* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [00:00:01] GOOD EVENING EVERYONE, AND WELCOME TO THE JULY 16TH, 2025 [ TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, July 16, 2025 – 7:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ] PLANNING BOARD MEETING. AARON, WOULD YOU PLEASE TAKE THE ROLL CALL MS. DAVIS? HERE. MR. PINE? HERE. MR. WEINBERG? HERE. MR. DESAI? HERE. I'LL ALTERNATE. MS. ANDERSON HERE. MS. ANDERSON WILL BE A FULL VOTING MEMBER TONIGHT. PLACE OF MICHELLE MOYER WHO IS NOT PRESENT. THIS IS ON. THIS IS ON. OKAY. ALSO NOT PRESENT. IS MR. SNAGS. THANK YOU, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER. NEXT WE'LL MOVE TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 2ND, 2025 MEETING. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES? SO MY, MY ONLY COMMENTS WERE ON, ON THE MINUTES WERE THAT THEY WERE DRAFTED, UH, IN THE ORDER OF THE ORIGINAL AGENDA, BUT IF, UH, THE MEETING WAS TAKEN OUT OF ORDER FOR A VARIETY OF REASONS. SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO EITHER, UH, REORDER THE MINUTES IN THE ORDER OF HOW THE MEETING WAS CONDUCTED OR AT LEAST, UH, MAKE SOME NOTE SO THAT READERS CAN UNDERSTAND THE, THE ORDER OF THE MEETING. WE CAN DO THAT. GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, MOVING FORWARD, YOU'RE GOING TO MAKE SOME NOTES TO THE MINUTES, OR YOU GONNA CHANGE THE ORDER? WE WILL DO IT AS NOTES INITIALLY, AND WE'LL CIRCULATE THAT TO THE BOARD SO YOU'LL SEE HOW IT LOOKS. AND IF WE WANNA MAKE CHANGES BEYOND THAT, WE CAN DO SO. OKAY. SO WE'LL APPROVE THE MINUTES AT THE NEXT BOARD MEETING. I THINK WE CAN APPROVE IT AS AMENDED OR AS NOTED. DO WE NEED TO WAIT UNTIL THEY COME OUT OR DO WE NEED TO, I MEAN, IT'S JUST A CHANGE OF ORDER, RIGHT? I THINK WE SHOULD SEE. YEAH. AND THE REASON THE MINUTES WERE COMPLICATED WAS BECAUSE MIDWAY THROUGH THE MEETING I TOOK OVER AS CHAIR. AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO REFLECT WHO WAS ACTUALLY, UM, PRESIDING OVER THE MEETING, UH, DURING CERTAIN PORTIONS OF THE AGENDA. OH, THAT'S, ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT? WAITING TILL TILL THE AUGUST 4TH MONDAY, AUGUST 4TH? IS THAT? YES. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CAN WE HAVE THE CORRESPONDENCE PLEASE? SO NO CORRESPONDENCE OUTSIDE OF MATERIALS THAT WERE RECEIVED IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER PROJECTS THAT ARE ALREADY ON THE AGENDA. SO WE CAN MOVE STRAIGHT INTO ITEM FOUR A UNDER OLD BUSINESS AND UNDER OLD BUSINESS. WE WILL BE HEARING CASE NUMBER PB 24 20 O MANDARIN AT 3 6 3 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE NORTH. THE PLANNING BOARD IS THE, UH, WORKING ON A, A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT. AND WE ARE HAVING A WORK SESSION TO CONSIDER, UH, SEEK A DETERMINATION AND A DEC A DECISION ON THE VARIANCES ON THE SPECIAL PERMIT, I'M SORRY, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THE SHARED PARKING REDUCTION REQUEST. SO STAFF DID PREPARE A DRAFT SEEKER DETERMINATION. I'M GONNA RECUSE MYSELF BECAUSE OF THE PREVIOUS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE OWNER OF THE CENTER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO, AS I WAS MENTIONING, STAFF AT THE DIRECTION OF THE BOARD PREPARED A DRAFT SEEKER DETERMINATION FOR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. THE PROJECT DOES QUALIFY AS AN UNLISTED ACTION UNDER SEEKER, AND WE HAVE, AS I MENTIONED, PREPARED THE DRAFT. THE BOARD WOULD WANT TO CONSIDER, UH, A, A VOTE TO CLASSIFY THE ACTION. AGAIN, IT'S BEEN, IT QUALIFIES AS AN UNLISTED ACTION AND THEN TO CONSIDER, UH, VOTING ON THE DRAFT SEEKER DECLARATION. OKAY. OKAY. SO FIRST VOTE IS GOING TO BE, I APOLOGIZE, IT'S IN THE PACKAGE. YES. IS TO CLASSIFY THIS AS AN UNLISTED ACTION ON DE SEAVER. MAY I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. M KELLY? OH, I SAID AYE. OKAY. MAYBE NOT THAT LOUD. AND ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THE, UH, SEEKER DETERMINATION AS WRITTEN BY STAFF? I DON'T HAVE ANY. THIS SEEMS LIKE A FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD YEAH. SO BASED UPON THE, UM, I'M SORRY. BASED UPON THE SEEKER DRAFT THAT WAS WRITTEN BY STAFF, WE'RE GONNA DECLARE THIS AS A NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER SEEKER. MAY I HAVE MOTION? SO MOVED. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. THE NEXT THING WE HAVE TO VOTE ON IS THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO WE PREPARED [00:05:01] A DRAFT DECISION FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. UM, AS MENTIONED, PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD APPLICATION TO EXPAND AN EXISTING BUSINESS INTO AN ADJACENT VACANT SPACE. IT WAS REVIEWED IN WORK SESSION AND PUBLIC HEARING AT THE LAST MEETING. SO, AS THE CHAIR MENTIONED, CONSIDERATION ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR A RESTAURANT. AND SECOND, TO CONSIDER A VOTE ON THE APPLICANT'S REQUESTED SHARED PARKING REDUCTION OF SEVEN PARKING SPACES. OKAY. SO WE NEED A MOTION ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO SO MOVED. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SECOND. NEED A SECOND? I'M SORRY. THAT WAS YOUR SECOND. I WILL SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. NEXT WE NEED A VOTE ON THE SHARED PARKING REDUCTION OF SEVEN SPACES. MAY I HAVE A MOTION PLEASE? SO MOVED TO APPROVE IT. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. THANK YOU. AND YOU'RE ALL SET IS ALL, THAT'S IT, RIGHT? YES. OH, OKAY. ALL SET. SO WE WILL HAVE THIS ALL SET FOR YOU, UH, EITHER TOMORROW OR FRIDAY. ALRIGHT, HAVE A GOOD EVENING. NEXT CASE UP IS CASE NUMBER PB 24 13. TACO BELL, 57 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE NORTH. THERE'S, UH, QUITE A FEW AND I WOULD LIKE FOR THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER TO GO OVER THE CURRENT VARIANCES. YES. SO, AND WE'LL ALSO LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO IT ONLY BECAUSE IT JUST DESIGN CHANGES AND SOME CALCULATIONS THAT WERE RUN A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY TO COME UP, UM, WITH SOME OF THE CHANGES TO THE VARIANCES. FIRST AND FOREMOST, BEING THE BUILDING HEIGHT, UM, HAS NOW BEEN IDENTIFIED AS 24.1 FEET PROPOSED WHERE 12 FEET IS PERMITTED. ADDITIONALLY, UM, A VARIANCE THAT HAD BEEN IDENTIFIED ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION FOR A TACO BELL LOGO AND WORDING WAS UH, REMOVED BY THE APPLICANT AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THIS BOARD AT THE LAST MEETING. UM, IF YOU RECALL, ON THE SOUTH FACE FACING THE APARTMENT BUILDING TO THE SOUTH, THAT HAS BEEN, UH, REMOVED FROM THAT LOCATION AND THERE IS A NEW SIGN PROPOSED ON THE NORTH ELEVATION. SO FACING THE NORTH ABOVE THE PROPOSED ENTRY INTO THE NEW RESTAURANT. UM, BUT THERE IS A SIZE, UM, VARIANCE INVOLVED WITH THAT. FOUR FEET IS WHAT'S ALLOWABLE UNDER THE CODE AND THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSING 5.43 FEET. I'LL LET THE APPLICANT, UH, SURE WALK THE BOARD THROUGH THE CHANGES AND WE CAN DISCUSS AND THEN ASK ANY QUESTIONS AT THE MOMENT. SURE. THANK YOU AARON. UH, FOR THE RECORD, PAUL DUMONT WITH JMC. SO AS AARON, UH, SAID AT THE LAST MEETING, WE SPOKE ABOUT THE, UH, SIGNAGE ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS FROM THE BOARD ABOUT THE ILLUMINATION AND POINTING, I'M SORRY, EXCUSE ME. CAN YOU PLEASE TAKE YOUR CONVERSATION OUTSIDE? THANKS. THANK YOU. UH, SO THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS FROM THE BOARD ABOUT THE ILLUMINATION AND THE SIGNAGE THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY DIRECTLY FACING THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO THE SOUTH. SO WE SAT DOWN WITH THE APPLICANT'S TEAM, THEIR ARCHITECT, AND UH, WE ELECTED TO REMOVE THAT SIGN AND WE'RE PROPOSING, UH, A NEW SIGN ON THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. SO, UM, THERE WERE, THERE WAS A VERY SMALL ARCHITECTURAL TWEAK IN TERMS OF THE, UM, ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS. SO WE DID UPDATE THE SITE PLAN TO REFLECT THAT AS WELL. UH, SO JUST ON THE TOP OF MY SCREEN HERE, I'LL ZOOM IN. THIS IS THE SOUTH ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING. THIS IS WHERE THE SIGN WAS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED ON THE TOWER ELEMENT. SO THAT'S BEEN REMOVED. AND IF I FLIP BACK, OKAY, SO THIS IS THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. NOW, UH, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING WITH THE MAIN ENTRANCE. SO THE APPLICANT IS NOW PROPOSING VERY SIMILAR SIGNAGE ABOVE THE ON THAT. WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO DO ON THAT? YES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS THE SIGNAGE THAT'S NOW PROPOSED ABOVE THE MAIN, THE MAIN ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING. AND AS AARON SAID, UM, WE DO NEED A VARIANCE FOR THE NUMBER OF WALL SIGN SIGNS. SO THAT HASN'T CHANGED. IT'S JUST ONE SIGN MOVED TO THE NORTH SIDE. BUT, UM, THE HEIGHT VARIANCE FOR THIS WALL SIGN TWEAKED SLIGHTLY, UM, BASED ON THE OVERALL HEIGHT. AND THAT IS NOW 5.4 FEET ON THE NORTH ELEVATION. AND WHAT WAS ABOVE THE, THE ENTRANCEWAY [00:10:01] PRIOR? UH, IF YOU'D LIKE, I COULD PULL UP THAT THE PREVIOUS, UM, SURE PLAN, BUT IT WASN'T, THERE WAS NO SIGNAGE ABOVE THAT WAY AND THE ARCHITECTURE WAS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. LEMME JUST PULL THAT UP. OKAY. OKAY. SO THIS WAS THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED ELEVATION, GONNA ZOOM IN. OKAY. SORRY, I'M WRESTLING WITH THIS, UH, TRACK PAD. BUT YEAH, THAT WAS THE PRE, THE ORIGINAL FRONT OF THE BUILDING. SO THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY JUST SIMPLE, YOU KNOW, WINDOWS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THE CONTINUED, YOU KNOW, FACADE ELEMENTS THERE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY INCORPORATED A, UM, I DUNNO EXACTLY HOW TO DESCRIBE IT. UM, BUT IT'S, OH YEAH, JUST MORE LIKE, KIND OF FRAMES THE, THE ENTRANCE AND, UH, THE SIGNAGE IS RIGHT ABOVE THE, SO THERE'S SLIGHTLY LESS WINDOWS IN THE NEW DESIGN. RIGHT. BUT YOU, BUT YOU HAVE A SIGNAGE ABOVE THE DOOR. RIGHT. AND, AND JUST FOR MY CLARIFICATION MM-HMM. THERE'LL BE NO SIGNAGE FACING, THAT WOULD BE, UM, EAST OR SOUTH, SOUTH, NO. SIGNAGE FACING SOUTH, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL SIGN. OKAY. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT ON CENTRAL? YEAH, SO ON CENTRAL, UM, SO THIS ELEVATION HERE, LET ME ZOOM. IF THE BELL TOWER SIGN, THAT'S, WE'LL STILL HAVE THE SIGN ON THE YES. EAST. OKAY. CORRECT. YEAH. SO THIS IS THE SIDE FACING CENTRAL AVENUE. OKAY. SO YOU'LL HAVE, YOU KNOW, STILL THE WINDOWS THERE AND THEN THE SIGNAGE ON THE, THAT TOWER FACING DIRECTLY TOWARD CENTRAL AVENUE PERPENDICULARLY TOWARDS CENTRAL AVENUE. AND ALSO FOR THE RECORD, IN TERMS OF LIGHTING ON BOTH THE EAST FACING SIDE AND THE NORTH FACING SIGN. YES. THOSE SIGNS WILL BE ILLUMINATED. OKAY. NO SIGN IS INTERNALLY AND INTERNALLY ILLUMINATED SIGNS, CORRECT? YEAH, THEY'RE JUST, YES. OH, GOOD POINT. THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, I THINK THAT'S GREAT THAT YOU MOVED IT. SO I'LL BE IN THE RESIDENCE'S APARTMENTS CORRESPONDENCE. NO, UM, ALSO WE DID, UM, THERE WAS A, JUST, WE TALKED ABOUT THE POROUS PAVEMENT AND A NOTE REGARDING THE MAINTENANCE. SO WE DID ADD A NOTE TO THE UTILITIES PLAN STATING THAT THE POROUS PAVEMENT MUST BE MAINTAINED AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A, UM, A MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE THAT'S PART OF THE STORMWATER PERMIT, WHICH IS REQUIRED. SO JUST WE ADDED THAT TO THE PLAN WHEN WE RESUBMITTED. YEAH. RIGHT. AND IF THE PROJECT IS APPROVED, THE PLANS WOULD BE REFERENCED WITHIN THE DECISION. SO ANY NOTES OR REQUIREMENTS DETAILED ON THE PLANS WOULD BECOME ELEMENTS OR CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVAL. UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, I, I KNOW WE RECEIVED, UH, A PIECE OF FEEDBACK FROM THE COMMUNITY ASKING, UH, IF THERE WERE ANY POLICE REPORTS AT THE YONKERS TACO BELL LOCATION ALSO ON CENTRAL AVENUE, UH, SPECIFICALLY NOISE VIOLATIONS OR LLOYD RING VIOLATIONS OR ANYTHING, ANYTHING LIKE THAT. UM, WERE YOU ABLE TO DETERMINE, OR WERE YOU ABLE TO INVESTIGATE THAT AND, UH, SEE IF THERE WERE ANY YES, I WAS. SO FOLLOWING A RECEIPT OF THE EMAIL, I DID REACH OUT TO THE NEW COMMISSIONER OF PLANNING FOR THE CITY OF YONKERS. UH, SHE DID GET BACK TO ME TIMELY, REFERRED IT, IT ULTIMATELY GOT REFERRED TO THE BUILDING AND HOUSING, UM, DEPARTMENT, AND THEY REPORTED BACK TO ME THAT THEY HAVE NO RECORDS OF ANY VIOLATIONS OR COMPLAINTS RELATED TO NOISE OR LOITERING AT THE YONKERS TACO BELL FACILITIES. GREAT. GOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO THEN I THINK WE CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH CLASSIFYING THIS AS AN UNLISTED ACTION. SO, MAY I HAVE A MOTION? SO MOVED UNDER SEKER, I'M SORRY? UNDER SEKER? YES. UNDER SEEKER. UH, THAT'S, UH, MOTION BY K. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. SECOND BY EMILY. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. AND I'D LIKE TO KNOW IF ANYONE HAD ANY COMMENTS ON THE, UH, STAFF'S DRAFT OF THE, UH, CA DETERMINATION, WHAT IS IT? THE DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION THAT WAS CIRCULATED. SO WE DID UPDATE IT, UH, TO REFLECT THE MODIFIED VARIANCES. AND LOOKS GOOD TO ME. THANK YOU. [00:15:01] THANK YOU. SO IF THERE ARE NO COMMENTS, UM, I'D LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION TO CLASSIFY, I'M SORRY TO ISSUE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE C DETERMINATION. SO MOVED. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. SO MOVED. THAT'S IT. AND NOW JUST ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZBA ON THE VARIANCES IN AND OF THEMSELVES. RIGHT. SO STAFF HAD PREPARED BASED ON DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD AND DIRECTION FROM THE BOARD, A DRAFT, UH, NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON THE 16 VARIANCES REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT. UH, WE'VE UPDATED THE DRAFT TO REFLECT THE MOST CURRENT VARIANCES AS, UH, LISTED IN THE JULY 11TH MEMORANDUM FROM THE DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR. UH, WE DO, SO WE NOTE, AS WE DO WITH NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATIONS, THAT THERE ARE NO COMPELLING REASONS OR PLANNING IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BOARD TO VOTE EITHER PO POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION OR A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION ON THE REQUESTED VARIANCES. WE DO HAVE A NOTE THAT, UM, DOES INDICATE SOME OF THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE OVER THE COURSE OF THE PROJECT FOLLOWING DISCUSSION WITH THE BOARD MEMBERS, UM, AND BACK AND FORTH WITH THE APPLICANT. SO WE, THOSE ARE REFLECTED IN HERE. GOOD. SOME OF THE COMMENTS REGARDING IMPER OR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, YEAH. SOME OF THE COMMENTS REGARDING MOVING THE, OR MAKING ADJUSTMENT TO WHERE THE REFUSE GOES OUT MM-HMM . ELIMINATING AS AND REDUCING VARIANCES. YEAH. UM, THE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS THAT WERE DISCUSSED YEAH. BY THIS BOARD. YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD. YEAH. ALSO, MANY OF THE VARIANCES ARE JUST, UH, KIND OF, UH, MINOR OR THE SAME VARIANCES REPEATED IT. UH, SO THAT'S A SO, BUT, BUT THAT WE DO NOT HAVE TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT. SO, BUT I AGREE. RIGHT. LIKE FOR INSTANCE, IMPERVIOUS SERVICE COVERAGE IS ACTUALLY GONNA BE LESS THAN WHAT EXISTS TODAY, BUT IT'S STILL GREATER THAN WHAT'S PERMITTED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SO YES. GOOD. I THINK I'M GOOD. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE APPLICANT WILL BE BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS IN AUGUST. OKAY. . OKAY. SO IF THERE ARE NO COMMENTS REGARDING, UM, MAKING CHANGES TO THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD, I'D LIKE TO, UM, HAVE A MOTION. SO MOVED. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. OKAY. WE WILL FINALIZE THESE DOCUMENTS AND PUT THEM IN THE FILE AND TRANSMIT THEM TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AS WELL. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YOU'RE WELCOME. TAKE CARE. SO NOW WE'LL BE MOVING TO PUBLIC HEARING. SO DO WE NEED TO TAKE A BREAK OR IT'S UP TO THE BOARD. I THINK WE GIVE, YOU'RE DOING GREAT. I THINK WE CAN, WE CAN JUST MOVE UP, RIGHT? WE DON'T NEED TO BREAK. YEAH. I'M JUST GONNA FILL THIS. YOU GUYS WANT WATER? OKAY, FINE. MM-HMM . SO UP TWO MINUTES? YEAH, THAT'S, IT'S TWO MINUTES RECESS. WE'RE JUST GONNA MOVE UP TO THE DAY. THANK YOU. UH, JUST A QUESTION FOR TERRANCE. I'M SEEING AN ERROR ON MY ZOOM SCREEN AND I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE STILL UP AND RUNNING. SO I'LL CHECK IN WITH TERRANCE WHEN I GET MY WATER REFILL. ONCE AGAIN, WELCOME TO THE JULY 16TH, 2025 PLANNING BOARD MEETING. UM, BUT BEFORE WE START THE PUBLIC HEARING, I'D LIKE TO HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, UH, SO THAT WE CAN GO IN THE BACK AND SEEK LEGAL ADVICE. SO MOVED. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. WE WILL BE BACK SHORTLY. ONE. WE ARE REOPENING THE JULY 16TH, 2025. 2025. PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 8:25 PM UM, NO VOTES WERE TAKEN IN THE BACK. AND WE'LL NEED TO DO A ROLL CALL. YES. UH, CHAIRPERSON DAVIS HERE. MR. PINE. HERE. MR. WEINBERG? HERE. MR. DESAI HERE. OUR ALTERNATE MS. ANDERSON. HERE. MS. ANDERSON WILL BE A FULL VOTING MEMBER THIS EVENING IN PLACE OF MICHELLE MOYER WHO IS NOT PRESENT. ALSO NOT PRESENT. IS BOARD MEMBER JOHANN SNAGS. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO FIRST UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING IS GOING TO BE CASE NUMBER PB 24 22 LEVY AT 1 34 EUCLID AVENUE, LEY NEW YORK. UH, THIS IS A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION HEARING AND WETLAND WATERCOURSE, [00:20:02] UH, TREE PERMIT, I'M SORRY, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. HI, UH, GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR. UH, BOARD MEMBERS AND STAFF. UM, MY NAME IS JACOB AMIR FROM Z STEINERS AND I, I'M HERE WITH JARED AND JEN LEVY, THE OWNERS OF 1 34 EUCLID AVENUE. UM, THIS PROCESS STARTED WITH A WORK SESSION IN MAY AND A PUBLIC HEARING IN ON JUNE 4TH AND CONTINUE TO JULY 2ND. UM, AND WE'RE BACK HERE TONIGHT. UM, I, I'M NOT GONNA REHASH EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN HAPPENING, I'M SURE THE BOARD'S FAMILIAR WITH, WITH EVERYTHING UP UNTIL NOW. I I WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT ARE ENCAPSULATED IN MY JULY 10 AND JULY 16 LETTERS TO THIS BOARD. UH, IN PART, THOSE RESPOND TO COMMENTS, UH, MOSTLY FROM NEIGHBORS WHO ARE OBJECTING OR HAVE ISSUES WITH THIS APPLICATION. THERE'S TWO LOT SUBDIVISION APPLICATION. UM, JUST TO FRAME THIS IN TERMS OF THE LEGALITIES OF IT, AND AS STATED IN MY LETTERS TO YOUR BOARD, UM, THERE'S A STRONG DEFERENCE TO PERMIT AND APPROVE THIS SUBDIVISION. AND OBJECTION SUCH AS, UM, PERSONAL CONCERNS, ECONOMIC CONCERNS, AESTHETICS, SPECULATION, THOSE THINGS ARE NOT GROUNDS TO, UM, TO, TO DENY AN APPLICATION. IT SHOULD STAND, IT SHOULD STAND ON ITS ON ITS OWN. UM, WITH THAT FRAMEWORK, I'LL JUST GO THROUGH SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE JULY 2ND MEETING. THE FIRST OF WHICH, WHICH I THINK IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ONE, CONCERN, THE DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS, RIGHT? THE LE THE, THE, THE RECORDED INSTRUMENT AGAINST THIS PROPERTY. AND I ASSUME OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE, IN THE, WHAT WE'LL CALL IN THE ODDSLY ESTATES AND THE LANGUAGE IN THERE REGARDING RESTRICTIONS. UM, THAT SPECIFIC LANGUAGE, IF YOUR, IF YOUR BOARD RECALLS, REFERS TO THE PROVISION OF THE DECLARATION CONCERNING FENCES, POOLS, BASICALLY ACCESSORY DWELLINGS. AND THE, I THINK THE CHIEF CONCERN THAT WAS RAISED, AND THIS IS A LEGAL CONCERN, IS THAT ONE PROHIBITS A SUBDIVISION. AND TWO, EVEN IF A SUBDIVISION IS PRO NOT RESTRICTED BY THOSE COVENANTS, A LATER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY IS RE IS, IS PROHIBITED. NEITHER OF THOSE ARE, NEITHER OF THOSE ARE TRUE. THERE WAS A BENCHMARK TITLE REPORT. UM, ONE OF THE, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS HAD PROVIDED A TITLE VEST TITLE REPORT, AND THE APPLICANT PROVIDED ITS 2006 TITLE REPORT. ALL OF THOSE CONTAIN THE RECORDED INSTRUMENTS, UM, AGAINST THE PROPERTY. NONE OF THOSE RECORDED INSTRUMENTS PROHIBIT A SUBDIVISION WITH REGARD TO THE RESTRICTION ITSELF. AND I'LL JUST NOTE, AS A MATTER OF INTEREST HERE, TO THE EXTENT THAT THE CIVICS ASSOCIATION, WHICH HAS BEEN THE DOMINANT OPPOSING PARTY, SO TO SPEAK, RELIES ON THE, ON THAT DECLARATION, THAT DECLARATION SPECIFICALLY SAYS, FOR INSTANCE, YOU CAN'T INSTALL AN IN-GROUND POOL IN THE YARDLEY ESTATES. THAT'S RESTRICTED. LET'S EVEN PRETEND THAT THAT IS STILL A VIABLE RESTRICTION TODAY. THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. THAT CAN BE LOOKED AT. THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES IN THE ODDSLY ESTATES THAT I SAW ON GOOGLE EARTH THAT HAVE IN-GROUND POOLS. SO EITHER THOSE TWO PROPERTIES ARE AT ODDS WITH THE DECLARATION, WHICH I DON'T THINK IS, IS THE CASE OR AS A MATTER OF LAW THAT THE COURT OF APPEALS AND THE SECOND DEPARTMENT, BOTH OF WHICH ARE BINDING ON THIS BOARD, HAVE SAID RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE AMBIGUOUS OR UNCLEAR OR THAT CAN BE DETERMINED OR INTERPRETED IN ONE OF SEVERAL WAYS ARE UNENFORCEABLE HERE AND SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED HERE. AND JUST TO ADD A FINAL POINT ON, ON THIS, THE DECLARATION IS, AS A MATTER OF LAW, A CONTRACT, IT IS A GOVERNING CONTRACT BETWEEN THE GRANTOR AND ESTATES IN THE ODDSLY ESTATE. IT IS, IT IS BASICALLY A CONTRACT BETWEEN NEIGHBORS. SO THIS BOARD IS NOT AN ADJUDICATORY BOARD. IF THERE IS AN ISSUE IN TERMS OF AN INTERPRETATION OF A LEGAL DOCUMENT, A RECORDED DOCUMENT, THAT IS SOMETHING WHICH SHOULD BE RESOLVED OUTSIDE THIS BUILDING, NOT IN THIS BUILDING. UM, THE NEXT POINT IS THERE'S REFERENCES TO THE PROPERTY BEING LISTED FOR SALE. THE PROPERTY'S NOT AND WAS NOT, AND HAS NOT EVER BEEN LISTED FOR SALE. THERE WAS SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROPERTY THAT IS NOT SO UNUSUAL. THERE WERE ISSUES, THERE WERE QUESTIONS OR STATEMENTS WITH RESPECT TO WATER PRESSURE, WHICH IS LARGELY SPECULATIVE. SOME OF IT ASKING WHY DID TOLL [00:25:01] BROTHERS DO WHAT IT DID, YOU KNOW, 30 YEARS AGO? NOBODY KNOWS WHY. AGAIN, IT'S, IT'S NOT RELEVANT FOR OUR PURPOSES. UM, AND EFFECTS ON THE ENVIRONMENT. FOR INSTANCE, WETLANDS WATERCOURSE REMOVAL OF TWO TREES WHERE THE APPLICANT UNDER THIS MITIGATION PLAN IS PROPOSING AN EXCESS OF 20 TREES PLUS SHRUBS, PLUS HEDGES. IT IS ACTUALLY BEAUTIFYING THE LAND. SO IN CONTRAST TO TWO TREES BEING REMOVED, WE HAVE A MULTITUDE OF TREES THAT WOULD BE PLANTED, UH, UNDER THE SUBDIVISION PLAN. AND THERE IS A, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT, UM, UM, WATERCOURSE PROTECTION UNDER THIS PLAN THAT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED FROM HUDSON ENGINEERING THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY THIS BOARD. AND THIS BOARD HAS ALREADY, I THINK TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS AGO, UM, ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THERE WAS SOME REFERENCES TO COMMUNICATION WITH NEIGHBORS. UM, I HAVE ALWAYS MAINTAINED THAT I AM PREPARED TO SPEAK TO ANYBODY AT ANY TIME IF AVAILABLE ON THIS PROJECT. AND, AND MY, UH, MY CONTACT HAS ALWAYS BEEN AVAILABLE AFTER THE LAST MEETING. I ACTUALLY HAD A VERY GOOD CONVERSATION, I THOUGHT, FOR OVER AN HOUR WITH, WITH THE NEIGHBORS RIGHT OUTSIDE, LATE INTO THE EVENING. AND I APPRECIATED THEM, THEM WAITING. THERE, THERE WAS AN IMPASSE. SO THERE'S BEEN COMMUNICATION, UM, YOU KNOW, IT DIDN'T REALLY GO ANYWHERE. UH, BUT, BUT THE LINES OF COMMUNICATION HAVE BEEN OPEN. AND THEN LASTLY, I THINK ON THE, AFTER THE JULY 2ND MEETING, THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD BE DRAMATICALLY ALTERED AND NEGATIVELY IMPACT, NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY THIS SUBDIVISION. THIS LOT AS, AS YOUR BOARD MAY RECALL, IS CURRENTLY A NEARLY 23,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. IT IS OUTSIDE AND BEYOND, OUTSIDE THE NORM OF HOUSES OF LOTS. IN THIS PROPERTY, WE ARE PROPOSING A SUBDIVISION TO TWO LOTS, 12,984 SQUARE FEET AND 10,008 SQUARE FEET. UM, IN MY JULY SEC, JULY 10 LETTER TO YOUR BOARD, I IDENTIFIED ALL 34 LOTS IN THE ODDSLY ESTATE. AND OF ALL 34 LOTS IN THE ODDSLY ESTATE, 62% OF THEM ARE SMALLER IN SIZE THAN MY CLIENTS IN THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. OF THE, OF THOSE LOTS, UM, 16 OF THEM ARE BETWEEN 10,000 AND 12,999 SQUARE FEET. SO A SUBDIVISION, IT WOULD BE COMPLETELY WITHIN THE CHARACTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. IT WOULD CONFORM THE TWO LOTS PROPOSED TO LOTS, TO THE OTHER LOTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES THAT ARE UNUSUALLY LARGE. THERE'S A 33,137 SQUARE FOOT AND 69,813 SQUARE FOOT, UM, SQUARE FOOT LOCK IN THE JULY 16, UH, FOLLOWING, UM, I'M SORRY, FOLLOWING JULY 10, I UNDERSTAND THAT COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED BY, UM, THE NEIGHBOR AT IS AT 1 32 EUCLID AVENUE. AND THOSE COMMENTS ARE ADDRESSED IN MY JULY 16 LETTER TO THE BOARD, THIS BOARD. UM, AND I HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THIS, THIS, THIS BOARD GAVE THE PUBLIC AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ANY COMMENTS THAT THEY WISH TO PROVIDE TO THIS BOARD AND AS MUCH TIME AS POSSIBLE TO DO THAT. AND THAT WAS DONE. THEY PROVIDED COMMENTS ON JULY 14. AND SO WE HAD BASICALLY A DAY AND A HALF TO PUT TOGETHER A RESPONSE. AND, AND WE DID, AND WE PROVIDED THIS BOARD WITH A LETTER EARLIER TODAY. AND THERE ARE BASICALLY THREE OR FOUR COMMENTS THAT WERE RAISED. THE FIRST IS THAT, UM, THE ARDSLEY ESTATE CIVIC ASSOCIATION IS OBTAINING LEGAL COUNSEL. I CANNOT SPEAK TO THAT. THAT'S COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. THEY'VE KNOWN ABOUT THIS APPLICATION. THEY'VE APPEARED AT TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS. IT'S A NON-ISSUE. UM, THE SECOND COMMENT IS A QUESTION ABOUT SUBDIVISION VERSUS DEVELOPMENT. UM, AND THAT AGAIN, IS BASED UPON DIRECT THE DECLARATION OF PROTECTIVE COVENANTS. AND ONCE AGAIN, IT'S RESPECTFULLY NOT WITHIN THIS BOARD'S PURVIEW WHERE THERE IS COMPETING INTERPRETATIONS OF A RECORDED DOCUMENT TO TAKE ONE SIDE VERSUS THE OTHER. RIGHT? NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE HAS PRESENTED TO THIS BOARD, WHICH WOULD EVEN SUGGEST THAT AN ALTERNATE OR RESTRICTIVE VIEW OF THE, UM, OF THE COVENANTS SHOULD BE APPLIED. UM, THE THIRD COMMENT, AGAIN, REFERS TO THE PROTECTIVE COVENANTS. AND, AND ESSENTIALLY IT'S THE SAME ARGUMENT, THE SAME DISCUSSION. THIS HAS BEEN BROUGHT UP ON JUNE 4TH. IT [00:30:01] WAS BROUGHT UP ON JULY 2ND. IT WAS BROUGHT UP ON COMMENTS UP UNTIL JULY 14TH. SO WE'RE DEALING WITH THE SAME COMMENTS, THE SAME, UM, ARGUMENTS FOR ROUGHLY A MONTH AND A HALF. UM, LAST COMMENT THAT IS NOT NEW, BUT WORTH MENTIONING IS, UH, A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER A TRAFFIC STUDY SHOULD BE PROVIDED FOR THIS TWO LOT SUBDIVISION. UH, THE ANSWER QUITE SIMPLY IS, IS NO. AND JUST TO, TO PUT THE PARTICULARS ON IT, THERE IS A TURN. IF YOU COME DOWN, WHAT'S THIS PAPER COMES EUCLID, RIGHT? ALL THE, IF YOU COME DOWN, THANK, IF YOU COME DOWN EUCLID AND YOU MAKE A TURN TOWARDS 1 34 EUCLID THE PROPERTY AT 1 32 EUCLID FRONTS THE ENTIRE TURN, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT 150 FEET. IT'S 149.4 FEET FROM THE CURB GOING IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION, MEANING THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY IS A HUNDRED, IS IS ABOUT 150 FEET OR SO, MAYBE 120 TO 150 FEET FROM THE CURB, RIGHT? IT'S, IT'S A TRAFFIC STUDY'S IRRELEVANT, UM, AND UNNECESSARY FOR, FOR THESE PURPOSES. UH, THE LAST TWO COMMENTS WERE NOT REALLY COMMENTS, BUT A RECITATION OF THE TIMELINE OF THIS PROJECT. I DON'T THINK ANY RESPONSES NEEDED TO THAT. AND REFLECTIONS ON LIVING IN THE ODDSLY ESTATES AND THE ODDSLY ESTATES IS A WONDERFUL COMMUNITY. BEAUTIFUL HOUSE IS PEACEFUL AND, AND, AND QUIET. THERE'S NO DISAGREEMENT WITH THAT. AND I, AND I, AND I COMMEND EVERYONE FOR, FOR NOTICING THAT. UM, BUT YOU KNOW, WHY PEOPLE MOVED INTO THE ARTS OF THE ESTATE. UM, WHATEVER THE MOTIVATION WAS, IT WAS FOR DIFFERENT REASONS, UM, THAT NEED NOT BE DWELLED ON AT, YOU KNOW, AT THIS TIME. UM, AT THE END, THERE'S NOT MUCH THAT, THAT I CAN OFFER TO THIS BOARD THAT THIS BOARD HAS NOT ALREADY HEARD. AND HAVING HEARD ALL OF THE INFORMATION, RECEIVED, ALL OF THE DOCUMENTS, UM, AND, AND KNOWING THAT THIS APPLICATION IS CO COMPLETED WITHIN CODE, UH, THE DIMENSIONAL ARE WITHIN CODE, NO VARIANCES ARE BEING REQUIRED. IT'S PERMITTED. IT'S PERMITTED IN THE ZONING DISTRICT. WE WOULD ASK THAT THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED AND THAT THIS BOARD MOVE TOWARDS RESOLUTION ON THE APPLICATION. THANK YOU. SO, UM, BEFORE WE HEAR COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, UM, JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT THERE'S BEEN A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF COMMENTS ALREADY MADE. AND GIVEN THAT WE WOULD REQUEST THAT NO COMMENTS BE REPEATED AND JUST NEW NEW COMMENTS BE, UH, DISCUSSED. DO WE HAVE ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC, MR. ROSENBERG, PLEASE? THANK YOU. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. I'LL TRY NOT TO REPEAT WHAT I'VE SAID BEFORE, BUT ELABORATE ON SOME OF IT. CAN YOU STILL STATE YOUR NAME? CERTAINLY. I'M DAVID ROSENBAUM. I LIVE AT 1 32 EUCLID AVENUE, UH, NEXT DOOR TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. AND I'M THE PRESIDENT OF THE RZ STATE CIVIC ASSOCIATION, WHICH I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF THIS EVENING. UH, STATED BEFORE THE RG STATE CIVIC ASSOCIATION OPPOSES THE REQUEST FOR THE APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION SUBDIVIDE. WE OPPOSE THE REQUEST TO REMOVE ANY TREES AND WE OPPOSE THE REQUEST FOR A WETLAND WATERCOURSE PERMIT. UH, AS WAS DISCUSSED IN THE LAST TWO MEETINGS, WE HAD HAD TROUBLE FINDING REPRESENTATION. WE HAVE RETAINED REPRESENTATION. UH, WE RETAINED THE, UH, LAW FIRM OF ABRAMS STERMAN, UH, JUSTICE ROBERTS BALINO WILL BE REPRESENTING US OR ADVISING US. UH, IT'S BECAUSE I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY. I DON'T CLAIM TO BE AN ATTORNEY. SO THERE ARE STATEMENTS THAT ARE MADE THAT I CAN'T COMMENT ON WHETHER THEY'RE IN FACT ACCURATE, COMPLETELY ACCURATE, INACCURATE, AND SO ON. SO WE, WE NOW HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL WHO CAN BETTER ADVISE US OF WHAT IS AND ISN'T THE CASE. WE ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT, JUST TO HOLD YOU THERE, IS YOUR COUNSEL HERE TONIGHT? NO, THEY ARE NOT. UH, THEY'LL BE USED LARGELY IN AN ADVISORY ROLE AS OPPOSED A REPRESENTATIVE ROLE. UH, BECAUSE WE ACTUALLY HAVE NO BUDGET, NO RESOURCES. WE'RE PAYING FOR THIS PERSONALLY OUT OF OUR POCKET TO MAKE SURE THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION IS REPRESENTED. OKAY. UM, SO THEN I'M GONNA NEED A GREATER UNDERSTANDING 'CAUSE IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT YOU WERE RETAINING COUNSEL MM-HMM . AND NOT IN AN ADVISORY ROLE. AND WHICH WAS WHY, UM, YOU WERE GIVEN THE CERTAIN DEADLINE. SO WHEN I GOT THE INFORMATION THAT I THINK IT WAS THE 10TH THAT, UM, THE ARDSLEY, UH, CIVIC ASSOCIATION, IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT IT WAS RETAINED COUNSEL NOT IN AN ADVISORY. SO WE, UH, WE'VE RETAINED COUNSEL, IF YOU LOOK THROUGH THE MATERIALS I SENT ON MONDAY, UH, WE RETAINED COUNSEL. WE'VE SUBMITTED A RETAINER, WE'VE, UH, FINALIZING THE ENGAGEMENT LETTER, UH, BUT THE WAY WE'LL BE USING COUNSEL COUNSEL'S MORE TO ADVISE US AS OPPOSED TO APPEAR AT THESE HEARINGS AND REPRESENT US PURELY ON A BUDGETARY PURPOSE. SO WILL COUNSEL BE SUBMITTING ANY DOCUMENTS IF NECESSARY? YES. IF NOT NECESSARY. NO. [00:35:02] OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, CONTRARY TO WHAT WAS JUST SAID, WE BELIEVE THE PROTECTIVE CONANT GRANTED BY TOLL BROTHERS, WHICH PRECLUDES DEVELOPMENT EXPLICITLY PROHIBITS LOT OWNERS FROM ERECTING OR PERMITTING TO BE ERECTED ANY LOT ON ANY LOT AND EXTERIOR BUILDING ADDITION OR IMPROVEMENT WHEN NOT CHALLENGING THE QUESTION ABOUT SUBDIVISION, IT DOES NOT SPEAK TO SUBDIVISION, BUT IT DOES SPEAK TO DEVELOPMENT. UH, AND IT SPEAKS TO THE FACT THAT THE, UH, RESTRICTIONS ARE FOR, UH, STRUCTURES AND IMPROVEMENTS. UH, IT DOESN'T JUST SAY LOT SIZE. SO ANY COMMENT ABOUT CHARACTER IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, JUST ABOUT LOT SIZE, I THINK IS A PARTIAL RESPONSE AND NOT A COMPLETE RESPONSE. AND AS WE'VE SAID, THE PROTECTIVE COMMENT IS WRONG WITH THE LAND, NOT WITH THE OWNER. THEY WERE REFERENCED IN THE TITLE VEST, UH, TITLE REPORT. THEY'RE REFERENCED ON THE DEED. SO IN MY OPINION, NON-ATTORNEY, THERE'S EXPLICIT REFERENCE TO THAT DOCUMENT BEING IN PLACE. SUBDIVISION VERSUS DEVELOPMENT BEING SEPARATE. JUST TO RESTATE SOMETHING THAT CAME UP IN THE LAST PLAN BOARD MEETING ABOUT WHETHER TOLL BROTHERS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO BUILD THE HOUSES AT RC ESTATES, I'LL REITERATE THAT THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT WAS GRANTED BY TOLL BROTHERS, NOT BY THE PRECEDING OWNER THAT ACTUALLY SUBDIVIDED THE PROPERTY. SO TOLL BROTHERS EXPLICITLY IN THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT GRANTS THEMSELVES AS A GRANTOR PERMISSION TO BUILD THE HOUSES. THE QUESTIONS WE RAISE, AND I SHARED SOME OF THIS, BUT JUST SO THE PUBLIC CAN HEAR THIS, SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT ARE TWO SEPARATE ACTIONS. UH, BUT WE WOULD QUESTION IF THE PROTECTIVE COVENANT PRECLUDE PRECLUDES DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WE BELIEVE TO BE THE CASE, WHY WOULD A OWNER SUBDIVIDE THE LOT IF THEY CAN'T SUBSEQUENTLY DEVELOP IT? QUESTIONS RAISED THAT I PROVIDED A, UH, DECISION TREE. I'M A MATHEMATICIAN BY TRAINING. THAT'S KIND OF THE WAY THAT I LOOK AT THINGS, IS THAT THEY CAN'T BUILD IT. ARE THEY GONNA SUBDIVIDED AND LEAVE IT FALLOW? ARE THEY GOING TO LOOK TO SELL IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE? UH, ANY THE DISCLOSE THE FACT THAT IT CAN'T BE SUBDIVIDED OR AT LEAST THERE'S A PROTECTIVE COVENANT? OR ARE THEY NOT GOING TO DISCLOSE THAT KIND OF ISSUES IF THEY DON'T DISCLOSE IT? WHAT PROBLEMS DOES IT CREATE FOR THE TOWN, FOR THE BOARD, FOR TITLE COMPANY, FOR NEIGHBORS, FOR THE BUYER, SORT OF A BUYER BEWARE, THERE'S KIND OF THAT CONCERN AS IT AFFECTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THIS TOWN, IF THEY SUBDIVIDED AND SELL THE LOT, WHY WOULD A BUYER BUY A LOT THAT THEY CAN'T SUBDIVIDE? I'LL SPEAK FOR MYSELF. I WOULD NOT WANNA BUY A LOT SOMEPLACE THAT I COULDN'T LIVE NEARBY THAT I WAS RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING. UH, IF THE BUYER THOUGHT THEY COULD SUB DIVIV, THEY COULD DEVELOP AND SUBSEQUENTLY CAN'T. AGAIN, WHAT ISSUES DOES THAT RAISE FOR THE TOWN, THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, THE NEIGHBORS, THE BUYER AND SO ON? UH, I'M SORRY, MR. ROSENBAUM, WHILE WE DEFINITELY APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS, UM, WE CAN'T MAKE DECISIONS AND, AND AS WE ASK FOR THE COMMENTS, UM, BASED UPON WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN AND SUPPOSE THIS, THAT KIND OF THING IN TERMS OF WHAT, UM, MAY HAPPEN IN WITH THEM SELLING THE PROPERTY, NOT SELLING THE PROPERTY. SO, AND I, AND I KNOW THAT THERE WERE THOUGHTS AND THERE WERE COMMENTS REGARDING WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THE APPLICANT WOULD KEEP THE PROPERTY, LEAVE IT BLANK, BUT IN TERMS OF WHAT ANOTHER BUYER WOULD DO, WE CAN'T. SO I WILL QUOTE THE APPLICANT'S ATTORNEY FROM THE JULY 2ND MEETING WHERE HE STATED IT COULD BE REASONABLY SAY AT SOME POINT SOMEONE MAY WANNA PUT A HOUSE UP THERE, THEN FURTHER ACKNOWLEDGE THEIR EXPRESSIONS OF INTEREST. AND IT'LL BE DISINGENUOUS FOR ME TO SAY, OKAY, WE'RE JUST GONNA SUBDIVIDE IT AND LEAVE IT AT THAT. RIGHT, I UNDERSTAND. BUT WHETHER OR NOT A BUYER WOULD BUY IT MM-HMM . WE CAN'T, WE DON'T UN UNDERSTOOD. I'M SUGGESTING THAT WHETHER THEY SELL THE LOT OR DON'T SELL THE LOT, IT CREATES A POTENTIAL PROBLEM FOR THIS TOWN AND FOR THE NEIGHBORS. SO THERE'S PROPERTY MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS MM-HMM . IF IT WAS VACANT, THERE WOULD BE POTENTIALLY VIOLATIONS ISSUED. IF SOMEBODY DIDN'T PAY THEIR TAXES, THEN IT WOULD BE IN REM PROCEEDINGS. SO THERE'S MECHANISMS TO AVOID UNDERSTOOD AND APPRECIATED, WHICH STILL LEAVES IT TO THE NEIGHBORS OR THE TOWN TO ENFORCE THOSE MAINTENANCE REQUIREMENTS. AS WITH MANY OTHER PROPERTIES, AS WITH MANY OTHER PROPERTIES. I WANNA SPEAK TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BECAUSE I THINK THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE DISCOVERED IN TERMS OF CONTINUING TO READ THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS. THERE WAS A COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT WHETHER SOMETHING IS A DIRECT VIOLATION OF THE PROTECTIVE NCE OR NOT. THEN IN THE WETLANDS AND WATER COURSE LAW, IT REQUIRES REJECTION OF AN APPLICATION IF IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH COVENANTS. SO THERE IS AN OPEN QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER DEVELOP SUBDIVISION, WHICH ARGUABLY LEADS TO DEVELOPMENT, IS INCONSISTENT WITH A PROTECTIVE COVENANT THAT PRECLUDES DEVELOPMENT. SO I, I'LL, I, I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS, WHICH THE, YOU KNOW, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS [00:40:01] LISTENED TO AND, AND, UM, BUT I JUST WANNA BE CLEAR THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS NO ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM OVER THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. THAT'S A PRIVATE MATTER BETWEEN THE HOMEOWNERS AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THE CORRECT. BUT DOES THE PLANNING BOARD NOT HAVE DISCRETION OVER GRANTING THE SUBDIVISION? YES, BUT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE DECLARATION OF COVENANTS. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THIS IS A, UH, SPLIT TRANSACTION OR ARGUABLY A SPLIT TRANSACTION OR A STEP TRANSACTION WHERE IT'S BEING PRESENTED AS TWO SEPARATE TRANSACTIONS THAT ULTIMATELY REPRESENT ONE OBJECTIVE, THERE ARE LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS, AS I'M TOLD, THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED OR CONSIDERED PRE BY THIS PLANNING BOARD, OR SUBSEQUENTLY, PERHAPS SUBSEQUENTLY, BUT IN FACT CONSIDERATIONS THAT THIS IS A STEP TRANSACTION. THE WETLAND REPORT THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THE APPLICANT'S MATERIALS GOES INTO A LOT OF DETAIL ABOUT CURRENT CONDITIONS AND ACKNOWLEDGES POOR DRAINAGE IN THE CONSERVATION AREA. UH, I WAS UNABLE TO FIND ANYTHING IN THE REPORT THAT SUGGESTS WHAT THE CONDITIONS WILL BE POST SUBDIVISION OR ARGUABLY POST-DEVELOPMENT. THE WETLANDS REPORT ALSO REFERENCES A VERY SMALL SUBSET OF THE WILDLIFE THAT'S EXISTING IN THE AREA. AND AGAIN, I WILL GRANT THAT THIS SPANS THE WORLD OF SUBDIVISION AND DEVELOPMENT, BUT THEY SPOKE ABOUT DEER, RACCOON, AND COYOTE. THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO SOME OF THE OTHER ANIMALS AND WILDLIFE WE'VE SEEN THERE, INCLUDING THE WILD TURKEYS, RED FOX TREE FOGS, INDIGENOUS BIRDS, AND A WHOLE LIST OF THEM THAT INCLUDED MY MATERIALS. I BELIEVE THERE'S POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT TO WILDLIFE AND THE CONSERVATION AREA, WHICH WAS NOT ADDRESSED IN THE WETLAND REPORT. THERE WERE COMMENTS ABOUT HOW THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPING ON THE LOT. IT PRESUPPOSES THAT THE LANDSCAPING NEEDED IMPROVEMENT. WE DID OBSERVE THAT A NUMBER OF THE TREES AND PLANS, THE GREEN GIANTS, WHICH WERE DISCUSSED AT THE LENGTH, UH, AT THE JUNE MEETING OF THIS PLANNING BOARD. ACCORDING TO WESTCHESTER COUNTY'S GO NATIVE PLANT BROCHURE, ONLY A SUBSET OF THE PROPOSED PLANTS ARE ACTUALLY LISTED AS RECOMMENDED FOR WESTCHESTER COUNTY. THAT'S ACCORDING TO, UH, THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY GO NATIVE PLANT BROCHURE. AND ACCORDING TO THE NATURE CENTER OF GREENBURG, THE, UH, GREEN GIANTS ARE NOT AN INDIGENOUS SPECIES. UH, IT GOES ON TO SAY THE GREEN GIANT IS LITTLE VALUE TO INSECTS OF BIRDS IN THE PART OF THE COUNTRY. UH, IT IS A HYBRID BETWEEN TWO NON-INDIGENOUS SPECIES. AND THAT UNLESS YOU'RE BUYING SPECIFICALLY THE THIA ISTS, AND I'LL APOLOGIZE FOR THE PRONUNCIATION MM-HMM . UM, YOU'RE BETTER OFF WITH OTHER TREES INSTEAD. SO THERE ARE QUESTIONS EVEN ON THE LANDSCAPING PLAN IF IT'S RESPECTING THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS OF THE CONSERVATION AREA. AND I PROVIDED TO THE BOARD THOSE TWO REFERENCES OF THE MATERIALS FROM WESTCHESTER COUNTY AND FROM THE GREENBERG NATURE CENTER. I'M NOT A BOTANIST, UH, BUT I KNOW HOW TO RESEARCH. I ALSO CALL ATTENTION THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN AND DRAINAGE ANALYSIS PLAN. IT APPEARS THEY'VE IDENTIFIED ROCK LEDGE AT 84 INCHES DOWN, WHICH SUGGESTS, AGAIN, SUBDIVISION VERSUS DEVELOPMENT, THAT IF THEY WOULD BUILD THE HOUSE IN THE AREA, THEY WOULD NEED TO EX EXCAVATE AND OR BLAST. THERE ARE TREES IN THE WETLAND AREA, THE CONSERVATION AREA THAT ARE LIKELY GOING TO BE AT RISK OF FALLING IF THERE'S ANY BLASTING OR MAJOR CONSTRUCTION, UH, AT LEAST ONE OR TWO OF WHICH WOULD VERY LIKELY FALL ON OUR HOUSE. SO I HAVE A PERSONAL CONCERN ABOUT THAT, NOT TO MENTION THE IMPACT ON THE CONSERVATION AREA IN GENERAL. THERE WAS CONVERSATION AT THE NOVEMBER PLANNING BOARD, UH, WORK SESSION, WHICH ACTUALLY THIS PROCESS HAS GONE BACK TO NOVEMBER WHERE IT WAS TALKED ABOUT HOW THE PLANNING BOARD DOESN'T LIKE TO APPROVE BUILDING WITHIN THE A HUNDRED, A HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER AREA AROUND A CONSERVATION AREA. AND AGAIN, ACKNOWLEDGING WE'RE TALKING SUBDIVISION VERSUS BUILDING, UH, BUT WHETHER TO THE EXTENT THEY'RE RELATED. UH, AND THE COMMENT WAS THAT, UH, THEY CAN'T, YOU CAN'T BUILD ON THE SECOND HALF OF THE LOT WITHOUT ENCROACHING ON THAT BUFFER AREA. UH, IN MY OPINION, THAT'S NOT AN EXCUSE TO APPROVE WHAT COULD BECOME A BUILDING SITE BECAUSE WE HAVE FOUR ORIGINAL BUYERS IN RC ESTATES WHO WERE TOLD FIRSTHAND THAT A HOUSE COULDN'T BE BUILT THERE. IT'S NOT HYPOTHESIZING ABOUT WHAT, WHY THE TOLL BROTHERS DIDN'T BUILD THERE, BUT ACTUALLY STATING THAT TOLL BROTHERS ACKNOWLEDGED A HOUSE COULD NOT BE BUILT FURTHER WEST ON THAT LOT. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE AND OBSERVATION ON SOME OF THE PLANS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT, THEY ARE SHOWN WITH, WITH THE CONSTRUCTION, UH, THE INSTALLATION OF TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION AND SILT FENCING AROUND THE ACTUAL WORK AREAS FOR REMEDIATION. A LOT OF THE REMEDIATION HAS BEEN DONE AS FAR AS WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO SEE. THERE WERE NO FENCES PUT UP. IT WOULD APPEAR AS IF THE APPLICANT HAS NOT FOLLOWED THEIR OWN COMMITMENT TO THIS PLANNING BOARD. SO IT RAISES AGAINST SOME CONCERN OR QUESTIONS ABOUT COMMITMENT TO THE ENVIRONMENT. TRAFFIC SAFETY, UH, I'LL COMMENT THAT IN FACT IT'S A DANGEROUS TURN. UH, WHETHER THE ONE EXTRA DRIVEWAY CHANGES THAT TO A TRAFFIC STUDY, I JUST OBSERVED THAT IT WASN'T DONE. WE DID HAVE [00:45:01] AS, UH, UH, MR. AMIR SAID A VERY GOOD CONVERSATION AT THE LAST MEETING. UH, WE TALKED ABOUT POTENTIAL AREAS FOR COMPROMISE. WE WERE ADVISED NOT TO MAKE, HAVE DISCUSSION ABOUT COMPROMISE ON THE APPLICATION TILL WE GET A CHANCE FOR OUR, OUR COUNCIL TO CONSIDER IT. SUMMARY, I'LL WRAP THIS UP PRETTY QUICKLY. THANK YOU. UH, WE THINK THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WE'RE TOLD, WE'VE READ THE PLANNING BOARD HAS RESPONSIBILITY TO BALANCE THE RIGHTS TO THE LANDOWNERS WHILE ENSURING ADVERSE IMPACTS OF THE SURROUNDING COMMITTEE ARE MINIMIZED, INCLUDING CHARACTER OF TOWN ARCHITECTURE, DENSITY, TRAFFIC SAFETY, AND PROTECTING THE RIGHTS OF LANDOWNERS ARE IMPACTED BY THE APPLICATIONS. UH, THE VOTERS WITHIN THE LARGELY SPECIFIC ASSOCIATION WHO VOTED ON THIS MATTER ARE UNANIMOUS IN THEIR OPPOSITION TO THE THREE ITEMS. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO PREVENT, OF COURSE, THE APPLICANT FROM DOING WHAT THEY'RE PERMITTED TO DO. WE ARE TRYING TO PROTECT THE RIGHTS OF THE OTHER RESIDENTS AND OWNERS. UM, AS I MENTIONED, THE UH, ATTORNEY DID ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS INTEREST IN THE LAND AND REASON TO BELIEVE THAT A HOUSE WOULD BE BUILT THERE. I URGED THIS, UH, PLANNING BOARD ON BEHALF OF THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION TO CONSIDER ALL THE ISSUES WE DISCUSSED, UH, TO DENY THE APPLICATIONS IF THE TOWN BOARD OF THE PLANNING BOARD IS CONSIDERING APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSALS IN LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS AND ISSUES ON WILDLIFE AND ON THE PROP ON THE CONSERVATION AREA, RESPECTIVELY, ASK THAT YOU RECONSIDER YOUR SEEKER FINDING FROM A NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO A POSITIVE DECLARATION. SO A PROPER INVESTIGATION AND EVALUATION OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT CAN BE UNDERTAKEN BEFORE APPROVING THE SUBDIVISION THAT LEADS FORWARD. FROM THERE, IF THE SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED, WE'D REQUEST THAT THE PLANNING BOARD DENY THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND THE WETLAND WATERCOURSE PERMIT TO MAKE SURE THAT ANY SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION FACTUAL DEVELOPMENT COMES BEFORE THIS BOARD. BECAUSE IT WAS SAID AT PRIOR MEETINGS THAT IF IT'S SIMPLY A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN AN R 10 DISTRICT, THE DEVELOPMENT DOES NOT NEED TO COME THROUGH BEFORE THIS BOARD UNLESS THERE ARE TREE REMOVAL OR WATER WATERCOURSE WETLAND PERMITS. IF THOSE TWO PERMITS ARE DENIED, WE ENSURE THAT THERE'S PUBLIC VISIBILITY TO FURTHER DISCUSSION AROUND THOSE MATTERS. AND AS MENTIONED, WE'VE RETAINED COUNSEL. WE DO RE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT IF A DECISIONS CAN BE MADE IN THE AFFIRMATIVE THAT IT BE DELAYED TO, WE HAVE A CHANCE FOR OUR COUNSEL TO GET UP TO SPEED AND ADVISE US APPROPRIATELY. UM, FOR THE RECORD, HOW LONG DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THAT SHOULD BE? IN MY DISCUSSION WITH COUNSEL, THEY SAID IT COULD TAKE A MONTH OR TWO MONTHS FOR 'EM TO GET UP TO SPEED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES. WE'LL JUST GIVE A MOMENT, SHOW OF HANDS, ANYONE ELSE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION TO BRING FORTH NEW COMMENTS OR ITEMS THAT HAVE NOT ALREADY COME UP BEFORE THE BOARD AND ARE ON THE RECORD. OKAY, MR. RAMIR, UH, CAN I, CAN I ASK A QUESTION BEFORE WE CLOSE? I GOOD. IS SHE READY? WE'RE JUST WAITING ON, UH, THIS DEMOGRAPHER. OKAY. UH, I MEAN THIS WILL HELP TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. CAN YOU WANT ME QUESTIONS THAT I HAVE? YOU, ME? YES. OKAY. YEAH. UH, MY, I MEAN, ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT YOU'VE MADE IN YOUR OPENING STATEMENT THAT THERE IS NO TRAFFIC ISSUE. SO REGARDING THAT, DO YOU HAVE ANY ACCIDENT REPORT, UH, FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, GREENBERG POLICE, TO COLLABORATE YOUR, UH, ASSERTION THAT THERE IS NO REAL ISSUE WITH THE, UH, SAFETY? I, I, I THINK, I THINK MY RESPONSE, OR AT LEAST THE INTENT OF MY RESPONSE TO THAT ISSUE WAS THERE'S NO NEED FOR A TRAFFIC STUDY BECAUSE THIS IS A, I UNDERSTAND RIGHT. THAT THAT'S JUST A SIMPLE ANSWER, BUT I WAS TRYING TO GIVE CONTEXT IN TERMS OF WHERE MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY IS VERSUS THAT TURNAROUND. AND MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY IS ABOUT 150 FEET FROM THAT TURNAROUND. BUT THE, I THE ISSUE WHAT THE NEIGHBORS HAVE IS THE SAFETY ADDING ONE MORE, UH, ONE MORE DRIVEWAY. SO MY QUESTION IS THAT, CAN YOU GET SOME COOPERATING YOUR, UH, DETERMINATION THAT THERE IS NO SAFETY ISSUE? WELL, I, I'M, CAN I, I CAN SPEAK TO SOME OF THAT IF, UM, SO I DO HAVE ANY FOLLOWING THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING, I DID SEEK TO SPEAK TO OUR TRAFFIC AND SAFETY SERGEANT, UM, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO WHETHER OR NOT IT MAKES SENSE IN THIS INDIVIDUAL APPLICATION AS THE BOARD HAS DONE IN OTHER APPLICATIONS, IF IT WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE DECISION TO RESTRICT, UH, THE SITE TRIANGLES, LEAVING THE DRIVEWAY TO PREVENT ANY OBSTRUCTIONS, UH, SO THAT ANYONE EXITING THE DRIVEWAY WOULD HAVE FREE AND CLEAR TO VIEW OF, TO BE ABLE TO SEE A VEHICLE COMING AROUND THE TURN SO THAT IT CAN MAKE ITS TURN OUT. UH, THE SERGEANT WAS OUT OF TOWN, HE [00:50:01] EXPECTS TO GET BACK TO ME TOMORROW WHEN I HAVE THAT CONVERSATION. I CAN ASK HIM ABOUT ACCIDENT DATA HISTORY IN THAT VICINITY AND WE CAN REPORT THAT BACK TO THE BOARD AND PROVIDE A COPY, UH, TO THE APPLICANT'S TEAM AND POST IT ON THE WEBSITE AS WELL. AND, AND, AND THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE AGREEABLE TO THE APPLICANT AS A CONDITION OF, OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL. THE SITE OBSTRUCTION, UH, THE SITE CLEARING THE SITE TRIANGLES IF, IF THE, FROM THE, FROM THE DRIVEWAY SHOWN ON THAT FOOTPRINT TO YEAH. TO CLEAR OBSTRUCTIONS TO YES, THAT'S FINE. OKAY. SURE. THANK YOU. SO WE CAN REPORT THAT BACK TO THE BOARD, TO THE PUBLIC AND TO THE OPPOSITE. YEAH. OKAY. UM, AND THAT WOULD BE MEMORIALIZED IN THE USE A SITE DISTANCE EASEMENT OR JUST A, JUST A TRIANGLE ON IT. ON THE PLANS. OKAY. JUST . SO THEY WILL, THEY WILL MARK UP THE PLAN AND PROVIDE US THAT, UH, WHAT THE TRIANGLE WILL LOOK LIKE. WELL, I MEAN, WE COULD, WE COULD MARK IT UP ON THE PLAN AS FAR AS THE, UH, FINAL APPROVAL. SURE. NOT FINAL, BUT JUST THE ONE V ON THE SUB ON THE SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT PLANS. SURE. OKAY. UM, I'VE GOT A COMMENT OR QUESTION OF YOU. UM, SO GIVEN THE, THE STORM SURGE AND THE FLOODING THAT, THAT THE TOWN OF GREENBURG HAS BEEN EXPERIENCE EXPERIENCING IN THE PAST FEW YEARS, THIS WEEK IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF IT, UM, I'M A LITTLE UNCOMFORTABLE, UM, WITH THESE, WITH FURTHER ENCROACHMENTS ON THE WETLANDS BUFFER, UM, AND THE PROXIMITY OF THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE TO THE SENSITIVE WETLAND AREA, UM, I'M WONDERING IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER EITHER, UM, SHIFTING THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE DISTURBANCE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE WETLANDS OR DESIGNING A STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN TO ACCOMMODATE A 100 YEAR STORM EVENT? UM, WELL, A COUPLE OF THOUGHTS. ONE, I BELIEVE, AND I MAY BE WRONG, THAT THE TOWN CODE REQUIRES A 25 YEAR, THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT. AND, AND THE PROPOSALS FOR A 50 YEAR, UM, STORM. SO I AM ASKING IF YOU WOULD CONSIDER A 100 YEAR STORM. UM, I, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WOULD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE IMPLICATIONS OF THAT WOULD BE. UM, SO I, I'M, I'M HESITANT TO SAY THAT WE WOULD, I DO THINK, UH, THAT THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT'S PROPOSED IS, IS SUFFICIENT AND IF, IF YOU SAW THE, THE SORT OF THE TOPOGRAPHY, I, I THINK IT DOES LEND TO IT. UM, BUT I, I'D HAVE TO THINK THROUGH WHETHER, UH, WE WANT TO CONSIDER THAT. I'M NOT, I'M NOT SO SURE ABOUT THAT IN TERMS OF MOVING, ARE YOU, I DUNNO IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO MOVING THE FOOTPRINT ON, ON OR, OR SOMETHING ELSE? THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE, SO I CAN BRING UP THE DRAWING IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. OKAY. YES. JUST SO I CAN BE CLEAR ON WHAT'S BEING ASKED THERE. BEAR WITH ME. SORRY. CAN YOU ALSO GIMME ONE SECOND. I'M JUST GONNA ASK A QUESTION. HERE WE GO. YEAH, I, I REALLY DON'T. OKAY. SO ON THE ATTACHED PLAN THAT I HAVE DISPLAYED ON THE SCREEN, THIS HATCHED LINE COMING IN OFF THE FAR PROPERTY LINE OR THE, UH, I'LL CALL IT THE WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE, COMES DOWN IN THIS ANGLE, GOES AROUND THREE PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT CHAMBERS, AND THEN RUNS ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, THEN TIES INTO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AT THIS POINT AND RUNS ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. THE QUESTION FROM MS. ANDERSON, IS THE APPLICANT CONSIDER, OR IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SHIFT THIS LIMITED DISTURBANCE LINE FURTHER INTO THE SITE TO PROTECT THE OFFSITE WETLAND? UM, I, I'M NOT, I'M TRYING TO SEE WHAT IMPACT THAT HAS ON THE FOOTPRINT AND ON THE, UM, IN THE AREA AROUND IF THAT WOULD, IF THAT WOULD, THAT MIGHT AFFECT IT. I, IF THERE'S ENOUGH ROOM THERE. SO YOU [00:55:01] SEE HOW THIS, THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE BENDS AROUND THE STONEWATER MANAGEMENT CHAMBERS? YES. I MEAN, IF IT WAS TO COME CLOSER TO STRAIGHT ACROSS THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY LINE, KIND OF IN LINE WITH THIS METAL POST AND MESH AND THEN TIE IN, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED? IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A STORMWATER DISCHARGE PIPE AND THEN THERE'S, YOU KNOW, A SHOWN PATIO. THE QUESTION IS, COULD THAT BE TIGHTENED UP TO FURTHER PROTECT THE OFFSITE WETLAND IF IT DOES? YEAH. I MEAN, LOOK, IF IF IT DOESN'T ALTER THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CREATION OF THE BUILDABLE LOT, I THINK THAT'S FINE. I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A 100 YEAR STORM WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT'S NOT WHAT WE JUST, I SAID I THINK IT WAS, I, I GAVE YOU TWO OPTIONS TO THE BUILDS OF THE 100 YEAR STORM EVENT OR TO, UM, TO SHIFT THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE AWAY FROM, FROM THAT PROTECTED AREA. YEAH. I, I, I, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S, THERE'S THE ABILITY TO INCREASE TO A 100 YEAR STORM. I'M TRYING TO QUICKLY IN MY HEAD UNDERSTAND IF WE SHIFT THAT LINE OF DISTURBANCE NORTH. UM, WHAT ARE WE IMPACTING? AND I BELIEVE, UM, REPRESENTATION FROM HUDSON ENGINEERING MAY BE ON THE ZOOM CALL AND IT MAY BE WORTHWHILE FOR THEM. OH, THEY ARE THEY ON TO SPEAK TO IT? I BELIEVE? UM, FORGET THE GENTLEMAN'S NAME. ABDULAZIZ, YES. OH, I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS ON EARLIER. ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY. SO I THINK THAT MAY MAKE SENSE 'CAUSE THEY MAY BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THE GRADING PLAN. ABSOLUTELY. PERHAPS THERE'S GRADING LIMITATIONS OR SOMETHING. YEAH, THAT'S, THAT MAY, MAY NEED TO BE SHARED. THAT'S GREAT. MY APOLOGIES. I DIDN'T REALIZE THEY'RE ON. UM, HE ONLY, SO LET ME STOP SHARING AND SEE WHAT ABDU ABDUL AZIZ. YEAH. WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THE BOARD TO THAT AND, UH, PLEASE SHARE THE SCREEN TO SHOW THE PLANS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, GOOD EVENING MEMBERS. THE BOARD, MY NAME IS ABDOUL AZIZ YUSEF FROM HUDSON ENGINEERING. UM, JUST FOLLOWING THE QUESTIONS, THE, THE TWO POINTS I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS FURTHER INCREASING THE STORMWATER CAPACITY FOR THE A HUNDRED YEAR STORM EVENT WOULD LIKELY INCREASE OUR LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE. ORIGINALLY, WE HAD ADDITIONAL CALTECH SYSTEMS, UH, CALTECH CHAMBERS, UH, CLOSER TO THE RARE PROPERTY LINE. UM, WE WERE MAINTAINING 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT WE ADJUSTED THAT TO PROVIDE BETTER BUFFER OR I GUESS BETTER SEPARATION FROM THE, UH, ACTUAL WETLANDS, WHICH IS, UH, OFFSITE HERE. SO WE'RE ALREADY, UM, HAD A, A POSITIVE CHANGE IN THAT REGARD. SO IF WE WERE TO INCREASE THE A HUNDRED YEAR STORM EVENT, WHICH WOULD ULTIMATELY REQUIRE MORE CHAMBERS, I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO FIT IT IN, IN, IN THE PROPERTY WITHOUT INCREASING THE LOD. WE DID HAVE TO SPLIT THE SYSTEMS TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE 50 YEAR STORM EVENT TO SOME IN THE REAR AND SOME IN THE FRONT, AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, OVER HERE. AND WE VARIED THE CHAMBERS AS WELL BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, UM, WE HAD, UH, UM, TWO EIGHTIES, WHICH ARE SHALLOWER AS OPPOSED TO, UH, THREE 30 WE HAD IN THE REAR YARD. SO INCREASING THE A HUNDRED TO THE A HUNDRED YEAR STORM EVENT, I THINK WOULD BE, UH, A TALL ASK FOR THIS SITE. UM, AND WE'RE ALREADY GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND BY MEETING THE, THE 50 YEAR STORM EVENT. OKAY. UM, REGARDING, CAN I, CAN I JUST INTERRUPT JUST FOR A MOMENT. UNDERSTOOD. I SEE THAT THERE'S ALMOST LIKE TWO LINES OR LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. ONE KIND OF FOLLOWS, UH, BEHIND THE STORMWATER, UH, UNITS AND CONTINUES ALONG THAT LINE AND THEN BEFORE TRAILING OFF, SO THAT UPPER LIMIT, RIGHT? SO ARE YOU REFERRING TO THIS LINE? I AM. RIGHT. SO THIS, THIS IS CONSTRUCTION FENCE BECAUSE, UM, WE NEEDED TO MAKE SURE THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE, UH, COVER GOES TO THE REAR PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE THE FUTURE DEVELOPER, IF THERE WERE TO BE ANY, MAY WANT TO REMOVE THIS METAL, UH, POST FENCE OR MOVE IT AND KEEP IT, UH, IN LINE THIS WAY. UM, AND WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PLANS WOULD BE FOR THIS, UM, UH, ROLE OF, UH, ABOR RIGHT HERE. SO THAT'S MAJORLY WHY THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE GOES TO THIS POINT HERE. IF THE CLIENT IS, I MEAN, WE COULD HAVE A DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT. IF THE CLIENT IS OKAY WITH LEAVING ALL OF THIS AND THE FENCE HERE AND THAT BEING BINDING TO THE FUTURE. UM, IF THERE, IF THERE WERE TO BE ANY FUTURE OWNER AFTER APPROVAL, WE CAN MOVE THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE TO THIS POINT, [01:00:01] UM, RIGHT HERE, BUT IT WOULD BE LIMITED TO THE PROPERTY. AND JUST TO SPEAK TO HOW MUCH OF A POSITIVE BENEFIT THAT WOULD BE TO DISTURBING THE WETLAND, THE BUFFER, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE WETLAND BUFFER AREA GOES, IT'S PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE PROPERTY, UH, EXCEPT THIS AREA AND IN, IN REALITY EXTENDS TO THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY ON THIS SIDE AS WELL. RIGHT. IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER. SO THIS EXTENT RIGHT HERE, I I I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW MUCH OF A POSITIVE BENEFIT, UM, IF YOU WERE TO MOVE THIS FENCE INTO THIS POINT, UM, VERSUS TO KEEP THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE AT THIS POINT. UNDERSTOOD. SO TWO, TWO COMMENTS. UM, ONE IS THAT, UH, THERE ALREADY IS, AND I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU HAVE THAT LIMITED DISTURBANCE THAT DIPS DOWN. UM, BUT THAT RELATES TO SOME RELOCATION OF EXISTING LANDSCAPING THAT WAS SHOWN ON THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S PLAN. AND, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE CONSIDERATION COULD BE TO LIMITING THE AREA BEYOND, UH, THAT PULLED BACK LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE TO HAND WORK ONLY WITHOUT THE NEED FOR MACHINERY. AND THAT RESULTS IN LESS OVERALL DISTURBANCE. DIGGING OUT, YOU KNOW, ARBOR, IE. SHRUBS WHILE MAYBE A LITTLE MORE MM-HMM . UM, YOU KNOW, INTENSIVE TO DO IT BY HAND, RIGHT. THEN USING MACHINERY. IT'S CERTAINLY EASIER TO USE MACHINERY. IT WOULD APPEAR THAT IT PROBABLY COULD BE DONE BY HAND AND RESULT IN LESS DISTURBANCE. THE OTHER THING THAT'S IMPORTANT, UM, EVEN THOUGH IT SEEMS ON PAPER AS A MODEST GAIN OR, OR INCREASE IN RESPECTING THE BUFFER, THAT'S THE MOST IMMEDIATE BUFFER AREA TO THE OFFSITE WETLANDS. WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT UP BY THE DRIVEWAY AND ALL THAT, THAT'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOME AND UP NEAR THE ROAD. THAT'S A SIGNIFICANT DISTANCE FROM THE OFFSITE WETLAND, BUT THE MOST SENSITIVE AREA, ARGUABLY IS THIS REAR YARD AREA. MM-HMM . RIGHT. AND JUST TO, JUST, AGAIN, THIS, THIS COULD BE A DISCUSSION WITH THE CLIENT, BUT UM, IT JUST, AS YOU, YOU YOU'VE SAID IT IS, THIS DISTURBANCE IS MAJORLY FOR THE, FOR, YOU KNOW, UH, BRINGING THIS UP TO THE CURRENT LANDSCAPING PLAN. SO IF, UM, WE HAVE A DISCUSSION AND IT'S FEASIBLE AND THAT'S A CONDITION OF APPROVAL TO DO, TO DO THIS, UH, AREA BY HAND, I, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE WOULD, UM, YEAH. BE OPEN TO CONSIDERING I YEAH, WE, WE, WE YEAH, THAT'S FINE. WE DON'T, I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO FURTHER DISCUSSION ON IT. IT'S ACCEPTABLE. OKAY. AND OBVIOUSLY THE NEW PLANTINGS THAT WOULD GO INTO THAT AREA AS WELL, CORRECT. WOULD BE DONE PERFORMED BY HAND BY HAND ABS? YES. OKAY. CORRECT. UH, AARON, FOLLOWING UP ON, ON THAT, UH, I THINK THE, UH, THE LARGER PICTURE IS THAT, CAN YOU MAKE IT A SMALLER DWELLING FOOTPRINT SO THAT IT WOULD BE NOT AFFECT ANY WETLAND AREA? NO. BUT JUST WOULD BE INTO THE BUFFER? UH, I, I, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN MAKE THAT, THAT, I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR YOUR ANSWER. OH, I'M SORRY THAT YOU'RE ASKING. LET ME, LET ME ASK, UH, THE QUESTION A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY IF I CAN. THE PROPOSED DWELLING ON THIS PLAN, IS IT, UH, MAXING OUT WHAT'S ALLOWABLE UNDER OUR ZONING ORDINANCE? I BELIEVE SO. SO MEANING THAT THIS IS THE MAXIMUM, IT, IT'D BE GOOD TO KNOW IF THIS IS THE MAXIMUM, MAXIMUM SIZE HOUSE THAT COULD BE BUILT ON THIS LOT WITHOUT VARIANCES RELATED CORRECT. TO EITHER SETBACKS FAR PRINCIPLE BUILDING COVERAGE. THAT THAT'S CORRECT. SO THAT MAKES IT A CONS, A CONSERVATIVE SORT OF, RIGHT. YOU'RE SHOWING THE, THAT YES. IT CAN'T BE, IT CAN'T BE, YES. CAN'T BE GREATER THAN THIS. YES. SO CAN WE, CAN WE REQUEST OR PUT INTO A CONDITION THAT IT WOULD BE NOT DISTURBED, THE WETLAND, ACTUAL WETLAND AND, AND THE WETLAND DOESN'T EXTEND ONTO THIS APPLICANT'S PROPERTY? THE BUFFER DOES, BUT THE WETLAND FALLS SHORT OF THE REAR PROPERTY LINE. SO THERE'S NO DIRECT DISTURBANCE TO THE WETLAND IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT. CAN CAN YOU MARK THAT OR CAN YOU SHOW THAT? BECAUSE THE A HUNDRED FOOT BUFFER IS MARKED, BUT WHERE IS THE WETLAND? THE WETLAND? THE WETLAND ITSELF IS BASICALLY THIS LINE. YEAH, IT EXTENDS. SO IT COMES UP RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE THERE'S A STONE WALL SORT OF, AND THEN, UH, WALL, THE WETLAND BEYOND THIS STONE WALL. SO IS ON THE PROPERTY JUST BARELY LIKE A DI MINIMIS. IT'S JUST OFF THE PROPERTY LINE. VERY, YEAH. RIGHT. AND PERHAPS IT'S WORTH LOOKING AT THE MITIGATION PLAN FOR PLANTINGS. OH, THAT IT WOULD SHOW IT THERE? YEP. OH, ON THAT PLAN? MM-HMM . UH, I DON'T KNOW. NO, I DON'T TO CLARIFY, THE PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE A HUNDRED FOOT OFF ROAD. YEAH. THE WHOLE WHOLE THING IS HERE. BUT THE WETLAND MOSTLY THE WEST, THE WETLAND IS NOT RIGHT. THE WETLAND PROPERTY [01:05:01] DOESN'T EXTEND INTO THIS SITE, SO THERE'S NO DIRECT OKAY. DISTURBANCE WITHIN THE WETLAND. I'LL SAY IT THAT WAY. IT ENDS WITH THAT STONEWALL JUST PRIOR TO, BECAUSE THERE'S A GRADE CHANGE. YEAH, IT DOES. SO THE WETLAND IS WITHIN THE LOW LYING AREA THEN THERE'S A SLOPE UP, THEN THERE'S THE WALL, AND THEN THERE'S THE, THE LOCK. GOT IT. SO WHAT WAS THAT GREEN SHED AREA WAS ON? WHAT WAS THE GREEN DEFER? WHAT WAS THE GREEN SHED AREA INTO THE PLA INTO THE, YOUR, ONE OF THE, THOSE WERE, THOSE WERE AREAS THAT WERE, UM, STEEP SLOPES. IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO THIS, THE SLOPE ANALYSIS PLAN. YES. OKAY. SO THAT'S A AREAS GREATER THAN 50% IN SLOPE. OKAY. THAT'S NOT, UH, ANY, ANY LANDSCAPING PLAN. OKAY. NO, NO, NO. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO, SO BACK TO MY QUESTION THOUGH. IT WAS, SO YOU WOULD, YOU'RE WILLING TO DO HAND WORK CONSTRUCTION ONLY IN THAT ZONE, BUT NOT MOVE THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE BACK? RIGHT. SO THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE WOULD BE MODIFIED, UM, AND THERE COULD POTENTIALLY, IF THIS BOARD MOVES FORWARD WITH THE DECISION, BE A CONDITION THAT ONLY BEYOND THAT, THAT INTERIOR LINE, I'LL CALL IT, UH, OR IN THAT SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO LINES, ONLY HAND WORK SHALL BE PERFORMED. THERE SHOULD BE NO, BUT IT WOULDN'T IMPACT WHERE THE DWELLING IS SITUATED ON THE PROPERTY AND KEEP, KEEP THINGS FURTHER AWAY FROM, FROM THE WET, THE WETLANDS BUFFER? NO, IT WOULD JUST MEAN THAT MACHINERY RELATED DISTURBANCE, WHICH IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THIS PLAN, UM, COULD POSSIBLY TAKE PLACE. SO YOU COULD HAVE MACHINERY WITHIN FIVE FEET OR 10 FEET OF THE WETLAND. UM, IT WOULD SHIFT THAT FURTHER AWAY TO PROTECT THAT AREA AND ONLY ALLOW FOR HAND WORK MINIMIZING EROSION POTENTIAL. AND, CORRECT. YOU'D STILL HAVE TO HAVE EROSION CONTROLS AND EVERYTHING ABSOLUTE IN PLACE AS REQUIRED. AND, AND, AND, AND THAT PLAN IS CONSISTENT WITH THE MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN. IT, IT, THAT, THAT ALLOWS IT, IT WOULDN'T, IT WOULDN'T HAVE, IN OTHER WORDS, RESTRICTING IT TO HAND, YOU KNOW, PLANTINGS DOESN'T CHANGE THE MITIGATION PLAN, IT WOULDN'T RESULT IN A MODIFICATION, IT WOULDN'T RESULT EXACTLY. UNDERSTOOD. BUT AS I UNDERSTAND, OH, SORRY, GO AHEAD. SO TO SUMMARIZE, I'M JUST GOING BACK TO WHAT EMILY WAS SAYING. UM, IT'S BASICALLY A NO ON THE HUNDRED YEAR, I THINK IT, YEAH. IT'S ABDU DISEASE JUST WITHIN THE TIME THAT YOU BILLED THE A HUNDRED, THE UNDERLYING OF THE 50 CHANGES TO A HUNDRED IF IT CHANGES TO CHANGES, YEAH. YEAH. AND YES TO HAND PLANTING, AND YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO, I THINK YOUR QUESTION WAS, UM, THE POTENTIAL HOME MAKE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT WITHIN THE BUFF TO MAKE IT NOT AS ENCROACHING IN THE BUFFET AREA. I I, I'M SORRY, I I DON'T WANNA SPEAK OVER YOU. YEAH, I'M DONE. OH, NO, I, OR I, I THOUGHT JUST A QUESTION. I MEAN, THE IDEA IS THAT THE CONCERN THAT WE HAVE, THAT WE ARE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT IS, UH, NOT ANYTHING THERE, BUT PUTTING A WHOLE NEW, NO NEW HOUSE OVER THERE. SO, UH, MITIGATE THAT, UH, EXTENSIVE, UH, IMPACT. AND IT'S VERY MUCH CONCERN OF THE, UH, OUR BOARD, THAT WE DO NOT CREATE SOMETHING THAT IS GOING TO BE ADVERSELY IMPACTED ON THE ALREADY VERY, UH, UH, DIFFICULT SITUATIONS. AND, UH, I KNOW I COULD NOT DRIVE FROM MY HOUSE ONTO THE NINE A 'CAUSE IT'S ALL FLOODED ON MONDAY. THANK YOU. SO IT IS, IT, IT IT IS IN THAT LIGHT THAT WHATEVER THE SMALLEST THINGS YOU CAN MANAGE TO DO, IT WOULD BE APPRECIATED SO THAT WE DO NOT WANT TO BE APPROVED, OR AT LEAST AS A CONDITION THAT YOU WILL LOOK INTO IT TO MAKE IT A, A SMALL AND HAS LITTLE IMPACT ON WETLAND BUFFER. WELL, I, I, I, I, I DON'T THINK WE, WE CAN NECESSARILY COMMIT TO A SORT OF, UH, A, A VAGUE OR AN UNSPECIFIED CONDITION. UM, I WILL DRAW BACK ON THE DESIGN PLAN, WHICH SHOWS THE MAXIMUM THERE. AND SINCE WE ARE IN THE BUFFER, UM, I'M LOOKING, YOU KNOW, REAL, REAL QUICKLY. OKAY. I'M SORRY. SO THE QUESTION I GET, I'M, AND AGAIN, TO REITERATE FROM CORT WAS WHETHER OR NOT YOU'D BE WILLING TO COMMIT TO A SMALLER FOOTPRINT ON A POTENTIAL HOME. AND YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT IS, AT THIS TIME, I BE, UNLESS WE'RE GIVING YOU AN EXACT SQUARE FOOTAGE, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU CAN COMMIT TO. I, I DON'T THINK CONCEPTUALLY IT'S SOMETHING THAT CAN BE COMMITTED TO, AND EVEN IF YOU [01:10:01] REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT, I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH OF A REDUCTION, UH, MUCH OF AN EFFECT IT NECESSARILY HAS. RIGHT. 'CAUSE WE'RE IN THE WETLAND BUFFER ANYWAY. SO IF WE HAVE A, AND I'M TRYING TO LOOK REAL QUICK AT THE, AT THE, AT THE NUMBERS, BUT I, I UNDERSTAND, BUT I WANNA STOP THERE. OKAY. IT'LL BE LESS THAN WHAT IS MAXIMUM THAT I KNOW. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PERCENTAGES WOULD BE, BUT I KNOW THAT THE, IF THERE WAS A NO DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BE EXISTING NOW SINCE YOU ARE COMING TO US, AND HE SAYS, UH, THE NEXT, THE, THE ONE WHO GOES TO SELL, HE GOING TO BUILD IT. AND WHAT IS SHOWN HERE IS THAT HE CAN COME BACK AND SHOW THAT IT, THIS IS WHAT WE APPROVED. AND SO, UH, UH, WE CAN'T GIVE, YEAH, WE CAN, WE CANNOT HAVE HIM AGREE TO AN UNSPECIFIED CON CONDITION. NO. BUT YOU CAN ASK THEM TO, UM, INDICATE WHAT REDUCTIONS THERE WOULD BE, DEPENDING UPON THE SIZE OF A PARTICULAR TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO GIVE US THE RESULTS OF THAT, WHETHER OR NOT IT'S, UM, AN EFFECTIVE RESULT. SO, SO YOU COULD, YOUR ENGINEER SHOULD BE ABLE TO SHOW A DIFFERENCE IN, UH, FOOTPRINT OF XC SIZE VERSUS Y SIZE AND, AND POTENTIAL, UM, IMPACT TO STORMWATER RUNOFF. RIGHT. THE, UH, I, I, PRESUMABLY ABDULLAH DISEASE CAN DO THAT. I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT, WHAT MATERIAL RESULT IT IS. I MEAN, IF YOU GO FROM A 3000 SQUARE FOOT TO A 2,800 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE, HOW MUCH OF A, OF A REDUCTION DO YOU REALLY HAVE OR SAY 2000 SQUARE FEET? WELL, I THINK THE DISCUSSION I STARTED IS BASED ON THAT, THE, THE CALTECH UNITS THAT YOU HAVE AND, AND CONSIDERING THAT YOU HAVE TO KIND OF MAKE IT A BIGGER, TO MAKE IT A HUNDRED YEAR, UH, FLOOD REQUIREMENTS. SO, SO I JUST, IF I COULD ASK A QUESTION, UM, AND AARON, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I, IF I'M, IF I'M GOING OFF SCRIPT HERE. UM, WITH THE, WITH YOU HAVING WETLANDS AREA OR WETLANDS BUFFER WITHIN YOUR PROPERTY PER ZONING CODE, IT DOES REDUCE YOUR BUILDABLE AREA. AND WE, WITH THAT BUILDABLE AREA, REDUCES IT FURTHER, REDUCES THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE YOU COULD HAVE ON SITE, UM, PER CODE. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF MY SCREEN IS STILL BEING SHARED, BUT THE MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE YOU COULD HAVE ON SITE IS APPROXIMATELY 37.2%. AND, UM, WE ARE WAY BENEATH THAT. WE ARE AT 28. RIGHT. UM, RIGHT NOW, UM, WHICH IS, WHICH TAKES INTO ACCOUNT THE, THE, THE WETLANDS AND THE WETLANDS BUFFERING, THE STEEP SLOPES REDUCED IN THE BUILDABLE AREA. THERE'S A STEEP SLOPE REDUCTION DUE TO SLOPES ON THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, THERE'S ONLY A REDUCTION WITH WETLANDS WHEN IT'S THE ACTUAL WETLAND OR WATERCOURSE AREA. NOT THE BUFFER AREA. THAT SHOWED MY UNDERSTANDING WAS OKAY, BUT STILL, TO MY POINT, RIGHT, THERE IS A REDUCTION IN HOW MUCH IMP PURCHASE COVERAGE WE'RE PUTTING ON SITE JUST TO FURTHER HELP IMPROVE THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, WHICH, UM, WE'RE SHOWING HERE. RIGHT. AND JUST TO GIVE THOSE NUMBERS, AGAIN, THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE MAX RISK IS 37.25%. WE ARE AT 28.74%. SO IT'S A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT, WE THINK REDUCTION. RIGHT. OTHER CONSIDERATIONS COULD POTENTIALLY BE, UM, AND THE BOARD'S ASKED THIS IN OTHER PROJECTS FOR THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH, UH, WOULD I IMAGINE BE SOME SORT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IF CONSIDERATION WOULD BE GIVEN TO HAVING IT BE A PERVIOUS SURFACE, EITHER PERVIOUS PAVERS OR PERVIOUS ASPHALT SURFACE. UM, I THINK THERE'S A PATIO SHOWN IN THE REAR. CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S, THAT'S FINE. YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T GET CREDIT. YOU, THEY STILL UNDER OUR CODE, EVEN IF IT'S A PERVIOUS MATERIAL, THEY DON'T, YOU DON'T REDUCE YOUR OVERALL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE, BUT IT'S LOOKED UPON AS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER YOUR STANDARD ASPHALT BY THE BOARD, PARTICULARLY IN A BUFFER AREA. THAT'S FINE. THE SAME MAY GO, I THINK, THINK THERE'S A PATIO IN THE REAR YEP. SHOWN YES. I MEAN, WE DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ACTUALLY GONNA BE BUILT, BUT IT'S SHOWN ON THE PLAN AS BEING WITHIN THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE. SO IF, SURE. SOME FUTURE BUILDER DID, BUT THAT'S REASONABLE. PERHAPS THAT COULD BE A PERVIOUS YES. MATERIAL AS WELL THAT'S AGREEABLE. YES. YEAH. AND WE CAN PUT AS A SORT OF A PART OF THE, PART OF THE APPROVAL OR CONDITION FOR IT, IF THE BOARD MOVED FORWARD WITH THE DECISION BEING THAT IT'S ON THE RECORD NOW, WE WOULD INCLUDE THOSE AS CONDITIONS. RIGHT. I, I DON'T, I STILL, I STILL DON'T THINK YOU ANSWERED MY SECOND QUESTION, WHETHER YOU THAT'S RIGHT. YOU'VE ANSWERED SOME OTHER QUESTIONS RIGHT, THAT I DIDN'T ASK. BUT THE, BUT WHETHER YOU WOULD SHIFT THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE FURTHER AWAY FROM THE WETLANDS. I, I, I, I THINK ABDULAH [01:15:01] AZI MAY HAVE ADDRESSED THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT THAT CAN BE DONE. SO THE ANSWER IS NO. NO, I DON'T, I KNOW HE ADDRESSED THE 100 YEAR STORM EVENT. I, I'M TOTALLY SET ON THAT. HE SAYS THAT THAT WOULD INCREASE THE DISTURBANCE. I, UM, MY SECOND QUESTION WAS WHETHER THEY WOULD SHIFT THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE AWAY FROM THE WETLANDS FURTHER. YEAH, I THINK, I THINK, I THINK NO, AND I THINK YOU MAY HAVE EXPLAINED, BUT ABDULAZIZ, IF YOU'RE ON, YOU WANT TO JUST SURE. UH, I THINK WE, I'M JUST TRYING TO PULL UP THE, THE, AND AGAIN. UM, THE, AT BEST WE COULD REVISE THE LIMIT OF DISTURBANCE TO SHIFT UP TO THIS LINE. UM, THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BE, UH, I, I GUESS ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION AND WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE DEVELOPMENTAL POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE LAW. UM, HOWEVER, AS WE WERE DISCUSSING ONE ALTERNATIVE, BECAUSE WORK STILL HAS TO BE DONE IN THIS AREA AS FAR AS DEVELOPMENT WAS TO DO, DO IT BY HAND, UM, THAT WAS A, A GOOD COMPROMISE. SO WE COULD HAVE THE PLAN MARKED AS EVERY AREA SHADED. WE COULD SHADE THIS AREA AND SAY, THIS AREA, WHATEVER WORK TO BE DONE HERE SHOULD BE DONE BY HAND BECAUSE IT'S MAJORLY LANDSCAPING AND OR REMOVAL OF, UM, THE METAL FENCE OR RELOCATING THE METAL FENCE. RIGHT. THERE WOULD BE A, THERE, I MEAN, JUST CONSTRUCTION IS NOT THE ONLY POTENTIAL DISTURBANCE, RIGHT. UH, IN CONNECTION WITH DEVELOPMENT, YOU KNOW? RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAD SPOKEN ABOUT DOING THE HAND WORK, BECAUSE IT'S LESS INTENSIVE AND DISRUPTIVE THAN BRINGING IN MACHINERY. MY FOLLOW UP QUESTION IS, THE APPLICATION STATES THAT THERE'S, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT A LARGE PORTION OF THIS SITE FALLS WITHIN THE BUFFER, SPECIFICALLY THE PROPOSED LOT, LET'S CALL IT, UM, 9,453 SQUARE FEET OF BUFFER DISTURBANCE. MY QUESTION IS, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO QUICKLY GIVE AN ESTIMATE OF THIS AREA IN BETWEEN THE TWO FENCES, SO TO SPEAK, IF THE, UM, IF THAT WAS ONLY TO BE INTRUDED UPON BY HAND FOR PURPOSES OF RELOCATING, PLANTING AND INSTALLING NEW PLANTING, IS, CAN THAT AREA BE QUANTIFIED? YEAH, I THINK SO. I MEAN, IS IT A COUPLE OF HUNDRED SQUARE FEET? OH, I DON'T, I, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, LET, LET ME QUICKLY, I THINK LOOK AT IT AND GET BACK TO YOU, MR. YUSEF COULD QUICKLY YEAH, YEAH. LET'S GET TO FRAME IT, FRAME IT NUMBER. THE, THE OTHER THING WOULD BE IF, UH, MR. YUSEF, IF YOU COULD PULL A DIMENSION FROM THE, THE LIMIT OF THE WETLAND, THE EXTENT OF THE WETLAND TO NOW, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROPOSED LIMITED DISTURBANCE? IS IT AN ADDITIONAL THREE FEET? IS IT AN ADDITIONAL 10 FEET? MM-HMM. I JUST WANTED TO REMIND EVERYONE THAT WE DO TWO, STILL TWO HAVE TWO APPLICATIONS, AND WE ONLY HAVE ABOUT 40 MINUTES LEFT ON MEETING. WE DO. SO I'D LIKE TO GIVE MR. YUSEF AN OPPORTUNITY JUST SO THAT MS. ANDERSON AND OTHER BOARD MEMBERS IN THE PUBLIC ARE AWARE OF, YOU KNOW, IS THIS MODEST, YOU KNOW, INCREASE OR AN IMPROVEMENT? YOU KNOW, IS IT A COUPLE OF FEET? IS IT 10 FEET? RIGHT, RIGHT. IS IT SUBSTANTIAL? RIGHT. UM, I THINK ABDUL AZI, I THINK YOU'RE MAKING THAT CALCULATION. SO WHY, WHILE HE IS, DO WE WANT TO JUST TALK ABOUT THE MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN AND, AND THOSE PROPOSED TREES THAT ARE IN THAT? YES, IF YOU WOULD. YEAH, LET'S DO THAT. 'CAUSE THAT'S, THAT SHOULD BE TACKLED FAIRLY EASILY. SO JUST FOR QUICK, QUICK REFERENCE, THERE IS A, I'M SORRY. UM, GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. OH, THERE'S A FOREVER EASEMENT THAT AFFECTS TWO FEET OF THE SOUTHERLY BOUNDARY LINE. IT RUNS THE AREA OF THE LEY ESTATES. IT PROHIBITS, UH, MANMADE STRUCTURES, BUILDINGS, AND TREES, BUT NOT SHRUBS OR HEDGES. SO ON THE MITIGATION PLANTING PLAN, WE'RE CALLING IT THE EXISTING RESIDENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. THERE IS A PROPOSED RELOCATION OF, OF GREEN GIANT TREES IN KIND OF AN L SHAPE. MM-HMM . RIGHT NOW, RIGHT NOW AT THE VERTICAL OF THAT L SHAPE ARE HEDGES. AND SO WHAT THIS PROPOSES IS TO HAVE TREES ALONG THAT L SHAPE, BUT BECAUSE OF THE FOREVER EASEMENT, YOU CAN'T HAVE TREES ON THE HORIZONTAL PART OF THAT, OF THAT L THAT CORNER L. SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING JUST SIMPLY IS TO JUST PUT SOME HEDGES IN THERE. THERE ARE HEDGES PROPOSED TO THE, TO THE RIGHT OF IT. UM, SO JUST PUT THE SAME HEDGES THERE INSTEAD OF TREES. OKAY. AND, UM, MY LAST QUESTION IS, UH, YOU INDICATED OVER THE PHONE THIS AFTERNOON THAT YOU MAY BE [01:20:01] HAVING A, A PHONE CONFERENCE WITH THE, UM, COUNSEL REPRESENTING, DID THAT TAKE PLACE? ARE YOU ABLE TO SPEAK TO ANY OF THAT? I DID. I ACTUALLY, I, I, I MET, I MET WITH THE COUNSEL FOR, UM, MR. ROSENBAUM ROSALIE ESTATES, UH, WHO TOLD ME THE SAME THING THAT HE'S ADVISING OR IS RETAINED TO, TO ADVISE THEM. UM, HE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING. HE'S NOT PROVIDED ME WITH ANYTHING. IT WAS A VERY SHORT, LOVELY CONVERSATION. I'VE KNOWN HIM FOR MANY YEARS. UM, BUT HE'S JUST ADVISING THEM. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD, UM, I'D LIKE TO WELL, HE'S STILL DOING THE MEASUREMENT. YEAH. AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE'S, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S SOME INFORMATION THAT THE BOARD HAS ASKED FOR THAT COULD PROBABLY GET SUBMITTED IN A TIMELY FASHION. THERE'S SOME SLIGHT MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLANS, THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AS DISCUSSED. UM, ALL THAT SAID, IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO THE BOARD WHERE IT DECIDES TO GO FROM HERE. BUT, UM, WE HAVE RECEIVED THE COMMENTS AND THE TESTIMONY THIS EVENING FROM THE PUBLIC. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ANYTHING FURTHER IS GONNA BE ADDED TONIGHT, THAT RESPECT. AND, AND THAT BEING SAID, I, I, AS I SAID, HE'S WORKING ON GETTING THAT MEASUREMENT. I HAVE THE NUMBERS, UM, OF IT. THANK YOU. YEAH. SO I'D RATHER, YEAH, LET'S DO THAT. SO, UM, IT WOULD BE JUST TO THOSE TWO LINES TO THE OTHER LINE, IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 10 FEET, UM, FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THAT WOULD BE 10 FEET, POTENTIALLY FROM THE, THE WETLAND AREA. SO 10 FEET FURTHER, FURTHER AWAY, 10 FEET FURTHER AWAY. YEAH. AND IT WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY 800 SQUARE FEET. 800 SQUARE FEET. OKAY. APPROXIMATELY ALSO JUST PLANNING BOARD. I, I KNOW, UH, WE HAVE SOME NEWER MEMBERS THAT IF THE HEARING WERE TO BE CLOSED AND THERE WERE STILL OUTSTANDING COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, UM, WHAT WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST AND COULD DO IS THE APPLICANT COULD ADDRESS THEM, UM, AT A WORK SESSION BEFORE ANY DISCUSSIONS OF CONDITIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE OCCURS, WHICH I, I THINK THERE'S SOME DOCUMENTS THAT WILL BE PREPARED IN TERMS OF THE CONDITIONS AND HAVING THEM WRITTEN OUT. UM, BUT FOR RIGHT NOW, WE NEED TO, UH, GO TO VOTE ON WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LEAVE, UH, LEAVE THE RECORD OPEN UNTIL THE 28TH OF JULY. RIGHT. OUR NEXT MEETING, UH, WE TYPICALLY MEET ON THE FIRST AND THIRD WEDNESDAYS OF THE MONTH, BUT, UM, DUE TO A CONFLICT WITH THE TOWN BOARD, OUR NEXT MEET, WE ARE NOT MEETING ON THE FIFTH WEDNESDAY OF THIS MONTH. RATHER, WE'RE MEETING ON THE FIRST, UH, ON MONDAY, THE FIRST MONDAY OF AUGUST, WHICH IS AUGUST 4TH. SO, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LEAVE THE RECORD OPEN UNTIL JULY 28TH? SO MOVED. MAY I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. ALL OPPOSED? SO JUST FOR EVERYONE IN THE ROOM, TYPICALLY THE BOARD WOULD LEAVE A WRITTEN RECORD OPEN FOR ONE WEEK FROM THE PERIOD OF CLOSURE, THE BOARD HAS DECIDED TO LEAVE THE RECORD OPEN FOR A PERIOD OF 12 DAYS. ANY ADDITIONAL WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OR COMMENTS THAT, UH, EITHER THE APPLICANT OR MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC OR THEIR ADVISORY COUNSEL WISH TO SUBMIT WITHIN THAT PERIOD, UM, YOU'RE FREE TO DO SO. THAT WILL ALL BE CONSIDERED MUCH LIKE THE TESTIMONY AT THESE PUBLIC HEARINGS, OR CONSIDERED BEFORE THE BOARD MAKES ANY DECISION ON THE PROJECT OR THE APPLICATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND THEN WE'LL, UH, THANK YOU. CLOSE IT. THANK YOU. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING SESSION. ALRIGHT. SO NOW, UM, MAY I HAVE A MOTION TO COME IN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, PLEASE? SO MOVED. SECOND. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. ALL. SO WE'LL BE DOWN HERE. AND THE NEXT, UM, ITEM UP WILL BE CASE NUMBER PB 24, I'M SORRY, CASE PB 25 20. AND WELCOME TO THE JULY 16TH, 2025 PLANNING BOARD MEETING, UM, RIGHT AFTER COMMIT, WE CAN GO RIGHT AFTER CASE NUMBER PB 25 DASH 20 HOSANA DAYCARE. THIS IS A PRE-SUBMISSION CONFERENCE. THE APPLICANT HAS NOT MADE A FORMAL SUBMISSION, BUT IT RELATES TO A POTENTIAL FUTURE APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR, WITHOUT DAYCARE CENTER, SEND THINGS OVER TO THE APPLICANT. UH, IS IT OKAY FOR ME TO, 'CAUSE I, I JUST WANT, UM, SO WE'VE LOOKED OVER, UM, THE INFORMATION THAT WAS GIVEN TO US AT THE TIME. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, OR ASK YOU WHETHER OR NOT YOU'VE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO, [01:25:01] UM, ADDRESS PARKS AND REC RECREATION. AND BEFORE YOU ANSWER, INTRODUCE YOURSELF, WHAT DO YOU MEAN ADDRESSING THE PARK INDUSTRY? WE'LL, WE'LL SPEAK TO THAT. IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME. UH, WE JUST COME COMMUNICATED WITH THE OCFS AS, UH, I'M SORRY. FIRST YOUR NAME AND YOUR, YOUR NAME. MY NAME IS Y KIM. UH, I'M REPRESENTING, MY WIFE HAS KIM, WHO IS THE PROVIDER. OKAY. OKAY. SO THE QUESTION WAS JUST TO, UM, AS FAR AS WE UNDERSTAND THE MATERIALS, THE PRELIMINARY MATERIALS THAT WERE SUBMITTED, YOU'RE NOT PROPOSING TO HAVE A RECREATION AREA FOR THE CHILDREN ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, BUT RATHER TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE A TOWN PARK CORRECT. AND WALK THE CHILDREN, UM, WITH STAFF PERSONS OVER TO THE PARK AREA. MM-HMM . QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU HAD ANY COMMUNICATION BECAUSE IT'S A TOWN PARK WITH THE TOWN'S DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION REGARDING THIS ? I, WE HAVEN'T. OKAY. YEAH. SO THAT, THAT'S . OKAY. CAN WE GO AHEAD? YEAH, YEAH. FEEL FREE TO, UH, IF I SAY SOMETHING THAT'S NOT PARTICULARLY, UH, THE, THE INTEREST OF THE BOARD, PLEASE, UH, BEAR WITH ME. IT'S GONNA BE SHORT, BUT IT'S OUT OF OUR IGNORANCE. OKAY. UH, YEAH. UM, SO THE BUILDING YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS THE, BASICALLY A EDUCATION BUILDING. IT USED TO BE A MEDICAL BUILDING, AND BEFORE WE ENTERED, WE OCCUPIED, OCCUPIED. THE FIRST, FIRST FLOOR CERTAIN PART, IT WAS A IES, SOME KIND OF TEACHING FACILITY. AND, UH, SO WE ARE CURRENTLY RUNNING IT AS A, UH, UH, SOME KIND OF TEACHING, UH, LEARNING CENTER. AND NOW WE ARE PLANNING TO, UH, TRANSITION IT INTO A CHILD DAYCARE. UH, WE ARE CURRENTLY RUNNING IT AT HALF DAY PROGRAM. UH, BUT THERE'S A, THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF DEMAND FROM PARENTS THAT WE NEED LONGER HOURS FOR THE KIDS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AFTER THE COVID WAS GONE AND PEOPLE STARTED FROM, FROM THEIR, THEIR TRANSITION FROM THE WORKING FROM HOME TO NOW THEIR, THEIR OWN PLACE. SO THEY NEED US TO WATCH THEIR KIDS. UH, THAT'S THE PRIMARY, PRIMARY REASON WE STARTED TO THINK ABOUT THIS. AND SO THE LOCATION IS, AS YOU KNOW, 1 42 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE, UH, IS TWO STORY BUILDING. UH, WE WE'RE GONNA OCCUPY THE CERTAIN PART OF THE BUILDING. FIRST FLOOR. A PRIMARY AGE GROUP IS PRESCHOOLER. AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO HAVE ABOUT 18 KIDS AND FOUR STEP MEMBERS, UH, WORKING AT THE SAME TIME. AND JUST LIKE I SAID, UH, THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF INCREASING DEMANDS FROM THE PARENTS FOR LONGER OPERATION HOURS. AND, UH, MY WIFE HAS A LOT OF EXPERIENCE IN CHILD DAYCARE. SHE USED TO RUN A CHILD DAYCARE IN LEY BEFORE COVID ABOUT SEVEN YEARS. AND IT WAS WELL, WELL KNOWN AND HIGHLY REGARDED. AND SO WE ALL LOT, WE HAD A LOT OF, UH, KIDS ON WAITING LIST. AND, UH, WE HAD TO CLOSE IT BECAUSE OF COVID. AND SO THAT'S THE, OUR BACKGROUND. WAS THAT ON ASHFORD AVENUE? UH, YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. WE WERE LOOKING ON THE INTERNET TODAY AND HAVING TO SEE, BUT WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THAT WAS CLOSED. YEAH. OKAY. IT WAS CLOSED. 2020 OR 2021. THANK YOU. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. YEAH. AND AS OUR INDOOR FACILITY, UH, BASICALLY WE DON'T, WE'RE NOT GONNA CHANGE ANY STRUCTURE. WE ARE GOING TO USE THE BUILDING. WHAT IS, UH, WHAT IS ALREADY THERE? SO, INDOOR AREA IS ABOUT 1,250 SQUARE FEET. AND WE HAVE ABOUT SIX SEGMENTED AREAS FOR ACTIVITIES. THE CRASHES, CIRCLE TIME, PLAYSTATION, IT'S WELL-LIGHTED, REALLY WELL-LIGHTED. AND, UH, MOST ROOMS HAVE, UH, WINDOWS, UH, AND IT'S VERY SAFE, UH, ENVIRONMENT. AND THE OWNER IS VERY, VERY WILLING TO HELP US BECAUSE SHE, HER PHILOSOPHY IS, UH, TO HAVE TO ACCOMMODATE EDUCATION AND ALL THOSE, UH, THINGS INSIDE THE BUILDING. AND WE, AS A PART OF OUR DAYCARE, UH, APPLICATION, WE ALREADY PASSED MANY, MANY INSPECTIONS ALREADY. UH, ALTHOUGH WE HAVE MORE TO GO. AND YOU CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE INSIDE BY THIS WAY. UH, THIS IS PART OF OUR RUNNING LEARNING CENTER, UH, INSIDE. OKAY. AND THIS IS THE INDOOR PLAN. UH, IT'S NOT THAT COMPLICATED, BUT YEAH. THIS IS THE INDOOR PLAN. OKAY. AND OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING, WE HAVE PARKING LOT AND WE HAVE 15 WELL ORGANIZED PARKING SPACE. UH, BASICALLY THE CARS WILL MOVE ONE WAY, UH, ENTERING FROM JANE STREET AND THEN EXITING THROUGH, THROUGH THE, UH, CENTRAL PARK AVENUE SIDE EXIT THERE, THERE'S A NO DO NOT ENTER SIGN. AND THERE'S A TRAFFIC SIGN [01:30:01] TO REMIND DRIVERS TO SLOW DOWN FOR CHILDREN. EACH TIME EACH DROP OFF AND PICK UP TIME. TEACHERS WILL GUIDE THE TRAFFIC. AND, UM, TWO OTHER TENANTS, THEY ALSO OFFER, UH, TEACHING PROGRAMS, BUT THEY OFFER AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAMS, UH, HAPPILY FOR US, THEIR DROP OFF AND PICK UP TIMES ALMOST NEVER OVER, UH, OVERLAP WITH HOURS. WE, OUR KIDS HAVE, HAVE THEY, IF WE ARE APPROVED, OUR KIDS WILL, UH, ALL ARRIVE AROUND NINE O'CLOCK. THEIR KIDS WILL ARRIVE AFTER SCHOOL, AND OUR KIDS WILL BE PICKED UP AROUND NOON OR AT AROUND SIX. THEIR KIDS WILL BE, UH, UH, DROPPED, UH, PICKED UP, UH, AFTER LIKE SEVEN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO THERE IS NO OVERLAP. SO, UH, I, WE DON'T EXPECT ANY INCREASE OF THE TRAFFIC IN THERE. UH, AND IT, AND ALSO WE ARE NOT INCREASING ANY, UH, NUMBER OF PEOPLE INSIDE, UH, AROUND THE SITE BECAUSE IT'S BEEN THAT WAY FOR A LONG TIME. IT'S BEEN AN EDUCATIONAL BUILDING. I'M SORRY, CAN YOU SAY WHAT THE TWO OTHER TENANTS ARE AGAIN? UH, IT'S I, I CAMP AND C TWO. OKAY. SO AS PART OF ANY FORMAL SUBMISSION, WE WOULD WANNA HAVE THAT INFORMATION IDENTIFIED FOR THE BOARD, THE, THE OTHER TENANTS, WHAT THEIR HOURS ARE, WHAT THEIR DROP ARE. OH, THERE PICK UP TIME TWO. OKAY. YES. OKAY. SO THAT YOU CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY'RE OFFSET. OKAY. OKAY. RATHER THAN JUST, UH, UH, SAYING IT. RIGHT. CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. GOOD. WOULD IT MATTER HOW LONG THE OTHER TENANT'S LEASES ARE FOR? SO IF THERE WAS SOMEBODY ELSE, SOMETHING TO CONSIDER, THEY USE FROM SOMETHING JUST TO THE MICROPHONE. THAT'S OKAY. OKAY. TEACHERS, YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE SOMETIMES USE THE ROOMS FOR MEETING AND, BUT YOU KNOW, THEY HAVE LEARNING. THEY ARE RUNNING AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM. UH, UH, MY RIGHT SIDE, MAYBE THEY, UH, I, I CAMP. SO THEY CAMP, YEAH, CAMP THEY USE IN AFTERNOON PROGRAM. USUALLY THEY GO TO GO TO SCHOOLS FOR RUNNING THE AFTER SCHOOL PROGRAM AND SOME, UH, AND SATURDAY PROGRAM AND BREAK, UH, BREAK TIME, SO NOT COMPLICATE. AND C TWO, DO YOU KNOW, SAT ACADEMY? SO, YOU KNOW, YEAH. AFTER SCHOOL, HAVE YOU NO PROBLEM. DURING THE DAY OF, OFTENTIMES WE, WE HAVE THIS FULL USE OF PARKING LOT, SO IT'S, UH, WE EXPECT NO COMPLICATION THERE. UH, OKAY. NEXT, THIS IS, UH, THE PASSENGER SIDE PLAN. IF YOU CAN SEE THE PICTURE OVER THERE. SO THERE'S ENTRANCE ON JANE STREET SIDE, AND THEN THE, UH, CART WILL CIRCLE AROUND, AROUND THE BUILDING UNTIL EXIT THROUGH THE, UH, NORTH CENTRAL PARK CENTRAL. WHICH, WHICH DOOR WOULD YOUR FACILITY PRIMARILY BE USING? THE ONE ON JAMES STREET PRIMARY. PRIMARY EXIT IS ON THE PARKING LOT SIDE SECONDARY EXIT IS ON THE CENTRAL PARK AVENUE SIDE. WAIT, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT HUMAN EXITS OR YEAH, HUMAN EXITS. LIKE, LIKE WHICH, WHICH, WHICH EGRESS WOULD, WOULD YOU USE TO GET IT, GET IN AND OUT? THE BUILDING, THE PARKING LOT SIDE. DO YOU SEE ON YOUR RIGHT SIDE THAT THE STEPS? YES, I DO. THAT'S OUR MAIN DOOR. SO IN, IN THE, IN THE REAR OPPOSITE OF CENTRAL AVENUE, THAT'S WHERE THE PARENTS OR CAREGIVERS BRING IN THE CHILDREN. YEAH. AND THAT'S WHERE THE CHILDREN, UM, WOULD EXIT TO GO BACK OUT WHEN THEY WERE GETTING PICKED UP. YEAH. THAT'S THE MAIN CASE. I KNOW YOU TALKED ABOUT INSPECTIONS BEFORE, BUT HAVE YOU CONTACTED THE STATE TO INSPECT THE SITE TO DETERMINE IT WOULD BE COMPLIANT WITH DAYCARE REGULATIONS? SO I KNOW YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT INSPECTIONS BEFORE, BUT HAVE YOU CONTACTED THE STATE TO COME AND DO AN INSPECTION TO ENSURE THAT IT WOULD COMPLY WITH DAYCARE REGULATIONS? THEY WILL DO IT ONCE WE . IT'S A PART OF THE, THE, UH, UH, THE, THE DAYCARE LICENSE PROCESS. THEY'LL ABSOLUTELY DO IT. THEY'LL ALWAYS COME AND DO SAFETY CHECK. RIGHT. SO, BUT THAT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT DONE BEFOREHAND. WE NEED THIS SPECIAL PERMIT TO GO THROUGH WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO. OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. IT'S PART OF ONE OF THE DECISIONS THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT AS, AS THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, IS, AND NOT AT THIS PARTICULAR, UH, MEETING, BUT WHETHER OR NOT TO GIVE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND PART OF THAT HINGES ON THE PARK USE. SO CAN YOU JUST TAKE US THROUGH HOW THAT WOULD LOOK? OF COURSE, OF COURSE. I'LL GO THERE. OKAY. THE NEXT ONE? YEAH. THIS IS, UH, YOU KNOW, WE ALL KNOW THAT THE TOWN CODE SET, WE NEED TO HAVE, UH, THE PLAY AREA OUTSIDE BAY AREA ON SITE. BUT THE REASON WE STARTED TO RENT THIS PLACE WAS WITHOUT KNOWING THE TOWN CODE, WE SAW THIS, UH, OCFS REGULATION. THEY PERMIT, THEY PERMIT THE US TO HAVE THE PLAY AREA OFFSITE. [01:35:01] SO, AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, THE OCF, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A STATE REGULATION. OKAY. YEAH. THEY PERMIT US. SO, SO WE RESPECTFULLY ASK YOU TO GRANT A VARIANCE ON THIS BASED ON THIS. OKAY. UH, SO IT'S, WE, WE DON'T HAVE A LONG MAJOR STICK, BUT, UH, WE JUST WALKED AND MEASURED ABRUPTLY, AND IT IS ABOUT 1 65 FEET, ONE MINUTE WALK FROM OUR DOOR TO THE BEGINNING OF THE PARK AT THE SAFE AREA. SO, AND THE ROAD IS VERY SMOOTH, AND THE SIDEWALK IS VERY WIDE, 25 FEET SMOOTH AS, AND NO MAJOR ROADS TO CROSS. UH, IT, WE, WE ARE, WE, WE WILL BE ACCOMMODATING PRESCHOOLERS, NOT LIKE A INFANTS OR ANYTHING. AND THEN, UH, PROPER SUPERVIS WILL BE PROVIDED ONCE STEP MEMBER TO THREE OR LET'S EVERY TIME. AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SPEND IN THE PARK ALL DAY USUALLY, OR 40, 40 TO 45 MINUTES PER KID PER DAY. THAT'S THE MAXIMUM THEY HAVE. THEY HAVE, OKAY. I'M SORRY. I DON'T, I DON'T UNDERSTAND. DO KIDS GO TOGETHER? NO, WE WILL DIVIDE GROUPS, SMALL GROUPS. SMALL GROUPS. SO WHEN YOU SAY 45 MINUTES PER KID, PER, PER GROUP, PER KID. BUT YEAH, GROUPS USUALLY, UH, THREE KIDS TO GO TOGETHER, THEY WILL SPEND 45 MINUTES IN. UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. YEAH. SO IT'S A MINIMUM OF 45 MINUTES THAT EACH CHILD GETS SUSPENDED IN A PLAY AREA OR OUTDOOR AREA. OKAY. YEAH. THIS IS THE ZOOM OUT PLANT. SO, SO WE CAN USE THE BACK DOOR OR FRONT DOOR TO GO TO THE PARK. AND, AND THEN THE WALKING, THE, LET ME SHOW YOU THE, UH, THE PHOTOGRAPH OF THE SIDEWALK. THIS IS HOW, UH, WIDE THE SIDEWALK IS. IS 25 FEET WIDE. IS IS THAT A SIDEWALK OR IS THAT ALSO THE DRIVEWAY? NO, IT'S NOT A, UH, SO THE, THE, THE ONE IN THE, THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING, IT'S A SIDEWALK. SIDEWALK. DO YOU SEE THE STAR? DO NOT ENTER SIGN. THAT'S AN EXIT FROM THERE. RIGHT. SO THE CARS DON'T EVER PULL INTO THE NO. THE FRONT AREA. NO, NO, THAT'S 'CAUSE WE ALSO NOTICED THAT THERE'S REALLY NOT, UH, A CURB, A VERY THAT'S TRUE. GOOD CURB. IT, IT'S KIND OF LIKE FLUSH WITH CENTRAL PARK AVENUE. THERE'S ONLY A LITTLE CURB AROUND LIKE MAYBE A CATCH BASE AND A STORM SEWER. BUT THE CURB ALONG CENTRAL PARK AVENUE THERE, YOU KNOW, THE CONCERN IS YOU'RE WALKING CHILDREN THROUGH THIS AREA, MAYBE TO THE PARK MM-HMM . AND THERE'S NOT A DEFINED OR A VERY GOOD CURB IN THAT AREA FOR PROTECTION OF A CAR THAT CAME OFF THE ROAD. YEAH. YOU KNOW, THE LAST THING ANYONE WANTS IS TO SEE WE, YEAH. I, I I GUESS THE, THE, TO SPECULATE FOR A MOMENT, IF THIS WAS PREVIOUSLY A MEDICAL BUILDING, PERHAPS WHEN IT WAS A MEDICAL BUILDING, THEY THEN THEY NEEDED ACCESS RIGHT AT THE DOOR, RIGHT? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. YEAH. THESE ARE THE ACTIVITIES WE WILL DO IN THE PARK. UH, UH, SO, UH, YEAH. DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTION? I I, I'M SORRY. JUST THAT PICTURE, THAT PREVIOUS PICTURE, DO YOU HAVE, SO WHEN YOU COME OUT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU COME OUT TO, UH, CENTRAL AVENUE AND YOU CAN GO MAKE THE RIGHT AND THEN MAKE THE RIGHT TO GO UP INTO THE, UM, WHERE THE PARK IS? YEAH. I'LL SHOW THE MINUTE YEAH. WHERE THE BUS STOP IS, BASICALLY. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. WE PASS THE BUS STOP, RIGHT. AND KEEP, KEEP WALKING AND THEN MAKE A RIGHT AFTER THE, THE LOW, UH, LUMBAR, UH, FENCE, THE GUIDE RAIL. YES. RIGHT NEXT TO IN LIKE, KIND OF LIKE THE GRASS FIELD AREA. WE WALKED INTO THE GRASS AREA. UNDERSTOOD. YEAH. UM, ONE QUESTION THAT I HAVE IS THAT LARGE AND WIDE SIDEWALK IN THE FRONT. DO YOU KNOW ROUGHLY WHERE YOUR PROPERTY LINE IS VERSUS THE RIGHT OF WAY VERSUS THE RIGHT OF WAY? THAT'LL BE IMPORTANT TO KNOW BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I COULD SEE THE PLANNING BOARD MAY BE SAYING, HEY, THAT'S A WIDE ASPHALT SIDEWALK AREA. COULD YOU PUT IN A PROTECTION BARRIER? YOU KNOW, LIKE THE WOODEN RAIL IN THE PARK, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT TO PROTECT THE CHILDREN, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WERE TO WALK IN THAT DIRECTION, ASSUMING YOU MADE A FORMAL SUBMISSION AND IT WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS. YEAH. TO AARON'S POINT, I THINK VISUALLY A DRIVER COMING UP CENTRAL AVENUE, IT'S BLACK, THE ASPHALT IS BLACK, THE STREET IS BLACK, THERE'S NO CURB. UM, JUST AS AN EXTRA PRECAUTION IT WOULD LOOK OF COURSE. YEAH. YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK, I THINK EVEN TO TAKE THAT A STEP FURTHER, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE COMFORTABLE IF, IF THE SIDEWALK WAS MORE OR LESS UNIFORM WITH THE SIDEWALKS ON, ON EITHER END, UM, OF THE PROPERTY, THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE PARK AND THE SIDEWALK, UH, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF JANE STREET, UH, I REMEMBER SOMETHING I, I, UH, MR. BRITTON SHOWED ME, [01:40:01] UH, A PROPERTY LINE IN A PICTURE. OKAY. ACCORDING TO THAT, THE SIDEWALK IS NOT OUR PROPERTY. IS THAT, IN THAT CASE, ARE WE ALLOWED TO PUT ANY SIGN THERE? UH, IT'S SUBJECT TO NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION APPROVAL. IF IT'S THEIR RIGHT OF WAY, THEN YOU WOULD NEED TO COORDINATE WITH THEIR OFFICE. OKAY. ABOUT, UM, EITHER MODIFYING THE SIDEWALK OR PUTTING IN A BARRIER OR STRIPING. THAT WAS ANOTHER THING THAT WAS BRIEFLY DISCUSSED. UM, HAVING A STRIPED AREA THAT THE CHILDREN STAY WITHIN WITH THE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE, UH, ADULT AND, AND THERE'S CERTAINLY BEEN OTHER APPLICATIONS ALONG CENTRAL AVENUE WHERE, UH, THE APPLICANT INSTALLED A SIDEWALK OH, YEAH. AS PART OF THE APPLICATION. YEAH. SO IT'S, I THINK THE POINT BEING THAT IF YOUR PROPERTY LINE'S CLOSE TO THE BUILDING AND THE REST IS IN NEW YORK STATE RIGHT OF WAY, WE HAVE HAD OTHER APPLICATIONS AND APPLICANTS COME BEFORE THIS BOARD AND BEFORE THIS TOWN THAT HAVE OBTAINED APPROVAL FROM NEW YORK STATE TO MAKE A MODIFICATION WITHIN THEIR LAND, YOU KNOW? OKAY. OKAY. UH, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE 45 MINUTES AND JUST TRYING TO GET AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE RULING IS FOR A DAYCARE CENTER FOR IT'S, UH, 45, EACH CHILD HAS TO HAVE 45 MINUTES, AND THAT IS ALL YEAR ROUND. HOW DOES THAT WORK? UH, JUST A WEEK GROUPING. ROOFING? NO, NO. SPRING, SUMMER, WINTER, FALL, UH, YOU KNOW, DEPENDS ON THE WEATHER. OKAY. IT DEPENDS ON THE WEATHER. THE SNOWY DAY OR RAINY DAY, WE CANNOT GO OUT TOO HOT. SO , YOU KNOW, WE CANNOT GO OUT PEACEFUL THERE. UH, THE, THE PHILOSOPHY BEHIND IT IS THAT THEY NEED TO PLAY OUTSIDE TO GROW BETTER. SO, BUT WE DON'T, UH, WE ARE NOT, AS LONG AS THEY CAN PLAY OUTSIDE, UH, A CERTAIN, CERTAIN, UH, TIME OF THE DAY, WE ARE OKAY. WE DON'T, WE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE THEM OUTSIDE. LONG TIME, SHORT TIME DOESN'T, THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T, UH, HAVE ANY RULE OF THAT FOR THOSE THINGS. YEAH. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANY MORE FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD FOR THE APPLICANT? 'CAUSE WE DO HAVE ONE OTHER APPLICATION ON THAN THESE FOLKS HAVE VISITATION, LEE. YEAH, I MEAN, I, I, I THINK I HAVE SOME, SOME LEGAL QUESTIONS AROUND, UM, YOU KNOW, COMMITTING, COMMITTING THE, THE TOWN PARK TO MEET THIS REQUIREMENT POTENTIALLY IN PERPETUITY. UM, BUT ULTIMATELY AS A FIRST STEP TO MOVE THIS CONVERSATION ALONG, UM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD SUGGEST THE APPLICANT SPEAK WITH THE COMMISSIONER, PARKS AND REC, UH, ASK FOR A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PARKS AND REC ADVISORY COUNCIL, UM, AND ALSO POTENTIALLY SPEAK WITH TOWN STAFF AND EXPLORE THE FEASIBILITY OF, OF WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO INSTALL A SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. AND, UM, THE, THAT, THAT WOULD BE A, A GOOD NEXT, FIRST, FIRST FEW STEPS. OUR OFFICE CAN PUT YOU IN TOUCH WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, AND ALSO POSSIBLY GIVE YOU CONTACT INFORMATION FOR NEW YORK STATE. UM, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, IF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR CONCERNS THAT YOU WANT TO SEND TO STAFF, UM, THAT WE CAN FORWARD ALONG TO THESE FOLKS, UM, THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. IF WE COULD MAYBE DO THAT BY, YOU KNOW, THE END OF THE WEEK, GIVE YOU ANOTHER DAY OR SO. I JUST WANT TO BE ABLE TO GIVE THEM ENOUGH, AS MUCH FEEDBACK AS WE CAN AS POSSIBLE. I, I THINK FOR ME, ONE, I I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF WE CAN HAVE SORT OF A TIMELINE ON THEIR CONVERSATION AND FEEDBACK FROM PARKS AND RECREATION. SURE. UM, AND THIS IS WHY I STARTED OUT THE MEETING WITH THAT. WE HERE AT THE PLANNING BOARD CANNOT GIVE YOU APPROVAL TO USE THAT PART. AND IF THIS, UM, PERMIT, THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT HINGES ON THAT THERE, I MEAN, WE CAN GIVE YOU ADVICE ON HOW TO SET IT UP OR WHAT WE THINK, OR WHAT CONDITIONS WE MIGHT LIKE, BUT IF WE DON'T HAVE APPROVAL FOR YOU TO USE THE PARK, SO THAT DEFINITELY YOU NEED A VARIANCE. SO, RIGHT. AND THEY WOULD NEED A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING BOARD. OKAY. TOWN PARK. UH, THEY ARE OKAY. THEY, OKAY. THIS, YOU, UH, YOU CAN, YOU GUYS CAN, OKAY. THIS, THAT'S ONE OF THE STEPS THAT HAS TO TAKE PLACE BEFORE THIS BOARD CAN CONSIDER THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT. ALSO, BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE RECREATION AREA ON YOUR OWN PROPERTY, NOT ONLY ARE YOU GONNA BE NEEDING AN APPROVAL FROM THIS BOARD, BUT YOU WILL NEED TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO GET A VARIANCE FROM THAT REQUIREMENT OF THE TOWN ORDINANCE. AND MYSELF AND MR. BRITTON CAN HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ARRANGE FOR A PHONE CALL TOMORROW TO GIVE YOU THE CONTACT INFORMATION, TELL YOU ALL THE VARIOUS APPROVALS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED, AND SUMMARIZE, UH, THE COMMENTS MADE BY THE BOARD THIS EVENING. H HAVE ALL THE QUESTIONS THAT, THAT WE DISCUSSED ON TUESDAY, HAVE THOSE BEEN CAPTURED OR WOULD YOU LIKE US TO RESUBMIT THOSE OR WOULD LIKE ME TO RESUBMIT THOSE? UM, IF YOU COULD. OKAY, SURE. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. SURE. SO MAYBE WE CAN ARRANGE FOR SOMETHING, DEPENDING ON YOUR SCHEDULE, EITHER, [01:45:01] UH, TOMORROW AFTERNOON OR FRIDAY MORNING. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU. OKAY, NEXT UP FOR NEW BUSINESS IS CASE NUMBER TB 20, TB 25 0 5 PB 25 22 BETHEL KNOLLS 55 GRANTS GRASSLANDS ROAD, UH, TOWN BOARD ZONING, MAP AMENDMENT, TOWN BOARD, SITE PLAN, TOWN BOARD, AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT TOWN. I'M SORRY, FOR THE PLANNING BOARD. IT'S GONNA BE A PLANNING BOARD STEEP. SO PERMIT AND WETLAND. WATERCOURSE PERMIT. AND THEY WILL BE DOING A PRESENTATION. GOOD EVENING. NICE TO SEE YOU AGAIN. YES. WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE WE'RE GONNA TRY TO GO QUICKLY, UH, BECAUSE WE, WE SEE THE TIME, BUT THANK YOU MADAM CHAIR AND, AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. THESE ARE ALL BOARD? YES. OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU. GOOD TO SEE EVERYBODY. JUST FOR THE RECORD, MY NAME IS DAVID COOPER. I'M A PARTNER WITH THE LAW FIRM OF ZAN AND STEINMETZ HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, UH, BETHEL HOLMES, INC. UM, WE'RE GONNA GO FROM ONE END OF THE AGE SPECTRUM TO THE OTHER END OF THE AGE, AGE SPECTRUM NOW, AND, AND GO THROUGH, UH, A PROPOSAL TO ADD, UH, 75 INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS TO THE EXISTING, UH, KNOWS AT GRASSLANDS ROAD, WHICH IS A-C-C-R-C OPERATION OR A, UH, CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT, UH, COMMUNITY. UH, THAT'S BEEN IN THE, IN THE TOWN FOR A LONG TIME. IS, IS THE TOWN. UH, THE PLANNING BOARD MAY REMEMBER, UH, ABOUT 2016 OR SO, THE PRIOR OWNER OF THE, UH, OF THE KNOWLES, UM, WAS ABOUT TO GO INTO BANKRUPTCY. BETHEL CAME IN AND PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND HAS STABILIZED THE COMMUNITY, UM, AND IS NOW LOOKING TO KIND OF MOVE IT INTO THE NEXT LEVEL OF, OF STABILITY TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THEY CAN MAINTAIN, UM, COMPETITIVENESS. UH, WITH ME TONIGHT IS, UH, ANASTASIO OPIS STASH IS OVER HERE, WHO IS THE CEO AT BETHEL. ALSO JAY MICHAEL ORCI, WHO IS THE OWNER'S REP. UM, PATRICK MC MCDO FROM, UH, EGA ARCHITECTS IS SITTING RIGHT BEHIND ME AND WILL BE GIVING YOU A PRESENTATION IN A MOMENT. AS WELL AS COLLETTE DERO FROM LANG ENGINEERING, THE PROJECT ENGINEERS AND MY COLLEAGUE, UH, VINCENT FED, UH, FROM Z AND STEINS AS WELL. UM, WE, UH, SUBMITTED A ZONING PETITION TO THE TOWN BOARD, UH, SEEKING TO REZONE THE SITE, AND I'LL GO THROUGH IT OR I'LL HAVE, UH, UH, PATRICK GO THROUGH IT IN A SECOND. BUT SEEKING TO REZONE THE SITE INTO THE R 30 DISTRICT, CURRENTLY ON YOUR ZONING MAP, IT IS IN A-A-P-U-D PRIOR, UH, PRIOR, IT WAS IN THE SPLIT ZONE IN R 20 AND R 40. UM, AND SO AS PART OF THIS PROJECT, WE'VE ASKED THE, THE TOWN BOARD TO CLEAN UP THE, THE ZONING MAP AND TURN IT INTO AN R 30. UM, WE WOULD ALSO BE SEEKING AN AMENDED SPECIAL PERMIT AND SITE PLAN FROM THE TOWN BOARD BECAUSE THIS IS A, A, A SITE THAT'S OVER FIVE ACRES AND IN SIZE IT, IT STATES WITH THE TOWN BOARD. UM, WE WILL BE SEEKING, UH, WETLANDS AND SLOPES, UH, PERMITS FROM YOUR BOARD, AS WELL AS SOME VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, UH, MAINLY DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY ON THE SITE. WE'LL GET, WE'LL GET TO THAT IN, IN A SECOND. AND UNIT SIZE LIMITATIONS, UH, IN A, THE, THE CODE FROM YEARS AGO THAT DOESN'T REALLY, UM, CAPTURE THE, THE CURRENT MARKET OF, OF INDEPENDENT LIVING UNITS IN ON, IN, UH, IN THE WESTCHESTER MARKET. UM, THE TOWN BOARD HAS CIRCULATED ITS INTENT TO SERVE AS LEAD AGENCY FOR SUPER PURPOSES IN THIS REVIEW. UM, AND WE ARE HERE BEFORE YOUR BOARD BECAUSE UNDER THE UN UNDER THE REGULATIONS, UM, THE, THE REZONING AND SITE PLAN AND SPECIAL PERMIT, UH, COMES TO YOUR BOARD FOR, UH, RECOMMENDATION AND REFERRAL. UM, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE TOWN BOARD IS, UH, SEEKING ALSO A RECOMMENDATION ON SEEK FOR CCO PURPOSES AS WELL. SO ALL THAT BEING SAID, WE UNDERSTAND WE'RE GONNA BE SPENDING SOME TIME BEFORE YOUR BOARD IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS TO GO THROUGH THE, THE PROJECT AND, AND, UH, AND SOME OF THE, THE INITIAL, UM, COMMENTS. UM, WE DID ALREADY RECEIVE SOME COMMENTS BACK FROM STAFF WITH RESPECT TO REQUESTS FOR A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, SOME OTHER, UM, UM, INFORMATION BETWEEN ABOUT WETLANDS AND, AND STEEP SLOPES. WE WILL BE GETTING THAT TO STAFF AND, AND YOUR BOARD. UH, THE PURPOSE OF TONIGHT REALLY IS TO GIVE YOU, ALTHOUGH WE, WE'VE ALREADY HAD AN OVERVIEW A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO, OR ACTUALLY A BUNCH OF MONTHS AGO NOW, TO REALLY DIG INTO THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN NOW THAT IT'S, IT'S AN ACTUAL APPLICATION. UM, AND WE'RE HOPING TO, TO GET ANY, ANY QUESTIONS THE BOARD MAY HAVE INITIALLY SO THAT WE CAN COME BACK TO YOU AT A FUTURE MEETING WITH, UH, UH, ANSWERS TO ALL THOSE QUESTIONS AS WELL AS WHAT STAFF HAS REQUESTED. YEAH, THAT'S ALSO, I HOPE THAT WE CAN DO A SITE VISIT AT SOME POINT. A ABSOLUTELY. YES. WE, WE DID HAVE A SITE VISIT A WHILE AGO, BUT THAT WAS A, A ESSENTIALLY A PRIOR BOARD, SO THAT THAT'S FINE. RIGHT, EXACTLY. YES. YEAH. UM, SO WE EXPECT THAT AS WELL. UM, SO I'M HAPPY, HAPPY TO ACCOMMODATE. SO WITHOUT FURTHER ADO, LET ME TURN IT OVER TO PATRICK FIRST TO GO THROUGH THE ARCHITECTURE AND THEN COLETTE TO GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN. AND, UM, WE KNOW, UH, WE'RE KIND OF, UH, PUSHING, PUSHING THE LIMIT OF THE TIMING HERE. SO WE'RE GONNA TRY TO PUSH FORWARD QUICKLY. SO APOLOGIZE IF WE'RE KIND OF MOVING FAST. STOP US IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH IT. 'CAUSE WE DO WANNA MAKE SURE THAT [01:50:01] WE KNOW WE'RE GONNA BE HERE FOR, FOR A BIT. BUT STILL THE INITIAL MEETING, WE WANNA MAKE SURE YOU'RE, WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING. SO THANKS. DO WE, DO WE WANT TO VOTE NOW OR? YEAH, WELL, MAYBE WHILE THEY'RE SETTING UP. OKAY. GOOD EVENING FOLKS. MY NAME IS PATRICK MCDO. I'M A PRINCIPAL AT EG ARCHITECTS BASED IN NEWBURYPORT, MASSACHUSETTS. WE ARE FOCUSED ON PROJECTS LIKE THIS FOR SENIORS ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY. UM, I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN MOST OF THIS INFORMATION IN THE FORMS OF A PHYSICAL SUBMISSION, UM, GOING BACK A LITTLE WAYS. UM, SO I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THIS RELATIVELY QUICKLY. AS DAVID MENTIONED, PLEASE ASK, STOP ME AT ANY TIME, ASK ANY QUESTIONS. UM, JUST AS A INITIAL OVERVIEW, UM, THE PROJECT, THE EXISTING KNOWLES PROJECT, HANG ON, I'M SORRY, THIS IS NOT, UH, ZOOMING OR CHANGING SHEETS THE WAY IT SHOULD BE. WHY IS THIS NOT DOING ANYTHING? OH, I KNOW WHY I WAS AT THE END. WHY IS IT GOING BACK OR FORWARD? BECAUSE I'M AT THE END. ALRIGHT, SO THE EXISTING SITE, UM, IS A, IS SORT OF IN TWO PIECES. THE, THE KNOWLES PROPERTY AS IT EXISTS TODAY IS 120 UNITS OF INDEPENDENT LIVING, 10 UNITS OF ASSISTED LIVING AND 20 UNITS OF SKILLED NURSING. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS AN ADDITIONAL 75 UNITS OF INDEPENDENT LIVING. THE PORTION OF THEIR SITE THAT EXISTS UNDER THE WORDS PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, UM, WHICH THEIR WHOLE SITE IS, IS LISTED AS THAT ON YOUR ZONING MAPS IS ESSENTIALLY AN UNBUILDABLE WOODED HILLSIDE. UH, THAT'S WHERE ALL THE STEEP SLOPES TO THE EXTENT THEY EXIST ON THIS PROPERTY. THE SITE, THE PORTION OF THE SITE THAT'S SORT OF THAT MORE NORMAL SHAPED PORTION ALONG GRASSLANDS ROAD WHERE THE EXISTING, UH, COMMUNITY IS THE ONLY BUILDABLE PORTION OF THEIR SITE THAT REMAINS IS THE, IS THE PORTION OF THE PARCEL BETWEEN THEIR EXISTING COMMUNITY AND GRASSLANDS ROAD. EVEN WITH THAT, THERE IS A ROUGHLY SIX STORY HEIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRASSLANDS ROAD AND THE LOWEST PORTION OF THEIR EXISTING BUILDING. SO IT'S NOT A STEEP SLOPE CONDITION, BUT IT IS A STEEP BIT OF TOPOGRAPHY TO MAKE THAT WORK. SO THAT WILL PLAY A ROLE IN SOME OF THE DECISIONS WE MADE ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURE OF THIS BUILDING MOVING FORWARD. UM, THE PROPOSED ADDITION IS A, ESSENTIALLY A SINGLE BUILDING, ALTHOUGH IT WOULD BE IDENTIFIABLE IN MANY WAYS AS A SORT OF A TWO STEP, UM, PROJECT. THE PORTION CLOSEST TO GRASSLANDS ROAD IS A, IS A TWO AND A HALF STORY BUILDING. THE PORTION BETWEEN THAT PORTION AND THE EXISTING COMMUNITY, BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE IN TOPOGRAPHY IS A THREE AND A HALF STORY BUILDING. UM, AND I'LL GO THROUGH IN MORE DETAIL THERE, BUT THAT, THAT RED, INSIDE THAT RED CIRCLE IS THE, THE ENTIRE AREA OF DEVELOPMENT, PROPOSED FLOOR PLANS. I'LL GO THROUGH THESE SUPER QUICKLY. THE LOWEST LEVEL, WHICH IS IN FACT TWO LEVELS BELOW THE LOWEST LEVEL OF THE EXISTING COMMUNITY, UH, INCLUDES A, A NUMBER OF APARTMENTS AND, AND, UH, UNDER BUILDING PARKING AREA. THE FLOOR ABOVE THAT IS ENTIRELY APARTMENTS, UM, AND CONNECTS TO THE EXISTING GARAGE LEVEL, WHICH IS BELOW ANY OF THE OCCUPIED LEVELS OF THE CURRENT COMMUNITY. UM, MOVING UP FROM THERE, WE FINALLY ARRIVE AT A PORTION OF THE EXISTING COMMUNITY THAT HAS OCCUPIED APARTMENTS IN IT. WE'RE CONNECTING AT THAT LEVEL AS WELL. L ONE MORE LEVEL, YOU CAN SEE THE PORTION CLOSEST TO THE GRASSLANDS ROAD, WHICH IS AT THE TOP OF THE SHEET, IS NOW NO LONGER AN OCCUPIED PORTION OF THE BUILDING. THAT TWO AND A HALF STORY SECTION IS CEASED TO BE OCCUPIED. NOW WE'RE ONLY AT THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING CLOSEST TO THE EXISTING COMMUNITY. WE'RE TYING IN AGAIN AT ONE OF THE OCCUPIED LEVELS. AND THEN THE LAST LEVEL, UM, IS THE SAME HEIGHT, THE SAME LEVEL AS THE HIGHEST LEVELS IN THE EXISTING COMMUNITY. SO THERE'S NO PORTION OF THIS EXISTING BUILDING THAT IS TALLER THAN ANY PORTION OF THE EXISTING COMMUNITY. UM, ELEVATIONS, I THINK THE ONE IN THE MIDDLE SORT OF TELLS THE STORY A BIT ABOUT WHAT THIS BUILDING IS DOING. ON THE LEFT SIDE IS THE, IS THE PORTION FACING GRASSLANDS ROAD OR CLOSEST TO GRASSLANDS ROAD. SO YOU CAN SEE THAT'S A TWO AND A HALF STORY PORTION OF THE BUILDING AS DEFINED BY YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE. FOR CRAWL PRACTICES PURPOSES, THERE ARE THREE OCCUPIED FLOORS, BUT THE WAY THAT THE ZONING DEFINED STORIES, HALF STORIES, ET CETERA, WE'RE ACCOMMODATING THAT. SO I'M GONNA REFER TO IT AS A TWO AND A HALF STORY BUILDING BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE REFERS TO IT AS. BUT ALL FOR ALL PRACTICE PURPOSES, PEOPLE WILL BE LIVING ON THREE FLOORS UNTIL IT GETS TO THE AREA CLOSEST TO THE EXISTING COMMUNITY WHERE THE HILLSIDE EXISTS TODAY. THEN THE BUILDING GETS TALLER SO THAT IT CAN CONNECT TO THE EXISTING COMMUNITY. UM, BECAUSE AS I MENTIONED, THE LOWEST LEVEL CLOSEST [01:55:01] TO GRASSLANDS ROAD IS TWO LEVELS BELOW ANY OF THE OCCUPIED SPACES IN THE EXISTING COMMUNITY. SO THERE'S A REAL CHALLENGE, 'CAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SENIORS. THESE PEOPLE HAVE MOBILITY CHALLENGES. YOU CAN'T, WE DON'T, YOU WANT THEM TO BE WITHIN AN WITH ENTIRELY WITHIN A BUILDING AS THEY'RE MOVING TO THEIR COMMON SPACES, THEY'RE MEETING WITH ONE ANOTHER, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. SO YOU'RE TRYING TO CREATE A SAFE, EASILY NAVIGABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR THEM AS THEY MOVE THROUGH THE BUILDING. SO, MORE ELEVATIONS, AGAIN, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT IN GENERAL. THE CHARACTER OF THE BUILDING IS TRYING TO MAKE SOMETHING THAT FITS WELL WITH THEIR EXISTING, UH, ARCHITECTURE, WHICH WAS DESIGNED AND BUILT IN THE LATE NINETIES. UM, WE'VE BASICALLY COMPLIED WITH MANY OF THE SAME SORT OF SCALE AND DETAILING SORTS OF THINGS, MORE ELEVATIONS. THIS IS A RENDERING, IT'S A WATERCOLOR RENDERING, BUT IT IS THREE DIMENSIONALLY ACCURATE AS IF AS YOU'RE DRIVING UP THEIR EXISTING ENTRY DRIVE, THIS IS WHAT YOU WOULD SEE. UM, THIS PORTION BACK HERE, SORT OF WHERE MY CURSOR IS TO THE RIGHT IS THE EXISTING KNOWLES COMMUNITY. AND FROM MY CURSOR TO THE LEFT IS THE PROPOSED ADDITION. THE NEXT RENDERING SHOWS WHAT THE VIEW WOULD BE FROM THE, THE NEIGHBORS, THE CLOSEST NEIGHBORS. HERE'S TONIGHT, WE'RE HERE FROM TIME WE'RE HEARING ABOUT IT. SO, UM, WHAT IT WOULD, WHAT WE, WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE FROM THEIR HOUSE, WHAT THEY WOULD SEE FROM THEIR HOUSE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A PROXIMITY SITUATION THERE. UM, SO WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WOULD SORT OF CONVEY WHAT IT WOULD MEAN TO THEM. UM, AS THE CLOSEST NEIGHBOR, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF VARIANCES THAT WE'LL BE SEEKING AS PART OF THIS PROCESS. ALMOST ALL OF THEM ARE RELATED TO SITE CONSTRAINTS AS THEY EXIST TODAY. I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THEM. WE'VE CREATED CHARTS. UM, WE CAN SUBMIT ANY OF THIS STUFF. SO I'VE NUMBERED THEM 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I'VE GOT SPECIFIC SLIDES FOR EACH ONE OF THEM AND I'LL GO THROUGH THEM RELATIVELY QUICKLY. UM, SO THE FIRST ONE IS, UH, ESSENTIALLY A SETBACK REQUIREMENT, WHICH IS SET AT 75 FEET. THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE IS THAT THIS ORIGINALLY WAS DEVELOPED AS A, A LARGER PROJECT. THE GROVES, WHICH IS THAT NURSING HOME TO THE, TO THE SOUTH OF THE, OF THE KNOLLS, WAS PART OF THAT ORIGINAL PARCEL WHEN THEY WERE SUBDIVIDED. THE ENTRY DRIVE IS ON THE GROVES PARCEL. SO THE PLACES THAT WHERE WE HAVE THOSE 39 OR 39.17 FEET IS A SETBACK, IS ESSENTIALLY TO WHERE THE, WHERE THE, WHERE THE LOT LINE WAS CREATED AT THAT TIME. THE, THE ENTRY DRIVE WOULD'VE BEEN PART OF THAT. IF WE HAD THE ORIGINAL LOT LINES FOR THE PROJECT, WE WOULD BE, WOULD, WE WOULD NOT HAVE A VARIANCE REQUIREMENT FOR THAT SETBACK THING. AND AS I NOTE ON THIS DRAWING, THE EXISTING COMMUNITY IS ACTUALLY GOING, IS CLOSER TO THAT LOT LINE TODAY. THEN WE ARE GOING TO BE FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT AT THAT LOCATION. THE OTHER PLACE IS CLOSEST TO THE NEIGHBOR WHERE WE'RE AT 66.4 FEET FROM OUR, THE CLOSEST PORTION OF THE BUILDING TO THEIR PROPERTY LINE. SO THAT'S THE SETBACK VARIANCE. THERE'S A, THERE'S A PARKING RELATED VARIANCE AS WELL THAT'S ESSENTIALLY THE SAME LOGIC. UM, IT'S ALL SORT OF WHERE THAT CIRCLE IS, WHERE THE 39.17 IS, THERE'S A HANDFUL OF PARKING SPACES THERE THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THAT VARIANCE REQUIREMENT. AGAIN, IT'S A, IT'S A SETBACK TO A, A VERY STRANGELY DRAWN LOT LINE THAT EXCLUDES THE ENTRY DRIVE TO THEIR PARCEL. UM, STORE VARIANCE. UM, ESSENTIALLY YOU HAVE A TWO AND A HALF STORY, UH, HEIGHT LIMIT IN YOUR ZONING CODE. THE PORTION OF THE BUILDING CLOSEST TO GRASSLANDS ROAD IS GOING TO BE TWO AND A HALF STORIES. IT'S THAT PORTION AGAIN THAT CONNECTS THAT PORTION TO THE EXISTING THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE AS A THREE STORY SECTION OF THE BUILDING. UM, AND I THINK HOPEFULLY THIS SECTION SORT OF HELPS TO EXPLAIN WHY WE NEED THAT AND HOPEFULLY THROUGH THIS CONVERSATION I'VE EXPLAINED THE REASON FOR IT. UM, HEIGHT SIMILARLY, UM, BECAUSE OF THAT EXTRA STORY OR HALF IN THERE, YOUR EXISTING ZONING HAS A 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT. WE'RE PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT'S 39.62 FEET AT ITS TALLEST PORTION. AND AGAIN, NONE OF THE NEW PORTION WILL BE TALLER THAN ANY OF THE EXISTING PORTION. THERE'S A, THERE'S A FLOOR AREA RATIO, UM, THAT WE ARE GOING TO EXCEED AND WE'RE LOOKING FOR A VARIANCE FOR ALL THE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THAT SORT OF THOUGHT PROCESS COVERAGE, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, ET CETERA, UM, ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED. UM, AND THE FAR IS REALLY JUST DRIVEN BY THE ECONOMICS OF THIS PROJECT. YOU REALLY NEED TO BUILD A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DEPARTMENTS IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS PROJECT ECONOMICALLY VIABLE AND TO MAINTAIN THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THE COMMUNITY MOVING FORWARD. [02:00:01] AND THEN THE LAST ONE IS THE APARTMENT SIZE. YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE INCLUDES A MAXIMUM OF A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT, UM, APARTMENT FOR THIS USE. THE ONES THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, THE LARGEST ONES. AND THERE'S A, THERE'S A RANGE OF SIZES, UH, MAX OUT, IT'S ABOUT 1700 SQUARE FEET. AND THE REALITY IS WAS WHENEVER YOUR MAR YOUR ZONING WAS WRITTEN, IT WAS JUST A DIFFERENT YEAR. I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR MORE THAN 25 YEARS. WE USED TO BUILD LOTS OF PROJECTS THAT HAD A THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT APARTMENTS. YOU JUST DON'T DO THAT ANYMORE. 'CAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THE MARKET DEMANDS. UM, SO THAT'S BASICALLY I THINK MY PIECE OF THIS AND I WILL HAND IT OVER TO COLETTE TO DO THE CIVIL, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, PULL THIS BACK UP, ET CETERA, ET CETERA. THANK YOU. SORRY, JUST GIMME A MOMENT WHILE I, DO YOU WANT TO CONSIDER VOTING? I WOULD BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T HEARD ANY OF THIS IS, I MEAN I KNOW IT'S BASED UPON JUST THE SUBSTANTIAL TWO DAYS. YEAH, YOU CAN CONTINUE. OH, OR IN OR ADDRESS. OKAY. HI, UM, COLETTE DELORO, SENIOR PROJECT MANAGER AT LANGAN. UM, SO WE'LL WALK THROUGH THE SITE PLAN. UH, SO WE HAVE GRASSLANDS TO THE NORTH AND THERE'S A CENTRAL, UH, PRIVATE DRIVEWAY THAT CONNECTS TO THIS NULLS PROPERTY PROPERTY. UM, AND WE HAVE, WE ACTUALLY ARE UTILIZING AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT CONNECTS TO THAT ROADWAY. UM, SO UTILIZING THAT SAME CURB CUT TO ACCESS THE SITE, UM, WE HAVE THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU KIND OF HAVE THREE OPTIONS. ONE IS TO GO INTO A BELOW GRADE PARKING GARAGE. UM, AND THEN WE HAVE A ROUNDABOUT, UH, FOR PE FOR UM, PEOPLE TO GET DROPPED OFF. THIS IS ALSO ACCESS FOR MAIL TRUCKS. AND THEN WE HAVE THE CONTINUATION OF THE ROAD CIRCULATING AROUND THE PROPERTY. UM, THIS ROAD WAS PREVIOUSLY, UH, SOUTH, UM, OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING AND AGAIN, CONTINUED AND TIED IN ABOUT HERE TO THEN CIRCULATE AROUND THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. UM, WE ARE PROVIDING, YOU KNOW, 24 FOOT WIDE ROADWAY TWO WAY ROAD, UM, WITH OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS IN THIS AREA, WHICH IS GOING TO BE, UM, A LITTLE BIT WIDER. SO 26 FOOT WIDE, UM, PER THE FIRE CODE, UH, THIS IS JUST SHOWING THE MAIN SITE PLAN. SO YOU COME DOWN FROM GRASSLANDS AND THEN THERE IS THIS CONTINUOUS CIRCULATION AROUND THE ENTIRE SITE. SO WE ARE MAINTAINING, UM, THE EXISTING TRAFFIC PATTERN AROUND THE SITE AS YOU SEE HERE, UM, ONTO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. SO WE'VE ASSESSED THE THREE, UM, DRAINAGE AREAS THAT ARE GOING TO BE IMPACTED BY OUR DEVELOPMENT. UM, WE HAVE ONE, THE MAIN AREA OR PATH I GUESS OF THE EXISTING FACILITY GOES TO AN EXISTING STORMWATER POND, UM, THAT IS SHOWN HERE IN BLUE. AND THEN WE HAVE, UM, OUR OTHER DRAINAGE POINTS, UM, DOWN HERE AND THEN ALSO, UM, ALONG GRASSLANDS ROAD. SO WHAT WE'VE ASSESSED IS THAT BASED ON OUR PROPOSED DRAINAGE, UM, PATTERNS, WE'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF STORMWATER OVERALL TO EACH OF THOSE THREE UH, POINTS. SO, AND HOW THAT, HOW IS THAT BEING ACHIEVED? WE'RE PROVIDING PER THE DEC, UM, REQUIREMENTS A STORMWATER FORAY FOR PRE-TREATMENT AND BIOFILTRATION BASIN FOR TREATMENT, AND THEN A STORMWATER DETENTION BASIN, WHICH WILL ALSO BE AN INFILTRATION BASIN AND WILL ONLY OVERFLOW INTO THE EXISTING STORMWATER POND DURING A HUNDRED YEAR STORM. SO JUST TO CLARIFY FOR THE BOARD MEMBERS, WHEN YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S SUBSTANTIAL IN SIZE, THEY HAVE TO TREAT NOT ONLY FOR QUANTITY BUT ALSO QUALITY. CORRECT. THEY HAVE TO MEET NEW YORK STATE BEC REQUIREMENTS. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING. UM, AND THEN, SO YES, THAT IS THE PLAN FOR STORM WATER. SO ACTUALLY HAVING A POSITIVE EFFECT BY PROVIDING THIS ADDITIONAL STORM WATER, UM, AND REDUCING, YOU KNOW, ANY EFFECT FROM THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS TAKING OFF ANY LOAD FROM THE NEIGHBORING AREAS. UM, THIS IS OUR LANDSCAPE PLAN. SO I JUST WANTED TO FOCUS ON THIS ONE CORNER HERE. UM, WHERE WE ARE ADJACENT TO THIS EXISTING, UH, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. SO WE ARE PROVIDING UP RIGHT HERE. IT DOES . YES. UM, WE ARE PROVIDING, UM, [02:05:01] AN EVERGREEN SCREEN THAT FEELS NATURAL AND SUITABLE FOR THE CURRENT CONDITION. UM, YOU KNOW, INSTEAD OF JUST A ROW OF HEDGES, WE ARE PROVIDING THIS MORE, UM, BEAUTIFIED AND STAGGERED APPROACH TO, TO HAVE THIS AREA BLENDED A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH THE NATURAL, UH, LANDSCAPE THAT'S THERE NOW. UM, AS WELL AS, UM, THE TREES AND SHRUBS THAT ARE GOING TO BE PLANTED. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MEADOW MIX, WHICH IS APPROVED BY THE DEC FOR OUR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, UM, BASINS AS WELL. AND THAT WILL CONSIST MOSTLY OF GRASSES AND SOME PERENNIALS. UM, AND THAT IS ACTUALLY ALL I HAVE. UM, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS I CAN GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON ANYTHING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, I'M SORRY, WHO? THERE'S A BUILDING THAT'S BEING REMOVED, RIGHT? YES, THERE IS A BUILDING THAT IS BEING REMOVED. UM, THIS BUILDING HERE, UM, IS THE EXISTING, I MEAN, I WANT TO TALK ABOUT, I, THAT WAS THE LAST THING THAT WE'LL, WE'LL GOING SO THAT, THAT BUILDING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, WHICH I DUNNO IF, IF YOU KNOW, THE SITE IS, IS IT A SEPARATE BUILDING THAT THAT'S, UM, KIND OF AN OUT PARCEL? THAT'S THE ADULT DAYCARE BUILDING. UM, RIGHT NOW IT'S BEEN USED AS THE ADULT DAYCARE BUILDING, UM, THAT WILL, THAT, UH, WILL BE, WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH, WITH THIS PROJECT. THANK YOU. YEAH. ALRIGHT. THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR POINTS THAT BOARD MEMBERS WANNA MAKE? I KNOW IT'S LATE. I APPRECIATE THE TIME THAT, UH, YOU'RE SPENDING PAST 10 O'CLOCK. YEAH, WE, I I GUESS YOU, YOU JUST ALLUDED TO, UM, GOING IN FRONT OF THE HISTORIC LANDMARK PRESERVATION BOARD LAST NIGHT. UH, DID THEY HAVE ANY INITIAL FEEDBACK OR REACTIONS OR HOW, HOW DID THAT MEETING GO? YEAH, SO, SO, UM, WELL IT WAS THERE. SO, SO HE, SO HE KNOWS I, I GOT, I GOT, HE KNOWS I'M NOT GONNA DO, UH, UH, UH, BUT YOU CAN, YOU CAN SAY, OKAY, GOOD. NO, THE, THE, UH, IT WENT WELL. WE'RE, WE'RE GOING, THEY WANTED TO DO A SITE VISIT TO LOOK AT THE BUILDING. I SHOULD CLARIFY. SO THE, THE SITE ITSELF, IF YOU LOOK ON THE, ON THE D-E-C-E-A-F MAPPER SAYS THAT THERE WAS AN ELIGIBLE BUILDING. THE ELIGIBLE BUILDING THAT WAS ON THE EAF MAPPER IS ACTUALLY THE, IF YOU REMEMBER, THE ST. MARY IN THE FIELD BUILDING, WHICH WAS A VERY LARGE SCHOOL BUILDING. THAT BUILDING WAS DEMOLISHED IN IN THE NINETIES, UH, HAS BEEN ON THE SITE FOR, FOR MANY, MANY YEARS. UM, THAT WAS THE BUILDING THAT WAS DEEMED ELIGIBLE BY, BY I GUESS SHIPPO BACK IN THE NINETIES. THEY ALSO IDENTIFIED A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THAT WAS, THAT WAS AN OUTBUILDING. THAT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE IS STILL ON THE SITE. IT IS NOW BEEN BUILT OUT AND IS PART OF THIS ADULT DAYCARE CENTER. UM, AND SO MUCH OF OUR, OUR, UH, MEETING WITH THE BOARD LAST NIGHT, FIRST WAS, WAS GOING THROUGH THE RECORD AND THEN TWO, DISCUSSING WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THERE ARE ELEMENTS OF THAT BUILDING. ONE THAT COULD BE INCORPORATED IN, AND UNFORTUNATELY NO, BUT THEN ALSO DISCUSSING IF THERE ARE ELEMENTS WITHIN THE BUILDING ITSELF THAT COULD BE, UM, UH, SAVED AND EITHER, YOU KNOW, RECYCLED OR, OR SOMEHOW, YEAH. SO, UM, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A SITE VISIT WITH THE, UH, UH, THAT BOARD. UM, IT WAS THROWN OUT NEXT FRIDAY. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ACTUALLY BEEN FINALIZED, BUT, BUT AT SOME POINT BEFORE THEIR NEXT MEETING. GREAT. THANK YOU. I THINK AGAIN, UM, YOU KNOW, STAFF WILL CONTACT YOU IN TERMS OF, UH, SETTING UP ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO COME OUT AND DO THEIR WALKTHROUGHS. YEAH. I MEAN, HAS THE, I KNOW STAKING WAS DONE A WHILE BACK. HAS THAT BEEN CONFIRMED WHETHER OR NOT THAT'S STILL IN PLACE? DO YOU KNOW IF THE STAKING IS STILL THERE? THE ORANGE, THE, UH, ORANGE FLAGS FOR THE, UM, YEAH, FOR THE BUILDING ITSELF. WHEN WE DID THE SITE WALK, WHICH ALMOST WAS PROBABLY ABOUT A YEAR AGO, IT WAS HOT. IT WAS HOT, RIGHT. SO IT WAS ABOUT, IT WAS LAST FALL. OH, WAS IT COULD STILL BEEN NOT THEY WERE THERE MARCH. IT WAS IN MARCH. OKAY. SOMETHING WE WOULD WANT THE TEAM TO, WE EITHER, YEAH, EITHER, EITHER, EITHER THEY'RE STILL THERE OR WE'LL PUT THEM BACK UP. OKAY. SO THAT, UM, YEAH, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GOING TO POTENTIALLY MEET WITH HISTORIC BOARD MEMBERS, THAT COULD BE SOME INTERIOR WALKTHROUGH OR WHAT HAVE YOU. BUT MAYBE WE CAN PIGGYBACK OFF THAT DEPENDING ON EVERYONE'S SCHEDULE. SO STAFF WILL STAY IN TOUCH WITH YOUR TEAM. OKAY. I, I, I, ONE OTHER QUESTION, AND I, I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT, UM, HAS ANY DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS OCCURRED YET? OR ARE THERE PLANS FOR DIRECT COMMUNICATION? WELL, NO, NO, NOT, I CAME HERE TO, YEAH, NO, NO. THEY, THE, WE MET THE NEIGHBORS FOR THE FIRST TIME TONIGHT AND, AND ACTUALLY, YOU KNOW, KUDOS TO THEM FOR, FOR COMING TO US AND SAYING, HEY, WHAT ABOUT US? SO NOT, NOT BEFORE TONIGHT, BUT AS OF TONIGHT, WE HAD, WE HAD A BUNCH OF TIME BECAUSE HE HAD, I WOULD OBJECTION THAT WE REQUESTED INFORMATION. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY. HELLO? HELLO. YOU CANNOT, UM, UNLESS YOU GO UP TO THE PODIUM, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. I MEAN, WHAT, WHAT WE, WHAT WE SAID, AND I, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE PRIOR [02:10:01] REACH OUTS, BUT WHAT WE HAVE SAID, YOU KNOW, STASH HAS, HAS GIVEN THEM HIS CONTACT INFORMATION AND SO WE WILL BE SPEAKING, OKAY. SO THERE WILL BE, UM, OBVIOUSLY OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC HEARING IN THE FUTURE. THERE'S ALSO OPPORTUNITY, AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED, FOR THE PUBLIC TO, TO, UM, WRITE IN AND SEND IN THEIR COMMENTS. SO THAT'S ALWAYS, THIS IS NOT A CLOSED PROJECT. THIS WILL BE GOING ON AND THOSE DISCUSSIONS CAN CONTINUE. UM, FOR RIGHT NOW, HOWEVER, UM, AND LET'S DO SOME OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS. UM, I MEAN, I, I THINK THERE IS SO MUCH MATERIAL TO, RIGHT, SO WE NEED TO READ, SO THE BOARD JUST GOT ALL THESE MATERIALS, YOU KNOW, LAST THURSDAY, LAST FRIDAY. UM, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF WORK PROPOSED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT. IT'S HEARD THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION THIS EVENING. WHAT I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BOARD IS TO BEGIN TO GET TOGETHER ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS, OR CONCERNS IT HAS. UM, AND EVEN EMAIL THEM IN TO TOWN STAFF SO WE CAN COMPILE THEM AND GET THEM OFF TO THE APPLICANT'S TEAM SO THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THEY NEED, UH, IF THERE'S MORE HOMEWORK FOR THE TEAM TO DO, UM, RESPONSES TO QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR CONCERNS, THEY CAN BEGIN TO PREPARE THAT. WE'LL ALSO LOOK TO, UH, SET UP A SITE, YOU KNOW, A SITE WALK, THAT'S FINE. UM, PROBABLY IN SMALL GROUPS VERSUS HAVING A QUORUM OF MEMBERS. SO WE'LL GET SCHEDULES AND COORDINATE BETWEEN, UH, THE PROJECT TEAM AND TOWN STAFF AND THE MEMBERS. SOUNDS GOOD. OKAY. ALRIGHT. THIS POINT, AT THIS POINT, THIS TIME, THERE WERE MULTIPLE POINTS. IS THERE ANY TRAFFIC STUDY OR, SO GOOD QUESTION. UM, JUST WITH TOUCH ON THAT, RESPECT TO TRAFFIC, UH, THE, THE PROJECT WAS REFERRED TO JOHN CANNING, CANNING FOR REVIEW. HE ISSUED SOME INITIAL COMMENTS, THE APPLICANT'S IN PROCESS OF RESPONDING TO THOSE. SO AT A FUTURE MEETING, WE WILL HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HEAR FROM MR. CANNING AS WELL. YEP. ALRIGHT. AND JUST SO EVERYONE KNOWS, THIS BOARD, UM, AT THIS TIME HAS ONLY BEEN REFERRED THE PROJECT FROM THE TOWN BOARD. PROCESS WISE, THE NEXT STEP FOR THE PLANNING BOARD IS ISSUING ITS RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD ON THE VARIOUS TOWN BOARD APPLICATIONS AND REQUESTS OF THE APPLICANT. THERE'S NO DECISION MAKING AT THIS POINT FOR THE PLANNING BOARD ON THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE IT, BUT I WOULD ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TONIGHT TO CONSIDER, UH, WHETHER OR NOT IT HAS ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD'S NOTICE OF INTENT WITH RESPECT TO LEAD AGENCY FOR SEEKER PURPOSES. UM, THE TOWN BOARD HAS MULTIPLE APPROVALS OVER THIS PROJECT, AND I WOULD ENCOURAGE THIS BOARD TO, UM, ALLOW THE TOWN BOARD TO, AND NOT ISSUE ANY OBJECTION. SO, SO MOVED. GOOD. SECONDED. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. OKAY. SO WE'LL CIRCULATE THAT. NO OBJECTION. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR THE EXTRA TIME TODAY. OKAY. HAVE A GOOD EVENING. SO I, I KNOW I HAVE TO. OKAY. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.