[00:00:01]
[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, January 15, 2025 – 7:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ]
AND WELCOME TO THE WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 15TH, UH, FIRST MEETING OF 2025 FOR THE PLANNING BOARD.AARON, WOULD YOU DO THE ROLL CALL? SURE.
OUR ALTERNATE ED WEINSTEIN HERE.
AND WE'D LIKE TO WELCOME ED WEINSTEIN.
THIS IS THE FIRST MEETING, UM, AS A VOTING MEMBER SINCE WE DON'T HAVE ANY ALTERNATE WELCOME.
UH, K DESAI AND YOHAN TAGS ARE NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING.
SO ED WILL BE, AND AISHA ISN'T EITHER.
AND AISHA IS NO LONGER A MEMBER OF THE BOARD.
UM, SO IF WE CAN GO INTO THE MINUTES.
UH, SO WE WANT TO DO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
DID EVERYBODY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY? AND ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES FROM THE DECEMBER MEETING? IF THERE ARE NO COMMENTS, WE CAN MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
CAN WE, CAN I HAVE A MOTION? I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.
ALL OPPOSED? ABSTINENT, ABSTENTIONS, ABSTENTIONS.
AND I THINK WE CAN JUST MOVE INTO CORRESPONDENCE.
SO FIRST, UM, ACTUALLY AT THE REQUEST OF COUNSEL FOR ITEM THREE A, MR. STEINMAN SAID HE WAS GONNA BE A FEW MINUTES LATE.
HE'S JUST GETTING ONTO THE ZOOM.
SO IF WE CAN, MAYBE WE WILL JUMP TO THREE B.
UNLESS MR. STEINMAN, ARE YOU ON? CAN YOU HEAR US? HE, I AM ON.
THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR, UH, UNDERSTANDING.
I WAS UNABLE TO GET IN FRONT OF MY COMPUTER UNTIL JUST NOW.
SO WE JUST GOT, WE WERE JUST GONNA SKIP OVER YOU AND THEN SAW YOU INTO THE ROOM.
SO, UH, IF YOU WOULD WALK US THROUGH, WE, WE DID RECEIVE YOUR LETTER DATED JANUARY 2ND, 2025, REQUEST FOR EXTENSION TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, THAT WAS CIRCULATED TO BOARD MEMBERS.
AND IF YOU JUST WANT TO BRIEFLY EXPLAIN THE RATIONALE OR REASON FOR THE RECORD.
GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, DAVID STEIN METZ FROM THE LAW FIRM OF Z STEINMAN HERE REPRESENTING, UH, ELMWOOD, UH, RIDGEWOOD ELMWOOD OWNER.
I, I THINK AS THE BOARD KNOWS, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING RATHER EXTENSIVELY WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER DUANE, WITH MR. SCHMIDT AND WITH SEVERAL OF THE TOWN OFFICIALS, UM, AS WELL AS THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH TO SATISFY A NUMBER OF IMPORTANT, UH, CONCERNS, UH, REGARDING UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE.
WE'VE BEEN MAKING TREMENDOUS, UH, PROGRESS.
WE ARE NOT COMPLETED, WHICH IS WHY, UH, WE ARE UNABLE TO SUBMIT FOR FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAN APPROVAL.
MY CLIENT IS RATHER ANXIOUS TO DO THAT.
SO AS I THINK, UM, GARRETT AND AARON BOTH TELL YOU WE HAVE BEEN, UM, PUSHING, UH, EVERYONE AT, AT FULL SPEED.
THE, THE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO SIMPLY, UM, INDICATE FOR THE BOARD, WE SPENT QUITE A BIT OF TIME OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF MONTHS WORKING WITH THE TOWN, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE SPRING BROOK PARKWAY, UM, REALIGNMENT PROJECT, WHICH MY CLIENT IS FACILITATING BY, UH, COMPLETING THE DONATION OF 14.2 ACRES ADJACENT TO EAST BROOK PARK.
SO, UM, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF THINGS HAPPENING.
UH, I I THINK THERE, THESE ARE GOOD THINGS THAT, UH, WORK, UH, TO THE BENEFIT OF, OF THE TOWN.
AND AS SOON AS ALL OF THIS IS COMPLETE, UH, IN PARTICULAR RECEIVING THE DOH SIGN OFF, WE WILL BE BACK IN FRONT OF YOU.
I CAN ASSURE YOU REQUESTING FINAL PLAT APPROVAL.
BUT THIS PROJECT, UH, HAS LEGS.
IT IS ADVANCING AND UM, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
BUT WE ARE RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, THAT, UH, IF YOU EXTEND THE SUBDIVISION OF THE PRELIMINARY APPROVAL, THERE IS NO LEGITIMATE BASIS TO DENY THAT.
BUT IT IS IMPORTANT THAT YOU KNOW WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING.
AND LET'S, UH, THE EXTENSION IS FOR 180 DAYS.
AND THIS IS THE THIRD EXTENSION REQUEST OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION.
SO I'D LIKE TO OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS TO MR. STEIN.
I GUESS IS THE 180 DAYS A PERIOD THAT YOU THINK WILL BE THE LAST NEED FOR AN EXTENSION? I WISH I COULD ANSWER THAT DEFINITIVELY.
UM, THAT, THAT, UNFORTUNATELY THAT'S LARGELY CONTROLLED BY THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AT THIS POINT.
UM, SO I, I THINK THERE'S A REAL GOOD CHANCE, BUT I DON'T WANT TO TELL YOU CATEGORICALLY,
[00:05:01]
UH, IN MY EXPERIENCE, AND I'VE BEEN DOING THIS QUITE SOME TIME, WE CAN NEVER PREDICT EXACTLY WHAT OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES ARE GOING TO DO.THE IMPORTANT THING FOR YOUR BOARD, UM, AND THIS TO ME IS THE RIGHT INQUIRY, IS TO TURN TO GARRETT AND AARON AND, AND SAY, IS THE DEVELOPER FULLY ENGAGED HERE? UH, I'M QUITE CONFIDENT THEY WILL TELL YOU WE ARE.
DO YOU WANNA GO OVER SOME OF THE POINTS, AARON, JUST REAL QUICK OF THINGS THAT THEY'VE DONE THAT WE DISCUSSED IN TERMS OF, UH, SO YEAH, I MEAN, AS MR. STEINMAN'S INDICATED, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF TO ADDRESS CERTAIN MATTERS.
THEY'RE WORKING WITH DOT HAVING COMMUNICATIONS, SO THEY'VE CERTAINLY BEEN ACTIVE WITH THE PROJECT AS THEY ADVANCE TOWARDS THAT POINT WHERE THEY CAN GET SIGN OFF FROM THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH ON THE PLAT, COME BACK TO THIS BOARD WITH A, AN ENDORSED PLAT AND MOVE ON TO FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
WE HOPE THAT THAT CAN BE DONE IN THE 180 DAY PERIOD.
THEY SUBMITTED THEIR REQUEST MORE THAN 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THIS MOST RECENT EXTENSION, UH, EXPIRING.
SO I THINK THE BOARD'S IN GOOD POSITION HERE TO ISSUE THAT REQUEST FOR THE 180 DAY EXTENSION.
SO IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THEY'RE MOVING FORWARD, UM, I'D LIKE TO PUT FORTH OR HAVE SOMEONE PUT A MOTION FORTH FOR 180 DAY EXTENSION.
LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU IN PERSON, HOPEFULLY SOON.
OKAY, SO NEXT IS THE PARAIS PROJECT, 23 SPRINGWOOD AVENUE.
IF YOU WOULD COME UP TO THE PODIUM PLEASE.
SO REAL QUICK BEFORE I HAVE YOU SPEAK TO YOUR REQUEST, UM, BUT YOU CAN STAND AT THE PODIUM.
UH, THIS IS CASE NUMBER PB 21 DASH 10.
CLEARLY WE HAVE SOME NEWER MEMBERS ON THE BOARD.
IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU SPEAK BRIEFLY ABOUT WHAT THE PROJECT ENTAILED JUST TO BRING THOSE MEMBERS UP TO SPEED.
THERE WAS A VARIANCE, UH, I BELIEVE ALSO APPROVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE STEEP SLOPE PERMIT.
AND THE STEEP SLOPE PERMIT WAS APPROVED, POSSIBLY MULTIPLE VARIANCES.
UM, THE STEEP SLOPE PERMIT APPLICATION WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
UM, THAT WAS BACK IN JANUARY, 2022.
IT WAS VALID FOR A PERIOD OF TWO YEARS, UH, THROUGH JANUARY, 2024.
UH, WE DID ASK THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE REASONING WHY THERE WAS A DELAY AND WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR THIS EXTENSION AFTER IT HAD ALREADY EXPIRED FOR ROUGHLY 11 MONTHS BY THE TIME WE GOT THE REQUEST.
SO I'LL TURN THINGS OVER TO MR. PARAIS AND IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR FOR MS. MAGNA, YOU KNOW, FEEL FREE.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? UM, SO JUST I RECALL THAT WE HAD NEEDED, UM, THE VILLAGE OF LEY TO WEIGH IN, I THINK ON A PIECE OF THIS.
WAS THAT? I THINK THAT WAS BEFORE.
I THINK THAT WAS MR. ESCALADE'S PROJECT.
DOWN THE STREET WITH THE ROAD WIDENING.
HOW YOU DOING? UH, THANKS FOR HAVING ME TONIGHT.
UM, SO WE WERE, UH, TOTALLY, I'M SORRY.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR, UH, NICHOLAS
UH, WE WERE, UH, UM, APPROVED FOR ALL OF OUR VARIANCES IN OUR PROJECT.
UM, I WORKED WITH THE LAST BOARD AND WE BROUGHT THEM OVER TO MY PROPERTY AND SHOWED 'EM EVERYTHING THAT WE WERE DOING.
I HAD ALL MY NEIGHBORS, UH, APPROVE OF THE PROJECT AND THEY WERE ALL KNOWING AND WILLING TO SIGN ON MY BEHALF.
AND, UM, THE REASON WHY WE DIDN'T GO FORWARD WITH THE PROJECT WAS BECAUSE THIS WAS, UM, A TIME JUST AFTER THE COVID PERIOD AND THE PRICES STARTED SKYROCKETING.
AND A LOT OF, UM, CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES STARTED, YOU KNOW, MAYBE RETIRING OR NOT WILLING TO WORK FOR, UH, THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED BUDGET THAT WE HAD.
AND WE WERE GETTING NUMBERS TRIPLE THE AMOUNT OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT OF THE WORK THAT NEEDED TO BE DONE.
AND IT WAS OVER AND OVER AGAIN EVERY CONTRACTOR THAT WE HAD.
UM, AND THEY JUST KEPT TRIPLING THE PRICE OF WHATEVER IT WAS.
UM, AFTER A PERIOD OF 20 DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS COMING, UM, WE JUST THOUGHT THERE'S NO WAY WE COULD AFFORD, UH, A PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO BE BASICALLY THE COST OF OUR HOUSE AS IT CURRENTLY STOOD, UH, FOR SOMETHING THAT WOULD ADD A FRACTION OF THE VALUE.
JUST BRIEFLY, WHAT IS THE PROJECT? SO WE ARE, UH, CHANGING OUR ENTRANCEWAY, WHICH CURRENTLY IS MADE OF DECKING WOOD, UM, WHICH IS NOW FALLING APART
[00:10:01]
AND, UH, ROTTING AWAY AND NEEDS TO BE CHANGED, LIKE, 'CAUSE IT'S A SAFETY HAZARD.UM, AND THE OTHER PART OF THE PROJECT WAS TO PUT A GARAGE, UM, UH, WHICH WAS CLOSE TO MY NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
THAT'S WHY I NEEDED THE VARIANCE.
AND THE NEIGHBOR WAS GOOD WITH IT, UM, AND IS STILL GOOD WITH IT.
UH, IT'S JUST THAT FINALLY, UM, WE FOUND SOMEBODY WHO'S GOING TO DO THE PROJECT THAT A PRICE THAT WE COULD AFFORD AND SOMETHING THAT MAKES SENSE.
UM, AGAIN, WE HAD GIVEN UP ON IT BECAUSE ALL THE PRICES THAT WE GOT WERE JUST RIDICULOUS.
BUT NOW WE'RE BACK IN A, IN A PLACE WHERE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD AFFORD AND IT'S KIND OF THE ORIGINAL PRICE THAT WE WERE GUARANTEED TO HAVE.
UM, AND NOW WE HAVE TO DO THE PROJECT BECAUSE I HAVE RETAINING WALLS AROUND THE PROPERTY AND THEY'RE HOLLOWED OUT AND THEY'RE GOING TO COLLAPSE.
AND I DON'T SEE A, A REASON TO SPEND MONEY TWICE.
I I JUST WANT TO REALLY DO THIS PROJECT THE RIGHT WAY.
AND, UH, WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD IF WE COULD GET YOUR APPROVAL ON THAT.
WHEN IS YOUR CONTRACTOR READY TO START? RIGHT AWAY IN THE WINTER TIME NOW.
SO I'M SORRY JUST 'CAUSE I READ THE LETTER AND I WASN'T CLEAR WHETHER OR NOT YOU'RE MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ENTIRE PROJECT OR JUST THE RETAINING WALL PORTION.
ALRIGHT, SO FROM A PROCEDURAL PERSPECTIVE, UM, AND THIS, THIS QUESTION IS AMANDA.
UM, SO IF THE PERMIT EXPIRED JANUARY 6TH, 2024 AND THE REQUEST NEEDS TO BE MADE 30 DAYS PRIOR, AND THIS IS THE FIRST REQUEST WE'RE GETTING NOW, ARE WE EVEN ALLOWED TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION? OR YOU CAN APPROVE IT IN PROTON? UM, YOU NEED TO CONSIDER POTENTIAL FOR SETTING A PRECEDENT, WHICH KIND OF DISCOURAGES SOMEONE FROM FILING TIMELY FOR AN EXTENSION.
UM, MOST OFTEN WHEN WE'VE DONE IT, IT'S BEEN DUE TO AN INABILITY TO FILE A REQUEST.
UM, SOMETHING ELSE TO CONSIDER IS, IS THERE ANY CHANGE TO THE SCOPE OF THE PROJECT, YOU KNOW, FROM WHEN IT WAS APPROVED TO TO NOW.
SO IF THEY RESUBMITTED, YOU KNOW, IS THERE ANY CHANGES TO THE PROJECT CHANGE IN ORDINANCES? YEP.
SINCE THE PRIOR APPROVAL, WHY DID YOU WAIT A YEAR AFTER YOUR PERMIT EXPIRED TO COME TO US? BECAUSE WE, UH, GAVE UP ON THE PROJECT WITH ALL THE, UH, OUTRAGEOUSLY HIGH QUOTES THAT WE WERE GETTING AND WE DIDN'T THINK THAT ANYBODY WOULD BE.
I THINK A LOT OF COMPANIES STARTED DECIDING LIKE, HEY, IF I'M GONNA WORK, IT'S GONNA BE FOR A LOT OF MONEY OR NOTHING.
SO HOW LONG IS THIS EXTENSION FOR? THE EXTENSION CAN BE FOR AS UP TO TWO YEARS.
UP TWO YEARS, BUT IT CAN BE LESS IF THE BOARD DESIRES.
WELL, IT'S GOTTA BE AT LEAST A YEAR.
HOW LONG WILL THE PROJECT TAKE? IT'S GOTTA BE, UH, OVER A YEAR BEING THAT IT'S BEEN LAPSED FOR A YEAR.
SORRY, I WAS ASKING HOW LONG THE PROJECT WILL TAKE ONCE THEY START.
UH, THEY TOLD ME THREE MONTHS.
BUT YOU KNOW HOW TRACTORS ARE, SO LET'S SAY SIX.
SO ANY OF THE VARI ALL OF THAT IS STILL ALL APPROACHED.
THE VARIANCES ARE STILL, UM, IN EFFECT AND VALID AND THE SCOPE HASN'T CHANGED ACCORDING TO THE EVERYTHING'S THE SAME.
ALRIGHT, I MOVE, WE GRANT THE TWO YEAR EXTENSION, NO PROTON TO WHATEVER THE DATE IS.
SO IT WOULD BE RETROACTIVE TO JANUARY 6TH, 2024.
SO THAT WOULD GIVE HIM TO LATE END OF 2025, RIGHT? YEAH.
TO THE BEGINNING OF JANUARY, 2026.
OKAY, SO ALL IN FAVOR? AYE AYE.
UHOH OPPOSED? ANY DISCUSSION OR EVERYONE'S COMFORTABLE? OKAY.
WE WILL WRITE IT UP AND GET IT OFF TO YOU.
SO NEXT ON THE AGENDA, AND WE HAVE, UM, WE DO HAVE MICHAEL THOMPSON ON FROM JMC REPRESENTING CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER.
BUT AS BOARD MEMBERS MAY RECALL, UH, THIS WAS A REQUEST TO AMEND A PREVIOUSLY ISSUED LETTER OF PLANNING BOARD SHARED PARKING REDUCTION APPROVAL AT THE CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER FOR THOSE KIND OF UNFAMILIAR WITH WHAT THE REQUEST WAS.
CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER, ALTHOUGH IT HAS, UH, PROBABLY OVER A THOUSAND PARKING SPACES,
[00:15:01]
UM, OFF STREET PARKING SPACES, TECHNICALLY BASED ON THE USES AT THE SITE PURSUANT TO OUR ZONING ORDINANCES, IT DOES NOT HAVE THE STATUTORY REQUIRED NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ON THE SITE.HOWEVER, WITH THAT SAID, IT'S BEEN APPROVED FOR VARIOUS SHARED PARKING REDUCTIONS, WHICH IS ALLOWABLE, UM, IN THE CODE THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD.
THE APPLICANT COULD ALSO PURSUE A VARIANCE FOR ALL STREET PARKING, BUT IT HAS PURSUED A SHARED PARKING REDUCTION.
SO MOST RECENTLY, AND LET ME GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF WHEN THAT CHANGES, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NOT NEW BUILDINGS BEING, UH, ERECTED ON THE SITE.
SO CHANGE IN USE RETAIL AS AN EXAMPLE.
IF THAT USE VACATES AND THE SITE OWNER, UH, SEEKS TO OR HAS INTEREST FROM ANOTHER TENANT IN RESTAURANT SPACE, RESTAURANT SPACE PARKS AT A HIGHER REQUIREMENT THAN RETAIL, THEY'RE NOT GONNA BUILD OUT.
THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD OUT MORE PARKING.
ALSO, THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE OR HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE TO THE BOARD THAT THERE'S NO NEED FOR THEM TO BUILD OUT ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING THAT THEY'VE STUDIED VARIOUS PEAK TIMES OF THE CENTER IN SPECIFIC LOCATIONS AND SITE-WIDE AND CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SITE HAS ENOUGH PARKING TO SATISFY EVEN WITH THE CHANGE IN USE.
SO THE APPLICANT CAME BACK AND, UM, IDENTIFIED THAT THEY SOUGHT TO AMEND THE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED PERMIT, UH, SHIFTING A TOTAL OF 3,498 SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT SPACE FROM TENANT PREVIOUSLY APPROVED TENANT SPACES TWO AND A PORTION OF TENANT SPACE 20 TO TENANT SPACES 25 AND 39 B, TOTALING THAT 3,498 SQUARE FEET.
UM, AND THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME CONDITIONS AS SET FORTH PREVIOUSLY.
UM, AND WE LAY THAT OUT IN THE DRAFT DECISION.
SO THIS WAS BEFORE THE BOARD LAST YEAR, AND THEY WERE SET FOR A DECISION TO BE CONSIDERED.
BUT THERE WAS SOME LANGUAGE THAT STAFF HAD DRAFTED UP ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD THAT THE APPLICANT WANTED TO REVIEW WITH ITS COUNSEL.
WE HAVE SINCE HANDLED THAT AND COME TO THE CONCLUSION AND REALLY, UH, THAT EVERYONE'S SATISFIED WITH.
AND THAT CONDITION IS ESSENTIALLY THE THIRD PARAGRAPH OF THIS DECISION.
THERE WERE, AND I'LL READ IT ALOUD, BUT, UM, BOARD MEMBERS EXPRESSED, I DON'T WANT TO SAY, I'LL SAY CONCERN, JUST THAT WITH, UM, SO IF YOU KNOW THE CENTER, THERE'S AN OUTBUILDING ON THE NORTH SIDE AND THAT'S WHERE PIER ONE IMPORTS WAS FOR MANY YEARS.
UM, THE P ONE IMPORTS WENT OUT AND IN FACT, TENANT SPACE 39 B IS ONE OF THE PIECES.
THEY BASICALLY SPLIT THE FORMER PIER ONE IMPORTS INTO 2 39 B IS ONE OF THE SPACES.
SO IT'S A LITTLE TIGHTER UP IN THAT AREA.
THERE'S THAT NORTHERLY PARKING LOT THAT SOMETIMES HAS GOTTEN QUITE BUSY.
UH, DAVE'S HOT CHICKEN HAD NOT YET OPENED.
UM, AND THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT CLUSTERING OF RESTAURANTS COULD LEAD TO A BUSIER PORTION OF THE SITE.
AND THE BOARD WANTED ASSURANCES THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY COULD TAKE A LOOK BACK AFTER THIS USED PERHAPS OPENED AND WAS IN AN OPERATION FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATION AND ACCIDENT DATA AND SEE IF ANY TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES WERE NECESSARY OR WOULD BE NECESSARY AT THAT FUTURE TIME.
SO WE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT, WE SPOKE WITH, UH, THE TOWN'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT, AND WE CAME UP WITH THE LANGUAGE IN PARAGRAPH THREE.
I CAN READ THROUGH IT IF YOU'D LIKE, OR I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I, I GUESS, HOW IS IT DIFFERENT FROM THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS IN THE FIRST DRAFT OF THE DEC RECALL? UM, REVISIT.
SO I THINK, UM, AS A MATTER OF FACT, I, I BELIEVE ONE OF THE MODIFICATIONS WAS TO DIS UH, WE ADDED IN TO DISCUSS THE REASONABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF TRAFFIC MITIGATION MEASURES.
IT WAS PRETTY BROAD INITIALLY, AND THEY WERE CONCERNED THAT, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN COULD CALL UPON, YOU KNOW, CLOSURE OF ONE OF THE ENTRY POINTS INTO THE SITE IF IT TURNED OUT THAT TRAFFIC WAS BACKING UP.
UM, OR POTENTIALLY, UH, YOU KNOW, CLOSURE OF THIS OR REVOCATION OF THE PERMIT, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND THEY WANTED THAT REASONABLE IMPLEMENTATION OF MITIGATION MEASURES, WHICH COULD INCLUDE ADDITIONAL STRIPING SIGNAGE, SOME SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS
[00:20:01]
WITHIN THE PARKING LOT VERIFICATION THAT ALL THE EMPLOYEES ARE PARKING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS SOMETHING THEY'VE AGREED TO.JUST TO, THIS MAY JUST BE, 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW LEGAL LANGUAGE, BUT WHERE THEY SAY WITHIN NINE MONTHS.
SO THEY COULD DO THAT ON DAY ONE AND SAY EVERYTHING'S GOOD.
LIKE WHAT DOES WITHIN NINE MONTHS MEAN? NO, NO MORE THAN NINE MONTHS.
BUT COULD IT BE DAY ONE? I'LL LET WELL YOU WOULD NEED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET THE, THE INFORMATION, SO I DON'T THINK YOU CAN DO IT WITHIN ONE DAY.
UM, PRACTICALLY, I MEAN, IF THEY COULD THEN YEAH, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S SCRATCH.
WHICH WOULD DEFEAT THE OBJECT THOUGH.
AT ONE POINT, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I DON'T THINK, UM, A SHORT PERIOD WITHOUT NOT ENOUGH AFFIDAVIT WOULD BE CONSIDERED WITHIN GOOD FAITH.
SO, YOU KNOW, TO AMANDA'S POINT, IT WOULDN'T, I, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED RIGHT.
SO IF YOU GAVE US DATA AFTER ONE DAY, OKAY, IT PROBABLY WOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED.
AND I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IT'S BEEN OPEN AND I DON'T KNOW THIS, I KNOW I'VE BEEN THERE, BUT HAS THERE BEEN ANY ACCIDENTS SINCE DAVE'S HOT CHICKEN HAS OPENED? RIGHT? NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.
UH, WE COULD DOUBLE CHECK WITH STAFF AND UH, REPORT BACK.
BUT, UH, WHAT I DO KNOW, SO ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS WAS AT THE TIME THAT THEY HAD MADE THE REQUEST, DAVE'S HOT CHICKEN HAD NOT OPENED IT SINCE.
HAS, UM, THE NORTHERLY PARKING LOT WAS ALSO MODIFIED.
IT'S NOW A ONE WAY FOR YEARS IT WAS TWO WAY A LITTLE CHAOTIC, IT NARROWED, THEY'VE MADE MODIFICATIONS, UH, AND THINGS SEEM TO BE FUNCTIONING WELL AS PEOPLE GET USED TO IT, OBVIOUSLY.
I THINK RIGHT AT THE BEGINNING THERE MIGHT'VE BEEN SOMEONE THAT GOT CAUGHT UP GOING THE WRONG WAY AND THAT NOW PEOPLE ARE GETTING USED TO THE PATTERNS WITHIN THAT AREA.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? YEAH, NO, THAT WAS HELPFUL.
YOU KNOW, MICHELLE MAKES A GOOD POINT.
SHOULD, SHOULD WE SAY SOMETHING LIKE WITHIN SIX TO NINE MONTHS? I THINK IF THEY'RE ABLE TO COME, GIVES THE TIME FOR THE RESTAURANT TO BECOME KNOWN, BUILD UP A CUSTOMER BASE, YOU KNOW, IT'S OKAY WITH ME.
UM, JOHN CANNING OPINE ON THE TIMEFRAME.
I THINK HE WOULD BE OKAY WITH THAT.
MR. THOMPSON, ANY OBJECTION TO US, UH, SETTING THAT PERIOD BETWEEN SIX AND NINE MONTHS? NO, NO OBJECTIONS.
UM, THE TIME PERIOD REALLY WAS TO, UM, PROTECT THE, THE EXCITEMENT FROM THAT END OF THE OPENING FIRST MONTH OF THE NEW RESTAURANT.
WE, WE'D EXPECT IT TO BE A LOT MORE TRAFFIC FOR THAT INITIAL PERIOD.
SO WE FIGURED IF NINE MONTHS WOULD GET TIME FOR THAT INITIAL, SET THAT DOWN AND GET A MORE ACCURATE READ OF WHAT THE TRAFFIC WOULD BE LIKE LONG TERM.
UM, SO YEAH, SIX TO NINE MONTHS I THINK WOULD BE FINE.
WE CAN MAKE THAT, IF, IF THAT'S BOARD'S DESIRE, WE CAN MAKE THAT MODIFICATION WITHIN SIX TO NINE MONTHS FOLLOWING THE INITIAL OPENING PERIOD.
SO WE WOULD SEEK TO HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE AS AMENDED.
ALL OPPOSED, ABSTENTIONS PASSES.
WE'LL GET THIS OFF TO YOU EITHER TOMORROW OR FRIDAY.
ALRIGHT, AND THE NEXT IS CASE NUMBER PB 2207 CHICK-FIL-A.
AND THIS IS A PSYCH PARENT SPECIAL USE AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
SO, UH, AND I SHOULD ADD A PLANNING BOARD LANDSCAPE WAIVERS TO THAT.
AND I APOLOGIZE THAT, UH, THE AGENDA DOESN'T INCLUDE IT IN THE HEADER.
IT DOES INCLUDE IT WITHIN THE BODY.
UM, SO AGAIN, AS ACTING CHAIRPERSON DAVIS MENTIONED CASE NUMBER PB 22 DASH ZERO SEVEN CHICK-FIL-A ON FOR DECISION THIS EVENING.
THE PLANNING BOARD HELD A PUBLIC HEARING IN DECEMBER, AT WHICH ON DECEMBER 4TH, AT WHICH TIME IT CLOSED THE HEARING AND LEFT THE WRITTEN RECORD OPEN FOR PERIOD OF TWO WEEKS.
THERE WAS ONE ADDITIONAL WRITTEN COMMENT, UH, THAT CAME COMMENT LETTER THAT WAS SUBMITTED BY MR. BAKARI ON DECEMBER 18TH.
UH, THAT BROUGHT UP A NUMBER OF POINTS.
WE DID FORWARD THAT ALONG TO, UH, THE BOARD AS WELL AS TO THE APPLICANT AND
[00:25:01]
TO THE TOWNS TRAFFIC CONSULTANT ON JANUARY 7TH, 2025.THE APPLICANT'S, UH, TEAM RESPONDED TO THAT MEMO.
UH, AND WE ALSO RECEIVED SOME COMMENTARY BY EMAIL SORT OF INFORMALLY FROM, UH, THE TOWN'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT, JOHN CANNING, WHICH WE UTILIZED IN PUTTING TOGETHER VARIOUS CONDITIONS WITHIN THE DRAFT DECISION.
UM, I'M HAPPY TO GO THROUGH, I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO GO THROUGH THE VARIOUS CONDITIONS CONTAINED WITHIN THE DRAFT DECISION AND THEN SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT COME OUT OF THAT.
WOULD THAT BE, UH, THE BOARD'S PLEASURE? YES.
UM, AND CAN YOU ALSO, IF, IF WHERE APPROPRIATE REFERENCE, WHAT YOU'RE RESPONDING TO, UM, IN FROM THE LETTER? SURE.
SO I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL, UM, TO BRIEF THE BOARD ON, ON MR. UM, MR. CANNINGS KIND OF RESPONSE TO THE COMMENTS.
'CAUSE HE DID GO THROUGH THEM.
I THINK THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL.
SO FIRST, AND YOU'LL SEE IT ON PAGE ONE, UH, IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, THIS PLAN, MEANING THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN SHOULD BE MADE.
AND MR. CANNINGS RESPONSE WAS, EFFECTIVELY IT IS THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN IS INTENDED TO BE THERE AND ROLLED OUT WHENEVER IT IS NEEDED.
ALSO, IF IT TURNS OUT THAT MORE DRIVE THROUGH QUEUING IS NEEDED, THE PLAN AND THE DRAFT DECISION ALLOW FOR THE DRIVE THROUGH ALONG THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY TO BE MORE OR LESS PERMANENT, THE PERMANENT, THE POST OCCUPANCY STUDY THAT WILL BE PREPARED BY THE APPLICANT EVEN PROVIDES A MECHANISM TO SEE THAT THIS IS DONE IF NECESSARY.
THEN HE SAYS, GOES ON TO SAY HIS ONLY THOUGHT IN THIS SPECIFIC REGARD, ONLY THOUGHTS IN THIS SPECIFIC REGARD.
RA THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THERE WILL BE MORE DRIVE THROUGH THAN PARKING TO BEGIN WITH.
RIGHT? WHEN THE GRAND OPENING, THE EXPECTATION IS THAT THE DRIVE THROUGH IS GONNA BE MORE HEAVILY UTILIZED.
UM, AND HE MAKES A POINT THAT IT'S EASIER TO SWITCH FROM THE DRIVE THROUGH TO THE PARKING THAN FROM THE PARKING TO THE DRIVE THROUGH.
'CAUSE YOU GOT, PEOPLE ARE UTILIZING THOSE PARKING SPACES.
YOU'VE GOTTA SOMEHOW GET THEM OUT OF THERE, THEN PUT THE CONES, NOT ALLOW ANYONE ELSE.
IT'S EASIER TO DO IT THE OTHER WAY AND JUST SET UP DAY ONE OR IN, IN THE MORNING WITH THE CONES AND THE STAFF MEMBERS OUT THERE WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT THE DRIVE THROUGH IS GOING TO GO BEYOND THE 32 OR 34 THAT, UH, ARE WITHIN, I'D SAY WITHIN THE QUEUE OUTSIDE OF THE, THERE'S A, THERE'S A, UM, PEDESTRIAN CROSSING.
AND THEN IT GETS INTO THE PARKING LOT BEYOND THAT.
I, I I FEEL LIKE I'VE ASKED THIS QUESTION BEFORE.
THE, SO THE PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE SITE YES.
UM, WERE THOSE SPOTS THAT WOULD BE UTILIZED OR WOULD BE TAKEN OFFLINE DURING THE PARKING PLAN? WAS THAT INCLUDED IN THE VARIANCE? THE, THE THAT WAS APPROVED? YES.
SO, SO BY MAKING THE, THE PARKING, THE TRAFFIC PLANT PERMANENT, WOULDN'T THAT EFFECTIVELY BE REDUCING THE PARKING SPOTS FROM WHAT THE, THE VARIANCE PERMITTED? SO IF IT WERE PERMANENT AND THE APPLICANT IDENTIFIED THAT, UM, THROUGH THIS POST, UM, POST-APPROVAL STUDY, THAT THEY'LL, THEY WERE GONNA BE OBLIGATED TO DO THAT.
THEY NEED AT ALL TIMES, YOU KNOW, UH, THE QUEUE TO EXTEND TO BEYOND 33 SPACES OR 35, WHATEVER, IT'S, UM, AND OUT INTO THE AIR FIELD OF PARKING MM-HMM
THEN THE TOWN WOULD NEED TO EVALUATE THAT TO SEE WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS IN THE PARKING.
IF THEY WERE GONNA ACTUALLY COME BACK AND PROPOSE TO ELIMINATE THE STRIPING OF THOSE SPACES AND UTILIZE IT AS AN EXTENDED QUEUE AT ALL TIMES PERMANENTLY.
THE TOWN WOULD HAVE TO EVALUATE WHETHER THAT IMPACTS THE VARIANCE THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD.
BUT I THINK THIS IS THE GRAND OPENING.
THIS IS THE GRAND OPENING PLAN, WHICH IS NOT PERMANENT.
I MEAN, JOHN IN HIS COMMENTS RIGHT.
THAT THAT THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT I'M REACTING TO.
'CAUSE IF YOU, I UNDERSTAND IF YOU HAVE SPOTS THAT ARE NEVER ON, NEVER ONLINE, THEN, THEN THAT'S EFFECTIVELY LIKE YEAH, THAT'S EFFECTIVELY PHANTOM SPOTS THAT, THAT THEY'RE GETTING CREDIT FOR.
BUT WE DO ALSO CONSIDER QUEUING AS SPACES.
SO WE, AND, AND MR. CANNON GOES ON TO INDICATE THAT.
SO YES, THE 33 IN THE QUEUE ARE COUNTED TOWARDS THAT OVERALL.
UM, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN PAST PRACTICE IN THE TOWN FOR LONGSTANDING.
UM, SO MR. CANNON GOES ON TO SAY THAT THE,
[00:30:03]
THAT, UH, LET'S SEE.ALRIGHT, SO THE NEXT COMMENT WAS, UH, TO THERE HAD BEEN DISCUSSION OF, WITH THE BOARD ABOUT THE EXIT OUT TO OLD KENSICO ROAD AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT SHOULD BE A RIGHT TURN ONLY, SHOULD IT BE FULL MOVEMENT.
AND, UH, THE REQUEST OF MR. BORES TO MAKE IT RIGHT OUT, ONLY OUT ON THE FRONT END.
UM, MR. CANNINGS RESPONSE WAS THAT HE BELIEVES THAT THE DRAFT DECISION PERMITS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE THIS RECOMMENDATION AND REQUIRE THAT THE APPLICANT OPERATOR TO, UM, CARRY THIS OUT OR PROVIDE CONSENT TO THE TOWN DOING IT IF NEEDED AT A FUTURE POINT.
AND THIS WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE STUDIED AS PART OF THE POST OCCUPANCY STUDY.
SO, SO SIMILARLY, IF, IF AT SOME POINT THEY DO DECIDE TO MAKE THAT RIGHT TURN ONLY, THEY WOULD COME BACK TO US? OR IS THAT SOMETHING THEY CAN JUST DO? THEY CAN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT LIKELY COULD BE COORDINATED AT THE ADMINISTRATIVE LEVEL.
UM, POSSIBLY THROUGH A SITE PLAN EXEMPTION.
SO IT COULD INVOLVE POSSIBLY A MODIFICATION TO THE SITE PLAN, BUT WOULD IT RISE TO THE LEVEL OF THE NEED FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE SITE PLAN? SURE.
BUT, YOU KNOW, I'VE SEEN THINGS LIKE THAT GO THROUGH THE EXEMPTION PROCESS.
SO I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION BECAUSE, AND I, I WILL GIVE THAT TO YOU.
I JUST WANTED TO FINISH, I'M SORRY.
OH, I THOUGHT YOU, UM, AND I THOUGHT I WAS TOO, I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY BE REPORTING BACK TO THE BOARD.
WE WOULD JUST NOT BE DOING IT ADMINISTRATIVELY WITHOUT YOUR KNOWLEDGE.
BECAUSE THAT'S, YOU KNOW, AT THAT POINT, THAT'S ULTIMATELY, I THINK THROUGHOUT THIS ENTIRE PROJECT, THERE'S BEEN A FINE LINE BETWEEN, UM, YOU KNOW, SORT OF HEARING THE FEEDBACK OF, OF THE RESIDENTS IN THE AREA AND, AND IF THERE WAS A PERMANENT DECISION TO EFFECTIVELY DIRECT TRAFFIC INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, I I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT, UM, WOULD, WOULD, WOULD BE WORTH TALKING THROUGH.
AND AT LEAST IN THE DIRECTION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE POINTING FOLKS IN THAT THE LEAD DIRECTION SURE.
AND EVEN THOUGH THERE'S A ROUNDABOUT, RIGHT, RIGHT.
IT WOULD STILL GO IN THAT DIRECTION.
SO, AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY I THINK THE BOARD CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT LET'S ALLOW THE LEFT, SEE HOW IT WORKS, SEE IF THERE ARE ANY CONFLICTS, HAVE IT STUDIED, IF IT'S WORKING EFFECTIVELY, WHY NOT CONTINUE TO ALLOW IT IF IT'S NOT, LET'S SEE IF THERE ARE SOME ALTERNATIVES THAT CAN BE CONSIDERED.
AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION ON THE ALTERNATIVES, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE POLICE WILL BE MONITORING THIS IF THEY DECIDE REGARDLESS OF WHETHER CHICK-FIL-A NOTICES IT OR NOT, THAT IT SHOULD BE.
ONLY THEY WOULD BRING THAT CONCERN, UM, EVEN IF, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD BRING THE CONCERN TO THE TOWN REGARDLESS OF WHETHER OR NOT THE CONCERN WAS BROUGHT TO THE TOWN FROM CHICK-FIL-A.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
THE POLICE PROBABLY HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO PUT A NO LEFT TURN.
SO THAT'S, YOU SEE SIGNS ALL OVER THE TOWN, RIGHT? MM-HMM
OUTSIDE, YOU KNOW, SORT OF, THAT'S SORT OF THE STOP GAP.
IS, IS THE PURPOSE OF MAKING IT RIGHT.
UH, RIGHT LANE ONLY A RIGHT TURN ONLY TO KEEP TRACK BECAUSE IT'S BACKING UP GOING OUT TO TARRYTOWN ROAD IF YOU MAKE THE LEFT.
THAT'S THE CONCERN OF THIS GENTLEMAN, RIGHT? YES.
THAT A CAR COULD, IF IT WAS BACKED UP IN THE DIRECTION OF, UH, THE INTERSECTION WITH TARRYTOWN ROAD, THAT THE PERSON TRYING TO MAKE THE LEFT OUT IS STUCK, CAN'T GET IN, CAN'T GET IN, AND THEN IT'S JAMMING UP THAT TRAFFIC FLOW IN THE NORTHBOUND DIRECTION ON.
AND SO PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD, THEY COULD BE STUCK IN TRAFFIC FOR A WHILE.
SO THE TRADE OFF IS, YOU KNOW, EITHER YOU WAIT AT THE LIGHT TO GET ON TARRYTOWN ROAD OR YOU HAVE MORE TRAFFIC IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD SO YOU DON'T GET BACKED UP GOING OUTTA THE NEIGHBORHOOD
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, THINKING ABOUT IT MYSELF, IF THE, IF THE, THE TRAFFIC LIGHT IS BACKED UP TO THAT POINT, WOULD JUST MAKE A RIGHT AND GO AROUND MM-HMM
OR
AND THE APPLICANT'S GOING TO DO A GOOD JOB WITH SIGNAGE AT THE PLANNING BOARD'S REQUEST.
SO IF SOMEBODY'S LOOKING TO GO WESTBOUND ON ONE 19 TOWARDS THE BRIDGE, LET'S SAY, THEY WOULDN'T EVEN MAKE THAT LEFT OUT TO HIT THAT LIGHT.
YOU WOULDN'T HAVE TO, YOU CAN ACTUALLY GO OUT THE COUNTY CENTER ROAD EXIT, WHICH IS RIGHT NEXT TO THE DRIVE, THE END OF THE DRIVE THROUGH, MAKE A RIGHT AND CUT THAT WAY THERE'S NO LIGHT.
AND THEN YOU CAN MAKE A RIGHT OUT ONLY ONTO WESTBOUND.
AND THAT WAS GONNA BE MY QUESTION
[00:35:01]
IS, IS, IS COUNTY CENTER ROAD, IS THERE ANY CONVERSATION ABOUT THAT ROAD BEING PREPARED FOR WHATEVER INCREASED TRAFFIC IT MIGHT RECEIVE? SO I KNOW THE APPLICANT'S GONNA STRIPE, SO RIGHT NOW IT'S KIND OF LIKE FREE FOR ALL PARKING ALONG THE SHOULDER, IF YOU WILL.UM, THEY'RE GONNA STRIPE OUT THOSE SPACES TO BRING SOME UNIFORMITY.
UH, WITH THE OFF STREET PARKING THERE, THERE'S ALSO GONNA BE POLICE PRESENCE IN THOSE HIGH VOLUME PERIODS, INCLUDING THE, UM, GRAND OPENING PERIOD AT THAT POINT, AS WELL AS THE OLD KENSICO ROAD POINT.
PROBABLY ON THE REGULAR, IF THERE'S AN ISSUE.
PLUS, UM, AS THE APPLICANT'S INDICATED AND THE BOARD'S AWARE OF THE PLAN IS THE MANAGEMENT PLAN IS FLUID.
IN THE EXAMPLE OF YONKERS, YOU KNOW, THE THOUGHT WAS WHEN THE PLAN WAS ADOPTED OR PREPARED THAT THERE WOULD BE ALTERNATE ACCESS OR EGRESS TO A SIDE ROAD OF THE YONKERS FACILITY MAYBE FOR ENTERING THE SITE.
YONKERS POLICE SAID, THAT'S NOT GONNA WORK.
YOU'RE GONNA CUE IN THE SHOULDER OF CENTRAL AVENUE.
AND THAT'S WHAT THEY PUT INTO IT.
BECAUSE I, I CAN SEE A POTENTIAL WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE INTERSECTION OF TERRYTOWN ROAD AND COUNTY CENTER ROAD WHERE, WHERE THERE'S NO LIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, THAT GETTING BUSY YEAH.
AND THERE'S, IS THERE ANY GONNA BE ANY IMPROVEMENTS? I SAY THERE'S A CROSSWALK.
SO JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP AN EYE ON MM-HMM
I'M GLAD YOU'RE ASKING ALL THE QUESTIONS.
SO THIRD POINT WAS, UM, MR. BAKARI SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD IN THE TOWN CONSIDER REQUIRING THE APPLICANT TO STRIPE A BOX, UM, TO STOP SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC ON OLD KENSICO ROAD FROM BLOCKING THE NESTOS DRIVEWAY OR PROHIBIT LEFT TURNS INTO NESTOS FROM NORTHBOUND OLD KENSICO ROAD.
SO MR. CANNINGS RESPONSE WAS THAT THIS IS THE ONE ITEM WHERE HE BELIEVED THERE WAS SOME, WELL, TO HIS WORDS, REAL DAYLIGHT BETWEEN WHAT IS PROPOSED AND WHAT MR. B TARI WANTS IN MR. CANON'S OPINION.
THIS PER, PERHAPS THIS IS A NESTOS ISSUE, HOWEVER, NOT A CHICK-FIL-A ISSUE.
AND FOR REASONS PROVIDED BELOW WHICH I'LL GO THROUGH, HE DOES NOT EXPECT THAT IT WILL BE A CONCERN, THOUGH ON THE RARE OCCASION THAT IT MIGHT, IT WILL BE NO WORSE BECAUSE OF CHICK-FIL-A A, IT, IT HAS NEVER BEEN REPORTED AS A PROBLEM BEFORE WHEN NESTOS WAS PREVIOUSLY OPEN.
UH, B THE APPLICANT IN THIS CASE, CHICK-FIL-A, IS ADDING A LANE AND IMPROVING THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL, WHICH EFFECTIVELY OFFSETS THE IMPACT OF THE ADDITIONAL CHICK-FIL-A TRAFFIC.
SO IF YOU RECALL, UH, APPROACHING FROM THE SITE, THE ONE 19 INTERSECTION, THEY'RE ADDING ANOTHER LANE, AND IN FACT THEY'RE ADDING OR WIDENING THE LANE OF TRAVEL NORTHBOUND TO 18 FEET, SO THAT IF SOMEONE DOES SEEK TO GET INTO NESTOS AND HAS TO WAIT MOMENTARILY, EVEN IF IT'S NOT BACKED UP, YOU CAN GO AROUND THAT PERSON ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE.
SO THAT'S A WIDENING IMPROVEMENT THAT THEY'RE DOING TO FREE UP THAT FLOW.
I JUST STATED B AND C, WHICH IS ALSO WHAT I STATED.
THE APPLICANT'S MAINTAINING AN 18 FOOT WIDE NORTHBOUND LANE ON OLD KENSICO ROAD, WHICH WILL ALLOW NORTHBOUND THREE, THREE VEHICLES TO PASS ANY VEHICLE WAITING TO TURN LEFT INTO NESTOS.
UM, I, I GUESS WHAT WOULD BE THE HARM OF PAINTING A DO NOT BLOCK THE BOX ON THE, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT NEED TO BE THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSIBILITY, BUT WELL, DEPENDING ON, YOU KNOW, IF, WHAT'S ONE THING I COULD SAY, AND I'M NOT NESTOS, IT'S NOT NESTOS, IT'S VACANT RIGHT NOW.
WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING INTO IT AT THE MOMENT.
I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S AN ACTIVE APPLICATION TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DIFFERENT POTENTIALS.
UH, REGARDING THAT SITE, THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF, AND I'M NOT A TRAFFIC ENGINEER AGAIN, IS THAT IT WOULD BLOCK A COUPLE OF STACKING SPACES SURE.
AND THEN PUSH, POTENTIALLY PUSH VEHICLES BACK FURTHER OR CLOSER TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE OTHER THING IS THAT, THAT, THAT BOX STRIPING IS GENERALLY FOR STREETS.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE ACCESS STREETS AND YOU DON'T WANNA BLOCK THE STREET VERSUS PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS VERSUS PRIVATE DRIVEWAYS.
IT MAY NOT BE PURSUANT TO STATE CODE TO DO IT FOR A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY.
IN FACT, THAT WOULD BE SURPRISED IF I, IF THAT WERE ALLOWED.
UM, SO THEN HE, HE DID GO ON TO SAY THAT THIS
[00:40:01]
ISSUE COULD BE FURTHER ADDRESSED AT ANY TIME.UM, A USER FOR THE NESTO SITE APPROACHES THE TOWN.
SO IF MAYBE NESTOS WANTS TO SEE THAT DONE OR WHATEVER THE FUTURE USER IS, THEY CAN APPROACH THE TOWN AND HAVE THE CONVERSATION.
WE CAN CHECK TO SEE IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE ALLOWABLE.
AND LASTLY HERE, ELIMINATE, OR I, I BELIEVE MR. TARI SUGGESTED THAT, OKAY, SO
SO AS YOU KNOW, AS THE PLAN GETS CARRIED OUT AND THERE'S MORE VOLUME COMING INTO THE QUEUE, THEY CAN WIDEN THAT QUEUE OUT TO THREE WIDE WITHIN THAT WESTERLY PARKING AREA.
SUGGESTION IS, THE SUGGESTION IS TO ELIMINATE THAT THIRD LANE OF DRIVE THROUGH QUEUING IN THE PARKING LOT AND FURTHER WIDEN NORTHBOUND OLD KENSICO ROAD TO HAVE A DEDICATED RIGHT TURN LANE INTO CHICK-FIL-A.
MR. CANNING IDENTIFIES THAT THE 18 FEET CURRENTLY PROPOSED ON THE NORTHBOUND OLD KENSICO ROAD SHOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO EFFECTIVELY ALLOW THIS TO HAPPEN WHILE RETAINING THE THIRD LANE IN THE DRIVE-THRU, WHICH WOULD REDUCE THE QUEUING ON OLD KENSICO, WHICH IS VERY IMPORTANT.
WE DON'T WANT TO SEE A DEDICATED TURN LANE FOR CHICK-FIL-A BACK OUT INTO ONE 19.
THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, WHICH THE APPLICANT PUT TOGETHER WITH, UH, INPUT FROM THE BOARD AND FROM THE TOWNS CONSULTANT, IS IF IT STARTS TO GET BUSY ENOUGH, THEY'RE GONNA ACTUALLY CLOSE THE ENTRANCE FROM OLD KENSICO ROAD AND ROUTE VEHICLES AROUND THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE AND, AND ONLY IN THROUGH COUNTY CENTER ROAD BECAUSE WE WANT TO ELIMINATE THE POTENTIAL FOR THE QUEUE TO BACK OUT INTO TERRYTOWN ROAD, WHICH IS NOTHING ANYONE WANTS TO SEE, EVEN IF THE ROAD'S WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC TO FLOW PAST THOSE VEHICLES.
SO THAT WAS, UM, SOMETHING THAT, THAT WAS THE RESPONSE FROM MR. CANNING, WHICH I AGREE WITH.
UM, SO THOSE WERE THE RESPONSES.
I HOPE I ANSWERED ALL THE QUESTIONS AND THEN I CAN RECITE SOME OF THE CONDITIONS THAT WE HAVE THAT OKAY.
UM, I KNOW I ASKED AFTER THE LAST MEETING AND KNOW WE ARE GETTING THE PROPER WORKING ADAPTIVE SIGNAL AT ALGO AND THEN THE IMPACT THE DOWNSTREAM OR THE EAST AND THE WEST RIGHT.
AT HILLSIDE AND AT, UM, CENTRAL AVENUE, THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS RESPONSE THAT THOSE WILL BE MADE ADAPTIVE TO THE NEW ADAPTIVE SIGNAL.
I DUNNO IF YOU REMEMBER YES, BECAUSE I REMEMBER YOUR COMMENT.
WAS LIKE, IF YOU'RE CHAIN MAKING IT ADAPTIVE IN ONE PLACE, ARE YOU ADAPTING? YEAH.
ARE YOU ADAPTING ON YOUR EAST AND YOUR WESTBOUND? UM, AT THE EASTERN EASTERN WESTBOUND TRAFFIC SIGNALS, THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS ANSWER WAS THAT THEY WOULD BE ADAPTED OKAY.
WHEN, 'CAUSE WE FORWARDED YOUR QUESTION ALONG TO HIM.
LIKE, SO, SO THE IMPLICATION FROM THAT IS THAT THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT HILLSIDE AND AT CENTRAL AVENUE ARE ALREADY ADAPTIVE.
I BELIEVE THEY'RE ADAPTIVE, BUT I THOUGHT THEY WERE OUTDATED OR IT WASN'T TURNED ON.
THE OLD KENSICO IS, YOU SAID HILLSIDE THOUGH.
SO MY CONCERN IS YOU'RE, YOU'RE BECOMING ADAPTIVE TO TRAFFIC AT OLD KENSICO.
YOU'RE PUTTING IN SIGNALS THAT ALLOW YOU TO ADAPT TO THE, YOU KNOW, GREATER VOLUMES.
BUT IF YOU DON'T CHANGE WHAT HAPPENS EAST OR WEST OF THAT, YOU'LL BE SENDING THROUGH MORE TRAFFIC THAT'S JUST GONNA BE STUCK AT THE NEXT TRAFFIC LIGHT, NEXT AT THE SHOPPING CENTER I'D CALL IT.
SO ONCE THEY GET DOWN TO HILLS, I, NOW I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
UH, SO MR. GREELEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY, IF YOU DO, GREAT.
IF YOU DON DON'T, IF YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T, THEN YOU DON'T HAVE TO APPROACH A VERY QUICK RESPONSE JUST FOR THE RECORD.
SO, UH, PHILIP GREELEY, UH, COLLIER'S ENGINEERING AND DESIGN, SO THE CITY SYSTEM, THE, WHAT THEY REFER TO AS THE SCAT SYSTEM ORIGINALLY WAS DESIGNED THROUGH THIS INTERSECTION.
THE THE SYSTEM IS THERE, IT WASN'T FUNCTIONING PRIMARILY BECAUSE IF THE DETECTION ISN'T WORKING, THE SYSTEM DOESN'T WORK AS PART OF OUR RECONSTRUCTION OF THE INTERSECTION, WE ARE REPLACING THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL AND REPLACING THE VIDEO DETECTION, WE'RE PUTTING IN A NEW VIDEO DETECTION SYSTEM.
SO NOW IT CAN BE PLUGGED BACK INTO THE SYSTEM.
SO THE SYSTEM, THE, THE ADAPTIVE SYSTEM THAT THE CITY RUNS EXTENDS
[00:45:01]
ACTUALLY INTO THE, INTO THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.AND IT'S ALSO COORDINATED AS PART OF THE STATE SYSTEM.
SO IT'S WORKING AT ALL THE OTHER INTERSECTIONS.
IT JUST WASN'T WORKING AT ALL.
SO IT WASN'T, IT WASN'T WORKING HERE BECAUSE THE DETECTION, IT, IT CAN'T WORK UNLESS THE DETECTION IS TELLING WHERE THE DEMANDS ARE COMING FROM.
SO, SO JUST SO I'M MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND NOW,
I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
AND THEY'RE ALL TALKING TO EACH OTHER BASICALLY.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT NOTE.
SO THE DRAFT DECISION THAT WAS CIRCULATED, IT'S 17 PAGES.
A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT PUT IN BY STAFF.
UM, THERE ARE MULTIPLE CONSIDERATIONS THIS EVENING, INCLUDING AS ACTING CHAIRPERSON DAVIS MENTIONED DECISION ON THE SITE PLAN, APPLICATION DECISION ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION DECISION ON THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION, AND THE DECISION ON THE PLANNING BOARD WAIVERS REQUEST.
UM, I DO WANT TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION SECTION OR PORTIONS OF SECTION FOUR BEGINNING ON PAGE 10 OF THE DRAFT DECISION, WHICH INCLUDE THE SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS.
SO I CAN QUICKLY REC AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE, RECITE ALL OF THEM.
I DON'T WANT TO INADVERTENTLY LEAVE SOMETHING OUT.
SO, 4.1, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SHALL NOT EXPIRE UNLESS THE QUICK SERVICE FAST FOOD RESTAURANT USE CEASES ON THE SITE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN'S ZONING REGULATIONS.
ALL PROPOSED EXTERIOR LIGHTING MUST BE DARK SKY COMPLIANT AND MUST BE DOWNCAST AND CONSTRUCTED AND OR RETROFITTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CHAPTER TWO 40.
THE TOWN CODE ARE SIGN AND ILLUMINATION LAW AND AS DEPICTED LISTED, AS DEPICTED ON THE PLANS LISTED IN SECTION ONE OF THIS DECISION 4.3.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY TEMPORARY OR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR COMPLETION, THE APPLICANT MUST MEET WITH TOWN STAFF, INCLUDING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, TOWN PLANNER, AND OR GREENBERG POLICE TRAFFIC AND SAFETY UNIT, AND THE TOWN'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT TO FINALIZE THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN, ALSO KNOWN AS THE GRAND OPENING PLAN ATTACHED AS A APPENDIX D.
THIS SHALL INCLUDE A DETERMINATION BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AS TO WHETHER THE 14 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES ADJACENT TO OLD KENGO ROAD SHOULD BE STRIPED BEFORE THE GRAND OPENING OF THE QUICK SERVICE FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, OR AFTER THE USE OF THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THE GRAND OPENING HAS CEASED.
SO ESSENTIALLY, ARE THEY GONNA STRIPE THEM ON THE FRONT END ONLY TO CONE THEM OFF FOR THE GRAND OPENING OR WILL THEY BE PERMITTED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IN GREENBURG POLICE TO OPEN WITHOUT THEM STRIPED AND IT CONNED OFF AND SET UP THAT WAY UNTIL THE GRAND OPENING PERIOD HAS STARTED TO FALL INTO A MORE NORMAL PERIOD AND THEN THEY'LL STRIKE THEM.
THE APPLICANT SHALL IMPLEMENT THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN DURING THE GRAND OPENING PERIOD OF THE QUICK SERVICE FAST FOOD RESTAURANT AND SHALL COORDINATE WITH THE TOWN OF GREENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT TO HIRE OFF-DUTY OFFICERS TO ASSIST WITH TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT.
THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN SHALL NOT CEASE IMPLEMENTATION DURING THE GRAND OPENING PERIOD UNTIL MUTUALLY AGREED UPON BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND THE TOWN OF GREENBURG CHIEF OF POLICE OR AUTHORIZED DESIGNEE 4.5.
THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLY WITH ALL DIRECTIVES OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT DURING THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AFTER THE GRAND OPENING PERIOD, THE APPLICANT SHALL IMPLEMENT THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN WHENEVER THE DRIVE THROUGH QUEUE REACHES POSITION A IN EXHIBIT ONE OF THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN.
AND I RECALL ALL OF YOU SEEING THAT PORTION WHERE THEY HAD THE EXHIBITS WHERE THE Q EXTENDS TO A CERTAIN POINT AND, UH, POSITION A WAS DEPICTED VERY CLEARLY.
UM, AND SHALL NOT CEASE IMPLEMENTATION UNTIL THE DRIVE THROUGH QUEUE IS REDUCED TO 26 VEHICLES IN LINE FOR A PERIOD OF 15 MINUTES UNLESS OTHERWISE DIRECTED BY THE TOWN OF GREENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT.
THE REASON FOR THAT IS THERE MIGHT BE A LULL IN ACTION ON THE SITE AND IF THE QUEUE, YOU KNOW, UM, REDUCES DOWN AND THEN THEY PULL
[00:50:01]
THE CONES AND THEN YOU GET A RUSH, YOU KNOW, A FEW MINUTES LATER AND YOU KNOW THE LIGHT TURNS AND 10 MORE CARS COME IN, THEN THEY GOTTA RUN BACK OUT AND PUT THE CONES, LET'S JUST LEAVE IT FOR A PERIOD.THE APPLICANT WAS AGREEABLE TO THAT.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, UH, HAD BEEN DISCUSSED AND WE WENT BACK AND FORTH A LITTLE BIT ON 4.7.
THE APPLICANT SHALL IMPLEMENT THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN USING EXHIBIT ONE OF THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN WITH THE ABILITY TO SWITCH TO EXHIBIT TWO OR EXHIBIT THREE PROMPTLY IF NECESSARY.
THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN IS SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION AS DIRECTED BY TOWN STAFF AND THE TOWN OF GREENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY TEMPORARY OR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THE APPLICANT SHALL COMPLETE ALL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE INTERSECTION OF TERRYTOWN ROAD, NEW YORK STATE ROUTE ONE 19 OLD KENSICO ROAD AND AQUEDUCT ROAD, INCLUDING FIXING OR REPLACING THE ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL, REQUESTING ADDITIONAL GREEN LIGHT TIME FOR THE OLD KENSICO ROAD PHASE FROM THE SIGNAL OWNER OR CONTROLLER ADDING A DEDICATED LEFT TURN LANE TO OLD KENGO ROAD WIDENING OLD KENSICO ROAD AND ADJUSTING, ADJUSTING THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK ACROSS TARRYTOWN ROAD.
SO ALL THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT THAT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WOULD BE CARRIED OUT IN FULL TO EVERYONE'S SATISFACTION AHEAD OF OBTAINING THAT.
UH, TEMPORARY CER UH, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR COMPLETION 4.9.
PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF ANY TEMPORARY OR FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THE APPLICANT SHALL RETRIP THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE AT THE INTERSECTION OF OLD KENSICO ROAD AND COUNTY CENTER ROAD IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PLANS LISTED IN SECTION ONE OF THIS DECISION.
THE APPLICANT SHALL COLLECT AND PROVIDE TRAFFIC DATA FOLLOWING THE GRAND OPENING PERIOD, WHICH SHALL AT A MINIMUM IDENTIFY THE VOLUME OF CAR OF VEHICLES ENTERING AND EXIT, EXITING THE PROPERTY AT 15 MINUTE INTERVALS.
IDENTIFY THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF VEHICLES IN THE DRIVE THROUGH QUEUE AT PEAK TIMES, IDENTIFY PEAK PARKING DEMAND, AND INCLUDE OTHER PERTINENT DATA AS DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PLANNING COMMISSIONER AND OR THE TOWN'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT.
SAID DATA SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND PLANNING COMMISSIONER WITHIN SIX MONTHS OF THE GRAND OPENING.
THE APPLICANT SHALL APPEAR FOR A MEETING WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR PLANNING COMMISSIONER, THEIR DESIGNEES AND THE TOWN TRAFFIC CONSULTANT TO DISCUSS THE RESULTS OF THE COLLECTED TRAFFIC DATA AND CONSIDER WHETHER ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED.
IF ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC CONTROL MEASURES ARE DEEMED NECESSARY, THE APPLICANT SHALL APPEAR BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD FOR CONSIDERATION OF THOSE MEASURES.
AS AGREED TO BY THE APPLICANT AND THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN DATED OCTOBER 9TH, 2024, THE APPLICANT SHALL PROVIDE TO THE TOWN THROUGH THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER MONTHLY REPORTS DURING THE FIRST YEAR OF OPERATION TO ADDRESS ANY REQUIRED ADJUSTMENTS TO THE QUEUING AND PARKING AREAS.
FOUR POINT 12 WE'RE GETTING CLOSE.
THE APPLICANT SHALL SUBMIT A MONITORING STUDY WHICH EVALUATES THE INTERSECTION OF TERRYTOWN ROAD, OLD KENSICO ROAD AND AQUEDUCT ROAD, REVIEWING A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF QUICK SERVICE, FAST FOOD RESTAURANT OPENING TO IDENTIFY AND ADDRESS ANY RECOMMENDED ADJUSTMENTS OF THE ADAPTIVE TRAFFIC SIGNAL.
NOTICE OF RECOMMENDED ADJUSTMENTS SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE NEW YORK STATE DOT WESTCHESTER COUNTY, THE CITY OF WHITE PLAINS AND THE TOWN RESPECTIVELY.
IF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT DETERMINES THAT THE TRAFFIC ENTERING AND EXITING THE SITE THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY OFF OF OLD KENSICO ROAD IS EXHIBITING SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT SAFETY CONCERNS, THE APPLICANT SHALL POST SIGNAGE PROHIBITING A LEFT TURN ONTO OLD KENSICO ROAD, WHICH PROHIBITION MAY BE LIFTED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IN COORDINATION WITH THE TOWN OF GREENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT.
IF SUCH TRAFFIC CONCERNS ARE NO LONGER PRESENT OR DIFFERENT ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC MITIGATION IS PROVIDED.
THE QUICK SERVICE FAST FOOD RESTAURANT SHALL NOT HAVE ITS GRAND OPENING ON THE SAME DAY AS OR WITHIN THREE DAYS PRIOR TO A GRADUATION OR OTHER HIGH VOLUME EVENT AT THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CENTER, AT LEAST 30 DAYS PRIOR TO THE GRAND OPENING, THE APPLICANT SHALL MEET WITH TOWN STAFF INCLUDING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, PLANNING COMMISSIONER GREENBERG, CHIEF OF POLICE OR THEIR DESIGNEES TO SCHEDULE THE DATE OF THE GRAND OPENING FOUR POINT.
THE APPLICANT SHALL ABIDE BY ALL CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE CITY OF WHITE PLAINS PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL DATED OCTOBER 15TH, 2024.
UH, AARON? YES, FOR THE RECORD, UM, I THINK IT'S IN
[00:55:01]
APPENDIX D, BUT CAN YOU REFRESH, UH, MY MEMORY ON HOW LONG THE GRAND OPENING PERIOD IS CONSIDERED? SO THE GRAND OPENING PERIOD AS REPRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT TYPICALLY SPANS ROUGHLY TWO TO THREE WEEKS.AND FOR, UH, FOR FOUR POINT 12? YES.
WILL, WILL WE RECEIVE THOSE MONTHLY UPDATES OR IS THAT JUST INTERNAL? UM, WE'RE HAPPY TO PASS THOSE ALONG TO THE BOARD.
I WILL MAKE A NOTE IN THE MASTER FILE.
I THINK SOMETHING TO POINT OUT IS, SO THAT 26 CAR LINE, I THINK THERE'S AN IDENTIFYING FEATURE THAT STAFF ARE ABLE TO RELY UPON TO DETERMINE THAT THERE'S 26 CARS INSTEAD OF COUNTING THEM.
YEAH, I THINK THEY SAID THERE'D BE A MONUMENT IN IN THE GROUND.
YEAH, IT, IT'S LIKE THE BACK END OF, IT'S A PORTION OF THE UM, ORDER AREA THAT RIGHT.
SO IT'S EASILY IDENTIFIABLE VERSUS A STAFF PERSON COUNTING 25, 26, 27 THERE'S A MARK, A FIELD MARKER ESSENTIALLY.
I HAD A, JUST A TECHNICAL QUESTION.
YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU USE APPLICANT AND THEN YOU HAVE, UH, THE APPLICANT ATTENDING MEETINGS WITH THE UH, TOWN AND THE TRAFFIC MANAGER, IS THE APPLICANT THE SAME AS THE OPERATOR? YES.
SO WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS IN DETAIL BEFORE.
UM, PREVIOUSLY WE USED TO LIST, UM, APPLICANT OWNER OPERATOR IN DIFFERENT TERMS. UM, BUT WE'VE CONSOLIDATED IT INSTEAD OF REPEATING THEM AND MISSING THEM OR APPLYING THE WRONG NAME.
SO YOU'LL SEE AT THE BEGINNING WE INCLUDE APPLICANT TO BE DEFINED AS APPLICANT OPERATOR AND OWNER.
AND THAT'S, UM, IDENTIFIED IN CONDITION 3.2 ON PAGE NINE.
SO IT STATES THE APPLICANT SUCCESSOR AND INTEREST ASSIGNEES OR OPERATORS HERE AND AFTER REFERRED TO COLLECTIVELY OKAY.
UNLESS THERE ARE ANY, ANY OTHERS WITH FOUR VOTES AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, I KNOW, UH, ANY QUESTIONS? OKAY, LET'S MOVE FORWARD.
DO YOU WANT ME TO CALL THEM OUT? UH, YES.
LET'S GO WITH THE, SO THE FIRST IS TO CONSIDER A DECISION ON THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION AS WRITTEN.
AND SO I'D LIKE TO UM, HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SITE PLAN AS WRITTEN.
ALL IN FAVOR OF THE SITE PLAN AS WRITTEN? AYE.
SECOND, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
ANY QUESTIONS ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD? SO I'D LIKE TO PUT FORTH A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
THIRD WOULD BE THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT? SO MOVED.
MICHELLE ED? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
AND LASTLY, THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR PLANNING BOARD WAIVERS RELATING TO LANDSCAPE BUFFERS TO THE NORTHEAST, SOUTH AND WEST PROPERTY LINES AS DEPICTED ON THE PLANS.
SO MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE, UM, PLANNING BOARD WAIVERS? SO MOVED.
WE'LL GET THIS FINALIZED AND OFF TO HERE PROBABLY BY THE END OF THE WEEK.
AND JUST A FINAL NOTE, PLEASURE WORKING WITH ACCOUNTS STAFF.
UM, THEY'RE EXCELLENT TO DEAL WITH AND VERY PROFESSIONAL.
ALL RIGHT, WELL THAT WAS A BEAR
AND WE APPRECIATE TIME THE BOARD SPENT ON IT.
'CAUSE IT WAS A LOT OF TIME, IT WAS A LOT OF MATERIAL.
IT WAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH.
[01:00:01]
OF THE BOARD MEMBERS OVER THE YEARS THAT WERE SPENT ON REVIEWING THIS APPLICATION.AND I THINK ULTIMATELY WE HAVE A MUCH BETTER PRODUCT THAN WHAT CAME IN DAY ONE.
THE COOPERATION OF THEM IN TERMS TERMS OF OUR REQUESTS WAS GREAT.
THE DECISION WAS CIRCULATED FOR THE DRAFT BY EMAIL.
NOT IN THE NOT IN LIST OF DOCUMENTS THAT WE WERE GIVEN FOR THE YEAH.
I THINK YOU HAD A WE A DAY BECAUSE OF THE CHANGES.
SO IN TERMS OF THE DRAFT DECISION, UM, IT, IT, THERE'S USUALLY A COVER MEMO THAT SAYS EVERYTHING THAT'S IN THE PACKAGE.
I THOUGHT MATT HAD PREPARED IT BECAUSE PATTY WAS OUT.
I THOUGHT WE PUT A NOTE, YOU KNOW, PB 2207 CHICK-FIL-A TO BE EMAILED AS PART OF THE ELECTRONIC PACKAGE ONLY AND THEREFORE YOU WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN IT IN A HARD COPY PACKAGE.
YOU DIDN'T GET IT UNTIL LATE FRIDAY BECAUSE WE WERE MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT TO GO THROUGH A COUPLE AND FINE TUNE A COUPLE OF THE CONDITIONS.
WHAT I BUT HE DOESN'T UPDATE SHAREPOINT WHEN IT'S SENT OUT.
HE DOESN'T UPDATE THE SHAREPOINT SECTION.
SO I MEAN THE ONE DRIVE, SO I DIDN'T GET HARD COPIES.
AND SO WE'LL SPEAK TO MATT ABOUT THAT.
SO IF WE DO RIGHT, WE CAN JUST, I, IT WASN'T IN THE BODY.
I WANNA SAY WHAT HAPPENED WAS, 'CAUSE WE TESTED IT, THIS IS JUST A, WE'LL WE CAN TALK ABOUT THIS LATER, BUT IF YOU JUST DRAG 'CAUSE I ASKED, I SAID, ARE YOU JUST GONNA DRAG AND DROP IT INTO THE ONEDRIVE FOLDER? AND I SAID, LET'S TEST THAT OUT.
IT DOESN'T GIVE AN UPDATE REMINDER TO EVERYONE THAT GETS IT, MEANING YOU'D HAVE TO CHECK AGAIN.
BUT IT'S ALSO NOT, IT'S NOT THERE LIKE TODAY, LIKE NOW.
BECAUSE WE SENT IT INDIVIDUALLY AND SEPARATE BY PDF, THAT'S WHAT HAPPENED.
SO IT WASN'T DROPPED INTO THAT ONEDRIVE FOLDER, IT WAS SENT AS A SEPARATE EMAIL.
DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? SO CCA, IT IT WAS BOTH, IT WAS SENT, UH, IN A SEPARATE EMAIL AND THEN IT WAS ALSO UPDATED THE, UH, THE ONEDRIVE, ALTHOUGH IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN UPDATED A LITTLE BIT LATER, THEN, UH, YOU CHECKED IT.
I MEAN, UNLESS I'M LOOKING AT THE WRONG THING.
WE CAN, SO THAT'S, BUT THAT'S A GOOD POINT THOUGH.
IF, IF SOMETHING IS IN THE ONEDRIVE MM-HMM
UM, THE NOTIFICATION OR SOMETHING'S UPDATED IN THE ONEDRIVE, THE ONLY WAY TO BE NOTIFIED IS I GUESS THROUGH YOUR EMAIL TO SAY THAT SOMETHING IS IN THERE OR JUST KEEPING THE ONEDRIVE, BUT, OR KEEP CHECKING THE ONEDRIVE, BUT YOU WON'T KNOW MM-HMM
IF YOU DON'T LOOK OR GET AN EMAIL SAYING SOMETHING'S BEEN UPDATED.
BUT THAT WAS IF YOU, MAYBE THERE IS, THAT WAS WHAT I, I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT JUST DROPPING IT IN THERE AND NO ONE'S SEEING IT BECAUSE THERE WASN'T AN ALERT, YOU KNOW, FROM ONEDRIVE THAT SAID, HEY, THE FOLDER'S BEEN UPDATED AND NEW DOCUMENTS BEEN ADDED.
IT DOESN'T, WELL I THOUGHT IT WAS LIKE A SEPARATE ATTACHMENT.
AND THAT'S HOW I, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WAS SAYING TO THE BEGINNING, I GUESS I'M VOTING TONIGHT BECAUSE THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, THE RED LINING INDICATED THAT TWO PEOPLE WERE GONNA BE ABSENT.
AND I WAS GONNA BE AN ALTERNATE VOTING MEMBER.
THAT WAS WHAT WAS ANTICIPATED.
SO I I BASICALLY READ THE RED LINING.
I MEAN WE PUT IT IN THERE AS WE ANTICIPATE.
BUT I WAS AWAY SO I JUST WENT INTO ONEDRIVE TO AND EXPECTED EVERYTHING THERE.
BUT IT'S NOT, BUT MICHELLE, I JUST SAYING BUT IF, BUT IF I'M BEING ATION THING, SO I'M GONNA CHECK.
UM, AND SEE IF IT'S MAYBE SOMETHING YOU NEED TO SET IN YOUR ONEDRIVE.
NO, BUT, BUT THE PROCESS SHOULD ALSO BE THAT ANYTHING THAT'S BEING REVIEWED HERE SHOULD BE IN ONEDRIVE OR AM I BEING DIFFICULT? IT CAN BE, AND ACCORDING TO MATT IT WAS, SO WE'LL JUST HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK WITH YOU AFTER THE MEETING OR ANOTHER TIME BECAUSE I CAN'T HELP YOU RIGHT NOW, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
BUT ALSO WHEN WE HAVE LAST MINUTE CORRESPONDENCE, THAT'S NOT GOING DOWN YET.
IF WE HAVE, UM, CORRESPONDENCE SOMETIMES THAT COMES IN LATE, LATE MM-HMM
IT, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO THEN LOOK AT YOUR EMAIL.
SEE THE ONEDRIVE IS SORT OF NEW.
WE'VE ALWAYS FOR, SINCE I'VE BEEN DOING THEM ELECTRONICALLY IS IT MIGHT BE FIVE EMAILS WITH EIGHT DOCUMENTS IN EACH EMAIL THAT PATTY SENDS.
AND WHEN WE TRANSITION TO ONEDRIVE, IT WAS JUST SOMETHING EASIER WHERE YOU CAN TAKE THE 22 DOCUMENTS, DROP IT INTO A FOLDER AND PROVIDE A LINK, AND THEN YOU, THE RECIPIENTS CLICK THE LINK AND IT BRINGS YOU IN AND YOU CAN DOWNLOAD SAVE OR VIEW OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
I'M GLAD THAT WE GOT THE COMMENT FROM MICHELLE BECAUSE WE CAN LOOK AT INTO IT ON OUR END AND SEE IF WE CAN IMPROVE.
I HAD TO HAVE MATT COME DOWN AND USUALLY I'M PRETTY GOOD WITH TECHNOLOGY, BUT I DID NOT LOVE IT IN THE BEGINNING.
YEAH, I, I, I MAINTAIN MY OWN DROPBOX SO I CAN SHARE WITH YOU MY DROPBOX FOLDER IF THAT'S, UH, IF THAT'S EASIER.
ALRIGHT, SO NOW WE HAVE, UM, CASE
[01:05:01]
NUMBER PB 1706, WHICH, UM, DATES BACK SOME TIME, BUT IT'S KNOWN OR WAS KNOWN AS THE NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY FOUNDATION SUBDIVISION, ALSO KNOWN AS THE ARDSLEY ROAD SUBDIVISION.AND THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A LETTER, UH, ALONG WITH PLANS AND THEY'RE HERE ON, UH, THE ZOOM THIS EVENING TO PRESENT THEIR REQUEST FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
SO THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SUBDIVISION PLAT AND THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
THE PLAT LAYS OUT THE LOTS AND HOW THEY'RE BEING SUBDIVIDED MEETS AND BOUNDS.
THAT DOCUMENT GETS FILED WITH THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY, UH, CLERK'S OFFICE, AND THEN THEY, THEY'RE IN DIRECT THE TOWN TO DIVVY UP THE LOTS, SO ON AND SO FORTH.
UM, BUT THE IMPROVEMENT PLANS COULD INCLUDE AMONG OTHER THINGS, TREE REMOVAL, LANDSCAPING, UTILITIES, GRADING, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, DEMOLITION PLANS.
YOU KNOW, THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER PLANS THAT FALL UNDER THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
SO DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONS IN DIFFERENT TOWNS AND VILLAGES.
SOME WILL CALL THEM SITE PLANS.
WE DON'T UNDER RESIDENTIAL PRO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS.
WE REFER TO THEM AS SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
SO WE HAVE, UM, KATE ROBERTS HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT TEAM, AND I CAN FILL IN ANY BLANKS OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE.
MY NAME IS KATE ROBERTS FINEMAN FROM THE LAW FIRM AREA STEIN MET AND WITH ME ALSO ON ZOOM TONIGHT IS DAVE LOMBARDI FROM JMC.
AND TOGETHER WE REPRESENT NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY FOUNDATION.
SO, UM, JUST AS A LITTLE BACKGROUND FOR MAYBE SOME NEW BOARD MEMBERS, UM, NATIONAL ROADS SAFETY FOUNDATION HAD PROPOSED SEVERAL YEARS AGO, UM, A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION THAT WOULD HAVE A PRIVATE SHARED ROADWAY, UM, TO BE UTILIZED.
AND THAT'S THE QUOTE UNQUOTE FOURTH LAW.
AND WE RECEIVED PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, UM, PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT, AND A WETLAND AND WATERCOURSE PERMIT APPROVAL IN DECEMBER OF 2021 FOR THE PROJECT.
AND THEN WE RECEIVED OUR FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, UM, FROM YOUR BOARD IN OCTOBER OF 2023.
AND THE SUBDIVISION PLAT HAS BEEN REPORTED WITH WESTCHESTER COUNTY, UM, SHORTLY AFTER THAT FINAL APPROVAL ABOUT NOVEMBER.
SO, UM, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT SOME MINOR AMENDMENTS TO CERTAIN SHEETS OF THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS AS AARON HAD SET FORTH.
UM, THERE'S, UH, THE CHANGES THAT WE PROPOSE WILL NOT NECESSITATE ANY REVISION TO THE SUBDIVISION PLA ITSELF THAT'S ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND RECORDED.
UM, AND NONE OF THE CHANGES THAT WE PROPOSE WILL RESULT IN A CHANGE TO THE LAYOUT OF THE APPLICANT'S, UM, THREE HOUSE SUBDIVISION.
UH, DURING THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW PROCESS, WE WERE ASKED TO SEE IF ANY NEIGHBORS WANTED TO JOIN INTO THE SHARED PRIVATE ROADWAY THAT OUR CLIENT WAS PROPOSING.
AND ONE NEIGHBOR, AN ADJACENT NEIGHBOR, DID EXPRESS INTEREST IN THAT.
SO DURING THE PLANNING BOARD PROCESS, WE, UM, WE MADE REVISIONS TO OUR PLANS TO SHOW THE NEIGHBORS, UM, TWO OF THE NEIGHBORS LOTS CONNECTING TO THE SHARED ROADWAY.
WE SHOWED ON OUR PLANS THE WATER CONNECTION, UM, FOR THOSE TWO LOTS.
AND THEN, UM, WE HAD PUT IN SOME OF OUR REQUIRED LANDSCAPING ON THE, THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR'S LOT WHO, WHO INTENDED TO JOIN IN.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY JUST A FEW WEEKS AGO, THE NEIGHBOR, UM, THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR INDICATED THAT THEY NO LONGER WISH TO JOIN IN THE SHARED DRIVEWAY.
AND, UM, THEY'VE SUBMITTED A LETTER TO AARON CONFIRMING THAT THEY WITHDREW THEIR, UH, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IN THEIR APPLICATION TO PROCEED WITH A FINAL SUBDIVISION.
UM, SO AS A RESULT OF THAT, WE'VE HAD TO MODIFY OUR SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS TO REMOVE THE TWO CURB CUTS TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, REMOVE THE ASSOCIATED WATER CONNECTIONS, WHICH WOULD'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, UNDERNEATH THOSE CURB CUTS, AND THEN RELOCATE CERTAIN OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING REPLACEMENTS ONTO THE NRSF PROPERTY RATHER THAN ONTO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
SO I'M GONNA PULL UP SOME PLANS THAT ARE, UM, SLIGHTLY TWEAKED FROM THE VIRGINS THAT WE HAD GIVEN TO YOU GUYS, JUST, UM, WITH AARON AND AMANDA'S GUIDANCE, WE THOUGHT THAT THESE MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR, UM, TO SHOW THE CHANGES.
SO, UM, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THESE AND, AND ON EACH SHEET ON THE LEFT, IT IS, UM, THE PROPOSED REVISION AND ON THE RIGHT IS THE PLAN AS IT WAS APPROVED
[01:10:01]
BY YOUR BOARD PREVIOUSLY.SO AS YOU CAN SEE, WE HAD PREVIOUSLY, UM, PROPOSED THESE TWO CURB CUTS.
ONE HERE FOR THIS LOT BACK HERE, AND ONE CURB CUT HERE FOR, FOR THIS EXISTING HOUSE HERE AND NOW, UM, THE REVISED PLANS JUST SHOW A REMOVAL OF THOSE TWO CURB CUTS.
UM, THE NEXT THING WAS, AS A RESULT OF THE REMOVAL OF THOSE CURVE CUTS, THERE WILL BE SOME SLIGHT GRADING IN THAT AREA, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE.
CAN YOU ZOOM IN ON THAT KATE A LITTLE BIT? SORRY.
CAN YOU ZOOM IN? WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ZOOM IN JUST FOR THE BETTER? OH, SURE.
IS THAT BETTER? IS THAT BETTER FOR THE BOARD TO SEE THE COLORATION ON THE PLANS? YEAH.
SO YEAH, THAT'S THE, THE LITTLE BIT OF RATING, UM, RIGHT THERE AS A RESULT OF MOVING THE CURB CUTS.
UM, 'CAUSE OUR DRIVEWAY WILL, WILL END RIGHT HERE, OUR SHARED ROADWAY.
UM, THE NEXT SHOWS JUST WHERE THE TWO, UM, THE ONE CURB CUT HERE, THE ONE CURB CUT HERE, WE HAVE TWO WATER CONNECTIONS FOR THESE TWO LOTS.
AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WE PROPOSED TO REMOVE THOSE WATER CONNECTIONS.
AND THEN FINALLY, UM, REVISIONS TO THE LANDSCAPING PLANS.
UM, AND IT'S, UM, DETAILED, SO I KNOW IT'S PROBABLY HARD TO SEE, BUT, UM, JUST WE HAD PREVIOUSLY THE, THE NEIGHBOR'S LOT RIGHT HERE, THEY CURRENTLY HAVE A DRIVEWAY THAT GOES DOWN HERE AND CONNECTS ONTO LEY ROAD.
AND ACTUALLY THIS HOUSE UP HERE ALSO CONNECTS TO THEIR DRIVEWAY.
UM, WE HAD PROPOSED TO PUT IN SOME OF OUR LANDSCAPING HERE SINCE THEY WERE GONNA BE UTILIZING THE ROAD AND GETTING INTO THEIR HOUSE FROM HERE.
SO OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE GONNA BE KEEPING THEIR DRIVEWAY.
WE HAD TO SHIP THE LANDSCAPING OVER AND WANTED TO CREATE, YOU KNOW, A LANDSCAPE BUFFER BETWEEN ALL OF THESE HOMES, UM, YOU KNOW, FOR SIGHTS, BUT ALSO TO FIT IN OUR REQUIRED PLANTINGS.
UM, SO THE OTHER THING THAT WE SUBMITTED WERE HYDROLOGIC CALCULATIONS THAT JMC THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER PUT TOGETHER, WHICH SHOW THAT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, UM, STILL RESULT IN A REDUCTION OF PEAK RUNOFF IN COMPARISON TO EXISTING CONDITIONS.
SO WE'RE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TOWN'S CODE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND WE SUBMIT THAT THESE ARE RELATIVELY MINOR AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS.
THE NEIGHBORS, UM, ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS SURROUNDING THIS SITE WERE INFORMED OF PUBLIC HEARINGS.
PREVIOUSLY, THERE WERE, UM, I, I BELIEVE THERE WERE A FEW PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS PROJECT, AND THE ONLY NEIGHBOR THAT'S NOW REALLY IMPACTED BY THIS CHANGE IS GOING TO BE THE OWNER OF THIS SLOT HERE WHO SAID THAT THEY DON'T WANT TO JOIN IN ON OUR DRIVEWAY ANYMORE.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE, WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD, UH, DO WHATEVER THEY NEED TO, TO POTENTIALLY REVISE, UM, I THINK REVISE THE PREVIOUS RESOLUTIONS JUST TO UPDATE THE DATE ON THE SUBDIVISION PLANS.
UM, AND AARON, IF YOU WANNA FILL IN ANY GAPS OR I HAVE DAVE HERE TO ANSWER MORE DETAILED QUESTIONS ABOUT THE PLANS AS THE BOARD MAY WANNA HEAR.
I'M HAPPY TO RIGHT, ADD A BIT, BUT IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION.
WELL, IT'S NOT REALLY A QUESTION.
IT'S BASICALLY WE'RE GOING, THEY WERE GOING BACK TO WHAT ORIGINALLY WAS, UM, THERE'S NO MAJOR CHANGES AND AS SHE STATED, WE ALREADY DID HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS, BUT GO AHEAD.
SO, UM, STAFF WANTED TO REVIEW THE AMENDMENT REQUEST TO SEE IF IT WOULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN THE, UM, I GUESS POTENTIAL INCREASED IMPACTS OR ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
AND IN FACT, WITH A SLIGHT REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON THE SITE AND THE RELOCATION OF OFFSITE PLANTINGS ONTO THE SITE, IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA, IN OUR OPINION, SLIGHTLY LESSEN ANY POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, TAKING A LOOK AT IT FROM A SEEKER PERSPECTIVE, UM, WE WANTED TO DO THAT AND SURE THAT WE GAVE THAT GUIDANCE TO THE BOARD.
UM, BEYOND THAT, UM, WE DO HAVE THE LETTER IN HAND FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR, MRS. MARIN.
UNFORTUNATELY, MR. MARIN HAD PASSED AWAY NOW SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, BUT HE WAS THE ONE KIND OF PUSHING FORWARD WITH THIS COORDINATION.
MRS. MARIN SENT IN HER LETTER THAT HER PROJECT, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL EXPIRED ON DECEMBER 25TH, 2024, AND SHE WAS NO LONGER GONNA PURSUE ANY FURTHER EXTENSIONS OR FINAL SUBDIVISION IN CONNECTION WITH THAT PROJECT.
SO THE APPLICANT IS FORCED TO MODIFY ITS PLANS BECAUSE ITS PLANS WOULD BE INACCURATE.
DO WE NEED A PUBLIC HEARING? YOU'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, YOU HAVE THE OPTION, BUT, UM, WE DID HAVE SOME MEETINGS WITH SOME OF OUR NEWER MEMBERS JUST TO GO THROUGH THIS AND DYLAN SAT ON
[01:15:01]
IT AS WELL.AND WITH LESLIE, JUST TO BRING IT UP, MICHAEL HAS BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR MANY YEARS, SO WE THOUGHT YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE, BUT WANTED TO BRING THE OTHER MEMBERS UP TO SPEED BEING THAT THEY WEREN'T FAMILIAR WITH THE 2017 PROJECT.
MICHAEL, YOU MAY RECALL, WE HAD ONE COME BACK FOR, UM, I THINK IT WAS AN ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION AREA WHERE THEY WERE RESTRICTED FROM, UM, REMOVING TREES AND, AND BRUSH AND OTHER ITEMS. AND THERE WAS SEVERAL, UH, INVASIVE TREES THAT THEY WERE LOOKING TO REMOVE.
SO WE AMENDED A CONDITION, UM, FROM A PREVIOUS APPROVAL.
THAT WAS THE MOST RECENT ONE I CAN THINK OF.
SOMETIMES THINGS GET SLIGHTLY AMENDED AND WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THIS ROSE TO A POINT WHERE IT MUST REOPEN TO A PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, SLIGHTLY MORE BENEFICIAL BY HAVING EVERYTHING.
YEAH, EVERYTHING SEEMS TO BE DE MINIMIS AND ACTUALLY IT'S, IT'S FAVORABLE RIGHT TO, TO A MINIMAL DEGREE.
AND ON THE RECORD, I'D JUST LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT, UM, WHAT THEIR TIMING IS FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH.
SO THE APPLICANT, NATIONAL ROAD SAFETY FOUNDATION, UH, AS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND STAFF AT THE TIME OF THE FORMAL APPLICATION REVIEW, INDICATED THAT FOR WHATEVER REASON, IT WILL NOT BUILD OUT THE LOTS, BUT IT WILL BUILD THE ROADWAY IN THE UTILITIES AND THAT'S THE NEXT STEP.
ONCE THEY GET OR OBTAIN, IF THEY ARE TO OBTAIN THE AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND THEY GET THAT APPROVAL LETTER, THEY CAN TRANSITION INTO A PHASE ONE BUILDING PERMIT TO BUILD OUT THE ROADWAY AND THE UTILITIES.
CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE TIMING OF THAT IS? YEAH, SURE.
I MEAN, IT'S ASAP, RIGHT? SO WE'VE ALREADY WORKED WITH THE TOWN TO GET A STORMWATER PERMIT THAT OBVIOUSLY WILL NEED TO BE MODIFIED JUST BASED ON, UH, I MEAN WE'RE STILL REDUCING STORMWATER, BUT, UM, THE REVISED NUMBERS, SO WE'LL NEED A REVISED STORMWATER PERMIT.
BUT AFTER THAT, UM, I THINK WE JUST WOULD BE LOOKING FOR THE, UM, TREE PERMIT ISSUED, I THINK BY YOUR OFFICE.
AND I KNOW THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN WORKING IN COMMUNICATION DIRECTLY WITH YOU ABOUT WANTING TO DO THAT ASAP.
SO YOU'RE READY TO PROCEED WITH ALL OF THE STEPS NECESSARY TO GET TO THE BUILDING PERMIT AS SOON AS WE GET THIS, UM, APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
THAT'S AS I ANXIOUS, I WOULD EVEN SAY
WHILE IT DOES NEED TO BE AMENDED, THE CALCULATIONS THAT WERE PROVIDED IN THEIR COVER LETTER WERE REVIEWED PRELIMINARILY WITH THE DOWN ENGINEER WHO FELT THAT THEY SATISFIED THE REQUIREMENT OF THE CODE AND THAT THERE WAS ACTUALLY A SLIGHT REDUCTION.
SO FOR THE PRIVATE, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
FOR THE PRIVATE ROADWAY, HOW IS THAT GONNA BE MANAGED GOING FORWARD? AMONG THE LOT OWNERS? I MEAN, AND PAID, PAID FOR IT AND LIKE I CAN EXPLAIN THAT THE, THE CURRENT APPROVALS WHICH WE'RE NOT REQUESTING AN AMEND, THIS PART OF THE APPROVALS REQUIRE THAT AN HOAD, UM, ESTABLISHED.
AND I'VE WORKED CLOSELY WITH, UM, WITH ERIN AND AMANDA TO DISCUSS THE TIMING OF THAT.
AND, UM, BEFORE, UM, ANY BUILDING PERMIT OR ISSUED FOR ANY OF THE HOUSES, I BELIEVE WE WILL NEED TO HAVE ESTABLISHED IN THE HOA, UM, THAT IS CORRECT.
SO THROUGH A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION, WHICH IN FACT THE MARINS WOULD LIKELY HAVE BEEN A PART OF TYING INTO THAT.
NOW THEY WOULD NOT BE PART OF THAT, RIGHT? SORRY, SO, OR THERE WERE SUCCESSORS.
UM, ANYTHING ELSE MICHELLE? NO, NO.
UM, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, NRSF IS GOING TO BUILD OUT THE ROADWAY PRIOR TO SELLING IT, THE LOTS, CORRECT? UM, YEAH.
THE REASON NRSF CAN'T BUILD THE UM, LOTS IS BECAUSE THEY'RE ACTUALLY A NONPROFIT CORPORATION, BUT THEY DO UNDER THEIR, UM, CORPORATE DOCUMENTS HAVE THE ABILITY TO BUILD A ROAD.
SO THE INTENT IS THAT THEY WOULD BUILD THE ROAD AND THEY, UM, THEN A DEVELOPER WOULD CONSTRUCT THE THREE HOMES.
IF THERE ARE NO FURTHER QUESTIONS, I'D LIKE TO, UM, ASK SOMEONE TO
THANK YOU SO MUCH TO THE BOARD AND ALSO ERIN AND AMANDA WHO I'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH AND I ECHO, UM, THE PREVIOUS APPLICANT THAT THEY ARE PROFESSIONAL AND LY AND WE REALLY APPRECIATE THAT.
AND LAST BUT DEFINITELY NOT LEAST, CASE NUMBER PB 24 23 INDY LAB.
AND THEY'RE GONNA PRESENT THEIR AMENDED SITE PLAN.
SO JUST BY WAY OF, UH, BACKGROUND, WE'LL WAIT FOR MR. GOLDEN TO RETURN, BUT
[01:20:01]
UM, YOU CAN COME UP TO THE PODIUM.SO, BUT JUST BEFORE YOU START, UM, RESTROOM, DO YOU WANNA TAKE FIVE MINUTES FOR A RESTROOM? IT'S BEEN QUITE A WHILE.
BEEN DRINKING, WHERE IS IT THERE? OH YEAH, SURE.
MY NAME IS FRIDA, I'M THE FOUNDER OF THE INDIE LAB AND WE ARE HERE FOR OUR SECOND WORK SESSION MEETING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE SITE PLAN BAR PLAYGROUND OUTSIDE OF THE PRESCHOOL THAT WE'RE BUILDING IN LEY TONIGHT.
HE IS HELPING US WITH THE PROJECT.
HE'S ALSO AN ARCHITECT AND OUR ENGINEER, WHO IS RALPH ZETI.
HE WILL BE DOING MOST OF THE TALKING TONIGHT.
UM, I'LL PULL UP SOME PLANS, UH, IF YOU GUYS WOULD LIKE YES, WE WOULD.
AND IF YOU COULD GIVE US THE BOARD, JUST WE HAVE SOME NEWER MEMBERS, JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSAL AND THEN OBVIOUSLY WHAT'S CHANGED SINCE IT WAS LAST BEFORE THE BOARD IN NOVEMBER.
AND JUST TO CONFIRM, YOU ARE THE ENGINEER RIGHT NAME? YES.
RALPH TI, CIVIL ENGINEER, SITE ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT.
SO EVERYONE CAN SEE THOSE PLANS.
JUST TO ORIENT EVERYONE, UH, SAWMILL RIVER ROAD IS AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE.
UM, OUR WORK SITE IS JUST IN THIS AREA WHERE, IF YOU CAN SEE MY CURSOR, UM, AND I'LL ZOOM INTO THAT AREA ON THE NEXT SHEET.
UH, ESSENTIALLY THE INDIE LAB IS GONNA BE TAKING, UM, THIS SPACE HERE, THIS TENNIS SPACE HERE.
UM, AND WE ARE PROPOSING A OUTDOOR PLAYGROUND IN THIS, UM, BOXED IN AREA HERE.
UM, IT'LL HAVE A, UM, A FENCE AROUND IT TO EGRESS GATES.
UM, AND IN DOING SO, WE'RE GONNA BE REMOVING SOME PARKING SPACES THAT ARE ALONG THE, UM, THE BACK ALLEYWAY HERE OF, OF THE, OF THE PARKING, UH, SPOTS HERE.
UM, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LA THIS IS THE BIGGEST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LAST PLANS THAT WE SUBMITTED AND THESE PLANS.
UM, WE'VE WIDENED THIS, UM, DRIVE AISLE TO 20 FEET WIDE, UM, AS PER TOWN CODE AND FIRE ACCESS.
UM, WE'VE SUBMITTED A, UH, FIRE TURNING MANEUVERING PLAN TO SHOW THAT A FIRETRUCK CAN MANEUVER THROUGH HERE.
UM, WE'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE 145 PARKING SPOTS ON THIS SITE.
IT'S A REDUCTION FROM WHAT IS THERE RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S STILL OVER THE REQUIRED.
UM, WE ARE KEEPING ALL OF OUR HANDICAP OR, OR A DA SPOTS, UM, THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY ON THE SITE.
WE ARE RELOCATING TWO OF THEM, BUT THEY'RE IN THE SAME PROXIMITY.
WE, I THINK WE'VE ANSWERED MOST OF THE STAFF'S COMMENTS.
UH, I CAN GO INTO SOME MORE DETAIL IF THERE'S SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, BUT THAT'S A GENERAL OVERVIEW.
AS AMANDA CLOSES THE DOOR, I JUST WANTED TO KIND TO JUST INFORM THE PLANNING BOARD BECAUSE, AND REMIND THOSE THAT WE'RE HERE IN NOVEMBER.
BUT OFTENTIMES WITH, UM, THESE TYPES OF USES, CHILD DAYCARE, THE PLANNING BOARD WILL SEE THEM AS PART OF A SPECIAL PERMIT APPLICATION.
WE'VE HAD A FEW ON CENTRAL PARK AVENUE, WE'VE HAD OTHERS IN THIS CASE, IN THIS PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT, THE OB ONE DISTRICT USE.
SO, UM, WHAT THE APPLICANT IS HERE BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD AND WHY IT'S AN AMENDED SITE PLAN IS BECAUSE THE OUTDOOR, THE REQUIRED OUTDOOR PLAY AREA THAT NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS USE, IT'S GONNA BE, UM, BEHIND THE BUILDING AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
AND THEY HAD TO MAKE SOME SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS TO THE SITE OR SITE PLAN IN ORDER TO AFFECT THIS PROPOSED, UH, OUTDOOR PLAY AREA.
SO THAT'S THE NEED FOR THE AMENDED SITE PLAN AND THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HERE ORIGINALLY, I BELIEVE THEY WERE, AT LEAST THE TOWN STAFF THOUGHT THERE MAY BE A VARIANCE OR VARIANCES NECESSARY IN CONNECTION WITH THE INITIAL APPROVAL.
THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO MAKE SOME SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS, WHICH THEY'VE REVIEWED WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OFFICE AND OUR OFFICE FORWARDED ALONG TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH CODE AND THEY ARE.
SO THEY DON'T NEED ANY VARIANCES WITH THIS CURRENT REQUEST.
THEY'RE SIMPLY HERE TO BRING THAT TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION, SEE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, AND LOOK TO ADVANCE TO A PUBLIC HEARING.
[01:25:01]
SO ARE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE, ON THE SITE PLAN? I DIDN'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE SITE PLAN, BUT JUST THAT, UH, FOR REPORT INFORMATION, I KNOW THERE'S A STATE AGENCY THAT REG, YOU KNOW, REGULATES, UH, YOU KNOW, DAYCARE FACILITIES SUCH AS YOURS ARE YOU'RE COORDINATING WITH THEM IN TERMS OF THE PLANS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT? YES, WE HAVE TO COORDINATE WITH THEM.WE ARE ACTUALLY, UM, IN RECI WE'RE RECIPIENTS OF A LARGE STATE FUNDED GRANT TO BUILD THE SCHOOL.
SO THAT'S IN COORDINATION WITH THAT OFFICE, THE OFFICE OF CHILDREN AND FAMILY SERVICES AND THE DORMITORY AUTHORITY.
SO PART OF THAT APPLICATION REQUIRED US TO GO AND MEET WITH THEM.
WE'VE MET WITH THEM TWICE NOW, UH, SO THEY'VE SEEN THE FLOOR PLANS AND WE DO HAVE AN APPROVAL LETTER.
I'M HAPPY TO SUPPLY THAT AS WELL IF, IF NEEDED.
BUT, UH, THEY HAVE SEEN ALL OF OUR PLANS AS WELL.
THEY JUST RELY ON OUR ZONING CODE FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
ONCE EVERYTHING IS DONE, THEY'RE GOING TO COME IN AND LICENSE THE SPACE.
AND I, I KNOW THERE WAS SOME, UM, URGENCY AROUND THIS APPLICATION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HIT BENCHMARKS IN ORDER FOR, UH, YOU TO BE ABLE TO OPEN IN SEPTEMBER.
UM, IF, IF WE WERE TO ADVANCE TO APPROVE A PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT, WOULD WE BE ON TRACK FOR, FOR THOSE BENCHMARKS? SO, SO THANK YOU FOR REMEMBERING THAT
UM, STAFF HAD A SUGGESTION IN THIS REGARD.
SO IF THE BOARD, WHAT WE WANTED TO DO IS BRING THE APPLICANT BACK IN THIS WORK SESSION FORMAT JUST SO THAT THEY CAN UPDATE THE BOARD ON THE REVISIONS, MADE THE ELIMINATION OF THE VARIANCES, AND BE ABLE TO PROCEED TO A PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT AT A PUBLIC HEARING, THE BOARD WOULD REALLY HAVE NO QUESTIONS.
IT'D BE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC STAFF'S OPINION AND, AND GUIDANCE AND ADVICE TO THE BOARD IS WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON FEBRUARY 5TH, OUR NEXT MEETING, AND THERE ARE NO SUBSTANTIVE COMMENTS BROUGHT FORTH OR QUESTIONS THAT RESULT IN THE NEED FOR A RESPONSE OR A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CLOSED, THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT EVENING AND ALSO RENDER A DECISION.
AND THAT WOULD KEEP IN LINE WITH THE APPLICANT'S TIMELINE.
SO TWO FOR ONE ON FEBRUARY 5TH, HOPEFULLY.
EVERYONE UNDERSTANDING OF THAT AND YEAH.
AND I JUST WANNA COMMEND THE APPLICANT FOR, FOR REMOVING THE VARIANCES AND I APPRECIATE THE TOWN STAFF, UH, MA MAKING SURE THAT THIS ALL LINES UP SO THAT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN FOLLOW OUR PROCESS BUT WE CAN, WE CAN ALSO ENSURE THE APPLICANT MEETS, MEETS THEIR DEADLINES.
YEAH, THE TOWN'S BEEN WONDERFUL.
UM, IT'S UH, A VERY HELPFUL GROUP OF PROFESSIONALS LIKE THE OTHERS HAVE SAID.
BUT YES, BECAUSE OF THAT WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO MEET OUR CURRENT TIMELINE AND IF WE CAN GET TO PUBLIC HEARING BY THE FIFTH, IT WOULD BE A GREAT STEP FOR US IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION.
AND ON THAT NOTE, UM, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS THEN WE CAN SCHEDULE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR FEBRUARY 5TH.
OUR OFFICE WILL GET YOU A COPY OF THE NOTICE WITH INSTRUCTIONS AS WELL AS THE SIGNED TO POST IN THE YARD OF THE SITE.
AND WE CAN, WE CAN DISCUSS, UM, ABUT AND THINGS LIKE THAT WITH THE TOWN.
WITH MATT, MATTHEW BRITTEN PLANNER.
HAVE A GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH.
SO WE CAN CLOSE, I DON'T THINK YOU KNOW, MICHAEL'S UM, COMMENT NEEDS TO BE ON THE RECORD.
DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A MOTION CLOSE NOW? UH, UH CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING AT, UH, 8 35? YOU SHOULD MOVED SECOND.