[00:00:02]
[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, May 7, 2025 – 7:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ]
GOOD EVENING EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE MAY 7TH, 2025 GREENBERG TOWN BOARD PLAN.UH, AARON, WOULD YOU DO THE ROLL CALL, PLEASE? MS. DAVIS? HERE.
WE NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT MR. SNAGS IS NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING, AND WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD, A WELCOMING TO ED AS A, UM, VOTING MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD, AND WELCOME TO EMILY AS OUR NEW ALTERNATE.
WHO WILL BE A FULL VOTING MEMBER IF SHE WANTS? SHE WILL.
THERE WILL BE A FULL VOTING MEMBER TONIGHT.
UM, I HOPE YOU LIKE, SO, FIRST,
EMILY WILL BE VOTING IN AS AN ALTERNATE THIS EVENING IN PLACE OF MR. STANLEY.
SO FIRST WE'D LIKE TO GO OVER, UH, THE LAST MEETING'S MINUTES.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES? I DIDN'T HAVE ANY.
SO THOSE WERE FROM MONDAY, APRIL 21ST.
IF THERE'S NO COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? SO MOVED.
SO, FOR TONIGHT'S AGENDA, THE FIRST THING ON THE AGENDA IS GOING TO BE OLD BUSINESS CASE NUMBER PB 24 0 3, WANG SIX COWELL WAY, PO BOX SCARSDALE.
UH, SINCE I HAD COMMENTED ON THE APPLICATION PRIOR, UH, TO JOINING THE PLANNING BOARD, I'LL BE RECUSING MYSELF FROM THIS CONVERSATION AND GOING OVER THERE.
AND I'M JUST GONNA GIVE A QUICK PROCEDURAL UPDATE TO THE BOARD.
UH, WE DO HAVE MR. ESTAS HERE THIS EVENING TO, UH, GIVE A BRIEF PRESENTATION AND BRING THE BOARD UP TO SPEED WITH RESPECT TO THE PROJECT.
AS I MENTIONED, FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, THE PLANNING BOARD DECLARED ITS INTENT TO SERVE AS LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES OF CARRYING OUT THE SECRET PROCESS THAT WAS CIRCULATED TO ALL INVOLVED AND INTERESTED AGENCIES.
THE ZONING BOARD BEING THE ONLY OTHER INVOLVED AGENCY THEY ISSUED? NO OBJECTION.
SO PROCEDURALLY THE PLANNING BOARD TONIGHT CAN DECLARE ITSELF LEAD AGENCY.
UH, THE PROJECT WAS PRELIMINARILY CLASSIFIED AS AN UNLISTED ACTION UNDER SEEKER.
THERE SHOULD BE A VOTE ON THAT AS WELL.
AND THEN, UH, AFTER WE HEAR FROM MR. ESCALADES AND ASK ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, UM, THE BOARD WOULD BE IN A POSITION AND STAFF HAS CIRCULATED A DRAFT SEEKER DETERMINATION.
UH, SO WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT AND WE WILL GO THROUGH THE VARIANCES REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT AS IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE COUNTY BOARD TO CONSIDER ISSUING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS THIS EVENING FOLLOWING THE SECRET DETERMINATION IF THAT'S MADE.
SO JUST WANTED TO BRING EVERYONE UP TO SPEED THERE.
EMILIO ESCALADAS, ESCALADAS, ASSOCIATE ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS.
AARON BASICALLY GAVE YOU A QUICK SUMMARY.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHO WASN'T HERE IN THE LAST, UH, PRESENTATION THAT WE MADE WITH RESPECT TO THIS APPLICATION.
SO I'LL BRIEFLY GO THROUGH IT.
UM, THE EXISTING FOR COVILLE WAY, IT'S AN OVERSIZED LOT AND IT'S OVERSIZED BECAUSE IN ITS HISTORY IT WERE TWO SEPARATE LOTS.
UM, I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY WERE CO-JOINED, WHEN THEY WERE FORCED TOGETHER, BUT, UH, IT IS NOW, UM, UM, A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THEY ARE INTERPRETED AS ONE LOT, UM, THE NEED TO SUBDIVIDED OFFICIALLY.
SO WE HAVE PRODUCED DRAWINGS THAT COMPLY WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, UH, OF SUBDIVISION SHOWING AREAS.
UH, WE STUDIED THE STEEPNESS OF EACH, UH, LOT, THE AMOUNT OF TREES THAT WILL BE REMOVED, UH, ONLY IN ONE IN ONE LOT.
THE OTHER LOT IS AN EXISTING HOUSE, WHICH, UH, HAS ITS OWN ISSUES BECAUSE IT WAS BUILT IN THE TWENTIES WHERE THE, WHEN THE REGULATIONS WERE DIFFERENT.
SO THERE ARE A, A SPRINKLE OF VARIANCES THAT ARE NEEDED TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING HOUSE AS IT SITS.
AND THE PROPOSED HOUSE AS IT IS BEING PROPOSED WITH, UH, THE CRITERIA, MEETING ALL THE CRITERIA OF THAT PARTICULAR ZONE.
WE PRESENTED TO YOU, UM, A BIT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE EXISTING AREAS OF THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY,
[00:05:01]
UM, SHOWING THAT THE AREA IS ABSOLUTELY TYPICAL OF AN UNDERSIZED LOT OF, UH, OF THE REQUIREMENTS, UH, OF, OF, OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIREMENT.SO THAT IN OTHER, IN ORDER TO ILLUSTRATE TO THE BOARD THAT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS ABSOLUTELY NOT, UM, AN OUT OF, UM, UM, OUT OF THE WAY PROPOSAL.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY, UH, A PROTOTYPICAL, UH, UH, AREA.
IN FACT, IT'S BIGGER THAN I WOULD SAY 70% OF THE NEIGHBORS AROUND IT.
UM, THAT'S WHAT PROMPTED US AND GAVE US ENERGY TO PROCEED WITH THIS PARTICULAR SUBDIVISION.
WE HAVE BEEN ASKED HOW THE HOUSE WOULD LOOK IN THE VERY FIRST MEETING.
I DON'T THINK SOME OF YOU WERE HERE.
SO I, I DESIGNED A HOUSE AND WHAT YOU SEE THERE IS WHAT YOU WOULD SEE FROM THE ENTRANCE.
UM, IT IS, IT'S A PLEASANT LOOKING HOUSE.
IT'S A CERTAINLY, UH, AN INVESTMENT OF TREMENDOUS QUANTITY, UM, IN THAT AREA.
UM, WE HAVE GONE THROUGH VALUATIONS OF, UM, TREE CUTTING AND SO ON.
UM, WE HAVE 28 TREES, 26 OR 20, I FORGET, A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TREES, HEALTHY TREES, UH, BEAUTIFUL TREES THAT, UM, HAVE TO BE CUT IN ORDER TO ADHERE TO THE STANDARD ENTRANCE FROM TWELL WAY.
WE HAD DISCUSSED, AND I'M NOT GONNA BORE YOU WITH AN ALTERNATE, UH, ENTERING FROM THE REAR, WE HAVE A COMMON DRIVEWAY IN THE BACK THAT WOULD SERVICE THE HOUSE PERFECTLY.
UM, AND IT WOULD, I'M NOT SHOWING YOU THE DRAWINGS, I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THE BOARD'S TIME.
I THINK THERE WAS A, UH, A GENERIC INTERPRETATION OF THAT PRESENTATION LAST TIME.
AND IT WASN'T, UH, UM, ENCOURAG ENCOURAGING FOR ME TO CONTINUE THAT.
SO I WENT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL, UM, AS OF RIGHT COMMON ENTRY FROM COWELL, EVEN THOUGH THE NEIGHBORS SAY THAT THEY DON'T LIKE THAT BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC POSSIBILITY, DANGER OF, OF TRAFFIC ACCIDENTS AND SO ON.
SO THEY, THEY ACTUALLY, IN MY OPINION, UH, DENY THEMSELVES THE ALTERNATIVE THAT I WAS PROPOSING.
THAT WOULD BE THE SAFEST FOR THE NEIGHBORS, AND IT WOULD BE ELIMINATING THE LESS NUMBER OF TREES.
BUT AGAIN, LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THAT.
UM, NOW WE'RE OFFICIALLY ASKING FOR YOUR GUIDANCE AND
UM, AGAIN, WE CAN GO OVER THE VARIANCES.
THERE ARE ABSOLUTELY, UM, UM, UM, IN MY OPINION, EXCUSE THE WORD, INSIGNIFICANT, BECAUSE AGAIN, THESE, THIS HOUSE EXISTED BEFORE WE, I THINK WE WERE BORN YES, 1920S.
UM, AND SO THESE CONDITIONS, UH, HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME, AND THAT LOT WAS A SEPARATE LOT UNTIL, WELL, FOR WHATEVER REASON IT WAS DECIDED TO AMALGAMATE THEM.
SO I'M SEEKING YOUR PERMISSION TO GO FORWARD TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WITH WHATEVER CONSIDERATION YOU MAY SEEM ADEQUATE, POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, UH, OR WHATEVER OTHER, UH, UH, UH, DEFINITION YOU WANT TO GIVE US.
THAT'S, UH, I'M READY FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
UM, BUT I DID DO THE HOUSE SO THAT YOU COULD HAVE A A, A PRETTY CLEAR IDEA OF WHAT, UH, IS BEING PLANNED THERE.
I DO HAVE ON THE OVERHEAD AS WELL.
SO YEAH, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
UH, UH, THE FIRST ONE IS THAT, UH, UH, IT'S PRETTY, UH, DID WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS? NO.
SO WE HAVE NOT, WE HAD A WORK SESSION ON IT.
WE HAD A PRE-SUBMISSION CONFERENCE ON IT.
WE HAD A WORK SESSION ON IT, UM, BEFORE.
SO JUST THE WAY IT WORKS WITH THE ZONING BOARDS INVOLVEMENT AND A COORDINATED REVIEW UNDER SEEKER PLANNING BOARD WOULD HAVE ITS WORK SESSION OR WORK SESSIONS.
UM, AND IT WOULD CONSIDER A SEEKER DETERMINATION BEFORE ANY PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF PUBLIC COMMENTS THAT HAVE COME IN DUE TO AWARENESS OF THE COMMUNITY AND THE CIVIC LEADERS.
UH, SO THOSE WERE ALL PROVIDED.
AND MS. ANDERSON, I FORWARD THE, TO THOSE, TO YOU SEPARATELY.
UM, BUT IF THIS PROJECT MOVES ALONG TO THE ZONING BOARD, THE ZONING BOARD WHILE PUBLIC HEARING OR PUBLIC HEARINGS, AND THEN IF THE APPLICANT, UH, SUCCESSFULLY OBTAINS THE VARIANCES REQUESTED, IT WOULD COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD'VE A PUBLIC HEARING AT THAT TIME.
SO, TO MY MIKE FOR NUMBER QUESTION IS THAT WE GIVING THE RECOMMENDATION WITHOUT HEARING THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBORS AROUND IT.
SO, UH, YES, WE CAN VENTURE INTO IT, BUT, UH, TO ME, WE DO NOT HAVE THE FULL, FULL PICTURES.
YOU CAN FIND ONE WELL, BUT THAT'S FOR THE ZONING BOARD TO DECIDE THE VARIANCES.
SO THEY, THEY'LL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE ZONING BOARD FOR THEIR ANSWERS.
SO WHY CAN'T WE JUST DO IT AFTERWARDS TO GIVING THEM, THAT'S JUST PROCEDURALLY NOT HOW IT WORKS.
ALSO, I WOULD SAY IN THIS INSTANCE,
[00:10:01]
ACTUALLY, UM, WE DON'T SEE IT AS OFTEN, BUT IN THIS ACTUAL CASE, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF PUBLIC CORRESPONDENCE PROVIDED TO THE PLANNING BOARD.WE DON'T SEE THAT ALL THE TIME.
WE APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT CORRESPONDENCE HAS BEEN PROVIDED UPFRONT FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER IN CONNECTION WITH ANY RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD AND THE PROJECT OVERALL.
SO IS IT A LITTLE UNIQUE? SO, SO MAJORITY OF THEM ARE, HAVE NO, NO ISSUES OR PROBLEM OR, OR HOW DO THEY, HOW DO, BASED ON THE, THE, THE CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED, MOST OF WHICH IS, UH, OPPOSED TO THE PROJECT? I, I THOUGHT IT WAS ALSO MY UNDERSTANDING THAT ONE OF THE REASONS WE WERE LOOKING AT IT TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD, UM, IS SO THAT IF HE NEEDED THINGS THAT WE KNEW THAT HE MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO TO MAKE IT MORE PALATABLE MM-HMM
THIS APPLICANT CAME BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, WITH TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS AS MR. ESTIS MENTIONED.
UM, I THINK A THIRD ACTUALLY, WELL PLUS AN ALTERNATIVE THAT DIDN'T INVOLVE A SUBDIVISION, BUT UM, WAS A DEMONSTRATION TO SHOW THAT THEY COULD ALSO POTENTIALLY WITHOUT A SUBDIVISION COME IN TO BUILD A POOL, POOL HOUSE AND HAVE RELATED SIMILAR DISTURBANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL.
SO THAT'S WHAT HE INITIALLY CAME WITH, CAME TO THE BOARD WITH.
THERE WAS FEEDBACK ON THAT, THERE WAS CORRESPONDENCE RECEIVED ON THAT, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS MOVED FORWARD WITH THIS SUBDIVISION PROPOSAL THAT WE SEE, AND WE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WE WILL BE REVIEWING, UM, ALL THE VARIANCES THIS EVENING, AND STAFF WOULD SUGGEST THAT YOU GO THROUGH THEM ONE BY ONE AND TAKE INDIVIDUAL VOTES ON THEM.
'CAUSE UM, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE MOST PRUDENT ROUTE TO GO.
UM, BUT IN TERMS OF THE SUBDIVISION, IF I WAS TO GUIDE YOU IN TERMS OF WHAT YOU WOULD BE LOOKING AT, FIRST OFF, WE DO THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH GIVES ALL THE INFORMATION ABOUT EACH PROJECT.
SO WE DO THAT FOR EACH PROJECT.
AND THEN IN LOOKING AT THE DRAFT SEEKER DETERMINATION, UH, IT GOES THROUGH THE VARIOUS POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEIR MAGNITUDE MAY BE, AT LEAST, UM, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE RECEIVED SO FAR.
YEAH, I MEAN, IT'S ALWAYS, WE HAVE, UH, LOOKED AT PLANNING BOARD AS TO FOCUS MOSTLY WITH, UH, WHAT IMPACT, UH, OR THE PROJECTS WOULD HAVE ON THE, ALL THESE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE IN A, UH, IN A REPORT THAT, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD, UH MM-HMM
UH, AND, AND OVERALL THINGS WE DO IT.
AND THE VARIANCES IS ESSENTIALLY A ZONING BOARDS PREVIEW.
AND I, I, I WOULD LIKE TO KIND OF HAVE THEM DISCUSS AND SEND US THAT, WHETHER THEY LIKE IT OR NOT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WE, THEY WANT US TO, UH, GIVE US A OVERALL PLANNING PERSPECTIVE OF THIS PROJECT.
UH, SO, UH, I MEAN, THE ZONING BOARD'S NOT GONNA REVIEW THE VARIANCES TO, TO GIVE YOU INSIGHT TO GIVE A RECOMMENDATION TO THEM.
IT'S, IT'S NOT GONNA, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST NOT HOW IT'S GONNA PROCEDURALLY OCCUR.
I UNDERSTAND A HUNDRED PERCENT.
BUT CONSIDERING THERE IS A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF, UH, A DISPLACED AMOUNT COMMUNITY AROUND IT, AND IF HE GIVE IT WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS AND DON'T WANT IT TO KIND OF, UH, CREATE A ATMOSPHERE GOING INTO THE VOTING BOARD WHERE WE SAID WE ARE OKAY WITH ALL THESE THINGS.
SO THAT'S, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND MM-HMM
AND MOST OF THESE PROJECT IS ESSENTIALLY, UH, VARIANCE RELATED THINGS.
IF THE VARIANCES ARE OKAY, I MEAN, WHO DO WE, I MEAN, HOW, WHAT, WHAT OUR CAPACITY TO DO THIS VARIANCE EVALUATION.
SO THAT, YOU KNOW, I WANTED TO REMIND THE BOARD ABOUT KIND OF THE POLICY IT'S DISCUSSED OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT IT WILL MAKE.
AND WE'LL GO THROUGH THEM, AS I MENTIONED ONE BY ONE.
BUT THE PLANNING BOARD STANCE OF LATE HAS BEEN THAT UNLESS THERE'S SOMETHING COMPELLING, A COMPELLING PLANNING REASON TO EITHER GO POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, THE BOARD WILL GO NEUTRAL AND LET THE ZONING BOARD DECIDE, BECAUSE IT'S A ZONING RELATED MATTER.
I'M SORRY, JUST, UM, OKAY, GO AHEAD.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE WENT OVER IT AGAIN WHILE YOU WERE HERE, WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU STARTED, BUT ALSO FOR EMILY'S SAKE WITH THE POSITIVE, THE NEGATIVE AND THE NEUTRAL AS, AS AARON SAID, WHEN WE GIVE THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS POSITIVE IS BECAUSE WE FEEL THAT ANY, UM, PLAN REALLY HAS A POSITIVE IMPACT ON, YOU KNOW, OVERWHELMINGLY AND NEUTRAL IS EITHER WAY IN THE NEGATIVE, YOU KNOW, NOT, NOT A GOOD IMPACT.
SO WE DON'T JUST GIVE POSITIVE BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
LIKE THERE, THERE'S A REASON BEHIND IT.
AND IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS, AS WE'VE SEEN RECENT.
[00:15:01]
DRAFT SEEKER DETERMINATION, WE GIVE SOME OF THE BACKGROUND ON THE LOSS.UM, YOU KNOW, SO THAT THE BOARD'S FULLY AWARE THAT THIS DOCUMENT INCLUDES SOME OF THE HISTORY RELATED TO THE LOT.
MR. ESCALADE SAID HE DID NOT KNOW WHEN THE LOTS CONJOINED.
BUT, UM, STAFF RESEARCHED THAT AND THERE WERE SOME IMPROVEMENTS MADE TO THE EXISTING HOME THAT WARRANTED, UM, THAT WOULD'VE REQUIRED VARIANCES IF THE INTERIOR LOT LINE THAT PRE-EXISTED WAS UTILIZED.
UM, THEY WERE ABLE TO UTILIZE THE FAR PROPERTY LINE TO THE RIGHT, IN THE IMAGE ABOVE ON THE SCREEN TO, UH, ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE IN THAT CASE.
BUT WITH THAT, THE LOT'S MERGED, SO NOW THEY'RE BACK TO SEEKING TO PLACE THAT THAT LOT LINE BACK WHERE IT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY.
AND THAT'S A PRODUCT OF IGNORANCE OF THE OWNERS REALLY.
I WORKED WITH, UH, UH, IT WAS NOT DONE ON PURPOSE FOR IT.
YEAH, I'M SURE THEY WOULD'VE TOLD YOU LOSE A LOT IF YOU DO THIS IMPROVEMENT.
AND IT WASN'T, IT WEREN'T EVEN THE PRESENT OWNERS.
SO WHEN YOU BUY A PIECE OF PROPERTY AND YOU SEE TWO SEPARATE TAX LOTS WITH TWO SEPARATE IDS, IT'S A SURPRISE WHEN THEY TELL YOU, NO, YOU ONLY HAVE ONE.
AND THIS IS THE POSITION THAT THE OWNERS ARE IN.
BUT I JUST WANT THE BOARD TO COMPREHEND THE HISTORY AS THE OWNERS, UH, INTERPRET IT.
AND BY THE WAY, ALL THE PLANNING REQUIREMENTS, UH, THAT A PLANNING BOARD NEEDS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED, ALL THE, ALL THE STUDIES AND SO ON, EVEN EVEN THE DESIGN OF A HOUSE, IN OTHER WORDS, I'M TRYING TO, UH, TO REALLY THE DRAINAGE, EVERYTHING IS DONE.
I WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYTHING THAT I'M PROPOSING IS DOABLE.
THAT'S, THAT'S MY INTENT IN GIVING YOU THE DRAWINGS.
AND I EVEN WENT AND WE DID A, A, AN ALTERNATE, UH, THAT WOULD BE, IN MY OPINION, SUPERIOR, GO THROUGH THE BACK.
UH, MY FIRE CHIEF FAMILY MEMBER SAID, I WOULD NEVER FIGHT THAT FROM THE ENTRANCE.
I WOULD FIGHT IT FROM THE CORNER.
THIS IS THE PERFECT HOUSE, THE SAFEST LOT TO FIGHT FROM THE STREET.
SO I, I BEG TO DISAGREE WITH THE FIRE CHIEF'S, UH, OPINION THAT OF COURSE HE WOULDN'T ENTER THROUGH THERE.
UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW HE PHRASED IT, BUT IT, IT, IT, IT WAS ENOUGH TO CONVINCE SOME OF YOU IN THE, IN THE BOARD TO SHY AWAY FROM THAT PROPOSAL.
BUT I WANT TO GUARANTEE YOU THAT IF I HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY IN THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT TO THEM, I WILL FIGHT TO THAT ENTRANCE BECAUSE IT IS THE BEST ALTERNATIVE, LEAST AMOUNT OF CUT TREES, NO CURB CUTS, WHICH THE NEIGHBORS OPPOSE SEVERELY ALL THE LETTERS SAY, WE DON'T WANT A CURB CUT, WE ARE AFRAID OF, OF THE PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC AND SO ON.
SO I THOUGHT WE HAD, UH, ACHIEVED A REAL GOOD SOLUTION.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS A PAST, PAST TENSE, BUT I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT I, I DID MY BEST TO SHOW THE PLANNING BOARD ALL THE ISSUES THAT A PLANNER WOULD, UH, WOULD ASK, IF NOT ASK AWAY.
I MEAN, UH, I UNDERSTAND, AND THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME OF ALL THE YEARS I'M HERE.
THIS IS, UH, MANY TIMES WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS.
AND MY ONLY CONCERN IS THAT, UH, WE, WE DON'T WANT TO HAVE A ZONING BOARD GET, UH, GET GETS, UH, KIND OF, UH, UH, REJECTS ALL OF THAT THINGS THAT, OR WHATEVER WE, WE DO IT OR WE SAY AND UH, UH, AND, AND I MEAN, PROCEDURALLY, I WOULD LIKE THEM TO REALLY GET A FIRST CUT AND COME BACK TO US.
WELL, BUT NOW I GUESS YOU, I ACCEPT IT.
SO I WILL, UH, WITH THAT, I THINK, UH, I GO AHEAD BY THE, WE DO PROCEDURAL THINGS COMPLETED, RIGHT? SO I JUST, I THINK BEFORE THE BOARD DECLARES ITSELF, LEAD AGENCY CLASSIFIES THE PROPOSED ACTION PURSUANT TO SEEKER AND CONSIDERS THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF ANY OTHER BOARD MEMBERS HAD OVERALL GENERAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, UH, EITHER FOR MR. ESCALADES, FOR STAFF OR RELATED TO THE SECRET DETERMINATION.
'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA DO THE, THE ZONING RECOMMENDATION AFTER.
BUT SECRET DETERMINATIONS IS, IS BASICALLY SAYING THERE IS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT, RIGHT? NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
THAT'S WHAT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION RESULTS IN A DETERMINATION AND FIND IT.
AND ONLY BECAUSE HE TOUCHED ON IT.
CAN YOU JUST PUT, UH, IN ONE SENTENCE, THE GREENVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT OR READ IT? SO THE, THE FEEDBACK AS I RECALL FROM THE GREENVILLE FIRE DISTRICT WAS THAT THEY WOULD NOT SUPPORT A FOURTH HOME CONNECTING OFF A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
UH, IN THE PLAN, WHICH I'M ZOOMING UP TO, THERE IS A SHARED DRIVEWAY KIND OF COMING, UH, THROUGH TO THE REAR THAT IS ALREADY SERVICES THREE HOMES.
IT'S NARROW, IT'S NOT A STANDARD WIDTH, SO TO SPEAK.
AND THERE WAS CONCERN FROM A FIRE SAFETY AND EMERGENCY SERVICES STANDPOINT THAT ADDING ANOTHER
[00:20:01]
HOME WOULD ONLY FURTHER CREATE, UH, AN ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO, BUT IT IS NOT A TRAPPED HOME.THE HOME IS EXPOSED ON TWO ROADS AND THAT'S WHY YEAH, NO, I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT GOT IN.
THAT IS, THAT IS ONE PERSON AT A TIME.
I'M JUST, I WAS ASKED TO RELAY WHAT THE FIRES DISTRICT'S, UH, STATE IS, AND THAT'S ALL ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS BROUGHT UP.
SO, UH, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? YEAH, AARON, WHAT'S THE HISTORY OF THE, HOW THE R 20 ZONING CAME INTO BEING HERE, PARTICULARLY SINCE WHEN DID IT HAPPEN AND WAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, LESS DEVELOPED WHEN IT HAPPENED THAN IT IS NOW? OKAY, SO IN THE DRAFT SECRET DETERMINATION, WE GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY.
UM, THAT IS ON PAGE AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO ON, UH, SECTION ONE IMPACT ON LAND USE SLASH ZONING.
IT STATES THE TWO TAX LOTS WERE CREATED AS PART OF A SUBDIVISION OF THE ENTIRE COTSWOLD NEIGHBORHOOD IN 1926.
AT THE TIME, THE AREA WAS ZONED RESIDENCE O DASH 21 FAMILY, WHICH HAD A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
AND THE SUBJECT LOTS AT THAT TIME WERE ZONING COMPLIANT.
SOMETIME BETWEEN 1932 AND 1957, THE TOWN REZONED THAT AREA TO THE R 21 FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, WHICH HAS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET RENDERING THOSE LOTS AND OTHER LOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, NON-CONFORMING THE TAX LOTS, WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION.
WERE IN COMMON OWNERSHIP AND REMAIN IN COMMON OWNERSHIP WITH IMPROVEMENTS CROSSING THE 1926 SUBDIVISION LINE.
AS I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE INTERIOR LINE, THE LOTS MERGED IN ORDER ORDER TO MAINTAIN ZONING COMPLIANCE, THE NEED FOR THE AREA VARIANCES.
AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, UH, THE VARIANCES.
BUT THAT'S THE HISTORY IN A NUTSHELL WAS THE AREA TO PRETTY MUCH TOTALLY DEVELOPED AS IT IS TODAY.
SO THAT THERE WAS NO VACANT LAND.
'CAUSE WHEN I LOOKED AT A MAP THAT I THINK WAS INCLUDED YES.
RIGHT HERE, LIKE E EVERY LOT OTHER THAN ONE I THINK IS NONCONFORMING.
MOST OF THE LOTS I BELIEVE WERE BUILT OUT IN THE 1920S OR 1930S.
AND SMALLER THAN THESE LOTS WITH ONE EXCEPTION.
AND I THINK MR. STOS HAD, HAD PREVIOUSLY SHOT, YOU HAD THAT HANDY GIVE THAT DIAGRAM TO SHOW THE, NO, THERE THERE'S A DIAGRAM RIGHT OF THE IMMEDIATE, IF YOU GO FURTHER OUT, THERE'S EVEN MORE AND MORE GREEN AREA.
THE GREEN AREA SHOW THAT THEY'RE SMALLER THAN THE PROPOSED LOT AREA THAT WE ARE TRYING TO CREATE.
WITH THE NEW, WHICH YOU JUST SAID JUST NOW, YOU JUST RE REPEATED WHAT I HAVE GRAPHICALLY SHOWN.
AND I THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS A VALUABLE PIECE OF HISTORY AND CERTAINLY A PATTERN SO THAT THE, THE, THE, THE, THE COMFORT LEVEL OF THE BOARD WOULD NOT BE SHAKEN BECAUSE YOU ARE NOT FAVORING SOMETHING THAT IS OUT OF THE ORDINARY.
YOU'RE SIMPLY GOING ALONG WITH NOT ONLY THE SAME SIZE, BUT EVEN A BIGGER SIZE OF WHAT ALREADY EXISTS.
AND, AND THAT COMPOUNDED WITH THE FACT THAT THE, THE LOTS WERE SEPARATE AND THAT THE, THE, THE, UH, THE HISTORY SAYS, WELL, BECAUSE THERE WAS AN IMPROVEMENT MADE, WHICH THE OWNER PROBABLY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW.
UH, IT, IT WAS PROBABLY A DESIGNATION BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT BECAUSE IT WAS, THEY SAW A SURVEY AND I SWEAR THIS IS PROBABLY WHAT HAPPENED, AND THIS PATIO IS GOING OVER THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
SO I SAID, OH, THIS HAS BEEN CONTAMINATED.
AND I DON'T KNOW, THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME I HEAR IT.
FIRST TIME I SEE IT, IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS TO BE GAINED BECAUSE THEN THE LOT IS LOST.
AND THE POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY, UH, TO THE STANDARDS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND GIVING THE TOWN, UH, A NICE ADDITIONAL, UH, UH, UM, TAXABLE LOT AND BRINGING ANOTHER NICE FAMILY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS ELIMINATED.
AND WE'RE FIGHTING FOR SOMETHING.
AGAIN, MY POINT, WE'RE FIGHTING FOR SOMETHING THAT CAN, AND LET'S SAY THEY DENY ME EVERYBODY AGAIN, NOTHING.
WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN? THIS PROPERTY, AND THIS I SWEAR TO YOU, WILL HAPPEN 'CAUSE I'M DOING THIS FOR 50 YEARS, OKAY? THIS PROPERTY WILL BE SOLD AND THE BUYER WILL NOW CREATE A, BECAUSE THAT'S THE PATTERN THAT IT SELLS, IT BRINGS MONEY.
SO WE WILL NOW UPGRADE DOUBLE THE SIZE OF THIS HOUSE, PUT A POOL AND REDESIGN THE ENTIRE TWO LOTS INTO AN OVERSIZED MCMANSION, AS WE'D LIKE TO CALL IT.
AND THAT'S REALLY THE REALITY OF WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IF WE DON'T LOOK AT THE, AT THE FACT THAT I COULD BUILD A SMALLER HOUSE.
BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED, WE WANNA STAY ON, ON TARGET ON POINT, YOU'RE NOT DISCUSSING THAT, SO THANK YOU.
AND ANY, ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE WOULD INVOLVE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL, LIKELY BECAUSE SURELY BECAUSE OF THE STEEP SLOPES ON THE SITE.
IT WOULD COME BACK TO THIS BOARD.
SO IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO, BUT AS AN AS OF RIGHT ACTION, THEY, THEY, THEY, YOU CANNOT DENY THEM.
SO THE, THE DESTRUCTION AND THE CUTTING OF THE TREES WILL BE MORE THAN WHAT I HAVE.
LET'S, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE PANEL, AMANDA?
[00:25:01]
YES.WHEN THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS LOOKS AT THIS YES.
WHAT IS, BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SIZE OF THE LOT IS LIKE THE MAJOR VARIANCE THAT THAT'S THE HURDLE IN THAT YOU HAVE TO GET OVER INITIALLY.
SO THEY'LL LOOK AT IT FROM THE AREA OF VARIANCE STANDARDS AND OPINE BASED UPON CORRESPONDENCE AND ALL THESE OTHER, YOU KNOW, FACTORS ASSOCIATED WITH THE ADJACENT LOTS AND THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND, AND MAKE A DETERMINATION.
AND THEY SPELL OUT THEIR REASONS AND FINDINGS.
BUT I ASSUME THE STANDARD FOR GENERALLY FOR ISSUING VARIANCES IS PRETTY HIGH.
THERE'S GOTTA BE, YOU KNOW, THERE YOU HAVE LIKE ZONING R 20, SOMEONE WANT, YOU KNOW, WANTS TO REQUEST A VARIANCE FOR LESS THAN THAT.
THERE MUST BE SOME STANDARD THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS HAS TO LOOK AT IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY A VARIANCE.
THAT'S THE AREA OF VARIANCE STANDARDS.
WHICH INDIVIDUAL ONE AND, UM, MOST ARE DETERMINATIVE.
UM, BUT, UH, AT LEAST ONE FACTOR IS NOT, YEAH.
AND THE APPLICANT HAS TO MAKE THEIR CASE, BUT THE ZONING BOARD ONLY HOLDS PUBLIC HEARING, SO IT'S ALSO GONNA HEAR FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MM-HMM
BEFORE COMING TO ANY DECISION.
SO TODAY WE ARE GONNA MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD ON THE VARIANCE NEUTRAL, POTENTIALLY POSITIVE NEGATIVE, POTENTIALLY MM-HMM
AND IN YOUR CAPACITY AS PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, LOOKING AT IT FROM RIGHT.
PLANNING PERSPECTIVES AND THE PROJECT AND EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE SEEN SO FAR MM-HMM
YOU KNOW, THERE, THE ZONING BOARD LOOKS AT IT FROM THEIR AREA STANDARDS.
I THINK MAYBE THIS WOULD BE A GOOD TIME.
SO IF THERE WEREN'T ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, AND WE WILL GO THROUGH ALL THE VARIANCES, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER VOTING TO ESTABLISH ITSELF AS LEAD AGENCY, BEING THAT THERE WERE NO OBJECTIONS.
I, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FIRST.
SO THE, THE OPPOSITION TO THIS IS BASED ON STEEP SLOPE, UM, TRAFFIC, THAT IT'S IN AN UNSAFE INTERSECTION, UNSAFE NEIGHBOR OR UNSAFE TRAFFIC PATTERNS, UM, POTENTIAL FLOODING DUE TO THE STEEP SLOPE.
AND THEN THE TREE REMOVAL, IT'S 25 MATURE TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED AND THEY'RE BEING REPLACED WITH 16.
IS THAT RIGHT? IS THAT PRELIMINARILY THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN WAS SUBMITTED? YES.
SO 25 MATURE TREES AND REPLACED WITH 16 NEW LIKE YOUNG, YOUNG TREES.
UM, AND THEN THE, THE GREENVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT BEING IN STRONG OPPOSITION TO IT AS WELL BECAUSE OF TO THE PREVIOUS, THE SON TO THE PREVIOUS ONE.
IF I, TO THE ALTERNATIVE, THAT'S WHAT I THINKING.
GO OVER THE LIST, NOT SPECIFICALLY TO, TO THIS BEFORE WE LAY OUT.
AND THEN, SO, AND THEN THIS, THIS, UM, SPECULATION ABOUT WHY THE PRIOR OWNER, THAT THE PRIOR OWNER MAY NOT HAVE EVEN KNOWN THAT WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
THEY, THEY VERY WELL COULD HAVE KNOWN WHAT THEY WERE DOING.
THEY COULD HAVE WHEN THEY DEVELOPED.
I MEAN, AND THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAD THE LOT COVERAGE AND SO THEY TOOK IT FROM THE, THE OTHER LOT.
THAT WOULD'VE WENT THROUGH A BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.
UM, YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE BUILDING REVIEW, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER MANY YEARS AGO THAT IT TOOK PLACE, BUT YES, THEY LIKELY COULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE LOTS WOULD'VE MERGED.
AND THEN, SO THE LOTS, SO THE LOTS WERE, IS THIS, SO YOU SAID THAT IT WAS THE AREA, I MEAN THIS IS LIKE THE COTSWOLD AREA, SAME AS LIKE THE EDGEMONT ESTATES USED TO BE AN R 10.
AND SO THE EQUIVALENT TO AN R 10, EQUIVALENT TO AN R 10, SO THAT THIS WAS ALL SUBDIVIDED IN THAT LIKE 19 10, 19 26, 19 26 MAP IS WHEN IT, IT WAS ALSO OKAY.
AND THEN, YOU KNOW, BEING THAT I'M NEW TO THE BOARD, THIS SEEMS LIKE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OPPOSITION IN THE AREA.
UM, IT WOULD YOU ALL SAY THAT THIS IS MUCH MORE OPPOSITION THAN WE NORMALLY SEE? UH, I WOULD SAY THAT IT IS MORE THAN WE TYPICALLY SEE, BUT NOT, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF ACTIVE FOLKS IN THAT AREA OF TOWN AND WITHIN THE EDGEMONT AREA.
SO WE TYPICALLY DO GET MORE FEEDBACK WHEN THERE ARE PROJECTS WITHIN THAT GENERAL OVERALL NEIGHBORHOOD OR COMMUNITY AT THAT END OF TOWN.
HOW MANY LETTERS WENT OUT? I DID, I DID, UH, AT LEAST A DOZEN.
SO I WOULD, AND MAYBE COUNSEL SHOULD, YOU KNOW, ADVISE, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO GO BASED ON THE CODE, RIGHT.
AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE, YOU KNOW, YOU COULD HAVE A HUNDRED PEOPLE COME OUT AND SAY, WE DON'T WANT THIS PROJECT, WE DON'T WANT ANOTHER HOUSE.
AND THAT SHOULDN'T BE YOUR SOLE REASON.
[00:30:01]
FOR EACH, IF I MAY MM-HMM.THAT IS ONE THING MAYBE YOU CAN GO OVER IN TERMS OF WHAT OUR RESPONSIBILITIES ARE, BUT ALSO AARON, UM, OR I WOULD JUST ASK THE BOARD, DO YOU WANT HIM TO GO THROUGH THE VARIANCES? UM, BRIEFLY, YEAH.
YES, THAT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL.
WOULD THAT BE QUICKLY? I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT.
I THINK PROCEDURALLY YOU SHOULD CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, THE VOTES THAT I HAD RECOMMENDED RELATED TO ESTABLISHING THE PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY, THE PROJECT AS AN UNLISTED ACTION AND THE SECRET DETERMINATION.
AND, AND ALSO BEFORE IT GETS TOO FAR AWAY.
'CAUSE I WILL NOT KEEP MY TRAIN OF THOUGHT THAT LONG
UH, THE CONCERNS OF, YOU KNOW, SO THE GREENVILLE FIRE DISTRICT BROUGHT UP THE, UH, DEPARTMENT BROUGHT UP THE DRIVEWAY ISSUE, WHICH, UM, AF THAT WAS AN ALTERNATE OPTION.
THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE TREE REMOVAL, THE STORMWATER, AND, AND TO SEE WHAT, IF THERE'S CHANGES TO THE PLANS OR IF THERE'S BEEN, UM, OPINIONS FROM MAYBE THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT OR FROM A TRAFFIC CONSULTANT OR, UM, IS TO SEE IF ANY OF THOSE HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED AND WHETHER THERE'S OUTSTANDING CONCERNS REMAINING AFTER CHANGES TO THE PLANS OR CHANGES OR, OR, UH, RESPONSES TO THOSE COMMENTS.
AND THEN ALSO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, PLANNING BOARD CANNOT MAKE A DETERMINATION ON GENERAL COMMUNITY OPPOSITION.
SO IT'S THOSE SPECIFIC ITEMS. IF THERE'S OUTSTANDING ISSUES REMAINING, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
WELL, AND THERE COULD BE OPPOSITION TO IT AND IT MAY BE OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW AND, AND WHAT IS RELEVANT TO THE RIGHT TO WHAT WE'RE ADDRESSING.
SO IF I, I WANTED TO SPEAK TO ONE QUESTION, JUST OVERALL QUESTION THAT SURE.
UH, IS THE, UH, ZONING BOARD DID NOT WANTED TO BE LEAD AGENCY OR WE DECIDE THAT IT BE WANTED, THE PLANNING BOARD SOUGHT TO BE LEAD AGENCY AND THE ZBA DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PLANNING BOARDS.
SO WE GET THE FIRST TAKE ON IT.
IF IT SAYS NO, THE PLANNING, I MEAN ULTIMATELY THE PLANNING, THIS PLANNING BOARD, WHICH MAY HAVE CONSISTED OF SOME OTHER MEMBERS AT THE TIME, THOUGHT THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD SERVE AS LEAD AGENCY, THAT THAT WOULD BE THE BEST FIT GIVEN THE SUBDIVISION, THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM THE SUBDIVISION.
UM, ALL THE VARIANCES ARE AREA VARIANCES IN NATURE.
THERE ARE NO USE VARIANCES, UH, REQUESTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT.
UM, TO SPEAK TO A COUPLE OF THINGS THOUGH, FOR MS. ANDERSON AND OTHERS, THE ONE THING I DID NOT HEAR IS THE FACT THAT THERE IS, UM, THE COMMUNITY BROUGHT, UM, IN THEIR CORRESPONDENCE THAT THERE'S A PARK DOWN SLOPE AND CONCERNS FOR IMPACTS TO THE PARK, WHICH ALSO CAN POND OR FLOOD ALREADY IN CERTAIN INSTANCES.
SO THE ENVIRONMENTAL SLOPE AND OH, I WANTED TO MENTION THAT I HAVE SPOKEN WITH THE APPLICANT'S, UH, DESIGN PROFESSIONAL A LOT OF TIMES AND MORE OFTEN WHILE THE, THE TOWN CODE REQUIRES THAT AN APPLICANT DESIGN FOR A 25 YEAR STORM EVENT.
THE PLANNING BOARD HAS BEEN VERY GOOD ABOUT ASKING APPLICANTS IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO GO TO, YOU KNOW, 50 YEAR STORM.
UH, JUST BECAUSE IT'S A 25 YEAR STORM, YOU KNOW, APPEARS NOT TO BE ONCE EVERY 25 YEARS.
SO DO THE, IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY, MR. ESCALADES DID STATE TO ME AND WE CAN HAVE HIM STATED ON THE RECORD? ABSOLUTELY, YES.
IF THE PROJECT DID MOVE FORWARD TO A POINT WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD WAS CONSIDERING CONDITIONS, HE WOULD AGREE TO, UH, DESIGN THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO, UH, HANDLE A 50 YEAR STORM EVENT WITH RESPECT TO LANDSCAPING WHILE, AND IT'S A PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN, SO THE TOWN FORESTRY OFFICER AND I ARE REVIEWING THAT, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD CONDUCT OUR REVIEW BEFORE IT COMES BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD IF IT WERE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER TWO 60.
AND KEEP IN MIND THAT, UM, WITH UNDEVELOPED LOTS, THE WAY THE CODE READS, IT TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE LOT COULD BE WOODED AND NOW YOU'RE PUTTING A STRUCTURE AND RELATED IMPROVEMENTS.
SO TO, THERE'S NOT A ONE FOR ONE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT.
WHAT THERE IS IS A 30% REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT WITH RESPECT TO CERTAIN ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES AFFORDED BY THE TREES ON THE SITE.
IF THE APPLICANT THROUGH ITS PRELIMINARY LANDSCAPE PLAN MET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THE PLANNING BOARD STILL HAS EVERY RIGHT TO ASK IF THE APPLICANT WOULD INSTALL ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING ABOVE AND BEYOND, EITHER FOR ADDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL VALUE OR SCREENING PURPOSES.
UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S COMMON IN PROJECTS THAT MOVE THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD.
SO THOSE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON.
[00:35:01]
NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATION TO THE AFTER DETERMINATION ON SEEKER.UM, THE RECOMMENDATION, THE ZONING BOARD IS PRELIMINARY JUST FOR THE ZONING BOARD TO EVALUATE ALL THE VARIANCES.
AND WHEN THEY DO THEIR OWN EVALUATION, THEY MAKE A DETERMINATION OF TO WHETHER GRANT OR DENY ANY OF THOSE VARIANCES.
IF AND IF IT COMES BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD AT THAT TIME, WE WOULD STILL HAVE OUR OWN REVIEW AND, AND PUBLIC HEARING AND ABSOLUTELY GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS AND CAN MAKE CHANGES AT THAT POINT AS WELL.
JUST IF THE BOARD WAS TO ISSUE A RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT, YOU KNOW, THE PROJECT IS, WILL NOT BE BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD IT OR CHANGE IT WILL BE OR CHANGE.
IN FACT, IF THEY OBTAIN THE VARIANCES OR SOME VERSION OR VARI, UH,
SO DO YOU KNOW, UH, DO YOU HAVE YOUR BULK TABLE? I THINK I HAVE IT UP ACTUALLY HERE.
I CAN'T HEAR A WORD YOU'RE SAYING.
I'M LOSING, I'M LOSING MY EAR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE.
UH, AND I THINK IT'S ON THIS TABLE.
SO, UM, THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED OF THE R 20 DISTRICT IS 29% AND THEY'RE SHOWING THAT EACH WOULD BE NO GREATER THAN 29%.
IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT ON THE PICTURE, BUT I'LL TAKE YOU AWAY FOR IT.
DOES THE PLANNING BOARD, YOU KNOW, DO YOU WANT TO CONSIDER VOTING TO ESTABLISH YOURSELF AS LEAD AGENCY? ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? CAN I ASK YOU SOME MORE, AARON? OF COURSE.
THE STORM MANAGEMENT, IF THEY DO A 50 YEAR, YOU KNOW, FLOOD, WOULD THAT BE LESS RUNOFF, LESS FLOODING RISK THAN CURRENTLY EXISTS? CAN I ASK YOU THAT? ACTUALLY, IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE.
IT'S, IT'S A COMMON QUESTION AND, UH, EVEN TO US ENGINEERS THAT DO THIS ALL THE TIME, WE HAVE TO SAY, ARE WE DOING WHAT YOU JUST ASKED? AND THE THE ANSWER IS ALWAYS YES.
THE REASON IS THAT BEFORE WE BUILT ANYTHING, THE WATER THAT WAS FALLING IN THAT SAME AREA WAS JUST RUNNING AMUCK.
IT WAS NOT CONTROLLED, IT WAS NOT DIRECTED INTO THE GROUND.
RIGHT? NOW, WHEN WE BUILD, UH, THE VERY TOUGH ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IN GREENBURG IS DEMANDING MORE THAN EVER, SHOW ME A PROFILE.
WHERE IS THE WATER GOING? WHAT IS THE VOLUME OF GRAVEL? WHAT IS THE VOLUME OF, OF THE DEVICE AND WHERE IS IT GOING DO THE PERK? THEY CHANGED THE WAY THAT WE DO THE PERK.
THEY NOW REQUIRE A VERY STRICT, UH, UH, COUNTY SYSTEM.
UM, WE'RE ALL TALKING ABOUT IT BECAUSE IT'S A HOT, A WHOLE NEW SHERIFF IN TOWN AND IT'S VERY, VERY TOUGH.
BUT THE GENERIC ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION IS ALWAYS AFTER EVERY DEVELOPMENT, IF, IF EVERYTHING, UH, THAT WE ARE TOLD TO DO IS DONE, THE WATER THAT FLOWS OUT OF THE SITE IS LESS THAN THE WATER THAT WAS FLOWING OUT OF THE SITE BEFORE THE HOUSE WAS BUILT.
I KNOW IT'S DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE, BUT ALL THE WATER THAT'S GENERATED BY THE IMPERMEABLE SURFACES GO INTO THE CONDUITS IN THE GROUND.
AND I SHOULD ALSO MENTION THAT THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS RELATED TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ON SITE.
FIRST OFF, YOU CAN HAVE NO, YOU CANNOT HAVE A NET INCREASE IN RUNOFF FROM THE SITE.
THE OTHER PROVISION IS YOU HAVE TO DESIGN FOR A 25 YEAR STORM.
SO THEY HAVE TO MEET BOTH OF THOSE, WHICH HE'S DEMONSTRATED TO THE TOWN ENGINEER PRELIMINARILY RIGHT NOW, HE IS WILLING TO GO NOT ONLY, UH, TO THE 25, BUT TO THE 50 YEAR STORM OF THAT.
SO, UM, WE'D LIKE TO TAKE A VOTE OR I'M SORRY FOR THE, FOR THE MOTION TO DECLARE OURSELF AS LEAD AGENCY.
CAN I JUST CLARIFY IF WE'RE VOTING FOR THAT? WE'RE NOT VOTING FOR THE ACTUAL DRAFT.
WE ARE VOTING SOLELY TO, FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO DECLARE ITSELF LEAD AGENCY FOR PURPOSES.
'CAUSE I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS OF CARRYING OUT THE SEEKER PROCESS.
DOES ANYONE SECOND IT? WHO SECOND.
OKAY, SO THE PLANNING, WHAT IS THE LEAD AGENCY AT, SORRY, LEMME GET BACK TO MY PAGE.
PERHAPS TO, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ADDRESS SOME OF THE POINTS THAT WERE RAISED BY EMILY AND MAYBE ADDRESS SOME COMMENTS BEFORE YOU EVEN QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ON THE, UH, PROPOSED, UM, SEEKER DETERMINATION.
UH, PERHAPS YOU WANNA GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THOSE POINTS? NO, WELL BEFORE WELL WERE THEY ALL ADDRESSED? WERE ALL THOSE CONCERNS
[00:40:01]
ADDRESSED IN THE, THE CCRA? NO.SO THIS DOCUMENT WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH, RIGHT.
AND SEE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO ADD, EDIT, DELETE, ET CETERA.
BUT DID YOU WANNA GIVE THE APPLICANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS ANY OH YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, I THINK SO.
BEFORE WE CONSIDER THIS DOCUMENT YEAH.
WAS THERE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO NO, NO.
I, I JUST WANTED, NO, I SAID EVERYTHING I WANTED TO SAY.
SO WE CAN GO THROUGH THE DOCUMENT SECTION BY SECTION THIS ONE, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO THERE WAS A DRAFT SECRET DETERMINATION DATED MAY 7TH, UM, IN YOUR PACKAGE.
PAGE ONE REALLY IS PROCEDURAL AND GIVES SOME BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECT.
ANY QUESTIONS OR I THINK FOR THE NEW MEMBERS WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHAT'S, UH, UNLISTED AND CONDITIONAL CONDITION NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
SO SEEKER, UM, SEEKER HAS THREE TYPES OF ACTIONS.
THERE ARE TYPE ONE ACTIONS WHICH ARE IDENTIFIED AS POTENTIALLY HAVING A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
THERE ARE TYPE TWO ACTIONS, WHICH ARE SPECIFICALLY LISTED BY NEW YORK STATE AS HAVING, UM, BEEN DETERMINED ALREADY THAT THEY DON'T POSE POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
AND THEN THERE'S EVERYTHING IN BETWEEN, WHICH ARE UNLISTED ACTIONS.
AND WELL, AND YOU CAN ALSO HAVE, YOU CAN HAVE A, A LOCAL MUNICIPALITY, LIKE A TOWN CAN HAVE THEIR OWN TYPE TWO AS WELL.
AND THEY CAN HAVE THEIR LOCAL TYPE ONE.
IN FACT, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO YOU? MM-HMM
SO MORE OFTEN THAN NOT, UM, SUBDIVISIONS FIRST OFF ARE NOT TYPE TWO ACTIONS.
SUBDIVISIONS AT A MINIMUM ARE UNLISTED ACTIONS AND IN SOME CASES THEY CAN RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A TYPE ONE ACTION.
BUT WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT AND, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING BOARD PRELIMINARILY CLASSIFIED IT AS UNLISTED.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED IT IN, IN THIS DOCUMENT.
WITH RESPECT TO CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WE'VE CHECKED THE NO BOX, UM, BECAUSE WE DON'T ENVISION THE PLANNING BOARD USUALLY IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH THE BOARD FOR 20 PLUS YEARS, IT IS VERY RARE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO ISSUE A CONDITION NEGATIVE DECLARATION BECAUSE IT HAS A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH WITH THE APPLICANT LIKE WE ARE TONIGHT.
AND LIKE WE DID IN THE PRE-SUBMISSION CONFERENCE AND IN THE FIRST WORK SESSION WHERE THERE'S BACK AND FORTH QUESTIONS, THERE'S MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT MADE TO ADDRESS CONCERNS, QUESTIONS, OR COMMENTS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
SO, UM, IT'S VERY RARE THAT I'VE SEEN A CONDITION OR CONDITION NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
I CAN LET YOU SPEAK TO WHEN IT MAY BE MOST APPROPRIATE.
WELL, ALTERNATIVELY, A LOT OF TIMES SOME APPLICATIONS NEVER GET TO THAT POINT.
TRUE BECAUSE THEY COME IN AND HAVE PRELIMINARY, UM, YOU KNOW, PLANS.
LIKE IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO, YOU KNOW, MEET, MEET STANDARDS? IS THIS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD MOVE FORWARD? SO A LOT OF TIMES IT DOESN'T EVEN GET TO THAT POINT.
SO IT, IT GOES THROUGH A PROCESS THAT AT SOME POINT, UM, I THINK THE ONLY CONDITION NECK DECK THAT WAS POTENTIALLY A RECENT WAS A CHICK-FIL-A AND THAT THAT DIDN'T EVEN END UP BECOMING A CONDITION LIKE THAT.
BECAUSE THEY ADDRESSED COMMENTS AS YOU GO.
I, I JUST WANTED TO SAY ONE OTHER ITEM THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THERE ARE OTHER COMMUNITIES WHERE AN APPLICANT SUBMITS AND GETS RIGHT ON WITH THE BOARD VERSUS, YOU KNOW, WHAT WE DO HERE, WHICH IS A LOT OF WORK BY STAFF AHEAD OF THE PROJECT, EVEN GETTING ON WITH THE PLANNING BOARD TO ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW, ENGINEERING'S REVIEWED IT FROM THEIR WHAT, UH, STORM WATER AND STEEP SLOPE DISTURBANCES AND THE, AND THE LIKE, AND KNOW BUILDING REVIEWS, IT, TRAFFIC SAFETY REVIEWS, IT, FIRE DISTRICT REVIEWS IT.
THAT'S ALL DONE AHEAD OF TIME.
UM, WHICH I THINK IS A BENEFIT TO THE BOARD BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, YOU GET A LOT OF THAT FEEDBACK, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, RESPONSES TO AHEAD OF IT COMING BEFORE THE BOARD.
IS THIS NEEDED IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THIS FORWARD TO THE ZONING BOARD? YES.
YES AND YES AND, AND NEEDS TO BE DONE BEFORE THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD.
CAN WE, YOU READY? AND USUALLY GO OVER THE VARIANCE, MARIA? EXCUSE ME.
CAN WE GO OVER THE VARIANCES? UM, WE, WE CAN, I, MY THOUGHT PROCESS WAS TO GO THROUGH THOSE, UM, AS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT I CAN READ THEM BECAUSE THEY ARE LISTED IN THIS DOCUMENT.
SO, UH, IT STATES ON PAGE ONE UNDER DESCRIPTION OF ACTION IN A MEN, UH, IN THE MIDDLE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, IN A MEMORANDUM DATED MARCH 11TH, 2025,
[00:45:01]
THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DETERMINED THAT THE FOLLOWING AREA OF VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED.NUMBER ONE, MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, LOT THREE FROM 120 FEET REQUIRED TO 107.5 FEET.
PROPOSED TO MINIMUM LOT SIZE, UH, LOT THREE FROM 20,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED TO 16,108 SQUARE FEET.
PROPOSED THREE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA LOT THREE FROM 2,590 SQUARE FEET PERMITTED TO 2,680 SQUARE FEET.
PROPOSED FOUR MINIMUM LOT SIZE LOT TWO FROM 20,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED TO 15,838 SQUARE FEET.
PROPOSED FIVE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, LOT TWO FROM 120 FEET REQUIRED TO 105 FEET.
PROPOSED SIX MINIMUM DRIVEWAY SETBACK FOR LOT TWO FROM 16 FEET REQUIRED TO THREE FEET, PROPOSED SEVEN SETBACK FROM PATIO TO PROPERTY LINE ON LOT TWO FROM 10 FEET REQUIRED TO ZERO FEET PROPOSED.
SO THAT'S THE EXISTING PATIO ASSOCIATED WITH THE HOME.
EIGHT SETBACK FROM PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE TO SIDE PROPERTY LINE ON LOT TWO FROM 18 FEET REQUIRED TO 11.2 FEET, PROPOSED NINE TOTAL OF TWO SIDE YARDS ON LOT TWO FROM 40 FEET REQUIRED TO 33.9 FEET PROPOSED AND 10 FROM SECTION 2 85 DASH 39 C EIGHT, WHICH STATES WHERE A LOT IS FORMED HEREAFTER FROM PART OF A LOT ALREADY OCCUPIED BY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE.
SUCH SEPARATION SHALL BE AFFECTED IN SUCH A MANNER.
SO AS NOT TO IMPAIR CONFORMITY WITH ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AND ALL YARDS AND OTHER REQUIRED SPACES IN CONNECTION THEREWITH.
AND FOR ME AND MY PURPOSES, UM, OR IN MY MIND, A LOT OF THEM DO RELATE TO WHY THE RECOMMENDATIONS OR HOW RECOMMENDATIONS CAME ABOUT OR HOW SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT PEOPLE ARE CONCERNED WITH.
SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO READ.
SO LET ME JUST, I MEAN, I CAN GO THROUGH, IT'S NOT TYPICAL THAT WE WOULD GO THROUGH EVERY SECTION.
USUALLY WE OPEN IT UP, YOU KNOW, WE CAN GO AROUND THE TABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, UM, REQUESTED LANGUAGE MODIFICATIONS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS, ET CETERA.
I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER USE OF OUR TIME.
THE, THE IMPACT ON COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
WHAT PAGE? IN WHAT SECTION? UH, PAGE THREE.
OKAY, I'M JUST GONNA TAKE THIS.
SO WE'VE HEARD RIGHT FROM PUBLIC THAT THEY BELIEVE IT WILL HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHO WROTE THIS AND WHY THEY'RE THINKING THAT IT DOESN'T, CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN HOW IT CAME TO BE? THE PLANNING BOARD HAS RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC RAISING CONCERNS ABOUT BUILDING A NEW ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON AN UNDERSIZED LOT FACT.
THE PLANNING BOARD RECOGNIZES THESE CONCERNS AND OBSERVES THAT MANY OF THE SURROUNDING LOTS SHOWN ON THE DIAGRAM PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE SIMILARLY SIZED TO THE PROPOSED LOTS.
THE PROPOSED AREA OF WORK IS SITUATED WITHIN A WELL-ESTABLISHED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PROPOSED ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS ACROSS KEMPSTER ROAD FROM A SMALL PARK SITUATED BETWEEN KEMPSTER ROAD AND ARDSLEY ROAD.
THE FRONTAGE OF THE PARK ON KEMPSTER ROAD IS ENTIRELY SCREENED EXCEPT FOR THE ENTRANCE, WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET FROM AN EXISTING RESIDENCE.
NO IMPACT ON THE PARK DUE TO THE PROPOSED WORK IS ANTICIPATED AS NEW LANDSCAPING IS PROPOSED.
AND A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS PROPOSED TO HANDLE RUNOFF FROM NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACES IN CONFORMANCE WITH TOWN CODE REQUIREMENTS.
SO IF THERE'S ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT TO ADD, EDIT OR DELETE, YOU MAY.
SO THE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY IS ADDING A DRIVEWAY ACROSS FROM THE PARK IS ONE OF THEIR CONCERNS FROM WHAT I REMEMBER.
SO THE DRIVEWAY WILL NOT BE DIRECTLY OPPOSITE THE PARK.
WHERE'S THE PARK? SORRY? PARK IS, UH, ACROSS KEMPSTER ROAD, WHICH IS TO THE RIGHT HAND.
UM, I THINK IT IS IMPORTANT TO REMEMBER THAT WHEN CONSIDERING SEEKER, UH, THE QUESTION IS NOT IF IT WILL HAVE ANY IMPACT.
UH, THE QUESTION IS IF IT WILL HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT.
UM, BECAUSE OF COURSE THERE WILL BE AN IMPACT TO BUILDING A HOME ON A VACANT PIECE OF LAND.
THE QUESTION IS, IS THAT IMPACT
[00:50:01]
OF A NEW RESIDENTIAL HOME IN A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT? WELL, AND THE, THE FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY SEEMS TO INDICATE THAT IT IS, RIGHT? WELL, I WANTED TO TAKE THE ROAD OUTTA THERE.I WANTED THAT COMMENT ELIMINATED BY PUTTING AN ENTERING FROM ANOTHER PLACE THAT'S ALREADY CREATED.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT IT IS SELF-CREATED.
THE, THE, THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS SELF-CREATING THIS, THIS TRAGEDY.
TRAGEDY BECAUSE THEY DON'T WANT TO ADMIT THAT THERE'S ANOTHER WAY OF ENTERING THAT LOT THAT ELIMINATES THAT CURVE AND ELIMINATES ANY OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU WILL MAKE WITH RESPECT TO THE ACCESS.
I THINK ALSO IF WE SAY THAT THE COMMUNITY SAYS THAT IT HAS A NEGATIVE IMPACT, WHAT, WHETHER THE FACTS BEHIND IT IS WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT AS A PLANNING BOARD.
IT CAN'T BE, UM, I MEAN THERE ARE AESTHETIC REASONS, BUT IT HAS TO, THERE HAS TO BE SOMETHING BACKING IT UP FOR US TO LOOK AT AND CONSIDER THAT AND, AND SPEAKING.
SPEAKING TO MATT'S POINT ABOUT SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, A SUGGESTION MAY BE THAT THE FINAL STATEMENT WHICH, UH, COULD BE MODIFIED TO STATE THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR THE CHARACTER QUALITY OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
SO IT MIGHT ALSO BE WITH THAT FIRST, THE ISSUE MIGHT BE WITH THAT FIRST SENTENCE, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY OF THE PUBLIC RAISING CONCERNS.
SO IS THAT PART OF THE STANDARD THAT WE NEED TO BE CONSIDERING HERE FOR? WHAT'S THE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER IS THE OPINION OF THE NEIGHBORS? PART OF THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO GO BACK TO KIND OF WHAT YOU HAD BROUGHT BEFORE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE NEED TO LOOK AT WHAT COMMENTS ARE MADE BY THE COMMUNITY AND EVALUATE, UM, THE MERITS OF EACH OF THEM, UM, AND SEE WHAT CHANGES ARE MADE TO THE PLANS BASED UPON THOSE COMMENTS.
SEE WHAT EXPERTS OPINE UPON, UM, LIKE I'D SPOKE BEFORE ABOUT ENGINEERING OR, OR TRAFFIC OR, OR PLANNING.
UM, AND KIND OF EVALUATE ALL OF THOSE AND MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER IT IS IT IS COMMUNITY OPPOSITION THAT HAS BEEN ADDRESSED OR IS OUTSTANDING OR, UM, YOU KNOW, PARTIALLY ADDRESSED.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL NEED TO CONSIDER.
AS AS I REMEMBER IT THOUGH, RIGHT? ONE OF THE CONCERNS WAS IT'S NEAR A PARK, YOU'RE ADDING A DRIVEWAY IN AN AREA NEAR THE PARK MM-HMM
RIGHT? SEEMS, DO YOU FEEL THAT THAT RISES TO A SIGNIFICANT I ADVERSE, I KNOW I DON'T LIVE THERE.
THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING IT'S, IT'S LIKE, IT'S THE COMMUNITY, RIGHT? WHO'S GOT THAT FEEDBACK THAT THEY THINK IT REPRESENTS ANGEL.
BUT THIS IS NOT A PLANNING ISSUE.
THIS IS A POLITICAL ISSUE AT THE END.
WAIT, IT'S, WELL WAIT A SECOND.
SO I THINK THAT THIS MAP IS, IS TOUGH THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT BECAUSE, SO IT'S, THAT'S THAT INTERSECTION IS COT COTTO WAY, KEMPSTER ROAD, BUT THEN YOU'RE NOT SEEING ARDSLEY ROAD OR OLD ARMY ROAD.
THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE THIS INTERSECTION IS, RIGHT? IT'S BEING BUILT.
IT'S LIKE A FIVE, IT'S, IT'S LIKE, IT'S IT'S OLD ARMY ROAD FOR ARDSLEY, KEMPSTER AND COWELL.
LET'S SEE IF I CAN PAN TO, I WAS GONNA SAY, MATT, CAN, CAN I PULL UP A GOOGLE IMAGE? THAT'S A REALLY, THAT'S A MAJOR INTERSECTION FOR THE AREA, RIGHT? SO MAYBE WE HAVE THE DRIVEWAY IN THE BACK PROBLEM ELIMINATED.
I KEEP GOING TO THAT BECAUSE THAT'S THE ANSWER, RIGHT? I MEAN, SO DO YOU DON'T NEED, UM, MY QUESTION IS NOT MEANING TO ELICIT DEFENSIVENESS.
I JUST WANT TO BE AWARE, LIKE IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE ASSESSING THE IMPACT AND THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SEE EXACTLY WHERE IT IS, RIGHT? SO, AND I THINK THAT WE CAN ALL ORIENT, ORIENT OURSELVES A LITTLE BETTER IF WE THINK ABOUT ALL OF THOSE STREETS RIGHT THERE GOING IN CIRCLE.
SO ARLEY ROAD COMING UP FROM, UM, SCARSDALE, THIS IS THE FIVE WAY INTERSECTION RIGHT HERE WITH THE, WITH THE TRAFFIC LIGHT.
SO IT'S SLIGHTLY OFFSET FROM THERE.
BUT IT IS BECAUSE THE PARK IS, I KNOW WHERE IT'S, THE PARK IS PROXIMATE TO THE INTERSECTION AND IT'S ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE PARK, BUT IT'S IN PROXIMITY TO THE INTERSECTION.
SO THE PARK IS THE PARK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, IS THAT THE PARK? THIS WEDGE? THAT WEDGE, YES.
WHERE THERE'S LIKE THAT BIG SIGN THAT SAYS WELCOME TO THE COTS WALLS.
IS THAT RIGHT THERE OR IS THAT ON THE OTHER? THAT'S NEAR IT.
THE PARK IS FROM ARDSLEY ROAD.
IN FACT, MATT, THAT BETTER? WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO, IF I STOP THE SHARE SCREEN, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT FOR US? OTHERWISE I CAN TRY.
[00:55:06]
SO THAT YOU'RE STANDING IN THE INTERSECTION, CORRECT? YEAH, THIS IS THAT FIVE WAY INTERSECTION.COTSWOLD WAY IS ONE OF THE ROADS OFF THE INTERSECTION.
AND THIS IS THE LOT, UH, IN QUESTION.
AND THE PARK IS TO YOUR RIGHT? YEAH.
CAN YOU ZOOM TO WHERE THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION WOULD BE PROPOSED? DRIVEWAY LOCATION, APPROXIMATELY? I I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE ROUGHLY AROUND HERE.
THE YOU HAD IT BEFORE YOU GO COWELL.
YEAH, RIGHT THERE THAT YOU HAVE IT RIGHT? THAT'S THE ENTRANCE.
AND IT WAS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT DIDN'T LIKE THE DRIVEWAY IN THE BACK? NO, THE THE BACK.
THEY COMMENTED THAT FROM A, FROM A, UM, EMERGENCY RESPONSE PERSPECTIVE FOR FIRE SAFETY.
WITH THE CURRENT CURRENT DRIVEWAY HAVING FOUR HOUSES ADDRESSED ON THE SAME DUE TO ITS NARROW WIDTH.
AND, AND THEY HAD NO, UM, OPPOSITION TO THE DRIVEWAY OFF OF, THAT'S ONE MAN'S OPINION.
AND THAT IS NOT GOING TO BE, THE FIRE WILL NOT BE FOUGHT THROUGH THAT DRIVEWAY.
NOBODY FIGHTS A FIRE THROUGH A NARROW OR ANYBODY'S DRIVEWAY.
THEY STAND IN THE STREET WITHIN 150 FEET AND WE ARE TOTALLY WITHIN LESS THAN 150 FEET IN FRONT OF TWO ROADS WITH A HYDRANT RIGHT IN THE CORNER.
I THINK THIS WAS AN ISSUE THAT YOU WERE GONNA BRING UP WITH THE ZONING BOARD.
UM, AND AS WE CONSIDER THE, UH, VIEWPOINT OF THE FIVE WAY WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT WHAT THE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING CONCRETE IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT TO THE COMMUNITY AS WE LOOKED AT, AS WE LOOK AT NUMBER THREE.
UM, AND I, AND I'M JUST GONNA SAY THIS AS A RESIDENT AND THEN A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD, THERE'S A BALANCE BETWEEN RESPONSIBILITIES AS A PLANNING BOARD MEMBER LOOKING AT, UM, WHAT IMPACTS ARE CONCRETELY WHAT THE MERITS ARE, AND THEN PERSONAL FEELINGS ABOUT CERTAIN THINGS.
SO WE ALL HAVE TO KEEP THAT IN MIND WHEN WE, IT'S SO WHEN WE, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT, THERE'S THE COMMUNITY THAT WRITES US LETTERS AND THEY LET US KNOW, LISTEN, WE'RE WE'RE IN FAVOR OF THIS.
AND AS, UM, SHE STATED AS AMANDA STATED, THERE'S MERITS TO THAT.
AND THEN THERE'S ALSO, WE'RE OPPOSED TO IT BECAUSE WE DON'T FEEL LIKE IT, THIS IS A GOOD LOOK FOR OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND SO WHEN WE'RE SITTING HERE AT THIS DESK, AND THIS IS WHAT I WAS TOLD, WE HAVE TO LOOK AT, WE CAN, WE PUT FORTH AS A MERIT.
WE ALSO DO RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH A LOT OF TI SOMETIMES OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE NOT, YOU HAVE TO, BUT WE FEEL LIKE THIS WOULD MAKE THE PROJECT MUCH MORE PALATABLE TO THE COMMUNITY.
SO THERE'S ALSO THAT OPTION TOO, TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, THE, SO JUST LOOKING AT THE STREET VIEW THOUGH, NOW THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW, IT'S FAIRLY WOODED, RIGHT? SO THE, THE THE WAY, SO, AND YOU'RE REMOVING 25 MATURE TREES, REPLACING THEM WITH 16.
ARE ANY OF THE TREES THAT ARE BEING REMOVED, ARE THEY ANY OF THEM INVASIVE OR, UH, THERE, I BELIEVE THERE IS A LIST.
I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK, I MAYBE IN THE MASTER FILE IS THE QUESTION.
IF THERE'S ANY LOTS THAT ARE VACANT.
I, THAT WAS SORT OF SIDE, ARE ANY OF THE TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL INVASIVE? ARE ANY, UM, NOT MATURE SMALLER SIZED DIAMETER TREES? THERE'S A FEW THAT ARE INVASIVE, YES.
OUTTA THE 26 THAT WE'RE CUTTING.
YEAH, THERE ARE SOME INVASIVE NORWAY MAPLES.
UM, AND THEN ARE THERE IS THE PLANNED, I, I'M SORRY, I'VE GOT, I SHOULD PROBABLY ASK IN THE FUTURE TO HAVE IT PRINTED OUT FOR ME BECAUSE I'M LIKE LOOKING AT IT ON MY SCREEN, BUT, UM, WHERE THE NEW TREES ARE GONNA BE, ARE THEY GOING TO BE AROUND THAT PERIMETER THERE? 'CAUSE THAT WOULD, SO LET ME SHARE THAT, UM, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN THEN WE'LL LET MR. ESDA SPEAK.
WELL THAT I'M SORT OF, IS THAT GOING TO IMPACT THE COMMUNITY CHA CHARACTER BY REMOVING THOSE TREES AND MAKING IT? WELL, AS I SAID, WE WOULD BE OPEN TO ANY SUGGESTION OF PLANTINGS AS THE BOARD FEELS IS NEEDED OR THE COMMUNITY NEEDS TO, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A WONDERFUL, UH, CHOICE OF, OF THOUGHTS IF WE WERE GET TO THAT POINT.
UH, AS A DEVELOPER, YES, WE WOULD PLANT THEM NOT ONLY FOR OUR PRIVACY, BUT FOR THE BEAUTIFICATION OF THE CORNER, WHICH WE ARE CUTTING QUITE A FEW TREES IN ORDER TO BUILD.
[01:00:01]
THAT'S, THAT'S THE EASY ANSWER.WE WILL PLANT AS MANY AND AS MANY TYPES AS YOU WANT TO VE VERIFY THAT CORNER.
ACTUALLY, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE LANGUAGE AND THE, NOW THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT, UM, WHEN WE SAY THAT THE FRONTAGE OF THE PARK OF KEMPSTER ROAD IS ENTIRELY SCREENED, DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS PROPOSED ON THE LOT, SCREEN IT FROM VIEW OF THE PARK, OR DOES IT MEAN SOMETHING ELSE? YEAH, IT'S NOT QUITE CLEAR TO ME.
I'M LOOKING IN THIS GOOGLE MAP AND I DON'T SEE THE SCREEN.
MATT, ANY FEEDBACK THERE? CAN YOU SHOW US THE SCREEN ON, ON GOOGLE? UM, I, MY, UH, THOUGHT WAS THAT THE PARK, UH, HAS, THE PARK ITSELF IS SCREENED FROM THE ROAD BY PLANTING THINGS ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE PARK.
I CAN RESHARE THE STREET VIEW.
SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT, YEAH, I WAS LOOKING AT COULD YOU PLEASE OVER THERE.
SO THIS IS THE VIEW OF THE INTERSECTION OF
AND AS YOU CAN SEE, CAN YOU, YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE INTO THE PARK FROM THE STREET.
CAN YOU PAN, CAN YOU PAN UP A LITTLE BIT? JUST BECAUSE I GET THE SENSE THAT THERE'S A MIXTURE OF DECIDUOUS, YOU KNOW, IT WAS ALL DECIDUOUS TREES.
YOU'RE TALKING SIX MONTHS WITHOUT LEAF SCREENING.
BUT THERE ARE SOME EVERGREENS AND THE APPLICANT HAS STATED ON THE RECORD NOW THAT THEY'RE AGREEABLE TO, YOU KNOW, I MEAN THESE TREES WITHIN THE PARK ARE UNDER A DIFFERENT JURISDICTION THAN THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.
AND SHOULD THE APPLICANT HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO SUPPLEMENT WHATEVER TREES THEY'RE PROPOSING TO PRESERVE, TO ENHANCE OR PROVIDE SCREENING FROM THE HOME THAT THEY'RE SEEKING TO BUILD AND THE PLANET? IT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
AND I THINK THE APPLICANT WOULD ABSOLUTELY.
ALSO, THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT MORE DRIVEWAYS, UH, BECAUSE YOU WERE QUESTIONING THE DRIVEWAY NEAR THE PARK.
WELL LOOK RIGHT THERE, THERE, THERE ARE DRIVEWAYS RIGHT ACROSS THE PARK.
SO THAT ISSUE IS REALLY SOMEHOW MANAGED BY THE COMMUNITY.
YEAH, I, I DON'T, I DON'T LIKE THE LANGUAGE WHERE IT SAYS IT'S ENTIRELY SCREENED TO ME, SCREEN IMPLIES, YOU KNOW, FENCING.
SO LET'S GO TO, IS NOT NECESSARILY FENCING.
NOW YOU CAN HAVE NATURAL SCREENING.
IT'S JUST WHEN I READ IT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR IS FENCES.
SO MAYBE ADD THE WORD NATURAL SCREEN ENTIRELY.
AND WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE IN WINTER.
IN WINTER, WE COULD TAKE OUT ENTIRELY AND SAY SCREENED WITH A MIX OF DECIDUOUS AND CONIFEROUS SPECIES THAT SEEMS MORE ACCURATE AND FRONTING ALONG KESTER ROAD.
I MEAN, THE POINT OF THAT SENTENCE IS TO SAY IF YOU'RE IN THE PARK, YOU WON'T BE UPSET 'CAUSE YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO SEE THE NEW HOME.
IS THAT WHY WE, WHY IT'S BEEN WRITTEN? THAT'S PART OF THE PARKING BUILDING? YES.
WHEN IT'S NOT JUST THE PARK THOUGH.
BUT IF IT'S, SO THE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER, IT'S ALSO IF THE OTHER HOUSES IN THE AREA HAVE THE SIMILARLY SIMILAR GOT AREA SIMILAR WHAT, LIKE, GOT COVERAGE AREA? SO THE, THE VARIANCES ARE THE, SO THE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE OTHER GOTS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALREADY? THEY'RE SIMILARLY SIZED.
AND, UM, IF, IF AMELIA COULD SPEAK TO THE, UM, LIKE I SAID IN MY PRESENTATION, THERE ARE PLENTY OF EXISTING HOMES THAT ARE ACTUALLY NONCOMPLIANT AT ALL THERE.
AND, AND AFTER THE NEW ZONING HAS BEEN APPLIED, IF YOU WERE TO STUDY EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT, YOU WOULD SEE THAT THERE'S TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PAVEMENT.
THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF PATIOS.
THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF ADDITIONS.
SO IF YOU WERE TO JUDGE SOME OF THESE APPLICANTS, OR I IMAGINE THOSE NEIGHBORS WITH RESPECT TO THE FAR COVERAGE AND NOT THE FAR, THE, UH, IMPERMEABLE COVERAGE, YOU WOULD VERY MUCH HAVE MORE THAN 29% OF COVERAGE.
SO WE ARE UNDER THE, THE, THE HOURGLASS HERE AND THE EE EVERYONE'S GOING TO BE COUNTING EVERY SQUARE FOOT THAT WE, IF WE GET LUCKY ENOUGH TO SUBMIT TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, EVERYBODY WOULD BE LOOKING TO MAXIMIZE THE, TO THE 20, 29% THE EXISTING HOUSES.
I GUARANTEE YOU THAT MORE THAN HALF ARE IN VIOLATION OF THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE SMALLER LOTS AND THEY'RE REGULAR NORMAL HOUSES WITH A REGULAR NORMAL PATIO AND AN OVERSIZED DOUBLE PAVEMENT FOR THE TWO CARS OR THE THREE CARS THAT
[01:05:01]
THEY OWN.I WANTED TO JUST GET BACK TO THE WORDING FOR THE IMPACT ON COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
DID YOU COME UP WITH A WORDING THAT YOU LIKE, THAT YOU LIKE? WELL, I, OKAY.
UM, I WAS JUST HOPING
I CAN PROVIDE THAT LIST FOR YOU IF YOU WANT TO FOR THE NEXT MEETING, COMPLETE THE WORDING FOR THE SCREEN AND THEN SO THAT WE HAVE THAT DOWN.
SO I THOUGHT AARON HAD SPOKE TO THAT.
YEAH, SO I HAVE THE PROPOSED ONE.
THE FRONTAGE OF THE PARK ON KEMPSTER ROAD IS SCREENED WITH DECIDUOUS AND CONIFEROUS TREES, EXCEPT FOR THE ENTRANCE WOULD CONTINUE.
AND THEN I ALSO HAVE IN THE LAST SENTENCE, NOT ANTICIPATED TO SIGNIFICANTLY IMPAIR.
UM, AND THEN ALSO, SHOULD WE MAKE A CHANGE TO REFLECT, UM, THE, THE, SO NO IMPACT ON THE PARK DUE TO THE PROPOSED WORK, DUE TO THE PROPOSED WORK IS ANTICIPATED AS NEW LAND LANDSCAPING IS PROPOSED.
AND SO THE NEW LANDSCAPING, SHOULD WE ADD A LITTLE BIT MORE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WAS DISCUSSED HERE? THAT THEY'LL ADD WHATEVER YEAH, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO, UH, WORK WITH COMMENTS TO PROVIDE SCREENING AND PLACEMENT OF LANDSCAPING OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE.
YEAH, MAYBE THAT SHOULD BE A MODIFIED, CAN YOU STATE THAT ONE MORE TIME BASED OFF THE DOCUMENT WAY YOU PHRASE IT
SO, SO THAT WE CAN ACCURATELY CAPTURE.
UM, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO, UH, PLACE OR LOCATE LANDSCAPING TO PROVIDE, UM, SCREENING AND ADDRESS, UH, COMMENTS.
I CAN'T REMEMBER WHATEVER SAID THAT REWIND VIDEO.
I'M SORRY TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING.
PLACE LANDSCAPING TO PROVIDE SCREENING FROM THE SUBJECT LOT SCREENING, BEAUTIFICATION, YOU KNOW, BEAUTIFICATION TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
BECAUSE THAT REALLY IS SORT OF THE ENTRANCE TO THE COTSWOLDS, RIGHT? WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING THIS MM-HMM
THIS IS LIKE, THIS IS A PROMINENT PIECE OF LAND IN THE COTSWOLD AREA.
SO IT'S, IT'S MORE, IT'S A MORE IMPORTANT LOT THAN SOME OF THE OTHERS.
WELL, I THINK FOR THAT REASON, JUST BECAUSE IT'S THE ENTRANCE YOU'RE GOING IN AND LIKE THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER, IT IS A PLACE THAT IT REALLY NEEDS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY.
DO YOU, YOU WANTED TO GO ON TO FAR REGARDING WHICH PART OF, UM, SO I THINK JUST AS FAR AS COMMUNITY CHARACTER WAS, NOT ONLY JUST THE SIZE OF THE LOTS AND, AND THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT ALSO THE BUILD OUT OF THOSE LOTS.
I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE HAD, YEAH.
OH, YOU KNOW WHAT I, AND I KEEP FORGETTING IN THAT AREA, THERE'S SO MANY, UH, RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IN THE DEEDS.
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT YOU'RE DOING THAT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IN THE, THE DEEDS FOR THE, JUST NOT TELLING MY EX-WIFE WHERE I AM.
THAT'S THE ONLY RESTRICTION I HAVE.
SO ARE, CAN YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION IN THIS WAY? ARE THERE ANY RESTRICTIVE PLANS? NOT THAT I KNOW OF, NO.
UM, WITH RESPECT TO FAR, ARE YOU SEEKING VARIANCES FOR FAR AND IF SO, WHAT ARE THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE FAR VARIANCE THAT IS NOT GOING TO EXIST BECAUSE WHAT THIS HOUSE COMPLIES WITH THE MAXIMUM FAR THAT I'M ALLOWED.
SO THAT WAS AN ERROR WHEN, WHEN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED IT, EITHER I PUT THE WRONG NUMBER OR THEY READ THE WRONG NUMBER.
BUT THAT IS NOT THE NUMBER OF THE FAR THAT WE ARE PROPOSING.
WE ARE COMPLYING WITH THE FAR.
SO FOR THE VACANT LOT, THE MAXIMUM PERMISSIBLE FAR IS 2,500.
CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT THAT HOUSE IS.
THAT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO KNOW.
YES, BECAUSE THE PLANNING BOARD'S GONNA BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION BASED OFF WHAT IT SEES.
AND IT SHOULD BE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN CERTAINLY EXPLAIN THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REPRESENTED THAT THEY HAVE EITHER MODIFIED THE HOUSE DESIGN OR REVISED THE PLANS IN ORDER TO NOT EXCEED THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA OF 25 90.
PURSUANT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
LET, LET ME SAY THIS, AARON, BECAUSE IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND ANYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING IN THE PROPOSED LOT IS, UH, COMPLIES WITH THE ZONE.
THE ONLY THING THAT WE CAN CONTROL IS THE GEOMETRY
[01:10:01]
AND THE OVERALL AREA OF THE LOT.SO THOSE, UH, AND THE, THE SETBACKS OF THE EXISTING HOME TO THE EXISTING GEOMETRY OF THEIR, OF THEIR PROPERTY LINES.
SO WE ARE NOT CREATING OR ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO BUILD THE NEW HOUSE.
WE COMPLY, THE HOUSE WILL COMPLY WITH SETBACKS, WITH COVERAGES, WITH, UH, IMPERMEABLE SURFACES.
THE ONLY VARIANCES THAT ARE, UH, REQUIRED ARE THE ONES TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING GEOMETRIC CONDITIONS OF THE TWO PREEXISTING LOTS.
WE, AGAIN, THESE LOTS PRE-EXISTED BETWEEN BEFORE 1927.
SO IN ORDER TO LEGALIZE IT AS PER THE CURRENT ZONING, WE NEED TO LEGALIZE THOSE NUMBERS, WHICH REALLY PRY IN TERMS OF MINIMUM WIDTH.
IT'S THREE, FOUR, 5% AND MINIMUM AREAS.
AGAIN, IN OUR PRESENTATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, I WILL BRING ALL THOSE STATISTICS AND I WILL SHOW THE PERCENTAGES THAT THESE VARIANCES CALL FOR.
'CAUSE AS ONE OF YOUR MEMBERS ALREADY ASKED, HOW ARE THEY ABLE TO JUDGE WHAT IS THE CRITERIA THAT THEY USE? AND THAT'S A PROPER QUESTION.
UM, I'VE BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT FOR 20 YEARS.
BUT THEY HAVE THEIR WAY OF EITHER BY EXPERIENCE OR BY COMPARISON TO OTHER JOBS AND OTHER APPROVED, UH, UH, PROJECTS.
THEY, THEY CAN, THEY WILL DEDUCT WHETHER THIS IS A, A VERY A, A A A SUBJECT, UH, UH, TO BE REWARDED WITH A VARIANCE OR SOMETHING THAT IS WAY BEYOND, UM, WHAT THEY SHOULD CONSIDER.
I THINK FROM MY EXPERIENCE THAT, UH, THAT THESE VARIANCES ARE QUITE MODEST AND I THINK I TRUST THAT THE BOARD WILL ALSO INTERPRET IT THAT WAY.
BUILDING INSPECTOR CONFIRMED IN A MEMO THAT THIS VARIANCE IS NO LONGER NECESSARY MOVING FORWARD.
AND A NEW PAGE WITH BOTH NUMBERS.
SO TO ANSWER MS. MAGNA'S QUESTION, I HAVE NOT SEEN A MEMO FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
SO THE PLANNING BOARD SHOULD BE ISSUING A RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO, AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SAYING OH NO, IT'S COMPLIANT IN ALL OTHER RESPECTS, BUT THE DOCUMENT WE'RE LOOKING AT FROM MARCH 11TH, UH, DOES HAVE AN FAR, UH, MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE.
SO THEREFORE STAFF WOULD ADVISE THE PLANNING BOARD TO RECOMMEND RELATED TO THAT, PERHAPS WITH A NOTE STATING THAT THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE THIS EVENING REPRESENTED THAT, UM, THEY WILL NOT BE SEEKING THE FLOOR AREA RATIO VARIANCE BASED ON A REVISION TO THE PLANS.
SO WE VOTE, WAIT, SO WE VOTE EITHER POSITIVE, NEUTRAL OR, OR NEGATIVE, BUT IT'S, IT'S BEING CONCEITED THAT IT WOULD BE NEGATIVE ESSENTIALLY.
AND SO IT'S BEING NO, I I IT'S NOT, YEAH, JUST THAT IT'S BEING ELIMINATED BY THIS.
IT'S BE ELIMINATED FOR CLARITY.
YOU SAID RECOMMEND THAT'S THE, THAT THE, THAT WE MENTIONED IN OUR, UM, THAT A CORRECTION HAS TO MAKE DETERMINATION THAT A CORRECTION HAS TO BE MADE.
THAT THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTED THAT THIS VARIANCE WILL BE ELIMINATED AT THE TIME.
THEY HAVE NOT EVEN APPLIED TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS YET.
SO THIS, SO THAT WAS THE THIRD.
THIS CORRECTION WILL COME WHEN? TOMORROW IT WILL COME WHEN YOU GET IT.
WELL, IN MY OPINION, IT WILL COME WHEN THEY APPLY TO THE ZONING BOARD.
SO, AND, AND THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION IS GONNA BE PACKAGED WITH THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
AND WE WILL ALSO ASK THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AND IF NECESSARY, UPDATE THE DENIAL LETTER.
BUT I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S MANDATORY.
THIS IS THE DENIAL LETTER OR VARIANCE DETERMINATION MEMO ISSUED ON THE INFORMATION THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OFFICE HAD.
I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE APPLICANT TO MEET WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR IF THEY REVISED THE PLAN TO BRING THE FAR INTO COMPLIANCE.
BUT YOU KNOW, ONLY BECAUSE IT'S GONNA MAKE THINGS EASIER AS THEY MOVE FORWARD WITH THE SECRETARY OF THE ZONING BOARD AND GETTING ON AND NOTICING THE PROJECT.
'CAUSE YOU HAVE TO NOTICE FOR ALL THE VARIANCES BEING SOUGHT.
SO I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE.
NOT ONLY THAT, BUT I THINK IT GOES TO THE POINT OF COMMUNITY CHARACTER IF IT'S COMPLIANCE PERCENT OR, OR CLOSE IN, IN NATURE TO OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY.
UM, SO THE CCCA WOULD'VE TO BE UPDATED 'CAUSE THAT HAS A A R IS THAT WHAT YOU GUYS WERE SAYING? IT'S NOT JUST IN THE, SO WHAT I WOULD DO, AND WE'RE KIND OF BOUNCING BACK AND FORTH AND I PREFER TO STICK TO THE SECRET DETERMINATION 'CAUSE THAT'S THE FIRST, BUT THE ONLY, UM, WHAT I WOULD MODIFY IN
[01:15:01]
TERMS OF LANGUAGE IN THE DRAFT SECRET DETERMINATION IS THAT, UM, WE HAVE THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ACTION, WHICH LISTS THE FAR VARIANCE, I THINK, UM, ON PAGE TWO, RIGHT.WE CAN MAKE A MODIFICATION ON PAGE TWO TO REFLECT THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT AT THE MAY 7TH WORK SESSION, UM, REPRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD THAT IT WOULD NO LONGER BE SEEKING THIS VARIANCE AND WOULD BE PROVIDING AN FAR COMPLIANT HOME ON LOT TWO.
JUST SO THAT SINCE NEW MEMBERS ON THE BOARD, WHEN YOU HEAR F-A-R-F-A-R IS NOT A MULTIPLICATION OF THE AREA OF THE LOT, IT'S REALLY THE NET AREA AFTER YOU DO THE REDUCTIONS OF THE STEEPNESS OF THE, OF THE LAND.
SO WHEN YOU ARE APPLYING FOR AN FAR NEW HOUSE, YOU HAVE TO DEDUCT THE PENALTIES FOR THE 35%, 25%, ET CETERA.
SO IN ESSENCE, IF THIS WAS A FLAT LOT, I COULD BUILD PROBABLY 5,500.
SO IT'S, IT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY.
IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S A GRADUAL CONSIDERATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SMALLER HOUSE IF YOU'RE BUILDING IN A MORE PRECIPITOUS TYPE OF TERRAIN.
SO YOU NEED TO REDUCE FOR CERTAIN FEATURES ON THE LOT.
GONNA GO ONE BY ONE OR I CAN JUMP.
WE, YOU NEED, WE'RE NOT, YOU CAN JUMP GO ON THEN
IT WOULD BE MORE BEAUTIFUL THAN ALL THE HOUSES THERE.
THAT'S YOUR OPINION,
SO IS THAT THE RENDERING OF IT RIGHT THERE? IT'S RIGHT HERE.
UH, I I THINK ON THE OTHER SIDE IS THAT, SO IN THE COTSWOLDS ARE MOSTLY THAT, THAT IS BEAUTIFUL THAT IT'S ALSO, UM, I'LL CHANGE IT TO STUCCO
IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT? NO TO NO, I'M NOT SAYING ANYTHING.
IT'S, UM, BUT THE, THE SWELLS, UM, ARE MORE LIKE TUTOR OR I'LL BRING YOU A DESIGN THAT YOU WILL LOVE.
I WELL I IS THAT A HISTORIC DISTRICT? NO, IT, IT'S NOT.
BUT I BROUGHT THIS TO SHOW HOW THE GARAGE WOULD FIT WITH RESPECT TO THE, THE FIRST FLOOR.
IT'S, YEAH, IT IS PREDOMINANTLY TUTORS.
IT IS NOT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT.
SO THERE'S NO ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS.
HOWEVER, WITH RESPECT TO COMMUNITY CHARACTER, AND I KNOW THIS HAS COME UP IN THE PAST WHERE, UM, IN AREAS THAT HAVE A CERTAIN ARCHITECTURAL STYLE, PREDOMINANTLY, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS NOT ONLY ASKED TO SEE RENDERINGS, BUT UH, IF THE PROJECT ADVANCED TO APPOINT, UH, TO AN APPROVAL AND ULTIMATELY A BUILDING PERMIT THAT PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE, THAT THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A FINAL REVIEW OF THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEVATIONS TO CONFIRM CONSISTENCY WITH THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY.
IS THAT LIKE WITH CERTAIN COMMUNITIES OR JUST ALL OF THE COMMUNITIES IN GREENBERG? THAT COULD BE WITH ANYTHING.
AND THAT'S JUST TO CONFIRM THAT THERE'S NO POTENTIAL IMPACT WITH ANY CHANGES TO THE PLANS.
I'VE SEEN IT IN EAST IRVINGTON.
UM, I KNOW THAT THERE WERE SOME VICTORIANS UP THERE AND THE PLANNING BOARD WANTED TO SEE, NOT NECESSARILY THAT IT BE A VICTORIAN STYLE HOME, BUT THAT IT AT LEAST DIDN'T CLASH WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE HOMES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE DON'T THE HISTORIC ONE AS WELL.
UM, THERE WAS ANOTHER ONE ON OLD ARMY ROAD THAT HAD TO COME BACK, UH, THAT WAS MORE RECENT, I'D SAY WITHIN THE LAST FIVE YEARS OR SO.
SO, SO WHERE IT SAYS THAT WON'T HAVE AN IMPACT ON AESTHETIC RESOURCES, IT'S PROBABLY SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT, HOWEVER YOU'D LIKE TO MASSAGE IT.
ALL OF THEM SHOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT WORD INTO IT.
I MEAN THIS PROPOSED DESIGN IS JUST A, YOU KNOW, A, UH, THEY'RE NOTIONAL.
YEAH, BUT THEY KNOW HOW YOU SAY THIS, RIGHT? THE, I MEAN THERE IS NO, IF, IF THIS WENT THROUGH, ULTIMATELY THE BUYER OF THE HOUSE, THE BUYER OF THE LAND IS GOING TO BUILD THE HOUSE.
SO THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY THE HOUSE.
SO NOTHING IS, IS SET IN HERE OTHER THAN THERE'S GONNA BE A HOUSE THERE.
AND MERELY TO ME MERELY HAVING A HOUSE THAT THE WHOLE DESIGN FEATURE YOU SAID IS GONNA COME UP WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY SUBMIT PLANS AND IT COMES BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND AS AARON SAID, IF TUTOR OR SOMETHING IS MORE PALATABLE TO THE COMMUNITY, THEN YOU KNOW, THEN THAT'S WHAT THEY MAY BUILD.
BUT THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO DESIGN THAT'S REALLY PART OF THIS PLAN RIGHT NOW.
I ONLY DID THIS SO THAT YOU COULD SEE THE GARAGE IS LOWER THAN THE FIRST FLOOR.
'CAUSE THAT'S THE WAY THAT IT'S PORTRAYED
[01:20:01]
IN TOPOGRAPHY.THAT'S THE WAY THE GARAGE, THAT'S HOW, OKAY.
AND THERE'S A LIMITED DISTURBANCE THAT WOULD BE APPROVED WITH A SUBDIVISION, YOU KNOW, A LIMITED DISTURBANCE.
I LOOK AT IT IS THERE, YOU'RE BUILDING A HOUSE.
THERE IS NOT GONNA, YOU KNOW, JUST CHANGE THE HISTORIC, YOU KNOW, CHARACTER.
AND IF THE PLANNING BOARD SEEK, YOU KNOW, AS I MENTIONED FIVE MINUTES AGO, IF THE PLANNING BOARD IS CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR, YOU KNOW, AN EASTER EGG HOME OR SOME MODERN DESIGN HOME THAT IS OUT OF CHARACTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT HAS EVERY RIGHT TO CONDITION AS PART OF ANY APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT.
THAT THE PLANNING BOARD SEE THE FINAL RENDERINGS BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMITS EVEN SUBMITTED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
WOULD THAT BE IN THE SECRET OR IS THAT NO, THIS IS PART OF THE DECISION.
THAT'D BE PART OF THE CONDITIONS.
AND JUST SINCE I, UM, WHY NOT AT THIS POINT
UM, IF THE APPLICANT WAS RESISTANT TO THAT RIGHT.
AND SAID, NO, THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE AND THE PLANNING BOARD WASN'T CONVINCED THERE COULD, THAT COULD RISE TO THE LEVEL OF A CONDITIONED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OR REVISITING NEGATIVE OR THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION ALTOGETHER.
UM, IN TERMS OF ADVERSE IMPACT, I MEAN IF WE GO THROUGH EACH SECTION, I THINK SECTION ONE IS PRETTY DETAILED.
UM, SECTION TWO I THINK WE COULD, UM, WITH THIS IS IMPACT TO LAND.
WE COULD STATE, UH, THE LAST SENTENCE.
THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL RESULT IN A PHYSICAL CHANGE TO THE PRO PROJECT SITE.
HOWEVER, ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE LAND WILL BE MITIGATED THROUGH THE, SEE, WE DON'T LIKE TO INCLUDE ADVERSE THERE BECAUSE I FEEL, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE ANY IMPACTS WILL BE MITIGATED.
YOU KNOW, WE DON'T JUST WANNA NECESSARILY MITIGATE THE POTENTIAL ADVERSE, YOU KNOW, MODIFYING, YOU KNOW, THE INCLUSION OF LANDSCAPING AND SNOW MOTOR MANAGEMENT, I MEAN, COULD BE JUST TO THE CODE REQUIREMENT.
WE'RE ACTUALLY ASKING THEM TO GO BEYOND.
SO YOU'RE SAYING KEEP IT THE WAY IT IS.
IN THAT SECTION, UH, SECTION THREE, WE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT ADDING THE WORD SIGNIFICANTLY AND, AND THE OTHER CHANGE AND THE OTHER CHANGE SECTION FOUR, IT'S JUST NOT GOING TO AFFECT ANY CRITICAL ENVIRONMENTAL AREAS.
UM, FIVE IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION.
WE HAVE THE, UH, LANGUAGE ADVERSE SECTION SIX, NO ADVERSE, UH, IMPACT ENERGY OR SOURCES OF ENERGY IMPACT ON WATER WASTEWATER WILL NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT IMPACT ON HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL, ARCHITECTURAL OR AESTHETIC.
IF WE WANT TO, WE JUST NOTE, YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION PURSUANT TO SEEKER IS, WILL THE PROPOSED ACTION IMPAIR THE CHARACTER OR QUALITY OF IMPORTANT HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL ARCHITECTURAL OR AESTHETIC RESOURCES? SO IF THE BOARD WANTS TO EXPAND ON THAT A LITTLE BIT, UM, YOU KNOW, EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT SITE'S NOT IN A HISTORIC DISTRICT, YOU KNOW, AS DEFINED BY THE TOWN, THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, IT'S WITHIN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT CAN BE VIEWED AS ARCHITECTURALLY SIGNIFICANT.
OKAY, SO NOW I'M SORRY, I'M CONFUSED.
SO WHEN WE ARE SAYING THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT HAVE AN IMPACT ON HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL IT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WHAT'S CURRENTLY GOING ON, WHICH IS THE SUBDIVISION AND THE VARIANCES.
SO ACTUALLY WITH THIS SECTION, NORMALLY IT APPLIES TO, IT'S POINTING TO HISTORIC RESOURCES, HISTORIC HOMES, ARCHEOLOGICAL SITES, ARCHEOLOGICAL ARTIFACTS, ARCHITECTURAL, UM, POTENTIALLY ARCHITECTURAL HERE, BECAUSE YOU HAVE A CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OF COTSWOLD MM-HMM
UH, AN AESTHETIC TYPICALLY REFERS TO SCENIC VIEW SHEDS.
WHICH ARE IDENTIFIED WHEN THEY DO THE EAF MAPPER.
AND THOSE QUESTIONS POP UP AT THE END.
BUT I'M SAYING FOR THIS, AND NONE OF THOSE WERE CHECKED OFF.
SO WITH THE E I'M SORRY, JUST TO ELABORATE OR EXPAND ON WHAT AMANDA SAID.
THE EAF MAPPER IS A TOOL THAT N-Y-S-D-C UH, PROVIDES TO APPLICANTS.
THAT WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS A SENSITIVE ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE WITHIN PROXIMITY, WHEN THE APPLICANT FILLS OUT THE EAF MAPPER, IT WILL AUTOMATICALLY POPULATE THAT SECTION INDICATING AND ALERTING NOT ONLY THE APPLICANT, BUT STAFF AND THE BOARD TO THE FACT THAT THERE'S,
[01:25:01]
IT'S WITHIN PROXIMITY.AND THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT EVERYONE WANTS TO EXPLORE IN MORE DEPTH.
IN THIS INSTANCE, YOU KNOW, THAT PARTICULAR BOX WAS NOT CHECKED.
I MEAN IT'S, SORRY LESLIE, SO TO ME THEN IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT IMPACTING ANYTHING AS IDENTIFIED ON THE EF MAPPER, BUT IT COULD IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S AESTHETIC CHARACTER.
SO CAN GOES, YOU SPLIT THE BABY.
THAT GOES BACK TO I THINK COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
I THINK IT'S MORE APPROPRIATE WITHIN THAT SECTION.
NO, BECAUSE I MEAN, I COULD CHOOSE TO BUILD A WINDMILL THERE.
WHICH WOULD'VE A REALLY BIG IMPACT ON A HOUSE
AND IF ARCHITECTURALLY AS WELL, THAT'S, BUT IF YOU CHOOSE, THERE'S CERTAIN YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BACK.
SO THERE'S NO BUILD, THEY'RE NOT BUILDING ANYTHING RIGHT NOW.
WE'RE NOT APPROVING A BUILDING.
SO THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BACK TO GET THAT APPROVED RIGHT.
WHICH IS WHY I STILL DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION.
'CAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WOULD BUILD.
SO THE ACTIONS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THAT WE'RE GOING OVER RIGHT HERE TODAY, WILL THEY, HERE TODAY, WILL THEY IMPACT THAT? AND THE THE ANSWER WOULD BE NO.
AND IT HAS TO, SO IT MENTIONS RESOURCES.
SO IT'S ALL TIED TO EXISTING HISTORIC ARCHEOLOGICAL AESTHETIC AND ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES.
I MEAN, THE LOT SIZE COULD GO TO THE HISTOR, THE HISTORIC AND ARCHITECTURAL AND AESTHETIC.
WELL, SO RES, WELL IS IT AESTHETIC RESOURCES? IS THERE ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES? WHAT IS IT? WHAT IS THAT MODIFIED? JUST AESTHETIC RESOURCES.
HEY MATT, DO YOU HAVE THE, UH, SEEKER HANDBOOK HANDY BY ANY CHANCE? BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BENEFIT THE BOARD IF THAT SECTION WAS READ.
THE RESOURCES APPLIES TO ALL FOUR OF THOSE ITEMS. IT DOES, YES.
UH, CAN WE JUST SAY SIGNIFICANT? ABSOLUTELY.
SO I THINK THAT WILL KIND OF OR CAVEAT.
IT JUST FOR NUMBER HAS IMPACT.
SEVEN, I MEAN FOR NUMBER EIGHT.
NUMBER EIGHT, WHY ARE WE PUTTING SIGNIFICANT? BECAUSE IT IS WILL NOT HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
BUT, BUT WHAT DID, WHAT DO THE ITEMS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT, DO THEY HAVE ANY IMPACT ON ANY OF THOSE THAT ARE LISTED? WELL, THAT'S SEPTEMBER.
WOULD THEY, NONE OF THOSE RESOURCES WERE I IDENTIFIED.
HOWEVER, THERE'S SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, UH, THE ARCHITECTURAL, UH, NEIGHBOR, UH, CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT THEN YOU'RE GOING BACK TO COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
BUT, BUT I THINK THAT THE, THE SIZE OF THE LOT AND THE LOT COVERAGE COULD GO TO THE, THE ARCHITECTURAL NATURE OF THE AREA.
HOW, SO MAYBE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WORD ARCHITECTURAL THEN IT'S NOT ARCHITECTURAL THEN.
THAT'S NOT, I MEAN THE APPLICANT'S, WELL, THAT WOULD GO BACK TO COMMUNITY CARE.
I JUST THINK WE SHOULD LEAVE IT AS IS BECAUSE NONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT ARE PART OF THE, HIS HISTORIC ARCHE ARCHEOLOGICAL OR ARCHITECTURAL OR AESTHETIC CENTRAL AAA, THE DOUBLE A, UM, RESOURCES.
I MEAN, I, I, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU AND I THINK IF, IF WE SEE OTHER FORMS THAT ARE DONE WITH NOT APPLICABLE, YOU KNOW, THE CHARACTER IS REALLY WHAT'S THE RELEVANT, YOU KNOW, ISSUE HERE.
I, I UNDERSTAND THIS IS NOT APPLICABLE IN MY OPINION TO THIS, YOU KNOW, PROPERTY.
MATT, DID YOU STILL, MATT DID.
WERE YOU ABLE TO PULL UP THAT SECTION? BUT, BUT I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THAT IT'S, IT IS, AND WE SAY IT'S NOT IMPACT.
AND I THINK THAT'S KIND OF A STRETCHING OUR QUESTIONS THAT, THAT WE HAVE.
SO IF IT SAYS SIGNIFICANT, AND I THINK THE WHOLE IDEA OF THE WHOLE IDEA DOCUMENT NOT SIGNIFICANT.
ALL OF THIS THING, THE BAR SET AS A SIGNIFICANT, I DON'T OBJECT TO OR NOT SAYING SIGNIFICANT.
SIGNIFICANT BECAUSE ALL OF THEM ARE SUPPOSED TO BE NOT SIGNIFICANT WHENEVER, WHEN SHE SAY THE TYPE TWO ACTION.
UH, AND, AND THE, UH, CONDI NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS THAT THE BOTTOM LINE IS A, IS IT SIGNIFICANT OR NOT? IN OUR OPINION? CORRECT.
AND ALL OF THESE THINGS ARE, YES, THERE IS SOME NO QUESTION.
AND IT JUST, WHETHER IT RISES TO THE SIGNIFICANT OR NOT, IS IT APPLICABLE? THAT'S WHAT I WANNA KNOW.
THEY TALK ABOUT RESOURCES AND IT MODIFIES EVERYTHING.
SO RESOURCES HAVE TO BE THERE NOW.
AND, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE ANY HISTORIC, YOU KNOW, ARCHITECTURE ARCHEOLOGICAL, UH, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY DEALT WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL IN, IN THE, I'LL JUST BE BACK.
SO, I MEAN, MY QUESTION IS THAT, CAN WE SAY JUST NOT APPLICABLE OR NOT? NO, HE'S GONNA, BUT I'M GONNA GO GET THE HANDBOOK.
'CAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO GO BACK ONE STEP TO PAGE TWO, ABOUT 33RD OF THE WAY THROUGH.
[01:30:01]
AND SPEAKING TO T'S POINT NUMBER WHICH ONE? SO IT STARTS WITH, BASED UPON ALL OF THE INFORMATION GENERATED FOR THE PROPOSED PROJECT AND ITS OWN CAREFUL AND THOROUGH REVIEW PLANNING BOARD DIRECTED STAFF TO COMPLETE A PART TWO, THE EAF HAS AIDED THE BOARD'S DETERMINATION AS DESCRIBED IN PART TWO OF THE EAF.THE PLANNING BOARD HAS IDENTIFIED SMALL POTENTIAL IMPACTS.
SO TO KURT'S POINT, NOT IDENTIFYING ANY POTENTIAL LARGE OR SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE, I THINK SIGN ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
UM, I WOULD ADD WE HAVE 1, 2, 3, 4.
BUT I WOULD ADD COMMUNITY CHARACTER TO THAT, UM, THAT SECTION.
I, I THINK THE, THE, WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT, UH, THE WHOLE SEEKER IS, IS A SIGNIFICANT OR NOT.
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO DECIDE WHETHER IT'S A SIGNIFICANT OR NOT.
AND I THINK THAT'S A, THAT'S, THAT'S, I THINK WE HAVE DONE ALL OF THIS THING IS BASED ON SIGNIFICANCE.
SO THE LANGUAGE SHOULD REALLY READ.
I UNDERST I UNDERSTAND RATHER THAN SAYING BLACK AND WHITE NOT, OR YES.
SO DO YOU UNDERSTAND THAT LESLIE, IN PART, IN REFERENCE TO OTHER AREAS LIKE THE COMMUNITY AND USING SIGNIFICANT TO MODIFY OR TO, TO, UM, HAVE BE DESCRIPTIVE IN TERMS OF THE IMPACT? I GET IT.
BUT FOR THAT PARTICULAR ONE SAYING NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON SOMETHING THAT IS NOT APPLICABLE DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
BUT THEN, THEN, THEN HOW DO YOU QUANTIFY THAT? YOU DON'T QU IT'S, IT SHOULD ACTUALLY SAY OR NOT.
DO YOU WANNA READ THIS? WHAT I'M SAYING? IF YOU LOOK AT NUMBER SEVEN, YEAH, I MEAN THAT'S A PRETTY, I MEAN, WHAT'S NUMBER SEVEN? NUMBER EIGHT? I'M SORRY, NUMBER EIGHT.
IS IT NOT QUANTIFIABLE? IT'S MORE, UH, SUBJECTIVE DETERMINATION.
WHAT DO YOU QUALIFY? WHAT ARE YOU QUALIFYING? THAT'S WHAT I SO HOW DO YOU QUALIFY AESTHETIC IMPACT? RIGHT.
WELL, IT'S NOT AESTHETIC INPUT.
AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO POINT RESOURCE BACK TO THE FACT THAT IT'S AESTHETIC RESOURCES.
AND, AND AS I POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY, THE BAF MAPPER ASSISTS IN FINDING OUT IF THERE'S A SCENIC VIEW.
UM, I DON'T, I THINK UP NORTH PARTS OF ROUTE NINE ARE CONSIDERED SCENIC VIEW SHEDS OR, OR OTHER AREAS.
UM, SOME OF THE PARKWAYS ARE CONSIDERED SCENIC, SCENIC VIEW SHEDS.
THE, THE EXAMPLES IN THE SECRET HANDBOOK RELATED TO VISUAL IMPACTS ARE TYPICALLY RELATED TO, UH, HILLS AND HOMES ON HILLS AND VIEW FROM HILLS AND VIEWS OF HILLS AND MOUNTAINS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, AND BY HILLS, I MEAN THE EXAMPLE IN, UH, THE SNEAKER HANDBOOK IS ABOUT, UH, A MINE THAT WOULD REDUCE THE ELEVATION OF A LOCAL PROMONTORY BY 280 FEET, UH, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING THAT CAN BE ADEQUATELY MITIGATED.
UM, AND IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S, UH, THE CASE HERE.
I AM LOOKING THROUGH THE HANDBOOK TO TRY AND FIND WHAT THEY SAY ABOUT THE, UH, HISTORIC, UH, ASPECT.
SO I'M ACTIVELY LOOKING THROUGH THAT.
UM, I MEAN, YOU SAID HILLS AND THE VIEWING, THE REMOVAL OF THE TREES COULD MAYBE BE AN AESTHETIC IMPACT, WHICH WOULD, WHICH WOULD GO TO SAYING NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT RATHER THAN NO IMPACT.
OR TO SAYING NA, I THINK COULD YOU KEEP SAYING AESTHETIC RESOURCES? THAT'S, YES.
SO THE, THAT WOULD BE A HILLS.
WELL, SO, AND ALSO ANOTHER THING TO POINT OUT IN THE TOWN, GREENBERG, WE HAVE THAT SPECIFIC PROVISION ABOUT HILLTOPS OVER A CERTAIN HEIGHT.
UM, WHICH THIS DOES NOT FALL, DOES NOT APPLY HERE.
BUT AS FAR AS THE TREES, I'LL DEFER TO AARON.
I'M, IF THE BOARD CHOOSES TO INSERT THE WORD SIGNIFICANT, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I, I THINK THAT'S A MIDDLE GROUND
SO LET'S JUST, I MEAN, WE, WE DO THIS ALL, EVERY PROJECT.
SO
IT, IT ACTUALLY HELPS OUT STAFF BY MAKING SOME OF THESE STREAKS BECAUSE IT WILL ALERT US MOVING FORWARD WITH FUTURE PROJECTS TO BE MINDFUL AND TO HAVE THIS UPDATED LANGUAGE ALREADY INSERTED INTO THOSE DRAFT DOCUMENTS THAT'S BASED ON MEMBER PREFERENCES.
SO WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO ABOUT THIS? I MEAN, ANY OTHER ISSUES OR, UH, WE HAVE TO GO ON.
YOU WANNA DO MR. DECIDE TO CONSIDER MAKING A MOTION? WELL, I WANTED TO GO FROM OTHER SIDE.
WELL, WAIT, WE DO, WE WE'RE NOT GONNA GO THROUGH THE REST OF THEM.
YOU CAN, YOU'RE FREE TO GO THROUGH ANYTHING ELSE.
I THINK WE SHOULD TALK ABOUT TRANSPORTATION.
BECAUSE THAT, AND ESPECIALLY ADDING THAT DRIVEWAY THERE AND THE FACT THAT EVERYBODY'S TALKING ABOUT IT AND IT BEING NARROW
[01:35:01]
DRIVEWAY, UM, AND IT BEING RIGHT THERE BY A FIVE WAY INTERSECTION.SO I, I DON'T SEE HOW IT DOESN'T HAVE AN IMPACT, SIGNIFICANT IMPACT AND TRANSPORTATION IS JUST ONE MORE HOME WILL.
BUT DOES THE PLACEMENT OF THAT DRIVEWAY CAUSE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION? I GUESS THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION FOR US.
RIGHT? SO THE SECTION IS NUMBER FIVE, RIGHT? IF THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL RESULT IN AN ADVERSE CHANGE IN THE EXISTING LEVEL OF TRAFFIC, PROBABLY.
BUT MAYBE THE FLOW THOUGH WITH THE, IS IT GONNA BE A BLIND DRIVEWAY OR IS IT GONNA BE, SO ACTUALLY I DID FIND SOME OF THE RESOURCE LANGUAGE AS WELL, IF YOU'D WANNA SOME WHAT SOME OF THE, UH, AESTHETIC RESOURCE LANGUAGE FROM THE SEEKER HANDBOOK.
SO, BUT LET'S FINISH THIS AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO THAT.
I DON'T NEED TO GO BACK TO THAT.
IF YOU GUYS NEED TO, THEN WE CAN.
SO EXISTING LEVEL OF TRAFFIC WITH RESPECT TO IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY.
WE DO HAVE, THROUGH OUR GREENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT TRAFFIC AND SAFETY UNIT, WE CIRCULATE EVERY PROJECT DOWN TO THEIR DIVISION TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE SATISFIED.
FROM A TRAFFIC AND SAFETY PERSPECTIVE, I CAN TELL YOU THAT SOMETIMES WE'LL GET FEEDBACK THAT STATES, YOU KNOW, DUE TO THE BLIND CURVE THAT THIS IS ON OR DUE TO THE SLOPE OF THE PROPOSED ROADWAY OR DRIVEWAY, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CONDITION THAT THE SITE TRIANGLES, SO FOR SOMEONE EXITING OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY THERE, WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS SITE TRI TRIANGLES ARE NOT OBSTRUCTED BY STONE MONUMENTS, PILLARS, VEGETATION, ET CETERA, SO THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT SITE DISTANCE FOR THAT PERSON LEAVING SO THAT THEY CAN SEE A VEHICLE COMING FROM EITHER WAY AND HAVE SUFFICIENT TIME TO MAKE THE TURN OUT.
THAT WAS NOT A COMMENT ISSUED BY TRAFFIC AND SAFETY WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROJECT.
AND THAT WAS FOR THE REVISED DRIVEWAY, THE ONE ON COTS FAULT, NOT THE ONE THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT NICK, FOR THE CURRENT APPLICATION.
I'M SORRY, I'VE REALLY GOT ONE LAST ONE.
WELL, DOES IT RELATE TO IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION? NO, IT'S NUMBER 10.
OF COURSE, I, IT, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRANSPORTATION THERE WITH THE FIVE? THE FIVE? I THINK IF IT WAS RIGHT ON IT, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD'VE BEEN DISCUSSING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
BUT WITH IT BEING SLIGHTLY OFFSET, UM, IT'S, AND THERE'S A RIGHT IN THAT AREA.
IT'S VERY DIFFICULT FOR PEDESTRIAN, FOR, FOR PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.
UM, DOES THIS, I MEAN, AND I GUESS IT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT, RIGHT? LIKE, IS THERE THE ABILITY TO PUT IN SIDEWALKS THERE? SO THEN IT'S LIKE CONNECTING TO THE, IF THE OTHER AREAS WERE TO ADD IN SIDEWALKS TOO, THEN IT WOULD BE LIKE ONE PART, ONE STEP FURTHER OR CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT, UM, HAS BEEN ASKED IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER SUBDIVISIONS.
THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY AND THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT, UH, WITH RESPECT TO SIDEWALK IMPROVEMENT ALONG THE SITE'S FRONTAGE AND WITH THE, POTENTIALLY, I WOULD BE GLAD TO BE THAT PARTICULAR POINT.
I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS BECAUSE THAT IT'S MY CLIENT'S MONEY.
BUT I'M SURE THAT IF THAT IS A KEY REQUIREMENT OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND IT HELPS THE COMMUNITY TO ALLAY THEIR FIELDS FEARS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC MOVEMENT AND, AND, AND, AND PATHS AND ALL THAT, ABSOLUTELY.
WE WILL CONSIDER IT AND ABSOLUTELY WE WILL BE PART OF THAT.
WE WILL BE VERY HAPPY TO DISCUSS THE LENGTH AND THE SIZE OF THAT SIDEWALK.
ARE THERE ANY SIDEWALKS ON THAT? THAT'S A GOOD POINT.
YOU'RE THE SMART ONE IN, IN THE ROOM.
UH, THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS THERE, SO, SO I COULD ARGUE WHY AM I BEING PICKED ON, BUT I WILL NOT DO THAT.
WELL, JUST THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOT BEEN A PREVIOUS SIDEWALK DOES NOT MEAN THAT HOW YOU THINK ABOUT CENTRAL PARK AVENUE, I MEAN, DIDN'T HAVE SIDEWALKS AND NOW THERE'S THIS FAIR AMOUNT OF SIDEWALKS ACROSS THEM.
SHOULD PROBABLY LOOK AT THE COMP PLAN TO SEE WHAT YOU WILL YEAH.
I, 'CAUSE IT CONNECTS NOT JUST THE COTSWOLDS, BUT IT ALSO CONNECTS ANOTHER PART, ANOTHER SECTION OF OLD, OLD EDGEMONT MM-HMM
OF WITH THE PEDESTRIANS THAT, THAT, AND IT'S A BIG, UH, CROSSING FOR, FOR KIDS GOING TO SCHOOL OVER AT SEALEY PLACE.
IT'S A REALLY IMPORTANT, IT, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S AN IMPORTANT LOT.
SO THIS IS NOT, I, I CAN SEE WHY THERE WAS A LOT OF OPINIONS ON IT.
BECAUSE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT SPOT.
UM, I, I MEAN THINK GUINEA APPLICATION WE LOOK AT IS IMPORTANT.
SO THE OTHER HOMES DON'T HAVE SIDEWALKS.
SO HOW DO THEY GET IT'S, IT'S DANGEROUS.
DANGEROUS, RIGHT? IT'S DANGEROUS.
SO UNLESS YOU PUT SIDEWALKS IN THE WHOLE COMMUNITY? NO, NOT NECESSARILY.
SOME WE DO AND THE PLANNING BOARD HAS HISTORICALLY, YOU KNOW, ONLY
[01:40:01]
BECAUSE WE CAN ONLY WORK ON PROJECTS THAT ARE BEFORE US MM-HMMBUT THINKING ABOUT CENTRAL PARK AVENUE, IF WE GO BACK 25 YEARS AND I REMEMBER, AND YOU KNOW, YEAH, WE'VE DONE IT PIECEMEAL AND NOW THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, A FAIR AMOUNT OF SIDEWALKS.
I WOULDN'T SAY THAT CENTRAL PARK, UH, AVENUE IS COMPLETELY SIDEWALK, BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO BY DOING IT PIECEMEAL, AT LEAST GOING BACK TO MY EXAMPLE ON CENTRAL PARK AVENUE, IT HELPED BOLSTER THE TOWN'S CASE TO GET GRANT FUNDING TO, UH, FILL IN THE, UH, THE SEGMENTS THAT WERE NOT SIDEWALKS.
SO, UM, I THINK IT WAS A SUCCESS, A SUCCESSFUL, OKAY.
I'M GONNA SAY I WENT, I DIDN'T LIVE WITH A SIDEWALK FOR A VERY LONG TIME UNTIL LAST MAY.
SO, UM, ON HILLSIDE AVENUE, RIGHT, HOW WOULD WE INCORPORATE THAT, UH, RECOMMENDATION CONDITIONS? THAT WOULD BE AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ZONING BOARD AND COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING.
SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE NOTATE THAT.
AND THERE'S ALSO GRANT MONEY RIGHT NOW PUTTING IN SIDEWALKS ON THE OLD ARMY ROAD, AND I THINK IN THAT AREA TOO, OR DOES IT NOT GO SOUTH OF? I'LL HAVE TO LOOK AT, UH, EXACTLY WHERE IT'S INTENDED TO, BUT, SO IT WOULD BE RIGHT AROUND THE CORNER FROM THE, YOU'LL ALSO LOOK AT THE COMP PLAN BECAUSE THERE'S A, A PRIORITY SIDEWALK LOCATION MAP WITHIN THE COMP PLAN.
SO WE WILL LOOK AT THAT AS WELL.
I WILL SAY THAT, UM, ALTERNATIVELY, AND MR. ESTIS WAS EVEN INVOLVED IN A PROJECT OF WHAT I'M GONNA SPEAK TO MUCH LARGER SUBDIVISION.
MUCH LARGER SUBDIVISION, BUT, UM, IN AN EFFORT TO PROMOTE SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IF THE TOWN IS CONSIDERING SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT, UH, AS OPPOSED TO BUILDING A SMALL SEGMENT, THE APPLICANT HAS, APPLICANTS HAVE OFFERED DONATIONS INTO THE SIDEWALK FUND TO BE USED FOR FUTURE SIDEWALKS IN THAT AREA BECAUSE MAYBE THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT IN MORE DEPTH, THAT SIDE OF THE STREET MAY NOT BE THE MOST APPROPRIATE.
MAYBE THE OTHER SIDE IS THERE'S A LOT OF, UH, ENGINEERING REVIEW THAT GETS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN SITUATING THE RIGHT LOCATIONS FOR SIDEWALKS.
SORRY, I'VE STILL GOT ONE MORE.
UM, ANYTHING ON SECTION 6, 7, 8 OR NINE.
IF NOT, THEN WE WILL GO TO MICHELLE'S AT 10.
THE, THE LANGUAGE WHERE IT SAYS, AND, AND I KNOW THIS IS GENERIC LANGUAGE WHERE, UM, YOU'VE GOT, UM, WHICH PARAGRAPH ONE, TWO, THIRD DOWN WHERE IT SAYS ENSURE PREPARATION, PROPER OPERATION IS DESIGNED, THERE'S, THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE THAT SAYS IT ACTUALLY HAS TO WORK.
IT JUST SAYS, IF YOU COULD JUST POINT TO THE, THE LINE, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
SO IT SAYS, ALL SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURE MEASURES MUST BE INSPECTED ON A REGULAR BASIS AND AFTER EACH HEAVY RAINFALL TO ENSURE PROPER OPERATION IS DESIGNED, IF YOU DESIGNED IT TO ONLY HALF WORK, THEN YOU'RE ALSO ONLY SHIP INSPECTING IT TO MAKE SURE IT ONLY HALF WORKS.
SO I THINK WE NEED TO ADJUST THE LANGUAGE.
WELL, YOU HAVE, IT HAS TO, I THINK, I THINK THE FACT THAT THE DESIGN WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS AND TO GET APPROVED BY ENGINEERING, I WOULD SO PREFER THAT IT'S EXPLICIT BECAUSE IF YOU, YOU AS DESIGNED AND APPROVED.
WELL, I'M ASKING MICHELLE, OTHERWISE I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU TO PROVIDE ME WITH THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE AND SEE IF OTHERS AGREE WITH IT.
WHICH ONE IS IT? WHICH ONE? SECOND PARAGRAPH.
THIS IS THE SECOND PARAGRAPH UNDER 10.
I THINK THE FACT THAT THOUGH THAT THE APPLICANT HAS TO COMPLY WITH REQUIREMENTS OF TOWN CODE CHAPTER, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, UM, TO GET THE FINAL STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO ACCOMMODATE THE 50 YEAR STORM EVENT.
THAT LAST SENTENCE EXCEEDING THE TOWN REQUIREMENT, WHICH BECOMES A CONDITION OF APPROVAL, IT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE 10 ENGINEER'S OFFICE TO GET APPROVED.
SO THE DESIGN COULDN'T BE ANYTHING SUBSTANDARD TO, TO, TO MOVE FORWARD.
COULD, WELL, THE DESIGN HAS TO MEET THE STANDARD IN ORDER TO MOVE FORWARD AND WOULD HAVE TO MEET THIS 50 YEAR.
AND IT WOULD HAVE TO EXCEED ACTUALLY WHAT'S REQUIRED AND IT WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE 50 YEAR STANDARD.
BUT IF YOU HAVE A LANGUAGE MODIFICATION, FEEL FREE TO EXPRESS IT TO ENSURE NO EROSION AND SEDIMENT RUNOFF FROM THE SITE AS DESIGNED.
JUST BE EXPLICIT THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA POLLUTE THE ROAD IN FRONT OF THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
THAT LANGUAGE IS IN THE, UH, STEEP SLOPE APPLICATION AND STORMWATER APPLICATION SEVERELY SO THAT YOU, YOU SHOULD TRUST THE, UH, THE EXISTING CONTROLS.
THEY'RE VERY, VERY, VERY STRICT.
I WOULD PREFER THAT IT'S EXPLICIT.
[01:45:02]
WE WOULD'VE TO, I MEAN, I DON'T, WE, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN ADD THAT FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT.I DON'T THINK YOU CAN MAKE A PERFECT GUARANTEE THAT THERE'S NEVER GONNA BE ANY TURBIDITY OR, OR EROSION.
IF YOU HAVE A 200 YEAR STORM EVENT, YOU'RE GONNA EXCEED A 50 YEARS.
IT'S NOT THAT IT'S A THUNDERSTORM.
A THUNDERSTORM ISN'T 200 YEAR.
WELL, I, I JUST DON'T THINK YOU CAN STATE THAT DEFINITIVELY.
IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, IT'S SAYING IT'S PROPER OPERATION IS DESIGNED, BUT AS DESIGNED COULD MEAN THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY EFFECTIVE.
I'M STAMPING THIS WITH MY STAMP.
IF ANYTHING GOES WRONG, I CAN GO TO COURT.
YOU CAN TAKE ME TO COURT IF YOU ARE, WE'LL TALK IN ORDER FOR IT TO GET TO APPROVED, APPROVED BY THE TOWN'S BUREAU OF ENGINEERING, THAT'S TENANT TOWN ENGINEER.
ALL OF, SO IF WE MODIFIED IT TO ENGINEER, ENSURE PROPER OPERATION AS DESIGNED AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER.
TO NOT POLLUTE THE ROAD AS DESIGNED COMMA AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER, WE DO HAVE OTHER BUSINESS ON TONIGHT, SO I JUST WANTED TO REMIND THE BOARD OF THAT.
WE ALSO STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE 10 VARIANCES.
SO, UM, WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THE, THIS IS AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT AND I'M GLAD WE SPENT TIME ON IT.
UM, WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS? OKAY, UM, JUST, I, SORRY.
I JUST SEE, I'M SEEING HERE THAT THE APPLICANT WILL COMPLY WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN CODE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT AND HAS AGREED TO DESIGN THE FINAL STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO ACCOMMODATE UP TO A 50 YEAR STORM EVENT EXCEEDING THE TOWN CODE REQUIREMENT.
JUST IN THE OTHER PLACES WHERE THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY AGREED TO COMPLY WITH THINGS LIKE THE, THE, UM, THE LANDSCAPING, THE, UM, I GUESS HE DIDN'T COMMIT TO THE SIDEWALK ISSUE, BUT FOR, FOR THOSE, CAN WE BE CONSISTENT WITH THAT THROUGHOUT? WELL, I THINK WHAT I HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THE LANDSCAPING IS THAT, UM, AND THAT FALLS BACK INTO THE SECTION THREE IMPACT ON COMMUNITY CHARACTER.
I HAVE THE NOTE THAT, UH, AMANDA HAD MENTIONED THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO INSTALL ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING TO FURTHER SCREEN THE PROPERTY AND PROVIDE BEAUTIFICATION TO THE AREA.
SHOULD WE ADD, WHICH WILL BECOME A CONDITION OF ANY APPROVAL OF THE PROJECT? UM, NO, NOT AT THIS TIME.
I DON'T THINK AT THIS TIME BECAUSE WITH THE 50 YEAR STORM, THAT'S VERY SPECIFIC AND THERE ARE DESIGN CALCULATIONS THAT COME INTO PLAY WITH RESPECT TO MAKING A STATEMENT THAT THEY'LL INCLUDE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING.
WE DON'T HAVE THAT ON THE PLAN YET MM-HMM
BUT WE WILL, AND IF THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD TOWARDS A DECISION, THAT PLAN WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING THAT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND SUBJECT TO PUBLIC COMMENTARY AND FEEDBACK WOULD BE WITHIN ANY DECISION.
AND WE'D HAVE A SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WITHIN THE CONDITIONS.
I THINK WE CAN REFERENCE SO THAT IT HAS TO COMPLY WITH THE, THE TREE REPLACEMENT TO COMPLY WITH THE TREE CHAPTER.
WE WE HAVE FACT WE ALREADY HAVE THAT, BUT IT COULD BE ADDED.
SO WE'RE SAYING THAT IT'S GOING TO ACTUALLY EXTE EXCEED.
COULD WE, NOT IN THIS MEETING, BUT JUST IN GENERAL BECAUSE IT'S A 50, THIS IS THE FINAL IS 50 YEAR STORM EVENT.
WHAT IF YOU HAVE A 50 YEAR STORM EVENT DURING CONSTRUCTION? RIGHT.
WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR EROSION AND LIKE YOUR EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROLS ARE BUILT FOR A FIVE YEAR OR A 10 YEAR OR 20 YEAR OR DO YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? THE EROSION CONTROLS HAVE TO MEET THAT STANDARD.
THE NEW YORK STATE DOCUMENTS THAT'S REFERENCED.
WHICH IS HOW MANY YEARS? I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S MEASURED IN YEARS.
SO COULD WE SEPARATELY, UM, JUST REVIEW THIS LANGUAGE ON A GO FORWARD BASIS? SURE.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE DOCUMENT? WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? THE MOTION IS TO
AS IN, UM, WE WANNA CLASSIFY THE ACTION AND THEN YOU STILL WANT TO GO OVER OR WE HAVE TO, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER A VOTE WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROJECT.
UH, QUAL QUALIFYING AS AN UNLISTED ACTION UNDER SEEKER.
[01:50:01]
SO MOVED.AND THEN SECOND CONDITION TO CONSIDER A MOTION TO ADOPT THE SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS AMENDED.
AS AMENDED DURING THIS CONVERSATION.
SO THE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMUNITY, WHICH NUMBER TWO? I BELIEVE NUMBER.
I DON'T KNOW IF WE DECIDED ON NUMBER EIGHT.
I HAVE, I HAVE THE NOTES AND WE HAVE THE RECORD.
SO THE MOTION IS TO ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AS AMENDED.
SO THE AMENDMENTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT, ALL OF THOSE AMENDMENTS ADDED TO IT.
UNLESS SOMEONE DOES NOT AGREE WITH ANY OF THE AMENDMENTS.
NO, I WON'T GIVE SOMEBODY ELSE
ALL OPPOSED? ANY ABSTENTIONS? MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY.
THE MOTION CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY AS ERIN SAID.
NOW FOR THE VARIANCES, CAN WE DO THE VARIANCES? NO VARIANCE IS ALREADY PART OF IT, SO I DON'T THINK WE OUGHT TO GO AGAIN TO NO, I ALREADY WENT THROUGH ALL THAT.
SO WHY, WHY JUST, IT IS WE SAID IT'S OKAY.
NO, I THOUGHT, I, I THOUGHT WE ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD ON THE VARIANCES.
AND I WENT THROUGH THE 10 VARIS.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE MAKING RECOMMENDATION ON THE NO, NO, NO, NO, NO DETAILS.
YEAH, NO, THAT DEFINITELY WE HAVE TO DO IT.
AND WE ARE MAKING RECOMMENDATION ON EACH VARIANCE.
UM, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THAT'S HOW YOU CARRY IT OUT.
SO I'M JUST GONNA GO AS SOON AS OUR, OUR CHAIRPERSON GETS BACK, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH NUMBER ONE, SEE IF THERE'S A MOTION AND A VOTE.
AND THEN 2, 3, 4, 5, ALL THE WAY THROUGH.
CAN WE, CAN WE DO IT LIKE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK, HOW CAN YOU, BECAUSE IT'S A TEXT BECAUSE USUALLY WE JUST SAY, UH, I MEAN I, I THINK IT'S, IT'S A, BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT THE ZONING BOARDS FROM YOU IS.
YEAH, I DON SO I I THINK WE JUST CAN SAY THE OVERALL RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I, I REMEMBER WE GO I DON'T, YEAH, WELL I DON'T THINK INDIVIDUAL.
I THINK MAYBE THIS WILL SIMPLIFY THINGS.
THERE ARE 10 AREA VARIANCES REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT PURSUANT TO THE MEMO, THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE.
AND WE WILL PICK IT UP IN THE FINAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARDS.
SO SORRY, ARE THE KNICKS WINNING? NO, NOT IF THEY'RE ON, UM, THE THEY ARE.
WE COULD GO THROUGH THEM INDIVIDUALLY BECAUSE THERE COULD BE DIFFERENCES OF OPINION ON IF THE BOARD'S GONNA GO POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, OR NEUTRAL ON EACH ONE.
HOWEVER, IF THE BOARD'S DESIRE WAS TO GO, YOU KNOW, A PARTICULAR WAY WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE VARIANCES THAT WOULD, I MEAN THEY'RE ALL KIND FINE WITH, THEY'RE ALL KIND OF TIED TOGETHER, RIGHT? LIKE ALL ARE RELATED.
SO CAN WE JUST TAKE A QUICK POLL? I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE EASIEST WAY TO DO IT.
AND I MEAN, WHICHEVER WAY YOU GUYS DESIGN, THAT'S THE WAY WE'LL GO.
NO, I WOULD SAY THAT WE JUST SORT OF, UH, GIVE A, UH, OVERALL RATHER THAN GOING INDIVIDUALLY, WE JUST SAY THE WHOLE DOCUMENT OR I WILL BEYOND AND WE JUST SAY ALL WHAT WE THINK ABOUT THE, THE WHOLE PROJECT AND, AND RECOMMEND IT TO THE UH, UH, ZONING BOARD OR THAT THIS IS NEUTRAL, NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE.
BECAUSE THAT WILL COVER THE SAME THING.
SO WE CAN EITHER AGGREGATE ALL 10 NEUTRAL, NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE OR GO ONE BY ONE NEUTRAL, NEGATIVE OR POSITIVE.
SO I CAN WE DO THE NINE AND THEN THE, THE ONE THAT THEY'RE WITHDRAWING, WE DO SEPARATE.
RIGHT? SO FOR YOU IT'S ALL, DO YOU AGREE TO WHAT EMILY SAID? YEAH, I AGREE.
I THINK SO THAT WOULD BE DOING NINE OF THEM AS AN AGGREGATE NEUTRAL, NEGATIVE POSITIVE.
[01:55:01]
THAT THEY'RE WITHDRAWING DO THAT SEPARATELY.BUT LET ME JUST UNDERSTAND THAT.
SO THE PROCESS IS WE GO THIS AND THEN WE GIVE OVERALL RECOMMENDATION OR, SO THE DOCUMENT IS DRAFTED FOR YOU, WHICH IS THIS DOCUMENT THAT'S REDLINED, THAT IS THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION.
IT WAS ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED.
SO IF YOU DON'T HAVE A HARD COPY, I CAN, OKAY, I CAN GIVE YOU MINE.
BUT UM, THE FIRST PAGE FOR THOSE THAT HAVE IT, JUST LIST ALL THE VARIANCES.
WE WOULD UPDATE THIS OBVIOUSLY TO INDICATE THAT AT THIS WORK SESSION THIS EVENING, THE APPLICANT REPRESENTED TO THE BOARD THAT VARIANCE NUMBER X WITH RESPECT TO FAR ON LOT TWO, THREE, UH, IS NO LONGER BEING SOUGHT AND THE FAR WOULD BE COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, BUT BEYOND THAT, UM, LET'S SEE.
SO IT'S NINE AND, AND JUST I, I'LL READ THROUGH THE FINDINGS WELL AND THE EFFECT I DO YOU KNOW WHAT THIS DOCUMENT IS TITLED IN THE ELECTRONIC COPY? IT SHOULD BE PB 24 DASH OH THREE.
YEAH, BUT WHICH YOU CAN'T EXPAND THAT.
IT'S NOT, IT WASN'T IN THE FOLDER.
IF HE SENT IT ELECTRONICALLY, IT WASN'T IN THE PHONE.
CAN WE FINISH? IT WAS SUPPLEMENTED IN A SECOND EMAIL FROM MATT, WHICH I DON'T.
ALRIGHT, SO BEFORE WE GO THROUGH THAT, WE WANNA FINISH THE STRAW POLL AND SEE YEAH, WELL AND THEN I ALSO JUST WANNA BE CLEAR, WHATEVER THE VOTE IS HERE, IT, IT'S TO VOTE TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD AND THEN HE COMES BACK FOR A HEARING AFTER IF THEY GET THE VARIANCES.
YES, IF THEY GET THE VARIANCES THEN IT COMES BACK FOR A HEARING.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE APPROVING CORRECT THE VARIANCES RIGHT NOW OR JUST SAYING WE'RE NOT, WE'RE RECOMMENDING, YEAH, WE'RE RECOMMENDING ON THE VARIANCES AND WE, AND THE PLANNING BOARD IS NOT MAKING ANY DECISION ON THE SUBDIVISION STEEP SLOPE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, ET CETERA, WHICH ARE THO AND THE RECOMMENDATION IS NON-BINDING ON THE BOARD.
SO THOSE COMMENTS THAT YOU MADE REGARDING THE COMMUNITY, REGARDING UH, THE SCREENING, ALL OF THAT IS GOING TO THE ZONING BOARD AS PART OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO IF YOU CAN READ THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT PROBABLY EASIER OR YOU WONDER WELL I THINK PROCEDURALLY JUST THE CHAIR WANTS TO KNOW IS EVERYONE ON BOARD WITH DOING THE CLUSTER OF NINE? SO MICHELLE, WE DIDN'T DO IT.
WELL, DOES IT, DOES IT TAKE A LOT MORE EXTRA, LIKE A LOT OF EXTRA TIME TO DO IT INDIVIDUALLY? IT DOES.
AND THE MEETINGS WE'RE STILL ON ITEM NUMBER ONE AND THE MEETING WILL END AT 10 O'CLOCK.
SO WE DO WANT TO GIVE THE COURTESY OF THE OTHER APPLICANTS AN OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD AND DISCUSS THIS.
AND MICHELLE, YOU, WHAT'S YOUR MINE? SORRY? THETA.
SO WE CAN MOVE AHEAD WITH DOING UM, UH, MOTION A NEGATIVE.
DO WE NEED TO DO IT? WELL? I THINK SO FIRST DO FIRST WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS JUST RECITE THE DRAFT FINDINGS AND THEN MAYBE YOU WANT TO GO WITH A STRAW POLL, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE NINE, ARE YOU POSITIVE, NEGATIVE OR NEUTRAL? POSITIVE, NEGATIVE OR NEUTRAL PO AND WE'LL JUST DO ALL FIVE OF YOU IF THERE'S CONSENSUS OR MAJORITY, YOU KNOW, WE CAN MOVE ON MM-HMM
AND THEN WE'LL DO THE ADDITIONAL WITH RESPECT TO THE FAR.
SO THE DRAFT FINDINGS STATE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS FOUND, AND I'M SORRY THAT THERE WEREN'T HARD COPIES PROVIDED.
THE PLANNING BOARD HAS FOUND THAT THE TWO TAX LOTS, WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION, WERE CREATED AS PART OF A SUBDIVISION OF THE ENTIRE COWELL NEIGHBORHOOD IN 1926.
AT THAT TIME, THE AREA WAS ZONED RESIDENCE OH DASH TWO ONE FAMILY, WHICH HAD A MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET, RENDERING THE SUBJECT LOTS ZONING COMPLIANT SOMETIME BETWEEN 1932 AND 1957.
THE TOWN REZONED THE AREA TO THE R 21 FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT, WHICH HAS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET RENDERING THESE LOTS AND A NUMBER OF THE OTHER LOTS IN THE COTS NEIGHBORHOOD.
NONCONFORMING FROM A LOT SIZE PERSPECTIVE, THE TAX LOTS WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION WERE IN COMMON OWNERSHIP AND REMAIN IN COMMON OWNERSHIP WITH IMPROVEMENTS TO THE DEVELOPED PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTIES CROSSING THE 1926 SUBDIVISION LINE, WHICH IS THE LINE BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS, THE LOTS THEREBY MERGED, UH, CREATING THE NEED FOR THIS SUBDIVISION.
THE NEED FOR THE AREA OF VARIANCES CREATES A MATERIAL CONFLICT WITH THE ZONING REGULATIONS OF THE TOWN.
HOWEVER, THE TYPE AND EXTENT OF THE AREA OF VARIANCES ARE NOT DISSIMILAR TO THE NONCONFORMITIES OF
[02:00:01]
MANY OF THE ONE FAMILY HOMES IN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE LOTS AND THE SIMILAR NATURE OF ONE FAMILY HOMES IN THE AREA, ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE NOT ANTICIPATED.
SHOULD THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANT, THE AREA VARIANCES, THE PROPOSED LOT SIZE LOT WIDTH AND SETBACKS ARE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO A NUMBER OF THE ONE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE PLANNING BOARD FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROJECT CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN'S STEEP SLOPE ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2 45, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE CHAPTER 2 48 AND TREE ORDINANCE CHAPTER TWO 60.
SO, UM, SO WE, I'M OPEN TO HOWEVER YOU WANT TO PROCEED.
MY THOUGHT WOULD BE CAN WE MAKE A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION? 'CAUSE IT'S THE ZONING BOARD IS MAKE DECISION.
SO I THINK IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO HAVE THE STROLL STRAW POLL.
AND WE CAN START WITH MICHELLE.
I'M SAYING NEUTRAL WITH RESPECT TO THE NINE.
I WOULD DO A POSITIVE FOR ALL NINE.
POSITIVE FOR ALL NINE AND OKAY, WE'RE JUST DOING A STRAW, SO, YEAH.
UM, SO NINE, I, I DON'T AGREE WITH SOME OF THE, THE THINGS THAT WERE SAID IN THERE, UM, THAT WHICH WE DIDN'T GET WAY BEFORE WE, BEFORE WE TWEAK THE LANGUAGE, JUST OVERALL WITH RESPECT TO THE NINE, IT'S A STRAW POLE.
UM, WOULD YOU LEAN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER ABSENT THE LANGUAGE, WHICH CAN BE SUBJECT TO MODIFICATION.
AND ALSO KEEPING IN MIND THIS, THE STANDARD THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS GONE BACK TO, WHICH IS TYPICALLY ISSUING NEUTRAL UNLESS THERE'S, UM, PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS THAT ARE COMPELLING TO GO POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.
SO WE HAVE, BASED ON THE VOTES, FOUR NEUTRALS, ONE POSITIVE, HOW MANY DO WE NEED? FOUR.
SO BASED ON THAT STRAW POLL ED, WOULD YOU STILL, YOU KNOW, WHAT I WOULD HAVE ASKED YOU WITH RESPECT TO POSITIVE IS FOR YOU TO LAY OUT THE COMPELLING PLANNING REASONS WHY YOU WOULD GO POSITIVE ON EACH OF THE NINE VARIANCES.
I, I, UM, THAT'S UNFAIR TO ASK HIM, UM, EXCUSE AMELIA, PLEASE LET HIM RESPOND.
BUT IF, BUT YOU'RE FREE TO SAY, HEY, I UNDERSTAND WHERE THE BOARD IS WITH RESPECT TO NEUTRAL AND I UNDERSTAND THE, THE, YOU KNOW, RECENT POLICY THAT THE PLANNING BOARD'S ADOPTED.
AND FOR THAT REASON, I, BASED ON THE FINDINGS, I, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW THAT YOU READ WAS THE REASON I HAD A POSITIVE, BUT IN ORDER TO HAVE UNANIMITY WITH THE BOARD.
'CAUSE ULTIMATELY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IS GONNA HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION.
IT DOES NOT HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE, I I'VE DONE IT.
YOU JUST, IF GIVING A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE, WHAT WE'VE ENCOURAGED IS TO PROVIDE A RATIONALE BASED UPON THE PLANNING BOARD, BECAUSE IT SETS A BAR, UM, FOR WHAT POSITIVE MEANS OVER THE COURSE OF TIME.
AND I'M JUST LIKE LISTENING TO, YOU KNOW, HOW IT COULD, ALL THESE CHANGES, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY ARE VERY, UH, CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD GENERALLY.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WAS IN ULTIMATELY IN THE FINDINGS.
AND SO, UH, THAT WAS THE REASON I FELT, I FELT THAT WAS COMPELLING TO ME.
AND SO THERE'S THE KEY THAT I USED TO GET CAUGHT UP ON.
NO, THAT'S WHAT I USED TO GET CAUGHT UP.
I THOUGHT POSITIVE MEANT, YEAH, IT WAS CONSISTENT.
BUT WHEN OVER THE COURSE OF TIME WE DECIDED THAT POSITIVE MEANT THAT THE PROJECT, UM, HAD SOME REALLY POSITIVE IMPACT ON THE COMMUNITY.
ON THE COMMUNITY, SOME, A STRONGER MERIT, A ABOVE AND BEYOND KEEPING THE STATUS QUO.
SO FOR INSTANCE, LET'S SAY SOMEONE CAME IN AND SAID, DUST, WE'RE GONNA PLANT ALL THESE TREES AND WE ARE GOING TO WIPE OUT ALL OF YOUR, YOUR, UM, FLOODING PROBLEMS FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS.
SOMETHING LIKE REALLY STRONG NEUTRAL MEANS, OH, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY STATUS QUO AND NEGATIVE MEANT THAT IT HAD A NEGATIVE IMPACT.
AND SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT COMPELLING WOULD MEAN THAT IT'S IT'S IMPROVING.
IT'S NOT JUST THE, THAT CO CONSISTENT WITH WHAT ELSE WE SEE.
I THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT.
FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAVE LIKE A, A VACANT LOT THAT'S, UH, BLIGHTED AND, AND, AND THERE'S GARBAGE AND IT'S OVERGROWN AND, AND SOMEBODY'S GONNA COME IN AND, AND MM-HMM
BEAUTIFY IT AND, AND, UH, DEVELOP IT.
DEVELOP IT TO IMPROVE, UM, RIGHT.
THAT, THAT MAY BE, IF, YOU KNOW, I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS TO MAKE NOTE OF IS THAT IF THE BOARD OR BOARD MEMBER FEELS THAT,
[02:05:01]
YOU KNOW, REALLY THESE VARIANCES RELATE TO ZONING MATTERS, THAT SHOULD BE UP TO THE ZONING BOARD TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS.YOU KNOW, OFTENTIMES THAT'S A REASON TO GO NEUTRAL.
YOU KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, LOT SIZE.
COR NO, IT, I MEAN, JUST EVERYBODY EXPLAINED THAT THE, THE BAR FOR POSITIVE IS MUCH HIGHER THAN JUST KEEPING, NOT, NOT, NOT MAKING ANY NEGATIVE.
SO, BUT ED, IF YOU FEEL THAT CHARACTER IS, IS AN, AN OVERWHELMING PLANNING, POSITIVE IMPROVEMENT.
SO WE'RE NOT GONNA BROW YOU WITH THIS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? NO, I'M FINE.
SO, BUT, BUT, BUT IT'S NOT, AGAIN, DOESN'T HAVE TO BE UNANIMOUS.
YOU GAVE SOME REASONS BEHIND WHY YOU MIGHT, MAY SUPPORT POSITIVE AND WE WOULD KEEP IT THAT WAY.
HE SAID IT AND YOU GUYS GANG DONE THIS WAS A STRAW.
SO LET'S, AND LET'S, LET'S, YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING, THAT'S NOT RIGHT.
THAT'S BASED ON THE CONVERSATION.
AMELIA, PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SPEAKING UNDERSTANDING WHAT, WHAT THE BOARD'S VIEW OF COMPELLING IS.
I'M NOT, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND.
I I DON'T THINK IT'S COMPELLING IN THE SENSE THAT IT'S GOING TO IMPROVE THE WHOLE AREA BY, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPING THIS LOT AND GRANTING THESE WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH.
THAT'S NOT, EXCUSE ME, IF I COULD HAVE ONE PERSON SPEAK AT A TIME.
WAIT, THERE'S ONLY ONE PEOPLE THAT SPEAK AT ALL.
AND I, I THINK I NEED TO RE EXCUSE ME, THE, THE CHAIR HAS THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW, AND I'D LIKE TO JUST REITERATE THAT THERE'S AN EXPLANATION FOR WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DECIDED OVER THE POLICY THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DECIDED OVER THE COURSE OF YEARS, SO THAT WHEN WE HAVE NEW MEMBERS, THERE'S A CONSISTENCY TO THE VOTE.
SO THIS WAS NOT, UM, TRYING TO SWAY SOMEONE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
THAT'S WHAT I SAW FROM WHAT I HEARD.
I, I THAT'S, I'M CALLING IT LIKE, I SEE WE'RE GOING TO MOVE, MOVE FORWARD.
EACH ONE OF YOU HAVE TO DECIDE YOUR OWN WAY.
MR. ADES, YOU ARE INVITED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.
WHEN YOU ARE PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO, YOU'LL BE PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, BUT PLEASE DO NOT SPEAK OVER THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS.
SO WITH RESPECT TO THE 10TH VARIANCE CONCERNING FAR IS, DO WE WANT TO GO AROUND THE ROOM? EMILY, YOU HAD ASKED THAT THAT BE SEPARATED OUT.
SO DO YOU WANT TO GIVE YOUR OPINION ON THAT? I THINK NEGATIVE, SO I WOULD JUST, I AM HAPPY TO WRITE IT UP HOWEVER THE BOARD SEES FIT.
SO LET'S GO AROUND THE ROOM AND THEN I'LL GIVE MY EXPLANATION.
I THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE THINGS.
AND SINCE THE, THE WAY THE WHOLE THING ELSE CAME IS TO, FIRST TO US, IT SHOULD BE ZONING BOARD.
SO I WILL JUST SAY, UH, NEUTRAL.
UH, IN LIGHT OF, UH, THIS WHOLE PROJECT IS, IS BASICALLY BASED, IT'S, IS IS A PLANNING BOARD.
I MEAN, THE ZONING BOARD IS, IS IN DRIVING STATE.
AND IF THEY APPROVE IT, THEN WE SHOULD REALLY OPINE.
I I AM, I CAN I CON, CON CONDITION IT ON? WELL, HIM RETURNING, I'M ULTIMATELY THE BUILDING, WHAT, THE WAY WE'RE WRITING THIS UP IS, THE WAY I ENVISION WRITING IT IS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS REPRESENTED THAT, UH, AT THIS MEETING, THAT THEY WILL NOT BE PURSUING THIS VARIANCE.
HOWEVER, BEING THAT IT IS IN THE MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DATED MARCH 11TH, THE PLANNING BOARD VOTES TO ISSUE A POSITIVE, NEGATIVE NEUTRAL WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIANCE FOR THESE REASONS.
I THINK YOU PUT IT RIGHT THERE.
I WILL, I WILL SEPARATE IT UP.
I, I CAN'T DO NEUTRAL PENDING HIM REMOVING IT.
WELL, LET'S JUST SAY HE WASN'T GONNA REMOVE IT.
AND NEGATIVE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T FULLY VETTED IT.
AND I ALSO, UM, THINK THAT IF HE EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA, GIVEN THAT, UM, THERE ARE CONCESSIONS BECAUSE THE, OF THE CHANGES IN THE SLOPE AND THE, THE ELEVATIONS OF THE LAND, THAT YOU SHOULDN'T BE EXCEEDING THAT.
UM, AND UH, GIVEN THE LOCATION WITH THE PARK, IT COULD HAVE IMPACTS ON THE, UM, UH, THE PARK AND THE, THE, THE
[02:10:01]
WATER MM-HMMAND SO I, I, MY VOTE IS NEGATIVE.
SO THAT, SO WE WILL LAY OUT THE LANGUAGE AND WHAT WE CAN DO, AND I THINK WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS INSTANCE, GIVEN THE MODIFICATIONS TONIGHT, BEFORE IT GETS TRANS.
SO STAFF WILL FINALIZE IT BASED OFF THE DISCUSSION THIS EVENING.
SO THEN IT CAN BE CIRCULATED TO BOARD MEMBERS BEFORE IT GETS TRANSMITTED TO THE ZONING BOARD.
SO YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK O OVER IT.
AGAIN, IT'S BASED OFF THE DISCUSSION THIS EVENING.
SO IF SOMETHING COMES INTO YOUR MIND, YOU KNOW, AFTER YOU GET HOME TONIGHT AND YOU CAN'T FALL ASLEEP, BECAUSE WE DISCUSSED THIS PROJECT FOR A LONG TIME, UM, WE HAVE TO STICK TO WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE MEETING.
UM, THIS APPLICATION, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, HASN'T UH, FILED YET WITH THE ZONING BOARD.
SO THE EARLIEST THEY WOULD BE ON IS JUNE 12TH.
SO THERE WOULD BE TIME TO GIVE THE BOARD THE, FOR STAFF TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO AMEND THE DOCUMENT AS DISCUSSED THIS EVENING, AND THEN CIRCULATE IT FOR, YOU KNOW, FINAL REVIEW BEFORE TRANSMISSION.
SO WHAT YOU'LL SEND US WILL SHOW THE CHANGES.
YEAH, WE'LL DO IT IN A RED LINE VERSION.
UM, BEFORE WE MOVE ON, EMILY I BELIEVE HAD A COMMENT WITH RESPECT TO THE FINDINGS.
YEAH, I, SO EMILY, EMILY WOULD WANT TO GUIDES HARD FOR ME ON THE, SO IT'S HARD.
I I I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF IT.
SO IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN REVIEW? SINCE THE PLANNING BOARD DOESN'T HAVE IT, IT WAS CIRCULATED ELECTRONICALLY.
NO, I'M LOOKING AT WHAT WAS SENT.
NO, SO IT'S IN MY POCKET ELECTRONICALLY.
I THOUGHT MATT HAD SENT IT AFTER I SENT.
WAIT, MAYBE YOU DID SENT IT ON FRIDAY.
OKAY, THEN I, SO LET ME SEE WHAT, SO I'VE GOT THE LINK TO THE PLANNING BOARD PACKAGE FROM YOU ON FRIDAY.
AND THEN I GO IN THERE AND, OH WAIT, HOLD ON.
I GOTTA GIVE YOU THESE CO NO, THIS IS, EXCEPT NO, THAT'S A SECRET.
YOU SAID YOU DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATIVE.
AND ACTUALLY I HAVE A SUGGESTION.
I DON'T THINK ANY OF US HAVE IT.
ONE, I THINK IN LIGHT OF THAT, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR STAFF TO AMEND THIS DOCUMENT, CIRCULATE IT TO THE BOARD AHEAD OF THE NEXT MEETING.
AND THEN YOU CAN VOTE TO APPROVE.
WE ALREADY HAVE YOUR VOTE ON HOW YOU WOULD GO WITH RESPECT TO EACH OF THE VARIANCES.
BUT THE FINDINGS AND ANY OTHER LANGUAGE CAN BE CONSIDERED AT OUR NEXT MEETING ON MAY 21ST.
UM, THAT'S STILL WELL IN ADVANCE OF THE APPLICANT GETTING BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD WILL GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR ALL OF YOU TO SEE IT AS AMENDED.
DO YOU? SO WE'RE NOT, SO THE VOTES THAT WE JUST TOOK DON'T COUNT.
IT'S, IT'S APPROVING THE FINAL OF THE FINAL DOCUMENT.
SO, SO BASICALLY MY THOUGHT WOULD BE THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING, WELL WE'RE GONNA GIVE IT, GET IT OUT TO YOU MUCH SOONER.
SO IF YOU HAVE COMMENTS AHEAD OF THAT, PLEASE LET US KNOW.
BUT AT THE MEETING, YOU WOULD VOTE TO TRANSMIT THE DOCUMENT TO THE ZONING BOARD AS PREVIOUSLY VOTED UPON.
WHY AREN'T WE DOING THAT TONIGHT FOR THE NINE? 'CAUSE IT'S 'CAUSE PEOPLE HAVEN'T SEEN FOR THE NINE, THE DOCUMENT, THEY HAVEN'T SEEN THE FINDINGS WHICH RELATE TO BOTH.
AND WE HAVE THREE OTHER PROJECTS.
YEAH, I KNOW, RIGHT? SO I JUST WANT TO GIVE THEM, I THINK THIS APPLICANT'S NOT GONNA LOSE ANY TIME BY US FINALIZING WELL, I'M SORRY.
'CAUSE I THOUGHT WE CAME TO A DECISION TONIGHT.
SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS WE'RE GONNA COME TO A DECISION ONLY ON THE LANGUAGE.
I THINK IT'D BE HOWEVER, THEY WERE STRAW POLLS.
SO I THINK THAT NO, WE, NO, WE DID, NO, WE DID A FINAL VOTE.
I DON'T HAVE A MOTION OR A SECOND ON EITHER.
NO, WE DID THE MOTION ON THE FIRST TIME.
THE FIRST TIME YESTERDAY WE HAD A MOTION, UH, TO DECLARE IT AN UNLISTED ACTION.
AND A MOTION TO ADOPT THE NEG DECK AS AMENDED.
AND THEN WE JUST, AND WE THEN TOOK A STRAW POLL ON THE NINE VARIANCES AND ANOTHER STRAW POLL ON THE FAR VARIANCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO.
WE TOOK A STRAW POLL FOR THE NINE.
AND THEN WE DID THE VOTE ON THE NINE.
I DIDN'T HAVE A MOTION OR A SECOND.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT, UH, UH, WE, UH, UH,
[02:15:01]
THE NINE VARIANCES.CAN YOU DO UNANIMOUSLY? CAN YOU DO, UH, OKAY.
SO ON THE FAR VARIANCE, UH, MOTION, UH, AND THAT WAS ALSO FOUR AND ONE.
WELL, WE'RE GONNA TAKE THE VOTE.
YOU'RE MAKING A MOTION FOR IT TO BE NEUTRAL.
AND NEGATIVE FOR THE REASON CITED.
SO THE MOTION CARRIES AND WE WILL ELABORATE IN THIS DOCUMENT.
IT'S OVER, WHICH I WILL STAFF WILL UPDATE, GET OUT TO YOU IN A SEPARATE EMAIL, AND THEN WE'LL BE PREPARED TO VOTE TO APPROVE THAT AS WRITTEN TO CIRCULATE TO THE ZONING BOARD, TO CIRCULATE TO THE ZONING BOARD AT OUR MEETING ON THE 21ST.
AND YOU WILL ADD THE REASON FOR IT.
WE'RE GONNA ABSOLUTELY ADD THAT IN.
AND THEN EVERYONE HAVE A GOOD NIGHT? GOOD NIGHT.
UM, DO YOU WANT TWO MINUTES? GOOD.
I THINK EVERYBODY OKAY TO KEEP GOING AND THEN BREAK BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.
SO WE'RE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU DON'T WHEN IT HITS? WELL, WE'VE GONE OVER BEFORE, BUT IT'S RARE.
I HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT WHICH ONE'S I'M NOT TELLING YOU.
I'M JUST GONNA LEAVE IT AS A SURPRISE UNTIL
WHAT THE CHAIR WOULD SAY IS, UM, YOU GOT, WE'RE DONE.
WE NEED TO FIVE OR 10 MINUTES OVER IS WE GET TO WATCH.
I THOUGHT YOU WERE IN A, UH, I I WASN'T SEQUESTERED.
SEQUESTERED IN A WASN'T SOUNDPROOF.
WASN'T PICKING THE NEXT PHOTO.
DO YOU WANNA TAKE TWO MINUTES? LET'S JUST SET UP, UP.
UM, I MEAN WE, I THINK JUST FAIRLY TO, UM, I WILL.
ALRIGHT, NEXT CASE IS CASE PB 1435 CARRIAGE HILLS SUBDIVISION DRAGO WAY, PPO, WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK AMENDMENT TO SUBDIVISION PLAT AND SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
PLEASE STATE FOR THE RECORD YOUR NAME.
I'M AN ARCHITECT AND ENGINEER REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT TONIGHT.
UH, AND WITH ME IS RASHAD BAAL, WHO'S THE OWNER OF THE, UH, PROPERTY BEFORE YOU.
UM, LET'S SEE IF I FIND YOU IN THE WAITING ROOM.
SO, UM, IF I COULD SHARE MY SCREEN.
THIS COULD BE DIFFICULT, OTHERWISE I HAVE THE DOCUMENTS.
WHY DON'T YOU PUT 'EM ON THEN FOR NOW, TEMPORARILY.
DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC, UH, I'LL START WITH S ONE IF I MAY.
I WAS GONNA JUST TALK ABOUT THE, THE, UH, THE, UH, S ONE TO SITE PLAN.
WE HAVE A PLANTING PLAN AND WE HAVE A EASEMENT PLAN.
SO I'LL OPEN THE SITE PLAN FIRST.
IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, I KNOW WE MADE YOU WAIT A LONG TIME TO GET TO IT, BUT TO THE EXTENT YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO, AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOURS CAME UP.
WELL, I COULD MUCH OF YOURS IN.
OH, WELL ANYWAY, THEN YOU WOULD HAVE TO, YOU WOULD'VE TO STOP YOURS.
I'LL JUST SHUT MINE OFF FOR NOW, TEMPORARILY HERE.
WE MOVE FORWARD REALLY QUICKLY NOW 'CAUSE I KNOW, KNOW, YOU HAVE A TIME ISSUE.
UH, THIS PROJECT, UH, BASICALLY, UH, CONSISTS OF RECTIFYING SOME ISSUES IN AN APPROVED SUBDIVISION WHEN IT DID CARRIAGE HILL.
UH, AT, AT IN THE ERA BY 2014, THERE WAS A, UH, POSITION TAKEN BY MANY MUNICIPALITIES THAT YOU COULD TAKE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AND SCATTER AMONG INDIVIDUAL LOTS TO, UH, MEET, UH, OR CRITERIA, UH, RECENTLY ESTABLISHED AT THE, AT THAT TIME BY DEC AND DEP.
AND SO WHAT THEY DID WITH THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY,
[02:20:01]
UH, IS THEY PUT IN AN APPROVED PLAN, WHICH HAD ABOUT, UH, THREE QUARTERS OF THE LOT WAS ACTUALLY COVERED WITH OPEN BASINS.NOT ONLY WAS THAT PROJECT AS APPROVED UNBUILDABLE ILLEGAL, UH, A HEALTH HAZARD, UH, AND IT WAS IMPROPERLY DESIGNED.
SO IT, IT, IT CONSTITUTED NONCOMPLIANT WITH CERTAIN DEC REQUIREMENTS, BASICALLY DAM SAFETY.
UH, SO, UH, OUR FIRM WAS INVOLVED, UH, TO BASICALLY REC TRY AND RECTIFY THIS, UH, OF WHAT WAS FILED IN THE PAST.
UH, AND WE, UH, DID A LOT OF, UH, STUDIES TO SORT OF HOW TO IMPROVE THIS.
SO NOT ONLY WAS IT, UH, A VIABLE LOT, UH, WITH A HOUSE SITE, BUT ALSO IT MET ALL THESE VARIOUS CRITERIA, WHICH I MENTIONED TO YOU EARLIER.
UH, THE DESIGN INCLUDED, UH, REDESIGNING THE DRIVEWAY 'CAUSE IT, THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PROJECT HAD A DRIVEWAY, WHICH DID NOT WORK AT ALL.
I HAVE A PLAN IN FRONT OF ME, A EXCERPT OF IT, UH, AND IT'S VERY INTERESTING TO LOOK AT.
UH, BUT, UH, SO WE HAD TO SOLVE THE DRIVEWAY SO WE COULD GET TO THE GARAGE.
THE HOUSE SITE WAS ACTUALLY STARTED AND IT WAS A FOUNDATION ON THE PROPERTY WHEN I, UH, STARTED WORKING ON THE PROJECT ITSELF.
UH, AND WE, UH, WE, WE DECIDED THAT THE ONLY WAY TO MAKE THIS VIABLE IS WE HAD TO PUT UNDERGROUND DETENTION SYSTEMS ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH QUITE WEREN'T DEVELOPED IN THAT ERA WHEN THIS WAS APPROVED.
AND SO WE WENT THROUGH ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE DIFFERENT OPTIONS FOR, UH, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT WITH UNDERGROUND SYSTEMS. UH, AND THIS AND WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU WAS APPROVED, UH, TO, UH, MEET CERTAIN CRITERIA OF, UH, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
UH, AND ALSO TO MAKE IT VIABLE FOR MY CLIENT.
UH, AND THIS IS A PICTURE PRETTY MUCH OF WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE WITH THE, UH, UH, ENGINEERING COMPONENTS.
WHAT YOU SEE IS AN ARRAY OF BASINS, UH, BOTH ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
UH, THEY ARE, UH, LOCATED, UH, BELOW THE, A REVISED GRADED PLAN.
AND THE LEFT SIDE BEHIND THE HOUSE, THERE'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF UNIT.
UH, BUT THE SUMMATION OF ALL THOSE UNITS BASICALLY MAKES THIS PROPERTY ABLE TO COLLECT SEVEN LOTS WORTH OF DRAINAGE AND TO ATTENUATE THEM TO THE A HUNDRED YEAR STORM EVENT.
SO WE, UH, WE'RE MEETING A VERY HIGH, UH, CRITERIA FOR BOTH TREATMENT AND FOR, UH, ATTENUATION.
THE, THE ISSUE AT HAND THEN IS, UH, WHAT DO WE'VE DONE? WE'VE IMPROVED.
WE MADE THE DRIVEWAYS WORK THAT DRAINAGE WORKS NOW THERE'S NO, UH, UH, SAFETY PROBLEM WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES DOWNSTREAM OF US, OR THE LOWER PORTION PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, AND, UH, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY ALL THE NEIGHBORS.
UH, AND THEY'VE ACCEPTED ITS VIABILITY 'CAUSE THEY'RE HELPING TO MAINTAIN IT.
NEIGHBORS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION? YES.
SO THE PEOPLE WITHIN HOA, IT'S AN HOA.
SO THE PEOPLE WITH THE EXISTING, I'M SORRY, THE PEOPLE WITH THE EXISTING BASINS, THEY'RE THE NEIGHBORS OR THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF THE NEIGHBORS REMIT? THE, THE, YOU KNOW WHERE IT'S FLOWING INTO THOSE BASINS? YES.
UH, WHAT IT IS, IS THE PEOPLE BELOW US ALL THE STORM WATER WAS DESIGNED TO GO THROUGH ALL THE LOTS, LIKE SEVEN OF THEM.
AND THE WATER ENDED UP EMANATING FROM BOTH THE PIPING SHOWN RUNNING HORIZONTALLY AND A LOWER PORTION OF THAT LOT.
AND THROUGH THE UPPER PORTION OF THE LOT FROM THE STREET WALKWAY, UH, STREET SIDE, ALL THAT WAS INITIALLY DESIGNED TO GO INTO REALLY LARGE, MASSIVELY LARGE OPEN BASINS, ALMOST 0.8 OF AN ACRE.
AND THEN THEY WERE DRAINING DOWN TO A POINT ON THAT, UH, ON THAT MAP, UH, RIGHT THERE.
AND THEN EXTENDED OFF, UH, THROUGH AN ANOTHER ESTABLISHED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, WHICH WAS EXISTING ON A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.
SO THAT NEIGHBORING PROPERTY IS WHERE THEY EXISTED, WHERE IT'S, WHERE YOUR END POINT IS.
AND I'M, WHEN YOU SAID YOU'VE CHECKED WITH THE NEIGHBORS, INCLUDING THOSE NEIGHBORS? YES.
WE'VE, WE'VE DONE IS WE WENT TO ALL THE NEIGHBORS, UH, WITHIN THE, UH, UH, COTTAGE, UH, CARRIAGE OR THE CARRIAGE HILL, UH, OR WHATEVER.
SO ARE THOSE THE PEOPLE WITH THOSE EXISTING BASINS IN CARRIAGE HILL, OR ARE THEY SEPARATE? THAT'S ALL SEPARATE.
SO YOU, SO YOU'VE CHECKED WITH CARRIAGE HILL NEIGHBORS, NOT WITH THE PEOPLE THAT ARE GONNA RECEIVE THE STORMWATER.
SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS, OH, UH, WE'VE, WE'VE IMPROVED ON THE DISCHARGE OF STORMWATER TO A, THERE'S LESS WATER LEAVING THE SITE NOW BECAUSE WE'RE USING A DIFFERENT TYPE OF SYSTEM, WHICH BOTH USES INFILTRATION UNDERGROUND STORAGE.
SO WE'VE, WE'VE EXCEEDED WHAT WAS ACTUALLY APPROVED IN THE PAST AND MADE IT MORE EFFICIENT.
SO DISCHARGING INTO THIS OFFSITE BASIN THAT'S CORRECT.
WILL BE LESSENED, LESSENED BY THIS, BY THE PROPOSED DESIGN VERSUS THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED DESIGN, WHICH WAS THE BASINS A BIG OPEN POND.
AND THE PROBLEM WITH THE POND IS DIDN'T HAVE ANY EMERGENCY OVERFLOW CAPABILITIES, UH, WITH AN UNDERGROUND SYSTEM.
UH, THE WATER BASICALLY IS, IS IT'S, UH, OF,
[02:25:01]
OF SUCH A SIZE THAT WE'RE TAKING THE A HUNDRED YEAR STORM EVENT AND CONTAINING IT IN THE GROUND WITH OUR SYSTEM AND THEN ALLOWING IT TO OVERFLOW OVER, OVER A, A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.BUT WITH A BIG BASIN THAT WAS PROPOSED EARLIER, THE WATER WOULD REACH TO A CERTAIN POINT, IT WOULD HIT AN OUTLET, OUTLET STRUCTURE, AND ALL THE WATER WOULD JUST RUSH OUT, UH, THROUGH THE PIPE.
SO, SO IT'S MUCH MORE EFFICIENT.
AGAIN, UH, YOU CAN'T FALL INTO A BASIN 'CAUSE IT'S ALL IN THE GROUND.
WHAT, WHAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE IS A LAWN AREA, UH, AESTHETICALLY ACROSS THE BACK OF OUR PROPERTY.
UH, AND THEN, AND THAT WAS A SAFETY ISSUE WE ADDRESSED.
UH, AND THE ANOTHER ITEM IS IT'S JUST EASIER TO MAINTAIN.
'CAUSE BASICALLY IT'S, UH, IT'S A LOCALIZED APPROACH.
UH, AND, UH, YOU, YOU USE VACUUM TRUCKS TO ACCESS THESE, UH, COMPARTMENTALIZED SYSTEMS TO, TO CLEAN THEM PERIODICALLY.
AND WE ALSO ADDED A ACCESS ROAD, DEDICATED ACCESS PATHWAY THROUGH THIS PROPERTY TO GET TO THESE BASINS, WHICH WOULD BE GRASS CLAD AS WELL.
BUT WE WILL, THEY'LL BE REINFORCED, CAN ACTUALLY GET TO THE BASIN.
THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL, YOU COULDN'T GET TO THE BASIN.
THE BASIN WAS AT THE BOTTOM OF A CLIFF AND YOU COULDN'T GET FROM THE, FROM THE DRIVEWAY TO THE BASINS THAT THE OPEN BASINS, THEY PROPOSED IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO GET THERE.
SO WE'VE, WE'VE RECTIFIED ALL THESE INTERESTING ISSUES THAT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY A VIABLE PRODUCT.
BEFORE YOU NOW, DO YOU HAVE TO UPDATE THE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT AND THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT? YES.
UH, WE HAVE A, UH, TWO, UH, MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS PROPOSED, UH, WHICH HAVE BEEN, UH, UH, PRESENTED TO YOU.
ONE EASEMENT IS FOR ACCESS ON THIS ACCESS ROADWAY, WHICH EXTENDS AROUND THE HOUSE, UH, TO THE BASINS ITSELF.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S ONE EASEMENT JUST FOR ACCESS, BUT THAT'S THE ACCESS EASEMENT.
AND THEN THE ACTUAL MAINTENANCE EASEMENT, THERE'S ONE AROUND ALL THE BASINS.
WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE EASEMENTS THAT ONE EASEMENT.
SO I'M SHOWING THE MAINTENANCE NOW, WHICH COMES AROUND.
AND THEN SEPARATELY, AND THEN THAT DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S A SEPARATE ONE, THERE'S A MAINTENANCE RIGHT THERE IN FRONT OF YOU.
THAT ONE GIVES YOU A BROAD AREA WHERE YOU CAN ACTUALLY EXCAVATE IF YOU HAD TO, TO, TO FIX A BASIN, TO, TO FIX A CHAMBER IF EVER HAD A PROBLEM.
IT'S A, IT'S A BROAD BASED, UH, YOU CAN SEE TO THE SOUTH OF THE HOUSE, EVERYTHING BASICALLY WITHIN THE EASEMENT.
SO WE'VE GOT A GREAT EXTENT OF, UH, JUST IN THE MIC.
I'M SORRY, JUST FOR THOSE WATCHING AT HOME.
AND I KNOW NITPICKING, BUT THERE'S ACCESS EASEMENTS AND THERE'S MAINTENANCE EASEMENTS.
MAINTENANCE EASEMENT IS CORRECT.
AND THEN, AND THEN FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT OR NO? YES, IT'S IN, UH, IT'S, IT WAS FILED WITH THE, UM, YEAH.
DOES IT NEED TO BE UPDATED SUBDIVISION? YEAH.
SO IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE UPDATED WITH THIS CHANGE.
IT IS BEING UPDATED BY OUR ATTORNEYS.
THERE'S, THERE'S LANGUAGE REVISIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE ALREADY.
UM, IT WAS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY.
UM, IT NEEDS SOME CHANGES TO THE HOA DECLARATION, UM, WHICH IS THEY AGREED TO.
WHICH IS, AND THE MAINTENANCE BEING THAT A LARGE PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT FEEDS ITS WATER INTO THIS SYSTEM, IS IT, IT'S THE HOA RESPONSIBILITY.
THE ENTIRE HOA IS RESPONSIBLE, NOT THE POOR NEIGHBOR OR THE POOR, OR THE POOR OWNER.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY GONNA TO COME TO THE LIGHT.
UH, SO, UH, WE HAVE, ARE REQUIRED TO FILE THIS NEW, UH, UH, MAP, WHICH, UH, DEDICATES THIS AMENDMENT TO THE DRAINAGE.
IT ALSO NEEDS A WESTCHESTER COUNTY NON-JURISDICTIONAL, UH, SIGNATURE AS WELL, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A NEGATIVE DECK BEING ISSUED BY THE PLANNING BOARD TO, UH, BUT IT'S KIND OF A GRAY AREA 'CAUSE WE TECHNICALLY STILL HAVE A PERMIT TO DO THE WORK.
WE HAVE AN OPEN PERMIT TO COMPLETE THIS.
'CAUSE THEY NEVER FINISHED THE FIRST, THEY DIDN'T FINISH ANY OF THE CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROJECT.
AND THE OTHER ITEM IS WE HAVE TO GET ALL THIS DONE.
'CAUSE EVERYONE CAN'T, NO ONE CAN GET A CO YET OF 15 HOMES ON THE ON DRAG AWAY.
WE'RE KIND OF, UM, THIS IS THE PROBLEM.
THIS IS, THIS IS ONE OF THE LAST PIECES HOLDING UP PEOPLE FROM GETTING THEIR CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY AND THEIR THIS.
THEY'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, COME UP WITH, PUTTING IT IN A LITTLE BIT SIMPLER TERMS. THEY'VE, THEY'VE IDENTIFIED A PROBLEM WITH THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, DOESN'T MEET CURRENT REQUIREMENTS, NOT ACCESSIBLE, ET CETERA.
AND THEY'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT AND COORDINATION WITH OUR TOWN ENGINEER TO COME UP WITH A DESIGN THAT'S EASIER TO BUILD, EASIER TO MAINTAIN, MORE ACCESSIBLE, PROPER EASEMENTS.
IT'S AGREEABLE TO THE HOA FOLKS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE GONNA BE RESPONSIBLE
[02:30:01]
FOR PORTIONS OF WHICH ARE GONNA BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTENANCE.SO IT, IT, UM, I WANTED TO LAY THAT OUT JUST FOR THE MEMBERS STATE FOR THE RECORD, YOUR NAME? UH, MY NAME IS RASH AL.
AND THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR YOUR TIME.
SO YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO JUST BRIEFLY JUST EXPLAIN.
SO I BROUGHT THIS HOUSE TWO, ALMOST TWO AND A HALF YEARS AGO.
AND THEN WHEN IT WAS SOLD TO ME, IT WAS NEVER DISCLOSED AS FAR AS THIS WATER BASIN.
EVERYBODY ON THAT STREET HAS THE SAME ISSUE.
THE DEVELOPER HAS FOUR LAWSUITS ON THE STREET.
UM, SO IT'S, IT IS A MAJOR ISSUE.
AS YOU SAID, IT'S KIND OF AN UNLIVABLE SITUATION TO HAVE 80% OF YOUR PROPERTY LIKE GOING OFF A CLIFF.
AND THIS, THIS PROPERTY COSTS OVER A MILLION DOLLARS.
AND OVER THE COURSE OF TIME, I'VE SPENT A LOT OF MONEY HIRING ATTORNEYS, HIRING PETER, HIRING THE ENGINEERS.
UM, AND WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE TOWN SINCE AUGUST TO GET THIS DONE.
AND, UM, VERY STRENUOUS PROCESS.
AND WE'VE MET ALL OF THE REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
SO THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF INTEGRITY HAS BEEN PUT INTO THIS PROJECT.
IT'S LIKE $400,000 TO PUT THIS IN.
BUT I CAN'T FINISH BUILDING THIS HOME UNTIL THIS IS DONE.
I HAVE A CONSTRUCTION LOAN THAT, THAT'S ABOUT TO EXPIRE.
UM, AS HE SAID, NOBODY ON THE STREET CAN GET A CO UNTIL THIS IS DONE.
EVERY ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS HAS SIGNED LETTERS SAYING THAT THEY, UM, APPROVE OF IT.
UM, IT'S BEAUTIFUL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS OPPOSED TO HAVING AN EYE SAW AND A PROPERTY THAT NOBODY'S GONNA BE ABLE TO FINISH.
IT'S GONNA BE A, A GREEN PASTURE.
SO THAT'S GONNA BRING UP THE HOME VALUES.
UM, AS HE SAID, THE SAFETY CONCERNS.
UM, AND I ALSO FEEL LIKE, UM, NOBODY ELSE IS GONNA DO IT BECAUSE FINANCIALLY IT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE SENSE FOR SOMEBODY TO TAKE ON THIS PROJECT.
I TRIED TO SELL A HOUSE THAT, THAT DIDN'T WORK.
SO, UM, I JUST REALLY WANTED TO JUST KIND OF STRESS THAT BECAUSE TIME IS REALLY OF THE ESSENCE FOR ME PERSONALLY.
LIKE I SAID, I'M, I'M INTO THIS PROPERTY, A LOT OF MONEY FROM ALL OF THE PEOPLE THAT I'VE PAID ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION AND WE'RE BUILDING THE HOME NOW, BUT WE CAN'T FINISH BUILDING THE HOME UNTIL THIS IS DONE.
'CAUSE LIKE IN FRONT OF MY DRIVEWAY, THERE'S LIKE A HUGE HOLE IN, IN THE GROUND.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN A VERY STRESSFUL PROCESS FOR SURE.
AND I THINK THAT WE'VE GONE OVER AND ABOVE AS FAR AS ADDRESSING EVERYTHING, UM, AND NOT PUTTING A BURDEN ON THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, THAT'S WHY THEY PROBABLY LOVE IT.
SO I REALLY JUST WANTED TO JUST KIND OF, YOU KNOW, HAMMER THAT, THAT PART HOME.
BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, IT'S BEEN OVER TWO YEARS AND BEEN ALMOST A YEAR THAT WE'VE BEEN, I'VE BEEN IN THIS BUILDING PROBABLY EVERY WEEK FOR THE LAST 50 WEEKS, UM, TALKING TO DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS.
I JUST WANTED TO ADD ONE THING JUST TO, FOR THE BOARD'S BENEFIT.
AND, UM, SO WITH RESPECT TO THE BASINS, THERE WAS LANDSCAPING ALSO PROPOSED AROUND AND WITHIN AND ALONG THE PERIMETER OF THE BASIN.
SO OUR OFFICE HAS COORDINATED WITH THE OWNER AND HIS TEAM TO TAKE THAT LANDSCAPING THAT WAS GONNA GO AROUND THE BASIN AND SITUATE IT STILL ON THE SITE.
OBVIOUSLY IT'S DIFFERENT 'CAUSE IT'S NOT GONNA BE ON THE EDGE OR BERM OF A BASIN, BUT IT, IT'S GONNA BE PLANTED THROUGHOUT THE SITE.
THE APPLICANT, THE OWNER WAS AGREEABLE TO IT.
SO TOWN STAFF FROM OUR OFFICE IS SATISFIED THAT THEY'VE SATISFIED THAT REQUIREMENT FOR REPLANTING.
SO, BUT AS OPPOSED TO THE OPEN HOLE, DIDN'T YOU JUST MENTION THERE'LL BE, UM, GRASS GOING OVER NOW? THE, THE INGROUND BASINS.
UM, AND WITH, WITH THIS TYPE OF STRUCTURE, YOU CAN'T PUT TREES OVER THE TOP OF IT, BUT, SO WE HAVE TO PUT TREES AROUND THE PERIMETER.
SO WE HAVE A WHOLE BUNCH OF, UH, TREE PLANTINGS IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY MM-HMM
AND WE'RE ALSO ADDING TREES THAT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY FOR THE NEIGHBOR'S BENEFIT, WHICH DID, WHICH WEREN'T THERE BEFORE.
SO WE GOT TREES SPACED AROUND IT.
WELL, I DIDN'T MEAN THE TREES, I MEANT THE GRASS THAT'S GOING OVER.
AND ALSO THE FACT THAT NOW, UM, TO, TO THE FLOODING, OR I'M SORRY TO THE COLLECTION ISSUE, THERE WON'T BE DEBRIS, JUST RANDOM DEBRIS GOING INTO THE WATER BASIN, RIGHT? YES.
WE HAVE FILTERS THAT ARE, UH, DESIGNED TO, UM, TO, UH, TAKE CARE OF ALL THE WATER BEFORE IT ENTERS THE BASIN.
SO BACK TO THE DECLARATION, THE HOA DECLARATION.
UM, CURRENTLY THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN, THERE IS A, UM, WE'LL CALL LIKE A DAILY OR ROUTINE MAINTENANCE OBLIGATION THAT IS ON THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE HOA.
UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'RE UPDATING THAT, THAT IS SOMETHING TO CONSIDER ON YOUR OWN INTEREST.
BUT JUST TO ENSURE THAT, THAT HOA DECLARATION INCLUDES THE UNDERGROUND LANGUAGE, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, AND ALSO THE USE IT, THE WRITTEN, IT'S BEEN WRITTEN THAT WAY ALREADY.
UH, IT'S, IT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEER.
ONE OTHER THING, UH, THE PLAN THAT I HAVE UP RIGHT NOW SHOWS A POOL BETWEEN THE TWO AREAS.
[02:35:01]
YES.UM, I MEAN, UH, WE BASICALLY HAVE A, UM, EVERY, EVERY LOT IS PROPOSING POOLS ON THEIR PROPERTY.
WHAT, WHEN THIS PROJECT WAS SUBDIVIDED, THEY HAD A HOUSE, UH, THEY HAD, UH, UH, PORCHES ABOUT 12 FEET IN THE AIR WITH A, WITH A STAIRCASE RUNNING OUT THE BACK.
THAT'S, THAT WAS A STANDARD MODEL UTILIZED WITH A SUBDIVISION.
IT WASN'T HAD REALLY NO, NO BEARING WITH REALITY.
AND NOW EVERY SINGLE PERSON I, I'M, I'M REPRESENTING MOST OF THEM ARE ADDING POOLS, UH, TO THE BACK OF THEIR PROPERTY.
AND SO WHEN, WHEN WE DID THIS DESIGN WORK, UH, WE SHOWED AN AREA WHERE WE COULD ALLOCATE A POOL.
IT'S UNDER A SEPARATE PERMIT THAT WOULD NOT BE PART AND PARCEL OF THIS AMENDMENT.
BUT WE HAD TO SHOW IT FOR ENGINEERING PURPOSES THAT IT COULD WORK WITH THE, UH, PROPOSED CHAMBERS.
UNDERSTOOD TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY BASED ON THIS CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT, IT WOULD BE ZONING COMPLIANT.
AMANDA, THE LANGUAGE WE HAD LAST TIME ON ONE OF THE MATTERS FOR, YOU KNOW, REPAIR, UH, REPAIR REPLACEMENT.
UM, SO MAINTAIN, REPAIR AND REPLACE, MAINTAIN REPAIR AND REPLACE EASEMENT.
IS THAT SIMILAR LANGUAGE IN THIS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT? SO THIS MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT IS SHOWN ON THE PLANS.
THAT'S WHY I WAS JUST CONFIRMING THAT IT'LL BE REFERRED TO AND UPDATED IN THE DECLARATION.
HOA, UM, YEAH, THEY CAN INCORPORATE A NOTE IF YOU WOULD.
SO DESIRE AND IF THE APPLICANT IS AGREEABLE TO IT TO INDICATE THAT ON THE, THE PLA PLAN ITSELF.
YEAH, SO, SO IT, YOU KNOW, COMMENT WAS MAINTAIN, REPAIR, REPLACE.
YOUR SCREENS WILL PLUG WEEKLY.
HUH? YOUR SCREENS WILL PLUG WEEKLY.
SO IN, IN FRONT OF US IS A, A MODIFICATION TO THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
I, I NOTICED THAT THERE SEEMS TO BE A NEW DRIVEWAY AND, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A, A NEW PARKING AREA.
WAS THAT IN THE PREVIOUS PLAN OR IS THERE PLANNING IMPLICATIONS? OH, I TO THE NEW DRIVEWAY AND THE SURE.
UH, IF I MAY I HAVE DRIVEWAY, OLD PLAN OF FRONT.
I THINK THERE WAS A CHANGE TO THE DRIVEWAY IF, IF YOU WANNA PASS, THERE WAS A MODIFICATION.
THIS WAS PROVED AND IT HAD A, HAD A DRIVEWAY WHICH WENT THROUGH A 90 DEGREE TURN.
UH, AND THEN IT WENT OVER, YEAH.
IT'S PROPOSED TO BE MODIFIED, IT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY TOWN STAFF.
UM, AS WE MENTIONED, SOMETIMES WHEN AN APPLICANT HAS IDENTIFIED AN AREA OF DISTURBANCE MM-HMM
IT HAS THE ABILITY TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS WITHIN THOSE APPROVED AREAS OF DISTURBANCE SUBJECT TO STAFF LEVEL REVIEW.
IT RISES TO A LEVEL WHERE STAFF BELIEVES IT NEEDS WARD LEVEL APPROVAL, SUCH AS WITH THE MODIFICATION OF THIS FROM A BASE INTO AN UNDERGROUND SYSTEM, WE BRING IT TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION.
SO, SO THIS, THIS WAS ALL SORT OF REVIEWED AT THE STAFF LEVEL.
THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW, CHANGES TO VARIANCE NECESSARY OR ANY OTHER PLANNING, PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS.
IT'S, IT'S AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT, WHICH I SHOWED WITH RESPECT TO THOSE, UM, EASEMENTS AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS AND THE MODIFICATION.
SO PER ED'S COMMENT BEFORE, UM, THE APPLICANT COULD SPEAK TO WHETHER THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH INCLUDING A NOTE, UM, THAT THE, UH, THE IMPROVEMENTS WILL BE MAINTAINED, REPAIRED, AND REPLACED PURSUANT TO THE HOA DECLARATION THAT'S FOR YOU FILED.
READY FOR A MOTION? SO PROCEDURALLY, UM, BEING THAT THESE ARE AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT AND THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE OWNER AND, UH, THE TEAM HAVE COORDINATED WITH THE OTHER OWNERS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT, THE BOARD DOES HAVE THE ABILITY TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, ON THE AMENDMENT, OR THE BOARD CAN CHOOSE TO HOLD THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND WHEN, CONSIDERING THAT IT, WE, WE'VE LOOKED AT IN THE PAST IS WHETHER THERE'S ANY IMPACTS TO ANY OF THE LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION.
UM, IF THERE'S ANY COMMUNITY OPPOSITION OR, OR ANY, UH, REQUEST TO SPEAK ON THE, THE ISSUE, UM, WAS, UH, PARDON.
SO IN TERMS OF CORRESPONDENCE AND REQUEST TO SPEAK ON THE ISSUE, YES.
ARE THERE ANY PEOPLE THERE WAS A OVERWHELMING SUPPORT? NO, THAT PART I KNOW, BUT ANY, OKAY.
AND THEN, AND THEN ON THE RECORD THIS EVENING, THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE IS INDICATED THAT FROM AN OFFSITE PERSPECTIVE, OUTSIDE
[02:40:01]
OF THE SUBDIVISION LIMITS, THERE'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE LESS POTENTIAL FOR WATER TO FLOW, UH, ONTO THAT SITE.IF YOU WANNA STATE IT IN A DIFFERENT WAY, THAT'S FINE.
UH, WE, WE, WE WERE ATTENUATING THE STORMS TO A LOWER LEVEL THAN WERE APPROVED EARLIER.
WE, WE'VE, WE'VE MITIGATED ANY VISUAL IMPACT OF THIS PROJECT BECAUSE NOW WE'RE CONVERTING IT INTO A LAWN AND YOU'RE ATTENUATING UP TO A HUNDRED YEAR STORM.
SO THE NEIGHBOR DOWNSTREAM ONLY GETS IMPACTED IF YOU'VE GOT 102 YEAR STORM
IT'S WORSE FOR THEM AFTER THAT.
ANYTHING OVER A HUNDRED YEARS STORM EVENT, UH, WE, UH, START BUILDING SOMETHING, A RAFT.
IS THERE ALL OTHER YOU HAVE, THERE ARE 12 LOADS.
SO EACH ONE OF THEM ARE DOING THE SAME.
WHAT WHAT THERE IS, THERE'S 15 LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION.
UH, SEVEN OF WHICH, UH, DRAIN PLUS THE ROAD DRAINS THIS PROPERTY AND THEY HAVE OTHER, UH, ENCUMBRANCES ON OTHER LOTS, WHICH TO BE CANID ARE APPROACHING OUR OFFICE TO FIX AS WELL.
BUT THIS IS, UH, THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE MANY WE'RE REPAIRING ON THIS PROCESS.
SO I GUESS IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, IF THE ONLY FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED IS POSITIVE FEEDBACK, UM, THEN I WOULD MOVE TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ALL OPPOSED? THE MOTION PASSES TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND TO CONSIDER A MOTION ON AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION PLA AND IMPROVEMENT.
WELL, WE WOULD DO THEM SEPARATELY.
AMENDING THE SUBDIVISION PLA INCLUDING THE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT WAIT, SET UP.
I'M JUST MAKING SURE THAT WHEN ERIN SAYS IT INCLUDES THE MAINTENANCE EASEMENT THAT LIVES WITH THE PROPERTY BECAUSE YOU WERE JUST DOING SO GOOD, I THOUGHT YOU WAS GONNA FLOW RIGHT INTO A MOTION.
WHAT WILL THE, UM, IF I MAY JUST REITERATE THAT NOTE YOU ASKED FOR, IS THAT ALL IMPROVEMENTS WILL MAINTAINED, REPAIRED AND REPLACED, UH, BY THE HOA, UH, AS NOTED ON THIS, UH, PLAT.
BUT THE EASEMENT FOLLOWS WITH THE LAND, I MEAN, STAYS WITH THE LAND REGARDLESS OF THE OWNER, RIGHT? YEAH.
EASEMENTS ALWAYS STAY WITH THE LAND.
SO PURSUANT TO THE HOA DECLARATION.
OKAY, CAN I HAVE A, A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT? I'M SORRY? THE AMENDED SITE PLAN WITH THE AS AMENDED.
THE AMENDED SITE PLAN AS AMENDED THIS EVENING.
UH, SUBDIVISION PLAN SUBDIVISION FLAT.
ALL OPPOSED? AND THEN THE SAME OR SIMILAR MOTION IMPROVEMENT PLANS TO THE, FOR THE SUBDIVISION TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS AS PROPOSED.
SO THE, THE MOTION IS TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION PLANS AS, NO, THOSE, THOSE WOULDN'T CHANGE.
THE PLAT WILL CHANGE WITH THE NOTE.
THE IMPROVEMENT PLAN IS NOT PROJECTED TO, TO CHANGE.
WE WILL GET THESE DOCUMENTS OFF TO YOU AND CONTINUE COORDINATING.
JUST ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE SCREEN TOWARDS, SORRY.
WELL THE ISSUE IS THAT IT'S BEEN A MESS.
NOT A LOT OF THE SCHOOLS SALES WERE MADE.
WE'RE GONNA BREAK FOR A MINUTE.
MIGHT TAKE SOME OF IT THAT LONG TO GET UP TO THE DAY, BUT WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS.
GOOD EVENING LADIES AND GENTLEMEN AND WELCOME TO THE MAY 7TH, 2025 PLANNING BOARD MEETING, UH, PUBLIC HEARING.
CAN I HAVE THE ROLL CALL? AARON CHAIRPERSON LESLIE DAVIS.
HERE NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT BOARD MEMBER JOHANN SNAGS, S-N-A-G-G-S, IS NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING.
AND MS. ANDERSON WILL BE A FULL VOTING MEMBER.
[02:45:03]
OH MY GOD.SO THE FIRST CASE ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER PB 25 0 8 MECADO SUSHI TWO 14 EAST HARTSDALE AVENUE.
THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, UH, FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SHARED FOR SHARED PARKING.
I'M SORRY, SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND SHARED PARKING REDUCTION.
AND THE APPLICANT IS ON, ON ZOOM? YES.
WE HAVE SHEA GRAHAM, MICHAEL STEIN, AS WELL AS THE APPLICANTS.
UM, THIS WAS DISCUSSED IN WORK SESSION AND THERE WERE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND REQUESTS OF THE BOARD AND STAFF AS PART OF THAT WORK SESSION.
THE APPLICANT DID MAKE AN UPDATED SUBMISSION AND WAS GOING TO DISPLAY SOME GRAPHICS THIS EVENING.
DO WE HAVE REPRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT TO PRESENT AND I, AND, UH, DISPLAY THOSE IMAGES FOR US? I SEE THEM ALL IN THE ZOOM ROOM.
EVENING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO ACTIVATE YOUR VIDEO FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MEMBERSHIP? UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THE CAMERA.
I'M KIND OF WORKING ON TWO DEVICES RIGHT NOW.
AND WE DO HAVE THE SHARE SCREEN FUNCTION AVAILABLE.
UM, I WILL SHARE THE, THE, UM, THE REVISED PLAN, UM, THAT WE SUBMITTED, UM, THE MOST RECENT PLAN THAT WE SUBMITTED LATER ON.
UM, MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
MY NAME IS SHA GRAHAM FROM HUDSON ENGINEERING, UM, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICATION FOR TWO 14 EAST PARKVILLE AVENUE, UH, WITH PROPOSED SUSHI RESTAURANT, WHICH PROPOSES TO CONVERT THE DE SLASH BAKERY TO THE SUSHI RESTAURANT.
LAST APPEARANCE ON THE ARCHITECTURAL PLAN HAS BEEN
CAN YOU JUST SPEAK UP, CAN YOU SPEAK UP A LITTLE BIT FOR THE BENEFIT OF OUR STENOGRAPHER PLEASE? 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE VIDEO.
UM, SO, UH, THE ARCHITECTURAL PLANS HAVE BEEN REVISED TO SHOW A REDUCED OCCUPANCY, UH, FROM 70 OCCUPANTS DOWN TO 48 OCCUPANTS, UM, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES, UH, STAFF.
SO THEREFORE THE NUMBER OF SEATS, CUSTOMER SEATS, UH, WAS REDUCED FROM 63 TO A TOTAL OF 38 SEATS.
AND, UH, THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS PER THE SEATS WERE REDUCED, UM, BASED ON THE SEATS OF 38.
UM, IT COMES OUT TO A PARKING REQUIREMENT OF 13, WHICH IS VERY CLOSE TO THE EXISTING REQUIREMENT OF 11 SPACES FOR THE BELLY FLAT, UH, BAKERY.
UM, ALTHOUGH THE PARKING IS NOT JUST BASED ON THE SEATS, IT'S ALSO BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE BUILDING.
UM, AND THE CODE REQUIRE US TO TAKE THE LARGER OF THE NUMBERS.
THEREFORE, THE REQUIRED PARKING IS E 13 AT IT REMAINS AT 29 SPACES FOR THE PROPOSED TISSUE RESTAURANT.
UM, IN ADDITION TO THAT, UM, WE DID PROVIDE A TRIP GENERATION MODEL, UM, WHICH SHOWS THE COMPARISON OF THE EXISTING BAKERY AND THE SUSHI RESTAURANT.
OH, UM, SO WE DON'T, UH, I SEE THEM ON THE SCREEN, BUT TERRENCE, THANK YOU.
YOU COULD ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT.
SO THIS WAS AT THE REQUEST, I BELIEVE OF MS. MAGNA TO, UM, DISPLAY SOME PHOTOGRAPHS OF, UH, THE, BOTH THE SITE, A PARKING GARAGE AND THE ON STREET PARKING TO SHOW AVAILABILITY.
UM, UM, LOOK, I, THE ADDITIONAL PICTURES ALSO SHOW THE, UH, AVAILABLE, UH, UM, ON STREET PARKING, UH, NEAR CORRECT.
UM, AND THOSE PICTURES DO SHOW, UM, A FEW SPACES HERE AND THERE AVAILABLE.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE PICTURE PREVIOUSLY SHOWN AT THE PARKING GARAGE, YOU CAN SEE THAT BOTH IN PHOTO SIX AND PHOTO FOUR, THAT BOTH LEVELS ONE AND TWO, WHICH IS DONATED TO PUBLIC PARKING, UM, HAVE A FAIR AMOUNT OF PARKING SPACES.
SO ACTUALLY MY COMMENT, I BELIEVE PREVIOUSLY HAD TO DO WITH, UM, THE TRAFFIC VOLUME.
[02:50:01]
OF THE CRITERIA THEY'RE GONNA GO THROUGH.UM, TOUCHING BACK ON THE TRIP GENERATION, UM, WE WENT ON TO, UM, THE ITEP WEBSITE AND, UH, PULLED DOWN, UH, UPLOADED A FEW MODELS OF THE TRIP GENERATION IN WHICH WE CLASSIFIED THE EXISTING, UH, USE AS A RETAIL SLASH CONVENIENCE STORE.
THAT SEEMS TO BE THE, THE MOST APPROPRIATE TITLE THAT IT FELL UNDER AND THE PROPOSED USE AS FELL UNDER SERVICES, UM, MORE SPECIFICALLY FIND VALUE.
AND AS YOU LOOK AT THE, UH, AVERAGE RATES BETWEEN THE TWO, THEY DRASTICALLY DECREASED FOR THE EXISTING.
UM, IT, IT'S ROUGHLY ABOUT 50 IN THE AM.
UM, AND IT REDUCES TO ABOUT FIVE, UM, IN THE AM FOR THE PROPOSED USE FOR DINING SERVICES.
UM, AND FOR THE PM IT'S ROUGHLY ABOUT, UH, 118 TRIPS WHERE IT, UH, GREATLY GETS REDUCED DOWN TO 17 TRIPS.
UM, SAME THING WITH THE, COMPARED WITH THE EMPLOYEE GENERATION.
UM, FOR THE AM AND THE PM IT REDUCES FROM 30 TO AROUND TWO AND 70 TO AROUND FIVE RESPECTIVELY.
IS IS SO OVERALL BASED ON THE MODEL, I'M SORRY, IS, IS THAT ANTICIPATION BASED ON LIKE LENGTH OF STAY VER WITH A FINE DINING VERSUS A RETAIL OKAY.
USE MORE OR LESS BECAUSE OF THEIR, BECAUSE THERE'S A LONGER LENGTH OF STAY.
UM, THERE'S A LESS TURNOVER FOR, UH, TRIP NATION, SO THE TRIP DONATIONS GO DOWN.
SO YOU
WE DID ASK MR. CANNING TO TAKE, UM, EVEN THOUGH HE'S NOT ENGAGED ON THIS PROJECT AS A COURTESY TO TAKE A LOOK, AND HE AGREES WITH THE APPLICANT'S, UH, SUBMISSION.
SO I WANTED TO ASK YOU REGARDING, UM, THE PARKING IN THE GARAGE AS OPPOSED TO THE ON STREET PARKING, WOULD IT BE A AVAIL? WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO, IN SOME WAY ENCOURAGE YOUR CUSTOMERS TO USE, UM, THE PARKING GARAGE AS OPPOSED TO ORANGE STREET AND THEN, BECAUSE IF I, IF I'M UNDER UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THEY CAN ENTER THROUGH THE BACK, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
IF THEY, SO A WAY TO PERHAPS ENCOURAGE THEM TO USE THAT PARKING AS OPPOSED TO USING THE ON STREET? I'M SO SORRY.
MAY I CLARIFY? WHEN YOU SAY ENTER FROM THE BACK, DO YOU MEAN ENTER THE RESTAURANT FROM THE REAR? YES.
I DON'T THINK THAT THERE, I I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S ACCESS IN THE REAR, BUT THAT DO, THAT'S MORE FOR STAFF.
I BELIEVE THE, THE, UH, UM, CUSTOMER ENTRANCES WOULD BE THE MAIN MM-HMM
BUT I, UH, THAT, THAT'S MY BELIEF.
I'M NOT TOO CERTAIN ON THAT, BUT I ASSUME THAT IT, IT WOULD BE COMING THROUGH THE FRONT.
WOULD THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PERHAPS PUT SIGNAGE INCH OR SOME NOTIFICATION TO PATRONS THAT THE SITE, A PARKING GARAGE IS AVAILABLE TO THE REAR? UH, AND IF THERE'S A WAY TO MAKE, I DON'T KNOW IF, YOU KNOW, IF YOU OBVIOUSLY DON'T WANT CUSTOMERS WALKING THROUGH THE KITCHEN.
UM, BUT, BUT, BUT I KNOW OTHER RESTAURANTS HAVE REAR ACCESS.
THEY DO BIG BAGEL BAGELS AND MORE HAS REAR ACCESS MM-HMM
UM, I THINK A LOT, A LOT OF THE ESTABLISHMENTS ON THAT STRIP.
I MEAN, AND THAT WOULD BE THE ULTIMATE, IF THEY CAN GO FROM THE PARKING GARAGE THROUGH THE BACK OF THE RESTAURANT AND YOU KNOW, NOT EVEN HAVE TO HIT THE STREET, THAT WOULD BE WONDERFUL, I THINK, UM, FOR THE PATRONS OF YOUR RESTAURANT.
BUT EVEN WITHOUT THAT, AND I FORGOT ON THAT AVENUE, THE ORANGE STREET PARKING, ARE THOSE THE, UM, DO YOU HAVE APPS DO OR YOU HAVE TO PUT IN COINS FOR THOSE METERS? WE HAVE APPS AT THAT THOUGH.
AND I WAS WAS JUST WONDERING BECAUSE I THINK AGAIN, AS A PATRON, RATHER THAN BEING ON STREET, SITTING IN YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT.
WE CAN PUT A SIGN ON THE BACK DOOR THOUGH, LIKE THIS YEAH.
FOR THE ENTRANCE THERE FOR THE, WELL, NOT ON THE BACK.
THEY WOULD NEED TO SEE IT FROM THE STREET AS THEY PULL UP TO YOUR RESTAURANT THAT THERE'S A, THERE'S MORE AVAILABLE PARKING.
UM, AND, AND GOOD EVENING, MICHAEL STEIN AS AN ENGINEERING.
UH, THIS IS THE ACTUAL FLOOR PLAN THAT LAYS OUT THE PROPER RIGHT THE ACCESS INTO THE SITE.
AND YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, THERE IS DIRECT ACCESS OUT THE BACK PAST THE RESTROOMS. SO THERE IS ACCESS AVAILABLE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE KITCHEN.
UM, IF YOU'RE, YOU'RE ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE
[02:55:01]
THAT HOW THE SITE LAYS OUT.IT MAY NOT BE THE PREFERRED ACCESS, HOWEVER THE ACCESS IS AVAILABLE.
SO DO YOU, AND, AND MR. LIN INDICATED THAT SIGNAGE COULD BE, UM, INSTALLED TO, YOU KNOW, DIRECT AND ENCOURAGE YES, WE CAN.
YEAH, I CAN PUT A SIGN, LET CUSTOMER KNOW THERE'S MORE PARKING IN THE BACK THERE.
SO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, THAT THAT WOULD BE HOW, YEAH, I WAS THINKING, YOU KNOW, UH, OBVIOUSLY IN THE RESTAURANT AND THEN I ALSO KNOW THAT WHEN PEOPLE LOOK UP RESTAURANTS, YOU KNOW, THEY LIKE TO KNOW IS THERE ANY PARKING IN THAT AREA.
SO IF YOU HAVE AVAILABILITY ON YOUR WEBSITE, IT'S THE SUGGESTION THAT MAYBE YOU LET THEM KNOW THAT THERE'S MORE AVAILABLE PARKING THEN SO THAT THEY DON'T SEE FULL UP SPACES ON, ON STREET AND KEEP MOVING.
IT IS ALSO SHOULD ADD THAT IT'S IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIGN CHAPTER OF THE TOWN CODE.
DOES, UH, DOES THE HARTSDALE PARKING AUTHORITY HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UH, OR DO RESTAURANTS HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UM, VALIDATE PARKING THROUGH THE HARTSDALE PARKING DISTRICT? WELL, WE CHECKED INTO THAT, SO, AND I'M SORRY I DIDN'T GET BACK TO YOU SOONER, BUT, UM, THAT'S BEEN CONTEMPLATED, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT THE DISTRICT IS INTERESTED IN.
RATHER, THEY'D PREFER FOR THE BUSINESS, THE BUSINESSES TO, UH, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY LIKE MAYBE OFFER, UH, IF IT WAS $2 TO PARK, OFFER $2 OFF THE FINAL BILL.
THEY'RE NOT INTERESTED IN, UH, VALIDATIONS.
'CAUSE, UH, THE STAFF TO, YOU KNOW, OVERSEE THAT AND CONFIRM THEY JUST DON'T HAVE THAT, UH, AVAILABLE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, I THINK, UH, UH, THE REAR REAR ENTRANCE, REAR ENTRANCE IS GOOD IMPROVEMENTS.
AND IF THAT'S PROPERLY NEEDED AND UH, UH, SIGN, I THINK THAT WILL, THAT WILL HELP A LOT.
AND, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HEARD THE CHAIRPERSON ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S A WEBSITE AND YEP.
ADDING SOMETHING TO THE WEBSITE TO, TO AT LEAST MAKE IT YEAH, I CAN DO THAT.
ABOUT PUT ON SITE THERE, UM, AND PUT SOME SPECIAL NOTE ON IT.
WE HAVE, UM, REAR PARKING NOW, SO I THINK IT'LL HELP YOU.
ALSO, IF, IF YOU DO NOTICE THERE IS A RAMP THAT GOES DOWN TO ACCESS DIRECTLY TO THAT PARKING GARAGE THAT'S BEAUTIFUL, GREAT.
SO IT, EVERYTHING IS SET UP TO BE AVAILABLE.
AND I THINK IT'LL BENEFIT THE USE.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD AND STAFF AND EVERYONE WANTS TO SEE A SUCCESSFUL BUSINESS AND I THINK MAKING THAT KNOWN TO PATRONS IS GONNA BE HELPFUL BECAUSE IF SOMEBODY JUST DRIVES BY THE AVENUE AND IT HAPPENS TO BE A BUSY EVENING AND THEY SEE NO PARKING, KNOWING THAT THERE'S PARKING TO THE REAR IS GONNA HELP THEM.
AND, AND IN MY OFFICE ACTUALLY VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PLACE COMING IN BECAUSE THEY, THEY'RE, THEY SUSHI'S AMAZING.
OH,
IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THE PROJECT? SU SHE
I STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, LEAVING THE RECORD OPEN FOR ONE WEEK, AND DIRECTING STAFF TO PREPARE A DECISION FOR THE MAY 21ST MEETING.
NOT 10 DAYS LIKE WE TRADITIONALLY DO.
THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING MORE RECENTLY.
GIVES US TIME TO OBTAIN COMMENTS AND THEN GET THEM OUT IN PACKAGES.
DO I HAVE A MOTION? YEAH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO FOLLOW.
KEEP THE RECORD OPEN FOR ONE WEEK, BUT YEAH, WHAT WOULD THE DATE WOULD BE? IT WOULD BE MAY 14TH.
WAIT, I, YOU SAID MAY 21ST? NO, THE NEXT MEETING'S, THE 21ST.
THE, THE RECORD WOULD STAY OPEN TO THE 14TH AND YOU WOULD DIRECT STAFF TO ISSUE A DECISION FOR CONS.
DRAFT DECISION FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE 21ST.
WE'LL SEE YOU ON THE 21ST FOR THE DECISION.
[03:00:01]
THEY BROUGHT NO SUSHI.WANT SUSHI SITTING? HOW LONG? GOOD EVENING.
UH, MATT BARONS FROM ZA ASSIGNMENTS.
FOR THE RECORD, IF WE DO SHARE OUR SCREEN, IT WILL NOT BE TO SHOW THE KNICK'S GAME OR THE OTHER GAMES THAT ARE ON.
UM, THANK YOU FOR HAVING US BACK AGAIN.
I'M HERE WITH NICK, UH, ONE OF THE CO-APPLICANT AND CO-OWNERS OF THE GOLF CASE FRANCHISEE, AND WE'VE GOT OUR ARCHITECTURE AND MEP REPRESENTATIVES ON THE ZOOM AS WELL.
PINSON AND ROCCO FOR ANY QUESTIONS? UM, I'LL JUST START OVER.
I KNOW AT THE LAST MEETING, THE BOARD HAD SOME VERY THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATIONS AND IDEAS FOR US TO KIND OF HUNT DOWN AND THINK THROUGH, UM, ESPECIALLY WITH THE LANDLORD, UM, AS WELL AS WITH THE APPLICANT HIMSELF.
SO FIRST AROUND ALCOHOL POLICIES, I KNOW THAT WAS BROUGHT UP GIVEN THE LOCATION WITH THE LIQUOR STORE NEARBY AND THE, UH, THE SUPERMARKET ON THE OTHER END OF THE SHOPPING MALL.
UM, AGAIN, GOLF CAVE IS NOT APPLYING FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE.
UM, THEY DON'T INTEND TO APPLY FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE.
THAT'S NOT PART OF THE BRANDING OR THE CULTURE OF THE, THE GOLF CAVE.
IT'S A VERY KIND OF PROFESSIONALIZED, HIGH-END GEARED TOWARDS WORKING PROFESSIONALS, GOLF, INSTRUCTIONAL, AND, YOU KNOW, A TRAINING FACILITY IF YOU WILL.
UM, SO, SO ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION IS DEFINITELY NOT PART OF THE CONSUMPTION OR PART, PART OF THE CULTURE OF, OF THE, UH, COMPANY.
UM, WE HAVE TALKED THROUGH DIFFERENT MITIGATION MEASURES SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY TRAINING, UM, THE ONSITE MANAGEMENT TO BE AWARE OF, YOU KNOW, TO, TO PROHIBIT TELL PEOPLE, COMMUNICATE THE POLICIES AROUND PROHIBITING ALCOHOL, UM, POTENTIALLY PUTTING IT INTO MAYBE RESERVATION EMAILS AROUND THE POLICIES AROUND ALCOHOL, UM, THINGS LIKE THAT.
AND OBVIOUSLY A LITTLE BIT MORE THOUGHT WOULD GO THROUGH WITH FRANCHISEE OBLIGATIONS AND JUST MAKING SURE EVERYTHING DOESN'T RUN AFOUL OF ANYTHING.
BUT THOSE ARE SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES, UM, INTENDED AND MAYBE SOME SIGNAGE.
UM, THAT'S ALL BEING THOUGHT THROUGH TO, TO THAT COMMENT.
BUT AGAIN, THE, THE APPLICANT IS NOT APPLYING FOR AN ALCOHOL LICENSE NOR INTENDS TO, UM, HAVE THAT BE PART OF THE CULTURE OF THE VERY PROFESSIONAL ACTIVE LIFESTYLE THAT THEY'RE PROMOTING THERE.
SO, JUST TO BE CLEAR, IS ALCOHOL PROHIBITED IN ON THE PREMISES? IS IT YEAH, YEAH.
OR IT, IT'S, I DON'T THINK WE'RE, SO WE'RE THE FIRST FRANCHISE IN, IN NEW YORK.
UM, SO AS THE FRANCHISE, UH, WE'RE THE FIRST NEW YORK LOCATION AS YOU KNOW, LIQUOR BERRY BY THE STATE.
UM, SO I AM NOT SURE WHAT OTHER MEMBERS DID IN THE OTHER LOCATIONS.
I JUST KNOW WHAT I'M DOING FOR MINE AND I'M GONNA DO WHATEVER I CAN TO PROHIBIT, UH, THE USAGE OF ALCOHOL AND FACILITY.
YOUR, YOUR LETTER SAYS, UH, ONSITE STAFF WILL BE TRAINED TO DISCOURAGE AND PROHIBIT THE PRESENCE OF OPEN CONTAINERS AND ALCOHOL ON THE PREMISES.
THAT'S, THAT'S YOUR INTENTION? YES, SIR.
I, I DON'T KNOW, IT STILL SEEMS A LITTLE BIT VAGUE.
IS THERE SOME WAY THAT YOU CAN JUST HAVE SOMETHING THAT SAID ALCOHOL PROHIBITED ON THE PREMISES? WELL, WE COULD PUT SIGNS.
WE COULD PUT SIGNS, WE COULD PUT IT IN.
I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WOULD YOU BE AGREEABLE TO SIGNAGE? SIGNAGE, YEAH, SIGNAGE.
I, I, I'D HAVE TO CHECK WITH THE FRANCHISE OWNERS, BUT YEAH, I CAN SEE WHY THAT WOULDN'T WORK.
UM, ALSO EVERYBODY THAT ISN'T, UH, A MEMBER OF THE FRANCHISE, THEY DO RECEIVE MONTHLY EMAILS AS WELL AS WELCOME, WELCOME EMAILS.
WE CAN PUT THAT AS PART OF IT AS WELL TO REINFORCE THAT, UH, PROCEDURE.
WE WOULD NEED TO JUST WORK THROUGH JUST WITH THE OTHER FRAN, FOR ANY FRANCHISEE REQUIREMENTS TO WHAT WE CAN OR CAN'T SAY.
SO WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK ON THAT.
SO WITH RESPECT TO THAT AND POTENTIALLY ANYTHING ELSE THAT CAN'T BE ANSWERED ON THE SPOT AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING, WE WILL GET TO WHAT THE TIMEFRAME WOULD NEED TO BE IN TERMS OF, OF RESPONSE FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER A DECISION IF IT WERE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TODAY, CAN PLEASE PROCEED? SURE.
SO THE NEXT PIECE WAS ON EV CHARGING AND SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES.
UM, WE UNDERSTAND THE, THE POLICY TO PROMOTE EV CHARGING.
UM, THE APPLICANT DID SPEAK DIRECTLY AFTER THE MEETING WITH THE LANDLORD.
UM, UNFORTUNATELY THE LEASE, WHAT THE LANDLORD STRAIGHT COMMUNICATED BACK TO US WAS THAT THE LEASE LANGUAGE IN THEIR LEASES DON'T ALLOW FOR EV CHARGING DUE TO, UM, HOW THEY DEFINE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT THEY PROVIDE, THE, THE APPLICANTS AND, AND THE LEASES.
SO AGAIN, WE DON'T CONTROL WHETHER THE LANDLORD DOES THIS OR NOT.
WE WILL CERTAINLY CONTINUE AND AN APPLICANT WILL CONTINUE TO PROMOTE THAT WITH THE LANDLORD.
UM, BUT IT'S, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CONTROL AND IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE LANDLORD DID NOT INDICATE THAT THEY WERE WILLING TO DO IT THIS TIME.
AND, UM, YOU MENTIONED, I THINK IN YOUR LETTER, UM, REASONS FOR SOLAR.
UH, NOT THE SOLAR, THE STUFF, THE ISSUE WITH
[03:05:01]
SOLAR WAS THE ADDITIONAL WEIGHT BECAUSE THEY, THERE'S GONNA BE SOME HVAC WORK GOING UP THERE, SOME UPGRADES.THE ADDITIONAL SOLAR WOULD'VE BEEN AN ISSUE FROM A MAINTENANCE PERSPECTIVE GETTING INTO THOSE HVAC UNITS AS WELL AS FROM A, A, A LOAD PERSPECTIVE FROM AN ENGINEERING, SO IT WEIGHT DISTRIBUTION.
SO IT, IT WOULD BE COST PROHIBITIVE.
SO MIKE, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT WHAT TYPE OF SYSTEM YOU'RE PUTTING IN.
IS IT GAS, ELECTRIC IN TERMS OF YOU'RE DOING A NEW HVAC, IT'S, IT'S ELECTRIC.
YOU ARE DOING OKAY, UNDERSTOOD.
I THINK THERE WERE A COUPLE OTHER FRONT ENTRANCE.
UM, WE DID TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE BOARD'S COMMENTS.
UM, AND DO YOU WANNA JUST SPEAK TO MAYBE THE TILE ON THE YEAH, SO I, UH, I WAS THERE WITH THE, WITH MY CONTRACTOR A COUPLE DAYS AGO ACTUALLY.
AND THE FIRST THING HE POINTED OUT WAS THE TILING, UH, ON THE ROOF.
SIMILAR, NOT KIND OF SIMILAR TO WHAT WE HAVE ABOVE US.
A LOT OF THE LIGHTS ARE KIND OF RUSTING OUT.
THEY'RE NOT REALLY SUPER FRIENDLY TO LOOK AT.
WE DO PLAN ON WORKING WITH OUR GENERAL CONTRACTOR TO REDO THE TILING AS WELL AS THE LIGHTS TO MAKE THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE AESTHETICALLY PLEASING FOR CUSTOMERS.
THAT'S AT THE ENTRY POINT, AND THAT'S THE SECTION YOU PHYSICALLY WALK UNDER BEFORE YOU WALK INTO, UM, THE GOLF CAVE.
UH, ANOTHER THING WE SPOKE ABOUT WAS GETTING RID OF THE TICKET BOOTH WINDOW SO THAT IT'S NOT CONFUSING TO CUSTOMERS.
UM, ASIDE FROM THAT, A LITTLE, MAYBE SOME TOUCH UP PAINT.
WE ARE PUTTING A VESTIBULE IN OUR PLANS AS SPECIFIED, UH, BY THE BOARD ON OUR LAST MEETING.
AND THEN THE BUILDING, THE BUILDING COMMENTS.
SO WE HAVE OUR ARCHITECTURE TEAM HERE.
WE'VE WORKED HARD TO ADDRESS THE BUILDING CODE COMMENTS.
OBVIOUSLY REMEMBER ANY PLANS WE SUBMIT WILL HAVE TO BE SIGNED OFF BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
BUT IN TERMS OF THE TWO PIECES, ONE WAS THE ACCESSIBILITY COMPONENT.
SO WE DID WORK WITH, WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THE PLAN EXAMINER JACE, UM, AND WORKED OUT A PLAN THAT WOULD BE CODE COMPLIANT COMPLIANT.
WE'LL BE PROVIDING, UH, DOCUMENTATION THAT 20% OF THE CONSTRUCTION COSTS PRIOR TO RECEIVING A BUILDING PERMIT.
20% WILL BE FOR ACCESSIBILITY IMPROVEMENTS IN THE ENTIRE TENANT FIT OUT.
AND THAT IS ONE OF THE EXCEPTIONS TO HAVING TO PROVIDE, UH, ACCESSIBILITY TO THE MEZZANINE AREA.
AS WE DISCUSSED, IT'S ONE OF THE CODE COMPLIANT EXCEPTIONS.
UM, SO THAT WILL BE DONE BEFORE WE THE, THE APPLICANT CAN EVEN GET A BUILDING PERMIT WAS WILL TO SHOW THOSE 20% COSTS.
UM, THE OTHER PIECE WITH THE MEZZANINE WE'RE WE'RE LIMITING IT TO 10 PEOPLE, WHICH MEANS, UM, UNDER CODE.
AND I CAN, IF THERE'S ANY MORE QUESTIONS, THE ARCHITECT CAN TEAM SPEAK TO THIS.
UH, WE'RE LIMITING IT TO 10 PEOPLE.
SO THERE DOESN'T NEED TO BE A SECOND FORM OF EGRESS.
THAT'S, THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND THAT'S WHAT THE ARCHITECT HAS WORKED THROUGH WITH THE, UM, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
I THINK THAT WAS MR. DESI'S QUESTION.
YEAH, NO, I THINK, UH, SO YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT UH, 10, 10 PEOPLE IS ALLOWED WITH THAT ONLY ONE MEANS OF EGRESS? THAT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING.
LIMITING THAT MEZZANINE RIGHT IS THE CONVERTED, UM, WHERE THE PROJECTOR WAS FOR THE MOVIE THEATER THAT'S BEING CONVERTED, UM, AS A SMALL, VERY, I WAS UP THERE AS WELL.
IT'S A VERY SMALL LOUNGE AREA.
UM, AND THAT'S GONNA BE LIMITED TO 10 PEOPLE.
AND HOW ARE YOU GONNA CONTROL THAT? IT'S LESS THAN 10 OR LESS.
HOW WOULD YOU CONTROL ANY, I MEAN, PUT SIGNS AND TRAIN STAFF SO WE COULD TRAIN STAFF ACCORDINGLY.
I MEAN, AGAIN, EVERY TIME THERE'S A NEW BOOKING COMING IN, THERE'S A 15 MINUTE MM-HMM
I DON'T ANTICIPATE TO HAVE A LOT OF PEOPLE USE THAT SPACE.
IT JUST FIGURED IT WAS ALREADY THERE.
LET IT BE SOMETHING THAT IT'S ALREADY THERE.
UM, I, I DON'T FORESEE IT BEING AN ISSUE, BUT WE'LL DEFINITELY TRAIN STAFF ACCORDINGLY.
IT WAS A MEMBERS OF THE LOUNGE.
WE'RE GONNA LEAVE IT OPEN TO EVERYBODY.
BUT WE'RE ALSO, YEAH, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
AND, AND GOING BACK TO THE LIQUOR LICENSE.
SO YOU STATED ON THE RECORD THAT THEY'RE NOT ATTENDING INTENDING TO APPLY FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE.
SO I, NEW YORK STATE, I DON'T THINK YOU'D BE ALLOWED TO HAVE BYOB BECAUSE YOU'RE MORE THAN 19 OCCUPANCY.
IF THAT'S, SO IS THE BOARD WITH THE LIQUOR IS THE BOARD'S POSITION TO TAKE ADDITIONAL MEASURES? JUST SO WE UNDERSTAND ADDITIONAL MEASURES REQUIRING SIGNAGE AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO IF I'M HEARING MATT, UH, OUR ATTORNEY CORRECTLY, THIS, IT WOULD BE ILLEGAL IN ANY CASE.
RIGHT? SO AM I HEARING THIS CORRECTLY? THEY WOULD NEED A LIQUOR LICENSE.
IF THEY'RE NOT GONNA GET A LIQUOR LICENSE, THEN THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO DO BAB THE AMOUNT.
SO IT WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF IN OUR OPINION, IT WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF UNDER THE LAW.
IT WOULD BE WITHOUT THE NEED, WITHOUT THE NEED FOR ADDITIONAL AND SORRY, WITHOUT THE DE A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE OR MITIGATION MEASURE, IT WOULD ALREADY BE ILLEGAL UNDER THE LAW THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO COMPLY WITH, WITH THOSE LIQUOR REQUIREMENTS AND BYOB REQUIREMENTS.
BUT THE IDEA IS THAT YOU POST THAT SIGN, IT'S ILLEGAL.
AND I THINK I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU DO THE SAME THING FOR OCCUPANCY
[03:10:01]
AND MEZZANINE.IT'S A, IT'S A ILLEGAL TO BE MORE THAN AN UNSAFE TO BE MORE THAN 10 PEOPLE ABOVE THE MEZZANINE, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
SO YOU CAN POST IT AND IT'LL BE PART OF THE APPROVAL.
SO I GUESS NORMALLY YOU WOULD NOT HAVE TO POST IT.
I THINK WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE CULTURE, I THINK BECAUSE THE OTHER, THERE MIGHT BE OTHER, UM, VIRTUAL GOLF PLACES WHERE PEOPLE ARE ACCUSTOMED TO THAT HAPPENING SO THAT YOU CAN AVOID ANY ISSUES AT YOURS.
MAYBE JUST UNTIL PEOPLE GET USED TO IT UNDERSTAND THAT THIS IS NOT, THAT IT SEEMS REASONABLE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THE BOARD, I THINK, UH, ONE OF THE OTHER THING WAS THE, THE, THE FACADE.
AND I THINK, UH, YOU JUST PUT THE SIGNS UP THERE AND I THINK WE REQUESTED THAT IF YOU CAN JUST DRESS UP THE AREA SO IT LOOKS KIND OF A PRETTY, OKAY.
NICK TALKED ABOUT THE TILE UNDERNEATH.
WE WILL BE UPGRADING THE SIGNAGE.
OR, OR JUST MAKE A WHOLE BIG SIGN SO THEY COVER THE, WELL, YEAH, SOMETHING THAT LOOKS LITTLE
SO WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH THE OLD TICKET BOOTH? PUTTING SOME COVER UP.
I THINK THE MAIL MASK STICKING ALL THE MAIL THROUGH IN AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, IT'S A ARTIFACT OF THE TIME GONE BY AGAIN.
WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
WE THINK IT'S A ENLIVENING, YOU KNOW, ASPECT WITH A ACTIVE USE FOR, FOR WORKING PROFESSIONALS.
SO, YEAH, NO, I, I THINK, UH, IT'S A, IT'S A FOR EMPTY FOR LONG, LONG TIME.
SO IT'S COMING UP AND SOMEBODY OCCUPYING.
IF WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC EITHER ONLINE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK NOW WOULD BE THE TIME.
SO WE'RE GONNA HOLD THE, UH, RECORD OPEN FOR ONE WEEK, OR I'M SORRY, CLOSE THE HEARING.
CLOSE MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING.
UH, IS THAT WHAT HE SAID? WE HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE HEARING AND LEAVE THE RECORD OPEN FOR ONE WEEK TO MAY 15.
AND A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SESSION AND CONCLUDE THE MEETING.
ARE WE TOLD ON THAT? AND WHAT ABOUT, THAT'LL BE ON FROM MAY 21ST, SO WE'LL BE ABLE SEE ON MAY 21ST.
AND WHAT ABOUT, UH, TIMELINE FOR ADDRESSING ANY COMMENTS THAT WERE REMAIN? I, I DON'T, THERE NONE.
I DIDN'T SEE THAT THERE WERE ANY, NOTHING WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
NO, SO MAY NOTHING, NOTHING MORE FOR GOING TO SUBMIT AT THIS POINT? NO, I THINK YOU'VE STATED YOU'RE AGREEABLE TO WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED AND, UH, THAT'LL BE CAPTURED IN THE DECISION.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SECOND SESSION OF THE MEETING? SESSION? OF THE MEETING.