Apr 16, 2026 Zoning Board of Appeals

[00:00:03]

. YEAH. RECORDING IN PROGRESS.

>> GOOD EVENING, ALL. JUST A MOMENT. MADAM SECRETARY, CAN WE HAVE

THE ROLL CALL PLEASE? >> YES, MADAM CHAIR. WE'RE GOING TO BEGIN ROLL CALL IT BUNTING SMITH HERE IS PRESIDENT CHRISTY NEC HERE IS PRESENT LOUIS CRITCHLOW HERE IS PRESENT. DIANE USUALLY HERE IS PRESENT WILLIAM BLAND PRESENT IS PRESENT. SHAUNA JENKINSON PRESENT IS PRESENT.

PETER BLAIR HERE IS PRESENT AND THAT CONCLUDES OUR ROLL CALL. MADAM CHAIR THE PRESENTLY EXIST A VACANCY AND THE NUMBER OF MEMBERS OR I'M SORRY I TAKE THAT BACK WE HAVE THE NUMBERS HOWEVER IN LIGHT OF THE VACANCY THAT MR. BLAIR IS OUR ALTERNATE MEMBER HE WILL BE VOTING ON ANY MATTER THAT REQUIRES A VOTE. TONIGHT'S MEETING THE MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF GREENBERG WILL COME TO ORDER. WE HAVE SIX CASES SCHEDULED FOR TONIGHT'S MEETING.

HOWEVER, LOOKING FORWARD, THE ZONING BOARD WILL HAVE OUR NEXT REGULAR MEETING ON THURSDAY, FRIDAY, FRIDAY ON THURSDAY, MAY 21ST. PLEASE MARK YOUR CALENDAR ACCORDINGLY WE MAY LIMIT TIME TO HEAR EACH CASE IF WE CANNOT FINISH HEARING EACH CASE IT WILL BE ADJOURNED TO ANOTHER MEETING TO BE COMPLETED HOPEFULLY AT THAT TIME AS IS IN THE PAST IN ORDER TO SAVE TIME WE WILL WAIVE THE READING OF THE PROPERTY LOCATION AND THE RELIEFS SOUGHT FOR EACH CASE. HOWEVER, THE REPORTER WILL INSERT THIS INFORMATION ON THE RECORD. THE INFORMATION ALSO APPEARS IN THE AGENDA FOR TONIGHT'S EVENING AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING. TONIGHT'S CASE IS WE WILL MEET AND DISCUSS EACH CASE. NORMALLY WE WILL SIT AT THAT TABLE THERE EVERYONE IS WELCOME TO LISTEN TO OUR SELECTED DELIBERATIONS. HOWEVER, THE PUBLIC WILL NOT BE PERMITTED TO SPEAK OR PARTICIPATE AFTER OUR DELIBERATION ON ALL THE CASES WE WILL ANNOUNCE THE BOARD'S DECISION FOR THE FORMAL RECORD AND FOR IT TO BE BROADCAST TO THE COMMUNITY. IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK TONIGHT YOU MUST COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS OR YOUR PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATION.

WE HAVE HEARD TESTIMONY ON TWO OF THESE CASES AT PRIOR MEETINGS OR PRIOR TESTIMONY IS ALREADY IN THE RECORD AND SHOULD NOT BE REPEATED. THE FIRST CASE WE WILL HEAR

TESTIMONY ON TONIGHT IS CASE 2539 SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET. >> GOOD EVENING MICHAEL.

SANTA LIQUIDO WITH SAND SIGNS AND ORDINANCE IN YONKERS, NEW YORK.

I'M HERE ON BEHALF OF SPROUTS FARMERS MARKET REGARDING THE VISIBILITY BASED VARIANCE REQUEST AT 393 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE I WAS IN FRONT OF YOU LAST MONTH OF THE MONTH BEFORE PRESENTING A SIGN AT SEVEN FOR OVERALL HEIGHT YOU REQUESTED THAT MORE INFORMATION AND A SIZE REDUCTION. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT SUCH A NOW SEEK A SIX INCH

VARIANCE. >> I HAVE MEMBERS OF SPROUTS JOINING ME WE HAVE LINWOOD AND

J.R. MANAGERS OF SPROUTS. >> IF WE COULD START OUR SLIDES SLIDE ONE NEXT ONE SLIDE TWO.

SO THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS THE PARCEL OUTLINE THAT THE SHOPPING CENTER PROPERTY AS YOU COULD SEE THE TENNIS SPACE IS LOCATED WITHIN EXISTING MULTI-TENANT RETAIL CENTER WITH FRONTAGE ALONG CENTRAL PARK AVENUE. THIS SITE IS NOT POSITIONED DIRECTLY PARALLEL WITH THE ROADWAY WHICH BECOMES AN IMPORTANT FACTOR IN VISIBILITY.

>> I DON'T THINK THE RIGHT SLIDE IS UP. YOU HAVE A MAP UP A GOOD ONE

THERE. >> THAT'S THE PARCEL MAP NOW WE'LL GO TO SLIDE THREE.

SLIDE THREE IS TO PROVIDE A MACRO CONTEXT OF THE SITE. THIS MAP PROVIDES A REGIONAL

[00:05:04]

DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES. >> SLIDE FOUR PLEASE. THIS EXHIBIT HIGHLIGHTS THE IMMEDIATE TRADE AREA WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 15 MILE RADIUS THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 14 GROCERY STORE OPTIONS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA. WHILE THIS IS A HIGHLY COMPETITIVE CORRIDOR, SPROUTS REPRESENTS A UNIQUE OFFERING WITHIN THIS MARKET WITH THE CLOSEST COMPARABLE RETAILER BEING OF WHOLE FOODS LOCATED FURTHER FROM THE SITE AND IT'S CLEAR AND EFFECTIVE IDENTIFICATION IS CRITICAL FOR THE ENVIRONMENT.

>> SLIDE FIVE THIS CLOSER VIEW SHOWS THE FULL SHOPPING CENTER LAYOUT AND THE SPECIFIC LOCATION OF THE SPROUTS TENANT SPACE WITHIN THE BUILDING. IMPORTANTLY THE TENANT FRONTAGE IS ORIENTATED ON A DIAGONAL RELATIVE TO CENTRAL PARK AVENUE WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACTS THE

VISIBILITY FOR BOTH NORTHBOUND AND SOUTHBOUND TRAFFIC. >> SLIDE SIX THIS IMAGE SHOWS THE CURRENT CONDITIONS OF THE TENANT SPACE WHICH IS UNDERGOING REDEVELOPMENT AS PART OF THIS. IN ADDITION THE FACADE IS BEING MODERNIZED AND NEW SIGNAGE IS

BEING INTRODUCED TO ESTABLISH TENANT IDENTITIES. >> SLIDE SEVEN.

>> THIS RENDERING ILLUSTRATES THE PROPOSED FACADE AND DESIGN AND SIGNAGE DESIGN.

THE SIGN HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY DESIGNED TO BE CLEAN, LINEAR AND ARCHITECTURALLY INTEGRATED.

HOWEVER, DUE TO THE SCALE OF FACADE INVISIBILITY CONSTRAINTS WILL REVEAL THE ADDITIONAL SIX INCHES IN HEIGHT IS NECESSARY FOR FUNCTIONAL LEGIBILITY NOT ESTHETICS.

>> SLIDE EIGHT. >> >> THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS THE PROPOSED SIGNAGE IN DETAIL INCLUDING OVERALL DIMENSIONS AND AS YOU COULD SEE THE SIGNAGE HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO BE CLEAN, LINEAR AND PROPORTIONATE TO THE BUILDING FACADE. THE TOTAL WIDTH ALIGNS WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS OF THE STOREFRONT AND THE HEIGHT AT FOUR FOOT SIX INCHES REMAINS MODEST RELATIVE TO THE OVERALL SCALE OF THE BUILDING. IMPORTANTLY, THIS SLIDE DEMONSTRATES THAT THE REQUESTED INCREASE IS NOT AN ATTEMPT TO CREATE OVERSIZE SIZE OR DOMINANT SIGNAGE AT FOUR FEET RELATIVELY THE SIGNAGE BECOMES VISUALLY COMPRESSED RELATIVE TO THE FACADE AND MORE IMPORTANTLY REDUCES LEGIBILITY AT THE EXACT DISTANCES WHERE DRIVERS NEED TO BE MAKING THE DECISION. THE ADDITIONAL SIX INCHES ALLOWS FOR EARLIER RECOGNITION

WITHOUT CHANGING THE CHARACTER OF THE SIGNAGE. >> SLIDE NINE.

>> THIS EXHIBIT ADDRESSES IMPORTANT QUESTION WHICH OFTEN COMES UP WHETHER THE EXISTING PYLON SIGN COULD SERVICE SUFFICIENT IDENTIFICATION FOR THE TENANT.

ON THE LEFT WE SHOWED A MOCKUP OF THE PROPOSED FACE ON THE TOP AND SORRY OF THE PROPOSED FACE CHANGE TO THE EXISTING MULTI-TENANT PYLON WHICH WOULD INCLUDE SPROUTS AS ONE OF THE SEVERAL LISTED TENANTS. HOWEVER, AS SHOWN IN THE SHARED SIGN STRUCTURE WITH MULTIPLE TENANT PANELS COMPETING FOR VISIBILITY, THE SPARSE CARNO WOULD BE ONE OF MANY AND DUE TO ITS SIZE AND PLACEMENT WITHIN THE OVERALL SIGN IT DOES NOT PROVIDE STRONG A DOMINANT

IDENTIFICATION PARTICULARLY AT A DISTANCE. >> YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ALONG CENTRAL AVENUE CENTRAL PARK AVENUE INCLUDING THROUGH OBSTRUCTIONS CORRIDOR GEOMETRY AND A GENERAL VISUAL ENVIRONMENT THAT DRIVES THE EXPECTED DRIVERS EXPERIENCE EVEN WITH THE ADDITION OF THE SPROUTS SIGNS THE FILE ON THESE CONDITIONS LIMIT THE ABILITY FOR MOTORISTS TO CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE TENANT IN ADVANCE. THE PILOT FUNCTIONS AS A SUPPLEMENTAL DIRECTORY BUT IT DOES NOT REPLACE THE NEED FOR CLEAR BUILDING MOUNTED

IDENTIFICATION. >> SLIDE TEN. THAT WAS NINE.

>> THAT WAS NINE. THAT SHOWS THAT SHOWS THE PYLON SIGN AND WE GAVE IT TO YOU IN CONTENT OPTIONS WHICH YOU SAW AT THE LAST MEETING. SLIDE TEN.

HIGHLAND PARK IS NOT EXIST AT THIS TIME. IT DOES EXIST IS THIS THERE IS

A STATED WHERE DO YOU SEE IT IN THE PICTURE? >> YOU'RE JUST SAYING YOU'RE

GOING TO BE COMPETING ON PINNACLE ON MAIN STREET. >> I KNOW I'M LOOKING AT THE VIDEO WHERE THE SIDEWALK IS. I DON'T SEE A SIGN. I NOTICE THAT'S PHYSICALLY THERE. I SEE. THAT'S WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT. IT'S LIKE TEN STEPS. >> SO BEFORE WE MOVE TO THE

[00:10:01]

>> IN THESE SITUATIONS EVEN MODEST INCREASES IN SIGHT HEIGHT AND THEREFORE IN SIGN HEIGHT AND THEREFORE LETTER SCALE AND SPACING CAN HAVE A MEANINGFUL IMPACT ON HOW QUICKLY AND EFFECTIVELY A DRIVER CAN RECOGNIZE AND PROCESS THE INFORMATION.

SO THIS CHART PROVIDES A BASELINE OF UNDERSTANDING THAT ADEQUATE LETTER SIZE IS NOT JUST A DESIGN PREFERENCE IT'S DIRECTLY TIED TO VISIBILITY RECOGNITION AND ULTIMATELY SAFE

DECISION MAKING ALONG THE ROADWAY. >> SLIDE 11.

>> NOW I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THE VISIBILITY STUDY WHICH EVALUATES BOTH DIRECTIONS OF TRAVEL ALONG CENTRAL PARK AVENUE. WE'LL BEGIN WITH THE SOUTHBOUND APPROACH TOWARDS THE SITES LIKE 12TH AT APPROXIMATELY 690FT NORTH OF THE SITES FOR OUTSTANDING SPACES NOT VISIBLE AT ALL INTERVENING COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS FULLY OBSTRUCT THE LINE OF SIGHT MEANING DRIVERS HAVE NO AWARENESS OF THE SITE AT THIS DISTANCE.

SLIDE 13 AT 475FT THIS IMAGE SHOWS THE BUILDING MASS BEGIN TO APPEAR.

HOWEVER, DUE TO THE DIAGONAL ORIENTATION OF THE FACADE, THE TENANT'S FRONTAGE IS NOT FACING THE ROADWAY AND NO SIGNAGE OR IDENTIFYING FEATURES ARE VISIBLE.

SO WHILE THE BUILDING IS TECHNICALLY VISIBLE IT IS NOT RECOGNIZABLE.

SLIDE 14. AT APPROXIMATELY 150FT THIS IS THE FIRST POINT WHERE THE TENANT BECOMES IDENTIFIABLE. HOWEVER THIS OCCURS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SITE ACCESS POINT. DRIVERS MUST SMILE TENNESSEE RECOGNIZE THE DESTINATION PROCESSING THE INFORMATION AND MANEUVER INTO THE APPROPRIATE LANE AT CORRIDOR SPEEDS.

>> THIS RESULTS IN ONLY A 2 OR 3 SECOND REACTION TIME. >> SLIDE 15.

AT THE SITE ITSELF FULL VISIBILITY IS ACHIEVED. >> HOWEVER THIS REFERENCE REPRESENTS THE FINAL OPPORTUNITY FOR ACCESS NOT THE APPROPRIATE DISTANCE FOR INITIAL RECOGNITION. THIS CREATES A CONDITION WHERE DRIVERS MISS THE MAIN ENTRANCE AND MAKE ABRUPT MOVEMENTS TO CONTINUE TO PASS THE SITE AND REROUTE.

>> SLIDE 16. >> WE SEE A SIMILAR WE SEE A SIMILAR AND IN SOME WAYS MORE CONSTRAINED CONDITION IN THE NORTHBOUND DIRECTION. THIS SECTION EVALUATES THE NORTHBOUND APPROACH. SLIDE 17. THIS IS THE NORTHBOUND APPROACH WHICH IS ESTABLISHED ESTABLISHED OBSTRUCTION. NORTHBOUND AS YOU COULD SEE SHAKE SHACK IS A FIXED OBSTRUCTION REINFORCING AND ALSO A NOT SELF CREATED

HARDSHIP. >> AT SIX HUNDRED AND 75FT SOUTH OF THE SITE THIS EXTENDED SPACE IS COMPLETELY OBSTRUCTED . THE SHAKE SHACK BUILDING SITS DIRECTLY IN THE LINE OF SIGHT BLOCKING OFF VISIBILITY OF THE FACADE AND SIGNAGE.

SLIDE 18. AT 450FT THE OBSTRUCTIONS CONTINUE EVEN THOUGH THE CORRIDOR IS VISIBLE, THE TENANT SPACE ITSELF IS NOT AND DRIVERS STILL HAVE NO AWARENESS OF THIS

PRIOR TO LOCATION. >> SLIDE 19 AT TWO HUNDRED AND 50FT THE BUILDING BEGINS TO EMERGE. HOWEVER, EXISTING TREES LANDSCAPING, LANDSCAPING PARTIALLY OBSTRUCT THE FACADE AND THE TENANT IS STILL NOT CLEARLY IDENTIFIABLE.

AT THIS POINT THE DRIVERS HAVE ALREADY WITHIN APPROXIMATELY 180FT OF THE SIGNALIZED ENTRANCE LEAVING ONLY ABOUT 3 OR 4 SECONDS TO REACT TO THE DRIVEWAY.

>> SLIDE 20. AT APPROXIMATELY 150FT THE TENANT FINALLY BECOMES IDENTIFY ABLE. HOWEVER, THIS OCCURS IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SIGNALS ENTRY ENTRANCE WHERE DRIVERS MUST ALREADY BE POSITIONED TO TURN.

IF MISS DRIVERS MUST TRAVEL APPROXIMATELY 700FT TO THE NEXT ENTRYWAY WHICH IS THE NEXT MALL AN INTERSECTION TO TURN IN TO THE MCDONALD'S PARKING LOT. SLIDE 21.

[00:15:01]

>> THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS EXAMPLES OF SIGNAGE FULLY WHICH FULLY COMPLIES IN HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS. WHILE THESE SIGNS MEET CODE THEY ILLUSTRATE AN IMPORTANT POINT THAT COMPLIANCE THAT IS NOT ALWAYS RESULT IN EFFECTIVE SIGNAGE.

>> AS YOU COULD SEE MANY OF THESE SIGNS APPEAR APPEAR TO BE UNDERSIZED RELATIVE TOIR BUILDID ARE NOT EASILY READABLE FROM THE ROADWAY. FROM A DRIVER'S PERSPECTIVE THE LETTERING CAN BE DIFFICULT TO DISTINGUISH AT A DISTANCE LENDING LIMITING THE ABILITY FOR QUICK I GET FOR QUICKLY IDENTIFYING THE TENANT. THIS IS PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT IN COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS LIKE CENTRAL PARK AVENUE WHERE DRIVERS ARE MAKING DECISIONS IN REAL TIME AND RELY ON CLEAR LEGIBLE SIGNAGE. THESE EXAMPLES HELP DEMONSTRATE THAT WHILE CODE ESTABLISHED ESTABLISHED AS A BASELINE GRADE IT DOES NOT ALWAYS ACCOUNT FOR SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS SUCH AS BUILDING SCALE ORIENTATION AND VISIBILITY CONSTRAINTS.

>> IN THE CASE OF SPROUTS, A PLOT APPLYING THE DISTRICT FOUR FOOT LIMITATION WOULD CREATE A SIMILAR CONDITION WHERE THE SIGNAGE IS TECHNICALLY COMPLIANT BUT FUNCTIONALLY DISMISSED. THE REQUESTED SIX INCH THE REQUESTED SIX INCH INCREASE IS INTENDED TO AVOID THE OUTCOME AND ENSURE THAT THE SIGNAGE IS BOTH PROPORTIONATE TO THE BUILDING AND READABLE WITHIN THE LIMITED VISIBILITY CONDITIONS WE HAVE IDENTIFIED.

SLIDE 22. >> THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS EXAMPLES OF SIGNAGE THAT DO NOT MEET STRICT CODE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS BUT WAS APPROVED BY THIS BOARD THROUGH GV THROUGH DEVIATIONS OR VARIANCE PROCESS. THE APPROVALS WERE GRANTED FOR REASONS VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING HERE TODAY SPECIFICALLY IN THE NEED FOR APPROPRIATE PORTION PROPORTIONALITY FOR THE BUILDING IMPROVED READABILITY FOR MOTOR MOTORISTS AND THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SIGNAGE AND THE DISTANCE FROM THE ROADWAY.

IN EACH OF THESE CASES THE JURISDICTION RECOGNIZE THAT THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE CODE WOULD RESULT IN SIGNAGE THAT WAS NOT FULLY EFFECTIVE AND THE MODEST INCREASE IN HEIGHT WAS NECESSARY TO ENSURE VISIBILITY AND USABILITY. THIS HIGHLIGHTS AN IMPORTANT POINT THAT THE SIGN CODES ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE A FRAMEWORK BUT THEY ARE ALSO ALLOW FOR FLEXIBILITY WHERE SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS CREATE PRACTICAL CHALLENGES.

IN THE CASE OF SPROUTS WE WERE ASKING FOR A MUCH MORE LIMITED ADJUSTMENT TO SIX INCHES IN HEIGHT TO ADDRESS SIMILAR CONDITIONS RELATIVE RELIC RELATED TO VISIBILITY BUILDING ORIENTATION AND RECOGNITION DISTANCE. SO THIS REQUEST IS NOT UNIQUE OR EXCESSIVE IN ITS IN ITS CONSIST IN HOW SIMILAR THE SITUATIONS ARE EVALUATED AND

APPROVED IN PRACTICE. >> SLIDE 23. >> THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS EXISTING TENANT SIGNAGE WITHIN THE SAME SHOPPING CENTER AS PROPOSED SPROUTS THE SPROUTS LOCATION AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE THESE SIGNS ARE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY ALONG CENTRAL PARK AVENUE AND INSTEAD RELY ON A CLOSE RANGE VISIBILITY. ONCE A DRIVER HAS ALREADY ENTERED THE SITE JUST REFLECTS HOW THE PLAZA CURRENTLY FUNCTIONS.

TENANT TEN IF A TENANT ID OCCURS INTERNALLY NOT FROM THE ROADWAY FOR SPROUTS HOWEVER THIS CREATES A CHALLENGE BECAUSE VISIBILITY TO THE SITE IS ALREADY DELAYED.

DRIVERS MUST BE ABLE TO CLEARLY IDENTIFY THE DESTINATION AT THE BUILDING FRONTAGE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. THE PYLON SIGN FUNCTIONS AS A SHARED DIRECTORY AND INTERNAL SIGNAGE IS ONLY EFFECTIVE ONCE INSIDE THE SITE THE BUILDING MOUNTED SIGN BECOMES A PRIMARY

METHOD OF IDENTIFICATION FOR US. >> THIS IS WHY IT IS CRITICAL THAT THE WALL SIGNAGE IS LEGIBLE A PROPERLY IS APPROPRIATELY SCALED SO THAT DRIVERS CAN RECOGNIZE THE TENANT IN TIME TO SAFELY ACCESS THE SITE.

>> THE REQUESTED SIX INCH ENSURES THIS IDENTIFICATION ELEMENT FUNCTIONS EFFECTIVELY

WITHIN THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE PLAZA. >> BASED ON THE VISIBILITY ANALYSIS ANALYSIS THE SPROUTS TENANT IS NOT IDENTICAL IDENTIFIABLE TO DRIVERS UNTIL APPROXIMATELY 150FT OR LESS FROM THE SITE IN BOTH DIRECTIONS.

AT PREVAILING SPEEDS ALONG CENTRAL PARK AVENUE THIS RESULTS IN A REACTION WINDOW OF APPROXIMATELY 2 TO 3 SECONDS WHICH IS INSUFFICIENT FOR SAFE AND PREDICTABLE MANEUVERING.

>> THE REQUESTED SIX INCH INCREASE IN SIGN HEIGHT IS A MINIMAL AND REASONABLE ADJUSTMENT THAT WILL IMPROVE LEGIBILITY AT EARLIER DISTANCES ,ALLOWING DRIVERS TO IDENTIFY THE SITE SOONER AND MAKE SAFER AND MORE INFORMED DECISIONS. THIS REQUEST IS DIRECTLY TIED TO SITE SPECIFIC CONSTRAINTS INCLUDING BUILDING ORIENTATION ,INTERVENING STRUCTURES AND ROADWAY CONDITIONS AND REPRESENT A MINIMUM RELIEF NECESSARY TO ADDRESS THESE CHALLENGES. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL.

[00:20:07]

>> IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. COULD YOU LOOK AT SLIDE 17 PLEASE? SLIDE 17 IS LABELED NORTH BOUND AND IT'S AVAILABLE IN THE WRONG WAY. YEAH. DO WE KNOW WHAT SIZE 717 IS?

>> IT'S A PICTURE OF CENTRAL AVENUE FACING NORTHBOUND. WHERE AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE H MART SHOPPING CENTER. IT SAYS 17 ON THE BOTTOM CORNER .

YEP. WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THAT? OKAY. WELL, IT LOOKS TO ME THIS IS DESCRIBING THE SIGHTLINES THAT YOU WOULD GET FOR DRIVING IN THE NORTHBOUND LANE AND THE PICTURES TAKEN FROM THE

NORTHBOUND LANE. >> CORRECT. RIGHT.

OKAY. IF YOU TURN TO PAGE 18 WHERE YOU'RE HIGHLIGHTING THE OBSTRUCTION OF SHAKE SHACK, YOU'VE MOVED A FEW FEET FURTHER NORTH AND NOW YOU'RE TAKING THE PICTURE FROM THE EXTREME SOUTHBOUND LANE. SO I'M SAYING THAT THIS PICTURE IS NOT AN ACCURATE REPRESENTATION OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROVE HERE AND I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

I HAVE ONE OTHER QUESTION. DO WE KNOW YET WHO THE TENANTS WILL BE THAT ARE SHARING THE

SPACE THAT THAT WAS ALL THE CHRISTMAS TREE? >> NOW IT'S SOMETHING ELSE.

THE TENANTS THAT WILL BE SHARING THE SPACE IS BEST BUY AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN

FRONT OF YOU SHORTLY AFTER ME? >> CAN I YOU THANK YOU. WHO LEFT? I DID. I DO HAVE A QUESTION AND IT JUST BASICALLY HAS TO DO WITH THE LAST SLIDE WHICH SHOWS ALL THE OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE SAME SHOPPING CENTER NOT IN THE

SAME SHOPPING CENTER ALL WITHIN THE SAME SHOP. >> OKAY.

LAST SLIDE. I'M SORRY. YES.

SLIDE 20 THREE IS IT? DO YOU HAVE ANY INFORMATION WHETHER THOSE STORES ARE

STRUGGLING BECAUSE THEY COMPLY WITH THE EXISTING ZONING RULE? >> NO, MA'AM, I DON'T HAVE ANY OF THAT INFORMATION. BUT AS YOU CAN CLEARLY SEE YOU CAN'T READ ANY OF THOSE SIGNS

ON THE BUILDING ON CENTRAL PARK AVENUE. >> I'M SURE IF I WAS TO INTERVIEW EACH OF THOSE TENANTS THEY WOULD ALL TELL ME THAT THEIR SIGNS ARE TOO SMALL AND I THINK WE CAN ALL CLEARLY SEE BASED ON THAT WE WOULD IF THEIR BUSINESSES ARE NOT STRUGGLING AND IF YOU COULD PULL UP SLIDE 23 PLEASE. I THINK WE ALL COULD CLEARLY SEE THAT YOU CAN'T READ ANY OF THE EXISTING SIGNS ON THE BUILDING AT THIS BOARD APPROVED. NOW A LOT OF THOSE SIGNS DON'T HAVE THE HEIGHT OR THE OR THE

SIZE OF OUR LOCATION. >> SO ONE OF THE THINGS I WANT TO DO COMMENT SO I HAVE SOME OTHER QUESTIONS. I WAS DRIVING DOWN THERE TONIGHT AND I COULD READ EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THE SIGNS FROM THE STREET AND THE PICTURES YOU PRESENTED LOOK MUCH FURTHER AWAY. OKAY. THERE IS SOMETHING ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU TAKE PICTURES WITH AN IPHONE CALLED PERSPECTIVE DISTORTION WHERE THE CAMERA GOES TO A WIDE ANGLE LENS AND IT AUTOMATICALLY LOOKS FURTHER AWAY.

SO THE PICTURES THAT YOU GUYS ARE PRESENTING AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT THAT'S BUT I DON'T WANT PEOPLE TO COME AWAY WITH THE IDEA THAT THE CODE THAT WE HAVE DOESN'T ALLOW FOR READABILITY BECAUSE IT DOES I JUST LITERALLY DRAW I GO THAT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT WITH ALL DUE RESPECT THE LAST PAGE IS A PICTURE THAT I TOOK AND I DID NOT TAKE IT WITH THAT PERSPECTIVE ON MY CAMERA AND YOU COULD CLEARLY SEE THAT YOU CANNOT READ THEM IN THOSE

PHOTOS. >> I CAN TELL YOU I AM THERE TODAY AND YOU CAN AND YOUR AND YOUR IPHONE WHEN YOU TAKE THOSE PICTURES IT AUTOMATICALLY FOR WIDE ANGLE IT'S OF PERSPECTIVE DISTORTION. OKAY. THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS YOU WERE ASKING FOR TWO VARIANCES. I THINK NOW YOU'RE ONLY ASKING FOR ONE.

YOU WERE AT IS THAT CORRECT? >> WE WERE ONLY ASKING FOR ONE IN ON THE ORIGINAL ONE AS WELL.

>> OKAY. BECAUSE IT HAD BECAUSE OF THE DESIGN SIZE WAS IN OVERALL OF SEVEN FOOT AND THE BOARD REQUESTED THAT WE BRING THE SIZE DOWN AND RE-ORIENTATE IT INTO A LINEAR FASHION INSTEAD OF A STACKED FASHION. AND IN MY DENIAL LETTER WHERE IN THE CODE THAT WE CAN HAVE A FOUR FOOT LOGO WHICH IS OUR SPROUT NAME AND WE'RE REQUESTING IT AT FOUR FOOT SIX SO WE'RE ONLY REQUESTING A SIX INCH VARIANCE.

>> OKAY. BUT IS THAT JUST ONE VARIANCE OR IS IT BECAUSE THE WORDS ARE TALLER TOO? THAT ADDS TO THE OVERALL HEIGHT IN THE WORD?

[00:25:01]

BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THIS SAYS. >> THAT'S WHAT IT SAID ON THE ORIGINAL PAPERWORK. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING WE DON'T HAVE NEW PAPERWORK.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. BUT I WANT TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ADDRESSING THE CONCERNS THAT WE EXPRESSED TO YOU AND PRESENTING US WITH THESE NEW OPTIONS.

SO THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. IT WAS ALSO ONE OF THE CLEAREST

SIGN PRESENTATIONS WE'VE EVER RECEIVED. >> I THANK YOU FOR THAT.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU BEFORE WE CALL. I SAID I WAS GOING TO ASK IF I COULD JUST FOR OUR DELIBERATION DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PERCENTAGES OF THE INCREASE

THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR? NO, IT'S NOT. >> NUMBER TWO, I DO APPRECIATE THE NEW DRAWING BECAUSE I DID ACCESS IN THE LAST MEETING AS TO WHETHER OR NOT YOU WERE GOING TO BE THE SOLE TENANT AND THAT'S WHY INITIALLY I WAS CONFUSED BECAUSE I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO BE PLACING YOUR SIGN WHERE THE OLD CHRISTMAS TREE SHOP OR THEREFORE YOU

COULD HAVE PUT THE MARK. >> SO I SOLD IT ON. BUT NOW THAT I SEE THAT IS THIS SECTION OF THE STORE THAT'S GOING TO BE CLOSER TO THE ROAD. THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO JUST KNOW WHAT EXACTLY THE PERCENTAGE IS. SO WE'LL TRY TO ASCERTAIN THAT.

>> I'LL TRY TO CALCULATE THAT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT.

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY.

>> YEAH, I'D LIKE TO EXPRESS SOME THINGS THAT I KNOW WE WILL BE TALKING ABOUT DURING OUR DELIBERATIONS. ONE IS THAT YOU'RE IN A LOCATION WHERE YOUR CHRISTMAS TREE STORE WAS CORRECT ALMOST EVERYBODY KNOWS YOUR CHRISTMAS TREE STORE WAS.

SO BEING THAT GREEN BERG IS NOT THAT HUGE. MOST PEOPLE WOULD SAY OH, IT'S

WHERE THE OLD CHRISTMAS TREE STORE WAS. >> WELL, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ADVERTISE THAT BUT COME TO THE OLD CHRISTMAS TREE SCOUT STORE WAS I'M SURE YOU WON'T TREES.

BUT IN TERMS OF PEOPLE WHO CAN'T WAIT FOR SPROUTS TO OPEN ,THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ANY PROBLEM AT ALL FINDING. MY WIFE KEEPS BUGGING ME. SO APPROVE THE SITE.

>> I'M NOT SURE IF WE REALLY NEED TO APPROVE IT FOR AN ADDITIONAL SIX INCHES.

I DO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT IT WENT FROM A STACKED HEIGHT TO A SINGLE LINEAR RIGHT?

>> YEAH. ORIGINALLY IT WAS THAT IT WAS STACKED.

I'M SORRY I MISSED THAT. SO YES, YES, YES. BUT I NOW RECOGNIZE THAT IT WENT FROM A STACK TO A SINGLE. NOW YOU'RE ASKING FOR SIX INCHES MORE.

THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DELIBERATE ON. ALSO I'M PRETTY SURE THAT ALMOST ALL OF US HERE HAVE IS IN THEIR CARS. SO YOU'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO

GET LOST. >> ALSO ONCE YOU PASS THE LOCATION WHERE THIS STORE IS GOING TO BE. THERE ARE ADDITIONS AND ALL AREAS WHERE YOU CAN TURN INTO

THAT PARKING LOT. >> SO IF YOU MISSED IT INTO ANOTHER PARKING LOT OR THE NEXT TURN WOULD BE AT MCDONALD'S AT THE LIGHT. SO THAT ENTRY WEIGHT THAT ENTRY WAY IS ONLY AS YOU'RE COMING SOUTHBOUND THAT YOU'RE SPEAKING OF.

>> YOU CAN'T CROSS THAT DOUBLE WHEEL. THAT'S WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU'RE GOING SOUTHBOUND. THERE ARE ADDITIONAL ENTRANCES INTO THE INTO THE PARKING LOT.

I'M SORRY WHEN I GO I ALWAYS DRIVE SO THAT'S OKAY. >> BUT YOU KNOW, I WILL APPRECIATE THE ISSUES THAT PEOPLE WILL HAVE WHEN THEY'RE DRIVING NORTHBOUND.

BUT THESE ARE THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DELIBERATING ON WHEN WE'RE TOLD.

>> AND IF I MAY AND I WANT TO SAY YOU'RE FROM SPROUTS, YOU SHOULD BE HAPPY TO HEAR THE COMMENT THAT I MADE THAT PEOPLE ARE JUST CAN'T WAIT FOR YOU TO OPEN.

SO WHETHER IT'S A SIX INCHES MORE ON THE SIGNAGE OR NOT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE

DELIBERATING ON. >> AND WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO GO AHEAD AND ADVERTISE NECESSARILY FOR LIKE YOU SAID, PEOPLE WHO ARE COMING TO US AND HAVE JEEPS.

IT'S EVERYBODY ELSE WHO DOESN'T KNOW OUR BRAND THAT DOESN'T EVEN KNOW THAT WE ARE THERE OR

THAT WE'RE COMING THERE. >> SO IT'S IT'S THAT'S OUR MARKET WHICH WE'RE GEARING

TOWARDS. >> OKAY. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. >> IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO WANTS TO MAKE A COMMENT ON THAT? YES.

I'M NOT SPEAKING. >> GOOD EVENING AND CHAIR LADY MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.

MY NAME IS WALTER SIMON. I LIVE IN HIGHPOINT THAT OVERLOOKS THIS SITE.

I'M ALSO A MEMBER OF THE BOARD AT HIGH POINT AND THE FORMER CHAIR OF THE PLANNING BOARD

[00:30:11]

ARE NOT LOOKING FOR? >> SO WE'RE TALKING FOR THE CASE.

OKAY. SO WE ARE TALKING ABOUT THE THE LETTERS GOING FROM FOUR FEET TO 4.5FT AND THAT'S A SIX INCHES. I'M GETTING TOTALLY CONFUSED ABOUT THIS SIX INCHES.

AND I THINK BASED UPON YOU KNOW, I LIVED DOWN THERE REGULARLY AND I DON'T THINK

IT'S JUSTIFIED TO MAKE IT ANY BIGGER. >> I THINK THE CURRENT SIZE IS ADEQUATE. YOU HAVE AS A BOARD EXERCISE FLEXIBILITY WHEN IT WAS JUSTIFIED AND I DON'T THINK IS JUSTIFIED IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE.

AND ALSO I KNOW THAT INDIVIDUAL CASES YOU HAVE TO MAKE YOUR JUDGMENT INDIVIDUALLY BUT YOU ALSO SHOULD CONSIDER WHAT I SEE IS A TREND THAT APPLICATION AFTER APPLICATION IS GOING FOR BIGGER AND BIGGER SIGNS. YOU'LL SEE THAT IN THE NEXT APPLICATION AND YOU'LL SEE THAT IN THE NEW APPLICATION WHERE THE I THINK THE DIFFERENTIAL IS ABOUT 160% INCREASE.

>> SO WHERE AS YOU YOU HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION IN INDIVIDUAL CASES.

I THINK IT SHOULD BE A CONCERN OF THIS OF OF THIS BOARD OF WHAT'S IS THE TREND ON CENTRAL

AVENUE. >> SO I'LL JUST ASK YOU TO CONSIDER THAT EVEN EVEN THOUGH I KNOW BY LAW THE INDIVIDUAL CASES BUT YOU ALWAYS CONSIDERED THE IMPACT ON RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS IN TOTAL. SO AT LEAST CONSIDER THAT THIS TREND THAT I SEE IN THESE LAST

IN THESE THREE APPLICATIONS. >> THANK YOU. >> AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, THE PLACE WHERE YOU HAD INDICATED ON TARRYTOWN ROAD IT IS SOMETHING THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS NOT NECESSARILY THIS BOARD THAT YOU SEE HERE. SO I'M CONFUSED.

AND YOU KNOW WHAT I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO THEM THEY HAD THEY WERE BRAND NEW AND I TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO THEM THAT WHAT THEY WAS WHAT THEY WANTED TO DO BECAUSE THEY I REALLY THINK WAS INAPPROPRIATE WASN'T NEEDED BUT THEY THOUGHT THAT THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT THEY WANTED TO DO. AND THE NEXT DAY THE SIGNS WENT UP ON EVERY THING THAT WAS POSSIBLE AND THEY WERE ASTOUNDED BY WHAT HOW IT LOOKED .

SO YOU CAN'T RELY ON THAT. >> WE HAD A CONSISTENCY HERE AS MUCH AS WE CAN TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE BUSINESSES STILL ARE ABLE TO FUNCTION. AND FOR MANY YEARS THEY HAVE

FUNCTIONED. SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> ALL RIGHT.

WHAT ON A SECOND IS THIS THE LATEST? >> YES.

IF IT'S WRONG, IT'S WRONG. YOU'RE IT. IT'S WRONG.

YEAH, I THOUGHT IT MIGHT BE. BUT THAT'S JUST FOR THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF USE.

>> THAT'S THAT'S WRONG. WAS WRONG. DID YOU TAKE IT OUT OR DID YOU GET 81? YES. AND WHAT DID YOU GET A AN

ANSWER ON THE PERCENTAGE? >> OH, YES. I GOT 12, 12, 12 ONE HALF.

[00:35:04]

>> I HAVE IT SOMEWHERE. YEAH. THE NEXT CASE IS 26 OR 2

GILMORE HOLDINGS LLC. >> I'M SHUJA HUGE BIG STORM. OH, GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS JAMES POLINSKY. SIGNED ZINC SIGN COMPANY REPRESENTING JERICHO.

OKAY. SO THIS IS OUR THIRD TRIP TO THE THE MEETING HERE.

WE LAST TIME WE HAD FEEDBACK THAT IT SEEMED LIKE THAT THE WALL SIGN WAS OKAY THAT THEY WANTED TO SEE THE PYLON SIGN SHRINK DOWN TO BE 50%. WE WERE AT ABOUT 75%.

SO WE TOOK THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION. WE REMOVED ABOUT A FOOT FROM THE OH YEAH ABOUT A FOOT FROM THE SIGN HEIGHT ITSELF. WE WENT DOWN FROM THE 35FT2 DOWN TO 30FT2. SO THAT BRINGS US TO THE 50% THAT I THINK THE BOARD WAS REQUESTING. OUR FIRST APPLICATION THEY WERE ASKED US TO MAKE ALL THE SIGN SMALLER. AND WHAT WE DID WAS WE REMOVED ONE SIGN COMPLETELY FROM THE

FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND KEPT THE SIDE SIGN. >> AND FURTHER FEEDBACK AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT THE PYLON SIGN BEING STILL TOO LARGE OR TOO LARGE THAT WE REDUCED IT EVEN FURTHER. WE TIGHTENED UP SOME OF THE WHITESPACE AS WAS ASKED OF US.

>> SO THE SIGN NOW IS CURRENTLY IT IS ONE FOOT SHORTER THAN OR I SHOULD SAY THAT THE WIDTH IS ONE FOOT LESS THAN THE EXISTING SIGN. THE SIGN CABINET ITSELF THAT EXISTS IT IS ABOUT 40IN AND HAS A ROUNDED DARK BROWN TOPPER ON IT.

IT ALMOST IS ABOUT 46IN. SO WE'RE A LITTLE BIT TALLER THAN THE OTHER SIGN.

BUT THE WIDTH IS ABOUT A FOOT LESS. THIS IS ALSO ADVERTISING FOR THE TWO BUSINESSES THAT ARE WITHIN THE STORE. SO WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THE READABILITY OF THE LETTER HEIGHT BEING LARGE ENOUGH THAT IT CAN BE SEEN.

SO THIS IS THE MAIN SIGN THAT YOU WILL SEE IF YOU'RE DRIVING NORTH SINCE.

WELL, WE WERE ASKED TO EITHER SHRINK OR WE DECIDED TO ELIMINATE COMPLETELY THE FRONT SIGN. AND THIS WOULD SERVE THE PURPOSE OF THAT FRONT SIGN.

SO WE'RE ASKING FOR THE TWO SIGNS AS IS. >> I'M HOPING THAT WE CAN.

IT'S VERY IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT WITH THIS BOARD AS YOU CAN'T REALLY SPEAK AFTER THE FACT THAT YOU DELIVER A MOST BOARDS YOU HAVE A DIALOG AND FIGURE THINGS OUT.

SO NOW THIS IS THE THIRD MONTH THAT WE'VE BEEN HERE. THIS STORE IS READY TO OPEN SHORTLY. UM NO. WAS SOMETHING THERE? YOU KNOW I HOPE WE PLEASED EVERYBODY AND WE MADE THE WHATEVER RECOMMENDATIONS YOU ASKED FOR WE MADE. SO WE TRYING TO YOU KNOW, JUST GET THE SIGNS APPROVED AS YOU

REQUESTED. >> DO YOU HAVE ANY ANY I GUESS THAT WE CAN SEE THIS AS IT

WOULD APPEAR ON THE ROAD WHEN YOU DO THAT? >> IT'S VERY EASILY MANIPULATED . YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PERSPECTIVE INSIDE AND WHATNOT.

SO THE BEST THING IS WE GAVE PICTURES OF WHAT EXISTED THERE NOW SO WE CAN SAY THAT THE SIGN

IS, YOU KNOW, SMALLER. >> IT'S A LITTLE BIT TALLER BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO BUSINESSES WERE ADVERTISING THERE BUT THE WITH ITSELF IS SHORT IS IS NARROWER.

I APPRECIATE THAT YOU LISTENED LAST TIME AND I KNOW I SAID AT LEAST 50% I DIDN'T SAY 50% WAS RIGHT. I HAD WHEN I HEARD YOUR PRESENTATION THE OTHER TWO TIMES I WAS LEFT WITH THE IMPRESSION THAT IT WAS AN AREA WITH QUICK MOVING TRAFFIC AND THAT THERE WAS A SETBACK OF THE OF SOME SORT. AND SO I WENT OUT AND I WENT TO THE AND I DROVE A MILE ON EITHER SIDE. OKAY.

AND I COULD NOT FIND ANY SIGNS THAT WERE OVER THE FOUR FOOT SQUARE DIMENSION OTHER THAN A FEW GAS STATIONS THAT WHEN YOUR HIGHWAY ENTRANCES. AND IT STRUCK ME THAT EVEN AT

[00:40:08]

>> AND UM THERE'S A I SEE WHY YOU SAY FOR NORTHBOUND TRAFFIC BECAUSE THE PLACEMENT OF THE SIGN OVER THE DOOR FACES IS ON THE NORTH FACADE AND WHEREAS OTHER BUSINESSES PUT THEIR SIGNS ON THE STREET SIDE YOU PUT YOURS ON THE NORTH SIDE WHERE THE PARKING LOT IS FOR A PURPOSE. THAT'S A CHOICE YOU MADE BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS VERY CLOSE TO THE STREET BUT IT IT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE SIGN EVEN REDUCED IT FROM 20FT2 TO 30FT2 IS STILL EXTREMELY DIFFERENT FROM EVERYTHING WITHIN A TWO MILE AREA.

>> WELL, THE EXISTING SIGN THAT IS THERE NOW IS 24.5FT2. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR 5.5FT2.

WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A LARGE YOU KNOW, TWO FROM WHAT'S THERE NOW BUT THERE WAS OTHER BOARD

MEMBERS AS WELL. >> PETER, I BELIEVE YOU ASKED FOR YOU KNOW, IF WE GOT IT DOWN TO 50% THAT YOU KNOW, YOU WERE ON THE YOU WERE ON THE LINE LAST TIME YOU ASKED US TO FURTHER SHRINK THE WHITE SPACE AND WE DID THAT. SO I HOPE THE BOARD MEMBERS WHO ALSO SPOKE ABOUT BRINGING IT DOWN A LITTLE BIT AND WHEN YOU DELIBERATED I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU SAID BUT THERE WAS OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AS WELL THAT SAID IF WE GOT IT DOWN TO ABOUT THAT 50% MARK THAT THAT THAT SEEMED TO BE THE NUMBER. UM, I DON'T LIKE I SAID ALSO WITH THE WAY YOUR BOARD OPERATES IT'S VERY HARD TO COME BACK NOW FOR THE FOURTH MONTH THIS BUSINESS NEEDS TO OPEN. UM SO WE WE FOLLOWED WHAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS WERE.

CAN I CHARACTERIZE SOMETHING AND ASK YOU IF I'M CORRECT IN MY UNDERSTANDING? SURE. SO THERE'S AN EXISTING ROADSIDE SIGN THAT'S BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME. CORRECT. YOU ARE GOING TO KEEP IT APPROXIMATELY THE SAME WITH AND YOU'RE GOING TO ADD ABOUT FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT AND THE LETTERING NO, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO NO, NO. WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE SIGN BY 12IN IN WIDTH. OKAY. WE NOW KNOW AND IT WILL GO GROW ABOUT 12IN IN HEIGHT TO ALLOW FOR THE READING OF JIMMY JOHN'S AND DUNKIN.

>> SO IT'S GOING TO BE A NARROWER SIDE BY A FOOT AND A HIGHER SIGNED BY THE FOOT.

YEAH ABOUT YEAH. BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT STILL NEEDS A 50% VARIANCE.

>> CORRECT. BECAUSE THE SIGN THAT WAS THERE HAS BEEN THERE BEFORE THE CODE

OF 20 SQUARE FEET. >> YEAH. YEAH.

YOU SAY THAT THE LETTERING THAT'S IN THE CURRENT SIGN AND THE LETTERING THAT'S FOR ALLOW

FOR TWO STORES IN THE NEW SIGN ARE ABOUT THE SAME HEIGHT. >> THE DUNKIN LETTERING ITSELF WILL BE A LITTLE BIT LARGER THE HEIGHT OF THE LETTER BECAUSE AS WE SPOKE ABOUT LAST TIME IT WAS DUNKIN DONUTS PRIOR AND IT WAS STACKED. THIS IS HAPPENING WITH ALL THE DUNKIN NOW IT'S JUST DUNKIN. SO EVERYWHERE IN WESTCHESTER WHERE WE'VE DONE DUNKIN THE DUNKIN HAS NOW GROWN BECAUSE THERE'S NO MORE DUNKIN DONUTS. WE'VE DROPPED THE DUNKIN DONUTS PORTION SO THAT FILLS MORE SPACE. THERE'S JIMMY JOHN'S ITSELF.

WILL BE SMALLER THAN WHAT EXISTS. OKAY SO YOU'RE SAYING SO THE VARIANCE YOU'RE ASKING FOR WHILE IT IS TECHNICALLY 50% YOU'RE SAYING THAT IT'S MUCH MORE LIKE 25% OVER THE EXISTING . I WOULD I CALCULATE I DON'T WORK VERY WELL WITH PERCENTAGES BUT IT'S 5.5FT2 WE'RE ASKING FOR.

>> SO THAT'S YOU KNOW TWO FOOT BY TWO FOR THE DIMENSIONS OF THE EXISTING SIGN.

>> YES, THEY'RE IN THE PAPERWORK IS THAT WE SAID IT'S SEVEN FOOT WIDE 40 THE BOX IS 40 INCHES AND THEN THERE'S A LITTLE ROUNDED CAP ON THE TOP. SO THE TOTAL IF YOU LOOK AT THE SIGN AND YOU MEASURE THE ENTIRE SPACE THAT'S UP THERE, IT'S ABOUT 47IN BY 84IN 47 BY 84, CORRECT. SO IT'S FOUR AND A HALF BY SEVEN NOW.

>> OKAY. UM YES, BUT NO FOR ABOUT FOUR FOUR BY SEVEN FOUR FOOT IT'S FOUR THE BOXES 40 BUT ANOTHER LET'S CALL IT EIGHT. SO FOUR FOOT FOUR FOOT FOUR.

NO I'M SORRY. IT'S 40IN AND SIX INCHES SQUARE AT 46IN.

>> SO A LITTLE UNDER FOUR FEET. >> A LITTLE UNDER FOUR FOOT BY SEVEN FOOT WIDE AND YOU WANT

FIVE FEET BY SIX FEET? >> CORRECT. WHICH IS 30FT2.

[00:45:05]

SO WE'RE WE'RE ASKING FOR A 5.5FT2. AND I THINK WE DISCUSSED LAST TIME AS WELL THAT THIS IS YOU KNOW TWO TO BUSINESSES, YOU KNOW SIMILAR TO THE BASKIN DUNCAN AND WE'RE JUST YOU KNOW ,OBLIGATED TO GIVE THESE SIZES THAT ARE READABLE AND NOT OVERPOWERING ONE ANOTHER. SO YOU'VE MADE THE ARGUMENT THAT YOU THIS IS YOUR THIRD APPEARANCE AND THAT YOU NEED TO OPEN THE STORE AND I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE'VE BEEN AWARE OF THAT AND WE WE WANT YOU TO OPEN THE STORE AT LEAST I BELIEVE NOBODY'S LOOKING TO

DRAG THIS OUT FOR ANY PUNITIVE PURPOSE. >> I DON'T KNOW HOW PEOPLE ARE.

I'M JUST SAYING NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND. I UNDERSTAND.

YEAH. NO, NO, IT'S JUST OTHER BOARDS DO IT DIFFERENTLY WHERE YOU HAVE A DIALOG, A DIALOG AND HASH THINGS OUT USUALLY IN ONE MEETING.

UM, YOU DON'T NOT GET TO SPEAK AGAIN OR HAVE A DIALOG TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE CHANGES IN ONE

MEETING. >> SO WE WENT AND THEN THE ONLY THING WE CAN DO IS LISTEN TO YOUR COMMENTS RECEIVE THE LETTER UM AND THEN TRY TO DO OUR BEST TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT EVERYBODY ASKS FOR WHICH I THINK WE WE DID WE ELIMINATED ONE SIGN COMPLETELY.

>> WE AND THEN THIS WOULD KIND OF REPLACE THAT ONE SIGN AND WE'RE DOWN TO JUST A 5.5FT2 VARIANCE FOR THAT. SO I THINK IT'S A PRETTY GOOD COMPROMISE AND THIS WOULD ALLOW TRAFFIC BOTH NORTH AND SOUTH TO SEE THE BUILDING EQUALLY LIKE WE DISCUSSED IN THE PAST MANY TRUCKS AND DRIVE THIS ROUTE AND THEY DO DRIVE A HIGH RATE OF SPEED.

>> OKAY. JUST I JUST WANT TO ASK A QUESTION SO I'M CLEAR.

SO YOU'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE 20 SQUARE. CORRECT.

TODAY YOU HAVE LIKE 20 FIVE. >> NO, WE HAVE OH, ABOUT 24.5 IF YOU CALCULATE THE WHOLE

THING AND THEN YOU'RE ASKING FOR 30. >> CORRECT?

RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> AND JUST FOR MY CLARITY.

SURE. YEAH. COME YOU GENTLEMEN.

I DON'T BELIEVE THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WHERE WE'RE SEEING ONE ANOTHER, I BELIEVE.

>> YES. SO BUT AGAIN, I HAVE TO ASK YOU, SIR, YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU NOW WANT TO REMOVE FROM THE MAIN BUILDING JIMMY JONES ALTOGETHER.

>> SO IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING, UM, WE WERE REQUESTING ONE SIGN THAT'S OVER THE MAIN ENTRANCE AND THE PARKING LOT SIDE AND THERE WAS ONE SIGN ON ROUTE NINE OR SO.

>> SO I'M AWARE OF A ROAD WHERE WE WHERE WE WALK. >> SO THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING BACK TO MEETINGS. AT THAT MEETING THE BOARD ASKED FOR THINGS TO BE SHRUNK AND

DOWN AND I SPOKE WITH THE OWNER. >> WE WOULD RATHER ELIMINATE THAT SIGN COMPLETELY OFF THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. UM, WE TOLD DUNCAN WE WOULD YOU KNOW AND JIMMY JOHN'S THE FRANCHISE THAT WE'D LIKE TO GET RID OF THAT COMPLETELY KEEP OUR SIGN OVER THE MAIN ENTRANCE BECAUSE IT LOOKS PROPER WITH AND THEN THE NEED WOULD BE TO HAVE THIS LARGE SIGN THAT WOULD SUBSTITUTE THE SIGN THAT WAS ON THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE BUILDING IS CLOSE TO THE ROAD SO IT MIGHT BE HARD TO SEE THAT SIGN AS YOU'RE DRIVING PAST THIS ONE. THAT WAS THE BUILDING SIGN THAT WAS ON SAWMILL RIVER ROAD.

>> SO I THINK JUST SO I CAN CLARIFY FOR. NO, NO, NO BECAUSE BEFORE YOU DO IT I JUST WANNA SAY SO THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING IS I DID HEAR A DISCUSSION REGARDING TONIGHT A 50% THIS STILL IS 50% ABOVE CODE, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

THAT'S MY QUESTION. YEAH. >> YES, THAT'S IT.

THAT'S REAL SIMPLE. YES, I KNOW WHETHER 50% INITIALLY WAS ON THE BUILDING

THAT HE'S NOW SAYING IS BEING REMOVED. >> BUT IF YOU KNOW THE SIGN WAS 75% LARGER THAN CODE WE WERE AT 30.35 POINT WHATEVER AND THEN THE CODE IT WAS WELL WE WE REDUCED IT DOWN AT THE LAST MEETING WE WERE ASKED TO TIGHTEN THE THINGS TIGHTEN UP THOUGH THE LETTERING GET RID OF SOME OF THE WHITE SPACE THIS IS NOW YEAH SO THE FIRST MEETING THERE WERE THREE SIGNS AND THEY WERE ASKING FOR VARIANCES FOR ALL THREE.

WE SAID YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T ASK FOR VISIBILITY AND YOU HAVE TWO SIDES IN THE SAME AREA LIKE KIND OF PICK AND CHOOSE WHAT YOU WANT TO GO FOR. AND THEN THE LAST MEETING WHEN THEY CAME BACK AND THEY SAID WE'LL TAKE THE SIGN OFF THE BUILDING, THERE WERE SOME BOARD MEMBERS WHO FELT THAT THE PILE ON SIDE WAS STILL TOO BIG AND WANTED IT REDUCED 50% UP IN

SIZE AND THIS IS THE PROPOSAL THEY CAME BACK. >> YEAH.

SO FIRST MEETING REMOVE THE SIGN DOWN TO TWO SIGNS AND THEN 75% OF THE LAST MEETING THIS SIGN WAS SIX FOOT BY SIX FOOT ROUGHLY AT 35FT2. NOW WE REDUCED IT.

[00:50:06]

WE ALSO SPOKE OF YOU KNOW, THIS IS YOU KNOW, THE LOWEST 20FT2 SO THAT WOULD BE FOUR BY FIVE THERE THEY'RE DOING SIX BY FIVE IS THE PROPOSED SO YOU CAN UNDERSTAND ESPECIALLY FROM THE PREVIOUS CASE WHERE WE HAVE TO BE VERY CAREFUL ABOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT BECAUSE IT ALWAYS COMES BACK TO HAUNT US BECAUSE IT DID SO TONIGHT. SO THAT'S PROBABLY AGAIN SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS IN OUR DELIBERATION RIGHT?

>> JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT WE WERE ALSO ASKED BY THE MEMBERS WHO WERE PRESENT AT THE LAST MEETING TO BRING IT DOWN TO THIS 50% MARK AND SHRINK THINGS WHICH WE DID THAT ANY OTHER MEMBER FROM THE BOARD WANTED TO JUST COMMENT ON THIS.

>> IT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE MEMO THAT IT WAS 50%. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR LOOKING ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE WANTED COMMENT ON THIS. OH WOLFE-SIMON AGAIN I THINK THE SEVERAL THINGS GOING ON HERE WE SHOULD LOOK AT WHAT IS THERE NOW AND WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED NOW IN BETWEEN THAT WE CHANGE THE CODE AND SO PART OF THE PROBLEM OR THE I SHOULDN'T SAY PROBLEM THE ISSUE IS COMPARING THE NEW CODE TO THE APPLICATION WISHES AND I THINK IT REQUIRES I THINK SOME REASONABLENESS TO LOOK AT THAT. I THINK TO HAVE A BUSINESS WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE A SIGN ON THE BUSINESS THAT SELF I THINK THAT'S PROBLEMATIC IF I'M IN INTERPRETING THIS CORRECTLY IF

THERE'S A SIGN THERE HUH THERE'S THIS OKAY SO FINE. >> SO THE OTHER ISSUE BECOMES IS ARE THE FACT OF THE FACT THAT WHAT IS THE DOWNSIDE OF THE CURRENT SIGN?

>> WHAT'S THE DOWNSIDE? HAVE THAT BEEN OBNOXIOUS TO RESIDENTS? HAVE IT BEEN OBTRUSIVE, HAVE IT IMPEDE THE BUSINESS? AND I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT IT THAT WAY AND OR RATHER THAN JUST SAYING IT IS THE NEW CODE AND NOT TAKING INTO EFFECT THAT IT MOST OF THAT EFFECT IS BECAUSE THE CODE CHANGE NOW I DON'T KNOW HOW HERE AGAIN YOUR ISSUE OF OF EXTENDING A GRANDFATHER YOU YOU MIGHT BE SETTING THE PRECEDENT SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU COULD DO THAT BUT AT LEAST IN THE THINKING THAT SHOULD BE A CONSIDERATION IN YOUR APPROVAL PROCESS WITHOUT SETTING A PRECEDENT. SO I JUST WOULD THINK THAT YOU

CONSIDER THAT CORRECTLY. >> THANK YOU. I THINK YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN IN THE FACT THAT THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT OUR FORM FACTORS WILL BE TO REVIEW THIS ARE WE CREATING A PRECEDENT FOR WHICH WE COULD NOT UPHOLD THROUGHOUT THE TOWN BUT THEN AT THE SAME TIME IS IT DE MINIMIS OR EXCESSIVE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE COMMUNITY MAY WANT? SO YOUR POINTS ARE WELL TAKEN SO THANK YOU. THAT PLUS THE FACT THAT THE EXISTING SIGN IS WITHIN GOOD OLD AND UGLY AND DOESN'T SHOW EVERYTHING THAT THEY'RE NOW SELLING. SO BEFORE WAS JUST DUNKIN DONUTS.

NOW THEY REMOVE THE DONUTS AND THEY ADDED THE JIMMY JOHN'S SANDWICHES.

SO WE HAVE TO TRY AND FIND A WAY TO MAKE THE SIGN WHAT THE WHAT THE WHAT THE CUSTOMER IS

[00:55:03]

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. 2605 CENTRAL HERITAGE LLC OKAY THAT'S FINE. SO NO, I THOUGHT YOU WERE SAYING YEAH, THIS IS RUNNING

OUT. YOU KNOW. >> HI.

GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING MY GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

I'M TRACY. YOU'RE ON. I'M SORRY.

>> OKAY. AND YOU YOU ARE I OWN WITH EASY SIGNS THE SIGN VENDOR FOR BEST BUY OUR COMPANIES OUT OF DALLAS. HOUSTON, TEXAS.

GOODNESS GRACIOUS. >> I'M SORRY. SO WE SUBMITTED A FOUR FOOT SIX LETTER STACKED SET. I WANT TO LISTENING TO YOU GUYS AND ESPECIALLY HEARING SOMEBODY WHO COULD POTENTIALLY BE THERE. WE DON'T WANT TO COME IN AS A BULLY.

I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IS I KNOW A FOUR FOOT STACKED WOULD BE SOMETHING BETTER OR EVEN A FOUR FOOT LINEAR LETTER SET WOULD BE SOMETHING I HAVE DRAWINGS THAT RENDER BOTH OF THESE OKAY IF I COULD PRESENT THEM INSTEAD OF THE I MEAN BECAUSE I WANT TO AGAIN WE HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING SO WE ACTUALLY WANT TO TRY TO WORK TOGETHER AND BE A COMMUNITY TOGETHER THAT'S I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN BRING THESE UP BUT THE EASIEST WAY TO ANSWER THE QUESTION THAT YOU ASKED AND IT YOU KNOW, WITHOUT BEING SO DIRECT WHATEVER YOU COULD PRESENT TO US THAT WOULD MINIMIZE ANY VARIANCE THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE MAKES OUR JOB EASIER AND NOT TO BE IN COMPARISON TO ANYTHING ELSE. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO CREATE ANY ADDITIONAL PRECEDENCE AT THIS TIME ABOVE WHAT OUR CODE IS AND THAT'S OUR GOAL IS I KIND OF FEEL LIKE SOME OF THE BOARD MEMBERS VOICED A LITTLE BIT OF I DON'T KNOW BUYER'S REMORSE IS THE

PROPER WORD. >> WE DON'T WANT HARD FEELINGS HERE SO WE WANT TO PRESENT SOME KIND OF WE WANT TO ADHERE TO BEST BUY'S NATIONAL BRAND INTEGRITY, RIGHT? TYPICALLY IT IS A STACK LETTER TYPICALLY IT IS LIKE A FOUR FOOT FOUR FOOT SIX.

I'VE HAD EIGHT FOOT STACK LETTERS. >> I KNOW THAT'S I CAN APPLY HERE. OKAY. WELL I THINK SO LET'S JUST TAKE A STEP BACK. OKAY. I THINK WHAT WE NEED IS TO UNDERSTAND I MEAN THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE IS TO TO TO HEAR THE BUSINESS CASE OF WHY POTENTIALLY THE CODE DOESN'T WORK LIKE IS IT READ ABILITY AS PEOPLE PROPOSED FROM THE HIGHWAY BUT UNDERSTANDING LIKE SO I JUST LIKE I SAID I DRIVE BY THERE ALL THE TIME YOUR OLD LOCATION WHICH IS JUST LIKE NOT EVEN A HALF A MILE DOWN THE ROAD HAS BEST BUY IN ONE LINE.

IT'S NOT STACKED THAT WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I ASKED IS IS THERE AN OPTION FOR THE LOGO WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO STACK IT SO IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DENSE, IT'S NOT

FAVORABLE. >> SO BEST BUY IS REBRANDING THEIR BRAND AND CURRENTLY IS A STACKED LOGO AS WE SUBMITTED AND I HAVE A FOUR FOOT OPTION OF IT BEING STACKED HERE AS WELL THAT IS YOU GOOGLE BEST BUY YOU GO TO THEIR WEBSITE IT IS A STACK LOGO.

>> HAS IT ALWAYS BEEN A STACK LOGO? NO, IT USED TO ALSO JUST BE A TAG. SO THEY'RE TRYING TO GET CONFORMITY WITH THEIR BRAND WITH HAVING A STACK LOGO WOULD A LINEAR OPTION BE A COMPROMISED? IT WOULD HURT BUT I FEEL LIKE WE GOT TO HURT A LITTLE BIT TOO SO LET'S BE THE COMMUNITY AND WORK TOGETHER TO GET TO A RESOLUTION THAT WILL WORK WELL YOU HEARD WHAT WE JUST DID TO

YOUR NEXT DOOR NEIGHBOR. >> I KNOW, I KNOW. I HOPE I'M BEING A LITTLE BIT

MORE KIND OF WE CALLED YOU OUT AND WE SAW YOU RUNNING. >> NOW I KNOW I DIDN'T KNOW IF I WAS GOING TO GET SICK OR YOU KNOW, I JUST HAD TO SPLIT UP MY JOB SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE WHERE TO BEGIN. I LOOK LIKE YOU JUST PUT THIS TOGETHER AND SAID WELL LET'S START RIGHT OUT. LET'S START AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS BECAUSE SHE HAS NO

DRAWINGS. >> I DO I DO HAVE NEW DRAWINGS. SO WHAT WAS SUBMITTED WAS THE

[01:00:06]

>> YES OKAY YES OKAY BECAUSE YOU'RE FROM HOUSTON SO I WELL ACTUALLY I'M FROM HER NEXT DOOR AND THE I WORK ROOM I WORK FOR A HOUSTON COMPANY. I'M ACTUALLY IN NEW JERSEY SO

AND JUST HAVE BIG SIGNS OVER THERE TOO. >> YEAH, BIG SIGN I THINK.

>> WELL, EVERYTHING'S BIG IN HOUSTON THAT JERSEY. YES JERSEY.

>> YEAH. NO I'M IN LIKE THE SOUTH PART OF JERSEY AND LIKE MORE LIKE SO MY ROUGH MATH RIGHT NOW NOT LOOKING AT YOUR NEW RENDITION IS ABOUT 86.375 ABOVE WHAT IS PERMITTED OKAY SO JUST AS WE SAID JUST COMING OUT THE GATE IT'S A PROBLEM.

SO THAT'S WHY I SAID I'D LIKE TO AT LEAST DO THE COMPUTER STATIONS IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS SUBMITTED AND THEN WE MADE CONVERSATION FROM THAT AT SOME POINT BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T ADJUSTED WE NEED SHE'S SHE'S BASICALLY WITHDRAWN. YEAH.

I WAS GOING TO SAY I THOUGHT IT WAS A LITTLE BIT SO WE DON'T NEED TO KNOW.

>> I'LL HOLD ON TO IT AND THAT'S WHAT WE GOT. YEAH WE DON'T RIGHT WE NEED TO

SEE THEN WE NEED TO DISCUSS WHAT YOU WANT NOW. >> YEAH OKAY.

>> CAN I PRESENT THEM? I DON'T KNOW WHO TO GO TO. I DO.

I DO. I HAVE THE WELL THESE ARE THE TO WELL THE QUESTION IS DOES

ENGINEERING NEED TO LOOK AT THAT FIRST? >> HAVE YOU SEEN IT? YEAH, I THINK SO. SO YOU NEED TO REVIEW IT FIRST. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. ARE OUR OUR BIGGEST QUESTION OKAY.

OUR BIGGEST QUESTION IS GOING TO BE TELL US WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING NOW AND TELL US HOW IT

DEVIATES FROM THE CODE. THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW. >> SO THE FOUR FOR IT'S LINEAR I THINK IS ROUGHLY A12 PERCENT VARIANCE FROM THE CODE ACTUALLY NO, I'M SORRY I HAVE THE I WANTED TO ADJUST THIS ONE JUST JUST TO GIVE THE OTHER TWO WE GET THE OTHER ONE I THINK AS AS OKAY SO ACCORDING TO WHAT YOU JUST HANDED US SEEMS THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR FOUR FOOT HIGH LETTERS. I'M LOOKING AT YOUR PROPOSAL WHICH YOU SAID IS YOUR LESS THE

ONE YOU LIKE LESS BUT IT'S LINEAR. >> CORRECT.

BUT IT'S KIND OF SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S WHAT WE'RE COMING UP WITH LIKE SO SO AS SOON AS I FIGURE THAT OUT IT WOULD BE BECAUSE THE TAG DIPS DOWN BIGGER THAN FOUR FOOT.

>> THAT'S I GUESS I THINK OKAY AND I THINK THIS WHOLE LINE OCCUR BUT I THINK WE REALLY SHOULD BE LOOKING AT THE 13 IS GETTING OLD IS GETTING THE FLOOR NOW WHY DO WE WALK OUT OF

IT? >> THIS LOOKS LIKE IT'S CLOSER TO THE CODE I'M TRYING TO LISTEN BUT THIS JUST SO YOU KNOW, HE WAS STILL JUST LOOKING FOR THIS FIVE YEAH WE ARE ABSOLUTELY SHOCKED TO THE COURT YES BY ME. SO THIS EVERYBODY'S IN THERE.

OH YEAH I SEE IF I MEAN I SAID THIS FOR ALL THE OTHER SIGNAGE SO I'LL SAY IT FOR THIS ONE JUST LIKE WHAT THE HAPPENED TO BEST SPOT YOU KNOW IT WAS JUST DOWN THE STREET AND EVERYONE SAID WHY DID THEY CLOSE AND NOW WE'RE SAYING WAS JUST RELOCATED .

>> EVERYONE'S HAPPY TO SEE BEST FIVE SO WHEN YOU SEE THIS SIGN EVERYBODY'S GOING TO KNOW WHERE TO GO. CORRECT? SO I KNOW THIS IS YOUR MONIKER AND THIS IS WHAT STANDARDS SIGNAGE IS. EVERYBODY JUST WANTS TO KNOW WHERE CAN I GO AND GET SOME YOU KNOW, COMPONENTS AND STUFF LIKE THAT? CORRECT. SO WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T YOU DON'T EXCEED WHAT IS OUR SIGNAGE PARAMETERS AND THAT'S KIND OF WHY I WAS LIKE I KNEW FROM THE START WHAT

[01:05:07]

WE INITIALLY SUBMITTED WASN'T GOING TO FLY FROM HERE. >> YOU COME IN HERE SO WE WANT TO THERE'S A BLUE WALL THAT GOES ON IT. WE DON'T WANT THE SIGNAGE TO LOOK LIKE A MISTAKE EITHER. WE WANT TO MAKE EVERYTHING LOOK INTENTIONAL OR IN LINE WITH OUR BUDDY NEXT DOOR SPROUTS AS WELL DEPENDING ON I KNOW HE I THINK THEIR LATEST PROPOSAL WAS A FOUR FOOT SIX LINEAR OR BECAUSE EVEN IF THEY DO GO WITH THE FOUR FOOT SIX OUR FOUR FOOT LINEAR IS A SLIGHTLY SMALLER LETTER THAN THEIRS BUT BECAUSE OUR TAG DOES DIP DOWN OVERALL IF THAT'S THE CONCERN THAT YOU HAVE SO IT LOOKS KIND OF COHESIVE AND INTENTIONAL FOR THE SHOPPING CENTER. SO I HAVE A QUESTION ON PLACEMENT.

YES. WHEN YOU'RE SHOWING IT ON THE BUILDING, YES.

THAT'S NOT REALLY WHERE IT GOES MUCH FURTHER DOWN WHERE THE CHRISTMAS TREE SHOPS BASED ON THE BUILDING, ARE YOU TELLING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? IT'S IT'S CENTERED WHERE IT USED TO BE BUT IT'S NOT CENTERED AMONG THE NEW RENTED SPACE BECAUSE THE BUILT SPREAD WHO HAS THE RIGHT IN THE LEFT SIDE OF THE BUILDING WE'RE ON THE LEFT SO WE'RE TUCKED FURTHER BACK. OKAY. I THINK YOUR SIGN IS MUCH FURTHER OVER ON THE LOWER HALF OF THE BUILDING. YEAH.

SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE BUILDING I'LL SHOW YOU THE BUILDING IF YOU WANT TO COME AND LOOK AT THIS BECAUSE RIGHT AWAY I WAS LIKE WAIT YEAH SEE THIS IS I THINK SPROUTS IS OVER HERE AND

YOU'RE OVER HERE ISN'T ME. >> WELL YOU KNOW THAT'S RIGHT BECAUSE IT JUST I THINK IS THAT SPROUTS IS OBVIOUS SO THERE WE SHOW IT THAT'S THE ENTRANCE THAT YOU KNOW OKAY SO YOU'RE ON THAT OKAY YEAH SO THEY'RE ON THE SO YOU'RE ON WITH YOU'RE FACING THE BUILDING YOU'RE ON THE LEFT SIDE. I AM YES. OKAY OKAY.

I SHOULD START TO SEE THE BEGINNING OF OKAY FIRST GROUP IS TOTAL HEIGHT AND THEN SIX AND THAT'S THE ENTRANCE. I GUESS THIS OKAY. OKAY.

SO OKAY, THAT HELPS. >> THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

WHICH IS PERMITTED BECAUSE THAT WAS SO IN ME LOOKING AT THE 11I KIND OF LIKE BUT IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. IT LOOKS LIKE THE BLUE OF THE SIGN EXTENDS HIGHER THAN THE BUILDING ITSELF THAT WHEREAS WHEN I LOOK AT THIS ONE WHERE YOU LOOKS LIKE YOU RENDERED YOUR SIGN ON THE FACADE OF THE BUILDING JUST LOOKS LIKE IT'S AT THE TOP OF THE SIGN ALIGNS WITH THE TOP OF THE BUILDING. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I NEED TO CLARIFY AS TO WHAT WHAT

WE'RE LOOKING AT. >> YOU KNOW IT'S THE SAME SO I GUESS I WOULD JUST SAY SEE WHEN I TALK AND I SEE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING OKAY, THAT'S HIGHER RIGHT HERE.

>> IT ALIGNS WITH THE DEAL IS THIS IS THAT'S JUST THE WORDING .

>> YES. THE BLUE WALL THOUGH IS NOT THAT'S PART OF THE ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE ISN'T THE SIGN THAT THAT'S NOT HERE WHICH WHAT SHE SAID REPEAT YOURSELF

PLEASE. >> I SAID THAT BLUE THE BLUE WALL IS WE DON'T THAT'S NOT PART OF THE SIGN THAT'S LIKE AN ARCHITECTURAL FEATURE WITH THE BUILDING THAT I BELIEVE WOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED BECAUSE WE DON'T WE DON'T DO ANYTHING WITH THE BLUE PANELS.

>> IT'S KIND OF THE SAME SIZE AS ULTA. YEAH, YOU SHOULD TAKE YEAH BUT THAT'S NOT THE SIGN. YEAH AND THAT'S WHAT YEAH WE'RE TRYING TO COMPARE THE SIGN IT'S APPLES TO ORANGES WITH THE LIQUOR STORE THE ITALIAN STORE IT'S NOT EVEN I THINK THE PARIS

BAGUETTE PARIS BAGUETTE WAS ACTUALLY TINY. >> I'M GOING TO GO AROUND.

THAT'S FINE. AND YOU COULD, YOU KNOW, MAKING IT SO THE ONLY THING THAT REQUIRES THE VARIANCE IS ESSENTIALLY IS THE YELLOW TAG BECAUSE IT DIPS LOWER THAN THE

FOUR FOOT. >> YEAH, CORRECT. CLOSING THE VARIANCE.

SO IT'S THE FOUR FOOT LETTERS I WROTE THAT. YES.

YEAH. AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU. WE DON'T HAVE A FORMAL VARIANCE

REQUEST FOR THIS ONE. >> HOW DO WE WORK THAT IS ON THE LARGER VARIANCE JUST SO

[01:10:12]

>> OKAY. I THINK IT SPEEDS UP THE PROCESS WELL AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS WATCHING YOUR HEARINGS FOR LIKE SINCE WE FILED SO BECAUSE I THINK WE JUST MISSED LAST MONTH'S CUT OFF SO I WATCHED THE PREVIOUS MONTHS AND LAST MONTH SO JUST TRYING TO DO MY

HOMEWORK. >> WE WE LOVE THINGS THAT ARE WELL WE HAVE THIS BUT IF THAT DOESN'T WORK OUT WE HAVE THIS WE HAVE THAT AND USUALLY THEY GET THE SAME TIME THEY'RE HERE.

>> YEAH. SO I WANT TO BE COGNIZANT OF EVERYONE'S TIME.

>> NO ONE WANTS TO HEAR ME OR SEE ME AGAIN, I'M SURE SO ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I WANT TO PUT ALL OF THE LINEAR THIS AND IT'S PROBABLY JUST LIKE IN WHATSAPP AND THEY ONLY NEED THE ONE VARIANT.

SO RIGHT NOW THIS PIECE RIGHT HERE I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU WHAT'S WHAT IS IT? THAT'S NOT A GOOD QUESTION. THAT'S JUST SAYING IT WAS YOU KNOW, STANDING RIGHT FOR 1060 FOUR FEET SO RIGHT THAT'S OKAY. IT ACTUALLY MAKES IT SO BORING FOR THIS COMMITTEE EIGHT SO IT'S NINE SO IT'S ACTUALLY A PRETTY SMALL OKAY SO I THINK THAT WAS ONLINE.

ALL RIGHT. IT'S JUST DOWN STAIRS YOU YEAH. OKAY HERE'S ONE YOU TWO.

YES. THE NEXT CASE IS 2606 SLACK HOLDING LLC.

>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JODI CROSS FROM THE FIRM ZAHRAN AND STEINMETZ AND WE ARE NOT HERE ON A SIGN VARIANCE. WE ARE HERE ON BEHALF OF SLC HOLDINGS, THE OWNER OF 86 JOMO ROAD. AND WITH ME TODAY IS SHEPPARD BOUND, THE SOLE MEMBER OF THE RC AND JOHN BURNS FROM HUDSON PROPERTY ADVISORS.

>> WE'RE HERE TONIGHT SEEKING AN INTERPRETATION OF THE ZONING CODE SPECIFICALLY THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD FAMILY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A USE VARIANCE TO PERMIT THE PROPERTY TO BE USED FOR MORE THAN FIVE UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS WHO WOULD BE RESIDING IN THE HOME AS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A FAMILY. AND AS A SINGLE NON FOR NOT I'M

SORRY A SINGLE NONPROFIT HOUSEKEEPING UNIT. >> SO I JUST WANT TO START WITH A LITTLE BACKGROUND ON THE PROPERTY IF WE COULD BRING UP THE GIST MAP 86 DROMORE IS A LITTLE OVER SIX AND A HALF ACRES AND IT'S SHOWN RIGHT THERE.

IT ABUTS THE GREENBURG NATURE CENTER TO THE NORTH. THE EDGEMONT JUNIOR SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL TO THE SOUTH AND A MULTIFAMILY HOUSING DEVELOPMENT TO THE WEST.

AND IT'S LOCATED IN THE R 20 DISTRICT. >> IT IS PRESENTLY IMPROVED WITH A VERY LARGE UNUSUALLY LARGE ONE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING WITH ACCESSORY STRUCTURES. IT HAS OVER 11,000FT2 AND LIVING SPACE OR OVER 14,000 IF YOU COUNT THE PARTIALLY FINISHED BASEMENT IN THE ATTIC .

THERE ARE 31 ROOMS INCLUDING 17 BEDROOMS, SIX FULL BATHROOMS, TWO AND A HALF BATHROOMS WITH

NO PRIMARY SUITES. >> IMPORTANTLY THIS HOME IS HISTORICALLY BEEN USED FOR

RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES FOR MULTIPLE UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS. >> THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY ABOUT A YEAR AGO FROM THE SISTERS OF THE BLESSED SACRAMENT WHO HAD BEEN OCCUPYING THE PROPERTY AS A CONVENT. AND THE SISTERS HAD PURCHASED THE PROPERTY IN OR ABOUT 97 FROM THE POOREST FATHERS WHO OWNED AND OPERATED A MONASTERY

ON THE SITE. >> SO RELEVANT HERE. >> SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE AS OF RIGHT USES AS OUR PLACES OF WORSHIP WHICH INCLUDES IN THE DEFINITION CONVENTS AND

MONASTERIES. >> SO WHY ARE WE HERE? SHEP IS THE DIRECTOR OF THE

CAMP OF CAMP SUMMIT. >> CAMP SUMMIT IS A SLEEPAWAY CAMP IN PENNSYLVANIA FOR CHILDREN, TEENS AND YOUNG ADULTS WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES.

SOME OF THE FAMILIES WHOSE YOUNG ADULTS WENT TO THE CAMP ARE NOW AGING OUT OF BOTH CAMP

[01:15:04]

THEY DECIDED TO POOL THEIR RESOURCES AND TO PURCHASE THIS HOUSE TO FIND A FOREVER HOME

FOR THEIR FAMILY, FOR THEIR CHILDREN. >> THE GOAL WAS TO RECREATE WHAT THEY WENT THROUGH IN THE SUMMER WHERE THEY LIVED TOGETHER AS A FAMILY AND BUT

INSTEAD ON A YEAR-ROUND BASIS. >> EACH OF THE EACH OF THE FAMILIES CONTRIBUTED TO THE PURCHASE OF THIS HOME AND THEY'LL CONTINUE TO CONTRIBUTE

TO THEIR CHILDREN'S WELL-BEING. >> SO TO BE CLEAR WE'RE NOT HERE ASKING FOR IS A GROUP HOME A COMMUNITY RESIDENCE OR WHAT WE CONSIDER A PART OF AN HOUSE WHICH IS A COMMUNITY RESIDENCE

. >> THIS ISN'T A LICENSED FACILITY FROM OPW OR OUR OMA OR ANY OTHER GOVERNMENTAL AGENCY. THERE'S NO STAFF OR EMPLOYEES, NO PROGRAMING THERAPY, MEDICAL CARE PROVIDED AS A SERVICE. THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT FOR SOMEONE TO BE AWAKE 24 SEVEN LIKE THERE WOULD IN A COMMUNITY RESIDENCE. AND THERE'S NO FEE TO LIVE

THERE. >> THESE ARE INDIVIDUALS WHO KNOW EACH OTHER AND WANT TO

LIVE TOGETHER. >> THEY'RE NOT PEOPLE WHO ARE ON A WAITLIST WITH OPW WAITING

FOR A ROOM TO OPEN UP IN A COMMUNITY RESIDENCE. >> THERE WILL ALSO BE 2 TO 4 GUARDIANS WHO WILL ACT AS THE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD FOR THE FAMILY.

IT WOULD BE OPERATED AS A SINGLE NONPROFIT HOUSEKEEPING UNIT AND THE FUNCTIONALLY EQUIVALENT OF A FAMILY. NOT UNLIKE HOW THE PROPERTY FUNCTIONED FOR YEARS AND NOT

UNLIKE ANY OTHER EXTENDED FAMILY OR LARGE FAMILY. >> SO BEFORE I CONTINUE I WANT

TO INTRODUCE THE BOARD TO SHEP . >> HE COULD BETTER EXPLAIN WHAT THE WHY THEY BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY AND WHAT THE PURPOSES I SHEPHERD BAUM.

I LIVE IN NEW YORK CITY. I'M NOT A PROFESSIONAL LAWYER SO IF I DON'T SAY SOMETHING

CORRECTLY I'M NOT DOING IT TO OFFEND. >> I APOLOGIZE.

>> CORRECT. >> YOU COULD WAIVE IT. MY KIDS GUYS COULD WAIVE.

>> UM, SO EVERY PARENT DREAM I THINK IS THAT YOUR KIDS OUTLIVE YOU.

THAT'S WHAT'S SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN. THAT'S NATURAL.

MY BIGGEST FEAR IS THAT MY DAUGHTER OUTLIVES ME BECAUSE MY DAUGHTER HAS SPECIAL NEEDS.

IT'S OUR AND WHO'S GOING TO TAKE CARE OF HER AND WHERE SHE GOING TO LIVE AND WHAT'S GOING

TO HAPPEN TO HER. >> WHEN MY WIFE AND I ARE GONE AND EVERY NIGHT THAT KEEPS ME UP AND INSTEAD OF SEEING ALL THESE FAMILIES NOT KNOWING WHAT TO DO, WE GOT TOGETHER WITH FAMILIES WHO ARE IN THE SAME SITUATION WHO SEND THEIR KID TO MY CAMP EVERY SUMMER.

>> AND TRUST ME BECAUSE THEIR KID LIVES AT MY CAMP AND SAID WE'RE NOT WAITING AROUND.

WE CAN'T WAIT TILL WE'RE ON OUR DEATHBED TO DO SOMETHING. AND WE MET THE SISTERS AND THEY WERE AMAZING. AND SISTER MARY'S LIKE WE WANT THIS PLACE TO CONTINUE TO BE USED FOR GOOD. PLEASE KEEP IT GOING. AND WE GOT TOGETHER AND EVERYONE CHIPPED IN AND WE BOUGHT THIS BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY THAT WAS ALREADY TURNKEY FOR WHAT WE WANTED AND WE MOVED THESE SIX BEAUTIFUL YOUNG INDIVIDUALS IN AND THEY WERE THRIVING AND THAT WAS THEIR HOME. AND ONE OF THEM STARTED WORKING AT THE GREENBERG NATURE CENTER AND WOULD WALK OVER AND THEN WE WERE TOLD WE HAD TO LEAVE.

>> THEY THOUGHT WE JUST WENT ON TRIPS. AND IF YOU ASK JAMES HE WILL TELL YOU WHERE WE'VE BEEN LIVING A LOT OF DIFFERENT PLACES.

>> THEY WANT TO BE HOME. THIS IS THEIR HOME. FROM THE DAY MY CHILD WAS BORN

AND DIAGNOSED. I CHANGED EVERYTHING. >> I WAS IN FINANCE, WHATEVER.

I GAVE IT ALL UP AND I FIGHT FOR MY KIDS AND I'M NOT GOING TO STOP FIGHTING FOR MY KIDS.

ALL THEY WANT IS TO LIVE IN A SAFE PLACE WITH THEIR FAMILY. MY DAUGHTER'S NOT GOING OFF TO GET MARRIED AND LIVE ON HER OWN. SHE JUST WANTS TO HAVE HER FAMILY. YOU ASK HER WHERE HER HOME IS. SHE WILL TELL YOU SCARSDALE.

I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE LEGAL STUFF AND WHY THIS IS ALL HAPPENING FOR SIX BEAUTIFUL YOUNG KIND ADULTS THAT JUST WANT TO LIVE TOGETHER. WE WOULD BE OKAY IF IT WAS FIVE. BUT IT'S NOT OKAY FOR SIX AND THERE WAS 20 BEAUTIFUL SISTERS THAT LIVED THERE BEFORE HAND. I COULD GO ON ALL DAY TALKING ABOUT THE IMPORTANCE OF THIS

[01:20:05]

THEY DESERVE THE SAME OPPORTUNITIES AS MY SON WHO'S NEUROTYPICAL AND HE WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE A WIFE AND KIDS AND MAYBE EIGHT KIDS AND LIVE IN THIS HOUSE BECAUSE HE BIRTHED THEM. THIS IS FAMILY. THIS IS NOT STRANGERS THAT ARE

COMING OFF THE STREET. >> THIS IS FAMILY. WE ORIGINALLY WERE THINKING

ABOUT OPENING UP A SCHOOL AND ALL THIS STUFF THAT CHANGED. >> THAT ALL CHANGED.

THIS IS PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN WITH US 12 YEARS, 12 YEARS, FIVE YEARS.

>> FOUR YEARS. BEFORE BEFORE I EVEN OWNED SUMMIT AND SIX YEARS.

RIGHT. THEY'RE NOT FRIENDS. THEY'RE SIBLINGS AND THEY NEED TO BE IN A PLACE THAT'S SAFE AND NOT A GROUP HOME WHERE I'VE SEEN TOO MANY TIMES MY DAUGHTER IS NOT GOING TO GROUP HOME OVER MY DEAD BODY BECAUSE SHE'S NOT BEING PUT IN A ROOM.

>> THEY GO ON TRIPS THEY GO TO OUT FOR MEALS. JAMES WILL TELL YOU WHERE OUR

FIRST MEAL WAS THAT WE EVER WENT TO. >> AND MY DAUGHTER AND THESE KIDS DESERVE THE SAME AS MY SON. I'M SORRY THAT I GOT EMOTIONAL

BEFORE I SAID I WASN'T GOING TO CRY. >> I SAID IT WAS A GOING TO GET WORKED UP BUT IT'S NOT FOR ME. IT'S FOR MY KIDS. AND I GET MAD AND I WILL FIGHT AND NOT STATE STOP FIGHTING FOR MY KIDS. SO THANK YOU.

AND I HOPE THAT I DON'T KNOW WHAT I WILL DO TO SAY PROVE THAT I DON'T KNOW IF IT

HAPPENS. >> THANK YOU. >> UNFORTUNATELY IT WON'T BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY YOU REALLY STEPPED IN SOME REALLY DEEP.

YOU KNOW WHAT IF IT'S NOT THE ZONING BOARD AND THE USE OF GETTING AN AREA VARIANCE AND THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD FAMILY WHICH IF YOU KEPT GOING I WAS GOING TO SHED A TEAR IN ANY OTHER ONE TO MAKE IT EVEN WORSE. WAS A USE VARIANCE WHICH IS EVEN MORE DIFFICULT TO GET APPROVED. SO YOU KNOW WE WE CAME IN A LITTLE LATER. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO START AT SEVEN.

WE CAME IN A LITTLE LATER BECAUSE WE WERE BEING INSTRUCTED AS TO WHAT WE CAN OR CANNOT DO BECAUSE YOUR TEARS WE WERE GOING TO SAY OKAY, I CAN'T TAKE THIS ANYMORE.

>> LET'S APPROVE IT. BUT UNFORTUNATELY WE CANNOT. AND UNFORTUNATELY WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT HOW LONG THIS IS GOING TO TAKE OR HOW QUICKLY THIS IS GOING TO TAKE AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RELY ON OUR HELP FROM OUR LEGAL DEPARTMENT TO SEE WHAT WE CAN OR CANNOT DO. SO JUST TO LET YOU KNOW YOUR YOUR YOUR YOUR YOUR SPEECH REALLY, REALLY GOT TO ME IN MY HEART JUST SO THAT YOU KNOW THAT.

THANK YOU. SO JUST AS A POINT NO SPEECH ATTORNEY JUST A POINT OF CLARITY HOW WOULD THE DEED OPERATE FOR THE FAMILY OR THE HOUSEHOLD STRUCTURE? SO 20 YEARS FROM NOW, 30 YEARS FROM NOW IF DAD IS NOT HERE, WHAT THEN HAPPENS TO IT REMAINS A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE NOW BUT WHO WHOM DOES INDEED THEN TRANSFER TO?

>> IT'S JUST LIKE ANY ANYONE WHO OWNS A HOUSE WHOEVER BUYS IT NEXT.

>> SO I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND THE QUESTION BECAUSE A YOUNG IT'S IN THE LLC NAME THAT'S

WHERE I WAS. >> OKAY. SO MEANING THAT ONCE DAD AND OTHERS ARE OUT THE WAY THE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE STILL LIVING THERE 20 YEARS 30 YEARS FROM

NOW WHAT HAPPENS? >> OH, BECAUSE IT'S IN OH I SEE WHAT YOUR QUESTION WAS SO IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO SHEP. CORRECT. WHICH WE HOPE DOESN'T BUT OF COURSE FOR 20, 30, 40 YEARS IT'S AN LLC AND THE LLC WOULD BE CONTINUED.

AND THEN JUST IN TERMS OF ITS DAY TO DAY OPERATION AS THE YOUNG PEOPLE BEGAN TO DEVELOP AND SOME MAY DECIDE OKAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, I WANT TO GO LIVE BY THE BEACH TWO ADDITIONAL FAMILIES NOW COME IN OR DOES IT WILL JUST STAY KIND OF IN TRUST TO THAT INITIAL GROUP OF 5 TO 6 THAT ARE THERE NOW IT'S I CAN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION JUST LIKE I COULDN'T ANSWER IF YOU ASKED ME YOU KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU HAVE ANOTHER CHILD SO THAT THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING

[01:25:07]

HERE IS THAT THIS IS JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SINGLE FAMILY. >> THANK YOU.

EXCEPT EXCEPT I WANTED TO PRESENT OUR APPLICATION. >> WE HAVEN'T EVEN GOTTEN A CHANCE EXCEPT THAT IT'S NOT LIKE ANY OTHER SINGLE FAMILY HOME BECAUSE IT HAS LIKE 17 BEDROOMS AND SO MANY OTHER ROOMS. SO I THINK THAT PART OF WHAT WILLIAM WAS ATTEMPTING TO GET AT WHICH IS YOU KNOW, IT'S AND I SAID SOMEWHERE HOW MUCH WAS PAID FOR THIS AND THAT IF YOU WERE GOING TO RENOVATE IT SO THAT IT COULD BE SEPARATE OR LIKE APARTMENTS IT WOULD BE LIKE ANOTHER ONE AND A HALF TO $3 MILLION AND CONSTRUCTION COSTS YOU KNOW, WE CAN MAKE A DECISION NOW OR ACTUALLY IT WON'T BE NOW ON WHAT CAN BE DONE BUT THEN WILLIAM IS SAYING ALL RIGHT, SO WHAT HAPPENS IN 15 OR 20 YEARS? THE DECISION THAT WE MAKE SOON, HOW WILL THAT AFFECT WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS RESIDENCE QUOTE

UNQUOTE RESIDENCE AS TIME GOES ON? >> SO JUST TO ADDRESS THAT AND

I WILL GET TO THAT IN MY PRESENTATION. >> THE TOWN RIGHT NOW IS LOOKING AT A ZONING CODE AMENDMENT THAT WILL ACTUALLY MAKE THIS A CONFORMING USE.

>> WE WOULDN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE HERE. THE PROBLEM IS THAT YOU'RE IN THE PROCESS AND IT'S GOING TO BE AT LEAST THE END OF THIS YEAR IF NOT NEXT YEAR BECAUSE I, I, I SIT ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS DAIS. I KNOW IT COULD TAKE A WHILE AND I JUST DON'T WANT THESE KIDS TO THESE AND AND CHIP QUALLS AND THE KIDS THEY'RE YOUNG ADULTS EVERYONE'S OVER 20 RIGHT? CORRECT.

OVER 21 NO ONE DRIVES JUST TO BE CLEAR ALSO OTHER THAN THE HEADS OF THE HOUSEHOLD, JUST LIKE A FAMILY IT WOULD BE LIKE THE PARENTS WHO DRIVE AND THEY TAKE THEM TO, YOU KNOW, A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT OR SOMETHING, WHATEVER WE ALL GO BRING OUR KIDS TO.

SO THE ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION REALLY IS WHAT HAPPENS IN 15 YEARS ASSUMING THIS IS A YOUR ZONING CODE'S ADOPTED, IT'S LEGAL, IT'S CONFORMING TO THE CODE AND AS I'LL GET TO I THINK IT'S LEGAL NOW TOO BUT I'LL I'LL GET TO THAT IN A MINUTE. SO I THINK THAT'S THE ANSWER TO

YOUR QUESTION. >> THANK YOU. SO I'M SORRY I INTERRUPTED YOU WERE READING MY MIND THAT WAS EXACTLY THE SAME QUESTION I HAD WAS THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING

I'M A 17 YEAR OLD SO OKAY. >> THANK YOU. SO WE ARE AGAIN HERE FOR AN INTERPRETATION OR NOT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A USE VARIANCE. WE ARE SEEKING AN INTERPRETATION THAT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY AS A ONE FAMILY DETACHED DWELLING FOR MORE THAN FIVE UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS CONSTITUTES A PERMITTED USE. THE COURTS IN THE STATE HAVE REGULARLY FOUND THAT THESE TYPES OF LIVING ARRANGEMENTS ARE ARE A FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A FAMILY BECAUSE IT'S DESIGNED TO CREATE A STABLE FAMILY ENVIRONMENT WHEN THE BLOOD RELATIVES CAN'T DO IT THEMSELVES. BUT AT ISSUE HERE IS AS WE'VE

BEEN DISCUSSING THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY. >> SO IN PART YOUR CODE DEFINES FAMILY AS ONE OR MORE PERSONS OCCUPYING A DWELLING UNIT AS A SINGLE NONPROFIT HOUSEKEEPING UNIT. BUT THEN IT GOES ON TO SAY THAT MORE THAN FIVE PERSONS EXCLUSIVE OF DOMESTIC EMPLOYEES ARE NOT RELATED BY BLOOD MARRIAGE, ADOPTION OR GUARDIANSHIP SHALL NOT BE CONSIDERED TO CONSTITUTE A FAMILY AS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 11 TO 13 UNRELATED INDIVIDUALS LIVING AS A SINGLE NONPROFIT HOUSEKEEPING UNIT WITH THESE HEADS OF HOUSEHOLD JUST LIKE PARENTS OR GRANDPARENTS AND EXTENDED FAMILY. BUT THAT DISTINCTION IS ULTIMATELY IRRELEVANT BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE OF THE CODE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN FOUND TO BE ILLEGAL AND UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

>> THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS SAID THAT IF YOU TREAT UNRELATED FAMILIES DIFFERENT THAN RELATED FAMILIES BY BLOOD THAT'S A VIOLATION OF THE STATE CONSTITUTION.

SO WE CITED A BUNCH OF CASES IN OUR SUBMISSION I'M NOT GOING TO DO ORAL ARGUMENT HERE BUT YOU SO WE CITED THOSE CASES. AND SO RESPECTFULLY, THE COURTS HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THIS PROVISION IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND UNENFORCEABLE SINCE IT LIMITS THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED

INDIVIDUALS BUT NOT THE NUMBER OF RELATED INDIVIDUALS. >> AND AS I SAID, THE TOWN SEEMS TO HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT BECAUSE THEY'VE CHANGED THAT IN THEIR CODE IT REMOVES THE LIMITATION ON THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED PEOPLE AND INSTEAD FOCUSES ON HOW THE GROUP OF PEOPLE LIVE. AND THAT'S WHERE WE TALK ABOUT THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENCE.

SO SORRY THAT'S MY I ALREADY GAVE THAT SPIEL. >> IT ALSO DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT LOGICALLY WHY YOU WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BLOOD RELATED AND UNRELATED AND WE PUT A HYPOTHETICAL IN OUR SUBMISSION LETTER ABOUT YOU KNOW, SOMEONE JOINS A FACEBOOK GROUP AND YOU KNOW, COUSINS OF THIS FAMILY OR DESCENDANTS OF WHOEVER AND THEY'RE ALL RELATED BY BLOOD BUT THEY'VE NEVER MET BEFORE BUT THEY COULD DECIDE TO GET

[01:30:04]

TO ME THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. >> SO YOU KNOW THESE YOUNG ADULTS HAVE GROWN UP TOGETHER. THEY KNOW EACH OTHER. THEY LOVE AND RESPECT EACH OTHER AND THEY HAVE SHARED EXPERIENCES. YET UNDER THIS THE STRICT READING OF THE CODE THEY'RE NOT A FAMILY. BUT TO PARAPHRASE ROBIN WILLIAMS AT THE END OF MRS. DOUBTFIRE, FAMILIES ALL LOOK DIFFERENT.

THEY COME IN DIFFERENT FORMS AND IF THERE'S LOVE THOSE ARE THE TIES THAT BIND.

>> THAT LOVE IS HERE. SO WE SUBMIT THAT THAT PORTION OF THE DEFINITION THAT WOULD RESTRICT UNRELATED PEOPLE TO LIVE TOGETHER HAS ALREADY BEEN DEEMED BY THE COURT TO BE INAPPLICABLE AND UNENFORCEABLE AND SHOULD BE DISREGARDED AND CAN BE SEVERED FROM YOUR CODE.

YOUR CODE HAS A SEVERANCE PROVISION FOR EXACTLY THIS TYPE OF SITUATION.

SO ACCORDINGLY OUR FIRST REQUEST IS THAT YOU ISSUE INTERPRETATION THAT THIS IS A PERMITTED USE UNDER THE ZONING CODE AND THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS MAY LIVE IN THIS HOME.

>> BUT WE UNDERSTAND PRECEDENT . WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS GROUP OF INDIVIDUALS BUT OTHERWISE WHO WOULD OTHERWISE MEET THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY ARE ASKING FOR SOMETHING OR ASKING THIS BOARD TO ACKNOWLEDGE AND AGREE THAT YOUR CODE IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL AND YOU MAY NOT WANT TO GO THERE. SO THAT'S WHY WE MADE OUR ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT WITH THE USE VARIANCE. AND AS THE BOARD KNOWS THAT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE'RE ENTITLED TO USE VARIANCE WE HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT WE'RE BEING REQUIRED TO USE THE PROPERTY FOR ANYTHING OTHER THAN WE'RE PROPOSING WOULD CAUSE AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP AND TOWN LAW TO 60 7B2 SETS FORTH A TEST THAT WE HAVE TO FULFILL IN ORDER TO GET A USE VARIANCE. SO THE FIRST PRONG OF THAT USE VARIANCE IS WHETHER THERE WOULD BE A REASONABLE RETURN OF THE PROPERTY IF IT'S USED IN CONFORMANCE WITH ONE OF THE AS OF RIGHT USES IN THE CODE. I'M GOING TO DEFER TO JOHN WHO WILL DISCUSS THAT AS SOON AS I'M DONE WITH THIS AND I'LL GET THROUGH IT AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE.

>> GO TO THE SECOND PRONG. A APPLICANT MUST DEMONSTRATE A UNIQUE HARDSHIP OR AS THE COURTS HAVE CALLED IT THEY SAY THAT THE CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY ARE PECULIAR TO PECULIAR TO AND INHERENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN COMPARISON TO THE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE SAME ZONING DISTRICT. HERE THE PROPERTY IS UNIQUE BOTH IN ITS HISTORIC USE, ITS LOCATION AND ITS SIZE. JOHN WILL TOUCH ON THIS AS WELL IN HIS PRESENTATION BUT IT'S A 31 BEDROOM DWELLING. IT'S LOCATED ADJACENT TO A SCHOOL, THE NATURE CENTER AND MULTIFAMILY JUST BEING LOCATED NEXT TO MULTIFAMILY MAKES IT UNIQUE IN A FOR A HOUSE LIKE THIS BECAUSE TYPICALLY YOU FIND A STATE HOMES LIKE THIS IN HOMOGENEOUS LOW DENSITY SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS. ALSO WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT AWARE OF ANY OTHER CONVENTS OR MONASTERIES THAT ARE ON THE MARKET IN THE R 20 ZONING DISTRICT.

SO THAT MAKES THIS UNIQUE. AND IT BEARS NOTING THAT THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE UNIQUE.

THIS IS A UNIQUE FAMILY AND WE ARE COMING IN TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO ACT AS A FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A FAMILY AS OPPOSED TO A BORDER HOUSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

SO WE SUBMIT THAT WE FULFILL THAT PRONG OF THE TEST. >> THE THIRD PRONG OF THE TEST IS TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CHARACTER OF THE COMMUNITY WOULD NOT BE ADVERSELY

IMPACTED. >> THIS HAS BEEN A SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE FOR PROBABLY OVER A CENTURY. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.

IT WILL CONTINUE TO BE A RESIDENTIAL DWELLING AND IT WILL BE AND JUST LIKE THE MONASTERY IN THE CONVENT IT WILL HAVE MULTIPLE INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE NOT RELATED LIVING AS THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A FAMILY. THERE WOULD BE NO IMPACT FROM THESE INDIVIDUALS LIVING IN 11 OF 11,000 SQUARE FOOT DWELLING ON SIX AND A HALF ACRES.

NOTHING WILL CHANGE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LASTLY IS THE VIEW OF THE LAST

PRONG IS THE SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP PROBLEM. >> NOW I UNDERSTAND TYPICALLY IF YOU BUY A PROPERTY FOR A USE THAT'S NOT PERMITTED YOU'RE DEAD IN THE WATER.

>> YOU DON'T GET YOUR USE VARIANCE BECAUSE IT'S SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP AND UNLIKE AN AREA OF VARIANCE THAT IS DISPOSITIVE. BUT IN THIS CASE WE SUBMIT THAT

THAT'S NOT WHAT HAPPENED HERE. >> AS MENTIONED BEFORE THE COURT OF APPEALS HAS HELD THAT THE VERY PROVISION WE'RE HERE ABOUT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. SO THE APPLICANT DIDN'T CREATE THE HARDSHIP THE FACT THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THE CODE STILL EXISTS EVEN THOUGH IT'S BEEN DEEMED UNCONSTITUTIONAL CREATED THE HARDSHIP IT'S UNENFORCEABLE ,IT'S ILLEGAL AND WE WE

MAINTAIN THAT THAT'S NOT A SELF-CREATED HARDSHIP. >> SO I'VE GONE THROUGH THE FOUR PRONGS. I WANT TO SEE THE FLOOR TO JOHN WHO WILL WHO PREPARED THE REPORT, THE ZONING FEASIBILITY ANALYSIS THAT WE SUBMITTED AND HE'S HERE TO DISCUSS THAT AND

ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> MADAM MADAM CHAIRPERSON, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD MY NAME IS JOHN BURNS. HOLD ON.

JONATHAN BURNS THAT'S BTR AND Z MY OWN AND OPERATE A COMPANY CALLED HUDSON PROPERTY

[01:35:03]

UM I WAS TASKED WITH EVALUATING THE FEASIBILITY OF THIS PROPERTY AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE OR ACTUALLY TO LET ME LET ME BE CLEAR. CLEARER.

TO EVALUATE THE DIFFERENT USES IN THE ZONING R T ZONING TO SEE IF THEIR FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE.

SO WE PREPARED THIS REPORT WHICH I BELIEVE YOU ALL HAVE BEEN GIVEN A COPY OF AND I AM NOT GOING TO READ IT WORD FOR WORD. I'M NOT GOING TO REITERATE WHAT'S BEEN SAID OVER AND OVER AGAIN ABOUT ■THE LOCATIONWHAT WHAT THE SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE. YOU'RE ALL WELL AWARE I KNOW YOU'RE ALL WELL AWARE OF DROMORE ROAD IN PARTICULAR I AND THAT THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE IS SO OUT OF CHARACTER.

BUT VERY BRIEFLY THE REPORT HAS A DESCRIPTION OF THE THE LOCATION THE AREA, THE SPECIFIC LOCATION AND THEN THERE'S A LOT OF DETAIL ON THE PHYSICAL ASPECTS OF THE SITE, THE LAND

AND THE BUILD THE BUILDING ITSELF. >> I'M GOING TO JUMP OVER TO EXCUSE ME LET ME JUMP OVER TO MY PAGE 20 WHERE AGAIN 11,000FT2 WITH 31 ROOMS AND 17 BEDROOMS IS NOT A CLEARLY NOT A TRADITIONAL OR TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE.

BUT IT'S NOT JUST THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE, IT'S THE LAYOUT. I'M GONNA JUMP THROUGH ALL THE PHOTOS AND EVERYTHING AND GET TO THE VIABILITY OF ALL OF THE PRINCIPAL PRINCIPLE PERMITTED USES. SO MANY OF THE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE R T DISTRICT ARE NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT HOW DO I PUT THIS? THEY'RE NOT TYPICALLY PURCHASED ON THE BASIS OF INCOME GENERATION OR THEIR NONPROFIT USES CHURCHES, SCHOOLS, THINGS LIKE THAT. SO THE ONLY ONE THAT IS POTENTIALLY A VIABLE USE IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. SO WHAT WE DID WAS WE LOOKED OVER THE PAST TEN YEARS IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA TOWN OF GREENSBURG AND WE FOUND THAT THERE WERE THE NUMBER OF SALES SOMEWHERE LIKE 50 OR SO SALES AND LISTINGS OF HOUSES.

WE FOCUS THE SEARCH ON HOUSE LARGE HOUSES FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES OVER 5000FT2 WITH NO UPPER LIMIT UPPER SQUARE FOOT LIMIT. SO THERE WAS ONE HOUSE THAT WE FOUND THAT WAS AROUND 14,000FT2 BUT THAT'S SORT OF AN OUTLIER BECAUSE THE NEXT CLOSEST ONE IS 8800 AND THERE'S ONLY 4 OR 1, TWO, 4 OR 5 THAT ARE OVER 8000FT2 AND ALL OF THE OTHERS ARE LESS THAN LESS THAN 8000FT2. SO AT 11,000 IT'S CLEARLY, YOU KNOW, WAY OUT OF SCALE WITH THE WITH THE REST OF THE HOUSES. BUT IT'S NOT JUST THE SIZE AND IT'S THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS OUT OF THAT SAMPLE WE FOUND ONLY ONE OF THEM HAD REPORTED THEY HAD NINE BEDROOMS BUT THAT WAS INFORMATION TAKEN FROM THE MULTIPLE LISTING SERVICE WHICH IF YOU LOOK AT THE THE TOWN OF GREENBERG'S PROPERTY RECORD CARD THAT ACTUALLY HAS LESS THAN NINE BEDROOMS I THINK IT'S LIKE SIX. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THE BROKER OR WHOEVER PUT THAT NUMBER IN MAYBE COUNTED BASEMENT ROOMS BUT WE'RE NOT COUNTING BASEMENT ROOMS AT THE PROJECT SITE. THIS PROPERTY AT THE DRAMA ROAD PROPERTY THOSE ARE THOSE ARE ROOMS THAT ARE ON THE FIRST, SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR. AND ONE OTHER POINT I WANTED TO

MAKE IS THAT IT'S NOT JUST THREE STORIES. >> THERE'S ALSO A BASEMENT AND AN ATTIC ABOVE THE THIRD FLOOR AND THE QUALITY OF THE FINISH ON THE THIRD FLOOR IS SIMILAR TO THE QUALITY OF THE FINISH ON THE FIRST AND SECOND. SO IT TRULY IS A THREE STORY HOUSE AGAIN, AN UNUSUAL LAYOUT SO THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE THAT'S ONE REASON YOU KNOW IT JUST DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. I GAVE A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES FINANCIALLY HEATING WOULD BE MORE THAN A TYPICAL HOUSE MAINTENANCE WOULD BE MORE THAN A TYPICAL HOUSE, THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT THE LAYOUT IS REALLY ONE OF THE CRITICAL THINGS 17 BEDROOMS IS TOO MANY BEDROOMS BUT THEY'RE ALL SMALL ROOMS COMPARED TO HIGH END LUXURY RESIDENCES IN THIS IN THIS AREA IF YOU I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE A WAY OF PUTTING IT UP ON THE SCREEN BUT WE HAVE A A MAP, A LAYOUT THAT WAS PREPARED BY AN ENGINEER THAT SHOWS THAT THESE BEDROOMS ARE ALL RELATIVELY SMALL. THERE IS NO PRINCIPAL OR I THINK YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO PRIMARY BEDROOM IN THIS HOUSE SO THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT DETRACTS FROM ITS POTENTIAL MARKETABILITY AS A REGULAR NORMAL YOU WOULD THINK OF AS A

NORMAL HOUSE LOCATION. >> IT'S NOT AS AS JODIE HAD MENTIONED IT'S NOT IN A

[01:40:11]

IT'S A ONE OF A KIND AND IT'S ITS OWN IT'S THE ONLY ONE THERE.

SO LOOKING AT THE POTENTIAL FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY IN ORDER FOR IT TO COMPETE WITH OTHER LARGE ESTATE RESIDENTS IS TO GIVE YOU PUT THINGS INTO PERSPECTIVE.

THE APPLICANT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY FOR 3,000,007 50 IT WAS MARKETED THROUGH A BROKER SO IT WAS A IT WAS AN ARM'S LENGTH SALE BETWEEN BUYER AND SELLER.

THE TO PUT IT INTO PERSPECTIVE THE 2025 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLE FOR THE TOWN OF GREENBURG HAD THE PROPERTY ASSESSED AT 3,000,008 15 GREENBERG IS A 100% EQUALIZATION SO YOU KNOW IT'S WITHIN IT'S ABOUT TO WITHIN ABOUT 2% OF THE SALE PRICE INDICATING THAT THE ASSESSOR'S PURPORTED FULL VALUE IS SIMILAR TO THE RECENT SALE PRICE.

SO EVEN THOUGH THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN MAINTAINED IN ORDER FOR THIS BECAUSE OF THE REASONS I MENTIONED THE LAYOUT THE SMALL ROOMS OR THE LACK OF RIGHT YEAH I DIDN'T MENTION THE KITCHEN AND BATHROOMS THEY'RE NOT OF THE QUALITY THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN A LUXURY RESIDENCE IN THIS

MARKET. >> THEY'RE THEY'RE OKAY. THEY'RE AVERAGE BUT THEY'RE NOT

HIGH END APPLIANCES, HIGH END COUNTERTOPS, CUSTOM CABINETRY. >> IT'S NOT LIKE THAT.

SO IN ORDER TO BRING THIS HOUSE TO A MARKETABLE STANDARD WHERE IT WOULD BE COMPETED OF WITH SOMETHING A HIGH END LUXURY RESIDENCE IN THE MARKET THAT WOULD HAVE A HIGH END KITCHEN, HIGH END BATHROOMS, GOOD SIZE. WE HAVE THE PLANE UP THERE GREAT GOOD SIZED BEDROOMS, A PRIMARY BEDROOM SUITE TO DO ALL THAT IT WOULD REQUIRE PRETTY MUCH A GUT RENOVATION AND WE HAD AN ENGINEER GIVE US AN ESTIMATED COST TO DO THAT AND THEY ESTIMATED BETWEEN BETWEEN 400 AND 800 SQUARE FOOT WE USED A FIGURE BELOW THE AVERAGE OF EVEN $500 A SQUARE FOOT WHICH WOULD COST OVER $5.5 MILLION ABOVE THE 3,000,007 50 PURCHASE PRICE.

>> THAT WOULD BE A TOTAL COST OF $9 MILLION WHEREAS THE SALES THAT WE FOUND OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS OF THE LARGEST HOUSES, THE HIGHEST ONE WAS 3,000,006 AND THE AVERAGE THE AVERAGE 2 MILLION TO THE MEDIAN WAS 2 MILLION OR 40. BUT THIS IS AGAIN THIS IS NOT TIME ADJUSTED. BUT JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE WITH THE HIGHEST PRICE AT AROUND A LITTLE OVER $3 MILLION, THE $9 MILLION JUST IS NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE.

IT'S JUST CUT AND DRY. I HAVE TO SAY WHEN I FIRST TOOK ON THIS ASSIGNMENT I SAID TO JODY DO YOU REALLY NEED ME TO PROVE THAT THIS HOUSE IS NOT FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE? IT'S IT'S JUST SELF-EVIDENT. IT'S SO OBVIOUS. BUT SHE SAID WE NEED IT.

SO THERE YOU ARE OPEN TO QUESTIONS. THIS IS THE COMING CLOSE TO THE END OF APRIL. YEAH. WHICH IS THE DREAD DREADED TIME OF THE YEAR FOR MOST GREENSBURG RESIDENTS WHICH IS WHEN OUR TAXES ARE DUE.

SO I GUESS PREVIOUSLY WHEN IT WAS LIKE A CONVENT OR RELIGIOUS ESTABLISHMENT THERE WAS SOME KIND OF ARRANGEMENT MADE FOR TAXES TO BE TAX EXEMPT OR THERE WERE NO TAXES AT ALL I BELIEVE I DID NOT LOOK THAT UP BUT I'M GUESSING THAT THE SPECIAL DISTRICT TAXES WERE PROBABLY APPLICABLE BUT THE TOWN AND THE SCHOOL OR NOT THAT'S FREQUENTLY HOW IT IS.

I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE. OKAY THAT'S PUBLIC RECORD. SO UNDER THIS NEW ARRANGEMENT WOULD THAT STILL BE THE CASE OR WOULD YOU 11,000 SQUARE OH WE WOULD BE PAYING TAX AGAIN.

>> THIS IS A REGULAR SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE. THEY'LL BE PAYING REAL ESTATE

TAXES, SCHOOL TAXES, COUNTY TAXES, ALL THE TAXES. >> SO AN 11,000 SQUARE FOOT HOUSE WOULD BE PAYING A LOT A LOT IN TAXES GIVE OR TAKE. AND WHO WOULD BE PAYING THAT?

IT'S THE LLC AND THE FAMILY'S ALL CHIP IN. >> OKAY.

SO I'M WONDERING WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THE END OF THE MONTH COMES BY AND EVERYONE SEES WHAT THE

TAX BILL WOULD LOOK LIKE. >> SO RESPECTFULLY, I DON'T THINK THIS IS RELEVANT TO THE

LAND USE ISSUES BUT I'LL I IT'S A FAIR QUESTION JUST TO ANSWER. >> THEY'LL PAY THEIR TAXES SO

[01:45:03]

WHEN THE TAXES COME DUE THEY'LL PAY THEM LIKE ANY OTHER HOUSE. >> OKAY.

I HAVE ONE QUESTION. SURE. CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN FOR JODY A JODY OKAY WORSHIP MAYBE CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN THE HOUSEHOLD HEADS? WHO WHO ARE THEY? AND I'LL LET SHEP HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD WHATEVER YOU CALL

THEM SHEPHERD THEM. >> I DON'T KNOW. OKAY.

SO THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLDS ARE INDIVIDUALS THAT HAVE WORKED WITH THESE KIDS FOR DECADES LITERALLY DECADES AT SUMMIT CAMP AND THESE ARE THEIR KIDS AND THEN LIVE THEY LIVE IN THE HOUSE. THEY DON'T PAY TO LIVE IN THE HOUSE.

THAT'S PART OF THEY LIVE RENT FREE. THEY DON'T PAY FOR UTILITIES.

THEY DON'T PAY FOR ANYTHING BUT THEY GET TO LIVE THERE FOR FREE.

THAT'S THAT'S THE THEY'RE THEIR COMPENSATION IF YOU WILL. IT'S NOT COMPENSATION BECAUSE IT'S IT'S IT'S A FAMILY. RIGHT. SO THAT'S JUST HOW A PARENT WOULD LIVE THERE BUT THEY ACT AS THE PARENTS BUT THESE ARE NOT PEOPLE THAT WERE JUST LOOKING OUT AND OFF THE STREET AND HIRING HANDING PEOPLE DOWN TO COME THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN WITH LAURA AND ALEX HAVE BEEN TOGETHER FOR 11 YEARS IN THE SAME BUNK AND YOU KNOW DANNY, UH, YOU KNOW, 13 YEARS SO THEY'VE BEEN WITH THEM SINCE THEY'VE BEEN LITTLE AND IT'S

THE IT'S THEIR FAMILY. >> THEY'VE THEY THEY THEY'VE SHOWERED THEM, THEY'VE CHANGED THEM WHEN THEY NEEDED TO AND THEY'VE DONE WHEN THEY WERE LITTLE AND THEY'VE DONE EVERYTHING AS A PARENT WOULD THEY HAVE A SALARY YOU PAY THEM THEY HAVE A SALARY NO SO THEY THEY ARE THERE THEY HAVE A STIPEND TO HELP OFFSET SOME OF THE COSTS.

BUT NO, THERE IS NOT A SALARY JUST LIKE YOU DON'T HAVE A SALARY TO BE A MOM OF YOUR MOM.

THE I DON'T HAVE A SALARY TO BE THAT THEY BUT THEY DON'T HAVE TO PAY FOR UTILITIES OR FOR ELECTRICITY OR ANY OF THOSE STUFF AND IS THE IDEA UM THAT AT SOME POINT YOU COULD HAVE MORE KIDS MOVE IN NOW WE'RE NOT REALLY LOOKING TO YOU KNOW GROW BUT I ALSO WASN'T LOOKING TO HAVE A SECOND CHILD AND THEN I DID SO I DON'T WANT TO SIT HERE AND SAY THIS IS IT.

BUT NO WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO YOU'RE NOT MARKETING WE'RE NOT MARKETING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING OUT THERE AND SAYING OH, SEND THIS KID IF SOMEBODY FROM OUR FAMILY SAYS I WOULD LIKE TO DO

THIS, THAT'S IT. >> WE'LL ADDRESS IT AT THAT POINT.

BUT THAT'S NOT OUR INTENTIONS AND I'M ONE MORE. >> YEAH, MAYBE SO I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THING. YEAH, GO AHEAD. I UNDERSTAND THAT AT SOME POINT SOME OF YOU MAY HAVE HEARD THAT THIS WAS BEING MARKETED AND THERE WAS A WEBSITE BUT THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO. THAT'S NOT THE CASE ANYMORE. SO I JUST WANTED TO BE CLEAR AND PUT THAT ON THE RECORD AND THEN THE COTTAGE THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY IS WILL ANYBODY LIVE IN THERE OR IT WILL JUST YEAH, THERE MAY BE A A RIGHT NOW. NO YOU KNOW SOMEBODY WAS TALKING THAT YEARS AND YEARS AGO A CARETAKER LIVED THERE UM OUR CARETAKER HAPPENS TO BE A FIREMAN WITH A FULL FAMILY IN THE TOWN SO IT'S NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY KNOW I HAD A

QUESTION AND NO I FORGOT IT. >> SO I, I HAVE A QUESTION BECAUSE THERE WERE DIFFERENT NUMBERS I SEE IN THE PAPERWORK THAT EITHER ONE OF YOU PROBABLY COULD ANSWER IT 11 PLUS KIDS BUT YOU SAID YOU HAD SIX KIDS SO IT STARTED OFF AS NINE AND UNFORTUNATELY BECAUSE OF THEM HAVING TO MOVE OUT AND FIND OTHER ARRANGEMENTS IT'S NOW SIX AND THERE ARE SIX KIDS THERE

NOW. >> WELL NO ONE'S THERE NOW BECAUSE YOU HAD TO THEY HAD TO

LEAVE, RIGHT? SO THEY'RE RIGHT HERE. >> OKAY, SO I UM OKAY.

>> BUT FIVE COULD BE THERE NOW ALONG WITH THERE THERE WERE OTHER VIOLATIONS ON THE PROPERTY FOR WHEN THEY MOVED IN SO WE'RE TAKING CARE OF EVERYTHING AT ONCE.

>> OKAY. BUT THEORETICALLY YES. >> BUT EVEN TODAY FIVE PEOPLE WHO ARE UNDER THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF A FAMILY AND THEN THE RIGHT CARETAKERS COULD BE

DOMESTICS SERVICE PROVIDERS. >> BUT THEY'RE DON'T COUNT BUT THEY'RE NOT LIKE WE DON'T BUT THEY COULD BE LIKE NANNIES OR TEMPORARILY CARETAKERS TEMPORARILY.

>> BUT WHAT I WANT TO SAY IS ONE WHAT YOU SAID IS YES, THAT'S TRUE BUT YOU KNOW, PICK

[01:50:02]

WHICH ONE YOU DON'T WANT TO LIVE THERE. >> SO TO THE IT'S STILL

UNCONSTITUTIONAL WHEN IT COMES DOWN TO IT. >> SO I I, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT I THEN I WON'T BE THAT DEAD HORSE BUT YEAH, SO THE YOU KNOW WE'RE GOING YOU KNOW LIKE IT COULD TAKE A WHILE BEFORE IT'S REDEFINED I'M JUST THINKING IS THERE A WAY TO DO SOMETHING WHICH WE CAN DISCUSS AT OUR MEETING UNTIL THAT HAPPENS THAT FIVE PEOPLE UNRELATED CAN LIVE THERE RIGHT NOW? YES.

WITH THEIR CARETAKERS. >> BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AND THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY ARE. SO WE COULD COME HERE AND WE COULD TRY AND SHOEHORN THEM INTO A DEFINITION. WE COULD HAVE TRIED TO GET A SPECIAL PERMIT AS A GROUP HOME.

WE COULD HAVE DONE THIS IS WHAT THEY ARE SO WE'RE COMING IN WITH BEING HONEST AND OPEN.

>> EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT TO DO HERE AND I CAN'T THINK ONE WANT TO BE YOU LOOK AT THEM AND TELL ME WHICH ONE HAS THEIR HOME. THEY WANT TO GO HOME AND AS AS SOMEONE WHO SET UP A TRANSFER STATION SYSTEM FOR MENTALLY DISABLED ADULTS AND RAN IT FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS, IT'S SO I KNOW WHAT IT'S LIKE. I KNOW WHAT THE FAMILIES THINK .

I'VE DEALT WITH THIS FAMILY BEFORE THAT I SPENT SEVEN YEARS DOING TRANSPORTATION FOR DISABLED TODDLERS UNDER THE AGE OF FIVE UNDER THEIR IEP PROGRAM.

SO I GET IT AND I JUST WANT YOU TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT WHY YOU'RE IN THIS POSITION SOMEWHAT. I THINK WE ALL SAW THE SETH ROGEN MOVIE WHERE THE FRATERNITY MOVED IN NEXT DOOR AND THERE IS SOMETHING TO BE SAID AND THAT WAS PART OF THE QUESTION OF WHAT HAPPENS IN 30 AND 40 YEARS AND WHAT HAPPENS WITH ALL OF THIS.

SO WE ARE TRYING TO DO THAT VERY DELICATE BALANCING ACT OF COMPASSION AND UNDERSTANDING AND UNDERSTANDING THE HISTORY AND ALL OF THAT WITH REALITIES WITH LEGAL THE SAME LEGAL

ISSUES THAT YOU'RE YOU'RE WRESTLING WITH. >> SO AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT AND THAT'S ALSO WHY WE MADE THE ALTERNATE ARGUMENT RATHER THAN JUST ASKING FOR THE INTERPRETATION WHICH WE FEEL WE'RE LEGALLY ENTITLED TO BUT WE KNOW THAT THERE'S A SLIPPERY ISSUE AND THAT'S WHY WE'VE SAID THIS THIS FAMILY HAS DEMONSTRATED THEY'RE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A FAMILY OF FRATERNITY. COULDN'T SO COULD THEY MOVE IN

THERE AND NOT GET CAUGHT? >> THAT'S DIFFERENT. THAT'S ILLEGAL.

IF THEY MOVE IN THERE THEY'D HAVE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ARE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A FAMILY. WE CAN'T ASSUME THAT SOMEONE'S GOING TO MOVE IN THERE

ILLEGALLY BUT YOU KNOW THERE'S A PERMANENCE ISSUE HERE. >> YOU KNOW A FRATERNITY THEY'RE THERE FOR FOUR YEARS. THEY GO OR LESS. THESE PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE LIVING THERE. THIS IS THEIR FOREVER HOME. WHERE DID THEY COME AND DO FOR THEIR YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW. THEY CAN'T STAY THERE THE ENTIRE YEAR.

DO THEY HAVE SOME TYPES OF THIS WILL BE THEIR HOME THIS WILL BE THEIR LEGAL ADDRESS AND THEY WANT TO TAKE A VACATION OR SEE THEIR PARENTS OR SOMETHING HAPPENS IN THEIR FAMILIES.

>> WELL, THESE KIDS THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE ALSO HAVE FAMILIES.

>> SO THERE'S YOU KNOW, THERE WAS ALWAYS SOMEONE WHO'S GOING TO BE IN THE HOUSE AND TAKING CARE OF THEM JUST LIKE OR THEY GO ON VACATION TOGETHER BECAUSE THEY'RE A FAMILY.

>> I WANT TO SHEPHERD NEW YORK ,HE SAID EVERY TIME I COME TO YOUR OKAY, SORRY, YOU KNOW I'M GOING ON VACATION IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS WITH MY GORGEOUS WIFE FIRST TIME AWAY FROM OUR KIDS, OUR GRANDPARENTS, HER PARENTS ARE TAKING CARE OF THE KIDS. RIGHT? SO IT HAPPENS IN FAMILIES SO THEY GO ON VACATION. THERE'S OTHER PEOPLE THAT THEY CAN GO ON VACATION BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE THERE TO THAT'S ALL I'M

SAYING. >> THE STAFF OR THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLDS, THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD JUST LIKE ME. I'M THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD. I GO ON VACATION.

>> MY THE MY BABYSITTER IN OUR CASE GRANDPARENTS HAVE COME IN. WE HAVE PARENTS THAT OF OF ONE OF OUR RESIDENTS HERE WITH US TONIGHT WHO YOU KNOW ARE IN THAT SAME SITUATION.

SO UM YEAH SO THAT ANSWER IS YES IT DOES. I UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF FAMILY OF CHOICE I LIVE IT, I UNDERSTAND IT AND I SUPPORT IT BUT I HAVE TO I DON'T UNDERSTAND LLC AS HEAD OF FAMILY THAT I'M HAVING A PROBLEM UNDERSTAND WE'RE NOT THE LLC JUST OWNS THE PROPERTY . OKAY.

SO THE PROPERTY IS GOING TO BE VERY EXPENSIVE FOR A VERY LONG TIME.

I THINK THAT EVERYBODY CAN AGREE SO AND I WANT THE PEOPLE WHO EARN THE MONEY TO PAY FOR

[01:55:03]

IT AREN'T THERE. HOW WILL IT CONTINUE? >> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND HOW THE FINANCES ARE RELEVANT TO THE LAND USE ISSUES HERE RELATIVE TO THE TO THE TO THE FOREVER HOME AND THEIR RELATIVE TO THE FAMILY. YOU KNOW, I KNOW THAT IF I CAN'T PROVIDE FOR MY FAMILY, MY FAMILY HAS A PROBLEM AND I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THIS BECAUSE TO ME IT SOUNDS LIKE PEOPLE HAVE POOL THEIR RESOURCES FOR PRESENT EXPENSES AND THEY'LL PROBABLY POOL THEM FOR FUTURE EXPENSES. BUT I JUST WANT TO HAVE AN

UNDERSTANDING AS TO HOW WE PLAN FOR THE FUTURE. >> YEAH.

SO THE SAME WAY THAT I THAT YOU MAY PLAN IF YOU HAVE KIDS FOR FOR YOUR FUTURE RIGHT THERE'S INSURANCE RIGHT? LIFE INSURANCE IF I GO THERE'S LIFE INSURANCE THAT WILL TAKE CARE OF MY FAMILY ALL OF US PARENTS THIS IS WHERE OUR KIDS ARE.

>> THIS IS WHERE MY DAUGHTER IS GOING TO LIVE FOR THE REST OF HER LIFE.

>> RIGHT? SO JUST LIKE IF SHE WAS LIVING AT MY HOUSE WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I GO I HAVE TO HAVE A PLAN, A SUCCESSION PLAN FOR MY FAMILY AND SO THE THIS IS NOT JUST ONE

FAMILY THOUGH LUCKILY. >> SO THESE ARE MULTIPLE FAMILIES THAT THIS IS THEIR KIDS. RIGHT. AND SO THEY HAVE WE ALL HAVE POOLED OUR RESOURCES AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO THAT AND WHEN WE GO THE MONEY IS LEFT INTO THE WHATEVER IS LEFT IN INSURANCE GOES INTO THE TRUST WHICH YOU KNOW, MY DAUGHTER'S IT'S A

TRUST THAT ACTIVATES ONCE I PASS. >> SO ONCE I PASS MY DAUGHTER'S TRUST IS ACTIVATED AND THE MONEY GETS TRANSFERRED INTO HER TRUST AND THEN THE TRUST WILL PUT THE MONEY IN TO CONTINUE HER LIVING EXPENSES JUST LIKE IF I MEAN IF IF SHE LIVED IN MY HOUSE WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE SAME THING ARE THERE STOCK HOLDERS IN THIS LLC? THERE IS NO STOCKHOLDERS. NO. NO.

WHO OWNS THE LLC? >> IT'S A IT'S A SOLE ENTITY OR LLC WHO OWNS THE LLC AND THEN

THE LLC WILL THEN PASS DOWN AFTERWARDS. >> AGAIN I LIKE ANY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE I COULD PUT IT INTO AN LLC IF I WANTED TO AND OWN IT AND STILL LIVE THERE AS

A FAMILY. >> SO I'M RESPECTFUL. LEE I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S RELEVANT TO THE DETERMINATION OF WHETHER THIS IS A SINGLE FAMILY AND A FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A FAMILY. I MADE DISAGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY HAS TO BE WHAT WE NEED TO DETERMINE BECAUSE THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS HUGE SO THEY CAN AFFORD IT AND THEN WE ACTUALLY ARE YOU KNOW, ASKING YOU THESE QUESTIONS. PETER'S ASKING YOU THESE THESE QUESTIONS BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT IS PERTINENT IN TERMS OF WHAT HAPPENS TO THIS PROPERTY IF ANYTHING WERE TO GO WRONG.

SO THAT'S THE PRECEDENT THAT WE NEED TO AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT LIKE ANY FAMILY, IF SOMETHING HAPPENS TO A PARENT THEY HAVE A SUCCESSION PLAN, THEY HAVE ESTATES AND PLANNING.

THEY HAVE A PLAN FOR THIS AND THAT USUALLY DOESN'T COME UP AND AND I MEAN IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE DISCLOSED. I'M ONLY SAYING THIS BECAUSE IT'S PERTINENT TO OUR INTERPRETATION WHEN WE'RE GOING TO BE DELIBERATING. THESE ARE QUESTIONS THAT ARE

GOING TO COME UP SO IT'S BETTER TO ASK THESE QUESTIONS NOW. >> ABSOLUTELY.

WE KNOW THE ANSWERS. OKAY. AND SO THEREFORE THANK YOU FOR THE ANSWERS AND BECAUSE THIS IS ABOUT THE LAND, A DECISION WE MAKE ISN'T JUST FOR RIGHT NOW IT'S IN PERPETUITY AND THIS CHANGES THE LAND AND THE USE OF THE LAND AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE

BEING SO CAREFUL. I UNDERSTAND THAT. >> I WOULD ALSO ARGUE THAT IT REALLY DOESN'T CHANGE THE USE OF THE LAND BECAUSE LOOK, IF WE WERE TO GO TO COURT AND LITIGATE OVER, YOU KNOW, THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY, I THINK THEY WOULD FIND IN OUR FAVOR AND THEY'D BE ABLE TO LIVE THERE. THAT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT THE ROUTE

WE WANT TO GO. >> WE WE WANT TO BE PART OF THIS COMMUNITY.

THEY WANT TO BE PART OF THIS COMMUNITY. >> THAT'S WHY WE CAME IN HERE TO EXPLAIN TO YOU EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING ON. BUT WE UNDERSTAND THAT THIS RUNS WITH THE LAND. WE ALSO ANTICIPATE THAT THE LAW IS GOING TO CHANGE AND IT'S GOING TO BECOME CONFORMING ANYWAY AND THIS IS ABOUT, YOU KNOW, A YEAR GAP THAT WE NEED

TO TAKE CARE OF FOR THESE KIDS IF I COULD. >> AND I THINK WE PROBABLY SHOULD MOVE ON FROM HERE BUT I'LL ASK IT IN A CONVERSE WAY AND I NEVER WANT TO BE NEGATIVE SOMEONE KNOCK ON WOOD. SO IN TERMS OF THE WHOLE TAX ISSUE BASICALLY THE TAXES WERE NOT PAID IN THIS PROPERTY WOULD ULTIMATELY END UP GOING INTO FORECLOSURE.

CORRECT. AS ANY OTHER FAMILY. CORRECT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

[02:00:01]

>> IF YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE YOU DELIBERATE, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. WE'RE FROM JENNIFER CHAPMAN. WE MAY NOT DELIBERATE TONIGHT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO WAIT TO SEE WHAT THEY ARE GOING TO DO AND I KNOW WHAT YOU'RE SAYING BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT AND IN OUR POWER THIS TIME WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL IT'S PASSED TO SEE WHAT

EXACTLY IT IS. >> BUT BUT THAT'S NOT RELEVANT. WE WE BROUGHT I FOUND OUT TODAY

ABOUT THE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE. >> OUR APPLICATION ISN'T RELIANT ON THAT. IT'S JUST UNDERSCORES HOW REASONABLE WHAT WE'RE ASKING

FOR IS BECAUSE WE'LL BE LEGAL AS SOON AS THIS IS ADOPTED. >> I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING WE DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US. THAT'S OKAY.

>> ARGUMENT WAS YEAH EXACTLY. THAT'S WHY THE INTERPRETATION ARGUMENT AND THE USE VARIANCE IN THE ALTERNATIVE SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU.

ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK TO SIMON AND AGAIN THE THE ISSUE OF THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY CAME ABOUT ABOUT TWO YEARS ABOUT A YEAR OR TWO YEARS AGO WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE ADU LAW AND THE FACT THAT IT WAS INCONSISTENT WITH THE STATE LAW AND IT WAS AND WHAT THE DECISION WHICH ATTORNEY REFERRED TO BY THE APPELLATE DIVISION THAT CLEARLY STATES THAT OUR CODE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE LAW I RECOGNIZE AND THAT'S WHY THE TOWN IS GOING BACK TO CHANGE THAT DEFINITION . SO IT IS A MATTER OF TIMING AND AS THE ATTORNEY FOR THE LLC EXPLAIN RATHER THAN TAKING THE TOWN TO COURT, SPENDING THE MONEY AND THE TIME THEY CAME HERE TO TRY TO SHORT SHORT CIRCUIT THE PROCESS IN THE OTHER ISSUE IN IS IS THAT IS HIGHLY UNLIKELY THAT THEY THAT RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION IS IS A PAY AND TAXES I A MEMBER OF GRACE EPISCOPAL CHURCH THAT WE HAVE A RECTORY AND IN BETWEEN AND WE DON'T PAY TAXES ON THAT RECTORY BECAUSE THAT'S THE RESIDENT OF THE THE PRIEST SO WE DON'T PAY TAXES ON AND SO I ASSUME SAYING HOW THAT BUILDING WAS OCCUPIED FROM FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION I WILL I'M PRETTY MUCH SURE BUT YOU COULD CHECK THE RECORDS THAT THEY'RE NOT PAYING TAXES ON THAT PROPERTY NOW WHERE IT ENDS WHEN YOU TURN IT OVER TO A NON-RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION YOU PAY TAXES BECAUSE IN BETWEEN THE TIME WHEN WE WERE IN SEARCH FOR A NEW RECTOR AND THE PROPERTY WAS FAKE ID WE RENTED IT AND SURE ENOUGH WE HAD TO PAY TAXES ON IT. SO THAT'S ALL THAT WAS. I'M SORRY WALTER, BUT THAT WAS MY POINT WHICH WAS THEY WEREN'T PAYING TAXES WHEN THERE WAS A CONVENT AND A RECTORY.

BUT NOW THEY WILL BE PAYING PAYING TAXES AND A LOT OF TAX. >> THAT'S RIGHT.

THAT'S OKAY. THAT WAS OKAY. AND AND AND AND THE OTHER ISSUE LIKE I SAID ISSUE OF FAMILY YOU KNOW THAT'S I THINK THAT'S CLEAR THAT OUR CODE IS INCORRECT AND QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE FAMILY OPERATES AND WHO WOULD WHO WOULD LOOK AFTER THEIR FINANCES AS A PARENT, AS A GRANDPARENT YOU DO THAT NOW YOU PLAN FOR THE EDUCATION OF YOUR CHILDREN. YOU PLAN FOR INSURANCE. YOU PLAN FOR THE THE WELFARE FOR YOUR FAMILY. SO AS A FAMILY THAT THEY HAVE THE SAME RESPONSIBILITY AND OBLIGATION. NO ONE'S ASKING ME HOW I'M PLANNING HOW I PLAN FOR MY DAUGHTERS OR MY DAUGHTERS AND MY SON IN LAW. WHAT'S THEIR PLAN FOR MY GRANDCHILDREN? THAT'S A RESPONSE TO BUILD UP A FAMILY.

SO WE SHOULD CONSIDER THAT THE THE THE OTHER ISSUE IS THIS TEMPORARY DAY AND IT WAS THE

ALTERNATIVE OF THE USE OF VARIANCE. >> YEAH, BUT AS YOU SAY YES I

[02:05:02]

WERE LIVING BEFORE. THANK YOU. >> JUST ONE QUESTION BEFORE YOU GO EXCUSE ME BEFORE YOU GO YOU'RE HOME IN PROXIMITY TO THIS PROPERTY IS HOW FAR IT'S CLOSE ACTUALLY. WE LIVE ON GORDON ROAD AND WE ARE MAYBE TEN MINUTES 5 TO 10 MINUTE DRIVE THROUGH THE TOWN OF HARTSDALE ON TO CENTRAL AVENUE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY.

ANYONE ELSE? >> OKAY, WE WILL SEE WHAT WE WILL DO TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. NEXT CASE IS CASE 2607. I JUST THINK THAT 74 ARCHWAY ROAD. OKAY. YES, I DO THAT I CAN PULL UP.

YEAH, BUT SO FAR ONLY A COUPLE OF PAGES IN ORDER TO DISCUSS AM I ALLOWED TO SHOW THE SCREEN I DON'T HAVE THE SECRETARY PUB AND GO TO YOUR JUDGMENT IT'S EVERYTHING THAT'S WITHIN THE

PACKET. >> THERE'S NOTHING THAT'S NOT IN IT.

I JUST PUT IN SOME SLIDES TRY TO MAKE IT LOOK NICE. I, I JUST WORK OKAY SO JUST TO KIND OF GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF KIND OF THE PROJECT THAT WE'RE DOING I HAVE A BARN ON MY PROPERTY. THE BARN WAS PROBABLY BUILT MAYBE 1920 THE PERSON BUILT IT WAS AN ARCHITECT. I YOU KNOW IT'S BEEN SITTING THERE IT'S BEEN KIND OF GOING

INTO A STATE OF DISREPAIR AND I WANT TO REVITALIZE IT. >> SO BASICALLY I PUT IN A PERMIT ON AT THE END OF DECEMBER OF 2025 TO RENOVATE IT.

THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT CAME BACK TO ME AND SAID THAT BECAUSE WE WERE CONSIDERING ADDING DORMERS ON TO THE SECOND STORY THAT WOULD INCREASE THE AVERAGE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING AND GIVEN THAT THE BUILDING PREDATES MOST RULES THEY ALSO SAID IT'S AN ALTERATION OF AN EXISTING PREEXISTING NON CONFORMING STRUCTURE. SO ON THE RIGHT YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHAT THE THE BARN LOOKS LIKE TODAY. THE IDEA IS IN THE MIDDLE

[02:10:03]

IT'S NOT REALLY SEEABLE FROM THE ROAD OR ANY ROAD REALLY THE THREE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE DIRECT VISIBILITY INTO IT I KNOW WELL WE ACTUALLY HAD OUR EDGEMONT PTA EVENT LAST WEEKEND. I WAS CHATTING WITH THEM AT THE EVENT EVERYONE SUPPORTIVE MOSTLY BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO MAKE THE BUILDING LOOK A BIT NICER OR LOOK MORE LIKE THE HOUSES, THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE BARN THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT . IT'S A WAY THAT THE THE TOWN DOES THE MATH THAT THE AVERAGE HEIGHT IS INCREASING. WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ACTUAL

TOP LINE OF THE BARN. >> AS I NOTED EARLIER, THE EXTERIOR IS GOING TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT NICER. FOOTPRINTS NOT CHANGING. WE'RE NOT CHANGING ANYTHING ON IT. THE IDEA IS TO RETAIN AS MUCH OF THE BARN CHARACTER AS WE COULD WHILE JUST REALLY BRINGING EVERYTHING SO IT CAN STILL STAND AND LOOK NICE AND IT'S REALLY IT SO FOLLOWING THAT I KNOW THIS IS REALLY SIMPLE SORRY THAT IS DRAMATIC

RIGHT? >> WHAT IS GOING TO BE ON THE SECOND FLOOR?

>> I HAVEN'T REALLY IT RIGHT NOW IT'S SET UP TO BE JUST KIND OF LIKE A STUDIO IN A BATHROOM BUT I HAVEN'T REALLY GOTTEN INTO THAT HONESTLY THE COST OF DOING THIS IS UNBELIEVABLY PROHIBITIVE BUT I NEED TO SAVE THE BARN BEFORE IT GETS ANY FURTHER DAMAGE.

SO THE ORIGINAL THE PLANS INCLUDE EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE PLANNING ON DOING WHICH IS GOING TO HAVE A BATHROOM ON THE BACK SECTION OF IT AND THE OPEN AREA IN THE FRONT CAN BE USED FOR EITHER A STUDIO BEDROOM WHATEVER. WE HAVEN'T REALLY PUT MORE

THOUGHT INTO BEYOND THAT. >> WHAT IS THE GROUND FLOOR OF IT USED FOR CURRENTLY STORAGE BECAUSE IT HAD A DOOR AND WINDOWS AND STUFF IT'S NOT USED AS LIVING SPACE OR WORK SPACE NOW IT'S 1910 1920 SO IT WAS USED FOR HORSES BACK THEN. THERE ARE TWO HORSE STALLS IN

THE BACK. >> THE OPEN AREA I THINK IS WHERE THEY KEPT MAYBE THEY WASHED THE HORSES THAT USED TO BE WATER AND SEWER THAT USED TO RUN TO IT.

WE FOUND IT UNDERNEATH WHEN WE WERE KIND OF GOING THROUGH THERE.

WE'RE NOT AND WE'RE NOT FILLING IT IN SO THERE WILL NOT BE A GARAGE OF ANY KIND.

IT'S A JOYSTICK, WOODEN BOARDS. WE'RE PLANNING ON RETAINING THOSE ELEMENTS SO VERY MUCH TRYING TO KEEP AS MUCH OF A CHARACTER AS POSSIBLE AND EVEN THE STALLS THEY PLAN ON USING THE WOOD INSIDE IF I CAN RENOVATE AND WE'LL BRING YOU UP TO HOW MANY SQUARE FEET IT'S BASICALLY THE SAME IT'S 800FT2 ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR SO IT'S THE SAME IT'S ABOUT 1600 BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE ANGLES IF IT BECOMES LESS SO WE GOT A LETTER FROM THE HISTORIC AND

PRESERVATION BOARD AND DO YOU HAVE PLANS TO GO BEFORE THEM? >> I CAN I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW.

I'M JUST TRYING TO NAVIGATE THIS TO SAVE THE THING TO BE HONEST.

>> IT'S THERE'S NO AGRARIAN ASPECT TO IT WHATSOEVER. I LOOKED THROUGH THE HISTORICAL RECORDS OF THIS PLACE. IT WAS BY RIGHT THE GUY WHO ACTUALLY DESIGNED A BUNCH OF THE HOMES IN SCARSDALE. HE WAS AN ARCHITECT. I EVEN READ ARTICLES ABOUT HOW THEY RODE THE HORSES DOWN INTO RYAN GOT INTO AN ACCIDENT LIKE IT'S IT WAS NEVER AGRARIAN SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT CHARACTER THEY WOULD WANT TO RETAIN BUT I AM TRYING MY BEST JUST FROM A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE TO FIND A WAY TO KEEP AS MUCH CHARACTER. IN FACT I HAD IT TOOK ME ALMOST FIVE MONTHS TO FIND A CONTRACTOR WHO HAD MY VISION. MOST OF THEM WERE TELLING ME TO TAKE THE WHOLE THING DOWN, RIP ALL THE FLOORBOARDS OUT, DO ALL THIS.

I REALLY WANT TO RETAIN A LOT OF THAT CHARACTER SO I AM TRYING SO I DON'T EXPECT TO HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THEM IF I DO. BUT THE MAIN REASON IS THE SECOND STORY LOFT THAT'S EXISTING. I'M NOT CREATING IT.

IF WE HAVE TO ADHERE TO THE CURRENT BUILDING CODE WILL COMPLETELY BECOME INACCESSIBLE . SO IT'S KIND OF THERE'S A LINE TO CUT THERE.

>> OKAY. AND YOU ARE GOING TO PUT A KITCHEN IN BUT YOU TOOK IT OUT.

I PUT A KITCHENETTE. HONESTLY I JUST WANT TO BE SURE I CAN SEE EVERYTHING FIRST IF I EVER WANT TO ADD A STOVE I'M GOING TO COME BACK HERE AND DO WHATEVER I NEED TO DO TO GET IT DONE. BUT THEY JUST SENT OUT LETTERS THIS MORNING AND SO I DIDN'T REALLY HAVE MUCH OF A WAY TO REACT OTHER THAN TO KILL THE STOVE OUT OF THE PROJECT.

>> OKAY. SO AM I THE ONLY ONE WHO THINKS HE SPEAKS REALLY FAST BUT I SPEAK REALLY FAST AND THE FUNNY THING IS I WAS ACTUALLY BORN AND GREW UP IN THE SOUTH AND I DON'T KNOW HOW I ENDED UP AT SUCH A FAST TALKER BUT BUT I DO WANT TO CLARIFY DID YOU SAY YOU

WANTED TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT WOULD LOOK REALLY NEAT. >> I DO THINK GO LOOK NICE.

OKAY. SO IF ASKED TO DETERMINE WHY YOU WANT TO DO THIS SO THAT IF YOU WERE DENIED THE ABILITY TO BUILD THESE DORMERS YOU'D SAY OKAY OR IS THERE THIS HEART RENDERING RENDING I NEED TO ADD THESE DORMERS JUST TO ADD MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT ADDING TO THE HEIGHT IN ANY WAY. YEAH SO I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE

I UNDERSTAND THE ABSOLUTE NEED FOR YOU TO DO THIS. >> SO THERE WERE TWO ARCHITECTURAL DECISIONS THAT CAME INTO THIS. ONE WAS A RULE OF THE TOWN

[02:15:04]

YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING WITH IT. THE SECOND THING IS IN ORDER TO CREATE STAIRS AND COME UP WE WOULD HAVE TO RECONFIGURE THE STAIRS OVER THERE. THE STAIRS THAT ARE EXISTING ARE ABOUT THIS FAR AND WITH 2.5FT MAYBE AT MOST. WE'RE VERY TIGHT STEPS AGAIN 1920S AND SO IN ORDER TO KIND OF MAKE THE STEPS CODE WE WOULD NEED MORE SPACE AND SO WHAT WILL HAPPEN IS THE STAIRS RIGHT NOW WOULD JUST GO STRAIGHT. WE WOULD BASICALLY NEED TO ADD A LANDING IN THAT PROCESS YOU NEED HEAD SPACE TO TURN SO IT WAS THE ONLY FINANCIALLY FEASIBLE WAY TO MAKE IT WORK. NOW YOU SEE THAT'S THE KIND OF REASONING THAT WE NEED OTHER

THAN IT'LL LOOK REALLY NEAT YOU UNDERSTAND THAT RIGHT? >> YEAH.

THE DORMERS I DON'T THAT'S NOT WHAT I MEANT NEED I MEANT THE WHOLE PROJECT IS NEED TO ME LIKE RESTORING THE BARN AND KEEPING IT FALLING DOWN TO ME IS VERY INTERESTING.

I WANT TO KEEP THAT BARN AS BEST I CAN. I REALLY LIKE IT AS A AS A POOR HOUSE. IT'LL BE AS A POOL HOUSE PRETTY MUCH RIGHT.

>> THE MAIN REASON MY MY PARENTS ALSO I'M TRYING TO CONVINCE THEM TO STAY CLOSER TO US WHICH IS FACTORING IN MY DECISION AS WELL. OH, DID WALTER LEAVE BECAUSE I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK SO WE'RE NOT WE'RE NOT TOUCHING ON ANY LIKE IDEAS IN THIS YOU KNOW

WHAT AN IDEA IS? >> YEAH, I ONE OF THE REASONS IS AS I WAS PLANNING I SAW THAT THE 80 RULES WERE CHANGING AND I ALREADY PUT A LOT OF WORK TO TRY TO DESIGN THE THING.

SO I TRIED MY BEST TO GET IT IN WITHIN THE EXISTING RULES. I DIDN'T HAVE TO PAY ALL THESE PEOPLE AGAIN TO DO IT AGAIN BUT WHEN I WENT TO THE BUILDING ONE OF THE THINGS THEY SAID WAS THAT THE KITCHEN WOULD BE ALLOWED IN TO YOU BUT NOT IN THE EXISTING RULES.

SO THAT'S WHY I ASKED THEM HOW DO YOU WANT TO DEAL WITH IT? I ACTUALLY ASKED THEM BACK IN JANUARY. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LAST MINUTE.

I DID ASK PREVIOUSLY AND IT SOMEHOW JUST DIDN'T MAKE IT IN UNTIL THIS MORNING.

SO THEN THAT'S WHY I JUST SAID KILL THAT AND LET'S GO WITH THAT FOR NOW.

SO EXCUSE ME FOR TALKING SLOWLY FOR A SECOND. I WANT TO CONGRATULATE YOU ON TRYING TO SAVE THIS AS OPPOSED TO TEAR IT DOWN. I KNOW HOW HARD THAT IS

PRACTICALLY EVERY BUILDER SAYS LET'S START AGAIN. >> I I ALSO BELIEVE THAT THIS IS VIRTUALLY INVISIBLE TO THE STREET. IN FACT IT'S VERY CLOSE TO WALBROOK ROAD. RIGHT? AND YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT FROM THAT SIDE EITHER. SO WE HAVE SO WE'RE ON THREE ACRES.

WE HAVE TREES COMPLETELY COVERING IT. THE ONLY SIDE THAT IS CLOSED WHICH IS THAT THREE FOOT THE ONE THAT'S ACTUALLY OUT OF VARIANCE IF WE WERE TO TURN INTO AN 80 YOU IS ON SARA MARKS PROPERTY WHICH IS THE ONE NEXT TO US AND THEY HAVE WOODS THERE COMPLETELY SO YOU CAN'T REALLY SEE IT MUCH UNLESS YOU'RE THE TWO HOUSES LIKE YOU SAID ON WALBROOK THEY CAN KIND OF SEE IT BUT THAT'S ONLY DURING THE WINTER WHEN THE FOLIAGE ISN'T GROWING. WE HAVE SIX FEET MORE THAN SIX FEET IN FACT BETWEEN THE WALL WHICH IS THE ACTUAL BOUNDARY TO A MEDDLING FENCE THAT WE HAVE. AND SO THAT'S WE LET THAT BE FREE GROWTH FOR FOLIAGE. SO LIKE RIGHT NOW NO ONE CAN REALLY SEE IT.

BUT DURING THE WINTER THEY CAN AND ANY OF THE EVEN WITH THE DORMERS I MADE SURE THAT NOTHING NEW IS VISIBLE TO ANYONE. SO THE ONLY WAY THOSE WINDOWS FACE IS ONE DIRECTLY INTO OUR PROPERTY WHICH AGAIN HAS ALMOST 60, 40, 40, PROBABLY 40 OR 50FT OF WOODS ON THE OTHER SIDE IT'S MARK AND SARAH'S PROPERTY WHICH IS NOTHING ABOUT WOODS SO THERE'S NO LOSS OF PRIVACY. I EVEN CHATTED WITH MY NEIGHBORS LAST WEEKEND JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY WERE ALL COMFORTABLE AND EVERYONE SEEMS THEY'RE PRETTY HAPPY FOR THE PROJECT. SO YOU SAID YOU I WOULD ASSUME YOUR HOUSE WAS BUILT AROUND 19

OH ONE. >> IS THAT NOT WHAT THE PLAN SAY? IT'S HARD TO TELL ME AND MARK I'VE ACTUALLY BEEN TRYING TO FIGURE IT OUT BECAUSE OUR TWO PROPERTIES USED TO BE ONE IT WAS BUILT EITHER IN 1901 1902 THE MAIN PROPERTY OR 1920 EIGHT THE MAIN PROPERTY WAS BUILT AROUND 1901. I DON'T KNOW YOUR PARTICULAR HOUSE BUT MOST OF THE HOUSES BACK THERE AND RIGHT RIGHT WAS A LOCAL RESIDENT BUILDER.

IT'S A FAMILY THAT WENT BACK HUNDREDS OF YEARS. THEY WERE RELATED TO THE SILLIES AND THAT PROPERTY ORIGINALLY BELONGED TO THE STEELERS.

>> IT WAS IT WAS A QUARRY BACK THERE THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SO I THINK THAT'S FURTHER UP THE ROAD. THAT'S BASED ON ONE DRIVEWAY FURTHER UP.

>> YEAH. DO YOU HAVE THE STAIRWAY THAT GOES DOWN TO EDGEMONT ROAD THAT'S AT THE CORNER? YES, THAT'S RIGHT. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL STAIRWAY.

>> I KNOW I'VE BEEN THAT'S ANOTHER PROJECT FOR ME IN THE FUTURE IT'S A BEAUTIFUL WELL ANYWAY I BUT I THINK YOU DO HAVE TO GO IN FRONT OF THE HISTORIC PRESERVATION BOARD

DON'T YOU. >> THE BARN I DON'T THINK I DON'T KNOW.

I DON'T HONESTLY DON'T KNOW IT'S THE RIGHT BUILT IT PROBABLY MARK SEEM TO THINK THAT THEIR HOUSE IS THE ONE THAT SHOWS UP IN THE DRAWING BASED ON THE OLDER STUFF WE REALLY CAN'T TELL MIKE MY GUT IS THAT THE MAIN HOUSE WAS BUILT IN 1919 AND THE BARN WAS JUST LISTED AS A TWO STORY BARN. IT'S NOT AGRARIAN IF THAT'S THEIR MOTIVES IT'S UNSEEABLE BY THE STREET. NO ONE EVER SAW IT BEFORE.

[02:20:04]

WE HAVE SMALL HOLES THAT ARE COMING IN FROM RAIN. I HAVE ANIMALS THAT HAVE TRIED TO WOODPECKERS HAVE JUST EATEN THROUGH THE SIDE. I'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING TO

KEEP AT IT. >> YOU MEAN YOU MAY WANT TO HAVE COFFEE? NOT I ASKED ALL THE QUESTIONS I WAS GOING TO ASK IT. I WE COULD EAT WELL, I IMAGINE YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE LETTER FROM THE HISTORIC LAND LANDMARKS AND PRESERVATION BOARD AND WHAT THEY'RE TELLING US THEY SENT SOMETHING ON SUNDAY WAS IN WRITING.

YEAH. THAT SAYS THAT THEY WANT TO REVIEW IT AND THEN THEY HAD ASKED YOU TO CANCEL THE MEETING AND THEN WHEN I SPOKE SAYING IF THEY WANT US TO ADJOURN YEAH YOUR APPLICATION AND IF THE CASE IS NOT ADJOURNED THEY WILL NOT ASK THAT NO DECISIONS THAT

THEY RENDERED. >> I MEAN I'M HAPPY TO REVIEW IT WITH THEM BUT AGAIN I DON'T KNOW WHY WE SHOULD STOP WHATEVER YOU NEED TO APPROVE EVEN IF IT'S PENDING THEIR FINAL APPROVAL. THEY SAY THAT ANY BUILDING FARMHOUSE FALL TREE OVER 50 YEARS OLD WITH PLANS TO ALTER AT ON TO REHAB AND IT MUST COME BEFORE THE HISTORICAL BOARD CLEARANCE ON THE WORK TO BE DONE. I FRANKLY DON'T KNOW WHAT IS QUALIFIED IN THERE ARE GARRISON BACKGROUND AND THERE'S THERE'S NO FARMING OR ANY KIND OF AGRARIAN WELL THE HORSES MIGHT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR DEFINITELY HORSES BUT THEY WEREN'T BUT I'M SURE WHO KNOWS COULDN'T HAVE BEEN. IT WAS OUR ARCHITECTURE KNOW I'M NOT ONE OF THE KNOW I MEAN I'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING THROUGH THE HISTORY A LITTLE IS THAT IS IS THAT CORRECT THAT THEY MUST REVIEW IT AND APPROVE IT CAN BE REFERRED TO THE HISTORIC BOARD BUT AND I CAN CHECK WITH ED BUT THE BOARD CAN GRANT THE VARIANCE AND BEFORE AS A CONDITION BEFORE THE BUILDING PERMIT IS ISSUED THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE HISTORIC BOARD AND ANY RECOMMENDATIONS BE MADE?

>> OKAY. YEAH I THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME IF THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO.

I DON'T HAVE A HARD DEADLINE. I'M I'M NOT I DON'T MY ONLY CONCERN IS GETTING IT DONE BEFORE THE BARN FALLS OUT SO IF IT'S A MATTER OF AT LEAST WE CAN GET ONE STEP CHECKED OFF AND I'M WAITING FOR THE NEXT THAT FEELS LIKE PROGRESS TO ME TO HEAR SOME WE'RE WAIT AND SEE

WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE TABLE OVER THERE. >> THANK YOU.

SO WHAT ED WAS SAYING IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THEM UPON THE APPLICATION TO THE ZONING

BOARD. >> WHAT DID SHE DO? >> WHAT? YEAH. WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? IT SHOULD HAVE HAPPENED PRIOR TO COMING BEFORE US SO WE CAN'T WE CANNOT ISSUE AS PART OF THE APPLICATION RIGHT.

>> SO WE CAN'T WE CANNOT RULE NOW BUT WE COULD APPROVE IT AND HAVE IT AS A CONDITION CORRECT OR HE'S SAYING NO MAYBE CAN SAY ANYTHING IT ON THE BENCH IT SHOULD BE REVIEWED BY THAT IF THEY START WORKING FOR YOU DECIDE BECAUSE WHEN THEY DECIDE IF THEY WORK SOMETHING OUT WITH THE APPLICANT THEN I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT THEY WILL OR I SHOULD SAY THAT THE LETTER

FALLS ON WHAT TO DO. >> IT MAY IMPACT THE FINAL PLAN WHICH MAY ALSO IMPACT THE

CALCULATIONS THAT GO INTO WHAT THEY NEED FROM THIS BOARD. >> I MEAN JUST JUST SO I HAVE IT ON THE TABLE, THE VARIANCE THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR HAS TO DO WITH AVERAGE HEIGHT.

>> I CAN'T SEE THEM ALLOWING ME TO INCREASE IT. SO IF YOU DO AGREE TO A VARIANCE ANYTHING THAT IF THEY TRIED TO PUSH ME BACK IT MEANS IT GOES BACK DOWN RIGHT? SO AGAIN I DON'T SEE HOW THAT COULD ACTUALLY IMPACT US IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.

>> BUT ALL IN ALL WE SHOULD ADJOURN IT FOR YOU IN TO REVIEW IT WITH MADELINE AND THEN HAVE THEM COME BACK NEXT MONTH. THAT'S SO THAT'S IN ESSENCE WHAT THEY'RE ASKING THEY DO I THINK THE LETTER WAS PERHAPS IN ARTFULLY WORDED BUT THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING THAT YOU ADJOURN

IT THEY'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO DENY IT. >> YEAH.

COULD WE ADJOURN FOR DISCUSSION ONLY? >> NO QUESTION WE DON'T KNOW

[02:25:03]

BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE TO COME BACK, MAKE CHANGES. >> OKAY.

BUT THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU CAN'T DECIDE IT IN ONE THE NEXT TIME IT'S ON BEFORE YOU.

>> ALL RIGHT. >> IT'S NOT AUTOMATIC THAT THE CASE IS GOING TO BE HAVE TO BE ADJOURNED. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT HARD TIME BUT

UNFORTUNATELY YOU HAVE TO JUST FOLLOW THE PROCESS. >> I MEAN I'VE BEEN TRYING I MEAN AT THE END OF THE DAY IF IF THE QUESTION COMES BACK THAT I HAVE TO RETAIN IT NEXT YEAR

AS IS EXACTLY. I'M OKAY WITH THAT. >> BUT THE PROBLEMS BUILDING TURMAN WON'T LET THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS WORK SO YOU HAVE A CODE YOU KNOW IF IT'S MAINTAINING IT ANY FURTHER I RUN INTO OTHER ISSUES YOU WOULDN'T BELIEVE HOW MANY CONTRACTORS JUST TOLD ME TO CUT IT DOWN PRETTY MUCH EVERY ONE OF THEM.

>> WELL THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU TO TAKE IT DOWN. >> NO, I KNOW, BUT I'M SAYING IF THEY GO AND TELL ME THAT OKAY, THE DORMERS FOR INSTANCE ARE NOT THERE AND THEN THE STAIRS ARE NOW OUT OF CODE. RIGHT. THE HEIGHTS ON THE SECOND FLOOR NOW OUT OF CODE THE THICKNESS FOR INSTANCE FOR INSTALLATIONS OUT OF CODE I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF YOU CAN BARE YOU KNOW PUTTING IN A ROOF ON WELL A LOT OF THE THINGS NOW FALL APART SO LIKE IF I DON'T KNOW IF YOU SAW THAT IN THE DESIGNS WE ACTUALLY HAVE A CROSS BEAM ACROSS THE MIDDLE BECAUSE BACK THEN THERE'S NO CENTRAL BEAM WHEN THEY PUT THE ROOF TOGETHER IT'S JUST TWO PIECES OF WOOD WITH A LITTLE THIN BENT GOING IN THE MIDDLE.

>> YOU KNOW HOW OLD THE CONSTRUCTION THAT'S VERY OLD CONSTRUCT.

>> OH, I KNOW. I FOUND OUT THAT THAT'S THAT'S OLDER THAN YOU MIGHT THINK BUT IF THERE'S AN OLD BARN AT THE CORNER OF GRASS DRIVE IN OLD ARMY IT'S RED.

IT WAS RENOVATED TWO YEARS AGO. GO KNOCK ON THEIR DOOR AND ASK THEM WHAT THEY DID TO GET THAT TO WORK. WHICH WHICH ONE CORNER CORNER OF DORIS DRIVE AN OLD ARMY ROAD . IT'S A VERY VISIBLE RED BARN STRUCTURE.

THOSE PEOPLE HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS. I WASN'T HERE THEN.

I DON'T KNOW HOW THEY DID IT BUT THEY WENT THROUGH IT AND THEY SUCCEEDED.

>> THEY'RE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT. I'M JUST I'M AGAIN I'M NAVIGATING THIS AS I GO AND WE FOUND SOME ROT I'M I HOLD THEM TOO IN THE BARN.

I AM DESPERATELY TRYING TO GET IT SAVED. >> THERE'S ANOTHER BARN TOO THAT WAS RENOVATED ON CHATTERTON. RIGHT.

TWO HOUSES UP FROM CENTRAL AVENUE. AND IT'S WHAT THAT BARN IS PROBABLY FROM THE 1700S AND IT WAS RENOVATED. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE TEN, 15

YEARS AGO. >> I'M NOT AS FAMILIAR WITH ALAN BATSON WHITE PLAINS SO

IT'S GREEN. >> IT'S NO IT'S IN HARTSDALE. IT'S ON THE CENTRAL AVENUE SIDE OF THE CHAMPION PARKWAY AND PARKWAY OFF CENTRAL AVENUE. RIGHT.

OKAY. THAT WOULD SEEM LIKE IT'S WHITE PLAINS.

IT MAY NOT BE BUT THAT'S IT. >> IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT.

IT'S GREENBURG FOR THE NORTH. >> YEAH BUT IT'S LITERALLY TWO HOUSES IN FROM CENTRAL AVENUE.

>> YEAH. THE FOLKS ON DAWES DRIVE I KNOW.

WELL I CAN PROBABLY FIGURE OUT WHO YOU WORK ON THAT ONE SO I DON'T FORESEE ANY PROBLEM AND US ADJOURNING IT AND LET YOU GET A CHANCE TO REVIEW THIS WITH THE HISTORICAL LANDMARKS PRESERVATION JUST SO THAT YOU CAN LIKE I SAID CHECK OFF THAT ONE MORE BOX AND THEN YOU COME BACK IN FRONT OF US NEXT MONTH FOR OUR DECISION. IF THAT EXTRA MONTH DOESN'T BOTHER YOU KNOW, I MEAN LOOK IT'S IT'S BEEN A LONG PROCESS. UM, OKAY HOPING TO TO GET SOMEWHERE WITH IT OBVIOUSLY HAVE A LOT OF MONEY SITTING IN DEPOSITS FOR THE LAST SIX MONTHS BUT THAT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE BECAUSE AT THIS POINT IF WE GET IT APPROVED WE DON'T NEED TO. YEAH. IF THE PLANS DON'T CHANGE.

>> YEAH. I MEAN IS IT POSSIBLE TO PUT A CONDITIONAL CONDITIONAL APPROVAL ON IF NO CHANGES FROM THE THE PRESERVATION ORDER? NO NO BECAUSE WE CAN THEN YOU HAVE TO COME BACK AND ARGUE WHATEVER. SO WHEN YOU COME BACK IF THEY MAKE CHANGES NO NO I SAID CONDITIONAL ON NO CHANGES SORRY THAT WAS WHAT I JUST ASKED FOR.

OH YEAH. >> THAT'S NOT A LOT EITHER. OKAY.

WHAT DID I LAWYER JUST SAY RECOMMEND LET HIM GO ADJOURNING IT FOR AND HAVE THEM GO BEFORE THE HISTORIC BOARD WHICH MEETS THE SECOND WEEK IN IN THE MONTH IN THE MONTH.

>> RIGHT MAY I THINK MAY 12TH. >> IS THERE A TIMING IN ORDER TO PUT A SUBMISSION FOR THAT ONE AS WELL? I KNOW THERE WAS A ONE MONTH IN ADVANCE FOR THIS ONE.

I DON'T BELIEVE SO. WELL, I COULD BE WRONG ON THAT, KYRA.

YOU WOULD KNOW THAT. I WILL SAY THAT THE HISTORIC BOARD IS GOING TO BE MORE

[02:30:02]

>> YEAH. >> AS IT SITS TODAY BUT IT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH

THE HISTORY OF IT. >> NO I THINK LIKE FOR INSTANCE THERE'S A TIN ROOF ON IT I KNOW

100% THERE WAS NOT A TIN ROOF ON THAT BEFORE. >> ALL RIGHT.

THESE ARE THINGS THAT YOU DISCUSSED WITH THEM. >> SURE.

AND I THINK IT'S MORE VISUAL MORE SO THAN TEMPTING TO DO SO DON'T DON'T SEE IT AS A PUSHBACK. IT'S JUST IT'S NOT NO ESTHETICALLY DURING THE EARLY 19 HUNDREDS WHAT DID A BARN LOOK LIKE? SO THERE'S A PROPERTY UP AT THE SCHOOL FARM THAT I HELPED TO MANAGE ALONG WITH SOME OTHERS THAT ARE COMING OUR WAY.

BUT WHEN WE WENT TO RENOVATE THAT PROPERTY IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT THAT IT LOOK PERIOD.

SO IT'S NOT TO SAY THAT WHAT YOUR DESIGN AND DESIRES INTERIOR WISE ARE WHAT THEY WOULD QUESTION IS MORE SO IS ME FLYING IN A HOT AIR BALLOON OVER THE PROPERTY OH OH

GOODNESS WOW. >> YEAH I MEAN THE GOAL IS ACTUALLY TO MAKE SURE IT MATCHES THE HOUSE IN THE COMMUNITY SO I DON'T EXPECT ANY ISSUE FROM THAT FROM OKAY NEXT

ANYONE WANT TO DISCUSS THIS? >> OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANKS. AND THE NEXT NEXT CASE WE HAVE IS CASE 2608 GUY ON AND THAT'S IN A BOND ROAD. GOOD EVENING MEMBERS OF THE BOARD MY NAME IS ANDY CHONG AC ENGINEERING ON THE ENGINEERING RECORD FOUR ZERO PETER BOND ROAD ALSO KNOWN AS BLUEBERRY

HILL ROAD. >> WITH ME IS THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY AND ALSO THE ARCHITECT I WILL SHARE MY SCREEN SO YOU CAN SEE WHO INDUSTRIES THAT ARE IN THE LAST ONE SO ZERO PETER ROAD IS A EXISTING VACANT LOT AT THE END OF BLUEBERRY HILL ROAD IT'S APPROXIMATELY 4.7 ACRES AND WE ARE PROPOSING A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON THIS LOT. SO DURING THE COURSE OF OUR DESIGN WE'VE GONE TO THE PLANNING BOARD, WE'VE WORKED WITH AARON SCHMIDT AND MATT BRITTON IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, WE'VE WORKED WITH VINNY AND MR. COPPOLA FROM THE

ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. >> WE'VE WORKED WITH LIZ AND IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SO IN OUR PROCESS OF DOTTING I'S AND CROSSING T'S WE IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THERE WERE TWO VARIANCES THAT WERE NEEDED FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOT. JUST TO GIVE A QUICK OVERVIEW OF THIS OF THIS SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, THE THERE THERE'S A STORMWATER PLAN THAT WAS DESIGNED FOR THERE WAS A UTILITY PLAN WHICH PUMPS EFFLUENT UP TO AN EXISTING SEWER. THERE'S GOING TO BE AN EXTENSION OF A WATER MAIN THAT GOES TO THE HOUSE. THERE ARE WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY.

WE'VE PROCURED THESE PERMITS TO ALLOW FOR CONSTRUCTION WITHIN 100 FOOT WETLAND BUFFER SO WE'VE WE'VE GONE THROUGH ALL OF THE ENGINEERING AND EVERYTHING IS IS DONE.

WE'RE WE'RE GOOD TO GO. SO THE TWO VARIANCES THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS 25 FOOT REQUIRED STREET FRONTAGE ON IT ON ONTO A DEDICATED PUBLIC STREET THE HOUSE IS SERVED OR THE DRIVEWAY TO OUR PROPOSED HOUSE IS BEING SERVED FROM AN EXISTING SHARED DRIVEWAY WHICH IS OFF THE END OF WHICH IS AT THE END AT THE END OF BLUEBERRY HILL ROAD WHICH IS A CUL DE SAC.

>> AM I GOING TO ZOOM IN UH, ON THIS? >> YOU CAN PROBABLY SEE A

LITTLE BETTER. >> CAN YOU HIGHLIGHT IT? YES.

>> SO WHERE MY CURSOR IS NOW THIS IS EXISTING BLUEBERRY HILL ROAD.

>> THIS IS THE CUL DE SAC AS YOU FOLLOW THE CURSOR THIS IS THE EXISTING SHARED DRIVEWAY

[02:35:01]

>> WHAT WHAT ARRANGEMENTS DO YOU HAVE TO MAKE WITH THE OWNERS OF THE EXISTING TWO FAMILY DRIVEWAY SO THERE THERE IS AN EASEMENT TO ALLOW ACCESS TO TO BE ABLE TO USE THE SHARED DRIVEWAY. RIGHT. SO THERE'S THERE'S A RIGHT THERE'S THERE'S AN EASEMENT ON THE ON THE EXISTING SHARED DRIVEWAY TO BE ABLE TO USE BY TWO EXISTING NEIGHBORS SO ZERO PER BOND WILL WILL BE THE THIRD HOUSE THAT SHARES THAT DRIVEWAY

. >> SO THAT'S THE FIRST VARIANCE.

YEAH. EXCUSE ME ONE THING JUST BEFORE YOU GO FURTHER IN AND THIS IS JUST KEY TO US LOOKING AT IT AT ALL IN THE PACKAGE THAT WE GOT THE WETLAND WATERCOURSE FORM WAS REJECTED AND THE STEEP WAS ALSO REJECTED. CORRECT.

SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND SO THE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS SO THE WETLAND CLEARANCE FORM WAS REJECTED BECAUSE IT HAD WETLANDS ON THE PROPERTY SO WE THROUGH GOT GOING THROUGH THE WETLAND PERMITTING AND THE STEEP PERMITTING WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT DID ISSUE A LETTER APPROVING IT BECAUSE WE WENT THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD IS THAT I DID NOT SEE THAT IN THE PACKAGE. THE PACKAGE IT'S NOT IN THE

PACKAGE. >> THERE IS A LETTER WHAT'S WHAT'S WHAT'S THE LETTER?

>> IT'S I WOULD SAY IT'S LIKE A FORM FORM FIVE B OR SOMETHING THAT THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ISSUES IF IT IF I MAY SO WHEN A WHEN THERE'S WETLANDS OR STEEP SLOPES ON A PROPERTY THE ADMINISTER RATE OF LEAD THE DEPARTMENTS WILL REJECT THEM AND REFER THEM TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THEIR REVIEW THAT'S BEEN REVIEWED AND THERE'S THE VARIANCES THAT ARE REQUIRED.

SO IT'S COMING TO THE ZONING BOARD. IT'LL THEN GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR THE COMPLETION OF THE REVIEW OF THE SLOPES AND WETLANDS RIGHT?

>> SO AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING BOARD WE WERE HERE AT THE ZONING BOARD FOR THESE TWO VARIANCES. THERE'S THE DRIVEWAY THAT COMES OFF OF THE OLDER SITE BECAUSE

IT HAD 25FT OF OF FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC ROAD. >> WHAT DID YOU SAY? DOES INTO THE MICROPHONE I'M GOING TO HELP YOU DOES THE DRIVEWAY IT DOES, YES.

>> THANK YOU. >> OKAY. THAT'S THE DRIVEWAY.

WHAT DOES THE DRIVEWAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE PIGGYBACKING OFF OF HAVE 25FT OF OF FRONTAGE ON THE EXISTING PUBLIC ROAD? THAT WAS MY QUESTION AND LEWIS SAID YES. SO SO OUR LOT DOES NOT HAVE SO WE'RE PROPOSING ZERO FEET OF STREET FRONTAGE BECAUSE OUR DRIVEWAY GOES INTO THE THE SHARED THE SHARED DRIVEWAY I

BELIEVE IT'S 14FT WHAT THE WIDTH. >> YES SO THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S THE SECOND THAT'S THE SECOND VARIANCE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR IS AS PER PER NEW YORK CONSOLIDATED TOWN LAW TO TO ADA ACCESS TO THE HOUSE THE DRIVEWAY NEEDS TO BE 15FT.

THE WIDTH OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY NOW IS 14FT. >> YEAH.

SO SORRY I JUST WANT TO JUMP IN. MY NAME IS GUY COHN.

I'M THE OWNER OF PROPERTY AND ARCHITECT BUT JUST TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, THE STRIP OF LAND THAT YOU SEE ME SHOW YOU RIGHT IF I CAN GET THE CURSOR UP THERE THAT LITTLE FRONTAGE IS 25FT WHERE THE DRIVEWAY ENTERS INTO THE PROPERTY ALREADY.

SO THERE'S A TOWN RIGHT OF WAY ALONG THERE THAT YOU SEE IT LOOKS LIKE TWO LONG STRIPS THAT'S 50FT THAT'S A 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY AND WE ACTUALLY OWN THE PROPERTY BELOW TO THE SOUTH OF THAT EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT CAME ALONG WITH THE SALE OF THE HOUSE AND THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PUT THERE TO ALLOW A TOWN ROAD TO BE BUILT. THEY WERE PLANNING ON DOING A FIVE LOT SUBDIVISION THERE SO WHEN WE BOUGHT THE PROPERTY THAT HAD BEEN SORT OF I GUESS

[02:40:05]

I THINK YOU DESCRIBED IT PRETTY WELL BUT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT WAIT A LITTLE CONFUSED. YOU SAID THERE'S 50FT THERE, SOME OF ■WHICH YOU OWN,SOMEOF WHICH YOU DON'T OWN, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THERE IS 14FT NOT NOT 15FT. BUT OBVIOUSLY YOUR LAND PLUS THE USE OF THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY WOULD BE IN EXCESS OF 25FT. THE STRIP IF I CAN JUST CLARIFY THAT THE STRIP WHERE THE DRIVEWAY CURRENTLY IS IS 25FT WIDE.

THAT'S JUST THE STRIP OF YOU CAN SEE THE DIVIDING LINE BUT THE ACTUAL DRIVEWAY IS LESS.

I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. THANK YOU.

NO. SO WE WE ARE REQUESTING THESE TWO VARIANCES FOR THE SLOTS BEING GO BACK TO PLANNING BOARD . MAYBE ONE OTHER THING AND WE HAVE SOME PICTURES TO KIND OF SHOW YOU THE CONDITION TO GIVE YOU A BETTER IDEA OF HOW IT'S SORT OF SITUATION THIS SO THE TOP PICTURE IS JUST STANDING ON THE PROPERTY LOOKING UP AT THE SHARED DRIVEWAY, THE EXISTING HOUSE ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE THERE AS WE SCROLL DOWN SO THIS NEXT PICTURE SHOWS WE'RE STANDING AT THE TOP OF THE HILL LOOKING DOWN THE SHARED DRIVEWAY AND YOU CAN SEE THE GUARDRAIL ON THE RIGHT SIDE. THERE'S A STEEP GOING DOWN ON THE RIGHT SIDE AND YOU CAN SEE THE YOU KNOW, PRETTY MUCH A WOODED HILL ON THE LEFT SIDE AND THE GRASSY AREA TO THE RIGHT IS THE PART THAT GOES WITH THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

THE AREA TO THE RIGHT IS THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY THAT'S THAT'S AN EXISTING WELL THAT IS THAT IS THAT STRIPPED. YEAH. SO WHERE THE GUARDRAIL IS A LITTLE BIT PAST THAT TO THE RIGHT THAT'S THE PROPERTY LINE RUNS ALONG THAT AND THEN IT EXTENDS 25FT BASICALLY DOWN THE HILL RIGHT THIS THIS PICTURE SHOWS THE TOP OF THE HILL BASICALLY WHERE THE EXISTING MANHOLE THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE CONNECTING TO THE THIS IS A

PICTURE OF THE END OF BLUEBERRY HILL ROAD. >> THAT'S THE CUL DE SAC AT THE ENTRANCE OF THE SHARED DRIVEWAY . AND HERE'S A VIEW OF THE END OF BLUEBERRY HILL ROAD CUL DE SAC LOOKING INTO THE SHARED DRIVEWAY.

>> AND THEN HERE ARE A COUPLE OF VIEWS OF THE PROJECT SITE WHERE THE PROPOSED HOUSE IS

GOING. >> CAN YOU BACK UP ONE? YEP.

[02:45:01]

>> YES. OKAY. AND THAT YOU'RE AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT IS 25FT WITH YES. NOT NOT THE ACTUAL DRIVEWAY BUT THE ENTIRE WIDTH OF THAT PROPERTY THAT RIGHT OF WAY. YEAH. YEAH OKAY.

YEAH. AND HAVE YOU CHECKED TO MAKE SURE LIKE EMERGENCY VEHICLES CAN GET UP HERE LIKE THE FIRE ENGINES AND AMBULANCES AND TURN AROUND AND EVERYTHING AND GET

BACK DOWN? >> THERE WAS ACTUALLY A COMMENT FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. THEY WERE THEY WERE SATISFIED WITH OUR WITH OUR WITH OUR

RESPONSE. OKAY. >> AND THEN THE LAST FEW PICTURES ARE REALLY JUST PICTURES OF THE EXISTING SITE, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S IT'S WOODED THERE'S A LOT OF BARBERRY AND IN INVASIVE SPECIES THAT WILL BE REMOVED WE'VE SUBMITTED TREE REMOVAL PLANS AND LANDSCAPING PLANS THAT HAVE BEEN REVIEWED BY THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL. SO WE'VE WE'VE I THINK WE'VE WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING THAT THERE IS TO DO. THIS IS AN HOUR 40 DRIVEWAYS SO THAT'S THE PICTURE.

YEAH. UM JUST HELP ME UNDERSTAND IF I WOULD THAT THE SECOND VARIANCE YOU NEED ASSESS ACCESS TO THE PROPOSED STRUCTURES OVER AN EXISTING SHARED DRIVEWAY BY EASEMENT WHICH IS SUBSTANDARD REQUIRING VARIANCE. SO THAT'S THE WIDTH ISSUE,

CORRECT? >> CORRECT. AND SO THE TWO VARIANCES ONE IS THE STREET FRONTAGE OF 25FT AND THE OTHER IS THE WIDTH ISSUE THAT YOU WANT TO MAKE IT 14

RATHER THAN 15. THAT'S CORRECT. >> FOR EXISTING 14FT WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ON ADDING ANY ADDITIONAL WIDTH TO THE EXISTING SHARED DRIVEWAY AND IF YOU JUST ACTUALLY NOTICE FROM THIS PICTURE THAT THE DRIVEWAY PRETTY MUCH ENDS AT THAT GUARDRAIL. SO IF WE EVEN WIDEN IT ANOTHER FOOT THEN WE'D HAVE TO BUILD

OUT AND DOWN THE AS WELL. >> HAVE YOU SEEN THE LETTER FROM YOUR NEIGHBOR?

>> YES, WE HAVE WE HAVE. AND THAT'S NOT REALLY THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE ADDRESSING AT THIS

PARTICULAR MEETING. >> BUT IT'S GOING TO ALL FOUR OF THE OTHER AGENCIES.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. AND BUT I JUST WANT TO ADDRESS ONE OTHER THING IS THAT PART OF WHAT WE PLAN ON DOING WHEN WE DO THIS THIS THIS PROJECT IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TRENCH OUT THE DRIVEWAY IN ORDER TO BRING UTILITIES UP THERE.

>> AND SO WE'RE AS PART OF THE EASEMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE HAVE WITH ALL THE NEIGHBORS, WE'RE GOING TO REPAVE THE ENTIRE DRIVEWAY AND THERE'S AN ISSUE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DRIVEWAY WHERE THERE'S FLOODING. THERE'S HISTORICALLY FLOODING THAT'S GONE INTO OUR NEIGHBORS GARAGE. I THINK OUR NEIGHBORS HERE AND HE'S AWARE OF THAT.

WE PLAN ON CHANGING THE THE ACTUAL DRAINAGE AND PUT A DRAIN THERE SO IT NO LONGER

FLOODS INTO HIS GARAGE. >> SO THAT'S PART OF THE WHOLE PROJECT AND YOU'RE PAVING IT WITH IMPERVIOUS OR PERVIOUS ASPHALT THE SAME AS IT IS NOW IT WOULD BE TO TO PUT ANYTHING PERVIOUS WOULD PROBABLY BE DIRT OR YOU KNOW AND AND I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT STONES REAL CONCRETE THEY'RE NOT THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED BY THE TOWN OF GREENSBURG ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ANYONE? YES COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THE DID I UNDERSTAND YOU TO SAY THAT THE EASEMENT THAT PRESENTLY EXISTS IS THE 2 TO 2 PARTIES

AND YOU'RE GOING TO BE TACKING ON TO THAT, IS THAT CORRECT? >> LET ME JUST CLARIFY WE HAVE

[02:50:05]

TO MAINTAIN AND ALSO IMPROVE THE DRIVEWAY. >> ALL RIGHT.

JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE TO MODIFY THAT EASEMENT.

NO. OKAY. SECONDLY, DO YOU HAVE AN EXISTING IS THERE AN EXISTING MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT? WELL, YOU HAVEN'T BUILT ANYTHING YET SO I'D BE SURPRISED TO FIND OUT THAT YOU HAVE A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT TO

MAINTAIN SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST. >> YOU KNOW THE EASEMENT INCLUDES THE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT OF THE SHARED DRIVEWAY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT WOULD COVER THIS PROJECT FOR AS LONG AS WE LIVE THERE BEFORE AND A HALF BEFORE THE PROJECT

AND AS LONG AS WE LIVE THERE. >> OKAY. AND I REALIZE THIS MAY BE IN PLANNING ISSUE BUT HAVE YOU DISCUSSED THIS WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IN TERMS OF THE ADEQUACY OF ACCESS? WELL, AS ANDY MENTIONED, WE SHOWED THIS TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. WE HAVE AREAS CARVED OUT FOR TRUCKS TO PASS ONE ANOTHER.

SO IT'S BEEN APPROVED AS FAR AS THE TOWN GOES, AS FAR AS THE SITE PLAN AND THEY SAID IT COMPLIES WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT REQUIREMENTS. WE HAVEN'T ACTUALLY TALKED TO THE FIRE DEPARTMENT BUT WE DEPENDED ON THEIR EXPERTISE TO TO VALIDATE WHAT WE HAD DESIGNED THE THE TOWN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS HAS REVIEWED THE THE SITE ACCESS FOR FOR FIRE VEHICLES AND THEY WERE SATISFIED WITH OUR REVISIONS AND ANYONE ELSE I'D

LIKE TO. >> MY NAME IS JONATHAN MONK I'M AT A BLUEBERRY HILL ROAD ON THE SCREEN THERE. I'M NOT SURE IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE FORUM NECESSARILY TO RAISE MY CONCERNS BUT I KNOW THE LETTER I WROTE WAS MENTIONED I WAS JUST INTERESTED IN ENTERING INTO THE MINUTES MY CONCERN ABOUT STORM WATER AND DRAINAGE WHICH THERE ARE EXTENSIVE ENCOURAGING PLANS REGARDING ALL OF ALL OF THAT I'M JUST NOT SURE WHAT RECOURSE I HAVE AS FAR AS HAVING ENGINEERING OVERSIGHT DURING CONSTRUCTION.

AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT HERE I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE MENTIONED AT THE PLANNING BOARD THE FORTHCOMING PLANNING BOARD MEETING BUT SOMETHING I WANTED TO MENTION

TONIGHT I THINK YOU'D HAVE TO ASK NOT US. >> OKAY.

I'M JUST HERE FOR VARIANCES. YEAH, NEITHER OF WHICH I HAVE AN ISSUE WITH SO THANKS.

OKAY. ANYONE ELSE GOING ONCE? THAT'S IT.

GOING TWICE. >> THAT'S IT. WE ARE GOING TO OUR DELIBERATIONS GOING TO OUR BREAK. OUR BREAK.

OH WELL AFTER THAT AND YOU'RE WELCOME TO STAY HERE AND YOU CAN LEAVE ONE OF THE OTHER.

THANK THEY LOOK WONDERFUL SO OKAY OKAY YEAH YOU SAID IT SO I'M OKAY WANT I FIND THIS FOR US AND AND I THINK IT'S DIFFERENT THAN BEST BUY AND THAT BEST BUY IS NO LONGER STOPPED AND STUFF SAYS WELL NO NOT JUST IT'S NOT SOUND THAT'S RIGHT YEAH SO THEY SHOULD PROBABLY THEY SHOULD BE THE SAME WAY YOU I THOUGHT IT WAS CONFUSING ABOUT SPROUTS WAS IF THEY HAD KEPT HAVING PICTURES OF THE OLD VERSION NUMBER TWO. YEAH I WAS LIKE THAT WAS ARGUMENT WAS BACK IN JANUARY THAT THE ORIGINAL PRESENTATION WAS THAT IT WAS GOING TO BE YOU WANT TO MIX THE SAME LOCATION AS OLD IT IS SAME LOCATION AS FOR LIKE A BLOGGER NOW SAME LOCATION AS THE CHRISTMAS TREE SHOP. YEAH.

SO ONE IT IS A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE ROAD TO RENDITION AT THIS POINT IS 12.5% OF AN INCREASE SO THAT'S TO BE THE ONLY POINT OF CONVERSATION I WOULD HAVE IN TERMS OF HOW IT LOOKS.

[02:55:03]

KNOW THEY GAVE US TO YOU. >> OH YOU SAYING IT WAS TWO BECAUSE A DOUBLE STACK IS GOING TO BE SMALLER IN TERMS OF WHICH THAN THE SINGLE IS THIS ONE THIS CLUB THAT WE'RE VOTING ON

OR SPROUTS? >> YES. YES.

BECAUSE HE ALSO SAID A DIFFERENT PAGE WHICH WAS WHAT HAD IT.

HE WAS HE ORIGINALLY SAID THAT ANOTHER ONE WAS THE ONE THAT THEY WERE DOING.

LOOK AT THIS ONE THIS ONE SAYING THIS IS THE NIGHT VIEW. IT'S A DIFFERENT SIDE.

I DON'T KNOW HOW NICE IS DARKNESS TO THE NO, THAT'S THE WRONG NO YOU'RE CORRECT.

THAT'S WHAT HE SAID THIS IS THAT ONE OF THE BLACK IS ONE THIS IS WRONG THIS IS RIGHT THAT'S CORRECT OKAY HE COULD ALSO SAY THAT THIS WAS THE ONE THAT THEY WERE DOING.

SO I DON'T I GUESS HE'S JUST GETTING YOU KNOW, HE SAID BOTH I DON'T KNOW AND THEN IT CHANGED IT. I THINK OH, I WISH I KNEW EXACTLY WHAT I THOUGHT IT WAS

THE ONE I THINK ULTIMATELY IT WAS THIS ONE CORRECT. >> I THINK IT JUST MISSPOKE.

ONE I BELIEVE IS WHICH IS SIX INCHES HIGHER THAN WHAT IS ALLOWED.

AND IF YOU WENT FOR GRANTING THEM 4.5FT VARIANCE FOR THIS IS IT DOESN'T MATTER HOW THEY DO IT. THAT'S WHERE WE GET THIS IS THIS IS USING FOUR INCH

LETTERS. >> THIS IS FOUR FOOT LETTERS. THIS IS USING 4.5FT LETTERS NEXT DOOR TO EACH OTHER. WELL THE ONLY THING IS IS THAT THEN FARMER'S MARKET WOULD HAVE TO BE REDUCED AND IT BECOMES IT MIGHT BECOME NOT READABLE FROM THE STREET, CORRECT? POSSIBLY A GOOD FARMER'S MARKET SEPARATE FROM STUFF THAT'S STILL WHATEVER.

>> HERE IS PART OF THEIR TAGLINE BUT LOOK AT THE REST OF OUR SIGNS ARE IN THE YEAH PEOPLE DON'T GO THERE QUITE OFTEN PASS TO GET IT FROM MY FAVORITE SPOTS I'M NEVER QUITE FREQUENTLY BUT I'LL JUST TELL YOU COMPARED TO ALL THE OTHER SIGNS IN THE SHOPPING CENTER BUT WILL NOW COME TO US ENTITIES WE'RE NOT WE DON'T WE WE'RE NOT WE'RE GOING TO WE'RE

GOING SIX INCHES OVER WHAT THE OTHER SIGNS RIGHT? >> THE SIGN FOR SPROUTS WILL BE SIX INCH LETTERS. THE LETTERS WILL BE SIX INCHES HIGHER THAN THIS.

AND HERE'S EVERYBODY ELSE TO THE SHOPPING CENTER EXCEPT THEY HAVE THEIR THEIR BLUE.

SO USUALLY AS FAR AS TOO BIG THAT'S FINE. >> I'M USING THAT.

IT'S TELLING YOU WHAT SPROUTS WILL LOOK LIKE BUT YOU'RE GIVING BEST BY A POTENTIALLY A VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE LITTLE THING DOWN BELOW AND THEIR VARIANCE IN SPACE IS ACTUALLY BIGGER THAN WHAT SPROUTS IS ASKING NOW BECAUSE IT'S DOUBLE STACKED.

IT'S ACTUALLY NOT WELL THAT'S IF YOU GO WITH THE DOUBLE STAFF MIND AND THEY WANT NINE FEET YEAH I RIGHT I WOULDN'T AGREE BUT THE OTHER FOUR LETTERS THEMSELVES I FOR RIGHT SO IT'S FOUR AND FOUR AND THEN YOU HAVE THE OTHER FOOT BECAUSE A LITTLE YELLOW HASHTAG ON THE BOTTOM BUT I THINK YOU HAVE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE HERE WHO ARE NOT IN FAVOR OF DOUBLE STACK OF STACKING BEST BUY AT ALL. WE'RE ON MONTH THREE OF JIMMY JOHN'S AND THAT'S OKAY.

>> LET ME JUST TELL YOU THAT WE ARE WIPING OUT THESE SITES THIS BIG.

WHY DON'T YOU KNOW I'M OKAY YOU ALL HAVE OTHER SITES AND YOU'RE A PROFESSIONAL.

I'M I'M OKAY WITH THE VERSION FOUR OF THOUGH I'M OKAY WITH THIS RIGHT HERE OKAY WITH THE

FOUR FOOT THAT'S ALL YOU WANT TO HAVE? >> YEAH.

YEAH. HOLD ON. YOU WANT TO GIVE THEM 12 SIX INCHES I'M OKAY WITH YEAH I GUESS I DON'T SEE WHY THE THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR SHOULD HAVE OKAY WITH THAT SMALLER LETTERS THAN THEY SHOULD SIX INCH OF COURSE I HATE THIS ASK THEM IN EVERY SIX INCHES MATTERS THAT MUCH YOU EVER I WAS TALKING ABOUT SOME I KNEW WE COULD TALK ALL THE SIGNS I'M OKAY WITH ALL THREE IF YOU GUYS AREN'T OKAY WHICH THREE? I AM ALSO OKAY WITH ALL THREE SO THE DEBATE YOU'RE DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK THEM ALL THE TIME.

>> I'M SURE I DID BECAUSE I JUST YES I'M OKAY WITH THAT WITH THE 50% YES.

WHAT'S THE MATTER RIGHT NOW LET'S FINISH WITH THESE TWO. >> WHAT ARE WE TALKING YOU GUYS

[03:00:05]

THEY ARE LIKE YOU SAID. >> YES. WHICH IS I WILL SAY THE ONE THING THAT ARGUES IN YOUR FAVOR DURING THIS THE TAG THE YELLOW TAG COMES DOWN A LITTLE BIT AND

MAKES IT SAME. >> I DON'T THINK THAT THAT THE SIGN IS GOING TO READ AS SMALLER OR LESS THAN SPROUTS. SPROUTS IS LETTERING AGAINST A LIGHT BACKGROUND THAT'S A BLUE TAG AND A YELLOW TAG I THINK THAT'S GOING TO READ THE SAME OR MORE THAN SPROUTS.

SO I DON'T I THINK THE DIFFERENCE OF THE INTEREST IN INCHES TO WHAT YOU ACTUALLY SEE IS NOT GOING TO BE ALL OF US HAVE THE WRONG ONE. I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO READ BASICALLY THE SAME BECAUSE THEY'RE BOTH ALL CAPS. SO THAT'S SO PETER, WHAT DO YOU SAY TONIGHT THAT'S BY NO I'M SAYING APPROVE BOTH I CAN GO THAT WAY THEY'RE BOTH ASIAN FROM THE SAME OR FOUR AND A HALF THE ONES 4.83 WELL THIS IS BEST BUY IS ACTUALLY ASKING FOR THE LETTERS THE LETTERS ON BEST BUYER FOR YEAH I DO LETTERS ON SPROUTS FOR FOUR AND A HALF AT THE SIGN AND SO I'M LOOKING AT THE 4.5 FOR WHAT BEST KNOW THAT IS ALL WRONG.

NO THE NEW SUBMISSION THE NEW RESPONSE IS THE CHANGE THIS FINE OKAY AND THESE LETTERS SO WHY IS FOUR FOUR FEET HIGH AND IT'S ADDING A FEW INCHES BECAUSE THIS TAG COMES DOWN TO US A LITTLE BIT ASKING FOR MORE THAN WHAT WAS ADVERTISED AND THEY HAVE TO BE WE DON'T KNOW.

>> THEY'RE ASKING LESS. OKAY. WHAT WHAT WAS WRITTEN UP AS THEIR INITIAL COMPLAINT THIS WAS THE INITIAL INTERESTING AND I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE AGENDA AND THAT'S THE SAME AND THIS IS THE ONE YOU SAID THAT IF WE WRITE THAT YOU KNOW WE SAY THAT YOU KNOW, ACCORDING TO THE PLANS EXPRESSED ON YOU KNOW OPTION FOR IDENTIFY WHICH PLANT WHICH YOU GOT 16 OKAY YEAH I'M THIS IS THE ONE THAT SEEMS TO HAVE THE MOST LEGS TO IT IT'S 12 THINGS THAT IS OPTIONS SO IT IS RIGHT THESE WERE NEWLY SUBMITTED OPTIONS I KNOW IT IS CORRECT AND THAT THE IT'S NOW 4.8 AND THEY ASKED 4.55 I SOMETIMES SAY AT IS CLARIFIED THAT'S WHY THE SECOND ONE BOTH ARE SLIGHTLY LARGER BUT IN A DIFFERENT VARIATION SO WE CANNOT APPROVE THE FIRST CLASS SIZE THAT WE WANT TO APPROVE BECAUSE WE HAVE TO PAY IN EXCESS OF THEIR INITIAL REQUEST. I THOUGHT THERE WAS A QUESTION HUGE. I THOUGHT IT WAS. I ALSO THINK IT WAS I THINK I SEE IT AS TEN FIVE BECAUSE IT IS RIGHT BECAUSE THAT'S THINK THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO EXPLAIN TO RIGHT SO IT'S A REDUCTION IN TERMS OF SO THE VARIANCE SHOULD BE LESS YES OKAY. THAN WE CAN. ALL RIGHT.

SO I'M GOING TO ASK A QUESTION. CAN WE YES. IF ONE CAN YOU GET ON THE MIC SO WE CAN HEAR OVER HERE OH PETER'S GETTING IT BACK. CAN WE WRITE UP THE BEST BUY

ONE TONIGHT SINCE THEY JUST SUBMITTED IT? >> THEY SAID IF IT'S LESS THAN THE ORIGINAL REQUEST. YES. OKAY.

SO DO THEY STILL NEED TWO VARIANCES OR THEY JUST NEED ONE JUST FOR ONE?

>> OKAY. SO DO THEY NEED THAT? THEY NEED THE HEIGHT VERSUS THEY NEED THE HEIGHT WAS ALWAYS AN ISSUE. THE HEIGHT ANNOUNCEMENT FUNCTION AND HEIGHT. WELL THAT WAS 10.41FT. NOW IT'S 4.85FT TEN INCHES.

BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ONE IT SAYS INSIGNIA OR KEY LAYERS. THAT'S WHEN IT WAS DOUBLE STACK AND IT'S NOW FOR THEY SAID 4.5. BUT WHEN YOU PUT THE LITTLE TAIL THING ON IT IT'S 4.85 4.10 I GO IT SO THAT ONE WAS DOUBLE STACKED THAT'S WHY IT'S CALLED FOUR.

SO NOW YOU'RE MAKING IT SINGLE SO YEAH I JUST GOING BY PERCENTAGE NINE INCHES RIGHT SO THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. SO THE OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE WE'RE OKAY WHAT WOULD THE LINEAR FOR VERSION SO THE VARIANCE WOULD JUST BE WHATEVER THE PERCENTAGES FOR THAT

[03:05:06]

I'M JUST TELLING YOU ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT? THE TAG IS NO FOR NO, NO, NO.

THE TAG ITSELF IS TWO FEET. THE TAG IS YEAH I UNDERSTAND AND THIS JUST COMES DOWN.

NO I UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M SAYING AND LOOKING AT THE AGENDA AND YOU KNOW LITERALLY WHICH CALLS FOR THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THE LETTER WHICH TO ME MEANS EACH LETTER ACTUALLY AND THE TAG INDIVIDUALLY AND YOU KNOW OKAY SO EACH ONE IS LESS THAN AN OKAY RIGHT? YEAH. YEAH BECAUSE IT WAS ORIGINALLY DOUBLE STANDARDS THAT THE HOUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT BUT THAT'S A DIFFERENT THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE RIGHT A DIFFERENT IT'S ACTUALLY A DIFFERENT REQUEST THAN WHAT THEY'RE PRESENTING NOW SO WHAT FOR 4.5FT HAVE THE LETTERS WITH THE YELLOW LETTERS. FIRST OF ALL, THE YELLOW FLAG HANGS AT LOOK AT THIS. HE'S BREAKING THEM THEE'S SAYINE DO IT IF WE BREAK INTO THE COMPONENT PIECES CAN WE STAY WITH THE ORIGINAL REQUEST IF THEY DON'T EVEN NEED THREE

ANYMORE? >> OKAY, WE'RE GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

SO WE'RE GOING TO AND I TOLD PEOPLE THEY COULD LEAVE. >> WELL, THEY NEED THE SECOND

ONE. >> DON'T THEY KNOW THEY DON'T NEED OH THE SECOND IS THAT OKAY SO WE HAD TO WRITE THEM A LETTER SAYING THAT THEY WERE COMPLIANT BECAUSE THIS IS THE OPTION THAT WOULD BE UP TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. OKAY.

THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS LIKE THIS. YES, YOUR HONOR.

AND IF THEY DISAGREE WITH ME THEN IT GOES BACK AND WE'RE TAKING IT WHICH WE'RE DOING TOGETHER THEY JUST HAVE TO REDO THE VARIANCE FOR YES BUT THE NEW ONE THAT THEY KNOW THEY DON'T HAVE TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE IF THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DON'T KNOW THEY DON'T DON'T HAVE TO SIGN IT'S MORE THAN FOUR WELL, IT'S A TEN RIGHT.

WHICH GOES BACK TO YOUR QUESTION UNLESS LEFT RIGHT THEY NEED A VARIANCE.

>> WELL THAT'S BY OKAY I MEAN FOR THE LITTLE BLACK THEY DON'T FLAG HERE FOR THE LITTLE YELLOW

THING I'M OKAY WITH THIS I KNOW OKAY I'M OKAY WITH BEST BUY. >> DON'T WORRY THEY'LL MAKE MONEY SO THEY NEED THE VARIANCE OR NOT I WANT THE SECOND SO DECIDE TOMORROW.

OKAY. OKAY. WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO GO BACKWARDS SO WE'RE OKAY WITH SURPRISED WE'RE OKAY WHAT WE SAID WE'RE OKAY WITH SPROUTS

FASTER. >> OKAY OKAY. NO BUT WE ARE WE ARE OKAY WITH SPROUTS AS FAR AS I KNOW I'M A I'M NOT I'M JUST SAYING YOU'RE GOING AWAY WITH THE SPROUTS HERE AND PROBABLY THE FIRST TIME FOR 18 YEARS THEREFORE IT'S DON'T BE REALLY THE LETTER LETTERS THEMSELVES OR EACH FOR AN EVENT. YES OKAY.

BUT THEY DEFINITELY NEED THE VERY CORRECT RIGHT, RIGHT. EXACTLY RIGHT.

SPROUTS ARE WE DISCUSSING DUNKIN DONUTS? OH IT'S LIKE I SAID HE WAS

GOING OKAY, OKAY. >> DUNKIN DONUTS WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T.

SO WE HAVE A SPRABERRY WE HAVE BEEN AT THIS. >> SO HE'S NOT VOTING.

SHE'S NOT VOTING. SO IT'S YOU ME? >> ARE YOU OKAY? YOU'RE OKAY. THAT'S THREE ARE YOU OKAY WITH SPROUTS? YEAH. LIKE THIS? YEAH.

YEAH, I WE OKAY WE PUT THAT I'M I'M ONLY OKAY BECAUSE THE FARMERS MARKET SIGNS ARE SMALLER LETTERS I'M GIVING THEM A PASS FOR THE ORDER AND THAT'S WHY I'M REALLY NOT THAT'S WHY THAT'S WHY I'M WARNING YOU IF YOU DON'T APPROVE IT IT WAS JUST SPROUTS WITHOUT IT I WOULD HAVE SAID MAKE IT THE SAME SIZE AS BEST BUY YOUR LETTERS BUT IT'S BECAUSE OF THAT IN THERE THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO TELL YOU. SO MAKE IT FOUR AND FOR I MUST

[03:10:03]

HAVE I WILL GO. >> SO THE THINGS THAT THEY GET THE SPROUTS WILL BE LIKE WHY I THINK THEY'RE PRESENTS THE SPROUTS ONE. YEAH IT IS DISINGENUOUS HERE NEXT TO ME AND THEY SHOULD HAVE SHOULD HAVE PROVIDED SEVERAL OPTIONS HOW CAN THAT WELL I DIDN'T I DIDN'T SAY THAT AND ON THIS SIDE RIGHT NUMBER TWO WAS NOTICE RIGHT HERE OH WAIT A

MINUTE. >> AS I'M TRYING TO TELL YOU, SPROUTS IS GOING TO BE HUGE.

THIS IS SMALLER THAN THIS. THIS IS FOR TWO AND THREE QUARTERS.

THIS IS NO THIS IS FOR FOR NO, NO, NO. IT'S 4FT OR 3IN WHICH IS GOING TO BE BIGGER THAN BEST BUY CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING BEFORE.

>> NO, NO. >> IF NOT, THEY'RE GOING TO THAT'S ABOUT IT.

NO, THE SPROUTS LETTERS ARE FOR THREE IS HERE ZERO THREE QUARTERS OF AN INCH.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS NUMBER IS FOUR SIX IT'S GIVING IT SOME RIGHT.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING AT IT OVER HERE LOOKS LIKE IT'S THE FARMER'S MARKET LOOKS IT'S LIKE IT'S HIGHER BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE NUMBER THAT'S THE DIMENSIONS ON THE OTHER SIDE IT'S GOING TO SAY IT'S YES THAT'S WHAT IS THIS IS SMALLER.

THIS IS HIGHER UP SO THIS IS HIGHER THAN HERE. THAT'S ONLY BECAUSE OF THE SPACE THAT'S STANDING. BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S THE HEIGHT THIS 46I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FOUR SIXES I TRULY IN FOR SIX THAT'S WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT'S FOR LIKE FOUR FEET SIX INCHES BUT THEN THEY'RE SAYING THE OTHER SIDE IS FOUR IS NOT 4.5FT IT'S

FOUR FOR TWO AND THREE QUARTERS THAT'S LESS SO THAT'S FOUR. >> YEAH THEY'RE SAYING THIS IS SMALLER THAN THIS SO IT'S NOT SHOWING IT TO BE THE SAME HEIGHT.

NO THEY'RE SHOWING THIS TO BE HIGHER ACTUALLY BUT NOT IN THE PICTURE.

>> IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S LESS THAN FOUR FEET SIX INCHES.

THEY COULD MAKE THE SIGN HOWEVER THEY WANT TO THIS IF THIS IS FOUR SIX IF THIS JUST

DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. >> BUT WHENEVER STAYING BUT IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IT DOESN'T

MAKE SENSE TO LOOK AT THAT. >> YEAH YEAH THAT'S WHERE IT'S ALL RIGHT IF THAT'S MY OH, WE'RE NOT READY FOR SIX THAT'S WHAT THEIR HEADINGS ARE FEET SIX INCHES WHICH EQUATES TO 4.5FT TO CONVERT TWO INCHES FEET SIX YES THAT'S WHERE WE WERE GETTING IN THIS TIME WE JUST WANTED THIS BECAUSE I DON'T NEED OF THIS SPACING HERE 54IN TEN TO SAY THAT'S FIVE AS

YOU NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE. >> ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE THROATS SHE'S GOING TO PUT UPSTAIRS WELL SHE MAY NOT HAVE BROUGHT THEM THE SIGN THEY WANTED BUT NOW THEY DON'T NEED BUT IT'S SHE READ THE ROOM SHE REALLY SHE DOESN'T REALLY OH YOU AND SHE HAS ALTERNATIVE THREE SO SHE DID YOU LIKED ALL THAT SHE WAS VERY THOROUGH FOUR FEET OKAY SO BEST WHY DOESN'T NEED IT OKAY CAN WE GO ON TO IT'S GETTING LATE OKAY PLEASE I'M GETTING FUNKY DONUTS. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT SIX FOOT

SIX A GOOD RESTAURANT? OH, ONLY BECAUSE HE'S RIGHT. >> ALL RIGHT.

I AM AGAINST DUNKIN DONUTS. I'M TALKING. I'LL TELL YOU ALL FOR THEM.

SO WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING THE SIGN THAT THEY PUT ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT'S DISCUSSING THE SIGN THAT THEY'RE PUTTING ON THE STREET. I DO TAKE YOUR YOUR SURVEY TODAY SERIOUSLY WHERE YOU WENT UP AND DOWN THE STREET AND DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING THAT WAS THAT BIG. BUT I'VE BEEN LIVING WITH THAT SITE FOR A VERY LONG TIME FOR WHAT THE EXISTING SCHOOL I THINK IT'S GOT TO LIKE IT. NO, NO IT'S NEVER BOTHERED ME.

IT'S NOT THAT BIG FOR ME AND SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE ONE FOOT HIGHER AND ONE FOOT NARROWER THAN THE EXISTING SIGN WHICH BASICALLY TO ME IS BASICALLY THIS NO, IT'S IT'S FIVE SQUARE.

>> IT'S FIVE SQUARE FEET BIGGER. PUT FIVE PIECES OF PAPER OUT AND THAT'S HOW MUCH BIGGER IT'S GOING TO BE. BUT THAT'S NOT THE MEASUREMENT HE TOLD ME HE'S HE SAID IT'S GOOD BECAUSE IT'S WIDER. THERE'S THE AMOUNT THAT'S GOING

UP AND IT'S GOING UP. >> SO I JUST I THINK HE SAID IT'S NARROWER AND HIGHER OR

[03:15:06]

IT IS 50% ABOVE OUR CODE. ABSOLUTELY. >> AND IT'S NOT TO A RESTAURANT SCHOOL SITTING AND DUNKIN DONUTS HAVING THEIR COFFEE CAKE.

>> I KNOW THEY SAY IT'S TO BE JOHN DOE BUT THEY HAVE NO PLACE TO SIT.

I'M SAYING WHAT IS IT AND SELLS TO RESTAURANTS? >> OH NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.

NOT AT ALL. NOT IN ANY BUILDING THAT THIS IS THE EXISTING SITE THE ONLY

TIME THEY HAVE AND IT'S GOING TO BE BIGGER THAN THIS. >> YEAH, THAT'S A DINKY LITTLE SIGN, RIGHT? IT IS A BIG SIGN IS THE SIGN ALL THEY WANT TO DO IS PUT ANOTHER I'VE SEEN BELOW BUT THERE'S NOT ANOTHER RESTAURANT SO HERE'S IF THAT WAS A SUBWAY IN A BUSINESS ALL BUT HERE I WOULD WRITE IT UP THEY'D STICK SOMETHING DOWN HERE ON MY SIGN OR SOMETHING BUT THE KEY AND THEN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS FACES THE PARKING LOT THEY'RE PUTTING A SIGN UP THERE INSTEAD OF WHICH THEY AGREED TO TO TAKE THEM OUT TO NOT PUT A SIGN ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING. THEY'RE USING THIS AND FOR READABILITY SINCE THEY DON'T HAVE A SIGN ON THE FRONT OF ON ON WHAT IS THE STREET SIDE OF THE BUILDING THEY NEED A LARGER SIGN WITH THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE TWO RESTAURANTS IN ONE.

RIGHT. THAT'S HOW IT DIFFERENTIATES ITSELF.

THAT'S NOT ACCURATE THOUGH BECAUSE JIMMY JOHN'S BUILDING ON HIS RIGHT THEY TOOK THE SIGN IT WOULD BE ON THE SIDEWALK. YES, ON THE STREET. SO ON THAT FRONT FOR KIND OF THE BUILDING IT WILL SAY BOTH. BUT YOU CAN'T SEE THAT IT'S ACTUALLY YOU ACTUALLY CAN'T SEE HOW IT IS RIGHT NOW IS THE SIGNS ON THE SIDE OF THE RIGHT NOW I'M BRINGING IT FRONT FACING YEAH. AND I'LL BE ADVERTISING BOTH RESTAURANTS ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING BUT YOU KNOW THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING DOESN'T MEAN NOBODY CAN SEE IT.

>> SO IF YOU'RE GOING NORTHBOUND YOU CAN SIGN AND SEE THE SIDE OF THE DOOR.

>> THEY'RE TAKING THIS ONE AWAY WHICH DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. OKAY, BUT BUILDING IF YOU'RE DRIVING NORTH YOU LITERALLY CANNOT SEE THE SIGN TO AFTER YOU PASS THE BUILDING YOU HAVE TO LOOK BACKWARDS AND IF YOU'RE COMING SOUTH THERE ARE HEDGES THAT PRETTY MUCH LOCK IT ALSO IN COMES TO US FOR BURGER KING THAT WE SEE ON 119 WHICH IS PROBABLY 80% BEGINNING ANY SIGN WE WOULD HAVE TO DIFFERENTIATE I HAVE NO PROBLEM RESTAURANTS EVEN ON ONE DAY IT IS A MAJOR COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR LIKE WELL WE JUST APPROVED A RESIDENCE TO BE BUILT ACROSS THE STREET.

>> YEAH BUT AND THERE'S OTHERWISE IT IS GOING TO HELP IF YOU WORK IN THE RIGHT GOOD I LOVE THAT AS A LITMUS TEST. I STILL WANT TO APPROVE THIS BUT I WANT TO JUST I WANT TO

ANSWER YOUR QUESTION. >> IT IS WRITTEN UP IN A WAY WHERE WE SAY WE DID FOR THIS ONE BECAUSE THAT'S ONE THING. WELL, WE COULD SAY IT IS A IT'S NOT A 50% INCREASE FROM THE EXISTING SIGN. RIGHT. IT'S A 50% INCREASE ABOVE THE CODE. OKAY. BUT IT'S IT'S IF THERE'S A LONG STANDING SIGN THERE AND I MEAN LONG STANDING THAT DOESN'T READ IN THE IN THE ENVIRONMENT AS BEING OVERSIZE AND THAT THIS IS SIMILAR TO IT I MEAN IT'S A LITTLE BIT INCREASE BUT IT'S SIMILAR AND THAT'S ONE REASON SECOND REASON IT'S ADVERTISING TO RESTAURANTS.

THIRD REASON IT'S A MAJOR INDUSTRIAL STREET AND THAT IS AN INDUSTRIAL STREET.

I MEAN I HE KEPT TALKING ABOUT IT HIGH SPEED THAT'S HEAVY TRAFFIC WHICH IF THAT'S WHY HE NEEDED IT SO THE TRAFFIC NOT A HIGH HIGH SPEED STREET MY CONCERN WITH THIS IS THAT BECAUSE NO OTHER SIGNS EXCEPT FOR THE 2 OR 3 GAS STATIONS DUE TO THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDING I MEAN MAVIS TILE DOESN'T TIRE DOESN'T HAVE ONE THIS BIG.

NO, BUT NOBODY ELSE HAS THEM ALL OVER THE STREET. AND MY CONCERN IS ONCE WE DO THIS OPENING THE FLOODGATES, WE NEVER WANT TO DO THAT. AND SO WHAT THEY'LL SAYING IS HOW DO YOU WRITE IT TO PREVENT THAT? AND I'M SAYING DO YOU APPROVE IT BECAUSE YOU SHOULD YOU KNOW, TO NOT TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN. SO IF WE PILE FOR EXCEPTION ONTO THE APPROVAL, ISN'T THAT ENOUGH TO COVER OURSELVES FROM THE FLOOD AND THEN YOU GET TO WRITE IT I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T LEAVE IT ON THE FRONT ON THE FRONT AND DO SOMETHING WITH THE POST THAT SAYS PARKING OR SOMETHING TOTALLY MAKE US THAT'S WHAT HE WAS SAYING THEY DON'T KNOW WHERE THE WELL THAT'S SHOWS WITH PARKING IS TO BE FRANK I WOULD HAVE APPROVED

[03:20:03]

WHICH IS THAT THAT'S LIKE THE FIFTH REASON THAT WE HAVE TO SAY YES WE CAN'T WE CAN'T TELL THEM TO DO SOMETHING. THEY DO IT AND WE SAY OH JUST JOKING.

I DON'T I DON'T SEE THAT I DON'T SEE THAT AS A RIGHT I THINK THEY YOU KNOW THIS GUY

CAME TO US WITH FOUR CHOICES. >> THEIR LETTERS WERE BIG. DUNCAN IS BIGGER THAN POOR

LITTLE JIMMY. WHATEVER JIMMY JOHN'S GOD. >> WHERE ARE WE? I MEAN, CAN YOU I THINK YOU'RE RIGHT. THEY EVEN IF THEY JUST TAKE DOWN THERE FOR THEIR THEIR LETTERS JUST, YOU KNOW INTENTIONS IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IF YOU'RE COMING HERE SINCE WHAT DECEMBER I DON'T KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG TIME AND I'M ALL RIGHT I WOULDN'T USE THAT AS A LITMUS TEST BECAUSE I KNOW A ROCK QUARRY NOT TOO FAR FROM HERE WE DISCUSSED FOR ALMOST HALF THE TIME AND IT'S STILL IT'S STILL

HAS IT LIKE ASK EVERY MONTH ABOUT THROW THOSE FILES AWAY. >> I WON'T EVEN SAY IT.

I'M JUST SAYING. ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL WRITE IT UP IF YOU WANT ME TO AND I WILL CITE AT LEAST FIVE DIFFERENT REASONS WHY IT'S DIFFERENT THAN ANYTHING ELSE. OH, PLEASE DON'T. OH, PLEASE DON'T.

PLEASE DON'T KNOW. I THINK WE SHOULD. I THINK SO TOO.

RIGHT. I THINK WE HAVE TO HAVE I DON'T KNOW IF AS WE DON'T THINK I NEVER UNDERSTAND HOW DO I END UP WRITING THIS AND I DON'T WRITE SMALL HOW DO I GET A LOT OF SPACE INTO THAT LITTLE PIECE OF PAPER THAT YOU SEND YET ANOTHER YOU SENT YOU SEND IT TO

CARE. >> I HANDWRITTEN I TYPE IT AND TYPE OR YOU TYPE YOU FIT IT IN THERE SOMEWHERE I TYPE IT ON MY PHONE AND WORK I DID ON THE FINAL PRODUCT.

OH I DIDN'T DO IT BECAUSE I'M LIKE SITTING THERE TRYING TO FIND OR TWO PAGES LONG LIKE THAT WHERE WE HAD A USE VARIANCE AND I HAD SO I DID WRITE VOTE THINK OF IT THIS WAY THAT IS A LITTLE LESS IT'S AS IF YOU HEARD THE COMMENTS YOU SEPARATE PAGE I WILL I WILL EMAIL YOU ONE OF THE COMPLETED ONES SO YOU DON'T HAVE A TEMPLATE RETYPE EVERYTHING IN AND WE HAVE TO READING THE. OKAY SO YEAH YOU DON'T HAVE THE DIGITAL I HAVEN'T DIGITAL I'LL SEND YOU THE OH YEAH YOU YOU FANCY I HAVE A WORK DOCUMENT YEAH YOU DON'T DO IT IN WORD.

NO I SEND YOUR EMAIL WELL YEAH BUT I DON'T HAVE I HAVE RETYPE THE WHOLE FORM EACH TIME I, I RECOGNIZE SO WE JUST REOPEN THE WORD FILE I JUST CHANGE THE NAME AND THEN JUST TO GO OVER HALF THE TIME I EVEN MOVE I GO THROUGH AND I JUST CHANGE LIKE THE SIZING AND PERCENTAGES.

TYPE IT. ALL RIGHT. OKAY.

OKAY. LET'S GO. OKAY.

WHAT'S NEXT? ARE YOU GOING TO REALLY DO IT IF I HAVE TO GO THROUGH OH YES WE HAVE. YOU DO GOING TO DO YOU KNOW WHO VOTED FOR IT? ONE, TWO, THREE FOR THIS? YES. YEAH.

YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR IT? NO, I AM CHRISTIE WE NEED FOR THE REST OF THEM.

YEAH. NO, HE'S ABSTAINING ON THAT ONE.

>> I'LL GIVE YOU BEST FINE. I'LL GIVE YOU SPROUTS. SO WHO'S WHO'S NOT GOING FOR YOU? ONE, TWO, THREE. THE THREE SIGN A VERSE THE NEXT CASE ONE JIMMY JOHN'S I SAID AGAIN I WOULD PREFER ON BOTH SIDES AND THERE'S A STRONG RATIONALE AS WHY I DO THE ORIENTATION OF THE BUILDING NOT FOR THOSE NO NO THAT'S NOT AN

OPTION. >> YOU HAVE NOT BEEN YOU HAVE JUST POPPED IN AND LIKE HAVE YOU CAN'T HAVE A WHOLE NOTHER OPINION WHEN YOU HAVEN'T BEEN THERE.

>> THAT'S WHY I SAID BEEN THE HE ASKED ME A QUESTION AND I SAID I THINK THAT IS WHERE I OH OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHAT ARE WE ON BOTH SIDES?

>> I'M NOT IN THE BUILDING THAT'S GOING TO BE A YARD SIGN. WHAT IS IT 27 SEVEN?

>> YOU CAN'T SAY YOU CAN'T DO IT. YOU DON'T THINK FOR THE DAY? YEAH. OKAY. THERE'S PROBABLY SOMETHING ELSE. RIGHT? RIGHT.

THANK YOU. CAN WE GO ON TO THE NEXT THING I SAID IT SEVERAL TIMES.

[03:25:05]

>> BUT YOU CAN'T KNOW HOW LONG IT'S GOING TO THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE A YEAR AND A HALF EITHER. RIGHT. SO WE'LL WAIT SINCE WE DON'T KNOW CAN WE ISSUE SOMETHING AS A TEMPORARY COME CAN I ASK FOR ADDITIONAL THING BEFORE WE DO THAT RIGHT. THEY HAD TO LEAVE BECAUSE OF OTHER CODE VIOLATIONS, RIGHT.

WHEN ARE THOSE GOING TO GET FIXED? WE KNOW HOW MUCH TIME WE HAVE BEFORE IT'S ACTUALLY WELL IF THEY WANT TO MOVE IN UNDER THE EXISTING REGULATIONS THEY SO THEY LET'S JUST SAY THEY WANT TO PUT THAT PEOPLE IN IT THEY WOULD HAVE TO THEY'RE PERFECTING THEIR FIRE ALARM DRAWINGS. JASON I HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT SO AS SOON AS THAT'S THAT'S CORRECTED IT'S NOT REALLY AN ISSUE THAT'S THE

ONLY PROBLEM. >> THE FIRE ALARM. YES.

SO THEY HAD TO GET DRAWINGS OF THE BUILDING THE FIRE ALARM CONNECTED TO THE CENTRAL

STATION. >> SO THAT'S LIKE ABOUT A MONTH AT THE MOST.

YEAH. >> SO THEY HAVE THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO CHANGE IT FROM A CONVENT WHICH IT WAS PREVIOUSLY TO A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THE PAST WE'VE GIVEN WHICH IS KIND OF WHAT WE WERE GETTING AT LIKE LIKE OKAY THE DRIVEWAY ON PRINCETON DRIVE WE GAVE THEM A TEMPORARY VARIANCE AS LONG AS THEIR FATHER WAS ALIVE.

IS THERE A WAY TO GIVE A TEMPORARY VARIANCE FOR LIKE ONE PERSON BECAUSE THERE ARE SIX KIDS AND THEN DEFINED THE I KNOW THEY DON'T WANT TO BUT TO FIND THE OTHER PEOPLE WHO LIVE THERE AS DOMESTIC CAREGIVERS SO THEY DON'T HAVE TO COUNT TOWARDS THE FAMILY AND THEY CAN

MOVE IN. >> YOU MEAN LIKE NO. >> WELL THEY'RE NOT THERE.

SIX IS A NUMBER. YEAH, FIVE IS A DIFFERENT NUMBER THAN WHEN WHEN THE SIX PERSON MOVES IN IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S NOT FIVE AND ONE THAT YOU SEPARATE THAT SEGMENT SEGMENTATION WHERE YOU'RE TO APPROVING FIVE AND YOU'RE APPROVING ONE AND SOMEHOW YOU IGNORE THE FACT THAT THAT COMES TO SIX. OKAY SO WHAT CAN WE DO A TEMPORARY VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE SITUATION THAT THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF FAMILY THAT IS VALID AND I HAVE TO RESEARCH IT. MY INITIAL IMPRESSION WOULD BE NO BECAUSE IT'S A USE VARIANCE AS OF NOW. NOW WHEN COUNCIL GOT UP AND SAID SEVERAL TIMES WE WOULD CONFORM TO WHAT WILL HAPPEN, WHAT WILL BE ADOPTED THAT DAY WE CONFORM. I DON'T KNOW HOW SHE CAN SAY THAT BECAUSE IT HASN'T WE DON'T

KNOW WHAT IT IS. >> WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT IS YET.

I'M SORRY AND CONFORM AS THEY USE VARIANCE. >> NO THEY WOULDN'T NEED A USE VARIANCE BECAUSE THEY WOULD CONFORM TO THE NEW DEFINITION. ANY NEW TO THE NEW DEFINITION OF FAMILY FOR AN AREA VARIANCE? NO YOU REDUCE VARIANCE SO THAT THEY WOULD CONFORM BECAUSE THEY WOULD BE FIT UNDER THE NEW DEFINITION OF FAMILY THEY'D BE PERMITTED USE SO THIS WOULDN'T REQUIRE A THERE AND THAT WAS A QUESTION I JUST ASKED AND HE SAID NO USE BECAUSE THEN YOU SAID AREA VARIANCE SO WELL ISN'T THE DEFINITION OF A FAMILY UNDER THE AREA OF AREA NO NO IT'S A YES NO USE TO FAMILY SO SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY CONFORM TO THE TO THE DEFINITION THAT PRESENTLY EXISTS WHETHER IT'S DEEMED TO BE LEGAL OR ILLEGAL THEY CAN'T

MEET. WASN'T IT DEEMED ILLEGAL? >> NO, IT HASN'T BEEN DEEMED

[03:30:07]

>> OUR DEFINITION WAS SIMILAR. >> SIMILAR. RIGHT.

OKAY. SO OKAY. >> I'M NOT I'M NOT DEFENDING NO, NO. WE UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT IS LEGAL ISSUES AND THE TOWN IS TO READ THIS RIGHT. UNDERSTAND SO THAT FAMILY IS BASED ON THE APPEAL OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR. IT'S NOT AN AREA VARIANCE SO THERE'S A SOMETHING GOING ON OVER HERE. HOME COURT CASES. YEAH.

SO YOU SEE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT OF A SINGLE NONPROFIT HOUSEKEEPING UNIT AND IT'S THE EQUIVALENT OF A FAMILY KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS IN THAT THAT GO INTO THAT.

FOR INSTANCE I'LL JUST GIVE YOU ONE EXAMPLE THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME IF YOU'RE COMPARING WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO A FAMILY OR FAMILY IN THE FAMILY THE TRADITIONAL FAMILY, THE HEAD OF THE HOUSEHOLD GOES OUT TO WORK AND EARNS HAVE TO EARN A LIVING TO SUPPORT THE FAMILY AND PAY THE BILLS IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE THE HEAD OF FAMILY, THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD ARE NOT GOING TO BE WORKING AT ALL IF THEY'RE LIVING RENT FREE THEY'RE GETTING ROOM AND BOARD AND THEY'RE NOT GETTING PAID TO TAKE CARE OF THE RESIDENCE. SO THE DIVORCE WIFE SO THE QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU INTERPRET THAT TO BE EQUIVALENT.

SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY I ASKED ABOUT THE FINANCES BEHIND THIS AND CERTAINLY THERE ARE ANY NUMBER OF FAMILY UNITS WHERE NOBODY IN THE LIVING AREA IS THE DIRECT SUPPORT OF THE PEOPLE FOR ANY NUMBER OF REASONS I DO THINK WE CAN POTENTIALLY AND I'M NOT THE LAWYER AND I WILL ALWAYS SAY WHAT THE LAWYER SAYS BUT I'M SAYING I'M THINKING WE CAN SIDESTEP THIS BASED ON A FEW THINGS ONE THAT THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY IS SEEMINGLY IN FLUX DUE TO THE CASE LAW TO THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY WE KNOW IS BEING REVISITED BY THE TOWN.

THREE THE SPECIFICS OF THIS LOCATION ARE SO UNUSUAL THAT I DO NOT WE THINK WE'LL BE CREATING A PRECEDENT THAT COULD BE PRESSED ANYWHERE FURTHER. WE HAVE A ENORMOUS HOUSE THAT WAS USED FOR GROUP LIVING OF NON-RELATED ADULTS. SO HERE THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IF THEY CALLED THEMSELVES A RELIGIOUS ORDER THEY WOULD NOT NEED A VARIANCE.

BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT A RELIGIOUS ORDER THEY DO NEED A VARIANCE.

I ALSO THINK THAT THE I THINK THAT HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WHAT I'M SAYING BUT I'M SAYING THAT TELL ME THAT THIS IS GOING TO COME UP AGAIN WHERE WE'RE CREATING A PRECEDENCE FOR A TEMPORARY VARIANCE. IN OTHER WORDS WE'RE ISSUING THIS TEMPORARY THAT BASED ON WHAT THE TOWN AND WHAT THE COURTS DECIDE, WE'RE SIMPLY SAYING THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE LIVING THERE CAN LIVE THERE UNTIL THERE IS A MORE PRECISE DEFINITION.

I'M SAYING THAT I DON'T THINK WE'RE ENDANGERING OUR ZONING CODE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT YOU CAN REPLICATE THIS PLACE IN ANY PLACE THAT I KNOW OF AROUND HERE.

I DO THINK IT'S A VERY APPROPRIATE USE FOR THE LOCATION.

I THINK IT'S SAFE AND I THE FACT THAT IT'S SINGLE FAMILY I DON'T QUITE GET BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE THE ONLY SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE ON THAT STREET AND I'M JUST SAYING THAT I'M ALL FOR SUPPORTING THE ZONING. I DO NOT WANT TO MAKE DECISIONS THAT ARE GOING TO COME BACK AND PERMIT ALL SORTS OF THINGS THAT WE DON'T WANT. BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE A LOT OF EXCEPTIONS HERE. IF THE ATTORNEYS AND THE PROFESSIONALS CAN GO WALKING IT MAY NOT BE AS UNCOMMON AS YOU THINK. FOR INSTANCE IS A MANSION ON THE CASEMENT ESTATE? YEAH, THAT'S PRESENTLY VACANT. THAT COULD BE FIXED UP AND YOU COULD HAVE A SIMILAR SITUATION THERE. THAT'S A LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY OF THE VERY LARGE HOUSE AGAIN THAT'S BEING USED WELL IT'S NOT IT'S NEXT TO THE CONVENT AND IT'S NEXT TO THE PARK AND IF IT WAS USED IN A SIMILAR WAY PERSONALLY I WOULD THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE SO YOU JUST YEAH I AGREE BUT I UNDERSTAND BUT YOU JUST SAID

[03:35:04]

WITH YOUR EXAMPLE IS THAT BY THE TIME THAT COMES TO US WE MAY HAVE AND WE MAY HAVE A

DEFINITION OF FAMILY. >> SO WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS RUSH THIS THROUGH BEFORE THERE'S A DEFINITION SO LET'S GIVE THEM A PLACE TO LIVE WHILE THEY'RE WELL.

>> THE POLITIC ARE COMING UP WITH PASSING A DEFINITE IS AS A MATTER OF LAW ZONING DEALS WITH THE USE OF LAND NOT THE INDIVIDUAL OCCUPANTS THEREOF THE LAND SO IT'S BUT WE'RE KEEPING THEM EMPATHETIC WHO THEY ARE WELL WHAT IF THEY DON'T HAVE A DEFINITION OF

WHATEVER THEN THE POINT THEN THEY COME BACK TO US. >> YEAH BUT IF THEY DON'T BUT THE POINT IS IS THAT IF THE LAW DOESN'T COME DOWN ON THEIR SIDE WE HAVE NOT GIVEN THEM A VARIANCE TO GO FORWARD WITH BEYOND THE THE THE LAW IS IN LIMBO RIGHT NOW.

THAT'S SO CAN YOU FINISH WHAT YOU WERE SAYING? >> I THOUGHT I DID I THOUGHT

YOU DID. >> WAIT, I HAVE A QUESTION. WHEN YOU WERE INTERRUPTED THE USE VARIANCE WHAT WHAT IS THE USE THAT THEY ARE SO CURRENT THE CURRENTLY THE WAY THE ZONING CODE IS WRITTEN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT HAS TO JUST REVIEW IT ADMINISTRATIVELY.

WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO THINK IN THE FUTURE FOR A REVISION OR TO LOOK AT CONSTITUTIONALITY OF SOMETHING AND REMOVE IT FROM THE CODE THAT'S NOT WITHIN OUR

JURISDICTION. >> THAT'S I KNOW BUT I MEAN LIKE IF WE JUST IT'S THE IT'S THE THEN THE NUMBER THE NUMBER OF UNRELATED PEOPLE THAT ARE LIVING TOGETHER AND HERE WE WOULD BE GOING FROM 5 TO 9 IT'S UP THE NUMBER AT SIX RIGHT NOW SIT 6 TO 6 PLUS PLUS PLUS THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLDS THAT SOUNDS LIKE NINE MM YEAH. DO WE KNOW WHETHER ANY OF THE RESIDENTS ARE RELATED BECAUSE THEY WOULD COUNT IF THEY WERE IN OTHER WORDS SIBLINGS?

>> SO LET'S SAY 2 TO 2, TWO TO TWO FOUR SO THE TWO ARE RELATED TO OR RELATED SO THEY COUNT AS ONE I GUESS SO THEY HAVE FIVE SO WHY DO THEY NEED A VARIANCE THAT'S THE CARETAKER'S OH WAIT THERE'S NO CAVEAT SO THE CARETAKER JUST CAN'T TEMPORARILY THE CARETAKERS BE DESIGNATED AS DOMESTIC VISITORS, THE STAFF THE SECOND PATIENTS UNTIL THE FAMILY IS STATISTICS. STAFF LIKE NANNIES DON'T COUNT RIGHT.

SO WE'RE GETTING A MESSAGE TO MORE THAN FIVE PERSONS EXCLUSIVELY CARETAKERS, CARETAKERS CARETAKERS RELATED NOT ONE. WHAT? LUCKILY WE DON'T TALK TO THEM QUITE SO. SO THEY'RE NOT RELATED? NO, IT'S NOT THE CHILDREN. IT'S THE CARETAKERS. WELL, IT SAYS FIVE EXCLUSIVE OF DOMESTIC EMPLOYEE IS NOT RELATED MORE THAN FIVE PERSONS EXCLUSIVE OF DOMESTIC EMPLOYEES. SO YOU'RE SAYING YOUR PROBLEM WITH THE CHILDREN IS TWO OF THE KIDS WITHOUT IT IF TWO KIDS WERE RELATED THEY'RE NOT. THEY'RE NOT BUT THEY'RE NOT I GUESS AS THE NUNS WERE ALL MARRIED TO GOD THEY ARE ALL PARENTS, SOME CHILDREN NOT ALL

. >> AND ALSO AS A TECHNICAL MATTER YOU DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DECLARE OR IGNORE THE CONDITIONS, THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

>> WHAT IN OTHER WORDS YOU YOU AS A BOARD CAN SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO IT'S YOUR IT'S YOUR JOB TO ADMINISTER TO APPLY AND IN THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO INTERPRET AND APPLY AND ADMINISTER THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS IS YOU DON'T DRAFT YOU DON'T WRITE IT AND YOU HAVE

[03:40:04]

AND WE CAN'T INTERPRET COURT STUFF. THE COURTS HAVE TO INTERPRET COURT STUFF, RIGHT? SO YOU'RE SAYING WE CAN DO NOTHING BUT BUT THE POINT IS EXCEPT THAT IT DOES IT'S I WOULD I WOULD I WOULD PUT THIS OFF FOR A MONTH.

IN THE MEANTIME I HAVE BEEN TRYING DESPERATELY OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS TO GET A I'VE PUT IN A FORMAL REQUEST THAT THEY TAKE THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY, THE TOWN BOARD TAKE THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY OUT OF THE ENTIRE PACKAGE. THE BIG PACKAGE WHICH COULD TAKE WOULD IT HELP US SATISFY SHAWN AT LEAST A YEAR AND A HALF, TWO YEARS TO DO THAT AND TO TAKE THIS UP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE AND AS SOON AS THEY DO THAT THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME IN FRONT OF US ANYMORE IF IF IT'S IF IT'S THE VERSION OF THE DEFINITION IF THEY SATISFY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT THEY CONFORM TO WHATEVER IT IS THAT THE THE TOWN BOARD ENACTS, THEN

THEY DON'T HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE TOWN. >> IF THE TOWN BOARD TAKES OUT

THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY. >> NO, NO, NO. THE TOWN BOARD IS JUST GOING TO LOOK AT IT SEPARATELY AND THEY'RE GOING TO REVISE. SO IT'S NO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PUT ANY NUMBER LIKE I'M TAKING WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE OUT THE ISSUE FOR MARRIAGE OR

ADOPTION. >> OKAY. AND THEY'LL PUT IN OTHER CRITERIA THAT MAKES IT FAMILY. THEY MAY OR MAY NOT WORK. THEY'LL DO WHAT THEY WHATEVER

IT IS THEY WANT TO DO. >> BUT IF IT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT LIKE FOR THE BARN PERMITTED WE'RE SAYING THE BARN WE COULD APPROVE CONDITIONAL UPON THE HISTORIC PEOPLE WHO SAID THAT SO WE CAN'T PUT THAT OH THEY SAY THEY CAN'T BUT I THINK I'VE JUST MADE IT ALL RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. BUT SO WHAT DO WE HOW DO WE

WRITE THAT UP? >> WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT.

WE HAVE WE HAVE TO READ ANYTHING OUT. WE HAVE TO WAIT UNTIL WE DON'T THINK THEY HAVE YOU GIVE THEM A USE FOR IT AND AND IF THE BOARD DOESN'T HEAR IT THERE ARE OTHER WAYS LIKE THEY COULD GET A SPECIAL PERMIT OR SOMETHING AS A TEMPORARY MEASURE WHICH THEY

HAVE BECAUSE THEY KNOW THERE'S NO SPECIAL PERMIT. >> THEY WERE A GROUP HOME THEY

WOULD BE THE TERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR. >> RIGHT.

WHY TECHNICALLY EVERY VARIANCE IS AND IS AN APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR. THE BUILDING INSPECTOR HAS DENIED IT ON THIS AND SAYS YOU NEED TO GET A VARIANCE IF YOU GET THE VARIANCE THAT YOU WERE SUCCESSFUL YOU APPEALED THE DECISION DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS. SO WHY ARE THEY NOT A GROUP HOME? THEY'RE NOT LICENSED BY THE STATE.

WE'RE THEY'RE OUR WELL I'LL LET YOU EXPLAIN WHY IT'S NOT AN AGENCY GROUP.

>> YOU HAVE TO BE LICENSED THERE. WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THE APPLICANT HAD SPECIFICALLY SAID THEY'RE NOT A GOOD SCHOOL. RIGHT.

AND FOR VARIOUS REASONS AMONG WHICH IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WE REQUIRE LICENSE AND OF CAREGIVERS OR WHATEVER I'LL DEFER TO I'LL DEFER TO THEM OR LIVES ON WHAT'S REQUIRED BUT THEY'RE NOT CLAIMING THAT THEY DO AND THEY HAVE NO INTENTION OF ATTEMPTING TO DO SO.

TO GET BACK TO HIS POINT PETER'S POINT IF OUR JOB IS TO GIVE A VARIANCE FROM THE ZONING RULES RIGHT WHY CAN'T WE SAY WE SEE THIS BECAUSE WE'RE GIVING THIS FAMILY DIFFERENTLY? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THEY ASKED FOR AN INTERPRETATION NOT ADDRESSED AND THEN THE SECOND IS A VARIANCE WHICH I MEAN IF WE GO THAT ROUTE IT'S JUST YOU KNOW I MEAN IT'S TAKEN TO GIVE

USE VARIANCES. >> I MEAN THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO WELL THIS NECESSARILY WE'VE DONE IT IN 1 OR 2 MEETINGS I FEEL LIKE THIS COULD MAYBE RISE TO REDUCE VARIANCE.

I'M SORRY I SAID I'M SORRY I FEEL LIKE THIS COULD MIGHT RISE TO A USE VARIANCE AND I'M USUALLY ANTI USE VARIANCE BUT BECAUSE GENERALLY THEY DON'T MEET THE CRITERIA BUT WHAT ARE THE CRITERIA FOR USE VARIANCE GEEZ I DON'T KNOW THE REASONABLE THEY WENT THROUGH IT

[03:45:08]

>> OH THAT WAS WHAT THAT WAS ALL ABOUT. YEAH THIS UNION DOESN'T DOESN'T CHANGE THE CHARACTER SELF-CREATED WHICH CAME AND THE FOURTH ONE IS THE TOUGHEST ONE IS SELF CREATED HARDSHIP THEY BOARD WITH KNOWLEDGE NOW THEY HAVE ARGUMENTS WHERE THEY THEY'RE ARGUING THAT WELL WE DIDN'T BUY WITH KNOWLEDGE BECAUSE THEY SOMEHOW KNEW THAT

THE DEFINITION WAS IN FLUX. >> SO OUR DEFINITION OF CONSTITUTION DEFINITION IF WE ALL AGREE THEY WOULD HAVE NEVER WE WOULD APPEAL THE DETERMINATION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WRITING THAT OH NO, NO, NO, NO, WE'VE MOVED ON. WE'RE NOT APPEALING THEM DETERMINE WE'RE NOT GOING TO APPEAL EXCEPT I THINK WE'RE NOT A WHO'S WHO WHO IS WE KNOW IT WAS WE IF WE WHO WAS WE BOUGHT ON THE RIGHT IF WE DETERMINED TO APPEAL ON THE BUILDING

INSPECTOR, HOW WOULD THAT GET WRITTEN? >> NO, NO, NO, NO.

WE WOULDN'T APPEAL THE BUILDING. IT'S THE INTERPRETATION TO SAY THEY'RE THE THEY ARE APPEALING THEY'RE APPEALING THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION.

THE APPLICANT DOES APPEAL THE APPEAL. THAT'S WHY I'M NOT FOLLOWING YOU WITH WITH IT. SO HOW WOULD ZONING BOARD WOULD BE VERY RARE.

>> WE HAVE TO EITHER AGREE WITH THEM. YEAH.

HOW DO WE UPHOLD WHAT THE APPLICANT IS SAYING AND CONTRARY TO SAYING THAT THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WAS WRONG. SO THAT'S THE HOW DO WE BACK THAT CLAIMS TELL THEM TO

CONTACT WELL WE COULD JUST WRITE THIS LETTER. >> WE COULD COPY THIS LETTER TO

YOU AND YOU GRANT THE APPLICATION. >> YOU JUST SAY WE AGREE WITH

THE APPLICANT INTERPRETATION WAS WRONG. >> I MEAN YOU'RE MAKING A DECISION SO IT'S JUST LIKE ANY OTHER JUST WRITE UP FOR GRANTED.

>> WE WANTED TO WE COULD TOTALLY DO THAT. >> IT'S NOT GOING TO HAVE MUCH I'M NOT SURE HOW YOU WOULD WRITE UP THE DECISION TONIGHT BECAUSE YOUR REASON YOUR MIND WITHOUT WITHOUT WITHOUT EXCEEDING YOUR AUTHORITY BY SAYING WE AGREE THAT WE'RE DECLARING IN EFFECT OKAY SO I REALLY SCREWED UP ON THE VERBIAGE.

WELL, I'M TRYING TO FIND OUT IS THAT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT TONIGHT.

IT WOULD AT LEAST TAKE A MONTH. >> YEAH, I MEAN EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO DECIDED TONIGHT YOU WOULDN'T DECIDE YOU YOU CLOSE IT FOR DECISION ONLY PERHAPS BUT YOU COULD BUT IT WOULDN'T.

YOU'RE SAYING YOU DON'T HAVE TO WRITE IT UP. >> YOU'RE JUST GRANTING THAT WE STILL HAVE FINDINGS. ARE THERE NO FINDINGS ON A GRANT? AN ORDER? YES OR COURSE. OKAY SO SHE SAID HERE'S THE

LETTER. >> CHRISTIE IS GOING TO WRITE IT UP.

I MEAN I WOULD I'D BE MORE COMFORTABLE DOING A USE VARIANCE THAN THE INTERPRETATION. YES. BECAUSE THE CODE IS THE CODE.

YEAH. I WOULDN'T BE COMFORTABLE DOING AN INTERPRETATION.

I MEAN THE CODE MAY BE WRONG BUT IT'S STILL NOT PASSED. YOU SEEMED LIKE YES, YES YOU

COULD YOU COULD DO THAT. >> YOU COULD GRANT THE USE VARIANCE.

I AND YOU'D BE OKAY AS LONG AS NOBODY PEELED IT CORRECT I FEEL IT I DON'T THINK THEY DO A LOT OF THINGS AS LONG AS YOU CAN DO A LOT OF THINGS AS LONG AS NOBODY CHALLENGES IT.

>> WHAT DO THIS IS MY SUGGESTION OKAY IS THAT IT'S GOING TO TAKE THEM TIME TO GET THE HOUSE LIVABLE ANYWAY I'M NOT. YEAH.

SO IF WE NEED THE LAND WE ADJOURN IT AND THEN IF WE DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FROM THE TOWN BOARD THAT WE DECIDE AT THAT TIME TO GIVE THEM A USE CASE VARIANCE OR WHATEVER WE DECIDE BASED ON THAT TIME YOU ASK THEM TO DO ALTERATIONS A BUILDING OR IF THEY ALTERATION IS YOU NEED THAT FOR A FIRE DRAWINGS THIS IN GENERAL RIGHT IF WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET THEM HAVE IT THE PROPERTY WHY SPEND THE MONEY? I THINK THEY'LL DO IT. THEY WANT TO BE IN THERE.

I THINK WE'LL DO IT AND IT CAN MEAN THEY CAN'T DO ANY ALTERATIONS AND WE CAN DISAGREE . MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THEY HAVE TO GET A DRAWING OF A PLACE FOR THE FIRE. THEY DID THAT ALREADY TOO. SO THE APPLICANT HAS, YOU KNOW,

[03:50:05]

THEY'VE TAKEN CARE OF THE FIRE ALARM. SO THEY'VE DONE TO THE POINT WHERE AS SOON AS THEY GET THE DECISION THEY'LL BE ABLE TO MOVE THE KIDS BACK IN.

WE JUST HAVE TO PERFORM AN INSPECTION SO THAT THOSE WAITING FOR AN INSPECTION THAN WHAT WE THOUGHT I'M SORRY THAT WHAT YOU JUST SAID THEY DON'T NEED A MONTH CITY JUST THEY COULD MOVE THEM RIGHT BACK IN IF THE INSPECTOR WENT TOMORROW THEY COULD GO IN.

WELL, I DON'T KNOW. THEY DIDN'T ASK FOR A USE VARIANCE.

>> YES THEY DID. YES THEY DID. THEY WERE REINTERPRETATION OR

WAYS I THOUGHT IT WAS CRAZY. >> I UNDERSTAND. SO YOU GUYS WHAT ABOUT YOU KNOW FOR USE VARIANCE I'M GOING TO HAVE TO I'M SOMETHING I DON'T THINK AND I DO SOME BAD WHAT WHERE HE GOES AND GETS THE TOWN TO BE TO LOOK AT THIS AND THIS YEAR THAT ISSUE IS THAT HE COULD ASK THE TOWN BOARDS BECAUSE I MEAN THEY'RE GOING TO DO IT THEN WE CAN GIVE THEM THE VARIANCE NEXT MONTH. I MEAN I THINK THAT'S THE MORE CONSERVATIVE APPROACH.

YEAH, THAT'S ALL I DON'T THINK THIS USE VARIANCE IS THAT FAR FETCHED AND THIS IS SOMEBODY

WHO HATES USE VARIANCES. >> YEAH YEAH BUT WHAT DO YOU GUYS THINK?

>> I'M NOT SAYING MY GUYS IT'S JUST COMING UP THE LADDER. DOES ANYBODY HAVE AN OPINION ON

USE VARIANCE SO I DO BUT YOU DON'T WANT TO HEAR THEM. >> IT'S YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO BE SLOW AND AS MUCH I KNOW I KNOW WHAT PEOPLE CAN DO WITHOUT I USE FAIR USE IF THEY DO IT WITHOUT YOU KNOW AND THEN LIKE COME ALONG AND BUT PEOPLE OUT OF WHERE THEY'RE LIVING YOU KNOW, THINGS ARE LIVING IN SUBSTANDARD PEOPLE PLACES WHERE THEY SHOULDN'T BE.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN LOOK AT ALL THESE FIRES THAT HAVE GONE ON THIS

WINTER. OKAY. >> THE SAME BECAUSE IF WE GRANT A USE VARIANCE YOU'RE NOT SURE I DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY'LL HAVE. SO I'M HAVING TROUBLE FOLLOWING INTERPRETATION AT THAT MOMENT. THEY HAVE A SPRINKLER SYSTEM IN THERE.

THEY HAVE IT ALL HOUSES DON'T SO TO PUT IT IN IT'S IN SO THE GOOD CAUSE NOISE YEAH THEY SAID THAT THEY JUST HAVE TO GET THOSE YES THEY PROBABLY DON'T NEED IT FOR THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THEY HAVE IT IN FOR SO LET ME LET'S SEE I HAVE THREE FLOORS COME ON.

IT'S IN THERE. >> IF WE GRANTED A USE VARIANCE THEY HAVE THREE FLOORS.

>> THEY GOT A LOT OF THINGS WE DON'T HAVE TO GRANT TO SHOW THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THEIR IS LIKE I WOULDN'T WANT TO I WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT YOU KNOW WHAT I'M SAYING? THEY DON'T WANT TO GIVE THEM A USE VARIES YOU CAN HAVE NINE PEOPLE AND THEN THEY WANT TO HAVE TWO MORE. I MEAN THERE'S IS AN 11 ROOM. I MEAN IT'S ENORMOUS.

YEAH. LIKE THEY COULD PUT A LOT MORE KIDS IN THEIR DESK IF THAT'S

THAT'S WHY NO, NO I THINK IT'S GREAT. >> I HAVE NO ISSUE WITH THAT AND I DON'T WANT TO LIMIT IT TO LIKE NINE AND THAT'S ACTUALLY I DON'T EITHER I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE OVERSTEPPING OUR BALANCE. I DO THIS IS THE LAW AND IT'S A COACH AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S

FOUR VOTES. >> YES. AND I WENT TO SCHOOL LESS FOR THE BOARD. I DON'T I SAID FAMILY WITH AND LOUISIANA ADJOURN AND ALL RIGHT I DON'T THINK IT'LL BE CHANGED AND IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO ASK THE TOWN BOARD TO DO WHAT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER? WELL, FIRST OF ALL, I BELIEVE THIS IS GOING THIS WILL BE ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE. YOUR DISCUSSION SO AND THEY PRESUME SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BE WATCHING IT OR I THINK THEY WILL IF YOU WANT YOU CAN SEND INDIVIDUAL LETTERS OR ANYONE

INVOLVED WITH THE PROJECT AND SEND INDIVIDUAL LETTERS. >> ALL RIGHT.

THEN WE ARE AT SO WHAT WAS THE FUN OF IT? >> YOU DID AN INDIVIDUAL IN IT THAT'S FAIR ENOUGH AND JUST COME UP WITH THE ALL RIGHT WE STILL HAVE WORK TO DO.

WE SHOULD IF YOU FEEL I MEAN I'M I'M GOING TO SEND US EMAIL ABOUT OKAY LET'S DO THE NEXT TO DO TWO THE ANGEL AND PEWTER OH RIGHT THIS HAS TO BE DONE SO RIGHT YEAH THAT'S FINE.

[03:55:07]

AND SO WE HAVE WHICH LEAVES BLUEBERRY HILL. IT SOUNDS LIKE A SONG THAT I'M OKAY. YEAH, I'M I'M OKAY. SO 26 OR 7 HAS TO GO IN FRONT

OF ME, RIGHT? >> YEAH. YEP.

SO WE'RE LEARNING THAT ONE. >> YEAH. NO, YOU'VE GOT ONE MORE.

YEAH I KNOW WE HAVE GUY AND DEBORAH WOODWARD ROAD THE GUY WITH THE HILL.

>> YEAH, TELL THEM TO STOP TALKING. SO GET GOING.

WE GOT TO GET GOING HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE COMPLETED OUR DELIBERATIONS THIS EVENING AND I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WHAT OUR CONCESSIONS WERE. SO NUMBER ONE CASE IS 2539 WHICH IS ABOUT FARMER MARKET. AND WHEREAS THE GREENSBURG ZBA HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCE APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO SECOND COMPLIANT AND SO AND THEREFORE NOW BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SIGNIFICANT SEPARATION KNOW I HAVE A SECOND SECOND OKAY ALL FAVOR I I I AND I HAVE A MOTION THANK YOU. I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE 2539 BE GRANTED PROVIDING THAT THE APPLICANT OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THERE THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS. I'M IT SAYS IT LOOKS AS THEY'RE DATED APRIL 4TH, 2025 AND REVISED JULY 2ND 2025 BUT I DON'T THINK THOSE ARE CORRECT.

SO IN THE OFFICIAL MOTION AND FINDINGS FOR THE RECORD I WILL CONFIRM THAT SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION ARE SUCH PLANS MAY BE HEREAFTER MODIFIED BY ANOTHER APPROVING BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICER OF THE TOWN PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT WE ARE GRANTING HERE AND THE VARIANCES BEING GRANTED ARE FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION ONLY AND IF YOU ARE ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT SETBACK OR OTHER VARIANCES.

WE HAVE APPROVED HEARING YOU ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT YOU'RE ONLY GRANTING THE ONE VARIANCE THAT THEY'VE WITHDRAWN THE SECOND, SECOND THIRD. OKAY.

DID YOU SHE MADE THAT DECISION OKAY. WELL IT HAS IT'S FROM THE

SECTION ALSO. OKAY. >> I'LL CHECK THE DATA SO SECOND ALL IN FAVOR I I DO WITH THIS WOULD BE YES. I WASN'T AN I WAS A NO NO.

OKAY. DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR THE FINDINGS WILL BE CAN BE FOUND IN THE RECORD YOU WILL BE FOUND IN THE RECORD AND THE NEXT CASE IS CASE 2602 FILLMORE HOLDINGS DUNCAN, JIMMY JONES AND. WHEREAS THE GREENSBURG CDA HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCE APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO SEEK A COMPLIANCE AND NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TYPE TWO ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SECOND CONSIDERATION SECOND ALL IN FAVOR I I I I AS A MATTER OF MADAM CHAIR I HAVE A MOTION TO READ. THANK YOU. I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN THE NUMBER 20 6-2 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT ONE THE APPLICANT OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILED THE SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. NUMBER TWO CONSTRUCTION SHOULD BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS DATED SEPTEMBER 10TH 2025 AND STAMPED RECEIVED JANUARY 12TH 2026 SUBMITTED IN SUPPF THIS APPLICATION OR SUCH PLANS MAY BE HEREAFTER MODIFIED BY ANOTHER APPROVING

[04:00:05]

HERE SECOND AND ALL. >> ALL IN FAVOR. ALL IN FAVOR I I I ABSTAIN.

I'M SORRY. I KNOW I'VE GOT TO NO, NO. >> AND DUE TO DO THE LATEST OF

THE HOUR WE SAY THAT FOR EACH ONE WE HAVE TO SAY IT. >> YES OKAY DUE TO THE LATENESS OF THE HOUR THE FINDINGS WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AT A LATER DATE.

>> THANK YOU. AND THE NEXT CASE IS 2605. THAT'S FIVE.

THERE IS NO VARIANCE REQUIRED TO TELL YOU THERE IS THE GREENBURG CPA HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO SEEK A COMPLIANCE NOW FOR THAT VERY

REASON. >> OH YES. OKAY.

NO VARIANCES REQUIRED. THANK YOU. AND NEXT CASE IS 20 YES.

RIGHT. BUILDING BUT IT HAS TO BE BUILDING AS WELL A MOTION ON

THAT. >> WE WERE ADVISED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR CASE 2605 THAT NO VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, NO AREA VARIANCE IS REQUIRED.

THANK YOU. IN CASE 2606 SLIKE HOLDINGS IS ADJOURNED TO MAY 21ST AND THE NEXT CASE IS 2607 SEVEN TO ME THAT ONCE ALSO ADJOURNED TO MAY 20TH 21ST AND THE LAST CASE WE HAVE IS CASE 2608. GUY AND DEBORAH KAHN AND WHEREAS THE GREENBERG CBA HAS REVIEWED THE ABOVE REFERENCED APPLICATION WITH REGARD TO COMPLIANCE AND NOW THEREFORE THEY RESOLVE THAT THE SUBJECT APPLICATION IS A TITLE ACTION REQUIRING NO FURTHER SEEK FOR

CONSIDERATION. >> SECOND ALL IN FAVOR I WILL TRY AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION? YES MA'AM. MADAM CHAIR, I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE 20 6-8 THE GRANT I MOVE THAT THE APPLICATION IN CASE 2608 BE GRANTED PROVIDED THAT ONE THE APPLICANT OBTAIN ALL NECESSARY APPROVALS AND FILE SAME WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO CONSTRUCTION SHALL BEGIN NO LATER THAN 12 MONTHS AFTER THE GRANTING OF THE LAST APPROVAL REQUIRED FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE BUILDING PERMIT AND PROCEED DILIGENTLY THEREAFTER IN CONFORMITY WITH THE PLANS STAMPED AND RECEIVED MARCH 16TH, 2026 SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION OR AS SUCH PLANS MAY BE HEREINAFTER MODIFIED BY ANOTHER APPROVING BOARD OR AGENCY OR OFFICER OF THE TOWN PROVIDED THAT SUCH MODIFICATION DOES NOT REQUIRE A DIFFERENT OR GREATER VARIANCE THAN WHAT WE ARE GRANTING HERE IN THREE THE VARIANCE IS GRANTED OR FOR THE IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THE PLAN SUBMITTED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION ONLY ANY FUTURE OR ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NOT IN CONFORMITY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE SHALL REQUIRE VARIANCES EVEN IF THE CONSTRUCTION CONFORMS TO THE HEIGHT SETBACK OR OTHER VARIANCES WE APPROVED HERE IN THE FINDINGS WILL BE AVAILABLE TOMORROW. OH WAIT HAVE TO THE NEXT FEW

DAYS WAIT WE HAVE TO VOTE SECOND ALL IN FAVOR. >> THE FINDINGS WILL BE AVAILABLE ON THE WEBSITE IN THE NEXT FEW DAYS. YES AND THE NEXT REGULAR SCHEDULED SCHEDULED MEETING OF THE GREENBURG ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS WILL BE THURSDAY, MAY 21ST BEGINNING AT 9 P.M. AND I SORRY #0.07. THOSE DAYS ARE GONE SO I WISH EVERYBODY A HAPPY MOTHER'S DAY AND HOPEFULLY WE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.