* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. GREENBERG, ACCORDING IN [00:00:01] PROGRESS. SORRY, [ TOWN OF GREENBURGH ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AGENDA THURSDAY, September 18, 2025 – 7:00 P.M. ] THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBERG WILL COME TO ORDER. UH, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, WE'RE JUST GONNA HAVE A MOMENT OF SILENCE FOR EVE BUNTING SMITH'S HUSBAND WHO PASSED AWAY ABOUT A MONTH AGO. SO JUST TAKE A MINUTE. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, WE HAVE SEVEN CASES SCHEDULED FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING. LOOKING FORWARD, THE ZONING BOARD WILL HAVE OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY, OCTOBER 16TH. PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDARS. BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF CASES WE NEED TO HEAR TONIGHT, WE MAY LIMIT TO HEAR EACH, WE MAY LIMIT TO HEAR EACH CASE. 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 WA 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 WILL MEET TO DISCUSS EACH CASE. EVERYONE IS WELCOME TO LISTEN TO OUR DELIBERATIONS, BUT THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK OR PARTICIPATE. AFTER OUR DELIBERATIONS ON ALL THE CASES, WE WILL ANNOUNCE THE BOARD'S DECISION FOR THE FORMAL RECORD AND TO BE BROADCAST TO THE COMMUNITY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT, YOU MUST COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OR YOUR PERSONAL AFFILIATION. WE HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY ON SOME OF THESE CASES AT PRIOR MEETINGS. ALL PRIOR TESTIMONY, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE, IS ALREADY IN THE RECORD AND SHOULD NOT BE REPEATED. UH, THE FIRST CASE WE WILL HEAR, I'M SORRY, CAN I JUST, UH, INTERRUPT. DID A ROLL CALL? YES, SORRY. ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA BEGIN OUR ROLL CALL. E BUNTING SMITH IS ABSENT. CHRISTIE NECK HERE. LOUIS CRITCHLOW. HERE. DIANE BERLEY. HERE. WILLIAM BLAND. PRESENT. SHAUNA DANSON IS ABSENT. PETER BLAIR VIRTUALLY IS HERE REMOTELY. AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR ROLL CALL, MADAM CHAIR. THANK YOU. OKAY, SO THE FIRST CASE, WILL WE, WE WILL HEAR ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS CASE NUMBER 25 13 KAI RESTAURANT GROUP, LLC, ALSO KNOWN AS TACO BELL. I WILL GO AHEAD. GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, DAVID STEINMETZ FROM THE LAW FIRM OF ZIN AND STEIN METZ. PLEASED TO BE BACK BEFORE YOUR BOARD THIS EVENING. I'M HERE THIS EVENING REPRESENTING, UH, OVV, UH, PATEL AND THE KAI RESTAURANT GROUP WITH REGARD TO A TACO BELL. AND I WILL DO MY BEST MADAM CHAIR TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS NOT A TWO YEAR APPLICATION, UM, LIKE OUR LAST APPLICATION. UM, I'M PLEASED TO BE HERE TONIGHT SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO A MATTER THAT HAS, UM, BEEN PENDING BEFORE YOUR PLANNING BOARD, UH, FOR SEVERAL MONTHS. WE'RE HERE WITH REGARD TO A PROPOSED TACO BELL RESTAURANT, UM, LOCATED AT THE PROPERTY, UH, THAT IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY A HONEYBAKED HAM, UM, FACILITY PREVIOUSLY AT DUNKIN DONUTS. WE'RE HERE BECAUSE THE SITE, AS YOU MAY ALL KNOW, UM, HAS SOME GEOGRAPHIC AND GEOMETRIC CHALLENGES, UM, WHICH RESULT IN, UH, THE SITE CURRENTLY HAVING A NUMBER OF PREEXISTING NONCONFORMITIES. WE'RE GONNA TALK TONIGHT, UH, BRIEFLY ABOUT WHAT WE WENT THROUGH IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD, THE PROCESS, THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT THAT WE SECURED AND WHY WE HERE. I'M JOINED, UH, TONIGHT BY MY CLIENT RAGGA, UH PATEL, MY COLLEAGUE MATT BARONS, UM, AND FROM JMC PLANNING AND ENGINEERING, MARK PETRO, OUR, UH, TRAFFIC ENGINEER AS WELL AS PAUL DUMONT, UM, FROM JMC AS WELL. BEFORE WE EVEN FILED THIS APPLICATION, UM, ONE OF THE FIRST THINGS THAT JMC AND OUR OFFICE DID WAS CONTACT YOUR TOWN'S PROFESSIONAL STAFF AND ASK FOR A PRE-SUBMISSION MEETING. AND SPECIFICALLY, WE SOUGHT TO DISCUSS TRAFFIC, PARKING, AND CIRCULATION. WE WERE QUITE WELL AWARE OF THE, THE SITE, UM, THE ISSUES ON THE SITE. AND ACTUALLY, MY CLIENT FUNDED AN ESCROW AND THE TOWN RETAINED, UH, JOHN CANNING FROM KIMLEY HORN BEFORE ANYTHING EVER WAS FORMALLY FILED WITH THE TOWN. MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT MR. CANNING WAS GOING TO BE AVAILABLE TONIGHT. [00:05:01] I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S ON, UM, MADAM CHAIR. DO YOU KNOW, IS HE WITH US THIS EVENING? THERE HE IS. GREAT. UM, WE VERY MUCH APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT MR. CANNING IS HERE BECAUSE, UM, A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME AND ATTENTION WAS PAID BY YOUR TOWN AND THE PLANNING BOARD IN HAVING MR. CANNING AND HIS FIRM INVOLVED IN ANALYZING THE LOCATION, ITS PROXIMITY, UH, TO TRAFFIC SIGNALS AND THE TURNING MOVEMENTS INTO AND OUT OF THIS SITE, AS WELL AS INVOLVEMENT OF THE NEW YORK STATE DOT. I'M GONNA JUMP TO THE END OF THAT TOPIC AND JOHN WILL SPEAK FOR HIMSELF. THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT JOHN CONCLUDED, UH, AND, AND THE DOT AND THE PLANNING BOARD ALL CONCLUDED THAT WE DO HAVE SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS OUT OF THE SITE, UH, THAT WE WERE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN ADVERSE IMPACT, UM, AS A RESULT OF THE PROPOSED TACO BELL. AND ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THAT WAS THE CASE IS THAT UNLIKE OTHER SIMILAR TYPE OF FOOD OPERATIONS, TACO BELL DOES TEND TO HAVE A HIGHER, UM, PROPORTION OR INCIDENCE OF DRIVE-THROUGH. THIS IS A PROPOSED TACO BELL WITH A DRIVE-THROUGH WINDOW, AND THAT WAS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT TO OUR CLIENT, TO THE PLANNING BOARD. AND AGAIN, I'LL LET MR. CANNING SPEAK FOR HIMSELF. IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES, UM, THAT ARE ABLE TO, UM, BE LOCATED ON SITE, THE PER THE PROPOSAL, UM, IS FOR 22 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES AS WELL AS A QUEUING LINE FOR SEVEN DIFFERENT VEHICLES. AND PAUL DUMONT IS GOING TO WALK US THROUGH THE SITE PLAN AND THE DIMENSIONS. WHEN I, WHEN I SIT, UM, THERE'S A PROPOSAL FOR ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AND A STREETSCAPE, UM, A REDUCTION IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA. AND THIS IS, THIS WAS A SIGNIFICANT ISSUE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE PROFESSIONALS, AGAIN, THE SITE HAS A NUMBER OF EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES AND SEVERAL OF THEM ARE ACTUALLY BEING REDUCED. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT WE LEARNED FROM MR. CANNING, AS WELL AS FROM MR. PETRO, IS THAT THE SITE CURRENTLY HAS TWO CURB CUTS AND TWO MEANS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS. UM, WHICH PROVIDES SOME CHALLENGES FOR, UH, MOTORISTS AS WELL AS PEDESTRIANS. WHAT MR. PETRO SUGGESTED, UH, AND, AND POSSIBLY IT WAS MR. CANNING WHO HAD INITIALLY RECOMMENDED IT WAS THE CONSOLIDATION OF THOSE CURB CUTS INTO ONE MEANS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS. UM, SO THE PROPOSAL IS TO ELIMINATE THESE TWO MOTIONS IN AND OUT AND HAVE ONE SPECIFIC, UM, AREA. AND AGAIN, I'LL ALLOW THE PROFESSIONALS, UM, TO ADDRESS THAT. I SAID THERE WERE A NUMBER OF NONCONFORMITIES, THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES, FIVE OF THEM ARE BEING DECREASED, SO WE ARE REDUCING THE DEGREE OF NON-CONFORMITY. UM, FOUR OF THEM ARE BEING INCREASED, AND PAUL WILL EXPLAIN WHY THAT IS. A LOT OF THAT HAS TO DO WITH DEFINITIONS OF PARKING AND HOW WE HAVE PARKING. THAT'S TECHNICALLY CONSIDERED PARKING BECAUSE IT'S IN THE QUEUING LINE. AND THERE ARE SEVEN VARIANCES THAT RELATE ENTIRELY TO SIGNAGE. UM, WE'RE GONNA TAKE THE SIGNAGE ISSUES 'CAUSE YOU HAVE BOTH PHYSICAL, UH, VARIANCES RELATED TO PARKING, ET CETERA. AND THEN WE HAVE A NUMBER, AS I SAID, SEVEN VARIANCES SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE TACO BELL SIGNS. WE'RE GONNA TREAT THOSE SEPARATELY. WE'RE GONNA WALK YOU THROUGH ALL OF THOSE. BUT I WANT YOU IN, IN TERMS OF NUMERICAL VARIANCES THAT WE'RE HERE FOR. MOST OF THEM RELATE TO THE FACT THAT WE'RE TRYING TO HAVE ADEQUATE SIGNAGE, UH, CONSISTENT WITH THE, UH, TACO BELL REQUIREMENTS. AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE SOME, UM, LOVELY MURALS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING TO SOFTEN THE AESTHETIC OF THE BUILDING. AND THOSE, THOSE MURALS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING ACTUALLY REQUIRE, UM, SOME VARIANCES. WE SPENT, UM, FOUR MEETINGS IN FRONT OF YOUR PLANNING BOARD. UM, AND, AND I, I, I HAVE READ SOME OF THE, UH, PUBLIC COMMUNICATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED. AND I I'M FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF PEOPLE HERE THIS EVENING. UM, IN CONNECTION WITH THIS APPLICATION. THIS APPLICATION WENT THROUGH THE PLANNING PROCESS, AT LEAST AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND I KNOW MR. DUANE MAY BE IN THE BUILDING. I BELIEVE MR. DUANE, MR. SCHMIDT, MR. BRITTON NOTICED THIS APPLICATION AS THEY DO ALL OTHER APPLICATIONS. WE HAD, UM, PUBLIC MEETINGS IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD FOR MONTHS. UM, NONETHELESS, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD ULTIMATELY REACHED A DETERMINATION ON JULY 16TH, ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION, MEANING THAT THEY HAD CONCLUDED UNDER THE NEW YORK STATE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY REVIEW ACT THAT THERE WERE NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS THAT GOES TO STORMWATER VISUAL TRAFFIC, AND THE ASSOCIATED ARRAY OF IMPACTS THAT NEG DECK, MADAME AND CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD WAS CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO A COORDINATED REVIEW UNDER SECRET. SO THAT MEANS YOUR BOARD HAS ALREADY BEEN PART OF THE SECRET PROCESS, HAVING BEEN NOTICED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND HAVING BEEN BOUND INTO THAT NEG DECK. UM, THERE HAVE BEEN A NUMBER OF ISSUES, UM, THAT WERE CONSIDERED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. UM, THE PLANNING BOARD ACTUALLY SPECIFICALLY HELD IN THEIR NECK DECK THAT THE, UM, INCREASE IN USAGE OF THE LAND IS NOT ANTICIPATED TO EXCEED WHAT THE SITE [00:10:01] IS ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE FROM A TRAFFIC AND SAFETY PERSPECTIVE. UM, THE PLANNING BOARD ALSO ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THIS IS A WELL-ESTABLISHED COMMERCIAL CARTER. AND AGAIN, HAVING SPENT ALL OF THE TIME WE DID ON VEHICLE PARKING AND MOVEMENT, THEY ULTIMATELY CONCLUDED THIS WAS ACTUALLY QUITE A GOOD USE, UM, FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF THINGS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD SPECIFICALLY, UM, CHANGED, UH, DURING THE APPLICATION PROCESS THAT WE HAD PROPOSED. UM, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO OUR NEIGHBORS. UM, THEY HAD INSISTED UPON SOUND ATTENUATING FENCES, UH, WHICH ARE BEING INSTALLED. AND PAUL WILL WALK THROUGH, UM, LANDSCAPED ISLANDS, UH, PERVIOUS PAVEMENT AND PERVIOUS SURFACES, SURFACES. UM, THEY WANTED THE INSTALLATION OF A BIKE RACK, AND THEY WANTED THE SIGNAGE LOCATED IN SUCH A FASHION FOR WHAT THEY CONCLUDED WOULD MITIGATE THE IMPACTS TO OUR NEIGHBORS. AS A RESULT OF SOME OF THE MOVEMENT OF THOSE SIGNS, IT TRIGGERED ADDITIONAL, UH, IT TRIGGERED SOME ADDITIONAL VARIANCES. THE NEW YORK STATE DOT, UM, DID REVIEW OUR MATERIALS. THEY WERE PART ALSO OF OUR COORDINATED SQL REVIEW PROCESS. MR. CANNING, UM, AND HIS FIRM WERE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE AND SUPERVISE THAT. AND, UM, WE RECEIVED NO, UM, UH, OPPOSITION FROM THE DOT WITH REGARD TO OUR SPECIFIC APPLICATION. SO WHAT I THINK, IN ORDER TO MAKE THIS AS, UH, EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE, I'M GONNA ASK PAUL TO WALK THROUGH THE SPECIFIC VARIANCES AND THE SITE PLAN SO YOU UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE APPLYING FOR AND WE'RE HAPPY, UH, TO THEN ANSWER QUESTIONS. MARK IS HERE, UM, IN PARTICULAR, IF YOU ARE STILL CURIOUS TO UNDERSTAND THE, THE OPERATION OF THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE, THE PARKING AND THE CIRCULATION. BUT FRANKLY, YOU'VE GOT YOUR OWN, THANKFULLY, YOU'VE GOT YOUR OWN TRAFFIC CONSULTANT HERE, UM, WHO CAN EXPLAIN THAT AND CONFIRM THE, THE, THE DATA AND THE MATERIAL THAT WE'VE SUBMITTED. SO, IN ORDER TO DO THIS AS EFFICIENTLY, 'CAUSE YOU'VE GOT OBVIOUSLY A SIGNIFICANT AGENDA AND A LOT OF FOLKS HERE, LET'S, LET'S COVER THE INDIVIDUAL VARIANCES IN THE SITE PLAN. AND THEN WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO, UM, TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTIONS. AND AS YOU HAVE HEARD ME SAY IN THE PAST, I'M GONNA SAY IT TONIGHT AS WELL. IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, THOUGHTS, PLEASE DON'T HOLD THEM FOR YOUR DELIBERATIONS WHERE WE CAN'T PARTICIPATE, PLEASE ASK THOSE QUESTIONS WHILE WE HAVE THE OPEN RECORD, UM, AT, AT DURING THIS MEETING, UM, SO THAT WE DON'T ALL REGRET NOT HAVING ASKED THEM AND BEING BEEN ABLE TO DISCUSS THEM TOGETHER WHEN YOU'RE IN THE DELIBERATION PHASE OF YOUR, UM, OF YOUR EVENING. AND I THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. UH, FOR THE RECORD, PAUL MONT WITH JMC. WE ARE THE, UH, SITE CIVIL ENGINEERS, PLANNERS AND, UH, TRAFFIC ENGINEERS ON THE PROJECT. UH, JUST WANT TO ORIENT EVERYBODY, UH, AND, UH, JUST REVIEW QUICKLY THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. UH, OKAY. OKAY. UH, SO HERE'S AN AERIAL OF THE, THE, UH, PROPERTY AS IT IS TODAY. JUST TO ORIENT EVERYBODY, UM, CENTRAL AVENUE IS ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PLAN. UM, AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE THIS EXISTING HONEY BAKED HAM. UH, IT WAS FORMERLY, IF I CAN REMEMBER, IT WAS SUNSHINE BAGEL AND, AND DUNKING DONUTS YEARS AGO, EXCUSE ME, YEARS AGO. UM, THE EXISTING SITE CONFIGURATION, THERE'S, UH, TWO DRIVEWAYS, ONE INGRESS, AND ONE EGRESS. UH, THE BUILDING'S LOCATED IN THE CENTER OF THE SITE. THERE'S PERIMETER PARKING, THERE IS PERPENDICULAR PARKING IN THE REAR OF THE SITE, AND THEN THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL, UM, PERIMETER PARKING ON THE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. UM, UH, AND HERE'S JUST A PHOTOGRAPH OF THE, OF THE BUILDING JUST TO ORIENT EVERYBODY. OKAY. SO HERE'S THE, THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. UM, JUST WALK EVERYBODY THROUGH THROUGH THAT. SO, UH, THIS FIGURE SHOWS THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN, UH, SUPERIMPOSED ONTO AN EXISTING AERIAL. UH, AND THERE'S SOME KEY FEATURES THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED. UM, THE, UH, SETBACK, UH, LINES ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN, IN THIS LIGHT PURPLE COLOR. UH, THE EXISTING EXTENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA IS HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. YOU COULD SEE THAT ALONG THE PERIMETER. I'M HIGHLIGHTING THAT WITH MY MOUSE. UH, AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A REGULATED, UH, BUFFER LINE, WHICH IS, UH, SHOWN HERE. AND THAT ACTUALLY IS THE 100 FOOT REGULATED BUFFER THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH A, UH, OPEN CHANNEL STREAM ON THE PET CEMETERY PROPERTY THAT, UM, IT ENTERS A CULVERT AND GOES INTO CENTRAL AVENUE. SO WHEN WE FIRST LOOKED AT THE SITE, UM, LOOKED AT THE SITE WITH MR. PATEL AND HIS, HIS GROUP. UM, ORIGINALLY WE, WE LOOKED AT THE EXISTING PROPERTY AND, AND HOW IT COULD BE REPURPOSED. AND, AND THAT'S WHAT WE BROUGHT TO THE TOWN. UM, UNFORTUNATELY, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT THE EXISTING, UH, CONFIGURATION AND [00:15:01] BUILDING THAT DON'T REALLY LEND ITSELF TO, UH, A, A GOOD OPERATION FOR, FOR THE DRIVE THROUGH HERE. UM, I, WHEN WE WENT TO, WHEN WE HAD EARLY MEETINGS WITH TOWN STAFF AND WITH JOHN CANNING, UH, IT REALLY BECAME APPARENT THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE EXISTING CONFIGURATION WOULDN'T, WOULDN'T WORK WELL. UH, SO WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS A RESULT OF, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF BRAINSTORMING AND, AND, AND THINKING HARD ABOUT HOW TO MAKE THIS SITE FUNCTION WELL. UH, FIRST THING MOST IMPORTANT, AS DAVID MENTIONED, IS CONSOLIDATING THE TWO CURB CUTS. WE'RE PROPOSING ONE FULL MOVEMENT DRIVEWAY ONTO CENTRAL AVENUE. UM, AND THEN WHAT WE, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS ABOUT A 1600 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING, WHICH IS SLIGHTLY SMALLER FOOTPRINT THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING, BUT IT'S OBVIOUSLY A DIFFERENT SHEEP. AND WE SHIFTED IT SLIGHTLY SOUTH, WHICH ALLOWS US TO HAVE REALLY A, A, A MORE ORGANIZED TWO-WAY ENTRANCE INTO THE PROPERTY WITH A FULL, UM, YOU KNOW, 90 DEGREE BAY OF PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, AS WELL AS A, A SMALLER BAY OF PARKING PAST THE REAR OF THE BUILDING LEADING INTO A, UH, DRIVE THROUGH LANE THAT WRAPS AROUND THE BUILDING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. IN ADDITION, WE HAVE A, UM, ANOTHER SMALL PARKING AREA, UH, AFTER THE DRIVE THROUGH. THIS IS JUST A ONE-WAY EXIT LEAVING THE DRIVE THROUGH, BUT THIS ALLOWS, UH, ROOM OPERATIONALLY FOR CUSTOMERS TO, IF THEY HAVE A VERY LARGE ORDER, IF THEY'RE DIRECTED TO, TO PARK, UM, YOU KNOW, STAFF CAN DIRECT THEM TO PARK AND, UH, PROCESS OTHER CUSTOMERS. UM, THE SITE PLAN AS BEFORE YOU TODAY THAT YOU SEE IS, IS A RESULT OF A LOT OF, UM, AN EXTENSIVE REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD. THERE'S A LOT OF, UM, THOUGHT THAT WENT INTO THAT, AND A LOT OF CHANGES THAT WERE MADE AS A RESULT OF THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW. UH, DAVID MENTIONED, I I THINK ONE OF THE BIGGER ITEMS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT WITH THE PLANNING BOARD WAS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, UM, INCORPORATING LARGE AREAS OF PREVIOUS PAVEMENT. UM, THE SITE AS IF YOU CAN SEE THE, THE BLUE LINE AT THE PERIMETER OF THE PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, THE SITE, UH, YOU KNOW, WE DO PULL THE IMPERVIOUS, UH, THE EDGE OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA BACK FROM OVER THE EXISTING CONDITION. AND WE ARE, UH, INCREASING THE NET IMPERVIOUS AREA OR, UH, I'M SORRY, THE PERVIOUS AREA ON THE PROPERTY. UM, THE, UH, PERVIOUS PAVEMENT. WHEN WE LOOK AT OUR ZONING COMPLIANCE AND THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE REQUIREMENT, THE PERVIOUS PAVEMENT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARD THAT, BUT WE DID INCORPORATE THAT JUST GIVEN THE SENSITIVITY OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN THIS AREA. UM, IN ADDITION, UH, WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING ABOUT LANDSCAPING AND SCREENING AND LIGHTING. ALL OF THE LIGHTING THAT'S PROPOSED ON THE PROPERTY IS FACING INWARD, UH, NO LIGHTING'S FACING OUTWARD TOWARD ADJACENT PROPERTIES. UH, AND ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE, THE SITE, UH, WE WORKED WITH, UH, TOWN STAFF TO INCORPORATE A, A A A ROW OF EVERGREEN, UH, KILOMETER EVERGREEN PLANTINGS, WHICH WILL SCREEN THE, THE TWO PROPERTIES AS WELL AS A, UM, WHAT'S CALLED A SIMTECH SOUND ATTENUATION FENCE, WHICH WE'VE USED ON OTHER SIMILAR PROJECTS, WHICH ESSENTIALLY IS HELPS, UM, REDUCE SOME OF THE, THE NOISE TRAVEL AND, AND IMPACT TO ADJACENT. UH, NOW I WOULD JUST LIKE TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED VARIANCES. UH, JUST FLIP HERE. OKAY. OKAY. SO HERE'S A, A SCHEDULE THAT WE PUT TOGETHER OF THE PROPOSED VARIANCES, AS DAVID MENTIONED. UM, I'LL GO THROUGH THE SITE RELATED VARIANCES FIRST, AND THEN WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE SIGNAGE VARIANCES. UM, UH, THE FIRST VARIANCE THAT WE'RE REQUESTING IS FOR BUILDING HEIGHT. THE EXISTING, UH, BUILDING IS 20.1 FEET, AND THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS 24.1 FEET. THE, THIS IS AN, UH, INCREASE IN THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY. THE INCREASE IN HEIGHT OVER THE EXISTING CONDITION IS PRIMARILY, PRIMARILY RELATED TO AN ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENT, UH, WHICH WE REFER TO AS THE TOWER ON THE PROPOSED BUILDING. UM, I CAN SHOW THAT HERE. SO HERE'S THE ELEVATION OF THE BUILDING FACING CENTRAL AVENUE. SO THE LEFT SIDE OF THE ELEVATION IS, IS THE TOWER ELEMENT THAT WE'RE, THAT I'M REFERRING TO. SO WHEN WE INITIALLY, UM, RECEIVED OUR DETERMINATION MEMORANDUM FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, WE, UH, WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T THINK THAT THE TOWER ELEMENT WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE HEIGHT, BUT AFTER SOME CLARIFICATION, IT IS. SO, UM, THAT'S WHAT'S PUSHING US TO THE 24.1 MARK. IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE, THE TOP OF THE, UH, PROPOSED PARAPET IS ACTUALLY ONE FOOT LOWER THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING. IT'S REALLY JUST THE, THE TOWER ELEMENT THAT'S PUSHING US, UM, UH, SLIGHTLY FURTHER UP. SO MOVING BACK TO THE VARIANCES, UH, FLOOR AREA RATIO, UH, UH, THERE'S A PERMITTED FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.015 FOR THIS USE [00:20:01] IN THIS ZONE THAT WOULD EQUATE TO APPROXIMATELY A 16 BY 16 FOOT BUILDING. SO, UM, WE ARE, IT IS A DECREASE IN THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY. WE'RE ACTUALLY A SLIGHTLY SMALLER FOOTPRINT IN THE EXISTING BUILDING, BUT IT'S VERY CLOSE. UH, WITH REGARD TO THE IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, THAT IS A, A REDUCTION IN THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY. THE EXISTING, UH, SITE IS ABOUT 75% IMPERVIOUS, AND WE'RE PROPOSING 72% IMPERVIOUS. UH, SO THERE'S A NET REDUCTION THERE, NOT IN ACCOUNTING FOR THE PERVIOUS PAVEMENT. UM, WITH REGARD TO THE SIDE BUILDING SETBACK, UM, AS I HAD SHOWN ON THAT, UH, RENDERING, WE ARE PUSHING THE PROPOSED BUILDING TO THE SOUTH INTO THE, INTO THE, UH, SETBACK. BUT, UM, REALLY IT'S, UM, UM, WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO MAKE THE SITE OPERATE WELL WITH THE DRIVE-THROUGH AND, AND THE PARKING. UM, WHEN WE LOOK AT THAT AS A WHOLE WITH REGARD TO THE FRONT PARKING SETBACK, UH, THERE'S AN INCREASE IN THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY. THE, THE PARKING SPACES THAT WE HAVE AFTER THE DRIVE-THROUGH ARE 1.7 FEET FROM THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE, UH, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE, OF THE PROPERTY. THAT IS A, UM, DECREASE IN THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY. UH, THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE, ACTUALLY COUNTS AS PARKING SPACES, UH, THE WAY THAT THEY'RE VIEWED IN THE ZONING CODE. SO THAT'S THE REASON, UM, WHY YOU'LL SEE A LOT OF THESE SETBACKS ARE MEASURED TO THE DRIVE-THROUGH LANE. ON THE NORTHERLY SIDE, THAT'S ALSO A DECREASE IN THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY. THE, UH, PARA, UH, PARALLEL PARKING SPACES AND FENCE ESSENTIALLY GOES RIGHT UP TO THE SUBWAY PROPERTY LINE. SO WE'RE SETTING THAT BACK A LITTLE BIT AND CREATING A LANDSCAPE BUFFER, UH, PRINCIPAL BUILDING PARKING SETBACK, UH, THAT IS AN INCREASE IN THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITY. UH, WE'RE PROPOSING A ZERO FOOT SETBACK THAT ALSO RELATES TO THE DRIVE THROUGH THE WAY IT'S CONSIDERED UNDER THE CODE, UH, BECAUSE THE, THERE'S NO SEPARATION FROM THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE TO THE BUILDING AS IT WRAPS AROUND THE SIDE. UH, AND THEN WITH REGARD TO THE PARKING SPACES, UM, THE EXISTING SITE HAD 22 PARKING SPACES WE'RE PROPOSING 29. THE REQUIREMENT WAS THE SAME. THEY'RE THE SAME, UH, USE AND THE SAME PARKING REQUIREMENT WHEN IT'S CALCULATED OUT WHERE 49 SPACES ARE REQUIRED. UH, AND I WILL, UM, WE HAVE, WE SUBMITTED A PARKING STUDY AND DATA TO SUPPORT THAT, WHICH, UH, MARK PETRO COULD, COULD GO THROUGH. UH, NOW MOVING ON TO THE SIGN VARIANCES. THERE'S A NUMBER OF VARIANCES THAT ARE REQUIRED. UM, ONE OF THEM RELATES TO THE NUMBER OF SIGNS THAT ARE PROPOSED. WALL SIGNS. UM, THERE ARE TWO, I GUESS, PRIMARY WALL SIGNS THAT ARE PROPOSED. AND THOSE, UM, ARE THE, THE ONE SIGN ON THE, UH, ON THE TOWER, AND THEN THE SIGN AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED HERE. AND THEN THE ADDITIONAL WALL SIGNS THAT ARE PROPOSED, UM, ARE FOR THE, UH, THE MURALS THAT, THAT DAVID WAS REFERENCING, THESE DECORATIVE MURALS THAT ARE IN THE WINDOWS ON EITHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING. SO OVERALL, IT'S, UH, THERE'S FIVE, UM, WALL SIGNS THAT ARE PROPOSED AND ONLY ONE IS PERMITTED. UH, THE OTHER VARIANCES RELATE TO THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE, THE SIGNS THAT ARE PERMITTED. UM, THE, UH, I BELIEVE VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED FOR THE, UH, JUST THE HEIGHT OVERALL OF THE, THE TWO TACO BELL SIGNS AS WELL AS THE, UM, MURALS. SO JUST MOVING BACK, JUST TO HIGHLIGHT THAT AGAIN. SO WE HAVE THE, THE ONE VARIANCE THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE NUMBER OF WALL SIGNS, ANOTHER VARIANCE THAT'S REQUIRED FOR THE HEIGHT OF THE WORDING ON THE NORTH SIDE, THE HEIGHT AND THE WORDING ON THE EAST SIDE, AND THEN FOUR SEPARATE VARIANCES FOR EACH MURAL. SO, UM, MARK, YOU WANNA, OKAY. YEAH, SO JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS AND THEN I'M GONNA TURN IT OVER TO MARK. UM, I THINK I NEGLECTED TO SAY THAT MR. PATEL AND HIS COMPANY OWN AND OPERATE A NUMBER OF TACO BELLS. SO IN TERMS OF HIS KNOWLEDGE OF, OF, UH, UH, THE OPERATION, UH, THE QUEUING, THE FREQUENCY OF THE, UH, UTILIZATION OF THE DRIVE-THRU, UM, NO ONE KNOWS IT BETTER THAN, THAN OVV, UM, HAVING, UH, LIVED AND WORKING WITH THESE IN NUMEROUS LOCATIONS. SECOND, I WANNA MAKE SURE THE RECORD IS CLEAR. THIS IS A ZONING COMPLIANT USE. I KNOW THERE WERE SOME COMMUNICATIONS, UH, THAT WERE SUBMITTED, UH, QUESTIONING, UH, THE USE AS WELL AS PROXIMITY TO OTHER TYPES OF USES IN THE AREA. UH, THE BUILDING AND PLANNING DEPARTMENTS BOTH CONCLUDED THAT NEITHER SUBWAY TO OUR NORTH NOR STARBUCKS TO OUR SOUTH, UH, PRECLUDED THE EXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF THIS PARTICULAR, UH, RESTAURANT USE, UH, FOR THE REASONS THAT THE PLANNING AND, AND BUILDING DEPARTMENTS, UM, ULTIMATELY, I BELIEVE ARTICULATED FOR THE RECORD. AND LASTLY, JUST TEEING UP [00:25:01] MARK, UM, HE DID SUBMIT A, UM, A TRAFFIC AND QUEUING ANALYSIS, WHICH HE'S GONNA SPEAK TO BRIEFLY SO YOU UNDERSTAND WHY ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THIS DRIVE-THROUGH LANE AND THE NUMBER OF CARS THAT CAN FIT IN IT, AND WHY IS THAT CONSIDERED PARKING? MARK IS GOING TO TALK ABOUT THAT. UM, AND LASTLY, UM, AND I I MIGHT'VE SAID THIS EARLIER, DOT REVIEWED OUR MATERIALS, BUT MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHAT WE WERE ALL WAITING TO FIND OUT, OUR TEAM AS WELL AS MR. CANNING NEW YORK STATE DOT, DID NOT CONCLUDE, DID NOT CONCLUDE THAT THERE NEEDED TO BE ANY RESTRICTIONS PLACED ON THE MOVEMENTS INTO AND OUT OF THIS SITE. THAT WAS ONE OF THE FIRST QUESTIONS WE ASKED OURSELVES. WE KNOW WERE ON NEW YORK STATE ROUTE 100, AND WOULD THERE BE ANY CONCERNS OF DOT? THEY WERE PLEASED AT THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE CURB CUTS, AND THEY REVIEWED THE TRAFFIC DATA AND CONCLUDED THAT THIS WOULD NOT, UM, CREATE AN UNSAFE CONDITION. SO WITH THAT, UM, MARK, JUST BRIEFLY, UM, AND THEN OBVIOUSLY MR. CANON CAN SPEAK TO SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. UH, GOOD EVENING BOARD. UH, THIS IS MARK PETRO FROM JMC. UM, JUST WANTED TO TOUCH ON, I KNOW IT WASN'T MENTIONED, BUT THE PARKING ASPECT, 'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE'RE COMING IN FOR A VARIANCE IN THE PARKING. SO, UH, WE DID PROVIDE A PARKING STUDY AS WELL AS WHAT, UH, DAVID HAD MENTIONED BEING THE TRAFFIC AND THE QUEUING. SO WE DID DO A PARKING STUDY. WE STUDIED FIVE OTHER TACO BELL LOCATIONS. UM, AND, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE ALL LARGER IN SQUARE FOOTAGE THAN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING ACTUALLY, AS FAR AS A TACO BELL SIZE BUILDING SIZE. UM, BUT, UH, EXCLUDING THE QUEUING SPACES, WHICH PER CODE ARE INCLUDED IN THE PARKING STUDY. SO WE ARE PROPOSING 22 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES TOTAL. UH, AND THAT'S EXCLUDING THOSE QUEUING SPACES THERE. SO, UM, WHEN WE DID THE STUDY AT THE OTHER FIVE LOCATIONS, UH, WE HAD OBSERVED MAX DEMANDS OF PARKING, UH, RANGING FROM SEVEN TO 15 SPACES TOTAL, UH, DURING OUR PARKING COUNTS THAT WE CONSIDERED AT THE OTHER FIVE TACO BELL LOCATIONS. UH, IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE 15 THAT I MENTIONED IS ACTUALLY A LOCATION IN CARMEL THAT, UH, HAS A SHARED, UH, TENANT NEXT TO IT TOO. SO MIGHT NOT NECESSARILY BE ALL TACO BELL RELATED PARKING, BUT WE PROVIDED THAT DATA IN THERE AS WELL. SO, AGAIN, UM, YOU KNOW, A MAX OF SEVEN AND 15 PARKING SPACES OCCUPIED DURING OUR COUNT THAT WE ISSUED ON A FRIDAY FOR FOUR HOURS. UM, AT ALL THOSE FIVE LOCATIONS, WE COUNTED, UH, I'M SORRY, I'LL JUST LIST THEM OUT HERE. BRIARCLIFF MATTER, WE DID CARMEL, WE DID CORTLAND, MOHEGAN LAKE, AS WELL AS THE ONE ON CENTRAL AVENUE IN YONKERS. UH, ALL FIVE OF THOSE ARE INCLUDED ON OUR DATA THAT WE HAD SUBMITTED TO YOU AND WAS REVIEWED BY YOUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT AS WELL. UM, ON TOP OF THAT, WE DID DO A QUEUING ANALYSIS AS WELL AT THOSE SAME FIVE LOCATIONS. AND WE SHOWED HOW THE, UH, PROJECTED CUES AND ACTUALLY THE CUES THAT WE OBSERVED AT THOSE FIVE LOCATIONS ARE ACCOMMODATED BY WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED ON THIS SITE. UM, AT THOSE LOCATIONS, WE OBSERVED A MAXIMUM QUEUE OF, UH, EIGHT VEHICLES, UM, IN THE 95TH PERCENTILE QUEUE. UH, WE DO HAVE EIGHT VEHICLES THAT CAN BE ACCOMMODATED ON HERE. HOWEVER, UH, THE EIGHT MAX WAS AT THE CARMEL LOCATION, UH, HAS MORE SEATING, UH, AS WELL THAN WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING ON THE SITE. AND THAT EIGHT VEHICLE QUEUE ONLY WAS, UH, ONLY OCCURRED FOR TWO MINUTE DURATION. UH, THE REST OF THE OTHER LOCATIONS HAD SIX AS A MAX OR LESS. UM, ON AVERAGE THE QUEUES WERE ONE VEHICLE, UH, DURING OUR ACCOUNTS AT ALL FIVE LOCATIONS. UM, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, AS WAS UH, MENTIONED, WE DID DO A TRAFFIC STUDY. UH, IT WAS REVIEWED, UH, BY THE POINT BOARD AS WELL AS YOUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT AS WELL AS THE DOT, UH, FOR NUMBER, NUMBER OF MONTHS. UH, WE DID DO REVISIONS BASED ON COMMENTS WE RECEIVED FROM THE TOWNS TRAFFIC CONSULTANT. WE ANALYZED THREE DIFFERENT INTERSECTIONS ALONG CENTRAL PARK AVENUE, UM, CONDUCTED COUNTS AT THOSE LOCATIONS, PROJECTED FUTURE CONDITIONS, UH, FOLLOWING STANDARD TRAFFIC STUDY PROCEDURES, UH, YOU KNOW, PROJECTED OUR VOLUMES BASED ON INSTITUTED TRANSPORTATION ENGINEERS DATA FOR THE USE THAT'S PROPOSED. UM, AND IT WAS, UH, YOU KNOW, REVIEWED BY D UH, DOT, UH, NEW YORK STATE, DOT OH, SORRY, WHO HAS OWNERSHIP AND MAINTENANCE JURISDICTION OVER OBVIOUSLY CENTRAL PARK AVENUE, AS WELL AS YOUR TOWN TRAFFIC CONSULTANT. UM, AS WAS MENTIONED, THE DOT ACTUALLY IS ALLOWING US TO PROCEED TO THE NEXT STAGE OF THE HIGHWAY WORK PERMIT PROCESS, WHICH IS THE DETAILED DESIGN DRAWINGS [00:30:01] ASSOCIATED WITH THE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S PROPOSED IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. SO CALLING OUT THE TYPE OF CURBING, UH, THE TYPE OF DRAINAGE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, CONNECTIONS, UM, SIDEWALK, UH, ALL THE DETAILED DESIGN. BUT CONCEPTUALLY THEY APPROVED EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE SHOWN ON THIS PLAN HERE, UH, WITH NO RESTRICTIONS ON TURNING MOVEMENTS, UM, AS WELL, UH, I KNOW IT'S BEEN MENTIONED. YES, WE ARE CONSOLIDATING THE ACCESS ALONG CENTRAL PARK AVENUE. INSTEAD OF HAVING TWO CURB CUTS OR JUST HAVING THE ONE, UH, IT IS AN ACCESS MANAGEMENT IMPROVEMENT AS WELL AS IT IMPROVES THE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY. SO INSTEAD OF HAVING THE PEDESTRIAN CROSS TWO DRIVEWAYS THERE, HAVE NOW JUST HAVE ONE CROSSING TO GO ACROSS THE DRIVEWAY THERE. UM, AND I DIDN'T WANNA TAKE UP TOO MUCH OF YOUR TIME 'CAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S OTHER MATTERS, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, PLEASE LET US KNOW. UH, THAT WOULD BE IT FOR ME. JUST IN CONCLUSION, I KNOW YOUR BOARD IS QUITE WELL, UH, FAMILIAR WITH THE FIVE FACTORS. I JUST WANNA HIT THEM SIMPLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF, OF THE RECORD. UM, NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER, UH, WE DO NOT BELIEVE THERE'S AN ADVERSE IMPACT ON COMMUNITY CHARACTER. THIS IS A COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR, UH, WITH A COMMERCIAL OPERATION THAT HAS BEEN IN EXISTENCE ON THIS SITE IN ONE FORM OR ANOTHER FOR DECADES. UM, THE, THE PROPOSED REDEVELOPMENT BRINGS A VARIETY OF IMPROVEMENTS, LANDSCAPING, UH, SOUND WALL BUFFERS, AESTHETIC IMPROVEMENTS, PERVIOUS PAVERS, UM, IN TERMS OF FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES. A LOT OF TIME WAS SPENT WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND YOUR PROFESSIONALS AS WELL AS OURS BECAUSE OF, AS I SAID AT THE OUTSET, THE UNIQUE GEOMETRY OF THIS SITE. IT'S NARROW CONDITION, UM, THE TOPOGRAPHY TO THE REAR. THERE AREN'T A LOT OF ALTERNATIVES IN TERMS OF MAKING THE BEST COMMERCIAL USE OF THIS PROPERTY GIVEN APPLICABLE ZONING. UM, THE DESIGN, UH, LIMITATIONS THAT ARE, THAT ARE PROVIDED, UM, MAKE THINGS SOMEWHAT MORE CHALLENGING, HAVING A USE THAT IS, UM, DRIVE THROUGH DEPENDENT OR SIGNIFICANTLY DRIVE THROUGH DEPENDENT ACTUALLY, UM, BODES WELL FOR THE CONDITIONS OF THE SITE. IN TERMS OF SUBSTANTIALITY, UM, AS YOUR BOARD KNOWS, AND IF WE TALK, AS WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT TOGETHER IN OTHER MATTERS, IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS. IT'S MORE CONTEXTUAL. UM, AND WE SUBMIT, UH, THAT BASED UPON THE SURROUNDING CONDITIONS AND THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS IS CONCLUDED BY THE LEAD AGENCY. UM, THERE ARE, UH, NO PRECLUSIVE SUBSTANTIAL VARIANCES HERE. AND IN TERMS OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PHYSICAL IMPACTS, UH, WE ARE IMPROVING A PREEXISTING STORM WATER CONDITION. WE ARE IMPROVING THE STREET SCAPE, STREET SCAPE, WE ARE IMPROVING THE LANDSCAPING, AND WE ARE IMPROVING, UM, THE MI THE NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES THAT ARE PRESENTLY NON-EXISTENT. UM, THE THE FINAL FACTOR, SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP, AS YOUR BOARD KNOWS, IS NOT DISPOSITIVE. AND IN FACT, WE WOULD ARGUE, UM, THAT BECAUSE THE SITE HAS SO MANY EXISTING LONG TIME EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES, WE'RE ACTUALLY IMPROVING MANY OF THEM THAT THIS IS NOT, UH, A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP IS ACTUALLY ULTIMATELY OF BENEFIT, UM, TO THE TOWN, UH, OVER WHAT HAS EXISTED HISTORICALLY. WITH THAT, I KNOW MR. CANNING IS HERE. I KNOW YOU'VE GOT A HOST OF OTHER FOLKS, UH, LIKELY WHO WISH TO SPEAK. WE ARE ALL HERE. WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AND MAKE SURE YOUR RECORD IS COMPLETE. UM, APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AS ALWAYS, AND, UH, FIRE AWAY IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS. OTHERWISE, I WOULD ASK YOU TO AT LEAST ALLOW MR. CANNING TO CONFIRM THAT WHAT WE HAVE REPRESENTED WITH REGARD TO TRAFFIC QUEUING AND DOT IS ACCURATE. UM, HOW MUCH SEATING IS INSIDE THE SPACE? GOOD QUESTION. ONE SECOND. 16 SEATS. 16 SEATS. UM, AND THEN HOW MANY PARKING SPACES ARE ALLOCATED TO EMPLOYEES? SO, UM, THERE IS NO SPECIFIC ALLOCATION, UH, FOR EMPLOYEES. HISTORICALLY, WE HAVE APPROXIMATELY HOW MANY EMPLOYEES PARKING? UH, TYPICALLY WE HAVE ABOUT SIX, SIX EMPLOYEES WORKING IN A GIVEN SHIFT. SO, SO THE MAXIMUM NUMBER IS TYPICALLY AROUND SIX. THEY, MANY OF THEM, UH, TAKE MASS TRANSIT AND EMPLOYEE PARKING IS BAKED INTO YOUR REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE ZONING. SO THE, SO THE, THE 49 THAT ZONING WOULD REQUIRE TAKES INTO ACCOUNT FOLKS WHO WOULD WORK INSIDE A 1600 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. UM, MR. MR. PATEL WOULD NOT BE PURSUING THIS PARTICULAR BUILDING IN THIS PARTICULAR, UH, CONFIGURATION IF HE DIDN'T THINK HE COULD ADEQUATELY STAFF, UM, AND PARK THOSE, THOSE FOLKS WHO HAVE TO WORK THERE. OKAY. SORRY, I INTERRUPTED. NO, GO AHEAD, MR. CANNING. GOOD, GOOD EVENING. UH, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, FOR THE RECORD, JOHN CANNING WITH KIMLEY HORN. UM, YOU'VE HEARD A LOT FROM ATTORNEY STEINMETZ AND, UH, TRAFFIC ENGINEER PATROL. UH, THE ON, FROM A TRAFFIC AND PARKING PERSPECTIVE, THE ONLY THING THAT I, UH, WOULD OBJECT TO WOULD BE THE STATEMENT THAT I WAS INVOLVED WITH THE DOT PROCESS IN REVIEWING THE DRIVEWAY. UM, I WAS INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS HEAVILY WITH TOWN STAFF, BUT THE [00:35:01] APPLICANT WENT SEPARATELY TO THE DOT, SO I WAS NOT INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS. UH, I WORK IN MANY JURISDICTIONS AND MR. STEINMETZ DOES ALSO, SO HE MAY BE MISREMEMBERING ANOTHER LOCATION WHERE THAT OCCURRED. BUT, UH, JUST FOR THE RECORD, UH, I WAS NOT INVOLVED DOT IN THIS PROCESS. HOW WAS THAT PROCESS? UH, EVERY, EVERYTHING ELSE THEY HAVE SAID IS BASICALLY HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY ME. UH, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE START, THE, THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE SITE AND THE IMPORTANCE OF MAKING SURE THAT WHAT WAS PROPOSED WOULD FIT IN THE SITE. INITIALLY, WE HAD THE APPLICANT STUDY FOR TACO BELL LOCATIONS, AND THE INFORMATION FROM THAT WAS GENERALLY FAVORABLE RELATIVE TO THE SITE. UH, BUT THE PLANNING BOARD INSISTED AND THE APPLICANT CONSENTED TO GO OUT AND ALSO STUDY THE TACO BELL AND YONKERS, AND THE RESULTS FROM THAT TACO BELL CAME IN SIMILAR TO THE OTHER LOCATIONS. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON THIS APPLICATION, TRAFFIC OR PARKING. JOHN, I APOLOGIZE IF I INDICATED THAT YOU WERE INVOLVED IN THE DOT PROCESS, I WOULD JUST SIMPLY ASK FOR, FOR MY MISSTATEMENT. YOU, YOU, YOU WOULD AGREE THAT THE DOT DID NOT IMPOSE LEFT TURN RESTRICTIONS ON, UH, BASED UPON AND AURELIUS AND THAT AND THE REGION'S REVIEW, CORRECT? I, I HAVE NOT SEEN THE REGENTS REVIEW, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. OKAY. THE PLANNING BOARD DID MY, MY APOLOGIES. I THOUGHT THEY HAD FORWARDED THAT TO YOU. UM, I'M JUST, I HAVE A COUPLE, JUST A FEW QUESTIONS. UM, IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES, UM, THE, THE TRAFFIC STUDY, TRAFFIC PARKING STUDY SAYS THERE'S 24, NOT INCLUDING THE DRIVE THROUGH QUEUE SAYS THAT THERE'S 24. UM, OUR, UM, MEMO FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SAYS THAT THERE'S 23, SO, AND WHEN I COUNT HERE, I SEE 22. SO JUST THERE JUST TO BE SOME RECONCILIATION OF THE UNDERSTOOD EXACT NUMBER OF THE OFF STREET PARTY. MADAM CHAIR, WOULD YOU LIKE US TO RESPOND TO THAT AND CLARIFY? SURE. SO I, I THINK THE REASON THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS REFERENCING 24 IS THAT THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, HAD 24 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. BUT WORKING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, THEY EXPRESSED A DESIRE FOR, UH, LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AND SOME ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR LANDSCAPED ISLANDS. UH, SO I'M HIGH LANDSCAPED ISLANDS, SO I'M HIGHLIGHTING SOME OF THOSE ON MY SCREEN. WE INCORPORATED TWO ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPED ISLANDS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY PARKING SPACES, SO THAT'S WHY THE CURRENT SITE PLAN PROPOSES 22 PARKING SPACES. OKAY. I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHERE THE 23 COMES FROM, BUT THERE'S 22 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES PLUS SEVEN QUEUING SPACES FOR A ZONING, UH, YOU KNOW, TOTAL OF 29 THAT ARE PROPOSED. 22 ACCESSIBLE SPACES. YEAH. OKAY. THAT WAS ONE, UM, MY SECOND. OH, DID YOU EVER CONSIDER, WHAT MADE YOU DECIDE TO PUT THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH AS OPPOSED TO DOING IT ON THE NORTH SIDE? FLIPPING THE WHOLE SIDE? SO, UH, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS PRIMARILY IT WAS DRIVEN BY, UM, JUST THE DRIVE THROUGH ELEMENTS TO, TO ORIENT A BUILDING ON THE NORTH SIDE, UM, WOULDN'T REALLY BE, WOULDN'T REALLY MAKE SENSE BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO THROUGH A DRIVE THROUGH, YOUR DRIVER'S WINDOW HAS TO BE ORIENTED TOWARD THE BUILDING. SO YOU PUT A BUILDING ON THE NORTH SIDE, IF YOU MIRROR THIS LAYOUT, ESSENTIALLY YOU'RE, IT WOULD BE REVERSED. UM, AND THERE'S NOT ENOUGH ROOM THERE, THERE IS SOMETHING IN THE INDUSTRY THAT'S CALLED LIKE A REVERSE DRIVE THROUGH, BUT, UH, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH WIDTH ON THIS PROPERTY TO REALLY DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT. UM, PRIMARILY THOUGH IT WAS REALLY JUST DRIVEN BY, UM, YOU KNOW, THE ABILITY TO CREATE THIS, UH, TWO-WAY CLEARLY DEFINED ORGANIZED ACCESS AISLE WITH A A ROW OF 90 DEGREE PARKING SPACES, WHICH, UM, IS, IS AN IMPROVEMENT ON JUST THE, YOU KNOW, CIRCULATION ON THE SITE OVER WHAT EXISTS TODAY WITH, YOU KNOW, TODAY YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, ONE-WAY FLOW AROUND THE SITE, BUT THEN YOU HAVE PARALLEL PARKING SPACES, YOU HAVE THE PARKING SPACES IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND, UM, I DIDN'T GO THERE A A WHOLE LOT, BUT I RECALL JUST, IT WAS, IT'S A LITTLE, IT WAS A LITTLE DISORGANIZED. AND THIS PROVIDES A, JUST A MORE ORGANIZED, UM, FLOW FOR TRAFFIC AND A, A FULL TWO-WAY DRIVEWAY. UM, ALRIGHT, THAT'S ALL I'LL LEAVE IT TO. SO, HI, I HAVE, I HAVE, UM, SEVERAL QUESTIONS WITH REGARD TO THE TRA TRAFFIC AND THE TRAFFIC STUDY. LOOKS LIKE YOU GUYS DID THE TRAFFIC STUDY IN JUNE, IS THAT CORRECT? JUNE? THAT IS CORRECT. JUNE 13TH AND JUNE 15TH WHERE THE COUNTS WERE DONE, THE SCHOOLS WERE IN SESSION AT THAT TIME, WE CONFIRMED WITH THE CALENDAR, BUT IN THAT CORRIDOR, THE TRAFFIC COULD GO 10 X IN THE FALL. ONCE YOU GET INTO THE HOLIDAY SEASON, THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL INCREASE IN TRAFFIC DURING THE SUMMER MONTHS OF JUNE, JULY, AND AU AUGUST, ESPECIALLY ON WEEKENDS. THERE'S VERY LIMITED TRAFFIC. WELL, WHEN WE DO TRAFFIC STAYS, YOU, YOU PLAN FOR THE TYPICAL DAY AS FAR AS VOLUME GOES. UH, AND THAT'S WHAT YOU REPRESENT IN A TRAFFIC [00:40:01] STUDY AND LOOK AT, YOU CAN DO SENSITIVITY ANALYSES, WHICH, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE DONE ON OTHER LOCATIONS, BUT THIS ULTIMATELY WAS REVIEWED BY DOT AS WELL AS YOUR CONSULTANT AND WAS APPROVED BY DOT WHO OWNED AND MAINTAINED THE CENTRAL PARK AVENUE CORRIDOR. YEAH, BUT WE, WE HAVE TO ALSO CONSIDER WHAT IT, ONE OF OUR CONSIDERATIONS, WHICH YOU MENTIONED IS WHAT IT'S GOING TO DO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE QUALITY OF NEIGHBORHOOD DURING THOSE TIME PERIODS. YOU CAN HAVE TRAFFIC THAT GOES FROM THE FOUR CORNERS LIGHT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO HARVARD DRIVE AT A STANDSTILL, LIKE SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC DURING THOSE DURING OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, AND DECEMBER. SO THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN TRAFFIC. IN ADDITION TO THAT, YOU DON'T THINK ANY OF THE OTHER LOCATIONS HAVE A SCHOOL AND A CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET. OKAY. SO YOU COULD, WHEN THERE WAS A DUNKIN DONUTS THERE, THERE WAS SIGNIFICANT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING ABOUT PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. AND THAT SPECIFIC CORRIDOR HAS HAD MANY ACCIDENTS, INCLUDING CHILDREN GETTING KILLED THERE. SO THAT IS A CONCERN IS, AND THEY'RE GONNA COME OUT ALL THREE OF THOSE STREETS. I KNOW THERE'S A, THERE'S A REASON WHY THERE'S A CROSSWALK IS BECAUSE IT WAS, WE PUT IT IN I THINK IN 2020 OR 2021 BECAUSE WE WERE HAVING SO MANY PEDESTRIAN AC ACCIDENTS. SO I THINK THAT'S A CONSIDERATION. YOU NEED TO ALSO LOOK AT POTENTIAL FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC. UH, PEDESTRIANS WERE INCLUDED IN OUR TRAFFIC COUNTS WHEN WE DID THOSE ONES, AND THEY'RE INCLUDED IN OUR ANALYSIS. UM, SO THOSE VOLUMES OF PEDESTRIANS ARE INCLUDED IN THERE. WE ACTUALLY, BASED ON ONE OF THE COMMENTS ACTUALLY FROM YOUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT, WE ADJUSTED THE, UH, ACTIVATIONS OF THE PEDESTRIAN EXCLUSIVE PHASE ON THE HARTSDALE INTERSECTION, UH, BASED ON COUNTS THAT WE SUBSEQUENTLY DID TO SEE HOW MANY ACTIVATIONS DURING THAT TIME AND INCREASED IT. SO BASED ON THE COMMENTS FROM YOUR TRAFFIC CONSULTANT, WE DID ACTUALLY REVISE THAT BASED ON PEDESTRIAN VOLUMES AND ACTIVATIONS THAT WERE THERE. SO THOSE ARE CONSIDERED IN OUR TRAFFIC STUDY AS WELL AS THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT DID ASK US TO LOOK AT THE NUMBER OF ACTIVATIONS OF THE HAWK SIGNAL, WHICH IS THAT PEDESTRIAN CROSSING THE SIGNALIZE ONE JUST IN THE NORTH. SO WE LOOKED AT IT DURING THE SATURDAY PEAK HOUR THAT WE LOOKED, THAT WE ANALYZED, AND WE WENT BACK OUT THERE AND WE LOOKED AT HOW MANY TIMES WAS THAT HAWK SIGNAL ACTUALLY ACTIVATED DURING THE PEAK HOUR. AND WHAT WE FOUND IT WAS ONLY ACTIVATED THREE TIMES DURING THE PEAK HOUR ON A SATURDAY. YOU ALSO DID ACCIDENT, ADAM. THERE WAS NO ACCIDENT DATA RESEARCH ON ROUTE 100. NO, WE DID NOT LOOK AT ACCIDENTS. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD'VE COME UP IN THE DOT REVIEW THAT THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR. THE, THE CHURCH ALSO USES THAT CORRIDOR FOR PARKING ON SATURDAY EVENINGS AND SUNDAY. SO YOU HAVE PARKING UP AND DOWN CENTRAL AVENUE ON BOTH SIDES. HOW WOULD THAT, HOW'S THAT GONNA IMPACT YOUR QUEUES, ET CETERA. THE PARKING'S ALSO CONSIDERED IN OUR SYNCHRO ANALYSIS, THERE'S A, AN INPUT THAT YOU PUT INTO THE, INTO THE SOFTWARE THAT CONSIDERS ADJACENT PARKING LANES AND THE MOVEMENTS IN AND OUT OF THOSE PARKING SPACES AS WELL. THEY, SO THEY DON'T JUST PARK IN PARKING SPACES, THEY PARK UP AND DOWN CENTRAL AVENUE ON DURING CHURCH SERVICES IN AND OUT OF THE PARKING SPACES. AND YOU'RE NOT GONNA SEE THAT UNLESS YOU DO AN ANALYSIS ON A SATURDAY EVENING OR A SUNDAY MORNING. WELL, THE, THE PARKING SPACES, I MEAN, ON CENTRAL PARK AVENUE, SO THE PARKING LANE ON CENTRAL AVENUE OR CARS PARKED ADJACENT TO THE CURB PARALLEL, THAT'S CONSIDERED IN OUR TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. THERE'S AN INPUT LINE IN THERE TO CONSIDER THAT ASPECT AND HOW THAT IMPACTS THE OPERATIONS OF TRAFFIC. OH, Y'ALL DONE? I'M DONE. OKAY. I JUST HAVE JUST A FEW. I'M DONE FOR NOW. FOR NOW. I'M, I'M GONNA COME FROM JUST A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT ANGLE. ONE, WELCOME TO GREENBERG. UM, JUST SO YOU KNOW, WE ARE NOT A FAN OF AN ABUNDANCE OF SIGNAGE. SO TO CUT TO THE CHASE BEFORE WE GO DOWN THE LONG RABBIT HOLE, A SUGGESTION TO THE APPLICANT WOULD BE TO SEEK SOME REMEDIATION. AND I KNOW WE'RE GONNA SAY THAT IT IS TACO BELL'S LOGOING TO HAVE ONE ON THE SIDE WALLS, THE FRONT WALLS, BUT AGAIN, IN KEEPING WITH THE NATURE AND COMPLEXION OF OUR COMMUNITIES IS JUST NOT SOMETHING WE TYPICALLY APPROVE JUST AS A HEADS UP. SO THAT'S ONE. UM, LOOKING AT YOUR PLAN, I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW, IS THERE GONNA BE A REDUCTION OF THE ELEVATION OF THE PARKING AREA ITSELF IN TERMS OF LEVELING IT? WILL THAT QUEUE ACTUALLY NOW BE BELOW THE PARKING LOT TO THE SOUTH? HOW IS THAT GONNA BE ADDRESSED? BECAUSE THE CURRENT FACILITY IS RATHER TALL AND JUST SO I CAN JUST GET A VISUAL LOOKING FROM THE STREET AS IT JUXTAPOSES TO THE APARTMENT COMPLEX TO THE LEFT. GOOD QUESTION. I WANNA KNOW WHAT THAT IMPACT IS GONNA LOOK LIKE. AND [00:45:01] THEN THAT WILL JUST GO INTO A FEW MORE QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD. SO, SO YOU'RE CORRECT, THE, THE EXISTING SITE IS QUITE STEEP. AS YOU PULL IN IT, IT KIND OF RAMPS RIGHT UP AND RIGHT. THE, THE, ACTUALLY THE FRONT DOOR OF THAT EXISTING BUILDING IS, UM, UP A FLIGHT OF STAIRS, SOME STEPS. YEAH. SO THAT WAS ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THAT PRESENTED ITSELF WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS SITE. SO WHAT WE ARE DOING IS, UM, KIND OF TAKING A MORE BALANCED APPROACH. WE'RE WE'RE GOING TO BE, UH, YOU KNOW, RAMPING UP IN THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE Q LANE HERE, AND IF WE JUST LOOK AT THE SIDE, UH, WHERE I HAVE MY CURSOR HERE. YEP. THAT WHOLE LENGTH OF THE Q IS, IS ON GRADE WITH THE OKAY. ADJACENT PROPERTY. UM, AND THEN AS WE GET TOWARD THE REAR OF THE QUEUE, YOU'LL SEE, UH, THERE'S A RETAINING WALL THAT STARTS. OKAY. AND THAT'S WHERE WE START TO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GONNA KEEP THE SITE, UH, OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, FLAT, IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT GONNA HAVE THOSE SAME, UM, STEEP SECTIONS LIKE YOU HAVE ON THE EXISTING SITE, BUT, UH, THAT'S WHERE THE RETAINING WALL WILL START. AND SO THE CARS WILL BE BELOW THE RETAINING WALL OR THEY'LL ARRIVE CORRECT UP ALONG IT? NO, THE CARS ARE DOWN RESET ON THE LOW SIDE OF THE RETAINING WALL. CORRECT. OKAY. ALRIGHT. AND THEN AS WE GO AROUND TO THE REAR DEPART PROPERTY, WHERE THAT BURGUNDY LINE IS, THAT WOULD BE BELOW GRADE OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY? CORRECT. OKAY. YEP. AND THE WALL IS ABOUT, AT ITS HIGHEST POINT, ABOUT SEVEN FEET TALL. ABOUT SEVEN FEET. SO THAT'S GONNA LEAD ME TO ANOTHER QUESTION. WOULD THE APPLICANT BE OPPOSED? I WHAT TYPE OF SCREENING IS THIS BETWEEN THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY AND YOURS GOING ALL THE WAY TO THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY? JUST 'CAUSE AGAIN, THE NEXT QUESTION'S GONNA COME UP IS MM-HMM . HOW MANY LIGHT POLES? AND THAT'S GONNA LEAD ME TO ANOTHER QUESTION IN TERMS OF HOURS OF OPERATION, BECAUSE AGAIN, AS WE BEGIN LOOKING AT THE QUALITY OF LIFE AND HOW IT'S GOING TO IMPACT A COMMUNITY THAT HAS NOT HAD THAT LEVEL OF LIGHTS FLOODING THROUGH THEIR HOMES, ARE WE GOING UP UNTIL 6:00 PM AND THEN WE'RE CUTTING QUITS? OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE OPEN UNTIL 1:00 AM? BECAUSE IF IT'S GONNA BE OPEN UNTIL 1:00 AM WITH ILLUMINATION, IT NOW DRIVES A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION. SO I'M GONNA JUST GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK ABOUT THE SCREENING THAT'LL GO TO THE REAR. BECAUSE IF THERE'S TREES THAT GO ALL THE WAY BACK AND THOSE CARS ARE RECESSED, AT LEAST THE LIGHTS FROM THE CARS THAT ARE THERE WILL NOT BE AS INTRUSIVE. CERTAINLY. YEP. AND, BUT HOWEVER, I STILL WANNA ASK THE QUESTION ABOUT ON THIS SIDE OF THE PROPERTY MM-HMM . ANY OVER SPILL OF LIGHTS THAT MAY BE COMING NORTH TO SOUTH AS WELL AS GOING FROM THE QUEUE LINE, OR IS THAT MAYBE A DARK QUEUE LINE? MM-HMM . OR JUST LIGHTS ON THE SIDE? JUST KIND OF WALK US THROUGH THAT. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT LANDSCAPING. YEP. LET'S TALK ABOUT LIGHTING. MM-HMM. AND THESE LIGHT FIXTURES. AND LET'S TALK ABOUT THE, THE ISSUES THAT THE PLANNING BOARD STUDIED AS LEAD AGENCY. OKAY. OKAY. THE HOURS AND HOURS WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE HOURS. SO, OKAY. SO PRIMARILY STARTING WITH THE SCREENING, RIGHT? THE, THE SCREENING THAT WAS, UH, DESIGNED WAS A RESULT, WAS THE RESULT OF, UH, CLOSE COORDINATION WITH, WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND TOWN STAFF. SO PRIMARILY THE, THE SCREENING IS MADE UP OF, UM, I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT'S A, IT'S A LARGE NUMBER OF KILOMETER EVERGREEN PLANTINGS. OKAY. KILOMETER. THEY'RE, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY GROW VERTICAL, UH, SO THEY'RE PLANTED AT A TIGHT SPACING. UM, AND THAT WILL FORM, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY OVER TIME LIKE A HEDGE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. UH, IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE ARE PROPOSING WHAT'S CALLED A SIMTECH SOUND ATTENUATION FENCE, UH, WHICH IS A SIX FOOT HIGH FENCE THAT WILL FURTHER BUFFER AND, AND SCREEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. WHERE IS THE FENCE RELATIVE TO THE LANDSCAPING PART? UH, THE FENCE IS ON, LIKE, ESSENTIALLY RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THE, THE LANDSCAPING WILL BE RIGHT UP AGAINST THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE, AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE THE FENCE RIGHT BEHIND IT ON THE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES. UH, WITH REGARD TO LIGHTING, UM, IF WE JUST TALK ABOUT THIS SIDE SPECIFICALLY, THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY PROPERTY, THERE ARE TWO LIGHT FIXTURES THAT ARE PROPOSED. I'M HIGHLIGHTING THEM HERE, UH, WITH MY CURSOR ONE HERE AND ONE HERE. THEY'RE FACING INWARD, UH, YOU KNOW, AWAY FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY YOU'RE FACING NORTH. RIGHT? FACING NORTH. CORRECT. UH, THOSE LIGHT FIXTURES, YOU KNOW, WHEN THE LIGHT DESIGNERS LOOK AT, UM, SELECTING A, A FIXTURE AND AN OPTIC IS WHAT THEY CALL IT FOR THE FIXTURE ITSELF, UM, THEY, THEY SPECIFICALLY SELECTED A THROW, WHICH IS, GIVES IT A PATTERN THAT, UM, PREVENTS LIGHT SPILL. IN ADDITION, THEY'RE PROPOSING HOUSE SIDE SHIELDS. SO, UM, FACING SOUTH THAT ENTIRE FIXTURE WILL BE SHIELDED. AND THEN IN ADDITION WITH MODERN DAY LED OPTICS AND, AND FIXTURES, THE, UM, THE FIXTURES WILL BE COMPLETELY DOWNWARD, UH, FACING DARK SKY COMPLIANT. AND THE ACTUAL, UM, LIGHT SOURCE ITSELF IS, IS SHIELDED. SO THAT ADDRESSES GLARE AND THINGS LIKE THAT. UH, BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, THE FOOT CANDLE LEVEL, UH, AT THE PROPERTY LINE, IT, IT MEETS TOWN CODE, IT'S FOOT CANDLE LEVEL. FOOT CANDLE. YEP. IT, IT'S, IT MEETS THE TOWN CODE. YEP. SO THERE'LL BE TWO ON THE SOUTH SIDE. RIGHT. AND WALK US THROUGH THE OTHER, UH, POLES THAT WOULD BE THERE. SO WE HAVE TWO, TWO ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WE'RE PROPOSING ONE, [00:50:01] UH, IN THIS LOCATION IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. OKAY. AND THEN WE'RE PROPOSING TWO ON THE NORTH SIDE. OKAY. ALL DARK SKY COMPLIANT, RIGHT? YEP. DARK SKY COMPLIANT. AND, AND THERE'LL BE SHIELDED AND EACH ONE, YOU KNOW, WHEN EACH ONE IS, WAS LOOKED AT WITH REGARD TO SPILL ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. AND AS OF RIGHT NOW, DO WE HAVE A HEIGHT ON THOSE POLES? UM, JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, I BELIEVE THE MAXIMUM PERMITTED HEIGHT IN TOWN IS 14 FEET, I BELIEVE. UH, BUT IT WAS ESSENTIALLY WE LOOKED AT THE CODE AND BACKED INTO IT THAT WAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. UM, HOURS OF OPERATION PAUL, THAT WERE STUDIED BY A PLANNING BOARD UNDER SECRA AND ULTIMATELY ALLOWED UNDER APPROVAL. SO YOU WANT HOURS? YES, SURE. INTRODUCE YOURSELF. GOOD EVENING BOARD, UH, RAG PATEL, UM, PART OF KAI RESTAURANT GROUP, UH, AND ONE AND THE APPLICANT. SO OUR HOURS OF OPERATIONS, UH, IT VARIES, UH, BY DAY OF THE WEEK. SO TYPICALLY, TYPICALLY SUNDAY THROUGH WEDNESDAY, UH, WE OPEN FROM 8:00 AM UNTIL ABOUT MIDNIGHT. UM, AND THEN THURSDAY, UH, WE'RE OPEN FROM 8:00 AM TILL 2:00 AM TYPICALLY. AND THEN FRIDAYS AND SATURDAY, UM, WE HAVE STORES THAT ARE OPEN FROM 8:00 AM TO 2:00 AM WE HAVE ONE STORE THAT'S OPEN FROM 8:00 AM TO 4:00 AM DEPENDING ON THE BUSINESS. THAT DIDN'T GO OVER WELL. UM, THANK YOU. I JUST WANNA ALSO SAY FOR THE RECORD, I, I FOUND THE CORRECT, I WAS LOOKING AT A DIFFERENT MEMO FROM THE BUILDING DISTRICT. YES. ON THE NUMBERS. I FOUND THE RIGHT ONE. SO WE'RE GOOD THERE. UM, OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM LAST TIME COURT? ALRIGHT, SIGNING PETER, PETER. OH, I'M SORRY, PETER, GO AHEAD. CAN YOU HEAR ME OKAY? YES. SO MY, MY QUESTION FOR BOTH THE, THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER AND THE OPERATOR IS ABOUT EGRESS INGRESS AND, UH, THE, THE CHANCES FOR SPILLING VEHICLES OUT ONTO THE STREET. SO PART OF IT'S GONNA BE A STATEMENT, PART OF IT'S GONNA BE QUESTIONED SINCE THERE ARE NO PASSING LANES AT THIS PART OF CENTRAL AVENUE, THE ASSUMPTION THAT THE ONLY ALLOWED ENTRANCE WOULD BE HEADING SOUTH. UH, 'CAUSE I CAN'T IMAGINE, UH, BEING ALLOWED TO MAKE LEFT HAND TURNS HEADING NORTH. IF YOU'RE HEADING SOUTH AND YOU'RE COMING UP ON THIS, YOU WILL NOT BE ABLE TO SEE WHAT THE STATE OF THE LINE IS. IF IT'S WITHIN THE SEVEN CAR LENGTH AS IT'S IN THE DRAWING, YOU'LL END UP DRIVING INTO THE PARKING LOT AND ONLY ONCE YOU'RE IN THE PARKING LOT REALIZING THAT IT MIGHT BE SPILLING OVER. SO WHAT IS THE, THE THOUGHT THERE THAT IF YOU'VE GOTTEN INTO THE PARKING LOT, YOU'RE NOW AT EIGHT OR NINE OR 10 CARS, SO NOW YOU'RE BLOCKING, UH, SOME OF THE PARKING SPACES AND YOU'RE SORT OF COMMITTED, WHAT IS THE, THE THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THE CAR THERE WILL WILL BE DOING? AND ALSO, AGAIN, THAT THERE IS NO PRECLUSIVE LEFT TURN, WHICH IS, HE'S MAKING THAT ASSUMPTION. SURE. UM, SO COUPLE, COUPLE THINGS. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WITH REGARD TO THE TURNING RESTRICTIONS IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY, UH, WE'VE ALREADY COORDINATED WITH DOT AND THEY'VE INDICATED THAT THEY WILL NOT BE IMPOSING ANY TURNING RESTRICTIONS ON THIS, ON THIS PROJECT OR THIS PROPERTY. UH, THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO, WITH REGARD TO, UH, SOMEONE ENTERS AND IF THE QUEUE IS, IS VERY LONG, UM, WHEN WE LOOKED AT OUR, OUR PARKING STUDIES, THE MAXIMUM PARKING DEMAND THAT WE SAW WAS 15 VEHICLES. AND THAT WAS AT A SITE IN CARMEL, WHICH ACTUALLY IS SHARED WITH A, LIKE A JUICE STORE OR SMOOTHIE STORE. UH, AND IT'S ALSO A LARGER RESTAURANT WITH MORE, MORE SEATING. UM, SO COUPLE THINGS, IF SOMEONE PULLS IN AND, AND THE LINE IS VERY LONG AND THEY NEED TO TURN AROUND AND LEAVE, UM, THERE WILL BE A SURPLUS OF PARKING SPACES THAT THEY'LL BE ABLE TO USE AND, AND TURN AROUND AND DO SO, OR, OR IF THEY WANT TO GO IN THE STORE AND, AND GET THEIR FOOD. BUT ALSO AS PART OF THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW, UH, WHAT ROGOV AND HIS TEAM HAVE COMMITTED TO IS, UM, ESSENTIALLY LIKE WHAT THEY CALL A LINE BUSTER, UM, MECHANISM WHERE IF THE QUEUE DOES EXTEND, UM, INTO THE PARKING LOT, THEY HAVE STAFF THAT ARE TRAINED THAT WILL HAVE TABLETS VERY SIMILAR TO, UH, IF YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH LIKE A CHICK-FIL-A TYPE OF OPERATION, UM, THEY WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, GOING OUT INTO THE, INTO THE LINE AND, AND ASSISTING CUSTOMERS AND MAKING SURE THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE IS, UH, IS MOVING. AND, UH, IN TACO BELL IN GENERAL, WHEN WE LOOK AT THEIR SERVICE TIMES, THEY'RE GENERALLY ABOUT THREE MINUTES FROM FROM MENU BOARD TO WINDOW TO GETTING THEIR FOOD AND LEAVING. SO, UM, WHEN WE LOOK AT TACO BELL, YOU KNOW, THAT'S [00:55:01] WHY WHEN WE SEE THE, BASED ON THE QUEUING STUDIES, THAT WE DON'T SEE THESE, YOU KNOW, VERY EXTENDED CUES. SO I HOPE THAT PAUL, IF YOU COULD JUST CLARIFY ONE THING BASED UPON THE THE MEMBER'S QUESTION, IF YOU COULD JUST EXPLAIN THE QUEUING. 'CAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE, UM, IF I UNDERSTOOD YOUR QUESTION, SIR, IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU THOUGHT THAT QUEUING COULD POTENTIALLY RESULT IN CARS SPILLING OUT ONTO CENTRAL AVENUE, AND ALL OF THOSE SEVEN CARS ARE LAWFULLY PERMITTED TO QUEUE ENTIRELY ON THE SITE WITHOUT BLOCKING ANY OTHER PARKING SPACES. IF YOU WOULD JUST DRILL DOWN ON THAT, DO YOU KNOW I NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT. THE QUEUING IS NOT, IS NOT LINKING AROUND OUT TO HERE. YEAH. SO YEAH, SO THE QUEUING, UM, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE STUDIES AND, AND THE REVIEW, YOU KNOW, UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCE WILL WE SEE A QUEUE THAT'S EXTENDING INTO THE PARKING LOT OUT TO CENTRAL AVENUE NEAR THE DRIVEWAY AT ALL. UM, TACO BELL DOESN'T SEE THAT KIND OF VOLUME. AND THIS AGAIN, WHAT I WAS SAYING WITH THE SERVICE TIMES, IT'S, IT'S, THIS ISN'T STARBUCKS, THIS ISN'T MCDONALD'S, YOU KNOW, THIS IS, UM, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT AND THE PLANNING BOARD OUT OF AN ABUNDANCE OF CAUTION, UM, ASKED OF US THAT WE HAVE THIS OPERATIONAL PLAN OR MECHANISM WHERE IF THE, IF THE LINE DOES EXTEND FOR WHATEVER REASON, THERE'S A WAY THAT THE, THE STAFF CAN, UM, ADDRESS THAT AND, AND KEEP THE LINE FLOWING. SO WELL, I I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE STATING. I I DO THINK THAT YOUR, YOUR COMPARISON DATA IS SORT OF COMPARING APPLES TO ORANGES BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT THE OTHER RESTAURANTS, THE OTHER RESTAURANTS HAVE 40 TO 60 SEATS, NOT 16. UM, SO THE, THE THOUGHT I, I'M THIS SEEMS TO BE A PREDOMINANTLY DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT. THE ASSUMPTION, MY ASSUMPTION, AND, UH, MR. PATEL COULD TELL ME IF I'M INCORRECT, IS THAT THE, UH, THE COSTS INVOLVED IN RUNNING THE FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, WHETHER YOU ARE SERVICING THE VEHICLES OR, OR PEOPLE SITTING IN THE, IN THE STORE, YOU STILL HAVE TO DO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF VOLUME. AND SO IF HE'S NOT GONNA BE DOING THE VOLUME WITH PEOPLE EATING IN THE, UH, LOCATION, THAT VOLUME WILL HAVE TO BE MADE UP WITH A GREATER VOLUME OF, OF DRIVE TO PEOPLE. UM, SO I'M, I'M JUST SAYING THAT YOUR STATISTICS SHOWING, YOU SHOWING HOW MANY CARS LINE UP ARE FOR A VERY DIFFERENT KIND OF OPERATION AND NONE OF YOUR COMPARISONS, YOU HAVE PARKING SPACES THAT EXCEED THE NUMBER OF SEATS. I MEAN, SO YOU HAVE 16 SEATS AND 24 SPACES WHILE OTHER, UH, THE BRIAR CLIP HAS 40 SEATS IN 22 SPACES. SO THERE'S, THIS SEEMS TO BE VIRTUALLY A DRIVETHROUGH AND, AND THAT WOULD LEAD YOU WITH THE QUESTION OF DID YOU EXAMINE MAKING THIS EXCLUSIVELY A DRIVETHROUGH? SO I THINK YOU'RE, YOU'RE CORRECT. YOU KNOW, THE OTHER RESTAURANTS DO HAVE MORE SEATS, BUT WHEN WE LOOK AT ANDRA, IF YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE, THE METRICS OF CUSTOMERS THAT, UM, THAT GO TO THE STORE AND, AND HOW THEY'RE GETTING THEIR FOOD, I BELIEVE IT'S, IT'S ALMOST 80% OF CUSTOMERS AT ANY OF THE LOCATIONS ARE USING THE DRIVE THROUGH. SO IT'S, IT'S ALWAYS ANY OF THESE STORES, REGARDLESS OF THE NUMBER OF SEATS ARE PRIMARILY, UM, DRIVE THROUGH BUSINESSES. SO, UM, WITH RESPECT TO, YOU KNOW, THE SITES THAT WE STUDIED, I I, I WOULDN'T SAY THAT IT'S APPLES TO ORANGES AND WE LOOKED CLOSELY AT THE, UM, ADJACENT ROADWAY VOLUMES AND, AND THOSE KIND OF METRICS TO ENSURE THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE LOCATIONS THAT WERE SELECTED WERE, UH, WERE COMPARABLE LOCATIONS. I WOULD, I WOULD ADD JUST ONE QUICK COMMENT AND I TOTALLY APPRECIATE YOUR OBSERVATION AND YOUR MATHEMATICAL COMPARISON AT NO TIME, TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, WERE WE TOLD, UM, BY YOUR TOWN CONSULTANT, UM, THAT WE WERE COMPARING APPLES AND ORANGES. I, I THINK JOHN SAID EARLIER, IN FACT, UM, THE TOWN ASKED US TO STUDY THE YONKERS LOCATION. MY, MY TEAM INITIALLY SAID IT'S A TOTALLY DIFFERENT OPERATION IN A VERY DIFFERENT, UM, AREA OF CIRCULATION. AND THE AMOUNT OF VEHICLES ON THE ROAD AT THAT, AT THAT LOCATION ARE VERY DIFFERENT. BUT DESPITE OUR, OUR PROTESTS, JOHN AND THE PLANNING BOARD INSISTED WE DO IT, WE DID DO IT. UM, AND IT DID NOT, UM, SKEW THE NUMBERS IN ANY WAY TO ADVERSELY IM IMPACT OUR CONCLUSION. SO, AS JOHN HIMSELF SAID, THEY PUSHED US TO DO YONKERS AND WE DID YONKERS. ARE THERE, ARE THERE ANY COMPARISONS THAT ARE MORE LIKE THIS PROPOSED RESTAURANT IN THE COMPARISONS THAT YOU INCLUDED? 'CAUSE AGAIN, THE, THE STATISTICALLY, UH, THIS SEEMS TO BE A DIFFERENT ATOM OF SORTS, MARK OR, OR PAUL, PURE TRAFFIC. UM, I, I GUESS JUST TO CLARIFY, ARE YOU SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO THE NUMBER OF SEATS WHEN, WHEN YOU'RE, I'M REFERRING TO THE NUMBER OF SEATS VERSUS NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, UH, VERSUS SIZE OF THE BUILDING. I MEAN, IT, IT, IT JUST, THIS, THIS SEEMS TO BE A, A, A SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT OPERATION. [01:00:01] UM, I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT ALL THE OPERATIONS ARE MORE DRIVE THROUGH THAN, OR I, I SUPPOSE IF YOU SAY TAKEOUT, TAKEOUT AND DRIVE THROUGH ARE NOT THE SAME THING. PEOPLE CAN PARK AND YOU TAKE OUT THE SAME WAY. CORRECT. DO DRIVE THROUGH. I I'M JUST ANTICIPATING THAT FOR THIS TO BE A SUCCESSFUL RESTAURANT, IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE PEAK TIME WHERE IT IS BEYOND THE SEVEN CARS SHOWN IN THE DRAWING. AND IT SEEMS TO ME THAT DURING THOSE PEAK TIMES, THE CHANCES FOR, UH, SITUATIONS IN THE PARKING LOT WHERE SOMEBODY CAN'T GET OUT OR IS HAVING TROUBLE GETTING OUT THERE, THE LINES THERE OR THE LINE BACKS UP. UH, 'CAUSE YOU HAVE PARKING SPACES RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE TO CENTRAL AVENUE. SO IF THE ONLY PARKING SPACE AVAILABLE IS THE ONE RIGHT BY CENTRAL AVENUE, YOU'RE WAITING FOR SOMEBODY TO COME OUT. I, I HONESTLY CAN'T IMAGINE THIS NOT HAVING TIMES WHERE IT SPILLS OUT INTO CENTRAL AVENUE, WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENS WITH STARBUCKS DOWN THE STREET, EXCEPT STARBUCKS HAS A PASSING LANE THERE, AND HERE THERE'S NO PASSING LANE. SO I SUPPOSE THIS IS, THESE ARE OBSERVATIONS AS MUCH FOR THE TRAFFIC EXPERTS TO CALM MY NERVES ABOUT THIS. IF ANYTHING ELSE, JOHN, DO YOU WANNA TALK TO ME? SURE. THANK YOU. SO, UM, IT'S INTERESTING. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PARKING NUMBERS, UM, I, I DON'T FOR SOME REASON HAVE THE PARKING NUMBER FOR YONKERS AND MAYBE, UM, MARK LOOKED THAT UP. BUT AT BRIARCLIFF, THE MAXIMUM PARKINGS, AND THIS IS NOT THE AVERAGE, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED WAS SEVEN, AND THEY HAVE 22 PARKING SPACES. SO IF THERE WERE SEVEN PEOPLE PARKED, AND THERE WERE THREE STAFF WHO DROVE, YOU HAD, UH, FOUR CARS PARKED FOR PER CUSTOM. AND IF THERE WERE TWO PEOPLE PER CAR, THAT WOULD BE EIGHT PEOPLE IN THE RESTAURANT. UM, AT CARMEL, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF VEHICLES PARKED WAS 15. BUT THAT DID SHARE A LOT WITH ANOTHER STORE. SO IF YOU MAKE THE ASSUMPTION THAT 15 WAS ALL, UM, WAS ALL CARMEL, BUT FIVE OF THEM WERE STAFF. SO YOU GET, YOU COME UP WITH A NUMBER OF 10, EVEN IF IT'S 11, UH, TIMES TWO, THERE WERE ABOUT 22 PEOPLE SITTING DOWN. UM, FOR COURTLAND, THE MAXIMUM NUMBER WAS 12. IF YOU HAVE TWO STAFF OR THREE STAFF, THAT WOULD BE 10 OR NINE TIMES, TWO PEOPLE PER CAR WOULD BE 20 OR 18. UH, AND FOR MOHEGAN LAKE, THE MAXIMUM PARKING DEMAND WAS EIGHT. UH, AND, AND IF YOU HAVE TWO STAFF, THAT'S SIX. SO IT IT POINT THE PARKING POINTS TO THE FACT THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY MAY HAVE MORE SEATS, THERE WERE NOT THAT MANY PEOPLE THERE. SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE FIRST THING I WOULD SAY ABOUT IT. UM, THE PLANNING BOARD AND WE, I WERE CONCERNED THAT YOU COULD HAVE OCCASIONS WHEN THINGS WOULD GET BUSY. MOST OF THE TIME IT'S PROBABLY GOING BE FINE, BUT YOU COULD HAVE AN OCCASION WHEN IT WOULD GET BUSIER AND YOU WOULD HAVE MORE THAN SEVEN OR EIGHT IN THE QUEUE. AND WE WANTED TO BE SURE THAT THE APPROVAL THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO BE PREPARED FOR SUCH INSTANCES. IT HAS BEEN DESCRIBED BY PAUL. THEY WOULD HAVE THESE LINE BUSTER TABLETS, WHICH HE MENTIONED, UM, HE DID NOT MENTION, UH, WHICH WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, THAT IF SOMEBODY COMES IN AND THEY'VE GOT A PARTICULARLY LARGE ORDER, UH, ONCE THEY PLACE IT AND THEY COME TO THE FRONT OF THE QUEUE, THEY'LL BE ASKED TO WAIT IN THE THREE SPACES THAT ARE IN THE FRONT OF THE STORE OR AROUND THE CORNER SO THAT THEY DON'T HOLD UP THE LINE. AND THEN THE, THE OTHER, UM, ONE OTHER POINT THAT YOU DID MENTION IS IF, IF I WAS TO DRIVE IN AND THERE WAS A LONG LINE, AND THE FIRST THING I WOULD DO AND THERE'S PARKING SPACES OPEN IS I WOULD PARK AND WALK IN AND PICK UP MY ORDER AND LEAVE SO THAT I COULD CUT THE LINE, SO TO SPEAK. SO, UM, IT DOES APPEAR THAT THERE, THAT THE COMPARISONS THAT WERE PROVIDED WERE GOOD BASED ON THE A, A REVIEW OF THE PARKING NUMBERS. AND WE HAVE, WE MAY NOT HAVE CONSIDERED IT TO YOUR SATISFACTION, BUT WE CERTAINLY HAVE CONSIDERED THE POTENTIAL, UH, OCCASIONS THAT IT MIGHT BE MORE THAN SEVEN VEHICLES. AND THAT'S WHY THE REQUIREMENTS WERE PUT IN THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. JOHN, UH, ALSO THIS IS MARKED, UH, JUST TO GIVE YOU THE YONKERS NUMBERS, UH, THE MAXIMUM PARKING WAS 10 AT THAT LOCATION, AND THERE'S 23 TOTAL PARKING SPACES AT THAT LOCATION. BUT ALL THE OTHER TIME PERIODS, IT WAS ALL SINGLE DIGITS AS FAR AS PARKING DEMAND. OKAY. I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER. IF THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, UM, TO THE PUBLIC, HOW MANY PEOPLE HERE ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY. IS THERE ONE OF YOU THAT REPRESENTS MANY OF YOU THAT COULD COME AND SPEAK AND SORT OF GIVE ME THE HIGH, [01:05:01] THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE OBJECTIONS? THANK YOU. UH, GOOD EVENING. UH, MY NAME'S ROBERT KY. MY FIRM IS ROBERT KY REALTY. WE SPECIALIZE IN MANAGEMENT AND LEASING OF COMMERCIAL, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. I'M A LICENSED BROKER. I'VE BEEN DOING THIS FOR OVER 35 YEARS. ONE OF THE PROPERTIES WE MANAGE AND OPERATE IS THE WHITE PLAIN SHOPPING CENTER TOWN OF GREENBURG. I BROKERED THE DEAL FOR SAX OFF FIFTH APPLE FARM WINE WAREHOUSE. SO I CONSIDERED MYSELF TO BE VERY EXPERIENCED IN THESE TYPE OF SITUATIONS. MY FIRM ALSO MANAGES HARTSDALE GARDENS. CAN YOU JUST RAISE YOUR HANDS? HARTSDALE GARDENS. SO THESE, UH, PEOPLE ARE HERE FROM HARTSDALE GARDENS OWNERS CORP. IT'S A CO-OP. WE CONVERTED THAT BUILDING TO A CO-OP IN 1983. IT HAS 74 APARTMENTS. IT HAS OVER A HUNDRED PEOPLE LIVING THERE. UM, SO IN, AS FAR AS MY OPINION IN BEING A BROKER, I COULD NOT THINK OF A WORSE LOCATION FOR TACO BELL THAN THIS SITE. IT JUST DOESN'T FIT. IT'S TOO SMALL. IF IT WAS A GOOD LOCATION, THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT BE SEEKING 19 ZONING VARIANCES, SEVEN FOR SIGNS AND 12 FOR SETBACKS, PARKING ISSUES. UM, SO LET'S TALK ABOUT PARKING FOR A SECOND. THE LEGAL REQUIREMENTS, 49 SPACES, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR 29. THAT'S 20 SHORT. DO YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENED IN THE DAYS THAT WE HAD DUNKING DONUTS RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO US? MORE, MANY OCCASIONS, THE DUNKING DONUTS WOULD GO TO DUNKING DONUTS AND IT WOULD BE FULL OR THE, OR BE CROWDED. THEY WOULD JUST SWING INTO OUR PARKING LOT RIGHT NEXT DOOR, AND WE WOULD END UP BOOTING DUNKING DONUTS CUSTOMERS QUITE OFTEN, BESIDES THE FACT THAT IT WAS NOT KEPT, YOU KNOW, THE NOISE, THE LATE NIGHT AND ALL, ALL OF THAT ISSUES, UM, IN TERMS OF THE, OF THE DRIVE THROUGH AS STATED, NO BYPASS LANE. SO TACO BELL IS CREATING A DANGEROUS CONDITION, NO ADVERSE PARKING, NO ADVERSE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT DRIVEWAY THE DOT WAS LOOKING AT, BUT THEY SURE WEREN'T LOOKING AT THAT ONE. OKAY, BECAUSE HAVE YOU EVER TRIED TO MAKE A LEFT TURN OUT OF, UH, WHEN WAS THE DUNKING DONUTS OR THIS HONEY HAM YOU EVER TRY AND MAKE A LEFT TURN ON A SATURDAY, FRIDAY? WHAT WAS MENTIONED BY ZONING BOARD? REMEMBER, AS THE PARKING STACKS UP FROM THE FOUR CORNERS TO WHITE PLAINS, PRACTICALLY IT'S IMPOSSIBLE TO MAKE A LEFT TURN. DID YOU KNOW THERE WAS A NO LEFT TURN SIGN THERE? ONCE UPON A TIME WHEN DUNKING DONUTS WAS THERE, IT WAS TAKEN DOWN. OKAY. THERE'S STILL A NO LEFT TURN SIGN WHERE THE GAS STATION IS STILL THERE. SO TO SAY THAT THIS IS NOT GONNA HAVE ANY ADVERSE IMPACT ON, ON PARKING OR TRAFFIC IS, IS JUST UNFOUNDED. UM, TAKING OUT THE CURB CUTS. I CAN TELL YOU FROM EXPERIENCE OF OTHER SHOPPING CENTERS THAT WE MANAGE OVER THE YEARS, YOU SHOULD GIVE THE CUSTOMERS A DEFINED WAY IN AND A DEFINED WAY OUT. YOU'RE OPENING UP THAT DRIVEWAY SO THAT PEOPLE CAN COME IN AND OUT AT THE SAME TIME. AND AS WAS MENTIONED BEFORE, AS THEY COME DOWN SOUTH ON CENTRAL AVENUE AND CARS ARE ARE STACKED UP, IT'S GONNA BE ACCIDENTS FOR SURE. UM, SO GOING BACK TO THE DRIVE-THROUGH THE SAFETY CONDITIONS, WE KEEP HEARING, OH, THERE'S ONLY GONNA BE SEVEN CARS. WE'RE HEARING ABOUT BRIARCLIFF. WE'RE HEARING ABOUT YONKERS. DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. THIS IS NOT GONNA BE CROWDED. WE'RE NOT GONNA STACK UP ONTO BACK UP ONTO CENTRAL AVENUE. WELL, LET'S JUST TAKE A SATURDAY. YOU KNOW, PARENTS COME FROM A SOCCER GAME WITH THEIR KIDS, THEY HEAD OVER TO TACO BELL, THEY WANT TO GET SOME LUNCH, THEY DRIVE IN, THEY GET ONLINE AND THERE'S SEVEN CARS. THAT'S THE MINIMUM, RIGHT? YOU GUYS SAY THERE'S NOT GONNA BE MORE THAN SEVEN. WELL, I'M IN THE MIDDLE. SO THERE'S THREE CARS IN FRONT OF ME, THREE CARS BEHIND ME. HOW DO I GET OUT? OKAY, I JUST GET A CALL FROM THE SCHOOL AND MY DAUGHTER'S SICK. I HAVE TO GO PICK HER UP. OR I HAVE, UH, A PASSENGER IN THE CAR WHO'S HAVING A MEDICAL EMERGENCY. HOW DO I GET OUT? WE'RE STUCK. WE CAN'T MOVE. WE'D HAVE TO JUMP OUT AND SAY TO THE CARS IN FRONT OF US, MOVE, MOVE, MOVE. MY DAUGHTER'S SICK. I GOTTA GO PICK HER UP OR MOVE. THIS PERSON'S HAVING A A, A CARDIAC, UH, YOU KNOW, PRO ISSUE. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S AN OVERVIEW. THIS PARCEL IS TOO SMALL. IT DOESN'T WORK. I, IF I WAS A BROKER, I WOULD'VE PUT THEM IN A SPACE THAT WORKS, THAT IS [01:10:01] SAFE. EVERYTHING THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE IS, OH, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT. THERE WON'T BE A PROBLEM. IT'S SAFE. WE WON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES. I JUST SEE THIS AS A VERY DANGEROUS LOCATION. NOT TO MENTION THE ADVERSE EFFECT IT'S GONNA HAVE ON THE NA THE RESIDENTS OF HARTSDALE GARDENS WHO ARE GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH CUSTOMERS UP TILL TWO IN THE MORNING, NOISE, UM, YOU KNOW, TAKING ORDERS. AND, AND, AND IF THIS WASN'T A DANGEROUS LAW, WHY ARE THEY PUTTING IN BOLLARDS TO PROTECT THE BUILDING FROM GETTING HIT? I, I THINK I READ THAT SOMEWHERE. UNLESS, UNLESS I'M WRONG. SO OUR, OUR RESIDENTS, I MEAN, WE WILL BE SEVERELY IMPACTED BY THIS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IT'S GONNA GO OUTTA CONTROL AT TWO IN THE MORNING. THEY'RE GONNA CALL THE POLICE THAT IT'S NOISY. SO I, I I JUST THINK YOU'RE HEADING FOR A DISASTER HERE. AND AGAIN, THE APPLICATION'S DEFECTIVE. IF IT WAS A GOOD APPLICATION, THEY WOULDN'T BE LOOKING FOR 19 ZONING VARIANCES. THANKS. ALRIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE, UM, FROM THE PUBLIC WHO, WHO ARE YOU ? HI, I AM FROM THE PUBLIC. UM, MY NAME IS JOHN MARRIS. I'M, UH, UH, ONE OF THE ASSOCIATES FROM MICHAEL MARRIS ASSOCIATES. WE'RE A TRAFFIC AND PARKING CONSULTING FIRM, AND WE WERE HIRED BY THE, UH, HARTSDALE, THE BUILDING GARDENS BUILDING TO REVIEW THE, UM, TRAFFIC STUDY. SO I DIDN'T MEAN TO STAND UP AND INTERRUPT YOU. NO, THAT'S OKAY. , IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO SAY? NO, GO RIGHT AHEAD. OKAY. UM, SO, UH, MY FIRM WAS, UH, BROUGHT ON TO REVIEW THE SITE PLAN, THE TRAFFIC STUDY, AND THE PARKING AND QUEUING ANALYSIS THAT WAS DONE. UM, WE WERE ABLE TO REVIEW THE, UH, INFORMATION FROM THE TOWN'S WEBSITE. THERE WERE QUITE A FEW, UH, ITERATIONS OF THE TRAFFIC STUDY. UM, WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE, THE LATEST ONE. UM, AND BASICALLY WE AGREE THAT THE TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY WAS DONE USING, UM, ACCEPTABLE, UH, METHODOLOGIES. THE, UM, TRIP GENERATIONS, THE, UM, SYNCHRO ANALYSIS OF THE INTERSECTIONS AND EVERYTHING ELSE WAS, UH, TYPICAL AND AS IT SHOULD BE. UM, WE DID HAVE SOME ISSUES, HOWEVER, UM, BECAUSE THERE WAS A, A FINDING THAT THE FOUR CORNERS INTERSECTION OPERATES AT, UH, LEVELS OF SERVICE E DURING THE, UM, STUDY PERIODS, WHICH IS, UH, CAPACITY. AND THERE WAS NO, UM, NO PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT FOR THE BUILD CONDITION. UM, TYPICALLY YOU TRY TO DO SOMETHING TO, UH, OFFSET, UH, LEVEL OF SERVICE E THAT'S NOT GENERALLY, UM, CONSIDERED A FAVORABLE CONDITION. SO, UH, THAT WAS ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT WE HAD. UM, WE REVIEWED THE SITE LAYOUT AS IT'S SHOWN THERE, UM, AND HAD A NUMBER OF CONCERNS. UH, THE CIRCULATION AISLES ARE 22 FEET WIDE. TYPICALLY WHEN YOU HAVE THAT, UH, 90 DEGREE PARKING, YOU WANNA 24 FOOT WIDE AISLE TO ALLOW YOUR VEHICLES TO, UM, BACK OUT AND ENTER YOUR PARKING SPACES, UM, MORE EASILY. THIS IS A LITTLE BIT CONSTRAINED AND WE FEEL THAT'S, UH, AN ISSUE. THE, UM, FIRST TWO SPACES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE WE THINK ARE PROBLEMATIC BECAUSE THEY ARE LOCATED VERY CLOSE TO, UH, CENTRAL AVENUE, AND THE PERSON WHO'S PARKED THERE AS THEY'RE MANEUVERING TO GET IN OR OUT, UM, WILL BASICALLY BE BLOCKING THE ENTIRE DRIVEWAY, UM, FOR POTENTIALLY NOT ABLE TO SEE VEHICLES AS THEY'RE COMING IN FROM CENTRAL AVENUE. [01:15:01] UM, AS THE VEHICLES FROM THE QUEUE ARE EXITING THAT ONE WAY AREA, THEY WILL ALSO POTENTIALLY IMPACT THOSE PARKING SPACES. UM, SO WE, WE DON'T THINK THEY OUGHT TO BE THERE. WE THINK THEY'RE JUST TOO CLOSE TO THE, UH, APRON OF THE, THE ROADWAY. UM, THE DEAD END PARKING AISLE IS AN ISSUE FOR US BECAUSE, UM, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY COMES IN AND WANTS TO PARK, SHOULD THEY ALL BE, SHOULD ALL THE SPACES BE OCCUPIED? THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO EASILY MAKE A U-TURN OUT. THEY'LL HAVE TO MANEUVER A K TURN OR SOMETHING AND POTENTIALLY BLOCK OTHER SPACES AND OTHER PEOPLE AS THEY'RE MOVING. UM, SORRY ABOUT THAT. UM, THE THREE SPACES THAT ARE INTENDED TO BE FOR THE LARGER ORDERS AS YOU COME OUT OF THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE, UM, HAVE A ESPECIALLY NARROW, UH, CIRCULATION AISLE THAT'S ONLY 11 FEET. SO THERE IS SOME CONCERN WITH THEM POTENTIALLY HITTING THE BUILDING. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WERE BOLLARDS PUT IN FOR THAT. UM, THAT ALSO BECOMES AN ISSUE FOR THE VEHICLES AS THEY'RE LEAVING THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE, UM, BEING ABLE TO MANEUVER SHOULD THERE BE CARS PARKED IN THERE. UM, AND I THINK THERE ARE BOLLARDS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN TO PROTECT THE CO FROM THAT. UM, I THINK THAT'S A PROBLEM. YOU GENERALLY DON'T WANT TO HAVE POTENTIAL ISSUES IN YOUR INITIAL DESIGN. YOU KNOW, UM, WE REVIEWED THE DRIVE THROUGH STUDY THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT DID WHERE THEY LOOKED AT THE QUEUING ANALYSIS OR THEY LOOKED AT THE QUEUING AND THE PARKING AT THE OTHER LOCATIONS. AND, UM, WE AGREED THAT THIS LOCATION IS GOING TO BE SORT OF DRIVE THROUGH HEAVY BECAUSE OF ITS REDUCED NUMBER OF INTERNAL SEATING AND PARKING SPACES. SO WE'RE CONCERNED THAT IN INSTANCES WHEN THE QUEUE EXTENDS BEYOND THE SEVEN VEHICLES TO AN EIGHTH OR WHATEVER, YOU'RE GONNA BE BLOCKING PARKING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE, CAUSING MORE POTENTIAL ISSUES. UM, THE DISCUSSION OF THE LINE BUSTERS WITH THE, UM, TABLETS IN CASE THE CUES DO GET LONGER, UM, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU WOULD SEE AT A, UH, CHICK-FIL-A IS ACCEPTABLE IN CHICK-FIL-A SITUATIONS BECAUSE THEY HAVE THOSE PEOPLE IN THEIR, UH, DRIVE-THROUGH QUEUE. THEY DON'T HAVE THEM STANDING IN THE MIDDLE OF A ACTIVE PARKING FIELD TAKING ORDERS. I THINK THAT BECOMES A SAFETY CONCERN, UM, JUST AS THE LACK OF A BYPASS LANE FOR THE DRIVE THROUGH IS A SAFETY CONCERN. I THINK THAT, UM, IT REALLY JUST BOILS DOWN TO THIS LOCATION BEING TOO SMALL AND TRYING TO PACK IN TOO LARGE, UH, DEVELOPMENT THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, JUST IN SUMMARY, WE AGREE WITH THE WAY THEY DID THEIR TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDIES. HOWEVER, THE SITE, I THINK, IS KIND OF FRAUGHT WITH ISSUES BECAUSE IT'S JUST TOO TIGHTLY PACKED AND, UM, WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOME OF THOSE ISSUES. THANK YOU. [01:20:02] OKAY. CORRECTED? YEAH. DO YOU HAVE A FORMAL SUBMISSION OF FORMAL SUBMISSION OF YOUR REVIEW AND YOUR ANALYSIS? YES, WE DO. SO, OKAY. HERE'S WHAT I'M GONNA SUGGEST THAT PLEASE PROVIDE US YOUR FORMAL SUBMISSION. YES. UM, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY NOT GONNA BE DECIDED TONIGHT. UM, I KNOW MANY OF YOU CAME TO SPEAK. I, I WOULD ENCOURAGE, WAS ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK FOR THE PROJECT? I REPRESENT THE RESIDENTS. I MIGHT NOT. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU GUYS. SO YOU, YOU HAVE TO REFRAIN FROM CLAPPING AND BOOING. OKAY. SO IF YOU COULD JUST DO THAT. THANK YOU. THERE'S NO BOOING. UH, MY NAME IS RAYA MALLET. I'M FROM THE LAW FIRM, MCCARTHY FINGER, AND I REPRESENT HARTSDALE GARDEN, UH, UH, I'M SORRY, HARTSDALE GARDEN OWNERS, UH, CORPORATION. I'M MADAM CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, INCLUDING PETER ONLINE. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TONIGHT. UM, BECAUSE THIS APPLICANT HAS BROUGHT THIS APPEAL UNDER THE ZONING REGULATIONS, WE ARE ASKING THE BOARD, AND I HAVE A WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR YOU FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE. THE TOWN OF GREENBERG ZONING ORDINANCE PROHIBITS AN APPLICANT FROM DEMOLISHING A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND REPLACING IT WITH A NEW STRUCTURE AS THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO DO WITH THIS TACO BELL. OUR INTERPRETATION REQUEST IS BASED ON SECTION 2 89 0.291 H OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH ARE THE REGULATIONS THAT CONTROL NON-CONFORMING BUILDINGS IN THE CENTRAL AREA. MIXED USE IMPACT DISTRICT. ACCORDING TO THESE REGULATIONS, A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING MAY BE MAINTAINED AND CONTINUED ONLY IF IT QUOTE HAD LAWFULLY EXISTED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THERE IS NO PROVISION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS YOU TO BUILD A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE THAT DID NOT EXIST PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE. THE CODE ALSO DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO BUILD A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE UNLESS, UH, LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY. THERE'S ONE EXCEPTION, AND THAT IS IF THE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE WAS DESTROYED BY A FIRE OR A NATURAL DISASTER, EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH IS OBVIOUSLY WHAT HAS NOT HAPPENED HERE, EVEN IN THOSE SITUATIONS WHERE YOU ARE ALLOWED TO BUILD A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AFTER THE EXISTING ONE HAS BURNED DOWN OR FALLEN BECAUSE OF AN EARTHQUAKE, THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW YOU TO INCREASE EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES, WHICH IS PROPOSED IN THE APPLICANT'S PLANS. ON PAGE FIVE OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU TONIGHT, I HAVE A CHART OF THE 12 INCREASED NONCONFORMITIES THAT THIS APPLICATION WILL, WILL HAVE ON THE EXISTING HONEYBAKED HAM BUILDING. THE ZONING REGULATIONS CLEARLY STATE THAT A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING SHALL NOT BE ENLARGED, QUOTE IN ANY MANNER END QUOTE THAT WOULD INCREASE ITS NON-CONFORMANCE. SO WE ARE HERE TONIGHT TO ASK THIS ZONING BOARD IN YOUR AUTHORITY UNDER THE ZONING STATUTE 2 58 48, FOR AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING LAW PROHIBITING THE REMOVAL OF A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING IN ORDER TO REPLACE IT. THERE'S A REASON WHY THIS APPLICATION WAS BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SO LONG BECAUSE IT DOESN'T WORK. AND SO IT'S, WE'RE BESEECHING YOU TO USE YOUR AUTHORITY AS A ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO ISSUE AN INTERPRETATION IN THIS SITUATION, PROHIBITING A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING FROM BEING TORN DOWN AND REPLACED WITH A NEW NON-CONFORMING BUILDING. 'CAUSE THAT IS COMPLETELY AGAINST THE ENTIRE PUBLIC POLICY OF WHY WE HAVE NON-CONFORMING BUILDINGS, RIGHT? WE ALLOW NON-CONFORMING BUILDINGS TO CONTINUE 'CAUSE WE DON'T WANNA TAKE AWAY SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY RIGHTS. BUT THE WHOLE GOAL OF A NON-CONFORMANCE IS TO ALLOW IT TO EVENTUALLY BE EXTINGUISHED, NOT TORN DOWN AND REBUILT. THERE'S SIMPLY NO PATHWAY IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS THIS APPLICATION TO MOVE FORWARD, EVEN IF YOU DIDN'T AGREE WITH ME. BUT I AM BESEECHING YOU TO READ MY DOCUMENTS AND LOOK AT THE CODE, EVEN IF [01:25:01] YOU APPLY THE FIVE FACTOR BALANCING TESTS THAT MR. STEINITZ WENT OVER WITH US. IF YOU DO THAT, UM, TO EVALUATE THESE AREA VARIANCES, IT BECOMES OBVIOUS REALLY QUICKLY HOW THE ACTUAL DETRIMENT OF THIS APPLICATION TO THE RESIDENTS OF HARTSDALE GARDENS AND THE LARGER COMMUNITY SIGNIFICANTLY EXTRAORDINARILY OUTWEIGHS THE BENEFIT TO THE APPLICANT. MR. STEINITZ TOLD YOU THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE A REDUCTION IN SOME OF THE EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES. I WOULD LIKE TO HIGHLIGHT ONE OF THOSE. UM, IT WAS ON THE SCREEN BEFORE, NOW IT'S ME. BUT, UM, UH, THE, THE APPLICANT IS ASKING FOR A THREE FOOT SETBACK ON THAT SIDE PARKING BORDER, WHICH IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE HARTSDALE GARDENS PROPERTY. IT'S ABUTTING IT. THE DECREASED NON-CONFORMANCE THAT HE'S REFERRING TO IS 0.1 OF A FOOT. I, I CAN'T DO THE MATH. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S ONE INCH OR 1.3 INCHES, BUT IT'S LESS THAN TWO INCHES, I BELIEVE DIFFERENCE. AND IT WAS ALSO SAID TO YOU THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE AN IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE THEY'RE PUTTING IN NOISE MITIGATION SCREENING. LET'S THINK ABOUT THAT RIGHT NOW. IT IS A PARKING LOT THAT IS 2.9 BY THEIR MEASUREMENTS FEET AWAY. IT'S A PARKING LOT. PEOPLE COME IN, THEY CLOSE, THEY PARK, THEY LOCK THE COURT, THE DOOR, THEY GET OUT AND THEY GO INTO THE HONEY BAY HAM FACILITY. WHAT IS, WHAT IS GOING TO BE PUT THERE, WHICH YOU SAW ON THE SCREEN, AN EXTRA 10TH OF A FOOT AWAY. SO IT'S GONNA BE THREE FEET AWAY, IS GOING TO BE THE Q LINE FOR A DRIVE THROUGH TACO BELL. SO THEY ARE NOT ONLY ASKING YOU TO IGNORE 2 85 POINT 29 1D OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THAT REQUIRES A MINIMUM 10 FOOT LANDSCAPED AREA BETWEEN THE TACO BELL AND THE HARTSDALE GARDENS. THEY'RE REQUESTING A 70% VARIANCE. SO THE ONLY BARRIER BETWEEN A CONTINUOUS LINE OF CARS WITH ENGINES IDLING WITH WINDOWS ROLLED DOWN AS THEY SCREAM OUT TO THE SQUAWK BOX, WHAT THEIR ORDER IS. AS THE AMPLIFICATION COMES BACK AS RADIOS ARE BLASTING, AS PHONE CONVERSATIONS ARE COMING THROUGH THE SPEAKER, AS CARS LEAVE THEIR WINDOWS DOWN, IT IS HUMAN NATURE. THEIR WINDOWS ARE ROLLED DOWN UNTIL THEY PICK UP THEIR ORDER. ALL THAT NOISE IS GOING TO THE RESIDENTS WHO LIVE 70 FEET AWAY AND WILL HEAR IT FROM THEIR WINDOWS, WITH THEIR WINDOWS CLOSED. I'M NOT EVEN ARGUING. THEY CAN'T OPEN THEIR WINDOWS. THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO OPEN THEIR WINDOWS UNTIL TWO O'CLOCK, THREE O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING ALL DAY LONG BY THE COMPARABLES THAT WERE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. ONE OF THE LOCATIONS IN THE FOUR HOUR PERIOD STUDIED HAD 90 CARS GO THROUGH. THAT IS MORE THAN ONE CAR EVERY THREE MINUTES, CONSTANTLY GOING THROUGH PLACING THE ORDER, ASKING FOR MORE NAPKINS, PLAYING MUSIC WHILE PEOPLE ARE LIVING 70, LESS THAN 70 FEET AWAY. THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH FOR THE 19 VARIANCES TO BE DENIED. BUT THERE'S MORE. IN ADDITION TO THE IMPACT ON THE RESIDENTS, THIS PROPERTY IS A FEW HUNDRED FEET FROM THE FOUR CORNERS. THEY ARE ASKING FOR A 1.7 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE FRONT YARD LINE FOR THE PARKING IN THE FRONT. THIS WAS ALREADY DECIDED BY A ZONING BOARD IN 1968. IN 1968, THE ONLY VARIANCES THAT HAVE EVER BEEN GRANTED, SO WERE FOR THREE VARIANCES, NONE OF THEM WERE SETBACK VARIANCES. UM, THERE WAS A FOURTH VARIANCE THAT WAS DENIED AT THAT TIME. YOU NEEDED A 10 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE FRONT YARD LINE AND THE APPLICANT WANTED ZERO. AND THE CHAIR IN 1968 TALKED ABOUT, WELL, WHAT'S THAT GOING TO DO TO THE FOUR CORNERS, 700 FEET AWAY? I HAVE EXERTED THAT I HAVE THE MINUTES FOR YOU, I WILL GIVE THEM ALL TO YOU TONIGHT. BUT THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE OF THE VARIANCES THAT WAS DENIED BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THE FOUR CORNERS. THIS TOWN IS DOING SO MUCH WORK TO REVITALIZE [01:30:01] REZONE AND REDEVELOP THE FOUR CORNERS. I'M GUESSING YOU KNOW THAT WAY BETTER THAN I DO. WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS THE FOUR CORNERS IS GONNA BE REVITALIZED AND INCREASED PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION, GREATER LANDSCAPING, AND PEOPLE ARE GONNA ENJOY IT AND WALK TO THE BEAUTIFUL GREEN LAWNS IN FRONT OF 27, 37 AND 47 HARTSDALE HARTSDALE GARDENS, AND THEN COME TO AN ABRUPT STOP. WHERE'D ALL THE GREEN GO? WHERE'S THE OUTDOOR SPACE? WHERE'S THE PEDESTRIAN WALKABILITY? THIS DOESN'T JUST HURT THE PEOPLE IN HARTSDALE GARDENS. THIS PLAN IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT ZONING THAT IS HAPPENING AT THE FOUR CORNERS AND SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. THEY'RE ASKING FOR 19 VARIANCES. IT DOESN'T MATTER WHETHER THEY'RE SIGNED VARIANCES, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOU WANNA CALL 'EM. THEY ARE ASKING FOR 19 VARIANCES BECAUSE THEY SAY THAT WILL BRING THEM IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CODE. AS I ALREADY EXPLAINED, WE ARE ASKING FOR AN INTERPRETATION THAT THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR YOU TO TEAR DOWN A NON-CONFORMING BUILDING AND REBUILD WITH A NEW NON-CONFORMING BUILDING. AND ON BEHALF OF THE RESIDENTS OF HARTSDALE GARDENS, WE RESPECTFULLY, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT YOU INTERPRET THE ZONING CODE AS IT WAS WRITTEN. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, WE ASK THAT YOU DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCES BECAUSE OF THE SIGNIFICANT DETRIMENT IT'LL HAVE ON ALL OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE LARGER COMMUNITY, WHICH I HAVE SPELLED OUT FOR YOU IN A WRITTEN MEMORANDUM. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO MOVE ON BECAUSE WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS. SO FOR THOSE OF YOU THAT DID NOT GET TO SPEAK, UM, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST IS IF YOU COULD PLEASE, IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY, SEND IN A LETTER VIA EMAIL, UM, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO GET IT HERE, AND IT WILL GO INTO THE RECORD SO THAT WHATEVER YOUR CONCERNS ARE, IF THEY WEREN'T ADDRESSED BY THE PEOPLE THAT SPOKE ON YOUR BEHALF TONIGHT, WE CAN, UM, THEY CAN BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD. WE CAN READ THEM AS WELL. NO, UM, HE WANTS TO RESPOND. WILL YOU BE QUICK? NO, NO, NO. I, I WASN'T SURE IF YOU WERE LOOKING FOR OH, OH, I WAS GONNA SAY, I KNOW YOU LIKE TO RESPOND, SAY SOMETHING AND I, SO YOU LOOK, I KNOW YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND, BUT IN THE, IN THE, IN THE, WE'RE NOT GONNA ASK TO RESPOND THIS EVENING. OKAY. SO YOU CAN RESPOND AS YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW WHAT THE COMMENTS, YOU SAID COMMENTS ARE, PLEASE HAVE YOUR TRAFFIC PERSON TALK TO THEIR TRAFFIC PERSON. UN UNDERSTOOD. UM, AND MADAM CHAIR, WE WOULD ASK THAT SIMPLY THAT KIRA, UM, PROVIDE US WITH A COPY OF ANY WRITTEN MATERIALS. WE, WE RECEIVE NO COURTESY COPIES OF ANY SUBMISSIONS THAT THE, UH, UH, NEIGHBOR'S ATTORNEY MAY HAVE MADE. SO ANYTHING THAT YOU RECEIVE, WE'D ASK THAT. UH, WE BE PROVIDED AS AS YOU ALWAYS WOULD. HERE WE GO. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO, SO WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON TO THE NEXT CASE. IF, IF THOSE OF YOU ARE HERE FOR THE, UM, THE TACO BELL CAN JUST SORT OF SCUTTLE PLEASE QUICKLY. WOW. BEST BEING HERE. WHICH ONE? RESIDENT. TWO ATTORNEYS. HMM. TWO ATTORNEYS AND YOUR OWN STATUS, WHETHER IT'S REAL OR NOT. WELL, OKAY. YEAH. MUCH FOR . I KNOW. LET'S SEE. ALRIGHT, MOVING ALONG TO OUR NEXT CASE. ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA 25 17, MR. AND MRS. RURAL AND WANG SIX COTS WALLED WAY. BOY, I FELL ASLEEP. SORRY. HOW TO WAKE UP 15. GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. EMILIO ESCALADAS, ESCALADAS ASSOCIATES, ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS, AND GETTING OLD, SLOWING DOWN. EVERYTHING IS GETTING HARDER. BUT THIS CASE IS CLEAR IN MY MIND, IN THE SENSE THAT WE ARE, AND I'LL SAY IT IN A SIMPLE WAY, BECAUSE THE, THE NUMBERS THAT WE ARE SEEKING FOR VARIANCE ARE SIMPLY THE NUMBERS THAT WOULD MAKE THESE TWO LOTS WHOLE. AND BY THAT I MEAN REVERTED BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION [01:35:01] GEOMETRY. SO NOTHING HAS CHANGED. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANYTHING NEW. WE ARE NOT TRYING TO CONFIGURE ANYTHING DIFFERENT. THAT WAS CREATED IN 1925 WITH THE SUBDIVISION. OKAY? THE ORIGINAL, THE ORIGINAL SUBDIVISION LOOKS LIKE THIS. UM, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LOTS ARE FAIRLY SMALL. THERE'S A LINE AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT DRAWING THAT REPRESENTS THE CHRONOLOGICALLY CHA CHANGED IFICATION OF THAT VERY SAME PARCEL OF LAND. SO IT WAS SUBDIVIDED IN 25. IT WAS ZONE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. I IT STARTS HERE ON FIVE BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED FOR ONE OF THE HOUSES, THIS HOUSE. I'M SORRY. ARE WE SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO SEE THAT? NO, I, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU, IF WE HAVE A IT, IT IS, UM, YOU MAYBE HAVE TO BRING IT CLOSER. WELL, IT ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE ON THE MICROPHONE TO BE YOUR, YOU CAN SEE THIS ONE. I CAN ONLY DO WHAT I CAN DO. NOPE. THESE ARE JUST TWO LOT. THE, THE HOUSE THAT I SHOULD DESCRIBE THAT WAS GIVEN. YEAH. WOW. HE'S GREAT. I HAD IT UP ON THE SCREEN FOR A MINUTE, BUT HE'S THIS BAD. I DON'T KNOW. . YEAH, BECAUSE YOU, YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO BE HEARD. SO IT'S BEING RECORDED AS WELL. COURSE. OKAY. MY KIDS USUALLY COMPLAIN THAT I GONNA BE TOO LOUD. THE, THE HOUSE THAT HAS BEEN BUILT SINCE 1926 IS EXISTING IN ONE OF THE LOTS. THESE TWO LOTS OF COURSE, ARE BEING CONSIDERED TO BE TOGETHER, TO BE AMALGAMATED, TO BE ONE LOT. WE'RE HERE TO SEPARATE THEM. SO I THINK I, I THINK THE, UH, YOU CAN SEE THE ORIGINAL, THE, WE'RE NOT CHANGING, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING A NEW PROPERTY LINE. WE'RE SIMPLY GOING BACK TO THE SUBDIVISION OF 1926. AND IN DOING SO, WE HAVE TO LEGALIZE, UH, THE SETBACKS AND THE MINI MINIMUM LOT WIDTH. THE MINIMUM LOT AREAS. THE LIST IS THERE. I'M NOT GOING TO BORE YOU WITH THE NUMBERS BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THESE FOLKS ARE HERE FOR. UM, BUT THE NATURE OF THE WISHES IS UNDERSTOOD. AND, AND, AND, AND IF YOU'RE CONFUSED ABOUT THAT, I'LL GO INTO THE DETAILS. SO SIDE YARDS AND AREAS AND ALL THAT IS, IS, IS JUST THE, THE PRODUCT OF THE HISTORIC DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARCEL. SO, UH, IT, IT'S NOT IMPORTANT TO TALK ABOUT WHEN IT WAS CHANGED FROM A ONE TO R 10 TO R 20. IT WAS CHANGED BACK AND FORTH, AND I'M SURE, UM, THAT THERE'S A HISTORY IN EACH ONE OF THESE PEOPLE'S HOMES. AND THAT'S FINE. THAT'S, THAT'S RICH. SO THIS HAS CHANGED TO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. AND THESE YELLOWS REALLY REPRESENT AN, UH, AN AMALGAMATED GROUP OF TWO LOTS MADE INTO ONE HOUSE. AND I JUST WANT YOU TO SEE THAT THIS EXISTS. AND SOME OF THE HOUSES THAT ARE AMALGAMATED WITH THE TWO ORIGINAL LOTS ARE QUITE LARGE. THEY'RE 5,000, THEY'RE 4,000. THEY'RE IN THE HIGH END. THEY'RE, THEY, THEY ARE BEAUTIFUL. UM, UM, DESIGN HOUSES, THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL IN THEIR SETTING WITH THEIR GARDENS. SO THEY EXIST. AND, UH, IT, IT, I WANT TO SHOW YOU THE RICHNESS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, THE VARIETY. HOWEVER, IF YOU JUST CONCENTRATE IN THE AREA AROUND THE QUESTIONABLE APPLICATION, [01:40:02] ALL THESE GREEN LOTS THAT I'M SHOWING HERE ARE SMALLER IN SIZE THAN EACH ONE OF THE LOTS THAT I'M TRYING TO REINSTITUTE AS INDIVIDUAL LOTS. NOW I SAY THIS BECAUSE A BOARD OF YOUR NATURE WOULD WANT TO ALWAYS MAKE SENSE AND NOT CREATE AN INDIFFERENT OR UNEQUAL OR FORCE ANYTHING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO FORCE ANYTHING. WE'RE TRYING TO BE WHAT THE REST OF THE LOTS ARE. NOW, THAT'S A BASIC THOUGHT. WHEN YOU MAKE YOUR JUDGMENT, I, I DON'T, I DON'T WANT TO GO INTO THE LEGALITY OR THIS OR THAT. WE, I'M SURE THEY WILL AND I'LL TRY TO RESPOND APPROPRIATELY. BUT THE BASIC THING HERE, BASIC THING, IS THAT WE ARE RECREATING WHAT IS MOSTLY THERE. AND MY DAUGHTER WOULD SAY, YOU'RE GETTING DRAMATIC DAD. BUT WHEN YOU BELIEVE IN SOMETHING, YOU GET A LITTLE LOUD. SO YOU HAVE TO FORGIVE ME. HEY, LEAH, THAT'S ONE OF MY DAUGHTERS, SWEETHEART. I HAVE A MIC IN MY HAND. I CAN'T TALK TO YOU. I'LL TALK TO YOU LATER. THEY'RE LAUGHING. THAT'S A GOOD SIGN. WELL, I CAN'T FIND THAT. I DON'T WANNA WASTE YOUR TIME. IT, IT WAS JUST ANOTHER LARGER PRINT. I THINK THIS ONE IS, IT, IT DOESN'T MATTER. I WAS JUST GIVING YOU A BIGGER, A BIGGER VISION OF THE ENTIRE, UM, UH, SUBDIVISION OF MANY MORE LOTS THAT ARE SMALLER THAN AGAIN, THE LOTS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO RECREATE HISTORICALLY. ALRIGHT? WHAT, WHAT AM I, WHAT AM I TRYING TO DO? I'M TRYING TO DO THIS, I'M TRYING TO BE ABLE TO ADD TO THE COMMUNITY. UH, I LOVE YOU TOO, BUT YOU STAY BEHIND. WE'RE TRYING TO ADD THIS TO THE COMMUNITY. THIS IS NOT A SMALL, SMALL HOUSE. THIS IS NOT AN INEXPENSIVE HOUSE. THIS IS A HOUSE THAT ABSOLUTELY FITS IN THE AREA. ABSOLUTELY FITS. UH, AND, AND, AND TO PUT A NUMBER ON IT, I WOULD PROBABLY SAY THIS COULD STILL FIT $3 MILLION. MM-HMM . AND THEY KNOW THE VALUE OF THEIR HOMES. AND, UH, SO, SO THE NATURE OF THIS MEETING IS SIMPLY TO ALLOW THE HISTORY OF THE, OF THAT GEOMETRY TO PREEXIST. WHY WE'RE BUILDING A HOUSE FOR THE COMMUNITY. NOW, LET ME GIVE YOU A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE PLANNING EFFORT THAT WE WENT THROUGH. I, I PRESENTED THE VERY, THE VERY FIRST, UH, CHOICE OF DOING THIS WAS TO SIMPLY ENTER FROM COWA AWAY. SO THIS IS THE APPLIC AND THIS IS THE APPLICATION THAT IS ALIVE. THIS IS THE APPLICATION THAT WE'RE CARRYING GOING THROUGH. HOWEVER, WHEN WE DID THIS AND THE COMMUNITY WAS UPSET, I DON'T KNOW WHY I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IT, BUT THEY WERE, AND THEY'RE HERE. SO IT'S REAL. AND THEY SAID THE, THE, IN THE, IN THE LETTERS THAT THEY SUBMITTED, ONE OF THE MOST OF THE LETTERS TALKED ABOUT THE, UH, THE NEW CURB CUT. IT'S GONNA, IT IS GONNA KILL CHILDREN. SO I ASKED ONE OF THE, UH, COMPLAINANTS SAYS, HOW MANY CHILDREN HAVE YOU KILLED IN YOUR DRIVEWAY? 'CAUSE I HAD TO MAKE FUN OF IT BECAUSE THAT'S AN UNUSUAL STATEMENT TO MAKE. IF YOU PUT A DRIVEWAY THERE, I'M GONNA KILL CHILDREN. THE OTHER ONE WAS, I'M GONNA CUT ALL THE TREES. I SAID, ALL RIGHT. I WENT BACK TO MY OFFICE, ALRIGHT, THERE'S, THERE MAY BE A POINT, THERE MAY BE THEY'RE UPSET. SO I SAID, WHAT CAN I DO? THEN I STUDY THE MAPS OF THE SUBDIVISION AND I FIND THAT THERE IS A EASEMENT, THERE'S AN EASEMENT ENTERING THE EXISTING HOUSE. SO I SAID, WELL, WHY CAN'T I CHANGE, HELP THE NEIGHBORS ELIMINATE THE DRIVEWAY FROM THE PLACE OF CONCERN. AND AT THE SAME TIME, I'M LIKE THAT MAGICIAN THAT CAN NEVER FIND THE RABBIT AT THE SAME TIME, RETREAT THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE, PUT IT IN THE BACK SO THAT THE TREE REMAIN AND THE ENTRANCE IS ELIMINATED. PERFECT SOLUTION. I THOUGHT THEY DIDN'T LIKE THAT EITHER. HOWEVER, THE PLANNING BOARD ALLOWED ME TO PROCEED TO YOUR PRESENCE AND MAKE MY CASE TO YOU. BUT I WAS ADVISED, LET THEM KNOW THAT THERE IS AN ALTERNATIVE, WHICH I AM WILLING TO REAPPLY OFFICIALLY RETREAT WITH THE ENTRANCE THAT [01:45:01] I HAVE HERE AS OF RIGHT RETREAT AND GO BACK TO THIS ONE. NOW THEY MENTIONED LEGALITIES ABOUT CAN I PUT AN EXTRA CAR HERE DURING, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT. I'M SURE THAT THERE IS NO EASEMENT THAT PROHIBITS ME FROM USING WHAT THESE LOT. IF THIS IS ONE LOT AND THERE'S AN EASEMENT TO THIS LOT, THEN I SURE HAVE THE EASEMENT TO THAT LOT. SO I DON'T WANNA PLAY ATTORNEY. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY AND I DON'T PLAY ONE ON TV, SO I DON'T WANT TO GO THERE. BUT I WANT YOU TO SEE HOW CLEAR, HOW CLEARLY THAT SOLUTION TO THOSE COMPLAINTS ARE. I DON'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY. I'M NOT COMING TREES. SO ANYWAY, THEY, I I DO HAVE A REVIEW OF THE LONG LETTER THAT WAS SENT. I DON'T WANT TO GO TIT FOR TAT. I'M, I'M, I'M GOING TO ANSWER WHATEVER, WHATEVER ISSUE THEY BRING UP. AND, AND, UH, I, I DO WANNA SAY THAT IN MY OPINION, THE IMPACT, THE IMPACT TO THE, TO THE, TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS NOTHING IS VERY MINIMAL. I'M SIMPLY BUILDING IN AN EMPTY LOT. AND NOW BY HAVING THIS ACCESS IN THE BACK, I CAN SATISFY THOSE COMPLAINTS THAT WERE EARLY ERASED. NOW OF COURSE, IF THOSE COMPLAINTS DON'T, DON'T WORK, LET'S THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE. IT'S LOGICAL HUMAN BEHAVIOR. IT'S LIKE, IT'S LIKE DENYING THAT WE'RE KILLING PEOPLE IN PALESTINE. I DON'T KNOW HOW PEOPLE DO THAT, BUT THEY DO, THEY OPENLY SAY THAT. LET'S JUST KEEP IT TO THIS, PLEASE. I'M SORRY. I HAVE TO SAY THAT IT'S IN MY MIND EVERY DAY WHEN I SEE AL JAZEERA, PEOPLE DIE. RIGHT? ALL, ALL RIGHT, ALL RIGHT. IT'S HORRIBLE. YES, BUT IT'S MUCH MORE IMPORTANT THAN THIS. ANYWAY, DID YOU WRITE THAT IN? GOOD. I'M GONNA READ A A, A LITTLE BIT OF THE COMMENT. AGAIN, I HATE DOING THIS BECAUSE THEY WRITE THIS BELIEVING THAT THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ELEMENT TO CONVINCE YOU. OKAY? I'M TRYING TO CONVINCE YOU TOO, BUT I, I DARE SAY THAT I'M JUST BEING VERY LOGICAL AND VERY ACCOMMODATING, BUT I'M NOT BEING ALLOWED IN 19, IN 1957, THE TOWN UP ZONE R 10 LOTS IN COTSWOLD TO R 20 UNDER THE BLAH, BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. THEY'RE MAKING A CASE THAT THE TOWN, BECAUSE THE TOWN REZONED IT, THIS, THESE TWO PARCELS BECAME ONE. THESE TWO PARCELS BECAME ONE. WHEN THE OWNER OF THE HOUSE IN 1937 STARTED TO, MAYBE HIS WIFE WAS ANNOYING. HE SAYS, I NEED A PATIO FOR THE KIDS. HE WENT OUT, HE POURED A, A PATIO AND HE OVERSTEPPED THE BOUNDARY OF THAT IMAGINARY LINE OF THAT OTHER LOT BECAUSE THAT WAS NEVER SURVEYED. AND HE SAID, NO, I'M GOING IN THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, HONEY, HERE IT IS. I DID THE DECK. GUESS WHAT? THAT DECK, BECAUSE THE TOWN HAS THESE RULES, YOU CANNOT USE ANY PORTION. YOU CANNOT IN UH, UM, LET'S CALL IT, UH, IMPROVE THE EMPTY LOT IN ANY WAY BECAUSE IF YOU DO, THEN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS A RULE, A LAW THAT SAYS, WELL NOW YOU HAVE MERGED THE TWO LOTS AND IT BECOMES ONE. SO THAT WAS THE ONLY REASON WHY WE'RE HERE. THE WIFE WAS BOTHERING THE GUY, THE GUY WENT, DID HIS CONCRETE, AND NOW HE LOST A LOT. OH, OKAY. YOU KNOW, TELL ME HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE TOWN KNOW THAT THAT CAN HAPPEN? NOBODY KNOWS THAT. ALRIGHT, SO IT'S UNDERSTOOD WHY IT HAPPENED. AND ALSO IT'S INTERESTING 'CAUSE ALL THE BUILDING PERMITS AND ALL THE, UH, NOTIFICATIONS OF WHEN THE, WHEN THE HOUSE IS PURCHASED BY THE PERSON OWNERS, THEY, THERE WAS NO COOI DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY CALL THE, THE, THE SUBSTITUTE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, UH, CERTIFICATE. BUT IT WAS WRITTEN FOR LOT NUMBER TWO, NEVER FOR LOT NUMBER THREE. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS WRITTEN FOR THE LOT WHERE THE HOUSE WAS. AGAIN, IT'S A MINOR THING. I'M SURE SOME ATTORNEY CAN PUNCH HOLES THROUGH WHAT I JUST SAID, BUT I, I AS A, AS, AS A REGULAR PERSON, WHY WOULD THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ONLY GIVE THE BUILDING PERMIT TO THE LOT THAT IS THE ONE WITH THE HOUSE AND SO ON AND SO ON. THERE'S, THERE'S LOTS OF, UM, OKAY. THEN THEY TALK ABOUT THE SURVEY OR THE, THE, THE, THE MEETS AND BOUNDS DESCRIPTION. THE, THE DEED. WELL, WHEN YOU SELL THE PROPERTY, THE [01:50:01] FASTEST THING TO DO IS JUST, WHERE IS IT? IT'S THAT SHAPE. OKAY, WELL WE'LL MAKE THE DEED OF THE ENTIRE BIG SQUARE. I DID NOT REVIEW THE DEED MATHEMATICALLY, I DIDN'T PLOT IT. IT MAY VERY WELL BE DESCRIBING TWO, TWO BOXES RATHER THAN ONE BOX. BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT GONNA, I'M NOT GONNA WASTE YOUR TIME ON THAT. SINCE 1957 UP ZONE HAS NEVER BEEN, HAS NEVER BEEN A LOT. WHAT THIS IS WRITTEN BY AN ATTORNEYS. I'M SURE IT'S RIGHT SINCE THE 1957 UP ZONE. BY BY THE, OKAY, I READ IT WRONG. THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A LOT CREATED IN COTS WALL THAT DOES NOT CONFORM WITH THE UP ZONE. WE'RE NOT CREATING A LOT, SEE, PUTTING WORDS, THEY'RE PUTTING WORDS THERE SO THAT SOMETHING ELSE STICKS. I'M NOT CREATING A, A LOT CAN I JUST PAUSE YOU FOR A MINUTE? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR OR SOMEONE MAKING AN ARGUMENT AGAINST YOU? BECAUSE YOU'RE LOSING ME. NO, I'M, THIS, THESE ARE COMMENTS OF THE OKAY, OF OF THE RE THAT'S FINE. SORRY, MY APOLOGIES. THAT'S FINE. ANY ANYONE CAN SAY ANYTHING. IT'S FROM THE ZONING BOARD OF, I'M SORRY, IT'S FROM THE KOAL. UM, FINE. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SHOULD BE ARGUING WITH US ASSOCIATION. OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. BECAUSE SEE NOW WE'RE GOING TO FIELD, ANYONE CAN HAVE AN OPINION. I SAY IT AGAIN, BUT ANYONE CAN HAVE AN OPINION. THE POINT OF THE MATTER IS THE BUILDING INSPECTOR GAVE A RULING AND THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED. YOU ARE ARGUING AGAINST CIVILIAN COMPLAINT VERSUS WHAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR. SO CAN WE JUST FOCUS ON THE BUILDING INSPECTOR? SO YOU'RE REPRESENTING THAT THIS, THESE TWO LOTS ARE OWNED BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL AND IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION YOU ARE SEEKING VARIANCES ON LOT TWO AND LOT THREE CORRECT. TO BE ABLE TO LEGALIZE THE EXISTING PATIO AS YOU JUST ATTESTED ON LOT TWO. SO YOU DID THIS SQUIGGLY LINE TO GIVE ENOUGH LANDMASS FOR LOT THREE. I'M, I'M JUST TRYING TO FOLLOW WHAT I'M LOOKING AT HERE. NO, NO, NO. THE SQUI, THERE'S NO SQUIGGLY LINE. THAT SQUIGGLY LINE IS A SHEET THAT SHOWS YOU WHERE THE PATIO IS AND THAT'S THE MEMO THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT GAVE TO EVERYBODY. THAT RED LINE IN THAT PA IN THAT PAGE IS THE PATIO AND THAT, IT'S JUST SO THAT YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CONTEXT OF WHY IT WAS AMALGAMATED. THAT'S HOW I EXPLAINED BEFORE THE, THE, THE SQUIGGLY LINE IS ABOUT IF THE SUBDIVISION AND THE ORIGINAL DIVISION OF PROPERTY WAS ONLY A STRAIGHT LINE, AND WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT. WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT GONNA DO ANYTHING. IT CHANGE THE WAY IT IS. I'M GONNA SIMPLIFY MY QUESTION THEN. IF YOU BUILT A SMALLER HOME ON LOT THREE, AS OF RIGHT, WE WOULDN'T BE HERE. NO, THAT'S NOT TRUE. THE THE LOT IS NOT 20,000. WE ARE IN A, IN A NON-CONFORMING, EXISTING NON-CONFORMING. SO WHEN YOU'RE IN THAT SITUATION, YOU ALWAYS HAVE TO GET OF AREAS. SO ANYONE HERE THAT HAS A A HOME NOW AND THEY, THERE'S LOTS OF THEM, LOTS OF LOTS THAT ARE 15,000, 14,000, 12,000 IF THEY WANNA DO ANY IMPROVEMENT IN THEIR BACKYARD, AND I SAW A LOT OF, LOTS, A LOT OF DECKS, THEY'RE PROBABLY ARE NOT LEGAL, BUT I DON'T WANT TO MENTION THAT. UH, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME HERE AND LEGALIZE IT AND MOST OF THE TIME THE BOARD WOULD SAY, YES, WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE, THE ARGUMENT IS THAT YOU WOULD REZONE. SO YOU ARE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING AND THE TEXT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL AND THERE'S NO REASON WHY WE SHOULD DENY YOU THE RIGHT TO SEEK OF VARIANCE FROM A SIDE YARD OR COVERAGE. SO I, I AM SEEKING A VARIANCE OR VARIANCE SAYS THAT TWO THINGS ALLOWS THE EXISTING HOUSE TO EXIST AS IS THE PATIO OR NO PATIO. IF THE OTHER LOT BECOMES, UH, ALLOW, IF YOU ALLOW THE OTHER LOT TO EXIST WITH THE VARIANCES THAT IT NEEDS, SIDE YARDS, AREA WIDTH, ALL OF THAT THAT I DIDN'T WANNA MENTION, UH, IS THERE VERY CLEARLY DEFINED AND THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU ARE GONNA VOTE ON IF YOU WANT ME TO GO OVER IT, IF THAT'S AN IMPORTANT THING. BECAUSE IN THEIR LETTER THEY ALSO CLAIM THAT THIS IS A GREAT PERCENTAGE OF, UM, OFFENSE, LET'S CALL IT THAT, THAT THE VARIANCE IS OF GREAT SIZE, OF GREAT MAGNITUDE. WELL BE CAREFUL WHEN YOU THROW STONES BECAUSE A LOT OF THOSE HOMES HAVE ILLEGAL DECKS, ILLEGAL ADDITIONS. I WALKED THEM ALL, I'VE SEEN ALL THE HOUSES, I'VE GONE TO THE BACKYARDS, I KNOW WHAT'S THERE AND THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ADMIT TO IT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT BEING SINGLED OUT. BUT WE'RE ALL GUILTY OF IT BECAUSE WE'RE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING. AND THAT'S THE POINT HERE. OKAY, SO CAN I, CAN I JUST, I THINK I JUST WANNA SUMMARIZE, OKAY, WHERE WE'RE AT, OKAY, THERE WERE TWO LOTS WAS TWO LOTS BACK IN THE 1920S. OKAY? AT SOME POINT, I GUESS IT WAS THE 1930S, THE PEOPLE BUILT A PATIO ON THE BACK OR IN 1960S, WHATEVER, SOME POINT THAT THEY BUILT IT AND THEN BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY BUILT IT AND WHERE THEY PUT IT, CORRECT, IT LEGALLY BECAME ONE LOT. NOW HE WANTS TO SUBDIVIDE IT DOWN TO TWO LOTS AGAIN. BUT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, HE NEEDS MULTIPLE VARIANCES. SO ONCE AGAIN, TO SIMPLIFY MY [01:55:01] COMMENTS, WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE POTENTIAL VARIANCES BEFORE US TO MINIMIZE OUR DISCUSSION. IS THERE ANY WAY POSSIBLE ON LOT THREE AS OF RIGHT TO BUILD YES OR NO? I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO THE LOT DOESN'T EXIST. NO, NO. YOUR QUESTION IS VERY THEN ON. I'M SAYING IF IT DID, IT, IT DOESN'T EXIST. NO, NO, NO. IF IT, THE LOT DOESN'T EXIST. IF IT DID, IS THERE AN ABILITY TO BUILD AS OF RIGHT IF YOU, IF YES I COULD WITH VARIANCES, I NEED VARIANCES BECAUSE THE ZONING IS OUR 20. SO BY DEFINITION I NEED VARIANCES. SO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO SAY, OKAY, WELL HERE'S A PERMIT. SO ONCE AGAIN, THAT'S EXACTLY THE QUESTION THAT I ASKED FROM LOT TWO TO LOT THREE. IF LOT TWO THE HOME WAS IN COMPLIANCE, WE WOULD NOT BE HERE. AND JUST SIMILAR TO THE CASE WE JUST HAD ABOUT EXISTING NONCONFORMITIES AND THEN MAKING ADDITIONS TO IT, YOU'RE ASKING US NOW TO ALLOW YOU TO CREATE A LOT TO THEN BUILD A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE AND IN ALLOWING THE LOT AND IN GIVING ME THE VARIANCES FROM THE R 20 REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE I HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE R 20 NO MATTER WHAT. THANK YOU. YEAH, THAT'S A DEAD ON QUESTION. THAT'S EXACTLY. THANK YOU. WHY I'M HERE ANYWAY. UH, I I HATE DOING THIS. I REALLY DON'T. THEY ARE ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION. THEY'RE ENTITLED TO THEIR UH, UH, FEELING. AGAIN, IF I COULD JUST DIRECT YOU TO THE BUILD INSPECTOR, THEY CAN PROVIDE THEIR OPINION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO FIGHT THEIR OPINION. JUST DEAL WITH WHAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAS PUT BEFORE US, WHICH IS THIS DOCUMENT RIGHT HERE. YES. WHICH YOU ARE REQUESTING AREA VARIANCES. YES. THAT'S ALL YOU HAVE TO DEFEND. YEAH, NO, I'M, I'M REPEATING, I'M SAYING YES TO YOU. OKAY. BUT I, I WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE HERE BECAUSE THE, LIKE THEIR LOTS THAT ARE IN THE R 20 CATEGORY, MY LOT IS IN THE R 20 CATEGORY AND I NEED TO COMPLY WITH THAT, RIGHT? SO WE ARE HERE BECAUSE OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, NOT YOUR NEIGHBORS. YES, YES. THEY BUILD THAT'S RIGHT. THE ZONING AND THEREFORE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS TO ADHERE TO THE ZONING CORRECT REQUIREMENTS. RIGHT? SO YOUR ARGUMENT TO US IS ABOUT YOUR LOTS, THE EXISTING HOME AND POTENTIALLY APPROVING A DECK AND HOW WE GOT TO BE ONE LOT AND THEN ALSO A NEW STRUCTURE ON A NON-CONFORMING LOT. THAT'S THE REAL ARGUMENT. UH, YES. BUT THERE'S TWO DIFFERENT STATEMENTS. THE REASON WHY THE DECK WAS BUILT, WHO CARES? BUT BECAUSE THEY BUILT THE DECK, THEN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS THE RESPONSIBILITY TO JOIN THEM. CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHEN I GUESS THE RECORD BEGAN TO SHOW THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TWO LOTS, YOU HAVE ONE LOT AND THAT'S IT, THAT'S ONE, ONE ISSUE BECAUSE THAT HAPPENED, THAT LOT WAS TAKEN FROM EXISTING. SO ONCE AGAIN, I'M JUST GONNA REPEAT YOUR ARGUMENT BASED ON WHAT YOU'RE SAYING TO US BECAUSE I JUST WANNA SHORTCHANGE IT SO WE DON'T JUST KEEP GOING AROUND THE RABBIT HOLE WHEEL. RIGHT NOW YOU'RE ASKING US TO APPROVE TWO LOTS, ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE A NON-CONFORMING LOT BECAUSE THE AREA IS NOW AN R 20 AS WELL AS PROVIDING VARIANCES FOR A PRE-EXISTING NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. CORRECT? THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. UH, I'M SURE THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE WANT SAY WHAT THEY WANNA SAY. IF THERE'S SOMETHING THAT I FEEL THAT SHOULD BE UH, ENHANCED, I WILL, I'LL, IF YOU ALLOW ME AND I WILL MAKE A COMMENT OR WHATEVER YOU, YOU ARE INTERESTED IN, IN ME COMMENTING. OKAY. THANK YOU. I YIELD THE FLOOR. THANK YOU. OKAY, HOW MANY PEOPLE ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER? . OH MY LORD. IN HEAVEN. AND DO YOU GUYS HAVE SOMEBODY THAT COULD, WELL FIRST OF ALL, IS THERE ANYBODY HERE WHO IS SPEAKING FOR THIS, THESE VARIANCES? ANYBODY? OKAY, SO IS THERE ANYBODY HERE PERHAPS FROM THE COWA ASSOCIATION OR WHO COULD SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE, ALL OF THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS? THANK YOU. IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME UP. UH, GOOD EVENING MADAM CHAIRPERSON AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD THANK YOU FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU ON THIS MATTER. MY NAME IS AMY FOOT. I HAVE LIVED IN THE COTSWOLD NEIGHBORHOOD AT 18 CHD WORTH ROAD FOR 15 YEARS, UH, WITH MY FAMILY AND WE HAVE FOUR CHILDREN, THREE OF WHOM ARE CURRENTLY IN EDGEMONT SCHOOL SYSTEM. I ALSO SERVE AS THE PRESIDENT OF THE COTSWOLD ASSOCIATION, WHICH IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATION THAT REPRESENTS THE RESIDENTS RESIDING IN THE COTSWOLD NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALSO A MEMBER OF THE EDGEMONT COMMUNITY COUNCIL. THE ASSOCIATION [02:00:02] STRONGLY OPPOSES THIS APPLICATION WHICH SEEKS NINE VARIANCES IN ORDER TO SUBDIVIDE ONE CONFORMING PROPERTY INTO TWO NON-CONFORMING LOTS AND BUILD A SECOND HOME ON THE SUBSTANDARD LOT. IN ADDITION TO SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, THE ASSOCIATION OPPOSES THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE GRANTING THOSE VARIANCES WOULD IN EFFECT REVERSE ALMOST 70 YEARS OF CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS REZONING FROM R 10 TO R 20 IN 1957 AND POSSIBLY CREATE A PRECEDENT TO REVERSE THAT HISTORY WITH RESPECT TO OTHER SIMILAR PAR PARCELS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE CUMULATIVE EFFECT OF MULTIPLE COWA SUBDIVISIONS WILL ADVERSELY IMPACT THE DENSITY TRAFFIC AND DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER OF THE COWELL NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THESE IMPACTS CANNOT BE MITIGATED. THE APPLICANTS HAVE NOT PROVIDED ANY COMPELLING REASONS WHY THIS LONG PRECEDENT SHOULD BE REVERSED. AS YOU'VE SEEN, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE COME OUT TONIGHT TO OPPOSE THIS SUBDIVISION AND THERE WOULD'VE BEEN MORE NEIGHBORS ATTENDING HAD THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS BACK TO SCHOOL NIGHT FOR PARENTS NOT CONFLICTED WITH THIS HEARING. AS YOU MAY KNOW, THE COWELL NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DEVELOPED IN THE MID 1920S. IT IS AN ARCHITECTURALLY DISTINCT COMMUNITY, COMPRISED PREDOMINANTLY OF TUDOR STYLE HOMES. IT IS ALSO DISTINCT IN THAT IT CONTAINS SEVERAL AREAS THAT ARE DESIGNATED AS A PARK DISTRICT. THE TOWN ESTABLISHED THE PAR COWELL PARK DISTRICT IN 1947 WITH LAND PURCHASED BY THE RESIDENTS OF COTSWOLD. AND TO THIS DAY, THE TOWN MAINTAINS THE LAND AS OPEN SPACE FOR THE COTSWOLD COMMUNITY THROUGH A PARK DISTRICT TAX ON THE RESIDENTS OF COTSWOLD IN 1957. IN RECOGNITION OF ITS SPECIAL CHARACTER, THE TOWN REZONED ALL R 10 LOTS IN THE COTSWOLD NEIGHBORHOOD TO R 20 AND UNDER THAT REZONE ANY PROPERTY WITHIN COTSWOLD WITH CONTIGUOUS ADJOINING LOTS UNDER 20,000 SQUARE FEET AND WITH COMMON OWNERSHIP MERGED, MR. MR ESCALADAS STARTED HIS REMARKS BY SAYING THAT NOTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THE SUBDIVISION IN THE 1920S, BUT THAT'S WHAT CHANGED IN 1957. THE PROPERTY AT SIX COTSWOLD WAY, WHICH IS LOCATED AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, CONSISTED OF TWO LOTS, BOTH UNDER 20,000 SQUARE FEET WITH COMMON OWNERSHIP AT THAT TIME UNDER THE REZONE, THOSE TWO LOTS MERGED AND BECAME ONE CONFORMING LOT THAT WE HAVE TODAY KNOWN AS SIX COTSWOLD WAY. THE PROPERTY WAS ONE OF A NUMBER OF COTSWOLD, A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES WITHIN COTSWOLD WITH CONTIGUOUS LOTS THAT MERGED IN 1957 AND NOW ARE OVERSIZED LOTS. I HAVE ONE OF THEM. THE APPLICANTS PURCHASED SIX COTSWOLD WAY A CONFORMING MERGED PROPERTY IN 2016 61 YEARS AFTER THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY. THE DEED FOR SIX COTSWOLD WAY DESCRIBES IT AS ONE MERGED LOT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE PROPERTY APPEARS AS TWO LOTS ON TOWN TAX MAPS, IT IS DESIGNATED AS SUCH FOR TOWN TAX PURPOSES. THIS IS THE CASE NOT ONLY FOR THE PROPERTY AT SIX COTW WAY, BUT ALSO FOR OTHER TWA PROPERTIES WITH ME LOTS INCLUDING MINE. UM, CURRENTLY LOT THREE AS DESCRIBED IN THIS UH, APPLICATION. BEFORE THIS BOARD IS UNDEVELOPED EXCEPT FOR A CONCRETE PATIO, A FOUNTAIN AND SOME SMALL STONE RETAINING WALLS. THE REMAINDER OF THAT LOT IS A WOODED SLOPE OF WHICH 81% IS VERY STEEP AND EXCESSIVELY STEEP AND 12% IS STEEP SLOPES. THEREFORE 93% OF THAT LOT FALLS UNDER THE TOWN'S STEEP SLOPE LEGISLATION. WHILE THE APPLICANTS STILL OWN SIX COTSWOLD WAY, THEY HAVE MOVED OUT OF STATE A FEW YEARS AGO AND THEY NO LONGER RESIDE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. GRANTING THE NINE VARIANCES THE APPLICANTS SEEK TO ALLOW THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION THAT WOULD RESULT IN THE CREATION OF TWO NON-CONFORMING, LOTS NON-CONFORMING IN BOTH LOT AREA AS WELL AS WIDTH. AND IN THE CASE OF ONE LOT SEVERAL SETBACKS, THE REQUESTED VARIANCES ARE SIGNIFICANT AND SUBSTANTIAL. THE APPLICATION REQUIRES LIGHT LOT SAW, LOT SIZE VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 20% FOR BOTH LOTS LOT WIDTH VARIANCES OF APPROXIMATELY 12.5 AND 10%. IN ADDITION, THE LOT WITH THE EXISTING HOUSE, WHICH IS LOT TWO, REQUIRES BOTH SINGLE AND COMBINED SETBACK VARIANCES OF 38% AND 15% RESPECTIVELY, AS WELL AS A DRIVEWAY SETBACK VARIANCES [02:05:01] VARIANCE OF 81% AND A SETBACK VARIANCE FROM A THE PATIO TO THE PROPERTY OF 100%. ALL OF THESE VARIANCES ARE SUBSTANTIAL. THE APPLICANT ARE ALSO SEEKS A VARIANCE FROM TOWN CODE SECTION 2 85 DASH 39 C EIGHT, WHICH PROHIBITS THE CREATION OF A NON-CONFORMING LOT. IT STATES WHERE A LOT IS FORMED HEREAFTER FROM PART OF A LOT ALREADY OCCUPIED BY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. SUCH SEPARATION SHALL BE AFFECTED IN SUCH MANNER AS TO NOT IMPAIR CONFORMITY WITH ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS OF THIS CHAPTER. WITH RESPECT TO THE EXISTING BUILDING AND ALL YARDS AND OTHER REQUIRED SPACES SINCE THE REZONE IN 1957 NOT ONE APPLICATION FOR A REDUCTION IN LOT SIZE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE ZONING BOARD. UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THOSE THAT ARE PRESENT IN THIS APPLICATION WHERE THE OWNERS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY LONG AFTER THE REZONING OF THE AREA AND OWN ADJOINING PROPERTY SUFFICIENT TO RENDER THEIR PROPERTY CONFORMING ONE FACTOR AS YOU KNOW THAT THE BOARD CONSIDERS WHEN MAKING A DECISION ON AN AREA VARIANCE IS WHETHER THE APPLICANT'S DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED IN THIS CASE. THE APPLICANT'S DIFFICULTY IS SELF-CREATED GIVEN THAT APPLICANT'S, THE APPLICANT'S PURCHASED A PROPERTY LONG AFTER THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED TO R 20 AND WERE THEREFORE AWARE OF THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS I HAVE WITH ME. TWO RELEVANT DECISIONS HERE BY THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, BOTH OF WHICH, UH, REJECTED APPLICATIONS FOR VARIANCES TO CREATE NON-CONFORMING LOTS IN COTSWOLD, ONE IN 1995, ANOTHER IN 1996. THE UNDERLYING CIRCUMSTANCES OF BOTH CASES ARE SIMILAR IF NOT IDENTICAL, UM, TO THE INCIDENT APPLICATION. THE FIRST RELATES TO 32 MEDFORD LANE A PROPERTY IN THE COTSWOLD NEIGHBORHOOD. THE DECISION WAS MARCH 24TH, 1995. THE PROPERTY CONSISTED OF THREE LOTS OF A SUBDIVISION WHICH WAS EFFECTUATED WHEN THE COTSWOLD AREA WAS ZONED TO R 10, BUT WHICH WAS REZONED TO ITS PRESENT. R 20 DESIGNATION. IN THE 1950S, THE ZONING BOARD DECIDED TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUESTED. GIVEN THE ZONING HISTORY OF THE AREA TO GRANT THE VARIANCE REQUESTED WILL ENGENDER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DETRIMENT TO THE NEARBY PROPERTIES. IN THAT GRANTING THE VARIANCES REQUESTED WOULD REVERSE ALMOST 40 YEARS OF CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT OF THE R 20 ZONING DESIGNATION. THE ZONING BOARD CONTINUES ON TO STATE THE APPLICANT PURCHASED A PROPERTY LONG AFTER THE PROPERTY WAS REZONED TO R 20 AND WAS THEREFORE AWARE OF THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS. APPLICANT'S DIFFICULTY IS SELF-CREATED. THE DECISION CONTINUES TO STATE THE APPLICANT HAD CONTENDED THAT A MAJORITY OF LOTS WHICH HAD BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE AREA WERE LESS THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET. HOWEVER, THE ZONING BOARD STATED THE RECORD SHOWS THAT MOST, IF NOT ALL OF ALL OF THE LOTS WERE DEVELOPED EITHER PRIOR TO THE 1957 ZONING AMENDMENT, INCREASING THE LOT AREA TO TWO 20,000 SQUARE FEET OR EXISTED IN SINGLE SEPARATE OWNERSHIP AT THE TIME OF THE REZONING AND WAS THEREFORE NOT SUBJECT TO MERGER AS IS THE CASE. WITH RESPECT TO THE APPLICANT'S LOTS UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE BOARD STATED THAT WHEN A NON-CONFORMING USE IS CHANGED TO CONFORM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ORDINANCE, IT MAY NOT THEREAFTER BE CHANGED BACK TO A NON-CONFORMING USE. IN ANOTHER DECISION RELATING TO 35 HADDEN ROAD, WHICH IS A PROPERTY WITHIN THE KATSWELL NEIGHBORHOOD FROM NOVEMBER 27TH, 1996, THE APPLICANT WAS REQUESTING AN AREA OF VARIANCE IN ORDER TO CONSTRUCT A HOUSE ON AN EXISTING SUBSTANDARD LOT. THE ZONING BOARD STATED THAT UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A SUBSTANDARD LOT MERGES WITH ADJOINING PROPERTY. IF BOTH PROPERTIES ARE OWNED BY THE SAME PERSON OR ENTITY. THE BOARD ALSO STATED IT IS TRUE THAT SINCE 1957, WHEN THE COTSWOLD AREA WAS REZONED FROM R 10 TO R 20, IN RECOGNITION OF ITS SPECIAL CHARACTER, NOT ONE APPLICATION FOR A REDUCTION IN LOT SIZE HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THIS BOARD. UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THOSE PRESENT IN THIS APPLICATION WHERE THE OWNERS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY LONG AFTER THE REZONING OF THE AREA AND OWNS ADJOINING PROPERTY SUFFICIENT TO RENDER THEIR PROPERTY CONFORMING, THE BOARD CONTINUED TO DETERMINE [02:10:01] THAT THERE WOULD BE ADVERSE IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD BY GRANTING THE VARIANCE BECAUSE IT WOULD IN EFFECT REVERSE ALMOST 40 YEARS OF CONSISTENT ENFORCEMENT OF THE 1957 UP ZONE OF THE AREA AND POSSIBLY CREATE A PRECEDENT TO REVERSE SUCH HISTORY WITH RESPECT TO OTHER SIMILAR PARCELS IN THE AREA. THE BOARD ALSO STATED THAT THE APPLICANTS PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN THE LATE EIGHTIES LONG AFTER THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY. THUS THEY WERE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT THE SMALLER PROCE PARCEL WAS SUBSTANDARD, THEREFORE, THEIR DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED. THERE ARE NO SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES OR CONDITIONS THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THIS SIX COWELL WAY PROPERTY THAT WOULD WARRANT THE SUB SUBSTANTIAL VARIANCES BEING SOUGHT IN THIS APPLICATION AND THE REVERSAL OF LONGSTANDING PRECEDENT. THERE ARE ALSO A NUMBER OF PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, PARTICULARLY ON COTSWOLD WAY, THE STREET, WHICH IS THE PROPOSED FRONTAGE FOR THE SUBDIVISION IN EXCESS OF 20,000 SQUARE FEET. AND SOME ARE LARGER THAN APPLICANT'S PROPERTY. ADDITIONAL NEARBY PROPERTIES THAT ARE 20,000 SQUARE FEET OR GREATER ARE ALSO ON KEMPSTER ROAD, CHD WORTH ROAD, ARDSLEY ROAD, WITHINGTON ROAD, CAMDEN ROAD, AND RUTLAND ROAD. PROPERTIES IN EXCESS OF THE REQUIRED R 20 LOT AREA ARE NOT UNCOMMON IN COTSWOLD. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT THE APPLICANTS HAVE IDENTIFIED NEARBY PROPERTIES IN THE COWELL NEIGHBORHOOD THAT ARE LESS THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET. SUCH PROPERTIES WERE DEVELOPED PRIOR TO THE 1957 REZONE OR AS LOTS IN SINGLE OWNERSHIP WITH NO ADJOINING PROPERTY WITH WHICH THEY COULD MERGE. WHERE THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS TO GRANT THE REQUESTED MULTIPLE VARIANCES. IT WOULD SET A PRECEDENT FOR OTHER COTSWOLD PROPERTIES WITH ADDITIONAL MERGED LOTS TO SUBDIVIDE AND WOULD UNDERMINE THE TOWN'S ACTIONS SINCE THE REZONE TO PRESERVE THE ARCHITECTURAL AND OPEN SPACE CHARACTERISTICS OF THE COTSWOLD NEIGHBORHOOD. IN ITS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE TOWN RECOGNIZES THE COTSWOLD NEIGHBORHOOD AS AN ARCHITECTURALLY DISTINCT COMMUNITY AND OVER THE YEARS, THE TOWN HAS ACTED TO PRESERVE THE ARCHITECTURAL AND OPEN SPACE CHARACTER OF THE COTSWOLD NEIGHBORHOOD. AND THE TOWN HAS LEGISLATED THAT R 20 IS THE APPROPRIATE ZONING CLASSIFICATION FOR THE PROPERTY RESIDENTS OF COTSWOLD VALUE THE CHARACTER OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT COTSWOLDS R 20 ZONING BE UPHELD AND THIS APPLICATION FOR VARIANCES BE DENIED. UM, I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE, UH, A A COUPLE OF, UM, NEIGHBORS WHO WOULD LIKE TO BRIEFLY SPEAK ABOUT ISSUES THAT I HAVE NOT COVERED THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THEIR, UM, THEIR SITUATION IN TERMS OF PROXIMITY, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. THAT'S FINE. CAN I RESPOND? UNLESS, UNLESS YOU, I'M SORRY. AFTER, UNLESS YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'LL, I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER TO ANY QUESTIONS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? NO, NO, NO. I I THINK SHE OUTLINED IT PERFECTLY WELL. I'M LOOKING AT THE GIS MAPS AT THIS MOMENT AND LITERALLY I'VE COUNTED AT LEAST 10 OTHER PROPERTIES THAT WOULD PROBABLY FALL INTO THAT SAME TYPE OF CATEGORY IF THIS WERE TO GO FORWARD. SO, I MEAN, I HAVE NO MORE FURTHER QUESTIONS OF YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALRIGHT. I'M GONNA LET THE PUBLIC GO FOR AND THEN YOU CAN. OKAY. UM, HELLO. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. MY NAME IS MICHAEL GOLDRICH AND MY WIFE NANCY AND I HAVE LIVED AT FOR KEMPSTER ROAD, UH, WHICH IS NEXT DOOR TO THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION. WE HAVE LIVED HERE SINCE APRIL OF 2000. THAT'S 25 YEARS OF RAISING A FAMILY, 25 YEARS OF INVESTING IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND 25 YEARS OF ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTING TO EDGEMONT AND GREENBURG. IN ALL THOSE YEARS, WE HAVE NEVER HAD AN ISSUE WITH A, A DISPUTE WITH A NEIGHBOR. WE ARE DEALING NOW NOT WITH A NEIGHBOR. UM, WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH NOW IS NOT A NEIGHBOR. IT'S A PROPERTY OWNER WHO NEITHER LIVES IN GREENBURG, NOR ACTS IN THE INTEREST OF ITS RESIDENTS. I GREW UP IN HARRISON WITH WOODS NEARBY MY HOUSE. WHEN WE MOVED HERE, WE WERE LOOKING FOR THE SAME. WE BOUGHT THIS HOUSE PRECISELY FOR THE REASON OF THE GREEN SURROUNDING THE UN, THE GREEN SURROUNDINGS, AND THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY COULD NOT BE SUBDIVIDED UNDER A GREENBURG ZONING. THAT WASN'T A GUESS, THAT WAS CONFIRMED BY THE SELLERS AND VERIFIED BY US THAT WAS THE CONDITION OF THE PURCHASE. NOW THAT RESTRICTION IS BEING CHALLENGED BY AN ABSENTEE OWNER WHO WANTS TO REWRITE THE RULES TO CASH OUT WITHOUT ANY ACCOUNTABILITY TO THOSE OF US WHO LIVE HERE. [02:15:01] THIS APPLICATION VIOLATES THE ZONING THAT PROTECTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CHARACTER. IT THREATENS THE TREES THAT DEFINE THE STREET AND UNDERMINES THE CAREFUL PLANNING THAT WENT INTO PRESERVING SPACE, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. THE PROPOSAL OFFERS NO COMMUNITY BENEFIT. IT PROVIDES, IT BRINGS RISK, IT BRINGS MORE WATER RUNOFF, IT ADDS A DRIVEWAY ON AN AREA OF COTSWOLD BETWEEN ARLEY ROAD AND CHED WORTH. UH, THAT IS A STEEP CURVE WHERE NO HOUSE, INCLUDING SIX COTSWOLD WAY, HAVE A DRIVEWAY. AND IT SETS A DANGEROUS PRECEDENT THAT OPENS THE DOOR TO ADDITIONAL SHORTSIGHTED DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD COMPLETELY CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF COTW. MEANWHILE, WE CONTRIBUTE, CONTINUE TO GIVE BACK. WE HAVE VOLUNTEERED IN EDGEMONT, OUR SON HAS INTERNED AT GREENBURG OFFICES. WE, I'VE SUBMITTED IDEAS TO THE TOWN, INCLUDING THE ONE THAT LED TO THE PUMPKIN DISPOSAL INITIATIVE DURING THE HOLIDAYS. WE BELIEVE IN THIS COMMUNITY AND WE DO OUR PART TO STRENGTHEN IT. IT IS WHAT NEIGHBORS DO. THEY DON'T LIVE HERE. UH, THEY LIVE OUTTA STATE. THEY DON'T CONTRIBUTE. THEY WANT TO PROFIT, WALK AWAY AND LEAVE US TO DEAL WITH THE IMPACT THAT IS NOT HOW COMMUNITIES WORK. THIS IS NOT JUST ABOUT ZONING, IT'S ABOUT VALUES. IT'S ABOUT WHO BELONGS AND WHO TAKES RESPONSIBILITY. NANCY AND I BELONG, OUR FAMILY BELONGS. WE CARE. WE ASK THAT THE ZONING BOARD CARE TOO. THE RISK IN GRANTING THESE VARIANCES ARE REAL AND THE DAMAGE WOULD BE LASTING. WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THAT YOU DENY THE VARIANCES FOR THE PROPOSED SUBDIVISION OF SIX COSAL WAY AND PRESERVE THE INTEGRITY, THE SAFETY, AND THE ZONING PROTECTIONS OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT, WE'RE GONNA DO ONE MORE. HELLO EVERYBODY. MY SON INTERNED FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBURG AS WELL. , TAKE THAT. MICHAEL GOLDRICH . UH, MY NAME IS STUART SEALEY. I LIVE AT 11 COSAL WAY. UM, I HAVE A LETTER. I CAN LEAVE IT WITH YOU. I'LL READ IT AS A LETTER IF YOU WANNA STOP ME. STOP ME. EVERYBODY ELSE DOES. DEAR MEMBERS OF THE GREENBERG ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, I RECEIVED BY MAIL FROM GREENBERG AND NOTICE INDICATING THAT MULTIPLE ZONING VARIANCES ARE BEING SOUGHT AT SIX COSAL WAY. I LIVE NEARBY WITHIN THE FORMAL NOTIFICATION RADIUS. AND I'M AN INTERESTED PARTY. I STRONGLY OBJECT TO THESE VARIANCES BEING GRANTED. IT IS NOT JUST A SUBSTANTIAL MAGNITUDE OF EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL REQUESTED VARIANCES, BUT IT IS ALSO THE LARGE NUMBER OF VARIANCES THAT COLLECTIVELY SPEAK LOUDLY THAT THIS PROJECT IS ILL-CONCEIVED. THERE IS A TOTAL OF NINE SEPARATE REQUESTED VARIANCES BEING SOUGHT TO ACHIEVE THE END OBJECTIVE OF SHOEHORNING AND NOT ONE, BUT TWO UNDERSIZED NON-CONFORMING LOTS, WHICH ARE ALSO NON-CONFORMING SIGNIFICANTLY IN MULTIPLE OTHER WAYS. IN THE ATTACHMENT TO THIS LETTER, I HAVE INDICATED THE PERCENTAGE MAGNITUDE OF REDUCTION FROM THE NORMAL CONFORMING REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCES. THESE REDUCTIONS RANGE FROM 10% TO 100%. THE PERCENTAGE REDU REDUCTIONS IN LISTED IN THE NOTICE ARE 10%, 19%, 21%, 13%, 81%, 100%, 38%, AND 15%. THIS IS AN INCREDIBLY AGGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT SCHEME AND I URGE THE ZONING BOARD TO NOT GO ALONG WITH IT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT SIX CO WAY IS A PROPERTY ORIGINALLY ON SMALLER LOTS THAT MERGED WHEN COTSWOLD WAS THE SUBJECT OF THE MASTER REZONING IN 1957, SPECIFYING LARGER REQUIRED LOTS. AND THEN, AS YOU HEARD, IF THESE VARIANCES ARE GRANTED, IT'LL SET A PRECEDENCE FOR H OTHER HOUSES ON MERGED LOTS IN COTSWOLD TO PURSUE VARIANCES TO SUBDIVIDE. AND THAT WILL RADICALLY CHANGE THE CHARACTER AND DENSITY OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IT IS THIS POST 1957 CHARACTER IN DENSITY THAT FAMILIES IN COTSWOLD DESIRED AND EXPECTED TO CONTINUE WHEN THEY PURCHASED HOMES AND MADE COTSWOLD THEIR HOME FOR THE PAST ALMOST 70 YEARS. AND IN MY CASE, 23 YEARS. AND BEYOND THE TECHNICAL BASICS, THIS LOT IS PARTICULARLY ILL SUITED FOR GRANTING AN ARRAY OF VARIANCES LEADING TO A SUBDIVISION AND CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL HOUSE. I WALK BY IT EVERY DAY. IT IS UP A STEEP HILL THAT FALLS OFF IN TWO FALLS OFF IN TWO DIRECTIONS, ONE TO ALD WAY AND THE OTHER TO KEMPSTER. A QUICK VISUAL INSPECTION WILL CONFIRM THIS. ADDING A HOUSE AND INCREASING THE DENSITY AND GROUND COVER ACHIEVED ONLY BY GRANTING MANY LARGE VARIANCES, WILL CERTAINLY ADD TO THE EXISTING FLOODING ISSUES ON ALD WAY, KEMPSTER ROAD AND O GORMAN PARK. AND IT WOULD NOT BE IN KEEPING WITH THE OPEN CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND INTRODUCES LONGER TERM PRECEDENTS RISKS. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. [02:20:06] ALL RIGHT. YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES PLEASE, TO RESPOND. WELL, I, I WANTED TO RESPOND EACH COMMENT THAT WAS MADE, AND I'VE FORGOTTEN A LOT OF THEM, BECAUSE THEY'RE REALLY, I'M SORRY TO SAY THEY'RE NOT IMPORTANT. THE BOARD WILL DECIDE THAT ULTIMATELY, UM, IN, IN TERMS OF GENERAL, UH, COMMENTS ABOUT, YOU CAN SAY, WELL, IT'S NOT ENVIRONMENTALLY SAFE, BUT WE WE HAVE A POSITIVE, UH, CQR UH, UM, DESCRIPTION. SO WE, THAT ANSWERS THAT. WE ANSWERED ALL THE ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES. THE PLANNING BOARD WAS A LONG PROCESS. THIS WAS NOT A ONE MEETING. I THINK THERE WERE THREE MEETINGS AND THERE WERE QUESTIONS, VERY POIGNANT QUESTIONS ASKED OF US, AND THEY, UH, WERE GOING TO BE FAVORABLY. UH, BUT ONE VOTE WAS FORCED TO BE CHANGED BY THE OTHER, THE OTHER MEMBERS. AND WE, WE CAME BACK AS NEUTRAL, BUT, UH, THE FIRST VOTE WAS POSITIVE. I WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT. SO THEY, UH, THEY HAD LOOKED INTO THIS, UH, FOR MANY OTHER, UH, UH, PROBLEMS THAT WERE NOT MENTIONED HERE. UM, AGAIN, UM, THE FIRST, THE FIRST SUBMISSION I CAN UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT, THE, THE SURPRISE BY THE WAY, THE LOT WAS NOT CREATED IN 57. THE LOT WAS AMALGAMATED. AND THERE WAS, AND HE STATE STATED, SO IN THE, IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S COMMENTS, WHEN THEY, UM, THEY BUILT THAT PATIO. THAT'S WHY I MADE A BIG STINK ABOUT IT. THAT'S WHEN THE PATIO, UH, WHEN THAT WAS THE AMALGAMATION, THAT'S, THAT'S THEIR WORDS. THAT'S THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DOCUMENTS SENT TO YOU. SO IT WASN'T A A, A BLESSING IN 1957. IT WAS THE ACTION OF MAKING THAT PATIO. MAYBE IT HAPPENED BEFORE IN 1957, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SAYS. UM, THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ARE ACCEPTED. DRAINAGE WILL BE LESS AFTER WE SPEND $20,000 DOING DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. LIKE EVERY NEW LOT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE. IT'S A VERY STRICT SET OF RULES THAT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS IN GREENBURG. I AM SURE AS I'M STANDING HERE THAT SOME OF THOSE HOUSES THAT ARE UNDERSIZED, THAT ARE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING PROBABLY CAME HERE TO YOUR BOARD TO GET A VARIANCE IN ORDER TO MAKE SOMETHING HAPPEN IN THEIR HOMES. IT'S JUST, IT'S UNNATURAL FOR TO SAY THAT NOTHING HAS EVER CHANGED. OF COURSE THEY'VE CHANGED AND BECAUSE THEY'RE IN AN EXISTING NON-CONFORMING, ALL THOSE 50 LOTS THAT I IDENTIFIED IN THE MAP, I'M SURE THAT THERE'S A PERCENTAGE OF THOSE LOTS THAT IN ORDER TO DO THE DECK AND BY LAW THEY CANNOT DO ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY ARE EXISTING NON-CONFORMING, WHICH IS WHAT WE ARE IN THIS APPLICATION. SO WE ARE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD AS PER THE DENSITY. THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE DID ALL THE MAPPING THAT WE DID. THE, THE DENSITY THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THE SAME. THAT'S THE MAJORITY DANCING THERE. ONE HOUSE PER 15,000 SQUARE FEET, THAT'S THE DOMINANT SIZE. THAT'S THE DOMINANT RATIO. SO I WANT TO LEAVE THE BOARD WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT WE'RE NOT ASKING, OH, BY THE WAY, WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK THIS BECAUSE WE DON'T LIVE HERE. WELL, THOSE, THAT COUPLE LIVED HERE FOR MANY YEARS, THEY'RE TWO SCIENTIFIC MINDS ARE DOING GREAT THINGS. CANCER RESEARCH, AND THEY'RE, AND THEY'RE WAITING FOR JUSTICE TO BE, TO, TO BE DONE. THEY DID NOT, THEY PROBABLY DIDN'T EVEN KNOW THAT THEY WERE BUYING ONE LOT BECAUSE THEY SOLD TWO TAX LOTS. IN FACT, THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD ME. BUT THAT'S OKAY. THAT'S THEIR IGNORANCE. THEY'RE NOT ATTORNEYS. AND, AND SO WE'RE HERE TO MAYBE HELP THE BOARD REMEDY THAT AND, AND IT'S NOT A REMEDY. IT'S LIKE THE WAY I LOOK AT IT, YOU'RE JUST ALLOWING THE ORIGINAL, UH, LOTS AS THEY WERE SUBDIVIDED. WE'RE NOT CREATING A LOT THAT WAS ALSO STATED IN A LEGAL FANCY WAY. WE'RE NOT CREATING A LOT, WE'RE NOT MAKING OR ASKING YOU TO GIVE US THAT PERMISSION. WE'RE SIMPLY ASKING TO REVERSE BACK TO WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY AN EXISTING, AND THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY. THE NUMBER OF STANCES. I DON'T KNOW WHERE HE GOT A HUNDRED PERCENT. I DON'T KNOW. I WOULD LOVE TO SPEAK TO HIM AND SAY, WHERE ARE WE ASKING FOR A HUNDRED PERCENT. SO I HAVE ONE. I HAVE ONE. I HAD NO IDEA WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. 'CAUSE YOU KEEP SAYING THAT IT'S GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL LOTS AND THE ORIGINAL, BUT SOME ORIGINAL. I HAD READ THAT ACTUALLY YOU WERE TAKING SOME OF THE LAND FROM THE E WHAT WAS THE EMPTY LOT AND GIVING IT TO THE NO, THAT'S, THAT'S A MISTAKE IN THEIR PART. OKAY. THAT IS ABSOLUTELY NOT. AND IF, AND IF THE NUMBERS REFLECT WHAT THEY ARE SAYING, IT IS A TYPO. WE ARE LEAVING THE LINE WHERE IT ALWAYS WAS. THANK YOU FOR OKAY, FOR ASKING THAT QUESTION. THAT WAS A VERY IMPORTANT ONE BECAUSE THAT WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING. WE JUST LET US BE WHAT WE WERE. AND LISTEN, THE HOUSE IS NOT A, A CHEAP HOUSE. IT'S GOING TO BE IF YOU ARE AFRAID OF, UH, UH, ARCHITECTURE BEING DEFENDED, NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT'S ENOUGH. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU EVERYONE. AND IF ANYONE HAS ANYTHING THEY WOULD LIKE TO, UH, WRITE IN, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO DO SO. UM, WE'RE GONNA MOVE ON 'CAUSE I'M GETTING TIRED. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, I THINK. YES. WE ARE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE LIKE A TWO MINUTE BREAK BECAUSE [02:25:02] GOOD NIGHT. QUESTION. ARE YOU PROGRESS? ALRIGHT, THANKS EVERYONE FOR YOUR PATIENCE. WE ARE GONNA MOVE ON TO OUR NEXT CASE, 25 18 DERMOT MORRIS 16 HEMLOCK ROAD. GOOD EVENING, MADAM CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS, UH, SCOTT O'NEILL WITH STOWE DESIGNS. I'M REPRESENTING THE MORRIS RESIDENCE AT 16 HEMLOCK ROAD. UH, FOR THE RESPECT FOR THE BOARD'S TIME, I'M GONNA KEEP THIS AS BRIEF AS POSSIBLE. UM, WE'RE ASKING FOR A FRONT YARD, UH, AREA VARIANCE OF 3.3 FEET. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A SECOND STORY ADDITION ABOVE THE EXISTING LIVING ROOM AND KITCHEN, UM, WITH A NEW FOYER AND FRONT, UH, FRONT PORCH. THE FRONT PORCH IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE FRONT YARD VARIANCE OF 3.3 FEET. UM, IT'S LESS THAN 20% OF THE FRONT YARD SETBACK, SO IT IS A MINIMAL IMPACT. UM, WE'RE BUILDING IT ON PIERS TO LIMIT THE DISTURBANCE OF THE AREA OF THE FRONT PORCH. UM, WE BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A DETRIMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, IN FACT IT'S GONNA CREATE MORE OF AN ARCHITECTURAL APPEAL. UH, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, THE FACADE IS KIND OF A BLAND, KIND OF FLAT, UM, HOUSE AS IT SITS NOW. SO WITH THE ADDITION OF THE FRONT PORCH, IT WILL, UM, BRING MORE CHARACTER TO THE HOUSE AND, UM, KEEP UP WITH THE HARMONY OF THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, SO AGAIN, WE'RE ASKING FOR A 3.3, UH, FRONT YARD SETBACK, VARI AREA VARIANCE FOR THE, UH, PROPOSED PROJECT. ANY QUESTIONS? DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? UH, NO. CAN SEE WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE. SURE. , SO THIS THE PROPOSED IT'S OKAY. SORRY, THAT BE TOO BIG FOR NO, IT'S OKAY. UM, SO THIS IS THE, THE PROPOSED, UM, ADDITION RIGHT HERE. AND, UH, YEAH. WHAT'S THAT? AHA. AND THANK YOU. SURE, . AND IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THIS? NO. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. WE'LL TAKE IT INTO CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU THIS EVENING. HAVE A GOOD DAY. YOU WANNA HOLD ON TO THIS US TO HOLD ONTO THAT? IT'S ALRIGHT. OKAY. MOVING ON TO OUR NEXT CASE. 25 19. JUSTIN LIN AND FRANKLIN CHUNG, 50 MULLIGAN LANE. HI, UH, YOU MAD MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. DAVID , THE ARCHITECT, UH, REPRESENTING THE OWNERS OF 50 MULLIGAN LANE. UM, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT SEEKING TWO VARIANCES. UH, ONE IS A HEIGHT OF AN ACCESSORY STRUCTURE, WHICH IS THE GARAGE WITH A BASEMENT AREA AND A LOFT AREA. UM, AND ALSO SECOND VARIANCE IS, UH, LIMITED TO VEHICLE STORAGE. UM, SO WE'RE ALSO REQUESTING, UH, SPACE UP ON THE SECOND FLOOR AS A HOME OFFICE AND, UH, BASEMENT STORAGE, UH, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A VARIANCE TO THE, UH, CODE. UM, IF I CAN EXPLAIN, UH, THE PROPERTY A LITTLE BIT. ONE EXISTING, ONE FAMILY DWELLING AND AN R 20 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ZONE. UH, THE EXISTING LOT HAS AN AREA OF 40,900 SQUARE FEET, AND THERE'S AN EXISTING TWO STORY, ONE FAMILY DWELLING ON THE PROPERTY, UH, AT THE PRESENT LOCATION. I COULD SHARE MY SCREEN IF THAT'S OKAY. I COULD SHOW YOU SOME PHOTOGRAPHS. I'LL SHOW YOU THE SITE PLAN AS WELL. UH, CAN YOU SEE MY SCREEN? NOT YET. YEAH. [02:30:03] YEAH, WE SEE IT. OKAY. UM, SO RIGHT HERE WHERE MY CURSOR IS, IS A PRESENT ON-GRADE DRIVEWAY. UH, IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN, FROM WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, APPEARS TO BE A FILLED AREA OVER A PERIOD OF TIME WHEN THE HOUSE WAS, UH, FIRST CONSTRUCTED. UH, SO IT'S AN ON-GRADE AREA WHERE THE PARKING PRESENTLY STANDS. UH, THIS IS THE LOCATION THAT WE PROPOSED THE NEW GARAGE, WHICH IS, UH, 23 BY 31 FEET. UH, THE FIRST FLOOR OF THE GARAGE IS A TWO. IT'S A TWO CAR GARAGE, UH, 713 FEET. UM, BUT REAL QUICK, THERE'S THE FRONT OF THE GARAGE. SO WE ARE BASICALLY REQUESTING A VARIANCE, UH, FOR THE 19 FEET, UH, DUE TO TAKING THE AVERAGE GRADE AROUND THE, THE STRUCTURE, UH, GOING TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE ROOF, UH, MAXIMUM PERMITTED IS 12. BASED ON THE, UH, AVERAGE GRADE AROUND THE HOUSE WE'RE AT 19. UH, AND AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SIDING, THERE WERE TWO SIDING REAR ELEVATIONS. UH, PROPERTY DOES DROP OFF. UH, ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE, UH, DECIDED TO DO A STORAGE AREA UNDERNEATH THE GARAGE WAS, UH, THEY NEEDED, YOU KNOW, A SHED FOR GARDEN EQUIPMENT, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO IT'S EASIER JUST TO SET UP ANOTHER STRUCTURE. WE JUST PUT EVERYTHING UNDERNEATH THE GARAGE. UM, REASON FOR THE SECOND FLOOR ON THE GARAGE IS THEY PRESENTLY ARE, UH, HAVE TO HAVE, UH, GONNA HAVE ANOTHER THIRD CHILD. UH, THE BEDROOMS THAT PRESENTLY THEY USE AS THEIR HOME OFFICE, UM, IS GONNA BECOME A BEDROOM. UH, AND THERE ARE NO OTHER BEDROOMS IN THE HOUSE, SO THEY JUST, UH, NEED A PLACE TO WORK. UH, 'CAUSE THEY WORK REMOTELY MOST OF THE TIME. UM, THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS. I'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. ARE THERE GONNA BE ANY UTILITIES IN THAT BASEMENT STORAGE AREA? UH, THERE WILL BE LIGHTS, ELECTRIC. THERE'LL BE WHAT? THERE WOULD BE WHAT? I'M SORRY. LIGHTS. ELECTRIC. THERE WILL BE ELECTRIC. WHAT ABOUT IN THE, UH, ATTIC OR IN THE OFFICE? THERE'LL BE PLUMBING UP THERE, OR, UH, SO, SO THE OFFICE AREA IS NOT AN ACCESSORY DWELLING. UH, IT'S NOT INTENDED TO BE, UH, THERE AT THIS POINT. THERE IS ONLY, UM, LIGHTING, ELECTRIC, YOU KNOW, RECEPTACLES, THINGS LIKE THAT TO, TO, YOU KNOW, FOR COMPUTERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I BELIEVE THERE IS A WATER LINE COMING TO THE GARAGE AREA, BUT THAT IS JUST FOR, YOU KNOW, A HOSE BIB AND POSSIBLY A SLOT SINK IN THERE. THERE'S NO BATHROOM. NO BATHROOM. IT'S NOT GONNA BE AN APARTMENT. UH, JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, YOU DIDN'T, OR YOUR CLIENTS DIDN'T WANNA EXPAND THE HOUSE RATHER THAN DO THIS? SO, SO BASICALLY THE WAY THE, THE PARCEL IS, UM, SO THE WAY, THE WAY THE HOUSE IS SITUATED ON THE PROPERTY, IF I WAS TO DO AN ADDITION, UH, WHERE MY CURSOR IS, I WOULD NEED FRONT YARD VARIANCES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. UM, IF I WAS TO GO TO THE BACKSIDE OF THE PARCEL, I'VE GOT AN EXISTING FLAGSTONE DECK. UM, THAT WASN'T REALLY AN OPTION. THE WAY THE, UH, HOUSE LAYS OUT, ONCE I GET PAST THIS AREA, THE, THE SLOPE BECOMES, UH, WHERE, YOU KNOW, RATHER STEEP. WAIT, WHERE? WHERE WE DON'T SEE YOUR, WE DON'T SEE YOUR CURSOR. SORRY. OH, I'M SORRY. LET'S SEE WHAT HAPPENED HERE. ARE WE BACK? YEAH. OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. OH, THERE, THEY'RE, SO HERE IN THE, SO HERE IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, RIGHT OFF THE NEW CUL-DE-SAC. THIS [02:35:01] IS, UH, I GUESS AN EXISTING HOUSE. UH, THIS WAS, UH, A NEWLY CREATED CUL-DE-SAC BECAUSE, UH, THIS WAS APPARENTLY A NEW SUBDIVISION. UM, WHEN I FIRST STARTED THIS PROJECT A COUPLE YEARS AGO. THESE HOUSES THAT ARE OFF OF THE CUL-DE-SAC WERE JUST BEING CONSTRUCTED. UH, THE EXISTING HOUSE IS PROBABLY CIRCA 1930S THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS. UH, SO, UM, WHERE MY CURSOR IS RIGHT NOW, UM, ONCE AGAIN, I WOULD NEED ADDITIONAL VARIANCES. UM, YOU KNOW, FOR FRONT YARD SETBACKS, THINGS LIKE THAT. I'VE ALSO GOT BEDROOM WINDOWS ON THAT SIDE OF THE HOUSE ON THE SECOND FLOOR. UM, I'D HAVE TO BASICALLY REDESIGN THE ENTIRE SECOND FLOOR TO MAKE THAT WORK. UH, IF I WAS TO GO OFF THE BACK END OF THE HOUSE, THERE'S AN EXISTING FLAGSTONE PATIO. UH, GRADES GET KIND OF STEEP AND TRYING TO, UH, TURN INTO A GARAGE AT THAT POINT, UH, WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT. SO JUST BASICALLY EXTENDING A LITTLE BIT THE DRIVEWAY AND, UH, SETTING THE GARAGE AT THAT LOCATION, UM, WAS THE BEST SOLUTION FOR, FOR WHAT THEY WANTED. I'M FINE WITH IT. I'M FINE WITH IT. AND GIVE JUST ONE MORE TIME. CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE, THE HEIGHT WHY IT HAS, YOU CAN'T SOMETHING WITH THE GRADE. SO WHEN YOU TAKE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, YOU'RE TAKING THE AVERAGE GRADE AROUND THE ENTIRE BUILDING. SO IT'S NOT ONLY THE FRONT, BUT YOU'RE TAKING, YOU HAVE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE AVERAGE ON THE TWO SIDES. YOU HAVE TO TAKE THE LOWEST PORTION OF THE, UM, THE GRADE AT THE BACK END OF THE GARAGE. SO THAT'S AT THE LOWER END OF THE SLOPE. SO TAKING ALL THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, UM, TO THE MIDPOINT OF THE ROOF BECAUSE YOU GET AN AVERAGE GRADE. UM, FOR SOME REASON I CAN'T ZOOM IN. UM, BUT ON MY PLAN THERE IS AN AVERAGE GRADE OF, BEAR WITH ME ONE SECOND. SO THE AVERAGE GRADE IS, LOOKS LIKE 3 0 2 0.75. UH, WHERE MY FIRST FLOOR ELEVATION OF THE GARAGE IS ACTUALLY, UM, 3 0 7 0.5. SO BASED ON THE AVERAGE GRADE AROUND THE BUILDING, THAT AVERAGE GRADE MARK IS ACTUALLY FIVE FEET BELOW THE ACTUAL GARAGE ELEMENT D KIND OF HURTS ME A LITTLE BIT. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO. IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS? OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, UH, OKAY. UH, THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS CASE, UH, NUMBER 25 20. JOHN WISDOM 10 MAPLEWOOD ROAD. HI, UH, JOHN WISDOM. I'M HERE TONIGHT WITH MY WIFE STAR. UH, WE MOVED INTO THE WINDSOR PARK AREA. UM, LAST, UH, THANKSGIVING WE'VE BEEN, UM, WE'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR A HOUSE THAT WHERE WE, WHERE WE COULD PUT A, UH, DOWNSTAIRS BEDROOM IN, YOU KNOW, COULDN'T FIND ANY BRANCHES. I EXPANDED, UH, THE HOUSE, UH, TO BE QUITE LONG AND SKINNY, UM, AND PUT IN OB OBVIOUSLY A DRIVEWAY. AND, UH, I THINK MY ARCHITECT LET ME DOWN AND NOT ADVISING THE RULES AND REGULATIONS ON THAT. UH, WE, FOR EXAMPLE, HAD, UM, ABOUT 28 FEET OF A CURB CUT THERE, AND WE'RE ONLY ALLOWED 20. I LEARNED THAT FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, AND WE CORRECTED THAT [02:40:01] SITUATION TO NOW WE HAVE A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY WITH TWO 10 FOOT OPENINGS. UM, WE THEN HEARD THAT THERE'S A RESTRICTION ON THE WIDTH OF THE ENTIRE ASSEMBLY, UM, OF, UH, 30 FEET. AND WE ARE AT 45 FEET. UM, I GUESS THAT'S SHOWN THERE. UM, WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR OBVIOUSLY IS TO KEEP WHAT WE BUILT AND, UH, NOT HAVE TO AMEND IT OTHER THAN AESTHETICS. IS THERE A FUNCTIONAL USE OF HAVING A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY? UM, IT FITS THE HOUSE. IT ALLOWS, UM, TWO CARS WITHOUT ONE MOVING, YOU KNOW, THERE, THERE'S, IT'S THE SKINNIEST DRIVEWAY, SO ONLY ONE CAR CAN FIT IN IT. WE HAVE TWO CARS, SO THIS ALLOWS ONE TO, UH, GET IN AND E AND ALLOWS EGRESS FROM, UH, YOU KNOW, ONE CAR CAN USE ONE SIDE, ONE CAR CAN USE THE OTHER OR ALL GO AROUND IT. IT, IT SUITS THE LAND VERY WELL. IT'S A, YOU KNOW, IT'S ATTRACTIVE. I THINK YOU, YOU DID THIS DRIVEWAY WHEN YOU PUT AN ADDITION ON THE HOUSE. I'M SORRY? YOU DID THE DRIVEWAY WHEN YOU PUT AN ADDITION ON THE HOUSE? YES. THE LEFT SIDE, AS YOU SEE IT, THERE WAS THERE, I OPENED UP ON THE RIGHT SIDE THERE. SO THAT'S A NEW, A NEW ENTRANCE. UM, THE LEFT SIDE WAS, UH, I GUESS 14 FOOT, 14 FOOT COLOR CUT. I JUST REPLICATED THAT ON THE RIGHT SIDE. SO I ENDED UP WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, UM, EIGHT PEOPLE THAT I SHOULD HAVE. SO I DID CRUNCH THOSE DOWN ALREADY. AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY WE HEARD THAT, UH, THE OTHER DIMENSION WAS IN, YOU KNOW, BUT WAS, WASN'T THE DRIVEWAY ON THE PLANS WHEN YOU DID THE ADDITION, OR NO, THIS IS SOMETHING YOU DID AFTER THE FACT? UH, YES. YES, I THINK SO, YES. TO WHAT YES. WHAT, UH, I, I BELIEVE IT WAS ON THE PLANS. YES. I MEAN, IT, I MEAN, IT WAS DEFINITELY ON THE PLANS, BUT THE ARCHITECT I DON'T THINK KNEW THAT, UH, THESE RESTRICTIONS EXISTED. BUT YOU WOULD'VE HAD TO HAVE GOTTEN A BUILDING PERMIT TO DO THE ADDITION. RIGHT. AND A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. WE DID. WE DON'T HAVE A CITY OF OCCUPANCY YET BECAUSE THIS IS PENDING. AND, UH, THEY ALSO REQUIRED US TO PUT IN A SIXTH, UM, DRYWALL. UH, I GUESS BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE, UM, THE DRIVEWAY. SEE THE DIMENSION ON, SORRY, WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT YOUR, YOUR FLOOR PLAN. HMM. [02:45:38] CAN I, SO ON THE ORIGINAL PLANS, BUILDING PLANS THAT WERE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, DOES IT SHOW THE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY LIKE THAT? UH, YES. YEAH, THAT ONE SHOW OFF. WELL, I, I'M ASKING OUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT, UM, JAY SC, UM, BUILDING DEPARTMENT, UM, I CAN'T CONFIRM BECAUSE I DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR ORIGINAL SET OF PLANS. SO I WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU, UH, BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING. OKAY. BECAUSE WE WOULD, IN, IN THAT CIRCUMSTANCE, WE SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT IT. MM-HMM . OKAY. SO I THINK THAT'S JUST SOMETHING WE WOULD POTENTIALLY NEED TO CONFIRM. SORRY. MM-HMM . WE MIGHT WANT TO JUST CONFIRM IF, IF YOU SUBMITTED A PLAN THAT SHOWED EXACTLY THIS TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND IT WASN'T PICKED UP, THAT MIGHT AFFECT OUR DECISION DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I UNDERSTAND. SO WE MIGHT HAVE, WE MIGHT WAIT TO SEE WHAT, WHAT WAS SUBMITTED TO THE COUNTY FAIR DEPARTMENT. SO IT MIGHT HAVE TO GO TO THE NEXT MEETING. RIGHT. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME. YOU'RE WELCOME. ONLY 'CAUSE WE GET A LOT OF THESE DRIVEWAYS AND MM-HMM . ALL RIGHT. IS, THERE'S NOBODY ELSE TO SPEAK ON THIS ONE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, MOVING TO OUR, ARE THESE TWO TOGETHER, ED, THESE NEXT TWO? WELL, THEY'RE THE SAME RELIEF, BUT THEY'RE TECHNICALLY DIFFERENT. BUT YOU CAN VOTE. I KNOW YOU WORRIED ABOUT THE 10 30 RULE? NO, I JUST WAS CURIOUS. , I JUST, 'CAUSE OF THE, I THOUGHT SOMEONE TOLD ME THEY WERE THE, THEY'RE DIFFERENT LOCATIONS, BUT IT'S THE SAME DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. IT'S KIND OF SAME. OH, I SEE. ALRIGHT, WELL WE'LL START WITH THE FIRST 1, 25, 21 GREENVILLE SHOPPING CENTER. GOOD EVENING. UH, MY NAME IS TAKA JUBA. I'M FROM IPB SOLAR, THE DEVELOPERS OF THE ESS PROJECT. AND MY COLLEAGUE, ER, HE'S ACTUALLY, UH, IN FRANCE AND I THINK HE'S RIGHT BEHIND. HE'S GONNA LEAD THE DISCUSSION. HIS, UH, MOTHER FELT ILL, SO SHE HAD TO GO TO FRANCE. AND IT'S 4:00 AM IN THE MORNING NOW. SO MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT, UH, WACKY, BUT, SO YOU GO AHEAD, ER AND WE HAVE MY COLLEAGUE HERE, DAVID. HI. CAN YOU HEAR ME FINE? OH, YEAH. YEP. OKAY, GREAT. UM, YES, GOOD EVENING. UM, DEAR MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS MAN, I'M ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF IPPP, SORRY, IPP SOLAR. WE ARE THE, UH, APPLICANT FOR THE PROJECT. UH, BRIEFLY, WE ARE A SOLAR AND ENERGY STORAGE COMPANY BASED IN NEW YORK CITY. UH, BEEN IN BUSINESS SINCE 2007, UH, 2008. AND, UH, DONE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF PROJECTS IN NEW YORK METROPOLITAN AREA. SO, UH, WE GOT APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, FOR TWO PROJECTS, UH, KIND OF SISTER PROJECTS, UH, AT GREENVILLE AND MIDWAY. THEY, THEY LITERALLY COPYCATS OF EACH OTHER, JUST DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. OTHER THAN THAT SAME, UH, SAME SORT OF DESIGN. WE, UH, GOT APPROVAL TO INSTALL TWO TESLA MEGA PACKS AT EACH LOCATION. AND THE APPROVAL CAME, UH, IF MY MEMORY IS CORRECT, DECEMBER OF 2022. UM, AND, UH, BASICALLY WHAT HAPPENED IS THAT, UH, THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, UH, WAS ACCOMPANIED BY THE NAME OF IPP, UH, SORRY, UH, ERTA BILL OF PROPERTIES. AND THEY GOT ACQUIRED BY A VERY LARGE NATIONAL, UH, SIZE, UH, REAL ESTATE COMPANY BY THE NAME OF REGENCY CENTERS. [02:50:01] THEY OWN ABOUT FIVE OR 600 SHOPPING CENTERS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY. AND THIS, UH, ACQUISITION, UH, AND, UH, JUST TOOK A LONG TIME TO, UM, TO BE CONSUMMATED AND OVER A YEAR, YEAR AND A HALF. AND, UH, THAT DELAYED OUR PROJECTS AND A NUMBER OF OTHER PROJECTS, IN FACT, UH, THAT WE COULD NOT CONTINUE UNTIL THE ACQUISITION WAS, UH, FULLY COMPLETE. AND, UH, THE NEW OWNERS COULD, UH, YOU KNOW, FOCUS ON OUR PROJECTS. SO THAT CAUSED A LOT OF DELAY. AND SO THAT'S SORT OF THE FIRST, UM, THE FIRST VARIANCE WE'RE LOOKING FOR. WE, WE HAD APPLIED FOR AN EXTENSION IN THE DECEMBER OF 24. UM, UH, AND WE WERE GRANTED THE EXTENSION UNTIL FOR SIX MONTHS, WHICH, UM, UH, AND WE FILED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR, UH, THE TWO PROJECTS, UH, IN EARLY MAY OF 2025, JUST A FEW MONTHS AGO. SO WE WERE WITHIN THE TIMEFRAME. AND, UM, AND THEN, UH, AND I CAN SHARE THE SCREEN IF YOU LIKE, AND WE, WE GOT A DENIAL LETTER FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, UH, ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT WE NEEDED TO GET, UH, TWO VARIANCES. ONE WAS THE EXTENSION, AND SECOND ONE WAS WE HAD ALSO, UM, YOU KNOW, THE TECHNOLOGY HAS EVOLVED. AND SINCE WHEN WE GOT THE APPROVAL IN 2022, UH, YOU KNOW, TESLA CAME UP WITH A NEWER VERSION OF THEIR MEGA PACKS, UH, THAT HAVE, UH, SORT OF SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, UH, DIMENSIONS AND CERTAINLY MORE, UM, MORE ENERGY STORAGE. AND SO WHEN WE SUBMITTED THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, UH, WE HAD TO PUT THE NEW, UH, NEW, UH, MEGA PACK IN THERE AND, AND SO, UH, WITH A LARGER NUMBER OF KILOWATT HOURS OR ENERGY STORAGE IN THE UNIT. AND SO THAT'S THE SECOND VARIANCE FOR WHICH WE ARE HERE TONIGHT FOR, FOR BOTH PROJECTS. NOW, UM, PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU WANT ME TO SHOW YOU SOME SITE, THE SITE PLAN AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE, THE MAPS AND SO ON. OR IF YOU'D RATHER ME JUST PROVIDE MORE EXPLANATION ABOUT, UH, YOU KNOW, WHY WE ARE HERE. JUST, I I DO HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION. APPROXIMATELY 1500 MORE KILOWATT HOURS, WHAT DIFFERENCE ARE WE REALLY TALKING ABOUT? YOU KNOW, UH, A GREAT QUESTION. THIS IS LIKE THE SAME THING AS, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU, YOU HAVE THE PROCESSOR POWER, UH, OF A COMPUTER. YOU KNOW, YOU, WE ALL KNOW THAT OUR CELL PHONES NOW ARE SO MUCH MORE POWERFUL THAN THEY WERE 10 YEARS AGO. SO IT IS JUST YOU, YOU PACK IN MORE ENERGY IN THE SAME VOLUME, UH, MORE OR LESS. AND SO WE ARE NOT CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT OF THE, THE, THE, THE PROJECT. WE STAY WITHIN THE SAME CONCRETE WHILE DESIGN THAT WHERE WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. SO REALLY THERE IS NO PHYSICAL DIFFERENCE THAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE. IT'S VERY KIND OF VIRTUAL. SO IS IT THAT THE SIX, THAT THE 6,000, UH, KILOWATT UNIT IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE? CORRECT. THEY DON'T MAKE IT ANYMORE. THEY DON'T MAKE IT ANYMORE. IT'S A NEWER VERSION. AND BY THE WAY, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD IS WORKING TOWARDS LIFTING THAT 6,000 CAR UP TO 8,000. I THINK GARY WITH THE WHOM, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE WORKED CLOSELY ON THAT APPROVAL. UM, AND WHO KNOWS THE TOPIC SUPER WELL WAS KINDLY, UH, YOU KNOW, HELPED US IN, IN THAT PROCESS. UH, CAN CERTAINLY, UH, TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THEIR PRO THEIR, THEIR, THEIR PLANS TO LIFT THE, THE THE CAP. YEAH. TO ELABORATE THE, THE BOTTLE LAW THAT YOU ADOPTED, YOU KNOW, LIMITED THE TO 6,000 KILOWATT HOURS PER THE SIZE. AND THAT WAS BASED ON THE ORIGINAL KIND OF BASIS IS TWO TESLA MEGA PACKS, WHICH ABOUT 6,000 KILOWATT HOURS. AND NOW THE ORIGINAL MEGA PACK IS NOT AVAILABLE. SO, AND THE TESLA MEGA PACK TWO IS ACTUALLY EVEN SAFER WHERE THEY CHANGE THE MODULES IN THE CELLS. SO ACTUALLY THERE'S, UH, LESS DANGER OF THERMAL RUNAWAY, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, ONE MODULE CATCHING FIRE AND CATCHING ANOTHER ONE. SO IT'S ACTUALLY A BETTER PRODUCT, MORE EFFICIENT. SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE, UH, GREENBERG UH, ZONING CREATED THIS ORDINANCE ON EXISTING POWER ON AN, ON AN OLDER [02:55:01] MODEL? YES. THAT TEST, THE MEGA PACK ONE, RIGHT. MS. EAR, I MEAN THAT'S, 'CAUSE IT WAS ABOUT 6,000 KILOWATTS FOR TWO MEGA, SO THEY NEVER, THEY NEVER EXPECTED THAT THERE WOULD BE ADVANCES AND, UM, UH, IMPROVEMENTS ON THE AMOUNT OF KILOWATT HOURS. PROBABLY NOT THIS FAST. YEAH. AND MORE AND MORE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY ON IN THE SAME FOOTPRINT. THAT IS CORRECT. IT'S CERTAINLY A GREAT QUESTION. AND UH, LOOK, I WAS THERE WHEN THIS WHOLE MODEL LAW WAS DEVELOPED AND THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN ENGAGED, YOU KNOW, CONSULTANTS AND THERE WAS JUST A LOT WERE GOING ON. I'M SURE THERE WERE, THERE WERE SOME VALID REASONS WHY THEY DID THIS, BUT, YOU KNOW, YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD NOT, IN MY PERSONAL VIEW, THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY LIMIT. YOU, YOU CAN PUT A FOOTPRINT LIMIT, BUT JUST LIKE COMPUTERS, THEY CAN'T CONTINUE TO GROW IN, IN, UH, YOU KNOW, EFFECTIVENESS AND SPEED AND SO ON, UH, YOU KNOW, SHOULD NOT BE A LIMIT. BUT THAT'S, UH, THAT'S UP TO, UH, THE TOWN TO DECIDE. SO THEY SHOULD INCREASE IN, UH, EFFECTIVENESS AND DECREASE IN FOOTPRINT. THAT'S A POSSIBILITY WITH THAT. NO, NO. THE FOOTPRINT, NO. I MEAN THE EFFICIENCY IS REMAIN THE SAME. YES. AND THAT, THAT WASN'T, WELL, THAT'S HE IMPLYING THAT IT, IT IS POSSIBLE WITH BATTERY TECHNOLOGY ADVANCING SO QUICKLY THAT YES. THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN WITH SMALLER FOOTPRINT, YOU COULD HAVE MORE POWER. BUT IT WAS A LITTLE BIT UNUSUAL TOO FOR THE MODEL LAW TO ADOPT THE KILOWATT HOUR LIMIT 'CAUSE OF THAT POSSIBILITY OF, YOU KNOW, SO AS, AS SAID THAT, YOU KNOW, LIMITS SHOULD BE MORE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU CAN CHANGE THE MODEL LOG MORE OF A SIZE LIMIT RATHER THAN A KILOWATT HOUR LIMIT. AND THEN MY NEXT QUESTION IS WHY DOES IT TAKE SO LONG? I'M SORRY? WHY DOES IT TAKE SO LONG TO GET THE, UH, TO INSTALL IT? OH, IT, IT DOESN'T BECAUSE OF, ONE OF THE REASONS WAS THAT, UM, ERTA BILL PROPERTIES, WHICH OWNED THESE TWO PROPERTIES, GOT ACQUIRED BY REGENCY CENTERS. AND I'VE BEEN, WE'VE BEEN DOING SOME OTHER PROJECTS WITH THEM AND PROBABLY FOR A YEAR AND A HALF, KNOWING THAT ERTA BILL PROPERTIES WAS GONNA SELL, THEY DIDN'T DO ANY, YOU KNOW, THEY WEREN'T, THEY DIDN'T WANNA NEGOTIATE ANY LEASES FOR THE PROP, YOU KNOW, TO, TO LEASE THEIR PROPERTY. AND SO FOR ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF, AND EVEN AFTER THE ACQUISITION BY REGENCY, THEY DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE MORE, UH, FOCUSED ON GETTING EVERYTHING SETTLED AND SO FORTH. SO EVEN AFTER THE ACQUISITION, THEY DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, ENGAGE TO, FOR, TO FORMALIZE A LEASE, YOU KNOW, UNTIL ABOUT SIX MONTHS AFTER THE, UH, CONCLUSION OF THE ACQUISITION, WHICH WAS IN AUGUST OF 2023. SO WE COULDN'T, YOU KNOW, MOBILIZE WITHOUT HAVING A, A LEASE IN PLACE. OKAY. AND SOME OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE UNCERTAINTY WITH THE BIG BEAUTIFUL BILL, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS, THERE IS, WELL LUCKILY ESS PROJECTS, THERE'S STILL 30% ITC TAX RHETORIC, BUT THAT, YOU KNOW, ALSO WAS PROBABLY UP IN THE AIR THAT IF THAT WAS GONNA CONTINUE OR NOT. SO THAT WAS ANOTHER ISSUE. HMM. OKAY. BUT JUST IN TERMS OF THE VARIANCE, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE GONNA NEED THAT ADDITIONAL TIME, THE 42 YES. MONTHS. WE NEED THEIR YES. EVEN THOUGH, EVEN THOUGH THE LEASE AGREEMENTS ARE IN PLACE NOW, YOU SAID THAT THAT'S ALL BEEN RESOLVED, THE LEASES? YES. YES. WE HAVE SIGNED LEASES FOR BOTH OF 'EM. JUST REASONS. UH, RECENTLY FOR GREENVILLE, WE JUST YEAH. FINALIZED THE LEASE A COUPLE WEEKS AGO. AND THE REASON THAT IT COULDN'T BE DONE WITHIN THE 30 IS WHAT IT'S BECAUSE THE, THE LANDOWNERS WOULDN'T, THE PROPERTY OWNERS WOULDN'T ENGAGE OR DIDN'T WANNA COMMIT TO ANY LEASES UNTIL, YOU KNOW, THE ACQUISITION WAS SETTLED. BUT THAT'S DONE NOW, CORRECT? THAT'S DONE NOW. SO THERE IS NO BARRIER TO THAT. RIGHT. SO, BUT YOU'RE STILL ASKING IF WE GO FROM 30 TO 42, WHY? WELL, JUST TO GIVE US, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE BECAUSE THE LEASE, WE SIGNED ONE OF THE LEASES JUST RECENTLY FOR GREENVILLE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, SO THAT VARIANCE MAY NOT BE NEEDED NOW. WELL, WE, WE STILL NEED TIME TO CONSTRUCT THE, YOU KNOW, THE PROJECT, THEY'RE ALREADY EXPIRED. YEAH. BASICALLY RIGHT NOW WE NEED, IT'S ALREADY EXPIRED, NEED TO HAPPEN. RIGHT. SO WE GOING 30 FROM TODAY. THAT SHOULD BE ENOUGH. NO. OH, WE'RE ASKING FOR 12 MONTHS. SO THEY'RE 30 WAS THE ORIGINAL AND IT'S 42 MONTHS. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR, THEY'RE ASKING TO EXTEND FOR A YEAR TO BUILD IT OUT. OKAY. SO THEN IS THE NOTICE WRONG? NO, NO, IT'S JUST THAT 30 MONTHS IS WHAT THE, THE LAW SAYS YOU HAVE 30 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE RIGHT. BUT, AND THAT EXPIRED, SO NOW THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN EX [03:00:01] A 12 MONTH EXTENSION. OH, THAT COULD BE READ DIFFERENTLY, RIGHT? IS THAT RIGHT? RIGHT. NO, I MEAN, IF, IF YOU, I I, I, I, YEAH, TAKE YOUR, YEAH. ON THE AGENDA AGENDA IT SAYS 30 MONTHS IS WHAT IS AVAILABLE. SO IF WE'RE APPROVING THIS STARTING RIGHT NOW, IT AS IF WE'RE GIVING THEM 42 MONTHS. OH, WE'RE GIVING THEM 12 MONTHS. 12 ADDITIONAL, YEAH. 12 MONTHS FOR A TOTAL OF 42 MONTHS. FROM WHEN? FROM WHENEVER THEY GOT THEIR APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING REPORT. DECEMBER 22. DECEMBER 22. OH, I'M READING IT WRONG. THEN JUST, THEY HAD, IT'S AN EXTENSION OF 12 MONTHS. SO 30 PLUS 12. YEAH, 42. SO FROM DECEMBER 22, THEY HAD 30 MONTHS MM-HMM . TO BUILD THIS, WHATEVER THEY WERE DOING. I UNDERSTAND. AND THEN IT WAS, AND THEN IT WAS DENIED AND NO, NO, THEY, THEY, THEY DIDN'T DO IT IN 30 MONTHS. RIGHT. SO IT EXPIRED. THEY GOT ONE EXTENSION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD FOR SIX MONTHS. RIGHT. THAT'S ALLOWED IN THE, IN THE, IN THE CODE THAT THE, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WROTE. SO IT WAS APPROVED IN 2022, THEY HAD 30 MONTHS, THEY GOT A SIX MONTH EXTENSION. THIS IS CORRECT, YES. FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. THEY DIDN'T FINISH IN THE EXTENSION OF SIX MONTHS. THEN THE PLANNING BOARD HAD NO OTHER WAY TO EXTEND THEM. SO THEY HAD TO COME HERE TO GET A VARIANCE TO EXTEND IT FOR ANOTHER YEAR. SO LET'S GIVE, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE THAT WE GIVE THEM THAT TIME BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK HERE AND ASK FOR MORE EXTENSIONS. ALRIGHT. , I JUST SAID THE NOTICE, JUST THE NOTICE DOESN'T ADD UP. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. WHAT, WHAT, GO AHEAD. THERE'S ANOTHER QUESTION. AND THAT IS, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT OWNERS, TWO DIFFERENT SHOPPING CENTERS YOU'VE SAID THAT YOU COULDN'T COMPLETE WITHIN THE REQUIRED TIME LIMIT BECAUSE THE OWNER WAS, UH, THE SHOPPING CENTER HAD BEEN ACQUIRED. DID THAT ALSO APPLY TO THE OTHER SHOPPING CENTER? YES. UH, BOTH. CORRECT. BOTH REGENCY OWNS, WELL, REGENCY MANAGES THE GREENVILLE, UH, SHOPPING CENTER. THEY DON'T OWN IT, BUT THEY OWN PART OF THE MIDWAY SHOPPING CENTER. BUT, YOU KNOW, SINCE THEY MANAGE THOSE, THOSE BOTH THOSE SHOPPING CENTERS AND OWN PART OF THEM, YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO, YOU KNOW, THEY WERE BUSY WITH THEIR ACQUISITIONS. SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO ENGAGE WITH REGENCY TO, TO FORMALIZE THE LEASES. TO, TO FORMALIZE THE LEASES ON BOTH. ON BOTH OF THEM? YES. YES. OKAY. 'CAUSE THEY ARE, THEY ARE MANAGED. YES. SO, SO YOU'RE SAYING DIFFICULTY APPLIED TO BOTH? CORRECT. OKAY. CORRECT. JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR FOR THE RECORD. OTHERWISE WE'D HAVE TO START A NEW, A SEPARATE HEARING THAT WE DON'T LET IT DO. OKAY. SO FOR THE RECORD, THIS WAS FOR BOTH ZBA 25, 21 AND 25 22, THIS DISCUSSION, DID YOU GET THE, THE SAME APPROVALS AS APPROXIMATELY THE SAME TIME? THE APPROVALS FOR BOTH? YES. YES. THEY, THEY WERE ON THE SAME, SAME TIME? YEAH. THE, THE SPECIAL DEPARTMENT APPROVALS ON THE SAME WAS ON THE SAME, UH, RESOLUTION OR SAME DAY. SAME DAY. OKAY. OKAY. IS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? UM, ONLY THAT I READ, UM, UH, A LETTER FROM THE FIRE COMMISSIONER, UH, REGARDING WHAT HAPPENS WHEN ONE OF THESE THINGS GO WRONG AND WHAT IT TAKES TO RECTIFY THAT, UM, AND THE ADDITIONAL, UH, COSTS THAT IT TAKES TO HAVE, UH, FIRST RESPONDERS THERE AND HOW LONG THEY HAVE TO STAY ON, ON THE SCENE AND EVERYTHING. UM, AND IF THERE'S A COST ATTRIBUTED TO THAT. UM, HAS THERE BEEN ANY DISCUSSIONS WITH YOU IN TERMS OF HOW THAT COST GETS? UM, YES. OH, YES. OKAY. YEAH, I'M FULLY OF, I'M FULLY AWARE OF IT AND I APPROVED IT. WHAT WAS, WHAT DID YOU APPROVE THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THAT YES, POSITIVE COVERING. I WAS SENT AN EMAIL. I THINK I WAS SENT AN EMAIL, UH, WITH A REPORT, I THINK FROM THE FIRE DISTRICT OUTLINING, UH, SOME, UH, ADDITIONAL COST FOR MATERIALS AND IN THE EVENT AFTER A, A THERMAL RUNAWAY. AND THEY WERE BASICALLY SAYING THAT YES, IF THERE IS SUCH A THING, [03:05:01] YOU KNOW, THE, UH, SYSTEM OWNER SHOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THOSE COSTS. AND I APPROVED IT. I SENT AN EMAIL IN THAT EFFECT SAYING THAT WE ARE OKAY TO PAY FOR THE COST OF THAT. I, I DON'T, ED, IS THAT ACTUALLY ALLOWED UNDER THE FIRE DISTRICT YOU SENT, YOU SENT AN EMAIL TO THAT EFFECT, TO WHOM? UH, I BELIEVE IT WAS KIRA WHO SENT ME THE EMAIL. I CAN FIND IT AND PUT IT IN FRONT OF THE, THE SCREEN. I, I THINK IT, IT'S THIS, RIGHT? YEAH. IT'S THE PAPERWORK THAT WE HAVE. IT WAS THE FIRE DISTRICT, UM, OPPOSED THE PROJECTS. NO, I UNDERSTAND. NOW WE HAVE SOMETHING FROM THE APPLICANT AGREEING THAT'S, AND HE SAID THAT HE SENT AN EMAIL STATING THAT HE, HE IS IN AGREEMENT THAT THE OWNER SHOULD BEAR THE COST, AND HE SENT AN EMAIL. WHO DID YOU SEND THE EMAIL TO? I SENT, OKAY, SO I GOT THE CORRESPONDENCE FROM, UH, KIRA ON AUGUST 21ST OKAY. FROM THE FIRE DISTRICT. AND, AND, UH, I RESPONDED TO IT, UH, ON AUGUST 21ST AT 7:03 PM I CAN PUT, IF YOU WANT THE EMAIL ON THE SCREEN AND SHOW IT. DO YOU WANT ME TO SHARE THE SCREEN? THAT WOULD HELP, BUT WOULD ALSO HELP TO HAVE THE HARD COPY, UH, OF THE EMAIL. WHO DID YOU SEND THE EMAIL TO AGAIN? I SENT IT TO KIRA. CAN YOU SEE THE SCREEN? DO YOU HAVE A DATE? YEAH, WE SEE THE SCREEN NOW. YES. YES. IT'S AUGUST 21ST AT 7:03 PM YES, HE DID SEND THAT EMAIL, AND THAT EMAIL WAS ALSO FORWARDED TO THE COMMISSIONER FOR, UH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CONSERVATION, AND I BELIEVE HE WAS GOING TO BE ENGAGED IN CONVERSATION WITH YOU WITH REGARD TO THAT. OKAY. IT'S, UM, THAT'S BETTER, BECAUSE WHEN I ASKED THAT QUESTION, HE SAID, OH, YEAH, I HEARD ABOUT THAT AND I APPROVED IT, WHICH WAS EXTREMELY VAGUE, . OH, YEAH. SO I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAD SOMETHING ON RECORD THAT, UM, WAS MORE SPECIFIC. YES. AND ALSO, I'LL JUST ADD TO THAT, UM, THE COMMISSIONER WAS GOING TO GET IN COMMUNICATION WITH, UH, AZZIER AND QUITE POSSIBLY THE, UH, GREENVILLE FIRE DISTRICT BECAUSE IN THE EMAIL, UH, MAIER ASKED FOR SOME TYPE OF, UH, DISCUSSION OR COORDINATION OF A MEETING. SO, YEAH, BECAUSE WHAT I WAS SAYING IN THE EMAIL IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A VERY HIGHLY QUALIFIED FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER WHO IS, UH, ALSO A FIRE MARSHAL, IS SUPER EXPERIENCED. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, I WOULD, I WANTED TO PROPOSE TO HAVE A CALL WITH THE FIRE DISTRICT AND OUR FIRE PROTECTION ENGINEER TO GO OVER THOSE ITEMS. IN FACT, IF THEY HAVE MISSED ANYTHING, I'M HAPPY TO EVEN GO BEYOND TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS IS FULLY COVERED. YOUR HONOR, MAYBE WE, MAYBE YOU SHOULD ALLOW THAT, ADJOURN THIS AND ALLOW THAT MEETING TO TAKE PLACE AND HAVE ALL THE PARTIES AGREED ON A MECHANISM FOR DOING THAT. ARE BOTH SHOPPING CENTERS IN EDGEMONT, IS MIDWAY IN EDGEMONT? YES, IT'S OKAY. WHY IS THAT RELEVANT? BECAUSE IF IT'S NOT, IT COULD INVOLVE FAIRVIEW OR HARTSDALE FIRE DEPARTMENTS ALSO. HUH? ALL GREENVILLE FIRE DISTRICT. UH, THIS IS GARRETT DUANE SPEAK. WHO SAID THAT? GARRETT. GARRETT. OH, THINK WE KNOW THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I THINK THAT'S IT. WE CAN DISCUSS THAT. WAIT, DOES ANYBODY, UH, YOU, ARE YOU ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WANNA SPEAK ON THIS? NO. OKAY. THEY'RE HERE FOR THE COUNCIL, MIKE, SITTING HERE UNTIL 11 O'CLOCK. OH. JUST TO ADD ON, UM, THE, THE ORGANIZATION ERDA THAT PROVIDES THE, YOU KNOW, ORGANIZES, PROVIDES THE INCENTIVES FOR THESE. THERE, THEY'VE, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE PROVIDED INCENTIVES FOR THIS, AND THEY PUT TOGETHER A COMPREHENSIVE THIRD PEER REVIEW PROCESS, WHICH INCLUDES, YOU KNOW, FIRE SAFETY MECHANISMS. SO THINGS HAVE, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE IMPLEMENTED THESE PROCEDURES AND [03:10:01] A THIRD PARTY REVIEW, WHICH COVERS, UH, YOU KNOW, EMERGENCY RESPONSES AND SAFETY PLANS AND SO FORTH. SO DEFINITELY SHORE UP, YOU KNOW, ANY CONCERNS. THANK YOU. UM, AND I DON'T KNOW IF, IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO INCLUDE THAT AS A CONDITION TO, UM, OUR DECISION, THEN WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE, COME UP WITH THAT DECISION TONIGHT. WELL, WE MAY MAKE THIS CONDITION, OR THE PARTIES COULD AGREE AMONGST THEMSELVES, WHICH WOULD NOT BE THE NECESSITY FOR MAKING IT A CONDITION, BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT. LISTEN, I MEAN, WE AGREE IF, IF IT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALREADY AGREED CONCEPT, AND SO IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S, YOU KNOW, NEEDS TO BE DONE, WE, WE, WE AGREED TO DO THAT. SO, UM, SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S ADDING, WE'VE ALREADY AGREED TO IT, SO AS, AS STATED. SO IF IT'S, UH, SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN'T DO, THEN, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, UH, WE WOULDN'T, WE WOULDN'T ADOPT IT. BUT, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, UH, WE, WE CAN DISCUSS THAT FURTHER DURING OUR DELIBERATIONS. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. YOU'RE WELCOME. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. RECORDING STOPPED. OKAY, WE'LL, TACO BELL, WE'RE ADJOURNING . THERE'S A LOT TO, OH, YES. THERE'S A LOT TO THE, TO DIGEST. WE'LL TALK BELL. WE'RE NOT EVEN GONNA TO DO YOU WANNA TALK ABOUT IT? OKAY. NO, WE DON'T. NO, WE CAN, WELL, I MEAN, THE SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENT PROVIDED BY ATTORNEY ALONG THAT [03:15:01] QUESTION OF WHETHER I GOT YOUR, I MAY REPEAT THAT. APOLOGIZE TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC OPEN MEETINGS LAW. WHAT I WAS STATING IS THE FOLLOWING IS THAT, UM, SUPPLEMENTAL DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED, UM, RELEVANT TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE SHOULD BE AN REINTERPRETATION COUPLED WITH OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT WERE SUBMITTED. AND I THINK ANY DELIBERATION AT THIS TIME WOULD BE PREMATURE WITHOUT HAVING TIME TO REVIEW SAID DOCUMENTS. OKAY. UNLESS YOU OH, OKAY. OH, THOUGHT YOU WERE GONNA ADD, I MEAN, THERE, THERE, THE TRAFFIC SURVEYS, PARKING SURVEYS, I BASICALLY, I THINK THEY DID THEIR HOMEWORK, UM, VERY WELL. AND ABOVE AND BEYOND THAT, IT'S REALLY MORE EMOTIONAL. AND THAT'S WHERE IT STARTS GETTING DIFFICULT IN TERMS OF, UM, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE WHAT'S RIGHT AND WHAT'S WRONG. UM, WE HEARD YOU A LARGE GROANING WHEN THEY SAID THAT THE CAN BE OPEN AS, AS LATE AS 2:00 AM MM-HMM . UM, ANYONE GO TO WENDY'S IN ELMSFORD, THEY'RE, THEY'RE OPEN UNTIL 2:00 AM AND SOMETIMES THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE YOU CAN GO AND GET SOME FOOD AFTER, UM, YOU KNOW, LATE NIGHTS MEETING , SOME OF THEM, SOME OF THEM ARE OPEN 24 HOURS. REALLY? YEAH. I THINK THE, AND THE BURGER KING AND ELMSFORD ATTEMPTED THAT SEVERAL TIMES. THE POINT BEING IS THAT THE COUNTER ARGUMENT PROVIDED ATTORNEYS IN DEFENSE OF NOT IN, IN SUPPORT OF NOT DOING IT, COUPLED WITH THEIR OWN, UH, TRAFFIC CONSULTANT. I'M NOT SAYING WHO'S RIGHT OR WRONG TO YOUR POINT, BUT I BELIEVE THOSE ARE DOCUMENTS THAT JUST NEED TO BE REVIEWED AND ASSESSED. HMM. AND I THINK THERE ARE INDIVIDUALS THAT ARE FAR OR MORE SAVVY AND SOPHISTICATED THAN US THAT WOULD VET WHETHER OR NOT IT WAS JUST, UM, ONE PERSON'S OPINION VERSUS ANOTHER. UM, HE DID LAY OUT SOME INTERESTING POINTS, WHICH JUST VISUALLY LOOKING AT IT IN TERMS OF EGRESS AND GETTING CAUGHT IN THE QUEUE TRYING TO GET AROUND. UM, THE OTHER ARGUMENT THAT I COULD HAVE RAISED, UM, DIFFERENT THAN WENDY'S, THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL IS NEXT DOOR TO A RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX. UM, AND JUST DATING MYSELF. BUT I WILL TELL YOU, THERE'S A PLACE IN SOUTH BOSTON, VIRGINIA, THE ONLY RESTAURANT THEY HAVE IS A HARDEE'S, HARDEE'S, HARDEE'S HARDEE'S. AND EVERY YOUNG PERSON IN THAT COMMUNITY, THAT IS THE ONE HANGOUT SPOT. SO NOW AT 2:00 AM I'M COMING FROM THE CLUB, 4:00 AM I'M COMING FROM THE CLUB MUSIC BLARING. WHAT IS THE WHOLE PROTOCOL OF SAYING, OKAY, WE'RE NOT GONNA ALLOW THAT OTHER THAN CALLING THE POLICE AT SAID TIME. I'M LIVING IN A RESIDENCE THAT I'VE BEEN IN FOR MULTIPLE YEARS NOW. I HAVE ADDITIONAL POLICING HAPPENING ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL HANGING OUT. I THINK THAT THE CONCERNS IN TERMS OF HOW IT MAY IMPACT THE COMMUNITY IS SIGNIFICANT. SO MAYBE ONE OF THE THINGS WE ASK PROFFER IS, YOU KNOW, DO THEY LIMIT THE HOURS? I, YEAH. I I WOULD ALSO AGREE, AND, AND I BROUGHT UP THE TIMING OF THE STUDY. I MEAN, THEY DID A TRAFFIC STUDY IN JUNE WHERE IT'S NOTORIOUSLY AND SCHOOLS SACRED HEART'S CLOSED. THEY CLOSED THE OTHER PART OF TRAFFIC STUDY AT END TO A PM M YEAH, EXACTLY. SO WHAT IS THEIR REVIEW OF WHAT OPERATION LOOKS LIKE BEYOND 8:00 PM WHETHER IT BE IN YONKERS? SO LET ME ASK YOU THIS. YEAH. ARE YOU, IT'S A USE THAT'S PERMITTED, RIGHT? IT'S A, IT'S A RESTAURANT LIKE LET'S SAY JUST A RESTAURANT. MM-HMM . LET'S SAY A DUNKIN DONUTS WANTED TO GO BACK IN THERE. CORRECT. IT COULD, SO IT COULD, THAT WOULD, WITH THE DRIVETHROUGH, THAT WOULD ALL THOSE SAME IMPLICATIONS WITH KIDS GOING AND HANGING OUT. RIGHT. BUT WITH THE DRIVE-THROUGH, NO, BUT WHAT, WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE DRIVE THROUGH THAT IS MAKING THIS LESS PALATABLE? IN OTHER WORDS, LIKE THE ARGUMENT THAT THIS IS A NON-CONFORMING, YOU KNOW, THAT WHOLE INTERPRETATION, IT'S THE USE THAT, THAT SECTION OF THE CODE, I BELIEVE APPLIES TO THIS IS A PERMITTED USE IN THE DISTRICT. YOU KNOW, IT'S A COMMERCIAL, IT'S A RESTAURANT. THEY'RE PERMITTED IN THE CA DISTRICT. SO IF JUST LIKE A MCDONALD'S WANTED TO GO IN THERE. OH, . HI PETER. YEAH. I WAS LOOKING . IF MCDONALD'S WANTED TO GO IN THERE AND PARKING ASIDE AND ALL OF THAT, [03:20:01] WITHOUT THE DRIVE THROUGH, IT COULD. RIGHT? YEAH. AND THERE LOTS OF KIDS ARE GONNA HANG OUT THERE AND WHATEVER. SO THAT TO ME, YOU KNOW, WELL, THERE LESS A CO A COUPLE OF POINTS THAT I WANTED TO, UM, MAKE WAS THAT YOU AND I BOTH LOOKED AT THE ENTRYWAY AND THEN THE QUEUING. AND IF IT WERE TO QUEUE MORE THAN SEVEN CARS, THERE WAS STILL PLENTY OF ROOM FOR CARS TO QUEUE BEFORE IT STARTS SPILLING OUT INTO, UH, CENTRAL AVENUE. CENTRAL AVENUE, RIGHT. SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE POINT THAT I THINK SHOULD BE MADE FROM HERE. IF, IF YOU HAVE OVERFLOW QUEUING THE CARS THAT ARE PARKED, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A HARD TIME GETTING IN AND OUT. IT'S A VERY TIGHT PARKING LOT. LET'S SAY YOUR FOOT, THERE'S A CAR WAITING ON LINE, YOU WANT TO GET OUT. HOW'S THAT GONNA HAPPEN? I THINK THEIR POINT IS THAT IT'S TACO BELL. YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT LIKE STARBUCKS. I MEAN, I AGREE THAT STARBUCKS, IT'S JUST THE VOLUME OF PEOPLE GOING TO STARBUCKS, DUNKING DONUTS IS MUCH HIGHER THAN TACO BELL. LIKE, IT JUST IS, IT'S, I THINK IT IS, LIKE, YOU KNOW, ACTUALLY I DIDN'T THINK THAT THERE'S THAT MUCH OF VOLUME GOING TO TACO BELLS EITHER. THAT'S ON MY POINT. THE, THE, JUST LIKE, THE RUN ON TACO BELL IS NOT LIKE THE RUN ON A CHICK-FIL-A OR I WOULD ARGUE EVEN A BURGER KING. I MEAN, I JUST THINK TACO BELL IS, YOU KNOW, WELL, I, I I, I, I DON'T HAVE THEIR SALES NUMBERS, BUT I MEAN, THEY WERE ONE OF THE FASTEST GROWING FOR A WHILE. UM, MY PROBLEM WITH THE, THE TRAFFIC FLOW WITHIN IT IS THAT IT'S ONE LANE. SO IF SOMEONE IS LIKE, DOESN'T GET THEIR FOOD AND THEY'RE HOLDING UP THE LINE, PEOPLE ARE GONNA BE SITTING THERE AT TWO O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING BEEPING THEIR HORNS TOO. I MEAN, IT JUST FEELS LIKE, YEAH, BUT YOU REALLY THINK THERE'S GONNA BE A QUEUE OF PEOPLE LINING UP THERE AT 2:00 AM I DON'T KNOW. WELL, WE, WE ALL HAD THE SAME DISCUSSION WITH CHICK-FIL-A, AND SURE ENOUGH, WHEN THEY FIRST OPENED, IT WAS, UH, HORRENDOUS. THEY HAD TO HAVE POLICE OUT THERE ON CENTRAL AVENUE TO, UH, DIRECT TRAFFIC. AND THEN JUST LIKE CHICK-FIL-A SAID AFTER THEIR TWO WEEK OPENING, IT'S LIKE, YOU CAN GO TO CHICK-FIL-A ANYTIME, AND THERE'S LIKE TWO OR THREE CARS IN THE, IN THE QUEUE. IT'S, IT'S JUST LIKE THIS BIG THING WITH THE OPENING. 'CAUSE IT'S THE, IT'S THE ONLY ONE I I JUST LEFT TURN IN. I'LL GIVE THAT ONE. SEEMS I DON'T LOVE THAT. YEAH. BUT THEY HAVE, LIKE, THEY HAVE SO MANY, THEY WOULD, THEY HAVE THREE LANES AT CHICK-FIL-A. THEY, I MEAN, HOW, LIKE IF IT'S ONE LANE AND THEY BRING PEOPLE, LIKE THEY HAVE PEOPLE GOING AND TAKING ORDERS. IT'S NOT LIKE YOU CAN GET BY. THERE'S NO THROUGH LANE. I, I JUST, I, I JUST HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THE DESIGN, NOT AS MUCH THE USE AS THE DESIGN. AND THEN THE OTHER THING WAS, UM, IF YOU TEAR DOWN A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, YOU CAN'T BUILD NO, THAT'S NOT A NEW NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE. WELL, THAT'S WHY YOU GET VARIANCES. THAT'S NOT TRUE. THAT'S WHY YOU NEED VARIANCES , BECAUSE THAT'S CHICK-FIL-A DID. THAT'S, NO. IF YOU TEAR DOWN A NONCONFORMING STRUCTURE, THEN ALL THE NONCONFORM, THE RIGHTS THAT YOU HAVE TO, THE NONCONFORMITY DISAPPEARS AND YOU HAVE TO START ALL OVER, START ALL OVER AGAIN FROM SCRATCH. BUT YOU NEED VARIANCE IS IF IT'S NOT NONCONFORMING WITH THE OTHER, THE OTHER LEGAL ISSUE HERE IS YOU CAN'T, UH, APPROVE THIS BASED ON IT BEING A TACO BELL BECAUSE RIGHT. YOUR VARIANCE IS RUN WITH THE LAND, NOT WITH THE OCCUPANT OF THE LAND. SO ANOTHER, YOU CAN'T, YOU CAN'T SAY WE'RE GONNA GRANT THIS ONLY IF IT STAYS, UH, TACO BELL. TACO BELL. SO IT COULD BE, YOU KNOW, A STARBUCKS OR A DUNKING DONUTS OKAY. WITH THE DRIVE THROUGH. SO THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE. THAT WOULD HAVE A MUCH BIGGER, THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO MAKE CLEAR BECAUSE, UH, I DON'T REMEMBER HER NAME. SHE WAS MAKING IT VERY DEFINITIVE THAT IF YOU TEAR DOWN A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE, YOU CAN'T BUILD A NEW NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE ON THE SAME LOT. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT SURE YOU CAN, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE. OTHERWISE, YOU KNOW. RIGHT. WHAT, WHAT'S THE ZONING BOARD HERE FOR, AND I JUST WANT TO CORRECT SOMETHING THAT WAS SAID. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE USE OF THE FAST FOOD RESTAURANT, UM, IS PERMITTED BY RIPE? IT ISN'T. IT'S A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SO IT NEEDS TO APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. OH, OKAY. DID THEY GET THAT YET? OR THEY'RE WAITING ON THE MERIT. I THINK THEY, UH, I'LL HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK WITH THAT. GARRETT, ARE YOU ON? YES, I'M ON. THEY HAVEN'T, UH, OBTAINED A SPECIAL PERMIT THEY'RE WAITING [03:25:01] TO SEE FOR THE VARIANCES. OH, OKAY. SO THEY'RE PUTTING IT ON US. OKAY. I, I WOULD THINK THE SHEER NUMBER OF VARIANCES THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT IS EXCESSIVE. I MEAN, THERE'S NOT A SINGLE MEASUREMENT THAT THEY'RE PARTICULARLY HAPPY AND EVERYTHING. VIRTUALLY EVERYTHING THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS TO MAKE IT BIGGER BECAUSE THEY REALLY HAVE TOO SMALL LOT THERE FOR WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. AND THEY'RE RIGHT NEXT TO A LARGE RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX. AND THEY, UH, DON'T HAVE, THEY'RE NOT IN A SHOPPING CENTER WHERE OTHER WAYS OF MITIGATING TRAFFIC ISSUES. WELL, I THINK, UH, CALLING IT A TOO SMALL A LOT IS A RELATIVE STATEMENT. UH, IT IS A SMALL LOT AND THAT MUCH WE ALL KNOW, BUT TO SAY THAT IT'S TOO SMALL A LOT MEANS IT SHOULDN'T HAVE EVEN BEEN, UH, DESIGNED THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE. PLUS THE QUANTITY OF VARIANCES. UH, WILLIAM, YOU, YOU TALK, TALKED ABOUT ONE PART OF IT, WHICH IS THE NUMBER OF SIGNS. SIGNS, BUT IF YOU, WHICH IS, YOU SAID WE'RE NOT VERY HAPPY. YEAH. RIGHT. ABOUT THE NUMBER OF SIGNS. AND THERE WAS ONE CASE, I GUESS IT WAS TWO MONTHS AGO, WHERE THEY WANTED TO PUT SOME KIND OF FANCY STUFF ON THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING. DAVE DAVE'S SIDE CHICKEN. YEAH. THE BOY I LOVE HOT CHICKEN . UM, SO THAT, I MEAN, THAT'S ONE THING RIGHT OFF THE BAT, RIGHT? I KNOW. JUST GET RID OF THE MURALS. NOBODY HERE LIKES THEM. IF YOU TOOK THE SIGNAGE, NOBODY CARES. IF YOU TOOK THE SIGNAGE VARIANCES AWAY, THEN I THINK THE OTHER VARIANCES ARE NOT AS GREAT. I THINK THERE'S ONLY THREE. ONLY THREE. YEAH. THERE WERE 19. WAIT, HERE WE GO. THERE WERE 19. THERE WERE NO SIGNAGE VARIANCES. OH, THERE'S PARKING. IT'S NO HARM SHANE IN THAT. ALRIGHT, SO DO WE, WE, CAN WE JUST MOVE ON? , WE HAD A NICE, ROBUST DISCUSSION. LET'S, UH, OKAY. YES, WE DID. , IT GOES FROM, I SEE WHERE IT'S AT, WHERE IT'S HEADING. IT GOES DOWN TO 12 VARIANCES IF YOU TAKE THE SIGNAGE OUT. BUT I, I, I THINK THERE'S SOME SIGNAGE. I WAS LIKE, WE PROBABLY HAVE TO, WE'D GIVE THEM A FEW OF THEM IF YEAH, BUT I DON'T SEE THIS. WELL, YEAH. I'M NOT GONNA SAY APPARENTLY WE CAN KNOCK THE TOWER OFF TOO. RIGHT? THE TOWER'S DEAD, RIGHT. . UM, OKAY. I GO BY THE REMARKS THOUGH. EXACTLY. THAT'S ALRIGHT. NEXT ONE. OR ARE WE STILL ON THE, DO YOU WANNA SAY I'M ELSE? WE'RE NOT GONNA DECIDE THAT ONE TONIGHT. YEAH. READY TO MOVE ON? I'M READY TO MOVE ON. OKAY. TWA COTSWOLD. UM, SO I COULD START ON THIS ONE. ANYBODY WANNA SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT? SO HE TALKED HIMSELF OUT OF THIS ONE FOR ME BECAUSE WHEN HE SAID THAT, WHEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WAS LIKE, OH NO, IT HAPPENED BASED ON CHANGES IN ZONING LAWS AND IT WAS JUST KIND OF AUTOMATIC, BUT HIM INSISTING THAT IT WAS SOMETHING THAT THE OWNERS OF THE HOUSE BUILT THAT CHANGED THE ZONING AND MADE IT INTO ONE LOT, THAT WAS LIKE, OKAY, WELL THE OWNER. SO FOR ME, HIS ARGUMENT LIKE, KIND OF WAS LIKE WHERE I WOULD'VE BEEN LIKE, OKAY, I COULD CONSIDER ME, YOU KNOW? RIGHT. FOR THAT, IF IT'S SOMETHING THE OWNERS DID, I, I I ON THIS ONE AND I, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT ALL THE CASES THAT WE'VE LOOKED AT IN THE PAST, YOU KNOW, WHEN THERE'S SO TO CREATING THOSE TWO LOTS, I MEAN, WE'VE, WE'VE ALWAYS SAID NO. SO FOR ME, THIS, THIS, I, I MEAN, HAPPY TO DISCUSS IT, BUT THAT'S MY INITIAL THOUGHTS. WELL, I'M, THIS IS WHAT I SHOWED YOU THE FINDINGS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD ON MAY 22ND OF THIS YEAR, SAID THE PLANNING BOARD HAS FOUND THAT THE TWO TAX LOTS, WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT OF THIS APPLICATION, WERE CREATED AS PART OF A SUBDIVISION OF THE ENTIRE COWA NEIGHBORHOOD IN 1926. AT THAT TIME, THE AREA WAS ZONED AS A RESIDENT. OH TWO, ONE FAMILY, WHICH HAD A MINIMUM LOT SIZE OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET RENDERING THE SUBJECT, LOT ZONING COMPLIANT. BUT THEN [03:30:01] SOMETIME BETWEEN 1932 AND 1957, THE TOWN REZONED THE AREA TO AN R 20. CORRECT. SO WHERE, WHERE IS THIS ARGUMENT ABOUT? UM, YEAH, THERE WERE TWO LOTS. BUT THEN BECAUSE THE GUY BUILT A PATIO IN THE BACK BECAUSE HIS WIFE REALLY WANTED IT SO BADLY THAT THERE, THAT THEN THAT BECAME THE REASON WHY THEY SPLIT IT INTO, OR OR WANNA SPLIT IT INTO TWO PROPERTIES, PIECES OF TWO LOTS. I THINK THEY THINK THEY OWNED BOTH. RIGHT. BUT THEY DO, THEY WERE TWO LOTS. YES. OF WHICH THAT WAS UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP. AND WHEN THEY BUILT THE PATIO AND IT, AND IT STRETCHED ONTO THE OTHER ENCROACHED ONTO THE OTHER LOT THAT MADE, THE WAY THAT GREENBERG WORKS, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IS THAT ONCE YOU DO THAT, THE LOT JUST BECOMES MERGED WITHOUT GOING THROUGH ANY KIND OF PROCESS TO MERGE IT. LIKE THEY DIDN'T GO TO THE ASSESSORS AND ASK FOR A LOT MERGER. IT JUST BECOMES MERGED. SO DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? THIS BECOMES MERGED BY OPERATION OF THE LAW, BUT WEREN'T THEY ALREADY MERGED AND IT WAS AN ? YES. I I DON'T THINK IT HAD, I DON'T THINK YOU NEEDED THE, UM, PATIO. PATIO IN ORDER TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THEY EMERGED, THEY MERGED WHEN THEY BECAME SUBSTANDARD AS A RESULT OF THE REZONING BACK IN 1950 AND, AND CAME INTO COMMON OWNERSHIP. RIGHT? CORRECT. YOU NEEDED THE TWO THINGS, THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, AN R 20. RIGHT. AND NOW HE WANTS TO BREAK IT UP INTO TWO LOTS, TWO R TENS ESSENTIALLY. SO HE CAN SELL PART HALF OF IT. RIGHT. HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH A PATIO. NO, NO. AND MY ONLY CONTENTION OUT OF THEIR WALLS. WELL, BUT LET ME JUST, UH, ANSWER THAT. BUT IF IT BREAKS IT INTO TWO, THEN IT BECOMES AN ISSUE WITH THE PATIO ON THE SIDE SIDEWALK. YES. CORRECT. CORRECT. THAT THEY'RE CREATING ONLY IF WE GIVE HIM THE VARIANCE, CORRECT? MM-HMM. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO MAKE SURE. 'CAUSE HE WAS LIKE YELLING AND SCREAMING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S WHAT WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL? I, YOU KNOW RIGHT. HIS WIFE, HIS WIFE WANTS IT. I WAS JUST SAYING THIS IS A WATERSHED IN TERMS OF WE TO SAY PRECEDENT. LITERALLY I COUNTED 10 DIFFERENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE IN THE SAME SCENARIO. WE COULD CHANGE THE COMPLEXION OF AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY WITH THIS ONE VOTE. YEAH. AND, AND YOU SAY THERE ARE 10 CONFORMING LOTS, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE, THEY'RE LIKE DOUBLE DOUBLE LOTS. RIGHT? DOUBLE LOTS AREN'T THAT COULD THEN SAY, HEY, WE WANT TO DO QUITE A FEW OF THEM THAT ARE IMPROVED. UH, IT MAY OR MAY NOT BE JUST BASED ON WHAT I COULD SEE ON THE GIS MAPS. OKAY. BUT JUST THE WAY THAT THEY'RE LOCATED. IF I GO BY THE MAP, YOU COULD STILL SEE THE LOT LINES. SOME ARE ON ONE ROAD AND SOME ARE ON THE OTHER THAT IF I HAPPEN TO HAVE BASICALLY OWNERSHIP OF THOSE TWO LOTS, I COULD POTENTIALLY PUT ANOTHER HOME DIRECTLY BEHIND IT. RIGHT. SO YOU COULD HAVE 10, 20 DWELLINGS GOING UP. 10 DIFFERENT DWELLINGS GOING UP RIGHT NOW. SO YOU GUYS SEE. YEAH, WELL NOT RIGHT NOW, BUT YES. THE, THIS I KNOW WHAT YOU, YOU SAID GO FOR IT. 1, 2, 3, 4. THIS LOOKS LIKE THROUGH LOCK. UM, THIS ONE LOOKS LIKE IT'S A EMPTY LOT. SAME THING WITH THIS ONE. AND THEN THIS IS AN EXTENDED LOT AS WELL. SO I PUT A SHED OF CHICKEN COOP ON THAT PROPERTY NEXT TO MINE. TAKE ADVERSE OWNERSHIP OF IT AND THEN TELL YOU I WANNA SUBDIVIDE IT. I'M JUST SAYING THAT KIRA WINSTON THE, UH, NOVEMBER MEETING. NOVEMBER. NOVEMBER. HMM. IF YOU WOULD ASK THAT QUESTION NOVEMBER. NO, OF COURSE. I'M NOT GONNA BE HERE NEXT MONTH. OH, WELL THAT'S A GOOD REASON TO KNOW WHEN. NO, WE DON'T HAVE A MEETING NEXT MONTH THEN . RIGHT. UM, THAT PICTURE. OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE TO SAY ABOUT CONSTABLE NOVEMBER 20TH? THE WAIT, WE HAVE TO DECIDE. OKAY. BEFORE THANKSGIVING. WHEN IS IT? 20TH. 20TH. THAT'S LIKE THE WEEK BEFORE. THAT'S THE WEEK BEFORE THANKSGIVING. YEAH. IT'S LIKE THE, YEAH, THE THURSDAY BEFORE. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. ALRIGHT. WHY ARE YOU ASKING ON 'CAUSE HE WON'T BE HERE IN OCTOBER. OH, WELL I MAKE SURE YOU'RE HERE FOR NOVEMBER TO, TO CORRECT ALL THE DAMAGE. WE ARE. YOU THINK THAT WE NEED TO PUT THIS TO NOVEMBER? OR? WELL, I WAS SAYING IF YOU'RE GOING TO ADJOURN, ADJOURN FOR DECISION ONLY THEN UNLESS I CAN [03:35:01] GET THIS DONE BEFORE I LEAVE, THEN IT'S GONNA BE VERY TOUGH. UH, DO, ARE WE ALL IN AGREEMENT? WE ALL AGREE THAT WE'RE CAN WE CAN STRAW, STRAW BONE? YEAH, YOU HAVE, I'M GETTING AHEAD OF YOUR NO, NO, WE WERE FOR NAY, NAY, NAY, NAY FOR MAY. NO, I SAID MAY. OH NO. YEAH, NO, NO, NO, NO. YES, I AGREE. NO. ALRIGHT. SO THAT'S PETER. CAN WE VOTE ON IT AND READ THE BEGINNING AND THEN SURE. VOTE YOU MEAN TONIGHT? NO, NO. LET, LET WRITE IT UP. NO. OKAY. GOTTA WRITE IT UP. PETER, WE STRAW VOTE NO, I, I I VOTE TO HOLD THE PRECEDENT. OKAY. I'M SORRY. WHAT DID YOU SAY? UPHOLD THE PR NAY. OKAY. NAY IN MAY, BUT THEN THERE WAS, WE ALL AGREE ON THE NAME, BUT I IT WAS, YOU DID SEND AN EMAIL THAT, THAT UM, SAID HOW MUCH YOU LOVE THE, UH, HOW THESE CASES GO. RIGHT . ALRIGHT. OKAY. SO WE'RE GONNA CLOSE THIS FOR DECISION ONLY. GOOD DECISION. ARE YOU? YES, I GUESS. THANK YOU ED. YOU CAN DO IT. I'LL TRY. IT'S A TOUGH ONE. NO, IT'S JUST THE TIMING. YOU WANT ME TO DO IT? IT'S GONNA BE, IT'S IT'S GONNA BE DENSE IN IN LEGALESE, THAT'S ALL. YES. AND I DON'T WANT TO DO IT . I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. I, A QUESTION, ARE YOU ADJOURNING LED TO ADJOURN TACO BELL TO NOVEMBER OR OH, NOT UP TO ME, BUT, BUT UH, IS IT ALSO UP TO CHRISTIE? NO, IT'S UP TO THE BOARD. OH. OH, OKAY. YOU LOOK DIRECTLY AT NO, NO, NO, NO. 'CAUSE I LOOKED AT HIM. I DON'T, I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SAID, RIGHT? TACO BELL. WE'RE GONNA ADJOURN TO NOVEMBER OR OCTOBER. NOVEMBER. NOVEMBER. DEPENDS ON WHEN YOU HAVE, WHEN YOU CAN PUT IN THE SCHEDULE. KIER. WHY, WHY NOVEMBER? DO WE HAVE COUNSEL? WE WILL HAVE LIKE A SUBSTITUTE FOR YOU, RIGHT? YES. YOU COULD DO OCTOBER. YOU WANNA DO OCTOBER? I MEAN, YOU'RE NEVER IR RESPONSIBLE. WHO'S THE SUB? WHO'S THE SUBSTITUTE? THAT NICE LADY. WHAT WAS HER NAME? OH, I SOMEBODY SITTING. I HAVEN'T MISSED ANY, UH, MEETING. YOU MISSED ONE. I DON'T THINK I AMANDA EVER BEEN IN A MEETING, AMANDA? I DON'T. HE HASN'T MISSED A MEETING SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE. OH, MAYBE YOU WEREN'T HERE. YEAH, I DON'T THINK SO. , SHE WASN'T HERE. NO, NO. SHE TOLD ME. I'VE BEEN DOING, IT'S FIVE YEARS NOW. I WAS TOLD THAT LIKE, THAT'S NOTHING. , WHO'S BEEN, YOU'VE BEEN HERE FIVE YEARS. ALMOST DEAF. WOW. WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR LIKE A HUNDRED . I STARTED IN LIKE DECEMBER. WE'LL DO IT OCTOBER DURING COVID. YEAH. REALLY? NEXT ONE IS CLOSED FOR DECISION ONLY. YOU CAN CLOSE IT FOR DECISION ONLY. YES. SO WE REMOTE FOR LIKE WHAT YEAR? THE MEETING, I THINK. I'M SORRY. IT WAS A LONG TIME. THIS YEAH. REMOTE FOR A LONG TIME IN OCTOBER. WELL, IF YOU WANNA CLOSE, CLOSE DECISION, RIGHT? OKAY. YEAH. NOW YOU CLOSE. AND THAT'S, THAT'S BELL YOU, ME TO TRY. YOU CAN TRY. ALRIGHT. IF YOU'RE GONNA, WELL, YOU WERE WELL I KNOW, BUT I, I WAS, I WAS WHEN I HEARD THE OTHER ONE. UH, YEAH. CHRISTIE, WHAT MONTH ARE YOU NOT GONNA BE HERE? I, I'M NOT PLANNING ON MISSING. I THOUGHT THERE WAS A MONTH THAT YOU SAID YOU THAT WAS LAST MONTH. WHICH I WASN'T HERE. . OH NO. 'CAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY MEETING. WE DIDN'T HAVE A MEETING. SO WE, WE YEAH, SO OUR IT DIDN'T COUNT. IT DIDN'T COUNT. YEAH. THAT'S RIGHT. I GOTTA START. DON'T LOOK AT ME. DON'T YOU LOOK OVER HERE. YOU'RE, UM, OKAY. ALRIGHT. THOSE WERE THE TWO HARD ONE. NO, I, I FELT ONCE I, NO, THEY'RE NOT SAW THE OTHER PROPERTY THAT COULD HAPPEN. Y'ALL HAVE EXPLAINED THIS 12 MONTH THING BASED ON THE NOTICE. OKAY. OKAY. OKAY. SO THIS IS EIGHT NEXT. OKAY. OKAY, NEXT IS CASE 1816 HEMLOCK ROAD. THE FRONT STOOP. THE PORCH, RIGHT? THE PORCH. I'M A YES. . YEAH, I'M A YES ON THIS. YES. OKAY. WHO WOULD LIKE TO WRITE IT UP? I CAN TAKE THIS ONE. [03:40:01] THAT WOULD BE LOVELY. THANK YOU. . IT'LL PROBABLY BE THE WATCH. IT WOULD BE THE ONLY YES. AFTER OUR VOLUNTEERS. IT'S THE ONLY GOOD THING ABOUT IT THAT THIS WASN'T TOO BAD. IS THAT WHY THEY WERE WAITING HERE? MM-HMM . THAT THAT WAS THEIR CASE. MM-HMM . YES. I GIVE THEM KUDOS FOR THEIR CASE. SHE WAS NOT. I THINK THEY WERE. YEAH, THAT WAS COSAL COS I THINK IT WAS COWELL. IT WENT THEIR WAY. YES. IT'S 11 O'CLOCK. I KNOW. YEP. OKAY, SO YOU'RE GONNA DO THAT ONE PROVE. SO 50 MULLIGAN LANE IS THE, THE GARAGE WITH THE BASEMENT AND THE STUDIO ON TOP. YEAH. I, THAT'S NOT GONNA HAVE A BATHROOM. I THINK . LIZ, ARE YOU AROUND LIZ? YEAH. AND I'M HERE. HI EVERYBODY. LIZ, YOU'VE BEEN HERE THIS ONE TIME. HOW DARE YOU HIDE FROM US. NO, I'M KIDDING. ALRIGHT, NOW THAT IGNORE PERSON. NOW, NOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SAID WHAT PURPOSE HE INTENDS TO MAKE OF THE SECOND FLOOR WITH TWO, WITH A HOME OFFICE WITHOUT A BATHROOM, IS IT YOUR OPINION THAT IT STILL, THAT IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A USE VARIANCE? YES. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE A USE VARIANCE. DOES NOT REQUIRE, DOES IT REQUIRE A VARIANCE FROM 2 85 0 5 THEN IT STILL REQUIRES A VARIANCE FROM 2 85 5. UM, BECAUSE THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF GARAGE LIMITS THE USE OF THE GARAGE FOR THE STORAGE OF VEHICLES. UM, JUST FOR THE BOARD'S INFORMATION, UH, AS PART OF THE UPDATES TO 2 85, WE ARE REMOVING THAT RESTRICTION. UM, BECAUSE THE POTENTIAL, UM, A DU, THE A DU LAW IS ALSO GOING TO ALLOW OCCUPANCY IN, IN GARAGE STRUCTURES. SO THAT WOULD BE IN CONFLICT. WE ARE ADDRESSING THAT. IS THAT GONNA PASS THE A DU? THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT HE WAS DOING WITH IT, TO BE HONEST. WELL, THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION . I MEAN IT LOOKS LIKE AN A DU TO ME. EXACTLY MEAN AND AND IT WHAT? IT BROUGHT IT UP BECAUSE ON ONE OF THE PLANS, UM, I THINK IT'S THE OVERALL SITE PLAN, IT DID SHOW A SEWER CONNECTION FROM THE GARAGE INTO THE EXISTING STRUCTURE. SO I THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS GONNA BE AN A DU, BUT THEY CLARIFIED IT ON THE RECORD. I MEAN, I WOULD MAKE IT INTO ONE IF THAT LEGISLATION, I TOTALLY WOULD NOT PUT DDU. IT'S A GREAT A-D-U-A-D-U. BUT THAT'S, THAT'S NOT THE, THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT, I'M DIGRESSING. I'M SORRY. BUT YEAH, THAT PROPERTY WOULDN'T QUALIFY FOR AN A DU BECAUSE IT IS A PREEXISTING NON-CONFORMING TWO FAMILY WITH A DETACHED GARAGE. I DON'T BELIEVE UNDER THE PROPOSED LEGISLATION IT WOULD QUALIFY TO OBTAIN A PLAN AND BOARD, UH, SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THE A DU. WAIT, IT'S A TWO FA IT'S A TWO FAMILY. IT'S A TWO FAMILY. I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT HE SAID ON THE RECORD THAT IT WAS A PREEXISTING TWO FAMILY, BUT NOW IT'S NOT. IT'S A TWO STORY. YEAH. I DIDN'T THINK HE SAID TWO FAMILY. I DIDN'T HEAR THAT EITHER. I ALSO HEARD HIM SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THE FAMILY WAS GONNA HAVE A, A THIRD CHILD. YEAH. THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE TO MOVE THE OFFICE. OFFICE. AND I THOUGHT THE, THE PLACE ABOVE THE GARAGE WAS GOING TO BE WHERE THE CHILD, THE CHILD'S THAT I THOUGHT TOO THAT, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT TOO. AND THEN BATHROOM AND THEN, AND THEN LATER ON HE SAID, WELL, THEY, THEY WORK FROM HOME AND THAT ONE WAS GONNA BE A HOME OFFICE. HOW COULD HE, HE DID SAY THERE'S GONNA BE A WATER. THAT'S WHAT I WAS, IT'S A SEPARATE, IT'S A SEPARATE BUILDING. HOW COULD YOU NOT HAVE A BATHROOM? IT'S POURING RAIN AND YOU'RE ON A PHONE CALL AND YOU HAVE TO GO TO THE BATHROOM. I DON'T KNOW. LIKE THEY DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. COMPOST. HE'S A GUY. THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE. WHAT? I'M SORRY. IT'S TRUE. SLOP SINK. SLOP SINK. YEAH, BUT THEY'RE NOT HAVING PLUMBING. COMPOST. TOILET. TOILET. OH, THERE'S PLUMBING IN THE GARAGE. EW. HE DID SAY THAT. WAIT. SAID HE SAID THERE'D BE A SWAP SINK AND THERE'S A WATER LINE. I DON'T, I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST FOR, I DIDN'T TO THE BATHROOM. I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST A, I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST A HOSE. HE SAID FOR THE HOSE, WATER WAS NO SEWER. I HEARD SWAP SINK WAS A SWAP SINK ON THERE. I HEARD SLOT SINK. OH, I DIDN'T HEAR THAT IN THE GARAGE. YEAH. BUT LIZ, YOU HAVE TO DIVORCE THIS FROM WHETHER THE A DU PA LAW PASSES OR, OR DOESN'T PASS. CORRECT. THE, THE, WELL, THE, THE, THE, REGARDLESS OF WHETHER A DU PASSES OR NOT, THE DEFINITION OF GARAGES IS CHANGING TO, UH, REMOVE THE, BUT IT HASN'T CHANGED YET, IS WHAT I'M SAYING. IT DOESN'T CHANGE WHAT ED, I'M SORRY. IT HASN'T CHANGED YET. CORRECT. WHICH IS WHY THEY NEED BACK FROM 2 85 5. WHAT I'M, WHAT I'M ASKING IS, IS WHETHER UNDER THE CURRENT [03:45:01] LANGUAGE OF TWO NINE MONTHS BEFORE THEY'RE APPROVED. OKAY, THIS GUY, HOW LONG IS, I WONDER HOW LONG THEY'VE LIVED THERE. HOW MANY MONTHS PREGNANT IS SHE ? OH, THAT'S, IS THAT THE ONE IS UH, IS THERE AN EXISTING GARAGE FOR THAT HOUSE? I DON'T THINK SO. I DON'T KNOW. I DIDN'T GO, I DON'T THINK SO. DIDN'T LOOK LIKE IT FROM THE DRAWINGS. IS THIS THE ONE ON THE CUL-DE-SAC? YEAH. YEAH. THIS WAS THE ORIGINAL HOUSE ON THE CUL-DE-SAC. YEAH. BEFORE THEY SUBDIVIDED. YEAH. THEY ONLY HAD BUGGIES BACK THEN. THEY DIDN'T HAVE DODGES. 1930S. THEY HAD BARNS FOR THE HORSES. SO WHAT ARE WE, WHAT ARE WE DOING? I SAY YOU, I THINK WE FIND OUT IF IT REALLY NEEDS A USE VARIANCE AND IF IT NEEDS A USE VARIANCE, WE RE-NOTICE IT. IF NOT, THEN WE CAN DECIDE IT. RIGHT. ADJOURNED PURPOSE. YEAH. ADJOURNED PURPOSE ADJOURNED FOR ALL PURPOSES. CONTINGENT ON IT DOESN'T NEED A USE VARIANCE. DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT? JUST ADJOURNING FOR ALL, JUST ADJOURN IT. YEAH, BECAUSE THEY MAY NEED A USE VARIANCE. OKAY. AND WE'RE ADJOURNING IT. WE'D HAVE TO ADJOURN IT IN THAT CASE ANYWAY. YES. YEP. OKAY. NOW WHEN WISDOM, I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION. IS THERE AN EXISTING GARAGE? DOES ANYBODY HAVE A COMPUTER? LIKE IS THE PHOTOGRAPH OR THE, THE, CAN YOU LOOK UP 50 MULLIGAN ON YOUR YEAH, SO FOR THIS ONE ACTUALLY, UM, I JUST GOT BACK. SO THEY ACTUALLY GOT AN, A VIOLATION FOR ALTERING THE DRIVEWAY WITHOUT A PERMIT BACK IN 2024. BUT FOR ME TO DOUBLE CHECK, I WOULD'VE TO GO BACK TO 2023 TO SEE IF THAT DRIVEWAY WAS ACTUALLY MISSED. IT DID SEEM PRETTY STRANGE. OH, STRANGE. OH, NOT THAT DRIVEWAY. WAIT, THIS IS THE, THE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY. OH, OH, OKAY. SORRY. SORRY. OH, SORRY. I SECOND DRIVEWAY. OH, CIRCLE DRIVEWAY. I'M NOT, OH, I WAS BACK ON 50 MULLIGAN IF THEY HAD A GARAGE OR NOT. DIDN'T YOU JUST ASK THAT? WHAT? I'M SORRY, I, WE'VE ADJOURNED THAT WE AJOUR ASKED IF THEY HAVE A GARAGE ALREADY AT 50. MUL MULLIGAN? YES. NO, NO, I WAS ASKING ABOUT THE NEXT ONE. OH, OKAY. OKAY. I'M SORRY. OKAY. DID THEY HAVE A, THEY HAVE A GARAGE. WHAT HAPPENED? SO THEY HAVE A GARAGE. SO THE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY, THEY SHOWED, THE PICTURE THEY SHOWED HAD TWO CARS PARKED IN THE, IN THE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY FACING AN OPPOSITE DIRECTION. YEAH. THEY'RE FACING EACH OTHER. FACING EACH OTHER. REALLY? HEADING INTO A GARAGE. I DIDN'T SEE A GARAGE. IT DIDN'T LOOK LIKE A GARAGE IN THAT PICTURE. YES. SO WAIT, WHAT DID YOU SAY AGAIN? ABOUT 10 MAPLEWOOD, TWO CARS GOING ON THE CURVED DRIVEWAY AND THEN THERE WAS A GARAGE VIOLATION OF THEM ALTERING THE DRIVEWAY WITHOUT A PERMIT. OKAY. WHEN WAS THAT? THAT WAS BACK IN 2024. IS THAT WHY THEY'RE HERE? WELL YOU SAID THAT RIGHT? THEY HAD IT TOO WIDE AT THE, OR THEY CUTS OR SOMETHING. WELL, WE WERE ASKING THE ORIGINAL PLANS. YEAH, SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. UH, THE ORIGINAL BUILDING PERMIT WAS ISSUED OUT BACK IN 2023. I CAN'T USE IT, MY PERSONAL COMPUTER TO ACCESS TO IT. OKAY. OH, SO WE NEED SEES. SO THAT WAS, I WAS SAYING ON THAT ONE IF IT WAS IN THE ORIGINAL PLANS, SO INCORRECTLY THERE INCORRECTLY, LIKE, AND WE'RE GONNA DENY THEM A SO IT CAME, IT CAME, I'M THE ONE THAT CAUGHT IT THE SECOND TIME. SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ORIGINAL BUILDING PERMIT WAS, BUT WHEN I SAW CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY, I SAID THIS IS DEFINITELY OVER 30 FEET. RIGHT. YEAH. THEN, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO . NO. YEAH. SO I MEAN IF, OKAY, SO WE HAVE TO ADDRESS, IF IT WASN'T ON THE PLANS, LIKE HE SAID, IT WAS THAT ESSENTIALLY THE TOWN WOULD'VE APPROVED BEFORE YOUR TIME, RIGHT? I, I WOULD SET VOTE NO. OKAY. BECAUSE WE OR NOT BECAUSE WE'VE SET PRECEDENCES WHERE THAT COULD BE BECAUSE WE WERE SAYING LIKE, REMEMBER THAT DUE? YES. SO I THINK WE HAVE TO HOLD THAT. THAT'S WHY I DIDN'T WANT TO SAY FATHER WHATEVER, LIKE YEAH, NO, THAT'S, YEAH. YOU KNOW WHAT? I DON'T LIKE HE BLAMED IT ON THE ARCHITECT. RIGHT. YOU ALL HEARD THAT HE BLAMED IT ON THE ARCHITECT, THE CIRCULAR DRIVER. WELL HE SAID THE ARCHITECT. YEAH. HE'S BEING YOU'RE BEING FACETIOUS. RIGHT? HALFWAY . BECAUSE HE DID SAY IT. YEAH, HE DID. ALRIGHT, SO WE'RE ADJOURNING IT FOR ALL PURPOSES. YEAH. OKAY. AGAIN, OKAY. IN ORDER TO DO WHAT? OH, UNTIL YOU CAN DETERMINE WHETHER, WELL, BECAUSE LET'S, ONLY REASON I SAY IS BECAUSE YOU REMEMBER THE GUY IN HAR IN THAT LIVES IN, UM, DIANE'S NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAD THE CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY AND WE MADE HIM CHOP IT IN HALF. WELL, HE HASN'T DONE IT YET. , BUT WE, AND THEN HE [03:50:01] CAME BACK AND BEGGED US. WELL, NO, REMEMBER HIS, WHEN IT, WE BASICALLY SAID THAT EVERY DECEMBER HE HAS TO GOT PETER ON ZOOM, CERTIFY PETER'S ON HERE SO HE CAN LISTEN. OKAY. CERTIFY THAT, UM, THAT HIS FATHER IS STILL ALIVE, REMEMBER? AND THEN, SO HE HAS TO WRITE A LETTER. SO WE GAVE HIM A TEMPORARY. HOW IS THAT DIFFERENT? DO I REMEMBER? I DON'T EVEN REMEMBER WHAT I HAD FOR DINNER. DO I REMEMBER WE GAVE HIM A T TEMPORARY? THAT ONE'S MORE OF A CIRCULAR ONE SO THAT YOUR WIDTH IS NOT AS BIG, BUT THIS ONE IS MORE OF A O SHAPED, SO YOUR WIDTH IS LONGER, IF I REMEMBER IT CORRECTLY, RECORDING IN PROGRESS AND THE, AND THE DOUBLE OPENING IS OKAY. 'CAUSE THE MORE OF A CIRCLE, YOU KNOW, THE LESS LIFT. BUT HOW WOULD, LIKE, BUT THE OVAL IS, HOW WOULD WE RECOGNIZE THIS? I MEAN, HOW, WHAT WOULD BE THE REMEDY TO MAKE IT CONFORM? ZIGZAG. SO A STRAIGHT LINE. ALRIGHT, SO WHAT DO WE WANNA DO WITH THIS ONE THEN? A, WHICH ONE ARE WE TALKING? I THINK WE'RE AUR IT TO FIND OUT FIVE. IF IT'S, IF IT'S ON THE PLANS, A CIRCULAR DRIVEWAY, RIGHT? LET'S SAY IT ISN'T, THEN WHAT ARE WE DOING? I WOULD SAY NO. I WOULD SAY IF IT'S NOT ON THE ORIGINAL PLANS, YOU DENY IT? YES. YEAH. OKAY. AND THEN WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO DO? RIP IT ALL UP, PORTION OF IT. 15 FEET, WHICH THEY'VE ALREADY DONE ONCE, RIGHT? I'M SORRY, WHAT? OKAY. THEY HAD, THEY HAD TO ALTER IT BECAUSE THE CURB CUTS WERE TOO WIDE MM-HMM . SO THEY CUT BACK ON THAT. WE TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE? YEAH. SO THE CURB CUT WIDTH IS DIFFERENT FROM THE, FROM THE DRIVEWAY WIDTH. CURB CUT WIDTH, YOU'RE ONLY LIMITED, YOU'RE LIMITED TO 20 FEET. SO IF YOU HAVE TWO ENTRANCES, YOU HAVE TWO CURB CUTS, IT'S 10 AND 10 HAS TO BE 10 AND 10 OR EIGHT AND 12, WHATEVER IT IS. BUT THE ACTUAL DRIVEWAY WIDTH. SO YOU KNOW THIS HOW, BECAUSE IT'S NOT REGULATED BY THE ZONING INSPECTOR OR ENGINEERED CURB. A CURB CUT WIDTH IS REGULATED BY THE DPW. IT'S NOT THE ZONING CODE. THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. YOU KNOW IT, ED KNOWS IT. DO ANYBODY ELSE KNOW THAT? MM-HMM . 20. NO. WE KNOW WHAT THE REGULATION IS, BUT DID WE, DO YOU KNOW THAT WE THE PUBLIC DID TOLD THEM THAT THEY HAD TO DO NO, THEY DID THAT ALREADY? NO, WE, I, I TOLD THEM THAT THEY HAD TO REDUCE IT DOWN TO 20 PEOPLE. OKAY. WHICH THEY DID. SO THAT'S WHY THEY DID IT. AND YOU KNEW THAT? YEAH, THEY SAID THAT. OH, THEY DID? YEAH. YEAH, THEY DID. WAS I ASLEEP? HE MUST HAVE BEEN , THAT'S WHY. YEAH, THEY ADMITTED IT. YEAH. NO, NO, THEY DID, THEY DID SAY THEY DID THAT. OH, OKAY. YEAH. YEAH. THAT'S A COMMON THING. NOW, LIKE I'VE NOTICED IN A LOT OF APPLICATIONS, PEOPLE WIDE WIDEN THEIR DRIVEWAYS, LIKE THE APRONS, EVEN WITH THE APRON, IF IT'S OVER 10 FEET, WE MAKE THEM ALTER. UNLESS THEY GET A SPECIAL APPROVAL FROM DPW. AH, THE ZONING BOARD TECHNICALLY THAT HAS NO JURISDICTION ON CAR CUT TO THE STREET BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO DO EVERYTHING WITHIN THE LONG LINES, SO RIGHT. OKAY. BECAUSE BASICALLY THE, SO WE ADJOURNING STREET ISN'T ON THAT PROPERTY. YEAH. YES. OKAY. THEN THE LAST TWO OF COURSE, THE ONLY ONE WE'RE WRITING UP , THE LAST TWO WERE BEING ADJOURNED. UM, WHY TALK ABOUT THAT. WHAT? LET'S TALK ABOUT THAT. OH, WOW. YEAH. . I DON'T, WHAT DO YOU WANT TO SAY? WELL, YOU GUYS GO FIRST. I A GUEST. , YOU'RE AGAINST IT. WAIT, WHY WERE WE ADJOURNING? I A GUEST? THE FIRE DEPARTMENT STUFF. I DON'T GETTING, HAVING THEM. WELL, YEAH, I DON'T WHY YOU'RE HAVING A MEETING ON THE COST A CRM MECHANISM. I DON'T THINK THAT WE NEED THAT. YEAH, I DON'T EITHER. IT'S ALREADY APPROVED. YEAH. IN FACT, I, I WILL WARN YOU, GARRETT, THAT YOU'RE GONNA OPEN A HUGE CAN OF WORMS IF YOU DO THAT. OKAY. WELL WE DO WHAT? IT'S TOTALLY UP TO THE BOARD. IF YOU DON'T, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE, THEY'VE OFFERED IT UP. UM, YOU KNOW, WE'LL SET THEM UP FIRE. THEY COULD DO IT VOLUNTARY. YES. YEAH. INDEPENDENTLY. THAT'S TOTALLY FINE. AND I WILL MAKE THAT COORDINATION HAPPEN. OKAY. RIGHT. UM, SO IF YOU DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE CONDITIONING IT, WHICH I UNDERSTAND. SO YOU WANTED TO DO, YOU'RE SUGGESTING WE GRANT IT WITHOUT A CONDITION, BUT THEN THERE'S NO LEVERAGE TO MAKE SURE THAT IT ACTUALLY HAPPENS. AND THEY DID PROFFER IT. SO I MEAN, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO CONDITIONING IT. THEY SAID THAT THEY AGREED TO DO IT AND THAT THEY HAD LETTERS THAT SAY THAT THEY WERE GONNA DO IT AND THEY, THEY, THEY, I'M NOT ASKING WHAT IS THAT, THAT ON THE RECORD EMAIL SAY, SAYS THEY'RE WILLING TO, TO DO WHAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT'S ASKING. YOU HAVE IT IN YOUR HAND THERE, YOU SHARED IT ON THE SCREEN AND I HAVE IT ON MY SCREEN. WELL, I COULDN'T READ IT. SO I I COULD TELL YOU THAT EVERY FIRE DEPARTMENT IS THEN [03:55:01] GONNA WANT A MECHANISM TO DO THIS GOING FORWARD. EVERY GOING FORWARD. THEY ARE GONNA WANNA LIKE MUTUAL AID TO THE VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENTS. THE TAXPAYERS IN YOUR FIRE DISTRICT PAY FOR THAT. THEY'RE GONNA WANT TO BE ABLE TO BILL AND THEY'RE TOLD THERE'S NO MECHANISM. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO DO THAT BY THE TOWN. WHEN THEY GO TO THE NURSING HOMES, EVERY TIME A NURSING HOME COMES IN AND IT COSTS A LOT OF MONEY, OKAY. TO TAKE, I MEAN ALL YOUR CALLS AND YOUR FIRE DEPARTMENTS AND HARTSDALE ALL GO TO THE, MOST OF THEM GO NOT FOR FIRES. THEY ALL GO FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES. THEY'RE GONNA WANT EVERY TIME MONEY TO PAY FOR THAT. BUT THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN, THAT'S NOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ISSUE HERE IS A, A HAZARDOUS CONDITION THAT COULD RESULT IN DANGER TO THE FIRST RESPONDERS, WHICH YOU DON'T GET WHEN YOU GO TO A NURSING HOME. IT'S A DIFFERENT ORDER OF MAGNITUDE. FAIRVIEW HAS A TESLA, TESLA DEALERSHIP. FAIRVIEW'S SEES IT. THEY'RE GONNA WANT IT. I'M NOT SURE DEALERSHIP, I JUST, HAVE YOU GUYS BEEN TOLD THAT? I WAS TOLD BY THE, THE GREENVILLE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT THE CONCERN IS, IS THAT THESE KINDS OF BATTERY FIRES CAN GO ON FOR WEEKS OR MONTHS AND THAT, THAT IS BEYOND THEIR CAPACITY TO PAY FOR. WELL, THE SAME PROBLEM WITH TESLA, I GUESS. YEP. AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THESE GOING UP. I MEAN, I'M SORRY, EVERYTHING TESLA, A CAR DEALERSHIP OR TESLA, TESLA CAR DEALERSHIP. NO. AND THEY MADE BATTERY. THEY MAKE, THEY MADE BATTERIES. THE CARS BURNED FOR YOU EVER SEE THEM ON THE SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY? THEY BURNED FOR A DAY HOUSE. EVERY HOUSE NOW HAS THEM. YOUR LAWN MOWER HAS IT IN IT. I PUT A NEW SKYLIGHTS IN. THE ONLY WAY TO GET SHADES NOW IS TO HAVE THEM BE SOLAR AND BATTERIES. PEOPLE HAVE THEM ON THE SIDES OF THEIR HOUSES. I JUST DON'T THINK WE PUT A CONDITION ON IT. HOURS. I'M SORRY, WHAT? AT 7,500 KILOWATT HOURS? NO, BUT THEY'RE UM, THEY BURNED FOR A LONG TIME. THEY'RE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS COMPLAINING ABOUT THE ONES THAT YOU WOULD USE IN YOUR LAWN MOWER AND STUFF WHEN THEY GO UP IF YOUR WHOLE HOUSE GOES UP THERE. WELL, I, 'CAUSE I'M, I'M MISSING THE ARGUMENT. I JUST DON'T WANNA CONDITION IT. I DON'T NO, NO, BUT I'M SAYING THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE PROFFERED THAT THEY WOULD DO. YEAH. I DON'T UNDERSTAND. THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD NOT PLACE A RESTRICTION ON US DOING ANOTHER ONE SOMEWHERE ELSE. WHAT IF THE PERSON DOESN'T WANNA PAY FOR IT? YOU'RE GONNA START. SO THESE GUYS ARE BEING GREAT. THEY'RE, THEY'RE OFF. THEY'RE SAYING I WANNA PAY FOR IT. THE NEXT PERSON WHO WANTS TO PUT IT IN MIGHT NOT WANT TO PAY FOR IT. AND IF THEY DON'T THEN RIGHT. I'M CONFUSED AS TO WHAT THAT, WHAT, WHAT THE PROBLEM IS. I JUST THINK WE'RE ROPING A CAN OF WORMS IN TERMS OF WHAT? IN TERMS OF A FIRE DEPARTMENT OR FOR THE APPLICANT? FOR BOTH. YEAH. WOULDN'T THIS BE SOMETHING THAT YOU INSURE FOR IN THE WORDS THE BUREAUS OPERATING A BUSINESS THAT HAS MY ABILITY. WOULDN'T YOU GET INSURANCE? I MEAN INSURANCE. YOUR, YOUR TAXES PAY FOR YOUR FIRE DEPARTMENT. RIGHT? NOT YOUR INSURANCE. NOT YOUR INSURANCE. NO, NO. IF I'M SAYING IF THIS PRIVATE BUSINESS, IF THE LIABILITY FOR A FIRE BEING PASSED ALONG TO THIS PRIVATE BUSINESS, I WOULD IMAGINE THAT THEY WOULD ENSURE FOR IT SO THAT THEY CAN PAY FOR IT. IT SEEMS LIKE A WAY OF, OF SPREADING THE RISK BEYOND TOWN AND BEYOND THE INDIVIDUAL TAX. ANYBODY? I THINK I OPENED THE CAN OF WORMS. UM, WHEN YOU STARTED TALKING ABOUT IT, I ALMOST, WELL I SHOULDN'T SAY . I WAS GOING TO KICK YOU. UM, I THINK WE DON'T CONDITION THE APPROVAL. APPROVAL. OKAY. I VOTE YAY. UM, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY PUT WHAT THEY IN CAN, WHAT THEY INTEND TO DO ON RECORD SENT THE LETTER TO KIRA. IF THEY WORK IT OUT WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, THEY WORK IT OUT WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. WELL, I'D LIKE TO SEE WHAT THAT LETTER SAID, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO OH, WE'RE NOT GONNA PUT THAT IN OUR, IN OUR, UM, APPROVAL. I MEAN IF YOU'RE, IF YOU'RE SAYING I'M GONNA VOTE FOR IT WITHOUT CONDITIONS BECAUSE THEY'VE AGREED TO DO SOMETHING, BUT YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WAS THAT THEY AGREED TO DO. IT'S LIKE THAT WOMAN, UH, ON UH, [04:00:01] THE, UH, KENNEDY'S PANEL WHERE KENNEDY WENT TO HER AND SAID, I WANT YOU TO SIGN OFF IN ADVANCE BEFORE WE'VE EVEN MADE THE DO YOU AGREE TO SIGN OFF ON ANY RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS PANEL MAKES? AND SHE SAID NO, BECAUSE I HAVE TO SEE WHAT, TO SEE WHAT IT IS THAT, UH, YOU'RE ASKING ME TO, TO SIGN OFF ON. BUT WE'RE NOT SIGNING OFF ON WHETHER OR NOT THEY, WELL THAT'S, IT'S, IT'S AN IMPRECISE METAPHOR, BUT ARE YOU SURE GAR ARE YOU SURE THEY'RE EVEN ALLOWED TO DO THAT? YEAH, THEY WOULD PROBABLY PUT EITHER A BOND UP OR SOME SORT OF MONEY IN ESCROW TO COVER 24 HOURS. WELL, THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING. WHAT WAS IT THAT THEY AGREED TO DO? IT WAS, IT WAS, IS IT AGREEMENT ON A CRM COST REIMBURSEMENT MECHANISM? IS THAT, IS THAT THE, THIS IS THE LETTER FROM THE FIRE. THAT'S THE LETTER FROM THE FIRE COMMISSIONER. YES. BUT IS IT EVEN ENFORCEABLE? I'M GONNA PULL UP THEIR EMAIL AND IT'S, IT WAS AN EMAIL IN RESPONSE TO THIS LETTER SAYING, WE AGREE TO THIS EXTRA REQUEST BY THE FIRE DISTRICT. I MEAN, IF YOU WANT THE EXACT WORD, YOU CAN TRY AND PULL IT UP RIGHT NOW. BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE US NOW. NO, IT DOES IT. NO, I DIDN'T THINK SO EITHER. YEAH, THE EXTENSION AND THE REQUEST FOR EXTRA KILOWATTS, THERE'S REALLY NOT A CONNECTION, WHICH I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO. THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING IS ALL LITIGATED THE PLANNING BOARD WHO HAD THE SPECIAL PERMIT? YAY. YAY. CLOSED FOR DECISION ONLY. WELL, NO, WE CAN WHY? WELL YOU COULD, THIS IS A SIMPLE ONE. IF YOU'RE NOT GONNA CONDITION IT AS A MATTER OF FACT, SO IT'S SO EASY YOU CAN DO IT. , . I ALREADY HAVE ONE. YOU AGREE? AGREE TO WHAT? WELL WE, PETER, WE'RE GONNA MAKE SURE THAT WE CLEAR THAT THEY GET ANOTHER 12 MONTHS TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT THE LONG STORY SHORT IS IF THEY'RE AGREEING FOR ADDITIONAL SAFETY MEASURES AND TO ASSIST WITH WHATEVER APPARATUS ARE NEEDED, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT IF YOU ALL FEEL THAT IT COMPLICATES IT, THEN I'LL GO FORWARD WITH JUST VOTING FOR IT. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH CONDITIONING IT. OKAY. BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO. ALRIGHT. WE DON'T HAVE TO. BUT IF I TELL YOU I'M GIVING YOU A HUNDRED DOLLARS, YOU KNOW, ON THE CONDITION THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYONE'S IN FAVOR OF GRANTING THE APPLICATION. ARE THERE, IS THERE A QUORUM THAT FEELS ONE WAY OR THE OTHER ON THE CONDITION? OR IS IT SPLIT? NO, NO CONDITION. NO CONDITION. RIGHT. ONLY OTHER CONDITION. CONDITION. PETER, YOU OKAY WITH THAT? PETER? YOU WANT A CONDITION? I, I, I'LL, I'LL GO ALONG WITH YOU GUYS. I MEAN, I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM DO WHAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WANTS BUT NOT THAT'S TWO TO THREE. SO GO AWAY AS A CONDITION. WHO'S SECOND? HUH? PETER AND WHO? MYSELF. OH, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CONDITION. SO YOU DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM IF WE DON'T CONDITION IT, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE FOUR. OKAY. OKAY. BOTH WILL BE APPROVALS. TYPE TWO ACTION. NO CONDITIONS, NO SPECIAL CONDITIONS. OKAY. WHO'S WRITING? 6 0 7? I ALREADY HAVE ONE. I CHAIRED. THAT'S YOUR MANTRA. I CHAIRED, WE WRITING SIX AND SEVEN. PETER'S GONNA WRITE IT. HE IS, HE DOESN'T THAT UH, DON'T WE HAVE A, LIKE A PRE-WRITTEN THING THAT YOU ALL GUYS FILL OUT THE FIND AFTER 1130, WHICH YEAH, SHE'S GOT WE DO THE FINDINGS LATER, HUH? ANYBODY WANNA DO? WE'RE GONNA, WHOEVER DOES SIX TILL SEVEN, THERE'S TWO. ALRIGHT GUYS. OH, SHE'S DOING, I PROMISED I WOULD BE HOME BY MIDNIGHT. SO THIS TACO TURN TO A PUMPKIN. ALRIGHT, I'LL WRITE THE GOOD NIGHT. GOOD NIGHT. WHAT'S THAT? YOU COULD DO THE FINDINGS LATER JUST, OH YEAH, YOU JUST READ THE MOTION TONIGHT. I WILL. WHICH TWO ARE YOU DOING? THEY'RE BOTH EXACTLY THE SAME. OH, THE SAME THING? YEAH. YOU GOT IT. YOU CAN WRITE THE EXACT SAME. I CAN DO ONE IN ONE HAND AND THE OTHER AND THE OTHER. NAY. NAY. OKAY, WE'RE BACK. WE HAVE DELIBERATED AND WE ARE NOW GONNA GO THROUGH OUR FINDINGS. I'M NO, I'M NOT FINDING, NO. WHAT ARE WE DOING? WE'RE BACK ON THE RECORD DECISIONS. EXCUSE ME. UH, CASE NUMBER, UH, 25 13 KAI RESTAURANT GROUP. AKA TACO [04:05:01] BELL IS ADJOURNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 16TH. UM, CASE NUMBER 25 17. UM, SIX COTSWOLD WAY IS CLOSED FOR DECISION ONLY. PARDON? NO, JUST CLOSED FOR DECISION ONLY TO NOVEMBER. OH CLOSED FOR THE DECISION ONLY TO THE NOVEMBER MEETING? YES. OKAY. IT'S CLOSED FOR DECISION ONLY TO THE MEETING OF NOVEMBER 20TH. 20TH. OKAY. CASE NUMBER 25 18. UH, 16 HEMLOCK ROAD. UM, I WILL WAIT, LET ME READ THE SEEKER STATEMENT. WHEREAS THE GREENBERG ZBA HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO SEEKER COMPLIANCE AND NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SEEKER CONSIDERATION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE AYE. AND THE CHAIR VOTES. AYE. DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES, I HAVE A MOTION. I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE 25 18 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 PLANS DATED MARCH 1ST, 2024 AND STAMP RECEIVED JUNE 16TH, 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 DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT WE ARE GRANTING HEREIN. THE VARIANCE BEING GRANTED IS FOR THE IMPROVEMENT SHOWN ON THE PLAN 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. SECOND. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OH CHAIR VOTES. AYE. UM, OKAY. AND THEN THE NEXT ONE IS CASE NUMBER, UH, ZBA 25 19 50. MULLIGAN LANE HAS BEEN ADJOURNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 16TH. CASE NUMBER ZBA 25 20 UH, 10 MAPLEWOOD ROAD HAS BEEN ADJOURNED FOR ALL PURPOSES TO THE MEETING OF OCTOBER 16TH. UM, AND THEN WE HAVE OKAY, CASE NUMBER 25 21. WHEREAS THE GREENBERG ZBA HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO SEEKER COMPLIANCE AND NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SEEKER CONSIDERATION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? I SECOND IT. ALL IN FAVOR? A AYE. AND THE CHAIR VOTES? AYE. DO I HAVE A MOTION? UH, YES I DO. UM, I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE NUMBER 25 21 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. 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 DATED JULY 6TH, 2023 AND STAMPED RECEIVED JULY 15TH, 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 AND THAT THE VARIANCES BEING GRANTED ARE FOR THE IMPROVEMENT 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, [04:10:01] OR OTHER VARIANCES WE HAVE APPROVED HEREIN. SECOND. SECOND. OH SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AND CHAIR VOTES? AYE. I JUST WANNA MAKE A NOTE THAT DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR, WE'RE GOING TO, UM, RE UH, DRAFT THE FINDINGS AT A LATER DATE, BUT THEY WILL BE AVAILABLE, UM, TO THE PUBLIC, TO THE SECRETARY BY APPLICATION TO THE SECRETARY. THAT GOES FOR CASE 25 18 AS WELL AND 25 22 MIDWAY SHOPPING CENTER. WE HAVE TO READ IT FOR BOTH CASES. CAN I JUST DO THIS ONE? OH, SORRY. SHE DOES. OKAY. FORGET . I FORGOT WE JUST DID THE OTHER ONE. SORRY. WHEREAS THE GREENBERG ZBA HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE-REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO SEEKER COMPLIANCE AND NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SEEKER CONSIDERATION. SECOND. SECOND . ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. AYE. CHAIR VOTES. AYE. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES, I DO. UM, I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE NUMBER 25 22 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN 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 DATED MARCH 17TH, 2021 AND LAST REVISED ON OCTOBER 24TH, 2022 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 AND THAT THE VARIANCE IS BEING GRANTED ARE 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. SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE AYE. AYE. AND THE CHAIR VOTES AYE. UH, AND AGAIN THOSE FINDINGS WILL BE DRAFTED AT A LATER DATE AND PROVIDED TO THE ZONING BOARD SECRETARY AND BE MADE PART OF THE OFFICIAL RECORD. THANK YOU EVERYBODY. GOODNIGHT. WE'LL SEE EVERYONE IN OCTOBER. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.