[00:00:01]
MADAM CHAIR, WE'RE[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA THURSDAY, July 17, 2025 – 7:00 P.M. ]
GONNA BEGIN.I BELIEVE SHE'S HERE REMOTELY.
AND PETER BLAIR HERE IS PRESENT.
THAT CONCLUDES OUR ROLL CALL, MADAM CHAIR.
THIS IS THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS JULY 17TH, 2025.
THE MEETING WILL NOW COME TO ORDER.
WE HAVE EIGHT CASES, EIGHT CASES SCHEDULED FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.
HOWEVER, ZBA CASES 25 13 TACO BELL AND 25 15 FAIL INDUSTRIES HAVE BEEN ADJOURNED TO THE AUGUST 21ST, 2025 MEETING.
LOOKING FORWARD, THE ZONING BOARD WILL HAVE OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON AUGUST 21ST.
PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDARS ACCORDINGLY.
BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF CASES WE HAVE TO HERE TONIGHT, WE WILL LIMIT EACH CASE TO 20 TO 25 MINUTES.
IF WE CANNOT FINISH HEARING A CASE, IT WILL BE ADJOURNED TO ANOTHER MEETING TO BE COMPLETED AT THAT TIME, AS IN THE PAST.
IN ORDER TO SAVE TIME, WE WILL WAIVE THE READING OF THE PROPERTY LOCATION AND THE RELIEF SOUGHT FOR EACH CASE.
HOWEVER, THE REPORTER WILL INSERT THIS INFORMATION IN THE RECORD.
THIS INFORMATION ALSO APPEARS IN THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.
AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING OF TONIGHT'S CASES.
THE BOARD MEETS HERE TO DISCUSS EACH CASE.
HOWEVER, AT THAT TIME, EVERYONE IS WELCOME TO LISTEN TO OUR DELIBERATIONS, BUT THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE ABLE OR PERMITTED TO SPEAK OR PARTICIPATE AFTER OUR DELIBERATIONS ON ALL THE CASES, WE THEN ANNOUNCED THE BOARD'S DECISION FOR THE FORMAL RECORD AND TO BROADCAST IT TO THE COMMUNITY.
IF YOU'RE GOING TO, TO, TO, TO SPEAK TONIGHT, YOU MUST COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE.
STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS YOUR PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION.
WE HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY ON SOME OF THESE CASES AT PRIOR MEETINGS.
ALL PRIOR TESTIMONY IS ALREADY IN THE RECORD AND SHOULD NOT BE REPEATED.
THE FIRST CASE WE HAVE TONIGHT IS CASE 24 32 A.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MADAM CHAIR.
UH, MY NAME IS WILLIAM SCHNEIDER AND I'M A PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WITH THE ENGINEERING FIRM OF PS AND S ENGINEERING, UH, ONE LARKIN PLAZA, YONKERS, NEW YORK, 1 0 7 0 1.
UH, MY CLIENT, MR. SAL, OLIVIA IS UNABLE TO BE HERE TONIGHT DUE TO, UH, SOMETHING PERSONAL.
SO HE ASKED ME TO PLEASE APPEAR ON HIS BEHALF.
AND FIRST I WANNA THANK THE BOARD FOR GRANTING US THE VARIANCES AT THIS, AT THIS SITE FOR, UH, MR. OLIVIA'S PROJECT.
WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATED THAT.
AND, UH, WE LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE BOARD IN THE FUTURE, UH, THROUGH OUR SITE PLAN, APPROVAL PROCESS.
UH, THE REASON FOR APPEARANCE HERE TONIGHT IS FOR TO REQUEST A CHANGE IN ONE OF THE CONDITIONS.
UH, AND MR. OLIVIA DID, UH, APPEAR, I BELIEVE AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING.
AND, UH, ONE OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING WAS FOR US TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE THAT WOULD REMAIN IF THE PROJECT DOES NOT GO FORWARD.
UH, WE WILL NEED TO GET APPROVALS FROM THE CITY OF YONKERS AND POSSIBLY WESTCHESTER COUNTY IN ORDER FOR THIS TO PROCEED.
SHOULD THOSE APPROVALS NOT HAPPEN.
THE ONLY VARIANCE WE WILL NOT NEED WILL BE THE ONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW DRIVEWAY AS IT GOES FROM JACKSON AVENUE DOWN TO THE, UH, RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS.
UH, SINCE THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WOULD NEVER BE BUILT, THERE'S NO NEED FOR A DRIVEWAY, THEREFORE WE WOULD NOT PURSUE THAT AT ALL.
UH, HOWEVER, THE OTHER VARIANCES WOULD NEED TO REMAIN 'CAUSE THE SITE WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST AS A NURSERY IN, UH, THE FORM THAT IT, THAT IT'S IN TODAY.
UM, SO WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT ONLY THE VARIANCE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY, THE NEW DRIVEWAY, UH, EXTINGUISH SHOULD APPROVALS, UH, NOT HAPPEN WITH
[00:05:01]
THE, WITH THE CITY OF YONKERS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY.AND THAT'S THE REASON FOR MY APPEARANCE TODAY.
AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? NO.
ANY COMMENTS FROM THE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT PRESENT? ANYONE HERE SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE HAVE ANY STATEMENT TO MAKE WITH RESPECT TO THIS? I HAVE A QUESTION.
UH, IS IT NOT TRUE THAT THE EXISTING, EVEN WHETHER IT'S GRANTED OR DENIED, IS STILL NONCONFORMING FOR THE, TO THE, UH, ORDINANCE? THAT IS TRUE.
AND THAT IS, THAT IS STILL WOULD NEED A VARIANCE TO GO TO 62.1%, UH, 62 POINT.
AND THAT'S WHY THE ONLY VARIANCE THAT I'M REQUESTING, UM, THAT WE, OR I'M STATING WE WILL NOT NEED IS THE ONE ASSOCIATED WITH THE NEW DRIVEWAY.
ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS NOW? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ATTENTION AND YOUR CONSIDERATION.
THE NEXT CASE IS CASE 25 0 4 DAVID CHOW TWO.
UH, WITH ME TONIGHT IS DAVID CHOW, SITTING RIGHT HERE.
UH, AND, UH, HE IS THE APPLICANT.
UM, UM, FOLLOWING THE HEARING ON JUNE 12TH LAST MONTH, UH, BY LATER LETTER DATED JUNE 18, YOU ASKED THAT WE SUBMIT BY JULY 7TH A DRAWING SHOWING WHAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WOULD LOOK LIKE IF IT WERE ZONING COMPLIANT.
IN OTHER WORDS, WITH A 26 FOOT ROAD WIDE ROADWAY ALONG THE ACCESS STRIP, UH, CULMINATING WITH A ZONING COMPLIANT CUL-DE-SAC.
YOU ALSO ASK THAT WE PROVIDE A WRITTEN NARRATIVE OF THE DIFFERENCES WE HAVE DONE.
SO THE ZONING COMPLIANT DRAWING INCREASES IMPERVIOUS SURFACE BY AT LEAST 6,000 SQUARE FEET.
IT WILL CAUSE THE REMOVAL OF MATURE TREES SCREENING THE ROADWAY FROM THE TWO RESIDENTIAL LOTS ALONGSIDE THE ACCESS STRIP, AND IT WILL RESULT IN THE REMOVAL OF A SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF MATURE TREES TO ACCOMMODATE THE COLD COMPLIANT CUL-DE-SAC AND THE TWO DRIVEWAYS TO BE BUILT THEREON.
UH, WE DID NOT NEED TO MOVE THE PROFORMA FOOTPRINTS FOR EITHER OF THE TWO HOUSES.
UM, SO THEIR RELATIVE PROXIMITY TO ANY NEIGHBORING HOMES WOULD BE THE SAME.
UM, BOTH DRAWINGS, UM, SHOW THE EASEMENTS MENTIONED BY THE NEIGHBOR SUSAN SCHWARTZ.
UM, NEITHER PLOT IMPOSES ANY LIMITATION ON THOSE EASEMENTS.
COPIES OF THE ZONING COMPLIANT AND COVER LETTER WERE PROVIDED TO MR. FEINSTEIN COUNSEL FOR THE NEIGHBORS OBJECTING TO THE VARIANCES.
UM, FOR THE RECORD, SINCE THE JUNE HEARING, UH, AND IN THE 10 DAYS SINCE, UH, HE'S RECEIVED THE ZONING COMPLIANT PLAT, MR. FEINSTEIN HAS HAD NO COMMUNICATIONS WITH ME CONCERNING THE VARIANCES OR THE ZONING COMPLIANT PLAT OTHER THAN HIS LETTER TO THE BOARD DATED JULY 16, YESTERDAY.
UM, A COPY OF WHICH I GOT YESTERDAY AS WELL.
IN HIS LETTER, MR. FEINSTEIN OBJECTS TO THE GRANTING OF THE VARIANCES SOLELY ON LEGAL GROUNDS THAT HE SAYS PREVENTS THE ZBA FROM TAKING ANY VOTE TO APPROVE THESE VARIANCES.
HE CONTENDS THAT WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO HERE IS CREATE TWO ADJOINING, UM, FLAG LOTS THAT ARE SUBSTANDARD, FOR WHICH HE SAYS ADDITIONAL VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED.
HE ALSO CONTENDS BASED ON THE PREMISE THAT THESE ARE ADJOINING FLAG LOTS, THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION VIOLATES
[00:10:01]
A SUBDIVISION REGULATION UNDER CHAPTER 52 50 OF THE TOWN CODE CODE.THESE ARGUMENTS ARE RED HERRINGS.
MR. FEINSTEIN STATES THAT IT IS UN IT IS QUOTE, IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION SEEKS TO CREATE TWO FLAG LOTS ACCESSING A PUBLIC STREET VIA A THIRD LOT, WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS DUBBED THE ACCESS PARCEL.
BUT IN REALITY IS SIMPLY THE STEM OF THE FLAG.
WE DISPUTE THAT CHARACTERIZATION.
WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION BEING CONNECTED TO A TOWN ROAD BY MEANS OF A PRIVATE ROAD IMPROVED TO TOWN STANDARDS.
IT IS A SUBDIVISION THAT IS PERMITTED UNDER CHAPTER TWO 50 OF THE TOWN CODE'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
THE PLANNING BOARD AND TOWN STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED, HOWEVER, THAT WE NARROW THE WIDTH OF THE PRIVATE ROAD FROM 26 FEET, WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR TWO-WAY TRAFFIC TO 20 FEET, UH, WITH THE, UH, WHICH THE FIRE CODE REQUIRES SO THAT IT WOULD FUNCTION INSTEAD AS A SHARED DRIVEWAY IN ORDER TO REDUCE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, PRESERVE TREES AND BE CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
WE AGREED TO DO THAT, BUT WHAT BUT TO DO WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS RECOMMENDED WE DO REQUIRES VARIANCES HERE BY MEMORANDUM DATED JULY 29, EXCUSE ME, JANUARY 29TH, 2025, AS AMENDED ON MAY 6TH, 2025.
THE BUILDING INSPECTOR INITIALLY FRANK MODO AND THEN DEPUTY GARRITY DETERMINED THAT A TOTAL OF SIX VARIANCES WERE REQUIRED.
THEY CONSIST OF TWO VARIANCES, ONE FOR EACH BUILDABLE LOT REDUCING THE REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE FOR A SUBDIVISION FROM 25 FEET TO ZERO FEET AND TWO VARIANCES, ONE FOR EACH BUILDING LOT TO ALLOW FOR A FIRE CODE COMPLIANT DRIVEWAY TO EXTEND FROM THE ACCESS WAY ACROSS EACH SIDE.
LOTS EACH LOT'S SIDE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH NORMALLY REQUIRES AN 18 FOOT SIDE SETBACK.
THEY ALSO REQUIRE TWO VARIANCES FOR THE PRIVATE ROADWAY.
INSTEAD OF THE 15, INSTEAD OF THE 18 FOOT MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN THE AXIS WAY TO THE EAST AND WEST SIDE, PROPERTY LINES, UH, VARIANCES NEEDED TO REDUCE THAT DISTANCE TO 15 FEET.
BUT MR. FEINSTEIN CONTENDS THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR MADE A MISTAKE AFTER HAVING OVER A MONTH TO THINK ABOUT IT AND CONSULTING.
HE SAYS WITH HIS EXPERTS, MR. FEINSTEIN BELIEVES THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SHOULD HAVE CONCLUDED THAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE IS INSTEAD A SUBDIVISION CONSISTING OF TWO SUBSTANDARD ADJOINING FLAG LOTS FOR WHICH TWO ADDITIONAL VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED.
BUT IN ORDER FOR MR. FEINSTEIN AND HIS CLIENTS TO CHALLENGE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION AS OF MAY 6TH, 2025, THAT A TOTAL OF ONLY SIX VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED.
TOWN LAW SECTION 2 67 A FIVE B REQUIRES THAT AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S MAY 6TH, 2025 DETERMINATION BE TAKEN BY AN AGGRIEVED PARTY WITHIN 60 DAYS AFTER THE FILING OF THAT DETERMINATION.
THIS 60 DAY DEADLINE FOR FILING AN APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S DETERMINATION WITH THE ZBA IS A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
THE TIME TO HAVE FILED THAT APPEAL EXPIRED ON JULY 6TH.
MR. FEINSTEIN KNEW OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN THAT THE MAY 6TH, 2025 DETERMINATION, UH, HE SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ABOUT THAT DETERMINATION WHEN HE APPEARED AT THE LAST ZBA HEARING ON THIS APPLICATION ON JUNE 12TH, BECAUSE UNDER THE ZBA RULES THAT MAY 6TH 25 DETERMINATION WAS PART OF THE ZBA APPLICATION FOR THE VARIANCES.
AND AS IN, AS SOMEONE SKILLED IN THIS FIELD, HE KNOWS THAT THERE'S A 60 DAY STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS FOR FILING AN APPEAL HE COULD HAVE DONE.
SO THERE WAS STILL TIME AND, UH, MR. FEINSTEIN WAS MAKING THE SAME ARGUMENT THEN, THEN BACK ON JUNE 12TH AS HE IS TODAY, THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS FOR ADJOINING SUBSTANDARD FLAG LOTS.
[00:15:02]
BUT EVEN THOUGH HIS CLIENTS WERE ARGUABLY AGGRIEVED BY THAT MAY 6TH, 2025 DETERMINATION, HE DIDN'T FILE AN APPEAL.AND, BUT EVEN THOUGH HE'S TIME BARRED, HE STILL SAYS THE ZBA SHOULD NEVERTHELESS NOT BE ALLOWED TO DECIDE THE VARIANCES WHICH ARE PROPERLY BEFORE THE BOARD, WHICH ARE THE SIX VARIANCES IDENTIFIED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
IN OTHER WORDS, YOU DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION TO HEAR HIS ARGUMENT ABOUT THE FLAG.
LOT VARIANCES HE CLAIMS SHOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED.
HE COULD, YOU COULD HAVE HAD IT HAD HE APPEALED, BUT HE DIDN'T.
SO THESE VARIANCES SHOULD NOW BE DECIDED ON THEIR MERITS.
UH, MR. FEINSTEIN ALSO CONTENDS IN HIS JULY 16TH, 2025 LETTER, UH, THAT THE APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES VIOLATES THE TOWN'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS UNDER CHAPTER TWO 50.
WE DO NOT BELIEVE THERE'S ANY VIOLATION HERE AT ALL.
HIS ARGUMENT IS PREDICATED ON THE SAME FALSE ASSUMPTION THAT THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IS TO ADJOIN TWO SUBSTANDARD FLAG LOTS, WHICH IT PLAINLY ISN'T, BUT THAT TOO IS NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE ZBA CHAPTER TWO 50 IS NOT UNDER THE ZBA A'S JURISDICTION.
CHAPTER 2 85 OF THE ZONING LAW IS UNDER YOUR JURISDICTION.
SO THAT ISSUE, SHOULD HE CHOOSE TO RAISE IT, IS AN ISSUE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO ADDRESS NOT THE ZBA.
SO IF MR. FEINSTEIN WANTS TO RAISE THIS ARGUMENT BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, HE CAN DO SO WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD SCHEDULES ITS PUBLIC HEARING ON WHETHER TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION.
BUT THAT HEARING CAN'T HAPPEN UNLESS AND UNTIL THE ZBA GRANTS THE SIX VARIANCES WE'RE REQUESTING, AND WHICH IT SHOULD BE NOTED, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS IN EACH CASE ISSUED A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
SO TO REVIEW, THE PURPOSE OF THESE VARIANCES IS TO PRESERVE THE EXISTING CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, REDUCE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, AND MINIMIZE LOSS OF TREE CANOPY.
THE ALTERNATIVE OF PROCEEDING WITH A ZONING COMPLIANT PLAT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY INCREASE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE DRAWING WE PRESENTED INCREASE LOSS OF TREE CANOPY AND BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S EXISTING CHARACTER, WHICH AGAIN, YOU'VE ALSO SEEN, UH, MR. FEINSTEIN DOESN'T DISPUTE ANY OF THIS, BUT EXPRESSES CONFIDENCE THAT UPON SEEKER REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD, THE ZONING COMPLIANT PLAT WILL NOT BE APPROVED.
I'M SURE THE PLANNING BOARD WILL TAKE A GOOD HARD LOOK IF WE HAVE TO GO THAT ROUTE CONSISTENT WITH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER SEEKER, JUST AS IT DID WITH THE PLAT REQUIRING VARIANCES.
AND IF, BECAUSE OF THE ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND LOSS OF TREES, ADDITIONAL MITIGATIONS WILL BE NEEDED TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES SUCH AS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT RUNOFF, DRAINAGE, AND THE LIKE.
UH, NOT TO MENTION THE REPLACEMENT OF, UH, TREES, IT WILL DO SO, BUT NO MATTER WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAY DO, SHOULD IT BE FACED WITH A ZONING COMPLIANT PLAT INSTEAD OF THE ONE BEFORE YOU, THE ONE THING IT CAN'T DO WILL BE TO GO BACK TO THE ORIGINAL PLAN BECAUSE THAT'S THE ONE THAT REQUIRES ZONING VARIANCES.
SO THE END RESULT FOR WE TO GO DOWN THAT ROUTE IS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MAY END UP APPROVING A ZONING COMPLIANT PLAT THAT NOBODY WANTS.
SECOND, THE BENEFITS SOUGHT HERE CANNOT BE ACHIEVED BY ANY METHOD OTHER THAN THE VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED.
WHILE IT IS CLEAR, THE NEIGHBORS WOULD PREFER THAT THE LAND NOT BE SUBDIVIDED AT ALL, NOT EVEN BUILT ON AT ALL, THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY IF THE LOTS MEET THE MINIMUM SIZE REQUIRED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT IN THIS CASE, R 30, WHICH HERE THEY CLEARLY DO, AND THE PLANNING BOARD IS SATISFIED WITH THE VARIANCES GRANTED.
AND HAVING ALREADY ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECK UNDER SEEKER, THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION POSES NO THREAT TO THE PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE.
UM, I'M SORRY, CAN I, CAN I INTERRUPT? OH, ABSOLUTELY.
UM, WE, WE HAVE SEEN THE TWO, UH, PLANS THAT SHOW THE, UH, ZONING COMPLIANT AND THE ONE THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING.
[00:20:01]
UP ON THE SCREEN? UM, I IS, UH, CAN TOWN STAFF DO IT? I DON'T HAVE MY COMPUTER WITH ME.UM, IF TOWN STAFF COULD DO SO.
SO THIS IS THE ZONING COMPLIANT DRAWING.
AND THERE SHOULD BE THE OTHER ONE.
THE SECOND DRAWING I GAVE YOU WAS THE EXISTING ONE, THE, THE ONE BEFORE YOU.
THEY BOTH LOOK LIKE THOSE HAVE THE CUL-DE-SAC, RIGHT? NO, BUT THE, THE ONE, THE SECOND DRAWING, THAT'S ONLY ONE.
YOU'RE NOT SEEING THE OTHER ONE THAT'S TWO DRAWINGS OF THE YEAH, THAT'S TWO OF THE SAME OF THE, UH, WHOEVER'S DOING IT.
DO YOU HAVE THE, THE DRAWING? I, I WANTED TO MAKE IT EASIER.
SO YOU HAVE THE TWO DRAWINGS, SO YOU CAN LOOK AT 'EM SIDE BY SIDE.
AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE ELSE CAN SEE THE COMPARISON.
SO THAT WHEN YOU SAY THE ZONING COMPLIANT PLAN, UM, USES UP MORE SPACE AND HAS, UM, MORE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE YES.
THAT IT'S MORE OBVIOUS TO SEE THAT.
UM, AND THAT'S WHY I, I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN PUT THE TWO UP SIDE BY SIDE BECAUSE JUST LISTENING TO YOU SAY IT DOESN'T SAYING SO, DOESN'T MAKE IT SO RIGHT.
WHILE YOU'RE TRYING TO PUT, PUT IT UP.
UM, 'CAUSE I HAVE THE BENEFIT OF HAVING THEM BOTH IN FRONT OF ME.
UM, WHAT I DON'T SEE IS THE POSITIONING OF THE TWO PROPOSED HOUSES CHANGING WITH THE TWO PROPOSALS, THEY DID NOT CHANGE.
IS THERE A REASON THEY DID NOT CHANGE? THERE WAS NO REASON.
UH, I THINK THERE WAS CONCERN AT THE HEARING LAST TIME THAT IF WE HAD TO PUT IN THE CUL-DE-SAC, IT MIGHT PUSH THE HOUSES FURTHER OUT TOWARD THE, UM, THE BORDERS OF THE, UH, OF THE LOTS, UM, WITHIN THE SETBACK, OF COURSE, BUT CLOSER TO POTENTIALLY THESE HOUSES.
AND IT TURNED OUT WHEN, UH, THE ENGINEER DREW THE, UH, THIS WITH THE ZONING COMPLIANT PLAT THAT HE COULD LEAVE THE HOUSES WHERE THEY WERE, THEY DIDN'T NEED TO BE PUSHED FURTHER OUT.
IS THERE A BENEFIT TO WHERE THEY ARE VERSUS SOMEPLACE ELSE? UM, NOT REALLY.
I THINK THEY JUST PUT THEM WHERE THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD MAKE SENSE.
UH, UH, THEY OF COURSE ARE, ARE, ARE GUIDED BY, UM, THE BORINGS THAT WERE DONE TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO, UH, DISTURBANCE, UH, NO, NO ROCKS OR THINGS LIKE THAT, UH, THAT, THAT WOULD PREVENT THE HOUSES, THE FOUNDATIONS FROM BEING BUILT THERE.
UM, THIS, THIS WAS WHERE THEY THOUGHT IT'D MAKE THE SOUND BEST.
THAT THE PLACEMENT OF THE HOMES WERE BASED ON THE SLOPING.
SO THAT, UH, THERE WERE AREAS THAT BEST, UH, FITTED THE LOCATION OF THE, OF THE STRUCTURES.
I, I THINK THAT WAS, UH, A FACTOR.
BUT THERE REALLY IS NO MATERIAL STEEP SLOPE IN THIS AREA.
SO, UM, IT, IT WASN'T DRIVEN, UH, BY THE SLOPING NECESSARILY.
UH, IT WAS DRIVEN BY, CAN THEY PUT IT HERE? IT'S CENTRAL, IT'S IN THE CENTER.
UM, THEY DIDN'T WANNA PLACE IT SO THAT IT WOULD, UM, UH, MS. SCHWARTZ HAS THAT EASEMENT.
UM, IT DIDN'T WANNA BLOCK HER EASEMENT.
UM, SO THE EASEMENT CONTINUES TO RUN WHERE IT IS, UM, AND NOT BLOCK THE HOUSES BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BUILDING THE HOUSES, UH, THAT WOULD BLOCK WHERE THAT EASEMENT IS, IS MAPPED.
UM, SO THAT WAS THE ONLY, UM, FACTOR.
OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, ONCE THE SUBDIVISION IS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, I THINK THEY CAN PUT THE HOUSE WHEREVER HOUSES, WHEREVER A DEVELOPER PROPOSES TO PUT THEM, AS LONG AS IT'S ZONING COMPLIANT WITHIN THE PLAT.
IN OTHER WORDS, DOESN'T REQUIRE, UH, UH, VARIANCES FOR SETBACKS AS LONG AS IT'S WITHIN THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR AN R 30 DISTRICT.
THEY COULD PUT THE HOUSE WHEREVER THEY WANT, UM, ONCE THE PLAT, THE, THE SUBDIVISION PLAT IS APPROVED.
BUT IN TERMS OF WHERE IT IS NOW, THESE ARE PRO FORMA HOUSES.
THEY'RE PLACED THERE BECAUSE THEY FIT THERE.
UH, THERE WAS NO REASON NOT TO PLACE THEM AND THERE WAS NO REASON TO MOVE THEM BY REASON OF THE, UH, UH, PLACEMENT OF THAT CUL-DE-SAC, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, SO LARGE.
I THOUGHT IT WOULD MOVE CAUSE 'EM TO BE MOVED.
BUT THEY SAID NO, WE CAN KEEP IT WHERE IT IS.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? UM, CAN,
[00:25:01]
CAN I BE HEARD? YES.UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO GET BACK TO SOME OF THE LEGAL POINTS THAT YOU MADE.
UM, MY MEMORY AND UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS CURRENTLY ZONED FOR ONE FAMILY FLAG LOT.
IS THAT ACCURATE? STEP ONE, THE SUBDIVISION THAT EXISTS IS A ONE FAMILY FLAG LOT.
THE PROPERTY ITSELF IS NOT ZONED FOR ONE FAMILY FLAG LOT.
UM, BUT A FLAG LOT WAS APPROVED BY THE SUB BY THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, A COUPLE YEARS AGO.
SO NOW, AND THIS MAY BE MORE FOR THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT 'CAUSE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENTIATION BETWEEN THE TWO SETS OF LAWS THAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING APPLY OR DON'T APPLY.
UM, SIR, I FORGET YOUR NAME AND THE ATTORNEY FOR THE, FOR THE CLIENT, BUT THE APPLICANT, BUT YOU ARE SAYING IT IS CURRENTLY AS OF RIGHT TWO FLAG LOTS, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ZONE NO, I, I THE ONE FLAG LOT, I DID NOT SAY ANYTHING OF THE SORT.
I APOLOGIZE IF THAT'S HOW I WAS UNDERSTOOD.
WHAT I SAID WAS THAT THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY A ONE LOT SUBDIVISION THAT IS A FLAG LOTT THAT COMPLIES WITH THE TOWN'S FLAG ORDINANCE IN THE ZONING CODE.
UM, WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING IS TO, FOR THE, BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, NOT THE ZONING BOARD, BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, WE'RE PROPOSING TO RE SUBDIVIDE THAT PROPERTY INTO A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER THE TOWN'S SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
UNDER CHAPTER TWO 50, A SUBDIVISION CAN, UH, BE MADE HERE, UM, SO LONG E EVEN THOUGH, UH, THE, UH, UH, A SUBDIVISION CAN BE MADE HERE SO LONG AS THERE IS ACCESS TO A PUBLIC ROAD, AND THAT ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC ROAD NEEDS TO BE A ROAD IMPROVED TO TOWN STANDARDS.
SO THE CODE SAYS, MY UNDERSTANDING IS MY UNDERSTANDING AND AND I THAT IS THAT THIS ROAD ACCESS ROAD MM-HMM
WHICH IS CURRENTLY PART OF THE, PART OF THE LOT, IS BEING BROKEN OUT AS A THIRD LOT UNTO ITSELF AND WOULD LEAVE IF, IF WOULD LEAVE THE OTHER TWO LOTS INACCESSIBLE WITHOUT THAT.
IT WOULD BE A SEPARATE LOT, BUT THAT LOT WILL BE OWNED BY ONE OF THE PROPERTIES.
WE HAVEN'T DETERMINED WHICH ONE, EITHER ONE.
UH, WITH A RIGHT OF ACCESS BY PERMANENT EASEMENT TO THE BY THE OTHER A LOT SO THAT YOU ARE CREATING AN ACCESS ROAD, UM, USING THE ACCESS STRIP THAT WILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO THESE TWO LOTS.
AND, AND THE TWO LOTS ARE CODE COMPLIANT IN TERMS OF WHAT'S REQUIRED IN AN R 30 ZONE TO BE IN AN R 30 ZONE, EACH LOT HAS TO HAVE A MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 30,000 SQUARE FEET.
EACH LOT DOES IT EXCEEDS THAT.
UM, BUT IN ORDER FOR IT TO BE, UH, UM, A LEGAL TWO LOT SUBDIVISION, IT MUST BE CONNECTED TO A TOWN ROAD, THE TOWN ROAD HERE BEING CLAYTON, AND IT MUST BE CONNECTED BY A TOWN ROAD THAT HAS BEEN IMPROVED TO TOWN STANDARDS.
SO, SO, SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT CURRENTLY AS A ONE UNIT LOT, IT IS IN COMPLIANCE BECAUSE IT HAS ACCESS AS A BREAKING IT UP INTO THREE UNITS.
THERE ARE TWO NON-COMPLIANT PARCELS.
THEY CAN'T, YOU, YOU KEEP SAYING THEY'RE COMPLIANT PARCELS, BUT THEY ARE NOT COMPLIANT PARCELS BECAUSE THE ACCESS ROAD IS BEING PULLED OUT OF THAT.
AND IT, THEY BECOME A THIRD PARCEL.
IT'S NOT PART OF THOSE TWO PARCELS IN ORDER FOR THIS PARCEL.
IN ORDER FOR THIS TO WORK TOWN STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE BUILDABLE BE SEPARATED FROM THE ACCESS STRIP.
THAT, THAT BE A THIRD LOT NOT BUILDABLE, WHICH THE PLANNING BOARD HAS THE AUTHORITY TO CREATE PROVIDED
[00:30:01]
IT'S, IT'S UNDERSTOOD THAT IT'S NOT TO BE BUILT ON AND IT'S TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOUSING A ROAD TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO CLAYTON ROAD AND THAT ROAD.NORMALLY IT MUST BE BY CODE IT ROAD IMPROVED THE TOWN STANDARDS UNDER CHAPTER TWO 50 OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
BUT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS THE DISCRETION UNDER CHAPTER TWO 50 TO WAIVE OR MODIFY ANY OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS DISCRETION.
THIS IS UNDER CHAPTER TWO 50, SECTIONS 27 THROUGH 29.
SO, SO MY QUESTION IS, WHY ARE YOU COMING TO US BEFORE YOU GOT APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD TO CREATE THESE THREE PARCELS? BECAUSE THE PLANNING BOARD'S PROCEDURE IS THAT ONCE WE PRESENTED THESE, THIS PROPOSAL TO THEM AND RECEIVED THEIR INPUT AND INPUT FROM TOWN STAFF, THAT WE PROCEED BY OBTAINING, UH, BY, BY CREATING THESE THREE LOTS AND, AND, UH, WITH THE ACCESS ROAD, THE RULES REQUIRE THAT BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD CAN HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON WHETHER TO GRANT THE SUBDIVISION, THE VARIANCES THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR REQUESTED BE OR DETERMINED MUST BE OBTAINED MUST FIRST BE GRANTED BY THE ZBA.
THEN ONCE GRANTED BY THE ZBA, IT GOES TO THE PLANNING BOARD, WHICH WILL THEN SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THEY CAN HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC ON ANY OBJECTIONS.
THEY MAY HAVE TO AS TO WHY THE SUBDIVISION WITH THESE, UH, THREE LOTS SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED, OR THE PROPERTY SHOULD NOT BE RE SUBDIVIDED TO ACCOMMODATE THE TWO LOT SUBDIVISION.
I, I, I CAN'T, UH, I CAN UNDERSTAND MAYBE FRUSTRATION THAT IT COMES BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD, BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ORDERED THIS OR, OR APPROVE THIS.
BUT UNDER THE PLANNING BOARD'S RULES, THEY CAN'T HEAR IT UNTIL THEY KNOW THAT THE VARIANCES HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
IF THE VARIANCES HAVE BEEN GRANTED, THEY CAN THEN HEAR WHETHER OR NOT TO GRANT THE SUBDIVISION.
UH, AND IF THEY DO GRANT PRELIMINARY APPROVAL OF THE SUBDIVISION, THEN THERE'S A FURTHER STEP REQUIRING, UH, UH, SUBMISSION TO THE BOARD OF HEALTH AND THEN IT GOES BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
BUT THE PIECE OF THIS THAT IS THE Z B'S PIECE IS SOLELY TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE VARIANCES THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SAYS MUST BE GRANTED IN ORDER FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO APPROVE A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION OF THE KIND DESCRIBED.
THAT HAS TO HAPPEN BEFORE ANYTHING.
IT'S JUST THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS IT, BUT IT MAKES SENSE, OKAY.
FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE IF WE DO OR DON'T GRANT THE VARIANCES, IT DEPENDS ON HOW THEY WOULD LOOK AT THAT AND GO TO THE PUBLIC WITH THE HEARING WITH A PUBLIC ROAD VERSUS THIS ESSENTIALLY PRIVATE DRIVEWAY, RIGHT? RIGHT.
SO IT MAKES SENSE IF YOU LOOK AT IT.
OTHERWISE, IF THEY WOULD GO TO IT WITH THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE VARIANCES ARE GRANTED, THEY, YOU KNOW, DO THE SUBDIVISION AND THEN THEY, WE DON'T GRANT THE VARIANCES, THEY HAVE TO START AGAIN.
SO IT ACTUALLY MAKES SENSE FROM A PERSPECTIVE.
IT'S, IT'S A CHICKEN AND EGG PERSPECTIVE.
YEAH, IT'S A CHICKEN AND EGG THING, BUT THAT'S THE, THESE ARE THE TOWN'S RULES.
UM, AND THEY'RE NOT UNUSUAL THAT, THAT, THAT'S THE WAY IT WORKS IN, IN MOST MUNICIPALITIES IN NEW YORK.
SO THAT'S WHERE IF WE WERE TO GRANT, YEAH, IF WE WERE TO GRANT THESE VARIANCES AND THEN THE, UH, PLANNING BOARD DID NOT GRANT THE SUBDIVISION, WHAT HAPPENS THEN? THE SUBDIVISION WOULD REMAIN AS IT IS A ONE LOT FLAG LOT WHERE THE ONE LOT, UH, IS AN OVERSIZED LOT THAT'S MORE THAN TWICE THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT SIZE, UH, WHICH IS REQUIRED UNDER THE FLAG LOT LAW IN THE TOWN.
UH, AND, UH, THE, UH, THE, THE, THE APPLICANT WILL HAVE TO, UH, REVIEW HIS OPTIONS.
UH, HE HAS DETERMINED, AND HE'S HERE RIGHT NOW, HE HAS DETERMINED THAT IT'S BETTER, UH, TO, FOR THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO BE MARKETED, TO BE MARKETED AS A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION RATHER THAN THE ONE LOT SUBDIVISION, WHICH HAS THUS FAR REMAINED UNSOLD.
UM, I, I WANNA CORRECT, UH, THE, THE, THE PERCEPTION THAT BY PROCEEDING WITH A ZONING COMPLIANT PLAT
[00:35:01]
THAT'S PROCEEDING TO OBTAIN A SUBDIVISION, AS OF RIGHT, I KNOW THAT TERMINOLOGY WAS USED AND I THINK IT'S BETTER TO SAY IT'S A ZONING COMPLIANT PLAT.THE ZONING, THE PLANNING BOARD WHEN PRESENTED WITH A ZONING COMPLIANT PLAT HAS TO GO THROUGH THE SAME PROCESS THAT IT HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH WITH RESPECT TO THIS PROPOSED, UH, UH, PLAT THAT REQUIRES VARIANCES.
NAMELY, IT HAS TO DO A SEEKER FINDING.
IT HAS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ARE BY TAKING A GOOD, HARD CLOSE LOOK.
THAT'S WHAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES AT THIS PROPOSED SUBDIVISION THAT'S ZONING COMPLIANT.
THE ONE WITH THE BIG CUL-DE-SAC AND THE 26 FOOT WIDE ROAD, AND DETERMINE WHETHER, UH, IT WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT UPON THE ENVIRONMENT.
IT COULD IN TERMS OF, UH, UH, BECAUSE OF THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, THERE COULD BE ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE ADDRESSED BY THE ENGINEER.
UH, IT COULD BE, UH, UH, THERE CERTAINLY WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT THAT MORE TREES HAVE TO BE PUT IN, THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE LANDSCAPING PLAN.
BUT THESE KINDS OF THINGS HAVE TO BE DETERMINED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE EXERCISE OF THEIR DISCRETION.
AND BECAUSE THERE'S AN ELEMENT OF DISCRETION IN WHAT THE ZONING, THE PLANNING BOARD MAY DO, I CAN'T SAY THAT THE ZONING COMPLIANT PLAT IS AS OF RIGHT.
WHAT I CAN SAY IS THAT THE ZONING COMPLIANT PLAT DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY APPROVAL FROM THE ZONING BOARD.
IT GOES DIRECTLY TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND HAVING BASICALLY PRESENTED THE TWO OPTIONS TO THEM, WHEN WE MET WITH THEM IN WORK SESSION, AFTER WORK SESSION, I THINK THERE WERE A TOTAL OF THREE, UM, WHICH ARE ALL AVAILABLE TO BE SCREENED BY THE PUBLIC.
WHAT BECAME CLEAR, UH, VERY CLEAR ACTUALLY FROM TOWN STAFF, BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY FROM THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, WAS THEY MUCH PREFERRED THAT WE GO WITH A NARROWER ROAD, NOT ONE, THE 26 FOOT WIDE ROAD THAT'S APPROVED, UH, TO TOWN STANDARDS, WHICH IS DESIGNED FOR TWO-WAY TRAFFIC BECAUSE THIS WAS NEVER GONNA BE TO SERVICE TWO HOMES A TWO-WAY, UH, UH, UH, ROADWAY.
UM, SO THEY SAID A 20 FOOT ROADWAY WOULD BE BETTER.
WHY 20 FEET? BECAUSE THE FIRE DE DEPARTMENT REQUIRES A MINIMUM WIDTH OF 20 FEET.
AND SO THEY SAID IF YOU WERE TO DO THAT, DO A 20 FOOT WIDE ROADWAY RATHER THAN A 26 FOOT WIDE ROADWAY, NOT DO A CUL-DE-SAC, BUT DO THE Y SHAPE CONFIGURATION, WHICH IS ALSO CODE FIRE CODE COMPLIANT.
IF THE FIRE DISTRICT IS SIGNING OFF ON THAT CONFIGURATION, THAT'S WHAT WE WANT YOU TO DO, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE REDUCE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, REDUCE THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT WOULD HAVE TO COME DOWN, AND THAT WOULD ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE THAT WOULD, IN THEIR VIEW, WOULD BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IF THERE'S TO BE A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION.
UM, SO, AND LASTLY, I, THIS, THIS IS A DIFFICULTY THAT IS NOT REALLY SELF-CREATED BECAUSE BOTH TOWN STAFF AND THE PLANNING BOARD HAVE RECOMMENDED THAT RATHER THAN PROCEED WITH THE CODE COMPLIANT PLAT FOR THE ULA SUBDIVISION, WHICH WE COULD HAVE APPLIED FOR, AND I GUESS WE STILL CAN, THE APPLICANT PROCEED INSTEAD WITH ACCESS TO THE TWO BUILDABLE LOTS BY MEANS OF THE PRIVATE ROAD WHOSE WIDTH IS REDUCED TO 26 FEET FROM 26 TO 20.
AND TO DO THAT REQUIRES THE SIX VARIANCES IDENTIFIED, BUILD THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
AND THE IDEA HERE IS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD UNDER THE CHAPTER TWO 50 OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS HAS THE DISCRETION TO MODIFY THE WIDTH OF THE ROAD.
IT HAS THE DISCRETION TO OTHER THINGS ABOUT THE ROAD TOO, BUT IT HAS, ONE OF THE THINGS IT DOES IS HAVE THE, THE DISCRETION TO MODIFY THE WIDTH, BUT IT CAN'T DO THAT WITHOUT BEING COGNIZANT OF THE ZONING LAW.
AND SO THAT IS WHY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAD TO DETERMINE THAT VARIANCES WERE REQUIRED AND WE HAVE TO OBTAIN THEM BEFORE WE CAN GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND THIS WAS, UH, VERY SIMILAR TO, UH, WHAT WAS BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD A FEW YEARS AGO
[00:40:01]
WHEN SIMILAR VARIANCES WERE GRANTED, UH, ON THE, UH, VAN COT PROPERTY AND AUGH, I THINK IT WAS CALLED.UM, BUT IT, UH, I INCLUDED THAT DECISION WITH THE APPLICATION.
SO, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS NOT THE FIRST TIME YOU DEALT WITH THIS.
UM, AND THE, UH, EXTENT OF THE, THE VARIANCE, UH, GOING FROM 25 FEET FRONTAGE TO ZERO FRONTAGE REALLY DOESN'T TELL YOU THE SIGNIFICANCE BECAUSE YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT A ROADWAY THAT'S GOING FROM 26 FEET TO 20 FEET, A SIX FOOT REDUCTION IN WIDTH, UM, BUT TO, TO ACCOMMODATE THE, THE ZONING CODE, WHICH REQUIRES THAT THERE BE ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC ROAD.
UM, WE ARE, WE, WE HAVE TO ASK FOR THE VARIANCE GO FROM 25 TO ZERO, WHICH WAS WHAT WAS GRANTED IN THE TERE BALL APPLICATION.
SO WITHOUT ANY FURTHER, IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, LET ME KNOW.
HE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, UH, I, I THINK AHEAD, I WOULD JUST MAKE THE COMMENT THAT I, I THINK YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, BEING SELF-CREATED IS NOT DISPOSITIVE.
IT DOESN'T MAKE A, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T MAKE, BUT THIS, UH, TO, TO PHRASE THAT, TO, TO PHRASE THIS, THAT THIS IS NOT SELF-CREATED IS, IS A MISNOMER.
IT'S NOT JUST POSITIVE THINGS ARE APPROVED REGULARLY THAT ARE SELF-CREATED, BUT THIS IS VERY MUCH SELF-CREATED.
I, I APPRECIATE YOUR POINT OF VIEW ON THAT.
UM, BUT, UH, UH, THERE ARE THOSE WHO FEEL THAT SELF-CREATED MEANS THAT IF YOU BUY SOMETHING WITH KNOWLEDGE OF THE INFIRMITY, UH, AND YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT BECAUSE YOUR, YOUR LOT, UH, DOESN'T CONFORM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT, YOU'RE, YOU'RE CREATING THE NEED FOR THE VARIANCE.
BUT I AGREE THAT FACTOR IS NOT DISPOSITIVE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
IT'S JUST A CIRCUMSTANCE THAT IS PRESENT HERE THAT YOU SHOULD TAKE INTO ACCOUNT.
THAT TOOK MUCH MORE TIME THAN I EXPECTED.
DO I HAVE ANYONE OUT IN THE AUDIENCE HERE WHO WANTS TO ADDRESS THIS? YES, MA'AM.
HOW MANY, HOW MANY HOURS WILL IT TAKE? IT WON'T TAKE EVEN AN HOUR.
UH, MADAM CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS STEVEN FEINSTEIN FROM THE FIRM OF FEINSTEIN AND TUT.
I HAD THE PRIVILEGE OF APPEARING BEFORE YOU LAST MONTH.
UH, IT WAS MY FIRST APPEARANCE AT THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS MATTER.
UM, AND, UH, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO, UH, SOME OF WHAT YOU JUST HEARD, UM, FROM MR. BERNSTEIN.
UM, OBVIOUSLY HE'S EXCELLENT AT WHAT HE DOES, VERY EXPERIENCED AND VERY PERSUASIVE.
UM, HE SAID THAT I MADE A, A LEGAL ARGUMENT, UH, AND THAT, UM, IN RESPONSE TO THAT, HE MADE A LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT SAID, I CAN'T MAKE MY LEGAL ARGUMENT BECAUSE I DIDN'T DO IT IN TIME.
HOWEVER, THE TRUTH IS, YOU DECIDE WHAT HAPPENS HERE.
YOU ARE NOT TIME BARRED FROM HEARING THE TRUTH.
YOU HAVE THE ABILITY AS THE ZONING BOARD TO DECIDE WHAT SHOULD AND SHOULDN'T HAPPEN HERE.
AND THERE IS NO QUESTION YOUR CREDULITY IS BEING CHALLENGED.
IF YOU DON'T THINK THAT THIS IS A FLAG LOT.
IN FACT, TWO FLAG LOTS, MR. BERNSTEIN TOLD YOU WHAT'S APPROVED IS A SINGLE FLAG LOT.
NOW WE'RE GONNA MAKE IT TWO FLAG LOTS.
THERE'S NO DISPUTE ABOUT THAT.
THERE AT LEAST SHOULDN'T BE A DISPUTE ABOUT THAT.
AND AS TWO FLAG LOTS, THERE IS CLEARLY SEVERAL OTHER VARIANCES WHICH ARE REQUIRED.
NOW, I DO NOT KNOW WHY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THE BUILDING INSPECTORS THAT WERE TOO INVOLVED.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T RAISE THESE ISSUES.
I'M NOT PRIVY TO THE, UH, UH, UH, PLANNING DEPARTMENTS, UH, UH, HANDLING OF THIS.
WHAT I DO KNOW IS THAT THREE VARIANCES, TWO ZONING, TWO ZONING MATTERS, AND ONE PLANNING MATTER WERE MISSED.
IT'S NOT ARGUABLE THEY'RE MISSED.
SECTION 2 85, 39 10 SAYS A FLAG LOT MUST HAVE DOUBLED THE MINIMUM LOT AREA IN THE APPLICABLE ZONING DISTRICT.
THEY CAN'T HAVE 30,000 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS WHAT IT'S REQUIRED.
THEY HAVE TO HAVE 60,000 SQUARE FEET EACH.
2 85 39 10 SAID, A SUBDIVISION IS ONLY ALLOWED ONE FLAG PER LOT.
THIS, THIS FLAG IS SERVING TWO FLAG LOTS.
THAT'S A HUNDRED PERCENT VARIANCE.
AND YOUR, YOUR SUBDIVISION CODE VERY CLEARLY IN 2 50 12 G TWO GIVE, IT GIVES YOU VERY LIMITED WAYS TO USE THIS ACCESS PAR ACCESS PARCEL AS A DRIVEWAY.
[00:45:01]
HAVE TO BE RESPECTED.IF YOU RESPECT THE SIDE YARD REGULATIONS IN YOUR CODE, WHAT'S LEFT IS A FIVE FOOT PIECE OF DRIVEWAY.
CLEARLY, THIS IS NOT GONNA BE A FIVE FOOT DRIVEWAY, WHETHER IT'S 20 FEET OR 26 FEET, BUT WHATEVER IT IS, IT'S NOT A CODE COMPLIANT APPLICATION BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T DEALT WITH THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THAT LOT ACCESS LOT FLAG LOT.
SO WHAT I SUBMIT TO YOU IS, WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN IS THIS BOARD NEEDS TO CONNECT WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING PEOPLE AND FIND OUT WHY ALL OF THE VARIANCES THAT ABSOLUTELY ARE REQUIRED FOR THIS SUBDIVISION HAVE NOT BEEN PUT ON THE TABLE.
I CAN'T EXPLAIN IT, BUT THEY ABSOLUTELY SHOULD BE.
AND IF IN FACT, THIS IS GOING TO GO FORWARD AND BE STREAMLINED, WE DON'T WANT LEGAL ACTION AND APPEALS.
WE WANT TO GET TO THE BOTTOM LINE.
THIS VILLAGE DESERVES THE BOTTOM LINE.
WHAT HAPPENED TO THESE OTHER VARIANCES? WHY ARE THEY NOT BEING REQUESTED? THEY'RE CLEARLY FLAG LOTS.
WHY ARE WE NOT ASKING FOR ALL OF THE VARIANCES? NOW, I CITED FOR YOU, I REALIZE IT'S LEGAL, BUT I CITED FOR YOU A COUPLE OF CASES THAT CAME FROM NEW YORK'S COURT OF APPEALS, AS I KNOW, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NEW YORK'S HIGHEST COURT, AND IT STANDS FOR THE PROPOSITION, WHICH IS WELL KNOWN TO ALL LAWYERS WHO DO LAND USE THAT ZONING BOARDS, SHOULDN'T TAKE VARIANCES PIECEMEAL, THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE A VARIANCE ON A TUESDAY.
AND THEN SIX MONTHS LATER WHEN AN APPLICATION'S PENDING, GET ANOTHER VARIANCE BECAUSE THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF ALL THE VARIANCES IS WHAT SOMETIMES CAN MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT, HEY, THIS IS TOO MANY VARIANCES, TOO MUCH OF A VARIANCE.
AND, AND, AND SO YOU DON'T WANNA DO IT PIECEMEAL.
THE, THE, THE HIGHEST COURTS IN NEW YORK, HIGHEST COURT, NEW YORK HAS TOLD YOU THAT.
SO ALL I'M SAYING IS LET'S DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE.
LET'S DO THE RIGHT THING BY THE NEIGHBORS.
I HAVE SEVEN OF THEM THAT ARE NOW MY, MY, MY, UH, CLIENTS THAT SURROUND THIS PROPERTY.
LET'S FIND OUT WHY THESE VARIANCES HAVE NOT BEEN REQUESTED.
YOU'RE ENTITLED TO THAT INFORMATION.
LET'S NOT COME BACK AFTER A COURT APPEARANCE AND FIND OUT THAT WE NEED THE OTHER VARIANCES.
LET'S GET THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.
AND I'M ABSOLUTELY CONFIDENT THE ANSWER'S GONNA BE, THAT WAS AN INADVERTENT MISTAKE.
WE NEED TO ADD THESE VARIANCES.
AND NOW MAYBE YOUR DETERMINATION ISN'T AS STRAIGHTFORWARD AS YOU MIGHT THINK IT IS WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIANCES THAT ARE PENDING BEFORE YOU.
'CAUSE NOW THERE'S SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT OTHER VARIANCES.
AND THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF THOSE VARIANCES IS WHAT'S GOING TO WEIGH ON YOUR DECISION.
THE OTHER THING I WANTED TO BRING TO YOUR ATTENTION IS THE, AND, AND, UH, COUNSEL DID CLARIFY THIS IDEA OF, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THIS IS SOME SORT OF AS OF RIGHTS SUBDIVISION.
AND, AND HE CORRECTLY POINTED OUT THAT ALL HE REALLY MEANT WAS THERE IS A PLAN THAT HIS CLIENT COULD SUBMIT, BUT HASN'T, THAT THEORETICALLY DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY VARIANCES.
NOW WHETHER IT GETS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AS A SUBDIVISION, WE DON'T KNOW.
'CAUSE THAT'S NEVER BEEN PRESENTED AND IT'S NOT PENDING.
NO SEEKER REVIEW WAS DONE OF IT.
WE DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT WOULD EVER GET PAST THE PLANNING BOARD AND HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU FOR VARIANCES.
SO WHAT WE KNOW IS THERE'S ONE THAT WOULD INVOLVE A ROAD AND THAT MAYBE VARIANCES AREN'T REQUIRED, AND IT PROBABLY COSTS A LOT MORE FOR THE APPLICANT TO DO THAN THIS ROAD WITHOUT THE CUL-DE-SAC AND NOWER.
AND MAYBE ONE IS BETTER FOR THE ENVIRONMENT, MAYBE ONE IS WORSE.
'CAUSE THAT HASN'T BEEN DETERMINED.
THE APPLICANT WANTS THIS APPLICATION TO GO FORWARD AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT'S LESS EXPENSIVE, QUITE FRANKLY, THAN THE ONE THAT HE CLAIMS REQUIRES NO VARIANCES.
BUT I CONTEND TO YOU THAT IF THAT APPLICATION WAS PENDING BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, THAT IT WOULD HAVE A VERY DIFFICULT TIME PASSING SEEKER AND EVER GETTING TO YOU.
SO WHEN MY CLIENTS ARE SAYING, WELL, THEY DON'T WANT ANYTHING TO BE BUILT THERE, AND COUNCIL SAYS TO YOU, WELL, THE OWNER'S ENTITLED TO APPLY ABSOLUTELY IS ENTITLED TO APPLY, BUT THE NEIGHBORS ARE ENTITLED TO GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND SAY, THE SEEKER REGULATIONS SAY THAT THIS IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE HEALTH, SAFETY, AND WELFARE OF THE COMMUNITY.
THAT THERE ARE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND MAKE THOSE ARGUMENTS.
AND MAYBE IT JUST DOESN'T GET PASSED AND MAYBE NO SUBDIVISION GETS PASSED HERE.
MAYBE IT'S THE SINGLE LOT SUBDIVISION, THE SINGLE FLAG LOT THAT COUNCIL SAID EXISTS THAT GETS DONE.
[00:50:01]
THAT IS MUCH BETTER FOR THE NEIGHBORS THAN TWO HOMES AND TWO SETS OF CARS AND TWO SETS OF DELIVERIES COMING UP THAT DRIVEWAY AS NEIGHBORS.THEY'RE ENTITLED TO VOICE THEIR, THEIR VIEWS AND OPINIONS.
AND THROUGH ME THEY'VE DONE THAT.
BUT I SUBMIT TO YOU, THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR YOU TO GO FORWARD WITH THIS NARROW MINIMAL APPLICATION WHEN WE KNOW THAT MISTAKES WERE MADE AND OTHER VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED.
THIS IS INDEED A, A FLAG LOT SERVING TWO LOTS.
AND THE, THE ZONING CODE COULD NOT BE CLEARER ON WHAT ADDITIONAL VARIANCES, UM, ARE NECESSARY.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR, ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU, YOU MIGHT HAVE.
I KNOW THERE'S A, A LEGAL ELEMENT TO THIS.
SO I I I'VE, I'VE TRIED TO TO TO SPEAK AS PLAINLY AS I CAN.
ANY QUESTIONS? I HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
FIRST OF ALL, ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS THAT YOU REPRESENT THAT WILL BE SPEAKING TONIGHT? ANY OF YOUR UH, I DON'T BELIEVE SO, UNLESS THEY'RE, UH, SPEAKING REMOTELY.
DURING THIS, UH, MONTH SINCE THE, YOUR LAST APPEARANCE, HAVE THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN YOUR CLIENTS AND THE, UH, APPLICANT? NO.
WHY NOT? WE TOOK THE TIME TO FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT THIS APPLICATION WAS AND WASN'T, WHAT VIOLATIONS OF YOUR ZONING CODE EXISTED AND TO RAISE THOSE WITH YOU.
THERE MAY BE A APPROPRIATE TIME TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS.
WE DIDN'T BELIEVE THAT THE TIME TO HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS WAS BEFORE WE ADDRESS ALL OF THE ISSUES THAT WE BROUGHT TO YOUR ATTENTION.
IS IT YOUR CONTENTION THAT LOT THREE IS NOT LARGE ENOUGH TO HAVE A CODE COMPLIANT, UH, TOWN ROAD BUILT ON IT? NO.
YOU'RE NOT MAKING THAT CONTENTION? NO.
IF YOU'RE NOT MAKING THAT CONTENTION, I DON'T UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT AGAINST THIS BEING A HI.
THE PLAN ONE THAT SHOWED THE, UH, THE CUL-DE-SAC NOT BEING AN AS OF RIGHT USE OF THE PROPERTY AS OF RIGHT.
SO, AND, AND, AND MR. BERNSTEIN ADDRESSED IT A MOMENT AGO, AND I, AND I, UH, UH, ECHO HIS, HIS EXPLANATION AS OF RIGHT IN THIS CONTEXT SIMPLY MEANT THAT NO VARIANCES WERE NECESSARY THAT THE SIZE OF LOTS AND AND DISTANCES COMPLY WITH THE CODE.
HIS CONTENTION IS THAT COMPLIES WHAT'S NOT CLEAR IS WHETHER THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD GRANT A SUBDIVISION BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO DO A SEEKER REVIEW.
THERE ARE ISSUES WITH RESPECT TO DRAINAGE AND TREES COMING DOWN AND, AND OTHER ISSUES THAT'LL HAVE TO BE VETTED.
SO WHETHER IT'S ENTITLED TO BE GRANTED A SUBDIVISION APPROVAL OR NOT, THERE'S NO, AS OF RIGHT SUBDIVISION HERE, THERE MAY BE AN AS OF RIGHT MEANING NO VARIANCES PLAN.
SO THEY COULD GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE PLANNING BOARD DOESN'T HAVE TO, UH, REFER IT OUT FOR, FOR, FOR VARIANCES.
I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THESE ARE TWO FLAG LOTS AND AS TWO FLAG LOTS, UNLESS THEY'RE 60,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE CODE COMPLIANT LOTS.
SO I DON'T THINK THERE IS A CODE COMPLIANT, UH, UH, UH, UH, ZONING, UH, A FREE VARIANCE APPLICATION.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THIS BEING TWO FLAG LOTS AND BEING TWO ZONE COMPLIANT LOTS IS WHETHER OR NOT THE CUL-DE-SAC ROAD CAN BE BUILT, UH, ACCORDING TO THE EXISTING REQUIREMENTS.
AND IT'S BEEN PRESENTED THAT THAT ROAD CAN BE BUILT ACCORDING, AND YOU DIDN'T, I JUST GAVE YOU THE CHANCE TO SAY, NO, IT CAN'T BE BUILT.
AND YOU DIDN'T SAY THAT FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE.
AND YOUR, YOUR CLIENTS ARE CONVINCED THAT BY CHA WHEN THEY RECOGNIZE THAT THIS ROAD CAN BE BUILT AND NO, THEY JUST SAID IT DOESN'T NEED A VARIANCE.
NOT THAT IT CAN BE BUILT, THAT'S GONNA BE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO DECIDE.
BUT SO AS OPPOSED TO LOOKING FOR ANY KIND OF COMPROMISE HERE, THEY'RE, THEY'RE TRYING TO SAY THAT THEY'RE HOPING THAT THIS ALL FALLS APART EVEN THOUGH THE ROAD THAT NOBODY WANTS CAN BE BUILT.
AND SO IN SOME WAYS THEY'RE, THEY'RE SAYING, HEY, LOOK, WE'RE GONNA MAKE THEM BUILD THIS ROAD.
NOBODY WANTS NO, WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WILL NOT APPROVE A SUBDIVISION WITH A CODE COMPLIANT, UH, ROAD.
WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL NOT PASS SEEKER.
WE'RE CONFIDENT THAT IT WILL NOT ULTIMATELY BE APPROVED.
THAT WHAT WILL BE BUILT THERE WILL BE A SINGLE HOME.
WHERE, WHERE DO YOU GET THAT CONFIDENCE FROM BASED ON, UH, OUR UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE IMPACTS WOULD BE OF THE LARGER ROAD, UH, OF THE, UM, UH, NON VARIANCE REQUIRED APPLICATION.
WE FELT CONFIDENT THAT WE CAN RAISE ISSUES AND ISSUES WILL BE RAISED BY OUR EXPERTS THAT WILL GIVE THE PLANNING BOARD MUCH TO THINK ABOUT IN ADDRESSING SEEKER AND THEN ULTIMATELY GRANTING A SUBDIVISION HERE.
[00:55:01]
ELIZABETH, I DON'T KNOW IF I WANT TO PUT YOU ON THE SPOT.BUT HERE'S YOUR OPPORTUNITY TO SAY WHETHER OR NOT, UM, MR. FEINSTEIN IS CORRECT IN HIS IS ACCUSATIONS THE, UM, MEMORANDUM FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ON MAY 6TH? ARE YOU MEAN YOUR MICROPHONE? OH, SORRY.
THE MEMORANDUM FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ON MAY 6TH IS ACCURATE.
THERE ARE NO ADDITIONAL VARIANCES THAT ARE REQUIRED.
THIS IS NOT A FLAG LOT UNDER THE DEFINITION OF A FLAG LOT, WHICH IS A LOT.
HAVING THE REQUIRED FRONTAGE THAT DOES NOT HAVE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED LOT WIDTH.
THE PROPOSED THREE LOT SUBDIVISION AT ZERO CLAYTON ROAD WAS NOT DETERMINED TO BE FLAG LOTS AS THE TWO LOTS PROPOSED FOR DEVELOPMENT DO NOT HAVE ANY FRONTAGE AND RELY UPON THE THIRD NON BUILDABLE LOT FOR ACCESS.
ADDITIONALLY, EACH OF THE TWO PROPOSED LOTS FOR DEVELOPMENT HAVE THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, 135 FEET FOR THE R 30 ZONE.
SO THEY'RE NOT, THEY ARE NOT FLAG LOTS.
IT IS A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION WITH TWO LOTS PROPOSED TO BE DEVELOPED WITH A FIRE ACCESS ROAD ON THE THIRD LOT.
I THINK THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S LEGALLY INCORRECT.
I THINK IT IS IN FACT A FLAG LOT LEGALLY INCORRECT.
I THINK THAT INTERPRETATION IS INCORRECT.
I THINK IT IS A FLAG LOT AND I THINK IT, THE FLAG LOT REGULATION SHOULD BE APPLIED TO IT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU THINK? THAT'S NOT WELL, I, I DON'T HAVE A VOTE, SO I CAN ONLY TELL YOU WHAT I THINK.
UH, WE'RE THE ONES THAT HAVE TO VOTE, AS YOU STATED EARLIER.
UM, WE THEN HAVE TO GO BY WHAT'S IN THE ZONING CODES, UM, NOT BY WHAT YOU THINK IS IN THE ZONING CODE.
UH, SO I'M, I GUESS I'M JUST FEELING THAT, UM, YOU ARE JUST TRYING TO RAISE POINTS THAT AREN'T REALLY RAISE.
I, I, THAT'S WHAT I THINK, UM, I GUESS THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ZONING BOARD HAVE THEIR OWN, UH, THOUGHTS THAT THEY CAN DETERMINE, UH, WHEN WE GET TO, UM, HAVING OUR DISCUSSION.
I'M, I'M SORRY YOU FEEL THAT WAY.
I THINK THEY'RE REASONABLE POINTS.
I THINK THEY'RE IMPORTANT POINTS.
UM, AND I THINK I'VE RAISED THEM, UM, AS QUICKLY AS WE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE RAISED THEM.
NOTICE OF THIS CAME TO THE CLIENTS THE WEEK BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR US TO, TO GET INVOLVED IN THE APPLICATION AND TO HAVE OUR, UH, UH, EXPERTS TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
UH, YOU KNOW, TOOK A, A HANDFUL OF DAYS AND, UH, AND WE'VE RAISED IT ON THE, ON THE SE YOU KNOW, PRIOR TO THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING.
AND I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST ONES TO AGREE THAT YOU WEREN'T GIVING A LOT OF TIME LAST MONTH AND APPRECIATE THAT.
AND SO WE NOW GAVE YOU AN ADDITIONAL MONTH.
UM, AND YOU'VE COME UP WITH THIS ARGUMENT, UM, WHICH YOU THEN PRESENTED, UM, YESTERDAY.
AND, UH, THAT IS LATER THAN THE 10 DAY, UM, RESTRICTION ON SUBMITTING, UH, INFORMATION TO GO IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.
SO YOU'RE KIND OF LIKE PUTTING US IN A, UM, PREDICAMENT HERE.
AND I GUESS WE WILL DISCUSS THAT, UH, DURING OUR DISCUSSION.
I, I APOLOGIZE, I WASN'T AWARE OF YOUR 10 DAY, UH, LIMIT.
UM, IT WASN'T INTENDED TO GIVE, GIVE IT TO YOU AT THE LAST MINUTE, BUT WE WERE WORKING WITH OUR EXPERTS THROUGHOUT THE LAST WEEK TO GET IT TO YOU AS QUICKLY AS WE COULD.
I HAVE TO ASK YOU ONE MORE TIME, UH, YOU KEEP SAYING THAT IT'S A FLAG LOT, CORRECT.
YOU SEE, SEEM TO THINK THAT YOU HAVE A LEGAL ARGUMENT THAT IT'S A FLAG LOT.
WHAT IS YOUR LEGAL ARGUMENT AS TO WHY IT'S A FLAG LOT? BECAUSE IT'S A LOT ACCESSED BY A FLAG STEM THAT PROVIDES FRONTAGE.
YOU'RE GETTING A VARIANCE TO USE THIS FLAG LOT AS YOUR, YOUR STREET FRONTAGE.
UH, IT, IT, IT'S A, IT'S A TWO, IT WAS A ONE LOT FLAG LOT.
ALL WE'VE DONE HERE IS CREATE A TWO LOT FLAG LOT CALLING THE, THE, THE, THE, THE FLAG.
A SEPARATE LOT DOESN'T CHANGE THE FACT THAT THIS IS BY DEFINITION A FLAG LOT AND WE CAN TWIST AND TURN IT INTO SOMETHING ELSE IF WE CHOOSE.
BUT IT IS ULTIMATELY A FLAG LOT.
[01:00:01]
IT WAS A FLAG LOT WHEN IT WAS ONE LOT.IT'S A FLAG LOT WHEN IT'S TWO LOTS.
BUT IF YOU BUILD A CODE COMPLIANT, UH, ROADWAY TO THE LOCATION, IT'S NOT A FLAG LOT.
IF YOU BUILD IT TO CODE, YOU CAN CLAIM THAT IT'S NOT A FLAG LOT.
YOU CAN, YOU CAN GO FORWARD WITHOUT MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS OF A FLAG LOT AS A CODE COMPLIANT BUILT TO CODE BUILT TO TOWN STANDARD ROADS.
THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED.
THAT'S NOT BEING, THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BECAUSE THE ZONING BOARD TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT AND STAYING WITH THE TYPE OF THING THAT'S IN THE COMMUNITY REQUESTED THAT IT NOT GO FORWARD IN THAT FORMAT.
BUT THAT DIDN'T, THE PLANNING BOARD YOU'RE REFERRING TO? NO, I'M REFERRING TO THE ZONING BOARD.
WELL, I THINK THE PLANNING BOARD MADE THAT REFERRAL TO YOU GUYS AS THE ZONING BOARD.
OH, AND I'M THEN I'M MISTAKEN.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BECAUSE YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE ARGUMENT HERE.
THAT'S ALL I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.
SO, SO THE, THE, THE BACKGROUND, YOU KNOW, REMEMBER THE, UH, THERE'S BEEN NO PUBLIC HEARING IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD, THE PROCEDURES IN THIS TOWN OR THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT, UH, MEETS, UH, IN WORK SESSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND NO PUBLIC IS HEARD, NO SUBMISSIONS FROM THE PUBLIC ARE CONSIDERED.
AND IN THOSE PRIVATE MEETINGS, WHICH ARE VIEWABLE, BUT FOR WHICH WE HAVE NO COMMENT, UH, COUNSEL HAS EXPLAINED TO YOU THAT IN THOSE, UH, MEETINGS, UH, IT WAS THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD THAT, UH, A NARROWER ROAD BE, UH, USED INSTEAD OF THE CODE COMPLIANT ONE.
SO ALL WE CAN DO IS GO BASED ON THE FACT THAT WHAT'S BEING APPLIED FOR IS NOT A, UH, CODE COMPLIANT BUILT TO TOWN STANDARD ROAD.
UM, AND I UNDERSTAND THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF THAT ARGUMENT.
IT'S NARROWER, FEWER TREES, THAT'S GOTTA BE BETTER.
BUT WHAT I'M SUBMITTING TO YOU IS THAT IT'S NOT A COMPARISON BETWEEN A CODE COMPLIANT ROAD AND A NARROW ROAD THAT IS A FALSE PREMISE.
WHAT'S BEING, WHAT ULTIMATELY WILL BE DECIDED IS BETWEEN A NARROW ROAD AND A COMPLETELY NEW APPLICATION THAT WILL GO IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR A CODE COMPLIANT ROAD.
AND WE WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THE SECRET PROCESS AGAIN.
AND DRAINAGE WILL BE DISCUSSED AND TREE REMOVAL WILL BE DISCUSSED AND ALL OTHER THINGS WILL BE DONE TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT IS IN FACT WORTHY OF A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION.
THAT'S GONNA HAVE TO HAPPEN IF THE APPLICANT SUBMITS A CODE COMPLIANT APPLICATION.
SO THE REALITY IS THE COMPARISON IS BETWEEN WHETHER YOU GRANT VARIANCES FOR A NARROW ROAD OR THE APPLICANT GOES BACK TO THE, TO THE PLANNING BOARD WITH A NEW APPLICATION FOR A CODE COMPLIANT ROAD.
NOW MAYBE HE NEEDS NO VARIANCES, BUT HE STILL NEEDS SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND SEEKER WILL DO ITS JOB.
AND AS I SAID, I THINK MY CLIENTS AND I ARE CONFIDENT THAT THERE WILL BE REAL ISSUES THERE IF WE, IF YOU BUILD A CODE COMPLIANT ROAD, THAT WE FEEL PRETTY GOOD ABOUT RAISING THE ISSUE AND, AND SUGGESTING THAT THAT'S NOT A SUBDIVISION.
THAT, THAT THIS, THAT THIS, UH, TOWN, UH, PLANNING BOARD SHOULD, SHOULD APPROVE AND THAT SEEKER WOULD, WOULD NOT RESULT IN A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
AND THEN I CONTEND THAT YOU AND THE, UM, MEMBERS OF YOUR, UM, REPRESENTATIVES THAT YOU, I'M SORRY THAT YOU REPRESENT, DO THAT IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
WELL, ONCE YOU GRANT THE VARIANCES, THERE WON'T BE A ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS SEEKER.
THEY'VE ALREADY GIVEN A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON THE NARROW ROAD.
SO MY CLIENTS WILL NOT HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPEAR AT A PUBLIC HEARING AND ARGUE ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH SEEKER.
THAT SHIP HAS SAILED ON THE NARROW ROAD.
WE NEED TO, I'M SORRY, BUT I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN DO FOR THE FULL ROAD, FOR THE, FOR THE CODE COMPLIANT ROAD THAT WILL REQUIRE A NEW APPLICATION AND A NEW SEEKER REVIEW PROCESS.
NOT FOR THE APPLICATION FOR THE NARROW ROAD, WHICH IS THE SUBJECT OF THESE VARIANCES.
THAT'S WHY I'M SUGGESTING THAT YOU NOT GRANT THE VARIANCES.
CERTAINLY NOT AT THIS JUNCTURE.
AND IF COUNSEL WANTS TO SUBMIT A PLAN FOR A CODE COMPLIANT ROAD THAT'S GONNA GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
IT MAY IN FACT REQUIRE NO VARIANCES, AS YOU'VE SUGGESTED.
AND I'VE AGREED WITH, IT WON'T REQUIRE VARIANCES, BUT IT STILL MUST GO THROUGH THE SECRET PROCESS.
AND THAT PROCESS FOR THAT NEW APPLICATION IS ONE THAT, THAT WE WILL BE PAYING KEEN ATTENTION TO.
AND AS, AS, AS I THINK IS THE CASE, THERE WILL BE ISSUES THAT WILL BE, BE OF SOME CONCERN TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND TO THE COMMUNITY.
CAN I JUST ASK WHAT'S HAPPENED AT THIS POINT? SO IT, WHEN THE, IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE THE ORIGINAL PLAN THAT WAS PUT TO THE PLANNING BOARD WAS THE CODE POTENTIALLY CODE COMPLIANT, UH, CUL-DE-SAC ROAD, IS THAT
[01:05:01]
CORRECT? THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION THAT WAS IN THE WORK SESSION, CORRECT.THEY, THE, THE PLANNING BOARD THEN SAID WE'D RATHER THESE CHANGES TO BE MADE.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE SECOND PLAN IS.
THE SECOND PLAN IS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US ASKING FOR VARIANCES.
AND WHEN DID SEEKER WEIGH IN ON THIS, IN THIS PROCESS, DURING THE WORK SESSIONS, HAVING APPOINTED THEMSELVES THE LEAD AGENCY FOR SEEKER PURPOSES, THEY ULTIMATELY VOTED ON A NEG DECK BASED ON THE APPLICATION AS AMENDED FOR THE NARROW ROAD.
SO THE NARROW, OKAY, SO THE NARROW ROAD AS FAR AS THEY'RE CONCERNED PAST IT.
AND YOU'RE SAYING DON'T PAY ANY ATTENTION TO THE NARROW ROAD, GO BACK TO THE ROAD THAT IS MORE COMPLIANT AND THEN YOU WANT A PUBLIC HEARING TO BRING OUT THE FACT THAT IT, THAT THE ROAD THAT NOBODY REALLY WANTS TO BUILD WILL NOT PASS ENVIRONMENTAL SCRUTINY.
I'M, I'M, I'M ONLY ASKING YOU TO NOT GRANT THESE VARIANCES.
THE PROCESS THAT WILL RESULT SINCE COUNSEL'S INDICATED THAT IF WE DON'T GET THESE VARIANCES AND, AND, AND, AND AND SUGGESTING TO YOU THAT THIS IS A REASON WHY YOU SHOULD GRANT THEM.
IF YOU DON'T GIVE ME THE VARIANCES, WE ARE GONNA DO A A A A.
WHAT'S THAT? WHAT'S HAPPENING? OH, SHAUNA.
SHAUNA, I THINK THAT MAYBE HER MICROPHONE IS ON.
ALL I'M SUGGESTING IS THAT IF, IF, IF THE VARIANCES ARE NOT GRANTED, COUNSEL IS, IS ESSENTIALLY THREATENING, WE'RE GONNA BUILD A COAL COMPLIANT, UH, UH, UH, UH, ROADWAY.
AND WHAT I'M INDICATING TO YOU IS THAT PROCESS WILL REQUIRE THE SEEKER REVIEW TO BEGIN ANEW AT THE PLANNING BOARD LEVEL BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY EVALUATED.
THEY EVALUATED THE, THE ROADWAY THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU FOR A VARIANCE.
SO WHEN THE SUGGESTION IS YOU'RE MAKING A DECISION BETWEEN A WIDE ROAD, 'CAUSE IT'S AS OF RIGHT AND A NARROW ROAD THAT'S NOT TRUE.
'CAUSE THE WIDE ROAD HAS NOT PASSED THE PLANNING BOARD'S APPROVAL.
AND SO I DON'T WANT THERE TO BE THIS FALSE PREMISE THAT, HEY GUYS, IF YOU SAY NO, WE'RE ALL GONNA GET A WIDE ROAD, WE DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S GONNA BE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE SECRET PROCESS TO DECIDE.
THAT'S THE ONLY POINT I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE.
ANY, ANYONE ELSE ON THE BOARD? THANK BOARD.
THE ONLY QUESTION I HAVE AND, AND MAYBE LIZ YOU COULD ANSWER THIS FOR US, IS THIS WAS MULTIPLE LOTS THAT WERE JOINED TOGETHER IN ONE LOT PREVIOUSLY, CORRECT.
SORRY, WAS IT NOT? I THINK AND I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO MR. BERNSTEIN, BUT I WAS IT AT MULTIPLE AT THAT TIME? WERE THEY DEFINED AS FLAGSHIP LOTS OR NO? UH, THESE WERE BEFORE THE MERGER OF, UH, INTO THE ONE SINGLE LOT.
THEY WERE THREE SEPARATE TAX LOTS.
UM, UH, THEY WERE NOT SUBDIVIDED, UH, THEY WERE SUBDIVIDED BY DEED PERHAPS, BUT NOT SUBDIVIDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
SO THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME THEY WERE BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND WHAT THEY DID WAS THEY MERGED THE THREE SEPARATE TAX LOTS.
WHEN WAS THE MERGING OF THE THREE LOTS DONE.
UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS DONE IN SEPTEMBER OF 2023, IT WAS FINALIZED.
WAS IT, WAS THAT BY THE CURRENT OWNER? YES.
AND JUST SO IT'S CLEAR, THE CURRENT OWNER DOES NOT PLAN TO DEVELOP THESE LOTS, ALTHOUGH I SUPPOSE HE MIGHT.
HIS PLAN IS TO SELL THEM TO A DEVELOPER WHO WILL PRESENT PLANS IN CONFORMITY WITH WHATEVER THE PLANNING BOARD AUTHORIZES BY WAY OF SUBDIVISION.
NEXT CASE IS CASE 25 0 8 TON CARE HUDSON, ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING PC.
GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD? UM, MY NAME IS THOMAS HANNEY.
UM, I'M GONNA BRIEFLY DESCRIBE TO YOU WHAT CHANGED IN THE APPLICATION.
UM, ESSENTIALLY WE SUBMITTED NEW APPLICATION DOCUMENTS, UM, BASED ON YOUR DELIBERATION AT THE LAST MEETING, UM, WITH TWO VARIANCES.
[01:10:01]
COVERAGE VARIANCE FOR 48.4% WHERE 35 IS ALLOWABLE AND A SECOND SEEKING THREE PARKING SPACES WHERE SIX IS REQUIRED.UM, I CAN REVIEW THE PLANS IF YOU WOULD LIKE, BUT I KNOW IT WAS PART OF THE, UM, PREVIOUS RECORD.
SO IF YOU ARE, I KNOW YOU HAVE A LONG NIGHT, I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO, UH, SKIP THAT IF YOU PREFER ANY QUESTIONS.
I DID, DID YOU IN FACT SUBMIT A PLAN, UH, FOR THREE PARKING SPACES? YES, THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
SO IF YOU GO TO THE SECOND SHEET, UM, THE PARKING DIAGRAM IS IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER.
UM, AND THIS IS THE SCENARIO WHERE THE, UM, BACK HALF OF THE DRIVEWAY WAS CHOPPED OFF.
UM, SO IT WOULD ALL BE PAVED TO ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THE HOUSE.
CAN YOU SEE THAT? HE'S ZOOMING IN.
THAT, THAT'S WHAT WAS CONFUSING TO ME.
I DID NOT SEE THIS AND I CAN'T FIND IT.
I SUPPOSED TO, SO, WENDY, OH,
SO ESSENTIALLY IT WOULD BE THREE NINE BY 20, UM, LEGAL SIZED PARKING SPACES, UM, WITH ONE BLOCKING ACCESS TO THE OTHER TWO.
WHAT IS THE CHANGE IN THE IMPERVIOUS AREA THAT YOU'RE REQUESTING NOW? UM, SO IT WOULD BE 48%, UM, WHERE 35 IS LEGAL.
THE OTHER I BELIEVE WAS APPROXIMATELY 57 WITH THE FULL, FULL LENGTH DRIVEWAY FOR THE SIX BASES.
I AM NOT HEARING ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AT THIS MOMENT.
IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAS ANY COMMENTS ON THIS PROPOSAL? YEAH.
WILLIAM AND CHRISTINE WEER 34 HIGH RIDGE ROAD.
I HAVEN'T BEEN BEHIND A PODIUM IN A MICROPHONE IN A VERY LONG TIME.
UM, SO I'M CHRISTINE WELKER, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS MY HUSBAND, BILL WELKER.
THE ONLY REASON WHY I'M DOING THE PRESENTING IS BECAUSE I CREATED THE APPLICATION, SO I'M A LITTLE MORE FLUENT IN WHAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU.
UM, SO, UM, WE ARE RESIDENTS OF HEART STILL FOR 26 YEARS, AND WE HAVE PUT FORWARD AN APPLICATION FOR A BUILDING PERMIT TO LEGALIZE A SHED ON OUR PROPERTY.
AND I THINK YOU COULD PROBABLY SEE IN THE PACKET, PROBABLY SEE IN THE PACKET.
AND KIRA, IF I CAN REFER TO YOU AS KIRA, NOT TOWN STAFF
UM, IF YOU COULD PULL IT UP, I THINK WE AGREED IT MIGHT BE EASIER.
I'LL JUST, YOU KNOW, WALK THROUGH THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE APPLICATION.
UM, ON THE FIRST PAGE, I DID WANNA JUST CLARIFY THAT THE, UM, THAT THE SHED THAT IS, UM, THAT WE'RE REQUIRING THE SETBACK ON, IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE SHED.
THERE'S ONE OF THE FOUR CORNERS WE PUT THE SHED ON AN ANGLE AND IT TURNS OUT THAT THE ONE CORNER OF THE SHED IS TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT FOR CLARIFICATION.
UM, SO WHAT I THOUGHT MIGHT BE BEST, AND I'LL DO THIS AS BRIEFLY AS POSSIBLE, AND THEN WE CAN ALWAYS GO BACK IF YOU WANT MORE INFORMATION.
I THOUGHT IT WOULD BE BEST TO GO THROUGH THE PROPOSAL, UH, THE PROPOSAL, THE, I KEPT HEARING PROPOSALS, SO IT'S IN MY HEAD THE APPLICATION AND
[01:15:01]
SPEAK TO ANY OF THE QUESTIONS.UM, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE THE EASIEST, AND I KNOW I'M JUMPING AHEAD, BUT IF WE COULD GO TO, UM, THE SURVEY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE BEST VISUAL, MORE SO THAN THE PICTURES I TOOK.
SO IF WE LOOK AT, UM, AND IT'S JUST AFTER THE APPLICATION ENDS AND IT LOOKS SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
SO IT'S BEFORE THE PHOTOS AND JUST AT THE VERY END OF THE APPLICATION PACKET.
SO THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO POINT THIS OUT, I THOUGHT IT WAS EASIER.
YOU COULD SEE WHERE THE SHED IS LOCATED ON THE PROPERTY.
THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO BRING THIS UP IS THAT WE HAVE A, AN A VERY UNUSUAL, UM, PROPERTY SHAPE.
SO YOU COULD SEE THAT THERE'S LOTS OF SORT OF INDENTATIONS, BUT AS IT PERTAINS TO THE SHED, IF YOU SEE WHERE THE SHED IS, WHERE I ASTERISKED IT ON THE, ON THE SHED CORNER, UM, WE ACTUALLY PUT THIS SHED UP 20 YEARS AGO.
UM, WE ONLY JUST REALIZED RECENTLY THAT THE ONE CORNER WAS IN VIOLATION.
AND SO THAT WAS ADMITTEDLY OUR OVERSIGHT.
UM, WE THOUGHT THAT THE PROPERTY LINE, THE FENCE LINE, AND WHEN WE ANGLED IT, WHICH I'LL EXPLAIN IN A MINUTE, WE DIDN'T REALIZE THAT THAT ONE CORNER, UM, AND WE ONLY JUST RECENTLY DISCOVERED THIS, BUT IF YOU THINK BACK 20 YEARS, UM, WHERE YOU SEE THE SHED CORNER AND WHERE THE DECK ENDS, THAT WAS ALL WOODED AREA.
SO 20 YEARS AGO WHEN WE MADE THE DECISION ON WHERE TO PLACE THE SHED, WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT IS THAT ONE CORNER AT THE BOTTOM OF, UM, OF THE DECK.
UM, A COUPLE OTHER THINGS THAT MAKE OUR PROPERTY UNIQUE, UM, IN OUR AREA IS THAT, UM, THE HOUSE IS BUILT ON BEDROCK.
SO THE BACKYARD IS PRETTY MUCH A LOT OF ROCK.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, WE DON'T HAVE A BASEMENT, WHICH IS WHY THE SHED MATTERED SO MUCH.
I ONLY POINT THAT OUT HERE, IS THAT WHERE THE SHED IS? THAT'S ALL ROCK UNDERNEATH IT.
SO PART OF, IF YOU CAN IMAGINE WHEN WE MADE THE DECISION 20 YEARS AGO, PART OF IT WAS IT WAS WOODED RIGHT UP TO THE BACK AND WE WERE DEALING WITH THE FACT THAT WE DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THAT SORT OF SMALL CORNER AND WE WERE ALSO TRYING TO LEVEL IT ON A PRETTY MUCH A, A ROCK FOUNDATION.
SO IF THAT'S HELPFUL, I JUST WANTED TO SHARE THAT.
I DO HAVE SOME PICTURES, UM, OF WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, BUT THOSE ARE THE, THE THINGS THAT I REALLY JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT.
UM, AND THEN I CAN REALLY JUST, IF, IF, IF THIS IS THE BEST USE OF YOUR TIME, I THOUGHT I WOULD JUST ANSWER YOUR THREE QUESTIONS.
UM, WELL ANSWER THE APPLICATION QUESTIONS AND THEN ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
UM, AS IT RELATES TO THINGS LIKE, UM, HOW DOES IT AFFECT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD? SO AS WE DESCRIBED HERE, UM, THE SHED IS NOT VISIBLE TO THE STREET.
UM, IT IS IN, AND ACTUALLY KIRA, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND JUST GOING UP AND PUTTING UP THE NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE, UM, THE NEIGHBORHOOD MAP, UM, IT, UH, IF IT AFFECTS ANYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IT'S OUR IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR RIGHT NEXT TO US.
UM, WE DO HAVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT.
THEY'VE BEEN OUR NEIGHBOR FOR THE ENTIRE 26 YEARS THAT WE'VE LIVED THERE.
SO WE DO, YOU KNOW, HAVE THEIR LETTER, UM, OF SUPPORT, BUT ALSO DESCRIBING THE LOCATION.
SO, UM, ONCE YOU SEE THIS HERE, YOU'LL, YOU'LL SEE THAT, UM, THE AREA WHERE THE, UM, THE SHED SORT OF GOES UP TO, WHICH IS WHAT I WAS DESCRIBING IN THE APPLICATION, IS THAT I GUESS YOU MIGHT DESCRIBE IT AS A CONSTRICTED AREA, BUT IT'S A PIE SHAPE AREA.
SO VERY WOODED, UM, THEY CAN'T SEE OUR SHED FROM THEIR PROPERTY.
UM, BUT ANYWAY, THAT'S WHAT I TRIED TO DESCRIBE THERE, JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHERE THAT ONE CORNER, UM, IS.
BUT I THINK OUR NEIGHBOR DOES A BETTER JOB OF DESCRIBING IT IN THEIR LETTER THAT IS ALSO INCLUDED IN THE PACKET.
UM, SO JUST THE OTHER THING AS FAR AS THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH I DID POINT OUT, IT'S ALSO NOT VISIBLE TO THE STREET.
UM, BACK WHEN WE PUT IT IN, UM, WE PUT IN LANDSCAPING.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF MATURE TREES THAT MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, CREATE THIS NICE VISUAL BARRIER.
UM, THIS MAY BE MORE DETAILED THAN YOU NEED.
UM, AND THEN THE NEXT QUESTION, I THINK I ALREADY DESCRIBED A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT ASKED ABOUT, UM, ANY OTHER METHOD THAT IS FEASIBLE TO PURSUE.
SO IN OTHER WORDS, IS THERE AN ALTERNATIVE TO THE SHED? UM, WE HAVE NO BASEMENT.
UM, SO REALLY THE BASEMENT, THE SHED SORT OF ACTS WHERE WE PUT ALL OF OUR VARIOUS THINGS, SNOWBLOWERS, UM, YOU KNOW, LAWN EQUIPMENT, ALL OF THAT.
UM, YOU MIGHT THINK THAT A GARAGE WOULD BE AN ALTERNATIVE, BUT IT'S A 1920 HOUSE.
SO OUR GARAGE IS VERY SMALL, UM, AND PRETTY OCCUPIED WITH BIKES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
SO I WAS JUST TRYING TO DO THE BEST TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
SO, UM, THESE ARE, I, I'M, I DIDN'T HIRE A PHOTOGRAPHER.
SO THIS IS IN THE EARLIER SPRING, BUT YOU CAN SEE HERE THAT, UM, THAT CORNER THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS NOT IN VIOLATION TO TOWN CODE, BUT IT'S THAT BACK, RIGHT? THAT'S BACK CORNER.
AND YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT ONE.
I'LL SHOW YOU THAT, UH, THIS GIVES YOU A SENSE OF HOW MUCH SPACE THERE IS.
SO YOU COULD SEE MOST OF THE SHED
[01:20:01]
IS, UM, ADHERES TO TOWN CODE.AS I SAID, IT'S JUST ON THAT ANGLE, BUT THIS GIVES YOU A SENSE, IF I'M STANDING AT THE ANGLE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THIS GIVES YOU THE VISUAL, UM, BETWEEN OUR FENCE AND THE SHED, THE BACK OF THE SHED.
AND, AND THAT IS THAT, THAT WAS THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE.
THAT IS ACTUALLY YOUR FENCE, NOT YOUR NEIGHBOR'S FENCE.
AND WE COULD JUST FLIP THROUGH A COUPLE OF THESE.
UM, SO THIS I THINK IS PROBABLY THE ONE THAT GIVES YOU A REALLY GOOD SENSE OF, YOU KNOW, JUST THE CLOSENESS, UM, TO THE SHED.
AND YOU CAN SEE, YOU KNOW, JUST BY NATURE OF ITS APPEARANCE, YOU CAN SEE THE AGE OF THE SHED.
IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT OBVIOUSLY A NEW SHED.
UM, AS I MENTIONED, WE PUT IT IN QUITE SOME TIME AGO, AND I THINK I THREW IN A COUPLE OF OTHER PICTURES BECAUSE, UM, I WENT, UH, WE THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE GOOD TO SHOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE FROM OUR NEIGHBOR'S PERSPECTIVE.
SO WE WENT OVER AND JUST, I JUST TOOK A COUPLE OF PICTURES, UM, FROM THEIR PROPERTY, JUST, UH, THIS, UH, YESTERDAY AND THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE USEFUL.
AND I THINK I HAVE A COUPLE OF THEM PRINTED.
KIRA, I DON'T KNOW IF WE WERE ABLE TO DROP THEM IN.
WHILE SHE'S LOOKING FOR THAT, WHAT WAS IT THAT BROUGHT THIS TO THE ATTENTION OF THE TOWN? SO WHAT WE DECIDED TO DO WAS TO PUT A POOL INTO THE BACKYARD.
UM, SO WHEN, UM, WHEN WE GOT THE PERMIT FOR THE POOL AND THEY WERE DOING THE, THE C THE C, THE C OF O, THAT'S WHEN THEY HAD NOTICED IT.
UM, I WILL SAY TOO, THAT, UM, WHAT IT WAS ON THE AS-BUILT, OH, IT WAS ON THE AS-BUILT.
UM, AND I WILL SAY THAT WE ALSO HAD, UM, FOUR OTHER PERMITS THAT WE PUT IN.
SO WE, WE, WE DIDN'T INTENTIONALLY WE, WE DON'T HAVE A, A HISTORY OF GOING OUTSIDE THE LINE, SO TO SPEAK.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE PUT IN FOUR OTHER PERMITS AND GONE THROUGH THE PROCESS.
THIS WAS JUST, DIDN'T EVEN HONESTLY REALIZE THAT IT WAS, UM, IN VIOLATION.
BUT WHEN WE DID GET THE PERMIT, UM, FOR WHEN WE DID GET THE, THE CFO, THAT'S WHEN THEY, THAT'S WHEN THEY NOTICED IT WHEN THEY CAME THROUGH MM-HMM
AND THEY WENT IN JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WASN'T A POOL HOUSE, AND THEY SORT OF WENT INSIDE AND LOOKED AT IT, UM, JUST TO VERIFY THAT IT'S WHERE WE STORED ALL OF OUR LAWN EQUIPMENT.
WE, COULD YOU BRING BACK THE OTHER, THE PICTURE THAT YOU JUST HAD UP, WHICH SHOWED THERE WAS A LOT OF SCREENING AND TREES.
ARE THOSE TREES ON YOUR PROPERTY OR ARE THEY ON YOUR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY? SO, UM, IT DEPENDS ON WHICH ONE THEY'RE ON.
SO WE, WE PLANTED, UM, BACK WHEN WE PUT THE SHED UP, WE PUT LIKE LAURELS THAT ARE NOW MATURE.
THOSE ARE THE, SO THOSE ARE OUR TREE YOU CAN SEE.
IF ANYBODY'S A GARDENER, THOSE ARE VIBURNUMS THAT WE PUT IN THE LAURELS.
SO THAT'S BETWEEN OUR SHED AND THEIR PROPERTY.
SO WE FILLED IT IN TO CREATE A VISUAL.
BUT THEN THE OTHER PICTURE THAT I SHOWED IS THE AREA, UM, AND I DON'T KNOW, DID WE SHOW THIS ONE UP THERE WHERE IT SHOWS THAT THEY HAVE A VERY NARROW THAT RIGHT.
SO IT'S RIGHT HERE IN THIS CORNER WHERE IT SORT OF ALL COMES TOGETHER.
IT'S LIKE A LITTLE TINY CORNER.
IT APPEARS BIGGER THAN IT THAN IT IS, BUT THE OTHER PICTURES SHOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF VERY BIG MATURE TREES RIGHT BEHIND OUR SHED, BUT THEY'RE ON THEIR PROPERTY.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF VISUAL BARRIER.
LIKE IF I, IF I STOOD ON THEIR BACK DECK, THEY, YOU CAN'T SEE THE SHED THAT THE AREA THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
SO THIS IS ME IN THEIR BACKYARD WITH THEIR PERMISSION, BY THE WAY,
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT I AM, I TRIED TO PUT A PIC, THAT'S WHERE THE SHED IS ON THE OTHER SIDE.
SO IT'S, IT'S NOT REALLY VISIBLE FROM, FROM THEIR PROPERTY OR THEIR DECK, BUT YET ALL OF THAT, TO ANSWER THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION, WHAT YOU'RE SEEING FROM THIS ANGLE IS ALL FROM SEE THAT BIG MATURE TREE AND ALL OF THIS, THIS IS FROM THEIR BACKYARD.
SO THERE'S A LOT OF WOODED AREA BETWEEN BOTH OF US.
I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO SHOW PICTURES FROM BOTH SIDES.
AND, AND THEN I THINK, I THINK THOSE WERE PROBABLY THE MOST RELEVANT PICTURES.
I HAVE OTHER PICTURES IF YOU'D LIKE.
I DID MENTION, UM, THE LETTER THAT'S IN THERE FROM THE NEIGHBORS DESCRIBING THE PROPERTY.
SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE MY PERSPECTIVES OR THE PI UM, OR THE PICTURES PERSPECTIVE.
UM, THERE'S A LETTER IN THERE FROM OUR NEIGHBOR, UM, AND SHE DESCRIBES THE AREA AS WELL.
AND WHAT ELSE CAN I SHARE WITH YOU? I BELIEVE, I BELIEVE THAT PRETTY MUCH SPEAKS TO THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAD ASKED US.
I MEAN, I'LL ANSWER ANYTHING ELSE.
UM, THERE'S NO PHYSICAL OR ENVI, YOU KNOW, ALL THE IMPACT QUESTIONS.
I THINK I, I SPOKE TO EVERYTHING THAT WAS IN THE APPLICATION, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT'S A LOT, SO I'LL JUST ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS
[01:25:01]
THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.I LEARNED A LOT TONIGHT, BY THE WAY,
SHOULD WE STAY OR IT'S UP TO YOU.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO, I WASN'T SURE IF WE NEEDED TO.
I'M A FIRST TIMER, SO I'M SORRY.
YOU CAN GO HOME AND WATCH ON TELEVISION.
ALEX AND YESENIA MARTINEZ, ONE 20 WOOD AVENUE LEY.
I'M WITH STEVEN SEEKING ARCHITECTS.
COULD YOU PICK UP A LITTLE BIT? YES, YES.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S EASIER FOR ME TO LOG INTO THE ZOOM I'M HEARING.
SO I'M HERE TODAY TO TALK ABOUT THE MARTINEZ, UH, MARTINEZ RESIDENCE.
AND ULTIMATELY, I'M SORRY, SIR.
YOU GONNA HAVE TO REALLY GET ALL RIGHT.
CLOSE TO, CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW? OH, YES, THERE YOU GO.
I'M HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE, UM, THE MARTINEZ RESIDENCE, WHICH IS ULTIMATELY, UM, IF I'M TO OPEN UP THE DRAWINGS.
UM, WE ARE ASKING FOR VARIANCE, UH, FOR REAR YARD SETBACK, UH, THE HOUSE CURRENTLY.
UM, I FIGURED THE BEST WAY IS TO KIND OF INTRODUCE YOU TO THE HOUSE ITSELF.
UM, AND HERE'S SOME PHOTOS OF THE REAR YARD THAT'S CURRENTLY EXISTING.
UM, THE NEXT PHOTO, UM, THIS IS FACING THE REAR YARD FROM THE HOUSE.
AND, UH, THIS WOULD BE THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR.
UM, AND ULTIMATELY, UH, IF I WAS TO GO INTO THE, TO SHOW THE SITE PLAN, UM, THIS WOULD BE WOOD AVENUE IS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, UH, JUST FOR ORIENTATION PURPOSES.
UM, AND THE REAR YARD IS, UH, BACK HERE.
UM, AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS TO EXTEND THE, UH, EXISTING REAR YARD OPEN, UH, PORCH, UH, AND ADD ON A DECK, UM, FOR SOME LEVEL OF OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE.
AND CURRENTLY, UH, YOU'LL SEE THE SETBACK LINE, THE REAR SETBACK, WHICH THE HOUSE IS NON-CONFORMING, IS RESIDING RIGHT WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDING, UM, MAKING IT VERY DIFFICULT TO DO ANYTHING, UH, WITHIN THE REAR YARD.
UH, SO THE EXISTING, UH, I WAS TO GET INTO IT, NOPE, THE EXISTING, UH, THIS WOULD BE THE EXISTING PATIO THAT'S THERE NOW.
IT'S ROUGHLY, UH, AN OPEN ROOF PATIO.
UH, THAT'S ABOUT 20 FEET BY 10 FOOT FOUR.
UM, AND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS ULTIMATELY EXTEND UPON THAT, UH, EXISTING PATIO, MAINTAINING THE SAME HEIGHT THAT'S THERE, UH, AND CREATE ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO THE REAR YARD, WHICH CURRENTLY DOESN'T REALLY EXIST, UM, TO ULTIMATELY ALLOW FOR A DECK, UM, UM, FOR SOME LEVEL OF OUTDOOR LIVING, UM, TO KIND OF SHOW SOME ELEVATIONS OF IT.
[01:30:01]
THIS IS THE AREA THAT'S BEING AFFECTED, WHICH IS, UH, WHERE THE EXISTING PATIO IS.AND THERE'S A, THERE'S A RAILING SYSTEM THERE NOW.
AND THEN ULTIMATELY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO PROPOSE, THIS WOULD BE THE DECK, UM, THAT CONTINUES THAT EXISTING PLATFORM OF THE PATIO AND ALLOWS, UH, SOME STAIRS TO ACCESS THE REAR YARD.
AND THIS WOULD BE A SIDE VIEW OF THAT.
UM, AGAIN, UM, THIS IS THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE.
THIS IS THE BACK OF THE HOUSE.
AND, UH, FROM THIS, FROM THE UH, NORTHWEST SIDE, YOU'RE ULTIMATELY SEEING THE STEPS COMING ONTO THE DECK.
AND IT GIVES SOME LEVEL OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF IT.
IT'S ULTIMATELY A PRESSURE TREATED DECK.
UH, WE'RE GONNA SHOW, UH, THIS SECTION IS KIND OF SELF-EXPLANATORY, BUT THE PATIO IS EXISTING AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO KEEP IT AT THE SAME LEVEL, UM, AND MAINTAIN A, YOU KNOW, LEGAL RAIL SYSTEM AROUND IT AND, UM, SOME AND BUILD OFF OF THE EXISTING PATIO.
UM, AGAIN, UH, THE, THIS IS A VIEW LOOKING OUT FROM THE EX.
THIS IS THE VIEW LOOKING OUT OFF OF THE EXISTING PATIO STRAIGHT ON.
UM, AND THIS WOULD BE THE VIEW AS IF I'M STANDING ON THAT DECK AND I'M LOOKING, UH, TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR.
AND, UM, ANOTHER SHOT OF THAT.
AND THIS IS, UH, LOOKING AT THE EXISTING SHED ON THE PROPERTY AS IF I'M WALKING DOWN THE, UH, STAIRS OF THE DECK.
AND THIS IS LOOKING BACK AS IF I'M LOOKING STRAIGHT ONTO THE FUTURE DECK.
AND WE ALSO SUBMITTED LETTERS FROM THE NEIGHBORS, WHICH ARE ALL IN SUPPORT TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE.
WHAT'S THE OVERALL, UH, SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE DECK AS PER AS PROPOSED? UM, THE DECK IS 20 BY, THE ADDITION OF THE DECK WOULD BE 20 BY 10.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WANTED TO ADDRESS THIS CASE? I GUESS YOU WERE JUST TAKING ADVANTAGE OF OUR LOVELY
WHAT THIS SPEC THIS WE, WE, WE, WE HAVE COOLNESS HERE,
SO I HAVE A, JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
IN YOUR, IN YOUR DOCUMENTS, YOU SAID YOU HAD EXPLORED OTHER ALTERNATIVES, UM, BUT THEY WERE TOO LARGE OR, YEAH.
COULD YOU JUST SAY WHAT OTHER ALTERNATIVES YOU EXPLORED? WELL, WE WERE THINKING ABOUT, UH, BRANCHING FURTHER TOWARDS, UH, THE NORTHWEST.
UM, BUT IT WOULD, IT WOULD JUST INCR LIKE THE WINDOWS, THE WAY THEY SITUATED THE HOUSE AND THE VIEWS, YOU WOULD LOSE SOME DAYLIGHT.
THEN WE'VE, YOU KNOW, WE TRIED TO MAINTAIN SO LONGER ALONG THE BACK.
AND THEN WE TRIED, YOU KNOW, TO MAINTAIN A CERTAIN LEVEL OF PROPORTION.
YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO STAY WITHIN THE PROPORTION OF THE HOME, UM, AND KEEP IT, UH, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS PART OF THE EXISTING HOUSE, BUT YET IT'S STILL FUNCTIONAL AS AN OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE.
SO THEY CAN STILL PUT A TABLE AND SOME CHAIRS AND STILL, UM, HAVE SOME LEVEL OF OUTDOOR LIVING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS? THE, THE SPECIFIC NEIGHBOR THAT THIS BACKS UP ON IS ONE OF THE LETTERS THAT YES, CONCLUDE.
WE DO HAVE A LETTER FROM THEM.
UM, ASSUMING YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE PICTURE, I WAS SHOWING THOSE, UH, ACROSS THE WAY.
UM, SO THIS WOULD BE, UH, THE NEIGHBORS, UH, I TOOK A GOOGLE SHOT JUST TO MAKE IT EASIER TO SEE.
[01:35:01]
IS THE HOUSE, UM, THAT'S THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE ONE WITH THE RED ROOF.THIS IS OUR, UH, CURRENT RESIDENT.
AND THIS WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, THE DECK WOULD BE IN THIS CORNER HERE.
UH, WE DO HAVE LETTERS FROM 1 10, 1 30, AND, UH, I BELIEVE THIS WAS, UH, I FORGOT THE NUMBER, BUT WE DO HAVE A LETTER FROM THEM.
AND THAT WOULD BE NUMBER THREE, POPULAR STREET.
AND THIS WOULD BE THE LETTER FROM THE NEIGHBOR.
THE NEXT CASE WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS CASE 25 16.
MARIO CHEN, 35 TERRACE STREET, WHITE PLAINS 1 0 6 0 7.
UM, WE RECEIVED AT 35 T STREET AND I'M HERE.
I APPLIED FOR THE SEAL AND THERE WAS, UH, ISSUES ON THE, UM, SURVEY AND, AND THE BASEMENT.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T, I HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING ON THE BASEMENT.
THE, ALL THE FOUNDATION WAS EXISTING AND, UM, AND FROM THE, UH, MY NEIGHBOR'S FENCE TO MY HOUSE IS, IS ON ONE SIDE IS ABOUT FOUR THREE, AND THE OTHER SIDE IS LIKE FIVE NINE.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW LIKE, WHAT'S THE NEXT, NEXT STEP TO, TO GET MY SEAL.
SO MAYBE YOU COULD SHARE A LITTLE MORE.
UH, I, I SEE THAT YOU WERE GIVEN A VARIANCE BACK IN 2015, BUT THEN I GUESS YOU BUILT AND BUILT TOO CLOSE TO THOSE LINES.
DID YOU DO A SURVEY BEFORE OR NO? NO, I DIDN'T BUILD THAT.
I DIDN'T DO ANYTHING ON THE, YOU KNOW, ON THE BASEMENT.
I HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING ON THE BASEMENT, SO I JUST BUILD THE SECOND FLOOR.
BEFORE IT WAS LIKE A SEVEN, 700 SQUARE FEET.
NOW IS, I THINK IT'S LIKE A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET.
ONLY I CAN PROBABLY THE FLOOR SOME CLARITY ON THAT FLOOR.
UM, SO IN 2015, UM, THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD INCORRECTLY LISTED THE REAR YARD AND THE SIDE YARD.
SO, AND THE, THE SURVEY WAS NOT PRESENTED.
THERE WAS ONLY A SITE PLAN THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION.
UM, WHEN THE HOUSE WAS REBUILT AFTER FIRE DAMAGE, I BELIEVE IT WAS, UM, THE, THE HOUSE HAD TO BE 75% OR MORE RECONSTRUCTED IN 2015.
SO WHEN WE GOT THE APPLICATION FOR A CO, IT CAME TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S ATTENTION THAT THE ORIGINAL VARIANCE THAT WAS GRANTED IN 2015 WAS INCORRECT AND THAT THE NEW SURVEY PROVIDED THE CORRECT DIMENSIONS, UM, THAT WERE NOT PROVIDED IN 2015.
BECAUSE I WAS TRYING TO READ THROUGH THIS WHOLE PACKET TO FIND OUT WHY THE VARIANCE THAT WE HAD APPROVED IN 2015, AND THIS IS ALMOST 10 YEARS LATER, IS NOW NO GOOD, RIGHT? BECAUSE IN 2015, THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD PROVIDED THE WRONG DIMENSIONS ON THEIR SITE PLAN IN AND IN THE APPLICATION.
THAT'S A LOT OF PAPER FOR SOMETHING THAT'S SIMPLE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO, THAT WAS IT.
UM, JOE, YOU ALWAYS SEEM TO HAVE A QUESTION.
ACTUALLY, YOU DID HAVE QUESTIONS WHEN WE WERE BACK.
AND CAN, CAN YOU SHARE THIS WITH THE AUDIENCE, GENTLEMEN?
[01:40:02]
NO, I'M DONE.ALRIGHT, SO I GUESS WE CAN TAKE A VERY SHORT, UH, INTERMISSION BEFORE WE DO OUR DELIBERATIONS.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, SHOULD WE GET STARTED? YEAH, WE'LL TRY.
WE ALL HAVE TO TURN OUR MICS IN.
ARE WE WAITING FOR HER? SHAUNA? I'M HERE.
ANYONE NOT OKAY WITH IT? NOW THAT THE PRELIMINARY IS OUTTA THE WAY? OKAY, SAY THAT AGAIN.
NOW THAT THE PRELIMINARY IS ON THE WAY.
OH, WE COULD GIVE ALL OF YOU, YOU REVELLED.
I WAS TRYING TO GIVE ALL OF YOU A BEAUTIFUL VIEW OF LAKE ERIE EARLIER, BUT IT DIDN'T WORK.
OH, IT LOOKED LIKE YOU WERE IN A VERY NICE PLACE.
WELL, COULD, CAN YOU SEE ME? I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, OKAY.
I CAN, THAT'S LAKE ERIE RIGHT BEHIND ME.
UH, I'M, I'M HAVING TROUBLE, I'M HAVING TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES DOING THIS ON MY OWN TO BE QUITE HONEST.
I'M GONNA SHOW YOU LIKE HERE GUYS.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA WORK.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK SHE CAN.
IS IT HURRICANE GOING OR
WHERE ARE YOU? WHERE ARE YOU? LAKE IN PENNSYLVANIA.
WHAT LAKE AREA ARE YOU WITH? BECAUSE IT'S COLD IN DARK HERE.
WAIT, ON THE INSIDE IT IS COLD.
HOW IS IT STILL DAYLIGHT THAT IT'S STILL EIGHT? I GUESS IT'S AN HOUR BEHIND.
SO THIS IS WHY I AM NOT WITH YOU.
BUT WHAT TIME IS IT THERE? THEY'RE ON THE, IT IS THE SAME TIME.
WHY IS IT DAYLIGHT? 'CAUSE THEY'RE ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF OUR TIME ZONE, RIGHT? YEAH, BUT STILL IT'S NOT THAT FAR AWAY.
THERE ARE THEY? IT'S SEVEN HOURS AWAY.
THEY'RE THEY'RE SUNSET LIKE ERIE IN PENNSYLVANIA.
DO YOU KNOW HOW MUCH SHAUNA IS PAYING FOR THAT ADDITIONAL DAYLIGHT? I DON'T KNOW.
I MEAN, IT'S NOT ALL THAT MUCH.
IT'S NOT MUCH NORTH OF US EITHER.
BUT THEN, SO, OKAY, THANK YOU FOR SHARING.
NOW I GOTTA TRY TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO GET IT BACK, BUT CHOW ALL, ALL RIGHT.
WOW, YOU'RE STICK FIGURING IT OUT.
SOMEBODY SAY SOMETHING ABOUT MR. CHO, THIS ISHOW.
YEAH, BASICALLY WHAT'S INTERESTING IS THERE IS NO PLAN AND AS THEIR LAWYER SAYS, THIS IS PURPOSES FOR MARKETING SO HE CAN SELL THIS.
SO WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE VARIANCES REALLY ARE OR WHAT WILL BE BUILT OR WHAT WON'T BE BUILT.
YEAH, WE KNOW WHAT THE VARIANCES ARE.
THE VARI WE KNOW VARIANCE, BUT WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE NEEDED.
WELL, NO, WE DO OTHER, WHAT WE DO KNOW THAT THEY'RE NEEDED FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND NOT TO HAVE A STREET VERSUS A DRIVEWAY.
AND WE DID CONFIRM, LIZ DID CONFIRM THAT THEY DON'T NEED THE ADDITIONAL VARIANCES
[01:45:01]
THAT, UM, MR. FEINSTEIN BROUGHT UP.RIGHT? SO, BUT IT'S INTERESTING, IF WE REMEMBER LAST TIME THEY SAID THEY HAD A BUYER.
THE REASON THEY MADE IT FROM THREE TO ONE WAS 'CAUSE THEY HAD A BUYER AND THEN THAT BUYER AT THE LAST MINUTE BACKED OUT.
AND SO NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO GET A DIFFERENT BUYER.
I THINK THIS, THIS ALL JUST SOUNDS VERY AMORPHOUS AND IT IS LIKE THEY'RE TRYING TO DEVELOP A WHOLE NEW SUBDIVISION PLAN FROM THE SUBDIVISION PLAN.
THAT WAS, I IT IS LIKE WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE SOMETHING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN.
AND IT IS JUST A MARKETING TOOL, AS HE SAID.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT'S A MARKETING TOOL.
THIS WASN'T THE IDEA OF THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THIS IS AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING BOARD SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD A CITY STREET.
SO THERE'S LESS DISRUPTION TO THE AREA.
SO I, I WOULD DISAGREE THAT THIS IS FOR MARKETING.
IF, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD REQUESTED THIS OF THE PLANNING BOARD, I COULD SAY MAYBE, BUT THIS IS, WAS THIS WAS THE TOWN ASKED THIS, THIS, THIS MAKES, UH, LESS DISRUPTION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND QUITE FRANKLY, WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A CITY STREET THERE.
IT AND THE COST OF A CITY STREET IN THE TOWN, IT'S A DRIVEWAY.
SO THE COST IS TO THE PROPERTY AND THE HOMEOWNERS.
IT'S NOT QUITE A CITY STREET, BUT, WELL, YOU TOWN STREET, THE POINT IS A TOWN STREET MADE, I I, IF EVEN IF THEY BUILD IT TO TOWN SPEC, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT BECOMES A TOWN STREET.
YEAH, IT WOULD, IT WOULD BE A, IT WOULD HAVE A NAME AND EVERYTHING, RIGHT? YEAH.
SO IF IT, IF IT IS GOING TO BE A PUBLIC ROADWAY, IT HAS TO BE, UH, CONSTRUCTED TO TOWN STANDARDS AND WOULD HAVE TO BE DEDICATED TO THE TOWN.
BUT IF IT IS OFFERED FOR DEDICATION, BUT IF IT'S THE DRIVEWAY FOR THE TWO HOUSES, THE, THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, THAT'S THE, UM, THE FIRE ACCESS WAY, RIGHT? THE, THE, THE, THE WHAT'S REQUIRED BY LAW ISN'T A TOWN ROAD, IT'S TO TOWN SPECS.
I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD BECOME A TOWN ROAD JUST BECAUSE IT'S BEEN BILLED TO TOWN SPECIFICATIONS.
NO, IT WOULD, NO, THEY, THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED, UM, TO BUILD IT TO TOWN SPECIFICATIONS, UH, WITH THE CUL-DE-SAC.
AND RIGHT NOW THEY'RE MEETING THE FIRE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO HOMES.
UM, WITH THE ACCESS ROAD WITH THE Y IF THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD IT WITH THE, THE BULB, UM, THAT WOULD BE HAVE TO BE TO TOWN STANDARD SO THAT DPW UM, CAN DO GARBAGE REMO, UH, PICKUP AS WELL AS UM, PLOWING AND IN, IN THIS ITERATION OF THE SUBDIVISION, IT IS A PRIVATE DRIVE THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE TWO OWNERS.
BUT WAIT, AND IT, AND IF IT STAYS AS IT IS NOW ONE FLAG LOT, IF NOTHING, THERE ARE NO VARIANCES REQUIRED OR NOTHING, THE DRIVEWAY JUST GETS BUILT.
IF THE SUBDIVISION IS NOT APPROVED AND IT STAYS AS ONE LOT, THEN CORRECT, THERE WOULD BE NO VARIANCES REQUIRED.
UM, I DON'T HAVE A PLAN BEFORE ME, BUT I WOULD ASSUME THAT THEY COULD DO IT WITHOUT VARIANCES.
BUT THEY WOULD BE LIMITED TO ONE LOT.
THEY WOULD BE LIMITED TO ONE HOUSE AND ONE LOT.
UM, THE APPLICATION THAT'S BEFORE THE BOARD IS A, A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION.
ONE LOT IS BEING USED AS THE ACCESS AND TWO ARE BEING DEVELOPED.
SO TO THAT EXTENT, SEAN IS CORRECT THAT IT'S THE, THE A THE APPLICANT, THE PROPERTY OWNER THAT CAME TO THE PLANNING BOARD, THE PLANNING BOARD DIDN'T IMPOSE JUST COME IN ONE DAY AND DECIDE THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT THIS AND THEY WANTED TO IMPOSE THIS ON THE NO, NO, NO.
BUT THEY CAME IN WITH AND WITH THEY WANTED SELL TO US.
JUST BUT THEY CAME IN WITH THE IDEA OF IT BEING TO TOWN STANDARDS.
AND THEN IT WAS THE PLANNING BOARD WHO SAID WHICH THEY WOULDN'T NEED CORRECT VARIANCES FOR IT.
AND WE ARE NOT, IT'S UP TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO SAY IF THERE ARE, IF THERE'S A SUBDIVISION OR NOT.
THAT'S REALLY NOT IN OUR, WE DON'T, IT'S NOT FOR US TO SAY, BUT WE'RE BEING ASKED.
WE'RE GETTING, WE'RE GETTING CONFUSED HERE.
IT'S NOT UP TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO DECIDE WHETHER THERE'S GOING TO BE TWO SUBDIVISIONS.
[01:50:01]
WHO'S TRYING TO DO THAT.YOU'RE USING THE, THE PRONOUN THEY UM, INTERCHANGEABLY.
SO THE APPLICANT IS ONE PERSON, MR. CHOW AND THEN THE ZONING, THE PLANNING BOARD.
THE PLANNING BOARD IS THE THEY.
SO THE APPLICANT IS THE ONE THAT WANTS TO UH, TURN ONE LOT INTO TWO AND SELL IT AS TWO.
HE'S NOT THE ONE WHO'S GOING TO BE BUILDING ANY STRUCTURES ON THOSE LOTS.
SO TO ANSWER UM, SHAUNA'S COMMENT, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT ON THERE NOR DO WE CARE OR BY WHOM OR OR BY WHOM.
WHICH OBVIOUSLY IT WAS STATED THAT IT'S UM, NOT BY MR. CHOW.
EITHER HE WANTS TO SELL IT TO SOMEBODY WHO'S GOING TO BUILD ON THOSE TWO SEPARATE PIECES OF PROPERTY OR WHAT WE, THEY HOPE WILL BECOME TWO SEPARATE PIECES OF PROPERTY.
THE REQUEST IS FOR THREE SEPARATE PIECES OF PROPERTY.
ONE IS ACCESS, ONE IS NOT BUILDABLE.
AND SO MY, YEAH, WHAT'S WHAT'S CONFUSING HERE IS THEY'RE PULLING OUT THIS THIRD PIECE OF PROPERTY WHEN RIGHT NOW IT IS ALL ONE.
THE ONLY THING, THE ONLY THING THE ZONING BOARD HAS IN FRONT OF IT IS ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
BECAUSE THE SUBDIVISION HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED, IT HASN'T EVEN BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE FULL BOARD OF PLANNING BOARD.
BUT THE VARIANCES THAT ARE BEING REQUESTED ARE BEING REQUESTED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE.
THAT'S GOING BACK TO THE PROBLEM OF THE CHICKEN OR THE EGG, WHICH CAUSED IT COULD, IT HASN'T GONE BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THIS HASN'T NOT GOTTEN OUT OF WORKING MEETINGS.
IT HAS GONE, IT HAS GONE BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD.
THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ALREADY HAS ISSUED A DETERMINATION TO BECOME LEAD AGENCY, WHICH WAS NOT OPPOSED, THEREFORE THEY BECAME LEAD AGENCY, THEN THEY RENDERED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THIS BOARD TO GRANT THE VARIANCES.
SO IT'S BEEN EXTENSIVELY BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD.
THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION IS OF WHAT? SEEKER.
BUT WHAT WAS STUDIED, THEY SEEMED, THERE SEEMED TO BE FROM THE NEIGHBORS A QUESTION THAT WHATEVER SECRET WAS DONE WAS NOT DONE ON A PLAN THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED.
UM, AND THAT WASN'T BY THE NEIGHBORS.
THAT WAS BY THEIR ATTORNEY IN AN ATTEMPT TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE.
BASICALLY SAYING THAT REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE, THE ZONING BOARD DOES, IT STILL HAS TO GO IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD AS IF IT WERE GOING IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE FIRST TIME.
HE DIDN'T EXACTLY SAY THAT BECAUSE IF YOU GRANT THE VARIANCES THEN HE SAID THIS DOES NOT GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SEEKER.
FOR SEEKER BECAUSE, SO THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING WAS SE QL REVIEW JUST FOR THESE VARIANCES SE OF THE PART OF THE, OF THE ROAD SEEKER WAS REVIEWED, UM, AND CONCLUDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD ON THIS THREE LOT SUBDIVISION THAT THE, THE ZONING BOARD HAS BEFORE THEM.
WHAT THE OPPONENT'S ATTORNEY WAS SUGGESTING IS THAT IF THE ZONING BOARD DENIED THIS, THESE VARIANCES AND THEY PROCEEDED WITH AN APPLICATION FOR A COMPLIANT SUBDIVISION, A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH AN A FULLY CONSTRUCTED ROADWAY, THAT SEEKER WOULD HAVE TO BE REEVALUATED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
UM, BUT IN THIS INSTANCE, THE APPLICATION THAT'S BEFORE THE, THE BOARD TONIGHT HAS ALREADY BEEN REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND SEEKER HAS BEEN GIVEN A NEGATIVE DETERMINATION, A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, WHICH IF I AM CORRECTING THAT MR. FEINSTEIN WAS SAYING THAT THAT'S NOT THE CASE.
NO, HE WAS SAYING THAT NO, HE AGREED, HE AGREED, HE AGREED THAT IT WAS GIVEN A NECK DECK AT THE PLANNING BOARD.
UH, THAT, BUT HE WAS SAYING THAT IF THE ZONING BOARD DENIED THIS APPLICATION AND THEY HAD TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD, SEEKER WOULD HAVE TO BE REEVALUATED.
AND AT THAT TIME HE WOULD RAISE THOSE ARGUMENTS TO THE PLANNING BOARD THAT THE IMPACT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ROAD WOULD ELIMINATE THE UM, GRANTING OF THE SUBDIVISION.
I THINK HE WAS SAYING IT WAS MORE THAN THAT.
I THINK, I THINK HIS COMMENT, AND MAYBE
[01:55:01]
I MISUNDERSTOOD IT, WAS THAT THE C WAS NOT DONE ON A FULL PLAN.'CAUSE THERE ISN'T A FULL PLAN.
BUT THAT THE SECRET WOULD HAVE IF WE TURNED DOWN THE VARIANCES ON THE ROAD, IT'S ALL BEING CHOPPED UP INTO DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, WAYS TO LOOK AT IT.
IF WE TURN, IF WE TURN DOWN THE VARIANCES, A WHOLE NEW SECRET HAS TO BE DONE.
BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE ON EVERYTHING.
AND IT WAS THE IMPRESSION I GOT THAT THE SECRET WAS ONLY DONE ON THE VARIANCES FOR THE ROAD NO
THAT'S WHAT THE SEEKER WAS DONE ON.
THE, IF WE DENY THE VARIANCES, THE ATTORNEY'S POINT IS THAT IF THEY WANTED TO STILL SUBDIVIDE THE PROPERTY INTO THE THREE LOTS THEY HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND HAVE THAT PLA PLOT WHATEVER PLAN REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND THAT WOULD START A NEW SEEKER PROCESS BECAUSE IT WOULD BE FOR A FULL ROAD.
WHICH, WHY IN THE HELL WOULD THEY WANT TO DO THAT? BECAUSE THEY FEEL THEY CAN BLOCK THAT, THAT IT WILL NEVER HAPPEN.
THAT THEY'LL NEVER APPROVE A FULL ROAD BECAUSE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF SAID ROAD.
WHETHER THERE ARE ANY OR NOT, I DON'T KNOW THE APPLICANT SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS.
THE APPLICANT ISN'T REQUESTING US TO DO THAT.
THE NEIGHBORS WOULD LIKE US TO DO THAT.
THAT'S WHY I AM, I WAS FEELING THAT THE ATTORNEY FOR THE NEIGHBORS WAS, IS IT CALLED A RED HERRING? IS THAT, IS THAT WHAT IT'S CALLED? YOU KNOW, IT WAS, WELL HE WAS JUST TRYING TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE.
NO, I DON'T, I'M NOT SO SURE HE WAS TRYING TO CONFUSE THE ISSUE AS MUCH AS, OKAY.
I I AS MUCH AS IF YOU, IF IT, IF, IF I STOP IT HERE WITH THIS NARROWER ROAD DRIVEWAY, THEY, HIS HOPE IS WHEN WE GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD, THE PLANNING BOARD WILL NEVER APPROVE A FULL ROAD.
THEY'LL HAVE TOO BIG A IMPACT AND IT WILL JUST STOP THE PROJECT DEAD IN ITS TRACKS.
BUT IT WAS THE PLANNING BOARD BOARD AND THERE WOULD BE NEGOTIATIONS THEN THAT WE DO WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE BOARD.
NOW YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
LAST MONTH WE WERE THE ONES WHO SUGGESTED THAT HE PUT BEFORE US TO PLANS THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO COMPARE THE CODE COMPLIANT OR THE ROAD WITH THIS CUL-DE-SAC VERSUS WHAT HE HAS IN FRONT OF US TONIGHT.
WELL I WOULD IMAGINE THE HOPE IS THAT IF WE DENIED THESE VARIANCES, THEY WOULD GO BACK.
THEY WOULD EITHER GO AWAY AND NOT TRY TO GET THE SUBDIVISION BECAUSE THEY KNOW THE PLANNING BOARD IS NOT GOING TO APPROVE A NEW ROAD THERE.
THAT IS THE HOPE OR IF THE PLANNING BOARD DOES ENTERTAIN A ACTUAL ROAD BUILT TO TOWN CODE, THAT IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A SECRET PROCESS WHICH WOULD BECOME VERY INVOLVED.
AND AND THAT IS A GREAT WAY TO, UH, DELAY ALSO DELAY, DELAY, DELAY.
IT'S GENERALLY FOR THE GREATER GOOD, BUT IT IS DEFINITELY A WAY OF, YOU KNOW.
WHO IS AGAINST WHAT'S IN FRONT OF THE BOARD TONIGHT? ME? HOW MANY OF THEM, HOW MANY OF US ARE THERE IN WORDS? JOANNA SAID SHE'S AGAINST YOU COULD HAVE BOTH.
THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING HOW MANY OF US ARE THERE TONIGHT? THERE ARE FIVE.
I MEAN IS EVERYBODY ELSE FOUR OR GUEST FOUR? SO THERE WILL BE FIVE, FOUR.
OH YOU NEED FOR WELL THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING WHO I, BECAUSE I, I WAS, I'M OKAY WITH THAT.
I'M OKAY FOR THIS LAST MONTH UNTIL THEY SAID THAT THE NEIGHBORS NEVER GOT A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT WAS BEFORE US.
AND I SAID YEAH, WELL THEY SHOULD HAVE ENOUGH TIME.
AND THEN THEY DIDN'T COME BACK WITH ANYTHING THAT WAS SIGNIFICANT AS FAR AS I WAS CONCERNED TO MAKE ME CHANGE MY MIND THAT THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING.
SO SHAUNA SAYS THAT SHE'S AGAINST, WELL I THINK YOU'VE GOT, I THINK YOU'VE GOT THE FIVE OF YOU THERE IN FAVOR OF IT.
WE HAVE THREE ARTICLE FOR A STRAW.
WHY DO YOU HAVE THREE? NO ONE HAS SAID ANYTHING YET, EXCEPT YOU DID SAY FOR YOU AND ME.
I SAID I WAS FOUR SAID SHE WAS FINE AND SHE
[02:00:01]
SAID SHE WAS FOUR.SO YOU ASKED WHO YOU ASKED WHO WERE WHO WERE OPPOSING IT.
SO TO, TO GIVE YOU CHRIS, YOU HEARD WHAT THE OPPOSER WAS.
I DIDN'T HEAR EVERYBODY ELSE TO GIVE YOU MY UNDERSTANDING OF, OF THE SEQUENCE HERE IS THAT THE APPLICANT WENT IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD IN SOME LESS THAN FORMAL WAY.
AND THEY TOGETHER DECIDED THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER FOR EVERYBODY TO PUT WHAT WAS PUT IN FRONT OF US THAN TO ADD TO DO WHAT WAS THEORETICALLY WITHIN THE TOWN CODE WITHOUT SEEING US.
AND SO WHAT WE DIDN'T GET TO RULE ON THE FULL ROAD, WE'RE WE'RE, WE'RE RULING ON THE FIRE ACCESS ROAD.
THEN THE UH, UH, NEIGHBOR'S ATTORNEY SAID THE FIRE ACCESS ROAD MAKES IT FLAG LOTS.
IT'S NO LONGER A, UM, A BUILDABLE LOCATION.
UH, AND BUT WE'RE SAYING IT'S, IT IS A BUILDABLE LOCATION 'CAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD JUST A FIRE ACCESS ROAD.
YOU CAN BUILD A REAL ROAD THAT NOBODY WANTS AND THEY'RE BANKING ON AS OPPOSED TO TRYING TO HAVE SOME NEGOTIATIONS WITHIN WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND THE OWNER, WHICH I WAS HOPING WOULD HAPPEN OVER THE LAST MONTH.
THE NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING LET'S PUSH THAT THIS COMPROMISE THAT WAS BASICALLY DEVELOPED IN THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, WORKING SESSIONS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED BECAUSE IT IS ON ITS FACE ILLEGAL.
AND INSTEAD WE SHOULD NOT APPROVE CHANGES TO AN ILLEGAL SOLUTION.
I I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT ON ONE THING.
WHEN YOU SAID IN THE VERY BEGINNING OF YOU THAT THE APPLICANT WAS IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD IN A LESS THAN FORMAL WAY, UM, HOW WERE THEY IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD? THEY WENT THROUGH VARIOUS SESSIONS.
WERE NOT, THEY WENT THROUGH A WORK SESSION.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO CLARIFY.
THE WORKING SESSIONS ARE NOT PUBLIC HEARINGS.
THEY SIT IN BUT THEY DON'T, THEY'RE NOTICED.
WELL IN THIS CASE IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT THEY WERE NOTIFIED FOR THREE SESSIONS.
IT'S, I'M SURE THAT THE, I HIGHLY DOUBT REQUIREMENTS FOR PUBLIC NOTIFICATION OR FOLLOWED WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE
IE BUT I'M SURE THAT THE PROCESS WAS FOLLOWED ANYWAY, WHAT'S REQUIRED BY TIME YOU WERE MAKING VERY GOOD POINTS.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU WANTED I WASN'T TRYING TO MAKE POINTS.
I WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY, CLARIFY MY OWN MIND HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT.
AND SO WE ARE, WE NOW HAVE IN FRONT OF US A COMPROMISE THAT IF, IF THE APPLICANT HAD GONE TO THE PLANNING BOARD INITIALLY WITH THAT COMPROMISE, THEY MAY HAVE BEEN TOLD, OH YOU HAVE A FLAG LOT.
BUT INSTEAD THEY, THEY HAVE GONE AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY WENT WITH INITIALLY, BUT THEY WENT WITH, HEY, WE CAN BUILD THIS NEW ROAD AND WE DO QUALIFY.
AND THE PLANNING BOARD SAID, WELL THE NEW ROAD IS OVERKILL, WE DON'T NEED THAT.
THE PLANNING BOARD HAS TOLD US THEY LIKE THIS IDEA.
WE'VE BEEN TOLD BY THE TOWN THAT THIS IS A GOOD COMPROMISE.
AND THE NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING, LET'S STICK TO THE WHAT IS CAN BE BUILT ACCORDING TO THE CODE THAT NOBODY REALLY WANTS, IN HOPES THAT IT TORPEDOES EVERYTHING.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE COME ON THAT BECAUSE UM, IT'S, IT SEEMS THAT WE'RE REALLY NOT BEING ASKED TO, TO DISCUSS WHAT'S IN FRONT OF US.
WE'RE BEING ASKED TO, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO WEIGH IN ON THE ENTIRE PROCESS.
SO YOU KNOW WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 20 FEET AND 26 FEET IS IN WIDTH.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE TWO PLANS YEAH.
THE 20 FEET DOESN'T AWAY WITH ENORMOUS CULDESAC VERSUS, VERSUS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, UH, REQUIREMENT IS SIX FEET.
SO WHEN THEY'RE SAYING ABOUT, WELL HERE'S, YOU KNOW, A CODE COMPLIANT ROAD THAT'S 26 FEET WIDE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 26 AND 20 IS LIKE THREE FEET ON EACH SIDE.
BUT IT'S THE CUL-DE-SAC UP IN THE I I I UNDERSTAND THAT.
BUT THEY'RE SAYING WELL WHETHER BUILDING THAT ROAD
[02:05:01]
IS GOING TO TORPEDO ACCESS TO THE TWO LOTS, UM, I I DON'T REALLY THINK THAT.NO, THEY'RE NOT SAYING THAT THE ROAD WILL TORPEDO ACCESS TO THE TWO LOTS.
THEY'RE HOPING THAT THE ROAD WILL BE SO ONEROUS THAT NOBODY WILL SUPPORT IT.
AND OBVIOUSLY THE ROAD WAS NOT THE BEST IDEA.
'CAUSE THE PLANNING BOARD SAID, HEY ZONING BOARD, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THIS.
CAN YOU GIVE US WHAT WE WANT TO DO? RIGHT.
SO DON'T YOU THINK 20 FEET IS A BETTER SOLUTION? ABSOLUTELY.
IT'S A BETTER SOLUTION AND ALL THEY NEED IS A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO DO THAT.
I I WOULD JUST SAY ONE THING HERE THAT I THINK THE COMPROMISE THAT YOU MENTIONED, THE COMPROMISE WAS DONE BETWEEN THE APPLICANT AND THE PLANNING BOARD WITHOUT THE COMMUNITY INVOLVED.
AND I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE ISSUE THAT I, I HAVE TROUBLE SEEING IT AS A COMPROMISE WHEN IT WAS JUST THOSE WERE THE ONLY TWO PLAYERS IN THE ROOM.
I DON'T KNOW IF THINK OF OUR CADO.
WHO WAS THAT ONE? I FORGET ONE.
REMEMBER THE DRIVE DRIVEWAY? REMEMBER THEY HAD GONE TO THE EVERYTHING BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD BEFORE THEY GOT HERE AND THEN THEY STARTED IT ALL OVER JUST PUTTING THEIR SPITE ON, YOU KNOW, THINGS THAT THEY FELT THEY WANTED TO EXPRESS BEFORE US AND WE WEREN'T THE RIGHT PERSONS TO BE SPEAKING.
YOU KNOW, THIS ONE REMINDS ME MORE OF REMEMBER THE, UM, THE THREE PROPERTIES THAT HE HAD PUT INTO TWO OR HE MADE INTO ONE AND THEN HE MADE BACK TO TWO AND ONE HE LET GROW, GET OVERGROWN.
IT LOOKED LIKE AN EYESORE SO THAT HE COULD GET IT APPROVED TO BE ANOTHER BUILDABLE LOT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS TOO SMALL.
THAT WAS THE ONE WHERE HE, AND THAT WAS WHY HE WANTED, HE WANTED A DECK SO HE KEPT CHANGING THE BRAKE.
HE KEPT CONSOLIDATING AND BREAKING THINGS APART.
AND THAT'S WHAT THIS REMINDS ME OF.
WELL I I I THINK AND THIS THE MARKET HAS CHANGED.
LIKE HE WENT FROM LOT MULTIPLE LOTS TO THE ONE LOT BECAUSE HE HAD A BUYER WHO WAS GONNA BUY IT.
AND AT THAT TIME, MEGA MANSIONS WERE ALL THE RAGE.
AND THAT'S WHAT, AND PEOPLE ARE NOT DOING THAT AS MUCH ANYMORE.
SO THERE'S MORE AROUND AFFORDABLE HOUSING.
SO, YOU KNOW, MARKET CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED.
YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY IT'S GONNA BE A MEGA MANSION, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? BUT THIS, THE ONE THAT SEAN IS TALKING ABOUT THOUGH WAS MEGA, MEGA CREATING A NEIGHBORHOOD, AN UNDERSIZED WELL HOUSING VERSUS MEGA MANSION HOUSING.
AND THIS WILL GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
THEY HAVE NOT, IT, THE ONLY THING YOU ARE DETERMINING IS WHAT IS GOING TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
THEY, SO WHEN I SAID THAT, WHEN IF WE, IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THESE VARIANCES, THEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS THEIR OPPORTUNITY YES.
TO WELL THEY'VE HAD THEIR OPPORTUNITY HERE AND THEY WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE THE END OF AND SEEKER ALSO IS PUBLIC.
I I DON'T KNOW WHAT I, WHAT TO ME, WHAT I HEARD WAS THAT IF YOU GUYS, IF IF THIS IS A, THIS FROM, FROM MR. FEINSTEIN, THE, THE NEIGHBOR'S LAWYER I HEARD LIKE WE DON'T WANT THIS.
BUT IF YOU GUYS GIVE THE VARIANCES, IT'S A MUCH HARDER ARGUMENT AGAINST IT VERSUS IF YOU DON'T GIVE THE VARIANCES.
WE HAVE A REALLY STRONG ARGUMENT FOR NOT PUTTING IN A ROAD.
I HE SAID, I THINK HE SAID THAT.
I DIDN'T HEARD HEAR ANYTHING ELSE.
WELL I HEARD THAT HE THOUGHT IF IT HAD TO GO BACK TO C FOR A FULL REVIEW, IT WOULDN'T PASS.
IT WOULDN'T GET A NEGATIVE DECK WITHOUT A LOT OF CHANGES.
HE'S SAYING HE WANTS TO ARGUE AGAINST A SAC, A ROB.
HE DOESN'T WANT TO ARGUE, HE DOESN'T WANT TO ARGUE AGAINST THE FIRE ACCESS THAT'S IN FRONT OF US.
HE WANTS TO ARGUE AGAINST A CUL-DE-SAC ROBE.
BUT WHAT I HEARD MULTIPLE TIMES WAS THIS WAS A TWO FLAG LOT.
SO THERE WAS THAT AR THAT THAT ARGUMENT MUST SAID IT 20 TIMES.
SO THIS IS, THIS IS WHERE CHICKEN AND EGG
[02:10:01]
REALLY COMES IN.IF THE INITIAL PROPOSAL WAS FOR A 20 FOOT ROAD AND LIZ, MAYBE YOU CAN DECIDE THAT IF THE INITIAL PROPOSAL WAS FOR A 20, YOU CAN'T DECIDE, OH WELL I'LL DECIDE SAY SOMETHING.
BUT IF THE INITIAL PROPOSAL WAS FOR A 20 FOOT ROAD, THEY MAY HAVE HAD AN ARGUMENT THAT THIS WAS A FLAG LOT AS OPPOSED TO UH, TWO SEPARATE PROPERTIES.
BUT THAT WASN'T THE PROPOSAL AS I UNDERSTOOD IT.
THAT WAS THE, WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD SAID OR HOPED.
SO THE APPLICATION WAS FOR THREE LOTS SUBDIVISION.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE CONFUSION IS.
THIS IS A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION.
IT'S NOT A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION.
SO THAT STEM, IF YOU WILL, THAT WOULD REQUIRE FRONTAGE TO BE A FLAG LOT IS NOT EXISTENT FOR THE REAR TWO LOTS.
SO YOU HAVE THE FRONT LOT, WHICH IS AN ACCESS LOT AND YOU HAVE THE TWO REAR LOTS.
SO UNDER THE DEFINITION OF THE CODE, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A FLAG LOT BECAUSE THAT THIRD LOT IS STANDALONE EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT BUILDABLE, WHICH WAS WHAT I HEARD.
AND IT WOULD'VE BEEN AROUND, I HEARD YOU SAY WHEN YOU READ THE CODE, BUT ALL I HEARD HIM SAY 20 TIMES OR MORE
AND SO THEREFORE ALL OF THIS IS NONSENSE.
YOU, YOU GUYS DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING.
IT WOULD'VE BEEN YOU JUST FLAG IT BECAUSE IT WOULD'VE BEEN A PUBLIC ROAD CORRECT.
UP THROUGH THERE WITH GARBAGE COLLECTION AND, AND MAIL UP AT THE TOP VERSUS IT'S ALL THE, ALL THE PUBLIC IS GONNA BE DOWN AT THE BOTTOM 'CAUSE IT'S A DRIVEWAY.
AND IT'S NOT GONNA BE MAINTAINED BY THE TOWN.
IT'S GONNA BE BEING MAINTAINED BY WHOEVER ONE OWNS THAT DRIVEWAY.
SO THEY WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN FLAGSHIP LOTS 'CAUSE THERE'D BEING A STREET, BUT NOW THEY WILL BE FLAGSHIP LOTS IN THE STREET.
I'M SORRY, WHAT WAS THAT? SO IT'LL BE, IT'LL BE A FIRE ACCESS ROAD, UH, INTO THE TWO LOTS.
ENDING IN, IN THEIR PROPOSAL RIGHT NOW IS A Y TERMINATION, WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE GREENVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
THE UM, GARBAGE PICKUP IS GOING TO BE ON CLAYTON.
THE MAIL IS GONNA BE ON CLAYTON.
UM, THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY, UH, TOWN VEHICLES GOING UP THAT DRIVEWAY UNLESS IT'S FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES.
SO, SO BUT SO BASICALLY THEY'RE SAYING THAT THOSE TWO UPPER LOTS ARE ESSENTIALLY LOTS WITH NO ROAD ACCESS.
THAT THEY ARE, THEY'RE WALKING THE PLACES YOU WALK TO BECAUSE THEY HAVE NO DRIVEWAY, THEY HAVE NO ACCESS TO A PUBLICLY IMPROVED ROAD, WHICH THEY, AND IF THEY DID HAVE ACCESS, WELL THEY'LL HAVE ACCESS.
IT JUST WON'T BE OVER TOWN ROAD.
IT'LL LIFT THE ACCESS OVER AN EASEMENT OVER.
WELL SHE'S SAYING IF YOU ELIMINATED THE ACCESS LOT.
BUT YOU KNOW THESE OWNERS WELL THESE TWO STRUCTURES WILL PROBABLY HAVE GOLF CARTS THAT THEY CAN USE TO GO AND PICK UP THEIR MAIL EVERY MORNING.
THEY SAID IT FELT THE HELL NOT SPLASH.
SHOULD WE VOTE? ARE WE READY TO VOTE? YEAH, WE'RE NOT VOTING YET.
BUT WE ALL, WE HAVE WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT TO ADD? NO, WE ALL HAVE THE VOTES TO VOTE FOR FOR THIS.
OKAY, SO EVERYONE WHO'S FOR IT, CAN THEY RAISE THEIR HAND? OKAY, SO LET'S MOVE ON.
SO WE'RE GOOD UNLESS WE WANT SHAUNA TO EXPRESS HERSELF FURTHER.
NO, NO, I'M NOT I TO GETTING OUT VOTED.
SHE IS QUITE, BUT, BUT ED IS GONNA HAVE TO WRITE THIS OFF.
SO THE ONE THING THAT WE, THE ONE THING THAT WE FACE IS IF WE HOLD THIS OVER FOR DECISION ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T WRITTEN ANYTHING UP.
WE ARE NOT DOES THAT? HMM? SO YOU WON'T HAVE VOTE, WON'T HAVE THE VOTES WON'T.
HOW MANY VOTES DO YOU NEED? ALL RIGHT.
SO ONE OF US WILL WRITE IT NEED QUORUM AND IT'LL YOU NEED A QUORUM.
SO ED, SO IF FOUR OF US IN HERE ALL, OH, WE'RE GONNA, SO WE CAN'T JUST, WE CAN'T HOLD THIS OVER FOR AUGUST BECAUSE CAN WE, CAN WE LIE? WE WON'T BE HERE CAN WE ON THE FACT THAT THEY, WE WAIT, WAIT, WE HAVE FIVE VOTES NOW.
SO WE, UH, SO MYSELF AND, UM, DIANE WILL NOT BE HERE.
[02:15:01]
SO WE HAVE TO VOTE NOW.WELL, YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT WILLIAM WILL DO.
WE DON'T KNOW IF WILLIAM WILL COME.
WE DON'T KNOW WHO'S GONNA BE HERE.
ALRIGHT, SO, SO WHAT DO WE DO? CAN WE DELAY THIS BECAUSE OF THEM COMING IN LAST MINUTE? OR YOU WANT ME TO WRITE IT? IT'S JUST GONNA, IT'S NOT GONNA HAPPEN UNTIL LIKE MONDAY.
ALRIGHT, BECAUSE I'M GOING AWAY THIS WEEKEND, SO I CAN'T WRITE.
I'M JUST, SO WE'RE GONNA JUST, WHAT'S BEING SAID, VOTE ON IT TONIGHT.
AND I'LL DO THE FINDINGS AT A LATER DATE.
I'M GONNA, WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON IT TONIGHT AND I WILL DO THE FINDINGS NEXT WEEK BECAUSE I'M GOING AWAY THIS WEEKEND.
I REFUSE TO WRITE THE FINDING.
OH, ARE YOU GOING LIKE ERIE? NO, I'M GOING TO THE NORTH FORK SITE.
WHERE THE NORTH FORK HOLD ISLAND.
IS THIS THE THREE? THIS IS THE DRIVEWAY.
I'M IN FAVOR WITH THE THREE CAR.
DO YOU HAVE THE YOU HAVE THE SEE FOR IT 'CAUSE IT'S LIKE UNLISTED.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION AGAIN ON THIS CASE, LIZ? NO.
DIDN'T, WASN'T THERE SOMETHING MENTIONED ABOUT THERE WERE TWO PARKING SPACES ON THE STREET ITSELF AND THAT, BUT THEY BUT THAT THEY WERE FOR THE OWNERS THERE WERE, OR AT LEAST THAT'S WHAT THE OWNER, THERE WERE SPACES ON THE STREET TWO.
NO, JUST PUT IN FRONT OF YOUR OWN PROPERTY INFR ON DOBBS FERRY ROAD.
AND I BELIEVE WHAT THEY WERE SAYING IS THE SIDEWALK CONSTRUCTION ON DOBBS FERRY TOOK AWAY THOSE SPOTS BECAUSE THEY TOOK PART OF THE, THEY'RE DOING IT ON THE OTHER SIDE.
THEY'RE DOING IT ON THE OTHER SIDE.
UM, I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE DESIGNATED PARKING ON THE, THE STREET.
WELL, YOU, HOW CAN YOU HAVE DESIGNATED PARKING ON A PUBLIC STREET? YEAH, IT, I THINK IT IT'S NOT A PUBLIC, IT'S FIRST OR THERE'S LESS SPACES ON THE STREET.
THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE SAYING IS SO THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE STREET ARE GONNA END UP PARKING ON THE OTHER SIDE.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GONNA BE 18 LESS SPACES ON THAT.
PARKING WAS ON THE YEAH, THAT, THAT, THAT THEIR TENANTS, WHEN SOMEONE, WHEN, WHEN THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT THE NUMBER OF SPACES, SHE SAID, BUT THE TENANTS CAN'T USE THOSE TWO SPACES IN FRONT OF THAT'S FOR THE OWNER.
HER MEANING THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE.
WELL IS EVERYBODY ELSE, SHE DOESN'T LIVE THERE.
LAST TIME WE ASKED THEM TO DO THE THREE SPACES.
ARE WE OKAY WITH THE THREE SPACES OR I'M OKAY WITH IT.
I THINK IT'S A NICE NO MORE ACCIDENTS DOWN THAT END.
'CAUSE WE HAVE ACCIDENTS WHERE I AM EVERY.
SO THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE LAST GATE.
WE'RE ONLY DOWN BY THE, YOU ARE APPROVING SOMETHING THAT'S I'M RIGHT.
REQUIRED WHERE YOU GO IN THE CAR STOPS.
WE ARE GOING TO THE WILKERS ON HIGHBRIDGE ROAD TO REDUCE THE SETBACK FOR THE EXISTING SHED FROM FIVE FEET REQUIRED TO 0.1 THIRD THREE FEET.
WHAT IS ONE THREE? ONE, ONE THIRD, THREE FEET.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH IS IT IS 0.3 INCHES.
I ALMOST WANTED TO SAY ONE OF THE PICTURES LOOKED LIKE IT WAS ABOUT TO JUST COLLAPSE IN THE BACK.
IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT WAS IN GOOD SHAPE.
I SAID I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TERMITES OR WHAT IT IS, BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK VERY GOOD.
WELL NOW THEY CAN REBUILD IT AND NOT, NOT NEED A VARIANCE.
SO
SHED BEING LIKE ON THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT ONCE WE GIVE THEM THE VARIANCE THEY COULD,
[02:20:01]
IT'S NOT JUST THE CORNER.THEY COULD PUT ANYTHING ELSE RIGHT TO THE PROPERTY LINES.
SO, WELL, I WAS A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED FRANKLY, THAT NOBODY ASKED WHAT CON A, WHAT CONDITION IT WAS IN B, WHAT FOUNDATION IT WAS ON.
COULD IT BE ROTATED? CAN IT BE MOVED?
OH, OH, CAN IT BE MOVED OR ROTATED? SO I WAS GONNA ASK THE ROTATED, BUT THEY SAID THERE WERE ROCKS THERE SO THEY COULDN'T SAID IT WAS ON DEAD ROW.
IT WAS ON ROCKS ON AND THERE WERE ROCKS.
THAT'S WHY THEY PUT IT ON A CORNER.
SO WHY DON'T WE ASK THEM AND HAVE 'EM COME BACK? WELL, IF YOU DECIDE TO GRANT IT, MAYBE CONDITION IT BY SAYING IF AND WHEN IT NEEDS TO BE REPLACED, THAT IT SHOULD BE REPLACED IN A CONFORMING LOCATION.
THAT WAS, THAT WAS WHAT I WAS GETTING AT.
HOW DO WE CONDITION IT? I WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECAUSE I SAID THIS, THIS, IT SEEMED BETTER DAYS.
AND THEN THE, AND THEN THE OTHER CONDITION TOO IS THERE'S A LOT OF, I KNOW IN THAT ONE CORNER THERE'S NO VEGETATION.
IT WAS COLD, BUT THERE'S A LOT OF VEGETATION AROUND IT.
SO THEY, I WOULD SAY THEY'D HAVE TO MAINTAIN THAT TO PUT UP THE SCREEN THAT EXISTS.
WELL THEY CAN ONLY MAINTAIN WHAT'S ON THEIR PROPERTY.
THERE, THAT'S WHY I ASKED THEM.
UH, MOST OF THAT SCREENING IS ON THEIR PROPERTY, NOT ON THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
SO THEY JUST NEED TO MAINTAIN THE EXISTING OR I FORGET WHAT THEY SAID THEY PUT IN THERE.
THAT MIGHT GIVE THEM AN OUT TO LEAVE IT THERE AND JUST KEEP MAINTAINING.
IS EVERYBODY OKAY WITH THAT ON THE CONDITIONS? YEAH.
AND WHAT THAT HELPS IF THEY SELL THE HOUSE, THE NEW ONE, WHOEVER COMES IN WOULD HAVE TO HAVE TO MAINTAIN IT.
WELL WE CAN'T SAY TAKE IT DOWN NECESSARILY 'CAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE, YOU'VE ALREADY RIGHT.
BUT IT WOULD BE, YOU HAVE TO CONFORM 'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA PUT THE CONDITION.
AND WHAT WAS YOUR, WHAT WAS THAT OTHER CONDITION? THE MAINTAIN EXISTING SCREENING.
DO YOU WANT ME TO DO THIS ONE? I CAN DO THIS ONE SURELY.
SOMEBODY HAS TO DO THE LAST ONE.
WHO'S DOING THE PARKING SPACES? 25 0 8 25.
I CAN DO THAT, BUT I CAN'T DO IT RIGHT AWAY.
I THINK IT'S PROBABLY SOMEBODY BETTER FOR SOMEBODY TO HEAR TO DO IT.
WELL, I ALREADY AM DOING ONE SO DON'T WORRY AT ME.
WE'RE ALL GONNA HAVE TO TAKE ONE TONIGHT.
DO YOU HAVE THE ONE FOR THE SHED TOO? YES.
YOU LOOK, YOU CAN PUT IT HERE.
NOW WE HAVE THE, WHO HAS THIS ONE? WAIT, THE RESTRICTION ON THE SHED WAS, IF THEY HAVE TO TO REPLACE IT, THEY CAN'T REPLACE IT THERE 'CAUSE WE NO, IT HAS TO CONFORM.
THEY CAN TURN IT, IT WOULD'VE TO BE FIVE FEET AWAY.
ERECTED IN A CONFORMING LOCATION OR, BUT WE CAN'T STOP THEM FROM COMING BACK TOWARDS WITH A, FOR A VARIANCE.
I JUST DON'T WANT THEM, FORCE THEM TO KEEP A FALLING DOWN SHED THERE THAT THEY WANT TO REPLACE.
THEY COULD REPLACE IT IN, WITHIN THE CONFINES OF PLENTY PROPERTY TO PUT A SHED TO MOVE THE SHED FIVE FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
THAT'S THE, THE OTHER DECK CONTAINING REDUCING THE MINIMUM DISTANCE BETWEEN THE OPEN WOOD DECK AND THE REAR PROPERTY LINE FROM 21 FEET REQUIRED TO 9.1 PROPOSED IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A DECK ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
WELL THAT ONE IS SIMPLE AND STRAIGHTFORWARD.
[02:25:01]
YEP.THEY'RE JUST MOVING IT OUT TO, UM, WHAT DID HE, HOW DID HE SAY IT? I HAVE SOME SOMETHING THAT WE COULD USE THAT FITS IN WITH THE MAINTAINING THE STRUCTURE OF THE HOUSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WELL IT SEEMS TO BE A VERY HILLY PROPERTY.
AND AND IF THEY WERE TO JUST MOVE IT OUT LESS AND GO ACROSS THE HOUSE, THEY'LL BLOCK ALL THESE WINDOWS IN THE DOOR UNDERNEATH.
SO THERE'S REALLY NOT A LOT THAT THEY CAN DO.
AND THE HOUSE IS ALREADY NONCONFORMING.
THE ONLY THING I WAS GONNA SAY ON THIS ONE IS IS, AND I'M OKAY EITHER WAY, DO WE WANNA ASK THEM TO PUT UP ANY KIND OF SCREENING? I MEAN, THERE'S NO SCREENING AT ALL BETWEEN THE PROPERTIES AND THERE'S A ROOM.
WELL, DIDN'T HAVE, I WAS GONNA SAY DIDN'T HAVE LETTERS FROM NEIGHBORS.
THEY PROBABLY ALL HANG OUT TOGETHER.
EITHER I WOULD PREFER SCREENING, BUT I'M OKAY EITHER WAY.
WELL, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE HIGH SCREENING BECAUSE IT'S GROUND.
YOU'D HAVE TO IT OUT AND IT JUST KEEPS GETTING HIGHER AND HIGHER.
THE THE ONLY THING THAT I, THAT I THINK IT'S A GREAT IDEA THAT, THAT DIANE BROUGHT UP IS AGAIN, WE HAVE TO THINK ABOUT NOT JUST THIS SET OF OWNERS, BUT FUTURE OWNERS AND FUTURE NEIGHBORS.
THERE'S A LOT OF, I MEAN, COME ON.
APARTMENT BUILDINGS HAVE OPEN EVERY, EVERYBODY HAS THINGS THAT ARE OPEN.
WELL, I MEAN, YOUR POINT, YOU CAN PUT LITTLE THINGS INSIDE POINT.
HOW DO YOU SCREEN SOMETHING THAT'S SO HIGH UP EFFECTIVELY THAT'S, YOU CAN SCREEN IT FROM THE INSIDE WITH MATERIAL OR SOMETHING.
IT JUST MEANT ALONG THE BACK PROPERTY LINE WHERE IT IS.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE THE WHOLE BACK SCREENING UP HERE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE WALL, THEY PUT UP SCREENING ON THE SIDE.
I MEAN, IF YOU GUYS ARE AGAINST IT, THAT'S FINE.
I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S, OKAY.
SO THIS, UH, DOBS FERRY ROAD ONE.
WERE THERE ANY CONDITIONS? WAIT, WHO'S GONNA DO THIS ONE? WHICH ONE? THE SCREEN.
THE, UH, THE PORCH INTO A WELL EXPANDED DECK.
THE PATIO TURNING INTO A DESK.
PETER, DO YOU FEEL UP TO DOING ONE OR NO? UH, ONLY IF SOMEONE TEACHES ME HOW
SHE'S GONNA GIVE YOU SOMETHING.
WELL, I MEAN, I, I, YOU KNOW, WAIT UNTIL SHE GIVES IT TO YOU.
WELL YOU'LL TEACH ME HOW
SEE HOW MUCH IS ALREADY WRITTEN FOR YOU.
I WAS GONNA SAY SHOULD GIVE HIM THE ONE THAT HAS LIKE, EVERYTHING WRITTEN.
AND IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING IT, WHEN YOU LOOK IT OVER TOMORROW, JUST SEND IT TO ME AND I'LL DO IT.
YEAH, THIS ONE DOESN'T HAVE TOO MUCH.
A LOT OF TIMES YOU CAN GO IN THE APPLICATION AND JUST KIND COPY WHAT THEY WRITE.
UM, AND THEN DO YOU SEND, MAYBE I CAN JUST, YEAH, SEND IT TO ME FIRST.
IF YOU, IF OR IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE, DO IT.
SAY, I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE DOING IT AND THEN JUST SEND ME THAT TOP PART SO I HAVE IT.
IT'S PRETTY, IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.
YOU CAN GIMME A CALL TOO WHEN THEY ALL, THERE YOU GO.
A LOT OF, A LOT OF THE ANSWERS ARE IN THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO, YOU KNOW, THE FIVE IN THEIR FILE.
SOME, SOME PEOPLE ACTUALLY ONES NOT.
SOME DETAILED INFORMATION IN THERE.
LET'S SEE IF THIS LAST ONE MAYBE IS BETTER.
SO FOR THE THREE PARKING SPOTS ON DOBBS FERRY, WERE THERE ANY CONDITIONS WE WERE GOING TO, UM, REQUEST OF THAT? LIKE WHAT? I DON'T RECALL.
THEY DON'T HAVE ANY WAY TO SCREEN.
BASICALLY LIKE THE ONE LOOKS LIKE SUBSTANTIAL.
YEAH, YOU CAN TAKE FROM THIS LETTER.
AM I TRYING, AM I TRYING TO DO THE FINDINGS TONIGHT
[02:30:01]
ON THIS? NO.NO ONE'S DOING ANY FINDINGS? NO, I WANNA GET, IT'S NOT THE BEST.
WHAT'S THAT TAPE FOR? WHAT LANGUAGE SHOULD I USE FOR
NEED TO BE MET AND THEN LIST IT.
IT'S MITIGATED BY THE FACT THAT THE CONDITIONS HAVE TO BE DONE TONIGHT.
THIS ONE WE COULD APPROVE AND JUST READ THE OLD ONE.
CAN WE, WHICH ONE, WHICH ONE MORE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THE LAST ONE YOU STATE, UH, 25 16 MORON.
SO WE JUST NEED TO REDO THE MATH.
YOU GUYS SAID THAT YOU ALREADY WERE HAPPY WITH HAVING THREE, THREE PARKING SPACES.
YOU JUST WANTED TO KNOW WERE THERE ANY CONDITIONS.
OH WAIT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS ASKING.
YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I SAID.
NO, THAT THERE ARE NO CONDITIONS FOR THAT.
2016 IS THE ONE WHERE THE ARCHITECT MADE A MISTAKE.
WE CAN LITERALLY READ THE YEAH, I HAD HIM GRANTED ALREADY.
PARDON? I HAD HIM GRANTED ALREADY.
OH, I KNOW WHAT MY MISTAKE WAS HERE.
OKAY, SO OTHER THAN WRITING DOWN THE ARCHITECT MADE A MISTAKE.
WHAT ELSE DOES ONE SAY? I'M GONNA READ THE OLD DECISION AND JUST CHANGE NUMBER THREE.
CAN I DO THAT HERE? IT'S RIGHT HERE.
LOOK, WHATCHA GONNA CHANGE ABOUT PLEASE? THIS ONE? THIS THE DIMENSIONS? YEAH.
WELL YOU MIGHT WANT TO ACCENT THE FACT THAT APPARENTLY THERE WAS A FIRE AND LIZ WAS MENTIONING, RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT, 75% YOU SAID.
WHEN THERE WAS A FIRE, WHICH IS WHAT BROUGHT THIS ALL ABOUT MM-HMM
ORIGINALLY IT ENDED IN 20 2015.
THEY HAD TO, TO REBUILD THE PROPERTY.
OKAY, SO IT'S NOT WHAT MADE THE MISTAKE COME TO LIGHT.
SO WHAT DID MAKE THE MISTAKE COME TO LIGHT? WE MADE A MISTAKE.
THEY, THEY WERE AT THE END OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOME.
WE REQUIRE AN AS-BUILT SURVEY.
AND THAT'S WHAT IDENTIFIED THE DEFICIENCIES, UM, THAT THERE WAS A MISTAKE MADE.
SO THAT WAS WHEN THE SURVEY WAS DONE? CORRECT.
YOU REALIZED IT WAS A CORRECT.
THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING WE, WE APPROVE THIS IN 2015, LIKE ALMOST 10 YEARS AGO.
WHY IS IT ONLY NOW COMING TO LIGHT IN 2025? PROBABLY TOOK 'EM THAT LONG TO BUILD.
SOMEBODY WAS PUTTING A POLE IN, THEY JUST KEPT GETTING EXTENSIONS.
YEAH, THAT'S WHAT WE SAY HERE.
THEY SAID IT WAS AN OLD, OLD, OLD BUILDING ONE SIDE YARD.
WHICH ONES THIS? TWO SIDE YARDS.
RIGHT? SO ALL I'M DOING IS READING THIS MOTION, RIGHT? YEP.
I DUNNO, THAT'S REALLY DIFFICULT.
I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN
I HAD TO WRITE UP WHATEVER I HAVE TO, I HAD TO WRITE UP LIKE CONDIT WRITE
[02:35:01]
THE CONDITIONS.BECAUSE I WAS LOOKING AT YOU WRITING.
WHY AM I NOT WRITING YOU? YEAH, BECAUSE I HAVE TWO CONDITIONS.
IT'S NOT THIS IS, THIS IS THE CONDITIONS.
IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS NEED TO BE MADE.
YOU'RE EVEN WHEN THE SHED IS REPLACED, IT MUST BE BUILT TO REQUIRE SETBACKS FOR THE UH, BEFORE THE SIDE REAR YARD AND PRINCIPAL BUILDING.
I READ THE, THE APPLICANT JUST MAINTAINED THE SYSTEM SCREENING.
I KNOW BECAUSE THERE ARE ARROWS EVERYWHERE THROUGH THE NURSE.
WELL THAT'S THE PRINCIPAL WAS UM, THAT'S NOT WHAT, ALRIGHT, I WON'T SAY THAT DUE TO WAS IT AN ERROR WITH THE SURVEY? WHICH ONE? 24 WAS AN ERROR ON THE 32 A SURVEY.
THAT'S THE ONE THAT ED WROTE UP.
IT WAS WAIT, WAIT, WAIT, WAIT.
I JUST, I CAN'T BELIEVE IT TOOK 10 YEARS COMPLETE AFTER THE APPROVAL DUE TO AN ERROR ON THE SITE WAS CORRECTED BY A SURVEY.
I MEAN WE DID HAVE AFTER THESE, AFTER STILL IT'S FIVE YEARS BEFORE COVID.
SO YOU WANNA READ THAT ONE? WELL IT'S ALSO YOU CONSTRUCTIVE, YOU HAVE IT.
YEAH, I WOULD, THAT WAS, THAT WAS BEFORE MY TIME.
I'M GONNA READ IT AND THEN DO THE, SO IT'S LEGAL, THE LOCATION OF THE BUILDING.
NOT COMPLY AND THEN I CAN SAY DUE TO AN ERROR.
AND THEN THE HOUSE WAS RE RECONSTRUCTED DUE TO STRUCTURAL INSTABILITY.
THE HOUSE WAS CONSTRUC DUE TO, IS STRESSFUL IN BUILDING THAT WAS FROM THE FIRE OR NO, I'M NOT, WE'RE NOT SURE.
IT'S NOT, I'M LOOKING AT THE REPORT.
I'LL SAY NEEDED TO BE RECONSTRUCTED.
I CAN'T BELIEVE WE'RE GONNA BE OUTTA HERE BEFORE MIDNIGHT.
YOU DUE TO STRUCTURAL INSTABILITY.
SO IF YOU'RE NOT HERE, YOU'RE CAN ATTEND EVERYTHING.
YOU YOU HAVE A PHONE YOU CAN GET ON THESE? COME ON.
WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH WHITE PLANES IN IN CHICK-FIL-A? OKAY.
WELL THAT'S BEEN DONE A LONG TIME AGO.
SO WE'RE OFF CHICK-FIL-A WAITING FOR DEMO IN THE ONE WATER IS HOLDING IT UP.
WE LIGHT PLATE ACTUALLY OVER THERE.
DID YOU SEE, DID YOU SEE THE CARS FLOATING ON THAT SIDE BEHIND COUNTY CENTER? NO, I DIDN'T.
YEAH, THEY ALWAYS DID TO THE EXTENDED PENDING THIS ONE.
I GOT ON 2 87 RIGHT IN THAT AREA.
BUT TWO, I THOUGHT 2 87 WAS CLOSED.
IT WAS AT, IT WAS AT SOME POINT BACKED UP GOING WEST.
I WAS GOING EAST AND THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC AT ALL.
AFTER THE FLOODING STARTED TO REC RESIDE ALREADY.
AND WHY WERE YOU DRIVING, DIDN'T YOU? BECAUSE HE WANTED TO GET HOME.
DIDN'T YOU GET ANY OF THE EMERGENCY? I HAD TO GO OUT TOO.
IT SAID DON'T, DON'T DRAW A HIVE UNLESS YOU'RE FLEEING AN EMERGENCY EVACUATION OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WE MADE SOMEBODY WALK HOME FROM THE TRAIN STATION.
BUT YOU SHOULD HAVE SEEN THE, THE BUSES COULDN'T GO NORTH ON HILLSIDE NOR WEST ON OLD PERRY TOWN.
SO THE TRAFFIC WAS BACKED UP RIGHT HERE AND THERE WAS A LINEUP OF COUNTY BUSES AND THEY ALL TURNED AROUND.
[02:40:01]
COULD MAKE IT INTO OUR DRIVEWAY IN OUR PARKING LOT AND TURN AROUND.BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY DID AFTER HERE.
THEY WERE ALL LINED UP AND THEY WERE BLOCKING THE DRIVEWAY AND THAT BACKED UP OLD TERRYTOWN ROAD BOTH IN THAT DIRECTION AND IN THIS DIRECTION.
WELL THE, THE BRONX RIVER FLOODED THE TRAIN TRACKS.
WELL THAT'S WHY I HAD TO PICK UP MY HUSBAND AND SON IN DOBBS FERRY.
'CAUSE THEY WERE IN THE CITY AND COULDN'T GET HARLEM LINE WAS LIKE SUSPENDED.
WE MADE A, WE MADE A FAMILY MEMBER WALK HOME.
TOOK YOU MEAN? WELL, HE DIDN'T GET, THE TRAINS WERE ALL LIKE STOPPED.
SO HE DIDN'T GET HOME UNTIL 11 O'CLOCK.
THEY GOT ON THE HUDSON LINE WALKED AND THE HUDSON LINE WAS RUNNING.
SO I LEFT AND PICKED THEM UP IN DOBBS FERRY.
WHICH ACTUALLY AT NINE 30 IT WAS FINE.
REALLY? IT WAS NOT A LICK OF FLOODING THAT WAY HILL.
YOU DIDN'T HAVE ANY TROUBLE GETTING I I DIDN'T HAVE TO GO ON THE SAWMILL.
WHAT WHAT ABOUT THE TRACKS AT NORTH WHITE PLAINS WHERE YOU WAS A DISASTER THAT WENT ON? THAT WAS THE TUNNEL COMPLETELY.
OH YEAH, THAT WAS COMPLETELY, YEP.
THAT WAS A DISASTER OVER THERE.
THE DOG IN GOT TOUCHED BY IT, SO I'LL NEVER FORGET.
REMEMBER ABOUT FIVE OR SEVEN YEARS AGO, IT TOOK ME FIVE HOURS TO GET HOME.
MY, MY WINDSHIELD WIPE WAS FROZE ON 6 84.
I WAS DRIVING AROUND THE, OH MY GOD.
DO YOU REMEMBER DURING SANDY WHEN SAND, LIKE WE DIDN'T HAVE POWER FOR TWO WEEKS.
AND THEN WE GOT THAT HORRIBLE SNOW STORM AND YOU AND LIKE I COULDN'T DRIVE ANYWHERE.
I WAS HEATING MY HOUSE WITH THE FIREPLACES.
[02:45:42]
THERE WE ARE AND WE ARE BACK WITH OUR DELIBERATIONS AND I WISH TO ADVISE EVERYONE THAT BECAUSE OF THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR, WE WILL NOT BE READING FINDINGS ON THE CASES THAT UH, WE'VE DELIBERATED AND MADE DECISIONS ON THIS EVENING.AND THAT INFORMATION WOULD BE PROVIDED IN THE RECORD AS WELL AS YOU CAN CONTACT, UH, THE SECRETARY IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE WITH RESPECT TO THAT.
AND SO THE CASES WE HAVE THIS EVENING, 24 32, WHEREAS THE UM, 22, 24, 30, 24, 32 A, SORRY.
OLIVA, THAT'S 2 79 JACKSON AVENUE DOES SOMEONE HAVE THIS? AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG GBA HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE-REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO SEEK COMPLIANCE AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG PATH PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY CONDUCTED A COORDINATED REVIEW AND DETERMINED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS AN UNLISTED ACTION, WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE POSITIVE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON SEPTEMBER 30TH, 2024.
DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES MADAM CHAIR, I HAVE A, SORRY.
I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE NUMBER 24 DASH 32 A BE GRANTED AS FOLLOWS.
CONDITION NUMBER FIVE OF OUR DECISION IN CASE 24 DASH 32 IS HEREBY REVISED AS FOLLOWS.
THE VARIANCE FROM SECTION 2 85 DASH 12 B 3D OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE DRIVEWAY SERVING THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF YONKERS SHALL LAPSE IF APPLICANT FAILS TO OBTAIN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A MAXIMUM OF FOUR DWELLINGS FROM THE CITY OF YONKERS OR ENTER INTO INTER MUNICIPAL AGREEMENTS FOR THE PROVISION OF WATER, FIRE, OR OTHER SERVICES TO THE PROPOSED RESIDENCES WITHIN 24 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
IN SUCH EVENT, THE VARIANCE FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE WILL BE MODIFIED TO PERMIT AND PERFU SERVICE COVERAGE OF 62.1%.
ALL OTHER VARIANCES AND CONDITIONS THAT WERE GRANTED IN CASE 24 DASH 32 SHALL REMAIN VALID EVEN IF APPLICANT FAILS TO OBTAIN SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WITHIN 24 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION.
AND THE FINDINGS WILL BE UH, SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD.
NEXT IS CASE 25 0 4 DAVID CHOW.
THAT'S CLAYTON ROAD SUBDIVISION AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG ZBA HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO CA COMPLIANCE AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG PLANNING BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY CONDUCTED A CON COORDINATED REVIEW AND DETERMINED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS AN UNLISTED ACTION WHEREAS THE GREENBERG WHEREAS THE PLANNING BOARD HAS DETERMINED THAT THE PROPOSED ACTION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT AND ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION ON MARCH 19TH, 2025.
SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO MAY THE REST OF THE ENVIRONMENT.
UM, AND DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES.
I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE NUMBER 25 0 4 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE
[02:50:01]
SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS STAMPED, RECEIVED FEBRUARY 21ST, 2025 SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.
OR AS SUCH, PLANS MAY BE HEREAFTER MODIFIED BY ANOTHER APPROVING BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICER OF THE TOWN.
PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT WE ARE GRANTING HEREIN.
THE VARIANCE IS BEING GRANTED ARE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT SHOWN ON THE PLAN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.
ANY FUTURE OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT, SETBACK OR OTHER VARIANCES WE HAVE APPROVED HEREIN.
AND AGAIN, THE FINDINGS WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD, UM, AT A LATER DATE.
SECOND COURSE HAVE TO VOTE ON THE, MY APOLOGIES.
OPPOSED? NOW THE FINDINGS SHALL BE OH DID SHE NAY IT? OKAY.
UH, YES AND THE FINDINGS WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD AT A LATER DATE.
CASE NUMBER IS ZBA 25 0 8 AL HUDSON ENGINEERING AND COUNCIL PC WHEREAS THE GREENBERG ZBA HAS REVIEWED THE BULK REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO SECRET COMPLIANCE AND THEREFORE BE IT BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SECRET CONSIDERATION.
MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT THE, THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE NUMBER 25 0 8 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAINED ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THAT CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS STAMPED, RECEIVED JUNE 24TH, 2025 SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION OR AS SUCH, PLANS MAY BE HEREAFTER MODIFIED BY ANOTHER APPROVING BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICER OF THE TOWN.
PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT WE ARE GRANTING HEREIN.
ALSO THE VARIANCE BEING GRANTED IS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT SHOWN ON THE PLAN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.
ANY FUTURE OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT, SETBACK OR OTHER VARIANCES.
AND UH, THE FINDINGS WILL BE RECORDED INTO THE RECORD.
WILLIAM AND CHRISTINE WEER 34 HIGH RIDGE ROAD HARSDALE WHEREAS THE GREENBERG CBA HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO CA COMPLIANCE AND NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRED NO FURTHER CA CONSIDERATION.
DO I SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE 25 11 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORM IN CONFORMITY WITH THE AS-BUILT SURVEY DATED APRIL 28TH, 2023 SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION OR AS SUCH, PLANS MAY BE HEREAFTER MODIFIED BY ANOTHER APPROVING BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICER OF THE TOWN.
PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENCE OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT
[02:55:01]
WE ARE GRANTING HEREIN VARIANCE BEING GRANTED, THE VARIANCES BEING GRANTED ARE FURTHER IMPROVEMENT SHOWN ON THE PLANS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION ONLY.ANY FUTURE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT, SETBACK OR OTHER VARIANCES WE HAVE APPROVED HEREIN.
IN ADDITION, THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS NEED TO BE MET.
ONE IF AND WHEN THE SHED IS REPLACED IS MUST BE BUILT TO REQUIRED SETBACKS FOR THE SIDE YARD, REAR YARD AND PRINCIPAL BUILDING AND TWO EXISTING SCREENING, UM, MUST BE MAINTAINED ON THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY.
AND THOSE, THOSE FINDINGS ALSO WILL BE AVAILABLE.
AND THE NEXT CASE THIS EVENING IS CASE 25 14.
ALEX AND ZENIA MARTINEZ ONE 20 WOOD AVENUE.
WHEREAS THE GREENBERG CBA HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE-REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO CA COMPLIANCE AND NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SECRET CONSIDERATION.
AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION? I DO.
MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE NUMBER 25 14 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAINED ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE THE SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN LOW LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS DATED NOVEMBER 17TH, 2023 AND STAMPED MAY 23RD, 2025 SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION OR AS SUCH PLANS THAT MAY BE HEREAFTER MODIFIED BY ANOTHER APPROVING BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICER OF THE TOWN.
PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATIONS DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT WE ARE GRANTING HEREIN.
THE VARIANCES BEING GRANTED ARE FOR IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION ONLY ANY FUTURE OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THIS, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT, SETBACK, OR OTHER VARIANCES.
WE HAVE APPROVED HEREIN THE FINAL SECOND.
AND THE FINDINGS, THE FINDINGS WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD AT A LATER DATE.
AND OUR LAST CASE FOR THE EVENING, 25 16 MOR MERCHANT 35 TERRACE STREET.
WHEREAS THE GREENBERG ZBA HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE-REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO C COMPLIANCE AND NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SECRET CONSIDERATION.
I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE NUMBER 25 16 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE, SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE SURVEY DATED JULY 20TH, 24 AND STAMPED RECEIVED JUNE 10TH, 2025, SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.
OR AS SUCH, PLANS MAY BE HEREAFTER MODIFIED BY ANOTHER APPROVING BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICER OF THE TOWN.
PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT WE ARE GRANTING HEREIN THE VARIANCE IS BEING GRANTED.
THE VARIANCE BEING GRANTED IS FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLANS SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION ONLY.
ANY FUTURE OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT, SETBACK, OR OTHER VARIANCES WE HAVE APPROVED HEREIN.
AND, UH, THE FINDINGS FOR THIS WILL BE ENTERED INTO THE RECORD AT A LATER DATE.
THE DATE FOR OUR NEXT MEETING IS THURSDAY, AUGUST 21ST AT 7:00 PM AND I HOPE EVERYONE ENJOYS SUMMER AND THE RAIN DOESN'T, UH, REVOKE US TOO MUCH.