Sep 16, 2026 Planning Board Meeting

[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, September 16, 2026 – 7:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ]

[00:00:07]

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2026 PLANNING BOARD MEETING. IT IS 7:06 P.M. AND I WILL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. UM, STAFF DISTRIBUTED THE MINUTES FOR THE SEPTEMBER 2ND MEETING. DID, UH.

OH. UH, TOWN PLANNER BRITAIN. UH, MAY YOU CONDUCT THE ROLL? SURE. UH, MR. WEINBERG HERE. MR. ANDERSON. HERE. MR. PATEL HERE. UH, CHAIRPERSON PINE HERE. MISS ROBINSON HERE. MR. PULLINGER HERE. UH, YEAH.

AND SO WE, UH, WE HAVE ALL FOUR VOTING MEMBERS PRESENT THIS EVENING, AS WELL AS OUR TWO ALTERNATES. UM, FOR FOR THE FOLLOWING ITEMS. THE ALTERNATES WILL WILL PARTICIPATE OR WILL VOTE FOR THE MINUTES. UH, MISS ROBINSON, FOR PB 2123. UH, PB 1526 AND PB 2602. UH, MR. PATEL. AND FOR PB 26, 12 AND 2616. UH, MISS ROBINSON. ALL RIGHT. UH, STAFF DISTRIBUTED THE SEPTEMBER 2ND MINUTES. UH, WERE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES? NO, NO.

ALL RIGHT. I DID HAVE ONE COMMENT. I THINK IT WAS THE BOTTOM OF PAGE FIVE. THERE WAS A SENTENCE THAT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS, UM, POSSIBLY SOME WORDS MISSING.

YES, THERE WAS A WORD MISSING. UM, WHICH WE ADDED TO MAKE IT A COMPLETE SENTENCE. UM, THE SENTENCE, UH, NOW, THE WORD REGARDING WAS MISSING. SO WE THE SENTENCE NOW READS. HE STATED THAT STATE LAW REGARDING THE TECHNOLOGY AND APPLICABLE STANDARDS CONTINUES TO CHANGE. GREAT. SO JUST ADDED A MISSING WORD. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES. THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER 2ND MINUTES, AS AMENDED. MOVE. MR. PULLINGER. SECOND. SECOND, MISS ROBINSON.

ALL IN FAVOR? CHAIR. VOTES. I, UM, WE HAVE THREE PIECES OF CORRESPONDENCE THIS EVENING. UH, THE FIRST PIECE OF CORRESPONDENCE IS, UH, REGARDING CASE NUMBER PB 2123.

DINAPOLI. UH, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING THEIR SEVENTH PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION EXTENSION. UH, TOWN PLANNER.

BRITTEN, COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE REQUEST? SURE. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SEVENTH EXTENSION OF ITS PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL. UH, THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, UH, CASE NUMBER PB 2123 DINAPOLI, UH, 1490-1952, SAWMILL RIVER ROAD, UH, HAS BEEN WORKING. THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE TOWN OF GREENBERG'S BUREAU OF ENGINEERING. UH, REGARDING STORMWATER, STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND TEST PITS FOR SOIL. UM, THEY HAD TO REVISE THE SUBDIVISION, UH, CUL DE SAC BULB IN ORDER TO MEET TOWN STANDARDS. AND THERE WERE SOME, UH, COMMUNICATION WITH THE RELEVANT FIRE DISTRICT TO ENSURE THAT THEY WERE SATISFIED WITH FIRE SAFETY ACCESS. SO ALL OF THAT HAS TAKEN A LOT OF TIME. THEY HAD AT ONE POINT THEY HAD TO SWITCH ENGINEERS.

UM, SO THEY ARE WORKING WITH THE TOWN AND BEING COMMUNICATIVE AND, UM, THEY ARE MOVING FORWARD. UM, SO THIS EXTENSION WOULD ENABLE THEM TO MOVE FORWARD AND HOPEFULLY, UH, GET SIGN OFF FROM THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND COME BACK FOR FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.

GREAT. AND I THINK I JUST HEARD YOU SAY IT, BUT I'LL PUT A POINT ON IT. UM, THE APPLICANT HAS BEEN RESPONSIVE AND AND ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN ASKED OF THEM, THEY'VE, THEY'VE BEEN PROVIDING UP TO THIS POINT.

YES. GREAT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD ON THIS REQUEST? NO, NO.

GREAT. THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE A SEVENTH 180 DAY EXTENSION OF THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT VALID THROUGH MARCH 30TH OF NEXT YEAR. SO MOVED. MOVED. MR. PATEL? SECONDED. SECOND MISS ANDERSON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

CHAIR. VOTES. I, UH, NEXT UP, WE HAVE A PIECE OF CORRESPONDENCE REGARDING CASE NUMBER PB 2612. IVES AT 14 OAK STREET, PO HARTSDALE. UH, THE APPLICANT HAS REQUESTED A MINOR PROJECT. WETLAND WATERCOURSE PERMIT. UM, TOWN PLANNER.

BRITTEN, COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE REQUEST AND, UM.

WHY? WHY THIS WOULD BE CONSIDERED A MINOR, UH, WETLAND WATERCOURSE PERMIT? ABSOLUTELY. SO THIS PROJECT INVOLVES AN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING RESIDENCE AT 14 OAK

[00:05:03]

UM, THERE ARE A TOTAL OF NINE AREA VARIANCES THAT ARE NECESSARY. UH, SO I AM RESPECTFULLY REQUESTING THAT THE PLANNING BOARD WAIVE ITS JURISDICTION OF THIS PROJECT AND TURN JURISDICTION OVER TO THE TO ME, AS THE TOWN WETLANDS INSPECTOR. UM, AS WELL AS, UH, IF THE BOARD SO DESIRES ISSUING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ON THE SEVERAL AREA VARIANCES THAT ARE REQUIRED.

GREAT. THANK YOU. TOWN PLANNER. BRITTON, COULD YOU JUST SHOW US AGAIN ON THE MAP? UM, WHERE WHERE THE LOT IS IN COMPARISON IN RELATION TO THE WATERCOURSE? SURE.

SO THIS, UH, IS THE EXISTING HOME, AND THESE LINES DO SEMICIRCLES THAT YOU SEE HERE. THESE DASHED ARCS IS THE BUFFER OF THE WATERCOURSE, WHICH IS ACROSS THE STREET. THERE'S THE OPEN WATERCOURSE HERE WHICH GOES UNDERGROUND UNDER 11 OAK STREET, AND IT POPS UP INTO A SMALL POND, UH, ON THE OTHER SIDE AT 23 OAK STREET. AND SO CONSIDERING THAT THE WATERCOURSE IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE STREET, UM, IT'S IT'S UNLIKELY THAT THE, THE ANY WORK DONE ON THE SITE WILL IMPACT THE WATERCOURSE. CORRECT. ALONG WITH THE TOWN STANDARD EROSION, SEDIMENT CONTROL, UH, REQUIREMENTS.

GREAT. UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MR. PATEL. DOES THE FOOTPRINT REMAIN THE SAME? NO. THE FOOTPRINT IS PROPOSED TO INCREASE. OH, WELL.

WELL, UH, THEY ARE DOING A FRONT OF HOUSE EXPANSION TO ADD ANOTHER BEDROOM. UM, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THE OWNERS HAVE TWO, UH, ADOLESCENTS, AND THEY ARE GETTING TO AN AGE WHERE SHARING A ROOM IS BECOMING A PROBLEM. UM, SO THEY ARE SEEKING TO EXPAND, TO ENABLE TO ADD ANOTHER BEDROOM. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS APPLICATION? MR. WEINBERG? UH.

MATT, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THIS, THERE'S A LOT MORE IMPERVIOUS SURFACE THAN YOUR, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, IF THEY DO THESE IMPROVEMENTS, RIGHT. THERE IS AN INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE. YES.

AND I GUESS, IS THERE A FLOODING ISSUE IN THAT AREA? UH, I HAVE NOT BEEN INFORMED OF ANY FLOODING ISSUES. THEY ARE PROPOSING A 2.33% INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE OVER EXISTING CONDITIONS. SO IT LOOKS LIKE WENT FROM 40.75% PERMITTED TO 75.46 PROPOSED.

CORRECT. SO 40.75% IS THE THE MAXIMUM ALLOWED IN THE UNDERLYING ZONING DISTRICT. THE R 7.5 DISTRICT. MHM. UM, HOWEVER, EXISTING IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE IS AT 73.13%.

SO IT'S ALREADY SIGNIFICANTLY OVER ON IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE DUE TO THE INCREDIBLY TIGHT NATURE OF THE LOT. AND THEY ARE WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS A MINOR INCREASE IN THAT.

AND I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR FOR THE BOARD TO TO RECOGNIZE THAT, UM, ULTIMATELY, THE ONLY PERMIT REQUEST IN FRONT OF US IS THE WETLAND WATERCOURSE PERMIT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WHILE IT MIGHT BE TEMPTING TO GO INTO THE

[00:10:02]

UM, WHEN WHEN WE GET SHORTLY TO THE STAGE OF MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE ZONING BOARD, YOU KNOW, THEN WE CAN CONSIDER A LITTLE BIT MORE BROADLY. BUT SPECIFICALLY FOR THE FOR THE WATERCOURSE PERMIT. THE QUESTION IS, UM, DO WE THINK THERE ARE NECESSARY MITIGATIONS TO PROTECT THE WATERCOURSE? AND CONSIDERING THE WATERCOURSES ACROSS THE STREET? THE ANSWER IS PROBABLY NO.

UM, BUT THE YOU YOU SORT OF TOUCHED ON SOMETHING I WAS GOING TO ASK, AND I GUESS I'LL STILL ASK IT. UM, BUT THE THIS WILL STILL GO BEFORE THE THE ZONING BOARD.

YEAH. IT'LL STILL GO IN FRONT OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, AND, AND WE'LL BE IN A POSITION TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS, YOU KNOW, VERY, VERY SHORTLY ONCE WE.

THEY'RE ACTUALLY ON THE ZONING BOARD FOR TOMORROW NIGHT. OKAY.

OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S TRUE.

YEAH. UM, YEAH. WE WE DON'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO. IF VARIANCES ARE NEEDED, THEY MUST GO IN FRONT OF THE VBA. WE NEVER HAVE THE ABILITY TO TO WAIVE OR CIRCUMVENT THAT. YEAH.

GREAT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, ON THIS ON THIS REQUEST. THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN IT. SO WE HAVE THREE ACTIONS THAT TAKE IN FRONT OF US TO TAKE, UH, CLASSIFYING THE ACTION UNDER SECRE, UH, ISSUING RECOMMENDATIONS. AND I'LL ASK TOWN PLANNER BRIGHTON TO WALK US THROUGH EACH OF THE VARIANCES IN MORE DETAILS IN A MOMENT. UM, AND THEN ULTIMATELY, IF WE WANT TO WAIVE THE REFERRAL. UH, DOING THAT. SO FIRST OFF, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLASSIFY THE ACTION AS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SECRE. SO MOVED. MOVED. MISS ROBINSON.

SECOND. SECOND, MR. PATEL. ALL IN FAVOR? MR..

I'M SORRY, MR. BELLINGER. UH. HI.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

CHAIR VOTES. I, UM, THANK YOU. SO, IN REGARDS TO ISSUING THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE CBA. UM, COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE VARIANCES REQUESTED? YES. SO THERE ARE NINE AREA VARIANCES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS REQUIRED IN A MEMO GENERATED BY THE DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR, MISS GARRITY, ON JULY 23RD, 2026. THESE ARE SETBACK FROM PRINCIPAL BUILDING TO FRONT PROPERTY LINE FROM 20FT PERMITTED WHERE 13.24FT EXIST. AND THEY ARE PROPOSING 12.02FT SETBACK FROM EASTERLY SIDE PROPERTY LINE WHERE TEN FEET IS REQUIRED. WHERE 2.75FT EXISTS. THE ZONING BOARD GRANTED A VARIANCE DOWN TO 2.8FT. IN CASE 98, 36, AND 2.73FT IS PROPOSED.

STEP BACK FROM WESTERLY PROPERTY LINE FROM 12FT PERMITTED TO 4.68FT EXISTING. AND THE ZONING BOARD GRANTED A VARIANCE DOWN TO 4.87FT, AND UNDER THAT SAME CASE. AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 4.68FT. THE TOTAL OF TOTAL COMBINED SIDE YARDS WERE 22FT IS REQUIRED. CURRENTLY EXISTING IS 7.43FT, AND THE ZONING BOARD GRANTED A VARIANCE DOWN TO 7.67FT AND 7.41FT IS PROPOSED. MAXIMUM PRINCIPLE BUILDING COVERAGE FROM 24%, UH, PERMITTED TO WEAR, 30.89% EXISTS AND 33.61% IS PROPOSED. MAXIMUM COVERAGE OF ALL BUILDINGS FROM 30% PERMITTED WEAR, 37.99% CURRENTLY EXISTS, AND 40.71% IS PROPOSED. MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE FROM 40.75% PERMITTED WEAR, 73.13% CURRENTLY EXISTS, AND 75.46% IS PROPOSED. MAXIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO OF 0.45 UH IS PERMITTED, WHEREAS 0.5347 CURRENTLY EXISTS AND 0.5942 IS PROPOSED. AND INCREASING A NON-CONFORMING STRUCTURE SO AS TO INCREASE SUCH NON CONFORMANCE.

ALL RIGHT. CAN I MAKE A COMMENT? UH YEP. SO ANY ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THESE VARIANCES.

MISS ROBINSON? SO JUST BASED ON THE INCREASE I KNOW, UM, SOME OF IT CAN'T BE HELPED. BUT IF WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THE PROPER STORMWATER, UM, MAINTENANCE PLAN OR SYSTEM IS IN PLACE, I WOULD DEFINITELY ASK THAT WE RECOMMEND THAT THE, UH, THE PLANS DID NOT DISCUSS ANYTHING ABOUT STORMWATER. AND I THINK DID THE CAC RECOMMENDATION, DID THAT TOUCH ON THAT? YES. UH, SO THE CAC SIMILARLY, UH, RECOMMENDED TO ENSURE THAT THE POTENTIALLY THAT THE TOWN ENGINEER IS, UM, AGREEABLE WITH

[00:15:01]

UM, SORRY. CAC RECOMMENDATION. SO THE CAC HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THE APPROVAL BE CONDITIONED ON TOWN ENGINEERING STAFF'S REVIEW OF THE NEED FOR AND PLACEMENT OF A COAL TECH OR OTHER STORMWATER MEASURE. OKAY. UM, SO THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE CHAPTER 248 STORMWATER MANAGEMENT AS PART OF, UH, YOU KNOW, GETTING THEIR BUILDING PERMIT AND ANY FURTHER REVIEW. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THESE VARIANCES? UM, SO JUST AS A REFRESHER, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, THE THE PLANNING BOARD HAS ADOPTED, UH, YOU KNOW, A POSITIVE, NEUTRAL OR NEGATIVE RECOMMENDATION STANDARD FOR, UH, FOR VARIANCE FOR VARIANCE RECOMMENDATIONS. UM, TYPICALLY A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR A VARIANCE THAT WE BELIEVE HAS, UM, A SIGNIFICANTLY POSITIVE, UH, BENEFIT FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE. UH, NEUTRAL WOULD BE, UH, A VARIANCE THAT HAS SORT OF A NEUTRAL IMPACT FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE. AND THE NEGATIVE IS ONE WHICH WE FEEL WOULD HAVE A NEGATIVE IMPACT FROM A PLANNING PERSPECTIVE.

UM, LOOKING AT AT THESE THREE, AT THESE NINE, IS IT NINE VARIANCES? UM, AND ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THAT MANY OF THESE VARIANCES ARE JUST SLIGHT ADJUSTMENTS FROM VARIANCES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY ISSUED, UM, BACK IN 1998. MY, MY GUT IS THAT THIS WOULD BE NEUTRAL ACROSS THE BOARD. UM, BUT CERTAINLY I'M EAGER TO HEAR FROM FROM THE REST OF THE BOARD. AGREED.

I AGREE AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. UM, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ISSUE A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION ON ALL NINE VARIANCES TO THE ZONING BOARD. UH, OF APPEALS.

SO, MOVED. MOVED. MISTER PULLINGER SECOND.

SECOND. MISS ROBINSON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR. VOTES. UM. AND THEN LASTLY, UH, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS, UH, WAIVING OUR REFERRAL ON THE APPLICATION AND LETTING THE THE CBA TAKE A CRACK AT THIS NEXT WEEK. OR. SORRY, TOMORROW. UM, AND SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO WAIVE THE REFERRAL ON THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND PERMIT THE TOWN WETLANDS INSPECTOR TO ISSUE A DECISION.

IT WAIVE. THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE PROCESS SHEETS. OKAY. THOSE ARE THE CODES. ALL RIGHT. UM, SO WE'RE WAIVING. SO BECAUSE THIS IS, UM, SO BECAUSE THIS IS A WETLAND WATERCOURSE PERMIT THAT, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR, IT WOULD TYPICALLY BE REFERRED TO US. UM, THE CODE ALLOWS FOR MINOR WETLAND WATER. IT ALLOWS THE PLANNING BOARD TO WAIVE REFERRAL FOR MINOR WETLAND WATERCOURSES LIKE THIS. AND SO INSTEAD OF, UM, BASICALLY INSERTING OURSELVES INTO THE PROCESS FURTHER, WE WAIVE REFERRAL. UM, AND DEFER TO THE TOWN PLANNER WHO'S ALSO THE WETLAND INSPECTOR. UM, TO MAKE THE DETERMINATION. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL SAY THAT AGAIN. SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO WAIVE REFERRAL OF THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND AUTHORIZE THE TOWN WETLANDS INSPECTOR TO ISSUE A DECISION. SO MOVE.

MOVE, MOVE. MR. ROBINSON.

SECOND. SECOND. MR. BELLINGER. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR. VOTES. AYE. ALL RIGHT. UH, AND THEN OUR LAST PIECE OF CORRESPONDENCE, UH, IS REGARDING CASE NUMBER PB 2616, UH, PLANTERS GOLDSTEIN AT 38 LINWOOD ROAD, PO SCARSDALE.

AND SIMILARLY, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A MINOR, A MINOR PROJECT WETLAND, WATERCOURSE PERMIT. UM, TOWN PLANNER.

BRITTON, COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THIS REQUEST? ABSOLUTELY. UH, SO, SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS PROJECT, UH, THIS IS A MINOR WETLANDS, WATERCOURSE PERMIT WHERE THE WATERCOURSE IN QUESTION IS ACROSS THE STREET, A CURB STREET. AND THIS PARTICULAR WATERCOURSE IS VERY WELL, UH, DEFINED, CHANNELIZED, AND IS UPHILL FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. UM, THEY ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE AN EXISTING DRIVEWAY ON ONE SIDE OF THE HOUSE AND RELOCATED TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HOUSE. UH, DO A TWO STORY ADDITION TO THE HOUSE AS WELL. UM, AND IN ADDITION, ON TOP OF THE HOUSE AND, UH, THEY THAT IS THE LONG AND SHORT OF IT, REALLY, UM, THE WATERCOURSES ACROSS THE STREET, THEY WENT TO THE CAC AS WELL LAST WEEK AND, UH, SIMILARLY RECEIVED A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL.

[00:20:01]

AND SIMILARLY, THIS IS A SMALL LOT, WHICH IS WHY THE BUFFER IS IS. YES, ENCROACHING ON THE PROPERTY.

YES. SO, SO.

I'M, I ACTUALLY LIVE IN THE AREA. UM, AND, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE A, A GREAT THING THAT THEY'RE DOING. UM, THE MY QUESTION THOUGH, BECAUSE WHEN WOULD IS SORT OF ON THE BOTTOM OF THAT HILL WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING UP ARDSLEY ROAD AND UM, EVEN JUST BEFORE THIS, UM, WE WERE JUST TALKING ABOUT IMPROVEMENTS THAT THE TOWN IS MAKING TO STORMWATER DRAINAGE IN THE AREA BECAUSE THE GROUNDWATER SORT OF COMES OUT AND RUNS DOWNHILL. UM, TO TO LINWOOD AND EDGEMONT ROAD AND, UM, I SEE THAT THE STORMWATER DRAINAGE DESIGN ISN'T GOING TO BE APPROVED UNTIL AFTER A VARIANCE APPROVAL. I'M WONDERING IF THAT WILL COME BACK TO, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD FOR FINAL REVIEW BEFORE THAT. UM, JUST TO IF THERE ARE ANY OPPORTUNITIES TO INCREASE THE, UH, STORMWATER DRAINAGE HERE, IT MIGHT TAKE SOME, UM, UH, STRAIN OFF THE TOWN AND NEIGHBORING NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.

IF YOU VOTE TO WAIVE DEFERRAL OF THE APPLICATION, THIS WILL NOT COME BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD. UH, AFTER THEY HAVE GONE THROUGH THE CPA. WELL, REGARDLESS, THE NOTE BEFORE IS THAT THIS IS A WETLANDS WATERCOURSE PERMIT APPLICATION. UM, SO UNLESS IT'S PART OF YOUR RECOMMENDATION ASSOCIATED WITH POTENTIAL VARIANCES, THAT STORMWATER COMPONENT IS ADDRESSED ADMINISTRATIVELY. IT'S NOT REALLY BEFORE THE BOARD. SO IT'S NOT BEFORE US. OKAY.

SO LIKE ENGINEERING FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD TAKE A LOOK AT THAT. AS WELL. CORRECT. OKAY.

ONE OF THE REQUIRED VARIANCES IS FOR IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE. SO THE PLANNING BOARD IS WELL WITHIN ITS RIGHTS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION THAT THE ZONING BOARD REQUEST, THEY INCREASE THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM TO HANDLE A 50 YEAR STORM EVENT OR 100 OR WHATEVER THE BOARD MAY PLEASE.

RIGHT. SO THAT IS DEFINITELY.

SO LET'S. LET'S RECOMMEND.

YEAH. SO LET'S LET'S CLASSIFY AND THEN WE'LL DIG INTO THE VARIANCES. AND LET'S LET'S PICK UP THAT.

YEAH. OKAY.

UM YEAH. AND I DON'T WANT TO DISCOURAGE THE DEVELOPMENT OF IT. BUT ALSO IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO IMPROVE THAT AREA. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY SURE. UM, ALL RIGHT. SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLASSIFY THE ACTION AS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SECRE. SO MOVED. MOVED, MISS ROBINSON SECOND. SECOND. MISTER AYE.INGER. ALL CHAIR VOTES. I, UM. TOWN PLANNER. BRITAIN. COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH? I THINK THERE'S I THINK WE RECEIVED AN UPDATED VARIANCE MEMO TODAY. I THINK IT'S NOW UP TO FIVE VARIANCES. YES.

SO COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THOSE FIVE? ABSOLUTELY. JUST GIVE ME ONE SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE FIVE, UH, AREA VARIANCES THAT HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY DEPUTY BUILDING INSPECTOR MISS GARRITY. UH, AND A MEMORANDUM DATED TODAY, SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2026. UH, FLOOR AREA RATIO LIMITATION FROM 2250FT PERMITTED TO 3038FT . PROPOSED PRINCIPAL BUILDING COVERAGE FROM 30% PERMITTED TO 31.5%. PROPOSED MAXIMUM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE FROM 43.75%. PERMITTED TO 56.8% PROPOSED UH PATIO SETBACK TO SIDE YARD FROM TEN FEET. UH REQUIRED TO TWO FEET. PROPOSED AND PATIO SETBACK TO SIDE YARD FROM TEN FEET. PERMITTED TO 5.8FT PROPOSED. OKAY.

UM. CAN I JUST GET A CLARIFICATION FOR A MOMENT? SURE. ON THE MEMORANDUM WE RECEIVED THE TEN

[00:25:03]

GREAT. UM, SO DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THOSE FIVE VARIANCES? UM, NOTHING ON THE VARIANCES. I JUST WANTED TO, UM, SECOND, WHAT EMILY WAS TALKING ABOUT. I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BRING UP THAT THEY DIDN'T TALK ABOUT A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM, ESPECIALLY WITH THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS. UM, SO. I WOULD.

ASK THE BOARD IF WE WOULD PUT THAT IN OUR RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. UH, I AGREE, JUST FROM A PROCEDURAL PERSPECTIVE. UM. CONSIDERING THE THE STANDARD, THE PLANNING BOARD PREVIOUSLY APPROVED FOR POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE, WOULD IT WOULD WOULD, I GUESS WOULD STAFF RECOMMEND A NEUTRAL WITH THE CAVEAT OR SOMETHING OTHER THAN NEUTRAL WITH WITH THAT CAVEAT? I MEAN, YOU CAN INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS IN A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY I AGREE. OKAY. UM. SO THEN IT SEEMS LIKE, UM, THE BOARD IS LEANING TOWARDS A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION ON ALL FIVE VARIANCES WITH THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE ZEBA. UH, WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT ON IMPLEMENTING SOME SORT OF STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM.

UH, YOU KNOW, AT A MINIMUM OF 25 YEAR STORM. IDEALLY, YOU KNOW, GREATER IF IF THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT RECOGNIZING THE SMALL LOT. UM, IS THAT IS THAT WHERE WE ARE? I AGREE. I WILL NOTE THAT WITH SMALLER LOTS, IT DOES BECOME CHALLENGING TO, UM, INSTALL ANYTHING GREATER THAN A 25 YEAR. UM, SO PERHAPS IT'S MORE, UM, IN COORDINATION WITH REVIEW FROM THE, UH, BUREAU OF ENGINEERING IMPLEMENT, UM, STORMWATER CONTROLS TO ADDRESS ADDITIONAL IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. UM.

TO THE EXTENT. TO THE EXTENT FEASIBLE.

EXACTLY. OKAY.

I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT A NUMBER ON IT. COMMENT.

YEAH. I JUST DON'T.

UNDERSTAND THAT. AND I THINK THAT'S.

JUST RAISING IT FOR EVERYBODY, INCLUDING THE HOMEOWNER, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S IT'S SOMETHING THAT HAS CHANGED EVEN SINCE I'VE MOVED IN. SURE. NOT AT ALL. UM.

BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, STORMS. OKAY. SO THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO MAKE A NEUTRAL RECOMMENDATION ON THE FIVE VARIANCES TO THE ZEBA. UH, AND ALSO ADD THE ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION OF, UM. WHAT? WHAT? AMANDA. WHAT WHAT THE FIRST DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY HAD SAID PREVIOUSLY REGARDING, UM, THE APPLICANT WORKING WITH THE TOWN ENGINEER TO IMPLEMENT THE THE MOST FEASIBLE, UH, AND STRONGEST OR WATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM. SO MOVED.

MOVE. MISTER PULLINGER. SECOND. SECOND. MISS ROBINSON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.

CHAIR. VOTES. AYE. ALL RIGHT. UH, MOVING ON TO OLD BUSINESS WORK SESSION. WE HAVE ONE ITEM IN FRONT OF US. CASE NUMBER PB 1526. NO NO NO NO, GALLO. I WILL GET THAT. UH, AT 14 CASTLE WALK. UH, PO. SCARSDALE. UH, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, A PLANNING BOARD, STEEP SLOPE PERMIT, UH, AS WELL AS A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. UH, AND I BELIEVE THEY'RE BACK IN FRONT OF US SINCE LAST BEING IN FRONT OF US. HAS IT BEEN TWO MONTHS? HOW LONG HAS IT BEEN? UH, IT'S BEEN A LITTLE BIT. A LITTLE BIT.

SO THEY WERE LAST BEFORE US ON MAY 6TH, 2026.

SO IT'S BEEN PRETTY SUMMER. UM, SO HERE WITH US, WE HAVE, UH, MR. HERNANDEZ. UH, GOOD EVENING.

YOU'RE GONNA NEED TO UNMUTE YOURSELF.

AND CLOSE. AND, TERRENCE, IF YOU CAN BUMP UP THE VOLUME A LITTLE BIT HERE IN THE ROOM.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. IF YOU COULD SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE, UH, YOUR COMPUTER OR BUMP UP YOUR MICROPHONE GAIN AS WELL.

THAT'LL BE APPRECIATED. UH.

I'M SORRY WE'RE HAVING A DIFFICULT TIME HEARING YOU.

STILL. ON THE PROJECT. YOU DIDN'T JUST TURN IT OVER. OH, FUCK. UM, WE'LL GO BACK AND

[00:30:07]

YOUR MICROPHONE IS VERY LOW. IT'S DIFFICULT TO HEAR YOU.

WELL, THEY'RE FIGURING OUT. TO.

DO THE WAIVER. OKAY. UH, THERE WAS ONE. ONE ITEM. UH, ONE MOTION. I FORGOT, SO WHILE WE FIGURE OUT THE AUDIO ON YOUR END, UM, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE LEANING TOWARDS, UH, WAIVING REFERRAL ON PB 2616. SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO WAIVE REFERRAL ON THE APPLICATION TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND AND AUTHORIZE THE TOWN WETLANDS INSPECTOR TO ISSUE A DECISION. SO MOVE. MOVE. MR. PULLINGER.

SECOND. SECOND. MISS ROBINSON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR. VOTES. AYE. ALL RIGHT. HOW ARE WE DOING ON AUDIO? GOOD.

OKAY, THAT'S THAT'S A LITTLE BETTER. LET'S, LET'S LET'S SEE HOW THIS WORKS. ALL RIGHT. DO YOU WANT TO.

BEGIN. OKAY. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS OKAY. THEY HAVE LEFT.

MAYBE THEY'RE. COMING BACK IN.

POTENTIALLY. WE'LL SEE. I WANT. I HAVEN'T FULLY POSTED, SO. OH, MAN. YES. IT'S LIKE YOU'RE HERE WITH US. YOU WOKE US UP? YES. YOU CAN. YES.

MUCH, MUCH BETTER. THANK YOU.

YES, PLEASE PRESENT YOUR PROJECT. CAN YOU HEAR US? MY PHONE. HELLO? YEP. WE CAN HEAR YOU. CAN YOU HEAR US? UH.

ALL YOUR TESTS FOR SURE. HEY, CAN YOU HEAR US? WE DON'T KNOW. WHERE IT'S TALKING.

THIS IS THE, UH. THIS IS THE MAC.

WE MIGHT HAVE TO GO TO THE NEXT APPLICATION, AND WE'LL TRY.

TO COME BACK ON. OH, OKAY. WELL, THE NEXT IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE CAN, I GUESS, OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. AND THEN.

CAN YOU HEAR US? JB I WOULD RATHER NOT. YEAH, IF WE CAN. YEAH.

THIS IS THE THE MAGIC OF LOCAL GOVERNMENT.

I'M GONNA TALK TO PARENTS FOR A SECOND SO I CAN FIGURE IT.

I THINK THIS. IS. DISABLED. OKAY.

LET'S LET'S TURN. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S WHAT. WE MIGHT JUST SEE.

LET'S. OKAY. CAN YOU RUN? JUST. MAYBE JUST SQUARE IT UP.

ARE WE. OFF THE RECORD? OKAY, GOOD. NO, WE'RE NOT. WE'RE NOT IN PUBLIC. OKAY. OH, OKAY.

MIGHT BE TRANSMITTING OVER. YEAH. NO, WE'RE STILL.

ON PUBLIC ACCESS. WE'RE STILL. DID YOU HEAR ME? HUH? YEAH. WE CAN HEAR YOU. CAN YOU HEAR US? YES.

OKAY. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE.

AWESOME. PLEASE PRESENT YOUR PROJECT.

OKAY. SO YOU MENTIONED. THIS IS CHRIS, THE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT. UM, WE WERE LAST BEFORE YOU BACK IN MAY. AND THERE WERE AT THAT TIME, AMONGST OTHER COMMENTS, THERE WERE TWO SIGNIFICANT COMMENTS FROM PLANNING, UH, THAT AFFECTED, UH, THE, THE SUBDIVISION LOT LINES. ONE OF THEM BEING THE SHOULDER, UH, NEEDING TO BE EIGHT FEET VERSUS THE FIVE FEET THAT WE WERE SHOWING. AND ALSO THE NEW REGULATIONS REGARDING THE STORMWATER MITIGATION, SEPARATION, DISTANCE BETWEEN INFILTRATION PRACTICES AND FOUNDATIONS. SO WHILE THE SUBDIVISION LOOKS ESSENTIALLY

[00:35:03]

FROM THE STORE, I KNOW THERE WAS A LOT OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT, SO MAYBE I'LL JUST START START THERE. SO EACH OF THE THREE LOTS, UH, HAS THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PRACTICES BY WAY OF INFILTRATION SYSTEMS. UM, EACH HONORING THE 25 FOOT SETBACK. THEY ARE A SERIES OF CULTIC UNITS WHICH HAS A STORM FILTER IN FRONT OF IT TO PROVIDE FOR WATER QUALITY. AND THE REASON WE DID EACH ONE OF THE LOTS INDEPENDENTLY WAS AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLANNING.

UM, AND THEN THE ROAD ITSELF IS A STANDALONE SYSTEM, WHICH INCLUDES 24 CULTIC UNITS AND A STORM FILTER AS WELL. UM, THE THE OVERALL THE ROADWAY SYSTEM, WHICH REPRESENTS ABOUT 70 PLUS PERCENT OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA, UH, HAS BEEN DESIGNED FOR THE HUNDRED YEAR STORM. UM, THE LOTS WE DESIGNED, WE ACHIEVED IT MORE THAN THE 25 YEAR STORM. BUT WE SHOWED THE CALCULATIONS FOR THE 25 YEAR STORM, WHICH WAS A BALANCE FOR US BECAUSE ADDING ANY MORE INFILTRATION PRACTICES WOULD HAVE RESULTED IN US HAVING TO PUSH THE BUILDINGS FURTHER AWAY, WHICH WOULD HAVE INCREASED THE AMOUNT OF DISTURBANCE TO STEEP SLOPES.

IT WOULD HAVE INCREASED THE NUMBER OF TREES THAT NEEDED TO BE CLEARED. SO WE THOUGHT THAT BY FOLLOWING THE CODE FOR THE LOT SYSTEMS AND THEN HAVING A 100 YEAR STORM FOR THE REALLY THE THE LARGE PIECE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA BEING THE ROAD THAT WE WOULD HOPEFULLY SATISFY THE BOARD'S, UM, ISSUES WITH, WITH THAT, UH, PART OF IT. UM, EACH OF THE LOTS, EVEN THOUGH WE MOVE THINGS AROUND, EACH OF THE LOTS ARE STILL FULLY CODE COMBINED FROM DIMENSIONAL, WELL, DIMENSIONAL PERSPECTIVES.

UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE IN PARTICULAR YOU'D LIKE US TO TALK THROUGH. UH, SURE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? UH, MR. WEINBERG? UH. I HAD SOME FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD PREPARED AND SENT A WHILE AGO. I GUESS MAYBE. AND COULD YOU JUST TALK INTO THE MIC. AFTER THE MAY MEETING? AND I THINK YOU RESPONDED TO SOME OF THEM ON THE ROAD. THAT'S GOING TO BE A PRIVATE ROAD OR A PUBLIC ROAD.

THE ROAD IS GOING TO BE BUILT TO TOWN STANDARDS. WE ARE WILLING TO DEDICATE IT IF THE TOWN IS REQUESTED TO. OR TO REMAIN PRIVATE. THAT THAT WHERE THE OWNER IS WILLING TO HAVE IT EITHER WAY. BUT IT'S IT IS BEING FULLY BUILT IN CONFORMANCE WITH A TALENT ROAD STANDARD..

AND IS THE OTHER PORTION GOING UP TO FORT HILL ROAD OF THAT ROAD. IS THAT PUBLIC OR PRIVATE? NOW? WELL, IT IT'S A RIGHT OF WAY. WE HAVE TO GET, UH, COUNCIL'S, UH, INPUT ON EXACTLY WHETHER OR NOT THAT THE MECHANISM ARE IN PLACE TO DEDICATE THAT. UM, WE DO HAVE THE RIGHT TO IMPROVE IT AND UTILIZE IT. UM, BUT I HAVE TO GET BACK TO YOU WITH THAT.

ONCE WE HAVE COUNCIL'S, UH, GUIDANCE ON THAT.

AND WHO WHO MAINTAINS THAT ROAD? THE EXISTING ROAD.

WELL. RIGHT NOW, THE UNIMPROVED PORTION OF, IS REALLY JUST A DRIVEWAY. IT'S THE. BUT OTHERWISE IT'S NOT MAINTAINED AT ALL. IT'S. RIGHT RIGHT AWAY.

THAT ROSE FROM THE IMPROVED PORTION OF THE CASTLE. WALK DOWN INTO THE SITE. IS IS NOT MAINTAINED AT ALL, REALLY.

AND. RIGHT. IF I COULD JUMP IN EVERYONE. THANK YOU. AARON SCHMIDT, DEPUTY PLANNING COMMISSIONER. SO, MISTER ROGERS, RIGHT, CURRENTLY, UH, IT IS NOT IMPROVED.

TO TOWN STANDARDS. AND IS.

[00:40:01]

TO RETAIN COUNSEL FOR THAT. OKAY.

OKAY. OKAY. SO SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, IF THE ABUTTING PROPERTY THAT HAS A PORTION OF THAT PAPER STREET OR UNDER UNDER IMPROVED STANDARD SIZE ROAD, RIGHT. IT WOULDN'T BE TO TOWN STANDARD. CURRENTLY. UM DOES NOT INTEND TO DEDICATE IT. THEN THEY CAN'T DEDICATE THE TOWN.

WOULDN'T BE LOOKING TO TAKE OVER THE PORTION, UH, BETWEEN A PRIVATE SECTION AND A AND A POTENTIALLY PUBLIC SECTION. SO EITHER THEY HAVE TO COORDINATE TO, YOU KNOW, IMPROVE IT ALL AND DEDICATE IT ALL, OR IT WOULD REMAIN PRIVATE.

WELL, SO YOU HAVE EXISTING HOUSES ON THE PORTION THAT'S NOT THE STANDARD, RIGHT? CORRECT.

BUT THE PROPOSAL WE HAVE, WE HAVE MODIFIED THE PLAN SINCE THE LAST TIME WE WERE BEFORE YOU TO SHOW THAT WE'RE IMPROVING THE TOWN STANDARDS. THAT WAS WHAT WHAT WAS A GAP BETWEEN WHAT WE WERE SHOWING IMPROVED AND THE CONNECTION TO THE BALANCE OF CAPITAL. AND IF IT BECAME A PRIVATE ROAD FROM FORT HILL DOWN TO THE CUL DE SAC, THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME AGREEMENT AMONG THE PROPERTY OWNERS ON THAT ROAD TO MAINTAIN IT. YES, THEY WOULD NEED TO HAVE EITHER AN HOA OR SOME KIND OF DECLARATION AND MEMORIALIZED AND RECORDED WITH THEIR DEEDS. AND COULD THAT BE IMPOSED ON THE EXISTING OWNERS? WELL, THE EXISTING OWNER, THERE'S NOTHING REALLY THERE FOR.

THE EXISTING. HOUSES.

THERE ARE HOUSES, RIGHT. THAT THAT.

THERE ARE NO EXISTING HOUSES THAT SERVICE OFF OF WHAT WILL BE, UH, IMPROVED. THEY ALL ARE EITHER FROM OTHER ROADS OR ARE ON THE IMPROVED SECTION. SO THE HOA, I PRESUME, UH, THAT THE HOA THAT WE WOULD WE'RE GOING TO HAVE FOR THE DRAINAGE WOULD TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ALL OF THE ROAD BUILDING. SO ON THE ON THE PLANS, THE, THE HOME LABELED 18 CASTLE WALK. UH, HOW IS THAT HOUSE ACCESSED? I THINK THAT'S THE QUESTION.

24. SO CAN EVERYONE HEAR ME? YES. YES. OKAY, SO I'M GOING TO BRING UP A GIS MAP TO SHOW THE BOARD AND WALK THE BOARD THROUGH, UH, THIS SCENARIO AROUND HERE. UH, JUST BEAR WITH ME FOR A SECOND.

AND, JB, IF YOU CAN TAKE DOWN YOUR SHARE SCREEN, I'LL BE ABLE TO SHOW IT TO EVERYBODY. UM, GIVE ME ONE LITTLE. OKAY. THANK YOU. HERE WE GO. CAN EVERYONE SEE THIS? YES. YES. OKAY, GREAT. SO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT FORT HILL, WHICH IS UP HERE, RIGHT? THIS IS CASTLE BLOCK THAT COMES OFF OF FORT HILL. CURRENTLY A PUBLIC ROAD. OKAY. THEN THERE'S 90 DEGREE TURN THAT GOES UP TO THIS CUL DE SAC. ALL CURRENT AND PUBLIC. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DOWN HERE. UH, HIGHLIGHTED. SO THIS PIECE CURRENTLY, WHICH IS A RIGHT OF WAY, HAS A DRIVEWAY. UM, THIS LARGE HOUSE AT TEN CASTLE LOT HAS KIND OF A DUAL DRIVEWAY. SO THIS PIECE GOES OUT TO THE PUBLIC PORTION, AND THEN IT WRAPS ALL THE WAY AROUND AND GOES OUT TO THIS CURRENT PRIVATE DRIVEWAY. NOW, KEEP IN MIND, THERE WAS A HOUSE ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY YEARS AGO THAT WAS DEMOLISHED. UH, PROBABLY 20 PLUS YEARS AGO. SO THERE WAS A PRIVATE DRIVEWAY THAT CAME DOWN AND ACCESSED INTERIOR. THAT'S WHY WE CAN CURRENTLY ACCESS THIS PROPERTY THROUGH KIND OF A BEAT UP DRIVEWAY. UM, THIS PROPERTY SOMEONE ASKS ABOUT 18 CASTLE LOT AND THEIR DRIVEWAY GOES OUT TO THE CURRENT PUBLIC. UH, PORTION OF CASTLE LAW NOW IN CONNECTION WITH 18 CASTLE WALK. THERE WAS A SUBDIVISION

[00:45:05]

THAT'S NOT NOT SOMETHING THAT WOULD LIKELY BE ACCEPTABLE. SO THEREFORE, AT THAT TIME, THE TOWN WOULD LIKELY NOT ACCEPT AN OFFER OF DEDICATION FOR THIS. WHAT I'LL JUST CALL RIGHT NOW, CASTLE WALK EXTENSION. UH, EVEN THOUGH IT'S YET TO BE MADE, DOES THAT MAKE SENSE TO EVERYONE OR ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS I CAN HELP ANSWER? WELL, I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THE TIMING OF ALL THIS, THE ONE THE SUBDIVISION THAT HASN'T BEEN BUILT OUT YET. AND, YOU KNOW, IT WAS ON A PRIVATE ROAD, IF THAT. YOU KNOW, IF THAT LAGS BEHIND THIS SUBDIVISION, THEN YOU COULD BUILD THIS ONE OUT TO THE TOWN STANDARDS. BUT THE TOWN ISN'T GOING TO MAINTAIN IT. PLOW IT. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A BEAUTIFUL ROAD THAT YOU KNOW, THAT THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THOSE THREE HOUSES ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR.

THAT'S RIGHT. AND PRIVATE ROADS ARE NOT. YOU KNOW, I WOULDN'T SAY THEY'RE COMMON, BUT THEY'RE NOT UNHEARD OF ACROSS GREENBURG. CORRECT.

AND IF I HEARD THE APPLICANT CORRECTLY, THE CALTEX WILL BE TAKEN CARE OF BY SOME FORM OF HOA. SO THE ROAD WILL ALSO BE TAKEN CARE OF, SOME FORM OF HOA FOR THAT SECTION.

THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S CORRECT.

IF THAT ROAD EVER GOT DEDICATED, THEN THE TOWN BECOMES RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE STORM MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ON THE ROAD. NO.

NO. NO, IT'S NOT IN THE ROAD. IT'S IT'S ON THE IT'S IN THE ADJACENT AREAS.

IT'S ON THE ADJACENT LAND. SO IT WOULD BE DONE.

ENGINEERING HAS THE ABILITY TO REQUIRE A STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT BE RECORDED AND FILED, AND ALSO REFERENCE THE PLANS FOR MAINTENANCE OF THE STORMWATER SYSTEM. AND AS IDENTIFIED WITH THE HOA, IT WOULD BE MEMORIALIZED AS AN OBLIGATION IN THE HOA REFERENCE. THE STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT SO IT WOULD GO, UM, HOA OR WHATEVER AGREEMENT THAT THEY HAVE. UM, THEN IF THEY FAIL TO DO THAT, THERE WOULD BE NOTICE, UH, SENT BY BUREAU OF ENGINEERING AND THE TOWN COULD COME IN AND DO THE WORK AND THEN BUILD IT BACK.. AND THE PRIVATE IF, IF, IF THAT HOUSE ISN'T BUILT OUT AND THAT PRIVATE ROAD IS IN IT CHANGED.

HAS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, YOU KNOW, SIGNED OFF ON IT IN TERMS OF. ACCESS, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THE PLANS AND HAS PROVIDED COMMENTS.

SO THE YES, THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED, UM, THE PLANS AND HAS DEEMED THE PLANS ACCEPTABLE FOR FIRE ACCESS. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING. THERE WOULD NOT BE A SECTION THAT WAS NOT IMPROVED TO TOWN STANDARDS FOR BUILD OUT OF THE ROAD. ALL OF IT WOULD BE IMPROVED TO TOWN STANDARDS. AS MR. INDICATED.

UH, THEY DO HAVE THE EASEMENT DOES GRANT THEM THE RIGHT TO

[00:50:01]

NO, IT WOULD BE IMPROVED TO TOWN STANDARDS AS PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION, REGARDLESS OF IF THAT OTHER HOUSE HAS BEEN.

ALL THEY HAVE ACCESS RIGHTS, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO PAVE IT AND IMPROVE IT TO TOWN STANDARD REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISION. AND DO THEY HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO COOPERATE WITH THAT? THE THERE IS A LEGAL EASEMENT THAT ALLOWS THEM TO IMPROVE, UH, THE ROAD.

THAT ALLOWS YOU TO IMPROVE THE ROAD.

NGALA. NGALA, THE OWNERS OF 14 CASTLE WALK. THEY HAVE AN A RECORDED EASEMENT WHERE THEY CAN. THEY CAN IMPROVE, UH, THE ACCESS AND THE RIGHT OF WAY UP. THAT'S CURRENTLY PRIVATE. YES.

AND I GUESS TO THE WEST OF WHERE THEIR PROPERTY IS.

YES. IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND SO IT SOUNDS THE QUESTION IS, IT'S IT'S CLEAR THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO IMPROVE THE, THE RIGHT OF WAY. THEY DON'T OWN. THE QUESTION IS WHETHER THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO DEDICATE. WHAT THEY, THEY WOULDN'T.

RIGHT. SO THEY'D HAVE TO COOPERATE WITH THE THE OWNER WITH 14 CASTLE WALK. AND IF THEY JOINTLY WANTED TO DEDICATE THE WHOLE ROAD TO THE TOWN.

CORRECT. THEN IT COULD BE, UH, DEDICATED IF THE OWNERS OF 14 CASTLE WALK, UH, DECLINE DEDICATING AND THEY HAVE NO OBLIGATION TO DEDICATE UM THEN THE NOGALES WOULD BE, UH, EFFECTIVELY FORCED TO KEEP THE ROAD PRIVATE AND SUFFER THE CONSEQUENCES OF A PRIVATE. ROAD AND MAINTAIN THE ROAD.

MAINTAIN THE ROAD. AND SHOULDN'T.

THERE BE SOME DISCUSSIONS NOW BETWEEN THE GALLO AND 18 AS TO WHETHER THEY'RE GOING TO COOPERATE WITH.

I THINK THAT'S WHY THEY SAID THEY'RE GOING TO HIRE COUNSEL.

OKAY. I MEAN, IT'S PRETTY FAR ALONG I THOUGHT THIS WOULD ALREADY HAVE. BEEN DONE. SO THAT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO THEM. WHETHER THEY HAVE IT PRIVATE OR PUBLIC. UM, THEY JUST BY BUILDING IT TO TOWN STANDARD, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO GET A WAIVER OR POTENTIALLY A VARIANCE. YEAH.

OKAY. THE THAT 50 FOOT EASEMENT RIGHT AWAY. WHO OWNS THAT. I MEAN IT OVERLAPS WHICH.

OVERLAPS TEN CASTLE WALK 18 CASTLE WALK 24 CASTLE WALK AND 14 CASTLE WALK. THEY OWN THE PORTIONS OF THEIR PROPERTY THAT CROSS ONTO THAT RIGHT. OF WAY. AND WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THAT RIGHT OF WAY? WHAT IS IT? UH, FOR THIS VERY SUBDIVISION, ESSENTIALLY, UM, IT'S THE THE PURPOSE IS TO ALLOW FOR THE INCREASE OF ACCESS FOR ROAD BUILT TO TOWN STANDARDS, FOR SUITABLE ACCESS.

AT ONE POINT, ACCESS TO EXISTING LOTS.

YEAH. ACCESS TO EXISTING LOTS. UM, YOU MAY ALSO NOTICE THERE IS A RIGHT OF WAY THAT GOES DOWN TO CENTRAL.

YEAH. UM, THAT WAS NEVER FULLY DEVELOPED INTO A ROAD. AT ONE POINT THERE WAS, UM, SOME KIND OF TRAIL THAT ENABLED VEHICULAR TRAVEL, BUT I THINK IT'S BEEN NEGLECTED OVER THE YEARS. UM, PRESUMABLY. YOU CAN STILL.

AND WHO OWNS MY CAR? THAT'S THE 50 FOOT RIGHT OF WAY.

YEAH. SO IT'S 50 FOOT BECAUSE THAT'S THE STANDARD WIDTH FOR A RIGHT OF WAY. YEAH. AND WHO OWNS THAT? UH, THAT IS OWNED BY 14 CASTLE WALK UNTIL IT CROSSES THEIR PROPERTY LINE INTO, UM, THE. SHOPPING PLAZA, SHOPPING PLAZAS ON CENTRAL AVENUE. AND THEN. AND THEN THEY OWN IT.

YEAH. AND DO ANY OF THE UTILITIES THAT CONNECT DOWN BY CENTRAL AVENUE HAVE TO GET APPROVAL FROM THE SHOPPING CENTER? NO, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE THROUGH THE SAME RIGHT OF WAY WHERE THERE'S AN EASEMENT RECORDED.

YEAH. AND WHAT DOES THAT EASEMENT FOR.

THE EASEMENTS FOR ACCESS AND UTILITIES. YEAH.

IT IS FOR ACCESS AND UTILITIES. ALL RIGHT. UH. HAS ARE YOU HAVE YOU MADE AN INQUIRY THAT THAT IN TERMS OF UTILITIES, STORMWATER, SEWER, THAT THE TOWN HAS CAPACITY TO SERVE THIS PROJECT? BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO TIE IN DOWN, I THINK, ON CENTRAL AVENUE IS WHERE THESE UTILITIES ARE.

UH, SO I CAN SPEAK TO IT MORE, BUT I BELIEVE, UH, WATER AND ELECTRICITY AND GAS ARE GOING TO GO UP THROUGH CASTLE WALK WHILE SEWER WILL TIE IN THROUGH THAT EASEMENT THAT GOES DOWN TO CENTRAL AVENUE. SANITARY OR STORM SEWER? SANITARY. SANITARY.

IS THE STANDARD SANITARY AND STORM SEWER WILL GO THROUGH THAT EASEMENT TOWARD CENTRAL AVENUE.

[00:55:01]

OKAY. UH, THERE WAS AND MAYBE, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A DISCUSSION AT THAT LAST MEETING ABOUT THIS 25 FOOT SETBACK. YES. CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THAT'S ABOUT? UH, SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE, UH, STANDARDS FOR SEPARATION BETWEEN A STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM INVOLVING INFILTRATION UNITS LIKE CALTEX, WHICH ARE PROPOSED, WAS INCREASED FROM THE PREVIOUS STANDARD OF TEN FEET FROM ANY STRUCTURE TO 25FT. UM, I BELIEVE THE INTENT IS TO TRY AND MITIGATE ANY RISK OF EXCESS WATER SEEPAGE INTO, LIKE, BASEMENTS OR INTO THE FOUNDATION. SO AS PART OF THEIR REVISIONS FROM LAST MEETING, THEY HAD TO SHIFT THINGS AROUND TO GET THAT SEPARATION. AND SO.

THAT. JUST ADDS THE BACK UP TO THAT.

THAT IS A REQUIREMENT IN THE NEW YORK STATE STORM DESIGN MANUAL, WHICH WAS UPDATED IN 2024. SO WHILE THIS SUBDIVISION HAS BEEN AROUND FOR A WHILE, THAT THAT NEW STANDARD CAME IN FLOOD. OKAY. AND SO THESE THESE HOUSES HAVE BEEN DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THAT.

THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S WHY WE HAD TO SHIFT SOME OF THE BUILDINGS SLIGHTLY AND, UH, IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THAT FROM WHERE WE WERE, THE APPLICATION, UH, ORIGINALLY WAS NOT SUBMITTED WITH THAT, OR IF IT WAS TO THE OLD, UH, REQUIREMENTS OF TENNESSEE. OKAY.

IT DOES NOW COMPLY. OKAY. UM, I UNDERSTAND THAT IN TERMS OF TREE REMOVAL, THERE'S NO PLAN RIGHT NOW TO REMOVE INVASIVE TREES OR DEAD TREES. WHY WOULDN'T YOU WANT TO BE DOING THAT? WHY WOULD YOU WANT TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY AND HAVE A LOT OF DEAD AND INVASIVE TREES ON IT? WELL, I SUPPOSE IT'S IT'S A IT'S A QUESTION OF APPROVALS.

UM, YOU KNOW, IT TAKES A NUMBER OF YEARS TO GET APPROVALS TO ADVANCE. UM, PREDICTING WHAT WHAT NEEDS TO COME DOWN BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE SERVICE. UM, WAS JUST AN ENDEAVOR. WE DIDN'T WE DIDN'T GET INTO IT. UM, WE WE COULD, UM, WE'D LIKE TO, I GUESS, HAVE A SENSE THAT, YOU KNOW, THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IS, IS IS FEASIBLE. UM, BUT YOU COULD YOU COULD DO THAT. THE THE CONTRACT WAS THE LIMITED DISTURBANCE WAS GOING TO, UH, ESSENTIALLY BE A DEMARCATION LINE TO LEAVE THE REST OF AT NASHVILLE. UH, BUT WE CERTAINLY COULD LOOK AT IT, YOU KNOW, UH, ASSESSING THE TREE TO BUILD. OUT WHAT? SO WAS THE TREE SURVEY ONLY CONDUCTED WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE, OR DID IT ENCOMPASS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY? NO, WE HAVE THE THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.

COULD YOU TAKE FROM THAT, UH, TREE SURVEY, IDENTIFY THOSE TREES WHICH ARE PROPOSED TO REMAIN AND ARE INVASIVE. AND, UH, IF THE CHIEF SURVEY IDENTIFIES THE CONDITION OF THE TREE, IDENTIFIED THOSE WHICH ARE DEAD OR IN POOR CONDITION.

IS THAT SOMETHING THAT IS POSSIBLE.? AT THIS POINT, WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK OUT AND LOOK AT IT. THE SURVEY IS SO OLD, UH, THAT I DON'T THINK THAT WE COULD REASONABLY RELY ON THAT. WHEN WAS THE SURVEY CONDUCTED? I I'M NOT SURE. I'M NEW TO THE PROJECT. UH, IN THE LAST YEAR, MAYBE SIX YEARS OLD, POTENTIALLY.

AS WE'VE SEEN IN OTHER PROJECTS, INVASIVE TREES CAN GO GROW QUITE QUICKLY IN THAT TIME FRAME. UM.

I MEAN, IF THE SURVEY IS NOT GOOD FOR SOME ASPECTS, IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOOD FOR ANY ASPECTS.

MM MM. WELL, YOU CAN SEE IT FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT TREES ARE WERE ON THE PROPERTY. UH, I MEAN, IT COULD BE LESS, UM, NOW THAT THE SO CALLED OVER.

OR THERE OR THERE COULD BE MORE. BECAUSE IF I'M, IF I'M REMEMBERING THE CODE CORRECTLY, ONLY A CERTAIN DIAMETER OF TREE IS REGULATED. BUT AT SIX YEARS LATER, WHAT WASN'T A REGULATED TREE COULD, COULD HAVE NOW GROWN INTO A REGULATED TREE.

CORRECT. RIGHT. SO IF I COULD JUMP IN.

THANK YOU. UM, I THINK THE BOARD MAKES A GOOD POINT OF REQUESTING AT THIS TIME, BEING THAT THE PROJECT IS TRENDING FORWARD WITH THE PLANNING BOARD HERE. YOU KNOW, NOW YOU'RE BACK TO THE THIRD WORK SESSION, AND YOU'RE ANSWERING A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ASKED. I THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE, UH, FOR THE TREE SURVEY TO BE UPDATED BECAUSE AS CHAIRPERSON TIME INDICATED. UM, AND OTHERS THAT

[01:00:06]

DOES. AND AND. AND DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT. WELL, WHILE WE'RE GIVING OUT HOMEWORK, I RECALL WHEN WE SPOKE ON MONDAY, THERE WAS ALSO AN ISSUE WITH THE PLANS. AND I THINK IT WAS HOW HOW THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE WERE, WERE DEPICTED ON THE PLANS. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT THE ISSUE WAS, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS RAISED AS WELL. YES. SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THAT UP HERE FOR SOME TIME. SO ADDITIONALLY, UM, IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL. AND WE WOULD CALL SEEING LIMITS AND DISTURBANCE IDENTIFIED THROUGHOUT THE PLAN SETS. MAYBE ON PRIOR ITERATIONS, BUT ON THE MOST CURRENT SET, WE DO NOT SEE THE LIMITS AS DISTURBANCE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED ALONG ALL PLANNED STREETS. SO WE WOULD ASK THE PROJECT., OKAY. WE JUST.

WE WE COULD DO BOTH OF THOSE. WE CAN WE COULD UPDATE THE SURVEY. NO, NO NO PROBLEM. WE CAN WE'LL ADD THAT LIMITS DISTURBANCE AND WE WILL IDENTIFY TREES THAT EITHER, YOU KNOW FIND QUALITY OF TREES. AND ALSO MY SPECIES WILL EVER GET HAVE A MORE ROBUST DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT COULD POTENTIALLY NEED TO COME OUT. RIGHT. AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE ORIGINAL SURVEY, OR AT LEAST THE ASSESSMENT OF TREES, WAS DONE BY QUALIFIED PROFESSIONALS. SO WE REGRET.

THAT WE'LL HAVE AN ANSWER AS TO IT.

FANTASTIC. AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, WITH RESPECT TO THAT AND FEEL FREE TO REACH OUT TO OUR OFFICE.

OKAY. RELATED TO.

THE. UH, MISS MISS ROBINSON OR WANT TO. YEAH, I THINK WE'RE.

GOING TO. ABOUT THE.

GO AHEAD RELATED TO TREES AND THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE. ANY TREES PROPOSED TO REMAIN THAT ARE WITHIN THE LIMITS OF DISTURBANCE ARE REQUIRED TO BE PROTECTED. UH, SO WE REQUEST THAT YOU SHOWED THE PROTECTION FOR THE TREES ON THE PLANS, UH, FOR US, THAT WOULD BE, UH, CHANNELING FENCING AT THE DRIP LINE OF THE TREES. UM, SO IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY THOSE ON THE PLANS AS WELL. OKAY.

MISS ROBINSON, WAS THAT YOUR QUESTION? EXCELLENT. UM, ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME, RECOGNIZING THAT THIS WILL BE BACK IN FRONT OF US ONCE. ONCE? UH, THESE THESE.

UM, I GUESS. ONE OTHER COMMENT WITH THE FENCING. SO I KNOW, YOU KNOW, THIS PROJECT HAS EXISTED FOR QUITE SOME TIME. AND ONE THING THAT'S BEEN UPDATED OVER THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS IS THAT FOR THE SILT FENCING WITH THE EROSION CONTROL, UM, THE REQUEST IS GENERALLY BE TO INCLUDE A WIRE BACKED SILT FENCING, UM, WHERE POSSIBLE.

AND SHRUB. AND SHRUBS.

TO SHOW IT ON THE PLAN. AS WELL. YEAH. INCREASE THE UM THE PROTECTION DURING CONSTRUCTION.

AND MONITORING THE SAME. RIGHT. MR. PATEL.

I THINK. BUILDING THE ROAD TO TOWN STANDARDS ARE YOU DO YOU HAVE STREETLIGHTS? PROPOSED? YES, SIR. TOWN STREETLIGHTS. OKAY.

YEAH. AND I THINK IN A PREVIOUS MEETING, UM, THERE WERE DIFFERENT STREETLIGHTS THAT WERE PROPOSED IN THE PLANS. AND THE APPLICANT COORDINATED WITH, UH, DPW AND ENGINEERING TO ENSURE THAT THEY'RE USING THE SAME EXACT STREET LIGHTS THAT THAT ARE USED ELSEWHERE IN TOWN. SO IF, IF AND AGAIN, THIS IS AN IF AT THIS POINT. BUT IF THE ROAD IS DEDICATED AND THE TOWN RESPONSIBLE TO TAKE OVER MAINTENANCE AND THE STREET LIGHTS. THAT THEY WOULD HAVE, YOU KNOW, ALL THE SAME PARTS AND THEY WOULD BE STREET LIGHTS THAT THEY WOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH. UM. ONE AND WELL, ONE OTHER QUICK QUESTION. UM, GOING

[01:05:10]

OKAY, GREAT. YEAH. SO THERE'S TWO ITEMS. FOR CLOSE. AND WOULD WOULD THE HYDRANTS BE BE DEDICATED AND BE PUBLIC OR HOW WOULD THE HYDRANT MAINTENANCE WORK. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. UM.

WE'VE HAD BOTH PRIVATE AND PUBLIC HYDRANTS DEPENDING ON THE PROJECT. BUT AND I GUESS IS THERE A UNIVERSE WHERE THE HYDRANTS CAN BE PUBLIC BUT THE ROAD IS PRIVATE, OR IS IT ALL OR NOTHING? WELL, SO THE SEWER AND THE WATER WOULD BE TURNED OVER. I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT AND COORDINATION WITH ENGINEERING. HOWEVER, I THINK THEY WOULD BE INCLINED TO PREFER THAT THE HYDRANTS BE PUBLIC.

SURE. ALL RIGHT. SO SO I THINK REGARDLESS OF WHAT WHAT THE DECISION IS OR THE RESOLUTION IS ON THE THE ROAD, BEING PRIVATE, I THINK SOME CONVERSATIONS NEED TO OCCUR ABOUT, UM, THE HYDRANTS BEING PUBLIC REGARDLESS.

YEAH. I BELIEVE THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT WILL REQUIRE THAT THE SEWER AND THE AND THE WATER BE PART OF THE SEWER WATER DISTRICT. YES, YES.

AND BY WAY OF THAT PUBLIC. YEAH. WATER AND SEWER.

CORRECT. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THAT CARRIES TO THE HYDRANTS.

UM, WE DO HAVE CERTAIN PLACES IN TOWN THAT DO HAVE PRIVATE HYDRANTS. SO. SO THAT'S JUST.

NEWER DEVELOPMENTS THAT STILL HAVE PRIVATE HYDRANTS AS WELL.

SO I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING TO ALSO EXPLORE.

UM, YEAH, I AGREE. UM, COULD YOU PROVIDE AN UPDATE ON THE STATUS OF THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT? WE ARE BECAUSE WE HAVE SUCH A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE PROPERTY LINES OF THE RIGHT OF WAY. THE SURVEYOR IS STILL WORKING ON THAT, BUT WE WILL GET THAT TO YOU PROMPTLY. GREAT. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? AND THIS WILL CERTAINLY COME BACK IN FRONT OF US AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. ALL RIGHT THEN. THANK YOU. AND AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU HOPEFULLY SOON.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. ALL RIGHT. UH, SO IT IS NOW 815, MAKING GOOD TIME. UM, SO WE ARE NOW ENTERING THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF OUR MEETING. UM, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO. MOVE, MOVE. MR. PULLINGER. SECOND.

SECOND. MR. PATEL. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. AYE. CHAIR. VOTES. I, UM, TOWN PLANNER. BRITAIN MAY CONDUCT THE ROLL.

SURE. UH, MR. WEINBERG HERE. MISS ANDERSON HERE. MR. PATEL HERE. CHAIRPERSON PAYNE HERE. MISS ROBINSON HERE. MR. PULLINGER HERE. AND FOR THE SAKE OF THIS APPLICATION, UH. MR. PATEL WILL BE THE VOTING MEMBER. SO I DON'T KNOW IF WE WILL TAKE ANY VOTES THIS EVENING. ALL RIGHT.

WELCOME. HI. GOOD EVENING. UM, MY NAME IS DIANA TAVARES. I'M HERE WITH THERESA MARBLE AND, UM, PETER CALZONE AND ANDREA KIM, THE APPLICANT. I'M JUST GOING TO SHARE MY SCREEN REAL QUICK. OKAY. I'LL HAND IT OFF THIS WEEK. OKAY. SO GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. UM, WE'RE HERE FOR OUR STEEP SLOPE PERMIT AND OUR TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. UM, PUBLIC HEARING. BUT BEFORE WE GET INTO THAT, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GIVE KIND OF A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF, UM, YOU KNOW, HOW WE GOT TO THIS POINT IN THE DESIGN WITH DEMOLISHING EXISTING HOUSE, BUILDING A NEW HOUSE? UM, BEFORE WE GET INTO THE SITE DETAILS. SO, UM, WE ACTUALLY BEGAN THIS PROJECT BACK IN 2023 WHEN ANDREA, THE OWNER, HIRED US TO RENOVATE THE EXISTING HOUSE. UM, IT'S THE HOUSE SHE GREW UP IN, AND SHE WISHED TO RENOVATE IT, TURN IT INTO HER FOREVER HOME. UM, YOU CAN SEE THE IMAGES HERE. UM, THE HOUSE IS KIND OF SET UP ON THE HILL ON THE PROPERTY. UM. STEEP DRIVEWAY. THE BACK HAS A LITTLE PATIO AREA, AND THE BACKYARD IS DIVIDED BY A RETAINING WALL. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, GAIN SLOPE AS IT GOES TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. UM, SO WE PURSUE THE RENOVATION BY ADDING ON TO THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. UM, EVEN GOT IT THROUGH BID DOCUMENTS. AT THAT POINT, WE GOT SOME PRICING IN AND HAD TO START REEVALUATING. THE HOUSE HAD MANY ISSUES WITH IT.

LOW FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHT, ASBESTOS THROUGHOUT, EXTERIOR AND INTERIOR MATERIALS. UM, UNINSULATED WALLS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO STRIP IT DOWN TO THE STUDS IN ORDER TO MAKE THE PROJECT VIABLE. DO THE COMPLETE RENOVATION. MEET ENERGY CODE.

[01:10:04]

UM, SO THEN WHAT WE ENDED UP DOING, UM, IS WE ARE PROPOSING A NEW BUILD, UM, THAT KEEPS THAT SAME SPLIT LEVEL CONFIGURATION OF THE EXISTING HOUSE WITH THE GARAGE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. SECOND FLOOR BEDROOMS ABOVE.

UM, LIVING ROOM ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. UH, WITH KITCHEN BEYOND. UM, WE FELT THIS WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE HOUSE. UH, JUST KEEP IT RELATING TO THE PROPERTIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH BEING OF THE SAME KIND OF CONFIGURATION AS MANY ARE SPLIT LEVEL. UM, WE ALSO TRIED TO KEEP THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE IN MUCH THE SAME PROPORTIONS. UM, IN THE NEW DESIGN, THE HOUSE IS ONLY EXTENDING SIX FEET FURTHER TO THE EAST OF THE PROPERTY THAN THE EXISTING HOUSE DID. UM, AND WE CHOSE TO ADD ON AT THE BACK OF THE HOUSE RATHER THAN GO UP.

WE FELT IT WAS VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP THE SAME HEIGHT, UM, PROPORTIONS. UM, AND ALSO THE ENTIRE NEW DESIGN IS AS OF RIGHT AS FAR AS ZONING GOES, NO ZONING VARIANCES. UM, JUST WANTED TO BRING THIS UP BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT WHY IT WAS A NEW BUILD VERSUS RENOVATION. UM, SO.

AND IF I. COULD JUST.

ASK ONE QUICK QUESTION. SO WHILE WHILE THE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS SLIGHTLY LARGER, UH, THE PROPOSAL REMAINS CODE COMPLIANT AND REQUIRES NO VARIANCES.

REQUIRES NO VARIANCES. CORRECT. YES. THANK YOU. I'M JUST GOING TO BRIEFLY GO THROUGH THE, UH, SITE PLANS. UM, STARTING WITH THE STEEP SLOPES. SO THE NEW DWELLING IS GENERALLY IN THE SAME, UH, AREA, BUT IT'S SHIFTED FORWARD TOWARDS JOICE ROAD. UH, APPROXIMATELY 15FT. UM, THE GARAGE FLOOR, UH, HAS ALSO BEEN LOWERED TO IMPROVE THE GRADE OF THE DRIVEWAY. AND, UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE MAJORITY OF THE STEEP SLOPES ARE IN THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. UM, THIS IS THE GRADING, THE EXISTING, UH, THE EXISTING, UH, GRADES ALONG THE DRIVEWAY RANGE ABOUT FROM 19 TO 24%. AND WE'RE PROPOSING APPROXIMATELY SEVEN, 13%. UM, AND THE GARAGE HAS ALSO BEEN LOWERED, UM, 3.2FT FROM THE EXISTING GARAGE ELEVATION. UH, THESE ARE THE UTILITIES WHERE, UM, WE PROPOSE TO ABANDON THE WATER AND SEWER SERVICES PER TOWN STANDARDS. WE'RE ALSO PROPOSING A A NEW TWO, UM, INCH COPPER, UM, WATER SERVICE TO ACCOMMODATE DOMESTIC AND FIRE. WE ALSO HAVE A NEW FOUR INCH SANITARY SEWER CONNECTION AND A NEW SIX INCH, UH, STORM CONNECTION. UH, THIS IS OUR LANDSCAPE PLAN. UM, A TOTAL OF NINE TREES. UM, ARE IDENTIFIED TO BE REMOVED. UM, WITH ONLY ONLY ONE OF THOSE NINE TREES ARE REGULATED. AND IS IT'S GOING TO BE THAT TREE THAT'S SOMEWHERE HERE, A TEN INCH, UH, PIN CHERRY OAK. UH, I'M SORRY, A TEN INCH PIN CHERRY TREE. THE EXISTING 36 INCH PIN OAK IS, UM, IS TO REMAIN. UM, WE HAVE PROVIDED A SWEEP AND AN EROSION SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN, WHICH PROPOSES A CLOSED DETENTION SYSTEM. UM, AT THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY. AND A DRY SWALE ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE DWELLING.

THE CLOSE ATTENTION SYSTEM WILL CAPTURE RUNOFF FROM THE ENTIRE ROOF AND THE REAR TERRACE. UM, DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE DETENTION SYSTEM AND THE ELEVATION OF THE DRIVEWAY, RUNOFF FROM THE DRIVEWAY WILL NOT BE DIRECTED INTO THE SYSTEM. HOWEVER, THE SWEEP THAT THE TOTAL POST DEVELOPMENT PEAK DISCHARGE FROM THE SITE WILL NOT EXCEED THE EXISTING PEAK DISCHARGE. FOR STORMS UP TO AND INCLUDING THE 100 YEAR STORM.

UM, THE SWEEP AND THE EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN HAS BEEN REVIEWED BY SEVERAL STAFF. UM, TOWN STAFF? YES.

YEAH. COULD YOU. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT ABOUT THE STORMWATER, PLEASE? YES. SURE. UM, BECAUSE OF THE LOCATION OF, UH, THE, UH, THE DRIVEWAY, THE ELEVATION OF THE DRIVEWAY. UM, THE RUNOFF WILL NOT BE DIRECTED INTO THE SYSTEM, BUT THE SWEEP DEMONSTRATES A TOTAL, UM, THE TOTAL POST DEVELOPMENT PEAK DISCHARGE FROM THE SITE WILL NOT EXCEED THE EXISTING PEAK DISCHARGE FOR UP TO AND

[01:15:04]

YES. CORRECT. GREAT. SO, IF I MAY, WHEN WE LAST MET, I EXPRESSED CONCERN ABOUT RUNOFF FROM THE PROPERTY IMPACTING RUNNING INTO THE STREET, WHICH IS AT AN ANGLE.

AND TRADITIONALLY, BECAUSE I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. UM, THE WATER FLOWS DOWN TO THE SEWERS, THE SEWERS ARE, UNFORTUNATELY, INEVITABLY COVERED WITH LEAVES, ETC., AND WE WIND UP GETTING AN ICING CONDITION ON JOYCE. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING, AND I LOOKED AT THE PLANS AND I THINK MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD IT AS AN INCONSISTENCY, OR I'M MISREADING SOMETHING THAT, UM, THERE WOULD BE NO ADDITIONAL CAPTURE, BUT THAT THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL RUNOFF DOWN THE DRIVEWAY. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M FOCUSING ON. UM, AND IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU JUST SAID, I'M NOT AN ENGINEER. THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL RUNOFF FROM THE PROPERTY DOWN THE DRIVEWAY INTO THE STREET. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? YES. THERE WILL BE NO ADDITIONAL RUNOFF. UM, AND JUST TO CLARIFY, UH, THE ROOF AND THE ENTIRE THE ENTIRE ROOF AND THE TERRACE ARE GOING INTO THE, UH, CLOSE ATTENTION SYSTEM, WHICH IS THEN ROUTED INTO THE MUNICIPAL STORM. SO COMPARED TO EXISTING CONDITIONS WHERE EVERYTHING IS JUST COMING OFF TO THE STREET, ONLY THE DRIVEWAY, THAT PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY IS GOING ON TO THE STREET, BUT IT'S STILL, UH.

SO THAT PORTION OF THE DRIVE, IT WILL STILL GO INTO THE STREET. BUT IT'S STILL A DECREASE IN, UH, INFLOWS. EVEN SO.

YEAH. IS THERE. A POSSIBILITY OF PUTTING DRAINAGE ALONG THE DRIVEWAY OR PLANTINGS OR IN SOME WAY TO REDUCE THE RUNOFF STILL FURTHER? UM, I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO GET TO ZERO. I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE IT BETTER.

SO I THINK WHAT WE'VE SEEN ON OTHER PROJECTS SOMETIMES IS THAT WHEN IT'S NOT POSSIBLE TO INSTALL, LET'S SAY, A TRENCH DRAIN OR OTHER STORMWATER IMPROVEMENTS BECAUSE OF ROCK OR OTHER FEATURES. UM, WHAT WE'VE SEEN IS SOMETIMES APPLICANTS HAVE INSTALLED PLANTINGS OR SWALES TO KIND OF JUST SLOW THE FLOW RATE. RIGHT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? MHM.

OKAY. HI.

PETER. CALZONE. CALZONE ENGINEERING. UH I JUST WANT TO CHIME IN ON THIS TOPIC. SO UNDER THE EXISTING CONDITION, ALL OF THE RUNOFF GOES TO THE STREET. EVERY DROP OF WATER THAT RUNS OFF THE PROPERTY ENDS UP IN THE STREET UNDER THE PROPOSED CONDITIONS. MOST OF THE IMPERVIOUS AREA GOES TO THE STORM SEWER. SO IT'S OFF THE STREET. IT'S IN THE SEWER. THE COMPARISON THAT WE'RE MAKING OF ZERO INCREASE AT 100 IS THE COMBINATION OF EVERYTHING. THE PORTS OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LANDSCAPING THAT FLOWS ONTO THE STREET. PLUS WHAT'S GOING INTO THE SEWER. THE FAIR ASSESSMENT IS WHAT'S ACTUALLY THE TOTAL, WHETHER IT'S COMING OUT BY PIPE TO A STORM SEWER OR WHETHER IT'S OVERLAND. SO WHEN WE SAY THERE'S NO NET INCREASE, THAT IS TRUE. NO NET INCREASE FOR THE HUNDRED, A NET DECREASE FOR THE 25, TEN AND ONE. BUT THE DIFFERENCE IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THE RUNOFF FROM THE IMPERVIOUS SURFACES ARE NOT GOING TO THE STREET. THEY'RE GOING INTO THE STORM SEWER. SO FROM A PRACTICAL STANDPOINT, YOU ARE SEEING LESS DIRECT RUNOFF ONTO THE STREET, SIGNIFICANTLY LESS, UM, ONTO

[01:20:02]

DESPITE THE NUMBERS, THE NUMBERS SHOW A NET IMPROVEMENT.

BUT ALSO IN REALITY, THE ACTUAL RUNOFF TO THE STREET WILL BE LESS. JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU SAID PRE-DEVELOPMENT. WHEN YOU'RE SAYING PRE-DEVELOPMENT, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT EXISTING. EXISTING CONDITIONS.

NOT PRE-DEVELOPMENT. LIKE NO, NO, NOT A DEVELOPED SITE.

RIGHT. SO THAT'S CLARIFIED.

PRE-DEVELOPMENT POST DEVELOPMENT IS TERMINOLOGY USED BY THE NEW YORK STATE UH DESIGN MANUAL. UM, FOR US NORMAL PEOPLE, IT'S WHAT'S THERE NOW AND WHAT'S GOING TO BE THERE LATER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UM, WOULD THERE BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO INSTALL A TRENCH DRAIN THAT CONNECTS DIRECTLY INTO THE PIPE THAT CONNECTS TO THE STORM SEWER? SO, YOU KNOW, THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY NECESSARILY ANY MITIGATION PER SE, BUT IT WOULD PREVENT WATER FROM FLOWING FROM THE DRIVEWAY DOWN TO JOYCE ROAD AND KIND OF JUST PROVIDE THAT INSTANTANEOUS CONNECTION, SUBJECT TO DPW APPROVAL. OF COURSE. UM, THE ANSWER IS, LET ME JUST USE THE MOUSE HERE. IF, UH, THE ANSWER IS YES. UH, OUR PROPERTY LINE IS HERE, SO WE COULD INSTALL A TRENCH DRAIN ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE. THAT STILL LEAVES THIS PORTION BELOW THE PROPERTY LINE. UH, FLOW INTO THE STREET. I'M SURE THAT THE.

ALTHOUGH WE'RE HAPPY TO DO IT, I'M SURE THAT THE TOWN DOES NOT WANT A PRIVATE TRENCH DRAIN ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. SO IF THAT'S THE ASK, WE COULD CERTAINLY DO IT. UM, I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S A THERE'S A BIG BENEFIT OF HAVING IT AT THE PROPERTY LINE. BUT SURE, OUR DRAINAGE PIPE IS HERE. SO IF WE PUT A TRENCH DRAIN ACROSS THERE, IT'S AN EASY CONNECTION. WE COULD PUT IT ANYWHERE ON THE DRIVEWAY. THE MOST LOGICAL PLACE WOULD BE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DRIVEWAY. BUT AGAIN, IN THAT TRENCH DRAIN WOULD BE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY, WHICH MEANS IT WOULD BE PART OF THE TOWN RESPONSIBILITY. UM, NO.

SO. FOR RESPONSIBILITY AND JUST BE IN THE.

RIGHT TIME. SO YOU. WOULD GET DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY MADONNA, BUT WHAT DO YOU THINK? UM, SO THERE, UM, YOU'D LIKELY JUST NEED APPROVAL FROM DPW TO INSTALL THE TRENCH DRAIN AT THE BOTTOM OF THE DRIVEWAY. I MEAN, TECHNICALLY, YOUR DRIVEWAY IS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, RIGHT? WE'RE NOT GOING TO TELL YOU YOU CAN'T HAVE A DRIVEWAY. YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO SKIP OVER FROM THE EXISTING ROAD AND MOVE YOUR CAR TO YOUR PROPERTY. RIGHT? THE ROAD, THE RIGHT OF WAY IS THERE FOR, YOU KNOW, MAINTENANCE AND ACCESS PURPOSES, UM, AND UTILITIES AND THE LIKE. SO, UM, SORRY, BARBARA, THE, UM, I THINK WE CAN ASK DPW, UM, YOU KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, BUT I BELIEVE IT'S JUST, UM, YOU KNOW, SUBMISSION OF THE PLANS AND A REQUEST TO OBTAIN THAT PERMISSION.

YES. THAT'S FINE. WE'LL COORDINATE WITH DPW AND BUILDING IF NECESSARY. WE COULD SPEAK TO OUR CLIENT, BUT IT'S AN EASY. IT'S AN EASY ASK IF YOU'RE OKAY WITH.

IT, RIGHT. I THINK THE BOARD MEMBERS MAY APPRECIATE A DIRECT CONNECTION OF THAT REMAINING, UH, SURFACE FLOW. UM, INSTEAD OF JUS INTO THE STREET. RIGHT.

YEAH. GREAT.

YOU'RE LOWERING THE GARAGE? CORRECT? UM, YES. CORRECT. SO THEN YOU'RE GONNA REGRADE THE, UH, DRIVEWAY? UH.

YES. THE TRENCH DRAIN MAY WORK OUT.

YEAH. FOR SURE. UM. WE'RE ALSO MOVING THE HOUSE 15FT CLOSER TO THE STREET ON THE PROPERTY. SO WE ARE LOWERING THE GARAGE. BUT SOME OF THAT, THAT'S WHERE THE STEEP SLOPE IS OF THE DRIVEWAY. SO THERE IS SOME LOWERING AND REGRADING, BUT THERE'S ALSO JUST SOME OF THAT HEIGHT CHANGE THAT IT'S MADE UP BY MOVING THE HOUSE 15FT CLOSER TO THE STREET.

GREAT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? OTHERWISE I.

HAVE THIS. IS A CHAIRPERSON OKAY.

AND THEN THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC. AND THEN IF WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS WE CAN. UM LET'S LET'S SEE WHAT YOU GOT. PROCEDURAL. SURE. QUESTION.

OKAY. SINCE I'M RELATIVELY NEW, WE GOT A LETTER FROM A NEIGHBOR. YEP. WE LIKE TODAY. YEP.

[01:25:02]

AND I'M NOT LOOKING NECESSARILY FOR THEM TO STAND HERE TONIGHT AND, UH, YOU KNOW, GO OVER IT. BUT IF THEY COULD REPLY, UH, IN WRITING OR AT SOME OTHER WAY SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THE NEIGHBORS CONCERNS. SURE. SO I THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT IN IN TWO WAYS. UM, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT PUBLIC COMMENT CAN INFLUENCE US INDIVIDUALLY AND THE QUESTIONS WE ASK, YOU KNOW, NOT NOT TO, UH, NOT TO SHOW MY HAND, BUT CERTAINLY SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I ASKED EARLIER WERE DIRECTLY INFLUENCED BY, UH, THE COMMENTS THAT WE RECEIVED FROM FROM NEIGHBORS. AND SO HOPEFULLY ANYONE, ANYONE WATCHING THIS LIVE OR WATCHING IT AFTERWARDS, UM, FEELS FEELS LIKE THEIR QUESTIONS WERE WERE ANSWERED AND THEY HAVE MORE CLARITY. UM, IF THERE WERE ANY QUESTIONS, ANY OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS BASED ON THE FEEDBACK WE RECEIVED, UM, THAT ANYONE WANTS TO ASK FURTHER CLARIFYING QUESTIONS TO TO GET TO THE BOTTOM OF OF THOSE QUESTIONS, I WOULD CERTAINLY ENCOURAGE THEM TO DO SO. UM. I THINK.

IF IF WE FELT, UM, YOU KNOW, A, A POINT BY POINT RESPONSE, UM, WAS NECESSARY FOR US PERSONALLY TO FEEL COMFORTABLE IN, YOU KNOW, MOVE MAKING DECISIONS REGARDING THIS, THIS CASE, UM, WE COULD REQUEST A WRITTEN RESPONSE LIKE WE HAVE WITH MANY OTHER PROJECTS. UM, IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO BE IN RESPONSE TO THE THE NEIGHBORS QUESTIONS, BUT IT COULD BE QUESTIONS THAT WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, WHICH WERE INFORMED BY QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS WE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC. UM, AND ULTIMATELY ANY, ANY AND ALL OF YOU COULD, COULD REQUEST WRITTEN COMMENT, WRITTEN RESPONSE, IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU FEEL YOU NEED, UM, TO BE COMFORTABLE.

THANK YOU. I JUST, AS I SAY PROCEDURALLY, I WAS.

YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. UH. JUST CONFIRMING THAT THE THE LETTER WE RECEIVED FROM, UM, LAST NAME SAN SAN WAS CIRCULATED TO THE APPLICANTS TEAM.

YES. AND WE'RE PREPARED TO TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL REVIEWS FROM THE TOWN ENGINEER. SO.

GOOD. THANK YOU.

YEAH. AND SO IF THERE'S STILL OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS THE BOARD HAS, BASED ON THE COMMENTS WE RECEIVED, I'D ENCOURAGE THE BOARD, UM, TO CONTINUE TO, TO ASK THOSE QUESTIONS.

SO, I MEAN, ARE YOU ABLE TO DIRECTLY ANSWER THE QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC? SURE. PLEASE. UM, THE FIRST COMMENT WAS ABOUT THE, UH, THE 100 YEAR STORM, UM, WHICH I MENTIONED EARLIER.

THE, UM, I HAVE MY RESPONSE HERE. UM, YEAH. THE FIRST CONCERN WAS THE 100 YEAR, UH, PEAK DISCHARGE MATCHING THE EXISTING RATE RATE RATHER THAN PROVIDING A REDUCTION. SO THE TOWN CODE REQUIRES THE PROJECT TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE POST DEVELOPMENT PEAK DISCHARGE WILL NOT EXCEED. UM, THE THE EXISTING, UH, PEAK DISCHARGE THROUGH THE 25 YEAR STORM. UM, OUR ANALYSIS, UH, EVALUATES THE 100 YEAR STORM AND DEMONSTRATES THAT THERE IS NO INCREASE, UM, OF ANY OF THE STORMS AND THAT WE ACTUALLY PROVIDE A DECREASE IN THE 110 AND THE 25 YEAR STORM. UM, SO THAT'S NUMBER ONE. NUMBER TWO WAS THE, UH, SOIL CONDITIONS AND THE USE OF A CLOSED ATTENTION SYSTEM DUE TO THE SLOPES AND THE SOIL TEST AND SOIL TESTING AND INFILTRATION PRACTICE WAS NOT APPROPRIATE. ACCORDINGLY, THE DESIGN USES A CLOSED DETENTION SYSTEM, WHICH IS DOES NOT RELY ON INFILTRATION INTO THE UNDERLYING SOIL. UM, THE THIRD POINT WAS REGARDING THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS FOR LOT COVERAGE AND THE INCREASE IN IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE HAS BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR IN OUR STORMWATER ANALYSIS. UM, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, THE ENTIRE ROOF AND THE REAR TERRACE WILL BE CAPTURED AND DIRECTED INTO THE CLOSE ATTENTION SYSTEM. AND THEN THE LAST PART WAS THE, UM, THE MAINTENANCE, UM, OF THE PROPOSED STORMWATER FACILITIES.

UH, SECTION SIX OF OUR SWEEP CONTAINS, UH, THE LONG TERM INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE PLAN, WHICH ASSIGNS RESPONSIBILITY AND MAINTAINING THE SYSTEM AND ESTABLISHES THE

[01:30:01]

COMMENTS. THANK YOU. NO PROBLEM.

I ALSO WANT TO COMMENT THAT THE LAST TIME WE WERE HERE, I ADDRESSED MY CONCERNS REGARDING THE ASBESTOS REMOVAL AND I FOUND THE ASBESTOS ABATEMENT NARROWED NARRATIVE THAT YOU SUBMITTED TO US TO BE VERY HELPFUL AND THOROUGH, AND THAT IS AN AREA I HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF EXPERTISE, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR RESPONSE TO MY CONCERNS AND THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMUNITY. ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. UH, IS THERE ANYONE HERE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS CASE? ANYONE HERE IN THE ROOM? IS THERE ANYONE ON ZOOM WHO WOULD LIKE TO COMMENT ON THIS CASE? NO ONE ON ZOOM. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD AT THIS TIME? NO, NO. ALL RIGHT. UM, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND KEEP THE WRITTEN RECORD OPEN THROUGH SEPTEMBER 23RD.

SO MOVE, MOVE. MR. PULLINGER. SECOND. SECOND.

MR. ANDERSON. ALL IN FAVOR? I CHAIR VOTES I. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU VERY. MUCH.

UM, WE DO HAVE ONE REQUEST. IS IT POSSIBLE TO PREPARE A DRAFT RESOLUTION FOR THE NEXT MEETING? YES. SO STAFF WILL PREPARE A DRAFT RESOLUTION, UH, FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION AT THE OCTOBER 7TH MEETING. OKAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

YES. THAT'S RIGHT. AND I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE THAT I ACTUALLY SAID THIS AT THE START OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND SO, UH, THE CASE WE JUST HEARD WAS CASE NUMBER PB 2602.

KIM. UH, AND THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A PLANNING BOARD STEEP SLOPE PERMIT.. REMOVAL PERMIT ENTRY.

OKAY. ENTRY WILL MOVE A PERMIT. ALL RIGHT. I WILL ENTERTAIN.

SEEING NO OTHER CASES, I WILL. ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVED. MOVED. MISS ANDERSON.

SECOND. SECOND. MR. PATEL. ALL IN FAVOR.? I CHAIR BOW TIE. THANK YOU.

YEAH. VERY GOOD POINT. OKAY. UM, HOW ARE WE DOING? SO IT IS NOW, UH, 840. UM, I THINK THE THE 285 DISCUSSION WILL PROBABLY TAKE UP THE REST OF OUR MEETING, AND SO DO WE WANT A BIO BREAK OR DO WE WANT TO JUMP RIGHT INTO IT? QUICK BIO BREAK. ALL RIGHT. SO IT'S 840. WE'LL COME BACK AT 845. UH, AND RESUME WELCOME BACK TO THE, UH, WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 16TH, 2026. PLANNING BOARD MEETING. IT IS 8:46 P.M.. UH, THE REMAINING ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS A CONTINUED, UH, WORK SESSION ON THE PROPOSED CHAPTER 285 UH, CHAPTER AMENDMENTS. UM, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DO WITH THE REMAINDER OF OUR TIME, UH, THERE WAS STILL SOME ITEMS FROM THE BULLETS THAT, UH, STAFF PREPARED AND DISTRIBUTED, UH, OUTLINING OUR DISCUSSIONS FROM OUR MAY AND JUNE AND JULY DISCUSSIONS, UM, AS WELL AS PROBABLY JUST A HANDFUL OF REMAINING BULLETS FROM THE ADDITIONAL BULLETS THAT THAT I HAD WRITTEN UP AND HAD BEEN DISTRIBUTED. UM, I THINK A COUPLE WITH THE PACKETS FROM A COUPLE OF MEETINGS AGO SO WE CAN GO THROUGH THESE, UM, AND AS WE DID AT OUR LAST MEETING, UH, IF THERE IS SORT OF GENERAL CONSENSUS ON ON THE PROPOSAL, WILL ALL CONSENT AND STAFF WILL WILL BUILD IT INTO OUR RECOMMENDATION MEMO. UM, IF THERE IS ANYTHING, ANY TOPICS THAT ARE MORE CONTROVERSIAL OR THAT WE WANT TO DIG INTO DEEPER, WE'LL PUT IT ONTO THE RUNNING LIST THAT THAT I HAVE. AND THEN WE'LL, YOU KNOW, WE'LL PUT IT ON TO THE PARKING LOT FOR LACK OF A BETTER DESCRIPTION, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK TO THE PARKING LOT AND WE'LL REALLY DIG INTO THOSE, UM, MEATIER TOPICS. HOW HOW DOES THAT SOUND? SOUNDS GREAT.

ALL RIGHT. AGREED. UM, SO WORKING OFF AND AGAIN, I'M WORKING OFF THE PLANNING BOARD DRAFT LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS, UH, AS UPDATED AND REVISED FOLLOWING THE JULY 15TH

[01:35:03]

OTHERWISE SILENCE, UH, SILENCE MEANS WE'LL WE'LL MOVE FORWARD.

UM, PLANNING BOARD SUPPORTS EXTENDING THE APPLICABILITY OF COMPACT CAR PARKING SPACES TO THE TR DISTRICT.

YES. VERY GOOD.

OKAY. TR DISTRICT APPEARS TO BE LACKING. TIER TWO BASS AND TIER THREE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM. REFERENCES.

. SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME.

TR DISTRICT APPEARS TO BE LACKING. TIER TWO BASE AND TIER THREE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEM. REFERENCES. THESE TWO BOTH TIER TWO BASS AND TIER THREE SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS, ARE PERMITTED IN THE K DISTRICT, AND SO IF THE CONCEPT IS OF THE TR DISTRICT IS MIRRORED ON THE K DISTRICT, THEN THESE TWO USES WOULD ALSO BE PERMITTED IN THE TR DISTRICT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YES YES YES.

UH, PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT EXISTING TERMINOLOGY THAT CAN BE CONVEYED AS PERMITTING DATA CENTERS THROUGHOUT ALL ZONING DISTRICTS BE REVIEWED. UPDATES FOR CONSIDERATION, OR MODIFY ARE TO MODIFY CHAPTER 285 TO ENSURE THAT RESOURCE INTENSIVE DATA CENTERS ARE NOT PERMITTED AND LONG TERM DRAFTED TO BE A SPECIAL USE OR OTHER UH IN DISTRICTS IDENTIFIED TO BE APPROPRIATE. SUCH LONG TERM PLANNING MAY REQUIRE A LOCAL MORATORIUM ON DATA CENTERS. DOESN'T THE STATES NEW? YEAH. SO THE STATE I THINK, HAS A ONE YEAR MORATORIUM.

AND IT'S LIMITED TO THE SIDE. AND IT'S LIMITED TO, I THINK 50 MEGA MEGAWATTS, GIGAWATTS OF OF ENERGY. AND SO, UM, IF THE TOWN FELT A LOCAL MORATORIUM WAS NECESSARY, YOU COULD DO LONGER THAN ONE YEAR. IT CAN DO LESS THAN 50.

AND I THINK THERE WAS A PRESENTATION THAT, UM, IN TERMS OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAD PREPARED ON DATA CENTERS, WHICH UNFORTUNATELY THEY DID NOT GET TO PRESENT TO THE TOWN BOARD, BUT THEY CREATED A VIDEO WHICH THEY SHARED WITH THE TOWN BOARD REGARDING, UM, CONSIDERATION OF A MORATORIUM AND MODELING LOCAL LAW OFF OF, I THINK, THE EAST FISHKILL, ONE THAT WAS RECENTLY ADOPTED. UM, SO COOL. AND ULTIMATELY, IF THE TOWN BOARD, UM, WELL, I GUESS IF THEY WERE TO BAKE IT IN THE 285, IT WOULDN'T BE REFERRED BACK TO US. BUT IF THEY WERE TO CONSIDER IT AS ITS OWN, AS ITS OWN CHAPTER AMENDMENT, THEN IT WOULD COME TO US A REFERRAL. UM, SO.

CAN WE. CAN YOU COMMENT ON THAT ON CHAPTER TWO? HI EVERYONE. THIS IS CHARACTER GAIN PLANNING COMMISSIONER. UH, A LOCAL LAW RELATED TO DATA CENTERS WITH ABSOLUTELY ITS OWN SEPARATE, UH, LOCAL LAW THAT WOULD BE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR REVIEW. GREAT.

GOOD. THANK YOU.

SO DOES THAT MEAN THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE INTO 85.

SO THE RECOMMENDATION. YES, AS WRITTEN IS TO CLARIFY THAT DATA ESSENTIALLY CLARIFY THE DATA CENTERS ARE NOT A PERMITTED USE IN THE TOWN. UM. RIGHT NOW THERE'S SOME ANTIQUATED LANGUAGE OF DATA PROCESSING WHICH COULD BE MISINTERPRETED AS DATA CENTERS. AND SO, UH, I THINK THE PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO WHEREVER DATA CENTER OR, SORRY, WHEREVER DATA PROCESSING IS REFERENCED TO CHANGE THAT TO WORD PROCESSING, BECAUSE I THINK THAT'S WHAT THEY MEANT BY DATA PROCESSING AND WORD PROCESSING. I THINK WE UNDERSTAND TODAY TO BE, YOU KNOW, WRITING DOCUMENTS, WORKING ON SPREADSHEETS, USING A PERSONAL COMPUTER, NOT HUMANS. YES, HUMANS. HUMANS USING A PERSONAL COMPUTER. NOT NOT MAJOR DATA.

SO SO JUST MAYBE I'M NOT CLEAR THAT THAT THIS BULLET POINT IS THAT GOING TO RELATE TO 285 OR IS THAT.

GOING TO. SO THIS WOULD BE IN OUR RECOMMENDATION IF WE ADOPT THIS RECOMMENDATION. BUT THE MORATORIUM WOULD BE A SEPARATE LOCAL LAW FOR THE DATA CENTERS. AS GARRETT POINTED.

OUT, WE DON'T HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO SET A MORATORIUM. THAT WOULD ULTIMATELY BE THE TOWN.

BOARD, RIGHT? THAT SHOULDN'T IF WE'RE BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, PUNTING THIS TO THE TOWN BOARD TO DO A SEPARATE LOCAL LAW, I MEAN, THAT'S REALLY I THINK WHAT WE'RE SAYING THAT WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT OPINING ON THIS. WE'RE LEAVING IT TO THE TOWN BOARD TO DECIDE HOW THEY WANT TO HANDLE THIS. I THINK BECAUSE THIS IS LIKE AN EVOLVING, YOU KNOW, ISSUE. A RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD TO ADOPT A MORATORIUM. BUT THE INTENT FOR THE ZONING CODE IS TO CLARIFY WHAT'S EXISTING IN THE CODE SO THAT IT'S NOT BEING MISINTERPRETED TO PERMIT DATA CENTERS. IT'S AN

[01:40:03]

IF I IF I MAY, I THINK THAT WHAT IS SAID THERE BULLET IS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT IS BEEN CONVEYED RIGHT NOW. AND I THINK THAT THE BULLET JUST NEEDS A LITTLE WORDSMITHING. I AGREE WITH THAT BECAUSE IT'S ALMOST LIKE WE SHOULDN'T BE TAKING A POSITION ON HERE. THAT'S NOT WHAT IT SAYS. SO IT'S IT'S MORE IF WHEREVER WORD OR WHEREVER DATA PROCESSING IS REFERENCED, WE CHANGE IT TO WORD PROCESSING. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING. YES. RIGHT. AND THE THE PLANNING BOARD CAN ALSO RECOMMEND AS PART OF ITS RECOMMENDATION THAT THE TOWN BOARD CONSIDER, UM, MORATORIUM ON ON THE DATA CENTERS. IT IS A ZONING ISSUE.. I'M FINE WITH. I'M FINE.

SO THOSE. ARE THE TWO SEPARATE BULLETS, RIGHT? RIGHT.

YEAH. I THOUGHT.

OF ONE. RIGHT. I THINK WE ALL AGREE WITH THE MOTIVATION BEHIND THE POINT. I THINK THAT THE LANGUAGE HAS TO BE. UM.

POLISHED. I, YOU KNOW. AND ULTIMATELY. SO HOW HOW THIS WILL WORK IS, YOU KNOW, HOPEFULLY TONIGHT WE'LL BE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH ALL OF THESE BULLETS. STAFF WILL WRITE A FULL COMPREHENSIVE MEMO. WE'LL RECEIVE THAT. HOWEVER, HOWEVER MUCH TIME WITHIN REASON, WE NEED TO REVIEW THAT MEMO, WE WOULD DO SO. AND THEN IF THERE'S FURTHER WORDSMITHING THAT NEEDS TO OCCUR, WE CAN DO THAT LIVE. OR IF WE'RE NOT READY, THEN WE'D, YOU KNOW, HAVE THEM GO. STAFF WOULD GO BACK AND TRY AGAIN. AND THEN AT SOME POINT, HOPEFULLY WE'D GET TO A POINT WHERE WE CAN ADOPT A MEMO. UM, SO IF WE WANT.

A ANOTHER SUGGESTION. UM, SORRY.

NO. PLEASE.

PLEASE. NO, PLEASE.

SO I FULLY UNDERSTAND, UH, THE COMMENT FROM PLANNING BOARD MEMBER, AND I THINK IT'S ALMOST TO ME THAT THAT IF PRESENTLY READS PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT ANY EXISTING TERMINOLOGY THAT CAN BE CONVEYED AS PERMITTING DATA CENTERS THROUGHOUT ALL ZONING DISTRICTS BE REVIEWED. SAY ADDITIONAL UPDATES FOR CONSIDERATION. THAT ADDITIONAL WOULD BE NEW OR MODIFIED. CHAPTER 25. TO ENSURE THAT RESOURCE INTENSIVE DATA CENTERS ARE NOT PERMITTED IN LONG TERM. DRAFTED TO BE A SPECIAL PERMIT. USE IN DISTRICTS IDENTIFIED TO BE APPROPRIATE. UM, YOU KNOW, AS PART OF A SEPARATE PROCESS. AND I THINK ADDING THAT AS PART OF A SEPARATE PROCESS MAKES IT VERY CLEAR THAT THIS IS A UNIQUE, UM, TRICKY NEW EVOLVING USE THAT NEEDS ITS OWN SEPARATE PROCESS.

BUT NOT LEAVE OFF THE MORATORIUM.

PART. I THINK THAT'S FINE, TOO, BECAUSE, UM, THE REALITY. IS, IS.

THAT TYPE DOING THE MORATORIUM PROTECTS THE TOWN SO THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE INTERIM, NO, UH, MID SCALE DATA CENTERS ARE PROPOSED. I AGREE.

YEAH. AND AMANDA JUST SHOWED ME THAT BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE STATE MORATORIUM AND, UH, IT DOES REFER TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES SUCH AS OURSELVES. SO WE'RE NOT STEP WE'RE NOT STEPPING ON ANYBODY'S TOES AT THIS POINT BY ISSUING OUR RECOMMENDATION OR.

RIGHT. SO THE STATE IS LIMITED TO THE ONES THAT THEY OVERSEE WITH THE EC PERMITS OF A CERTAIN SIZE, THE 50MW OR GREATER. UM, BUT IT DOES NOT PREEMPT, UH, MUNICIPALITIES FROM ADOPTING THEIR OWN LOCAL MORATORIUM.

OKAY. SO DO WE FEEL STAFF IS ENOUGH, ENOUGH OF OUR PERSPECTIVE TO TO TAKE A CRACK AT REVISING THAT BULLET? GREAT.

GOOD. UM, ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON. UH, PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS INCLUDING LANGUAGE TO ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT LOWER TIERS THAN REQUIRED ABSTENTIONS.

THAT WAS. THE DATE ON.

THE. WE'RE STILL. OH, NO. NOW WE'RE IN THE JUNE 3RD. SORRY. OKAY.

THIS IS THE PAGE TWO. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS. ARE YOU READING THE READ? UM.

WHAT DO YOU. NEED RIGHT THERE? THIS ONE. OKAY. THANK YOU. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS AGAIN. PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS INCLUDING LANGUAGE TO ALLOW DEVELOPERS TO PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE HOUSING AT LOWER TIERS THAN REQUIRED. AND SO MY RECOLLECTION FROM THAT, AND I THINK THIS WAS A POINT THAT TOWN PLANNER BRITAIN MADE, UH, IN THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, IT WAS VERY PRESCRIPTIVE, WHERE IT SAID, YOU MUST PROVIDE, YOU KNOW, IF IF A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS, IT MUST BE THIS IF, IF MORE UNITS IT MUST BE THIS AND THAT. UM, AND IF EVEN FURTHER MORE UNITS, IF YOU WANT TO PULL IT UP, IT, UH, IT MUST BE THIS, THAT, AND THE NEXT. AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO PROVIDE FLEXIBILITY, WHERE IF A DEVELOPER WANTED TO PROVIDE MORE AFFORDABLE UNITS, THEY

[01:45:02]

YES. YEAH. I DO RECALL.

SO I THINK. I THINK THERE'S NO REASON NOT TO. NOT SUPPORT THIS. DO YOU EVER TELL THEM THEY CAN'T BUILD MORE? RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

UM, OKAY. UH. MOVING ON. THE 10% SET ASIDE PROVISION IS PROPOSED TO BE APPLICABLE WITHIN THE ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS, WHICH IS A POSITIVE STEP. THE PRESENT ALTERNATIVE THAT ALLOWS FOR TWO ADUS TO BE DEVELOPED FOR EVERY. AND THIS IS ACTUALLY A TYPO. IT SHOULD BE TWO ADUS COULD BE DEVELOPED FOR EVERY ONE HOME. SORRY, TEN HOMES IN A SUBDIVISION SHOULD BE UPDATED TO TIE AFFORDABILITY TO THOSE ADUS IN A SIMILAR MANNER. SORRY, I THINK THIS IS. A YEAH, SO I THINK I THINK THIS THIS HAS EVOLVED FURTHER. UM, WHERE I THINK WE ARE AT THIS POINT IS JUST STRIPPING OUT THE ADU ALTERNATIVE ENTIRELY FROM THE AFFORDABILITY, UH, COMPONENT OF. YEAH, ONE FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS. YEAH.

THIS HAS BEEN KIND OF OVERRULED BY SUBSEQUENT DISCUSSION.

YEAH. SO WE'RE GONNA JUST EX THAT ONE OUT. OKAY. UH, PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT FLEXIBILITY BE CONSIDERED TO ALLOW A DEVELOPER TO DO A COMBINATION OF SET ASIDES TO, UH. THAT WOULD.

ALSO BE. SO THIS ONE'S ALSO EXIT OUT. OKAY. PLANNING BOARD SUGGESTS STAFF RESEARCH. IF OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT ALLOW FOR THE KEEPING OF CHICKENS PROVIDE FOR A SLIDING SCALE, FOR EXAMPLE, TWO CHICKENS ON A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, THREE ON 15 FOR ON 20 20,000. I THINK IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, THERE'S JUST A, YOU KNOW, STRAIGHT LINE CHICKENS. UM, AND THERE'S NO, UH, NO SCALING BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE LOT.

WHAT WAS THE IMPETUS FOR THIS.? COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE, DO YOU WANT. TO CHIME IN ON THAT? WELL, I THINK THAT WAS, UM, MISS MAGANA SUGGESTED. OH. OH, NOT MY SUGGESTION. IT WAS BUILDING, BUT, UM, THERE WERE SOME COMPLAINTS MADE ABOUT CHICKENS ON ON UNDERSIZED. WELL, NOT TO SAY UNDERSIZED.

UM, SMALLER SIZED LOTS OR DENSELY POPULATED AREAS. SO, UM, AND THERE WAS ALSO SOME, SOME ASKS TO HAVE CHICKENS. SO IT THOUGHT THE, YOU KNOW, THE IDEA WAS TO, UM, KIND OF TEST THE WATERS WITH SOME, UH, MORE LIKE, STRICTER STANDARDS COMPARED TO SOME OF THE OTHER MUNICIPALITIES THAT WE'VE SEEN, UM, TO ALLOW FOR CHICKENS AS PEOPLE DESIRE.

YEAH. COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE, IF YOU HAVE IT IN FRONT OF YOU, COULD YOU JUST PULL UP WHAT THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE IS IN THE FIRST DRAFT OR IN THE REFERRED DRAFT? YEAH, SURE. I'M SORRY, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE.

LANGUAGE? CHICKENS. 85 CHICKENS? YEAH.

YEAH. IT DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF.

I GET IT. SO. I LIKE TO LOOK AT.

THAT, AND I THINK I THINK. TOWN PLANNER. BRITAIN'S ALSO TRYING TO PULL IT UP. SO THIS WILL BE, UH, A RACE.

BASED. ISSUE.. SO CUT THEIR LOCAL FOREST.

ALL RIGHT. SO, PLEASE, WERE TAKEN FROM.

CAN YOU CLICK LIKE, TEN TIMES? ZOOM IN.

THESE ARE FROM A SERIES OF, UM, WHAT WE BELIEVE WE'RE BEST PRACTICES. AND ONE OF THE MUNICIPALITIES, UM, AS FAR AS THE REQUIREMENTS AND IN ADOPTING THESE, WE TOOK A RATHER CONSERVATIVE APPROACH. UM, MY, UM, FLIPPING THE MICROPHONE TO MISS MAGANA WAS JUST SIMPLY IN REFERENCE TO THE IDEA OF THE SLIDING SCALE. I APOLOGIZE.

IN THAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE ORIGINS OF THAT, BUT I GENERALLY THINK IT'S TO, UM, PERHAPS EVEN BE MORE CONSERVATIVE, UM, TOWARDS HAVING SMALL, LOTS, SMALLER SIZE, LOTS OF LESS CHICKENS, UM, LARGER, LOTS MORE, OF COURSE. BUT I WOULD SAY WE DO HAVE BUILT INTO THIS, UH, PROPOSED WHAT I WOULD CONSIDER TO BE A VERY CONSERVATIVE STARTING POINT, WHICH IS A MINIMUM OF 20,000FT . SO THAT'S A HALF ACRE. UM. AND IS THERE A NUMBER OF CHICKENS THAT THAT ARE PERMITTED ON 20,000FT ? YES. SO TO THE SLIDING SCALE, I DID DO SOME RESEARCH AFTER IT WAS A REQUEST FOR IT. UM, AND DID CIRCULATE THAT A WHILE AGO, UM, SHOWING THAT SOME MUNICIPALITIES DO HAVE, UH, ALLOWANCE FOR MORE OR LESS, DEPENDING UPON THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY.

YEAH. AND SO, RIGHT.

ON MINIMUM 20,000FT . HOW MANY? SO RIGHT NOW IT'S TEN ON 20. AND SO THE QUESTION IS, YOU

[01:50:01]

THE BUILDING. DEPARTMENT ALL ALL ENFORCEMENT IS THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. SO I MEAN, HOW MANY PEOPLE ACTUALLY RAISE CHICKENS. RIGHT NOW? TECHNICALLY, CHICKENS ARE PROHIBITED IN GREEN BIRD. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF. AND THAT ISN'T ENFORCED.

I'M HEARING QUESTIONS ABOUT ADDING DUCKS.

YEAH. I MEAN. AND I'M GOING TO KEEP MY OPINION AS TO CHICKENS AND NECESSITY, BUT ARE WE WALKING? WHAT HAPPENS IF I WANT DUCKS ON MY PROPERTY? I WANT DUCK EGGS INSTEAD OF CHICKEN EGGS. FORGET ABOUT ROOSTERS. DO WE HAVE TO SAY CHICKENS AND DUCKS? WELL, UH, THE PROPOSAL IS CURRENTLY IN THE KEEPING OF DUCKS IS PROHIBITED.

CORRECT. KEEPING OF ROOSTERS, DUCKS, GEESE, SWANS, TURKEYS, OR ANY OTHER SPECIES OF BIRDS OR FOWL WHICH ARE NOT TRADITIONALLY CONFINED TO A CAGE INSIDE A DWELLING IS PROHIBITED. I MEAN, ARE PEOPLE RAISING CHICKENS FOR EGGS? IS THAT IS THAT THE SOLE REASON.

FOR THINGS THAT PEOPLE DO? YEAH.

VERY COMMON. YEAH. ESPECIALLY WITH THE PRICE.

INDEX. AND AND DO THEY ATTRACT OTHER ANIMALS THAT ARE GOING AFTER THEM? UM, SO THE REQUIREMENTS LISTED SPELL OUT THAT THEY HAVE TO BE SECURED. UM, AND ALSO ANY FEED OR UH, HABITAT SPACE WOULD NEED TO BE KEPT CLEAN AND FREE FROM VERMIN. SO, UM, I. THAT'S ALL LANGUAGE. MAN. MAN.

IT'S ALL WORDS. IT DOESN'T GET IT ENFORCED.

SURE IT DOES. SO IT'S A COMPLAINT BASED MECHANISM, AS.

I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO START HAVING NEIGHBORS COMPLAIN AGAINST NEIGHBORS OVER CHICKENS.

EXCEPT THAT PEOPLE ARE ALREADY DOING.

THAT NOW. UM, AND PEOPLE ARE ALREADY DOING IT JUST IN VIOLATION. SO THIS IS LIKE, RIGHT, NOW, MAYBE IF CERTAIN USES ARE PERMITTED AND A CERTAIN OR NOT, IS THAT THE JUSTIFICATION, LIKE IF IT'S PERMITTED IN CERTAIN AREAS BUT NOT OTHERS, THAT PERHAPS IT'LL BE RESPECTED MORE.

OR WELL, AND YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, UM, YOU KNOW, IT. BY HAVING IT PERMITTED, IT ALSO ENSURES THAT THE COOPS ARE RESPECTING THE UNDERLINING SETBACK REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE ZONE. WHEREAS RIGHT NOW, WITH WITH NO PERMITTING PROCESS, THERE COULD BE COOPS, YOU KNOW, CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE THAN IF, IF IT WERE REGULATED, WOULD OTHERWISE BE PERMITTED.

I JUST. DON'T.

FOR THE ANECDOTAL, UM, TIGHTKNIT NEIGHBORHOOD WHERE I LIVE, UM, ROUTINELY 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. UM, I'D SAY THREE OF MY ADJACENT BLOCKS WHERE I RESIDE. THERE'S CHICKENS AND, UM, IT'S JUST SIMPLY, UH, NOT A NUISANCE AT ALL. IT'S SEVERAL IN MY.

NEIGHBORHOOD. A HOUSE AND THAT WAS ABOUT A HALF ACRE LOT WITH A BUNCH OF CHICKENS. AND THEY WERE NEVER AN ISSUE. YEAH.

IT WAS. THIS YORKTOWN HALF ACRE LOT.

IN YORKTOWN, BUT THAT'S MUCH MORE, YOU KNOW.

IT'S THE SAME HALF ACRE LOT, WHICH IS.

THE. SAME REQUIREMENT HERE.

I KNOW, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE A LOT OF SMALLER LOTS. AND.

WELL, THAT'S WHERE THE 20,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM IS IN THE CURRENT PROPOSED LAW. LOCAL EXPERIENCE FOR ME WHERE I LIVE IS 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. AND, UM, WE'RE DOUBLING THAT FOR THREE BIRD. SO. SO I GUESS WHERE WE ARE IS DO WE WANT TO. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS, THIS CONVERSATION HAS GONE IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION. UM, ARE WE COMFORTABLE? DO WE WANT TO JUST BE SILENT ON THE, THE, THE, THE REFERRED LANGUAGE, WHICH IS TEN CHICKENS, 20,000FT ? DO WE WANT TO BE, UH, MORE INCLUSIVE AND RECOMMEND A SLIDING SCALE TO, TO ALLOW SMALLER, UH, OWNERS OF SMALLER LOTS TO HAVE CHICKENS, BUT FEWER CHICKENS? UM, OR. WELL, AND I GUESS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT SOMETIMES WHEN YOU IF YOU PERMIT IT ON SMALLER LOTS, YOU MIGHT WANT TO VARY THE SETBACKS. YOU MIGHT STILL WANT TO MAINTAIN THE SETBACKS OF A LARGER DISTRICT OR CHANGE THE SETBACKS FOR, YOU KNOW, PURPOSES OF SEPARATING THE POTENTIAL USE FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. UM, JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. SO I GUESS, WHERE WHERE ARE WE FAILING, OR DO WE WANT TO WANT TO PUT THIS ON THE LIST AND COME BACK. TO IT? YEAH. MATT, YOU MENTIONED YORKTOWN. I WOULDN'T BE HAPPY. WHAT DO THEY HAVE CHICKENS? NO, NO. WHAT? UH, WHAT ARE THEIR, UH, BASIS ON HOW MANY CHICKENS AND SO MAYBE MANY LANGUAGE? I HAVE NO IDEA. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF IT WAS A LEGAL CHICKEN

[01:55:03]

OKAY. CAN CAN WE FIND OUT WHAT THESE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, YOU KNOW, EVEN IN, YOU KNOW, THE INCORPORATED VILLAGES? DOES HASTINGS, ALONG WITH DOBBS FERRY, ALLOW IT TO SCARSDALE? ALLOW IT DOES.

EASTCHESTER. CHICKENS .. YOU KNOW.

AND WHAT AND WHAT ARE THEIR. I. COULDN'T I COULDN'T SIGHT CHAPTER. FIVE. VERSE WHAT.

THEIR REQUIREMENTS ARE. I JUST I, I LITERALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND THIS. YOU KNOW, I DON'T WANT I MEAN, I DON'T WANT MY NEIGHBORS TO HAVE CHICKENS AND I DON'T THINK THEY WANT ME TO HAVE CHICKENS. WHY? BECAUSE. BECAUSE IF YOU DRIVE IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, PEOPLE MAINTAIN THEIR PROPERTIES. THEY WANT THEM TO LOOK RIGHT. THEY DON'T WANT. AND I'VE HAD I'VE HEARD INSTANCES WHERE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE LETS THE CHICKEN OUT AND THEY GO ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE YOU'RE OPENING UP A LOT OF PROBLEMS AND IT JUST I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT. BUT IF EVERYONE ELSE WANTS TO, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, ALLOW CHICKENS IN THE TOWN, I DON'T REALLY THEN GO ALLOW THEM, YOU KNOW, AND THEN DEAL WITH IT. WHEN PEOPLE START COMPLAINING. SO FOR FOR ME THERE ARE AND WERE A FEW PEOPLE WITH CHICKENS. IN MY AREA. UM, THERE'S LIKE TWO SIDES TO IT. UM, ONE I CAN SEE WHY WE DON'T WANT ROOSTERS WHERE WE SAY HENS AND NOT ROOSTERS, BECAUSE SOMEONE DID HAVE CHICKENS AND THE ROOSTER. DO TELL ME EVERY MORNING TO GET UP. UM, AND I DIDN'T LIKE THAT. UM, THE FLIP SIDE. BUT THEY KEPT IT VERY WELL. THE FLIP SIDE WAS ANOTHER NEIGHBOR WHO HAD THE CHICKENS, AND THEY WEREN'T MAINTAINING IT. WELL, AND THEN YOU STARTED TO SEE OTHER ANIMALS COME INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO KNOWING THAT A LOT OF PEOPLE ALREADY KIND OF HAVE IT, IF WE CAN PUT SOME TYPE OF RULING ON IT. AND WHEN I SAY RULING, I MEAN, LIKE THESE ARE THE STANDARDS, LIKE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT THIS WAY, YOU HAVE TO HAVE IT THAT WAY OR YOU CAN'T HAVE IT, YOU KNOW, IT KIND OF HELPS TO LIKE STREAMLINE WHAT'S GOING ON. 40 YEARS IN GREENBERG, I HAVEN'T SEEN ANYBODY HAVE CHICKENS IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD.

YEAH. SO. SO THEY MIGHT BE IN THERE. THEY JUST. YOU JUST DON'T KNOW BECAUSE THEY'RE QUIET. I, I KNOW SOME PEOPLE IN OUR AREA. YEAH. LOTS OF CHICKENS.

YEAH. AND AND I'M WITH NATASHA. I THINK THAT HAVING PARAMETERS THERE FOR IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THEM LIKE WHAT THE STANDARDS NEED TO BE IS HELPFUL.

ALL RIGHT. YOUR FINES IF YOU VIOLATE ANY OF THE RESTRICTIONS. YES. $500 PER DAY.

AND THAT'S, THAT'S IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE THAT WAS DISTRIBUTED. TO ALL OF US. AND AND.

FOR ALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN VIOLATING IT SO FAR, WHEN THERE'S AN ABSOLUTE RESTRICTION, THEY HAVE NEVER BEEN FINED. AND THEY HAVE TO TAKE IT OUT.

I WOULD HAVE TO DEFER TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT ON THAT.

I'M NOT SURE. I THOUGHT. UM, THE TOWN CAN'T, UH, THEY CAN ONLY MAKE SURE. I THOUGHT THE TOWN CAN ONLY, UM, ISSUE A SUMMONS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY COLLECT MONEY. BUT THERE'S NO FINE STRUCTURE.

JUST. I GUESS.

THAT'S TRUE. SO THEY. SO I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THAT. I DO KNOW THAT THE ONE NEIGHBOR THAT HAD THE CHICKENS AND THEY WERE BEING POORLY KEPT, IT WAS CONSIDERED A VIOLATION. UM, AND GENERALLY WITH VIOLATIONS COME FINES. AND THEN THEY ESSENTIALLY HAD TO GET RID OF THE CHICKEN COOP. AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DID MAKE SURE THAT THAT HAPPENED.

THERE TYPICALLY IS A PERIOD TO ALLOW FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE VIOLATION BEFORE SUMMONS. AND FILES ARE ISSUED.

I THOUGHT THE FINES, UM, ARE COLLECTED THROUGH A COURT.

UM THEY ARE THEY GO TO THEY GOES TO THE JUDGE AND THERE'S THEY'LL DEPENDING ON WHAT POINT IT'S AT, IF THEY'VE GOTTEN NOTICE, IF THEY'VE GOTTEN IT'S GONE STRAIGHT TO SUMMONS. THEY WOULD GET A PERIOD TO CORRECT IT DEPENDING UPON WHERE IT'S AT. UM, AND MOST OFTENTIMES THE JUDGE WOULD GIVE A PERIOD TO, TO CORRECT THE ACTION. EITHER, YOU KNOW, GET RID OF THE CHICKENS IF IT'S NOT PERMITTED OR, YOU KNOW, PUT IN WHATEVER REQUIREMENTS IF IT IS PERMITTED. UM, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE THERE'S NOT APPROPRIATE FENCING TO CONTAIN THEM OR, OR THE, UM. CONDITION CONDITIONS OR UNSANITARY AND CAUSING VERMIN PROBLEM OR WHATEVER THE LAKE IS. UM, BUT YES, IT WOULD GO THROUGH THE COURT PROCESS.

SO I'VE, I'VE PUT CHICKENS ON OUR, ON OUR PARKING LOT. LET'S RUMINATE ON THIS AND THEN WE'LL, WE'LL COME BACK TO IT FOR DISCUSSION. SOUNDS GOOD. UM, ALL RIGHT. SO MOVING ON TO JUNE 17TH. UH, PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT CONSIDERATION BE GIVEN TO ANNUAL MAINTENANCE REPORTING REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH,

[02:00:01]

ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS TO ENSURE THAT CHARGING STATIONS REMAIN OPERATIONAL.

YES YES, YES. ALL GOOD WITH THAT? OKAY. UH, PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT REFERENCES TO TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS IN CONNECTION WITH STEEP SLOPE AND WETLAND WATERCOURSE DEDUCTIONS BE EXPLICITLY INCORPORATED WHERE APPROPRIATE. THE RIGHT RIGHT NOW. SO TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS, I THINK IS A NEW CONCEPT IN 285.

IS THAT CORRECT? TOWN ATTORNEY MADONNA, TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS.

TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS. NO, NO. SO THIS IS JUST FIXING THE.

LANGUAGE OKAY. SO SO RIGHT NOW THE THE LANGUAGE FOR STEEP SLOPES ONLY REFERENCES ONE FAMILY. AND SO.

I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY I THOUGHT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE DEFINITION. SO WE FIXED THE DEFINITION OF ONE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY BECAUSE SOMETIMES IT REFERRED TO ONE FAMILY VERSUS SINGLE FAMILY. AND THE SAME THING WITH TWO FAMILIES THAT WAS UPDATED, BUT SPECIFICALLY TO STEEP SLOPES. YES, I BELIEVE IT WAS ONLY ONE FAMILY PREVIOUSLY.

AND SO THIS THIS MAKES CLEAR THAT THE STEEP SLOPE, UH, ORDINANCE ALSO APPLIES TO TWO FAMILY DWELLINGS.

THERE WERE ALSO INSTANCES WHERE THE CODE REFERRED TO ONE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY, BUT OUR CODE DOES ALSO SEPARATELY DEFINE TWO FAMILY. SO THIS IS KIND OF JUST MAKING IT CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT TWO FAMILY IS ASSOCIATED. UH, IS INCLUDED WHENEVER WE THE CODE PREVIOUSLY SAID ONE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY.

OKAY. JUST CLARIFICATION.

OKAY. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD UPDATE. GOOD. UM, ELECTRONIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATION SIGN REGULATIONS BE CLARIFIED TO SPECIFY THE THE SIGNAGE IS TO MARK IF A CHARGING STATION IS FREE OR IF FEES APPLY. YES.

OKAY. LET'S.

UH, REPLACE REFERENCES TO SIX MONTH COMPLETION PERIODS WITH REFERENCES TO 180 DAYS.. FINE. YEAH.

COOL. UH, MOVING ON TO JULY 1ST. UM, UH, PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT CERTAIN TERMS. SO WE ALREADY DID THIS ONE.

THIS GOES WELL, THIS IS SORT OF AN EXTENSION OF WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT BEFORE, BUT PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT CERTAIN TERMS, SUCH AS DATA PROCESSING, BARBER SHOP AND AUTOMOBILE COURT BE REVIEWED IN THE CONTEXT THAT THESE MAY BE OUTDATED, ANTIQUATED TERMS. AND SO I THINK THE CONCEPT WOULD BE DATA PROCESSING BECOMES WORD PROCESSING. BARBERSHOP BECOMES HAIR SALON AND AUTOMOBILE COURT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT.

THE MODERN. EQUIVALENT OF AN AUTOMOBILE.

COURT WOULD. BE PROBABLY JUST. GETS REMOVED ALTOGETHER. MAYBE SO.

I'M NOT REALLY SURE. WE'RE NOT THE PEOPLE TO ASK.

UM. I ALSO WANTED TO POINT OUT TELEPHONE EXCHANGE WAS ONE THAT WAS REMOVED, ALTHOUGH I DID FIND A RECENT, UH, REFERENCE TO IT. SO ANYWHERE THAT IS STILL REFERENCED SHOULD BE STRUCK. TELEPHONE EXCHANGE.

THANK YOU. SO WHEN YOU'RE, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE'RE DOING THESE TERMINOLOGY ISSUES, YOU KNOW, THERE'S THINGS LIKE ICE CREAM STAND AND, YOU KNOW, BARBER SHOP, WHICH, YOU KNOW, ARE SORT OF ANTIQUATED, I THINK.

RIGHT. SO BARBER SHOP WOULD BE HAIR SALON.

AND WHAT ABOUT I MEAN, WHAT'S BETWEEN AN ICE CREAM STAND AND A CANDY STORE WITH ICE CREAM IN IT.

AND SO THE ICE CREAM STAND TIED TO THE PRIOR, UM, CATEGORY THAT ALLOWED FOR, UM, IT WAS ICE CREAM STAND. YEAH. THE INCIDENTAL DINING WAS ICE CREAM STAND, BAKERY, PIZZA, DELI AND DELI. AND SO WE WE UPDATED THAT TO CLARIFY IN COORDINATION WITH THE, UH, FAST FOOD QUICK SERVICE AND RESTAURANT. AND THEY HAD INCIDENTAL LIGHTING. SO ALL OF THAT WAS UPDATED. UM, AND ICE CREAM STAND WAS, WAS ONE OF THOSE TERMS, UM, THAT BECAME INCORPORATED INTO THOSE CHANGES.

SO. SO, SO TO REMOVE, TO REMOVE THE. SEPARATE TO REMOVE ICE CREAM STAND OR TO INCORPORATE IT IN. TO REMOVE IT FROM BEING SPECIFICALLY INCIDENTAL DINING WITH THE LIMITATION AND TO ALLOW FOR A BROADER. IT WOULD JUST BECOME A GENERAL FOOD USE. CORRECT.

IT WOULDN'T REQUIRE AN INCIDENTAL DINING SPECIAL PERMIT, WHICH NO LONGER EXISTS OR WOULD WOULD IS PROPOSED TO NO. LONGER EXIST.

IT WOULDN'T BE ITS OWN CATEGORY OF FOOD, RIGHT? YEAH. IT WOULD WOULDN'T BE ITS OWN CATEGORY OF FOOD ESPECIALLY. WE'D BE KEEPING INCIDENTAL DINING FOR, UH, BUT FOR EXAMPLE, UM, NOT LIMITING IT TO THOSE FOR. RIGHT, BECAUSE YOU CAN POTENTIALLY HAVE INCIDENTAL DINING WITH. FROZEN SUSHI OR FROZEN YOGURT OR. INCIDENTAL DINING IS JUST EIGHT SEATS OR. LESS, CORRECT? YEAH. A BURGER PLACE, UM, ETC.. SO WHEN SOMEONE'S REVISING THIS 400 PAGE DOCUMENT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE FLAGGING EVERY REFERENCE TO ICE CREAM STAND THE WAY IT'S BEEN USED, OR BARBERSHOP. UH, AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ALL INCORPORATED WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE. YES. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WITH UPDATING THE TERMS. RIGHT. BARBERSHOP COMPARISON. WHAT IS THAT GOING TO HAPPEN? I MEAN, NOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT LIKE BULLET POINT RECOMMENDATIONS TO FOR US TO WORK ON WHO'S DOING, WHO'S GOING TO REVISE STAFF. THAT WOULD BE ME, MOSTLY.

[02:05:05]

TO IT. YEAH. SO THERE'LL BE A PERIOD.

AND UNLESS, UNLESS, UNLESS, YOU KNOW, WHAT I SAW ON THE VIDEO WAS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU DID. YOU KNOW? NO. YEAH. THAT'D BE A PERIOD BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE MAKE OUR RECOMMENDATION AND, YOU KNOW, IN PART BECAUSE OF THE TOWN BOARD BUDGET PROCESS AND ALSO IN PART OF GIVING STAFF TIME TO REVISE THE DOCUMENT, I WOULD IMAGINE AT THE VERY EARLIEST, THE TOWN BOARD WOULD PICK THIS BACK UP WOULD BE JANUARY, MAYBE FEBRUARY OF NEXT YEAR.

AND ARE WE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THAT DOCUMENT.

ONCE WE MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION? IT'S NO LONGER WE'RE NOT THE WE'RE NOT THE DECISION MAKERS ON THE CHAT.

SO WE'RE JUST DOING THESE BROAD POINTS.

YEAH, WE'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS BASED ON OUR SUBJECT MATTER EXPERTISE AND OUR OUR FAMILIARITY WITH WITH 285 BASED ON THE WORK WE DO WITH, WITH LAND USE AND THE PLANNING BOARD. OKAY.

BUT ULTIMATELY, ULTIMATELY, WE CAN MAKE ALL THE RECOMMENDATIONS WE WANT. AND THE TOWN BOARD COULD IGNORE ALL OF THEM. I WOULDN'T EXPECT OR ANTICIPATE THEM TO DO THAT, BUT THEY ARE. THEY ARE THE DECISION MAKERS, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE. SO IF IF YOUR NEIGHBORS, IF YOUR NEIGHBORS AREN'T COMFORTABLE WITH CHICKENS AND THE TOWN BOARD ULTIMATELY PUTS THEM IN THE CODE, THAT'S THAT'S THE TOWN BOARD, THEY CAN TAKE IT UP WITH. THEM, RIGHT? IT DEPENDS WHAT YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS.

WHAT THE TOWN BOARD CAN CAN IGNORE THE RECOMMENDATION, PUT IT IN ANYWAY, OR TAKE OUR RECOMMENDATION. AND, YOU KNOW, NOT I'M JUST NOT RESPONDED. YEAH.

JUST TEASING YOU. SO IN TERMS OF RECOMMENDING THESE CERTAIN TERMS, ARE WE GOOD.

YES. WELL WE HAD TALKED ABOUT NEWSPAPER STANDS. REMEMBER THAT LIST. YEAH. YEAH. SO THERE WAS THE DISTINGUISHED. I THINK THERE ARE I THINK THERE IS. NEWSPAPER RACKS.

YEAH. WHICH ARE REGULATED IN A SEPARATE CHAPTER, I BELIEVE UNDER STREETS. THE STREETS AND SIDEWALKS ARE A SEPARATE CHAPTER. UM, THERE'S A WHOLE ARTICLE ON THEM. BUT AS FAR AS NEWS STANDS, IF THERE'S NONE LEFT IN THE TOWN, THEN WE MAY CONSIDER, UM, REMOVING IT.

WE TALKED ABOUT IT AND IT WAS REALLY.

YEAH. AND SO WE CAN I THINK WE CAN ADD THAT INTO THIS, INTO THIS RECOMMENDATION. SO TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, NEWSPAPER RACKS AND STANDS. THE RACKS I THINK STILL EXISTS.

AND THEY'RE REGULATED UNDER A DIFFERENT SECTION. SO THEY'RE NOT I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE UNDER 285 OKAY.

BUT NEWSPAPER STANDS TELEPHONE EXCHANGE I THINK ALL THOSE TERMS WE WE JUST WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK.

I THINK ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WAS LUNCH COUNTER.

LUNCH COUNTERS. YEAH. UM.

LUNCH STANDS AND COUNTERS. MHM. OKAY. SO ARE WE ARE WE GOOD ON ON THAT BULLET. OKAY, OKAY. UH PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT PROVISIONS EXEMPTING CERTAIN EXISTING RESTAURANTS THROUGH GRANDFATHERING. UH, DO NOT IDENTIFY AND APPLICABLE DATE.

THIS SHOULD BE CLARIFIED. SO THE WAY SOME OF THE CHAPTER IS WRITTEN IS IT SAYS, YOU KNOW YOU KNOW, THOSE PRE-EXISTING BEFORE THIS DATE ARE EXEMPT, BUT IT DOESN'T ACTUALLY SAY WHAT THIS DATE IS. AND SO CONSIDERING THAT WE'RE GONNA IF THE TOWN BOARD WERE TO ADOPT A NEW CHAPTER 285, THAT WOULD BE THE NEW DATE. YOU KNOW, STAFF DURING THAT THAT GAP PERIOD, WOULD YOU KNOW ANYWHERE WHERE IT SAYS THIS DATE, THEY'D HAVE TO ACTUALLY DO THE RESEARCH AND FIND WHEN THAT CHAPTER, WHEN THAT SECTION WAS UPDATED SO THAT, THAT THIS DATE OR THAT DATE CAN BE UPDATED TO AN ACTUAL DATE WHENEVER THAT OCCURRED. RIGHT.

SO THAT'S THAT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. UM, PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT LANGUAGE BE ADDED, WHICH SPECIFIES THAT FRACTIONAL PARKING CALCULATIONS SHOULD ALWAYS BE ROUNDED UPWARDS TO THE NEAREST WHOLE NUMBER.

YES. AND WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THAT IN SOME, SOME PREVIOUS CASES. OKAY. UM, AND THEN JULY 15TH, UM, THIS HAS TO DO WITH CANNABIS THAT WILL COME BACK TO, UM, SO THERE HAD BEEN SOME DISCUSSION AT THE JULY 15TH MEETING ABOUT PREFERENCES FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING SELECTION.

UM, AND I THINK WE'RE WHERE WE LANDED WAS, UH, RECOMMENDING A PREFERENCE FOR, UM, UH, FOR, FOR CURRENT CURRENT RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN. AND THEN I THINK, ED, I THINK YOU HAD THE RECOMMENDATION OF GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, IF I RECALL. YEAH.

UM. WE TALKED ABOUT, YOU KNOW.

UH. YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WORKING FOR THE TOWN. YEAH. AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE ABLE TO SPECIFICALLY SAY, TOWN. AMANDA WASN'T SURE WHETHER, YOU KNOW, WE COULD. DO THAT.

YES, BUT. SO I DID GET THE CHANCE TO LOOK INTO IT FURTHER.

UM, IT IS A VERY NEW THING THAT SOME MUNICIPALITIES ARE ADOPTING. SO, UM, A CONCERN IS THAT IT'S NOT NECESSARILY BEEN

[02:10:03]

I MEAN, WHEN I WAS THINKING ABOUT IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S SO EXPENSIVE TO LIVE DOWN HERE AND ASKING, YOU KNOW, TRYING TO RECRUIT PEOPLE FROM UP COUNTY. IT'S A BIG BURDEN. SO IF YOU KNOW, OUR EMPLOYEES, YOU KNOW, UH, COULD GET A BENEFIT FROM THIS IF, YOU KNOW, IF THEY QUALIFY, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD IT WOULD BE ADVANTAGEOUS TO THE TOWN IN TERMS OF RUNNING IT AND HAVING THE PEOPLE WHO LIVE HERE, YOU KNOW, BEING ABLE TO OR WHO WORK HERE AND BE ABLE TO LIVE HERE, TO AFFORD TO LIVE HERE ESPECIALLY. AND THEN I THINK IT BECOMES, I AGREE, I THINK IT BECOMES A QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, IS IT JUST TOWN EMPLOYEES OR IS IT SLIGHTLY MORE BROADER TO TO GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES, YOU KNOW, WHILE WHILE WE'RE NOT THE SEAT OF THE COUNTY, WE'RE RIGHT NEXT TO THE RIGHT, NEXT TO THE SEAT OF THE COUNTY. UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE ARE CERTAINLY BENEFITS TO HAVING STATE EMPLOYEES LIVING LIVING WITHIN.

OUR VOLUNTEERS FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES.

AND THEN ALSO VOLUNTEERS FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES. AND SO, UM, MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, RECOMMENDING A PREFERENCE FOR, UM, CURRENT RESIDENTS OF THE TOWN AND, AND GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES. AND VOLUNTEERS.

AND, AND VOLUNTEERS AND VOLUNTEERS OF.

OF FIRE. , EMERGENCY SERVICES.

EMERGENCY SERVICES. SO WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT.

YEAH. OKAY. UM. REVIEW NEW REGULATIONS. SO THE LAST BULLET FROM JULY 15TH IS REVIEW NEW REGULATIONS AROUND BEST FACILITIES TO DETERMINE IF THE TOWN'S CODE NEEDS UPDATING. AND, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY, UM, I THINK BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE SYSTEMS ARE ARE RAPIDLY EVOLVING. UM, TECHNOLOGY, I THINK I THINK BY THE TIME THE TOWN CODE WAS ADOPTED, IT WAS PROBABLY ALMOST IMMEDIATELY OUT OF DATE. UM, AND SO I THINK ALMOST CERTAINLY WE NEED TO RECOMMEND THAT THE BEST, UH, REGULATIONS BE REVIEWED. AND I THINK I WOULD GO ONE STEP FURTHER AND RECOMMEND THAT, UM, TO THE BEST OF THE TOWN'S ABILITY, THAT THE THAT THE CODE, UM, POINT TO STATE REGULATIONS THAT ARE, THAT ARE INCREASINGLY GROWING UM, AND ALSO SORT OF STANDARDS WITHIN ANY OVERSIGHT BODY BECAUSE LIKE, I KNOW, YOU KNOW, TOWN PLANNER BRITAIN, THEY'RE I THINK THE ONLY TWO BESS'S THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED RECENTLY, UH, REQUIRED VARIANCES BECAUSE THE CAPACITY WAS GREATER THAN WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS, BECAUSE THE CAPACITY THAT THE CODE ALLOWS IS BASICALLY A CAPACITY THAT'S THAT'S NO LONGER SUPPORTED BY BY THE INDUSTRY. YEAH. SO THEY WERE APPROVED FOR TWO TESLA MEGA PACKS AND THE CAPACITY FOR TWO TESLA MEGA PACKS HAS INCREASED BEYOND WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS. IN THE TIME BETWEEN THE PROJECT ORIGINALLY OBTAINING APPROVAL AND NOW.

AND SO I GUESS I DON'T THINK TESLA, EVEN BILL OR EVEN THE MANUFACTURERS. THE OLD ONES, THE OLD ONES THAT THE CODE IS TIED TO, UM, AND SO I THINK, AGAIN, I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT THE TOWN REVISIT THE BEST CODE AND, UM, TO THE BEST OF THEIR ABILITY, SORT OF TIE THE TIE THE STANDARDS TO OTHER, OTHER STATE STANDARDS SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THE CODE IS NOT BEING WE'RE NOT IN A POSITION WHERE WE HAVE TO UPDATE THE CODE EVERY SIX MONTHS, EVERY YEAR.

YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S REQUIRES MAINTENANCE AS WELL.

YEAH. AND THAT'S AND THAT'S IN THE CODE. YEAH. BUT THAT'S CERTAINLY THAT'S CERTAINLY EVOLVING.

AS WELL I. THINK YOU KNOW LAST AT THE, NOT THE LAST MEETING THAT I WAS NOT AT ONE BEFORE THAT, UH, YOU SCHWARTZ WAS TALKING ABOUT ARBITRAGE BEING USED FOR THESE, NOT JUST THE STANDARDS AND THE CAPACITY, BUT YOU HAVE, YOU KNOW, COMPANIES COMING IN, YOU KNOW, PULLING, YOU KNOW, POWER AT LOW COST HOURS AND SELLING IT BACK LATER AT, YOU KNOW, AT, YOU KNOW, AT HIGHER, YOU KNOW, COST ADDING NOTHING TO THE COMMUNITY OR THE BUSINESSES HERE, JUST POCKETING MONEY FOR

[02:15:01]

YEAH. COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE, DO YOU WANT DO YOU WANT TO TOUCH ON THAT BRIEFLY? YEAH. ON THAT. AND I THINK ONE OF THE MAJOR THRUSTS BEHIND NEW YORK STATE SUPPORTING BEST IS THE RESILIENCY THAT THAT, UM, BATTERY ENERGY STORAGE IS ADD.

SO TO THE EFFECT THAT, UM, COMPANIES ARE BUILDING OUT NETWORKS AND, UH, PROFITING FROM CREATING BEST AND MAKE THE ENERGY MORE RESILIENT IN COMMUNITIES ALL OVER THIS TOWN AND WESTCHESTER AND THE STATE, UM, I DID NOT UNDERSTAND THAT COMMENT. YEAH, I THINK THE ARGUMENT WOULD BE THAT SELLING POWER BACK AT PEAK HOURS COULD, UH, HELP REDUCE THE RISK OF ANY BROWNOUTS IF THERE'S A SUDDEN SURGE IN DEMAND. POWER COULD BE DRAWN FROM THE BATTERIES. UM, AND HELP WITH THAT IN TERMS OF SUSTAINABILITY.

OKAY. UM, AND SO THEN I'M MOVING ON TO TO MY BULLETS, AND I'LL TRY TO GO THROUGH THE AS GO THROUGH THESE AS QUICKLY AS POSSIBLE. UM, SO IN 285, TEN A, ONE B UH, THERE'S REFERENCE TO GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY. UM, AND I THINK THERE'S A CONCERN THAT GOVERNMENTAL AUTHORITY COULD BE MISINTERPRETED TO INCLUDE SCHOOL DISTRICTS AND SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE THEIR OWN MUNICIPALITY, UM, AND ULTIMATELY THE TOWN OR THE PLANNING BOARD. AND THE TOWN CODE REALLY HAS NO JURISDICTION OVER, OVER WHAT A SCHOOL DISTRICT DOES, FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE. UM, AND SO I THINK CLARIFYING THAT SECTION TO, TO SPECIFICALLY, UH, ENSURE THAT IT'S NOT MISINTERPRETED TO INCLUDE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WOULD WOULD CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, SIMILAR TYPES OF DISTRICTS? WHEN I. READ THE DOCUMENT, THAT WAS THE ONLY ONE THAT JUMPED OUT AT ME. OH, UH, SO FIRE DISTRICTS, YOU KNOW, TO THE EXTENT THEY BUILD THEIR FIREHOUSE, THEY WOULD SIMILARLY, UM, NOT BE IS THAT. I THINK THAT'S CORRECT. TOWN ATTORNEY MCDONOUGH. FIRE DISTRICTS ARE ALSO THEIR OWN INDEPENDENT MUNICIPALITIES. OUR FIRE DISTRICTS EXEMPT FROM TOWN REGULATIONS, LIKE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE PUBLIC SCHOOL DISTRICTS. ARE.

I DON'T BELIEVE SO. BUT I'LL CHECK AND GET BACK TO YOU.

OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ONES, AMANDA? BESIDES, YOU KNOW, SCHOOLS AND POTENTIALLY THAT. UM, WELL, FEDERAL COUNT, YOU KNOW, OTHER GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. YEAH. REGULATE THEIR OWN, LIKE, COUNTY PROPERTIES, ADMINISTER, YOU KNOW, PROPERTIES. YEP. EXACTLY. SO I GUESS SO WOULD BE CLARIFIED SO THAT IT'S N TO INC SCHOOL DISTRICTS, COUNTY, FEDERAL. COUNTY.

STATE, AND POTENTIALLY FIRE DISTRICTS WILL CLARIFY THAT.

THAT'S A GOOD THAT'S A GOOD POINT. ALL RIGHT. ARE WE GOOD WITH THAT BULLET AS AS UPDATED. OKAY. UM, SO THIS IS MORE OF A OF A GRAMMATICAL THING, BUT THERE'S THERE'S SOME CHANGES WHERE THERE'S A PHRASE CALLED BAD WEATHER TO, UH, IT WAS UPDATED TO AS A RESULT OF STORM EVENTS. AND SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT THERE'S A CONSISTENT USE OF AS A RESULT OF STORM EVENTS THROUGHOUT THE, THROUGHOUT THE THE ENTIRE CHAPTER, UM, WHERE THE BAD, THE OLD BAD WEATHER LANGUAGE JUST SORT OF SLIPPED THROUGH. OKAY.

UM, THERE WAS A REFERRAL LIST THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT. UM, THAT, UM, WAS DIFFERENT BASED ON EACH SECTION. AND SO I THINK THE BEST LANGUAGE WAS THE LANGUAGE IN 28557 D, WHICH READS, THE PLANNING BOARD MAY FORWARD ONE COPY OF THE SITE PLAN APPLICATION TO THE TOWN ENGINEER, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, THE WATER DEPARTMENT, THE TOWN'S FIRE MARSHAL. UM, I THINK FIRE DISTRICT OR FIRE COMPANY SHOULD BE ADDED. UH, THE TOWN POLICE DEPARTMENT OR. SORRY, POLICE DEPARTMENT. CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL, WESTCHESTER COUNTY AND THE NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION. IF THE SITE PLAN SHOWS FRONTAGE ALONG STATE HIGHWAY AND ANY OTHER LOCAL, STATE, COUNTY, REGIONAL AND FEDERAL AGENCIES HAVING JURISDICTION, AS WELL AS TO ANY TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD AND ITS DISCRETION DEEMS NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE FOR A THOROUGH REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION. SO BASICALLY, WHEREVER THERE'S REFERRAL LANGUAGE THROUGHOUT THE CHAPTER, THAT WOULD BE THE THE BODY OF INDIVIDUALS THAT THAT ARE THAT RECEIVED THE REFERRAL DOCUMENTS. RIGHT.

SO WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT. OKAY. UM, IN 28524 D TO BE UH, THERE'S FIXED AND I DON'T REMEMBER WHAT THE SECTION IS, BUT THERE'S FIXED COSTS FOR THE PERMITTING PROCESS. WHERE

[02:20:03]

AND SO THAT SHOULD BE UPDATED TO. SO THAT WAY, INSTEAD OF JUST GOING BACK AND UPDATING 285 TO UPDATE THE FEE SCHEDULE, THEY CAN JUST SET THE FEE SCHEDULE BY RESOLUTION. COOL.

UM, IN 28524 D 2D UM, THE 100 AND DAY EXTENSION PROCESS WAS UPDATED EVERYWHERE, BUT THIS SECTION, SO IT SHOULD BE CONFORMED WITH THE 100 DAY PROCESS. AS ELSEWHERE IN THE CHAPTER. WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT. UM. THIS IS ALSO REFERRAL LANGUAGE. UM, I THINK THIS, THIS WAS A COMMENT THAT THAT YOU HAD TOWN PLANNER BRITAIN, UM, INCLUDE LANGUAGE THAT AMENDMENTS TO MAPS SHALL NOT TAKE EFFECT UNTIL THE SITE PLAN IS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, SO THAT.

THAT DECISION TO, UH, PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, UM, BECAUSE THERE'S A PROVISION THAT, UH, WELL, THE ESSENTIALLY THE TOWN BOARD HAS TO APPROVE THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT TO ESTABLISH THAT PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PRIOR TO THE APPLICANT SEEKING THE SITE PLAN, APPROVAL FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. AND SO THERE'S A BIT OF A GAP. AND IF THE APPLICANT DOES NOT OBTAIN SITE PLAN APPROVAL, THE MAP REVERTS BACK TO THE PREVIOUS ZONING BEFORE IT WAS APUD. SO THIS JUST CLARIFIES THAT AND ENSURES THERE'S NO POTENTIAL MISTAKES.

GREAT. SO WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT. UH, THIS IS IN 25, 2528525 2D CLARIFY THE FRATERNITY AND SORORITY HOUSES MUST BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE INSTITUTION. UH, IF THEY'RE WHILE I IF IF I THINK, I THINK IT'D BE VERY DIFFICULT TO ENFORCE, UH, FRATERNITY OR REGULATE FRATERNITY AND SORORITY HOUSES THAT WEREN'T OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE INSTITUTION. AND WHILE WE'VE WHILE WE'VE UPDATED THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY, YOU KNOW, IT'S SORT OF A GRAY AREA WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHAT'S A FRATERNITY AND SORORITY HOUSE AND WHAT'S A A BOARDING HOUSE OR ANOTHER SORT OF MIXED MIXED HOUSING ARRANGEMENT, UM, WHERE IF IT'S OWNED AND OPERATED BY THE INSTITUTION, THEN IT'S EFFECTIVELY A DORMITORY JUST WITH A SHARED INTEREST. SO WHAT. WE'RE SAYING IS BY THIS CHANGE, WE ARE SAYING THE FRATERNITIES HAVE ALREADY HOUSES MUST BE OWNED BY THE COLLEGE OR UNIVERSITY.

YEAH. THERE COULDN'T BE THERE COULDN'T BE OFF CAMPUS FRATERNITY AND SORORITY. HOUSES EFFECTIVELY.

DON'T TELL. MY SON. I MEAN, I PROBABLY.

BUT SO. WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO PULL UP THIS SECTION, GARRETT. BECAUSE THERE ARE PLACES WHERE THE NATIONAL OWNS THE FRATERNITY HOUSE.

THAT'S CORRECT. OR A LOCAL SUBSIDY OF THE NATIONAL ORGANIZATION. SO WHAT WE WOULD BE DOING IS I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THIS IS A REAL PROBLEM IN OUR TOWN, BUT PROHIBITING AND OBVIOUSLY NOT RETROACTIVELY.

THAT'S CORRECT. AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE WHAT INSTITUTIONS OF HIGHER ED ARE IN THE TOWN. YEAH, THAT'S WHY I SAID IT MIGHT BE. SINCE IT'S IN THE CHAPTER.

, MARIS. WESTCHESTER COMMUNITY.

COLLEGE. WESTCHESTER.

WHICH, YEAH, THIS IS 28525 2D. CASE. IT'S THIS PACE OF A CAMPUS. YEAH.

RIGHT THERE. PURCHASE. NO.

IT'S A. CAN YOU ZOOM IN? GARRETT. YEAH. SO INSTITUTIONS FOR HIGHER LEARNING, INCLUDING COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, JUNIOR COLLEGES, TECHNICAL. YEAH. ALONG WITH THE ACCOMPANYING SERVICES AND ADMINISTRATION BUILDINGS, DORMITORIES, FRATERNITY AND SORORITY HOUSES AND CUSTOMARY INDOOR AND OUTDOOR. SO, I MEAN, THE WAY THIS READS, I THINK I THINK THERE'S THERE'S A LACK OF CLARITY ON IF THAT WOULD INCLUDE OFF CAMPUS FRATERNITY AND SORORITY HOUSES.

UM. I WOULD ALSO BE. I MEAN, I MEAN, THE FRATERNITY.

INTERACTS WITH THE DEFINITION OF FAMILIES. AND SINCE THE COURTS HAVE SAID YOU CAN'T LIMIT, YOU KNOW, FAMILY TO RELATION AND BY NUMBER AND. I JUST THINK IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF IT EVER. CAME UP.

YEAH. I MEAN, THERE'S A, THERE'S THERE'S A LOT OF, THERE'S DEEP CASE LAW ON FRATERNITY AND SORORITY HOUSES.

UM. SO I GUESS WHAT DO WE WANT? SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO, WE WANT TO NOT. OH NO. NO, I THINK THAT JUST A THOUGHT. JUST A THOUGHT.

I WOULD LEAVE. IT ALONE.

OKAY, SO WE WILL LEAVE THAT ONE ALONE. UM. CLAIRE. SO. 28528.1 E2 UM, THERE'S CURRENTLY NO TIMELINE. THE PLANNING BOARD IS REQUIRED TO ISSUE A REPORT BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD IN THIS SECTION. SO I THINK SOME SORT OF TIMELINE SHOULD BE SET. SO THE PLANNING BOARD DOESN'T JUST SIT ON IT INDEFINITELY.

THAT'S SIX MONTHS. CAN YOU PULL UP THAT SECTION? GARRETT. UM, IT WAS IN THE SAME 28525.

[02:25:11]

UH. SO. WITH THE CRITERIA OF FAMILY THAT WE'VE ADOPTED OR PROPOSED. RIGHT. UM, THE TRANSIENT COMPONENT, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST MEETING, WOULD LIKELY PROHIBIT A SORORITY OR FRATERNITY.

FOR QUALITY. THEY TYPICALLY ONLY.

LIVE IN THE HOUSE FOR. RIGHT, BECAUSE THEY CYCLE THROUGH. YEAH.

SORRY. YOU DO ONE MORE TIME. 28528.1 E TWO.

YES, THAT RELATES TO SITE PLANS AND THE PLANNED ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. THE PED DISTRICT, AND IT STATES THAT AS PART OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL BY THE TOWN BOARD, THE TOWN SHALL REQUIRE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD. UH, THAT KIND OF MIRRORS LANGUAGE. UH, ELSEWHERE IN, UH, CHAPTER 285 RELATED TO THE STANDARD, YOU KNOW, SITE PLAN REFERRAL PROCESS FROM THE TOWN BOARD.

WHENEVER THERE'S A TOWN BOARD, SITE PLAN APPLICATION, UH, WHICH DOES HAVE, I BELIEVE IT'S A 60 DAY.

SO THEN THE SECTION THEN POINT TO WHERE IT IS CLARIFIED.

IT'S A BIT REDUNDANT. SO THIS SHOULD JUST BE STRUCK.

THERE'S AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE THAT IT'S UNNECESSARY.

YEAH OKAY. WE WANT TO MAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION. THEN. SO OKAY. SO.

STRIKE UH 285228528182. BECAUSE IT'S REDUNDANT.

REDUNDANT. OKAY. UM, SO 28529.23 THIS IS REGARDING THE THE HARTSDALE CONTEXTUAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. UM, I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD JUST BE, YOU KNOW, REVIEW, REVIEW THE COMPOSITION AND SCOPE OF THE HARTSDALE CONTEXTUAL REVIEW COMMITTEE. UH, CURRENTLY, THE COMMITTEE IS A MIXED COMMITTEE OF RESIDENTS AND STAFF, WHICH IS VERY UNUSUAL. UM, AND HAS A VERY NARROW SCOPE OF, OF JUST THE HARTSDALE CENTER. UH, AND I THINK THERE THERE COULD BE AN ARGUMENT TO BE MADE OF, OF WHETHER A CONTEXTUAL REVIEW COMMITTEE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE CA DISTRICT AND THE TR DISTRICT, MAYBE THE DS DISTRICT. UM, I DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE HAVE THE ANSWERS TO THAT, BUT I DO THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE TOWN BOARD SHOULD, SHOULD STUDY AND CONSIDER.

SO JUST FOR CLARITY, YEAH. UH, UNDERSTANDING.

YEAH. SO THE HARTSDALE CONTEXTUAL REVIEW COMMITTEE WITHIN WITHIN THE CODE IS WRITTEN NOW, I GUESS. GARRETT, DO YOU ACTUALLY WANT TO SHARE SHARE PERSPECTIVE, CONTEXT. AND WHAT THE CRC IS. IS THAT THE FOUR CORNERS.

NO, NO. OH, OKAY.

IT'S NEAR THERE. SO THIS IS LIKE A VERY OBSCURE LITTLE SECTION OF THE CODE. ON EAST HARTSDALE AVENUE. UH, FOR FOR THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESSES THERE. SO THEY HAVE A SERIES OF, UM, ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES THAT THEY, UM, WORK WITH APPLICANTS TO CONFORM PROPOSALS TO.

SO ALL, ALL SIGN APPLICATIONS WITHIN THE HARTSDALE DISTRICT, HARTSDALE CENTER DISTRICT ARE REVIEWED BY THE CRC.

UM, YEAH. SIGN ON. FACADE.

SO IS THIS SIMILAR. TO WHAT. YOU, UM.

MR. DUQUESNE WAS PROPOSING? UM, TO DO IN LIKE, CHELMSFORD AND MOUNT JOY? IS THAT WHAT THIS IS? NO. SO THIS THIS IS REALLY A UNIQUE A UNIQUE COMMITTEE WITHIN THE TOWN WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NORMALLY SIGNS WOULD BE REVIEWED BY STAFF FOR THE HARTSDALE CENTER DISTRICT.

THEY'RE REVIEWED BY THIS MIXED COMMITTEE OF STAFF AND RESIDENTS. THE INTENT OF THE CRC IS TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER AND LOOK OF THE HARTSDALE CENTER AREA NEAR THE TRAIN STATION, UM, THAT WITH THE AWNINGS AND THE STYLE OF STOREFRONTS THERE. THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE, UH, THE CRC. OKAY.

AND DO I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD JUST BE TO TO REVIEW THE COMPOSITION AND SCOPE, UH, HAVE THE TOWN BOARD REVIEW THE COMPOSITION AND SCOPE.

OKAY. AND DETERMINE IF IT'S STILL APPROPRIATE IN TODAY'S ENVIRONMENT.

UNDERSTAND? OKAY.

UM, THIS IS REALLY SMALL. ONGOING LITIGATION.

SO. 28536FI KNOW THERE WAS SOME EMAILS THIS AFTERNOON. I DON'T

[02:30:02]

I THINK THERE WAS A TIME LIMITATION AS WELL, WASN'T IT? ONE MONTH OR WAS IT MY. YEAH. I MEAN.

DO YOU REMEMBER THIS EMAIL THAT WAS SENT THIS AFTERNOON? I KNOW THE LETTER IS F. YEAH.

I MEAN. IT'S 28536 F.

YEAH. IF SOMEBODY, UH, DOING A SPRING SPRING CLEANING, THEY BRING IN A DUMPSTER. THEY CAN'T LEAVE IT THERE FOR A MONTH.

RIGHT, RIGHT. SO I THINK THE THE PODS OR OR.

YES, THE. POD LIMITATIONS ON TIME. UM, UNLESS THEY WERE TIED TO A BUILDING PERMIT. RIGHT. AND SO I THINK IT WOULD BE A SIMILAR APPLICATION FOR THE PORTA POTTIES. IF THEY'RE TIED TO CONSTRUCTION, THEY GENERALLY BE PART OF A BUILDING PERMIT. UM, AND HAVE A TIME LIMIT.

AND DUMPSTERS. SO, SO I THINK RIGHT NOW YOU COULD HAVE 45, YOU COULD HAVE A DUMPSTER OR PORTA POTTY FOR, FOR LESS THAN 45 DAYS. IF IT'S FOR LONGER THAN 45 DAYS, IT WOULD NEED TO BE TIED TO AN ACTIVE BUILDING PERMIT.

RIGHT? OKAY. SO WAIT, SO IF THERE'S A DUMPSTER THERE FOR LIKE A SPRING CLEANING, THEY COULD PUT IT THERE FOR 45 DAYS.

THAT'S WHAT THE CODE ALLOWS FOR 44 DAYS.

I DON'T KNOW THAT. I MEAN, RIGHT NOW. RIGHT. RIGHT NOW THEY CAN HAVE A DUMPSTER INDEFINITELY. SO 44 DAYS WOULD BE BETTER THAN THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED NOW.

I GUESS IT'S DEPENDS ON THE USE. WHY WOULD YOU NEED A DUMPSTER FOR 45 DAYS IF, UH, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S NOT A CONSTRUCTION SITUATION. UM, AS IT OFTEN COST, IF YOU CAN LEAVE A DAY, YOU DON'T HAVE TO REMOVE IT.

PEOPLE USE THEM TO CLEAN OUT LIKE HOUSES AFTER, UH, PEOPLE PASS AWAY, PEOPLE. DAYS.

YOU'D BE SURPRISED. YEAH.

I MEAN, BASICALLY, THIS CREATES AN ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM WHERE IF IF A DUMPSTER IS LEFT IN A DRIVEWAY FOR LONGER THAN 45 DAYS AND IT'S NOT TIED TO A PERMIT, THEN A VIOLATION COULD BE ISSUED. YOU KNOW, I KNOW OF A SITUATION IN TOWN WHERE THERE WAS A PORTA POTTY, UH, IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE FOR YEARS, AND THERE WAS BASICALLY NO MECHANISM TO THERE WAS ACTUALLY THERE WAS NO ACTUAL VIOLATION. UM, AND SO THIS WOULD, YOU KNOW, WHILE I WOULD RATHER IT NOT BE THERE FOR 44 DAYS, I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT IT THERE FOR 40 YEARS.

SO WHY, WHY 44 DAYS? WHY NOT 25? WHY NOT 30? WHY IS IT 44? UM, NOT SURE WHY THEY PICKED DAYS THAT THEY PICKED, BUT MAYBE WE CAN LOOK TO SEE WHAT THE. SOMETIMES THERE'S BACKGROUND MATERIALS. WHEN THEY FIRST ADOPTED IT WITH INTENT.

UM, WHEN HOW? MAYBE NOT. HOW LONG DOES IT PERMIT STAY IN EXISTENCE BEFORE YOU HAVE TO RENEW.

IT? AND FOR.

UH, DUMPSTER OR A PORTA POTTY THAT'S THERE FOR A CONSTRUCTION SITE, SO. OR HOME RENOVATION. SO THEY PUT IT OUT, YOU KNOW, ONTO THE. STREET.

LIKE THIS WAS A BIG ISSUE. UM, AN ANALOGOUS IN NEW YORK CITY BECAUSE THEY WOULD PUT UP SCAFFOLDING AND NEVER TAKE IT DOWN BECAUSE OF THE COST OF DISMANTLING, UH, AND THE LANDLORD AND PROPERTY OWNERS HAD NO FINANCIAL INCENTIVE TO TAKE IT DOWN. AND THE IT THE CITY RELATIVELY RECENTLY PASSED AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING THEM TO TAKE THEM DOWN.

I SO, GARRETT, DO YOU RECALL THE RATIONALE BEHIND THE 45 DAY PERIOD FOR STORAGE CONTAINERS? UH, NO, I DIDN'T CHECK WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT. I WAS TRYING TO SEE.

DUMPSTERS AS WELL. LIZ HAD SAID SHE WAS GOING TO BE ON STANDBY TONIGHT IF SHE WAS STILL AVAILABLE, TO SEE IF SHE CAN JUMP ON TO ANSWER SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, SINCE, UM, IT'S REALLY BUILDING DEPARTMENT QUESTIONS, SO TRYING TO FEEL THEM AS BEST I CAN, BUT SOME OF THESE ONES I JUST DON'T KNOW.

SO LET'S DO THAT. SO I WILL I'LL PUT THIS ON OUR LIST TO COME BACK TO AND WE'LL, WE'LL, WE'LL MOVE ON FOR THE TIME BEING. THIS IS A SMALL THING, BUT THE WAY. 28536 Q SIX READS, UM, IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE INTERPRETED THAT TO GO UTENSILS ARE NOT PERMITTED TO BE DISTRIBUTED TO GAS STATIONS.

AND SO THIS WOULD JUST CLARIFY THAT PLASTIC OR UTENSILS ARE PERMITTED AT, AT GAS STATIONS. IT'S ALLOWED.

DYLAN, CAN I GO BACK TO 2536? SURE.

UM, J AND K MENTIONS, UH, GENERATORS. I THINK WE BROUGHT UP THIS CONVERSATION. UM, BEING TESTED DAYTIME HOURS. I THINK

[02:35:01]

OKAY. UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, DO YOU HAVE THAT NOTE? YES, I DO. ALL RIGHT. AND I AGREE WITH THAT RECOMMENDATION. OKAY. UM, SO THIS IS 28537. THE ANTENNA CODE. UM, CURRENTLY SPECIAL PERMITS ARE, UH, GO TO THE CBA WITH ALL OF THE OTHER CHANGES IN THE CODE. THE CBA WOULD HAVE NO SPECIAL PERMITS. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT CBA'S, UH, FIELDING SPECIAL PERMITS IS IS FAIRLY UNIQUE.

UM, MANY MUNICIPALITIES, UM, SPECIAL PERMITS ONLY GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD OR PLANNING BOARD AND TOWN BOARD. IT'S IT'S A YES. SO SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT THE SPECIAL PERMITS THAT, UH, ARE WITHIN THE ANTENNA CODE GO TO THE TOWN BOARD INSTEAD OF A CBA.

FINE. OKAY.

UM. SO FOR 285, 37, A 27, THIS IS ABOUT THE NUMBER OF COPIES, UH, THAT, UH, AN APPLICATION UPDATE, NINE COPIES OF THE APPLICATION TO A COPY FOR EACH MEMBER TO MATCH THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE. PRETTY MUCH EVERYWHERE ELSE IN THE DOCUMENT. UM, AND SO THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE MAKE SURE MAKE SURE COPY COPY OF APPLICATION DISTRIBUTION IS CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE CODE. UM. OKAY. NOTICING WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT, UM, I THINK THERE WAS JUST A TRANSCRIPTION ERROR IN 28537.2 EC AND 28537.2 F6. UM, AND THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE REPLACED WITH NEW LANGUAGE IN 28537.1 DG FROM THE BEST CHAPTER, WHICH REQUIRES A 120% REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENT WHENEVER WHENEVER TREES ARE REMOVED. YEP.

OKAY. GOOD GOOD. WITH THAT. UM 28537.1 INCLUDE ANNUAL REPORT LANGUAGE SIMILAR FOR SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS. IN THE BEST CHAPTER. THERE'S CURRENTLY NO, UH, ANNUAL REPORT REQUIRED FOR BUSES.

OKAY. OKAY. UM, 285 40 BC I THINK THIS IS AN EXCEPTIONS. UM, THIS LANGUAGE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEW HOSPITAL HEIGHTS ELSEWHERE IN THE CHAPTER AND SHOULD BE STRUCK AND STRICKEN. OKAY. UH. I'LL SKIP THIS ONE FOR THE SAKE OF DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY MAGANA, THE LOCAL HIGHWAY INVENTORY. I'LL CONCEDE THAT POINT. UM.

I APPRECIATED. AND THE CBA ALTERNATES. I'VE BEEN SCHOOLED ON THAT. ALSO. UM, DEFINITION OF FAMILY.

SECOND REFERRAL. WE DID FOUR CORNERS COMMITTEE. WE DID 180 DAYS. WE DID? YEAH. I THINK GENERALLY LIKE MORE THAN A YEAR. IT SHOULD GO BY GO BY YEARS. AND THEN MORE THAN TWO YEARS IT SHOULD MORE THAN 24 MONTHS. IT SHOULD GO BY YEARS.

UM, THIS IS A GENERAL NOTE THROUGHOUT THE DOCUMENT.

THERE'S THERE'S INCONSISTENT USE OF APPROVING BOARD AND APPROVING BODY. I WOULD PROBABLY USE APPROVING BOARD.

UM, UNLESS UNLESS IT'S A DEPARTMENT THEN.

WELL, AND I WOULD SAY SOMETIMES THE APPROVING BODY IS EXTERNAL AND IT COULD BE LIKE NEW YORK STATE D.O.T. OR THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT. OF HEALTH. AND THEN MAYBE APPROVING BODY SHOULD BE USED CONSISTENTLY..

APPROVING BODIES IS PROBABLY MORE APPROPRIATE.

OKAY. UM, OKAY. SO THOSE ARE THOSE ARE MY NOTES. AND THEN THERE'S A COUPLE THAT WE HAVE HERE. SO LOT MERGER CLAUSE TOWN PLANNER BRITAIN. DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO THAT ONE.

SO WE ARE PROPOSING A AN ADDITION TO CHAPTER 285 WHICH WOULD ESSENTIALLY FORMALIZE COMMON LAW LAW MERGERS. UH, WHERE THERE ARE TWO LOTS, TWO ADJACENT LOTS IN COMMON OWNERSHIP WITH CROSS USE, SUCH AS, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF THE BUILDING CROSSES THE PROPERTY LINE OR, YOU KNOW, UH, PATIOS OR SOME OTHER STRUCTURE, USE UM, AND, OR THE ADDITION, THE TWO LOTS ARE REQUIRED IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ZONING COMPLIANCE IN SOME FORM OR FASHION. UM, RECENT EXAMPLE IS A PROJECT WE

[02:40:03]

SO SIMILAR TO THE AMORTIZATION OF, YOU KNOW, OBNOXIOUS USES BEING A, UM, YOU KNOW, A ZONING PRINCIPLE. ALSO, ANOTHER ZONING PRINCIPLE IS THAT, UM, YOU DON'T WANT TO CONTINUE, UM, HAVING UNDERSIZED LOTS, ESPECIALLY WHEN THEY'RE NOT DEVELOPED. UM, SO IF YOU HAVE JOINT OWNERSHIP, LIKE MATT SAID ABOUT COMMON LAW MERGER, UM, JOINT OWNERSHIP OF TWO, WE'LL SAY TAX LOTS OR TWO SUBSTANDARD LOTS. UM, YOU KNOW, ZONING PREFERS THAT YOU HAVE THEM MERGE AND AND NOT, UH, CREATE UNDERSIZED DEVELOPMENT. SO SO WHAT WHAT WOULD THE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION BE? RIGHT.

UH, THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO, UH, INCLUDE A MERGER CLAUSE. UH.

OR NOT A MERGER CLAUSE FOR THE ATTORNEYS THAT ARE THINKING A MERGER CLAUSE AND A CONTRACT, UM, A LOT MERGER CLAUSE. LOT MERGER LOT MERGER CLAUSE. UM, THAT STATES, YOU KNOW, TWO LOTS IN COMMON OWNERSHIP THAT ARE, UH, SUBSTANDARD, MEANING THEY FAIL TO MEET THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. UM, ARE MERGED AND THEY CANNOT BE DEVELOPED INDIVIDUALLY.

OKAY. THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.

ADJACENT LOTS. RIGHT? YEAH.

CONTIGUOUS. CORRECT.

CONTIGUOUS. AND I DON'T AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH ZONING NECESSARILY IF YOU HAVE IF I OWN TWO LOTS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER AND THEY'RE BOTH IN MY NAME, I THINK GENERALLY UNDER THE LAW THEY MERGE WELL. SO THAT'S WHERE IT GOES TO THE COMMON LAW MERGER PRINCIPLE. AND ACTUALLY IT WOULD BE IT WOULD DEPEND UPON CASE LAW. I'VE SEEN IT ARGUED BOTH WAYS.

I'VE ACTUALLY ARGUED IT BOTH WAYS IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES BEFORE COMING HERE. UM, I HAD A BOARD, A ZONING BOARD, ACTUALLY, THAT FLIPPED THEIR DECISION THREE TIMES. YEAH. UM, SO, YEAH, COMMON LAW MERGER, THERE'S CASE LAW THAT SAYS IF YOU HAVE TWO SUBSTANDARD LOTS. AND THAT'S WHERE MATT WAS SAYING IF THEY'RE USED TOGETHER, UM, HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE WE DO NOT HAVE THE LANGUAGE AND THE CODE CURRENTLY IF THEY'RE NOT USED TOGETHER, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, YOU KNOW, THE THE SECONDARY LOT IS UNTOUCHED. UM, IT'S NOT USED FOR GARDENING OR PATIO OR IMPROVED IN SOME WAY TO USE WITH THE OTHER LOT. THEY COULD CONTINUE WITH THE PATH OF TRYING TO DEVELOP IT. CURRENTLY THEY WOULD JUST NEED TO GET VARIANCES RIGHT? RIGHT. THEY WOULD NEED TO GET VARIANCES.

GOT IT. OKAY. SO I'M COMFORTABLE MAKING THAT RECOMMENDATION. YEAH. OKAY. UM. MR. PATEL, I KNOW YOU HAD A COMMENT ABOUT STUDIO APARTMENTS. DO YOU WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT COMMENT OR MAKE THAT COMMENT? YEAH. UM, NO, I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY WHAT, UH, I BROUGHT UP.

YES. WASN'T IT NO. BEDROOM.

IT WAS A BEDROOM. SO IT WAS. UH, MR. PATEL'S COMMENT, UH, RELATED TO THE DEFINITION OF BEDROOM AND HOW IT CAN BE CONSTRUED TO KIND OF LEAVE STUDIO AND, UH, EFFICIENCY APARTMENTS NOT CONSIDERED A BEDROOM. UM, SO THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF AND THE RECOMMENDATION TO THE BOARD TO THE TOWN BOARD, SHOULD THE PLANNING BOARD ADOPT IT WOULD BE TO SPECIFY THAT STUDIO AND EFFICIENCY APARTMENTS SHALL BE CONSIDERED A BEDROOM FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CHAPTER, WHICH WOULD BE CHAPTER 285. OKAY, THAT MAKES SENSE. YES.

GOOD. GOOD WORK. UH, CATCHING THAT QUICK. UM, SO WE RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM, UH, A PROPERTY OWNER THAT I BELIEVE WAS DISTRIBUTED, UH, REGARDING KENNEL USE IN THE C.B.

DISTRICT. UM, AND I KNOW STAFF SPEND SOME TIME REVIEWING, YOU KNOW, WHERE WHERE IN THE WHERE IN THE TOWN. UH, THE C.B.

DISTRICT IS AND WHERE THIS SPECIFIC PROPERTY IS. AND I THINK THE GENERAL CONSENSUS WAS THAT KENNEL USE WOULD, WOULD ACTUALLY BE APPROPRIATE IN THE C.B. DISTRICT.

I THINK STAFF LOOKED AT, UM, THE DISTRICTS AND WHAT USES ARE PERMITTED. AND, UM, I THINK THEY AGREE THAT KENNELS WOULD BE A SIMILAR USE TO THOSE THAT ARE PERMITTED CURRENTLY. UM, FOR EXAMPLE, DS ALLOWS FOR ANIMAL CLINICS AND KENNELS. UM, IT WOULD JUST HAVE THE SIMILAR REQUIREMENT TO HAVE, UH, ANY

[02:45:04]

KENNELS AS A SPECIAL PERMIT USE THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD.

CORRECT. OKAY. CAN WE GO BACK? I APOLOGIZE, I WAS SPEAKING WITH AMANDA. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE TWO CONTIGUOUS NONCONFORMING LOTS AND ADD LANGUAGE RESIDENTIAL LOTS SO THAT YOU DO NOT HAVE A COMMERCIAL LOT AND A RESIDENTIAL LOT? UM, I THINK IT WOULD SOLVE A POTENTIAL PROBLEM.

SO THOSE WOULD BE. TWO, TWO LOTS.

THAT ARE BOTH RESIDENTIAL. THAT ARE BOTH RESIDENTIAL.

ZONED FOR RESIDENTIAL ZONED. RIGHT. SO IF YOU ZONE A COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL OUT, YOU POTENTIALLY RUN INTO ISSUES OF. SURE. RIGHT.

THERE'S A COMMON LAW MERGER APPLY TO COMMERCIAL LOTS.

SPLIT ZONING. I'VE SEEN IT ALWAYS APPLIED TO RESIDENTIAL.

I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CASE LAW, WHICH I HAVEN'T DONE.

WHILE NOW. OKAY. SO THE RECOMMEND TO THE, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION UPDATED WOULD BE THAT THE COMMON THAT THE LOT MERGER CLAUSE ONLY APPLY TO RESIDENTIALLY ZONED LOTS. IS THAT CORRECT? YES.

SO THE COURT THEN THE QUESTION IS WHY WOULDN'T IT APPLY TO TWO COMMERCIAL LOTS THAT ARE OUT OF ZONING COMPLIANCE? THAT WOULD INDEED BE A QUESTION.

IT'S A QUESTION. YEAH. I GOTTA GET BACK TO YOU.

OKAY. SORRY. I SHOULD.

HAVE GONE. THANK YOU. I THINK. WHAT YOU COULD DO WHILE AMANDA IS INVESTIGATING IS SAY IT HAS TO BE THE SAME. USE INSTEAD OF.

YEAH. DESIGNATING IT AS RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL. THEY HAVE TO BE THE. THE TWO LOTS HAVE TO HAVE THE SAME USE. SO THEY BOTH HAVE TO BE RESIDENTIAL OR THEY BOTH HAVE TO BE COMMERCIAL. IT CAN'T.

BE A. COMMERCIAL.

USE COMMERCIAL. YOU HAVE. TO BE I KNOW, BUT YOU KNOW THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU. CAN I.

KNOW YOU CAN FANCY AT ALL. THE SAME PERMITTED.

USES. WE PROVIDE, CONCEPTS YOU PROVIDE. YEAH. METHODOLOGY. RIGHT? RIGHT. OKAY. UM. COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE, I HAVE A NOTE. CD OVERLAY, DISTRICT PROPORTIONAL SETBACK. THANK YOU. UM, SO THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY IS INTENDED TO MAXIMIZE PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACES. AND THE TOWN BOARD AND PLANNING BOARD HAVE UTILIZED THAT ZONING MECHANISM TO DO JUST THAT AND HAVE SITES DEVELOPED MORE EFFICIENTLY TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE. THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLE OF THAT WAS, UM, ELMWOOD COUNTRY CLUB, WHICH 113 LOT SUBDIVISION. AND THAT WAS SUBJECT TO A SUCCESSFUL, UH, CD OVERLAY. AND WHAT THAT ENABLE IS THE LOT SIZES THAT WERE DEVELOPED THERE FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES WERE ABLE TO BE REDUCED BY 50%. AND IN DOING SO, YOU PICK UP ALL THAT EXTRA SPACE THAT COULD BE USED FOR OPEN SPACE. UM, THAT IS NOW CLARIFIED AS PART OF THE CHUCK CHAPTER 285 UH, AMENDMENTS. BUT, UM, ONE THING THAT WAS NOT CLARIFIED IS THE TYPE OF, UM, LOT AND BULK REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE UTILIZED WHEN YOU REDUCE THAT LOT IN HALF. SO, UH, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, UNDERLYING ZONING PORTIONS OF THE ELMWOOD SITE THAT WERE R 30 WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE 18,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

THEREFORE, YOU'RE PICKING UP 12,000FT EVERY TIME. AND THAT'S, UM, THEN ADDED TO OPEN SPACE. BUT, UM, AN UNANTICIPATED CONSEQUENCE AROSE. AND FOR THE 18,000 SQUARE FOOT DOOR, THE WAY CHAPTER 285 READS NOW, IT'S STILL WOULD HAVE TO APPLY AFTER 30. SETBACKS ARE 30 IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, WHICH ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE AND THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'RE MAKING, UH, WE'RE BRINGING TO YOUR ATTENTION IS TO FURTHER UPDATE 285 TO, UM, HAVE IT BE PROPORTIONAL, UH, IN THE SENSE THAT SETBACKS WOULD BE REDUCED IN THAT EXAMPLE TO, SAY, OUR 15, UM, AS WOULD VARIOUS COVERAGES AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, SO AS NOT TO ESSENTIALLY PENALIZE AN APPLICANT THAT'S DOING THE RIGHT THING AND TRYING TO MAXIMIZE OPEN SPACE.

UM, THE DEVELOPER ACTUALLY INDICATED THAT IF IT HAD BEEN AWARE THAT THEY HAD TO DO THE MORE RESTRICTIVE SETBACKS AND WHATNOT, UM, THEY WOULD HAVE CONSIDERED ACTUALLY DOING LARGER LOT SIZES AND ACTUALLY GOING AGAINST THE INTENT, WHICH IS TO KEEP OPEN SPACE. SO, UM, STAFF BELIEVES IT'S VERY

[02:50:01]

WHAT DO YOU THINK? GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE. WE'LL ADD THAT.

GREAT. JUST TO CLOSE THE LOOP ON THE KENNEL USE AND THE CB DISTRICT. SO I THINK I THINK AS TOWN ATTORNEY MAGANA MENTIONED, UM, THE USES IN THE CB DISTRICT ARE SIMILAR TO THE USES. UM, OR. SORRY KENNEL. USE.

A SIMILAR. KENNEL USE IS SIMILAR TO, UH, KENNEL USES PERMITTED IN DISTRICT. YES. SIMILAR ANIMAL HOSPITAL AND IS PERMITTED IN THE DDS DISTRICT, WHICH IS SIMILAR TO THE CB DISTRICT. UM, SO I THINK THE PROPOSAL, THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO PERMIT KENNEL USE IN THE CB DISTRICT THROUGH PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL PERMIT.

I'M SORRY, JUST TO BE, UH, JUST TO CLARIFY THAT ONE FURTHER, UM, KENNELS ARE A PROPOSED ADDITION TO LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, 28528, WHICH IS THE DESIGN SHOPPING CENTER DISTRICT. AND, UM, THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY PRIMARILY INDOOR USES. UM, AND THEN IT WAS NOTED THAT THE CB DISTRICT DIDN'T FOLLOW THROUGH WITH THE SIMILAR, UH, KENNELS AS A SPECIAL PERMANENT USE. SO, UM, FOR, FOR REASONS OF CONSISTENCY, UH, THAT IS THE RECOMMENDATION. AND ON ONE OTHER THOUGHT I THINK, IS THAT THAT WAIVER LANGUAGE THAT WAS PROPOSED FOR WAIVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR RUNWAYS ASSOCIATED WITH ANIMAL HOSPITALS THAT ARE FULLY ENCLOSED, UM, PROVIDED IT SATISFIES ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. UM, THE BOARD MAY WISH TO CONSIDER THAT TO ADD KENNELS, SINCE IT'S ALSO IN THE SAME CATEGORY TO ALLOW FOR A WAIVER IF IT MEETS ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. I THINK I THINK MOST, UM, I DON'T KNOW IF ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE HERE WHEN THE LAST APPLICATION WAS BEFORE FOR AN ANIMAL HOSPITAL WHERE A RUNWAY WAS PROPOSED.

OKAY. UM, AND AT ONE POINT IN TIME, I THINK ONE OF THE APPLICANTS HAD PROPOSED A RUNWAY OUTDOORS. UM, AND THAT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED A VARIANCE. SO THIS WAS SOME LANGUAGE? YEAH. NO, I. THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. ADDING ADDING ALL OF THAT TO THE TO THE CB DISTRICT.

YES. OKAY. UM, SO I KNOW IT'S A LITTLE BIT AFTER TEN. I APPRECIATE EVERYONE, I THINK WE CAN JUST KNOCK OFF A FEW MORE OF THESE, AND THEN I'LL SUMMARIZE WHERE WE ARE GOING. GOING INTO THE NEXT MEETING.

UM. AND DID YOU. I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME. YEAH. SO THAT'S THAT'S ON MY LIST. WE'LL MAKE SURE WE GET TO THAT. UM, SO THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT WHO DETERMINED SIDEWALK COMPLIANCE FOR SIDEWALKS REQUIRED IN THE CA DISTRICT. I THINK THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION, AND I THINK THE CONCLUSION WAS THAT THE TOWN ENGINEER WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO DETERMINE COMPLIANCE. AND I THINK THE HOPE WOULD BE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, AS THE TOWN, THERE'S CURRENTLY A VACANCY IN THE TOWN ENGINEER ROLE. AND AS THAT ROLE IS FILLED PERMANENT, THERE'S AN INTERIM TOWN AND PART TIME TOWN ENGINEER. AND I THINK THE GOAL WOULD BE THAT AS THAT ROLE IS FILLED FULL TIME AND PERMANENT, THAT, UM, THAT INDIVIDUAL WOULD HOPEFULLY HAVE A PRESENCE, UH, AT PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS. AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THEY WOULD BE THE APPROPRIATE PERSON TO DETERMINE SIDEWALK COMPLIANCE. WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT.

THANK YOU. OKAY. UM. LET'S DO DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. ARE YOU ARE YOU COMFORTABLE.

TACKLING THAT? MISS ROBINSON? YOU CAN PULL IT.

UP. I THINK.

WHILE YOU PULL. IT OFF WITH THAT.

SO WHILE WE PULL IT UP, LET'S LET'S DO SO.

WE RECEIVED. WE RECEIVED A LETTER, UH, REQUESTING GOLF TRAINING FACILITIES IN THE OUR 40 DISTRICT THROUGH A TOWN BOARD, SPECIAL PERMIT. UM, MISTER PATEL, I KNOW, I KNOW, YOU HAD SOME THOUGHTS ON.

THAT. YEAH. THERE'S A WHOLE LIST THAT I HAD IN THERE. UM, I WISH I HAD A COPY. YEAH. I MEAN, I THINK GENERALLY WHERE I STAND TO SPARE YOU FROM FROM GOING THROUGH ALL YOUR NOTES. I THINK THE THE PROPOSAL IS, IS BROAD AND A SIGNIFICANT IMPLICATIONS. UH, AND CONSEQUENCES TO, YOU KNOW, THE OUR 40 DISTRICT AND BECAUSE PRETTY MUCH THE ENTIRE WITHIN THE ENTIRE CODE IF IT'S PERMITTED IN R 40, IT'S PERMITTED IN EVERY, EVERY OTHER ZONING DISTRICT.

IN OUR. DISTRICT.

EVERY OUR DISTRICT, EVERY RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERING WE'RE LATE, LATE IN THE GAME, IN REVIEWING THE AMENDMENTS AND MAKING OUR RECOMMENDATION. UM, MY RECOMMENDATION TO THE TOWN BOARD WOULD BE TO REVIEW THE PROPOSAL. AND IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT THEY WANT TO TAKE ON, UM, THEN ULTIMATELY, UH, YOU KNOW, MAKE A SEPARATE REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD GO THROUGH A SEPARATE STUDY OF, OF THAT CODE CHANGE.

I MEAN, I PUT I PUT MY CONCERNS IN THERE AND OPEN TO SUGGESTIONS. SO I THINK IF, IF THE TOWN BOARD WERE TO TAKE IT ON AND WERE TO REFER IT TO US, THEN,

[02:55:02]

BUT, UM, I THINK WE'RE WE'RE JUST NOT IN A POSITION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON, ON IF THE PROPOSAL IS, IS A GOOD IDEA, BAD IDEA AND IT'S SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT IT SHOULD HAVE ITS OWN SEPARATE PROCESS. YEAH. UM, COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE, DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT? NO, I AGREE. I MEAN, THAT'S AS WE STATED RIGHT AT THE OUTSET. UM, CHAPTER 285. UH, VARIETY OF DIFFERENT, UM, CHALLENGES. WE'RE LOOKING TO TACKLE. THIS PROPOSAL IS SUBMITTED. UH, WHILE IT MAY HAVE SOME MERIT.

WELL, I'M HAPPY TO SEE MR. PATEL'S COMMENTS. UH. RIGHT. IT DOES LEND ITSELF TO A SEPARATE PROCESS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'LL THINK ABOUT THAT AS PART OF THE SEPARATE PROCESS. SO I AGREE WITH YOUR APPROACH THERE. OKAY. UM, COULD WE SAY, UM, WE BELIEVE IT REQUIRES A SEPARATE PROCESS? UM, PRELIMINARILY, AT A MINIMUM, WE HAVE IDENTIFIED THESE ISSUES THAT NEED TO BE FURTHER VETTED AND THEN MR. PATEL.

SURE. I'M ALSO WONDERING IF, YOU KNOW.

WE KNOW WHERE YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT RIGHT.

WITH, YOU KNOW, THE WHOLE, UH, GOLF TRAINING FACILITY. I JUST MY QUESTIONS WERE MORE RELATED TO, YOU KNOW. YEAH.

I THINK STAFF ALREADY HAS ADEQUATE COMMENTS. SO WE CAN WE CAN BAKE THOSE QUESTIONS INTO INTO THE RECOMMENDATION.

YEAH. NO, WE. YEAH. SO AT A MINIMUM, WE HAVE ALREADY IDENTIFIED THIS. THAT NEEDS TO BE FURTHER EXPLORED.

I MEAN WE CAN FORWARD THAT TO THE REST OF THE BOARD MEMBERS.

THEY CAN LOOK AT IT. YEAH. THAT MAKES SENSE.

THAT MAKES ME CONCERN ME ABOUT WHAT HE WROTE IS HE WANTS TO BASICALLY LEGALIZE DE FACTO AS A AS AN APPROVED SPECIAL PERMIT. RIGHT. YOU KNOW, WHAT EXISTS TODAY, RIGHT? RIGHT. AND THAT'S. WHAT I MEAN.

THAT THAT IS ONE OF MANY QUESTIONS.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO STAFF WILL FORWARD ALONG YOUR COMMENTS TO THE REST OF THE BOARD.

UM. I WAS JUST NOTING. SO BECAUSE THIS PROCESS IS IT'S A BIG ONE. RIGHT. SO WE TALKED ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE RECOMMENDATION IS MADE TO THE BOARD. TOWN BOARD, UM, STAFF THEN HAVE TO IMPLEMENT ALL THESE, UM, CHANGES INTO, WE'LL SAY VERSION TWO FOR THE TOWN BOARD'S CONSIDERATION. UM, IT MIGHT MAKE SENSE IN PART OF THAT RECOMMENDATION JUST TO MAYBE RECOMMEND THAT ANY ITEMS THAT HAVE BEEN, YOU KNOW, SEPARATED OUT OR BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION AND WE THINK SHOULD BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY, COULD POTENTIALLY MOVE ALONG A LIKE A, A PARALLEL TRACK SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN BOARD, IF THEY WANT TO CAN REFER IT TO US WHILE STAFF WORK ON THOSE UPDATES TO THE ZONING CODE DRAFT. UM, SO THIS WAY, IF, YOU KNOW, PLANNING BOARD WANTS TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION, IT CAN POSSIBLY ALL BE ADOPTED AT THE SAME TIME, POTENTIALLY. YEAH, I THINK IT'S AN EXCELLENT. THAT MAKES SENSE I LIKE THAT.

YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. UM, OKAY. UM.

ARE YOU READY? OR SO. YEAH. THE MAIN THING WITH THE COMMERCIAL FOR ME, UM, I COULDN'T FIND THE DEFINITION.

JUST FOR THE DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL VIEW.

UM, WAS JUST ADDING HEIGHT BECAUSE WE TALKED ABOUT SCREENING, AND THERE ARE CERTAIN TOWN REGULATIONS FOR SCREENING. UM, SO IF WE ADD HEIGHT, THAT WOULD HELP. UM, I THINK THAT WAS THE ONLY. AND THEN THERE WAS LIKE A LITTLE GRAMMATICAL AREA. I DON'T THINK THERE WAS MUCH ELSE.

RIGHT. SO I, UM.

OH. HI, GARRETT.

I CAN REASSURE YOU THAT IF YOU LIKE.

PLEASE, PLEASE. THANK YOU.

I THINK YOU ALSO NOTED IT. ONE TYPO? YES. ONE TYPO. AND I THINK.

UM. JUST FOR FOR LANGUAGE, UH, IMPROVEMENTS. I THINK WHERE WE SAY, UM, WHERE IS IT NOW? OH, NOT IN THE SECTION. SO WE'RE ACTUALLY WHERE, IT'S WHERE THE REGULATIONS ARE FOR THE COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. UM, IT REFERENCES COMMERCIAL VEHICLES STILL BY COMMERCIAL PLATE, WHICH I THINK WE UPDATED HERE. SO WE JUST NEED TO UPDATE THE UPDATE THAT THERE, WHICH I DID. YOU KNOW, I COULD CIRCULATE A DRAFT OF THAT AS WELL. AND WHAT'S THE FEELING ABOUT, UM. THERE LIKE BUSES.

VEHICLES WITHOUT COMMERCIAL PLATES THAT ARE..

THAT'S THE IDEA. OKAY.

ARE WE GOING TO GET RID OF THAT? WE GOT. US THERE. OKAY. TO SAY PLAN. THAT'S WHY THE BUILDING PART. OKAY. VERY GOOD TIME.

VERY GOOD. SO I THINK THE RECOMMENDATION IS, UH, ADDING HEIGHT AND SCREENING TO THE DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL. SCREENING SCREENINGS THERE.

YEAH. JUST THE HEIGHT. SO ADD HEIGHT TO THE DEFINITION OF A COMMERCIAL VEHICLE. AND THEN ALSO MAKE SURE IN REGULATIONS THAT THE TO THE DEFINITION AND THE REGULATION SPEAKS TO EACH OTHER. MHM.

RIGHT. YEAH I CAN'T BELIEVE THAT.

THAT SOUNDS GOOD TO ME. MY UH HEARTS.

THAT'S YOUR DINNER. I THINK WE.

HAVE A DINNER. I HAVE.

TWO QUICK ONES. AND THEN I'LL SUMMARIZE WHERE WE ARE. UM, SO THE ENTIRE SECTION 2852, WHICH, UM, IS THE PURPOSE SECTION OF THE CHAPTER AND REALLY SORT OF TEASE UP WHAT CHAPTER 285 IS TO BE. UM, THAT WASN'T TOUCHED AT ALL. AND I THINK BASED ON BOTH

[03:00:05]

SO I THOUGHT ABOUT THE COMMENT ABOUT COMMERCIAL AND OR HAVING TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES MERGE, UM, OR JUST COMMERCIAL ALONE. AND SO I THOUGHT ABOUT A POTENTIAL PROJECT THAT WAS COMING AND WHERE WE HAVE CERTAIN SPLIT ZONING, RIGHT.

EVEN EVEN NOW, WE HAVE CERTAIN ZONING. AND THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE CODE THAT SPEAKS TO APPLYING THE STRICTER, UH, DISTRICT. SO SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED IS IF THERE'S TWO PARCELS THAT ARE UNDERSIZED AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT ZONING DISTRICTS, IT CAN MERGE AND APPLY THE DISTRICT OR DISTRICT THAT COULD BE A CONSIDERATION.

YEAH. SO I THINK. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT STAFF CONSIDER THE BREADTH OF THIS DISCUSSION.

AND, UM, WORK, WORK ON A, ON A RECOMMENDATION. UM, SO JUST GOING BACK TO PURPOSE, ARE WE COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING THAT PURPOSE BE REFRESHED? OKAY.

YES. YES.

DEFINITELY. UM, GARRETT, DO YOU WANT TO QUICKLY WALK US THROUGH THE THE LETTER WE RECEIVED REGARDING, UM, STORAGE OF VEHICLES AS A, UM, ACCESSORY TO SELF STORAGE AND SPECIFICALLY WALK THROUGH WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, WHAT INFORMATION THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD RECEIVE. UM, WHEN MAKING A DECISION ON, ON IF THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. UM. LIKE, COULD, UM. I'M GOING TO BRING UP AN AERIAL PHOTO OF, OF OF A SUBJECT SITE. UM, BECAUSE I REALLY THINK IT, UM, I'LL HIGHLIGHT THE POINT HERE. SO FIVE, FIVE, FIVE WHITE PLAINS ROAD. , AND.

I'LL SHARE JUST A MOMENT HERE. SO WE TALKED ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT LAST TIME. AND YES, THAT A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OWNER OF THIS SITE, UM, SPOKE AT THE PUBLIC DISCUSSION AND THEIR THEIR VISION IS A LIMITED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT THAT APPLIES TO SELF STORAGE UNITS. UM, THAT REALLY IS APPLICABLE WHEN A SELF STORAGE, UM, IS CONVERTED FROM, SAY, AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING. AND WHEN THIS OFFICE BUILDING WAS BUILT, MULTI-LEVEL BUILDING. UM, NATURALLY, IT HAD A FAIR AMOUNT OF PARKING AS, AS IS EXISTED ON THE SITE TODAY. WHEN THAT OFFICE BUILDING WAS CONVERTED TO SELF AGE.

GROUP HOMES. I'M SORRY.

SORRY. I WAS HAVING CONTINUE. I WAS HAVING A.

CONVERSATION WHEN THAT SELF STORAGE WAS CONVERTED. WHEN THAT OFFICE BUILDING WAS CONVERTED TO SELF STORAGE, THE PARKING DEMAND PLUMMETED. AND AT THE UH, PARKING RATES THAT WE HAVE, UM, IT COULD BE THAT, FOR INSTANCE, ONE ROW OF EXISTING PARKING HERE SATISFIES THE FUNCTIONAL NEED AND THE CODE REQUIREMENT FOR SELF STORAGE. UM, SO WHAT WAS IDENTIFIED IS, UM, A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT THAT GUARANTEES THAT LANDSCAPING IS UPDATED WHERE THERE'S GAPS, UM, THAT, UM, ANY ACCESSORY USE OF THESE EXTRA PARKING SPACES WOULD NOT INFRINGE ON THE CODE NEEDED. SPACES FOR THE, UH, SELF STORAGE TO REMAIN FUNCTIONAL. UM, AND AS WELL AS CONTROLS ON THE INTENSITY OF THE TYPE OF ACCESSORY VEHICLE USE ARE NOT, UM, LIKE CONTRACTOR BUSINESSES. OF COURSE NOT. HEAVY VEHICLES.

UM, THAT SORT OF THING. SO, UM, EXAMPLES OF A USE WOULD BE, UM, SAY EXCESS INVENTORY FROM OF NEW CARS, FOR INSTANCE. UM, YOU KNOW, THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO, UM, UTILIZE EXTRA PARKING FOR THAT. SO, UM, WHAT THAT, THAT, UM, REPRESENTATION THAT WAS MADE BY THE APPLICANT DID NOT INCLUDE WAS A SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS. SO, UM, IF THE PLANNING BOARD WERE SUPPORTIVE, UM, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT. UM, WOULD ABSOLUTELY INCLUDE A

[03:05:04]

LIKE THAT WAS APPROVED WITH THE CODIFIED REQUIREMENT OF PARKING SPACES, WHICH IS UM, UH, NOT NOT, NOT EXCESSIVE. AND THERE'S SIMPLY NO EXCESS PARKING THERE. SO THAT WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. UM, EVEN LIKE THE WEST EAST STORAGES WERE BUILT WITH MINIMAL EXTRA PARKING. UH, SO IT'S JUST EXAMPLES LIKE THIS AND, UM, YOU KNOW, MAYBE 1 OR 2 OTHERS.

OKAY. AND SO AS PART OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD KNOW BOTH THE STORAGE AND THE STORAGE, UH, STORAGE USE THAT IS PROPOSED THAT IS PROPOSING THEY HAVE EXCESS PARKING. AND THE END USER, YOU KNOW, PRESUMABLY A CAR DEALERSHIP THAT HAD, UM, YOU KNOW, VEHICLES THEY WANTED TO STORE AT THE STORAGE CENTER. AND THROUGH THAT SPECIAL USE, UH, PROCESS, WE'D BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE A TRAFFIC STUDY IF WE FELT THAT WAS NECESSARY. UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN CERTAINLY HAVE DISCUSSIONS ON CONDITIONS AS A PART OF THAT APPROVAL. YOU KNOW, AS YOU MENTIONED, SIDEWALKS OR OTHER IMPROVEMENTS. UM, AND WE'D BE ABLE TO TO, YOU KNOW, REALLY THINK, THINK CAREFULLY, YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC IMPLICATIONS, SAFETY IMPLICATIONS, UM, OF OF APPROVING.

AND, UM, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT IDENTIFIED THAT IF THERE'S SOME SUPER AMOUNT OF EXCESSIVE PARKING, UM, MAYBE IT WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO SOME LIMITED GREETING UP ON THE SITE, WHICH WOULD BE APPROVED. BUT SO THAT WOULD BE ALL THINGS THAT WE WE WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO CONSIDER AND CONTROL AS PART OF A SPECIAL USE PROCESS. SPECIAL PERMIT.

PROCESS. MANY BUILDINGS ARE IN THE TOWN THAT WOULD THIS. WOULD APPLY TO.

I THINK. THERE'S A PROPOSAL THAT WILL BE REFERRED TO THE PLANNING BOARD. UM, IN OCTOBER. AND IT'S, UH, THE FORMER BASF BUILDING, AND THAT'S A.

UH, YEAH. UH, RETROFIT OF OFFICE TO TO SELF-STORAGE. IT'S ALSO FORWARD LOOKING AND THAT, YOU KNOW, EVER SINCE COVID ESPECIALLY, A LOT OF OFFICE YOU USE HAS DECLINED AND HAS NOT REALLY REVERSED. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S PLENTY OF OFFICE SPACE IN THE TOWN THAT MAY IN THE FUTURE, UH, SEEK TO BE CONVERTED TO SELF STORAGE, WHERE THIS TYPE OF, UM, ACCESSORY WOULD APPLY.

NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. I JUST DON'T KNOW WHETHER WE WANT TO BE, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, A STORAGE FACILITY, YOU KNOW, AROUND THE TOWN AND AND COULD YOU KNOW, WHAT DO DEALERS FROM OTHER, YOU KNOW, MUNICIPALITIES, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THEY THEY'D BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, STORE THEIR CARS AND GREENBERG. CIBA-GEIGY.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. SO THAT MIGHT NOT BE A BAD THING, BECAUSE IF THEY'RE NOT STORING THEM IN SPACES LIKE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THESE THINGS FIND SPACES WHERE MAYBE YOU DON'T WANT THEM. UH, I AGREE WITH, UM, MR. WEINBERG'S POINT. UH, THIS IS NOT A STRATEGY TO TRY AND GET MORE SELF STORAGE IN THE TOWN. IN FACT, UM, I'M VERY CURIOUS TO WONDER IF WE'RE VERY CLOSE TO A SATURATION POINT. UM, YEAH. BUT ALSO, YOU KNOW, THINKING FORWARD ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UM, MAYBE A BETTER AND HIGHER USE WOULD BE, UM, EVEN RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION OF SOME OF THESE OFFICE BUILDINGS. I THINK THAT WOULD BE. UM.

MORE EXCITING USE. AND, UM, HIGHER AND BETTER USE OF CONSIDERATION, BUT ULTIMATELY, THAT'S NOT THE CHARGE OF 285.

BUT I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THE TOWN WILL BE THINKING ABOUT. UM, CLOSELY AS IT UPDATES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND THERE WAS A VERY INTERESTING ARTICLE.

AND THERE. WAS A. SECTION OF THE SUNDAY TIMES, UH, LISTING THE NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IN THE WALL STREET AREA, OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT ARE CURRENTLY UNDERGOING RENOVATION TO RESIDENTIAL, AS WELL. AS WE ALL KNOW, THE PFIZER FORMER PFIZER BUILDING, WHICH ALMOST COLLAPSED, BUT WHAT THE.

HECK? THE PHENOMENON IS NOT UNIQUE TO THE CITY. IT'S WESTCHESTER. UM, COMMUNITIES ARE ADOPTED AND.

UM. WITH THIS FACILITY, THE 555.

HOW HOW DO YOU. DETERMINE HOW MANY SPACES THEY COULD. GET SUPPORTING? YOU KNOW, THE OFFICE BUILDING WAS BASED ON OFF STREET PARKING AND ALL THAT. BUT HOW DO YOU DETERMINE IN THIS CASE?

[03:10:02]

SO, UM, IN WORKING BACKWARDS, WE WOULD CALCULATE THE TOTAL SQUARE FEET AND FIVE, FIVE, FIVE, UM, WHITE PLAINS ROAD, IDENTIFY DIVIDE THAT BY 5000. AND LET'S JUST SAY IT'S UM, 30 SPACES. THEN UH, AND LET'S SAY THERE'S 200 SPACES ON THAT SITE. UM, THEY'RE ACCESSORY PARKING REQUEST.

UH, SORRY, I SAID 200 SPACES ON A HYPOTHETICAL. AND 30 ON MY THAT WERE NEEDED FOR THE SELF STORAGE. SO, UM, THEY SHOULD BE SHOWING A PLAN THAT DOES NOT USE MORE THAN 170 SPACES DEVOTED TO THE ACCESSORY PARKING, AND THE BOARD WOULD NOT BE OBLIGATED TO DO THAT TO COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT'S POINT. UM, MAYBE IT WOULD BE 150 SPACES AND YOU WOULD GREEN UP 20 SPACES OR, UM, SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. OKAY.

SO I WOULD BE COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING THIS. AS WITH THE SPECIAL USE SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS, UH, ADDITION THAT WASN'T IN THE PROPOSAL FROM FROM FIVE, FIVE, FIVE WHITE PLAINS. ROAD.

I THINK, UH, MISS ROBINSON HAD A RECOMMENDATION.

YEAH. THE ONLY, UM. SO, UM, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE SUPPLEMENTAL SECTION. YEAH. NUMBER SIX. SO WAS A LITTLE CONFUSING. SO DEPUTY ATTORNEY MCDONOUGH, SHE REWROTE IT SO THAT IT MAKES MORE SENSE BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, IT IS WHAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE IS ASKING, HOW MANY SPACES ARE THERE? RESTRICTIONS WILL WE, YOU KNOW, ALLOW THEM TO JUST MAKE EVERYTHING, YOU KNOW, SAY, STORAGE OUTSIDE. AND THIS RESTRICTS IT. AND IT SAYS YOU HAVE TO MEET REQUIREMENTS. SO WITH. THAT, AMANDA, DO YOU WANT TO READ YOUR LANGUAGE OR NOT? OR. OH, I DO.

HAVE. I THINK JUST CONCEPTUALLY.

OR CONCEPTUALLY, I CLARIFIED THAT THE INTENDED ACCESSORY SPECIAL PERMIT USE COULD NOT DETRACT FROM THE EXISTING REQUIREMENT TO HAVE OFF STREET PARKING SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE NEED FOR THE PRINCIPAL STORAGE USE.

GREAT. SO I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. OKAY. UM, SO I THINK WE'RE COMING TOWARDS THE END. GARRETT, DID YOU WANT TO TALK ABOUT SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR GROUP HOMES, OR DO YOU WANT TO PUNT THAT TO THE NEXT MEETING? UH, WHAT HAVE YOU SEAT ON THAT? SO THERE'S A SECTION IN 285 THAT EXISTS, AND IT HAS, UM, SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS BUILT IN, AND IT HAS A REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD, AND IT HAS A SERIES OF CRITERIA AND. IN NEW YORK STATE, GROUP HOMES ARE ACTUALLY REGULATED, MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THE TRADITIONAL LOCAL GOVERNMENT SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS. AND THE REALITY IS THAT WHEN A GROUP HOME IS PROPOSED IN A LOCAL GOVERNMENT IN NEW YORK STATE, UM, IT IS REFERRED AS AN APPLICATION WITH A REQUEST TO RECEIVE COMMENT BACK WITHIN 40 DAYS. AND THERE ARE THREE OPTIONS THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN, CAN, CAN, UM, WORK TOWARDS. AND ONE IS IS A RECOMMENDATION OF UM, ACCEPTANCE OF THE PROPOSAL OR UH, IF THERE'S IT'S DEEMED THAT THERE'S UH, CONCENTRATION OF GROUP HOMES TO BE A CONCERN, THE COMMUNITY CAN RECOMMEND THAT THEY SEEK AN ALTERNATE LOCATION. UM, OR THIRD, IF, UM, THERE'S NOT AN ALTERNATE LOCATION THAT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT CAN REQUEST THAT, UM, NEW YORK STATE NOT GRANT THE LICENSE, I BELIEVE. UM, SO THAT 40 DAY, UM, MANDATE BY NEW YORK STATE IS JUST NOT FEASIBLE WITHIN, UM, THE CURRENT 285, UH, SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS, WHICH, UH, LIKE, AS I MENTIONED, IT REQUIRES, UM, REFERRAL TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND THEN THE TOWN BOARD HOLDING A PUBLIC HEARING. SO, UM, I THINK TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE MANDATE FROM NEW YORK STATE, THAT IS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO SIGNIFICANTLY REVAMP, UM, THIS SECTION OR SCALE IT BACK. UM, BUT I THINK SUFFICE TO SAY, SOMETHING NEEDS TO HAPPEN, UM, BECAUSE THE EXISTING REGS ARE JUST SIMPLY DO NOT, UM, WORK WITH THE WAY NEW YORK STATE REGULATES THESE USES.

YEAH. AND WE CERTAINLY CAN'T BE OUT OF LINE WITH WITH STATE STATE REGULATIONS. AND SO ULTIMATELY, I THINK RECOMMENDING THAT THIS SECTION BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE IS REALLY OUR ONLY CHOICE. GREAT. UM, SO HERE'S WHERE WE ARE. SO

[03:15:05]

UM, BUT IN THE MEANTIME, I THINK STAFF IS, HAS HEARD ALL OF OUR COMMENTS AND DISCUSSIONS OVER THE PAST FEW MONTHS. AND SO I THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU ALL THINK IT WOULD BE HELPFUL THAT WE HAVE STAFF START TO, TO SORT OF WRITE A REALLY GOOD FIRST DRAFT OF OF OUR RECOMMENDATION LETTER. UM, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF CANNABIS CHICKENS, STORAGE DUMPSTERS AND PORTA POTTIES. UM, AND SO, SO WE CAN AT LEAST REVIEW ALL OF THE OTHER THINGS THAT, THAT WE SEEM TO ALL AGREE ON AT THIS POINT. UM, AND THEN WE CAN REVIEW THAT AT OUR NEXT MEETING, AND HOPEFULLY AT OUR NEXT MEETING, WE CAN HAVE A CONVERSATION ON THESE FOUR OUTSTANDING ITEMS. UM.

WHAT ABOUT. SO I THINK WE'VE ALREADY YEAH, I THINK I THINK WE AGREE THAT THAT WILL I THINK SO, MISS ROBINSON ASKED ABOUT THE GALL. YEAH. I MISS ROBIN.

YEAH. SO I THINK WHERE WE LANDED ON THAT WAS THAT THE RECOMMENDATION WAS FOR THAT TO IF THE TOWN BOARD WANTS TO MOVE ON THAT TO YOU KNOW, CONSIDER A PARALLEL PATH AND REFER IT BACK TO US. AND IN THE RECOMMENDATION, WE'LL BAKE IN THE SIX QUESTIONS AS SORT OF A STARTING POINT FOR, FOR THAT DISCUSSION. OKAY.

VERY GOOD. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

BECAUSE .. UM, SO AT THE NEXT MEETING WE WILL REVIEW A, A GOOD FIRST DRAFT OF THE RECOMMENDATION MEMO. AND UH, WITH THAT DOESN'T INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION ON CANNABIS CHICKENS. THE 45 DAYS OF STORAGE, DUMPSTERS AND PORTA POTTIES AND ICE CREAM STANDS. AND WE'LL FINISH THOSE DISCUSSIONS WHILE WE REVIEW THE THE THE, UH, THE RECOMMENDATION MEMO. AND SO THAT WOULD BRING US TO POTENTIALLY BEING IN A POSITION TO APPROVE THE RECOMMENDATION. WHAT'S WHAT'S TWO MEETINGS FROM NOW. OCTOBER 21ST.

OCTOBER 21ST. IS THAT IS THAT, UM, IS THAT TIMELINE FOR PUTTING TOGETHER THE RECOMMENDATION MEMO REASONABLE? YES. SO, UH, GARRETT, MOSTLY, AND WITH SOME INPUT AND AARON HAVE STARTED PREPARING DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THESE VARIOUS TOPICS. SO BASED ON TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION, WE WILL FINALIZE THEM TO MAKE SURE WE CAPTURE EVERYTHING, UH, THAT WAS DISCUSSED. AND WE'LL HAVE THOSE FOR THE OCTOBER 7TH MEETING.

SOUNDS GREAT. AND I THEN I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH THAT TIMELINE. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT.

I WOULD LIKE TO ADD THE LAST DISCUSSION ON THE, UH, YOU KNOW, PARKING IN THE STORAGE FACILITIES AS AN OPEN ISSUE.

OKAY. I HAD FROM OUR LAST MEETING, IT SAYS REMOVED FROM 285 IF FOR NEXT DISCUSSION, CANNABIS EV BEST AND ASSISTED LIVING SLASH CCRC. YEAH. SO THAT WAS FROM THE PUBLIC COMMENT. AND I THINK WHERE WE LANDED ON THAT WAS WE WANTED TO DISCUSS CANNABIS. I THINK BEST WE DISCUSSED TODAY ABOUT, YOU KNOW, UPDATING IT AND CONFORMING IT TO STATE STANDARDS AND ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS. I THINK WE WERE ALL IN ALIGNMENT WITH, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ADDING THE THE SIGN TO DISTINGUISH FREE VERSUS.

UM, AND THEN WHAT WAS THE ASSISTED LIVING CCRC.

SO THAT WHERE WE LANDED AT THE LAST MEETING WAS BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, WE'LL WE'LL DEFER TO THE TOWN BOARD TO USE IT, DEFER TO THE TOWN BOARD TO USE ITS JUDGMENT. UM, YOU KNOW, AS THE THE OTHER AS THE, THE, THE BETHEL KNOLLS CASE IS ADVANCING THROUGH THEIR PROCESS. WE BELIEVE IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, AT BEST, THE OPTICS WOULD BE WOULD BE NOT GOOD IF THE TOWN WERE TO CHANGE ANYTHING POTENTIALLY IMPACTING THE APPLICATION MIDSTREAM. SO BASED ON, YOU KNOW, AS THAT APPLICATION SORT OF FOLLOWS ITS NATURAL COURSE AND AS THE TOWN BOARD TAKES UP THE 285 AMENDMENTS, WHICH LIKELY WON'T BE UNTIL JANUARY AT THE EARLIEST, IF THEY GET TO A POINT WHERE THESE TWO CONVERGE AND THEY'RE READY TO ADOPT 285

[03:20:04]

CORZINE'S. UM, IF BY THE TIME THEY GET TO 285, THE BETHEL CASE IS DONE AND DECIDED, THEN, YOU KNOW, THEN THEN PROCEED AS, AS YOU KNOW, PROCEED FORWARD AS THEY WISH. SO THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION, BASICALLY, TO CONSIDER THE OPTICS AND AND USE THEIR JUDGMENT. CONSIDER THE OPTICS AND THE IMPLICATIONS AND AND USE THEIR JUDGMENT. OKAY, OKAY.

TACK ON THAT. UM, ONE OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS WE HEARD WAS, UM, WITH REGARDS TO UNIT DENSITY CALCULATIONS AND, UM, A REQUEST TO ENSURE THAT, UM, THE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE NOT INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN AND UNDULY ADDING UM, UNIT DENSITY THAN OTHERWISE IS ANTICIPATED. SO, UM, WE THOUGHT THAT WAS A VERY ASTUTE COMMENT. AND, UM, STAFF BELIEVE THAT WE WANT TO REEVALUATE THE PROPOSAL OF CONTEXT AND DO JUST THAT, MAKE SURE, UM, THAT THE DENSITY ALLOWED DOES NOT EXCEED THAT WHICH IS PRESENTLY PERMITTED IN THE SECTION. SO, UM, WE'D BE HAPPY TO ADD THAT INTO THE RECOMMENDATION AS WELL.

THAT WOULD I THINK THAT'D BE APPROPRIATE.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT. WELL, I APPRECIATE EVERYONE TAKING A LITTLE BIT OF EXTRA TIME THIS EVENING TO TO CONTINUE TO PUSH THIS FORWARD. YOU KNOW, WE'RE WE'RE REALLY CLOSE. THIS WAS A, A BIG UNDERTAKING. UM, AND, AND I'M CONFIDENT WHEREVER WE LAND ON THESE OUTSTANDING ISSUES THAT OUR RECOMMENDATIONS ARE, ARE SUBSTANTIVE AND THOUGHTFUL. UM, AND VERSION TWO, WHENEVER THAT GETS TO THE TOWN BOARD, UH, WILL BE SIGNIFICANTLY IMPROVED BECAUSE OF BECAUSE OF OUR WORK.

I'D LIKE TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE SUPPORT THAT WE'VE BEEN GIVEN BY OUR TOWN ENGINEERS, ETC., TO HELP US WORK OUR WAY THROUGH AND UNDERSTAND, THE PROCESS, BECAUSE.

WE'LL, WE'LL WE'LL GIVE THE THE TOWN ATTORNEY'S OFFICE AND PLANNING AND BUILDING. OH, I WAS GOING TO LEAVE OUT THE TOWN ATTORNEY'S. OFFICE, ALL OF THEIR FLOWERS.

WHEN WE FINALLY GET OVER THE FINISH LINE. OUR STAFF HAS BEEN ON UNBELIEVABLY COOPERATIVE AND PATIENT.

AND PATIENT. THOUGHTFUL AND AND.

AND RESPONSIVE. AND RESPONSIVE. THIS WHOLE PROCESS. UM. ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:35 P.M..

DIABETES FROM. UH, MR. KILLINGER, MR. PATEL.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR. BOATS II MEETING IS ADJOURNED.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.