[00:00:01]
GOOD EVENING EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE MAY MS FEEDBACK.
GOOD EVENING EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE MAY 21ST, 2025 PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
UH, WOULD YOU HAVE DO THE ROLL CALL? UH, SURE.
OUR ALTERNATE MS. ANDERSON HERE.
AND NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT MR. SNAGS AND MR. WEINBERG ARE NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING, SO MS. ANDERSON WILL BE A FULL VOTING MEMBER.
UM, JUST NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE DO HAVE QUITE A FEW THINGS ON THE AGENDA, SO FOR EVERYONE WHO'S HERE, JUST TO BE PATIENT AND WE'LL GET THROUGH IT.
UM, THE FIRST IS CORRESPONDENT.
I'M SORRY, THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM MAY 7TH, 2025.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANYTHING THEY WANT TO SAY ABOUT THE MINUTES? NO, IT'S PRETTY GOOD.
SO MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES? SO MOVED A SECOND, PLEASE.
NEXT UP IS CORRESPONDENCE ON CASE NUMBER PB 1625? YES.
SO, UH, THIS IS THE TEVA BOW SUBDIVISION ON WOODLANDS AVENUE NORTH.
UM, THIS IS THEIR 11TH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION EXTENSION REQUEST.
THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH OVER THE LAST EVEN COUPLE OF YEARS ON THIS PROJECT.
UM, MOST RECENTLY THE APPLICANT MADE A SUBMISSION IN SEPTEMBER, 2024 TO THE TOWNS BUREAU OF ENGINEERING.
WHAT THEY NEED TO DO IS ULTIMATELY GET SIGN OFF FROM THE TOWNS BUREAU OF ENGINEERING BEFORE THEY ARE ABLE TO SUBMIT THE PLAT TO THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR ENDORSEMENT.
AND AS WE ALL KNOW, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF PERSONNEL CHANGES IN THE BUREAU OF ENGINEERING.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, EVERY PROFESSIONAL HAS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT TAKE AND LOOK ON THINGS.
THEY INITIALLY, THEY BEING THE BUREAU OF ENGINEERING AND OUR WATER DEPARTMENT WANTED TO SEE THAT A, UH, WATER MAIN THAT WAS GONNA DEAD END AT THE PROJECT SITE ACTUALLY BE LOOPED UP BECAUSE YOU WANT WHERE YOU CAN TO HAVE A LOOPED WATER MAIN.
UH, SO THE APPLICANT HAD TO GO BACK.
THEY HAD TO AMEND THEIR PLANS, TAKE A LOOK AT THE EASEMENT TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS SUFFICIENT DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SEWER AND THE WATER.
IT HAD TO GET REVIEWED BY ENGINEERING, REVIEWED BY THE FIRE, UH, DISTRICT OFFICIALS.
AND THAT WORKED OUT, UH, WHEN THEY MADE THEIR SUBMISSION IN SEPTEMBER, THEY WERE HOPING TO GET THE WILL SERVE LETTER ONLY IN APRIL.
ON APRIL 8TH OF THIS YEAR DID THEY RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE BUREAU OF ENGINEERING, WHICH WAS ACTUALLY A WEEK AFTER THE EXPIRATION.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR A RETROACTIVE EXTENSION HERE BECAUSE THEIR MOST RECENT EXTENSION WAS VALID THROUGH MARCH 31ST, 2025.
UH, SO THEY DID OBTAIN THOSE COMMENTS.
THEY'RE WORKING TO ADDRESS THEM.
UH, I SPOKE WITH THE ENGINEER OF THE PHONE TODAY.
THEY'RE GONNA BE FILING FOR, UM, THE SEWER DISTRICT EXTENSION.
THAT WAS ACTUALLY A CONDITION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
SO THEY HAVE TO DO THAT THROUGH THE TOWN BOARD.
AND THEN THEY HAVE TO ADDRESS ALL THE COMMENTS, UH, THAT WERE ISSUED BY THE TOWN ENGINEER.
SO THEY'RE IN PROCESS OF THAT.
UM, AND THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY CAN GET THROUGH MOST OF IT, IF NOT ALL OF IT, WITHIN THIS EXTENSION PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS RETROACTIVE TO MARCH 31ST.
SO WHEN WAS THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL? WAS, UH, WELL WE GIVE, UH, SIX MONTH INCREMENTS.
SO IT WAS DURING COVID WOULD'VE BEEN LIKE 2021.
UH, SO WHAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION IS, OR AGREEMENT IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WILL GRANT THE EXTENSION FOR ANOTHER SIX MONTHS, WHICH WOULD TAKE US OUT TO OCTOBER 1ST, ROUGHLY.
WE CAN DO IT THROUGH OCTOBER 1ST.
THE BOARD WISHES WE, I THINK THE CODE SAYS SIX MONTHS.
FOLLOWING BUT THIS WOULD BE THE LAST ONE BECAUSE THIS IS THE 11TH, RIGHT? THIS IS THE 11TH.
UH, LIKE I SAID, THEY'VE HAD A LOT OF BACK AND FORTH WITH THE BUREAU OF ENGINEERING.
IT WAS OUT OF THEIR CONTROL FROM, SO SPEAKING ABOUT THIS, MOST RECENT,
[00:05:02]
THEY SUBMITTED DOCUMENTATION IN SEPTEMBER.THE EXTENSIONS ARE ONLY VALID FOR SIX MONTHS AND THEY DIDN'T GET COMMENTS BACK UNTIL APRIL.
SO WE EXPECT THEM TO MOVE FORWARD SWIFTLY UNTIL SEPTEMBER TWO.
THEY HAD, THERE WAS NOTHING THEY COULD DO WHEN THEY WERE AWAITING COMMENTS.
I, I GUESS THE THING TO CONSIDER WITH THE EXTENSION IS NEG NEGLIGENCE.
UM, SO THAT SOUNDS LIKE A LOT.
BUT ALSO IT ALSO DEPENDS ON WHERE, WHAT WAS IN THEIR, UM, UM, POWER TO CHANGE WITH THAT.
AND IF THE TOWN WAS TARDY ON MOVING TOWARDS, THEN I THINK THEY SHOULD HAVE THEM.
SO IN THAT CASE, CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION FOR SIX MONTHS? SO MOVED SECOND.
SO FROM THE DAY THAT IT EXPIRED? YEAH, I'M SORRY.
UH, MOTION TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION FROM MARCH 31ST FOR SIX MONTHS.
ALL OPPOSED? OKAY, SO THE MOTION PASSES AND WE ARE READY TO MOVE TO YOU READY? YES.
AND THIS IS PRE, UH, PRES, I'M SORRY, DO THAT AGAIN.
AND THIS IS A FINAL SUBDIVISION.
SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE A WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS THE DECISION ON A FINAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION AS WELL AS WHETHER OR NOT TO WAIVE, UM, PUBLIC COMMENT, RIGHT? PUBLIC HEARING, CORRECT.
SO, UM, WE HAVE MR. AU ON, UM, ZOOM AND WE HAVE MR. AND MRS. PERKINS IN THE AUDIENCE.
BUT, UM, WHICH IS TYPICAL FOR CONSIDERATION OF A FINAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION, STAFF REVIEWS THE PLAT, UM, AND INDICATES THAT ALL MATERIALS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE SATISFACTION OF STAFF FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE FINAL SUBDIVISION OF
SO, MR. ED LIEBERMAN FROM THE ZONING BOARD IS GONNA FILL IN FOR MY PLACE FOR THIS CASE.
FOR ANYONE THAT DOESN'T KNOW MR. LIEBERMAN, GOOD EVENING.
YOU'LL BE SITTING IN JUST ON THIS CASE.
SO, AS MENTIONED, STAFF IS PREPARED THE LETTER OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND DRAFT FORM.
THERE WOULD BE TWO VOTES FOR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING.
ONE TO CONSIDER WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPLICATION, AND TWO, TO CONSIDER A VOTE ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
UM, IT'S A PRETTY BASIC DECISION.
YOU DON'T SEE MANY THREE AND A HALF PAGE, UH, APPROVAL LETTERS COMING OUT OF OUR OFFICE.
BUT BEING THAT THERE'S, UM, ESSENTIALLY NO NEW CONSTRUCTION WITH THIS PROJECT, IT WAS, UH, REESTABLISHED OR IT WAS A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AND, AND PROPERTY LINE CHANGE.
UM, SO THERE WAS A DRIVEWAY THAT WAS OVER THE PROPERTY LINE.
UM, THERE WAS A DISPUTE OVER IT AND ULTIMATELY THERE'S AN AGREEMENT TO MODIFY THAT PROPERTY LINE.
THE BOARD REVIEWED THIS IN DETAIL AND OBVIOUSLY ISSUED THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION.
AND NOW WE WERE JUST HAD BEEN WAITING ON THE PLAT TO BE ENDORSED.
AND, UM, I COULD ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THERE MIGHT BE.
THERE WAS NO OTHER CONSTRUCTIONS OR ANYTHING REQUIRED JUST MOVING THE NOT IN CONNECTION WITH THE SUBDIVISION? NO.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THIS FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL LETTER THAT WE'VE GOT IN FRONT OF US, OR THE LETTER OF FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL ON THE SECOND AND THE THIRD PAGE.
THERE'S SOME LANGUAGE THAT'S STRICKEN.
UM, I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT, SO WHAT THAT IS, AND YOU'LL SEE THAT IN ALL OUR APPROVAL LETTERS.
SO WE SET IT UP FOR THIS EVENING, BUT IF YOU LOOK ON THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO, IT SAYS ON MAY 21ST, 2025 ON A MOTION BY, SO WE JUST HAVE IT STRICKEN 'CAUSE WE DON'T KNOW WHO'S GONNA MAKE THE MOTION OR SECOND, UM, SIMILAR FOR PAGE THREE, THOSE IN ATTENDANCE, YOU DON'T KNOW UNTIL THE MEETING.
SO IF THE BOARD ENDS UP VOTING TONIGHT, THEN WE FILL IN THE BLANKS, UPDATE ACCORDINGLY,
[00:10:01]
AND THEN ISSUE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL LETTER.WE HAVE THE SECRETARY TO THE PLANNING BOARD, WHICH IS THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER, SIGN THIS APPROVAL LETTER USUALLY TOMORROW, AND THEN SIGN THE PLAT TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, UM, FILING OF THE PLAT.
SO IN HERE IT SAYS ON MAY 21ST ON A MOTION BY BLANK AND SECONDED.
AND BY BLANK, THE PLANNING BOARD UNANIMOUSLY VOTED TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THAT, DOES THAT MEAN ANYTHING? IS THAT YOU GUYS URGING US TO ACT IN A CERTAIN WAY? NO.
I'LL, UM, I JUST HAD, I JUST WANNA MAKE, UH, ONE QUICK PROCEDURAL COMMENT.
UM, IT'S KIND OF A TECHNICALITY.
UH, THE PRE, THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TECHNICALLY EXPIRED MAY 20TH YESTERDAY.
UM, NOW THEY DID SUBMIT THE MATERIALS FOR THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, UH, PRIOR TO THAT, UH, EXPIRATION.
UM, BUT JUST AS A PROCEDURAL TECHNICALITY, UM, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER GRANTING A NON-PRO TU TWO DAY EXTENSION TO MAY 22ND OF THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, UH, BEFORE CONSIDERING A VOTE ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION.
I THINK MAYBE WE SHOULD DO THAT NOW.
SO CAN I JUST ALSO, SO THE ZONING BOARD HAS IT ALREADY APPROVED THE SUBDIVISION AND THE VARIANCES IN THE SIZES AND SETBACKS AND ALL WE'RE APPROVING TONIGHT IS THE MOVING OF THE BORDER AS IT RELATES TO THE DRIVEWAY.
THE ZONING BOARD DID GRANT THE VARIANCES.
GRANTED THE VARIANCES THAT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
OTHER THAN TO PERMIT YOU TO GO FORWARD, OBVIOUSLY.
THE PLANNING BOARD IS THE BODY THAT WILL ISSUE THE SUBDIVISION DECISION.
SO THE ZBA JUST ISSUED THE VARIANCES.
IN FACT, THEY DIDN'T ISSUE ALL OF 'EM.
AND THE APPLICANT, ONE OF THE APPLICANTS, 'CAUSE THERE'S TWO SETS OF APPLICANTS CO APPLICANTS, UH, HAD TO ACTUALLY CUT BACK THEIR DRIVEWAY TO MAKE IT CONFORMING.
AND THEY, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAD TO DO DURING PRELIMINARY, AND THEY DID OKAY.
UH, JUST, UM, BASED ON WHAT MATT BRITTEN JUST SAID, I, WE NEED TO GO TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT THE TWO DAY EXTENSION TO MAY 22ND FOR, UM, REVIEWING THIS SUBDIVISION SINCE IT EXPIRED.
UM, JUST SO THAT WE CAN MOVE FORWARD.
DO WE HAVE TO DO THAT LEGALLY OR, YEAH, WE, WE CAN JUST APPROVE THE FINAL THEN? NO, NO, WE NEED TO THAT, UH, I THINK IT'S, IT'S JUST BETTER TO, BEFORE YOU ISSUE THE FINAL, I'M SORRY I LEFT THAT OUT, BUT, UM, TO GRANT A TWO DAY RETROACTIVE EXTENSION FROM MAY 20TH TO MAY 22ND ON THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, THEN CONSIDER WAIVING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION AND THEN VOTING ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION.
UM, WE, WE CAN DO THE RETROACTIVE TO, OKAY.
SO WE DO TWO MOTION RIGHT THEN? YES.
WELL, WE, FIRST, LET'S DO THE, THE FIRST ONE, WHICH IS THE RETROACTIVE EXTENSION.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION FOR THAT, PLEASE? I MOVED SECOND.
UM, IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS, WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH, UM, GRANTING THE, UM, I'M SORRY, THE DECISION ON THE PROJECT.
SO DID IT, WAS THERE A QUESTION REGARDING THAT? YES.
AND THE APPLICANT COME TO THE MIND.
CAN YOU HAVE COMMENT? YES, PLEASE COME TO THE MIND AND, UM, STATE YOUR NAME.
UM, ONE, WE RECEIVED THE APPLICATION.
UM, WE FINALLY, WE'VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH WITH THIS FOR OVER SIX MONTHS JUST FOR THE, OH, MIRIAM KELLER PERKINS, THE, UM, ONE OF THE OWNERS OF SEVEN RITA LANE, WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK.
UM, WE HAVE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH TO TRY TO GET THIS RESOLVED.
UH, YES, WE MET WITH THE PLANNING BOARD.
YES, WE MET WITH THE ZONING BOARD.
UM, AND WE THOUGHT WE WOULD HAVE FINISHED THIS BACK IN JANUARY.
UM, AND EVERY TIME WE ASKED WHERE WE STOOD, WHERE WE STOOD, THEY KEPT TELLING US THEY WERE WAITING FOR WARD CARPENTER TO GIVE THE FINAL PLAT.
UM, WHEN WE FINALLY RECEIVED THE FINAL PLAT, I GUESS WE HAVE SOME CONCERNS.
UM, THIS FINAL PLAT WAS REVISED AS OF IT SAYS, UM, FOUR 11.
AND SINCE FOUR 11, UH, WE HAVE PUT UP A KNEE WALL THAT IS NOT REFLECTED ON HERE.
UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PLAT THAT THEY GAVE YOU FOR THE FINAL PLAT, IT DOES NOT SHOW THE REMOVAL, BASICALLY, OF THE AREA WHERE THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO REMOVE.
BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK FURTHER DOWN, IT SAYS 13, 13 FEET.
[00:15:01]
WHEN YOU'RE GOING DOWN TOWARDS THE GATE, THAT'S 13 FEET.I'M GONNA PULL IT ON THIS FINAL PLAT.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU PULL IT UP? I AM, I'M OKAY.
THAT'S THEN, UM, I WANTED TO BRING THIS ALSO BECAUSE WE HAVE A, THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION THAT WAS DONE.
THIS WAS GIVEN TO ME BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
IT ALSO AGREED WITH, WITH THE ONE THAT WAS IN, UH, LAND RECORDS.
IT WAS ALSO IN OUR PRELIMINARY APPLICATION THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A DRAIN EASEMENT ON OUR PROPERTY.
AND YET IT IS SHOWN ON THIS FINAL PLAT THAT THERE WAS A DRAIN EASEMENT.
THERE IS NO DRAIN EASEMENT ON OUR PROPERTY.
THERE IS A 15 FOOT EASEMENT OF WHICH 10 FEET ARE ON OUR SIDE, AND FIVE FEET ARE ON THEIR SIDE.
SO DON'T, WE DO NOT WANT THAT TO BE INCLUDED ON THIS FINAL PLAT THAT NEVER EXISTED.
AND TC MERRI OURS SAID HE MADE A NOTE, ALL RIGHT.
AND ALSO HAVE OUR TC MERIT APPLICATION, I MEAN, ARE, UM, SURVEYED FROM HIM.
AND IT READS REGARDING THAT DRAIN EASEMENT DRIVEWAY AND DRAIN EASEMENT SHOWN HERE ON, AS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN ON SURVEYS BY THOMAS GREGORY SOLO SURVEYING, UM, LINAC AND PLAN ERRORS, UM, AS EZ THE MUNSON COMPANY, NO RECORDS FOUND OF EASEMENT BEING FILED IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE DIVISION OF LAND RECORDS TO BE RESEARCHED AND TO BE RESEARCHED BY THE TITLE COMPANY.
SO FROM THE TIME THE PLAN THE HOUSE WAS BUILT, THERE WAS NEVER A DRAIN EASEMENT ON OUR PROPERTY, BUT YET IT IS IN THIS FINAL PLAT.
SO WE DON'T, SINCE THERE CANNOT BE ANY ALTERATIONS OR WHATEVER, WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE.
THAT IS GONNA BE IN LAND RECORDS, SINCE THAT IS THE OFFICIAL SURVEY.
AND SINCE THEN, WE HAD PUT THAT KNEE HIGH WALL UP IN NOVEMBER OF 2020.
SO WHEN THEY SAID THEY MADE A REVISION OF THIS FINAL PLAT AS OF APRIL 11TH, THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN ON IT.
AND SO WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, WE WANT TO BE ABLE TO FINALLY CLEAR THIS CASE, BUT WE WANT THE FINAL PLAT TO BE AS IT SHOULD BE PRESENTED IN LAND RECORDS.
I, MY HUSBAND HAD A COMMENT AT THIS.
WE JUST NEED YOU TO SPEAK AT THE MIC, PLEASE.
I NEED, UM, NAME FOR THE RECORD.
HI, HOW ARE YOU? SO, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TALK, WE'RE ADDRESSING, THERE'S A FIVE FOOT, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE IT ON THERE.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? UH, RIGHT.
IT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE, UH, MAKE IT, MAKE IT LARGER.
YOU SEE, THAT SAYS THAT'S FIVE FOOT DRAIN EASEMENT.
THERE'S NO RECORD OF THAT ANYWHERE.
NOW THAT'S BEEN JUST CARRIED FORWARD FROM, FROM ALL THE SURVEYS.
BUT MY, OUR SURVEYOR MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NO RECORD OF THAT SURVEY, YOU KNOW, FOR THE TOWN EASEMENT RATHER.
AND, UM, AND, AND ON THE OFFICIAL FLAT THAT WE HAVE, THIS ONLY SHOWS THAT 15 FOOT DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT GOES THE ENTIRE, UH, YOU KNOW, YEAH, IT SHOWS THAT ONE, BUT IT DOESN'T SHOW THAT FIVE FOOT.
SO WE DON'T WANT EXTRA EASEMENTS BEING SHOWN AS ON, ON THE FINAL PLAT.
ALSO, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTAND IT.
WAS THAT BUMP OUT ON THE DRIVEWAY THAT YOU GUYS, THAT THE BOARD HAD THEM, THEY DID REMOVE IT, BUT IT DOESN'T REFLECT ON THE, ON THERE.
AND I THINK IT SHOULD BE REFLECTED.
IT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE A, YEAH, I THINK THEY'RE FAMILIAR WITH RIGHT.
THAT BACK ON, THAT DOESN'T EXIST ANYMORE.
SO IT SHOULDN'T BE ON THE FINAL FLIGHT.
THEY WERE REQUIRED TO TAKE IT DOWN.
SO WE HAVE MR. RE ON AND WE'LL LET HIM RESPOND.
SO ONE OF THE CONDITIONS TO THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, UH, WAS THAT THAT BLACK COPY YOU REMOVED, IT WAS REMOVED.
IT WAS ALSO A CONDITION THAT THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLA NOT BE ALTERED AT ALL, WHICH WE COMPLIED WITH AS WELL.
SO, UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THIS NEEDS TO BE ALTERED AT ALL.
I BELIEVE THE, UH, CONTENTION ABOUT THE EASEMENT, UH, I'M NOT A SURVEYOR.
UH, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL THAT WE'RE REQUESTING HERE TONIGHT.
THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
UH, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE SURVEYORS CAN, UH, WORK OUT.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS ACCURATE OR NOT.
I'D HAVE TO GO BACK TO MY SURVEYOR AND FIND OUT, IN FACT.
BUT THEIR SURVEY, THEY TELL YOU WHAT
[00:20:01]
IT'S BASED ON.IT'S BASED ON PRIOR SURVEYS AND THEIR REVIEW OF RECORDS THAT, UH, EXIST IN THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I CAN'T TELL YOU WHETHER THAT IS ACCURATE OR NOT.
I BELIEVE THAT IT IS, UH, JUST A CONTENTION THAT THEIR SURVEYOR SAYS IT DOESN'T EXIST.
UH, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK REALLY, UH, MATERIAL FOR TONIGHT'S, UH, FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
PLA AND I WOULD ASK THAT THE, UH, PRELIMINARY PLAT, UH, OR THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT THAT WAS SUBMITTED BE APPROVED.
MR. TRUDEAU, I HAVE A QUESTION, PLEASE.
IF THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT WHERE IT SAYS DRIVEWAY ROUND, WHY IS THAT STILL THERE? IF THAT WAS REMOVED? THAT'S ALL WE'RE ASKING.
'CAUSE IF THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT GOING FORWARD, AND IT CLEARLY SAYS, WELL, WE HAVE TO INDICATE OUR SIGNATURE, THERE CAN BE NO ALTERATIONS TO THIS AND ANYTHING ELSE.
SO WE WOULD LIKE THAT REMOVED BEFORE WE APPLY OUR SIGNATURE SO WE CAN MOVE FORWARD SO THAT THIS IS THE ONE THAT IS IN LAND RECORDS.
THAT WOULD BE AN ACTUAL DEPICTION OF WHAT THE PROPERTY NOW LOOKS LIKE THAT IS BEING TRANSFERRED.
THAT'S, BUT THAT'S, BUT I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE.
I'M JUST, I HAVEN'T FINISHED SPEAKING YET.
I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE DONE IN ORDER FOR THIS TO BE THE FINAL PLAT THAT WE HAVE BEEN WAITING NOW FOR OVER FIVE MONTHS FOR, UM, I NEED SOME CLARIFICATION ON THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION AND THE CONNECTION TO THE FINAL PLAT.
DOES THAT MAKE, DOES MY QUESTION MAKE SENSE? DO YOU FEEL LIKE THE, UH, THE PLAT SHOULD, THE FINAL PLAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN AMENDED TO REFLECT THE REMOVAL OF THE DRIVEWAY? WELL OR NOT? I MEAN, IF IT WAS, THEN THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD BE, I WOULD'VE EXPLAINED ON THE FRONT END THAT THE PLAT IS DIFFERENT FROM THE PRELIMINARY.
BECAUSE AS A CONDITION OF PRELIMINARY, THEY WERE REQUIRED TO REMOVE THAT SECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY.
THEY DID THAT AND THAT WAS THE MODIFICATION.
BUT IF IT'S LEGAL REQUIRE, BUT THE FINAL PLAT SHOULD REFLECT CURRENT CONDITIONS.
SO THEN IT WOULD, AND CERTAINLY THERE SHOULDN'T BE IF THERE'S NO DRAIN EASEMENT AND THEY CAN PROVE THAT THERE'S NO DRAIN EASEMENT.
I'M NOT MAKING A DETERMINATION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
BUT IF THERE'S NO DRAIN EASEMENT AND SHOULDN'T BE ON SOMETHING THAT IS RECORDED WITH THE TOWN.
HOW LONG AGO? SO HOW LONG AGO WAS THIS ALSO MR. IS IT MR. TRUDEAU WHO'S, WHO'S REPRESENTING THE PRESTA? SO WERE YOU AWARE OF THIS, THESE ISSUES WITH THE DRAIN EASEMENT AND THE DRIVEWAY BEFORE TODAY'S MEETING WITH THE DRIVEWAY? THE BLACKTOP THAT WAS REMOVED, CERTAINLY.
'CAUSE THAT WAS THE CONDITION TO FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND RETAINING WALL.
SO WHY DIDNT YOU GET IT FIXED? OKAY.
BECAUSE THERE WAS ALSO A CONDITION THAT THE FINAL SUBDIVISION FLAT REFLECT THAT THERE WERE NO CHANGES FROM THE PRELIMINARY.
ALTHOUGH THERE ARE, AND THE RETAINING WALL, I THINK WAS ANOTHER ONE OF THE, UM, ITEMS YOU JUST MENTIONED.
BUT I THINK MY QUESTION IS THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION, DOES THAT LOCK THE PLA IN PLACE AS IS OR CAN THERE BE CHANGES AFTER THAT? THAT'S MY QUESTION.
THIS IS FOR, UM, A LEGAL OH, OH, BECAUSE I WAS GONNA SAY THE ZONING BOARD REQUIRED THAT MM-HMM
SO TO ME IT SHOULD BE ON THERE.
THE ZONING BOARD REQUIRED THE REMOVAL OF, OF THAT DRIVEWAY ROUND BECAUSE THEY SAID THEY WERE DENIED.
IT CLEARLY SAYS EVEN YOUR APPLICATION, I'M SORRY, YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE MIC BECAUSE THIS IS THERE.
AND ALSO IT'S, IF YOU LOOK AT YOUR DOCUMENTATION FOR THIS, THAT IS NOW ON BOARD, ONE OF THE THINGS IN THE VERBIAGE, IT SAYS THE, THE ZONING BOARD HAD DENIED THEM THAT 12, UH, UH, GOING FROM 2.5 TO 12, THEY WERE TOLD NO, THEY HAD TO REMOVE AND BE 12 FEET FROM THEIR NEIGHBOR'S BUSHES.
SO THEREFORE, ON THE FINAL PLAT, IT SHOULDN'T EVEN BE THERE.
WHY WOULD THERE BE A CONDITION THAT THE PLAT NOT BE, UH, DEMONSTRATE THAT THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY CHANGES? WELL, TYPICALLY YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO ALTER THE PLAT BETWEEN PRELIMINARY AND FINAL.
HOWEVER, IF THERE'S A CONDITION WHICH THERE WAS TO REMOVE THE DRIVEWAY, I TEND TO AGREE THAT THE FINAL PLAT SHOULD BE UPDATED TO REMOVE THAT SECTION.
AND WITH THE COVER LETTER THAT SAYS, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CONDITION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND THE CONDITIONS OF THE ZONING BOARD, THE PLAT, THE FINAL PLAT WAS MODIFIED FROM WHAT YOU SAW AND APPROVED PRELIMINARILY DUE TO THIS CONDITION.
AND IT'S THAT SECTION OF THE DRIVEWAY.
I CAN'T REALLY SPEAK TO THE EASEMENT.
WELL, CAN I, I, I THINK MY QUESTION IS THAT IF THAT'S, UH, THAT'S A KIND OF A NOT GOING TO REALLY
[00:25:01]
A PROBLEM.AND IF THIS PPLICANT HAS AGREED TO MAKE IT CORRECTION SO WE CAN APPROVE SOMETHING THAT IS ACTUALLY FINAL.
RIGHT? SO MY QUESTION IS WHY WE CANNOT JUST HAVE THE ACTUALLY EXISTING FINAL CONDITIONS THAT WE ARE APPROVING? WELL, IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD WANTS.
SO WHAT I'M RELAYING BACK TO MR. TERRE IS WE WOULD LIKE THE BOARD WOULD LIKE THE PLAT UPDATED TO REFLECT CURRENT CONDITIONS.
CERTAINLY, WELL, NOT JUST CURRENT CONDITIONS, ACCURATE CONDITIONS.
SO IF THERE'S NO EASEMENT, THEN THAT SHOULDN'T BE ON THERE.
AND IF THERE WAS AN ISSUE WITH THE RETAINING WALL AS WELL, THAT NEEDS TO BE CORRECTED AS WELL.
UH, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A RETAINING WALL.
I DON'T WELL, BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES, BUT I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S A REPAIR AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS RIGHT ON THE, UH, BORDER OF THE PROPERTIES.
BUT, UH, I'LL CERTAINLY, UH, LET THE SURVEYOR KNOW THAT HE SHOULD INCLUDE THAT IN THE FINAL, UH, SUBDIVISION LAB.
I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. AND MRS. PERKINS.
WAS THE KNEE WALL, DID THAT REQUIRE A BUILDING PERMIT? NO, IT DID NOT.
BECAUSE IT WAS LOW ENOUGH? CORRECT.
SO THAT COULD BE A REASON WHY IT WASN'T REFLECTED.
SO, AND THE SITUATION WITH THE, THE DRAIN, UM, ORIGINAL, I WOULD SAY, I WOULD SAY CAN, CAN I, CAN I SHOW YOU THE, UH, CAN I SHOW YOU THE, THE NOTATION ON THE SURVEY REGARDING THAT THOSE, THAT STATEMENT THAT WE'RE MAKING, THAT IT'S NOT JUST, JUST SO YOU CAN GET A FLAVOR FOR WHEN YOU SAY SURVEY.
WHO'S SURVEY? WELL, WE HAVE, WE HAVE OUR SURVEY.
SO THIS IS YOUR INDEPENDENT SURVEY? THIS IS OUR INDEPENDENT SURVEY.
IF I CAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE, I CAN SHARE THIS.
IF I CAN SHARE IT FROM HERE OR, OR YOU CAN JUST TAKE IT.
WHENEVER YOU SPEAK, YOU HAVE TO BE AT THE MICROPHONE.
I JUST WANT, I THINK YOU GUYS NEED TO, THIS WAS WHEN THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION WHERE THAT WHOLE THING WAS DONE, THIS HAS THE BOARD OF HOUSE, THIS HAS EVERYBODY SIGNATURE.
THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL SURVEY THAT WAS DONE WHEN THE WHOLE SUBDIVISION WAS DONE.
THERE IS NO DRAIN EASEMENT EVEN ON HERE.
JUST LIKE THE OTHER SURVEY SHOWED, FOR INSTANCE, THERE WAS A DRIVEWAY EASEMENT.
THERE WAS NEVER ANY WORDS OF DRIVEWAY EASEMENT.
SOMEBODY WROTE THAT IN AND THAT'S HOW THEY WERE TRYING TO JUSTIFY PARKING IN OUR YARD.
SO ALL WE'RE SAYING IS SINCE THERE WAS NO DRIVEWAY, THERE WAS NO DRAIN EASEMENT ON THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION CLASS.
UM, WHAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU'RE NOT AT THE MICROPHONE IS THAT THE PUBLIC WHO IS ENTITLED TO HERE, UH, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, WON'T BE ABLE TO HEAR IT.
SO LET ME JUST FINISH THIS LITTLE PIECE HERE.
UM, AND I WANTED TO ASK, WOULD IT BE REASONABLE TO, UM, HAVE THE TOWN VERIFY THE DRAIN EASEMENT? RIGHT? DO YOU SEE THE NOTATIONS THAT I, SO THAT BEING BEING SAID, TREATED AS, UH, PRIVATE AS YEAH.
THE TOWN YOU GENERALLY, WE USED TO HAVE SURVEYORS BACK IN THE DAY, BUT WE DON'T ANYMORE.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE RELY ON THE CERTIFICATIONS OF THE, OF THE PARTIES OR THE OWNERS, UH, SURVEYOR.
NOW, IN THIS CASE, WE PROBABLY HAVE DUELING, WE'RE PROBABLY GONNA WIND UP.
THIS IS, THIS WAS IN LITIGATION FOR MANY YEARS.
SO I'M SURE THERE PROBABLY WILL BE DUELING SURVEYS THAT MAY REAR THEIR HEADS.
AND ULTIMATELY IT COMES DOWN TO THE PARTIES.
THE TOWN WANTS TO BE SURE THAT THE INFORMATION'S ACCURATE.
DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING SHOWN? I JUST WANT TO GIVE THIS GENTLEMAN AN OPTION.
I WAS, I WAS JUST SHOWING YOU THE HISTORY OF THE NOTATIONS THERE.
YOU KNOW, THERE WAS SOMETHING DESIGNATED AS A DRIVEWAY EASEMENT.
THAT'S THE ITEM THAT OF COURSE WAS SUBJECT, SUBJECT OF THIS DIRECTLY.
BUT ALSO THE OTHER THING IS THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT.
THAT LITTLE PIECE THAT WE JUST IDENTIFIED AND IS SAYING WAS PREVIOUSLY SHOWN ON SURVEYS FROM 63 2013, 2014, 2016, NO RECORD FOUND OF EASEMENTS BEING FILED IN THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE DIVISION OF LAND RECORDS.
IT GOES ON, IT GOES ON TO SAY, TO BE RESEARCHED BY TITLE COMPANY.
BUT WE DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T DO ANY TITLE.
SO I'VE GOT A QUESTION WAS, SO YOU SAID THAT THIS WAS THE SUBJECT OF LITIGATION.
WAS THERE, WAS THERE AN ACTION TO QUIET TITLE? NO, THIS WASN'T A SUBJECT OF LITIGATION.
IT WAS NOT, NO, NOT ANY BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, IT'S THE EASEMENTS AS PRESENTED TO US.
WE ALLOWED THE TITLE COMPANY TO DO THE SEARCH.
[00:30:01]
ANY CONCERNS.AND THEN OF COURSE, WHEN THIS ISSUE STARTED, THEN OF COURSE YOU FOCUS ON VARIOUS ELEMENTS YOU WOULDN'T HAVE FOCUSED ON PERHAPS WHEN YOU BOUGHT IT 30 YEARS AGO.
AND SO WHEN THE SURVEY WAS DONE, THIS WAS INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO US.
SO THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN THIS SURVEY.
'CAUSE IN THE PREVIOUS SURVEYS THAT WE'VE HAD, AND WE, WE, WE HAVEN'T, WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY PREVIOUS SURVEY SURVEYS CONDUCTED.
THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION I THINK SHE'S ASKING.
WE HAD, AGAIN, AGAIN, ONLY ONE AT A TIME AND ONE PERSON GOT THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
NO, I WAS JUST, YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
I DID, I ASKED, I ASKED YOU IF THERE WAS A LAWSUIT TO QUIET TITLE, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NOT.
IF WE, IF WE CONTINUED THIS TWO WEEKS, OUR, OUR VOTE ON THIS, WOULD THE, WOULD THE APPLICANT AND YOU, YOU BE ABLE TO GET TOGETHER? I'M SORRY.
STAFF IS GOING TO LAY A PLAN A, A PATH FORWARD.
SO IF YOU ALLOW AARON, I HAVE A QUESTION AND THEN I HAVE A SUGGESTED PATH FOR THE BOARD.
MY QUESTION FOR MR. BERGINS IS, BASED ON THE PLAT THAT IS BEING CONSIDERED TONIGHT, WE WANT TO TAKE IT OFF.
YOU WOULD NOT SIGN THAT PLAT SO THAT IT WOULD BE FILED, AM I CORRECT? CORRECT.
BECAUSE THAT THEY, BECAUSE OF THE DRIVEWAY ROUND, THE PARKING ROUND THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO HAVE REMOVED IS STILL THERE.
AND ALSO BECAUSE OF THE, BECAUSE BECAUSE, SO IF YOU TOLD ME YOU STILL HAD A PROBLEM WITH THE DRAIN EASEMENT, WE COULD EVEN LIVE WITH THAT.
BUT PART OF OUR THING IS BECAUSE THERE IS TO, TO BE NO ALTERATIONS AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SIGNING.
AND NO ERASURE, WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE SURE THIS TIME EVERYTHING IS ACCURATE.
SO THAT MEANS THERE IS NO DRAIN EASEMENT THERE, THERE IS AN EASEMENT, A UTILITY.
WE'RE NOT DENYING THAT THERE IS.
SO WE JUST WANT, WE WANNA PUT AN END TO THIS.
WE THOUGHT HAVING RECEIVED THIS AT THE LAST MINUTE, THAT ALL OF THIS WAS ACCURATE UNTIL WE WERE LOOKING AT IT IN DETAIL.
SO WE DID NOT EVEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, AND YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE WE HAD CALLED YOU NUMEROUS TIMES, SO WE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EVEN EXAMINE THIS BEFORE THIS REVIEW, BASICALLY IN DETAIL.
SO WE SPENT NUMEROUS TIMES GOING THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THIS WAS ACCURATE BEFORE WE PUT OUR SIGNATURE TO IT.
BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN IN LITIGATION, AS HE SAID, TOO LONG FOR PROPERTY THAT BELONGED, BELONGED TO US THAT WE'RE NOW TRYING TO SELL.
SO WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE PLAT, THE FINAL PLAT IS ACCURATE SO OUR KIDS DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH THIS NONSENSE ANYMORE.
THEN MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS FOR MR. RELL, UH, WOULD YOU OR YOUR OFFICE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHECK IN WITH THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE DIVISION OF LAND RECORDS TO SEE IF THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT, WHICH ON THE, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ON THESE NOTES RIGHT NOW INDICATES, UH, NO RECORD OF BEING FILED.
CAN YOU, CAN YOUR OFFICE CHECK ON THAT? WE CERTAINLY CAN, AND I WOULD ASK MORE CARPENTER TO DO THAT AS WELL.
UH, BECAUSE THEY HAVE ACCESS TO DOCUMENTS.
THAT MAY NOT HAVE NECESSARILY BEEN FILED IN THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE, BUT PERHAPS WERE FILED IN FACT IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
SO, UM, YES, WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT.
AND I WILL CERTAINLY, UH, HAVE WORK CARPENTER REVISE THE PRELIMINARY PART OF THE FINAL PROPOSED FINAL SUBDIVISION FLAG TO REFLECT THE REMOVAL OF THAT LAPTOP.
AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR HERE, THAT THOSE ARE THE TWO ISSUES THAT THE BOARD WANTS ADDRESSED.
AND UH, UM, AND IF FURTHER ISSUES ARE RAISED, UM, I GUESS WE'LL ADDRESS THEM AT THAT TIME.
THE WALL SHOULD, I GUESS BE PUT BECAUSE THEY, UH, THEY KNOW THE WALL IS, IS THERE, I'M SAYING IF THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT, BUT MY MAIN CONCERN IS NOW TO BE KIND, MY HUSBAND AND I, WE KNOW YOUR NEXT BOARD MEETING IS ON JUNE 4TH, AND THE NEXT ONE IS JUNE 16TH.
WE DO NOT WANNA WAIT ANOTHER SIX MONTHS TO GET THIS DONE BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN USING OUR, OUR PROPERTY TO PARK THEIR CARS.
AND SO THEY'RE CONTINUING TO USE OUR PROPERTY.
AND, AND SO THEY'VE BEEN DRAGGING THIS ON AND DRAGGING THIS ON, AND WE'RE TRYING TO GET THIS SETTLED SO THAT THEY CAN PAY US THE $10,000.
SO THEN, AND, AND AARON WILL TELL YOU, WE'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH, HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING? HAVE YOU HEARD ANYTHING? SO THIS HAS TO, WE WANT, WE DON'T WANT THIS EXTENSION TO GO OUT FOREVER.
SO MS. PERKINS DO, FOR, IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, WE WILL NOT BE, UH, MAKING A DECISION THIS EVENING.
[00:35:01]
WE WOULD LIKE THE CORRECTED PLAT.AND MY QUESTION IS, UM, DO YOU NEED, IS THERE A PARTICULAR TIME BETWEEN THE TIME THAT THEY RECEIVED THE PLAT AND HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW THE PLAT AND THEN COMING BEFORE THE BOARD? RIGHT.
SO MY QUESTION TO MR. TERRE IS IF THE BOARD AMENDED, ITS, UM, PRIOR VOTE RELATED TO THE TWO DAY RETROACTIVE EXTENSION OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL TO MAKE THAT A 60 DAY EXTENSION, NOT SIX MONTHS, 60 DAYS, THINGS TAKE TIME TO CHANGE.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME TO GET THIS RESOLVED? I DO WITH ONE QUESTION.
WOULD THE BOARD REQUIRE WORK PROPERTY TO GO BACK OUT TO THE PROPERTY AND MAKE SURE THAT THIS NEHA WALL IS ON THIS, UH, PROPOSED FINAL SUBDIVISION FLAT? MR. LIEBERMAN, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT ON THAT? IT, I ASKED THE QUESTION IF IT REQUIRED A BUILDING PERMIT, BECAUSE IF IT DID, THEN I THOUGHT IT SHOULD CERTAINLY BE ON, ABSENT THE PERMIT.
WELL, IF IT'S GOT, IT'S NOT UNUSUAL FOR WALLS TO BE SHOWN ON SURVEYS.
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT SUBDIVISION PLATS, BUT CERTAINLY ON SURVEYS.
SO IF WHAT CARPENTER IS GOING OUT THERE TO MAKE CHANGES, THEY SHOULD REFLECT WHAT'S THERE.
'CAUSE THAT'S WHAT IT SAYS TO FIND.
AND THAT WOULD INCLUDE THE KNEE WALL.
I, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, AND MR. RE IF YOU COULD CLARIFY, THAT MIGHT BE THE ONLY ITEM THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO GO OUT THERE FOR.
OTHERWISE YOU WOULDN'T ANTICIPATE THEM HAVING TO GO OUT THERE? OR ARE THEY GONNA HAVE TO GO OUT ANYWAY BECAUSE 'CAUSE THEY HAVE TO MOVE, THEY HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE, AND SURVEY THE AREA OF THE DRIVEWAY THAT WAS REMOVED.
UH, I'D LEAVE THAT UP TO THEM, BUT PERHAPS THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO GO OUT TO SURVEY THAT WE CAN GIVE THEM THE DIMENSIONS.
WHAT WAS REMOVED? IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE 12 FEET, BUT I COULD UNDERSTAND THAT THEY SAID THEY HAD TO GO OUT.
AGAIN, I COULD ALSO UNDERSTAND IF THEY SAID THEY DIDN'T HAVE TO GO OUT BASED ON THE DIMENSIONS WE PROVIDE.
I, I, SO IS, ARE WE ASKING WHETHER THE BOARD WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO GO OUT? IS THAT THE QUESTION? THE KNEE WALL, I THINK 12 FEET.
WELL, NOT JUST FOR THE KNEE WALL FOR IT TO, TO ACTUALLY CONFIRM THAT THEY'RE BOTH CO APPLICANTS AND IF THEY'RE NOT GOING TO, IF THE PERKINS ARE NOT GOING TO SIGN, UNLESS IT'S ON THERE, IT'S AN ACADEMIC DISCUSSION, IT'LL HAVE TO BE CHANGED.
SO I JUST NEED, I JUST NEED TO KNOW NOT OBJECTING TO IT.
I JUST NEED RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND.
I, I, I THINK WOULD I, I KIND OF, I KIND OF TOOK, TOOK, UM, UH, WHEN HE SAID ACADEMIC DISCUSSION, BECAUSE ONCE AGAIN, I'M JUST GOING BACK TO THE VERBIAGE THAT WAS WRITTEN ABOVE.
NO ERASURE, NO CHANGES ONCE WE SIGN THIS.
AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT SINCE WE ARE THE OWNERS OF THIS PROPERTY, THAT IT IS ACCURATELY REFLECTED.
WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT STILL SHOWS THAT DRIVEWAY ROUND, WHICH IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING IT SHOWS.
SO THAT IN ITSELF SAID IT NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED.
IT SHOULD NEVER EVEN GONE TO THIS.
WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO, UM, WORK WITH FIGURE OUT WHICH, WHICH WAY, BECAUSE I, I THINK IT'S THIS BOARD'S POSITION THAT THE PLAT ACCURATELY REFLECTS WHAT'S THERE.
SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. RE, YES, WE WOULD LIKE THE KNEE WALL IDENTIFIED ON THE PLA.
AND 60 DAYS YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU CAN GET WARD CARPENTER TO TAKE CARE OF ALL THIS WITH ENOUGH TIME FOR THE PERKINS TO HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THIS REVISED FINAL PLAT AHEAD OF ANY CONSIDERATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND HOW MUCH TIME DID THEY NEED
SO THAT BEING SAID, THE TWO, THE TWO DAY EXTENSION WE GAVE FROM MAY 20TH HAS TO BE AMENDED TO A SIX MONTH EXTENSION.
MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO AMEND TO A 60 DAY EXTENSION FROM MAY 20TH? SO MOVED.
[00:40:02]
ALL.I'M JUST GONNA STOP THE CHAIR FOR YOU.
AS ALWAYS, I'LL SEE YOU, I GUESS, SEE YOU IN A COUPLE OF MONTHS.
UM, I'M GONNA CALL THE NEXT ITEM.
OR DO WE NEED TO WAIT FOR AMANDA? I THINK WE SHOULD WAIT A MOMENT.
WE, I'M JUST WAITING FOR OUR ATTORNEY, AMANDA, TO RETURN.
CAN I, SO SIX CATS PB 24 0 3, UH, WE HAVE THE FINAL ONE ON THE TABLE.
LOOK UNDER YOUR, UM, LOOK UNDER YOUR LAPTOP.
RIGHT? IT MAY NOT BE THE SAME.
SO NEXT UP ON THE AGENDA IS CASE NUMBER PB 24,000,003, WANG SIX COSTAL WAY.
UH, AND I'LL BE RECUSING MYSELF FROM THIS CASE, UH, BECAUSE I COMMENTED ON IT BEFORE I, AS A MEMBER OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
ECC AS A MEMBER OF THE EDGEMONT COMMUNITY COUNCIL AS PRESIDENT OF THE EDGEMONT COMMUNITY COUNCIL.
THE PROJECT, THE PROJECT IS BACK FOR THE BOARD TO ACCEPT THE FINDING LANGUAGE AND TRANSMIT ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA.
NO VOTES ON THE VARIANCES NEED BE TO BE TAKEN AS THOSE WERE DONE, OR AT THE MAY 7TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING A VOTE ON THE FINDINGS AS WRITTEN OR AS AMENDED SHOULD, SHOULD BE TAKEN.
SO THAT'S ONE OF THE, THE FIRST THINGS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE DOING.
AND GIVEN THE AMOUNT, UM, SORRY, WE DON'T NEED THAT.
SO QUICKLY, UM, I DID WANT TO JUST NOTE THAT WE HAD A LENGTHY DISCUSSION ABOUT ACTUALLY JUST GENERALLY THE BOARD'S PROCESS FOR MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS ON PROJECTS TO THE ZONING BOARD.
SO I DID LOCATE A MEMORANDUM DATED NOVEMBER 3RD, 2023, ISSUED BY THE THEN PLANNING BOARD OF THE TOWN TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, WHICH SPEAKS TO THE JOINT MEETING THAT THE ZONING BOARD HAD WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, AND LAYS OUT KIND OF THE PROCEDURE AND HOW IT WILL, HOW THE PLANNING BOARD WILL MOVE FORWARD WHEN IT CONSIDERS EITHER VOTING FOR A POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, OR NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEAL.
SO THAT WAS CIRCULATED TO EVERYONE.
NOW, THIS CASE, THE BOARD ALREADY VOTED, UM, AS CHAIRPERSON DAVIS INDICATED ON MAY 7TH.
WE, DUE TO THE DISCUSSION STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO AMEND OR UPDATE THE FINDINGS SECTION OF, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION.
WE DID THAT FOLLOWING THE MEETING, WE CIRCULATED IT TO BOARD MEMBERS.
UH, WE DID RECEIVE SOME COMMENTS BACK.
AND STAFF'S FINAL VERSION WAS CIRCULATED IN THE PACKAGES IN A RED LINE, UM, FASHION.
AND THAT WOULD BE FOR THE BOARD'S DISCUSSION TONIGHT.
SO YES, IT PROBABLY MAKES SENSE TO GO AROUND THE TABLE TO SEE IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR SUGGESTIONS.
KEEP IN MIND THAT ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THIS DOCUMENT WILL REQUIRE UNANIMOUS APPROVAL BECAUSE WE ONLY HAVE FOUR VOTING MEMBERS TONIGHT.
UH, NO, HE'S RECUSED WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROJECT.
THE, MY MAJOR, UH, COMMENT IS THAT THE LANGUAGE THAT HE PUT IT IN, UH, IT'S LIKE TELLING THEM, UH, OR DEVISING THE ZONING BOARD THAT WHY THEY SHOULD REALLY, UH, UH, UH, APPROVE OR WHY, WHY WE THINK IT'S A, IT'S A KIND OF, UH, NOT, NOT CRITICAL OR NOT IMPORTANT.
OH, YOUR MIC, YOUR MIC'S NOT ON.
SO I THINK, UH, WE SHOULD DELETE THAT THINGS
[00:45:01]
WERE, UH, WE ARE OPINING ON THE VARIANCE.UH, SO IN PARTICULAR, UH, THE SECOND LINE ON THAT RATE ONE IS THAT THE AREA OF VARIANCE REQUESTED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED HOME, HOME ARE LIMITED TO LOT WIDTH AND SI LOT SIZE AND DO NOT INVOLVE SWEAT BACK VARIANCES.
ALL OTHER REQUIRED VARIANCES ARE IN THE RELATION TO EXISTING RESIDENTS.
THIS IS ON THE LAST PAGE RIGHT IN THE RED.
SO MY QUESTION IS THAT ISN'T IT, UH, UH, ZONING BOARD KNOWS ABOUT IT AND LET THEM, WHY WE TELLING THEM THEY SHOULD KNOW IT.
SO I THINK WE SHOULD, IF IT'S NOT, UH, REQUIRED OR NOT IMPORTANT, WE SHOULD NOT REALLY PUT THERE, I THINK, AND THEN THINK IT'S, UM, JUST SETTING A FACT, A FACTUAL STATEMENT.
SEE, I, I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU AND I ALSO THINK IT'S PHRASED AS IF IT'S A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
AND IT'S, AND WE WERE NEUTRAL IF I, I, IF, IF THIS WAS WHAT I WAS GOING, I I'M SORRY, WHAT PAGE? I, I THINK, LET ME FINISH FIRST TWO.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU THOUGH.
IF YOU GO TO THE DRAFT, SO, AND, AND I THINK THE, THE SAME THING, THE WHOLE SECOND PARAGRAPH IS LIKE BASICALLY SAYING WE ARE, WE, WE WOULD ISSUE THE POSITIVE IF IT WAS WE WERE THE ZONING BOARD, AND I THINK WE SHOULD DRAW A LINE.
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAD THAT WHOLE SYSTEM SET UP THAT WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU DO THE NEUTRAL MM-HMM
WE JUST TELL THEM THAT THE LAST SENTENCE IS THE REALLY IMPORTANT, WHICH IS NO COMPELLING REASONS.
NO PLANNING, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS FOUND THAT THERE ARE NO COMPELLING REASONS TO ISSUE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION.
AND THAT ISSUE THE NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION, WHICH IS FOLLOWS WHAT WE HAVE IN THE MEMO NO HERE.
SO IF WE LOOKED AT THE RED ON THE LAST PAGE AND WE NARROWED THAT DOWN TO TWO SENTENCES.
ONE, THE PLANNING BOARD NOTES THAT IT HAS RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM SEVERAL RESIDENTS EXPRESSING CONCERN WITH THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PERIOD.
SENTENCE TWO, ACCORDINGLY, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS FOUND THAT THERE ARE NO COMPELLING REASONS TO ISSUE A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION AND THEREFORE ISSUES THIS NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.
OR I CAN, I HAVE JUST MAYBE, UH, MAN, BASED ON THE PRESENTATION MADE BY THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMENTS REVIEWED FROM THE RESIDENTS AND THEN THE PLANNING PART, THEN, THEN YOU GO TO THE LAST TWO LINES.
SO CAN YOU STATE THAT ONE MORE TIME BASED ON THE PRESENTATION? JUST SO MADE BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE APPLICANT WAS THERE? YES.
AND THEN THE COMMENTS THAT YOU RECEIVED, WHICH WAS MOSTLY NEGATIVE, BUT I DON'T WANTED TO JUDGE THAT.
NO, YOU JUST, THE COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC.
WERE, WERE MOSTLY NEGATIVE AND BASED ON, WELL, I MEAN, IF YOU WANNA PUT THAT, IF YOU THINK THAT'S OUR BUSINESS TO DO IT, YES.
BUT, UH, OTHERWISE, UH, WELL, WE, I'M SORRY.
IT'S A GUYS, PLEASE EXCUSE ME.
CAN YOU JUST TAKE ME BACK TO THE PARAGRAPH WHERE YOU FEEL, UM, THIS DOCUMENT? OKAY, LET ME RE WAS NOT, I WOULD SAY OBJECTIVE.
SO THE WHOLE THREE PARAGRAPHS, I THINK, UH, THE FIRST LINE IS, OKAY, THE PLANNING BOARD NOTES THAT IT HAS RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE SEVERAL RESIDENTS, RIGHT.
AND THAT ONE I'M REWRITING IT OR RESTATING IT AS BASED ON THE PRESENTATION MADE BY THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE RESIDENTS.
UH, AND THEN THE TIP, THAT'S THE LAST TWO LINES.
SO THAT, AND THEN, UH, YOU, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS FOUND THAT THERE ARE NO, SO CONTINUE AT THE, UH, AT THE LAST TWO LINES.
UM, AND YOU HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THAT.
WITHOUT SAYING THAT WE'VE RECEIVED, UM, UM, OPPOSITION FROM THE PUBLIC, I DON'T JUST WANNA SAY WE'VE RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC 'CAUSE WE'VE RECEIVED SIGNIFICANT OPPOSING COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC.
SO HOW WOULD YOU LIKE IT TO READ? SO THE, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN RIGHT NOW, I'M OKAY WITH, RIGHT.
SO HOW I HAVE IT WRITTEN HERE.
AND, AND MR NO, HE'S SAYING HE WANTS TO TAKE OUT THE, BASED ON THE PRESENTATION MADE BY THE APPLICANT MM-HMM
AND THE COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC EXPRESSING CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PLANNING BOARD HAS FOUND THAT THERE ARE NO COMPELLING REASONS TO
[00:50:01]
GO POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.YOU'RE NOTING YOU'RE TELLING THAT WE'VE HAD A POSITION.
UM, AND I DON'T THINK IT'S ACCORDINGLY.
UM, ALONG HERE IT'S LINES, I THINK THE AGREEING, I'M SORRY, I'M, I'M STILL NOT GETTING THE GIST OF THIS WORD SWITCH AND WHERE IT'S, IT WENT OFF RAIL FOR YOU.
SO, SO KERRY'S SAYING YOU SEE THE PLANNING BOARD NOTES THAT IT'S RECEIVED, UM, CONCERN, RIGHT? PARDON? AND THEN THE NEXT SENTENCE SAYS, THE NEXT SENTENCE SOUNDS FROM KARA'S OPINION AND MY OPINION THAT WE STILL THINK IT'S A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION AT THE, THE NEXT, THE AREA OF VARIANCES SENTENCE AND ANY ADVERSE IMPACTS MAKES IT SOUND AS IF WE'RE POSITIVE ON THE RECOMMENDATION AND THAT WE THINK EVERYTHING WILL BE, WILL BE MITIGATED.
AND WE ARE NOT POSITIVE, WE ARE NEUTRAL.
WELL, UH, STATING THE VARIANCES, YOU ISSUED A SECRET DETERMINATION MM-HMM
INDICATING THAT THERE WOULD BE NO SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROJECT.
SO THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY REITERATED HERE.
WE CAN TO IT, BUT HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
AND I MEAN, I JUST WANNA GIVE CLARITY BECAUSE YOU JUST SAID END IT LIKE YOU.
IF IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT DECIDING, AND I'VE INDICATED THAT I'M HAPPY TO PULL THIS OUT.
LET'S GO AHEAD
I DIDN'T KNOW IF MS. DAVIS NEEDED FURTHER CLARIFICATION ON IT.
'CAUSE SHE HAD SOME QUESTIONS.
I'VE GOT OTHER ISSUES THAT MY, MY REVISIONS WERE NOT ACCEPTED.
UM, THE, THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTIES, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN FIND.
THAT WHOLE PARAGRAPH I THINK SHOULD BE STRICKEN.
AND ALSO IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH OF THE FINDINGS WHERE IT SAYS, UM, SO IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, THE, THE FINDINGS ON PAGE TWO, UM, WHERE IT SAYS THE PLANNING BOARD HAS FOUND THAT TWO TAX LOTS, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH.
WAIT A SECOND, WHICH HAS A MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET RENDERING THOSE LOTS AND MANY OF THE LOTS IN THE COTSWOLD NEIGHBORHOOD, NON-CONFORMING FROM A LOT SIZE PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T THINK WE'RE IN A POSITION AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE'VE RECEIVED ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE, TO DETERMINE THAT MANY OF THE LOTS IN THE COTSWOLD NEIGHBORHOOD OR NON-CONFORMING.
I HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH SAYING THAT OTHER LOTS ARE NONCONFORMING.
SO I THINK THAT, WAIT, WHY WOULD YOU NOT TO SPEAK TO THAT? IF WE CAN JUST BREAK IT DOWN INTO SECTIONS.
SO THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE, AND, AND MAYBE IT WAS BEFORE YOU JOINED THE BOARD, BUT IN A WORK SESSION, DISPLAYED A BOARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD AT A PUBLIC SESSION WHERE HE SHOWED THAT THERE WERE NUMEROUS LOTS THAT WERE UNDERSIZED CORRECT.
UNDER THE 20,000 AND PLANNING STAFF LOOKED AT IT FROM IS AND SO THESE ARE ALL FACTUAL RECITATIONS THAT ARE SUPPORTING THE FINDINGS.
WHY DOES THAT HAVE TO BE IN THERE FOR THE NEUTRAL DETERMINATION? WELL, THEY HAVE TO DO WITH THE VARIANCES AND HOW THEY CONFORM WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN TERMS OF HOW WE MAKE OUR DECISION.
WELL, IT'S FINDING, SUPPORTING YOUR RECOMMENDATION, BUT I DON'T HAVE TO VOTE TO ACCEPT THIS.
IT HAS TO BE UNANIMOUS TO VOTE TO ACCEPT THIS AND I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE TO ACCEPT IT.
WELL, WE HAVEN'T TAKEN THE VOTE YET.
SO WE, I REMEMBER THAT THIS IS A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION AND IT IS NON-BINDING ON THE ZONING BOARD.
YOU ALREADY VOTED NEUTRAL AND IS NON-BINDING.
THIS IS SIMPLY LANGUAGE IN THE FINDINGS.
SO, BUT IT'S THE LANGUAGE IN THE FINDINGS THAT I DISAGREE WITH.
SO THAT, THAT I THINK SPEAKS TO IT AS BEING A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
AND, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WHAT WE WERE VOTING FOR.
AND THEN THE, WE DID NOT VOTE FOR A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
YOU VOTED FOR A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.
WAIT, MAY, IF I MAY, IF I MAY, IF I MAY, THE, IN TERMS OF I'M GONNA GO TO THIS PARTICULAR IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNTS OF NON-CONFORMING PROPERTIES THAT WAS ALREADY PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
UM, IT WAS PRIOR TO YOUR TIME, IT IS SOMETHING THAT CAN BE, THAT COULD HAVE BEEN LOOKED BACKED UP OR, OR QUESTIONED, UM, PRIOR TO THIS MEETING IN TERMS OF HOW DID WE GET TO THAT? UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT FOR ME MEANS THAT THIS IS A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION JUST BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER PROPERTIES THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING.
WELL I, I'M, I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT WAS NOT PART OF WHY I VOTED FOR NEUTRAL AND I DISAGREE WITH IT AND I HAVEN'T, I DON'T, I HAVEN'T SEEN THE DATA THAT SUPPORTS IT AS FACT.
[00:55:01]
REMOVED AND I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY TO HAVE IN THERE FOR A FINDING.AND THEN THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH, DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTIES AND THE COMPARABLE NATURE OF ONE FAMILY HOMES IN THE AREA IN RELATION TO THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION, THE PLANNING BOARD FINDS THAT SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE NOT ANTICIPATED.
ON PAGE THREE, THE LAST PARAGRAPH BEFORE IT'S READ, SO IT SAYS THE PLANNING BOARD FINDS THAT SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE NOT ANTICIPATED.
I DON'T THINK WE FOUND THAT SHOULD THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANT, THE NINE AREA VARIANCES, THE PROPOSED LOT SIZE LOT WIDTH AND SETBACKS ARE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO MANY ONE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I I WE, WE FOUND WAS A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.
THE PLANNING DEPORT DETERMINES THAT THERE'S NO COMPELLING PLANNING REASON TO ISSUE A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION, AND THEREFORE FEELS THAT A DETERMINATION ON GRANTING OR DENYING THE VARIANCE LIES SLOWLY WITH THE ZBA THAT WE DID NOT FIND, AT LEAST THIS IS NOT WHAT MY VOTE MEANT.
THAT, THAT THE, THAT THE PROPOSED LOT SIZE LOT WITHIN SETBACKS ARE SIMILAR IN CHARACTER TO ONE FAMILY HOMES WITHIN THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I ABSOLUTELY WOULD NOT HAVE VOTED FOR A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION IF THAT'S WHAT I WAS VOTING FOR, I WOULD'VE VOTED FOR NEGATIVE.
WELL, ALL OF THOSE SUPPORT A NEUTRAL OR POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
I SUGGESTION MY QUESTION TO YOU'RE FACTUAL STATE.
I THINK THAT I, AND, AND AGAIN, I THINK ALL THESE VERBIAGE, IF IT IS RELATED TO THE FINDING, I THINK WE CAN SUMMARIZE INTO A THREE SENTENCES.
WELL, HERE, LIKE BASED ON THE PRESENTATION MADE BY THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE RESIDENTS, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS FOUND THAT THERE IS NO COMPELLING REASON TO ISSUE THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION AND THEREFORE ISSUES THE NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.
THE, THE APPLICANT IS GONNA GO THERE AND EXACTLY DO WHAT HE DID THAT LIKE SAYING THAT WHAT SHE, AND I THINK, UH, THE VERBIAGE IS SORT OF CONFUSING AND VERBIAGE IS NOT ACTUALLY NEEDED FOR GIVING A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION IN FIRST PLACE.
WELL, I'LL NARROW IT TO ONE THING.
UM, IF THE BOARD IS IN UNANIMOUS AGREEMENT TO MODIFY THE FINDINGS, THEN STAFF, THEN YOU WILL VOTE TO ACCEPT AS AMENDED AND THEN WE WILL SEND IT ALONG.
IF YOU'RE NOT, THEN WE SHOULD TABLE THIS.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS NOT ON, NOT GONNA BE ON WITH THE ZONING BOARD UNTIL THE EARLIEST WOULD BE JULY.
SO THEN WE COULD HAVE IT COME BACK AT A FUTURE MEETING, UM, AND SEE IF THERE CAN BE AGREEMENT OR YOU KNOW, A MAJORITY VOTE ON A CERTAIN LANGUAGE YOU DON'T.
SO, SO, SO ONE AT A TIME PLEASE.
I THINK JUST TO MAKE THINGS MOVE FORWARD, WHATEVER THE BOARD DESIRES.
YEAH, I THINK, UH, THAT'S UP TO, THAT'S IF IT'S A MOVE FORWARD, THE IDEA IS THAT WE WANTED TO HAVE THIS NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION AND IF YOU DON'T NEED TO DO ALL THAT OTHER WORK PAGE, WHY JUST BELABOR ON THINGS WHICH IS ALREADY AGREED BY EVERYBODY UNLESS YOU HAVE SOME OPINION.
SO IN TERMS OF THE NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION AND NOT HAVING TO, BECAUSE WE'VE ONLY SAID THAT WE NEEDED TO SORT OF GIVE A REASON BETWEEN THE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE NEUTRAL MEANS NOTHING.
THE ONLY THING THAT I DON'T AGREE WITH IS, IS CHANGING THE FINDINGS, UM, THAT THE, UM, FACTS THAT ARE IN THE FINDINGS, BUT IN TERMS OF THE FINAL, UH, FINDING AND, AND MAKING IT LIKE TWO SENTENCES, TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT.
SO ARE YOU OKAY WITH, SO YOU'RE NOT OKAY WITH TAKING OUT AND MANY OF THE LOTS IN THE COTSWOLD NEIGHBORHOOD NON-CONFORMING, YOU'RE NOT OKAY WITH THAT? IS THAT, THAT'S THE WAIT, I MEAN, WAS THAT THE ONLY LINE THAT YOU WOULD I WANT TO REMOVE THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTIES, WHICH IS RIGHT, THE ONE THAT'S RIGHT UNDER THE BOLDED FINDINGS.
IT'S THE LAST, IT'S THE LAST PARAGRAPH IN BLACK BEFORE IT TURNS RED.
SO WHEN WE GET DOWN TO ALL OF THAT, WE DON'T NEED THAT.
THAT PARA, I, I'LL BE FINE LEAVING IN AND MANY OF THE LOTS IN THE COSWORTH NEIGHBORHOOD NON-CONFORMING, BUT I'M NOT OKAY WITH THAT PARAGRAPH DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTIES.
SO, UH, WE WILL ELIMINATE THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH DUE TO THE HISTORY.
[01:00:01]
SO THIS WOULD COME OUT RIGHT, BUT NOT THE ONE.
SO LET'S, YEAH, BECAUSE I THINK WE SHOULD JUST GET THROUGH THIS.
FIRST PARAGRAPH UNDER FINDINGS IN BLACK, IS THAT CHANGING OR REMAINING? THAT'S, WELL, SHE HAS SOME, SOME LANGUAGE CHANGE I THINK I, I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO REMOVE AND MANY OF THE LOTS IN THE COTS WORLD, NEIGHBORHOOD NON-CONFORMING.
BUT IF EVERYBODY HERE IS REPRESENTING THAT AT MEETINGS THAT I WASN'T HERE FOR THAT, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY FACTUAL.
AND THAT IS NOT FROM A LOT SIZE PERSPECTIVE THAT THAT WAS PRESENTED.
OBJECTIVELY, THERE'S NO ROOM FOR WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
SO I KNOW IT WAS PRESENTED BY, I THINK IT WAS THE ENGINEER MM-HMM
THE, I DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT HAD BEEN VERY VALIDATED BY THE TOWN.
SO I CAN, I CAN SAY ANYTHING LIKE, LOOK, THERE'S A SIX FOOT CHRISTMAS TREE OUTSIDE MM-HMM
SO THAT'S STATEMENT AFTER THE MEETING WAS VALIDATED BY THE TOWN? YES.
SO IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN THAT, I'M FINE WITH THAT STAYING.
WE PROVIDE IN ORDER TO GET PAST IT.
SO THEN WE HAVE AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO RED LINE, SO THAT'S NOT INCLUDED.
THEN WHEN WE GET TO PAGE THREE, WE HAVE AGAIN IN BLACK, THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS INDICATED THAT IT WILL NOT BE PURSUING WHILE LEAVING THAT IN THE ONE AREA OF VARIANCE RELATED TO MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO FLOOR AREA.
THE PLANNING BOARD FINDS THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROJECT CONFORMS WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE VARIOUS ORDINANCES.
LEAVE THAT THE NEXT PARAGRAPH DUE TO THE HISTORY OF THE ZONING.
THE NEXT PARAGRAPH, THE NEXT THREE PARAGRAPHS ARE MODIFIED FROM WHAT'S SHOWN IN RED.
ONE, BASED ON THE PRESENTATION MADE BY THE APPLICANT AND THE COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC EXPRESSING CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION.
I GUESS WE WOULD HAVE TO MODIFY THAT IN SOME WAY.
IT'S NOT GONNA MAKE THE STATEMENT, MAYBE IT'S JUST A STATEMENT.
IT'S NOT BASED ON THERE'S, THERE'S, IT'S JUST A STATEMENT THERE.
THERE'S, THERE'S TWO STATEMENTS.
THERE WAS AN APPLICATION, RIGHT.
AND THERE WAS NEGATIVE FEEDBACK.
AND SO SOMETHING ALONG THE PLANNING BOARD.
WELL, WHAT ABOUT THIS? LEAVE THE FIRST SENTENCE IN RED, WHICH JUST STATES THE PLANNING BOARD NOTES THAT IT HAS RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM SEVERAL RESIDENTS EXPRESSING CONCERN WITH THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION PERIOD.
REMOVE THE ENTIRE NEXT PARAGRAPH.
AND THEN THE FINAL PARAGRAPH INSTEAD OF ACCORDINGLY JUST STAY, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS FOUND THAT THERE ARE NO COMPELLING REASONS, ISSUE A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION AND THEREFORE ISSUES THIS NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.
SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE CAN WE, CAN WE SEE IT BEFORE IT'S ACTUALLY FINALIZED? I MEAN LIKE POST MEETING PLEASE.
UH, I THINK BEFORE HE FINALIZES, DON'T WE NEED TO DO A MOTION TO AMEND IT? YOU WOULD, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, UM, WELL, WE HAVE THE TAPE, SO, AND I JUST RECITED THE LANGUAGE THAT IS GONNA BE INCLUDED.
SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ROOM FOR ERROR.
I THINK THAT'S HOW WE USUALLY DO ANYWAY, SO, YEAH.
UM, SO WITH THAT SAID, I'M SORRY, WOULD THERE BE A MO THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A MOTION A SECOND AND A VOTE TO AMEND THE FINDINGS AS DISCUSSED THIS EVENING IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD'S RECOMMENDATION AND, UH, AUTHORIZE TRANSMISSION OF SUCH RECOMMENDATION TO THE, SO, OKAY.
MICHAEL, YOU SEVERAL STATED, MAY I HAVE A SECOND PLEASE? SECONDED.
ALL OPPOSED MOTION MOVE PASSES.
SO WE WILL WORK TOGETHER ON THAT AND THEN GET IT TRANSMITTED AND WE WILL REVIEW THE TAPE.
I THINK WHENEVER WE DOING THE NEUTRAL, I THINK WE SHOULD, WE SHOULD KEEP SIM SIMPLE.
WELL, I DON'T, I DON'T WANNA MAKE THAT A HARD AND FAST RULE ONLY BECAUSE WE CAN DISCUSS IT LATER.
WE HAVE A LOT OF, HAVE CASE NUMBER.
I DO THINK WE SHOULD BRING THIS MEMO TO EVERY MEETING.
[01:05:01]
WAS VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE THIS HERE.YOU KNOW, PLEASE, PLEASE FEEL FREE.
UM, CASE NUMBER PB 25 0 8 MEDOS.
CASE NUMBER 25 0 8 MECADO MECADO SUSHI TWO 14 EAST HARTSDALE AVENUE.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE HERE? UM, WE DO, I BELIEVE ON ZOOM, BUT, UM, IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS, OR STAFF HAS DRAFTED FOR THE PLANNING BOARD A SEEKER DETERMINATION.
THE REASON WHY THIS DOESN'T FALL INTO, UH, THE TYPE TWO CATEGORY IS BECAUSE OF THE SHARED PARKING REDUCTION REQUEST, UM, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THE RESTAURANT WOULD FALL UNDER THE TYPE TWO ACTIONS.
BUT BECAUSE OF THE SHARED PARKING, UM, WE HAVE PREPARED THIS SECRET DETERMINATION.
THE BOARD WOULD CONSIDER THAT.
AND THEN THERE IS A DRAFT DECISION ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND PLANNING BOARD SHARED PARKING REDUCTION APPROVAL LETTER.
UM, FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, WE WOULD FIRST DO THE SEEKER, AND THE FIRST CONSIDERATION WOULD BE, UH, A VOTE REGARDING THIS QUALIFYING AS AN UNLISTED ACTION PURSUANT TO SEEKER.
SO STAFF HAS PREPARED THE MEMO, UM, AND HOPEFULLY EVERYONE HAD A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT AND WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION TO DECLARE THIS AS AN UNLISTED ACTION UNDER SEEKER.
AND THEN SECOND VOTE WOULD BE TO CONSIDER ADOPTING THE SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
UM, THE BOARD'S REVIEWED THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT.
IT'S IDENTIFIED, UH, A NUMBER OF SMALL POTENTIAL IMPACTS AS OUTLINED ON THE TOP OF PAGE TWO, INCLUDING TRANSPORTATION, AIR QUALITY, AND NO, A NOISE SLASH ODOR, WHICH, UM, WOULD RESULT FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
THEN IT OUTLINES, UM, AND IT GOES THROUGH EACH SECTION IN TERMS OF THE PROJECT IMPACTS AND THEIR MAGNITUDE.
THIS IS A PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD, NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED BY STAFF.
AND WE OUTLINED WITHIN SECTION FIVE IMPACT ON TRANSPORTATION, THE, UM, DOCUMENTATION THAT WAS SUPPLIED BY THE APPLICANT AND REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
WE ALSO NOTE AS REQUIRED THAT, UH, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR ISSUED A MEMORANDUM TO THE PLANNING BOARD SUPPORTING THE APPLICANT'S, UM, REQUEST FOR THE SHARED PARKING REDUCTION.
SO, SO IN REFERENCE TO, AGAIN, SEEKER, UM, MAY HAVE A MOTION TO, UH, MAKE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
ALL OPPOSED? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK.
SO THEN, UM, WE HAVE THE DRAFT DECISION.
UM, THE BOARD HAD DISCUSSED CERTAIN, UM, CONDITIONS, SO MOST OF IT'S BOILERPLATE AND WE HAVE THE STRIKETHROUGHS.
NOW WE CAN FILL IN THE FACT THAT THE BOARD VOTED ON THE UNLISTED ACTION AND THE, TO ADOPT THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
UM, I KNOW THAT THERE WERE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS RELATED TO THE CONDITIONS.
I DO WANT TO MENTION, UM, MR. WEINBERG, WHO IS NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING, HE DID HAVE A COMMENT.
UM, SO I WANTED TO, UH, OFFER THAT TO THE BOARD AND SEE IF THE BOARD WAS IN AGREEMENT.
UM, SO LET ME JUST STATE THAT AND THEN, AND THEN YOU, I THINK YOU HAVE ONE ALSO, RIGHT? MM-HMM
UM, MR. WEINBERG SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER A CONDITION THAT A SIGN ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE PREMISES THAT IS VISIBLE, THE MOTORISTS ON EAST HARTSDALE AVENUE, INDICATING THAT PARKING IS AVAILABLE TO THE REAR OF THE PREMISES, BE CONDITIONED.
UH, YEAH, THAT WAS SO THAT WAS ALONG YOUR, AGAINST YOU? YEAH, THAT WAS THE COMMENT.
UM, ONE AT OUR LAST MEETING, WE HAD A DISCUSSION REGARDING HAVING SIGNAGE THAT WOULD DIRECT, UM, TRAFFIC TO THE RARE AVAILABLE PARKING LOT.
AND THE APPLICANT AGREED TO THAT.
[01:10:01]
I JUST THINK IT WAS LIKE, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY OUTSIDE.'CAUSE THE LANDLORD MAY NOT LET YOU.
SO HE SAID HE WOULD PUT SIGNAGE WHERE HE COULD NOTIFYING PATRONS, SO RIGHT.
MAYBE IN THE, THE WAY IT'S VERSUS EXTERIOR.
YEAH, JUST MAYBE ON THE, IN THE FRONT THE WINDOW.
YEAH, WE COULD LEAVE IT AS VISIBLE, LIKE LANDLORDS DON'T NECESSARILY ALWAYS LET YOU JUST, I UNDERSTAND.
IS, IS THAT SIGNAGE THAT THE TOWN WOULD BE ABLE TO PLACE ON THE CURB OR, OR THE, OR THE PARKING AUTHORITY? IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO BE IN THE WINDOW, I THINK.
I WOULD JUST, UH, REMIND THE BOARD THAT SIGNAGE IN THAT AREA OF TOWN IS SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE PARKDALE CONTEXTUAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
UM, SO IF THEY ARE, AS AN EXAMPLE, STRONGLY OPPOSED TO SUCH SIGNAGE, THEN THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE ISSUES.
UM, SO SOMETHING FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER WHEN CONSIDERING THAT, UH, CONDITION.
THE, THE COMMITTEE, WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT SIGNAGE, ARE THEY TALKING ABOUT SIGNAGE? LIKE THIS IS THE MECADO RESTAURANT, THIS THE SIGNAGE THAT ANNOUNCES THE PLACE, UM, THE AWNINGS, THAT KIND OF SIGNAGE? OR ARE THEY CONCERNED WITH THE SIGNAGE THAT ACTUALLY GOES ON THE GLASS AND A WINDOW? BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE WERE ASKING THEM TO DO THAT TYPE OF SIGNAGE.
I THINK IT'S WITHIN THEIR SCOPE OF REVIEW THOUGH.
WHAT IF IT WAS LIKE A MOVABLE LIKE BOARD OR SOMETHING? I MEAN, DID THEY, WOULD THEY LOOK AT THAT ALSO IF IT WASN'T LIKE LETTERING IN THE WINDOW, BUT IT WAS LIKE A LIKE A TABLE? LIKE A A FRAME? YEAH, LIKE, UM, SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE UNDER THE SIGN CHAPTER.
IT MIGHT BE EXEMPT, LIKE UNDER THE SIGN CHAPTER.
YOU KNOW, LIKE THEY PUT IT OUT BEFORE THEY OPEN AND THEY PULL IT IN THE SIDEWALK.
WOULD THE CODE ALLOW STORE OWNERS TO PUT SOMETHING IN THE SIDEWALK OBSTRUCT THE SIDEWALK? YES.
SO WE'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SIGN CHAPTER AND SEE WHAT, I KNOW THERE'S CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS, THERE'S CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS AND IT'S ALL SPELLED OUT THERE.
THAT'S, I THINK WE SAID, WE MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE TO BE SUBJECT TO, YOU KNOW, THE SIGN ORDINANCE OR SIGN TRAFFIC AND, UM, RIGHT.
AND WE SHOULD PROBABLY ADD THE HARTSDALE CONTEXTUAL REVIEW.
SO THERE WAS, THERE'S A SPECIFIC PURPOSE FOR THE SIGNAGE, AND THAT IS TO, TO, UM, GET TRAFFIC TO GO TO THE PARKING LOT IN THE BACK, LEAVE SOME OF THE OFF STREET PARKING OPEN IF THE SIGNAGE IS NOT GONNA BE VISIBLE, IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT PEOPLE SEE ANYWAY, THEN THIS CONVERSATION, OH WAIT, I, I MEAN, IT'S FOR YOUR REPEAT PATRONS, RIGHT? LIKE, SOMEBODY WHO COMES IN AND PAYS A CHECKOUT WILL SEE A SIGN THAT SAYS, HEY, NEXT TIME YOU CAN PARK AT THE BACK.
SO IT DOES SERVE A PURPOSE, EVEN IF IT'S JUST INSIDE.
BUT MY EXPERIENCE IS, UH, THAT THEY, THEY VERY RARELY HAVE A, UH, UH, ISSUE WITH THE PARKING THERE.
EVEN WHEN IT WAS A, SO IT DID MOVIE THEATER.
THERE WAS NO, SO THIS IS LIKE A ONE MOMENT ONLY, ONLY, UH, THE PLACE THAT THEY'RE MAKING IT A NO, I THINK THIS IS, THIS IS, WE'RE ON GOLF.
THIS ONE IS DOWN EAST STARTS AVENUE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A MOVIE THE OTHER DAY.
SO THIS, THE SIGN CHAPTER DOES NOT ALLOW FOR SIDEWALK SIGNS.
IT IS PRETTY COMMON KNOWLEDGE THAT THERE'S A PARKING GARAGE BACK THERE.
I MEAN, I, AND I MEAN THEY EVEN, I THINK YOU'D BE SURPRISED.
I THINK THERE'S SOME, SOME PEOPLE GOOD BECAUSE YOU CAN'T SEE IT.
SO UNLESS YOU KNOW IT'S THERE, IT'S, YEAH, I MEAN, I, I GUESS I'VE ONLY LIVED HERE FOR FIVE YEARS AND I'VE BEEN THERE, YOU KNOW? I KNOW.
SO, SO WHAT'S THE ISSUE? I MEAN, LET'S SAY WE, WHAT DISC WE ARE DISCUSSING THAT SHOULD HAVE IT TAKE WHERE IT GOES.
WE DON'T NEED WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE CONDITIONING IT.
SO I HAD LANGUAGE IN HERE AS CONDITION NUMBER 17.
APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO INSTALL SIGNAGE IN THE FRONT WINDOW TO ALERT PATIENT, UH, PATRONS TO ADDITIONAL PARKING IN THE REAR, WHICH SHALL COMPLY WITH THE SIGN CODE.
I WAS GOING TO ADD AND BE SUBJECT TO C UH, HCRC REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
IF HE'S NOT ALLOWED TO, WHERE'S THE SIGN GONNA GO? CAN YOU JUST SAY THAT HE INSTALLS VISIBLE SIGNAGE INSIDE THE ESTABLISHMENT? I THINK IT'S NOT UP TO ME.
UH, AARON REID, NUMBER SEVEN, THE, THE, UM, AMENDMENT, THE SUGGESTED LANGUAGE IS APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO INSTALL SIGNAGE IN THE FRONT WINDOW OF THE BUSINESS TO ALERT PAGE PATRONS TO ADDITIONAL PARKING IN THE REAR, WHICH SHALL COMPLY WITH THE SIGN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, AND BE SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE HARTSDALE CONTEXTUAL REVIEW COMMITTEE.
AND SO YOU CAN HAVE A WINDOW SIGN PROVIDED THAT IT'S NOT MORE THAN 75% COVERAGE OF THE WINDOW PANE AND
[01:15:01]
IT'S SUBJECT TO H-C-C-R-C GREEN, BUT WE DUNNO WHAT H YES.C WILL BE SUBJECT TO HCRC AND FHC OR C SAYS NO.
THEN THERE'LL BE NO SIGNAGE AND YOU DEFEAT THE OBJECT.
WELL, NO, BECAUSE YOU CAN STILL PUT IT BY THE PROCESS, BUT THE CONDITION DOESN'T SAY THAT.
WELL, THEY WOULD HAVE, BUT WE CAN'T CONDITION THAT PERMISSION TO PUT SOMETHING ON THE INTERIOR.
THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PUT SOMETHING IN THE INTERIOR, LIKE YOU SAID, FOR RETURN.
BUT THE CONDITION DOESN'T SAY THAT.
THE CONDITION SAYS PUT IT IN THE WINDOW.
BUT IF HCRC SAYS NO, THEY DON'T HAVE TO PUT ANYTHING.
CAN WE CONDITION INTERNAL? SO CAN WE SIGNAGE JUST SAY WE WANT INTERNAL SIGNAGE VISIBLE TO ALL PATRON.
WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY INTERNAL SIGNAGE? SO LIKE, COULD WE CONDITION A SIGN AT THE REGISTER THAT SAYS PARKING IS AVAILABLE IN THE REAR? WOULD THAT BE WITHIN OUR, OUR SCOPE? I, I'M NOT WILLING TO GO THAT FAR IN TERMS OF THE INTERNAL, BECAUSE IF IT'S NOT ON THE OUTSIDE, AND AGAIN, A LOT OF THIS POTENTIALLY IS REALLY HELPING THE BUSINESS OWNER IN TERMS OF PATRONS.
AND IF HE'S NOT WILLING TO PUT IT ON THE INSIDE, I'M NOT WILLING TO GO THAT FAR.
UH, BY THE WAY, I THINK WHAT SHE SAY, IT'S A 75%, SO THIS SCIENCE IS NOT GONNA BE MORE THAN 75.
AND I'M, I'M ON, ON THAT BOARD TOO, AND I THINK WE REVIEWED IT AND I THINK IT'S, UH, IT'S OKAY.
THEY CAN PUT, THERE IS NO OTHER THINGS LIKE, UH, SOME OF THE BUSINESSES ACROSS WHERE THEY COMPLETELY COVER THE WHOLE THINGS OVER THERE.
BUT THIS ONE DOESN'T HAVE ANY OTHER PROPOSED SIGN THAT WILL COVER 75%.
APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO INSTALL SIGNAGE IN THE FRONT WINDOW OF THE BUSINESS TO ALERT PATRONS TO ADDITIONAL PARKING IN THE REAR, WHICH SHALL COMPLY WITH THE SIGN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG AND BE SUBJECT TO H-H-C-R-C REVIEW AND APPROVAL.
I THINK THAT THAT'S GOOD AND I AGREE WITH THAT.
AND I THINK THE APPLICANT HAD ALREADY REPRESENTED THAT THEY WOULD PUT A NOTE ON THEIR WEBSITE ALERTING THE PUBLIC THAT PARK.
THEY THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD IDEA THAT THE BOARD MENTIONED, I THINK MS. DAVIS MENTIONED.
UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, THAT, THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE FOR ME REGARDING THE APPLICANT.
DOES ANYONE ELSE OTHERWISE? UH, THE VOTES WOULD BE, I'M SORRY.
THE TWO VOTES WOULD BE ONE TO CONSIDER THIS SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPROVAL AS AMENDED AND THE SECOND WOULD BE TO, UM, REDUCE THE TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT FOR THE USE BY 18 SPACES AS REQUESTED.
SO I NEED A MOTION TO EXPECT, UH, SO MOVED.
I NEED TO, YOU WANNA SAY AGAIN? SPECIAL USE PERMIT AS AMENDED.
IT WOULDN'T BE TO APPROVE THE SHARED PARKING REDUCTION OF 18 SPACES AS REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.
ALL THE BUSINESSES ON THAT HARD SALE AVENUE.
I MEAN THE TOWN CODE FOR PARKING IS JUST SO WE'VE BEEN TALKING.
WE'RE GOING TO AMEND THE CODE TO A BREAK.
WE'RE GONNA TAKE A THREE MINUTE BREAK.
[01:22:00]
NEXT ONE PLEASE.NEXT UP IS PB 25 12 GOLF CAVE 93 NORWOOD ROAD.
THE PROJECT IS ON FOR DECISION ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
SO STAFF CIRCULATED A DRAFT DECISION FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING.
IT WAS FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT AS WELL.
UM, IN TERMS OF SEEKER, UH, DIFFERING FROM THE LAST PROJECT.
THIS PROJECT, UH, DOES QUALIFY AS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER.
SO THAT WOULD BE THE FIRST CONSIDERATION.
THE SECOND WOULD BE TO VOTE ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THIS FULLY ENCLOSED COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY.
WE DID CIRCULATE THE DRAFT TO THE BOARD MEMBERS.
UH, AGAIN, MR. WEINBERG, WHO IS NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING DID HAVE, UM, SOME SUGGESTIONS.
SO NOT REGARDING SEEKER, NOT REGARDING SEEKER.
SO IF YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
UM, I'D LIKE TO, UH, PUT FORTH A MOTION TO, UH, DECLARE THIS A TYPE TWO ACTION ON THE CICA.
REGARDING THE DECISION REGARDING THE DECISION, UM, MR. WINE.
SO YOU DRAFTED IT UP AND WE DO HAVE CONDITIONS ON THE LAST PAGE OF THE DECISION.
MR. WEINBERG SUGGESTED THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER, UM, ADDING A CONDITION THAT STATES THE APPLICANT, UH, SHALL REMOVE THE EXTERIOR TICKET BOOTH WINDOW.
I DON'T, IT'S, I DON'T THINK HE CAN.
THEY SAID THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO COVER IT UP.
AGAIN, IT'S LANDLORD, WHAT THE LANDLORD CAN DO VERSUS WHAT THE TENANT CAN DO, WHAT THE LANDLORD ALLOWS.
WELL, WE CAN HEAR FROM THE, WHAT THE TENANT CAN DO.
UM, I'LL JUST GO THROUGH ALL THREE OF THEM.
UH, THE APPLICANT SHOWER PLACE, LIGHTING ABOVE THE EXTERIOR ENTRANCE WITH UPGRADED LIGHTING.
I MEAN, THEY AGREED TO, LEMME GO THROUGH IT.
I'LL DISCUSS AND UM, HE DID ALSO MENTION THAT, UM, INSTALL A SIGN AT THE ENTRANCE INDICATING THAT ALCOHOL IS NOT PERMITTED ON THE PREMISES.
AND I THINK WE WENT THROUGH THAT LAST TIME.
UM, HE ALSO, I'M SORRY, ADDED A FINAL SUGGESTION THAT, UM, THE BOARD MAY WANT TO CONSIDER A CONDITION THAT LIMITS MEZZANINE OCCUPANCY TO THE MAXIMUM NUMBER PERMITTED SO THAT A SECONDARY EXIT OR EGRESS IS NOT REQUIRED, UM, MAY WANT TO CONSIDER REQUIRING AN APPROPRIATE SIGN ON THE STAIRWAY THAT SHOULD INDICATE THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY.
AND THEN HE STATED THAT THE APPLICANT INDICATED THERE WOULD BE GATHERING SPACE ON THE FIRST FLOOR TO AVOID THE NEED FOR, UH, HANDICAP ACCESSIBILITY ON THE MEZZANINE
[01:25:01]
LEVEL.THE APPLICANT ALSO INDICATED THAT THE MEZZANINE WOULD BE OPEN TO ALL PATRONS AND NOT RESTRICTED TO MEMBERS ONLY.
SO MATT BARONS FOR THE APPLICANT, UM, WE ACTUALLY ARE THE APPLICANT IS OKAY REMOVING THE TICKET BOOTH.
UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO DO.
THE, THE ISSUE WITH THE LIGHTING, JUST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WHICH I SAID TO THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS GONNA BE A PRETTY SIZABLE TENANT FIT OUT.
THERE'S GONNA BE SOME CONSTRUCTION COSTS.
THERE COULD BE OVERRUNS IN AREAS THEY DIDN'T EXPECT.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THE APPLICANT A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY, UM, JUST WITH THEIR CON CONSTRUCTION BUDGET AND BOXING 'EM INTO REQUIRING CERTAIN UPGRADES IF THERE ARE SOME MAJOR OVERRUNS, GOD FORBID, IN OTHER AREAS.
SO MAYBE WE CAN PUT IN LANGUAGE AROUND GOOD FAITH, YOU KNOW, MAKE REASONABLE EFFORTS TO ENSURE THAT BASED OFF, YOU KNOW, CONSTRUCTION BUDGETS, THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, SO I'M SORRY, JUST CLARIFY, WHEN HE SAID UPGRADE, I THOUGHT HE MEANT GOING TO LEDS.
OH, I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE, OH, THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT TILING THAT DIDN'T COME UP AND THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED.
OKAY, THEN THAT'S, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM THEN THE, THE LIGHTING CHANGING LIGHT FIXTURES.
AND I SAW THAT IT WOULD BE AT THIS POINT IN 2025 THAT IT WOULD BE THAT ANYWAY.
AND WE'RE, WE'RE UPGRADING THE MECHANICALS AS WE DISCUSSED.
EFFICIENT LIGHT FISH FIXTURES.
UM, SORRY, THE ALCOHOL SIGN, THE ALCOHOL SIGNED, THAT WAS DISCUSSED LAST MEETING.
THE APPLICANT HAS REPRESENTED THERE NOT SEEKING TO APPLY FOR A NEW YORK STATE LIQUOR LICENSE AND NO ALCOHOL WILL BE SOLD OR PERMITTED TO BE CONSUMED ON SITE.
ANY ALCOHOL SALE OR CONSUMPTION SHALL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ALL APPLICABLE LOCAL, STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS.
I THINK OUR POSITION IS, I MEAN THIS IS STRONG LANGUAGE WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, THIS PURELY, YOU KNOW, EXPLICITLY STATES NO ALCOHOL WILL BE SOLD OR PERMITTED OR CONSUMED ON SITE.
AND ANY ALCOHOL CONSUMPTION WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAWS AS, UM, AMANDA MENTIONED LAST TIME, BYOB.
THERE'S, THERE'S EXPLICIT RESTRICTIONS ON THAT.
SO IN OUR OPINION, OUR POSITION IS THAT WE FEEL THAT THIS IS STRONG ENOUGH, UM, AND WE WOULD WOULD NOT WANT AT THIS MOMENT TO PUT ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE.
AND THAT'S JUST ULTIMATELY UP TO THE BOARD.
DO YOU WANT YEAH, I I THINK, UH, IF IT IS PROMINENTLY DISPLAYED, BASICALLY THE IDEA IS THAT PEOPLE DON'T SORT OF TAKE IT FOR GRANTED AND TAKE IT WITH THEM OR, SO I, I THINK THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS STATED THAT THEY DO NOT WANT TO PUT THE SIGNAGE BECAUSE OF THE CONDITION THEY THINK IS SUFFICIENT.
WELL, SO THE PROBLEM WITH SOME, I MEAN, AND FRANKLY I DON'T CARE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, RIGHT? BUT THE PROBLEM IS, LAST WEEK OR TWO WEEKS AGO, THEY REPRESENTED TO THE WHOLE BOARD THAT THEY WOULD DO THAT AND IT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM.
AND THEN WE VOTED, RIGHT? SO NO, I DON'T, I REMEMBER THEM REPRESENT, I DON'T, THEY REPRESENT THAT NOT, NOT A SIGN.
WE STARTED TO TALK ABOUT THAT AND THEN WE GOT INTO THE RIGHT.
SO WE, IT'S REGULATED THAT BYOB HAS TO BE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF OCCUPANCY.
AND SO SINCE THEY'RE NOT APPLYING FOR A LIQUOR LICENSE, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO HAVE B-B-Y-O-B IN NEW YORK.
AND THEY RUN THE RISK IF, RIGHT, LIKE ANY OTHER ESTABLISHMENT, BYO, LIKE ANY OTHER ESTABLISHMENT, I MEAN, PERSONALLY I DON'T CARE, BUT IT'S, IF, IF WE, IF PEOPLE HAD LIKE VOTED BASED ON THAT, BASED ON A REPRESENTATION, THEN I WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM WITH NO, I MEAN, I, I, I GUESS WHAT IT, WHAT IT BOILS DOWN TO IS IF, UH, IF THE APPLICANT THINK THEY CAN ENFORCE THE CONDITION WITHOUT SIGNAGE, THEN GOOD LUCK TO THEM.
AND IF THEY HAVE REPEATED CASES OF PEOPLE, YOU KNOW, GETTING, GETTING INTOXICATED IN INSIDE THE PREMISES, UM, THEN THAT'LL BE, THAT'LL BE THEIR, THEIR PROBLEM TO SOLVE.
AND IT'S A REPUTATIONAL RISK AS WELL.
SO THEY, THEY KNOW THAT IN, THEY, THEY KNOW THAT.
SO, AND, AND I GUESS ULTIMATELY TRAINING, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER, WHOEVER IS MONITORING THE SITE, SO, OKAY.
UM, IN TERMS OF AMENDMENTS TO WHAT WAS WRITTEN, DO WE NEED ANY? WE DO.
SO I JUST WANTED TO GO THROUGH THE LAST ONE, WHICH, UH, SUGGESTION OF MR. WEINBERG, WHICH RELATED TO THE MEZZANINE.
CAN YOU EXPLAIN THERE, THERE, THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
UM, MY ONLY QUESTION I GUESS FOR, FOR AARON WOULD BE HOW, HOW IS THAT NORMALLY DEALT WITH? WOULDN'T THERE BE MORE OF A BUILDING PERMIT PHASE, BUT THE APPLICANT IS HAPPY TO, TO PUT, PUT SIGNAGE UP AROUND, UH, OKAY.
SO YOU WOULD PROBABLY, UM, PERHAPS HAVE A CONDITION THAT STATES, UM, THE APPLICANT SHALL INSTALL, UM, SIGNAGE IN THE MEZZANINE AREA INDICATING THE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
BUT I'M SORRY, NOW I'M CONFUSED.
[01:30:01]
MM-HMMBECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WAS A BUILDING THING.
A BUILDING INSPECTION, NOT A PLANNING BOARD THING.
WELL, I MEAN THE BOARD CAN REITERATE BY CONDITION.
I MEAN, WE SAY CERTAIN THINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY MUST DO THIS SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW OF THE TOWN ENGINEER OR SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
NO, WELL, I MEAN, HAVING A SIGN THAT SAYS MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY, ISN'T THAT SOMETHING THAT'S JUST ALWAYS DONE? IT MAY BE.
UM, I DON'T THINK IT WOULD, I'D HAVE TO ASK STABILITY DEPARTMENT IF YOU HAD IT IN HERE.
I DON'T THINK IT, I THINK IT MIGHT BE REQUIRED FOR FIRE PURPOSES.
SO I DON'T MIND PUTTING IN HERE, I DON'T THINK IT'S HARMFUL, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE MM-HMM
UM, SO I THINK WE WOULD ADD THREE CONDITIONS.
UH, CONDITION 13 WOULD STATE THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT SHALL REMOVE THE TICKET BOOTH.
SO I CAN ACTUALLY SPEAK TO THAT.
SO OCCUPANCY DOES HAVE TO BE STATED, UM, WITHIN THE BUILDING.
IT REQUIRED ON, ON EACH, ON EACH FLOOR.
THERE'S ONLY, WELL, I THINK WHAT THIS BOILS DOWN TO IS BEYOND THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTED THAT THEY'RE GONNA STICK TO A CERTAIN OCCUPANCY SO THAT THEY DO NOT HAVE TO PROVIDE A SECONDARY MEANS OF EGRESS.
SO NOT, NOT THE WHOLE BUILDING.
THEY'VE AGREED TO THE MEZZANINE LEVEL.
IS IT 10 OR FEWER PERSONS? 10 10 OR YEAH, MAXIMUM TO OF 10.
SO I MAYBE A CONDITION TO THAT EFFECT.
YEAH, BECAUSE THAT, THAT GOES BEYOND THE CODE, RIGHT? SO APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO A MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY OF 10.
IF FOR ANY REASON THEY SOUGHT TO EXPAND THAT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS POPULAR FOR WHATEVER REASON, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT AUTHORIZE THAT BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT BE CODE COMPLIANT UNLESS THEY PROVIDED A SECONDARY NEEDS OF EGRESS.
BUT I, I THINK WHAT THE SUGGESTION IS THAT THEY WILL POST THE SIGN, UH, BASED, DON'T APPROVAL BY THE INSPECTOR.
I JUST THINK, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT SOMETHING WHERE IF THEY SOUGHT IN THE FUTURE TO EXPAND THAT TO 15 RIGHT.
IT BECOMES A COUNTER BOARD AND THAT THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS BOARD RATHER THAN ADDRESSING IT THROUGH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OFFICE.
SO YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IF THEY PUT IT THEN THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT? UM, IT WILL, IT WILL JUST, JUST TAKE A STEP BACK.
IT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT'S SAID IN THERE, WE WILL HAVE TO PROVIDE IT AS A 10 SPACE MAXIMUM TO HAVE IT AS ONE ONE RES POINT.
THAT'S UN THAT'S UNDER THE BUILDING CODE.
THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WILL REVIEW THAT AGAIN TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, IT'S IN COMPLIANCE.
SO EVEN IF NOTHING IS SAID, WE WILL STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
AND YOU HAVE TO LIST OCCUPANCY WITHIN EACH ROOM AND AREA.
SO, SO IT'S US HAVING, IT WOULD BE A REDUNDANCY AND PERHAPS OVERSTEPPING RATHER THAN JUST DEFERRING TO THE BUILDING CODE AND THE BUILDING INSPECTORS TO ENFORCE THE CODE AND THAT THAT WOULD THAT'S RIGHT.
WE OFTEN DO STATE REQUIREMENTS, UM, AS THEY'RE RELEVANT TO APPLICATIONS AS THEY COME UP IN DISCUSSION.
UM, PER THE BUILDING CODE OR BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR PER ENGINEERING OR WHATEVER.
I MEAN A SCENARIO, I'M SORRY, A SCENARIO WHERE I COULD SEE MAYBE THE BOARD WANTING TO SEE IT IS IF THIS BACKED UP TO, YOU KNOW, A RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY AND BY ADDING, YOU KNOW, A NEW METAL STAIRCASE OUT THE BACK OFF A NEW DOOR MIGHT HAVE AN IMPACT TO, YOU KNOW, THE VIEW SHED OF THE NEIGHBORS AND MAYBE IT REQUIRED SOME SORT OF SCREENING.
THE BOARD MAY WANT TO SEE SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I DON'T SEE THAT BEING THE CASE IN THIS APPLICATION.
SO IT'S UP TO THE BOARD TO BE REDUNDANT OR NOT
UH, THE APPLICANT'S AGREEABLE TO ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING FIXTURES.
AND, UH, WELL, SO HERE, HERE IS NOT, NOT TO BE DIFFICULT.
SO IS IT FIXTURES OR, OR IS IT LIGHT BULBS? BECAUSE SOME, SOME FIXTURES ARE SELF-CONTAINED AND OTHERS IT'S, YOU KNOW, WHAT ABOUT LIGHTING? LIGHTING, LIGHTING.
WE'RE ABLE TO THAT THEN THERE'S NOT GONNA BE A SIGN.
SO WE'RE NOT ON THE, UH, ALCOHOL.
SO THE TWO, RIGHT? SO IT'LL BE TWO BE TO, TO REMOVE THE TICKET.
WE'RE GONNA ADD A, KEEP EVERYTHING ELSE ONE THROUGH 12 AS IS, AND 13, REMOVE THE TICKET BOOTH, WHICH WE'RE OKAY WITH AND, AND PUT IN ENERGY EFFICIENT LIGHTING.
SO MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DOCUMENT AS AMENDED? SECOND.
[01:35:01]
AYE.DO YOU HAVE TO DO THE VOTE FOR SPECIAL PERMIT SPECIALIST PERMIT? THAT'S, YEAH.
TO APPROVE THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT.
UM, 'CAUSE WE TOOK THE VOTE ON THE TIME TOO.
SO WAS THAT, THAT WAS 10 MINUTES.
IT'S EIGHT 40, SO WE'RE OUTSIDE.
WELL WE STARTED FIVE MINUTES EARLY.
WE'RE, WE'RE AVERAGING 15 MINUTES.
UH, NEXT UP IS CASE NUMBER PB 24 0 9 CHOW CLAYTON ROAD, PRELIMINARY.
AND THIS EVENING THE PROJECT IS ON FOR AN UPDATE, UH, ON ITS RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZBA.
SO THE, UM, STAFF PUT TOGETHER A MEMO DATED MAY 14TH, 2025 THAT WAS SUPPLIED IN THE PACKAGES, GIVING THE BACKGROUND OF THE PROJECT, UH, INDICATING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD PREVIOUSLY ON MARCH 19TH, 2025 ISSUED A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA ON FOUR PREVIOUSLY IDENTIFIED AREA VARIANCES.
UM, ON MAY 6TH, 2025, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR DETERMINED THAT TWO ADDITIONAL AREA VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED.
I'LL RECITE THEM VARIANCE ONE, THE LOT ONE MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM ACCESSWAY TO SIDE PROPERTY LINE FROM 18 FEET REQUIRED TO ZERO FEET PROPOSED AND THE SAME EXACT VARIANCE FOR LOT TWO.
SO I CAN SPEAK TO THE BOARD VERY BRIEFLY ABOUT, OR WE CAN HAVE MR. UM, BERNSTEIN DO IT, BUT I THINK I CAN MAKE IT VERY QUICK FOR EVERYONE.
IN THE SPIRIT OF SAVING TIME, THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING AN ACCESS WAY IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT TO, UM, BRING THIS ACCESS WAY OFF OF CLAYTON ROAD AND INSTEAD OF A TRADITIONAL CUL-DE-SAC THAT WOULD SERVE THE TWO NEW LOTS EACH WITH ONE SINGLE FAMILY HOME, THEY'VE PROPO PROPOSED AN ALTERNATIVE TERMINATION THAT MEETS NEW YORK STATE FIRE CODE, WHICH IS A Y TERMINATION OR BASICALLY THE ACCESS WAY FORKS OUT INTO TWO TO SERVE THE TWO LOTS WHERE THE FORK IS, OR THE Y STARTS THAT ACCESS WAY WOULD NEED TO MEET THE, UH, SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENTS CAN FOR EACH OF THE LOTS.
AND IN THIS CASE THEY DO NOT, IS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OKAY WITH THAT? UM, WITH AS PROPOSED FIRE DEPARTMENTS? OKAY.
SO I'M JUST GONNA BRING IT UP REALLY QUICK.
EVERYONE'S, REMEMBER WE'RE NOT, THERE'S NOTHING THAT HAS CHANGED.
THE PLANS HAVE NOT CHANGED AT ALL WHATSOEVER.
SO I'M GONNA ZOOM, I'M GONNA, UM, SHARE YOUR SCREEN.
I'M GONNA SHARE THE SCREEN AND ZOOM IN ON IT AND THEN I'M GONNA SHOW YOU EXACTLY WHERE THIS PLAYS OUT.
SO THIS IS THE FIRE ACCESS PLAN.
AND THE PROPOSED LOT LINE IS RIGHT HERE.
THAT SEPARATES THIS LOT, LOT ONE FROM THIS LOT, LOT TWO.
SO BECAUSE THE, UH, THE Y TRAVERSES ACROSS THE SHARED PROPERTY LINE, THERE'S NO SIDE YARD SETBACK PROPOSED.
AND THAT'S WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS THESE TWO ADDITIONAL VARIANCES.
YEAH, THEY HAVE A COUPLE OF FEET ON THE INSIDE EDGE, SO TO SPEAK, OR THE OUTSIDE EDGE.
UM, BUT WHERE THE PROPOSED PROPERTY LINE IS, IT IS ZERO FOR EACH LOT.
THAT'S THE ONLY, NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
THAT WAS WHAT WAS PROPOSED ORIGINALLY.
IT WAS JUST SOMETHING THAT WAS FURTHER IDENTIFIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OFFICE.
SO WE ATTACHED A COPY, UH, TO THE MEMO DATED MAY 14TH.
WE ATTACHED A COPY OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION THAT WAS AMENDED MAY 6TH, AND WE TO INCLUDE THE TWO ADDITIONAL VARIANCES.
AND WE INCLUDED A COPY OF THE DATED MARCH 20TH, 2025 PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD.
UM, AND SO BEFORE WE HEAR MAYBE FROM THE APPLICANT, IS IT POSSIBLE TO TAKE A STRAW VOTE TO SEE WHERE WE'RE AT? YEAH, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD OR NO, I THINK YOU'VE SUMMARIZED IT ACCURATELY.
[01:40:01]
THE Y IS A FUNCTION OF THE FIRE CODE REQUIREMENT.UM, UH, ANY OF THE OTHER POSSIBLE CONFIGURATIONS WOULD ALSO REQUIRE THE SAME TYPE OF VARIANCES BASED ON THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION.
UH, SO WE PREVIOUSLY SENT A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION BASED UPON THE OTHER, UM, VARIANCES, UH, THE, THE OTHER FOUR, RIGHT? RIGHT.
AND SO THESE TWO ADDITIONAL VARIANCES ARE BASED ON NEW FINDING OR NEW REQUESTS, UH, FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR IT.
AGAIN, IT'S ON THE SAME PLANS, UH, THAT WE LOOKED AT IN, IN THE PAST.
SO WHAT WE NEED TO DECIDE NOW IS WHETHER, UM, WELL, WHAT RECOMMENDATION WE'RE GONNA SEND IF WE'RE GONNA SEND THE RECOMMENDATION POSITIVE, NEUTRAL, OR NEGATIVE TO THE ZONING BOARD ON THE TWO ADDITIONAL
AND I JUST WANNA RECITE BECAUSE THE BOARD WENT POSITIVE LAST TIME, UH, EVEN THOUGH I, WE CIRCULATED THIS, I'M GONNA RECITE THE REASONS THAT THE BOARD SET FORTH FOR GOING POSITIVE.
UM, AND IT'S ON THE BOTTOM OF THE RECOMMENDATION DATED MARCH 20TH STATES.
THE PLANNING BOARD NOTED THAT DUE TO THE EXTENT THE REASONABLY SIZED ROAD CREATES THE NEED FOR VARIANCES, IT WOULD RESULT IN A REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE AND RELATED DISTURBANCE DISTURBANCES COMPARED TO THE INSTALLATION OF A TOWN STANDARD ROADWAY WIDTH OF 26 FEET.
FURTHER, THE PLANNING BOARD NOTED THAT AS REPRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT, A REDUCED WIDTH SHARED ROADWAY ACCESS WOULD BE MORE IN CHARACTER WITH THE SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD WHEN COMPARED TO A TRADITIONAL CUL-DE-SAC ROADWAY.
THOSE WERE THE REASONS SET FORTH AND YOU KNOW, I WOULD INDICATE THAT BOARD MAY THINK THAT THAT WOULD HOLD UP WITH RESPECT TO THESE TWO VARIANCES AS WELL.
IN FACT, IF YOU HAD WELL, I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT.
YEAH, I, I THINK I, THIS IS MOSTLY VERY TECHNICAL THINGS THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT FOUND AT A LATER DATE, AND THEN WE JUST WANTS TO VERIFY AND, UH, CONTINUE THE SAME POSITIVE.
AT LEAST I HAVE A, I THINK IT'S VERY TECHNICAL THEN.
YEAH, I THINK FOR THE SAME REASONS WE'VE BEEN POSITIVE BEFORE, WE'D GO POSITIVE NOW.
UM, UH, EMILY, I MEAN, AND SO IT'S, I I'M INCLINED TO SAY POSITIVE AS WELL, BUT I JUST WANNA CLARIFY.
SO THIS WAS, THESE TWO VARIANCES ARE FOR THE FIRE CODE AND THERE'S NO ISSUE WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
EVERYBODY AGREES THAT THIS IS FINE AND THERE'S NO CORRECT.
YEAH, THEN I, I WOULD STAY, SAY CONTINUE TO STAY POSITIVE.
SO I THINK, WELL THE MINUTES IS NOT NO, IT'S DUE TO THE Y CONFIGURATION TO THE Y CONFIGURATION.
IT IT'S A BUILDING, IT STILL HAS TO DO WITH THE ZONING CODE.
BUT IT'S, IT'S DUE TO THE Y CONFIGURATION FOR FIRE ACCESS AND CORRECT.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS NO, BUT THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE A TOWN STANDARD ROAD AND THAT WOULD HAVE A LOT MORE IMPERIAL SURFACE.
AND, AND THE PREVIOUS FINDING AND ALL THAT FINDING ON POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION WAS BASED UPON THE FACT THAT PLANNING IMPLICATIONS SUCH AS A REDUCED WITH, WOULD, UM, BE LESS IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AND LESS REMOVAL OF TREES.
DO THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD AGAIN? THEY DO.
THEY ARE, WE, WE ARE ON FOR THE ZONING BOARD ON JUNE 12TH.
SO, SO WE WANNA VOTE TO UPDATE OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE, UH, ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, UM, FOR THE TWO ADDITIONAL VARIANCES, UH, WITH A, UH, RECOMMENDATION OF POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, OR NEUTRAL.
UM, SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE PUT FORTH A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO FOLLOW WHAT WE'VE DONE FOR THE TWO VARIANCES FOR THE SAME REASONS AS PREVIOUSLY SAID.
IS THAT, IS THAT A, IF THAT'S A MOTION, I SECOND IT.
WE WILL FINALIZE THAT AND GET IT OFF TO YOU.
YOU KNOW, THAT WAS 10 MINUTES ON THE DOT, SO WE WE'RE, WE'RE STILL GOOD.
HOW MANY MINUTES WE GOT FOR 1621? OH NO.
SO YES, I BELIEVE SO LET ME STOP THE SHARE SCREEN.
AND I BELIEVE WE HAVE, UH, MR. DINO ON FOR LUKE ROAD HOLDINGS, WHICH IS OUR NEXT CASE.
SO WE'RE GONNA CALL THE NEXT CASE PB 1621 LOOP ROAD.
LOOP ROAD HOLDINGS, REGENERON.
AND WE HAVE SOMEONE, YES, MR. DINO, MR. DINO AND THE SHARE SCREEN IS AVAILABLE.
[01:45:01]
THE FLOOR IS, UH, GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIRMAN, THE MEMBERS OF PLAYING BOARD.I AM WITH JMC PLAYING ENGINEERING.
WE ARE HERE ON BEHALF OF THE OWNERS AND APPLICANTS LUKE ROAD HOLDINGS, LLC.
SO WE ARE HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT FOR AN AMENDMENT TO A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION.
FLAT TWO SECONDS AND I WILL SHARE.
SO THIS IS PART OF THE REGENERON CAMPUS ON THE NORTHERN END OF TOWN.
SO I'M SURE AS THE BOARD IS AWARE, I KNOW THE TOWN STAFF IS AWARE AS WELL.
THERE'S A LOT OF ONGOING WORK ON THE SITE.
UM, WE'VE BEEN IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION AND HAVE REGULAR SCHEDULED MEETINGS WITH THE TOWN STAFF ALONG WITH REGENERON AND THE, UH, CONTRACTORS AS WELL.
WE'VE HAD REGULAR MEETINGS FOR THAT HAVE BEEN ONGOING.
UH, MOST RECENTLY IN REGARD IN REGARDS TO THE SUBDIVISION PLAT, MOST RECENTLY IN JUNE OF 2024, UH, WE HAD A MEETING WITH, UH, FIRE CHIEF GENE MALONE.
UH, I KNOW GARRETT WAS AT THAT MEETING.
I'M NOT SURE IF AARON SCHMIDT WAS THERE.
UM, HE REQUESTED THAT WE MOVE A, THAT WE RELOCATE SPECIFICALLY A FIRE HYDRANT, UM, THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY PUT, THAT WE PREVIOUSLY HAD ON A SPECIFIC SPOT ALONG LUKE ROAD.
SO THIS IS ACTUALLY A UTILITIES PLAN.
I'M GONNA ZOOM INTO THIS AREA, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU EXACTLY THE CHANGE.
SO THIS, SO THIS, THESE X THIS X OVER THIS BLUE IS WHERE THE FIRE HYDRANT WAS ORIGINALLY.
LO WAS ORIGINALLY GOING TO BE LOCATED AND WE HAVE RECENTLY RE UH, RELOCATED IN THIS AREA PRETTY MUCH DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.
AND AS FAR AS THE SUBDIVISION PLAT IS CONCERNED, THIS NOW CHANGES THE DELINEATION OF THE TOWN WATER EASTMANS.
UM, WE'VE HAD CONTACT WITH, UH, CHIEF MALONE AS WELL AS THE TOWN ENGINEER, UH, SINCE WE, MAYBE SINCE WE RELOCATED THIS FIRE HYDRANT.
THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION.
THEY HAVE ACCEPTED THAT THIS IS, THIS, THIS NEW LOCATION IS TO THEIR SATISFACTION.
AND, UM, THAT IS THE AMENDMENT TO THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT.
UM, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTION, BUT THAT IS THE ONLY, THAT IS THE SINGLE AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR TO AMEND THIS SUBDIVISION PLAT.
SORRY, JUST SPECIFIC BEFORE YEAH.
BEFORE WE BEGIN, I JUST WANTED TO DISCLOSE THAT MY EMPLOYER DOES BUSINESS WITH REGENERON, CONSIDERING THE SCOPE OF THIS, UH, CASE.
UH, I WILL NOT BE RECUSING MYSELF, BUT I JUST WANTED TO DISCLOSE THAT.
YOU KNOW, EARLIER DISCUSSIONS I THOUGHT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAD MADE THE REQUEST, BUT THIS SOUNDS LIKE THE, THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, BUT I DIDN'T HAVE A DIRECT CONVERSATION WITH THE TOWN ENGINEERS, SO I'LL LEAVE IT WITH THE APPLICANT.
UH, THE, THE, THE, UH, IT WAS FIRE CHIEF MALONE WHO MADE THIS REQUEST, AND THEN WE DID RELOCATE IT AND IT WAS TO HIS SATISFACTION, THE TOWN ENGINEER HAD A LOOK AT IT AS WELL.
IT WAS TO BOTH THEIR SATISFACTION AT THAT POINT.
IT WAS ORIGINALLY REQUESTED, THOUGH BY CHIEF MALONE.
UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER QUESTIONS, WHICH YOU HONOR.
ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS? UM, MOVING OF THE FIRE HYDRANT AND RELATED EASEMENT? YEP.
THE, I HAVE NOT SEEN A REVISED EASEMENT.
WILL YOU BE CIRCULATING THAT OR IS IT ONLY NOTED ON THE PLANS? THIS, THIS IS THE REVISED EASEMENT.
I JUST WANTED TO KNOW THAT THERE'S NO, OH, SORRY.
IT'S ONLY A NOTE ON THE PLANS.
RIGHT, SO THIS IS IT RIGHT HERE? YEAH.
UM, SO PROCEDURALLY, WE HAD AN AMENDMENT TO A SUBDIVISION PLAT AT THE LAST MEETING THAT WAS CARRIAGE HILL.
THE BOARD WOULD WANT TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION AND VOTE TO WAIVE A PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT FOR THIS AMENDMENT.
AND THEN IF IT MOVES FORWARD WITH THAT, IT WOULD THEN CONSIDER MAKING DECISION ON ACCEPTING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT AS REQUESTED.
UH, IT IS MY RECOMMENDATION, UM, OR I WOULD SAY IT'S MY POSITION THAT WE WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNLESS SO MOVED.
UH, NO, THAT WAS JUST MY, MY OH, JUST A POSITION.
UNLESS SOMEONE ELSE HAS SOMETHING, I'LL PUT FORTH A MOTION TO WAIVE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND THE SECOND ONE IS TO AMEND, UH, THE SUBDIVISION PLAT TO SHOW THE MOVEMENT OF THE FIRE, FIRE HYDRANT AND THE EASEMENT.
[01:50:01]
SECONDED.WE WILL, UH, PROCESS THAT FOR YOU.
UH, 24, 22 LEVI AT 1 34 EUCLID AVENUE, UH, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION WETLAND, WATER WATERCOURSE PERMIT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
GOOD, GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR.
MY NAME IS JACOB AMIR FROM Z STEIN.
WITH ME ARE JENNIFER LEVY AND JARED LEVY.
THE APPLICANT'S, UH, 1 34 ELAND AVENUE, AND I THINK MICHAEL STEIN FROM HUDSON IS ON, I HOPE, UH, HIS ASSOCIATE'S ON.
UM, SO THIS IS, WAS ORIGINALLY BROUGHT TO THE PLANNING BOARD BACK I THINK OCTOBER, NOVEMBER.
IT WENT TO THE, UM, CAC FOR LANDSCAPING, WHICH WAS, UH, FINAL APPROVED.
IT WAS GONNA COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, THIS BOARD IN JANUARY.
UH, BUT THEN NEW YORK STATE DECIDED TO INTERVENE WITH ITS FRESHWATER WHITE LAND REGS REGULATIONS.
AND THE APPLICANT WAS DIRECTED TO, UH, MAKE THE 90 DAY REQUEST FOR A JURY.
UH, JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION.
UM, NEW YORK STATE DEC RETURNED BACK THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION.
AND JUST TO, JUST TO SET THIS UP, THIS IS A PROPOSED TWO LOT SUBDIVISION JUST TO GIVE SOME OVERALL, UH, VIEW.
UM, THE EXISTING HOUSE IS ON THE EASTERLY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.
THE WESTERLY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY IS UNDEVELOPED.
IT'S, IT'S THE LAWN, IT'S UNDEVELOPED LAND.
SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS A SIMPLE SUBDIVISION PRETTY MUCH RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE.
UM, THE EXISTING HOUSE WILL REMAIN ON A APPROXIMATE 12,000 SQUARE FOOT AREA.
AND THEN THE MULE PROPOSED LOT WILL BE ON APPROXIMATE 10,000 OR 10,008 SQUARE FOOT AREA.
ALL OF THE BULK DIMENSIONAL, ALL OF THE ZONING CODE, UM, REQUIREMENTS WILL BE MET.
NO VARIANCES WILL BE REQUIRED.
THERE IS A WETLAND BEHIND THE SOUTH WESTERLY SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND PRETTY MUCH THE WESTERLY SIDE IS WITHIN THE BUFFER.
UM, AND IF YOU LOOKED AT, UH, IF YOU LOOK AT HUDSON'S PLANS AND THE WETLAND PLAN, BASICALLY THE AREA OF DISTURBANCE DUE TO THE WETLAND IS A, I'LL SAY, MINOR OR SMALL AREA ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.
AND THAT'S WHAT D'S JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION ALSO FOUND.
THERE WILL BE NO IMPROVEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY ON THE NEW LOT.
ALL THE APPLICANTS ARE PROPOSING IS A SUBDIVISION.
SO IF AT SOME POINT IN TIME A PROPOSED HOUSE OR CONSTRUCTION IS BROUGHT TO THIS BOARD ON THE NEW LOT, AT THAT POINT, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER DECIDES TO BUILD A HOUSE THERE, WE NEED TO GO THROUGH SIDE PLAN APPROVAL, DEC, WETLAND, PERMIT APPROVAL, EVERYTHING ELSE THAT IS NEEDED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW HOME.
UM, THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY STARTED TO TAKE CARE OF CERTAIN PROPERTY CONDITIONS.
UM, TWO THINGS THAT WILL BE ALTERED.
THERE IS A SEMI-CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY THAT IS GONNA BE, UM, REDUCED DOWN TO A, BASICALLY A LINEAR DRIVEWAY.
UM, SO THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS ACTUALLY REDUCED.
CAN YOU ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT ON THAT FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BOARD MEMBERS AND PUBLIC? THANK YOU.
SORRY TO YEAH, YEAH, NO, THAT'S PERFECT.
SO IF YOU SEE THE, THE, THE CURVED DRIVEWAY THAT'S GONNA GO, UM, THAT'LL INCREASE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ON WHAT WE ARE CALLING LOT ONE OR THE, THE HOUSE LOT.
UM, IN THE REAR ON THE SOUTH, UH, EAST COR, UH, DOWN BELOW THE RETAINING WALL, THE PATIO RETAINING WALL IN THE BACK IS PRESENTLY WITHIN THE 10 FOOT SETBACK.
SO THAT IS GONNA BE MOVED SLIGHTLY UP OR NORTHERLY TO GET IT OUT OF THE SETBACK.
UM, HOW HIGH, YOU KNOW HOW THE WALL, IT'S A COUPLE FEET, SO IT'S MAYBE A TWO AND A HALF FOOT WALL RATHER, RATHER, RATHER A LOW WALL, WE'RE JUST GONNA PUSH IT OUT OF THE SETBACK.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE, THAT THAT'S WHAT STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE ON THE, JUST TO CLARIFY, IS IT A RETAINING WALL? IT'S, IT'S A PA WALL.
IT'S, IT'S A PATIO WALL, SITTING WALL.
[01:55:01]
AT SOME PLANS THEY, THEY CALLED IT A RETAINING WALL.I'VE SEEN IT SOMEWHERE, BUT IT'S, IT'S RIGHT SITTING.
ONLY IF IT'S HOLDING BACK SOIL.
DO WE, AND THAT MIGHT DIFFERENTIATE, CLASSIFY IT HOW IT'S TREATED.
SO, SO NOW IN MY MIND I'M WONDERING IF, IF A, A PERMIT WOULD'VE BEEN NEEDED FOR IT.
IN ANY EVENT, IT'S GONNA BE PUSHED OUT OF THE SETBACK.
SO LOT ONE WILL BE IN FULL COMPLIANT CODE COMPLIANCE LOT TWO, THERE WILL NOT BE A DEVELOPMENT.
RIGHT NOW THE APPLICANT'S NOT PROPOSING THAT.
UM, JUST A, JUST A SUBDIVISION.
UM, CAN WE GO BACK TO THE, THE WETLAND PART? UM, YOU SAID THE WETLAND, YOU'VE JUST GOT BUFFER AREA SURE.
SO ON THE, ON THE, ONE OF THE FORMS, YOU SAID YOU'D BE DISTURBING 8,700.
CAN YOU SQUARE FEET OF BUFFER AREA ON THE PROPERTY? SO WHERE WOULD THAT BE? I THINK IT MIGHT BE UNDER THE SLOPE ANALYSIS PLAN.
THAT MIGHT BE A GOOD PLACE TO SEE IT.
WAS IT YOUR, IN YOUR WETLAND CLEARANCE FORM, RIGHT? YOU SAID THE 8,700.
SO WHERE WOULD IT BE? YEAH, YOU COULD SHOW THAT ON THE PLAN.
SHOW ME ON THE PLAN WHERE THE DISTURBANCE WILL BE.
YEAH, IF YOU, DO YOU WANNA GO TO THE SLOPE ANALYSIS PLAN? IS THAT THE ONE THAT MIGHT SHOW IT THE BEST? I DUNNO, WHO'S ON? IS ABDULLAH Z'S ON? YES.
SO IS THAT, IS THAT THE GREEN ARROW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? SO THAT'S 8,700 SQUARE FEET.
SO IF WE LOOK ON THE LOWER LEFT MM-HMM
UM, THERE'S A CALL OUT AND IF YOU COULD ZOOM IN ON THE LOWER LEFT, SO THERE'S A LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE LINE, UH, ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THEN WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IS TO SHOW THE EXTENT OF THE 100 FOOT BUFFER IS THAT, THAT IT'S THAT ARC.
IF EVERYONE CAN SEE THE ARCED LINE THAT COMES ACROSS ALMOST IN, YOU KNOW, IT'S PROBABLY 90 PLUS PERCENT OF LOT TWO IS WITHIN, IN A SMALL PORT, SMALLER PORTION OF LOT ONE.
OH, SO THAT WHOLE AREA IS THE BUFFER? YEAH.
SO WHERE THE HOUSE IS GOING, ONE IN THE BUFFER, THE ENTIRE HOUSE WILL BE IN THE BUFFER.
WHERE, WHERE, JUST, JUST, JUST A MINOR TECHNICAL, WHERE A HOUSE MAY GO, WHERE A HOUSE WHERE EVENTUALLY IF SOMEONE DECIDES TO CONSTRUCT A HOUSE, THAT WOULD BE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE, CORRECT? RIGHT.
AND IN ORDER TO MEET ZONING SETBACKS, IT WOULD FALL WITHIN THAT.
SO IN THE WETLAND CLEARANCE FORM, IT SAYS 8,700.
IT'S THAT ENTIRE ARC OF THE PROPERTY THAT ADDS UP TO 8,700 SQUARE FOOT.
SO YOU INDICATE THAT THERE IS A TOTAL OF 12,000, UM, SOME ODD 8, 9 4, UH, LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE.
THIS WOULD BE COMBINED FOR BOTH LOTS.
SO THIS LINE YOU SEE OVER HERE IS WHAT WE'RE MARKING OUT AS DISTURBANCE ACROSS BOTH, UM, LOTS.
SO EVERYTHING WITHIN THE ARC OF THE A HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER THAT'S BEING DISTURBED TOTALS 8,000 AND CHANGED? CORRECT.
SO OUTSIDE THE ARC, DO YOU SEE THE A HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER? THERE'S DISTURBANCE OUTSIDE OF THAT MM-HMM
WHICH IS OUTSIDE OF THE BUFFER, AND I GUESS THAT TOTALS ROUGHLY 4,000 AND CHANGE OF SQUARE FEET OF DISTURBANCE.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? SURE.
AND, AND FOR PERSPECTIVE, THERE IS A, THERE'S A HOUSE TO THE WEST OR TO THE LEFT, UM, PRESENTLY, UM, SOMEONE ELSE IS LIVING THERE AND THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S WITHIN THE WETLAND BUFFER.
I WOULD SAY THAT IF, IF AND WHEN THE PROJECT ADVANCES TO A PUBLIC HEARING, IT'D BE HELPFUL TO, OH, AND I THINK WE'RE ZOOMING IN ON THAT NOW.
SO, SO SIMILARLY IN THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLAN, THERE WAS A QUESTION ON, ARE YOU DOING ANYTHING TO IMPROVE THE BUFFER OR THE WAVELAND OR THE WATER COURSE PER, PER THE, OUR APPLICATION BEFORE CAC AND THROUGH CONSULTATION WITH STAFF, THE LANDSCAPING PLAN CALLS FOR 22 TREES AND 41 BUSHES TO BE, TO BE PLANTED.
THAT'S LANDSCAPING PLAN IN THE, CAN WE SEE THAT? TO SEE IF ANY OF THAT FALLS WITHIN THE BUFFER.
ABDUL, DO YOU HAVE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN FROM PAUL JAN? UM, BECAUSE I KNOW THIS IS, UH, JUST GIMME A SECOND TO PULL THAT UP.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT, IF YOU'RE ADDING CALX, TECHNICALLY YOU'RE DOING SOMETHING TO IT.
I DUNNO IF IT'S ENCOUNTERS AN IMPROVEMENT, YOU KNOW, ALL THE SAME.
THE QUESTIONS IN THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLAN, I THINK NOTHING WAS FILLED IN FOR DRAINAGE.
NO, WE HAVE, THERE IS, THERE IS, THERE IS A PLAN.
I THINK, I THINK THEY CAN NOT IN THE VISION I SAW, WELL, I CAN'T HEAR NOW, I'M SORRY.
IN THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLAN YES.
WHICH IS THAT LONG LIST OF THINGS.
THERE'S A WHOLE SECTION ON WHAT'S BEING DONE RELATED TO DRAINAGE.
[02:00:01]
OKAY.AND NONE OF THAT WAS FILLED IN ON THE VERSION THAT WAS SHARED WITH US ON THE PLAN OR IN LIKE A CHECKLIST ON THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
IT'S A, IT'S IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS YOU GUYS SUBMITTED.
SO, BUT IF YOU COULD PAN TO THE, UM, THIS THING LIKE, SO RIGHT.
UM, IT'S TYPICALLY, I WOULD SAY WE HAVEN'T MANDATED THAT IT BE COMPLETED WHEN PLANS INDICATE.
UM, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THOSE SPECIFICS TO, TO, TO, TO WHAT? TO WHAT WE WOULD DO.
I THINK ABDUL'S WILL SPEAK TO THAT.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
AND, AND I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, IF YOU NEED TO YEAH, AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED TO STORE MORE A MANAGEMENT PLAN IF, IF, UH, BOTH.
BUT IF WE COULD GO THROUGH THE LANDSCAPE PLAN FIRST.
BEFORE WE GET THERE, I'M JUST A LITTLE CALLED UP ON THIS WHOLE THING ABOUT DEC.
YOU, YOU SUBMITTED TO DEC AND THEY DIDN'T RESPOND WITHIN THE 90 DAY PERIOD.
AND THEN YOU SENT SOMETHING TO, UH, DE'S DIVISION AND FISH, FISH AND WILDLIFE AND THEY HAVEN'T RESPONDED.
UNDER THE REGULATIONS, THEY HAVE 90 DAYS TO RESPOND.
IF THEY DON'T RESPOND WITHIN 90 DAYS, WE SEND A 10 DAY, 10 DAY NOTICE TO A DIVISION OF FISH AND WILDLIFE TELLING THEM THEY DIDN'T RESPOND.
THAT GIVES 'EM A SECOND OPPORTUNITY.
THEN THEY, BASED UPON OUR SECOND LETTER, THEY DID RESPOND AND, AND THEIR RESPONSE, WHICH I PROVIDED TO THE TOWN, RIGHT? YEP.
THE RESPONSE SAID THAT, UM, YES, A A A WETLAND PERMIT IS NEEDED, BUT IT'S NEEDED FOR ACT REGULATED ACTIVITIES.
AND UNDER THE REGULATIONS UNDER 6 63, THE SUBDIVISION, AT LEAST MY READING OF IT, THE SUBDIVISION ITSELF IS NOT A REGULATED ACTIVITY.
IF YOU WANNA CONSTRUCT, YOU WANNA ALTER IN THE, IN THE WETLAND BUFFER THAT THAT WOULD NECESSITATE IT.
SO THAT'S WHY IF AND WHEN SOMEBODY DECIDES TO BUILD A HOUSE, THEY'RE GONNA NEED TO GET A DEC WETLAND PERMIT IN ADDITION TO WHATEVER THE TOWN REQUIRES.
BUT THE DI SUBDIVISION DOES NOT.
IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT LISTED AMONG SUBDIVISION IN AND OF ITSELF, ABSENT DEVELOPMENT.
ALTHOUGH I DO HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION.
BUT WE CAN SERVE, OH, I GUESS SINCE WE'RE ON IT, IT SHOWS THE ARC OF THE WETLAND BUFFER EXTENDING ONTO THE EXISTING LOT, RIGHT? WHERE THERE ARE SOME IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING PULLED BACK OR REMOVED OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
DOES THAT TRIP THE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS? NO, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A, A CONSTRUCTION, A NEW STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE JUST, WE'RE MOVING AN EXISTING SITTING WALL BACK, AND WE ARE, AND WE ARE REMOVING A PORTION OF A DRIVEWAY.
AND JUST, JUST TO BE CLEAR, IF YOU TAKE THE MEASUREMENT OF THE ARC AND YOU TAKE A HORIZONTAL MEASURE OF THAT ARC, I DON'T KNOW IF IT EVEN TOUCHES THE DRIVEWAY.
THE, THE WETLAND IS ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.
THE ARC EMANATES FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.
THE DRIVEWAY, FOR INSTANCE, IS ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THIS NEARLY HALF ACRE PARKS OF, OR RIGHT.
THE PLAN WE HAVE UP THERE SHOWS THAT ON THE EXISTING DEVELOPED LOT, IT DOESN'T SHOW ANY AREA OF DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE ARC.
I IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK RIGHT THE WAY I'M SEEING IT.
SO I JUST WANTED CONFIRMATION OH YEAH.
THAT'S, IF THAT'S THE CASE, THEN I TEND TO AGREE.
AND WE'VE SPOKEN, UH, MS. MAGNA, MYSELF ABOUT HOW THAT WOULD IMPACT THE PLANNING BOARD'S REVIEW OF THE PROJECT.
WE AGREE THAT THE SUBDIVISION ITSELF, JUST PUTTING A NEW LINE ON PAPER AND ELIMINATING ANY NONCONFORMITIES DOESN'T, UM, REQUIRE THE, THE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS PERMIT.
BUT THAT THE PLANNING BOARD, IF IT MOVES FORWARD, ULTIMATELY WITH A DECISION ON THE PROJECT, SHOULD CONSIDER CONDITIONING THAT THE JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS PERMIT BE OBTAINED, UM, BY THE APPLICANT OR ITS SUCCESSOR AND FILED WITH THE TOWN AHEAD OF ANY ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION ON PROPOSED LOT TWO.
YEAH, I, I WOULD, I WOULD JUST SECOND THAT AND SAY I THINK, I THINK THAT'S REQUIRED.
I DON'T EVEN THINK THAT'S AN OPTION.
AND I GUESS JUST TO TAKE A, A QUICK STEP BACK, AND I'M SORRY IF I MISSED THIS, IF YOU DON'T INTEND ON DEVELOPING IN THE NEW LOT, I GUESS WHAT, WHAT WOULD THE, THE BENEFIT BE OF SUBDIVIDING IN THE FIRST PLACE? WELL, BECAUSE IF, IF, YOU KNOW, WHEN INTEREST RATES FALLS DOWN AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS FALL DOWN, THAT MIGHT BE THE TIME TO DO IT.
[02:05:01]
SENSE TO, TO WAIT UNTIL THAT TIME.SO YOU'RE DOING STEP ONE NOW AND JUST, AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE ECONOMY CHANGES.
THERE'S SO MUCH UNCERTAINTY RIGHT NOW THAT WHO KNOWS WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WITH DEVELOPMENT.
SO YOU'RE NOT PLANNING TO SELL IT RIGHT NOW? WE THAT YOU MEAN THE PROPERTY ITSELF? YEAH, IT IT MAY BE.
THEY THEY MAY BE, BUT ANY SALE OR WHATEVER HAPPENS, SALE OR NO SALE, IT'S, IT'S GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, GO THROUGH THE APPROVALS.
UM, THE BOUGHT IT LOT IS MUCH EASIER TO SELL.
SO IF YOU COULD, I'M SORRY, WE GO BACK TO THE LANDSCAPE YES.
AND MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN AND THEN TO THE DRAINAGE PLAN.
AND, AND PLEASE ADVISE IF THE CAC SEEN THIS MITIGATION PLAN AND COMMENTED ON IT.
THEY, THEY, THEY HAVE, THEY ACTUALLY MADE COMMENTS.
THEY ACTUALLY ASKED US TO CHA ADD, UM, TREES AND, AND CHANGE THE, THE TYPE AND WHICH WERE ACCOMMODATED IN FULL WITHOUT, WITHOUT OBJECTION.
AND THE CAC THEN APPROVED THE, THE FINAL, UM, FINAL PLAN.
IT LOOKS LIKE A NEARLY ENTIRELY, UH, NATIVE PLANT SCHEME.
WITH THE EXCEPTION OF MAYBE THE GREEN GIANT AVID.
BUT I KNOW THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL, UM, SEEKS, YOU KNOW, PREDOMINANTLY NATIVE SPECIES AND THEY, THEY HAD GOOD COMMENTS ON THIS APPLICATION.
I IF YOU, IF YOU SELL IT, SELL THE LAND BEFORE DEVELOPING IT, WOULD ANY FUTURE PURCHASER BE HELD TO THESE SAME YES.
THE PLAN AND ALL THE CONDITIONS.
SO THAT'S THE PLAN PROPOSAL AND STAFF HAS REVIEWED IT, UM, AND FINDS IT TO BE ACCEPTABLE AS WELL.
THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, OH, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
ALL THIS PLANTING IS IN THEIR PROPERTY OR IT'S SOMEBODY ELSE? SOME IS IN, SOME IS IN OUR PRO OUR PROPERTY, SOME IS GOING TO BE OUTSIDE OUR, OUR PROPERTY.
DO WE DO THAT? I THINK THEY PREVIOUSLY SPOKE ABOUT OBTAINING PERMISSION FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AND THAT THEY HAD, CORRECT.
'CAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE REMOVING ENCROACHMENTS.
WELL, TH THOSE ARE, THOSE ARE GONE ALREADY.
THOSE ARE BASICALLY TEMPORARY.
BUT IF WE, IF WE, YEAH, THERE'S, AND WHAT I, WHAT I'D LIKE TO, WHAT I'D LIKE TO SUGGEST IS, UM, YES.
IF IF PERMISSION IS NEEDED, THEN IT HAS, THEN, THEN, THEN THAT'S FINE.
THIS IS ALL NATURAL, RIGHT? IT'S NOT STRUCTURAL.
UM, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL DO WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE DONE IN ORDER TO GET IT, I THINK.
I THINK SOME BUT IT'S NOT ON YOUR PROPERTY THEN YOU NEED THE PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY.
TO PLANT, OBVIOUSLY ACTIV OBVIOUSLY, YES.
BUT WE ARE NOT APPROVING THAT.
WE ARE JUST APPROVING THE, THE PLANT PROPERTY LINE.
BUT NOT, NOT THIS LANDSCAPE PLAN POSITION.
THIS PLAN'S REQUIRED TO BE IMPLEMENTED IF APPROVED BY THE BOARD SUBJECT TO, YOU KNOW, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY OWNER.
WELL, SO ALONG, ALONG MICHELLE'S LINE OF QUESTIONING, SO IF, IF THIS WERE TO, WERE TO BE SOLD TO SOMEONE ELSE, WOULD THE REQUIREMENT, UH, OR SAY IF THE, THE ADJACENT HOMEOWNER SELLS THEIR PROPERTY, DO THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE WHOEVER THEY SELL TO, TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO, TO PLANT ON THEIR NEWLY ACQUIRED PROPERTY? SO HOW, HOW WOULD THAT WORK? SHOULD PROBABLY BE INCLUDED IN ANY PURCHASE AGREEMENT.
BUT, BUT FOR, BUT FOR THE OTHER PEOPLE I'M TALKING ABOUT LIKE THE, THE, THE NEIGHBOR THAT WE'RE PLANTING ON, WOULD IT BE RECORDED AGAINST THEIR PROPERTY? THIS IS COMMON, COMMON HERE.
HERE WAS MY THOUGHT ON THE OFFSITE LANDSCAPING.
I THINK THAT, UM, THAT RELATES TO THIS APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL AND THE PLANNING BOARD SHOULD CONSIDER REQUIRING THAT THIS LANDSCAPE, UH, MITIGATION ELEMENT OFFSITE BE CARRIED OUT BY THESE FOLKS AND PRIOR TO ANY SALE.
WELL, CAN I JUST, A LITTLE, LITTLE PUSHBACK ON THAT.
I DON'T RESPECTFULLY, I DON'T KNOW IF A, A BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY OF PURVIEW TO RESTRICT A SALE.
WHAT IT, WHAT IT CAN DO IS, YOU KNOW, PUT A CONDITIONS IN SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
BUT, BUT I DON'T, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY MUNICIPAL BOARD THAT CAN RESTRICT A PRIVATE OWNER FROM SELLING THEIR LAND.
BUT IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA DO IT PRIOR TO A SALE, THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO INCLUDE THESE PLANS AS PART OF YOUR OH YEAH.
AND, AND WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS, AS SELLERS UNDER, UNDER THE NEW LAW FOR PROPERTY DISCLOSURE AS SELLERS, THEY HAVE TO GIVE A PROPERTY CONDITION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT TO THE BUYER.
AND THAT'S, THAT'S GONNA HAVE TO INCLUDE ALL THIS WOULD, SORRY, I'M, I'M STILL GETTING A LITTLE HUNG UP.
SO, SO THE APPLICANT, YOU HAVE PERMISSION NOW FOR THIS OFFSITE PLANTING.
[02:10:01]
IS THAT, IS THAT, NO.IF, IF, IF, IF PERMISSION IS NEEDED, THEN THE APPLICANTS WILL GET PERMISSION FOR OFFSITE PLANTING.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE CONDITION IN THE COURT.
BUT, BUT HOW, HOW WOULD YOU NOT NEED PERMISSION TO DO? I'M NOT, I DON'T WANT, I DON'T WANT, I DON'T WANT TO SPECULATE ON, ON THAT.
FOR INSTANCE, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S A TREE THAT IS ON THE BOUNDARY LINE THAT WE DON'T NEED PERMISSION FOR, BECAUSE WE CAN PLANT ON THE BOUNDARY LINE.
IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT IS OFF SITE, THEN THAT'S A DIFFERENT STORY.
BUT THERE'S SOME, SO I GUESS CAN YOU ZOOM IN TO THE LOWER PORTION OF THE, OF THE SITE PLAN? RIGHT.
SO YOU, YOU DEFINITELY NEED THE PERMISSION OF THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO INSTALL THESE PLANTINGS.
AND YOU HAVEN'T GOTTEN THE PERMISSION OF THE NEIGHBOR YET? WELL, WE'LL STILL, WE'LL, NO, WE'RE STILL, WE'RE STILL HERE.
WE STILL HAVE TO, AND THE PLANNING BOARD CAN CONDITION THAT THE PLANTINGS ARE PUT IN THE FIRST SEASON AFTER APPROVAL, WHICH HAS DONE SO BEFORE.
BECAUSE MY, MY CONCERN IS EVEN IF YOU GET THE PERMISSION OF THE CURRENT OWNERS, IF THEY THEN SELL A YEAR FROM NOW, YOU KNOW, HOW, HOW WOULD WE BE ABLE TO CONFIRM THAT THE BUYERS OFFSITE WOULD BE SURE.
SO AN EXAMPLE WE HAD RECENTLY, THERE WAS TWO JOINED SUBDIVISION APPLICATIONS AT ONE POINT, AND WE, I THINK YOU SAW IT WHEN IT CAME BACK BECAUSE, UH, ONE PARTY PULLED OUT OF THE JOINT SUBDIVISION.
SO THEY HAD TO COME BACK TO GET CHANGES TO, YOU KNOW, UH, JOINT IMPROVEMENTS, I GUESS YOU COULD SAY.
BUT THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT PARTY TO THIS APPLICATION RIGHT'S.
IF, IF THE APPROVAL GOES THROUGH AND THEY, THEY HAVE PERMISSION OF THE ABUTTING PROPERTY OWNER TO DO THESE CHANGES, AND THEN ALL OF A SUDDEN THEY NO LONGER HAVE THAT PERMISSION, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK.
BASICALLY, THEY HAVE TO COME BACK BECAUSE THEY'RE CHANGING THE PLANS.
THEY CAN'T APPLY WITH THE APPROVED PLAN.
OR FOR EXAMPLE, THE SATELLITE PARKING FOR GLEN'S TOWING, I'M SORRY, LIZABETH.
SO, AND YOU CAN'T PUT ANY CONDITIONS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY BECAUSE THIS IS NOT RIGHT.
IF, IF THERE, I MEAN, IT WOULD BE MY SUGGESTION AND I THINK THE BOARD'S SUGGESTION THAT NOW THAT THERE'S A PLAN DEVELOPED, IT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CAC, THE PLANNING BOARD'S, REVIEWING IT.
NOW, OBVIOUSLY THE NEIGHBOR'S GONNA GET NOTIFICATION ON A PUBLIC FUTURE, PUBLIC HEARING.
IT MAY MAKE SENSE TO APPROACH THAT NEIGHBOR SOONER RATHER THAN LATER.
TO, YOU KNOW, DISCUSS THIS RESTORATION THAT WOULD BE ON THEIR PROPERTY.
THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT WAS THE PLAN WE WANTED TO GET THROUGH THE JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION.
GET BACK TO THIS BOARD HEAR, ARE COMMENTS.
IT'S, WE'RE EXACTLY IN LINE WITH WHAT, WITH WHAT AARON IS SAYING.
AND, AND REMIND ME, THIS WAS THE CASE WHERE, WHERE WE HAD THE DISCUSSION ABOUT CONSTRUCTION FENCING AROUND YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.
AND THE CONSTRUCTION FENCING WOULD ALSO BE OFFSITE AND WOULD NEED SOME LEVEL OF COORDINATION.
UM, IN YOUR, I WAS STUCK ON YOUR FORMS. IN YOUR SUBDIVISION PLAN APPLICATION FORM, IT SAYS THERE'S THREE LOTS, BUT IT ONLY PROVIDES INFORMATION FOR TWO.
NO, I KNOW, BUT YOUR FORM SAYS THREE.
THAT'S, UNLESS THAT'S AN ERROR.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT PAGE THAT'S ON PAGE TWO OF THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION? PAGE TWO OF UN UNLESS YOU MAY BE REFERRING, UNLESS YOU MAY BE REFERRING TO ONE EXISTING LOT THAT'S BEING, BEING ALTERED TO TWO.
SO THAT'S THE, THIS IS LIKE THE PARCEL ID NUMBER.
NO, BUT, BUT IT WOULD, BUT I GET, I GET THE CONFUSION 'CAUSE WE'RE DOING ONE LOT AT THE TWO, SO.
DID DID YOU WANT TO, DID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT, UM, STORM WATER? YES.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU, ABDULAZIZ CAN YOU GO TO THE, UM, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN? MAYBE YOU, DO YOU WANT TO, DO YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT IT? I MEAN, I COULD, I COULD TRY, BUT THAT'S MORE OF YOUR DOMAIN.
DO YOU WANT TO GO TO THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND JUST TALK ABOUT THAT? WHAT, WHAT, WHAT WE'RE DOING IN THE, UM, IN THE DISTURBANCE AREA? SURE.
UM, SO WE PROVIDE A STORM WATER MITIGATION FOR THE PROPOSED, UH, LAW DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE DESIGNING TO CAPTURE UP TO THE A HUNDRED YEAR STORM EVENT.
UM, IN ORDER, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THE WETLANDS MITIGATION, WE REDUCE THE NUMBER OF SYSTEMS WE'RE PUTTING IN THE BACK, UM, TO THREE CALL TEXTES THE SIZE FOR THE A HUNDRED YEAR.
WE CAPTURE POTENTIALLY THE RARE ROOF AREA OF WHAT MAY BE THE BUILDING.
AND WE HAVE SOME CALTECH CHAMBERS AGAIN, IN THE FRONT FOR THE DRIVEWAY.
AND WHAT MAY BE THE, THE, THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING AS WELL AS THE PATIO.
SO THAT'S ALL DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THE A HUNDRED YEAR STORM EVENT.
[02:15:02]
IT'S DESIGNED FOR, I'M SORRY, IS DESIGNED FOR THE 50 YEAR STORMING BACK 50 YEAR.DESIGNED FOR THE 50 YEAR STORMING BACK, WHICH EXCEEDS THE TOWN CODE REQUIREMENT.
SO SIMILARLY AS WE'VE DONE, EVEN THOUGH THESE FOLKS MAY NOT BUILD OUT THIS SITE, THEY MAY SELL IT OFF.
THE PLANNING BOARD COULD ABSOLUTELY CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANTS REPRESENTED THAT THE STONEWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ASSOCIATED WITH LOT TWO WOULD BE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THE 50 YEAR STORM EVENT SUBJECT TO REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE DAMAGE.
AS WE KNOW THEY'RE SHOWING A CONCEPTUAL HOME, UM, IT MAY BE DIFFERENT.
THEY'RE SHOWING A LIMITED DISTURBANCE.
AND FOR OUR NEWER MEMBERS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT IF THE PLANNING BOARD ULTIMATELY APPROVES THIS SUBDIVISION AND APPROVES AND IDENTIFY THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE, UNLESS THERE ARE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT WARRANT A REQUIREMENT TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD, THE ULTIMATE BUILDER OF THAT LOT WOULD HAVE ROOM TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE.
SO LONG AS THEY MET ALL ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, BUT A CONDITION THAT WE WOULD, THAT THE BOARD WOULD POTENTIALLY HAVE IS NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO, THEIR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM WOULD BE DESIGNED TO HANDLE A 50 YEAR STORM AS REPRESENTED TO THE PLANET OR CORRECT.
AS YOU 50 OR MORE OR SOMETHING OR BETTER MINIMUM, MINIMUM, MINIMUM, MINIMUM 50 OR GREATER.
SO, AND RIGHT NOW, WHAT'S THE REQUIREMENT? 25.
IS THERE, UM, AN EXPECTATION THAT IT'LL BE CHANGED ANYTIME SOON TO 50 OR SO? IT ACTUALLY WAS CHANGED LIKE A YEAR OR TWO AGO.
IT WAS ONLY HOW THEY CHANGED THE, WE DIDN'T UPDATE OUR CODE, I'M SORRY TO JUMP IN.
NEW YORK STATE UPDATED WHAT IT UM, MEANS CALCULATES AS A 25 YEAR STORM EVENT AND THE TOWN FOLLOWS THE STATE CODE IN THAT REGARD.
SO IT SORT OF UPDATED BY VIRTUE OF THAT CHANGE BY THE STATE.
WE WERE CALLING IT A 25 YEAR PLUS FOR A SHORT TIME.
WE WERE JUST DIFFERENTIATE FROM THE PREVIOUS 25 YEAR STANDARD.
SO IN TERMS OF THE TOWN CHANGING ITS CODE, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT.
WE CAN CHECK IN WITH THE TOWN'S ENGINEER.
WELL, PLANNING'S BEEN ASKING FOR 50 YEARS FOR, RIGHT.
WELL THAT'S, MOST APPLICANTS HAVE BEEN GETTING THAT'S NOT, WHAT IF THEY DON'T DEVELOP IT FOR ANOTHER 10 YEARS OR WHAT IF THEY DON'T DEVELOP IT FOR ANOTHER 15? LIKE THEY'RE GONNA BE COMPLYING WITH THE CONDITIONS THAT WE PUT ON IT TODAY.
WHAT YOU COULD, YOU COULD, RIGHT.
SO YOU COULD, THE CONDITION COULD STATE, UM, MINIMUM 50 YEAR OR, OR WELL CAN WE SAY STANDARD OR, OR AS REQUIRED BY TOWN CODE OR AS REQUIRED BY, BY THE TOWN CODE.
WE WANT IT TO ALWAYS SUCCEED WHAT THE TOWN CODE IS, YOU KNOW, SO IT'S A SUGGEST THAT THE CLEANING BOARD MAKES WATER.
WATER IS A BIG ISSUE RIGHT NOW IN STORM WATER.
MAYBE SAY, YOU KNOW, THE LESSER A 50 YEAR OR WHAT THE WHAT THE CODE? WELL, THE, I'M SORRY.
THE GREATER OF 50 YEAR OR WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES AT THE TIME OF SUBMISSION OF A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
I THINK IF THE TOWN'S GOING TO UPDATE THE STONEWATER MANAGEMENT ORDINANCE, IT'S GONNA DO A VERY THOROUGH REVIEW.
UM, IT MIGHT EVEN BE A CONSULTANT BROUGHT A BOARD FOR ALL WE KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT GONNA UNDER, YOU KNOW YEAH.
REQUIRE, GIVEN THE WATER ISSUES WITHIN THE TOWN AND BEYOND, UM, LIKE, I DON'T EVEN KNOW, MAYBE THEY WOULD GO HIGHER THAN 50 YEAR IN ANY REVISION, JUST GIVEN THE FACT THAT YOU'RE SEEING 50 YEAR STORM EVENTS, LIKE, YOU KNOW.
BECAUSE THE STATE IS, THE STATE WOULD EACH 50 THICK MUNICIPALITY HAS ITS OWN, IT'S ALL PROBLEMS. YOU, YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? YEAH, YEAH.
SO THAT, THAT SEEMS LIKE REASONABLE LANGUAGE WE'RE AT THAT POINT YET.
BUT IT'S A NOTE I'M GONNA MAKE AND SOMETHING THAT WE'LL CAPTURE IN THE MINUTES.
SO WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP? THE NEXT STEP? UNLESS THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
THE BOARD SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANT, YOU KNOW, WELL, THE APPLICANTS EXPLAINED THAT THEY'VE BEEN ABLE TO REVISE THE PLANS TO ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR ANY VARIANCES.
THEY REVIEWED THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, UM, AND THE LANDSCAPING MITIGATION WITH THE CAC.
DID YOU GET A RECOMMENDATION IN HAND YET FROM THE CAC? I THINK, I THINK IN JANUARY WE DID, YES.
UM, THE NEXT STEP FOR THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD BE TO CONSIDER PLACING THIS MATTER ON FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPLICATION.
AND AARON, DOES THAT ALSO INCLUDE LEAD AGENCY AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHEN IT COMES TO IT, OR, I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT'S HANDLED.
SO BEING THAT THERE'S, THE ZBA IS NO LONGER INVOLVED, WE DON'T NEED ONE PLANNING BOARD'S, THE SOLE AGENCY.
SO PLANNING BOARD WOULD BE, UM, ANTICIPATING
[02:20:01]
STAFF TO PREPARE A SECRET DETERMINATION FOR ITS CONSIDERATION AHEAD OF OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING.UM, SO I'M SORRY, I KNOW THAT WE'RE TIGHT ON TIME, BUT I, THIS IS, AND IT, THIS MIGHT NOT EVEN BE MATERIAL, BUT IS THERE A, IS THERE A HOT TUB ON THE PROPERTY LINE, LIKE SHARED WITH SO AND NO? OKAY.
YEAH, THERE WAS A HOT TUB AND A SHED THAT WAS REMOVED, GONE THE, ON THE PROPERTY LONG, LIKE, SO I THINK IT WAS ACTUALLY OFF.
IT WAS OFFSITE, IT WAS OFF, IT WAS AN ENCROACHMENT.
WE JUST PICKED IT UP AND GOT RID OF IT.
I DO NEED TO CLARIFY ONE THING.
SO BECAUSE THIS INVOLVES THE DEC FOR THE POTENTIAL, UM, WELL ACTUALLY NO, BECAUSE IT'S ONLY THE SUBDIVISION AT THIS TIME.
SO I I'M SORRY I TAKE THAT BACK.
SO WE NEED TO DECIDE WHAT, I'M SORRY.
SO, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EAF MAP OR THE EAF MAP, IT SAYS THAT THERE IS A WET LAND ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH I'M KIND OF CONFUSED ABOUT.
NO, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT, IF YOU LOOK AT EF MAPPA, IT SHOWS IT IS ON THE PROPERTY.
THE MAPPING, IT'S KIND OF SIMILAR TO WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH IT BEING OFF.
THEY SH THAT'S USED, THAT'S FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES.
THAT'S AN OLD MAP TO IDENTIFY LIKE, HEY, LIKE WHAT IT DOES FOR US IS OKAY, RED FLAG WHAT'S OUT THERE IN GENERAL AREA.
AND THEN WE REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO ASSESS AND PROVIDE DOCUMENTATION, WHICH THEY DID.
SO IF THE DEC WERE INVOLVED, WE WOULD NEED TO CIRCULATE OUR INTENT FOR LEADING INTO, 'CAUSE THEY WOULD BE A PROSPECTIVE AGENCY THAT COULD CONDUCT SEEKER.
BUT SINCE THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT A REGULATED ACTIVITY AS DEFINED BY THE RECOMMENDATION THEY RECEIVED OR JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION, UM, WE DO NOT NEED TO DO THAT.
SO WHAT'S UP, UH, FOR VOTE IS WHETHER, UH, TO GO TO PUBLIC HEARING.
AND WHAT DATE WOULD THAT BE? UH, SO IT COULD BE AS SOON AS JUNE 4TH.
UM, IF THE BOARD VOTES TO PUT THIS ON FOR JUNE 4TH, THEN STAFF WOULD PREPARE THE PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE AND THE PUBLIC HEARING SIGNAGE.
UH, TOMORROW OR FRIDAY, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO DO THE MAILINGS.
DO YOU HAVE THE LABELS? DO YOU KNOW OF ALL NEIGHBORS WITHIN 500 FOOT RADIUS? I, I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN, WE CAN GET THAT, GET THAT TOGETHER.
YEAH, WE'LL GET THAT TOGETHER.
'CAUSE THE MAILING DEADLINE WOULD BE FRIDAY.
SO IT'S A QUICK TURNAROUND THIS FRIDAY.
SO WE WOULD'VE THE NOTICE DONE TOMORROW.
CAN, CAN I PICK THAT UP TOMORROW FROM, FROM UPSTAIRS? THE SIGN WOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE RIGHT IN THE LOBBY.
WE'LL EMAIL YOU WHEN IT'S READY.
THAT WOULD JUST NEED TO BE PLACED IN THE FRONT YARD.
A PHOTO TAKEN AND EMAILED INTO US.
AND THEN THE NOTICE IS WE CAN HANDLE THAT ALL BY EMAIL.
BUT THE, UM, THE, THE MAILINGS THEMSELVES.
OH, SO TO GET THE LABELS, YOU'RE SAYING, UM, WELL, OR TO DO THE MAILINGS.
UM, JUST SORT OF AS AN ASIDE, THE STAFF PERSON IN MY OFFICE WHO HANDLES THIS HAPPENS TO BE OUT THIS WEEK FOR 'CAUSE OF A MEDICAL ISSUE.
SO WHAT KIND OF, KIND OF STEP INTO HER SHOES.
SO DO WE, SHOULD I GET THAT THE NEIGHBOR LIST FROM UPSTAIRS? AND IF YOU ALREADY, IF YOU DON'T ALREADY HAVE THE LIST, REACH OUT TO OUR OFFICE TOMORROW MORNING.
I THINK IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICATION MATERIALS.
THEN WE HAVE IT, THEN WE HAVE, BUT NOT ALWAYS.
BUT TYPICALLY, SO YOU MAY HAVE IT DONE.
SO THE BOARD'S AGREEABLE, BUT THE PUBLIC FOR PUBLIC HEARING, THEY HAVE THE PLANS READY FOR TO SHOW LIKE WHAT YOU HAVE SHOWED US, RIGHT? YEAH.
THEY'LL BE, IT'LL BE THE SAME AS THE LAST SUBMITTAL.
AND, AND SO IN TERMS OF NOTICING, I I WOULD HAVE TO IMAGINE BASED ON THE RADIUS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WERE INITIALLY ENCROACHED ON, THEY WOULD BE NOTICED.
YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A, A HOMEOWNER TO THE LEFT.
AND EVERYBODY WITHIN, YOU SAID 500 FEET? 500 FOOT RADIUS.
AND, AND, AND YOU HAVEN'T HAD ANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM UP TO THIS POINT? NO, NOT DIRECTLY.
SO I'D LIKE A MOTION TO MOTION.
SO WE DON'T NEED TO DO ANOTHER WORK SESSION AND NO.
SO WE'LL GET THOSE MATERIALS READY AND WE'LL SEE YOU ON JUNE 4TH.
JUNE 4TH OR JUNE 2ND? JUNE 4TH.
ARE YOU HERE ON THE, THIS PLACE THAT IT'S OKAY.
UM, WE STILL HAVE A NEW BUSINESS.
AND THE, THESE FOLKS HAVE BEEN PATIENT.
THEY ARE ON THE ZOOM AND, BUT WE JUST LOST MICHELLE.
YOU GUYS ARE, I JUST LET, LET LESLIE'S THE, UH, PUT THE VIBE OUT.
[02:25:01]
THAT'S RIGHT.I, I, I, I SAID SO RIGHT ON THE FRONT END.
I THOUGHT THAT CAME UP IN DISCUSSION BEFORE WE TALKED ABOUT THE FENCING AND THEY SAID WE'RE GONNA TALK TO THEM BECAUSE, YEAH, I THINK THIS, BECAUSE THE DISTURBANCE REQUIRED NOT, I'M NOT MAKING ANY EXCUSE FOR THEM.
THIS JURISDICTIONAL THING, WHICH IS BRAND NEW ON THE GECI THINK IT REALLY THREW BECAUSE THEY WERE LIKE, WHAT? LIKE WE CAN'T GET, YOU KNOW, IN JANUARY THEY WERE, WE HAD MET WITH THEM IN NOVEMBER.
I'M REALLY SURPRISED THEY, BUT I DIDN'T, DIDN'T WE DIDN'T REQUIRE FENCING FOR THEM TO REMOVE THE SHED AND THE HOT TUB OR DOES THEY JUST DO THAT? NO, THAT CAN BE DONE.
THEY JUST DO THAT ON THEIR OWN.
UM, 'CAUSE THERE'S NO LIKE, SO MANY EXCAVATION.
YEAH, I KNOW FOR LIKE REMOVAL IT'S DIFFERENT.
I MEAN, IF YOU WERE DIGGING OUT A POOL OR SOMETHING, SO WAS THE HOT, HOT TUB, IT'S, YOU'RE JUST, YOU'RE REMOVING SOMETHING THAT'S LIKE, HOW IS THE HOT TUB POWERED? DON'T YOU NEED LIKE ELECTRIC? VERY, VERY PATIENT WAITING ON ZOOM.
UH, IN CASE NUMBER PB 25 0 1 LYNN AT 50 MULLIGAN LANE, THE PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT.
AND THIS IS A WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS, UH, STEEP SLOPE PERMIT APPLICATION INVOLVING THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO CAR DETACHED GARAGE WITH RELATED IMPROVEMENTS.
MR. BARB, DO YOU WANNA PRESENT THE PROJECT AND WE HAVE THE SHARE SCREEN FUNCTION AVAILABLE FOR THE DRAWINGS? UH, SURE.
UM, SO I GUESS WE SHOULD START WITH OUR STEEP SLOPE SURVEY.
UM, BASICALLY, UM, EXISTING HOUSE.
UH, BASICALLY THAT'S THE EXISTING HOUSE LOCATION.
THERE IS AN EXISTING ASPHALT DRIVEWAY OFF OF THE EXISTING CUL-DE-SAC.
UH, WE ARE PROPOSING, UM, THE TWO CAR GARAGE SETBACK IN THIS AREA ADJACENT TO THE EXISTING MASONRY STEPS.
UM, VERY SMALL AREA OF, UM, STEEP SLOPE AT THIS AREA.
AND IF YOU VISIT THE SITE, UM, AND I CAN SHOW YOU FROM SOME OF THE PICTURES, UH, IT CLEARLY APPEARS THAT THIS ENTIRE AREA WAS LEVELED OUT AT SOME POINT WHEN THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUCTED.
'CAUSE IT IS NOT A NATURAL CONTOUR.
UM, WITH THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY, UH, OF ADJACENT PROPERTY, IT'S CLEARLY, CLEARLY WAS DONE AT SOME POINT IN TIME TO CREATE THE DRIVEWAY.
UH, SO HENCE THE AREA STEEP SLOPE.
UH, UM, SO HERE'S MY SITE PLAN.
UH, ONCE AGAIN, UM, GARAGES, STEP BACK, LITTLE COULD YOU IN A LITTLE BIT ON THAT FOR US, IF YOU DON'T MIND.
UH, ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A PLUS ICON ALL THE WAY TO THE RIGHT.
DO YOU SEE THAT? OH, THERE WE GO.
THAT'S THE OUT AND THE OTHER ONE ABOVE THAT.
SO ONCE AGAIN, UM, THERE YOU GO.
YEAH, I'M TRYING TO LOSE ALL THE AT ATTENDANTS
UM, SO GARAGE IS SET BACK, UH, AT THE END OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY.
UH, WE ARE REMOVING, UH, EXISTING ASPHALT PAVEMENT.
UH, THE OWNER ACTUALLY WANTS A P GRAVEL DRIVEWAY AT THE SAME LOCATION.
UM, AND BASED ON SOME OF THE BUILDING OR ZONING CODE REQUIREMENTS, WE'VE ACTUALLY REDUCED THE WIDTH OF THE EXISTING, UH, DRIVEWAY TO ACCOMMODATE THE CODE REQUIREMENTS, UH, TO ALLEVIATE A VARIANCE IN THAT RESPECT.
UH, WE WILL HAVE A COBBLESTONE APRON, UH, AT THE FRONT CURB CUT AREA OFF OF THE, UH, CUL-DE-SAC.
UH, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? UH,
[02:30:01]
QUESTION? I GUESS THE ONLY THING I WOULD ASK IS, UM, I BELIEVE YOU ALSO HAVE A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.WOULD YOU JUST BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH ALL THE PLANS AND THEN WE CAN GET TO ALL THE QUESTIONS? THAT'S GOOD IDEA? SURE, SURE.
UM, UH, HERE WE HAVE PREPARED AN EROSION CONTROL PLAN, UH, AREAS OF DISTURBANCE IN THE REAR, WHICH IS, UH, CONTAINS OUR CULTECH UNITS FOR STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, UH, SILK FENCE, UH, AT THE PERIMETER WHERE, WHEREVER ANY SOILS DISTURBED ON THE LOW END.
UM, WHERE, WHERE ARE THE TICS? JUST GO BACK.
CULT DECKS ARE IN THE REAR BACK HERE.
SO THE, SO AT THIS POINT IS WHERE THE GARAGE IS.
WE'RE PIPING IT TO AN AREA WHERE THE INFILTRATORS ARE IN THE BACK.
UH, THIS BETTER CLEARLY IDENTIFIES THE CULTECH UNITS, BASICALLY MAINTAINING THE EXISTING CONTOURS.
UM, YOU KNOW, NOT FILLING IN, UH, WE'RE CREATING A SMALL RETAINING WALL OVER HERE ONLY TO RECAPTURE, UH, A LEVEL, A LEVEL DRIVEWAY.
UM, I THINK IT'S ONLY FOUR FEET TALL, BUT I HAVE THE DETAIL ON THAT.
UH, SITE UTILITY PLAN, WE'RE DOING A FEW CONNECTIONS OF SITE UTILITY INTO THE EXISTING HOUSE.
I BELIEVE WE'RE GONNA PUT A, UH, WATER SPIGOT INSIDE, UH, AND POSSIBLY A SLOP SINK IN THE GARAGE.
AND ELECTRIC RUNS, UH, TO POWER THE GARAGE.
UH, THIS IS A COMPARISON AREA OF DISTURBANCE PLAN.
UM, THE BLUE IS THE STEEP SLOPE AREA.
I CAN ZOOM IN ON THAT FOR YOU.
SO THE, UH, THE BLUE HATCH IS, UH, THE 35% PLUS, UH, SLOPE AREA, UH, WHICH AS I PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, APPEARS TO BE A MANMADE SLOPE THAT'S ROUGHLY 615 SQUARE FEET.
REST OF THE DISTURBANCE IN GREEN, UH, IS ZERO TO 14%, WHICH IS ABOUT 58 OR 5,900 SQUARE FEET ROUGHLY ROUND TO GO.
AND IF I MAY JUST JUMP IN, WHAT'S TRIGGERING THIS BOARD'S REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT IS THE FACT THAT THAT DISTURBANCE FIGURE OF SIX 15 SQUARE FEET EXCEEDS 500 SQUARE FEET.
IF IT WAS 479 SQUARE FEET OF SLOPE DISTURBANCE, IT WOULD NOT BE BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD.
BUT I MEAN, DON'T WE HAVE ANOTHER VARIANCE WE ASKED TO CONSIDER EXCUSE.
BUT IF THE SLOPE PERMIT WAS NOT BEFORE THE BOARD, THEN THIS BOARD WOULD NOT BE GIVING A RECOMMENDATION ON THE VARIANCE.
IT'S ONLY BY VIRTUE OF THE REASON THAT THEY NEED A STEEP SLOPE PERMIT.
SO, SO IF NOT FOR THE STEEP SLOPE, THE ZBA WOULD BE THE LEAD AGENCY WOULD BE THE ONLY YEAH.
AND IN FACT, UH, WITH RESPECT TO SEEKER, SINCE WE TOUCHED ON IT, BOTH THE PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT AND THE ZONING BOARD AREA VARIANCE BOTH QUALIFY AS TYPE TWO ACTIONS UNDER SEEKER.
SO THERE'S NO COORDINATED REVIEW OR LEAD AGENCY, IT'S JUST THAT BOTH BOARDS HAVE TO, UM, ULTIMATELY VOTE THAT IT QUALIFIES AS A TYPE TWO ACTION, UH, FOR BOTH, BOTH ACTIONS.
SO I'LL, I'LL TURN IT BACK OVER.
UM, I HAVE SOME, UH, MISCELLANEOUS SITE DETAILS.
UH, CHAIN OF FENCE DETAIL, A DRY STONE WALL DETAIL.
UH, THIS IS THE UN UNILOCK WALL THAT'S ALONGSIDE OF THE GARAGE, UH, OR DRIVEWAY, SOME COBBLE STONE PA IN.
UH, I SEE THAT MY ASPHALT PAVEMENT DETAIL DIDN'T SHOW UP.
UH, BUT WE'LL FIX THAT ON THE NEXT SUBMISSION.
AND A, A BELGIAN BLOCK CURTAIN TAIL.
UM, AND MOVING ALONG TO THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN.
UH, THIS IS BASED OFF A 25 YEAR STORM, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A 6.47 INCH RAINFALL AND A 24 INCH PERIOD, UH, WHICH BASICALLY CALCULATES TO SIX EC UNITS FOR OUR PROPOSED ADDITION.
UM, UM, AND THE ONLY VEGETATION BEING REMOVED IS THAT HEDGEROW, THERE'S NO ACTUAL REGULATED TREES BEING REMOVED? THAT IS CORRECT.
WAS IT ANYTHING ELSE? UH, I COULD FINISH THROUGH, WE COULD SHOW IT, UH, STORMWATER DETAILS.
[02:35:02]
UM, YOU CAN GO TO OUR GARAGE PLAN IF YOU'D LIKE.IF, IF YOU COULD SHOW THE GARAGE YEAH.
THAT QUICKLY, THAT WOULD BE GOOD.
UH, SO FIRST FLOOR OF THE GARAGE, BASICALLY, UH, TWO CARS PULL IN.
IT IS ROUGHLY 24 BY 31 IS THE GARAGE.
I'VE GOT A WOODEN STAIRCASE THAT GOES UP TO A LOFT AREA FOR A PAINTING STUDIO FOR THE, UH, THE OWNER.
UM, THIS IS NOT TO BE USED AS A DWELLING UNIT OR, YOU KNOW, RENTED OUT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT'S STRICTLY A, UH, NON INHABITABLE, UH, BASICALLY PAINTED LOFT, UH, BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE.
UH, INSTEAD OF FILLING IN THE LOWER AREA, 'CAUSE IT'S ALMOST EIGHT FEET IN THE BACK, UH, WE CHOSE CHOOSING TO, INSTEAD OF DOING A SHED ON THE PROPERTY, WE'RE GONNA STORE LAWN EQUIPMENT, UM, LAWN EQUIPMENT, UH, LAWN FURNITURE, THINGS LIKE THAT IN THE BASEMENT OF THE GARAGE.
UM, A ROOF PLAN SECTION THROUGH THE GARAGE INDICATES, UH, AN EIGHT FOOT CEILING HEIGHT, I BELIEVE IN THE BASEMENT, IN THE GARAGE STORAGE AREA.
UH, LIKEWISE ON FIRST FLOOR AND SLOPE CEILINGS WITH TWO DORMERS, UH, IN THE LOFT AREA, UH, FRONT OF THE GARAGE, SOME, UH, SPACE, UH, BARN, BARN STYLE DOORS,
UM, OTHER THAN THAT, THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT.
ANOTHER SECTION THROUGH THE BUILDING.
DID YOU ALREADY, DID YOU SAY WHAT THE INTENDED USE OF THE TOP FLOOR WOULD BE? SURE.
THAT'S GONNA BE BASICALLY A PAINTING LOCK OR AN ART, I'M GONNA CALL IT AN ARTIST STUDIO FOR THE OWNER.
I'M, I'M GOING BACK TO THE SITE PLAN, SO IF IT, I MAY WELL, DO WE WANT TO GO ONE BY ONE? SURE.
DYLAN, DID YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, I THINK I'M GOOD.
YEAH, I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT.
NO, I WANNA TALK ABOUT THE PA THE DRIVEWAY.
UH, SO MY QUESTION WAS, UM, THE, SO THERE'S A VARIANCE HERE FROM THE 12 FEET TO THE 19TH FEET FOR THE GARAGE, AND DO YOU HAVE ANY RENDERINGS THAT WOULD SHOW SORT OF THE SIGHT LINE FROM THE CURRENT HOUSE AS WELL AS NEIGHBORS? IS IT, DOES THAT 19 FEET BRING IT ABOVE THE CURRENT PROPERTY? SO, SO HERE'S, SO, SO THE REASON FOR THE 19 FOOT, UH, BUILDING HEIGHT IS IT'S AN AVERAGE GRADE OF THE, THE GRADE AROUND, AROUND THE STRUCTURE.
SO AT THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING MM-HMM
IT'S BASICALLY LEVEL WITH THE GARAGE.
I WAS OUT THERE, UH, THE OTHER DAY.
I TOOK A PICTURE FROM THE CUL-DE-SAC.
UM, SO I'M GONNA TRY TO EXPLAIN MM-HMM
SO AS I SAID, DRIVEWAY IS DEAD LEVEL, WHICH IS BASICALLY LEVEL ALL AROUND THE EXISTING HOUSE.
THE EXISTING PROPERTY SLOPES TO THE REAR.
UM, SO BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENS IS I TAKE AN AVERAGE GRADE AROUND THE ENTIRE BUILDING THAT GIVES ME AN AVERAGE GRADE, UM, THAT IS MUCH LOWER THAN THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE GARAGE.
AND I BELIEVE, LET ME JUMP TO, AND THAT'S WHAT PROVIDES THE WALKOUT FOR THE BASEMENT OR HALF BASEMENT.
THAT'S COR RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO IF I MAY, I CAN'T FOR, FROM THE, FROM THE DRIVEWAY GRADE AT ENTRY, WHAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THE GARAGE IF YOU WERE STANDING ON THE DRIVEWAY? SURE.
UH, SO THIS IS BASICALLY GONNA BETTER DEPICT OH, AND HOPEFULLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.
SO I'VE GOT MY NEW GARAGE FLOOR AND THE GRADE IN THE FRONT, 3 0 7 0.5, I HAVE GOT A SECOND FLOOR, UH, WHICH IS 3 16, 3 16 PLUS SEVEN IS 3 23 AND A HALF, 3 24.
UM, AND THAT WOULD BE TO THE GUTTER LINE OF THE DORMER.
UH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TOP OF THE ROOF, SO 3 24, WE CAN ADD ANOTHER FOUR AND A HALF FEET.
IT'S MUCH LOWER THAN YOU TO THREE.
SO, SO AGAIN, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S
[02:40:01]
THE HEIGHT IN TERMS OF, IS IT, IT'S 19 FEET OR IS IT 20 SOMETHING FEET? SO I'VE GOT 3 0 7, SO I'VE GOT THREE 16.IS THIS TALKING ABOUT CENTIMETERS? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT ELEVATION LINES? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ELEVATION LINES? OH, OH, NO, NO, NO.
SO LIKE AT THE, AT THE DRIVEWAY LEVEL IS AT 3 0 7, I THINK YOU SAID.
AND THEN FOR ZONING PURPOSES, YOU MEASURE TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE, OF THE ROOF.
OF THE ROOF, WHICH IS THAT WHERE THE 19 FEET IS? OR IS IT 19 FEET WHEN YOU GET AROUND AND YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM LIKE THE BACKYARD I THINK IS MY QUESTION.
OR ARE YOU SEEING THE 19 FEET DIRECTLY IN FRONT OF YOU FROM THE DRIVEWAY GRADE? NO, NO.
SO I, SO, SO HERE'S WHAT I'M, I'M, I'M GONNA RUN SOME NUMBERS FOR YOU AND THEN I'LL EXPLAIN YOU.
SO GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION AT THE DRIVEWAY.
SO, SO TO THE DORMS OF THE GARAGE ON THE SECOND FLOOR, I THINK MY QUESTION IS A LOT MORE SIMPLE.
YOU JUST WANNA KNOW, IS THE GARAGE, HOW TALL IS THE BUILDING? IS THE GARAGE GONNA BE TALLER THAN THE HOUSE? THAT'S RIGHT.
WELL, THAT WAS ONE QUESTION I WAS JUST WONDERING.
YEAH, SO, SO WHAT'S THE ELEVATION AT THE GUTTERS? YOU JUST SAID, YOU SAID THREE 20, BUT YOU, YOU'RE CONFUSING MY QUESTION.
YOU JUST WANNA KNOW HOW TALL IT IS FROM LIKE THE DRIVEWAY, RIGHT? SO IF THE BASEMENT WEREN'T SUNKEN DOWN, HOW FAR IS IT FROM THE DRIVEWAY TO THE TOP OF THE GARAGE? IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHERE YOU'RE DRIVING IN, THAT'S GRADE LEVEL, RIGHT? CORRECT.
FORGET ABOUT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE WHERE IT DROPS.
FORGET ABOUT THAT SLOPE FROM THE, FROM THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE WHERE YOU'RE DRIVING IN THAT BUILDING.
UH, THE FACADE, I GUESS THE FACE OF IT.
YEAH, GROUND LEVEL TO MIDPOINT.
HOW TALL IS THAT TO MIDPOINT IS ABOUT 16 FEET.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I HAD IT.
SO, SO TO THE MIDPOINT LINE RIGHT HERE IS ABOUT 16 FEET.
IF I TAKE IT TO THE TOP OF THE DORMERS, IT'S 17 AND A HALF FEET.
SO WHERE ARE WE GETTING 19? BECAUSE WE HAVE TO GO AROUND THE BACK.
WELL, THEY HAVE TO THE AVERAGE GRADE.
THAT'S WHY THAT'S, THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING WHAT DOES IT LOOK, WHAT IS THE HEIGHT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT FROM THE ROAD? I MEAN, IS IT 20 SOMETHING AND THEY'RE BENEFITING THE OTHER WAY? NO, IT'S ABOUT 17, BUT THEY HAVE TO TAKE THE AVERAGE AVERAGE.
SO THAT'S WHY IT'S CALCULATED AS 19.
I THINK THE FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS IN RELATION TO THE EXISTING HOME MM-HMM
ON YOUR CLIENT'S LOT, DOES THIS PROTRUDE HIGHER OR EXTEND HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING HOME? OR IS IT SUNK IN BELOW OR THE SAME.
OKAY, SO CAN YOU SEE THE PHOTOGRAPH? NO.
OKAY, SO LET ME STOP SHARING ONE AND THEN JUMP TO PHOTOGRAPH.
IS THIS AN ATTACHED GARAGE OR DETACHED? DETACHED.
AND YOU HAD ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT IF THERE'S REQUIREMENTS ABOUT HOW CLOSE OR FAR AWAY IT CAN BE FROM THE HOUSE, DOES THE CODE? YES.
AND SO HERE'S THE HOUSE, THE ACCESSORY.
SO FROM GRADE TO THE EAVE IS ROUGHLY 18 FEET.
AND THEN A STEEP SLOPE, WHICH PROBABLY, WHICH BASICALLY GIVES THEM, I BELIEVE THEY HAVE A THIRD FLOOR, UH, WHICH IS ANOTHER 10 FEET TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE, TO THE TOP OF THE ROOF.
SO YOU'VE GOT 18 AND 10, YOU'RE ROUGHLY 28 FEET TO THE, TO THE, TO THE RIDGE OF THAT ROOF.
SO, I'M SORRY, LET FINISH MM-HMM
SO TO COMPARE THE GARAGE WOULD BE WHERE THE HAND IS.
AND THE MIDPOINT OF THE ROOF WILL BE JUST AROUND MID RIGHT AT THE GUTTER LINE OF THAT HOUSE.
IS IT THE HOUSE IS TALL, THE ADJACENT HOUSE TO THE RIGHT, WILL IT BE IT'LL BE HIGHER THAN THE YEAH.
THAN THE ROOF OF THAT HOUSE? YES.
WELL, YOU HAVE TO UNDERSTAND, I HAVE A PICTURE OF THAT HOUSE AS WELL.
THAT THAT HOUSE BASICALLY IS BASICALLY SITTING, YOU KNOW, ALMOST A STORY AND A HALF FULL LOAD STREET.
AND THERE'S, IT'S A NEW SUBDIVISION.
AND THERE'S, IS THAT A TREE LINE BETWEEN THE TWO HOUSES? RIGHT.
IT LOOKS, IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY LANDSCAPED AROUND THIS HOUSE.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S SOME WOODED, BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT'S, THERE'S EVERGREEN VEGETATION.
SO THAT WAS ONE THOUGHT FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER.
[02:45:02]
WOULD THE APPLICANT BE OPEN TO PROVIDING, UH, EVERGREEN SCREENING AROUND THE NEW GARAGE TO PROVIDE YEAR ROUND SCREENING FROM ITS PROPOSED GARAGE TO THE HOME DOWN BELOW IN THE BOWL? YEAH, I MEAN IT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S 30 FEET OF, OF OF WALL AREA, SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, EIGHT OR 10, YOU KNOW, GREEN, GIANT ARBOR ES IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT.YEAH, PROBABLY SOME SORT OF MIXTURE, BUT YEAH, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES.
AND WE CAN WORK TOWARDS THAT TOGETHER.
ANYTHING ELSE FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS? DO YOU, BECAUSE THERE IS ONE ACTION ITEM, CORRECT? YEAH.
HAVE, HAVE YOU ALREADY BEEN IN TOUCH WITH THE NEIGHBOR IN THE WHITE HOUSE? UH, NO, WE HAVE NOT.
SO THIS HAS BEEN A PROJECT THAT'S BEEN GOING ON FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF.
UH, WE KIND OF GOT HUNG UP IN, UM, UH, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE LAST TIME I WAS ACTUALLY AT THE SITE, THE ROAD WASN'T EVEN PAVED.
SO IT'S BEEN A, SO, YOU KNOW, I DROVE BY, I STILL SEE A DUMPSTER OVER THERE, SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE IF THE HOUSE IS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR NOT.
I THINK THEY JUST GOT COS FOR IT.
CAN WE, UM, HEAR FROM CORRECT? YES.
UH, IF YOU GO BACK TO YOUR, UH, THE DRIVEWAY WHEN YOU'RE MAKING IT TO A GRAVEL, UH, THAT IS CORRECT.
CAN HAVE YOU CON BECAUSE THAT DOES NOT REALLY, UH, IS STILL CONSIDERED UNDER THE TOWN CODE.
SO HAVE YOU CONSIDERED TO REDUCE AND YOU ARE ALREADY DOING IT TO PUT A PERUS PAY THAT WOULD STILL GO, GO AHEAD.
SO THAT WILL BE A, SO AS FAR AS, SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, I, THERE THERE'S PROS AND CONS WITH PERMEABLE PAVEMENT.
UM, I KNOW THAT, UH, THE PROBLEM THAT I ALWAYS SEE AND, AND WHAT GENERALLY HAPPENS IS THE MAINTENANCE OF IT BECAUSE IT USUALLY GETS CLOGGED WITH SAND AND DIRT AND THINGS LIKE, AND SILT AND IT BASICALLY HAS TO BE VACUUMED OUT AND IT MIGHT BE MAINTAINED FOR THE FIRST YEAR, BUT AFTER THAT NOBODY GENERALLY MAINTAINS IT AND THEN IT JUST SHEETS ACROSS ONTO THE ROAD.
UH, SO THAT'S ONE REASON WHY NO, I DON'T LIKE USING IT.
I THINK, I THINK YOU SHOULD TALK, UH, TALK TO SOME GOOD, UH, SUPPLIER BECAUSE NOW THE NEXT GENERATION OF THE PER YEARS PS ARE USED EXTENSIVELY AND THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO, UH, TO BE REMAIN EFFECTIVE, UH, LONG AFTER.
WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS WHEN THEY USED TO HAVE A JUST A OUS THINGS WAS AROUND THE PAYS.
NOW THEY HAVE THE WHOLE NEW DESIGN, SO YOU SHOULD LOOK INTO IT, BUT IT'S NOT A MAINTENANCE ISSUE.
THEY HAVE BEEN DOING IT AND I THINK, UH, SOME OF THE TOWN HAS REQUIRED TO BE ALL THE DRIVERS TO BE PERVIOUS P UH, SO WE SHOULD, I MEAN, SO, SO JUST LOOK INTO IT.
BUT I, I DON'T THINK IT IS A, IT IT'S A, YOUR STATEMENT IS NOT CORRECT WITH THE NEW KIND OF PAPERS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON IT.
SO THAT'S A ONE SECOND THING IS THAT, UH, THIS WHOLE BUILDINGS THAT YOU ARE DOING IT, AND I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER, WHETHER THAT'S NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALLOWED OR NOT, BUT WE TALKED ABOUT A DU THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT QUALIFIES FOR THIS.
NO, I, SO ORIGINALLY I THOUGHT THAT HIS PART OF IRVINGTON WAS, UM, THE PART THAT DID PASS IT, BUT IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME THAT THEY'RE IN OUR PART OF OUR, UH, GREEN, IT HASN'T BEEN PASSED YET.
AND I THINK, UM, HE HAS EXPRESSED THAT THIS IS NOT, UH, THIS IS A LT, UH, NOT A PLACE FOR THAT PEOPLE ARE GONNA LIVE.
SO OH, THAT'S SOMEONE HE DOESN'T WANT, DO HE? NO.
SO PROCEDURALLY, I THINK BEFORE WE CLOSE, WE DO HAVE FIVE MINUTES.
IF YOU NEED ONE EXTRA MINUTE, WE'LL TRY TO HELP THE BOARD OUT.
BUT, UH, SO THE NEXT STEP FOR THIS APPLICANT IS TO GO BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD.
THEY NEED A VARIANCE ON THE HEIGHT FROM 12 FEET TO 19 FEET.
AND I THINK WE'VE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT'S EXPRESSED, UM, OR THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE HAS SAID THAT THE EVERGREEN SCREENING IS SOMETHING THAT HE BELIEVES THE CLIENT WOULD AGREE TO.
HE AND I CAN WORK TOGETHER ON COMING UP WITH A PLAN, BUT, UM, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD ON THE HEIGHT
[02:50:01]
RIGHT.YEAH, I THINK IT'S THE, THE WHAT WAS EXPLAINED AND, AND, UH, I THINK THERE IS NOTHING, UH, UH, NECK.
I THINK IT'S A IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE, IMPROVEMENTS TO THE EXCESS AND, UH, IF THEY WILL TAKE THIS, UH, P PREMISES, UH, PAPERS CHANGES.
OH, SO ARE YOU SAYING, UM, POSITIVE, NEUTRAL FOR YOURSELF? POSITIVE, POSITIVE, UM, DYLAN? YEAH, I'M, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S DRAMATIC PLANNING, PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS HERE.
UM, SO I'M, I'M, I'M WILLING TO STAY OPEN-MINDED, BUT RIGHT NOW I'D PROBABLY GO NEUTRAL.
I MEAN, ONLY POSITIVE IF YOU SCREEN IT FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR.
UM, SO THAT'S, SO I GUESS, UM, SOMEONE WOULD MAKE A MOTION.
WE COULD, IF THE BOARD, SO IF THE BOARD WENT POSITIVE, WE WOULD ABSOLUTELY BE NOTING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT WAS AGREEABLE TO SCREENING AND IS NOT DOING A PAVED SURFACE FOR THE DRIVEWAY IS GONNA BE EITHER DOING P GRAVEL OR POTENTIALLY LOOKING INTO PERVIOUS PAVERS.
IF THE BOARD GOES NEUTRAL, WE WOULD STILL MENTION THOSE POSITIVES, YOU KNOW, AND TO THE ZONING BOARD THAT AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, THE APPLICANTS AGREED TO, YOU KNOW, WORK WITH THE TOWN STAFF ON PUTTING TOGETHER SOME EVERGREEN SCREENING IS ALSO GONNA BE LOOKING INTO THE PROSPECT FOR PERMEABLE PAVERS.
SO EITHER WAY YOU DO IT, WE'RE STILL GONNA BE NOTING THOSE.
SO I DO AGREE WITH THE NEUTRAL, WITH THOSE, WITH THAT ADDENDUM IN TERMS OF LOOKING AT SOME EVERGREENS.
BUT I THINK I, I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT THEY TALK TO THE NEIGHBORS BECAUSE THAT, UH, THAT THAT IS A KEY TO THE, ARE THERE NEIGHBORS THERE? HOW ARE YOU GONNA TALK TO PEOPLE ABOUT WELL, I MEAN THEY'LL SEE IF, UH, THE PROPERTY'S NOW, UH, OCCUPIED.
I MEAN YOU COULD ALSO CHECK TO SEE WHAT THE DEED SAYS AND MOVE PEOPLE OUT.
BUT DOES ANYONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? YEAH, I THINK ONE OF THE THING IS THAT IF THEY CAN CONSIDER THE, SOME OF THE SUSTAINABLE SUSTAINABILITY MEASURES IN CONSTRUCTIONS AND UH, MAYBE SOLAR PANELS ON, ON THE GARAGE.
WE CANNOT, I WOULDN'T RECOMMEND THE SOLAR.
UM, JUST, I THINK THESE ARE THE SIZE, IT'S JUST NOT, I MEAN WE CAN PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS FOR WHEN IT COMES BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
BUT SOMETHING THAT I, UH, YOU SAID YOU'RE MENTIONING IT NOW, SO IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE UNDERSTAND THAT AT 9 58, UH, I, I MO I MOVED TO MAKE A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR THE REQUIRED VARIANCE.
SO WE'LL GET THAT OFF TO YOU SO THAT Y'ALL HAVE THAT AT HAND AND WE'LL COORDINATE ON THE, UH, LANDSCAPE PLAN AND WE CAN TALK ABOUT PS AND SOME OF THE OTHER CONSIDERATIONS.
HAVE YOU FILED FOR THE ZONING BOARD YET, OR NOT YET? EXCUSE ME? HAVE YOU FILED FOR I HAVE NOT.
OKAY, SO YOU HAVE, SO YOU WANT TO KEEP JUNE 10TH IN MIND AS UH, THE TIME PERIOD TO GET THE APPLICATION MATERIALS INTO OUR ZONING BOARD SECRETARY FOR A PRE-REVIEW MEETING.
UH, BECAUSE EVERYTHING HAS TO BE IN BY THE 15TH, BUT YOU HAVE TO HAVE PRE-MEETING FIRST.
ALRIGHT, HAVE A GREAT EVENING.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.