[00:00:02]
PROGRESS.[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, July 2, 2025 – 7:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ]
GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE WEDNESDAY, JULY 2ND, 2025 PLANNING BOARD.AARON, I'M SORRY, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL.
UM, WE DO HAVE MS. MOYER, UH, ON ZOOM THIS EVENING, BUT SHE WILL NOT BE A VOTING MEMBER.
AND, UM, WE EXPECT MS. ANDERSON SHORTLY.
OUR ALTERNATE MR. SNAGS IS NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING.
WE'LL MOVE INTO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
HAS ANY, EVERYONE READ THE MINUTES? AND DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 18TH? I THOUGHT THEY LOOKED GREAT.
UH, ON THE TOP OF PAGE FIVE UNDER TACO BELL, IN, IN ADDITION TO MY COMMENT ABOUT THE DRIVE THROUGH IN TERMS OF A VEHICULAR, UH, LEFT RETURN LEFT, I, I THINK I ALSO MENTIONED THAT I HAD A CONCERN ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, SAFETY ON CENTRAL AVENUE.
AND THAT'S JUST TO CLARIFY THE COMMENT, NOT TO MAKE A SUBSTANTIVE COMMENT ABOUT IT.
ANYTHING ELSE? SO, CAN I HAVE A, UH, MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED? SO MOVED.
SO THE FIRST THING ON THE AGENDA IS THE CORRESPONDENCE, CASE NUMBER PB 25 15.
AND, UM, CAN I GET A PRONUNCIATION? LOA LOISA.
AND THIS IS A MINOR PROJECT, WETLAND WATERCOURSE FOR CONSIDERATION PERMIT.
UH, SO THIS IS A MINOR WETLAND WATERCOURSE PROJECT, UH, INVOLVING THE INSTALLATION OF WATERPROOFING IN A BASEMENT.
AND ASSOCIATED WITH THAT WATERPROOFING, THERE NEEDS TO BE AN OUTLET.
SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INSTALL A PIPE TO GO TO SOME DRY WELLS IN THEIR REAR YARD.
UH, THE DISTURBANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT IS TRENCHING FOR THE PIPING AND, UH, DIGGING HOLES FOR THE DRY WELLS.
THE, UM, THERE'S A WATERCOURSE THAT RUNS THROUGH THE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE WATERCOURSE BUFFER AREA.
AND, UM, AS AARON IS NOW SHARING, UM, CAN SEE THE, ON THE SCREEN, THE EXTENT OF THE PROJECT, WHICH IS TRENCHING FOR PIPING AND DRY WELLS.
THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING SILT FENCING IN BETWEEN THE AREA OF WORK AND THE WATERCOURSE.
THE APPLICANT, UH, WAS RECENTLY AT THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL WHERE THEY RECEIVED A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION WITH NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS.
UM, AS THIS IS A MINOR PROJECT, WHICH I'M, I'M SORRY, CAN YOU DEFINE? SURE.
UH, SO THE CODE DEFINES A MINOR WETLANDS WATERCOURSE PROJECT AS HAVING, UH, I BELIEVE IT'S LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET OF DISTURBANCE AND UNDER 100 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL OR EXCAVATION.
THIS PROJECT MEETS BOTH OF THOSE, UH, CRITERIA, UH, AND THEREFORE QUALIFIES AS A MINOR PROJECT, WHICH MEANS THAT, UH, THE BOARD CAN ELECT TO WAIVE REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND, UH, REFER IT TO THE TOWN WETLANDS INSPECTOR TO ISSUE A DECISION ON THE PROJECT.
SO, TWO THINGS, I WAS JUST GONNA ADD THAT THERE, PARDON ME.
TWO OTHER CRITERIA THAT THIS PROJECT MEETS IS THAT IT QUALIFIES AS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER AND THE APPLICANT HAS SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED UTILIZATION OF THE MINOR PROJECT PROCESS FROM THE, FROM THE TOWN.
NO, I THINK THAT'S PRETTY MUCH, UH, WE, WE, UH, UH, STARTED DOING
[00:05:01]
FOR MUCH MORE THAN 10 YEARS THAT IT WAS REALLY NOT, UH, APPROPRIATE FOR THEM TO BE GOING THROUGH A WHOLE PLANNING BOARD PROCESS.AND THAT WAY, UH, IT SAVES THEM TIME AND MONEY.
AND ALSO, UH, FOR US ALSO, WE CAN CONCENTRATE ON A MORE IMPORTANT SERIOUS PROJECT.
SO I THINK I'D, EVERY PROJECT IS IMPORTANT.
COMPARED TO THE OTHER, BUT, BUT YEAH, THIS IS, UH, BEEN A PRETTY STANDARD, UH, PROTOCOL THAT HAS BEEN FULL.
AND SO I RECOMMEND THAT WE SHOULD, SO THAT BEING SAID, UM, WE NEED TO DO, I'M SORRY.
I'M GOING TO JUST, JUST ONE PROBABLY SIDE QUESTION.
I KNOW THE TOWN'S DOING A STUDY OF MANHATTAN PARK BROOK, RIGHT.
UM, AND I JUST DUNNO IF THEY NEED TO BE, OR IF THEY'RE AWARE OF THIS IN TERMS OF THE STUDY AND IF, IF THEY NEED, IF NOT, IF THEY NEED TO BE TOLD.
UH, SO THIS IS A TRIBUTARY TO THE MANHATTAN BROOKS, SO WE WILL ALERT THEM.
WE HAVE ALERTED THE BUREAU OF ENGINEERING OF THE PROJECT, BUT WE CAN MM-HMM
ABSOLUTELY BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION OF, UM, OUR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AS WELL.
SO THE BOARD NEEDS TO, UM, TAKE A VOTE ON CLASSIFYING THIS AS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER, AND I WOULD NEED A MOTION.
SO WHO SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
AND THEN WE NEED TO VOTE TO WAIVE THE REFERRAL OF THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND ALLOW THE TOWN WETLANDS INSPECTOR, UH, MR. BRITTON TO, UM, ISSUE A DECISION.
SO MICHELLE IS NOT VOTING TODAY, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO I'M WAITING FOR THE DELAYED RESPONSE, BUT THERE WON'T BE ANY.
UM, AM I VOTING MEMBER TONIGHT OR AM I AN ALTERNATE? YOU ARE VOTING.
SO WE'LL JUST MAKE A NOTE TO NOTIFY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
WE DO HAVE COMMISSIONER LUKE HA HERE.
WE ARE HAVING A WORK SESSION ON CASE NUMBER TB 25 0 7.
AND THIS IS REGARDING THE RECREATION FEE USE REQUEST FROM THE NATURE CENTER AT GREENBURG, UH, THE NEW WELCOME CENTER.
AND MR. LOI, COMMISSIONER LO, AND, AND FOR THE RECORD, I'LL BE RECUSING MYSELF FOR THIS CASE AS MY WIFE IS ON THE BOARD OF THE NATURE CENTER AT GREENBURG.
WE CAN JUST SAY THIS WAS THE ONLY
UM, WHICH WAS, WHAT DATE DID WE GET THAT? SO WE LAST, WE LAST MET, UH, JUNE 4TH.
AND AFTER THAT TIME, UH, ON JUNE 4TH, WE HAD REQUESTED A BUDGET.
AND AFTER THAT TIME WE DID RECEIVE THE BUDGET.
AND THAT'S THE ONLY CORRESPONDENT THAT WE RECEIVED ON THIS PROJECT.
SO WE ARE HERE ASKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION FROM THIS BOARD TO RELEASE $75,000 TO THE NATURE CENTER FOR THEIR WELCOME CENTER.
UM, AND A BUDGET WAS SENT, UM, I THINK EVERYONE GOT A COPY OF THAT.
UM, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT PARTICULAR OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
I, I HAVE ONE COMMENT, UH, QUESTION.
THE ORIGINAL BUDGET I THINK, OR, YOU KNOW, WE SAW IT WAS 375,000, WHICH I THINK HAS NOW BEEN INCREASED TO 3 87 CHANGE.
AND MY ONLY QUESTION IS WHATEVER THE BALANCE IS BETWEEN THE 3 87 AND THE 75, THE NATURE CENTER HAS THE FUNDS TO COVER THAT.
SO YEAH, THE TOWN IS NOT OBLIGATED TO ANYTHING EXCEPT FOR THE 75,000.
THE NATURE CENTER THROUGH THEIR DONOR AND THEIR FUND BALANCE WILL ACTUALLY BE FUNDING THE REST OF THE PRO PROGRESS.
AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THE PROJECT? YOU WANNA SEE IT? SURE.
THEN THAT'S THE, YEAH, THAT'S IT.
SO THE CONTINGENCY REMAINS THE SAME 10% CORRECT? I'M SORRY, CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC? UH, IT'S A CONTINGENCY, UH, FOR, UH, TOTAL PROJECT IS, UH, 8%.
OR IT'S ON TOP OF, THERE'S, UH, AN 8% AND 2% FOR DIFFERENT, UM, THINGS THAT SHE HAS IN THE LANDSCAPE.
[00:10:01]
OKAY.UM, SO I KNOW THAT YOU, THAT WAS A CONCERN OF YOURS WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU ASKED TO SEE THE BUDGET, UM, AND I KNOW SHE WANTED TO GET TOGETHER AND, UM, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, BUT THE, JUST REMEMBER THE NATURE CENTER IS THE ONE THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR ANY AMOUNT OF MONEY OVER THE 75,000.
SO THIS IS MONEY COMING FROM THE, UH, DEVELOPER ESCROW FUNDS.
IT'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE GOT FROM THE ADVISORY BOARD, AND THEN WE'RE LOOKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION FROM THIS BOARD, AND THEN IT WILL GO TO THE TOWN BOARD AFTER THAT AND THEY WOULD BE THE FINAL TO RELEASE THE FUNDS.
SO WHAT WERE THE COST, THESE, THAT, THAT'S THE CONTINGENCY AND BEYOND, UH, WOULD BE, UH, NATURE CENTERS? ABSOLUTELY, ABSOLUTELY.
WE'VE DONE SIMILAR PROJECTS LIKE THIS BEFORE WHERE WE'VE DONE WITH, UH, BAILEY SCHOOL DIS, UH, THE GREENBERG CENTRAL SCHOOL FOR BAILEY PLAYGROUND FOR A PLAYGROUND AT LEE F JACKSON, WHERE WE'VE CONTRIBUTED A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE MONEY WITH A STIPULATION THAT IT WOULD BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.
THAT'S NOT REALLY NECESSARY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE IT'S ACTUALLY ON PARKLAND.
SO WE'LL ALWAYS BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AND JUST, YOU KNOW, JUST GOING THROUGH EVERYTHING THAT WAS JUST SAID.
FOR CLARIFICATION, FOR THE PUBLIC, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD IS GOING TO VOTE ON WHETHER TO SEND, I'M SORRY, ISSUE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD FOR RELEASING UP TO $75,000 FOR THE, AND LET ME, I HAVE TO GET USED TO NATURE CENTER AT GREENBURG, NOT GREENBURG NATURE CENTER, RIGHT? CORRECT.
UM, WELCOME CENTER, UH, NEW PAVILION.
AND THEY PROVIDED US WITH A BUDGET AS WELL AS DRAWINGS OF WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE.
AND IF THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'D LIKE TO, UM, PUT IT THROUGH TO VOTE WITH THE BOARD.
SO, UM, TYPICALLY THE BOARD WOULD EITHER ISSUE A POSITIVE OR A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE, TO THE TOWN BOARD.
AND IF THERE'S ANY DETAIL THAT THE BOARD WANTS TO PROVIDE AS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION, OTHERWISE WE CAN JUST SAY THAT IT WAS REVIEWED ON JUNE 4TH, THE BUDGET WAS REQUESTED, IT WAS RECEIVED, AND THE PLANNING BOARD IS MOVING, MOVING FORWARD WITH FILL IN THE BLANK RECOMMENDATION.
SO I THINK THE MOVE, UM, THE MOTION, UM, FOR ME WOULD BE TO ISSUE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD.
I THINK IF YOU GUYS START, UH, I THINK, UH, UM, I WOULD RECOMMEND POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION, UH, CONSIDERING THAT IT IS REALLY A VERY GOOD ADDITION TO A, UH, NATURES NATURE CENTER THAT IS BEEN USED BY MANY OF THE TOWN OF GREENBERG RESIDENT.
SO ARE YOU SAYING SO MOVE, SO MOVE.
I'D LIKE TO THANK EVERYONE AND, UH, I WILL BE PUTTING FORTH A RESOLUTION THAT WILL, UM, POINT TO THIS RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AND ALSO POINT TO THE RECOMMENDATION FROM OUR ADVISORY BOARD TOO.
HEY, JIM, WE DO ANNOUNCE THAT.
DO YOU WANT NOW I CAN ANNOUNCE THE SHIFT JUST RANDOMLY.
NEXT ON THE AGENDA WAS SCHEDULED TO BE CASE NUMBER 24 PB 24 DASH 13 TACO BELL.
UH, THAT IS BEING, UH, BUMPED TO THE END OF THE MEETING DUE TO QUO RELATED ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO OTHER PROJECTS.
SO WE WILL BE BUMPING THAT TO THE BACK END OF THE MEETING AND BE TAKING CASE NUMBER PB 24 DASH 20 O MANDARIN 360 3 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE NORTH HARTSDALE.
THIS IS A PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL USE PERMIT RELATED TO RESTAURANT, UH, AS WELL AS A PLANNING BOARD SHARED PARKING REDUCTION REQUEST.
AND IT INVOLVES, I'LL JUST BRIEFLY STATE IT, INVOLVING, UH, THE PROPOSED CONVERSION OF 1600 SQUARE FEET OF VACANT RETAIL SPACE INTO RESTAURANT SPACE.
ADDING TO THE SIZE OF THE PREEXISTING O MANDARIN RESTAURANT.
UH, THIS ADDITIONAL RESTAURANT SPACE IS PROPOSED TO CONTAIN UP TO 20 SEATS AND REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.
UH, AN INCREASE OVER THE FORMER RETAIL USE.
THE SITE WAS PREVIOUSLY GRANTED SHARED PARKING REDUCTIONS OF FIVE
[00:15:01]
SPACES AND SEVEN SPACES UNDER CASE NUMBERS.UH, PB 11 DASH 21 AND PB 12 DASH OH NINE RESPECTIVELY.
UH, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE SHARED PARKING REDUCTION TO ACCOUNT FOR THE SEVEN ADDITIONAL OFF STREET PARKING SPACES REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPOSED CONVERSION OF ALREADY BUILT OUT SPACE.
SO THE SITE WOULD REQUIRE 312 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES AND 305 ARE PROPOSED.
UH, NO EXISTING PARKING SPACES WILL BE REMOVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT, AND NO PHYSICAL CHANGES TO THE SITE ARE PROPOSED.
I WILL BE RECUSING MYSELF BECAUSE I HAVE A LONG STANDING RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OWNER OF THE CENTER.
YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING? UM, SO THIS, UM, YOUR NAME AND, UH, MY NAME IS PETER.
MY NAME IS PETER
I, I'M PROPOSED THIS, UM, FOR, UM, ADDITIONAL SPACE AND FOR THE RESTAURANT OR MANDARIN.
CAN YOU JUST SPEAK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE SPACE IS PROPOSED TO BE USED FOR SURE.
UM, SO THE FRONT SPACE, WE HAVE THREE PERMITS ACTUALLY.
UM, SO, UM, THE ONE, UM, FOR, UH, BUILD OUT, UM, TO THE BACK OF A WALK-IN COOLER THAT'S, UH, UM, DIFFERENT OF, UM, PERMITS NUMBER AND ALSO THE FRONT STORE, WHICH IS GOING TO BE, UH, TURNING TO A BUBBLE TY SHOP.
UH, IT'S ONLY ABOUT 200 SQUARE FOOT, WHICH IS RETAIL SHOP.
UH, THINGS DIFFERENT, UH, OF, UH, SO THE LEFTOVERS, UH, WE TURN TO, UH, PRIVATE ROOMS, UH, FOR OR MANDARIN EXPANSION, UM, UH, THAT CAN BE OPENED UP.
UM, IF, UM, YOU KNOW, THREE TABLES CAN BE COMBINED TOGETHER.
UM, THE PURPOSE OF THIS, WE, UH, WE ACTUALLY, UH, TURNING AWAY A LOT OF, UH, UH, EVENTS.
UH, AND THIS SPACE HAS BEEN SITTING THERE TRYING TO GET THINGS OPENED UP FOR QUITE A WHILE.
UM, ORIGINALLY I THOUGHT IT CAN BE THREE DIFFERENT PERMITS, BUT BECAUSE THE PLUMBING AND, UH, RELATE TOGETHER, SO WE HAVE TO GET THIS PERMIT TO BE ABLE TO BUILD UP THE REST OF IT.
AND THE PROPOSED LIKE EVENT AREA WITH, AS WE, I'M PANNING OVER IT MM-HMM
UH, ON THE PLANS, THESE AREAS WITH THE TABLES? YES.
UM, THERE WOULD BE AN INTERNAL CONNECTION TO THE EXISTING THAT'S CORRECT.
THERE'S A DOOR, IS IT IN THE AREA OF MY CURSOR HERE? YES.
THAT'S THE ENTRANCE THAT'S, UM, THE DOOR AND GOING FLOATING TO THE EXISTING RESTAURANT.
UH, ALSO FROM THE BUBBLE SHOP, THERE'S ALSO ENTRANCE CAN GO OUT, REACH THAT CORNER TO, UH, THE BACK AREA.
THERE'S THE, UM, EXISTING BACK DOOR FLOATING TO THE BUILDING.
AND ALSO THERE IS A ENTRANCE IN AND OUT FROM THE KITCHEN AS WELL.
SO IT'S KIND OF LIKE ALL AROUND, UM, ENTRANCE CONNECTIONS, CONNECTION TOGETHER.
THERE'S ALSO A, UH, UH, THE RESTROOM, UH, UNISEX EXISTING, BUT WE JUST KINDA MOVED TO DIFFERENT SPOTS.
WOULD, UM, WOULD GUESTS BE GOING THROUGH THE BUBBLE T TO THE REAR OR WOULD THAT BE FOR EMPLOYEES ONLY? I'M SORRY.
UH, SO THE BUBBLE T CAN GO, CUSTOMER CAN GO IN AND OUT TOO THROUGH THE BUBBLE T YES.
SO, SO ITS WHOLE THING'S CONNECTED.
ONE, UM, THE BACK, UM, THAT CAN GO INTO, 'CAUSE SOME PEOPLE WANT TO USE THE RESTROOM SO THEY CAN USE THAT DOOR, GO INTO BACK OF THE, THE RESTROOM.
UM, CAN BE EXISTING RESTAURANT RESTROOM OR THE EXISTING LOCATION RESTROOM, UH, PROPOSED THE RESTROOM.
SO, UM, IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW, UM, AND ALSO PEOPLE, FOR EXAMPLE, ONCE HAVE A BUBBLE TEA WHEN THEY'RE FINISHED, CAN ACTUALLY GOING OUT FROM THE CORNER, THE OPENING DOOR, COME TO THE BUBBLE SHOP AND GET SOMETHING WHEN THEY GO OUT.
WHAT WOULD BE THE MACU MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY? UH, IF ALL THREE OF THE PRIVATE ROOMS WERE OPENED UP, WE PROPOSED, UH, I THINK, UM, THAT'S ONLY 25 SPACES.
SO, UM, SO, SO IT'S LIKE A, IT'S, IT'S JUST A SMALL, UM, CLO ENCLOSED PRIVATE ROOMS. OKAY.
NOW WE CAN TURN INTO, YOU SEE THE DIVIDING IN THE MIDDLE, WE CAN, YOU KNOW, TO ACTUALLY OPEN UP FOR BIGGER FUNCTIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
[00:20:01]
SPACES COULD BE OPENED UP INTO THE REST OF THE RESTAURANT? YEAH.TOGETHER, LIKE YOU MEAN CONNECT TOGETHER.
BUT RIGHT NOW YOU SEE LIKE, UM, TO REACH THE 24 YOU JUST MENTIONED? YEAH.
THERE ARE PARTITIONS, PARTITIONS AND CAN BE SLIDING DOORS.
AND SO IT COULD BE EIGHT, IT COULD BE 16, OR IT COULD BE 24.
UH, SO, YOU KNOW, JUST FROM UTILIZE THE SPACE A LITTLE BETTER, AND I IMAGINE THEY WOULDN'T BE ROUND TABLES THEN BECAUSE ROUND TABLES WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T COMBINE VERY WELL.
YOU KNOW WHAT, YOU NEVER KNOW.
WE HAVE THREE TABLES, THREE ROUND TABLE WOULD BE PERFECT, YOU KNOW, CHINESE RESTAURANT.
SO PEOPLE WANT TO TALK TO EACH OTHER.
BUT YOU KNOW, YOU NEVER, WE NEVER SAY, YOU KNOW, SEE HOW THEY LIKE, OKAY.
NO, THE TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT IS NOT BASED ON, IT'S BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE.
LIKE CI THINK IT'S REQUIRED BY, UM, HOW MANY SEATS.
IT'S ACTUALLY, AND BOTH, RIGHT? I GUESS IT'S ACTUALLY BOTH.
SO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REVIEWED IT.
I'M JUST LOOKING TO SEE IF I HAVE THEIR MEMO.
UM, THE EXISTING, RIGHT NOW I HAVE ABOUT, UM, ABOUT A HUNDRED SEATS.
SO WILL, I'M, I HAVE A QUESTION.
WILL THIS SEATING'S GONNA BE ADDING TOTAL OF RIN OR, SO HOW THIS WORKS, THE WAY I'M READING THIS AND, AND BASED ON YOUR PLAN, UHHUH, YOU HAPPEN TO STATE, UM, EIGHT UP TO EIGHT SEATS AT EACH TABLE.
UHHUH, BUT THIS PLAN SHOWS SEVEN, WELL, SEVEN AT EACH SEVEN.
THE REASON WHY I'M STATING THAT IS BECAUSE PURSUANT TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S MEMO, THEY'VE IDENTIFIED THAT THE ADDITIONAL RESTAURANT SPACE BASED ON THE 21 SEATS MM-HMM
REQUIRES THE ADDITIONAL SEVEN OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.
UM, SEATING IN THIS CASE IS THE SEATING.
SO IF IT WAS GOING TO BE 21, THEN I PROPOSE WHAT THE, THE MAX PLAN PLAN IS AND WHAT'S WHAT'S BEEN SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
SO WE JUST WANT TO CORRECT THE RECORD THAT IT'S GONNA BE 2121.
SO THE FRONT RETAIL SHOP DOESN'T HAVE ANY SEATINGS.
IT'S JUST SOME GRAB AND GO KIND OF SPACE.
SO THE TOTAL NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL SITTING OF THIS EXPANSION IS 21.
THERE WON'T BE ANY SITTING IN BUBBLE D.
JUST, YOU KNOW, FOR THIS WHOLE AREA IS GONNA BE 21 PEOPLE, RIGHT? MM-HMM
UM, SO ANY FLOATING FROM NEXT DOOR OR NO? UH, THAT'S SOMETHING TO DISCUSS WITH THE BUILDING.
INSPECTOR UHHUH
IF YOU NEEDED TO MOVE A TABLE FROM THE MAIN RIGHT RESTAURANT, YOU JUST HAVE TO CHECK WITH THEM BECAUSE THERE'S CAPACITY LIMITATIONS TOTAL.
AND OTHER FIRE CODE RELATED REQUIREMENTS.
YOU'LL JUST WANT TO DISCUSS WITH THEM.
SOUNDS LIKE IT WOULD BE FLEXIBLE SUBJECT TO THAT'S CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO, YEAH, ONE LAST QUESTION.
IS THAT BUBBLE TEA, UH, IS, IS IT SORT OF SEPARATE FRANCHISE OR IT'S PART OF, UH, IT'S A PART OF MANDER MANDARIN.
SO THERE WILL BE ANY, WOULD THERE BE ANY ADDITIONAL THERE BE, YEAH, THERE WILL BE A, THERE'LL BE, UM, A SIGN, UM, BUT IT'S UNDER UMBRELLAS OLD MAN.
UM, SO IT WILL BE A NEW SIGN OF THE, UM,
UH, IT'S CALLED, IT'S GONNA BE CALLED IT, UM, BECAUSE THERE'S A STOREFRONT.
UM, SO, BUT IN THE BACK OF THE USE, IT'S GONNA BE FOR O MANDARIN ITSELF, IT'S CONNECT TOGETHER.
UM, THEY CAN GRAB TWO THOSE THERE TOO.
UM, THEY CAN ORDER THERE TOO, BUT ALL THE PROCESS WILL BE STILL IN THE KITCHEN.
UM, IT'S JUST TRYING TO UTILIZE THE STOREFRONT? NO, BECAUSE THERE ARE SOME, UH, THE REASON I'M ASKING IS THAT THERE ARE SIGNAGE REGULATIONS, SO, RIGHT.
SO THAT'S ACTUALLY, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'M, UM, THINKING.
I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ADDITIONAL, UH, DOCUMENTS.
UH, IT WILL BE, UH, DIFFERENT BUSINESS SIGN IN FRONT OF THE STOREFRONT.
OH, AT THE, IN THE STOREFRONT.
UH, IT'S ALL ON THEIR OLD MANDARIN, SO, BUT I HAVE A, I HAVE A PERMITS ON THAT ALREADY.
THROUGH THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
EVERYTHING'S ISSUED WITH, WITH IT.
THIS IS JUST, SO WE'RE TRYING TO PROPOSE FOR THE BACK OF THE AREA BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DO THE PLUMBING WHOLE THING TOGETHER.
[00:25:01]
THIS, I CAN DO THE BACK AND BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE PERMITS FOR THAT.'CAUSE I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU HAD QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SIGNAGE, RIGHT? I MEAN, WELL, I JUST THOUGHT ABOUT IT ACTUALLY.
IT'S DIFFERENT PERMIT, WHICH IS MAKES SENSE.
SO MY LAST QUESTION ON SIGNAGE RIGHT NOW, THERE IS A, UH, THE SEPARATE BUSINESS, THEY HAVE A SIGNAGE, SO YOU'RE GONNA REMOVE THAT AND UH, YEAH.
SOMETHING LIKE, WHAT IS IT? IT AUDIT HAD COME OFF.
AND YOU ARE NOT PLANNING TO ADD ANY MORE SIGNAGE THERE? IT WILL BE FOR THE FRONT DIFFERENT PERMITS.
THAT'S GONNA BE DIFFERENT PERMITS WE DISCUSSED FOR, FOR THE BUBBLE TEA SHOP ON TOP OF THAT.
SO IN PLACE OF WHAT IS EXISTING SIGN, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE ONE OF THE SIGN SAYING ABOUT BUBBLE TEA.
THE EXISTING SALLY BEAUTY SIGN IS ALREADY DOWN AND THERE'S A IT SIGN THAT'S CORRECT.
AND WE DO NOT HAVE THE REVIEW.
UM, JUST FOR MY OWN, JUST FOR MY OWN NOTIFICATION, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE DESCRIPTION IT SAYS THAT THERE WERE PREVIOUSLY GRANTED, UH, SHARED SPACE REDUCTIONS PB 1121 AND PB 1209.
IS THAT SPECIFICALLY FOR A MANDARIN OR THE ENTIRE DALEWOOD SHOPPING CENTER? THE ENTIRE SITE.
SO WHEN, WHEN YOU SAY SITE, GOT IT.
UM, ARE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FOR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD SO WE CAN MOVE INTO THE HEARING? OH, YOU WANT, OKAY.
SO NOW WE'RE GONNA MOVE INTO PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, SO JUST GIVE US A COUPLE MINUTES TO RESHUFFLE AND GET UP ON THE DAY AS WE'LL DO THIS ALL AGAIN.
WELCOME TO THE WEDNESDAY, JULY 2ND, 2025, UH, PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
WE ARE OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR O MANDARIN AT VIN.
UH, I WILL, UH, ANNOUNCE THE ROLL CALL I AGAIN, AND THEN WE, UH, SO, UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, PLEASE DO THE ROLL CALL.
MS. ANDERSON, OUR ALTERNATE HERE, UH, WE NOTE THAT MR. WEINBERG IS PRESENT, BUT RECUSING HIMSELF FROM, UH, DISCUSSION OF THIS PROJECT.
AND WE HAVE MS. MOYER, OUR MEMBER ON ZOOM, BUT SHE IS A NON-VOTING MEMBER THIS EVENING.
DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ON, UH, WHAT WE'LL DO IS I CAN KIND OF RESTATE THE CASE FOR ANYONE THAT WAS LISTENING AND, UM, WE'LL ASK MR. LUDA, JUST SAY A FEW WORDS AND THEN WE'LL SEE IF THERE ARE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
SO THE PROJECT, AGAIN IS CASE NUMBER PB 24 DASH 20 O MANDARIN, LOCATED AT 360 3 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE, NORTH PO HARTSDALE, NEW YORK.
AND THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS A PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SO FOR A RESTAURANT, UM, AS WELL AS A PLANNING BOARD SHARED PARKING REDUCTION REQUEST INVOLVING THE PROPOSED CONVERSION OF APPROXIMATELY 1600 SQUARE FEET OF VACANT RETAIL SPACE INTO RESTAURANT SPACE.
ADDING TO THE SIZE OF THE PREEXISTING HOME MANDARIN RESTAURANT.
UM, THE ADDITIONAL RESTAURANT SPACE IS PROPOSED TO CONTAIN UP TO, AS WE DISCUSSED IN WORK SESSION, 21 SEATS, 21 SEATS, AND REQUIRES AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN OFF STREET PARKING SPACES NECESSITATING THE PLANNING BOARD SHARED PARKING REDUCTION REQUEST.
THERE WERE TWO PREVIOUS SHARED PARKING REDUCTION, UM, REDUCTIONS ISSUED OF FIVE SPACES AND SEVEN BASE UNDER CASE NUMBERS PB 11 DASH 21 AND PB 12 DASH OH NINE RESPECTIVELY.
UM, THE SPACE OR THE SITE, I SHOULD SAY, UM, WOULD REQUIRE WITH THIS PROJECT, 312 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 305, WHICH EXISTS, THEY'RE NOT PROPOSING TO REMOVE ANY OFF STREET PARKING SPACES IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT.
AND THERE ARE NO PHYSICAL CHANGES TO THE PROJECT SITE PROPOSED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT.
SO DO YOU JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT, MUCH LIKE YOU DID BEFORE THE PROPOSAL TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THE MANDARIN? SO THE PROJECT IS,
[00:30:01]
IS TO UTILIZE NEXT DOOR, UH, USED TO BE SALLY, UM, BEAUTY, UH, SO 1600 SQUARE FOOT OF, UH, RETAIL SHOP.TURNING TO THE, THE FRONT IS GONNA BE A BUBBLE T SHOP.
AND, UH, THE BACK SPACE GONNA BE ABOUT 21, UM, SEATINGS FOR A PRIVATE EVENT ROOM.
UM, AT ALL THE ENTRANCES WE COMBINED WITH CURRENT OLD MANDARIN, UH, RESTAURANT ENTRANCE, UH, KITCHEN AS WELL.
UM, WE ARE NOT CHANGING ANY SEATING FOR EXISTING RESTAURANT.
JUST ADD TO THE ADDITIONAL AND YOU'LL HAVE A RESTROOM IN THE REAR.
YEAH, THERE IS ALSO, UM, EXISTING RESTROOM.
UM, BUT WE WILL, UM, CHANGE TO OPPOSITE LOCATION, NON CHANGE OF USE.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU'D LIKE THE APPLICANT TO STATE? IF NOT, ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS PROJECT? EITHER IN THE AUDIENCE OR ON ZOOM? I THERE BEING NONE.
THE BOARD WOULD BE IN POSITION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROJECT.
YOU, YOU ARE NOT HERE FOR THE O MANDARIN PROJECT, ARE YOU? OKAY.
UM, THE BOARD WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LEAVE THE WRITTEN RECORD OPEN FOR ONE WEEK THROUGH JULY 9TH.
AND, UH, REQUEST THAT STAFF PREPARE A SECRET DETERMINATION AND DECISION FOR ITS CONSIDERATION AT OUR NEXT MEETING ON JULY 16TH.
SO, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, WE'D LIKE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, LEAVE THE RECORD OPEN UNTIL JULY 9TH.
A WEEK FROM TODAY, AND DIRECT THE STAFF TO, UM, RE IN MOTION FOR THIS.
DIRECT THE STAFF TO PREPARE A, SEEK A DETERMINATION, SEEK A, OR, OR THE IT'S ALL IN ONE.
UM, IT'S COM IF YOU GOTTA GO, WHY DON'T YOU GO? BECAUSE WE COULD, IT COULD TAKE SOME TIME.
WE HAVE A LOT OF MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC.
SO, UM, MR. WEINBERG, YOU'RE FREE TO COME UP TO THE DAY.
OUR CHAIR, MS. DAVIS, HAS TO LEAVE THIS EVENING.
SO OUR, UM, VICE CHAIRPERSON, MR. PINE, WILL BE RUNNING THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE LEVY PROJECT, WHICH IS UP NEXT CASE NUMBER PB 24 DASH 22.
AND JUST FOR EVERYONE HERE THIS EVENING, THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF A PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS HELD ON JUNE 4TH, 2025 TO DISCUSS A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION WETLAND WATER COURSE PERMIT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION.
I'LL TURN THINGS OVER TO MR. AMIR.
GOOD EVENING, UH, BOARD JACOB AMIR FROM Z STEINITZ ON BEHALF OF JENNIFER AND JARED LEVY, 1 34 EUCLID AVENUE LEY.
UH, WE'VE APPEARED BEFORE YOUR BOARD SEVERAL TIMES.
UM, I WON'T GO THROUGH THE ENTIRE HISTORY.
I'M SURE IT'S FAMILIAR TO EVERYONE.
UM, LAST TIME WE WERE HERE ON JUNE FOUR AND TO UPDATE, I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT FROM THAT MEETING, UM, THAT WE UPDATED, UH, STEPH AND YOUR BOARD ON.
SO THERE WAS A, A, A THOUGHT RAISED AS TO WHETHER THERE IS A RESTRICTION, A TITLE RESTRICTION ON SUBDIVISION.
SO WE CONTACTED BENCHMARK TITLE TO RUN A TITLE REPORT.
WE PROVIDED, UH, THE TOWN WITH MY CLIENT'S 2006 TITLE REPORT WITH THE CURRENT BENCHMARK TITLE, TITLE REPORT, AND A NEIGHBOR EVEN PROVIDED TO THE TOWN WITH A TITLE REPORT FROM TITLE VEST.
ALTHOUGH THE, THAT TITLE VEST REPORT SEEMS A LITTLE IN MISSING A FEW INSTRUMENTS.
SO WE HAVE THREE TITLE REPORTS FROM THREE DIFFERENT SOURCES, AND ALL OF THEM COME TO THE SAME CONCLUSION.
IF YOU READ THROUGH ALL THE TITLE
[00:35:01]
DOCUMENTS, THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON SUBDIVISION.THERE IS A DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, WHICH IN PART TALKS ABOUT THINGS THAT CAN AND CANNOT HAPPEN ON A PROPERTY ON WHAT WAS ONCE THE HARDLY ESTATES.
BUT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION RECORDED AS TO A SUBDIVISION THAT NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY STATED.
AND THAT ISSUE NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, ADOPTED, SO TO SPEAK.
UM, THE SECOND ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED FROM THE JUNE 4TH MEETING WAS THERE WAS AN, UH, INADVERTENT ERROR IN THE APPLICATION ON A NOTATION OF CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS.
UH, WE UPDATED THAT APPLICATION PAGE.
THERE ARE TWO CIVIC ASSOCIATIONS IDENTIFIED ON GREENBURG'S GIS, WINDING FARM ROADS AND HILLCREST PARK ARTLEY ASSOCIATION, BOTH OF WHOM HAVE ADDRESSES WHERE NOTICES HAD BEEN SENT.
UH, ONE OF WHOM IS THE NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH, UH, OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, AN ELECTRICAL INSPECTOR IS BEING ARRANGED FOR THE, FOR THE ISSUE OF THE HOT TUB.
UH, THERE'S AN ISSUE OF THE FOREVER GREEN ON THE SERVING.
WHAT DOES THE FOREVERGREEN MEAN THROUGH THE TITLE SEARCHES? UH, WE, UM, WE SAW THAT THERE WAS A FOREVERGREEN EASEMENT CREATED UNDER THE 1994 SUBDIVISION MAP THAT BASICALLY IS A TWO FOOT EASEMENT AROUND THE PERIMETER OF WHAT WAS THE ODDS ESTATES TO PREVENT BUILDINGS, MANMADE STRUCTURE TREES, BUT NOT SHRUBS AND PLANTINGS AND LAWN.
SO IT IS A, IS A COMMON BASIC EASEMENT FOR LIMITED RESTRICTIONS, MOSTLY FOR MANMADE PURPOSES.
UM, AND IT'S ADHERE TO, I BELIEVE, UNDER THIS, UNDER THIS PLAN.
AND I WANNA BRING TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION BECAUSE SINCE IT IS A RECORD AND SINCE IT WAS BROUGHT UP IN THE LANDSCAPING REPORT AND PAUL JENNINGS LANDSCAPING REPORT, THERE DOES APPEAR TO BE A PROPOSAL FOR A COUPLE OF TREES ON WHAT WE'RE CALLING LOT ONE, THE HOUSE LOT, WHICH MIGHT BE IN THE EASEMENT.
SO TO THE EXTENT THAT WE NEED TO, ALL WE NEED TO DO IS REMOVE THOSE TREES AND PUT SHRUBS IN THERE.
SO THAT'S THE SAME SHRUBS THAT ARE JUST TO THE EAST OF THAT, THAT ARE PROPOSED.
THAT ACTUALLY MAKES IT BETTER 'CAUSE IT MAKES IT MORE SYMMETRICAL AND MORE CONSISTENT.
UM, IF THAT IS A, IF THAT IS A CONCERN OF THIS BOARD, THAT'S EASILY REMEDIED.
THERE WAS, UM, ALSO A NOTATION ON, UH, THERE'S A QUESTION I THINK THAT THE TOWN HAD RAISED ABOUT THE SHED, UH, TO THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.
SHEDS ARE GONE, EVERYTHING'S REMOVED.
THAT ALSO IS, IS A SIMPLE REMEDY AND DONE.
UM, I WANT TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF COMMENTS THAT, THAT I THINK THE TOWN RECEIVED FROM THE NEIGHBOR AT 1 32 EUCLID.
'CAUSE SOME OF THOSE REITERATE OR REPEAT WHAT HAD BEEN SAID ON JUNE 4TH.
THE FIRST IS THE ISSUE OF A SUBDIVISION RESTRICTION.
I THINK WE'VE EXHAUSTED THAT ISSUE.
UM, BUT THAT NEIGHBOR HAD SUGGESTED THAT EVEN IF A SUBDIVISION'S PERMITTED, WHICH IT IS PERMITTED AS OF RIGHT AND WE DON'T NEED ANY VARIANCES, WE'RE WITHIN, UH, CODE THAT THERE IS A RESTRICTION ON DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY.
IN OTHER WORDS, PUTTING A HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY FIRST, THAT'S PREMATURE, RIGHT? THERE IS NO PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A HOUSE ON WHAT WE PROPOSE TO BE THE NEW LOT.
IF AND WHEN THAT PROPOSAL COMES BEFORE YOUR BOARD, THAT ISSUE CAN BE ADDRESSED THEN.
UH, BUT IF YOUR BOARD WANTS TO ADDRESS IT, THE DOCUMENT THAT REFERENCES THAT ARGUMENT IS THE DECLARATION OF RESTRICTIVE COVENANT OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, AND SPECIFICALLY LANGUAGE IN THERE, UM, THAT SAYS THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE RESTRICTION IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PROPERTY SHALL BE COMPATIBLE.
UM, AND BASICALLY THE INFERENCE BEING YOU CAN'T PUT UP A NEW HOUSE THERE.
WELL, THE PARAGRAPH THAT REFERS TO THAT PURPOSE OF THAT RESTRICTION REFERS TO FENCES, POOLS, TENNIS COURTS, STORAGE BUILDINGS, THINGS WHICH SEEMED TO BE ACCESSORY TO A BUILDING.
AND JUST AS A MATTER OF LOGIC, THE SUBDIVISION HAPPENED IN 1994.
THE DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS WAS RECORDED IN 1994.
SO IF BY LOGIC THAT DECLARATION PRECLUDED THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOMES, THEN NONE OF THE HOMES WOULD BE ABLE TO EXIST, INCLUDING MY CLIENT'S HOME.
SO CLEARLY BY LOGIC AND A REASONABLE INTERPRETATION, IT DOES NOT APPLY, BUT IT'S PREMATURE AT ANY EVENT.
UM, SECONDLY, THE, THE NEIGHBOR, AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO ADDRESS THESE 'CAUSE THEY WERE COMMENTS
[00:40:01]
RECEIVED.THE NEIGHBOR, UM, MADE A REFERENCE TO WATER PRESSURE.
I THINK, UH, HUDSON ENGINEERING IS ON.
IF THEY ARE, GREAT, IF THEY'RE NOT, I CAN TOUCH IT, I'LL TOUCH UPON IT.
BUT THERE'S A REFERENCE TO INSUFFICIENT WATER PRESSURE.
THE SAME RESPONSE ONE, IT'S, WE ARE ONLY SEEKING A SUBDIVISION TO CREATE A LOT ON WHAT IS NOW VACANT LAND.
WE'RE NOT PROPOSING THE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOME.
WHEN THAT, IF AND WHEN THAT HAPPENS, THE ISSUE OF WATER AND WATER, UH, SUPPLY MAY BECOME RELEVANT.
BUT EVEN IF IT IS CONSIDERED NOW, UM, THE NOTION THAT THE POSSIBLE CONSTRUCTION, THE SUBDIVISION OF A LOT WOULD CREATE WATER PRESSURE ISSUES, JUST DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE RIGHT, UNDER THIS APPLICATION, BECAUSE WE'RE NOT AFFECTING WATER PRESSURE.
SO IT'S, IT SHOULD NOT BE A CONSIDERATION.
AND THE LAST POINT THAT WAS RAISED, THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WILL CHANGE IF THE SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED.
MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY IS APPROXIMATELY 23,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS TO CREATE TWO LOTS OUT OF THAT, AN APPROXIMATE 10 THOU, A 12,000 SOMETHING SQUARE FOOT LOT.
THE HOMES ON THE SOUTHERLY SIDE OF EUCLID AVENUE TO THE EAST OF MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY, IF YOU GO DOWN THE ROW OF HOMES, THEY ARE IN A RANGE OF 11,920,000 SQUARE FEET, UH, TO 13,375,000 SQUARE FEET.
SO THE CREATION OF A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND A 12,984 SQUARE FOOT LOT ARE COMPLETELY WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THE HOMES ALONG EUCLID AVENUE.
SO IT WOULDN'T, IT WOULDN'T CHANGE IT, UH, IT WOULDN'T CHA NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE HOMES.
UM, WE'VE ADDRESSED RESPECTFULLY ALL THE ISSUES THAT THIS BOARD HAS RAISED.
I KNOW THERE WAS ANOTHER COMMENT BY ANOTHER NEIGHBOR, UM, IN THE AREA TALKING ABOUT, UH, NOT OBJECTING TO ACTUALLY CREATION OF A POOL OR STORAGE, ET CETERA, BUT OBJECTING TO A POSSIBLE SUBDIVISION.
THE SAME ARGUMENT IN RESPONSE, SAME, SAME, UH, POINT IN RESPONSE.
THERE IS NO RESTRICTION RECORDED AS TO SUBDIVISION AND IT'S PERFECTLY PERMITTED UNDER, UNDER THE CODE.
UM, THAT BEING SAID, UNLESS THE BOARD HAS ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR ME, UH, I WOULD ASK THIS EVENING THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED.
THIS BOARD HAD ALREADY ISSUED NEGATIVE DECLARATION PROCEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND, AND MOVE TOWARDS RESOLUTION.
UM, ONE BEING YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE, UH, A PROPOSED HOUSE COMING BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD, THAT'S NOT THE CASE HERE.
THE PLANNING BOARD DOESN'T HAVE SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE UNLESS THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR IMPACTS.
THE BOARD MAY CONDITION THAT IT WOULD COME BACK WITH RENDERINGS, BUT THAT'S NOT ALWAYS THE CASE.
UM, SECOND OF ALL, IN ADDITION TO THE, THE DOCUMENT FOR THE FOREVER EASEMENT, THERE'S ALSO A NOTE ON THE SUBDIVISION PLAT, WHICH TALKS ABOUT PREVENTING VEHICULAR TRAFFIC OR UTILITY CROSSING.
JUST TO CONFIRMING THAT THERE'S NO UTILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA THAT'S IN, WITHIN, WITHIN THE FOREVER EASEMENT OR CORRECT.
AND, AND, AND TO YOUR FIRST POINT, THERE IS A, UM, A FOOTPRINT FOR A PROPOSED HOUSE ON THE, ON THE PLAT, RIGHT? THAT'S REQUIRED WITH THE SUBDIVISION.
BUT NOT RENDERING, BUT NOT THE RENDER SITE PLAN THAT WOULD RIGHT.
WE CAN'T PROVIDE RENDERINGS RIGHT NOW.
SO YOU SAID THAT THE DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANT WAS SIGNED IN 1994 AND REPORTED IN 1994.
AND THE STRUCTURES WERE, THE HOMES IN THE AREA WERE BUILT AFTER 1994.
SO IT, THE, NONE OF THE BUILDINGS WOULD'VE BEEN ABLE TO BE BUILT IF THE INTERPRETATION OF THAT WAS THAT THE DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS PREVENTED THOSE STRUCTURES.
AM I UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE CHRONOLOGY, CORRECT.
SO I'M LOOKING AT THIS AND IT SAYS THAT WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT AND DESIGN APPROVAL OF THE GRANTOR, SO COULDN'T IT BE THAT THOSE, THOSE BUILT THE, THE, THE HOMES WERE BUILT WITH THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT AND DESIGN APPROVAL OF THE GRANDER? WELL, ONE, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE RECORD, IN THE PUBLIC RECORD IN THE, IN THE, IN THE RECORDED TITLE OF THE COUNTY CLERK, WHICH WOULD INDICATE AN APPROVAL GRANTED.
AND I, AND THAT'S ONE AND TWO, I BELIEVE THAT PROVISION, I'M, AND I'M LOOKING TO TURN TO IT, BUT I BELIEVE THAT PROVISION REFERS TO AFTER SUBDIVISION, UM, I THINK UP TO 60% OF THE OWNERS IN WHAT WAS NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO.
NO, THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M LOOKING AT.
I'M LOOKING AT, UM, THE, WHERE IT SAYS THAT, YOU KNOW, NO ADDITIONS, NO,
[00:45:02]
NO FENCE AND GROUND POOL, TENNIS COURT.UM, I, YOU KNOW, AND IT, IT MIGHT NOT EVEN MATTER FOR THIS.
I JUST WANTED TO UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU WERE SAYING, AND I THINK I DISAGREE WITH IT.
UM, UH, I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION AND I'M LOSING MY TRACK.
SO I I AGREE WITH YOUR TRAIN OF THOUGHT.
UM, THAT YOUR, YOUR, SO I THINK YOU MADE YOUR STATEMENT TO COUNTER STATEMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN THE CORRESPONDENCE.
UM, BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO IMMATERIAL BECAUSE, UH, I THINK THE LANGUAGE HERE IS SPECIFIC TO ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, FENCES, TENNIS COURTS, AND, UM, THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOTHING EXPRESSLY PROHIBITING SUBDIVISION KIND OF INDICATES THAT WAS NOT INTENDED TO INCLUDE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
IT'S WHAT WE JUST SAY, ADDITION OR IMPROVEMENT, BUT WHATEVER, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
UH, THE, UM, YOU ALSO SAID THAT THE, THE, THE SUBDIVISION, SO IT'LL BE 10,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE OTHER LIKE 12,000, IS THAT LIKE 12,900 ROUGHLY? YEP.
BUT THE, THE SMALLEST LOT ON THE BLOCK IS 11, OR ON THIS SIDE OF THE BLOCK IS 11,000.
SO THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THAT RANGE.
IT'S, IT'S OUTSIDE OF THAT RANGE SLIGHTLY.
BUT YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S A RANGE OF HOUSES.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IF YOU THINK A RANGE OF 11,000 TO 13,000, THAT'S, THAT'S A, YOU KNOW, THAT'S 2000 SQUARE FEET.
SO YOU ONE CAN SAY BY THAT LOGIC THAT MAYBE THAT'S OUT OF CHARACTER, BUT IT REALLY, IT REALLY ISN'T.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND IT, AND AGAIN, THAT'S PERMITTED UNDER THE CODE.
THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S REQUIRED FOR MINIMUM, UH, LOT SIZE.
IT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY VARIANCES.
DID THE OTHER LOTS IN THE, UH, SUBDIVISION ED JUST PUT ON YOUR MIC? I'M SORRY, THE OTHER LOTS IN THE SUBDIVISION, ARE THEY SIMILAR SIZE BETWEEN 11 AND 13? OR HAVEN'T YOU LOOKED AT THAT? I DID NOT ALL OF THEM.
SO, SO ON THE SOUTHERN SIDE WHERE MY CLIENT RESIDES, UM, AGAIN, AS I SAID, THERE ARE, THERE, THERE ARE THOSE, WHICH WOULD BE SIMILAR TO WHAT THE PROPOSED LOTS WOULD BE.
ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EUCLID, THERE ARE RECTANGULAR LOTS, WHICH ARE, UH, DIFFERENT.
THE HOUSES ARE TOWARDS THE FRONT OF THE STREET.
THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, YARD IN THE BACK.
SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LONGER.
UM, I HAVEN'T LOOKED AT ALL THE HOUSES, BUT THERE ARE VARIATIONS OF THEM.
BUT, BUT JUST JUST TO NOTE, EVEN WITH THE HOUSES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EUCLID, AND IF YOU LOOKED AT THE, THE SUBDIVISION MAP, FOR INSTANCE, EVEN THOSE HOUSES, THE HOUSES ARE CLOSER TO THE STREET.
SO ONE WOULD THINK REASONABLY IF YOU DRIVE BY THERE, UM, THOSE HOUSES LOOK SIMILAR IN SIZE TO THE HOUSES ON THE SOUTH SIDE, JUST BASED UPON THE LOCATION OF THE HOME ON THAT PROPERTY.
SO THAT'S HOW THIS WOULD CONFORM, CONFORM TO THAT.
BUT AGAIN, IT'S ZONING COMPLIANT AND IT'S PERMITTED, PERMITTED.
AND MY CLIENT, AND I JUST, JUST TO ADD TO A COUPLE POINTS, UH, MY CLIENT JUST INFORMED ME THAT 34 SHELDON IS 10,000, UH, FIVE SQUARE, 10,005, 10,005 SQUARE FEET, 10,005.
AND THAT'S, AND IF I CAN ASK, HOW, HOW FAR IS THAT? IS THAT DOWN THE STREET? STREET, RIGHT DOWN THE STREET FROM THE PROPERTY? UH, MR. DESAI? UH, YEAH, I, I THINK, UH, UH, I DON'T HAVE ANY LEGAL, UH, QUESTIONS LIKE PAPER LAWYERS CAN ASK YOU, BUT, UH, I'M JUST, UH, CURIOUS, WHEN YOU, ONE SIDE YOU SAY THE ALL YOU ARE ASKING US, OR YOU ARE IN FRONT OF A BOARD IS TO JUST GRANT A SUBDIVISION AND FORGET ABOUT IT'S GONNA BE HOUSED THERE OR NOT.
NOW, ON OTHER SIDE, TO THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU ARE, UH, ARGUING THAT IT WILL BE THE SAME KIND OF, UH, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD.
YOU ARE REALLY ASKING US TO APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION AND THEN COME BACK AND APPROVE, UH, WITH THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU ARE PUTTING THAT THIS IS, UH, WE SHOULD NOT REALLY LOOK BEYOND, UH, WHAT IS GOING TO BE THERE.
SO A I WANTED TO HAVE A LITTLE CLARIFICATION.
WHAT IS THE INTENT OF SUBDIVISION B? IF, UH, WHAT, WHAT I UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORS HAVE A CONCERN IS, IS THAT NOT THE TECHNICAL LEGAL THINGS, BUT AS MUCH AS THE, THE, THE OVERALL, UH, INTENT OF THE GOVERNANCE AND THE, UH, AND THE RESTRICTIONS THAT WAS PUT INTO IT.
SO IF YOU CAN ADDRESS THAT TWO POINTS.
SO AGAIN, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE APPLICATION BEFORE THIS BOARD IS FOR A SUBDIVISION.
BUT IF, IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR US TO
[00:50:01]
SPECULATE GOING FORWARD, WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN? ONE, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S WITHIN, YOU KNOW, WOULD BE RIGHT FOR ME TO SPECULATE, BUT ONE CAN REASONABLY SAY AT SOME POINT SOMEBODY MAY WANT TO PUT A HOUSE UP THERE.I, I DON'T THINK IT'S SPECULATION.
IT'S THE CONSEQUENCES OF SUBDIVISION.
AND WE, WE USUALLY LOOK AT IT, THE WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO DO WITH IT? I MEAN, YOU DON'T WANT TO SPEND YOUR
SO, SO IF, SO LOGICALLY SPEAKING, IF, IF A HOUSE WERE TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE, WHAT WE'LL CALL THE, THE VACANT SIDE, RIGHT? THE LOT TWO, WE'RE CALLING IT ONE THAT WOULD BE ON A PERMITTED LOT IN THE R 10 DISTRICT, IT WOULD BE ZONING COMPLIANT UNLESS WHOMEVER DECIDES TO BRING THAT APPLICATION IS LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR WHATEVER REASON.
BUT LET'S JUST SAY FOR THE SAKE OF DISCUSSION THAT THEY'RE NOT, THEY WOULD BE A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE BUILT ON A 10,008 SQUARE FOOT LOT.
UH, THE FOOTPRINT IS ALREADY ON THE SUBDIVISION MAP, AT LEAST PROPOSED, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST SORT OF DESCRIBED, UM, IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO ADD ONE HOUSE THERE.
AND, UM, I, I, I'M NOT SURE THERE'S MUCH MORE THAT I COULD SPEAK.
AND BY THE WAY, THERE IS A LANDSCAPING PLAN AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION, WHICH WOULD BE BINDING, WHICH, WHICH, WHICH WOULD CARRY TO THAT PROPOSAL.
SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE TO REINVENT A LANDSCAPING, UH, YOU KNOW, PLAN.
IT WOULD, IT WOULD ALREADY BE THERE.
UM, AND THAT GIVES YOU THE SENSE THAT LANDSCAPING PLAN GIVES YOU THE SENSE OF WHAT THE LANDSCAPING, THE TOPOGRAPHY WOULD LOOK LIKE.
AND YOU HAVE THE PROPOSED FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE, UM, IN FRONT OF IT.
IS THE LANDSCAPING PLAN STILL RELIANT ON MAKE, ON PLANTING, UH, OR MAKING PLANTINGS ON OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTIES? IT'S, YEAH.
REQUIRED BY THE CRC, UM, AND THE SOUTHERLY NEIGHBOR HAD SUBMITTED AN EMAIL CONSENTING TO IT AND HE'S, HE'S FINE WITH IT.
SO YEAH, IT'S, IT'S A REQUIREMENT.
UM, SO BACK TO COR, YOUR CONCERN, SO IT WAS SOMETHING I HAD MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY IS THAT IF THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT OF A HOUSE AT THAT TIME, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS PREVIOUSLY, AND YOU CAN CONDITION THAT IT WOULD COME BACK WITH RENDERINGS TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NO POTENTIAL IMPACTS.
YEAH, NO, I, I, I, WE HAVE DONE THAT, BUT USUALLY WE, WE TAKE IT AS, AS A WHOLE PACKAGE OF IT'S DIVIDING IT AND, UH, FUTURE, IT'S, IT'S THINGS THAT WHAT YOU DO.
LEGALLY THAT'S WHAT WE REQUIRE, THAT YOU CAN COME BACK AND IT'S NOT CUSTOMARY FOR AN APPLICANT TO HAVE A SUBDIVISION STANDALONE.
BECAUSE USUALLY YOU SEE A SUBDIVISION WITH THE, WITH THE LATER PROPO WITH PROPOSALS TO BUILD ON IT.
BUT AT LEAST I'VE BEEN IN SITUATIONS, NOT IN GREENBERG, IN MUNICIPALITIES WHERE, FOR INSTANCE, SOMEBODY SUBDIVIDED ONE LOT INTO THREE LOTS, BUILDING A HOUSE ON TWO AND LEAVING A THIRD LOT FOR WHATEVER REASON COULD BE A NUMBER OF REASONS WHY.
UM, SO I HAVE, I HAVE SEEN THAT.
AND SO JUST SHOWING LIKE WHERE THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE IS, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, UM, LOCATION OF DRIVEWAY LANDSCAPING, UH, LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE, THOSE ARE REQUIRED, BUT ACTUAL RENDERINGS ARE NOT WHEN IT'S FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? CAN I ASK ONE QUESTION AGAIN? ONE MORE QUESTION.
IN ANY OF THE RECORDED DOCUMENTS, AND I, I LOOKED AT THE PROTECTED COVENANTS, BUT I HAVEN'T READ THE REST OF THE, IS THERE ANY, ARE THERE ANY DESIGN STANDARDS FOR A HOUSE? NO, NOT THAT I'VE SEEN.
UM, AND IN, IN THE TITLE REPORT, FOR INSTANCE, THAT, UM, THAT MY CLIENT RECEIVED IN 2006, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH BENCHMARKS TITLE REPORT TODAY, THERE ARE A LIST IN SCHEDULE B OF ALL THE COVENANTS RESTRICTIONS, RECORDED DOCUMENTS.
AND I PROVIDED TO THIS BOARD A HANDWRITTEN NOTATION AND MOST OF THEM RELATE TO WATER AND SEWER DRAINS, EASEMENTS FOR, FOR DEVELOPMENT, THOSE, THOSE KIND OF, THOSE KIND OF THINGS.
SO NO, NOTHING IN TERMS OF DESIGN.
OH, WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF I, I DON'T NECESSARILY AGREE WITH THAT EITHER.
I MEAN, THE, THE DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS DOES STAY STUFF ABOUT, I MEAN, I GUESS IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED, BUT IT SAYS STUFF ABOUT, UM, NOT BLOCKING LIGHT AND AIR.
IT SAYS, UM, UH, THE DESIGNS OF ALL STRUCTURES TO BE ERECTED ON ANY LOT MUST BE APPROVED BY THE GRANTOR PRIOR TO SUCH DIRECTION.
THERE'S, THERE'S QUITE A BIT HERE.
IF IT'S, UM, IT'S THE DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE GOVERNANCE.
OH, I WOULD, I WOULD AGREE THAT IT'S THAT THOSE THAT LANGUAGE REFERS TO TO THAT YOU MAY USE THE WORD DESIGN, BUT MORE THE USE HERE YOU GO
[00:55:01]
IN PARTICULAR USE.BUT THE, THE PURPOSE OF THIS RESTRICTION IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PROPERTY SHALL BE COMPATIBLE AND AESTHETICALLY APPEALING.
EACH LOT OWNER SHALL ACT TO ENSURE THAT THE PROPERTY AND EACH LOT REMAIN OPEN TO LIGHT AND AIR AND IT GOES ON, YOU CAN'T BLOCK OTHERS' VIEWS.
UM, DID NO ABOVE GROUND POOLS WILL BE PERMITTED THAT IT'S GOT THE LANGUAGE I SAID ABOUT THE STRUCTURES MUST BE APPROVED BY THE GRANTOR.
UM, THE GRADING OF THIS ISN'T THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING THAT'S A GRADING.
SO ANYWAY, IF YOU WANTED TO LOOK AT IT, THAT'S, THAT IT'S AT LEAST THERE.
AND I THINK I, I WOULD ADD THAT IF THAT'S INTENT, THEN UH, UH, THE PRESSURE IS A RELEVANT ISSUE WHEN YOU SAY THAT, UH, YOU ARE JUST ASKING FOR SUBDIVIDE A LOT, BUT, UH, DON'T, DON'T REALLY KIND OF, UH, UH, ADDRESS THE ISSUE OF THE WATER PRESSURE.
BUT, UH, BUT I THINK, UH, WHAT WE ARE REALLY UNDER SAYING THAT YOU CANNOT JUST SEPARATE IT.
BECAUSE WHEN WE ISSUE THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT WE GOING TO, WHEN YOU COME BACK, AS AMANDA SAID, THAT YOU HAVE TO COME BACK, WE UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, THE INTENT AND IDEA OF THE SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN MET BEFORE WE APPROVE, JUST START DRAWING A LINE BETWEEN.
SO THAT IS A VERY RELEVANT QUESTION, UH, RAISED BY THE NEIGHBORS.
AND I THINK, UH, THE BOARD HAS ALSO RAISED THE SAME QUESTIONS THAT HOW YOU, YOU TO RESOLVE THE PRESSURE ISSUE, WHICH IS BEEN WHEN MENTIONED.
WELL, I'LL, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA ASK ABDULAZIZ TO STEP IN IN A SECOND IF HE'S ON, BUT I'LL, I'LL JUST, YES, HE IS.
SO I'LL JUST, I'LL SAY ONE, IT'S, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO FULLY ADDRESS THE WATER PRESSURE ISSUE WITHOUT HAVING AN APPLICATION FOR A DWELLING.
UM, BECAUSE FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS.
SO, SORRY, BUT WHY DON'T YOU TAKE A WORST CASE SCENARIO AND ADDRESS IT.
I CAN'T TAKE A WORST CASE SCENARIO.
IT'S ACTUALLY AT THE APPLICANT'S, UM, IF THEY WERE TO BE APPROVED AND PROCEED WITH THE HOUSE IN THE FUTURE, THEY WOULD BE AT THEIR OWN RISK TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS THE WATER FLOW REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN.
AND THEY WOULD, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO, AND WE WOULD HAVE, THE APPLICANT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO, TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE THE TOWN TO, UM, PROVIDE A WILLING TO SERVE LETTER REGARDING, UM, WATER AND SEWER USE.
SO THESE ARE ALL STEPS THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO TAKE EVENTUALLY, BUT THIS IS POST GETTING THROUGH WITH THE SUBDIVISION, UH, APPROVAL.
COULD YOU, AND IF ANYTHING, THE APPLICANT WOULD BE OKAY WITH PROVIDING BOOSTER PUMPS IF THAT IS NECESSARY FOR, TO GET THE, UH, APPROPRIATE PRESSURE NEEDED.
COULD YOU, UH, STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? ABDULAZIZ YUSEF
AND YOU'RE WITH PROJECT ENGINEER FOR 1 34 EUCLID ENGINEER FOR 1 34 EUCLID.
THE ONLY THING I ADD IS THAT, UH, UH, UH, AARON, CAN WE, OR CAN WE CONDITION THAT THIS SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WOULD BE NULL AND WHITE IF THEY CANNOT GET THESE WATER PRESSURE THINGS? WELL, THEY JUST, I DON'T KNOW HOW YOU WOULD, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO CONDITION, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD IF RIGHT.
IF THEY OR THEY'D HAVE TO MAKE SOME SORT OF AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE SYSTEM TO MAINTAIN OR INCREASE THE PRESSURE.
SO WE CAN, UH, ADD SOME KIND OF LANGUAGE THAT, UH, UH, SATISFIES THE, UH, NOT THE OWNER, BUT ALSO THE NEIGHBORS, WHICH THEY HAVE SHOWN A CONCERN ABOUT THE WATER PRESSURE.
WELL, I, I'M, I'M GONNA PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT ON THAT.
I, I BELIEVE YOU, YOU, YOU CAN AS A, WELL, YOU AS A BOARD I GUESS CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANNA DO, BUT I THINK THE APPROPRIATE THING WOULD BE IF YOU WERE GOING TO ISSUE A CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU MAY REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO CONTACT WESTCHESTER DEPART COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
AND, AND GET FROM WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, SOME KIND OF A LETTER WITH RESPECT TO THIS SUBDIVISION BEFORE ISSUING FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND SUBDIVISION PLAT, THAT I GUESS WE COULD DO WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT WHEN YOU SAY, UM, CONDITIONED ON THE SATISFACTION OF THE NEIGHBORS, ONE THAT OPENS UP A DOOR TO ANYTHING, FIRST OF ALL.
AND SECOND, IT'S VERY HARD TO QUANTIFY AND QUALIFY.
SO IF THE, IF THE RESOLUTION SAID SO LONG AS IT MET TOWN COUNTY CODE, INCLUDING CODE WITH RESPECT TO WATER PRESSURE, THAT'S NOT ONLY FINE.
I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY APPROPRIATE, BUT NOT THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, NEIGHBOR'S COMMENTS ARE GOING TO BE ALSO, YOU KNOW, RESOLVED.
SO I, I DON'T THINK IT'S A NEIGHBOR'S COMMENTS.
[01:00:01]
OF THE, UH, THE DOCUMENTATION THAT YOU PROVIDED UPFRONT.SO I DON'T THINK IT'S ONLY NEIGHBORS CAME UP WITH IT, IT WAS DOCUMENTED AND WELL, I THINK THAT'S HOW I READ.
BUT THERE, I, I AGREE THAT THERE COULD BE A NOTE THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO MEET ANY WATER FLOW REQUIREMENTS PER TOWN AND THE COUNTY MM-HMM
BUT WE CAN'T REQUIRE THAT THEY, UH, CONSULT WITH, UH, THE NEIGHBORS AND, AND ON THE WATER FLOW ISSUE.
AND, AND AGAIN, JUST TO CLARIFY, IF, IF THE APPLICANT WAS UNABLE TO SATISFY, UH, THE TOWN OR THE COUNTY REQUIREMENTS, THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, WITH BUILDING, CORRECT.
SO IT'S EFFECTIVELY CONDITIONING THE ABILITY TO, TO BUILD AN ADDITIONAL HOME.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD THEN? IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? CAN WE JUST HAVE A SHOW OF HANDS ON WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? WILL THERE BE MORE THAN ONE SPEAKER? YES.
CAN WE SEE IT? THE HANDS? 1, 2, 3, 4.
WE JUST WANNA MAKE SURE, 'CAUSE WE HAVE SOME OTHERS ON ZOOM AND WE WANT TO GIVE EVERYONE AN APPROPRIATE RIGHT IF, UH, OPPORTUNITY.
IF, IF THE FIRST SPEAKER WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.
I'LL LET YOU FIGURE THAT OUT YOURSELVES.
AND WHILE THERE ARE NO TIME LIMITATIONS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, FOR THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, WE WOULD ASK ANY, UH, ADDITIONAL SPEAKERS IF THEY AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS ALREADY STATED, NOT TO REPEAT THEM, BUT INDICATE THAT YOU JUST AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS THAT WERE ALREADY PROVIDED.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I'M DAVID ROSENBAUM, UH, PROPERTY OWNER AT 1 32 EUCLID AVENUE, WHICH IS THE LOT RIGHT NEXT TO 1 34.
UH, ALSO SPEAKING TONIGHT IS PRESIDENT OF THE RC ESTATE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, WHICH I WAS NOT ABLE TO SPEAK IN THAT ROLE LAST TIME 'CAUSE WE HAD NOT MET AS A CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
UH, WE ARE OPPOSED TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION.
WE'RE APPROVED TO THE APPRO OPPOSED TO THE APPROVAL TO REMOVE ANY TREES.
AND WE'RE OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST FOR THE WATERLAND AND WETLAND RECOURSE ON PERMIT.
UH, I DO WANT TO COMMENT ONE THING, A MISTAKE I MADE ON MY LAST PRESENTATION.
I REFERRED TO R THE ESTATES AS HAVING 36 LOTS.
UH, I READ THROUGH THE, UH, SECTION 8 3 80, BLOCK THREE SEVEN, BLOCK TWO 70 THAT HAS 36, BUT ONLY 34 OF THEM WITHIN RC ESTATES.
SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT DISCREPANCY BEFORE GOING THROUGH, AND I'M NOT GONNA REITERATE BECAUSE I SENT A LOT OF INFORMATION TO THIS PLANNING BOARD.
I'M GONNA SUMMARIZE SOME OF IT.
I WON'T READ THROUGH ALL OF IT, BUT TO ONE OF THE POINTS OF THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY RAISED ABOUT THE QUESTION, IF NONE OF THE HOUSES COULD BE BUILT BASED ON THE RESTRICTIONS IN THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT, THERE IS A WAIVER STATEMENT.
THIS IS NO WAIVER BY THE GRANTOR OF ANY VIOLATION, HEREOF, I'M SORRY.
UH, IT STATES THAT THE GRANTOR AND THEIR CONTRACTORS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND REPRESENTATIVES SHALL NOT BE BOUND BY ANY OF THE TERMS OF THIS DECLARATION DURING THE PERIOD THAT GRANTOR WAS INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY.
SO BASICALLY, TOLL BROTHERS, EXCUSE THEMSELVES FROM THE RESTRICTIONS ON BUILDING ON THE LOTS SO THEY CAN GO AHEAD AND BUILD THE LOTS.
CAN YOU JUST LET US KNOW WHAT PAGE THAT IS IN WHICH SPECIFIC DOCUMENT AND THE DATE OF THE DOCUMENT? IT IS IN THE, UH, PROTECTIVE COVENANT.
AND IF I MAY, I HAVE COPIES TO HAND OUT.
SO THAT'S HANDY FOR EVERYBODY.
I HAVE TWO DOCUMENTS I'M HANDING OUT I HAND.
THEIRS IS, I'LL COME BACK TO THE MICROPHONE.
THERE'S A SET OF THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT.
I'M LOOKING AT THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT ON PAGE NUMBER TWO THAT HAS THE WORD IMPROVEMENT AT THE TOP LEFT CORNER.
IT SAYS THE THIRD PHYSICAL PAGE OF THE DOCUMENT, THE SECOND PAGE THAT HAS COPY IN IT.
I'LL AGAIN, WITH THE WORD IMPROVEMENT IN THE TOP LEFT CORNER, JUST GONNA GIVE ONE.
SO THE FOURTH PARAGRAPH FROM THE BOTTOM OF THAT PAGE THAT BEGINS WITH THE WORD GRANTOR STATES A GRANTOR AND THEIR CONTRACTORS GRANTOR BEING TOLL BROTHERS.
WAIT, SO YOUR DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE AT.
RIGHT? AND SO THE FIRST, THE PAGE THAT THE TITLE DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS.
[01:05:01]
PARAGRAPH.THE LAST PAGE, NO, NEXT PAGE AFTER THAT.
NEXT PAGE THAT HAS THE WORD IMPROVEMENT IS THE FIRST WORD ON THE TOP LEFT CORNER.
FOURTH PARAGRAPH FROM THE BOTTOM RES GRANTOR.
AND THEIR CONTRACT IS GRANTOR BEING TOLL BROTHERS.
THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPER AND THEIR CONTRACTORS, EMPLOYEES, AGENTS AND REPRESENTATIVES SHALL NOT BE BOUND BY ANY OF THE TERMS OF THIS DECLARATION DURING THE PERIOD THAT GRANTOR IS INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY.
BASICALLY, THEY ALLOW THE PROPERTY TO BE BUILT WITHOUT COMPROMISING THESE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS.
I'LL ALSO COMMENT, UH, AND I'M GONNA GO A LITTLE OUT OF ORDER IN MY, MY PRESENTATION IS I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, UH, BUT I SPEAK WITH A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO ARE ATTORNEYS.
ONE OF THE PEOPLE I SPOKE WITH INDICATED THAT WHAT GOVERNS IS NOT THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT, BUT PERHAPS THE DEED I'VE DISTRIBUTED TO EVERYONE, COPIES OF THE DEED TO THE APPLICANT ON THE LOT, WHICH STATES THE REFERENCE TO THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS IN THE DEED.
SO ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE DEED, THE THIRD PARAGRAPH STARTING SUBJECT TO THANK YOU.
WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I THINK THAT SOME OF THE STATEMENTS THAT ARE BEING MADE BY THE APPLICANT AND THEIR ATTORNEY ARE NOT INCORRECT, BUT ARE OMITTING CERTAIN FACTS THAT ARE PERHAPS RELEVANT.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE TALK ABOUT WHETHER THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT PRECLUDES SUBDIVISION, I WILL AGREE IT DOES NOT EXPLICITLY PRECLUDE SUBDIVISION.
HOWEVER, IT DOES PRECLUDE CONSTRUCTION ON THE PROPERTY, WHETHER THAT'S THE ORIGINAL LOT OR SUBDIVIDED LOT TO SOME OF THE COMMON SUIT WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE.
ACKNOWLEDGING THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE LOT WILL BE A SEPARATE QUESTION.
BUT IF THERE ARE SUFFICIENT ARGUMENTS THAT SUGGEST THE LOT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED, THEN IT RAISES A QUESTION OF WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS NOW VACANT LOT TO THE PROPERTY.
THE CHARACTER WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING IT ALL, GONNA WIND UP WITH AN ABANDONED LOT AND UNDEVELOPED THE BLEMISHED ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WHILE WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT YET, I THINK THERE ARE SUFFICIENT ARGUMENTS THAT SAY THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE DEVELOPED SO THE SUBDIVISION IS IMMATERIAL OR MEANINGLESS.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE APPLICANT'S INTENT OF THE SUBDIVISION IS, IF NOT TO DEVELOP, BUT I WOULD ARGUE THAT THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE DEVELOPED.
SORRY, COULD YOU JUST CLARIFY? SO IF, IF THE PROPERTY WERE TO BE SUBDIVIDED, HOW WOULD IT GO INTO DISARRAY? IF THE SECOND PIECE, IT WOULD STILL BE OWNED BY SOMEONE.
IT WOULD BE OWNED BY SOMEBODY.
IT WOULD EITHER BE OWNED BY THE APPLICANT, OR IF THEY SOLD IT TO SOMEONE THEY SOLD IT TO.
SOMEONE WILL OWN IT IF IT'S UNDEVELOPED AND CANNOT BE DEVELOPED.
THERE IS A QUESTION OF WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS LOT THAT'S SITTING HERE OWNED BY SOMEBODY BUT NOT DEVELOPED? DOES IT BECOME OVERGROWN? IS IT ABANDONED? WHAT HAPPENS TO IT? AND THAT CLEARLY SPEAKS TO THE CHARACTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
AND, AND ARE THERE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE TOWN CODE? YES.
PROPERTY MAINTENANCE, NO, BUT I DON'T FOLLOW THE LOGIC BECAUSE IT WOULD STILL BE A LOT THAT ADDS VALUE TO WHATEVER HOME IT'S, IT'S BEING SOLD WITH NOT IF IT'S BEING SOLD WITH HIM SUBDIVIDED, THERE'S NO OBLIGATION THEN TO SELL IT WITH THE NEIGHBORING LOT.
I WAS SO IT'S A STANDALONE VACANT LOT THAT ONE PERSON COULD OWN WITH NO HOME ON IT AND THEY COULD HAVE A LESS STAKE IN WHAT IS GOING ON THERE.
SO THEY COULD BE, THEY, THEY COULD LET IT GO INTO DISARRAY.
SPEAKING TO THE VICE CHAIR PERSON'S COMMENT, THERE ARE PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS UNDER TOWN CODE.
UM, WE'VE SEEN VIOLATIONS ISSUED BY OUR BUILDING INSPECTOR'S OFFICE FOR UNMAINTAINED PROPERTY.
SO THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, MECHANISMS IN PLACE TO PREVENTED FROM JUST BEING LEFT TO MM-HMM
TYPICALLY WHEN THAT OCCURS, THEY ALSO, THE PERSONNEL IS STOP PAYING TAXES.
SO THERE WOULD BE A FORECLOSURE AND, AND RENT PROCEEDING AT SOME POINT.
SAME QUESTIONS ARISE THAT THEY STOP PAYING TAXES AND FORECLOSURE.
BUT LET ME MAKE SOME COMMENTS.
I MENTIONED THAT PERHAPS THE APPLICANT OR THEIR ATTORNEY ARE LEAVING SOME ITEMS OUT AT THE MAY 12TH PLANNING BOARD WORKING SESSION.
THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY WAS ASKED WHY NOW TO SUBDIVIDE AND SUGGESTED THAT A HOUSE MIGHT BE SOLD AT SOME TIME IN THE LA LAND MIGHT BE DEVELOPED AT SOME TIME, UH, TO BE READY IN CASE INTEREST AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS GO DOWN.
WERE HIS COMMENTS AT THIS POINT AS OF LAST WEEK, THE HOUSE HAS BEEN LISTED ON ZILLOW FOR SALE, SHOWN AS A ONE THIRD ACRE, WHICH IS THE SUB, THE EFFECT THAT A SUBDIVISION WOULD HAVE.
THERE'S A FOR SALE SIGN IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE IN AGENT ONLY REMARKS ON THE LISTING, WHICH A REAL ESTATE AGENT SHARED WITH US, QUOTE, THE SELLERS ARE IN THE PROCESS OF SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY.
THIS HOME LOT WILL BE 12,000 9 84 SQUARE FEET, APPROXIMATELY 0.298 ACRES SUBDIVISION
[01:10:01]
ALMOST COMPLETED.SELLER WOULD CONSIDER SELLING THE LOT.
NEXT DOOR, INQUIRE FOR PRICE ON YOU.
TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, THE SUBDIVISION HAS NOT YET BEEN IMPROVED.
ACCORDING TO WESTCHESTER COUNTY, CODE SECTION 8 7 3 9 5 1 PROHIBITS THE OFFER OF SALE OF A SUBDIVISION BEFORE PLANS ARE FILED WITH A WESTCHESTER COUNTY CLERK.
SO I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S A VIOLATION OF LISTING THIS PROPERTY FOR SALE BEFORE THE SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN APPROVED.
I QUESTION WHETHER THE APPLICANT MAY NOT HAVE BEEN FORTHCOMING WITH THEIR ATTORNEY ON THIS MATTER.
WHY SHOULD THE SUBDIVISION, IN OUR OPINION, NOT BE APPROVED? WE TALKED ABOUT THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS.
THEY DON'T EXPLICITLY PRECLUDE SUBDIVISION THE APPEAR TO PRECLUDE CONSTRUCTION OF A HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY, WHICH RAISES THE QUESTION OF WHAT HAPPENS TO THE LOT IT STATES IN THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS RESTRICTION IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN THE PROPERTY SHALL BE COMPATIBLE, WHICH SUGGESTS NOT JUST LOT SIZE, BUT ARCHITECTURE OF THE HOUSES.
ALL OF THE HOUSES IN ALEY GREEN COME FROM A TOLL BROTHERS PALLET OF HOUSES.
THEY'RE BASICALLY FOUR MODELS REPRESENTED THERE.
I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE, BUT I WOULD ASSUME THOSE DESIGNS ARE COPYRIGHTED BY TOLL BROTHERS, WHICH WOULD SUGGEST UNLESS SOMEBODY BUILT GOT BOUGHT THE RIGHTS TO BUILD A TALL BROTHERS DESIGN HOUSE ON THE PROPERTY, THERE WOULD BE AN INCONSISTENCY IN THE HOUSE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORING STREETS ON EUCLID AVENUE AND DOWN SHELDON AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS, UH, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF CONSISTENCY IN THE HOUSES.
RZ ESTATES HAS REMAINED CONSISTENT.
THE PROTECTIVE COMMUNIST SAYS IS TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE CHARACTER OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF EACH LOT OWNER.
SO GRANTED, THE APPLICANT HAS RIGHTS, BUT SO TO THE OTHER NEIGHBORS IN THE DEVELOPMENT, APPARENTLY HIS ROUTINE FOR TOLL BROTHERS DEVELOPMENTS TO HAVE THESE TYPE OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE, BUT THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY'S FIRM REPRESENTS TOLL BROTHERS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS.
I WOULD EXPECT THAT THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY MIGHT BE AWARE OF THIS TYPE OF PROTECTIVE COVENANT IN OTHER PROJECTS THAT TOLL BROTHERS HAS UNDERTAKEN.
THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT ALSO EXPLICITLY RUNS WITH THE LAND, NOT WITH THE OWNER, AND APPLIES ALL SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
SO BASICALLY THIS PROTECTIVE COVENANT IS IN PLACE NO MATTER HOW MANY TIMES THE HOUSE IS SOLD OR THE PROPERTY IS SOLD.
UH, THE CURRENT APPLICANT IS THE THIRD OWNER OF THE LOT.
UH, THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT WOULD RUN WITH THE LAND THROUGH THERE.
UH, THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE AT THE JUNE 4TH HEARING.
WAS IT ABOUT A TITLE FROM AN APPROPRIATE, UH, RESPECTED RE I THINK THE WORD WAS RESPECTED TITLE COMPANY, UH, TITLE VEST, WHO CONDUCTED THE TITLE SEARCH THAT WE REQUESTED IS PART OF FIRST AMERICAN, WHICH IS ONE OF THE RESPECTABLE TITLE COMPANIES THAT THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY IDENTIFIED AT THAT MEETING.
SO THIS IS A KNOWN TITLE COMPANY.
THEY SAID THE TITLE OF THE PROTECTIVE CONFIDENCE ARE REFERENCED IN THE DEEDS.
SO MY QUESTIONS ARE, AS THE ATTORNEY'S APPLICANT OR THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY CORRECTLY SAY, THE PROTECTIVE CONFIDENCE DOESN'T PRECLUDE SUBDIVISION, BUT HE DIDN'T COMMENT ON THE PROTECTIVE NCE DOES APPEAR TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENTS OF WHAT HAPPENS TO THE LOT.
THE INSUFFICIENT WATER PRESSURE QUESTION, WHICH WE RAISED LOT THREE, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT THE SUBDIVISIONS BE REQUESTED ON, OR IN THE ORIGINAL PLANS FOR LEY ESTATES WAS TWO LOTS.
IT WAS COMBINED INTO A SINGLE LOT BECAUSE IT WASN'T SUFFICIENT WATER PRESSURE FOR THE DEVELOPMENT, NOT FOR THE HOUSE, BUT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT TO MEET THE 25 PSI REQUIREMENT OF THE COUNTY.
THAT'S PARTIALLY BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATION OF THAT LOT.
THE SAME THING WAS DONE ON LOT 34 ACROSS THE STREET.
LOT 34 WAS ORIGINALLY THREE LOTS AND WAS COMBINED INTO ONE FOR THE SAME REASON.
ACCORDING TO THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, THEY COULD AMELIORATE THE PROBLEM, THE WATER PRESSURE BY PUTTING A BOOSTER IN FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH THE, THE ORIGINAL OWNER, UH, FAITHFULLY AND THEIR DEVELOPMENT COMPANY DECIDE WAS TOO EXPENSIVE TO DO AND THE COUNTY WOULD NOT PERMIT INDIVIDUAL BOOSTERS ON INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES.
SO WHAT I SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD, UH, WAS THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT INFORMATION ABOUT THIS.
THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REPORT THAT THE PSI WAS NOT SUFFICIENT, A FAITH LEE'S ATTORNEY ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THIS IS WHY THEY WERE REDUCING THE LOT COUNT, UH, AND THE PLANNING COMMISSIONER DOCUMENTING THIS IN THE SPECIFIC LOT COMBINATIONS IN A MEMO TO THE TOWN ENGINEER, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, AND THE FIRE MARSHAL.
I WILL COMMENT THAT A LOT OF WHAT I'M REPORTING NOW, I SUBMITTED A FREEDOM INFORMATION REQUEST TO THE TOWN OF GREENBURG WHO WERE WONDERFUL AND RETURNED ABOUT 2,500 PAGES WORTH OF INFORMATION THAT AFTERNOON.
SO THIS IS ALL IN THE PUBLIC RECORD WETLANDS.
UH, I WILL COMMENT AGAIN, I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I'VE LOOKED THROUGH SECTIONS OF THE WETLAND AND WATER COSTS LAW.
UH, CHAPTER TWO 80, IT HAS GREAT.
AND THE WETLANDS REPORT THAT IS PART OF THE APPLICANT'S FILING.
THE WETLANDS REPORT HAS A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT AND CONDITIONS OF THE WETLANDS.
UH, I COULD NOT FIND ANYTHING IN THE WETLANDS REPORT THAT INDICATED
[01:15:01]
THE IMPACT ON THE WETLANDS OF DISTURBANCE DURING CONSTRUCTION, NOR ANYTHING ABOUT THE IMPACT AFTER CONSTRUCTION IN TERMS OF WOR LAWN ABSORPTION OR DRAINAGE.THE WETLANDS REPORT DOES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE'S POOR DRAINAGE ALREADY IN THE WETLANDS AREA.
THE WETLANDS REPORT ALSO DISCUSSES THE SOIL CONDITIONS, NOT THE WILDLIFE IN THE CONSERVATION AREA.
AND CHAPTER TWO 80 DASH THREE OF THE WETLANDS OF WATER COURSES REPORT PRECLUDES DISRUPTING WILDLIFE HABITAT.
SO I THINK THESE ARE AREAS OF CONSIDERATION.
ADDITION, THE PROPOSED RESIDENT RESIDENTS AT LEAST HAS SKETCHED ON THE PLAN AND UNDERSTAND ENOUGH FORMAL BUSINESS BUILDING PLANS COVERS ABOUT 70% IS FALLS WITHIN THE BUFFER AREA SURROUNDING THE WETLANDS.
SO IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN AND RISK, THIS ISN'T EVEN A BUDDING THE BUFFER AREA.
THIS IS GROSSLY ON TOP OF THE BUFFER AREA THAT IF YOU WERE TO TRY TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT DIDN'T TOUCH ON THE BUFFER AREA, THERE'S ALMOST NO LAND LEFT THERE TO BUILD.
I WILL COMMENT, AND THIS IS PERHAPS MY OBSERVATION, SO I WILL PREFERENCE IT AS A COMMENT.
UH, AS I STATED LAST TIME, THE APPLICANT APPEARS TO HAVE ROUTINELY IGNORED ZONING AND PROPERTY LINES, UH, BETWEEN THE BASKETBALL COURT.
THEY BUILT THE HOT TUB, THE ELECTRICITY FOR THE HOT TUB, WHICH IS BEING INVESTED, A STORAGE SHED A CLUBHOUSE.
ABOUT A WEEK AND A HALF AGO, UH, THE APPLICANT AND OR THEIR FAMILY BUILT A BONFIRE IN THE WOODS ON A HOT DRY DAY.
UH, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE APPLICANTS BEING ENTRUSTED WITH ENVIRONMENT ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP OVER THE WETLANDS TREES.
TOWN CODE SECTION 2 6 0 DASH EIGHT, UH, PERMIT APPROVAL REQUIRES NECESSITY OF THE TREE REMOVAL IN ORDER TO ACHIEVE THE APPLICANT'S GOALS.
IF THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE DEVELOPED, THERE'S NO NEED FOR A DRIVEWAY, HAS NO NEED TO REMOVE TREES.
THE REMOVAL FOR TREES THAT HAVE FACILITATED A DRIVEWAY ON THE SKETCH THAT'S PROVIDED ON THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION PRESERVATION OF THE DISTINCT CHARACTER OF ARLEY ESTATE'S NEIGHBORHOOD.
A COUPLE OF COMMENTS THERE, UH, FROM THE WEBSITE OF THE PLANNING BOARD, I KNOW THE PLANNING BOARD EVALUATES LAND USE APPLICATIONS FOR COMPLIANCE WITH TOWN CODE.
OF COURSE, EVERYTHING MUST COMPLY AND CONSISTENCY WITH THE TOWN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE GREENBERG TOWN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SPEAKS TO THE PRESERVATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER IN SECTION 12, TOO, SPEAKS TO ENHANCING THE SENSE OF PLACE IN GREENBURG.
AND TO THE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE EARLIER THIS EVENING ABOUT FORMALLY ARLEY ESTATES.
THE TOWN PLAN LISTS ARLEY ESTATES AS A NAMED DISTINCT NEIGHBORHOOD WITHIN THE TOWN.
ARLEY ESTATES STILL IS S THE ESTATES, AS I SAID, ALL THE HOUSES ARE FROM THE TOLL BROTHERS PALLET.
SO THERE IS A CONSISTENCY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALSO SPEAKS TO AVOIDING INCREASE IN DENSITY.
EVEN ONE HOUSE BY DEFINITION INCREASES DENSITY.
GRANTED, THAT SPEAKS TO DEVELOPMENT, NOT SUBDIVISION, BUT WHAT THE PURPOSES OF THE SUBDIVISION APPROVING IT WITHOUT THE POSSIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT RAISES A QUESTION OF WHETHER THE SUBDIVISION SHOULD BE APPROVED.
THE OWNERS OF PROPERTIES IN RZ ESTATES BOUGHT INTO RZ ESTATES FOR THE UNIQUE CHARACTER.
I'LL COMMENT FROM THE REAL ESTATE LISTING FOR 1 34 EUCLID AVENUE, WHICH IS POSTED.
IT STATES AND I QUOTE, WELCOME TO 1 34 EUCLID AVENUE, LOCATED IN THE EXCLUSIVE LEY ESTATES NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO THEY'RE REFERRING TO AS A NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.
AND THE SUBDIVISION ESTABLISHES PRECEDENT NOT ONLY FOR LEY ESTATES, BUT POTENTIALLY FOR OTHER SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS.
I WON'T SPEAK FOR ARDSLEY GREEN, THAT'S NOT PART OF OUR CIVIC ASSOCIATION, BUT THEY HAVE A SIMILAR TYPE OF LOOK FEEL NEIGHBORHOOD WITH, I WOULD EXPECT SIMILAR CONCERNS.
TRAFFIC THE BLIND TURN AROUND.
COMING UP EUCLID AVENUE WAS AN ACCIDENT WAITING TO HAPPEN.
IF DEVELOPMENT WERE A DRIVEWAY TO PUT NEAR THE TURN WITH A CAR STOPPING TO TURN INTO A DRIVEWAY, IT INCREASES THAT RISK, PERHAPS MATERIALLY WHILE ADDING ONE MORE HOUSE DOESN'T CHANGE TRAFFIC TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE PRECEDENT DOES.
UH, AND AS IF TO PROVE THE POINT ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THAT TURN.
IN APRIL OF 2021, THE APPLICANT DROVE HIS CAR OFF THE ROAD AND CRASHED INTO LOT ONE AT THAT TURN.
I NUMBERED MY PAGES THIS TIME AND STAPLED THEM SO I WON'T LOSE MY PLACE.
RC STATE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, UH, UNLIKE MY DISCUSSION ON JUNE 4TH.
TONIGHT, I AM SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THE RC STATE CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
WE SCHEDULED AND HELD A SPECIAL MEETING ON JUNE 12TH.
WE SCHEDULED AND HELD A SECOND SPECIAL MEETING ON JULY 1ST.
UH, TO DATE, 13 MEMBERS HAVE VOTED REPRESENTING MORE THAN A QUORUM OF THE MEMBERS, UH, ALL OF THE MEMBERS IN THE ORIGINAL SURROUNDINGS OF 1 34 EUCLID AVENUE.
UH, I'LL COMMENT THAT 16 MET RESIDENTS IN
[01:20:01]
RC ESTATES RECEIVED NOTICES OF THE PUBLIC HEARING BASED ON THE 500 FOOT RADIUS.I WENT TO THE TOWN G OR THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY GIS TO PULL THE ADDRESSES WITHIN A 500 FOOT RADIUS, 16 OWNERS RECEIVED NOTICE.
13 VOTED AGAINST THE PROPOSAL UNANIMOUSLY NOBODY VOTED IN FAVOR OF ANY OF THE PROPOSALS.
I KNOW THAT FROM THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD, POPULARITY DOES NOT INFLUENCE DECISIONS OR DIRECT DECISIONS, BUT COMMUNITY INPUT IS A FACTOR TO BE CONSIDERED.
EVERYONE WHO HAS VOTED ON THIS IN THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION HAS UNANIMOUSLY VOTED AGAINST THESE THREE PROPOSALS.
AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE OWNERS BOUGHT INTO A UNIQUE HOMOGENEOUS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY'VE ALL BEAUTIFULLY CARED FOR THEIR PROPERTIES.
HENCE, SOME OF THE CONCERN ABOUT A POTENTIALLY VACANT LOT APPRECIATE UNIFORMITY WITH SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT CAME UP IN OUR SPECIAL MEETINGS.
THEY APPRECIATE THAT THE DENSITY IS NOT INCREASING.
THEY APPRECIATE THE TREE LINED STREETS.
THEY'RE ALL CONCERNED ABOUT PRECEDENT.
POSITION OF THE HOUSE ON LOT THREE WAS PROMISED TO US BY THE TOLL BROTHERS IN TERMS OF PLACING IT AS FAR TO THE EAST AS POSSIBLE IN THE LOT.
ALTHOUGH THAT'S NOT MEMORIALIZED, THERE'S MORE TO GO TO THAT STORY.
UM, THE ORIGINAL OWNER OF THE HOUSE ON LOT THREE WAS TOLD BY TOLL BROTHERS THAT THE HOUSE WOULD NOT FIT ANY FURTHER WEST ON THE PROPERTY.
IT SPEAKS TO WHY THE HOUSE IS WHERE IT IS.
IT SPEAKS TO THE DIFFICULTY OR IMPOSSIBILITY OF PUTTING ANOTHER HOUSE FURTHER WEST ON THE LOT THAT CONFORMS TO THE DESIGN STYLE OF THE REST OF S THE ESTATES ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL OWNER AND OTHER ORIGINAL OWNER WHO WAS LOOKING AT CONSIDERING LOT THREE WAS ALSO TOLD.
HE QUESTIONED WHY THE LOT WAS PUT SO FAR TO THE SIDE WAS TOLD IT'S BECAUSE OF THE DEPTH OF THE LOT AND IT COULDN'T BE PUT ANY FURTHER TO THE WEST.
HE ULTIMATELY BOUGHT A DIFFERENT LOT.
UH, THE OWNERS ON LOT FOUR QUESTIONED WHY THE LOT THE HOUSE WAS BUILT SO CLOSE TO THEIR HOUSE AND WE'LL GIVE THEM THE SAME ANSWER.
IT COULD NOT BE BUILT ANY FURTHER TO THE WEST THAN WHERE IT WAS BUILT.
THE SUBDIVISION WILL DIVIDE U US MANY OF US OF A BENEFIT THAT WAS PROMISED TO US AND IT'LL CERTAINLY DECREASE THE VALUE OF MY PROPERTY.
MY CONCLUSION, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS RESPONSIBILITY OF COURSE TO BALANCE THE RIGHTS OF THE LANDOWNERS WHILE ENSURING THE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY ARE MINIMIZED.
THIS INCLUDES OVERSEEING THE CHARACTER OF THE TOWN, ARCHITECTURE, DENSITY, TRAFFIC, AND SAFETY.
IT INCLUDES THE RIGHTS OF THE LANDOWNERS WHO ARE IMPACTED BY APPLICATIONS LIKE THIS ONE BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD.
WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PREVENT THE APPLICANT FROM DOING WHAT THEY'RE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO DO.
WE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN ARLEY ESTATES.
IN THE PAST, WE HAVE SUPPORTED OTHER LAND USE APPLICATIONS.
WHEN ARLEY GREEN WAS BEING DEVELOPED, WE ACTUALLY SUPPORTED THAT BECAUSE IT WAS A ZONE USE, IT ENHANCED THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY WERE SIMILARLY SIZED HOUSES THAT MAINTAINED THE CHARACTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION SUPPORTED THAT DIVISION.
WE'RE NOT OPPOSED TO CHANGE, BUT ON BEHALF OF MYSELF, MY NEIGHBORS IN THE RZC CIVIC ASSOCIATION, I RESPECTFULLY URGE THIS PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER THE PROTECTIVE CONFIDENCE TO PRECLUDE DEVELOPMENT TO CONSIDER THE INSUFFICIENT WATER PRESSURE AND SAFETY RISK TO CONSIDER TRAFFIC AND SAFETY IMPLICATIONS TO CONSIDER WETLANDS CONSERVATION AND WILDLIFE IMPLICATIONS TO CONSIDER THE TOWN COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AND OBJECTIVES FOR PRESERVATION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND AVOIDANCE OF ADDITIONAL DENSITY.
TO CONSIDER THE LACK OF THE NEED TO REMOVE TREES IF THERE'S NO DEVELOPMENT TO CONSIDER CIVIC ASSOCIATION OPPOSITION TO WILL CREATE, CONSIDER THE PERSONAL IMPACT OF MY HOUSE AND I RESPECTFULLY A ASKED THIS PLANNING BOARD TO DENY THIS APPLICATION FOR SUBDIVISION TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND TO DENY THE APPLICATION FOR WETLANDS WATER CLA UH, WATERCOURSE PERMIT.
AS I STATED OF THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING, WE HAVE HAD DIFFICULTY IDENTIFYING LEGAL COUNSEL BECAUSE EVERY REFERRAL I'VE GOTTEN TO A LAND USE ATTORNEY HAS POINTED US TO THE SAME LAW FIRM THAT THE APPLICANT IS USING.
UH, BUT WE HAVE IDENTIFIED WHAT WE BELIEVE TO BE AN APPROPRIATE, SUITABLE REPRESENTATION.
IF THE PLANNING BOARD IS CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSALS, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU LET US KNOW AND POSTPONE THE DECISION UNTIL WE'VE COMPLETED THE PROCESS OF RETAINING COUNSEL AND HAVE BROUGHT THEM UP TO SPEED SO WE CAN APPROPRIATELY BE REPRESENTED.
UH, ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK PLEASE.
JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD PLEASE.
I LIVE NEXT DOOR, 1 34 GL AVENUE.
UM, I'M NOT GONNA REPEAT WHAT HE SAID.
I AM NOT OPPOSED TO MY NEIGHBORS.
I AM OPPOSED TO THE THE THREE, UM, SORRY, THE, THE THREE PROPOSALS
[01:25:01]
THAT WERE LISTED.ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? YES, I'M SORRY MA'AM.
1 36 JUST FOR THIS STENOGRAPHER.
UM, MICHELLE HOLTZMAN, 1 38 EUCLID.
UM, SIMILAR, I AGREE WITH WHAT WAS SAID BY THE REPRESENTATIVE OF OUR, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND AGAIN, I SUPPORT MY NEIGHBORS, BUT I DON'T SUPPORT THE THREE BILLS OR THREE THINGS THAT ARE IN FRONT OF YOU.
I LIVE AT 1 35 EUCLID AVENUE, WHICH IS DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
AND I TOO AM VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO AN, OPPOSED TO ANY, UH, DEVELOPMENT TO THOSE THREE PROPOSALS.
AGAIN, NOT OPPOSED TO MY NEIGHBORS, BUT DO WANNA KEEP THE INTEGRITY AND AESTHETIC BEAUTY OF LEY ESTATES INTACT.
THAT'S WHAT MY HUSBAND AND I BOUGHT INTO 29 YEARS AGO, AND WE FEEL WE HAVE A RIGHT TO RETAIN THAT.
ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC? ALRIGHT THEN WITH THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY.
OH, IS THERE ANYONE ON ZOOM? I JUST WANT TO CHECK.
IS THERE, THERE WERE A FEW MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT ASKED FOR THE ZOOM LINK.
KELVIN LEWIS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? UH, YES PLEASE.
CALVIN LEWIS, DO YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO ACTIVATE YOUR, UH, VIDEO? UH, YES.
I RESIDE AT 1 39 EUCLID AVENUE.
UM, MY FAMILY AND I MOVED HERE IN NINE SIX.
UH, WE WERE SHOWN A LOT MAP OF 34 HOMES.
UH, WE CHOSE A LOT ON, UH, PHASE TWO.
THERE WAS NEVER ANY MENTION OF FUTURE SUBDIVISIONS.
NOW AGAIN, I AGREE WITH THE, UH, STATEMENTS MADE THAT THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON SUBDIVISIONS.
BUT AGAIN, UH, AS DAVID MENTIONED, DAVID ROSENBAUM MENTIONED, WHY IS THE INTENT OF A SUBDIVISION IF THERE'S NO FUTURE OR IMMINENT, UH, PLANS TO CONSTRUCT ANY HOUSING OR, UH, OR SOME SORT OF, UH, SHELTER, UH, OF THAT NATURE.
ALSO, WITHOUT ANY IMMINENT INTENT OF ANY CONSTRUCTION, WHY APPROVE ANY REMOVAL OF TREES? UM, I AM 69.
I HAVE THESE MAPLES ON MY DRAWING.
I'VE TWISTED MY ANKLE SEVERAL TIMES WALKING ON THESE SURFACE LIMBS.
I'VE BEEN TOLD THAT IT WOULD TAKE, SAY, UH, AN ARM AND A LEG TO ACTUALLY GET THE TREE REMOVED IN FRONT OF MY PROPERTY.
AND IF YOU PLAN, IF THE TOWN BOARD PLANS ON APPROVING THE REMOVAL OF THE TWO TREES, I MYSELF WOULD LIKE TO HAVE SOME TREES REMOVED IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE AS WELL, IF IT'S THAT SIMPLE.
BUT AGAIN, I HAVE NO ANIMOSITY AGAINST MY NEIGHBORS, BUT I DO AGREE WITH, UH, UH, I AM AGAINST ANY OF THE, UH, THREE PROPOSALS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD TONIGHT.
ANYONE ELSE ON ZOOM? I BELIEVE.
CAN YOU HEAR ME ALL RIGHT? YES.
JUST YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
WE'RE MEMBERS OF THE LEY ESTATES.
I'VE BEEN A HOMEOWNER SINCE 1997.
AND, UM, I'M NOT SAYING THAT THIS STEP TRANSACTION IS ILLEGAL.
I'M NOT A LAWYER, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY CLEAR TO ME THAT THEY WANT TO BUILD A HOUSE AND THEY'RE JUST PARSING WORDS.
NUMBER TWO, THAT CORNER IS A VERY DANGEROUS CORNER.
AND I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT ONE MORE HOUSE WILL, WILL MATERIALLY INCREASE OUR, UH, TRAFFIC PATTERN.
BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF YOUNG DRIVERS IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD THAT COME AROUND THAT CORNER AND THAT DRIVEWAY THAT THEY'LL ANTICIPATE.
AND I UNDERSTAND IN THE STEP TRANSACTION THAT COUNCIL'S REFERRING TO, THAT'S NOT WHAT HE WANTS RIGHT NOW, BUT IT'S CLEAR THAT'S WHAT HE WANTS.
[01:30:01]
SO THEREFORE, BECAUSE OF SAFETY, I SUPPORT EVERYTHING THAT DAVID ROSENBAUM SAID, KELVIN SAID, AND I THINK THAT THIS SHOULD BE DENIED.ANYONE ELSE ON ZOOM? I SEE MS. JACOBOWITZS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? YES, I WOULD.
UH, I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT DAVID HAD SAID.
UM, I AGREE THAT THE, I DON'T SEE ANY UPSIDE TO THIS EX, I ONLY SEE THE DOWNSIDE, WHICH WE'RE, I DON'T HAVE TO REITERATE.
UM, AND I, I LIVE AT ONE SPACE LANE AND, UM, THAT'S IT.
I JUST, I DISAGREE WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID AS FAR AS NOT GOING THROUGH WITH THE PROPOSED PLANS.
ANYONE ELSE ON ZOOM? ALRIGHT THEN WOULD THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY LIKE TO RESPOND? SURE.
WELL, CAN I ASK A QUESTION REALLY QUICK BEFORE HE DOES? YEAH, SURE.
MS. ANDERSON, WHOSE LANGUAGE IS IT IN OUR AGENDA HERE IN TERMS OF THAT SAYS A CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION WET AND WATERCOURSE PERMIT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION INVOLVING THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
IS THAT, IS THAT TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE? WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? UH, THAT CAME THAT'S STAFF'S LANGUAGE.
THAT'S NOT FROM THEIR PERMIT OR THAT'S NOT FROM THEIR APPLICATION.
SO I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK WITH STAFF IN MY OFFICE TO SEE IF IT WAS SPECIFIC TO THEIR APPLICATION LANGUAGE, WHICH WE CAN DO.
UH, MS. MR. DESAI? YEAH, I MEAN, I KIND OF, UH, UH, TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY IT WAS NOT SUBDIVIDED ORIGINALLY IF INTENT BY THE TOLL BROTHERS TO HAVE ADDITIONAL HOUSE.
AND I'M LOOKING AT IT, UH, THE, THE, UH, ARC OF WETLAND BUFFER AND IT LOOKS LIKE THE, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TO BUILD.
UH, AND MAYBE THEY THOUGHT IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE TO APPROVE, UH, ANOTHER LOT BECAUSE I MEAN, I'M, I'M LOOKING AT THE PLAN THAT'S SUBMITTED BY YOU AND THE WHOLE HOUSE, AND MOST OF THE PROPERTY IS PART OF THE BUFFER.
AND SO, UH, WHEN YOU ARE, SORRY, WHEN YOU'RE REQUESTING THAT, UH, WE ARE ALLOWING THIS SUBDIVISION, WHICH WILL, UH, WHETHER YOU SAY SPECIFICALLY IT'S FOR BUILDING UP A NEW HOUSE, SO IN THE SENSE WE ARE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT, UH, UH, SHOULD BE IN THAT KIND OF, UH, ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA.
SO I THINK IF YOU CAN RESPOND TO THAT SURE.
UM, UH, LOOK, I, I CAN'T SPEAK TO WHAT TOLL BROTHERS DID OR DECIDED TO DO IN 1994.
UM, THAT'S BEYOND ANYONE'S, I THINK ANYONE'S KNOWLEDGE HERE.
AND ANY, ANY HEARSAY STATEMENTS, ANY UNRECORDED STATEMENTS, ANY CONVERSATIONS WHICH HAPPENED 30 YEARS AGO, UM, I, I FRANKLY HAVE NO RELEVANCE OR THEY CAN'T BE VERIFIED, SO THEY SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED.
UH, WHY, JUST AS A MATTER OF CONSTRUCTION AND DEVELOPMENT, WHY WOULD TOLL BROTHERS DECIDE NOT TO CONSTRUCT TWO HOUSES? MAYBE THEY DID SEE THE, THE BUFFER OR THE WETLANDS BEHIND US, BEHIND OUR PROPERTY AND THOUGHT SOMETHING THERE.
MAYBE THEY HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE REAR NEIGHBOR.
MAYBE THERE WERE CONSTRUCTION ISSUES.
I JUST, I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
ALL I DO KNOW IS THAT THE PROPOSAL IS COMPLYING WITH THE CODE, COMPLYING WITH THE DIMENSIONS OF THE CODE AND IT'S PERMITTED.
THAT'S ALL I COULD SPEAK TO IS WHAT WE KNOW TODAY AND WHAT WE KNOW BASED UPON WHAT IS RECORDED.
SO I, I CAN'T SPEAK TO ANY, ANY OF WHAT HAPPENED BEFORE.
BUT, AND, AND, AND IF I MAY, JUST 1, 1 1 OTHER POINT.
THERE ARE INSTANCES WHERE DEVELOPERS TAKE CERTAIN ACTION ONE YEAR AND THEN TAKE DIFFERENT ACTION SEVERAL YEARS LATER FOR WHATEVER REASON.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THOSE REASONS ARE, BUT THERE ARE DIFFERENT REASONS WHY DEVELOPERS DO SOMETHING IN ONE YEAR AND CHANGE THEIR OPINION LATER.
SO WE CAN'T, WE CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
BUT I, I MEAN, MY QUESTION WAS THAT I JUST TRIED TO UNDERSTAND WHY THE ORIGINALLY TOLL BROTHERS COULD HAVE JUST DIVIDED AND MADE IT A LOT EITHER THREE A AND THREE B.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT YOU ARE REALLY DOING IT.
[01:35:02]
A MUCH BETTER FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO DO THAT.AND WHAT YOU'RE DOING IS THAT YOU'RE COMING BACK AND ASKING US TO DO THE SAME THING.
THAT WAS PROBABLY NOT REALLY, I'M NOT ASKING TO DO THE SAME THING, BUT WHAT, WHAT TOLL BROTHERS COULD HAVE MADE ALL 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS AND PUT MORE LOTS UP.
THEY COULD HAVE MADE 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS AND PUT LESS LOTS AND MAYBE THOUGHT THAT WOULD'VE BEEN MORE FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE.
YOUR DIRECT QUESTION, I THINK IS WHY IS THIS LOT A NEARLY HALF ACRE LOT WHERE SOME OF THE OTHER LOTS ON EUCLID ARE SMALLER, WHICH IS OKAY THEN, THEN I DON'T NEED TO GO DOWN THAT ROAD.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE QUESTION, QUESTION WAS THAT A, UH, OF ALL THE LOGIC THAT YOU ARE BRINGING, THAT YOU HAVE A LEGAL RIGHTS TO SUBDIVIDE BECAUSE IT'S A LARGE ENOUGH, BUT I'M LOOKING AT ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND I'M JUST WONDERING WAS THAT, UH, LOOKS LIKE A PROBABLE CAUSE FOR IT? MAYBE.
AND AGAIN, WHEN YOU ASKING US TO ALLOW YOU TO DO ANOTHER BUILD A HOUSE, WE HAVE TO PAY INTO THAT ENVIRONMENTAL SENSITIVE AREA.
WELL, F FIRST OF ALL, THIS BOY IS ALREADY ISSUED A NE NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
LET'S, LET'S JUST, LET'S SET, YOU KNOW, STATE THAT, UM, MAYBE, AND AGAIN, I'M SPECULATING WILDLY HERE.
MAYBE A PROJECT MANAGER I TOLD BROTHERS AT THE TIME THOUGHT IT JUST WAS NOT WORTH IT BECAUSE THERE ARE WETLANDS BEHIND US.
THAT'S A FACTOR THAT SOME DEVELOPERS THINK ABOUT.
FRANKLY, NOT, NOT ONLY DO I NOT KNOW, I I, IT WOULD BE WRONG FOR ME OR ANYONE, I THINK TO SPECULATE WHAT TOLL BROTHERS DID OR DID NOT DO WE HAVE, I'M SORRY.
SO IT WAS SUGGESTED BY ONE OF THE SPEAKERS THAT THIS LOT IS ALREADY FOR SALE.
COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT? ARE YOU ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT? THERE IS A, THERE IS A, UH, A BROKER WHO HAS BEEN ENGAGED LOOKING INTO THAT.
UM, I THINK THERE IS, AND, AND MY CLIENTS CAN SPEAK TO THAT MORE, PROBABLY MORE THAN I CAN.
THERE IS NO PROPOSAL OUT THERE.
THERE IS NO CONTRACT OR SALE OUT THERE.
WE SPECIFICALLY ARE WAITING FOR THIS BOARD TO DETERMINE THE SUBDIVISION.
AND AFTER THAT, THEN WE WILL PROCEED.
AND JUST AS AN ASIDE, BECAUSE I DO, I DO REAL ESTATE AS WELL, NO BUYER IS GOING TO JUMP IN ON A CONTRACT UNTIL THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION IS COMPLETED.
AT LEAST NONE THAT NO, NO ATTORNEY THAT I WOULD REFER ANYONE TO, AND I DON'T THINK ANY ANYONE SHOULD.
UM, BUT ARE THERE EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST? YEAH, IT WOULD BE, IT WOULD BE DISINGENUOUS FOR ME TO SAY, OH, WE'RE JUST DECIDING TO SUBDIVIDE IT AND LEAVE IT AT THAT.
IT SHOULD NOT BE A SURPRISE TO ANYBODY THAT, THAT THERE MAY BE EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST THAT DOESN'T, THAT SHOULD NOT AFFECT THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCESS.
IT'S CERTAINLY NOT AN, UH, A BARRIER TO IT UNDER THE CODE.
UM, I, I WANT TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT I ALSO WANNA REFER TO WHAT YEAH, I'D LIKE YOU TO GO THROUGH EACH OF THE OKAY.
UM, I'LL TRY TO DO, I'LL TRY TO DO SOME, SOME ORDER.
I, I'LL, I'LL, I'LL TRY TO, TO GO BACK.
UM, ON THE ISSUE OF, OF RESTRICTIONS IN THE DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, BECAUSE THAT IS AN INTERESTING CONTRACT, UH, INTERPRETATION BY CONTRACT.
THE DECLARATION IS IN EFFECT A CONTRACT OF LAW.
THAT'S WHAT IT'S TREATED AT, UH, UH, COURT.
IF YOU LOOKED AT THE DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, THERE ARE SEVERAL PARAGRAPHS WITH HEADINGS, RIGHT? THERE IS NUISANCES TRAILERS, LIVESTOCK SIGNS, EASEMENT, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, ET CETERA.
CONTINUES ON SITE DISTANCE, TELEVISION, RADIO, AND ENFORCEMENT.
AND IN THE PARAGRAPH ON ENFORCEMENT, YOU FIND THE LANGUAGE THAT THE GRANTOR AND THEIR CONTRACTOR IS EMPLOYEES, AGENTS, ET CETERA, SHALL NOT BE DE BOUND BY ANY OF THE TERMS OF THIS DECLARATION DURING THE PERIOD OF THE GRANTOR THAT THE GRANTOR IS INVOLVED.
NOW, I CANNOT SPEAK TO WHY THAT PARA, THAT PROVISION IS LOCATED IN THAT SECTION AS OPPOSED TO SAY, WHERE I WOULD THINK IT WOULD NORMALLY, NORMALLY BE LOCATED, WHICH WOULD BE AT THE END OF THE DECLARATION.
RIGHT? THE FOREGOING SHALL NOT APPLY TO THE GRANTOR OR IN THE BEGINNING OF THE DECLARATION.
THE MAKER OF THIS DECLARATION, AND AGAIN, WE'RE GOING INTO CONTRACT LANGUAGE HERE, BUT THE MAKER OF THIS DECLARATION DECIDED TO PUT THAT NON FINE, NOT, UH, CONTROLLING US LANGUAGE UNDER ENFORCEMENT.
TO ME, THAT WOULD SEEM TO KIND OF MAKE SENSE BECAUSE A GRANTER CAN'T ENFORCE IT AGAINST HIMSELF, OR YOU WOULD NOT THINK A GRANTOR WOULD ENFORCE AGAINST HIMSELF AND AGAINST HIS CONTRACTORS AND HIS AGENTS.
BUT AGAIN, I DON'T KNOW WHY THAT LANGUAGE IS IN THAT PARAGRAPH.
[01:40:01]
AS IS EVEN BEEN SAID BY THE NEIGHBORS, UM, THERE IS NO RESTRICTION ON A SUBDIVISION.AND THAT GETS TO THE SECOND POINT, I THINK, WHICH IS, UM, WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY SAID, IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE A SUBDIVISION, BUT IT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, NOT BEING BEFORE THIS BOARD, THERE MAY BE SEVERAL REASONS FOR A SUBDIVISION, AND I'M WILDLY SPECULATING AGAIN, MAYBE ONE REASON IS TO SELL A LOT TO SOMEBODY.
MAYBE ANOTHER REASON IS, I DON'T KNOW, FOR TAX BENEFITS.
MAYBE A THIRD REASON IS THE DEVELOPER WHO IS I BELIEVE HAS ACTUALLY AN APPLICATION FOR THE TOWN ON THE REAR PROPERTY.
RIGHT? THE OLD CARVE PROPERTY MAYBE WOULD BE INTERESTED IN EXTENSION OF THAT LAND TO EUCLID AVENUE.
I'M SPECULATING BECAUSE WE SHOULDN'T BE SPECULATING.
WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING IS LOOKING AT WHAT THE DOCUMENTS SAY AND WHETHER THERE ARE OR THERE ARE NOT RESTRICTIONS.
SO IF AT SOME POINT IN TIME SOMEBODY COMES BEFORE THIS BOARD WITH RENDERINGS AND A SITE APPLICATION TO BUILD A HOUSE, THEN AT THAT TIME, THIS BOARD VERY CORRECTLY IS GONNA GO THROUGH THE ANALYSIS, RIGHT? STORM ORDER, DRAINAGE, UTILITIES, TRAFFIC, PARKING, HEIGHT, SETBACKS, WHATEVER.
BUT THAT CAN'T BE BEFORE THIS BOARD NOW, BECAUSE NONE OF THAT IS HERE BEFORE THIS BOARD.
THE SUBDIVISION IS A PERMITTED ACT OF, OF, OF MY CLIENTS.
UM, THERE WAS A, HEY, I'M SORRY, I, I JUST WANTED TO INTERRUPT QUICKLY BACK TO THE PRIOR QUESTION.
SO THE COCORAN GROUP DOES HAVE THIS, UM, SITE LISTED AS BEING AVAILABLE ON JULY 6TH, 0.3 ACRES.
UM, OBVIOUSLY IT SAYS COMING SOON, AVAILABLE JULY 6TH, 0.3 ACRES ONLINE RIGHT NOW, RIGHT? YEAH.
THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S OPTIMISTIC.
BUT DEPENDING ON WHAT HAPPENS, THAT THAT CAN ALWAYS BE CHANGED.
THERE ARE PLENTY OF LISTING, OF LISTING, UH, INFORMATION ON PROPERTIES THAT DEVELOP THAT IN AND OF ITSELF.
EVEN IF THAT IS TRUE IN AND OF ITSELF, THAT DOES NOT AFFECT THIS APPLICATION.
IF THE, IF THE NEIGHBORS THINK FOR SOME REASON THEY ARE BEING DECEIVED IN SOME WAY, QUITE FRANKLY, THEY DON'T HAVE STANDING TO EVEN SAY THAT.
BUT LET'S SAY THEY WANNA SAY THAT ANYWAY, THAT'S NOT A REMEDY BEFORE THIS, THIS BODY, THAT'S NOT A, SOMETHING THAT, THAT THIS BOARD, I THINK RESPECTFULLY SHOULD ENTERTAIN.
THIS BOARD SHOULD ENTERTAIN THIS APPLICATION BEFORE IT.
IF THE APPLICANT IS OPTIMISTIC, LET THE APPLICANT BE OPTIMISTIC.
IF BY, IF, IF ON THE OTHER HAND, LET'S PRETEND THE APPLICANT DECIDED TO SAY IN A LISTING, IT IS UNLIKELY WE WILL GET A SUBDIVISION.
SHOULD IT MATTER? NO, IT SHOULDN'T MATTER.
THE APPLICANT CAN WRITE WHATEVER THEY WANT TO IN A LISTING SUBJECT TO STATE LAW.
I'M NOT TELLING 'EM TO VIOLATE STATE LAW.
BUT IF THEY WERE OVERLY OPTIMISTIC, OVERLY PESSIMISTIC, SHOULD THAT CHANGE THIS BOARD? NO, IT SHOULD NOT.
UM, IF I CAN TURN TO, UM, SINCE WE DEALT WITH THAT ISSUE, I THINK THE NEXT ISSUE OF THE WATER PRESSURE FROM, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, AND AGAIN, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER, BUT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, THE REASON WESTCHESTER COUNTY, ACCORDING TO THESE DOCUMENTS, IT APPEARS, DID NOT APPROVE OR CONSENT TO INDIVIDUAL BOOSTERS AT THE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT FOR WATER PRESSURE, IS BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS PROPOSED ON ALL THE LOTS.
AND SO THEY DECIDED NOT TO DO THAT.
AND IT WAS LESS EXPENSIVE TO COMBINE THE LOTS.
AND IN FACT, THAT GOES BACK TO, TO ONE, ONE POINT.
WHY WOULD, WHY WERE LOTS TWO AND THREE OR THREE AND FOUR ARE COMBINED TO MAKE ONE LOT THAT MY CLIENTS NOW OWN? PERHAPS BECAUSE TOLL BROTHERS, WHO WHOMEVER AT THE TIME THOUGHT THAT IS LESS EXPENSIVE AND MORE EFFICIENT THAN INSTALLING BOOSTERS ON ALL THE SUBDIVIDED LOTS.
BUT NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ONE LOT THAT MIGHT BE BUILT AND ONE BOOSTER, A RADICALLY DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE.
UM, THE WETLANDS AND WATERCOURSE THAT SHOULD COME UP LATER IN IF AND WHEN THERE IS A SITE PLAN APPLICATION.
BUT WE HAVE SUBMITTED A WETLANDS, UH, I THINK WE'VE SUBMITTED A FULL WETLANDS APPLICATION PERMIT AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION.
I CAN'T SPEAK TO ANY MORE THAN THAT.
SO THIS IS A, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR AMANDA.
UM, CONSIDERING THE PROPERTY'S LOCATION, UH, NEAR A, A WATERCOURSE WETLAND WATERCOURSE, UM, IF A HOME WERE TO BE PROPOSED IN THE FUTURE,
[01:45:01]
WOULD IT COME IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD FOR THAT REASON OR THERE'S STILL A POSSIBILITY THAT IT COULD BE BUILT WITHOUT COMING IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.SO IT'S COMING BEFORE THE BOARD NOW FOR A WETLAND PERMIT FOR BEING IN THE WATERCOURSE BUFFER.
THEY'RE SHOWING A LIMITED DISTURBANCE.
SO, SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING NOW.
SO, SO HOME WAS PROPOSED IN THE FUTURE.
IT WOULDN'T COME BACK TO US IF IT COMPLIED WITH THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE.
'CAUSE THEY'RE SHOWING ON THEIR PLANS A LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE THAT ENCROACHES INTO THE 100 FOOT REGULATED BUFFER AREA.
SO ONLY IF THAT WAS FURTHER ENCROACHED UPON, WOULD IT COME BACK OR THERE'S A CHANGE IN THE CONDITIONS CORRECT.
OR THERE'S A CHANGE IN CONDITION OF THE SITE IF IT GOES LIKE 10 YEARS DOWN THE ROAD AND SURE.
YOU KNOW, WETLAND CHANGE, WE EXTENDS CHANGE, WATERCOURSE CHANGE.
UM, SO WHEN THERE'S CONTINUED REFERENCE TO COMING BACK IN FRONT OF THE BOARD, THAT THAT MAY NOT BE THE CASE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UNLESS THERE ARE CONDITIONS MR. DESAI.
I I THINK THERE ARE, UH, YOU, YOU'RE PRETTY GOOD LAWYERS, THAT'S FOR SURE.
YOU KIND OF, UH, TURN AROUND AND TELL US WHAT WE SHOULD BE DOING.
AND
I THINK YOU GOT GOOD, GOOD TRIAL LAW EXPERIENCE.
BUT I THINK, UH, UH, AND I THINK ALSO YOU, YOU PUT IN SOMETHING VERY, VERY INTERESTING THAT IS SAID THAT WE HAVE GIVEN YOU A NAG D SO THAT MEANS THAT, UH, THERE IS NO NEGATIVE IMPACT ON, UH, THE ISSUES THAT WE ARE, UH, DISCUSSING IT.
AND I THINK, UH, CORRECT ME IF I THINK IF WE FIND OUT OVER THE TIME OF, UH, UH, REVIEW AND ANALYSIS, WE CAN, UH, UH, WE CAN REVIEW THAT DECISION.
AGAIN, I, I, I THINK, YEAH, I MEAN, AND I, I THINK I'M LOOKING FOR OUR LAWYER AND, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
I'M SORRY IF HE, WE HAVE INITIALLY GIVE THEM NEGATIVE NECK DECK FOR, UH, FOR THE APPLICATION.
I, I THINK THE QUESTION IS THAT WE, WE'VE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
IF OVER THE COURSE OF THIS PROCESS WE LEARN OF NEW INFORMATION MM-HMM
IS THE BOARD ABLE TO, TO RECONSIDER THAT DECISION? YES.
SO TYPICALLY AS THE PROCESS EVOLVES, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED, OKAY.
PREVIOUSLY, ACTUALLY RECENTLY, IS THAT OKAY, UH, TYPICALLY THE APPLICANT WILL INCLUDE CHANGES TO THE PLANS AND OR, UH, AGREE TO CONDITIONS THAT WOULD MITIGATE THINGS THAT ARE BROUGHT UP DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING PROCESS.
HOWEVER, IF THERE IS, UH, RESISTANCE OR IF THERE IS A REMAINING IMPACT, YOU CAN REVISIT THE N DECK.
SO WITH THAT CHANGE, I THINK, UH, BECAUSE I WAS JUST QUITE SURPRISED BECAUSE YOU JUST USED THAT, UH, YOU ALREADY HAVE AGREED TO NEGATIVE NACK, UH, SO THAT'S NOT MINING BY THE REST.
UM, ALSO I THINK LOOKING AT IT ALL THAT'S SORT OF PUT IN FRONT OF US WHY WE SHOULD ALLOW YOU TO SUBDIVIDE VERSUS THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS AND THE, UH, REMOVAL, UH, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
I, UH, CANNOT UNDERSTAND THAT WHY WE SHOULD APPROVE THE SUBDIVISION BECAUSE IT IS LEGAL.
BUT WE DO MORE THAN LEGAL TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPLICATIONS OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERS AND, AND OTHER POSSIBLE FUTURE IMPLICATIONS WILL COME.
THAT'S WHY WE ARE SITTING HERE AND REVIEWING IT AND LOOKING AT IT, THE, UH, THE LARGER PICTURE TO, SO TO SPEAK.
SO, UH, I THINK IT'LL BE GOOD FOR APPLICANT TO REALLY TAKE THIS AND TO, UH, UH, GIVE US A, SOME MORE, UH, KIND OF, UH, ARGUMENTS AND, AND THINGS THAT WILL, WILL MAKE IT MORE PALATABLE TO, UH, ALLOWING YOU TO DO THE SUBDIVISION.
LET, LET ME, LET ME, UM, LET ME TRY TO ADDRESS THE HARD, THE HEART OF THAT IF I CAN.
I AGREE WITH YOU, AND OBVIOUSLY AS YOU, AS COUNSEL SAID, YOU CAN ALWAYS GO BACK ON A ONCE GRANTED NEGATIVE DECLARATION, IF THERE ARE, THEY'RE CHANGED IN CIRCUMSTANCES.
AND CLEARLY IF THERE'S A SITE PLAN APPLICATION AT SOME DISTANCE, SOME FUTURE THAT'S BROUGHT BEFORE YOU, YOU CAN ALSO REVISIT IT THEN.
I AGREE WITH THAT, BUT PUSH BACK A LITTLE BIT.
NOTHING HAS CHANGED IN THIS APPLICATION, WHICH WOULD WARRANT THAT.
NOT ONLY THAT, IN THIS APPLICATION UNDER THE LANDSCAPING AND MITIGATION PLAN, THE APPLICANTS ARE GOING TO BE INSTALLING A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER, IMPROVING A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF TREES, PLANTINGS, UH, WITHIN WHAT WILL BE HOPEFULLY THE, THE NEW LOT RIGHT ALONG, UH, IN THE WETLAND BUFFER TO PROTECT IT.
[01:50:01]
IF THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT APPROVED, THAT DOES NOT HAPPEN.IF THE SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED, A DRAMATICALLY IMPROVED LANDSCAPE EXISTS NOT ONLY ON THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY, BUT ON THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY, RIGHT? SO THAT'S ACTUALLY AN IMPROVEMENT TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS.
WHEN THE SUBDIVISION, IF AND WHEN THE SUBDIVISION IS, IS APPROVED, THE DETRIMENT IS WHAT HAPPENS IF THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT APPROVED, NONE OF THAT LANDSCAPING HAPPENS.
THE SHADING DOESN'T HAPPEN, THE MITIGATION, NONE, NONE OF IT HAPPENS.
UM, AND YOU STILL, WITH THAT LANDSCAPING PLAN, STILL RESERVED IF AND WHEN A SITE PLAN IS BROUGHT BEFORE YOU TO DEAL WITH A PROPOSED NEW HOUSE.
CAN I JUMP IN JUST FOR A SECOND? SURE.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, BECAUSE YOU'VE SAID IT A NUMBER OF TIMES.
THE SITE PLAN REVIEW COMING BACK TO THE BOARD IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, THERE IS NO SITE PLAN REVIEW FOR RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY HOME CONSTRUCTION IN THE TOWN THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD.
SO UNLESS THERE WAS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT REQUIRED AN APPLICANT TO COME BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD FOR FURTHER REVIEW OR EVALUATION, WHATEVER IT MIGHT BE, NOT GONNA SPECULATE, THEN IT WOULD COME BACK UNDER THE SUBDIVISION, BUT NOT AS PART OF ANY SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS.
SO I WANT THE PUBLIC TO BE AWARE OF THAT AS WELL.
AND YES, YOURSELF FOR FUTURE REFERENCE.
UM, ALSO ONLY BECAUSE IT CAME UP A FEW TIMES.
NOW WITH RESPECT TO THE TREE REMOVAL, I CAN ADDRESS THAT.
SO WHILE THE PLANNING BOARD IS PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION AND WETLAND WATERCOURSE PERMIT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, UH, THOSE ARE ALL BEING CONSIDERED.
IF THE PROJECT WERE APPROVED AT SOME POINT BY THIS BOARD AND THERE WAS AN APPROVAL LETTER INDICATING THAT THERE WAS A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPROVAL, THE WAY IT'S CARRIED OUT BY THE TOWN OF GREENBURG IS THAT ONLY AT SUCH TIME THAT A BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION IS SUBMITTED, WILL THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT BE ISSUED BY THE TOWN FORESTRY OFFICER? AND THAT'S HOW THIS PLANNING BOARD CONDITIONS, ALL OF ITS SUBDIVISION APPROVALS THAT ALSO INCLUDE TREE REMOVAL.
SO IF THEY DID ULTIMATELY GET IT, IT WOULDN'T BE THAT THEY'D BE ABLE TO CLEAR THE TREES THAT WERE SHOWN ON THE PLAN TO BE REMOVED PRIOR TO ANY BUILDING PERMIT.
SO I JUST WANTED EVERYONE TO BE AWARE OF THAT.
I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THE, THE FIRST, THE FIRST POINT, UM, FOR, FOR THAT.
I MEAN BOTH, BUT THAT FIRST POINT FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.
BUT OBVIOUSLY SUPPLEMENTING WHAT, WHAT MR. SCHMIDT HAS SAID, IF AND WHEN A BUILDING PERMIT IS SUBMITTED, THAT'S GOING TO TIE INTO THIS, I MEAN, WHATEVER THIS BOARD, IF AND WHEN THIS BOARD APPROVES THIS, AND IT WILL OBVIOUSLY, I THINK IT SHOULD AS A CONDITION OR STATE SOMEWHERE THAT IN THE EVENT A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED, IT HAS TO CONFORM TO WHAT IS APPROVED AND WHAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED.
I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S NATURAL.
WELL, NOT ONLY THAT, IT HAS TO REQUIRE WITH ALL THE TOWN CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR RIGHT STORM WATER DRAINAGE, BUT I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT LANDSCAPING, ET CETERA.
I'M JUST SAYING I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO, TO MENTION IT, YOU KNOW.
I WAS JUST GONNA SAY IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, BECAUSE WE DO HAVE ANOTHER APPLICATION.
UM, AND THEY'VE BEEN PATIENTLY WAITING.
UH, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, WE HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT.
I JUST WANT ALLOW TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY TO RESPOND TO THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP, IF YOU ARE PREPARED TO SPEAK TO THOSE.
THE, THE LAST COMMENT THAT AT LEAST I HAVE ON MY NOTE SHEET IS, UH, REFERENCE TO LEY ESTATES.
AGAIN, ODDLY ESTATES, AS I UNDERSTAND OR RECALL, IS NOT NOTED ON GREENBERG'S GIS IF IT EXISTS, IT EXISTS.
IT'S NOT AN HOA, IT'S A GROUP OF HOMEOWNERS WHO GET TOGETHER, WHO HAVE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS AT THEIR RIGHT TO VOICE THEIR OPINION.
IT IS NOT AS, I KNOW, A LEGALLY ORGANIZED ENTITY FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY KIND OF RESTRICTIONS.
THESE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE EXPRESSING THEMSELVES, AND AGAIN, THEY HAVE THE RIGHT AND TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES.
AND THOSE ARE GOOD COMMENTS, AND I THINK THEY WERE ADDRESSED.
AND JUST TO NOTE, MY CLIENT AT LAST POINT, MY CLIENT DID MENTION IN ARDSLEY ESTATES, THERE ARE PLENTY OF COMMUNITIES IN GREENBURG THAT EXIST AS NEIGHBORHOODS.
I THINK ORCHARD HILL MIGHT BE ONE OF THEM.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN ORCHARD HILL CIVICS ASSOCIATION, MAYBE THERE IS.
BUT I USED TO LIVE IN ORCHARD HILL, AND I ALWAYS CALLED IT ORCHARD HILL.
I NEVER HEARD OF A CIVICS ASSOCIATION.
CHAPPAQUA IS NOT A LEGAL MUNICIPALITY AS FAR AS I KNOW, BUT EVERYBODY KNOWS WHAT CHAPPAQUA IS.
UM, IN ANY EVENT, IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S NOT RELEVANT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL PROCESS.
IF THERE'S NOT, IF THERE'S NOTHING ELSE, WHAT I WOULD ASK IS, I THINK WE'VE EXALT YES, WE DO HAVE A, A REQUEST FOR FURTHER COMMENT.
AND WE DO HAVE A FEW MINUTES, SO I'D ASK YOU TO KEEP THEM BRIEF AND ANY NEW INFORMATION THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE OR FOLLOWING
[01:55:01]
UP TO THE RESPONSE FROM COUNSEL.THE QUESTION WAS RAISED ABOUT WHAT'S CHANGED THAT REOPENS THIS, A LOT OF INFORMATION I THINK WAS PRESENTED TO THIS BOARD THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY PRESENTED.
SO I THINK THERE'S MORE INFORMATION FOR CONSIDERATION THAT WAS NOT PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED.
THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT A SECOND HOUSE IN THE APPLICATION.
I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON READING APPLICATION, BUT THE APPLICATION SHOWS A SECOND HOUSE, INCLUDING THE SPECIFICATIONS, THE NUMBER OF FLOORS, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, NOT JUST THE SETBACKS.
SO THERE IS REFERENCE TO A SECOND HOUSE IN THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION.
UH, THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY APPROPRIATELY DOES NOT HYPOTHESIZE ABOUT THE PAST, BUT HE DOES HYPOTHESIZE ABOUT THE FUTURE.
REGARDING THE PAST, UH, WHAT I SHARE WITH THIS PLANNING BOARD IS DOCUMENTATION.
TOLL BROTHERS DID NOT DO THE SUBDIVISION OF ARLEY ESTATES.
FAITH LEE DID THE SUBDIVISION.
ARLEY TOLL BROTHERS BOUGHT THE SUBDIVIDED PLOT AND BUILT ON THE SUBDIVISION.
FAITH LEE WITH HER ATTORNEY, MADE THE REDUCTION FROM 37 TO 34 LOTS.
AND THE COUNTY BOARD OF HEALTH WOULD NOT PERMIT INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY BOOSTERS.
SO TOLD, SO FAITH LEE HAD SAID WE WOULD'VE PUT INDIVIDUAL BOOSTERS ON, BUT THE COUNTY WOULD NOT PERMIT IT.
AND IT WAS TOO EXPENSIVE TO PUT A, A BOOSTER ON FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT AS WE MENTIONED BEFORE.
THE PLANNING BOARD IS EVALUATING LAW AND CHARACTER.
WHAT WE'RE RAISING HERE IS CHARACTER, UH, LANDSCAPING OF THE TREES.
I'M NOT AN ARBORIST, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE TREES THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR THE WETLANDS AREA ARE NOT INDIGENOUS OR ACTUALLY APPROPRIATE FOR THIS KIND OF A PURPOSE.
BUT, UH, THAT SECONDHAND INFORMATION, I PUT IT OUT THERE FOR THE PLAN TO EVALUATE, FOR THE BOARD TO EVALUATE.
UM, 10 SECONDS ON THE RESPONSE AND THEN I'M GONNA CLOSE.
UM, IF AS, AS I WAS JUST MADE AWARE, TOLL BROTHERS BOUGHT FROM FAITH THREE, YOU HAD ALREADY SUBDIVIDED AND TOLL BROTHERS BUILT ON IT, AND YOU HAVE A DECLARATION.
I'M CURIOUS HOW TOLL BROTHERS MANAGED BUILD TO BUILD HOUSES ON SUBDIVIDED LOTS.
IF THERE WAS A RESTRICTION AGAINST BUILDING ON SUBDIVIDED LOTS.
I WOULD, WE'VE EXHAUSTED, RESPECTFULLY, ALL THE POINTS.
A LOT OF THIS WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE JUNE 4TH MEETING.
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY MORE COMMENTS OR ANY MORE INFORMATION THAT THIS BOARD NEEDS OR SHOULD HAVE WITH THAT'S OUT THERE.
I WOULD ASK THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED AND THAT THIS APPLICATION BE MOVED TO THE NEXT MEETING.
FRANKLY, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE I CAN PROVIDE TO THIS BOARD BETWEEN NOW AND THE NEXT MEETING.
UM, AND I RESPECTFULLY YOUR REQUEST THAT, UH, I THINK DENISE, I I'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM FIRST, SO I JUST WANTED TO SOME, UH, THE, UH, UH, MR. ROSENBAUM, I'M APOLOGIZE, UH, CAME AND SPOKE ABOUT THE, THAT HE POINTED TO A PROVISION IN THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS THAT SAID THAT THIS DECLARATION DID NOT APPLY TO THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVIDED.
THAT THAT WOULD APPLY TO FAITH LEE.
SO HOW WOULD TOLL BROTHERS HAVE BUILT HOMES IF IT, IF WE WOULD'VE APPLIED TO TOLL BROTHERS? UH, CAN I MAKE JUST AN OVERALL COMMENT GOING BACK AND FORTH? AND I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S MUST BE TIRING TO YOU AS WELL AS US TO LISTENING TO SAME ARGUMENTS AND COMMENTS.
UH, WHY HAVEN'T YOU TALKED TO YOUR NEIGHBORS CONSIDERING THAT ALL NEIGHBORS ARE VERY MUCH LIKE YOU AND THEY ARE VERY HAPPY AS A NEIGHBORS.
SO I THINK IT MAY BE A GOOD IDEA TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THEM AND THEN COME BACK TO US IF THERE IS A I BEYOND THE LEGAL THINGS.
I THINK IT'S A CHARACTER OF THE, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE, AND SORT OF, UH, UH, A COEXISTENCE OF ALL THE PEOPLE.
I THINK IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A, TO ME IT'S A SIMPLE, I THINK IT'S LEGAL IS ONE THING.
THE OTHER STUFF, AND WE AS A PLANNING BOARD, LOOK AT THE BOARD, THE PART OF IT.
SO DON'T, DON'T
NO, I'M, I'M VERY GLAD YOU ASKED THAT.
'CAUSE I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT AFTER THE JUNE 4TH MEETING, I EMAILED, UH, MR. ROSENBAUM, I'M STANDING TO MY RIGHT HERE.
UM, I, I OFFERED HIM COMMENTS THAT I HAD ON YOU.
I I, I EMAILED HIM AND I DIDN'T GET A RESPONSE.
HE HAS MY PHONE NUMBER, HE HAS MY EMAIL.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT THERE IS TO DISCUSS.
WE HAVE A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION.
HE SAID HE'S LOOKING FOR COUNSEL
I WOULD THINK THAT THAT'S A LITTLE INTIMIDATING, RIGHT? LIKE, AND HE'S LOOKING FOR COUNSEL AND MAYBE WOULD WANT TO, LIKE, I THINK WHAT MR. DESAI IS POINTING TO IS MAYBE THE HOMEOWNERS SHOULD TO TALK TO THEIR NEIGHBORS.
NOT THAT THEIR LAWYERS SHOULD TALK TO THEIR NEIGHBORS, RIGHT.
BUT REGARDLESS, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT FOR US.
I THINK IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE ADVICE.
[02:00:01]
BUT, UM, I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE ANSWERING THIS BECAUSE I WANNA FIND OUT WHAT THE APPLICATION SAYS.UM, BECAUSE HERE IN OUR AGENDA IT SAYS THAT THE PURPOSE IS TO FACILITATE THE CONSTRUCTION OF ONE NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
SO I WANT TO KNOW THE WHOLE SCOPE OF WHAT'S BEING ASKED.
IF WE'RE ASKING ABOUT FACILITATING THIS CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FAMILY RESIDENCE, THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN JUST BEING ASKED TO SUBDIVIDE OR JUST BEING ASKED FOR THE WETLAND WATER FORCE PERMIT.
UM, YOU KNOW, AND WE'RE ALSO, I MEAN, WE'RE NOT A COURT, WE'RE NOT HERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT HERE WITH, YOU KNOW, SEEKING TO ENFORCE THIS PROTECTIVE, UM, THIS PROTECTIVE COVENANT.
SO, SO THERE'S, THERE'S SORT OF A QUESTION OF LIKE, WHERE, WHERE THE, THE TWO, UM, THE TWO WHERE OUR AUTHORITIES STOPS AND WHERE, WHERE COURTS WOULD START.
AND SO I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR US TO, TO REVIEW THAT BEFORE, BEFORE TAKING, UM, FURTHER ACTION, MY PERSONAL OPINION.
SO I HEARD ABOUT THE REST OF YOU.
SO I DO THINK WE'VE RECEIVED SOME NEW INFORMATION TONIGHT.
UH, AND, AND THERE ARE SOME OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS AS MS. ANDERSON HAS JUST, UH, EXPLAINED.
SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE HEARING TO OUR JULY 16TH MEETING TO REQUEST WRITTEN RESPONSE FROM THE APPLICANT AND STAFF TIME TO REVIEW TONIGHT'S COMMENTS, UH, SOME OF WHICH REQUIRE REVIEW WITH OTHER TOWN PROFESSIONALS BEFORE, I'M SORRY, BEFORE THE VOTE.
I CAN ANSWER MS. ANDERSON'S QUESTION VERY DIRECTLY.
THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR A SUBDIVISION.
WE WERE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT SOME INFORMATION ON A FOOTPRINT AND PROPOSED HOUSE.
BUT LET ME BE CRYSTAL CLEAR AS I WAS BEFORE WE WERE ASKING THIS BOARD JUST TO GRANT SUBDIVISION.
I, I, I, I CAN PUT THAT IN A LETTER TO THIS BOARD.
IT'S GONNA SAY THE EXACT SAME THING.
SO IT'S SUB, THE REASON WHY IT SAYS SUBDIVISION OF A SINGLE FAMILY OR, OR ONE HOUSE, IS THAT IT'S NOT FOR THE SUBDIVISION TO CREATE A MULTI-FAMILY OR FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
UM, AND IT'S NOT JUST A SUBDIVISION.
YOU'RE ALSO ASKING FOR THE WHITE LAND AND, AND EXACTLY.
SO I, I'LL, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
DO I SAY A SECOND TO, AND THE MOTION IS TO CONTINUE TO ADJOURN THE MEETING.
ADJOURN THE HEARING UNTIL JULY.
JUST ADMINISTRATIVELY, CAN WE HAVE A DATE BY WHICH ANY MORE COMMENTS ARE SUBMITTED? SO THIS, IT DOESN'T COME UP A DAY BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING.
FIRST, FIRST DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY.
MAY I JUST CLARIFY ONE ITEM? UH, COME CLARIFICATION.
THE SUBDIVISION WAS PERFORMED BY FAITHFULLY.
THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT WAS WRITTEN BY TOLL BROTHERS.
THAT'S WHY TOLL BROTHERS WAS ALLOWED TO BUILD UNDER THEIR OWN PROTECTIVE COVENANT.
IT'S NOT FAITH LEE THAT HAD A PROTECTIVE COVENANT.
MAY I JUST SAY SOMETHING? MAY I ASK YOU SOMETHING? GARY? UH, THIS IS MR. CAR.
UH, WE'LL GIVE YOU YES, VERY QUICKLY.
IF YOU WOULD TAKE TWO, TWO MINUTES.
FIRST, IT'S CLEAR THIS IS A STEP TRANSACTION.
SECOND, SEVEN DAYS IS NOT ENOUGH TIME FOR US TO GET A LAWYER, GET THEM UP TO SPEED AND BE ABLE TO COMMENT.
I UNDERSTAND THAT DOESN'T GO WELL WITH THIS COUNCIL'S APP.
HE'S BEEN UP TO SPEED FOR A LONG TIME.
IT'S NOT FAIR IF WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS.
SO IF YOU POST ORDER TO JANUARY, JULY 15TH, THAT IS TOTALLY UNFAIR TO US.
WE NEED TO GET A GOOD COUNSELOR THAT HAS TO ORDER MINE WITH THAT.
AND WE NEED AT LEAST TWO MONTHS, IN MY OPINION.
I CAN SEE THEY'VE HAD PLENTY OF NOTICE AND TIME TO OBTAIN COUNSEL FOR, WASN'T THERE DISCUSSION, THE LAST MEETING ABOUT OBTAINING COUNSEL? YES, THERE WAS.
SO MR. CARLI WE'RE JUST DISCUSSING THE FACT THAT THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING, UM, FOUR WEEKS AGO ON JUNE 4TH, 2025, WHERE IT WAS DISCUSSED THE POTENTIAL TO BRING A BOARD COUNCIL AT THAT TIME, AND SORRY, WE WOULD, WOULD BE PROVIDING AN ADDITIONAL WEEK FOR COMMENTS.
NOW, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE NEW COMMENTARY AT THE PUBLIC HEARING TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT.
BUT AARON, BUT WRITTEN COMMENTS WE WOULD LIKE.
BUT ONE WEEK IN ADVANCE, AARON, IF THAT'S WHAT, UH, AND CONSIDERING THAT, UH, THE, THEY ARE CLAIMING THAT THEY WERE NOT UP TO THE SPEED IN THE WHOLE PROCESS,
[02:05:01]
UH, WE CAN MOVE IT TO THE NEXT, UH, AUGUST 6TH RATHER THAN 16.SO GIVE THEM A FAIR CHANCE TO, AND WHAT I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, GETTING A LAWYER, IT MAY NOT BE THAT EASY.
I THINK IF, I THINK IT'D BE FAIR CONSIDERING THAT, I MEAN, I THINK THE MOTIONS, I THINK THE MOTION'S ALREADY CARRIED.
AND I THINK YOU, YOU MADE THE MOTION, SO YEAH, BUT I, I, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HEARD SOMETHING AFTER THAT WOULD CHANGE THE MIND.
BUT IT'S FINE WITH ME EITHER WAY.
IT, IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO THE BOARD.
TWO WEEKS CAN, ON THE MOTION, CAN I, IF CORRECT, IF THE BOARD IS GONNA ENTERTAIN THAT, CAN, CAN I, CAN I PLEASE SAY SOMETHING? THIS APPLICATION STARTED IN NOVEMBER.
IT WAS HELD OFF BECAUSE STATE LAW REQUIRED US TO GET THE JUDICIAL JURISDICTION JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION.
WE CAME BACK, I THINK IN, IN MAY.
SO IT'S BEEN A LONG, AND YOU'RE RIGHT, AN EXHAUSTIVE PROCESS.
AND THERE WAS A JUNE 4TH MEETING, BUT THE, THE COMMUNITY KNEW ABOUT IT BEFORE JUNE 4TH.
IF YOU'RE GONNA SPEAK, PLEASE WAIT UNTIL YOU HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME UP.
THERE WAS, THERE WAS NOTICE GIVEN, THERE WAS A MEETING OF THE SO-CALLED LEY ESTATE CIVIC ASSOCIATION.
IT'S BEEN MORE THAN, UM, IT'S BEEN MORE THAN A MONTH.
AND QUITE FRANKLY, WITH RESPECT, RESPECTFULLY TO MR. DAVID ROSENBAUM, HE WAS MORE ELOQUENT THAN MANY ATTORNEYS WHO DO LAND USE WORK.
SO HE'S ALREADY UP TO SPEED AND IT IS TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE APPLICANT'S.
IT'S BEEN A LONG, LONG PROCESS.
UM, AND THE APPLICANT WOULD ASK THAT WE STAY IN JULY.
SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME UP, YOU CAN, I'D LIKE SPEAK AT THE MICROPHONE PLEASE.
BUT SHORTENING THIS DISCUSSION, I THINK, UH, WE CAN HAVE A, UH, RATHER THAN HAVING NEXT TIME AND THEN GOING THROUGH ANOTHER ONE WEEK, UH, LOOKING AT IT, THE, UH, CLEARLY, UH, QUITE A BIT OF, UH, UH, RESISTANCE TO THE WHOLE THING.
IT'D BE BETTER TO HAVE FOR YOU AND FOR US TO NOT DO THAT OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
AND JUST DO IT ONE TIME AND DONE WITH IT
THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE TO DO RESPECTFULLY.
AND WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TONIGHT IS A, A SIMILAR TO WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED BEFORE, AND IT'S BEEN WITH THE, WELL, EXCEPT I DO REMEMBER, I THINK THEY WANTED TO, EXCUSE ME, BUT THEY WANTED TO HAVE A LAWYER, WHICH THEY SAID LAST TIME, AND I AGREE THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH TIME.
THERE ARE SOME NEW POINTS RAISED AS WELL BY MR. ROSENBAUM THAT I THINK AN ENGINEER OR YOURSELF COULD ANSWER.
AND I'D LIKE TO LET YES I SAY, UM, JUST YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, ROSENBAUM.
I LIVE AT 1 32 EUCLID AVENUE AND LEY, UH, A LOT OF WHAT THE ATTORNEY IS SAYING, HE, HE'S, HE MAY BE ON THE LETTER ACCURATE, BUT HE IS GUILTY OF OMISSION IN MANY, MANY AREAS.
UH, WE KNEW NOTHING ABOUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, ON THE PROPERTY NEXT TO US UNTIL MAY 22ND.
THAT'S THE DAY AFTER THE MEETING THAT YOU HELD WHERE YOU INSTRUCTED THE APPLICANTS TO PUT A SIGN UP AND TO SEND LETTERS.
WE DIDN'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT, THEY DO EVERYTHING IN SECRET.
THEY BUILT THEIR TENNIS COURT OR WHATEVER IT IS, BASKETBALL COURT.
THEY, EVERYTHING IS SHROUDED IN MYSTERY.
AND THE ATTORNEY ALSO KEEPS ALLUDING TO THE PROPERTY, TO THE SOUTHS.
WE FOUND A LOT OF INFORMATION.
WE DID A LOT OF RESEARCH IN THE WEEKS THAT WE HAD.
MUCH OF IT WAS NOT PRESENTED AT THE LAST MEETING.
WE'RE, AND WE'RE NOVICES, BUT WE DO KNOW HOW TO RESEARCH.
IT'S PART OF WHAT WE DO FOR A LIVING.
AND I KNOW THAT THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY BEHIND US, CIA ESTATES, WHICH SPANS A LARGE AREA, HAS A PLAN TO BUILD, I THINK FOUR HOUSES.
AND PART OF THAT PROBABLY EXTENDS INTO, OR COULD EXTEND INTO THE LAND NEXT TO US THAT'S THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO SUBDIVIDE.
I MEAN, THERE'S JUST SO MUCH INFORMATION THAT WE DON'T KNOW.
NONE OF YOU GOT THIS INFORMATION AND THE ATTORNEY DIDN'T GET THE INFORMATION.
WHY? I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU HAVE A MEETING AND YOU DON'T DO ANY DUE DILIGENCE.
WE HAD TO UNCOVER ALL OF THIS STUFF AND IT DIDN'T TAKE A COUPLE OF HOURS.
IT TOOK MAN DAYS AND WE DID IT GLADLY BECAUSE THIS IS, THIS AFFECTS US TREMENDOUSLY.
SO I WOULD LIKE THERE TO BE LIKE FULL DISCLOSURE ABOUT WHAT'S REALLY GOING ON, WHO'S ACTUALLY PAYING THE ATTORNEY, WHAT'S THE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE PROPERTY BEHIND AND THE DEVELOPMENT PLANS THERE.
THERE'S A LOT OF STUFF THAT HE KEEPS SPRINKLING IN, BUT HE'S NOT REAL CLEAR.
[02:10:01]
BEING FORTHRIGHT.IF, IF YOU'D LIKE TO PUT TOGETHER YES.
ANY COMMENTS TO THAT EFFECT, I WILL.
SO THAT WE CAN PASS THOSE ALONG.
AND, AND, AND IF ANY, YOU KNOW, SO, SO WE'VE ALREADY, UH, ADJOURNED THE HEARING UNTIL THE 16TH.
THERE'S NOTHING PREVENTING US FROM ADJOURNING THE HEARING AGAIN AFTER THE 16TH.
UM, I DO REMEMBER IN THE, THE MEETING IN MAY THOUGH, I DO REMEMBER THEM BEING ASKED EXPRESSLY HAD THEY REACHED OUT TO ANY NEIGHBORS AND THEY HAD SAID NO.
AND IT, WE ARE, IT WAS A LITTLE SURPRISING THAT THAT MUCH TIME HAD GONE BY AND THERE WAS NO OUTREACH TO THE NEIGHBORS.
SO I, I DO, I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT AND OBVIOUSLY I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT AND GIVING THEM MORE TIME, UM, GIVING THEM ANOTHER TWO WEEKS BEFORE, UM, BRINGING THEM BACK.
SO IT, THAT WOULD JUST BE THE WAY I WOULD GO.
BUT OBVIOUSLY IT'S, I'M JUST ONE PERSON.
WELL, THERE, THERE, THERE'S ANOTHER WRINKLE, UH, IN THAT THIS BOARD WILL NOT BE MEETING ON AUGUST 6TH, AND WE HAVE YET TO DECIDE ON WHAT THE MEETING DATE WILL BE.
THE FIRST WEEK OF AUGUST, I THINK YOU TALKING ABOUT TILL NEXT WEEK IN AUGUST? NO, I WAS GOING TO DISCUSS IT WITH THIS BOARD WHEN WE FINISHED AT 9 55 THIS EVENING.
I MEAN, MAYBE WOULD YOU, AND SINCE YOU ASKED FOR A FULL WEEK TO GET WRITTEN COMMENTS BEFORE THE MEETING, WOULD YOU SAY YOU'RE FINE WITH GETTING WRITTEN COMMENTS THE DAY BEFORE THE MEETING AND I, I'M, I'M FINE WITH THE DAY OR TWO BEFORE THE MEETINGS.
I CAN ADDRESS ANYTHING, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS THE TOWN WILL ACCEPT MY RESPONSE THAT SHORT OF A TIME BEFORE MEETING.
SO BY MONDAY THE 14TH? MONDAY THE 14TH, PERFECTLY FINE.
AND AGAIN, BASED ON WHAT WE LEARNED THEN, YOU KNOW, WE ALWAYS RESERVE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE TO ADJOURN THE HEARING UNTIL AUGUST, ONCE WE KNOW WHEN THE AUGUST MEETING IS.
SO THIS BOARD HAS VOTED TO ADJOURN THE PUBLIC HEARING TO JULY 16TH.
IT HAS REQUESTED THAT ANY ADDITIONAL WRITTEN COMMENTS BE SUBMITTED BY MONDAY, JULY 14TH TO GIVE.
UM, AND I SUPPOSE IF WE HAD TO DECIDE ON A TIME, I WOULD LIKE THAT TO BE 3:00 PM SO THAT STAFF HAS TIME TO RECEIVE THOSE AND ALSO TO FORWARD THEM ALONG TO, UH, THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY AND, UM, WE'LL TAKE IT FROM THERE AT THAT TIME.
SO, MR. DESAI, WOULD YOU CONSIDER, UH, ENTERTAINING YOUR MOTION, UH, TO ADJOURN THE HEARING TO, UH, OR ADJOURN THE HEARING TO JULY 16TH, UH, WITH WRITTEN COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY MONDAY, JULY 14TH AT 3:00 PM UH, TO REQUEST WRITTEN RESPONSE FROM THE APPLICANTS AND STAFF TIME TO REVIEW TONIGHT'S COMMENTS, SOME OF WHICH REQUIRE REVIEW WITH OTHER TOWN PROFESSIONALS? UH, YES, I'LL SUPPORT IT CONSIDERING THAT, UH, ALRIGHT.
UH, WOULD, WOULD SOMEONE AGREED TO THAT? DO I SEE A SECOND TO THAT AMENDED MOTION? SECOND.
WE JUST WANT TO VOTE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SESSION.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO MOVE.
ALL RIGHT, MR. MR. WE, UH, SO NEXT UP IS A WORK, UH, OLD BUSINESS, UH, CASE NUMBER 24 13 TACO BELL.
WE HAVE THE, UH, THE ATTORNEY, UH, FROM THE APPLICANT HERE.
GOOD EVENING BOARD MEMBERS, MATT BARONS FROM THE LAW FIRM'S.
AARON STEINMETZ HERE WITH PAUL DUMONT FROM, UH, THE FIRM JMC.
UM, PAUL WILL DO THE MAJORITY OF SPEAKING TONIGHT.
HE'S GONNA WALK THROUGH THE, THE RESPONSES TO THE, THE PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSION WE HAD WITH THE BOARD LAST MEETING, AS WELL AS SOME FOLLOW UP COMMENTS FROM, UM, THE TOWNS ENGINEER, JOHN CANNING.
UM, BUT I'LL JUST SAY WE, WE DID LOOK AT A, THE, THE MAJORITY, IF NOT ALL, OF THE COMMENTS THAT THE BOARD RAVES, UH, RAISED AT THE LAST MEETING.
UM, THE TRASH ENCLOSURE, THE BIKE RACK, THE EXTENSION OF THE SOUNDPROOF FENCING, UH, THE INCLUSION OF POROUS PAVEMENT.
WE ARE HAPPY TO PRESENT THAT WE CAN INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF POROUS PAVEMENT, UM, TO ABOUT 2,900 SQUARE FEET OF POROUS PAVEMENT IN THE SITE PLAN, WHICH WE THINK IS A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT AND SHOULD HELP EVEN MORE WITH THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CONDITIONS, UM, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE OTHER PIECES.
[02:15:01]
PAUL DO THE MAJORITY OF THE TALKING.THEY'VE, THEY'VE WORKED HARD, JM C'S WORKED HARD ON RESPONDING TO, TO YOUR, YOUR BOARD'S COMMENTS AS WELL AS JOHN CANNINGS COMMENTS.
AND IF, AS PART OF EITHER PAUL OR YOURSELF COMMENTING, WE ALSO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU RUN THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL VARIANCES YES, YES.
NOW REQUIRED, UH, AS THERE'S A SECRET DETERMINATION AND A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD FORTHCOMING AT SOME POINT.
UH, GOOD EVENING FOR THE RECORD.
UM, SO JUST TO RUN THROUGH, I KNOW MATT TOUCHED ON SOME OF THE POINTS.
WE MADE A COMPREHENSIVE RESUBMISSION, UH, RESPONDING TO THE COMMENTS THAT WE HEARD AT THE LAST MEETING.
UH, WE WENT THROUGH A NUMBER OF ITEMS THAT WERE RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN.
I CAN RUN THROUGH THOSE AT A HIGH LEVEL.
UM, WE SHIFTED THE DOORS OF THE TRASH ENCLOSURE SLIGHTLY SO THAT, UH, ONE DOOR WOULD ALWAYS, UH, REMAIN AVAILABLE, UM, WHICH IS IN FRONT OF THE, THE ACCESS AISLE.
WE'VE INCORPORATED A BIKE RACK INTO THE SITE PLAN, WHICH IS LOCATED IN ONE OF THE LANDSCAPED ISLANDS.
AND WE SHIFTED, UH, SOME OF THE, THE LANDSCAPING TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
UM, AT THE REQUEST OF THE BOARD, WE EXTENDED THE PROPOSED SIMTECH SOUND ATTENUATION FENCE THAT'S GONNA BE ADJACENT TO THE DRIVE THROUGH.
SO THAT EXTENDS ALL THE WAY, UH, TO THE REAR OF THE SITE AS FAR AS WE CAN GO, UH, PARALLELING THE RETAINING WALL, THE PROPOSED RETAINING WALL.
UM, IN ADDITION, WE'VE INCORPORATED, UH, POROUS PAVEMENT INTO THE PLAN.
WE'RE PROPOSING POROUS PAVEMENT IN THREE OF THE BAYS OF PARKING, UH, THE TWO NORTHERN BAYS.
I'M HIGHLIGHTING THEM WITH MY CURSOR.
AND THEN THE, THE THREE PARKING SPACES IN THE FRONT, UH, FOR A TOTAL OF, UH, 2,900 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS ABOUT, UM, 23% OF THE OVERALL IMPERVIOUS AREA ON THE SITE.
SO, UH, IT'S A MEANINGFUL, UM, MEANINGFUL PROPOSAL FROM THE APPLICANT.
UM, ALTHOUGH WE CAN'T COUNT THAT TOWARD OUR PERVIOUS AREA IN TERMS OF THE ZONING REQUIREMENT.
IN ADDITION, UH, WE PREPARED, UH, THIS FIGURE THAT I'VE PULLED UP HERE, WHICH SHOWS ALL OF THE PROPERTIES ON CENTRAL AVENUE FROM MARION AVENUE TO, UM, THE TRADER JOE'S SHOPPING CENTER.
AND WE'VE COLOR CODED THEM BASED ON THEIR TURNING RESTRICTIONS.
UH, ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN GREEN HAVE NO TURNING RESTRICTIONS, AND THE PROPERTIES IN, UH, RED DO HAVE TURNING, UH, LEFT TURN, TURNING RESTRICTIONS, AND THE, UH, OTHER PROPERTIES EITHER DON'T HAVE ACCESS, DRIVEWAY ACCESS, OR ARE VACANT.
UM, SO WHAT YOU SEE IS PRETTY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING WITH YOUR BOARD.
SO, SO HOW DID YOU DETERMINE THE, THE, HOW DID YOU, HOW DID YOU, WHAT, WHAT DATA DID YOU USE TO CREATE THIS JUST FIELD, FIELD RECON? OKAY.
BECAUSE I, I KNOW AT THE LAST MEETING THERE WAS REFERENCE TO MM-HMM
UM, THE STARBUCKS, WHICH I, I NOTICED THE STARBUCKS LOT IS INDICATED AS LEFT TURNS PERMITTED WHEN I MM-HMM
THAT, THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN ONE MIS MISTAKE, BUT WE, WE DID GO THROUGH PROPERTY BY PROPERTY.
AND WAS IT LIKE, UM, ON ONSITE INVESTIGATION OR WERE THEY LOOKING AT LIKE GOOGLE STREET? NO, IT WAS ONSITE INVESTIGATIONS.
UM, SO YEAH, IT COULD HAVE BEEN A MISTAKE, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A LOT OF PROPERTIES FOR US TO COVER.
UM, BUT I PERSONALLY, UM, LOOKED AT A LOT OF THE PROPERTIES AS WELL TO CONFIRM ON STREET VIEW, AND A LOT OF THEM DON'T HAVE TURNING RESTRICTIONS.
UH, I KNOW KIMLEY HORNE ALSO TOOK A LOOK AT THIS.
UM, BUT I THINK GENERALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, BARRING ONE OR TWO PROPERTIES THAT, YOU KNOW, MIGHT HAVE BEEN MISCHARACTERIZED, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE TURNING RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE IMPOSED ON THESE PROPERTIES, IT'S VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE SPOKE ABOUT WITH KIMLEY HORNE AT THE LAST MEETING WHERE, UH, PROPERTIES THAT ARE, UH, APPROXIMATE TO INTERSECTIONS, WHERE YOU'LL HAVE, UH, CONFLICTS WITH QUEUING AND THINGS LIKE THAT, THOSE PROPERTIES HAVE TURNING RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED.
UM, BUT, YOU KNOW, PROPERTIES THAT ARE FURTHER DISTANT FROM INTERSECTIONS WHERE YOU MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY HAVE, UH, CONFLICTS, THOSE PROPERTIES ARE PERMIT PERMITTED TO HAVE THE LEFT TURNING, UH, MOVEMENTS WHILE WE'RE ON THIS.
SO, SO HOW MANY, SORRY, I I'LL LET YOU ASK THE QUESTION.
MR. SII WAS JUST WANTED TO HAVE A SORT OF, SO HOW MANY PROPERTIES YOU HAVE, UH, REVIEWED? UH MM-HMM
WHICH IS MARKED IN A GREEN AND SOME IN A, UH, ORANGE RED.
UH, SO JUST WANT TO KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGES ARE.
UM, I DON'T HAVE THE PERCENTAGE.
WE COULD, WE COULD BREAK IT DOWN IN THAT WAY.
I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE UPWARDS OF 30 PLUS PROPERTIES WERE PROBABLY LOOKED AT.
YOU COULD LOOK AT AND GET BACK TO US.
UM, IN TERMS OF THE LEFT TURN, SINCE WE'RE DISCUSSING THAT MM-HMM
UM, AND WHILE WE'RE ON THAT TOPIC, HAS THERE BEEN ANY FURTHER COMMUNICATION WITH NEW YORK STATE DOT ABOUT WHERE THEY ARE AT WITH RESPECT TO THE FULL MOVEMENTS
[02:20:01]
IN AND OUT OF THE SITE? YEAH, SO WE HAVE HAD PHONE CALLS WITH DOT.UH, THERE WERE SOME EMAILS BACK AND FORTH ABOUT TRYING TO SET UP A MEETING.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY MEETING DATES SET YET.
THERE'S BEEN NO OFFICIAL LETTER DETERMINATION MADE OR COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM THE DOT YET.
BUT, UM, WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT BY THE NEXT MEETING OR BY THE ZONING BOARD MEETING, WE'LL HAVE SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE DOT.
WE JUST HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT OFFICIAL FEEDBACK YET.
JUST PLEASE KEEP US IN THE LOOP.
YES, WE WILL ABSOLUTELY KEEP EVERYBODY IN THE LOOP.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PREVIOUS, UH, PAVEMENT COMMENT? YES.
SO IS THERE A MAINTENANCE PLAN INCORPORATED OR A NOTE TO THAT EFFECT? SO IT'S A GREAT ADDITION, YOU KNOW, INCLUDING THAT SURE.
WE JUST NEED TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S MAINTENANCE OF IT OVER TIME.
SO WE DIDN'T PUT ANYTHING TOGETHER AS PART OF THE STORMWATER PERMIT THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO GET THERE.
IT, IT'S A REQUIREMENT THAT WE WILL HAVE TO DO THAT, BUT WE CAN DRAW SOMETHING TOGETHER AND SUBMIT THAT AS A DRAFT FOR REVIEW.
JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON, WE TOUCHED ON DOT.
UH, OH, I JUST WANTED TO TOUCH WHILE WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THIS IN PARTICULAR.
UM, WE DID, AND I KNOW JOHN CANNING WAS ASKED TO AS WELL, AND, AND HE SENT AN EMAIL TO STAFF.
WE DID LOOK AT THE TRAFFIC STUDY AND, UH, JUST GENERALLY THE, UM, THE DISTANCE FROM THE FOUR CORNERS INTERSECTION AND THE MAXIMUM QUEUE.
UH, SO THE MAXIMUM QUEUE, UH, THAT WAS STUDIED IN THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS FROM THE FOUR CORNERS INTERSECTION WAS, I BELIEVE, 550 FEET, SOMETHING LIKE THAT, WHICH IS ABOUT 170 FEET FURTHER SOUTH OF THE SITE.
SO IN, IN OUR PROFESSIONAL OPINION, UM, THAT IS FURTHER, YOU KNOW, FAR ENOUGH AWAY DURING THE PEAK HOUR WHERE YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE THOSE CONFLICTS, UM, WITH CARS LEAVING THE SITE.
UH, AND WE DID ALSO LOOK AT THE, THE QUEUE, UM, WHAT'S CALLED THE QUEUING ANALYSIS, LEAVING THE SITE.
UH, SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE SEE DURING THE, THE PEAK HOUR.
UM, THERE'LL BE A MAXIMUM OF ONE VEHICLE IN THE QUEUE THAT'S WAITING TO LEAVE THE SITE.
SO AS FAR AS ONSITE OPERATIONS, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE THERE, UM, DURING THE PEAK HOUR, SIGNIFICANT, YOU KNOW, UM, CONFLICTS AND PEOPLE WAITING TO LEAVE THE SITE.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE, THERE'LL BE A MAXIMUM, UH, QUEUE OF ONE VEHICLE.
AND MR. CANNING DID CONFIRM, AND THIS IS RESPECT, WITH RESPECT TO EXITING THE SITE, BERG ASKED, YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE'S TRYING TO LEAVE AND MAKE A LEFT, IS THE SITE GONNA BACK UP AND, AND BACK UP THE QUEUE AND ALL THE WAY TO THE, THE TAKEOUT WINDOW OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
AND MR. CANNING DID OPINE ALSO THAT HE DID NOT, BASED ON THE DATA PROVIDED, ENVISION THAT BEING A PROBLEM.
AND ALSO, JUST FOR THE RECORD, UM, MR. CANNING ASKED THAT WE, WE LOOK AT THE PEDESTRIAN SIGNAL, THE HAWK SIGNAL THAT'S JUST NORTH OF OUR SITE, UM, IT'S ESSENTIALLY A SIGNAL THAT A PEDESTRIAN CAN ACTIVATE AND IT, UH, IT TURNS CENTRAL AVENUE RED STOPS THE TRAFFIC ON CENTRAL AVENUE FOR THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSING.
WE LOOKED AT THAT DURING THE SATURDAY PEAK HOUR, AND, UH, WE FOUND THAT IT WAS ACTIVATED THREE TIMES, WHICH IS, UM, A LOW AMOUNT OF ACTIVATIONS AND IT WOULDN'T CAUSE, UH, ANY CONFLICTS WITH THE, THE TRAFFIC ENTERING OR EXITING THE SITE.
UM, SO WITH REGARD TO THE BUILDING HEIGHT, WE WERE ASKED AT THE LAST MEETING TO, TO LOOK AT THE BUILDING HEIGHT.
UM, THERE WAS A DIS, UH, A CORRECTION IN THE WAY THAT WE CALCULATED THE BUILDING HEIGHT IN THIS RECENT RESUBMISSION.
UH, I REACHED OUT TO LIZ GARRITY AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND, AND CLARIFIED THAT, UH, THE BUILDING HEIGHT MUST INCLUDE THE HEIGHT OF THE PARA BIT.
UH, AND IN THIS CASE THERE'S AN ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT, UH, WHERE THE TACO BELL SIGNAGE IS.
THAT'S, UH, IT'S REALLY AN ARCHITECTURAL TOWERS, WHAT THE ARCHITECTS CALL IT, BUT IT'S, IT EXTENDS ABOVE THE PARAPET LINE.
SO WORKING WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, UM, WE CLARIFIED HOW THAT SHOULD BE DONE.
AND WE ARE NOW INCLUDING THE, THE BUILDING HEIGHT, OR THE, I'M SORRY, THE TOWER HEIGHT IN THE OVERALL BUILDING HEIGHT CALCULATION.
UM, SO WE'RE PROPOSING A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 24.1 FEET, AND I JUST WANT TO SCROLL A LITTLE BIT.
THE EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT IS 20.1 FEET TO THE TOP OF THEIR PARAPET.
SO IT IS AN INCREASE IN THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY.
UM, OVERALL, YOU KNOW, THE MASSING OF THE BUILDING, IN MY OPINION, IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING BUILDING.
THE OVERALL PARAPET HEIGHT IS ACTUALLY, UM, LESS THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING HEIGHT, BUT THERE'S JUST ONE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT THAT PROTRUDES ABOVE.
CAN, CAN YOU, FOR THE BOARD'S BENEFIT STATE WHAT THE HEIGHT OF THE BALANCE OF THE PARAPET IS? UH, LEMME SEE IF, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I REMEMBER IT CORRECTLY.
[02:25:01]
ON THAT ALSO, TO NOTE THAT THERE WAS A THREE, I BELIEVE A THREE FOOT EX EXEMPTION WHEN IT WAS CLOSED.WHEN IT WAS CLOSED TO THE HEIGHT PERMITTED FOR A PARAPET MM-HMM
BUT NOW THAT IT'S EXCEEDING, THEY NO LONGER RECEIVE THAT EXEMPTION, WHICH IS WHY THE VARIANCE HAS INCREASED IT.
UH, SO IT LOOKS LIKE JUST BASED ON THE ARCHITECTURAL DRAWING, THE PARAPET OR THE TOP OF THE TOWER, UH, EXTENDS ANOTHER FIVE FEET ABOVE THE, UM, ABOVE THE PARAPET.
SO THE BUILDING HEIGHT EXCLUDING THE TOWER WOULD BE 19.1 FEET APPROXIMATELY.
WHICH IS ABOUT A FOOT, FOOT LOWER THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING.
ABOUT A FOOT LOWER THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING.
WE WERE ASKED TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS OF THE SIGNAGE AS WELL.
UM, WE SUBMITTED A SIGNED PACKAGE AS WELL AS THESE ELEVATIONS, WHICH, UH, REFLECT THE, THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE.
UM, THERE'S TWO TACO BELL SIGNS.
THERE'S A, UH, THAT ARE PROPOSED ON THE TOWER ITSELF.
ONE, UH, ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, AND ONE ON THE EAST ELEVATION IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
UM, IN ADDITION, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ADVISED US THAT THE WINDOW MURALS THAT ARE ON THE BUILDING, WHICH I'M HIGHLIGHTING WITH MY CURSOR, THOSE ARE ALSO COUNTED AS WALL SIGNAGE, UM, WHICH THE APPLICANT IS PURSUING.
UH, IN ADDITION, THERE ARE TWO OF THOSE MURAL WALL SIGNS ON THE NORTH ELEVATION.
UH, AND THEN IN ADDITION, THERE'S A PYLON SIGN, UH, WHICH WILL BE PLACED AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.
UH, WE HAVE IT LOCATED IN ONE OF THE LANDSCAPED ISLANDS.
UH, THAT WILL, UM, BE AS SHOWN AND, AND, UH, UH, THAT COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING REQUIREMENT.
UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO DIVE IN.
NOW, THERE, AS A RESULT OF THE SIGNAGE, THERE ARE SOME VARIANCES THAT WE'LL BE REQUESTING THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THE SIGNAGE.
UM, NUMBER ONE, AND I COULD JUST WALK THROUGH THIS TABLE.
UH, ONLY ONE WALL SIGN IS PERMITTED FOR THE PROPERTY.
WE'RE PROPOSING SIX FOUR OF WHICH ARE THE MURALS THAT, THAT WE WERE LOOKING AT.
UM, WITH REGARD TO THE, THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGNAGE FOR THE WALL SIGN ON THE TOWER, IT'S ONLY, UH, PERMITTED TO BE FOUR FEET HIGH.
WE'RE REQUESTING SIX AND A HALF FEET FOR BOTH SIGNS.
UH, AND THEN SIMILARLY, UH, ALL THE, THE MURALS OR THE GRAPHICS ARE ONLY PERMITTED TO BE FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, AND THEY ARE EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT.
UM, SO THOSE ARE THE, UM, ADDITIONAL VARIANCES.
AND THEN OF COURSE THERE'S THE CHANGE IN THE BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR US.
SO GOING TO THE FIRST ONE FOR BUILDING HEIGHT, THE PROPOSED IS HIGHER THAN THE CURRENT BUILDING CURRENTLY, LIKE AS RIGHT NOW? YES.
BASED ON, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID PREVIOUSLY.
WELL, AT THE LAST, AT THE LAST MEETING WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT, UH, BUILDING HEIGHT, THERE WAS AN EXEMPTION IN THE CODE THAT SPECIFICALLY SAID TOWERS THAT I INTERPRETED TO EXCLUDE ARCHITECTURAL TOWERS IN DIFFERENT ELEMENTS.
UM, IN SPEAKING WITH LIZ GARRITY, THAT CODE IN HER INTERPRETATION ONLY APPLIES TO LIKE COOLING TOWERS.
SO WE COULDN'T, WE HAD TO COUNT THAT ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET IN.
SO, SO IT'S JUST THE CALCULATION, THE BUILDING HASN'T INCREASED IN FIVE, FIVE FEET.
THE BUILDING, THE BUILDING HASN'T CHANGED.
I JUST WANTED THE BOARD TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S THE INTERPRETATION OF WHAT'S REQUIRED TO BE INCLUDED IN THE CALCULATION.
AND THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE BALANCE OF THE BUILDING.
THAT EXTENDS THE ADDITIONAL FIVE FEET IN HEIGHT.
MY QUESTION RELATES TO THE BELL TOWER SIGNAGE MM-HMM
ON THE EAST FACE AND SOUTH FACE.
ARE THOSE INTENDED TO BE LIP SIGNS? I WANT TO, UH, JUST DEFER TO RAAV PATEL, THE APPLICANT WHO'S ON THE ZOOM, UH, AVV.
DO YOU KNOW IF THOSE ARE ILLUMINATED SIGNS? THE TOWER SIGNS ARE ILLUMINATED? YES.
'CAUSE THE SOUTH FACE MM-HMM
FACES TOWARDS THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT COMPLEX.
AND THERE'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD HAS DISCUSSED AND THE TEAM'S BEEN AGREEABLE TO, YOU KNOW, EXTEND THE SOUND ATTENUATION FENCING TO PUT IN THE EVERGREEN SCREENING.
OBVIOUSLY AT A HEIGHT OF 20 SOME ODD FEET, PROBABLY EITHER ARE NOT GONNA BE EFFECTIVE IN, IN SHIELDING THAT LIGHT.
SO IS IT A 24 7 ILLUMINATION? IS IT THROUGH HOURS OF OPERATION? WHICH I KNOW TACO BELLS CAN STAY OPEN QUITE LATE AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
UM, IF WE CAN JUST GET A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
AND, AND HAS THE, HAS THE APPLICANT CONSIDERED, UM, MOVING FORWARD WITH, WITH CODE
[02:30:01]
COMPLIANT SIGNS? OR IS THERE A REASON WHY THE, THE EIGHT FOOT IS, UM, WHAT, WHAT THE APPLICANT'S MOVING FORWARD WITH? SURE.UM, RAGO, DO YOU WANNA JUST TOUCH ON THE, UM, THE SIGNAGE ON THE SOUTH FACE AND THE HOURS OF ILLUMINATION? SURE.
SO WE CAN LIMIT THE, THE ILLUMINATION ON THE SIGN TO HOURS OF OPERATION.
UM, AND WHEN WE'RE CLOSED, WE CAN, UH, MAKE IT SO THAT IT TURNS OFF.
AS FOR THE MURAL, UM, IT, IT IS JUST TACO BELL STANDARD SIZE FOR, FOR THAT PARTICULAR GRAPHIC.
UH, I'M TALKING ABOUT ALL THE SIGNS, YOU KNOW.
NO, I, AND I THINK WITH REGARD TO THE WALL OF SIGNS THAT ARE ON THE TOWER, UM, THE TACO BELL BELL SIGNS, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A CERTAIN, UM, YOU KNOW, SIZE THAT THE BRAND IS LOOKING FOR THAT THEY'D LIKE THE APPLICANT TO AT LEAST, YOU KNOW, START WITH.
AND, UH, THEY, THEY WANT TO ENSURE THAT THE STORE HAS ADEQUATE VISIBILITY AND, AND PRESENCE.
UM, SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THE ADDITIONAL, THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT ON THE SIGN.
ISN'T THERE A, ISN'T THERE A APARTMENT BUILDING NEXT DOOR TO THIS, RIGHT? YES.
DO, DO THE RESIDENTS OF THAT APARTMENT BUILDING, HAVE THEY BEEN MADE AWARE OF THESE YET? SO DO THEY HAVE, HAVE YOU GOTTEN INPUT FROM THEM? WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY PUBLICLY.
WE HAVEN'T HAD ANY PUBLIC HEARINGS YET, OR NO, UH, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN NOTICED YET, SO WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANY INPUT FROM, FROM THEM.
BUT I'M SURE KNOWING THAT THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OF MULTI, MULTI-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE, ANY CONSIDERATION GIVING FOR RELOCATING THE LIT ILLUMINATED SIGN ONTO THE NORTH SIDE? SURE.
UM, YEAH, IT'S SOMETHING WE CAN CERTAINLY TALK ABOUT WITH THE TEAM.
ALSO, THE DIRECTION OF TRAFFIC HEADING SOUTHBOUND.
MIGHT BENEFIT FROM SEEING THE LIT SIGN AS THEY'RE COMING TOWARDS IT.
'CAUSE YOU HAVE A TRAFFIC LIGHT, UH, APPROACHING THE, AS YOU'RE HEADING SOUTHBOUND.
THE OTHER THING WE WERE LOOKING AT, UM, 'CAUSE WE LOOKED AT THE STREET VIEW A LITTLE BIT, IF YOU'RE COMING UP FROM THE INTERSECTION NORTHBOUND TOWARDS THE SITE, BUT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THERE'S A TREE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
IT'S PROBABLY, I'D SAY A MEDIUM SIZED TREE THAT MIGHT PREVENT, IF YOU'RE THINKING OF VISUALS TO THAT SOUTH FACING SIGN, IT ALMOST LOOKS LIKE THE TREE'S BLOCKING IT UNTIL YOU GET TO, I THINK IT'S, UH, ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE ROAD'S, LIKE IN THE ANTIQUE SHOP OR SOMETHING.
I'M HAPPY TO TOUCH BASE WITH YOU ON IT.
UH, NO, CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK.
WE CAN, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THAT AND WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO, TO, UH, TO LOOK TO LOOK AT THAT.
ARE, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? WELL, YOU SAID TURN OFF THE ILLUMINATION WHEN THE, WHEN, WHEN IT'S NOT, UM, BUSINESS HOURS ANYMORE.
YOU MIGHT HAVE SAID THAT THE HOURS, BUT I DIDN'T REGISTER THEM.
WHAT ARE THE HOURS? UM, I MEAN, GO AHEAD.
NO, SO THE HOURS OF OPERATION DO EXTEND INTO, INTO THE EARLY MORNING, UH, YOU KNOW, PAST MIDNIGHT.
UM, WE COULD CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, BASED ON WHAT WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH THE SENSITIVITY TO THE NEIGHBORS, WE COULD CERTAINLY LOOK AT AT MODIFYING THAT OR MOVING THE SIGN.
YEAH, I, I THINK THE ILLUMINATED SIGN TO THE SOUTH FACING THE APARTMENTS IS, IS SURE.
YEAH, I MEAN, SO OUR GOAL, HONESTLY, YOU KNOW, WE SPOKE TO THE APPLICANT, WE HEARD THE FEEDBACK AT THE LAST MEETING.
OBVIOUSLY THERE WAS A, A STRONG DESIRE FOR THE GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE MM-HMM
AND SOME KIND OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICE THAT WOULD BE ABOVE AND BEYOND, UM, WHAT WAS REQUIRED.
SO, UH, AT FIRST, YOU KNOW, WE, WE LOOKED AT ALL OF THE PARKING SPACES.
THE ONLY PARKING SPACES WHERE IT'S REALLY NOT PRACTICAL, UM, FOR TO DO IT IS JUST THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE BY THE TRASH ENCLOSURE BECAUSE, UM, JUST BASED ON, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING BEING IN THE WAY AND, UH, THE PITCH AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE COULDN'T GET AN UNDER DRAIN TO WORK THERE.
SO THOSE, IT'S REALLY EVERY PARKING SPACE, UM, ASIDE FROM THAT ONE ROW NEXT TO THE TRASHING CORNER, ALL THE OTHER PARKING SPACES ARE THE 2,900 COVERS ALL OF THEM? YES.
IT COVERS ALL OF THEM EXCEPT FOR THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE NE YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE ROW OF SPACES THAT ARE NEXT TO THE TRASH ENCLOSURE.
SO, OKAY, SO THE WHOLE PERIMETER BASICALLY CORRECT.
AND THE PERIMETER, THE, THE, THE ONE, THE ONES ON THE BOTTOM THERE, THAT'S THE SOUTH SIDE AND THEN THAT'S THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, RIGHT? CORRECT.
THAT'S THAT SOUTHERLY PROPERTY LINE.
[02:35:01]
AND THERE'S THE TREE THAT AARON WAS TALKING ABOUT, I BELIEVE IS, UM, THAT ONE.OH NO, IT'S ACTUALLY, THERE'S A, THERE'S A PINE TREE IN THAT CORNER.
THERE'S THE, A DECIDUOUS TREE, UM, MAYBE LIKE 20 FEET OR FEET BACK.
THIS IS THE TREE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
I WAS, THAT'S BLOCKING LIKE THE VISUAL IT LOOKED TO US.
I MEAN WE WERE JUST SKIPPING, WE'LL TAKE A LOOK FOR SURE ON THE STREET VIEW.
I JUST, IF I WAS TRYING TO ENVISION WHERE, AND I'VE BEEN CALLING IT THE TOWER, BUT, UH, WHERE, WHERE THAT SIGN WOULD BE PLACED FACING SOUTH, IT ALMOST SEEMED LIKE THAT TREE'S GONNA IMPEDE IT.
THE TREE APPEARED TO BE TO ME AND THE STATE RIGHT OF WAY.
I DON'T SEE A LOT OF STATE RIGHT OF WAY PERMITS TO CUT TREES ALONG CENTRAL PARK AVENUE.
SO IT JUST SOMETHING TO LOOK AT.
IT MAY NOT GIVE YOU WHAT YOU ENVISIONED IN TERMS OF RIGHT.
WELL, AND, AND I THINK THE SUGGESTION OF, OF ENTICING A DRIVER GOING SOUTH TO MAKE THE RIGHT, RIGHT INTO THE TACO BELL IS MORE COMP WOULD BE MORE COMPELLING THAN ENTICING THE CUSTOMER MAKING THE LEFT ACROSS TRAFFIC AFTER, AFTER THE SIGN JUMPING OUT WHEN THEY GET PAST THE TREE.
AND YOU'RE STILL GONNA HAVE THE FRONT YARD SIGN THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT'S FACING NORTH AND SOUTH AS WELL.
THAT'S AT A LOWER AND THERE'S NO MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
UH, ANY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO.
ALRIGHT, THEN WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A HANDFUL OF NEW VARIANCES SINCE OUR LAST MEETING.
UM, IF WE CAN, IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO STAFF IF MUCH LIKE LAST TIME WE HAD SOME DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD SO THAT WE COULD DRAFT UP.
UM, SO, SO WE'LL DO A STRAW POLL, UM, ON THE NEW VARIANCES AND, AND THE AMENDED VARIANCES.
SO, UH, WE DID MAKE A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE AT THE LAST MEETING.
THE BUILDING HEIGHT PROPOSED HAS CHANGED.
UM, SO I WOULD ENTERTAIN A STRAW POLE FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE.
I, I THINK, UH, THE INTENT OF THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION OF NEUTRAL STILL HOLDS UP.
UM, THE SIGN VARIANCES, WOULD WE LIKE TO TAKE THESE INDIVIDUALLY OR AS A PACKAGE? I, I THINK IT'S ALL, UH, AS A PACKAGE.
I THINK, UH, BECAUSE IT'S, IT'S THE SAME WAY AS TO BETTER HAVE ANY, UH, NEGATIVE IMPACT OR POSITIVE.
AND I THINK IT'S, IT'S A NEUTRAL.
THE VARIANCE IS ON, ON THE HEIGHT OF THE GRAPHIC.
BUT AGAIN, THE SOUTH, THE SOUTH SIGN AND THE ILLUMINATION CONCERNS, UM, YOU KNOW, THOSE HAVE BEEN REGISTERED AND, AND THAT LANGUAGE WOULD BE INCLUDED IN YEAH.
UM, I WOULD SAY IF, IF IT, I WOULD SAY NEUTRAL UNLESS IF THE ILLUMINATION IS FACING SOUTH TOWARDS THE, UH, OR TOWARDS THE APARTMENT BUILDING, THEN IT WOULD BE NEGATIVE FOR ME ON THAT ONE.
BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'RE GOING TO BE CONSIDERING IT, RIGHT? YEP.
AND THESE ARE JUST SORT OF ADVISORY TO GIVE THE STAFF DIRECTION AND I WOULD JUST, I WOULD ANALYSIS OF, I TOTALLY, WE TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WE'VE REGISTERED THE SOUTH PHASING APART.
BUT YOU KNOW, YOU CAN DO ANALYSIS WITH LIGHT CANDLES AND ALL THAT KIND OF STUFF, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE YET.
SO I WOULD JUST, I WOULD OFFER A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION KNOWING THAT THAT IS CERTAINLY AN ISSUE TO CONTINUE LOOKING AT OSU.
AND ALSO I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN MAKE THAT COMMENT AS PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION.
SO IT WOULD NOT BE, UH, GONE AWAY.
IT WOULD BE GO TO THE ZONING BOARD WITH THE UNDERSTANDING MR, MR. UH, MR. WEINBERG.
BUT THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE BETWEEN NEUTRAL ON THE SIGNS ALL BY TAM TO LIKE A HUGE TACO BELL SIGN LIGHTS IN YOUR APARTMENT, YOUR HOME WINDOW.
BUT IF YOU'RE LOOKING INTO IT AND MAYBE NEXT TIME YOU'RE COMING BACK TO US AND YOU'LL HAVE ADDRESSED IT AND MY CONCERN MIGHT BE GONE AND IT SOUNDS LIKE OTHER PEOPLE HAVE SHARED THE SAME CONCERN, WE'RE CERTAINLY GONNA BE LOOKING AT IT WITH THE APPLICANT.
I JUST CAN'T MAKE, AND IT SEEMS THE CONSENSUS OF THE BOARD IS NEUTRAL ON ALL THE SIGN VARIANCES.
WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT IT'S NOT THE SEINFELD EPISODE WITH THE
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? STAFF WILL, SO LAST TIME ALSO THERE WAS DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD ON PREPARING A DRAFT SECRET DETERMINATION.
WE'RE GONNA SEE, OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MAKE SOME UPDATES TO THAT TO ACCURATELY REFLECT THE VARIANCES.
WILL REDLINE ANY, UM, LANGUAGE REVISIONS FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION AND STAFF WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO GET YOU THOSE DOCUMENTS FOR CONSIDERATION AT THE JULY 16TH MEETING FOR A VOTE ON THE SEEKER DETERMINATION AND ON
[02:40:01]
THE VARIANCES, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION ON THE VARIANCES, IT IS NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT AT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, WILL BE BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD THE FOLLOWING EVENING, THURSDAY THE 17TH.SO WOULD, WE'RE LINED UP WELL AND IF THE BOARD MAKES THOSE VOTES AT ITS MEETING ON THE 16TH, WE CAN QUICKLY TURN AROUND AND FINALIZE THOSE DOCUMENTS AND MAKE SURE THEY'RE IN THE HAND OF THE ZONING BOARD FOR THE 17TH.
IF WE WANT TO DISCUSS SCHEDULING, WE CAN CLOSE AND, AND DISCUSS.
UH, SO WE'RE CLOSING THE WORK SESSION.
I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE MEETING AT 9:50 PM SO MOVED.