[00:00:03]
ALL[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, November 19, 2025 – 7:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ]
RIGHT.ARE WE, ARE WE RECORDING? YES, WE ARE.
UH, WELCOME TO THE WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 19TH PLANNING BOARD MEETING, UH, TOWN PLANNER.
BRI, WILL YOU TAKE THE ROLE? SURE.
A NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT MS. ANDERSON, OUR ALTERNATE IS NOT PRESENT AT THE MOMENT, BUT WE ANTICIPATE HER BEING HERE LATER IN THE EVENING.
UM, BEFORE WE, UH, ADDRESS THE MINUTES, I DO HAVE A QUICK ANNOUNCEMENT.
UM, AT THE LAST TOWN BOARD MEETING LAST WEDNESDAY, UH, THE TOWN BOARD ACCEPTED THE RESIGNATION OF JOHANN SNAGS AND LESLIE DAVIS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, AND APPOINTED ME AS CHAIR OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
UM, I WANT TO THANK BOTH OF THEM FOR THEIR SERVICE ON THE, ON THE BOARD, AND ESPECIALLY THANK LESLIE FOR HER LEADERSHIP AS CHAIR OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS.
UM, WHILE I WISH WE HAD, UH, MORE, MORE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH HER, WE APPRECIATE HER SERVICE AND WE APPRECIATE, UM, THE IMPACT THAT SHE'S HAD ON THE TOWN.
UH, DID EVERYONE HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES THAT WERE DISTRIBUTED THIS MORNING? I'M GONNA BE A PROBLEM 'CAUSE I'M GONNA RECUSE, RIGHT? UH, ABSTAIN.
SO YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T NEED TO.
BUT THEN YOU DON'T HAVE A, WE, I YOU'RE ALLOWED TO VOTE ON MINUTES.
DID YOU WATCH THE RECORDING OF THE MEETING? I DID.
SO THEN YOU'RE, YOU'RE CAPABLE OF VOTING ON THE MINUTES.
DO YOU WANT PUT IT TO LATER IN THE EVENING? THIRD WHEN SHE'S HERE.
SO THEN WE'LL, WE'LL PUSH OFF THE MINUTES.
UM, ACCORDING TO ROBERT'S RULES OF ORDER, YOU ARE ABLE TO VOTE ON MINUTES FOR MEETINGS THAT YOU WEREN'T PRESENT AT.
UM, SO WE HAVE TWO PIECES OF CORRESPONDENCE.
UH, THE FIRST IS CASE NUMBER PB 2123, THE DI NAPOLI SUBDIVISION.
UH, THEY ARE LOOKING FOR THEIR FIFTH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION EXTENSION, UM, TOWN PLANNER BRITAIN.
CAN YOU PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CONTEXT FOR US? YES.
SO THE, UH, FOR THE DI NAPOLI PROJECT, THEY RECEIVED APPROVALS, UH, A WHILE AGO, AND THEY HAVE BEEN WORKING DILIGENTLY WITH THE BUREAU OF ENGINEERING TO RESOLVE ISSUES RELATING TO THE, UH, THE FIRE ACCESS AND, UH, THE SIZING OF THE CUL-DE-SAC AND THE RIGHT OF WAY RELATED TO THE CUL-DE-SAC AND SEWER LINES AND EVERYTHING RELATED TO ALL UTILITIES AND THAT STUFF.
UM, THIS IS THE FIFTH EXTENSION REQUEST.
UH, BUT THEY ARE MAKING PROGRESS AND WE BELIEVE THAT THEY ARE NEARING THE CONCLUSION, UH, OF THEIR WORK WITH THE BUREAU OF ENGINEERING AND WILL BE ABLE TO SUBMIT TO THE, UM, WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH FOR THEIR APPROVAL, UH, SHORTLY.
AND, AND JUST TO REITERATE, THEY, THEY'VE BEEN RESPONSIVE AND YOU, YOU FEEL THEY'RE DOING EVERYTHING THEY CAN TO, TO MOVE THIS FORWARD.
DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS? UH, SO THIS IS WHAT, FIFTH? THIS IS THE FIFTH FIFTH EXTENSION.
AND, UH, UH, HOW, HOW FAR DID THEY HAVE MOVED WITH THE PROJECT? SO THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON C ON, UH, ADDRESSING THE FIRE ACCESS, WHICH WAS A SEPARATE ENTRANCE, AND TRYING TO DETERMINE WHETHER IT COULD BE, UM, GRAVEL OR PERMEABLE, UH, OR, UM, ALTERNATIVELY NOT NECESSARY.
SO THEY ALSO EXTENDED THE, UH, RIGHT OF WAY AREA AT THE CO CUL-DE-SAC.
SO CHANGING SLIGHTLY THE, UM, LOT LINES FOR THE PAR, UH, PROPERTIES ON THE CUL-DE-SAC TO ADDRESS, UM, THE ABILITY TO INPUT LIGHT POLES AS WELL AS, UM, ACCESS FOR UTILITY MAINTENANCE IN THE FUTURE.
THESE ARE ALL GOOD IMPROVEMENTS THAT THEY'RE WORKING TOWARDS, BUT THE, THE NEIGHBOR IS, HAS NO PROBLEM WITH ALL THE MODIFICATIONS THEY'RE DOING.
THERE'S BEEN NO COMMENTS OR ISSUES WITH ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS REGARDING THIS PROJECT? CORRECT? BECAUSE THAT WAS, THE NEIGHBOR WAS GONNA PROVIDE A, IT'S THE SAME PROJECT RIGHT OFF OF ROAD.
THIS IS THE ONE THAT HARLEY ROAD OFF OF HARLEY ROAD? NO, NO, NO, NO.
THIS IS, THAT'S THE RSF PROJECT.
THIS IS OFF OF, UH, WHITE HOUSE LANE.
I SHOULD NOTE, UH, THAT THE FOURTH EXTENSION DID EXPIRE ON OCTOBER 6TH, 2025.
SO THIS IS A RETROACTIVE CONSIDERATION, UH, RETROACTIVE EXTENSION FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION.
ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DOES IT EXPIRE NOW? IF, IF THE BOARD GRANTS A 180 DAY EXTENSION, IT WOULD BE VALID THROUGH APRIL 4TH, 2026.
ALRIGHT, THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE 180 DAY RETRO EXTENSION VALID THROUGH APRIL 4TH OF NEXT YEAR.
[00:05:01]
MOTION PASSES.UM, NEXT UP WE HAVE CORRESPONDENCE RELATED TO PB OH 4 0 2, UH, RMC CARRIAGE HILL SUBDIVISION.
UM, FOR THOSE WHO WERE HERE AT THE LAST MEETING, WE DID APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONDITION RELATED TO CONDITION 7.7.
UH, UPON FURTHER REVIEW OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPROVAL, UH, THE STREET NAME IS ALSO REFERENCED IN CONDITION 7.8, UM, WHICH WAS DISTRIBUTED IN YOUR PACKET.
UH, AND SO THIS IS CONSIDERING, UH, AMENDING THE CONDITION TO ALSO REFERENCE, UH, TBB UP, UH, UPDATE TBD LANE TO WESTCHESTER VIEW LANE IN CONDITION 7.8 AS WE DID AT THE LAST MEETING FOR CONDITION 7.7.
UM, ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT OR ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO ADD? TOWN PLANNER, BRI.
SO THAT'S PART OF THE CORRESPONDENCE, OKAY.
THIS IS PART OF CORRESPONDENCE AND, AND WE ALREADY DID A PORTION OF THIS LAST MEETING.
THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE AMENDING CONDITION 7.8 OF PB OH 4 0 2 TO IDENTIFY THE NAME OF THE ROADWAY AS WESTCHESTER VIEW LANE.
WE HAVE, UH, TWO ITEMS ON OUR WORK SESSION.
UH, OR SORRY, WE HAVE FOUR ITEMS ON OUR WORK SESSION.
THE FIRST ITEM THAT WE HAVE UP IS PB 25 0 1 LYNN, UH, 50 MULLIGAN LANE.
UM, AND THIS IS TO DISCUSS A PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT, UM, INVOLVING THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW TWO CAR, UH, DETACHED GARAGE WITH RELATED IMPROVEMENTS, UH, TOWN PLANNER.
BRI, CAN YOU PROVIDE US SOME ADDITIONAL CONTEXT? UH, YES.
SO WE HAVE PREPARED FOR YOU A DRAFT DECISION ON THE STEEP SLOPE PERMIT.
UH, THERE'S ONLY ONE SITE SPECIFIC CONDITION, UH, CONDITION 4.1, WHICH STATES THAT PRIOR TO SITE WORK COMMENCING THE APPLICANT SHALL INSTALL, REINFORCE SILT FENCING AND STRAW BALES AROUND THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE AS INCREASED PROTECTION AGAINST EROSION.
UH, THIS WAS INCLUDED, UH, DUE TO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC AT THE LAST MEETING RELATED TO RUNOFF FROM THE MULLIGAN LANE SUBDIVISION AS A WHOLE.
UM, SO WE ADD THIS AS PROTECTION, UH, ADDITIONAL PROTECTIONS FOR, UH, RUNOFF.
SO, SO THERE WERE TWO FOLLOW UPS AT THAT LAST MEETING.
ONE WAS STORMWATER THAT YOU WERE GONNA CHECK WITH ENGINEERING, AND THE OTHER WAS THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY THAT YOU WERE GONNA CHECK WAS BUILDING ON.
SO BUILDING ADDRESSED THE GRAVEL DRIVEWAY, THEY REEVALUATED, UM, THE CODE AND HOW PRIOR INTERPRETATIONS DIDN'T REFLECT, UM, HOW IT APPLIES TO A SINGLE FAMILY AND DETERMINE THAT IT WASN'T NECESSARY TO GET A VARIANCE.
AND THEN FOR STORMWATER, THE CONCERN FROM THE PUBLIC WAS, IS THE, AS AS I HEARD IT, YOU GUYS WERE HERE, HE WOULD KNOW BETTER.
SO, SO IT HAD TO DO WITH PRIOR, UM, STORMWATER WHEN THERE WAS CURRENT, WHEN THERE WAS DEVELOPMENT GOING ON, UM, CHANNELING DOWN TO PROPERTIES THAT ARE EXISTING.
I, I BELIEVE THAT THE, UH, TOWN ENGINEER INDICATED THAT IT WAS, UM, CONSTRUCTED ACCORDING TO THE APPROVALS.
UM, I, I DON'T REMEMBER HONESTLY.
I KNOW THE TOWN ENGINEER DID SPEAK TO IT.
I JUST CAN'T RECALL WHAT HIS COMMENT WAS.
AND THEN THE RECORD WAS KEPT OPEN FOR A WEEK, RIGHT? WAS THERE FURTHER COMMENT OR? IT WAS, THERE WAS NO FURTHER COMMENTS RECEIVED IN THE OPEN RECORD PERIOD.
WAS THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE DISTRIBUTED DECISION? NO, I DON'T HAVE IT.
SO WE'LL GIVE AMANDA A MINUTE TO SEE IF, YEAH, I'M NOT SEEING IT IN MY EMAILS.
CAN YOU, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE STORMWATER CONCERN IF YOU'RE AWARE OF THE 10 ENGINEER'S COMMENTS ON IT? IF NOT, UH, WE'LL, UH, SO WE HAD A LENGTHY REVIEW PROCESS FOR THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN, UH, FOR THIS SITE IN PARTICULAR.
UM, AND WHAT WAS PROPOSED, AS FAR AS I UNDERSTAND, UH, THE TOWN ENGINEER HAD APPROVED OUR DESIGNED I BELIEVE, OR ELSE I COULD NEVER BE AT THIS MEETING.
I MEAN, THAT WAS BEFORE THE MEETING.
PUBLIC COMMENT WAS A CONCERN ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD HELP MITIGATE, I BELIEVE THE STORMWATER ISSUES THAT THEY HAVE FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD.
AND FROM WHAT I SAW, THE FOLLOW UP WAS GONNA BE WITH TOWN
[00:10:01]
ENGINEER TO SEE IF IT ADDRESSED IF THE STORMWATER POLLUTION PLAN ADDRESSED THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC'S CONCERN OR NOT.SO I THINK THAT AT THE MEETING, LAST MEETING, I THINK THE CONCERN WAS BECAUSE OF THE RECENT DEVELOPMENT OF THE NEW HOUSES AND THE CUL-DE-SAC, CORRECT? I THINK SO.
I WASN'T AT IT, I WAS JUST WATCHING THE VIDEO, SO, YEAH.
SO I MEAN, I MEAN, I BELIEVE THAT THE HOUSE I, I DON'T THINK ANY ADDITIONAL RUNOFF WAS IN WAS, WAS AN IMPACT BASED ON WHAT MY CLIENT'S PROPERTY, YOU KNOW, HAS NOT DONE YET.
IT WAS ALL BASED ON WHAT WAS THERE.
I MEAN, IT, IT'S, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE STORM SEWERS IN THE STREET.
UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT OR THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WOULD'VE SIGNED OFF ON ANY SORT OF COS ON THE NEW HOUSES THAT ARE NOW OCCUPIED WITHOUT BEING IN COMPLIANT WITH THE APPROVED SUBDIVISION PLAN AND, YOU KNOW, STORMWATER PLAN THAT WAS, YOU KNOW, PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR THE OTHER PARCELS.
DOES THAT KIND OF ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? SO WE DID REACH OUT TO THE TOWN ENGINEER, UH, FOLLOWING THE CLOSE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT, UH, POTENTIAL IMPACTS FROM THIS PROJECT.
AND WE, UH, DID ASK THAT THEY TAKE A HARD LOOK AT, UH, ANY POTENTIAL DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AND, UH, SO WE DID SEND THAT EMAIL ON, UH, NOVEMBER 7TH.
UH, THIS PROJECT WOULD NOT MAKE THE SITUATION WORSE, UH, AS PURSUANT TO TOWN CODE.
YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RUNOFF FROM A PROPERTY.
UH, AND SO THAT'S PART OF THE REASON FOR THE INCLUSION OF CONDITION 4.1, UH, REQUIRING REINFORCED SILT AND STRAW BALES AROUND THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE, UH, TO REALLY ENSURE THAT THE SITUATION'S NOT MADE WORSE.
SO WE DIDN'T GET FEEDBACK FROM TOWN ENGINEER YET.
I RECALL A DISCUSSION, BUT I DON'T REMEMBER ANYTHING IN WRITING.
UM, BUT THIS PROJECT IS NOT THE MULLIGAN LANE SUBDIVISION AS A WHOLE.
THIS IS BUILDING A TWO STORY GARAGE MM-HMM
UM, AND THE, THIS PROJECT, UH, HAS STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO PREVENT, UH, THE INCREASE IN STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM THE PROPERTY.
MR. BURI, CAN YOU CONFIRM WHETHER ANY STORMWATER RUNOFF, UM, WILL BE, UM, JUST CONFIRM WHETHER THERE'S A NET ZERO FROM THE PROPERTY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS, I GUESS IS THE QUESTION.
RIGHT? SO THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL STORMWATER RUNOFF.
SO AS, SO AS FAR AS I KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE DESIGNED A, A, A SUBSURFACE DRAINED SYSTEM FOR THE, UH, PROPOSED GARAGE WITH NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
UM, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE ARE MAINTAINING A GRAVE DRIVEWAY, SO IT REMAINS PERVIOUS.
SO THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OR RUNOFF BASED OFF THE DRIVEWAY.
AND AS FAR AS I KNOW, THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL RUNOFF FROM THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL CAPTURED, YOU KNOW, AS IT WAS, YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY, I MEAN, YOU TOLD ME YOU TOLD THE MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC YOU'D DO SOMETHING, WHICH WE DID.
WE REACHED OUT TO THE TOWN ENGINEER MM-HMM
SO WE REACHED OUT TO THE TOWN ENGINEER ABOUT THE IMPACT FROM THIS PROJECT AND, UH, TO ENSURE THAT THEY TAKE A HARD LOOK AT THEIR STORMWATER PERMIT MM-HMM
UH, TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL RUNOFF CREATED BY THE IMPERVIOUS SERVICES FROM THIS PROJECT.
SO BASED UPON THE PLANS, IF THERE'S NO NET INCREASE FROM THE EXISTING PROJECT, THAT MEANS THERE'S NO STORMWATER GENERATED THAT'S GONNA LEAVE THE SITE AND CONTRIBUTE TO DOWNHILL STORMWATER.
AND THE MULLIGAN LANE SUBDIVISION, MULLIGAN LANE EXTENSION SUBDIVISION WAS COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF AND CLOSED OUT.
I BELIEVE SOME OF THE STORMWATER CONCERNS THAT WERE DISCUSSED MAY HAVE POTENTIALLY BEEN BEFORE THE COM COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AS WELL.
ALTHOUGH I WOULD LOOK TO CONFIRM FROM ENGINEERING, IS THE TOWN ENGINEER AVAILABLE? I REACHED OUT.
I GUESS HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO PROCEED,
[00:15:05]
I MEAN, MAY I, UH, I SAID I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THE PROCEDURE.I KNOW WHAT WAS SAID AT THE MEETING, RIGHT.
SO THIS PROJECT FROM OUR MANAGEMENT SYSTEM MEETS TOWN CODE.
SO DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE VOTING ON, UH, THIS DRAFT DECISION FOR A SPECIAL, UH, FOR A STEEP SLOPE PERMIT? I DON'T KNOW.
LIKE YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO TAKE COMMENTS, MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC'S COMMENTS INTO ACCOUNT WHEN YOU MAKE A DECISION.
AND, AND, AND THE TOWN ENGINEER REVIEWED SURE, GO AHEAD.
REVIEWED THESE PLANS THROUGHOUT ITS REVIEW PROCESS.
ZERO WAY THAT WE COULD APPROVE IT SUBJECT TO THE ENGINEER CONFIRMING SURE.
YOU CAN HAVE THE CONDITION THAT, WOULD YOU BE OKAY WITH THAT, MICHELLE, THE TOWN ENGINEER CONFIRMS THAT, UH, WE WON'T HAVE ANY IMPACT.
THE COMMENT RAISED ABOUT STORMWATER, UM, CHANNEL I, I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY THE LANGUAGE WAS, BUT, UM, CHANNELING DOWNHILL TO, UH, MAYBE MR. OODY CAN SPEAK TO THE DISCUSSION.
YEAH, I, I I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT, BUT, UH, SO, AND I MEAN, THE COMMENT WAS RAISED BASED ON THE MULLIGAN LANE EXTENSION SUBDIVISION, AND THAT DEVELOPMENT CLEARLY HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MY CLIENT'S, YOU KNOW, EXISTING CONDITIONS.
UM, I, I WENT THROUGH AT LEAST NINE MONTHS OF BACK AND FORTH WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ON STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT.
AND, AND I KNOW THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE I SAID, I WOULDN'T HAVE GOTTEN THIS FAR AND GOTTEN AN APPROVAL IF THEY WEREN'T SATISFIED THAT WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING WAS GOING TO MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL.
YOU KNOW, UM, STORMWATER RUN, AND, AND THIS MIGHT BE AN OBVIOUS QUESTION, BUT OVER THE COURSE OF THE NINE MONTHS THAT YOU, YOU, UH, INTERFACED WITH THE TOWN ENGINEER, THE PLAN THAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED CHANGED FROM THE PLAN THAT WAS ULTIMATELY SUBMITTED.
UH, SO THE INITIAL DESIGN WAS BASED ON THE 6.25, UH, PER INCH RAINFALL, WHICH I BELIEVE IS A 25 YEAR STORM.
UH, THAT DIDN'T CHANGE, BUT THERE WERE SOME, MAYBE SOME LOCATION ISSUES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I, I DO THIS ALL THE TIME, YOU KNOW, IF IF THERE'S A REQUIREMENT, WE PROVIDE WHAT WE NEED, YOU KNOW, AND, AND, AND ULTIMATELY YOU GOT TO, YOU KNOW, I, I DON'T, I, I DON'T LIKE TO DANCE AROUND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, TIME IS MONEY AND MONEY IS TIME, YOU KNOW? SURE.
UM, I GOTTA GET IN AND GET OUT FOR MY CLIENT.
BUT, BUT ULTIMATELY YOU GOT TO A POINT WHERE, TO THE, TO THE, YOU, YOU FELT WAS THE TOWN ENGINEER SATISFACTION.
AND, AND, AND SO WITH THE CONDITION, YEAH.
WOULD WE LIKE TO ADD A CONDITION? YEAH.
IF HE JUST SIGNS OFF ON IT, YOU KNOW, I, I'D BE, I'D BE HAPPY.
JUST, AND IT'S MOSTLY THE, THE PROCEDURAL WE, YOU KNOW, A RESIDENT ASKED A QUESTION, WE SAID WE WERE GONNA FOLLOW UP, YOU FOLLOWED UP.
BUT THEY NEVER, BUT THE ENGINEER NEVER RESPONDED.
I ASSUME HE'S GONNA COME BACK AND SAY IT'S FINE.
SO, AND YOU KNOW, DO YOU WANNA WRITE THE CONDITION OR IS THERE A CONDITION THAT, SO I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY THE LANGUAGE FROM THE CONDITION.
SO CAN YOU COMMENT? CAN YOU JUST, YEAH.
CAN YOU JUST MAKE IT, IT WAS TO THE FOLLOW UP AS COMMITTED TO AT THE END, NOVEMBER 5TH MEETING OR WHATEVER.
JUST CROSS, CROSS-REFERENCE THE COMMENT IF WE HAVE, IF WE HAVE IT.
I ASSUME IT'S MEETING, MEETING NOTES.
YOU KNOW, AND I COULD PULL UP THE TRANSCRIPT, YOU KNOW, IT WAS ADDRESSED AND IT HAD NO, YOU KNOW, ADVERSE IMPACT.
UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE DECISION? ALRIGHT, THEN I WILL, UH, SO WE HAVE TWO ACTIONS TO TAKE HERE.
UH, THE FIRST WOULD BE TO VOTE TO CLASSIFY THE ACTION AS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER CCRA.
UM, SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, UH, CLASSIFY THIS ACTION AS A TYPE TWO ACTION.
UM, AND THEN THE SECOND ACTION IS TO, UH, APPROVE THE DRAFT DECISION AS DISTRIBUTED, UM, WITH THE ADDED CONDITION THAT AS AMENDED, UH, AS AMENDED BASED ON THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION FOR A STEEP SLOPE PERMIT.
UH, NEXT UP WE HAVE TB 25 0 9 METROPOLIS COUNTRY CLUB.
UH, AND HERE WE HAVE, UH, A TOWN BOARD AMENDED SITE PLAN AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.
UM, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, MY NAME IS ANNIE KLEIN.
I'M AN ASSOCIATE AT DELBELLO ELLE AND WEINGARTEN WISE AND WHITAKER.
UM, MARK WEINGARTEN WAS HERE, UH, AT YOUR EARLIER MEETING AND, UH, GAVE YOU A PRESENTATION.
[00:20:01]
MEMBER, ANDY NATHAN, A MEMBER OF THE CLUB, AND ALSO OUR, UH, ENGINEER ADAM BERG ON IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE ON THIS PROJECT.SO ALSO WATCHING THE VIDEO, 'CAUSE I WASN'T AT THE LAST MEETING, UM, I THINK THERE WAS A COMMENT MADE, UH, ABOUT THE NEED FOR SCREENING AND THAT THE BELIEF WAS THAT THAT BUILDING CAN'T BE SEEN TODAY.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND IS THAT PEOPLE TAKE A DRIVE UP SKI ORINO PLACE TOMORROW AND YOU CAN SEE THE ENTIRE BUILDING FROM MOST OF THE STREET.
SO I KNOW WE SPOKE ABOUT, YOU GUYS SPOKE ABOUT IN THE MEETING ABOUT CONDITIONING, UM, REQUIRING SCREENING.
WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND IS THAT, THAT SCREENING THE, THE, THE APPLICANT LOOKS AT THE STATE OF IT TODAY, WHICH IS YOU SEE THE ENTIRE BUILDING FROM THE PROPERTY, LIKE LITERALLY FROM ME TOO, WHERE THEY'RE SITTING, YOU SEE THE WHOLE BUILDING, LIKE IT'S RIGHT ON TOP OF THOSE PEOPLE AND THERE'S NO SCREENING, RIGHT? YEAH.
AND I, I KNOW THAT YOU'VE PUT FORWARD SOME SORT OF PLAN, I DON'T KNOW HOW MATURE THE TREES OR, OR EVERGREENS OR WHATEVER YOU PLAN ON PUTTING, LIKE COULD IT BE FIVE YEARS BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY GET COVERAGE? UM, I WOULD DEFER TO ADAM ON, ON THAT.
IT'S LIKE A BUILDING LIKE, YEAH.
SO WE HAVE SHOWN 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, UM, PRETTY LARGE EVERGREEN TREES.
UH, WHEN THEY GO IN, OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT GONNA GO IN AT 30 FEET TALL.
THEY WOULD GO IN, UH, RIGHT NOW WE HAVE INSPECTED EIGHT, 10 FEET TALL.
UM, BUT THAT WOULD PROVIDE A, A PRETTY DENSE, UH, SCREEN, CERTAINLY MORE THAN WHAT IS THERE RIGHT NOW.
UH, AND OBVIOUSLY THAT'S THAT, UH, SCREEN WILL MATURE OVER TIME.
BUT IS IT LIKE, SO THEY'RE GONNA SEE THE BUILDING FOR ANOTHER FIVE YEARS WHILE IT TAKES ITS TIME TO GROW? OR CAN YOU CHOOSE TO PUT IN MORE MATURE TREES NOW? DO YOU WANNA THERE'S A LIMIT TO, TO WHAT YOU CAN RE REALISTICALLY PUT IN, UM, BEFORE YOU WIND UP PUTTING SOMETHING IN THAT'S, THAT'S GOT A LOW PROBABILITY OF SURVIVING.
SO EIGHT TO 10 FEET IS, IS A PRETTY GOOD SIZE FOR STARTING.
UH, THESE KINDS OF EVER TREE EVERGREEN TREES ARE, ARE PRETTY FAST GROWING.
UM, SO WE, WE'D BE RELUCTANT TO PUT IN ANYTHING MUCH BIGGER THAN THIS JUST BECAUSE THE SURVIVAL RATE IS, IS NOT GREAT WHEN YOU PUT IN SOMETHING THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE THAT LARGE.
SO STAFF HAS PREPARED A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION ON THE AMENDED SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO THE TOWN BOARD.
AND IN THE SECTION D ON SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING, UH, STAFF HAS INCLUDED, UH, FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION A RECOMMENDATION, UH, THAT THE TOWN BOARD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO EXPLORE THE INCLUSION OF ADDITIONAL EVERGREEN SCREENING INTERSPERSED WITH THE EXISTING DECIDUOUS TREES.
WHERE POSSIBLE TO KIND OF ADDRESS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE, IN THE WINTER THERE'S NO MORE LEAVES ON THE DECIDUOUS TREES, SO THEY SEE RIGHT THROUGH 'EM.
UH, DOES THAT SATISFY, UH, YOUR CONCERN OR, UH, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE ADDITIONAL? I WOULD LIKE, SO THE COMMENT MADE IN THE MEETING WAS THAT THEY DIDN'T THINK THAT SCREENING WAS AN ISSUE TODAY.
I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO GO UP THAT STREET TOMORROW AND SEE IF THEY'RE GONNA GIVE A DIFFERENT ANSWER ON THE TYPE OF SCREENING THAT THEY'RE GONNA PUT IN.
AND DID, DID WE RECEIVE ANY COMMENTS FROM ANY NEIGHBORS FROM, DID WE ASK ANY NEIGHBORS'? THAT WAS ALSO WHAT I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IN THE MEETING.
IT SOUNDED LIKE WE'D ASKED NANCY PLACE HAD BEEN NAST BUT NOT GUILTY.
NO WAY PLACE AT BEEN NAS I'M SORRY, WHO'S CUTTING ON THE ZOOM? WELL, AND SO UL ULTIMATELY WE ARE, WE ARE NOT THE LEAD AGENCY ON THIS APPLICATION.
AND SO AT SOME POINT, SO THE, AT SOME POINT THE TOWN BOARD RECOMMENDATION WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE NOTICED TO ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE PROPERTY.
BUT THE RECOMMENDATION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE IS DON'T WAIT FOR THAT MEET OR SPEAK TO THE RESIDENTS ON SKI NO PLACE AS PART OF THE SCREENING.
I THINK WE MADE IT BECAUSE WE ASKED THAT, DID YOU TALK TO ANY NEIGHBORS? UH, BEFORE WE MAKE RECOMMENDATION? AND THEY SAY IT'S NOT, THEY HAVEN'T MADE IT.
SO I THINK IT'S A GOOD TO HAVE NOTED INTO OUR, UH, DECISIONS THAT, UH, NEIGHBORS WERE NOT INFORMED AND THEY SHOULD HAVE A, UM, YEAH, THEY SHOULD HAVE SOME PROCESS PUT IN.
SO BEFORE THEY, UH, OR WE CAN MAKE IT AS ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
SO WHAT, HOW WOULD YOU LIKE TO INCLUDE THAT RECOMMENDATION? RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD? YEAH.
AND HOW NO, WHAT WOULD, SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE APPLICANT A, LOOKS AT THE SITE FROM SINA PLACE AND THEN B TALKS TO THE, LIKE YOU'LL SEE ONCE YOU'RE THERE WHO YOU NEED TO TALK TO.
AND THE OTHER THING I WANNA ASK IS, IT'S LITERALLY LIKE YOU OPEN THE DOOR WHEN THE BUILDING IS THERE IS NOISE AND HAS NOISE EVER BEEN AN ISSUE FOR THE NEIGHBORS? AND BECAUSE I'M
[00:25:01]
JUST, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU'VE GOT PEOPLE WHO DON'T LIVE THERE, LIVING THERE FOR THE SUMMER, YOU'RE NOT NECESSARILY CARING WHAT YOUR NEIGHBOR THINKS.SO WE CAN, SO, SO WE COULD RECOMMEND THAT THE TOWN BOARD GET ANY, UH, POLICE REPORTS OR, OR NOTICES OF, OF NOISE COMPLAINTS.
JUST TO LIKE, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU NEED TO DO ANY NOISE MITIGATION, BUT I'D LIKE TO KNOW.
ANNETTE, YOU COULD FIND OUT AS WELL BY TALKING TO THE NEIGHBOR.
WE CAN PUT IT INTO RECOMMENDATION.
I'LL JUST LET YOU KNOW, WE ARE GOING TO THE ZONING BOARD TOMORROW NIGHT.
SO ALL NEIGHBORS HAVE BEEN NOTIFIED IN REGARDS TO THAT AND AS WELL AS THE TOWN BOARD PUBLIC HEARING.
SO IF THERE ARE ANY ISSUES, THEY WILL COME UP AT EITHER MEETING.
I'M NOT ASKING FOR NOTIFICATION, I'M ASKING FOR YOU TO GET THEIR INPUT.
ON THE SCREENING AND ON THE NOISE.
CAN YOU PUT YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD PLEASE? SORRY.
DID YOU? MAY, MAY I, UH, THIS IS ANDY NATHAN.
MAY I JUST CLARIFY ONE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE? WHO IS IT? UH, THIS IS ANDY NATHAN, HE'S PRESIDENT OF THE CLUB.
CAN YOU HEAR ME? YEAH, GO AHEAD.
SO WHEN WE WERE ASKED AT THE MEETING WHETHER WE HAD SPOKEN TO ANY OF THE NEIGHBORS AND WE SAID NO, THE EXPLANATION THAT WE GAVE WAS THAT SINCE THE CURRENT FACILITY HAS BEEN THERE FOR MANY, MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS, AND THE SCREENING THAT EXISTED HAD BEEN THERE FOR MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS AND WHAT WE WERE BUILDING WAS LESS IMPACTFUL AND BETTER LOOKING AND WE WERE ADDING SCREENING, WE DIDN'T THINK IT WAS NECESSARY TO SPEAK TO ANYBODY 'CAUSE WE WERE IMPROVING THE SITUATION.
UH, AND I'M, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT I'M NOT, I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND BEING ARGUMENTATIVE.
I RESPECT THE COMMENTS THAT BEING MADE, BUT IT'S NOT THAT WE SIMPLY DIDN'T TALK TO ANYBODY.
IT DIDN'T OCCUR TO US THAT WE SHOULD FOR IMPROVING THE BUILDING, THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDING, THE SOUNDPROOFING OF THE BUILDING, THE SCREENING OF THE BUILDING, AND THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.
SO THAT'S, I THINK THAT CONTEXT IS IN CONTEXT IS IMPORTANT.
ALRIGHT, SO WE HAVE TWO PROPOSED NEW RECOMMENDATIONS.
ONE THAT, UH, THE TOWN BOARD ENCOURAGED THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS AND GET THEIR FEEDBACK ON THE PROPOSAL.
AND TWO, FOR THE TOWN BOARD TO, UH, REQUEST ANY RECORDS, IF ANY EXIST OF ANY NOISE COMPLAINTS, UH, FROM, FROM THE PROPERTY.
SO I WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO TALK TO THE NEIGHBOR AS WELL ABOUT LIKE, IS NOISE AN ISSUE AND IS THERE ANY MITIGATION NEEDED? ALONG WITH, BECAUSE JUST BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO LIVE WITH NOISE DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE MAKING A POLICE COMPLAINT.
ESPECIALLY IF YOU'VE LIVED WITH IT TO THE TOWN BOARD MM-HMM
THAT THEY ASKED THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK TO NEIGHBORS TO OBTAIN THEIR FEEDBACK ON THE EXISTING SCREENING CONDITIONS AND THE PROPOSED EXISTING NOISE, THE PROPOSED, THEN THE PROPOSED SCREENING, AND THEN THE PROPOSED NOISE EXISTING AND PROPOSED SCREENING AND NOISE IMPACTS.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO, IS THE, UH, THE TWO ZONING, UH, AMENDMENTS, RIGHT? I MEAN THE VARIANCES YEAH, VARIANCES.
UH, SO WHAT IS, WHAT IS EXISTING? IT SAYS PERMITTED AND PROPOSED.
SO, SO I KNOW THERE WAS SOME BACK AND FORTH ON, ON THE VARIANCE MEMOS OF THE LAST MEETING MM-HMM
UM, I GUESS WHOEVER'S MORE APPROPRIATE TO WALK US THROUGH IT.
COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH, UH, IDENTIFY THE EXISTING HEIGHT OF THE SURE.
STRUCTURE AND THE EXISTING SETBACK? SO THE EXISTING SETBACK OF THE STRUCTURE IS 15 FEET.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO PUSH IT BACK FOUR FEET, SO IT WOULD BE 19 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, SO IT WILL BE FURTHER AWAY THAN THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.
UM, THE HEIGHT OF THE CURRENT BUILDING IS A, I, I'LL DEFER TO ADAM ON THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT IS ACTUALLY TALLER THAN WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING.
SO FROM THE VIEWS OF THE NEIGHBORS, THE BUILDINGS WILL BE, WHAT IS IT, ABOUT A FOOT AND A HALF SHORTER ADAM? YEAH.
SO YEAH, SO IT, WITH, WITH REGARD TO THE EXISTING BUILDINGS, THE WAY THAT THE CODE DEFINE DEFINES BUILDING HEIGHT, UH, THERE WILL, THE, THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL ACTUALLY BE, UH, ABOUT 0.6 FEET TALLER BASED ON THAT DEFINITION.
BUT THE ELEVATION OF THE RIDGE OF THE, OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL SIT A COUPLE OF FEET LOWER THAN THE RIDGE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.
SO HOW IT SITS ON THE LANDSCAPE, IT WILL BE, IT WILL BE, IT WILL BE LOWER.
UM, SO YOU DO SEE ON THE, UH, ON THE PLAN AND IN OUR APPLICATION THAT THE BUILDING WILL BE 0.6 FEET, UH, TALLER BASED ON COUNT CODE, BUT BASED ON ELEVATION, THE BUILDING WILL ACTUALLY SIT LOWER.
SO THE REAL EXPERIENCE OF, OF THE NEW BUILDING, UH, IT, IT'LL BE LOWER THAN WHAT'S THERE
[00:30:01]
NOW.SO IF I'M, UH, IT'S A ONE STORY BUILDING EXISTING, ISN'T IT? AND YOU'RE PROPOSING TWO STORIES? NO, IT'S TWO STORIES.
AND, AND SO THE PROPOSED VARIANCES IS 22.8 FEET PROPOSED WHERE 12 FEET IS PERMITTED FOR THE HEIGHT, UH, AND THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE BUILDING TO LOT LINE FROM 200 FEET REQUIRED TO 19 FEET PROPOSED.
BUT AS THE APPLICANT SAID, THE 19 FEET PROPOSED IS STILL FURTHER AWAY FROM THE EXISTING, UH, SETBACK OF THE CURRENT BUILDING.
SO WE HAVE TWO ACTIONS TO TAKE.
THERE WAS, SORRY, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ON, IT'S NOT A PARCEL, NOT TWO SEPARATE PARCELS, NOT TWO SEPARATE.
SO THAT WAS IN THE, THAT WAS IN THE, THE, THERE WAS THREE, THREE VARIANCE MEMOS THAT WERE PRESENTED OVER THE COURSE OF A, A FEW WEEKS.
UM, THE VARIANCE MEMO THAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE BOARD AT THE LAST MEETING IN THE PACKET WAS NOT THE MOST RECENT ONE.
UM, THE MOST RECENT MEMO, WHICH I THINK WAS DATED OCTOBER 31ST HALLOWEEN, UM, CLARIFIED ALL THAT.
SO THAT'S, AND SO NO, NO VARIANCE IS REQUIRED FOR, IT'S CLARIFYING THAT THERE'S TWO PARCELS, ONE'S AN R 15, ONE'S AN R 20, AND WE'RE DOING THIS IS MOST, IS THIS ALL IN THE R 15 OR SOME IN THE R 20? IS IN THE R 20.
R 20? NO, THE BRIGHT VIEW PARCEL THAT WAS, UH, SUBDIVIDED OFF AS PART OF THAT APPLICATION IS IN THE R 15.
IS AND THIS IS HAPPENING IN THE R 15? NO, THIS IS IN THE R 20.
IT'S, IT'S HAPPENING IN THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS IN THE R 20 DISTRICT, I BELIEVE.
JOINING US, WE HAVE A COMMISSIONER OF CONSERVATION AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT, GARRETT TUCAN.
I THINK THERE WAS, UH, A REFERENCE TO BOTH ZONING DISTRICTS AND SOME OF THE EARLIER MEMOS AND PERHAPS A PRIOR AGENDA.
BUT, UM, THE GULF, IT'S CURRENTLY ON GIS, THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT IS R 15 AND THE PRIMARY REAL ESTATE SITE IS R 20.
IT, IT MAY BE WRONG, BUT YEAH.
SO THE ARC GIS IF YOU GO TO THE CAI PROPERTY CARD SAYS THAT THE, THIS LITTLE PARCEL IS R 15.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ACTUAL ADOPTED ZONING MAP ON THE TOWN PDF, IT IS SHOWN IN THE R 20.
AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO VERIFY.
SO, UM, WE CAN TALK TO THE ASSESSOR'S DEPARTMENT TO UPDATE THE GIS IT'S R 20 ZONE, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE VARIANCES ARE REFLECTING.
WOULD THAT BE AN APPROPRIATE, UH, RECOMMENDATION TO RECOMMEND TO UPDATE THE GIS MAP? WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE A NOTE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE A PART OF THIS APPLICATION.
ONE, ONE LAST THING IS THAT I THINK, UH, THE, WHAT IS, UH, CONSTRUCTION GOING ON RIGHT NOW FOR THE, UH, THE UH, UH, THE CCCF FACILITIES THAT THEY ARE BUILDING IN THE RIGHT NOW ON THE SITE HAS A LOT OF RUNOFF, UH, DUE DURING THE RAINY SEASONS.
AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WHEN THEY DO THIS BUILDING THAT THEY HAVE TAKE MORE PRECAUTIONS AND PROTECTION SO THE, UH, WATER DOES NOT RUN DOWN AND THEN GOES INTO THE, UH, THE COMMUNITY THAT LIVES ON OTHER SIDE OF THE
AND, AND I THINK FROM THE CONVERSATION AT THE LAST MEETING, THE, THE, THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THIS PARCEL IS SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT, BUT, BUT IT'S STILL WOULD HAVE SOME RUNOFF BECAUSE THEY HAD TO BUILD THE ACCESS.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING, I THINK THEY STATED AT THE PRIOR MEETING THAT THE WATER WOULD REMAIN ON THE GOLF COURSE AND THE SPREADER WOULD, UM, THEY DID, THEY DID SAY THAT, BUT THEY, THEY SAY ALL THAT STUFF, BUT THEY DON'T DO IT.
WE KNOW STORM WATER IS IMPORTANT AND UH, WE'LL ENSURE THAT YEAH, IT'S GONNA SUBJECT TO A STORMWATER PERMIT AND THEY JUST SORT OF BE COMMENT NOTED.
YEAH, I MEAN DEFINITELY RECOMMEND THE TOWN BOARD THAT I ENSURE ADDED INTO A RECOMMENDATION.
ENSURE THAT YOU CAN DEFINITELY RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT ADDITIONAL STORM WATER AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES ARE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.
IN, IN THE MEETING THE COMMENT WAS MADE THAT THE WATER RUNS EAST TO WASTE WASTE TO EAST AND FLOWS BACK INTO THE GULF COURSE.
BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE TOPOGRAPHY, I DON'T, I'M NOT QUITE SURE HOW THAT'S, UM, HAPPENED UNLESS THERE'S BEEN GRADING THAT'S HAPPENED AND THAT'S DIFFERENT TO WHAT THE TOPOGRAPHY IS.
YEAH, JUST, JUST ADD ONE COMMENT.
SO, SO I HAVE THREE, UH, OR SORT OF TWO, TWO ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, RECOMMEND THAT THE NE NEIGHBORS ARE ENGAGED AND PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THE EXISTING SCREENING, THE PROPOSED SCREENING AND ANY NOISE IMPACTS FROM THE BUILDING.
UM, AND THEN ALSO, UH, THAT THE TOWN BOARD EXPLORE ADDITIONAL STORM WATER AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES TO ENSURE THAT, UM, THERE ISN'T ANY IMPACT LIKE OTHER, OTHER, UH, PARCELS IN THE AREA.
AND MAYBE THEY SHOULD HAVE MONITORING BECAUSE, UM, THE CONTRACTORS WHO DOES IS NOT THE SAME AS OWNER.
[00:35:01]
SURE.AND ULTIMATELY, AGAIN, WE'RE NOT THE LEAD AGENCY, SO WE CAN RECOMMEND WHATEVER WITHIN REASON WE CAN RECOMMEND.
AND THEN SEPARATELY, WHO'S FOLLOWING UP ON THE GISI, I THINK COMMISSIONER, THE COMMISSIONER HAS MADE NOTE
THAT'S, THAT'S AS OFFICIAL AS IT GETS, UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK? SO THEN WE HAVE TWO ACTIONS.
UM, WE'LL VOTE ON THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD, UH, FOR THE AMENDED SITE PLAN APPLICATION.
AND THEN WE WILL VOTE ON THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR THE AREA VARIANCES.
UM, SO WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
UH, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS AS DISTRIBUTED WITH THE TWO ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED, UH, TO, TO, UH, AND, AND SO THANK YOU.
UH, SO WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO POSITIVE, NEGATIVE, OR NEUTRAL.
I, I, I PERSONALLY DON'T FEEL THERE'S ANY, UH, DRAMATICALLY POSITIVE, UH, PLANNING, PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS HERE.
SO I THINK BASED ON THE STANDARDS THAT WE'VE USED, RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PAST, UH, THIS WOULD BE A, A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.
UM, SO THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, UH, DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DOWN BOARD FOR A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION FOR THE AMENDED SITE PLAN APPLICATION, UH, WITH THE TWO ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED.
IS THAT, IS THAT A MOTION? YEAH, SURE.
UH, NEXT UP WE HAVE, UH, SIMILARLY WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR THE AREA VARIANCES.
TO REITERATE, THERE ARE TWO VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED.
UH, ONE, THE HEIGHT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE FROM 12 FEET PERMITTED TO 22.8 FEET PROPOSED, AND THE MINIMUM SETBACK FROM THE BUILDING TO THE LOT LINE FROM 200 FEET REQUIRED TO 19 FEET PROPOSED.
UM, WHILE, WHILE THERE ARE SOME MARGINAL IMPROVEMENTS IN, IN THESE VARIANCES REQUESTED, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE DRAMATIC ENOUGH TO MEET OUR STANDARD FOR A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
UM, AND SO MY, MY PERSONAL SUGGESTION WOULD BE NEUTRAL.
UM, BUT I'D BE CURIOUS WHAT THE REST OF THE BOARD FEELS.
I, I MEAN I DON'T, WHAT I'M JUST TRYING TO SEE IN THE ACTUAL, UM, I DON'T THINK IT'S MAKING CLEAR THAT THIS IS A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON THE FACT THAT IT'S ALREADY THERE.
OR AM I MISSING IT? CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE I CAN SEE THAT IN THE, UH, THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION? THE ZEBO A YEAH.
SO IT'S A PRETTY, SOME LIKE, IT'S A PRETTY BASIC DOCUMENT.
WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN EXISTING STAFF HOUSING BUILDING OF GREATER HEIGHT AND CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE YEAH.
BECAUSE I THOUGHT IF YOU HAD JUST READING THIS, YOU'RE LIKE, THESE PEOPLE WENT FROM 19 TO TWO, FROM 200 TO 19 WITHOUT THE CONTEXT.
IT'S BEING APPROVED NOT BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.
WE CAN, SO YEAH, WE CAN CERTAINLY ADD THAT THERE'S AN EXISTING BUILDING.
UH, AND THESE VARIANCES WHILE REQUIRED ARE LESSER THAN THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.
UH, THIS IS ABOUT THE, UM, THE VARIANCES VARIANCE MEMO.
CAN WE JUST ADD EXISTING SO THAT WE CLARIFY PERMITTED? YEAH.
SO THE BUILDING IS ACTUALLY GOING TO SIT LOWER EVEN THOUGH IT'S TALLER.
SO BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHY, RIGHT? YES.
VISUALLY IT WILL APPEAR LOWER.
BUT FOR THE WAY TOWN CODE REQUIRES HEIGHT TO BE MEASURED, IT WILL BE HIGHER.
BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE TOWN BOARD TO KNOW THAT YOU KNOW, THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE GIVING THE VARIANCE THAT VISUALLY IT'S LOWER.
AND, AND THIS IS, THESE ARE, THESE ARE THE ZONING BOARD VARIANCES, BUT POINT POINTS WELL TAKEN AND I THINK THE APPLICANT WILL, WILL DEFINITELY MAKE THAT POINT.
I THINK WE DEFINITELY SHOULD PUT THE BACKGROUND IN THE CONTEXT THAT THERE'S AN, I THINK IT'S MORE BACKGROUND INFORMATION AS OPPOSED TO, UH, LEANING TOWARDS PEOPLE THINKING NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.
I AGREE THAT IT'S, EVEN THOUGH YOU NEED A VARIANCE, THERE'S MORE SETBACK NOW THAN, UH, WITH THIS THAN THERE CURRENTLY EXISTS.
SO THEY SHOULD KNOW THAT SLIGHT IMPROVEMENT.
SLIGHT IMPROVEMENT, BUT IT'S FOUR FEET.
WHEN IT, IN AN IDEAL WORLD, IT WOULD BE 84 FEET.
WELL, WELL, SO DO, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THEN THAT WE MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION OR IS IT JUST NEUTRAL? NEUTRAL? I THINK IT SHOULD BE NEUTRAL.
EMPHASIZING THAT IT'S STILL AN IMPROVEMENT YOU'RE LOOKING AT AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT 19 VERSUS THEY OUGHT TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S STILL MORE THAN WHAT IT CURRENTLY EXISTS.
SO, SO IT'D BE A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION WHILE EMPHASIZING THAT THESE ARE IMPROVEMENTS BASED ON THESE EXISTING I DON'T WANT OVEREMPHASIZE IT.
SO JUST STATING THE FACTS THAT OF, OF THE PRE NOTHING, NOTHING OF THE CURRENT EXISTING CONDITION AND THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS.
WHAT I HAVE UH, ADDED, UH, IS THE
[00:40:01]
PLANNING BOARD NOTES THAT THERE IS EXISTING STAFF HOUSING STRUCTURE, WHICH IS HIGHER AND CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE SETBACK THAN THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.THE, I THINK I, I THINK WE CAN JUST SIMPLY GIVE THE BACKGROUND THAT, THAT THERE'S AN EXISTING STRUCTURE.
THERE'S HOUSING THERE, THERE'S TWO EXISTING TWO BUILDINGS.
THERE'LL BE ONE BUILDING REPLACING THE EXISTING TWO BUILDINGS.
IT'LL BE FURTHER SET BACK THAN EXISTING CONDITIONS.
AND EVEN THOUGH THE HEIGHT IS INCREASING BECAUSE OF THE GRADING, IT IS LOWER VISUALLY THAN EXISTING CONDITIONS.
YOU'RE JUST, YOU'RE JUST PROVIDING FACTUAL INFORMATION.
YOU'RE NOT PROVIDING COMMENTARY BECAUSE IT'S A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.
SO I THINK WE CAN JUST GIVE A LITTLE MORE CONTEXT TO THE RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK THE, BUT IS THE SECOND ONE DEFINITELY BEING DEMOED? 'CAUSE I DIDN'T SEE THAT.
I I THINK THE APPLICANT'S GOING TO DO THAT.
ALRIGHT, SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, SORRY, YOU GOT ONE MORE QUESTION? I'M, I'M STUCK WITH IT ON THE HEIGHT.
I KNOW THERE'S THIS, YOU KNOW, THE ONE THAT, LIKE THE ONE THAT'S BEING BUILT IS TALLER IF YOU TAKE CONTEXT OF HEIGHT, THINK IT'S MORE SECTION OF THE PI PITCH OF THE ROOF IS, WHAT WAS IT? IT'S THE WAY IT'S MEASURED.
SO IT'S THE MEASUREMENT FACTOR.
SO, UM, IT'S, IT'S GRADED TO HALF THE PITCH OF THE ROOF LINE IS HOW IT'S MEASURED.
SO BY CODE THE NUMBER'S A LITTLE HIGHER.
I THINK THE VISUAL IMPRESSION FROM A AFAR WILL BE THAT IT'S A SLIGHTLY, UM, BUT LIKE, ARE WE TALKING A FOOT OR ARE WE, I THINK IT'S A COUPLE FEET NEGLIGIBLE, BUT, BUT NOT, NOT, UH, MORE IMPOSING THAN WHAT'S THERE.
ANY UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD FOR THE AREA VARIANCES, UH, AS A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION WITH THE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT, UH, AS AMENDED WITH THE CONTEXT THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED.
MR. WEINBERG? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
UM, BEFORE WE MOVE INTO BMR LEY PARK, UH, MS. ANDERSON IS ASKING IF SHE'S ABLE TO ZOOM IN FOR THE BETHEL KNOLLS DISCUSSION.
SO WE HAVE QUORUM HERE IN THE ROOM.
WE HAVE QUORUM PRESENT, SO YES, SHE CAN ZOOM IN.
UM, I THINK SHE'D BE VOTING OR NON VOTING.
SHE WOULD BE VOTING BECAUSE WE HAVE QUORUM PRESENT.
CAN WE TAKE A TWO MINUTE RECESS JUST TO GET HER ON ZOOM? YEAH, SURE.
UM, WE'RE GONNA TAKE THE AGENDA OUT OF ORDER SINCE WE HAVE A MEMBER, UM, OR I GUESS IT'S ACTUALLY IN THE AGENDA IN THE ORDER THAT THE AGENDA WAS ORIGINALLY DISTRIBUTED.
UM, SO NEXT UP WILL BE TB 24 0 1 PB 24 0 4 VMR ALEY PARK.
UH, AND THIS IS FOR A TOWN BOARD SITE PLAN REFERRAL FROM THE TOWN BOARD, UH, A TOWN BOARD TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND A PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT.
AND I'LL JUST REMIND EVERYONE, THE TOWN BOARD IS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR THIS APPLICATION.
UM, AND, AND OUR GOAL IS TO PROVIDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD TO FURTHER REFINE AND IMPROVE THE PROJECT AS THEY GOOF GO THROUGH THEIR, THEIR APPROVAL PRO PROCESS.
UH, DO WE HAVE THEM SEEKER OR THE TOWN? THE TOWN BOARD IS THE LEAD AGENCY FOR SEEKER FOR THIS PROJECT.
CAN YOU STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD? YEAH, MY NAME'S ETHAN WALSH.
UM, SO GOOD EVENING EVERYBODY.
UM, LIKE I SAID, MY NAME'S ETHAN WALSH, I'M WITH BIOMED REALTY, UH, WE'RE THE APPLICANT.
UM, I JUST WANNA INTRODUCE MY TEAM QUICKLY.
UM, MOST OF WHOM, YOU KNOW, UH, WE HAVE PAUL AK FROM JMC, JENNIFER GRAY FROM KEENAN BEAN.
ALSO WANNA INTRODUCE MY COLLEAGUE SAL ZOW, ALSO FROM BMR. UM, I'M EXPECTING A NEW MEMBER OF MY FAMILY IN A COUPLE WEEKS AND SO SAL'S GONNA BE TAKING OVER FOR ME WHILE I'M AWAY.
UM, SO TONIGHT, YOU KNOW, I THINK I WANNA SAY THIS IS THE FOURTH TIME WE'VE BEEN IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD AND SO I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE AN EXTENSIVE PRESENTATION.
UM, WE DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE RECENT SUBMITTAL MATERIALS TO PUT ON SCREEN TO HELP ANSWER QUESTIONS.
UM, WE'RE HAPPY TO PUT THAT SITE PLAN AND ANY OTHER DOCUMENTATION UP ON SCREEN.
UM, BUT WE'RE REALLY HERE TO, TO ANSWER ANY REMAINING QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE RECENTLY SUBMITTED I THINK A, A MATRIX OF, UM, ABOUT 50 RESPONSES TO SOME RECENT QUESTIONS.
WE'RE HAPPY TO, AND I KNOW WE'VE RECEIVED A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS MAYBE SINCE THAT TIME.
UM, WHICH I THINK MOSTLY ARE COVERED WITHIN THAT MATRIX BY OTHER, YOU KNOW, PLAYING BOARD MEMBERS.
BUT WE'RE OBVIOUSLY HAPPY TO COVER ANY, ANY NEW QUESTIONS OR RECOVER ANY GROUND THAT IS WITHIN THAT MATRIX THAT THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, WANTS TO RECOVER, UM, OR GO DEEPER INTO.
UM, OTHERWISE, UM, LIKE I SAID,
[00:45:01]
WE REALLY JUST WANTED TO OPEN IT UP TO, YOU KNOW, AN OPEN DISCUSSION TO COVER ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.UM, I WILL SAY, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE MADE A NUMBER OF MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROJECT IN THE COURSE OF THIS PROCESS.
SO FAR, I'D SAY THE LARGEST SITE PLAN MODIFICATION THAT, THAT WE WENT AHEAD AND DID INCORPORATE IN RESPONSE TO THIS BOARD'S COMMENTS WAS THE SIDEWALK EDITION.
UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE ALSO MADE A NUMBER OF SMALLER MODIFICATIONS, SOME ARCHITECTURAL ADJUSTMENTS TO CREATE MORE INTEREST FOR THE PROJECT, UM, IN A NUMBER OF THINGS IN RESPONSE TO, TO THE TOWN ENGINEER COMMENTS, ET CETERA.
BUT, UM, BUT I DID WANNA SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ARE, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE NOT MAKING MAJOR CHANGES IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE'RE NOT HEARING THE COMMENTS AND THAT WE'RE TAKING THEM VERY SERIOUSLY ALSO.
BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE ARE WAITING TO, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, COLLECT ALL OF THE COMMENTS, ALL OF THE FINAL COMMENTS FROM THIS BOARD AND CARRY THAT INTO OUR CONVERSATIONS WITH THE TOWN BOARD WHO I KNOW ARE GOING TO HAVE THEIR OWN SET OF COMMENTS AND THE PROJECT IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO EVOLVE.
SO I JUST WANTED TO GIVE YOU THAT COMFORT THAT WE'RE NOT IGNORING A COMMENT BY NOT MAKING A MAJOR SITE PLAN MODIFICATION IN RESPONSE TO IT.
WE ARE CONTINUING TO INTERNALIZE THOSE COMMENTS, COLLECT THOSE COMMENTS, AND I KNOW THAT THEY'VE BEEN DOCUMENTED AND FORMALIZED AND WE WILL CARRY THOSE COMMENTS WITH US TO THE TOWN BOARD DISCUSSIONS THAT WE'RE HOPING TO HAVE VERY SOON.
SO, YOU KNOW, BASED ON THE, THE AGENDA AND WE HAVE TWO PRETTY MEATY ITEMS, THIS AND, AND BETHEL MOLES, UM, I'D LOVE TO HAVE ABOUT AN HOUR DISCUSSION ON BMR ALEY PARK.
UM, THERE'S, THERE'S A COUPLE OF DIRECTIONS THAT, THAT WE CAN TAKE THIS CONVERSATION.
I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS SUBMITTED, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS ANSWERED.
UM, IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT WE WANT TO ASK, WE CAN SPEND THIS TIME ASKING THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY THE GOAL WOULD BE TO GET TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN ASK STAFF TO DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, AND SO WE COULD ALSO SPEND TIME NOW, YOU KNOW, HAVING A CONVERSATION ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHERE OUR CONCERNS ARE AND WHAT ADDITIONAL ITEMS WE RECOMMEND THE TOWN BOARD TO EXPLORE.
UM, YOU KNOW, ONE WAY THAT WE CAN, YOU KNOW, I'D I'D ENCOURAGE YOU TO THINK THIS THROUGH IS, YOU KNOW, WHERE IS THE LINE BETWEEN COMFORT AND DISCOMFORT AND WHAT SPECIFIC CHANGES COULD BE MADE OR, OR SPECIFIC THINGS, UH, ULTIMATELY BE CONDITIONED, UH, THAT WOULD MAKE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COMFORT AND AND DISCOMFORT.
UM, SO HOW DO WE WANNA USE THIS HOUR? DO WE WANNA ASK MORE QUESTIONS OR DO WE WANNA START REALLY DIGGING INTO WHAT ARE THINGS THAT THAT WE FEEL THE TOWN BOARD SHOULD DIG INTO FURTHER? I THINK MY PERSONAL, UH, UH, EXPERIENCE WITH THIS PROJECT IS WE HAVE BEEN, UH, HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO REALLY DISCUSS INTO, WE JUST HAD ONLY TWO MEETINGS AND I KNOW TOTALLY HOW MANY REALLY TIME THAT WE WERE ALLOCATED TO ASK QUESTIONS.
SO, UH, WITH THAT BACKGROUND, UH, AND CONSIDERING THE SIZE OF THE PROJECT, A LOT OF QUESTION I ASKED, THEY JUST SORT OF, UH, EITHER JUST ANSWERED IT THE WAY THEY WANTED IT OR SOMETIMES THEY JUST SAY NOTED.
AND THAT'S NOT REALLY ANSWER OF THE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ASKED.
SO TO BE FAIR WITH THE PEOPLE, THOSE WHO HAVE SPENT TIME ASKING THE QUESTIONS, UH, THEY SHOULD BE REALLY ALLOWED TO DO IT.
AND, UH, THE WHOLE IDEA ABOUT THIS, UH, UH, PROCESS OF US SENDING US TO REVIEW IT IS TO, UH, AND WITH THE, WITH THE OPEN MEETING LAW, IT SAID, WE HAVE REALLY TALKED IT OUT IN THERE.
IT'S A, IT'S A KIND OF NOT VERY, UH, AT LEAST I FEEL IT'S NOT, IT'S BEEN, UH, BEEN ASKED TO DO DECIDE SOMETHING THAT IS, WE REALLY HAVEN'T TALKED THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE.
SO WITH, GIVEN THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT WE ARE RUNNING AGAINST THE CLOCK OF 90 DAYS THAT YOU HAVE TO DO IT BY THIRD, BUT THAT'S A CONCERNS THAT I WANTED TO BE NOTED.
UM, FIRST DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY MAGANA, COULD YOU JUST WALK US THROUGH WHERE WE ARE IN THE TIMELINE OF, OF GETTING A RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD? SURE.
SO WE ARE, WE ARE WELL BEYOND THE INITIAL PERIOD TO RESPOND TO THE REFERRAL REQUEST.
UM, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO EXTEND IT, UM, I BELIEVE UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING, UNTIL DECEMBER 3RD, DECEMBER 3RD FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO PROVIDE A, A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD.
UM, AND SO ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, BY, BY THE END OF THE MEETING TONIGHT, I THINK THE GOAL WOULD BE TO, TO HAVE, UH, A SUBSTANTIVE CONVERSATION WHERE WE CAN OUTLINE AS MANY RECOMMENDATIONS AS POSSIBLE, UM, TO MAKE TO THE TOWN BOARD.
AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF QUESTIONS AND A LOT OF FEEDBACK ON THIS APPLICATION AND THE TOWN BOARD HAS, HAS THEIR WORK CUT OUT FOR THEM ON,
[00:50:01]
ON FURTHER, FURTHER STUDY TO BE DONE.UM, YOU KNOW, THE THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE IF WE'RE, IF WE'RE UNABLE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE NEXT MEETING, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN? YEAH, THAT'S WHAT MY QUESTION IS.
SO REALISTICALLY, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS HAD A COUPLE MEETINGS.
WE HAVE A, UH, TWO MEETINGS PROVI HAVE PROVIDED FOR ABOUT AN HOUR TONIGHT ON THIS APPLICATION.
I THINK IT'S PROBABLY BEST IN MY OPINION, THAT EACH OF THE BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT TONIGHT, UM, ONE BY ONE MAKE COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT SO THAT THE APPLICANT CAN RESPOND AFTER ALL QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS ARE GATHERED.
AND THEN HOPEFULLY THE BOARD CAN RECONVENE AND DISCUSS, UH, CONDITIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS TO PUT IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
THAT'S, I BELIEVE THE HOPE, BUT, BUT WOULD WE HAVE TO, MAY NOT BE DONE IN ONE HOUR
WOULD WE, WOULD WE HAVE TO APPROVE, WE'D HAVE, HAVE WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS BY THE NEXT MEETING TO APPROVE AT THE NEXT MEETING.
SO THESE ARE SUGGESTIONS AND, AND DIRECTIONS TO STAFF TO DRAFT SOMETHING FOR THE NEXT MEETING AT WHICH TIME, YOU KNOW, IF, IF SOMETHING ELSE COMES UP OR, OR A, AN AMENDMENT OR A MODIFICATION IS THAT'S REASONABLE.
UH, YEAH, I THINK ALSO ONE QUESTION.
THERE WAS A MEETING HELD, UH, WITH THE INDIVIDUAL MEMBER AND THEN SO IF YOU CAN RECORDING STOPPED WHAT HAPPENED THERE? I THINK THERE'S BEEN ISSUES WITH THE TECH SO WE'LL THAT OKAY.
SO, SO, SO IF YOU CAN BRIEF US, WHAT WAS WAS DISCUSSED? AARON TOOK THE HOST OVER FROM ME, SO I CAN'T, I THINK HE JUST, I DON'T DUNNO IF HE PAUSED IT OR I, I RESTARTED THE RECORDING.
SO, SO THE APPLICANT HAD, UH, RECEIVED A SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF QUESTIONS ON THE BOARD MEMBERS AND SOUGHT TO PROVIDE, UH, ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION AND RESPONSE TO THOSE EXISTING QUESTIONS SIMILAR TO A SITE VISIT WHERE YOU CONDUCT A SITE VISIT.
UM, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED FEEDBACK, UM, THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE ALL PROVIDED THE RESPONSES AND NOTES AND, UM, THERE'S A COPY OF THE RECORDING, COPY OF THE RECORDING.
AND, UH, DISCUSSION OF THAT MEETING WILL BE FORTHCOMING NOW.
SO CAN YOU BRIEF US WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AND ON THAT MEETING ON MONDAY? SURE.
SO THERE'S EXISTING QUESTIONS THAT, UH, PLANNING BOARD MEMBER MICHELLE HAD POSED PREVIOUSLY MS. W HAD POSED PREVIOUSLY, UM, THAT WE CAN SUMMARIZE WITH THE APPLICANT AND MR. BURTON.
SO IF YOU CAN SUMMARIZE IT, I BELIEVE YOU RECEIVED A COPY OF THE NOTES THOUGH YOU SHOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE, ABLE TO REVIEW IT.
I MEAN, I DIDN'T HAVE THE TIME TO REALLY, BUT CAN YOU, I MEAN IF IT JUST, WHEN, WHEN WERE THE NOTES DISTRIBUTED? YEAH, I GOT THE VIDEO, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF I GOT THE NOTES, BUT, UH, NO NOTES POSSIBLE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOUR INTENT YEAH, I KNOW THE VIDEO WAS SENT.
UM, AT THE, WAS DISCUSSED WAS, UH, THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE, UH, CONTAINED IN THIS MATRIX THAT, UH, WAS DISTRIBUTED IN THE PLANNING BOARD MATERIALS, UM, GIVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD.
I I HAVE A RECOMME RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD.
I MEAN, ULTIMATELY IT'S A SITE PLAN RECOMMENDATION.
SO THERE'S A THROUGH K STANDARDS, WHICH YOU'RE FAMILIAR WITH, AND THEY COVER THINGS LIKE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION, SITE LAYOUT, UH, STORM WATER, UM, COMPATIBILITY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I MEAN, WE, WE CAN START HIGH LEVEL AND UM, YOU KNOW, JUST GET A SENSE OF WHERE YOU'RE COLLECTIVELY AT, LIKE, UM, AND THEN WE CAN BUILD FROM THERE.
SO WE CAN KIND OF GIVE YOU QUESTIONS, UM, PERHAPS AND TO, TO, TO TO GET SOME SENSE OF WHERE THE BOARD'S AT.
UM, I MEAN OBVIOUSLY I'VE BEEN WATCHING THE MEETING, UM, I GET THE SENSE THAT BOARD MEMBERS DON'T THINK THIS IS THE GREATEST PROJECT THEY'VE EVER SEEN.
SO I HAVE A SENSE OF KIND OF THE, BUT YOU KNOW, I HAVE A SENSE OF THE TENOR OF THE BOARD, THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT STORM WATER CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC, SO WE CAN BUILD ON THAT.
UM, AND SO IF YOU'D LIKE, I COULD, SO MAYBE CAN DO THAT.
COMMENTS AND QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
I THOUGHT IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT I'M HEARING WELL LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSED AT A MEETING WHERE PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION.
I'M JUST NOT SURE IF THAT'S GONNA HELP US HAVE A PRODUCTIVE CHAIRPERSON.
LIKE WHAT ARE YOU COMFORTABLE ABOUT? NO, I THINK, I GUESS I WELL, YEAH, WHAT ARE YOUR CONCERNS AND WHAT WOULD MAKE YOU FEEL BETTER? I THINK OF, UH, OKAY, TWO PART ONE IS THAT, UH, THERE IS A LOT OF, UH, COMMENTS THAT WE SPEND A LOT OF TIME AND, AND WRITING IT UP AND, AND THE ANSWERS THAT WE GOT, UH, WAS NOT, UH, REALLY OKAY, SO, SO WHAT'S A QUESTION THAT YOU DON'T FEEL WAS ADEQUATELY ANSWERED? ALL OF MOST OF IT.
MOST OF IT CAN YOU SPECIFY? SO THIS IS THE TIME YOU SPECIFY? YEAH, LIKE A SAFETY, I MEAN, I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT, UH, WAY BACK IN, UH, UH, I THINK, UH, UH, OCTOBER 14TH AND, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, RIGHT, THEY, UH, THEY SAYS THE UH, UH, ABOUT THE TRAFFIC SAFETY WITH THE TRUCKS AND THEY SAY THEY, THEY BASICALLY, UH, I ASK QUESTIONS.
[00:55:01]
UH, WHAT ARE THE HOURS OF OPERATION FOR A FACILITY? THEY SAYS THEY DON'T KNOW, RIGHT? SO THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO PROVIDE TENANT INFORMATION IF THEY DON'T HAVE IT CURRENTLY.BUT TO, TO UNDERSTAND THE IMPACT WE NEED TO REALLY KNOW WHAT'S GONNA BE OTHERWISE NOT NUMBER.
SO IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE, SO NOT THE PARTICULAR TENANT.
AND THEY SAYS THAT THEY, THEY BASICALLY DO NOT KNOW HOW THE, WHO IS GONNA BE TENANT, HOW IT'S GONNA BE OPERATED AND UH, UH, SO THAT'S KIND OF A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT TO KIND OF EVALUATE.
BUT WE CAN'T GET EVALUATE IN DARK USER JUST THE USE.
SO YEAH, WE, WE JUST SAYING IT'S THE USER, BUT, UH, SUCH A LARGE PROJECT, UH, WE WANTED TO KIND OF GET INTO IT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE IMPACT WOULD BE ON THE, UH, MOVEMENTS AND THE TRAFFIC AND, AND ALL OF THE ACTIVITIES.
SO SAY THEY PROVIDED A TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN, WE HAVE TO GO BASED UPON THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION PLAN AND AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS, YOU CAN, YOU CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE CURRENT TRAFFIC PLAN.
UM, IS THAT WHAT YOU WANTED DO? YEAH, WELL, AND THEN, OKAY, SO THAT'S ONE OF THE ISSUES.
WE DON'T KNOW WHO'S END USER, WHO IS GOING TO BE, UH, OPERATING IT, UH, WHAT KIND OF BUSINESS THEY'RE GOING TO OPERATING INTO IT, RIGHT? BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT THE USER IS AS LONG AS IT CON COMPLIES WITH THE TRAFFIC PLAN THAT'S BEEN PURPORTED.
WELL, IT'S A LOT OF GAPS INTO IT.
JUST A LOT OF, A LOT OF LIB OF FAITH THAT WE HAD TO TAKE.
UM, AND THAT'S VERY UNUSUAL, BUT IT'S ALL BASED UPON, SO JOHN CANNON CAN SPEAK TO THIS, HE'S ON ZOOM, BUT IT'S ALL BASED UPON THE DATA THAT'S PROVIDED.
SO IF YOU WANNA MAKE A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE CURRENT TRAFFIC AND TRUCK DATA THAT YOU CAN DO SO TO THE TOWN BOARD, BUT IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE EXACT USE.
I I MEAN IT'S A, UH, BUT MY FRUSTRATION ALL ALONG IS THAT, UH, LOT OF INFORMATION THEY PROVIDE IS NOT COMPLETE.
THERE IS A SERIOUS ISSUES ABOUT THE SAFETY ON THE NINE A CONSIDERING THE, UH, TRAFFIC THAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IT.
THERE ARE, UH, I MEAN I DON'T HAVE ALL THAT, BUT IT IS THE AMOUNT OF THE, UH, IF THE TRUCK BREAKS DOWN THE BIG 18 WHEELER, HOW THEY'RE GOING TO MANAGE TO, UH, MOVE THE, UH, THE TRAFFIC ALONG WHEN THERE IS TRAFFIC.
THAT'S NOT A RELEVANT CONCERN OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROJECT.
THAT'S LIKE AN EVERYDAY OCCURRENCE THAT COULD OCCUR WITH ANY 18 WHEELER.
SO I DON'T SEE HOW IT'S RELEVANT TO HAPPEN WHEN YOU STOP SENDING 18 WHEELERS DOWN A TRAFFIC ROAD THAT HAS AN ALTERNATIVE.
SO IT'S A VALID CONCERN FROM IT'S VALID SAFETY CONCERN.
AND IF YOU HAVE USED IT, IT'S, THERE IS NO, NO SHOULDER, NO.
UH, AND THERE IS NO PROPOSAL THAT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO MITIGATE THAT.
SO MY CONCERN AS A, UH, RESIDENT AND, AND ANY USER OF THAT PORTION OF THE ROAD IS THAT IT IS NOT BEEN THOROUGHLY, UH, EXPLAINED AND ALL THEY SAY IT IS THE, UH, GOOD MUNICIPALITIES AND THERE LAW ENFORCEMENT PEOPLE GOING TO COME AND DO THAT.
RIGHT NOW IF THERE IS ONLY A ONE CAR BREAKS DOWN, YOU HAVE A BIG, HUGE TRAFFIC JAM, NOW YOU HAVE A 18 WHEELER, ABOUT 56 FEET LONG, IT HAS TO HAVE SOME MECHANICAL PROBLEM.
WHO IS AND WHO IS GOING TO MAKE DIVE? IT'S A SINGLE LANE TRAFFIC.
CONCERN IS THAT WE'VE GOTTA, I THINK WE GOTTA GET MORE FOCUSED HERE.
SO THAT'S MY SAFETY CONCERN, PARTICULAR INCIDENT, BUT I THINK SAFETY CONCERN.
SECOND THING IS, LET ME JUST START OFF NOW YOU ASK ME THE QUESTION.
SO THE SECOND THING IS THAT THEY JUST ONLY RESTRICTING THE REVIEW BETWEEN THEIR DRIVEWAYS AND TO THE NEXT INTERSECTION.
BUT WHAT HAPPENS TO THE TRUCK GOING ONTO THE 87 GOING TO THE SOUTH AND DID THIS IS IT'S NOT THEIR PROBLEM, ESSENTIALLY.
SO, AND, UH, SO THAT'S, THAT HAS TO BE INCLUDED INTO IT.
SUCH A LARGE AMOUNT OF THE TRA TRUCK TRAFFIC THAT BEEN PUSHED THROUGH THE, OR BEEN CREATED BY THIS PROJECT.
SO, SO SAY THAT AS A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CAN MAKE TO, TO THE TOWN BOARD.
SO, AND THEN THERE IS A, UH, UH, EXPLANATION THAT THE PRO THAT BY PUTTING UP THE SIGNS, THE TRAFFIC WOULD NOT GO TO THE JACKSON AVENUE.
AND ALSO THEY WOULD NOT, THEY COME OUT, THEY WILL NOT MAKE A, UH, RIGHT TURN.
THEY WILL GO TO THE, UH, THE SOUTH OF IT AND NOT GO TO NORTH.
AND HOW THEY'RE GOING TO ENFORCE IT.
[01:00:01]
SAID THAT IT'S, UH, BASICALLY THEY'RE GONNA PUT SIGNS AND THEY KNOW THE PEOPLE, THOSE WHO ARE GONNA BE USING IT WOULD NOT VIOLATE IT.BUT I DON'T KNOW WHETHER, WHETHER THERE IS ANY ENFORCEMENTS OR MECHANISM THAT HAS BEEN PROPOSED THAT WILL MAKE THEM TO SAY THAT CO I THINK IT WAS SUGGESTION TO BE WRITTEN INTO THE LEASES AND THREE MECHANISMS, I BELIEVE.
BUT WE'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK AT THE END AFTER ALL YOUR COMMENTS AND EVERYBODY ELSE'S.
WELL, NO, THEY ALREADY MADE A COMMENT AND THAT'S WHAT THEY HAVE HERE.
SO IT'S NOT, I MEAN, AGAIN, I'M JUST SUMMARIZING IT.
MY PREMISE IS THAT LOT OF INFORMATION IS, IS NOT BEING COMPLETELY PROVIDED TO MAKE IT A INTELLIGENT RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN, EXCEPT TO SAY THAT IT NEEDS TO BE MORE INVESTIGATION NEEDS TO BE DONE.
AND, UH, AND SIMILARLY, UH, I THINK, UH, THEY HAVE A, UH, UH, I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S MY MAIN CONCERNS ABOUT THE SAFETY AND, AND, AND ENFORCEMENT.
THAT HOW THEY'RE GONNA ENFORCE IF THE TRUCKS COMES FROM, UH, UH, SO ENFORCEMENT OF THE TRUCK MOVEMENT, UH, TRUCK MOVEMENTS.
AND THEN, UH, IS THAT HAVE A, HMM, I'LL ADD TO CURT'S SAFETY CONCERNS.
SO ONE OF THE QUESTIONS WAS, HAVE YOU HAD FEEDBACK FROM THE HASTINGS FIRE DEPARTMENT? THE ANSWER WAS NO.
UM, THEN ACTUALLY THE ANSWER TO ME WAS NO, IT WAS ON, IT WAS ON FRIDAY THAT WE ASKED THEM, BUT WE DIDN'T.
SO, SO I WANT THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD TO BE THAT WE MUST RECEIVE INPUT FROM HASTINGS.
WE MUST RECEIVE CONFIRMATION FROM THEM THAT THEY CAN FIGHT A FIRE IN A 270,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE FILLED WITH CABBAGES, FILLED WITH
AND WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS THE MATERIAL AND THE PLANS AND THE STAFF TO BE AB AND THAT THE BUILDING IS ADEQUATELY SITUATED FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT A FIRE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND IS IT WORTH REPORTING OUT ON THE, THE MEETING WITH THE FIRE DISTRICT THIS MORNING? YEAH, I COULD SPEAK TO THAT.
WE DID MEET WITH THE, UM, HASTINGS FIRE OFFICIALS, AND THEY DID GIVE US SOME GOOD INFORMATION.
UH, THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER WAS ON, THEY'RE TRENDING TOWARDS A MINIMUM OF EIGHT HYDRANTS THAT THEY SEEK, UH, ON THE SITE AND IN THE PER, PER PERIPHERY OF THE SITE.
SO, UM, THOSE WILL BE, UH, UPDATED BY THE APPLICANT SENT TO THE FIRE DISTRICT, AND THEY WILL REVIEW THEM.
UH, THEY'RE GONNA REVIEW STANDPIPE LOCATION, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE A FOLLOW UP MEETING.
BUT, UM, DID THEY, WE DON'T HAVE THE SIGN OFF TO DATE BY NO, NO, BUT DEFINITELY DO NOT.
SO THAT'S A GOOD RECOMMENDATION.
THE, THE INPUT THAT THEY, THAT YOU NEED TO GET FROM THEM IS LIKE YOU'RE FIGHTING A FIRE THAT IN A WAREHOUSE THAT'S FILLED WITH TIRES, THAT'S VERY DIFFERENT TO FIGHTING A FIRE IN A WAREHOUSE THAT'S FILLED WITH CABBAGES.
AND I'M JUST USING CABBAGES AS A STUPID EXAMPLE.
LIKE ONE OF THEM IS GONNA BE AN INFERNO AND ONE OF THEM IS GONNA BE NOT SO BAD.
AND IT'S A DIFFERENT, YOU NEED DIFFERENT PROCESSES, DIFFERENT, YOU'RE RIGHT.
MATERIALS, DIFFERENT MECHANISMS. YOU ACTUALLY MAIL THAT TODAY.
AND THEY SAID THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THEY DEFINITELY WANNA BE KEPT APPRISED BEFORE THE PROJECT GOES TO BUILDING PERMIT SO THEY COULD SEE THAT EXACT END USER, BECAUSE THEY MAY WANT DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT HYDRANT LOCATIONS.
BUT I WOULD LIKE THE TOWN TO GET COMMITMENT FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT THEY CAN SUPPORT WHICHEVER TENANT IS GOING INTO.
AND, AND THEY'RE NOT THAT WE ASK THEM AFTER THE FACT THAT THEIR INPUT IS PART OF THE DECISION ON WHETHER, AND THIS GOES TO KERRY'S THING, WHERE WE DON'T KNOW WHO THE TENANT'S GONNA BE.
SO SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS ARE VERY IFFY, RIGHT? LIKE, AND, AND THERE'S NO WHAT CONDITION? WELL, AND SO IN, IN THE NOTES, THERE WAS REFERENCE AND I, I FORGET THE EXACT TECHNICAL PHRASE, BUT, BUT EFFECTIVELY, LIKE THE SECOND BUILD OUT, ONCE THE TENANT IS IDENTIFIED, TENANT IMPROVEMENT, TENANT IMPROVEMENT PLAN.
SO YOU KNOW, THAT TENANT IMPROVEMENT PLAN WOULD ALSO REQUIRE PERMITS, AND THAT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY ONCE THE TENANT IS IDENTIFIED.
BUT THAT COULD CHANGE HOW YOU HAVE TO BUILD THIS BUILDING, RIGHT? SO YOU BUT SO, BUT, SO WE CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION UPON, UH, THE PERMITS, EXCUSE ME, MR. DESAI.
UH, WE CAN MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT UPON THE SUBMITTING A PERMITS FOR THE TENANT IMPROVEMENT PLAN, THAT CONVERSATIONS OCCUR WITH THE FIRE DISTRICT.
YOUR BUILDING MIGHT NEED TO BE DIFFERENT IF IT'S A, THIS BUILDING FOOTPRINT OR THE WAY YOU ACCESS THE BUILDING MIGHT NEED TO BE DIFFERENT DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF TENANT YOU PLAN IN PUTTING
[01:05:01]
IN THERE.SO BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD APPROVES ANYTHING, WE NEED TO HAVE A COMMITMENT ON THE TYPE OF TENANT THAT WILL BE ALLOWED, AND THEN DON'T ACTUALLY, THAT'S NOT TRUE.
SO THEY CAN CHANGE THE SCOPE OF THE PLANS BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED, BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE PRI MAIN BUILDING OR BEFORE THE TENANT IMPROVEMENT PROJECT.
IF YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DIRECTION OF THE EGRESS.
SO LIKE IF YOU'RE CHANGING IT FROM ONE DIRECTION, NO, I DUNNO WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT.
RIGHT? I DON'T, I'M NOT THE FIRE, I'M NOT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT EXPERT.
WELL, TENANT IMPROVEMENT PLAN WOULD RUN THROUGH THE TOWN OF GREENBERG BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND WOULD RUN THROUGH THE TOWN OF GREENBERG FIRE MARSHAL.
AND SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, SHOW WHAT THEY ARE STORING, WHERE THEY'RE STORING IT.
AND AS PART OF THAT WOULD BE FIRE SUPPRESSION AND FIRE SAFETY ACCESS.
I THINK THAT POINT THOUGH, IF THERE WERE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES THAT WERE NEEDED AS A RESULT OF THE TENANT, THEN THE DISCRETIONARY DECISION WOULD BE WHETHER OR NOT TO SEND IT BACK TO THE BOARD.
SO THERE IS THAT, UM, RELIEF MECHANISM, IF YOU WILL, AS FAR AS BOARDS ARE CONCERNED.
SO THAT'S A, UH, I MEAN IT'S A, SO MANY, UH, IT'S A HUGE PROJECT.
IT'S ALMOST LIKE A SIX ACRE OF BUILDING AND IT HAS A 73,000 TRIPS.
UH, JOHN, CORRECT ME IF I'M
UH, AND THERE IS A ACCIDENT ON, THERE IS A SECTION THAT IT SAYS THERE IS A ACCIDENT, UH, ON, ON, UH, UH, INTERSECTION AT JACKSON AVENUE AND, AND OTHER ONES, UH, ONTO THE MR. CANNING.
SO, SO THIS, UH, I JUST WANNA KNOW, THEY JUST SAYS THERE ARE ACCIDENTS AND WHAT THERE WAS A, UH, ONE PRE ONE PEDESTRIAN ACCIDENTS.
AND SO AGAIN, BACK TO THE SAFETY ISSUE, HOW MUCH OF THAT GOING TO BE INCREASED AND WHAT MITIGATIONS ARE THEY TAKING SO THAT THERE WOULD BE NO MORE THAN WHAT IS EXISTING IS.
SO THAT'S AGAIN, OPEN QUESTIONS.
IN TERMS OF THE SAFETY OF THINGS.
WELL, DO YOU WANNA LET MR. CANNING RESPOND TO THAT OR NO, IT'S NOT, I MEAN, IT'S A, IT'S A, I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S NOT A TRAFFIC QUESTION, IT'S A PEDESTRIAN SAFETY QUESTION.
BUT YOU CAN, YOU CAN PIN TRAFFIC QUESTION.
MR. CANNING, I, I, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO WEIGH IN ON THAT BRIEFLY.
SO, UH, YOU CAN HEAR ME RIGHT? YEP, WE CAN HEAR YOU.
LET ME, LET, LET ME REPHRASE THE QUESTION THOUGH.
IS THAT, UH, THE AMOUNT OF ACCIDENTS THAT THEY HAVE RIGHT NOW, AND THERE IS A, WITH THE ADDITIONAL MOVEMENTS OF, UH, TRUCKS AND THE OTHER CARS INTO THIS PROJECT WOULD INCREASE THE PEDESTRIAN, WOULD INCREASE THE, UH, ACCIDENTS AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY CONCERNS.
UH, IF YOU HAVE NO CARS ON ROUTE NINE A, YOU HAVE NO ACCIDENTS ON ROUTE NINE A AS SOON AS YOU HAVE CARS ON ROUTE NINE A, YOU HAVE ACCIDENTS ON ROUTE NINE A AND I DON'T NEED TO, UH, DOWN PAY YOUR CONCERNS.
UM, I THINK SEVERAL IMPORTANT THINGS TO REMEMBER.
NUMBER ONE, UH, THE SITE IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED.
IT PROBABLY WILL NEVER BE A BIG OFFICE BUILDING AGAIN, BUT IT DID GENERATE A LOT OF TRAFFIC IN ITS DAY.
THE APPLICANT HAS MADE VOLUNTARY CONCESSIONS, AND YOUR ATTORNEY WILL HAVE TO CONFIRM THAT THEY ARE ENFORCEABLE, THAT THEY WILL NOT OPERATE AS A HIGH TRAFFIC INTENSITY LAST MILE DISTRIBUTION SECTOR.
SO THE RELATIVE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC THAT THEY WILL GENERATE WILL BE MUCH LOWER THAN AN AMAZON OR A UPS FACILITY.
THERE WILL BE, IT'D BE MUCH LOWER THAN IT WAS WHEN IT WAS AN OFFICE.
IT WILL BE MORE TRUCKS PROBABLY THAN IT WAS WHEN IT WAS AN OFFICE BECAUSE IT IS A, A WAREHOUSE FACILITY.
UH, BUT OVERALL LESS TRAFFIC, WILL THERE BE MORE ACCIDENTS? ULTIMATELY, YES.
I MEAN, UH, UH, BUT IT IS ONE ACCIDENT FOR EVERY 5 MILLION VEHICLE MILES OF TRAVEL.
EVERY TIME YOU HAVE, YOU DRIVE DOWN THE ROAD TO THE CHANCE YOU BE IN AN ACCIDENT.
UM, IT, IT, IT IS A STATE HIGHWAY.
AND THE STATE RECENTLY CHANGED THE DESIGNATION OF THE HIGHWAY TO ALLOW THE SIZE TRUCKS THEY WANT TO BRING ON THIS ROAD TO TRAVEL ON THE ROAD.
THIS SUSTAINED ROAD, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS AFTER
[01:10:01]
MUCH DRYING, LET'S SAY, AGREED TO INSTALL A SIDEWALK THAT WILL AT LEAST IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN CONDITIONS ALONG THE FRONTAGE OF THEIR PROPERTY, WHICH WAS, UH, A RECOMMENDATION OF THE TOWN'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.SO THESE ARE ALL THE ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE TO BALANCE.
SO YOU MAKE THIS REC MAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS.
WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO IDENTIFY MEASURES THAT WOULD OFFSET THE IMPACT OF THE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC WE HAVE.
UH, WE LOOKED AT THE CRASH DATA, WE DID RECOMMEND, AND THE APPLICANT OBVIOUSLY EASILY AGREED TO INSTALLING A SIGNAL AHEAD, WARNING SIGN, NORTHBOUND ABOUT NINE A.
I BELIEVE THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE BOARD HAS DISCUSSED THE POSSIBILITY OF A FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION TO IMPROVEMENTS OF LAWRENCE STREET AS IT APPROACHES THE SALT RIVER PARKWAY, UH, WHICH IS A CURRENT SAFETY CONDITION THAT COULD BE REVENUE OR IMPROVED IF THIS APPLICATION HELPS CONTRIBUTE TO THAT.
SO AS I SAY, THESE, THESE ARE THE ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE TO WEIGH.
UH, IT NOT EASY FOR ANYBODY TO DEFINITIVELY SAY WHETHER THIS PROJECT WILL RESULT IN ONE SPECIFIC ACCIDENT, BUT ITS EFFECT BE AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC.
THEY'VE TAKEN MEASURES TO MITIGATE THAT.
AND YOU HAVE TO DECIDE IF YOU THINK IT'S REASONABLE OR IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN ASK FOR.
AND I'M HERE TO HELP YOU IN THAT REGARD.
I CAN'T, YEAH, SO, SO I, I JUST WANNA, SO, SO BACK TO KERRY'S COMMENTS ABOUT THE INCOMPLETE DATA.
WE, WE DON'T HAVE A, SO, SO I KNOW THE APPLICANT HAS SAID, UM, THEY'VE GIVEN AN ESTIMATE ON WHEN THEY'RE DOING DEMOLITION, THERE'LL BE 15 TO 20 TRUCKS A DAY, AND THEN WHEN THEY'RE DOING EXCAVATION, THERE'LL BE 35 TRUCKS A DAY.
WHAT WE DON'T HAVE IS AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHASING OF THOSE TWO THINGS.
COULD THEY BOTH BE HAPPENING AT THE SAME TIME? AND THEN ARE WE TRYING TO ASSESS, OR YOU TRYING TO ASSESS THE TRAFFIC IMPACT? YOU'RE TRYING TO ASSESS THE TRAFFIC IMPACT WITHOUT UNDER, WITHOUT US KNOWING THE, UM, ACTUAL PHASING AND WHAT THE ACTUAL TRAFFIC IS GONNA LOOK LIKE.
SO I'M, I'M GONNA ASK THE APPLICANT, MR. MR. DESAI, EXCUSE ME.
UH, PLEASE, PLEASE, NO, I THINK WE WANTED TO DISCUSS FIRST AND THEN LET THEM, I'M SORRY AFTERWARDS.
SO I, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO HAVE NO, HAVE ONE-ON-ONE EACH, EACH MEMBER SUBMIT.
I THINK WE HAVE A, IF YOU WANT, REALLY HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO UNDERSTAND.
AND I THINK MY, I'M NOT DONE WITH THE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY PART YET.
SO DON, SO PERHAPS YOU SHOULD GO THROUGH ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS AND THEN MR. WEINBERG CAN GO AND THEN MS. MARK CAN GO AND THEN THE APPLICANT CAN RESPOND TO ALL OF THEM INSTEAD OF THE BACK AND FORTH.
'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA RUN OUTTA TIME, OTHERWISE IS A CONCERN.
WELL, LISTEN, IT'S LIKE WE DID LAST TIME.
WHAT, WHAT GARRETT ASKED, HOW DOES THE, UH, AND I'M, I'M KIND OF, THIS THING IS DE GEARED OVER TO YOUR ASK HOW DO THE BOARD FEELS RIGHT NOW, WHICH DIRECTIONS TO GO AND HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE SHOULD REALLY MOVE FORWARD AND CONSIDERING THAT OVERALL, UH, IMPRESSIONS AND IDEAS THAT WE HAVE BEEN.
SO MY QUESTION IS TO JOHN AGAIN, IS THAT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND THE, ANY THINGS THAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED AND I'VE SEEN IT SO FAR, UH, I HAVEN'T SEEN IT MUCH.
WHAT MEASURE THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT TO MITIGATE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC AND ADDITIONAL SAFETY THAT WILL BE NEEDED TO MITIGATE THAT DURING AND AFTER CONSTRUCTION? WELL, DURING THAT'S, BUT UH, EVEN PERMANENTLY AND DURING THE CONSTRUCTION, THAT'S THE ADDED THING IS, SO I, HAVE YOU SEEN ANYTHING OR I MISSED ANYTHING, JOHN? SO, MR. DESAI, I HAVE NOT SEEN A CONSTRUCTION MANAGE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN OR AN OVERALL CONSTRUCTION PLAN THAT WOULD INCLUDE CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT.
THAT OBVIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE DONE.
IT IS TYPICALLY DONE BEFORE A BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED, BUT YOU COULD GET INTO THE SPECIFICS OF IT, UH, WITH THE PPLICANT IF YOU WANTED.
I MEAN, MANY OF THE SAME ISSUES THAT HAVE COME THROUGH THE SITE DISTANCE, UH, THROUGH THE SITE BOUND AND EVALUATION INTERSECTION SITE DISTANCE ARE IMPORTANT FOR CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC AS WELL.
LIMITATIONS ON, UH, TRUCK ROUTES AND TRUCK ACTIVITIES.
SO THESE ARE MEASURES THAT THEY WILL HAVE TO ADDRESS AND WHETHER THEY CAN ADDRESS 'EM NOW TO YOUR SATISFACTION, AT LEAST THE BASIC ELEMENTS IS, IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE.
UM, ONE OF THE OTHER MEASURES THAT THEY ARE IMPROVING OR ARE PROPOSING IS THE LEFT TURN LANE, WHICH IS NOT THERE NOW FOR THE EXISTING BUILDING AND WILL BE ADDED.
UH, AND IT'S A SAFETY FEATURE.
JOHN, SHOULD THAT BE BEFORE OR AFTER CONSTRUCTION? 'CAUSE WILL IT HELP WITH ANY KIND OF TRAFFIC? EXACTLY, YES.
THAT'S, THAT'S ONE ONE OF MY RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD BE THAT IT SHOULD BE, THEY SHOULD DO THAT FIRST.
AND THEN, I MEAN, I KNOW SIDEWALKS ARE GREAT AT THE END, BUT SIDEWALKS ARE NOT GREAT WHILE THEY'RE BEING BUILT.
AND AGAIN, ON THAT ROAD WITH CONSTRUCTION, DO YOU REALLY WANNA BE BUILDING SIDEWALKS AS PART OF THIS PROJECT BECAUSE YOU'RE CLOSING ONE LANE
[01:15:01]
FOR HOW MANY MONTHS? SO I, I'LL ASK, UH, THE COMMISSIONER TO RESPOND TO THAT.THE SIDEWALK EXPERIENCE I HAVE, THERE ARE OFTENTIMES WHERE IT MAY NOT APPEAR, BUT THEY CAN KEEP TWO-WAY FLOW FOR A MAJORITY.
SO IF THEY INCH OVER OR DO ROAD DIETS, SO IT'S EVEN, EVEN DOBBS FERRY ROAD SIDEWALK MM-HMM
UM, WITH, THERE ARE SOME DETOURS, BUT THEY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO MAINTAIN TWO LANES AT TIMES.
UM, BUT ULTIMATELY, I MEAN, MY EXPERIENCE IN THE PAST BETTER THAN A SIDEWALK IS THEY HAVEN'T ANYWHERE IN THE TOWN.
I IF, IF IT'S PRUDENT FOR A SIDEWALK, I WOULD NEVER RECOMMEND THAT, UM, THE SIDEWALK NOT BE BUILT BECAUSE OF THE CONCERN OF THE INCONVENIENCE DURING THE COURSE OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SIDEWALK.
I WOULDN'T MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION FOR ANY SIDEWALK ANYWHERE IN THE TOWN.
I WOULD ASK THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE ON KNOX FERRY, BUT, SO, BUT DO YOU WANT THE LEFT TURN LANE BEFORE YOU CONSIDER DOING A SIDEWALK? OR ARE THERE WAYS TO MITIGATE THAT PROFESSIONAL? SEEMS LOGICAL.
IT SEEMS LIKE A LOGICAL RECOMMENDATION.
AND, AND SO TO MR. DECAY'S POINT, YOU KNOW, A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CAN MAKE? NO, I THINK WHAT, WHAT, WHAT'S, WELL, I'M GONNA FINISH MY THOUGHT AND THEN YOU CAN CONTINUE TO SPEAK.
UM, SO, SO A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE CAN MAKE IS THAT THE TOWN BOARD RECEIVE A, A CONSTRUCTION TIMELINE AND A TRAFFIC TIMELINE BEFORE, NO, THAT, THAT WAS HER QUESTION.
MY QUESTION WAS THE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND, AND, UH, UH, THE, THE ISSUES ARE, UH, QUITE LARGE AND, UH, ANSWERS ARE VERY, UH, FEW AND, AND, AND, UH, BASICALLY SAYING THAT WE WILL DO IT LATER ON.
AND SO MY REALLY, UH, CONCERN IS THAT IF THAT IS GOING TO BE, UH, UH, DONE LATER ON, WHAT IS THE MECHANISMS THAT WE CAN USE SO THAT WE WILL HAVE A, A REASONABLE, UH, UH, LEVEL OF CONFIDENCE THAT THAT WILL BE DONE AND TO US TO REVIEW IT.
AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A FINAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARDS IF THEY WANTED TO DO IT.
AND AGAIN, I MEAN, UH, IT'S, IT'S ALL OF THEM.
IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT LATER ON, BUT LET IT JUST, BUT LET US JUST FIRST MOVE ON TO GETTING THE, UH, GETTING, GETTING SORT OF THE, UH, PROJECTS MOVED FORWARD.
AND SO, WELL, I GUESS THE ALTERNATIVE WOULD BE THAT WE MAKE NO RECOMMENDATION AND THEN YOU HAVE, AND THEN WE HAVE NO OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE INPUT.
THAT'S NOT THE WAY, BUT I THINK MY, WE ARE HAD A STATUTORY DEADLINE.
GRACIOUSLY EXTENDED BY THE APPLICANT, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO MY RECOMMENDATION DEADLINE, YES.
MY RECOMMENDATION, DYLAN, IS THAT WE REQUEST THEM TO DO, BECAUSE THERE IS SO MANY UNKNOWNS AND THERE ARE REALLY SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES BEING RAISED.
SO, UH, IF YOU WANTED TO GO THROUGH IT, BECAUSE THEY HAVE DONE A LOT OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS AND, AND NOISE AND POLLUTIONS AND, AND ALL THAT STUFF, AND THEN WE HAVE NOT BEEN SEEN ALTERNATE TO MITIGATE IT.
THEY SAY THAT YOU JUST APPROVE IT AS IT IS.
SO MY RECOMMENDATION, AND I BRIEFLY TALKED WITH, UH, UH, GARY ABOUT IT, IS THAT WE, AND I THINK IT SAYS ON, UH, UH, ONE OF THE HANDBOOK ON SECRET THAT IF THERE IS ANY, IF THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT, UH, IMPACT ON ENVIRONMENT, UH, WE CAN REQUEST THE APPLICANT TO DO THE EIS AND THAT WILL BE MY COMMENT TO THE, SO WE CAN CERTAINLY RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THEY CONDUCT AN EIS.
I THINK THAT IS, UH, WOULD BE SATISFACTORY TO ME.
SO, SO WE, WE CAN MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD.
DO YOU WANT ME TO LIST WHAT OKAY,
AND IF YOU HAVE THEM WRITTEN, I DO YOUR SITE SIGNIFICANTLY, AN UPHILL SITE, 300 FEET AWAY FROM AN IMPAIRED WATER BODY WITH A NEW YORK CITY WATER CROSS RUNNING THROUGH THE SITE WHERE BLASTING IS PROPOSED, YOU'RE GONNA DISTURB 22 ACRES, SEVEN ACRES OF WHICH IS STEEP SLOPE, TWO AND A HALF ACRES OF THAT, WHICH IS EXCESSIVELY STEEP SLOPE.
UH, APPLICANTS PROPOSING TO GET RID OF 270,000 CUBIC YARDS OF FILL, WHICH TO PUT IN CONTEXT, IS 300 AND A HALF, THREE AND A HALF MILLION PEOPLE WHO WEIGH 200 POUNDS.
SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A LITTLE BIT OF STUFF BEING TAKEN OFF.
UM, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD, I DUNNO THE EXACT LENGTH, BUT LOOKS LIKE MORE THAN 500 FEET WORTH OF FIVE AND SIX STORY HIGH RETAINING WALLS, UM, WHICH ALL OF THIS, RIGHT FROM A
[01:20:01]
PART OF TOWN CODERS MAKE THE BUILDING FIT THE HILL, DON'T MAKE THE HILL FIT THE BUILDING.UM, AND IN GENERAL, AND I KNOW THAT'S IN STEEP SLOPE, BUT YOU'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE TO BE WELL, SO MAY I ASK A QUESTION? WAIT, WAIT,
I'M WITH KARA, LIKE, AND GARRETT, YOU TELL ME, LIKE, THESE SEEM LIKE SIGNIFICANT, THEY COULD HAVE, THERE'S A RISK FOR EROSION ISSUES, THERE'S A RISK FOR LANDSLIDE ISSUES, THERE'S A RISK FOR STORMWATER RUNOFF ISSUES.
AND WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT EAF, YOU'RE LOOKING AT IT IEIS, IT'S A SHORT TERM IMPACT AND, AND A LONG TERM IMPACT.
SO MAYBE MOST OF THESE ARE ONLY SHORT TERM, BUT SHORT TERM IS A TWO YEAR TERM FOR CONSTRUCTION, RIGHT? OR WHAT? JUST REMOVING THE DIRT IS ABOUT TWO AND A HALF YEARS TIMEFRAME.
SO IS YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THE TOWN BOARD CONDUCTING EIS, IS THAT, ARE YOU SECONDING? UH, IS THAT, THAT'S ONE OF MY RECOMMENDATIONS.
I YOUR, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE IS THAT THE TOWN BOARD ASKS THE APPLICANT TO EXPLORE WAYS TO MINIMIZE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT THAT I'VE JUST LISTED.
DO YOU NEED TO REALLY REMOVE 270,000 CUBIC YARDS? DO YOU NEED TO BE BUILDING THE UPPER PARKING LOT? DO YOU NEED TO BE GETTING RID OF 300 TREES? SO THOSE SHOULD BE SEPARATE RECOMMENDATIONS.
ALL OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS ARE, ARE PART OF THE SAME.
SORRY, THOSE SHOULD BE SEPARATE RECOMMENDATIONS.
IF YOU COULD SPELL 'EM OUT, IT'S I CAN BETTER, YES, I CAN SPELL 'EM OUT.
YEAH, I SEE WHAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE SAYING YEAH.
ALL TIED TO THE RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERING AN EIS, BUT IF YOU COULD SPELL THOSE OUT, I THINK THEY'RE, THEY'RE DIFFERENT POINTS, RIGHT? BUT, BUT I THINK IT A TIES INTO IT BECAUSE THE, UH, THAT'S FINE.
BUT I THINK THE RECOMMENDATIONS WOULD PROBABLY BE BETTER SERVED BY THE TOWN BOARD IF THEY'RE MORE SPECIFIC.
AND SO I, I THINK ONE RECOMMENDATION THAT, THAT I WOULD SUGGEST, YOU KNOW, IS, IS THERE A WAY FOR THE APPLICANT TO REVIEW THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING? AND IF THEY WERE TO SHORTEN THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING TO THE SOUTH, UH, YOU KNOW, IS THERE A WAY TO, TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE, UM, THE STEEP SLOPE DISTURBANCE TO THE SOUTH? AND IF YOU DON'T DO THE UPPER PARKING LOT MUCH.
AND IS THERE A WAY TO LAND BANK THE, THE UPPER PARKING LOT, OR, OR ARE THERE OTHER CREATIVE PARKING SOLUTIONS? I DON'T LIKE LAND THAT, THAT MIGHT ELIMINATE THE, THE NEED FOR THE UPPER PARKING LOT? I LIKE LAND BANK.
LAND BANK MEANS THAT YOU CAN STILL DO IT AND CAN STILL DISTURB, I THINK.
SO THEN ARE THERE CREATIVE, ARE THERE OTHER CREATIVE PARKING SOLUTIONS, WHETHER THAT'S STRUCTURED PARKING OR OTHER PARKING SOLUTIONS THAT WOULD REDUCE, THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE NEED FOR THE UPPER PARKING LOT, WHICH WOULD THEN REDUCE THE NEED FOR THOSE STEEP SLOPE DISTURBANCE.
BUT THE FUNDA, YOU DID GET IT ANSWER TO WHY THEY NEED THE A HUNDRED EMPLOYEE OF 70 TRUCK PARKING.
I MEAN, IF THIS IS, IT'S GOING BE LIKE A TRUCKING COMPANY GONNA BE KEEPING TRUCKS PARKED THERE, AND THAT IS WHAT REQUIRE WHAT IS HER CONCERN? AND MY CONCERN WAS THAT IT IS, IT IS.
WE'LL ASK, WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT TO, TO WEIGH IN ON THAT.
BUT GOING BACK TO THE LAND BANKING POINT, SO LAND BANKING ALLOWS FOR A, A GAP IN BETWEEN DISTURBANCE, RIGHT? SO IF YOU HAVE DISTURBANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION AT SOME POINT IN TIME IN THE FUTURE, THERE'S A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING, THEN THERE'S POTENTIALLY ADDITIONAL DISTURBANCE.
BUT IT'S NOT OCCURRING AT THE SAME TIME AS THE INITIAL DEVELOPMENT.
BUT, BUT OVERALL, YOU'RE STILL GETTING RID OF THREE AND A HALF MILLION PEOPLE'S WEIGHT WORTH OF EXCAVATION, WHETHER YOU DELAY IT OR NOT, RIGHT? SO BIG PICTURE, IF THE LAND BANKING IS EVER BUILT, IF IT'S EVER BUILT, BUT DOES IT NEED TO BE BUILT? DOES IT EVEN NEED TO BE LAND BANKED? AND TO KARA'S POINT, WHY DO YOU NEED 170 PARKING SPACES? TRUCK PARKING? I MEAN, IT'S NOT A CAR PARK.
AND, AND I THINK ALSO WE HAVEN'T, ONE OF THE THINGS WITH THIS LARGE PROJECT, WE WANTED TO SEE THE ALTERNATE.
CAN THEY PHASE IT OUT? CAN THEY REALLY NEED TO BUILD THIS THING? WHAT ARE THE ALTERNATE WAYS THEY CAN REALLY MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT? AND UH, AND I THINK WE, WE HAVEN'T, THEY SAY THIS IS WHAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AND WE ONTO IT.
AND I THINK THE WAY FOR US TO GET A MORE ALTERNATE GAVE GET MORE DETAIL, UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE IMPACT WILL TO DO THE EIS AND I THINK EIS OKAY.
SO, SO I THINK, I THINK WE'VE AGREED WE'RE GONNA RECOMMEND TO THE DOWN BOARD.
ONE LINE RECOMMENDATION WE GET.
MR. WEINBERG, YOU, YOU'VE BEEN QUIET.
DO YOU HAVE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CONDITIONS OR ANY, ANY RECOMMENDATIONS OR QUESTIONS? THE WAY I LOOK AT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, THERE ARE GLOBAL ISSUES AND THERE ARE GRANULAR ISSUES, AND A LOT OF THIS STUFF THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS VERY GRANULAR.
WHAT BOTHERS ME FROM THE GET GO WAS THERE WAS A DECISION MADE, IF YOU COULD JUST SPEAK MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
THERE WAS A DECISION MADE BY THE APPLICANT TO, YOU KNOW, PUT THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THIS PROPERTY
[01:25:01]
THAT YOU COULD POTENTIALLY ALLOW.AND AS MICHELLE SAID, I WENT OUT THERE ON SUNDAY, I COULDN'T BE AT ONE OF THE OTHER SITE VISITS.
I WALKED BEHIND WHERE THAT UTILITY BUILDING IS, AND I LOOKED UP AND I SAID, I WON'T EVEN SAY WHAT I SAID,
YOU KNOW, THAT'S HOW STEEP IT IS.
AND I'M, YOU KNOW, I'M WONDERING, AND I'M HOPING THAT MAYBE, YOU KNOW, YOUR COMPANY COULD STEP BACK AND LOOK AT THIS PROJECT AND WONDER WHY YOU HAD TO GO TO THE MAXIMUM.
BECAUSE WHEN YOU GO TO THE MAXIMUM, THE IMPACTS ARE COMMENS, YOU KNOW, COMMENSURATELY, MAXIMIZED, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF TRAFFIC, YOU KNOW, NOISE, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, BLASTING, REMOVING EARTH, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU ELECTED TO PUT, YOU KNOW, MORE PARKING THAN YOU NEED BECAUSE YOU WANT FLEXIBILITY.
BUT THAT FLEXIBILITY COMES WITH CONSEQUENCES TO THE TOWN.
YOU KNOW, OUR JOB IS TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, STRIKE TO ME ANYWAY, A BALANCE BETWEEN THE PROPER, THE PROPERTY OWNER'S GOALS AND LOOKING AT THE COMMUNITY AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PEOPLE THAT GO THROUGH OUR, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, UH, TOWNS AND VILLAGES.
UH, AND I DON'T REALLY, YOU KNOW, WHEN I LOOK AT THIS, I DON'T THINK THAT'S BEEN GIVEN, YOU KNOW, SERIOUS, YOU KNOW, THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, BY YOUR COMPANY.
I THINK, YOU KNOW, YOU ARE LOOKING AT, AT THE EDGES AND MAKING SOME CONCESSIONS.
THE SIDEWALK IS GREAT, UH, BUT THIS PROJECT IS GOING TO GO ON FOR YEARS.
AND, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, SOME OF THE NOISE FOR CONSTRUCTION, IT'S ALL TEMPORARY.
LIKE ONE SIZE DOESN'T FIT ALL.
THAT MAY BE TRUE FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR, YOU KNOW, BUILDING A HOUSE OR A SMALL BUILDING.
BUT THIS PROJECT IS GONNA GO ON, I DON'T KNOW, TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, FOUR YEARS, FIVE YEARS.
SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, AND YOU KNOW, THE TRAFFIC STUDIES THAT WERE DONE, WERE DONE AFTER THE PROJECT IS UP AND RUNNING, NOT WHEN ALL THIS, YOU KNOW, REMOVAL OF EARTH DEMOLITION, YOU KNOW, BLASTING, CONSTRUCTION.
UH, AND, AND SO I WAS HOPING THAT MAYBE, YOU KNOW, BIOMED COULD GO BACK AND UNDERSTANDING THE PSYCH PSYCHE OF THIS BOARD, WHAT THEY'RE THINKING ABOUT AND THE KINDS OF CONCERNS, IMPACTS ON THE COMMUNITY.
GO BACK AND, AND, AND SEE WHAT YOU COULD DO TO, YOU KNOW, RECONFIGURE THIS PROJECT.
IT'S NEVER GONNA BE PERFECT, BUT TO MAKE IT MORE, YOU KNOW, MORE IMPOSE FEW FEWER IMPACTS, IMPACTS NEGATIVE IMPACTS THAT I THINK ARE, YOU KNOW, CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, BEING SHOWN NOW, UH, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE, I CAN RESPOND TO SOME OF, SOME OF WHAT I'VE JUST HEARD.
IF, IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO PLEASE, I CAN ALSO NOT, I JUST, I MEAN, RESPECTFULLY, LIKE WE SUBMITTED A PLAN THAT'S, THAT'S FULLY COMPLIANT WITH ALL OF THE TOWN BOARD ZONING CODE AND, AND PLANNING CODE.
WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY VARIANCES.
AND SO I APPRECIATE THAT YOU THINK THE PROJECT IS TOO LARGE, BUT I DO WANT TO JUST MAKE THE POINT THAT WE'RE FULLY COMPLIANT WITH THE LAWS IN GREENBURG THAT APPLY TO THE SITE.
AND SO I DO WANNA MAKE THAT POINT.
I ALSO WANNA SAY THAT WE HAVE A, A COMMENT MEMO THAT RESPONDS TO OVER 50 COMMENTS.
SO WE'VE HEARD A LOT OF FEEDBACK THAT'S BEEN, YOU KNOW, RECEIVE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF FEEDBACK THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED IN A, A SORT OF MEANDERING, SOME, SOME SOMEWHAT, SOMETIMES MEANDERING PROCESS.
LIKE I SAID, WHAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING, JUST BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T MADE A MAJOR CHANGE IN RESPONSE TO A COMMENT YOU MAY HAVE MADE, DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVEN'T HEARD THE COMMENT DOESN'T MAKE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN WE'RE TAKING, NOT TAKING THE COMMENT TO HEART BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF COMMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD.
AND THE WAY THIS CONVERSATION HAS GONE SO FAR, WE'VE DECIDED TO WAIT UNTIL THIS PROCESS COMES TO ITS CONCLUSION.
WE HEAR THE FINAL COMMENTS OF THIS BOARD AND CONTINUE TO ENGAGE WITH THE TOWN BOARD.
AND WE, WE WILL HEAR MORE COMMENTS AND WE WILL LOOK AT HOW TO MODIFY THE PROJECT TO RESPOND BEST TO, YOU KNOW, ESSENTIALLY WHICH POINTS EMERGE AS THE MAJOR POINTS THAT THE TOWN BOARD AND THE PLANNING BOARD ARE ARE FOCUSED ON.
SO I WOULD SAY THAT WE HAVE NOT IGNORED YOUR COMMENTS, EVEN IF IT HAD, MAYBE IT TO YOU, IT HAS SEEMED THAT WAY.
WE PLAN ON, YOU KNOW, MAKING MODIFICATIONS WHEN THE TIME COMES AFTER WE'VE HEARD YOUR FINAL COMMENTS AND THE TOWN BOARD COMMENTS LIKE WE MENTIONED, LIKE I MENTIONED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE MEETING.
SO, SO, SO IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME BACK WITH A REVISED PROJECT AND SUBMIT US? NO.
SO I BELIEVE YOUR COMMENT ABOUT MODIFYING THE SIZE IS SIMILAR TO MICHELLE'S COMMENT ABOUT A RECOMMENDATION TO THAT THE APPLICANT EXPLORE WAYS TO REDUCE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS TO THE SLOPES AND THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, AND I JUST WANNA MENTION ABOUT THE PARKING.
THE TOWN CODE DOES REQUIRE 280 PARKING SPACES, WHICH THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING.
[01:30:01]
WELL, 280 MAY BE MORE THAN THEY ACTUALLY NEED.HE'S TALKING ABOUT THE, THE TRUCK PARKING REQUIRES.
IT'S THE, IT'S THE TRUCK PARKING, RIGHT? NOT THE, IS IT THE TRUCK PARKING REQUIRED 200, IT'S 280 PARKING SPACES? NO, NO, BUT, BUT JUST CAR PARKING OR TRUCK PARKING, PARKING SPACES.
JUST PARKING IT, JUST PARKING SPACES.
IT DOES NOT SPECIFY TRUCK OR, YEAH, BUT THE TRUCK PARKING IS, IT'S THE UPPER PARKING.
IT'S DIFFERENT THAN CAR PARKING.
UH, I, I THINK OTHER MAJOR CONCERNS THAT I HAVE, I THINK, UH, UH, SORRY, ED, HAS I ACCURATELY ASCERTAINING WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS IN RELATION TO MICHELLE'S POINT? IS THAT BROADLY SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? WE'RE GIVING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD.
SO IF THE BOARD IS WILLING, YOU KNOW, HAS A MAJORITY THAT'S GIVING A RECOMMENDATION, EITHER A NEUTRAL OR A POSITIVE.
ALL THESE, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THESE, UH, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDATIONS, YOU KNOW, ARE, ARE VALID.
IF THERE ISN'T A POSITIVE OR A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION, IF IT'S NEGATIVE, IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER, THEN, THEN LET THE TOWN BOARD DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.
AND I, I, I WOULD, I WOULD ARGUE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS OVER FOUR MEETINGS ABOUT, ABOUT AREAS WHERE, WHERE WE THINK THE PROJECT CAN BE IMPROVED.
AND IF WE DON'T MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, SAY, SAY WE GO NEUTRAL, IF WE DON'T MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, THEN NONE OF OUR CONCERNS ARE HEARD.
SO, YOU KNOW, UL ULTIMATELY THE TOWN BOARD WILL DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT IF GIVEN THE CHOICE BETWEEN MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS AND NOT MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS, I WOULD CERTAINLY WANT MY VOICE HEARD.
AND THAT'S, AND THAT'S WHERE I STAND.
WELL, I THINK ONE OF THE OTHER CONCERN IS, IS A, THE INCREASE OF VIR SURFACES FROM, WHAT IS IT, 13 ACRES TO THE 20 ACRES? SO IT'S A 50% INCREASE INTO THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
I THINK IT'S ONE OF THE MAMMO THAT THEY HAVE SENT US.
SO I THINK THAT GOES BACK TO THE RECOMMENDATION OF YEAH, IS THERE A WAY TO STRUCTURE PARKING DIFFERENTLY? YOU KNOW, IS THERE, IS THERE OTHER, OTHER OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE, UH, THE THE PERMEABLE SURFACE? YEAH.
AND LISTEN, I'VE GOT LIKE LITERALLY 50 THINGS RIGHT? THAT I WANT THE TOWN BOARD TO CONSIDER.
I MEAN, IF YOU WANT ME TO READ THE WHOLE 50
BUT I THINK WE ALL NEED TO, WELL ULTIMATELY IT'LL BE DISTRIBUTED AND THEN WE'LL READ OUR PACKETS AHEAD OF TIME AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE'LL HAVE A CONVERSATION AT THE NEXT MEETING ABOUT, ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATION.
AND THEN I DO HAVE A GENERIC QUESTION.
SO, AND, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS RIGHT ABOUT YOUR, YOUR COMPLYING WITH ZONING CODE AFTER ZONING CODE, YOU WILL NEED TO GET STEEP SLOPE CODE AND, UM, STEEP SLOPE PERMIT.
AND, UM, THE OTHER ONE, SLOPE CLEARANCE FORM, WELL, THE SLOPE CLEARANCE FORM IS SUBMITTED TO ENGINEERING PRE, PRIOR TO, IT GOES TO THE CDC WHERE IT DETERMINED THAT THEY NEED A STEEP SLOPE PERMIT, WHICH THEN BECOMES PART OF THE APPLICATION.
BUT WHAT I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DO WHEN YOU TAKE IN ALL OF OUR COMMENTS IS ALSO LOOK AT THE STEEP SLOPE CODE, BECAUSE THAT WILL BE PART OF THE PROCESS.
AND MANY OF THE THINGS THAT WE ARE RAISING WILL BE PART OF STEEP SLOPE REVIEW.
IT'S VERY MUCH ON OUR, AND I THINK IT'S, AND I THINK TO YOUR POINT, THAT'S WHY I THINK IT'S SO IMPORTANT THAT IF WE FEEL, UH, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN BOARD SHOULD EXPLORE IF THERE'S OPPORTUNITIES TO REDUCE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, TO REDUCE THE STEEP SLOPE PERMIT OR THE STEEP SLOPE DISTURBANCE, LIKE THAT'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT WE NEED TO MAKE.
'CAUSE IF WE DON'T MAKE IT, THEN IT'LL BE MUCH HARDER TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION WHEN THIS COMES BACK TO US.
UM, OKAY, SO THIS IS A MORE GENERIC QUESTION.
SO WHEN YOU, WHEN YOU DO LOOK IN STEEP SLOPE CODE, STEEP SLOPE SAYS YOUR AVAILABLE FOOTPRINT IS SUPPOSED TO BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF STEEP SLOPE ON THE PROPERTY.
SO THE, THAT DICTATES HOW MUCH YOU CAN BUILD YES.
IT DICTATES THE SIZE OF YOUR FOOTPRINT.
AND THAT APPEARS TO BE APPLIED TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, BUT NOT TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
BUT THERE IS NOTHING THAT I CAN FIND IN TOWN CODE THAT SAYS THIS ONLY APPLIES TO RESIDENTIAL AND DOESN'T APPLY TO COMMERCIAL.
SO AT A MINIMUM, THE RECOMMENDATION I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO THE TOWN BOARD IS CLARIFY WHY AND IF IT SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE.
AND, AND I KNOW, UM, GREAT, AND, AND I KNOW THROUGH THROUGH EMAILS AND OTHER CONVERSATIONS, THERE'S BEEN QUESTIONS ABOUT, EXCUSE ME, INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN, UM, THE, THE, THE ZONING SEC SEC, THE, THE ZONING OVERLAY AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND SO I THINK ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION THAT
[01:35:01]
WE CAN MAKE IS, IS ENCOURAGING THE TOWN BOARD TO REVISIT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND, AND MAKE ANY UPDATES AS NECESSARY.SO I DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY THAT I WANNA WORD IT LIKE THAT.
RIGHT? SO NINE YEARS AGO, THE TOWN BOARD HAD A VISION THAT DID NOT MEAN THAT THIS PART OF THE TOWN WOULD BE A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PART OF TOWN.
I UNDERSTAND CIRCUMSTANCES HAVE CHANGED, NOT LIKE INDUSTRIAL GENERAL.
I MEAN, GI THE USE IS GONNA BE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
IT'S GI DISTRICT, IT'S, IT'S NOT AS BAD AS GI BUT THE POINT IS, NINE YEARS AGO, THE TOWN ENVISIONED THIS, AND IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAID THAT THIS AREA OF THE TOWN WOULD BE, UM, OFFICE SPACE, RIGHT? AND IT WAS PART OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT GOALS OF THE TOWN.
I, NOT QUITE IT, IT'S CARRIED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO THE EXISTING USE WAS OFFICE AND THE PROPOSED FUTURE USE WAS RD WAS RDD, RIGHT? YEAH.
TO FURTHER PART OF THE TOWN'S ECONOMICALS, RIGHT? WHICH IS TO FURTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT GAVE BROUGHT IN HIGHER INCOME BUSINESSES SLASH RESIDENTS.
THIS IS AGAINST WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS VISION YEAH.
TO DEVIATION FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ZONING CODE TRUMPS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN IS GO AND CHANGE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO MATCH THE PROPOSED USE, RIGHT? BUT TO TAKE A LOOK AT, AND NOT JUST FOR THIS CASE, BUT ARE THERE OTHER CASES WHERE THE CONFLICT IS ABOUT TO EXIST AND THE TOWN NEEDS TO LOOK AT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN GENERAL AND SEE IF STUFF NEEDS TO CHANGE.
SO I THINK TO BE CHANGED, THAT'S A, A FAIR RECOMMENDATION TO MAKE.
WELL, HOWEVER, THE FACT IS, I THINK THE APPLICANT HAD PROVIDED, UM, DISCUSSION PREVIOUSLY AT ONE OF THE MEETINGS ABOUT THE FACT THAT THEY HAD ENGAGED IN SEEKING R AND D TENANTS FOR SEVERAL YEARS AND WERE UNABLE TO COME UP WITH A, UM, PROSPECTIVE R AND D TENANT.
SO THERE WAS NOT REALLY ANY MARKETABILITY FOR THE DESIRED FUTURE USE AS R AND D PER THE PROPOSED FUTURE USE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO IT WOULD SEEM THAT THE DESIRED R AND D PROPOSAL IS DEFUNCT, AND IT WOULD MAKE SENSE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO RECOMMEND THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BE UPDATED PER THE FACT THAT THAT RECOMMENDATION IS, IS NOT FEASIBLE, RIGHT.
I WANNA BUILD OUT WHAT MICHELLE SAID.
I DID, THERE'S NO DISPUTE DISCONNECT DEAL.
I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THE USE WAS WHAT THE ENVISIONED THE R AND D CLUSTER SOUTH.
UM, SO ONE RECOMMENDATION COULD BE THAT THE, UM, A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD THAT THE TOWN BOARD CONSIDER CREATING A STEERING COMMITTEE OR SOME OTHER MECHANISM TO PLAN FOR THIS IMPORTANT QUARTER IN THE TOWN, WHICH CAN INFORM RELATED UPDATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO I THINK IT REALLY HAS TO BE THOUGHT OUT, HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION, YOU KNOW, THE MUNICIPAL NEIGHBORS NEARBY, UM, AND, AND REALLY LOOK AT THE MARKET NOW AND, AND FIGURE OUT WHAT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A PIVOT FROM THE R AND D CLUSTER SOUTH.
SO THAT'S SOMETHING YOU COULD RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD.
SO, SO WHAT I'D LIKE THE TOWN BOARD TO CONSIDER IS PEOPLE AND BUSINESSES MAY HAVE MADE DECISIONS BASED ON HISTORICAL USE, WHICH WAS OFFICE BUILDING, NOT BUSY ON WEEKENDS OR AT NIGHT, AND, AND ON WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATED ITS INTENDED GOALS WERE AT THE TIME, RIGHT? SO YOU MAY HAVE RESIDENTS ACROSS THE ROAD LIVING IN THE APARTMENT BECAUSE THEY THOUGHT THEY WOULD ALWAYS BE LIVING OR DURING THE TERM OF THEIR RENTAL LIVING ACROSS FROM AN OFFICE BUILDING.
UM, AND THERE'S POTENTIALLY A FINANCIAL IMPACT TO BUSINESSES WHO MADE DECISIONS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, AND MOST LIKELY FINANCIAL IMPACT TO THE TENANTS OR THE, THE PEOPLE ACROSS THE ROAD, THE GUY WHO OWNS THE APARTMENTS ACROSS THE ROAD.
UM, AND THAT SHOULD BE PART OF, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DISCUSSION, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THEY UNDERSTAND THE, THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF THIS.
I I THINK IF YOU HAVE A LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS, I THINK WHAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IS TO SUBMIT THOSE, THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE STAFF SO THEY CAN INCORPORATE THEM INTO THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, I KNOW THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT POSSIBLY HAVING THE, THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS AVAILABLE FOR THE BOARD TO REVIEW SOONER THAN LATER.
WE WILL ENDEAVOR TO GET THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THIS DISCUSSION AND ALL PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS FOR THIS PROJECT OUT AS SOON AS WE CAN.
AND SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY BY, I KNOW THERE'S, THERE'S THE HOLIDAYS COMING UP, SO WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY WE COULD GET IT BY NEXT WEDNESDAY, WHICH WOULD BE A FULL WEEK BEFORE OUR MEETING, THE FOLLOWING WEDNESDAY, GET WHAT? THE DRAFT ONE, THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS, BUT TO GET THE DRAFT ONE YOU HAVE TO SEND IF YOU THE GRAPH YEAH, WE HAVE TO THINGS.
SO WELL, IF YOU ALREADY HAVE IT WRITTEN, I DO, BUT I DUNNO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE SAYS.
[01:40:01]
YEAH.SO, UH, I THINK THAT'S REASONABLE.
I THINK, UH, STAFF WILL BE ABLE TO PREPARE A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION BASED ON, LIKE I SAID, THESE DISCUSSIONS, UH, WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION.
AND YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU SENT VIA EMAIL BY WHEN, VIA IN, BY MONDAY GIVE YOU THE WEEKEND.
NOT GONNA HAPPEN FOR ME TUESDAY.
I, I'M NOT MAKING ANY COMMITMENTS.
COMMITMENTS A BUSY TIME OF THE YEAR FOR ME.
WE TRY TO KIND OF, I MEAN, SO ULTIMATELY THE CHOICE IS EITHER WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS OR, OR WE DON'T MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, RIGHT? AND SO, WELL, LET'S, I AGREE WITH THAT.
IF WE, I GUESS HOW DO WE, BASED ON WHAT WE HAVE AND WHAT IS SUBMITTED BY WEDNESDAY, ILL SEND, AND IF, UH, THE BOARD DEEMS THAT ACCEPTABLE, THEN YEAH, WE'LL GO.
I, I THINK ONE MORE THINGS THAT I CAN OFTEN LOOK IN ON MY NOTES.
THERE, THERE IS, UH, UH, IS THERE ANY, UH, INVESTIGATION DONE ON THE CONTAMINATION ON THIS SITE OR THIS AREAS THAT ARE, I CAN ANSWER THAT IF YOU'D LIKE ME TO.
WE HAVE DONE INVESTIGATIONS AND IT'S NOT A SITE THAT REQUIRES ANY ADDITIONAL, CAN YOU, CAN YOU SUBMIT THAT REPORT OF A, UH, THAT THE SOIL AROUND THE SUM OF THIS, DO YOU HAVE A PHASE ONE ESA THAT YOU'VE DONE? YES, ENVIRONMENTAL SITE.
I'D HAVE TO CONSULT INTERNALLY AND, AND FIGURE OUT EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE.
AND IF YOU CAN SUBMIT THAT BE HELPFUL.
I'LL SEE WHAT WE HAVE AND I'LL, I'LL TALK TO OUR, YOU KNOW, IN-HOUSE ENVIRONMENTAL ATTORNEYS AND TALK ABOUT WHAT WE'RE ABLE TO SUBMIT FORMALLY, BUT I'LL STRESS THAT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF WE CAN SUBMIT IT.
BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT OUR, OUR INVESTIGATIONS CAME BACK BELOW, UH, LEGAL LIMITS.
WELL, IF YOU SUBMIT IT, THEN, THEN WE CAN DO THE RECOMMENDATION.
BECAUSE I'M NOT REFUSING, I'M NOT REFUSING, SIR.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE HAVE, WE'RE A LARGE CORPORATION, WE HAVE PROCESSES.
SO WE WILL MAKE A RECOMMENDATION IN LIGHT OF THAT.
WE DO NOT HAVE INFORMATION OF THAT SUBMITTED.
SO WE WILL PUT IT INTO OUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY SHOULD REALLY DO THAT.
AND, AND SO AND SO JUST TO UNDERSTAND SORT OF WHERE, WHERE WE ARE FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE.
SO, SO ANY RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE ABLE TO BE WRITTEN SUBMITTED BY NEXT MONDAY, UH, WILL BE SUBMITTED TO STAFF.
THEY WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION, UH, THAT'LL INCORPORATE BOTH THE RECOMMENDATIONS SUBMITTED AND RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON THIS DISCUSSIONS AND DISCUSSIONS AT THE PREVIOUS MEETINGS.
AND THE, THE QUESTIONS AND RESPONSES THAT, THAT WE'VE RECEIVED OVER THE COURSE OF THE REVIEW OF THIS PROJECT STAFF WILL, WILL REVERT BACK TO US A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION BY A WEEK FROM TODAY, NEXT WEDNESDAY.
CAN YOU SO, SO SUBMIT, SUBMIT MO, SUBMIT MONDAY, GET BACK WEDNESDAY.
THAT WOULD THEN GIVE US, UM, A WEEK TO, TO REVIEW.
GRANTED, THERE ARE SOME HOLIDAYS THERE, BUT WOULD GIVE US A, A WEEK TO READ THAT RECOMMENDATION.
AND THEN WE'D HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION, UM, AT THE MEETING ON DECEMBER 3RD.
AND THEN ULTIMATELY AT THE MEETING ON DECEMBER 3RD, WE WOULD BE AT A DECISION POINT WHERE IF WE, IF, IF WE'RE ABLE TO, UH, APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS DISTRIBUTED, MAKE FURTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON AT THAT MEETING, THAT GETS US TO A POINT WHERE WE'RE COMFORTABLE MAKING A, A POSITIVE, NEUTRAL NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION.
UM, IF, IF WE'RE UNABLE TO COME TO TERMS AT THAT MEETING, UM, THEN WHAT, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN, AMANDA, YOUR HONOR, MS. MADONNA RECOMMENDATIONS IS, YOUR HONOR WILL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS AT THE NEXT MEETING.
YOU WOULD INDICATE THAT AT THAT TIME, UM, STAFF WOULD PREPARE.
YOU'RE NOT ABLE TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD AND THEY CAN PROCEED WITH THEIR SITE PLAN AND OTHER ASSOCIATED APPROVALS.
AND, AND SO MY, MY HOPE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, CARDS ON THE TABLE, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK WE'RE BETTER OFF MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS THAN NOT MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS.
UM, AND SO I HOPE WE CAN GET TO A POINT BY THE NEXT, BY, BY TWO WEEKS TO, TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE FEEL WILL MAKE THE PROJECT BETTER.
RECOGNIZING THAT WE'RE NOT THE LEAD AGENCY, WE'RE NOT IN A DECISION MAKING POSITION AT THIS POINT.
AND ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, OUR RECOMMENDATIONS WILL, WILL FURTHER IMPROVE THE PROJECT AS THE TOWN BOARD CONTINUES THROUGH THEIR PROCESS.
THANKSGIVING'S NEXT WEEK, CHRISTIAN? YES.
SO WE GET IT WEDNESDAY, THURSDAY'S THANKSGIVING, AND THEN THERE'S FRIDAY AND THE WEEKEND, AND THEN MONDAY, TUESDAY, AND THEN THE MEETING IS WEDNESDAY THE SECOND I HAVE WEDNESDAY THE THIRD.
IF YOU DO, THE EIS WILL ALLOW US TO HAVE A LOT OF THESE QUESTION ANSWERED, RIGHT? IF THEY PREPARE, EIS COME BACK TO IT AND THE TOWN REQUESTS THEM TO DO IT.
SO, UH, MANY OF THESE QUESTIONS WOULD BE ANSWERED IN EIS AS I UNDERSTAND
[01:45:01]
OF ALTERNATES, THE DEEP, THE DETAILED STUDY OF, UH, UH, THE SAFETY, THE, UH, UH, THE, UH, THE, THE, THE, THE AMOUNT OF, UH, IMPACT THE NOISE, NOISE LEVEL, WHAT IS EXISTING, WHAT WOULD BE PROJECTED, AND ALL THOSE THINGS WILL BE PROVIDED UNDER EIS IS A DIFFERENT PROCESS.I DO FEEL IN MANY RESPECTS YOU'VE GOTTEN EIS LEVEL, UH, INFORMATION LIKE NOISE, UM, TRAFFIC, UM, PROBABLY A COUPLE OTHER DISCIPLINES, BUT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE'S THINGS THAT ARE OUTSTANDING, WE'LL LOOK TO MEMORIALIZE THAT AND THE RECOMMENDATION AND, UH, SEND IT TO SOUND BOARD.
SO, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT EIS WILL GIVE YOU A MORE COMPREHENSIVE UNDERSTANDING ABOUT THE IMPACT THAT WE ARE JUST TOUCHING IT ONTO IT.
WELL, EITHER WAY, THE APPLICANT CAN RESPOND TO YOUR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS POSED BY THE TOWN BOARD AT THE TOWN BOARD LEVEL, WHETHER AN EIS OR NOT AN EIS IS CONDUCTED.
WELL, THE, THE REASON EIS IS THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN ALTERNATE, THEY SAYS THEY WILL FURTHER INVESTIGATE AND DO IT, BUT IF I UNDERSTAND EIS FROM MY BACK, BACK DAYS INTO WHEN I WAS WORKING, IS THAT IT, IT WILL ALLOWS THEM TO DO, UH, ALTERNATES, NOBU, UH, AND ALL OTHER IN-BETWEEN SCENARIOS THAT THEY HAVE.
SO THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO ALTERNATES AT ANY STAGE? NO, NO, NO.
AND THEN EIS IS BY THE STATE, REQUIRES A CERTAIN STANDARDS TO BE DONE.
AND ONE OF THE ONE THAT I WAS ON A BOARD THAT WAS, UH, A REGION REGENERON BEFORE REGION REGENERON, THEY HAD OF COURSE DIFFERENT THINGS OVER THERE, THERE.
SO IT ALLOWED US A MORE THOROUGH COMPREHENSIVE IMPACT STUDY OF THE PROJECT.
AND SO THAT IS THE WAY I THINK I READ THE, SO IT DOESN'T ALLOW, IT REQUIRES THEM TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES, RIGHT? IF THEY CONDUCT AN EAS, THEY'RE REQUIRED TO LOOK INTO ALTERNATIVES.
HOWEVER, THEY'RE ALWAYS PERMITTED TO LOOK INTO ALTERNATIVES.
SO ALLOWING IS NOT THE WORD I WOULD USE.
THAT'S WHAT TOWN BOARD, RIGHT SHOP, RIGHT.
THE WHOLE SITE WAS ESSENTIALLY DISTURBED.
UH, TOWN BOARD OPTED NOT TO DO AN EIS THAT EXAMPLE.
UM, YOU HAVE A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT, BUT YOUR POINTS ARE WELL TAKEN.
YOU HAVE, WHAT I MEANT TO SAY WHEN I OPENED UP MY REMARKS IS YOU HAVE A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT THE PROJECTS AND I THINK YOU'RE DOING A GOOD JOB OF EXPRESSING THEM.
WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO MEMORIALIZE THEM IN A RECOMMENDATION.
WE'LL GET THEM TO THE, TO THE TOWN BOARD.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE PERHAPS THERE MAY BE SOME REDUCTIONS IN SITE SIZE, OR I'M SORRY, BUILDING SIZE AND OTHERS THAT, YOU KNOW, WILL CERTAINLY BE REPORTING BACK TO YOU ON, BUT, BUT THE RECOMMENDATION, WE HAVE TO DO IT BY THIRD.
OTHERWISE WE WILL, WE WILL WAIT UNTIL THIS WILL GIVE US AS ANOTHER FEEDBACK ON WHAT THEY CAN DO.
BUT, UH, GIVEN THE TIME CONSTRAINT, I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE FORWARD AND, AND JUST WANTED TO COVER OURSELF THAT A LOT OF THESE ISSUES WOULD BE ADDRESSED AND THEN WE CAN INSIST ON, OR WE CAN, UH, INSIST ON TOWN BOARD TO REALLY GIVE THIS PROCESS.
SO THAT PROTECTS US TOGETHER, ALL THE THINGS THAT WE WANTED IT IN A ONE DOCUMENT, AND THEN OF COURSE, UH, WE CAN HAVE ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO CLARIFY WHY WE DID THAT.
AND TO THAT EXTENT, I THINK WE HAVE A FEW SIGNIFICANT IMPACT YOU CAN IDENTIFY.
I THINK THAT'S, THAT, THAT'S, THAT'S BEEN THERE IN ALL THESE COMMENTS THAT WE HAVE MADE SIGNIFICANT, UH, AMOUNT OF, UH, UH, INCREASE IN, UH, UM, UH, THE, THE, UH, THE SIZE, THE, THE, THE SIZE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTMENT, WHY IS THIS SIGNIFICANT? YES.
AND DRAFT RECOMMENDATION, WHICH WILL BE, I THINK THAT WILL BE OKAY.
UH, CIRCULATED NEXT WEDNESDAY.
AND, AND THANKS TO EVERYONE HERE FOR I THINK, A REALLY PRODUCTIVE CONVERSATION.
UM, SO NEXT UP WE HAVE CASE TB 25 0 5 PB 22, 25, 22 BETHEL KNOWLES.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
AND ACTUALLY, EXCUSE ME, BEFORE, UM, BEFORE WE GET STARTED, UH, MS. ANDERSON HAS JOINED US ON ZOOM.
I'M SORRY I'M NOT THERE ALREADY.
IT'S 7 0 3 WHEN YOU'RE VOTING RESTROOM.
SO MS. ANDERSON, WHEN YOU'RE VOTING, OKAY, SO, SO WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A, I'M SORRY, RECESS, A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.
UM, BUT MS. ANDERSON, THE ALTERNATE,
[01:50:01]
UH, WILL BE A VOTING MEMBER THIS EVENING SPEAKING.UH, MS. ANDERSON, MS. ANDERSON, YOU'RE THERE? YES.
SO, AS WE WERE SAYING EARLIER, UM, WE HAVE QUORUM HERE IN THE ROOM.
UH, SO MS. ANDERSON WILL BE ABLE TO, UH, PARTICIPATE REMOTELY.
UH, MS. ANDERSON BEING ON SCREEN WILL BE ABLE TO PARTICIPATE AS A FULL BONING MEMBER, AND IT IS 9:08 PM UH, SO UP NEXT WE HAVE TB 25 0 5 PB 25 22, BETHEL KNOWLES, WHO IS SEEKING A TOWN BOARD ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, WHICH REFERRED TO US, BUT FROM THE TOWN BOARD, A TOWN BOARD SITE PLAN, UH, ALSO REFERRED FROM THE TOWN BOARD, A TOWN BOARD, UH, AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT, A TOWN BOARD TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, A PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT, AND A WETLAND WATER COURSE PERMIT.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
I'M A PARTNER WITH THE LAW FIRM OF Z AND STEINS HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, UH, BETHEL HOLMES INC.
UH, THEY ARE THE NON-PROFIT OPERATOR OF THE KNOWLES AT 55 GRASSLAND ROAD.
UM, WITH ME TONIGHT IS ANASTASIO MARCOS, THE CEO AT BETHEL.
UM, PATRICK MCDO FROM EGA ARCHITECTS, UH, COLETTE RO FROM LANGAN, AND MY COLLEAGUE, UH, MY COLLEAGUE VINCENT PONG.
UH, WE ARE HERE ON A, UH, REFERRAL FROM THE TOWN BOARD.
UM, LET ME JUST SET THE STAGE FOR, FOR THE BOARD AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL KIND OF TAKE YOU THROUGH WHERE WE ARE.
UH, AT THE LAST MEETING, THE, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD TOLD US THAT YOU'D PROVIDE US WITH ALL REMAINING COMMENTS, UH, ON, ON THE PROJECT, UH, UH, AND THEN ASKED US TO RESPOND BY, I THINK IT WAS, UH, NOVEMBER 3RD.
UM, EARLIER THIS MONTH, WE NOT ONLY RESPONDED TO THE PLANNING BOARD COMMENTS, THERE WAS A TOWN ENGINEERING, UH, TOWN ENGINEER MEMO THAT WE RESPONDED TO, HISTORIC CONSULTANT MEMO THAT WE RESPONDED TO.
UM, YOU HAVE THE UPDATED PLAN SET WITH A NEW LANDSCAPE OR, OR UPDATED LANDSCAPING PLAN, TREE SURVEY, WALL PROFILES, UM, A A REVIEW OF, UH, CONSISTENCY WITH BOTH THE SITE PLAN, UH, STANDARDS.
I THINK THAT WAS MENTIONED IN ONE OF THE OTHER, THE PRIOR, UH, UM, APPLICATION AS WELL, THE SPECIAL PERMIT, UH, STANDARDS AS AS, UH, TRYING TO HELP YOU AS YOU MOVE THROUGH YOUR, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
UM, WE'VE ALSO MET WITH THE HISTORIC BOARD SEVERAL TIMES.
WE MET WITH THE CAC, UH, LAST, IT WAS LAST WEEK, RIGHT? YES.
UM, OF COURSE THAT ALL SUPPLEMENTS, THE ARCHITECTURAL ENGINEERING PLANS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH WITH YOU BEFORE WE, WHEN WE MOVED THE BUILDING BACK, INCREASED THE BUFFER, ET CETERA.
UM, THE STORM WATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN, WE SPENT A MEETING ON, ON, ON GOING THROUGH THAT.
UM, AS WELL AS TRAFFIC STUDIES AND, UH, FIRETRUCK RADIUS, UH, UH, STUDIES.
I SUMMARIZE ALL THAT BECAUSE I JUST WANTED, WANNA MAKE THE POINT THAT OBVIOUSLY WE, WE ARE, WE ARE AT A, A POINT PROCEDURALLY WHERE ALSO WE ARE LOOKING FOR A RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD.
I KNOW, UM, IF THERE'S ALSO A STATUTORY, UH, REQUIREMENT HERE.
WE'VE SAID THAT TAKE, THEY TAKE YOUR TIME.
WE DO NEED TO GET BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD.
AND SO WE DO BELIEVE YOU HAVE A, A, A VERY SUBSTANTIAL RECORD IN ORDER FOR THE BOARD TO WORK UP.
ITS, ITS, ITS RECOMMENDATION AND SEND THAT OFF TO THE TOWN BOARD BY DECEMBER.
SO WE ARE, WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.
WE WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY, ANY, ANY QUESTIONS.
YOU'VE SEEN HOW WE, WE'VE, WE'VE MOVED THE PLANS AND, AND, UM, AND RESPONDED TO VARIOUS COMMENTS.
SO, UH, WE CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OR MOVE FORWARD FROM THERE.
SO I THINK THANKS IN SO SIMILARLY, WE HAVE, UH, JUST ABOUT AN HOUR FOR THIS DISCUSSION.
UM, WE ARE AT A VERY SIMILAR POINT IN THIS APPLICATION AS THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION, SO WE CAN SPEND THE NEXT 50 OR SO MINUTES.
UM, IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT WE'D LIKE TO ASK OR ANY CLARIFICATION ON QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN PREVIOUSLY ASKED, UM, BUT ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD GET TO A POINT WHERE, UM, IT'D BE GREAT FOR, FOR EACH PERSON TO GO DOWN THE ROW, UH, AND, YOU KNOW, SHARE WHERE THEY ARE, WHERE THEIR PAIN POINTS ARE BETWEEN COMFORT AND DISCOMFORT, AND ULTIMATELY WHAT RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, WE COULD MAKE TO THE TOWN BOARD, WHICH WE FEEL, UM, WOULD FURTHER IMPROVE AND FURTHER REFINE THE PROJECT.
UM, MS. MOORE, YOU SEEM TO HAVE SOME, SOME ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, SO I'LL, UH, I'LL, I'LL PASS THE, PASS THE SPEAKING STICK TO YOU.
SO I THINK MOST OF MY QUESTIONS ARE, WE GOT SOME NEW STUFF TODAY.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE FROM THE ENGINEERING REPORT THAT THEY MAY BE REQUIRING ADDITIONAL BUFFERS SLASH MOVING OF THE RETENTION PONDS, WHICH THEN MAY OR MAY NOT REQUIRE REVISED SITE PLANS.
[01:55:01]
GUYS, WHERE ARE YOU GUYS IN THE, WELL, THE, THE, BECAUSE I, I MEAN WE ONLY GOT IT TODAY, SO I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG YOU, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION.SO THE, UH, OVERALL, I, WE, I DO BELIEVE WE WERE CONFERRING OUTSIDE BEFORE WE THINK THAT THE ENG, THE 10 ENGINEER MIGHT HAVE BEEN RESPONDING TO OLD PLANS.
I DON'T THINK THAT WAS ACTUALLY UP UPDATED PLANS.
'CAUSE SOME OF THE COMMENTS ABOUT PUTTING, UH, NOTES ON THE PLANS, ET CETERA, THEY'RE ON THE PLANS NOW.
THE COMMENT I BELIEVE YOU ARE RESPONDING TO IS A COMMENT ABOUT, UH, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE BERM FOR THE, UM, STORMWATER BASIN AND THE PROPERTY LINE, RIGHT? THE, THE, THE COMMENT IS, LET ME FINISH THE COMMENT, IS THAT IT WAS ONE OF THEM.
YEAH, YEAH, NO, WELL, THAT, WELL THAT WAS THE ONE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE SETBACK, RIGHT? THE COMMENT IS, IS THAT THE DEC REQUIRES THE BERM ITSELF TO BE 25 FEET, BUT BEHIND SETBACK BY, UH, THE, THE PROPERTY LINE.
UM, I WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE SETBACK RIGHT NOW? IT'S LIKE SIX INCHES UNDER, YEAH, IT'S 25 FEET, IT'S SIX INCHES UNDER 25 FEET.
SO, UH, TO THE EXTENT THAT, UH, THE, THE SITE PLAN AS IT GOES THROUGH THE PROCESS, IT WILL BE UPDATED AND, AND THAT SIX INCHES OFF OF THAT BERM WOULD BE MOVED BACK.
SO WE'RE NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
HE HAD TWO, RIGHT? HE HAD ONE ABOUT THE 25 FOOT FOOT BACK, AND THEN HE HAD SOMETHING ABOUT GOING INTO PROPERTY LINE OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBOR.
SO, SO MY QUESTION IS, WITH ALL OF THE COMMENTS THAT HE HAD, WILL THERE BE REVISED SITE PLANS AS THAT WE NEED TO LOOK AT AS, UH, WELL, LET ME JUST REMEMBER.
THE, THE TOWN BOARD IS THE, THE ENTITY THAT'S RESPONSIBLE FOR ISSUING SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
AND AS WE GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD, OF COURSE ALL OF THE TOWN ENGINEER COMMENTS WILL HAVE TO BE RESPONDED TO AND SATISFACTORY.
ALL THE, ALL THEM WILL HAVE TO BE GREEN.
WE'RE GONNA TURN THEM ALL GREEN.
THEY'RE, SOME OF THEM ARE STILL RED, UM, BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD WILL VOTE ON THAT.
SO YES, OF COURSE ALL, ALL OF THOSE COMMENTS WILL BE, WILL BE ADDRESSED DURING THE SITE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS.
UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS QUESTION IS FOR YOU, BUT WILL MOUNT PLEASANT HAVE TO BE NOTIFIED ABOUT THE PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT? BECAUSE THERE'S THE WHOLE RULE OF 500 FEET AND THE OTHER TOWNS HAVE TO BE TOLD? YEAH, THEY HAVE BEEN.
AND SO, SO ONE OF THE COMMENTS THAT THE CAC MADE WAS THAT IN THEIR MEETING WITH YOU, THEY MADE NO, THAT THEY SAID THAT THERE WERE NO PLANS TO REMEDIATE THE RAG IN THE EXISTING WETLAND.
IS THAT WETLAND ON, UM, THIS PROPERTY? YEAH.
OR IS IT ADJACENT? IT'S, IT'S ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPERTY.
IT'S THEIR, IT'S THEIR, UM, STORMWATER MAINTENANCE BASIN PLANS.
ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE ITERATIONS AGO, I SHOULD SAY TWO OR THREE ITERATIONS AGO, HAD STORMWATER FROM OUR PROPERTY GOING INTO THAT BASIN.
AND THAT'S WHERE THE COMMENT WAS, THE GENESIS OF THAT COMMENT.
ALL OF THE STORMWATER IS MAINTAINED ON OUR PROPERTY.
WE WOULDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY OR THE AUTHORITY TO GO OVER ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER AND MITIGATE, YOU KNOW, REMOVE EFFECT MONEY FROM THEIR BOND, UH, TOWN PLANNER BRITAIN.
DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD TO THAT IN TERMS OF RECOURSE THE TOWN MIGHT HAVE? SO, RELATED TO THAT, UM, THE TOWN WAS GOING TO LOOK INTO THE APPROVALS FROM THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT OF THE GROVE, UH, BACK FROM THE NINETIES ABOUT THEIR STORMWATER, UH, MANAGEMENT MAINTENANCE PRACTICES AND, UH, INVESTIGATE TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE ARE STILL BEING COMPLIED WITH, UH, RELATED TO WHAT APPEARS TO BE, UH, OVERGROWTH OF INVASIVE SPECIES IN THAT, UH, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TURNED WETLAND AREA.
BUT THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE INDEPENDENT FROM THIS PROJECT SINCE, SINCE THE WETLAND IS, IS NOT, NOT ON THE, THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY AND NOT BEING UTILIZED AS PART OF THIS PROPOSAL? YEAH, CORRECT.
THEN THE HISTORIC AND LANDMARKS PRESERVATION BOARD WANTED THE PLANNING BOARD TO MAKE A RESERVATION, A RECOMMENDATION TO SAVE THE BUILDING IN SOME WAY, REUSE IT, REPURPOSE IT.
AND I ACTUALLY HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE IT, IT DIDN'T APPEAR AS IF, UM, QUORUM, IT WAS UNCLEAR TO ME THAT, THAT THE BODY ACTUALLY VOTED TO ADOPT THAT RECOMMENDATION FROM THE WAY THE RECOMMENDATION WAS WRITTEN.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYONE WHO CAN PROVIDE ANY CONTEXT ON THAT, BUT WHAT THE HISTORIC AND LANDMARK PRESERVATION YEAH, I THINK THEY SUPPOSED TO MEET.
SO IT'S TRANSMITTED, UM, INDEPENDENT OF THE MEETING.
UH, THE GENERAL, UM, ASSESSMENT OF THE HISTORIC BOARD HAS DEFINITELY BEEN, UM, THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE BUILDING PRESERVED AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
BUT LIKE WE, WE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS THEN VOTE ON THEM.
WAS, WAS THE LETTER VOTED ON BY THE BOARD BEFORE THE LETTER WAS DISTRIBUTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD? I DON'T KNOW WHY.
DID YOU GET THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WASN'T I DON'T THINK SO.
WHY DO YOU GET THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WASN'T FROM THE WAY IT WAS WRITTEN? WHICH ONE? I CAN PULL IT UP.
SO WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION ABOUT MY, MY QUESTION IS, IS THIS INPUT, HAS THIS INPUT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE CANOR, THE APPLICANT? ARE YOU
[02:00:01]
PLANNING ON MAKING ANY MEETING ANY OF WHAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING OR SO JUST CHOPPING DOWN THE BUILDING? UM, WELL, NO, NONE OF THE ABOVE IS THE WAY, WAS THE WAY I WOULD ANSWER THAT.UM, WE DID, I I, IN, IN OUR LAST SUBMITTAL, AND I THINK THE SYMBOL BEFORE WE, WE'VE, WE HAVE ADDRESSED THIS, BUT I'M HAPPY TO SUMMARIZE AGAIN, I THINK I SAID AT THE LAST MEETING, WE WERE A LITTLE DISHEARTENED BY THE HISTORIC BOARD'S SUGGESTION THAT THE BUILDING BE MOTH MOTHBALLED, ESSENTIALLY.
UM, WE DON'T THINK THAT'S GOOD PLANNING RESPECTFULLY.
ONE, THE STRUCTURE CANNOT BE USED BY BETHEL.
IT'S JUST NOT SAFE FOR 85, 90 YEAR OLDS TO BE WALKING THROUGH THAT BUILDING.
THAT'S WHY THEY DON'T USE IT NOW THAT THAT STAIRWELL IS UNSAFE.
AND SO THERE IS NO FUNCTIONAL USE OF THIS WHERE, WHERE THIS APPLICANT WHO'S PROVIDING HOMES AND HOUSING FOR SENIOR, SENIOR RESIDENTS IN, IN THIS COMMUNITY TO USE THAT BUILDING.
UM, AND YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT, THEY DON'T, THEY DON'T OPERATE MUSEUMS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST NOT WHAT BETHEL DOES.
AND SO TO SAY, HEY, JUST KEEP THE, THE PROPERTY, IT'S REALLY NOT RESPONSIVE TO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS, IS, IS SEEKING TO DO HERE.
UM, AND I THINK FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, IT FORCES THE DEVELOPMENT CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBORS.
AND, AND THAT, I THINK FROM THIS BOARD'S PERSPECTIVE, FROM EVERYTHING WE'VE HEARD IS, IS NOT SOMETHING, IS NOT AN OUTCOME THAT, THAT THE BOARD WANTS.
UM, AT THE REQUEST OF THE, UH, HISTORIC CONSULTANT THAT THE TOWN HAS, HAS, UH, UH, RETAINED, NOT THE BOARD, BUT THE HISTORIC CONSULTANT, THE EXPERT, WE THEN SUBMITTED A, A FULL BLOWN HISTORIC ANALYSIS.
SO WE LOOKED AT FOUR DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES, UH, TO, TO THE, TO, TO KEEPING THE BUILDING OR DEMOLISHING THE BUILDING IN TOTAL IS, I THINK IS IS MOORE SAID, UH, UH, NOT KNOCKING IT DOWN, WHATEVER THE WORD YOU USED.
UM, THE FIRST ONE WAS PRESERVE IT IN PLACE AND INCORPORATE IT INTO THE PROJECT.
THE SECOND ONE WAS PRESERVE IT IN PLACE AND HAVE IT STANDALONE.
THE THIRD ONE WAS PRESERVE IT AND RELOCATE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE ON, ON THE PROPERTY.
AND THE, AND THE FOURTH ONE WAS DEMOLISH IT, BUT FIRST SALVAGE NOTABLE FEATURES AND INCORPORATE THOSE FEATURES INTO THE NEW BUILDING.
UM, THE, THE, THE PRESERVATION, UH, NOT ONLY I IS NOT VIABLE FROM THE, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE THAT WE DISCUSSED JUST BEFORE IN TERMS OF IT'S UNSAFE FOR THE RESIDENTS AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A MUSEUM.
UM, BUT IT'S ALSO, IT, IT WOULD IMPOSE AN, AN UNDUE AND AN IMPOSSIBLE FINANCIAL BURDEN ON, ON, ON BETHEL.
UM, IF YOU WERE TO PRESERVE THE BUILDING, EITHER YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO UPGRADE IT TO AADA A STANDARDS SO THAT IT COULD BE USED, WHICH WOULD, WOULD, WOULD ADD, YOU KNOW, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS IF NOT A MILLION DOLLARS INTO THE BUDGET, WHICH IS NOT VIABLE FOR THIS NONPROFIT OPERATOR OF SENIOR HOUSING.
UM, IF YOU WERE TO RELOCATE IT OR INCORPORATE IT INTO THE BUILDING, YOU WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY, 'CAUSE THIS BUILDING NEEDS WOULD NEED TO BE PICKED UP AND PUT IN REBUILT, ESSENTIALLY.
AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE WAY TOO EXPENSIVE.
SO WHAT THE, WHAT THE ANALYSIS SHOWS IS THAT FROM A FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY PERSPECTIVE, IT'S, IT'S NOT VIABLE BY THE WAY.
THAT WOULD BE THE STANDARD THAT A HISTORIC BOARD FROM THE STATE OR ANYWHERE ELSE WOULD USE TO EVALUATE WHETHER OR NOT THESE ARE VIABLE ALTERNATIVES.
FINALLY, WE LOOKED AT THE PRESERVING CERTAIN, UH, MOMENTUM FROM THE BUILDING ITSELF AND INCORPORATE THAT INTO THE NEW BUILDING THAT THAT IS VIABLE.
AND THAT IS, WE THINK A, A A, AN APPROPRIATE WAY TO MEMORIALIZE THE PRIOR USE AND STILL HAVE SOME OF THOSE FEATURES BE, BE PROMINENT IN, IN THIS, ON THIS PROPERTY.
SO YOU LOOKED AT, YOU LOOKED AT THE FINAL OPTION BECAUSE I THINK THE, THEIR RECOMMENDATION WAS ALL OF THOSE, LIKE, PLEASE, COULD YOU CONSIDER EACH ONE OF THESE THINGS? RIGHT? SO YOU'VE CONSIDERED ALL OF THEM AND IN THE RECORD YEP.
WE'VE GOT A REPORT IN THE RECORD.
AND, AND, AND AGAIN, WHEN YOU SAY RECOMMENDATION, YOU KNOW, IT, THE, THE MEMO THAT AT LEAST I RECEIVED, UH, THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE WAS IT'S THE UNANIMOUS CONCLUSION OF THE HISTORIC BOARD, WHICH, WHICH UNANIMOUS CONCLUSION I, I THINK IS, IS DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAN THE UNANIMOUS DECISION.
AND THE MEMO'S ONLY FROM TWO OF THE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
SO WHILE WE SHOULD ABSOLUTELY WEIGH THE DIS THE, THE MEMO FROM TWO VERY ACTIVE AND VERY KNOWLEDGEABLE RESIDENTS, UH, I, I HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES OF, OF THAT MEETING.
AND, AND I, I WOULDN'T WANNA PRESENT THIS MEMO AS A MEMO FROM, FROM THE BOARD AS A WHOLE.
I, I THINK ALSO IN LOOKING AT THE HISTORY OF HOW THIS OCCURRED, AT LEAST TO MY RECOLLECTION, UM, A FEW MEETINGS BACK, IT WAS, I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION TO HLPB TO CONSIDER INCORPORATING SOME OF THE ELEMENTS, RIGHT? SO I THINK OPTION FOUR THAT THEY DISCUSSED, THAT WAS THERE, RIGHT? SO THAT WAS I THINK, WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT A PRIOR MEETING.
AND THEN THE LETTER CAME OUT SUBSEQUENT TO THAT.
SO INITIALLY I THINK IT WAS DISCUSSED ABOUT INCORPORATING
[02:05:01]
SOME OF THE ARTIFACTS THAT COULD BE SALVAGED.AND THEN THE SECOND I, SECOND YEAR I THINK FIREPLACE AROUND AND IT WAS CHANGED, THERE WAS A LETTER SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUED, WHICH IS WHAT'S DISCUSSED NOW.
I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE ARE READING THE SAME LETTER.
THE LETTER I'M READING WAS ONE OF THOSE OPTIONS WAS INCORPORATE SOME OF THE OKAY, THEN, THEN, THEN WE MIGHT BE DISCUSSING A DIFFERENT LETTER.
SO, BUT MY, MY, MY QUESTION IS, HAS IT BEEN CONSIDERED AND WILL THERE BE ANY, WILL YOU BE INCORPORATING ONE OR SOME OF THE SUGGESTIONS, AS I JUST SAID, RIGHT? ALTERNATIVE NUMBER FOUR IS THE ONE THAT WE WOULD BE, WE WOULD BE MOVING FORWARD WITH.
HOW, HOW, HOW MODIFIED HAS THAT BUILDING BEEN OVER TIME? 'CAUSE I THINK I, THERE WAS SIGNIFICANTLY, YEAH, IT'S NOT REALLY ALL THAT HISTORIC ANYMORE.
AND LOOK, I, YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO A BACK AND FORTH ON, ON THE, WHETHER IT'S A HISTORIC BUILDING.
WE, WE, WE DON'T BELIEVE IT IS A HISTORIC BUILDING BECAUSE THE, THE, THE CAMPUS FROM THE ST.
MARY'S IN THE FIELD, THAT WAS THE HISTORIC BUILDING THAT WAS DEMOLISHED.
THAT WAS AFTER THIS TOWN IN, AFTER DOING AN EIS DETERMINED THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE A SIGNIFICANT HISTORIC OR ADVERSE HISTORIC IMPACT TO DEMO.
NO, BUT, BUT, BUT IT DOESN'T, IT, THE STANDARDS HAVEN'T CHANGED.
AND SO WHAT WHAT WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED AS HISTORIC ON THE PROPERTY WAS THE LANDSCAPING AND THE CAMPUS, NEITHER OF WHICH IS THERE ANYMORE.
THIS BUILDING IS STILL THERE, BUT IT'S BEEN BUILT ONTO AND IS NOW AN ADULT DAYCARE CENTER OF WHICH THAT BUILDING IS NOT USED BECAUSE IT'S JUST NOT SAFE.
UM, THE, ONE OF THE ALTERNATE IS SAVED.
AND I THINK THERE WAS A, IT'S NOT VIABLE TO MOVE THE BUILDING 50 FEET FROM THERE AND RIGHT.
KEEP IT AS A SORT OF A, FROM A, FROM A, FROM A FINANCIAL PERSPECTIVE.
WHICH, I MEAN, HOW DO YOU SAY IT'S NOT VIABLE? MEANING I DON'T THINK IT'S GONNA COST A, BECAUSE THE CONSULTANT SAYS IT'S VIABLE.
SO THE CONSULTANT, YOU MEAN? YOU MEAN THE, THE, YOUR HISTORIC CONSULTANT? HMM? YOUR HISTORIC CONSULTANT.
YOUR HISTORIC CONSULTANT ASKED US FOR A FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS, WHICH IS NOW IN YOUR RECORD, RIGHT? THAT WAS SUBMITTED.
IT WAS THE LAST WEEK OR THE WEEK BEFORE, WHICH GIVES YOU DOLLARS AND CENTS AS TO, AS TO ESTIMATES AS TO HOW MUCH IT WOULD, IT WOULD COST TO FIRST YOU, YOU'D HAVE TO TAKE THAT BUILDING APART.
'CAUSE IT, IT, IT'S, IT'S NOT, IT, IT, IT CANNOT STAND ON ITS OWN.
YOU CAN'T JUST PICK IT UP AND MOVE IT IN.
YOU THEN HAVE TO INCORPORATE IT INTO THE BUILDING.
THEN YOU'D HAVE TO UPGRADE IT INTO A DA STANDARDS.
SO IT'S NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, WELL, YOU COULD JUST PICK IT UP HYPOTHETICALLY, MOVE IT IN.
I, I THINK A DS STANDARD IS, IS A VERY, UH, UH, FLEXIBLE IN A SENSE THAT THE USE OF IT, LOT OF HISTORICAL BUILDINGS HAS BEEN USED AND REUSED WHERE THEY GAVE A, UH, UH, CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE, TO THE A DA AND EVEN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT GUIDELINES.
SO WE WE'RE MISSING, IT'S NOT A GREAT TO SAY, WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT IS THE RESIDENTS WHO ARE 85 AND OLDER.
IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A DA ACCESSIBLE, WE HAVE TO MAKE IT SAFE FOR THE RESIDENTS.
YOU CAN'T JUST SAY, WELL, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL GET A WAIVER SO THAT THE STAIRS CAN STAY THERE.
IT'S NOT SAFE TO TO, TO, THAT WAS ONE ALTERNATE.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE ALTERNATE.
SO, UH, BUT, BUT ANYWAY, I THINK, UH, UH, BUT, UH, CONSULTANTS, THE TOWN HISTORIC WORK CONSULTANTS HAS THOROUGHLY STUDIED AND GIVE YOU THESE OPTIONS.
AND OF COURSE YOU PICKED UP THE ONE THAT IS, UH, THE LEAST EXPENSIVE ONE FOR, FOR YOU TO DO AND FOR THE TOWN TO KEEP CERTAIN HISTORICAL THINGS THAT WE'VE BEEN TRYING, WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO REALLY KEEP THE HERITAGE AND HISTORY OF THE TOWN TO BE PRESERVED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE.
WE HAVE LOST A LOT OF REALLY GOOD THINGS.
SO WOULD YOU LIKE THAT INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD? I THINK YEAH.
THE, THE WAY THE, THE MAMMO IS WRITTEN BY THE TOWN CONSULTANTS THAT THEY RECOMMEND.
UH, AND I AGREE WITH YOU THAT SOME OF THE THINGS YOU'RE SAYING IS, BUT I WANTED TO COMBINE THAT YOU CAN MAKE IT A, MAKE IT A, SOME SORT OF A, UH, STANDALONE BUILDING AND OF COURSE IT'S GOING TO COST YOU, BUT I THINK HE SAID VERY VAGUELY, I READ THE RESPONSE AND IT DID NOT CONVINCE ME THAT IT WAS 30.
WELL, I, WHAT A COUPLE THINGS I WOULD SAY.
AND, AND OBVIOUSLY YOU SIT ON, YOU SIT ON TWO BOARDS, SO, SO YOU, YOU LIVE, I KNOW YOU LIVE THE BALANCE, RIGHT.
OTHERS IS MAKING SURE THAT, THAT THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS IN, IN THE COMMUNITY AND, AND, YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT A BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO, RIGHT? TO SAY, HEY, LOOK, JUST PRESERVE THE STRUCTURE IN PLACE AND NOT THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT DOES TO SAY WHAT WE WOULD'VE TO DO TO THE ROAD, OR HOW MUCH LESS SCREENING WE COULD HAVE BETWEEN PROPERTIES.
I, I DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S, THAT'S THE, THE RIGHT BALANCE.
[02:10:01]
IF, IF THE, IF COMPLAINANT ORDER IS GONNA MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD, SO BE IT.WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL ADDRESS TO THE TOWN BOARD.
I I THINK OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD TO BE IS THAT IT SHOULD BE, UH, REVIEWED AND, AND IF POSSIBLE COULD BE MOVED.
YES, I AGREE THAT INCORPORATING IS NOT FEASIBLE, BUT MOVING IT AND USING IT AS SOME OTHER USE, UH, COULD BE POSSIBLE.
AND UH, UH, MAKING IT TO THE PRESENT DAY STANDARDS COULD BE, UH, COULD BE KIND OF, UH, JUST THE, JUST THE ORIGINAL PORTION OR, OR ALSO THE EXTENDED PORTION, ORIGINAL PORTION DOESN'T EXIST.
THE WHATEVER REMAINING IS WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT TODAY.
YOU'VE BEEN TO THE SITE, RIGHT? THAT WAS ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS.
WHAT WE ARE TALKING THE ORIGINAL PORTION OF THIS BUILDING THAT REMAINS STILL EXISTS.
SO THAT, THAT IS WHAT, UH, I THINK THE TOWN CONSULTANTS, HISTORIC CONSULTANTS TALKS ABOUT WHAT TO DO WITH THAT.
AND I THINK I AGREE WITH YOU TO INCORPORATING INTO THE EXISTING, UH, FUNCTION OF THE BUILDING.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NOT POSSIBLE.
BUT THE, THE THIRD OPTION IS WHAT SORT OF, UH, I WOULD LIKE YOU TO LOOK AT IT.
WE HAVE THAT CAPTURED AS THE LIAISON TO THE HLPB FOR THE PLANNING BOARD.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT.
THE ONLY, THE ONLY, THE ONLY THING I CAN SAY IS I, THE HISTORICAL BOARD, I'LL DO WHATEVER THEY WANT TO DO SOME, THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS IT'S A MAD YOU'RE, YOU'RE THE MEMBER THOUGH FOR THE PLANNING BOARD THAT'S ON THE HOPP, CORRECT? YEAH.
DON'T, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN OFFICIAL LIAISON.
I THINK THERE JUST HAPPENS TO BE MEMBERSHIP.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS WE HAVE, WE HAVE RESPONDED TO THAT.
I IT IT'S IN YOUR RECORD OR JUST THAT, YOU KNOW, DON'T, THE ONLY THING I I WANT THE BOARD TO COME AWAY WITH IS, IS NOT TO, TO PUT IN A RECOMMENDATION OF THE TOWN BOARD, MAKE THEM STUDY IT.
WE, WE, WE DID STUDY IT, EVALUATE THE, ABOUT EVALUATE THE STUDY.
YOU GOTTA TAKE A LOOK AT THE REPORT.
SO THE, THE ONE I THINK, AND JUST TELL ME IF I'VE UNDERSTOOD THE APPLICANT CORRECTLY, THE PORTION OF THE SITE NOT BEING DEVELOPED AND THAT IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED ON COMPREHENSIVE PLANNERS PROTECTED OPEN SPACE, THE APPLICANT IS NOT OPPOSED TO US SEEING THAT SPACE AS PROTECTED OPEN SPACE.
THE SECOND IS THE, I THINK, I THINK WHAT WE SAW IS THE, THE PROPOSAL IS TO REMOVE ABOUT A HUNDRED TREES TO REMOVE A HUNDRED TREES AND PLANT 204.
BUT THE REMOVAL IS MOSTLY ON THE SITE OF THE PROJECT FACING INTO THE NEIGHBORS RIGHT.
AND THEN YES, I THINK IF YOU, IF YOU, I DUNNO IF YOU WENT ON THE SITE VISIT OR NOT, BUT THERE ARE A BUNCH OF INVASIVE SPECIES OVER THERE.
THOSE ARE PICKED UP ON, ON THE SURVEY.
THAT'S GONNA BE REMOVED AND REPLANTED WITH NATIVE TREES AND SCREENING.
BUT RIGHT NOW THEY PERFORM A SCREENING FUNCTION AND THEN REPLANTING WITH NATIVE TREES, THEY COULD TAKE 10 YEARS BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY PROVIDE SCREENING.
AND PART OF THIS REQUEST IS TO BUILD TALLER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE ZONING CODE AND TALLER THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE.
SO, UM, I KNOW YOU'VE SEEN FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBOR ASKING FOR MORE COMPREHENSIVE SCREENING.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE SEEN A RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDATION FROM THE LANDSCAPER ON ALTERNATIVE TO YOUR PROPOSAL FOR LANDSCAPING.
I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW IF YOU HAVE AND IF YOU WILL CONSIDER IT.
BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE OUR RECOMMENDATION TO BE THAT WE HAVE MORE THAN LIKE THE, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MIXED DE EVERGREENS OR THE, THE, THE NEIGHBORS ARE, IN MY MIND JUSTIFIABLY CONCERNED THAT THEIR PRIVACY IS BEING LOST BY US APPROVING AS OWNING, UM, VARIANCE THAT WOULD CREATE A TALLER BUILDING.
THERE'S, THERE'S A LOT THERE THAT WHAT I THINK YOU'RE SAYING, I MEAN, WOULD, WOULD THERE BE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENHANCE THE LANDSCAPING PLAN BY PLANTING TALLER, UH, EVERGREEN SPECIES? YEAH.
THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION IS, IS, IS YES TO SOME EXTENT.
NOW, I THINK A PRIOR APPLICANT WAS BEFORE YOUR BOARD TONIGHT AND SAID A SIMILAR THING WHERE, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T PLANT TOO TALL OF A TREE AT PLANTING BECAUSE THAT, THAT THREATENS ITS ABILITY TO SURVIVE.
AND SO, UM, WITHIN, WITHIN THOSE PARAMETERS THEN YES, WE, WE, WE'VE TAKE, WE'VE THE CAC MADE A RECOMMENDATION ABOUT LOOKING AT THE CALIBER OF THE TREE.
SOME THINGS I JUST NEED TO CORRECT ON, ON THE RECORD THERE, BECAUSE THERE WAS A LOT THERE THAT, THAT WAS INACCURATE.
FIRST OF ALL, THE BUILDING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT IS A NORTHERN BUILDING IS TWO AND A HALF STORIES THAT MEETS THE ZONING.
SECOND OFF THE, THE SCREENING THAT THEY'RE, THAT THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT
[02:15:01]
IS, IS MOSTLY INVASIVE SPECIES.AND IT'S NOT AS IF WE'VE SAID, WELL, TOUGH LUCK.
WE'RE JUST, I THINK THE THE LATEST LETTER SAID, WE'RE JUST CLEAR CUTTING AND WE'RE CREATING, YOU KNOW, A, A, A CLEAR PATH.
THAT'S, THAT'S NOT WHAT THE PLAN'S SAYING.
WE KNOW, YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT THE PLAN.
WE HAVE, WE HAVE FROM DAY ONE TRIED TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE IN, IN GOOD FAITH.
AND SO YES, WE'VE LOOKED AT THE PLAN.
WE, WE'VE HEARD THE CAC, UM, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE LAST PIECE THAT, UH, WAS, WAS SUGGESTED ABOUT THE, UM, LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS THAT, THAT, UH, THAT YOU SHOULD, YES.
WE'VE SEEN, WE'VE SEEN THE MEMO VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT THE CAC SAID IN TERMS OF CALIBER.
OH NO, THERE'S NOT GONNA BE ANY SCREENING THERE.
THERE'S GONNA BE CLEAR CUTTING.
IN FACT, IF YOU READ THE LANDSCAPER'S, UH, LETTER WITH THE LETTER THAT WE GOT TODAY OR YESTERDAY FROM THE NEIGHBOR, IT, IT, IT'S NIGHT AND DAY.
UM, BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEAR CUTTING.
THERE'S, THERE'S A WHOLE NEW FOREST THAT'S GONNA BE PLANTED THERE.
I'D LOVE TO EXPLAIN THE I COULD.
AND SO, UM, I, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE CONCERN AND IT JUST, THE PLANNING BOARD SHOULD KNOW.
I HOPE THEY KNOW, BECAUSE THIS IS OUR, I THINK OUR THIRD OR FOURTH MEETING WITH YOU ADDRESSING THIS ISSUE.
WE, WE ARE TRYING TO ADDRESS IT IN A WAY THAT'S REASONABLE AND ALSO VIABLE.
UM, AND SO WE THINK WHAT'S BEFORE YOU SHOWS YOU THAT WE CAN DO THAT.
WE'VE HEARD THE CAC AND WE WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT IT.
THE, UM, THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT'S LETTER REFERENCED A LANDSCAPING BOND.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO? UM, IF, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE TOWN REQUIRES OF ALL APPLICANTS? IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT A REQUEST, ITS REQUIREMENT.
COULD YOU CLARIFY? THERE'S ACTUALLY NO, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? THE, THE OTHER, SORRY.
THE OTHER, THE OTHER PIECE I, THE OTHER PIECE I, I WOULD, I WOULD SAY IS, UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE, THE SETBACK THERE, IF, IF YOU LOOK AT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT ON THE SURVEY RIGHT HERE.
IF YOU LOOK AT THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THAT, THE, THE HOUSE, THE NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE IN QUESTION AND THE PROPERTY LINE, AND THEN WHERE THE NEW BUILDING IS GONNA BE, THAT'S, THAT'S OVER 200 FEET.
IF YOU WERE TO ON GOOGLE EARTH, LOOK UP AND LOOK AT, AT THE SEPARATION DISTANCES BETWEEN ALL OF THE OTHER HOUSES IN ON STEVENS LANE AND THEN KEEP ON GOING, YOU CAN'T DO IT HERE 'CAUSE IT'S NOT THERE.
UM, THE SETBACK IN, IN THIS, IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IS 25 FEET.
THERE ARE HOMES THAT ARE LITERALLY ON TOP OF EACH OTHER.
SO WE UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE FOR, FOR, FOR PRIVACY AND WE RESPECT THAT AND WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IT.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS, UH, THIS IS A, WHEN, WHEN YOU COMPARE IT TO THE REST OF THE CHARACTER OF DEVELOPMENT IN THE COMMUNITY IN THIS AREA, THIS IS A, A, A SIGNIFICANT SETBACK, EVEN IF THERE WEREN'T ANY SCREENING.
BUT WITH THE SCREENING, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT COULD, FROM A CCRA PERSPECTIVE, BE QUANTIFIED AS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.
FROM AN EMPIRICAL SECRET DATA PERSPECTIVE, WHICH IS THE WAY THAT YOU, YOU HAVE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH, WITH A SECRET REVIEW.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY, THE PATTERN OF DEVELOPMENT, THIS IS, THIS IS MORE THAN CONSISTENT WITH WHAT'S, WHAT'S UP.
WELL, AND JUST TO CLARIFY THE PLANNING WORK, IT'S NOT LEAD AGENCY ON THIS PROJECT, RIGHT? SORRY? RIGHT.
LIKE I STARTED GOING, GOING IN MY SEQUENCE.
EXCUSE MR. MR. WEINBERG, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR NO RECOMMENDED RECOMMENDATIONS? ALRIGHT, MR. DESAI.
CAN YOU, I MEAN, JUST RECENTLY SEND OUT A, UM, DRAWINGS THAT SHOWS HOW THE SCREENING WOULD BE DONE.
SO I THINK THAT WAS IN, IN THE LAST PACKET, LAST RENDERING.
YEAH, IF YOU CAN SHOW THAT ONE TOO.
NO, UH, ARE YOU, WHICH WERE YOU TALKING ABOUT? THE, UM, WERE CROSS SECTIONS? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
JUST THE, THERE WAS A VIEW, VIEW ARCHITECTURE RENDERING FROM YOUR LANDSCAPE.
OH, THAT WOULD SHOW LANDSCAPE.
UH, ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE VIEW FROM PER PERSPECTIVES? YEAH.
DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE, LIKE DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVES.
THE SEE AND YEAH, THAT'S LIKE WHAT SORT OF WHAT THE, THE LANDSCAPING WILL, WILL MAKE IT LOOK.
AND THE, AND AND ALSO THE UH, UH, THE NEIGHBOR HAS SUBMITTED THE, SOME OF THE RESPONSE TO THAT.
THE, WELL, WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, SO THIS IS THE REVISED VIEW, RIGHT? THIS IS SHOWING THE THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPING PLAN.
FROM WHERE? FROM THE NEIGHBORS.
FROM THE NEIGHBOR, YEAH, FROM FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD.
FROM THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD, YEP.
AND THAT'S FROM WHAT STATE? SO THE TREES ARE SHOWN FROM WHAT YEAR, I GUESS WOULD BE HELPFUL.
WELL, I THINK THAT'S MY SECOND QUESTION.
SO WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE IN YEAR ONE? BUT THAT, THAT'S JUST NOT THE PLANNING STANDARD.
YOU, YOU, BUT PRIVACY IS AN ENVIRONMENT.
THINK NO, HOLD ON THEN LET ME, LET ME, LET ME ADDRESS THAT.
BECAUSE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT.
THE TOWN CODE CCRA AND NO STANDARD UNDER NEW YORK STATE LAW IMPOSES UPON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES A REQUIREMENT THAT THEIR PROPERTIES BE INVISIBLE.
RIGHT? IF, AGAIN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE PATTERN OF
[02:20:01]
DEVELOPMENT IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, NOTHING IS INVISIBLE.WERE THERE IF, IF IF YOU WERE TO DO A GOOGLE, UH, UH, DRIVE DOWN STEVENS LANE, THE NEIGHBORS ARE LOOKING INTO EACH OTHER'S, INTO EACH, EACH OTHER'S, UH, UH, HOUSES FAR CLOSER THAN THIS.
UM, THERE MAY BE A VIEW OR TWO AT SOME POINT DURING THE YEAR WHERE SOMEONE COULD SEE A HOUSE, BUT THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT DISPOSITIVE FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE, FROM A SECO PERSPECTIVE.
WELL, MY, MY KIND OF RECOMMENDATION IS THAT, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE VIEW THAT THE ONE THAT YEAH.
SO SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT NEIGHBOR HAS IS THAT THEY'RE, BECAUSE THEY'RE THE DOWNHILL, SO ANYBODY SITTING ON, ON THE, UH, FROM MOST OF THE WINDOWS, THEY CAN SEE INTO THEIR BACKYARDS AND TO THEIR BEDROOMS EVEN.
SO IS IT POSSIBLE, AND MY SUGGESTION, THE SOME OF THE BALCONIES COULD BE ELIMINATED SO THAT THEY WOULD NOT BE DIRECTLY LOOKING OPEN SPACE TO THEIR BEDROOM WINDOWS.
I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE CERTAIN WINDOWS BASED ON THE PEOPLE LIVING IN IT, BUT IF YOU CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE PEOPLE HANGING OUT, LOOKING DOWN ON THEIR PROPERTY OR BEDROOM.
SO IS IT, I MEAN, IF IT'S NOT, UH, SO ONEROUS ON YOU, AND IF YOU CAN ELIMINATE COUPLE OF BALCONIES, PARTICULARLY ON THE UPPER LEVELS WHERE THEY WILL BE, HAVE A CLEAR, CLEAR EYE LINE SHOT.
SO THAT'S A ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATION I WOULD MAKE.
I, I, THE, THE, THE, THE I IDEA OF, LOOK, YOU HAVE TO ELIMINATE BALCONIES OVER HERE BECAUSE, BECAUSE SOMEONE MAY BE UP THERE.
I MEAN, DOES, DOES THE, DOES THE BOARD REQUIRE NO.
YOU CAN HAVE A BALCONY IN THE, IN THE ZONE IN THIS, RIGHT? NO.
AND SO I UNDERSTAND, I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION FROM, FROM A, FROM A MARKETING PERSPECTIVE AND FROM, FROM A VALUE OF, OF THE UNITS THAT THAT'S PART OF, OF, OF, OF THE, THE ATTRACTION OF, OF THESE UNITS.
AND IT'S ALSO, FRANKLY, REMEMBER, SO HOW MUCH WE WERE GETTING COMMENTS FROM CERTAIN BOARDS SAYING, DON'T MAKE THIS BUILDING LOOK INSTITUTIONAL.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THERE, THERE ARE ALCON.
SO, SO IT'S NOT, YOU CAN, YOU CAN MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION.
WE CAN TAKE WOULD LIKE TO, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S, I THINK IT'S ALSO WORTH NOTING.
IF YOU COULD PLEASE CLOSE THE MICROPHONE, INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
PATRICK MCDO, PRINCIPAL AT EGA ARCHITECTS.
I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT AGAIN, IT'S 200 FEET FROM THOSE, THE WINDOWS THAT YOU'RE SEEING IN THAT THE GABLE END UP THERE ARE SIX FEET TALL.
THEY'RE THE SIZE OF A, A HUMAN BEING.
WHAT YOU CAN SEE FROM 200 FEET AWAY IS VERY INSIGNIFICANT.
THIS ISN'T LOOMING OVER THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD.
THIS IS 200 FEET AWAY FROM THEIR HOUSE.
BUT I WAS TALKING ABOUT BROUGHT THE WINDOWS, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE BALCONIES.
PEOPLE CAN STAND IN THEIR WINDOWS AND LOOK INTO IT'S THE SAME YARD.
WE, WE UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT.
WE'RE JUST NOT GONNA, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO, TRYING TO MAKE IT A MIDDLE CROWD.
BUT WE WILL MAKE, UH, IF YOU CAN PUT IT INTO RECOMMENDATION THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT.
ANY OTHER, WELL, I MEAN, LOOK AT THE SCREENING CODE AND ZONING RIGHT? AND THE HILLTOP CODE AND ZONING.
MR. DE DECIDE, DO YOU HAVE ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT YOU'D LIKE TO SEE INCLUDED? UH, THE, UH, HISTORICAL BOARD, UH, HISTORIC BOARD CONSULTANTS, HISTORIC CONSULTANTS.
DO WE NOTE IT? I THINK IT, SO ARE, ARE THERE ANY PLANS? ARE THERE ANY CONSIDERATIONS FOR INCOME ELIGIBILITY BASED AFFORDABLE UNITS? UM, I THINK, I THINK IT'S, I THINK IT'S REQUIRED ACTUALLY RIGHT UNDER, UNDER THE, THE CODE OR JUST THE PLAN ITSELF.
WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT.
NO, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT IN THE CODE FOR AFFORDABILITY, BUT IT WOULD BE A BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY, COMMUNITY AND, UM, GREATLY APPRECI APPRECIATED BY THE TOWN.
UM, AND, AND WOULD THERE BE, UH, AN APPETITE TO USE, UH, PERIA SERVICES FOR SOME OF THE PARKING? I'M SORRY, ONE SECOND.
GOING BACK TO THE CCRC, PERHAPS IT'S BENEFICIAL TO GO BACK TO THE FACT THAT THE CCRC IS, UH, STATE REGULATED.
AND I BELIEVE THERE IS A POTENTIALLY AN AFFORDABILITY COMPONENT TO A CRC AS IS.
UM, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED.
AND PERHAPS YOU'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO THE COMMENT AND QUESTION ABOUT AFFORDABILITY AND, UH, SETTING ASIDE, UH, A UNIT OR, OR PERCENTAGE OF UNITS OR, OR, OR NOT BEFORE MOVING ON.
YEAH, WE CAN MAKE A COMMENT ONTO
[02:25:01]
THAT.AND WE, WE CAN, WE'LL, I'M NOT GONNA, LET ME, LET ME RESPOND WITH IT.
WITH THE ACTUAL POLICY AND, AND, YEAH.
WHAT ABOUT THE IMP PER SETTING? YEAH.
WOULD YOU BE OPEN TO USING PERVIOUS SERVICES FOR SOME OF THE PARKING? UM, HI COLLETTE, LAURA LANG AND, UH, CIVIL ENGINEER.
SO IN LOOKING AT THE AMOUNT OF AREA THAT THESE PERVIOUS SERVICES WOULD COVER, IT JUST IS NOT ENOUGH OF A BENEFIT.
AND AS A CIVIL ENGINEER, I FIND THAT, LIKE IN MY RESEARCH AND APPLICATION OF THESE SURFACES, THEY DON'T WORK THAT WELL AND THEY END UP CLOGGING OVER TIME AND NOT BEING VERY EFFECTIVE.
SO WE JUST DON'T FEEL THAT THE LIMITED EXTERIOR PARKING WHERE THIS WOULD BE APPLICABLE IS OF A BENEFIT.
I, I THINK THAT IS TO BE DONE 15 YEARS AGO.
NOW THEY, MOST OF THE PLACES AND SOME MUNICIPALITY MANDATED TO USE A IMPERVIOUS, UH, BLOCKS TO PARKING AREA.
SO I THINK YOU SHOULD REALLY LOOK INTO IT.
I WAS LIKE 15 YEARS AGO AND, UH, NOW, NOW THEY HAVE IMPROVED AND THEY ARE DOING IT, UH, MANY MORE PLACES.
AND ALSO REQUIRED BY SOME OF THE MUNICIPALITIES IN WESTCHESTER THAT YOU HAVE TO USE OUS.
WHAT ABOUT SURFACES THAT WE HAVEN'T GOT TO THAT WE SHOULD MAKE THAT CHANGE? HMM.
WHAT ABOUT THE CONSIDERATION OF GRASS CREEK? WELL, WHATEVER IT IS, IT MAKES IT IN PER PERVIEW SURFACE.
UH, AND ALSO, UH, ANY OTHER SORT OF GREEN TECHNOLOGY, UH, THAT YOU ARE USING? YEAH, I'M GONNA SHARE MY SCREEN AGAIN.
UM, SO I MEAN, WE ARE USING THE INFILTRATION BASIN FOR TREATMENT AND TO REDUCE ANY STORM WATER FROM LEAVING THE SITE.
SO THAT IS A GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICE, UM, THAT THE DEC STATES IN THEIR STORM WATER MANUAL.
SO WE ARE USING THE INFILTRATION BASIN, UM, TO ESSENTIALLY REMOVE STORM WATER FROM THE OVERALL SYSTEM.
UM, AND THEN IN TERMS, JUST GOING BACK TO YOUR PREVIOUS PAVEMENT, UM, COMMENT, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, NOT A LOT OF PARKING AREAS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING, BUT WHATEVER IT IS, I MEAN, ANYTHING WILL BETTER THAN NOTHING LIKE THAT
WHAT ABOUT, UM, WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT KIND OF PRODUCTS.
YEAH, I THINK IT'S, AND WHAT ABOUT THE, UH, UH, SOLAR PANELS OR OTHER TECHNOLOGY THAT YOU CAN INCORPORATE IT INTO THE ROOF OR OTHER STUFF? I, AGAIN, PATRICK, MIXER OF EG ARCHITECTS, UM, THE, THE CURRENT BUILDING CODE HAS A VERY HIGH, UH, FAIRLY STRICT REQUIREMENT FOR IMPROVEMENTS TO THE BUILDING, BOTH IN TERMS OF ENVELOPE AND ENERGY USE.
AND WE'LL OBVIOUSLY COMPLY WITH ALL OF THOSE.
THOSE WILL PROBABLY MEAN THAT THIS BUILDING IS THE MOST EFFICIENT BUILDING IN GREENBURG, UM, FOR THE FORESEEABLE FUTURE WHEN IT'S COMPLETED.
UM, SO WE ARE NOT ANTICIPATING SOLAR PANELS ARE, OR SIMILAR TECHNOLOGY, SOLAR TECHNOLOGY IS PERFECTLY REASONABLE.
IT DOESN'T HAVE THE BENEFIT THAT IT'S, UH, PROPONENTS SAY BECAUSE OF THE SCALE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.
YOU REALLY NEED A MUCH LARGER ROOF SURFACE IN ORDER TO MAKE IT VIABLE FOR THE, FOR THE PAYBACK FOR IT.
UH, BUT ALL OF THE OTHER TECHNOLOGIES THAT WE CAN INCORPORATE INTO THE BUILDING IN TERMS OF AN IMPROVED ENVELOPE, UH, REDUCED INFILTRATION, HIGH QUALITY WINDOWS, UM, HIGH LEVELS OF INSULATION, ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE PROJECT.
AND UH, WHAT ABOUT THE, UH, UH, THE OTHER, UH, I MEAN THE PART OF THE CODE REQUIRES CERTAIN AMOUNT OF, UH, UH, MEETING THE, UM, THE GREEN TECHNOLOGY OR TO, SO TO SPEAK INTO IT.
SO IT JUST LOOK INTO THE TOWN CODE.
I THINK WE HAD A 10 YEARS AGO WE PUT INTO IT TOO.
WE WILL ABSOLUTELY COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN CODE.
I BELIEVE THE TOWN CODE REQUIRES THAT YOU DEMONSTRATE COMPLIANCE WITH LEAD, UH, SILVER, I BELIEVE STANDARD STANDARD, BUT NOT REQUIRING ACTUAL CERTIFICATION.
MS. MOORE, I KNOW YOU HAD A QUESTION.
I ALSO DON'T WANT TO FORGET MS. ANDERSON ON ZOOM.
UH, MS. ANDERSON, DID YOU HAVE ANY, ANY QUESTIONS, ANY SUGGESTED RECOMMENDATIONS, ANY FEEDBACK ON THE APPLICATION? NO, NOT NO FURTHER THAN WHAT OTHER PEOPLE ARE SAYING.
UH, MS. MOORE, YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE OF THE COMMENTS WE GOT TODAY MAYBE FROM ENGINEERING WAS THE CONCERN THAT
[02:30:01]
THE WATER USE EXCEEDS WHAT'S CURRENTLY BEING USED.THE, IT, IT WAS AS WRITTEN LIKE TODAY, I THINK 24,000 GALLONS PER DAY ARE CONSUMED.
AND WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT WOULD GO UP TO 38,000 GALLONS PER DAY.
THAT WOULD HAVE AN EAF, THAT'S A, THAT'S A ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
YES OR NO, MITIGATABLE, IT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
SO, SO HOW DOES IT WORK? LIKE WE HAVE TO MAKE THE RECOMMENDATIONS, THE TELL NET HAS TO BE ADDRESSED BECAUSE IF THAT'S THE CASE, WE GET A LOT OF STUFF TO GO THROUGH OR THAT WOULD JUST BE PART OF, 'CAUSE I THINK IT CAME FROM ENGINEERING.
I MEAN WE CAN, WE CAN CERTAINLY EMPHASIZE IT, BUT CERTAINLY ALL THE COMMENTS FROM TOWN STAFF WOULD ALSO BE SHARED WITH THE TOWN BOARD.
AND ALL OF THOSE STANDARDS THAT ARE REQUIRED TO BE BET BY CODE ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THEM PROCEEDING WITH ANY DEVELOPMENT PERMITS AT A MINIMUM.
BUT WE'LL GET OUT AHEAD OF IT.
WE'RE GONNA CONNECT THEM WITH THE WATER AND SEWER DEPARTMENT AND UM, WE NEED APPROPRIATE, WE NEED CIRCUM, BUT THAT KIND OF THING, RIGHT? LIKE IF YOU CAN'T GET THE WATER THAT YOU NEED THERE FOR ANOTHER FOUR YEARS, THAT'S GONNA HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE DECISION THE TOWN MAKES.
RIGHT? BECAUSE IT SOUNDED LIKE IT WAS LIKE THE MAIN LINE WE BE IDENTIFIED IF SIGN, IF AN IMPROVEMENT NEEDS TO BE MADE, IT WILL BE IDENTIFIED BEFORE THEY GET SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO MAKE THAT IMPROVEMENT IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT.
SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE LOOKED AT LATER.
IT'S GONNA BE LOOKED AT DURING THIS PRESENT PROCESS.
AND THEN SIMILAR TO THE QUESTION THAT I HAD ON BMR, THE SAME THING, RIGHT? SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF STEEP SLOPE.
THE AMOUNT OF BUILDABLE, BUILDABLE LOT IS NOT BEING REDUCED AS PER 3 85 THING.
MAJI 39 EI CAN'T REMEMBER THE CODE.
SHOULD IT BE AND WHY NOT? LIKE WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE DEAL? RIGHT? SO THE INTERPRETATION FROM THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS THAT THAT SECTION OF THE CODE ONLY APPLIES TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
NO, THEIR INTERPRETATION WAS THAT THEY'VE NEVER APPLIED IT TO COMMERCIAL.
WELL, WE'RE SAYING THE SAME THING.
I THINK, UM, HAVING SAID THAT, UM, ARE YOU LOOKING TO HAVE THAT VERIFIED FROM THE BUILDINGS RE REVERIFIED THAT THEY'VE, THAT THEY SHOULD NOT BE DOING THE, THE, THE, I I THINK IN THE CONTEXT OF THE LAST DISCUSSION, YOUR RECOMMENDATION WAS, UM, QUESTIONING WHY THAT IS AND BASED ON THE CODE.
AND THEN IF NOT, UM, IT'S SOMETHING THE TOWN BOARD SHOULD LOOK AT CLARIFY IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, UM, HA THROUGH AN AMENDMENT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR WHAT IS THE CASE, YES OR NO, AND SHOULD IT OR SHOULDN'T APPLY TO THIS PROPERTY ONCE THEY'VE CLARIFIED IT.
WELL, THEY'VE ALREADY CLARIFIED.
YEAH, THEY'VE ALREADY CLARIFIED.
BUT I THINK YOU'RE ASKING NO, SO THEY'VE CLARIFIED THAT HISTORICALLY THEY HAVEN'T USED IT, EVEN THOUGH THE CODE SAYS THAT THEY SHOULD APPLY IT.
WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S YOUR, UM, INTERPRETATION.
YOU'RE YOU'RE SAYING THEY SAID THAT IT SHOULD, BUT THEY'RE NOT BECAUSE NO, I'M SAYING THAT HISTORICALLY THEY HAVEN'T APPLIED IT, BUT THERE IS NOTHING THAT I CAN FIND IN THE CODE THAT SAYS IT SHOULDN'T BE APPLIED.
NO, BUT IT LOOK, THIS IS, THIS IS, THIS IS A, THIS IS A JURISDICTION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, RIGHT? THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAS THE SOLE JURISDICTION TO INTERPRET THE, THE ZONING CODE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAS ALREADY ISSUED THAT INTERPRETATION.
IT WOULD BE ATYPICAL FOR A MUNICIPALITY TO HAVE ITS BUILDING INSPECTOR PROVIDE AN INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE TO THE APPLICANT, PUT THE APPLICANT THROUGH A REVIEW PROCESS WITH FOUR OR FIVE STEPS BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD.
WE'VE GONE TO EVERY THE CAC, THE HISTORIC BOARD, WE'RE GONNA BE BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD AND THEN CHANGE THE ZONING CODE MID MIDSTREAM AND, AND THE INTERPRETATION, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ZONING CODE, IT'S STEEP SLOPE CODE.
NO, BUT IT, THAT SECTION OF REDUCTION IS IN THE ZONING CODE.
IT'S IN THE, IT'S ALSO IN THE ZONING CODE.
AND, AND, AND THE INTERPRETATION WAS IT DOESN'T APPLY NOT JUST TO THIS APPLICATION, BUT TO ALL COMMERCIAL APPLICATIONS.
SO WHAT YOU'RE RECOMMENDING, IF I UNDERSTAND YOU WANTED TO HAVE A MORE FURTHER STUDY DONE, UH, SIMILAR TO LIKE LITTLE MINI EIS THE INTENT OF STEEP SLOPE CODE IS TO PROTECT STEEP SLOPE FROM BEING OVERDEVELOPED, RIGHT.
AND TO PROTECT SURROUNDING THE ENVIRONMENT AND SURROUNDING BUILDINGS.
THE CODE AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IS ONLY BEING APPLIED IF YOU CHOOSE TO BUILD A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON THE STEEP SLOPE IF YOU CHOOSE TO BUILD A 270,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE ON A STEEP SLOPE.
SO, SO THE, THE INTENT OF THE CODE AND THE APPLICATION OF THE CODE ARE IN CONFLICT.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS I WOULD, WELL, MY IMAGINE THE BUILDING INSPECTORS INTERPRETATION IS BASED ON THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE RECORD WHEN THE LAW WAS FIRST ADOPTED.
AND ALSO WRITTEN FROM LAST PROJECT WHERE YOU BROUGHT UP THE SAME POINT IS THAT YOU WISH TO RECOMMEND THAT THE TOWN BOARD CLARIFY WHY STEEP SLOPE PRODUCTIONS DO NOT APPLY TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
DO YOU, UH, WANT THAT SAME RECOMMENDATION? BUT THAT'S NOT FOR THE TOWN BOARD TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON IT FOR BUILDING DEPARTMENT TOO ACROSS THE BUILDING.
BUT I THINK THERE IS VALUE TO WHAT YOU JUST READ BECAUSE
[02:35:01]
ULTIMATELY WE ARE GEARING UP FOR A CHAPTER 2 85 AMENDMENT THAT'S COMPREHENSIVE SET OF AMENDMENTS.AND THAT THAT IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING, UM, THAT WILL BE APPLICABLE.
SO YEAH, I MEAN, 'CAUSE THE LOGIC TO ME JUST ISN'T THERE THAT YOU'LL PROTECT IT IF I BUILD A SMALL BUILDING, BUT IF I BUILD A BIG ONE, I WON'T.
BUT JUST TO CLARIFY,
IF YOU'RE GOING TO DISTURB A SLOPE, WHETHER IT'S WHETHER IT'S CONSIDERED A STEEP SLOPE OR NOT.
NEW YORK STATE, DEC, YOUR TOWN, ANY, ANY, ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, DOH ALL HAVE REGULATIONS, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS AND THE LIKE THAT ANY APPLICANT HAS TO MEET.
SO IT'S NOT AS IF IT'S JUST SAYING, WELL, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T MATTER.
WE'RE JUST GONNA DESTROY THOSE SLOPES.
THAT THE ISSUE WITH STEEP SLOPES IS CONCERN OVER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT.
THAT'S WHY ON THIS PROPERTY, WE'RE PROPOSING TO PUT IN A STORMWATER BASIN THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD UH, UH, ACCOMMODATE NINE INCHES OF RAIN OVER 24 HOUR PERIOD, WHERE THE HIGHEST AMOUNT OVER THE LAST YEAR HAS BEEN 3.78 OVER 24 HOUR PERIOD.
IT IT, IT'S NOT JUST SLOPE FOR, FOR SLOPE PER SE.
IT'S, WELL, ARE THERE ANY IMPACTS RIGHT TO STORMWATER THAT'S STILL BEING ADDRESSED IN THIS, IN THIS APPLICATION, REGARDLESS OF HOW THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT INTERPRETS THIS CODE, THE ISSUE WITH STEEP SLOPE IS NOT JUST STORMWATER, IT'S ALSO EROSION AND SLOPE STABILITY AND LANDSLIDE RISK.
WE DO NEED TO RIGHT, JUST DISCUSS THE MINUTES NOW THAT MS. MS. ANDERSON IS HERE, UM, ARE THERE ANY FINAL THOUGHTS OR, YOU KNOW, WE'LL, WE'LL GO THROUGH A SIMILAR PROCESS.
UM, IF THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS OR WRITTEN RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT, UH, WOULD ASK YOU TO SUBMIT THOSE BY MONDAY.
DO, DO YOU THINK YOU'D BE ABLE TO GET BOTH DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE BOARD BY WEDNESDAY? UM, SO WE'LL RECEIVE IT A WEEK FROM TODAY.
WE'LL HAVE A A WEEK TO REVIEW, UM, AND THEN WE'LL DISCUSS THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AS WRITTEN, UH, AT THE MEETING ON DECEMBER 3RD.
SO DECEMBER 3RD, YOU DON'T HAVE A, ANY OTHER PROJECTS BECAUSE, WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT WE CREATE THE AGENDA SO THAT IT, I I HOPE FOR IT TO BE, BE A SIMILAR AGENDA LIKE THE ONE TODAY.
THERE MIGHT BE SOME ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS WE NEED TO TAKE CARE OF, BUT NO PROBLEMS. MUCH OF IT.
WE DO HAVE OTHER PROJECTS PUBLIC.
CAN WE DO IT IN JANUARY? OTHER PROJECTS SO THAT WE MEET THE DEADLINE.
I MEAN, THAT'S WHAT WE ARE ALL SHOOTING AT IT TO MEET THE DEADLINE.
SO, WELL REALISTICALLY, THERE ARE OTHER PROJECTS TO REVIEW THAT WE, THAT WE CANNOT ALWAYS PUSH OFF AT SOME POINT.
WE DO HAVE TO, I THINK THOUGH I WOULD SAY, I MEAN WE HAVE A GOOD SENSE OF WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING WE DO TO HAVE PUT FOR BOTH PROJECTS.
SO I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT, AND WE, IT YOU A WEEK AHEAD OF TIME PARAPHRASE YOU PROPERLY AND THE DISCUSSION ACTUALLY IS NOT THAT LENGTHY.
I MEAN, IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE THING SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DISCUSS IT NOW.
WELL, WE DO HAVE A COUPLE PUBLIC HEARINGS ALSO, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL LOOK AT THE AGENDA AND WE'LL MAKE SURE THE AGENDA IS MANAGEABLE.
AND IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL SINCE YOU HAVE A WEEK BEFORE THAT MEETING TO REVIEW DRAFTS AND DISCUSS COMMENTS TO PROVIDE FEEDBACK.
WE'VE ALL MADE A COMMITMENT TO SERVE ON THIS VOLUNTEER BOARD.
NO, BUT I'M SAYING I THINK WE HAVE RESPONSIBILITY TO, I MEAN THAT WE, INFORMATION THAT WAS, THAT'S GIVEN TO US.
NO, JUST TO BE FAIR WITH ALL THESE PEOPLE, WE HAVE OTHER THINGS TO DO.
SO YOU DON'T SAY THAT WE SEND YOU THIS, SO YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO REVIEW IT.
I MEAN, SOMETIMES WE CAN, SOMETIMES WE CANNOT BECAUSE WE HAVE A COMMITMENT.
NO, I, I KNOW, BUT I I, I'LL BE OUT.
ACTUALLY THE WHOLE WEEK IS OUT.
SO ANYWAY, THAT'S NOT TO DISCUSS.
YOU CAN SORT OF COMPLETE THE BEFORE 10
SO IN OUR THREE MINUTES LEFT, UH, MS. ANDERSON, DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE MINUTES THAT WERE DISTRIBUTED? YES.
DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, EDITS? NO.
I THINK I HAVE COMMENTS ON THAT.
I THINK IT SAYS THE, I THE, ACTUALLY THE WORDING OF MEETING THAT I WAS WANTED TO DO IS THAT IT WAS ACTUALLY NOT A, UH, REDUCED, UH, I, WHAT'S THE WORD IS WHAT PROJECT IS THIS? NO, THE, UH, FOR BOTH OF THESE PROJECTS.
BMR THESE ARE LAST LAST MEETING.
SO THEY WERE SAYING THAT IT WAS A RESTRICTED OR SOMETHING.
IT ACTUALLY WASN'T DONE ANYTHING.
SO JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT, IT CATCH CAPTURES THE INTENT OF IT ABBREVIATED TO THE TIME CONSTRAINTS.
WELL, WAS, WAS VERY, WAS NOT A REALLY MEETING AT ALL.
WE JUST SORT OF ANNOUNCED IT AND WE CLOSED IT.
SO WHICHEVER WAY IT WASN'T ANY MEETING ABBREVIATED OR, WELL, IT WASN'T JUST ANNOUNCED AND CLOSED.
THERE WAS A BRIEF DESCRIPTION.
THERE WAS A BRIEF DESCRIPTION.
THERE WAS A BRIEF DESCRIPTION.
I KNOW, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT DOESN'T CAP WHICHEVER WAY, I GUESS.
HOW WOULD YOU LIKE THAT SENTENCE TO BE REWRITTEN TO MORE ACCURATELY REFLECT? THERE WAS NO, THERE WAS NO
[02:40:01]
DISCUSSION.WELL, THERE WASN'T NO DISCUSSION.
THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION THERE, ABBREVIATED DISCUSSION.
BUT I, I JUST WANTED TO CAPTURE THE SENSE OF IT.
DID YOU SAY SEVERELY ABBREVIATED? IT WASN'T, WASN'T MUCH DISCUSSION DONE ON IT.
BRIEF THE WORD BRIEFS THE WORD YOU WANT.
UM, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 5TH MINUTES AS AMENDED.
ALL IN FAVOR? ONLY BECAUSE IT'S GETTING A 10, 10, OTHERWISE I WOULD NOT DO IT NOW.
MS. MOYER ABSTAINS, UH, MINUTES ARE ADOPTED.
UH, AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:59 PM OH, PERFECT.
SECOND, MR. WEINBERG MEETING'S ADJOURNED AT 9 59.