[00:00:01]
THAT. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE.
IT IS WEDNESDAY, APRIL 15TH, 2026 AT 7:04 P.M.. THIS IS THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING AND I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT MAY
YOU CONDUCT THE ROLE. >> SURE. CHAIRPERSON PINE PRESIDENT MR.
PULLINGER. >> MS.. ANDERSON, YOU'RE HERE.
OUR ALTERNATES MS. ROBINSON HERE. MR. PATEL BOTH WILL BE FULL VOTING MEMBERS IN PLACE OF MR. WEINBERG WHO IS NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING.
>> THANK YOU VERY GOOD. >> THANK YOU. STAFF HAS DISTRIBUTED THE MARCH 30TH MINUTES. DID EVERYONE HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM?
WERE THERE ANY EDITS OR FEEDBACK TO THE MINUTES? >> NO.
ALL RIGHT. THAT I HAVE ANY EVIDENCE TO THE MINUTES.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MARCH 30TH MINUTES. SO MOVE MOVED, MR. PULLINGER.
>> SECOND. SECOND. MR. PATEL ALL IN FAVOR?
I CHAIR VOTES I ALL RIGHT. >> WE HAVE TWO PIECES OF CORRESPONDENCE THIS EVENING.
THE FIRST IS IN REGARD TO CASE NUMBER PB 2409 SHALL THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A FIRST PRELIMINARY THERE FIRST PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION EXTENSION REQUEST.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SMITH COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE SPECIFICS OF THE REQUEST?
>> YES. SO BY LETTER DATED APRIL 8TH 2026 WE RECEIVED A REQUEST FOR A 180 DAY EXTENSION OF THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL ASSOCIATED WITH CASE NUMBER 20 4-09 CIAO SUBDIVISION ON CLAYTON ROAD IN SCARSDALE, NEW YORK.
THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN DILIGENTLY WORKING TOWARDS SATISFYING ALL THE CONDITIONS SO THAT THEY CAN COME BACK AND OBTAIN FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL FOR THE PROJECTS PENDING RECEIPT OF SIGN OFF FROM THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
WE EXPECT THAT TO TAKE PLACE SOON. >> WE'RE HOPING FOR A WILL SERVE LETTER WHICH IS REQUIRED AND STAFF WILL BE FOLLOWING UP WITH OUR BUREAU OF ENGINEERING.
SO WE ALL EXPECT THAT TO TAKE PLACE SOON SO THAT THEY CAN COME IN FOR FINAL SUBDIVISION
APPROVAL. ALL RIGHT. >> IS THERE ANY ANYTHING ELSE THE THE BOARD SHOULD BE AWARE OF OR ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO. ALL RIGHT THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE FIRST EXTENSION OF THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION FOR 180 DAYS WHICH WILL MAKE IT VALID THROUGH
OCTOBER FIRST OF THIS YEAR. >> SO MOVED MOVED MS.. ROBINSON SECONDED.
SECOND MS.. ANDERSON ALL IN FAVOR I CHAIR VOTES I OUR NEXT PIECE OF CORRESPONDENCE IS IN REGARDS TO CASE NUMBER 2220 ELMWOOD PRESERVE.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING THEIR SIXTH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION EXTENSION REQUEST.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE SPECIFICS OF THAT REQUEST?
>> YES. SO BY LETTER DATED APRIL 13TH, 2026 ON BEHALF OF RIDGEWOOD ELMWOOD OWNER LLC. SUBMISSION WAS MADE FOR AN ADDITIONAL REQUEST FOR EXTENSION IN CONNECTION WITH THE APPLICANT'S PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED ITS PLAT FOR FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING CONSIDERED AND WORKING THROUGH STAFF COMMENTS. WE EXPECT TO HAVE THIS ALL FINALIZED IN THE NEAR TERM. THE APPLICANTS REQUESTED A 90 DAY EXTENSION.
THE BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO ISSUE UP TO A 180 DAY EXTENSION SO IT'S UP TO THE BOARD ON HOW
IT WISHES TO PROCEED IN THAT REGARD. >> ALL RIGHT.
AND THE THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN ENGAGED WITH STAFF AND ABSOLUTELY HAS OTHERWISE BEEN
BEEN RESPONSIVE. >> YES. GREAT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO.
YEAH. IS THERE ANY REASON WHY WHY WE MIGHT WANT TO GRANT MORE THAN THE 90 DAYS REQUESTED ONLY SO THAT WE'RE NOT BACK HERE IN 90 DAYS FROM NOW? YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO PREDICT . TIME CAN GO BY RATHER QUICKLY, PARTICULARLY 90 DAYS. SO I'D ENCOURAGE THE BOARD TO CONSIDER ISSUING A FURTHER 180 DAY EXTENSION JUST SO THAT IT GIVES AMPLE TIME TO GET THIS PROJECT OVER THE FINISH LINE
AND BACK BEFORE THIS BOARD FOR FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. >> ALL RIGHT.
HOW DOES THAT SOUND? I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS. ALL RIGHT THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE A SIXTH EXTENSION TO THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION FOR 180 DAYS WHICH WOULD MAKE IT VALID THROUGH OCTOBER FIRST OF THIS YEAR. SO MOVE, MOVE, MR. KILLINGER.
[00:05:01]
ALL IN FAVOR? >> CHAIR VOTES I VERY GOOD. >> NEXT UP WE HAVE THREE PIECES OF OLD BUSINESS FOR OUR WORK SESSION. THE FIRST IS CASE NUMBER APB 2529 PALLADINO. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SITE PLAN APPROVAL STAFF HAS DISTRIBUTED A DRAFT APPROVAL LETTER FOR US TO REVIEW DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT CAN YOU
WALK US THROUGH THE DRAFT APPROVALS? >> YES.
SO PARDON ME FOLLOWING CLOSURE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED AS SUCH STAFF PREPARED A DRAFT SPEAKER DETERMINATION THIS PROJECT DOES QUALIFY AS A LOCAL TYPE ONE ACTION UNDER SICA DUE TO IT BEING SITUATED WITHIN A FLOODPLAIN AREA.
SO WE DID PREPARE A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND ADDITIONALLY STAFF PREPARED A DRAFT LETTER OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING SO THERE WOULD BE THREE VOTES TO BE CONSIDERED THIS EVENING. FIRST TO CLASSIFY THE PROPOSED ACTION AS A LOCAL TYPE ONE ACTION TWO TO CONSIDER ADOPTION OF THE SEAGER NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THREE TO CONSIDER A DECISION ON THE SITE PLAN IN CONNECTION WITH THE DRAFT DECISION I CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION PAGE FOUR OF THE DRAFT DECISION UNDER SITE.
THIS SITE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS AND MODIFICATIONS FOR POINT ONE INDICATES NO VEHICLE SERVICE OF ANY KIND IS PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY AND FOUR POINT TO STATES THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL CAUSE TO REPAIR THE SIDEWALK ALONG THE PROPERTY'S FRONTAGE WITH NORTH PINE STREET PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A FINAL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. SO THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD AND WITH THE APPLICANT PREVIOUSLY AND I THINK THERE WAS ONE PIECE OF FEEDBACK I THINK IT WAS IN THE IN THE CONCLUSION SECTION THERE WAS REFERENCE TO THE PLANNING BOARD RECEIVING COMMENTS FROM THE LOCAL FIRE CHIEF AND THE TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE ACTUALLY RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM THOSE AGENCIES IN REGARDS TO THIS APPLICATION AND SO I WOULD SUGGEST WE STRIKE THAT NOT TO REPRESENT THAT WE RECEIVED
COMMENTS WHEN WE DIDN'T. >> OKAY. UNDERSTOOD.
WERE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK ON THE DRAFT DECISION? ANY NEGATIVE DECLARATION HAS THE CONDITION THAT THE SEDIMENT AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES HAVE THAT BEEN OUTLINED TO THE TOWN RULE? DO WE KNOW?
>> SO LET ME JUST TAKE IT YEAH THERE'S NOT REALLY REQUIRED TO INSTALL THE FOLLOWING PROTECTIVE MEASURES AND I THINK I'M ADDRESSING THE RIGHT THING .
>> YES. SO THERE'S AN EROSION CONTROL PLAN THAT'S IDENTIFIED ON PAGE
TWO OF THE DECISION. >> OKAY. OKAY.
SO IT IS REFLECTED. >> GOT IT. THANK YOU.
I'M NOT SURE WHAT MR.. ALL RIGHT. >> AND JUST FOR THE RECORD, WERE THERE ANY OTHER SITES SPECIFIC CONDITIONS? I THINK THERE WAS ONE CONDITION ABOUT IMPROVING THE SIDEWALK. YEAH, I MENTIONED OH, YOU DID OKAY.
>> VERY GOOD. 4.2 GREAT WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE UM THE LANDSCAPING THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE. MM HMM. UM, HOW ARE THE ARE THE TREES GOING INTO, UM, BASKETS? ARE THEY BEING ENTERED INTO THE GROUND? HOW HOW ARE THESE YOU KNOW, WE TALKED ABOUT IT BEING A FLOODING OR A PRONE TO FLOODING AND SO I DIDN'T GET CLARIFICATION ON HOW YOU WERE GOING TO TAKE CARE OF THE ALL
OF THE PLANTING THAT YOU WERE GOING TO PUT THERE. >> HI, I'M JOE PALADIN.
I'M THE OWNER. SO WE WE DO PLAN ON PUTTING THEM INTO THE GROUND IN A MULCH BED, A SEVEN FOOT MULCH SECTION OF THE PROPERTY ALONG THE ENTIRE PERIMETER.
AND WE ARE WE'RE HOPING THAT WITH WITH CLEANING THE AREA UP AND TAKING CARE OF SOME SOME LITTLE THINGS HERE AND THERE THAT I THINK THIS SHOULD BE FINE IN THE GROUND.
WE DID IT ON THE PROPERTY IN THE FRONT OF THAT WE OWNED ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY AND IT
SEEMS TO BE WORKING OUT FINE. >> SO YOU'RE GOING TO USE THE SAME TREES? YES. SAME ONES? YES.
THAT WAS RECOMMENDED. >> I'M NOT SURE WHO RECOMMEND THAT BUT SOMEONE FROM GREENBERG
RECOMMENDED IT. >> YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IRRIGATION IN THERE AT THE MOMENT NO. AT THE MOMENT NO. BUT WE DO HAVE ACCESS TO WATER.
[00:10:02]
WE HAVE A WATER TRUCK AND THE WATER TANKS THAT WE CAN THAT WE'VE BEEN USING TO TO IRRIGATE THAT AND AS PART OF THE CONDITIONS IF THE LANDSCAPING WERE TO WERE TO FAIL THERE WOULD BE A REQUIREMENT TO REPLACE. YES, SURE.GREAT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD?
>> ALL RIGHT THEN AS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT OUTLINED, WE HAVE THREE VOTES TO
CONSIDER. >> THE FIRST ONE I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLASSIFY THE ACTION AS A LOCAL TYPE ONE ACTION UNDER SEQUOIA. SO MOVE, MOVE.
MR. BELLINGER. SECOND. SECOND.
MS.. ROBINSON. ALL IN FAVOR? I CHAIR VOTES I SECOND I WILL VOTE TO APPROVE THE DRAFT C DETERMINATION AS DISTRIBUTED SO
MOVED. >> ALL RIGHT, MOVE MS. ROBINSON SECOND MR. BELLINGER ALL IN FAVOR? I CHAIR VOTES I AND THEN LASTLY I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT DECISION AS AMENDED FOR THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION.
>> THANK YOU. >> SO MOVED MOVED MR. PATEL SECONDED SECOND MS. ANDERSON
ALL IN FAVOR I CHAIR VOTES I ALL RIGHT. >> THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAVE A GOOD NIGHT.
HAVE A GOOD EVENING. >> THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.
NEXT UP WE HAVE FOR OUR WORK SESSION CASE NUMBER PV 2534 JEN KOREAN BARBECUE FOR THE APPLICANT IN THE DELLWOOD ONE SHOPPING CENTER. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT TO OPERATE A RESTAURANT AND ALSO A SHARED PARKING REDUCTION STAFF SIMILARLY DISTRIBUTED THREE DOCUMENTS THE DRAFT SECRET DETERMINATION THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AND A DRAFT SHARED PARKING REDUCTION REQUEST.
>> DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THOSE DRAFT DRAFT DOCUMENTS?
>> YES. SO FOLLOWING CLOSURE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING, NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED. I WILL OUTLINE A COMMENT THAT WAS RECEIVED BY BOARD MEMBER WEINBERG THAT WAS NOT WHO WAS NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING. HOWEVER, THAT WAS OUTSIDE THE OPENING WRITTEN RECORD PERIOD. HE JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE DECISION.
WITH THAT SAID, THE PROJECT QUALIFIES AS AN UNLISTED ACTION UNDER SEEKER STAFF PREPARED A DRAFT SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION.
SO THERE ARE FOUR VOTES TO BE CONSIDERED THIS EVENING. FIRST TO CLASSIFY THE ACTION AS AN UNLISTED ACTION UNDER SICA TO CONSIDER ADOPT THE SEEKER NEGATIVE DECLARATION TO CONSIDER A DECISION ON THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT AND THEN TO CONSIDER A DECISION ON THE
REQUESTED SHARED PARKING REDUCTION. >> SO STAFF WORKING WITH THE TOWN'S CONSULTANT PREPARE THIS DRAFT DECISION AND SEEK HER DETERMINATION FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. SPECIFICALLY I WANTED TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION TO SECTION 16 OF THE DRAFT DECISION WHICH IS FAIRLY DETAILED AND THIS BOARD SPENT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF TIME ALONG WITH ITS TRAFFIC CONSULTANT AND THE APPLICANT IN ADDRESSING ISSUES RELATED TO OFF STREET PARKING CIRCULATION AND PEDESTRIAN SAFETY WITHIN THE SITE.
SO I'LL READ THROUGH SECTION 16 AND THEN I'LL NOTE THE COMMENTS BY MR. WEINBERG SO SECTION 16 THE APPLICANT SHALL EVALUATE THE PARKING AND SITE CIRCULATION CONDITIONS AT THE DALE WOOD SHOPPING CENTER NO EARLIER THAN FOUR MONTHS AND NO LATER THAN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE THE RESTAURANT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, THE APPLICANT SHALL PREPARE A REPORT FOR REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE TOWN'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT AS NEEDED CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION. ONE A REPORT TO THE BOARD OF ANY VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE AT DELLWOOD ONE WHEN THE EVALUATION IS CONDUCTED TWO COUNTS OF THE OCCUPIED AND UNOCCUPIED PARKING SPACES ON THE DELLWOOD ONE SHOPPING CENTER SITE AND IN THE ROW OF PARKING SPACES ON THE HARTSDALE CENTRAL PLAZA AT 319 DASH 333 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE NORTH THAT LOT THAT DIRECTLY ABUTS THE DELLWOOD ONE SHOPPING CENTER WITH COUNTS TAKEN AT A REPRESENTATIVE FRIDAY FROM 7 P.M. TO 9 P.M. SATURDAY FROM 7 P.M. TO 9 P.M. AND A WEEKDAY LUNCH HOUR FROM 12 P.M. TO 1 P.M. THE DAYS CHOSEN FOR THE COUNTS SHOULD BE GENERALLY REPRESENTATIVE OF NORMAL OPERATING CONDITIONS AND NOT DAYS OF HOLIDAYS, INCLEMENT WEATHER OR OTHER FACTORS THAT WOULD RESULT IN ABNORMAL PATRONAGE OF THE SHOPPING CENTER. THREE IF THERE IS ANY VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE AT ALL ONE
[00:15:02]
DELLWOOD ONE SHOPPING CENTER WHEN THE PARKING SURVEY IS ARE CONDUCTED PROJECTIONS OF PEAK HOUR PARKING DEMANDS WITH THE RE OCCUPANCY OF THE VACANT COMMERCIAL SPACE.ANY COMPARISON THEN TO THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BE PROVIDED FOR AN OBSERVATIONAL REPORT FROM A SUITABLY QUALIFIED PROFESSIONAL FOR THE HOURS AND DAYS INDICATED IN 16 A TO ABOVE CONTAINING THE OBSERVED CONDITIONS OF VEHICLE AND PEDESTRIAN MOVEMENTS AND IDENTIFYING ANY POTENTIAL SAFETY RISKS, RISKS OR CONFLICT POINTS.
FIVE ANY RECORDS FROM THE TOWN OF GREENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT ABOUT VEHICLE OR PEDESTRIAN INCIDENTS AT THE SITE AND SIX ANY COMPLAINTS FROM THE NEIGHBORING HARTSDALE CENTRAL PLAZA ABOUT VEHICLES OR PEDESTRIANS IMPROPERLY USING THE HARTSDALE CENTRA CENTRAL PLAZA PROPERTY BE THE REPORT SHALL CONTAIN FINDINGS ON THE ADEQUACY OF THE PARKING BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED AND SHALL INCLUDE ANY RECOMMENDATIONS IF NECESSARY TO ADDRESS ANY SAFETY OR OVERCROWDING CONCERNS. ADDITIONALLY, I SHOULD CALL TO YOUR ATTENTION CONDITION 18 WHICH INDICATES AS DISCUSSED WITH THE BOARD AND WITH THE APPLICANT THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL IMPLEMENT AN EMPLOYEE PARKING PLAN REQUIRING ALL EMPLOYEES OF THE BUSINESSES IN THE SHOPPING CENTER TO PARK IN THE REAR OR NORTHERLY SIDE
PARKING STALLS A VEHICLE IN CONNECTION WITH SECTION 16. >> AS I MENTIONED WE DID RECEIVE A COMMENT FROM BOARD MEMBER WEINBERG WHO CAN BE HERE THIS EVENING ESSENTIALLY SUGGESTING THAT THE BOARD GO FURTHER THAN WHAT'S INDICATED IN HERE AND REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING SURVEYS AND STUDIES BEGINNING AS EARLY AS ONE MONTH POST OPENING ALL THE WAY TO THE SIX MONTH PERIOD FOR FULL WEEKS AT A TIME AND AT ADDITIONAL EXTENDED HOURS OR DURING
ADDITIONAL EXTENDED HOURS INCLUDING HOLIDAYS. >> SO I DID HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH THE TOWN'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT EARLIER THIS AFTERNOON AND HE DID UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, THE REQUEST OF OF MR. WEINBERG HE GAVE ME SOME SUGGESTED LANGUAGE THAT THE BOARD MAY WANT TO CONSIDER INCORPORATING INTO THE DECISION AND I'LL JUST RECITE
THAT FOR THE BOARD. >> SO IN SECTION 16 AT THE BEGINNING IT STATES THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL EVALUATE THE PARKING AND SITE CIRCULATION CONDITIONS AT THE DELLWOOD ONE SHOPPING CENTER NO EARLIER THAN FOUR MONTHS AND NO LATER THAN SIX MONTHS AFTER THE DATE THE RESTAURANT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC. MR. CANNING SUGGESTED THAT THE TOWN MAY WANT TO OR THE BOARD MAY WANT TO CONSIDER SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF THE TOWN RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE STUDY BE PERFORMED EARLIER AND OR MORE FREQUENTLY IF THE
NEED ARISES. >> SO THAT GIVES A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY AND YOU KNOW, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT IF IT'S REQUIRED OUTSIDE OF THAT 4 TO 6 MONTH PERIOD LET'S SAY SOONER WERE ON ADDITIONAL DAYS OR DATES OR HOURS BEYOND WHAT'S LISTED THERE.
>> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE TYPICALLY BASED ON COMPLAINTS RECEIVED BY TOWN STAFF OR PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS OF STAFF AND OR BOARD MEMBERS THAT IT'S REPORTED BACK TO STAFF AND THIS WOULD ALL BE IN CONSULTATION WITH THE TOWN'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS.
>> SO THERE WOULD BE PARAMETERS, YOU KNOW SO I GUESS WHO WHO WOULD BE THE FINAL DECISION MAKER ON IF IF THIS SHOULD BE IMPLEMENTED THAT WOULD BE THE PLANNING BOARD WITH CONSULTATION OR CONSULTATION OF THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT.
>> SO SO I GUESS BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE BOARD CORRECT. OKAY.
THANK YOU. THAT'S APPROPRIATE. ANY COMMENTS OR FEEDBACK ON UH ANYTHING I'VE GONE THROUGH? I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSAL TO LEAVE IT KIND OF OPEN ENDED IN THE EVENT YEAH YEAH NEEDED YES AS WITH THE ADDITION AS A CONDITION OF TRANSPORTATION AND TRY TO HEAR THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE AGAIN PLEASE THE TOWN RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE PARKING STUDY OR SURVEY TO BE PERFORMED EARLIER AND OR MORE FREQUENTLY THAN WHAT WAS
LISTED IF THE NEED ARISES. >> AND THAT WOULD BE IT'S YEAH I WAS GOING TO SAY SURE WE COULD VAGUE AS TO PERHAPS WE COULD SEE AS DOCUMENTED BY A WRITERS WHO DEFINES THAT YOU KNOW YOU KNOW SO AS DOCUMENTED BY RECEIPT OF COMPLAINTS YES RIGHT YOU KNOW BY DOCUMENTED POLICE REPORTS AND AND RECEIVED WRITTEN COMPLAINTS I LIKE THAT MUCH MUCH BETTER AND WE WANT TO
[00:20:01]
THROW IN YOU KNOW, BY MAJORITY VOTE OF THE BOARD. RIGHT.GOOD THING IS READ THAT FIRST FIRST PART THE TOWN THE TOWN RESERVES THE RIGHT TO WE COULD
SAY THE PLANNING BOARD. >> SO IF YOU IF YOU SAY THE PLANNING THE RIGHT YOU DON'T
NEED TO VOTE RIGHT. >> YOU DON'T NEED TO ADD IN THE VOTING PART.
OKAY. PLANNING BOARD RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THE STUDY BE PERFORMED EARLIER AND OR MORE FREQUENTLY IF THE NEED ARISES AS DOCUMENTED THROUGH POLICE REPORTS AND OR DOCUMENTED COMPLAINTS TO THE TOWN. WRITTEN COMPLAINTS YES.
OKAY. DOES WRITTEN COMPLAINTS MEAN IT CAN'T BE CALLED IN TO THE TOWN?
>> I THINK YEAH. I THINK THE PREFERENCE WOULD BE WRITTEN DOCUMENT SO THAT IT CAN BE DOCUMENTED AND DISTRIBUTED TO THE ENTIRE BOARD. OKAY.
>> ALL RIGHT. WERE THERE ANY OTHER FEEDBACK OR QUESTIONS OR OBSERVATIONS ON
THE DISTRIBUTED DRAFT DECISIONS ? >> NO.
I DID HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL COMMENT IN THE I THINK IT WAS THE SHARED PARKING REDUCTION.
WE HAVE SOME STANDARD LANGUAGE AND OTHER DECISIONS THAT BASICALLY STATES YOU KNOW ALL IMPROVEMENTS SHALL CONFORM TO THE PLANS LISTED IN SECTION ONE OF THIS APPROVAL AND SINCE THERE WHILE THIS ISN'T A SITE PLAN APPROVAL REQUEST BECAUSE THE SITE PLAN WAS SUBMITTED AS A PART OF THE SHARED PARKING REDUCTION, I WOULD SUGGEST WE ADD THAT LANGUAGE AND SINCE THE SITE PLAN IS WHERE MANY OF THE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SITE ARE ARE CODIFIED INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL STOP SIGNS AND THE STOP HOURS AND THE PAINTING OF THE CROSSWALKS AND THE THE LAND BANKED SMALL ISLAND AND AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SITE .
YES. SO THAT WILL BE A GREAT AND THEN I DID JUST WANT TO YOU KNOW FOR FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD WE RECEIVED A COMPLAINT EARLIER IN THE WEEK ABOUT TWO SPOTS BEING OCCUPIED BY A CLOTHING DONATION BEEN MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDRESSED BY STAFF BUT COULD WE JUST CONFIRM THAT AND IF THERE'S BEEN ANY ANY UPDATES
SINCE THE LAST CONVERSATION WE HAD? >> SO I DID REACH OUT VIA EMAIL AND OR PHONE CALL TO THE PROPERTY MANAGER WHO DID PROMPTLY FOLLOW UP ON THE MATTER. OUR OFFICE DID RECEIVE A PHONE CALL FROM I GUESS THE THE BIN SUPPLIER THAT THAT THAT PLACES THOSE BINS AT SPECIFIC LOCATIONS.
I WAS ADVISED THAT THE BINS WERE TEMPORARILY RELOCATED AS THERE ARE SITE IMPROVEMENTS GOING ON ON THE SITE. NEVERTHELESS THE BUILDING INSPECTORS OFFICE REQUIRED THAT THEY DO NOT BE PLACED WITHIN OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. SO I DID FORWARD THAT GENTLEMAN OVER TO OUR BUILDING INSPECTORS OFFICE SO THEY COULD COMMUNICATE ON IT DIRECTLY.
>> GREAT. AND DO WE FEEL WERE WERE SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTED FROM YOU
KNOW THIS IF WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS IN THE FUTURE. >> YES.
GREAT. >> ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? IS THERE A PERMIT REQUIRED FOR THE BINS?
>> WE I WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH OR NOT A IT'S NOT A PERMIT.
>> SO THERE'S AN APPLICATION WITH THE TOWN CLERK'S OFFICE. THERE'S A LOCAL LAW THAT WAS ADOPTED WHICH CODIFIES IT IN THE TOWN CODE WHICH MIRRORS THE STATE LEGISLATION MOSTLY.
>> THANK YOU. GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS WITH ANDERSON? YEAH. WELL FIRST I THINK THERE'S A TYPO IN THE SUBJECT LINE WHERE IT SAYS THE ADDRESS IS SO IT'S SORT OF SWEET.
THANK YOU. AND THEN ALSO WITH STRICKEN AND I'M SURE YOU'LL FIX THIS IN THE FINAL BUT THE THE STRICKEN DATES REFER TO APRIL 15TH 2025 RATHER THAN JULY 26TH.
YEAH THANK YOU I. >> THE FOUR PARAGRAPH 16 HOW DO WE GET NOTIFIED DO WE GET NOTIFIED OF THE RESTAURANT'S OPENING IF THE OKAY SO THAT'S AND THEN THERE'S THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE ABOUT ANY SORT OF CONSEQUENCE FOR NON SUBMISSION DOES THAT JUST BECOME A IT JUST SAYS IT'S A VIOLATION OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT AND THEN IT GETS REVOKED OR TO I'LL LEAN ON THIS MAGANA BUT THIS DOCUMENT YOU KNOW HAS THE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS AND IF THEY DON'T COMPLY I WOULD IMAGINE THE BOARD HAS THE RIGHT TO REVOKE.
>> SO CLARIFY YOU ON SUBMISSION OF THE REPORT REGARDING THE TRAFFIC DATA IN THE PARKING.
[00:25:06]
>> GOT IT. YEAH. SO IT CAN BE THERE CAN BE A LETTER ISSUED THAT YOU'RE NONCOMPLIANCE WITH THE LETTER OF APPROVAL AND PROCEED FROM
THERE. YEAH OKAY GREAT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? ALL RIGHT THEN WE HAVE FOUR VOTES TO CONSIDER.
THE FIRST I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLASSIFY THE ACTION AS AN UNLISTED ACTION UNDER SECRE. SO MOVE, MOVE. MR. PHILANDER SECOND MR. PATEL
ALL IN FAVOR? >> I CHAIR VOTES I NEXT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT SEEK DETERMINATION SO MOVED MOVED MS. ROBINSON SECOND SECOND MR. PULLINGER ALL IN FAVOR I CARE VOTES I NEXT I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT SPECIAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AND WITH ANY AMENDMENTS YES AS AMENDED RIGHT AS WE DISCUSSED WITH YEAH YEAH.
>> YES SO MOVED MS. ANDERSON SO SECOND SECONDED MS. ROBINSON ALL IN FAVOR I CHAIR VOTES I AND LASTLY I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT DECISION ON THE SHARED PARKING REDUCTION AS AMENDED SO MOVED MOVED MR. PATEL SECONDED SECOND MR. PULLINGER ALL IN FAVOR I
CHAIR VOTES I ALL RIGHT. >> THANK YOU. GREAT.
OKAY. NEXT UP WE HAVE CASE NUMBER 225 03PB 2536 ONE LAWRENCE ARDSLEY LLC IS SEEKING A RECOMMENDATION ON THE TOWN BOARD SITE PLAN THE TOWN BOARD TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND THE PLANNING BOARD. I GUESS THOSE ARE THE TWO ITEMS
WHERE WE'RE ADDRESSING THIS EVENING, RIGHT? >> IT'S UP TO THE APPLICANT IF IT WISHES TO MAKE A STATEMENT OR BOARD ANY QUESTIONS OTHERWISE THE BOARD'S PREPARED
TO MOVE FORWARD. >> YEAH, NO, WE DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
MARK POTTER IS HERE IN CASE THE BOARD HAS ANY QUESTIONS AND OTHERWISE WE WOULD NOT.
THANK YOU. GREAT. SO A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION WAS DISTRIBUTED. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE
RECOMMENDATION? >> YES. SO THE BOARD HAS SPENT A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME REVIEWING THIS SITE PLAN REFERRAL THAT WAS TRANSMITTED OR THE TOWN BOARD ESSENTIALLY PASSED A RESOLUTION BACK IN OCTOBER ARE REFERRING THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD. THE BOARD HAS MET A NUMBER OF TIMES BEGINNING IN JANUARY OF THIS YEAR AND HAS ASKED THE APPLICANT AND ITS TEAM FOLLOWING CONSULTATION WITH TOWN STAFF AS WELL AS THE TOWN'S CONSULTANT FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AT THE LAST MEETING WHICH I WAS NOT PRESENT AS I UNDERSTAND IT THE BOARD IN CONCERT WITH STAFF AND THE CONSULTANT WE'RE STILL WORKING ON REVIEWING CERTAIN ITEMS ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND AT THAT TIME ASKED THE APPLICANT IF IT WOULD CONSENT TO AN ADDITIONAL THERE HAD ALREADY BEEN ONE EXTENSION OF THE TIME PERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF THE RECOMMENDATION THAT HAD BEEN CONSENTED TO. HOWEVER, AT THE LAST MEETING THE APPLICANT DID NOT CONSENT TO A FURTHER EXTENSION SO AS SUCH STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION IT WAS CIRCULATED TO THE BOARD. I DON'T WANT TO READ THROUGH IT VERBATIM OTHERWISE WE PROBABLY WON'T HAVE TIME FOR OTHER PROJECTS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. SO IT WAS CIRCULATED IN THE PACKAGES AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS MAY HAVE ON THIS
DRAFT DOCUMENT. >> ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE
DRAFT DOCUMENT AS DISTRIBUTED? NO, NO. >> IF THERE AREN'T, I HAVE I, I THINK THERE WAS ONE THERE WAS ONE CONDITION THAT WE ADJUSTED SLIGHTLY WHEN WE SPOKE.
>> YES. >> MATT, DO YOU HAVE THAT LANGUAGE?
>> I THINK IT WAS 2121? >> YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. YES.
SO CONDITION RECOMMENDATION 21 THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS SLIGHTLY MODIFIED, THE LANGUAGE THAT THE MODIFIED LANGUAGE WOULD READ THE TOWN THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMEND THAT THE TOWN BOARD EVALUATE ANY IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH ANY CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED USE AND IMPLEMENT APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS AND CHANGES TO THE PLANS IF THE APPLICANT SELLS THE PROPERTY AS
[00:30:02]
THE APPLICANT HAS REPRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD THAT IT IS ACTIVELY SEEKING TO SELL THE PROPERTY. OKAY. OKAY.ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THAT THAT'S LATE MODIFICATION? NO NO I LIKE IT. YEAH I JUST IT. ALL RIGHT.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, THE ONLY THING I WANT TO MENTION AND YOU MAY NEED INPUT FROM COUNSEL FOR THE PLANNING BOARD SO AT THE TIME THIS THE TIME THE PLANNING BOARD LAST REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PREPARE THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION WHICH IS UNDER CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING THERE HAD NOT BEEN WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS THE STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN PROVIDED FOR REVIEW BOTH BY THIS BOARD BUT ALSO BY THE TOWN ENGINEER. AS OF LATE YESTERDAY THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN SUBMITTED. I DID FOLLOW UP WITH COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT ASKING IF IT WANTED THE BOARD TO EVALUATE THAT SKIP ALONG WITH INPUT FROM THE TOWN ENGINEER WHICH WOULD LIKELY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL TIME OF THE BOARD IN ORDER TO CARRY
THAT OUT WITH ITS PROFESSIONAL STAFF. >> COUNSEL DID WRITE ME BACK THIS AFTERNOON INDICATING THAT THAT WAS THAT SUBMISSION WAS SPECIFICALLY AS FOLLOW UP TO STAFF FOR REVIEW AND COMMENTS ISSUED AND NOT FOR CONSIDERATION BY THE BOARD IN CONNECTION WITH THIS RECOMMENDATION BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD THERE'S ANYTHING YOU WANT
TO STAY BEYOND THIS THAT'S ACCURATE? >> OKAY.
DO WE NEED TO OR SHOULD WE UPDATE ANYTHING WITH RESPECT TO THIS GIVEN THAT I JUST I WASN'T CERTAIN YOU COULD UPDATE THE FACT THAT THIS WAS SUBMITTED BUT IT WAS NOT TIMELY FOR SUFFICIENT REVIEW BY THE TOWN ENGINEER TO APPRIZE THE PLANNING BOARD OF ITS BENEFITS
OR ISSUES. >> SO WITH THE PLANS YEAH YEAH YEAH.
>> AND I DO HAVE THE EMAIL FROM MR. MILLER THAT WE COULD ATTACH TO IT INDICATING THAT IT WASN'T INTENDED FOR PLANNING BOARD CONSIDERATION. YEAH I THINK THAT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE BECAUSE I MEAN ULTIMATELY THIS THIS DECISION WILL BE VOTED ON AND DATED TODAY AND SO IT SHOULD REFLECT REALITY AS OF THIS MOMENT NOT NOT REALITY WHEN IT WAS FIRST DISTRIBUTED AND JUST TO SORT OF EMPHASIZE YOU KNOW, AS WE HAVE DONE RECENTLY WITH WITH OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS, YOU KNOW, THIS RECOMMENDATION IS NOT A POSITIVE OR A NEGATIVE
RECOMMENDATION. >> IT IS JUST OBSERVATIONS, FEEDBACK AND THINGS FOR THE TOWN BOARD TO CONSIDER THAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED AS WE'VE UNDERGONE OUR REVIEW PROCESS AND WE ENCOURAGE AND REQUEST THEM TO TO DIG DEEPER INTO AS THEY CONTINUE THEIR REVIEW PROCESS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO I WAS KIND OF I JUST GOT A PROMOTION. OKAY.
I GOT A DEMOTION AND WE WE DID RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM MR. WEISBERG OH PLEASE AS WELL.
PLEASE WALK US THROUGH THIS. YES. SO THERE ARE TWO SUGGESTED ADDITIONS TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS. THE FIRST SUGGESTED ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION RELATES TO THE APPLICANT PROVIDING AN UPDATED SURVEY TO THE TOWN WHICH IDENTIFIES THE LOCATIONS OF ALL UTILITY USE ON THE SITE WHICH HAS BEEN ASKED FOR BY THE BUREAU OF ENGINEERING. AND THE SECOND RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE APPLICANT TO DETERMINE IF ANY GRADE CHANGES HAVE HAPPENED AS PART OF THE BROWNFIELD CLEANUP PROGRAM AND IF AND THE IMPACT OF ANY SUCH CHANGES TO THE GRADE ON THE FLOODING IN THE AREA.
>> ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON ON THAT ADDITION? I THINK THOSE ARE OUR GOOD GOOD
SUGGESTIONS AND GOOD STRONG ADDITIONS AGREED TO AGREE. >> ALL RIGHT THEN IF THERE'S NO OTHER COMMENTS I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT SITE PLAN RECOMMENDATION TO THE
TOWN BOARD AS AMENDED. >> SO MOVE, MOVE. MR. BELANGER SECOND, SECOND.
>> MS. ROBINSON. ALL IN FAVOR? I CHAIR VOTES II.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
HAVE A GOOD EVENING. ALL ALL RIGHT. >> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO
[00:35:07]
OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF OUR MEETING SO MOVED MOVED MS..>> ROBINSON SECOND. SECOND. MR. PULLINGER ALL IN FAVOR?
I CHAIR VOTES. I ALL RIGHT. >> WELCOME.
>> WE'RE STILL IN IT'S STILL APRIL 15TH, 2026 AND THIS IS STILL THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING. WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON OUR AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING.
THE FIRST IS CASE NUMBER 2505 25 205 12 SEVEN SOME OWNER OF A ROAD LLC THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PURPOSE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND LANDSCAPE BUFFER WAIVERS YES BEFORE BEFORE WE BEGIN, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT MAY CONDUCT THE ROLL.
CHAIRPERSON PINE HERE. MR. PULLINGER HERE. MS..
ANDERSON HERE OUR ALTERNATE MS.. ROBINSON HERE OUR ALTERNATE MR. PATEL HERE. BOTH WILL BE FULL VOTING MEMBERS IN PLACE OF MR. WINDER
WEINBERG WHO IS NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING. >> THANK YOU.
GREAT. THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT REPRESENTING P B 2505 WELCOME. HI. GOOD EVENING.
MY NAME IS JOE. ANY SUPPORTER YOU AND G I OF THE A IN AND I IS A POTENTIALLY LIKE C A B A THE A A REGISTERED ARCHITECT AND I REPRESENT MY CLIENTS IN THAT PROPERTY IN THAT PREMISES AND TO A FIGHT TO ALSO INSULT ME AND RIVER ROAD THANK YOU SO MUCH FIRST FOR HAVING US AGAIN TO BE HERE AFTER YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO GO TO THE ZONING BOARD I JUST WANT TO LET YOU KNOW THAT WE ALREADY HAVE THE THEY GRANTED FOR THE VARIANCE INITIALLY WERE LIKE I VARIANCES AND THERE WERE THAT WAS REDUCED TO SEVEN VARIANCES THAT WERE GRANTED AND BASICALLY FOLLOWING YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS . SO WE PROVIDE THIS SET OF DRAWINGS SHOWING AND NOT ONLY THE FACT THAT THE PROPERTY EVEN THOUGH IT IS LOCATED IS RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL IS A MIXED BUILDING LOCATED IN THAT LIFE AND LIKE A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA ZONING IS SO WE RECEIVED THE VARIANCE FOR THE SIZE OF THE LOT SINCE THE LOT IS MORE OR LESS 4700 OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS AND IN A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT AND LOTS IN THAT AREA SO WE GOT THE VARIANCES FOR ALL OF THE SETBACKS ON THE END AND THE NONCONFORMITY BUILDING OF SOME MIXED BUILDING. SO BASICALLY WE ARE HERE TO REQUEST THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL ACCORDING TO YOUR RECOMMENDATION AND BASICALLY AS YOU KNOW THE SCOPE OF WORK IS INTEGRAL AND EXTERIOR RENOVATION INCLUDING THE REST
OF FACING OF THE PARKING AREA THAT WAS GRANTED IN IN 1983. >> SO BUT UNFORTUNATELY THERE WASN'T ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE THAT SITE PLAN APPROVAL. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE TO PRACTICALLY REQUEST I WILL SAY THE NEW SITE PLAN FOR THE A WE FOLLOW YOUR RECOMMENDATION RECOMMENDATIONS IN REFERENCE TO THE GREEN AREA. LET ME SEE IF I CAN SHOW YOU I THINK YOU SAW IT BUT IF YOU COULD FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC SINCE IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING YOU COULD SHOW THE PLAN. OKAY.
AND WALK BRIEFLY WALK THE BOARD THROUGH THE PLAN AND IF NOT I CAN PULL IT UP PLEASE.
>> AND AND WHILE THE APPLICANT PULLS THAT UP I DO JUST WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS NOTICED IN THE PAPER OF RECORD IN A TIMELY FASHION.
OKAY, PERFECT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> IF YOU IF YOU CAN SHARE THE SCREEN WITH THE PLAN YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND DO THAT IF YOU NEED
STAFF TO DO IT. >> I'LL JUST DO THE PLANNER MAP AND MAKE SURE THAT I CAN SHARE
THE PICTURE. >> OKAY? >> YEAH, I KNOW YOU DON'T SEE
OKAY. >> WE'LL ASK MR. BURTON TO PUT IT PUT THE PLAN UP THEN YOU
SPEAK TO IT ON THE SCREEN. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MATT.
[00:40:12]
THANK YOU MUCH. AS YOU SEE THEM, THE SITE PLAN THAT WE PROVIDED TO THE TO THE PLANNING BOARD LAST TIME AND THIS ONE ANYMORE SO WE ARE LOOKING AT TO APPROVE IN NINE SPACES THE PARKING AFTER WE WRESTLE FACE THE BLACKTOP THE PARKING LOT AND THE THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES ACCORDING TO OR FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDATIONS ONE PARKING FOR HANDICAPPED ACCESSIBILITY ON IN THE IN THE BACK OF THE OF THE PROPERTY AND THE LOCATION OF NINE AND PARKING SPOTS BESIDES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING SOME PLANTERS THAT I WOULD LIKE TO REMEMBER YOU THAT WE ARE DENIED INFLUENCE ON AND UNFORTUNATELY WE CAN PROVIDE ANY PLANTERS THAT THAT WILL PUT ON GROUND SO ON. SO WE ARE PROPOSING SOME PLANTERS I WILL DIG AROUND THAT THAT ARE GOING TO BE FACING TO THE BUILDING AND IN THIS SIZE OF THE THE AND THE DRIVEWAY BY THE FACT YOU SEE THE DRIVEWAY WE ARE PROPOSING VERY NARROW PLANTERS DUE TO THE FACT WE HAVE JUST A FEET SIX INCHES WHICH IS VERY NARROW THE DRIVEWAY. SO BUT IN FACT SO WE ARE GOING TO PROPOSE TO REPLANT IS THAT ARE YOU GOING TO GO AGAINST THE WORLD AND IN THE BACK IN CLOSE TO THE BUILDING WE ARE PROPOSING FOR PLANTERS THAT THE ZONING BOARD RECOMMENDED THAT WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN IN THIS SEASON TRIANGLE REMEMBER THAT IN THIS TYPE OF PLANTING IN WINTER HE'S GOT TO BE COMPLICATED FROM UNSTATED BY THE IDEA IS TO KEEP IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE CLEAN AND WE PLANT AROUND AND THEY WILL THAT ASPECT ON THE FRONT SO WE ARE WE ARE PROPOSING A VAGUE ROOM FOR THE HANDICAPPED PART OF THE APPLICATION THAT WE NEED ON HE WAS PART OF THE ZONING BOARD GRANTED IS THAT WE ARE COMBINING ONE OF THE COMMERCIAL SPACES ON THE FIRST FLOOR TO ONE OR THE APARTMENTS ON THE SECOND FLOOR SO IT MEANING THAT WE ARE REDUCING THE COMMERCIAL SPACE JUST FOR ONE SPACE, ONE RETAIL STORE AND WE ARE GOING TO CONVERT THAT SPACE INTO A DUPLEX APARTMENT TO THE SECOND FLOOR APARTMENT IN THE VERTICAL.BUT BASICALLY SPACE AND SO WE ARE GOING TO MARKET UP ALL OF THE SPACES AND FOLLOWING THE THE TRANSIT REGULATIONS AND I THINK THIS IS SOLID. THANK YOU.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS THE SITE PLAN.
>> SURE. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT THANK YOU MR. ZAPATA SO AS MR. IS ABOUT TO MENTIONED ON MARCH 19TH, 2026 THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS GRANTED A NUMBER OF AREA VARIANCES REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT. HOWEVER, ADDITIONALLY IN THE DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTORS MEMORANDUM ISSUED ON THE PROJECT IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER WAIVERS AS MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY BY CHAIRPERSON PINE ARE REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING LANDSCAPE BUFFER WAIVERS FROM TEN FEET REQUIRED TO ZERO FEET PROPOSED FOR ALL SIDES OF THE PROPERTY AND THAT'S EVEN REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PLANTERS. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH THIS BOARD AS WELL TO TRY AND GREEN UP A LITTLE BIT AND BRING SOME BEAUTIFICATION TO THAT SITE IN THAT AREA SO THE APPLICANT WAS WILLING TO DO IT.
THEY HAVE COMPLIED WITH THAT BUT NEVERTHELESS THOSE BUFFER WAIVERS ARE REQUIRED.
SO I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT FOR THE BOARD AND FOR THE PUBLIC IN THE RECORD I DID DID THE ZBA DID THESE PLANS CHANGE FROM WHEN THEY WERE LAST IN FRONT OF US?
>> DID THE ZBA HAVE ANY FEEDBACK OR COMMENTS THAT THEY ONLY CALL ME ANYWAY?
>> SO WE SHOWED THESE THE SAME SITE PLAN AND THE ONLY COMMENTS AND WAS IN REFERENCE TO THE MAIN THINGS SO THE PLANTERS BUT THE EQUITY IN THE LOCATION THAT WE PUT IT AND THEY AGREE ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE PARKING SPOTS AND THEY AGREE TO THE ADA AND THE ARE NO NO FOR THEIR COMMENTS ABOUT IF THAT'S WHY THEY GRANTED AND THEY YOU KNOW SO ON THAT POINT WE PROBABLY WOULD ANYWAY BUT WE'LL MAKE SURE THERE'S A CONDITION THAT REFERENCES THE MAINTENANCE AND
[00:45:05]
MAINTENANCE IN OUR IN OUR DRAFT REGARDING THE RECOMMENDATION FROM.>> ALL RIGHT. WELL THIS THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION? ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE ON ZOOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS
APPLICATION? >> ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR
COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD? >> NO, NO. ALL RIGHT.
DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT WE WANT TO WE WANT TO STATE OR
SHARE AT THIS TIME? >> NO. THE ONLY THING IF THE BOARD WERE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH CLOSURE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING BEING THAT WE HAVE AN ADDITIONAL WEEK BETWEEN MEETINGS SO THERE'S TYPICALLY TWO WEEKS IN THIS CASE THERE ARE THREE WEEKS STAFF WOULD CONSIDER THAT THE BOARD KEEP THE WRITTEN RECORD OPEN THROUGH APRIL 24TH AND THEN THE DECISION WOULD BE ON FOR CONSIDERATION WITH THE BOARD AT ITS NEXT MEETING ON MAY 6TH. GREAT. WHAT DAVE BETWEEN MAY 6TH BECAUSE APRIL HAS FIVE WEDNESDAYS SO AFTER APRIL 29TH WE WON'T MEET AND THE TOWN
BOARD OKAY. >> ALL RIGHT. SO SEEING SEEING NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING AND KEEP THE WRITTEN RECORD OPEN AS ADVISED BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT THROUGH APRIL 24TH.
SO MOVE, MOVE. MS. ROBINSON SECOND MR. PATEL ALL IN FAVOR CHAIR VOTES I
GREAT. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
>> EVENING. I HAVE RECEIVED A REQUEST TO TAKE A QUICK FIVE MINUTE RECESS SO I. I WILL CLOSE THIS WHATEVER .
>> ALL RIGHT. WELCOME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING.
>> IT IS 8:00 ON APRIL 15TH. >> I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO REOPEN THIS PUBLIC HEARING.
>> SO MOVE, MOVE. MR. PHILANDER SECOND, SECOND. >> MS..
ROBINSON ALL IN FAVOR? I CHAIR VOTES I. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT HAS
THE ROLE CHANGED SINCE ROLL WAS LAST HELD? >> IT HAS NOT VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU. NEXT UP WE HAVE CASE NUMBER 2539 GALVANIZE LLC.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN AMENDED SITE PLAN A WETLAND WATERCOURSE PERMIT AND A TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT. >> MR. BERNSTEIN REPRESENTING THE APPLICANTS AND DO YOU NEED US TO SHARE THE PLAN? YES. I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE SENDING THE PLAN, MATT. DO YOU WANT TO DO THAT? SHARING THE PLAN WE'RE HERE TONIGHT ESSENTIALLY TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY HELD FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF ADDRESSING AN ISSUE THAT WAS RAISED CONCERNING THE DESIGN OF THE DRIVEWAY TO ACCOMMODATE TRACTOR TRAILERS AS OPPOSED TO THE SMALLER TRUCKS THAT WERE ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED BY THE DESIGN. SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE SUBMITTED A REVISED SITE PLAN WIDENING THE DRIVEWAY AND ALSO MODIFYING THE CURBING MODIFY THE STORMWATER PLAN TO ACCOUNT FOR THE INCREASED IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AND MAKING SURE THAT SUFFICIENT TURNING RADIUSES ARE THERE TO ACCOMMODATE THE TRACTOR TRAILER TRUCKS THAT WILL BE USING THE LOADING DOCK AT THAT SITE. THE PLAN CONTEMPLATES THAT THERE WILL BE ENCROACHMENT ON THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AT 121 FOR WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS AN EASEMENT AGREEMENT ENTITLING SUCH ACCESS AND THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED THE PLANS TO THE OWNER AT 1 TO 1 WHO HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WE ARE WE ARE INCLUDING IN THIS AMENDED SITE PLAN.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE AND WE'VE ALSO AGREED THAT CERTAIN THINGS TO REPLACING A FIRE HYDRANT AT THE TOWN'S DIRECTION AT THE APPLICANT'S EXPENSE AS WELL AS REPAIRING A CURB THAT WAS DAMAGED AGAIN AT THE APPLICANT'S EXPENSE AND THAT ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT WE'RE DOING AND IN DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD PRIOR TO RESUMPTION OF THE HEARING WE UNDERSTAND A QUESTION WAS RAISED BY THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT AND THE BUILDING INSPECTOR CONCERNING HOW THE TRUCKS WILL BE EXITING THE SITE AND TO THE EXTENT THE PLAN DOES NOT REFLECT THE HOW
[00:50:10]
THEY WILL BE EXITING WE WILL SUPPLY THAT IMMEDIATELY AND WE WOULD UPON RECEIPT OF THE TOWN A COMMUNICATION FROM MR. SCHMIDT AS TO EXACTLY WHAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT WERE REQUESTING. BE SURE WE WILL PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION AND WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE DECISION ASSUMING THAT NO OBJECTIONS AND NO ISSUES RAISED IN THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT THE HEARING BE CLOSED AND THAT THE DECISION BE RENDERED TONIGHT CONDITIONED ON OUR PROVIDING THAT ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND THE TRAFFIC CONSULTANT AND WE WOULD REQUEST THAT WE BE GIVEN UP TO 60 DAYS TO DO THAT ALTHOUGH OUR INTENTION IS TO DO IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT SO THAT WE CAN PROCEED WITH THAT MODIFICATION TO THE DRIVEWAY SO THAT THE BUSINESS CAN BE UP AND RUNNINGAS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. >> THE APPLICANT CERTAINLY MOTIVATED TO COMPLY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WELL, THIS THIS IS A PUBLIC
HEARING. >> IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO
SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION? >> ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, IS THERE ANYONE ON
ZOOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION? >> ALL RIGHT.
>> IS THERE ANYONE FROM THE BOARD MS.. ROBINSON, YOU MENTIONED THAT YOU SHOWED THE THE NEW PLANS TO THE NEIGHBOR THAT YOU HAVE THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH.
YES. DO YOU HAVE THAT IN WRITING THAT THEY AGREE WITH THE NEW
PLANS? >> YES. WE HAVE AN EMAIL FROM THE APPLICANT SAYING THEY HAVE NO OBJECTION. OKAY.
CAN WE GET THAT? ABSOLUTELY. JUST FOR THE RECORD.
SURE. >> ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.
GREAT. ANY ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? RIGHT. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONS OR COMMENTS ON WHAT MR. BERNSTEIN REPRESENTED ABOUT HOW WE'LL PROCEED WITH THE TRUCK TURNING
DIAGRAM? >> I THINK MATT SHOULD REFERENCE SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT MIGHT HAVE OCCURRED AFTER THE DRAFT WAS CIRCULATED PARTICULARLY ABOUT THE FIRE
HYDRANT. >> MATT IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN RUN THROUGH QUICKLY? I CERTAINLY AND BUT WE WOULD DO THAT AS PART OF THE WORK SESSION, RIGHT? RIGHT. THAT'S TRUE. THAT'S A GOOD THING.
I THINK THAT YOU'VE PUSHED DETERMINE WHO DESIRES TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT AND
RENDER DECISION TONIGHT FOR WANTING TO DO THAT. >> THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR THAT WE HAD AGREED TO COVER THE COST OF THE FIRE HYDRANT RELOCATION AND REPLACEMENT BUT IT'S UP TO THE TOWN TO IDENTIFY WHERE THAT FIRE HYDRANT IS GOING TO GO. SO THAT'S AND JUST TO CLARIFY, WAS IT ALSO AGREED UPON THAT ANY CHARGES IN CONNECTION WITH REVIEW BY THE TOWN TRAFFIC CONSULTANT WOULD BE COVERED BY IT WASN'T DISCUSSED BUT I THINK THAT IS A GIVEN SHOULD BE BRIEF YOU KNOW THAT THAT THAT IS A COST OF THE SERVICE ASSOCIATED WITH THE REPLACEMENT RELOCATION OF THE FIRE HYDRANT THAT SHOULD BE COVERED BY THE THANK YOU GRANT AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT DID YOU WANT TO SPEAK
ANY FURTHER ON THE TRUCK TURNING DIAGRAM? >> JUST THAT IN DISCUSSION WITH THE APPLICANT TOWN STAFF AND COUNCIL AS WELL. IF THE BOARD WERE TO RENDER A DECISION THIS EVENING THAT'S NOT TYPICAL. HOWEVER, AS MR. BERNSTEIN INDICATED, THIS PROJECT WAS BEFORE THE BOARD AND HAD A PRIOR PUBLIC HEARING WHERE THERE WERE NO COMMENTS. THERE'S NO ONE SEEKING TO MAKE COMMENTS THIS EVENING EITHER HERE IN THE ROOM OR VIA ZOOM. SO THE BOARD COULD CERTAINLY CONSIDER ISSUING A DECISION THIS EVENING AND IF IT DOES STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND A CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION IN CONNECTION WITH TRUCK TURNING MOVEMENTS FOR EGRESS OUT OF THE SITE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND TOWN TRAFFIC CONSULTANT PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT IN NO CASE MORE THAN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF THIS DECISION
[00:55:02]
PLANNING BOARD DECISION. >> RIGHT. AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THE APPLICANT IS MOTIVATED TO GET THIS DONE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE IT WANTS TO BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT THESE IMPROVEMENTS SO THAT ITS BUSINESS AT THAT SITE CAN BE UP AND RUNNING AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE AND IT WILL BE IN THE TRANSCRIPT.
THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD PUT IN THE DECISION BUT WE UNDERSTAND COMPLETELY.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. AND I DID JUST WANT TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS DULY NOTICED IN THE NEWS IN THE TOWN'S NEWSPAPER OF
RECORD IN A TIMELY FASHION. >> ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND LEAVE NO WRITTEN RECORD AS WE WILL BE MAKING A DECISION THIS EVENING.
>> SO MOVED MOVED MR. PATEL SECOND SECOND MR. PHILANDER ON FAVOR I CHAIR VOTES I I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS OR TO CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVED MOVED MS. ROBINSON SECOND SECOND MR. BELANGER ALL IN FAVOR I CHAIR VOTES I THIS PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANKS BARBARA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
GOOD GOOD TO SEE YOU. >> YOU AS WELL. ALL RIGHT.
SO NOW WE ARE WE ARE BACK TO OLD BUSINESS WORK SESSION CASE NUMBER OF 2539 GALVANIZED LLC.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING AN AMENDED SITE PLAN A WETLAND WATERCOURSE PERMIT AND A TREE
REMOVAL PERMIT. >> WE SPOKE A LITTLE BIT DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING BUT FOR THE SAKE OF THE RECORD DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE DECISIONS HERE BEFORE US AND THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE JUST DISCUSSED?
>> IT NOT BEING THAT I DO NOT HAVE A COPY OF THE DRAFT, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO QUICKLY WALK THE BOARD THROUGH THE DRAFT DECISION THAT WAS PREPARED AND ANY MODIFICATIONS MADE SINCE
THE DRAFT WAS CIRCULATED? THANK YOU. >> SURE.
SO WE HAVE PREPARED FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING A DRAFT DECISION OF OF THE PROJECTS PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS QUALIFY AS A TIME TO ACTION UNDER SPEAKER.
SO THAT WOULD BE FOR THE BOARD TO VOTE ON THIS EVENING I WOULD DRAW THE BOARD'S ATTENTION TO TWO SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS ONE OF WHICH WAS A MODIFIED SENSE DISTRIBUTION TO THE BOARD CONDITION 5.2 REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE FUNDS FOR THE RELOCATION OF THE FIRE HYDRANT LOCATED AT THE ENTRANCE TO 85 EXECUTIVE BOULEVARD IN COORDINATION WITH THE OFFICE FOR FIRE DISTRICT AND COMMISSIONER DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
THE FUNDS SHALL BE PROVIDED PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT.
THIS CONDITION WAS SLIGHTLY MODIFIED TO BE, AS I JUST STATED FROM WHAT WAS DISTRIBUTED AND CONDITION 5.3 REQUIRES THE APPLICANT TO PREPARE AND BE CURVING ALONG THE SITE'S FRONTAGE AS NECESSARY AND AND IF YOU COULD RECITE WHAT YOU SAID AT THE
PUBLIC HEARING FOR THAT ADDITIONAL CONDITION. >> YES.
>> SO THE AS DISCUSSED AT THE PUBLIC HEARING STAFFS RECOMMENDING THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER AN ADDITIONAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL THAT THAT THE APA THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMIT DOCUMENTATION TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND TOWN TRAFFIC CONSULTANT WITH RESPECT TO TRUCK TURNING IN CONNECTION WITH LEAVING THE SITE PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT IN NO CASE MORE THAN 60 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PLANNING BOARD DECISION PERIOD RIGHT. WOULD IT ALSO BE APPROPRIATE TO CODIFY MR. ROBINSON'S REQUEST OF A COPY OF THE EASEMENT THE COPY OF THE CONSENT THE CORRECT THE CONSENT FROM THE NEIGHBOR
FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY? >> YES TO THE MODIFIED PLAN IS THAT SOMETHING YOU HAVE ACCESS
TO THIS EVENING? >> IT SHOWS YOU IF YOU COULD FORWARD IT YOU COULD FORWARD IT
TO BOTH MYSELF AND MATT BRITTON. >> YEAH, I GET IT WHEN I GET BACK. OKAY. SO LET ME KNOW ABOUT IT.
>> YEAH, THAT'S ONE. >> ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS
[01:00:03]
OR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT DECISIONS AS DISTRIBUTED? ALL RIGHT THEN I WILL.WE HAVE FOUR VOTES AS TOWN PLANNER BRITTON OUTLINED, WE HAVE A VOTE TO CLASSIFY THE ACTIONS OF THE TYPE TWO ACTION THE SECRE AND THEN THREE SEPARATE VOTES ON THE DRAFT DECISIONS FOR THE AMENDED SITE PLAN FOR THE WETLAND WATERCOURSE PERMIT AND FOR THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. SO FIRST UP I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLASSIFY THE ACTIONS AS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SECRE SO MOVED MOVED MS. ROBINSON SECOND SECOND MR. PATEL ALL IN FAVOR I CHAIR VOTES I NEXT UP WE I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT DECISION ON THE AMENDED SITE PLAN APPLICATION AS AMENDED SO MOVE MOVE MR. BELLENGER SECOND SECOND MS. ANDERSON ALL IN FAVOR I CHAIR VOTES I NEXT I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT DECISION ON THE WETLAND WATERCOURSE PERMIT IS THAT AS AMENDED AS AMENDED SO MOVED MOVED MS. ROBINSON SECOND SECOND MR. PATEL ALL IN FAVOR I CHAIR VOTES I AND LASTLY I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT DECISION ON THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION AS AMENDED SO MOVED MOVED MS. ROBINSON SECOND SECOND.
>> MR. PATEL I'M SORRY MR.. MR. BELLINGER ALL IN FAVOR I CHAIR VOTES I ALL RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD EVENING. GOOD LUCK.
ALL RIGHT. >> WELL, WE'RE MAKING PRETTY GOOD TIME.
>> YES, BUT YES, ABSOLUTELY. AND WE DO HAVE SHADE GRANDMA. OKAY.
OKAY. ROUND ALL RIGHT. >> AND LAST TO LAST ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING WE HAVE A PIECE OF NEW BUSINESS FOR OUR WORK SESSION.
CASE NUMBER PB 2313 AND 635 WHITE PLAINS ROAD REALTY LLC. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION AND A PLANNING BOARD STEEP PERMIT MR. GRAHAM REPRESENTING THE
APPLICANT. >> GOOD EVENING. >> DO YOU HAVE A PERSONAL AMBITION TO I SHOULD I PUT UP MY TEN? YES.
>> AND YOUR MIC IF POSSIBLE TO DO THAT? YEAH WE RECOMMENDED YES, YES MUCH BETTER. THANK YOU. AND SHEA, YOU'RE WITH HUDSON
ENGINEERING. THAT'S RIGHT. >> THAT'S CORRECT.
THANK YOU. >> MR. GRAHAM, COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE THE APPLICATION
? YES, ABSOLUTELY. >> SO AS YOU SAID, MY NAME IS SHEA GRAHAM FROM HUDSON ENGINEERING. I AM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT FOR 65 OLD WHITE PLAINS ROAD. THE PROJECT IS ROUGHLY A 22,500 SQUARE FOOT LOT LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF DENNING'S ROAD AND OLD WHITE PLAINS ROAD.
THE LOT SITS WITHIN THE CB DISTRICT WHICH ALSO ADJOINS THE R TEN DISTRICT AND THE APPLICATION PROPOSES A SUBDIVISION FROM 1ST MARCH AND THEY'RE PROPOSING A TO THAT SUBDIVISION WHICH INCLUDES A PROPOSED TWO STOREY SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING A RESIDENCE WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE ASSOCIATED STORMWATER PRACTICE WHICH CAPTURES THE ENTIRE HOUSE
AND DRIVEWAY FOR THE 24 I'M SORRY 25 YEARS STORM EVENT. >> IN ADDITION TO THAT THE APPLICANT ALSO PROPOSES A SEWER MAIN EXTENSION TO PROVIDE TWO MAIN SERVICE TO THE PROPOSED LOT AND WE ARE HERE SEEKING TWO VARIANCES A LOT WITH VARIANCE OF .65 FEET AND A FRONT YARD VARIANCE OF 7.18FT AND THEN FINALLY IN ADDITION TO THAT WE ARE ALSO LOOKING WE ARE ALSO PROPOSING A LIGHT LANE ADJUSTMENT WHICH WOULD BE THE PROPERTY LINE THAT RESIDES
[01:05:05]
BETWEEN 665 OF WHITE PLAINS ROAD AND 629 OLD WHITE PLAINS ROAD WHICH IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE PLANS IT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE JUST LET ME JUMP IN FOR ONE MOMENT AND ASK PLANNER BRITTON DO WE HAVE A REVIEW MEMORANDUM ISSUED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTORS OFFICE IN CONNECTION WITH ANY NECESSARY VARIANCES? SO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAS REVIEWED THE PLANS AND THEY HAVE INDICATED THAT THEY HAVE NO COMMENTS ON THIS PROJECT.SO I AM NOT SURE IF THOSE VARIANCES ARE ACTUALLY NECESSARY.
>> YOU HAVE TO GET CONFIRMATION ON THAT. OKAY.
SO WE'LL SEE CONFIRMATION ON THAT. THANK YOU.
I WASN'T AWARE THAT THAT THERE WERE YOU KNOW WE PRACTICE OKAY .
>> SHEA GRAHAM FEEL FREE TO CONTINUE. THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH THE WHOLE GIST OF IT. THE REST OF THE PLANS ARE PERTAINING TO THE STEEP SLOPES
. >> YEAH. IF YOU COULD WALK PROFILE FOR RIGHT IF YOU COULD WALK THE BOARD THROUGH THE ANALYSIS PLAN BEING THAT THERE IS A STEEP PERMIT REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT AND THEN ALSO OUTLINE FOR THE BOARD I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY REGULATED TREE REMOVAL REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT BUT AS TYPICAL WITH SUBDIVISIONS PARTICULARLY RESIDENTIAL IN NATURE IF THERE'S ANY PROPOSED LANDSCAPING IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT SO THE AND THE LANDSCAPING AS OF RIGHT NOW WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING PUT TOGETHER FOR LANDSCAPING BUT IN REGARDS TO THE STEEP SLOPES WE ARE DISTURBING ROUGHLY IN TERMS OF 12,000 AN AREA OF 12,000 I BELIEVE THE STEEP SLOPES IS CUTTING OFF A PIECE OF MY TEACHING.
YEAH WE HAVE ON OUR AGENDA THAT THE APPLICANT PROPOSES APPROXIMATELY 2532FT2 OF REGULATED STEEP SLOPES THOSE 15 TO 25% APPROXIMATELY 1051FT2 OF VERY STEEP SLOPES THOSE CATEGORIZED AS 25 TO 35% AND APPROXIMATELY 2737FT2 OF EXCESSIVELY STEEP SLOPES.
THOSE ARE CALCULATED AT 35% AND GREATER ALSO THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE APPROXIMATELY 423YD3 OF
EXCAVATION AND NO IMPORTED FILL . >> WOULD THAT BE ACCURATE BASED
ON YOUR INFORMATION? >> YES, THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU.
OKAY. COULD YOU SO TWO TO THE LEFT OF THE PLAN, THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING, COULD YOU ZOOM IN ON ON THE SITE PLAN MAYBE THE FIRST PAGE, SECOND PAGE OR A SECOND PAGE? YES. I'M ACTUALLY NOT SEEING IT ON
THE SITE PLAN MOVE. >> NO, I SEE THE OFFICE BUILDING.
SO SO WHEN I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DRIVE BY THE SITE EARLIER THIS WEEK AND I NOTICED THAT THERE WAS A PARKING LOT OR WHAT LOOKED LIKE SOME PAVED PARKING SPACES ABOVE THE OFFICE BUILDING THAT THAT ARE NOT REPRESENTED ON THE SITE PLAN AND FROM WHAT I CAN TELL FROM FROM THE SITE PLAN, THE LOT LINES SEEMS TO BE AN ENCROACHMENT INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. WHAT ARE THE PLANS WHERE ARE THE APPLICANT'S PLANS FOR FOR RECTIFYING THAT ENCROACHMENT AS A PART OF THIS PROJECT? THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WILL HAVE TO GREASE YOU ON THAT THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'LL HAVE TO REVIEW AND GET BACK TO
THE BOARD. >> OKAY. GO OVER HERE.
MATT, WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO PULL UP GOOGLE MAPS JUST SO WE CAN GET A UH A VIEW OF WHAT WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING? YEAH. AND AND SOMETIMES GOOGLE MAPS CAN PUT UP THE LOT LINES. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S AVAILABLE HERE BUT I THINK FROM
[01:10:04]
FROM MY OKAY THAT'S FINE THAT'S FINE I THINK IF YOU GO TO THE GIST BUT THIS IS FINE I THINK FROM THE SITE PLAN IT LOOKS LIKE THE THE LOT LINE ENDS JUST ABOUT AT THE STAIRCASE AND SOEVEN JUST BEFORE THE STAIRCASE INTO THE BEYOND THE STAIRCASE. >> YEAH, BEYOND THE STAIRCASE SO THAT SO THAT IF YOU GO BACK TO GOOGLE MAPS MAP IT'S ACTUALLY THAT NEAREST BUILDING
CORNERS WITHIN 13FT OF THE PROPERTY. >> YEAH.
SO IT LOOKS LIKE THAT ENTIRE STAIRCASE AND AND THAT OFF STREET PARKING LOOKS TO BE
ENTIRELY OFF OFF THE PROPERTY RIGHT, RIGHT. >> AND THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ON THIS WITH STAFF UM STAFF DOES BELIEVE THAT THIS IS A PRE EXISTING CONDITION NEVERTHELESS THE QUESTION WAS ASKED BY THE CHAIRPERSON ON HOW AND IF THIS IS GOING TO BE RECTIFIED BY THE APPLICANT. SO WE WOULD CERTAINLY WANT A RESPONSE FROM THE PROJECT TEAM
. THANK YOU. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM FROM THE BOARD YOU MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS A THE THE STORMWATER WAS FOR A 25
YEAR STORM. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. IS THAT THE BEST DO YOU THINK YOU CAN DO CONSIDERING THE THE AVAILABLE SPACE ARE THOSE UNDER THOSE ARE CALTEX UNDERGROUND
CALTEX THAT'S CORRECT. >> DOES THIS DOES THE SITE ALLOW FOR ANY ANY ADDITIONAL
CALTEX? >> I BELIEVE THE SITE DOES ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL CALTEX AND RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST PRELIMINARY SO NOTHING IS SET IN STONE BUT I THINK THERE IS A LITTLE BIT MORE ROOM FOR FOR ADDITIONAL CALTEX I CAN INCREASE THE STORM EVENT TO TO 50 YEAR YEAH THAT THAT WOULD THINK THAT YOU COULD LOOK INTO THAT YEAH IF YOU WERE ABLE TO LOOK INTO THAT I KNOW THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED BY THE BOARD. OKAY THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN
DEFINITELY LOOK INTO. GREAT. >> UH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT YES. SO I MENTIONED OR HAD ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY LANDSCAPING PROPOSED. WE INDICATED PRELIMINARILY THAT THERE WAS NOT YOU KNOW, TYPICAL OF RESIDENTIAL LOTS WITHIN THE TOWN, PARTICULARLY NEWLY CREATED ONES IN CONNECTION WITH SUBDIVISIONS EVEN THOUGH THERE ARE NO REGULATED TREES PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT. WE WOULD ASK THAT LANDSCAPING OF THIS SITE BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THIS APPLICATION. THAT IS SOMETHING WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK INTO AND PROVIDE FOR THE REPORT. THANK YOU. GREAT.
THIS PROPERTY IS BORDERED BY A CURB RESERVE. >> CORRECT.
YOU. >> MICROPHONE PLEASE. SORRY.
THIS PROPERTY IS BORDERED BY A PARK RESERVE. >> YES.
SO TO THE REAR OF THE LOT OPPOSITE IT'S FRONTAGE ALONG DUNNING'S THERE IS A PARK PRESERVE LOCATED BEYOND THAT AND KIND OF DOWN OF THE PROPERTY DOWN TOO SO ARE THEY WHAT ARE THE STORMWATER IMPACTS ON THE PARK SO THEY'RE REQUIRED TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S NOT A NET INCREASE OFF OF THE PROPERTY WITH THEIR STORMWATER CONTROLS.
SO REALISTICALLY THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY IMPACT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES AS PER THE CODE. OKAY. AND ALSO THEY'RE ENTERTAINING INCREASING BEYOND THE REQUIREMENT OF 25 YEAR TO 50 YEARS WITH THE REASON SO THAT WOULD ACTUALLY CONTAIN MORE STORMWATER IN THE EVENT OF AN INCREASED STORM EVENT.
OKAY. >> SORRY JUST A QUESTION. FOLLOWING UP ON ON THE STORMWATER, DOES THE PROPERTY GENERALLY PITCH TOWARDS OR WOULD GENERALLY PITCH TOWARDS DUNNING'S OR PITCHED BACK TOWARDS THE PARK PROPERTY IN THE PROPOSED CONDITION IN THE PROPOSED CONDITION A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DOES PITCH TOWARDS DUNNING BUT A MAJORITY OF THE PROPERTY DOES HEAD TOWARDS THE UM THE AND 65 ALL THINGS PROPERTY AS WELL.
BUT IF THE BUT THAT'S AN EXISTING CONDITION AND WE ARE TAKING OFF THE LINE THE AREA OF THE HOUSE AND THE DRIVEWAY AND THAT ALSO IS KIND OF BLOCKING A LOT OF WATER FROM HEADING
[01:15:03]
TOWARDS IT. SO IF I'M ON THE WEST PLAINS THE LAND NOW WATER TO HEAD TOWARDS THAT STREAM SO A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DOES KIND OF PITCH TOWARDS 65 OF WHITE PLAINS ROAD BUT A GOOD PORTION OF IT DOES GO ON TOWARDS DANIELS DRIVE.>> OKAY. SO UM AGAIN I THINK ADDRESSING THE BOARD'S REQUEST TO CONSIDER UPGRADING THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT TO ACCOMMODATE A 50 YEAR STORM WOULD CERTAINLY BE
HELPFUL IN THIS INSTANCE RIGHT . >> UM, TOWN TOWN PLANNER BRITTON IF YOU COULD JUST PULL UP THE GOOGLE MAPS ONCE ONCE MORE I DID HAVE ONE ONE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO TO DRILL DOWN ON SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOU CAN GO TO STREET VIEW LIKE RIGHT THERE. YEAH. SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE IS A OH
WHERE ARE WE NOW. >> YES LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A SIDEWALK ON THE OTHER END OF DUNNING'S WHICH THEN TERMINATES AND THERE THERE'S NO CORRESPONDING CROSSWALK OR SIDEWALK ON ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET IN PART BECAUSE THERE SEEMS TO BE CARS PARKING IN THE TOWN RIGHT OF WAY. AND SO MR. OR MR. GRAHAM YOU KNOW AS YOU CONDUCT YOUR REVIEW OF THIS PARKING SPACE AREA, IF YOU WERE ABLE TO INVESTIGATE THE FEASIBILITY OF A SIDEWALK THAT WOULD CONNECT TO THE EXISTING SIDEWALK ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND AS THE BOARD CONDUCTS ITS REVIEW AND THAT'S
SOMETHING YOU CAN DEFINITELY LOOK AT YOU THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE
BOARD? >> SO CURRENTLY THE WATER FROM HERE FROM THE THE PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE THAT THEY WANT TO SUBDIVIDE RUNS INTO DUNNING. IT DOESN'T RUN INTO THE FRONT
OF THIS PROPERTY INTO WHITE PLAINS ROAD. >> YES.
IF YOU CAN PULL UP PAGE FOUR OF THE PLANS BECAUSE I DON'T SEE COUNCILOR BRITTON OR PREVENTION FOR THE CURRENT PROPERTY YET WOULD THERE BE ANY STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS MADE ON THE THE OFFICE PORTION OF THE SUBDIVISION AT THIS POINT IN TIME THERE ARE NO PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS PROPOSED FOR THE EXISTING PROPERTY OR AN EXISTING BUILDING AND SO WHAT IS THAT ONCE THE PROPERTY IS SUBDIVIDED SO THE REAR THAT THAT'S A THAT'S A THAT'S AN
ASPHALT PARKING LOT IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT.
SO GRAVEL SO ATTORNEY ATTORNEY MADONNA SO I ASSUME I ASSUME THE THE THE PROPERTY AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS IS MEETS THE THE THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS UNDER THE CODE IF THE PROPERTY WAS SUBDIVIDED WOULD WOULD EACH LOT INDEPENDENTLY NEED TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. YES AND SO THE SUBDIVIDED OFFICE PORTION WITH THE PAVED PARKING LOT IN THE BACK WOULD THAT NEW LOT ONE MEET THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE REQUIREMENTS
SO THAT SHOULD BE SHOWN IN THE APPLICATION MATERIALS. >> COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THAT? SO THAT'S GOT THE TABLE UP MATT COULD YOU ZOOM IN ON THAT JUST A BIT MORE? THANK YOU SO THAT'S THE OFFICE BUILDING NOT UNTIL IT'S IN THE
PROPOSED CONDITION 64%. >> SO 65 IS REQUIRED AND IT'S 1% OFF.
>> OKAY. PERMITTED PERMITTED. YEAH.
THANK YOU. AND THE OTHER LOT. >> RIGHT.
37.25 AND SO WHEN YOU OUTLINE THAT VARIANCES WERE REQUIRED BEFORE, COULD YOU SHOW US WHERE THAT'S OUTLINED IN THESE CHARTS ? YES AND THE DRIVEWAY FOR WHICH PROPERTY I'M SORRY FOR FOR A LOT TWO IT WOULD BE COLLABORATE REQUIRED AND SO THAT'S THAT'S AN R TEN. OKAY. YES AND I KIND OF DISTRICT 100 VERSUS WHAT WAS IT 99.4 AND THE 9.4 AND WHAT WAS NOT ABLE TO FIND THE EXTRA HALF A FOOT WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT IT BUT WE WERE STRUGGLING WITH BALANCING THE THE AREAS OF THE PROPERTY
[01:20:02]
BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY TAKE A LOOK AT IT AND SEE YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SHIFT THE LINE SEVEN INCHES OVER WITHOUT IMPACTING TOO MUCH AND NEGATE ANY POTENTIAL NEED FOR THAT VARIANCE. AND WHAT WAS THE SECOND THAT YOU THE SECOND WAS A FRAMEWORK IT WAS GOING VARIANCE FOR ABOUT ONE BUT THAT'S NOT CHANGING IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT.NO, THAT'S NOT CHANGED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT THAT'S EXISTING CONDITION, RIGHT? SO IN ALL LIKELIHOOD THAT WOULD NOT BE NECESSARY BEING THAT IT'S NOT CHANGING IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT PREEXISTING NON CONFORMING AND AND SO CAN YOU JUST HOVER OVER LOT ONE WHERE IS SO THE THE PERVIOUS SURFACE IS PRIMARILY THE GREEN AREA ALONG THE ROADWAY ON DUNNING'S IS THAT CORRECT AND THERE'S THERE'S ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE ALONG THE BOTTOM PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BUT YES THAT'S WHERE THAT'S
WHERE THE PROPERTY SURFACES. >> OKAY. AND WOULD THERE BE SPACE IN EITHER OF THOSE AREAS TO DO CALL TAX ON ON THAT PROPERTY AS WELL OR THE EXISTING BUILDING FOR A SITE ONE YES RIGHT. BECAUSE THE EXISTING CONSTRUCTION PREDATES THE STORMWATER REQUIREMENTS SO THERE IS NO THERE'S LIKELY NO STORMWATER SYSTEM EXISTING ON
THAT SITE. >> YES, THERE'S SOMETHING THAT THE TEAM COULD LOOK INTO.
OH THERE'S A DRAIN IN THAT. HAVE YOU EXPLORED WHERE THAT WHAT THE CAPACITY OF THAT INLET IS AND WHERE IT DISCHARGES? NO, BUT WE CAN DEFINITELY LOOK INTO THAT NOW THAT WOULD BE GREAT. THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATE IT SO THAT CAPACITY THE CONDITION AND WHERE IT DISCHARGES OKAY GREAT. AND IT'S CURRENT CONDITION IS YEAH OKAY YEAH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT.
SO IF IT'S SOMETHING EVERYTHING ALL RIGHT, GREAT. >> SO SO MR. GRAHAM, IF YOU CAN IF YOU CAN TAKE THESE QUESTIONS AND PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE FOR US, THEN WE WILL SCHEDULE ANOTHER WORK SESSION AT A FUTURE MEETING ONCE ONCE WE HAVE YOUR WRITTEN RESPONSES.
OKAY, GREAT. WE WILL GET BACK TO THE BOARD AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU AND THANK YOU SO
MUCH. >> THANK YOU. HAVE A GOOD EVENING.
THANK YOU EVERYONE. THANK YOU. >> ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NO ADDITIONAL BUSINESS, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 8:37
P.M.. >> WELL, SO MOVE. >> WOW.
MOVED MR. PELINKA AND SECOND MS. ROBINSON ALL IN FAVOR? I CHAIR VOTES I THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING IS ADJOURNED
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.