Sep 02, 2026 Planning Board Meeting

[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, September 2, 2026 – 7:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ]

[00:00:05]

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 2ND PLANNING BOARD MEETING. IT IS 7:07 P.M.. UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, CAN YOU CALL THE ROLL.? CHAIRPERSON PINE HERE. MR. PULLINGER. HERE. OUR FIRST ALTERNATE, MISS ROBINSON HERE.

AND OUR SECOND ALTERNATE, MR. PATEL HERE. UH, NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT MR. WEINBERG IS NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING. MISS ANDERSON, WE DO ANTICIPATE ATTENDING SHORTLY, BUT NEVERTHELESS, BOTH ALTERNATES WILL BE FULL VOTING MEMBERS THIS EVENING. GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, STAFF DISTRIBUTED THE AUGUST 5TH MINUTES. DID EVERYONE HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THEM? YES, YES. WERE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR EDITS TO THE MINUTES? NO NO NO. ALL RIGHT THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AUGUST 5TH MINUTES AS DISTRIBUTED.

SO. MOVED. UH, MOVED. MR. BELLINGER SECOND. SECOND. MR. PATEL. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR. VOTES. I, UM, WE HAVE TWO PIECES OF CORRESPONDENCE THIS EVENING. UH, THE FIRST IS REGARDING CASE NUMBER PB 1926. KAUFMAN AT 36 HILLCREST AVENUE.

UH, THIS IS THE FIRST PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT EXTENSION REQUEST. UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SMITH, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THIS REQUEST? SURE. SO AGAIN, CASE NUMBER PB 1926. UH, THIS WAS A SUBDIVISION THAT MOVED THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD, OBVIOUSLY, THE 2019 CASE. MR. KAUFMAN SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED AUGUST 19TH, 2026, SEEKING AN EXTENSION, A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF THE PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT. HE'S INDICATED THAT HE'S HAD THE PROPERTY ON THE MARKET FOR OVER A YEAR NOW, AND HAS REDUCED THE PRICE.

THERE'S BEEN SOME INTEREST, BUT NO FIRM OFFERS AS OF YET, SO HE IS THEREFORE SEEKING THE TWO YEAR. THIS FIRST TWO YEAR EXTENSION. GREAT. AND I JUST WANT TO, UH, I GUESS, CONFIRM FOR THE RECORD, I KNOW BOTH MISS ROBINSON AND I, UH, IN THE LETTER IT WAS REFERENCED THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS CURRENTLY ON THE MARKET. AND I KNOW MRS. ROBINSON AND I BOTH LOOKED FOR THE THE LISTING AND INITIALLY HAD TROUBLE, BUT THEN, UH, WE'RE BOTH ABLE TO FIND IT. UM, AND SO TO CONFIRM THIS, THIS PROPERTY IS BEING ACTIVELY MARKETED, UM, AND AS THE LETTER SUGGESTED, THE OWNER IS, UH, READY AND WILLING TO REDUCE IT IF THERE'S NO ACTION BY THIS FALL. UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? WHERE DID YOU FIND THAT? BECAUSE I HAD THE SAME ISSUE.

SO WE WERE ABLE TO LOCATE IT ONLINE. THE TRICKY THING HERE IS THAT THE PROJECT ADDRESS IS IDENTIFIED AS 36 HILLCREST AVE, THE PROPERTY THAT WAS SUBDIVIDED OFF ACTUALLY HAS AN ADDRESS ON SPRINGWOOD AVENUE IN PO, ARDSLEY. UH, AN UNIDENTIFIED ADDRESS. SO IT'S LISTED AS ZERO SPRINGWOOD AVENUE. AND THAT WAS, UH, CERTAINLY FOUND ONLINE AS BEING LISTED AS A VACANT LOT FOR SALE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE REQUEST? NO, NO. THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REQUEST FOR A TWO YEAR EXTENSION OF THE PLANNING BOARD. STEEP SLOPE PERMIT TO BE VALID THROUGH SEPTEMBER 5TH OF 2028. SO MOVED. MOVE. MISS ROBINSON, SECOND. SECOND, MISTER PULLINGER. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

CHAIR VOTES. I, UH, NEXT UP, WE HAVE A PIECE OF CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING CASE NUMBER PB 2603. MATANZA CUBAN CAFE. THAT WAS JUST RECENTLY BEFORE US. UM, A COUPLE MEETINGS AGO NOW, WE APPROVED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A RESTAURANT. UM, AND THERE'S BEEN AN UPDATE TO THE PLANS, UH, THAT DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT WILL WILL INFORM US OF.

CORRECT. SO WITH RESPECT TO THE MATANZAS CUBAN CAFE, PB 2603, UH, BY LETTER DATED AUGUST 26TH, 2026. UH, BY ANGELA HERNANDEZ. ON BEHALF OF MATANZAS CUBAN CAFE. THE LETTER BASICALLY INDICATES THAT UM IN ADA ACCESSIBLE BATHROOM WILL BE INSTALLED ADJACENT TO AN EXISTING BATHROOM TOWARDS THE REAR OF THE SPACE, AND THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE PROJECT ARCHITECT. IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH ADA REQUIREMENTS. THERE HAS BEEN NO CHANGE TO THE SEATING CAPACITY OR SEATING ARRANGEMENT THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD. UH, AS A RESULT OF THIS ADDITIONAL BATHROOM, THE EXISTING CLOSET STORAGE AREA WOULD BE REDUCED IN SIZE TO MAKE UP FOR THAT. THAT SPACE THAT WAS LOST. UM, OTHER THAN

[00:05:01]

ANY QUESTIONS ON ON THIS REQUEST.

NO, NO NO. ALL RIGHT. UH, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE REVISED SPECIAL USE PERMIT.

UH, PLANS. SO MOVED. MOVE. MR. PATEL, SECOND. SECOND. MISS ROBINSON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

CHAIR. VOTES. AYE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UM, WE HAVE ONE OLD BUSINESS FOR ONE PIECE OF OLD BUSINESS FOR OUR WORK SESSION.

UH, THIS EVENING. UH, CASE NUMBER TB 2603, PB 2318 LOOP ROAD HOLDINGS. UH, THIS IS, UH, ON REFERRAL TO US FROM THE TOWN BOARD. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A TOWN BOARD AMENDED SITE PLAN.

UH, A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLANNING BOARD. STEEP SLOPE PERMIT AND WETLAND WATERCOURSE PERMIT. UM, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.

GOOD. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. UM, CHAIRMAN.

MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS ANNIE KLEIN. I'M AN ASSOCIATE WITH DALE O'DONNELL AND WEINGARTEN WISE. AND WE'RE HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF REGENERON. UM, I KNOW WE DID, UH, GIVE YOU A FULL PRESENTATION WITH SOME OF THE MODIFICATIONS LAST MONTH. UM, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE A DRAFT, UH, RECOMMENDATION BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING, BUT I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, SO STAFF IS DISTRIBUTED, A DRAFT DECISION FOR US TO CONSIDER.

UM, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, DO YOU WANT TO WALK US THROUGH THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THE, RECOMMENDATION? SURE. UH, RIGHT. SO, FOLLOWING DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING, STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. UM, WE'VE IDENTIFIED ESSENTIALLY FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO BE MADE TO THE TOWN BOARD IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROPOSAL. UH, FIRST, IS THAT NO PARKING SIGNAGE BE INSTALLED ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD FROM THE LOGISTICS BUILDING TO LOOP ROAD. THAT'S THE EXISTING INTERNAL LOOP ROAD. NUMBER TWO, THE APPLICANT INCREASE ENFORCEMENT OF EXISTING PARKING AND TRAVEL AREAS UP TO AND INCLUDING TOWING VEHICLES PARKED WITHIN TRAVEL LANES. SO AS IDENTIFIED BY THIS BOARD, THAT THE EXISTING TEMPORARY PARKING LOT AREAS ARE SOMEWHAT OVER PARKED AND THERE HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED PARKING WITHIN TRAVEL LANES. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, EMERGENCY SAFETY VEHICLES CAN, UM, FULLY ACCESS ALL AREAS OF THE SITE. SO THAT WAS DISCUSSED. NUMBER THREE, TEMPORARY PARKING LOT TEN BE REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED AND RESTORED WITH LANDSCAPING BY 2032, WITH THE OPTION FOR THE APPLICANT TO REQUEST AN EXTENSION OF TIME TO REMOVE AND RESTORE THE PARKING LOT. IF THE APPLICANT CAN DEMONSTRATE THE NEED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE TOWN BOARD. AND NUMBER FOUR, THAT NATIVE EVERGREEN LANDSCAPING BE INSTALLED BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT FOR THE LOGISTICS BUILDING AND TEMPORARY LOT TEN, AS WELL AS OLD SAWMILL RIVER ROAD, SUBJECT TO THE REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF THE TOWN FORESTRY OFFICER. SO ALL OF THESE ITEMS WERE PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED BY THE BOARD AND CAPTURED WITHIN THIS DRAFT RECOMMENDATION. GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, I DID FIRST. JUST WANT TO TOUCH ON I KNOW, ONE, ONE SORT OF LINGERING ITEM FROM OUR CONVERSATION AT THE LAST MEETING, WHICH WAS THE ABILITY TO PLAN SHRUBS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE EASEMENT. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF IF YOU'VE HAD A CHANCE TO TALK TO THE TOWN ENGINEER OR IF THERE'S ANY CLARIFICATION ON ON THAT. I DON'T BELIEVE THEY TALK TO THE TOWN ENGINEER, BUT WE WERE LOOKING INTO SEEING IF WE COULD PLANT SOME SMALL SHRUBS. I KNOW THAT IS A VERY TRICKY, UM, AREA DUE TO THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE EXISTING SHRUBBERY AND, AND, UM, BUT WE WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT. AND IF WE CAN PLANT ANYTHING THERE, WE WE DEFINITELY WILL.

SO I GUESS COULD THERE, COULD THERE BE A RECOMMENDATION, YOU KNOW, JUST BECAUSE THIS IS ON ON REFERRAL, WE'RE ULTIMATELY NOT THE DECISION MAKERS ON THIS. AND SO TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THIS THREAD DOESN'T GET LOST AS THIS TRANSITIONS OVER TO THE TOWN BOARD, UM, YOU KNOW, COULD THERE BE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE EXTENT, YOU KNOW, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE TOWN BOARD CONTINUE TO INVESTIGATE THE POSSIBILITY OF SHRUBS BEING, UH, INSTALLED IN THE EASEMENT TO PROVIDE SCREENING BETWEEN THE ROADWAY AND THE PARKING LOT.

SURE. YES. MISS. MEGHANA, ANY.

[00:10:03]

I HAVE NOTHING. ALL RIGHT THEN. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE RECOMMENDATION AS DISTRIBUTED? I THINK THE ONLY THING, THE ONLY OTHER THING WAS, AND POTENTIALLY IT WAS ADDRESSED IS THE, UM, THE PARKING RESTRICTIONS THAT AARON HAD MENTIONED. IF THERE WAS ANY UPDATE TO LIKE SIGNAGE INDICATIONS ON THE PLANS OR CONSIDERATION. I THINK THAT WAS A DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING. OH, UM, YOU REFERRING TO ITEM NUMBER ONE ON HERE, OR YOU MEAN THE IN THE EXISTING PARKING LOT AREAS. AND GOING FORWARD O THE PROPOSED. YEAH. UM, WE CAN UPDATE THE PLANS TO SHOW THE SIGNAGE. GREAT. YEAH, I'LL HAVE THEM DO THAT. OKAY.

SO THEN IS THERE IS THERE A WAY TO CODIFY THAT IN THE RECOMMENDATION? IT'S NOT REALLY A RECOMMENDATION, I GUESS RECOMMEND THAT THE TOWN BOARD CONFIRM THAT THE PLANS ARE UPDATED TO REFLECT THAT. I THINK YOU COULD JUST RECOMMEND, YOU KNOW, AS YOU HAVE WITH THE SIGNAGE, AND THEN THEY'LL SEE IT WHEN IT GOES BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD.

YEAH, RIGHT. WHAT WE'LL DO IS, UH, STAFF WILL CONFIRM. AND WHEN THE COMMISSIONER PRESENTS, UH, AS PART OF THE PROJECT ON BEHALF OF THE TOWN WITH THE TOWN BOARD CAN CONFIRM THAT THE PLANS HAVE BEEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THE MODIFICATIONS, INCLUDING THE SIGNAGE. OKAY, GREAT. UM, YEAH, AND I DID JUST WANT TO THANK THE APPLICANT AGAIN FOR FOR BEING SO COOPERATIVE AND COLLABORATIVE DURING THIS PROCESS. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THE, THE PLANS THAT FIRST CAME TO US AND THE PLANS THAT WILL BE, UH, THAT'LL GO BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD ARE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED. UM, AND WE'LL CERTAINLY MAKE SURE AS, AS WE HAND THIS PROJECT BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT THEY UNDERSTAND JUST JUST HOW, UH, HOW IMPROVED THESE PLANS ARE.

OKAY. APPRECIATE IT.

THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE THAT. UM, ANY OTHER FINAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NO, NO. ALL RIGHT. THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD, AS AMENDED. SO MOVE.

MOVED MR. PULLINGER. SECOND.

SECOND, MISS ROBINSON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR VOTES I.

GREAT, THANK YOU SO MUCH. HAVE A.

GREAT NIGHT. THANK YOU.

THERE'S. THERE'S LESS DISTANCE FOR.

YEAH. YOU KNOW, VIC, YOU GOT TO COME OVER HERE. YES.

I'LL GET YOU. NEXT, I GOT YOU NEXT. WE GOT YOU. YOU'RE NEXT. ALL RIGHT. UM, SO WE HAVE ONE NEW, UH, BUSINESS ITEM FOR OUR WORK SESSION THIS EVENING. UH, CASE NUMBER PB 2602. KIM AT 18 JOYCE ROAD, PO HARTSDALE. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT.

UH, HI. GOOD EVENING. UM.

MY NAME IS DIANA TAVARES WITH CORAZON ENGINEERING. I'M HERE WITH PETER CORAZON ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, ANDREA KIM, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 18 JOYCE ROAD. UM, I'M JUST GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN ON ZOOM. CAN YOU TILT THE MIC CLOSER TO YOUR MOUTH, PLEASE? THANK YOU. IS THAT.

BETTER? OKAY.

UM, WAIT SECOND. OKAY, SO THE PROJECT IS LOCATED AT 18 JOYCE ROAD. UM, WITHIN THE TOWN OF GREENSBURG. AND THE, ARE 7.51 FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT. UM, THE SITE CONTAINS APPROXIMATELY 11,938FT . AND, UM, THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING, WHICH WAS CONSTRUCTED IN THE 1950S. UM, HERE WE HAVE A COUPLE PICTURES OF THE EXISTING SITE. UM, THIS IS THE DRIVEWAY THAT GOES TO THE EXISTING HOUSE. WE HAVE, UM, A COUPLE PICTURES OF THE REAR. THIS IS THE BACKYARD. UM, IN THIS PICTURE. SO THE PROJECT PROPOSES, UM, THE DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING DWELLING AND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. AND ASSOCIATED IMPROVEMENTS, INCLUDING THE DRIVEWAY AND UTILITIES. UM, THE PROPOSED DWELLING MAINTAINS THE GENERAL LOCATION AND SPLIT LEVEL CONFIGURATION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. AND IT'S ALSO, UH, ZONING COMPLIANT.

TO. OKAY. AND THE TEXT THERE. UM, HERE, I JUST HAVE A COUPLE

[00:15:04]

NOW THAT WE LOWERED THE, UH, THE GARAGE ELEVATION AND PUSHED THE HOUSE CLOSER TO TO JOYCE ROAD. UH, JUST AN OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED UTILITIES. WE'RE PROPOSING A, UM, A TWO INCH COPPER. UM, SERVICE TO ACCOMMODATE DOMESTIC, UM, SERVICE AND FIRE A FOUR INCH SANITARY SEWER SERVICE AND A SIX INCH, UM, STORM CONNECTION. WE'RE ALSO WE'RE GOING TO ABANDON THE EXISTING WATER AND SEWER PER TOWN STANDARDS. UM, AND THIS IS OUR LANDSCAPE PLAN. UH, A TOTAL.

TO CLARIFY THE THE COPPER LINE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WATER LINE? CORRECT. THE WATER SERVICE LINE.

UH, YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU.

UH, THIS IS OUR LANDSCAPE PLAN. WE'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE A TOTAL OF NINE TREES, BUT ONLY ONE TREE IS REGULATED, WHICH IS THIS, UH, PIN CHERRY. UM, IN THIS LOCATION. AND WE'RE GOING TO BE REPLACING THOSE WITH, UH, THREE ATLANTIC CEDAR TREES. UM, EAST OF THE DWELLING. AND WE'RE ALSO LEAVING THIS 36 INCH PIN OAK TO REMAIN, UH, WHICH IS IN FRONT OF THE PROPERTY.

CAN YOU GO INTO A LITTLE BIT OF DETAIL ON HOW THAT TREE WILL BE PROTECTED? BECAUSE THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH STAFF. UH, YES. YOU OPEN UP THE EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN. SO WE'RE PROPOSING A, UM, THIS FENCE, THIS, UH, CHAIN LINK FENCE AROUND THE TREE, AND WE HAVE THIS NOTE THAT THE CONTRACTOR WILL BE, UM, USING CAUTION WITHIN THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREE. AND WE ALSO MOVED. WE HAVE OUR, UM, OUR SUBSURFACE DETENTION SYSTEM, WHICH WAS CLOSER TO THE, UM, CLOSER TO THE TREE. WE PUSHED IT AS FAR BACK AS WE COULD TO, UM, MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT DISRUPTING THE EXISTING TREE. THANK YOU.

UM, SO, YEAH, WE WE PREPARED A SLIP AND AN EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, WHICH, LIKE I SAID, PROPOSES THE DETENTION SYSTEM AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. WE ALSO HAVE A DRY SWALE. UM, THIS IS SOUTH OF THE. I'M SORRY, EAST OF THE PROPOSED DWELLING. UM, AND THE SWEEP AND THE EROSION. SEDIMENT CONTROL HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY SEVERAL TOWN, UH, STAFF MEMBERS AND CONSULTANTS, AND WE'VE PROVIDED RESPONSES TO ALL. AND WE BELIEVE, BASED ON OUR CORRESPONDENCE, THAT THE STORMWATER ITEMS HAVE BEEN FULLY ADDRESSED.

CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE STORM DESIGN THAT THE SYSTEM WAS DESIGNED FOR? UH, YEAH. UH, SO WE HAVE THIS, UM, CLOSED ATTENTION UNIT. I HAVE A DETAIL OF IT, UH, SOMEWHERE. IT'S THE STORM CAPTURE. UM, BY OLD CASTLE. SO IT'S JUST GOING TO BE CAPTURING THE THE ROOF AND THE TERRACE AREA. UM. DO YOU KNOW IF IT WAS SO? THE TOWN CODE HAS A REQUIREMENT THAT YOU DESIGN FOR MINIMUM 25 YEAR STORM EVENT. YEAH.

WE PRETTY FREQUENTLY THE BOARD AND AS WELL AS THE TOWN WILL ASK IF AN APPLICANT CAN OVER DESIGN AND ACHIEVE SOMETHING GREATER THAN THAT. YEAH. WE WE PROVIDE THE 110, 25 AND 100 YEAR STORM. SO THIS WOULD ACCOMMODATE UP TO A 100 YEAR STORM EVENT. YES. CORRECT. THANK YOU.

[00:20:01]

SORRY. LET ME GO TO THE UTILITY PLAN. THE OTHER YARD DRAINS THAT ARE IN THE BACK. UM. THEY ALL.

LOOK. YEAH. I'M SORRY. THEY ALL CONNECT TO THE, UM. TO THIS STRUCTURE WHICH GOES INTO THE INTO THE STORM, UM, UNIT. INTO THE DETENTION SYSTEM.

INCLUDING THE BACK PATIO. YEAH, THE BACK PATIO GOES TO THE, UM, TO THAT UNIT. CAN YOU SPEAK TO RUNOFF FROM THE DRIVEWAY? I KNOW YOU'RE REDUCING THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. UM, AND ALSO CAPTURING WHAT'S REQUIRED. UM, BUT AS FAR AS RUNOFF FROM THE DRIVEWAY, IS IT DIRECTED INTO EXISTING, UM, STORM DRAINS, IS IT? UM. YOU STOLE MY QUESTION. SORRY.

BECAUSE, UH, IT'S MUCH LOWER THAN THE ELEVATION OF OUR, UH, STORM SYSTEM. IT'S NOT CAPTURED, BUT OVERALL, WE ARE REDUCING THE, UM, THE FLOWS OF THE SITE, AND, UM, WE'RE KEEPING, LIKE, THE EXISTING, UM, DRAINAGE PATTERN. UH, HAVING THIS DRY SWALE ALSO. UM, COLLECTING THE THE RUNOFF THAT'S COMING FROM THE TOP OF THE.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAD A LIP. SORRY.

I WAS GONNA SAY IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE LIPS ON THE DRIVEWAY.

WHICH WOULD KIND OF DIRECT IT TO A PARTICULAR PLACE. I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM FOR THE PLANNING BOARD. UM, IF YOU KNOW WHERE WHERE THAT WATER IS GOING TO RUN TO.

UM, IT WOULD GENERALLY RUN. WHAT IS THIS? I THINK IT'S WESTWARD ALONG JOYCE ROAD TO TO THE EXISTING, UH, DRAINAGE.

THAT'S OPERATING SEWERS AT THE CORNERS.

YEAH, THE EXISTING DRAINAGE THAT'S ON JOYCE ROAD..

AND SINCE I LIVE IN THAT AREA, I HAPPEN TO KNOW THAT QUITE OFTEN THOSE SEWERS GET COVERED WITH LEAVES AND OTHER DEBRIS.

AND SO THE WATER CONTINUES TO RUN DOWN THE STREET. AND THIS IS AN ELEVATED SITE. THE HOUSE IS UP THE HILL. MHM. UM, I CAN FORESEE, ESPECIALLY IN THE WINTER IF WE HAVE FREEZING CONDITIONS, UH, ICE BUILDING UP ON THE ROAD, WHICH ALREADY HAPPENS ON JOYCE AND SOUTH WAY. UH, SO CONCERNS ABOUT THE WATER RUNOFF AND THIS IN VIEW OF THE EXISTING SITUATION ON THE ROADS. RIGHT. OKAY.

HI. MY NAME IS PETER CARDOSO WITH CATOOSA ENGINEERING. UH, SO I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT THAT OUR DESIGN EVALUATES ALL OF THE RUNOFF FROM THE SITE, WHICH INCLUDES WHAT GOES TO THE SUBSURFACE DETENTION SYSTEM AND WHAT RUNS OFF AND BYPASSES. SO UNDER THE EXISTING CONDITION, ALL OF THE RUNOFF FROM THE ENTIRE SITE FLOWS TO JOYCE. UNDER THE PROPOSED CONDITION, WE'RE CAPTURING THE ENTIRE ROOF AREA. THE ENTIRE TERRACE, AND THAT IS ACTUALLY PIPED INTO THE STORM SYSTEM. SO TO THE EXTENT THAT THAT MAJOR PORTION OF THE SITE DRAINAGE IS BEING ROUTED DIRECTLY INTO THE STORM SYSTEM, NOT VIA A CATCH BASIN. UH, YOU KNOW, MITIGATES THE POTENTIAL FLOODING OR ICING CONDITION THAT YOU DESCRIBE. SO THE ONLY PORTION OF THE SITE THAT'S GOING TO THE, UH, DIRECTLY TO THE ROAD OF THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE IS THE DRIVEWAY. THE REST AND SOME WALKWAYS. THE REST IS ACTUALLY CAPTURED, WHICH IS AN IMPROVEMENT. SO THE MODEL DOES SHOW. THE REPORT DOES SHOW THAT THERE IS A DECREASE IN FLOW FROM THE EXISTING CONDITION AFTER THE MITIGATION. BUT ALSO I THINK TO YOUR POINT, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE MAJORITY OF THAT FLOW IS NOW DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO THE STORM SYSTEM. THANK YOU.

UM. DID YOU HAVE MORE PRESENTATION? ARE YOU READY TO TAKE QUESTIONS? UM, NO.

I THINK THAT WAS PRETTY MUCH IT.

OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? YEAH.

MR. PULLINGER. THANK YOU. UM, THE. THERE'S A

[00:25:06]

AND SHE IS A VOTING MEMBER. AND BECAUSE QUORUM EXISTS HERE IN TOWN HALL, SHE'S ABLE TO PARTICIPATE FULLY, UH, WITHOUT HER LOCATION BEING NOTICED. SO THIS IS IN A RESIDENTIAL, UH, DENSE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. UM, JUST WHAT ARE THE PROPOSED HOURS OF WORK? UM. IT'S, UM, PER THE TOWN CODE. OKAY. SO THE THE CODE REGULATES, UM, OPERATIONS GENERALLY THROUGH THE NOISE ORDINANCE. UM. JUST KIDDING.

UM, I APOLOGIZE IF THIS IS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE. BUT I NOTICED THAT THE EXISTING HOME HAS ASBESTOS, AND THAT IS PART OF THE DEMOLITION. UH, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO REMEDIATION OR ASBESTOS. UH, HAVE A CONSTRUCTION SAFETY PLAN. UM, TO FOR PURPOSES OF FULL DISCLOSURE. UH, I'M AN ATTORNEY WHO SPECIALIZES IN ENVIRONMENTAL LITIGATION, USUALLY REPRESENTING THE POLLUTERS. SO I HAVE A GREAT SENSITIVITY TOWARDS FRIABLE ASBESTOS. AIRBORNE ASBESTOS.

UH, CONTAINMENT, REMEDIATION. AND IT'S MUCH EASIER TO DO ASBESTOS ABATEMENT IN A CONTAINED AREA THAN TAKING DOWN A BUILDING. UH, CONTAINING ASBESTOS. AND I'M RELATIVELY NEW ON THE BOARD, SO I'VE NEVER RUN INTO THIS ISSUE. UH, SO I'M BEING EDUCATED EVEN AS I SPEAK. BUT I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE ARE SOME REGULATIONS. UH, AND NOT BY THE TOWN, BUT IS THERE, UH, A PLAN? A SAFETY PLAN IN PLACE THAT I, FOR PURPOSES OF MY OWN CURIOSITY, SINCE IT MIGHT BE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THIS BOARD'S ACTIVITIES, THAT I COULD REVIEW.

UH, SO THANK YOU FOR THE QUESTION. UM, THE THE DWELLING DOES HAVE THE ASBESTOS SIDING, AND I BELIEVE THAT'S REGULATED BY THE COUNTY, UH, OR BY THE STATE.

SO YOU WOULD APPLY FOR YOUR DEMO PERMIT WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT? UM, BUT YOU WOULD ALSO IT'S REGULATED BY THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR. OKAY. SO I, I THINK THERE'S A PRETTY CLEAR, UH, ABATEMENT FOR THAT. AND, UH, THE SIDING HAS TO BE TAKEN DOWN. AND IN A CERTAIN WAY AND BAGGED AND DISPOSED OF THAT APPROVED FACILITY. SO TO YOUR POINT, WE WOULDN'T. AND WE'LL PASS THIS ALONG TO THE ARCHITECT BECAUSE, UH, WE'RE THE SITE CIVIL GUY. SO IT'S REALLY OUTSIDE OF OUR SCOPE, BUT WE DON'T MIND THE EDUCATION EITHER.

UM. SO.

UH, I APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH, WE WE WELCOME. WE LEARN EVERY DAY. UM, BUT WE'LL PASS THAT INFORMATION ALONG. BUT WE WOULD REMOVE THE SIDING. UH, RATHER THAN DEMOLISH THE WHOLE HOUSE, BECAUSE IF YOU COULD REMOVE THE ASBESTOS, AND THAT IS, THAT IS, UM, A MATERIAL THAT'S ABATEMENT MATERIAL VERSUS IF YOU TAKE DOWN AN ENTIRE HOUSE. RIGHT. THE ENTIRE HOUSE BECOMES, YOU KNOW, ABATEMENT MATERIAL, WHICH HAS TO BE, UH, DISPOSED OF IN A CERTAIN WAY. SO WE WILL PASS THAT INFORMATION ALONG AS FAR AS A SAFETY PLAN AND THE ASSOCIATED, UM, UH, APPLICATIONS AND THINGS. WE WILL. UM, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, PASS THAT ALONG. I ASSUME THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION

[00:30:03]

I WOULD I THANK YOU. I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. AND I WANT TO MAKE A CLEAR SO ASBESTOS SHINGLES SO LONG YOU KNOW THEY WOULD USE WHEN THIS HOUSE WAS BUILT FOR THE ROOF. AND UM, THEY HAVE NOT FRIABLE THAT IN MY OPINION. ADMITTEDLY I'M A DEFENSE COUNSEL THERE. IT'S NOT DANGEROUS. BUT OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, KNOCKING DOWN THE WHOLE HOUSE WITH A BULLDOZER, WHICH I KNOW YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO CREATES A TOTALLY DIFFERENT PROBLEM. AND THAT'S WHY I WAS, UH, CURIOUS. SO AND I THANK MY FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS FOR HUMORING ME ON THIS.

UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, YOU HAD A RECOMMENDATION. I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK. SO THIS PROJECT, UM, MAY VERY WELL ADVANCE TOWARDS A PUBLIC HEARING. AND IF THE BOARD SCHEDULES THAT FOR, LET'S SAY, OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH IS SEPTEMBER 16TH. DO YOU THINK THAT WOULD GIVE ENOUGH TIME FOR THE ARCHITECT TO EVEN BE ABLE TO PUT SOMETHING IN WRITING IN RESPONSE TO THIS COMMENT FROM THE BOARD ON WHAT THE PROTOCOLS ARE, AND.

PUT SOMETHING IN WRITING? I'M NOT SURE THAT A A HEALTH AND SAFETY AND ACTION PLAN WOULD BE FULLY DEVELOPED, BUT AT LEAST THE BONES OF THAT GREAT, UM, OF THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, DOCUMENT WOULD BE IDENTIFIED. THE AND WILL CONTAIN XYZ.

OKAY. THAT'D BE GREAT. WOULD THAT BE MR. PULLINGER? YES. THANK YOU. SURE.

THAT'D BE APPRECIATED, MR. PATEL.

THE THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM, THE YARD DRAINS, THE DETENTION SYSTEM, THE CS. WHAT IS THE MAINTENANCE PLAN ON THAT? HERE'S MY THING. IF IT GETS PLUGGED, THE WATER RUNOFF IS GOING TO GO TO THE NEIGHBORS. I'VE KNOW SOMEBODY WHO'S EXPERIENCED THAT, AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION.

UM, YEAH. WE HAVE A MAINTENANCE PLAN ON THE ON THE SLIP REPORT FOR THAT. UM, OKAY. SO WE SPECIFY NOT ONLY THE MAINTENANCE FREQUENCY. THERE'S AN INSPECTION FREQUENCY FOR THE SUBSURFACE, AND IT'S A CLOSED SYSTEM. RIGHT? IT DOESN'T HAVE INFILTRATION, BUT NOT ONLY THE MAINTENANCE. UH, SCHEDULE FOR THE SUBSURFACE DETENTION, BUT ALSO FOR ALL THE PIPING. OH, I'M SORRY. UH, YES. SO, UM, I WAS SAYING THAT OUR STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION PLAN AND OUR PLANS, UH, SHOW A MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE FOR NOT ONLY THE SUBSURFACE DETENTION, BUT ALSO FOR THE INLETS, THE OUTLET CONTROL DEVICE, THE PIPING FOR ALL OF THE ELEMENTS, AND EVEN THERE'S EVEN A MAINTENANCE SCHEDULE FOR GRASS AND VEGETATION THAT THAT'S INSPECTED AT A CERTAIN, UM, INTERVAL TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO EROSION. ONE OTHER THING. THE DRY SWALE.

THE WATER JUST SITS IN THERE AND PERMEATES INTO THE GROUND.

IS THAT THE, UH, YES. AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS THE DRY SOIL IS NOT INTENDED TO CAPTURE ANY OF THE DEVELOPED AREA. BUT THERE IS THE GRADE CONTINUES TOWARDS THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. AND, UH, KIND OF, UM, COMES DOWN THAT EASTERN PART OF THE PROPERTY SO THAT WE JUST AS A RECOMMENDATION FROM, UM, MR. FEDERICI THAT WE HAVE SOME KIND OF SYSTEM TO CAPTURE THAT AND AT LEAST MITIGATE SOME OF IT TO REDUCE THE VELOCITY AND, AND POSSIBLY INFILTRATE A SMALL PORTION OF THAT. OKAY.

AND MR. FEDERICI IS WITH THE TOWN'S BUREAU OF ENGINEERING.

JUST SO YOU'RE AWARE, FOR THE RECORD.

I JUST HAVE A QUESTION. UM, IS THERE A RETAINING WALL IN THE BACK OF THIS PROPERTY? THERE IS, UH, THAT RETAINING WALL SEPARATES. IT'S KIND OF A STEP UP TO THAT HIGHER PLATEAU.

THAT RETAINING WALL WILL REMAIN INTACT. UH, CAN YOU GO TO THE PICTURES? IT'S ACTUALLY NOT A BAD LOOKING, UH, STONE WALL.

UM. I WISH THE WALLS AT MY HOUSE LOOK LIKE THAT, BUT, UM, BUT WE. THE INTENT WAS, YOU KNOW, TO LEAVE WHATEVER VEGETATION IS IN THAT UPPER PLATEAU ALONE. AND, UM, TO, UM, THAT'S KIND OF OUR OUR CEILING. RIGHT? WE DIDN'T WANT TO DEVELOP, UH, CLOSER TO THAT WALL OR WE DIDN'T WANT TO INTERFERE WITH THAT WALL. OKAY. THANK YOU.

GREAT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO. I DID HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. UM, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM FOR THE RECORD. UM, IF THIS PROJECT REQUIRES ANY VARIANCES OR IF IT'S ZONING COMPLIANCE.

IT'S ZONING COMPLIANT. THERE'S NO VARIANCES.

GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, AND IF YOU HAD ANY CONTACT WITH THE

[00:35:01]

WE. DON'T KNOW. NO, WE DON'T KNOW.

OKAY. UM, SO IF IF WE WERE TO ADVANCE THE NEXT STEP, WHICH WOULD BE A PUBLIC HEARING. UM, UH, ALL RESIDENTS WITHIN, IS IT 500FT OF THE PROPERTY? MISS MAGANA WILL BE NOTICED. UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY RECOMMEND THAT YOU REACH OUT TO EVERYONE WHO WILL BE NOTICED PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. UH, BUT TO THE EXTENT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO MAKE CONTACT WITH THE RESIDENTS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE PROPERTY. UM, AND POTENTIALLY GET A GET AHEAD OF ANY, UM, CONCERNS THEY MIGHT HAVE PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. UM, WOULD PROBABLY BE IN EVERYONE'S BEST INTEREST.

YEAH. OKAY. UM. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER FINAL QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? JUST, JUST.

ALL RIGHT. THEN I WILL SCHEDULE THIS FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON SEPTEMBER 16TH. AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU THEN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

AND, UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT WILL GET YOU ALL THE INFORMATION YOU NEED REGARDING NOTICING AND ALL.

OF THAT. YEAH, THERE'S NOTICING AND SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS. SO OUR OFFICE WILL BE IN TOUCH BEFORE THE END OF THE WEEK. OKAY.

LIKELY TOMORROW. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. UM, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC DISCUSSION PORTION OF OUR MEETING. SO MOVED. MR. PATEL. SECOND, MR. KILLINGER. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR VOTES. I, UM. GOOD EVENING, AND WELCOME TO THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF OUR, UH, PLANNING BOARD MEETING. IT IS 7:44 P.M.. UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, UH, CAN YOU CONDUCT THE ROLL? SURE. CHAIRPERSON. PINE. HERE, MR. PULLINGER.

HERE. OUR FIRST ALTERNATE, MISS ROBINSON. HERE. OUR SECOND ALTERNATE, MR. PATEL HERE. UH, WE HAVE MISS ANDERSON ON ZOOM. HERE.

AND NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT MR. WEINBERG IS NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING. BOTH OUR ALTERNATE MEMBERS WILL BE FULL VOTING MEMBERS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. UH, WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC HEARING AND ONE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON THE AGENDA FOR THIS EVENING. UH, THE FIRST PUBLIC HEARING IS A CONTINUATION OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING FROM THE LAST MEETING.

CASE NUMBER PB 2317, DIMA AT ZERO OLD ARMY ROAD, PO SCARSDALE. AND THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A PLANNING BOARD, STEEP SLOPE PERMIT AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. UH, I BELIEVE WE HAVE MR. BAILEY FROM, UH, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT HERE THIS EVENING. YES. DID ANYBODY HEAR ME? YEP. A LITTLE SOFTLY, I DON'T KNOW, TERRENCE. IF YOU'RE ABLE TO BUMP IT UP A LITTLE BIT HERE IN THE ROOM. TRY NOW.

WHAT ABOUT NOW? YEP. THAT'S GREAT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. YOU'RE A LITTLE CHOPPY, THOUGH.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE. UH.

I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S OUR CONNECTION OR YOUR CONNECTION.

MAYBE IF YOU GO. WE SEE YOU NOW. MAYBE IF YOU GO OFF CAMERA. UM, YOUR CONNECTION WILL BE A LITTLE BIT BETTER.

OKAY. TRY NOW. YES. OKAY. IS THAT EVERYBODY? HEAR ME NOW! IS THAT BETTER? THAT'S BETTER. YES.

OKAY, GREAT. SORRY. I WANTED TO BE ABLE TO SHOW MY FACE. THAT'S WHY I WAS ON THE LAST TIME I HAD PROBLEMS. BECAUSE I HAVE A WIDE SCREEN AND YOU GUYS COULDN'T SEE THE SCREEN. BUT I'M ON THE LAPTOP, SO, UM. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS GREG KETCHUM. POLI. UH, ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT AT ZERO OLD ON THE ROAD. UM, THIS IS THE SECOND PUBLIC HEARING WE'RE BEFORE YOU. THE PROPOSED PROJECT IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, UH, LOCATED OFF ZERO OLD ARMY ROAD.

I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO REMIND YOU THE PATH THAT WE TOOK TO GET HERE. UH, WE ORIGINALLY CAME HERE PROPOSING A, UH, THREE LOT SUBDIVISION. UH, WE WENT THROUGH A BUNCH OF ANALYSIS AND REALIZED THAT MAYBE IT WAS BETTER TO JUST DEVELOP ONE HOME ON THE PROPERTY. UH, HERE WE ARE NOW PROPOSING ONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ON THE LOT WITH, UH, YOU KNOW, ASSOCIATED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. UM, LAST TIME WE WERE BEFORE YOU, THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD THAT WE, UH, ADDRESSED AS PART OF OUR RESPONSE. I'LL QUICKLY GO THROUGH THOSE, UH, THAT TIME, THERE WAS A LEVEL OF SPUTTERS AND VEGETATIVE AREAS

[00:40:03]

UH, THE PROPOSED UNDERGROUND ELECTRIC WAS NOW REPLACED WITH OVERHEAD ELECTRIC. UM, THERE'S EVERGREEN SCREENING ADDED ALONG 350 OLD ARMY ROAD. UH, WIRE BACK SILT FENCE DETAIL WAS ADDED TO THE PLAN AND CHAIN LINK FENCE WAS INDICATED FOR TREE PROTECTION. THOSE WERE JUST GENERAL COMMENTS THAT WERE ISSUED BY THE BOARD LEADING UP TO TODAY. UH, THAT WERE ADDRESSED. IN ADDITION, WE DID RECEIVE, UH, VARIOUS CORRESPONDENCE FROM NEIGHBORS AND CONCERNS THAT THEY HAD, UH, YOU KNOW, REGARDING THE DEVELOPMENT. UM, OKAY. AND I HAVE MR. NOWAK HERE TO REALLY TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE CONCERNS WITH THE TREES. AND I CAN, YOU KNOW, ADDRESS SOME OF THE STORMWATER, UH, CONCERNS. UM, ONE OF THE NEIGHBORS, UH, MENTIONED THAT, UH, HER QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS DRAINAGE OR THAT THAT THE SCHOOL'S RUNOFF WAS FLOWING TO US. UM, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR DRAINAGE DESIGNS, UH, TO DETERMINE WHETHER THEY'RE RUNNING OFF TO US. I HOPE NOT, I HOPE THEY'RE ABIDING BY THE CODE. ALSO, THE STORMWATER CODE. BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR JOB IS TO MANAGE OUR OWN STORMWATER. THEY WOULDN'T BE, UM, REQUIRED TO FOLLOW US.

THEY MADE A COMMENT ABOUT NORWAY MAPLES, WHICH I'LL LET MR. NOWAK TOUCH ON. UH, AND AND ALSO JUST, YOU KNOW, THE REMOVAL OF THE LARGE AMOUNT OF TREES FROM THE LOT IN ORDER TO DEVELOP IT. UH, LIKE, ARE YOU AVAILABLE TO SPEAK ON THE TREES? RIGHT. HI. GOOD EVENING. MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. MY NAME IS MICHAEL NOWAK. I AM A ISA CERTIFIED ARBORIST, AND I AM THE ARBORIST ON THE PROJECT. UH, MY SCOPE OF WORK. WAS TO GO OUT IN THE FIELD AND TO TAG THE TREES, NUMBER THEM, LOG THEM, AND PROVIDE A CONDITIONAL REPORT FOR EACH TREE, PERFORM STORMWATER AND CARBON DIOXIDE CALCULATIONS AS IS REQUIRED BY THE MUNICIPALITY. UM. AS PROPOSED, THE APPLICANT HAS A PROJECT THAT REQUIRES QUITE A NUMBER OF TREES TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE. A GOOD MAJORITY OF THOSE TREES ARE INVASIVE IN NATURE, SUCH AS NORWAY MAPLES AND BLACK LOCUSTS. UM, THE DIVERSITY OF THE SPECIES HERE ON THE ENTIRE SITE IS MATURE TO OLDER TREES. THAT HAS A UPPER CROWN. UM, MEANING THAT THE WAY THEY GREW, THEY ARE TOP HEAVY FOR A NUMBER OF OF THE TREES.

AND AS A RESULT, THEY HAVE EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY LONG AND TALL TRUNKS WITH A LOT OF WEIGHT ON TOP. AND THEY HAVE GROWN AS A GROUP. OKAY, SO THAT IS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE EVALUATE THESE TREES FOR REMOVAL AND FOR, UM, ANY TREES TO REMAIN. UM, I KNOW THERE WERE SOME COMMENTS AND I DID ISSUE TWO MEMOS TO TRY TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORS. UH, BUT I WILL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, THERE WAS THERE WAS ALSO MORE COMMENTS ON LAST MEETING REGARDING, UH, PROPERTY LINE. UH, QUESTIONS ON THE, UH, SORRY, ON THE SOUTH EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY THAT APPEAR. UM, UM, WE DID I DID HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH THE SURVEYOR ABOUT IT. IT DOES LOOK LIKE POTENTIALLY THERE'S, UH, THE THE WALL MIGHT BE A FOOT OR TWO IN EITHER THEIR FAVOR OR OURS, BUT I THINK THE BEST WAY TO JUST RESOLVE THE DISPUTE IS TO GET THEIR SURVEYOR TO STAKE THE PROPERTY LINE. OUR SURVEYORS STAKE THE PROPERTY LINE AND SEE IF THERE'S A DISPUTE. IF THERE IS AN ACTUAL DISPUTE IN PROPERTY LINE, OR IF THE WALL IS JUST SLIGHTLY MIS LOCATED ON THE PLAN. SO I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST STEP FOR THAT. SO THAT IS GENERALLY A PRIVATE MATTER BETWEEN YOU AND THE NEIGHBOR. BUT I THINK ONE OF THE TOWN'S CONCERNS WAS A, UM, COMMENT THAT THERE WAS A COUPLE OF TREES THAT WERE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL THAT MAY HAVE BEEN ON ONE SIDE OF THE PROPERTY OR ANOTHER, AND WITH HAVING DIFFERENT SURVEYS, YOU KNOW, OVER TIME, SURVEYS DO GET BETTER WITH NEW TECHNOLOGY. SO SOMETIMES YOU HAVE SURVEY FROM THE 1800S, WHICH NOW YOU HAVE DIGITAL LASERS MEASURING THINGS

[00:45:04]

THAT WE WERE NOT RIGHT. BUT, UH, THE WHEELERS ARE ON ZOOM THIS EVENING. SO. BUT THERE MAY HAVE BEEN COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PROJECT TEAM AND THE WHEELERS. MR. CATCHPOLE, HAS THERE BEEN ANY DIRECT COMMUNICATION? THERE'S BEEN SOME EMAILED BACK AND FORTH, JUST KIND OF, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO. I READ IN THEIR RESPONSE, I THINK THEY WERE MORE CONCERNED WITH WHAT THEY WERE CONCERNED WITH. THE STONE WALLS, WHICH IS A TREE. AND, UH, THEY WERE THEY WANT TO MINIMIZE THEY WORRY ABOUT TREE RULES AFFECTING THE LAW. SO, I MEAN, WE HAVE TREES. THE CLOSEST TREE TO THE WALL IS PROBABLY SIX FEET. AND IT'S A TEN ACRE MAPLE. THERE'S A TEN INCH, UH, 80 PEOPLE HERE, AND THEN 23. THAT'S PROBABLY 8 TO 10FT. AND THEN THE SAME THING WITH THIS 26 INCH MAPLE. BUT THEY'RE NOT PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL. SO WE'RE NOT I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY WHICH TREES THEY'RE REFERRING TO AND ARE IN CLOSE PROXIMITY TO THE WALL, BUT ABSOLUTELY WILLING TO TALK ABOUT THAT. THERE'S AND MAKE SURE.

THAT WHAT WHAT WOULD BE THE CLOSEST TREE TO THE WALL..

PROPOSED REMOVAL PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL. THANK YOU.

PROBABLY USED ANY. WE'RE NOT REALLY TOO SURE WHAT TREES ARE GOING TO. MAYBE THE TEN INCH PEOPLE AND IT'S ONLY 43.

DOES THE WALL EXTEND THAT FAR, OR IS.

THE WALL? SO HERE'S A 14 INCH TURN THAT THE WALL IS NOT CLOSE TO THAT. SO YEAH, I THINK I KNOW THAT A WALL SOMEWHERE UP HERE, UH, FOR THE ENTRANCE ON THE WALL OVER HERE ON THE PROPERTY LINE UP HERE. SO MAYBE IT'S THIS TEN INCH MAPLE. UH, BUT I WOULD LIKE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT AS WELL.

OKAY. UM, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT.

SO WE'LL ASK THE WHEELERS IF THEY'RE ABLE TO SPEAK TO THAT.

BUT I DID JUST HAPPEN TO NOTICE, SINCE WE WERE DISCUSSING TREES ADJACENT TO YOUR CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE IS A 26 INCH MAPLE. IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. YOU HAVE SOME OTHER TREES IN THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL, BUT THAT IS PROPOSED TO REMAIN AT THIS TIME. UM, IF IN FACT, THAT'S THE CASE, WE WOULD WANT TO SEE TREE PROTECTION MEASURES SHOWN AROUND THAT 26 INCH MAPLE AND NOT TO PUT MR. NOWAK ON THE SPOT. I DON'T KNOW IF HE, UM, RECOLLECTS THAT MAPLE. AND, YOU KNOW, IF IT WAS IN RELATIVELY DECENT CONDITION AND IF HE COULD RECOMMEND ANY SPECIFIC PROTECTION MEASURES FOR THAT MAPLE IT AND WHETHER OR NOT IT'S A NORWAY MAPLE OR A NATIVE MAPLE.. AND IF ACTUALLY AN ADDITIONAL STREET AND THAT'S THE BE REMOVED TO CONSTRUCT THE DRIVEWAY. BEGINNING IN AN ACCIDENT.

OKAY. SO IF YOU CAN JUST UPDATE THE PLANTS AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, UM, REFERENCED IN, IN ALL DOCUMENTATION. THANK YOU.

YEAH. UM, DO YOU HAVE MORE PRESENTATION OR ARE YOU READY FOR QUESTIONS? UM, YEAH. I MEAN, I WILL TOUCH ON JUST ROCK REMOVAL. UH, I THINK REALLY THE METHOD OF ROCK REMOVAL DEPENDS ON THE VOLUME OF ROCK THAT IS ACTUALLY ENCOUNTERED. THERE IS, YOU KNOW, A LARGE AMOUNT OF FILL. I MEAN, A LARGE AMOUNT OF CUTTINGS ARE CUT GOING INTO THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT IS A HUGE HILL. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IF IF ROCK IS ENCOUNTERED IN A LARGE VOLUME, I THINK BLASTING WOULD BE CONSIDERED. BUT THERE IS, YOU KNOW, MEASURES THAT YOU TAKE TO ENSURE THAT ADJACENT PROPERTIES ARE SAFE. THERE'S NOTHING THERE'S SEISMOGRAPHS, THERE'S, YOU KNOW, MONITORING THAT WOULD HAVE TO TAKE PLACE.

I BELIEVE IT'S EVEN IN THE CORNER. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, SO REALLY, UNTIL WE GET A HANDLE ON VOLUME, I THINK I CAN'T DEFINITIVELY SAY WHETHER CHIPPING OR BLASTING IS GOING TO BE USED, BUT, UH, OR EVEN HOW MUCH ROCK IS GOING TO BE THERE. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE PART OF THE, THE APPLICATION PROCESS. I BELIEVE WE TAKE THAT WE DO A SCAN OR SOMETHING AT SOME POINT IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE DENSITY OF THE ROCK. AND, AND SO ON. RIGHT. SO THAT WILL DICTATE TO

[00:50:01]

OKAY. AND PRELIMINARILY, ARE YOU.

LEANING ONE DIRECTION OR THE OTHER IN TERMS OF I MEAN, I GUESS THERE ARE MULTIPLE OPTIONS, BUT TYPICALLY IT'S BLASTING OR CHIPPING. THERE'S ALSO CHEMICAL REMOVAL.

AND RIGHT, I MEAN A LOT OF CHIPPING IS VERY COMMON. BUT UH, YOU KNOW, I JUST TEND TO LEAN TOWARD BLASTING BECAUSE IT HAPPENS QUICKER. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HEAR CHIPPING FOR, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON HOW HARD THE ROCK IS, IT CAN GO ON. SO BLASTING IS QUICK AND IT GETS DONE FAST. RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHY I'M A FAN OF IT. BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, SO IF THE ROCK IS COMING OUT EASILY AND FAST, THEN MAYBE CHIPPING IS A VIABLE SOLUTION. BUT IF IT'S HARD AND TAKING LONG TO REMOVE, THEN I THINK IT'S WORTH SHIFTING GEARS AND LOOKING INTO BLASTING. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY I CAN'T REALLY GET A DEFINITIVE ANSWER AS TO WHAT THE METHOD WOULD BE AT THIS POINT. RIGHT. AND THEN WITH RESPECT TO THE TOWN, UH, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE, UH, BLASTING ORDINANCE.

SO THERE ARE VERY STRICT REQUIREMENTS. THIS BOARD OFTEN WILL, UM, IMPOSE CONDITIONS ON APPLICANTS WITH RESPECT TO BLASTING AS WELL. UM, THE OTHER THING IS, IF THE INTENT AND LET ME ASK YOU, LET ME ASK THIS ACTUALLY, FIRST IS THE INTENT TO GAIN APPROVAL AND THEN SEEK TO MARKET THIS LOT, OR IS YOUR CLIENT GOING TO BE BUILDING OR CONSTRUCTING? MY CLIENT PLANS TO BUILD ITSELF RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. SO THANK YOU. SO IF WHAT WILL HAVE TO BE IDENTIFIED FIRST, IT'S NOT YOU KNOW, YOU GO OUT THERE WITH A HAMMER, UH, AND, AND SEE IF THE ROCK SOFT BEFORE YOU GET A ROCK CHIPPING PERMIT. IF THAT WAS, UH, THE DESIRED MEANS, THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE THE SEISMIC HIGH RESOLUTION SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY, WHICH IS DONE BY A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER. UH, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, BASICALLY, TO IDENTIFY ON THE FRONT END, IF THE DENSITY OF THE ROCK IS SUCH THAT A ROCK HAMMER CAN EFFECTIVELY CHIP THE ROCK. UM, OR IF YOU KNOW, BLASTING IS, UH, THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT GETS DONE FIRST, BECAUSE, UH, I KNOW FOR A FACT I'VE SPOKEN WITH THE TOWN HAS AN OUTSIDE, UH, BLASTING INSPECTOR, THIRD PARTY BLASTING INSPECTOR, WHO'S BEEN WITH THE TOWN PROBABLY LONGER THAN I HAVE. AND I'VE BEEN HERE A WHILE. UM, AND HE, UM, ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED TO US SOME YEARS AGO WHEN WE WERE PUTTING TOGETHER ROCK TRIPPING PROTOCOLS THAT, UM, THAT THE WORK BE DONE ON THE ON THE FRONT END AND AHEAD OF THE ACTUAL SITE WORK SO THAT, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT PLANNING TO TAKE A ROCK HAMMER OUT THERE, AND THEN YOU'RE HAMMERING FOR 60 DAYS STRAIGHT AND THEN COME TO THE DECISION THAT WE JUST CAN'T REMOVE IT WITH THE HAMMER. SO NOW WE'RE GONNA PROPOSE BLASTING, AND THEN YOU'RE KIND OF HITTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH IMPACTS OF BOTH. SO, UH, JUST SO THAT YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION ON THAT AS WELL AS THE COMMUNITY. GREAT.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. I DID HAVE ONE QUESTION. UH, RIGHT ACROSS THE BOARD. IS ANYONE ELSE FROM THE BOARD HAVE A QUESTION FIRST? NO. ALL RIGHT. UH, SO SO I KNOW AT THE LAST MEETING, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT, UM, THE APPLICANT'S WILLINGNESS TO CREATE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT TO CREATE A PERMANENT BUFFER BETWEEN, UM, THE HISTORIC CEMETERY MANAGED BY OWNED BY THE GREENVILLE COMMUNITY CHURCH. UM, AND THIS NEW DWELLING, UM, I BELIEVE WHERE WE LEFT, IT WAS THE APPLICANT WAS GOING TO CONSIDER THAT REQUEST. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S AN UPDATE ON ON THAT SINCE THE LAST MEETING. YEAH. VERY GOOD ACTUALLY.

ACTUALLY, UM, SO WE DID DISCUSS IT. AND, YOU KNOW, WE, I THINK RIGHT NOW WHAT WE'D BE WILLING TO CREATE IS A 28 FOOT, UH, CONSERVATION EASEMENT, WHICH BASICALLY BRINGS US TO THE SETBACK LINE, UH, IN THIS VICINITY HERE. SO BASICALLY EVERYTHING, EVERYTHING BETWEEN THE SETBACK AND THE PROPERTY LINE WOULD BE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND NOT TOUCHED OR CANNOT BE TOUCHED OR WHATEVER, YOU KNOW, STIPULATIONS THE

[00:55:02]

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. YEAH.

AND THEN ONE OTHER. JUST COMMENT. REALLY? UM, IT WAS TRANSMITTED THIS AFTERNOON, BUT THE THE TOWN'S, UH, HISTORIC AND LANDMARKS PRESERVATION BOARD, UM, HAD ME TRANSMIT A MEMORANDUM TO THIS BOARD, UH, RELATED TO CERTAIN QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR CONDITIONS THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER IN CONNECTION WITH THIS PROJECT. SO I JUST WANTED THAT TO BE ON THE RECORD. EVERYONE RECEIVED A COPY? YES.

THANK YOU. YES. I WAS GOING TO MENTION THAT.

THANK YOU. IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, UH, ANY OF THE REQUESTS? HOW? AS A PROCEDURAL, DO WE TAKE THESE COMMENTS AND FORWARD THEM TO THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS OR. SO THEY WERE. ALSO, THE MEMO WAS ALSO FORWARDED TO THE APPLICANT. UH, SPEAKING OF WHICH, MR. CATCHPOLE, DID YOU RECEIVE A COPY OF THAT THIS AFTERNOON? AND DO YOU HAVE ANY RESPONSE OR FEEDBACK YOU CAN PROVIDE? YEAH, I DID RECEIVE A, UH, A COPY. I MEAN, YOU KNOW, UH. SOME OF IT IS VERY, I THINK, EASY TO ACCOMMODATE, LIKE THE VIDEOTAPING OR TAKING A VIDEO OF HEADSTONES AND GRAVES PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THE DOCUMENTED CONDITION TAKING A VIDEO OF THE OUTSIDE OF THE TAVERN. I THINK NO MATTER WHAT THAT STUFF MAY HAPPEN. IF ROCK IS ENCOUNTERED.

UH, SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S A HUGE OBJECTION THERE. I MEAN, HIRING AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORIAN TO PHOTOGRAPH DATE, UH, THAT I'M NOT SURE IF, YOU KNOW, I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY COMMENT ON THAT THERE. I I DIDN'T TALK TO THE OWNER ABOUT IT EITHER, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, SOME OF IT DOES SEEM PRETTY EASY TO COVER, SO, UH, THAT'S WHERE I STAND AS OF RIGHT NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU.

WHAT'S THE THE QUESTION REGARDING THE TOWN PROVIDING A, UM, APPOINTING A MONITOR FOR BLASTING, I GUESS.

RIGHT. SO WITH. RESPECT BY THE TOWN.

SO THE TOWN HAS A AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, A THIRD PARTY BLASTING INSPECTOR THAT, UM, WOULD BE REVIEWING, UH, THE PROPOSAL BY THE APPLICANT AT THE TIME OF. SO WE DO HAVE THAT INDIVIDUAL AND HE LOOKS AT PROPOSED ROCK REMOVAL ON A, ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS. UM, I DON'T KNOW. I THINK WITH BLASTING HE IS OUT ON, ON THE SITE.

BLASTING IS NOT CHIPPING. RIGHT FOR ROCK CHIPPING. UH, I, I BELIEVE THAT AS A CONSULTANT THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, AN, UM, THE APPLICANT PAYS FOR HIS TIME. IT'S NOT BORNE BY THE TOWN. I DON'T I DON'T THINK SO. RIGHT. OKAY. UM, AND BUT WITH ROCK CHIPPING, UH, THAT PERMIT IS HANDLED THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DIRECTLY. AND IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS, THEY CERTAINLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BOUNCE THINGS OFF. UM, THE

[01:00:01]

QUITE HONESTLY. UH, ANY DAMAGE TO THE TAVERN AND TO THE CEMETERY THAT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SITE CAUSES? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN PUT IN? YEAH. AND I AND I GUESS TO TAKE THAT A STEP FURTHER, UM, I MEAN, I HAVE A BUNCH OF QUESTIONS ON THE HAL, YOU KNOW, THE HISTORIC BOARD'S, UH, SUGGESTED, UH, SUGGESTED, UH, CONDITIONS. BUT I DID WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, BUT I, I GUESS FOR THIS BULLET, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY, I IMAGINE THAT WOULD BE A PRIVATE MATTER BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, THE CHURCH OR THE OWNERS OF 350. UM, YOU KNOW, ALTERNATIVELY, LIKE, WE COULD NEVER CONDITION THAT, THAT THEY BE HELD HARMLESS, LIKE, THOSE ARE JUST TWO, RIGHT? THOSE ARE IF THERE'S ANY DAMAGE TO ANYONE ELSE'S PROPERTY AS A RESULT OF THIS PROJECT, THAT'S BETWEEN THE OWNERS AND THE AND THE APPLICANT.

YEAH I AGREE, AND AS I SAID, I HAVE PROBLEMS WITH LANGUAGE IN LIKE IN KIND BECAUSE MY DEFINITION OF IN LIKE IN KIND A YOUR DEFINITION OF IN LIKE AND KIND COULD BE TWO VERY DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS. YEAH. THAT'S LIKE USING THE WORD REASONABLE. YEAH. MISS MAGANA, WHAT, UH, WHAT SAY YOU? I SAY SOME OF THESE ARE BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THE PLANNING BOARD.

THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. OKAY. UM, YEAH, LET'S HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, AND THEN LET'S LET'S COME BACK TO THESE. SURE.

UH, PRESUMING WE'RE IN A POSITION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION FOR A DECISION, WE CAN WE CAN DRILL OF THESE.

UM, IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION IN THE ROOM? UH, MISS, UM, REVEREND CLOVER, COME, UH, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR YOUR NAME. AND I GUESS YOUR YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SURE. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS SAM CLOVER. I'M THE SENIOR MINISTER OF GREENVILLE COMMUNITY CHURCH, 270 ARDSLEY ROAD. UH, ALTHOUGH WE OWN THE CEMETERY THAT'S ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING SITE. UM, JUST A FEW QUESTIONS, AND I APOLOGIZE. I WAS NOT ABLE TO MAKE THE FIRST, UH, MEETING TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS. UH, I WAS PLEASED TO HEAR ABOUT THE BUFFER BETWEEN, UH, THE TWO LOTS, BUT WHAT IS CAN YOU PAINT A PICTURE OF WHAT THAT MIGHT LOOK LIKE? IS THERE A FENCE? WOULD IT BE KEPT NATURALLY WOODED? WOULD THERE BE ANY KIND OF VISUAL INDICATION OF THE END OF THE CEMETERY IN THE BEGINNING OF THE PROPERTY? THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION. UH, MR. CATCHPOLE.

YEAH. NO, I THINK IT'S MORE SO. UM, THERE WOULD BE AN ATTORNEY WOULD HAVE TO DRAFT AN EASEMENT WITH METES AND BOUNDS THAT WOULD DELINEATE THE LIMITS OF AN AREA THAT WOULD STILL BE OUR PROPERTY. UH, BUT WOULD HAVE STIPULATIONS AS TO WHAT WE CAN OR CANNOT DO WITHIN THIS 28 FOOT BUFFER BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE THAT SEPARATES US FROM THE CEMETERY. SO BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, THERE'LL BE A LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT I THINK GETS FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK'S OFFICE AND, UH, HAS THESE STIPULATIONS THAT WILL BE DISCUSSING US THROUGH THIS APPROVAL PROCESS. YEAH.

SO SAY, WELL, AS I SAY, LET ME ASK THIS A DIFFERENT WAY. UM, WOULD WOULD YOU PREFER A FENCE OR WOULD YOU PREFER IT BE NATURALLY WOODED IF THERE WAS A CHOICE? HONESTLY, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'VE THOUGHT ABOUT IT. UM, I WOULD HAVE TO TALK TO MY CHURCH LEADERSHIP TO HAVE A CONFERENCE ABOUT THAT, SO I'M NOT PREPARED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION RIGHT NOW. UM, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, IF YOU IF YOU WANTED A FENCE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT THAT WE COULD POTENTIALLY CONSIDER AND POTENTIALLY CONDITION. UM, IF YOU WANTED IT TO BE, IF YOU

[01:05:03]

OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. MISS MAGANA. YOU HAD SOMETHING.

SO, UM, SO WE WE'VE CREATED KIND OF LIKE, A TEMPLATE WITHIN THE TOWN'S, UM, DOCUMENTS AS FAR AS CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT WE PREFER. DESIRE, UH, GENERALLY FOR CONSERVATION EASEMENTS. UM, YOU KNOW, YOU LEARN FROM IMPROVEMENTS FROM THE PAST OR THINGS THAT COME UP ALONG THE WAY. RIGHT? AND SO GENERALLY, THE IDEA IS TO LEAVE IT WOODED AND ITS NATURAL STATE IS THE PREFERENCE OF THE TOWN, UM, WITH THE CAVEAT THAT REMOVAL OF DEAD, DISEASED OR, UM, INVASIVES IS GENERALLY PERMITTED. OKAY.

AND I JUST KIND OF TACK ON A BIT TO THAT. IN ADDITION, UM, HAZARDOUS TREES AND GENERAL MAINTENANCE OF THE AREA. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK ARE TYPICALLY THINGS THAT WOULD BE ADDED INTO THE LEGAL DOCUMENT THAT CREATES.

OKAY. THAT'S CREATED.

I DON'T WANT TO MENTION THE FENCE. MIGHT, YOU KNOW, SET ALMOST SECTION OFF OUR PROPERTY. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THIS APPLIES. I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT I, WE DON'T WANT TO OPEN UP TO AN ADVERSE POSSESSION CASE IN TEN YEARS FROM NOW OR SOMETHING EITHER. SO TO KEEP IT NATURAL WOULD BE OUR PREFERRED METHOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, AND JUST A POINT OF CLARIFICATION FOR QUESTION NUMBER TWO, THE THE PREVIOUS MAP I LOOKED AT THAT WAS SUPPLIED ONLINE BEFORE THE LAST MEETING DID INCLUDE THREE LOTS, AND I HEARD, UM, OUR GUEST TODAY SAY THAT THIS WILL BE ONE DWELLING, AND I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT IN THE FUTURE, THERE WOULD NOT BE ANY MORE DEVELOPMENT ON THIS LOT. YEAH. SO. SO WHEN THIS APPLICATION ORIGINALLY CAME BEFORE US, A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, MAYBE EVEN LONGER. UM, THE ORIGINALLY THREE HOUSES WERE PROPOSED. UM, AT THAT POINT, THE PLANNING BOARD SAID, YOU KNOW, TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THIS. AND THE APPLICANT HAS NOW COME BACK WITH WITH ONE HOME. UM, I COULDN'T, YOU KNOW, I, I WOULDN'T BE IN A POSITION TO SAY THAT AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. YOU KNOW, THE OWNER OF THE HOME WOULDN'T TEAR DOWN THEIR HOME AND TRY TO SUBDIVIDE AGAIN. BUT IF THAT WERE TO OCCUR, UM, THERE WOULD BE A SUBDIVISION PROCESS AND IT'D BE IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD AND COME BACK. THERE WOULD BE A WHOLE, A WHOLE THING. UM, AND, AND GENERALLY, FROM MY EXPERIENCE, IF SOMEONE'S INVESTING IN A HOME LIKE THIS, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TURN AROUND AND TEAR IT DOWN AND BUILD BUILD OTHER HOMES IN THE FUTURE. RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND QUESTION NUMBER THREE, AND I THINK THIS WILL BE MY LAST ONE UNLESS THIS LEADS TO ANOTHER ONE. UM, I AM CONCERNED TO HEAR THE WORD BLASTING. UM, MANY OF THE HEADSTONES IN THE CEMETERY ARE MORE THAN 150 YEARS OLD. THEY'RE VERY FRAGILE. THE CHURCH, IN PARTNERSHIP WITH VARIOUS COMMUNITY AGENCIES, JUST ABOUT 15 YEARS AGO, DID A RENOVATION OF THIS CEMETERY IN WHICH, UH, IT TOOK A LOT OF TIME AND EFFORT AND RESOURCES TO RECONSTRUCT, UH, SOME OF THESE HEADSTONES AND THE THOUGHT OF A BLAST, PERHAPS TOPPLING THEM OVER AGAIN IS OF CONCERN. UM, AS WE ALL PROBABLY KNOW HERE, THERE'S SOME HISTORIC PEOPLE INTERRED IN OUR CEMETERY. UM, SEELEY, UNDERHILL, ETC., NAMES THAT ARE FAMILIAR TO US. SO I'M WONDERING IF IT COULD BE EXPLAINED. UM, FOR THE GENERAL PUBLIC, FOR LAYPEOPLE LIKE ME, WHAT'S INVOLVED IN BLASTING AND WHAT, UH, WHAT IS THE ESTIMATED SITE OF THE BLAST IN FEET FROM THE BORDER OF THE CEMETERY TO THE BLASTING SITE? I THINK THAT'S BEYOND ANYONE'S SEATED HERE TODAY. UM, WE WOULD HAVE TO REFER IT THROUGH THE BILLING DEPARTMENT, LIKELY TO OUR BLASTING EXPERT TO ANSWER SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS.

HOWEVER, SOMETHING THE BOARD HAS ALSO DISCUSSED AND

[01:10:01]

SOMETIMES IT'S SOME OF OUR OWN PROJECTS. YEAH. UM, YOU KNOW, THEY DO A BASELINE AND THEN THEY, YOU KNOW, MONITOR, UH, FROM POINT TO POINT AS FAR AS VIBRATIONS.

BUT AND I WOULD IMAGINE, YOU KNOW, BASED ON, BASED ON WHAT THE, THE BLASTING CONSULTANT COMES BACK WITH US. AND, YOU KNOW, IF THEY SAY THAT THE, THE RADIUS OF IMPACT WILL BE 100FT AND THERE'S A HANDFUL OF, OF, UM, MONUMENTS OR, OR HEADSTONES WITHIN THAT RADIUS, I IMAGINE, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT, WE COULD CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO EITHER PUT LIKE WOODEN, WOODEN SUPPORTS OR SOMEHOW OTHERWISE SECURE. UM, THE, THE MONUMENT'S WALL WHILE BLASTING WERE TO OCCUR. IF BLASTING WERE TO OCCUR.

OKAY, I KNOW I SAID THAT WAS THE LAST QUESTION, BUT RELATED TO MY LAST QUESTION IS, UH, WILL THERE BE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING? UH, UPON STUDY OF WHETHER BLASTING OR CHIPPING, UH, WILL BE THE PROCESS THAT IS USED.

SO GENERALLY THOSE TYPES OF, UM, DETAILS COME ABOUT AFTER IT'S GONE THROUGH BOARD REVIEW AND APPROVAL. THEY'RE GENERALLY DONE THROUGH THE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. UM, SURE. THEY'RE HAPPY TO, UM, YOU KNOW, KEEP YOU INFORMED, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WHEN IT'S DURING THAT PART OF THE PROCESS. UM, QUITE OFTEN THESE DETAILS AREN'T FLESHED OUT AT THIS POINT. GREAT. THANK YOU. I'LL JUST ADD FOR FOR INFORMATION OF THIS, UH, COMMITTEE AND THE PEOPLE ONLINE, UH, WE ARE NOW IN RESEARCHING AN APPLICATION TO ADD THE CHURCH AS WELL AS THE CEMETERY TO THE NATIONAL HISTORIC REGISTRY OF PLACES. SO, UM, THAT PROCESS, RESEARCH FOR THAT PROCESS HAS BEGUN. SO I JUST WANTED.

TO PUT THAT OUT. AND TO THE EXTENT THIS IS ANY, ANY COMFORT, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY, UM, YOU KNOW, I RECOGNIZE AND I, I THINK I SPEAK FOR THE ENTIRE BOARD OF THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CEMETERY. AND THE VERY LAST THING WE WANT TO DO IS, IS PUT THE CEMETERY, UM, AT HARM, AT RISK. AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, ULTIMATELY, THAT IS WHY, UH, WE HAVE ADVOCATED FOR THE CONSERVATION EASEMENT AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M CONFIDENT THAT AS THE THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT TAKES OVER, IF THIS APPLICATION WERE TO MOVE FORWARD, UM, YOU KNOW, I'M CONFIDENT THAT THAT EVERYONE WILL ENSURE THAT THE CEMETERY IS PROTECTED. UM, YOU KNOW, HOWEVER, IT NEEDS TO BE SO.

AND ONE FINAL COMMENT. SO I DID GET INFORMED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO CONDUCT SEISMOGRAPHS. IF THEY DO BLASTING.

OKAY. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. I REALLY.

APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. UM, IS THERE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC PLEASE PLEASE APPROACH.

THANK YOU. HI. I'M ANJANI SHAH AND I LIVE ON 380 OLD ARMY ROAD, WHICH IS NEAR THIS NEW, NEW PROPOSED PLACE. UM, SO I WAS HERE AT THE LAST MEETING. SO THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THOSE QUESTIONS. BUT A LOT OF THEM WERE VERY QUICK, SO I'M SORRY IF SOME OF THEM MIGHT BE. I MIGHT BE ASKING SIMILAR QUESTIONS, BUT I'VE LOOKED AT THE PLANS, YOU KNOW, HAD A LITTLE MORE TIME TO LOOK AT THINGS. AND IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A HUGE PROJECT WITH THE I MEAN, WITH 16 DRY WELLS. AND SO CAN YOU GIVE ME CONTEXT OF HOW. OKAY, SO, SO LIVING RIGHT NEXT DOOR, I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT THE TRAFFIC. SO ONE CONCERN IS THE TRAFFIC AND HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE IMPACTED. AND UM, BECAUSE YOU KNOW, WE WE DON'T LEAVE OUR HOUSE DURING SCHOOL HOURS WHEN IT'S TIME FOR SCHOOL AND WHEN PEOPLE ARE COMING HOME, YOU JUST CAN'T GET OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY. AND, UM, LUCKILY I WORK FROM HOME. BUT, YOU KNOW, IF PEOPLE ARE TRYING TO GET OUT AT THAT TIME, LIKE THERE'S GOING TO BE A HUGE BACK UP ONTO CENTRAL AVENUE. UM, SO I KNOW. YEAH. SO CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT KIND OF TRAFFIC ANALYSIS HAS BEEN DONE? AND DOES THE SCHOOL KNOW ABOUT THIS AND HOW IT'S GOING TO IMPACT PEOPLE GETTING TO SCHOOL? AND. UM, SURE. AND I'LL ASK A SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS, UM, YOU KNOW, DO YOU ANTICIPATE THE NEED FOR STAGING OR, OR ANY CONSTRUCTION VEHICLES OUTSIDE OF THE PROPERTY, OR WILL ALL WORK BE ABLE TO BE CONDUCTED WITHIN THE PROPERTY? RIGHT. AND I WOULD JUST ADD, I THINK THESE ARE GREAT QUESTIONS. MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE TO ASK ALL OF YOUR QUESTIONS, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT RESPOND. YOU KNOW, ONCE YOU'RE ONCE YOU'RE THROUGH.

SO SO I GUESS I WOULD I WOULD THINK A TRAFFIC ENGINEER WOULD BE INVOLVED IN GIVING INPUT. IT SEEMS LIKE I KNOW YOU MENTIONED THAT. YEAH. I MEAN, IT WOULD DEPEND

[01:15:01]

OKAY. I GUESS I MEANT BEYOND THE WORK, JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, ONCE IT'S DONE, LIKE HOW IT'S GOING TO IMPACT.

OUR, OUR TRAFFIC AND SAFETY UNIT OF THE GREENSBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT, A REVIEWS EVERY PROJECT THAT COMES BEFORE THIS BOARD. SO THEY'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS.

THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERS DO NOT. , UH, TYPICALLY ON A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, UM, WHICH IS ANTICIPATED TO GENERATE, YOU KNOW, AN A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF NEW TRAFFIC TO THE ROADWAY, ONE'S NOT INVOLVED. UM, IF WE GET FEEDBACK FROM THE TOWN'S TRAFFIC AND SAFETY UNIT THAT, YOU KNOW, PERHAPS A PROJECT WARRANTS CONSIDERATION OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM A TRAFFIC ENGINEER, THEN WE WOULD RELAY THAT COMMENT ALONG TO THE APPLICANT. BUT THAT WAS NOT THE CASE HERE. THE COMMENT THAT DID COME BACK. AND AGAIN, THIS PROJECT INITIALLY WAS IN THE WORKS A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT, UM, OR COMMENTS EXPRESSED RELATED TO ITS UH, WHERE THE DRIVEWAY WOULD BE SITUATED IN RELATION TO CENTRAL PARK AVENUE IN RELATION TO THE CURVE OF OLD ARMY ROAD. AND, UM, FURTHERMORE, THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT WHAT'S REFERRED TO AS THE SITE TRIANGLES, WHICH ARE BASICALLY, IF A VEHICLE IS LEAVING THAT DRIVEWAY, THAT THERE ARE NO OBSTRUCTIONS EITHER TO THE LEFT OR TO THE RIGHT WHEN LEAVING THAT DRIVEWAY. UM, THAT WOULD INTERFERE WITH SOMEONE SEEING AN ONCOMING VEHICLE. SO IN ORDER TO MAKE A SAFE TURNING MOVEMENT OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY, AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED AND IS CERTAINLY GOING TO BE CONSIDERED AS A POTENTIAL CONDITION OF APPROVAL BY THIS BOARD. I'M FAIRLY CERTAIN THAT IT WILL BE WOULD BE INCLUDED, UM, THAT THE SITE TRIANGLES BE MAINTAINED AND KEPT FREE OF ANY OBSTRUCTIONS.

SO WHICH COULD BE LIKE A, YOU KNOW, A A MONUMENT OR A STONE PILLAR OR SOMETHING TO THAT EFFECT. SOMETIMES YOU SEE AT THE TERMINATION OF A DRIVEWAY OR THE BEGINNING OF A DRIVEWAY, UH, THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE OR VEGETATION, FOR INSTANCE.

OKAY. SO I'M SURPRISED BECAUSE THERE'S A BLIND CURVE THAT YOU CAN'T COME AROUND TO GET OUT OF THERE. SO THE POLICE DIDN'T THINK A TRAFFIC ENGINEER WAS REQUIRED.

MY RECOLLECTION IS NO. OKAY, OKAY. I HOPE THEY'RE RIGHT. UM, AND THEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT WAS ANOTHER THING. I WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, ESPECIALLY WITH THE, THE SUCH A LONG DRIVEWAY AND SO MUCH LESS IMPERVIOUS SURFACE. AND, YOU KNOW, I KNOW THE SCHOOL RECENTLY DID A LOT OF PAVING AND, UM, THERE NOW WE HAVE A STREAM THAT COMES THROUGH OUR PROPERTY EVERY TIME. THERE'S A LOT OF RAINFALL BEFORE WE DID NOT SO SO I THINK THAT'S CONTRIBUTING TO FLOODING. AND SO.

AND THAT'S WHY THERE'S THE 16 DRY WELLS THAT YOU MENTIONED.

SO AS PART OF THE TOWN CODE, UM, THE THE APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO MANAGE THE STORMWATER RUNOFF WITHIN THE PROPERTY SO THAT THERE'S NO NET INCREASE IN IMPERMEABLE SURFACE. AND SO THAT'S WHERE THOSE 16 DRY WELLS ARE CAPTURING THE RUNOFF. UM. SO ARE YOU CONFIDENT THAT THAT'S GOOD? I MEAN, BECAUSE I'M SURE THE SCHOOL DID SOMETHING LIKE THAT, TOO. WELL, SO SCHOOLS ARE ACTUALLY SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE THEIR OWN MUNICIPALITIES. AND SO THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE TOWN CODE. UM, TO THE EXTENT THERE ARE STATE REGULATIONS THAT, UH, OR DEPARTMENT OF REGULATIONS THAT THAT SCHOOLS MUST FOLLOW, BUT SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE NOT, UM, SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE NOT ENTITIES OF THE TOWN. THEY ARE ENTITIES OF THEM, OF THEMSELVES. SO I CAN'T SAY FOR CERTAIN WHAT WHAT, IF ANYTHING, THE SCHOOL DISTRICT DID.

WELL, MAYBE THAT COULD BE LOOKED INTO. LIKE IF THEY ALSO PUT 16 DRY WELLS, THEN MAYBE YOU'LL KNOW THAT'S NOT ENOUGH.

YEAH. I MEAN, ULTIMATELY. THAT'S NOT THE FOR ANYTHING. WE DON'T HAVE JURISDICTION OVER IT.

SO YEAH. ANY FEEDBACK TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT SHOULD REALLY GO TO THE SCHOOL BOARD OF ED. OKAY. WELL, I GUESS IF THE ENGINEERS WANT TO SEE HOW HOW GOOD OF A JOB THEY'RE DOING, THEY COULD LOOK AT THAT. UM, SO I GUESS. YEAH. AND THEN THE OTHER THING WAS JUST THE WILDLIFE THAT THERE'S JUST, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE I SEE COYOTE CHASING LIKE, SO WHERE, WHERE, WHERE ALL THESE DEER ARE GOING TO RUN INTO, ARE THEY GOING TO RUN INTO OLD ARMY ROAD MORE. THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE, UM, POTENTIAL FOR ACCIDENTS, THINGS LIKE THAT. I DON'T KNOW, HOW IS THAT THE CONSERVATION LIKE YOU GOT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STUDIES DONE OR YOU'RE SAYING THAT'S NOT PART.

OF THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT THE APPLICANT SUBMIT, UH, AND THIS BOARD CONSIDER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS. SO IT'S

[01:20:01]

AND THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

SO WHO REVIEWS THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT? I'M I MEAN, WHO DOES THOSE STUDIES? YOU'RE SAYING THE STATE DOESN'T EVEN REQUIRE IT. SO IN CONNECTION. RIGHT. SO THIS BOARD, UH, IS BOUND BY THE REQUIREMENTS OF NEW YORK STATE WITH RESPECT TO ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. AND PURSUANT TO THE STATE REGULATIONS, THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SINGLE FAMILY HOME ON AN EXISTING, UH, LOT, SUBDIVIDED STANDALONE LOT DOESN'T RISE TO THE LEVEL OF CREATING PERMANENT AND SIGNIFICANT LONG TERM ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.

NEVERTHELESS, THIS BOARD, YOU KNOW, IS LOOKING AT THE TREE REMOVALS PROPOSED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT HAS TALKED ABOUT THE ROCK REMOVAL, HAS DISCUSSED THE SENSITIVITY TO THE ADJACENT, YOU KNOW, HISTORIC PROPERTIES AND STRUCTURES WITH ON THE ON THOSE SITES. SO THE BOARD IS NEVERTHELESS LOOKING AT SPECIFIC ASPECTS. UM, I DID WANT TO JUST STATE THAT WHILE THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER PUTS TOGETHER THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT DESIGN PLAN, IT IS REVIEWED BY THE TOWN'S PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE, UH, MEETING AND OR EXCEEDING THE CODE REQUIREMENTS. SO WE DO HAVE PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERS ON STAFF. THAT'S GOOD. OKAY. AND THEN JUST THE TIMELINE, UM, IS IS THERE A RUSH TO GET THIS DONE OR I MEAN, IS THERE ANYTHING LIKE THAT? YEAH. WHAT ARE THE NEXT STEPS? THERE ARE NO MORE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

SO THAT'S TO BE DETERMINED. UM, THERE HAVE BEEN NOW A COUPLE OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THIS PROJECT. ULTIMATELY, IT'S NOT UP TO ME. THE BOARD WILL DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT IT WOULD, UM, ADJOURN THE HEARING OR CLOSE IT. IF THE BOARD TO CL EVENING, HEARING IN A I BELIEVE WE MAY HAVE ONE OR MORE OTHER FOLKS THAT THAT WANT TO SPEAK ON THIS PROJECT ON THE ZOOM.

UM, IF THE BOARD WERE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT WOULD LEAVE THE WRITTEN RECORD OPEN FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, WHETHER IT'S ONE WEEK OR MULTIPLE WEEKS, SO THAT IF SOMEONE COULDN'T ATTEND THIS EVENING OR EVEN SOMEONE THAT DID ATTEND HAD ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS THAT THEY WANTED TO PUT IN WRITING TO THE BOARD FOR ITS CONSIDERATION. PRIOR TO A DECISION, YOU MAY DO SO. OKAY. OKAY, OKAY. THANK YOU.

YOU'RE WELCOME. GREAT. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE HERE IN THE ROOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS APPLICATION? IS THERE ANYONE ON ZOOM? UH, MR. WHEELER? YES? HI, CAROLYN. UM, I CAN GO AHEAD. I, I GUESS I SHOULD FIRST ADDRESS THE QUESTION OF THE THREE TREES. DID PROVIDE A SURVEY TO THE TOWN AND TO THE DEVELOPER. MORE THAN A TOP ADDRESS. AND WE SENT THEM BACK TO US TO ASSESS THE CIRCLE. THE THREE TREES, WHICH WE THEN DID. THEY READ AND SENT THE BACK FILE TO YOU AS A PART. SO YOU SHOULD HAVE THE THREE TREES THAT ARE BEING QUESTION, I GUESS. COULD THE TOP OF ME, THE PROJECT. BUT, UM. COULD YOU CONFIRM THAT THE DATE AND TIME YOU SENT THAT AND WE'LL WE'LL LOOK AND SEE.

OKAY. RESEND IT AGAIN, I GUESS. UM, BUT WE HAVE GIVEN THE TOWN AND THE DEVELOPER A COPY OF OUR, UH, SURVEY THAT WAS DONE IN 2023, AND, AND WE DID PUT IN STATES AT THAT TIME. WE DID ASK OUR SURVEYOR TO CONTACT THEM, AND HOPEFULLY.

THEY CAN WORK OUT WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE IS. I KNOW THE TOWN CONSIDERS THIS A PERSONAL MATTER. UM, FROM OUR

[01:25:05]

ALL THE QUESTIONS. SURE. YES, PLEASE. UM.

AND I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. UM, JUST YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, FOR THE STENOGRAPHER, PLEASE. AND. OKAY. AND YOUR FULL NAME. DARRYL WHEELER. AND WE OWN 350 OLD ARMY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

AND CAN YOU REPEAT THE FIRST QUESTION, PLEASE? I'LL TRY.

GOOD. YEAH. SO IF THERE IS A TWO FOOT DISCREPANCY TO BE FIGURED OUT HERE ON THIS SITE, PLAN THAT I SEE BEFORE ME AND UP ON THE SCREEN ACROSS THAT LENGTH OF PROPERTY LINE, WOULD IT NOT MAKE A DIFFERENCE TO THE, THE, THE, UH, STEEP SLOPE AND WHERE IT STARTS AND WHERE THE DRILLING WOULD TAKE PLACE AND HOW MANY DRY WELLS ARE ACTUALLY REQUIRED? AND ACTUALLY THE DENSITY OR THE SIZE OF THE HOUSE THAT'S GOING TO BE PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY.. SO THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION. OR SHOULD I WAIT FOR ALL OF THEM? YEAH, I THINK AARON WANTS ME TO GO THROUGH THEM ALL. UM, AND IF THE STONE WALL BELONGS TO US, IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU'VE ALREADY ANSWERED THAT THEY WOULD WORK TO PROTECT THE STONE WALLS ANYWAY, UNDER BOTH SCENARIOS, WHETHER IT'S ON OUR SIDE OR THEIR SIDE. IS IS IS THAT TRUE? THE STONE WALLS ARE TO BE PRESERVED. I DO BELIEVE THEY ARE PART OF THE PROPERTY AND THE HISTORIC NATURE THAT THE HISTORY BOARD BELIEVES IS, UH, HISTORIC SITE. I GUESS WE WOULD WANT TO PRESERVE THE STONE WALLS IF AT ALL POSSIBLE. I'M PRETTY SURE THEY'RE NOT CONNECTED TO THE FOREST, AND IT MAKES SENSE THAT, OF COURSE, THEY WOULD BE CONNECTED TO THE THE OLD TAVERN. UM, SO THAT WOULD BE THE SECOND QUESTION.

UM, AND THEN SO, YEAH, BLASTING THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF THE ANSWERS HAVE BEEN MADE, AND I'VE LEARNED A LOT TONIGHT HEARING JUST ALL OF YOUR CONVERSATIONS. SO IT'S BEEN VERY HELPFUL. UM, BUT THE BLASTING, OF COURSE, AS PER THE CEMETERY, IT OBVIOUSLY CONCERNS US. OUR, OUR HOUSE IS BUILT IN 1750, SO IT'S OVER 280 YEARS OLD AT THIS POINT. UH, WHEN WE LOOK AT THE FOUNDATION WALLS, OBVIOUSLY CINDER BLOCK DID NOT EXIST BACK IN THAT TIME. UM, I'M NOT SURE WHAT IT'S MADE OF, BUT, UM, I'M NOT SURE IT WOULD WITHSTAND BLASTING AND AND KNOWING THE LEDGES IN GREENBURG, I'M NOT SURE HOW FAR THE LEDGE GOES UP OR WHETHER IT'S ADJACENT OR EVEN TOUCHING OUR HOUSE. SO IF THEY WERE EVEN DOING THE DRILLING, IT COULD VIBRATE AND CAUSE A FOUNDATION PROBLEM. SO OBVIOUSLY, I'M SOMEWHAT CONCERNED ABOUT THAT. AND YOU HAVE PROVIDED SOME ANSWERS THAT THERE WOULD BE SOME SEISMIC OVERSIGHT IF, IN THE CASE OF BLASTING, UM, AND I GUESS THE HISTORIC BOARD PROPOSED THAT, UH, THE DEVELOPER BE RESPONSIBLE, YOU KNOW, THAT TO US ALSO APPEARS TO BE A PRIVATE MATTER, UNLESS YOU WERE TO REQUIRE THEM TO POST A BOND FOR ANY DAMAGES.

BUT, UM, OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE WAS DAMAGES, WE WOULD BE MAKING A CLAIM TO AN INSURANCE COMPANY WHO WOULD THEN JUST BE CHASING THE DEVELOPER. UM, BUT WE DO HAVE PEOPLE LIVING IN OUR HOUSE, AND I GOTTA SAY, IT'S A REAL LIFE SAFETY ISSUE. UM, IF THE FOUNDATION WAS TO HAVE SOME PROBLEMS DUE TO SOME OF THE WORK BEING DONE BECAUSE 350 OLD ARMY IS ACTUALLY VERY CLOSE TO THIS PROPERTY LINE, UM, I UNDERSTAND IT IS 11FT AWAY FROM THE FRONT OF OLD ARMY, AND IT IS PROBABLY NOT MUCH FURTHER THAN THAT, AWAY FROM WHERE I CAN SEE THIS RETAINING WALL.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT, UH, IT WAS BUILT IN 1750, I'M NOT SURE HOW THE FOUNDATION WOULD, UH, DEAL WITH DRILLING OR, UM, OR BLASTING. SO I KNOW LAST TIME YOU MENTIONED THAT BLASTING HAD MUCH IMPROVED, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR SOME OF THE SAFETY OR SOME OF THE APPROACHES OR HOW IT CAN BE SORT OF RESTRICTED SO THAT THE ENERGY DOESN'T EXCEED OR TRAVEL PAST MORE THAN 30 OR 40FT, BECAUSE OUR PROPERTY IS WITHIN THAT DISTANCE OF THE, UH, THE STEEP SLOPE THAT HAS TO BE REDUCED. UM, AND THEN THIRDLY, UM, IT'S THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION. SO I WAS GLAD TO HEAR THAT YOU'VE PUT A STAKE IN THE MIDDLE OF WHERE THE DRIVEWAY WOULD BE. THAT SOUNDS VERY USEFUL. WE CAN GO HAVE ANOTHER LOOK AT IT. UM, WE HAD LOOKED AT THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED CURB CUT, AND, UH, WE COULD NOT SEE ONCOMING TRAFFIC. SO JUST AS THE PREVIOUS SPEAKER MENTIONED, THERE IS A VERY LARGE BLIND SPOT AS YOU COME AROUND. UM, AND SO SOMEBODY'S COMING AROUND. THAT CURVE IS GOING TO HAVE VERY LITTLE TIME TO STOP. UH, IT MIGHT IS WASN'T CONSIDERED THAT THE DRIVEWAY SHOULD MAYBE BE A LITTLE WAYS AWAY FROM THAT BLIND SPOT. AND I HEARD THE DISCUSSION THAT

[01:30:01]

THANK YOU. UM, MR. CAPPELLI, DO YOU WANT TO TAKE A FIRST STAB AT THESE? SURE. SO, UM, I HAVE, YOU KNOW, REGARDING THE, UH, THE STONE WALLS. I'M SORRY, WHERE THE STEEP SLOPES, WHERE THE REGRADING STARTS, WHERE THE WALLS ARE, THE PROPERTY LINE ISSUE. DOES IT AFFECT THE CALCULATIONS? I THINK WHAT THE DISCREPANCY IS, IS WALL LOCATION, NOT PROPERTY LINE, BECAUSE THE BEARINGS DO ALIGN WITH YOUR BEARINGS. I THINK MAYBE WALL LOCATION MAY SHIFT IN THIS AREA WHERE THERE IS A DISCREPANCY IN WALL LOCATION, THERE IS NO GRADING FOR A GOOD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, 15 TO 20FT.

YEAH. OKAY. SO THAT'S A.

THAT'S THAT IS THE AREA. AND I GUESS I DID CIRCLE IF THE TREES IN THAT AREA AS WELL. BUT I'LL, I'LL RESEND OKAY.

YEAH I DIDN'T SEE THAT. I'M SORRY.

YEAH. IT WAS SENT TO THE TOWN. WE DID NOT OBTAIN THAT. AND AND SOMETIMES WE DON'T RECEIVE PHOTOS THAT ARE EMAILED IN BECAUSE THE FILE SIZE IS TOO LARGE. SO, UM, IF WE COULD PIN THAT DOWN, UH, THIS EVENING, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.

BUT SO JUST TO CONFIRM SO THAT THE THREE TREES IN QUESTION ARE THREE TREES THAT ARE NOT PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED.

UH, ACTUALLY, A COUPLE OF THEM WOULD BE.

HAVE THE TREE REMOVAL PLAN. IT'S IT'S EASIER TO SEE.

ARE YOU ABLE TO SHARE A SCREEN WITH THE PHOTO YOU INDICATED YOU'D SENT? UH, I'M WORRIED ABOUT LOSING MY ZOOM. THAT. THAT'S OKAY.

LET'S USE THE 42. AND THE 87. I BELIEVE.

42. HERE'S 87 HERE. AND IT MIGHT BE 88.

THAT'S 12 INCH. UH. SO THAT OR IS THAT AN 86 TO THE LEFT? THIS IS 86.

YEAH. SO THAT GUY AS WELL. SO IT'S 87.

YEAH. AND PROBABLY THE 85. THAT WOULD BE THE SAFE THERE. THEN WE COULD FIGURE OUT WHERE THE PROPERTY LINE WAS ANYTIME ONCE.

BECAUSE WE DO HAVE IT STAKED. AND THE SURVEYOR SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIGURE THIS OUT. OURS IS A PRETTY NEW SURVEY.

RIGHT? I THINK THIS ISN'T THIS IS ACTUALLY THE SCHOOL'S PROPERTY. I BELIEVE THIS IS THERE'S A LITTLE SLIVER HERE THAT THAT'S NOTCHED OUT. SO THAT'S SCHOOL PROPERTY 85 AND 86. SO IT'S JUST TOWARDS THE END THAT IT'S THAT ONE AND THE OTHER ONE THEN.

RIGHT. SO 87 YOU KNOW AGAIN THESE TREES ARE ARE A GOOD 15 TO 20FT OFF THE WALL. AND THIS WALL IS NOT LIKE A CRAFTED MASONRY WALL. THESE ARE LIKE RUBBLE WALLS.

THEY WERE ORIGINAL WALLS THAT YOU WOULD DO AS A FARM. RIGHT.

THEY KIND OF STOCK UP THE STONES, RIGHT.

DRY STACK. YEAH. YEAH.

IT'S NOT. YEAH. IF YOU WANT TO CALL IT DRY STACK, BUT THEY'RE LIKE LINES OF ROCKS THAT ARE PILED. YEAH, RIGHT. OKAY. UM, BUT ANYWAY, THE PROXIMITY IS. IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THOSE TWO TREES ARE NECESSARY. IF YOU COULD SPEAK ONE AT A TIME FOR THE SCENOGRAPHER, THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED.

SO LET ME JUST GO TO THE GREETING PLAN SO I COULD SPEAK ON THE THE NECESSITY OF THE REMOVAL. SORRY.

ACCURACY. SO WE WE ARE PROPOSING, YOU KNOW, RE GRADING IN THIS AREA FOR THE 12 INCH, UH, MAPLE.

IT'S CURRENTLY SITTING AT AN ELEVATION OF 291. THE BASE OF THE TREE. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S A ONE FOOT CUT HERE. SO IF YOU CUT ONE FOOT AT THE TREE, THEN IT WOULD NEED TO BE REMOVED DUE

[01:35:03]

RIGHT. YEAH. TO THE EXTENT.

YEAH. GOOD. WELL, I CAN FINISH ADDRESSING SOME MORE OF THE COMMENTS, PLEASE. WE TALKED ABOUT THE STONE WALLS. UH, BRIEFLY. WE WE ARE GOING TO DO WHATEVER WE CAN TO PROTECT, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT'S UNDERSTOOD. THEY ARE THEY'RE OLD. WE'RE NOT JUST GOING TO GO IN THERE AND ESPECIALLY ONES THAT ARE ON YOUR PROPERTY, I THINK I THINK PRETTY MUCH ALL OF IT IS ON YOUR PROPERTY. YEAH. EXCEPT FOR THIS CORNER HERE. I THINK IT ACTUALLY ON YOUR SURVEY, IT SHOWS THAT, THAT THE WALL TOUCHES THE PROPERTY LINE HERE. AND THEN IT KIND OF GOES BACK ONTO YOURS. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK PROTECTING YOUR WALLS SHOULDN'T BE AN ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S ON YOUR PROPERTY. THE PROPERTY LINE GETS STAKED FOR CONSTRUCTION. AND, YOU KNOW, THERE'S LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE THAT GET DELINEATED. SO, UH, ENCROACHING, I DON'T THINK IS A CONCERN. UM, REGARDING BLASTING, I MEAN, I THINK AFTER WE DO THIS, I.

IT WAS PART OF THAT FRONT SECTION. IF WE JUST COULD WAS, WAS WOULD IT MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN YOUR OVERALL PLANNING AND IN EVERYTHING ELSE? IF IT WAS TWO FEET TO THE LEFT OR LOWER, DOES THAT DENSITY CHANGE ANYTHING? MR. WHEELER, I APPRECIATE YOU CLARIFYING THAT. UM, WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO NOW, WE HAVE HEARD, YOUR QUESTIONS, AND WE'RE JUST GOING TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO RESPOND. IT'S ESSENTIALLY A RESPONSE TO THE BOARD. AT THE BOARD. THE BOARD HAS REQUESTED THAT HE RESPOND TO YOUR COMMENTS, RATHER THAN HAVING A BACK AND FORTH. WE DO HAVE OTHER PROJECTS ON THIS EVENING. SO, UH, JUST TO JUST TO FACILITATE. I WILL. YEAH. AND I KNOW AT THE LAST MEETING WE ENCOURAGE THAT BOTH OF YOU SPEAK OFFLINE. WAS THAT ABLE TO OCCUR? WE DID SEND THEM OUR SURVEY. WE DID NOT HEAR BACK ANYTHING ON HOW TO RESOLVE IT.

OKAY. YEAH. BECAUSE I THINK I THINK A LOT OF THESE QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, YOU TWO SHOULD FIND A TIME TO SPEAK. NOT NOW TO TO WORK THROUGH WORK THROUGH THESE QUESTIONS. PLEASE.

PLEASE. OKAY.

SO REGARDING THE BLASTING, I THINK WE'VE ALREADY TOUCHED ON THIS FOLLOWING THE SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEY. I THINK WE'LL EVEN DETERMINE IF BLASTING IS EVEN GOING TO BE CONSIDERED AND THEN RELY ON THE EXPERTISE OF THE VILLAGE'S CONSULTANT. TOWN TO WHETHER OR NOT IT'S EVEN APPROPRIATE. UM, THE, UH, REGARDING THE SITE DISTANCE, WE DID DO EXTENSIVE STUDIES ON THIS, UH, DURING THE SUBDIVISION PROCESS. UH, AND LEADING UP TO THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, WE CONTACTED THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, ACTUALLY HAD MEETINGS WITH THEM, UH, REQUESTED INFORMATION ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS ACCIDENTS IN THE AREA. UH, THERE WERE NONE. UM, WE SHOWED THEM SIGHT LINES. UH, THE MAXIMUM SIGHT LINE THAT WE CAN GET, WE REALIZE THAT IT'S IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, 200FT, BUT WE SHOWED THEM THE SIGHTLINES THAT WE COULD GET, WHICH I BELIEVE IS ABOUT 120FT. AND, UH, THE TRAFFIC COMMITTEE REVIEWED IT.

THE POLICE DEPARTMENT REVIEWED IT, AND DETERMINED THAT IT WAS ACCEPTABLE. UH, IT IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, LOW VOLUME OF VEHICLES. UH, SO THAT IS ALSO SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. UM, REGARDING THE NEW YORK STATE DOT, WE DID CONTACT THE DOT.

UH, WE ARE WE ACTUALLY ALREADY HAVE AN APPLICATION PREPARED TO PURSUE A, UH, STREET OPENING PERMIT FROM THE DOT, WHICH IS WHAT THEY SAID WOULD BE REQUIRED. WE SPOKE TO THEIR REAL ESTATE DIVISION REGARDING ACCESS. UH, THEY HAD NO OBJECTION TO IT. UH, I BELIEVE THERE WAS SOME CORRESPONDENCE ON THAT. AND ALSO WITH MR. BRINTON. UM, WE REALLY WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, GET A LITTLE BIT FURTHER INTO THE PROCESS BEFORE WE STARTED, UH, FILING PERMITS TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THESE OTHER ISSUES ARE FLUSHED OUT. UH, AND REGARDING SHIFTING THE DRIVE, I THINK WE'VE SPOKEN ABOUT THIS BEFORE TO THAT THE SLOPE DECREASES SO RAPIDLY AS YOU GO DOWNHILL THAT THE AMOUNT OF REMOVALS REQUIRED TO GET A DRIVEWAY IN AND ACTUALLY MAKE USE OF THE LOT, IT BECOMES, YOU KNOW, NOT IMPOSSIBLE, BUT YOU'D HAVE TO BUILD WALLS THAT, THAT EXCEED, YOU KNOW, 12FT, 12 TO 14FT. AND WE ACTUALLY SHOWED SOME OF THAT IN THE, UH, SUBDIVISION DESIGNS THAT WE PRESENTED, WHERE WALLS WERE

[01:40:04]

UH, REALLY, BECAUSE OF ALL OF, YOU KNOW, THE DESIGN WORK THAT WAS DONE LEADING UP TO THAT KIND OF SHOWED US THAT IT WAS BECOMING EXCESSIVE. UH, YOU KNOW, THE WHAT IT WOULD TAKE TO ACCESS THE SITE AS YOU GO DOWN THE HILL TOWARD OLD ARMY. SO, UH, THAT'S WHAT I HAVE ON MY NOTES. SORRY IF I MISS SOMETHING, BUT, UH, PLEASE LET ME KNOW.

SO I SO I THINK DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT HAS HAS SOME INSIGHT ON THE, THE PROTECTIONS AROUND BLASTING.

RIGHT. SO I WAS JUST INFORMED THAT, UH, PURSUANT TO CHAPTER ONE FOUR 0 OR 140 OF THE TOWN CODE INSURANCE, UH, MINIMUM $2 MILLION COVERAGE IS REQUIRED IN CONNECTION WITH ROCK BLASTING, UH, WHICH INCLUDES COVERAGE FOR ANY DAMAGE TO NEARBY PROPERTY.

SO THAT WAS THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE COVERED IN CONNECTION WITH ANY BLASTING. YEAH, YEAH. AND THE ONLY THE ONLY OTHER THING I'LL ADD IS THERE WAS REFERENCE TO THE LOCAL ADVOCACY GROUPS. I'M REASONABLY CONFIDENT THE SEC IS AWARE OF THIS, BUT, UM, WE'LL WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT, THAT THEY'RE AWARE. UH, ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. WHEELER. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE ON ZOOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, UH, FOR THIS PUBLIC HEARING? I WANT TO DO A CLOSING. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UM, SEEING NONE. SO WE ARE IN A POSITION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN. I DON'T THINK THAT THEY'RE PERSONALLY, I'M NOT SURE THERE'S ANY OPEN QUESTIONS RELATED, AT LEAST RELATED TO THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT AND THE STEEP SLOPE PERMIT. UM, I WOULD ENCOURAGE AGAIN THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE THE NEIGHBORS TO SPEAK OFFLINE. AND IF THERE'S ANY OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS TO TO RESOLVE THOSE, UM, WE COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE AN EXTENDED WRITTEN RECORD PERIOD. BUT BUT AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANY, UM, ITEMS REALLY FOR US TO, TO BE, TO RECEIVE MORE INFORMATION ABOUT IT, MORE CONTEXT ABOUT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD.

MAYBE LEAVE THE EXTENDED UM, HEARING.. YEAH.

RECORD. YEAH. THE RECORD.

ANYONE ELSE.? IS THERE ANYTHING IN THE HISTORIC AND LANDMARKS? OH, YEAH.

SO LET'S THANK YOU. SO LET ME LET ME WORK THROUGH THOSE. UM, SO IF WE WERE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND DIRECT STAFF TO, UM, PREPARE A, AN APPROVAL, THE CONDITIONS THAT, UH, A-CHANNEL PB HAS HAS RECOMMENDED, UM, I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO WORK FROM, FROM THE BOTTOM UP. SO I THINK AARON HAS MENTIONED THIS, MILLION DOLLAR INSURANCE. AND SO I THINK THAT WOULD COVER ANY, ANY POTENTIAL DAMAGES. AND TO THE EXTENT THERE'S ANY DAMAGES BEYOND THAT, THAT REALLY IS A PRIVATE MATTER. UM, THERE IT SOUNDS LIKE THE TOWN WILL HAVE A MONITOR, UH, THAT WILL OVERSEE THE BLASTING. UH, IF IF BLASTING ULTIMATELY IS NECESSARY. AND TO THE EXTENT THERE'S CHIPPING, UM, I DON'T THINK THERE'S TYPICALLY A MONITOR FOR CHIPPING, BUT I'M CONFIDENT THAT THE TOWN CODE IS ADEQUATE FOR, UM, EITHER SCENARIOS. UM, IT SEEMS LIKE THE APPLICANT IS OPEN TO DOCUMENTING, UH, THE, THE CURRENT CONDITION OF THE TAVERN AND THE HEADSTONES AND GRAVES.

UM, AND SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE CAN CERTAINLY CONDITION. UM, IN TERMS OF HIRING AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL HISTORIAN, I GUESS. DO WE HAVE ANY REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANYTHING, PARTICULARLY HISTORIC HAS OCCURRED ON, ON THIS PROPERTY? I MEAN, CERTAINLY THE CEMETERY ADJACENT TO IT IS IS HISTORIC. CERTAINLY THE TAVERN IS HISTORIC. UM.

SOMETHING WE'VE DONE IN THE PAST WITH SITES SITUATED NEXT TO SOMETHING LIKE A HISTORIC CEMETERY, IS TO PUT IN A CONDITION THAT IF THERE ARE ARTIFACTS OR ANYTHING FOUND WHEN THEY'RE DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY OR DISTURBING THE LAND, THAT THEY DOCUMENT THEM APPROPRIATELY, I THINK WE CAN PULL SIMILAR LANGUAGE FROM ANOTHER TYPE OF PROJECT.

OKAY. GREAT IDEA. AND AND NOTIFY THE

[01:45:03]

THAT THAT MAKES SENSE. UM, AND I'M, I'M, UH, I'M LEARNING FROM COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE THAT WE HAVE BEST PRACTICES, BEST PRACTICE PROTOCOL FOR EXCAVATIONS, WHICH I THINK IS WHAT, UH, FIRST DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY MAGANA HAS JUST REFERENCED. AND THEN LASTLY, UH, A WRITTEN PLAN. I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD CONDITION A PLAN FOR FOR A-CHANNEL PB TO REVIEW, BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, ONCE WE MAKE OUR APPROVALS, THEN THEN IT'S TRANSMITTED TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND PLANNING AND, AND THEY MOVE FORWARD. UM, AND I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE WHAT, WHAT THAT WRITTEN PLAN WOULD EVEN CONSIST. OF THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION. WHAT WHAT WOULD BE IN IT. AND ONCE WE FINISH AND CLOSE, WE HAVE NO CONTROL OVER. YEAH. SO I THINK I THINK WE'VE COVERED POINTS FIVE FOR I THINK WE'VE COVERED POINTS FIVE AND FOUR. I THINK THE APPLICANT IS OPEN TO POINT THREE. UM, I THINK POINT TWO. MISS MAGANA HAS ADDRESSED AND 0.1, UM, I'M JUST NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT LPB IS EVEN REALLY ASKING OF US, RIGHT? OKAY. UM, SO ALL OF THAT SAID, I GUESS I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND KEEP THE WRITTEN RECORD OPEN, I GUESS. WHAT'S THE THE LONGEST WE CAN KEEP THE WRITTEN RECORD OPEN AND NOT JAM UP THE PROCESS? UM. OKAY, SO YOU COULD KEEP IT OPEN ONE WEEK OR THE ALTERNATIVE. I WOULD SUGGEST WOULD BE THREE WEEKS FROM TODAY. OKAY.

WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO THEN I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND KEEP THE WRITTEN RECORD OPEN FOR THREE WEEKS. SO MOVE, MOVE. MR. PULLINGER, SECOND, UH, MISS ROBINSON, ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR VOTES. I, UM.

SO THAT WOULD BE THROUGH SEPTEMBER 23RD.

YES. GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, SO IT IS NOW 8:54 P.M.. UM, I'M GOING TO ASK FOR A SIX MINUTE RECESS. WE WILL COME BACK AT 9:00. UM, AND THEN WE WILL WE. WILL MOVE FORWARD. ALL ALL RIGHT. WELCOME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING. IT IS STILL SEPTEMBER 2ND. IT IS 9:00. UM, WE ARE IN THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION PORTION OF OUR PUBLIC, PUBLIC HEARING OR PUBLIC DISCUSSION PORTION OF OUR PUBLIC HEARING, PUBLIC DISCUSSION PORTION OF THE AGENDA. UM, NEXT UP, WE HAVE CASE NUMBER TB 2504. THE COMPREHENSIVE CHAPTER 285 AMENDMENTS. UH, THIS IS ON REFERRAL TO US FROM THE TOWN BOARD. THIS IS THE THIRD PUBLIC DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD, UH, ON THIS TOPIC. UM, SO IT IS NOW 9:00. UM, AND I KNOW AT THE LAST MEETING WE WERE UNABLE TO HAVE THE WORK SESSION PORTION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE CHAPTER 285 AMENDMENTS. UH, DISCUSSION. UM, SO COULD I GET A QUICK SHOW OF HANDS? WHO IS HERE IN THE ROOM TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? CHAPTER 285. OKAY, MR. YUJI. IF YOU'VE NOT DONE SO ALREADY, CAN YOU SIGN UP ON THE SHEET? SO THERE'S ONE PERSON, MR. YUJI, WHO'S HERE TO SPEAK. ALL RIGHT. UM. AND I KNOW WE DID RECEIVE YOUR YOUR WRITTEN RESPONSE THIS AFTERNOON. UH, AND YOUR WRITTEN RESPONSE IS OFFICIALLY A PART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD. UM, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK, YOU'RE YOU'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO. BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU THAT ALL OF US HAVE HAVE READ YOUR LETTER AND, UM, HAVE RECEIVED YOUR LETTER..

RIGHT. UH, THIS FIVE MINUTE SPEECH WILL BE IN THE AN ADD ON. OKAY, GREAT. SO, SO IF YOU WANT TO, UH, APPROACH THE, THE PODIUM, WE'D WE'D LOVE TO HEAR FROM YOU. SURE. HOW MANY.

HOW MANY. MINUTES? FIVE.

FIVE. UH.

GOOD EVENING. AS YOU KNOW, I'M HECTOR EUGENE. UH, MY WIFE, SHARON AND I, WE LIVE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO AND DOWNHILL FROM THE KNOLLS. UH, FIRST, AGAIN, WE WANT TO THANK THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, STAFF, FOR THE THOUGHTFUL SUMMARIES OF THE JULY 15TH AND AUGUST 5TH PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS. WE ALSO SUPPORT

[01:50:01]

UNDER THE BUILDING INSPECTOR'S INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE.

TODAY, THE STEEP SLOPE, BUILDABLE AREA DEDUCTIONS APPLIED TO SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, BUT NOT TO A DEVELOPMENT SUCH AS THE KNOLLS. SO TODAY, DESPITE MORE THAN 12 ACRES OF STEEP SLOPE ON THE KNOLLS PROPERTY, NO BUILDABLE AREA DEDUCTION IS TAKEN FOR THESE SLOPES. THE PLANNING BOARD RECOGNIZED THIS ISSUE DURING ITS REVIEW OF THE KNOLLS, AND SPECIFICALLY INCLUDED A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD THAT THE CODE BE REVIEWED TO ADDRESS IT. WE AGREE COMPLETELY, BUT IF THE PLANNING BOARD IDENTIFIES A LEGITIMATE PROBLEM AND RECOMMEND THAT THE CODE ADDRESS IT. THE RESULTING AMENDMENT SHOULD ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM, NOT MERELY CHECK.

A BOX. FOR SALE FOR A SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY. STEEP SLOPE DEDUCTIONS ARE CALCULATED BASED UPON STEEP SLOPE ACROSS THE ENTIRE PARCEL. THE PROPERTY AMENDMENT TAKES A VERY DIFFERENT APPROACH FOR THE MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. THE AMENDMENT WOULD ESSENTIALLY LIMIT THE DEDUCTION TO STEEP SLOPE. ACTUALLY DISTURBED BY DEVELOPMENT. THINK ABOUT WHAT THAT MEANS IN PRACTICE. DEVELOPERS ALREADY HAVE EVERY FINANCIAL AND PRACTICAL INCENTIVE TO AVOID CONSTRUCTING DIRECTLY ON STEEP SLOPES. BUILDING THERE IS DIFFICULT AND INEXPENSIVE.

UNDER THIS PROPOSAL, A DEVELOPER CAN SIMPLY AVOID THE STEEP PORTIONS OF THE PROPERTY. THOSE ACRES THEN CONTRIBUTE VIRTUALLY NOTHING TO THE BUILD. A BUILDABLE AREA DEDUCTION. YET THEY STILL REMAIN PART OF THE ACREAGE SUPPORTING DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY OF THE SITE. THE RESULT CAN BE SUBSTANTIALLY GREATER DEVELOPMENT CONCENTRATED ONTO THE REMAINING FLATTER LAND. THE KNOLLS DEMONSTRATES THE PROBLEM PERFECTLY. THE KNOLLS HAS A BUILDABLE LOT AREA OF APPROXIMATELY 1,270,000FT . MORE THAN 12 ACRES OF THAT PROPERTY ARE STEEPLY SLOPED. UNDER THE CURRENT INTERPRETATION, NONE OF THOSE STEEP SLOPES ARE DEDUCTED. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD TECHNICALLY CHANGE THAT, BUT BECAUSE THE KNOLLS DEVELOPMENT LARGELY AVOIDS DISTURBING THOSE SLOPES, OUR VIEW INDICATES THE RESULTING DEDUCTION COULD ONLY BE APPROXIMATELY 20 TO 30,000FT . COMPARE THAT WITH MORE THAN 300,000FT OF POTENTIAL DEDUCTION. IF STEEP SLOPES ACROSS THE PROPERTY WERE TREATED COMPARABLY TO THOSE ON A SINGLE FAMILY PARCEL. ON A 1.2 7,000,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING LOT. THAT IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MEANINGFUL ADJUSTMENT TO THE DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY AND WHAT AMOUNTS TO A TOKEN DEDUCTION, AND THE PRACTICAL CONSEQUENCE IS EXACTLY WHAT WE ARE SEEING BEHIND OUR HOME. MORE THAN 12 ACRES OF STEEP SLOPES REMAIN LARGELY OUTSIDE THE CALCULATION, WHILE SUBSTANTIAL NEW BUILDING MASS IS CONCENTRATED ONTO THE LIMITED, FLATTER AREA ADJACENT TO EXISTING FAMILY RESIDENCES LIKE OURS. SO WE ASK A BASIC QUESTION WHY SHOULD STEEPLY SLOPE LAND SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE DEVELOPMENT CAPACITY OF A SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY, BUT LARGELY DISAPPEAR FROM THE CALCULATION WHEN THE PROJECT IS MULTIFAMILY OR COMMERCIAL? WHAT IS THE PLANNING RATIONALE? THE ENVIRONMENTAL AND PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS OF STEEPLY SLOPED LAND DO NOT CHANGE DEPENDING UPON WHO IS DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY. IF THE TOWN BELIEVES MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WARRANTS THIS DRAMATICALLY MORE FAVORABLE METHODOLOGY, THAT DISTINCT DISTINCTION SHOULD HAVE A CLEAR PLANNING JUSTIFICATION AND A CLEAR BASIC BASIS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND THERE IS ANOTHER REASON THE BOARD SHOULD LOOK CAREFULLY AT THIS AMENDMENT. THE ISSUE WAS IDENTIFIED BECAUSE THE NOLS APPLICATION, THE PLANNING BOARD SPECIFICALLY RECOMMENDED THAT IT BE ADDRESSED. NOW, THE PROPOSED SOLUTION HAPPENS TO PRODUCE ONLY A VERY SMALL DEDUCTION FOR THE NOLS THAT DOES NOT MEANINGFULLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM. THE PLANNING BOARD IDENTIFIED. IT RISKS CHECKING THE BOX WHILE MINIMIZING THE IMPACT OF THE VERY PENDING APPLICATION THAT BROUGHT THE ISSUE TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, THAT FITS OUR BROADER CONCERN. THE PROPOSED CHAPTER 25 AMENDMENTS TRACK THE ZONING PROBLEMS ENCOUNTERED BY THE PENDING NOLS APPLICATION WITH EXTRAORDINARY PRECISION. AGAIN, THE CODE SHOULD TEST THE PROJECT. THE PROJECT SHOULD NOT BECOME THE TEMPLATE FOR REWRITING THE CODE. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

MR. CHAIR. FEEL FREE TO SUBMIT YOUR WRITTEN. THANK YOU.

[01:55:01]

NO. ALL RIGHT. UM. THEN, SEEING NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. UM, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION ON CHAPTER. 285200 AND KEEP THE WRITTEN RECORD OPEN THROUGH SEPTEMBER 9TH.

YES. SO MOVED. MOVED. MISS ROBINSON SECOND.

SECOND, MR. PULLINGER. ALL IN FAVOR? I CHAIR BOATS. I AND I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

PUBLIC DISCUSSION PORTION OF THIS MEETING. SO MOVED. MOVE! MR. PULLINGER SECOND. MR. PATEL. ALL IN FAVOR? I CHAIR VOTES I MEETING IS ADJOURNED. PUBLIC HEARING. MEETING IS ADJOURNED. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. BARBARA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, SO IT IS NOW 910. UM, AND AND NOW WE'RE WE'RE AT THE FUN PART. SO. WE, UH. SO, SO STAFF GRACIOUSLY, UH, INCREDIBLY, HAS PREPARED, UH, A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS FOR US TO REVIEW. UH, IN THIS MONTH'S OR IN THIS MEETING'S PACKET, THERE WAS A SUMMARY OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS FROM THE LAST TWO PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS. UM, AT THE ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR THE LAST MEETING AND LAST MEETINGS PACKET, THERE WAS A SUMMARY OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OVER THE FOUR, UH, PRESENTATIONS THAT WE RECEIVED OVER THE COURSE OF MAY, JUNE AND JULY. UM, AND THEN ALSO IN LAST MONTH'S PACKETS WERE MY ADDITIONAL BULLETS THAT I HAD READ OUT AT THE JULY 15TH MEETING. SO FROM A FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, WHAT I WOULD RECOMMEND US DO IS, IS REALLY GO CONCEPT BY CONCEPT. AND UM, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THERE, THERE IS CONSENSUS FROM THE BOARD ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. UM, WE CAN JUST SORT OF ALL AGREE AND THEN MOVE ON. UH, IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT IF THERE'S A TOPIC OR A CONCEPT THAT WE FEEL WE, WE REALLY WANT TO DIG INTO, UM, IN THE INTEREST OF TIME, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO CREATE A RUNNING LIST OF THE THINGS THAT THAT THERE MIGHT BE DIFFERENCE OF PERSPECTIVES ON. AND WE REALLY WANT TO DIG INTO, UM, WE'LL DO OUR BEST TO DO THIS IN THE NEXT 15 MINUTES.

UM, IF IF IN THE I THINK THE, THE REASONABLY LIKELY CHANCE THAT WE'RE NOT ABLE TO COMPLETE THIS IN 50 MINUTES. UM, MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO CONTINUE THIS DISCUSSION AT OUR NEXT MEETING. BUT ULTIMATELY, THE MORE WE CAN, UH, INDICATE TO STAFF, THERE IS, YOU KNOW, REASONABLE CONSENSUS ON, UH, THAT'LL GIVE STAFF THE, THE OPPORTUNITY. AND I KNOW THEY'VE ALREADY DONE THIS, BUT IT WOULD GIVE THEM EVEN THE FURTHER OPPORTUNITY TO START SORT OF DRAFTING AND FRAMING OUT, UM, OUR RECOMMENDATION MEMO BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD, WHICH, UM, WILL WILL BE CONSIDERABLE. AND SO I THINK THE MORE, THE MORE CLARITY WE GIVE THE STAFF, THE MORE THEY CAN SORT OF START CHIPPING AWAY AT THIS. UM, SO WITH THAT, SAID, COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU SORT OF WANT TO SHARE TO FRAME THIS, OR SHOULD WE JUST START WORKING THROUGH THE THE TOPICS? YEAH.

NO, I. I WOULD JUST SAY THAT WAS A GOOD SUMMARY YOU PROVIDED THERE. RIGHT. JUST TO RECAP, MAY 20TH, JUNE 3RD, JUNE 17TH, JUNE JULY 1ST FOR WORK SESSIONS WHERE STAFF PRESENTED 285 AND FOLLOWING THOSE MEETINGS, WE LISTENED TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND WE PICKED UP ON AREAS WHERE WE BELIEVE THE BOARD HAD CONSENSUS. SO WE DOCUMENTED THOSE IN A SERIES OF BULLETS WHICH ARE INTENDED TO FORMULATE THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE PLANNING BOARD. UM, WE'RE NOW AT A POINT WHERE WE'RE SEEKING TO CATCH ANYTHING ELSE. IN ADDITION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD SEEKS. AND OF COURSE, UM, BY VIRTUE OF THE FACT THAT WE'VE HAD, UM, THREE PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS, WE WE ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE, UM, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CAPTURES ADDITIONS TO THE RECOMMENDATION, UM, THAT IT FEELS, UH, IT HAS CONSENSUS ON BASED ON THOSE PUBLIC DISCUSSION COMMENTS BROUGHT UP.

UM, JUST TO RECAP, PROCESS WISE, FOR ANY ZONING TEXT AND

[02:00:04]

OKAY. THERE WE GO. SO THE REPORT, RIGHT. UM, IS AREAS WHERE THERE'S CONSENSUS DIRECTION. YOU WANT THE, UH, CHAPTER 285 TO HEAD ADDITIONS, CLARIFICATIONS, THAT TYPE OF THING. UH, I'M SORRY, THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION. NOW, THE REPORT IS VERY CODIFIED, AND IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS, UH, SO FOR INSTANCE, FOR, UH, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS, UH, THEY WANT QUESTIONS A THROUGH D ANSWERS. SO A BEING, IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE? UH, SKIP TO D HOW ARE THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH IS THE OFFICIAL PLANNING POLICY, INDIRECT IMPLICATIONS IS C UM AREAS, LAND USES, BUILDINGS THAT WILL BE DIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THE ZONING TEXT CHANGE. UM, THERE'S SOME OVERLAP FOR THE ZONING MAP, BUT IT ALSO HAS FOUR QUESTIONS TO ANSWER. UM, WHETHER THE PERMITTED USES BY THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THE AREA OF CONCERN. ARE THERE ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE BASED ON THE ZONING MAP CHANGE? UM, IS IT IN ACCORD WITH ANY PROPOSED PLANS IN THE VICINITY? SO THESE ARE THE TYPE OF THINGS THAT, UM, BASED ON YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS, WE'RE GOING TO DEVELOP FOR YOU AS DRAFTS FOR YOU TO REVIEW. UH, SO I'LL STOP, SHARE, UM, COUNCIL, THAT WE, WE ARE PREPARED TO GIVE AN UPDATE ON THE, UM, THE DISCUSSION TOPICS THAT WERE RAISED BY, BY THE PUBLIC AND GIVE YOU, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OF OUR PROFESSIONAL INPUT. UM, BUT AS OPPOSED TO LEADING, IF THERE IS ANYTHING, UM, BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE HEARD, THAT YOU WANT TO ASK OF US FIRST OR GIVE US YOUR OPINIONS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE ALL EARS. OTHERWISE. OKAY. UM, WE CAN SUMMARIZE WHAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC AND GIVE YOU SOME, UH, PROFESSIONAL INPUT. ALL RIGHT.

SO. AND I DO JUST WANT TO ALSO LET THE BOARD KNOW THAT, UM, DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR LIZ GARRITY IS ON ZOOM AND ALSO PRESENT FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND TO PROVIDE PERSPECTIVE ON, ON ANY OF THE TOPICS. UM, ALL RIGHT. SO, SO I AM LOOKING AT THE 715, 2026 PLANNING BOARD, CHAPTER 285 PUBLIC DISCUSSION NOTES FOR PUBLIC COMMENTS. UM, LET'S JUST GO THROUGH FROM THE TOP AND HEAR FROM COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE AND DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR GARRITY AND FIRST DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY MAGANA, UM, TO PROVIDE ANY UPDATES. AND THEN, UM, HOPEFULLY QUICKLY.

BUT CERTAINLY IF WE HAVE THINGS WE WANT TO DIG INTO, UM, THE BOARD SHOULD NOT BE SHY. SO THE FIRST TOPIC IS CCRC SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA STANDARDS. UM, COMMISSIONERS.

, WILL YOU. I HAVE PREPARED, UM, CONSOLIDATED SOME RESPONSES AND I HAVE A DIFFERENT, UH, ORDER.

OKAY. SO THEN. YEAH, GO IN YOUR ORDER. THAT'S FINE.

OKAY. UM, SO. ALL RIGHT, THE FIRST TOPIC, UH, THERE'S A FEW AREAS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP WITH REGARDS TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING, WORKFORCE HOUSING, AND A 10% SET ASIDE. AND, UM, THERE WAS SOME SUPPORT FROM THE PUBLIC FOR THE CONCEPT, UM, THAT WE INTRODUCED AND PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, I THINK, REACTED WELL TO, WHICH IS, UM, TO HEAD TOWARDS THE TERMINOLOGY BELOW MARKET RATE, UH, AS OPPOSED TO, UH, WORKFORCE OR AFFORDABLE. UM, SO WE GOT SOME GOOD FEEDBACK FROM THE PUBLIC THERE. ONE COMMENT WAS, UM, IF YOU RECALL, UM, THE AMENDMENTS WOULD SET UP THREE TIERS OF BELOW MARKET RATE, UH, THRESHOLDS. SO 60%, 70% AND 80% NOT TO EXCEED THRESHOLDS. UH, FOR, FOR THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, THAT WOULD HAVE TO BE BUILT. UH, THE COMMENT WAS, UM, A GOOD ASPIRATION, I BELIEVE, BUT IT WAS THAT THEY FELT THE RANGE SHOULD BE 40 TO 80%. UM, AND IF YOU RECALL, WESTCHESTER COUNTY, UH, ACTUALLY SAID THAT 60% AMI IS WHAT ITS STANDARD IS. WE THEN DISCUSS COLLECTIVELY WITH THE BOARD THAT WE RAN THROUGH SOME OF THE 70 AND 80% AMIS. UM, THOSE SEEM LIKE REAL NUMBERS THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WOULD WANT TO ASPIRE TO LIVE IN WITH, WITH 80% AMI. AND THERE IS A NEED FOR THAT. SO IT SEEMS ALMOST AS IF THE COUNTY 60% WAS A LITTLE TOO AGGRESSIVE. UM, SO GETTING BACK TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT, UM, THE 40% AMI THRESHOLD, THAT'S THE COMMENT HERE IS IT'S GENERALLY NOT SOMETHING WE SEE IN ANY I DON'T KNOW OF ANY MUNICIPALITY THAT GOES, UH, AND HAS UP TO 40% AMI ON THE LOW END, UH, FOR THE AFFORDABLE, UH, SET ASIDE, I WILL SAY THE THREE TIERS, 60%, 70%, 80%, YOU WILL GET SOME 50S IN THERE. UM,

[02:05:05]

NO. I WOULD AGREE WITH, UH, I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT POSITION.

YEAH. MHM. YES. ALL RIGHT.

THE ONLY OTHER COMMENTARY IS UH.

WHERE WE'RE. ALIGNED.

I'M SORRY I SAY WE'RE ALIGNED. DON'T, UH.

DON'T QUIT. DON'T DON'T OVERSELL.

WELL, YOU'RE AHEAD. DISMISS THE NEED FOR THE 40%.

AM I THERE INDEED IS ONE. BUT, UM, WHAT WE SEE IS THAT THAT AMI IS CAPTURED IN 100% AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECTS.

SO, UM, IT DOES GET FULFILLED IN SOME LEVEL.

GREAT. THANK YOU. OKAY. STICKING WITH THE THEME OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING, UH, WE'RE GOING TO TRANSITION TO, UM, THIS IS MORE OF A BOARD CONCERN. UH, MAYBE LESS SO THAN THE PUBLIC, BUT A CONCERN THAT ALLOWING, UH, ADUS TO COMPLY AS AN ALTERNATE TO THE 10% UNIT SET ASIDE, WHICH IS SOMETHING WE BROUGHT TO THE TABLE IN 285 FOR THE ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS. UM, THE BOARD FELT THAT THAT DIDN'T MEET THE INTENT. WITHOUT AN INCOME THRESHOLD. BUT THEN RIGHT ALONGSIDE THAT, BOARD MEMBERS ALSO EXPRESSED CONCERN THAT EVEN IF WE DID ADD AN INCOME THRESHOLD, A LOT OF 60, 70, 80%, UH, IT MAY BE DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE. UM, THERE WAS CONCERN THAT THE, YOU KNOW, HOW ARE YOU, YOU KNOW, REALLY GOING TO REQUIRE THAT SOMEONE'S ACTIVELY RENTING THAT UNIT AT ALL TIMES AND, UH, JUST GENERAL CONCERN THAT IT COULD BE BUILT AND NOT USED AS AN ADU. SO, UM, ADMITTEDLY, YOU KNOW, WE AS STAFF, WE'RE TRYING TO THINK OUTSIDE OF THE BOX WITH THIS, UH, ALTERNATIVE RELIEF MECHANISM. BUT, UM, IN DISCUSSING IT, YOU KNOW, WITH THE PEERS HERE AND THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, BUILDING DEPARTMENT, UH, LEGAL, UM, IF IT WERE A STRAIGHT 10% SET ASIDE FOR THE ONE FAMILY, UM, UH, WE AS STAFF FEEL THAT THAT THAT THAT WOULDN'T BE A FAULTY UPDATE TO THE CODE. SO, IN SHORT, WHAT THAT WOULD MEAN IS, UM, SINGLE FAMILY ZONES, THE 10% RULE, THE ONLY WAY TO TRULY FULFILL IT WOULD BE TO ACTUALLY BUILD A UNIT. AND IF IT'S ONE UNIT BUILT, THAT'S GREAT. I'LL TELL YOU RIGHT NOW, WE ONLY HAVE TWO IN THE TOWN THAT ARE, UM, YOU KNOW, AFFORDABLE HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES. SO IF WE GOT A THIRD OR FOURTH YEAR, UH, YOU KNOW, 50% OR 100%, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, ADDING TO THAT STOCK. SO, UH, JUST WANTED TO THROW THAT OUT THERE AND STAFF, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD DIDN'T THE PLANNING BOARD DIDN'T FEEL COMFORTABLE. UM, WE UNDERSTAND AND, YOU KNOW, TOWN STANDS READY TO ADVOCATE IN A SIMILAR MANNER.

YEAH. NO, I, I, I AGREE WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION AND APPRECIATE THAT THAT PERSPECTIVE. THE THE ONE OTHER THING I'LL JUST ADD IS I WOULDN'T WANT THIS THIS RECOMMENDATION AND THIS POSITION TO BE MISCONSTRUED AS BEING ANTI ADU. I AM, YOU KNOW, I COULDN'T BE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF ADUS. AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK THE GOALS OF ADUS AND THE GOALS OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING ARE FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFERENT. UM, I DO THINK IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT WITH THE ADU LAW THAT THE TOWN BOARD ADOPTED EARLIER IN THE YEAR, UM, IT DOES CREATE A PATHWAY FOR, UM, YOU KNOW, IF THERE WAS AN ELMWOOD LIKE PROPOSAL IN THE FUTURE WHERE THERE'S 120 SOME ODD SUBDIVISIONS, UM, AS PART OF THAT APPLICATION, AN APPLICANT COULD PROPOSE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF ADUS WITHIN THE SITE, AND THE PLANNING BOARD COULD REVIEW THOSE ADU APPLICATIONS SIMULTANEOUSLY, IN PARALLEL WITH WITH THAT SITE PLAN APPLICATION. AND SO INSTEAD OF A FUTURE OWNER, UH, NEEDING TO COME BACK TO THIS BOARD TO RECEIVE ADU APPROVAL, IT COULD BE DONE ALL AT ONCE. AND SO THAT THAT IS AN INCENTIVE THAT IS ALREADY BUILT INTO THE CODE. UM, YOU KNOW, WHICH I HOPE APPLICANTS IN THE FUTURE TAKE ADVANTAGE OF, UH, WHEN THERE ARE THOSE, THOSE LARGE SCALE SITE PLAN, UH, APPLICATIONS. UH, AT THE SAME TIME, I THINK AFFORDABLE HOUSING HAS A, A REALLY A VERY SPECIFIC GOAL. AND I'M JUST NOT CONFIDENT THAT, UH, ADUS AS AN ALTERNATIVE WOULD, WOULD ACCOMPLISH THAT GOAL. AGREED.

YEAH. ESPECIALLY IN ALLENTOWN. AS A PRACTICAL.

MATTER. RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

SO I THINK. HOUSING, UM, AGAIN, I THINK THIS PLANNING BOARD DRIVEN, UM, WE DID NOTE IN THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, THAT THERE WAS, UH, PREFERENCE FOR HAVING THE DURATION OF AFFORDABILITY BE OVER 50 YEARS.

SO STAFF ARE DEFINITELY OPEN TO THAT. AND, UH, WE EXPECT THAT TO BE INCLUDED IN THE, UM, RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN I

[02:10:01]

UM. DO YOU EVER HAVE DO YOU HAVE ANY, UM, INSIGHT THERE FOR YOU TO FEEL COMFORTABLE? IF, UH, THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT. WOULD.

BE PERMISSIBLE. JE WAY TO PUT ME ON THE SPOT.

UM. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING TO CONSIDER WITH THE COUNTY'S, UH, YOU KNOW, DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNTY. SINCE THE COUNTY DOES PROVIDE OVERSIGHT FOR US, AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, FILLING THOSE, UM, LEASES AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK, YOU KNOW, IN UNDERSTANDING THAT IT'S LIKELY COMING UP TO TERM ON SOME OF THOSE UNITS, IT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT OTHERS ARE CONSIDERING AS WELL. UM, I'M SURE, UM, IT'S SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY IS CONSIDERED. SO I THINK IT'S WORTH FURTHER DISCUSSION WITH THE COUNTY. UM, I THINK, UM, IF IT'S NOT A RENEWAL, PERHAPS IT'S, UM, YOU KNOW, EXTENDING THAT 50 YEARS TO, TO 100 YEARS OR WHATEVER, WHATEVER IS APPROPRIATE TO MEET THE DEMANDS AND THE NEED. YES.

OKAY, GREAT. THOSE NOTES WILL CHECK WITH THE COUNTY AND, UM, YEAH, WE HAVE SEEN 75. WE'VE SEEN 99. SO IT SEEMS LIKE THERE ARE SOME GOOD OPTIONS TO, UH, BROADEN THE DURATION. GREAT.

OKAY, EXCELLENT. UM, OKAY. THIS WAS, UM, WE'RE GOING TO SHIFT TO PARKING FOR SELF-STORAGE USES, AND I FORGET WHICH MEETING. PERHAPS THE LAST ONE. PERHAPS THE FIRST ONE. UM, THERE WAS A REQUEST MADE FOR THAT, IN MY OPINION, APPEARS TO BE A REASONABLE USE OF OVER PARKED, EXISTING OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. UH, FOR FOR SELF STORAGE UNITS. AND JUST SOME CONTEXT THERE. UM, WELL, THE GOOD NEWS IS THAT OUR CODE AS IT EXISTS DOESN'T REQUIRE AN EXORBITANT NUMBER OF OFF STREET PARKING SPACES. THE REASON WHY, UM, EXISTING SELF STORAGE HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO BE ALREADY OVER PARKED IS WHEN THEY'RE CONVERTED FROM AN EXISTING USE THAT WAS BUILT WITH A HIGHER PARKING STANDARD. SO THE EXAMPLE WOULD BE, UH, OFFICE BUILDING, WHICH PARKS ONE OFF STREET SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR EVERY 300FT OF GROSS FLOOR AREA. UM, SO IMAGINE, YOU KNOW, THAT OFFICE BUILDING BEING DECOMMISSIONED. IT HAS THAT NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BUILT. YOU KNOW, THE LARGER THE OFFICE, THE MORE PARKING. NOW, WHEN THAT BUILDING GETS CONVERTED TO SELF STORAGE, UM, YOU MAY ONLY HAVE, UM, YOU KNOW, LESS THAN 10% OF THE PARKING THAT'S FUNCTIONALLY NEEDED FOR THE SELF STORAGE. AND YOU HAVE, UM, A FAIR AMOUNT OF PARKING IN, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS. SO, UM, JUST TO RECAP, WHAT WAS BROUGHT TO THE TABLE WAS, UM, A SUGGESTION TO UPDATE THE CODE TO ALLOW, UH, EXCESS EXISTING PARKING, NOT CREATING NEW, UH, TO BE UTILIZED FOR, UM, NON INTENSIVE, UH, ACCESSORY PARKING, THINGS LIKE, UH, YOU KNOW, DEALERSHIPS, IF THEY HAD EXTRA CARS, IF THERE COULD BE SPACES LEASED FOR THAT, UH, WITH CAVEATS THAT THERE WOULD BE PROPER SCREENING. UM, RETAIN DEDICATED SPACES FOR THE SELF STORAGE AND WHAT WAS NOT RECOMMENDED BY, UM, THE SPEAKER WAS A SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS. I THINK THEY INDICATED THAT IT WOULD BE JUST A PERMITTED ACCESSORY USE. UM, STAFF'S OPINION, UH, IF THIS WERE TO, UM, BECOME AN AMENDMENT, I THINK IT WOULD BE IMPORTANT TO HAVE A SPECIAL PERMIT USE TO THAT. UH, PLANNING BOARD OR TOWN BOARD WOULD HAVE, UM, A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT THE END USER WOULD BE. REALLY? TAKE A LOOK AT THE THE LANDSCAPING AND, UM, DO THAT THROUGH A LAND USE COURT PROCESS. SO AT LEAST ON A STAFF LEVEL, DIDN'T SEEM LIKE AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST. SEEMS LIKE A FAIRLY GOOD USE OF WHAT OTHERWISE WOULD BE SOME UNUSED PARKING. MAYBE THERE WOULD EVEN BE SOME, UM, OPPORTUNITY THROUGH THAT PROCESS TO GREEN UP SOME OF THAT PARKING. UM, SO JUST WANT TO RECAP THAT. OKAY. YEAH. SO, SO, UM, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT HAS JUST HANDED ME A LETTER FROM, UH, KAREN AND STEINMETZ DATED AUGUST 26TH. I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT, SO, UM, I DON'T THINK WE'RE GONNA FINISH TONIGHT, SO IF I CAN, IF WE CAN JUST HAVE THIS LETTER DISTRIBUTED AND, UM, MAKE MAKE A DETERMINATION. FOR WHAT? WHAT YOU'RE SAYING MAKES SENSE. I JUST WANT TO READ THIS BEFORE.

BEFORE I SAY WHAT I THINK. YEAH. OF COURSE. ABSOLUTELY.

UM. COOL. OKAY. UM, THERE'S.

GENERALLY A COMMENT THAT. UM.

A COUPLE OF THE TOPICS SUCH AS, LIKE BEST EV CHARGING STATIONS,

[02:15:02]

YEAH. SO, SO WHERE, WHERE I AM ON THOSE, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S. BECAUSE I KNOW THE CCRC WAS ALSO BROKEN OUT IN, IN THE DISCUSSION NOTES, AND WE'VE HEARD A LOT ABOUT THE CSCS. UM, OVER THESE MEETINGS. UM, YOU KNOW, WHERE I AM AND I DON'T KNOW IF I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY THE WAY I WOULD PHRASE THIS RECOMMENDATION, BUT I DO APPRECIATE, UM, I DO APPRECIATE THE HESITANCY TO UPDATE THE CODE. WHILE TB 2505 PB 2322 IS SORT OF STILL IN IN PROCESS. UM, AT THE SAME TIME, I'M, I'M REASONABLY CONFIDENT THAT, UM, THAT THAT CASE WILL WILL WILL BE DECIDED BEFORE THE TOWN BOARD IS ULTIMATELY IN A POSITION TO TO TO ADOPT TO 85. AND SO I GUESS THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION, MY PROPOSED RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF, YOU KNOW, WE RECOMMEND THE TOWN BOARD. UH, YOU KNOW, NOT NOT ADJUST THE CCRC STANDARDS PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OR PRIOR TO THE COMPLETION OF OF THAT APPLICATION. AND TO USE ITS JUDGMENT ON ON TIMING BASED ON SORT OF HOW, HOW HOW THESE TWO CONVERSATIONS ADVANCE IN PARALLEL. UM, ONCE, ONCE, YOU KNOW, THIS RECOMMENDATION LEAVES, LEAVES THIS BOARD. UM, BECAUSE I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY WANT TO SAY OUTRIGHT IT SHOULDN'T BE A PART OF 285 IF, IF THE THE BETHEL WOODS, BETHEL KNOLLS PROJECT COMES TO COMPLETION. UM, BUT I ALSO WOULDN'T WANT TO SAY IT DEFINITELY SHOULD BE A PART OF 285 IF FOR WHATEVER REASON, THAT THAT PROJECT GOES IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION OR STARTS, UH, TAKING A DIFFERENT PATH, UM, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT MAKES SENSE OR IS POSSIBLE OR WHAT WHAT OTHERS THINK. YEAH.

I'M WITH. YOU.

SO I'LL ALSO KNOW, EVEN THOUGH THE TIMING IS IS CLOSELY RELATED STAFF, YOU KNOW, UH, POINTED OUT PREVIOUSLY, UM, BUT QUITE A WHI THAT A LOT OF THESE WERE CLEANING UP, YOU KNOW, LANGUAGE CHANGES OR CONFUSION AND AMBIGUITIES BETWEEN CERTAIN LANGUAGE. UM. NOT NECESSARILY.

YEAH. AND I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT TO WANT TO SUGGEST THAT THESE, YOU KNOW, THE PROPOSED CHANGES HAS ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE APPLICATION. UM, AT THE SAME TIME, I DO APPRECIATE THE PERCEPTION. AND IF THERE'S A WAY, UM, YOU KNOW, TO TO, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE PROJECT JUST NATURALLY RUNS ITS COURSE BEFORE 285 IS, IS DECIDED, THEN, YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY, ANY REAL PERCEPTION ISSUES. IF WE COME TO A POINT WHERE IT'S A HORSE RACE, UM, I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR THE TOWN BOARD TO USE A JUDGMENT IN, IN MANAGING PERCEPTIONS, THOUGH ULTIMATELY IT IS THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE THEIR OWN PERCEPTIONS.

SO IF, UM, IF THE KNOLLS PROJECT IS STILL IN THE WORKS AND 25 IS ADOPTED. I THOUGHT IT WAS OKAY. SO IF 285 IS ADOPTED, BETHEL KNOLLS IS IN THE APPROVED YET. DO THEY GO WITH THE NEW 285 OR THEY HAVE TO CONTINUE WITH THE OLD.

YOU CAN'T DO IT RETROACTIVE? NO.

IT WOULD CHANGE. I THINK WE SHOULD GET BACK.

TO THE BOARD ON THIS. UM, BECAUSE I'VE SEEN MULTIPLE.

THINGS WHERE IT SAYS, YOU KNOW, THESE, UM, CHANGES ARE NOT, UM.

WELL, AND THAT'S AND THAT'S ULTIMATELY AT THE HEART THAT'S AT THE HEART OF, OF WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING IS, YOU KNOW, EVEN

[02:20:01]

YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE CURRENT THE NEW REGULATIONS APPLY RETROACTIVELY TO PROJECTS UNDER CONSIDERATION.

YES. AND I DON'T KNOW NECESSARILY THAT THERE WOULD BE AN IMPACT PER SE TO THE KNOLLS. BUT I THINK I THINK THIS GOES BACK TO PERCEPTION. RIGHT.

RIGHT, RIGHT. I'M I'M MORE CONCERNED ABOUT PERCEPTION. SO THAT'S THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION, WHICH UM, IS BASICALLY RECOMMENDING THE TOWN BOARD USAGE JUDGMENT. YEAH, I AGREE.

ALL RIGHT. WE WILL.

NOW TRANSITION TO. WELL SO SO SORRY. SO THAT'S THAT'S CCRC. , UM EV CHARGING STATIONS. I DIDN'T PERCEIVE THAT AS CONTROVERSIAL. SO I DON'T KNOW.

UM. , I WAS.

I THINK THAT'S THAT'S FINE WHERE IT IS. UM, THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM. SO, SO MY ONLY THOUGHT THERE IS I KNOW GREENBERG WAS A LEADER IN ADOPTING THE BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEM LAW WHEN IT DID. UM, I ALSO KNOW THAT THAT THE STATE HAS HEAVILY, UM, ENGAGED IN THE TOPIC SINCE GREENBERG ADOPTED ITS LAW. AND ULTIMATELY, IN MANY CASES, THE STATE LAW SUPERSEDES THE TOWN CODE. UM, AND I ALSO KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE MANY EMERGING EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES, UM, IT'S IT'S RAPIDLY EVOLVING. AND SO STANDARDS THAT WE HAD IN OUR BEST LAW WHEN WE WERE AN EARLY ADOPTER, UM, IS JUST NOT NOT WHAT THE STANDARDS ARE TODAY. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF IT NECESSARILY NEEDS TO BE SEPARATED, BUT, BUT I, I WOULD BE CURIOUS IF THERE IS A WAY TO, I GUESS, MORE CLOSELY TIE THE CODE TO THE STATE STANDARDS OR TIE THE CODE, TIE THE CODE TO SOME OTHER EXTERNAL STANDARDS SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO. WE DON'T HAVE TO CONSTANTLY BE UPDATING OUR CODE.

WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. I MEAN, THERE ARE A LOT OF CROSS-REFERENCES TO NEW YORK STATE BUILDING CODES. SO WE'LL DOUBLE CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S, UM, UP TO DATE, IF YOU WILL. BUT THE REALITY IS WE'RE ACTUALLY, TO MY RECOLLECTION, THE ONLY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IS, UM, WE ENHANCED THE TREE REPLACEMENT, RIGHT? WHICH IS WHY IT SEEMS FOOLISH TO SEPARATE IT IF IT'S NOT REALLY CHANGING. RIGHT. UM, AND THEN LASTLY, AND THIS IS WHERE I' LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE BOARD, UM, I GUESS THERE'S, THERE THERE ARE TWO QUESTIONS HERE. THERE IS THE QUESTION OF SHOULD CANNABIS BE REMOVED FROM 285, SPECIFICALLY, CANNABIS EXPANSION INTO THE CA AND THE TR DISTRICT? SHOULD THAT BE, SHOULD WE RECOMMEND THAT BE REMOVED FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE CHAPTER? AND THEN I GUESS THERE'S THE QUESTION OF WHERE THE BOARD IS ON THE CONCEPT ALTOGETHER. UM, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE I AM ON THAT, SO I'D BE CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM FROM THE BOARD.

WHEN WE SAY, UM, NOT PART OF 285. WHERE WOULD IT BE? SO THE THE TOWN BOARD COULD EITHER. SO I MEAN, THE REAL, UM, I THINK APPLICATION OF WHAT WE'RE SUGGESTING. SO, UH, THE TOWN BOARD, WHENEVER THERE'S A PUBLIC HEARING ON A, ON AN AMENDMENT, THERE IS A FIVE MINUTE PUBLIC COMMENT. AND SO WHEN THERE I THINK SOME OF THE ARGUMENTS THAT WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC IS BY HAVING A COMPREHENSIVE CHAPTER 285, UM, AS SORT OF ONE, ONE PROPOSAL, IT LIMITS IT'S A LOT OF TOPICS THAT THAT THE, THE PUBLIC WOULD BE SORT OF, UH, CONFINED INTO COMMENTING ON IN A FIVE MINUTE PERIOD DURING A PUBLIC HEARING.

NOW, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THE WRITTEN RECORD IS ALSO AN OPTION FOR THE PUBLIC TO ENGAGE IN THIS, AND THEY CAN SUBMIT AS MANY PAGES AS MANY TIMES AS AS THEY WANT. UM, BUT BUT I THINK THERE IS A PERCEPTION THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS IN THIS AND, YOU KNOW, SOME, SOME, SOME MORE CONTROVERSIAL SUBJECTS MIGHT BE LOST OR BURIED WITHIN THE, THE OMNIBUS, UH, PROPOSAL. UM, AT THE. SO I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. OKAY. UM, AND SO THE TOWN BOARD COULD EITHER JUST REMOVE IT FROM THE CHANGES AND KEEP IT, KEEP THE CODE STATUS QUO, OR SEEK TO MAKE THE CHANGES, BUT DO IT AS A, A, YOU KNOW, A SEPARATE PROPOSAL WITH

[02:25:02]

MY MY GUT REACTION IS TO MAKE IT SEPARATE. I THINK THAT IT'S A SENSITIVE TOPIC THAT'S GOING TO BE DEVELOPED. UH, AND TO LUMP IT AND IT'S ONLY GOING TO GET BIGGER AND TO HAVE IT AS A STANDALONE WILL GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD TO GIVE IT THE PROPER CONSIDERATION.

SO STAND ALONE AS AS FAR AS, UH, PUBLIC HEARING OR STANDALONE, AS FAR AS A SEPARATE.

A SEPARATE AMENDMENT AMENDMENT. OKAY. UM, AND SO IF WE WERE TO RECOMMEND THAT WE WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON THE SUBSTANCE OF, OF THE CHANGE OR PUNT.

IT. I DON'T KNOW IF I'M PREPARED.

TO. I JUST HANDLED THE EASY PART.

YEAH. I MEAN, I MEAN, WHERE I AM ON CANNABIS, YOU KNOW, THE THE REALITY IS, UM, I CAN'T NECESSARILY SPEAK TO THE TR DISTRICT, BUT BUT THE CA DISTRICT, UM, THERE IS CURRENTLY A CANNABIS DISPENSARY RIGHT ON THE YONKERS GREENBERG BORDER. UM, UH, TO THE TO THE SOUTH. AND THERE IS CURRENT AND AND THEN THERE'S ALSO A DISPENSARY RIGHT ON THE WHITE PLAINS GREENBERG BORDER TO, TO THE NORTH. UM, AND. YOU KNOW, AND SO TO THE EXTENT THERE IS ALREADY CANNABIS ON CENTRAL AVENUE, I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE, UM, IS DRIVING CENTRAL AVENUE AND REALLY EVEN REALIZES WHEN THEY'RE IN YONKERS, WHEN THEY'RE IN GREENBERG, WHEN THEY'RE IN WHITE PLAINS. UM, AT THE SAME TIME, I DO APPRECIATE, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE THE STATE HAS, UH, REALLY HANDCUFFED THE MUNICIPALITY TO, UM, IMPLEMENT BUFFERS AND AND OTHER RESTRICTIONS THAT THAT WOULD PROTECT THAT WOULD THAT WOULD CREATE, YOU KNOW, GIVE US THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET TO A PLACE WHERE, UM, IT COULD BE PERMITTED AND STILL RESPOND TO SOME OF THE CONCERNS AND SENSITIVITIES OF OF THE COMMUNITY. UM, IT VERY MUCH IT WE ARE SORT OF PUT IN AN UNFORTUNATE POSITION WHERE IT'S REALLY A BINARY YES OR NO, AND THERE'S THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITY FOR NUANCE OR FINESSING. UM, AND I THINK EVEN WITHIN THE WAY THE CODE IS, IS WRITTEN NOW, IT IS LIKELY, UM, THAT THE STATE LAW HAS, HAS SUPERSEDED.

YEAH. THE STATE WIRE.

CAN HAVE EVEN IN THE CODE RIGHT NOW FOR, FOR THE LEE DISTRICT WHERE THIS IS. YEAH. NO, I, I UNDERSTAND I AGREE WITH YOU BECAUSE THE STATE CODE KIND OF LIKE TIES OUR HANDS AS TO. SO THAT WAS BASICALLY GOING TO BE MY COMMENT. UM, MINE IS MORE ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANT TO HAVE A SEPARATE DISCUSSION, UM, OR UH, DISCUSSION HEARING, YOU KNOW, WITH THE BOARD ABOUT IT, IT'S ONE THING, BUT, UM, WHAT THEY MAY BE ASKING FOR, WE CANNOT PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, THE STATE HAS ALREADY DECIDED. YEAH.

WHAT? THE RULES ARE SOMETHING WE CAN ADD FEW THINGS LIKE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, NOT NEAR RECREATION AND, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN BUFFERS LIKE THAT. SO DEFINED BY THE STATE ALREADY. WELL, CORRECT.

YES AND NO. SO IT DOES DEFINE A SEPARATION DISTANCE FOR THE CHURCH, UH, PLACES OF WORSHIP AND FOR SCHOOLS. UM, THERE IS AN OPTION TO ALSO INCLUDE THE PUBLIC RECREATION AREAS. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S THE EXACT TERM. UM, BUT THE TOWN WOULD NEED TO ONE INCLUDE THAT. RIGHT. AND TWO, UM, ACTUALLY SPECIFY WHICH WHAT'S INCLUDED IN THAT DEFINITION. CORRECT.

SO I THINK I'M NOW GOING AGAINST WHAT I SAID. SO I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH, UM, I THINK THERE'S ENOUGH FURTHER DISCUSSION TO BE HAD ON CANNABIS THAT I THINK WE'LL PUT THAT IN THE PARKING LOT. AND, UM, WE'LL, WE'LL AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE'LL, WE'LL HOPEFULLY GET CLARITY ON HOW TO MOVE FORWARD. UM, SO. I THINK THOSE ARE THE FOUR.

SECTIONS TO BE REMOVED. UM.

THAT THE PUBLIC HAS ASKED US TO, TO RESPOND TO.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

SO. SO, UH, WE'RE GOING TO TRANSITION TO THE FAMILY DEFINITION. AND THERE WAS CONCERN FROM MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC THAT THE DEFINITION UPDATES COULD HAVE NEGATIVE IMPACTS, THAT THEY WERE UNINTENTIONALLY DISCRIMINATORY. UM, THAT THE ELIGIBILITY REQUIREMENTS WERE TOO RESTRICTIVE OR STRINGENT AND

[02:30:01]

YEAH. SO THANKS, GARRETT. I CAN SPEAK ON THAT. UM. BASED ON SOME DISCUSSIONS AMONGST TOWN STAFF AND WITH MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, ESPECIALLY MR. ROBINSON, UH, WITH PREPARED A PROPOSED AMENDMENT OR RECOMMENDATION TO IT FOR AMENDMENT TO THE PROPOSED DEFINITION OF FAMILY. UH, SO WHAT YOU SEE ON.

SCREEN. COULD YOU ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT? MATT. YES. SO ON SCREEN IS THE PROPOSED DEFINITION OF FAMILY AS IT CURRENTLY STANDS IN THE CHAPTER 285 AMENDMENTS, WHICH HAVE BEEN REFERRED BY THE TOWN BOARD TO THE PLANNING BOARD IN RED ARE, UH, RECOMMENDED CHANGES TO THIS DEFINITION OF FAMILY. COULD YOU GO EVEN FURTHER? SORRY, MATT. KEEP KEEP GOING.

SO THE RECOMMENDED CHANGES ALL CENTER AROUND THE, UM, POINT FOR WHICH IS IF THE GROUP IS PERMANENT AND STABLE, UH, WHICH WAS A MAJOR POINT OF CONCERN AMONGST MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC ABOUT POTENTIAL DISCRIMINATORY OR, YOU KNOW, OVERLY ONEROUS STANDARDS. UH, SO THE PROPOSED DEFINITION OR PROPOSED CHANGES WOULD BE TO SAY THAT THE GROUP IS PERMANENT AND STABLE, WHETHER A GROUP IS CONSIDERED PERMANENT AND STABLE WILL BE DETERMINED ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SPECIFIC FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. EVIDENCE OF SUCH PERMANENCY AND STABILITY MAY INCLUDE, BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO.

THE PRESENCE OF MINOR DEPENDENT CHILDREN REGULARLY RESIDING IN THE HOUSEHOLD OR ENROLLED IN LOCAL SCHOOLS. MEMBERS OF THE HOUSEHOLD HAVE THE SAME ADDRESS FOR PURPOSES OF VOTER REGISTRATION. STATE ISSUED IDENTIFICATION. CHANGING FROM DRIVER'S LICENSE. BECAUSE THERE ARE NON DRIVER LICENSE IDENTIFICATION ISSUED BY NEW YORK STATE MOTOR VEHICLE REGISTRATION AND FILING OF TAXES. MEMBERS OF THE HOUSEHOLD ARE EMPLOYED IN THE AREA, AND THE HOUSEHOLD HAS BEEN LIVING TOGETHER AS A UNIT FOR A YEAR OR MORE, WHETHER IN THE CURRENT DWELLING UNIT OR OTHER DWELLING UNITS. WE FEEL THAT THIS THESE SUGGESTED CHANGES CLARIFY THE STANDARDS THAT ARE OUTLINED HERE AND MORE CLEARLY INDICATE THAT IT IS A CASE BY CASE BASIS, AND THE ENUMERATED, UH, EVIDENCE IS MERELY OPTIONS AND NOT EXHAUSTIVE OF PROOF THAT MAY BE SUPPLIED, THAT A CERTAIN GROUP IS IN FACT. FAMILY TO BE USED.

ALL RIGHT. UM. WHAT WAS IN THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION REFERRING. TO.

UM. PARAGRAPH D THERE WITH THE CHILDREN GOING AWAY TO COLLEGE, AND THEY COME BACK HOME? YES. BUT WITH CHILDREN THAT GO AWAY TO COLLEGE, THEY'RE STILL THEIR PARENTS STILL FILE TAXES.

SO THEY FALL UNDER BE. EITHER EITHER WAY.

AND I THINK MOST IMPORTANTLY, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE WAS THERE WAS A MISPERCEPTION FROM THE PUBLIC THAT THAT THESE WERE CRITERIA THAT HAD TO BE MET. RIGHT? INSTEAD OF INSTEAD OF JUST GUIDELINES, YOU KNOW, EXAMPLES OF, OF WHAT COULD, UH, DEFINE A PERMANENT AND STABLE. SO THAT'S WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT ALWAYS SAID MAY INCLUDE, BUT NOW IT REALLY DRIVES THE POINT HOME, MAY INCLUDE BUT IS NOT LIMITED TO. RIGHT. AND THESE ARE JUST EXAMPLES. SO IT'S NOT LIKE THEY NEED TO MEET ALL FOUR OR NEED TO MEET THREE OF THE FOUR. RIGHT. THIS JUST GIVES THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT SOME DIRECTION ON UM.

YOU KNOW WHAT. WHAT WHAT A PERMANENT AND STABLE FAMILY WOULD, WOULD LOOK LIKE.

CAN YOU. SCROLL UP TO THE TOP TO SEE HOW HOW IT STARTS, PLEASE? ALSO KEEP IN MIND PERMANENT AND STABLE DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT YOU'RE PERMANENT AND STABLE IN YOUR HOUSEHOLD. PERMANENT AND STABLE IS THE GROUP IN WHICH YOU MOVE ABOUT WITH. SO WE ALL MOVE AS A UNIT.

WE ARE PERMANENT AND STABLE. WE ALWAYS MOVE AS A UNIT NO MATTER WHAT OUR SITUATION IS THAT THAT IS WHAT THE PERMANENT AND STABLE IS. SO THE PREPARATORY LANGUAGE OF THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY SAYS THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA MUST BE PRESENT. YES.

WHICH AND. THE CRITERIA IN QUESTION IS THAT THE GROUP IS PERMANENT AND STABLE.

OKAY. THEY IS THESE ARE FOUR OPTIONS FOR EVIDENCE THAT THE GROUP IS PERMANENT STABLE. THEY ARE NOT THE ONLY OPTIONS FOR EVIDENCE. RIGHT.

[02:35:01]

APPLY. YEAH. INSTEAD IT MUST.

BE PRESENT. IT MUST INSTEAD OF. YES. I DEFER TO COUNCIL. SO, COUNSELOR.

SO SO, MATT, IF YOU WANT TO DO THIS LIVE. SO I GUESS CRITERIA MUST APPLY AND STRIKE BE PRESENT.

YEAH I LIKE THAT BETTER. THANK YOU. MATT.

OKAY. UM, SO I KNOW, I KNOW, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME WE'RE SEEING THIS, BUT IT'S IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. UM, WOULD WE BE COMFORTABLE MAKING THIS RECOMMENDATION TO THE EDIT, TO THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY? YEP. YES, YES. YEAH. I THINK IT ADDRESSES THE ISSUES THAT WERE BROUGHT UP IN PUBLIC SESSION.

GREAT. AND I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE AND COMMEND, UH, MISS ROBINSON FOR, FOR REALLY TAKING THE LEAD ON THIS. UM, I, I DO ALSO WANT TO AND OF COURSE, YOU KNOW, DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY MCDONOUGH AND PLANNER BRITTON AND EVERYONE WHO WERE PART OF THIS CONVERSATION. AND ALSO, I WANT TO THANK REVEREND LANE COBB, WHO'S CHAIR OF THE GREENBERG HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION. UH, COMMITTEE, UH, WHO WAS WHO PROVIDED SOME REALLY HELPFUL PERSPECTIVE AND GUIDANCE AS WE WORKED TOWARDS THIS DEFINITION. YES. UM, I THINK THE BUILDING, UH, DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. UM, SO THERE WAS ONE ISSUE THAT WE LEFT OFF. MATT, IF YOU CAN SCROLL DOWN. UM, WHEN WE WERE DRAFTING THIS, ONE OF THE ITEMS WAS THE ISSUE OF TRANSIENCE.

SO, UM, HOW WE DEAL WITH RUMORS AND BORDERS, ROOMING HOUSES, THINGS LIKE THAT. THERE'S, UM, THE GROUP IS NOT TRANSIENT OR TEMPORARY IN NATURE. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY WANT TO HAVE IN THIS CODE AS PART OF, UM, UNDER SUBSECTION FOR, UM, A SUB LETTER UNDER D, IF THE GROUP IS NOT TRANSIENT OR TEMPORARY IN NATURE, THAT THAT WOULD MAKE IT A LOT EASIER FOR US WHEN PEOPLE ARE RENTING OUT MULTIPLE ROOMS, WHICH IS UNFORTUNATELY A SITUATION. WE COME IN, UH, TO VERY FREQUENTLY. OKAY.

I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION.

FOR. ME TOO. ALL RIGHT. SO GREAT. CONSIDER CONSIDER IT DONE. JUST TO JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT'S GOING TO BE NUMBER D. THAT'D BE. FOR SUB. SUB. YEAH.

FOR FOR 40. AFTER THE UM I'M NOT SO SURE. I THINK UM SO SO NUMBER FOUR IS ABOUT EVIDENCING EVIDENCE OF SUCH PERMANENCY AND STABILITY. BUT CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, MISS GARRITY. I THINK YOU MEAN THAT THIS IS A REQUIRED, UH, CONDITION. THAT WOULD BE NEW SECTION FIVE.

THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. OR. OR IT COULD BE FOUR.

AND MAYBE. 4 TO 5.

OKAY. UM.

A SUBSECTION, IT WOULD BE E UNDER THE. IT'S PERMANENT. IT'S PROOF OF PERMANENCY THAT THEY'RE THE GROUP IS NOT TRANSIENT OR TEMPORARY IN NATURE. UM, MEANING THAT THEY'RE, THERE PERMANENTLY IN THE HOME. THEY'RE NOT TRANSIENT, MEANING THEY'RE COMING IN AND OUT LIKE A HOTEL.

RIGHT. UM, AND IT'S NOT A TEMPORARY. SO IT WOULD BE A SUBSECTION E UNDER EVIDENCE OF STABILITY AND GROUP PERMANENCY.

GREAT. THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

ALL RIGHT. UH, EXCELLENT. COOL. WHAT, UH, WHAT'S NEXT? PASSPORTS. HEY.

WHAT'S UP? SHARE. UM. AND IT IS NINE. IT IS 950. I DID, I DID, UH, I'M COMFORTABLE GOING A LITTLE BIT LONGER IF EVERYONE ELSE IS. UM, BUT I, I KNOW.

WE TOO. MUCH MORE.

OKAY. UH, BECAUSE I KNOW WE DO HAVE, I BELIEVE, REPRESENTATIVES FROM FROM GAME ON. AND I KNOW THERE WAS, UM, SOME DISCUSSION IN MY BULLETS, ACTUALLY, ABOUT, UH, SECTION, SECTION 285 TEN A3, A1, WHICH REQUIRES, I DON'T REMEMBER IF IT'S GOLF OR JUST COUNTRY CLUBS TO BE ON A STATE ROADWAY. UM, AND I WOULD RECOMMEND REMOVING THAT STATE ROADWAY REQUIREMENT FROM THAT SECTION. YES. MISS MAGANA.

[02:40:04]

ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT, COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE AND BUILDING INSPECTOR, DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR GARRITY? YES. OKAY.

AND ARE WE OKAY WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION? YES. WE ARE.

ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. UM, SORRY. SO, COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE, AS AS AS YOU. WERE INTERJECTING.

, I GET ALL THESE THINGS STRAIGHTENED AWAY. UM, OKAY.

URBAN RENEWAL, RECALL. UM.

URBAN RENEWAL IS LARGELY BEING THE REMOVAL OF URBAN RENEWAL IS LARGELY ON 119 WITH THE CREATION OF THE TR DISTRICT.

AND SO THERE WERE QUESTIONS ABOUT.

UM. WAS IT APPROPRIATE TO BASE THE TR TARRYTOWN ROAD, UH, MIXED USE DISTRICT REGULATIONS ON THE CA DISTRICT REGULATIONS AND WHETHER OR NOT IN DOING SO, UM, THE REGULATIONS ARE SUPPORTIVE ENOUGH OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT AND THEN FURTHER, UM, THERE WAS COMMENTARY THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ENHANCED POSSIBILITY OF MIXED USE AND, AND EFFECTIVELY TO REMOVE THE RESTRICTION OF RESIDENTIAL OVER COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS A PRESENT REGULATION IN THE CA DISTRICT. SO, UM, YOU KNOW, GOOD COMMENTS. A COUPLE THINGS. UM, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS VERY SPECIFIC, UH, POLICIES AND SUPPORT OF CONSISTENCY. AND IT DOES TALK ABOUT CONSISTENCY IN THE MIXED USE CORRIDORS. AND BOTH OF THOSE CORRIDORS.

CENTRAL AVENUE 119 UM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE OB DISTRICT PORTION, WHICH IS VERY OFFICE DOMINATED, UM, THEY DO SHARE TRAITS TOGETHER. UM, SO DO YOU FEEL THAT IT WAS APPROPRIATE TO UTILIZE THE CA DISTRICT ON THAT LEVEL? AND THEN, OF COURSE, THERE'S MANY ASPECTS OF THE CA DISTRICT, UM, THAT WORK WELL.

AND WE TRIED TO COLLECT AS MANY OF THEM AS POSSIBLE. UM, THE THOUGHT TO SEEK A MORE AGGRESSIVE MIXED USE STRATEGY.

I'LL ASK SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF LIKE THE STRATEGY FOR FOUR CORNERS OR A WHOLESALE, UM, REMOVAL OF THE PROHIBITION AGAINST, UM, THE PROHIBITION OF RETAIL BELOW AND RESIDENTIAL ABOVE. WHILE THOSE ARE CERTAINLY VALID PLANNING CONCEPTS AND VERY WELL CAN BE VALID FOR PORTIONS OF 119, UM, THEY'RE JUST THAT'S NOT THE MISSION OF 285. AND I THINK MAKING CHANGES LIKE THAT WOULD ACTUALLY, UM, BE OVERAGGRESSIVE. WHEN YOU COMPARE THAT WITH THE VISION FOR ROUTE 119. UM, SO, UH, GOOD PLANNING, UH, THOUGHT THERE FROM THE PUBLIC, IT'S JUST 285 UPDATES ARE NOT THE VEHICLE TO, UM, SEEK. OUT.

YOU KNOW, DENSE NODAL MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN LOOK AT AS A TOWN. UH, AND TOGETHER WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, TOWN BOARD IS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. SO. YEAH. YEAH. AND WHERE AND WHERE I AM ON THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU JUST SAID. YOU KNOW, I THINK MAKING A RECOMMENDATION THAT UPON THE ADOPTION OF 285, THE TOWN BOARD QUICKLY, UH, YOU KNOW, DIRECT STAFF TO BEGIN, UH, A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE. UM, YOU KNOW, OR AT LEAST A BRIDGE UPDATE, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING IT'S BEEN TEN YEARS, UM, I WOULD ALSO, YOU KNOW, LOVE FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER MAKING A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE TOWN BOARD ESTABLISH STUDY COMMITTEES SIMILAR TO THE FOUR CORNERS COMMITTEE THAT THAT WAS CREATED LAST YEAR, 18 MONTHS AGO. UM, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE MOUNT JOY CENTRAL PARK AVENUE INTERSECTION, UH, NORTH CHELMSFORD. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN CONVERSATIONS ABOUT ABOUT UPDATES AND THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, AND ALSO HILLSIDE AVENUE. 119 THAT INTERSECTION. UM, I THINK THOSE WOULD BE THREE STUDY GROUPS OR STUDY COMMITTEES. UM, WHETHER THAT'S IN PARALLEL WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE OR AS PART OF A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE, UM, THOSE WOULD BE THREE AREAS WHERE I THINK IT'D BE WORTH HAVING SOME CONVERSATION ABOUT A MORE, UH, UNIQUE MIXED USE STRATEGY FOR, FOR THOSE INTERSECTIONS.

WHAT WAS. THE THIRD NORTH ELM STREET.

AND NORTH ELM AND HILLSIDE? 119 THANK YOU.

UM, SO HOW DO WE. HOW DO WE FEEL ABOUT ABOUT THAT? I LIKE THAT. YEAH. I'M IN FAVOR OF MIXED USE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT BELONGS THERE.

IT DOESN'T BELONG THERE. AND IT'S CERTAINLY NOT NOT A BROAD.

BROAD STROKE. NO. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU.

HEY. UM, SO.

AND I GUESS THE ONE. I'M SORRY. THE ONE OTHER THING. JUST JUST TO CLEAN UP SOME OF MY BULLETS. UM, I KNOW THAT THERE WAS GENERALLY SOME, SOME SUGGESTIONS ABOUT, UM, UH,

[02:45:05]

AND SO THAT WOULD BE A RECOMMENDATION.

AGREED. AGREED.

COOL. ALL RIGHT. NO THANK YOU. UM. ALL RIGHT.

TRANSITIONING TO SIDEWALKS. SO IF YOU RECALL, IN 285, THE CA DISTRICT, THERE'S A RECOMMENDATION THAT, UH, FOR NEW MULTIFAMILY, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT AT A MINIMUM.

SO I WANT TO STRESS, AT A MINIMUM, THE FRONTAGE FOR THAT PROPOSED PROJECT SHOULD EITHER HAVE ADEQUATE SIDEWALK OR, UM, THE DEVELOPER SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO BUILD IT. SO THE COMMENT FROM THE PUBLIC WAS. UM.

I THINK NOT AN OBJECTION TO THAT CONCEPT, BUT, UM, IN EFFECT, THERE WAS A CLAUSE THAT SAID THE DPW COMMISSIONER, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WOULD ADVISE ON THE SUITABILITY OF THE EXISTING SIDEWALK IF THERE WAS ONE. UM, SO THE COMMENT WAS THAT MAYBE IT SHOULDN'T BE THE DPW COMMISSIONER, PERHAPS, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER STAFF PERSON. BUT WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, UH, THE DPW COMMISSIONER, WHILE THEY DEFINITELY HAVE, UM, HIGHWAY, UH, SIGNIFICANT HIGHWAY, UH, KNOWLEDGE AND THAT INCLUDES SIDEWALKS, THAT DPW COMMISSIONER ALSO HAS, UM, AT THEIR DISPOSAL, UM, PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS OF THE TOWN ENGINEER, UM, POLICE, TRAFFIC AND SAFETY. AND LIKE, ON STATE ROADS, THEY CAN CERTAINLY ADVISE, SEEK ADVISEMENT FROM NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION.

SO, UM, THE DPW COMMISSIONER WOULD BE BROADLY SUPPORTED BY TOWN STAFF. SO WE DIDN'T THINK THERE WAS ANY NEED TO MAKE A CHANGE THERE. WE THOUGHT I.

DID HAVE ONE THOUGHT THAT I JUST WANTED TO SAY OUT LOUD AND, UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT SOMETHING I FEEL SUPER STRONGLY ABOUT, BUT, UM, I KNOW MANY MUNICIPALITIES HAVE THEIR TOWN ENGINEER ATTEND PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS REGULARLY, AND I HOPE AS THE THE TOWN FILLS THE THE TOWN ENGINEER VACANCY THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS, THAT A PART OF, YOU KNOW, EXPECTATION SETTING FOR THAT NEW INDIVIDUAL WOULD BE ENGAGING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND ATTENDING PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS. UM, AND SO I WONDER IF THERE WOULD BE VALUE IN HAVING, UM, THE TOWN ENGINEER BE THE ONE TO DETERMINE SATISFACTION, ESPECIALLY IF THAT INDIVIDUAL WERE TO BE IN THESE MEETINGS.

AND, AND THESE WERE PART OF. UM.

YOU KNOW, APPLICATION REVIEW. UM, AND SO THAT'S JUST THE THOUGHT I, WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO DECIDE IT NOW, BUT I'D BE CURIOUS WHAT WHAT YOU OR, UM, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT MIGHT, MIGHT THINK OF THAT CONCEPT.

THERE'S CERTAINLY QUALIFIED, NO DOUBT. SO, UM, IT COULD BE AND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, PERHAPS.

UM, WELL. IF IT'S OR THEN, YOU KNOW. NO ONE'S RESPONSIBLE. OH.

WE CAN THINK. ABOUT IT.

YEAH. SUFFICE TO SAY, THERE IS THE STAFF EXPERTISE TO, UH, YOU KNOW, FOLLOW THROUGH AND MAKE SURE THAT THE ADA COMPLIANT SIDEWALKS IN PLACE.

YEAH. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. UM, SO A COMMENT WE HEARD THIS EVENING, THE STEEP SLOPE, UH, BUILDABLE, UH, AREA AMENDMENTS. SO JUST THE CONTEXT THERE. UM, YES, AS YOU KNOW, UH, REVIEWING NUMEROUS, UH, STEEP SLOPE APPLICATIONS, UH, WHICH PRETTY MUCH ARE CONSISTENTLY WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE WELL VERSED WITH THE DEDUCTION PROCESS AND, UM, AWARE THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE SHOULD BE SOMETHING, UH, TO COMPLEMENTING WITH REGARDS TO MULTIFAMILY AND COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. UM, YOU KNOW, IN PREPARING 285 STAFF, UH, THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT WAS THE APPROPRIATE MECHANISM AND, UH, VERY, VERY QUICKLY IDENTIFIED THAT, UH, AN APPLES TO APPLES TYPE CONSIDERATION, UM, DID NOT

[02:50:02]

AND A COUPLE OF REASONS WHY THE FLOOR AREA RATIO FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, UH, I THINK I CAN SAFELY SAY IS, IS RATHER GENEROUS. YOU KNOW, JUST A QUICK EXAMPLE. ON 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. UM, ELIGIBLE FOR A, UH, 5000 SQUARE FOOT HOME PRE DEDUCTION. SO EVEN WITH SIGNIFICANT DEDUCTIONS ON THAT 20,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME, UH, PROPERTY, YOU'RE STILL GETTING A VERY GENEROUS LARGE HOME, AND YOU CAN EXTRAPOLATE THAT DOWN TO PRETTY MUCH ANY LOT SIZES. THEY'RE GENERALLY GENEROUS. SO I FEEL THAT, UM BECAUSE OF THAT, THE MANNER IN WHICH STEEP SLOPES ARE REGULATED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES TO HAVE AN AGGRESSIVE DEDUCTION STRATEGY MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. AND I THINK, UM, IT HELPS THE PLANNING BOARD AND IT REALLY MINIMIZES STEEP SLOPE IMPACTS. UH, I'M GOING TO SHARE SCREEN REALLY QUICKLY. UM, JUST A NOTE IN THE COMP PLAN, THIS IS NARRATIVE. UM, AND LOOK AT THE CORRESPONDING POLICIES. BUT SO THIS IS IN UH CHAPTER SIX ENVIRONMENT AND IT COVERS, UM, ALL SORTS OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS, BUT SPECIFICALLY WITH RESPECT TO STEEP SLOPES. UH, SORRY. UM, THE IT TALKS ABOUT THE INTENT OF THE LAW. AND, UM, AT THE TIME, IT WAS ADMINISTERED BY THE TOWN ENGINEERING PLANNING BOARD ANNOUNCED THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, IT IDENTIFIED A FEW INCONSISTENCIES. WE ACTUALLY, UM, YESTERYEAR, UH, ANYTHING OVER 20% WAS A SEEKER TYPE THRESHOLD. THAT WAS, UM, CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT WAS, UH, NOT PRUDENT TO DO. SO THAT WAS RECTIFIED. BUT THIS SECOND BULLET, IT SAYS THE LAW DOES NOT INCENTIVIZE DEVELOPMENT THAT TAKES PLACE LARGELY OR WHOLLY ON FLAT AREA OF THE SUBJECT SITE. SO, UM, WHEN I INDICATED THAT THE, UH, FAS ARE RATHER GENEROUS FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, IT'S THE EXACT OPPOSITE FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FAIR ALLOWANCES AND THE DISTRICT AS EXAMPLE, UM, THEY'RE VERY RESTRICTIVE. SO, UM, TO DO A FULL DEDUCTION IN THE SAME MANNER, UM, A IT DOES IT IT'S NOT IN THE SPIRIT OF PROMOTING, TRYING TO SEEK AREAS THAT ARE FLAT. AND IT COULD ALMOST RENDER LOTS UNUSABLE. SO AS STAFF, WE IDENTIFY THAT THERE SHOULD BE A MINIMUM LOT THRESHOLD FOR, UM, THE STEEP SLOPE DEDUCTIONS. AND IN THE SPIRIT OF TRYING TO DRIVE DEVELOPMENT TO THE MORE FLAT PORTIONS WHICH I JUST HAD ON THE SCREEN THERE, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT BULLET, UM, THE LOCAL LAW. FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES DOES DEDUCTIONS ON ACTUAL STEEP SLOPES THAT ARE IMPACTED. SO SUFFICE TO SAY, UM, IF YOU HAVE A TEN ACRE PARCEL, FIVE ACRES OR FLAT, AND THAT'S WHERE ALL THE DEVELOPMENT IS, THERE WOULD ACTUALLY BE NO DEDUCTIONS. AND WE FEEL THAT THAT HAS A VALID PLANNING RATIONALE. UM, AND IS BACKED BY THE COMP PLAN. SO, UM, IT'S AN ASTUTE COMMENT THAT WAS MADE BY THE PUBLIC, BUT UM, THERE INDEED. IS THAT RATIONALE. FOR NOT HAVING THE APPLES TO APPLES CONSIDERATION. OKAY. SO I'D AGREE AND I GUESS WE'D RECOMMEND TO MAKE NO RECOMMENDATION ON ON CHANGING THAT. IS THAT CORRECT? ALL RIGHT.

OKAY. A COUPLE. MORE. AND UM, SO RETAINING WALLS, THERE WAS A, UM. UM.

A COMMENT THAT THE AMENDMENTS APPEAR TO EXCLUDE RETAINING WALLS FROM SETBACK AND HEIGHT REGULATIONS. AND, UM, THE COMMENTER FELT THAT THAT WAS NOT APPROPRIATE. UM, SO JUST A COUPLE QUICK NOTES ON RETAINING WALLS. UM, THEY ARE NOT SUBJECT TO SETBACK OR HEIGHT REGULATIONS PRESENTLY IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND, UM, AND I'M AFFIRMING THAT THEY'RE NEVER INTENDED TO BE WITH THE CHAPTER 285. SO THAT'S WHY THE CLARIFICATION IS THERE TO MAKE THAT VERY CLEAR. UM, I WOULD NOTE THAT THERE'S BEEN, UM, NUMEROUS PLANNING BOARD AND TOWN BOARD APPROVALS THAT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THESE, UH, REQUIREMENTS. UM, THE CURRENT CHAPTER 285 AND THE PLANNING BOARD HAS APPROVED NUMEROUS RETAINING WALLS OVER SIX FEET, UM, AT OR ON PROPERTY LINES IN THE ONE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THAT'S BEEN, UM, FOR SINGLE FAMILY PROJECTS. IT'S BEEN FOR, UM, PROJECTS LIKE FERNCLIFF, UM, WHICH ARE IN SINGLE FAMILY ZONES. AND UM, THE IMPACT OF REQUIRING, UM, HEIGHT OR SETBACK VARIANCES FOR RETAINING WALLS. UM, AND WHAT THAT DOES, IT DOESN'T RECOGNIZE THERE'S SO MANY LOTS OF THE TOWN THAT YOU SIMPLY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE DEVELOPED WITHOUT A RETAINING WALL AT OR CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE, SO IT COULD ALMOST REPRESENT A TAKING. AND, UM, I KNOW.

UM. THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, UM, COULD HAVE SAID THAT BETTER THAN ME. I KNOW THERE'S SOME OTHER POINTS, UM, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, BUILDINGS, UM, OR

[02:55:03]

THAT. OKAY. THAT THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.

AND SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE. NO, WE'D RECOMMEND TO MAKE NO RECOMMENDATION. RIGHT.

WE'RE ALL LINES. YES.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

LAST CLUSTER. LET ME JUST LOOK HERE. UM, THERE'S, UH, TWO OTHER A COUPLE MORE, UM, A COUPLE THAT ARE RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO, UM, THE SENIOR HOUSING. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THE COMMENTS OF THE BOARD HAD BEFORE, UM, BUT AT LEAST, UM, JUST JUST BECAUSE THE COMMENTS WERE MADE, UM, THERE WAS INDICATION THAT THE PROPOSED DENSITY ACRE UPDATE, UM, FOR THE CLERKS WOULD REPRESENT A DENSITY THAT'S NOT SUPPORTED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO, UM, THE STRATEGY THERE WAS TO, UM, IN THE SPIRIT OF HAVING, UH, SIMILAR METRICS FOR CAFS, WHICH ARE CONTINUUM OF CARE FACILITIES, UM, WHICH ARE COMBINATIONS OF ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND INDEPENDENT SENIOR AND THEN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES. THESE ARE ALL IN A DENSITY PER ACRE. UM REQUIREMENT. UM, SO THE CURRENT, UM, CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, UM, HAS A MUCH DIFFERENT TYPE OF, OF, OF, OF CALCULATION. SO THE INTENT WAS TO, UH, NOT AFFORD EXTRA DENSITY, BUT TO ALIGN WITH WHAT'S SOUGHT AS OF RIGHT, IF YOU WILL. UM, SO WE'LL RECHECK THAT NUMBER AND MAKE SURE THAT, UM, THAT THAT'S IN LINE WITH THAT. BUT, UM, THAT WAS ABSOLUTELY THE INTENT. AND NOT TO, UM, EXTEND THE DENSITY ALLOWANCES FOR CLERKS. OKAY.

UM, WITH RESPECT TO, UM, THE HEIGHTENED STORY CHANGES TO CCRC, UM, PRESENTLY, 2.5 35FT WAS THE, UM, UH, CURRENT MAXIMUM HEIGHTS. AND WHAT'S PROPOSED? AGAIN, IT'S TO BE CONSISTENT WITH, UM, SIMILAR LIKE USES, LIKE SENIOR USES, ALS AND CCF. UM, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, FOR FOR A NEW CCRC, UM, YOU NEVER KNOW. THERE COULD BE A GOLF COURSE. THEY CAN GO OUT OF COMMISSION AND A CCR COULD BE PROPOSED THERE. UM, YOU KNOW, THE RATIONALE THERE IS, UM, IF IF THERE'S X AMOUNT OF, UM, DENSITY THAT WOULD BE PROPOSED THERE. UM, WHY HAVE THAT, UM, THAT FLOOR AREA SPREAD OUT? UM, YOU KNOW, DISTURBING MORE LAND AREA. UM, OVER TWO AND A HALF STORIES, 35 SQUARE, 35 FOOT HEIGHT. MAX. UM, WHEN MORE COMPACT DEVELOPMENT AT, SAY, FOUR STORIES, 55FT, WHICH IS THE CURRENT REGS FOR CCF AND ALS. UM, WHY WOULD THAT NOT BE PROMOTED? THERE'S COUNTLESS, UM, STRATEGIES IN THE COMP PLAN THAT TALK ABOUT COMPACT DEVELOPMENT, AND WE HAVE A SMALLER FOOTPRINT. UM, GENERALLY EQUATES TO LESS STORMWATER, UM, LESS IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE AND A LOT OF OTHER GOOD BENEFITS. BUT THROUGH A REVIEW PROCESS, I'M NOT SAYING EVERY PROJECT LENDS ITSELF TO THAT, BUT, UM, THAT, THAT THAT WAS THE THE GOAL THERE JUST TO STANDARDIZE, HAVE CONSISTENCY AND NOT PROMOTE, UM, SPRAWL ON SITE, IF YOU WILL.

OKAY. UM, OKAY. UH. THAT MIGHT.

BE IT. OH, THERE IS ONE THING. UH, I'M GOING TO SWITCH GEARS.

THE, UM, COMMERCIAL VEHICLE DEFINITION.

YEAH. COMMENT THAT THEY FELT THAT WAS TOO COMPLICATED AND THAT THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION TO SIMPLY REFERENCE, UH, NEW YORK STATE COMMERCIAL PLATES. I THINK I HEARD A PLANNING BOARD MEMBER MIGHT HAVE HAD A, UM, A THOUGHT THERE, BUT IF NOT, I. YEAH, YEAH.

MISS. MISS ROBINSON ALSO PUT SOME WORK ON THIS.

YES. SO, UM, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DEFINITION. I JUST HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE SPECIFICS OF THE DEFINITION. SO FOR EXAMPLE, UM, IT TALKS ABOUT THE MAXIMUM WEIGHT OF THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE BEING £10,000. UM, HOW DID WE COME UP WITH THAT NUMBER. WHAT WOULD A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE, UH, OF THAT WEIGHT LOOK LIKE? I WAS GOING TO SAY, MISS GARRITY, ARE YOU HAVE YOU JUMPED BACK ON? I KNOW YOU WERE SWITCHING BETWEEN, UH, DEVICES.

YES. I'M HERE. SO AT 10,000, UM, GW VEHICLE IS, UM, JUST A GENERAL. IT'S A LARGER TRUCK. UM, IT'S. SO THE IDEA BEHIND GIVING DIFFERENT CRITERIA IS, UM, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN HAVE A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE THAT MAY NOT HAVE ANY MARKINGS ON IT, BUT THEY HAVE A FIRST VEHICLE WEIGHT. THAT IS A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE UNDER THE DEFINITION. SO IF THAT'S A WEIGHT THAT'S

[03:00:02]

RIGHT. WHAT WOULD A VEHICLE LIKE THAT LOOK LIKE? A TEN ZERO ZERO £0 VEHICLE? UH, THERE'S NO GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE. IT'S THE WEIGHT OF THE VEHICLE. SO IT COULD BE A, UH, A TRUCK. IT COULD BE, UM, A LARGER, UH, FLATBED. IT COULD BE, UM, A TOW TRUCK. IT COULD BE BOX. TRUCK. I MEAN, THERE'S THERE'S DIFFERENT CONFIGURATIONS, AND BASED ON THE WEIGHT OF THE VEHICLE, IT'S ALSO WHAT'S USED TO GO OVER CERTAIN ROADWAYS. THEY HAVE A VEHICLE WEIGHT LIMIT, UM, THROUGHOUT THE TOWN. UM, SO THAT THAT ALSO COMES INTO PLAY. I COULD GIVE YOU SOME EXAMPLES, YOU KNOW, WITH VEHICLES THAT LOOK LIKE THAT.

UM. CDL.

REQUIREMENTS. IF I COULD, IF I COULD POSE A QUESTION, UM, YOU KNOW, DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR. SO THIS IS, UH, UNDERLYING LANGUAGE, ALL BRAND NEW. UM, SO WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF HAVING ALL THESE EXAMPLES OF, OF, UM, THE TYPES OF VEHICLES THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, SHOULD NOT BE, LET'S SAY, PARKED IN SINGLE FAMILY AREAS. SO THIS IS ALL NEW LANGUAGE.

WHAT WAS THE STANDARD PRIOR. UM.

SUCH THAT YOU WOULD BE COMPELLED TO, TO GIVE A VIOLATION? IT WAS COMMERCIAL REGISTRATION.

SO WE WERE VERY LIMITED. UM, AND PEOPLE WOULD COME TO, TO US WITH COMPLAINTS ABOUT VANS WITH LETTER RACKS ON THEM WITH NO WRITING, AND THEY DIDN'T HAVE A COMMERCIAL PLATE. WE COULDN'T WRITE THEM BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONSIDERED A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE.

UNDER THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF THE CODE. EVEN SOME OF THE VEHICLES THAT HAD WRITING ON THE SIDE, WE COULDN'T WRITE THEM BASED ON THE CURRENT DEFINITION CODE. SO BY EXPANDING THIS, IT ALLOWS COMMERCIAL VEHICLES THAT ARE PARKED WITHIN VIEW AND NOT SCREENED TO BE ABLE TO BE WRITTEN. AND FOR US TO ENFORCE THE CODE. UM, WE HAD SOME LIMITATIONS AND THIS WOULD A THIS EXPANSION WOULD ALLOW US TO ISSUE VIOLATIONS OR VEHICLES THAT ARE PARKED, UM, WITHOUT WITHOUT A COMMERCIAL REC. OKAY. ONE MORE QUICK ONE AND I'M SORRY. UM, NUMBER NUMBER SEVEN SAYS BERING TAXICAB ROOF SIGN. UM, CAN WE EXEMPT THE TOWN SUPERVISOR ON THAT? ALL RIGHT. NO, AS LONG AS HE. DOESN'T, I ENDED.

I MEAN, TECHNICALLY, IT SAYS DRIVING SCHOOL, NOT TAXI.

CAB. UM. DID WE.

LOSE HER? THERE WAS ONE OTHER THING. UM, THAT THAT I SAW IN HERE. UH, DEFINITION OF BEDROOM THAT HAD COME UP IN THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION. IT WAS MENTIONED THAT A STUDIO DOESN'T HAVE A BEDROOM, BUT.

TECHNICALLY, A STUDIO IS NOT A THAT DOES NOT HAVE.

A BEDROOM. IT'S GOT A IT'S GOT A SLEEPING AREA. SPACE THAT YOU CAN.

THEY UTILIZE THE SLEEPING AREA. BUT IT'S ALL ONE AREA.

YEAH. BUT YOU'RE.

NOT GOING TO SEPARATE. YOU WOULDN'T HAVE A BED IN THE DINING ROOM. I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND AND AND WHOEVER ELSE IN TOWN WOULD REFER TO THE STATE STANDARDS AS FAR AS, LIKE GROSS, GROSS, UH, SQUARE FEET REQUIRED FOR LIVING AREA, ETC..

OKAY. AND THEN IF YOU LOOK AT THE DEFINITION OF A STUDIO, IT TELLS YOU IT'S JUST. A LARGE ROOM. OH, SORRY. UH, THE DEFINITION OF A, UH, STUDIO.

IT'S JUST ONE LARGE ROOM. HAS NO WALLS. YOU KNOW, SEPARATING THE ROOM. CORRECT. SO A STUDIO WOULDN'T BE, UM, LOOKED AT AS PART OF THE DEFINITION OF A BEDROOM. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, I LIKE TO ASK GOOGLE, AND IT SAYS A STUDIO APARTMENT DOES NOT HAVE A SEPARATE ENCLOSED BEDROOM.

OKAY. CAN I JUST POINT OUT, GOING.

BACK TO COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. SOMETIMES, YOU KNOW, DENSITY WITH BEDROOMS AND ALL THAT, ISN'T THAT.

SAY THAT. ONE.

MORE TIME. I DIDN'T HEAR YOU.

OKAY. THE VEHICLE TRAFFIC LAW, THE STATE OF NEW YORK DEFINES COMMERCIAL VEHICLE AS USING THE WEIGHT OF 10,000. UM, WELL, SO.

LET'S MORE THAN £10,000 USED IN COMMERCE TO TRANSPORT. ET CETERA, ETC.. SO THE VEHICLE AND TRAFFIC HAS A SIMILAR DEFINITION. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT, BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO COMMENT. OKAY. SO LET'S, LET'S. LET'S DO, LET'S. LET'S DO THIS. SO IT'S NOW 1015. UM, I'D.

LET, LET. ME JUST TRY TO GUIDE I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER REMAINING ITEMS THAT CAME UP DURING PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THEN I'LL SORT OF REITERATE WHAT I THINK IS STILL OUTSTANDING FOR US. UM, AND THEN THERE ARE OTHER ITEMS FROM OUR FOUR PRESENTATIONS AND MY BULLETS THAT WILL WILL COME TO AT THE NEXT MEETING. UM, THE DEFINITION OF ACCESS WAY DID

[03:05:02]

IF LIZ IS STILL. HERE.

I'M STILL. I'M STILL HERE. YEAH.

JUST SORT OF. WHY WHY, WHY IT IS THE WAY IT IS.

WHY? WHY CURRENT DEFINITION OR CORRECT? YEAH. THE THE PROPOSED DEFINITION. YEAH.

THE THE PROPOSED DEFINITION CLEANS UP THE AMBIGUITIES THAT ARE IN THE DEFINITION OF ACCESS WAY, WHICH SEEM TO HAVE BEEN, UM, CONFUSED, YOU KNOW, AND UNDERSTANDABLY, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN IS RATHER CONVOLUTED. UM, SO OUR PROPOSED LANGUAGE AND OUR REMOVAL IS IF YOU PULL THAT UP. GREAT. UM, IT IT IT CLEANS UP THE DEFINITION. IT MAKES IT VERY CLEAR WHAT THE ACCESS WAY IS, BASICALLY. UM, TO, TO SIMPLIFY IT EVEN FURTHER. AND ACCESS WAY IS FROM THE POINT OF THE PUBLIC STREET TO INTERIOR PARKING AREAS. UM, THAT'S THE ENTIRETY OF OPEN ACCESS WAY. WE JUST CLEANED IT UP. UM, SO IT IS IN LINE WITH THE REST OF THE. OKAY.

ANY FURTHER? GARRETT. BUT. NO, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE CONTEXT OF, UM, OFF STREET PARKING AREAS, UH, WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT THAT AND AGAIN, STRIVE FOR CONSISTENCY. UM, WITH THE ALF'S AND THE CAFS AND TAKE A SECOND.

LOOK AT THAT. OKAY. UM, AND THEN ALSO THERE WAS A COMMENT ABOUT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, AND, UM, THERE SHOULD BE RAMIFICATIONS IF MISLEADING INFORMATION IS SUBMITTED. UM, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT, UH, THE CODE. SO CURRENTLY THE TOWN BOARD IS LIMITED TO ONLY ONE REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD. AND SO I'D LIKE TO RECOMMEND THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE BE THE BE THE OPTION FOR ADDITIONAL TOWN BOARD REFERRALS. AND I THINK THAT THAT WOULD BE ONE HEDGE AGAINST MISLEADING INFORMATION. YOU KNOW, IF AT SOME POINT THE TOWN BOARD DETERMINES THAT AFTER THEY'VE RECEIVED A RECOMMENDATION, UM, THAT THERE WAS POTENTIALLY NEW OR MISLEADING INFORMATION THAT RESULTED IN AN US BEING UNABLE TO MAKE A FULL RECOMMENDATION OR TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION BASED ON BAD INFORMATION, THAT THAT WOULD GIVE THEM THE OPTION TO REFER IT BACK TO US, UM, TO TO TAKE ANOTHER TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT.

IT. I SECOND THAT.

COOL. UM. I DON'T THINK. THAT'S OKAY.

YEAH. SO I THINK COMMERCIAL IS SOMETHING THAT.

WILL COME BACK. WE'LL COME BACK TO.

VERY GOOD, VERY GOOD, VERY GOOD.

AND THEN THERE WAS A COMMENT, AND I THINK THE SPEAKER WAS WAS MISTAKEN. BUT, UM, THERE WAS THE SUGGESTION THAT TURF SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IMPERVIOUS. AND I, I JUST DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. AND, AND I DON'T THINK THE SPEAKER ACTUALLY AGREED WITH THAT EITHER. SO, UH, THERE'LL BE NO RECOMMENDATION ON THAT. UM. THE I WAS JUST LOOKING AT IT.

AND SO I THINK THAT COVERS, UM, EVERYTHING FROM THE PUBLIC DISCUSSIONS. YES. AND THEN JUST TO REAFFIRM WHAT THERE WAS GENERAL PUBLIC SUPPORT FOR, THERE WAS GENERAL SUPPORT FOR THE REMOVAL OF THE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT, FOR THE SIMPLE DEFINITIONS FOR RESTAURANT USE, UM, EXTENDING.

UH. I'M GONNA SKIP THAT ONE. UM, I'M GONNA SKIP THAT ONE. UH, UM, I. SKIP THAT.

ONE. MINOR UPDATES. YEAH. SO I THINK GENERALLY THERE WAS SUPPORT FOR REMOVAL OF THE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT AND THE SIMPLE DEFINITIONS OF RESTAURANT, WHICH WHICH I, I AGREE WITH. YES. YES.

WELL, TO THE EXTENT PEOPLE ASK TO.

HAVE IT. REMOVED.

I GUESS. YEAH. UM, SO I THINK THAT COVERS EVERYTHING. UM, THAT THE PUBLIC PROVIDED FEEDBACK ON.

AND SO WHAT WE'LL DO IS I THINK I SEE AARON TAKING NOTES AND I TAKEN SOME NOTES. SO I THINK WE'LL LOOK THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS FROM OUR FOUR PRESENTATIONS, AND WE'LL SORT OF RECONCILE WHAT WE STILL HAVEN'T TOUCHED ON. AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING. UM, AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL BULLETS. AND I THINK THE TOPICS THAT WE STILL NEED TO SORT OF COME TO A CONCLUSION ON SO FAR ARE SEE WHO.

WHO. UH, DETERMINES COMPLIANCE, UH, FOR SIDEWALKS. UM, THE CANNABIS UPDATES, THE SELF STORAGE, PARKING AND THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE DEFINITION. UH, SO THOSE ARE THE FOUR THINGS THAT WILL WILL CONTINUE INTO THE NEXT MEETING. UM, THE ONE OTHER LAST THING, UH, SINCE THIS

[03:10:05]

MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ALL CONSISTENT. UM, AND MAKE SURE THAT IT MAXIMIZES THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE, UM, INFORMED OF THEIR OPPORTUNITIES TO ENGAGE AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. UM, I KNOW THAT AT THE WELL, AT THE SAME TIME, BEING SENSITIVE TO THE COST AND THE BURDEN OF THE APPLICANT. UM, AND SO WE CAN GO BACK AND DO OUR NOTES. BUT I THINK WHAT WE HAD LANDED ON WAS, UM, NOT REQUIRING THE THE NEWSPAPER NOTIFICATION, WHICH IS THE MAJOR EXPENSE THAT AN APPLICANT OCCURS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL. SO THE STEEP SLOPE. THE, THE.

WETLAND WATERCOURSE AND THE TREE REMOVAL. UM, BUT TO REQUIRE UH, LETTER NOTIFICATION FOR PLANNING BOARD WORK, SESSION WORK SESSIONS AND ALSO TO THE EXTENT THERE MIGHT BE A DISCREPANCY ON THE THE DISTANCE THAT THE ZONING BOARD CURRENTLY REQUIRES NOTICING AND THE DISTANCE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD CURRENTLY REQUIRES. NOTICING, MAKING MAKING SURE THAT THOSE TWO NUMBERS ARE THE SAME. SO AGAIN, ULTIMATELY THE GOAL IS FOR THE PUBLIC TO BE NOTICED CONSISTENTLY AND EARLY.

UM, IN IN THE PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS.

I THINK WE ALL STRONGLY AGREE WITH THAT SUGGESTION.

UM, AND SO ULTIMATELY THAT WOULD ALSO NEED TO BE CONSIDERED IN PARALLEL WITH 240 AND 285. SO THEY SORT OF ALL ALL MEET TOGETHER AT THE SAME TIME.

AND SO WE'RE. WE'RE ALIGNED.

ON THAT. YES.

VERY GOOD. STRONG. RIGHT. UM, AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WHEN THERE'S LANGUAGE, THE REFERRAL PROCESS WOULD REQUIRE, UH, THE TOWN BOARD TO REFER THAT TO US. AND SO WE CAN REALLY DIG INTO THE SPECIFICS ONCE, UM, ONCE THAT OCCURS. UM, OKAY. I HAVE LOTS OF OTHER NITS, BUT WE'LL, WE'LL SAVE IT FOR, FOR THE NEXT MEETING. UM, ANY. OTHER FINAL. THOUGHTS? I APPRECIATE EVERYONE STICKING, GIVING US A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME. UM, I THINK THIS WILL THIS DEFINITELY GIVE STAFF DIRECTION AND, UM, REALLY GRATEFUL FOR FOR YOU STAYING LATE AND NOT STAYING LATE AND EVERYONE STAYING LATE. UM, ANY OTHER FINAL COMMENTS OR THOUGHTS BEFORE WE CLOSE THIS EVENING? NO, NO.

ALL RIGHT. THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE SEPTEMBER 2ND PLANNING BOARD MEETING AT 10:25 P.M..

SO MOVED. SECOND. UH, MOVED, MR. PULLINGER.

SECOND. MISS ROBINSON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

OKAY

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.