[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, October 7, 2026 – 7:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 10:00 p.m. ]
[00:00:02]
ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. WELCOME TO THE WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7TH, 2026 PLANNING BOARD MEETING. UH, IT IS 7:06 P.M.. UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, CAN YOU CONDUCT THE ROLL? SURE. CHAIRPERSON. PINE. HERE. MISTER WEINBERG HERE. MISTER PULLINGER HERE.
UH, OUR FIRST ALTERNATE, MISS ROBINSON.
HERE. AND I WILL NOTE THAT MISS ANDERSON WILL BE HERE SHORTLY. I'LL ALSO NOTE THAT MISTER PATEL, OUR SECOND ALTERNATE, WILL NOT BE PRESENT THIS EVENING. THEREFORE, MISS ROBINSON WILL BE A FULL VOTING MEMBER ON ALL MATTERS. GREAT. THANK YOU. UM, DID EVERYONE HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE SEPTEMBER 16TH MINUTES? OUR LAST MEETING? YES, YES. UH, WERE THERE ANY EDITS OR CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? YES. ALL RIGHT. WHAT DO YOU, UH. WHAT DO YOU GOT? UM, I HAVE PAGE EIGHT. THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, WHERE IT SAYS CHAIRPERSON PINE THAT HE BELIEVES SHOULD BE STATED IN BETWEEN PINE AND THAT. YES, I ALSO HAVE PAGE THE BOTTOM OF PAGE NINE, UM, WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT. UH, THERE SHOULD BE A BEGINNING PARENTHESES FOR, UH, CD.
AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE BOTTOM OF PAGE EIGHT SAYS, UH, MR. PILLAGER OF PINE. MY LAST NAME IS SPELLED WRONG.
OKAY. SO THESE CAN BE PUT ON ME BECAUSE I PREPARED THE MINUTES FOR THE LAST MEETING SINCE MATT WAS DOWN HERE. SO I MADE THREE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. AND I APPRECIATE YOU LOCATING THEM AND BRINGING THEM TO OUR ATTENTION. STAFF WILL MAKE THOSE CHANGES. OH, GOOD. ALL RIGHT. UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? FEEDBACK? QUESTIONS? NO. UH, THEN I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, AS AMENDED. SO MOVE, MOVE, MR. PULLINGER. SECOND. SECOND, MISS ROBINSON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
CHAIR. VOTES. I, UH, WE HAVE NO CORRESPONDENCE THIS EVENING, SO WE'LL MOVE RIGHT INTO OUR OLD BUSINESS WORK SESSION. UH, FIRST UP, WE HAVE CASE NUMBER PB 2602. KIM AT 18 JOYCE ROAD IN HARTSDALE. UH, THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A PLANNING BOARD, STEEP SLOPE PERMIT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. UH, STAFF HAS DISTRIBUTED A DRAFT DECISION FOR US TO CONSIDER THIS EVENING. UM, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH THE DECISION? UH, AND IMPORTANTLY, NOTE THE, UH, ANY SITE SPECIFIC CONDITIONS THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE DECISION. YES.
YES. SO WE HAVE, UH, FOLLOWING CLOSURE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO PREPARE THIS DRAFT LETTER OF DECISION ON THE PLANNING BOARD, STEEP SLOPE PERMIT AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATIONS. UH, NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY WAS PROVIDED DURING THE OPEN WRITTEN RECORD PERIOD. HOWEVER, UH, THE APPLICANT, AS WELL AS STAFF, UH, WORKED COOPERATIVELY REGARDING THE COMMENT THAT CAME UP BY THE BOARD RELATED TO THE INSTALLATION OF A DRAIN AT THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY. UM, AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT COULD BE SITUATED WITHIN THE TOWN'S RIGHT OF WAY OR NOT, WE COMMUNICATED WITH OUR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, AND THEY INDICATED IN WRITING THAT THEY WOULD NOT PREFER TO HAVE THE DRAIN WITH A PRIVATE DRAIN WITHIN THE TOWN'S RIGHT OF WAY. SO THE APPLICANT, WHO HAD DESIGNED THE PLAN TO HAVE IT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, YOU KNOW, AT THE EDGE OF THE DRIVEWAY, REVISED ITS PLANS QUICKLY TO, UM, ACCOMMODATE THE TRENCH DRAIN JUST WITHIN THEIR PROPERTY LINE. UM, AND AS SUCH, CONDITION 4.1 WAS FINALIZED, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE APPLICANT SHALL INSTALL A TRENCH DRAIN IN THE DRIVEWAY AT THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE IT MEETS THE RIGHT OF WAY OF JOYCE ROAD, WHICH SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE PROPOSED ONSITE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OR DRAINAGE SYSTEM, AND SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS AND THE TOWN ENGINEER. SO WE DID ADD THAT IN. UM, THE ONLY OTHER THING WE ADDED SINCE THE DRAFT WAS CIRCULAR OR THE INITIAL DRAFT WAS CIRCULATED, IS ON PAGE THREE. WE HAD A PLACEHOLDER FOR THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT APPLICATION NUMBER THAT HAS SINCE BEEN IDENTIFIED AS TP 26. 137 OKAY, GREAT.
THANK YOU. UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT DECISION? NO, NO.
I JUST HAD ONE QUESTION IN 3.5, WHICH I GUESS IS A STANDARD SECTION. YOU KNOW, THEY TALK ABOUT THE LAST THING.
[00:05:03]
, 3.5. OKAY. YEAH. I MEAN, OBVIOUSLY WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT BLASTING HERE.RIGHT? HOW DOES THAT WORK WHEN I MEAN.
SO WITH BLASTING. UM, THERE'S THERE IS A SECTION ON IT THAT WE INCLUDE. SO, YOU KNOW, AN APPLICANT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY OBLIGATED. UM, THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO ENCOUNTER ROCK IN THIS INSTANCE. UM, WITH RESPECT TO THIS SPECIFIC PROJECT. BUT NEVERTHELESS, WE INCLUDE THE CONDITIONS IN THE EVENT CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE, THEN THEY HAVE TO COMPLY. WE DO HAVE THE, UM, CHAPTER 140 OF THE TOWN CODE, WHICH ALL APPLICANTS ARE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH.
TYPICALLY BOTH 3.5, WHICH IS A PRETTY STANDARD AND COMMON CONDITION, AS WELL AS SECTION 11, WHICH STARTS ON PAGE 12 OF THE DRAFT DECISION. UM, ALWAYS INCLUDE TYPICALLY THE SAME CONDITIONS. SO THIS DOES NOT DIFFER. EVEN IF IT WAS A PROJECT THAT WE KNEW INVOLVED ROCK REMOVAL, IT WOULD INCLUDE THE SAME STANDARDS. SO IF THEY HAD TO DO ANY BLASTING, WOULD THEY HAVE TO THEN DEAL WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS TO TO THEIRS? SO WE DID DISCUSS IT NOT NECESSARILY ON THIS APPLICATION, BUT QUITE RECENTLY ON ANOTHER APPLICATION. YEAH. THE ONE ON OLD ARMY ROAD.
SO THAT'S SORT OF WHY I'M ASKING ABOUT THIS, BECAUSE WE WE SPENT A GOOD DEAL OF TIME ON THAT ONE.
YEAH. SO THEY DO HAVE TO HAVE SORT OF, UM, CERTIFICATES OF INSURANCE FOR A CERTAIN RADIUS AND DISTANCE. UM, THEY DO HAVE TO PROVIDE NOTIFICATION. THERE IS A BLASTING EXPERT THAT WORKS WITH THE TOWN. HE HAS FOR, I WANT TO SAY, CLOSE TO 20 YEARS, IF NOT LONGER. IT'S BEEN THE SAME GUY. UM, AND HE GOES OUT AND DOES THE INSPECTIONS AND ALSO, UM, SEISMOGRAPH. UM, PLANS ARE PROVIDED. SO THERE'S, THERE'S A WHOLE LIST OF REQUIREMENTS LISTED IN THE CODE.
DID THAT INCLUDE LIKE DOING SURVEYING THE ADJOINING.
PRE BLAST SURVEY. OR OTHER HOUSING.
THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT IF IT'S STRUCTURES WITHIN A CERTAIN LINEAR DISTANCE THAT IT MUST BE SURVEYED.
GREAT. UM ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE DECISION? NO. ALL RIGHT. THEN WE HAVE, UH, WE HAVE THREE VOTES TO CONSIDER THIS EVENING. UH, THE FIRST, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLASSIFY THE PROPOSED ACTION AS A TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SECRE. SO MOVE, MISTER PULLINGER.
SECOND. SECOND, MISS ROBINSON. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
CHAIR VOTES. I, UH, NEXT UP, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT DECISION FOR THE PLANNING BOARD. STEEP SLOPE PERMIT, AS AMENDED. SO MOVED.
MOVED, MISS ROBINSON. SECOND. SECOND, MR. PULLINGER. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
CHAIR VOTES. I. UH. AND THEN LASTLY, I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE DRAFT DECISION FOR THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, UH, AS AMENDED. SO MOVED.
SECOND. MR. PULLINGER. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. CHAIR. VOTES I, UM.
I DON'T KNOW. ALL RIGHT. UM. ALL RIGHT, SO NEXT UP, WE HAVE A NEW BUSINESS ITEM. UH, UP FOR WORK SESSION.
CASE NUMBER, UH, PB 2424. UH. RESIDE AT 460 RIDGE ROAD IN PO HARTSDALE. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A WETLAND, WATERCOURSE PERMIT AND A TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. UH, MR. CATCHPOLE, UH, GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. UH, YEAH. LET ME JUST SHARE MY SCREEN. YEAH. THIS SHARE SCREEN FUNCTIONS ENABLE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING.
MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. GREG. CATCHER. FOLEY ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT HERE AT 460 RIDGE ROAD. UM, THE EXISTING CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY IS, UH, YOU KNOW, IN SHAMBLES. BUT WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU TO TO IMPROVE THAT. HOPEFULLY. UM, THERE'S AN EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE THERE. UH, THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO ADD A TWO STORY ADDITION TO, UH, NOT UPWARDS, BUT, UH, SIDEWAYS. IT'S SHOWN HERE. UH, WITH, YOU KNOW, DRIVEWAYS, UH, POOL IN THE REAR WITH POOL, PATIO AND, UH, ASSOCIATED STORMWATER MANAGEMENT. UM, WE HAVE ALREADY BEEN TO THE HEALTH DEPARTMENT. WE'VE GOTTEN SEPTIC, UH, APPROVAL BY THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. UM, THE PROPERTY WILL REQUIRE SOME TREE REMOVALS IN ORDER TO CREATE THE ACCESS. UH, THE REASON FOR THE TREE REMOVALS IS MAINLY BECAUSE OF THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY. UH, AND REGRADING FOR THE DRIVEWAY, AS WELL AS THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PROPOSED HOME. UH, THERE'S 13
[00:10:03]
TREES PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL. HOWEVER, WE DID PROVIDE A TREE MITIGATION, UH, TREE PLANTING PLAN TO MITIGATE THOSE TREE REMOVALS. THERE'S ALSO WETLANDS, UH, THAT WERE IDENTIFIED ON THE PROPERTY. UH, WE HIRED A WETLAND CONSULTANT, UH, TIM MILLER ASSOCIATES, WHO HAD CAME UP WITH A MITIGATION PLAN, WHICH IS HERE. UH, YOU KNOW, WE KEPT MOST OF THE DEVELOPMENT OUTSIDE OF THE BUFFER AS MUCH AS WE COULD. UM, AND, UH, THERE'S ALSO A DRAINAGE DITCH THAT'S ONLY ACTIVE DURING RAINSTORMS. UH, WHICH WE ARE PROPOSING TO PIPE THROUGH. THIS IS ALL ALSO ALL BEEN REVIEWED. REVIEWED BY ENGINEERING. WE'VE GONE BACK AND FORTH MANY TIMES WITH COMMENTS. UH, AND THIS IS WHERE WE'VE LANDED TO DATE. UH, WE'RE PIPING THIS THROUGH TO THE MANHOLE ON THE STREET. UH, IN ORDER TO JUST MAINTAIN FLOW PATH, THAT IS THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN THERE PRIOR TO THIS PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. AND, UH.THAT'S A SUMMARY OF OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING OR WHAT'S BEFORE YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? FIRST DEPUTY TOWN ATTORNEY.
UM, SO I JUST. HAD A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE RIPRAP. UM, SO IS THERE AN EXISTING CHANNEL THERE THAT YOU'RE IMPROVING OR REPAIRING, OR IS IT A NEW INSTALLATION? IT'S IT'S KIND OF NATURALLY FORMED FROM UPSTREAM. I BELIEVE THERE'S SOME THERE'S LIKE A TENNIS COURT UP THERE OR SOMETHING. AND OVER TIME IT'S BEEN FLOWING OFF AND THEN CREATED A LITTLE RAVINE. IT'S SEASONAL THOUGH. YOU SAID IT WAS. SEASONAL.
IT'S ONLY WHEN IT RAINS. OKAY. IT'S ACTIVE. IT'S, UH, YOU KNOW, AND MAYBE THE DAY OR TWO AFTER. BUT, UH, YEAH, THE RIPRAP, IT'S DEFINITELY WILL IMPROVE THE SITUATION BY ADDING STABILIZATION, ADDING THE WETLAND PLANTINGS. UH, YOU KNOW, DIRECTING IT TO, TO THE SYSTEM DIRECTLY RATHER THAN JUST FREELY FLOWING. UH, AND KIND OF OVER, OVER THE PROPERTY. SO, UH, YEAH, OVERALL, IT'S DEFINITELY AN IMPROVEMENT, I THINK MAINLY BECAUSE OF OUR PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES. AND COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH WHERE WHERE THE STREAM CURRENTLY DISCHARGES? SURE. LET ME JUST. AND IT'S MORE SO LIKE A DRAINAGE DITCH, MEANING IT'S NOT ALWAYS ACTIVE. UM, SO HERE'S AN EXISTING CONDITIONS PLAN. YOU CAN KIND OF FOLLOW THE, THE CONTOURS HERE. LIKE WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY START TO, TO CURL LIKE THAT IS, IS THE LOW SPOT. SO IT KIND OF FOLLOWS THE, THE LOW LINE HERE AND COMES DOWN THIS WAY TOWARD THE. UH, NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY WHICH IS OVER HERE. SO IT MAKES ITS WAY FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS UP HERE ACROSS TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, THEN GOES ON THE NEIGHBORS DRIVEWAY DOWN TO THIS BASIN ANYWAY. SO WE'RE JUST GIVING IT A DIRECT PATH TO THE BASIN. AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, LIKE AT A POINT, PROBABLY TWO THIRDS OR THREE QUARTERS INTO THIS SITE AS IT MOVES FROM SOUTHEAST TO NORTHWEST. IT KIND OF LIKE, DISAPPEARS AND GOES UNDERGROUND. BUT BASED ON THE ANGLE OF KIND OF THE CHANNEL, LIKE YOU CAN MAKE A GOOD, UM, YOU KNOW, UH, I DON'T WANT TO SAY ASSUMPTION, BUT YOU.
YEAH. YOU CAN MAKE THAT DETERMINATION THAT IT GETS TO THAT CATCH BASIN ASSOCIATED WITH THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH THEN TIES INTO THE EXISTING CATCH BASIN AND RIDGE ROAD. CORRECT. RIGHT. OKAY.
AND THANK YOU. AND IT'S GOING TO BE REROUTED IN THE PROPOSED CONDITION BASED ON THE NEW PIPING PROPOSED.
CORRECT? YES. AND MAINLY IT IS. AND THE MAIN REASON FOR THAT IS DUE TO OUR PROPOSED STORMWATER SYSTEM SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS FROM THE PROPOSED SEPTIC. UH, THAT THOSE TWO MAINLY GOVERNED THE ROUTE. UH, OF THE PIKE.
OKAY. AND WHAT TYPE OF STORMWATER EVENT IS THE SET FOR? UH, THIS IS DESIGNED FOR 25 YEAR STORM.. AND COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH HOW HOW THAT'S BEING CAPTURED? SURE. UM, YEAH, IT IS 25. I JUST WANTED TO DOUBLE CHECK. IT'S, UH. SO WE ARE PROPOSING
[00:15:05]
TO CAPTURE ALL RUNOFF FROM ALL IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. SO NOT ONLY THE NET INCREASE, WE'RE ACTUALLY CAPTURING THE EXISTING HOME AS WELL. UH, AND UNDERGROUND INFILTRATION SYSTEM. WE DID STORMWATER TESTING ALONG WITH, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE DID THE SEPTIC TESTING, WE DID STORMWATER TESTING. IT ACTUALLY HAD GREAT PERCOLATION RATES. UH, SO WE HAVE 16 PULL TECH, THREE 30S HERE CAPTURING THE HOUSE AND THE UPPER PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY. AS YOU GET TO THE LOWER PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY, WE COULDN'T GET PITCHED TO THAT SYSTEM. SO THERE IS A SEPARATE SYSTEM THAT SITS A LITTLE BIT LOWER TO CAPTURE THE LOWER PORTION OF THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH IS FOR CALTECH. 330 SO THERE'S A TOTAL OF 20, UH, GOING IN.AND AS THE APPLICANT WILLING TO INCREASE IT, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S AN EXCESSIVE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT COMES FROM THIS PROPERTY, ESPECIALLY DURING RAINFALL.
I MEAN, WE CAN WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT. I, UH, IT MAY ALREADY BE ABLE TO HANDLE A 50 YEAR STORM. UH.
IF YOU CAN CONFIRM. THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
YEAH, WE'LL DEFINITELY LOOK INTO THAT.
AND AND THERE'S NO EXISTING STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN OR STORMWATER STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ON THE PROPERTY CURRENTLY. THAT'S CORRECT. NOTHING EXISTS CURRENTLY. SURE.
UM, AND THEN THE EXISTING DRIVEWAY THAT SERVED THE HOME, UH, IS PART OF THAT SHARED DRIVEWAY JUST OFF SITE. I IMAGINE THERE'S AN EASEMENT, UM, THAT COMES UP AND IT KIND OF HOOKED AROUND THE HOUSE, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THERE WAS ANY PAVEMENT. UH, SO, YOU KNOW, COMING OFF THE MAIN STEM OF THE DRIVEWAY ONTO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, BUT THAT WOULD BE REMOVED. UM, IF THERE WERE, BECAUSE I GUESS THERE WAS AN OLD GARAGE IN THE BACK OR.
THERE WAS A GRAVEL. GRAVEL DRIVEWAY.
I THOUGHT SOME OF IT WAS GRAVEL AND SOME OF IT WAS PAVED.
ACCORDING TO THE WRITE UP. I MEAN, THERE IS THIS EXISTING WHICH, UH, MR. CATCHPOLE IS SHOWING. THAT'S SOMEWHAT MORE RECENT, QUITE A BIT MORE RECENT THAN THE DRIVEWAY, THE SHARED DRIVEWAY THAT HOOKED AROUND TO KIND OF LIKE THE BACK. OKAY.
THAT EXISTING, UH, ALONG RIDGE ROAD IS GOING TO BE MODIFIED TO ACCOMMODATE. RIGHT. THE NEW. DRIVEWAY AND THIS IS GOING TO BE REMOVED OVER HERE. IT'S JUST GOING TO BE ONE, ONE DRIVEWAY.
THAT GOES. UP ONE RIGHT. RIGHT.
COMMENTS, PLEASE. YES. ONE, I JUST WANTED TO NOTE, UH, FOR THE RECORD, THAT THE APPLICANT DID MEET WITH THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL, ACTUALLY QUITE A WAYS TO GO.
UH, THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION ON MAY 12TH, 2025. UM, WITH FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. UH, ONE THAT THE RECOMMENDATIONS CONTAINED IN THE STAFF REPORT TO THE CAC BE ADOPTED TO THAT THE PROPOSED WETLAND BUFFER AREA, PLANTS AND SEED MIX ARE RELOCATED OUTSIDE OF THE POOL AREA FENCE TO RUN ALONGSIDE THE WATERCOURSE WITH THE WHICH THE APPLICANT HAS ACCOMMODATED. UM, SO THEY SHIFTED EVERYTHING SO THAT THE PLANTINGS ARE NOW ALONG THE OPEN STREAM CHANNEL, AS WAS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. UM THREE THAT SHRUBS ARE PLANTED AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE WETLAND BUFFER TO TO DEFINE THE BUFFER AND DISCOURAGE DISTURBANCE OF THE BUFFER AREA AND WETLAND. THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN ACCOMMODATED IN THE PLAN PREPARED BY TIM MILLER ASSOCIATES. AND THEN, UH, RECOMMENDATION NUMBER FOUR, TO REMOVE ALL EXISTING TREE OF HEAVEN OR AILANTHUS ALTISSIMA, UH, TREES AND SAPLINGS FROM THE PROPERTY TO PREVENT FUTURE PROPAGATION OF THE HIGHLY INVASIVE PLANT, WHICH SERVES AS A BREEDING GROUND FOR THE INVASIVE SPOTTED LANTERNFLY. WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT. WERE THERE ANY ADDITIONAL TREES THAT YOU GUYS, UM, YOU KNOW, MARKED OFF AS TO BE REMOVED BASED ON THAT RECOMMENDATION? OR WOULD YOU BE, YOU KNOW, AGREEABLE IF THIS BOARD WERE TO CONDITION THAT? OH, ABSOLUTELY AGREEABLE. UH, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE. WHAT WAS THE.
YEAH. THE PLAN. THERE IT IS. SO EIGHT, NINE.
WHICH ARE, YOU KNOW, MAINLY HERE IN THIS IN THIS DRIVEWAY AREA. EIGHT. NINE. TEN. 11, 12. SO THERE'S IT LOOKS LIKE THEY DID ACCOMMODATE THAT AS PART OF THE REVISED PLAN MOST RECENTLY SUBMITTED. OKAY. SO THERE MAY BE YOU KNOW, IT'S POSSIBLE THERE ARE UNREGULATED UNREGULATED SIZED UM AILANTHUS TREES. AND THIS BOARD COULD VERY WELL CONDITION THAT THOSE UM ALSO BE REMOVED IN CONNECTION WITH THE PROJECT,
[00:20:02]
WHICH IS GOING TO BENEFIT YOU DOWN THE ROAD BECAUSE, UM, THEY'RE HIGHLY AGGRESSIVE AND WOULD OVERRUN THE AREA. SO IT'S BEST TO, LIKE, GET RID OF THEM. PLUS, THEY ALSO, AS THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL MENTIONED, THOSE LANTERN FLIES THAT HAVE BEEN UP IN THIS AREA THE LAST HANDFUL OF YEARS. LIKE YOU'LL SEE LIKE HUNDREDS IF NOT THOUSANDS. ON THESE SPECIFIC TREES THEY FEED. THAT'S THE HOST SPECIES FOR THAT SPOTTED LANTERNFLY. SO GETTING RID OF THEM HELPS RID YOUR PROPERTY OF THOSE FLIES. AND JUST TO CONFIRM, I, I KNOW THIS IS A 2024 PROJECT. UM, WHEN WAS THE TREE SURVEY CONDUCTED? UH, THE TREE SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED AROUND 2024. OKAY. UM.SO IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE NOT REGULATED ARE NOW REGULATED.
SO WHAT WE CAN DO. SO, OKAY, BY 10 MILLION OR BY.
SO TIM MILLER ASSOCIATES RECENTLY ACTUALLY. YEAH.
BECAUSE I THINK THIS PLAN IS UPDATED OCTOBER. UH. YEAH. THEY DIDN'T THEY DIDN'T GIVE ME A REVISION DATE HERE, BUT I'M.
RIGHT ON THE BOTTOM RIGHT. IT SAYS NOVEMBER 25TH.
YEAH, BUT THAT'S MY. THAT'S MY REVISION DATE. OKAY. THIS PLAN WAS SENT. TO ME, I GUESS. I MEAN, THIS IS ONLY THE INITIAL WORK SESSION, SO IF YOU CAN CONFIRM BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING, PRESUMING THAT'S THAT'S HOW WE MOVE FORWARD. UM, IF YOU CAN JUST CONFIRM THAT.
WE WILL. THE TREES ARE THE TREE SURVEYS, THE MOST RECENT SURVEY. AND IF ANY ADDITIONAL REGULATED TREES NEED TO BE MODIFIED. UH, WE CAN WE CAN COVER THAT THEN.
GOT IT. ALSO, THERE ARE, UM, YOU HAVE TREES, UM, SET TO BE PROTECTED IN YOUR PLAN, I BELIEVE. FIVE, EIGHT. THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL TREES THAT, UM, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PROTECTION AROUND THEM. UM.
ON THE LEFT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND AND EXACTLY ON THAT SIDE. AND THEN TOWARDS THE BOTTOM, WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE WORK IS GOING TO HAPPEN. ARE THOSE TREES, UM, STAYING? ARE THEY BEING REMOVED AS WELL? IF THEY'RE STAYING, THEY WOULD THEY SHOULD HAVE PROTECTION AS WELL. YEAH I AGREE. WELL WE'LL ADD THAT THEY ARE STAYING. OKAY. AND THEN UM, THERE'S TREES TO THE TO THE RIGHT OF THE DRIVEWAY AND THEN OVER BY THE POOL AREA THERE'S ANOTHER ONE.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL TAKE A CLOSER LOOK AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL THE ONES TO REMAIN ARE PROTECTED. THANK YOU. YEAH. IF YOU SEE TO THE ON THE PLANET, I KNOW IT'S, UH, LIKE A UNDER LAYER, BUT TO THE LEFT OF THE SOIL STOCKPILE. UM, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO THE ABSORPTION TRENCH AREA OR SEPTIC. YEAH. SO WE CAN GO OVER THAT TOGETHER. WE DO HAVE. EXCUSE ME. UH, THE TOWN RECEIVED THE LETTER FROM TIM MILLER DATED AUGUST 26TH, 2026. UM, ABOUT TREE REMOVAL FOR THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT THE APPLICATION SHOWS THE SITE PLAN AND THE TREE PLANNING AND A LIST OF TREES, UH, TO PROPOSE TO BE, UH, PLANTED, SLASH REMOVED. UM, I DON'T SEE THE DATE.
THANK YOU. I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT A LANDSCAPING COMPANY THAT'S SUBMITTING THAT WOULD BE, UM, YOU KNOW, SUBMITTING SOMETHING TWO YEARS OUT OF DATE, BUT IT'D BE GOOD TO CONFIRM.
YEAH. AND I DON'T SEE THE DATE ON IT, WHICH IS ALSO, UM, THE, UH, CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL MENTIONS AS PART OF THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS, A STAFF REPORT DATED MAY 1ST, 2025 ARE ADOPTED. UH, HAS THAT HAPPENED? DARREN.
RIGHT. SO THE STAFF REPORT AND I CAN LET MR. BRITTON SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE HE PREPARES THE STAFF, REPORTS TO THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL. BUT I'LL SPEAK GENERALLY FIRST.
UM, THOSE ARE THOSE CONDITIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS AS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT ARE, UM, COMMON CONDITIONS AND PLANNING BOARD. WETLAND. WATERCOURSE PERMIT.
OKAY. DECISION.. OH, YEAH. THAT'S FINE. OKAY.
UM. SO ACCORDING TO YOUR MITIGATION, THE TREES THAT YOU'RE PLANTING SEEM TO BE ONLY IN THE WATERCOURSE AREA. WERE YOU LOOKING TO PLANT, UH, AROUND THE REST OF THE PROPERTY BY THE DRIVEWAY, AROUND THE HOUSE? ARE YOU LOOKING TO DO ANY OTHER PLANTINGS BESIDES WHAT YOU SHOW HERE? I THINK AS OF RIGHT NOW, THE ONLY PLANTING IN, UH, THAT WE PLAN FOR IS, IS WHAT'S SHOWN. I MEAN, IF IF YOU'RE SUGGESTING
[00:25:05]
MORE, I'M SURE WE CAN CERTAINLY CONSIDER. BUT WHAT'S BEFORE YOU IS WHERE WE'VE GOTTEN. TODAY. SO JUST TO PIGGYBACK OFF THAT, I RECALL SEEING A PLAN THAT SHOWED, UM, 49 MAYBE ARBOR VAD ALONG THE REAR PROPERTY LINE AND ALONG A PORTION OF THE SIDE, PROBABLY FOR SCREENING PURPOSES. UH, AND I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL.UM, SO WE DO HAVE THAT THAT'S, THAT'S HERE. RIGHT. SO, YEAH, THE THE MAIN PURPOSE OF I I'M SORRY, I THOUGHT YOU WERE REFERRING TO WETLAND PLANTINGS, BUT THERE ARE, THERE ARE EVERGREENS PROPOSED AROUND THE PERIMETER FOR SCREENING AND, YOU KNOW, PRIVACY OF THE REAR YARD.
RIGHT. SO MY FOLLOW UP COMMENT TO THAT IS, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GREAT AND GOING TO BE HELPFUL AND PROVIDE YOU THE SCREENING YOU'RE LOOKING FOR. BUT SPECIFICALLY IF YOU IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE REPLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS OF THE TOWN TREE ORDINANCE, IN ADDITION TO THE SHRUBS AND THE AND THE HANDFUL OF TREES YOU'RE PROPOSING AROUND THE THE WETLAND AREA, UM, IF YOU REQUIRE THOSE EVERGREENS TO BE PLANTED TO MEET THE MINIMUM, UM, REQUIREMENTS IN TERMS OF REPLACEMENT, THE TOWN CODE AND THE TREE ORDINANCE HAVE A SPECIES DIVERSIFICATION TABLE, UM, SO THAT YOU'RE NOT PLANTING LIKE A MONOCULTURE OR THE SAME SPECIES. THE REASON FOR THAT, JUST SO YOU KNOW, SIR, IS ALSO IF A PEST OR SOME DISEASE COMES IN THAT IMPACTS THAT SPECIFIC TYPE OF TREE, THEN YOU'LL LOSE ALL 49 OF THEM IN ONE SHOT. UM, SO WE CAN WORK TOGETHER. AND WITH OUR FORESTRY OFFICER AND MAYBE GIVE YOU SOME SUGGESTIONS ON HOW YOU CAN MAYBE CLUSTER GROUPS OF THE SAME, BUT INTERMIX A FEW DIFFERENT EVERGREEN SPECIES THROUGHOUT THAT STRETCH. SO YOU WOULDN'T LOSE THEM ALL. UM, IF SOMETHING CAME IN AND INVADED, YOU KNOW, THE PROPERTY OF THE TOWN OR THE COUNTY. THAT'S AWESOME. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. YOU GOT.. ALL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. WEINBERG? UH, COULD YOU GIVE US SOME HISTORY OF THIS PROPERTY? OKAY. CAN YOU PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT MORE? I MEAN, I DON'T. IS THERE ANY HISTORY THAT YOU CAN PROVIDE ON. IT? AND IF YOU CAN SPEAK FROM THE MICROPHONE, THOUGH, THAT WOULD BE GREAT. HOW DID YOU ACQUIRE IT? I MEAN. FROM THE SELLER. UM, MY NAME IS JAY. GRISHA. S FOR 60 RIDGE ROAD. UH, AS WE UNDERSTOOD FROM THE SELLER WAS A CASH OFFER, UH, ABOUT FOUR YEARS AGO. HE BOUGHT IT FOR DEVELOPMENT. HE WAS VACANT FOR, LIKE, 20 YEARS BEFORE. AND THE HOUSE NEVER BEEN TOUCHED. MINOR RENOVATION SINCE EARLY 1800S. BASED ON THE HOUSE HISTORY. IT WAS JUST KEPT LIKE THAT. LAST 20 YEARS WAS NOTHING. JUST AS YOU KNOW, ALMOST FALLING DOWN ALREADY. BUT FOR HISTORY IN THAT NOT.
IS THERE ANY HISTORICAL SIGNIFICANCE TO THE PROPERTY? HAVE YOU? UH, A FEW YEARS BACK. I CAN SPEAK TO IT IF YOU'D LIKE. YEAH. SO, UM, WHEN THIS FIRST CAME, UM, TO THE TOWN, BEING THAT THE STRUCTURE IS MORE THAN 50 YEARS OLD AND WAS PROPOSED FOR MODIFICATION OR ALTERATION, SUCH AS WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US NOW. UM, THE PROJECT WAS FLAGGED AND REFERRED TO THE CONSERVATION ADVISORY COUNCIL, WHO DID REVIEW THE PROJECT, WORKED WITH THIS GENTLEMAN.
AND LANDMARK PRESERVATION. OH. SORRY, THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED TWICE. SO WORKED WITH THE HISTORIC AND LANDMARKS PRESERVATION BOARD. UH, MET WITH THEM. THEY CONDUCTED A SITE VISIT. WE WERE OUT AT THE SITE. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSIONS WITH THE OWNER, MR. GRESHAM, ABOUT, UM, BECAUSE I THINK AT ONE TIME THERE WAS CONTEMPLATION ABOUT DEMOLISHING THE WHOLE STRUCTURE, AND THEY IDENTIFIED THAT THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE HOUSE WAS FAIRLY INTACT, HAD A NICE EXISTING, UM, FIREPLACE AND MANTEL, MAYBE SOME OTHER FEATURES. AND THEY WENT SORT OF BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD AND SAID, YOU KNOW, WE'VE LOOKED AT IT, I BELIEVE YOU'RE IN THE BUSINESS OF, UH, HOME CONSTRUCTION. AND THEY'RE LOOKED AT IT AND ULTIMATELY PIVOTED TO ACCOMMODATE THE COMMENTS OF THE HISTORIC AND LANDMARKS PRESERVATION BOARD AND KEEP THAT CENTRAL PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE. AND THOSE SOME OF THOSE HISTORIC FEATURES, AND THEN BUILD OUT FROM THERE, UH, WITH THE ADDITIONS. SO, UH, SO IT CERTAINLY WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS. AND I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT QUESTION.
SO IN DOING ALL OF THAT, YOU CHECKED THE STRUCTURAL
[00:30:04]
INTEGRITY OF THAT EXISTING BUILDING, BECAUSE IF YOU LOOK AT IT FROM THE ROAD, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S, YOU KNOW, A STRONG WIND WOULD KNOCK IT DOWN. YEAH. NO, I MEAN, WE WE LOOKED AT THE STRUCTURAL INTEGRITY. IT'S THE, THE REINFORCEMENT OF THE STRUCTURE IS PART OF OUR STRUCTURAL PLAN. IT DOES NEED SOME LOVE. IT NEEDS TO BE, YOU KNOW, REFURBISHED, UH, IN MANY PLACES. BUT, UH, YEAH, THAT'S PART OF THE PROPOSED CONSTRUCTION. AND RIGHT NOW IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, IT DOESN'T HAVE A CEO, RIGHT? IT'S NOT. YOU CAN'T OCCUPY IT. NO YOU CANNOT.RIGHT. WAS THERE AN EXISTING SEPTIC SYSTEM? YES, THERE WAS, THERE WAS. THEY WERE OLD, UH, LIKE MADE OUT OF BRICK TANKS. WOW. AND, UH, THERE WAS TWO OF THEM. SO SEWER CAME OUT, WENT INTO ONE TANK WHERE THE SOLID SETTLED LIQUID RISES, AND THEN THE LIQUID WENT TO THE OTHER TANK AND WENT INTO THE GROUND. YEAH. AND WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WITH THAT SYSTEM? WELL, IT'S BEING ABANDONED.
ACCORDING TO WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REGULATIONS. AND THEN THE NEW SYSTEM IS GOING TO BE PUT IN PLACE ACCORDING TO THEIR APPROVAL.
WHICH WHAT DOES ABANDONMENT MEAN? ARE THEY REMOVING.
YOU PUMP OUT THE TANKS, MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NO NO MORE LIQUIDS INSIDE OF THEM. AND THEN YOU CAN CRUSH THEM AND REMOVE THEM. YOU DON'T REMOVE THE TANKS.
AND THEN YOUR NEW SEPTIC WILL BE FOR THE FOUR BEDROOM THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. THAT'S CORRECT.
AND I WOULD JUST LIKE TO STATE FOR THE RECORD THAT MISS ANDERSON ARRIVED AT 7:35 P.M.. YEAH.
THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. HAVE. HAVE YOU, UM. I KNOW YOU'RE APPROVED FOR THE, UH, FOUR, FOUR BEDROOM TANK. HAVE YOU CONSIDERED A 5 OR 6 BEDROOM IN CASE YOU WISH TO EXPAND FURTHER LATER ON? I KNOW THAT BECOMES A PROBLEM LATER. IF YOU DECIDE YOU WANT ANOTHER BEDROOM.
IT'S ACTUALLY APPROVED FOR A FIVE. BEDROOM.
FIVE. PERFECT. SO IT'S A FOUR BEDROOM? YES. THANK YOU. SURE.
SO I NOTICED THAT I THINK THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SAID THAT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THIS PROJECT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO SPRINKLER THE ENTIRE BUILDING, INCLUDING THE OLD THE EXISTING BUILDING. MHM.
YES. YOU KNOW THAT BUILDING. OKAY.
THERE'S I THINK A BARN ON THE PROPERTY ON THE LEFT SIDE OF YOUR FACING. IT. YEAH.
RIGHT. SO THAT WAS UM LOOKED AT ALSO BY THE HISTORIC AND LANDMARKS PRESERVATION BOARD. IT'S IN VERY POOR CONDITION. IT WAS A GARAGE AT ONE POINT. UH, THE ROOFS IN VERY POOR SHAPE.
AND IT REALLY WASN'T EVEN DEEMED SALVAGEABLE. SO IT'S GOING TO BE DEMOLISHED OR REMOVED.
UM, ON THE NEW PIPING THAT YOU'RE PUTTING IN, UH, WILL I ASSUME YOU'LL, YOU KNOW, ENTER INTO A MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THING IS KEPT CLEAN.
GLASS. I MEAN, THAT THE PURPOSE OF IT IS TO, YOU KNOW, DIRECT THE WATER FROM WHERE IT COMES INTO THE PROPERTY TO THE BASIN. SO. SURE, THAT CAN BE PART OF OUR OUR PACKAGE. NO PROBLEM. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON, UH, FOR THIS APPLICANT? NO, NOT AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. UH, THEN I WILL SCHEDULE THIS PROJECT FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 21ST.
UH, AND IF YOU COULD DO SOME MORE INVESTIGATION ON THE TREE SURVEY AND THE OTHER ITEMS THAT WE DISCUSSED PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, UM, THAT WOULD BE APPRECIATED. AND STAFF, IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY, WE'LL COORDINATE WITH YOU ON THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS. UH, IN PREPARATION FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.
THANK YOU. ONE OTHER QUESTION BEFORE, PLEASE. UM, HAVE YOU HAD ANY COMMUNICATION WITH YOUR, YOU KNOW, NEAREST NEIGHBORS ABOUT THE PROJECT AT ALL, BEING THAT THIS IS KIND OF GONE ON FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS, I DON'T KNOW IF, PARTICULARLY WITH, I GUESS, THAT EXISTING SHARED DRIVEWAY NEIGHBOR THAT GOES FURTHER BEHIND YOU. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'VE COMMUNICATED. WITH THEM.
YES, I SPOKE TO HIM OFTEN AND HE'S REALLY NICE AND HE'S AN ARCHITECT, ACTUALLY. SO HE KNEW HE HAS A SENSE OF WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO PROPOSE. YEAH. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND HE'S, LIKE, HOPING TO START THE JOB RIGHT AWAY BECAUSE HE LOOKS RIGHT ON HIS. AS SOON AS HE COME OUTSIDE HE SEES THAT.
BUT. GREAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. GREAT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO NEXT UP ON THE AGENDA, WE HAVE, UH, CONTINUED OLD BUSINESS WORK SESSION, A
[00:35:05]
DISCUSSION ON, UH, CASE NUMBER TB 2500 FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE CHAPTER 25 AMENDMENTS. THE ZONING TEXT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS AS ON REFERRAL FROM THE TOWN BOARD. UM, SO THIS HAS BEEN A, UH, A LONG ROAD COMING. UM, BUT STAFF HAS DILIGENTLY PREPARED A NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS FOR US TO REVIEW THIS EVENING.UM, JUST TO SORT OF SET THE STAGE FOR HOW THE, THE THIS CONVERSATION OR HOW I ENVISION THIS CONVERSATION GOING. AND IF WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, THAT'S THAT'S THE THE WAY WE'LL PROCEED. UM, WE WE HAVE THREE ITEMS THAT ARE SORT OF STILL UP FOR DISCUSSION THAT ARE NOT BAKED IN TO THE RECOMMENDATION. AND THAT IS ON, UH, CHICKENS ON SELF-STORAGE, ACCESSORY PARKING AND ON CANNABIS. UM, AND SO MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE THAT WE TACKLE THOSE THREE ITEMS AND THEN WE GO THROUGH, UM, NOT NECESSARILY LINE BY LINE, BUT MAYBE, MAYBE CATEGORY BY CATEGORY. THE A THROUGH F RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE IN THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN WE CAN BRIEFLY DISCUSS THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT RECOMMENDATION. AND THEN WE'LL GO THROUGH UH, REPORTS ONE THROUGH NINE. SURE. UM, HOW DOES THAT HOW DOES THAT SOUND EVERYONE. SOUNDS GOOD. SOUNDS GOOD.
SO STARTING WITH THE, UH, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. UM, AND THE THREE OUTSTANDING ITEMS. SO IN THE ORDER IT'S PRESENTED TO US. UH, FIRST UP IS CHICKENS. SO JUST TO SORT OF SUMMARIZE WHERE WHERE I THINK THE CONVERSATION IS, UM, IN THE, UH, IN THE, THE 285 DRAFT THAT WAS REFERRED TO US FROM THE TOWN BOARD. IT OUTLINES A NEW PROVISION TO PERMIT CHICKENS WITHIN THE TOWN. UH, IT RESTRICTS CHICKENS. UH, TO I THINK IT'S TEN CHICKENS ON LOTS. GREAT, GREAT. OR 20,000FT AND GREATER. UM, AND THEN OVER THE COURSE OF OUR DISCUSSIONS, THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS ON, UM, YOU KNOW, IF IF CHICKENS ARE, ARE APPROPRIATE AT ALL WITHIN THE TOWN. AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE'S BEEN DISCUSSIONS ON, UM, IF IF THE TEXT AS REFERRED TO US IS TOO RESTRICTIVE AND IF THERE SHOULD BE, I THINK ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WAS A SLIDING SCALE FOR CHICKENS ON SMALLER LOTS. UM, TO, TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR MORE PEOPLE TO HAVE CHICKENS ON, ON THEIR PROPERTY. UM, SO WHO, I GUESS, WHO WOULD LIKE TO TO START THE DISCUSSION? I BELIEVE THAT THE, UM, THE 20,000FT AND THEN THE SLIDING SCALE IS APPROPRIATE. IT DOESN'T, UM, BASICALLY ALLOW A CERTAIN GROUP OR CERTAIN HOUSE TYPE TO HAVE CHICKENS AND NOT ALLOW OTHERS TO HAVE CHICKENS. UM, CHICKENS KIND OF ALREADY EXIST. I WAS SOMEPLACE ON, UH, SUNDAY AND SOMEONE UP NORTH HAD LIKE 20 CHICKENS JUST ROAMING AROUND. UM, VERY CLEAN AND NICELY CAPPED. UM, SO PEOPLE WANT THEM, AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE, I PERSONALLY DON'T HAVE CHICKENS.
BUT. UM, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, TIMES ARE CHANGING AND, YOU KNOW, UH, THE, THE TIME THE TOWN HAS TO EVOLVE WITH WHAT IS APPROPRIATE.
OKAY. THE ONLY COMMENT I WOULD HAVE.
EXCUSE ME, I HAVE A COLD IS I DO BELIEVE THAT WE SHOULD HAVE A MINIMUM MINIMAL, UH, PROPERTY SIZE OF A PROPERTY. UH, THAT HAS TO BE MET BEFORE THE INTRODUCTION OF CHICKENS ONTO THE PROPERTY, WHATEVER THAT. OKAY.
YOU KNOW. MHM. A BASE UPON WHICH.
I AGREE. HELLO. A 5000 OR 10,000FT .
YEAH. WE DON'T WANT SOMEONE WITH, UH, 500FT . I'M NOT SAYING WE HAVE THAT TO HAVE TWO CHICKENS JUST WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT IN THE COOP AND THINGS.
LIKE THAT. YEAH, I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, SO. SO 20,000FT IS HALF AN ACRE. SO 10,000FT WOULD WOULD BE A QUARTER ACRE. UM, IN MY MIND, A QUARTER ACRE FEELS FEELS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE, AT LEAST, AT LEAST AS A START AND
[00:40:04]
APPROPRIATE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR CHICKENS. UM, AND SO MAYBE IF, IF TEN WAS PERMITTED ON 20,000, THEN NO FIVE IS PERMITTED ON 10,000. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, SPLIT THE DIFFERENCE, SAY SEVEN, SEVEN ON 15,000. SO I GUESS IT'D BE, YOU KNOW, 5000 TO 990 OR, SORRY, 10,000 TO 14. 9.99 AND THEN 15,000 TO 19, 9.99 AND THEN 20 AND GRADER. COULD.ALSO COULD BE TEN CHICKENS. YOU COULD ALSO CONSIDER EVEN SEVEN, FIVE WITH GREATER SETBACKS. RIGHT. UM, SO LIKE I THINK WE'VE SEEN WHAT DO THEY CALL A SHOTGUN SHELL PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD NOT BE IDEAL FOR THIS TYPE OF USE, POTENTIALLY BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE THE SETBACKS ON THE SIDES. UM, BUT IF YOU HAD A WIDER PARCEL, POTENTIALLY. UM.
AND I THINK ULTIMATELY, REGARDLESS OF OF THE RECOMMENDATION, I THINK I THINK THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, UM, COULD, COULD PROBABLY BE BE BEEFED UP IN SOME INSTANCES IF WE WERE TO LOOK AT, AT SMALLER LOT SIZES. AND THEN I THINK FOR THE 20,000FT , THE SETBACKS AS PROPOSED, UM, MIGHT, MIGHT BE TOO RESTRICTIVE AND, YOU KNOW, COULD RUN THE RISK OF REALLY MAKING, UM, MAKING IT NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE FOR, FOR RESIDENTS TO HAVE CHICKENS ON THEIR PROPERTY. UM, AND SO THAT THAT'S WHERE I THINK STAFF HAS ALREADY DONE SOME RESEARCH ON APPROPRIATE SETBACKS AND, AND WHAT OTHER MUNICIPALITIES PERMIT CHICKENS AND WHAT WHAT THEIR SETBACK REQUIREMENTS ARE.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE FOR STAFF TO, UM, TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT THAT BEFORE BEFORE, UM, PROPOSING, BUT BEFORE INTRODUCING A NEW VERSION TO THE TOWN BOARD. I THINK THAT'S AN EXCELLENT IDEA. UM.
SO IF YOU HAVE A LOT THAT'S GREATER THAN 20,000FT , TEN IS THE MAX. 1010 WOULD BE THE MAX. UNDER THIS. CURRENTLY.
RIGHT, RIGHT. AND IF YOU HAVE A SMALLER LOT, WHATEVER THE MINIMUM IS OR SOMETHING IN BETWEEN, THERE, WHO'S GOING TO YOU KNOW, I GUESS MY CONCERN IS ABOUT SETBACKS, BECAUSE IF YOU SEE A QUARTER OF A HOUSE ON A QUARTER OF AN ACRE, THAT'S A PRETTY THOSE HOUSES ARE PRETTY TIGHT.
THEY'RE ON TOP OF EACH OTHER. ALL RIGHT. UM, I ASSUME THE SETBACK IS FROM WHATEVER THE ENCLOSURE IS. YOU KNOW? SO I'D LIKE TO SEE A LOT MORE, YOU KNOW, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, DIAGRAMS OF WHAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY LOOK LIKE WHEN YOU START, YOU KNOW, REDUCING THE LOT SIZE AND HOW THE SETBACKS WOULD WORK. AND BECAUSE MY CONCERN IS IF I'M A HOMEOWNER, I DON'T. SOMEONE WANTS TO HAVE CHICKENS. AND THAT'S WHAT THE BOARD IS WILLING TO RECOMMEND TO THE TOWN BOARD. THE PLANNING BOARD. UH, THAT MAY BE OKAY. UH, BUT IF I'M THE HOMEOWNER AND I DON'T WANT CHICKENS, I DON'T REALLY WANT TO BE SEEING OTHER THE OTHER PARTIES. CHICKENS. I WANT THEM AWAY FROM MY HOUSE, AND I WANT TO BE SCREENED BY THOSE.
OF COURSE. YEAH, THAT'S MY CONCERN AS WELL. AND SO I THINK THERE, YOU KNOW, THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW IT AT ALL.
AND THE NEXT QUESTION IS, UH, YOU KNOW, WHAT THE TERMS ARE GOING TO BE. AND I DON'T THINK WE HAVE WE'RE REALLY CLOSE TO THAT AT THIS POINT. UM.
WELL, THERE'S CRITERIA PROPOSED. SO IF YOU WANT TO MAKE CHANGES TO THE CRITERIA, THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.
RIGHT? YEAH. AND I AND I SHOULD HAVE SAID IN MY PREAMBLE, SO WE WON'T BE VOTING ON ANYTHING TONIGHT. AND SO I THINK THE PLAN IS THAT WE'LL DISCUSS THESE THREE OUTSTANDING ITEMS. STAFF WILL, YOU KNOW, ABSORB THIS DISCUSSION AND THE DISCUSSION ON THE TWO OTHER ITEMS AND ANY EDITS OR, UM, FEEDBACK THAT WE PROVIDE ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS DISTRIBUTED. AND THEN WE'LL GET A FRESH SET OF DOCUMENTS FOR OUR NEXT MEETING. AND HOPEFULLY AT THAT POINT, UM, WE WOULD BE IN A POSITION, UH, TO. TO APPROVE THOSE DOCUMENTS AND SEND THEM OFF TO THE TOWN BOARD TO SO THEY CAN BEGIN, THEY CAN BEGIN THEIR PROCESS. UM, SO IN TERMS OF CHICKENS AND I MEAN, I, I GENERALLY AGREE, I THINK, I THINK SCREENING IS REASONABLE. UM, YOU KNOW, CERTAINLY APPROPRIATE SETBACKS. UM, ARE REASONABLE. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT. UM, YOU KNOW, YOU YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY ANTICIPATE EVERY CONFIGURATION OF, OF EVERY LOT, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE SETBACKS WOULD, UM,
[00:45:04]
YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE SETBACKS ARE SUCH AND THE LOT IS, IS TOO NARROW, UM, OR NOT DEEP ENOUGH, THEN ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, THAT LOT WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR, FOR CHICKENS, RIGHT. UM.WHAT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, UH, COMPLIANCE BY PEOPLE WHO CURRENTLY HAVE CHICKENS WHEN THE TOWN DOESN'T ALLOW IT. SO THEY'RE NOT IN CONFORMANCE? MHM.
UH, ACTUALLY THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COMPLY.
THOSE ARE RECENT, UM, CASE BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD, SOMEONE HAD REQUESTED THEY WERE THERE WAS A COMPLAINT MADE. IT WENT TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT BUILDING PERMIT SAID YOU CAN'T HAVE CHICKENS PER THE CODE. AND SO IT WENT TO THE CBA FOR USE VARIANCE. THEY DIDN'T GET THE VARIANCE. SO THEY NEED TO GET, YOU KNOW, TAKE THE CHICKENS OFF THE PROPERTY.
SO EXCUSE ME. THEY NEED TO TAKE THE CHICKENS OFF THE PROPERTY. RIGHT. SO IF I MAY I THINK PERHAPS THE QUESTION MAY BE FOR THOSE THAT CURRENTLY HAVE CHICKENS, IF THESE, UM, IF ANY FORM OF THIS PROVISION WAS ADOPTED, WOULD THOSE THAT COMPLY, YOU KNOW, LET'S JUST SAY SOME, YOU KNOW, THE 20,000 SQUARE FOOT AND UP TO TEN IS ADOPTED ULTIMATELY BY THE TOWN BOARD. SOMEBODY ON A 22,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND HAS EIGHT CHICKENS. ARE THEY AUTOMATICALLY GRANDFATHERED OR DO THEY HAVE TO FILE AND COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA WITH RESPECT? WELL.
THERE'S NO. SETBACKS AND SCREENING.
AND. ALL THAT. WELL, THEY WOULDN'T NEED TO APPLY FOR. A PERMIT.
IT'S NOT A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. SO THERE'S NOTHING TO APPLY FOR. UM, IF THERE'S NOT BEEN A COMPLAINT MADE BEFORE, LET'S SAY THE VERSION OF THE ZONING CODE IS ADOPTED AND THERE'S NO COMPLAINT IN THE INTERIM, AND THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, ORDERED TO REMOVE THE CHICKENS. IF THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE, THEN THERE'S NOTHING TO ISSUE. THERE'S NO VIOLATION TO ISSUE.
IT'S JUST. NO, THEY'RE NOT. THE SCREENING. LIKE, SAY WE HAVE. WELL, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO.
RIGHT. SO THEN IT WOULD BE THEY'D NEED TO INCLUDE THE SCREENING AND WHATEVER ELSE THEY DO NOT CURRENTLY HAVE.
YEAH. I MEAN WHATEVER THE CODE REQUIREMENT. IS THAT'S ESTABLISHED.
I BELIEVE THERE WAS A RECENT CASE. DON'T HOLD ME TO IT.
WHERE THE, UH, A PLANNING BOARD, UH, CHANGED MY WORDS, CHANGED THE RULES, AND APPLIED THEM RETROACTIVELY. AND THE. I THINK IT WAS EVEN THE COURT OF APPEALS, WHICH IS OUR HIGHEST COURT, SAID THAT THAT IS WITHIN THE THE RIGHT OF THE PLANNING BOARD TO APPLY IT RETROACTIVELY, SO LONG AS IT'S NOT ARBITRARY. RIGHT. BUT IN THIS CASE, MORE THEY THERE ARE NO RULES THAT THAT WERE, YOU KNOW.
THAT WERE SO WE PUT IN RULES AND IF THEY DON'T, IF THEY CAN'T COMPLY, THEY HAVE TO REMOVE THE CHICKENS UNLESS WE THE THE ZONING CHANGE SAYS THIS WILL NOT APPLY RETROACTIVELY.
EFFECT OF SUCH AND SUCH A DATE. RIGHT. BUT THAT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE FOR THIS TYPE OF USE BECAUSE THEN SOMEBODY COULD SAY, OKAY, WELL, I TOOK THE CHICKENS OFF. I GAVE THEM BACK TO THE FARMER FOR A DAY, AND NOW I'M GOING TO BRING THEM BACK TO THE PROPERTY AND MAKE SURE IT'S COMPLIANT. RIGHT. SO JUST I MEAN, LOGISTICALLY, IT PROBABLY DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR THIS. BUT I ALSO THINK THAT THE HYPOTHETICAL. THE ODDS OF THERE BEING.
A PENDING VIOLATION FOR THE CHICKEN AS OF NOW OR BEFORE THE THAT GOES INTO PLACE, OR EVEN THERE BEING SOME SORT OF COMPLAINT LIKE, OH, WELL, BEFORE THEY HAD CHICKEN, BEFORE THE CODE WAS THERE AND NOW THE CODE'S THERE, SO THEY SHOULD BE IN TROUBLE RETROACTIVELY. I THINK THAT THE ODDS OF THAT ARISING ARE SLIM TO NONE. YEAH, I WOULD AGREE.
UM, SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S, THERE'S GENERAL CONSENSUS ON RECOMMENDING CHICKENS. IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S GENERAL COMFORT WITH, UM, EXPLORING A SLIDING SCALE MODEL TO PERMIT, UH, SMALLER LOT SIZES TO PERHAPS CHICKENS WITH RELATED APPROPRIATE SETBACKS AND SCREENING CONDITIONS. UM.
FEEL LIKE THEY HAVE ENOUGH TO SORT OF CRAFT CRAFT SOMETHING FOR US TO REVIEW IN MORE DETAIL AT THE NEXT MEETING.
YEAH, I WAS JUST GONNA JUMP INTO THAT. SO I DO FEEL LIKE BASED ON TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION, WE DO, WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO PUT TOGETHER A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES. YOU KNOW, I THINK MR. WEINBERG ASKS, UM, YOU KNOW, IF WE TOOK A 10,000, A 15,000 AND 20,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND APPLIED SETBACK PROVISIONS, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE, YOU KNOW, THE CHICKENS COULD BE HOUSED OR WHAT HAVE YOU, AND HOW FAR THAT DISTANCE WOULD BE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE RELATIVE TO THE NEIGHBORING HOUSE. I THINK THAT'S ENOUGH FOR US TO PUT SOME INFORMATION TOGETHER.
FOR FORWARD. , AND IN NO EVENT, NO MORE THAN TEN CHICKENS. NO MORE THAN.
TEN, RIGHT? OKAY. AND THEN IF YOU COULD, FOR
[00:50:01]
ARGUMENT'S SAKE, DO A 7500, THAT'S JUST TO KIND OF SEE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. AND THEN WHATEVER THAT MINIMUM WOULD BE.SO IF WE'RE LOOKING AT 10,000 FOR FIVE, LET'S JUST SAY 7500 IS TWO. I DON'T WANT TO SAY THREE. RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT SEEMS EXCESSIVE. HUH.
I JUST, UM, JUST HAD ANOTHER THOUGHT TOO. AND SO LIZ IS ALSO ON, IF NEEDED, TO ANSWER ANY OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT BUILDING DEPARTMENT. UM, BUT IN THINKING IT THROUGH, THEY WOULD NEED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE ENCLOSURE, RIGHT, TO MAINTAIN THE CHICKEN. SO IF THERE'S AN EXISTING ONE AND IT'S ADOPTED, THEY WOULD STILL NEED TO GET THAT BUILDING PERMIT TO LEGALIZE THE ENCLOSURE THAT THEY HAVE.
OKAY. GOOD. I THOUGHT. THERE WAS AN ELEMENT.
YEAH, YEAH, I THOUGHT THERE WAS RANGE. YOU KNOW, CHICKEN PEN.
RIGHT. WHY DON'T WE ALSO NEED A PERMIT.
FOR FOR SCREENING? I MEAN, WHATEVER THE CRITERIA ARE TO HAVE A CHICKEN COOP, I WOULD ASSUME YOU'RE GOING TO NEED A PERMIT FOR SOMEONE TO HAVE A REASON TO GO OUT THERE AND INSPECT THE PROPERTY TO MAKE SURE THERE'S COMPLIANCE, RIGHT.
SO WHEN THEY GET THEIR PERMIT FOR THE ENCLOSURE, UM, AND WHATEVER'S ASSOCIATED WITH THAT, THAT WOULD BE ALL TIED TO THE BUILDING PERMIT. ARE THERE GOING TO BE CRITERIA FOR WHAT THESE ENCLOSURES HAVE TO BE? BECAUSE NO ONE'S THE CHICKENS ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO GET OUT OF THE ENCLOSURES.
RIGHT. AND OTHER ANIMALS. ARE JUST THE CRITERIA DOES REQUIRE A PERMIT SO THAT A BUILDING DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE THAT ON FILE. AND THERE'S MUCH SPECIFICITY ABOUT THE ENCLOSURE SETBACKS. UH, THE WHOLE GAMUT OF SAFETY PROVISIONS. UH, SO YES, THAT'S ALL IN THERE. ENFORCEMENT, SO ON AND SO FORTH. OKAY.
GREAT GREAT. OKAY. SO I THINK STAFF HAS ENOUGH TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING FOR US TO, TO REALLY DIG OUR TEETH INTO IT AT THE NEXT MEETING. UM, NEXT UP IS THE, UH, ACCESSORY PARKING, UH, FOR, FOR STORAGE, UH, STORAGE FACILITIES. UM, SO I THINK WE RECEIVED A PRESENTATION FROM STAFF. I THINK IT WAS THE LAST MEETING. MAYBE THE MEETING BEFORE WHERE WE'RE SEEING, UM, ACROSS ACROSS THE TOWN, UM, OFFICE BUILDINGS BEING CONVERTED INTO STORAGE FACILITIES AND THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS BEING SIGNIFICANTLY LOWER THAN THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR FOR STORAGE.
AT THE SAME TIME, UH, WE'RE SEEING, UM, CAR DEALERSHIPS AND, YOU KNOW, OTHER AUTOMOBILE SALES, LOTS. UM, HAVING A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL STORAGE. AND RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, THESE FACILITIES ARE ARE OR EITHER A LEGALLY SORT OF ENGAGING IN A SATELLITE PARKING RELATIONSHIP, UM, WITHOUT ANY CONTROL OR OVERSIGHT FROM THE TOWN. UM, AND SO THE, THE CONCEPT IS TO, TO INCLUDE OR TO RECOMMEND A SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS THAT WOULD BE, UM, MANAGED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, WHICH WOULD BASICALLY, UH, ALLOW SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES TO HAVE SELF TO HAVE PARKING AS AN ACCESSORY, USE THROUGH SPECIAL PERMIT. UH, AND DURING THAT SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS. UH, THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD BE ABLE TO REVIEW, UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE, YOU KNOW, THE LOCATION OF THE STORAGE FACILITY WOULD ALSO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THE THE END USER, UM, WOULD BE ABLE TO REVIEW, YOU KNOW, WHETHER, UH, VEHICLES WERE BEING DRIVEN ONE BY ONE OR BEING DRIVEN THROUGH TRACTOR TRAILERS. UM, AND ULTIMATELY, YOU KNOW, CONDUCT ANY ASSESSMENT, ANY, ANY TRAFFIC STUDIES. UM, AND ANY ANALYSIS NECESSARY TO DETERMINE IF THAT, UH, SPECIAL PERMIT PARKING IS APPROPRIATE. UM, OR WHAT CONDITIONS OR CONCESSIONS WOULD NEED TO BE RELATED. UM, WOULD NEED TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF APPROVAL. UM, AND SO ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD TO THAT? UH.
SO I WOULD JUST SAY REGARDING THE END USER, NOT NECESSARILY THE END USER, BUT THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC GENERATION AND TRIPS AND KIND OF FEATURES ASSOCIATED WITH THE, UM, THE PROPOSED USE.
AND, UM, THIS DOES NOT APPLY WHERE A SELF STORAGE FACILITY ONLY HAS SUFFICIENT PARKING FOR ITS OWN USE. RIGHT. THIS IS LIKE AN ABUNDANCE RIGHT OVER. PARKING. RIGHT.
RIGHT. SO AND WE DISCUSSED THIS PREVIOUSLY, BUT, UM, THE RECENT SELF-STORAGE FACILITIES CONSTRUCTED FROM THE GROUND UP, YOU KNOW, HAVE BEEN DESIGNED IN A WAY TO MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENT FOR OFF STREET PARKING ASSOCIATED WITH SUCH FACILITIES. THEY DIDN'T BUILD OUT AN ADDITIONAL 30, YOU KNOW, OFF STREET PARKING SPACES THAT NOW THEY WOULD COME BACK, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY IF THIS PROVISION WAS APPROVED, COME BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT AND CONVERT THOSE SPACES TO THIS ACCESSORY OFF STREET PARKING. SO IT'S
[00:55:03]
REALLY, REALLY KEYED IN ON THOSE OFFICE BUILDINGS AND OTHER, UM, VACANT BUILDINGS THAT HAVE A HIGHER PARKING STANDARD OR HAD A HIGHER PARKING STANDARD THAT ARE NOW VACANT. AND THE SELF-STORAGE USES ARE COMING IN TO OCCUPY THAT PARTICULAR BUILDING AND EXCESS PARKING ALREADY EXISTS.SO IT WOULDN'T APPLY TO SOMEONE WHO BUILDS A NEW BUILDING AND OVER PARKS. IT. CORRECT? OKAY.
AT LEAST THAT'S THE PROPOSAL. YEAH. RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.
SO I'M TOTALLY FOR, UM. AND I'M SORRY.
SO YOU'RE SAYING IF THERE'S A NEW BUILDING THAT HAS AN ABUNDANCE OF. PARKING.
LET'S SAY THEY HAVE A LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY.
WELL, THEN THEY COULD. I MEAN, BUT THEY WOULDN'T. NECESSARILY BUILD IT OUT TO HAVE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF PARKING. I THINK WHEN THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS OF APPROVAL, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO SAY, HEY, WHY ARE YOU PUTTING IN 30 EXTRA SPACES THAT YOU DON'T NEED? RIGHT.
I MEAN, RIGHT, SO TO MR. WEINBERG'S POINT, VACANT PIECE OF PROPERTY, SOMEBODY COMES IN AND SAYS, I WANT TO BUILD A 100,000 SQUARE FOOT SELF STORAGE FACILITY. WE REQUIRE X NUMBER OF SPACES, BUT WE'RE GONNA BUILD OUT 150% OF WHAT'S REQUIRED. CERTAINLY THE QUESTION WILL COME UP BEFORE IT EVEN GOT TO THIS BOARD OF WHAT ARE YOU DOING WITH THE EXTRA 50 SPACES? RIGHT. AND, YOU KNOW, WE WOULD TAKE IT FROM THERE.
BUT. UM, BUT LET'S TAKE THE, YOU KNOW, THE SITUATION WHERE SOMEHOW THEY APPROVE THE EXTRA SPACES. MM.
THE PLANNING. PLANNING BOARD, THE TOWN BOARD, YOU KNOW, THEY APPROVE, YOU KNOW.
WELL, THIS WOULD ONLY BE PLANNING.
BOARD SPECIAL PROJECTS. SO THEY THEY FOR SOME REASON, THE PLANNING BOARD APPROVES EXTRA SPACES. SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO. PROTECT AGAINST THAT.
ONE SUGGESTION. AND YOU UNDERSTAND THE PROTECTION THAT SORT IS WE COULD MAKE THE RECOMMENDATION AND ULTIMATELY THE, UH, CHAPTER.
25 AMENDMENT. IN THE INDICATE THAT IT'S ONLY SUBJECT TO, SAY, ADAPTIVE REUSE MEANING. UM. PROPOSALS THAT REUSE AN EXISTING FACILITY OR SUBJECT, YOU KNOW, SUBJECT TO EXISTING FACILITIES SO THAT YOU WOULD, UH, NOT EVEN ONE WOULD NOT EVEN BE ABLE TO PROPOSE A SELF STORAGE AT A C OF PARKING JUST FOR THE PURPOSES OF. ACCESSORY.
ACCESSORY. SO I THINK THERE ARE WAYS WE CAN PROTECT AGAINST THAT. THE RECOMMENDATION THAT IT'D BE SPECIFIC TO, UH, ADAPTIVE REUSE OF EXISTING FACILITIES.
GREAT. RIGHT. THE INTENT AND THE SPIRIT OF THE PROVISION IS NOT TO ALLOW NEW USERS OR NEW ACCESSORY. UH. I'M SORRY, NEW, UM, SELF STORAGE FACILITIES TO BUILD X OUT EXCESS PARKING FOR THIS PURPOSE. IT'S TO TAKE EXISTING USES THAT HAVE AN OVERABUNDANCE OF PARKING AND ALLOW THIS ACCESSORY.
PARKING. BUT PEOPLE. LOOK CLARIFY IT.
NO, NO, BUT PEOPLE DO LOOK FOR LOOPHOLES. AND IF YOU HAVE A LARGER PIECE OF PROPERTY AND YOU WANT TO GENERATE SOME INCOME FROM IT, YOU MIGHT DECIDE, WELL, THE ONLY THING WE COULD DO IS, YOU KNOW, HAVE EXPANDED PARKING AND.
ALL RIGHT. NO, IT'S A GREAT COMMENT.
YEAH. AND JUST TWO OTHER THOUGHTS ALONG THOSE LINES. UM, I THINK THE ADAPTIVE REUSE PROVISION MAKES MAKES A LOT OF SENSE. YES. UM, YOU KNOW WHAT I FIND THE MOST COMPELLING ABOUT THIS CONCEPT IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE DO SEE, UH, OFFICE BUILDINGS BEING CONVERTED INTO SELF-STORAGE, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T WE DON'T HAVE A WHOLE LOT OF LEVERAGE TO, UM, ENCOURAGE A, AN APPLICANT TO TO REDUCE THEIR, THEIR PERMEABLE SURFACE AND REDUCE THEIR, THEIR EXISTING PARKING. WHEREAS IF THEY WERE TO COME TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND ASK FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT FOR, UH, SELF STORAGE FOR THEIR EXCESS PARKING AND SAY THEY HAVE 50 EXCESS SPACES, WE CAN SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'LL PERMIT 30 OF THOSE SPOTS TO BE, UH, FOR, FOR PARKING, BUT YOU HAVE TO RE NATURALIZE 20 OF THOSE EXCESSIVE SPOTS. AND SO THAT WAY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE GETTING THE THE COMMUNITY'S GETTING A BENEFIT. THERE'S THAT MUCH MORE GREEN SPACE, THAT MUCH MORE PERMEABLE SURFACE. UM, AND THERE'S INCENTIVE FOR THE APPLICANT TO, TO MAKE THAT IMPROVEMENT. BUT ALSO THEY'RE, THEY'RE GETTING SOMETHING BY BEING PERMITTED TO, TO PARK IN THOSE, UH, IN A PORTION OF THOSE EXCESS SPOTS. WELL, SHOULDN'T WE HAVE, LIKE, SPECIFIC CRITERIA FOR, YOU KNOW, IF THOSE, IF THAT EXTRA AIR, YOU KNOW, AREA COULD ACCOMMODATE 100 CARS FOR PARKING FOR WHAT WAS AN OFFICE BUILDING. DON'T WE WANT TO LIMIT HOW MANY SPACES COULD BE ACCESSORY? NOW YOU DO. BY THE NATURE OF SETBACKS AND SCREENING AND THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. AND AS PART OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT, UM, YOU KNOW, REVIEW OF THE PLANNING.
BOARD. BUT DO WE HAVE, LIKE, SETBACK REQUIREMENTS OR JUST THIS ACCESSORY PARKING? YES. YEAH. OH, YEAH. YES. THOSE ARE IN THE CODE TODAY. FOR THIS SITUATION. IT WOULD.
[01:00:06]
YES. WELL, RIGHT. I MEAN PERHAPS THERE COULD BE UM, A SCENARIO WHERE AN OLDER OFFICE BUILDING THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, IS VACANT. AND THEN NOW TO BE OCCUPIED BY, UM, A SELF STORAGE USE MAY HAVE SOME PARKING THAT FALLS OUTSIDE OF THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT.COULD BE BECAUSE THE SETBACK IS FOR PARKING. I MEAN, NORMALLY I THINK OF SETBACKS THERE FOR STRUCTURES.
NO. THEY'RE OFFERING. FREE PARKING.
SETBACK REQUIREMENTS. SETBACKS IN THE TOWN.
YEAH. PARKING GARAGE OR. MATT, DO YOU HAPPEN TO HAVE THOSE HANDY OR, YOU KNOW, OFFHAND FOR, LIKE, LET'S SAY THE OB DISTRICT OR SOMETHING? AND I THINK. THE ONE THING WE CAN GET, YOU.
KNOW, AND I THINK THE ONE OTHER THING THAT THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR, FOR THIS DISCUSSION, UM, UH, THE, THE, THE ONE OTHER THING THAT WOULD BE, I THINK, HELPFUL FOR DISCUSSION, UM, IS SORT OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, THE, THE TYPICAL PERMITS THAT WE SEE WETLAND, WATERCOURSE, STEEP SLOPE, SITE PLAN IN TERMS OF THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING BOARD VERSUS THE DISCRETION THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS WHEN REVIEWING A SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS. UM, IS THAT SOMETHING MAYBE, MISS MAGANA, THAT THAT YOU CAN SPEAK TO BRIEFLY? I GUESS, LIKE MY IMPRESSION HAS ALWAYS BEEN THAT THAT THERE'S MORE DISCRETION ON SPECIAL PERMIT REVIEWS. IS THAT IS THAT A FAIR STATEMENT? WELL.
YOU HAVE THE CRITERIA. SO IF IT MEETS THE CRITERIA, THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU DON'T HAVE MUCH OF AN ARGUMENT TO NOT APPROVE IT. BUT THROUGH THAT CRITERIA, UM, YOU KNOW, AS WE SEE WITH MOST APPLICATIONS, YOU MAKE, UH, REQUESTS TO IMPROVE THE PROJECT AND APPROPRIATE CONDITIONS THAT ARE TAILORED TO THE PARTICULAR SITE AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT USE IN THE SITE. SO YOU DO, YOU KNOW, AS WE SEE TIME AND TIME AGAIN, UM, YOU SEE AN IMPROVED PROJECT RESULT AND THERE ARE SOME TIMES WHERE THEY CANNOT MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS. AND IN THAT INSTANCE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO FOR A VARIANCE FROM THE CRITERIA THAT THEY CANNOT MEET. YEAH.
SO THAT'S. I THINK THAT THAT IS TO YOUR POINT WHY THE CRITERIA IS IMPORTANT. BUT THE BOARD ALSO HAS, I THINK, PRETTY BROAD. BROAD JURISDICTION IN REVIEWING THE SPECIAL PERMIT. AND AND THE.
CRITERIA WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THOSE CRITERIA. YOU KNOW, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT TROUBLES ME ABOUT THIS WHOLE SITUATION IS I DON'T REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO THE TOWN BEING, YOU KNOW, A DUMPING GROUND FOR OVER, YOU KNOW, FOR, YOU KNOW, FOR PARKING FROM, YOU KNOW, CAR DEALERS OR VEHICLE DEALERS, NOT ONLY FROM THE TOWN BUT FROM OUTSIDE THE TOWN. UH, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY BUILDINGS IS WOULD APPLY TO I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY SPACES WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER ANY OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS. UH, BUT I THINK THEY IT SHOULD BE TIGHTLY CONTROLLED ON A NUMBER OF LEVELS, INCLUDING THE VOLUME SPACES. I THINK A LOT OF THE AREA SHOULD GO BACK TO BEING LANDSCAPED AND NOT PERVIOUS SURFACES. I MEAN, IMPERVIOUS SURFACES. UH, IS IT UNDERSTOOD THAT THESE LOTS WOULD ONLY BE NEW CARS AND SUVS, NOT TRUCKS? YES. RIGHT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S IMPORTANT. IT CAN'T BE A CONTRACTOR YARD. SO WE WOULD WE WOULD BUILD THOSE TYPE OF THINGS INTO YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
BUT I DON'T EVEN KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WANT.
A. DEALERSHIP TO BE STORING TRUCKS ON THESE LOTS. OR USED CARS.
OR USED CARS. SURE. YEAH. THEY HAVE TO BE NEW. SO I GUESS THE BOTTOM LINE IS, YOU KNOW, TO MOVE THIS FORWARD, I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A LOT OF, A LOT OF THOUGHT ABOUT THIS BECAUSE I DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO HELP OUT, YOU KNOW, A, A SOMEONE WHO BOUGHT A BUILDING GOING AND KNOWING WHAT THEY WERE BUYING, YOU KNOW, KNOWING WHAT THE SITUATION WAS. AND NOW LOOKING TO MAKE SOME EXTRA MONEY AND MAYBE IT'S OKAY, BUT IT'S OKAY ONLY IF IT'S DONE ON THE TOWN'S TERMS AND IT'S CONSISTENT ON A LOT OF LEVELS WITH WITH THE IMAGE THAT THE TOWN WANTS NOT TO JUST BE STORING, YOU KNOW, CARS AND MOVING THEM AROUND, YOU KNOW, AND THAT INCLUDES, YOU KNOW, SECURITY, UH, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY SEPARATING THOSE, THOSE AREAS FROM THE, YOU KNOW, FROM THE SELF-STORAGE PARKING AND BUILDING, NO ONE GETS IN THERE AND, AND SEPARATE INGRESS AND EGRESS. I MEAN, WE COULD GO ON AND ON. AND I JUST DON'T THINK THIS HAS BEEN REALLY FLESHED OUT.
SO THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE FOR REUSE OF EXISTING PARKING SPACES WHERE WE WOULDN'T OFTEN HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY, UM, TO, YOU KNOW, IMPROVE THOSE EXISTING CCS OF
[01:05:01]
ASPHALT. RIGHT. SO THAT'S THE IDEA OF HAVING THE CRITERIA AND THE REGULATIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PERMISSIBLE ACCESSORY USE.WELL. YOU KNOW, IF THEY DON'T NEED THOSE SPACES, I THINK I'M NOT. WHAT I'M SAYING IS I'M NOT SURE ALL THOSE SPACES SHOULD REMAIN. RIGHT, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WILLINGLY GIVE UP THEIR PARKING SPACES. THAT'S JUST NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. YOU KNOW, IT'S.
UP TO US TO FIND A BALANCE. WELL, WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO USE THEM FOR? IT DOESN'T MATTER. SO WHEN A BUSINESS HAS EXISTING PARKING, THEY DON'T GENERALLY GIVE THEM UP. RIGHT.
BUT YEAH, BUT THE TOWN DOESN'T HAVE TO MAKE THEM AVAILABLE AS A STORAGE LOT. THAT'S TRUE.
NO THAT'S TRUE. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IF IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THEY DECIDE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO LET SOMEBODY STORE AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW, UM, JUNKED CARS ON THEIR PROPERTY NOW, IS THERE ANYTHING ON THE BOOKS THAT WOULD PERMIT US TO GO IN AND SAY, YOU'VE CREATED AN EYESORE ON YOUR PROPERTY? THERE IS.
BUT BUT IT HAPPENS QUITE OFTEN. YOU JUST SEE, LIKE, WELL, AS WE SAW WITH THE STORAGE OF COMMERCIAL VEHICLES AND OTHER THING THAT WE DISCUSSED, UM, LAST MEETING OR THE MEETING BEFORE THERE IS PEOPLE HAVE ISSUES PARKING WITH, WITH UM, HIGHLY DEVELOPED SUBURBAN AREAS, UM, AND FINDING APPROPRIATE PARKING SPACES, ESPECIALLY WITH COMMERCIAL VEHICLES. AND SO, UM, TRYING TO PROBLEM SOLVE AND CREATE, UM, APPROPRIATE AND TAILORED OPPORTUNITIES IS IS DESIRABLE.
RIGHT. I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING IS STRONG SENTIMENT THAT THE BOARD DOES NOT WANT TO CREATE A NUISANCE OF ANY SORT. AND I THINK THERE ARE RATIONAL MITIGATIONS THAT WE CAN BUILD IN TO THAT. AND I ALSO WOULD ADD ONE OF THE BENEFITS OF DOING THIS TYPE OF SETUP IS THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT WOULD HAVE THE INFORMATION OF WHOEVER IS THE OPERATOR OF THE ACCESSORY ACCESSORY PARKING SPACES, AS OPPOSED TO REAL, WHERE THERE'S A DEMAND FOR THIS AND THESE, THESE, THESE THINGS CAN BE DONE ANYWHERE IN TOWN. AND THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT DOES FIND OUT AND ORDERED THEM TO STOP DOING THAT. BUT, UM, AT LEAST THIS IS A CONTROLLED FASHION WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD SEE IT BE ABLE TO IDENTIFY ANY GAPS IN LANDSCAPING. FOR INSTANCE, UM, HAVE, AS DONE, OPENED UP WITH UM, TRAFFIC STUDIES TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S ANY POTENTIAL ISSUES THERE. UM, SO THIS WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY GUARANTEEING A CONTROLLED MANNER IN WHICH THIS USE IS GOING TO FIND ITS WAY TO PLACES, ANYWHERE ANYWAY. OKAY. UM, SO DOES STAFF FEEL LIKE THEY'VE HEARD ENOUGH TO PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER FOR US FOR THE NEXT MEETING? I MEAN, IT'D BE GOOD. UM, IT HAD SOME COMMENTS. IF HE WANTS TO GIVE US SOME CRITERIA, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I'LL LEAVE THAT TO STEVE.
WELL, I MEAN, WE DON'T WANT TO COME BACK AND NOT.
I DON'T WANT A ZONING ORDINANCE.
I FEEL LIKE I HAVE ENOUGH. I UNDERSTAND, YEAH, AND SHE WANTS TO AVOID A NUISANCE. THAT'S TOTALLY RATIONAL.
AND I HAVE NOTES AS WELL. SO WE'LL GET OUR HEADS TOGETHER AND BE ABLE TO COME BACK. GOOD. THANK YOU. COOL.
ALL RIGHT. AND LASTLY, CANNABIS. AND SO, UM, WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DISCUSSIONS ABOUT CANNABIS IN 285, UH, AS REFERRED TO US. UH, CANNABIS IS PROPOSED TO BE PERMITTED IN THE CA DISTRICT AND THE TR DISTRICT, WHICH IS PRIMARILY CENTRAL AVENUE AND, UH, 119 UM, AS WELL AS THE CB AND DS DISTRICTS. UM, A COUPLE OF FACTS THAT, YOU KNOW, I THINK WE'VE ALL BEEN SORT OF LEARNING ABOUT THE NEW CANNABIS LAW, UM, THAT THE STATE ADOPTED, I THINK, LAST YEAR. SO, SO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS AS, AS THEY EXIST, UM, THE, THE STATE LIMITS, UM, SEPARATION FOR, UH, FOR, FOR THESE, FOR, FOR LEGAL REGISTERED LICENSE CANNABIS DISPENSARIES, UM, TO 100FT SETBACK FROM ONE ANOTHER. UH, FIVE 1000. SORRY. 1000.
WHAT DID I SAY? 100. SORRY. 1000. UH, FROM ONE ANOTHER? UH, 500FT FROM, UH, SCHOOLS. AS LONG AS THEY ARE ON THE SAME STREET. UH, AND 200FT FROM HOUSES OF WORSHIP. UM, THE STATE ALSO HAS A PROVISION WHERE A MUNICIPALITY COULD OPT IN TO ESTABLISHING A SETBACK FOR PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITIES, AND THAT WOULD BE A SETBACK OF 500FT. AND BASICALLY A PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITY. UM, IS ANY MUNICIPALLY, UH, OWNED AND OPERATED FACILITY, UM, WHERE ITS PRIMARY PURPOSE IS FOR, YOU
[01:10:01]
KNOW, YOU A PRIMARY PURPOSE IS FOR YOUTH 17 AND UNDER. UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, THIS IS NOT NECESSARILY AN EXHAUSTIVE LIST, BUT IMAGINE LOCATIONS LIKE THE GREENBERG NATURE CENTER AND, UH, THE THEODORE YOUNG CENTER AND ANTHONY VETERAN PARK AND THE GREENBERG LIBRARY AND, OTHER FACILITIES, UH, MUNICIPALLY OWNED AND OPERATED WHERE WHERE YOUTH ARE, WHERE YOUTH CONGREGATE AND ARE SERVED. UM, AND SO I GUESS THE FIRST QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, DO WE WANT TO EXPAND CANNABIS TO THE CA DISTRICT, THE TR DISTRICT, THE CB DISTRICT AND THE DS DISTRICT? UNDERSTANDING THE THE SETBACK LIMITATIONS, UM, THAT THAT IS CURRENTLY ON STATE LAW, CURRENTLY ON THE BOOKS, UH, FOR THE STATE. UM, AND THEN I GUESS BASED ON THAT DISCUSSION, WE CAN WE CAN DISCUSS, UM, THIS PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITY CONCEPT AND HOW WE WANT TO APPROACH THAT. UM, THE ONE OTHER THING, I'LL JUST REITERATE THAT I KNOW WE'VE DISCUSSED, UM, CURRENTLY BOTH YONKERS AND WHITE PLAINS HAVE OPTED IN TO AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE GREENBERG, YONKERS AND WHITE PLAINS HAVE OPTED IN TO, UH, THESE THESE, UH, LICENSED AND REGULATED CANNABIS CANNABIS DISPENSARIES, UM, WITHIN YONKERS, THERE'S ONE BASICALLY RIGHT ON THE GREENBERG BORDER TO THE NORTH, TO THE SOUTH, AND THEN IN WHITE PLAINS AND CENTRAL AVENUE AND THEN, UH, ALSO ON CENTRAL AVENUE TO THE NORTH. THERE'S ONE RIGHT JUST OVER ON THE WHITE PLAINS BORDER. UM, AND CERTAINLY THERE ARE THERE ARE OTHERS OF THESE FACILITIES WITHIN THE VILLAGES AND, UH, CERTAINLY WITHIN THE GREENBERG VILLAGES AND ELSEWHERE WITHIN THE COUNTY.UM, SO WE'RE WE'RE SORT OF ARE WE ON, ON THIS, THIS TOPIC? DYLAN, WHAT WAS THIS SETBACK FOR RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS? IS THAT A STATE OR A. PROPOSAL? OH, SORRY.
TWO 200 FROM. HOUSES, 200FT. AND WHAT HAPPENED? AND THIS IS SET BY THE.
STATE. AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THE HOUSE OF WORSHIP ALSO HAS A SCHOOL AS PART OF IT? IS IT A SCHOOL OR A HOUSE OF WORSHIP? GOOD QUESTION. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. VERY GOOD.
I'M THINKING THAT. THE FACT IS THE MORE RESTRICTIVE. SO I THINK THE SCHOOL CAN OVERRIDE.
UM, I WILL SAY NOT NOT TO PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE, BUT, UM, FROM, FROM READING FROM FROM READING THE, UM, FROM READING THESE SETBACKS AND FROM READING THE WAY THEY WERE WRITTEN, IT'S OBVIOUS TO ME THAT THEY WERE DESIGNED REALLY WITH NEW YORK CITY IN MIND. AND SO I THINK ANOTHER RECOMMENDATION WE COULD MAKE TO THE TOWN BOARD IF IF THIS IS ULTIMATELY SOMETHING WE RECOMMEND, IS THAT THE TOWN BOARD USED THEIR SORT OF LEGISLATIVE, UH, POSITION OR LEGISLATIVE AND ADVOCACY POSITION TO ENCOURAGE, UM, YOU KNOW, OUR STATE REPRESENTATIVES TO TAKE A LOOK AT THESE SETBACKS AND ADVOCATE FOR DIFFERENT SETBACKS FOR, UH, TYPICALLY, LIKE IT WOULD BE UPSTATE. AND THERE'S MANY OTHER EXAMPLES OF MANY OTHER LAWS ACROSS THE STATE WHERE THERE'S NEW YORK CITY STANDARDS AND THERE'S STANDARDS FOR, FOR ELSEWHERE IN THE STATE. AND I THINK PROBABLY IN AN EFFORT TO JUST GET THIS DONE, UH, THE STATE PAINTED A VERY BROAD BRUSH AND MADE THIS APPROPRIATE FOR NEW YORK CITY. AND NOW THAT IT HAS MORE DATA AND MORE EXPERIENCE, UM, I THINK IT WOULD, IT WOULD IT WOULD BEHOOVE THE TOWN BOARD TO HAVE A CONVERSATION WITH, WITH THEIR PARTNERS IN GOVERNMENT.
WELL. AND SO TO THAT POINT, THEY DO THEY DO HAVE DIFFERENT, DIFFERENT DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR, UH, POPULATION. BUT PERHAPS IT'S CONSIDERATION COULD BE, UM, DENSITY. SO POPULATION PER SQUARE MILE.
RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S MY CONCERN IS, IS THE DENSITY. BECAUSE. YOU KNOW.
IF YOU LOOK IN MASSACHUSETTS, EVERY TOWN, EVERY SMALL TOWN HAS FIVE CANNABIS DISPENSARIES WITHIN TWO BLOCKS.
YEAH. AND I KNOW MASSACHUSETTS WAS WAS, I THINK THE VERY FIRST STATE. ON THE EAST COAST TO HAVE TO HAVE THESE SORT OF FACILITIES. UM, IT'S, IT'S FOR BETTER OR FOR WORSE, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE NORMALIZED NOW. AND SO I DON'T ANTICIPATE THAT IF WE WERE TO RECOMMEND THIS AND THIS WERE TO ULTIMATELY BE ADOPTED, THAT THERE WOULD BE A FLOOD OF, OF, YOU KNOW, DISPENSARIES OPENING IN GREENBERG, JUST LIKE, YOU KNOW, FOR THE MUNICIPALITIES THAT HAVE OPTED IN UP TO THIS POINT, UM, YOU KNOW, THERE THERE HAS NOT BEEN THERE'S NOT REALLY BEEN A FLOOD WITHIN WESTCHESTER. RIGHT. UM.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION? DO THE SETBACKS RELATE TO THE USE AND NOT TO THE MUNICIPAL BOUNDARY LINES? SO THE SETBACKS ARE DICTATED BY THE STATUTE FROM THE STATE? NO, BUT IF IF YOU HAVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, CANNABIS STORES, YOU
[01:15:06]
KNOW, SEPARATE THEY CAN'T BE WITHIN 1000FT OF EACH OTHER.WHITE PLAINS HAS ONE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S 200FT OFF OF A GREENBERG BOUNDARY. I SEE.
WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YOU KNOW. IT DOESN'T.
UH, DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS DO NOT.
UM. DOESN'T KNOW THE BOUNDARIES.
IT'S IT'S AGNOSTIC OF. MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES. RIGHT.
YEAH. SO WHAT ARE WE THINKING? I THINK. WE WERE TALKING BEFORE ABOUT, UM, BEING MORE RESTRICTIVE. IS IT ONLY FOR PUBLIC PLACES? YEAH. SO SO THE ONE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTION THAT THAT THAT THE TOWN CAN ENACT IS THE TOWN BOARD COULD, UM, DEFINE PUBLIC USE, PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITIES IN, IN THE CODE AND THEN SET A 500 FOOT SETBACK FROM THOSE PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITIES.
SO THE REASON WHY I ASKED THAT SO LIKE CENTRAL AVENUE FOR EXAMPLE, IT HAS LIKE MAGNESIUM, IT HAS, UH, A GYMNASTICS PLACE WITH THOSE BEACONS. SO IT HAS.
TO BE IT HAS. TO BE MUNICIPALLY OWNED.
AND YOU. RIGHT. SO GOVERNMENT.
FACILITIES, PUBLIC PARK. RIGHT. AND SO ONE THING THOUGH IS THAT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO BE DOOR TO DOOR, LIKE WHAT THE STATE STATUTE DID. SO YOU COULD SAY FROM THE PROPERTY OF THE UM, YOUTH OFFICE, PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITY. RIGHT. AND THAT MIGHT BE ASSISTIVE, UM, AND. I KNOW.
THAT MIGHT GET US A COUPLE, A COUPLE EXTRA.
FEET. DEPENDING ON THE FACILITY, IT MIGHT GET YOU, UM, A BIT MORE THAN THAT. DEPENDS. RIGHT.
IF YOU'RE DOING BOARD AT THE BORDER.
UH. PARTICULARLY IF IT WAS IN A SHOPPING, IF THE DISPENSARY WAS IN A SHOPPING CENTER. RIGHT.
YOU WERE SAYING TO A PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITY AND YOU COULD NOT TAKE IT FROM THE DOOR, BUT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE.
RIGHT. THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. THAT COULD BE SIGNIFICANT ON A. YEAH. THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
WHEN YOU HAVE A, LET'S SAY A SMALL COMMUNITY FACILITY ON A VERY LARGE, UH, RECREATIONAL PARCEL THAT MIGHT ALSO COME INTO PLAY. SO, LIKE IN EDGEMONT, FOR EXAMPLE, WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT HAS ALL THE LANDS IN THE FRONT BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY GET UP TO THE SCHOOL, WE START AT THE BORDER AS WELL. SO I THINK THE SCHOOL.
SCHOOLS ARE. THE SCHOOL HOUSE OF WORSHIP AND THE ONE ANOTHER, THE, THE, THE STATE STATUTE IS VERY SPECIFIC ON HOW THOSE DISTANCES ARE MEASURED FOR THE SETBACK FROM THE PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITIES. THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE LENIENCY. SO I GUESS TO TO USE EDGEMONT AS AN EXAMPLE, LIKE THE GREENBERG NATURE CENTER. UM, THAT, THAT, THAT COULD BE A PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITY. UM, AND THAT COULD BE CORNER TO CORNER.
OKAY. OR I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, DOES IT HAVE TO BE LIKE AN ACTUAL FACILITY OR WOULD JUST AN OPEN AIR PARK? YEAH, I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK THAT.
UM, SO. WE FEEL LIKE, IS THAT A PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITY? WE DEFINE IT, UM, USING THE STATUTORY CRITERIA UNDER THAT PREEMPTION LANGUAGE THAT SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS FOR IT. SO WE WE'RE CREATING THE DEFINITION. SO, SO WE COULD SAY, YOU KNOW, PARKS, YOU KNOW, EVEN WITHOUT A FACILITY AND.
WELL, PROBABLY. I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THAT FACILITY REQUIRES IT TO BE A BUILDING.
NOT WHAT'S DEFINED. SO YEAH PARKS. PARKS COULD BE FAIR GAME. UM, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, MISS MADONNA, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT, UH, A SCHOOL OR A HOUSE OF WORSHIP. AND AS LONG AS IT'S MUNICIPALLY OWNED AND OPERATED AND SERVES YOUTH, UM, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN WOULD HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY. UM, AND CREATING SOME ADDITIONAL SEPARATION, UH, TO A MAXIMUM OF 500FT. OKAY. YEAH.
OKAY. SO IT SOUNDS. LIKE WE'RE COMFORTABLE RECOMMENDING THE ADDITION TO CATER CB AND DS, UM, WITH THE PUBLIC YOUTH FACILITY. UM, OFTEN, YOU KNOW, DEFINITION AND AND SETBACK CRITERIA. UM. YOU WANT THE BROADEST.
AND I THINK WE WANT. THE MOST ENCOMPASSING.
PUBLIC YOUTH. FACILITY DEFINITION THAT WE.
CAN QUALIFY UNDER THE, UH, PERMISSIVE, UH, STATUTORY LANGUAGE. I THINK.
THAT'S RIGHT. AND THEN ALSO ON TOP OF.
THAT, YEAH. AND THEN ALSO ON TOP OF THAT, IN TERMS OF SCHOOL AND HOUSES OF WORSHIP, ENCOURAGING THE TOWN BOARD TO ADVOCATE TO THEIR PARTNERS IN GOVERNMENT TO RELOOK AT THOSE REQUIREMENTS. UM, IN A NON NEW YORK CITY CONTEXT. GOT IT.
YEAH. LIKE I SAID, DENSITY MIGHT BE THE WAY TO GO INSTEAD OF POPULATION. AND SO OH THIS IS HELPFUL. AND
[01:20:02]
THAT GIVES US ENOUGH TO GO OFF OF TO CRAFT A DRAFT RECOMMENDATION FOR THE BOARD.. OKAY. UM WELL, SO NOW THAT WE'VE GOTTEN THE THE HEAVY THE HEAVY BOULDERS OUT OF THE WAY, UM, LET'S JUST GO THROUGH SECTION BY SECTION, UM, AND IF ANYONE HAS ANYTHING TO ADD OR ANY ANY COMMENTS, SPEAK UP. IF NOT, WE'LL JUST PUSH THROUGH. AND ALL OF THESE, I THINK WE'VE ALREADY SORT OF BUILT CONSENSUS AROUND LEADING UP TO THIS MEETING. AND SO, UH, I'M HOPEFUL THAT WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE, BUT IF THERE'S ANY LANGUAGE TWEAKS OR ANY, ANY, YOU KNOW, ADJUSTMENTS AROUND THE EDGES, PLEASE, PLEASE DO SPEAK. UP.SO STARTING WITH SO STARTING WITH CATEGORY. AND SO WE'RE, WE'RE IN THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT, UH, CATEGORY A TARRYTOWN ROAD MIXED USE DISTRICT. WERE THERE ANY FEEDBACK ON THOSE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS? WAIT, WAIT.
I'M SORRY. WHICH ONE WERE ONE? THE TR.
THAT'S THE REPORT. SO IF YOU GO JUST EXPAND.
THIS ONE. UM, THAT'S THE ZONING MAP.
SORRY. OKAY. THAT'S THE OTHER ONE.
OKAY. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M LOOKING AT THE RIGHT THING.
GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.
OKAY, SO TARRYTOWN TR, MIXED USE DISTRICT. ANY FEEDBACK ON THE THREE RECOMMENDATIONS? NO, NO.
OKAY. UH, BE GENERAL LAND USE PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS. THERE ARE. I GUESS, 17 THAT WERE DISTRIBUTED AND THEN THE THREE ADDITIONAL ONES THAT THAT WE JUST DISCUSSED. ANY FEEDBACK.
ON THE MERGER I THOUGHT WE TALKED ABOUT LIKE KIND PROPERTIES COULD MERGE, NOT JUST RESIDENTIAL.
RIGHT. SO, UM, I THINK WE DISCUSSED IT COULD PROBABLY APPLY TO COMMERCIAL. HOWEVER THERE BE A THERE'D BE POTENTIAL ISSUES AS DISCUSSED BY MATT AND MYSELF. UM, ABOUT SPLIT ZONED.
UM, AND SO LIKE I, UH, PRO OFFERED USING LANGUAGE THAT WE CURRENTLY USE FOR SPLIT ZONED PROPERTIES. UM, NOW TO SAY THE MORE RESTRICTIVE WOULD APPLY, UM, HOWEVER, YOU KNOW, AT THIS TIME, WE THINK THERE'D BE A LOT OF COMPLICATIONS IN TRYING TO GET THEM, UM, UPDATED ON THE ZONING MAP AND COMPLIANT ONCE THEY'RE MERGED. AND SO IN KIND, I THINK IS IS POSSIBLE FOR SURE. UM, BUT WHEN THERE'S, UH, RESIDENTIAL, BUDDING COMMERCIAL OR INDUSTRIAL OR SOME OTHER TYPE OF USE, IT'S GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE FOR SURE. UM.
I GUESS, MATT, WOULD YOU BE COMFORTABLE WITH IN KIND OR DO YOU WANT TO CONFER OFFLINE AND THEN COME BACK TO US? UM, SO MY IN DISCUSSING WITH AMANDA, UM, MY THOUGHT IS THAT AUTOMATICALL COMBINING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES COULD INTRODUCE COMPLICATIONS AND, UH, RESULT IN UNDESIRABLE OUTCOMES. SO IT MIGHT BE BEST TO JUST LIMIT IT TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. UH, TO AVOID UNNECESSARY COMPLICATIONS WITH AUTOMATICALLY MERGING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.
AND SO WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS FOR MERGING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, IF NOT AUTOMATIC. STANDARD SUBDIVISION UNDER CHAPTER 250. OKAY.
AND THAT WOULD AND THAT THAT WOULD COME IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD OR. WELL, YEAH.
AND CURRENTLY WE HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, LANGUAGE IN OUR SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATION REGULATIONS OR EXCLUSIONARY, UM, THAT TALKS ABOUT WHEN THERE'S A RESIDENTIAL HOME ON A SUBSTANDARD LOT, THERE'S CRITERIA. SO THIS WAS THE IDEA WAS THE LOT MERGER, UM, MOVING AWAY FROM COMMON LAW MERGER TO PUTTING SOME, UH, LANGUAGE IN THE CODE WAS TO ALSO ASSIST WITH ISSUES THAT HAVE COME UP WITH THOSE PARTICULAR SECTIONS.
GOT IT. OKAY. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? THAT OR. NOT REALLY.
I'M NOT. I I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHY WE WOULDN'T WHY IT WOULD APPLY JUST TO ONE TYPE OF USE. I JUST.
WELL SO CURRENTLY THERE IS SOME LANGUAGE AND RESTRICTIONS ON, UM, SUBSTANDARD LOTS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO OTHER LOTS IN THE CODE. RIGHT. THERE'S THAT. YOU CAN'T BUILD A LOT. IF MATT, CAN YOU PULL UP THE LANGUAGE. PLEASE? THANK YOU.
IN FRONT OF THE, UM, THE EXCEPTIONS OF MODIFICATIONS. C6 UH, WHICH STATES THAT, UH, YOU CAN USE A LOT THAT IS
[01:25:04]
SUBSTANDARD AS LONG AS YOU DON'T OWN AN ADJACENT LOT AND AT NO TIME HAS THE TWO LOTS BEEN OWNED UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. UM, IT'S IT'S A COMPLICATED BIT OF LANGUAGE.UH, THE THE PURPOSE OF THE MERGER CLAUSE IS TO KIND OF FORMALIZE COMMON LAW MERGERS FOR A LOT OF MERGERS FOR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, PRIMARILY, UH, MANAGING.
CORRECT ME, BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF A COMMON LAW MERGER FOR COMMERCIAL USES. UH, IT SEEMS FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, IT SEEMS TO MOSTLY ONLY APPLY TO, UH, RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT USE THAT ADDITIONAL LAND TO MEET VARIOUS LAW AND BULK REQUIREMENTS, SUCH AS SETBACKS, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE COVERAGE, AREA RATIO, THINGS LIKE THAT. AND SO WHAT WE'VE ALSO SEEN IN IN PAST CASES IS THAT PEOPLE HAVE APPLIED FOR AND OBTAINED VARIANCES FROM THE EXCEPTIONS. UH, SECTION OF THE CODE.
FOR SMALLER LOTS IN RESIDENTIAL, CORRECT? YEAH. OKAY.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON GENERAL LAND USE PLANNING RECOMMENDATIONS? OKAY. THEN MOVING ON TO HOUSING AND AFFORDABILITY. THERE WERE NINE. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON.
THIS? JUST ON A TYPO. IF IT MATTERS 17 AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF H3, I THINK THE FIRST WORD ON THE LAST LINE FOUR SHOULD BE PER FLOOR AREA, SQUARE FEET PER FLOOR AREA.
YES. UH, ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE.
THE FIRST. WORD PER GROSS FEET PER. PER FLOOR. AREA 35 OFF STREET PARKING SPACES PER GROSS SQUARE FEET PER FLOOR. AREA OF. OF.
EXCESS OF. IF YOU GUYS ARE LOOKING AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE. AGAIN.
GROSS SQUARE FEET OF FLOOR AREA ON LOTS IN EXCESS OF.
I THINK OF. I AGREE THAT THERE NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE ON LEAN TOWARDS OF. AND JUST GOING BACK TO 16 THIS THESE DUMPSTERS AND WHATEVER. UM.
WHAT HAPPENS IF THEY'RE THERE BECAUSE THERE'S CONSTRUCTION GOING ON THAT'S GOING TO BE LONGER THAN.
IT WAS ASSOCIATED TO A BUILDING PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION. THEN, THEN, THEN IT'S A LONG TIME PERIOD. OKAY.
OKAY. AND THAT IS FOR VIKASH. IF YOU'RE WATCHING, UM, WE DID RECOMMEND. INITIALLY IT WAS 45 DAYS, AND THAT'S BEEN DROPPED DOWN TO 30 DAYS, RIGHT? RIGHT. BUT IF IT'S A CONNECTED TO A CONSTRUCTION AND A BUILDING PERMIT, THEN IT WOULD BE FROM THE LENGTH OF THAT BUILDING PERMIT.
CORRECT. AND I DID RESPOND. I SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT THIS AND ONE OTHER TWO, UH, MR. PATEL, KNOWING THAT HE WASN'T GOING TO BE PRESENT THIS EVENING.
UNDERSTOOD. ALL RIGHT, UH, WE'RE READY TO MOVE ON TO HOUSING AFFORDABILITY. ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMENTS ON THESE NINE. ON NUMBER TWO, HOW ARE THESE DIFFERENT, UH, PERCENTAGES ALLOCATED? WHO DECIDES THAT? GARRETT, DID YOU HEAR THAT OR COMMISSIONER? SO THERE'S A FORMULA. THAT'S BUILT INTO 25. AND JUST FOR CONTEXT. THERE'S THREE TIERS PROPOSED AT BELOW MARKET RATE CAPPING AT 60%, 70% AT 80% AMI AREA MEDIAN INCOME. SO IN INSTANCES WHERE LET'S SAY THERE'S TEN UNITS PROPOSED AND YOU'D HAVE ONE UNIT, TO 85 SPECIFIES EXACTLY WHICH RANGE THAT WOULD HIT. LET'S SAY YOU HAVE 30 UNITS THAT ARE PROPOSED. AND THERE'S THREE BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS REQUIRED. I JUST DON'T KNOW IF I RECALL OFFHAND. THAT WOULD BE ONE CAPPED AT 60%, ONE CAP TO 70% AND ONE CAP AT 80%. BUT ULTIMATELY TO 85 PROVIDES THAT DIRECTION OF WHAT TO DO IN EACH SCENARIO, DEPENDING ON WHETHER YOU'RE PROVIDING ONE, TWO, THREE OR MORE BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS.. AND IF IS IT REALLY SPECIFIC AS TO WHETHER IF THERE WERE FIVE UNITS, FIVE AFFORDABLE BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS, WHICH CATEGORY THEY FIT IN? YES, I KNOW THAT BLENDED AVERAGE COMES IN AT TIMES, BUT
[01:30:02]
YES, THERE'S SPECIFICITY AND DIRECTION ON WHAT TO DO IN EACH INSTANCE. OKAY.OKAY. ANY OTHERS IN THIS SECTION? OKAY THEN MOVING ON TO ENVIRONMENTAL RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY FEEDBACK ON THESE FIVE? OKAY. AND THIS IS ALSO WHERE MR. PATEL PROVIDED, UH, FEEDBACK ON GENERATORS AT THE LAST MEETING.
AND THAT'S BUILT INTO NUMBER FIVE.
YES. CORRECT. ALL RIGHT THEN MOVING ON TO ORGANIZATIONAL, UH, GRAMMATICAL AND CONSISTENCY RECOMMENDATIONS. WE HAVE FOUR, UM, WE HAVE FOUR RECOMMENDATIONS. ANY FEEDBACK ON THIS? UH, ANOTHER JUST SORT OF TYPO ON NUMBER THREE. THREE LINES UP FROM THE BOTTOM OF THAT PARAGRAPH. THE WORD PLANNED I NOT SURE THAT MAKES SENSE. IT SAYS APPROVAL AUTHORITY WITH TOWN OR PLANNING BOARD. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE WORD PLANNED.
PLANT PLANNED. A TOWN. ZONING BOARD SPECIAL PERMIT APPROVAL AUTHORITY WITH.. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR, YOU CAN SAY TOWN BOARD. OH YEAH, PROPOSED. RIGHT.
UM, THANKS. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE PLACE TO BRING IT UP. BUT BEFORE WE GOT STARTED TODAY, I WOULD SUGGEST WE DO A GLOBAL SEARCH ON CHAPTER 285. AND WHEREVER THE WORD CHURCH APPEARS, WE CHANGE IT TO HOUSE OF WORSHIP.
AND THAT'S A. RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION.
YEAH. AND THAT'S IN BOTH, UH, 285 AND THIS RECOMMENDATION AND THE REPORTS, I THINK ONCE WE GET TO THE REPORTS, THERE'S SOME REFERENCES TO CHURCH WHERE I THINK RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION WOULD BE MORE INCLUSIVE. FOR SPECIFICALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING. AT.
UH, GARRETT, IS THE ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS, UH, PARAGRAPH OF. UH.
IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS CHURCH. AND LATER ON, WE USE THE TERM RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. AND I'M SUGGESTING WE DO A GLOBAL SEARCH. THESE SHOULD BE EASY. ENOUGH. OKAY.
MAKE SENSE? OUT OF CONTROL, EFFORTS WILL MAKE THAT A LOT EASIER. OH, AI, THE WORLD'S CONTROL, UM, OKAY. SO THEN LASTLY FOR THIS THIS REPORT, UH, LONGER TERM SEPARATE RECOMMENDATIONS. THERE ARE FOUR. ANY FEEDBACK ON THESE? WE'RE SAYING MORE INTENSE THAN 25 STORMS IN NUMBER THREE.
YEAH. SO INSTEAD OF SAYING BECAUSE I DON'T WANT IT TO TURN TO BE 30 YEARS, WE DON'T WANT TO SAY A NUMBER. WELL, UM, I WOULD SAY THAT IN THE DOCUMENTS I'VE REVIEWED, YOU KNOW, TYPICALLY PUT ABOUT PUT OUT BY THE STATE, THE, THE STORMS THAT ARE STUDIED AND THEN DESIGNED FOR, UM, RANGE FOR THE ORDER THAT THEY GO IN OR THE ONE, TWO, FIVE, TEN, 25, 50, 100 AND BEYOND. OKAY. SO SO IT DOESN'T GO BY INCREMENTS OF FIVE. THANK YOU. YOU. COOL.
I DO THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD RECOMMENDATION THOUGH. NUMBER THREE I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE SEE. YES. EVERY MEETING. YEAH I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO PUSH BACK ON THE SUGGESTION TO PUT IN RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION BECAUSE UM, THINKING ABOUT IT, IT MIGHT UH, CARRY OVER INTO SCHOOLS. SO POTENTIALLY MAYBE HOUSE OF WORSHIP. YOU AN INSTITUTION? OKAY, I GOT.
YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? SO YOU OFTEN HAVE RELIGIOUS COLLEGES.
YOU HAVE OTHER RELIGIOUS SCHOOLS. UM.
SO WHAT ARE YOU. PLAYING WITH? I'M SUGGESTING HOUSE OF WORSHIP. HOUSE OF WORSHIP IS ACCEPTABLE.
TO ME. OKAY, HOUSE OF WORSHIP. GET THAT CONTROL. F AGAIN. ALL RELIGIOUS.
INSTITUTIONS CHANGE TO, UH, HOUSE OF WORSHIP. UM, OKAY, SO WE'RE GOOD ON THIS DOCUMENT. YES, YES. SO THEN THE MUCH SHORTER, UH, ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. SORRY. ZONING MAP AMENDMENT, THERE ARE REALLY, REALLY JUST ONE RECOMMENDATION.
[01:35:04]
UM, COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE, DO YOU WANT TO SORT OF WALK US THROUGH THIS, THIS RECOMMENDATION? THIS IS THIS IS REGARDING THE 61 GRASSLANDS. ABSOLUTELY. SO DRAFTED A POSITIVE DRAFT, POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ZONING ZONING ORDINANCE. I'M SORRY. THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS AND THERE ARE THE TR DISTRICT, OF COURSE. SO DOCUMENTS FAVORABLE TOWARDS THAT, AS WELL AS THE ADDITION OF THE M30 DISTRICT, WHICH WOULD GO ON THE SITES ON MANHATTAN AVENUE. AND BOTH OF THOSE DISTRICTS WOULD REPLACE THE URBAN RENEWAL DISTRICT. SO THE DOCUMENT IS STRUCTURED TO SPEAK POSITIVELY ABOUT THOSE.AND THEN THE LAST ZONING MAP AMENDMENT IS 61. UM, GRASSLANDS ROAD, WHICH IS THE GROVE AT VALHALLA. AND THE DOCUMENT SPEAKS POSITIVELY ABOUT THAT. AND FOR THAT ONE, THERE IS A CAVEAT. AND BECAUSE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IDENTIFIED THAT SITE AS PLANNED, UNIT DEVELOPMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, THE RECOMMENDATION IS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE FUTURE LAND USE MAP BE UPDATED TO REMOVE THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DESIGNATION FOR 61 GRASSLANDS ROAD, AND IF THE BOARD RECALLS, THAT BUILDS ON THE SIMILAR RATIONALE. WHEN THE PLANNING BOARD VOTED POSITIVELY TO RECOMMEND THAT THE NEIGHBORING SITE, 55 GRASSLANDS ROAD, UM, BE UPDATED FROM ITS CURRENT PLAN UNIT TO DEVELOP PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT ZONING DESIGNATION TO OUR 30. UH, SO REALLY, THIS ZONE CHANGE COMPLEMENTS THAT.
AND IN SHORT, IT'S ALL BASED ON THE FACT THAT THOSE TYPE OF SENIOR HOUSING USES BOTH THE NURSING HOME, WHICH IS SITED AT 61 GRASSLANDS ROAD, AND THE CONTINUING CARE RETIREMENT COMMUNITY, AND 55 GRASSLANDS ROAD, OUR USES ENABLED IN THE SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS AS OPPOSED TO THE PLANNING DISTRICT, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE ZONING CONTROLS FOR THOSE USES.
SO, THOSE ARE THE UPDATES. AND I JUST WANT TO DO A QUICK SCAN, UM, TO MAKE SURE I DID NOT MISS ANYTHING THERE. OKAY. AND THEN WE ALSO PUT IN, UH, NOTES ABOUT THE FACT THAT ANY FUTURE RELATED DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS WOULD INDEED REQUIRE PLANNING BOARD, UH, REVIEW THROUGH SITE PLAN AND POTENTIAL ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW. UM, AS PART OF ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS, AS OPPOSED TO ENABLING ANY TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT JUST BY VIRTUE OF THIS ZONING MAP. EDIT. THAT'S IN. RIGHT. SO, GARY, CAN JUST FOR THE BOARD, I THINK, COULD YOU GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF OF WHEN THAT WOULD COME INTO PLAY? SO ARE YOU SAYING LIKE, YOU KNOW, IF THE M30 DISTRICTS ADOPTED AND THEN AN APPLICANT WERE TO PROPOSE, UH, DEVELOPMENT ON ONE OF THE M30 PARCELS THAT WAS REZONED THAT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FURTHER REVIEW BY THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, DO IT. ABSOLUTELY. I JUST WANTED TO ANSWER THAT. THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. UH, NO DIFFERENT THAN THE CURRENT PROCESS, WHICH WOULD BE A SITE PLAN, VARIANCE TYPE REVIEW. UH, POTENTIALLY STEEP SLOPE. WHAT THE WATERCOURSE PERMITS, TREE PERMITS AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
EVERYONE FOLLOW. FOLLOW THE PUBLIC. YES. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, ANY OTHER ANY FEEDBACK, QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT OR ON THIS RECOMMENDATION? NO.
COOL. ALL RIGHT. SO MOVING INTO THE NINE REPORTS I GUESS HOW HOW DO YOU WANT TO DO THIS? COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE I GUESS WE CAN DO IT ONE AT A TIME. AND DO YOU WANT TO JUST LIKE VERY QUICKLY SUMMARIZE WHAT WHAT THE REPORT SAYS. ISN'T SURE. OKAY.
SO FIRST ONE UP IS THE TR MIXED USE DISTRICT OVERVIEW.
ABSOLUTELY. SO THIS PLANNING BOARD REPORT IS MULTIFACETED IN THE SENSE THAT IT SERVES THE DUAL FUNCTION OF BEING A ZONING MAP CHANGE, AS WELL AS ZONING TEXT. OF COURSE, THE TR DISTRICT IS PROPOSED ON ITS MAP SITES. AND THEN THERE'S THE CORRESPONDING 25 LANGUAGE FOR THE ZONING REGULATIONS.
AND SORRY NOT TO INTERRUPT, ACTUALLY TAKE TAKE TAKE THIS ONE STEP BACK. LIKE WHAT ARE THE FUNCTION OF THESE REPORTS
[01:40:04]
IN RELATION TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THIS PROCESS? YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO WHAT I THINK IS BEST TO HELP THE PUBLIC IS I WILL JUST DISPLAY THIS PARTICULAR DRAFT REPORT FOR THE FIRST ONE AND GO OVER IT IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. AND THEN AFTER THAT, UM, TAKE COMMENTS AND THEN PERHAPS LESS DETAIL ON THE OTHERS, BUT I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO GIVE A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW. SO, UH, 25 LET ME PULL UP THE TR DISTRICT, UM, REPORT. UH, THE SECOND YEAR. HERE WE GO. NOW I'LL SHARE YOUR SCREEN. SO FOR ALL ZONING MAP AND ZONING TEXT REFERRALS FROM THE TOWN BOARD, THE PLANNING BOARD IS OBLIGATED TO ISSUE A REPORT. AND THAT REPORT STIPULATES THAT THE PLANNING BOARD FOLLOWS THE FORMAT OF ANSWERING FOUR QUESTIONS.THEY'RE SIMILAR FOR ZONING TEXT AS WELL AS ZONING MAP, BUT IN SHORT, AND I'LL MAKE THIS BIGGER. SO AGAIN, WE'RE FOCUSED HERE ON THE TR DISTRICT. SO ZONING TEXT IT ASKS THE PLANNING BOARD, IS THERE QUESTIONS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD WHETHER SUCH CHANGE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE AIMS AND PRINCIPLES EMBODIED IN IN CHAPTER TWO? PARTICULAR DISTRICT'S CONCERN. IT ASKS WHICH LAND, WHICH AREAS LAND USES, BUILDINGS AND ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE TOWN WILL BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY SUCH CHANGE, AND WHAT WILL THEY BE AFFECTED? THE INDIRECT IMPLICATIONS OF SUCH CHANGE IN ITS EFFECT ON OTHER REGULATIONS, AND THEN D WHETHER SUCH PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OFFICIAL THE AIMS OF THE OFFICIAL PLANNING POLICIES IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, AND THE WAY THESE HAVE BEEN STRUCTURED IS EACH REPORT OPENS UP WITH A FEW HIGHLIGHTS OF WHAT IS ACCOMPLISHED WITH THE 285 AMENDMENT. SO THAT'S LISTED HERE. AND THEN THERE ARE THE REPORT RESPONSES. SO THIS ONE IS UNIQUE BECAUSE THE TR DISTRICT IS NEW. THEREFORE IT CREATES ITS OWN AIMS AND PRINCIPLES. UH, AS OPPOSED TO RELYING LIKE LET'S SAY, FOR A MODIFICATION TO THE DISTRICT, THE RESPONSE TO A HERE, WHETHER IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE AIMS AND PRINCIPLES EMBODIED IN THE CHAPTER. IF THIS WERE A DISTRICT REPORT, WE HAVE EXISTING AIMS AND PRINCIPLES, AND WE WOULD WANT TO STATE HOW THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, CONSISTENT WITH THOSE. SO IN THIS INSTANCE, WE ANSWER THIS UNDER THE PRETENSE OF WHY THE TR DISTRICTS APPROPRIATE. AND WE DO MAKE TIES TO THE INTENT. THAT'S OVERALL IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. UH.
AS FAR AS WHICH AREAS LAND USES, BUILDINGS AND ESTABLISHMENTS IN THE TOWN WILL BE DIRECTLY AFFECTED. SO WE, YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY HERE WHERE IT'S RATHER LARGE. IT'S ACTUALLY APPROXIMATELY 110 ACRES. UM, SO WE KNOW THAT AND THIS MAP, UM, SORRY, MAPPING WILL ALSO CORRELATE TO THIS. AND WE IDENTIFY THE PERMITTED USES OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT USES, BUT NOT JUST FACTUAL INFORMATION.
IN THAT REGARD, WE TALK ABOUT HOW THE PERMITTED USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE TR DISTRICT VARY TO A DEGREE. SO FOR INSTANCE, UH, THERE'S SOME EXISTING LEA DISTRICT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ON 119 CORRIDOR THAT WOULD BE REPLACED BY THE TR DISTRICT. SO WE'RE CAREFUL TO IDENTIFY THE USES IN THE LEA THAT HYPOTHETICALLY COULD BE NUISANCES AND ARE NOT APPROPRIATE IN THE MIXED USE CORRIDOR. AND WE HIGHLIGHT WHY THAT'S NOT CARRIED OVER INTO THE TR DISTRICT. SIMILARLY, IF THERE'S GAPS IN THE EXISTING ZONES ALONG THE 119 DISTRICT THAT ARE UM, SO FOR INSTANCE, IF ADULT DAYCARE WAS NOT ALLOWED ALONG 119 AND THE DISTRICT CORRIDOR, WE INDICATE WHY THAT'S PRUDENT TO TO ADD THAT USE FILL VACANCIES, CREATE JOBS, THAT SORT OF THING. UH, THIS QUESTION IS ALWAYS A LITTLE TRICKY. THE INDIRECT IMPLICATIONS. UM, BUT ULTIMATELY IT IS WHAT IS ASKED. SO WE TRY AND IDENTIFY, UM, FOR INSTANCE, IF THE TR DISTRICT HOW IT WOULD COINCIDE WITH PERHAPS THE CHANGES TO THE 119 CORRIDOR THAT I WANTED TO GO TO IS IN ADDITION. SO, UM, I WAS TRYING TO THINK ABOUT UNIQUE EXTERNALITIES THAT ARE TIED TO THE PROPOSED TR DISTRICT. AND LASTLY, I THINK ONE OF THE MOST APPLICABLE, UM, QUESTIONS THAT ARE ASKED THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT IS A PLANNING BOARD AND ITS PLANNERS THAT WE THINK ABOUT. AND THIS IS THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT WE SHOULD ALL THINK ABOUT WHEN THERE'S A ZONING TEXT OR A ZONING MAP CHANGE PROPOSED IS IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? RIGHT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THERE HAS TO BE A HYPER SPECIFIC POLICY THAT
[01:45:04]
SAYS, YOU KNOW, EXTREME SPECIFICITY, YOU KNOW, CREATE A TARRYTOWN ROAD MIXED USE DISTRICT. BUT, UM, THE ABSENCE OF THAT, YOU WANT TO IDENTIFY THAT YOUR CONSISTENCY WITH, WITH OTHER POLICIES. SO, UM, FOR ALL THESE REPORTS, WE'VE IDENTIFIED POLICIES THAT EXHIBIT CONSISTENCY WITH THE MISSION OF THE TR DISTRICT AND SITE AND VERY DIRECTLY, UM, SIMILARLY, THERE'S FOUR CRITERIA THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS OBLIGATED TO OPINE ON WITH REGARDS TO THE ZONING MAP.AND THEY ARE SIMILAR. SO JUST GO THROUGH THOSE WHETHER THE USE IS PERMITTED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THE AREA OF CONCERN. THAT'S A QUESTION IT ASKS WHETHER ADEQUATE PUBLIC SCHOOL FACILITIES AND OTHER PUBLIC FACILITIES, UTILITIES AND SERVICES, INCLUDING ROADS, EXIST OR CAN REASONABLY EXPECTED TO BE CREATED OR SERVE THE NEEDS OF ANY ADDITIONAL DWELLINGS OR OTHER USES LIKELY TO BE CONSTRUCTED. THERE'S TWO MORE. WHETHER THE PROPOSED CHANGE IS IN ACCORD WITH ANY EXISTING OR PROPOSED PLANS IN THE VICINITY, UH, AGAIN, THAT'S MAYBE MORE APPLICABLE TO NEW YORK STATE D.O.T. CHANGES, WHICH I'VE NOTED HERE. AND THEN THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT UPON THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE TOWN IS ENVISIONED BY THE OFFICIAL PLANNING POLICIES OF THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, UM. SO THAT'S THE FORMAT. AND I THINK THESE DOCUMENTS ARE VERY HELPFUL FOR ALL OF US THAT I THINK FOR PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, OF COURSE, FOR THE TOWN BOARD MEMBERS, I ALSO FEEL THAT THE PUBLIC, UM, READING THESE, UM, OWNERS OF THE TR DISTRICT, THIS REALLY IS A NICE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OF WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. UM, WHY IS RATIONAL, LOGICAL? UH, HOW IT CONFORMS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, HOW IT EXHIBITS CONSISTENCY WITH THE EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE AND SO ON AND SO FORTH.
GREAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR FEEDBACK ON ON THIS REPORT? YES, JUST THE, UM, NUMBER TWO D THE THIRD BULLET, THE LAST PART WHERE IT SAYS NEW INDUSTRIAL USES AND NEW CAR WASHES AND GASOLINE STATIONS, IF YOU COULD JUST SAY NEW INDUSTRIAL USES, COMMA, NEW CAR WASHES AND. COMMA AND COMMA.
TWO COMMAS. NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.
AND JUST. OH YES. THAT'S THE WAY YOU WANT TO.
DO COMMAS. BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT IN THIS DOCUMENT. SO I DON'T. WANT TO NOT GOING BACK TO THE GENERAL CONSISTENCY OXFORD COMMAS EVERYWHERE.
I DIDN'T WANT TO ADD THE OXFORD.
COMMA, OXFORD COMMAS EVERYWHERE.
RIGHT. CONTROL A MAN A MAN. MISS MCGONIGLE WILL FIX THAT IN UH, VERSION TWO.
SO YEAH, MATT DOES LIKE THOSE. OKAY.
YOU ONLY HAVE FOUR COMMAS LEFT. NATASHA .. I KNOW I.
MAYBE ONE. OUT OF COMMAS. WE COULD ADD.
ANY, ANY OTHERS IN. NO, NO NO TR.
NOTHING ELSE IN THE TR. ALL RIGHT.
SO MOVING ON TO M30 DISTRICT REPORT. UM.
UM. JUST SORRY REALLY QUICK DID UM, AND I DON'T HAVE IT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. AND SO MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING I SHOULD HAVE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT, UM, IS THERE ANY NOTION. SO I KNOW THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY COMMENTS ABOUT, UH, A REQUEST FOR CONSIDERATION OF MIXED USE, AND THAT WOULD BE DISCUSSED WOULD BE SOMETHING DONE WITH THE COMP PLAN UPDATE.
IS THERE ANY NOTION TO THAT IN THIS REPORT OR. THAT JUST WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED BY THE PLANNING BOARD PREVIOUSLY.
AND. UM, YEAH, I THINK THAT'S IN THE LONG TERM RECOMMENDATIONS. THAT'S NOT ALWAYS.
YEAH. IF IT'S I WILL DOUBLE CHECK THAT OKAY. GOING ALONG HERE. YEAH. BECAUSE I THINK THERE WAS A SPECIFIC DESIRE TO CONSIDER, UM, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY MIXED USE FOR CERTAIN AREAS WITHIN THE NEW PROPOSED TR. AND I THINK PUTTING IN THERE THE NOTION THAT THAT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN WE CONSIDER UPDATES TO THE COMP PLAN WOULD BE A GOOD IMPROVEMENT. OH YES. YES.
YES, YES, DEFINITELY. THAT'S REFERENCED IN THE THE, THE ACTUAL RECOMMENDATION. IT IS. THERE'S A GOOD SPOT TO CUT THAT SENTIMENT HERE AS WELL. I'M MORE THAN HAPPY TO WORK THAT IN FOR THE BOARD. THANK YOU.
THAT THAT'S ALL THAT THEN JOY. FOR THE RECOMMENDATION.
RIGHT. SO IN THE RECOMMENDATION IT IS ON PAGE SEVEN. YEAH. UH,
[01:50:02]
RECOMMENDATION F ONE. BUT YOU KNOW, YEAH. BRINGING SOME OF THAT IN. SO THAT TIES. TO THIS SPECIFIC DISTRICT. IT'S YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE OF THE ONES THAT WAS CONSIDERED.COOL. VERY, VERY GOOD. UM, MOVING ON TO THE, UH OH. NOW.
M30 M30, THE M30 REPORT. SO CERTAINLY YOU DON'T NEED TO GO INTO AS MUCH DETAIL, BUT GIVE US A.
LITTLE. LITTLE FLAVOR OF THIS REPORT.
YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. SO SIMILAR, UH, THE DUAL ROLE FUNCTION IS APPLICABLE HERE AS WELL BECAUSE IT'S BOTH A PROPOSED ZONING MAP CHANGE AND THEN CORRESPONDING TEXT. SO ALL FOUR OF THOSE QUESTIONS FOR EACH OF THOSE TWO FOR THE MAP AND THE TEXT HAVE BEEN ANSWERED. AND. IT DIDN'T SHOW THE EXHIBIT LAST TIME, BUT.
THIS IS THE LONE INSTANCE WHERE THE YOU ARE DISTRICT WOULD BE REPLACED WITH THE M30 AND THE REPORT REALLY FOCUSES ON THE FACT THAT THE M30 IS A INTERMEDIATE ZONE BETWEEN THE M1, 74 AND MEANING THE M1, 74 ALLOWS HIGHER DENSITY, TALLER BUILDINGS. THE M25, UH, LESSER DENSITY BUILDINGS, AND IT RATIONALIZES COUPLE THINGS IN TERMS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AS YOU WOULD IMAGINE, VERY SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATION TO REMOVE THE URBAN RENEWAL. AND THIS ACHIEVES THAT. SO THAT IS CONSTANT THEME THROUGHOUT BOTH THIS REPORT AND THE TR DISTRICT ALSO HIGHLIGHTED, WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT THINGS SUCH AS, UH, RECALL SOME OF THOSE QUESTIONS WHERE IT INDICATES DOES THE SITE HAVE EXISTING UTILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE TO SUPPORT IT AND INFRASTRUCTURE CAN BE TRAFFIC BASED, UH, OPEN SPACE BASED, UM, WATER SEWER. UM, IT REALLY DRIVES HOME IN THIS REPORT THAT THE M25 DISTRICT WOULD REPLICATE COMPARABLE DENSITY. THEREFORE THEN THAT'S WHAT AS TO WHAT EXISTS MEANING IF THERE WAS A PROPOSAL FOR THE M1 74 DISTRICT, THE QUESTION LIKE THAT WOULD GET FLAGGED. BECAUSE IF YOU'RE GOING FROM, LET'S JUST SAY A BUILD OUT OF 200 UNITS ON A SITE TO 600, WHICH IS LIKE WHICH IS AN EXAMPLE, WHAT THE M7 174 DISTRICT WOULD DO, I DON'T THINK WE'D BE ABLE TO HONESTLY AND ACCURATELY ANSWER THAT QUESTION IN TERMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE NEEDS FOR THAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT. SO IT ALMOST FUNCTIONS IN LIKE A SEEKER IMPACT, UH, FASHION IN THAT REGARD. UM, TALKS ABOUT A DENSITY CONTROLS OF THE M25.
I'M SORRY. THE PROPOSED M30 AND HOW THEY ARE MORE CONSISTENT WITH NEIGHBORING USES. SO, UM, THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE NOW ARE AS HIGH AS, I BELIEVE, 7 OR 8 STOREYS. UM, THIS WOULD ENABLE, UM, LESSER STOREYS, FOUR AND FIVE STOREY BUILDINGS, WHICH ARE MORE CLOSELY IN LINE WITH THE NEIGHBORING SITES. SO, UM, THE DOCUMENT RATIONALIZES THE M30 ZONING TEXT AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS. I WAS WONDERING HOW THEY GOT.
ANY, UH, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS REPORT OR FEEDBACK ON THIS REPORT? NO.
ALL RIGHT. MOVING ON TO THE REPORT. THREE THE POD TO OUR 30 DISTRICT. ALL RIGHT. YES, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT A LITTLE BIT BEFORE. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS 61 GRASSLANDS ROAD. SEE IF I HAVE A MAP HERE. ACTUALLY THAT'S ONE THING WE SHOULD PROBABLY, UH, ADD THE MAP FOR THAT 61. UM, GRASSLANDS, ROADS. THAT'S ONE RECOMMENDATION I WOULD MAKE GOING INTO THE NEXT MEETING. UM. LET'S SEE HERE. SO THIS IS ZONING MAP ONLY THE OUR 30 DISTRICT EXISTS AND IT'S HERE.
FORMAT VERY COMPARABLE. IT LEAVES OFF WITH THE RATIONALE FOR WHY WHAT'S HAPPENING. IT REALLY IS A DESCRIPTOR OF WHAT'S PROPOSED AND A LITTLE BIT OF WHY. AND THEN WHETHER THE USE IS PERMITTED BY THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THE AREA OF CONCERN. AS YOU RECALL, IN THE
[01:55:04]
VICINITY OF THIS SITE, IT'S FULLY SURROUNDED BY OUR 30 DISTRICTS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF, UM, THE MOUNTAIN. THE TOWN OF MOUNT PLEASANT TO THE NORTH, WHICH HAS DIFFERENT ZONING AND THEREFORE THIS DOCUMENT REALLY STRESSES THE FACT THAT, AGAIN, THE NURSING HOME, WHICH IS AT 61 GRASSLANDS ROAD, IS A USE THAT IS ENABLED IN THE OUR DISTRICTS CALL THE OUR 40 LISTS ALL THE SPECIAL PERMIT PERMITTED USES AND IT CASCADES DOWN THROUGHOUT ALL OF OUR 30 DISTRICTS. UH, THEREFORE, UM IN RATIONALISE IT IN THAT SENSE, UM, THE SITE WAS A COMBINATION OF PRIOR OUR 40 AND OUR 20. UH, THE OUR 30 IS ESSENTIALLY A HYBRID OF THAT THAT THAT ACREAGE RATIOS WERE FAIRLY COMPARABLE ACROSS THAT SITE. UM, AND AGAIN VERY COMPARABLE UM RATIONALE AS TO 55 GRASSLANDS ROAD, WHICH THE PLANNING BOARD PREVIOUSLY UH OPINED ON FAVOURABLY. AND ALSO WHICH IS ACTUALLY A UM, A ZONING MAP AMENDMENT THAT THE TOWN BOARD WITH YOUR POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION IS ENTERTAINING.UH, AT ITS NEXT MEETING. SO THIS IS, UH, COMPLIMENTING TYPE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT. GREAT. UH, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK ON THIS REPORT? NO. OKAY.
YOU WANT ONE TYPO OR. DO YOU HAVE ONE? YEAH. I HAD TO READ IT.
AND THAT'S HOW IT SHOWS THAT WE ACTUALLY READ IT.
I READ IT, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY TITLE I GOT. WELL.
SO ON THE SECOND PAGE, UH, UNDER B WHERE IT SAYS THEN THERE'S A, UH, YOU KNOW, LOOK AT A BULLET POINT, IT'S A 61 GRASSLANDS ROAD. YES.
THEN YOU GO INTO THE BULLET POINT BELOW THAT'S, UH, LIKE NOT A DARK BULLET POINT. RIGHT? THE LAST WORD IN THAT BULLET POINT, I THINK SHOULD BE SINGULAR, NOT CITES, BECAUSE IT'S JUST TALKING ABOUT 61. SO TO MODIFY THE SITE.
ONE ONE POINT TO MR. WEINBERG. AND I'M NOT HAPPY ABOUT IT.
DAY. THANK YOU FOR PICKING UP ON THAT.
ALL RIGHT, MOVING ON TO NUMBER FOUR. AFFORDABLE HOUSING PB REPORT. SO THIS IS SOLELY A ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT REPORT. NO CHANGES TO THE MAP OF THIS ONE.
ANOTHER TYPO. SECOND BULLET POINT.
THE SECOND BULLET POINT. UH, AND THEN THE THE ONE BELOW THAT. THAT'S THE INVISIBLE ONE. THE FIRST WORD I THINK SHOULD BE THERE ARE. YES. OR THEY AGREED.
YEAH. THANK YOU. DEFINITELY. THERE ARE. I APPRECIATE THAT. SO THE DOCUMENT GIVES A HISTORY OF WHAT'S BEEN PRODUCED IN THE TOWN BY VIRTUE OF HAVING A 10% SET ASIDE IN THE NUMBER OF ZONING DISTRICTS. IT IDENTIFIES COURSE THAT THERE'S A GAP IN THAT REGARD FOR SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICTS, AS WELL AS THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT. IT TALKS ABOUT THE BELOW MARKET RATE ASPECT, WHICH I DO APPRECIATE. UM, COLLABORATING WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ON THAT CONCEPT. RECALL, WE HAD THE WORK 25 PRESENTLY HAS THE WORKFORCE HOUSING. UH, DEFINED IN THE TIERS. BUT WE TOGETHER WORKED THROUGH THAT WITH BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS TO BE MORE ACCURATE. SO THE DOCUMENT STRESSES THOSE TYPE OF IMPROVEMENTS AND UPDATES. IF YOU RECALL, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD, WE WE'VE ADDED A RECOMMENDATION THAT INDICATES THAT THERE SHOULD BE MORE SPECIFICITY TO THE INTENT SECTION. AND AS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THESE REPORTS, IT'S WHAT WE'VE NOTICED IS THAT THE INTENT SECTION IN 285 AND MIGHT BE THIS IS THE OVERALL INTENT OF THE TOWN OF GREENSBURG
[02:00:03]
ZONING ORDINANCE. SUPER. UM, I THINK I'LL EVEN SAY VAGUE. IT'S JUST VERY, UM, THERE'S THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH SPECIFICITY. SO AS WE'RE WORKING THROUGH THESE REPORTS AND HAVING TO ANSWER, HOW DOES THE CHANGE CONSISTENT THE AIMS AND PRINCIPLES EMBODIED IN THE CHAPTER FOR SOMETHING LIKE HOUSING AND JUST SAYS AN ADEQUATE HOUSING SITES. AND SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING IS TO ACTUALLY UPDATE THAT AND HAVE A LITTLE MORE TIES TO THE COMP PLAN. UH, BUT NONETHELESS, UM, WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE UPDATED THE REPORTS TO IDENTIFY THAT WE'RE DOING JUST THAT, UM, PROVIDING MORE, UM, A GREATER SPECTRUM OF HOUSING BY VIRTUE OF LOWER TIERS OF AFFORDABILITY THAN OTHERWISE AS EXISTING IN THE CODE. AND THAT'S ALL VERY POSITIVE STUFF. UM. LET'S SEE HERE. WE ALSO TALK ABOUT THE PLANNING BOARD'S PREFERENCE TO HAVE THE 10% FOR THE ONE FAMILY DISTRICTS REALLY FUNCTION TO GET THAT, THAT, THAT HOMEOWNERSHIP OPPORTUNITY CONSTRUCTED AS OPPOSED TO AN ALTERNATE THAT HAD, UM, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS. SO THAT'S, THAT'S FLAVORED THROUGHOUT THE, UH, THE DOCUMENT, UM, WE TALK ABOUT, OF COURSE, WHICH AREAS WOULD BE IMPACTED AND TOWNS REIMBURSE 75%. SINGLE FAMILY IS QUITE A BIT. UM, LET'S SEE HERE. AND OF COURSE, I THINK ONE OF THE STRONGEST POINTS FOR THE CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED IN 25 AND THAT ARE RECOMMENDED TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD, ARE THE VERY CLOSE TIES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND SO THERE ARE NUMEROUS, UH, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. UH, THAT DIRECT THE TOWN OF GREENBERG TO DO JUST WHAT IT'S DOING, WHICH IS TO BE A LEADER IN THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING SPACE. SO THERE ARE NUMEROUS POLICIES THAT ARE RECOMMENDED, I'M SORRY, REFERENCED IN THAT REGARD.THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS OR FEEDBACK? YES. SO, UM, I NOTICE IN THE MEMO IT TALKS ABOUT THE, UM.
THE INCREASE OF UM, SO LIKE RIGHT NOW IT'S SAY 50 YEARS FOR THE AFFORDABLE UNITS, WHETHER IT BE HOUSES OR APARTMENTS. UM, IT TALKS ABOUT US WANTING, UH, FOR THERE TO BE AN INCREASE TO SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, 99 YEARS. I SAW THAT IN THE MEMO, BUT I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THIS PARTICULAR REPORT.
LET'S SEE HERE. SHARE AGAIN. YEAH, I THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN RECOMMENDATION ONE IN THAT SECTION.
IT'S NOT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO. BUT SO PERHAPS THE REFERENCE IS NOT AS STRONG AS IT SHOULD BE. THIS SUB BULLET UH ON PAGE I THINK FROM TWO THREE THE AMENDMENTS WOULD REQUIRE A RESTRICTIVE COVENANTS IN PLACE ON BELOW MARKET RATE UNITS FOR A PERIOD OF 50 YEARS. AND THEN WE WE HAVE A NOTE. THE PLANNING BOARD RECOMMENDS A LONGER RECOMMENDS A TERM OF A LONGER DURATION TO BE EXPLORED. UM, THAT'S WHERE I THOUGHT IT WAS ADDRESSED. WE, YOU KNOW, ALIGN THAT MORE CLOSELY WITH THE RECOMMENDATION. I HAVE TO PULL THAT UP. BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO STRENGTHEN, STRENGTHEN IF THE BOARD WOULD LIKE TO STRENGTHEN THAT CERTAIN SOMETHING WE CAN DO. YEAH, I THINK THAT WOULD BE GOOD. WE ARE TRYING TO INCREASE. SO IF WE COULD, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. AND I THINK I RECALL YOU MAKING THE POINT THAT OTHER MEETINGS THAT, YOU KNOW, IF SOMETHING IS 50 YEARS AND IT WAS DONE, YOU KNOW, 1990, UH, YOU KNOW, RIGHT, 2040 UNFORTUNATELY AS A SOCIETY, YOU WILL HAVE NOT SOLVED THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING NEEDS. SO, UM, I THINK ABSOLUTELY BE CONSTRAINED FROM THIS. THANK YOU.
AND THEN THE OTHER THING WAS. ORIGINALLY WE TALKED ABOUT, UM, NEW UNITS BEING 60 TO 80%. BUT I SEE HERE IN THE DOCUMENT IT MENTIONS 50 TO 70%. IN KEYWORD SEARCH, 50 YEAR.
YEAH. IT LOOKS TO ME THE SECOND.
UH. SECOND BULLET.. SO IN TWO PLACES IT'S IN BE THE
[02:05:02]
THIRD BULLET. UH, I'M SORRY, THE FOURTH BULLET. AND THEN IT'S ALSO MENTIONED UP ON THE SECOND BULLET IN THE BEGINNING.I GUESS LOOKING AT THIS ONE HERE THAT I HAVE ON THE SCREEN, I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE TO SAY 50% PLUS HIGH HYPHEN, 71% PLUS RANGE. WOULD BE ACCURATE WHEN ULTIMATELY, UH, YOU'RE EIGHT, CAPTAIN, 80% ARMY, 60% ON THE LOW END, AND 80% ON THE HIGH END. YOU WOULD ACHIEVE UNITS IN THE 50S PERCENT ARMY TO 70%. SO I THINK A PLUS AND A PLUS HERE, UH, MAY MAKE SENSE, BUT I WANT TO SEE THE OTHER REFERENCE AS WELL.. SO THAT WOULD THAT WOULD WHEN YOU SAY 50 PLUS, DO YOU MEAN LIKE 55 TO 75 PLUS? WELL, I THINK THAT'S WHERE THE AVERAGE COMES IN. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO.
YEAH. NO, I GUESS SO. RIGHT NOW IT'S 80%. AND WE, WE SEE THE, THE AVALON FOR INSTANCE, WHICH HAS UH, I THINK 51 AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS GENERALLY THEY, THEY, THEY ALL HAPPEN TO BE IN THE 70%, LIKE BETWEEN 70% AND 80%. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, THERE MAY BE SOME THAT THEY RENT OUT INVOLUNTARILY OR BASED ON THAT, JUST VIABLE APPLICATIONS THAT COME IN THAT ARE LOWER. OKAY.
UM. BUT MAYBE, MAYBE WE, I THINK MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T USE THESE NUMBERS AT ALL AND JUST DRIVE FROM THE FACT THAT, UM, IT SHOULD BE LESS THAN, YOU KNOW, 80, 60%, 70%, 80% TO REALLY LINE UP WITH THE MAX ARMY THAT WE HAVE CODIFIED OR RECOMMENDED TO BE CODIFIED. RIGHT.
I'M ASKING BECAUSE I'M ASKING BECAUSE, UM, WE TALKED ABOUT 60 TO 80 IN THE MEMO AND MENTIONED 60 TO 80. BUT IN THE REPORT TO SUPPORT IT, IT SAYS 50 TO 70. YEAH, I THINK I'M GOING TO RESTRUCTURE THE WAY THEY SUFFER IT. AND REPRESENT IT TO THE BOARD. I UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE IDENTIFYING IS CONFUSING. AND I AGREE WITH YOU. SO IF I COULD JUST HAVE A CHANCE TO RESTRUCTURE THIS, I WILL CHECK BACK SOON WITH WORK.
COOL. AS WELL AS THE OTHER REFERENCE. SO IT'S GOING TO GO.
COOL. UM, ANY ANY OTHER FEEDBACK QUESTIONS ON THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING REPORT? OKAY THEN MOVING ON TO ONE OF MY FAVORITE FOOD AND BEVERAGE.
I DO NOT. ALL RIGHT. SO FOOD AND BEVERAGE AGAIN SAME STRUCTURE. TALK ABOUT IMPROVEMENTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED AND THE CHALLENGES THAT THE EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE PRESENTS, WHICH LEAD UP TO UH, THE THE AMENDMENTS AND YEAH, JUST JUST SOME HIGHLIGHTS. AGAIN, YOU KNOW, REALLY SIMPLIFY IT. RIGHT? I DON'T THINK MUNICIPALITIES SCORE POINTS FOR HAVING RATHER COMPLEX ZONING ORDINANCES. UM, OF COURSE, SOMETIMES THERE'S A NEED FOR COMPLEXITY. BUT I THINK IN THIS REGARD, THIS IS NOT IT.
ESPECIALLY WITH AN INDUSTRY THAT'S EVOLVING RAPIDLY. SO REALLY WE TALK ABOUT THE THE THREE TIERS OF USES THAT HAVE BEEN CODIFIED FOR, FOR SOME TIME. BUT, UM, HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT REALLY TYING THE FAST FOOD, UM, MORE SO TO DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS OR SPECIFICALLY TO DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS, WHICH WE KNOW HAVE AN INTENSE, UH, PARKING DEMAND AND ARE JUST VERY AUTO ORIENTED. SO MORE SPACE NEEDS FOR THOSE TYPE OF SITES VERSUS, UM, MORE TRADITIONAL RESTAURANTS AND EVEN FAST CASUAL RESTAURANTS. SO, UH, THE DOCUMENT GIVES THAT OVERVIEW AND HIGHLIGHTS WHERE THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE INDUSTRIES ARE IN THE TOWN, WHICH ARE PRIMARILY ON THE MIXED USE CORRIDORS. 1/19 CENTRAL AND NINE A, BUT ALSO, UH, INTERSECTIONS AND JUNCTIONS OF STATE ROADS WHERE YOU HAVE, UH, POCKETS OF SMALL SHOPPING PLAZAS OR SOMETIMES STANDALONE RESTAURANTS. SO IT GIVES ALL THAT FACTUAL INFORMATION, UM, HIGHLIGHTS WHY THAT ORDINANCE IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE MORE RESTRICTIVE IN SOME REGARDS. I DON'T RECALL ANY INSTANCES REALLY, WHERE IT'S BECOMING LESS RESTRICTIVE.
BUT SO WE DO HIGHLIGHT WHY THINGS ARE BECOMING EITHER MORE RESTRICTIVE OR RETAINING RESTRICTIVE REQUIREMENTS WHERE
[02:10:05]
NEEDED. AGAIN, AGAIN FOR DRIVING. I'M SORRY FOR DRIVE THROUGH USES. UM, AND THEN TYING THAT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND WE LIST SPECIFIC POLICIES AND ALSO CONSISTENCY IS IMPORTANT. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOT HAVE, YOU KNOW, A FAST FOOD THAT I'M SORRY, DRIVE THROUGH ESTABLISHMENT REGULATED DIFFERENT FOR 119 THAN CA.THEY'RE BOTH THEY'RE BOTH VERY UM, YOU KNOW, VIABLE MIXED USE CORRIDORS WHICH HAVE EVOLVED ALONG COMPARABLE TRACKS. SO, UM, WE HIGHLIGHT THE FACT THAT THE CONSISTENCY WAS STRIVED FOR. AND WE BELIEVE ACHIEVED THROUGH THESE 285 AMENDMENTS.
OKAY. ANY GREAT ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? I HAVE ONE. QUESTION.
MISTER WEINBERG. THERE ARE THREE TYPES OF USES.
I'M LOOKING AT THE FIRST PAGE. THE SECOND BULLET POINT. IT'S INCIDENTAL DINING RESTAURANTS. UH, AND THEN IT'S, UH, QUICK SERVICE AND FAST FOOD WITH DRIVE THROUGH. IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH. IS IS IT IS THE QUICK SERVICE AND FAST FOOD ANY DIFFERENT THAN THE INCIDENTAL BECAUSE YOU HAVE LIKE SOME STARBUCKS DON'T HAVE DRIVE THRUS? UH.
YES. SO THE QUICK SERVICE REFERENCE AND IT'S INCIDENTAL DINING RESTAURANTS AND DRIVE THRUS, ALTHOUGH IT SEEMS COUNTERINTUITIVE, THE A STARBUCKS WITHOUT A DRIVE THROUGH FUNCTIONS FAR DIFFERENTLY THAN A STARBUCKS WITH THE DRIVE THROUGH. AND THAT DISTINCTION IS DRIVEN HOME IN THE WAY IT'S PROPOSED TO BE CODIFIED. AND, UM, SO, YES, WHAT THAT DOES IS IT PLACES, UH, SHAKE SHACK, PANERA, SMASHBURGER, THOSE TYPE OF ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH, YOU KNOW, ONE WOULD SAY, YES, THEY PREPARE THE FOOD FAST AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S DELIVERED EFFICIENTLY. UH, BUT ULTIMATELY WE FOUND THROUGH YEARS AND YEARS OF OBSERVATIONS THAT THE IMPACTS ARE REALLY CORRELATED IN A IN A DIFFERENT MANNER TO THOSE WITH THE DRIVE THROUGH. SO, SO YES, YOU COULD HAVE AN EXAMPLE WHERE A STARBUCKS IS PROPOSED IN A SHOPPING PLAZA THAT DOES NOT HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH AND INDEED WOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS A RESTAURANT IF IT HAD NINE OR MORE SEATS VERSUS THAT STARBUCKS, UH, FOR INSTANCE, THE ONE ON CENTRAL THAT, UH, HAS A DRIVE THROUGH AND WOULD BE CONSIDERED ATTRACTIVE RESTAURANT. WHAT ABOUT LIKE THE MCDONALD'S? RIGHT. THE MCDONALD'S IS A GOOD EXAMPLE BECAUSE THERE'S THE MCDONALD'S. THAT IN DELLWOOD, IN THE SHOPPING CENTER WHERE THERE'S NO EXACTLY RIGHT. AND THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN INCIDENTAL DINING AND A RESTAURANT IS REALLY A FUNCTION OF HOW MANY SEATS IT HAS. SO IF IT'S EIGHT AND BELOW, IT'S INCIDENTAL, IF IT'S EIGHT AND ABOVE, OR IF IT'S LIKE IT'S NINE AND ABOVE, IT'S IT'S RESTAURANT. AND THAT'S A BINARY. AND THEN THE ONLY VARIABLE ON THAT BINARY IS, IS IF IT HAS A DRIVE THRU OR NOT. AND I GUESS REGARDLESS OF SEATS, IF IT'S A DRIVE THRU, IT'S A DRIVE.
THRU, RIGHT? ABSOLUTELY. THANKS FOR THAT DISTINCTION. YES. SO IF A STARBUCKS HAS TEN SEATS, IT BECOMES INCIDENTAL. NO, IT'S A RESTAURANT. THE RESTAURANT. UH, INCIDENTALS, MORE STREET TAKEOUT MODEL, WHICH WOULD BE EIGHT SEATS OR LESS.
MHM. SO IF IT'S A STARBUCKS WITHOUT A DRIVE THRU THAT HAS TEN SEATS, IT FALLS INTO THE RESTAURANT CATEGORY.
IF IT'S A STARBUCKS THAT HAS SIX SEATS, THEN IT'S INCIDENTAL. AND SO FOR EXAMPLE, THE DUNKIN OVER ON UH TARRYTOWN, THERE'S LIKE NO SEATING. RIGHT. UM, IF THAT WERE COMING IN NEW, IT WOULD TAKE OUT ONLY THAT WOULD QUALIFY AS INCIDENTAL DINING OR RESTAURANT.
THEY HAVE NO DRIVE THRU, RIGHT? NO DRIVE THROUGH. CORRECT. SO THE INCIDENTAL DINING SEATS ARE LESS.
RIGHT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. SO MOVING ON TO NUMBER SIX EV CHARGING I THINK DEPUTY COMMISSIONER SCHMIDT, YOU'RE TAKING THIS ONE.
SURE. SO, UM. IN DRAFTING THE REPORT, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO GIVE, UM, AN ELABORATE ON HOW, UH, THIS NEW USE IN THE TOWN, ALTHOUGH IT'S BEEN, UM, IT'S BEEN ALLOWED, UM, AS AN ACCESSORY USE ON CERTAIN AREAS, LIKE ON. THANK YOU. TERRENCE.
SO WHILE THESE TYPES OF USES HAVE, WE'VE SEEN THEM COME INTO
[02:15:03]
THE TOWN. UH, WE'RE NOW CODIFYING THAT. WE'VE OUTLINED WITHIN, UM, AS COMMISSIONER KANE'S GONE, UM, THROUGH AND SUMMARIZED THE OTHER PLANNING BOARD REPORTS, WE RESPOND TO THE FOUR QUESTIONS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER IN CONNECTION WITH THE ZONING TEXT AMENDMENT. IN THIS CASE, ADDING THE SECTION ON EV CHARGING STATIONS. WE OUTLINE, UM, HOW, UH, THE, THE LEVEL ONE, LEVEL TWO AND LEVEL THREE TYPE CHARGERS ARE CONSIDERED WHAT THEY CONSIST OF AND HOW THEY'RE REGULATED IN THE TOWN. WE'RE PROPOSED TO BE REGULATED.REALLY. UM, WE ALSO WANTED TO BE SPECIFIC AND CLEARLY, UM, HAVE SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT THE PROPOSED ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING HUBS, WHICH ARE A NEW TYPE OF USE PROPOSED IN CONNECTION WITH ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS. UM, WE GET INTO THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PUBLIC USE AND RESTRICTED USE TYPE STATIONS. UM, THEN GETTING INTO THE SECOND, UM, JUST TALKING ABOUT OR RESPONSE, I SHOULD SAY TO THE SECOND QUESTION ABOUT WHICH AREAS LAND USES, BUILDINGS AND ESTABLISHMENTS WOULD BE AFFECTED. UM, WE WANTED TO, YOU KNOW, PROVIDE LANGUAGE SO THAT IT'S CLEAR, UM, AND THIS, YOU KNOW, COMES MORE OR LESS STRAIGHT OUT OF THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE SECTION. BUT TALKING ABOUT HOW, UM, NO MORE THAN 20% OF THE ENTIRE OFF STREET PARKING AREA, NO MORE THAN 20 TOTAL SPACES ON ANY ONE SITE SHALL BE DEDICATED FOR ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING STATIONS WITHOUT OBTAINING A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, UH, FOR AN ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING HUB. SO IT'S VERY SPECIFIC ON WHEN THE THRESHOLD IS PROPOSED TO BE ECLIPSED. WHAT THE TRIGGER IS. UM, DID WE HAVE A TYPO? NO. I HAVE A QUESTION.
OH. UM. YEAH. LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU PACIFIC. WELL.
ACTUALLY. THE SECTION A MINIMUM OF ONE OFF STREET PARKING SPACE FOR FIVE DWELLING UNITS SHALL BE EV READY. UM, I'M JUST CURIOUS, HOW DID WE COME TO THAT DECISION? OKAY.
SO. RIGHT. SO THAT'S A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THAN I WAS NUMBER TWO. OKAY. SO THAT'S IN CONNECTION. NO NO NO THAT'S FINE. I WAS ACTUALLY JUST GONNA MOVE ON TO THAT SO THAT WAS UM, REALLY THIS THIS SECTION OF THE PROPOSED ZONING TEXT AMENDMENTS WAS, UH, CRAFTED THROUGH A COMMITTEE, THE SUSTAINABILITY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY COMMITTEE, OVER A LENGTHY PERIOD OF TIME. UM, THAT STAFF, YOU KNOW, SAT WITH THAT COMMITTEE OVER SEVERAL MONTHS TO CRAFT THESE REGULATIONS. AND CORRECT ME, THAT COMMITTEE WAS CHAIRED BY FORMER PLANNING BOARD CHAIR LESLIE DAVIS.
LESLIE DAVIS. YEAH, CORRECT. SO THAT COMMITTEE WAS ALSO RESPONSIBLE FOR PROPOSING THE AND WORKING ON THE, UM, SOLAR ENERGY SYSTEMS, LOCAL LAW, WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE TOWN BOARD. SO, UM, WE WERE GRAPPLING WITH A NUMBER OF THINGS, OF COURSE. AND FEEDBACK THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT IF A DEVELOPER, YOU KNOW, WAS ABLE TO IDENTIFY THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, THEIR, THEY'RE JUST ISN'T ANY SORT OF DESIRE TO HAVE OR NEED TO HAVE, UM, THE ACTUAL SPACES OUTFITTED WITH THE CHARGING STATIONS IF NO ONE'S GOING TO USE THEM. RIGHT. UM, SO THE COMMITTEE ULTIMATELY DECIDED, OKAY, THAT COULD BE A REALISTIC SCENARIO. LET'S HAVE, UM, ONE PER FIVE OUTFITTED AND EV READY AND ESSENTIALLY CAPPED AND READY TO GO IN THE EVENT CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE AND THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO INSTALL THE CHARGERS. HEY, IT'S IT'S SET READY TO GO. THE AMP CIRCUITRY, ETC. IS ALL IN PLACE. SO THAT WAS THE PURPOSE. I HOPE THAT.
ANSWERS. NO IT DOES. THANK YOU. SURE. UM, AND THEN UH, SO THAT'S REALLY RELATED. THERE. UM, YOU KNOW, WE ANSWER WHICH IS ALWAYS ONE OF THE TOUGHER ONES, THE INDIRECT IMPLICATIONS. UM, AND COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE ASSISTED THERE. SO WHILE NO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE WE NOTE THAT NO NEGATIVE IMPACT IS ENVISIONED. UM, THE AVAILABILITY OF THESE X
[02:20:05]
AS A RELATIVELY SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THE OVERALL PARKING REQUIREMENTS, RIGHT? SO YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE CROSSROADS SHOPPING CENTER ALL OF A SUDDEN, YOU KNOW, 80% UNDER THIS CODE. UM, TO BE CONVERTED INTO EV CHARGING STATIONS. UM, SO IT'S REALLY IN AN EFFORT ON A SMALLER PERCENTAGE BASED ON WHAT WE SEE OUT THERE. I MEAN, THERE'S A RISING PERCENTAGE OF XS OR EVS ON THE ROAD. AND WE FELT LIKE THIS WAS AN IMPORTANT NEW SECTION TO ADD. BUT OVERALL, IT'S REALLY ENVISIONED TO SUPPORT THE MIXED USE CORRIDORS TO HAVE THESE SPACES AVAILABLE. OKAY. AND THEN, UM, AGAIN, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, YOU SEE THESE IN THE OTHER REPORTS JUST TYING IT BACK TO CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OUTLINING VARIOUS OBJECTIVES, GOALS AND POLICIES THAT THIS HITS ON. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON? UH.CAN THE CAN THE EV CHARGING STATION BE A PRIME PRIMARY USE? CAN THERE BE. PRINCIPAL PRINCIPAL USE? NO. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT ACCESSORY TO ANYTHING. YEAH. IT'S A PIECE OF PROPERTY.
SOMEONE BUYS THE PROPERTY, PUTS UP, YOU KNOW, 20, 30 CHARGING STATIONS. YES. SO THE ANSWER IS YES. AND THAT WOULD FALL INTO THE EV CHARGING HUB, WHICH IS A PERMITTED AS A SPECIAL USE PERMIT OF THE SITE, UH, SUBJECT TO PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL. OKAY. AND SO THAT'S IT. JUST SO WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH HAVING THAT AS A USE, THE ONLY THING ON THE PROPERTY IS A CHARGING. PLUG, RIGHT? SO FOR INSTANCE, AND WE'VE SEEN WE HAD SOME EXAMPLES WHEN WE WERE DOING SLIDESHOWS AND WHATNOT PREVIOUSLY. UM, ALMOST LOOKS LIKE A GASOLINE SERVICE STATION, EXCEPT IT'S EV CHARGERS. UM, AND EVEN LIKE CANOPIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
UM, BUT IT WHAT WE FELT LIKE WAS THAT IT SHOULD BE A SPECIAL SUBJECT TO A SPECIAL USE PERMIT PROCEDURE THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD SO THAT VARIOUS CRITERIA CAN BE REVIEWED. UM, WE ALSO, SIMILARLY TO GASOLINE SERVICE STATIONS IN OUR EXISTING CODE, UM, WE THOUGHT AND EVEN HAD SOME FEEDBACK FROM FOLKS WHILE THE COMMITTEE WAS REVIEWING EVERYTHING ABOUT CONSIDERATION FOR A SMALL CONVENIENCE STORE ASSOCIATED WITH THE CHARGING HUB. AND SO WE BUILT IN CONSISTENCY IN THAT REGARD TO ALLOW FOR UP TO 100FT . SO YEAH. THANK YOU. YOU'RE WELCOME.
UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMENTS? I HAVE MISS MISS ROBINSON. LOOKS LIKE.
YOU HAVE A HIGHLIGHTED WORD ON YOUR SCREEN.
UM. PAGE THREE, THE SECOND PARAGRAPH, SECOND ROW. JUST, UH, CORRECTION FOR CHARGING.
YEAH. IF YOU HAVE A CHARGING STATION, SOMETHING HAS GONE VERY WRONG. YES. YEAH. AND THEN THE LAST.
PARAGRAPH ON PAGE FOUR, IT'S ACTUALLY IN TWO SECTIONS. SO 123, FOUR, FIVE DOWN ON THE RIGHT SIDE CHANGE IT TO CHARGING STATION. AND THREE UP. THERE'S THE OTHER CHARGING OR CHARGING STATION. THANK YOU.
OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE. WELL UNDER. UM IN THIS SECTION SPECIFICALLY USES THE WORD CHURCH, WHICH WE'VE ADDRESSED, THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE A UNIVERSAL CHANGE TO, UH.
HOUSE OF HOUSE OF WORSHIP, HOUSE OF WORSHIP.
THANK YOU. SO WE'LL DO, UH, CONTROL F ON THAT.
YES. ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S ALL I HAVE. ALL RIGHT. UH, THEN MOVING ON TO REPORT SIX C OH. TWO ICE CREAM STANDS.
ESSENTIALLY. I FIGURED IT MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS SECTION BEFORE WE MOVE ON, BUT YEAH.
SO SO THERE WAS A RECOMMEND THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION FOR ICE CREAM STANDS IN THE REPORT. UM, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CARRIED INTO OR SORRY. THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION ON THE ICE CREAM STANDS AND THE RECOMMENDATION, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT CARRIED INTO THE REPORT, BUT I THINK SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS, I WOULD CARRY ON. UH, CARRY THROUGH THAT RECOMMENDATION INTO THE REPORT.
I RECOMMEND YOU THE FOOD AND BEVERAGE USE. WORK IT IN THERE.
YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE. OKAY. THANK YOU.
OKAY. UH, MOVING MOVING ON. SO CARDS DISTRICT, IS THIS BACK TO YOU? YEAH. ALL RIGHT, SO. ICE CREAM IS, IN SHORT, NOT A TON OF SWEEPING CHANGES IN THE EAST ZONING DISTRICTS. UM, BUT MORE SO A LOT OF THE CHANGES TO THE
[02:25:07]
CAC, DS, HC ARE ALL CONSISTENCY BASED. SO, FOR INSTANCE, UM, REDUNDANT. UH, PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES ARE ALL STRIPPED OUT. WE UNIFIED, UH, SPECIAL PERMIT CRITERIA. SO FOR ANIMAL HOSPITAL AND CERTAIN DS AND THERE THEY HAVE CERTAIN CRITERIA THAT ARE IN CONFLICT WITH THE, UM, CRITERIA OF ANIMAL HOSPITALS IN THE CA DISTRICT. WE WORKED TO IDENTIFY WHICH WAS MORE LOGICAL AND PROTECTIVE OF THE ENVIRONMENT AND SO ON AND SO FORTH, AND TOOK THE MORE BEST PRACTICE VERSION AND APPLIED THAT UNIFORMLY. WE TALKED ABOUT, UH, THE CA DISTRICT, FOR INSTANCE. AGAIN, THE DRIVE THROUGH USES HAD NO MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT. IT DID IN THE DS.IT WILL IN THE TR DISTRICT. WE'VE NOW UPDATED THAT SO THAT THE CA DISTRICT IS CONSISTENT, THAT THAT REALLY IMPACTS HOW PROPOSALS SIMPLY WILL NOT COME IN ON UNDERSIZED LOTS. WHEREAS BEFORE, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK A GREAT EXAMPLE IS THE TACO BELL APPLICATION HAD WHAT WE HAVE ON THE SCREEN HERE. UM, BEEN IMPLEMENTED YEARS AGO, UH, THAT APPLICATION WOULD NOT HAVE COME IN. IT WAS NOT EVEN ON A 40,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE MINIMUM.
AND OF COURSE, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS PLENTY OF BOARD MEMBERS. YOU KNOW, THE CHALLENGES THAT A SITE LIKE THAT PRESENTED WITH, UH, TRAFFIC, CIRCULATION AND SO ON AND SO FORTH. UM, LET'S SEE HERE, OTHER USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE DS TO DANCE SCHOOLS, THINGS LIKE THAT ARE NOW UPDATED TO THE, TO THE, TO THE DISTRICT CANNABIS OF COURSE IT HAS. IT WILL WILL HAVE ITS OWN REPORT BASED ON WHAT WE'VE HEARD TONIGHT. BUT OF COURSE IT'S IT'S ADDED TO THE CAC AND DS DISTRICT. SO IT'S REFERENCED HERE. THE CV DISTRICT. THERE ARE SOME UPDATES THE WAY THAT TREATS MIXED USES. UM, THAT REALLY FLAGGED THAT RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING AND IDENTIFIED THAT, UM, THERE COULD BE IMPROVEMENTS THERE TO HAVE MORE LOGICALLY SET UP EXCUSE DEVELOPMENT IN THE CV DISTRICT.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL OVER RETAIL ON A VERY SMALL SCALE. AND THEN, UH, FOR INSTANCE, CV DISTRICT HAD RESTAURANTS, DRINKING ESTABLISHMENTS. THOSE WERE PERMITTED USES. THEY'VE BEEN MOVED TO SPECIAL PERMIT USES AND RECLASSIFIED CONSISTENT WITH THE NEW DEFINITIONS. UH, NO REASON TO NOT HAVE PLANNING BOARD OVERSIGHT OVER A RESTAURANT. UH, AND IN THE IN THE CV DISTRICT, WHEREAS ALMOST EVERY OTHER DISTRICT IT WOULD. SO WE'VE MADE THAT UPDATED, UH, CHANGE. SO HAVING THAT OVERVIEW, UM, OF COURSE WE, WE ESTABLISH HOW THESE TYPES OF CHANGES ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMP PLAN, WHICH THEY ABSOLUTELY ARE, HOW THEY'RE CONSISTENT WITH THE AIMS OF THE EXISTING ZONING DISTRICTS. WE IDENTIFY WHERE THESE CHANGES WOULD BE APPLICABLE. AND, UM.
THAT'S A HIGH LEVEL OVERVIEW OF THAT REPORT.
UM, I THINK TWO THINGS WE MIGHT WANT TO WEAVE INTO THIS REPORT IS THE RECOMMENDATION ON, UH, ADDING KENNELS TO THE DS DISTRICT AND CB OR, SORRY, ADDING IT TO THE CV, SIMILAR TO HOW IT'S ALREADY IN THIS DS DISTRICT. UM, UM, AND THEN ALSO, I DON'T KNOW IF IF IT WOULD MAKE SENSE TO WEAVE IN, UM, THE LONGER TERM RECOMMENDATION ABOUT, UM, THE, THE NEW SIGN CODE SINCE THAT I GUESS THAT IMPACTS TWO OF THE FOUR DISTRICTS. THE HHC AND CA. SO MAYBE, MAYBE, MAYBE NOT. BUT THAT WAS JUST A THOUGHT. MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO ADD THAT, OKAY. AND THEN MAYBE ALSO GOING BACK TO THE TR OR TR REPORT, ALSO PUTTING IT THERE, SINCE THAT'S THE BIG, UH, THE TWO, THE BIG THE TWO BIG ONES ARE CA AND TR WITH HC ALSO. YEAH, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO HIGHLIGHT, UH, PLANNING BOARD UPDATES IN THESE REPORTS. SO TO THE EXTENT ANYONE SEES ANY OTHER GAPS OF COURSE JUST EMAIL US OR LET US KNOW. OKAY. GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS COMMENTS ON THIS. THEN COMING INTO THE HOME STRETCH. UH, REPORT EIGHT CD OVERLAY.
SHARE SCREEN HERE. OKAY, SO THIS REPORT REALLY CENTERS ON
[02:30:12]
THE CONSERVATION DISTRICT OVERLAY AND THE PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AND A LITTLE BIT ON THE STEEP SLOPE, UH, CHANGES. SO. THE CD OVERLAY. RECALL WHAT WE'VE IDENTIFIED IS REALLY GAPS IN THE EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE THAT BECAUSE THERE'S NOT THE CLARITY THAT WE THINK THAT THE CITY OVERLAY REALLY NEEDS, WE FEEL LIKE THE CD OVERLAY IS NOT WORKING AS WELL AS IT COULD OR SHOULD. SO TO REALLY EXPRESSLY IDENTIFY A LOT OF WHAT HOW THE CDC OVERLAY HAS BEEN EMPLOYED, UM, I FELT WAS VERY IMPORTANT. SO A LOT SIZE REDUCTION OF UP TO 50% ESTABLISHED AS CODIFIED WHEN REDUCING LOT SIZES TO PRESERVE OPEN SPACE. UM, CLARIFY THAT THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY IS NOT TO BE INCREASED. I DON'T THINK A PLANNING BOARD WOULD BE IN THE PRACTICE OF DOING THAT. BUT TO, TO, TO TO HAVE IT CODIFIED JUST MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT A GET EXTRA DENSITY ON A SITE PROVISION. IT'S THE FOCUS IS REALLY PRESERVING ENVIRONMENTAL FEATURES. UM, WE IDENTIFIED THE FACT THAT THE CD OVERLAY TALKS A LITTLE BIT ABOUT REDUCING SIZES WITHOUT SPECIFICITY. UM, BUT WE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN IDENTIFIED AND WE TALKED ABOUT THIS, I BELIEVE, WITH ELMWOOD. AND THIS IS REFLECTED IN THE RECOMMENDATION, IS THE FACT THAT WHEN YOU REDUCE A LOT IN HALF, IT'S APPROPRIATE TO REDUCE OR PROPORTIONATELY REDUCE THE SETBACKS, FOR INSTANCE, OR THE COVERAGE FIGURES. AND 285 DOES NOT DO THAT RIGHT NOW. AND IT ACTUALLY WORKS AGAINST OPEN SPACE. ON THE EXAMPLE OF ELMWOOD, WE GIVE THE EXAMPLE WHERE THE PLANNING BOARD CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED THAT WITH SMALLER LOTS, YOU CAN GAIN CONTIGUOUS OPEN SPACE. BUT ONE SHORTFALL IS THAT INSTEAD OF, LET'S SAY IN AN R 30 DISTRICT WHERE YOU DO SAY 32,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, YOU DROP THAT DOWN IN HALF TO 18,000FT . BUT IF YOU DON'T APPLY, LET'S SAY OUR 15 SETBACKS, YOU'RE REALLY HAVING THESE SETBACKS THAT ARE MORE IN TUNE FOR A 30,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. YOU'RE EMPLOYING THEM ON AN 18,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, AND THAT REALLY DOESN'T PROMOTE OPEN SPACE. AND YOU CAN HAVE APPLICANTS THAT COULD NOT WANT TO REDUCE THEIR LOT SIZES BECAUSE THEY CAN PENALIZE ON COVERAGE OR SETBACK PERMISSION. SO, UH, THAT'S THE RECOMMENDATION THAT WE'VE WORKED TOGETHER. AND I THINK THAT'LL REALLY INCENTIVIZE UTILIZING THE C OVERLAY THE WAY IT'S INTENDED. UM, AS FAR AS THE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT.LET'S SEE HERE, THE POINT IS IDENTIFIED AS NOT PROVIDING CLARITY, AND SIGHT. AMENDMENTS ARE PROPOSED SUBSEQUENT TO THE INITIAL BUILD OUT. SO WHAT WE FOUND WITH PUDS FROM YEARS AGO, AND I KNOW WE TALKED ABOUT THIS AS PART OF THE PRESENTATION, BUT JUST TO RECAP, IS THAT PLAN UNIT DEVELOPMENTS, WHEN THEY GET FULLY BUILT OUT, THEY DON'T JUST STOP THERE. SOMETIMES THERE ARE AMENDMENTS AND WITHOUT HAVING CRITERIA TO GUIDE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT, UM, IT PUTS THE PLANNING BOARD AT A DISADVANTAGE. SO WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT THAT SHOULD BE CLEARLY ARTICULATED. UM, BUILDING HEIGHTS WERE LOWER IN THE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT, EVEN IN SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICTS. SO THAT'S BEEN UPDATED. UM, AND THEN I THINK LASTLY, AS FAR AS, UH, STEEP SLOPE DEDUCTIONS, WE TALKED ABOUT HOW THERE'S A GAP IN MULTIFAMILY AND NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS AND THAT, UM, THERE SHOULD BE DEDUCTIONS FOR THOSE. BUT BECAUSE THE GENERAL FAA ARE ARE RATHER LOW COMPARED TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, UM, IT DIDN'T SEEM APPROPRIATE OR APPLES TO APPLES TO, TO APPLY THE DEDUCTIONS THE SAME WAY. SO THE DOCUMENT RATIONALIZES THAT. SO IN SHORT, WITH THE CURRENT THE FOUR QUESTIONS THAT ARE ANSWERED, UM, IT'S THE DOCUMENT IS IS FAVORABLE TOWARDS THESE UPDATES BECAUSE THEY, THEY DO ACHIEVE GOALS THAT THEY'RE INTENDED TO, WHICH IS TO PRESERVE ECOLOGICAL FEATURES. OPEN SPACE. AND AS WE ALL KNOW, THOSE ARE THINGS THAT ARE VERY MUCH STRESSED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THEY'RE VERY MUCH STRESSED IN THE INTENT OF THESE INDIVIDUAL DISTRICTS. IT'S JUST THE EXECUTION. IT'S BEING APPROVED. AND, UM, THAT'S WHAT THESE CHAPTER 285 AMENDMENTS ARE INTENDED TO DO. AND THAT'S WHAT'S REFLECTED THAT RATIONALIZATION IS REFLECTED IN THESE REPORTS. GREAT. ANY QUESTIONS OR
[02:35:04]
COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT? BOTTOM OF PAGE TWO. B UM, THERE'S A BULLET. THE SUB BULLET ACTUALLY. SO IT SAYS THESE ZONING DISTRICTS PERMIT RESIDENTIAL USES AND WOULD PROVIDE DEVELOPERS IN CONNECTION WITH PROPOSALS.COMMA. TOWN BOARD, COMMA AND PLANNING BOARD. I'D EITHER TAKE OUT THE THE BECAUSE YOU DON'T SAY THE PLANNING BOARD OR PUT IT IN JUST SO THAT THEY'RE BOTH CONSISTENT. I WOULD TAKE OUT THE THE. IT'S LIKE THE FACEBOOK.
I KNOW. BUT IF YOU'RE SAYING THE TOWN BOARD, YOU JUST SAY AND THE PLANNING BOARD. SO MORE AND MORE.
THE OTHER TAKE OUT THE THES OR ADD THE OTHER THE.
WE WE WANT THE SAME AMOUNT OF THOSE. THAT THE TOWN BOARD.
OKAY. WE'RE ASSERTING OUR INDEPENDENCE FROM THOSE.
THREE, UH, THREE POINTS TO MISS ROBINSON.
THANK YOU. UM, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON CD OVERLAY AND PUD? OKAY, THEN LAST BUT NOT LEAST, UM, ORGANIZATIONAL CONSISTENCY BASED UPDATES. I DON'T.
YEAH. AS A WHOLE, I WOULD SAY THIS IS THE CATEGORY WHERE THE MOST CHANGES ARE MADE ACROSS CHAPTER 285. NOT NECESSARILY THE MOST GLAMOROUS, BUT ULTIMATELY, UM, CONSISTENCY, CONCISENESS, CLARITY ARE REALLY SOME OF THE TRAITS THAT STAFF WE SET OUT TO, TO, TO ACHIEVE. UM, IN CHAPTER 285. SO WE HIGHLIGHTED WHAT WE'VE DONE THERE. SO AGAIN, UM, PUBLIC HEARING PROCEDURES, INSTEAD OF SITING THEM 17 DIFFERENT TIMES IN THE AWARDING ORDINANCE, THEY'RE CITED ONCE TO THE EXTENT THAT THOSE, YOU KNOW, 17 HYPOTHETICAL NUMBER 10 TO 17 REFERENCES, TO THE EXTENT THEY HAD CONFLICTING INFORMATION OR NOT, IT'S ALL BEEN STANDARDIZED. UM, THINGS LIKE FROM ZONE TO ZONE. WE NOW START OFF WITH ANYONE IS PERMITTED USE A2 PLANNING BOARD SPECIAL PERMIT A3 TOWN BOARD SPECIAL PERMIT A4 ACCESSORY USES. NOT EVERY ZONE HAD THE SAME ORDER IN THAT REGARD. THROUGHOUT THE CHAPTER 25. BEFORE WE MADE THESE AMENDMENTS, UH, SPECIAL PERMIT PROCEDURES TO HAVE INCONSISTENT PROCEDURES FOR THE SAME USE IS SOMETHING THAT WAS CORRECTED. SO, UM, THAT'S REALLY THE THRUST OF MUCH OF CHAPTER 285. IT'S THE BASIS OF THIS PARTICULAR REPORT. AND CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU'VE SEEN THUS FAR, SIMILAR. THERE'S RATHER SPECIFIC POLICIES TO SAY DO JUST THIS, UH, REVIEW THEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT. ON THOSE TWO EXCUSE QUARTERS. NOW. THAT'S BEEN ACHIEVED. UM, IN THIS INSTANCE, WE'VE EVEN CITED SPECIFICITY IN THE NARRATIVE OF THE COMP PLAN AS OPPOSED TO JUST CITING AN ACTUAL POLICY. SO MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A QUOTE HERE THAT, UH, SEEM VERY GERMANE TO THIS TYPE OF THIS TYPE OF EFFORT. AND, UM, I GUESS JUST THE LAST POINT IS VERY INITIALLY THERE WAS A ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW COMMITTEE THAT COINCIDED WITH, UH, THE THE COMPREHENSIVE OF THE INITIAL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EFFORT IN ONE OF THEIR THEIR MAIN GOALS WAS TO DO JUST THIS. SO, UM, FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH THAT MISSION AND, UH, THIS IS A REPORT IS ALL ABOUT.
COOL. THANK YOU. THE ONE THING I WANTED TO ADD, UH, OR AT LEAST FLAG, IS I, I KNOW THERE'S STILL SOME CONVERSATIONS INTERNALLY ABOUT WHETHER WE PUT THE NEW NOTICING INTO A NEW CHAPTER. SECTION 28531.1 OR IF WE PUT IT INTO ITS OWN INDEPENDENT CHAPTER. AND, UM, SO I THINK THOSE CONVERSATIONS SHOULD CONTINUE. AND ULTIMATELY, UH, WE SHOULD PROBABLY LAND ON ONE OR THE OTHER BEFORE THE NEXT MEETING SO THAT WE CAN WE CAN BAKE THAT RECOMMENDATION IN, AND I'LL AND I'LL DEFER TO STAFF ON HASHING THAT OUT.
SOUNDS GOOD IN OVERRIDING. THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS THE THAT THE PROVISIONS ARE CONSISTENT AND EASY TO READ FOR RESIDENTS TO UNDERSTAND ANYMORE.
ABSOLUTELY. BUT ABSOLUTELY. SO WE'LL FIGURE OUT WHAT ULTIMATELY SEEMS TO BE THE MOST LOGICAL. AND WHAT TO REPORT BACK TO YOU ON THAT. COOL. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS REPORT? NO.
GREAT. AND SO THEN JUST TO SORT OF WRAP US UP, UM, SO,
[02:40:04]
COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE, FOR OUR NEXT MEETING, WE'LL HAVE THREE ADDITIONAL REPORTS. SO WE'LL HAVE REPORTS ON CANNABIS ON, UH, STORAGE. ACCESSORY STORAGE AND SELF PARKING AND ADD A PASTA, CHICKENS AND CHICKENS. SO BASICALLY THE THREE ITEMS WE DISCUSSED TODAY WILL HAVE THREE REPORTS FOR THOSE FOR THE NEXT MEETING. UM, AND THEN WE'LL ALSO GET A FRESH SET OF ALL OF THE REPORTS THAT WE'VE GONE THROUGH WITH ANY EDITS. WERE YOU IMAGINING, LIKE, RED LINE CHANGES ON TOP OF THESE DOCUMENTS OR JUST CLEAN DOCUMENTS OR IF.YOU'RE MINUTES, WE'LL PICK UP IN THE MINUTES THE THINGS THAT WERE IMPORTANT TO THE BOARD. UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU READ MINE. SOME OF THESE ARE JUST ELIMINATE A COMMA AT A. OKAY, UM, BUT WE CAN OUTLINE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES, OKAY. I THINK ABSOLUTELY. GOING TO PROVIDE FRESH DOCUMENTS.
SO AGAIN, FRESH, FRESH DOCUMENTS AND EVERYTHING WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH WITH OUR FEEDBACK INCORPORATED. UM, AND THEN ALSO THOSE THREE NEW REPORTS. AND SO UM, AND I THINK THE, THE GOAL WILL BE, UM, FOR US TO BE IN A POSITION THAT AT OUR NEXT MEETING IN TWO WEEKS, WE WOULD ADOPT ALL OF THESE REPORTS, ALL OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS, AND SEND THEM TO THE TOWN BOARD. UM, AND I THINK OVER THE NEXT THREE MONTHS OR SO, STAFF, I THINK, I THINK DEPUTY, UH, TOWN ATTORNEY MAGANA HAS BEEN VOLUNTEERED OR VOLUNTEERED TO ACTUALLY MAKE THE EDITS AND ULTIMATELY PRODUCE A VERSION TWO THAT WILL BE DELIVERED TO THE TOWN BOARD, PROBABLY AROUND THE START OF THE YEAR. UM, ALONG WITH ALL OF THESE RECOMMENDATIONS AND REPORTS AND ALL OF THIS INFORMATION AND CONTEXT, UM, SO I JUST WANT TO WELL, WE'RE NOT DONE YET. I JUST WANT TO SAY, WELL, IT'S TOP OF MIND HOW HOW PROUD I AM OF THE BOARD AND HOW PROUD I AM OF EVERYONE FOR FOR REALLY DIGGING IN AND WORKING THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND WANT TO THANK AND AND CONGRATULATE STAFF FOR REALLY GUIDING, GUIDING US AND GUIDING THIS PROCESS AND ALL OF THE WORK YOU DID EVEN BEFORE IT CAME TO US.
UM, BUT I THINK THIS HAS BEEN REALLY AN EXEMPLARY PROCESS.
AND, UM, CERTAINLY WHAT WHAT WILL PASS BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD WILL BE A WHOLE LOT BETTER THAN WHAT WAS GIVEN TO US BECAUSE OF EVERYONE. EVERYONE'S WORK AND CONTRIBUTIONS. YEAH. I AGREE, AND I ALSO WANT TO THANK THE. THE TOWN WORKERS GUIDANCE AND AVAILABILITY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, SOME OF WHICH WERE PROBABLY ADMITTEDLY DUMB ON MY PART. BUT SPEAKING AARON HAS EXHIBITED TREMENDOUS PATIENCE WITH ME, SO. I AGREE, YOU GUYS WERE ALL INCREDIBLE. YES, YES. SO. UH.
WE APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK. THANK YOU SO MUCH.
UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER OUTSTANDING QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, STATEMENTS. UH, I'LL GIVE YOU ALL BACK 11 MINUTES AND I'LL. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MEETING, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 949. I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, SAY TO THE COMMISSIONER DUQUESNE AND HIS DEPARTMENT AND ALL THE, UH, OTHER PEOPLE, TOWN EMPLOYEES, UH, THAT WERE INVOLVED IN THIS. THIS IS A VERY IMPRESSIVE PROJECT. AND I WAS IMPRESSED BY THE AMOUNT OF EFFORT THAT WENT INTO THIS. AND THAT'S ONLY WHAT WE'VE SEEN. AND I KNOW A LOT OF WORK WENT INTO THIS BEFORE IT EVEN HIT OUR DESKS. AND EVEN WHILE WE WERE LOOKING AT IT. SO I APPRECIATE IT. AND I THINK YOU ALL DESERVE TO BE HIGHLY COMMENDED.
YES, YES, YES. THANK YOU. THANKS SO MUCH. I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO I WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:50 P.M..
SO MOVED. MISTER PULLINGER, SECOND MISS ROBINSON. UH, ALL IN FAVOR? UH.
MEETING IS
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.