UH, ZONING REQUIREMENTS ON THE BOOKS? YEAH, I MEAN, ASIDE FROM THE FACT THAT IT'S AN UNDERSIZED LOT, YES.
SO NO SIDE YARD, UH, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS? NO FRONT YARD SETBACK, NO BACKYARD, NOTHING? NO, JUST, NO, JUST THE FRONT, JUST THE FRONTAGE AND THE, UH, TOTAL LOT SIZE.
SO JUST VERY QUICKLY, THE F A R ON THAT, IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HOW DOES IT COMPARE? IT'S ALMOST THE SAME.
AND SO THIS IS GONNA BE HOW MANY BEDROOMS THIS PARTICULAR HOME? UH, THREE BEDROOMS. THREE BEDROOMS, YEAH.
DO YOU HAVE ANY ACTUAL, SORRY, SORRY.
DO YOU HAVE ANY ACTUAL PHOTOS? NOT JUST RENDERINGS? WELL, THIS IS A, UH, THIS IS A VACANT LOT, SO, UM, WE DON'T, THESE ARE, THESE ARE, THESE ARE SORT OF, THESE ARE CONCEPTUAL.
[00:15:01]
YOU JUST MENTIONED A FEW TIMES THAT IT WILL BE MUCH BETTER THAN HOW IT LOOKS NOW.SO I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW.
OH, WHAT, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE NOW IS, IS OVERGROWN.
UM, AND I MEAN, I, I DON'T KNOW IF I HAVE THE PICTURES.
I MAY THAT THERE ARE, I MAY, SO IF DURING THE DURATION I'LL TRY AND PULL THEM UP.
AND I GUESS THERE'S ONE OTHER QUESTION, WHICH IS, UM, IT CONCERNS AN ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
HAS THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY EVER OWNED ADJACENT PROPERTIES? UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE, I MEAN, HE, HE DOES OWN THE, UH, LOT THAT'S DIRECTLY NEXT TO IT, WHICH THEY'RE GOING TO COMBINE TO MAKE A, A WHOLE LOT.
THERE'S A, THERE'S A PROPERTY THAT HE OWNED A WHILE BACK, WHICH IS BEHIND IT.
UM, BUT I'M, I'M NOT SURE WHY, UM, THE RELEVANCE OF THAT.
UH, HE DOES OWN THE, THE TWO LOTS THAT HE'S GONNA COMBINE.
UM, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S SUBJECT OF THE, UH, OF THIS HEARING? NO, NO.
THE HE, THE, THERE IS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS A HOUSE NEXT DOOR.
NO, NEVER OWNED ANY PROPERTY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY.
NOT, NOT THAT I NOT ADJACENT, I THINK BEHIND IT, WELL, IT'S ON 57 AR ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT 57 ARGO? I DOES.
DOES ANY BORDER TOUCH? IT? HAS THEY, HAVE THEY EVER OWNED ANOTHER PROPERTY THAT HAS A PROPERTY LINE ABUTTING IT? I, I THINK SO.
YEAH, I THINK 57 ARGO MIGHT BE, BUT THAT'S, UM, THAT WAS A WHILE AGO THAT HE HAD THAT.
AND WAS THERE A HOUSE ON THAT PROPERTY WHEN IT WAS SOLD? 57 ARGO? YEAH.
I, UM, PEOPLE HAVE MENTIONED AN ISSUE OF THE RETAINING WALL, UM, EITHER ON OR ABUTTING THE PROPERTY.
AND WHAT ARE THE PLANS FOR THAT RETAINING WALL DURING AND POST CONSTRUCTION? UH, WELL, UNFORTUNATELY I DON'T HAVE, UH, MY ENGINEER HERE.
UM, BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THE RETAINING WALL IS AN ISSUE.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE AN ENGINEERING REPORT DEALING WITH THAT ISSUE FOR THE RETAINING WALL? YEAH, I MEAN, WE HAVE, WE HAVE THE PLANS THAT, THAT SHOW WHAT, UH, WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING.
UM, WE'VE OBVIOUSLY GOTTEN, UH, THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FROM, UH, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND WE'VE GOTTEN THE, UH, UNANIMOUS, UM, UH, REFERRAL FROM THE PLANNING, UH, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, SO I, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS REALLY AN ISSUE AT THIS POINT WITH THE, UH, RETAIN WALL, BUT ONE THING THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS THAT BEFORE ANY CONSTRUCTION HAPPENS, IT'LL OBVIOUSLY GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF BEING UP TO CODE AND, AND BEING CONSTRUCTED.
HOW, HOW IT SHOULD BE, JUST TO ANSWER A PRIOR QUESTION, UM, I HAVE THIS ON THE SCREEN, IF YOU WANNA WALK THE BOARD THROUGH THE, THE THREE, THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE THE SUBJECT LOTS AND THEN THE LOT TO THE REAR.
SO YEAH, SO WHAT WE HAVE HERE, UH, HERE'S THE SUBJECT LOTS.
WE HAVE THIS QUA, THE SORT OF REC, YOU'RE NOT THE MICROPHONE.
SORRY, I'M REFERRING TO WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN UP HERE.
OH, OH, IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SAME THING, THAT'S FINE.
SO I'M LOOKING, SO, UM, YOU HAVE THE, THE RECTANGULAR LOT, WHICH IS, UM, THE SUBJECT OF THE DEEDED, AND THEN YOU HAVE THAT TRIANGULAR LOT, WHICH IS GOING TO BE JOINED WITH THAT LOT TO CREATE, UH, ONE BIG ONE, ONE FULL LOT.
UM, NOW, I BELIEVE IN TERMS OF COMMON OWNERSHIP, RIGHT, HISTORICALLY, THIS LOT IN THE BACK THAT I HAVE THE PERSON THAT, THAT ONE, THAT'S 57 ARGO, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY OWNED.
AND I'LL TRY AND BRING UP A STREET VIEW IN A MOMENT, BUT I DON'T WANNA HOLD UP THE MEETING.
I ASSUME THE STREET VIEW, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT PROPERTY IT WAS.
I'LL BRING THAT UP IN A MOMENT, BUT, AND CONTINUE ON.
WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WHEN I, OKAY.
WHEN WAS 57 ARGYLE SOLD? DO YOU KNOW? I, I, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
I THINK IT WAS, IT WAS A FEW YEARS AGO.
AND WAS IT RE, WAS IT ACQUIRED PRIOR TO THE PROPERTY WE'RE DISCUSSING NOW, IF YOU KNOW,
[00:20:02]
ACQUIRED BY THE, BY THE APPLICANT? YES.I, I, I ACTUALLY, I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION EITHER, WHETHER, UM, HE, HE BOUGHT BOTH AT THE SAME TIME OR, OR BOUGHT ONE AFTER THE OTHER, BUT HE DID AT SOME POINT IN TIME OWN BOTH PROPERTIES? I BELIEVE SO.
JUST BRIEFLY, PER QUESTION, PRIOR ABOUT THE, UM, EXISTING CONDITIONS.
NOW THIS PHOTO MAY BE DATED, IT MIGHT NOT LOOK LIKE THIS PRESENTLY, BUT, UM, JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ALL RIGHT.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE AUDIENCE? GOOD EVENING.
I'M AN ATTORNEY FOR ADAM GOOD FARM, WHO'S HERE WITH ME TONIGHT.
HE RE ADAM RESIDES AT 60 CLAREDON ROAD, WHICH, UH, IMMEDIATELY ABUTS THE APPLICANT'S TWO LOTS.
UM, I, SO MUCH HAS BEEN SAID, I DON'T KNOW REALLY WHERE TO START HERE.
UH, I'LL ADDRESS THIS ISSUE OF COMMON OWNERSHIP BECAUSE I, I THINK, UH, BOARD MEMBERS HAVE TOUCHED ON A VERY IMPORTANT ISSUE.
WHAT CAN WE PUT THAT TAX MAP BACK UP ON, PLEASE? SURE, SIR.
DID YOU IDENTIFY YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD? I DID MICHAEL SERANO.
UH, SO WHAT ARE NOW LOTS EIGHT AND NINE, UH, AND THE, UH, ARGYLE ROAD LOT BEHIND IT.
THEY FIRST CAME UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP IN 1949.
ALL THREE LOTS CAME UNDER COM COMMON OWNERSHIP WHEN THE NORD NORDBERG FAMILY ACQUIRED, UH, THE THIRD LOT.
AND THESE THREE CONTIGUOUS LOTS REMAINED UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP FOR THE NEXT 72 YEARS UNTIL THIS APPLICANT DECIDED TO SELL OFF HIS HOUSE AND MOVE AWAY FROM ARGYLE ROAD AND SPECULATE THAT HE WAS GONNA BE ABLE TO COME INTO THIS BOARD AND GET YOU TO TURN A BAD NON-CONFORMING INVESTMENT LOT INTO A BUILDABLE LOT AND, AND HAVE A WINDFALL.
AND AS YOU KNOW, ZONING BOARD'S, UH, JOB IS NOT TO MAKE A BAD INVESTMENT INTO A, INTO A POT OF GOLD.
UH, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE HISTORY OF THIS THING HE LIVED ON IN, ON 59 ARGYLE, THE APPLICANT.
HE SOLD THAT OFF ON JUNE 17TH, 1921.
AND SOON THEREAFTER, HE, HE STARTS HIS PROCESS BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD TO TRY TO CREATE A BUILDABLE LOT.
THE, AND, AND LET ME, LET ME BACK UP BECAUSE THERE'S A VERY IMPORTANT PROCEDURAL ISSUE HERE THAT I THINK YOU MAY NEED TO, I'M SORRY, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE YOU SAID 1921.
I'M SORRY, BUT WE DIDN'T THINK YOU MEANT IT.
YES, I WASN'T SURE I WROTE IT DOWN FOR THE RECORD.
SO, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS AMENDED HIS, HIS APPLICATION.
AND REMEMBER HE FIRST APPEARED BEFORE YOUR BOARD IN MARCH, UH, AND THEN HE APPEARED AGAIN IN, IN APRIL, UH, AND THEN HE APPEARED AGAIN.
UH, AND BY THE WAY, IN APRIL, UH, YOU, THE BOARD TOOK A STRAW VOTE AND IT CAME UP THREE, TWO, AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO, UH, GRANT THE TWO VARIANCES BEING SOUGHT THEN.
AND SO IT WAS PUT OVER AND IT'S BEEN PUT OVER ON AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
AND IT'S BEEN BEFORE THIS BOARD FOR EIGHT MONTHS, BUT NEVER BEFORE.
NOW, DID THE APPLICANT EVER APPEAL THIS, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT VARIANCES WERE NEEDED? THIS IS A NEW LEGAL THEORY.
UH, IT, IT WASN'T IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, WHICH WAS DATED FEBRUARY 15TH, 2022.
UH, AND IN THE, IN THE AMENDED APPLICATION, WHICH CURIOUSLY IS UNDATED, UH, AND MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S STALE, IT'S EIGHT MONTHS OLD.
UM, IT'S IN THE AMENDED APPLICATION, UNDATED APPLICATION, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED.
WE KNOW WHEN IT WAS SUBMITTED BECAUSE, UH, UH, THE, HIS ATTORNEY PUT IN A COVER LETTER OF NOVEMBER 2ND, 2022.
SO WE KNOW THAT THE AMENDED APPLICATION CAME IN SOMETIME IN EARLY NOVEMBER, AND THAT'S THE FIRST TIME EVER THAT THIS APPLICANT HAS ASSERTED TO YOUR BOARD THAT THE BILLING INSPECTOR MADE AN ERROR BECAUSE
[00:25:01]
NO VARIANCES WERE, ARE EVER EVEN NEEDED.IT'S PREPOSTEROUS, AND I'LL, I'LL TELL YOU WHY IT'S PREPOSTEROUS IN A MINUTE.
BUT WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE IS THAT YOU HAVE NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR THAT PART OF HIS TWO PART APPEAL AMENDED OF APPLICATION, IT'S TIME BARRED UNDER STATE LAW.
HE HAD TO HAVE ISSUE, HE HAD TO HAVE RAISED THAT APPEAL, THAT CHALLENGE WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE BILLING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT TWO VARIANCES WERE NEEDED.
AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT TWO VARIANCES WERE NEEDED IS DATED JUNE 9TH, 2021.
UH, YOU, YOU, YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE JURISDICTION AS A BOARD, AS AN APPELLATE BOARD, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE, YOU'RE AN APPELLATE BOARD.
YOU DON'T HAVE ANY ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
UH, AND IF AN APPEAL ISN'T PROPERLY PUT BEFORE YOU, WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE UNDERLYING DECISION BY THE BILLING INSPECTOR THAT'S BEING CHALLENGED, IT'S THE BILLING INSPECTOR'S, UH, DETERMINATION, EVEN IF IT'S WRONG STANDS, IT'S NOT APPEALABLE TO YOUR BOARD, CAN'T BE HEARD BY YOUR BOARD.
SO I WOULD ASK YOU TO, TO SUMMARILY, UH, UH, DISREGARD THIS NEW AMENDED FIRST PART OF HIS TWO-PART APPLICATION.
BUT, UH, IF YOU DECIDE TO GO AHEAD AND, AND GIVE THIS SOME THOUGHT, UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, THAT THE TOWN BOARD WHEN IT DEEDED THIS PROPERTY ORIGINALLY AND CREATED THE SEWER EASEMENT, UH, IT DIDN'T DECLARE THAT THIS WAS A BUILDABLE LOT.
THERE'S, I READ, I FOILED THE TOWN BOARD MINUTES AND THE TOWN BOARD, NOTHING IN THE MINUTES SAYS THAT THE TOWN BOARD WAS SELLING A BUILDABLE LOT.
BUT WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY BASICALLY IMPOSED SOME MINIMAL KIND OF PRIVATE ZONING STANDARDS.
UH, BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THEY DECLARED IT TO BE A BUILDABLE LOT.
AND IN ANY EVENT, 72 YEARS OR NOW, 73 YEARS HAVE COME AND GONE, AND THIS LOT HAS NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED.
AND, AND MR. FIX IS A VERY FINE ATTORNEY, BUT EVEN HE STRESS STRESSES, YOU KNOW, STRAINS, UH, CREDIBILITY WHEN HE, HE CLAIMS THAT SOMEHOW HE IS GRANDFATHERED IN WHEN THIS LOT HAS LAYING NOT ONLY UNDEVELOPED, BUT HAD BEEN MERGED WITH THE TWO ADJOINING LOTS, ONE TO THE RIGHT AND ONE BEHIND IT.
AND, AND THAT MERGER OCCURRED AND REMAINED IN UNCOMMON OWNERSHIP, AS I STARTED OUT BY SAYING, FOR 72 YEARS UNTIL THIS APPLICANT CREATED HIS OWN HARDSHIP AND TOOK HIS OWN RISK BY SELLING OFF THE HOUSE AND HOLDING ONTO THESE TWO SUBSTANDARD PARCELS WITH THE HOPE THAT YOU WOULD REWARD HIM WITH A, A VARIANCE AND ALLOW HIM TO, TO TURN A, UH, A LOT THAT THE YOUR TOWN ASSESSOR VALUES AT NEARLY ZERO INTO SOMETHING THAT COULD BE WORTH HUNDREDS AND HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
AND AS I SAID EARLIER, THAT'S NOT YOUR JOB, UH, GETTING TO THE MERITS OF, OF THIS, UH, OF THE TWO VARIANCES.
THEY'RE NOT INSIGNIFICANT VARIANCES.
AND I, I WOULD SUBMIT THAT THAT A A LOT, EVEN WHEN YOU COMBINE BOTH OF THEM, DOESN'T EVEN MEET THE MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS THAT THAT'S A BIG ASK OF A ZONING BOARD OF YOUR BOARD OR ANY BOARD.
AND SECONDLY, IT DOESN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT FRONTAGE ON A, ON A STREET THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, IS, IS COMPLETELY DEVELOPED EXCEPT FOR THIS LOT.
AND THERE'S A REASON WHY THIS LOT HASN'T BEEN DEVELOPED.
AND EVERY OTHER LOT AROUND IT, ACROSS FROM IT BEHIND IT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED AND HAVE BEEN LIVED IN BY FAMILIES FOR THE BEST PART OF A CENTURY.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S NOT A BUILDABLE LOT AS A PRACTICAL MATTER OR A LEGAL MATTER, IT HAS THE TOWN BOARD IMPOSED A SEWER LINE EASEMENT THAT CUTS THROUGH THE PROPERTY.
AND BECAUSE OF THAT, UH, THE, THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER HAD TO PUSH THE HOUSE CLOSER TO MY CLIENT'S SIDE IN ORDER TO AVOID THIS SEWER EASEMENT.
AND, AND WE SUBMITTED AN, AN ENGINEER'S REPORT FROM THE MARCHETTI ENGINEERING FIRM THAT MAKES CLEAR, AND THAT THAT LETTER FROM PETER G MARCHETTI, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER, UM, OF JUNE 8TH, 2022, UH, TELLS YOUR BOARD IN OUR, I'M QUOTING NOW IN OUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOOD ENGINEERING PRACTICE AS WELL AS SAFE CONSTRUCTION PRACTICES, WE RECOMMEND A MINIMUM SEPARATION OF 30 FEET TO BE MAINTAINED BETWEEN THE HOUSE FOUNDATION AND THE DELINEATION OF THE SEWER EASEMENT.
THE PLAN BEFORE YOU, UH, THAT, THAT THEY WILL,
[00:30:01]
UH, PULL A BUILDING PERMIT ON IF YOU SHOULD, BY GRANT THEM THE VARIANCES THAT THEY NEED.THAT HOUSE IS GOING TO BE LESS THAN FIVE FEET FROM THIS SEWER LINE, THE FOUNDATION OF THE HOUSE.
AND, AND THIS PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER SAYS, CONFORMING TO THIS 30 FOOT SETBACK, NOT FIVE FEET, WILL SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCE THE RISKS OF DAMAGE TO THE BURIED SEWER LINE AND THE POSSIBLE STORMWATER INFILTRATION MIXING WITH SANITARY WASTE.
SO THERE'S TWO PROBLEMS IDENTIFIED HERE.
ONE IS, IF THIS SEWER LINE NEEDS REPAIR AND HE'S BUILT HIS FOUNDATION LESS THAN FIVE FEET AWAY FROM IT, HOW DOES A BACKHOE GET IN THERE TO EXCAVATE AND TO REPLACE THIS SEWER LINE PIPE? THAT'S ONE PROBLEM.
THE SECOND PROBLEM IDENTIFIED BY THE MARTI ENGINEERING FIRM IS THAT, THAT THERE'S, BECAUSE OF THE STORMWATER SYSTEM THAT'S BEEN DESIGNED AND MR. FIX, UH, LAUDED IT FOR MAKING IMPROVEMENTS, BUT THE MARCHETTI ENGINEERS SAY THAT IT COULD HAVE A TERRIBLE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE IN THAT STORM WATER COULD INFILTRATE IN THE, IN THE SANITARY WASTE THAT'S IN THAT SEWER LINE AND, AND INUNDATE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH AN OVERFLOW OF, OF, OF SANITARY WASTE.
SO I I, ONE OF THE CRITICAL FIVE FACTORS YOU ALWAYS LOOK AT IS WHETHER THERE'S GONNA BE A DETRIMENT TO THE HEALTH, SAFETY, WELFARE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WELL, YES, THERE'S A REAL PROBLEM WITH BUILDING A HOUSE NEXT TO, IMMEDIATELY, NEXT TO A SEWER LINE THAT SERVES HOMES ON THE, UH, ON THE DOWNHILL SLOPE OF ACROSS THE STREET FROM, FROM THIS LOT.
AND AGAIN, I, I WOULD, UH, SAY TO YOU, THERE'S A REASON WHY THIS LOT HAS NEVER BEEN BUILT, UH, AND IT SHOULD NEVER BE BUILT.
AND THE APPLICANT, UH, FRANKLY SHOULD HAVE GONE TO THE PLANNING BOARD BEFORE HE SOLD OFF 59.
'CAUSE HE HAD SOME EXTRA ACREAGE UP THERE, OR NOT ACREAGE, HE HAD SOME EXTRA SQUARE FOOTAGE UP THERE.
HE COULD HAVE REJIGGERED THE LOT LINES TO, TO GET THIS, THESE TWO LOTS DOWN BELOW, UH, MORE, MORE AREA AND NOT HAVE TO COME BEFORE YOUR BOARD.
HE GOT TOP DOLLAR, GOD BLESS HIM FOR HIS HOUSE UP 1 59 ARGYLE, UH, WITHOUT CHANGING ANY LOT LINES.
AND HE, AND HE, HE THREW THE DICE AT YOUR BOARD AND HOPES THAT IT COMES UP.
UH, I'M NOT A DICE PLAYER, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT WHAT THEY SHOULD COME UP, BUT, UH, OBVIOUSLY HE'S LOOKING FOR A, UH, A WIN HERE.
THE VISUALS THAT MR. FIX PUT UP WERE LOVELY, BUT NONE OF OF THEM, AND WE COULD PUT 'EM BACK UP IF YOU LIKE, NONE OF THEM SHOWED THIS RETAINING WALL THAT KEEPS 59 THE HOUSE ON 59 ARGYLE FROM FALLING DOWN INTO THIS LOT.
AND SO WHAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, IF THIS HOUSE IS BUILT, IT'S GONNA BE BUILT RIGHT UP AGAINST A HUGE RETAINING WALL.
IT'S GONNA LOOM OVER IT AND BEHIND IT AND ABOVE IT.
UH, AND, UH, AND, AND THIS, IT, IT, THIS HOUSE, UH, IS, IS FRANKLY, UH, UH, UH, TRYING TO FIT A, A SQUARE PEG INTO A ROUND HOLE.
THE SEWER LINE, THE RETAIN HIGH, VERY HIGH RETAINING WALL.
UH, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT, I THINK IT'S AT LEAST 20 TO 25 FEET, UH, CHANGING GRADE, UH, AND IT, AND IT'S GONNA LOOM LARGE OVER THIS HOUSE.
AND, AND IT'S REALLY TERRIBLY OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S GONNA DIMINISH VALUES MY CLIENT'S, UH, THE VALUE OF MY CLIENT'S HOME.
AND, UH, AND MR. GUPTA, I BELIEVE IS GONNA SPEAK NEXT.
HE LIVES ON THE OTHER SIDE OR OWNS THE PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE.
UM, I THINK THAT'S ALL I HAVE, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, I'VE GIVEN YOU ALL OF THE, THE TOTAL CHAIN OF DEEDS THAT, THAT PROVE THAT, THAT THESE WERE IN COMMON OWNERSHIP FOR 70, 71 PLUS YEARS, AND THAT IT WAS THIS APPLICANT THAT SPUN OFF THESE TWO LOTS AND CREATED HIS OWN OR SELF CREATED, UH, DIFFICULTY.
I THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO ME.
WHO, WHO'S NEXT, UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD CHAIRMAN, MY NAME IS, UH, TARRAN GUPTA.
THAT PART, MY NAME IS TARRAN GUPTA.
AND, UH, WE OWN THE PROPERTY, UH, NEXT TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY, 70 CLAIN ROAD.
AND CAN YOU LIFT THE MICROPHONE UP A LITTLE? THE TOP PART? YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.
UM, SO I'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED LETTERS FOR THE HEARINGS THAT WE HAD BEFORE, AND I WON'T REPEAT.
[00:35:01]
UM, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE TESTIMONY THAT WE HAD BEFORE.UM, THE BOARD DID QUESTION THE OWNERSHIP ISSUE FOR 57 ARIL.
AND, UM, I KNOW MR. MICHAEL, UM, YOU KNOW, GAVE YOU SOME DETAILS.
UM, I'LL JUST LIKE TO MENTION JUST BECAUSE WE USED TO BE LIVING, UH, RIGHT NEXT DOOR, UH, THIS HOUSE ON 57 ARIL, IT WAS SOLD FOR 530 K.
UH, THERE WAS A, AN OLD LADY WHO USED TO LIVE THERE, SHE HAD TO MOVE AWAY.
UM, THIS WAS AN AS-IS SALE SOLD IN 2019 FOR 530 K.
UH, THE APPLICANT BOUGHT 57 AR GALE.
UH, THE LOT THAT IS UNDER CONSIDERATION HERE, UM, IS ACTUALLY THE REAR YARD FOR THAT HOUSE.
UH, THE APPLICANT SPENT ABOUT TWO WEEKS FIXING THAT HOUSE.
UM, AGAIN, WE LIVED NEXT DOOR.
WE SAW A LOT OF PEOPLE COME IN, GO OUT, FENCES WERE PUT UP.
UM, THE HOUSE WAS RENTED RIGHT AWAY WITHIN TWO WEEKS.
UM, ON ZILLOW IT SHOWED $5,000 PER MONTH.
UM, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IT WAS RENTED FOR.
YOU ALREADY HAVE A LETTER, I BELIEVE, FROM THE OWNERS OF THE HOUSE.
THE PEOPLE WHO RENTED THIS, RENTED THIS FOR TWO YEARS, PAID $5,000 A MONTH, AND TWO YEARS LATER, BOUGHT THAT HOUSE FOR $875,000.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH MONEY WAS SPENT IN REPAIRING THE HOUSE IN THOSE TWO WEEKS.
NO BUILDING PERMITS ARE FILED, SO I'M GONNA SAY 50 K, A HUNDRED K, LET'S SAY.
WE ARE LOOKING AT A WINDFALL PROFIT OF ALMOST 300 K.
UM, THE RENTERS ACTUALLY BOUGHT THE HOUSE.
UM, SO IT WAS A VERY EASY SALE.
UM, WHAT OBVIOUSLY, NOW THAT WE KNOW THE RENTERS DID NOT BUY THEIR OWN REAR YARD, THIS HAPPENS TO BE THE REAR YARD FOR THAT HOUSE, UM, WHICH HAS A HUGE SEWER EASEMENT AND IS NOW UP FOR DISCUSSION FOR THE LAST ONE YEAR.
UM, SO I'LL JUST, I MEAN, A LOT HAS BEEN MADE ABOUT THIS PLANNING BOARD MEETING WHERE, UH, THEY HAD APPROVAL.
UM, THIS MATTER OF SEWER EASEMENT WAS NEVER BROUGHT UP.
IT'S ALMOST LIKE THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS DON'T EVEN KNOW THE SEWER EASEMENT.
UH, MR. ADAM GOOD FARM WAS THERE.
UM, THAT MEETING WAS NOT NOTICED BECAUSE THAT WAS SOMEHOW, UH, YOU KNOW, THE ZBM MEETING WAS NOTICED, BUT THAT JUST SCRAPED BY WITH NO DISCUSSION OF THIS EASEMENT.
UH, SO I'M GONNA BRING IT UP HERE.
UM, SORRY GARY, IF YOU CAN BRING UP THE SEWER, UH, PLAN THAT I, UM, EMAILED.
SO THIS SEWER EASEMENT, IT'S NOT YOUR SINGLE FAMILY HOME SEWER EASEMENT.
THERE'S ABOUT, I COUNTED ABOUT NINE OR 10 HOUSES ON ARGO ROAD.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN ZOOM IN.
I'M, THIS IS THE ENTIRE AREA, BUT I, SO THE SEWER LINE THAT YOU SEE COMING IN IS SERVING ABOUT NINE HOUSES ON ARGO ROAD.
THAT'S THE LINE THAT, UM, GARY IS POINTED THE MOUSE AT, UM, THAT'S ABOUT 80 OR 90 FEET IN LENGTH, RIGHT IN THAT LOT, THE STRAIGHT PART.
AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER 10 FOOT, UM, GOING TO THE RIGHT.
UM, THERE ARE TWO BIG MANHOLES.
UM, ONE OF THE MANHOLES IS SO BURIED THAT THE APPLICANT COULDN'T EVEN FIND IT.
THEIR SURVEYORS SPENT A FEW WEEKS THERE, THEY JUST COULDN'T FIND A MANHOLE.
AND THESE ARE LIKE, ONE MANHOLE HAPPENS TO BE NEXT TO MY PROPERTY, SO I CAN SEE IT.
IT'S A HUGE, UM, THREE FOOT CIRCULAR MANHOLE.
UM, NOW WE DON'T KNOW WHERE, WHAT THE CONDITION OF THIS SEW LINE IS.
WE HAVE AN ENGINEERING REPORT, WHICH SAYS, UH, IT IS VERY RISKY TO BUILD ANYTHING EVEN 30 FEET AWAY.
I MEAN, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD FIVE FOOT AWAY FROM THE SEWER LINE.
UM, THERE'S A LOT OF ROCK IN THIS AREA.
UM, WE BUILT A HOUSE NEXT DOOR, WHICH IS ABOUT 40 FEET AWAY FROM THE SEWER LINE.
WE WERE ALREADY CONCERNED, UM, I MEAN, HAMMERING ALL THAT ROCK NEXT TO THIS SEWER LINE, I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN TO THIS SEWER LINE FROM THE 1940S.
UH, AGAIN, NINE HOUSES, THEY MIGHT LOSE THEIR SEWER LINE, YOU KNOW, FOR DAYS IF THIS NEEDS TO BE REPAIRED.
UH, THIS PARTICULAR APPLICANT, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UM, THEY'VE DONE ABOUT 10 20 SUBDIVISIONS IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, INCLUDING THE VILLAGES.
THEY'VE NOT BUILT A SINGLE HOUSE.
THEY'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF SUBDIVIDING AND SELLING TO DEVELOPERS.
IF THEY GET APPROVAL, YOU'RE GONNA SEE A PROPERTY GO UP IN ZILLOW NEXT WEEK.
A DEVELOPER WILL COME IN, BUY THIS SIX MONTHS IN AND OUT.
THEY'LL BUILD A HOUSE, SOMEONE SUSPECTING
[00:40:01]
PERSON WILL BUY.IT HAPPENS TO BE AN EDGEMONT, AND THERE'S GONNA BE A SEWER LEAK.
THE ENGINEERING STUDY SAID IT COULD BE IN MONTHS, IT COULD BE SIX MONTHS LATER, IT COULD BE A YEAR LATER.
I MEAN, IT DOESN'T TAKE A LOT TO START SMELLING SEWER AND GO, OH MY GOD.
UH, THIS IS ALSO, UM, IN THE, UM, THE WATER PROTECTION ZONE.
THERE HAPPENS TO BE A BROOK ON MR. ADAM GOOD FO'S PROPERTY.
SO THIS IS WITHIN A HUNDRED FOOT OFF AN ACTIVE WATERWAY.
AND, UM, THEY NEEDED, UM, SPECIAL PERMISSION FROM THE WATER, UH, FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, BECAUSE THIS HAPPENS TO BE SO CLOSE TO THE WATER NOW, YOU MIX SEWER AND WATER.
THIS HAPPENS TO BE THE TROUBLESOME BROOK, WHICH IS CAUSING FLOODING AND CARBON PLACE EVERY SEASON.
UM, PAUL FINER HAS BEEN WORKING ON THIS DILIGENTLY FOR THE LAST THREE YEARS, SENDING OUT NOTICES.
THE TOWN HAS A 350,000 ALLOCATION DOLLAR ALLOCATION TO STUDY THIS PROBLEM FOR FLOODING.
UM, BUILDING A HOUSE HERE, I THINK IS A VERY BAD IDEA.
UM, WE DON'T KNOW HOW THIS WHOLE WATER, UM, TABLE WILL CHANGE PUTTING A HOUSE HERE.
UM, I DO WANT TO QUICKLY BRING UP THE SITE PLAN.
UM, GOD, THAT'S THE OTHER PASSWORD IN MY EMAIL.
I, UH, SO THIS IS A SITE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
I'VE ALREADY RAISED THIS ISSUE, UM, BACK IN MARCH, QUESTIONING IS THERE ANOTHER SITE PLAN THAT THEY HAVE.
SO YOU CAN SEE THE SEWER EASEMENT AT THE TOP DOTTED LINES.
THE FOUNDATION IS TOUCHING THIS EASEMENT.
UM, IT'S FIVE FEET AWAY, SO THE SEWER LINE HAPPENS TO BE IN THE CENTER OF THAT EASEMENT.
THE FOUNDATION IS TOUCHING, SO THEY'RE GONNA DIG FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE SEWER LINE.
UM, HONESTLY, WE SAW THREE D UH, YOU KNOW, DIAGRAMS OF THE HOUSE.
I I DON'T THINK THAT HOUSE CAN EVEN BE POSSIBLE WITH THIS SITE PLAN.
THIS SITE PLAN IS ABOUT, I THINK, 30 FEET WIDE.
UM, THE THREE D DESIGN THAT WE SAW HAD A SINGLE FAMILY GARAGE.
AND THE RIGHT SECTION OF THAT HOUSE SEEMS LIKE THERE WERE THREE MORE GARAGES, 40.
I I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT THREE D DESIGN CAN BE DONE WITH THE HOUSE THAT IS ON THIS SITE PLAN, BUT THIS, THIS SITE PLAN IS NOT WORKABLE.
I MEAN, WE'VE HEARD THE, YOU KNOW, THE ENGINEERING STUDY, YOU HAVE TO BE ABOUT 20, 30 FEET AWAY FROM THAT LINE, IF NOT FIVE FEET, AT LEAST 10 FEET AWAY.
IF YOU GO EVEN 10 FEET AWAY FROM THAT LINE.
THIS HOUSE IS A 20 FOOT WIDE HOUSE.
YOU HAVE A SINGLE CAR GARAGE, AND THEN YOU HAVE WHAT, LIKE A MAIN DOOR.
THIS IS GONNA BE A NARROW DEEP HOUSE ALL THE WAY GOING INTO THE BACK, WHICH HAPPENS TO BE A HUGE 30 FOOT HILL, UM, WITH ANOTHER 10 FOOT FENCE ON TOP.
AND I WON'T BE SURPRISED IF THOSE PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE THEIR HOUSE SITS ON TOP OF THIS HILL.
IF YOU'RE DOING ANY DIGGING HERE, THIS ENTIRE ROCK HILL, UH, CAN BE UNSTABLE.
WE'VE BEEN ASKING FOR STUDIES.
UM, I'M HONESTLY VERY SCARED THAT THE ONLY THING THAT CAME OUT IS A LEGAL CHALLENGE INSTEAD OF A STUDY.
UM, I MEAN, ALL WE HAVE SEEN IS SOME LANGUAGE FROM THE DEEDED.
I DON'T HAVE THE DEED HERE WITH ME.
EVERY, UH, LOT THAT WAS SOLD BY THE TOWN OF GREENBERG IN THE FORTIES HAD THIS LANGUAGE.
UH, I'M SURE THAT LITTLE SLIVER OF A LOT, THAT THE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT LOT, IF YOU PULL UP THE DEED FOR THAT, THAT LANGUAGE IS THERE.
UM, THERE'S ANOTHER LANGUAGE RIGHT AFTER IT, WHICH SAYS, THE ABOVE LANGUAGE DOES NOT PRECLUDE ANY ZONING, UM, OR ANY OTHER RESTRICTIONS ON THIS LAW.
THAT IS BOILERPLATE SAYING, IF YOU ARE TO BUILD A HOUSE, IT SHOULDN'T BE A VERY CHEAP HOUSE.
IT, IT HAS TO BE SO MUCH SQUARE FOOT.
IT HAS TO BE SO MANY, UM, DOLLARS PER SQUARE FOOT.
UM, ALL THAT SAYS IS THAT, UM, SO I, I HONESTLY DON'T THINK THAT THAT LANGUAGE HOLDS ANY WEIGHT AT ALL.
UM, SO I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S ALL I HAD HERE.
THE, I HAVE MANY OTHER, UH, POINTS IN THE LETTERS THAT ARE SUBMITTED.
UM, BUT THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO REMIND YOU OF.
UM, SO THANK YOU MEMBERS OF THE BOARD CHAIRWOMAN.
UH, I HOPE YOU MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION.
[00:45:01]
I AM THE, UM, OWNER OF 60 CLARENDON ROAD.I AM THE PERSON WHO RETAINED MR. CIANO.
UM, BECAUSE I'VE BEEN VERY UPSET ABOUT THIS.
FIRST OF ALL, I WANNA MAKE ONE THING CLEAR.
WHEN EVERYBODY TALKS ABOUT THE CONDITION OF THE LOT, THAT LOT CONDITION IS THE PRODUCT OF THE NEGLECT OF THIS OWNER AND APPLICANT, NOT ANYTHING ELSE.
UM, HE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE FROM AN ELDERLY COUPLE.
THE ELDERLY COUPLE WEREN'T GREAT ABOUT MAINTAINING IT, BUT THEY DID MAINTAIN IT ONCE OR TWICE A YEAR, THEY WOULD HAVE SOMEBODY COME IN AND SPEND ALL DAY CLEANING IT OUT.
IF YOU LOOK AT OLD PHOTOS OF THAT, THERE'S A STONE WALL, UH, LIKE A LITTLE STAIRCASE THAT SEEMS TO BE GOING FROM THIS LOT UP TOWARD THE OTHER LOT.
IN OTHER WORDS, THIS WAS PART, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND I THINK MR. GUPTA AGREES, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS ALL USED AT ONE TIME, BUT IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME.
AND, UM, IN MY OWNERSHIP OF 20 YEARS, NOBODY'S BEEN USING THAT LOT.
BUT IT CERTAINLY SHOULDN'T BE A HOUSE.
I MEAN, WHEN I BOUGHT THAT HOUSE I, MY HOUSE, I LOOKED AND I SAW IT, AND IT WAS TOO SMALL FOR A HOUSE, STILL TOO SMALL FOR A HOUSE.
WHAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE HERE IS MAKE THE LOT LOOK SO TERRIBLE THAT IT APPEARS THAT A HOUSE WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT.
THIS HOUSE WOULD NOT BE AN IMPROVEMENT.
IT'S A DETRIMENT TO HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE.
IT ALSO, FOR ME, BECAUSE IT COMES SO CLOSE TO MY HOUSE, IS AN ABSOLUTE AFFRONT TO MY RIGHT, TO, TO LIGHT, TO, TO PRIVACY AND TO AIR.
I MEAN, IT'S WAY TOO CLOSE TO MY HOUSE.
BUT THERE'S THE ISSUE OF THE SEWER LINE, WHICH IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY SERIOUS ISSUE.
AND OF COURSE, BLAKELY PLATT HAS NOT RESPONDED TO THAT.
THERE'S NO EXPERT REPORT ON THAT BECAUSE THERE CAN'T BE.
MR. CIANO EXPLAINED IT ALL TO YOU.
UM, MY LAST COMMENT IS SIMPLY THIS, AND I'M A LAWYER, BUT I'M NOT A ZONING LAWYER.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT ZONING, WHEN IT FIRST BEGAN AROUND TWO TH 2016 WITH THE EQUITABLE BUILDING CASE IN MANHATTAN, THE PURPOSE OF ZONING IS TO BE A SHIELD TOWARD GREEDY DEVELOPMENT, UNMERITED DEVELOPMENT.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE HERE.
THIS DEVELOPER TOOK A PIECE OF LAND THAT BELONGED TO ANOTHER HOUSE, AND HE'S USING ZONING NOT AS A SHIELD, BUT AS A SWORD TO MAKE MONEY.
THERE'S NO POSSIBLE HOUSE HERE.
IT'S GONNA DESTROY THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S NOT GONNA HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S GONNA DAMAGE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND PEOPLE ARE VERY UPSET ABOUT THIS HOUSE.
I, BECAUSE I LIVE NEXT TO THE HOUSE, RETAIN COUNSEL AND I'M, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SAY TO THE BOARD, THERE'S JUST NO BASIS FOR HOUSE HERE.
NEVER WAS IN OVER 70 YEARS, AND THERE ISN'T NOW.
AND THE, AND THE BUILDER HERE SHOULD NOT BE TRYING TO SEPARATE IT.
THIS LAND IS GOOD FOR A GARDEN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S, IT'S JUST NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A HOUSE.
I JUST WANT TO JUST DOUBLE CHECK REALLY FAST.
UH, IF ANYONE ON ZOOM WISHES TO SPEAK, UH, NOW WOULD BE THE TIME.
BEFORE YOU GO ON, COULD YOU PLEASE TELL US, IS IT 57 OR 59? 57.
UH, JUST, UH, QUICK POINTS OF CLARIFICATION BEFORE I GET TO, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID, WHICH BY THE WAY, HAVE, ARE ALL HAVE BEEN REPEATED, UM, AND, UM, HAVE, HAVE ALL BEEN SAID BEFORE WITH RESPECT TO THE SEWER LINE, WITH RESPECT TO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE HOUSE RIGHT NEXT TO IT.
BY THE WAY, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR SIDE YARD VARIANCE, SO WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE.
UM, IF ANYONE'S HOUSE IS TOO CLOSE, IT, UH, WOULD MEAN MR. GOOD FORBES.
UM, I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO THANK MR. GUPTA FOR, UM, CONFIRMING THAT THIS IS A BUILDABLE LOT.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND THIS LANGUAGE IS NOT BOILERPLATE, UH, IN THE DEEDED.
UH, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE THAT CAN BE OR WAS CONTEMPLATED TO BE BUILT ON THIS LOT THEN A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
UH, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS SPECIFIC LANGUAGE OF THE DEEDED, IT PROVIDES FOR, UM, THE SIZE OF A, OF A DWELLING.
IT SAYS HERE, UH, NO PRIVATE DWELLING SHALL BE ERECTED ON THE PREMISES HEREIN CONTAINING LESS THAN 24,000 CUBIC FEET OR 3000 SQUARE FEET, NOR COSTING LESS THAN $12,000 IN 1947, WHICH AT, UH, IN TODAY'S DOLLARS WOULD BE ABOUT 160,000.
[00:50:01]
UM, SO WHAT CAN BE BUILT HERE? A HOUSE, THAT'S WHAT WAS ALWAYS CONTEMPLATED.UM, THE TWO LOTS WERE, WERE NEVER JOINED.
THEY WERE ALWAYS, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 57 ARGYLE AND WHAT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED AS THE BACKYARD.
THAT WAS, THOSE WERE ALWAYS SEPARATE TAX LOTS.
UH, THAT, THAT, THAT WAS, UH, THAT'S NOT CORRECT.
UM, MR. GUPTA ALSO FAILED TO MENTION TO THE BOARD THAT HE OFFERED TO BUY, UH, MY CLIENT'S LOT, UM, FOR $30,000.
AND, UH, HE DIDN'T, UH, MY CLIENT OBVIOUSLY DECIDED NOT TO SELL IT.
AND SO NOW THERE'S A CAMPAIGN TO STOP THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS, OF THIS LOT.
UH, I'D LIKE TO READ SPECIFICALLY FROM THE MEMORANDUM FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERV AND CONSERVATION, WHICH SAYS, AND YOU KNOW, UM, UH, I'M GOING DOWN THE, UH, THE, THE, THE PARAGRAPH HERE.
BUT BASICALLY THE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO EXCEED THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN CODE, THE INCLUSION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE DRIVEWAY, AND THE ADDITION OF LANDSCAPING REPRESENTING SIGNIFICANT UPGRADE OVER EXISTING CONDITIONS.
SO, AGAIN, I'LL REPEAT THIS IS GOING TO IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S NOT GOING TO DEVALUE THE PROPERTY, AND IN FACT, IT'S GOING TO MAKE THE AREA BETTER.
UM, WHAT MY CLIENT DID WITH THIS PROPERTY BEFORE IS IRRELEVANT.
UM, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE INVEST IN REAL ESTATE ALL THE TIME.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
UM, WHAT ELSE IS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED ON THIS LOT? NOTHING.
SO IT'S NOT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS ONE OF THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE IT'S NOT ABOUT, OH, OTHER THINGS CAN BE DEVELOPED.
THIS IS A SITUATION WHERE IT'S, NOTHING CAN BE DEVELOPED ANYTIME AT ANY PLACE HERE.
AND BY THE WAY, ZONING BOARDS ARE CREATED WHEN, UH, LOTS LIKE THIS, WHICH, YOU KNOW, WERE CREATED NON-CONFORMING.
AND THE ZONING BOARD IS HERE TO PROVIDE RELIEF TO THE, TO THE CURRENT, UH, ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE SEWER LINE, WE, WE WENT OVER THIS, UH, THE LAST TIME WE MET.
UH, AND OBVIOUSLY THIS, THIS MATTER HAS BEEN ADJOURNED AND HAS BEEN PUT OVER, UH, FOR, FOR OTHER REASONS.
UM, SOMETIMES THERE WASN'T A QUORUM SOMETIMES IN THE SUMMER, BUT, UM, WE HAD GONE OVER IT.
UH, UH, BUT I JUST, I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CHARACTERIZATION OF WHY IT'S BEEN ADJOURNED AND, AND, AND THE CHARACTERIZATION OF THE CLIENT.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, IT'S STARTING TO GET, IT'S STARTING TO GET A LITTLE, UM, INSULTING IN FACT, AND, AND THIS SHOULDN'T BE VITRIOL, ALRIGHT? THIS IS NOT ABOUT A PERSONAL, UM, ASPECT.
THIS IS ABOUT WHAT IS ALLOWED, WHAT, WHAT CAN BE ALLOWED AND, AND WHAT'S PROVIDED FOR IN, IN THE DEEDED IN TERMS OF WHAT CAN BE CREATED ON THIS LOT.
UM, NOW I DO WANT TO GO BACK AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT MR. CIANO MENTIONED BEFORE ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS APPEALABLE, WHETHER THE, THE, THE BOARD HAS JURISDICTION, FIRST OF ALL, ONLY A COURT CAN DETERMINE THAT, ALRIGHT? WE'RE NOT GONNA LITIGATE, UH, THAT ISSUE.
BUT THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME THAT THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE TOWN.
IN FACT, IN UM, 2021, WHEN THE APPLICANT FIRST, UM, APPLIED FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT, SUBMITTED A LETTER SPECIFICALLY STATING WHAT WE'RE STATING HERE THAT THIS LOT IS A BUILDABLE LOT.
IT WAS CREATED FOR THAT SPECIFIC PURPOSE.
AND THAT'S WHY, UM, THERE WERE APPLYING FOR THE BUILDING PERMIT.
UH, THAT PROCESS ALSO STARTED WHILE THE APPLICANT OWNED 57 ARGO.
SO AGAIN, WHILE THAT'S IRRELEVANT AS TO, YOU KNOW, WHAT MY, WHAT THE APPLICANT DID WITH PROPERTIES, OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HE OWNED, AND WHETHER OR NOT HE MADE MONEY FROM IT.
I MEAN, I DON'T SEE, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT'S A FACTOR.
IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH, UM, GRANTING, UH, A VARIANCE OR ADDRESSING THE APPEAL, WHICH IS THE FIRST THING THAT WE'RE, THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
SO ALL I CAN SAY IS THIS, UM, DENYING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS HOUSE WILL NOT HELP THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'LL HURT IT BECAUSE NOTHING, NOTHING ELSE WILL EVER GO UP THERE.
UH, THIS LOT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE A HOUSE ON IT AND IT WILL IMPROVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
OKAY, MOVING ON TO THE NEXT CASE.
ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, THIS CASE, SORRY, JUST 10, 10 SECONDS.
UH, THE PROBLEM WITH MR. FIX'S ARGUMENT ON JURISDICTION IS THAT YOU'RE AN APPELLATE BOARD, NOT A BOARD OF ORIGINAL JURISDICTION.
THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WAS NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY WAS NEVER PROVIDED, THE DEEDS NEVER PROVIDED MR. FIX'S ARGUMENTS, LEGAL ARGUMENTS.
SO HE WAS NEVER GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DETERMINATION WHETHER OR NOT VARIANCES ARE NEEDED.
BECAUSE OF THAT, HE, HE SENT THE APPLICANT TO YOUR BOARD TO GET TWO VARIANCES.
SO IF MR. FIX REALLY BELIEVES IN THIS THEORY, HE SHOULD MAKE A SUBMISSION TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND SAY, HERE'S MY, HERE ARE THE DEEDS, HERE'S MY LEGAL ARGUMENTS.
[00:55:01]
IT'S THE UP TO THE BILLING INSPECTOR TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL RULING, MAKE A RULING, MR. BILLING INSPECTOR THAT WE DON'T NEED ANY VARIANCES.BUT UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, YOUR BOARD HAS NO JURISDICTION TO HEAR THAT ARGUMENT.
ARE WE DONE? JUST ONE, ONE LAST THING.
UM, THAT'S, WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT.
AND IN FACT, UM, BESIDES THE FACT THAT THE, THE, UH, THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY WROTE TO THE TOWN ATTORNEY FOR A, UH, FOR DETERMINATION, UM, AND WE'RE HERE, UM, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T GET ONE FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY AND WE DIDN'T, UH, AND OBVIOUSLY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DIDN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE LANGUAGE OF THE DEEDED WHEN HE MADE THAT DETERMINATION.
UM, THAT'S WHAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS HERE TO DO.
UH, EITHER IT'S, IT'S AS OF RIGHT AND IT'S NOT.
AND BY THE WAY, WE'RE, I THINK THERE'S A DISTINCTION THAT WE SHOULD, UH, THAT WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT HERE.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO GRANDFATHER, UH, THERE WAS NO, THIS WASN'T A GRANDFATHER.
THIS WAS GRANTED BY THE DEEDED.
AND THAT'S WHAT OUR POSITION IS.
UM, IF THAT'S, IF, IF THE BOARD OBVIOUSLY, UM, DISAGREES WITH THAT, THEN WE HAVE A CLEAR CASE FOR WHY THE VARIANCES SHOULD BE GRANTED.
AND THAT'S ALL IN OUR SUBMISSIONS.
I WON'T BELABOR THE POINT AND I WON'T REPEAT IT, BUT IT'S ALL THERE IN OUR LETTERS, UM, IN OUR SUBMISSIONS THAT WE'VE PROVIDED BEFORE.
SO WE THANK THE BOARD FOR ITS TIME.
NOW OUR NEXT CASE THIS EVENING IS CASE 2229, RAYMOND TKI.
MY NAME IS SHAHEEN BED TO WILSON PLACE MEMBER IN NEW YORK, 1 0 5 5 OH REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, RAY KY.
SO WE HAVE BEFORE YOU THE APPLICATION, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AND APPROVED IN 2007 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A DECK IN THE REAR YARD OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
UH, UH, AN EXTENSION OF AN EXISTING DECK, UH, AT, OF REAR OF OUR HOME, AS WELL AS THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STAIRCASE ADJACENT TO THAT DECK, AN EXTERIOR STAIRCASE.
UM, I'D ALSO LIKE TO MENTION THAT AS A PART OF THE SCOPE OF WORK, UH, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING TO PLANT BETWEEN 12 AND 14 GREEN ARBOR OF ID TREES SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY, AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL SITE PLAN WAS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD TO DISPLAY THAT.
UM, I'D ALSO LIKE TO MENTION FOR THE BOARD'S INFORMATION FOR THE RECORD, THAT WE DID, UH, SUBMIT A CONSENT LETTER FROM 40 MOUNTAIN ROAD, UH, 44 MOUNTAIN ROAD AND 32 MOUNTAIN ROAD.
UH, AND I'D LIKE TO MAKE AWARE FOR THE BOARD'S INFORMATION THAT 44 MOUNTAIN ROAD IS THE LOT DIRECTLY BEHIND THE HOUSE AND THEREFORE ADJACENT TO THE REAR YARD OF THE HOUSE.
UM, I'D ALSO, UH, BRIEFLY LIKE TO TOUCH BASE ON THE PREVIOUS, UH, UH, POINT, UH, UH, FINDING OF FACTS FROM THE ZONING BOARD DECISION IN 2007 STATING THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL NOT RESULT IN A DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES AND WILL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE CHARACTER, PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT.
THE HILLY TERRAIN IS SUCH THAT THE NEIGHBORS CANNOT SEE THE DECK THAT WILL BE BUILT.
THE GOAL OF THE APPLICANT CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY SOME OTHER FEASIBLE MEANS WITHOUT REQUESTING THE VARIANCE WE ARE, UH, REQUESTED.
THE REQUESTED VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL IN RELATION TO THE REQUIREMENT TO BE SOUGHT.
HOWEVER, WHILE THE VARIANCE MIGHT OTHERWISE APPEAR TO BE SUBSTANTIAL QUANTITATIVELY, ITS IMPACT IS MITIGATED BY THE FACT THAT THE HILLY TERRAIN WILL SCREEN THE ENLARGED DECK.
THE APPLICANT'S NEED FOR THE VARIANCE IS SELF-CREATED BECAUSE HE PURCHASED THE PROPERTY WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
HOWEVER, THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT'S DIFFICULTY IS SELF-CREATED DOES NOT BY ITSELF PRECLUDE THE BOARD OF DENYING AN AREA OF VARIANCE.
UM, WITH THAT, UH, I ALSO JUST WANNA, UH, UH, REASSERT THAT THE PLANTINGS WILL PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT SCREENING, UH, TO BOTH THE DECK AND THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AND THAT EXISTING TREES THAT WERE REMOVED OFF OF THE PROPERTY, UH, WE'VE SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION CERTIFYING THAT THEY WERE, UH, NOT ONLY DISEASED, BUT ALSO A FIRE HAZARD TO THE PROPERTY.
AND THAT THESE NEW PLANTINGS WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT UPGRADE.
UM, TO, TO BOTH THIS PROPERTY AND THE THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
UH, WE'VE SUBMITTED SOME PICTURES AS A PART OF OUR SUBMISSION JUST TO DISPLAY, UH, BOTH THE AREAS THAT THE DECK EXPANSION IS GONNA BE.
AND WITHIN THAT PICTURES YOU'LL NOTICE THAT THE POSTS HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN SITTING THERE FOR QUITE SOME TIME, UH, FROM THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL.
AND THAT JUST KIND OF DISPLAYS THE EXTENSION.
AND THERE'S ALSO A PICTURE DISPLAYING OF THE LOCATION OF THE PLANTINGS, UH, WITH A DASHED LINE ALONG THE HOUSE.
UM, AND, AND THE LAST PICTURE, UH, THE LAST, UH, UH, SET OF PICTURES IS JUST DISPLAYING, UH, THE INTERACTION OF THE PROPERTY, UH, WITH THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS AND, AND HOW THEY RELATE TO THE PROPERTY.
[01:00:01]
ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE.ANY QUESTIONS? UM, YOU SAID YOU'RE PLANTING, YOU SAID YOU'RE PLANTING FIVE FOOT TREES.
WE'RE PLANTING THEM AT FIVE FEET AND THEY'RE SCHEDULED TO GROW UP TO, UH, APPROXIMATELY 20 TO 25 FEET BASED ON THEIR SPACING.
AND THERE'S BETWEEN 12 AND 14 TREES TO BE PLANTED.
AND WHAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THIS DECK? OFF THE GRADE? LEMME PULL THAT UP RIGHT NOW.
ROUGHLY EIGHT FEET FROM THE GROUND? CORRECT.
UM, BUT I, I WILL REMIND THE BOARD THAT THE, THE, THE TERRAIN DOES SLOPE UPWARDS TOWARDS THE BACK.
JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THEY COVER.
UM, AND, AND THAT THE, THE HEIGHT WILL NOT BE, UH, CHANGED FROM THE PICTURE THAT SHOWS THE EXISTING DECK THAT IS THERE.
NOW HOW LARGE WILL THE OVERALL DECK BE? THE AREA? YES, I DO HAVE THAT DIMENSION RIGHT HERE.
TWO HUNDRED EIGHTY TWO HUNDRED AND EIGHTY SQUARE FEET.
ONE MORE QUESTION ON THE GROUND UNDERNEATH THE DECK.
UM, WE CURRENTLY HAVE SOME TOP TILE STONES OR SOMETHING, PAVER PAVERS.
WHAT WILL BE UNDER THE ENLARGED DECK? SAME.
AND, AND WILL THAT BE PERVIOUS OR IMPERVIOUS? UH, MA'AM, IF YOU SPEAK, YOU SHOULD COME UP TO THE PODIUM.
PLEASE JUST QUICKLY IDENTIFY YOURSELF.
IT'S JUST THE SLIDERS OUT OF OUR BASEMENT.
IT'S JUST THE SLIDER OUTSIDE OF OUR BASEMENT AND IT'S JUST A SMALL PAVER AREA.
WE'RE NOT GONNA CHANGE ANYTHING THERE.
ARE YOU MAKING THE PAVER AREA TO BE AS LARGE AS THE NEW DECK? NO.
LEAVING IT JUST THE WAY IT'S THE BUILDER.
WHEN WE BUILT THE HOUSE YEARS AGO THERE, THERE SEEMS TO BE, UH, QUITE A BIT OF, UM, CONTENTION ABOUT PRIVACY.
UM, IS IT PRIVACY FROM YOUR NEIGHBORS NOT WANTING TO SEE WHAT YOU'RE DOING ON YOUR EXPANDED DECK OR PRIVACY OF YOUR NEIGHBORS, UM, FROM YOU LOOKING UP, DOWN ON THEIR PROPERTY? I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE NATURE OF THE WAY THE HOUSES.
MAY I PLEASE COME UP TO THE PODIUM? OH, I'M SORRY.
IT'S THE NATURE OF THE WAY THE HOUSES ARE BUILT.
OUR HOUSE IS UP THE HILL AND WE'VE ALWAYS, FOR THE PAST 21 YEARS LOOKED DOWN.
I MEAN, IT'S A SMALL LITTLE AREA RIGHT NOW WE ONLY CAN BARBECUE AND WE HAVE TWO CHAIRS OUT THERE, BUT I, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE PRIVACY.
THEY CAN SEE US, WE COULD SEE THEM.
THAT'S ONE OF WHAT I WAS TRYING TO ALLUDE TO.
UH, I WAS WONDERING WHY THE TREES WERE, WERE, UH, TAKEN DOWN AND I HEARD THAT THEY WERE DISEASED AND THAT WAS WHY YOU HAD TO BRING THEM DOWN, TAKE THEM DOWN.
THEY WERE PLANTED TOO CLOSE TOGETHER, AND THEY WERE ALL DEAD AT THE BOTTOM.
THEY WERE THESE SHALLOW ROOTED WHITE PINES.
THE BUILDER PUT THEM UP AND THEN THE TOP OF THEM WERE STILL ALIVE AND THEN IN OUR GUTTERS AND EVERY OTHER ONE WAS DEAD.
SO INSTEAD OF LOOKING LIKE TOOTHPICKS,
THE ARBORETUM WOULD BE A NICER LOOK.
I COULD BRIEF, I COULD BRIEFLY SUMMARIZE THE LETTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED IF, IF, UH, RELEVANT.
UH, IN REGARDS TO THE TREES, UH, NO, I, NO, I READ THE, UH, THE LETTER.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE TO WHAT IMPORTANCE THE PRIVACY ISSUE IS.
SO, UM, I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE PROBLEM WITH PRIVACY.
[01:05:01]
I MAY GO AHEAD SASH.SO, SO I DO WANNA MENTION THAT WE, UH, I, I, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD HAVE THE MOST IMPACT DID PROVIDE CONSENT TO US, WHICH WOULD BE THE REAR PROPERTY AT 44.
AND, UH, I'M, I'M SORRY, THE REAR PROPERTY AT 40 AND THE ONE ADJACENT TO THE DECK AT THE SIDE, WHICH IS 40, UH, OKAY.
ONE BELOW AND AND BELOW, BUT THE PROPERTY'S NOT SO MUCH VISIBLE FROM THE, FROM THE DECK AT THAT LEVEL.
UM, AND I BELIEVE WE, WE MAY HAVE ONE OPPOSING NEIGHBOR, BUT ASIDE FROM THAT ONE OPPOSING NEIGHBOR.
I, I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE CONSENT FROM THE MOST IMPACTED PARTIES, AND THAT THE SIGNIFICANT PLANTINGS THAT WE'RE PROPOSING WILL MITIGATE, UH, ANY FURTHER ISSUES TO PRIVACY.
UM, AND IS IT NECESSARY THAT THE PRIVACY BE RESOLVED WITH PLANTINGS OR CAN IT NOT BE, UM, RAILINGS THAT ARE NOT TRANSPARENT, BUT IN FACT SOLID OF SOME SORT THAT WOULD PREVENT OH, GOT HIM EXCITED.
SO MY WIFE SUSAN, UH, FIRST OF ALL, I WAS SHOCKED TO HEAR ABOUT CAROL.
YOU KNOW, SHE WENT AHEAD AND HELPED GUIDE THROUGH THE PROCESS, WHICH WE'VE NEVER BEEN THROUGH.
SO I WANT TO EXPRESS MY HEARTFELT CONDOLENCES.
I WAS AMAZED TO HEAR THAT, BUT SUCH AS LIFE SOMETIMES.
BUT, UH, JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW, UM, LISTEN, UH, WE UNDERSTAND THE PRIVACY CONCERNS.
AND, AND QUITE SIMPLY, THERE IS TREMENDOUS GROWTH DURING THE SUMMER AND FALL AND SPRING.
SO, REALLY, THE LEAVES THAT ARE GENERATED BY THE NEIGHBOR'S HOMES MORE THAN ADEQUATELY, YOU CAN'T SEE THROUGH THEM WHEN THEY ARE FULLY BLOSSOMED AS THEY WERE THIS SPRING, SUMMER, AND FALL WHEN WINTER COMES, CERTAINLY THEY BECOME BARE.
UH, I WOULD SIMPLY SAY THAT, UM, PRIVACY IS A TWO-WAY STREET, AND WE UNDERSTAND OUR NEIGHBORS AND WE RESPECT THAT.
WE FEEL WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 21 YEARS.
I DON'T THINK THERE'S EVER BEEN ANY ISSUE ABOUT THAT.
UM, THERE ARE SOME, AND I, I, I DON'T THINK THE BOARD TAKES THE TIME TO COME AND VISIT, BUT YOU WILL SEE THAT THERE ARE TREMENDOUSLY MATURE TREES THAT OUR NEIGHBOR HAS THAT MORE THAN ADEQUATELY PROVIDES A VERY ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF PRIVACY UNTIL THE, UM, THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE FALL COMES AND, AND THE LEAVES GO.
UM, WE JUST WANT TO ENJOY A LITTLE DECK SPACE AND PUT A TABLE OUT AND EAT DINNER.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE PUTTING A, A POOL OR ANYTHING.
AND I THINK WE'RE VERY, UH, UH, UH, RESPECTFUL OF EVERYONE'S PRIVACY.
WE DON'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME, OUR KIDS ARE FULLY GROWN.
IT'S JUST MY WIFE AND I, AND SOMETIMES WE HAVE COMPANY.
WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO ENJOY A LITTLE OUTDOOR SPACE.
UM, AS FAR AS ADDING ANYTHING, UH, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, PUT SOME LAT, I MEAN, I GUESS WE COULD PUT SOME LAT WE WERE PLANNING ON PUTTING SOME LATTICE ON UP, BUT, YOU KNOW, I, I REALLY DON'T KNOW HOW THAT'S GONNA LOOK OR REALLY WORK.
WELL, IT DOES GET WINDY AND THERE ARE ASPECTS OF EXTENSIONS OF, OF OTHER HARD, UH, YOU KNOW, HARDWARE AND, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION THINGS.
BUT I, IT'S, IT'S JUST A SIMPLE DECK AND I'M NO, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT.
AND WE ARE TRYING TO, TRYING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ONLY LOOKING AT THE REQUIREMENTS AND THE PARAMETERS OF THE ZONING.
AND WHEN WE GET A LETTER FROM A NEIGHBOR SURE, THAT'S CONCERNED ABOUT PRIVACY, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
I WOULD RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT THE BACK OF THEIR HOUSE IS APPROXIMATELY A HUNDRED FEET AWAY FROM OUR DECK.
IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE BUILDING A DECK THAT'S NEXT DOOR TO THEIR HOUSE.
IF, AS YOU CAN SEE, I, WE TOOK TIME TO MAKE THOSE, THOSE PICTURES, WE HAVE CONCERNS AS WELL ABOUT MAYBE WHAT, YOU KNOW, WE SEE OR SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE NOT SO HAPPY ABOUT, BUT WE'RE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND WE TRY TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS, AND WE TRY TO LIVE TOGETHER.
AND I, I THINK THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING MUCH.
AND AS FAR AS PRIVACY CONCERNS GO, I, I MEAN, I, I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF RESPECTFUL NEIGHBORLY, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, PERMISSION THAT ANYONE WOULD PROBABLY LOOK AT AND SAY, YEAH, THAT'S REASONABLE.
THAT'S, I, WE ARE ABOVE, I MEAN, I, I, I UNDERSTAND THE FACT OUR HOUSE WAS BUILT HIGHER, AND WE DO OVERLOOK THEM AS WELL AS OTHER NEIGHBORS.
UH, MY OTHER NEIGHBOR WHO HAD SOLAR PANELS AND WAS MORE DIRECTLY AFFECTED FOR PRIVACY BECAUSE HE RENTS OUT PART OF HIS HOUSE AS WELL SAID, RAY, YOU KNOW, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT IF WE COULD DO SOMETHING THAT ACTUALLY LOOKS BETTER, AND QUITE FRANKLY, MITIGATES THE FACT THAT THOSE TREES WERE A FIRE HAZARD AND THE RETAINING WALL AND THE SUCH, THE AMOUNT OF SPACE THEY JUST BECAME SO OVERGROWN.
AND I, I SHOWED AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT OUR OTHER NEIGHBORS WHITE PINES LOOK LIKE.
[01:10:01]
THEY, THEY, THEY GET SCARY.THEY GET OVERGROWN, AND THEY, THEY NEST, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, OTHER, UM, YOU KNOW, SQUIRRELS AND IT BECOMES A, A PROBLEM WITH OVERGROWN TREES.
SO WE THINK WE, WE PRESENTED THE BOARD WITH A GREAT SOLUTION, SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA LOOK GOOD.
AND YES, THOSE TREES WILL GROW SOMEWHAT QUICKLY AND THEY WILL MITIGATE A, A, A FAIRLY GOOD PRIVACY BARRIER, BUT IT CAN TAKE A LITTLE TIME.
BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'LL PLANT, UH, UH, FOUR TO FIVE FOOT, UH, TREES, WHICH WILL GROW, I THINK, UH, QUITE WELL, PROVIDED THERE'S ENOUGH SUNLIGHT.
AND THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE THAT, UH, OUR NEIGHBORS TREES PRESENT.
THEY ARE VERY MATURE, OVERGROWN MAPLE TREES THAT DO INHIBIT, UH, THE GROWTH AND PROBABLY REASON WHY A LOT OF THOSE WHITE PINES DID DIE.
SO, UH, IT'S, I DON'T WANNA OVERCOMPLICATE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE? HI, GOOD EVENING.
I LIVE AT 30 MOUNTAIN ROAD, IRVINGTON, NEW YORK.
UH, BEFORE I START, UH, MY HUSBAND BOB, AND I, LIKE RAY AND OTHERS IN THE ROOM, REALLY WANNA EXPRESS OUR CONDOLENCES AND OUR SYMPATHIES.
UPON HEARING ABOUT CAROL'S PASSING, I'M SURE HER DEDICATION AND HARD WORK FOR THE TOWN WILL BE MISSED.
IN ADDITION TO THE RELATIONSHIP THAT YOU ALL HAVE HAD WITH HER, UM, MADAM CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD, THANK YOU FOR GIVING US THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE OUR REMARKS REGARDING THIS APPLICATION BY THE TKIS SEEKING APPROVAL FROM THE TOWN FOR THEIR DECK.
IN RESPONSE TO THE TKIS APPLICATION FOR THIS PROPOSED PROJECT, WE HAVE SUBMITTED TO YOU FACTS, LETTERS, AND PICTURES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE ZONING BOARD WITH SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND BROADER REPRESENTATION OF THE ISSUES THAT SURROUND THIS REQUEST.
WE DO KNOW AND UNDERSTAND THAT THE ZONING BOARD HAS A DIFFICULT JOB IN MAKING DECISIONS REGARDING PERMITS AND VARIANCES, BUT WE ARE CONFIDENT YOUR DECISIONS WILL BE BASED ON FACTS.
WE WOULD LIKE TO EXPRESS THOSE FACTS TO YOU THIS EVENING.
EVERYTHING STATED TONIGHT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN OUR SUBMITTED INFORMATION FOR YOUR REFERENCE.
BACK IN 2007, WE DID NOT OPPOSE THIS PERMIT BECAUSE WE HAD A LETTER AND ASSURANCE FROM THE TKIS THAT NO PRIVACY TREES WOULD BE CUT DOWN OR REMOVED FOR THIS CONSTRUCTION.
THIS WAS SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN.
IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THIS PRESENT NEW APPLICATION THAT NOTHING HAS CHANGED AND IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS THE 2007 REQUEST.
ACTUALLY, THE FACT IS, IN 2020, THE TKIS CUT DOWN AND REMOVED ALL 1920 FOOT TREES WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE TOWN, WITHOUT CONSULTING AN ARBORIST AND WITHOUT NOTIFYING THE NEIGHBORS.
IT IS A FACT BETWEEN TREES, ANY AND ALL OF OUR PRIVACY HAS BEEN ELIMINATED.
IT'S ALSO A FACT THAT AS A RESULT OF THIS TREMENDOUS TREE REMOVAL AND ITS NEGATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, WE RECEIVE WATER AND SOIL RUNOFF INTO OUR YARD AFTER IT RAINS.
IT IS INDEED A FACT THAT A LARGER DECK WITH A GREATER IMPERVIOUS SURFACE WILL CREATE EVEN MORE RAINFALL AND SOIL RUNOFF PROBLEMS. FOR US, IT IS, IT IS A FACT THAT A FOUR I, I'M FIVE FOOT THREE, FOUR TO FIVE FOOT TREE PLANTED TO REPLACE A 20 FOOT TREE WILL TAKE AT LEAST FIVE TO EIGHT YEARS, MAYBE LONGER FOR ANY OF THOSE TREES TO PROVIDE US WITH THE PRIVACY WE HAD ENJOYED AND LOST.
IT IS A FACT THAT THREE OF THE SKU'S NEIGHBORS DO NOT OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION AS STATED IN THEIR LETTERS TO THE ZONING BOARD, BECAUSE THIS APPLICATION DOES NOT IN ANY WAY AFFECT THEIR PROPERTIES.
ANOTHER FACT IS THAT ALESSANDRO RAFANELLI 32 MOUNTAIN ROAD ALSO DID NOT OPPOSE THIS APPLICATION.
[01:15:01]
MR. ELLI NO LONGER RESIDES AT THIS ADDRESS.HE HAS MOVED TO THE CATSKILLS AND HE HAS RENTED HIS HOME.
IT IS A FACT OUR HOME AND PROPERTY IS IMPACTED THE MOST.
IT IS ALSO A FACT AND MISLEADING THAT THE DECK CONSTRUCTION IS DESCRIBED AS BEING IN THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, WHEN IN FACT, THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DECK IS AN EXTENSION OF THE HOME'S FRONT PORCH THAT WRAPS AROUND THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE HOUSE LOOKING DIRECTLY DOWN INTO OUR YARD.
IF PERMISSION IS GRANTED FOR THIS APPLICATION, THE OVETT SKIS WILL ENJOY A LARGER DOCK, A LARGER DECK, AND A BETTER QUALITY OF LIFE.
IT'S ALSO A FACT, IF PERMISSION IS GRANTED AND APPROVED, WE WILL CONTINUE TO LOSE ANY PRIVACY.
WE ONCE HAD, WE WILL GET MORE AND MORE RAINWATER AND SOIL RUNOFF.
WE WILL HAVE TO WAIT YEARS FOR THE PROPOSED TREES TO REACH THE HEIGHT THAT RESTORES THE PRIVACY THAT WE HAD.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, WE WILL LOSE OUR QUALITY OF LIFE THAT WE'VE ENJOYED IN OUR HOME FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS.
BOTH BOB AND I HAVE BEEN PLACED INTO THIS EXTREMELY AWKWARD AND DISAPPOINTING SITUATION BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN NEIGHBORS.
WE DIDN'T ASK FOR THIS, BUT WE FEEL COMPELLED TO ADDRESS IT.
WE OPPOSE THE DECK EXTENSION PERMIT AND THE VARIANCE APPLICATIONS.
WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THE ZONING BOARD TO TAKE THESE FACTS INTO ACCOUNT IN RENDERING A JUST AND FAIR DECISION.
THANK YOU FOR THIS, FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.
IF THEY, EXCUSE ME BEFORE YOU GO, GO AHEAD.
NO, NO, I WAS JUST CALLING HER BACK SO YOU COULD ASK YOUR QUESTION,
UM, MY QUESTION IS, IF THEY WERE NOT TO EXTEND THE DECK, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE TREES HAVE BEEN REMOVED, WELL, LET ME ASK YOU THIS FIRST.
YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THE TREES ARE ON THEIR PROPERTY? YES.
AND IF THEY WERE NOT TO HAVE EXTENDED THE DECK, WOULD ANY USE OF THE DECK STILL CAUSE YOU TO FEEL THE WAY THAT YOU'RE EXPRESSING TONIGHT? WELL, THE TREES ARE GONE AND THEY'VE BEEN GONE FOR TWO YEARS.
THOSE TREES PROVIDED US THE PRIVACY THAT WE BOTH ENJOYED.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I'M JUST SAYING THAT I DON'T KNOW IF I COULD RELY UPON MY PRIVACY BASED SOLELY UPON SOMETHING THAT I REALLY DON'T HAVE CONTROL OVER.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE MY THINKING IS.
BUT I'M SAYING, IS IT, IS IT SOMETHING MORE INTRINSIC THAN THE DECK BEING? IS IT BECAUSE THE DECK IS BEING EXPANDED THAT IT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE? OR IF THE DECK STAYED THE WAY IT WAS AND SOMEHOW THEY WOULD MAKE USE OF IT, THAT WITH THE DECK BEING EXPANDED AS PER AS PROPOSED IN THIS PERMIT, THE, THE DECK OR THE THE ENLARGED DECK LOOMS DOWN OVER INTO OUR YARD.
HAD THE TREES REMAINED, I DON'T THINK THIS WOULD'VE BEEN AN ISSUE, BUT THE TREES WERE CUT DOWN.
I'M NOT SO SURE ABOUT THESE TREES THAT WERE TAKEN DOWN.
WE'VE SUBMITTED PICTURES THAT MAYBE SHOW OTHER, OTHERWISE THE PICTURES THAT MAYBE HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE OSKY SHOW NEIGHBORS TREES, THEY'RE SIMILAR TO THE TREES THAT WERE TAKEN DOWN.
THE ONLY SIMILARITY IS THAT THEY'RE WHITE PINES.
THEY'RE NOT THE TREES IN QUESTION.
MY QUESTION IS, IS A LITTLE BIT SIMPLER.
I'M LOOKING AT A PHOTOGRAPH, I'M ASSUMING YOU ACTUALLY SUBMITTED THIS FROM YOUR PROPERTY UP, LOOKING AT THE POSTS THAT ARE THERE MM-HMM.
SO I BELIEVE THE POSTS THAT ARE THERE IS WHAT THE PROPOSED DECK EXTENSION WOULD LOOK LIKE.
I BELIEVE THE FRONT PORCH IS GOING TO BE EXTENDED THAT FAR OUT.
AND IS THERE A PARTICULAR HEIGHT SIMILAR TO THE QUESTION THAT MY COLLEAGUE WAS ASKING IN TERMS OF THIS, WHAT I'LL CALL SCREENING? I WON'T GET CAUGHT UP IN WHAT TYPE OF TREE AT THIS POINT, BUT BECAUSE AES DO TEND TO KIND OF BLOSSOM, IF THEY'RE PLANTED AT ABOUT FOUR FOOT APART, THEY WILL PREVENT, THEY ACTUALLY CREATE ALMOST A HEDGE EFFECT.
UM, IS THERE A PARTICULAR HEIGHT THAT YOU'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH? I MEAN, BECAUSE I HAVE ONE THAT GROWS AT MY HOUSE, LITERALLY, IT'S PROBABLY LIKE
[01:20:01]
20 FEET TALL, TALLER THAN MY HOME AT THIS POINT.WELL, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WE ACTUALLY MET WITH RAY AND SUSAN ON MAY 5TH, 2022, BECAUSE THIS STARTED TO BECOME A BIG CONCERN.
BUT WE AGREED TO MEET AND WE HAD A FRIENDLY MEETING.
AND RAY BASICALLY SAID TO US, I'LL PLANT WHATEVER YOU WANT.
WHAT DO YOU WANT? PLANTED? BOB.
AND BOB IN HIS MANNER, SAID, I WANT A 20 FOOT TREE, BECAUSE THE TREES WERE TAKEN DOWN.
RAY SAID, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T DO THAT.
WE'RE NOT UNREASONABLE PEOPLE.
WE TRIED TO COMPROMISE WITH THEM.
WE SAID, LOOK, HE SAID, WHAT DO YOU WANT US TO DO? WHERE DO YOU WANT US TO PLANT TREES? SO WE TALKED ABOUT IT, WE SHOOK HANDS THINKING THAT WE'RE GOING TO COME TO SOME TYPE OF A COMPROMISE THAT WOULD WORK FOR BOTH OF US.
FIVE DAYS LATER, WE GOT A TEXT FROM RAY WITH THESE FOUR FOOT, FIVE FOOT ARBOR.
THIS IS WHAT I'M THINKING ABOUT DOING.
FOUR FOOT, FIVE FOOT, 20 FEET.
SO WE ENLISTED THE HELP OF A LANDSCAPER.
HE CAME OVER AND GAVE US HIS ADVICE.
HE DID AN ASSESSMENT AND GAVE US HIS OPINION.
AND WHAT DID HE SUGGEST IN TERMS OF HEIGHT OF THE, HIS SUGGESTION WAS A CERTAIN TYPE OF ARBOR, EIGHT TO 10 FEET TALL, AND MAYBE 10, EIGHT TO 10 TREES, DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE TREE.
THAT WOULD GIVE US A HEADSTART IN REGAINING AND RECLAIMING THE PRIVACY THAT WE HAD LOST AT, AT, AND ALSO THAT THE TKIS HAD LOST BY TAKING DOWN THESE OTHER TREES.
WE SENT THAT INFORMATION TO RAY, AND IN OUR DOCUMENTATION, HE SENT US BACK A TEXT THAT SAID, THANK YOU.
SO WE JUST ASSUMED MAYBE WE WOULD COME TO SOME TYPE OF A COMPROMISE.
AND THEN IN THE SPRING CONSTRUCTION STARTED, WHICH BASICALLY COMPELLED US TO SAY, WE REALLY BETTER TALK ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE WHAT'S GOING ON? I MEAN, THAT'S, IF THAT'S ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION, I HOPE I'VE ANSWERED IT.
ANY MORE QUESTIONS? I JUST HAD A QUICK QUESTION.
IT WAS BUILT IN 1869 AFTER THE CIVIL WAR.
I SO DO YOU HAVE A, WHAT DO YOU, WELL, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER.
DO YOU HAVE A DECK OFF OF YOUR OWN HOUSE? WE DO NOT HAVE A DECK.
DO YOU HAVE, I MEAN, WHERE DO YOU SIT OUTSIDE? WELL, ACTUALLY, UH, WE, WE STAY ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE BARN.
WE HAVE A LITTLE PATIO OUTSIDE OUR BACK DOOR.
THAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CAR? YES.
SO YOU, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT, UM, WE WOULD NORMALLY JUST BE CONSIDERING THE ZONING ASPECTS OF MM-HMM.
SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE GOING TO TAKE YOUR CONCERNS ABOUT PRIVACY INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE CONSIDER THIS APPLICATION.
UM, WE, WE ARE ALL HOMEOWNERS AND NEIGHBOR, AND WE HAVE NEIGHBORS AND WE HAVE PRIVACY ISSUES OR DON'T HAVE PRIVACY ISSUES.
UM, YOU KNOW, I HAVE PRI I HAVE NEIGHBORS ON THREE SIDES OF MY PROPERTY.
I HAVE PLENTY OF PRIVACY AGAINST TWO OF MY NEIGHBORHOOD NEIGHBORS.
BUT THE THIRD ONE, THERE'S NOTHING THAT I CAN DO ABOUT IT.
BUT THAT DOESN'T PREVENT ME FROM ENJOYING A LIFESTYLE THAT MY WIFE AND MY FAMILY, YOU KNOW, CAN ENJOY.
SO I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS LACK OF PRIVACY.
IF WE WANNA HAVE PEOPLE OVER, WE EITHER SIT AT OUR LITTLE PICNIC TABLE OR WE EAT IN OUR OTHER YARD.
WE HAPPEN TO OWN TWO PROPERTIES ON MOUNTAIN ROAD.
AND WE DID THAT PRETTY MUCH DURING THE SUMMER.
WE DIDN'T REALLY DO MUCH DURING COVID BECAUSE THE TREES WERE CUT DOWN DURING COVID.
AND I APPRECIATE YOUR, THE BOARD TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT THESE FACTS IN RENDERING A FAIR AND JUST DECISION.
SO, IF TREES WERE PLANTED OF SOME
[01:25:01]
SORT, DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD HELP MITIGATE THE RUNOFF THAT YOU SAID THAT YOU'RE EXPERIENCING NOW? WELL, IT WOULD DEPEND ON BASICALLY THE, THE SIZE OF THE TREE.I MEAN, IF YOU'RE STARTING OUT WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND YOU'RE REPLACING SOMETHING THAT WAS 20 FEET TALL, I MEAN, I DON'T HAVE THE, THE FORMULA IN TERMS OF ABSORPTION AND WHAT A FOUR FOOT TREE CAN DO COMPARED TO A 20 FOOT TREE.
BUT IT'S GOTTA BE LESS, A 20 FOOT TREE'S GONNA ABSORB MORE.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M SURE THERE IS A, AN ALGORITHM, UH, A HYDROLOGIST COULD PROBABLY PROVIDE THAT.
BUT YEAH, I THINK A LARGER TREE WOULD HELP MITIGATE THE, THE WATER COMING INTO THE YARD AND THE SOIL RUNOFF THAT WE HAVE.
SO YOU, YOU UNDERSTAND THAT PLANTING A LARGER TREE IS NUMBER ONE MORE EXPENSIVE? OH, WE, WE DO KNOW THAT.
NUMBER TWO, A GREATER CHANCE OF FAILURE.
SO WHEN YOU PLANT A SMALLER TREE AND ALLOW IT TO MATURE MM-HMM.
BUT THEN YOU ALSO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE FIVE, 10 YEARS BEFORE IT'S EVER GOING TO GET ANYWHERE NEAR THE 15 TO 20 FOOT HEIGHT THAT THE PREVIOUS TREES WERE.
SO THE, THE, THE PROBLEM STARTED WHEN THE TREES WERE CUT DOWN? THAT IS CORRECT.
BUT THE PRIVACY PROBLEM STARTED THAT IS CORRECT.
WHEN THE TREES WERE CUT DOWN, BECAUSE WE WERE GIVEN AN ASSURANCE THAT THEY WOULDN'T, WHICH WAS WHY BACK IN 2007 WE DIDN'T OPPOSE THIS PERMIT.
BECAUSE WE, WE WERE TRUSTWORTHY.
WE BELIEVED, AND WE WERE ASSURED THAT THEY WOULDN'T BE CUT DOWN.
YES, THINGS HAPPENED TO TREES, BUT OUR PICTURES CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THE TREES LOOKED PRETTY GOOD TO US.
YES, IT'S OPEN FOR DEBATE, BUT WAS THERE EVER A PROFESSIONAL EVALUATION OF THE TREES TO DETERMINE THIS, THAT, AND THE OTHER THING? AND IF IT WAS EVERY OTHER TREE THAT WAS AFFECTED, THEN WHY DID ALL THE TREES HAVE TO BE CUT DOWN? IF EIGHT TREES WERE AFFECTED, OR SEVEN TREES WERE AFFECTED, OR 10 TREES WERE AFFECTED, WHY WERE THE OTHER ONES CUT DOWN? I, I MEAN, THESE ARE QUESTIONS AND THOUGHTS THAT WE'VE HAD FOR A WHILE.
MY HUSBAND AND I HAVE ARGUED ABOUT IT.
WE'RE TRYING TO, WE'RE TRYING TO REALLY REASON ALL OF THIS OUT.
IT'S NOT THAT WE DON'T WANT THEM TO NOT HAVE A DECK AND, AND, AND NOT DO THIS, BUT WITH THE ASSURANCE THEY GAVE US BACK IN 2007 THAT THEY WOULDN'T, AND NOW IT'S DONE.
HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE FIX IT? AND BECAUSE OF THESE FACTS THAT I'VE, THAT I'VE MENTIONED TONIGHT, I, WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO OPPOSE IT.
UM, I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING.
I, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THE BOARD AWARE OF, OF JUST TWO PIECES OF INFORMATION.
UM, NUMBER ONE, THAT THE EASTERN WHITE PINE DOES HAVE A FUNGAL DISEASE THAT IS SPREADING GENERALLY IN THE NORTHEAST.
AND THAT, UM, THERE'S A GENERAL PERCEPTION THAT THESE TREES ARE NOT, UH, GOING TO BE HEALTHY IN THE LONG TERM.
THE SECOND THING I'D LIKE TO MENTION IS THAT THE PLAN THAT WE SUBMITTED, UM, SPECIFIES THAT WE WOULD PLANT TREES AT APPROXIMATELY FIVE FOOT HEIGHT AND THAT THEY WOULD GROW BETWEEN THREE AND FIVE FEET A YEAR.
SO I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION.
SO BOARD, THEY WOULD BE PLANTED AT FIVE FEET AND THAT THE AVERAGE HEIGHT OF GROWTH IS THREE TO FIVE FEET PER YEAR.
WHICH PARTICULAR AVID WERE YOU LOOKING AT? OKAY, SURE.
EVERYONE SEEMS TO LIKE THE GIANT ALL OF A SUDDEN.
SO, UM, IF WE CONDITION THE APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WITH THE PLANTING OF THESE, THAT WILL NOT BE A PROBLEM? ABSOLUTELY NOT.
IT'S OUR INTENT TO DO SO, UH, IS TO, TO PROVIDE THE PLANTINGS AND, AND WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE, WE ALL UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT PEOPLE SAY THEY'RE GOING TO DO, PLEASE.
BUT WHEN WE CONDITION IT, THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE.
WE WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO CONDITION IT, PLEASE.
AND HOW, IS THERE A SPECIFIC NUMBER OF TREES THAT WOULD BE GOING IN 12? 12 AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW? HE SAID 16.
OH, AND HOW ABOUT THE HEIGHT PLAN? SAYS 16.
WE, WE'D REQUEST TO PLANT THEM AT A FIVE FOOT HEIGHT WITH THAT
[01:30:01]
AVERAGE GROWTH RATE OF THREE TO FIVE FEET PER YEAR.WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE TO SAY? YOUR PLAN SAYS 16 TREES.
UM, WITH RESPECT TO MY NEIGHBOR, THERE WAS APPROXIMATELY SIX TREES THAT CONSTITUTED THEIR PRIVACY WITH AN ADDITIONAL 10 THAT WERE MORE FOR OUR OTHER NEIGHBOR WHO I CONSULTED DIRECTLY WITH.
UM, UH, THE ELLIS STILL OWN THAT HOUSE.
THEY HAVE A PLACE UP IN THE CATSKILLS.
THEY'RE VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THE PRIVACY AS WELL.
BUT WE HAD, I THINK, A, A REASONABLE SOLUTION.
LISTEN, PLANTING THOSE TREES IS A LABOR INTENSIVE THING.
SO MUCH TO WHAT YOU HAD SAID, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO DIG OUT AND, AND STUMP OUT AND REPLANT THE ARBOR, WHICH WILL GROW QUITE WELL, GIVEN THE, WE HAVE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM, SO THEY'LL BE WATERED.
UM, I'M GOING TO, I SHOOK HANDS WITH THE HEAVENS.
I'M GOING, I PLAN, I'M A MAN OF MY WORD.
NOT ONLY BECAUSE I MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH HIM, BUT I ALSO MADE AN AGREEMENT WITH ELLIS.
I MEAN, IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO, AND I I'M GONNA DO THE RIGHT THING.
THOSE TREES THAT WE TOOK DOWN WERE A FIRE HAZARD.
THEY WERE A CONDUIT FOR SQUIRRELS IN OUR ATTICS, MOLD AND MILDEW.
AND, UH, THEY WERE, THEY WERE JUST DEAD.
SO THE PRIVACY THAT THEY OFFERED WERE NOTHING MORE THAN BROWN STICKS.
THAT'S WHY I SHOWED YOU THE PICTURE OF OUR NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE.
THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE ON THE OTHER SIDE.
BUT WE'RE GOOD NEIGHBORS AND I THINK WE'RE GOOD NEIGHBORS.
SO IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, I'M MORE THAN YEAH.
WOULD YOU BE, WOULD YOU BE OPPOSED TO AN EIGHT TO 10 FOOT ARBOR BITTY? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I MEAN, PLANTING 10, GETTING 10 FOOT TREES, GOING TO THE NURSERY AND BUYING 10 FOOT TREES, I WOULD OFFER THE HENS, UH, THE ABILITY TO PAY FOR THAT EXTRA, BECAUSE IT WILL BE FAR MORE LABORIOUS TO DIG THAT YOU'RE GONNA, I'M GONNA NEED A MACHINE, WHICH I REALLY CAN'T GET IN.
I MEAN, A, A FOUR TO FIVE FOOT TREE IS SOMETHING THAT I CAN DO WITH, WITH MANUAL LABOR WITH MY BOYS AND PROBABLY SOME EXTRA HELP.
I, I CAN, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, STUMP, UH, GRIND OUT WHAT'S THERE.
UM, AND THEY'RE GONNA GROW A LOT BETTER.
THE BIGGER ONES HAVE A MUCH LARGER, SO YOU ACTUALLY, YOU ACTUALLY GONNA DO THE STUMP GRINDING YOURSELF? ARE YOU GONNA RENT A GRIND THERE? YEAH.
I MEAN THAT, BY THE WAY, THAT'S, THAT'S JUST FOR PURE AESTHETIC PURPOSES.
UM, IT, THE ACCOUNT DOESN'T LOOK THAT GOOD.
IT'S, THERE'S REALLY NO NEED FOR ME TO DO A STUMP GRIND OTHER THAN I JUST WOULD PREFER TO HAVE A NICE FLAT SURFACE.
SO I'LL GO TO HOME DEPOT AND DO A STUMP GRIND.
IF YOU DON'T GET THE STUMPS OUT, HOW ARE YOU GONNA PLANT THE BALLS? WELL, THEY'LL GO IN BETWEEN WHAT'S THERE.
SO THERE'S, THERE IS ADEQUATE SPACE TO GO AHEAD AND, AND, AND, AND PUT THE ARBOR VIDA.
UH, AND THEY'LL BE MORE THAN HEALTHY AND GROW.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CREATING A SCREEN.
'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE, THE WHITE PINES THAT WERE THERE KIND OF BLOSSOMED OUT A LITTLE BIT.
THE GIANT KIND OF GROWS IN A TRIANGULAR ASPECT.
IF YOU PLAN ON PLANTING THEM FIVE FOOT APART, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.
BUT IS THERE GONNA BE FIVE FOOT IN BETWEEN AND THEN THERE'S A STUMP, AND THEN THERE'S GONNA NOW BE A GAP OF THREE FEET WHERE IT'S GOING TO LEAVE AN OPEN SPACE.
SO MY THOUGHTS ARE IS IF YOU'RE CREATING SCREENING, I'M THINKING ALMOST IN A HEDGE TYPE CAPACITY.
AND THAT'S WHY MY COLLEAGUE WAS ASKING ABOUT POSSIBLY A LATTICE OR WHATEVER THE CASE.
I'M NOT AS MAYBE IN FAVOR OF THE LATTICE, BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO PROPOSE SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GONNA MAKE A CONDITION, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT ALL PARTIES THAT ARE HERE TODAY, THAT WE'RE MAKING A CONCERTED EFFORT TO ENSURE THAT IT'S AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, AS, UH, THE PROVERBIAL BIBLE SAY, WE'RE CUTTING A BABY IN HALF, THAT EVERYBODY'S GETTING SOMETHING FROM WHAT'S HERE.
SO RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE NOT PROFESSIONALLY HAVING THESE, THESE STUMPS GROUND OUT.
YOU'RE GONNA DO IT YOURSELF, WHICH I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
BUT IF YOU'RE GONNA LITERALLY PLANT THEM FIVE FOOT APART, WHETHER IT'S 12 OR WHETHER IT'S 14, I'M NOT REALLY CAUGHT UP WITH THAT JUST YET.
THE NEIGHBOR THAT IS HERE TONIGHT IS ASKING THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A DEGREE OF PRIVACY, WHICH WOULD BE CREATED BY THAT SCREENING.
AND A TALLER TREE WOULD GROW A LITTLE BIT FASTER.
AND EVEN IF IT WASN'T 10, IF IT WAS EIGHT, IF IT WAS SIX, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT YOUR LATITUDE WOULD BE TO HELP EASE THIS.
SO YOU REALIZED THAT A 10 FOOT ATI IS ABOUT THREE? I SAID, I SAID EIGHT.
I SAID WE GO EIGHT, SIX, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ABOUT 300, $350.
WHEREAS IF I GO AHEAD AND I BUY THE BULK OF THE FOUR TO FIVE FOOT GREEN GIANTS, I, I GET ALL THOSE FOR ABOUT $1,500.
AND THAT'S MORE THAN I WANNA SPEND.
UM, IF MY NEIGHBOR'S CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING A MORE MATURE, UH, MATURE TREE ON THE CORNER, ONCE AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT PLAN, THERE'S ONLY A SMALL AREA THAT REALLY CONSTITUTES THEIR PRIVACY.
SO FOR ME TO GO AHEAD AND PUT IN AN EIGHT FOOT TREE, IT'S MORE LABOR INTENSIVE AND IT'S MORE COSTLY.
AND IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO SHARE THE BURDEN OF THAT COST, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO IT BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE REQUESTED.
[01:35:01]
FOUR TO FIVES THAT I PUT IN WILL GROW QUICKLY, GIVE IT A SEASON OR TWO, AND THEY'LL BE QUITE MATURE AND THEY'LL LOOK QUITE NICE.ONCE AGAIN, I CAN'T CONFIRM THAT THOSE TREES ARE GONNA LAST BECAUSE THERE'S A VERY, THEY HAVE ON THEIR PROPERTY, VERY MATURE OLD, LARGE, HUGE MAPLE TREES THAT WHEN SUMMER COMES, THEY PRETTY MUCH CHOKE EVERY BIT OF SUNLIGHT ON THAT CORNER.
SO IF THESE TREES DON'T TAKE, IT'S NOT ON, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT INCUMBENT THAT I DID ANYTHING WRONG OR I DIDN'T USE MY BEST EFFORTS.
THE ONLY THING IS THAT LOOKING AT THIS PHOTOGRAPH FROM THEIR PROPERTY UP TO YOURS, WE ARE SIGNIFICANTLY BRINGING THE PORCH CLOSER TO THEIR PROPERTY.
SO EVEN IF THERE WEREN'T, THE SCREENING THERE WHERE THE EXISTING PORCH IS, IS PROBABLY A GOOD 12 TO 14 FEET CLOSER TO YOUR HOME.
SO NOW YOU'RE BRINGING THIS PORCH CLOSER TO THEIR PROPERTY, OVERLOOKING THEIR PROPERTY, THE CORNER.
AND NOW THERE IS, THERE IS REALLY NO JUST INHERENT AIR BUFFER IF I'M, IF I CAN USE THAT TYPE OF LANGUAGE.
SO YOU'RE ASKING US TO GRANT YOU BRINGING THIS CLOSER AND GIVING YOU A SETBACK OF 12 FEET WHERE 20 PLUS IS REQUIRED AND NO REASONABLE SCREENING FOR THE NEIGHBOR.
I'LL CONSIDER WHATEVER YOU CONSIDER, I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT, THAT, UM, THIS, IT'S SIGNIFICANTLY EXPENSIVE TO DO THAT.
AND THAT'S, AND, AND BY THE WAY, THOSE PHOTOGRAPHS WERE FROM 2007.
SO THOSE TREES REALLY DID GO AHEAD AND, AND, UM, DEGRADED IN, IN THEIR, IN THEIR, UH, IN THEIR HEALTH.
I, I'M JUST ASKING THIS, TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING REASONABLE.
WOULD IT WORK TO ALTERNATE EIGHT FOOT, FIVE FOOT, EIGHT FOOT, FIVE FOOT, EIGHT FOOT? WOULD THAT BRING SOMETHING AND GIVE YOU SOME GROWTH THAT WOULD HAVE HAPPEN? 'CAUSE MY MY CONCERN IS ALSO THAT YOU, AND BOTH YOU AND YOUR ATTORNEY MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE WHEN THE OTHER TREES ARE IN FULL LEAF, THESE TREES AREN'T GROWING THAT THREE TO FIVE FEET BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GETTING THE AMOUNT OF SUNSHINE THAT THEY NEED.
SO IF WE'RE NOW TALKING, IT'S NOT GROWING THREE TO FIVE FEET BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE SO MUCH SUNSHINE, THEY'RE GROWING ONE TO TWO FEET.
UM, WE'RE, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO HELP COME, COME UP WITH SOMETHING TO HELP EVERYBODY.
I'LL GO AHEAD AND I'LL, I'LL AGREE.
IF YOU PULL UP THE, THE PLAN, THERE'S, THERE'S JUST REALLY A CORNER AREA YES.
WHERE IF YOU'D LIKE, I WOULD AGREE TO PUT THREE, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY ONLY CONSTITUTES THE VISUAL ASPECT OF OUR DECK IN THEIR, IN THEIR REAR YOU MEAN REAR YARD THREE TALL? SO I'M GONNA DO 14 TO 16, WHATEVER THE PLAN.
I'M, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT ON THEIR CORNER BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT'S GONNA IMPACT THEM.
WOULD WHERE, WHERE OUR DECK IS.
IF YOU HAVE THAT PLAN, BECAUSE TO YOUR POINT, AND THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING A QUESTION, I DO SEE THE, THE OTHER MAPLES OR WHATEVER, THEY ARE CLOSER TOWARDS THE REAR OF YOUR PROPERTY, RIGHT.
UM, THEY PROBABLY WILL NOT GET AS MUCH LIKE, BUT I'M LOOKING AT THE THREE POSTS THAT ARE IN THE, WELL, THREE TO FOUR POSTS THAT ARE IN THE GROUND RIGHT NOW, WHICH, IF YOU'RE IN THEIR YARD, YOU'RE LOOKING UP AT THE DECK AND YOUR WINDOWS.
UM, THAT REALLY IS PROBABLY THE BIGGEST POINT OF CONTENTION.
LIKE, HERE'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
AND OUTSIDE OF THE FINANCIAL CONSIDERATION, YOU KNOW, LISTEN, 2008 CAME AND WE HAD INSPECTIONS.
WE WERE, WE ALMOST LOST OUR HOUSE.
IT'S TAKEN US THIS LONG TO GET TO THE POINT WHERE WE CAN DO THIS DECK.
UM, I WENT THROUGH THE WHOLE PROCESS OF PERMITTING.
AGAIN, I DON'T MIND TELLING YOU IT'S ANOTHER $3,500 TO BE HERE TONIGHT.
I'M NOT A RICH GUY, BUT WE WORK HARD AND WE WANT OUR HOME, UH, TO ENJOY IT.
SO, UH, AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF YOU WANT ME TO DO THREE OR FOUR EIGHT FOOT ARB VIDE, SURE.
ALL THE OTHER TREES REALLY DON'T IMPACT THEIR PRIVACY.
THERE'S NO NEED FOR ME TO DO EIGHT FOOT ALL THE WAY AROUND WHEN MY OTHER NEIGHBOR IS MORE THAN HAPPY FOR ME TO REPLACE THOSE, UH, WHITE, THOSE DEAD WHITE PINES WITH THE ARB V DE.
BUT FOR THAT PARTICULAR CORNER THAT OVERLOOKS FOR THAT SEASON REVEAL OF THEIR BACKYARD, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THE EIGHT FOOTERS IS POSSIBLE.
I I THINK WE, UH, NO, I, I JUST THOUGHT, NO, I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY THOUGHT BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT WE DID.
IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE A BURN OF SOME SORT FOR THAT DISTANCE WHERE YOU COULD STILL JUST USE THE FIVE FOOT TREES, BUT THE BURN WOULD RAISE THEM UP SOME SO THAT THEY WOULD BE HIGHER? I HAVE TO CONSTRUCT SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, UH, THERE'S A, THERE'S A STONE RETAINING WALL, WHICH IS QUITE LARGE, AND THEN THERE'S ONLY X AMOUNT OF AREA BEFORE OUR FOUNDATION.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ROUTING AREAS.
[01:40:01]
ME TO, UH, YOU TRY AND YOU, WHAT YOU'RE SUGGESTING IS FOR ME TO BUILD UP AN ADDITIONAL THREE, THREE OR FOUR, FOUR FOOT ON THE CORNER.NO, NOT MAYBE THAT HIGH, BUT ANYTHING THAT RAISES IT UP A LITTLE HIGHER, I COULD GET SOME, I GUESS I COULD USE SOME, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, RAILROAD, UH, TIE.
I MEAN, I, I I, I CAN'T AFFORD TO DO STONE WORK, SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SOMETHING THAT'S REASONABLE.
WHAT, HOW TALL IS, IT'S LIMITED TO SIX FEET.
SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO RAISE OH, I YOU WANT NO, I WAS JUST SIMPLY MENTIONING THAT AS AN EXISTING RETAINING WALL THERE, AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO BUILD IT UP HIGHER.
I'M SORRY, IT'S NOT HEARING YOU.
SORRY, I, I JUST WANTED TO BRIEFLY MENTION THAT I, I WOULDN'T WANT THE, UH, A SOIL BURN TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF HIS RETAINING WALL.
I'M NOT SURE, BUT IT MAY BE CLOSE TO SIX FEET.
UM, AND IT IS IN A SIDE YARD THAT, THAT'D BE THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD CAUTION ON THAT SUGGESTION.
I, AND THE ONLY REASON I WAS MENTIONING IT IS BECAUSE THEY WERE ALSO TALKING ABOUT THEIR CONCERN ABOUT THE RUNOFF AND BURNS WOULD HELP WITH EVEN A SMALLER BURN WOULD HELP WITH RUNOFF A SMALL BURN.
I, I WOULD JUST RESPECTFULLY SAY THAT I DON'T THINK RUNOFF IS AN ISSUE AT ALL.
UH, SIMPLY BECAUSE IT WASN'T BEFORE AND BEAR TREES THAT WERE DEAD.
THERE'S NEVER BEEN ANY ASPECT OF RUNOFF PROBLEMS FROM THAT PARTICULAR PART OF OUR, UH, PROPERTY.
SO I, I'M, I'M NOT SURE WHY THERE WOULD BE ANYTHING OTHER THAN, UH, JUST A REPLANTING OF TREES FOR PRIVACY PURPOSES.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF WATER LATELY.
WE'VE HAD A LOT OF WATER LATELY.
OH YEAH, I KNOW, BUT I'M JUST SAYING WE'VE BEEN THERE FOR 22 YEARS AND IT'S BEEN PRETTY SOLID.
I'VE BEEN IN MY HOUSE FOR 30 YEARS AND WE'VE HAD A LOT OF WATER LATELY THAT IS WASHING AWAY OUR PROPERTY.
LISTEN, YOU ARE ALL, UH, VERY, IF YOU MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT ONCE AGAIN, NO, I'M NOT MAKING A RECOMMENDATION.
WE, WE'D LIKE TO PROPOSE A CONDITION TO PLANT THE THREE TREES AT THE CORNER AT, AT AN EIGHT FOOT HEIGHT AND TO PLANT THE REMAINDER OF THE TREES AT A FIVE FOOT HEIGHT WITH A FIVE FOOT SPACING.
I WOULD THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT SOLUTION.
CAN WE GET A, UH, WELL, THE, THE, THE IMPORTANT THING TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING BEYOND JUST THE REQUIREMENTS OF YOUR APPLICATION AND THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE A NEIGHBOR WHO HAS AN OBJECTION.
AND WE'RE TRYING TO, UM, ABSOLVE PART OF THAT OBJECTION SO THAT EVERYBODY COMES OUT A WINNER.
YOU, YOU WANT TO EXPAND YOUR, YOUR DECK.
I'M, I'M SURE THAT ONCE YOU DO SO YOU'LL REALLY BE ABLE TO ENJOY THAT SPACE IN THE SPRING, SUMMER, AND FALL.
UH, BUT WE ALSO NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT YOUR NEIGHBOR HAS SOME PRIVACY ISSUES.
AND IF THERE'S A WAY TO RESOLVE THAT, THEN EVERYBODY IS A WINNER.
AND I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT SOLUTION.
THE, THE BERM, ALTHOUGH THAT'S A GOOD IDEA, IS MIGHT END UP BEING MORE EXPENSIVE THEN THREE EIGHT FOOT TREES.
UM, AND THEN THE ROOT SYSTEM FROM THE EIGHT FOOT TREES WILL ACTUALLY END UP, UM, ABSORBING A LOT MORE OF THE MOISTURE IN THE SOIL.
SO I, I THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO GO.
UM, WHEN WE DID MEET WITH RAY AND SUSAN BACK, UM, ON MAY 5TH, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THAT CORNER.
UM, OUR LANDSCAPER, WHEN HE CAME, UH, DID HIS ASSESSMENT AND GAVE US HIS OPINION, THREE TREES, FIVE TREES.
HIS OPINION WAS EIGHT TREES, UM, OF THAT HEIGHT, EIGHT TO 10 FEET IN HEIGHT.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE COMPROMISE CAN BE THAT YOU CAN DECIDE UPON THAT WOULD MAKE IT FAIR.
I MEAN, THIS IS WHAT OUR, THIS IS WHAT OUR LANDSCAPER RECOMMENDED.
BUT IF YOU, WELL, WE ARE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
WE ARE NOT THE, YOU HAVE TO TREAT PEOPLE.
UM, SO I BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD NEED EXPERTS TO GET INVOLVED IN THAT.
BUT WHAT I DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE'RE TAKING YOUR OBJECTIONS AND WE, AND WE APPRECIATE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, AND, UM, ARE HOPING THAT THAT IS HELPING TO RESOLVE SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU HAD ABOUT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S DESIRE
[01:45:01]
TO, UM, EXPAND THEIR DECK, THEIR UPPER DECK, I SHOULD SAY.WE, WE APPRECIATE YOU TAKING ALL OF THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE HAVE ALWAYS BEEN DECENT AND FRIENDLY NEIGHBORS WITH TKIS.
AND IT'S BECAUSE OF THIS DECISION TO TAKE DOWN THESE TREES.
TWO YEARS AGO THAT STARTED CAUSING PROBLEMS FOR US WITH WATER RUNOFF AND SOIL RUNOFF AFTER STORMS. WE ARE CLEANING UP OUR YARD, NOT THE VET SKIS.
SO, YOU KNOW, TO, IT'S LEFT UP TO YOU TO DECIDE HOW YOU WANNA GO FORWARD.
WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE PRESENTED OUR FACTS ABOUT THIS.
GIVEN THE ASSURANCE BACK IN 2007 THAT NONE OF THIS WOULD HAPPEN.
AND WE, WE DIDN'T APPROVE, WE DIDN'T OPPOSE IT.
BUT NOW WE FEEL, BASED ON THE FACTS THAT I SUBMITTED TO YOU TONIGHT, THAT WE HAVE TO, AND IF A COMPROMISE CAN BE MADE, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M HOPING FOR.
SO I'M, I'M, I DON'T WANT TO GIVE MY
AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE COME TO SOME KIND OF A COMPROMISE OR RESOLUTION THAT BENEFITS BOTH OF YOU.
WELL, WE HOPE THAT, SO THAT YOU'LL STILL CONTINUE TO BE NEIGHBORS.
WE ACTUALLY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR ALMOST 40 YEARS.
UM, WE APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO, AND WE HOPE THAT YOU RENDER A GOOD AND FAIR DECISION FOR ALL OF US.
NO, FOR THESE EXPERTS OVER HERE.
DOES IT, DOES THE EIGHT FOOT TREE HAVE A WIDER GF TO IT THAN THE FIVE FOOT TREE YOU SAY? OH, NO, ABSOLUTELY.
SO EVERYBODY, SO IT TAKES UP MORE SPACE.
SO THE, THE GIANTS HAVE A TENDENCY, YOUR TRADITIONAL AIDE.
NO, I WAS TRYING TO DO A TRADE OFF BECAUSE HE, SHE SAID THAT THEIR, ARE THEIR LANDSCAPER SAID SOMETHING ABOUT EIGHT TREES.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PUTTING IN THREE TREES, I BELIEVE, WHICH MAY BE, YOU KNOW, ALMOST CORRECT.
THE EQUIVALENT TO THOSE EIGHT TREES.
SO THAT GIANT KIND HAS A MORE CONICAL SHAPE TO IT.
UM, AND THE LEAFING KIND OF FLARES A LOT MORE.
SEE, WE HAVE GREAT EXPERTS UP HERE, TO SOME EXTENT
WE ALSO HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE EXPERTISE OF A LANDSCAPER VERSUS AN EXPERT IN CONGRESS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ARE WE GOOD? THANK YOU.
YOU KNOW, IT'S ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE CASES ON TONIGHT.
AND OUR NEW CASE IS A EIGHT CASE.
JOSEPH AND SHARON NIA PROPERTY AT EIGHT RUTLAND ROAD.
SORRY TO MAKE YOU, UH, SIT THROUGH THE
DO YOU HAVE ANY AVID ON YOURS?
MY NAME IS JEFF CARUSO REPRESENTING, UH, JOE AND SHARON NAYA HERE OF EIGHT LIN ROAD.
AND WE'RE OBVIOUSLY HERE FOR A ZONING VARIANCE, BUT LET ME GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF A BACKGROUND FOR THE HOUSE.
UH, THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1928.
IT IS ORIGINAL AND NO ADDITIONS HAVE EVER BEEN BUILT ON THIS HOUSE.
THE LOT IS NON-CONFORMING AS IT IS NOW IN THAT IT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IN IMPERIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE BY ALMOST 1,057 SQUARE FEET.
THE HOUSE ITSELF IS PREEXISTING AND NONCONFORMING IN THAT IT EXCEEDS THE MAX MAX ALLOWABLE F A R BY 432 SQUARE FEET
THE HOUSE AGAIN IS JUST UNDER THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE.
IT'S AT 21.05 AND WHAT IS ALLOWED IS 22.
NOW, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO IS A ONE STORY ADDITION TO THE REAR OF THE HOUSE IS GONNA REQUIRE
[01:50:01]
FIVE VARIANCES.ONE IS THAT THE HOUSE IS GO WELL, IT, WE NEED A VARIANCE FOR TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE FLORIDA AREA RATIO, EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE, EXCEED THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS SERVICE COVERAGE.
WE'RE GONNA REDUCE THE REAR YARD SETBACK FROM 28 FEET TO 16 FEET, WHICH IS A VARIANCE OF 12 FEET AND ENLARGED A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE.
NOW THIS PROJECT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY THE Z B A IN 2016, BUT A BUILDING PERMIT WAS NEVER APPLIED FOR, SO THE VARIANCE EXPIRED.
NOW, THE SCOPE OF THE WORK IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS THE APPROVED PLANS FROM 2016, BUT TO REDU, BUT EXCUSE ME, IT WAS REDUCED IN SCOPE.
THERE IS LESS INTERIOR REMODELING.
THEREFORE THE ONLY SITE RELATED CHANGE THAT WE'VE DONE NOW, AS OPPOSED TO 2016, WAS THE EXISTING BASEMENT STAIR WILL REMAIN AS OPPOSED TO BEING REMOVED AND REPLACED.
NOW, THE INITIAL SUBMISSION OF THE ZONING BOARD WAS MET WITH A RESISTANCE
SO THE, THE ADDITION WAS REDESIGNED, RESUBMITTED AND APPROVED, AND THE CHANGES MADE TO THE ORIGINAL SCHEME WERE REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE ADDITION, WHICH REDUCED THE GROSS FLOOR AREA AND THE BUILDING COVERAGE AND REDUCING THE SIZE OF THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH REDUCED THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE.
NOW TO GET TO THE VARIANCES THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, THE FIRST ONE IS FOR FLORIDA AREA RATIO.
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IS 32.5%, WHICH IS 3,368 SQUARE FEET.
WHAT EXISTS IS 36.7%, WHICH IS 3,800 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS 432 SQUARE FEET ABOVE THE MAX ALLOWABLE.
WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS 40.3%, WHICH WOULD BE 4,181 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS 381 SQUARE FEET ABOVE THE EXISTING AND 813 SQUARE FEET ABOVE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE.
THE SECOND REQUEST IS FOR PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE.
MAX ALLOWABLE 22%, WHICH IS 2,280 SQUARE FEET.
WHAT EXISTS IS 21.05%, WHICH IS 2182 SQUARE FEET, 98 SQUARE FEET BELOW THE MAX ALLOWED.
AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING OR ASKING FOR IS 24.75%, WHICH WOULD BE 2,565 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS 280 SQUARE FEET ABOVE THE MAX ALLOWABLE.
NUMBER THREE
THE MAXIMUM ALLOWABLE IS 37.25%, WHICH IS 3,860 SQUARE FEET.
WHAT EXISTS IS 47.44%, WHICH IS 4,917 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS 1057 SQUARE FEET ABOVE THE MAX ALLOWABLE.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO REDUCE THAT TO 42.24%, BRINGING THE SQUARE FOOTAGE TO 43 78, WHICH WOULD BE 518 ABOVE THE MAX ALLOWABLE.
BUT WE'RE ALSO REDUCING THAT IMPERVIOUS SQUARE, THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE BY 539 SQUARE FEET.
WE'RE ALSO ASKING TO REDUCE THE REAR YARD BUILDING SETBACK FROM 28 TO 16 FEET, WHICH IS A VARIANCE OF 12 FEET.
WHEN IT COMES TO HARDSHIP, IT, IT IS A NON-CONFORMING LOT.
IT ALREADY EXCEEDS THE MAX ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS SERVICE COVERAGE BY 1,057 SQUARE FEET.
IT ALREADY IS A NON-CON, NON-CONFORMING HOUSE AND THAT THE F A R IS OVER BY 432 SQUARE FEET.
NOW REALIZE THAT ANY ADDITION TO THIS HOUSE WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE FOR FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR EXCEEDING THE MAX ALLOWABLE FLOOR AREA, BUILDING COVERAGE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE.
ANY ADDITION, SUCH AS A TERRACE WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE FOR EXCEEDING MAX ALLOWABLE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
THE HOUSE, AGAIN, LIKE I SAID, IS ORIGINAL.
IT'S NEVER ENLARGED IN FLOOR AREA OR BUILDING PERMIT OR BUILDING FOOTPRINT, I'M SORRY.
AND, UH, THERE THE EXISTING GARAGE, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE ADDING ONTO, IS IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, WHICH CREATES A LOT OF DRIVEWAY, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
BUT PLEASE REMEMBER, WE'RE REDUCING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE BY 539 SQUARE FEET.
UH, WHEN IT COMES TO THE BALANCING TEST, THERE'S REALLY NO UNDESIRABLE CHANGE TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AS THE ADDITION CAN'T BE SEEN FROM THE STREET, THE ADDITION REALLY CAN'T BE ACHIEVED BY ANY OTHER METHOD OTHER THAN A ZONING VARIANCE IN THAT THE HOUSE ALREADY EXCEEDS THE FLORIDA AREA RATIO AND THE LOT ALREADY EXCEEDS THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE.
THE VARIANCES ARE NOT SUBSTANTIAL.
THE ADDITION IS ONLY 381 SQUARE FEET ABOVE WHAT EXISTS.
NOW, THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE IS CURRENTLY OVER BY 1,057 SQUARE FEET AND IS BEING REDUCED BY 539.
AND THE REAR BUILDING SETBACK IS REDUCED
[01:55:01]
TO 16, WHICH IS A VARIANCE REQUEST OF 12 FEET.THERE'S NO ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL ENVI OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I MEAN, THE REDUCTION IN THE IMPER IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE COULD ONLY HAVE A POSITIVE EFFECT AND NOT A NEGATIVE ONE.
NOW, THE HARDSHIP WAS NOT SELF-CREATED.
THE HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1928 AND WAS CONFORMING AT THE TIME ZONING REGULATIONS HAVE CHANGED, WHICH MAKES IT A NON-CONFORMING LOT AND HOUSE, UH, THAT IS, ITS UH, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? YOU THE WHOLE TIME? WHY ARE YOU NOT TAKING DOWN THE STEPS? THERE'S NO NEED TO.
BUT BEFORE THE, UH, THE BASEMENT WAS BEING LOWERED, THE SLAB WAS BEING LOWERED BY A FOOT, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT WE'D HAVE TO REMOVE THE EXISTING STEPS AND DROP 'EM DOWN AND ADD ANOTHER RISER AND ANOTHER COUPLE OF TREADS.
BUT SINCE WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING DOWN THERE, THERE'S NO REASON TO CHANGE IT.
UH, I, IN LOOKING IN AT THE ELEVATION, IT LOOKS LIKE ABOVE THE GARAGE THERE IS A DECK, THERE'S A ROOF.
I'M SORRY, THERE IS A ROOF DECK.
A LITTLE NEED TO SEE WHAT'S SOME COLOR OUTTA IT.
SO THAT, GIVEN, GIVEN WHAT WE JUST HEARD, I MEAN, YOU'RE NOW CUTTING ALMOST IN HALF THE BACKYARD.
UM, YOU'RE GOING FROM 26 TO 16.
UM, WHAT IS THAT BACKYARD FACE? I DON'T SEE THAT IN ANY OF YOUR PHOTOS.
YOU TALKING ABOUT THE BACKYARD HERE? FENCE? YEAH.
WHAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF IT? HOUSE.
HOW CLOSE IS THE OTHER HOUSE? I REALLY DUNNO.
IT'S LONGER, RIGHT? YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S JUST, YOU'VE NOW, YOU'VE NOW DECREASED THAT ALMOST IN HALF, RIGHT? IS IT, ARE WE SETTING UP ANOTHER? WELL, THAT, THAT'S WHERE I WAS GONNA GO.
I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, I CAN, I CAN CAREFUL.
UH, UH, JOSEPH M THE, THE HOMEOWNER EIGHT REDLAND ROAD.
UH, SO THE, THE BACKYARD FACES OUT TO THE BACKYARD OF ANOTHER HOUSE THAT, UH, THAT FACES ONTO INVERNESS ROAD, WHICH IS THE NEXT STREET OVER, UH, THE HOUSE ITSELF IN THE, IN THE, THE LOT BEHIND OURS, UH, IS PROBABLY 30 TO 40 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, I WOULD ESTIMATE.
I THINK HE'S PUTTING UP A, A PHOTO THERE.
IT'S ABOUT 35 FEET FROM THEIR REAR REAR PROPERTY LINE TO THE FACE OF THEIR HOUSE.
SO IT'D BE 50 FEET FROM THE NEW ADDITION, 49 FEET APPROXIMATELY.
AND WE'VE, WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS ADDITION WITH THE, THE NEIGHBORS IN THE, THE SURROUNDING HOMES AND NOBODY HAS VOICED A, A CONCERN TO US, AT LEAST.
DID, DID THE PERSON FROM THAT HOUSE COMMENT? UH, WE HAD DIS WE'VE DISCUSSED IT WITH THEM.
HAVE THEY SUBMITTED ANYTHING? I DON'T THINK THEY'VE SUBMITTED ANYTHING.
DISCUSSED IT ONE ON NO, IT'S ON, IT'S BEHIND US ON IT'S INTERNET'S HOUSE.
ARE YOU PLANTING OUR PROVIDERS CONVERSATION
WE, WE WENT TO EACH OF THE NEIGHBORS AND THEY, THEY ALL SIGNED OFF AND APPROVED IT AND HAD NO CONCERNS ABOUT IT WHEN WE HAD SHARED THE PLANS WITH THEM, SHARON, AYA, THE OTHER HOMEOWNER.
THEY WERE ALL SUPPORTIVE OF IT.
THAT'S NOT IN THE PACKET, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.
WHEN WAS YOUR HOUSE BUILT? 1928.
HAVE YOU THOUGHT OF ANY PRIVACY NOW THAT YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THIS BIG OUTDOOR SPACE ELEVATED? HAVE YOU THOUGHT OF PLANTING ANYTHING TO CREATE PRIVACY FOR YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS? SO THERE ARE, THERE ARE TREES AND FENCES.
SO ON THE, ON ALONG THE BACK WALL, THERE'S A FENCE THERE.
WE ACTUALLY RECENTLY REPLACED THE FENCE BECAUSE THE ONE THAT WAS THERE WAS ACTUALLY FALLING DOWN.
SO THERE WAS A CLEAR SIGHT LINE THROUGH FROM, FROM OUR PROPERTY TO THE, TO THE PROPERTY BEHIND.
UM, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TREES THAT, THAT ALIGN THE PROPERTY ALL AROUND THAT, THAT PROVIDE A, A SUBSTANTIAL VIS VISIBLE THERE.
YEAH, I'M NOT, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M GONNA BE ABLE TO FIND HER HOUSE.
I'M REALLY IMPRESSED WITH THIS
I COULDN'T FIGURE IT OUT AT ALL.
I WOULD, THAT'S WHY I WAS ON MY PHONE.
IS IT? HOW, IF I MOVE MY CURSOR, ARE YOU ABLE TO IDENTIFY YOUR HOUSE
[02:00:01]
FROM, FROM HERE? I CAN'T.UM, CAN YOU ZOOM IN AT ALL? YEAH.
SO BETWEEN RUTLAND AND, AND VERNICE, RIGHT? YEAH.
IT MIGHT BE, UH, I THINK IT'S ONE OBSCURED BY THE TREE.
GET LITTLE CLOSER TO THE LEFT.
DO YOU HAVE A RED ROOF? SO WHERE YOUR CURSOR TO THE RIGHT, THAT'S, THAT'S OUR HOUSE THERE CURSOR.
AND THIS IS ALL BECAUSE YOU GOT A SECOND CAR OR BECAUSE YOU WANT MORE DECK SPACE? SO THERE ARE PROBABLY TWO MAIN FACTORS.
ONE, WE WANTED TO INCREASE THE OPEN SPACE IN OUR YARD BECAUSE YOU CURRENTLY HAVE TO ACTUALLY DRIVE AROUND BEHIND THE HOUSE TO PULL INTO THE GARAGE.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE A A THAT ENTIRE BACK AREA PAVED THAT AS PART OF THE VARIANCE.
WE'RE REDUCING THE, THE IMPERIAL IMPERVIOUS SPACE.
SO THAT ACTUALLY GIVES US A LARGER YARD.
SO ONE PART OF IT, THE OTHER PART IS WE'RE TIRED OF PARKING OUTSIDE AND HAVING PINE NEEDLES AND EVERYTHING ON OUR CAR ALL THE TIME.
WE WANNA BE ABLE TO PUT BOTH CARS IN THE GARAGE.
AND INCLU ADDING TO YOUR OUTDOOR, UH, LIVING SPACE ON TOP OF THE GARAGE.
I, I ALMOST DON'T KNOW WHAT TO ASK 'CAUSE I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OF THE REQUEST, WHICH PART OF THIS IS DE MINIMUS
UM, BECAUSE A LOT IS BEING ASKED.
SO HOW DOES THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE GO UP? BECAUSE I'M LOOKING AT YOUR RENDITION ON THE BOTTOM HERE AND IT SEEMS THAT THE SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT, THIS GRAYED OUT AREA TO THE LEFT, IS THAT THE ACTUAL DRIVE EXISTING DRIVEWAY? THIS IS THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY.
SO ABOVE THAT, WHAT IS THAT AREA RIGHT WHERE YOUR HAND IS COME DOWN A LITTLE BIT, A LITTLE MORE THE AREA THAT'S GRAY RIGHT THERE.
WHAT IS THAT DRIVEWAY THAT'S EXISTING? YES.
AND WE'RE GONNA REDUCE THAT DRIVEWAY TO WHAT'S ON YOUR LEFT RIGHT HAND SIDE.
AND BUT WE'RE, THE ONLY MAIN THING WE'RE DOING NOW IS ADDING THE BROWN BOX, WHICH IS THE GARAGE.
AND THE RED DOTTED AREA AROUND BOTH, WHAT IS THAT FOR? SETBACKS.
SO THE HOUSE ITSELF IS NON-CONFORMING AS IS.
AND THE NON-CONFORMITY YOU WANT US TO ADD TO IT WOULD BE THE GARAGE.
AND YOU'LL BE REDUCING, CAN WE REDUCE THAT DRIVEWAY ANYMORE OR IS THAT LIKE OPTIMAL? I'M JUST ASKING, TRYING TO GET TO THAT SWEET SPOT.
SO THAT, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE CHANGED LAST TIME.
FROM THE FIRST TO THE SECOND SUBMISSION WAS WE REDUCED THAT SPACE.
SO THIS ORIGINALLY WAS, SO NOW IN TERMS OF THE PLAN, THERE'S NOTHING DIFFERENT OTHER THAN THE L THE CHANGING OF THE STAIRWELL THAT GOES DOWNSTAIRS, THE STAIR.
SO IT'S THE EXACT SAME SUBMISSION.
OTHER THAN THE STAIRWELL, THERE'S NOTHING DIFFERENT.
THE INTERIOR, YEAH, THE INTERIOR.
WE WERE ORIGINALLY THE BASEMENT WAS GOING TO BE DUG DOWN TO MAKE THAT LIVABLE SPACE.
THAT'S WHY WE DON'T NEED TO CHANGE THE STAIRS IN THE BACK.
UM, THAT WOULD BE THE, THE THING THAT HAS CHANGED.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT SCHEMATIC.
IT WASN'T IN THE PACKAGE AND IT'S HELPFUL.
WELL IT WASN'T THE SITE PLANS WERE IN THE PACKAGE.
THE SITE PLANS ARE, BUT THEY'RE A LITTLE DIFFERENT.
BUT THE LITTLE HARD TO READ RENDITION.
ESPECIALLY THE RED DOTED AREA.
THE ORIGINAL REQUEST TO KNOW THE BOARD TWICE.
THE FIRST TIME IT WAS NOT APPROVED.
THE SECOND TIME WITH THE F A R AS IT IS NOW WAS APPROVED AND SINCE THEN IT HAS NOT CHANGED.
I'M MISSING HERE, BUT I'M GONNA TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT IN A FEW MINUTES.
WE INITIALLY, IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THE THE, THE GARAGE WAS LARGER WHEN WE FIRST APPLIED.
SO THE FIRST, THE FIRST SUBMISSION WAS WE, WE CAME BEFORE THE BOARD AND THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS AND, AND SOME PUSHBACK ABOUT CAN WE
[02:05:01]
REDUCE THE, THE VARIANCE.I'M TRYING TO THINK IF I WAS ON THE BOARD THEN, BUT PROBABLY IT WAS ME.
YOU VOTED I WASN'T HERE SO I'M NOT SURE YOU WROTE IT.
WHAT? PROBABLY YOU WROTE IT AND VOTE.
YOU SO AFTER THAT TO VOTE IT WAS ME.
SO AFTER THAT FIRST MEETING, WE WENT BACK AND WE, WE REVISITED THE PLANS AND WE REDUCED THE SIZE OF THE GARAGE FURTHER TO GET IT AS SMALL AS WE COULD AND STILL BE ABLE TO PARK TWO CARS IN IT.
UH, AND WE, WE ADJUSTED THE, THE, UH, THE DRIVEWAY SPACE AS WELL TO REDUCE THAT AS MUCH AS WE COULD.
ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE? ANYONE OUTSIDE ON ZOOM? YOU ZOOM? ANYONE ON ZOOM? UH, IF ANYONE ON ZOOM WANTS TO SPEAK, PLEASE, UH, UNMUTE.
WHERE ARE WE MEETING HERE? I GUESS, SO WE SPELL MY FIRST NAME CORRECTLY.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE SURE.
I DUNNO, BECAUSE BEFORE THEY SAID WE HAD TO BE ON, ON SCREEN OR SOMETHING.
SO LET'S START WITH, UH,
DO WE HAVE OUR SPEAKERS OFF? MINE'S OFF.
YEAH, I WOULD SAY PUT THEM ON PLEASE.
OTHERWISE THEY'RE NOT SEEING US, BUT NOT HEARING US.
ADDITIONALLY, IT CAME OUT THAT THEY WERE MADE AN ALTERNATIVE OFFER.
SO IT'S NOT THAT THEIR PROPERTY IS BEING TOTALLY UNVALUABLE.
WELL, NO PROPERTY IS TOTALLY UNVALUABLE, BUT ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S JUST, YOU NEEDED AN OPENING GA BUT I THOUGHT I'D START WITH THAT.
WELL, YES, WE WANNA GET OUT HERE SO YOU CAN THROW IT ALL.
YEAH, YOU CAN PUT IT ALL OUT THERE IF YOU WANT.
I, I, I, MY INCLINATION IS TO VOTE NO.
THE INCLINATION TO DO WHAT? VOTE NO.
NO, THE WHAT OR THE GETS ALL AGAINST.
MY CONCERN TOO WOULD JUST BE, UM,
[02:10:01]
AND I KNOW THERE IS THIS SURVEY THAT WAS DONE BY, OR ENGINEERING PORT BY THE NEIGHBOR, BUT IF THERE IS A SEWER LINE THAT IS THERE THAT COULD BE COMPROMISED, I THINK THE ARGUMENT THAT WAS RAISED BY THE NEIGHBORS IN TERMS OF HEALTH AND SAFETY.I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING, I DON'T KNOW HOW WE MITIGATE OR RESOLVE THAT UNLESS WE KNOW FOR A FACT THAT THAT IS NOT THE CASE.
UM, I THINK THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN.
WOULD THAT MEAN WE'D HAVE TO HAVE THE APPLICANT HAVE AN EXPERT TO RENDER A DECISION WITH RESPECT TO THE EXPERT THAT THE NEIGHBOR HAD HAD? CORRECT.
I MEAN, ON THE MAP IT SHOWS IT VERY CLOSE.
IT'S VERY CLOSE PLANNING BOARD.
BECAUSE THEY SEEM TO SAY THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THE SEWER EASEMENT.
NOW THE PLANNING BOARD WAS AWARE AND UM, THAT INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED ON THE PLANS AND SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN ENGINEER.
BUT JUST AS A MATTER OF PROCEDURE ED, DO YOU THINK IT'S PRUDENT FOR THE BOARD TO DISCUSS, UM, THE APPEAL FIRST OR, UM, DOES IT NOT MATTER? IT DOESN'T, NO.
NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE THE BOARD MAY DECIDE, DECIDE THAT IT WANTS MORE INFORMATION.
WELL I WOULD THINK THAT THE FIRST THING WE NEED TO DECIDE IS WHETHER OR NOT WE AGREE WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR OR NOT.
WELL, WE HAD MORE, WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION NOW THAN THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAD.
AND IF WHAT THE ATTORNEY OF THE NEIGHBOR'S PROFFERED IS ACCURATE IN TERMS OF 60 DAY NOTICE, THEN THAT WOULD TAKE THAT OFF THE TABLE ALTOGETHER.
WHETHER OR NOT TO REPEAL THE, UM, BUILDING INSPECTOR, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION, WHICH STILL LEAVES TO THE TABLE TO APPROVE THE, THE VARIANCES.
WAIT, SO DO WE, WHAT DO WE THINK ABOUT THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE LOTS WERE UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP? 'CAUSE THAT'S THE KEY TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE'S AN INTERPRETATION QUESTION.
SO DO WE THINK THAT THE, LIKE IN MY OPINION, IT APPEARS WITH THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS GIVEN TONIGHT THAT 57 CLARATIN AND THE OTHER TWO THAT ARE IN QUESTION WERE ALL OWNED BY THE SAME ENTITY OR AT SOME POINT? AT SOME POINT.
THEY WERE RECENTLY SOLD TO A BUILDER WHO SOLD THE BIGGER ONE, THE HOUSE TO THE PEOPLE THAT WERE LIVING IN THE HOUSE WHO WERE RENTING IT.
WERE RENTING IT, AND NOW WANTS TO BUILD ON THE TWO PIECES THAT ARE LEFT.
SO IF, IF THERE WERE, IF, FROM WHAT I HEARD FROM ED, IF THEY'RE ALL CONSIDERED, IF THEY WERE ALL UNDER ONE OWNERSHIP AT ONE TIME, THEN THEY'RE CONSIDERED MERGED.
IS THAT WELL, IT'S, IT'S NOT EXACTLY MERGED, BUT IT, IT CERTAINLY MAY GIVE RISE TO ANOTHER VARIANCE THAT WOULD BE NEEDED, WHICH IS THERE ISN'T A PROVISION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT SAYS THAT YOU CAN USE A LOT THAT'S UNDERSIZED FOR BUILDING PURPOSES WITHOUT NEEDING THE VARIANT PROVIDED THAT IT'S AT NO TIME SINCE THE ENACTMENT OF THE ZONING BOARD, WAS IT SINGLE AND SINGLE OWNERSHIP WITH ADJOINING PROPERTY AS OF THE NIGHT, YOU NOW KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
THERE WAS SINGLE OWNERSHIP AND THEREFORE I WOULD DEFER TO THE BUILDING.
WE MAY HAVE TO REFER THIS BACK TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO SEE VARIANCE.
WHAT WOULD THE ADDITIONAL VARIANCE BE WOULD BE FROM THAT PROVISION THAT
BUT YOU, AS I SAID, YOU MAY DECIDE THERE ARE SOME, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE ARE SOME MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THAT WANT MORE INFORMATION.
YOU'RE GONNA NEED A MICRO
THAT MAKES IT EASIER FOR THOSE.
MAYBE IT MAKES US FEEL COMFORTABLE.
BELIEVE IT NOT YOU CAN LEAVE IT OFF.
THOSE OF US WHO ARE HARD OF HEARING CAN HELP READ YOUR LIPS THIS WAY.
WELL I'M HAVING TROUBLE HEARING YOU AS WELL.
NO, BUT THERE WERE AT LEAST SOME OF YOU THAT INDICATED THAT YOU MIGHT WANT MORE AND MORE INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT ABOUT THAT OTHER ISSUE.
SO IT MIGHT BE WORTHWHILE TO DO,
[02:15:01]
TO ADJOURN THIS NUMBER ONE FOR THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT MORE INFORMATION, ESPECIALLY AND TO ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE SINGLE AND SEPARATE OWNERSHIP.NOW THAT HE KNOWS NOW THAT HE KNOWS THAT THAT'S AN ISSUE AND THAT WE KNOW THAT, THAT THERE'S AN ISSUE THERE.
ANY OTHER ISSUES WE HAVE AND IS THAT WHO WE GET THIS, THIS, THE SEWER INFORMATION FROM? THE VULNERABILITY OF THE WELL, NO, I SAID WE WOULD HAVE TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO, UM, WE DON'T HAVE TO, BUT WE COULD ASK THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE RESPONSE TO THE LANDSCAPERS, UM, OR WHOEVER THE PERSON WAS THAT, UH, MR. GUPTA GOT TO GIVE THAT ASSESSMENT WITH RESPECT TO ESSENTIALLY YOU, YOU WOULD BE ASKING THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON HOW THE HOUSE COULD SIT, COINCIDE AND SIT ALONGSIDE RIGHT.
THE, UH, SEWER, UM, EASEMENT AND WHATEVER THEIR RESPONSE IS, WE WOULD HAVE THAT REVIEWED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER.
YOU'RE HERE, ARE YOU TAKING NOTES? YEAH.
SHAUNA, WOULD YOU WANT SOMETHING ON THE WALL OR NOT? OH, ON THE WALL.
MAKING ME GO BACK IN MY, MAKING ME GO BACK IN MY HEAD.
SO THERE'S A RETAINING WALL TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY AND I THINK YOU WOULD WANT ASSURANCE THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE STABILITY OF THAT WALL.
AND, AND DURING, DURING AND, AND POST CONSTRUCTION.
'CAUSE DURING CONSTRUCTION THEY MAY HAVE TO REMOVE IT TO GET EQUIPMENT IN OR WHATEVER.
AND WHAT, WHAT MITIGATING MEASURES ARE GONNA BE MADE UNTAKEN.
DID YOU WRITE THAT DOWN?
YOUR CONCERNS AND PUT THEM INTO A LETTER AND WE CAN SHARE THAT WITH YOU BEFORE WE SEND IT OFF.
ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY, WE WILL MOVE ON TO THE VETS SKIS.
SO WE SAID THAT HE, HE'S GOING TO, HE'S GOING TO LOOK INTO IT.
I FORGOT HOW THEY, THEY ENDED UP LEAVING IT, I THINK.
DIDN'T THEY SAY THAT HE, HE AGREED TO THREE TREES.
UM, BUT WE TALKED ABOUT THE FACT THAT IF YOU GOT THREE TALL TREES RIGHT, IT MIGHT BE THE EQUIVALENT TO THE FIVE.
NO, HER, HER PERSON SAID TREES.
HE WAS TALKING ABOUT 16 SHORT TREES.
SO THEN HE SAID INSTEAD OF 16 SHORT TREES, THERE'D BE THREE TALL TREES.
AND HE DIDN'T SAY IF HE WAS REDUCING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TREES, BUT I ALSO HEARD HIM SAY THAT AT THEIR SITE, THEIR LINE OF SIGHT WAS ONLY AFFECTED BY APPROXIMATELY, WHAT DID THEY SAY? FIVE TREES.
RIGHT? THAT, THAT CORNER OF THE PORCH, IF YOU STAND ON HER PROPERTY, THAT CORNER OF THE PORCH IS WHAT THE PROBLEM IS.
THE FURTHER YOU GO BACK DOWN THE LINE, THERE ARE OTHER TREES THAT ARE THERE.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF AN ARVA VALLEY WOULD EVEN BE ABLE TO GROW UNDERNEATH IT.
SO IT'S REALLY THAT CORNER CLOSEST TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
ACTUALLY, THIS IS WHAT CHRISTIE AND I WERE LOOKING AT.
COMPARING THESE TWO, HE WAS SAYING THESE THREE, WHICH WOULD TAKE YOU TO LIKE RIGHT HERE MAYBE UNLESS HE WAS TAKING I, YOU KNOW.
SO IS THESE FROM HERE? SO YEAH, I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE LIKE 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
HE'S RIGHT IN HERE BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE GONNA GET UNDERNEATH THIS TREE RIGHT HERE.
'CAUSE THE CORNER IS RIGHT HERE.
RIGHT? THIS ONE'S RIGHT THERE.
SO, YEAH, I MEAN, I'M WITH, YOU WOULD LIKE, FIVE OR SIX TREES WOULD BE BETTER THAN THREE BECAUSE YOU GOTTA LOOK, IF THIS IS 14, WHAT DO YOU, WHAT DID YOU SAY THIS WAS? THIS IS LIKE 14 FEET HIGH.
IS IT FIVE OR SIX? 5 5, 5 FOOT TREES? OR IS IT FIVE OR SIX? FIVE? TREES ARE LIKE RIGHT HERE.
AND IF THEY SAY THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET A LOT OF SUNLIGHT, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ONE TOWARDS THE BACK, ONE TOWARDS THE, THE BACK AND THE ONE'S WHERE THIS RED MAPLE IS.
WELL, I JUST FIGURED THIS FIGURE, THIS WILL BE ALL FILLED IN.
I DON'T KNOW AGAIN WHERE THAT IS REALLY EXACTLY.
BUT YOU DIDN'T ANSWER MY QUESTION.
WHAT WAS THE QUESTION? WHAT YOU GUYS WERE JUST LAYING OUT THERE.
IF THE TREES ARE EIGHT FOOT, IS THAT STILL FIVE TREES OR IS THAT LESS TREES BECAUSE OF THE GIRTH OF THE TREES? I, I, I THINK WE SHOULD CONDITION AND THAT'S WHAT WE WERE SAYING, THAT WE AREN'T, WE WEREN'T THE ONES, WE'RE NOT THE EXPERTS.
WE NEED TO CONDITION THAT TO THE ARBORIST TO GIVE A SUGGESTION OF 3, 4, 5, 6, OR SEVEN.
ALTHOUGH THAT IN THAT CORNER, WHETHER
[02:20:01]
IT'S 3, 4, 5, 6 OR SEVEN CHANGES, EVERYTHING CHANGE IS WHAT? RIGHT.SEE, NOW THE UNFORTUNATE PART TO ALL OF THIS IS, IS IF WE DON'T DO ANYTHING RIGHT NOW, I GUESS WOULD SHE HAVE, WOULD THEY HAVE, SHE GETS NO TREES.
BUT DO THEY HAVE AN ABILITY TO NOW GO BACK TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR? BECAUSE AS A CONDITION THEY WERE TO MAINTAIN TREES.
UM, THE, THE TREES WOULD HAVE A PERIOD OF, UM, GUARANTEE BY CONDITION IF WE DID NOTHING RIGHT NOW THE TREES ARE GONE.
DO THEY HAVE AN ABILITY TO GO BACK TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT? LOOK, IT WAS A CONDITION IF THEY HAD TO HAVE TREES.
IF THERE WERE NO PERMITS TO TAKE 'EM DOWN, DON'T YOU NEED TO HAVE A, DON'T YOU HAVE TO REPLACE TREES? ONE FOR ONE.
UH, SO AT THE TIME THE TREES WERE TAKEN DOWN.
ANTHONY, LET'S, OKAY, THERE WE GO.
NO, BECAUSE IF THE DECK WAS NEVER CONSTRUCTED, THE CONDITION WAS FOR THE VARIANCE TO CONSTRUCT THE DECK AND THE PERMIT HAS SINCE EXPIRED.
SO IF THERE IS NO PERMIT TO CONSTRUCT THE ADDITION ON THE DECK, THEN YOUR CONDITION FOR THE LANDSCAPING WOULD NOT BE IN EFFECT.
SO HOW ABOUT FROM THE ORIGINAL DECK PERMIT THAT WAS GIVEN? IT'S ALL EXPIRED, RIGHT? IN 2007 IT WAS EXPIRED.
SO THERE WAS NO, IT WAS NO APPROVAL.
DO THEY HAVE TO, MY UNDERSTANDING IS IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, IF YOU CUT DOWN A TREE THAT'S NOT COMPLETELY DEAD, YOU MUST REPLACE IT WITH ANOTHER TREE.
MAYBE NOT IN THE EXACT LOCATION.
SO THERE, THERE IS A PERMIT PROCESS.
UM, I TEND TO THINK BASED ON WHEN THEY INDICATED THEY TOOK THE TREES DOWN, IT WAS BEFORE THE PERMIT PROCESS WAS IN EFFECT.
SO I DON'T THINK THEY DID ANYTHING WRONG.
MY SUGGESTION HERE IS, UM, WE'LL HAVE ONE OF THE TWO ARBORISTS IN OUR DEPARTMENT, JUST TAKE A LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, LET THEM KNOW THAT THERE'S A SUGGESTION TO DO THREE EIGHT FOOT PLANTS, UH, TREES AT THE ONE CORNER.
UM, AND THEY'LL, THEY'LL REVIEW THE ADEQUACY OF THAT RIGHT.
IN TERMS OF THE SCREENING AND JUST HAVE THEM SPACING EVERYTHING.
HAVE THEM ALSO LOOK AT THESE PHOTOS FROM HER PACKAGE.
YEAH, SO BECAUSE THAT GIVES YOU THE VIEW.
THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THE TELLING VIEW, RIGHT? SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT WE DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE APPLICATION ITSELF? ITSELF? WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY THE APPLICATION ITSELF? I MEAN THE 12 FEET IS, IT'S A VARIANCE.
I MEAN, WELL, YEAH, BUT THE, THE VARIANCE TO DO THE 21 FEET TO 12.6 FEET, RIGHT? AND THAT'S TO INCREASE THE MAXIMUM PERUS COVERAGE FROM 40 TO 53.4, ALL OF THAT STUFF.
DO WE NOT HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? YOU TELL US.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
BUT AM I THE ONLY ONE? NO, I, I'M FINE WITH IT.
SO THE ONLY THING WE'RE CONSIDERING RIGHT NOW IS THE OBJECTION FROM THE NEIGHBOR BECAUSE OF PRIVACY, RIGHT? YES.
BUT IT, IT DOES THAT FACTOR DOES TIE INTO THEM BEING ABLE TO PUT UP THIS DECK OR EXTEND THIS DECK THE WAY THEY'RE DOING IT, IT TO THEIR PROPERTY.
RIGHT? I MEAN YOU, YOU HAVE THE AUTHORITY AND THE DUTY TO CONDITION A VARIANCE TO MITIGATE ANY IMPACT.
BUT I MEAN, SO THAT'S WHERE THE CONNECTION IS.
WELL I'M, NO ONE HAS YET ON THIS BOARD SAID THAT WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT HE'S TRYING TO DO AND NOW LET'S CONDITION IT THIS WAY.
YEAH, WE THINK THAT WAY, BUT WE DON'T HAVE WHAT THE CONDITIONS ARE NECESSARILY.
WE'RE GONNA CONDITION IT THAT THE SCREENING, I WOULD NOT REALLY.
I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT? I SAID, SAID IF THERE WAS NO SCREENING, I WOULD NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THIS DECK AT ALL.
YOU ARE BRINGING THIS DECK LITERALLY TO THE PROPERTY LINE, RIGHT.
OVERLOOKING SOMEONE ELSE'S HOUSE.
SEE, I, I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT LIKE IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR HOUSE, THEIR HOUSE IS IN FRONT OF AN ENORMOUS BARN.
IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE LOOKING INTO THEIR, IT'S THEM BEING OUTSIDE IN THE BARN.
IT'S COOL, BUT LIKE IT'S BEEN WHATEVER.
WHY DON'T WE JUST DO IT IN CONDITION IT ON THAT THE TOWN ARBORIST TEST TO REVIEW THE PLANS AND SUGGEST THE THREE GOING.
WHAT DO YOU TELL THE ARB? WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE NEIGHBOR'S GONNA AGREE TO IT.
BUT THE NO, YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE HAVE TO HAVE, DON'T HAVE TO.
THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE TO AGREE, BUT THEY JUST WON'T BE ABLE TO DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE, UM, THE EIGHT FOOT TREES ARE NOT SPECIFIED WHERE THEY'LL BE.
SO THAT'LL BE THE REQUEST TO THE APPLICANT.
AS SOON AS WE GET THAT, WE'LL HAVE, UM, OUR STAFF LOOK AT IT AND UM, THEY'LL GIVE YOU AN OPINION ON WHETHER IT'S AN ADEQUATE AMOUNT OF TREES, UM, SPACING AND, UM, YOU'LL AT LEAST GO INTO IT KNOWING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, TOWN STAFF FEELS THAT IT'S A, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE MITIGATION.
[02:25:01]
FOR HIS OTHER NEIGHBORS, HE COULD GET SHORTER TREES TO OFFSET THE COST.THEN THEY'LL JUST LOOK LIKE THAT.
WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHAT HE WAS TRYING TO SAY, THAT THE ONES CLOSER TO THE FRONT WOULD BE FIVE FOOT.
I THINK THEY ACTUALLY WANT THE TREES THEMSELVES ALSO.
SO I THINK YOUR QUESTION WAS ACT ADEQUATE.
LIKE, YOU KNOW, WHO IS THE PRIVACY REALLY FOR? YEAH.
AND REALLY, IS THERE EVER 100% PRIVACY? NO.
AND THE PROBLEM STARTED NOW WITH DRONES, NOW WITH WHEN THE TREES WERE CUT DOWN, RIGHT? YES.
SO I STILL ASK YOU THAT QUESTION LATER ON.
SO WHAT ARE WE DOING WITH THIS? I'M SORRY.
I THINK WE'RE FIRST HAVING THE ARBORIST LOOK AT IT, COME BACK WITH A PLAN AND MAKE THAT THE CONDITION.
NO, NO, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S WHAT, WHAT GARRETT WAS SUGGESTING.
WHAT GAR WAS SUGGESTING IS THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMIT A PLAN WHICH WOULD THEN BE REFERRED TO THE ARBORIST.
SO DOES THAT MEAN WE'RE POSTPONING THIS BUT WE STILL HAVE TO ADJOURN IT BECAUSE WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING? WELL, IF YOU DO IT THAT WAY, THEN YES, YOU WOULD HAVE TO ADJOURN IT.
THE OTHER ALTERNATIVE IS TO SET A CONDITION OF A MINIMUM OF X NUMBER OF EIGHT FOOT TREES, BUT SUBJECT TO THE, UH, APPROVAL OF THE TAR TOWN.
ARBORS THE SATISFACTION OF THE TOWN ARBORIST FOR THE PROVISION OF PRIVACY AND ADD THE SHEEN CONDITION THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT AND THE, THE, THE OWNER OF THAT PROPERTY, THE BE OBLIGATED TO MAINTAIN IT IN GOOD GROWING CONDITION.
WHAT IS THAT? AND IF IT BECOMES DISEASE DYING OR DEAD? YOU MEAN SHE AND SHE? YES.
IF WE CAN DO THAT AND IF IT BECOMES THROUGH DISEASE DYING OR DEAD, THEN, THEN EVE CAN CORRECT ME IF THAT, I'M PRETTY SURE THAT'S THE ACCURATE NO, THAT'S THAT'S RIGHT.
BUT DOES THAT MEAN THAT, THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO REPLACE IT IN THE NEXT GROWING SEASON? THAT WAS THE CONDITION THAT WAS DONE OFTEN.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD CHANGE, I WOULDN'T MENTION THEIR NAME.
I WOULD SAY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
I IDENTIFIED THAT LOT BECAUSE THAT'S, NO, THAT'S WHAT I WAS SAYING.
BECAUSE IT WOULD BE LIKE A DEEP RESTRICTION.
AS A MATTER OF FACT, THERE WERE CASES WHERE WE REQUIRED IT TO BE A DEEP YES.
LET'S NOT MAKE IT A DEEP RESTRICTION.
BUT YOU PUT TO PUT SUCCESSOR OWNERS ON NOTICE RIGHT.
OTHERWISE THEY WON'T KEEP 'EM UP IF CHAIN OF TITLE AH, THEN THEY MAY NOT HAVE NOTICED.
YEAH, THEY'LL GO AND CUT 'EM DOWN.
'CAUSE IT'S MAKING WHATEVER FALLS DOWN, YOU KNOW? YEAH.
SO, SO THAT WAY WE DON'T HAVE TO, WELL, WE'D HAVE TO WRITE IT UP TONIGHT UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING.
OR DO WE DO THEN YOU'D HAVE TO WRITE IT UP TONIGHT.
SO THAT'S, WELL, I DON'T HAVE TO DO IT TONIGHT.
I COULD DO SOME SENSING OF, OR YOU WANNA DO IT
DID I DO THE HOUSE? I FEEL LIKE I MIGHT'VE DONE THE HOUSE, BUT YOU VOTED.
AYE DID I I MUST BE FALLING ASLEEP.
HOW CAN WE WRITE IT UP TONIGHT IF WE'RE ASKING? NO, WE'RE NOT GONNA, WE'RE GONNA WRITE IT.
OH, WE COULD, BUT I'M, WE HAVE TO ASK THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT, SUBMIT.
WE'RE GONNA PUT IN A, WE WOULD PUT IN CONDITIONS, A CONDITION THAT SAYS A MINIMUM LONG TIME WHAT, 2007 TIME IT IS
I'M KNOW ON THAT ONE ANYWAY, I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE, I KNOW.
SO ARE WE ONTO THE NEXT ONE? SO WHAT ARE WE DOING? SO WHAT ARE WE DOING? EITHER WE'RE ADJOURNING OR WE'RE WRITING NEAR THAT.
NO, I'LL, I CAN WRITE IT UP 'CAUSE YOU KNOW HOW I FEEL ABOUT ADJOURNING
CAN I DO IT LIKE LATER OR DO I HAVE TO DO IT NOW? YOU KNOW, I'M VERY GOOD.
I DON'T EVEN KNOW WAY TO BEGIN WITH THE LAST ONE.
I'M IN FAVOR OF IT, BUT I THAT'S A LONG ONE.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO, YOU CAN JUST COPY THE OKAY.
WE COULD LITERALLY COPY THE LAST COPY.
IT WAS LIKE TWO HAVE TO, IF YOU'RE GONNA DO IT TONIGHT, THEN YOU'VE GOT THE HOLD ON.
CAN WE HAVE TO DO THE, COULD WE JUST DO THE MOTION AND THEN, YOU KNOW, READ THE FINDINGS AND CAN WE VOTE ON IT? CONDITIONAL UP MOTION.
CAN YOU VOTE IT? ALRIGHT, I'LL WORK ON THE CONDITION.
ON WHICH ONE? WITH THE CONDITIONS? IS THAT WHAT WE DO? HOLD ON.
I HAD JUMPED OUT THE LAST TIME.
[02:30:01]
DO WELL YOU RATHER ADJOURN IT THEN WE, MY GUY'S GOTTA COME BACK.WHAT HAPPENED? WHAT WAS THAT? OKAY.
WHO SAID THAT? CHRISTY, DO YOU NEED HELP WITH ANY LANGUAGE ON THAT? BECAUSE I CAN WORK ON IT TOO.
I HAVE A, I HAVE A, UM, I MEAN I CAN TRY IF YOU WANT TO, IF YOU DON'T MOVE.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE DONE TONIGHT IS NOT.
NO, I'M NOT SAYING I, I DISAGREE WITH YOU.
I USUALLY BRINGS SNACKS, BUT I DON'T HAVE, I'LL BE, IT'LL BE DO THE CHOCOLATE.
NO, I'VE BEEN, I'VE BEEN SUCKING ON LIFESAVERS.
YOU NEED A CHOCOLATE SQUARE? NO, I GOT LIFESAVERS OVER HERE.
WHEN YOU GOT THE OPTION OF CHOCOLATE.
OKAY, LET'S GET TO, UH, ROBIN ROAD WITH 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
I MEAN, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO RUTLAND ROAD.
NEITHER AM I, I MEAN, 'CAUSE THEY ARE GETTING RID OF A LOT OF THE DRIVEWAY.
THERE ARE TREES BETWEEN THEM AND THE, THEIR OTHER BACKYARD PERSON.
WHICH IS THE BEST PART? 2 2 29.
WELL, IT'S 50 FEET TO THE NEXT HOUSE.
WELL, THE FACT IS THAT IT'S ON, YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE OF THOSE OLDER HOUSES.
AND IT'S NEVER HAD AN EXTENSION.
AND UM, THEY DIDN'T MAKE IT CLEAR IF THEY WERE GONNA TURN THE OLD GARAGE INTO A HOUSING SPACE, BUT NOT YET.
WELL, HE DID SAY THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO EXCAVATE THE LOWER LEVEL, SO.
BUT, BUT THE POINT IS, IT'S TO, WHAT MAKES IT TO USE IT? DID IT NEED TO BE EXCAVATED TO JUST BE LIVABLE? TO GET TO THE GARAGE? I GUESS FROM, I DON'T KNOW, TO USE IT FORWARD TO HAVE LIGHT.
OKAY, SO WHERE ARE WE MR BLA? I WAS ORIGINALLY OPPOSED, BUT NOW I'M NOT.
SO ARE WE, ARE WE WRITING SOMETHING TONIGHT OR NOT WRITING SOMETHING TONIGHT? WELL, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO WRITE, THEY, WELL WE KNOW THIS ONE WE NOT COPIED.
YOU HAVE A FULL AGENDA FOR NEXT.
YEAH, THERE ARE AT LEAST NINE NEW CASES.
WHAT WAS THAT? WHAT? NINE CASES NEXT MONTH DO WE BRING SLEEPING BAGS? NINE NEW CASES.
CAN WE WEAR PAJAMAS? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE DON'T.
HERE'S THE DECISION FROM, I'M GONNA TRY TO CANCEL IT, BUT I'M SUPPOSED TO BE IN THE TRAINING ON THAT DATE.
I'M IN THE TRAINING ON THE 19TH.
UH, WHAT'S THE 19TH? HAVE TO DO WITH THE 15TH? THAT'S THE NEXT MEETING.
YEAH, I'M IN THE TRAINING AND I THINK
OH, YOU'RE ON TRAINING ON THE WHOLE WEEK.
AND WORK HAS BEEN A ABSOLUTE BEAR AS OF LATE 30, 30 VOCATION DECISION.
DO WE HAVE A BLANK? BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE A COMPUTER WITH ME.
WHAT DO YOU HE'S SUPPOSED TO BE WRITING OVER THERE.
YOU WANT, YOU SAID READ THIS ONE?
IT'S ALMOST, AND I DON'T EVEN HAVE MY GLASSES.
THEY, THEY MAKE CHANGES TO THAT.
YOU KNOW WHAT THOUGH? LIKE HONESTLY ALL OF THIS IS THE SAME.
16 THAT I'M DOING THE SAME THING.
OH, I GUESS WE SHOULD READ IT THE NEW WAY, RIGHT? SHOULD BE.
WELL UNLESS YOU WANNA SIT AND COMPARE THESE TWO ONE.
[02:35:03]
SHALL BE, WHAT WAS I GONNA ASK ANTHONY ABOUT? SHOOT, IT WAS ON MY MIND EARLIER IN CHRIST.WELL WHAT WAS IT? I HAD A QUESTION FOR YOU ANTHONY AND I, I FORGOT IT.
SO I'LL HAVE TO CALL YOU WHEN I THINK OF WHAT IT WAS.
JESUS, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT STUCK OUT.
LEMME SEE IF I CAN SQUINT THROUGH THIS.
CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT IT IS NOW.
I THINK I'M GONNA BE ON VACATION NEXT MORNING.
BUT THERE SHOULDN'T BE ANYTHING ELSE TO HEAR ON THAT.
I MEAN WE, WE, WE WE'RE DONE WITH THE TREES WE PLACED IN THE NEXT AND WHAT KIND OF TREES AM I TELLING THEM? THE PLANT? OH NO, THAT'S UP TO THE, UH, THAT'S GONNA BE UP TO THE ARBOR.
NO, THEY'VE ALREADY ESTABLISHED THAT ON THEIR PLAN.
THERE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BETWEEN THE NEIGHBOR AND THE APPLICANT.
RIGHT? I'M GOING WITH THE ARBORISTS, THE NON DEER EATING ARBOR BAE.
I'M GONNA GO WITH THE FUJI GRE GIANTS, RIGHT? YOU SHOULD, OKAY.
THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT AS GREEN
DO YOU HAVE TO BE GREENED GREEN? THEY'RE NOT LIKE A RICH GREEN.
WE JUST PLANTED A TON OF THEM.
ARE THEY GONNA GROW? SEE, THEY'RE GONNA GROW.
OKAY, CHRISTIE, I'M ABOUT TO E I'M ABOUT TO EMAIL THIS TO YOU.
WAIT, SO I'M GONNA SIMPLIFY IT BECAUSE, UM, LIKE OUR PLANNING BOARD LETTER HAS LIKE, LIKE NINE THINGS THAT HAVE TO BE DONE ABOUT REPLACEMENT, WATERING AND ALL THAT.
I'M JUST GONNA THROW THAT ALL IN THERE.
WHAT DO YOU HAVE HERE? SORRY, WHAT? LOOK AT, I JUST, OKAY, I I HAVE TO SAY SOMETHING ABOUT TO ENSURE THAT SOMETHING ABOUT THE OPERATIVE.
OKAY, SO I SAID HERE THE UP CHOKE PLANT THREE OF THE TOTAL.
SO YOU THINK IT'S THREE? SO THERE'S 19 TOTAL, IS THAT WHAT YOU MEAN? NO, NO, IT SHOULD BE 16 TOTAL.
OKAY, SO THREE OF WHICH, THREE OF THE 16.
UM, IN LOCATIONS THAT PROVIDE THE MAXIMUM SCREENING TO THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH.
I WROTE THIS ORIGINAL ONE BACK IN 2016.
SO, SO YOU DID MOTION DULY MADE BY MR. ULA, SECONDED BY VILLA.
AH, BILL, WELL YOU GUYS USED TO WORK TOGETHER.
OKAY, SO I JUST SENT THAT TO YOU.
UM, AND THAT, THAT COVERS ALL ASPECTS OF, UM, PLANTING PROVISIONS, UM, IF SOMETHING DIES, DISEASE, DEAD, DYING, ALL THAT.
AND WITHIN THE NEXT GROWING SEASON.
IT, THERE'S A WHOLE, THERE'S LIKE 16 PROTOCOL AND UM, WANTED TO BRING THIS TO YOUR ATTENTION.
SO SOMEONE DID CORRESPOND WITH CAROL AND UM, THEY RECEIVED, UM, APPROVAL AND THEY DIDN'T BUILD DURING THE COVID PERIOD.
UM, THEY GOT AN EXTENSION AND THAT LAPSED.
SO THEY'RE LOOKING FOR ANOTHER EXTENSION.
THEY'RE READY TO BUILD AT THIS TIME.
UM, T LET ME PULL UP THE DETAILS ON THAT.
FIRST OF ALL, ARE WE ON, UH, WE ARE
[02:40:02]
ON MIKE.ALRIGHT, SO LET'S DISCUSS THAT TOMORROW.
NO, I WAS JUST GONNA SEE IF THE BOARD COULD DO IT VIA CORRESPONDENCE TONIGHT.
WOULD YOU KNOW IN CASE, UM, YEAH, I'M GONNA PULL THAT UP IN A MOMENT.
SO IT'S SOME, SOMETHING THAT WAS APPROVED, UH, APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS AGO.
I'M STILL TRYING TO THINK WHAT IT WAS.
I'LL COME, I'LL BE ON VACATION THIS WEEK.
I'LL, IT'LL COME BACK TO ME EVENTUALLY WRONG.
ALRIGHT, WELL LEMME, SO SHOULD I NOT SAY ABOUT THE DEATH DYING AND YEAH, NO NEED TO DISEASED WHAT I SAID TO YOU IS ALL.
ALRIGHT, HERE'S WHAT I WROTE IN HERE ONE SECOND.
HAVE YOU A COUPLE MINUTES LATER.
HOW DOES THAT COVER THE DISEASE? THE, THE, IS THAT PROTOCOL CONTINUING? UH, OBLIGATION.
THE PROTOCOL IS 16 ITEMS IN THAT PROTOCOL.
EVERYTHING FROM WANDERING, UM, SPACING, BACKFILL.
I DON'T SEE WHERE, WHERE DO YOU I DON'T SEE THE WORD PROTOCOL IN HERE.
SO I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
CAN YOU READ, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, WHEN WE SAY WHEN PLANTING SHALL BE CONSISTENT, THE TREE PROTECTION, TREE REMOVAL, LANDSCAPING CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF C, D C WILL TELL YOU THAT OVER 10 PROTOCOL THAT INCLUDES EVERY ASPECT OF, UM, REPLANTING WHEN TO DO IT.
WHAT PLANT AND WHAT ABOUT MAINTAINING? YES.
SO YOU'RE GONNA PUT IN ONE THING ABOUT MAINTAINING AND NOT HAVE THESE OTHER 16 THAT ARE EQUALLY IMPORTANT AS WHAT? ALRIGHT, WELL I, I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IF I SAW THOSE IN THOSE PRO WHAT YOU CALL PROTOCOLS.
ALRIGHT ANTHONY, HOW OLD DID YOU SAY CAROL WAS? UH, THERE WAS SOMETHING MISSING.
I THINK WE'RE GONNA BE TALKING TO AN EMPTY ROOM THAT HAPPENS.
I CAN'T, I CAN'T GET THE CURSOR UP THERE.
YOU WANNA SAY, IN OTHER WORDS, IT'S EIGHT FEET TALL WHEN IT AT PLANTING.
MINIMUM OF EIGHT FEET AT PLANTING.
THE ELECTRO PLANT A TOTAL OF 16 FUJI GREEN GIANT TREES.
THREE OF WHICH SHALL BE AT A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHT PLE, EIGHT AT PLANTING.
AND WHERE PATIENTS THAT PROVIDE THE MAXIMUM SCREENING TO THE NEIGHBOR TO THE NORTH TO THE SATISFACTION FROM THE TOWN FORESTRY OFFICER, ALL PLANTING SHALL BE CONSISTENT.
OKAY, SO THIS IS UM, TYPICAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD BUTTER.
THESE ARE THE TREE PROTECTION TREE ONE THROUGH 18.
[02:45:10]
ONE SECOND.I HAVE TO SAY CHRIS, I WOULD HAVE FOUR.
YEAH, YOU HAVE A CORNER LIKE THIS.
THIS IS WHAT SHE WAS NO IT'S NOT.
THESE TWO DON'T REALLY NEED TO BE THERE.
IT'S MORE THIS AREA FOR THE PICTURES THEY SENT.
DO YOU WANNA SAY A MINIMUM OF THREE OR DO YOU WANT ME TO PUT FOUR? SEE THESE OVER HERE? YOU DON'T REALLY NEED IT.
WHICH IS THESE GUYS? WELL MAYBE.
YEAH, I, I WE WOULD LEAVE THAT TO THE ORDER.
NO, THAT'S, THOSE AREN'T THE PICTURES I WAS REFERRING TO THE, THE SMALLER ONES FROM 2 20 10.
I I DON'T WANNA MAKE IT LIKE SO ONEROUS THAT NOW WE MAKING PLANT 16 TREES AND THREE, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? LIKE WELL I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU NEED 16 BECAUSE SEE I JUST DID THE 16 'CAUSE THAT WAS WHAT WAS SHOWN.
SO SHOULD WE JUST NOT SAY IN SAY LOCATIONS THAT PROVIDE THE MAXIMUM SCREENING TO THE NEIGHBOR.
I THINK TALKING ABOUT NINE THAT MAY BE, YOU KNOW, BY SAYING PROVIDE THE MAXIMUM SCREENING OR SHOULD I JUST TAKE THAT OUT? RIGHT.
THAT MAY, I THINK THAT COVERS WHERE IT GETS IT.
'CAUSE THEY HAVE A BETTER VIEW THAN WHAT WE DO.
I WOULD SAY AT LEAST THREE, WHICH CAN BE INCREASED BY THE UH, TOWN FORESTRY OFFICE.
IF SOMETHING DIE MAKES SUCCESSFUL, WHAT IF THEY SURVIVE THREE AND THEN THEY DIE POINT.
DON'T PUTS, PUT A DEADLINE ON.
THE POINT WAS IT WOULD BE A CONTINUING OBLIGATION REHASHING EVEN TO THE NEXT PEOPLE.
IT'S A VARIANCE FOR THE NEXT OWNER.
ANYTHING ELSE OF WELL VARIANCE IS RUN WITH THE LAND.
SO I WOULD NOT PUT A TIMEFRAME ON IT.
HOW ABOUT I SAY APPLICANT SHALL PLANT THE FUJI GREEN TREES AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN AND WE CAN JUST LEAVE IT.
WELL WHICH ONES ARE GOING HOW, WHICH ONES AND HOW MANY YOU GONNA BE EIGHT? WELL AND WHERE ACCORDING TO SITE PLAN, BECAUSE I DON'T WANNA SAY LIKE ANY CONFORMANCE, I DON'T WANNA MAKE THEM HAVE TO PLANT LIKE 16 TREES IF THEY DON'T REALLY NEED TO PLANT 16 TREES.
WELL THEY'RE THE ONES WHO SAID 16, RIGHT? THEY TOOK DOWN 19.
SO SHOULD WE JUST, I'LL JUST SAY IT ACCORDING TO THE SITE PLAN, AT LEAST THREE OF WHICH WILL BE A MAX MINIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET.
AND THEN IT'S GOT THE WHOLE THING ABOUT THE ARBORIST DEFEATED PLANNING.
I'LL BE BACK INSPECTION TOWER.
I UH, WELL YOU WANNA PUT MORE STUFF IN HERE? WELL, NO.
UH, 'CAUSE I THINK, SO THE THREE YEARS IS, UM, ALL TREES AND TRUST RETAIN IN GOOD CONDITION REPLACE NECESSARY.
SO THERE'S NO DURATION ON THAT.
OKAY, SO THIS IS THE STANDARD DECISION, RIGHT? THIS IS THE STANDARD DECISION FOR WHAT? WHICH CASE? HMM? WHEN I REFER TO SOMETHING IN THERE, STANDARD DECISION FOR WHAT CASE THOUGH? EVERY ONE IS LIKELY NO, BUT YOU, YEAH, YOU JUST CHANGE WHAT'S WRITTEN IN THE TYPE.
IS IT 10? THAT'S LIKE HOW OH, THAT'S A 2008 ONE.
THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD.
OH I HAVE TO FIND THE NEW, THIS IS THE OLD STANDARD ACTUALLY THAT'S, REMEMBER YOU PUT DOWN 22 TREES, ANYBODY, RIGHT? SO WE'RE GOOD WITH THIS.
I MEAN I'M HAPPY TO CHANGE IT.
I'LL WORK ON IT AFTERWARDS IF YOU THAT'S GOOD ENOUGH FOR NOW.
OKAY, SO I'LL DO THE REST OF IT AND I'LL SEND IT TO YOU THEN
[02:50:01]
TOMORROW.SO, UM, WHAT KIND OF ENTRENCHMENT DID YOU OFFER THEN?
I JUST SAID, HEY, WE HAVE OPENINGS.
IS HE STILL WORKING OR LIKE REMEMBER HE GOT SOME NEW POSITION.
I THINK THAT'S WHEN WHY WHEN HE LEFT, HE RETIRED? NO, HE SAID HE WAS GOING ON A BOARD AND HE WAS GONNA BE TRAVEL HE BOARDS BUT NOT, I DON'T THINK HE WAS, HE JUST, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
BUT HE SAID LIKE HE DIDN'T HAVE TIME.
IT'S HARDER TO GET ON BOARDS NOW THAN IT USED TO BE.
CAN'T GET ANYONE ON THIS BOARD SAID WE CAN'T GET ANYONE ON THIS BOARD.
I WAS THINKING THE PAID BOARDS PROBABLY WANNA GET ON THE PAID BOARDS.
BECAUSE THEY GET PAID SO WELL DON'T GET PAID TOO WELL THIS BOARD.
I'M ONE OF THE FEW PEOPLE WHO WAS LIKE NUTS ENOUGH TO SAY, OH GOODY TELL ALL MY FRIENDS HOW ZONING NOT THAT FREQUENTLY GO TO JAPAN.
BUT IS THAT YOUR HUSBAND? YEAH.
SO BARBARA CANCUN WHAT? CANCUN? THERE'S BASICALLY THREE PLACES I WOULD STAY IN CANCUN.
OH DO YOU HAVE THAT? DOES SHE NEED THAT? DO YOU HAVE THAT? DO YOU HAVE THE SECRET? YES.
YEAH, SHE HAS THE SECRET GRANDCHILDREN.
WE STAYED AT THIS, THIS CALLED THE
AND THEN THERE'S RITZ, WHICH IS NICE.
NOW SINCE YOU SEEMED TO KNOW THIS PART, WHAT WE ARE GOING TO, UM, ME AND CARTIA KNOW WHERE THAT IS IN, IN COLUMBIA.
I WAS GONNA SAY ANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS? NO, NO, NO, NO.
WE HAVE A TIME SHARING ATA OH, WHICH WAY TO CHICAGO.
HAVE YOU BEEN LONG TIME AGO? IT'S, WELL IT'S GOT VERY STRICT ZONING, WHICH IS WHAT I LOVE ABOUT AND YOU HAVE TO USE INDIGENOUS MATERIALS, INDIGENOUS DESIGNS IN DOWNTOWN.
AND SO DOWNTOWN IT DOES NOT LOOK LIKE TEXAS.
AND LIKE EVERY ONE NIGHT A WEEK THEY HAVE ALL THE ART GALLERIES ARE OPEN AND IT'S OH, IT'SS.
YEAH, I'VE BEEN, I WAS EIGHT YEARS.
IT'S GOT LOT EXPATS FROM AROUND THE WORLD.
SO YOU'VE GOT A LOT OF DIFFERENT CULTURES.
MY FAVORITE RESTAURANT EVER IS DOWN THERE LIKE SPORTS FRENCH RESTAURANT.
YEAH, BUT IT'S YEAH, WITH BUILT IN THE JUNGLE BACKYARD.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE THOUGHT WE WERE TRAINING FOR.
BUT YOU GUYS CAN START WHENEVER YOU'RE READY.
IT'S STILL RUNNING LIVE, SO THANK BYE BYE.
I'VE BEEN TOLD THE UM, DEL CARMEN.
OH IT'S BE, HAS A PRE OH, OKAY.
THAT I'VE BEEN TOLD IS BEAUTIFUL.
WELL JUST CANCUN, WE JUST KEPT SAYING WHERE IS THE NICE PART WE DIDN'T WALK.
[02:56:16]
YOU'RE GONNA NEED IT ON FOR THE BOAT TOO.AND WE ARE BACK WITH UH, THE RESULT OF OUR DELIBERATIONS FROM THIS EVENING AND WITH, AND THE FIRST CASE WE HAD WAS CASE 2205 OR EZ.
AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE-REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO SECRET COMPLIANCE AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS DETERMINED THE APPLICATION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SECRET CONSIDERATION.
AND JUST FOR PURPOSES, UH, FOR THIS EVENING, BECAUSE OF THE LATENESS, WE ARE GOING TO PROVIDE THE MOTION BUT THE FINDINGS WILL NOT BE READ THIS EVENING FOR ANY OF THE CASES THAT WE ARE UH, HAVE DETERMINED.
WHICH CASE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? ALL OF THEM.
YEAH, WHAT DID I SAY? OH, I'M SORRY.
IT'S 2229 THAT I WAS REFERRING TO AND 20 RAYMOND TWO 30 OSKY.
SO STRIKE WHAT I HAD SAID PREVIOUSLY BUT STILL THE RESOLUTION IS THE SAME.
THAT IT, IT IS A TYPE TWO ACTION.
AND THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS REVIEWED THAT APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO SEEKER AND DETERMINED THAT IT WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND IT AND IT REQUIRES NO FURTHER SECRET CONSIDERATION.
AND I STILL SECOND
AND NOW WE HAVE A MOTION WITHOUT A FINDING FOR THIS EVENING.
UH, I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE NUMBER 2229 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAINED ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS DATED JUNE 26TH, 2022 SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION OR AS SUCH, PLANS MAY BE HEREAFTER MODIFIED BY ANOTHER APPROVING BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICER OF THE TOWN.
PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT WE ARE GRANTING HEREIN.
THE VARIANCES BEING GRANTED ARE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.
ANY FUTURE OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT, SETBACK OR OTHER VARIANCES.
WE HAVE APPROVED HEREIN FURTHER THAT THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS SHALL BE MET.
THE APPLICANT SHALL PLANT FUJI GREEN GIANT TREES AS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN DATED JUNE 26TH, 2022.
AT LEAST THREE OF WHICH SHALL BE AT A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET AT PLANTING IN LOCATIONS THAT PROVIDE THE MAXIMUM
ALL PLANTINGS SHALL BE CONSISTENT WITH THE TREE PROTECTION, TREE REMOVAL AND LANDSCAPING CONDITIONS ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION.
[03:00:01]
AYE.AND JUST TO GO BACK TO CASE 2205 LEY GETZ, THAT IS ADJOURNED TO THE MEETING OF DECEMBER 15TH AND THE NEXT LAST CASE ON OUR AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING WAS CASE 2230 JOSEPH AND SHARON NAYA.
AND THAT'S PROPERTY EIGHT RULAND ROAD AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO C A COMPLIANCE AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG Z B A HAS DETERMINED THE APPLICATION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIR REQUIRING NO FURTHER SE CONSIDERATION.
AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES, MADAM CHAIR, WE HAVE A MOTION.
I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE NUMBER 22 DASH 30 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT ONE THE APPLICANT OBTAINED ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE THE SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS DATED OCTOBER 7TH, 2022 SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION OR SUCH PLANS THAT MAY HERE HAVE TO BE MODIFIED BY ANOTHER APPROVING BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICER OF THE TOWN PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT WE ARE GRANTING HEREIN THE VARIANCES BEING GRANTED, THE VARIANCES BEING GRANTED ARE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS SUBMITTED IN SUB SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION ONLY.
ANY FURTHER ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES.
EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT, SETBACK OR OTHER VARIANCES WE HAVE APPROVED HEREIN, NO FURTHER CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED.
AND WITH THAT I BELIEVE WE ARE ADJOURNED FOR THE EVENING AND THE FINDINGS WILL BE MADE PUBLIC.
THEY WILL BE IN THE ON THE RECORD AS WELL AS UH, WRITE AVAILABLE IF YOU WISH TO GET THEM.