Dec 03, 2025 Planning Board Meeting

UH,

[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, December 3, 2025 – 7:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ]

GOOD MORNING EVERYONE.

IT IS 7:04 PM UH, ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3RD, 2025.

UH, AND I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER.

UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, WOULD YOU CONDUCT THE ROLE CHAIR'S IN PINE HERE? MS. WARE? HERE.

MR. DESAI? HERE.

MR. WEINBERG? HERE.

NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT MS. ANDERSON'S ON OUR WAY SHOULD BE HERE SHORTLY.

UM, STAFF DISTRIBUTED THE NOVEMBER 19TH MINUTES.

UH, DID ANYONE HAVE ANY EDITS OR FEEDBACK? I DID.

MS. MOORE, UH, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION ABOUT FOUR METROPOLIS, THE R 15 VERSUS R 20 ZONE, WHICH I DIDN'T SEE IN THE MINUTES.

METROPOLIS? YEAH.

AND THEN WITH THE GIS? YEAH, SO WITH THE, APPARENTLY IS THE GIS RIGHT.

OR NOT? AND IT WAS SUPPOSED, UM, GARITY WAS GONNA TAKE THAT AWAY TO REVIEW GIS FOR ZONING.

SO TWO THINGS.

ONE, WE WILL CHECK THE TAPE AND UPDATE ACCORDINGLY.

WELL, NO.

SO THEN ADDITIONALLY, THERE WAS A SECTION WHERE IT SAID THAT I ASKED, I'M SORRY, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND THE EMAIL I SENT YOU.

TAKE YOUR TIME.

IF YOU COULD FORWARD THAT TO MATT.

HE SAID DID, UH, OKAY.

, IT'LL COME TO ME.

I'LL JUST, I'VE JUST GOTTA FIND A MINUTES.

WHILE, UH, MS. WHILE MS. MOYER PULLS THAT UP, UH, MR. WEINBERG, MR. DESAI, DID YOU HAVE ANY FEEDBACK ON THE MINUTES? ALRIGHT, AS ALWAYS, MATT DOES A GOOD JOB.

HE DOES, ABSOLUTELY.

SO THERE WAS A SECTION THAT SAID I WANTED THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION TO BE UPDATED TO SHOW THAT THE BUILDINGS ON SITE AND VARIANCES ARE LESS THAN EXISTING HEIGHT AND SETBACK.

I DO NOT REMEMBER SAYING THAT.

I REMEMBER WANTING TO TALK ABOUT THAT THE BUILDING HEIGHT WAS HIGHER.

SO IF YOU CAN REVIEW THE TAPE FOR THAT AS WELL.

ABSOLUTELY.

SO WE'LL UPDATE AND, UH, WE'LL REVIEW AND UPDATE ACCORDINGLY.

UM, GREAT.

SO THEN I WILL, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE NOVEMBER, NOVEMBER 19TH MEETING MINUTES.

UH, I GUESS CONDITIONALLY ON REVIEWING THE TAPE AND IF, UH, THE MINUTES NEED TO BE ADJUSTED, UM, THEY ARE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY.

MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

AS IT TURNS OUT, SO THAT WAS GOING TO BE INCLUDED.

UH, WE HAVE ONE PIECE OF CORRESPONDENCE THIS EVENING, CASE NUMBER PB 2325, PRETOR GIACOMO PERKINS.

UM, WE HAVE A REPORT FROM THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER ON THE STATUS OF, UH, A CONDITION OF THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.

UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, COULD YOU, UH, SHARE MORE ON THAT UPDATE? SURE.

I'M GONNA STEP OUT, OR, WELL, IT'S UP TO YOU.

I'M GONNA RECUSE MYSELF FROM THIS, UH, DISCUSSION AND YOU CAN SIT, SIT IN THE AUDIENCE.

SO YEAH, THIS RELATES TO CASE NUMBER PB 2325, PRETA, GIACOMO, PERKIN SEVEN AND EIGHT RITA LANE.

UH, AT OUR OCTOBER MEETING, THE PLANNING BOARD WAS CONSIDERING A DECISION ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL AND SOME COMMENTS AND CONCERNS AND REQUESTS WERE ISSUED BY ONE OF THE CO APPLICANTS.

THERE WERE FOUR IN TOTAL, FOUR REQUESTS.

THE PLANNING BOARD INDICATED AT THAT MEETING THAT IT WOULD APPROVE THE FINAL SUBDIVISION, UH, SUBJECT TO INCLUDING THOSE FOUR ITEMS AS CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL.

UM, FOLLOWING THAT MEETING, THE APPLICANT, BECAUSE THEY HAD TO THE O THE OTHER CO-APPLICANT, UH, PRESTA GIACOMO, WHO'S BEEN KIND OF WORKING WITH, UH, HIS ATTORNEY TO GET THE PLAT ENDORSED, HAD TO MAKE REVISIONS TO THE PLAT.

AND ONE OF THE CONDITIONS IS THAT THEY DO SO WITHIN 30 DAYS, THAT WAS SUBMITTED, IT WAS REVIEWED, UM, AND, AND THAT WAS COMPLETED.

BUT THE REVISED PLAT REQUIRES AN ENDORSEMENT BY THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

SO THAT'S ONGOING, AND WE EXPECT THAT TO BE COMPLETED SOON SO THAT THE PLAT CAN BE SIGNED BY THE TOWN, SIGNED BY BOTH APPLICANTS AND THEN SIGNED BY THE TAX RECEIVER AND THEN FILED IN THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE, WHICH IS THE PROCESS.

UM, WITH RESPECT TO ONE OF THE CON THE REQUESTS THAT WAS, UM, BROUGHT ABOUT AND WAS GOING TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DECISION RELATED TO A REQUIREMENT THAT THE TOWN PERFORM, UM, THE UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS THAT HAD BEEN DISCUSSED, UM, AND

[00:05:01]

AS IT TURNS OUT, THAT WORK HAS NOW BEEN COMPLETED.

AND I RECEIVED A MEMO FROM THE TOWNS BUREAU OF ENGINEERING INDICATING THAT, UM, DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED CONNECTING THE EXISTING DRAINAGE MANHOLE INTO A BURIED MAN DRAINAGE MANHOLE WITHIN THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT AND A RAISED MANHOLE COVER TO GRADE.

UM, THEY ALSO INDICATED THAT, UM, THE WATER SERVICE WAS REROUTED FROM THE MAIN IN THE ROAD THROUGH THE FRONT YARD SLASH LAWN OF THE EIGHT RITA LANE PROPERTY.

UH, AND THAT THE OLD SERVICE, WHICH RAN THROUGH THE SEVEN RITA LANE PROPERTY WAS CUT AND CAPPED, SO IT'S NO LONGER RUNNING THROUGH.

UM, SO THERE WERE SOME PHOTOS PROVIDED.

WITH ALL THAT SAID, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS BASED ON THE FACT THAT THAT CONDITION REQUIRING THE TOWN TO PERFORM THAT WORK, THE WORK'S BEEN COMPLETED, IT'S NO LONGER NECESSARY TO BE INCLUDED WITHIN THE DECISION, AND THE PLANNING BOARD CAN VOTE TO AMEND THE APPROVAL TO REFLECT THAT.

AND BOTH PARTIES NOW ARE SATISFIED GOING FORWARD.

WELL, WE DO HAVE ONE PARTY IN THE AUDIENCE IF YOU'D LIKE TO HEAR FROM THEM.

IF, UH, IF YOU COULD STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD.

YES, YES, SIR.

UM, MY NAME IS MIM KELLER PERKINS.

I AM ONE OF THE OWNERS OF SEVEN RITA LANE.

I WENT BACK TODAY TO REVIEW THE TAPE FOR THE OCTOBER 15TH MEETING.

UM, AT THAT MEETING, IT WAS DECIDED THERE WERE THREE ITEMS, NOT FOUR, UM, AND THAT THE CORRECTIONS THAT WERE TO BE MADE IMMEDIATELY WERE THE CORRECTIONS TO THE MYER, UM, TO SHOW THOSE CHANGES.

WHEN MY HUSBAND HAD POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS SOME MATHEMATICAL, I GUESS, ERRORS THAT NEEDED TO BE CORRECTED, IT WAS AT THAT MEETING ALSO THAT IT WAS DECIDED.

YOU HAD ASKED MR. DI YOURSELF THE CO-CHAIR, UM, MR. PAYNE, YOU HAD ASKED, UM, HOW LONG DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD TAKE? YOU SAID FIVE 15, YOU SAID NO MORE THAN 30 DAYS.

SO FROM OCTOBER 15TH, THAT WOULD'VE BROUGHT YOU TO NOVEMBER OR THE END OF, WE, WE WEREN'T EVEN LOOKING AT 30 DAYS.

SO FROM THAT WHOLE TIME, WE HAD NO CORRESPONDENCE FROM THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HERE.

MY HUSBAND SENT OUT SOMETHING TO HIM ON NOVEMBER.

UM, THE FIRST HE ASKED, WHERE DO WE STAND? I DON'T KNOW.

SO ALL WE'RE GETTING, AND THEN ON DECEMBER 1ST, SO I WANNA KNOW TWO THINGS.

WAS THERE AN EXTENSION GRANTED TO THEM BECAUSE THEY WENT BEYOND THE 30 DAYS? THIS WAS FIRST BROUGHT UP IN NOVEMBER OF 2024.

ALRIGHT, SO NOW THIS HAS BEEN OVER A YEAR, AND IT WAS ALSO, ALL RIGHT, GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THE TAPE FOR OCTOBER 15TH.

IT WAS NOT CONDITIONED UPON THE CAPPING OR ANYTHING ELSE BECAUSE IT WAS STATED BY THE COACH, THE BY THE CHAIR, LESLIE, THAT'S NOT WITHIN OUR PURVIEW.

SO WE UNDERSTOOD THAT.

AND YET, ONCE AGAIN, SO WE UNDERSTOOD THE MOVING OF, OF THE WATER, IT WAS CAPPED OFF.

THEY BASICALLY TORE UP OUR YARD.

THIS IS THE EIGHTH TIME OUR FRONT YARD HAS BEEN TORE UP.

AND SO OUR NEIGHBOR GOT A WHOLE NEW WATER LINE, $30,000 THAT WAS BASICALLY FOOTED BY THE TOWN.

WE'RE STILL WAITING.

SO NOW, THIS IS NOW DECEMBER 3RD, WAY BEYOND 30 DAYS, WAY BEYOND WHEN THIS WAS INITIALLY STARTED.

WHEN IS THIS COMING TO AN END? SO I CAN ONLY STATE THAT THE PLAT WAS REVISED, BUT NOW THERE'S A REQUIREMENT BEFORE ANY OF THE PARTIES, UH, OR CO-APPLICANT SIGN THE PLAT THAT THE PLATS ENDORSED BY THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.

IT WAS PREVIOUSLY, BUT AFTER THE REVISIONS, BASED ON THE ERRORS THAT WERE BROUGHT FORTH ON THE MEASUREMENTS, IT NOW NEEDS TO BE, BUT THAT WAS DONE IN OCTOBER 15TH, ERIN, THAT WAS DONE OCTOBER 15TH.

WE DIDN'T EVEN HEAR ANYTHING FROM YOU FROM OCTOBER 15TH TO NOVEMBER 15TH.

SO IT NOTHING MY HUSBAND CORRESPONDED WITH YOU.

WE DID GO BACK AND FORTH.

SO NEITHER HAS THE OTHER CO-APPLICANT EVEN TOLD US WHERE WE STOOD.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE HAD A PROBLEM WITH.

THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION WHATSOEVER.

I DON'T REALLY ENJOY HAVING TO DO SOMETHING WITH A CO-APPLICANT WHO CANNOT EVEN RESPOND TO US TO LET US KNOW.

WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A THIRD PARTY, MEANING YOU TO FIND OUT WHERE DO WE STAND.

THEM, THEY SAID, YES, YOU'RE ON THEIR NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

AND I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE UNFAIR BECAUSE WE ASKED GEORGE THAT THE LAST TIME, WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO INCLUDE US MM-HMM .

IN ALL OF THESE CONVERSATIONS, AND WE HAVE BEEN EXCLUDED.

WELL, I CAN TELL YOU THAT NOW WE'RE IN A HOLDING PATTERN BECAUSE THE PLAT HAS TO BE ENDORSED BY THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT.

WE EXPECT THAT TO MOVE THROUGH QUICKLY UNTIL AFTER CHRISTMAS.

I CAN'T ANSWER FOR THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPART.

SEE, THIS IS WHAT I'M SAYING.

THIS IS NOT FAIR.

THIS IS WHAT THE TOWN DID TO US TO BEGIN WITH.

WHEN A VIOLATION WAS CITED AGAINST

[00:10:01]

WHEN A SUMMONS WAS ISSUED AGAINST THEM, THE TOWN ISSUED A SUMMONS.

THEY TOTALLY IGNORED THAT.

THEY DIDN'T ENFORCE THEIR OWN CODE TO REMOVE THE ASPHALT.

NOW YOU'RE TELLING US AGAIN, YOU HAVE TO WAIT.

THEY'RE ON YOUR PROPERTY, BUT YOU HAVE TO WAIT.

SO THEY'VE BEEN ON OUR PROPERTY FOR 10 YEARS.

WE'VE INCURRED A $20,000 LEGAL FEE TAKING THEM THROUGH THE WHITE PLAINS COURT SYSTEM.

BUT IF THE TOWN HAD DONE THEIR JOB IMMEDIATELY THEMSELVES, WE WOULDN'T BE SITTING HERE WAITING.

WE WOULD HAVE JUST HAD THEM REMOVE THEIR ASPHALT OFF OF OUR PROPERTY.

THAT WOULD'VE BEEN THE END OF IT.

BUT THE TOWN LET US DOWN.

SO, SO, WHILE, WHILE I, WHILE I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE BOARD IS LETTING US DOWN.

WELL, SO I'M, I, I APPRECIATE YOUR FRUSTRATION AND, UM, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY IF YOU HAVE FEEDBACK FOR THE TOWN, I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO SPEAK DURING, TO TOWN, DURING PUBLIC COMMENT DURING THE TOWN BOARD.

I REALLY, WHAT I, WE HAVE, WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.

UM, MR. DI I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT ALSO WHAT I'M SAYING IS, WHEN WE LEFT HERE ON OCTOBER 15TH, AND I BASICALLY FELT VERY, VERY COMFORTABLE THAT THIS WOULD'VE BEEN RESOLVED BEFORE, OR LET'S SAY NO LATER THAN AFTER THANKSGIVING.

I, I, I UNDER, I UNDERSTAND.

AND SO NOW, THIS IS BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD.

THIS IS NOT BEFORE THE TOWN.

THIS IS NOW BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD.

WHEN DO YOU ALL OF A SUDDEN EITHER DECIDE THAT YOU'VE HAD TOO MANY EXTENSIONS AND THIS DOESN'T GET RESOLVED, THAT THE APPLICATION IS EITHER TAKEN OFF THE TABLE? WELL, SO MY UNDERSTANDING RIGHT NOW THAT THIS IS IN FRONT OF THE COUNTY, RIGHT? IT'S BEEN APPROVED BY THE TOWN, BY THE TOWN PLANNING BOARD.

IT'S AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT BEFORE IT GETS ENDORSED BY ALL PARTIES.

AND THEN ULTIMATELY GETS FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE.

AND, AND, AND SO MY, MY MY RECOMMENDATION AND ULTIMATELY WHY WE'RE DISCUSSING THIS NOW, UM, THE WORK THAT WE CONDITIONED IN TERMS OF THE WATERLINE HAS NOW BEEN COMPLETED.

THE PLAT HASN'T BEEN SIGNED, SIGNED YET.

THAT WASN'T PART OF THE CONDITION THAT THERE WAS WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD.

YOU MADE THAT PERFECTLY CLEAR.

BUT, BUT UL ULTIMATELY THE WAY THE, THE, THE MOTIONS WERE, WERE MADE, IT WAS A PART OF THE CONDITION.

AND, AND YOU MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR TO US IT WAS NOT PART OF THE CONDITION.

YOU MADE IT PERFECTLY CLEAR TO US THE THE CONDITION WOULD STATE, AND LET ME QUOTE OKAY.

THAT FIRST YOU WOULD MAKE CHANGE.

SO, SO I THINK PROCEDURALLY, IF, IF YOU DON'T BELIEVE IT WAS A CONDITION SINCE THE WORK HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO AMEND THE, THE DECISION TO REMOVE THAT CONDITION TO COMPLETE WORK THAT HAS NOW ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED.

THE CONDITIONS, I'M SORRY, I'M, I'M SPEAKING TO THE, TO THE OTHER PLANNING THE CONDITION STATED THE MEETS AND BOUNDS.

IT SAID THAT IT WOULD, BASICALLY, ALL THE CONDITIONS WOULD REFER BACK TO THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.

THE, THE SUBDIVISION ARE TO BE FILED WITH THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND CONS, UM, AND CONSERVATION SEPARATELY WITH RE WITH REPORT, WITH, WITH RESPECT TO THE IS IS YOUR COUNSEL PRESENT? WE DON'T HAVE ANY COUNSEL AT THIS POINT.

WE CAN'T AFFORD ANY ANYMORE COUNSEL, MR. MR. PAYNE? WE CAN'T.

WE CAN'T AT THIS POINT.

WE'VE BEEN GOING BACK AND FORTH.

I'M JUST RELYING ON THIS THIS AFTERNOON.

I, I, I APPRECIATE THAT.

SO WE JUST HAVE A SMALL CLERICAL, CLERICAL CONSIDERATION IN FRONT OF US.

AND, AND I'M SURE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT SCHMIDT, WELL, WE'LL REACH OUT TO YOU TOMORROW MORNING AND CAN GIVE YOU AN UPDATE ON WHERE THIS IS WITH THE COUNTY.

SO THEN I ONLY AN EXTENSION, IF THIS DOESN'T GET DONE BY JANUARY, WHERE DO WE STAND? THAT'S WHAT I WANNA KNOW.

IF IT DOESN'T, IF YOU COME BACK AND TELL US THAT THE COUNTY IS STILL WAITING, WE'RE STILL WAITING.

WE'RE STILL WAITING.

WE DIDN'T RECEIVE THE FINAL PLAY.

UM, THE, THE, IF YOU WANNA SAY PREVIEW OF THE PLAT UNTIL WHEN? DECEMBER, NOVEMBER 15TH.

NOVEMBER 15TH.

YOU GAVE, YOU FINALLY RESPONDED TO MY HUSBAND TODAY ON NOVEMBER 1ST JUST TO TELL US THAT THIS WAS A MEETING ORIGINALLY ON THE, ON THE, I LOOKED AT THE AGENDA.

WE WERE HERE FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

WE HAVE NOT EVEN BEEN NOTIFIED THAT ANY OF THIS WAS YES.

HE DIDN'T NOTIFY US ABOUT THIS MEETING TODAY, THAT OUR CASE WAS BEING BROUGHT UP.

NO ONE IN THE PLANNING.

NO ONE.

SO I'M JUST ASKING AT THIS POINT, ARE WE LOOKING AT JANUARY AND DOES THAT REQUIRE AN EXTENSION? IF WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT JANUARY, DOES NOT REQUIRE AN EXTENSION.

I WILL LOOK TO FOLLOW UP WITH THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT TO SEE WHERE THEY STAND IN TERMS OF SIGNING THE PLAT.

THIS BOARD HAS COMPLETED ITS REVIEW OF THE PROJECT.

SO THEY CAN BASICALLY BE ON OUR PROPERTY FOR TWO YEARS AND NO ACTION BE TAKEN BECAUSE WE'RE STILL WAITING FOR THE, FOR THE COUNTY.

FOR THE COUNTY TO SIGN THIS.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US.

I'M WAITING FOR, WE ARE ALL WAITING FOR THE COUNTY TO SIGN.

SO WE'RE ALL WAITING FOR THE COUNTY.

THAT WE'RE ALL WAITING FOR THE COUNTY.

AND THIS IS MY TAXPAYER DOLLARS.

THIS IS OUR PROPERTY FOR OVER 10 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN WAITING FOR THE TOWN TO DO THEIR JOB.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK

[00:15:01]

YOU.

UM, SO MY RECOMMENDATION, SINCE THE WORK THAT WE CONDITIONED HAS BEEN COMPLETED AND THE PLAT HAS NOT BEEN SIGNED YET, THAT WE, UH, AMEND THE CONDITION TO REMOVE, AMEND THE DECISION TO REMOVE THE CONDITION THAT'S, THAT'S EFFECTIVELY OR ALREADY BEEN SATISFIED.

NO, THE CONDITION CAN STAY THERE.

'CAUSE YOU HAVE NOT REMOVED, YOU HAVE NOT REMOVED THE GAS AND WATER LINES.

THAT IS .

I I AM I AM, I'M SORRY.

YOU CANNOT SPEAK FROM THE AUDIENCE.

AND, AND THIS IS A CONVERSATION AMONGST THE BOARD AT THIS POINT.

THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

THE REASON WHY THAT CONDITION WAS PUT THERE, MR. PAYNE, IS BECAUSE OUR CONCERN WAS ANY FUTURE OWNER, WHETHER IT WAS THE PRESSER JACK'S PROPERTY OR OURS, ANYONE WHO ACQUIRED OUR PROPERTY TO KNOW, WE, WE REALLY CAN'T HAVE THIS BACK AND FORTH WATER AND GAS LINE.

I'M JUST SAYING, SO DO NOT REMOVE THE CONDITION THAT THE REASON WHY THE CONDITION WAS PUT THERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, BUT IT WAS OUTSIDE OF YOUR PREVIEW, WAS THAT OUR NEIGHBORS, WELL, ULTIMATELY WE CAN'T CONDITION SOMETHING THAT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR PURVIEW.

SO THEN WHY ARE YOU GONNA REMOVE A CONDITION THEN? 'CAUSE THIS CONDITION'S BEEN COMPLETED, WHICH IS THAT THE WATER WAS CAPPED OFF.

LOOKING AT THE, BUT THE, BUT THE LINES, BUT THE LINES ARE STILL UNDER OUR PROPERTY.

THAT'S SOMETHING TO TAKE UP WITH THE TOWN'S BUREAU OF ENGINEERING AND DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.

IT DOESN'T RELATE TO THE PLANNING BOARD'S DECISION ON THE PROJECT.

I THINK THE CONDITION, JUST LET THEM KNOW THAT THEIR WATER AND GAS LINE ARE STILL ON OUR PROPERTY.

SO THAT IF SOMETHING WAS TO THE TOWN NEEDED TO DO SOMETHING TO AFFECT, LET'S SAY THE WATER DRAINAGE PROPERTY, THEY KNEW THAT THEIR GAS AND WATER LINE WERE STILL UNDERNEATH THAT PROPERTY.

SO WHEN THEY CAME THROUGH, THEY NOTED THAT.

SO WHEN THEY INCLUDED THE NEW DRAINAGE, THEY LEFT THOSE.

SO IF SOMETHING ELSE NOW HAPPENS, THEY'RE AWARE OF THE FACT THAT IT'S THERE.

SO I DON'T THINK I WOULD REMOVE THE CONDITION.

I JUST TO LET THEM, JUST TO LET EVERYBODY IN THE TOWN KNOW THEY DO EXIST ON OUR PROPERTY.

THAT'S ALL.

THANK.

UM, SO WE ARE, WE ARE, CAN YOU READ THE CONDITION THAT WE WANT TO, I MEAN THE MINUTES.

SAY THE MINUTES.

SAY REMOVE, THIS SAYS KEPT.

SO CAN WE JUST TAKE THIS AWAY? YES.

AND FOLLOW UP AND NOT VOTE TODAY? UM, IT WOULD, DO WE NEED TO BE VERY IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER THE VOTE THIS EVENING? I THINK FROM A TIMING PERSPECTIVE, YES.

SO WHAT HAPPENS IS IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE COUNTY IS WAITING ON THE AMENDMENT TO REMOVE THE CONDITION AND HAVE A FINAL SIGNED DECISION SO THAT IT CAN ENDORSE THE PLAT.

AND ANY DELAY ON THAT.

WE DON'T HAVE ANOTHER MEETING FOR FIVE WEEKS.

YOU KNOW, CLEARLY MS. PERKINS, YOU KNOW, AND I THINK ALL PARTIES DO NOT WANT TO WAIT AND DELAY THIS ANY FURTHER.

SO I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER THE VOTE THIS EVENING.

ARE ARE YOU GOING TO TALK TO THE ENGINEER ABOUT REMOVING THE, YOU KNOW, NON OPERABLE WATER LINES? I'M SETTING AND GAS.

I CAN SPEAK TO THEM, BUT THERE IS A, UM, NOTE THAT THE, THE LINES ARE, WERE CUT AND CAPPED.

CUT AND CAPPED ISN'T THE MINUTES.

SAY THE TOWN TO REMOVE WATER LINES LOCATED WAS, OKAY.

SO I WILL SPEAK TO THE TOWN ENGINEER, BUT I CAN TELL YOU THAT IT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE PLANNING BOARD DECISION.

AND THE PLANNING BOARD, IT'S REALLY NOT IN THE PLANNING BOARD'S PURVIEW TO, UM, TO INCLUDE A CONDITION RELATED TO TOWN WORK WITHIN A SUBDIVISION APPLICATION THAT INVOLVES TWO APPLICANTS.

SO IT WAS INAPPROPRIATE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

I MEAN OKAY.

BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, HELPFUL TO FIND OUT FROM THE ENGINEER IF THEY'RE GONNA REMOVE THOSE LINES.

I'M HAPPY TO FIND OUT AND REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD TO REMOVE 'EM EXPEDITIOUSLY AND MAYBE IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE WHEN THEY CAPPED IT.

UM, SO WITH ALL THIS SAID, UM, I WOULD, I, I MOVE THAT WE AMEND THE CONDITION FOR, UH, OR AMEND THE DECISION FOR PB 2325 TO REMOVE THE CONDITION THAT REQUIRES THE, THE REMOVAL OF THE, THE WATER AND GAS LINES, UM, THAT HAVE SINCE BEEN CAPPED.

CUT, CUT, CUT AND CAPPED.

CON OR GAS IS NOT TOWN.

AND I JUST WANT FURTHER, WE WE ARE, WE ARE HAVING A CONVERSATION AMONGST, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THE MEETS AND BOUNDS ARE STILL GONNA BE THERE.

THAT IT'S GONNA TO YES.

THE MEETS AND ALL THE OTHER CONDITIONS.

WILL, WILL, WILL BE, WILL REMAIN.

SO THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

WHAT'S THE MOTION? UH, TO, TO AMEND THE DECISION TO REMOVE THE CONDITION THAT, THAT THE TOWN MUST RE REMOVE

[00:20:01]

THE WATERLINE.

REMOVE THE WATERLINE.

IF THAT'S, IF THAT'S HOW THE CONDITION WAS WRITTEN, WHICH HAS SINCE BEEN ACCURATE.

WAS IT REMOVED? NO, IT'S BEEN CUT AND CAPPED IS, IS WHAT, IS WHAT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SMITH CONDITION SAID.

REMOVED.

THE CONDITION DISCUSSED WAS REMOVED.

HOWEVER, THE CONDITION ITSELF IS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD BECAUSE IT RELATES TO A REQUIREMENT TO A THIRD PARTY, IN THIS CASE, THE TOWN FOR AN APPLICATION THAT INVOLVES TWO CO-APPLICANT.

DOES IT INVOLVE THE TOWN? DID YOU READ THE CONDITION THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD, UH, I, I HAVE TO BRING UP THE MINUTES.

I, I COULD, COULD, COULD.

IF YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU.

MS. MOYER, COULD YOU READ IT PLEASE? SURE.

THE WHOLE THING.

JUST, JUST THIS CONDITION? YEAH, JUST THE CONDITION ON THE WATER.

IS IT NOT WORKING? OH, THE TOWN TO REMOVE WATER LINES LOCATED WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT EASEMENT ON SEVEN READER LANE? NO.

READ THAT AGAIN.

THE TOWN TO REMOVE WATER LINES LOCATED WITHIN THE FIVE FOOT EASEMENT ON SEVEN READER LANE.

SO IF THAT WASN'T DONE, ARE WE IN AGREEMENT THAT THAT WASN'T DONE? REMOVE, UH, I WOULD SAY THAT THEY HAVEN'T, THEY'VE BEEN CAPPED, CUT AND CAPPED, SO I, I DON'T SEE HOW WE CAN, YOU KNOW, REMOVE A CONDITION THAT HASN'T BEEN SATISFIED.

THE CONDITION IS INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO INCLUDE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

WE HAVE AN OPINION FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY THAT, UM, I CAN CIRCULATE, I CAN RECITE IT'S OVER ON YOUR LEFT.

OH, IS THIS NOT, LET ME JUST, SO THE, IF IF WE'RE REMOVING THE CONDITION, WE'RE REMOVING IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T IN THE PURVIEW OF IT.

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBSTANCE OF THE CONDITION THAT WE JUST READ.

IT'S BEING REMOVED BECAUSE IT'S, THANK YOU.

IT STATES HERE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CANNOT ISSUE A FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WITH A CONDITION THAT REQUIRES ANYONE OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT TO SATISFY SUCH CONDITION.

AND THERE'S CASE LAW.

I MEAN, I, I'LL GIVE THIS TO YOU, BUT JUST, JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY PLEASE.

THAT WASN'T DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING ON OCTOBER 15TH WHEN YOU READ WHAT WAS TO BE INCLUDED.

SO I THINK THERE'S A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO REMOVE THAT CONDITION.

IF WE COULD PROCEED WITH THAT.

WE REALLY HAVE A VERY FULL AGENDA.

WE CANNOT BE DISCUSSING THIS FURTHER.

IF YOU HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS, YOU MAY SUBMIT THOSE VIA THE TOWN BOARD OR VIA EMAIL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IS THE RISK THAT THAT'LL DELAY THE SIGNING.

I UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT I'M ALSO SAYING YOU MADE A STATEMENT AT AARON.

BUT AARON, YOU JUST MADE A STATEMENT THAT THE, THAT THE, THAT THE LAWYERS TOLD YOU YOU COULD NOT DO THAT.

BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT YOU SAID AT OCTOBER 15TH MEETING.

IF YOU WEREN'T, WE A SECOND.

I'LL, I'LL TAKE A SECOND.

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE PUT IT OUT THERE.

I APPRECIATE YOUR, THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING.

YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE PUT THAT OUT THERE.

'CAUSE YOU MISLED US TO BELIEVE, PROMISE THAT THIS WAS WHAT WAS GOING TO BE DONE.

SO THEN DO WE WANT TO, YOU MISLED US.

YOU ALL VOTED ON THAT.

NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN YOU WANT TO RETRACT IT.

DID YOU SEE THAT? THE OPINION, YOU NEVER SHARED THAT OPINION WITH US.

THAT IS NOT EVEN FAIR.

YOU NEVER SENT IT TO MY HUSBAND OR MYSELF THAT YOU WERE RETRACTING THAT BECAUSE THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT TOLD YOU YOU COULD NOT DO THAT.

AND WE'RE HEARING THIS THE FIRST TIME AT THIS MEETING.

ARE ARE, ARE YOU STILL A CO-APPLICANT ON THIS APPLICATION? BECAUSE WE WERE TOLD WE HAD TO BE BY WHO? BY BY HIS BOSS.

HIS BOSS.

AND WE HAVE THE, AND WE HAVE THE, AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE THAT ON RECORD THAT THEY WOULD NOT PROCESS OUR APPLICATION.

WE HAD TO DO IT JOINTLY.

WE HAVE THAT ON, ON RECORD BY GARRETT.

'CAUSE HE TAPED THAT MEETING.

'CAUSE WE DID NOT WANNA BE A CO-APPLICANT.

AND WE WERE TOLD WE HAD TO BE BY, BY, BY BY GARRETT AND NOT BY THE COURTS.

NO, NOT BY THE, NO.

ALL WE HAD TO DO, WE JUST FIGURED WHAT WE WERE GONNA DO, DYLAN, IS SEE IF IN FACT IF IT GOT APPROVED, THE COURT SAID IF IT'S APPROVED THAT YOU CAN DO A SUBDIVISION, WE WOULD DO THE SUBDIVISION.

WE CAME IN TO DO OUR OWN APPLICATION AND WE WERE TOLD WE HAD TO DO A CO APPLICATION.

THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD BY EVERYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT.

SO IF THAT IS NOT A STATEMENT OF FACT, THEN EVERYBODY LIED TO US.

BUT IN THIS CASE, IT HAPPENS TO BE ON RECORD.

WHEN GARRETT SAID WITH THAT, WE HAD TO DO A CO APPLICATION.

SO ULTIMATELY I, I THINK WE NEED TO MOVE, MOVE FORWARD WITH THE AGENDA.

SO THERE, THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE.

IF THERE'S A SECOND, WE CAN CONTINUE.

IF, IF NOT, WHY DON'T WE JUST LOOK INTO THE CONCERNS AND THEN COME BACK NEXT MEETING TO, SO, SO THERE IS, THERE

[00:25:01]

IT'S ALREADY DELAYED FIVE WEEKS BY FIVE WEEKS.

SHE'S, SHE'S NOT HAPPY WITH WHAT'S HAPPENED.

SO IT'S ALREADY DELAYED.

WELL, I MEAN, IT'S A TWO CHOICE.

EITHER WE APPROVE IT OR WE CAN DELAY IT.

WELL, I'M GOING, SO I'M JUST GONNA YEAH, RECITE AGAIN.

UM, THE PLANNING BOARD CANNOT ISSUE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WITH A CONDITION THAT REQUIRES ANYONE OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT TO SATISFY SUCH CONDITION.

CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF A FINAL SUBDIVISION PREVENTS AN APPLICANT FROM FILING THE FINAL PLAT WITH THE COUNTY AND FROM OBTAINING BUILDING PERMITS IF NECESSARY BEFORE SATISFACTION OF THE CONDITIONS IMPOSED.

THE ABILITY TO IMPOSE SUCH CONDITIONS ON THE USE OF LAND THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS IS MEANINGLESS WITHOUT THE ABILITY TO ENFORCE THOSE CONDITIONS EVEN AGAINST A SUBSEQUENT PURCHASER.

AND THAT'S, UM, THERE'S CASE LAW TO THAT EFFECT, O'MARA V.

TOWN OF WAER 2007.

SO WHAT WE ARE VOTING ON TO APPROVE, TO REMOVE THE LANGUAGE OR THE CONDITION THAT STATES THE TOWN, YOU KNOW, ASSOCIATED WITH THE SUBDIVISION THAT THE TOWN REMOVED THE, THE WATER LINE.

AND THE TOWN CAN'T BE BOUND TO DO IT, BUT THE TOWN ALLOWED THE WATER AND GAS FOR OUR NEIGHBOR TO BE PUT ON OUR YARD TO BEGIN WITH, WHICH IS AGAINST THE CODE.

SO EITHER, EITHER, UH, AND THEY DON'T WANNA BE HELD RESPONSIBLE CONDITION.

AND THEN HOPEFULLY THE COUNTY AND THE OTHER AGENCIES WILL SIGN THE, THE PLAT OR, YOU KNOW, WE DEFER THIS NOW THAT YOU KNOW WHAT THE ISSUE IS, WHAT THE ISSUE IS, THAT THERE'S A LEGAL ISSUE, WE'LL DEFER IT AND, AND IT'LL FAST TO WAIT FIVE WEEKS.

IT'LL WAIT FIVE WEEKS.

I, I PREFER THAT BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING, YOU'RE SAYING ANY OUR CHILDREN OKAY.

OR ANYTHING ELSE.

SO AT THIS POINT, THAT'S WHAT'S GONNA END UP HAPPENING BECAUSE IT'S NOT FAIR.

IT'S NOT FAIR.

WHY? BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS AT PLAY WITH FILING OF A PLAT.

UH, ONCE FINAL APPROVAL, YOU KNOW, IS ISSUED, THERE'S A TIMEFRAME TO GET THE PLAT FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE BEFORE IT COMES NULL AND VOID.

AND THEN WE HAVE TO CIRCLE AROUND AND RUN THROUGH THE ENTIRE PROJECT AGAIN.

WHICH THE CHOICES COULD, COULD REALLY RESULT IN A LIKELY DELAY.

I MEAN, I CAN STATE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE GUIDANCE PROVIDED BACK IN OCTOBER WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD'VE BEEN MORE APPROPRIATE TO HAVE, UH, ONE OF THE TOWN ATTORNEYS PRESENT FOR THE MEETING.

MS. MAGNA'S RECUSED FROM THE PROJECT.

AND, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS GUIDANCE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD THAT WAS INAPPROPRIATE AT THAT TIME.

AND THEREFORE NOW WE'RE JUST CORRECTING THAT.

USUALLY SOMEBODY STEPS IN HER PLACE WHEN SHE LEAVES.

SO WAS THAT CONVENIENT? SO WHAT YOU, YOU DON'T HAVE A COUNSEL? SO WHAT DO THE COUNSEL RE RECOMMENDS? BECAUSE WE DON'T OH, THIS IS STRAIGHT FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY.

HAVE, HAVE YOU OKAY.

HAVE, I THINK WE, SHOULD WE JUST GO AHEAD AND FOLLOW THAT? IF THAT'S WHAT YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE? ALRIGHT, DYLAN.

AND SO THEN, SO THEN THERE'S A MOTION ON THE TABLE, BUT I'LL REPEAT IT.

I MOVE THAT WE AMEND THE DECISION TO REMOVE THE CONDITION RELATED TO REMOVAL OF THE WATER LINES, WHICH BA BY, BY THE TOWN, WHICH BASED ON THE MEMO THAT WE HAVE FROM, UH, TOWN ATTORNEY DANKO, UH, WAS ULTIMATELY BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO, TO CONDITION.

AND THAT'S GONNA BE IN THE, IN THIS MOTION.

THAT'S, IT WILL BE IN THE MINUTES.

IT'LL BE, IT'LL BE IN THE, IT'LL BE IN THE MINUTES? YES.

I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION.

I WAS WAITING FOR ONE OF THE LAWYERS.

SAY THAT TO YOU.

UH, ALRIGHT.

UH, NEXT UP WE HAVE OLD BUSINESS.

WE HAVE A WORK SESSION ON, UH, PB 25 17 CLEMMER AT 95 ARDSLEY ROAD, SEEKING A PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.

30 FEET PERMITTED TO 36.9 FEET PROPOSED.

SO, FOLLOWING, UM, OUR LAST DISCUSSION ON THE PROJECT, THE, UM, STAFF, I'M SORRY, THE PLANNING BOARD DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE, UH, A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD.

THE NEXT STEP IN THIS PROCESS IS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO CONSIDER ITS RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON TWO AREA VARIANCES REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT PROJECT.

UM, THERE WAS A REVISED, UH, VARIANCE DETERMINATION MEMO ISSUED BY THE DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR ON NOVEMBER 6TH THAT INDICATES, UM, YOU KNOW, TWO VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED IN, UH, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT.

[00:30:01]

AND THEN ALSO WITH RESPECT TO THE HEIGHT OF THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE OR GARAGE IN THIS, IN, IN, IN THIS CASE, FROM 12 FEET PERMITTED TO 20 FEET PROPOSED.

UM, ADDITIONALLY AS UH, OR IN RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ISSUED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AT ITS LAST MEETING, THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO MOVE FORWARD AND INCLUDE ADDITIONAL, UM, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT UNITS BECAUSE I THINK THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT DOWN SLOPE NEIGHBORS, PARTICULARLY IN THAT AREA.

SO THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT AND, UM, THEY BASICALLY DOUBLED THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE FRONT YARD.

SO THAT WAS CERTAINLY AN IMPROVEMENT AND A, AND A GOOD REQUEST, UH, FROM THE, FROM THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS.

SO THEY WERE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.

AND WE HAVE DRAFTED A RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING.

UH, WAS THERE ANY, UH, FEEDBACK ON THE, ON THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION? NOT FROM MEG.

MR. DESAI, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR? YEAH, I HAVE QUESTION.

SO WE ARE JUST, UH, UM, RECOMMENDING, SO WHAT IS THE ZONING, WHY IT'S GOING, GOING TO ZONING BOARD? OH, I JUST RECITED THE TWO, UM, VARIANCES REQUIRED.

SO THAT'S THE REASON.

SO BEFORE WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, THEY WILL, YOU KNOW, AFTER THE FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT, THEY'LL BOUNCE OVER TO THE ZONING BOARD, SEEK TO OBTAIN THOSE VARIANCES, AND THEN COME BACK FORTH.

COME BACK, YEAH.

UH, SO I THINK WE SHOULD, SINCE IT'S AN, UH, I, I WOULD RECOMMEND NEUTRAL.

I AGREE.

NOTHING COMPELLING THE BOARD TO EITHER GO POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.

I, I, I AGREE.

WHILE, WHILE I'M GRATEFUL FOR THE INCREASE IN THE, UH, STORM WATER MANAGEMENT, I, I, I THINK THIS WOULD MEET OUR CRITERIA FOR NEUTRAL AND WE CAN MAKE A NOTE IN THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE APPLICANT WAS RESPONSIVE WITH RESPECT TO, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU DO HAVE THE NOTES THERE STRUCK OUT AT THE MOMENT, RIGHT? OH, PLANNING ON UN STRIKING IT.

WELL, I WANTED TO GO THROUGH IT FIRST TO MAKE SURE THAT THE BOARD WAS OKAY WITH THAT.

SO THAT'S ON PAGE TWO ON THE BACK BACKSIDE.

SO ANY, UH, YEAH, I MEAN, YOU WANT TO ASK EVERYBODY ELSE IT'S THE SAME OR, UH, I, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING.

ALRIGHT THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, UH, ISSUE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZBA ON THE TWO AREA VARIANCES AS A, UH, NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.

UH, MOTION BY MR. DESAI.

SECOND BY MR. WEINBERG.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

AYE.

CHAIR VOTES? AYE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS ARE APPROVED.

ALRIGHT, WE HAVE, UH, THREE ITEMS UP FOR PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE'LL JUST TAKE A QUICK MINUTE TO GET TO THE DAIS AND THEN WE'LL BE BACK.

WELCOME BACK.

UH, THIS IS THE WEDNESDAY DECEMBER 3RD, 2025 PLANNING BOARD MEETING.

UH, IT IS NINE 30, UH, 7:39 PM UH, I WILL, UH, OPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING.

UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, MAY YOU TAKE THE ROLE.

CHAIRPERS AND PINE HERE, MR. DESAI? HERE.

MS. MOYER? HERE.

MR. WEINBERG HERE IN OUR ALTERNATE MS. ANDERSON HERE, MS. ANDERSON WILL BE A FULL VOTING MEMBER THIS EVENING.

UH, FIRST UP WE HAVE PB 25 25 SULTANA, UH, WHO IS SEEKING AN INCIDENTAL DINING SPECIAL PERMIT.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE MS. FERNANDEZ, UH, KELLY FERNANDEZ ON THE ZOOM.

HI, UH, THANK YOU ALL TONIGHT.

UM, SO, UM, FROM THE LAST MEETING, UM, YOU GUYS REQUESTED SUPPLEMENTAL, UM, PARKING STUDY FOR FRIDAY AND SATURDAY JUST TO ENSURE THAT, UM, WE HAVE, UM, ENOUGH PARKING FOR THE OTHER TENANTS AS WELL AS THE, THE REST OF THE, UH, OTHER CUSTOMERS FOR THE, FOR THE TABLES THAT WE REQUESTED.

UM, SHOULD, SHALL I PULL UP THE, THE TABLE TO SHOW? PLEASE DO THAT.

THAT'D BE GREAT.

UM, SO OUR APPLICANT WAS, UM, COULDN'T GO FOR THE ENTIRE DURATION OF A FRIDAY OR SATURDAY, BUT INSTEAD SHE WAS ABLE TO SPLIT IT UP BETWEEN TWO DAYS.

AND, AND WHILE YOU'RE DOING THAT, I'M JUST GONNA INDICATE FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC THAT, UM, IN CONNECTION WITH THE INCIDENTAL DINING SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION, IT'S A REQUEST TO ESSENTIALLY ADD EIGHT SEATS AT A TOTAL OF FOUR TABLES TO A RETAIL BAKERY SPACE ALONG CENTRAL PARK AVENUE.

[00:35:05]

SO I BELIEVE THAT ACTUALLY, UM, DEPICTS A MORE REALISTIC, UM, UH, INTERPRETATION OF THE CURRENT PARKING SPOTS.

SO IT'S FROM 9:00 AM ROUGHLY TO SIX, SIX OR 7:00 PM UM, WE ARE ASKING FOR EIGHT TOTAL SEATS.

UM, AND OVER HERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE CHART, WE HAVE, UM, MORE THAN ENOUGH TO COVER, UM, EXCEPT FOR A FEW TIMES DURING THE DAY ON SATURDAY WITH FIVE.

UM, BUT I BELIEVE THAT WOULD NOT BE A HINDRANCE TO THE OTHER TENANTS OR, UM, OTHER CUSTOMERS THAT WOULD WANT TO COME IN.

UM, SO THERE'S AMPLE PARKING AT THE FRONT AS WELL AS THE REAR THROUGHOUT DIFFERENT TIMES ON THE BUSIEST DAYS ON THE FRIDAY, WHICH WOULD BE A POPULAR WORK FROM HOME DAY AND SATURDAY JUST TO SHOW LIKE THE WEEKEND RUSH FOR FAMILIES AND SUCH.

UM, IS ANYONE HERE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? IS THERE ANYONE ON ZOOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING? ALRIGHT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE BOARD? NO.

I, I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, PRESUMABLY THE, THE, THE, THE PARKING STUDY, UH, WAS CONDUCTED OR, OR, OR THE, THE AVAILABLE PARKING ON THE PROPERTY IS SORT OF PREDICATED, UH, ON, ON THE ASSUMPTION THAT, UH, GUESTS WOULD KNOW HOW, YOU KNOW, WHERE TO PARK, UM, HOW CLOSE EACH OTHER TO PARK TO MAXIMIZE THE, THE NUMBER OF SPOTS AVAILABLE.

AND I NOTICED ON THE IMAGES IN THE STUDY, IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THE PARKING LOT, UM, HAS BEEN STRIPED RECENTLY.

DOES THE APPLICANT, UH, HAVE ANY INTENTION OF RES STRIPING THE, THE PARKING LOT IN THE REAR? I THINK IT WAS ON THE NEXT PAGE.

OH, IN THE REAR? UM, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT.

THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK ON WITH THAT, THAT PLACE TO BRING UP.

UM, I GUESS FOR FIRST DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY MAGANA IS, IS STRIPING SOMETHING THAT WOULD GENERALLY BE REQUIRED? I BELIEVE THE BILLING DEPARTMENT IS OPINED THAT IT WOULD BE REQUIRED IN THIS INSTANCE.

SO, SO, UH, AS, AS WE, AS WE DRAFT, UM, THE DECISION, YOU KNOW, I I WOULD RECOMMEND ADDING A CONDITION, UH, THAT INCLUDES, UM, THE, THE APPLICANT OR THE LANDLORD, UH, RETRIP ANY NECESSARY PARKING SPACES TO COMPLY WITH THE CODE, UM, AND ALSO, UH, DEVELOP A REASONABLE MAINTENANCE PLAN SO THAT, UH, WHEN, WHEN THE STRIPING FADES AS, AS THE CURRENT CONDITION, UH, EXISTS, THAT IT'S RETRIED.

BUT, BUT ISN'T IT, THAT ITSELF NOT THE APPLICATION IS FOR, WELL, APPLICATION IS NOT FOR STRIPING PARKING.

SO IT'S A, IT'S, IT'S, UH, SHE'S JUST THE ONE TENANT.

SO, SO YOU CAN RECOMMEND THAT SHE'S PART OF, OF SPECIAL PERMIT.

UM, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, WE HAVE TO CONSIDER THE SPACE AVAILABLE FOR THE, THE, THE GUESTS OF THE TENANT, THE, THE, THE CUSTOMERS OF THE COFFEE SHOP.

AND SO THEY'VE CONDUCTED A PARKING STUDY.

AND THE PARKING STUDY MAKES AN ASSUMPTION ON HOW MANY SPOTS ARE AVAILABLE.

BUT IF THERE AREN'T CLEAR LINES AS TO WHERE GUESTS SHOULD PARK, THEY MAY END UP PARKING TOO FAR TOO, TOO FAR APART FROM EACH OTHER, AND THE AVAILABLE PARKING, UM, WOULDN'T ACTUALLY REFLECT THE, THE ASSUMPTIONS IN THE STUDY.

BUT I DON'T THINK YOU CAN MAKE A CONDITION UNLESS SO CAN YOU, CAN YOU MAKE A CON CAN YOU MAKE A CONDITION THAT THEY SHOULD DO IT BEFORE THEY GET YES, YOU CAN CONDITION STRIPING FOR THE PARKING LOT, THE HO PARKING ON A TENANT, A PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE.

SO ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THIS IS TO SHOW THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR THE EXPANDED USE AND REQUIRING THE, UH, TABLES, UM, FOR INCIDENTAL DINING.

AND I BELIEVE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS OPINED THAT IF THEY CAN'T SHOW THAT THERE'S SUFFICIENT PARKING, THAT THEY WOULD POTENTIALLY NEED A VARIANCE INSTEAD OF A SHARED PARKING REDUCTION THAT THEY ALREADY OBTAINED.

THE WHOLE STRIPING IN THAT PARKING AREA, OR IT IS THE, SHE HAS TO GET A PERMISSION OR CONCURRENCE FROM THE, UH, THE OWNER BECAUSE IT'S NOT HER PREMISES AND SHE DOESN'T OWN THE PARKING AREA.

BUT IF THE, UH, THAT SHE HAS A, HAS A RIGHT TO DO

[00:40:01]

SO HOW DOES THAT WORK? SO SHE WOULD NEED TO SEEK PERMISSION FROM THE OWNER OF THE LOT IF IT'S THE LANDLORD WHO NORMALLY THE CODE REQUIRES THE OWNER TO STRIKE, GENERALLY IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE USE.

SO IF THE TENANT IS THE TENANT THAT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THE SPECIAL PERMIT, THEN THEY WOULD NEED TO GET PERMISSION FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER.

BUT, UH, IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR APPLICATION.

BUT GENERALLY, DOES SOMEONE, DOES AN OWNER HAVE TO STRIKE PARKING SPACES UNDER THE CODE? GENERALLY, YES.

SORRY, COULD YOU SPEAK A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE, UH, THANK YOU.

CAN WE DEFER THIS TO A WORK SESSION IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS, TIME STICKING? WELL, ONE THING WE COULD DO IS, UM, WE'VE ASKED IF THERE WAS ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC, EITHER IN PERSON OR ON ZOOM, THEY WANTED TO SPEAK.

THEY DID NOT.

WHAT WE CAN DO IS SEEK TO GET A MEMO IN WRITING FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND GET THAT TO THE BOARD AHEAD OF ITS CONSIDERATION OF ANY DECISION OR CONDITIONS.

UM, YOU KNOW, AT OUR NEXT MEETING, WE HAVE FIVE WEEKS BETWEEN NOW AND OUR NEXT MEETING, SO THAT GIVES A SAMPLE TIME TO GET YOU THAT INFORMATION.

WHAT IS THE, WHAT DOES THE APPLICANTS FEEL THEY WANT TO DELAYED OR THEY WANTED TO? UH, WELL WE, WE CAN, WE CAN, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE, SO IF, IF WE'RE COMFORTABLE, WE CAN CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, LEAVE THE RECORD OPEN, GET A WRITTEN MEMO FROM THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, AND THEN ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, TO, TO MS. MOYER'S POINT WHEN WE REVIEW THE DRAFT DECISION, PRESUMABLY AT THE NEXT MEETING WE CAN SURE.

WE CAN SORT ALL THIS OUT.

YEAH, I THINK SINCE SHE HAS IT, SHE CAN MOVE FORWARD FOR WHATEVER SHE NEEDS TO DO.

UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? ALRIGHT THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LEAVE THE WRITTEN RECORD OPEN THROUGH DECEMBER 15TH.

UH, NEXT PUBLIC HEARING, WE HAVE, UH, CASE NUMBER PB 25 30 KDRP 55 HUNTER LANE.

UH, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN AMENDED SITE PLAN AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT.

THEY ARE, UH, PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT THREE NEW TRUCK PARKING STALLS AND 16 NEW PASSENGER VEHICLE PARKING STALLS FOR USE BY EMPLOYEES.

UH, A NEW STAIRCASE TO ENABLE ACCESS TO THE EXISTING BUILDING FROM THE NEW PARKING AREA IS ALSO PROPOSED WITH THE PARKING EXPANSION.

NO CHANGE TO THE SIZE OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS PROPOSED.

UH, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REMOVE THREE REGULATED TREES REQUIRING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND HAS PREPARED A LANDSCAPING PLAN, UH, PROVIDING FOR THE PLANTING OF SIX NEW TREES, 122 SHRUBS AS REPLACEMENTS.

UH, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INSTALL DRY WELLS BELOW THE PARKING PROPOSED PARKING AREA TO HANDLE THE RUNOFF GENERATED, UH, BY IMPERVIOUS SURFACES.

HI, UH, GOOD EVENING.

I'M LUKE BOSWELL FROM KIMLEY HORN.

AND BRETT BAKER FROM KDRP IS ON, UH, ZOOM.

SO I AM HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE TRYING TO SHARE SCREEN.

UM, DO WE NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PLAN AGAIN AS WELL? BRIEFLY? BRIEFLY.

I CAN BRING IT UP.

UM, SO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE IS THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE PROPERTY AT 5,500 LANE, UM, ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE SITE.

PAGE WEST THERE, THAT'S THE TRUCK PARKING AREA.

AND ON THE CENTER OF THE SCREEN, THAT'S OUR EMPLOYEE PARKING AREA.

AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO DO IS EXPAND THE CURB LINE IN THE TRUCK PARKING AREA A BIT, ADD THREE PROPER DSD TRUCK PARKING STALLS.

AND THEN, UM, THE CURRENT ISSUE IS THAT THERE ARE EMPLOYEES PARKING IN THAT AREA, WHICH IS TAKING UP TRUCK STALLS.

AND SO WE WANT TO GET THOSE EMPLOYEE CARS OUT OF THAT AREA AND PLACE THEM OVER BY THE OTHER EMPLOYEE PARKING STALLS, UM, NEAR THE MAIN ENTRYWAY

[00:45:01]

TO THE BUILDING.

UM, SO THAT'S WHAT THE PLAN DEPICTS.

AND, UM, LAST MEETING THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE DEED AND, AND YOU KNOW, THE, THERE WAS THE GREEN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP AND THE A CHUCK FAMILY PARTNERSHIP AND WE DID REACH OUT TO THE LANDOWNER'S ATTORNEY AND HE ESSENTIALLY SAYS THAT, AND WE HAVE A MEMO THAT WE PROVIDED TO MATT.

UM, BUT THE TWO FAMILY PARTNERSHIPS DID AT ONE POINT OWN THE PROPERTY TOGETHER.

IT WAS ONLY FOR A VERY BRIEF MOMENT OF TIME.

IT WAS LIKE THREE MONTHS.

AND THEN IN 1997, UH, THE GREEN FAMILY PARTNERSHIP DEEDED ALL OF THEIR INTEREST TO THE A CHUCK FAMILY PARTNERSHIP AND HAS NO INTEREST IN THE PROPERTY SINCE THEN.

SO IT IS FULLY OWNED BY THE A CHUCK FAMILY PARTNERSHIP AND, UM, THE CURRENT DEED SHOWS THAT THANK YOU.

AND I HAVE THAT PRINTED OUT IF YOU WOULD LIKE THAT AS WELL.

IS THERE ANYONE OH NO, WE HAVE THE EDS ACTUALLY THEY WERE FORWARDED TO US SHOWING THE TRANSFER.

OH, GREAT.

IS ANYONE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING? IS THERE ANYONE ON ZOOM? ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? NOT FROM ME, NO.

UH, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, UH, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LEAVE THE WR WRITTEN RECORD OPEN THROUGH DECEMBER 15TH.

SO, MR. WEINBERG, SECOND.

MS. MOYER, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

AND OUR FINAL PUBLIC HEARING OF THE EVENING PB 2203 JACKSON AVENUE NURSERY, UH, 2 79, UH, JACKSON AVENUE.

UH, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN AMENDED SITE PLAN, A PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOW PERMIT, AND A WETLAND WATERCOURSE PERMIT.

UH, AND SINCE THIS IS, UH, SINCE IT'S BEEN A LITTLE WHILE SINCE, UH, THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN IN FRONT OF THE BOARD, UH, IT'D BE GREAT IF YOU COULD PROVIDE A, A FAIRLY DETAILED BUT BUT NOT TOO DETAILED OVERVIEW OF THE PROJECT.

I WILL, I'LL CERTAINLY, I'LL CERTAINLY DO THE BEST I CAN.

UH, MY NAME IS WILLIAM SCHNEIDER AND I'M A ENGINEER WITH PSNS ENGINEERING IN YONKERS, NEW YORK.

AND WITH ME IS LAUREN FINNEGAN.

SHE'S ONE OF OUR TECHNICAL DESIGNER, ALSO AN ENGINEER WITH PSNS ENGINEERING, UH, ONE LARKIN PLAZA, YONKERS NEW YORK.

AND, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN GET THE PLAN UP ON THE SCREEN IF KIMLEY HORN HAD A PROBLEM GETTING IT UP.

NO DOUBT WE WILL.

IF, IF NECESSARY, I CAN BRING IT UP.

UH, I WAS ALSO SMART TO BRING A YOUNG PERSON TO OPERATE THE COMPUTER.

IS WHY WE ARE HERE FIRST.

SO THIS IS OUR SITE PLAN.

THIS IS A, UH, UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY, SOMEWHAT UNIQUE IN THAT IT EXISTS IN TWO MUNICIPALITIES.

UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, YOU'LL SEE A REPRESENTATION OF FOUR DWELLINGS THERE ON THE, ON THE SOUTH.

AND THAT IS THE PROPERTY, UH, IN THE CITY OF YONKERS.

THOSE DWELLINGS HAVE NOT BEEN DESIGNED, THEY'RE JUST THERE FOR REPRESENTATIVE PURPOSES AT THIS TIME.

UH, SOME YEARS AGO, UH, MY CLIENT ESCAPING GARDENS WISH TO USE THAT PROPERTY, WHICH IS IN THE CITY OF YONKERS.

IT EXISTS IN AN S 50 ZONE SINGLE FAMILY ZONE.

AND THE CITY OF YONKERS DENIED HIM THE ABILITY TO USE THAT PROPERTY, UH, FOR THE PRESENT USE, WHICH IS THE, UH, THE NURSERY.

SO THE OPTION WAS TO TRY TO USE IT FOR RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES.

THAT'S WHAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY OF YONKERS.

SO DECIDED TO SEE HOW THAT WE COULD DO THAT.

NOW, IN ORDER TO GET, UM, A SUBDIVISION, THIS WOULD BE A SUBDIVISION IN THE CITY OF YONKERS, YOU NEED TO HAVE A DRIVEWAY OR ROAD OR STREET, WHICH APPEARS ON THE OFFICIAL CITY MAP.

AND IN ORDER TO GET THAT, WE WOULD NEED A DRIVEWAY FROM JACKSON AVENUE TO BRING, UH, ACCESS TO THOSE DWELLINGS.

SO WE CAME UP WITH THIS PLAN, IT AND, UH, AND ALSO THE CUL-DE-SAC, UH, TO ALLOW FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF THOSE FOUR DWELLINGS.

AND THERE'LL BE A SMALL HALF MOON, UH, SIZE DRIVEWAY, WHICH WILL BE THE SMALLEST MAPPED STREET ROADWAY OR DRIVEWAY IN THE CITY OF YONKERS.

UH, WE HAVEN'T DECIDED WHAT WE'LL NAME IT YET, SHOULD THIS GO THROUGH.

BUT IN ANY EVENT, THAT WAS THE REASON WHY WE DID THIS.

THE CITY OF YONKERS, WE'VE BEEN BEFORE THEM, AND THEY SAID THEY WOULD ENTERTAIN IT, HOWEVER YOU WOULD, WE WOULD HAVE TO SHOW THEM THAT WE COULD GET ACCESS FROM JACKSON AVENUE, WHICH

[00:50:01]

SO TH THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN HERE AT THE PLANNING BOARD BEFORE, IN ORDER TO GET RECOMMENDATIONS TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.

UH, WE DID SATISFY SEEKER AND IT DID RECEIVE A NEGATIVE DECLARATION.

UH, WE WENT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND WE SOUGHT A COUPLE OF VARIANCES.

I BELIEVE IT'S FOUR IN TOTAL.

RIGHT? OKAY.

ONE OF THEM IN PARTICULAR HAD TO DO WITH THE DRIVEWAY BECAUSE THE DRIVEWAY WAS WITHIN 16 FEET.

AND I BELIEVE THE REQUIREMENT WAS 16 FEET AND THE DRIVEWAY WOULD HAVE TO BE 10 FEET, UH, FROM THAT SIDE.

UH, ANOTHER VARIANCE WE REQUIRED WAS THE SHEDS.

WAS IT NOT MM-HMM .

MINIMUM SETBACK.

WE HAD MINIMUM SETBACKS.

WHICH ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE PROPERTY TO THE PARKING AREA.

AND WE ALSO HAD A, A MINIMUM SIDE SETBACK, I BELIEVE, TO THE SHEDS.

MM-HMM.

AND THE PROPERTY ALSO EXISTED IN NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE IMPERVIOUS, UH, AREA.

SO WE NEEDED TO SATISFY THAT AND OBTAIN THE VARIANCE.

UH, THOSE VARIANCES WERE GRANTED.

AND WE THEN HAVE COME BACK TO YOU TO SEEK SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

AND WE'D REALLY LIKE TO, TO SEEK TWO THINGS.

ONE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR OUR PROPOSED PROJECT, WHICH YOU SEE BEFORE YOU, BUT WE WOULD STILL HAVE TWO OTHER AGENCIES TO GO THROUGH HERE.

WE WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE CITY OF YONKERS AND WESTCHESTER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT, WHICH EVERYBODY SPOKE ABOUT JUST BEFORE WE HAPPEN TO KNOW WITH THE NEW ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER WHO JUST GOT, UH, INSTALLED THERE.

PLUS THE FACT THEY MOVED FROM MOUNT KISCO TO WHITE PLAINS.

EVERYTHING IS DELAYED, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH WESTCHESTER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AS WELL.

UM, SO THERE IS A CHANCE BETWEEN THE CITY OF YONKERS AND WESTCHESTER COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT THAT THE PROJECT MAY NOT GET APPROVED, EVEN THOUGH THEY'VE INDICATED THAT THEY, THEY'LL CONSIDER IT.

SHOULD THAT NOT HAPPEN, THE DRIVEWAY WOULD NO LONGER BE NECESSARY AND THEREFORE THE CUL-DE-SAC IN THE HOMES WOULD NEVER BE BUILT.

THEREFORE, THAT VARIANCE WOULD NO LONGER BE REQUIRED.

BUT THE NURSERY IS GONNA STAY AND, AND OPERATE IN THIS PRE ITS PRESENT FORM WITH THOSE OTHER VARIANCES IN EXISTENCE.

AND OF COURSE, WE'RE GONNA MOVE THE SHED AND DO WHAT WE PROMISED THESE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS AND WE'RE GOING TO BE LOWERING THE IMPERVIOUS AREA TO RIGHT.

SO IT MAKE IT JUST A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

AND, UH, SO TWO THINGS.

ONE, A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR WHAT WE GOING TO SEEK, BUT IF IT DOESN'T OCCUR, WE'D STILL LIKE TO GET A SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE BUSINESS AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS SO THAT HE CAN ULTIMATELY HAVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL, CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE, UH, FOR THE NURSERY.

AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT OUR GOAL IS.

AND, UM, ANYTHING ELSE YOU CAN THINK OF? .

RIGHT? IT'S RATHER COMPLICATED OVER TIME.

UH, WE, I CAN TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT HOW WE WE'LL BE PROVIDING, UH, WATER AND SEWER.

IT'S OUR INTENTION TO PROVIDE, TO OBTAIN WATER FROM THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.

UH, IT IS NOT UNHEARD OF.

THERE ARE SEVERAL OTHER STREETS, UH, THAT WERE THE SAME CONDITION OCCURS.

AND IN, IN SPEAKING WITH OUR WATER SUPERINTENDENT, MARYANNE, UH, WYATT DOLAN, UH, THAT CAN BE OBTAINED WITH AN INTER MUNICIPAL AGREEMENT, UH, FOR WASTEWATER.

UH, RATHER THAN BE DIGGING OUT INTO THE STREET AND INTO JACKSON AVENUE, UH, MY CLIENT HAS BEEN ABLE TO SECURE AN EASEMENT OUT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTIES TO THE CITY OF YONKERS, UH, SEWER.

AND THE WASTEWATER WILL BE GOING OUT BACK TO THE CITY OF YONKERS FROM YONKERS RESIDENCE.

MIGHT AS WELL GO TO THE CITY OF YONKERS.

AND THAT'S WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN.

UH, SHOULD THIS, SHOULD THIS GO AHEAD.

UM, THE DRIVEWAY IS, IS A 20 FOOT WIDE, WHICH IS THE MINIMUM FOR A FIRE ACCESS ROAD.

THE, UM, CUL-DE-SAC IS DESIGNED SO THAT A FIRE, UH, DEPARTMENT APPARATUS CAN TURN AROUND.

UH, THE CENTER IS, UM, ABLE TO, IS IT, WE DESIGNED IT AS MOUNTABLE.

WE DID, WE DESIGNED IT AS MOUNTABLE SO THAT IT'LL BE, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WOULD BE ABLE TO TURN AROUND THERE BECAUSE IT'S A DEAD END.

AND OF COURSE, IF YOU EXCEED 150 FEET AND A DEAD END, YOU GOTTA HAVE A TURNAROUND.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE INTENDED TO DO THERE.

UH, SO THAT'S HOW WE INTEND TO HANDLE THE WATER IN THE SEWER.

THE STORM WATER, WE'RE GONNA BE COLLECTING THE STORM WATER AND WE'RE GONNA BE PUTTING IT THROUGH A, UH, A DETENTION TANK.

AND THEN A TREATMENT SYSTEM, WHICH IS WHAT WE CALL A JELLYFISH, UH, FILTER.

THIS PROJECT DOES REQUIRE A STORM WATER POLLUTION, POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN, ALSO KNOWN AS A SW, WHICH WE WOULD FILE WITH THE TOWN AND WITH NEW YORK, UH, STATE DEC, IT WILL HAVE TO BE UPDATED BECAUSE THE GENERAL PERMIT FOR STORMWATERS WAS JUST, UH, UPDATED IN 2025.

SO WE WILL BE UPDATING IT, UM, TO, TO MATCH WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THAT PERMIT.

THERE WERE SOME SUBTLE DIFFERENCES, BUT NOTHING THAT WOULD, UH, PREVENT THE PROJECT IN ANY WAY.

SO WE WILL BE UPDATING THAT, THAT THAT'S SW AND UM, THAT'S

[00:55:01]

ESSENTIALLY IT.

I KNOW IT'S QUITE A BIT TO TAKE IN ALL AT ONE TIME, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, PLEASE, UH, ASK AWAY AND I'LL DO THE BEST I CAN TO ANSWER.

UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING FROM THE PUBLIC? ALRIGHT.

IS THERE ANYONE ON ZOOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, UH, IN THE PUBLIC HEARING? ALRIGHT, THERE, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? SO IF YOU BUILD OUT THIS PROJECT, WHAT'S THE, UH, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE RELATIVE TO WHAT IT IS NOW? I'LL LET MS. FINN, MS. FINNEGAN? YES.

HI LAUREN FINNEGAN.

GET HER DAY IN THE SUN.

ONE SECOND.

I HAVE THAT RIGHT HERE SLIGHTLY.

SO IF THE SUBDIVISION GOES THROUGH AS PROPOSED, WE WOULD GO FROM AN EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVER OF 64.5% TO 57.9%.

SO WE'RE REDUCING IT.

AND LIKE BILL SAID, EVEN IF THE SUBDIVISION DOES NOT GO THROUGH, WE WOULD BE LEGALIZING THE EXISTING PROPERTY AND THE SHEDS WOULD BE RELOCATED AND THE LITTLE BIT OF IMPERVIOUS COVER BEHIND THEM RIGHT NOW WOULD BE REMOVED.

AND THAT WOULD TAKE US DOWN FROM 64.5% TO 62.1%.

SO REGARDLESS, THE IMPERVIOUS COVER IS BEING REDUCED.

AND JUST TO CLARIFY, IF, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, I BELIEVE SOME SOME OF THAT WAS GRAVEL, CORRECT? YES.

YEAH, THERE WAS A GRAVEL AREA AND YEAH.

SOME GRAVEL, SOME ASPHALT MM-HMM .

BUT WE CONSIDERED IT IMPERVIOUS.

YEP.

UNDER THE CODE.

COULD YOU, UH, JUST QUICKLY POINT OUT ON THE SITE PLAN, UH, WHICH IMPROVEMENTS ARE A PART OF THE LEGALIZATION AND WOULD OCCUR REGARDLESS OF THE APPROVALS FROM YONKERS AND OTHERS AND WHAT AND WHICH, UH, IMPROVEMENTS ARE RELATED TO THE, THE HOUSE CONSTRUCTION? MM-HMM .

THANKS.

SO THIS IS OUR EXISTING IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE EXHIBIT.

AND YOU CAN SEE HERE, UH, RIGHT WHERE I'M CIRCLING, THIS IS WHERE THOSE SHEDS THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT CURRENTLY RESIDE.

AND THEN I'M GONNA SWITCH OVER TO OUR PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS EXHIBIT.

AND YOU SEE THAT THIS AREA HERE IS NOW WHITE BEHIND WHERE THOSE SHEDS WERE.

THAT'S THAT GRAVEL AREA THAT SHE WAS REFERRING TO.

AND UH, THAT IS THE IMPROVEMENT THAT WOULD STILL BE MADE.

LEMME JUST SWITCH BACK.

SO YOU CAN SEE AGAIN FOR COMPARISON, THAT AREA IS THE IMPROVEMENT THAT WOULD BE MADE REGARDLESS OF THE HOMES BEING PROPOSED.

AND THEN ALL OF THIS THAT YOU SEE, THE PARKING LOT, THE HOMES, THE CUL-DE-SAC, THAT IS THE CHANGE THAT WOULD BE MADE IF THAT PROPOSED SUBDIVISION WENT THROUGH.

AND, AND IS IT TRUE THAT THE AREA WHERE YOU'D BE REMOVING THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS CLOSEST TO THE ONSITE OPEN PORTION OF THE WATER COURSE THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY? YES.

THAT WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO IS RIGHT.

LET ME JUST ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT.

RIGHT HERE.

THIS IS THE OPEN AIR PORTION OF THAT, UH, CULVERT THAT GOES UNDERGROUND.

THIS IS THE PROPERTY IN TWO MS FOURS OR ONE MS FOUR, SORRY.

IBLE SEPARATE STORM WATER SEWER THINGY.

MS FOUR, IS IT MS FOUR, YONKERS AND GREENBURG? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT? YEAH, BOTH.

I'M ASKING 'CAUSE IF IT IS, YOUR LIFE'S GONNA BE MORE COMPLICATED.

HOW MUCH OF THE NURSERY IS IN GREENBURG VERSUS YONKERS? UM, I, I THINK, I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE THAT.

I THINK THE ENTIRE NURSE, IT DEPENDS RIGHT THERE.

DEPENDS THE BUILDING OR THE PROPERTY? THE PROPERTY.

OH, THE PROPERTY.

OH, OKAY.

AND THE BUILDINGS, YOU KNOW, I'D BE INTERESTED, THE BUILDINGS ARE ALL WITHIN THE TOWN PROPERTY.

THERE'S A LINE, THEY'RE ALL GREENBERG, RIGHT? DO YOU SEE THERE'S A DIAGONAL LINE GOING THROUGH THE CUL-DE-SAC.

THAT'S THE DIVISION LINE BETWEEN THE TOWN AND THE CITY.

I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE THAT STATISTIC ON HAND.

UM, ERIN, WE CAN DEFINITELY GET YOU THAT NUMBER THOUGH.

JUST BACK TO THE MS FALLS, IS IT THE SAME THING? YOU'VE GOTTA DECIDE WHO'S LEAD, LEAD AGENCY FOR THE STORMWATER POLLUTION, WHO THE LEAD IS FOR PURPOSES OF THE, THE TOWN VERSUS YONKERS, CORRECT? YEAH.

DO YOU HAVE THE TOTAL ACREAGE OF THIS SITE? UH, YES.

TOTAL EIGHT.

I, I DO HAVE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE ENTIRE PROPERTY IS 94,974 SQUARE FEET.

I DON'T THINK I HAVE, I WOULD HAVE TO GET THE EXACT NUMBER OF SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH RESIDES IN THE CITY OF YONKERS.

BUT YOU CAN SEE BY THAT DIAGRAM THAT, UM, OR BY OUR SITE PLAN, THAT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY IS IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG AND THE ENTIRE NURSERY OPERATION DOES EXIST IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.

BUT I CAN GET YOU THE EXACT DATE.

IF YOU LEGALIZE THE NURSERY, EXCUSE ME.

IF YOU LEGALIZE THE NURSERY, WHICH IS ONE OF YOUR OPTIONS,

[01:00:01]

NO D NO LEGAL, THE NURSERY IS LEGAL.

IT'S NOT INFORMING USE WOULD NOW BE MEMORIALIZED.

WE PART, WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS WE'D LIKE TO ACHIEVE SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE NURSERY AS IT EXISTS TODAY.

AND IF WE DO THAT, UM, WITH THE RELOCATION, WITH THE RELOCATION OF THE SHEDS.

SO YOU'RE, SO THE USE AS A NURSE NONCONFORMING USE? NO, NO, NO.

SO THE USE AS A NURSERY IS LEGAL.

THERE'S SOME FEATURES ON THE SITE SUCH AS I BELIEVE THE SHEDS AND OTHER FEATURES THAT, UM, WERE NOT PART OF A SITE PLAN AND OR NEEDED VARIANCES.

AND SO THOSE WERE LEGALIZED, THEY OBTAINED VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING BOARD AND ARE CORRECTING IT THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.

UH, ALONG WITH THE REQUEST FOR THE, UH, ACCESS FOR THE FOUR HOMES.

ALRIGHT, BUT JUST SO I'M CLEAR, IT'S ILLEGAL NON-CONFORMING USE NOW? CORRECT.

UH, AND THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR HOW LONG YOU CAN KEEP THAT IN EFFECT IF YOU DON'T HAVE A DIS YOU KNOW, IF IT DOESN'T BURN DOWN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TOWN'S CODE IS.

SO NOW WE'RE BASICALLY SAYING THE NON-CONFORMING USE IS LEGAL.

IT, IF IT, IF THAT OPTION IS ONE THAT, YOU KNOW, WE PURSUE, IT'S BEEN LEGAL.

AND SO I GUESS WHAT I'M TRYING TO JUST UNDERSTAND, IF YOU HAD TO GO IN FROM SCRATCH TODAY AND BUILD THAT FOOTPRINT, WOULD YOU NEED MORE VARIANCES? DOES IT COMPLY WITH GREENBERG'S CODE? SO THEY, THEY'VE OBTAINED THE VARIANCES THAT THEY'VE NEEDED FOR LEGALIZATION OF THOSE ADDITIONAL STRUCTURES AND RIGHT.

BUT I, I'M SAYING IF YOU WERE STARTING FROM SCRATCH AND BUILDING THIS NURSERY, HOW, YOU KNOW, IS IT, DOES IT COMPLY TODAY WITH GREENBERG'S CODES OR WOULD YOU NEED ADDITIONAL VARIANCES? I'M JUST, I, I CAN'T, I DON'T KNOW OFFHAND.

I'D HAVE TO WELL, THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL ZONE, CORRECT? YES.

SO IT WOULD BE NOT PERMITTED AT THE TIME.

CURRENTLY, BUT BECAUSE IT'S A PRE-EXISTING NON-CONFORMING USE, IT'S ALLOWED TO REMAIN IN ITS CURRENT STATUS.

SO THE SETBACKS WOULDN'T APPLY BECAUSE IT'S THE USE THAT'S PERMITTED.

SO, OR IN THIS CASE, NOT PERMITTED WELL, THAT'S WHAT YOU MEAN.

SO YEAH.

THERE WOULD BE NO APPLICABLE.

SO WHEN YOU'RE DOING, JUST SO I'M, THE LEGALIZATION WOULD CHANGE THE IT FROM A RESIDENTIAL.

MM-HMM.

THE LEGALIZATION ONLY APPLIES TO SOME OF THE FEATURES ON THE SITE, NOT THE ENTIRETY OF THE SITE.

UM, CAN YOU TELL A LITTLE, TELL US A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THEIR, YOUR, UM, UNDERWATER OR UNDER ROAD STORM WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING? SURE.

UH, SO LET ME JUST SWITCH OVER TO OUR UTILITY PLAN REALLY QUICK SO YOU CAN SEE WHERE IT IS I'M TALKING ABOUT.

SO WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A DETENTION SYSTEM ON SITE, AND IT WILL ALSO DO A WATER QUALITY TREATMENT.

I HAVE A MEMO THAT WE'D PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD, UH, ON HAND HERE.

SO THE TREATMENT OF THE WATER WILL BE DONE BY A CONTEC JELLYFISH FILTER, WHICH I HIGHLIGHTED HERE.

THESE ARE THE DIFFERENT THINGS THAT IT TREATS.

IT REMOVES FLOATABLES TRASH, DEBRIS, OIL, AND THE REMAINING THINGS SHOWN IN THIS HIGHLIGHT HERE.

UH, WE HAVE ALL OF THAT DETAILED OUT IN OUR FULL SLIP REPORT, WHICH WE HAD SUBMITTED, UH, WHILE BACK.

AND AS BILL SAID, WE WILL BE UPDATING IT FOR THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 2025, UH, STORM WATER MANUAL.

AND AS FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THAT FILTER, UH, THE CLIENT WILL BE DOING ALL OF THE MAINTENANCE AND INSPECTIONS.

HE'LL BE IN CHARGE OF THAT.

AND IN THE FIRST YEAR, IT REQUIRES QUARTERLY INSPECTIONS AND THEN A MINIMUM OF ONCE A YEAR AFTERWARDS.

AND THEN AFTER MAJOR STORM EVENTS, OR IF THERE WAS ANY SPILL OF ANY KIND, OIL, FUEL CHEMICALS.

AND THERE'S A MAINTENANCE ROUTINE DETAILED IN THE OWNER'S MANUAL, WHICH IS ALSO ATTACHED TO OUR SWIFT REPORT.

SO THAT'S GONNA BE HOA, I'M SORRY.

IT'S GONNA BE HOA FOR THE NEW HOUSES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION.

WILL THERE BE A HOMEOWNER WHO'S GONNA MAINTAIN AND WHO'S GONNA BE RESPONSIBLE? YES.

THERE'LL BE A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? ALRIGHT, THEN I WILL, UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LEAVE THE WRITTEN RECORD OPEN THROUGH DECEMBER 15TH.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.

HAVE A GOOD EVENING.

TO MAXIMIZE OUR TIME, I'M GONNA SUGGEST WE JUST KEEP RUNNING THROUGH THE AGENDA.

TO,

[01:05:01]

UM, WE ARE GOING TO TAKE, UH, THE OLD BUSINESS WORK SESSION CONTINUED OUT OF ORDER.

SO WE'RE GONNA BEGIN WITH, UH, CASE NUMBER TB 25 0 5 PB 25 22.

I GUESS YOU WANT A RECESS OR, SORRY, TWO MINUTES.

OKAY, LET'S, LET'S TAKE A TWO MINUTE RECESS.

I'LL, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO, WHAT SECTION OF THE MEETING? THIS SECTION OF THE MEETING? YEAH.

THE PUBLIC HEARING SECTION.

PUBLIC HEARING IS ADJOURNED AND WE'LL TAKE A TWO MINUTE RECESS.

WELCOME BACK.

IT IS STILL WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 3RD, AND IT IS NOW, UH, 8:19 PM AND WE WILL CONTINUE THE WORK SESSION.

UM, UP, FIRST WE HAVE CASE NUMBER TB 25 0 5 PB 25 25 25 BETHEL MOLES, 55 GRASSLAND ROADS.

UM, AND WE HAVE A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE TOWN BOARD ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, UH, A RECOMMENDATION ON THE TOWN BOARD SITE PLAN, UH, AND A, UH, RECOMMENDATION ON THE TOWN BOARD AMENDED SPECIAL USE PERMIT, UH, TOWN BOARD TREE REMOVAL PERMIT PLANNING BOARD, STEEP SLOPE PERMIT, AND WETLAND WATER COURSE PERMIT.

UM, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, CAN YOU, UH, GIVE US A, AN UPDATE ON WHERE WE ARE? YES.

SO FOLLOWING THE LAST DISCUSSION OF THE BOARD, UH, STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE DRAFT, UH, A ONE DRAFT REPORT RELATED TO THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, AS WELL AS DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS.

UH, ONE ON THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, WHICH WILL ACCOMPANY THE REPORT, UH, TWO ON A RECOMMENDATION ON THE, UM, AMENDED SITE PLAN.

AND THEN THREE, A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD ON THE VARIANCES REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT, UH, STAFF DID PREPARE THOSE DRAFT DOCUMENTS AND CIRCULATED THOSE DOCUMENTS TO THE BOARD IN THEIR PACKAGES.

UM, WE DID GET SOME FEEDBACK FROM BOARD MEMBERS AND WE APPRECIATE THAT CONSTRUCTIVE, UH, FEEDBACK AND, UM, THE BOARD WOULD BE IN A POSITION AND WE CAN WALK, UH, THE BOARD THROUGH THE VARIOUS RECOMMENDATIONS AS, AS WELL AS THE REPORT IN CONNECTION WITH THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AND SEE IF THERE ARE ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS RELATED TO THOSE DOCUMENTS.

UM, ONE THING TO NOTE WITH RESPECT TO THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, YOU KNOW, THERE IS, UM, A REQUIREMENT THAT THE BOARD EITHER VOTE, UH, IN A POSITIVE FASHION OR A NEGATIVE FASHION IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST RELATED TO THAT APPLICATION.

COULD YOU, UH, COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE, THE DRAFT ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION, UM, WHICH WAS UPDATED BASED ON THE FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD MEMBERS? YEP.

MATT, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN WALK US THROUGH BASED ON THE REVISIONS? YES.

SO BASED ON COMMENTS RECEIVED, UH, REALLY THE ONLY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE, UH, CHANGES ARE IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION, UH, WHICH RELATES TO THE, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE TOWN BOARD REQUIRED CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO BE PLACED OVER THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

UH, WE ADDED A SENTENCE, UH, AT THE END OF THAT, WHICH STATES THAT THE PLANNING BOARD NOTES THAT THE AREA IS MARKED AS PROTECTED OPEN SPACE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UH, WHICH IS A COMMENT NOTED BY MICHELLE.

UH, SHE ADDITIONALLY SUGGESTED, UH, REMOVING THE SECOND, UH, RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO LANDSCAPING, UH, WHERE SHE TO FEEL IS APPROPRIATE IN FOR THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT.

UM, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK, UH, STAFF IS COMFORTABLE WITH.

IT'S NOT ENTIRELY, UH, GERMANE TO THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT.

UH, SO IT DEFINITELY MAKES MORE SENSE IN THE SITE PLAN RECOMMENDATION, THE, UH, VARIANCE RECOMMENDATION.

THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO CHANGES, UH, FROM WHAT HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED PREVIOUSLY.

THANK YOU FOR THOSE GREAT, UH, GREAT, GREAT EDITS.

UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER, ARE COMMENTS OR FEEDBACK ON THE, UH, RECOMMENDATION ON THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT AS DISTRIBUTED? I JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT WHICH ONE IS SO MANY.

SO THAT'S IT.

OKAY, SO THIS IS RECOMMENDATION, RIGHT? I GOT TWO,

[01:10:02]

TWO IDENTICAL.

KERRY, HAVE YOU GOT THE UPDATED ONE WITH THE YELLOW? OH, THIS IS A NEW ONE.

THIS IS, THIS IS THE ONE BETHEL KNOWLES ZONING MAP AMENDMENT.

SO WHERE IS THE RECOMMENDATION? RIGHT HERE? OH, THIS, SO THE, SO HE WAS RECITING THAT WE ADDED THE SENTENCE HERE.

AND THAT THIS ONE RELATED TO ENHANCING LANDSCAPING.

REALLY THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REMOVE THAT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T, UH, REALLY APPLY TO THE, TO THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT.

DID WE PRINT? ALRIGHT, SO THERE ARE ANY COMMENTS OR ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK ON THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, UH, REPORT AND DRAFT.

I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ONE MORE THAT, UH, UH, THAT THEY SHOULD REMOVE BALCONY OR, SO THIS IS ON THE, ON THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, NOT ON THE SITE PLAN.

SO, SO LET'S, LET'S, LET'S PIN, LET'S PIN THAT THOUGHT UNTIL WE GET TO THE, GET TO THE SITE PLAN.

UH, ANY, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT? NO.

ALRIGHT, THEN I MOVE THAT WE, UM, I, I GUESS I, I MOVE THAT WE, UH, MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION ON THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, UH, AND, AND APPROVE THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AS UPDATED WITH MICHELLE'S EDITS.

BUT WHY DO YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO IMPROVE IN TERMS OF THE FIRST DEPUTY ATTORNEY MADONNA, CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US HOW THE, THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS POSITIVE AND NEGATIVES WORK? I THINK, AARON, I CAN SPEAK PREVIOUSLY.

WE CAN NOT NEUTRAL.

YOU CANNOT, YEAH.

AND I, I MENTIONED THAT ON THE OPENING THAT WITH RESPECT TO THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, EITHER POSITIVE, POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.

AND WE, WE MAKE A NOTE THAT THE, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RE RESOLVING INCONSISTENCY WITH THE ZONING MAP AND THE EXISTING USE, WHICH HAS PERSISTED SINCE THE 1990S, UM, THE BOARD.

OKAY, GREAT.

OUTSIDE OF THAT 25 FOOT SETBACK.

ALRIGHT, SO THEN AGAIN, I MOVED TO ISSUE A REPORT AND A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD ON THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REFERRAL, UH, AND ADOPT THE, THE REPORT IS UPDATED WITH MICHELLE'S EDITS MOVED.

SO I THINK IT SECOND IT SECONDED? YES.

UH, SO NEXT UP WE HAVE A, UH, RECOMMENDATION ON THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION REFERRAL, UH, TOWN PLANNER.

MATT, COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE UPDATED, UH, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION, UH, WHICH HAS BEEN DISTRIBUTED BASED ON UPDATE, UH, FEEDBACK FROM THE BOARD? UH, FOR THE SITE PLAN? YES.

FOR THE SITE PLAN, YES.

NO, I THOUGHT WE WERE DOING THE CBA VARIANCE.

NO, WE'LL DO THAT AFTER.

THAT WILL BE LAST.

UH, WE ADDED A SENTENCE, UH, WHERE, UH, SIMILAR TO HOW I MENTIONED BEFORE, THE MAP AMENDMENT ABOUT THE AREA BEING MARKED AS PROTECTED OPEN SPACE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THE, UH, IS RECOMMENDED FOR IS CONSERVATION WAS THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT.

UH, SO IT'S THE SAME SENTENCE, UH, INCLUDED THERE UNDER F FIRE PROTECTION, UH, DUE TO THE INCREASE IN WATER USAGE PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.

UH, WE ADDED A SENTENCE AT THE END WHICH STATES, DUE TO THE ANTICIPATED INCREASE IN WATER USAGE, ADEQUATE PRESSURE FOR ALL EXISTING AND PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTS WILL NEED TO BE CONFIRMED UNDER G DRAINAGE.

UH, WE ADDED A SENTENCE AT THE END, UH, COUPLE SENTENCES, WHICH STATE THE APPLICANT HAS REPRESENTED THAT THE BERM OF THE PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICE WILL BE WITHIN 25 FEET OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE.

UH, THE N-Y-S-D-E-C CONSIDERS THE BERMS AS PART OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICE AND SHOULD BE INCLUDED, 25 FOOT SETBACK.

AS YOU MAY RECALL, AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, THIS WAS ALSO BROUGHT UP TO THE APPLICANT AND THE APPLICANT INDICATED THAT THEY WOULD BE MAKING THOSE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE, UH, PROPOSED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICE TO, UH, FALL

[01:15:01]

BUT WE INCLUDED IT HERE IN THE RECOMMENDATION BECAUSE THAT PLAN HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD.

UH, SO THAT'S IT FOR THE CHANGES TO THE FINDINGS.

UH, MOVE NOW TO THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS.

UH, THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION, UH, THAT'S ABOUT THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT, UH, AGAIN, INCLUDE THAT SENSE, UH, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD NOTES THAT THE AREA IS MARKED AS PROTECTIVE OPEN SPACE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

UH, SO THEN WE MOVE TO NUMBER FIVE, UH, IN THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH IS ABOUT THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES OF THE BUILDING.

UH, SO THE TOWN RECEIVED A LETTER FROM THE NEW YORK STATE PARK RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION DEPARTMENT, UH, YESTERDAY.

AND THEY, THEY HAD, UM, THEY RECOMMENDED THAT THE, UH, THE SECTION 14.09 OF THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT STATES THAT THE DEMOLITION OF A HISTORIC BUILDING IS DEEMED AS ADVERSE IMPACT.

THIS IS A FINDING THAT TRIGGERS A REQUIREMENT FOR AN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY WAYS TO AVOID OR MINIMIZE THE ADVERSE IMPACT.

AND THEY REQUESTED SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT.

UH, NOW THE APPLICANT HAS AL ALREADY PROVIDED AN ALTERNATIVE ANALYSIS FOR HISTORIC, UH, PRESERVATION OF THE SITE AND THE BUILDING.

AND SO WE INCLUDED A SENTENCE THAT, UH, STATES THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FURTHER RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE RESPONSES TO THE DECEMBER 2ND, 2025 LETTER OF THE NEW YORK STATE OFFICE OF PARKS RECREATION AND HISTORIC PRESERVATION.

UNDER NUMBER SIX, UH, WE ADDED THE WORD STRONGLY TO STATE THE PLANNING WORD STRONGLY RECOMMENDS ENHANCEMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, UH, FOR THE PLANTING OF TALLER EVERGREEN SPECIES THAN TYPICAL TO PROVIDE A MORE IMMEDIATE IMPACT FOR SCREENING UNDER NUMBER 11, UH, WHICH RELATES TO WATER USAGE.

UH, WE INCLUDED, UM, AT THE END, UH, THE FULL, UH, MODIFIED RECOMMENDATION.

THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT COORDINATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS REGARDING PROJECTED WATER USAGE AND IDENTIFY THE EXTENT IF APPLICABLE, THAT RELATED UPGRADES ARE NECESSARY TO ENSURE ADEQUATE WATER SUPPLY AND WATER PRESSURE TO THE SITE AND FIRE HYDRANTS AND, UH, CHANGES TO THE DOCUMENT.

ALRIGHT, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? YES.

UH, ALRIGHT.

SO LET'S START WITH MR. DESAI.

OH, SORRY.

SO, UM, ON THE, CAN YOU JUST MOVE THE MIC A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO YOU? OKAY.

ON THE RECOMMENDATION NUMBER FOUR? NUMBER FOUR? YEAH.

IT SAYS, BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS INDICATED THAT STEEP SLOPE REDUCTIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO MULTIFAMILY OR SENIOR HOUSING PROJECTS SUCH AS THIS PROPOSAL.

DO WE HAVE ANY MEMO FROM, UH, BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO THAT EFFECT? AARON? UH, SO THERE IS AN EMAIL, UM, RECEIVED.

THERE WAS AN ORIGINAL EMAIL, BUT, UM, THERE WAS ANOTHER EMAIL RECEIVED, UH, THIS AFTERNOON, IN FACT FROM THE DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR, AND I CAN JUST RECITE IT FOR THE RECORD AND FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BOARD.

SO IT STATES THAT, UM, AND THIS IS FROM, UH, ELIZABETH GARRITY, DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR.

WITH SECTION 2 85 DASH 39 E.

I'VE REVIEWED MS. MOYER'S INQUIRY REGARDING THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 2 85 DASH 39 E TO THE KNOWLES APPLICATION.

HISTORICALLY, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS NOT APPLIED SECTION 2 85 DASH 39 E TO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

WHILE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE NOT EXPLICITLY ADDRESSED IN SECTION 2 85 DASH 39 E THEY ARE LIKEWISE NOT INCLUDED IN THE PROCEEDING.

SECTION 2 85 DASH 39 D, WHICH PERTAINS EXCLUSIVELY TO FLOOR AREA RESTRICTIONS FOR ONE FAMILY DWELLINGS IN SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS.

FURTHER, A REVIEW OF THE MINUTES FROM THE ADOPTION OF SECTIONS 2 85 DASH 39 D AND 2 85 39 E COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS THE MCMANSION LAW SHOWS NO DISCUSSION OF SLOPE OR WETLANDS DEDUCTIONS FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.

THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT FOCUSED SOLELY ON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND LIMITING OVERSIZED HOMES.

UM, I AGREE THAT UNDER SECTION 2 45 DASH SEVEN B, THE PLANNING BOARD MUST DETERMINE CONSISTENCY

[01:20:01]

HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, 2 85 DASH 30 85 DASH 39 E IS NOT APPLICABLE BECAUSE THE APPLICATION DOES NOT INVOLVE ONE FAMILY CONSTRUCTION BASED ON PRIOR INTERPRETATIONS.

AND THE PUBLIC HEARING TRANSCRIPTS RELATED TO THE ADOPTION OF THE MCMANSION LAW SECTION 2 85 DASH 39 E SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED TO THE KNOWLES APPLICATION.

I DO RECOMMEND THAT THE UPDATED ZONING ORDINANCE, UH, REVISIONS CLARIFY THIS POINT TO AVOID FUTURE AMBIGUITY.

WELL, AND MY REQUEST STRAIGHT IS THAT WE KNOW WHAT THE INTENT WAS WHEN 2 85 39 E WAS FIRST IMPLEMENTED.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT WAS WHEN IT WAS ADDED TO 2 45.

SO SHE'S LOOKED AT IT FROM ONE SIDE.

WE NEED TO LOOK AT IT FROM 2 45 SIDE.

AND HOLD ON.

UM, SURE, BECAUSE I KNOW YOU, WE WERE ON YOUR COMMENT, BUT, UM, JUST RELATED TO 2 45, CHAPTER 2 45 IS OUR STEEP SLOPE PROTECTION ORDINANCE.

AND, UM, IF THIS PROJECT ADVANCES FROM TONIGHT AND THROUGH THE TOWN BOARD, UH, THEY ALSO NEED VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING BOARD.

ULTIMATELY, THE PROJECT WOULD COME BACK FOR PUBLIC HEARING AND REVIEW OF THE STEEP SLOPE PERMIT APPLICATION BY THE PLANNING BOARD, WHICH, UH, WILL REQUIRE THAT.

UM, THE PLANNING BOARD IS SATISFIED THAT ALL APPLICABLE STANDARDS OF 2 45 ARE MET AND COMPLIED WITH.

UM, OKAY.

SO JUST WANTED TO YEAH, NO, I, I I THINK IT'S A GOOD, UH, GOOD EXPLANATION.

BUT MY CONCERN IS THAT SINCE IT IS A, UH, UH, IT HAS A GREAT IMPACT ON, UH, ON, ON, ON THE, UH, STEEP SLOPE LAW, THAT TOWN HAS TO, SO THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF IT IS APPLIED, WHICH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT WHEN THEY COME BACK, WE CAN ASK THEM TO PROVIDE US A ANALYSIS THAT WHAT IT MAKES IT TO BE IF IT IS APPLIED, SO THAT WE CAN, UH, WE CAN SORT OF, UH, VISUALIZE THAT WHAT NATURE OF THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE, UH, SO THAT THEY, THEY KIND OF, UH, CAME FOR RECOMMENDATION.

SO WE CAN SAY THAT WE WOULD EITHER, WE CAN MENTION IN IT THAT IT SHOULD BE, UH, THE TOWN BOARD IS DIFFERING TO WHEN THEY COME BACK TO US.

UH, I MEAN, I, I'M NOT CLEAR, BUT THE, UH, LIZ'S EXPLANATION ABOUT IT THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR, UH, STIFF SLOPE, THE CO THE CHAPTER 2 45.

AND HOW DOES THAT RELATE TO IT? AND IT IS EXEMPT BECAUSE IT IS NOT A SINGLE FAMILY.

SO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SO DOESN'T LOOK LIKE INTENT IS INTENT IS BEEN, I CAN CLARIFY SOMEWHAT IF IF IT, YEAH.

IF, IF THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT COULD SPEAK.

SO, AND I GUESS STATE YOUR NAME AND YES, I WILL.

UH, DAVID COOPER PARTNERED WITH THE LAW FIRM IS AARON AND STEIN METS REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

AND THANK YOU FOR, FOR LETTING ME, UM, SPEAK TONIGHT ON THIS.

SO IT'S TWO DIFFERENT REGULATORY SCHEMES THAT, THAT YOU'RE, THAT YOU'RE ADDRESSING.

THE FIRST IS 2 45, WHICH IS PROTECTION OF STEEP SLOPES.

THAT'S THE PERMIT THAT WE WOULD'VE TO COME BACK TO THE BOARD TO OBTAIN.

SHOULD WE MAKE IT THROUGH THE PROCESS WITH, UH, AFTER THE VARIANCE IS BACK TO YOU, THAT REGULATION, THAT THAT CHAPTER REGULATES ANY DISTURBANCE OF STEEP SLOPES.

YOU ARE ENSURING THAT YOU'RE NOT GONNA CREATE FLOODING, STORMWATER IMPACTS, ET CETERA.

USES IN ITS LOT AREA CALCULATION WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS DENSITY FOR WHAT I'LL CALL MCMANSIONS, RIGHT? THE, THE WETLANDS, OTHER, OTHER, OTHER ASPECTS ON THE PROPERTY.

YOU WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO COME BACK TO YOU AND PROVE THAT WE HAVE THE, THE CORRECT EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S REQUIRED UNDER 2 45.

THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD COME BACK FOR.

THE ISSUE I THINK THAT YOU'RE DISCUSSING NOW, WHICH IS 2 85 ZONING, IS RELATED TO THE DEFINITION OF BUILDING AREA.

THAT'S A DENSITY CALCULATION.

HOW MANY UNITS YOU CAN HAVE NOT, UH, STORM WATER IMPACT, RIGHT? SO, SO AT SOME POINT, THE TOWN BOARD DECIDED TO, I THINK IN THE MCMANSION LAW EXEMPT OR, OR, OR, OR TAKE OUT OF YOUR TOTAL LOT AREA FOR CERTAIN DEVELOPMENTS, STEEP SLOPES ON THE PROPERTY, RIGHT? THAT'S ALL, THAT'S ALL THAT THE 2 85 ZONING QUESTION IS.

YEAH, I UNDERSTAND.

UM, THAT'S NOT A, A QUOTE IMPACT, THAT'S JUST THE CALCULATION OF, OF, OF DENSITY.

I THINK THE IMPACT THAT THE BOARD WAS TRYING TO ADDRESS AT THE TIME, WHICH I THINK THAT THE DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR HAS IDENTIFIED IN HER MEMO WAS MCMANSIONS AND SINGLE FAMILY HOMES.

THAT'S NOT RELEVANT TO THIS APPLICATION.

BUT ISN'T THAT BOTH CONNECTED? NO.

WHY? BECAUSE, BECAUSE THERE ARE OTHER, OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE, THAT THE TOWN ALSO

[01:25:01]

THAT'S A DENSITY CALCULATION.

JUST LOOKING AT HOW MUCH OF MY LOT CAN I USE TO CALCULATE MY LOT AREA AND THEN MY, AND MY DENSITY.

I THINK THE IMPACT YOU ARE LOOKING AT THAT YOU'RE CONCERNED WITH IS, WELL, IF ANYBODY DISTURBS STEEP SLOPES, WHAT HAPPENS FROM A STORMWATER PERSPECTIVE? WHAT HAPPENS FROM FLOODING, ET CETERA.

AND JUST TO, TO BE CLEAR WITH THIS, THIS PROPERTY, THERE ARE A LOT OF STEEP SLOPES ON THE PROPERTY, BUT THEY'RE, THE VAST MAJORITY ARE IN THE PROTECTED AREA.

THEY'RE NOT BEING TOUCHED.

SO FROM A ENVIRONMENTAL AND STORMWATER IMPACT, THIS, THERE ISN'T A VERY SIGNIFICANT IMPACT FROM STEEP SLOPES.

THE, THE STEEP SLOPES THAT ARE GONNA BE IMPACTED, AND WE DO HAVE A SLIDE IF YOU WANNA SEE IT, ARE, WERE CREATED OR, YOU KNOW, MANMADE SLOPES.

THEY, THEY, THEY WERE CREATED, THE ONES, THE NATURAL ONES, THE MAJORITY OF THEM IN THE, IN THE 15 ACRE AREA ALONG HILLSIDE, THOSE AREN'T BEING TOUCHED.

UM, BUT OF COURSE, WE WILL STILL COME BACK TO THIS BOARD AND PROVE OUT THAT THE FEW SLOPES THAT ARE BEING DISTURBED IN THE AREA TOWARDS THE DRIVE WILL BE PROPERLY TREATED AND ENSURE THAT THERE WON'T BE IMPACT.

SO IF I, IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THAT IF WE APPLY THE, THE SECTION 2 85 DASH 39, AND IF IT IS A, IF IT IS A LARGE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENTS LIKE YOURS, YOU DO NOT HAVE TO DO ANY REDUCTION WHILE THE RESIDENT SINGLE FAMILY HAS TO DO REDUCTION.

WELL, I, I, ALL, ALL, ALL I'M SAYING IS I THINK YOUR BUILDING INSPECTOR HAS OPINED, AND BECAUSE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT IS THE ONE THAT, THAT, LET ME JUST FINISH, FINISH.

THEY'RE THE ONES THAT THAT GOVERN, THAT THEY HAVE OPINED THAT, THAT THAT SECTION ONLY APPLIES TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BECAUSE IT WAS A QUOTE, MCMANSION LAW, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO REGULATE.

BUT I THINK THE INTENT WAS TO REDUCE THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED, UH, EITHER MCMANSION OR ANY OTHER THINGS.

AND THAT'S WHAT I, LISTENING TO THE EXPLANATION, IT WAS, IT WAS NOT IN, I MEAN, THE REASON IT WAS THAT THEY SAY IT'S BECAUSE OF WHAT I'VE DONE LEGISLATIVELY, BUT I'M STILL NOT CONVINCED ABOUT WHAT YOUR EXPLANATION.

SO, SO KI I THINK THAT THIS IS WHY I'M ASKING FOR CLARIFICATION, RIGHT? SO WE KNOW WHY IT WAS ADDED INTO THE ZONING CODE.

WE, WE NEED THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT OF WHY IT WAS ADDED INTO THE STEEP SLOPE, UM, UM, REVIEW STANDARDS.

SO WHAT DO YOU THAT'S FINE.

SO THE BOARD WILL GET THAT BEFORE IT COMES BACK TO THE BOARD FOR STEEP SLOPE PROGRAM.

BUT AS REGARDING THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT'S INTERPRETATION, IT'S BASED UPON THE LEGISLATIVE HISTORY.

THEY, THEY REQUESTED THE BACKGROUND MATERIALS FROM THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE, AND THAT'S WHEN THEY FOUND, YOU KNOW, THE MCMANSION DISCUSSION AND THE PURPOSE FOR ADOPTING IT IN THE FIRST PLACE.

BUT LET ME ASK YOU IN THE ZONING CODE, JUST SO WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND WHY, LET ME ASK YOU EXECUTED IN THE JUST HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION.

IF YOU WERE TO APPLY THAT, UH, UH, REDUCTION, WHAT WOULD, WOULD THAT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN THE PLAN THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING IN, IN THE, I CANNOT LET HIM LET THE, LET THE APPLICANT ANSWER IT, THOUGH.

PRETTY SURE MATT'S GONNA SAY THE SAME THING I AM.

SO LET THE REDUCTION IN, UH, THE REDUCTION AS APPLIED, UH, REFERS TO THE BUILDABLE AREA, WHICH PRINCIPALLY AFFECTS THE FLOOR AREA RATIO.

THE APPLICANT IS ALREADY SEEKING TO OBTAIN A VARIANCE FOR FLOOR FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR THIS PROJECT.

UH, IF THIS, IF THE STEEP SLOPE REDUCTIONS WERE APPLIED TO THIS PROPERTY, UH, AND THIS APPLICATION, THEY WOULD JUST NEED A LARGER VARIANCE FOR FLOOR AIR RATIO.

IT WOULD NOT AFFECT THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT THEY'RE COMMITTED.

SO HOW THE, THE, THE, THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS TO CHARACTERIZE IT AS A VARIANCE IS LEGALLY INCORRECT.

THIS ISN'T OUR INTERPRETATION.

THE, THE YOUR, YOUR, YOUR BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS OPINED THAT THAT IS THE CORRECT INTERPRETATION.

WHEN WE SUBMITTED OUR APPLICATION, WE WERE TOLD THAT TH THAT YOU, THIS IS CORRECT.

I WOULD ALSO NOTE THE R 30 ZONING IS SOMETHING THAT WAS, THAT WAS ASKED OF, OF THE APPLICANT BY THE TOWN TO USE.

SO FROM A DENSITY PERSPECTIVE, IF THE R 30 IS THE ONE THAT IS SUDDENLY, IF, IF, AND THIS BOARD CAN'T APPLY IT, BUT IF THE TOWER TO SUDDENLY APPLY IT AND SAY THE R 30, THEN THE, THE, THE REQUEST WOULD BE THEN LET'S KEEP THE RIGHT, THE ZONING AS IS.

THIS IS, THIS IS A FUNCTION OF TRYING TO CLEAN UP THE MAP AND A LONGSTANDING INTERPRETATION.

THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WE'RE PUSHING THE ENVELOPE AT ALL ON.

LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND, UH, UH, AARON, I FIND TO THE RECORD PREVIOUSLY EXPLANATION, I FIND THE EXPLANATION THAT AARON READ IS NOT REALLY DEFINITIVE, UH, ABOUT, UH, WHAT WHAT WAY WE SHOULD REALLY GO AS PLANNING FOR RIGHT CARROT, BUT THAT'S WHY WE'VE GOT THE WHY WE'VE GOT THE RECOMMENDATION IN THE OKAY.

SO CAN YOU MAKE SOME, UH, MATT, CAN YOU REWORD THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAVE ABOUT THE

[01:30:01]

THE, IF YOU, RIGHT.

SO, SO THE RECOMMENDATION IS EFFECTIVELY TO GET FURTHER, TO GET ON FOR FURTHER CLARITY, FURTHER CLARITY.

UM, I'VE GOT POTENTIALLY A, A REVISION TO THE, UM, TO, TO THE, THE MEMO FOR THE, UM, AMENDED SITE PLAN IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION NUMBER 14.

14.

IT SAYS THE TOWN OR THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE EVIDENCE OF A PROPOSED WEED CERTIFIABLE BUILDING.

UM, I FIND THAT TO BE CONFUSING BECAUSE I THOUGHT THAT WITH WEED CERTIFICATION IT'S SEVERAL DIFFERENT LEVELS OF, SO I THINK IT'S LIKE WEED CERTIFIED WEED SILVER, WE PLATINUM WEED GOLD IN WHATEVER ORDER.

AND SO I DON'T, AND UM, ARE WE PROPOSING WEED CERTIFIED OR ARE WE PROPOSING A DIFFERENT LEVEL AND, UH, AND A PROPOSED WEED CERTIFIABLE BUILDING THAT ALSO CONFUSES ME.

ARE WE REQUIRING THEM TO ACHIEVE, YOU KNOW, ACHIEVE A LEVEL OF LEAD CERTIFICATION OR JUST SHOW THAT, DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO, IF THEY WERE TO APPLY FOR, FOR IT? YOU MIGHT BE LOOKING AT THE, MATT, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT OR DO YOU WANT ME TO HANDLE THAT? SO, SO, UH, YEAH, I'M JUST, UH, LOOKING AT OUR CODE FOR IT.

MY, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE RECOMMENDED APPLICANTS TO BUILD, UH, TO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR LEAD STANDARDS.

WITHOUT NECESSARILY ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH THE, THE CERTIFICATION PROCESS.

UM, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE WAY THE CODE BEING LEAD CERTIFIED IS BASICALLY JUST LIKE PURCHASING A, A BRAND.

WHILE THE STANDARDS ARE, ARE, ARE WORTHWHILE, UH, IN TERMS OF THE LEVEL, THAT'S, THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE CODE SPECIFIES LEAD SILVER OR LEAD GOLD DOESN'T SPECIFY.

DOESN'T SPECIFY.

I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT SPECIFIES SILVER OR GOLD.

I THINK IT'S JUST LEAD CERTIFIED.

SO COULD WE RECOM IT SAYS LEAD CERTIFIED OR LEAD CERTIFIED.

CERTIFIED.

SO SO MEANING, MEANING THAT IT WOULD MEET THE STANDARDS TO BE LEAD CERTIFIED WITHOUT ACTUALLY GOING THROUGH THE LEAD CERTIFICATION PROCESS.

LIKE I SAID, THEN I THINK IT SHOULD SAY CERTIFIED NOT CERTIFIABLE.

THAT'S FINE.

AND THEN ALSO I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD MIRROR THE, UM, THE LANGUAGE OF THE CODE WHERE, YOU KNOW, IF IT SAYS TO MEET THE CRITERIA, ACTUALLY, I BACKTRACK ON THAT.

SO IF WE SAID IT WAS BE PROPOSED TO BE LEAD, LEAD CERTIFIED, THEN THEY WOULD BE SHOWING THAT THEY ARE MEETING, UH, AND APPLYING FOR LEAD CERTIFICATION, WHICH IS, IS EXPENSIVE.

AND REALISTICALLY THE TOWN'S JUST LOOKING TO SEE THAT THEY MEET THE SAME STANDARD.

I MEAN, I DON'T, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.

SO PERHAPS TO STANDARD.

SO LANGUAGE THAT'S THERE I THINK IS CONFUSING.

SO WE CHANGE THIS TO THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO DEMONSTRATE EVIDENCE, UH, OF, OF MEETING LEAD SILVER BUILDING STANDARDS.

THE CRITERIA, THE CRITERIA FOR, UM, AND IS IT LEAD SILVER OR LEAD CERTIFIED? IT'S JUST LEAD.

JUST LEAD.

IT'S NOT SILVER.

WELL, SO IT'S LEAD CERTIFIED THEN.

SO MEETING THE STANDARDS OF LEAD CERTIFIED YEAH.

EVIDENCE OF MEETING THE STANDARDS FOR LEAD CERTIFIED FOR A MINIMUM, I WOULD THINK.

RIGHT? YEAH.

A MINIMUM LEAD CERTIFIED IS THE ENTRY LEVEL.

CAN I, I WOULD SORT OF, I HAD ANOTHER COMMENTS ON IT, SO.

AND JUST, BUT BEFORE, DID ANYONE ELSE JUST TO GET A SENSE FROM TIMING, 'CAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE ANOTHER APPLICATION AFTER THIS MM-HMM .

UM, MICHELLE, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON YOUR END? OKAY.

AND MR. WEINBERG ON NUMBER 10 ON THE, UH, RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE GENERAL YEP.

UH, DIDN'T JOHN CANNING LOOK AT THE LEFT TURN? UH, JOHN CANNING DID LOOK AT IT, BUT, UH, ULTIMATELY THAT'S GONNA BE UP TO, I, I JUST WANT TO GET TO NUMBER 10.

BUT WHAT THIS IS RECOMMENDING IS THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT PREPARES SOME ADDITIONAL ANALYSIS AND OBTAIN FEEDBACK FROM THE DOT, LIKE ESSENTIALLY THAT WE WANT DOCUMENTATION FROM THE DOT WHETHER A, IT'S GONNA BE REQUIRED OR B, THAT DOT IS NOT REQUIRING IT.

PARDON ME.

AND IT, THIS MIMICS KIND OF WHAT JOHN CANNING RECOMMENDED IS THAT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY THE DOT IS GOING TO HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION.

THE APPLICANT BELIEVES THAT A LEFT TURN LANE IS NOT, NOT WARRANTED BASED ON THE TRAFFIC GENERATION, UH, IN, UH, EXPECTED OF THE, THE EXPANSION.

[01:35:01]

SO THE WORK THAT JOHN DID ALREADY, WHAT ISN'T SUFFICIENT TO GO TO THE DDOT? WELL, JOHN ONLY REVIEWED WHAT THE APPLICANT PROVIDED MM-HMM .

UM, AND ESSENTIALLY HE, UH, ULTIMATELY IT'S GONNA BE WHATEVER THE DOT REQUIRES.

IF THE DOT REQUIRES IT, THE APPLICANT'S GONNA HAVE TO CARRY THAT OUT.

I DON'T THINK WE'VE HEARD BACK FROM THE DOTI HAVEN'T SEEN ANY DOCUMENTATION.

UH, NO.

WE, WE WOULD LOVE IF, IF JOHN CANNING WERE, WERE THE FINAL CALL ON THIS, BUT NO, IF ULTIMATELY THE THE TOWN IS GONNA TELL US THAT WE'VE GOT TO CONFER WITH THE DOT, THEN, THEN WE WILL DO SO.

AND JUST THAT THE CLARIFY THE TERM WARRANTED IS, IS A TERM OF ART THAT THE DOT WOULD USE.

IN OTHER WORDS, DOES, DOES IT WARRANT? WARRANT? YES.

WARRANT AND, AND WE DO HAVE THAT LANGUAGE.

ARE, ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THIS AS WRITTEN OR, SO I GUESS WE'D HAVE TO INITIATE, YOU KNOW, DOING ADDITIONAL STUDIES, NOT WAIT FOR THE DOT TO COME BACK AND SAY, YOU NEED TO PROVIDE US WITH MORE INFORMATION BASED ON WHAT JOHN, ON THE FACTS THAT YOU, OR THE ANALYSIS THAT YOU GAVE JOHN, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, AND IF I'M WRONG, CORRECT ME, BUT THE, BUT THE, THE RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, GET CONFIRMATION FROM THE DOT THAT THEY WON'T PERMIT YOU TO PUT A LEFT TURN LANE ON GRASSLANDS ROAD INTO, INTO THE, THE DRIVEWAY THAT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH.

IT'S THE LANGUAGE SAYING THE BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT REPAIR ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS TO IDENTIFY.

SO THERE, IT'S NOT JUST THAT THE DDOT HAS TO, YOU KNOW, APPROVE IT OR, OR DECIDE WHETHER LEFT TURN LANE IS NECESSARY.

IT'S WHY ARE WE DOING MORE ANALYSIS UNLESS THEY COME BACK AND WANT IT.

I, I AND SOMEONE'S PAYING JOHN KENNEDY.

YEAH, NO DO WORK.

WE AGREE WITH THAT TOO.

ACTUALLY.

WE, I BELIEVE WE HAVE ENOUGH IN OUR STUDY FOR THE DOT TO, TO OPINE, BUT, UM, I GUESS IF WE COULD DEFER TO WHAT THE DOT ASKS THEN, UH, DID JOHN KENNY REQUEST ANY ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC ANALYSIS, I GUESS IS MY QUESTION, RIGHT? HE DID.

I NO THOUGHT THAT HE DID.

THAT'S THE QUESTION.

THAT'S THE QUESTION THOUGH.

I MEAN, IF HE WA IF HE SAYS HE'S GONNA NEED, WE'RE GONNA NEED MORE MM-HMM .

TO NOT DRAG THIS OUT, IT'S FINE.

BUT, SO, SO THEN HOW WOULD YOU SUGGEST WE REWRITE THIS? OR HOW WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS? UH, I WOULDN'T REPRESENT TO THE APPLICANT, UM, PREPARE ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC STUDY, UH, IF, IF, IF, IF REQUIRED, IF THE, IF THE TOWN, UH, IF NECESSARY TO SATISFY, UM, WELL IF THE, IF THE TOWN, IF THE TOWN CONSULTANT DEEM IT NECESSARY, RIGHT.

BECAUSE WE'RE GONNA GO BACK TO JOHN.

I MEAN, IF HE SAYS IT'S NECESSARY, THEN I, WE OUGHT TO DO IT, UH, IF HE, IF DEEMED NECESSARY BY THE TOWN'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT, RIGHT? MM-HMM .

OKAY, GREAT.

AND ON 13, COULD WE JUST PUT IN ON THE SECOND LINE, A THIRD PARTY CONSTRUCTION MONITOR, AND COULD WE ADD THE SAME LANGUAGE THAT THEY WOULD REPORT THAT WE, YOU KNOW, THAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT ON THE OTHER PROJECT? OKAY, SO 13 WOULD BE MODIFIED ON THE SECOND LINE TO FUND A THIRD PARTY CONSTRUCTION MONITOR, PARTY CONSTRUCTION MONITOR, AND THAT THAT MONITOR WOULD BE OB OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE, UH, YOU KNOW, PERIODIC REPORTS OF ANY NON-COMPLIANCE.

SO GENERALLY THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGERS TYPICALLY THE ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT AND, UM, THEY ARE BOUND BY THEIR LICENSURE.

UM, YOU CAN STILL RECOMMEND A THIRD PARTY, BUT JUST, JUST POINTING THAT OUT.

THE, WHAT I, WHAT I WOULD SAY TO THAT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S NATURAL COURSE THAT YOU HAVE AN ENGINEER THAT CERTIFIES THE WORK AND IS PUTTING HIS OR HER LICENSE ON THE LINE, WHETHER, WHETHER THAT'S CONSIDERED A THIRD PARTY OR NOT, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHO THEY'RE GETTING PAID BY.

UM, BUT BY SAYING THIRD PARTY, THAT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S NOT ONLY AN ENGINEER, BUT NOW ANOTHER PERSON THAT, THAT AN APPLICANT IS PAYING FOR.

UM, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT'S, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE TOWN REQUIRES ANY OTHER, OTHER, OTHER APPLICANT NOR, SO IF, IF YOU'RE SAYING THAT, THAT, THAT THE APPLICANT'S GONNA HIRE THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE MONITOR OR THE ENGINEER OR WHATEVER, THEN IT'S NOT A THIRD PARTY.

BUT THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE GOING IN.

YOU KNOW? RIGHT.

BUT THE, THE, THE POINT, THE POINT I'M MAKING LIKE ANY OTHER CONSTRUCTION SITE IN, IN NEW YORK, WHEN YOU HAVE SOMEBODY CERTIFYING THE WORK, RIGHT? SO ARE THEY GONNA CERTIFY ALL THESE RECOMMENDATIONS? I MEAN, NOT NOT JUST THE TECHNICAL ENGINEERING ASPECT,

[01:40:01]

BUT WHAT'S YOUR OPPOSITION TO THIS IS A THIRD PARTY, THIS IS A, A NON-PROFIT OPERATOR.

RIGHT? AND, AND I KNOW, I KNOW IT, IT DOESN'T REGISTER NECESSARILY, BUT ALL THE, EACH CONDITION YOU, YOU PUT ON AN APPLICATION, WHETHER IT IT'S THIS ONE OR ANY WELL ADDS COST.

AND SO TO THE EXTENT THAT YOU'RE JUST SAYING, HEY, WE SHOULD HAVE A THIRD PARTY MONITOR LOOK OVER THE SHOULDER OF THE ENGINEER THAT'S ALREADY OBLIGATED UNDER STATE LICENSURE TO CERTIFY THAT WHATEVER WORK HAS TO BE DONE, WHETHER IT'S A, WHETHER IT'S A, A CONDITION THAT THIS BOARD PLACES OR, OR THIS BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD PLACES ON A SITE PLAN APPROVAL OR IT'S JUST DEP REQUIREMENTS, SORRY, DEC REQUIREMENTS OR ANYTHING ELSE.

IT'S EXPENSIVE AND THERE HASN'T BEEN ANYTHING IN THE RECORD TO SAY, HEY, BECAUSE THERE'S SOMETHING UNIQUE WITH THIS PROJECT THAT THIS APPLICANT SHOULD BE STRAPPED WITH THAT EXTRA COST.

WHEN YOU PUT ONTO WHAT, WHY, WHY AM I, WHY AM I TAKING SO MUCH TIME HERE? 'CAUSE JUST BACK UP AGAIN, THIS IS A NONPROFIT, A OPERATOR, YOU KNOW, IT DOES, IT DOES MATTER.

BUT NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THE, I'M NOT CLEAR YOUR LOGIC, YOU'RE GOING TO PAY FOR EITHER, EITHER THE THIRD PARTY YOUR OR YOUR, UH, IN-HOUSE PERSON.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE, IT'S NOT A QUESTION ABOUT THE FUNDING, IT'S A QUESTION ABOUT INDEPENDENCE.

NO, IT'S, NO, IT'S NOT.

WHAT, WHAT, THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S WHAT I WANNA UNDERSTAND BY SAYING THIRD PARTY, YOU'RE SAYING YOU GOTTA GET A THIRD PERSON.

SO YOU GOT AN ENGINEER THAT'S, THAT, THAT IS GOING TO BE LOOKING OVER, LOOKING OVER THE, OVER THE, THE CONSTRUCTION AND THEN WE'RE PAYING THE, I GUESS THE TOWNS CONSULTANTS TO DO, TO DO THE SAME THING.

THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S A VERY UNIQUE CONDITION.

AND IT'S NOT JUST SOMETHING TO SAY, WELL, LET'S JUST THROW IT IN HERE.

I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT IT'S PROTECTING, RIGHT? THERE'S NO IMPACT THAT, THAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED THAT SAYS, HEY, BECAUSE OF THIS PROJECT, WE FEEL WE NEED A, A THIRD, A THIRD PARTY.

I HAVEN'T HEARD THIS FOR ANY OTHER APPLICANT THAT'S WALKED IN HERE TONIGHT.

AND I DON'T THINK IT'S, IT'S, IT'S NORMAL.

AND SO IT'S A, IT'S A, IT'S A HUGE PROJECT.

SO, SO, AND A CONSTRUCTION MONITOR IS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT WEEKLY REPORTS TO THE TOWN ENGINEERS DEPARTMENT AND OR THE PARTICULAR APPLICABLE DEPARTMENTS AND OR EXPERTS THAT REVIEW FOR THE TOWN.

SO WHETHER IT'S IT'S THEIR ENGINEER OR THE THIRD PARTY ENGINEERS THEY HAVE, THEY ARE, THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO PROVIDE A, UH, WEEKLY REPORT.

THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

THE MANAGER, THE CONSTRUCTION MANAGER PROVIDES A WEEKLY REPORT FOR REVIEW BY THE TOWN'S EMPLOYEES AND OR CONSULTANTS.

SO CAN WE ADD THAT LANGUAGE INTO THE RECOMMENDATION SOMEHOW THAT I THINK THAT'S REQUIRED IN YOUR CODE ANYWAY.

YES, BUT RIGHT, OF COURSE.

OF COURSE.

WE'RE GONNA FOLLOW THIS.

WE 13, LET PUT IT IN THESE THINGS, SO, SO IT'S CLEAR.

SO THE SECOND PART OF ED'S, UH, MR. WEINBERG'S REQUEST.

UM, WITH MONITOR BEING REQUIRED TO REPORT WEEKLY.

WEEKLY TO APP APPLICABLE OR APPROPRIATE TOWN STAFF AND OR TOWN CONSULTANTS DEPENDING ON WHAT IT IS.

HEY, AARON, IS YOUR MIC? SORRY.

THANK YOU, .

VERY GOOD.

SO DO YOU WANNA, DO YOU WANNA READ BACK? YOU READ BACK THE RECOMMENDATION TO US? SURE.

PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD AS PART OF ANY PROJECT APPROVAL REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO FUND A CONSTRUCTION MONITOR DURING CONSTRUCTION TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CONDITIONS OF ANY PROJECT APPROVAL.

UM, THE MONITOR, WITH THE MONITOR BEING REQUIRED TO REPORT WEEKLY TO ALL APPLICABLE TOWN STAFF AND OR TOWN CONSULTANTS.

ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.

MR. DEZA, THE LAST ONE, UH, ON THE RECOMMENDATION NUMBER SIX, UH, WHERE WE'VE ADDED STRONGLY TO THE LANGUAGE.

WE, SO I THINK THE BOARD SHOULD DISCUSS THAT.

BUT, UH, WHAT I WANTED TO ADD IS THAT, UH, THEY SHOULD REALLY, UH, LOOK INTO HAVING TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND, UH, YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN INTEND TO PROVIDE SCREENING.

UH, WHAT I'M WANTED TO SAY THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE A, THE WAY IT IS RIGHT NOW AND WE ARE GETTING SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBOR, IS THAT THEY WOULD, UH, SINCE THEY ARE DOWNHILL, DOESN'T MATTER HOW BIG YOUR, UH, LANDSCAPING SCREENING WOULD BE, WOULD NOT BE STILL VERY EFFECTIVE.

SO I WANTED TO LOOK INTO THAT.

IF YOU CAN PROVIDE THE PLAN WITHOUT, UH, NO BALCONY ON THAT SIDE.

SO THAT WILL, UH, IT WILL PROTECT THEIR PRIVACY.

AND I THINK I RECOMMENDED THAT BEFORE.

SO COULD

[01:45:01]

YEAH, BECAUSE YOU KNOW THE APPLICANT, IT CAME UP AT THE LAST MEETING.

YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S YEAH.

THE APPLICANT.

DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, NOT THAT THERE WAS A LONG TURNAROUND, BUT WE DIDN'T GET REVISED PLANS THAT WERE MOVED THE BALCONIES.

THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT , I KNOW IT WAS A SHORT, WE MISSED SION DEADLINE 'CAUSE, BUT I THINK ULTIMATELY THAT'S A DECISION FOR IF THE ENTIRE BOARD WANTS TO ISSUE OR ADD A RECOMMENDATION RELATED TO THAT ELEMENT.

SO LET'S TAKE A QUICK STRAW POLL.

HOW DOES THAT WORK? I THINK WE HAD A, WE HAD A, SOME, UM, I MEAN NUMBER, SOME VISUAL THAT IS YES.

A QUICK STRAW POLL.

WELL, BEFORE WE TAKE THE STRAW POLL.

SO, SO NUMBER SEVEN TALKS ABOUT, UM, LOOKING AT ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS TO REDUCE THE VISUAL IMPACT.

READ NUMBER SEVEN KI AND DO YOU JUST WANNA ADD IN FOUR EXAMPLE? WE COULD EXPAND ON SEVEN TO GIVE AN EXAMPLE.

YEAH, YEAH.

SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO YEAH.

RE REMOVE REMOVAL OF THE BALCONIES ON THE UPPER FLOORS.

MR. DESAI? YEAH.

SO IF WE EXPANDED ON NUMBER SEVEN OKAY.

TO STATE, UM, SUCH AS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE REMOVAL OF BALCONIES FROM THE UPPER FLOORS, FLOOR OR FLOORS.

THAT'S GOOD.

PLURAL OR SINGULAR IS ONLY, WELL, THE, THE, THE, THE TOP FLOOR IS 25 FEET RIGHT? FROM FROM GRADE.

SO, SO THE, THE REMAINDER ARE, ARE FAR LOWER.

WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING IT AT THE LAST MEETING, IT WAS ONLY TOP FLOOR.

UM, AND IT'S NOT, IT'S LOOK, LET ME, I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT.

I UNDERSTAND.

BUT I THINK CONSIDERING THAT, UH, WE WANTED TO RESPECT THE NEIGHBOR'S, UH, PRIVACY AND, AND THE WAY THEY HAVE REALLY VERY NICELY DOCUMENTED THAT EVEN THOUGH, WHICH IS WHATEVER THEY ARE, UH, THE LANDSCAPING, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU HAVE ACCESS TO THIS, BUT IT, IT DEFINITELY, LOOKING DOWN IF YOU ARE LIKE ON THE SAME LEVEL POINT, LEVEL SORT OF ELEVATION, IT'S A DIFFERENT THING.

BUT CONSIDERING THAT THEY ARE ABOUT FIF 50 TO 60 FEET DOWNHILL FROM YOUR BUILDING, SO 50 TO 60 FEET DOWNHILL, 200 FEET AWAY, BUT, BUT LEMME 200 FEET.

200 FEET.

IT NOT, IT'S, IT'S, IF, IF THE ISSUE IS THE BALCONIES JUST LOOK INTO IT, RIGHT? WE RECOMMEND RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT'S FINE.

THIS IS THE RECOMMENDATION, RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD, DOWN BOARD, THE TOWN BOARDS, LEAD AGENCY, TOWN BOARD HAS TO DECIDE.

BUT THIS IS OUR RECOMMENDATION.

ANY OTHER PIECES OF FEEDBACK? YEAH, ONE MORE.

I WANT IN NUMBER 11, I WANNA ADD WORDING THAT THE TOWN BOARD REQUIRES IT, IT'S NOT OPTIONAL BASED ON FEED FEEDBACK FROM ENGINEERING NUMBER 11.

SO IF WE MODIFY NUMBER 11 TO STATE, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO COORDINATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.

EVERYONE OKAY WITH THAT? YES.

WELL, WE'RE, WE'RE, UH, NO, I'M JUST, OKAY.

YOU'RE STAYING IN THE ROOM .

BECAUSE YOU MAY BE FAIR ENOUGH.

ALRIGHT THEN I, UH, I MOVE THAT WE ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD ON THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION REFERRAL AS, UH, AMENDED AS JUST DISCUSSED.

SO MOVE, SO MOVE SECOND.

SECONDED, UH, SECONDED BY MR. WEINBERG.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

AYE.

CHAIR VOTES.

AYE I MADE THE MOTION.

THAT'S RIGHT.

SO YOU GOT TWO SECONDS .

RULE.

UH, SO JUST, OKAY, WE WE'RE GONNA, ALRIGHT.

UM, AND THEN LASTLY WE HAVE, I THINK I SHOULD, WE SHOULD GIVE SOME CLARITY TO THE APPLICANT.

SO JUST SO THE APPLICANT'S AWARE, WE HAD DISCUSSED THAT THERE WAS A MANDATORY POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE WITH RESPECT TO THE ZONING MAP WITH THE RESPECT TO SITE PLAN.

UM, THE PLANNING BOARD IS JUST ISSUING THIS LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS YES.

IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT.

AND THEN LAST UP, WE HAVE, UM, RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD ON THE AREA VARIANCES.

UM, TOWN PLANNER BRITAIN.

COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE VARIANCES OR, OR DE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCH? OH, I CAN WALK, I CAN WALK WHOEVER WOULD LIKE TO WALK US THROUGH THE VARIANCES.

TO A MEMORANDUM ISSUED OCTOBER 28TH, 2025.

SO THERE ARE EIGHT VARIANCES REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT, UM, PURSUANT

[01:50:01]

I CAN RECITE THEM FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BOARD.

UM, BUT IT, THEY ARE LISTED WITHIN THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION.

UM, SO IN DRAFTING THIS DOCUMENT, YOU KNOW, STAFF HAD ADDED THAT, UM, CONSISTENT WITH THE SITE PLAN RECOMMENDATION THAT DUE TO THE NUMBER OF VARIANCES REQUESTED, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE APPLICANT CONTINUE TO EXPLORE ALTERNATIVE LAYOUTS THAT REDUCE THE POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL TO NEIGHBORING ONE FAMILY RESIDENCES.

AND I THINK CONSISTENT WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT WE JUST MADE TO NUMBER 11, WE COULD, YOU KNOW, INDICATE SUCH AS BUT NOT LIMITED TO.

IS THE BOARD BOARD OKAY WITH THAT? YES.

YES, I'M JUST MAKING THE NOTE.

THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS IN ENHANCEMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPING PLAN THROUGH THE PLANTING OF TOLL EVERGREEN SPECIES THAN TYPICAL TO PROVIDE MORE IMMEDIATE SCREENING FROM NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS WELL AS THOSE INTENDED TO BUFFER ANY RETAINING WALLS.

THIS IS THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, UM, THE AREA VARIANCES ON THE AREA VARIANCES, ANYTHING DIFFERENT TO WHAT WE YES.

AND, UH, WE DO SEE SOME COMMENTS FROM MICHELLE.

OH, THANK YOU MATT, GO AHEAD.

UH, SO THERE'S JUST A SLIGHT TWEAK TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE SECOND SENTENCE, UM, WHICH, UH, NOW THE PROPOSED READS, UH, FOR ANY PROPOSED LAYOUT, THE PLANNING BOARD STRONGLY RECOMMENDS ENHANCEMENTS TO THE LANDSCAPING PLAN, TO THE PLANTING OF TALLER EVERGREEN SPECIES THAN TYPICAL TO PROVIDE MORE IMMEDIATE SCREENING FROM NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, AS WELL AS THOSE INTENDED TO BUFFER ANY RETAINING WALLS.

JUST TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT FOR ANY PROPOSED LAYOUT THERE ARE GONNA BE VISUAL IMPACTS AND PLAN WOULD RECOMMENDS, UH, THAT THEY BE MITIGATED.

SO THIS IS, THIS IS PART OF THE MEMO OR PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION, NOT THE, NOT THE MEMO THAT HE'S SENDING.

NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, IT CLOSES, ALTHOUGH IT STRUCK THROUGH THAT THE PLANNING BOARD NOTES THAT THERE ARE NO COMPELLING PLANNING APPLICATIONS FOR THE BOARD TO EITHER VOTE POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE ON THE REQUESTED AREA OF VARIANCES.

WHAT DOES IT MEAN? THAT'S UP FOR DISCUSSION.

YEAH, WHAT DOES IT MEAN? WELL, IF WE GO BACK TO THE MEMORANDUM, UM, THAT WAS ISSUED NOVEMBER 3RD, 2023 THAT I HAD C RECIRCULATED, UM, BASICALLY IN A NUTSHELL, POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS.

UH, WITH RESPECT TO POSITIVE RECOMMENDATIONS, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE ZBA APPROVE THE VARIANCES AS THERE ARE ONE OR MORE COMPELLING PLANNING REASONS WHY THE VARIANCES ARE NEEDED, WARRANTED, OR ADVISABLE.

THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION ONE MAY INCLUDE FINDINGS ON THE REASON OR REASONS FOR THE POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION MAY INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON CONDITIONS TO ANY APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCES OR THREE A TY.

UH, AND THREE, A TYPICAL POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION WILL INVOLVE A PROJECT FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OR VARIANCES MITIGATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL OR COMMUNITY IMPACTS OF A PROJECT.

WITH RESPECT TO NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATIONS, THE PLANNING BOARD DETERMINES THAT THERE IS NO COMPELLING PLANNING REASON TO ISSUE A POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION, AND THEREFORE FEELS THAT A DETERMINATION ON GRANTING OR DENYING THE VARIANCES LIES SOLELY WITH THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.

THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION MAY INCLUDE FINDINGS ON THE REASONS FOR THE NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION MAY INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS ON CONDITIONS THAT COULD IMPROVE THE APPLICATION, WHICH IS SOME OF WHAT THE LANGUAGE WE HAVE WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT.

UM, AND A TYPICAL NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION WILL INVOLVE A PROJECT FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE OR VARIANCES HAVE NO OR NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT TO THE PROJECT AS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD, AND WHICH DO NOT DEMONSTRATE, UH, NECESSARILY DEMONSTRATE A LIKELIHOOD OF NEGATIVELY IMPACTING THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD OR ENVIRONMENT.

THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE ZBA DENY THE VARIANCE OR VARIANCES AS THERE ARE ONE OR MORE COMPELLING PLANNING REASONS WHY THE VARIANCES ARE INAPPROPRIATE, UNWARRANTED, OR OBJECTIONABLE.

THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION, UH, ONE WILL INCLUDE FINDINGS ON THE REASONS FOR THE NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION, AND A TYPICAL NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION WILL INVOLVE A PROJECT FOR WHICH THE VARIANCES WOULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD OR ENVIRONMENT.

THE APPLICANT FAILED TO PROVIDE ADEQUATE MODIFICATIONS, ALTERATIONS TO THE PROJECT TO MITIGATE THE IMPACT

[01:55:01]

AND OR THE VARIANCES ARE ENTIRELY INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PLANNING.

BOARD STRESSES THAT A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION IS NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS A NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION AS THE VARIANCE OR VARIANCES MAY BE BENEFICIAL OR HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE ENVIRONMENT OR COMMUNITY.

I'M ONLY OKAY WITH THE SENTENCE IF THERE'S AN IF WHERE THE LAST, SO IF YOU CAN JUST, THE ONE THAT HE'S GOT COMMENTED IN RED, RIGHT? WHICH ONE? DOUG, WHERE WOULD YOU ADD THE, IF AT THE END, BECAUSE YOU'RE SAYING THERE'S NO COMPELLING PLANNING IMPLICATIONS TO DO EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE.

WELL, WE'RE ULTIMATELY MAKING THIS, WE'RE DECIDING SOMETHING.

WELL, IF YOU COULD JUST RECITE THIS SENTENCE, THE, THE SENTENCE THAT'S CURRENTLY CROSSED OUT IN RED MM-HMM .

IS THE SENTENCE THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING UNCROSSING OUT.

IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO THE BOARD.

BUT, BUT, BUT IF, IF WE WERE TO ADD, IF THE PLANNING BOARD NOTES THAT IF THERE ARE NO COMPELLING PLANNING IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BOARD TO VOTE EITHER POSITIVE OR NEGATIVE ON THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCES.

I MEAN, I WOULD PREFER NOT TO HAVE THAT SENTENCE AT ALL.

I DON'T WANT THE SENTENCE EITHER.

I'M FINE NOT HAVING IT THERE.

IT'S NOT NECESSARY.

THAT'S FINE.

IT SEEMS, I MEAN, THE NARRATIVE THAT YOU READ, AARON BASICALLY GOES TO THE STANDARD OF WHETHER WE SEEN POSITIVE MOVEMENT.

I DID CORRECT.

SO I'M COMFORTABLE TAKING IT OUT.

OKAY, THAT'S FINE.

BUT IT SEEMS THAT WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS NEUTRAL.

YES, I AM.

SHOW OF HANDS NEUTRAL.

ALRIGHT THEN, UH, I MOVE THAT WE ISSUE A RECOMMENDATION, A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD ON THE EIGHT AREA VARIANCES.

SO MOVE AS AMENDED.

AS AMENDED, MR. WEINBERG.

OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GOOD TO SEE YOU.

HAVE A GOOD EVENING.

ALRIGHT, UH, NEXT UP WE HAVE TB 24 0 1, UH, TB 24 0 1 PB 24 0 4 BMR ARLEY PARK, UH, WHO IS SEEKING A, UH, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE TOWN BOARD SITE PLAN.

UH, AND ALSO SEEKING A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, A PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT.

AND, AND LIKE THE OTHERS I HAVE TO YEP.

RECUSE MYSELF, SO I'VE GOTTA SIT BACK DOWN THERE.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

UM, THIS IS GONNA BE A LONG ALRIGHT, WE'LL TAKE A TWO MINUTE BREAK.

[02:01:30]

UH, THANK YOU.

UH, WE'LL BRING THE WORK SESSION BACK.

IT'S 9:14 PM UH, UP NEXT WE HAVE PB OR TB 24 0 1 PB 24 0 4 BMR ARLEY PARK, UH, WHO IS SEEKING A, UH, REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE REFERRAL FROM THE TOWN BOARD ON THE TOWN BOARD SITE PLAN, UH, AS WELL AS A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, A PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT.

GOOD AFTERNOON.

I ALMOST SAID GOOD AFTERNOON.

GOOD EVENING, .

IT'S WELL INTO THE EVENING.

NICE.

UM, FOR THE RECORD, JENNIFER GRAY FROM KEENAN BEAN FOR THE APPLICANT.

UM, I'M JOINED BY REPRESENTATIVES FROM JMC, DIEGO ALI AND PAUL SEK.

ALSO ETHAN WALSH IS ON THE ZOOM, UH, FROM BMR. UM, I JUST WANTED TO LET YOU KNOW, WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT WE HAVE NO PRESENTATION TONIGHT.

WE REALLY JUST WANNA LET YOU, UM, AS THE BOARD, UM, HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION AND IF WE CAN ASSIST WITH ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS, WE'RE HERE, WE'RE AVAILABLE, BUT OTHERWISE WE'LL JUST DEFER TO, TO YOUR DISCUSSION.

UH, AND JUST TO SORT OF SET THE STAGE FOR THE NEXT, FOR THE NEXT HOUR, UM, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE COMMIT 45 MINUTES TO THIS DISCUSSION.

UH, THE APPLICANTS FROM PICKLER HAVE BEEN VERY PATIENT, SO IF EVERYONE WOULD BE ABLE TO STAY AN EXTRA 10 MINUTES OR, UH, AND, AND IF MR. DESIA TO LEAVE, THAT'S OKAY.

UH, WE'LL HEAR FROM PICKLER, UH, UNTIL 10 10 AND, UH, THAT'LL, THAT'LL MOVE THAT ALONG.

UM, PROVIDED THAT, UH, WE CAN FINISH IT UP 45 MINUTES.

IF HE CAN'T, THEN I THINK, UH, I, I WANTED TO KIND OF FINISH THIS BECAUSE WE ARE ON A DEADLINE OF NINE.

SO WE WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA SPEND, WE'LL DO THAT.

45 MINUTES, NO, 45 OR WHATEVER.

DON'T GO SOUTH 45 AND IF THEY WANT TO WAIT UNTIL WHATEVER.

WE ARE GONNA FINISH M GO AT 10.

UM, SO, SO YOU, DO YOU WANNA WALK US? ABSOLUTELY.

DEPUTY, UH, COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT WILL WALK US THROUGH THE CHANGES SINCE, UH, THE, THE FIRST DRAFT WAS DISTRIBUTED.

SO FOLLOWING THE BOARD'S LAST IN-DEPTH, UH, DISCUSSION OF THE PROJECT WITH THE APPLICANT AT OUR LAST MEETING, STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION, UH, ON THE APPLICANT'S SITE PLAN APPLICATION BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT WAS CIRCULATED IN THE PACKAGES.

UM, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED WITHIN THIS DOCUMENT AS WELL AS FINDINGS RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN STANDARDS OUTLINED WITHIN THE TOWN'S ZONING ORDINANCE.

WE DID RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM A COUPLE OF MEMBERS AND, UM, AS PRINTED OUT TONIGHT, WE HAVE SOME HIGHLIGHTED LANGUAGE, BOTH IN YELLOW AND IN BLUE.

UH, I CAN WALK THE BOARD THROUGH THOSE, UM, UPDATES AND THEN WE CAN, UM, HEAR IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, UH, FROM BOARD MEMBERS.

SO JUST ON PAGE ONE, THERE WAS A COMMENT.

CAN, CAN WE, CAN WE DO IT LIKE, UH, YOU GONNA START WITH FINDINGS OR? I'M GONNA START, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THE YELLOW.

SO IF THE, THE ONE I JUST HANDED TO YOU.

BUT JUST BECAUSE THAT IS THE UPDATE.

BUT I WANTED TO WHENEVER, SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK BECAUSE I COULD NOT DO YEAH.

IF YOU, I'M NOT TRYING CHALLENGE WITH THIS.

SO I HAVE HOME HANDWRITTEN COMMENTS IF YOU WANT TO JUMP IN.

YEAH, I WILL JUMP IN AS YOU GO ALONG.

SO YOU FOLLOW THE YELLOW IF YOU CAN, SO YOU KNOW WHERE WE ARE.

THERE WAS A, A REQUEST TO, UM, ALSO ADD, SO WE HAD INDICATED THAT, UH, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES TO CONSTRUCT 298 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.

SO ON PAGE ONE,

[02:05:01]

UM, WE UPDATED THE LANGUAGE TO INDICATE 298 OFF STREET PASSENGER VEHICLE PARKING SPACES AND 109 TRUCK PARKING SPACES FOR A TOTAL OF 407 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.

SO THAT LANGUAGE WAS ADDED.

DID YOU HAVE ANY FEEDBACK ON PAGE ONE? NO, MR. SAI.

I, I DO UNFORTUNATELY, UM, FOR THE APPLICANTS, YOUR SITE PLAN, UH, WHAT'S THE WORD? APPLICATION APPLICATION, YOU INDICATE THAT THE FAR IS 95,000 SQUARE FOOT EXISTING, EXISTING, THE FAR, UH, AND THAT WAS IN THE JULY 5TH SITE PLAN APPLICATION MATERIAL PACKAGE.

UH, LET ME JUST DOUBLE CHECK AND, AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY I'M ASKING.

SO AS CURRENT AS THIS INTRODUCTION IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE, UM, THE APPLICATION IS REPLACING LIKE FOR LIKE FROM A SQUARE FOOT PERSPECTIVE AS WRITTEN, RIGHT? IF YOU'RE SOMEBODY OUTSIDE LOOKING IN, YOU'RE GOING, OH, THEY'RE REPLACING 258,000 WITH 279,000.

UM, FROM A FLOOR PANE PERSPECTIVE, YOU'RE, I BELIEVE YOU'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD SOMETHING THREE TIMES BIGGER THAN WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE.

SO YOUR FAR IS 95,000, RIGHT? SO BEING REPLACED WITH A 278,000 BUILDING 2 79.

2 79.

SO I WOULD LIKE, JUST SO EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS THE SCOPE TO NOT ONLY INCLUDE THE SQUARE FOOT OF THE BUILDING, BUT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO OF THE BUILDING IN THIS AS PERTAINING TO WHAT EXISTS AS PERTAINING TO WHAT EXISTS.

SO IN THE JULY 24TH SUBMISSION UNDER EXISTING, YOU HAVE, UM, 95,988 REPRESENTING A 0.05 FAR.

I CAN SHOW IT ON THE OVERHEAD IF THE, THE BASIC QUESTION YOU'RE BUILDING A BIGGER BUILDING THAN THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE.

I, I WOULD LIKE, I CAN SHARE IT.

CAN YOU GUYS SHARE ME? YES.

DIEGO, I'M JUST GONNA SHARE THE APPLICATION BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REFERRING TO.

SO IF YOU SEE THIS HERE AND MAYBE THERE'S A CLARIFICATION, BUT, UM, ALRIGHT.

IT'S, WELL, THE FAR IS BIGGER BECAUSE IT'S BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE TYPE OF BUILDING.

IT'S A, IT'S A SINGLE STORY.

AND SO WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT MAXING OUT THE FAR OF THE SITE THAT'S ALLOWED BECAUSE WE'RE NOT GOING UP.

I'M NOT, THAT'S THE QUESTION.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT YOU'RE MAXING IT OUT.

I'M JUST ASKING FROM A NOW TO PROPOSED YOUR TRIP, THE, THE FLOOR AREA RELATIONSHIP, UNDERSTANDING THE NUMBER THAT'S IN THE APPLICATION.

I WOULD LIKE TO CONFIRM THAT IF YOU COULD GIVE US A FEW MOMENTS, YOU COULD GO THROUGH YOUR, UH, SOME OTHER INFORMATION, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO VERIFY THAT NUMBER.

UM, COMPLETELY UNDERSTOOD.

THE BUILDING PROPOSED IS 280,000 SQUARE FEET.

THAT IS IT.

I WILL GET THE COMPARISON BETWEEN EXISTING AND PROPOSING AND THEN WE'LL VERIFY THAT'LL MOVE ON.

WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO RECOMMEND IS THAT WE UPDATE THIS TO REFLECT NOT JUST THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE TWO BUILDINGS, BUT THE FLOOR AREA RATIO OF THE TWO BUILDINGS SO THAT PEOPLE WHEN READING THIS UNDERSTAND THE SCOPE AND SIZE OF THE, IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH THAT? YES.

MAKES, MAKES SENSE.

SO WE'LL MOVE ON.

AND THAT WILL ALSO APPLY IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY SECTION.

SO I WROTE IN ALL APPLICABLE SECTIONS.

SO THE OVERALL, UH, MY, MY, MY CONCERN IS THAT THE COMMON, THE WORK THAT WE HAVE DONE IT FOR THE PLANNING BOARD INDIVIDUALLY SHOULD REFLECT INTO THE FINDINGS.

SO IF WE GO OVER TO PAGE TWO, THE REST IS KIND OF THE BACKGROUND AND, AND THE VARIOUS DATES IN WHICH THE PROJECT WAS REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD.

THEN WE GET INTO THE FINDINGS OKAY.

AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO.

AND THE FIRST SECTION IS, UH, SECTION A, TRAFFIC ACCESS AND ROAD.

UM, THERE WERE A FEW ADDITIONS HERE IN BLUE.

UM, I GUESS I'LL JUST READ THROUGH IT BRIEFLY.

THE SITE IS ACCESSED BEFORE YOU GO THAT ONE.

I, I WANTED TO KIND OF SAY OVERALL THAT THE FINDINGS DOES NOT REFLECT ALL OF THEM BEFORE WE GO INTO INDIVIDUAL.

OUR DO NOT REALLY ENCOMPASSES THE COMMENTS THAT, UH, WE INDIVIDUALLY SUBMITTED AND I DON'T KNOW HOW DO YOU INCORPORATE IT, BUT THERE WAS A WHOLE BUNCH OF COMMENTS THAT WAS MADE AND IT DOES NOT REFLECT IN FINDINGS.

SO I WILL REQUEST THAT MATT OR WHOEVER CAN INCORPORATE OUR COMMENTS AND IT WAS LISTED AND, UH, INDIVIDUAL MAMMALS, BUT IT WAS COMPILED INTO THE METRICS.

[02:10:01]

THAT'S IT.

IT IS RIGHT NOW.

DOESN'T, SO OVERALL THIS FINDING HAS TO BE INCORPORATED ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WAS MADE AND I PRESUME THAT THEY SHOULD HAVE BEEN INTO IT.

AND THERE MAY BE SOME QUESTIONS.

SO GENERAL, MY FINDINGS IS THAT THERE IS SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS THAT THAT WAS NOT REALLY EVEN BEING ADDRESSED.

SO THAT SHOULD BE HIGHLIGHTED IF YOU WANTED TO PUT IT INTO INTRODUCTION THAT, UH, MANY OF OUR, MANY OF OUR QUESTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN, IF YOU COULD SPELL IT OUT, I THINK STAFF ARE A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED AS TO WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO DO.

NO, NO.

THESE ARE THIS, THESE METRICS.

THE LATEST, YEAH, THE METRICS THAT WE HAVE, WHICH IS, I THINK I HAVE ABOUT 11.

UH, MICHELLE HAS THE LARGEST NUMBER OF COMMENTS, SO IS SHE YEAH, BUT I THINK, I THINK SOME OF MINE ARE IN CARROT.

SO I THINK I THINK, CAN YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE ONE? YEAH.

CAN YOU GIMME AN EXAMPLE OF ONE THAT YOU THINK ISN'T IN? JUST HELP ME.

ALL OF US.

LET ME JUST SEE.

I HAVE THE LIST.

I MIGHT BE ABLE TO OFFER A SUGGESTION TO SHORT CIRCUIT THIS, THIS ISSUE THAT THE CARE'S RAISING.

LET, LET, LET, THIS IS INTERNAL BECAUSE SHE WANTS TO HEAR WHAT WAS COMMENTS THAT SHE DID NOT, SHE, JUST TO IDENTIFY SOME OF THIS.

GO AHEAD.

UH, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, I ASKED THAT ARE THE LOCAL MUNICIPALITIES, MUNICIPALS, VILLAGE OF LEY, TOWN OF GREENBERG, UH, KERS AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENTS AWARE OF INCREASED ENFORCEMENT I THE TRUCK TRUCKS MAKING RIGHT TURN ON THE PROJECT SIDE AND GOING NORTH.

AND HOW DO YOU KIND OF, UH, ENFORCE THE, UH, ENFORCE THE SORT OF NON-COMPLIANCE OR, OR THE LAW AND IT'S, IT SO CERTAIN THESE ARE KIND OF THINGS OR FOR EXAMPLE, UM, UH, HOW DO YOU, LIKE, WILL THE TRUCKS ALLOWED TO USE TWO SI 87 INTERCHANGE TO GET TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT? ARE THE TRUCKS ALLOWED TO MAKE LEFT TURN ON JACKSON AVENUE AND USE I 87 TO GO TO NORTH? RIGHT.

I THOUGHT THERE WAS A RESPONSE TO THAT.

SO, UH, I MEAN THESE ARE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, MATT, I THINK I KNOW YOU PUT TOGETHER, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF, UH, UH, ISSUES THAT WE HAVE RAISED AND IT'S MOSTLY QUESTIONS BECAUSE WE DO NOT, UH, HAVE ANSWERS OR WE NOT GOTTA ANSWERS.

SO IF YOU CAN GO THROUGH IT AND PUT INTO IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, SOME OF THEM ARE THERE, BUT NOT ALL OF THEM ARE.

SO THAT'S MY OVERALL COMMENTS, UH, ON THAT ONE.

JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW, HOW WE INCORPORATE WHAT ARE OUR OPERATION FOR THE FACILITY.

THEY DON'T KNOW.

OKAY, SO WHY IS THE PROPOSED ONE STORY BUILDING SO HIGH 45? THEY DON'T KNOW.

UH, ARE THEY PLANNED FOR MEZZANINE? THEY DON'T KNOW.

UM, THAT'S HELPFUL.

EMPLOYEES, FACILITIES, CAFETERIA, BREAK ROOM, THEY DON'T KNOW.

SO, SO, AND, AND I THINK THERE IS A QUITE A BIT OF, UH, CONCERNS THAT WE HAVE, UH, IDENTIFY AND UM, AND I THINK SIMILARLY OTHER MEMBERS HAVE DONE IT TOO.

SO, UH, I MEAN RATHER THAN TAKING TIME, I THINK THAT'S MY GENERAL COMMENT.

SO IT SHOULD BE AMENDED AS, AS, AS BEEN NOTED ON OUR COMMENTS.

SO PLEASE INCLUDE THAT INTO THE FINDINGS.

UM, BECAUSE IF I GO EACH ONE BEACH BY, TAKE US TWO HOURS TO INCLUDE INTO IT.

AND LIKE JUST SOME OF THE THINGS YOU READ, I FEEL LIKE THEY ARE TOUCHED ON IN, IN, IN MANY OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

SOME OF THEM ARE ESPECIALLY THE WAY THAT OF THEY WERE BEEFED UP BY, BY MS. MOYER AND MR. I'D BE CURIOUS TO KNOW WHAT, WHAT MS. GRAY WAS GOING TO YEAH.

PERHAPS SUGGEST.

I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR FROM, FROM MR. SURE.

MY SUGGESTION WAS GOING TO BE TO JUST SIMPLY ATTACH THE MATRIX TO YOUR, YOUR RECOMMENDATION MEMO TO THE TOWN BOARD.

SO THE TOWN BOARD IS ABLE TO SEE, I MEAN, IT'S A MATTER OF PUBLIC RECORD AND IT'LL BE PART OF THE RECORD BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD ANYWAY.

BUT YOU CAN SPECIFICALLY CALL ATTENTION TO THAT DOCUMENT TOWN MAKE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE TOWN BOARDS, TOWN BOARD SEEKS TO RECEIVE, FOLLOW UP ON, FOLLOW UP ON QUESTIONS, STILL UNRESOLVED.

EXACTLY.

AND THE FINDINGS ARE BASED UPON THE MATRIX.

ATTACHED MATRIX.

EXACTLY.

UH, THE RESPONSE FROM THE APPLICANT WAS MOSTLY NOT VERY SATISFACTORY.

THAT MIGHT BE, THAT'S A GREAT, YEAH, BUT I, I THINK, UH, SOME OF THE,

[02:15:02]

I THINK GOOD, GOOD SIMPLE SOLUTIONS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH, MS. GRANT.

AND SURE.

I DO RECOMMEND THAT THE TOWN BOARD ENSURE THAT THERE ARE APPROPRIATE ANSWERS TO EACH OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

I THINK THAT WITH THAT, I THINK THERE IS SOME COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM THE, UM, ESOR COUNTY PLANNING BOARD AND ALSO THE, SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE COMMENTS ABOUT PARTICULARLY VISUAL IMPACT AND THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, UM, DURING THE CONSTRUCTION AND AFTERWARDS.

UH, SO WHEN, WHEN THEY, LIKE, YOU HAVE ABOUT TWO YEARS OF, UH, REMOVING THE DIRT FROM THE YEAH.

SIDE.

SO THAT'S IN, HERE'S .

LET'S JUST HAVE DEPUTY SCHMIDT CONTINUE TO READ THROUGH THESE AND THEN IF WE STILL FEEL THERE ARE ITEMS ON, ON RESOLVED, THEN, THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO THEM.

SO I THINK WE WERE AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO.

PAGE TWO.

SO I'LL, I'LL RECITE IT.

UM, IT NOW READS, THE SITE IS ACCESSED OFF OF SALT MILLER RIVER ROAD AND NEW YORK STATE HIGHWAY, NEW YORK STATE ROUTE ON A, THE APPLICANT HAS PREPARED TRAFFIC STUDIES ANALYZING THE TRAFFIC TO BE GENERATED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT WHICH HAD BEEN REVIEWED BY THE TOWN'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT.

THE STUDIES BASED ON THE OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSE USE AS A NON LASTS MILE FACILITY.

I NEED TO STOP YOU THERE.

CAN WE CALL IT AS A TRADITIONAL WAREHOUSE? 'CAUSE IT'S TOO VAGUE.

THE NON LASTS MILE WAREHOUSE, THAT WAS NO, NO.

BUT THAT, THAT NON LASTS MILE COULD MEAN MANY THINGS.

BUT A TRADITIONAL WAREHOUSE IS ALSO PRETTY BROAD.

UM, I THINK AS REPRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT AND ITE WELL, PREVIOUSLY, WELL, IT'S REALLY, I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STUDIES COMPLETED BY THE APPLICANT, WHICH WERE BASED OFF A NON LAST MILE, WHICH COULD MEAN MANY THINGS.

IT'D BE A WAREHOUSE THAT'S A NON YOU'D, YOU'D LIKE THE WORD ADD TRADITIONAL BETWEEN PROPOSED AND WAREHOUSE.

HOW ABOUT PUTTING IN TRADITIONAL SLASH NON LASTS MILE AND WHATEVER IT MEANS? YOU KNOW, I THINK PEOPLE SORT OF KNOW GENERALLY ABOUT, I MEAN, WHAT IS NON LAST MILE, THERE'S ANOTHER 20 ITE LAND LAND CODES THAT COULD MEAN NON LASTS MILE.

IT GOES BACK TO MY ORIGINAL QUESTION.

SO WAS THE STUDY DONE ON TRADITIONAL WAREHOUSE WAS, IF THIS WASN'T NON LAST MILE, LET'S ASK THE APPLICANT.

IT WOULD REQUIRE SPECIAL PERMITS THAT THE APPLICANT'S NOT SEEKING.

WE'RE REFERRING TO THE APPLICANT'S STUDIES.

SO I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THEIR TRAFFIC STUDIES, UM, WERE BASED ON THE OPERATION OF A TRADITIONAL WAREHOUSE USE OR SIMPLY A NON LASTS MILE FACILITY.

AND IF IT IS NON LASTS MILE, WHAT IS IT? SO WE CAN COME BACK TO THAT IF YOU NEED A FEW MINUTES.

SO THERE'S TWO, THEY'RE COMING BACK TO THE FAR, THEY'RE COMING BACK ON THE FAR.

AND THEY'RE COMING BACK ON THE TRAFFIC STUDIES, SO, OKAY.

BUT I'M GONNA TOUCH ON THE FAR, UM, FIRST THING, I, I PERSONALLY, THE TRADITIONAL LANGUAGE, I, I DON'T THINK IT'S, UM, NECESSARILY INAPPROPRIATE.

I THINK IT MIGHT BE FINE.

I THINK YOU COULD, TO ME, MY PREFERENCE IS TO REFERENCE THE ITE SPECIFIC CODE THAT WAS UTILIZED.

THAT'S WHAT THE, THE TRAFFIC STUDY IS BASED ON.

I'M JUST PULLING UP THE EXACT LANGUAGE.

THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.

WAREHOUSE USE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITE CODE ONE 50, I THINK THAT'S FINE.

UM, LET ME JUST, IN YOUR RESPONSES YOU SAID ITE LAND USE CODE ONE 50, WHICH IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS A TRADITIONAL WAREHOUSE TRADITION.

AND, AND IT'S, AND THAT'S FINE.

IT'S WAREHOUSING IS THE ACTUAL TITLE OF IT.

UM, BUT IF IT WANTS TO BE, TO PUT THE CAVEAT, THEIR TRADITIONAL WAREHOUSING IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITE CODE ONE 50.

YEAH, THAT'S FINE.

IN ACCORDANCE.

SO, SO I KNOW I HAD THE ONE 50 IN EVERYWHERE AND YOU GUYS TOOK IT OUT, BUT I THINK ONE 50, THINK ONE 50 TAKES AWAY THE GRAYNESS YEAH.

CODE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITE CODE CODE ONE 50, BECAUSE THAT IS THE BASELINE THAT WAS USED FOR THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS.

AND WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS THAT'S FINE IN PEST AS WELL.

THE DOT IS LOOKING FOR, AND WE CONTINUE, UH, ARE CONTINUING TO REQUEST A LETTER FROM THE MUNICIPALITY STATING THAT IT'S BEING RESTRICTED TO THAT.

SO AS LONG AS WE'RE ASSOCIATING IT WITH THE ITE CODE ONE 50, THAT'S FINE.

SO IF WE DID MODIFY IT TO STATE THE STUDIES BASED ON THE OPERATION OF THE PROPOSED TRADITIONAL

[02:20:01]

MM-HMM.

ED OKAY.

THAT, THAT'S HELPFUL FOR ME.

IT REALLY IS.

UM, INDICATE, SO I'LL GO ON, I HAVE THAT, I THINK IT'S LAND USE CODE.

I WILL DOUBLE CHECK.

INDICATE THAT THE EXPECTED TRAFFIC GENERATION POST CONSTRUCTION WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE TRAFFIC ON SAW MILL RIVER ROAD OR SURROUNDING ROADWAYS, PROVIDED THAT THE USE IS THE INDICATED, I THINK TRADITIONAL RIGHT? NOT REGULAR.

YOU HAD REGULAR, TRADITIONAL, WE ARE ON PAGE THREE NOW.

NO, BOTTOM OF TWO, VERY BOTTOM OF TWO USE IS THE INDICATED TRADITIONAL WAREHOUSE USE.

THE ACTUAL VOLUME OF VEHICLE TRIPS ARE EQUIVALENT TO OR LESS THAN WHAT IS PROPOSED.

AND TRUCK TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS ARE ADHERED TO.

NO TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED WITH RESPECT TO THE EARTH REMOVAL, TREE REMOVAL, DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT, WHICH ARE ANTICIPATED TO GENERATE SIGNIFICANT TRUCK TRAFFIC.

I HAVE A COMMENT ON, UH, WHERE WE ARE NOW.

NO, JUST ABOUT SENTENCE BEFORE, THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANT IMPACT OR NO SURROUNDING AREA RIGHT.

WILL NOT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT.

YEAH, I I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE STUDIED THE SURROUNDING AREA TO REALLY, WE MAKE THE COMMENTS ON IT.

SO WE SHOULD JUST SAY, UH, BECAUSE SURROUNDING ROADWAYS, I DIDN'T SEE ANY, ANY STUDY ON, ON, ON THE SIDE STREET.

SO EVEN, EVEN GOING UP TO IN LEY I NINE A AND ID SEVEN, THERE WAS NO, NO NO STUDY STUDY STOPPED.

OH.

SO YOU WANT TO TAKE OUT SURROUNDING, SURROUNDING SURROUNDING ROADWAYS BOARDS.

WITH THAT WE'RE TAKING OUT SURROUNDING OR SURROUNDING ROADWAYS.

OR, OR YOU CAN, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THAT, UH, UH, WELL, LET'S DO ONE THING AT A TIME.

ONE, OKAY.

IS EVERYONE OKAY WITH? YEAH, I, I SUPPORT STRIKING SURROUNDED ROADWAYS.

RIGHT? I MEAN, DO YOU WANNA ADD YEAH, I THINK A REQUIREMENT THAT SURROUNDING ROADWAYS OR RECOMMENDATIONS SURROUNDING SURROUND, EITHER YOU PUT IT THERE OR SOMEWHERE ELSE THAT WELL, SO HOW ABOUT WE PUT SURROUNDING ROADWAYS INTO THE LIST OF THINGS THAT TRAFFIC STUDIES NEEDED, HAVEN'T BEEN CONDUCT, HAVEN'T BEEN NEEDED, OR YEAH.

CONDUCTED.

SO NO TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED WITH RESPECT TO SURROUNDING ROADWAYS, EARTH REMOVAL, TREE REMOVAL, DEMOLITION AND CONSTRUCTION PHASES.

OR, OR I THINK BETTER IS TO, UH, ADD ON IT IS A SINGLE LANE ROADWAYS WITH NO SHOULDER AND, UH, I DON'T KNOW WHERE WILL THAT FIT INTO IT, BUT I GUESS IT'S A PART OF THE TRAFFIC ACCESS.

SO COULD WE JUST ADD LIKE A DESCRIPTIVE NARRATIVE AT THE TOP OF, AT THE START OF THE PARAGRAPH SAYS, ACCESSED OFF OF SAWMILL RIVER ROAD A ONE LANE A A ONE.

I WOULD ACTUALLY SUGGEST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN.

AND THAT SAME SECTION, WE, UH, ABOUT MIDWAY THROUGH, WE SAY SALTON RIVER ROAD IS HEAVILY UTILIZED AND LANE DAMAGE ARE BLOCKED.

COULD RESULT.

SO, SO, SO ADD, ADD, LIKE DUE TO LACK OF SHOULDER, ONE LANE CHARACTERISTIC, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES THAT'S FURTHER ALONG IN THAT SAME, YEAH, IN THAT SAME, UH, SECTION.

SO SAAMA RIVER ROAD OR I SEE IT IS A HEAVILY UTILIZED SINGLE LANE ROAD WITH NO SHOULDER.

YEP.

NO TURNING LANE IN ITS IN ITS CURRENT FORM.

UH, ANOTHER COMMENT, IT'S NEED TO STUDY MORE INTERSECTION, SAY NINE A, UH, AT AND I 87 IN LEY AND ALL THE WAY DOWN TO TAHOE ROAD WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO USE, WHICH IS THREE MILES DOWN THE, UH, I THINK JACKSON AVENUE.

SO THIS IS PART OF THE SURROUNDING, UM, SURROUNDING AREAS NEED TO BE STUDIED AND ALSO, OKAY.

SO DO YOU WANT, SO WE ALREADY HAVE MODIFIED TO STATE NO TRAFFIC STUDIES HAVE BEEN PERFORMED WITH RESPECT TO THE SURROUNDING ROADWAYS EARTH REMOVAL.

DO WE WANT TO LIST?

[02:25:02]

I THINK THAT BE EASIER.

YOU, YOU WANNA LIST ONE OR MORE OF THEM? YEAH.

I THINK THERE IS A INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO.

LIMITED TO, BUT TAHOE AND BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO USE FOR THE NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND CIRCULATION.

SO INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO NINE, UH, NINE A SOUTH TO TUCKAHOE ROAD.

ANYTHING ELSE? UH, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THAT'S, I MEAN, THERE ARE A COUPLE OF SECTIONS THAT, UH, BUT LET ME JUST SEE WHAT, UH, OKAY, WELL LET'S JUST CONTINUE THE DOCUMENT AND WHEN WE GET TO THE M YEAH, WE CAN ALWAYS REVERT BACK.

I THINK, UH, ONE MORE THING THAT NO, UH, APPLICANTS RELY HEAVILY ON, UH, UH, HAVING ENFORCEMENTS AND OTHER MEANS TO MAKE SURE THAT THE, THE TRAFFIC DOES NOT GO NORTH OF NORTH INTO THE LEY VILLAGE OR BEYOND.

RIGHT? YEAH.

SO THERE, THERE'S SOME CONDITIONS TO THAT LATER ON.

THERE ARE, BUT IT'S NOT IN A FINDING, BUT THIS IS PART OF FINDING, I THINK RIGHT.

SO WE SHOULD MENTION IN FINDING YEAH.

RECOMMENDATION WOULD'VE THE SAME, SIMILAR, THIS IS, THIS IS OUR REPORT YEAH.

ON THE FINDINGS.

SO MATT JUST INCLUDE THERE.

I THINK THAT'S PART OF THE TRAFFIC ACCESS AND ROADWAYS.

SO, YEAH.

SO WE DID ADD, UH, IN KIND OF BEFORE THAT, UH, SENSE ABOUT NO TRAFFIC STUDIES, UH, WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE STUDIES THAT HAVE BEEN DONE.

UM, AND PROVIDED THAT THE USE IS THE INDICATED TRADITIONAL WAREHOUSE USE, THE ACTUAL VOLUME OF VEHICLE TRIPS ARE EQUIVALENT TO OR LESS THAN WHAT PROPOSED AND TRUCK TRAVEL RESTRICTIONS ARE ADHERED TO.

SO WE DO HAVE THAT LANGUAGE.

WHERE IN THE, IN THE YELLOW.

SO MAYBE WHEN YOU WERE MAKING A COMMENT YOU DIDN'T, YOU KNOW, YOU ANSWER THAT.

'CAUSE YOU WERE WORKING OFF THE PRIOR.

UM, AND THEN, UH, AT THE BOTTOM OF SECTION A WE INDIC, WE'VE ADDED, UH, FURTHER THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS REQUIRING THE PROPOSED SOUTHBOUND LEFT TURN POCKET BE INSTALLED AT THE BEGINNING OF THE FIRST SITE DEVELOPMENT PHASE.

SO I THINK BETWEEN MATT AND MYSELF, WE HAVE GOOD NOTES ON, ON A, LET'S GO TO B, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ACCESS.

UM, I'M JUST GOING TO STATE WHAT WAS ADDED HERE.

SO AT THE, THE LAST SENTENCE OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, UM, WHERE IT STATES ALTERNATIVE, IT STARTS WITH ALTERNATIVELY, UH, THE APPLICANT HAS ADVISED THE PLANNING BOARD THAT IS PREPARED TO FURTHER EXPLORE THE POSSIBILITY OF INSTEAD CONSTRUCTING A SIDEWALK EXTENDING NORTH FROM THE SUBJECT SITE TO LAWRENCE, TO THE LAWRENCE STREET INTERSECTION IN PLACE OF CONSTRUCTING A SIDEWALK ACROSS THE PROPERTY'S FRONTAGE.

THAT'S JUST TO REFLECT WHAT THE APPLICANT REPRESENTED.

I THINK ED, UH, MR. WEINBERG ACCURATELY.

SO THIS IS PART OF B WANTED THAT TO BE ACCURATE, WHICH IT IS.

OH.

WHICH IS IN THE BLUE.

IN THE BLUE.

UH, ENOUGH INFORMATION TO REALLY SAY THAT THE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND ACCESS HAS BEEN, EXCEPT FOR THE SIDEWALK.

ONE OF, ONE OF T'S COMMENTS I KNOW WAS THIS ADDRESSES PEDESTRIAN SAFETY OUTSIDE MAYBE, UM, BUT THERE WAS CONCERN FROM THE COUNTY, RIGHT? AND I THINK, UH, SOME, UM, AND KET AND OR ED HAVE ASKED ABOUT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ON THE PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY IF THE UPPER PARKING LOT IS BUILT.

SO, YEAH, I, I THINK, UH, THE WHOLE FIRST PARAGRAPH ABOUT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IS A, UH, IS WHAT THE APPLICANT SAID.

BUT I DON'T THINK, UH, IN OUR COMMENTS EARLIER, UH, THESE THINGS ARE BIG LEAP OF FAITH THAT WE SAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PROVIDE A SAFE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO BUILDING FROM PARKING AREAS AND THE BUS STOPS.

UH, I DON'T THINK THERE IS A, ANY, UH, ANY REALLY, UH, UH, DEFINITIVE, UH, INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE ABOUT PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ON THE, ON THE PROPERTY.

AND JUST ONE EXAMPLE IS THAT THEY SAY THAT, UH, UH, THERE IS NO SIDEWALK WHEN SOMEBODY'S WALKING FROM THE BUILDING, THE WAREHOUSE BUILDING DOWN THE HILL, AND YOU GO ALL THE WAY UP TO THE, TO THE TRUCK PARKING, IT'S ABOUT A HUNDRED FEET WALK.

AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY'S GOING TO MAKE THAT WALK TO, AND THERE IS NO SIDEWALK IN THERE TO GOING UP FROM THE MAIN BUILDING TO DO THAT.

SO I THINK THAT, UH, UH, THAT THERE IS NOT ENOUGH, UH,

[02:30:01]

SO CAN WE JUST ADD FOR THAT, THAT THE TOWN BOARD, WE RECOMMENDED THE TOWN BOARD ENSURES OR RESEARCHERS PEDESTRIAN SAFETY ON SITE, CORRECT? YEAH.

I THINK THAT WILL BE, YEAH, SHORT ONE BECAUSE IT'S NOT, UH, NOT REALLY NOT RESEARCHERS, NOT, NOT RESEARCH, NOT REALLY, UH, INSURES PROVIDES ITSELF JUST YEAH.

RECOMMENDS THAT THE ONSITES, PEDESTRIAN SAFETY SAFETY BE REVIEWED.

REVIEWED AND INSURED OR SOMETHING.

ONSITE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY.

THAT'S WHAT I WANTED.

OR YOU CAN SAY WE DO NOT HAVE INFORMATION TO REALLY MAKE ANY COMMENTS.

BUT WE ARE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION THAT THEY SHOULD MAKE SURE.

THAT'S HELPFUL.

ALRIGHT, SO SECTION C, CIRCULATION AND PARKING.

SO YOU WILL DELETE MOST OF THE FIRST PARAGRAPH BECAUSE WE ARE IMPLYING THAT THEY HAVE A, THERE IS A, OR SAY, PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE BUILDING FROM THE PARKING AREAS.

IT SHOULD, IT'S A JOKE.

IT'S NOT THERE.

SO WE SHOULD NOT SAY SOMETHING THAT NOT COMPLETELY TRUE.

WELL, WHAT IF TO DELETE THE SECOND SENTENCE OF THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH.

WHAT ABOUT, UM, I'LL JUST TAKE OUT THE WHOLE PARAGRAPH EXCEPT FOR PARAGRAPH, WE CAN'T DO THAT.

AND WHAT MICHELLE HAS SAID THAT WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TO MAKE, MAKE ANY, A LOT MORE THAN JUST THE, UM, I KNOW, I UNDERSTAND.

BUT THAT, WELL, WHAT IF, UM, THE SECOND SENTENCE WAS MODIFIED.

THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NETWORK OF SIDEWALKS WITH THE SITE.

I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT.

YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THAT? NO, NOT INSIDE THE SITE.

IN INSIDE THE, WITHIN THE SITE.

YEAH, WITHIN THE SITE.

THERE WAS NO, WELL, WELL, THAT THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO THAT.

'CAUSE THAT'S MY UNDERSTANDING BECAUSE I, I LOOKED AT IT UP AND THERE IS NO, NO SIDEWALK TO GOING UP THE HILL.

BUT THERE IS A NOT UP THE HILL, I'M TALKING, SO THAT'S WHY I WAS GONNA LIMIT IT.

THERE ARE A PARKING, THERE'S A PARKING AREA IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING, AND THERE ARE PARKING AREAS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDES OF THE BUILDING.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE SIDEWALKS AROUND THE FRONTAGE OF THE BUILDING FOR, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE PARKS WITHIN THOSE LOTS.

I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT THE UPPER LOT.

AND THEN CAN NAVIGATE AROUND THE FRONT AND SIDES OF THE BUILDING VIA SIDEWALKS.

THAT, THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE THAT'S A TRUCK.

THERE IS A LOADING DOCK.

SO WHERE ARE YOU GONNA GO AROUND THE BUILDING? THAT'S ON THE BUILDING, THAT'S ON THE, THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

THE, THE, THE, THE, THE LOADING DOCKS ARE IN THE REAR OF THE BUILDING.

I'M TALKING ABOUT THE, THE SIDES AND THE FRONT.

AND THERE IS ALSO THE GRAPE CHANGE.

DO YOU SHOULD FROM THE, FROM THE PARKING? WE COULD PULL THE SITE PLAN UP IF, IF YOU WANT US TO SHARE IT.

AM I? NO, I, I THINK, UH, I THINK THE HANGUP IS ON THE WORD SAFE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THERE.

WHICH I WAS GONNA PROPOSE.

SO I THINK, I THINK SIMPLY STATING THAT PEDESTRIAN ACCESS FROM THE PARKING SPACES TO THE BUILDING HAS BEEN PROVIDED AND PERIOD, THAT'S, THAT'S JUST A STATEMENT OF WHAT'S ON THE PLANS BECAUSE THERE IS SIDEWALKS CIRCULATING ALL OF THE PARKING SPACES, AND THAT PROVIDES ACCESS TO THE BUILDINGS, THE PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING.

AND ON THE NORTH SOUTH SIDE, FRONT OF PARTICULAR PARKING SPACES, NOT THE TRUCK PARKING THAT'S IN THE BACK, OR PASSENGER, UH, VEHICLE PARKING SPACES, WHICH IS WHAT'S LOCATED ADJACENT TO THE BUILDING.

IT'S NOT THE TRUCK PARKING OR THE TRAILER PARKING THAT'S LOCATED ON THE TOP PORTION OF THE SITE.

SO WE JUST AND THAT IS A CORRECT STATEMENT.

THERE IS NO SIDEWALK TO THAT LOCATION.

SO THE FIRST SENTENCE, WHAT, HOW WOULD IT READ? WELL, WE COULD TAKE OUT THE FIRST SENTENCE, I THINK.

AND THEN START WITH, THE APPLICANT PROPOSES A NETWORK OF SIDEWALKS WITHIN THE SITE, WITHIN THE SITE TO PROVIDE, REMOVE SAFE TO PROVIDE PEDESTRIAN ACCESS TO THE BUILDING FROM THE PASSENGER VEHICLE PARKING AREAS, UH, ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING.

AND THE BUS STOPS LOCATED ALONG SAW MILLERVILLE PERIOD.

AND THEN WE'LL HAVE A RECOMMENDATION SAYING, VALIDATE THAT IT'S SAFE AND EFFECTIVE.

AND THEN THAT THE WHAT ABOUT UP TOP? YEAH.

TWO.

THIS WAY IT'S JUST STATING FACT OF WHAT'S ON THE SITE PLAN.

AND YOU'LL PUT THAT IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO I, SO I HAVE, I HAVE THAT, UM, DEAR GOD, WE ARE ON YOUR NUMBER B, THE SITE.

[02:35:02]

WE HAVE SOME ADDITIONS.

UH, SO AGAIN, AND THIS IS IN THE FIRST FULL PARAGRAPH ON PAGE TWO.

WE CLARIFY THAT IT'S 298 PASSENGER VEHICLE SPACES AND 109 TRUCK PARKING SPACES FOR A TOTAL OF 407 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.

THAT WAS, UM, THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE PRIOR.

UH, THEN TOWARDS THE END OF THE PARAGRAPH, UH, I GUESS THE SECOND FROM THE LAST SENTENCE, UM, WE ADDED IF THE END USER OR USERS DETERMINE THAT THEY DO DESIRE THE TRUCK PARKING AT THE TOP OF THE HILL, FURTHER REVIEW BY THE TOWN BOARD AND OR PLANNING BOARD SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO ASSESS POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND ALTERNATIVES.

AND THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY, AS AN ALTERNATIVE OR AN ADDITIONAL LAND BANKING CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO WHETHER AN AESTHETICALLY PLEASING PARKING STRUCTURE WOULD PROVIDE THE NEEDED PARKING WHILE REDUCING DISTURBANCES.

WAIT, IT SAYS, FOR THIS USE, CAN YOU CHANGE IT TO, FOR USE CODE ONE 50 ITE ONE 50 IT ONE 50.

JUST JUST TELL ME WHAT LINE, UM, FOR THIS USES, I DON'T KNOW, LIKE 1, 2, 3, IF THE END USER, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? END USERS? TEN NINE FROM THE BOTTOM NINE FROM THE BOTTOM NINTH AT THE BOTTOM.

THE AMOUNT OF PARKING REQUIRED UNDER TOWN CODE FOR THIS, THE AMOUNT OF TRUCK PARKING.

SO THE, YEAH.

SO CAN YOU CHANGE IT TO THE AMOUNT OF TRUCK PARKING REQUIRED UNDER TOWN CODE? WELL, IT'S NOT UNDER TOWN CODE TAKE OUT UNDER TOWN CODE OUT OF TRUCK.

I THINK THE INTENT WAS TO ALSO CAPTURE IF, UH, VEHICULAR, LIKE PASSENGER VEHICLE PARKING COULD ALSO BE LAND BANKED, IF THAT'S BEYOND WHAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE END USER.

SO IT'S INTENDED TO ENCOMPASS BOTH.

WE CAN, UH, SPECIFY OUT TRUCK PARKING AS A, UH, LIKE ON THE HILL, UM, AS LIKE A, LIKE KIND OF DOING THE OTHER SENTENCE AARON PREVIOUSLY READ.

YEAH, I MEAN THE, THE ONE INTENT IS DO YOU REALLY NEED THAT MANY EMPLOYEE PARKINGS? AND THEN THE OTHER INTENT IS WHY DO YOU NEED ALL THE TRUCK PARKING? RIGHT? YEAH.

WELL, WE COULD SPLIT IT INTO TWO.

WE CAN SPLIT IT OUT.

I'M JUST GONNA WRITE SPLIT INTO BOTH PASSENGER VEHICLE AND TRUCK, OR SPLIT IT IF YOU WANNA SPLIT IT.

SO, SO, SO THEY'VE GOT 18 LAND BANKED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING CAR, REGULAR CAR PARKING, AND IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LAND BANK MORE IN THE SOUTH SIDE? REGULAR CAR PARKING.

AND THEN ON THE HILL AND GOING UP THE HILL IS ALL THE TRUCK PARKING WHERE THE QUESTION IS, WHY DO YOU NEED ALL THE TRUCK PARKING? MM-HMM .

UP THE HILL AND ON TOP OF THE HILL.

BUT THEN, UH, BEFORE YOU SAID FOR THIS USE, AND SO YOU WANT TO CHANGE THAT.

SO, SO WHEN THE QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT WAS, WHY DO YOU NEED SO MUCH TRUCK PARKING? THEY'RE ON FOUR LAND USE CODE, ONE 50.

AND THE ANSWER WAS, I THINK BECAUSE THE TENANT MIGHT WANT IT.

I, I THINK WE'RE OKAY.

WE'RE GOOD ON THAT.

D SCREENING AND LANDSCAPING.

UH, WE DID ADD THAT, UM, RENDERINGS FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE LOSS SHOULD BE PROVIDED DETAILING THE VIEW IMMEDIATELY POST-CONSTRUCTION AT YEAR FIVE AND AT YEAR 10 AT A MINIMUM.

UH, WE ALSO ADDED, UH, TOWARDS THE BOTTOM, IF THE PROJECT WERE REVISED TO REMOVE OR LAND BANK UNNECESSARY OFF STREET TRUCK PARKING SPACES, THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESERVE TREES IN THIS SECTION OF THE PROPERTY.

TO THE SOUTH OF, REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE LOOKING AT THE CUT FENCE? YEAH.

IT WAS THE SOUTH OF THE I JUST WANT TO BE, YEAH.

YOU KNOW, TO THE SOUTH OF THE BUILDING WHERE LAND BANKED, THERE IS THE POTENTIAL TO REDUCE IMPACTS TO STEEP SLOPES AND TREE REMOVALS.

SO STRONG CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO A MAXIMUM REDUCTION IN BUILDING FOOTPRINT, WHICH HA WHICH HAS THE POTENTIAL TO REDUCE STEEP SLOPE IMPACTS, RETAINING WALL MAGNITUDE, CHIPPING SLASH BLASTING NEEDS, TREE REMOVALS, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, NOISE SLASH NOISE POLLUTION, EARTH REMOVAL, AND EROSION, STORMWATER RUNOFF IMPACTS AND CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION AND SITE WORK TRIPS ADDING TO AIRBORNE POLLUTANTS.

SO GREAT ADDITION THERE.

I THINK THAT REALLY STRENGTHEN, STRENGTHENS THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THAT SECTION.

IF WE GO TO SECTION E, UM, CARRYING FROM PAGE FOUR AND INTO PAGE FIVE, UH, THERE WAS A REQUEST TO ADD THE WORD STRONG.

[02:40:01]

THIS IS ALSO THE ONE THAT I WANNA UPDATE ONCE WE KNOW THE FLOOR AREA RATIO TO THIS IS THE SAME, RIGHT? YEAH.

THAT, THAT OTHER SECTION, RIGHT.

UPDATE, YEAH.

TO INCLUDE FAR MM-HMM .

I THINK I HAVE A SIMILAR, I MEAN, IT'S MAYBE INCORPORATED IN THE SAME THING.

THERE IS A POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ON AIR QUALITY, NOISE LEVEL, UH, THE WATER AND OFF DURING THE CONSTRUCTION.

SO THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT OR POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT DUE TO THE, AND THAT WOULD DE DE DEGRADE THE ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY OF THE AREA.

THE WEIGHT IS BEING PROPOSED.

SO YOU WANTED TO ADD AT THE END, OR YOU CAN INCORPORATE IT INTO THE POLLUTIONS AND THE LAST SENTENCE.

I THINK IT'S IN THE RECOMMENDATION.

RECOMMENDATION.

WELL, BUT THIS IS ALSO, THERE'S THE POTENTIAL FOR ANYTHING.

WHERE DO WE NO, POTENTIALLY WHERE WE STOP.

AND WHAT'S POTENTIAL? WELL, IT'S A, IT'S BASICALLY OUR JUDGMENT.

HOLD ON.

UM, LET'S JUST, LET'S JUST, YEAH, JUST ADD THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.

THAT'S A, THAT'S A WORD I WANTED TO ADD IN.

I MEAN, WE'RE RECOMMENDING AN AN EIS SO I MEAN THAT'S A STRONG OF A NO, BUT THIS IS FINDING I AGREE WITH YOU, BUT WE, WE HAVE TO DO THE BOTH.

WE HAVE TO JUSTIFY WHY, AND I THINK IT'S ENOUGH.

THE SPEEDIES PERMIT, UM, CHAPTER 2 48, AND THE NEW YORK STATE MANAGEMENT DESIGN MANUAL.

GO AHEAD.

UH, AT THE, AT THE END OF, UH, E AS AN ADDITIONAL SENTENCE, WE SAY, UM, AS THE PROJECT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, THERE IS, UH, POTENTIAL FOR SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE FIRST, UH, RECOMMENDATION.

UH, CORRECT.

WHICH IS RECOMMENDING EIS.

UH, THERE WERE NO REVISIONS TO SECTION F.

LET ME SEE.

SO WE GO ON TO SECTION G DRAINAGE.

UH, WE DID ASK, UH, OR ASK, WE UPDATED, UH, THE SENTENCE MID PARAGRAPH STATES, THE PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERS IT OF UTMOST IMPORTANCE THAT THE PROPOSED POST-CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IS APPROPRIATELY DESIGNED AND MAINTAINED DURING THE EXISTENCE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

AND THAT THE SURROUNDING AREA IS NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACTED BY STORMWATER RUNOFF GENERATED BY THE PROJECT.

UM, I THINK I HAVE, OKAY.

YOU ALL FINISHED THE THING? SORRY, I AM YOU WANT ME TO COMMENT? OKAY.

SO THE FIRST, FIRST SENTENCE FIRST, UH, UP TO THE PROPOSED DRAINAGE.

I MEAN, I, I DON'T THINK, UH, WE HAVE A REALLY, UH, UH, I MEAN THAT'S JUST BASED ON, IT'S JUST A SORT OF A, UM, UM, BUT THAT'S BASED ON THE PLANS.

UM, BUT I THINK THERE WAS A SORT OF, NOT ENOUGH INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED TO EVALUATE THAT, UH, THIS WOULD WORK.

SO I DON'T KNOW.

HOW DO WE, I MEAN, WELL, THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE LAST LINE, BUT GO AHEAD.

YEAH, SO THE STORM, SO YOU ADDED THAT, OKAY.

THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN AS SUBMITTED IS NOT COMPLETE.

CORRECT? YEAH.

THAT'S, THAT'S ACTUALLY JUST OF IT, THAT IT'S NOT FULLY, FULLY DEVELOPED PLAN.

WELL, WHAT IF WE, UM, ACT SORT OF ADDED THAT AT THE END OF G BECAUSE IT SAYS, IT STARTS WITH, IT SHOULD BE CONFIRMED THAT THE PROJECT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, YOU KNOW, OF THE STATE,

[02:45:01]

DO YOU WANNA ADD I I THINK WE SHOULD ADD AT THE TOP THOUGH, AARON THE SAME SENTENCE.

YOU ADD THE TOP AT THE BEGINNING OF IT, THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO REALLY PROVIDE IT.

WHAT, BUT THAT SHOULD BE A FINDING THAT WE DID NOT, DO NOT HAVE A SIGN SUFFICIENT INFORMATION TO REALLY SAY THAT IT'S GONNA WORK OR NOT GONNA WORK IT.

SO SOMETHING LIKE, THE PLANS SUBMITTED TODAY.

SUBMITTED, NOT FINALIZED.

SO WE DEFINITIVELY CAN SAY THAT THE DRAINAGE WILL WORK OR NOT.

DID ENGINEERING EVEN FINISH? YEAH.

ENGINEERING HAS SOME COMMENT ON IT.

THEY DID.

SO THAT SHOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO IT.

IF I COULD CHIME IN AS WELL, JUST AGAIN, I DON'T AGREE WITH ANYTHING THAT'S BEING STATED THERE.

IT'S A PRELIMINARY STORMWATER PLAN THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED TO DATE TO PROVIDE INFORMATION ON THE IMPROVEMENTS THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED.

UM, THAT PLAN WILL BE FURTHER DEVELOPED AND REFINED AS WAS STATED.

AND I THINK THE LAST SENTENCE REALLY CAPTURES IT WHERE YOU NEED, YOU'RE, YOU'RE RECOMMENDING THAT YOU CON YOU ASKED THE TOWN BOARD TO CONFIRM THAT THE PROJECT IS BEING CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SPEEDY'S GENERAL PERMIT AND THE TOWN REQUIREMENTS.

THAT'S A BUT THAT'S, YOU'RE NOT CONCLUDING THAT THERE'S NOT AN ADVERSE IMPACT OR THE STONEWATER PLAN IS, IS, IS DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE CODE.

YOU'RE NOT DOING THAT.

YOU'RE SIMPLY STATING TO, UH, YOU'RE ASKING THE TOWN BOARD TO CONFIRM THAT AS PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION.

THAT'S ALL.

YEAH, WE, WE JUST STATING I DON'T, I I DON'T THINK WE AGREEMENT.

WE ARE, WE ARE IN AGREEMENT.

YEAH, I JUST, THAT'S ALL.

SO IT'S 10.

UM, I'M, UM, UM, OKAY.

SO, UM, IT'S 10 O'CLOCK NOW.

UM, WE ARE ON, I TOLD YOU IT'S GOING TO TAKE A LONG TIME.

, WE ARE ABOUT HALFWAY THROUGH THIS DOCUMENT.

AND I THINK AS MUCH AS THE BOARD WANTED TO TRY TO GET THROUGH THIS, LET ME ASK YOU THIS.

ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT, ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS SECTION? I'M GONNA ASK COR BECAUSE WE HAVE THE COMMENTS OF THE OTHERS.

IF THERE AREN'T, I THINK WE CAN GET THROUGH THIS IN FIVE.

I THINK, UH, I HAVE A, UH, ON, ON EDGE, UH, IS THAT, UH, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE RECOMMENDATIONS ONE THROUGH OR RECOMMENDATION OR THE ONE THROUGH 29.

NO, BUT I HAVE A COMMENTS ON THE FINDINGS.

YEAH, NO, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT DONE WITH THE FINDINGS, BUT ONCE WE GET THROUGH THE FINDING, WE'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A, A SCHEDULING.

MY QUESTION IS, ONCE WE GET THROUGH THE FINDINGS, YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS? YEP.

ANYTHING SUBSTANTIVE? I ALWAYS DO SUBSTANTIVE.

I DON'T DO FACETIME.

WELL, THAT'S GOOD.

SO, BUT, UH, LET ME SEE WHERE IS, UH, IT'S JUST A YES OR NO.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO TELL ME.

NO, NO, NO.

I WILL LOOK IT UP.

MY NOTES IS THERE, UH, UH, I THINK THERE IS A, NOT, NOT BEYOND THE, THE FIRST INITIALS.

I THINK YOU HAVE ONE OR ONE, OR ONE, FIRST, TWO, THREE.

I HAVE COMMENTS.

THE REST OF THEM ARE OKAY.

OKAY, I HOPE I ANSWER.

I'VE GOT ONE PROCEED EXPEDITIOUSLY.

I COULD, I COULD GO THROUGH THIS AS QUICK AS I CAN.

ARE ARE YOU COOL? YOU'RE, YOU'RE COOL.

LET'S ALL I GONNA TRY, LET'S GIVE, LET'S CHUG EVERY CHANCE WE CAN CHUG ALONG.

UH, THERE IS, THERE IS VERY, UH, VAGUE CONFIRMATION THAT, UH, IT SAYS THAT, UH, WHAT IS IT? THE, THIS VIOLA WATER REGARDING THE PROPOSED WATER SERVICE CONNECTION TO SERVE THE PROJECTS, NOTING THAT THE WILL SERVE LATER WILL NEEDED TO BE OBTAINED.

LETTER J.

I'VE GOTTA GIVE YOU A CHANGE IN J, WHICH IS, ALRIGHT, LET ME, LET ME JUST GO THROUGH HH THERE WERE NO CHANGES.

I, THERE IS A SLIGHT ADDITION IN, UH, YELLOW.

I'M NOT GOING TO RECITE IT FOR WELL JUST HOLD ON JUST EDGE.

YOU SAID THAT, UH, UH, THERE IS A, THERE IS ENOUGH CAPACITY TO SAFETY AND ADEQUATELY MANAGE THE ANTICIPATED VOLUME GENERATED BY THE PROJECT.

UM, I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH.

THE ENGINEER MODULES ENGINEER FOR SEWERAGE, THE ENGINEER DID THAT ALSO.

THE, THERE IS A, YOU THINK IT'S A, THERE'S AN ENGINEER'S REPORT ON IT? YEAH.

ANY COMMENTS? UH, WHAT I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH,

[02:50:01]

SO THEN WE GO ON TO STATE WATER PRESSURE TO THE SITE AND TO THE PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTS SHOULD BE TESTED AS WELL TO ENSURE ADEQUATE PRESSURE TO FIGHT A FIRE.

YOU GOTTA READ THE ANYWHERE ON SITE YOU GOT THE OTHER.

HMM.

MICHELLE, SO YOU ADDED THAT.

IF YOU WANNA SIT NEXT TO CRAIG, MAYBE THAT'LL BE HELPFUL.

WELL THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SIT THERE.

BUT YOU SAID NO , I CAN EXERCISE THIS WAY.

SO THEN, UM, ANY COMMENTS ON JAY? YES.

UM, THE LOCATION AND SIZE OF THE BUILDING WILL RESULT IN VISUAL IMPACT.

WELL, DOESN'T HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO, IT WILL, SINCE IT'S NOT A FINALIZED SET OF PLANS.

AND IT'S GOING BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD AS PROPOSED, AS PROPOSED WILL, YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO MISS IT.

DETERMINATION.

IT'S ULTIMATELY AGENCY, RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.

IT'S NOT DETERMINED AT THE POINT.

THAT'S A SECRET, YOU KNOW, STANDARD THAT NEEDS TO BE EVALUATED BY THE TOWN BOARD AS LEAD AGENCY.

SO THEN WHY DO YOU HAVE THIS IN HERE IF WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE A FINDING THAT WE THINK IT'S GONNA BE VISUAL IN YOUR FACE? WELL, THAT'S WHY WE SAY MAY RESULT AS PROPOSED CURRENTLY.

RIGHT? WE CANNOT AS PROPOSED CURRENTLY AS PROPOSED.

IT WILL.

WELL, THAT'S AN OPINION THAT YOU CAN'T MAKE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT THE LEAD AGENCY, FORTUNATELY.

BUT IT'S A FINDING.

IT'S MY FINDING THAT IS PROPOSED.

YOU'RE GONNA SEE IT.

SO, UM, THAT'S IF YOU'RE GONNA SEE UNIQUE BUILDING, BUT IT'S ABOUT IF IT'S A SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT, UH, WHICH IS A SECRET FINDING, IT DOESN'T SAY SIGNIFICANT.

SO THE LOCATION AND SIZE OF THE BUILDING AS PROPOSED MM-HMM .

WILL RESULT IN VISUAL IMPACTS.

BOARD OKAY WITH THAT? YEP.

IT DOESN'T SAY SIGNIFICANT.

UM, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON JAY? JUST ON THE NEXT LAST SENTENCE, THE WORD ADJACENT, IT DOESN'T, IT'S REALLY WRONG.

THAT'S BEING REMOVED.

IT'S, UH, STRUCK FINE.

ISN'T ADJACENT ACROSS THE ROAD AS WELL.

CAN BE, BUT CAN BE.

WE DO SAY SITUATED ACROSS COR ANYTHING ON JAY, OTHERWISE WE'RE MOVING TO K NOW.

WELL ON, ON, I HAVE A COMMENT ON, UH, ON, ON JAY THAT THE SIZE OF, UH, UH, WHY, WHY THIS 45 FEET HIGH IS REQUIRED AND, UH, UH, HAVE NO REALLY QUESTION THAT WHY, WHY IT IS NEEDED, BUT THAT'S GONNA BE ADDRESSED.

YOU'RE SAYING WE TAKE ALL THOSE QUESTIONS, RIGHT? THE MATRIX OF QUESTIONS? YEAH.

SO THE MATRIX QUESTIONS WOULD BE, THAT'S GONNA BE BASED IN THE MATRIX BE ADDED.

SO LIKE A LOT OF THIS IS GONNA BE INCLUDED, RIGHT? YEAH.

THERE MIGHT BE DUPLICATION.

K UH, WE HAD A COUPLE OF ADDITIONS THERE, WHICH ARE ABSOLUTELY REASONABLE.

UM, CORRECT.

ANY COMMENTS ON KAY? NO.

JUST TAKING A LOOK AT THE BLUE AND YELLOW.

YOU KNOW, SO THE APPLICANT SHOULD PROVIDE A CONSTRUCTION PHASING SCHEDULE SO THAT CONSTRUCTION NOISE AND TRAFFIC IMPACTS CAN BE ASSESSED AND APPROPRIATELY MITIGATED.

THAT WAS ONE OF THE ADDITIONS.

AND LATER ON THE COUNCIL SPECIFY THE IT TE LAND USE FOR THE WAREHOUSE LATER ON ADDITIONAL WAREHOUSE.

SO, UM, WITH, UM, DIEGO, WHERE WE'RE SAYING TRADITIONAL WAREHOUSE, WHAT'S MOST ACCURATE AND EVERYONE WILL UNDERSTAND IS IF WE REFER TO WAREHOUSE SLASH IT LAND USE CODE ONE 50.

SO EVERYWHERE WE'VE, WHERE WE'VE SAID TRADITIONAL WAREHOUSE, CAN WE REPLACE IT WITH THE WAREHOUSE SLASH IT ONE 50 THINGY? I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH THAT.

EVERYONE GOOD WITH THAT? MM-HMM .

UM, OKAY.

KI THINK, LET ME SEE.

UM, I THINK ON, ON J THAT WAS A SIGNIFICANT VISUAL.

I THINK WE, WE HAVE THAT ADDED OR WE WELL, YEAH, WE'RE GOOD ON THAT.

THAT'S ULTIMATELY THE LEAD AGENCY'S DETERMINATION.

SIGNIFICANT VISUAL IMPACT ON J LIKE WE SAID IT LAST SENTENCE.

WELL, THAT'S UP TO THE BOARD.

YEAH, I THOUGHT WE WEREN'T ALLOWED TO SAY SIGNIFICANT.

SIGNIFICANT.

DETERMINATION.

NO, NO, NO.

I UNDERSTAND THAT

[02:55:01]

ON K, UM, AGAIN, IT'S A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT.

WE CAN'T, AGAIN, THE PLANNING BOARD IS NOT THE LEAD AGENCY FOR WHAT? BUT WE ARE JUST FINDING FOR SEEKER.

NO, WE JUST SAYING THAT FINDING IS LIKE WHAT WAS GIVEN TO US MAY RESULTS.

WHICH LINE? UH, I MEAN WE EVEN SAY, UM, THE SIZE OF THE PROPOSED WAREHOUSE, EXPECTED VOLUME OF TRUCK TRAFFIC, EXPECTED DURATION OF CONSTRUCTION, EXPECTED VOLUME OF EXPORTED FILL AND EXPECTED IMPACTS ON ROUTE NINE ALL HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO RESULT IN SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACTS TO THE ADJACENT LAND USES.

BECAUSE THIS IS A SECTION ON ADJACENT.

UM, AND WE TALKED ABOUT DOING WAREHOUSE SLASH ITE LAND USE CODE ONE 50 FREEWAY.

RIGHT? WE'RE GONNA DO THAT ACROSS THE DOCUMENT.

CONTROL F MM-HMM .

UH, NOW WE ARE INTO THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

FOR THE TRUCK CODE TRUCK TRIPS, UH, I THINK WE MENTIONED SIX TRUCK TRIPS.

I MEAN, THIS IS THE END OF THE YES.

K UH, I WANTED TO HIGHLIGHT THAT.

UH, THE TOTAL TRUCK PER YEAR IS ABOUT 75,000 TRUCKS MOVEMENTS.

UH, AND, UM, WHICHEVER WAY YOU WANTED TO PUT INTO IT, WAS THAT IN YOUR, THE MATRIX? I DON'T KNOW.

BUT MAYBE, BUT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, WE CAN ADD ON TO INSTEAD OF, UH, UH, SIX, I MEAN PER PER WEEK DAYS.

IT'S JUST, IT'S NOT REALLY .

I MEAN THAT'S, THAT'S JUST GENERALLY HOW TRAFFIC STUDIES ARE BROKEN DOWN.

BUT UM, YOU CAN ADD, YOU CAN ADD IT.

THAT'S IT.

ANYONE OBJECT THAT 75,000 PLUS TRUCKS MOVEMENT WOULD RESULT INTO THE PROPOSED CRANE BUILDING? TRUCK MOVEMENT.

TRUCK MOVEMENT.

I JUST WANT TO GET THAT.

SO NOW WE'RE INTO THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND YOU SAID YOU HAD A MAYBE ONE OR TWO SUGGESTIONS ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

SO THEN WE LIST THE 29, WHICH WAS THE WORK CHIEF.

I'M SORRY.

THAT'S OKAY.

GOTTA CLARIFY THE TRUCK TRIPS, PLEASE.

70.

UH, WHERE IS THAT NUMBER GENERATED FROM? GO AHEAD.

FROM THE, BASED ON THE THINGS THAT YOU HAVE SUBMITTED, THERE'S NO REFERENCE TO 75,000 TRUCKS.

THERE, THERE IS A REFERENCE TO HOW MANY TRIPS PER DAY ON THAT ROAD.

SO THAT'S ON, IT'S A REFERENCE TO PE HOUR.

IT IS, NO, NO, NO.

IT'S, IT'S A, THERE THERE IS A DIAGRAM WHICH TELLS THAT HOW MANY TRIPS ARE EACH DIRECTION COMING FROM? UH, LET ME JUST SEE WHICH I CAN, THIS IS WAY BACK.

I THINK WE MENTIONED DURING THE DISCUSSION IT WAS, UH, 2028 BUILD VOLUMES.

SO THERE IS A, UH, I THINK THERE IS A 25 COMING FROM THE NORTH AND 75, LET ME JUST FIND OUT.

YEAH, I THINK THIS TRUCK, PRIMARY TRIP DISTRIBUTION, AND IT SAYS 75% PER DAY PERCENT TRUCK DISTRIBUTION PATTERNS ARE BASED ON PERCENTAGES.

SO THAT'S YOUR PERCENTAGE PERCENTAGES OF VEHICLES GOING IN THAT DIRECTION.

AND THEN THE TRUCK TRIPS BASED ON THIS IS BETWEEN SIX AND EIGHT DURING THE PEAK HOUR.

SO I, I THOUGHT YOU WERE TRYING TO DO A MULTIPLIER OF THAT.

NO, NO, NO.

I COULDN I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT WHAT THE 75,000 IS.

NO, I JUST DID, I JUST TOOK THIS CHART.

BUT THAT SIMPLY SAYS 75, IT'S NOT 75,000.

SO I'M JUST NO, NO, NO, NO.

DUNNO WHERE IT'S NO, YOU ARE RIGHT.

ABSOLUTELY.

I'M SAYING IS THIS IS PER DAY AND I MULTIPLIED THAT POINT DAY TELL TO 365, LET YOU 75 TRIPS FROM THE SOUTH AND 25 TRIPS COMING INTO FROM NORTH TO ADD UP.

PRIMARY TRIP DISTRIBUTION.

BUT, BUT AGAIN, THOSE ARE PERCENTAGES.

THAT'S NOT THE NUMBER.

NO, THIS IS NOT PERCENTAGE.

THIS DIAGRAM, WHICH DIAGRAM IS NOT PERCENTAGES.

WHAT PAGE, WHICH DIAGRAM? THIS DIAGRAM, WHAT IS THE DIAGRAM? NAME? NAME IS TRUCK.

DISTRI DISTRIBUTION CHUNK PER DAY IS PERCENTAGES.

THAT'S WHY IT ADDS UP TO 175% COME FROM THE SOUTH.

25% ARE EXPECTED TO COME TO THE NORTH.

IF YOU FLIP THE PAGE, THE NEXT PAGE SHOULD BE THE BUILD OR THE, UH, SITE GENERATED TRAFFIC

[03:00:01]

VOLUMES, WHICH GIVES YOU THE NO, THAT'S THE NEXT PAGE.

IT SAYS A PEAK, PEAK WEEK WEEKDAY AM.

THAT IS THE NUMBER OF TRIPS PER HOUR.

THAT'S NOT THE WHOLE DAY.

SO, BUT THE 75 IS NOT A TRUCK TRIP.

THAT'S THE PER SAYS DIRECT TRIPS COMING FROM THE NORTH OR THE SOUTH.

I, I, I'M NOT SURE PER DAY BECAUSE YOU HAVE A SUMMIT.

I MEAN, IT WOULD NOT MAKE SENSE THAT IT DOESN'T SAY PER DAY.

WELL, THEN WHAT IS IT SAYS, BECAUSE THE NEXT ONE IS THE PER PEAK HOURS.

SO THIS IS TOTAL, IT JUST DOES NOT SAY PER DAY.

THEN WHAT IS IT? IT'S PER DAY PERCENTAGE.

IT'S JUST SIMPLY MR UH, THE NUMBER IS PERCENTAGE OF WHAT IRRELEVANT.

AND IT SHOULD NOT BE INCLUDED IN THERE.

IT'S JUST NOT A FACTUAL NUMBER.

NO, NO.

THE 75,000.

SO JUST GIVE US BACK WHAT IS THE PER DAY NUMBER? BECAUSE IT'S ONLY PER HOUR P WORD.

BUT I'M SIMPLY SAYING DON'T INCLUDE 75,000 BECAUSE THAT IS NOT A REAL NUMBER.

BUT WE WANNA KNOW WHAT'S ACTUALLY IMPACT OF THE WHOLE THING.

I, I THINK WHAT YOU COULD SIMPLY DO IS REFERENCE THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

THE TRAFFIC STUDY INCLUDES THE PEAK HOUR VOLUMES, WHICH IS WHAT'S ANALYZED IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

BUT WE, NO, I THINK WHAT WE ARE REALLY TRYING TO, UH, PUT OUR HANDS AROUND IS HOW MUCH IS THE TOTAL VOLUME INCREASED BECAUSE OF THESE PROPOSED? CAN I, CAN I, YOU'RE GETTING US THE FAR.

CAN YOU GET US THE ANNUAL TRUCK VOLUME? YEAH, I CAN CLARIFY THE FAR NOW IF YOU'D LIKE.

WE WENT BACK AND FOUND THE INFORMATION.

LET, LET'S, LET'S DO THAT.

SO THE, THE FAR NUMBER, THE 95,000 THAT YOU WERE REFERENCING, THAT IS THE COVERAGE ON THE PROPERTY IS AT 5% UNDER EXISTING CONDITIONS.

I UNDERSTAND THE APPLICATION REFERENCED THAT UNDER THE FAR NUMBER, THE ACTUAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE TOTAL BUILDINGS IS ACCURATE.

IT'S 258,754 SQUARE FEET.

THAT'S YOUR TOTAL.

IF YOU LOOK AT EACH FLOOR OF THE BUILDING AS F THE R I'M NOT ASKING YOU FOR FLOOR.

UH, IT'S A TWO OR THREE SQUARE.

IT'S 95,000 IS THE COVERAGE.

WHAT IS THE FAR OF THE BUILDINGS? I'M NOT ASKING FOR SQUARE FLOOR AREA.

TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.

WAIT, I'M ASKING A DIFFERENT QUESTION.

YOU MIGHT BE ASKING COVERAGE.

WHAT'S COVERAGE COVERAGE? A HUNDRED PERCENT IS 95,000 TO 200 COVERAGE.

BUT, BUT IT'S, THAT'S COVERAGE.

I JUST WANT BE CLEAR DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT'S, I ONLY BE CLEAR ABOUT YES.

BUILDING COVERAGE IS BEING INCREASED.

IT'S BUILDING A BUILDING THAT'S THREE TIMES BIGGER THAN THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE EXIT THE BUILDING COVERAGE.

A HUNDRED PERCENT.

THE COVERAGE NUMBER IS BEING INCREASED.

THAT'S A FACTUAL STATEMENT.

SO WE'LL, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT'S REFLECTED.

AND CAN WE ADD A QUESTION? CAN YOU FIND AN ANSWER FOR US? AND WHAT IS THE I'M GONNA TRY TO FIND IT RIGHT NOW WHILE I THINK NO, NO, JUST, YEAH.

PER DAY.

PER YEAR, UNDERSTOOD.

AND THEN WE'LL PUT IT IN WITH WHATEVER IT IS.

SO LET'S, SO LET'S, UM, MOVE INTO THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

CORRECT, NUMBER ONE.

ANY, ANY MICROPHONE PLEASE.

NUMBER ONE.

ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.

YEAH, I THINK, UH, WHAT I WANT TO DO ADD INTO, UH, I THOUGHT YOU JUST HAD A COUPLE GARRETT.

HMM.

I THOUGHT YOU SAID YOU JUST HAD A COUPLE IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

YEAH, I DIDN'T KNOW WE WERE GOING NUMBER BY NUMBER.

I LIKE WE DID THE LAST TIME.

OH, I THOUGHT HE SAID NUMBER ONE OR TWO NUMBER.

OH, IS IT ONE OR TWO? OKAY.

AND I'M LOOKING AT, UH, WHERE DID I MAKE COMMENTS? UM, BUT THE, UH, I THINK I WANTED TO, IN RECOMMENDATION, WANTED TO HAVE THE FIRST RECOMMENDATION OR SECOND THAT THE PROJECT AS PROPOSED, UH, DOES NOT REALLY, UH, FIT INTO THE PLAY FIT APPROPRIATELY.

UH, UH, FITS INTO THE, UH, INTO THE, SO, SO, SO THERE IS A LINE THAT I, I BELIEVE MR. WEINBERG SUGGESTED, UH, THAT RIGHT AT THE TOP OF THE SITE PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, A LINE WOULD BE ADDED, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD NOTES THAT THE ORDER OF THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS IS SOLELY FOR CONVENIENCE AND DOES NOT INDICATE THE IMPORTANCE OF ANY RECOMMENDATION.

SO I I I, I I THINK, BUT IF, IF YOU'RE SUGGESTING LIKE REORDERING RECOMMENDATIONS TO IMPLY NO IMPORTANCE.

NO, I THINK JUST THE FIRST OR OR THE SECOND, WHEREVER YOU WANT TO PUT IT, IS THAT THE, THE PROPOSED, UM, BUILDING WHICH IS LOT OF, UH, IMPACT ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THE, UH, ENVIRONMENT, UH, NEEDS TO BE, UH, IT DOES NOT BELONG THERE.

WELL, SO I THOUGHT WE, THERE IS A RECOMMENDATION THAT SUGGESTS REDUCTION, NOT REDUCTION THE WHOLE, WHOLE PROJECTS AND, AND THE .

THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS A MAXIMUM REDUCTION IN SQUARE FEET OF THE WAREHOUSE THAT WILL STILL ALLOW FOR MARKETABLE BUILDING, UH, FOR A MARKETABLE BUILDING.

SO, SO NUMBER FIVE READS,

[03:05:01]

ANY REDUCTION IN BUILDING FOOTPRINT HAS THE POTENTIAL TO REDUCE DEEP SLOPE IMPACTS, RETAINING WALL MAGNITUDE, CHIPPING, BLASTING NEEDS, TREE REMOVALS, IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, MASSING OF THE BUILDING TO IMPROVE TO IMPROVEMENT, VISIBLE IMPACTS, NOISE, EARTH REMOVAL, EROSION, STORMWATER RUNOFF, IMPACTS CONSTRUCTION, DEMOLITION SITE WORK TRIPS, ET CETERA.

SO THIS BASICALLY RECOMMENDS LIKE REDUCE IT AND IF YOU REDUCE IT, A LOT OF CONCERNS WILL BE MITIGATED.

CAN I JUST ON, I'M SORRY.

ON NUMBER ONE, UM, YOU GUYS IGNORED MY COMMENT, SO YOU OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T LIKE WHAT I SAID, BUT, UH, SO IT'S RECOMMENDING THAT THE TOWN THINK ABOUT AN ENVIRONMENTAL INTERVAL IMPACT PROCESS.

AND THEN IT'S SAYING ONLY IF THEY DON'T DO THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT WE HAVE BELOW, UH, REGARDLESS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY OR ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS BELOW.

BUT IT'S SAYING CONSIDER WHETHER AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT PROCESS SHOULD OCCUR REGARDLESS OF WHETHER, ANY OF ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS.

AND THEN IT SAYS, WITHOUT RECOMMENDING THE IMPLEMENTATIONS, THEN YOU REALLY MUST DO AN EIS IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ME.

I WOULD PREFER IT IF THE SENTENCES, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN ISSUES A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION AND DOES AN EIS AND I TELL ME WHY WE CAN'T SAY THAT.

IT'S UP TO THE BOARD.

I THINK, UH, IT CAPTURES SOME OF THE THINGS, BUT I WAS GOING TO PROPOSE.

SO WHAT, WHAT IF WE JUST STRUCK THE LAST SENTENCE? WOULD YOU FEEL BETTER? SO, SO IT'S NOT, WE'RE NOT HEDGING BASED ON OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS.

WE'RE JUST SAYING WE RECOMMEND THE TOWN BOARD TO CONSIDER WHETHER AN EISI DON'T WANT THEM TO CONSIDER.

SO IT SAYS THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD CONSIDER WHETHER AN EIS IS NEEDED.

IT'S LIKE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD REQUIRE AN EIS.

RIGHT? WELL, ALL OF THESE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS.

BUT THAT'S ALL WE CAN RECOMMEND.

ALL WE CAN DO IS COMMEND, BUT THIS COULDN'T BE MORE SOFTLY PEDDLED.

IF YOU TRY IT, AND I'M NOT SOFTLY PIDDLING IT.

YOU CONSIDER YOU'D LIKE TO CHANGE THAT TO REQUIRE, YEAH, YEAH.

OR, OR, OR WHAT, WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD REQUIRE AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT PROCESS REGARDLESS OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ANY OR ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS BELOW.

IS THAT YOUR SUGGESTED, UH, MODIFICATION? I DON'T EVEN NEED THE, REGARDLESS.

YEAH, I THINK YOU HAVE, I THINK YOU WOULD JUST CUT OUT THE MIDDLE.

WHAT ARE THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS REQUIRE, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD ISSUE A POSITIVE DECLARATION REQUIRING AN EIS UH, OKAY.

JUST CUT UP.

I I THINK I HAVE A, I HAVE ONE MORE SUGGESTIONS THAT, UH, WE JUST, UH, WHAT IS IT? YEAH.

TRAFFIC CONCERNS, RIGHT? SO, AND FROM THERE WE SAY, DOES THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, YEAH, I, I, YEAH.

THERE IS A, THERE IS A SIGNIFICANT, THERE IS A MANY SIGNIFICANT ADVERSE IMPACT TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

AND THUS PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE, THE ENVIRONMENT GOING BE GOING BACK TO THE TOWN BOARDS LEAD AGENCY, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO EVALUATE THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT TO MAKE A DETERMINATION.

UM, BUT WE, WE JUST RECOMMENDING IT.

SO I WOULD PROBABLY COUCH IT THE SAME WAY YOU DID THE OTHER ONE.

IF YOU'RE GOING TO STATE THAT AND SAY AS SIGNIFICANT AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD.

THAT'S GONNA BE MY POINT.

THANK.

AMANDA RAISED THE, THE EXACT POINT THAT I WAS GONNA REQUEST THAT YOU BUILD INTO THERE, THAT AS PROPOSED AS YOU'RE REVIEWING IT TODAY.

UM, DUE TO THE SCALE OF THAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT'S CURRENTLY PROPOSED.

YEP.

I'M, I'M GOOD WITH THAT.

BUT IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED NOT SO, NOT CONSIDERED YEAH.

AS IT'S CURRENTLY PROPOSED, IT SHOULD BE REQUIRED.

REQUIRED, YEAH.

THAT RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD SHOULD REQUIRE ISSUE A POSITIVE DECLARATION REQUIRING AN ENVIRONMENTAL YEAH.

AS, AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.

ARE THERE YOU? I THINK YOU HAD ONE MORE.

THAT'S IT? NO, THAT'S IT.

NO, BUT FOR, FOR THE FIRST ONE.

WELL, RIGHT, SO HOW MANY OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS DO YOU HAVE AT, ITS ON THE SECOND ONE? NO, NO, WE FIRST, OVERALL FIRST TELL US HOW MANY, I THOUGHT YOU ONLY HAD TWO IN RECOMMENDATIONS.

WELL, THE SECOND ONE WAS, THAT WAS DO YOU DO ALL 29? YEAH.

RECOMMENDATION ABOUT STEERING COMMITTEE? NO, NO, JUST ANSWER.

DO YOU WANNA DO ALL 29? YOU WANNA GO THROUGH ALL 29? NO, I THINK I HAVE JUST ONLY FIRST TWO.

IT'S A GARRETT'S RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY, GREAT.

NUMBER TWO, THE STEERING COMMITTEE.

[03:10:01]

WE DISCUSSED THAT STEERING COMMITTEE PART.

GARRETT DISCUSSED THIS AT THE LAST MEETING.

THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT GARRETT, UM, INITIATED AND WE AGREED, IT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE LAST ONE.

IT'S UP TO THE BOARD.

BECAUSE ULTIMATELY THAT'S A QUESTION IF WE'RE GONNA AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME BODY OF VOLUNTEERS.

OF, OF CITIZENS.

IS THE PLANNING BOARD, THAT'S NOT PART OF THE RECOMMENDATION.

IS IT PLANNING BOARD AGREED TO THAT? WELL, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING, RIGHT? NOW'S WHAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW.

I THINK WE, WE, I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT IT.

SO ARE YOU OKAY? I DON'T WANT DO THAT.

WHAT'S THE OTHER FEEDBACK FROM, UH, I MEAN, SO HOW WOULD A COMPREHENSIVE, HOW WOULD YOU SUGGEST A COMPREHENSIVE IT IT DOES SAY SOME O OR SOME OTHER MECHANISM, BUT OFTENTIMES, YOU KNOW, I'LL SAY THIS, UM, YOU KNOW, UPDATES, I MEAN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OBVIOUSLY HAD A STEERING COMMITTEE, BUT, YOU KNOW, SIGNIFICANT UPDATES TO THE COMP PLAN COULD INVOLVE THE FORMATION OF A STEERING COMMITTEE.

I MEAN, IF, IF LIKE THE PURPOSE PURPOSES OF DIRECTING LIKE THE FOUR CORNERS COMMITTEE THAT'S CURRENTLY OPERATING LIKE THEY DO FOR THE COMP PLAN, LIKE THEY DO FOR, YOU KNOW, IT'S A GOOD LAND USE TOOL.

SO I MEAN, ARE YOU CONCERNED ABOUT A STEERING COMMITTEE OR YEAH, I MEAN I JUST WAS NOT SURE.

WHO PROPOSED? NO, IT'S GOOD QUESTION.

QUESTION.

ALRIGHT, SO THOSE WERE YOUR TWO.

UM, DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS? UH, ED? NO.

MICHELLE? NO.

SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, I, I WANT TO, LEMME SEE THERE IS A GO, UH, BECAUSE I GOT THE, SO IS THE 12 NEEDED NUMBER 12, TERMINATION 12? LET'S SEE.

YEAH, SORRY, I GOT ONE THUMB HERE.

THE PLANNING BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE, YES.

SO I THINK IT'S, UM, IMPORTANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE, UH, IT STATES NUMBER 12, THE PLANNING BOARD ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO A FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS DESIGN REVIEW OF LAWRENCE STREET IN EVALUATION OF FUTURE PLANNED UPGRADES BASED ON FUTURE TRIP GENERATION.

BUT THAT'S NOT OUR RECOMMENDATION AND THAT'S THERE.

SO, WELL THAT WAS, I I DON'T KNOW WHY WE ARE SAYING SOMETHING THAT WE DID NOT REALLY, UH, EITHER, EITHER HAS ANY IMPACT ON WELL, IT CAME UP DURING THE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW PROCESS.

THAT'S WHY WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING IT.

SO COULD WE, I MEAN WE COULD STRENGTH THAT.

SO HOW COULD WE REWRITE IT AS A RECOMMENDATION? I THINK JUST TAKING IT OUT.

SO YOU, WELL, SO I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TAKE IT OUT.

IF YOU WANNA, IF YOU WANT TO REWRITE IT AS A RECOMMENDATION, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD REVIEW.

BUT YOU, YOU JUST GOING TO TO REVIEW THE RECORD RELATED TO CONVERSATIONS AROUND I WANTED TO KEEP IT, UH, AS ISN'T IT AS IMPORTANT? I MEAN, IF IT'S NOT IMPORTANT, WHY YOU WASTE ANYBODY TIME TO GO THROUGH IT.

IT'S, IT'S IN THE FINDINGS.

IT'S IN THE FINDINGS, YEAH.

I THINK WE SHOULD NOT, UH, DUPLICATE UNNECESSARILY IF POSSIBLE.

KEEP IT, KEEP IT, KEEP IT A CONCISE, UNNECESSARY 29 OF IT.

IT'S, I THINK WE SHOULD STRIKE OUT 16, 17.

I MEAN, I JUST READ THROUGH IT.

I SAY WHY ARE WE DOING IT? THOSE WERE, UM, ADDED BY MEMBERS 25.

SO NUMBER 12 IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION, IT'S AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT, WHICH IS ALSO IN THE FINDINGS SECTION.

SO JUST TAKE IT DOWN SO WE CHOPPING TAKE SO EVERYONE OKAY.

WITH 12 COMING OUT? YEAH.

I JUST SAID AS A RECOMMENDATION.

12, 16, 17.

THEY JUST ARE, UH, WAIT A SECOND THOUGH.

LET'S NOT, I DON'T WANNA GO OFF THE RAILS HERE.

'CAUSE NUMBER 16, 17, AND 18 WERE ADDED BY MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD.

SO DON'T, SO WHY NOT CHANGE THE LANGUAGE TO SAY, TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? IT JUST ADD INTO FINDING, YEAH.

SO I KNOW IT'S IN THE FINDINGS, BUT THE QUESTION, I GUESS NOW I POSE, I, I KNOW AT LEAST ONE BOARD MEMBER HAD SAID POTENTIALLY MODIFYING THE LANGUAGE.

UM, IF YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE TOWN BOARD, UH, ACCEPT, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT'S, UH, OFFER TO A FAIR TO FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, I LIKE THAT.

BUT AMANDA, MY QUESTION IS THAT IF IT'S IN FINDINGS, WHY WE REPEATING AS AN, BUT WE'VE AGREED, WE TAKING OUT, BECAUSE IT'S IN FINDINGS, SO WE COULD, IT'S IN THE FINDINGS.

SO, BUT, BUT SO I I I, I THINK FIRST DEPUTY 10 ATTORNEY MAD.

WELL, YOU AND KURT HAVE AGREED, BUT I WHAT ABOUT ED? COULD YOU WEIGH IN IT? YEAH, I MEAN, I THINK WHAT, HOW YOU JUST PHRASED THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S, UH, OFFER FOR A FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS DESIGN REVIEW OF LAUREL STREET.

BUT EXPLAIN TO ME WHY IS IT IS A FINDING, IT'S NOT A RECOMMENDATION.

WELL, IT'S WHAT

[03:15:01]

WE'RE RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THEY ACCEPT THE OFFER.

LISTEN, IT'S, WE, WE, THIS HAS BEEN, THIS HAS BEEN A GIVE AND TAKE OVER THE PAST.

IT'S NOT A GIVE AND TAKE, BUT IT DOESN'T BELONG HERE.

IT BELONGS TO THE FINDINGS.

THAT'S WHAT MY, MY CONCERN IS THAT WE ARE MIXING A FINDING.

SO, SO TELL ME, TELL ME HOW THE RECOMMENDATION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE TOWN BOARD ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S OFFER TO ACCEPT A, A FAIR SHARE CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS DESIGN REVIEW OF LAWRENCE STREET IN EVALUATION OF FUTURE PLANNING UPGRADES BASED ON FUTURE CHIP GENERATION.

HOW IS THAT NOT A RECOMMENDATION? IT'S A LATE IN THE DAY, SO I ACCEPT IT.

SOUNDS GOOD.

IT'S A TWO.

IT'S A, I LOOK AT THIS AS A ROADMAP FOR CONDITIONS.

YOU KNOW, IF THEY MISSED IT UP FRONT, THEY'LL SEE IT HERE.

, IT DOESN'T, YOU KNOW.

AND THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO THE CONCEPT AND THEY'LL, LET'S NEGOTIATE.

THERE'S NO SPECIFICS ABOUT THE CONCEPT OTHER THAN THE CONCEPT'S GONNA BE DISCUSSED AND NEGOTIATED.

NO, I, I APPRECIATE THAT.

SO I WOULD LEAVE IT IN OR, OKAY, WELL WE'RE GONNA MODIFY IT.

MODIFY.

YEAH, JUST, JUST MAKE IT SO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE YOU ARE FINDING YOU ARE PUTTING INTO RECOMMENDATION.

UH, WE SHOULD REALLY HAVE THAT AFTER THE APPLICANT PROVIDES HOW MANY TRUCKS? UH, BECAUSE WE ARE SAYING IT, THE, UH, THERE WAS A INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE CONSTRUCTION PHASING THAT IT'S GONNA BE FOR LIKE 18 MONTHS TO TWO YEARS OF YELLOW.

ARE YOU READING THE YELLOW? THE YELLOW? DID YOU READ THE YELLOW? ARE YOU READING THE YELLOW? YELLOW? IT WAS SUBSTANTIALLY 15.

YOU TO READ THE YELLOW.

YEAH, I DIDN'T, I MEAN THIS IS, I GOT IT TODAY.

IT'S, IT'S THERE.

NO, I KNOW.

YEAH, SO YOU SEE THE, HOW MUCH ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE HAS BEEN ADDED, WHICH I THINK REALLY STRIKE STRENGTHENS OKAY.

THIS RECOMMENDATION.

AND THEN, YOU KNOW, JUST KEEP IN MIND YOU MENTIONED 16 AND 17.

THOSE WERE ADDED BY, UH, OTHER MEMBERS IN THE PRIOR VERSION, BUT I DON'T KNOW.

I'M, I'M NOT SAYING THAT, BUT THIS IS CLEAR PURPOSE OF LISTING THESE OUT IS NUMBERED RECOMMENDATIONS IS FOR EASE OF INTERPRETATION BY THE TOWN BOARD, CORRECT.

UH, THE FINDING, SO WE DON'T SPECIFICALLY SAY THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS ALL OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLANNING BOARD ARE LISTED OUT HERE.

ONE THROUGH 29.

SO YOU, WHAT DO WE EMPHASIZE? IT IS NOW 10 30.

I KNOW.

I, I, AND NOW, NOW WE'RE GETTING INTO TO SECTIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN EDITED AND ADDED BY BOARD MEMBERS.

DO WE HAVE ANY, OKAY, LET'S GO, LET'S GO TO 24, I THINK.

RIGHT? OKAY.

24 OR 2020? I THINK SO.

SO THIS HAS AN ADDITION.

UH, YOU'RE READING THE BLUE SECTION.

20, I THINK 20 IS OKAY.

WHAT ABOUT 24? WELL, AGAIN, MY, MY QUESTION WAS, UH, UH, NO, 25 ACTUALLY.

SAME.

THAT, UH, IT'S A DUPLICATION.

THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THE ADDITION OF SOLAR PANELS AND OTHER GREEN FEATURES TO REDUCE THE ENVIRONMENTAL FOOTPRINT OF THE PROJECT.

NO, I THINK, OKAY.

NO, THE 25 IS A LARGER FOOTPRINT.

THE SECOND SENTENCE HAS THAT RECOMMENDATION.

I, I, I, I THINK TO REITERATE, MR. WEINBERG, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A ROADMAP FOR THE TOWN BOARD AS, AS LEAD AGENCY TO LEARN FROM OUR EXPERIENCE AND, AND HAVE A PATH FORWARD.

DON'T SAY I DIDN'T DO, DON'T SAY IT.

DIDN'T TELL, SORRY, TO ME, REPEATING THE SAME THING, .

IT'S, I MEAN, THEY'RE NOT GONNA READ OUR FINDINGS.

WELL, THEY'LL READ, THEY'LL READ EVERYTHING.

NO, I THEY'LL READ THIS, THIS DOCUMENT, WHICH IS WHY, BUT, UH, BUT SO, SO IF THEY'RE GONNA READ EVERYTHING, THEN THERE IS NO NEED FOR A DUPLICATION.

UNLESS YOU WANTED TO SAY, I THINK YOU'RE JUST, THIS IS ROADMAP.

AND SO IN CASE THEY, THEY DO NOT GET IT, SO WELL, I'M ASSUMING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO READ EVERYTHING, ALL THE DOCUMENTS, ALL THE MATERIALS, AND THAT'S, THAT'S ALL.

THAT'S ALL WE CAN HOPE.

UM, SO ARE, ARE WE READY? ARE WE READY TO MOVE FORWARD? ALRIGHT, THEN I MOVE, UH, THAT WE ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS EXTENSIVELY, UH, AMENDED, UM, TO THE, SORRY, WHERE AM I NOW? UH, VOTE TO ISSUE, UH, A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD ON THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION REFERRAL, UM, AS AMENDED SECOND.

UM, INCLUDING THE, AND AS AMENDED, INCLUDING ATTACHING THE, THE MATRIX.

YEAH, THE MATRIX.

YEAH, PLEASE SEND US THE REVISED ONE TO LOOK AT IT BY END OF THE WEEK.

DO YOU NEED, SO WE HAD A SECOND FROM MS. MOYER.

WHEN DO YOU, WHEN DO YOU SEND IT OUT?

[03:20:02]

ALRIGHT, NEXT UP WE HAVE, WE HAVE PICKLER WHO, BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN SO, SO EMILY HAD TO LEAVE, SO I HAVE TO GO.

SO PICKLER, THEY'VE BEEN VERY GENEROUS.

YOU GIVE US I KNOW, BUT I'M GOING TO SAVE MY MARRIAGE.

OTHER MR. DE DECIDE.

MR. DE DECIDE.

YOU HAD APPLICANT.

SEVERAL BEEN UNBELIEVABLY GENEROUS IN WAITING.

YOU COULD JUST GIVE US 10 TO 15 MINUTES TO GIVE THE NEW APPLICATION AND MORE MINUTES.

NO, PLEASE CARE.

I TOLD YOU THAT I'LL LEAVE AT 10 BECAUSE I WANT TO FINISH THIS 90 DAY LIMIT.

WE WILL TAKE TWO MINUTE RECESS.

UH, WE HAVE NEW BUSINESS CASE NUMBER 25 24, THE PICKLER AT 10 19 CENTRAL AVENUE.

UH, THEY'RE SEEKING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A FULLY ENCLOSED COMMERCIAL RECREATION FACILITY.

WE HAVE BEEN, UH, WORKING BACK AND FORTH WITH, UH, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.

THANK YOU SO MUCH.

UM, WE ARE VERY EXCITED TO BE HERE TONIGHT.

UM, AND WE VERY MUCH VALUE YOUR TIME.

UM, WE WILL BE VERY BRIEF.

WE WOULD LIKE TO JUST INTRODUCE THE PROJECT TO YOU AND REALLY OPEN UP, UM, THE CONVERSATION IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS OR, UH, ITEMS THAT WE CAN ADDRESS MOVING FORWARD.

UM, WE DO HAVE, HAVE HEATHER AND NOAH HERE WHO ARE OUR APPLICANTS AND OUR FRANCHISEES.

UM, I WAS GOING TO GIVE HEATHER A MINUTE TO, UH, INTRODUCE HERSELF, BUT WE CAN, NOT NECESSARY, WE CAN PASS THAT TONIGHT.

UM, I DID WANNA HIT ON THE POINT THAT SHE, UM, OWNS MULTIPLE, UM, BUSINESSES IN THE WELLNESS AREA, UM, AS WELL AS WITHIN GREENBERG.

UM, AND SHE'S VERY DEDICATED TO THE COMMUNITY AND, UM, THE BUSINESSES THAT SHE PRESENTS, JOBS, AND, UM, OTHER COMMUNITY BENEFITS.

UM, SO THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE TONIGHT IS, UM, AN APPLICATION FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT TO REUSE AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

UM, THE, FOR AN INDOOR RECREATIONAL USE OVER 5,000 SQUARE FEET.

UM, THE SCOPE IS TO ACCOMMODATE THE PICKLER FRANCHISE, UH, WHICH CONSISTS OF EIGHT INDOOR PICKLEBALL FACILITY, UH, COURTS.

UM, AS YOU KNOW, OUR LOCATION IS AT 10 19 CENTRAL AVENUE IN THE FORMER BYE-BYE BABY BUILDING.

UM, WE ARE LOOKING TO OCCUPY 22,000 SQUARE FEET OF THE EXISTING BUILDING.

THERE IS NO PROPOSAL FOR CHANGING THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING, UM, OR THE EXTERIOR FACADE, UM, AT ALL.

UM, JUST A FEW OF THE FRANCHISE GOALS AS TO WHY THIS IS AN IDEAL LOCATION.

UM, THE PICKLER IS A TOP TIER, UM, FRANCHISE.

THEY WORK ON A, UH, MEMBERSHIP RESERVATION MODEL.

UM, SO WITH THE EIGHT COURTS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING INSIDE OF THE FACILITY, WE WOULD NEVER BE LOOKING AT MORE THAN 40 OCCUPANTS ON A TI AT A TIME BASED ON HOW THE COURTS ARE USED AND HOW THE GAME IS PLAYED WITH A MAXIMUM OF FOUR OCCUPANTS PER COURT.

UM, THE PICKLER DOES HAVE 65 LOCATIONS THROUGHOUT THE UM, COUNTRY.

AND THE WAY THAT THE MODEL WORKS IS YOU BECOME A MEMBER AND THEN YOU'RE ABLE TO USE, UM, ANY OF THE FACILITIES THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.

UM, THE PROGRAM IS MOSTLY THE FOCUSED ON THE EIGHT INDOOR PICKLEBALL COURTS.

THERE IS SOME SPECTATOR SEATING THAT IS AROUND THE COURTS.

UM, THERE IS A RECEPTION AREA, THERE IS A COMMUNITY ROOM.

I KNOW THERE WAS A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE COMMUNITY ROOM, BUT THAT COMMUNITY ROOM IS ONLY TO SERVICE THE PATRONS INSIDE OF THE SPACE.

UH, BIRTHDAY PARTIES, CORPORATE TEAM BUILDING EVENTS.

IT'S NOT OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

IT'S ONLY OPEN TO THE MEMBERS, UH, THAT ARE USING THE FACILITY OR HAVE RESERVED SPACE AT THAT TIME.

UM,

[03:25:01]

WE SUBMITTED OUR APPLICATION IN JUNE, SO WE'VE GONE BACK A FEW TIMES, UM, TO ADDRESS, UH, LIFE SAFETY OR OTHER QUESTIONS, UM, THAT MAY HAVE COME UP.

WE BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE LANDED ON A COMPLIANT, UM, LAYOUT, NOT ONLY FOR MEETING THE PROGRAM GOALS, BUT ALSO UM, THE LIFE SAFETY REQUIREMENTS AND, UH, THE OTHER BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT THAT COME ALONG.

UH, WE DID CONDUCT, UH, A TRAFFIC STUDY, UM, WITH DTS AND UM, THE REPORT SHOWS THAT WE ARE, UH, REDUCING THE NEED FOR PARKING AND REDUCING THE TRIP GENERATION.

UM, AND BASED ON SEVERAL, UH, TIMES THAT THEY VISITED THE SITE, THE CURRENT LAYOUT IS, UH, UNDERUTILIZED.

THERE'S NEVER MORE THAN 20% OF THE SPOTS THAT ARE IN THERE.

THERE'S 250 SPOTS IN THERE.

UM, THERE'S MORE THAN ENOUGH PARKING, UM, TO SUPPORT THE FACILITY.

SO I THINK I HIT ON THE MAIN POINTS.

I'D LOVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE SPECIFICALLY.

ARE THERE ANY PRESSING QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? MATT? ISN'T THERE AN ALWAYS AN ISSUE WITH SIGN GETTING SIGN APPROVALS? YEAH, SO, SO THAT CAME UP.

SO I HAD TWO, I HAD TWO A, A COMMENT AND A SUGGESTION.

UM, THANK YOU FOR SUBMITTING THE, THE SIGN, THE SIGN SCHEMATICS.

I ASSUME THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HASN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW IT YET.

UM, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, I THINK THEY, OH, THEY, I THOUGHT THEY LOOKED AT IT TODAY.

POTENTIALLY.

I DIDN'T SEE ANYTHING.

SO, SO WE CAN FOLLOW UP.

WE CAN FOLLOW UP AND CERTAINLY GOING INTO THE NEXT MEETING.

SO GOING INTO THE NEXT MEETING, WE'LL HEAR BACK THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND SEE IF ANY VARIANCES ARE NEEDED.

UM, CONSIDERING THE LATE HOUR, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR US TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT THEN ALSO SCHEDULE A BRIEF WORK SESSION BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS, WE CAN TACKLE THOSE BEFORE WE GO INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, FORMALLY.

UM, THAT SOUNDS GREAT.

SO IF EVERYONE IS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, DO YOU HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE SECRET DETERMINATION? WHY IS THAT HERE? OR IS SECRETS SECRET? SO SECRET WOULD BE AFTER THE, YEAH.

AND THIS IS A TYPE TWO ACTION.

AND THIS IS A TYPE TWO ACTION.

SO WHY DO YOU HAVE TO WAIT? YOU HAVE TO WAIT.

NICE PROJECT.

SO, WELL, IT'S TYPICAL, TYPICAL.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO, YOU DON'T HAVE TO ONLY FOR CERTAIN TYPES OF, BUT CAN YOU POTENTIALLY, GIVEN WHAT I'VE SEEN, ALSO DO THE SEEK A DETERMINATION IF AT THE NEXT MEETING YOU DO IT AFTER THE WORK SESSION CAN SCHEDULE THREE, THE WORK SESSION, THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THE SEEK A DETERMINATION? YES.

I, I'D HAVE TO CONFER WITH THE DEPUTY HEAD ATTORNEY, BUT, BUT YOU, YOU CAN, IF IF IT'S, YOU CAN.

YES, YOU CAN.

SO ON OUR PROJECT, WE'LL TRY AND DO ALL OF THEM IN ONE DAY.

SO THEN I, UH, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO SCHEDULE, UH, PB 25 24 FOR A PUBLIC HEARING SCHEDULED FOR JANUARY 7TH OF NEXT YEAR.