[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, March 6, 2024 – 7:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ]
[00:00:04]
GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE MARCH 6TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
UH, MR. SCHMIDT, PLEASE CALL THE ROLES CHAIRPERSON SCHWARTZ.
UH, WE DO NOT HAVE MS. DAVIS THIS EVENING, SO WE HAVE MS. SPARKS HERE WHO WILL BE A FULL VOTING MEMBER.
UM, ANYBODY HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE MINUTES? I THINK TOM, DIDN'T YOU HAVE A TYPO? I TWO IT.
THANK YOU TOM WALTER ON UH, PAGE THREE, SECOND PARAGRAPH.
UH, AT THE VERY END, UH, THIS WILL COME AND YOU MAY CHOOSE THE CHAIRPERSON SOURCE OPINE THAT THE NEW SUBMITTED DATA APPEARS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE PRIOR DATA.
YOU ALSO INDICATED THAT THERE ARE INDUSTRY STANDARDS AVAILABLE TO CALCULATE THE TIMING NUMBER OF CARS THAT GO OUT AND THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO THE APPLICANT WHETHER THEY USED IT OR NOT, BUT OH, YOU RIGHT YOUR MIC.
BUT YOU DID INDICATE THAT THERE ARE INDU, I FORGOT WHAT INDUSTRY, WHAT INDUSTRY.
IT'S PROBABLY QSR MAGAZINE OR SOMEBODY THEY CAN REVIEW.
YEAH, THERE ARE DATA AVAILABLE.
COULD YOU JUST REVIEW THE TAPE TO SEE WHAT EXACTLY WHAT IT SAID? YEAH.
AND WHERE WAS THAT EXACTLY AMENDMENT, MR. SIMON? THAT IF YOU LOOK AT PAGE THREE MM-HMM.
I, ANY OTHER CHANGES? UM, AND I THINK THERE WAS ONE OTHER PART THAT ON PAGE FIVE, AND, AND, AND MICHAEL CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, UM, DATA BE INCLUDE THAT WE NEEDED EXAMPLES OF SOME SORT OF EXAMPLES THAT WE COULD RELY UPON SO WE DON'T MAKE OUR DECISION LESS ARBITRARY THAT SOME SORT OF BENCHMARKS WE SHOULD HAVE.
DO YOU RECALL THAT MICHAEL? I WASN'T HERE AT THE LAST MEETING.
SO WHAT, THERE WAS TWO, THERE WAS SEVERAL.
THAT WAS A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO.
MICHAEL MADE THAT COMMENT LIKE, OKAY, SO THAT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS CRITERIA.
THAT WAS IN THE PREVIOUS OKAY, FINE.
AND THEN WE WERE TRYING TO DIFFERENTIATE MR. SIMON FOR MR. SIMON.
CAN ONE OF YOU CHANGE YOUR NAME PLEASE? OH YEAH.
SIMON IS THE APPLICANT'S FIRST NAME.
SO WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS, UM, CHANGE THAT SENTENCE TO START WITH THE APPLICANT.
PRESENTED THE PROJECT AND THEN PLANNING BOARD MEMBER MR. SIMON.
THEN CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS AMENDED PLEASE? SO MOVE SECOND.
THERE'S ONE THING IN CORRESPONDENCE TONIGHT, AND I WANT TO TRY TO KEEP THIS AS SIMPLE AS POSSIBLE.
IT WAS A LETTER THAT I RECEIVED AND THE TOWN BOARD RECEIVED FROM THE, UH, CAC ON SUNDAY EVENING REGARDING, UM, PART A PART OF THE, UH, BOND PROPOSAL FOR THE EDGEMONT SCHOOLS INVOLVING AN ACCESS ROAD, UH, THAT GOES TO ARTILLERY LANE, UH, TO OLD COLONY ROAD.
UM, WHAT THE LETTER SAYS SPECIFICALLY IS THAT, IS THAT THEY HAVE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ABOUT THAT CONSTRUCTION 'CAUSE THEY'RE TAKING WHAT IS NOW BASICALLY IS A SLIGHTLY PAVED PATH IN A HEAVILY WOODED AREA ON A STEEP SLOPE AND PUTTING IN A TWO LANE ROAD.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE CAC IS CONCERNED ABOUT.
THERE ARE ALREADY DRAINAGE ISSUES WITH ARTILLERY LANE THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY DOCUMENTED IN THE PAST.
AND ACTUALLY I DROVE BY THERE ON THE WAY HERE AND YOU CAN SEE THE, THE WATER RUNNING DOWN ARTILLERY LANE INTO CRANE POND BECAUSE THERE WERE NO STORMWATER STORM DRAINS, WHICH IS TYPICAL OF, OF OLD EDGEMONT.
THAT'S THE WAY OLD EDGEMONT IS UNFORTUNATELY.
CAN YOU, IT'S JUST TO, CAN YOU PUT US SOME REFERENCE WHERE, WHERE WE ARE TALKING ABOUT LOCATION HERE? I I HAVE THIS THAT CAN HELP YOU IF YOU WANT, BUT I CAN GO, CAN YOU, CAN YOU PUT, COULD WE OPEN UP THAT CREAM POND? YEAH.
THAT'D BE EASY ON GOOGLE EARTH.
[00:05:02]
GREEN POND OBVIOUSLY IS, IS IS A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE ECOLOGY IN, IN GREENBURG.UM, IT'S A WATER, IT, IT'S A WATERCOURSE.
IT FEEDS INTO THE BRONX RIVER PARKWAY.
IT HOUSES DUCKS, IT HOUSES PIECE, NICE LITTLE PARK.
UM, AND IT'S REALLY THE CROWN JEWEL OF EDGEMONT ACTUALLY.
IT'S, IT'S WHAT PEOPLE SURROUND EDGEMONT WHERE WE HAVE HAVE CHRISTMAS CAROLING AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT.
SO IT'S AN IMPORTANT AREA, UH, FOR, FOR EDGEMONT.
AND THE CAC CONCERN IS CLEARLY ABOUT ENVIRONMENT OF WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THE SCHOOL BOARD HAS ACTUALLY DONE EVERYTHING THEY NEED TO DO TO ENSURE THAT THAT ROAD WOULD NOT IMPACT THAT.
I'VE BEEN TO THREE OF THEIR MEETINGS AND I SHARE, I PERSONALLY, PERSONALLY SHARE THE CONCERN.
I'VE BEEN TO THE, THEIR THREE OF THEIR PRESENTATION PUBLIC PRESENTATIONS AND I CAN, MY, I SHARE THEIR CONCERN.
I'M NOT SAYING THEY CAN'T DO IT AND NEITHER IS THE CAC C ALL I'M SAYING IS THAT THERE SHOULD BE SOME FURTHER STUDY.
IN ADDITION, UM, THERE'S TRAFFIC ISSUES RELATED TO THIS POTENTIALLY, AGAIN, JUST POTENTIALLY 'CAUSE YOU'RE DIVERTING TRAFFIC FROM A DIFFERENT INTERSECTION TO THERE.
AND TO GET TO THAT INTERSECTION, YOU EITHER HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE CONGESTED INTERSECTION THAT ALREADY EXISTS OR YOU HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY AROUND BY THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TO GET THERE, WHICH MAY BE EVEN WORSE.
I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT, BUT I'M NOT A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT.
SO AGAIN, THE SCHOOL BOARD WAS ASKED WHETHER OR NOT THEY'VE HIRED A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT.
AND AS OF LAST WEEK, THE ANSWER AS FAR AS I KNOW, IS NO.
SO AGAIN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S NOT A CAC CONCERNED THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THE PLANNING BOARD SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT, UH, AS AT LEAST AN INTERESTED AGENCY.
WE DON'T NEED TO GO ON WHETHER WE'RE AN INVOLVED AGENCY NOW IS ABSOLUTELY IRRELEVANT.
'CAUSE WE'RE NOT DOING ANYTHING, WILL NOT DO ANYTHING BEYOND BEING ENTRUSTED AGENCY UNLESS THE TOWN BOARD SAID WE SHOULD.
WHAT IS THE ISSUE? WHAT IS THE ISSUE BEFORE US? THE ISSUE BEFORE NOW I KNOW THE CAC SENT A LETTER AND I WOULD LIKE TO CLARIFY ONE THING.
UM, AS FAR AS I COULD TELL, THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT A TWO LANE ROAD FROM ARTILLERY LANE.
UP TO THE SCHOOL WHERE THEY'RE GONNA BUILD A PARKING LOT YEP.
AND THEN A CONNECTING ROAD FROM THE PARKING LOT TO OCON TO COLONY.
SO IT'S NOT A DIRECT, I MEAN, IN A SENSE IT'S NOT A DIRECT LINK.
SO THERE'S A PARKING LOT KIND OF AND A DROP UP AND A DROP AND A DROP UP UP TOWARD O COLONY.
SO WHAT IS, WHAT IS IT THAT WE NEED TO DECIDE OKAY.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA GET TO MICHAEL.
JUST, JUST TO, UH, SEE WHAT MICHAEL SAID.
CAN YOU SHOW IT TO WHAT YEAH, THAT'S WHERE IT IS.
WHAT IT IS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT GOING UP FROM CRANE POND.
THERE'S A ROAD CALLED ARTILLERY LANE RIGHT NOW OUR RIGHT HERE.
ARTILLERY LANE IS A DEAD END ROAD.
THAT SERVICES, I THINK THREE HOUSES MAYBE AARON.
THREE OR THREE HOUSES THAT ARE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF CRANE POND.
IT DEAD ENDS AT THE SCHOOL PROPERTY AND WHAT THE SCHOOL WANTS TO DO ON THEIR PROPERTY, NOT ON ON TOWN PROPERTY IS TAKE WHAT WAS, I THINK IT MAY HAVE BEEN A ROAD AT ONE POINT, BUT IT'S NOW OVERGROWN IN A SMALL PATH AND BUILD A TWO LANE ACCESS ROAD AND BUILD AN ALTERNATE DROP OFF AT THE TOP OF ON CAMPUS AND THEN HAVE THEM TURN AROUND.
THE CONNECTION TO OLD CULINARY ROAD IS NOT SOMETHING I'M CONCERNED ABOUT.
THEY'RE GONNA PUT A, PUT A, UH, EMERGENCY, UH, GATE THERE.
SO THE ONLY WAY TO ACCESS THE NEW PARKING LOT AND THE DROP OFF WOULD BE THROUGH ARTILLERY LANE, WHICH IS THE TOWN ROAD.
THE OTHER ISSUES ARE DIVERTING TRAFFIC TO SOMEPLACE ELSE TO GET TO ARTILLERY LANE.
AND THEY SAID THERE ARE ONLY TWO WAYS TO GET THERE.
ONE IS THROUGH THE CONGESTED INTERSECTION THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH, OR GO ALL THE WAY AROUND THROUGH SEALY PLACE UP WHERE HENRY STREET IS, WHERE SLY PLACE IS, ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, GO BACK BY THERE AND BACK THROUGH ALL OF MONT DOWN TO CRANE POND AND THEN BACK UP TIL RE LANE.
AND I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC.
AND THEY DON'T HAVE A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT.
SO WHAT ARE YOU ASKING US TO DO? I'M GOING TO DO THAT IN A SECOND.
I WAS EXPLAINING JUST, JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS.
WHO OWNS THAT LAND? IT'S A TOWN LAND.
IT'S THE SCHOOL OWNS THE DEAD END TO THE YES.
ALL I'M ASKING IS FOR TWO THINGS.
ONE, US CONSIDER AT LEAST SUPPORTING THE CONCERNS AND MAYBE NOT OPINING AT ALL ON THE LEGAL PART BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S A DISAGREEMENT.
THERE IS A DISAGREEMENT ON THE LEGAL PART OF WHETHER OR NOT WE REALLY HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO INTERVENE HERE.
[00:10:01]
DISAGREEMENT ON THAT.SO TO KEEP THIS THING SIMPLE AND NOT GET INTO A BIG LEGAL ARGUMENT, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS WE, WE SUPPORT THEIR CONCERNS SO THAT, AND LET THE TOWN BOARD DECIDE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD GO INTO.
AND TWO, AS AN INTERESTED AGENCY, WHICH IS CLEAR, WE ARE AT MINIMUM THAT WE WRITE A LETTER TO THE, TO THE SCHOOL BOARD FROM US STRONGLY RECOMMENDING SHARING THE CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE WITH THE CAC, THAT THEY MAKE SURE THAT THEY DO THE PROPER ENVIRONMENTAL DUE DILIGENCE.
AND SECONDLY, THAT THEY HIRE A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT TO LOOK INTO THE TRAFFIC IMPACT BOTH THERE.
AND ONE OTHER PLACE, WHICH I HAVE TO MENTION, WHICH WALTER KNOWS ABOUT SECOND PROJECT AT SEALY PLACE, THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, THERE IS NOT ENOUGH PARKING.
THEY WANT TO BUILD A NEW PARKING LOT, UH, WHICH WOULD BE, UH, HAVE ACCESS TO ARDSLEY ROAD.
IT WOULD BE REALLY ALMOST NEXT TO THE GREENVILLE CHURCH, WHERE THE OLD TENNIS COURT WAS RIGHT.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE THEY WANNA BUILD IT.
I HAD SUGGESTED TO THEM, THEY'RE ALREADY RENTING, BY THE WAY, SPACES AT GREENVILLE CHURCH BECAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY OPPOSITE USES.
THE CHURCH AND, AND THE SCHOOL.
I SUGGESTED, BECAUSE THAT'S ARLEY ROAD, WHICH IS SO DIFFICULT TO NAVIGATE ALMOST ANY TIME OF THE DAY, THAT INSTEAD OF A SECOND CURB CUT THAT THEY DO A JOINT CURB CUT WITH, WITH USE A JOINT DRIVEWAY WITH GREENVILLE AND THEN DO SOME TRAFFIC CALMING MEASURES THAT ARE DURING PICKUP AND DROP OFF.
THEY SAID THEY COULDN'T DO THAT BECAUSE, UM, THEY HAD ALREADY, THEY HAD ALREADY DONE SEEKER ON THIS IN A YEAR AND TWO, TWO YEARS AGO.
GARRETT SENT THEM A LETTER AFTER MEETING WITH, AND I THINK IT MAY BE YOU WERE AT THE MEETING AS WELL, RIGHT? THE MEETING AT THE SCHOOL.
GARRETT HAD SENT THEM A LETTER SUGGESTING THEY GET A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT TO, TO LOOK AT THAT, AT THAT INTERSECTION.
AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THEY'RE NOT DOING THAT AGAIN, I JUST WANNA IMPLORE THEM FROM US.
COULD WE HAVE ONE CONVERSATION PLEASE? THANK YOU.
TO IMPLORE THEM TO ASK TO HIRE A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT BEFORE THEY APPROVE THAT.
I WANNA WRITE, MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE VERY SHORT NOTES SAYING WE SUPPORT THE CONCERNS BUT WILL NOT OPINE ON THE LE ON THE LEGAL ISSUES REGARDING THAT.
THAT IS UP TO OUR ACCOUNT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE TO DO NOT THIS PLANNING BOARD.
WE ARE NOT THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT.
AND IN TERMS OF THIS OTHER THING, JUST WRITE A LETTER SAYING THAT WE, AGAIN, WE SUPPORT THE CONCERNS OF THE CAC AND WE CAN ATTACH THIS LETTER.
AND IN TERMS OF, AND WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC AT THESE TWO PLACES AND STRONGLY RECOMMEND YOU, YOU HIRE A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT BEFORE YOU GO AHEAD WITH THESE TWO PROJECTS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? GO AHEAD.
WELL, YES, I AHU WAS FIRST THEN YOU AHEAD, UM, RAISE YOUR HAND IF YOU WANT TO TALK
SO YOU SAID TO YOUR, TO THE BEST OF YOUR KNOWLEDGE, YOU'RE NOT AWARE THAT THEY DID HIRE.
SO I'VE I'VE ASKED THEM DIRECTLY.
SO WE WE ARE NOT SURE THAT THEY DIDN'T YET.
AND IF THEY, IF, ARE WE SAYING THAT THEY ARE AGAINST DOING THAT AND SAID NO, I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THEY SAID TO ME.
I I DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT.
I THINK THEY WANNA HIRE THEM AFTER THE FACT AFTER THIS THING IS APPROVED BECAUSE THEY'RE RUSHING TO GET THIS THING BOND ISSUE APPROVED, BUT ON THE BALLOT BY MAY 24TH.
ACTUALLY, THE REASON FOR THE URGENCY IN TALKING ABOUT IT TONIGHT IS THEY'RE ACTUALLY VOTING ON PUTTING IT ON THE BALLOT NEXT WEEK.
THAT'S WHY WE CAN SAY, IF YOU'VE ALREADY DONE THIS, GREAT.
THAT'S HOW WE, WE COULD FINESSE THAT.
IF, IF, IF THEY'RE REQUIRED TO MAKE AN APPLICATION, YOU KNOW, TO APPROVE THIS ROAD OR THAT COMES TO THE PLANNING BOARD OR TO THE TOWN BOARD? PROBABLY THE TOWN BOARD BECAUSE IT'S MORE THAN FIVE ACRES.
UM, WELL THERE IS A LEGAL QUESTION OF WHETHER THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO OR NOT.
NO, BUT IF THEY WERE, IF THEY WERE REQUIRED TO, THEY, WOULD THEY GO TO THE TOWN BOARD? THAT WOULD BE OUR, OUR BOARD ACTUALLY.
SO IT IS MY INTERPRETATION THAT THEY WOULD NOT REQUIRE THOSE PERMITS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO TO ANYBODY.
THEY COULD DO IT BY THEMSELVES AS THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.
SO THEY CAN TAKE OUT ALL THE TREES AND GET
[00:15:01]
GOOD IDEA TO HIRE A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT BECAUSE OF POTENTIAL TRAFFIC CONDITION THAT MAY EXIST.WELL, WE HAVE AUTHORITY TO RULE IT.
AND BESIDES THE POINT, STAY AWAY FROM THAT.
AND WE'RE SAYING IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT.
WHAT, LOOK, IT'S OBVIOUSLY A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT.
IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A STORM ORDER MANAGEMENT ENGINEER FOR THE STORM ORDER.
WHY DON'T WE JUST WRITE 'EM A LETTER.
I WILL SEND IT OUT BY EMAIL TO EVERYBODY AND YOU GUYS CAN COMMENT BACK TO ME AND WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO, 'CAUSE I REALLY DO WANT TO GET IT OUT BEFORE THEY MEET ON THE 14TH, IF THAT'S ALL RIGHT.
SO WHERE SHOULD WE TAKE A VOTE ON IT? DO WE NEED A VOTE ON THAT? NO.
CAN I, DO WE HAVE TO, I HAVE A PROPOSAL THAT WE UH, THAT WE ASK THE CHAIR TO DRAFT A LETTER, WHICH WE, WHICH HE WILL CIRCULATE AROUND TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR FINAL APPROVAL SUGGESTION TO THE EDGEMONT SCHOOL BOARD THAT THEY HIRE, UH, ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRAFFIC CONSULTANT TO HELP THEM WITH THEIR APP, WITH THEIR PROJECT IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY TO A POINT.
AND THE SECOND ONE IS, SHOULD WE SEND A LETTER, JUST A NOTE SAYING THAT WE SUPPORT THE CONCERNS OF THE CAC WITHOUT OPINING ON THE, UH, THE, THE THEIR LEGAL CONCLUSION? IT'S THE SAME LETTER.
JUST REFERENCE THE CAC C LETTER.
NO, I APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK ACTUALLY AMANDA DID ON THIS.
WE DON'T AGREE ON THIS AT ALL, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
SHE DID WHAT SHE BELIEVES IS CORRECT AND THAT'S FINE.
AND WE'RE GONNA GO, WE ARE GOING TO, WE ARE GOING TO OBVIOUSLY HAVE TO HONOR WHAT OUR TOWN ATTORNEY DOES IN TERMS OF OUR ACTION AND WE WON'T DO ANYTHING BEYOND THAT UNLESS THE TOWN BOARD DIRECTS US TO DO SOMETHING BEYOND THAT.
JUST, JUST FOR MY, MY UNDERSTANDING, SINCE I'M NOT NOT A LAWYER.
SO THE SCHOOL BOARD OR SCHOOL DISTRICT HAS A INDEPENDENT AUTHORITY.
I DON'T WANNA GO INTO ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE LEGAL PART, JUST TO UNDERSTAND BECAUSE WE ARE, WE ARE DOING, IS THERE REALLY CROSS, UH, CROSS.
SO I THINK, I THINK AMANDA, I THINK AMANDA VERY BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT YOUR POSITION IS BECAUSE YOU, YOU BROUGHT IT UP A NUMBER OF TIMES.
LET'S HEAR WHAT AMANDA HAS TO SAY.
THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO HEAR WHAT I HAD TO SAY.
WE'RE I I'M ALSO THE CHAIR OF THE BOARD.
THINK SO WHY CAN YOU GO? MICHAEL, YOU'RE OUT OF BOARD.
NO MICHAEL BECAUSE CHAIR MICHAEL, YOU'RE OUT OF ORDER.
I THINK YOU, WE SAID WE CAN GO IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.
WANNA, I THINK IT'S A MISTAKE NOT HAVE, LET'S HAVE A VOTE ON WHETHER TO GO ON AN EXECUTIVE SESSION THEN WAIT, BEFORE, BEFORE WE EVEN GO THERE.
YOU'VE ALREADY AGREED ON WHAT THE ISSUE THAT WAS BROUGHT AND WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO.
YOU HAVE, WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO.
LET'S GET ON WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE PLANNING BOARD BUSINESS.
IF YOU GUYS WANNA HAVE A CONVERSATION, DO IT OFFLINE.
OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO THE NEXT, UH, ONE.
UM, ARE WE GONNA DO A CHICK-FIL-A THAT'S THE EASY ONE, RIGHT? THEY'RE UP NEXT.
SO I'M ACCUSING MYSELF FROM THIS MEETING AND JOE DANKA WILL BE STEPPING ON.
WE DO HAVE, UH, DON'T HAVE ANYTHING.
AMANDA, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, UH, TAKING A HIATUS.
THE ONLY, THE ONLY PERSON THAT DID DIDN'T BRAVE THE WATER TONIGHT IS JOE, BUT HE LIVES ON A BOAT, SO IT'S OKAY.
WE'LL, WE'LL GIVE HIM A, WE'LL GIVE HIM A, UH, PASS ON THAT.
UH, WE CLEARLY HAVE SPENT A LOT OF TIME GOING THROUGH THIS AND THE, THE POSITION WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW IS, I DON'T THINK WE CAN ADJUST THE PLAN ANY MORE THAN WE HAVE.
UH, WE'VE GOTTEN, YOU KNOW, YOUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT IS OPINED OUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT IS OPINED YOU'VE DONE WHAT WE'VE ASKED YOU TO DO IN TERMS OF THE, UH, Q THAT I STILL THINK YOU SHOULD LOOK AT THE TIME FROM THE TIME THEY GET IN THERE, BUT THAT'S JUST ME AS A BUSINESS PERSON.
BUT WHAT, IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE ANYTHING WE'RE GONNA DISCUSS TONIGHT.
UM, WE HAVE TWO THINGS THAT WE NEED TO DISCUSS TONIGHT.
UM, THE FIRST ONE IS THE NEGATIVE
[00:20:01]
DEBT DECLARATION.UM, AND, UH, AARON, DO YOU WANNA GO THROUGH JUST A FEW CHANGES? I GUESS THEY WERE SUGGESTED BY, BY, UH, COUNSEL? YES.
SO WE DID CIRCULATE THE DRAFT TO THE PROJECT TEAM.
WE DID GET SOME FEEDBACK AND HAVE MADE SOME REVISIONS TO THE DRAFT THAT YOU ALL HAD AND, AND WERE PROVIDED WITH.
I'LL TAKE EVERYONE'S NOT THE LATEST, IT'S BEEN UPDATED, I'M JUST SLIGHTLY, I'VE, I'M GONNA SHARE SCREEN IT AND THEN I WILL WALK EVERYONE THROUGH IT.
SO JUST, JUST FOLLOW ALONG ON THE ONE YOU'VE GOT NOW.
THEY'RE NOT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.
TOM, ARE YOU SEEING THIS IN THE SHARE SCREEN? YES.
SO I'LL WALK EVERYONE THROUGH THESE.
UM, WAS IDENTIFIED THAT NEW YORK STATE ON PAGE ONE.
UH, RIGHT AFTER THE TOWN OF GREENBURG PLANNING BOARD, WHICH IS AN UNDERLINE, UH, IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT NEW YORK STATE, DOT IS AN INVOLVED AGENCY RATHER THAN AN INTERESTED AGENCY.
THEY DO HAVE PERMITTING AUTHORITY OVER PORTIONS OF THE PROJECT.
SO WE'VE MADE THAT CHANGE AND THAT CARRIES THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT.
UM, BUT AS IN ON, I THINK IT SAYS INTERESTED, WE CHANGED, CHANGED THAT TO INVOLVE WE ARE INTERESTED, BUT WE'RE EVEN MORE INVOLVED.
BUT I'M SAYING ON THE ONE THAT YOU PREVIOUSLY YEAH.
IT SAYS INVOLVED SAYS, IT SAYS INVOLVED NEW YORK STATE DOTI THINK IT SAYS NOW DOT, NOT US.
CONTINUING ON PAGE ONE UNDER DESCRIPTION OF ACTION IN BOLD ARE THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT.
NUMBER 10, UH, FOUR LINES UP FROM THE BOTTOM OF THE BOLDED AREA.
WE HAD IT AS FROM 14 FEET PERMITTED TO 27 FEET.
PROPOSED THE APPLICANT IN FACT MADE SOME REVISIONS, TOOK A LOOK AT THAT VARIANCE AS REQUIRED, REDUCED DOWN THE HEIGHT OF THEIR PROPOSED LIGHTING TO 17 FEET.
WE DID REVIEW THAT WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OFFICE AND A, AND A REVISED VARIANCE DETERMINATION MEMO WAS ISSUED THIS AFTERNOON.
WHICH WE'LL FORWARD IT ALONG TO PEOPLE IN GREENBERG AREN'T THAT TALL.
AS I NOTED BEFORE, UNDER REASONS SUPPORTING THIS DETERMINATION.
SECOND PARAGRAPH, WE CHANGED INTERESTED TO INVOLVED IN TERMS OF AGENCY FOR NEW YORK STATE DOT GOING TO THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH, WE JUST CLARIFIED THAT THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION WAS DULY NOTICED.
WHICH IT WAS CONTINUING ON TO PAGE THREE, WHERE WE LIST OUT THE 12 VARIANCES.
I, CONTINUING ON, AND WE MAY ASK THE APPLICANT HERE FOR, WHERE ARE YOU NOW? DO I HAVE SOMEWHERE WHAT PAGE YOU ON? ON 2 0 2? WE'RE ON IMPACT ON LAND PAGE PAGE THREE ON LAND.
ON IMPACT ON LAND, WE TALK ABOUT IMPACT ON LAND.
UH, IT SAYS, UH, SHOULD NOT, IT SAYS THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN.
IF WE TALK ABOUT IMPACT ON LAND, AREN'T WE TALKING ABOUT THE INTERNAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT? WAIT, WHERE ARE YOU? WHERE IS THAT ON THIS POINT? TO ME, WHERE IT'S SHOULD THE WORD INTERNAL.
OH, I SEE WHERE IT'S DOWN HERE.
YOU SHOULDN'T NOT SAY INTERNAL HERE.
SHOULDN'T, RIGHT HERE, THERE SHOULDN'T NOT BE THE INTERNAL TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN BECAUSE YOU TALK ABOUT THE LAND, JUST THE LAND ITSELF.
SO THE TITLE OF THE DOCUMENT IS REFERRED TO AS A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN.
IF WE WANT TO CLARIFY, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO INTERNAL CIRCULATION.
BUT IT DOES IMPACT OFF, ACTUALLY IT DOES WALTER, NO, IT'S ACTUALLY BEYOND, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG WRONG, SIR.
BUT IT ACTUALLY DOES INCLUDE, LIKE FOR INSTANCE, IF WE HAVE ON THE OPENING PLAN WHERE THERE'S OVERFLOW OF HOW THEY'RE GONNA DIRECT THE TRAFFIC THAT'S IN THE STREET, AND THEY'RE ALSO, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, SIR, BUT I BELIEVE WE ALSO AGREED THAT AS A, UH, CONDITION WHEN IT, WHEN IF IT COMES BACK POSITIVE FROM THE, UH, ZONING BOARD THAT WE'LL PUT IN THERE, THAT IF INDEED OUR, THE PLAN THAT WE THINK IS GONNA WORK BEGINS TO OVERFLOW, THAT THERE'LL BE SOMEBODY OUT THERE DIRECTING TRAFFIC AWAY.
BUT IT, SO IT ISN'T JUST INTERNAL THEN IT REALLY, IT REALLY DOESN'T.
[00:25:01]
AND MAYBE OLD CON UH, UH, COUNTY CENTER ROAD AS WELL.WELL, TO CLAR THEN CLARIFY TO ME MORE, YOU SAID IMPACT ON THE LAND BECAUSE WHEN I WAS READING IT, THE MAIN IMPACT ON THE LAND, ON THE SITE, SO THE TRAFFIC PLAN UNDER THE HEADING LAND WOULD BE INTERNAL.
AND THEN, UH, HOW ABOUT JUST SAYING INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL? DO YOU WANT TO JUST PUT THAT IN PARENTHESES FINE.
AND THAT, THAT WAY WE'VE SOLVED THE WHOLE PROBLEM.
BECAUSE THE ACTUAL OFFICIAL TITLE OF IT WAS TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN.
I THINK THAT THAT PARAGRAPH THOUGH, I THINK IT'S ISN'T THAT CONSULTANT MISSING TOWNS TRAFFIC, THE SENTENCE END OF THE SENTENCE.
WHERE, WHERE ARE YOU? CORRECT.
WHERE, WHERE YOU SAY, OH YEAH, THAT THE SECOND PARAGRAPH IS CUT OFF A LITTLE BIT, LITTLE BIT AT THE END.
WHO? SO LET ME, UM, FOR TRAFFIC, WHAT, FOR MR. CANNING, WE'VE GOT RID RID OF MR. CANNING.
WAIT, WHERE IS THAT AGAIN? AT THE, AT THE END OF THE SENTENCE.
AND WE APOLOGIZE TO MR. CANNING IF HE'S LISTENING TONIGHT.
UH, WITHIN THAT SAME PARAGRAPH AND WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT FOR AN UPDATE, UH, MIDDLE OF THE PARAGRAPH INDICATES THAT THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION WITH THE CITY OF WHITE PLAINS, WE'VE MODIFIED IT TO IS CURRENTLY AN UNDER REVIEW.
IS THERE AN UPDATE FROM THE APPLICANT IN TERMS? I'LL TELL WHAT CAN WE LEAVE YOU LEAVE THAT TO THE END.
AND THEN I'D LIKE TO HEAR WHAT'S GOING ON WITH FEEDBACK.
SO WE CONTINUE ON TO NUMBER THREE ON THE SAME PAGE.
UNDER IMPACT ON COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL CHANGE THE TYPE OF COMMERCIAL USE OF THE LAND WE'VE ADDED.
HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED USE IS PERMITTED BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE DS DISTRICT FACTUAL STATEMENT.
CONTINUING ON NOTHING ON PAGE FOUR.
YEAH, I HAVE HAVE SOMETHING ON PAGE FOUR.
THE WAY THE PARAGRAPH READS STARTING FROM THE SUBJECT SITE IS WHERE P WHAT, OKAY.
ON PAGE FOUR, FIRST PARAGRAPH.
IT IT, IT, IT READS THAT THE, THE, THE INTERNAL MANAGEMENT PLAN WILL TAKE CARE OF ALL THE CONCERNS AND ALICIA DOESN'T TAKE CARE OF MY CONCERN.
I THINK WE SHOULD PA UH, SOME SORT OF MODIFIER THEN AND, AND SAY, ALTHOUGH, UH, THERE'S SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC BACK UP ON OLD KENSICO ROAD AND, AND, UH, WHAT'S THAT? THE OLD KENSICO AND COLONY ROAD.
IT'S STILL SOME CONCERN WHERE, EXCUSE ME, JUST SHOW ME.
WHAT SENTENCE ARE YOU IN, IN WALTER? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10.
THE APPLICANT HAS PREPARED A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN AND IMPLEMENTED SIGNED DESIGN AND CONSULTED IN CONSULTATION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, TOWN STAFF AND TR TOWN'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT.
WHICH ONE CARRIED OUT? I BELIEVED TO, TO BE, I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'D SAY INSTEAD.
BUT WHAT I'M SAYING IS, BUT, BUT, BUT I'M SAYING IN SPITE OF THAT, THERE'S STILL SOME CONCERNS.
WELL, SO I DON'T THAT WE BELIEVE THAT HAVE DEEMED TO BE ADEQUATELY MITIGATED, HOWEVER, UH, SHOULD BE MONITORED IN THE FUTURE.
HOW ABOUT THAT? HOW SH SHALL BE MONITORED TO BE ADJUSTED IF NECESSARY, WHICH YOU'RE GONNA DO ANYWAY.
WHAT ELSE ARE YOU GONNA SAY? RIGHT.
JUST, JUST SUGGEST OVERALL IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS A LOT OF, UH, CONDITION, LOT OF KIND OF WHAT IF SCENARIOS AND MANAGEMENT PLAN WOULDN'T BE, UH, BETTER TO HAVE A CONDITION NEGATIVE DECLARATION SO THAT THEY DON'T DO THIS OR THEY HAVE FOUND SOMETHING BE CONDITION.
NO, I'M, I'M PROPOSING I DON'T, LISTENING TO IT AND HEARING ALL THESE, I DON'T THINK REASONING WE ARE TALKING ABOUT IT.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS SOME HESITATIONS AND SOME CONDITIONS THAT SHOULD ASK OR SHOULD OR CORRECT WOULD BE MET THEN ONLY THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION STANDS.
OTHERWISE THERE IS A DEFINITE IMPACT ON CORRECT.
I MEAN THAT BE, I DON'T THINK THAT WILL
IT'S NOT, ITS NOT A BAD POINT.
BUT LET, LET ME TALK ABOUT IT FOR A SECOND.
LET, LET'S, LET'S THINK THIS OUT.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
AND IT MAY BE THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
LEMME DO THINK ABOUT THIS FOR A SECOND.
FIRST OF ALL, THERE'S NEVER A SURE THING THING WHEN YOU DO WITH, WITH ANYBODY,
[00:30:01]
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT TO YOUR DOCTOR.IT'S, SIR, IT'S STILL AN ART, NOT JUST A SCIENCE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHO'S GONNA SHOW UP THERE.
AND WE MAY BE WRONG AND IF WE'RE WRONG, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO SOME ADJUSTMENTS.
NOW, THE PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT OF BOTH THEIR EXPERT AND OUR EXPERT OKAY.
IS THAT WE'RE RIGHT, NOT ONLY THAT WE'RE RIGHT, BUT WE'VE ACTUALLY GOT A CONTINGENCY PLAN IF WE'RE WRONG.
SO WE'D HAVE TO BE WRONG TWICE BEFORE IT GETS TO BE, AND IT COULD HAPPEN, DON'T GET ME WRONG.
'CAUSE I KNOW WE'VE ALL SEEN CHICK-FIL-A EXAMPLES OF CHICK-FIL-A WHERE THE CARS ARE, YOU KNOW, FLOWING ONTO THE STREET.
SO THE QUESTION IS, DO WE DO THIS HERE AS A CONDITIONAL NECK DECK? I UNDERSTAND THAT.
OR DO WE JUST FLAG IT A LITTLE BIT HERE AND MAKE SURE IN THE CONDITIONS OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT THAT WE COVER IT, WHICH I THINK IS REALLY, WHICH REALLY WHERE IT NEEDS TO BE, RIGHT? NO, NO, THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING BECAUSE OF THE, THE, THE CONDITIONS WILL NOT BE IN THIS DOCUMENT, YOU KNOW, SO, SO I'M NOT PROPOSING THAT IT, IT, CAN WE REFER TO THE SPECIAL PERMIT, THIS DOCUMENT THEN? SO WHAT I'M SIMPLY SAYING, SOMETHING SHOULD BE THERE.
WHAT I'M SIMPLY SAYING THAT WE INDICATE THAT IN SPITE OF AGREEMENT OF THE TWO TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS, THERE REMAINS CONCERN.
YOU KNOW, COUNCIL TOO TRAFFIC BACK UP ON OLD TERRY TOWN.
NO, NOT TER, ON ROAD, CONCEA ROAD AND COLONY ROAD.
WHAT WERE YOU GONNA SAY TO CORRECT? AND THEN COUNCIL, I KNOW YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS.
I MIND JUST BASICALLY WAS READING AND WE JUST SAY SIMPLY ON ITEM NUMBER THREE, IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND WILL THE PROPOSED ACTION IMPAIR THE CHARACTER OR QUALITY OF THE EXISTING COMMUNITY? AND AT THE END OF THE THINGS, UH, WITH ALL THE NON RIGHT NAG DECK, WE SAYING THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR THE CHARACTER OF, OR THE QUALITY OF SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
I DON'T THINK IN GOOD CONSCIENCE I CAN SAY THAT IT'S GOING TO CHANGE.
THE COMMUNITY HAS LOUD AND CLEAR SAID ABOUT IT, THAT THIS COMMUNITY HAS BEEN NEGLECTED, BEEN HAS A ON AND ON PROBLEMS AND ALL THAT STUFF.
AND IF HE CAN'T REALLY DO SOME CONDITIONAL THINGS THAT IF HE CAN COME BACK, I MEAN THIS, HOPEFULLY IT WILL BE WONDERFUL, BUT IF IT DOESN'T, THEN WHAT? WELL THERE ARE GONNA BE, AND MAYBE THE WAY WE DO IT IN COUNSEL, WHY DON'T YOU COME TO THE DAY AND, AND ONE MORE, ONE MORE QUESTION.
WHAT IS THE IDEA ABOUT HAVING THIS OPTION OF CONDITION NEGATIVE DECLARATION? I DON'T KNOW.
UH, JOE, UH, WELL COUNSEL FIRST AND THEN JOE, I'D LIKE YOU TO APIR ON WHAT THE IDEA OF CONDITIONAL VERSUS REGULAR COUNSEL FIRST.
SO RELATED TO CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS, I'VE BEEN DOING LAND USE LAW FOR 15 YEARS, SIX OF WHICH WERE IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY SPECIFICALLY.
UM, AND THERE ARE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES TO A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION THAT YOUR COUNSEL CAN ADVISE YOU ON.
UM, AND THEY'RE OFTENTIMES SHIED AWAY FROM, UH, THAT SAID, THE DOCUMENT YOU ARE CONTEMPLATING RIGHT NOW IS NOT AN ELIMINATION OF EVERY SINGLE IMPACT.
WHAT IT IS, IS IT'S A RECOGNITION THAT MITIGATION THAT'S PROPOSED IS GOING TO NOT RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, RIGHT? WHICH IS VERY DETAILED FROM THE D-E-C-E-A-F WORKBOOKS.
IT CLEARLY SAYS WHAT IS SIGNIFICANT, WHAT IS SMALL, WHAT IS NONE? SO WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE HERE IS, UM, A RECOGNITION OF THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, UM, WHICH SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO ANY DETERMINATION THAT THIS BOARD MAKES.
AND THEREFORE YOU HAVE SECURITY IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT WHAT'S IN THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN WILL BE A CONDITION OF THE APPROVAL.
YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT CONDITIONS IN THIS BECAUSE THIS ISN'T AS ENFORCEFUL AS YOUR RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL.
UM, AND IN THAT TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, WE, YOU KNOW, HAVE THE STEPS.
IF THE SITE GETS TOO FULL, WE SHUT DOWN OLD KENSICO DIRECT TRAFFIC TO COUNTY CENTER.
IF THAT GETS TOO FULL, WE DIRECT TO THE EMPLOYEE PARKING.
UH, WE ALSO HAD A DISCUSSION WITH PLANNING STAFF THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT EVERYTHING IS FULL, RIGHT? AND THIS WAS THE WORRY FROM THE LAST MEETING, UH, WE RECOGNIZE THAT WE WILL CONTACT LOCAL POLICE ENFORCEMENT WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER THE ROAD.
UM, WE WILL THEN HIRE THAT POLICE ENFORCEMENT TO MONITOR THE SITUATION.
UM, AND SO ALL THOSE THINGS ARE IN THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN.
SO IF YOU REFERENCE BY INCORPORATION THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN IN
[00:35:01]
THIS DOCUMENT, IT'LL BE BINDING BY THIS DOCUMENT.IT'LL THEN ALLOW YOU TO MAKE IT BINDING IN YOUR APPROVAL RESOLUTION OR WHATEVER DETERMINATION YOU MAKE THE SPECIAL PERMIT IS RIGHT.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THEN CAN COME TO THE SITE AND SAY, THIS WAS YOUR CONDITION, YOU'RE IN VIOLATION.
ONE QUESTION, COUNSEL, 'CAUSE I, IT DOESN'T, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S INCORPORATED IN A TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN OR IT'S SEPARATE.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT PEOPLE WERE OVERLOOKING.
AT THE SAME TIME, YOU'RE CREATING ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC THERE.
YOU'RE ALSO TRYING TO DO SOMETHING TO IMPROVE THE INTERSECTION AT, AT, UH, OCO AND, AND TERRYTOWN ROAD.
AND WE KNOW THAT MOUNT THAT LIGHT MALFUNCTIONS RIGHT NOW.
AND AREN'T YOU WIDENING OLD KENCO TOO AND PUTTING A LEFT, LEFT TURN LANE IN? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.
SO WE'RE WIDENING OLD KENS CO ROAD TO GET AN ADDITIONAL LANE APPROACHING TARRYTOWN ROAD THAT REQUIRES MODIFICATIONS TO THE PEDESTRIAN SIGNALS AND THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND COORDINATION WITH DOT AND WHITE PLAINS TO GET THAT SYSTEM FUNCTIONING PROPERLY.
'CAUSE TODAY IT'S OPERATING ON A FIXED TIME OPERATION, WHICH LEADS TO A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT OCCUR TODAY INSTEAD OF DEMAND.
SO THAT WILL BE OUR RESPONSIBILITY HOLD AND, AND THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, UH, WAS PUT TOGETHER TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THERE WERE STILL CONCERNS BY THE BOARD, UH, RELATIVE TO THE FUTURE CONDITIONS AND HOW THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED.
SO THAT'S PART OF THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN? YES.
JOE, DO YOU HAVE ANY, ANY COMMENT? WHAT DO YOU THINK ON THE, ON THE CONDITIONAL NEG DECK VERSUS NEG DECK? YEAH, SO I THINK THE TIME WHEN DRAFTED ARE ASKING THAT THE APPLICANT CONTINUE TO MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL ADVERSE CONCERNS.
AND IT'S REALLY A DETERMINATION OF THE BOARD.
NOW, WHETHER YOU WOULD LIKE TO STATE SPECIFICALLY WHAT CONDITIONS SHOULD BE, UH, PUT INTO THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
I THINK THIS WAS, UM, BRIEFLY DISCUSSED WITHIN, UH, YOU KNOW, STAFF, UH, GOING BACK LIKE A MONTH OR TWO.
AND I BELIEVE THE DISCUSSION WAS THAT NEGATIVE, UH, CONDITIONAL, NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS RARE.
UM, AND THAT IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY HERE.
UM, WELL, IF IF WE, IF IF WE
UM, SO, SO WE COULD ADD THAT LANGUAGE INTO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL IF, IF THE AUTHORITY THAT IT'S NOT SPECIFIC ENOUGH AT THE CURRENT TIME.
I I MEAN I'M NOT ALLOWED, BUT I JUST HAVE A VERY SIMPLE COMMON SENSE IF HE SAYS THAT OR, OR SOMETHING TO MODIFY THE LAST, UH, SENTENCE, WHICH INCORPORATES, UH, OR, OR PUTS A CAVEAT ON THAT IT HAS A SIGNIFICANT OR NOT SIGNIFICANT.
BUT THAT LAST SENTENCE NEEDS TO BE, UH, REFLECT THE CONCERNS THAT WE SAY IN THE BEGINNING OF THE PARA BEGINNING OF THE ITEM NUMBER THREE, HAS ANY IMPACT WILL, WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT ON CHARACTER EQUALITY OF EXISTING COMMUNITY AND IN, IN A RIGHT CONSCIOUS, I CANNOT SAY THAT IT WOULD NOT, IT WOULD.
SO WHAT MY SUGGESTION, AND I THINK, UH, UH, YOU CAN REALLY SUGGEST THE LANGUAGE THAT WILL, WILL HAVE THAT CONDITION INCORPORATED INTO THE ND DOCUMENTS.
AND I UNDERSTAND THAT PUTTING CONDITIONAL ND IS NOT VERY YOU COMMON, BUT IN THIS, THIS, THIS IS NOT A COMMON PROJECT.
I THINK I, I JUST HAVE ONE POINT AND, AND SO NO, LET ME FINISH YOUR HONOR.
FINISH FINISHED IN THEN COUNCIL, THEN WALTER, I THINK FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, WE SHOULD REALLY PUT SOMETHING THAT WILL, UH, WE'LL SORT OF HAVE THAT, UH, SAFETY VALVE INTO IF IT DOESN'T WORK OUT AND IT'S ALL, ALL THE TIME.
I MEAN, I SAY THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN IS ALL OVER THE APPROVAL AND WE NEED TO HAVE SOME SORT OF WAY TO SAY, IF IT DOESN'T WORK WHAT YOU DO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO, YOU'RE NOT GONNA TAKE OFF THAT PERMIT TO OPERATE, UH, RESTAURANT.
SO I THINK I'LL BE HAPPY IF YOU CAN INCORPORATE SOME CONDITION WHICH ALLOWS US TO, WELL, WE'LL, WE'LL, WHAT YOU SUGGESTED BEFORE.
[00:40:01]
OKAY.WAIT, LET COUNCIL FINISH MICHAEL, THEN YOU OKAY.
THE SENIOR PARTNER AT MY FIRM WAS ONCE GENERAL COUNSEL AT THE DEC AND ACTUALLY HELPED WRITE THE SECRET REGULATIONS.
ONE OF THE THINGS HE TAUGHT ME, WELL, JUST HANG ON A SECOND.
CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS ARE IN AN INSTANCE WHERE THE APPLICANT IS REFUSING THE MITIGATION OR NOT PROPOSING THE MITIGATION AND THE PLANNING BOARD WANTS TO MANDATE MITIGATION OR CHANGES INTO THE PROJECT.
YOU DON'T HAVE THAT SITUATION HERE.
THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ANIMAL UNDER YOUR SECRET.
WELL, WALTER, AND YOU'VE HAD PROFESSIONAL CONSULT, WALTER CONSULT THEN MICHAEL, AND IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO SAY TO JOHANN AFTER WALTER FIRST, UM, YES.
GRANTED, YOU, YOU INDICATE THAT YOU ENTER THE MIC, PLEASE, WALTER, THAT YOU HAVE A MANAGEMENT PRO, UH, PROGRAM THAT YOU WOULD FOLLOW.
MY ISSUE IS HOW EFFECTIVE IS YOUR MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN, IN GATHERING THE DIS UH, UH, THE DATA ON DRIVE-INS? YOU LOOK AT DRIVE-INS ACROSS THE NATION, YOU LOOK AT THE MCDONALD'S, THE UH, UH, KENTUCKY FRIED CHICKEN AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
AND YOU WIND UP WITH COMING UP WITH SOME BASIC DATA OF HOW DRIVE-INS OPERATE.
THERE'S NO, FOR THE PRODUCT YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE A UNUSUAL MARKET DEMAND FOR YOUR PRODUCT.
SO YOU ARE AN OUTLIER TO ALL THE TRADITIONAL DATA THAT YOU GET WITH DRIVE-INS.
YOU'RE AN OUTLIER BECAUSE YOU PERFORM DIFFERENTLY AND TO YOUR CREDIT MORE EFFECTIVELY THAN EVERYONE ELSE.
SO YOU ARE THE OUTLIER AND THAT'S WHY, WHY, WHY, WHY WE DIDN'T.
SO SEEING HOW YOU ARE THE OUTLIER AND, AND IN SPITE OF THE OPINION OF THE TRAFFIC EXPERTS, THAT IS STILL BASED UPON THESE AVERAGE INDUSTRY DATA.
IT'S NOT AVERAGE INDUSTRY DATA.
WHAT WHAT WAS BASED UPON INDUSTRY DATA? OKAY, WAIT, OKAY, LET ME FINISH.
THE TRAFFIC IS YOUR STUDY BASED UPON WHAT HAPPENS TO CHICK-FIL-A INSTITUTIONS? YES.
SO YOUR TRAFFIC DATA IS JUST BASED ON, ON, ON, UH, CHICK-FIL-A CORRECT.
SO JUST TO GIVE YOU THE, THE, REMEMBER THE HISTORY.
THE, THE INITIAL TRAFFIC STUDY WAS REVIEWED BY YOUR CONSULTANT AND ONE OF THE FIRST COMMENTS WAS WE WANTED TO USE THE CHICK-FIL-A SPECIFIC DATA.
WHICH WE DID IN TERMS OF THE TRAFFIC GENERATION, IN TERMS OF THE QUEUING, IN TERMS OF THE OPERATION.
SO OUR, OUR STUDIES ARE BASED ON CHICK-FIL-A AND FOR EXAMPLE, FOR PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC, IT'S HIGHER THAN A MCDONALD'S.
AND THE HIGHER IS WHAT WAS ANALYZED AND THE BASIS OF THE MITIGATION AND THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WE'RE DOING.
AND ALSO WORKED INTO THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, WHICH IS NOT TYPICAL FOR A DEVELOPMENT TO HAVE TO DO THIS.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE CONCERNS AND BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS OPERATION, IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THIS IN PLACE.
SO WE HAVE THE QUOTE BELTS AND SUSPENDERS SO THAT IF FOR SOME REASON THE PROJECTIONS ARE SLIGHTLY OFF, WE HAVE A WAY TO MANAGE AND ADDRESS THAT SO THAT THE AREA IS PROTECTED IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC.
BUT THE ONE ISSUE THAT I BROUGHT UP IN TERMS THAT SIMPLE CALCULATION I MADE WHERE YOU COULD NOT SPECIFY THE NUMBER OF CARS LEAVING YOUR SITE, YOU BASED UPON, I GUESS TRADITIONAL WHAT THEY'RE BASED UPON, THE NUMBER OF CARS, THE NUMBER OF CARS LEAVING THE SITE IS BASED ON THE CHICK-FIL-A DATA OBSERVED AT OTHER LOCATIONS.
DID YOU PRESENT THAT? YES, BECAUSE THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
THAT WAS MY QUESTION LAST TIME.
IN, IN, IN THE, IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY THAT WAS REVISED IN MAY OF 23
[00:45:02]
MM-HMM.AND THERE'S A TRIP TABLE THAT SHOWS FOR EACH OF THE PEAK TIMES THE ENTERING VOLUME AND THE EXITING VOLUME BASED ON CHICK-FIL-A DATA.
AND I'M GOING TO, IN ROUND NUMBERS, IT'S APPROXIMATELY 150 VEHICLES IN THE PEAK HOUR THAT WE WILL LEAVE THAT SITE VIA BOTH DRIVEWAYS.
AND THAT'S WHAT WAS ANALYZED IN THIS STUDY.
AND HOW, AND WHAT WERE THE NUMBERS COMING IN ROUGHLY THE SAME, A LITTLE BIT HIGHER, BUT ROUGHLY THE SAME.
ONE 50 TO ONE 60? IT WAS 1 0 1 AS EVER CAN REMEMBER? YEAH.
PARDON? I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
IT WAS 1, 1 50 TO ONE 60 VEHICLES IN A ONE HOUR PERIOD AND APPROXIMATELY ONE 50 EXITING IN THAT SAME TIME PERIOD.
I, I'D LIKE TO GET MY POINT TO, AND, AND, AND IT WAS FROM LAST MAY.
SO YEAH, WE'VE GONE THROUGH A LOT SINCE THEN.
SO, BUT JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, WHAT, WHAT ELSE DO YOU HAVE? THAT'S IT.
UM, I THANK, I THANK THE LAWYER FOR EDUCATED ME ON NEGATIVE MICHAEL, PLEASE, PLEASE.
OH, UH, A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATIONS.
AND YOU SAID THAT THE REASON YOU PUT A CONDITION IN IS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WASN'T WILLING TO DO IT.
SO YOU PUT IN A CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO SAY, HEY, IF THEY DON'T YOU DO THIS, THAT, OR THE OTHER THING, OR AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S, THAT'S FINE.
THAT'S WHAT THE CASE LAW TELLS US.
LOOK, UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF TALK ABOUT PUTTING CONDITIONS IN THIS NEG DECK.
ALL OF THE CONDITIONS, IT'S ON THE RECORD.
THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THEM.
ALL OF THE CONDITIONS, LIKE THE HUNDREDS OF APPLICATIONS WE'VE APPROVED BEFORE NOW WILL BE IN THE FINAL APPROVAL.
I MEAN, GOD KNOWS HOW THICK THAT FINAL DOCUMENT IS GONNA BE.
SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT CONDITIONS.
AND WHAT I WILL SAY TO THAT POINT IS THIS IS JUST THE SECRET PROCESS.
I JUST QUICKLY, 'CAUSE I WASN, JUST TO SUMMARIZE MY CONCERN HAVE ONE, ONE POINT, LET FINISH, LET'S JUST SORT OF SUMMARIZE WHAT SORT OF MY CONCERN AND I THINK, UH, MICHAEL HAS HELPED ME.
THE LAST SENTENCE, UH, IF HE, IF HE ADD THIS IS JUST BEFORE NUMBER FOUR.
AND IT SAYS THE, UH, WHATEVER THE CHARACTER AND QUALITY OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
NOW, DO YOU MIND IF WE ADD A SENTENCE CALLED IF ALL THE CONDITION IN THE SPATIAL PERMIT? YOU CAN'T READ MY HANDWRITING.
I WROTE THIS TO HELP CAREER OUT, WHICH IS A FOREIGN FRIEND.
SO THE APPLICANT'S, THIS IS WHAT'S ALREADY WRITTEN.
THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR THE CHARACTER OR QUALITY OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
AND THEN I SUGGESTED ADDING, IF ALL THE CONDITIONS IN THE SPECIAL PERMIT ARE COMPLIED WITH, I WOULD BE VERY HAPPY WITH THAT.
I WOULD JUST SIMPLY CHANGE IT TO SAY THAT, UM, IF THE, UM, PROPOSED MITIGATION IS IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL USE PERMIT RESOLUTION, SAME THING.
CAN I HAVE A MOTION THEN TO, TO APPROVE THE MAG DECK AS MANAGER? UNLESS YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY.
YEAH, I HAD MY HAND UP FROM BEFORE.
I'M SORRY, YOUR HAND IS LIKE THIS.
THEY ALREADY ADDRESS MY ISSUE.
JUST THE FACT THAT YOU IGNORE ME.
I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT YOU SHOULD HAVE I LOVE YOU ANYWAY, BUT THEY'VE ALREADY COVERED IT, SO I'M NOT, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU'D LIKE TO, TO SAY? WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE, APPROVE THE NEC AS AMENDED.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
ARE WE ON THROUGH ALL THE OTHER, ALL THE OTHER CHANGES THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT? YES, WE DID.
WE, THEY WERE ALL READ THROUGH JOE, I I THINK DID YOU GET THROUGH 'EM? IS THERE ANY CHANGES? ANY CHANGES? LET ME GO, LET ME, LEMME JUST BACK UP.
THERE'S NOTICE OF THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CENTER AS WELL.
I'M WITHDRAWING THE MOTION, MOTION PAGE PAGE FOUR BECAUSE MR. SIMON HAD A COMMENT, BUT WE CAN CONTINUE WITH THE ADDIT.
CAN YOU PUT IT BACK UP ON THE STREET? I CAN.
NOW WE WERE ON PAGE NUMBER FIVE MOVING INTO SECTION EIGHT, IMPACT ON HISTORIC
[00:50:01]
ARCHEOLOGICAL ARCHITECTURAL OR AESTHETIC RESOURCES.UM, WE ADDED IN A PARAGRAPH REGARDING THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CENTER BUILDING, WHICH IS LISTED ON THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES AND LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED IN THE APPLICANT'S ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT FORM.
UH, THERE ARE NO ADVERSE IMPACTS ANTICIPATED AND WE ELABORATE ON THE REASONS SET FORTH WHY INCLUDING SCREENING THE NEW BUILDING WOULD BE SITUATED FURTHER THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING, WHICH IS TO BE DEMOLISHED.
UM, IT'S ACROSS THE STREET FROM COUNTY CENTER, UH, FROM THE COUNTY CENTER ACROSS COUNTY CENTER ROAD
SO, UM, THAT LANGUAGE WE WANTED TO INCORPORATE IN THERE IN THE APPLICANT.
PROVIDED SOME INFORMATION BEYOND THAT.
UH, ONE ONTO PAGE SIX QUICKLY.
WE DID ADD, UM, AT THE END OF SECTION NINE THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE REDUCING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OF THE SITE WHEN COMPARED TO EXISTING CONDITIONS AND THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH CHAPTER 2 48 OF THE TOWN CODE.
AND THEN ON THE FINAL PAGE, JUST A SIMILAR CHANGE FOR NEW YORK STATE DOT AS AN INVOLVED AGENCY VERSUS INTERESTED AGENCY.
JOHANN, COULD YOU NOW MAKE A MOTION TO, TO APPROVE THE NAEC AS AMENDED? SO MOVED.
ALL OPPOSED? OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON.
LET'S MOVE ON TO THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS, UH, YOU WANNA GO THROUGH THE CHANGE AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS? YEAH, THERE'S ONLY BEEN ONE CHANGE REALLY AN UPDATE TO THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION THAT WAS CIRCULATED BY STAFF AND PACKAGES.
SO FIRST BEING ON PAGE ONE IN BOLD WHERE WE OUTLINED THE 12 VARIANCES, WE UPDATED THE 27 FOOT HEIGHT PROPOSED FOR THE LIGHTING DOWN TO 17.
AND THEN, UM, ON PAGE TWO, THE LAST SENTENCE, PAGE TWO, LAST SENTENCE OF THE DOCUMENT.
UM, WE JUST STOPPED THE SENTENCE AT, UH, WELL IT NOW READS, THE PLANNING BOARD STRESSES THAT A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH HAS BEEN CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE RECENT PAST HERE, MICHAEL.
JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, WHY DID YOU GO FROM 27 TO 17? UH, WELL WE HEARD A CONCERN AT THE, AT ONE OF THE MEETINGS RELATED TO THE HEIGHT AND SPILLING OVER ON THE PROPERTY LINES.
SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WERE RESPONSIVE TO THAT.
YEAH, BECAUSE 27 SOUNDS AWFULLY TALL TO ME.
YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S THAT SPILLOVER LIGHT THAT PEOPLE HATE.
AND, AND SO WE TRY TO ACCOMMODATE THINGS THAT WE'RE ABLE TO OKAY, GOOD.
MY, MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT DOESN'T PLANNING DOESN'T, THE TOWN BOARD KNOWS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION NOT TO BE CONSTRUED, UH, FIRST OF THE TOWN BOARD.
THE TOWN BOARD ACTUALLY HAS THE ZONING BOARD.
AND WE'RE JUST REINFORCING THAT FACT.
'CAUSE WE HAVE, I THINK THEY DO KNOW IT, BUT IT DOESN'T HURT TO REINFORCE IT BECAUSE WE'VE HAD THE MISCONSTRUED A A FEW TIMES A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.
'CAUSE YOU GAVE ME SO MANY POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS WHEN THEY SO NEUTRAL THEY'D SAY, HEY, WHAT'S NO, BUT THAT, BUT THAT'S TRUE.
AND WE'VE BEEN DOING SO THE LAST SEVERAL PROJECT, BUT I THOUGHT WE, WE SENT A SET OF THAT, SOME SORT OF A DOCUMENTATION.
THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO DO IT.
DID SEND WHAT? THERE WAS A LETTER DIFFERENT, I THINK I WORKED WITH JOHANNA JOHAN DRAFTED A LETTER WITH AARON, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER.
WELL THEY ALSO, THEY ALSO HAVE A LOT OF TURNOVER.
THEY'VE HAD A LOT OF TURNOVER, A LOT OF PROJECTS.
IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T HURT TO REMIND THEM OF THAT.
ANY OTHER CO COMMENTS THAT ANYBODY HAS? I MEAN, OVERALL WHAT, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS SAYING THERE, THERE ARE 12, I THINK 13 VARIANCES IN TOTAL.
UH, 11 OF WHICH ARE DIRECTLY RELATED TO MAKING THIS PROJECT WORK IN OUR VIEW.
AND UM, I THINK IT'S SIX OR SEVEN OF THEM WERE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING.
THE ONLY THING WE DID ADD, 'CAUSE IT'S SOMETHING I THOUGHT ABOUT, IS ALTHOUGH THERE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING THE USE IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN IT WAS BEFORE.
AND I WANT THEM TO CONSIDER THAT.
SO WE, WE REALLY ARE GIVING A FAIR NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION HERE, I THINK.
CAN I HAVE A MOTION THEN TO ACCEPT, TO ACCEPT THAT THE NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION AS AMENDED? AS AMENDED AS AMENDED JOHAN.
[00:55:01]
THANK YOU.THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR ALL THE HARD WORK YOU DID.
DID AND UH, ARE YOU ON THE ZONING BOARD SCHEDULE YET? UH, SO WE ARE DOING SOME REVISIONS TO OUR STEEP SLOPE CLEARANCE FORM.
UM, 'CAUSE THERE WAS CONFUSIONS ON THAT.
SO WE WON'T BE PUT ON AN AGENDA UNTIL THOSE REVISIONS ARE MADE.
WHAT, OKAY, WHAT DOES THAT DO WITH ZONING? WHAT DOES C SLOPE HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ZONING BOARD? IT IS A REQUIREMENT THAT, UH, THAT BE PROCESSED PRIOR TO THE ZONING BOARD.
UM, BUT WE DO EXPECT TO BE, AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I WANTED TO TALK TONIGHT WAS PROCESSED WITH THIS BOARD GOING FORWARD.
WE DO EXPECT TO BE ON THE ZONING BOARD APPEALS APRIL MEETING, UM, APRIL 18TH.
I BELIEVE IT'D PROBABLY BE IN OUR FIRST MEETING IN MAY.
WELL, LET ME SPEAK TO THAT A LITTLE BIT.
UM, IT DEPENDS ON THE MEETING.
IT REALLY DEPENDS ON HOW THINGS GO WITH THAT MEETING.
DO THEY CLOSE FOR DECISION? DO THEY ADJOURN IT? THAT WILL DICTATE WHERE THINGS GO AND COME BACK WITH THIS BOARD.
SO WE'LL CONTINUE TO KEEP THE LINES OF COMMUNICATION.
UH, WE WILL TRY TO, TO DO IT SO THAT WE CAN GET YOU BACK ON.
SO YOU DON'T WANNA SEE US UNTIL WE'RE DONE WITH THE THERE'S NORE THERE'S NO OTHER REASON TO.
I MEAN, WE'LL, WE'LL TRY TO SEE YOU CLOSE, CLOSE AFTER, AS CLOSE AFTER THE DECISION AS WE CAN SCHEDULE YOU OKAY.
UNLESS, UNLESS SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THAT THE BOARD NEEDS TO REVIEW.
RIGHT? I MEAN I THINK WE, WE'VE GONE THROUGH, WE KNOW WHAT THE PLAN IS.
UH, WE'VE ALREADY DONE A PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON THIS.
UH, I WOULD SUSPECT MORE PEOPLE ARE GONNA SHOW UP AND, AND RAISE, RAISE QUESTIONS AT THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT SO BE IT.
AND WE'LL BE PREPARED, PREPARED FOR THAT.
UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING NEW, WE'LL MAKE A DECISION AT THAT POINT.
BUT I, I REOPENING THE WHOLE THING WITH, AT THIS POINT, WE'VE DONE, WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK.
WE'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK AND IT'S RIGHT NOW UP TO THE ZONING BOARD AS TO HOW THEY FEEL ABOUT DOING THIS WITH THIS MANY VARIANCES.
WHAT'S THE STATUS OF WHITE PLAINS? THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA ASK.
SO, UM, WE HAVE MET AND HAD A FEW CONVERSATIONS WITH, UH, THE BILLING DEPARTMENT.
WE'VE JUST SUBMITTED OUR PRE-APPLICATION APPLICATION TO GET THE APPLICATIONS, UM,
AND SO AREN'T YOU GLAD YOU'RE WORKING WITH GREENBERG
I DO, YOU KNOW, WHITE PLAINS HAS A LOT OF FISH TO FRY.
UM, BUT I HAD A CALL INTO COMMISSIONER AM MARIO'S OFFICE ON MONDAY, AND TODAY I'M WAITING ON A RESPONSE BACK AND WHEN WE CAN GET ON AN AGENDA, THE ONLY QUESTION BECAUSE THEIR CODE IS A LITTLE STRANGE, IS WHAT BOARD ARE WE GONNA GO TO? DO WE GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD OR THE CITY COUNCIL? 'CAUSE THAT DEPENDS ON THEIR CALCULATION OF PARKING SPACES.
UM, BUT NOW THAT WE HAVE THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, ALL THE OTHER INVOLVED AGENCIES MM-HMM.
CAN ISSUE THEIR DETERMINATIONS.
IT WASN'T UNTIL THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WAS ADOPTED THAT THEY COULD MAKE A DETERMINATION.
SO I AM READING THE TEA LEAVES AND I THINK THEY WANTED THAT TO BE DONE BEFORE THEY START THEIR CONSIDERATION.
I I HAVE A TIMING QUESTION THOUGH, AND IT'S ACTUALLY, JOE, PROBABLY FOR YOU, CAN WE ACTUALLY, LET'S SAY THE ZBA APPROVES THIS AND IT COMES BACK TO US AND WHITE PLAINS IS NOT DONE WITH THEIR APPROVAL PROCESS.
DO WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR WHITE PLAINS TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL PERMIT THEN? YES, I WOULD THINK WE, I THINK SO.
BUT WHAT DO, WHAT DO, WHAT DOES JOE SAY? I, I'M THINKING THAT WE DO, IT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TO, TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE ALL THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING, ESPECIALLY EMPLOYEE PARKING.
WELL, I'LL JUST ALSO, I DO BELIEVE THAT THIS BOARD COULD ALSO CONDITION, UH, YOUR APPROVAL ON OBTAINING CITY OF WHITE IN A REALISTIC WORLD.
WE'RE NOT BUILDING ANYTHING WITHOUT CITY OF WHITE PLAIN'S APPROVAL.
BUT THE REVERSE WOULD ALSO WORK.
I MEAN, WHITE PLAINS CAN SAY WE'RE NOT GONNA LOOK AT THIS PIECE UNTIL GREENBERG APPROVES THE PROJECT.
SO HIS ANSWER, SO THE COUNCIL'S ANSWER IS CORRECT.
THEN IF WE, WE CAN, AND WE'VE DONE IT BEFORE THEN THE CONDITIONAL APPROVAL CONDI, I THINK WE'VE HAD THAT WITH, WE SHOULD THINGS MOVE SWIFTLY MAKE AND I IMAGINE THE CITY WILL DO THE SAME, UH, CONDITION OF GREENBURG APPROVAL IF, IF IT'S THE OTHER WAY.
AND I COULD REACH OUT TO COUNCIL FOR WHITE PLAINS TOO TO COORDINATE THAT AND REACH OUT TO CHICK-FIL-A COUNCIL AS WELL.
UH, WHAT'S THE STAGE OF THE LEGAL DISCUSSIONS? AT ONE POINT WE SAID THAT THEY, WE WOULD PUT IN, UH, A CONDITION IN TERMS OF, UH, PREVENTING ANY CARS COMING OUT ON THE ROAD.
IF, IF IT BECOMES A PERSISTENT THING, UM, THERE'LL BE A LOOK BACK PERIOD OF ABOUT SIX MONTHS TO SEE HOW THINGS ARE OPERATING.
IF THERE IS A PERSISTENT PROBLEM, UH, CHICK-FIL-A WILL HIRE LOCAL POLICE OKAY.
AND THAT'S IDENTIFIED IN THE, IN THE PLAN.
THAT THEY'VE PREPARED AND WOULD BE CONDITIONED AS PART OF ANY PROJECT.
AND WHEN WOULD THE PLANNING BOARD SEE THAT AND WHEN THEY COME BACK? THAT'S WHEN WE WORK, THAT'S WHAT WE DO.
WHO WORK SESSION WHEN THEY, THAT'S WHAT, WELL, THEY'LL GO IN, WE'LL GET WHAT WE CAN DO IT THE SAME NIGHT AS THE PUBLIC HEARING.
BECAUSE IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE THE
[01:00:01]
PLAN.IT'S, IT'S US WORKING THROUGH WHAT WE WANT IN THE SPECIAL PERMIT, CORRECT? MM-HMM.
SO, SO, AND WE MAY DO IT IN THE SAME NIGHT.
WE'LL, WE'LL DECIDE, DEPENDING ON OUR SCHEDULE, MR. A COPY OF THAT MANAGEMENT.
WE, WE RECEIVE, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE OTHER THINGS.
PERMITS BEEN COORDINATING WITH MR. GREELEY AND THE PROJECT TEAM ON THE, UH, COMPONENTS OF IT.
SO WE'VE ALL LOOKED AT IT, OF COURSE, BUT THE NEW YORKERS FACILITY WILL BE BUILT AND WALTER WILL BE DOWN THERE EVERY DAY TO SEE THE TRUCK.
CARS IS STILL OVER TO CENTRAL AVENUE.
I THINK IT SHOULD BE SENT TO IT WILL BE.
WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT MR. CANNING WAS FULLY SATISFIED WITH THAT.
PLANNING STAFF HAS BEEN AWESOME TO WORK WITH.
GOOD NIGHT GUYS, ALL HAVE A GREAT NIGHT.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE A TWO MINUTE BREAK.
YOUR MIC STATED, UH, THE, THERE WAS AN EXISTING HOME THAT WAS DAMAGED BY FIRE, UH, THAT IS BEING REPLACED IN WITH A BRAND NEW HOME.
UM, IT IS, UH, ESSENTIALLY LOCATED, UH, IN THE CENTER OF THE LOT.
UH, THE LOT IS LOCATED IN R 20 ZONING.
UH, THE BUILDING ITSELF IS, UH, CONFORMING, UH, THE ZONING CONFORMING.
UM, THE HOME ITSELF WILL BE ACCESSED, UH, BY, UH, SOUTH ELIA AVENUE.
WE ARE UTILIZING THE SAME, UH, DRIVEWAY, UH, LOCATION.
UH, SO YOU DRIVE UP, UH, FROM SOUTH PLY AVENUE IN ORDER TO, UH, ASK THE HOME, UH, THE, UH, THE, THE GARAGE.
I HAVE A BUILDING RENDERING, UH, HERE.
UM, SO ESSENTIALLY THIS IS THE HOME WHERE YOU ENTER INTO THE, UM, THE DRIVEWAY AND THE MAIN ENTRANCE, WHICH, UH, CORRELATES TO THIS IS, UH, THE, THE GARAGE, UM, ON THIS, UH, ON THIS RENDER.
AND THIS, UH, TO GIVE A VISUAL OF THE HOME ITSELF.
UM, ALSO TO PROVIDE SOME CONTEXT OF THE EXISTING, UH, CONDITIONS.
UH, I HAVE, UH, THE GOOGLE IMAGING ON, ON THE SCREEN, UH, WITH THE EXISTING HOME.
AGAIN, THIS IS THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT WILL BE, UH, REUTILIZING, UH, IN ORDER TO GET TO THE PROPOSED HOME, UH, SOUTH HEALY AVENUE, UH, SLOPES DOWN TO THE SOUTH.
UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE HOME ITSELF, THE EXISTING, OF COURSE, THE PROPOSED HOME IS PER UP ON TOP OF THE, UH, THE PROPERTY ITSELF.
UH, WE MET WITH THE CONSERVATION BOARD, UM, AS DISCUSSED, UM, AS THERE IS A WORKHORSE, UH, LOCATED OVER HERE.
UM, IT'S NOT A GREAT PICTURE OF IT, BUT I HAVE, UH, SOME PHOTOS HERE.
SO THIS IS THE WORKHORSE, UM, THAT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTHERN LIMITS OF THE PROPERTY.
AND THIS WAS WHAT WAS DISCUSSED, UH, WITH, UH, THE CONS, UH, THE CONSERVATION BOARD.
AND IN REVIEW, UH, ESSENTIALLY THE MAIN COMMENTS WAS TO, TO HAVE, UM, OUR TEAM, UH, REVIEW IF THERE'S ANY INVASIVE, UH, UM,
[01:05:02]
PLANTS, UH, WITHIN THE, UH, THE HILL UP TO THE PROPERTY ITSELF.UH, IN ADDITION TO THAT, UH, PERFORM A, UH, PERFORM TEST PITS, UH, TO, UM, TO REVIEW THE, OUR, OUR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT APPROACH FOR THE PROJECT.
UM, SO, UH, GOING BACK TO THE PLANS THEMSELVES, UH, THESE ARE THE PLANS THAT, UH, HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, UH, IN THE APPLICATION.
UM, SO AGAIN, IT'S THE DRIVEWAY UP TO THE HOME, UH, FOUR BEDROOM HOME, UH, WITH THE SELLER.
UM, AND THE, THE NEXT SHEET IS OUR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICE, UH, THAT WE HAVE.
UH, ESSENTIALLY, UH, WE, UH, THE, THE GEN, THE APPROACH FOR THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IS WE'LL BE COLLECTING ALL OF THE PREVIOUS, THE, THE NEW PREVIOUS, UM, IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING THEM TO A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.
UH, THIS, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IS A, A MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT WAS BEING DIRECTED TO A STORMWATER RETENTION SYSTEM.
THIS WAS A CONCERN THAT THE CONSERVATION BOARD, UH, AND ALSO THE ENGINEERING, UM, THE, THE TOWN ENGINEER ALSO, UH, RAISED A CONCERN, UH, REGARDING THIS.
UM, AND SINCE THEN, UH, WE ACTUALLY DID PERFORM SOME TEST PITS, UH, WHICH ACTUALLY PERFORMED YESTERDAY.
UM, AND, UH, THEY, THEY DID YIELD, UH, UNFAVORABLE, UH, RESULTS WHERE THERE'S ROCK WAS SHALLOW, WHICH IS, WAS, WAS KIND OF EXPECTED.
UM, SO, UH, WE WERE A, BASED ON THAT INFORMATION, UH, THAT WE RECEIVED, THAT WE OBTAINED YESTERDAY, UH, WE HAVE SOME, UH, CHANGES TO THE, TO THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, UH, UH, APPLICATION, UH, DRAWING ITSELF, WHICH I'LL GO OVER, BUT I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH BASE AND WHAT WAS IT, WHAT WAS SUBMITTED, UH, UH, IN ORDER TO GET IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.
UM, AND THEN THE, THE NEXT, UM, UH, DRAWING ESSENTIALLY IS THE UTILITIES, UH, THAT WE ARE IN ORDER TO, TO SERVICE THE BUILDING ITSELF.
SO IT'S, YOU, YOU'RE A CLASSIC, YOUR YOUR WATER ELECTRIC, UM, GAS, AND, UM, THAT WILL BE BEING, UH, FED FROM SOUTH HELEY AVENUE.
SO, UH, IN RESULT OF THE, THE SHALLOW TEST PITS, UH, THE, THE SHALLOW BEDROCK, UH, WE CHANGED OUR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICE.
UM, AND BEING THAT WE HAVE A SHALLOW, SHALLOW ROCK, WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS, UM, A COMBINATION OF GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MEASURES AND, UH, A STORMWATER DETENTION SYSTEM.
SO THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, AND WHAT WE'RE, WHAT WE HAVE IS WE ARE PROPOSING RAIN GARDENS.
WE HAVE ONE RAIN GARDEN IN THE, UH, IN THE BACKYARD OF THE PROPERTY, UM, AND THEN ONE IN THE FRONT OF THE VANGUARD.
AND ALSO A RESULT OF THIS BEING THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA BE INSTALLED, PROPOSING A ROBUST, UH, STORMWATER, UH, RETENTION MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IN THE FRONT AS THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION.
UM, WE WILL BE, UH, RE REMOVING ONLY ONE TREE AS PART OF, UH, THE PROJECT ITSELF.
SO THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT THAT OBVIOUSLY HAD, UH, SIGNIFICANTLY, UH, CHANGED IN, IN, IN RESULT OF THE TEST INVESTIGATION.
SO THE, THE APPROACH IS GOING TO BE THE HOME ITSELF WILL BE DIRECTED TO, UH, A DETENTION SYSTEM THAT IS CONNECTED TO THE RAIN GARDEN AT THE, AT THE LOW POINT OF THE RAIN GARDEN, WE WILL HAVE AN AREA DRAIN THAT WILL COLLECT ANY STORM WATER, ANY ADDITIONAL STORM WATER RUNOFF IN THE EVENT OF A LARGER EVENT, UM, WHICH IN TURN IS CONNECTED TO A SERIES OF LOW PROFILE DETENTION SYSTEM.
UM, THESE ARE, UH, TWO FEET IN, IN DEPTH, SO YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, ROCK IS VERY SHALLOW, UH, WHICH IS THEN CONNECTED TO ANOTHER RAIN GARDEN THAT WE HAVE WITHIN WHERE THE ORIGINAL RETENTION SYSTEM WAS.
UM, AND THEN FURTHER DOWNSTREAM, WE HAVE ANOTHER SET OF, AGAIN, LOW PROFILE DETENTION SYSTEM THAT WILL MANAGE, UH, THE, THE, UH, THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS COLLECTED BY A TREAD DRAIN, UM, AND THEN GOES OUT TO AN OUT CONTROLLED STRUCTURE WITH OUR, UH, OVERFLOW.
AND HAS, HAS THAT BEEN REVIEWED WITH THE TOWN'S ENGINEER AS OF YET? OR IS THIS NOT YET A NEW DESIGN? NOT YET.
WE, WE DESIGNED IT, UM, JUST BECAUSE OF, YOU KNOW, WE GOT
[01:10:01]
THE RESULTS YESTERDAY AND WE JUST WANNA SHOW THAT WE ARE PROACTIVE AND WE WILL BE IMPLEMENTING, UH, NOT, NOT ONLY OBVIOUSLY A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, BUT WE ARE, WE ARE ALSO, UH, IMPLEMENTING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE TO, TO THE PROJECT ITSELF.UM, AND THEN THE, THE REST OF THE, UH, ARE DRAWINGS ARE THE ASSOCIATED, UH, DETAIL CONSTRUCTION DETAILS.
SO, UM, I, I, UM, I TURN IT OVER TO THE BOARD IF THERE ARE ANY, UH, QUESTIONS.
UH, AND, AND ON PLANS ON THAT PLAN RIGHT THERE THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN, UH, IT LOOKS TO PROVIDE SOME LANDSCAPING, YOU KNOW, AS MITIGATION FOR SOME OF THE DISTURBANCE IN THAT ONE TREE BEING REMOVED.
IS THAT ACCURATE? UM, THIS RIGHT HERE YOU MEAN, AND IN THE REAR, BEYOND THAT REAR RAIN GARDEN, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME LANDSCAPING.
I SHOULD, I SHOULD HAVE STATED THAT.
SO THIS, THIS ONE TREE HERE IS BEING REMOVED IN RESULT OF THE HOME.
AND IN ADDITION TO THE RAIN GARDEN AND PLANTINGS, WE WILL BE PLANTING THESE FOUR TREES, UH, ADDITION TO WHAT I SAID EARLIER.
MICHAEL, I'M WHAT? YOU'RE UP FIRST? NO, NO, NO.
UM, A QUESTION ABOUT THE TREES.
HOW MANY TREES ARE BEING REMOVED? IS IT DOWN TO ONE? IT IS ONE, YES.
AND I'M LOOKING AT THE PLAN YOU HAVE THERE, AND, AND IT SAYS DECK, AND RIGHT NEXT TO THE WORD DECK, IT SHOWS A TREE.
BUT YOU, THAT'S USUALLY, THAT'S BEING REMOVED, BUT THAT'S BEING REMOVED.
UM, YOU SHOULD REVISE THE PLANT, SO IT DOES NOT SHOW THE TREE SINCE YOU'RE REMOVING IT.
UM, NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT TREE.
WHAT KIND OF TREE AND HOW, WHAT'S THE DIAMETER OF IT? IT'S A 35 INCH TREE.
UM, I WILL, I WILL SHOW A PICTURE OF IT.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT KIND IT IS? UH, I BELIEVE IT'S A, I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT SPECIES, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S A, AN OAK.
CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON IT A LITTLE BIT, OR, IT'S A BIG TREE.
YEAH, IT'S A LARGE CANOPY TREE RIGHT NOW.
WHY ARE YOU TAKING IT DOWN? UH, JUST THE RELATIONSHIP, UH, TO THE HOME ITSELF.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER THAT, THAT IT'S JUST A COUPLE OF FEET AWAY FROM THE HOME.
AND THE HOME ITSELF WILL BE, UH, IS PROPOSING THE BASEMENT.
SO THERE WILL BE A LARGE EXCAVATION FOR IT.
SO THE TREE, UH, WILL, WILL NOT SURVIVE, AND IT'LL BECOME A HAZARD.
SO DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE ROOT ZONE OF THE TREE THAT WOULD COMPROMISE ITS INTEGRITY.
I MEAN, IS THERE ANY WAY TO SAVE THE TREE? CAN YOU MOVE THE HOUSE A FEW FEET OR TILT IT AROUND OR SOMETHING? I MEAN, IT'S, THE BIGGEST TREE ON THE PROPERTY IS 36 INCHES.
I MEAN, I'M NOT A TREE HUGGER, BUT IT SEEMS A SHAME, YOU KNOW, TO CUT THAT BIG TREE DOWN IF YOU DON'T HAVE TO.
AND I UNDERSTAND IF YOU BUILD A HOUSE RIGHT NEXT TO THE TREE, YOU CUT THE ROOTS, THE TREE'S GONNA FLOP OVER.
I GOT THAT WAS DRIVING RIGHT? YEAH, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT IS, IT'S A HALF AN ACRE, JUST A, A BIT OVER A HALF AN ACRE SITE.
THE HOME BUILDING FOOTPRINT IS, IS, UH, ABOUT 2,800 SQUARE FEET.
UM, BUT THE, THE LOT HAS, UH, A GOOD AMOUNT OF CONSTRAINTS BECAUSE OF THE STEEP SLOPES THAT, THE STEEP SLOPE THAT'S ON THIS SIDE.
UM, AND THEN WE ARE UTILIZING THIS DRIVEWAY.
SO, UM, IT IS THE, IT, IT IS, IT IS CHALLENGING, UM, THE LOCATION.
UM, AND THE FACT THAT IT'S SUCH A LARGE TREE, EVEN IF WE WERE TO, UH, RELOCATE IT IN SOME MANNER, YOU STILL ARE GONNA BE IMPACTING IT.
SO YOU'RE STILL GONNA BE IMPACTING THE, THE, THE ROOT ZONE, UH, SUBSTANTIALLY.
AND THEN AGAIN, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT, UH, WOULD BECOME A, A HAZARDOUS CONDITION.
CAN, CAN YOU REVIEW THE, THE SPECIES OF TREES THAT YOU'RE PLANTING? YOU KNOW, ARE THEY COMPARABLE OR ARE THEY SMALLER FLOWERING, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU GO THROUGH THAT QUICKLY? DO YOU HAVE THAT IDENTIFIED? I DON'T HAVE THAT IDENTIFIED, UM, ON MY PLAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY PROVIDE THAT AS PART OF THE APPLICATION, BUT THERE WILL BE A SIZABLE TREES, UH, WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT, THAT, THAT WILL BE, UM, THE TWO OR THREE INCH POWER, UM, WHEN THEM, SO IT WON'T BE A SMALL TREE.
LET ME JUST SAY ONE FINAL THING ON THIS.
JUST, JUST, JUST CONSIDER, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE CONSTRAINTS ON THE
[01:15:01]
SITE.JUST CONSIDER A WAY TO SAVE THE TREE BECAUSE THE NEW OWNER MIGHT LIKE IT.
YOU BUILD A DECK AROUND THE TREE, YOU SIT OUT ON THE DECK, YOU HAVE THE SHADE.
I MEAN, IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
I'LL, I, I WILL, I'LL CERTAINLY RAISE THE, UH, THE ISSUE, UH, WITH THE, UH, UH, WITH THE OWNERSHIP AND, UH, AND WELCOME HOMES WITH THE APPLICANTS.
THE, THE ONE THING TO JUST BE AWARE OF, AND FOR THE BOARD'S INFORMATION, WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 35 INCH DIAMETER TREE, THE CRITICAL ROOT ZONE OF THAT TREE, ALTHOUGH THERE'S A HOUSE THERE NOW, IS GONNA EXTEND QUITE A DISTANCE.
SO EVEN IF THEY SHIFTED IT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY SAID, HEY, WE CAN TWEAK THE HOUSE A LITTLE BIT, BUT GAINING FIVE FEET, IT'S STILL GONNA LIKELY.
THERE'S A HOUSE THERE NOW, THERE, THERE'S A, THE ROOTS.
DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S A, ALL AROUND THE FOUNDATION? DO YOU KNOW IF THERE'S, UM, AN EXISTING BASEMENT KILL WITH THE, UH, EXISTING HOME? I, I, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.
UH, SOMETHING, WHY DON'T, WHY DON'T WE JUST MOVE SOMETHING TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION? LET'S MOVE ON.
IF YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK TO SEE IF THERE'S A WAY OF DOING IT, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
WE'LL CONTINUE TO HAVE THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS, THAT THIS IS A REALLY NICE TREE THAT IT'D BE A SHAME TO TAKE DOWN IF IT HAS TO BE.
IS ALL MICHAEL'S ASKING, WALTER WAS NEXT? YEAH.
COULD YOU, UH, HELP ME WITH, JUST SO THAT I COULD GET A BETTER ORIENTATION OF WHAT YOU'RE DOING? DO YOU HAVE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE EXISTING HOUSE COMPARED TO THIS HOUSE? QUESTION HERE? NEW HOUSE.
THE, THE PROPOSED COLUMN IS, UM, COULD YOU JUST OVERLAP? IT'S JUST A COUPLE OF HUNDRED SQUARE FEET LARGER.
SO THE, UH, THE EXISTING HOME IS LIKE, SO HE'S DOING IT FOR YOU,
THAT'S THE EXISTING HOME AND THE NEW HOME FOOTPRINT THAT LOOKS DIFFERENT.
SO YOU CAN SEE, YEAH, IT'S THE SECOND FLOOR.
THE FIR THE CURRENT HOUSE IS ONE FLOOR.
ITS FLOOR, IF YOU LOOK AT HIS LITTLE PLACE.
WHAT WALTER'S ASKING FOR? HE JUST DID.
SO THERE IS A BIG DIFFERENCE IN THE FOOTPRINT BECAUSE OF THE ORIENTATION OF THE HOUSE.
WELL, NOT QUITE, BECAUSE THIS RIGHT HERE IS EXISTING HOME, WHICH IS, WOULD BE COMPENSATED BY THIS.
SO IN ALL, ON ALL INTENT PURPOSES, IT IS, IT'S, IT'S RELATIVELY A SIMILAR BUILDING FOOTPRINT.
I'M, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THE SIZE OF THE FOOTPRINT WAS, THE ORIENTATION OF FOOTPRINT IS DIFFERENT.
I DIDN'T, I DIDN'T, YEAH, GO AHEAD.
UH, SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS WITHIN A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET.
WHAT'S THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE PROPOSED HOUSE VERSUS THE SQUARE FOOTAGE? THE FOOTPRINT OF THE OLD HOUSE, THE PROPOSED ONE IS 2000 AND, UH, 2,794, NO FOOTPRINT.
HE'S ASKING JUST THE FOOTPRINT, NOT THE TURTLE SCRIPT FOR THAT'S A FOOTPRINT.
WHAT WAS THE FOOTPRINT OF THE OLD HOUSE? SAME.
SO BIG RANCH WAS A BIG GRANDCHILD BEFORE.
SO ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THEY'RE THE SAME.
AND JUST, COULD YOU POINT TO WHERE THE WATERCOURSE, I ASSUME IT'S ON TO, TO THE RIGHT, THE RIGHT BORDER? IT'S, UH, SO, OH, IT'S ON THE BOTTOM.
IT'S WHERE WANT TO SAID IT WAS.
IT, IT'S OPEN CHANNEL AND THEN ENTERS A PIPE AND THEN RESURFACES FURTHER VIA THE GARAGE.
TONIGHT'S ALL SIX 30 FEET OF OPEN CHANNEL.
KURT, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, I, I JUST SET OF, UH, UH, UH, TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE IS, UH, UH, THE CONCERNS THAT MIKE MICHAEL HAS, I THINK, UH, EXACTLY WHAT IT SHOWS THERE.
AND SO SINCE YOU'RE GONNA DEMOLISH THE EXISTING HOUSE, COULD YOU CONSIDER TO LOCATE THE HOUSE IN A WAY SO THAT, UH, IT CAN, IT CAN REALLY, UH, DO TWO THINGS.
ONE IS THAT IT HAS A NICE PATIO IN THE BACKYARD THAT WILL BE, UH, OVERLOOKING TO, UH, WHATEVER THE RAIN GARDEN THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING.
AND ALSO THAT IT WILL SAVE THAT REALLY BEAUTIFUL, NICE TREE, WHICH IS REALLY A BIG FEATURE OF THE PROPERTY.
[01:20:01]
AND, UH, I THINK IT'S DOABLE.I'M, I'M ALSO ARCHITECT, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A, IT'S PROBABLY, UH, HAS SOME, UH, ISSUES WITH THE AESTHETIC OF, UH, UH, ORIENTING THE HOUSE AND WANTED TO HAVE THE CARS COMING RIGHT INTO THE GARAGE.
THAT'S, I THINK THE DRIVEWAY IS THE BIGGEST.
AND, BUT I THINK IT COULD BE, IT COULD BE, IT COULD BE ADJUSTED WITH THE RIGHT AMOUNT OF, UH, CREATIVITY, TALENT, I A TO DO THAT.
AND I THINK I, I A HUNDRED PERCENT AGREE AND I SUPPORT MICHAEL'S CONCERNS THAT IT IS, IT IS A GOOD THING TO HAVE THAT THING SAVED.
AND ALSO, I MEAN, LOOKING AT IT, THE PUTTING IT DECK VERSUS THE WHAT'S EXISTING PATIO, I THINK YOUR DECK IS REALLY, UH, UH, NOT, NOT, NOT VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY GOOD COMPARED TO THE TOTAL SQUARE FEET OF THE NEW HOUSE, AS I CAN UNDERSTAND, IS MORE THAN 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
UH, SO CONSIDER ALL OF, AS MICHAEL SUGGESTED, THE NEW OWNER WOULD BE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE SOME PRIVACY AND HAVE A NICE, UH, PATIO.
FOR THE FIRST, UH, QUESTIONS, COMMENT THE SECOND ONE.
HOW DOES THE, UH, THE, UH, WATERCOURSE, UH, GOES ACROSS? YEAH, IT'S DOWN, DOWN IN THE SIDE.
IT'S ALL THE WOOD DOWN THE RIGHT SIDE.
IT GO, GO OVER THE, THE, THIS IS, YEAH, BUT IT'S PIPE.
UNDERNEATH THE, UNDERNEATH THE ROAD.
AND IT GOES, IT, THAT'S WHAT I, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER 24 INCH.
YEAH, BUT WHERE DOES IT GO FROM THERE? CORRECT.
DID YOU SEE THE PHOTO? HE HAD A NICE PHOTO THAT SHOWED THE HEAD WALL AND THE PIPE.
SO THERE IS A PIPE THAT, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT.
SEE THE PIPE THERE? THE WALL? YEAH.
WE'RE MAKING A LOT OF COMMENT ABOUT JUST A, IS IT A HEALTHY TREE? WELL, I WAS GONNA ASK THAT.
I WAS, WELL, LET JOHAN JOHAN WAS NEXT.
I DID DON'T OVER YOUR, THAT WAS MY QUESTION.
NUMBER ONE, THE CONDITION, IS IT A HEALTHY TREE? AND NUMBER TWO, THE PROXIMITY TO THE HOUSE.
WAS IT A HEALTHY DISTANCE? MM-HMM.
ANYTHING ELSE, JOHAN, BEFORE WE NO, THAT'S IT.
WALTER
TOM, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING? YEP, GO AHEAD.
WELL, I WAS ALSO ASKING ABOUT THE HEALTH OF THE TREE, BUT I WANT TO ADD, AND FIRST OF ALL, I AGREE WITH MIKE AND BRETT, IF THERE'S A WAY TO SAY IT, IF IT'S HEALTHY, DID IT GET DAMAGED BY THE FIRE? WAS IT CLOSE ENOUGH? THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
YOU KNOW, TO THE HOUSE TO BE DAMAGED.
IT LOOKED LIKE IN SOME OF THOSE PICTURES, GRANTED IT'S WINTER, SOME OF THE TREES LOOK BLACKENED.
I DON'T KNOW HOW EXTENSIVE THE FIRE WAS, BUT I WOULD JUST CHECK THAT I WAS OUT THERE.
I DIDN'T SEE ANY, DIDN'T SEE ANY FIRE DAMAGE IN THE TREE? NO.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT, YEAH, 20 AND, AND, AND, AND THE HOUSE WAS BURNED OUT INSIDE, BUT YOU COULD SEE THE HOUSE WAS NOT TOTALLY CONCERNED.
THE OUTSIDE SEEMS TO STILL BE INTACT.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT PROBABLY GOT THERE IN A FAIRLY EARLY POINT.
TOM, ANYTHING ELSE? NOPE, THAT'S IT.
IF, IF YOU ARE GONNA CHANGE THE FOOTPRINT FROM WHAT THE EXISTING FOUNDATION IS, AND YOU FOUND A LOT OF ROCK ON THE PRO ON THE PROPERTY, ARE YOU ANTICIPATING DOING BLASTING OR ROCK ROCK TRIPPING? I WOULD, I WOULD HAVE TO, UH, DEFER THAT TO, TO THE CONSTRUCTION TEAM.
UM, BUT I, I COULD SAY IS THAT THE ROCK REMOVAL WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE, UH, TO ALL THE, UH, UH, LOCAL REQUIREMENTS.
WE NEED TO KNOW THAT THE, IF THAT'S THE QUESTION, IT, IT IS THE QUESTION, BUT WE NEED TO KNOW THAT BEFORE, UH, APPROVAL AS TO WHAT THE PLAN WOULD BE IN TERMS OF, AND WHAT IF WE NEEDS TO REMOVE.
'CAUSE THEY OBVIOUSLY ARE SUBJECT TO, UH, EITHER OUR BLASTING OR OUR ROCK REMOVAL, UH, PERMITS IN, IN, UH, IN GREENBERG.
BUT WE LIKE TO KNOW THAT AS PART OF OUR, OUR OUR APPROVAL PROCESS.
SO IF YOU TALK TO THE CONSTRUCTION PERSON, PARTICULARLY SINCE YOU, YOU'RE, WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT IS YOU'RE DIGGING A FULL BASEMENT, WHICH YOU DIDN'T HAVE BEFORE.
AND YOU'VE ALREADY SAID THE REASON YOU CAN'T PUT CALTECH IS BECAUSE OF ROCK, ROCK UNDERNEATH.
SO I'M VERY CONCERNED ABOUT HOW MUCH ROCK YOU'RE GONNA HIT WHEN YOU DO THAT, THAT LIKE, YEAH.
HAVE THERE BEEN ANY BORINGS DONE IN THE AREA OF WHERE THE BASEMENT'S GOING TO BE LOCATED? JUST TO DETERMINE WITH, WITH RESPECT TO ROCK?
[01:25:01]
THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY BARNS, BUT, UH, ROCK IS SHALLOW.I MEAN, THERE, THERE'S, WE, WE, WE PERFORMED, UH, JUST TO SUMMARIZE, WE PERFORMED A TEST FIT, UH, IN THIS LOCATION.
UH, WHICH ROCK WAS A BROWN, 18 INCHES BELOW GRADE.
UH, THIS RIGHT HERE IS THE, UH, THE DEEPEST POINT WITH ROCK WAS THREE FEET BELOW GRADE, UM, AND THEN ONE TEST PIT OVER HERE.
AND THAT WAS, AGAIN, IN ANY ORDER OF, UH, 18 INCHES.
UM, YOU WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT BECAUSE I THINK BROCK IS SHADOW.
UM, AND IF THERE'S A PREFERRED METHOD, UH, THAT, UH, THE, THE BOARD, UH, NO, THERE, THERE ARE UPSIDES AND DOWNSIDES TO BOTH.
I MEAN, CHIPPING CAN TAKE FOREVER AND, AND ANNOY THE NEIGHBORS FOREVER.
THERE'S A POTENTIAL OF DAMAGE TO SURROUNDING HOUSES.
AND THEN WE HAVE A, THERE'S A WHOLE PROCEDURE YOU HAVE TO DO TO DO BLASTING, BUT EITHER WAY, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT BEFORE THIS IS APPROVED, BEFORE WE GO TO A PUBLIC HEARING, THEY UNDERSTAND THE COMMUNITY UNDERSTANDS, UH, WHAT, HOW MUCH ROCK WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED.
DO THOSE ROCK, YOU NEED TO DO BORINGS IN THE AREA WHERE THE FOUNDATION'S GONNA BE ASSUMING.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YES, SIR.
DOES THE EXISTING HOUSE HAVE A BASEMENT? THAT'S MY QUESTION.
I ASKED AND HE SAID HE DID, AND HE SAID HE WAS GONNA CHECK IN.
WE DON'T KNOW THAT, MR. SORRY.
TOM, YOU ASKED CORRECT QUESTION BASEMENT.
IT MEANS GREAT MINDS TO COLLECT ONE CONVERSATION, PLEASE.
UH, ANYTHING ELSE ON THIS GUYS? I GUESS, UH, JUST TO ANSWER ABOUT THE BASEMENT, THE BASEMENT IS LOCATED ON THIS SIDE OF THE HOME.
UM, AND THEN THIS REGION IS, IS NOT THE EXISTING HOME.
SO IF, IF THERE WAS A BASEMENT, IT WOULD JUST BE THIS SMALL PIECE RIGHT HERE.
SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO DIG ANYWAY AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO DIG ANYWAY.
UM, AND ROCKES SHALLOW THERE, UH, THERE, WE'VE DONE TEST BITS.
UH, THERE, THERE'S, WE DON'T FEEL A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL TESTING.
IT, IT IS, IT'S RIGHT UNDER IT IS RIGHT? IT IS RIGHT THERE.
THE QUESTION ISN'T JUST HOW SHALLOW, HOW DEEP IT COULD, THE ROCK GOES BE BELOW THAT.
IS IT YOU GOING TO BE DIGGING THAT WHOLE BASEMENT ON A SOLID ROCK? IT MAY BE.
YOU MAY BE ON LIKE A WEDGE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
YOU MAY BE DIGGING THROUGH SOLID ROCK TO BUILD THE BASEMENT.
AND THE BOARD WILL WANT TO, THAT'S ALSO PART, THAT'S ALSO PART OF THIS, THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS ROCK REMOVAL IS THAT WE WILL BRING THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF, OF OWNERSHIP.
UM, AS WE ALL KNOW, UH, ROCK REMOVAL IS A VERY EXPENSIVE UNDERTAKING.
AND, UH, THE, THE APPROACH MAY, UH, MAY CHANGE, BUT WE WILL, WE WILL, THE NEXT TIME WE'RE, WE, WE COME BACK TO, TO PRESENT, UH, WE WILL, UH, HAVE AN ANSWER ON, UM, THE, THE VIABILITY OF THE BASEMENT.
AND IF THEY DO PURSUE IT, UH, THE ROTH COOLING WILL PROCESS.
I JUST WANNA ADD, CONSIDERING THAT THE WHATEVER, 30% OF THE HOUSE THAT IF YOU CAN REORIENT, WILL MAKE IT A LESS, MUCH LESS, LESS REMOVAL AND WILL BE LESS EXPENSIVE FOR, TO DESIGN A HOUSE FOOTPRINT SO THAT IT WILL INCORPORATE EXISTING BASEMENT IF THERE IS AN EXISTING BASEMENT.
IT'S NOT ON THE, IN, IN THIS AREA.
NOBODY BUILDS IT ON A, ON A, THE ROCK THEN
SO WE'LL STAY IN TOUCH REGARDING, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA GATHER ALL THE NOTES.
WE'LL COMPARE NOTES AND THEN WE'LL COORDINATE, UH, SO THAT YOU CAN SUBMIT WHAT'S NECESSARY BASICALLY TO THE TOWN ENGINEER, UH, FOR HIS REVIEW.
WE'LL NOTIFY THE PLANNING BOARD ONCE THAT'S ALL SATISFIED AND GET YOU BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD TO CONTINUE AND PROCEED WITH THE PROJECT.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH EVERYBODY.
OKAY, LAST BUT NOT LEAST, I'D LIKE TO COME TO CLOSURE TONIGHT ON THE A DU LAW.
I PRINTED OUT THE LAW AND I DIDN'T PRINT OUT THE RECOMMENDATION.
I DON'T HAVE THE RECOMMENDATION.
THIS IS, UH, TOWN BOARD CASE 2309.
IT WAS A REFERRAL FROM THE TOWN BOARD FOR ZONING TAX AMENDMENT TO CREATE AN, UH, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT LAW IN OUR TOWN.
UH, JUST A LITTLE HISTORY FOR THOSE LISTENING AT HOME.
THIS LAW WAS ORIGINALLY DRAFTED, UH, BY THE, UH, A VL, WHICH IS,
[01:30:01]
UH, THE ACCESSIBLE VIABLE LIVING COMMITTEE, WHICH IS WORKING ON TRYING TO FIND MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AND LIVABLE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBURG AND BEYOND, HOPEFULLY AT SOME POINT.AND THE, THE A VL PRESENTED THE, THEIR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WHO PRESENTED A, UH, PASSED RESOLUTION BASED ON WHAT WAS SENT TO THE TOWN BOARD, UH, TO, TO RESOLVE IT, TO REFER IT TO US FOR RECOMMENDATION.
SOMEHOW BETWEEN THE TIME OF THAT, THAT RESOLUTION, AND BY THE TIME IT GOT TO US, THERE WERE TWO, UH, RESTRICTIONS ADDED THAT WERE NOT VOTED ON BY THE TOWN BOARD, WHICH WAS THE 10,000, 20,000 SQUARE FOOT, UH, RELU, UH, RESTRICTIONS OF WHICH, UH, WE HAVE, I HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS ON IN OUR RECOMMENDATION AND HAVE SAID THAT, THAT AS A BOARD WE'RE OPPOSED TO, WE'VE DISCUSSED THAT AT THE MEETINGS AND THAT IS IN OUR RECOMMENDATION.
UM, MY ONLY, UH, COMMENT ON, I THINK IT WAS A GREAT JOB BY MATT AND AARON, WHOEVER WROTE, WROTE THE RECOMMENDATION.
MY ONLY COMMENT ON IT IS I WOULD LIKE TO PUT THAT PIECE OF HISTORY IN THERE SO THEY UNDER DID YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? NO, NO, I JUST, OKAY.
I JUST WOULD LIKE TO PUT THAT HI PIECE OF HISTORY IN THERE SO THEY UNDERSTAND WHERE IT WAS.
I DON'T WANT TO COMMENT ON IT.
JUST SAY THAT THAT'S THE HISTORY AS WE KNOW IT.
RIGHT? THAT'S A, THAT'S, I I THINK THAT SHOULD BE PUT IN SOMEWHERE IN THERE WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT.
DOESN'T THE RECOMMENDATION SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU ELIMINATE THE 10,000 AND 20,000 FOOT.
IT DOES, BUT IT WAS NEVER ANYTHING THAT WAS ACTUALLY VOTED ON BY THE TAB BOARD BEFORE.
AND I THINK WE SHOULD UNDERSTAND THAT.
I, I WOULDN'T GET INTO, I DON'T, I DON'T UNDER, I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW WE GOT SOMETHING FROM THE TOWN BOARD, WHICH THE TOWN BOARD DID NOT VOTE ON.
THEY DIDN'T, THEY DIDN'T VOTE ON IT.
HOW DID WE GET IT? WE DON'T, WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY HOW THAT GOT IT.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THEY SEE OUR STRONG RECOMMENDATION BACK, THIS IS WHAT THEY HAD ORIGINALLY VOTED ON.
THAT'S THE REASON I PUT, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO PUT THAT IN.
SO DO WE KNOW THEY VOTED ON ANYTHING? YES.
THEY, THEY VOTED ON A RESOLUTION TO REFER THE AV L LAW TO US.
THE AV L LAW NEVER HAD THOSE RESTRICTIONS.
WHAT WERE YOU GONNA SAY? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
IT UH, IT NEVER HAD, THEY VOTED AND IT DID NOT HAVE THOSE RESTRICTIONS.
SO ME GOT, THEY VOTED TO SUBMIT X TO US, BUT INSTEAD WE GOT Y.
SO I DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS AT ALL.
BUT ALL WE'RE SAYING THAT ONE AT A TIME, WE'LL GET TO YOU HAN.
WE CORRECT HAN AND THAT THAT'LL GIVE, WE JUST SAY WE ARE REMOVING IT.
YOU SAY WE ARE REMOVING IT BECAUSE THAT WASN'T PART OF WHAT WE SAID.
I MEAN, IF THEY VOTE ON, ON X AND WE GOT Y MM-HMM,
THAT'S WHY WE'RE DEALING WITH IT IN THE RECOMMENDATION.
WE DON'T KNOW WHERE, 'CAUSE IT HASN'T, REMEMBER THE TOWN BOARD HASN'T DONE ANYTHING ON THIS EXCEPT DO SEEKER, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
THEY'RE WAITING ON THE RECORD.
OH, THEY'RE WAITING FOR A RECORD.
I MEAN, THEY, THEY WAITING RIGHT? THEY CIRCULATED THE LEAD AGENCY.
THEY, THEY DECLARED, THEY'VE DECLARED LEAD AGENCY.
WE, WE SIGNED OFF ON THEM BEING LEAD, LEAD AGENCY.
THEY DON'T NEED TO DO THAT UNTIL IT'S BACK TO THEM ANYWAY.
'CAUSE ALL WE'RE DOING IS A RECOMMENDATION, NOT, NOT A, NOT A VOTE.
SO, UM, HOW THAT HAPPENED, YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT I DON'T REALLY CARE.
I DID, IT HAPPENED AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A RECORD OF IT.
JOHAN, WHAT WERE YOU GONNA SAY, JOHAN? I WAS WANNA SAY THAT LAST PART, WHAT YOU JUST SAID,
BECAUSE I IMAGINE THE BOARD'S PROBABLY GONNA UPFRONT VOTE TONIGHT.
I DON'T THINK IT HAS TO BE FRONT SEND, OWN DOCUMENT.
OH, YOU JUST WANT IT ON IN THE MINUTES? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
I DO WANT IN THE DOCUMENT, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING.
REMEMBER WE SEPARATED OUT, WE SEPARATED OUT THE, DIDN'T WE SEPARATE OUT THE DIFFERENT THINGS WE DID? SO THAT'S GONNA BE ON THE, THE VERSION THAT I SHARE.
SO FOR EVERYONE'S INFORMATION, WHAT A SUGGESTION.
HOLD WHEN, WHEN THE DOCUMENT REFERS TO ELIMINATING THE 10 AND 20,000 FOOT, PUT A FOOTNOTE.
IF YOU DO IT AS A FOOTNOTE OR A SENTENCE RIGHT THERE, I'M FINE WITH THAT.
THAT'S WHY WE ARE ELIMINATING IT BECAUSE THAT WAS, WELL WE ELIMINATE 'CAUSE WE THINK IT'S A BAD IDEA, BUT LAWYERS LOVE FOOTNOTES.
I TALKED ABOUT A FOOTNOTE ALTERNATIVELY.
[01:35:01]
RIGHT.WE HAVE SEVERAL DATES AND OCCURRENCES LISTED AT THE VERY TOP OF THE DOCUMENT.
MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO PUT IT IN THERE BECAUSE WHEN WE FIRST RECEIVED IT, WE NOTED THAT IT WAS INACCURATE.
SO YOU KNOW WHAT? SO MAYBE LET'S PUT IT IN BOTH AREAS.
I WOULD DO, I PUT IT IN BOTH AREAS.
SO WE WILL DOUBLE CHECK THE MINUTES OF THE JANUARY 3RD, 2024.
WHAT WAS THE MEETING? WE VOTED THE LEAD AGENCY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE I THINK IT CAME UP.
THE ORIGINAL VOTE OR THE NO, THE FIRST VOTE.
WHEN WAS IT? WHEN, WHEN DID WE ORIGINALLY THIS? I THINK THAT WAS EITHER THE THIRD OR THE 17TH OF JANUARY.
YEAH, I THINK IT WAS THE THIRD.
OKAY, SO THIS, THE RESOLUTION WAS, OH, IT WAS ON THE THIRD.
IT WAS ON THE, OKAY, SO THE RESO JUST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
THE RESOLUTION WAS VOTED ON BEFORE THE IN LA LAST YEAR, RIGHT? CORRECT.
KEN WAS STILL ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME.
KEN WAS STILL ON THE BOARD AT THE TIME.
THAT'S WHAT YOU AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER.
SO THEY, THEY SENT IT, REFERRED IT TO US IN OUR NEXT MEETING.
'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A, WE ONLY HAVE ONE MEETING IN DECEMBER, RIGHT? WAS JANUARY 3RD.
HAD THEY ALREADY WAS PART OF THE RESOLUTION DECLARING THEMSELVES LEAVE AGENCY AT THAT TIME? IT WAS, UM, DECLARING INTENT.
SO THAT'S WHEN WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE INITIAL, THE INITIAL DISCUSSION ABOUT LEAVE AGENCY JANUARY.
SO I WOULD BET THAT'S WHEN, WHEN WE DISCUSSED.
SO WHAT, WHAT WE CAN DO IS ADD A LINE IN THIS JANUARY 3RD, 2024 PARAGRAPH AND THE FOOTNOTE, MICHAEL'S FOOTNOTE AND I THINK THAT COM THAT SOLVES EVERYTHING.
RIGHT? SO, UM, DIDN'T SOLVE THE WORLD, BUT WORLD GAZA OR ANYTHING, OUR RECOMMENDATION WILL NOT HAVE THAT RESTRICTION IN IT.
GO THROUGH HOW YOU BROKE IT UP PLEASE.
UH, SO TOM AND OTHERS CAN SEE, OKAY, THE DRAFT THAT YOU RECEIVED IN YOUR PACKAGES WAS SLIGHTLY MODIFIED TO, UH, I THINK REFLECT A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSELY.
WE, WE WANTED TO MAKE, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE THINGS THAT WERE ABSOLUTELY NON-NEGOTIABLE AS FAR AS WE'RE CONCERNED.
WHICH OF THOSE TWO THINGS WE, WE THINK THOSE ARE ACTUALLY WOULD EMASCULATE THE LAW.
THAT'S I THINK WAS THE FEELING WE HAD.
THEN THERE, THE PARKING THING IS AN ADDED THING THAT WE THINK IS A GOOD IDEA TO DO.
THAT, THAT THOU SHALT NOT PARK OFF ON THE STREET.
AND THEN WE HAD, WHICH NOT THINGS THAT WOULD BE GOOD TO HAVE, BUT, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA FALL ON OUR SORT OF RIGHT ABOUT.
AND THE ONE THING WE HAVEN'T REALLY TALKED TO HAD COME CLOSER ON, AND I'M NOT, IS SEPARATION THE DISTANCE, WHICH WE'RE GONNA GONNA GET TO THAT WE HAVE TO DISCUSS.
YOU, YOU, YOU HAVE A SOLUTION THAT YOU'RE GONNA RECOMMEND.
YEAH, WE WE'RE GONNA SEND YOU OUT, WE'RE GONNA LAY IT OUT FOR THE BOARD AND THEN THE BOARD WILL, WE'RE GONNA SEND YOU OUT WITH A SLIDE ROW.
UM, BUT FIRST AND FOREMOST, YOU JUST NEED TO KNOW YOUR DRAFT, YOUR DRAFT IN THE HEADER IDENTIFIED WITH A IN RED WITH A STRIKETHROUGH POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
WE'VE SINCE CHANGED THAT BASED ON WHAT I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH TO A CONDITIONAL POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
AND THAT'S BECAUSE WHEN YOU GET TO PAGE TWO, OKAY.
UNDERNEATH THE VOTE IN YOUR INITIAL DOCUMENT ON PAGE TWO, JUST BELOW THE TWO VOTES, THE PLANNING BOARD IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE A DU LEGISLATION AND THE EFFORTS TO ADDRESS HOUSING SLASH AFFORDABLE HOUSING GOALS THAT THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LAW WILL HELP TO FACILITATE, PROVIDED THAT THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS ARE INCORPORATED INTO THE REVISED LOCAL LAW AND THEN LISTS OUT ALL THE THINGS THAT WERE DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD.
AS SHOWN HERE, I'LL ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT.
IT'S ONE AND TWO, RIGHT? IT'S THREE.
WE'RE GONNA PUT THE, DO WE WANT TO PUT THE PARKING AS A FALL ON THE SWORD OR NOT? GUYS? LEMME LET, SO NOW WE'VE CHANGED IT, IT, THE FIRST TWO LINES READ THE SAME EXCEPT NOW IT SAYS PROVIDED THAT THE FOLLOWING THREE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE INCORPORATED INTO A REVISED LOCAL LAW.
IF THE APPROVED LOCAL LAW DOES NOT INCLUDE THESE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS LISTED BELOW, THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION.
AND THESE ARE THE THREE, UM, WE TALKED ABOUT THE LOT SIZE RESTRICTION, RIGHT? SO WE'VE BEEN THROUGH THAT.
UM, WE ALSO TALKED ABOUT, WELL WE TALKED ABOUT BOTH LOT SIZE RESTRICTIONS, RIGHT? THE 10,000, 20,000.
SO THOSE ARE THE FIRST TWO AND THEN THE THIRD RELATES TO THE PARKING.
MY PERSONAL PERSONAL OPINION EITHER WAY, THEY OFTEN, I LIKE, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
I DON'T SEE THAT AS BEING CONTROLLING.
[01:40:01]
GET THAT, NO, BUT I THINK, UH, UH, IT, IT'LL CONTROL CONSIDERING THAT IF THEY HAVE A, UH, THE COVERAGE OR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.BECAUSE THEN WHEN YOU ADD ONE MORE PARKING ON THE LOT, IT MIGHT, SOME OF THESE IT MIGHT, MIGHT GO OVER, GO OVER IT.
SO WHILE DOING GOOD ON PARKING, NOT PARKING ON A STREET, WE ELIMINATE THAT OWNER TO NOT TO HAVE A DU THAT THAT'S TRUE.
BUT THE, THE THING, THE THING WE DID, SO, SO, SO I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL ASKING FOR THAT PARKING.
WELL ACTUALLY, OKAY, HOLD ON FOR ONE SECOND.
'CAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LOT.
AND IT ISN'T NECESSARILY ADDING ANOTHER PARKING SPACE.
FOR INSTANCE, A LOT OF HOUSES, EVEN OUR FIVE, 5,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSES CAN HAVE FOUR SPACES ALREADY.
BUT IF THEY DON'T, LEMME FINISH.
IF THEY DON'T, YOU MAY BE RIGHT.
BUT THEY CAN GO FOR A VARIANCE THEN.
BUT WHY, WHY DO ADD SOMETHING THAT IS NOT REQUIRED? I THINK THE WHOLE IT IS REQUIRED.
LAW HAS SO MANY, SO MANY BELT AND SUSPENDED.
I THAT IS A, THAT IS A REALLY KIND OF, WE KIND OF TRY TO KILL THE WHOLE LAW BECAUSE YOU SAY PARKING, YOU SAY THIS, AND THEN WHEN WE DO PARKING, WE DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE, UH, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE CRITERIA BECAUSE THEN IT AUTOMATICALLY, THE GUY'S GOING TO SAY, I'M NOT GOING TO GO WITH IT.
SO WHERE DOES THE CAR, WHERE DOES THE CAR PARK FROM? NOVEMBER FROM DECEMBER 15TH TILL MARCH ON MY STREET.
THEY, THEY HAVE A SPECIAL PERMIT ON, ON THE STREET.
I LIVE THERE ARE ABOUT EIGHT HOUSES, DON'T HAVE ANY PARKING.
SO THEY WERE GIVEN A SPECIAL PERMIT DURING THE WINTER MONTHS TO PARK ON THE STREET.
AND BECAUSE THERE IS THIS IMPOSSIBLE, ARE YOU CLEAR DOWN? YOU COME THERE.
I MEAN THERE IS A I'M CONFUSED.
SO, SO, SO ACTUALLY MICHAEL WAS, BUT I JUST NEED CLARIFICATION.
MY UNDER, WHAT'S THE ISSUE WITH, WITH, WITH THAT STATEMENT ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR PARKING? I'M NOT, 'CAUSE I'M, WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT WHILE DOING GOOD IN TERMS OF HAVING A PARKING, SO YOU MIGHT BE RESTRICTING PARTICULARLY THE SMALL HOUSE OWNER WITH THE 5,000 SQUARE FEET.
DOESN'T REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING BECAUSE SOME PEOPLE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO PROVIDE IT AND THEREFORE WET ADD AN A DU.
SO THE LAST SENTENCE, THE PLANNING BOARD MAY DETERMINE THAT AN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE MAY BE NECESSARY DEPENDING ON THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS FOR THE A DU FOR A POTENTIAL OF TO, UH, TWO TOTAL ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES.
BUT IT'S A WAIVER MEANING ABOVE THE ONE.
BUT IS THAT, IS THAT A, BUT DIDN'T WE, THAT'S REALLY A PLANNING BOARD WAIVER, RIGHT? WE, WE, SO THAT'S A WAIVER OF THE ADDITIONAL SECOND SPACE.
WE, I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED, TOM, WE'LL GET TO YOUR SECOND, WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS AT LENGTH ALREADY.
YOU CALL IT BELT AND SUSPENDERS IS JUST A WAY TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.
IT DOESN'T EXCLUDE ANYBODY FROM GETTING IT AT ALL.
AND THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IF IN FACT THEIR PROPERTY ISN'T SUITABLE FOR AN A DU, IT JUST ISN'T SUITABLE FOR AN A DU.
WE, WE MADE IT AS INCLUSIVE AS HUMANLY POSSIBLE WITH THE, THE PARKING CONSIDERATIONS ALREADY.
I DON'T, ADDITIONALLY THEY COULD ALSO GET A VARIANCE FROM THE AREA PROVISION, BUT THEY DON'T EVEN NEED A VARIANCE.
THEY CAN GO, THEY WOULD ONLY NEED A VARIANCE IF WE DON'T GRANT A WAIVER.
RIGHT? WELL, IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING, THEY COULD GET A WA UH, VARIANCE FROM IT AS WELL.
SO THERE WERE TWO WAYS COVERING, WE'RE COVERING ALL BASES HERE TO, TO MAKE IT AS EASY AS POSSIBLE.
AND THE, THE OTHER THING IS, AND AND I I WANT TO GO TO TOM 'CAUSE HE'S HAD HIS HAND UP.
THE OTHER THING IS WE KNOW THAT ONE OF THE BIGGEST COMPLAINTS, AND, AND WALTER, WHEN YOU WENT THROUGH THOSE, THAT LONG LAUNDRY LIST OF COMMUNITY COMMENTS THAT NIGHT.
THAT, AND I THINK MICHAEL, YOU DID IT AS WELL WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THAT PARKING, THE CONCERN ABOUT PARKING WAS ONE OF THE BIGGEST CONCERNS OF ANYTHING.
MAYBE YOU, AND IF WE WANT TO GET A LAW THAT, THAT FRANKLY COULDN'T EVEN PASS THE, THE TOWN BOARD, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD COMPROMISE.
I, YOU KNOW, I'D LOVE TO NOT BE ABLE TO RESTRICT PARKING AT ALL.
WE CAN'T DO THAT IN OUR TOWN, UNFORTUNATELY.
SORRY, MY QUESTION IS ABOUT THE OVERALL CONDITIONAL NATURE OF THIS PROPOSED, UM, DOCUMENT.
BUT IF PEOPLE HAVE SPECIFIC COMMENTS ABOUT THE CONTENTS, WHY DON'T YOU GO THROUGH THAT FIRST? OKAY, I CAN, I, OKAY.
OH, DON'T LET ME GO ANYWHERE WITHOUT COMING BACK TO YOU ON THAT, BEN.
[01:45:01]
IF YOU, IF YOU NEED TO.BEFORE, BEFORE WE MOVE ON, THOSE TWO BULLET POINTS THAT ARE MUST HAVES, RIGHT? SO WE HAVE THREE, WE DON'T KNOW.
WE, MY RECOMMENDATION IS THAT PARKING COULD BE DROP TO THE YEAH.
THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION.
DOES EVERYONE, EVERYONE FEEL, I THINK THAT'S EXCELLENT ADDITION.
WE WOULD TAKE WHAT'S HIGHLIGHTED IN GRAY AND JUST DROP IT DOWN BELOW.
I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S JUST, EVERYONE AGREES.
I DON'T OH, I'M SORRY, MICHAEL.
ANYTHING ELSE? DO YOU HAVE ANY OF THE COMMENT? NO, I THINK, I THINK, I THINK, LOOK, YOU KNOW, LIVING IN EDGEMONT ALL THESE YEARS WITH ALL ITS NARROW STREETS, SO ON AND SO FORTH, I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO ON STREET PARKING.
RIGHT? MORE ON STREET PARKING ALSO, PARTICULARLY IN THE WINTER MONTHS AS YOU, YOU KNOW, MENTIONED WOULD BE A DISASTER.
SO I THINK PARKING IS IMPORTANT.
WHETHER IT SHOULD BE ABOVE THE LINE OR BELOW THE LINE.
WELL, IS IT A DEAL BREAKER THAT THAT'S WHAT THIS BOILS DOWN TO? WOULD, WOULD YOU IF THEY DID, FIRST OF ALL, I THINK THAT WE WILL BE, I DON'T, I WOULD, I WOULD BE VERY SURPRISED THAT TBO DOESN'T ADOPT THAT ONE BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY, I, IT REALLY, IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL LAW THAT WE GOT, IT WAS SOME, WELL, NOT QUITE LIKE THIS.
BUT, BUT I KNOW WHEN TALKING TO THE TOWN BOARD ABOUT THE A DU LAW, THEY, THEY HAVE THE SAME CONCERN ABOUT PARKING.
SO I I I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT GUN ADOPT ANYWAY.
SO, SO THAT'S A CASE WE SHOULD NOT, I WOULD PUT UP BELOW THE LINE.
I'D PUT IT BELOW THE LINE, BUT I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WOULD PUT IT ABOVE THE LINE BECAUSE I HAVE THE SAME PROBLEM YOU DO.
I LIVE ON A DEAD END STREET THEN IN THE WINTER.
ESPECIALLY IF SOMEONE'S EVEN DURING THE DAY.
I DON'T FEEL STRONGLY ABOUT IT EITHER WAY.
WAS THERE ANYTHING, ANYTHING ELSE, UH, YOU WANNA GO THROUGH THE OTHER CHANGES ON THERE OR IS IT, WE JUST HAVE THE DISTANCE ISSUE.
IT WAS REALLY, IT WAS REALLY THE, THE DISTANCE.
SO THE DISTANCE ISSUE GUYS, SHOULD WE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE, ON SEPARATION? WE'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH ON THIS.
AND IF SO, WHAT SHOULD THE RECOMMENDATION BE? OR SHOULD WE SAY THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT? CORRECT.
YOU START, I THINK CONSIDERING THAT THE WHOLE HOUSING ISSUE, AFFORDABLE HOUSING ISSUE IS THAT THERE IS SO MANY, UH, I CALL IT A, UH, OBSTACLE SORT BELT AND SUSPENDERS.
WE ADD ONTO IT AND, AND, AND I'M, I'M SURE THERE'S GONNA BE SOME MORE CREATIVELY PUT INTO IT SO THAT SOME OF THESE WEALTHY COMMUNITY DOESN'T WANT IT TO DO IT.
AND I THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO DO AS LITTLE AS POSSIBLE.
UH, SO THAT THE PLANNING, UH, PLANNING BOARD IS, COMES OUT AS A REALLY SUPPORTIVE OF A-D-L-A-D-A-D-A-D.
YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S A, IT'S TO ME IF IT, IF IT NOT HAVE A DISTANCE, NOT HAVE, I'D LIKE TO HEAR EVERYBODY, MICHAEL, WHAT DO YOU THINK? SEPARATION OR NO, NO OPINION.
I'M AGAINST ADUS, BUT I'M VOTING AGAINST THIS.
SO DON'T ASK KIDS WANNA MOVE BACK IN HIS HOUSE.
DON'T ASK ME HIS KIDS POWER ON THESE INDIVIDUAL KIDS WANNA BACK IN.
WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT THIS.
I THINK THE, THE 25 MAX APPLICATION PROCESS IS ENOUGH PER YEAR.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S GONNA LOOK LIKE OVER THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
AND TO PUT A LIMIT IN TERMS OF DISTANCE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER WOULD BE TOO MUCH.
ISHA I WOULD SAY REMOVE AND THEN JUST QUICK COMMENTS TO THE PREVIOUS, UM, IF WE ARE REFERRING TO THE BELOW BULLETS AS ONE OR TWO, WE SHOULD PROBABLY PUT A ONE IN A TWO OR NAME THEM ONE IN TWO.
THE, THE REASON WHY I, I TOYED AROUND WITH THAT.
'CAUSE WE ENUMERATE THE VOTES.
SO YOU COULD USE A, WE COULD DO A, YEAH.
AND B, JUST REFER DIRECTLY SO THEY KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
AND THEN TO TOM, HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS? THE SEPARATION? THE ROMAN NUMERALS ALL THE WAY? WELL, I WAS ORIGINALLY BEFORE THE DISCUSSION, UH, IN FAVOR OF HAVING SOME SEPARATION, AT LEAST AT THE BEGINNING, YOU KNOW, TO SEE HOW THINGS ROLL OUT.
BUT GIVEN WHAT WAS SAID, I'M NOT, I DON'T FEEL SO STRONGLY ABOUT IT RIGHT NOW.
WALTER? I DON'T KNOW HOW IT'LL COME UP WITH A RATIONAL PLAN FOR SEPARATION.
I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW TO DO THAT.
I WOULD PREFER TO SAY SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD DEFER THAT TO AFTER THE FIRST YEAR AND TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT.
BECAUSE WE DON'T WELL, WE CAN DO THAT.
[01:50:01]
GOOD COMPROMISE.WE'LL, WE'LL WE'LL TAKE OUT THE THING, THE SEPARATION THING AND, AND REPLACE IT WITH YOUR LANGUAGE THEN.
WELL, IS EVERYONE, IS EVERYBODY AGREE WITH THAT? GOTTA GO BACK AROUND.
DO EVERYBODY AGREE WITH THAT? I LIKE THAT.
IT'S, IT'S BASICALLY, UH, LIKE WHAT, UH, OKAY.
SOMEBODY SAID THAT AS, AS REALLY DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE.
I HAVE, I HAVE ANOTHER ONE I WANT TO ADD THOUGH, BUT I I HAVE ONE MORE, SO, OKAY.
BEFORE, BEFORE YOU DO YOU WANNA DO IT? GO AHEAD.
UH, I THINK WHAT UH, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IS THAT CONSIDERING THAT THERE ARE, I THINK DEFICIENCY IS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING BY A DL, IT'S ABOUT MORE THAN 700.
SO IF YOU, IF I JUST SORT OF DIVIDED 25 PER YEAR LIMIT ON IT, UH, IT WILL TAKE US 30 YEARS.
WELL KEEP MIND AND, AND CONSIDERING THAT, HOW MUCH MORE WOULD BE ADDED ONTO IT? SO IT, IT'S LIKE A DROP IN A BUCKET THAT WE ARE REALLY DOING IT.
GIVEN THAT I THINK, UH, I TALKED TO UH MM-HMM.
WHY DON'T WE HAVE SOME OF THE THINGS, THE TWO THINGS WE CAN ADD, SAY EXISTING A DU WOULD NOT BE COUNTED INTO THAT 25 NUMBER.
AND, AND IF THERE ARE SOME BIG DEVELOPMENTS, MORE THAN FIVE HOUSE SUBDIVISIONS CAN ADD A, UH, A DU AS PART OF THE NEW, UH, BUILDING PERMIT.
LIKE SAY, UH, WE HAVE A
SO IF THEY CAN PUT ANOTHER 25 A DU IN SHOULDN'T CARRY IN THEIR HOUSES.
IT SHOULD BE A GREAT BREAKTHROUGH IN, IN ADDRESSING THE WHOLE A DU, SOMETHING LIKE NOT INCLUDING LEGALIZATIONS AND NOT INCLUDING NEW DEVELOPMENT.
HELP ME UNDERSTAND SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
OH, WE HAVE TO ALSO TALK ABOUT THE, THE, UH, TIME PERIOD, RIGHT? FOR THE SUNSET PROVISION FOR LEGALIZATION.
BUT LET ME GET BACK THERE FOR A SECOND.
THE WAY WE HAVE LEGALIZATION IN HERE, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD.
THAT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE.
RIGHT? DISABILITY INSPECTOR FOR THE FIRST YEAR.
FOR THE, FOR THE FIRST SIX MONTHS OR YEAR, WHATEVER WE DECIDE IN A MOMENT.
SO YEAH, THERE'S, LEMME SCROLL DOWN.
THERE BE THOSE SHOULD BE OUTSIDE THE 25 BECAUSE THE REASON FOR THE 25.
WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD SAY THAT.
THE REASON FOR THE 25 WAS WE WERE WORRIED WE CAN'T HANDLE AS A BOARD MORE THAN 25.
AND, AND WE DO SAY WITHOUT THE NEED TO GO BEFORE THE PLANNING.
SO, BUT, BUT MAKE SURE THAT THE, YOU NEED TO PUT SOMETHING TO WHAT KURT SAID, THAT THESE SHOULD NOT BE COUNTED AGAINST THE 25 CAP.
NOW, BEFORE I GO ON TO THE SECOND ONE, 'CAUSE UH, YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT THIS EARLIER TODAY AND I I I LOVE THIS IDEA.
BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT, LET THINK WE NEED AN I I AND AMANDA, YOU AND I TALKED ABOUT IT.
I THINK YOU WERE RECOMMENDING A YEAR, CORRECT? BECAUSE OF A NOTICE PERIOD YEAR.
SO THAT'S WHAT I, I THINK IS CORRECT.
HOW DOES EVERYBODY FEEL ABOUT A YEAR FOR, UH, TO LEGALIZE PREEXISTING ADAS? I AGREE WITH THE YEAR.
WELL, WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE YEAR? THEY HAD, THEY'RE THEY THAT THEY WERE ILLEGAL.
NO, NOT THAT THEY WOULD BE ILLEGAL, BUT THEY, INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH THE ADMINIS ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS DIRECTLY TO THE BUILDING, THEY'D HAVE TO, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD IN A SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS.
WE DON'T WANT THEM, BUT THEY EXIST NOW.
SO YOU WANT TO ENCOURAGE PEOPLE WHO ARE ILLEGAL TO FAMILY HOME.
RIGHT? THE REASON YOU WANT TO DO, WE WANT THEM TO MAKE IT LEGAL.
SO GIVE THEM TWO YEARS TO, AND YOU DON'T WANT DO THAT.
AND THE REASON IT'S A LONG, IT'S A LONG PERIOD OF TIME.
'CAUSE THE REASON YOU WANNA LEGALIZE THEM IS BECAUSE A LOT OF THEM MAY NOT COMPLY WITH THE CODE NOW.
WHICH IS THE REASON YOU, YOU WANT THEM TO ENCOURAGE THEM TO WE CAN ALWAYS EXTEND IT.
RIGHT? SO LET'S, I I WOULD SAY WE'VE SOMETHING THAT, RIGHT.
I WANNA GO BACK TO CREATE SECOND POINT.
'CAUSE I THINK IT'S, I THINK JUST BEFORE THAT ONE.
SO CAN WE ADD A LANGUAGE THAT WILL BE REVIEWED IF ADDITIONAL TIME NEEDED? YEAH, YOU CAN DO THAT.
REVIEWED AFTER YEAR TO SEE IF ADDITIONAL TIME TIME.
LIKE WE'RE DOING IT FOR OTHER ONE, RIGHT? RIGHT.
IF THEY COME IN REALLY SLOW OR BAD ON PUBLICITY, WHATEVER.
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
AND I THINK THIS IS A HUGE ONE, AND THE, THOSE OF US WHO WERE ABLE TO ATTEND THE LULA, UH, THING AT, AT, AT PACE UNIVERSITY, UH, SAW THIS AS A VERY SUCCESSFUL CONCEPT THAT'S BEING DONE IN CHAPPAQUA.
NOW WERE NEW CONSTRUCTION S ARE ADDED BECAUSE IT'S A LOT EASIER.
[01:55:01]
OKAY.I MEAN, WARD'S A PERFECT EXAMPLE.
I'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO GO BACK TO THOSE DEVELOPERS AND SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO HELP YOU OUT.
YOU CAN DO UP TO 25 OF THOSE 112 HOUSES WITH AN A VU IN IT.
DOESN'T HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THIS BOARD, GO THROUGH THIS BOARD ONCE TO GO LIKE THAT FOR ALL 25 OF THEM.
AND THEY WOULDN'T COME OUT OF IT, OUT OF THE CAP EITHER.
NOW THE QUE THE ONLY QUESTION IS HOW BIG DO THEY NEED? DO WE NEED TO BE TO ALLOW FOR A, UH, AN AUTOMATIC A A DU? I THINK IT'S BEEN SPELLED OUT, RIGHT? SOMETHING I CAN NO, WE HAVE TO IT'S ONE BEDROOM OR SOMETHING.
HOW BIG OF THE HOW HOW MANY SUBDIVISION, HOW MANY, HOW MANY LOTS DO WE NEED TO SUBDIVISION LOTS? DO WE NEED TO ALLOW US TO DO THAT? FIVE.
I WOULD SAY JUST FIVE SHORT TOO.
FIVE WOULD BE IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, CONSIDERING THAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OFFICE LAST 10 YEARS, THERE'S NOT MUCH.
UH, JUST, JUST VERY, VERY FEW.
MOST, MOST OF THEM ARE MORE THAN FIVE.
ALSO THE, THE FIVE, THE REASON IS I SUGGESTED IT IS A, IT'S A, IT'S USUALLY HAS A BIGGER, BIGGER, THE LAST, THE LAST.
SO I THINK THE FIVE, MAYBE YOU CAN SAY FOUR OR SIX.
I THINK IT, BUT I'M, I'M JUST PICKING IN A NUMBER THAT WILL HAVE, I THINK IT SHOULD BE 10.
I WOULD NOT WANNA MAKE THAT OUT.
WOULD NOT, THERE WERE SEVEN HOUSES, I THINK ON PAYNE STREET.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE DID, RIGHT? I THINK IT WAS EIGHT, MAYBE IT WAS EIGHT.
THEY'RE COMING IN FOR CONSTRUCTION.
SO IT WAS, IT WAS NINE HOUSES ON PAYNE STREET.
I'M NOT SURE I THAT ONE WOULD BE VERY MARGINAL BECAUSE WITHIN, IT REALLY WAS WITHIN AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE THAT WAS BEING DONE.
YOU KNOW, IF YOU GET OVER 10, GENERALLY IT'S KIND OF OFF TO THE SIDE.
AND IF YOU INCORPORATE, FIRST OF ALL, YOU INCORPORATE IT, YOU'RE NOT GONNA SEE IT.
YOU'RE GONNA DO A REALLY GOOD JOB OF THIS.
'CAUSE YOU STILL HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING ELSE.
I WOULD SAY 10 MY, I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU WANNA DO FIVE, BUT I'D SAY IT WAS 10.
I, I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF, UM, SETTING A A, A TOTAL NUMBER IN THIS REGARD? TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY NO, THIS, THIS IS ACTUALLY ACCELERATING THE NUMBER.
YOU CAN HAVE WHAT WE'RE SAYING RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE A HUGE OPPORTUNITY.
MAYBE THE BIGGEST OPPORTUNITY WE'RE GONNA SEE IN THE YEARS, WHICH IS THE ELMWOOD COUNTRY CLUB WHERE WE WE'RE NOW BUILDING 112 SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
THIS BOARD HAD ORIGINALLY WANTED IT TO BE TOWN HOMES, AND IT WAS GONNA BE ABOUT 150, AND WE'RE GONNA GET 14 AFFORDABLE UNITS OUT OF THAT.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE LAW READS, WHICH IS SOMETHING THE A VL IS NOW DEALING GONNA DEAL WITH, AND YOU CAN'T, CAN'T DO AFFORDABLE, YOU CAN'T REQUIRE A SET ASIDE WHEN IT'S SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.
IT'S NOT, IT'S, IT'S, YOU CAN'T REQUIRE IT.
THEY WERE VOL IF WE GAVE THEM THE TOWN HOMES, THEY WERE VOLUNTEERING 14 AFFORDABLE UNITS.
SO INSTEAD, IF WE PASS THIS LAW, AND THEY'VE ALREADY, THEY'VE BEEN APPROVED FOR 112 HOMES, THE DEVELOPER FOR, FOR THAT 113 HOMES.
WHERE THE GOLF COURSE USED TO BE.
WOULDN'T IT BE NICE TO GET 25 OF THOSE HOMES PRE-APPROVED.
FOR AN A VU DOESN'T AFFECT ANY NEW, ANY NE ANY NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER ANYWHERE.
BUT THIS NEW THING, IT'S PRE-APPROVED TO MAKE IT MORE AFFORDABLE FOR PEOPLE TO MOVE IN THERE INTO THOSE HOMES AND THEY'D MAKE MORE MONEY OFF OF IT.
SO I, I GET THAT PART, BUT WHAT I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IS WE ARE BASING THAT ON AN OPPORTUNITY THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW, BUT WE WANNA PUT IT IN A LAW FOR AN OPPORTUNITY THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT IN THE FUTURE.
WELL, THERE ARE OTHER, RIGHT, THERE ARE OTHER AREAS THAT COULD COME UP AND THEY WON'T COME UP THAT MUCH.
LOOK, IF WE GOT ANOTHER 25 OUT OF THAT AND NOTHING ELSE EVER HAPPENED, IT'D STILL BE 25 MORE THAN WE HAVE NOW.
I THINK WHAT AISHA IS SAYING IS IT'S GOOD, BUT IF SOMEBODY WERE BUILDING THREE HOMES, WHY PREVENT THEM FROM ADDING AN A DU TO ONE OUT OF THE THREE WITH, WITHOUT A REVIEW? I CAN TELL YOU WHY.
'CAUSE IF YOU'RE BUILDING, WE GET A LOT OF TWO LOTS SUBDIVISIONS, RIGHT? 2, 3, 4 LOTS.
LET'S TAKE THE WORST POSSIBLE CASE, A TWO, TWO LOT SUBDIVISION.
THAT ISN'T ALREADY WHERE THERE WAS AN EXISTING HOME ANYWAY.
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU'RE SAYING WITHOUT ANY OTHER APPROVAL, YOU CAN DO AN EXISTING HOME WITH A NEW HOME WITH A DU.
RIGHT? NO, I, I THINK I'D SAY YOU, YOU HIT A GOOD POINT.
UH, AND I THINK THAT WILL BE A,
[02:00:01]
A VERY WIN-WIN SITUATION.IF YOU SAY, UH, YOU CAN ADD ONE OUT OF THE THREE.
IF YOU'RE DOING IT AND THE DEVELOPER IS BUILDING IT RIGHT THERE, IT IS A MORE EFFICIENT TO HAVE THE HEALTH ABSOLUTELY.
SO I THINK MAYBE IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO PUT LIKE, SAY, UH, 30% OF THE NEW DEVELOPMENT.
SO THAT ONE IN THREE, OR IF IT IS, I MEAN THEY HAVE UP TO, YOU CAN PUT IT TO IT, SOME, SOME SORT OF LANGUAGE THAT ENCOURAGES ANY NEW DEVELOPMENT TO BUILD, UH, INBUILT IN DESIGN TO HAVE THAT SO THAT IT WILL BE A WIN.
I MEAN, GREAT BECAUSE HE CAN REALLY, UH, SELL IT AT A HIGHER PRICE IF SOMEBODY HAS A A DU PROVISION LEGALLY INTO HIS HOME.
AND IF HE'S DOING IT A SIX, HE CAN HAVE A TWO.
AND I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS, IS TO HAVE THAT NOT INCLUDED INTO 25.
SO THAT SHOULD BE A CRITICAL LANGUAGE.
ALL, ALL NEW, ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION AND NOT INCLUDED.
I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT I LIKE, I LIKE THE SUGGESTION THEN WALTER, GO AHEAD AND I'D LIKE TO PULL WHERE EVERYBODY'S, I THINK EVERYBODY, CORRECT ME IF WRONG, IF I'M WRONG, IS IN FAVOR OF, OF, UH, GIVEN A DEVELOPER THE OPPORTUNITY WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING A NEW HOME TO PUT AN A DU.
I THINK THE ISSUE IS WHAT'S, HOW MANY, WHAT'S THE MINIMUM SIZE? I THINK THAT'S THE ISSUE.
DO CAN YOU DO IT IF WITH, IF YOU'RE BUILDING THREE HOMES OR DO YOU NEED FIVE HOMES OR DO YOU NEED 20 HOMES TO TRIGGER THAT? I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION.
SO WHERE, WHAT'S THE ANSWER? BUT THE ONE TWO, THEY'RE SAYING ONE THIRD OF ANYTHING WITH NO.
SO THE LOW, THE LOWEST NUMBER WOULD BE THREE LARGE SUBDIVISION WITH THEIR, WITH, WITH THEIR POINT.
OH, YOU COULD PUT A MINIMUM 30% A MINIMUM IF YOU, IF YOU, IF YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT THREE IS TOO SMALL, YOU COULD PUT 30%, BUT A MINIMUM OF WHATEVER NUMBER THIS MATH IS BAD.
THIS MEANS YOU CAN ONLY BUILD ONE THIRD.
NINE TENS OF THE THING IS AN ARCHITECT, NOT A MATHEMATICIAN.
SO WE COULD PUT A MINIMUM THAT, THAT'S WHAT HE'S SAYING IS ONE IN THREE.
SO IT HAS ONLY APPLIED OUT OF THREE BLOCKS.
THREE, WHICH IS ONE OUT THREE OUT THREE.
AND, AND, AND IT WOULD BE APPROVED AT THE SAME TIME.
WE'RE APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION.
SO IT WOULD BE, THOSE WOULD BE REVIEWED.
WELL, SAME THING WITH WITH, UH, WITH ELMORE.
IT HAS TO BE REVIEWED ONCE, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE, WE COULD AUTHORIZE ONE THIRD OF, OF 113, WHICH IS WHAT? 34? 37.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT, UH, UH OKAY.
TOM, HOW DO YOU FEEL? UH, YOU'RE ASKING ME.
SORRY, YOU GUYS GOT BLURRY, UM, AUDIO FOR A SECOND.
HOW MANY, WHAT THE, THE NUMBER IS THIRD, SAY THE ONE.
NO, I THINK ONE THIRD IT TAKES IT DOWN AND CAN'T BE ANY LESS THAN THREE THROUGH HOW YOU WANT THAT.
WHICH IS, WHICH IS ABOUT, UH, I THINK PERCENT TWO SUBDIVIDED AFTER ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION.
ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION, UH, NEW CONSTRUCTION IS ALLOWED TO HAVE ONE THIRD OF THE HOUSES AUTHORIZED FOR A AN A DU.
AND THAT, THOSE NEW, A ADUS UNDER THIS WILL NOT, WILL NOT COUNT AGAINST THE 25 CAP.
I THINK THERE'S, YOU KNOW WHAT, THE MORE I THINK ABOUT, I, I REALLY WAS THINKING OF BIGGER, BUT THE, YOU GUYS CONVINCED ME BECAUSE WE HAVE MORE OPPORTUNITIES LIKE THAT AND WE STILL HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN.
WE CAN ALWAYS REJECT THE SITE PLAN.
CAN I ASK, CAN I ASK MY OTHER QUESTION NOW? YES, SIR.
AT THE VERY TOP OF THE DOCUMENT, IT SAYS, UH, WELL CONDITIONALLY 'CAUSE IT'S IN RED.
UM, WHAT IT SAY CONDITIONAL POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
SO MY QUESTION IS, IF WE SAY WE, IT'S A POSITIVE RE RECOMMENDATION IF YOU INCLUDE THOSE TWO BULLET POINTS THAT WE IDENTIFY TO FRONT.
BUT AS IT SAYS IN THE DOCUMENT, IF YOU DON'T INCLUDE THOSE, IT'S A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION.
[02:05:01]
DOES THAT MEAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT PUTS THE LAW MORE IN JEOPARDY BECAUSE, BUT I DON'T KNOW THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS OF THIS BECAUSE NOW THE PLANNING, BUT SAY TOM, WHERE IT SAYS WE DON'T WANT TO INCLUDE THOSE, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO IT, THEN IT STANDS ON PAPER THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION TOWARDS THE LAW.THEY WOULD NEED A SUPER, THE LAW WOULD BE HARDER TO PASS.
IT WOULD NEED A SUPER MAJORITY BY THE TOWN BOARD.
WHICH, WHICH YOU'LL GET DON'T DON'T GET IT IF THEY WANT IT.
I, I I WAS GONNA ASK THAT EXACT QUESTION, TOM, BECAUSE IT, IT DOES LOOK LIKE WE'RE SAYING IF YOU DON'T DO THIS, THEN IT'S NEGATIVE.
AND THEN WHAT IS THE IMPACT OF THAT? OH, THAT'S RIGHT.
SO THE IMPACT IS THE TOWN BOARD WOULD HAVE TO OVERRULE WITH THE SUPER MAJORITY TO PASS IT WITHOUT THOSE TWO PIECES.
THEY NEED FOUR INSTEAD OF THREE.
THEY NEED FOUR OUT FIVE INSTEAD OF THREE OUT FIVE.
THEY CAN MAKE IT HARD FOR THEM IN ORDER TO, TO PASS IT NOW.
BUT THE, THE REASON I WANT, I WANT TO GO AHEAD.
WHAT WE RECEIVED WASN'T WHAT THE TOWN BOARD HAD APPROVED.
AND OUR INTENT WITH PUTTING THIS IN HERE IS THAT WE ARE, WE ARE BOTH CLEAR THAT THAT WASN'T A CONDITION OF THIS LAW TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE FIRST PLACE.
BUT I DON'T LIKE THE SUPER MAJORITY, UH, CONDITION THAT IT WOULD CREATE.
TAKE IT OUT O ONLY BECAUSE JUST SAY WE'RE VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THESE TWO AND LEAVE IT AT THAT.
AND, AND YOU'VE GOT THE FOOTNOTE, MICHAEL'S FOOTNOTE, AND YOU'VE GOT YOUR UPFRONT HISTORY.
JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT AND CALL IT A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I WOULD FEEL EXACTLY.
HATE FOR THEM TO SAY, WELL, WE'RE NOT TAKING 'EM OUT.
WE'RE NOT, I MEAN, I, I THINK THE LAW LAW WILL BE, IT'S SOMETHING, IT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT, BUT IT'S SOMETHING.
WE JUST SAYING, WELL, WE CAN OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT JUST DON'T SAY IF, I WOULDN'T CALL IT A CONDITIONAL, I, I THINK WE CHECK THAT OUT AND THEN WHAT YOU, WHAT WE DO AND THE, THE SENTENCE.
NO, YOU GET RID OF THE THING WHERE IT SAYS IT'S A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION IF YEAH.
IT, IF IT'S, UH, THOSE, WELL, WE HAVE TO SAY THAT, UM, THAT WE STRONGLY THAT THESE, WE THINK WITHOUT THESE, THAT YOU'RE, YOU ARE DEFEATING THE OVERALL, I THINK YOU HAVE TO PUT LANGUAGE IN THERE.
THEN IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA SAY NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION, WHICH HAS LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS, INSTEAD SAY SOMETHING LIKE, WITHOUT THESE TWO, WE BELIEVE YOU'RE GONNA SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR THE EFFECTIVENESS IN THE SPIRIT OF THIS LAW.
THAT WAY WE'RE VERY, I I WAS TRYING, THE REASON IT WAS IN THERE IS I REALLY WANTED TO HIT HIM OVER THE HEAD.
BUT, BUT I, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
WE DON'T WANT THAT CONSEQUENCE, MY HONEST OPINION, IT WON'T MATTER IF IT'S SUPER MAJORITY OR NOT, THEY'LL GET FOUR OUT OF FIVE ANYWAY.
GENERALLY THEY GET FIVE, HOPEFULLY, BUT GENERALLY THEY GET FIVE.
THEY MAY DON'T PASS IT AT ALL.
THAT THAT'S A REAL POSSIBILITY.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHERE IT'LL COME OUT.
BUT JUST IN CASE LET'S, I HAVE AN IDEA IF WE COULD LIST THOSE TWO AS CRUCIAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD OH, CRUCIAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO ARE WE DONE WITH THIS? AND CAN WE VOTE ON IT? DO WE HAVE TWO VOTES OR ONE VOTE? WE VOTED ON THE FIRST ONE ALREADY, RIGHT? I THINK, UM, YOU NEED TO TAKE THE TWO VOTES, ONE ON THE REPORT, WHICH WE HAVEN'T EVEN REALLY DISCUSSED YET.
SO THE REPORT FOLLOWS THE SAME FORMAT THAT ALL REPORTS ON, UM, ZONING TEXT.
IT'S VERY REDUNDANT AMENDMENTS
SO YOU'VE, YOU'VE SEEN THE FORMAT BEFORE.
UM, IF ANYONE HAS ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT, WE'RE HAPPY TO, UM, THE DRAFT REPORT DATED MARCH 7TH.
YOU NEED TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT THOUGH, WITH WHAT WE JUST DID, RIGHT? YEAH.
I'M STUFF P AND IF YOU'D LIKE, WHAT WE CAN DO RATHER THAN GO THROUGH THIS, BECAUSE THERE, YOU KNOW, THINGS COULD COME UP LIKE, HEY, YOU GOTTA CHANGE THIS.
LET'S MAKE THE RED LINE CHANGES.
GIVEN THE DISCUSSION THAT TONIGHT BEFORE IT'S TRANSMITTED TO THE TOWN BOARD, IT'LL BE CIRCULATED TO THE PLANNING.
WE CAN DO THAT LIKELY TOMORROW.
SO IF, IF WE CIRCULATE TOMORROW AND ASK FOR ANY FEEDBACK BY CLOSE OF BUSINESS MONDAY.
DOES THAT WORK FOR EVERYBODY? OKAY.
SO WE WOULDN'T NEED TO TAKE, WE'LL TAKE THE NOTES.
YEAH, YOU CAN TAKE THE VOTE TONIGHT.
WE'LL TAKE THE VOTES TONIGHT, RIGHT? WITH THE PROVISO THAT WE'LL SEE THE FINAL DOCUMENT.
SO LET'S DO THAT ON THE REPORT FIRST.
CAN SOMEBODY GIVE ME A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE, UH, ACCEPT, ACCEPT, ACCEPT THE REPORT AS IT MEANT, UM, MODIFICATIONS IN OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE ONBOARD.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
[02:10:01]
SHE SECOND.ON THE SECOND ONE, UH, A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD, POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD, UH, PROVIDE ADDING THE, THE, THE SAME KIND OF LANGUAGE.
ADDING THE AS AMENDED AS BEING, AS BEING AMENDED.
I THOUGHT WALTER HAD SUGGESTED THE RECOMMENDATION.
THE RECOMMENDATION SAID THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
THE MOTION WAS MADE BY WALTER AGAIN AND ON THE REPORT, I BELIEVE NO, JOHAN.
AND IT WAS SIX ONE WITH MICHAEL VOTING AGAINST.
BEFORE WE CLOSE, JUST A GENERAL COMMENT ON THE, ON THE, UM, UH, THE CONFERENCE IN SARATOGA.
TERRANCE, YOU CAN TAKE US OFF.