[00:00:01]
[ TOWN OF GREENBURGH PLANNING BOARD AGENDA WEDNESDAY, October 7, 2020 – 5:00 P.M. Meetings of the Planning Board will be adjourned at 8:00 p.m. ]
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 7TH PLANNING COURT MEETING.UH, BEFORE WE OFFICIALLY START, I'D LIKE TO, UH, HAVE, UH, A, A MOMENT, MOMENT OF SILENCE TO RON OCHE.
UH, RON OCHE IS A LONG TERM RESIDENT OF THE TOWN.
HE WAS AN EDUCATOR IN THE TOWN.
HE IS INVOLVED IN MANY CIVIC ACTIVITIES, AND HE, HE GAVE A LOT TO THE TOWN OF GREENBURG.
AS MOST OF YOU KNOW, HE, UH, PASSED IN THE LAST, UH, COUPLE WEEKS.
SO WE'D JUST LIKE TO TAKE A MOMENT AND TO REMEMBER.
I WOULD LIKE TO, UH, START THE MEETING WITH THE ROLL CALL.
AND JUST AS OF RIGHT NOW, MR. DESAI, WHO INDICATED THAT HE WILL BE PRESENT THIS EVENING IS AN ON, UH, LOOKS LIKE HE JUST JOINED THE WAITING ROOM, SO HE'LL BE IN MOMENTARILY.
WE HAVE GOOD REMINDER JUST TO REMIND EVERYONE, UH, TO PLEASE KEEP YOUR MICS MUTED.
I'D LIKE TO START WITH THE REVIEW OF THE MINUTES OF OUR LAST MEETING, SEPTEMBER SIX 16TH.
UH, THE, ANY COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO THE MINUTES? IT WAS QUITE A LONG AND DETAILED MINUTES.
AND, UH, WE THANK, UH, MATTHEWS FOR CAPTURING WHAT I THINK WAS ALL THE SALIENT POINTS OF THE MEETING.
AND JUST IN CASE HE HAS NOT, UH, ON ANY COMMENTS ABOUT, UM, STAFF.
YES, STAFF HAS, STAFF DOES HAVE ONE ADJUSTMENT TO THE MINUTES.
UH, DAVID BROUGHT IT TO MY ATTENTION.
IT'S ON PAGE TWO UNDER ITEM FOUR, A OLD BUSINESS PB 19 DASH 26, THE KAMAN PROJECT AT 36 HILL PRESS AVENUE.
WITHIN THE, UM, SUMMARY OF THE PROJECT, THE FIRST PARAGRAPH, UH, THE FIFTH LINE FROM THE BOTTOM, WE HAD THE PROPERTIES TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 23,334 SQUARE FEET.
AND THAT WAS A CARRYOVER FROM BEFORE IT WAS IDENTIFIED THAT WE WOULD NOT BE INCLUDING THE VILLAGE OF ARDSLEY SQUARE FOOTAGE IN THE LOTS THAT FALL WITHIN THE TOWN.
SO WE REVISED THAT TO THE PROPERTY'S TOTAL APPROXIMATELY 20,580 SQUARE FEET OR 0.47 ACRES.
AND THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE AREAS THAT WE HAVE FOR THE TWO LOTS THAT ARE PROPOSED UP ABOVE, WHICH CONSISTS OF OR PROPOSED TO CONSIST OF 10,179 SQUARE FEET OR 0.23 ACRES AND 10,401 SQUARE FEET OR 0.24 ACRES.
SO WE'VE CLARIFI WE'VE CORRECTED THAT IN A MINUTE.
I HAVE ANY OTHER CORRECTIONS TO THE MINUTES? IF NOT, I PROPOSE I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE MINUTES.
DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, UH, ACCEPT THE MINUTES AS CORRECTED.
UH, TOM, YOU'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT.
UH, THE NEXT THING I WOULD LIKE TO DO IS TO, UM, THE CORRESPONDENCE.
WE, THE FIRST ONE IS FOR A B M R REALTY.
UH, THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A, UH, EXTENSION OF THEIR PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION APPROVAL.
UH, THE DELAY IS CAUSED BY WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH.
THEY HAVEN'T GOT AROUND TO, UM, UH, UM, UH, REVIEWING THE APPLICATION AND EXTENDED PRACTICE.
IF ANOTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCY IS THE CAUSE OF THE DELAY, WE ALWAYS, UH, UM, EXTEND THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION.
SO I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE EXTEND THIS PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION.
[00:05:01]
AYE.THE NEXT ONE IS THE SOLANO SUBDIVISION OF BARNABY LANE.
UH, THIS IS A, A REQUEST, UH, UM, FOR EXTENSION OF THE, UH, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION.
UH, ON THIS, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN GOING, UH, FOR SOME TIME FOR THE NEWER BOARD MEMBERS.
THEY MIGHT NOT HAVE ANY BACKGROUND ON THIS PROPERTY, BUT THE ORIGINAL PROPERTY OWNER WHO PUT IN THE APPLICATION IS, WAS, IS DECEASED.
AND THEN HIS, HIS, UH, ESTATE THEN HAD TO SELL THE PROPERTY TO ANOTHER, UH, ENTITY.
AND, AND THEY, SO IT'S BEEN A LONG PROCESS AND I THINK, UH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO GET UP TO DATE.
SO RATHER THAN JUST APPROVING IT, I, I WOULD LIKE, UM, A REPRESENTATIVE COME INTO THE MEETING AND JUST GIVE US THE BACKGROUND SO EVERYBODY COULD BE UP TO DATE EXACTLY OF THE STATUS OF, UH, OF THIS APPLICATION.
SO I'M PROPOSING THAT, UM, RATHER THAN MAKE A DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION, UH, TONIGHT, UH, THAT WE INVITE THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT TO COME IN AT OUR NEXT MEETING AND BRING US UP THE DATE OF THE STATUS OF THE APPLICATION.
UH, WHEN IS IT DUE TO EXPIRE, WALTER? THE CURRENT ONE? IT, IT EXPIRED, UH, ON SEPTEMBER 10TH.
I WILL ALERT THE APPLICANT'S REPRESENTATIVE TO ATTEND ON OCTOBER 21ST SO THAT, UH, HE CAN EXPLAIN THE SITUATION TO THE BOARD AND GIVE SOME BACKGROUND ON THE PROJECT.
UH, THE OTHER THING IS CORRESPONDENCE.
WE GOT, UH, WE GOT THE PLAN DATES OF OUR MEETINGS FOR NEXT YEAR.
THEY ALL IS THE FIRST AND THIRD, UH, WEDNESDAY OF THE MONTH, EXCEPT FOR SEPTEMBER.
IT WAS ON A TUESDAY BECAUSE OF, I, I BELIEVE THAT'S THE JEWISH HOLIDAY, ROSH HASHANAH.
AND, UH, IS THAT CORRECT, YOU? YOM KIPPUR, ACTUALLY.
BUT AT ANY RATE, IT'S A HOLIDAY, SO, UH, IT WOULD, UM, THE CALENDAR WILL BE ON THE TUESDAY AND INSTEAD OF WEDNESDAY.
UH, SO, UH, SO I LIKE WHAT THIS CALENDAR, UNLESS THERE ARE SOME DISCUSSION AROUND THESE DATES.
I, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE ACCEPT THE, THE CALENDAR, UH, FOR THE CALENDAR DATES FOR 2021.
UH, UM, LETS SAY WE HAVE A SERIES OF, UH, OF DECISIONS TO MAKE.
THE FIRST ONE IS FOR, UM, UH, GETS AT, UH, UH, 25 HIGH POINT LANE.
ATTACHED TO THAT WAS A, UH, A COMMENT FROM THE GREENVILLE FIRE DISTRICT.
UH, THEY, UH, UH, THEY HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH OUR PROPOSE A RANK OF THE, OF THE, OF THE CIRCLE.
THEY DID RAISE ONE ISSUE AS THE LOCATION OF THE FIRE HYDRANT.
UH, WHAT WE CAN DO, IF, IF IT'S THE PLEASURE OF THE BOARD AND WE'RE INCLINED TO APPROVE THIS, WE CAN MAKE THE LOCATION OF THE FIRE HYDRANT AS A CONDITION THAT THE FIRE HYDRANT, THE, YOU KNOW, HAS TO BE CONFORMED TO THE, YOU KNOW, THE LETTER OCTOBER 5TH LETTER OF THE GREENVILLE FIRE DISTRICT, WHICH INDICATES, UH, A LOCATION OF A FIRE, UH, OF THE FIRE HYDRANT.
SO I WOULD PROPOSE FOR ME, UM, I, I WAS JUST GOING TO STATE CHAIRPERSON SIMON, THAT WE DID, UM, STAFF DID PUT TOGETHER SOME DRAFT, UH, LANGUAGE TO INCORPORATE INTO THE DECISION, UH, TO ADDRESS THAT COMMENT.
AND I'M HAPPY TO RECITE THAT FOR THE BOARD IF YOU'D LIKE.
I EMAILED IT OUT, UH, YESTERDAY AFTERNOON, BUT I CERTAINLY RECITE IT FOR EVERYONE.
SO, UM, WE DID BRING TO THE BOARD'S ATTENTION ON PAGE FIVE.
[00:10:01]
HIGHLIGHTED.UH, 4.5 IS THE ONE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING A SLIGHT LANGUAGE MODIFICATION TO PICK UP THE COMMENT FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
UH, HOW WE PROPOSE IT TO READ IS UPON COMPLETION OF THE INSTALLATION OF THE NEW HYDRANT, WHICH SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE TWO FEET OF RIGHT AWAY, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE CUL-DE-SAC ROADWAY, IT MUST BE PROMPTLY PLACED INTO SERVICE AND A WATER TEST, WHICH INCLUDES STATIC WATER SUPPLY PRESSURE READINGS, AND RESIDUAL WATER PRESSURE READINGS UNDER FLOW FOR VOLUME.
WITH THE AVAILABLE FLOW RESULTS IN G P M ESTIMATED BY GRAPH TO A RESIDUAL PRESSURE OF 20 P SS, I MUST BE CONDUCTED UPON COMPLETION OF THE TEST, THE APPLICANT SHALL FORWARD THE RESULTS TO THE GREENVILLE FIRE DISTRICT FOR REVIEW.
SO ESSENTIALLY WE ADDED THAT THE HYDRANT SHALL BE LOCATED WITHIN THE TWO FEET OF RIGHT OF WAY, IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE CUL-DE-SAC ROADWAY.
AND THAT BASICALLY TAKES IT OUT OF THE PAVER AREA, WHICH WAS THE CONCERN OF THE DISTRICT, AND PUTS IT OUTSIDE THE EDGE OF THE ROAD, BUT KEEPS IT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY.
SO IT'S NOT ON PRIVATE PROPERTY.
I DON'T THINK THAT IS A, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT IS A CONCERN.
I READ THE, THE, I READ THE LETTER COMPLETELY DIFFERENTLY THAN YOU DID.
I DON'T THINK LOCATION'S A CONCERN AT ALL.
I THINK THE, THEY, THEY'RE MUCH MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE WATER TABLE AND THEIR ABILITY, I GUESS THERE WAS SOME AIR HOLES OR SOMETHING THEY USED TO AERATE AERATE AND, AND GET WATER PRESSURE OR SOMETHING THAT THEY'RE WORRIED THAT THE WATER TABLE IS TOO HIGH THERE AND THEY'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO DO THAT.
I THINK WE NEED TO KNOW THAT BEFORE WE APPROVE THIS PROJECT, NOT AFTERWARDS.
AND THAT, AND I MAY BE THE, OUR ENGINEER OR, OR THERE, OR THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER TALKING TO THE FIRE DISTRICT TO ENSURE THAT THEY CAN PUT A SUITABLE FIRE HYDRANT IN THAT PLACE.
'CAUSE THAT WAS, THAT WAS WHAT CONCERNS ME.
WELL THAT WAS ANOTHER COMMENT WITHIN THE, WITHIN THE REPORT.
SO, WELL, THAT'S A BIG, THAT'S A BIG DEAL.
WELL, WELL, IT'S BOTH THEN, THEN IT'S LOCATION AND, AND THE ISSUE OF THE, OF THE WATER TABLE.
UM, AND NOW THERE'S TWO WAYS OF DOING THAT.
WE COULD WAIT, UH, AND, AND, AND POSTPONE UNTIL WE GET THE RESULT BACK FROM THE DISTRICT.
OR WE COULD, AGAIN, WE COULD MAKE THAT A CONDITION THAT BEFORE THEY GO FORWARD THAT THAT HAS TO BE DETERMINED.
ONE SUGGESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE AND NOTE IS THAT THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION.
SO, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE A CONDITION ADDED AS THE CHAIRMAN INDICATED, WHERE THAT THEY HAVE TO SATISFY THE GREENVILLE FIRE DISTRICT WITH RESPECT TO THE HYDRANT BEFORE FINAL SUBDIVISION APPROVAL IS CONSIDERED.
BUT I WOULD, I WOULD MENTION THE ISSUE OF THE WATER TABLE, SPECIFICALLY AARON, IN THE LANGUAGE.
THERE'S ALSO ANOTHER CONCERN THAT THEY HAD THAT I DON'T, DIDN'T HEAR ANYBODY MENTION, WHICH IS, AND I'D LIKE THIS ADDED AS A CONDITION, I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE.
THEY SAID THEY WERE FINE WITH THE PAVERS, BUT THEY CONCERNED THAT THE PLOW COULD, COULD, UH, DAMAGE THE PAVERS AND WANTED THEM INSPECTED ONCE A YEAR.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S UNREASONABLE, AN UNREASONABLE REQUEST IN THE FIRE DISTRICT.
SO WITH RESPECT TO THAT RIGHT, THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO BUILD THIS TO A TOWN STANDARD AND DEDICATED TO THE TOWN.
UH, SO THAT IF IT WERE DEDICATED AND WERE ACCEPTED, OR I SHOULD SAY WERE OFFERED FOR DEDICATION AND ACCEPTED BY THE TOWN, THAT RESPONSIBILITY WOULD FALL ON THE TOWN DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS.
WE CAN CERTAINLY INCLUDE IT IN THE CONDITION.
NO, I THINK WE CAN INCLUDE IT IN A CONDITION.
I JUST WANTED THE, THE BOARD TO BE AWARE OF THAT.
I, I UNDERSTAND, BUT THE TOWN SHOULD KNOW WHAT THEY'RE BUYING TOO.
WHETHER, WHAT THEY'RE ACCEPTING.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS, UH, REGARDING THIS, UH, DECISION? OKAY, SO WITH THOSE THREE CONDITIONS ADDED INSPECTION OF THE, THE BLOCKS, THE POROUS PALET BLOCKS, UH, THE LOCATION AND, UM, THE, UH, THE WATER TABLE ARE THE THREE CONDITIONS WE COULD, WE WOULD ADD TO, UH, THIS DECISION.
NOW, BASED UPON THE ADDITION OF THOSE THREE CONDITIONS
[00:15:01]
TO THE DECISION, ARE THERE ANY OTHER DISCUSSIONS OR COMMENTS NEED TO, UH, BE, UH, ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE OR THEN I, IF NOT, I WOULD, UH, I WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE, UH, APPROVE THIS WITH THE THREE CONDITIONS STATED.YEAH, I, I JUST WANNA BE SURE.
UM, GOING BACK TO THE ORIGINAL DOCUMENT THAT WAS SENT TO US, I HAVE A NOTE HERE, QUESTIONING ON PAGE FIVE, UM, 4.4 AND 4.5, AND I WAS WONDERING IF THOSE HIGHLIGHTED TESTS DO COVER THE, UM, THE QUESTIONS THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, IF THEY WILL COVER ALL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT THE FIRE DEPARTMENT IS ASKING ABOUT, BECAUSE WE'RE ASKING FOR CERTAIN, RIGHT.
SO TO BE DONE, ARE THEY GOING TO COVER EVERYTHING THAT THEY'RE ASKING? AND I THINK WITH WHAT HUG IS NOW ASKING, WE WILL BE COVERING EVERYTHING THAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR.
SO I JUST, NOW THAT WE'VE ADDED THOSE EXTRA TESTS, I THINK NOW MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED.
CAN WE JUST PAY ATTENTION SO I COULD GO ASK PAT A QUESTION? ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTION, ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS BEFORE WE, UH, UH, VOTE ON IT? IF NOT, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, UH, APPROVE THIS, UH, THE, TO GET A SUB, UM, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, UH, WITH THE MODIFICATIONS THAT WAS ADDED, THE THREE MODIFICATIONS THAT WERE, UH, ADDED AS CONDITIONS.
OPPOSED? OKAY, MR. CHAIRMAN? YES.
UH, I JUST WANT TO, AS, AS LONG AS THE APPLICANT IS STILL ON AT THIS POINT, I WOULD LIKE TO ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO MOVE QUICKLY WITH WESTCHESTER COUNTY.
AS, UH, THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE NOTED, UM, EARLIER, WE, THERE HAVE BEEN DELAYS WITH GETTING A APPLICATIONS THROUGH THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY AND THE SOONER THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT AND, UH, AND THEIR ENGINEER, UH, SUBMITS THIS TO THE COUNTY, THE, UH, BETTER CHANCE WE HAVE OF NOT HAVING TO DELAY OR, UM, YOU KNOW, HAVE, UH, HAVE EXTENSIONS WITH RESPECT TO, UM, FINAL SUBDIVISION.
UH, I'M ACTUALLY THE APPLICANT IS ONLINE AND, UH, WE'LL GO FORWARD AS SOON AS WE CAN.
WE'LL GET, GET THE DECISION OFF YOU, UH, HOPEFULLY SIGNED TOMORROW.
OKAY, THE NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA IS, IS A DECISION ON SPLASH COP WASH, UM, OF PPP 1930.
UH, WE HAVE, UH, UH, THE DRAFT PROPOSAL AND, AND, AND FUNNY YOU, I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN IT IS, IS THE, THE SIDEWALK, BUT SEEING HOW THAT'S ON A STATE ROAD THAT THEY HAVE TO GET COMMISSION FROM D O T, BUT IT, IT, UH, WE'RE SAYING THAT THEY HAVE TO PUT IN A SIDEWALK PENDING APPROVAL OF D O T.
SO IT'S SO, UH, AND WE EXPECT THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE THAT.
UM, THAT'S THE ONLY COMMENT I HAVE IN THIS APPLICATION.
UH, ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY, UH, COMMENT ON THIS APPLICATION? I WOULD JUST NOTE FOR THE BOARD THAT THERE ARE TWO VOTES.
SO FROM A SEEKER STANDPOINT, THIS PROJECT QUALIFIES AS A TYPE TWO ACTION, AND BEFORE MAKING A DECISION ON THE AMENDED SITE PLAN AND TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, UM, I WOULD SUGGEST THAT THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, TAKE ACTION ON THE SEEKER AND, AND NOTE IT AS A TYPE TWO ACTION.
DO WE HAVE TO MOVE THAT AARON? YES.
THIS IS, UH, TYPE TWO ACTION UNDER SEEKER SECOND.
UH, THE NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA IS, IS ANOTHER.
WE DO HAVE ONE MORE VOTE, UH, CHAIRPERSON.
SIMON, WE, WE DO WANT THE BOARD TO VOTE ON THE ACTUAL AMENDED SITE PLAN APPLICATION
[00:20:01]
FOR THE SAME PROJECT PB 1930.SO WE JUST DID THE SEEKER SEEKER.
ONE MORE VOTE FOR THE AMENDED.
IS THERE A MOTION TO, FOR THE AMENDED SITE THERE A MOTION
THE, UH, THE NEXT IS P P 20 DASH 11 GOWAN.
THAT'S, UH, UH, FOR WETLAND WELL OF COST PERMIT THAT, UH, A DRAFT DECISION WAS MADE, UH, AND CIRCULATED.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS ON THE DRAFT THAT WAS SUBMITTED? I JUST WANTED TO REPORT TO THE BOARD THAT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS ISSUED THE VARIANCE ON THE HEIGHT OF THE GARAGE AT ITS SEPTEMBER 17TH MEETING.
SO THAT'S WHY WE MOVE FORWARD WITH PREPARING A DRAFT DECISION ON THE WETLAND WATER COURSE PERMIT.
YOU'RE FREE TO MOVE FORWARD, UH, WITH A DECISION ON THAT AT THIS TIME.
SO IT WOULD BE ONE VOTE WITH RESPECT TO THE WETLAND WATER COURSE PERMIT APPLICATION.
WHEN DID THEY, UH, THE LAST ZONING BOARD MEETING, THEY, UH, THEY GRANTED THE VARIANCE.
IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, WE GAVE IT A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION, OR DID, WAS IT NEUTRAL? I DON'T RECALL.
I BELIEVE IT WAS POSSIBLE WITH ONE ONE ABSTENTION OR DISSENT.
UM, IF THERE'S NO COMMENTS ON THIS, UH, DRAFT DECISION, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO, UM, TO APPROVE THE DRAFT DECISION FOR WETLAND OR WATER COST PERMIT.
DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND? WHO'S, WHO'S THAT? WHO'S PER CORRECT.
SO THE, UM, THE NEXT THING ON, UH, OUR AGENDA IS, UH, UM, LIGHTBRIDGE, UH, TO THE APPLICANT.
THERE WERE, UH, THERE WAS SOME QUESTIONS THAT WERE RAISED ACCORDING TO THE TRAFFIC PATTERN, THE LAYOUT OF THE PARKING SP SPOTS.
SO COULD THE APPLICANT, UM, COME FORWARD AND BRING US UP TO DATE, WHAT'S BEING DONE ON THE APPLICATION IN GENERAL AND SPECIFIC ISSUES OF, UH, PARKING SPACES AND, UH, THE LAYOUT? YES.
AND JUST BEFORE YOU DO MR. KIRTI, SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, JUST FOR THE RECORD, IT'S CASE NUMBER PB 20 DASH NINE.
UM, THE APPLICANT WILL WALK US THROUGH SOME OF THE ADDITIONAL WORK THAT IS DONE, AND THEN JUST FROM A PROCEDURAL STANDPOINT, UH, TOWN STAFF PREPARED A DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION TONIGHT.
IF THE BOARD DOES DECIDE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT.
UH, WE WOULD ALSO HAVE YOU ENTERTAIN A RECOMMENDATION ON TO THE ZONING BOARD ON THE AREA VARIANCES REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT WILL BE MEETING WITH THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS NEXT THURSDAY, OCTOBER 15TH.
UH, THIS IS MICHAEL KIRTI, HARRIS BEACH, UH, P L L C 4 45 HAMILTON AVENUE, WHITE PLAINS, NEW YORK, 1 0 6 0 1, UH, FOR THE APPLICANT.
UH, 5 29 CENTRAL PARK AVENUE, UH, LIGHTBRIDGE ACADEMY.
UM, GOOD EVENING, UH, MR. CHAIR AND ALSO MEMBERS OF THE BOARD AT, UH, THE LAST TIME WE APPEARED, UH, BEFORE, UH, THIS HONORABLE BOARD.
UH, YOU HAD A COUPLE OF, UH, QUESTIONS AND CONCERNS REGARDING, UH, CONFLICTING MOVEMENTS OF CARS, UH, COMING UP THE DRIVEWAY AND CARS, UH, BEING PARKED IN DROP-OFF SPACES, UH, THAT WOULD BE BACK OUT.
[00:25:01]
TIME, UH, PROVIDED, UM, INFORMATION, UH, REGARDING SOME OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED, UM, LIGHTBRIDGE ACADEMY, UH, LOCATIONS, UH, LOCATED IN NEW JERSEY THAT WERE OF THE SAME SIZE, UM, AND STUDENT, UM, CENSUS OR COMPLEMENT, UH, AS THIS PROPOSED BUILDING.IN ADDITION, WE'VE MADE A COUPLE OF REVISIONS TO OUR LAYOUT PLAN, AND I'LL JUST, UH, BRIEFLY GO OVER THEM.
I'LL DEFER, UH, TO, UM, THE APPLICANT'S ENGINEER AND ALSO ARCHITECT, UH, TO DISCUSS THEM IN, UM, WITH SPECIFICITY.
THE FIRST IS THAT THE LOANING ZONE HAS BEEN INCREASED, UH, TO A SIZE OF, UM, 15 FEET BY 35 FEET.
THE A D A PARKING SPACES HAVE BEEN REVISED PER THE BOARD'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS, UH, RECOMMENDATION.
UH, AND, UH, THE CONFIGURATION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THOSE REGULATIONS.
THE A D A RAMPS AND CROSSWALK, UH, HAVE BEEN PROVIDED AT THE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCE, AND THE STOP BAR HAS BEEN RELOCATED, UH, BEHIND THE CROSSWALK.
EMPLOYEE PARKING IS NOW DESIGNATED AT THE THREE SPACES AT THE TOP OF THE DRIVEWAY, AND A STOP BAR HAS BEEN ADDED FOR CARS COMING UP THE DRIVEWAY, SO AS TO MINIMIZE CONFUSION AND CONGESTION DURING PICKUP AND DROP OFF TIMES.
UM, IN ADDITION, UH, WE DID PROVIDE THE INFORMATION REQUESTED REGARDING THE OTHER, UH, CHILDCARE FACILITIES, UH, TO THE ENGINEER AT THIS POINT IN TIME.
I'LL TURN IT OVER, UM, TO, UM, UH, MASER CONSULTING, UH, AND ALSO THE, UH, APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT.
THIS IS JESSE COAKLEY WITH MASER CONSULTING.
UM, AS MICHAEL EXPLAINED, I'LL JUST SHARE MY SCREEN JUST TO SHOW YOU THE SITE PLAN THAT, UM, WE'VE ALL SEEN, UH, TO DATE, BUT TO KIND OF DEMONSTRATE THE EXACT, UH, NATURE OF THE REVISIONS.
UM, THE FIRST ONE, UH, AGAIN, JUST TO REORIENT THE BOARD, SORRY.
UH, CENTRAL PARK AVENUE'S ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE OF THE PAGE HERE.
UM, IT'S AN EXISTING TWO-STORY BUILDING THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, UH, TO REDEVELOP INTO, UH, THE CHILDCARE FACILITY.
UM, THE LOADING ZONE WAS INCREASED TO 15 BY 35 FEET.
IT'S IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING HERE.
UM, IF YOU CAN, HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SEE MY MOUSE AS WELL, UM, KIND OF ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER.
UM, THEN WE TOOK THE SUGGESTION OF THE, UM, BOARD'S TRAFFIC CONSULTANT TO KIND OF REVISE THE CONFIGURATION OF THE A D A SPACES SO THAT THEY COULD SHARE THE LARGER EIGHT FOOT, UM, UM, ACCESS WAY TO BE ABLE TO ACCESS THE FRONT DOOR.
UM, WE ALSO, PER DOT'S COMMENTS ADDED, UM, HANDICAP ACCESSIBLE, UM, RAMPS AND A CROSSWALK AT THE ENTRANCE TO THE DRIVEWAY, WHICH, UH, DOES NOT EXIST TODAY.
AND THEN THE STOP BAR HAS BEEN LOCATED BEHIND THERE.
UM, ONE OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAD BROUGHT UP THE FACT THAT WE WERE PREVIOUSLY DESIGNATING ALL OF THESE FRONT SPACES FOR DROP OFF AND PICKUP.
UM, BUT TYPICALLY ONLY ABOUT 10 SPACES ARE NEEDED FOR PICKUP AND DROP OFF.
UM, SO THE SUGGESTION WAS TO KIND OF TAKE THESE THREE SPACES HERE AND MAKE THEM EMPLOYEE PARKING.
UM, SO WE'RE GONNA PUT SOME SIGNAGE AT THE BEGINNING OF THOSE TO DESIGNATE THEM AS SUCH SO THAT THOSE SPOTS WILL NOT BE TURNING OVER AS, AS, UH, THE TERM IS USED DURING THE PICKUP AND DROP OFF SO THAT THE PARENTS COMING IN AND TURNING CAN USE THESE SPACES TO DROP OFF WHILE THESE CARS WILL NOT BE PULLING IN.
AND THAT, THAT CONGESTION, THAT WAS THE CONCERN BEFORE.
UM, I BELIEVE THIS PLAN WAS SHARED WITH THE, UH, TRAFFIC CONSULTANT, UH, AFTER WE MADE THESE REVISIONS.
UH, THIS VERSION THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU IS ONLY DIFFERENT IN THAT WE ADDED NUMBERS TO THE PARKING SPACES.
SO IF YOU HAD ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR REFERENCE TONIGHT, WE COULD IDENTIFY THE SPACE BY NUMBER, UM, FOR EASE OF DISCUSSION DUE TO THE VIRTUAL NATURE OF THIS HEARING.
UM, AND THEN I ALSO HAVE WITH ME, SORRY, UH, CAN YOU SCAN THESE FOR ME? UH, AND THEN I ALSO HAVE, THANK YOU WITH ME, UH, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEER FROM MY OFFICE, JEFF FIORI, UM, WHO OVERSAW THE, UM, PREPARATION OF THE PARKING ASSESSMENT THAT WAS ALSO SHARED, UH, THAT STUDIED THE OTHER SIMILAR CHILDCARE FACILITIES IN, UH, IN CHILD ENROLLMENT SIZE, WHICH, UM, YOU KNOW, FURTHER DEMONSTRATED, UH, YOU KNOW, THE ADEQUACY OF THE PARKING SPACES.
SO, UM, IF YOU'D LIKE, JEFF CAN KIND OF, KIND OF GIVE THE BOARD A, A QUICK OVERVIEW, A SUMMARY OF THAT IF YOU HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO READ IT YOURSELF.
I HAD A QUESTION ABOUT THE STUDY, IF THIS IS THE TIME.
THANK YOU FOR PROVIDING A LOT OF
[00:30:01]
REFERENCES IN THE LAST SESSION WE HAD.UM, OR IT COULD HAVE BEEN THE ONE BEFORE WHENEVER WE MET LAST, I BELIEVE YOU SAID IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO LOOK AT THE ENROLLMENT NUMBER THAN THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE FACILITY, BUT IN THE REPORT I READ, ALL I SAW WERE SQUARE FOOTAGES FOR COMPARISON.
YOU'VE MENTIONED TONIGHT THAT THE ENROLLMENT WAS SIMILAR, BUT I DIDN'T SEE THAT DOCUMENTED ANYWHERE, OR I MISSED IT.
CAN YOU, YOU KNOW, ASSURE US THAT IT'S COMPARABLE OR PROVIDE THOSE FIGURES AT SOME POINT? YES.
UM, AND AGAIN, JEFF, YOU WITH MAJOR CONSULTING? UH, FOR THE RECORD, I'VE DONE QUITE A FEW LIGHT BRIDGES.
UM, THEY'VE STARTED OUT OF NEW JERSEY.
UM, THEY'VE KIND OF GOT, THEY'VE GONE INTO PENNSYLVANIA AND I'VE KIND OF BEEN THEIR TRAFFIC ENGINEER FOR A LOT OF THEIR APPLICATIONS.
AND I'VE DONE SO, UH, TRAFFIC STUDIES AND PARKING STUDIES FOR SEVERAL OTHER, UM, DAYCARE, UH, OPERATORS.
AND THEY ALL HAVE, UH, COMMON DENOMINATORS.
THEY'RE ALL AROUND 12 TO 14,000 SQUARE FEET IN SIZE.
I KNOW THIS IS A LITTLE BIT BIGGER.
UM, THEY GENERALLY HAVE APPROXIMATELY 25 TO 30 EMPLOYEES.
THEY HAVE APPROXIMATELY 150 TO 175 CHILDREN, UH, LICENSED FOR EACH BUILDING.
AND THEY GENERALLY ALL HAVE 35 TO 40 PARKING SPACES.
AND THE MAN THAT WE SEE IS GENERALLY HAVE A PEAK DEMAND AROUND 30 SPACES.
SO, UM, AS YOU SAW IN THE STUDY THAT WE PREPARED, UM, AS WELL AS THE, BASED ON THE PARKING THAT'S PROVIDED, UH, I FEEL THAT THERE'S ADEQUATE PARKING PROVIDED HERE.
WE, WE PROVIDE FOUR, FIVE SPACES BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE.
WE USUALLY SEE A, A PEAK PARKING DEMAND IN THE LOW THIRTIES.
SO I THINK WE HAVE MORE THAN ADEQUATE PARKING, UH, TO ACCOMMODATE THE, THE PEAK, UH, DEMAND OF THE FACILITY.
UM, YEAH, THE NUMBERS LOOK GOOD, BUT I, I'M NOT SURE IF I HEARD YOU SAY THAT THE ENROLLMENT IS SIMILAR ACROSS ALL THOSE FACILITIES.
THE, THE ENROLLMENT FOR ALL THE LIGHT BRIDGES AND, AND THE OTHER STUDIES THAT I'VE DONE HAS ALWAYS BEEN BETWEEN 150 AND 175 STUDENTS.
AND, AND THIS, UH, SORRY, MY LIGHT FELL OUT, UM, IS ABOUT, UH, I BELIEVE 159 STUDENTS ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS, UH, LOCATION.
UH, UM, I'D JUST LIKE TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT, UH, MR. HAYES SAID.
UH, IF YOU HAVE THAT DATA, COULD YOU JUST PREFER, UH, PROVIDE A CHART THAT GIVES THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, UH, THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS AND, UH, THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IN THE CHART SO WE HAVE THAT DATA, UH, UH, WHETHER YOU, YOU PROVIDED NOW OR AT A PUBLIC HEARING, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT DATA.
CERTAINLY WE CAN PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION FOR YOU.
LET ME, LET ME ASK THIS, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE THAT THESE, UM, PARKING, THIS PARKING DATA IS, UH, FROM NOVEMBER OF 2014.
SO I THINK WHAT'S MIGHT BE RELEVANT TO THE BOARD IS THE NUMBER OF THE, THE ENROLL ENROLLMENTS ON NOVEMBER, UH, 13TH 2014 FOR WAR IN MOUNTAINSIDE FORUM PARK IN BERKELEY HEIGHTS.
I WILL TRY TO GET THAT INFORMATION.
UM, I'M NOT SURE IF WE CAN OBTAIN IT, BUT, UM, LIKE I SAID, BASED ON, YOU KNOW, I'VE DONE A LOT OF THESE IN THE TRI-STATE AREA, AND THEY ALL HAVE, UH, COMMON DENOMINATORS.
THIS ACTUALLY HAS A LITTLE BIT MORE PARKING, UH, THAN I, YOU KNOW, I WOULD ANTICIPATE IT GENERALLY WE'RE LOOKING IN THE 35 TO 40 RANGE MM-HMM.
UM, THE PARKING DEMAND IS, IS 40 SPACES.
UM, SO EVEN FROM, FROM AN INDUSTRY-WIDE STANDARD, UM, WE ARE MEETING, UH, THE DEMAND, WE'RE EXCEEDING IT.
AND, YOU KNOW, WITH 159 STUDENTS, UH, GENERALLY 20% OF THAT NUMBER IS, IS, IS EITHER CARPOOLING OR THEY'RE FAMILIES THAT HAVE MORE THAN ONE, UH, SIBLING THAT WILL ATTEND.
UM, SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT PROBABLY IN THE AREA OF 130 VEHICLES DURING YOUR PEAK ARRIVAL, WHICH OCCURS FROM SIX 30 TO 9:30 PM IT'S NOT A CONSOLIDATED PEAK THAT YOU WOULD SEE VERSE LIKE AT AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
AND, UH, SIMILARLY DURING THE PICKUP TIME, THE PICKUP IS FROM THREE 30 TO SIX 30.
SO AGAIN, THAT PEAK IS SPREAD OUT OVER THREE HOURS.
SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT 130 CARS COMING IN OVER A THREE HOUR, UH, THREE HOUR PERIOD.
THE AVERAGE TIME A CAR IS PARKED AT, AT ONE OF THESE SPACES IS SEVEN TO EIGHT MINUTES.
SO EVERY SPACE IS TURNING OVER EIGHT TIMES PER HOUR.
SO MY OPINION, THERE'S MORE THAN AQUI PARKING PROVIDED AT THIS FACILITY.
LET ME JUST ADD ONE OTHER, ONE OTHER SITE, WHICH WAS THE CRANFORD TOWNSHIP, AND THAT DATE IS, APPEARS TO BE FEBRUARY 4TH, 2016.
AND I WAS JUST GOING TO ADD THAT I THINK IT MAY BE BENEFICIAL IN YOUR CASE TO THE ZONING BOARD NEXT WEEK
[00:35:01]
TO HAVE THAT INFORMATION BEING THAT YOU'RE SEEKING A PARKING VARIANCE DIRECTLY FROM THE ZONING BOARD.SO I JUST WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF THAT.
THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT, BECAUSE THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT MY POINT WAS GOING TO BE, THAT THE NEED FOR A CHART TO LAY ALL THAT OUT, NOT ONLY FOR THIS BOARD, BUT FOR THE ZONING BOARD ALSO, WE'LL WORK ON PUTTING THAT TOGETHER FOR THE NEXT MEETING, UH, OF THE ZONING BOARD.
UH, ON THE DRAWING, YOU SHOW A ONE PROPOSED LIGHT FIXTURES ALL THE WAY, UH, AT THE BACK OF THE PARKING AREA.
SO HOW, HOW'S THE REST OF THE PARKING IS LIGHTED? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION.
THE, THE CALL OUT HERE DOES SAY PROPOSED AREA LIGHT FIXTURE, UH, TYPICAL.
UM, BUT WE DO PROPOSE ANOTHER ONE ON THIS SIDE HERE.
WE PROPOSE, PROPOSE ANOTHER ONE HERE.
WE JUST DON'T HAVE A CALL OUT FOR IT.
UM, AND THEN THERE ARE BUILDING MOUNTED LIGHT FIXTURES, AND THEN I BELIEVE IT MAY HAVE BEEN THIS BOARD OF THE ZONING BOARD.
I DON'T RECALL AARON, BUT WE ARE PROPOSING SOME ALLARD LIGHT FIXTURES ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY HERE, UH, TO ILLUMINATE THE SIDEWALK THAT WE'RE GONNA BE PUTTING IN AS WELL.
SO THERE, THERE'S MORE THAN ONE FIXTURE PROPOSED.
THEY'RE JUST NOT ALL INDIVIDUALLY CALLED OUT ON THIS PLAN.
AND A FULL LIGHTING PLAN WILL BE, WILL BE PROVIDED, YEAH.
WHEN YOU COME TO THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, YOU'LL HAVE THAT UPDATED, UH, PLAN.
IN OUR FULL SITE PLAN SET, WE WILL HAVE A, A LIGHTING PLAN WITH THE, UH, WITH THE PHOTO METRICS ON THERE AS WELL.
CAN YOU LET US KNOW HOW, UH, UH, DISCUSSIONS ARE GOING WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR TO THE SOUTH WITH RESPECT TO THE EASEMENT? YES, I, I CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
UM, WE'VE HAD VERY POSITIVE DISCUSSIONS, UM, WITH, UM, THE NEIGHBOR RIGHT NOW.
WE, UM, ARE, HAVE ENGAGED A SURVEYOR, UH, TO SURVEY, UH, THE SITE.
UM, BUT WE HAVE EVERY EXPECTATION THAT, UM, WE'LL, WE'LL BE ABLE TO WORK THAT OUT.
UH, THE ADDITIONAL QUESTION FROM BOARD MEMBERS IN, UH, RELATIONSHIP TO THIS SITE, OH, THERE, THERE WAS A QUESTION THAT JOHN, UH, CANNON INDICATED.
I THINK IT, IT, IT, IT, IT CAME ABOUT FROM A QUESTION THAT, UH, MONA, YOU ASKED IN TERMS OF, UM, I THINK THE SPACING NEAR THAT, UH, BY THE BUILDING.
I HAD SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING, UM, THE SPOTS ADJACENT TO THE EMPLOYEE PARKING IN THE FRONT.
I WAS STILL CONCERNED THAT WHEN, UM, UH, UH, PEOPLE CAME FOR DROP OFF AREAS AT THOSE SPOTS, 33 AND 34 IN PARTICULAR, UM, I HAVE A FEELING THAT THOSE ARE GOING TO BE THE MOST WANTED SPOTS FOR DROP OFF.
THAT WHEN THEY BACKED OUT OF THOSE SPOTS, IT WAS STILL VERY NARROW AREAS AND THEY WOULD BE HOLDING UP CARS THAT WERE TRYING TO GET IN AND OUT AND THEY WERE STILL POTENTIAL AREAS FOR ACCIDENTS.
BUT JOHN SEEMS TO FEEL THAT PEOPLE WILL STILL BE GOING VERY SLOW BECAUSE OF THE STOP BAR, AND THAT WE WILL HAVE MINIMIZED IT DUE TO THE EMPLOYEE PARKING SPOTS THAT WE'RE USING.
AND HE FEELS THAT WE WILL, UM, HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO, UM, SEE IF THIS IS AN AREA FOR CONCERN, BECAUSE WE'LL BE STARTING WITH PARTIAL, UM, REGISTRATION IN THE BEGINNING.
WE'RE ONLY GOING TO START WITH I THINK TWO THIRDS.
IS THAT THE AGREEMENT WE'VE COME TO THAT? THAT'S CORRECT.
WE'VE AGREED TO, UM, ADOPT, UM, THE SIMILAR CONDITION THAT YOU IMPOSED ON THE KITTY ACADEMY, WHICH IS IN CLOSE PROXIMITY.
UM, SO THAT'S REALLY AN EXCELLENT POINT.
UM, YOU WILL HAVE A CONTINUING JURISDICTION OVER THIS PROJECT, SO WE'LL SEE HOW THE TRAFFIC ALIGNS, SO TO SPEAK.
AND IF IT IS A PROBLEM, WE MAY HAVE TO IMPOSE THE FIRST FIVE SPOTS, LET'S SAY, FOR EMPLOYEE PARKING, YOU KNOW, JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE AREN'T MOVING THEIR CARS THERE.
WE'LL SEE HOW PEOPLE REACT TO THIS AREA.
IT'S VERY NARROW THERE STILL, BUT HE THINKS THAT IT MAY BE OKAY, JUST THE FIRST THREE SPOTS TO STAY EMPLOYEE PARKING.
SO LET'S SEE HOW IT GOES AND HOW PEOPLE REGULATE THEMSELVES IN THE BEGINNING.
SO I'M WILLING TO GO WITH JOHN'S EXPERTISE ABOVE MINE.
SO THE PROCESS, THE THOUGHT PROCESS
[00:40:01]
WAS THAT, UM, WITHIN THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, THE DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION THAT WAS PREPARED, WE BULLETED, UH, SIX POINTS THAT WOULD CERTAINLY BE INVOLVED IF AND WHEN THE APPLICANT WENT TO, UH, INCREASE ENROLLMENT BEYOND THE INITIAL TWO THIRDS CAPACITY.THIS IS ON PAGE FIVE, JUST FOR EVERYONE'S REFERENCE.
THE THOUGHT HERE WAS, UH, PER MR. CANNINGS RECOMMENDATION, WE ADD A SEVENTH BULLET POINT, UM, CAPTURING, YOU KNOW, THIS COMMENT AND HAVING THAT ALSO REVIEWED, STUDIED AND, AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED ON IT AS PART OF, UM, THIS FOLLOW-UP ADDITIONAL PARKING AND TRAFFIC, UM, STUDY.
SO I THINK THAT'S A GOOD WAY TO CAPTURE IT.
I'VE SPOKEN TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT THAT.
I'VE SPOKEN WITH CHAIRPERSON SIMON, I'VE SPOKEN WITH MS. F*G AND I SENT AN EMAIL OUT TO THE BOARD.
SO IF THE BOARD'S COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, WE CAN AMEND MS. DRAFT NEGATIVE DECLARATION BEFORE YOU CONSIDER IT TO ADD THAT SEVENTH BULLET POINT.
AARON, CAN IT BE ALSO LIKE ALL FIRST FIVE SPACES, BA EMPLOYEE BARKING? WELL, WE RAN THAT.
WE, WE RAN THAT SCENARIO BY JOHN CANNING, SO I JUST WANT TO GO TO REFER TO MY EMAIL.
SO I, YOU KNOW, INDICATED THAT THERE WERE CONCERNS WITH THOSE THREE SPACES AND ALSO INDICATED THAT IT WAS QUESTIONED WHETHER THESE SPACES SHOULD BE ELIMINATED, WHETHER, OR WHETHER THESE SPACES SHOULD BE DEDICATED EMPLOYEE PARKING SPACES OR IF THERE SHOULD BE NO CHANGE NECESSARY BASED ON, YOU KNOW, MR. CANNINGS PROFESSIONAL REVIEW AND OPINION.
SO, MR. CANNING INDICATED THAT, UM, IT'S UNLIKELY THAT THERE WILL BE ANY SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH THESE SPACES.
HE NOTED THAT PARENTS WILL GENERALLY BE FAMILIAR WITH THEM.
AS MS. FREYTAG INDICATED, SPEEDS ARE GOING TO BE LOW IN THAT AREA, AND THE STOP SIGN WILL LOWER THOSE SPEEDS EVEN FURTHER.
UH, HE INDICATED THAT WITH ALL THAT BEING SAID, STATISTICALLY THESE SPACES WOULD PROBABLY BE SAFER IF THEY WERE FOR EMPLOYEES.
A CONSEQUENCE, HOWEVER, IS THAT YOU FRAGMENT THE EMPLOYEE AND PARENT PARKING AND OPERATIONS MAY NOT FUNCTION AS SMOOTHLY ON THE SITE.
HE SUGGESTED THEREFORE, THAT SINCE, UM, NO PROBLEM WOULD BE EXPECTED, BUT THEY CANNOT TELL FOR CERTAIN THAT THIS ISSUE BE PUT IN THE TO BE REVIEWED LIST, UH, AT THE TIME, YOU KNOW, WITH THE OTHER DRIVEWAY AND PARKING AND TRAFFIC MATTERS AT A FUTURE TIME.
SO THAT, THAT'S STRAIGHT FROM MR. CANNON.
SO IT'S UP TO THE BOARD, IF YOU'D LIKE THAT SEVENTH BULLETED ADDED, UH, SOUNDS LIKE MR. HAYES IN FAVOR OF IT.
ARE OTHERS IN FAVOR OF THAT AS WELL? I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT ADDED IF EVERYONE'S OKAY WITH THAT.
WALTER, YOU'RE MUTED IF YOU'RE TRYING TO SPEAK.
DID YOU WANNA SAY SOMETHING, WALTER? I'M JUST SAYING THAT WE, IF WE INCORPORATE, UH, WE JUST MODIFIED, UH, THE NEXT DEBT, INCORPORATE THOSE POINTS IN AND IF EVERYONE FEELS COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, THEN WE COULD TAKE A VOTE ON OUR ENTIRE DOCUMENT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER, UH, COMMENTS OR CHANGES WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE TO THE DRAFT NEXT DAY? YEAH, I WOULD JUST, UH, ONLY BECAUSE WE KIND OF JUMPED INTO THAT, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYONE, UM, HAD, UH, LOOKED AT THE NEG DECK AND WAS COMFORTABLE WITH IT AND WANTED TO KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON IT.
AND THEN IF, IF, NOW THE, THE COPY OF THE NEXT DECK THAT YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU, UH, UH, FELLOW BOARD MEMBERS INCLUDES THOSE, UH, SIX, UH, ADDITIONS, DO THEY NOT? NO, I DON'T.
[00:45:01]
THAT THEY INCLUDE THERE, THERE'S SIX BULLET POINTS ON PAGE FIVE.WE, WE WOULD BE ADDING BULLET 0.7 BASED ON TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION.
AND BEYOND THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER REVISION.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD STATE IS THAT BEFORE YOU CONSIDER THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION, THE PROJECT DOES QUALIFY AS AN UNLISTED ACTION, AND YOU'D WANT TO TAKE A VOTE ON THAT FIRST BEFORE CONSIDERING THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION.
SO THE, WELL, UNLESS THERE, THEN I'LL JUST TAKE A, UH, A VOTE ON EACH OF THOSE, BUT I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION ON THE NEXT DECK.
SO WE COULD JUST TAKE THE TWO VOTES ON AN UNLISTED ACTION AND THE NEXT DECK.
SO IF THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ON THE, THE NEXT DECK AS AMENDED, AMENDED WITH THE SEVENTH BULLET POINTS, THE SEVENTH BULLET POINT AS INDICATED BY, UH, UH, DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, I WOULD FIRST LIKE TO GET A MOTION TO, UM, DECLARE THIS UNLISTED ACTION.
AND SECOND, UH, CALL THE QUESTION.
UH, THE OTHER POINT IS, IS THE NEG DECK THAT YOU, WE'VE JUST BEEN SPEAKING ABOUT WITH THE ADDITIONAL COMMENT ADDED, UH, CAN I HAVE A MOTION THAT, UH, WE DECLARE THIS APPLICATION AND MAKE, UH, DEBT SO MOVED? SECOND.
UM, THE OTHER THING, THE NEXT THING IS, UH, A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD.
SO CHAIRPERSON AND SI SIMON, I'M HAPPY TO WALK THE BOARD THROUGH THE VARIANCES, UH, BEING REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT FOR THE BOARD'S PLEASURE.
SO THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TWO VARIANCES, AND, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M, UM, OUT OF DATE HERE WITH THIS, UH, MR. KIRTI, BUT, UH, MY INFORMATION IS THAT THE APPLICANT'S SEEKING A VARIANCE WITH RESPECT TO OFF STREET PARKING SPACES.
THERE'S 69 REQUIRED UNDER THE TOWN ZONING ORDINANCE 45 PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT.
THEY'RE ALSO SEEKING A VARIANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE MINIMUM DISTANCE FROM AN OFF STREET PARKING AREA TO THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING.
AND THAT REQUIREMENT UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS 10 FEET, ZERO FEET PROPOSED.
SO THE PARKING RIGHT KIND OF BUTT UP AGAINST, UM, THE BUILDING AS WE'VE SEEN IN THE SITE PLAN.
THERE ARE SOME WAIVERS BEING REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT, WHICH WE CAN GO THROUGH AT A LATER DATE OR THIS EVENING IF YOU'D LIKE.
BUT I THINK, I DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE THE BOARD, AND I JUST WANTED TO LIST THE TWO VARIANCES AT THIS TIME SINCE YOU'RE CONSIDERING A RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD ON THOSE VARIANCES.
UM, I GUESS, WELL THE, I WOULD LIKE TO START THE DISCUSSION WITH, UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE THREE PROPOSALS.
IT IS NEGATIVE, NEUTRAL, OR POSITIVE.
UH, SO I'D LIKE TO GET THE SENSE OF THE BOARD JUST LIKE TO GO AROUND AND, AND, UH, AND, AND ANY, EVERYONE JUST TO STATE WHAT THEY, WHAT THEY FEEL IT SHOULD BE, AND THEN WE'LL TAKE A VOTE.
I'LL START WITH MONA, I SEE YOU.
WELL, THE POSITIVE, NEGATIVE OR, OR, UH, NEUTRAL OR NEUTRAL POSITIVE.
WHAT ARE YOU, WHAT ARE YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THAT? WELL, CONSIDERING THAT WE HAVE BEEN PUTTING A, UH, KIND OF CONDITIONAL, UH, PARKING, UH, PROPOSED PARKING, UH, I, I WOULD GO FOR NEUTRAL BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF IPSS INTO THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT IS, UH, REQUIRED AND THE VARIANCES THERE ARE SEEKING FOR IT.
[00:50:01]
ANYONE ELSE? YEAH, I'D SAY POSITIVE.UM, YOU KNOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES, I THINK WE ALL KNOW THAT BLOOMBERG REQUIRES TOO MUCH PARKING, YOU KNOW, COMFORTABLE WITH THE APPLICANTS AND OUR CONSULTANTS, UM, RECOMMENDATION THAT, YOU KNOW, THE NUMBER CAN BE SAFELY REDUCED WITH RESPECT TO THE DISTANCE FROM THE BUILDING ALL THE SITE.
SO THE SITE IS BASICALLY WHAT THE SITE IS.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S PERFECTLY REASONABLE TO GRANT THAT VARIANCE WITH RESPECT TO THE 10 FEET.
SO I WOULD, I WOULD GO FOR A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
UH, I THINK HIS POINTS ARE WELL TAKEN, SO I'M POSITIVE AS WELL ON THIS.
YEAH, I'M POSITIVE ALSO BECAUSE YEAH, THERE'S A DIFFICULT SITE AND THE FACT THAT WE ARE, UH, OPENING UP IN STAGES, WE ONLY GOING UP TWO THIRDS OF THE, AND THEN WE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE CORRECTIONS IF, IF IT'S NOT WORKING OUT AS WE ANTICIPATE.
SO I'LL GIVE THAT A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION.
I THINK MRS. SCAG, MR. SKAGGS IS THE OTHER ONE WHO HAS WEIGH IN.
SO WHAT, WHAT,
I DON'T KNOW ABOUT, UH, TOO MUCH PARKING, UH, ALLOTMENT FOR TOWN.
YOU KNOW, HAVING MOVED HERE FROM THE BRONX, I, I DON'T THINK, UH, THERE'S SUCH A THING AS TOO MUCH PARKING.
BUT, UH,
UH, UH, WITH, WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO RECOMMEND A POSITIVE, UH, TO MAKE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO THE ZONING BOARD.
DO I HAVE THE SECOND? SO MOVED.
UM, MR. DESAI, YOU ARE, YOU ARE IN FAVOR OF, YEAH, I'M NEUTRAL.
SO I JUST WANTED THAT FOR THE RECORD, THAT IF YOU'RE NEUTRAL, WE WILL PUT THAT IN.
HE'D BE, HE'D BE A NO ON THAT VOTE, CORRECT? CORRECT.
BUT INDICATE NEUTRAL IN THE RECORD THAT HE WOULD BE FAVORED NEUTRAL.
OKAY, THE NEXT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
THE NEXT THING ON THE AGENDA IS CASE P B 1706, AUDREY ROAD AND OLD SPRING ROAD SUBDIVISION, UH, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION, UH, STEEP SLOPE.
AND WE, UH, WETLAND WATER COST PERMIT ENTRY REMOVAL.
DO WE HAVE THE APPLICANT? YES.
UM, GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD.
UH, MY NAME IS KATE ROBERTS WITH THE LAW FIRM, ZAIN AND STEIN METZ.
ALSO WITH ME THIS EVENING IS JOHN MAN, UM, WHO IS A PRINCIPAL OF THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY.
UM, WE ARE HAPPY TO BE BACK BEFORE YOUR BOARD AFTER WORKING SEVERAL MONTHS INTERNALLY AND HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH ERIN, UM, TO SHOW YOU SOME
UM, SO MOST OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN DOING OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS, I'LL LEAVE FOR J M C TO DISCUSS IN DETAIL, BUT I'LL HIGHLIGHT A FEW THINGS THAT WE HAVE DONE, UM, WHICH INCLUDE LANDSCAPING AT THE REQUEST OF YOUR BOARD, UM, SITE DISTANCE TRIANGLE INFORMATION, CROSS SECTIONS SHOWING THE RETAINING WALLS.
AND, UM, MOST SIGNIFICANTLY, WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORS, UM, HAVING CONVERSATIONS WITH SEVERAL OF THE NEIGHBORS, UM, TO DISCUSS JOINING IN THE SHARED ROADWAY.
UM, SO WE SPOKE, UM, FIRST TO MR. MARIN, UM, WHO, UH, CAN WE ZOOM IN A LITTLE BIT, UH, DAVE ON THE, THE PLAN TO SHOW WHERE, WHERE ED'S PROPERTY IS? UM, SO ED MARIN'S PROPERTY, UM, HE HAS AN APPROVED THREE LOT SUBDIVISION.
UM, BUT CURRENTLY THERE IS ONLY ONE, UM, HOUSE ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND A POOL, ACTUALLY AN EXISTING POOL OF HIS SPILLS OVER INTO THE OTHER.
UM, MR. MARIN HAS AGREED TO JOIN INTO THE SHARED ROADWAY.
UM, HE, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL DISCUSSIONS WITH HIM AND HIS WIFE, AND THEY, THEY DID ULTIMATELY SEE THE BENEFITS OF DOING SUCH, UM, INCLUDING
[00:55:01]
THE REDUCTION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE BY 4,500 SQUARE FEET, AS WELL AS, UM, TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL TREES TO BE PLANTED IN THE AREA WHERE HIS CURRENT DRIVEWAY IS LOCATED.UM, I'LL LEAVE IT TO DAVE TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THAT IN MORE DETAIL.
UM, WE ALSO SPOKE TO THE OWNER OF SEVEN 14 ARDSLEY ROAD, WHO, UM, IS, IS IN FRONT OF ED MARIN'S PROPERTY BY, BY TWO LOTS.
AND, UH, THAT PROPERTY OWNER USES ED'S DRIVEWAY, UM, HAS AN EASEMENT OVER IT TO ACCESS THEIR PROPERTY.
WE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH, UM, THE KIMS, AND THEY LIKE THE WAY THEIR DRIVEWAY IS LAID OUT AND HAVE NO INTEREST IN JOINING IN A SHARED DRIVEWAY.
UM, WE ALSO SPOKE WITH THE NEIGHBORS ON THE EASTERN SIDE, UM, THE RIVERA'S LIVE AT 6 56, AND WE HAD MANY CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM, AND THEY ACTUALLY TOLD US THAT THE REASON THEY PURCHASED THEIR PROPERTY IS BECAUSE THEY LOVED THE DRIVEWAY AND THE LIVING ROOM SO MUCH, AND THAT CHANGING THE DRIVEWAY REALLY TO THEM WAS NOT SOMETHING THEY WOULD BE INTERESTED IN.
UM, AND SINCE THE, THE LOT IN FRONT OF THE RIVERA'S IS A SHARED DRIVEWAY, IT, IT WOULDN'T, UM, REALLY MAKE SENSE TO JOIN THAT LOT ON IF THE RIVERA WEREN'T INTERESTED.
SO WE WOULD SUBMIT TO YOUR BOARD THAT WE MADE PROGRESS WITH HAVING ED JOIN ONTO THE DRIVEWAY.
IT REALLY HELPS WITH IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE, IT HELPS WITH PLANTING TREES, NOT NECESSARILY ON OUR CLIENT'S PROPERTY, BUT VERY CLOSE BY.
UM, THE, THE ONE ISSUE THAT WE DO WANNA RAISE IS, UM, ED ED'S PROPERTIES JOINING ONTO THE SHARED ROADWAY CREATES A MINOR ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO THE SUBDIVISION THAT WAS APPROVED YEARS AGO.
UM, THE ONE OF THE LOTS WOULD NOT HAVE ENOUGH, UM, FRONTAGE ON THE SHARED DRIVEWAY, SO WE WOULD REQUEST THAT YOUR BOARD EITHER, I DON'T KNOW IF THEY CAN GRANT A WAIVER OR AARON MENTIONED A RE-SUB DIVISION, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT TO SHIFT THIS.
UM, WE WOULD SUBMIT IT'S, IT'S ACTUALLY AN IMPROVEMENT TO WHAT WAS APPROVED YEARS AGO, WHICH CREATED A FLAG LOT.
UM, AND, UH, IT WOULD FACILITATE WHAT WE THINK IS A BIG IMPROVEMENT TO THE PLAN THAT WE PROPOSE.
UM, I'M GOING TO TURN IT TO J M C TO REVIEW THE AMENDMENTS TO THE PLAN IN MORE DETAIL WITH YOUR BOARD.
AND WE ARE HAPPY, UH, TO ANSWER QUESTIONS EITHER AT THE END OR ALONG THE WAY IF YOU WOULD LIKE.
I'M DAVID LOMBARDI WITH J M C.
AARON AND I HAD A ZOOM MEETING WITH THE ARLEY FIRE CHIEF REGARDING FIRE DEPARTMENT ACCESS, AS WELL AS LANDSCAPING IN THE CENTER OF THE CUL-DE-SAC.
AS A RESULT OF OUR OUR MEETING, WE WIDENED THE LOT ONE DRIVEWAY FROM 12 FEET TO 20 FEET TO WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE REAR CORNER OF THE BUILDING AS REQUESTED BY THE FIRE CHIEF.
AND WE'RE ALSO NOW SHOWING A 30 FOOT DIAMETER LANDSCAPED AREA IN THE CENTER OF THE CUL-DE-SAC, WHICH I'LL SHOW YOU A LANDSCAPING ON THE NEXT PLANS, WHICH THE FIRE CHIEF ALSO WAS ACCEPTABLE.
AND WE WILL STILL HAVE THE GRASS PAVERS OUTSIDE OF THE LANDSCAPING.
AND BETWEEN THE, UH, CIRCULAR ACCESS AROUND THE, UH, CUL-DE-SAC, WE REVISED THE LAYOUT TO TIE IN MR. MARIN'S EXISTING HOUSE AND ALSO SHOWED A CURB CUT TO HIS SECOND LOT.
WE REVISED THE GRADING TO ACCOUNT FOR THE WIDENING OF THE LOT ONE DRIVEWAY AND TYING IN MR. MARIN'S DRIVEWAY HERE.
AND AS KATE HAD INDICATED, UM, ONE OF THE OTHER THINGS, ONE REACTING SLOWLY HERE, ONE SECOND.
SO WE'VE SHOWN THE STREET TREES ALONG THE NEW PRIVATE ROADWAY AND WHERE MR. MARIN'S DRIVEWAY WILL BE REMOVED, WE'VE SHOWN ADDITIONAL TREES AND SHRUBS WHERE THE DRIVEWAY WILL BE REMOVED.
AND AT OUR LAST MEETING, UM, YOUR BOARD ALSO ASKED FOR A CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR ONE OF THE LOTS.
SO THIS IS A CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPING PLAN FOR LOT THREE WITH TREES, SHRUBS, UM, AROUND THE WALKWAY ALONG THE DRIVEWAY,
[01:00:01]
AND ALSO AROUND THE REAR OF THE HOUSE.AND, UM, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION.
TO WHERE THE DRIVEWAY'S BEING REMOVED? SURE.
NOW I, I ASSUME THERE ARE, RIGHT? I'LL WAIT FOR YOU TO ZOOM.
YEAH, I, I ASSUME THERE ARE ALREADY TREES ON THE EDGES OF THAT DRIVE.
OH, OH, I'M LOOKING AT THE WRONG THING.
I'M SORRY, I WITHDRAWN MY QUESTION.
WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BROWN TREES AND THE GREEN TREES? WHAT DOES THAT DESIGNATE BROWN TREES IN THE FALL, I BELIEVE IT'S A DIFFERENT SPECIES OF TREE.
SO THAT'S JUST, UH, I BELIEVE THE REDS ARE RED MAPLES.
THE FIRST TWO TREES AS YOU COME IN OFF ARLEY ROAD ON EITHER SIDE ARE A DIFFERENT SPECIES, AND THEN THE SPECIES AROUND THE CUL-DE-SAC IS ANOTHER SPECIES.
SO JUST TO SHOW, TO TRY AND SHOW A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT IMAGE TO DIFFERENTIATE THE SPECIES PROPOSED.
AND, UM, WHILE
SO ONE OF THE COMMENTS MADE LAST TIME IS WE HAD TWO TREES PROPOSED SORT OF AT THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY.
AND, UM, WE, WE HAVE REMOVED THOSE TREES FROM THAT LOCATION, UM, FOR THE SITE DISTANCE TRIANGLE.
AND WE'VE ALSO REMOVED A FEW OTHER ADDITIONAL EXISTING TREES THAT WERE WITHIN THE SITE TRIANGLE, AND THAT, THAT CAME AT THE RECOMMENDATION OF OUR TRAFFIC AND SAFETY UNIT IN GREENBURG POLICE DEPARTMENT.
YOU KNOW, AS WE KNOW, HARDLY ROADS HEAVILY TRAVELED.
WE WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S CLEAR SITE TRIANGLES.
WE THINK IT WAS A GOOD RECOMMENDATION AND, AND THE APPLICANT CERTAINLY FOLLOWED UP AND, AND REVISED ITS PLAN ACCORDINGLY.
AND WE'RE PROPOSING ONE TREE IN THE CENTER OF THE CUL-DE-SAC, AS WELL AS SOME SHRUBS AND GROUND COVER, UH, A BEACH TREE.
IF YOU GO BACK AND LOOK AT, UH, LOT NUMBER ONE, IT IS A HUGE LOT.
I, FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, MEMBERS WHO HAVE NOT BEEN ON THE BOARD FOR MANY YEARS.
ORIGINALLY THIS WAS, UH, A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION AND IT WAS REDUCED DOWN TO THE, UH, THREE LOT SUBDIVISION.
BUT IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT, IF YOU WERE TO EXTEND THE LINE OF THE, THE EXISTING, THE BACK OF THE EXISTING PROPERTY STRAIGHT ACROSS, LOT ONE, YOU, YOU PROBABLY HAVE ENOUGH AREA FOR A, A, UH, ANOTHER, UH, LOT.
NOW, I KNOW THIS WAS DISCUSSED IN THE PAST, THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK AND A LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND THAT.
AND, AND, AND FINALLY DECISION WAS MADE, UH, UH, TO GO WITH THREE LOTS SUBDIVISION.
MY QUESTION IS THAT LOT IS HUGE IS, AND, UH, WHAT'S TO PREVENT SOMEONE FROM COMING IN AND ASK FOR A SUBDIVISION ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY AND, AND ESSENTIALLY TURN IT BACK TO A FOUR LOT SUBDIVISION.
UM, MR. SIMON, I THINK THAT WE SAID THIS IN THE LAST MEETING, IF WE DIDN'T, I, I APOLOGIZE, BUT I THINK THE, THE OWNER WOULD BE WILLING TO PUT A NO BUILD RESTRICTION ON THAT PIECE OF LAND.
THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO TURN THIS AROUND AND, AND SORT OF TRICK THE BOARD, UM, WHATSOEVER.
I, I, THAT WOULD BE, UM, JOHN, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO UNMUTE YOURSELF AND STEP IN, BUT I THINK THAT THE OWNER WOULD BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS OF THE BOARD? YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO ASK, UM, FOR A LITTLE MORE EXPLANATION.
I SEE THAT 226 TREES ARE COMING DOWN ACCORDING TO THE, UH, COVER NOTE FROM, UH, ZIN AND STEINMETZ AND 1 39 ARE BEING PLANTED.
I KNOW A NUMBER OF THE TREES THAT ARE NOT HEALTHY, BUT IF SOMEONE COULD JUST KIND OF EXPLAIN, UM, THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THOSE NUMBERS AND WHY IT MAKES SENSE.
UM, SO THE COVER LETTER THAT I SUBMITTED SAID 226 TREES WOULD BE REMOVED.
AND I, I DO JUST WANNA SAY WE HA WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF HIRING A LANDSCAPE
[01:05:01]
ARCHITECT.UM, WE'VE BEEN WORKING CLOSELY WITH AARON TRYING TO, UM, RETAIN SOMEBODY WHO'S UP FOR THE TASK, UM, TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THE TREES.
SO WE WILL BE ABLE TO HAVE MORE DETAIL ABOUT THIS.
WE KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A WORK SESSION AND WE'RE STILL BUTTONING UP THINGS ON OUR, OUR APPLICATION, INCLUDING SUBMISSION OF A SW AND THE, THE TREE SURVEY OBVIOUSLY.
UM, BUT WE ARE PROPOSING THE PLANTING OF 139 TREES, UM, SOME OF WHICH, UH, WITHIN ED'S PROPERTY, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, UM, GETTING RID OF HIS DRIVEWAY REALLY HELPED TO FACILITATE THE PLANTING OF ADDITIONAL TREES AS WELL AS, UM, TREES ALONG THE SHARED ROADWAY.
I THINK WE HAD 31 TREES, UM, AS WELL AS A TREE WITHIN THE CUL-DE-SAC.
AND THEN, UM, TREES THROUGHOUT THE THREE LOTS.
UM, WE PROPOSE APPROXIMATELY 23 TREES ON EACH OF THE LOTS.
AARON, CAN YOU JUST CONFIRM THAT THIS MEETS THE NEW, YOU KNOW, TREE REGULATIONS? I KNOW THAT WHEN THINGS ARE BEING BUILT, YOU DON'T REPLACE EVERYTHING THAT'S BEING TAKEN DOWN, BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT RATIO IS.
SO, BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T COMPLETELY FILED WITH RESPECT TO THE NEW LAW YET, THEY'RE STILL LOOKING TO ENGAGE.
I'VE GOTTEN CALLS FROM A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT CONSULTANTS THAT HAVE ASKED ME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW LAW.
LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE GETTING CLOSE TO BRINGING SOMEBODY ABOARD.
SO UNTIL WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION, I CAN'T, UM, GIVE YOU AN OPINION ON WHETHER OR NOT IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS.
SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S IN PROGRESS.
I THINK, UM, IT'D BE GOOD TO GET A SENSE FROM THE APPLICANT OF WHEN THEY MAY BE ABLE TO MAKE THAT SUBMISSION, BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL GOING INTO A PUBLIC HEARING TO KNOW IF THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE WORK TO DO WITH RESPECT TO LANDSCAPING OR IF THEY SEEMINGLY ARE COMPLIANT WITH THE NEW CODE.
UM, SO I THINK THAT WOULD GIVE US SOME INFORMATION TO KNOW, UH, WHEN A PUBLIC HEARING MIGHT BE BEST SCHEDULED FOR, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THE BOARD INTENDS TO GO FOLLOWING THIS DISCUSSION.
UM, AARON, WE GOT, UM, A PROPOSAL YESTERDAY, I THINK, OR, OR MAYBE, UM, LATE TWO DAYS AGO FROM ONE OF THE TREE CONSULTANTS.
UM, SO, UH, AS FAR AS TIMING, DAVE, I DON'T KNOW IF IT SAID HOW LONG THE TREE SURVEY WOULD TAKE, UM, BUT ERIN, IF WE COULD GET BACK TO YOU TOMORROW SORT OF JUST TO, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S GONNA BE TWO WEEKS, UM, OR IF IT'S GOING TO TAKE A MONTH, THEN YOU CAN SORT OF TELL US WHICH, UH, MEETING DATE YOU COULD PUT US ON FOR A PUBLIC HEARING AND ALSO SHARE THAT INFORMATION WITH THE BOARD, IF THAT'S OKAY.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE, THINK THAT WOULD BE OKAY.
UM, TYPICALLY THE CHAIRPERSON AND I DISCUSS SCHEDULING, SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, HAS TO MAKE ANY DECISION.
UM, I THINK IF THE BOARD WAS TO SAY, HEY, PENDING RECEIPT OF THIS INFORMATION, WE'D BE WILLING TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING.
ASSUMING IT GOES THAT WAY, THEN WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION WITHIN THE NEXT FEW DAYS.
AND THEN ULTIMATELY WHEN WE RECEIVE THE INFORMATION, I CAN NOTIFY THE CHAIRPERSON AND, UH, LOOK TO HAVE IT SCHEDULED.
BUT CHAIRPERSON, SIMON, I DIDN'T NEED TO JUMP IN.
I JUST WANTED TO GIVE MY OPINION ON IT.
WELL, WHAT YOU SAID IS ABSOLUTELY, UH, CORRECT THAT, UH, UH, UH, I I, I WILL NOT SCHEDULE IT UNTIL I KNOW THAT INFORMATION IS IN.
SO, UH, SO REALLY THE BALL IS IN YOUR COURT IN TERMS OF HOW SOON YOU CAN GET ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IN REGARDS TO LANDSCAPING IN, AND THEN BASED UPON THAT, WE WILL SCHEDULE IT.
I, I HAVE ONE QUESTION THAT YOU WAS SAYING ON ONE OF THE PROPERTIES THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT FOR THE CUL-DE-SAC AND DRAWING THE PROPERTY LINE, THE PROPERTY LINE ON YOUR PROPERTY OR THE, UH, THE NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.
YEAH, SO IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE ON THE NEIGHBOR MR. MARIN'S PROPERTY.
UM, AND YOU COULD CERTAINLY HELP COORDINATE HIM FILING AN APPLICATION.
WE OBVIOUSLY WANT TO MAKE IT, UM, AS, AS LEAST COMPLICATED AS POSSIBLE FOR MR. MARIN.
WE'RE NOT TRYING TO MAKE, UM, HIM JOINING INTO THE SHARED ROADWAY A BURDEN WHATSOEVER.
UM, SO I GUESS WE'RE SORT OF ASKING THE BOARD HOW WE SHOULD PROCEED WITH THAT.
WE, WE HOPE THAT YOU, UM, LIKE THIS LAYOUT BETTER THAN THE LAST LAYOUT, AND YOU CAN SORT OF GIVE US GUIDANCE ON WHAT WE CAN DO TO HELP ED, UM, EITHER SUBDIVISION OR A LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT, HOWEVER IT IS YOU WOULD TYPICALLY, UH, YEAH, LET ME, LET ME, LET ME, UM, JUMP IN OVER HERE.
UM, BEFORE WE GET INTO
[01:10:01]
THAT WOULD BE, UH, THE NEIGHBORS WHO IS PART OF YOUR, UH, NEW DRIVEWAY, THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO NEGOTIATE AN EASEMENT WITH THAT NEIGHBOR.AND ONE OF THE WAYS, YOU KNOW, UH, SO THE, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS THAT, AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THAT LAYOUT IS, IS ATTRACTIVE.
SO THE QUESTION IS, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO DAVID.
WHAT LEGAL, WHAT DO WE DO LEGALLY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS? DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE EVERY SUBDIVISION? WE KNOW THAT WE WOULD NEED TO GRANT ED, UM, AND THE, THE, HIS OTHER LOT, UM, AN EASEMENT OVER THE SHARED ROADWAY BECAUSE THE SHARED ROADWAY IS NOT GOING TO BE ON, UM, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE ON HIS PROPERTY, OBVIOUSLY.
BUT, UM, DAVE, DO YOU MIND JUST PUTTING YOUR CURSOR OVER THE AREA THAT WE'RE SORT OF TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW WHERE YOU'VE SHOWN A RIGHT HERE.
SO IT'S THAT LOT THAT, UM, IS APPROVED AS A FLAG LOT, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT SURPRISING TO BE HONEST.
UM, IT WAS APPROVED AS A FLAG LOT AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS, UM, IT, WE DON'T MEET THE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS ON THE SHARED ROADWAY BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT IT IS LAID OUT.
SO I GUESS WE'RE ASKING, WE WOULD BE, UM, OR ED WOULD BE TECHNICALLY ASKING FOR A RE SUBDIVISION, UM, TO MAKE THE SECOND LOT HAVE THE, THE ADEQUATE FRONTAGE.
AND THAT, THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND IT AS WELL.
HOWEVER, UM, AND I THINK, I THINK, YEAH, I THINK WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION EITHER LATER THIS WEEK OR EARLY NEXT WEEK TO DIS DISCUSS THE BEST APPROACH, UH, UH, AS TO HOW TO DO THAT.
HOLD ON THOUGH GUYS, BECAUSE THERE'S ANOTHER ISSUE HERE, WHICH WAS MENTIONED, BUT WE'VE NEVER FOCUSED ON.
MR. MARIN'S GOT THE RIGHT TO DO A THREE LOT SUBDIVISION, KATE, IS THAT CORRECT? HE HAS A, I DON'T KNOW THE YEAR THAT HIS SUBDIVISION WAS APPROVED, BUT HE HAS AN APPROVED THREE LOT SUBDIVISION.
AND DAVE, IF YOU COULD ZOOM OUT A LITTLE BIT AND SHOW AND POINT, POINT ME, POINT ME TO THE, TO THE TWO LOTS.
IT'S ACTUALLY, SO IT'S THREE LOTS.
UM, THE, THE LOT, UH, WHERE DAVE, IF YOU COULD CIRCLE THE LOT WHERE ED'S DRIVE OR ED'S HOUSE IS CURRENTLY LOCATED THAT OKAY.
THAT'S ED'S CURRENT ONE HOUSE AND HE ACTUALLY HAS A POOL THAT GOES OVER HIS I SEE THAT ONE.
AND WHERE'S THE THIRD LOT DOWN HERE? THE THIRD LOT IS DOWN THERE, BUT THE APPROVED ACCESS WAS ON, UM, SPRAIN.
ONE CONCERN I HAVE IS HIS, IS THE ONE WHERE THE POOL IS, IS OVERLAYING.
YOU GOTTA BE CAREFUL 'CAUSE YOU MAY CREATE ANOTHER PROBLEM WHEN YOU'RE DOING THE THREE SUBDIVISION.
YOU HAVE, YOU, YOU MAY LANDLOCK, WHICH YOU CAN'T DO LANDLOCK HIS OTHER PIECE OF PROPERTY WHEN YOU MOVE THE LINE WHEN WE MOVE.
SO I, I THINK THE LINE CAN BE SITUATED SO THAT THERE WOULD BE FRONTAGE ONTO THE CUL-DE-SAC ROADWAY.
UM, HE DOESN'T, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO REVIEW WITH NO, AARON, I'M TALKING ABOUT ON THE OTHER, ON THE UNIMPROVED LOT THAT'S ON SPRAIN ROAD ROAD THAT IS ACCESS TO SPRAIN ROAD.
THE OTHER ONE WITH THE POOL ON IT.
THAT HAS TO GO, THAT HAS TO HAVE ACCESS TO THIS CUL-DE-SAC.
OH, SO THAT'S WHAT, RIGHT, RIGHT.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PLANNING TO TALK TO WITH THEM.
RIGHT? NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO.
YOU'RE TALKING TO HIM RIGHT NOW, HIS LOT WHERE HIS HOUSE IS.
YOU WANTED TO INCREASE THE FRONTAGE BECAUSE THAT IS NON-CONFORMING.
I I I
YOU'VE GOT THAT, THAT DIAGONAL THAT GOES, UH, TO THE DRIVEWAY TOWARDS THE CUL-DE-SAC.
THE LINE IN FRONT OF THAT DRIVEWAY ABOVE UP THAT LINE.
YOU WANNA MOVE THAT LINE SO THAT ED'S CURRENT LOT HAS FRONTAGE.
YOU ARE REMOVING ANY ACCESS FOR HIS OTHER LOT FOR HAVING FRONTAGE ON THE CUL-DE-SAC.
I'M SAYING YOU'VE GOTTA BE VERY CAREFUL ON HOW YOU DO THAT.
YOU NEED TO CONSIDER BOTH LOTS WHEN YOU DO THAT OR YOU'RE GONNA LOSE COMPLETE ACCESS.
HIS BUILDABLE LOT IS GONNA LOSE ACCESS.
I DON'T, WELL, MOST CERTAINLY WE HAVE NOTES ON THAT AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE CONSIDERED.
BUT I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING IT UP.
IT, I MEAN, THE ANSWER ACTUALLY WOULD'VE BEEN SIMPLY TO MAKE
[01:15:01]
THINGS EASIER POTENTIALLY IS A SHARED DR INSTEAD OF THE DRIVEWAY WHERE IT IS ON ED'S LOT, NOW YOU MOVE IT, UH, WHAT IS THAT? NORTH? I DON'T KNOW.YOU MOVE IT TO THE LEFT,
SO IT COULD BE A SHARED DRIVEWAY WITH THAT OTHER LOT POTENTIALLY GOING TO THE CUL-DE-SAC.
WE'VE NOT THIS WELL, YOU BETTER FIGURE THAT OUT BEFORE YOU SUBDIVIDE.
I'M SAYING THAT'S GOTTA BE FIGURED OUT YES.
BEFORE YOU DO ANY OF THIS STUFF.
JUST UNDERSTAND THAT WE, WE JUST, YOU KNOW, I JUST LEARNED ABOUT THIS TODAY AND THAT'S WHY I WANNA HAVE THAT CONVERSATION.
BUT DID, BUT DON'T FORGET, YOU KNOW, MR. MARIN'S BEING VERY NICE HERE, BUT, BUT IT, IT COULD GET ALL MUCKED UP IN THE WORKS IF HE REALIZES ALL OF A SUDDEN HE IS GOT A LANDLOCKED PIECE OF PROPERTY, WHICH WE CAN'T DO, WE CAN'T DO ANYWAY.
AND WE ABSOLUTELY NO WAY WANT TO RUIN ED'S PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUBDIVISION.
IF ANYTHING, WE WANNA MAKE ACCESS TO IT BETTER, UM, THAN IT WAS PREVIOUSLY WITH, WITH THE SHARE THE SHARED DRIVEWAY THAT YOU HAVE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE AGREEABLE TO ALLOW, WELL, WHAT YOU COULD DO FOR ONE ACCESS WOULD BE AN EASEMENT OVER YOUR NEW, UH, PERSON'S PROPERTY.
BUT IS THE PLAN EVENTUALLY FOR THAT BUILDABLE LOT TO HAVE ACCESS TO THE CUL-DE-SAC, I ASSUME, RIGHT? YES.
THE PLAN IS FOR BOTH OF HIS LOTS, UM, TO HAVE ACCESS TO CUL-DE-SAC, THAT'S GONNA BE TRICKY.
'CAUSE THERE'S VER I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH FRONTAGE THERE IS THERE, BUT THERE ISN'T A LOT.
IT LOOKS LIKE THAT TOTAL FRONTAGE ON THE CUL-DE-SAC.
WELL, THESE ARE ALL ITEMS. I KNOW IT'S NOT A LOT FOR REVIEW.
THIS IS ALL EVERYTHING WE'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT, YOU KNOW.
THAT, THAT I, I THINK WE KNOW, AND THE APPLICANT KNOWS THAT THAT CONNECTION IS GOING TO BE TRICKY AND THAT YOU NEED TO DO IT IN A WAY THAT THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY DOES NOT BECOME LANDLOCK.
THAT'S A VERY, THAT'S A VERY, UH, GOOD POINT THAT YOU RAISED HERE, BUT NOW IT IS UP TO THE APPLICANT TO COME UP WITH A DESIGN THAT WILL ACCOMPLISH THAT.
I DON'T, JUST IN TERMS OF MOVING AHEAD, I'M NOT SURE WE SHOULD BE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THAT'S RESOLVED BECAUSE IT OH, DEFINITELY.
WE WON'T HAVE A COMPLETE PLAN.
WE ARE NOT GONNA HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL WE SEE THE, THE FINAL DRAWING.
I, I JUST WANNA ECHO WHAT WALTER SAID EARLIER, WHICH IS THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT IMPROVEMENT FROM WHEN WE FIRST STARTED LOOKING AT THIS.
AND I FEEL THE APPLICANT'S MADE, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF ADJUSTMENTS, UM, IN RESPONSE TO OUR REQUESTS AND OBSERVATIONS.
AND WHILE I AGREE WITH YOU THAT THIS IS SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT THAT NEEDS TO BE DEALT WITH COMPARED TO WHERE WE STARTED, IT'S, IT'S SMALLER IN COMPARISON.
AND, UM, I JUST DON'T WANNA LOSE SIGHT OF THAT.
WE APPRECIATE MR. HAY AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO INCORPORATE ALL OF THE BOARD'S COMMENTS AND WORK WITH YOU, UM, TO MAKE THIS THE BEST SUBDIVISION PLAN POSSIBLE.
UH, NOW THIS, UH, I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND THE, THE, ONE OF THE MAJOR CONCERNS THAT WE ALL HAD WAS A, UH, HAVING A ONE MORE CURB CUT INTO THIS VERY, UH, VERY SORT OF CURVY ROAD AND VERY KIND OF WITH A SLOPE ON IT.
SO, UH, AND WE STILL HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF, UH, DRIVEWAYS LEFT INTO IT.
WE ARE HOPING THAT IT WOULD BE THE SAME NUMBER, BUT YOU ADDED ONE MORE.
SO INSTEAD OF TWO, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE, NOW WE HAVE A THREE IN, IN A, IN A SUB, PROBABLY LIKE A 200 FEET FRONTAGE.
UH, SO NOW THAT'S WHAT, UH, THE BEST ONE THAT YOU CAN COME UP WITH IT WITH TALKING TO NEIGHBOR AND, UH, APPARENTLY, UH, COULD NOT RESOLVE THAT ISSUE WITH A, UH, ONE, UH, ONE OF THE NEIGHBOR WHO WANTS TO KEEP IT HIS OWN, UH, UH, PRIVATE ACCESS TO IT, UH, WHICH ADDS UP A LITTLE BIT MORE OF DANGEROUS SITUATION.
AND IT IS A, UH, PRETTY, PRETTY, PRETTY BAD, UH, LOCATION TO HAVE ONE MORE ADDITIONAL DRIVER COMING INTO IT.
SO MY QUESTION IS, IF THAT IS WHAT IS THE BEST YOU CAN DO, OR IF YOU STILL CAN NEGOTIATE
[01:20:01]
AND COME UP WITH SOME BETTER SOLUTION, UH, THE SIDE DISTANCE COMING OUT FROM THERE, UH, DOES IT, UH, CONSIDER OR LOOKS AT IT FROM, UH, THE, THE GEOMETRY AND THE SLOPE OF THE ROAD? SO I'M GONNA LET DAVE ANSWER THE QUESTION ABOUT THE, THE GEOMETRY AND THE SITE DISTANCE, BUT I, I WANNA, UM, SORT OF ANSWER THE QUESTION YOU HAD ABOUT, WE'VE REACHED OUT TO THE, THE KIMS ARE THE NEIGHBORS THAT, UM, ARE AT THE FRONT OF, OF ED'S SIDE OF ARDSLEY, AND WE REACHED OUT TO THEM SEVERAL TIMES.UM, DAVE EVEN, YOU KNOW, WENT TO THEIR HOUSE TO TRY TO, UM, SPEAK TO THEM.
THEY ARE COMPLETELY UNINTERESTED IN ENGAGING.
I BELIEVE WE EVEN OFFERED, WHAT WE OFFERED TO MR. MARIN, UM, WAS FOR HIM NOT TO HAVE TO PAY FOR ANY H O A FEES.
WE OFFERED TO PAY FOR ALL OF THE LANDSCAPING, OF COURSE.
AND, UM, HE WAS WILLING TO AGREE, UH, THE KIM'S EVEN WITH SORT OF THOSE INCENTIVES, THEY JUST DO NOT WANT TO ENGAGE.
UM, IF THE BOARD HAS ANY FEEDBACK FOR HOW WE COULD TRY TO GET THEM AGAIN.
UM, I THINK THE LAST TWO MESSAGES WE SENT WERE UNANSWERED.
UM, I DONE OUR BEST EFFORT, UM, WITH THEM.
DIDN'T, DIDN'T THE TOWN JUST PUT A TRAFFIC LIGHT TO IT THAT AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT HILL? UH, YEAH, IT'S STILL NOT WORKING THOUGH.
I, IT NEVER, I HOPE IT NEVER WORKS.
IT'S A REALLY BAD PLACE FOR A TRAFFIC LIGHT WELL, IN THE WINTER.
WELL, BUT IT'S, IT'S, IT'S WAITING TO BE A MULTIPLE CAR PILE UP AT THAT PLACE IF, UH,
YEAH, WELL, I'M SAYING THAT JUST ADDS, I, I, I HONESTLY THINK THAT THAT TRAFFIC LIGHT ADDS TO COULD ADD TO THE PROBLEM, PARTICULARLY RUSH HOUR.
BUT GOING BACK TO, GOING BACK TO THIS DESIGN, OKAY, UH, UH, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE CONTROL OR OF THE TRA UH, TRAFFIC LIGHT, BUT LET'S FOCUS ON THOSE THINGS THAT THE APPLICANT CAN HAVE POSSIBLE CONTROL.
THEY INDICATED, THEY INDICATED THAT, UH, THE, THE, THE NEIGHBOR IS, IS, IS NOT INTERESTED.
SO THE, THE ONLY THING THAT'S REALLY UNDER OUR CONTROL IS TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THE LINE, WALTER, YOU GOT MUTED.
WALTER, TOM, DID HE MUTED YOU? I DON'T KNOW WHERE I LEFT OFF.
WHAT IS THE LAST THING I SAID? ONLY UNDER THE APPLICANT'S CONTROL, WE CAN ONLY FOCUS ON WHAT THE APPLICANT CAN DO.
SO THE APPLICANT CAN, UH, UH, IS THE LINE OF SIGHT.
SO WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT BUFFER AREA IS INDEED THE, UM, UH, THE MAXIMUM PRACTICAL SIZE.
AND IN, IN, IN THE RECOMMENDATION FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, DID THEY, DID THEY GIVE ANY INDICATION OF WHETHER OR NOT THAT WAS, UH, THE MINIMUM ACCEPTABLE SIZE OR, THAT WAS DEFINITELY, THEY FELT VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT.
UH, WHAT WAS THE SENSE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT IN TERMS OF THE LINE OF SIGHT? UH, THE POLICE DEPARTMENT JUST ADVISED THAT THEY WANTED THE SITE TRIANGLES CLEARED.
MY THOUGHT AT THIS POINT WOULD BE TO SHOW THEM, UH, THE PLAN THAT THE APPLICANT'S PROVIDED AGAIN, BUT I THINK IF THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY PROVIDED FOR ON A PLAN, AND MR. LOMBARDI I THINK CAN ANSWER THIS, BUT IT'D BE HELPFUL FOR BOTH THE BOARD AND FOR OUR TRAFFIC AND SAFETY UNIT TO GET A SENSE OF WHAT THE SITE DISTANCE IS, UM, EXITING THAT PROPOSED NEW ROADWAY, BOTH TO THE LEFT AND TO THE RIGHT, OR TO THE EAST AND THE WEST.
ONE OTHER QUESTION ABOUT, ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY.
WELL LET THE APPLICANT ANSWER THE, UH, UH, UM, UM, AARON'S QUESTION AND THEN WE'LL GET TO YOU.
AND I KNOW MR. GOLDEN HAS A COMMENT AS WELL.
WHAT, WHAT WERE YOU SAYING ABOUT THE LINE OF SIGHT? I THINK WHAT AARON WAS ASKING, AND, AND DAVE, I, I THOUGHT THAT WE HAD ALREADY PROVIDED THE SITE TRIANGLE SHOWING THE, UM, LEFT.
WE DID, BUT WE'VE ALSO, UH, PERFORMED SITE DISTANCE ANALYSES, WHICH INVOLVED A SPEED STUDY ALONG LEY ROAD, UM, WHICH TAKES THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE ROAD INTO ACCOUNT ALSO, WHICH I BELIEVE WE SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN IN THE PAST.
UM, BUT IT COULD HAVE BEEN TWO YEARS AGO.
SO WE CAN RESUBMIT, UH, THAT ANALYSIS WITH OUR
[01:25:01]
NEXT SUBMISSION.MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S UP TO DATE.
UH, AND AND HUGH, YOU HAD A QUESTION? YEAH, I, ONE OTHER CONCERN ABOUT, UH, SEE WHERE THE, WHERE THE CURSOR IS RIGHT NOW AT THE END OF THE DRIVEWAY IN ARTLEY ROAD.
UM, I'M JUST WONDERING THE WAY YOU HAVE THAT DRIVEWAY CONFIGURED, WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO LOOK BACK OVER THEIR SHOULDER.
IF THEY'RE LOOKING UP THE HILL WHEN THEY'RE TAKING A RIGHT TURN, THEY'LL TEND TO DO THAT, WHICH MAKES IT ACTUALLY HARDER TO SEE THAT THAN IF YOU'RE GOING STRAIGHT OUT.
YOU SEE WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT? YEP.
THE A YOU WANT THEM TO COME, YOU WANT THEM TO COME OUT, YOU WANT THEM TO COME STRAIGHT OUT.
YOU DON'T WANT THEM COMING OUT AT A LITTLE ANGLE.
IT'S ALMOST IMPO THAT'S A BLIND SPOT.
I MEAN, I WOULD, I WOULD LIKE, YOU KNOW, MR. CANNING OR SOMEBODY TO TAKE A LOOK REALLY CLOSELY AT THAT, THAT EXIT COMING OUT.
'CAUSE IF THEY'RE AT A SLIGHT ANGLE, THEY'RE NOT GONNA SEE THE PERSON COMING DOWN THAT HILL.
HUGH, DO YOU MEAN YOU THINK THE EXIT SHOULD BE MORE PARALLEL TO THE NEIGHBOR'S DRIVEWAY THAT'S ABOVE IT? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? THAT IT'S, IT CONTINUES STRAIGHT INSTEAD OF CURVING? YES, I THINK I, I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE WITH DISTANCE, BUT THEY'RE TRYING TO DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO DRIVEWAYS, WHICH IS WHY THEY CURVED IT.
BUT WHEN THEY CURVED IT, I THINK YOU PROBABLY DECREASED THE SITE DISTANCE, UH, LOOKING UP THE HILL, PARTICULARLY IF SOMEONE'S TAKING A RIGHT TURNOUT, NOT A LEFT TURNOUT.
SO, UM, ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD, WE CAN ENGAGE MR. CANNING TO TAKE, UH, A REVIEW OF THIS ONE ITEM.
I THINK WE SHOULD HAVE SOMETHING COME BACK, UM, IN WRITING FOR MR. CANNING.
I DID WANNA, UM, SO WE CAN DEFINITELY DO THAT AND WE WILL, UM, I KNOW MICHAEL, MR. GOLDEN HAD A QUESTION AS WELL.
MY TURN, MY TURN, MICHAEL, I'M ADDING TO WHAT, UH, KAREN JUST SAID.
IN ADDITION TO ASKING THAT INFORMATION OF JOHN CANON, MAKE SURE HE HAS ALL THE UPDATED DATA BECAUSE THE APPLICANT SAID THEY SENT IT SOME YEARS AGO.
SO JUST MAKE SURE CANON HAVE IT.
UH, I I, I WOULD LIKE TO, I WOULD LIKE TO, TO REPEAT TOM HAYES, THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT I MADE, I THINK THEY MADE SOME, I KNOW THEY MADE SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THIS.
I THINK IT'S A MAJOR IMPROVEMENT, UH, AND I APPRECIATE IT.
NO, I GOT TWO QUESTIONS FOR AARON.
UM, WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TREES.
THAT WAS A LONG TIME AGO, BUT I DID HAVE A QUESTION.
NUMBER ONE, IS THE TREE LAW IN EFFECT NOW? IT IS NOT YET IN EFFECT, HOWEVER, WE'VE HAD CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH THE APPLICANT.
IT IS SET TO TAKE A, IT WILL BE TAKING EFFECT SOON.
THE APPLICANT'S AWARE OF THAT, AND THEY HAVE TAKEN THE NECESSARY STEPS TO SHOW COMPLIANCE OR WILL BE TAKING THE NECESSARY STEPS TO SHOW COMPLIANCE WITH THE NEW LAW.
SO, SO HERE'S MY THEORETICAL QUESTION.
IT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE TO DO WITH THIS SITE, SO FORGIVE ME, BUT IT'S REALLY A QUESTION.
THIS SITE, IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, IS HEAVILY NOW THEY'RE GONNA TAKE DOWN 2230
IN THE MEANTIME, THEY'RE GONNA CREATE A NEW
SOMEBODY, SOMEBODY'S MAKING NOISE.
CAN YOU BE YOURSELF ON MUTE? THEY'RE GONNA BE, THEY'RE GONNA BE MAKING A NEW 26 FOOT ROADWAY.
THEY'RE GONNA BE CREATING THREE LOTS FOR HOUSES.
I MEAN, YOU, IF THEY REMOVE 220 TREES AND THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PLANT 175 TREES, BUT THEY REALLY CAN'T FIT IN 175 TREES, WHAT DO THEY DO? OKAY, SO UNDER THE NEW ORDINANCE, ACTUALLY, THIS PROPERTY QUALIFIES AS WHAT'S TERMED AN UNDEVELOPED FORESTED PROPERTY.
AND WHEN YOU HAVE AN UNDEVELOPED FORESTED PROPERTY, THE REPLACEMENT VALUE REQUIREMENT, UH, WITHIN THE ORDINANCE IS 30% OF WHAT YOU'RE REMOVING.
NOW, IT'S NOT, OKAY, YOU HAVE 200 TREES FOR ROUND NUMBERS AND YOU ONLY HAVE TO PUT IN 60.
IT'S BASED ON AN ENVIRONMENTAL FORMULA.
UM, BUT IT'S GONNA BE FAR LESS BECAUSE WITH THESE UNDEVELOPED FORESTED PROPERTIES, THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN MEET A 90% OR MORE REPLACEMENT VALUE.
I HOPE THAT AN BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THE ROADWAY, THE HOUSES,
[01:30:01]
THE CLEARING.THE LAW HAS TAKEN AN ACCOUNT INTO ACCOUNT SITUATIONS LIKE THIS.
WE DO HAVE, UH, MS. F TTAG HAS A FOLLOW UP, BUT I DIDN'T KNOW IF THAT WAS, I THOUGHT YOU HAD TWO QUESTIONS, MICHAEL.
IS THE LAW IN EFFECT, AND WHAT ABOUT THE NUMBER OF TREES? THANK YOU.
UM, WE'RE DEALING WITH A LOT OF STEEP SLOPES, AS I RECALL, BECAUSE I REMEMBER HAVING A HARD TIME WALKING THIS AREA,
AND I ALSO REMEMBER THE POISON IVY AS WELL.
UM, SO AT SOME POINT, I'M ASSUMING THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME SORT OF BLASTING OR SOMETHING GOING ON.
WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOME LEVELING OF SOME OF THIS AREA, UM,
MR. LOMBARDI, WE'VE DONE SOME PRELIMINARY SOIL TESTING ON EACH OF THE THREE LOTS, AND ALSO IN THE CENTER OF THE CUL-DE-SAC.
AND THERE IS AT LEAST SIX FEET OF SOIL BEFORE A ROCK IS ENCOUNTERED.
SO THERE, THERE WILL NEED TO BE SOME ROCK REMOVED, BUT DEPENDING ON, UM, HOW WEATHERED IT IS, IT MAY BE ABLE TO BE REMOVED WITH BY EXCAVATORS OR WITH A HAMMER.
I, WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS POINT WHETHER BLASTING WILL BE REQUIRED.
I HAVE A QUESTION JUST TO MAKE, JUST TO MAKE THE APPLICANT AWARE BEFORE MR. DESPISE SPEAKS.
UM, AND I'M SURE YOU ALREADY KNOW THIS, BUT WE DO HAVE A BLASTING LAW IN EFFECT.
UH, SO THE APPLICANT WOULD CERTAINLY BE OBLIGATED TO CONFORM WITH ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE BLASTING ORDINANCE.
WE ALSO HAVE, UM, ROCK SHIPPING PROTOCOLS THAT THE PLANNING BOARD HAS CONDITIONED AND THAT, UM, HAVE RESULTED IN A SHIPPING PERMIT THAT'S REQUIRED, UM, THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT BEFORE ANY ROCK SHIPPING CAN TAKE PLACE.
IT WOULD INVOLVE, UM, A REQUIREMENT THAT SEISMIC REFRACTION SURVEYS BE DONE, UH, PRIOR TO ANY ROCK REMOVAL.
SO THERE ARE CERTAIN, CERTAINLY PROTECTION CONTROLS IN PLACE, BOTH WITHIN THE TOWN CODE AND THROUGH CONDITIONS OF PLANNING BOARD APPROVAL THAT WOULD, UH, ENSURE PROTECTION OF, UM, ADJACENT PROPERTY.
SO I JUST WANTED ALL BOARD MEMBERS TO BE AWARE OF THAT.
UH, IS THERE ANY STORM WATER MANAGEMENT PLAN? UH, YEAH.
PROPOSE THEY WENT THROUGH THAT AT THE LAST MEETING, BUT WE'LL LET THEM GO THROUGH IT AGAIN.
WE'RE PROPOSING THE SURFACE OF THE ROAD TO BE POROUS ASPHALT.
SO ALL OF IT EXCEPT, WELL NOW, NOW WE HAVE LANDSCAPING IN THE CENTER, BUT THE, THE GRASS PAVER UNDERNEATH THE GRASS PAVERS, AND THEN UNDERNEATH ALL THE ASPHALT IN THE ROADWAY WE'RE PROPOSING IS POROUS ASPHALT.
WELL, THE WATER WILL BE STORED IN THE STONE UNDERNEATH THE ASPHALT, AND THEN DISCHARGED.
AND, UM, THE OTHER, AND THEN FOR THE, I'M SORRY FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS, I, WE'D WANT YOU TO GO THROUGH THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS AS WELL.
RIGHT? AND WE'VE DONE, THAT'S WHY WE DID SOME PRELIMINARY SOIL TESTING BY EACH ONE OF THE HOUSES TO MAKE SURE WE HAD ADEQUATE SOIL AND, UH, INFILTRATION RATES.
WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SHOW THAT PLAN AND, AND KIND OF ZOOM IN FOR A LOT, JUST TO GIVE A SENSE TO THE BOARD MEMBERS? UM, WHILE DAVE'S DOING THAT, THE OTHER THING I JUST WANNA MENTION IS, UM, THE REMOVAL, THE, THE NEW LAYOUT PLAN AND THE REMOVAL OF ED'S EXISTING DRIVEWAY ALSO, UM, DOES RESULT IN A SIGNIFICANT, I THINK 4,500 SQUARE FEET REDUCTION, UM, OR SORRY, INCREASE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE, ALTHOUGH NOT ON, UM, OUR CLIENT'S PROPERTY, UH, DIRECTLY NEIGHBORING IT.
SO I WOULD JUST ASK THAT THE BOARD ALSO, UM, TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT.
A STORM IS, I BELIEVE I HAD SEEN A STORMWATER PLAN WHERE YOU SHOWED, YOU KNOW, POTENTIAL LOCATIONS FOR DRY WELLS AND MAYBE THE, UM, SOME OF THE SUBSURFACE WE HAVE, WE HAVEN'T SHOWN THAT ON THE SITE PLANS AT THIS POINT, BUT EACH, OKAY.
EACH, UH, EACH HOUSE WOULD HAVE ITS OWN ONSITE, UH, INFILTRATION SYSTEM FOR THE RUNOFF FROM THE ROOF.
[01:35:01]
SO I THINK IT WOULD BE ASSIST THE BOARD AS WE, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE SOME ITEMS THAT YOU GUYS ARE GONNA BE FOLLOWING UP ON, YOU KNOW, THE SITE DISTANCE.WE'LL, UM, YOU'LL GET US THAT INFORMATION.
WE'LL TALK ABOUT THE POTENTIAL RE SUBDIVISION OF MR. MARIN'S LOT.
I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO THE BOARD, UH, AHEAD OF GOING INTO THAT PUBLIC HEARING TO AT LEAST HAVE A CONCEPTUAL DRAINAGE LAYOUT, SO THAT EVEN THE PUBLIC, WHEN IT GOES TO A PUBLIC HEARING, CAN GET A SENSE OF, OKAY, YOU KNOW, UM, DRY WELLS OR SOME OTHER TYPES OF UNITS WOULD BE UTILIZED FOR THE INDIVIDUAL LOT.
AND THEN, UM, SOME INFO AND OR CALCULATIONS ON THE STORAGE UNDERNEATH THE ROADWAY.
THE PREVIOUS ASPHALT ROADWAY, WE PLAN ON IT BE PRELIMINARY, A PRELIMINARY STORMWATER MANAGEMENT REPORT.
AND WE CAN HAVE OUR, OUR TOWN ENGINEER, BUREAU OF ENGINEERING LOOK OVER THAT AND, UM, I CAN AT LEAST GET SOME FEEDBACK THAT I CAN RELAY TO THE PLANNING BOARD ON WHAT HIS PRELIMINARY, UH, REVIEW INVOLVES AND, UH, WHAT HIS PRELIMINARY CONCLUSIONS ARE ON THAT.
SO, SO WHAT, WHAT, UM, DEPENDING UPON THE INFORMATION THAT WE RECEIVE, THAT WILL DETERMINE IF WE WOULD NEED A FOLLOW UP WORK SESSION OR WE COULD FORWARD THAT TO A PUBLIC HEARING.
SO IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE INFORMATION THAT WE HAVE.
WE GET, THE MORE INFORMATION WE GET, AND THE MORE, UH, IT, IT ADDRESSED TO ALL THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED, THE GREATER THE CHANCES OF ME PUTTING ON A PUBLIC HEARING TO THE EXTENT THAT WE STILL HAVE, UH, A LOT OF UNANSWERED QUESTIONS.
THEN I WILL SCHEDULE ANOTHER, UH, WORKSHOP, A WORK, UH, UH, WORK SESSION.
SO WHICH WAY WE GO REALLY DEPENDS ON, UH, THE TYPE OF INFORMATION THE BOARD IS PROVIDED.
MR. SIMON, WE HAVE OUR HOMEWORK.
WE WILL WORK WITH AARON AND, UM, THE VILLAGE STAFF AND DEPARTMENTS, AND HOPEFULLY, UM, BE BACK TO YOU SHORTLY, UH, EITHER FOR A PUBLIC HEARING OR IF YOUR BOARD DEAN'S NECESSARY A WORK SESSION.
UM, AS ALWAYS, REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR TIME, UM, AND FEEDBACK.
UH, CAN I ECHO THAT AS WELL? THANK YOU SO MUCH, UH, REALLY APPRECIATE THE BOARD'S FEEDBACK, MR. SIMON AND EVERYBODY, AND AARON FOR ALL YOUR OF YOUR HELP AND MY TEAM AS WELL.
AND I'D ALSO LIKE TO, TO COMMEND YOU IN THE FACT THAT YOU'VE BEEN VERY OPEN AND WILLING TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS, UH, THAT THE BOARD HAVE RAISED.
SO IT'S BEEN, IT'S BEEN A TWO-WAY EXERCISE, AND I THINK THAT'S THE BEST WAY OF, UH, DEALING WITH APPLICATIONS.
THANK YOU, MR. THANK YOU BOARD MEMBERS.
SO WE HAVE TO GO INTO THE PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE HAVE TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, AND THEN I WILL PROPOSE THAT WE POSTPONE, UH, CASE PB 2 0 0 8 TO A DATE UNCERTAIN UNTIL WE CAN GET THE NECESSARY.
UM, THE APPLICANT CAN GET THE NECESSARY APPROVALS FROM, UH, THIS TOWN, UH, UH, FROM TERRYTOWN, BECAUSE HOLD ON.
WE HAVEN'T, WE HAVEN'T OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING YET.
DON'T WE NEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST AND CALL AARON? I'M EXPLAINING THE PROCESS THAT WHAT I'M GOING TO DO.
UH, SO WITH THAT SAID, UM, UH, AND AARON, UH, COULD YOU CALL THE, UH, THE, THE ROLL CALL PLEASE FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING? ABSOLUTELY.
THE FIRST AND ONLY ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CASE P P 2008 GRAYSTONE ON HUDSON.
UH, THIS IS, UH, UH, UH, THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS APPLICATION HAS BEEN POSTPONED SEVERAL TIMES.
THERE ARE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION THAT, UH, TARRYTOWN IS RE THE VILLAGE OF TARRYTOWN IS REQUIRING
[01:40:01]
OF THE APPLICANT IN TERMS OF, UH, DOING FLOW TESTS IN THEIR SEWER SYSTEM.UH, THE, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT COMPLETED, UH, UH, ALL OF THE TESTS YET, ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT FEELS THAT IT WILL BE DONE VERY SOON.
I THINK AT THIS POINT WE SHOULD, UH, UH, UH, ADJOURN THE HEARING TO A DATE, UH, UNSPECIFIED.
UH, AND WHEN THE APPLICANTS, UH, PROVIDE US WITH THE APPLICATION OR WITH THE NECESSARY APPROVAL FROM THE VILLAGE OF TARRYTOWN, UH, I'M COMMITTED TO EXPEDITIOUSLY GET THAT ON THE AGENDA SO WE COULD FINALLY MAKE A DECISION ON THIS APPLICATION.
SO I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO POSTPONE, UH, UH, P P 20 DASH OH EIGHT TO A DATE.
UH, ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
OKAY, NOW WE GO BACK TO RETURN TO WORK SESSION.
AND, UM, AND WHAT'S ON THE, THE WORK SESSION IS, UH, THE CONTINUED CARE FACILITY.
UM, THERE HAD BEEN A, UH, A LOT OF WORK THAT HAD BEEN GOING, UH, BACK AND FORTH IN TERMS OF THIS PROPOSAL.
UH, THE, UH, AND, UH, UH, I'LL LET GARRETT GOES INTO, UH, WHAT I WANT TO DO IS TO, I ASK GARY TO EXPLAIN THE NECESSARY STEPS THAT WE HAVE TO TAKE AND, AND, AND, UM, UH, ON THIS, UH, PROPOSAL, IT'S, THE TOWN BOARD IS REFERRING IT TO US AGAIN BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE LAST REFERRAL.
UH, THEY MADE A CHANGE UP TO THE EIGHT ACRES.
SO I LET GARRETT, UH, GARRETT RUN US THROUGH THAT.
AND AS I SAID, UH, LAY OUT, UM, THE TIMING OF THE NECESSARY STEPS HAVE TO BE TAKEN.
THANK YOU, CHAIR PERSON, SIMON.
MEMBERS OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
UH, JUST A COUPLE, UH, QUICK UPDATES HERE.
UM, IF YOU RECALL, OBVIOUSLY ON, UH, SEPTEMBER 2ND, PLANNING BOARD MADE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION ON, UH, WITH RESPECT TO A SPECIAL PERMIT PROCESS BEING THE PREFERRED MECHANISM TO ENABLE A CONTINUUM OF CARE FACILITIES, UH, IN THE TOWN AND, AND SPECIFICALLY IN THE ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS.
I CAN TELL YOU SINCE THAT TIME, UH, THE TOWN BOARD HAS TAKEN THAT RECOMMENDATION VERY SERIOUSLY.
UH, THE TOWN BOARD HELD, UH, A COUPLE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND, UH, THIS, THIS, THIS VERY CONCEPT OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT WAS, WAS DISCUSSED AT LENGTH.
UM, THE, UH, SPECIAL PERMIT THAT THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, WORKED WITH THE C A C AND, AND, AND ESSENTIALLY HAD ME DRAFT ON YOUR BEHALF, UM, THAT, THAT SPECIAL PERMIT LOCAL LAW, UM, BECAME THE SUBJECT OF A, A PUBLIC HEARING OF THE TOWN BOARD.
BUT, UM, WITH, WITH, WITH A SLIGHT MODIFICATION, UH, IF YOU RECALL, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD HAD RECOMMENDED THAT A, UH, SIX ACRE MINIMUM WAS PRUDENT, UM, WITH, WITH, WITH A CAVEAT THAT, THAT THAT COULD BE LOWERED BY TO FIVE ACRES IN SITUATIONS WHERE THERE'S A CONTIGUOUS, UH, ACRE OF, OF, OF OPEN SPACE OR RECREATION AREA.
UH, THE MODIFICATION THAT WAS THE, UH, SUBJECT OF, OF THE LOCAL LAW THAT THE TOWN BOARD IS REFERRED TO.
AND THE CHANGE THAT CHAIRPERSON SIMON MENTIONED WAS THAT ACTUALLY THE MINIMUM ACREAGE, UM, W W WAS ACTUALLY INCREASED AS A PROPOSAL TO EIGHT ACRES, UM, WITH AN ALLOWANCE OF, UH, UP TO THREE OF, OF, OF THREE ACRES, UH, IN INSTANCES WHERE, UH, THE TOWN BOARD WERE TO REDUCE A SITE SIZE TO FIVE.
SO, UM, SIMILAR CONCEPTS, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD WAS, WAS IN FAVOR PRIOR OF, OF AN ALLOWANCE FOR A SITE TO GO DOWN TO FIVE ACRES WITH CONTINUOUS OPEN SPACE OF AN ACRE THAT'S BEEN INCREASED TO THREE ACRES.
UM, I THINK THERE'S A PLANNING RATIONALE FOR THAT.
UM, AND SOME OF, SOME OF THE POSITIVES OF THAT EIGHT EIGHT ACRE, UH, MINIMUM, UH, IS THAT THE, UH, DENSITY CRITERIA ASSOCIATED THERE WHEN YOU ENCOMPASS ALL EIGHT ACRES, UH, BECOMES MUCH CLOSER TO THE, UH, DENSITY REQUIREMENTS THAT, THAT ARE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE ORDINANCE PRESENT PRESENTLY FOR, UH, ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES.
UM, IN THE INSTANCE OF THE, UH, METROPOLIS PROJECT, UH, THERE'S THE ADDED BENEFIT THAT, UM, AT SUCH TIME AS THE THREE
[01:45:01]
ACRES OF, OF, OF, OF OPEN SPACE, WHICH WOULD ACTUALLY BE PUT IN A CONSERVATION EASEMENT.UM, THERE, THERE, THERE IS, UH, LANGUAGE THAT, UH, A SITUATION LIKE THAT IF, IF THE GOLF COURSE WERE TO, UH, CEASE OR PROPOSE ADDITIONAL USES ON THE GOLF COURSE, UH, THAT THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT AREA WOULD REVERT TO THE OWNERSHIP OF, UH, THE, THE C C F, UM, AND, AND RENDER THAT WITH A, WITH A TOTAL OF EIGHT ACRES.
SO, UM, AT THIS POINT, THE TOWN BOARD HAS INDEED REFERRED THE SPECIAL PERMIT TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR, FOR A RECOMMENDATION.
YOUR PRIOR RECOMMENDATION WAS POSITIVE.
UM, AND, AND, AND I CAN ALSO REPORT THAT THE TOWN BOARD IS, IS, IS NOT AT PRESENT PURSUING A, A, A OVERLAY DISTRICT OR A FLOATING ZONE FOR THIS USE.
AND, UH, AS I MENTIONED IN THE OPEN, UH, IS TAKING THE, UH, SPECIAL PERMIT AS, AS, AS THE PRIORITY HERE.
UM, JUST A COUPLE OTHER NOTES.
AS, AS YOU KNOW, UM, FOR SPECIALIZED SENIOR HOUSING IN THE TOWN OF GREENBURG, WHICH INCLUDES ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES, CONTINUING CARE, RETIREMENT COMMUNITIES, NURSING HOMES, THEY ARE ALL INDEED SPECIAL PERMIT USES, UH, IN THE ONE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS.
UM, SO THIS IS CONSISTENT ON THAT LEVEL.
UH, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DID IDENTIFY, UM, EXPLORING, UH, THE, THE, THE, UH, C C F IS A POTENTIAL USE IN THE TOWN, AND IT DID IDENTIFY EXPLORING A SPECIAL PERMIT POLICY.
SO, UH, CERTAINLY CONSISTENCY THERE.
SO, UH, HAVING SAID THAT, UM, I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE BOARD MAY HAVE, UH, ON, ON THE, UH, SPECIAL PERMIT LOCAL LAW REFERRAL, WHICH YOU HAD ALL RECEIVED IN YOUR PACKAGES AND BY EMAIL.
UH, ONE OTHER THING, UH, UM, WITH THE EIGHT ACRES, IT REDUCED THE, THE POPULATION TO 25, UH, PATIENTS OR, UH, OCCUPANTS PER ACRE, EH, UH, AND UNDER THE SIX, IT WOULD BE SOMETHING LIKE 30 WOULD BE MORE THAN ALL OF THE OTHER ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY.
I, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A OVERALL IMPLICATION WITH SOMETHING LIKE THAT IS, UH, WHEN YOU THINK OTHER SITES THAT COULD CONCEIVABLY APPLY FOR A SPECIAL PERMIT, ALL THOSE REDUCED DENSITIES, UM, YOU KNOW, ARE, ARE, ARE, ARE HIGHLY APPLICABLE, UH, THROUGHOUT THE, UH, APPLICABILITY OF, OF THE LAW.
ONE IS A COMMENT, THE OTHER IS A QUESTION, GARRETT.
THE FIRST COMMENT IS, EV I WANNA MAKE SURE EVERYBODY UNDERSTANDS, UM, THAT EVEN IF THAT CONSERVATION EASEMENT ENDS UP WITH BRIGHTVIEW, IF, IF THERE IS ADDITIONAL ACTIVITY AT METROPOLIS, UM, THEY STILL CAN'T BUILD ON THOSE THREE ACRES, THOSE WILL BE, IT WILL BE A DEEDED, IT'LL BE A COVENANT IN THE DEEDED.
OKAY? SO THESE ALWAYS REMAIN AS, AS, UH, UNDEVELOPED OR NOT FURTHER DEVELOPED.
THE ONLY THING I SAW, GARRETT, MAYBE I MISSED IT.
WHEN I READ, READ THE LAW, WE HAD TALKED ABOUT PUTTING A NON ACCUMULATION OF PROPERTY, UH, INTO THE LAW AT ONE POINT, AND I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THIS DRAFT.
YOU MEAN NOT BEING ABLE TO COMBINE SMALLER LOTS INTO ONE LOT? YES, SIR.
I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THIS DRAFT OF THE LAW.
UM, I WILL, UH, RECITE THE LANGUAGE THAT, THAT, THAT SPEAKS TO THAT POINT.
YEAH, I, YEAH, IT'S IN THERE, IF I RECALL.
WHAT IT IDENTIFIES IS THAT YOU CAN'T AMALGAMATE LOTS THAT ARE NOT IN COMMON OWNERSHIP AT THE TIME OF THE PASSAGE.
I, AS I SAID, I MAY HAVE MISSED IT, I JUST CONFIRM THAT IT'S IN THERE.
UH, AND THE OTHER THING I WANT TO MAKE ANOTHER, UH, DISTINCTION, UH, IF YOU, IF YOU, UH, UH, HAVE THOSE EIGHT ACRES BECAUSE OF, UH, UM, A PERMANENT OPEN SPACE, UH, AS HUGH CORRECTLY POINTED OUT, YOU CAN'T BUILD ON THAT.
AND SO, UH, HOWEVER, IF AN APPLICANT COMES IN AND THEY DECIDE NOT TO FULLY BUILD OUT, SAY THEY ONLY BUILD OUT TO 60%, AND UH, AND THEN FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD THEY SEE THE BUSINESSES GROWING AND THEY WANT TO ADD A WING, UH, USE ONE ACRE AND ADD IN 25 BEGS, UH, THIS LAW DOES NOT PROHIBIT THAT.
IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, VERY SIMILAR TO, YOU KNOW, ANY OTHER, UM, UM, PROCESS IN THE TOWN.
THERE'S NO, YOU KNOW, UM, RESTRICTION ON, ON, ON, ON A PROPOSED AMENDED SITE PLAN.
UM, SO THERE'S NO RESTRICTION IN THAT REGARD.
[01:50:01]
SCHWARTZ'S QUESTION, UH, THERE'S A, UM, CA A, A PROVISION IN THE, UH, CRITERIA, THE ACREAGE OF A PROPOSED C C F, THE ACREAGE OF THE CONTI CONTIGUOUS OPEN SPACE OR RECREATION AREA, IF APPLICABLE, RIGHT? MUST HAVE BEEN UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP AT THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LOCAL LAW NUMBER, WHATEVER LOCAL LAW THIS WOULD BE NUMBERED 2020.ARE ANY ANY OTHER QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS? UM, YES, I HAVE, I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS.
ONE FIRST QUESTION IS FOR DAVID, IS IT LEGAL TO RESTRICT, UH, COMBINING THE LOTS THE WAY I UNDERSTAND, UH, UH, UH, GAR IS PROPOSING THAT, IS IT, IS IT A CALL? IT WON'T BE UNDUE TAKING, RIGHT? NO, YOU'RE, WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS, AS THE LAW STANDS NOW, IT HAS TO BE UNDER, UNDER CO UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP.
BUT DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH SOMEBODY BUYS THE LAND AND WANTS TO COMBINE TO MAKE IT EIGHT ACRE DOES, DOES THE TOWN CAN, IS IT, IS IT, UH, YEAH, BECAUSE IT'S LEGALLY, LEGALLY VIABLE.
SO I THINK ONE OTHER WAY TO THINK ABOUT THAT IS, IS ACTUALLY THE INTENT IS TO, TO AVOID, UH, THE SCENARIO YOU JUST PLAYED OUT.
UM, BUT IT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT THAT PROVISION THAT I READ DOES IS IT DOES NOT RULE OUT ALL SITES IN THE TOWN EXCEPT FOR, UH, BRIGHTVIEW METROPOLIS.
YOU KNOW, IF IT WERE TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF IMPACT, I WOULD HAVE CONCERNS.
UM, BUT INDEED, WE'VE IDENTIFIED THAT THERE ARE OTHER AVAILABLE SITES, AND THE WHOLE SPIRIT OF THE LOCAL LAW IS TO TAKE A VERY CONSERVATIVE APPROACH AND, UH, NOT INDUCE, YOU KNOW, A A LOT OF VIABILITY FOR, OR APPLICABILITY FOR USES LIKE THIS.
UM, SO IN THAT REGARD, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A BALANCE.
IT'S, IT'S NOT A SHUTDOWN OF THIS TYPE OF USE, BUT AT THE SAME TIME, UM, IT ALLOWS FOR, UM, MODEST POTENTIAL IN THE TOWN.
GARY, ONE, ONE SUGGESTION, I UNDERSTAND THAT I MADE KIM, I'M SORRY, GO AHEAD.
I JUST SAID ONE SUGGESTION I HAVE ON THE ACCUMULATION, SOMEBODY COULD SPECULATE LIKE SIX MONTHS IN ADVANCE, SO NOT AT THE TIME OF THE LAW.
I THINK YOU SHOULD HAVE A TIME PERIOD BEFORE THAT.
SO I'D SAY WITHIN A YEAR OF, OF THE TIME OF THE LAW, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
WELL, IT SAYS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE LOCAL LAW, WHICH COULD BE LESS THAN ONE WEEK AWAY.
SO, I MEAN, UH, OH, I SEE THE RESPECTIVE DATE OF THE LOCAL PROPERTY GO FAST.
UM, MY FOLLOW-UP QUESTION IS THAT, IS THE ACCUMULATION IS ONE WAY.
WHAT ABOUT THE DIVISION OF IT? LIKE YOU HAVE A 10 ACRE OR 12 ACRE, AND CAN YOU DIVIDE IT AND MAKE IT THE SAME WAY? AND HOW DOES THIS LAW APPLY TO THAT? GOOD, GOOD QUESTION.
I SEE YOUR HAND HAS THIS HAND UP, SO WE'LL GO THERE NEXT.
UH, SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, MR. DESAI, UM, WE, WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE SIGHTING CRITERIA, AND WE THINK ABOUT SITES THAT, UH, MINIMALLY MEET THAT, UM, THERE ARE INDEED SITES SUCH AS, UH, SCHOOL FOR THE DEAF, WHICH IS, UM, YOU KNOW, AN EXTREMELY LARGE SITE THAT IT'S ALL HELD IN COMMON OWNERSHIP.
AND, UM, THE, WHAT I JUST RECITED TO YOU, UH, WOULD NOT, UM, UH, PROHIBIT THAT, UH, SITE OWNER TO PROPOSE SOMETHING IN A SIMILAR FASHION AS WHAT, UM, THIS BOARD HAS SEEN OVER THE LAST YEAR AND A HALF, WHICH IS A SUBDIVISION OF A, UH, LARGER SITE, UH, THAT METROPOLIS HAS AS A PROPOSAL.
SO, UM, INDEED ACTUALLY, UH, NOAH WOOD COUNTRY CLUB'S ANOTHER EXAMPLE THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY A GOLF COURSE OVER A HUNDRED ACRES COULD BE A SIMILAR SCENARIO.
SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, UM, UH, THERE IS NO PROHIBITION ON SUBDIVIDING PROVIDED AGAIN, IT'S IN COMMON OWNERSHIP.
UH, SO Y'ALL, UH, I SEE HAS A QUESTION.
UH, SO IN THE EVENT THAT METROPOLIS GETS SOLD, THE EIGHT ACRES THAT WOULD HAVE, UM, WOULD, WOULD REVERT TO THE C C S OWNERSHIP, THAT PRE-DESIGNATED, IS IT MARKED OUT ALREADY AND ADVANCES THAT SOMETHING THAT HAVE TO BE WORKED OUT AT A TIME THAT METROPOLIS IF SHOPS GETS SOLD? YEAH, SO ACTUALLY I THINK THIS WOULD BE A GOOD OPPORTUNITY, UM, TO SHOW YOU, UH, THE, THE, THE, THE, THE, UM, THE CONCEPT BREAKOUT.
UH, BASICALLY IT'S ESSENTIALLY A CONCEPT SUBDIVISION PLAN TO DIRECTLY ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, JOHAN.
UM, THE ACREAGES WILL ALL BE SHOWN ON A SUBDIVISION PLATT IN A VERY CLEAR FASHION.
SO THERE WILL BE A, A VERY CLEAR FIVE ACRE SITE.
THERE WILL BE A VERY CLEAR, UH, THREE ACRE OR SLIGHTLY THREE ACRE PLUS, UM, MEETS AND BOUNDS LOT.
AND THEN THE REMAINDER OF THE GOLF COURSE WOULD BE IN ITS OWN MEETS AND BOUNDS LOT.
SO, UH, AARON, IF YOU HAVE THAT HANDY, IF NOT, I CAN PULL IT UP.
UM, THE, UH, THE COLOR SCHEMATIC BECAUSE, AND I'M GONNA PULL IT UP RIGHT NOW.
[01:55:01]
KNOW ONE OF THE QUESTIONS, UH, CHAIRPERSON SIMON ASKED WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER SUBSEQUENT STEPS, YOU KNOW, UH, POST APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT, UM, YOU KNOW, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT, BUT CLEARLY SUBDIVISION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD IS ONE OF THEM.SO THIS IS A GOOD TRANSITION TO SHOW YOU, UM, THE APPROACH, UH, THAT WAS TAKEN, UM, IN, IN CONCEPT BY THE APPLICANT.
AND, AND, AND, AND I'M ACTUALLY GONNA TURN IT OVER FOR A MOMENT TO THE APPLICANT HERE, BUT BEFORE I DO, I DO WANNA, UM, ALSO NOTE THAT, UM, IN THE, IN THE, UM, LEAD UP TO THIS MEETING AND, AND OVER THE PAST MONTH, TWO MONTHS, UM, THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF COLLABORATION AS I IDENTIFIED, WHETHER IT'S TOWN BOARD MEMBERS, PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, C A C MEMBERS, UM, A MAJOR AND, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, UH, VERY BENEFICIAL COLLABORATION WAS THAT OF THE APPLICANT AND THE, UH, GOLF COURSE WHO, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS WAS NOT THEIR CONCEPT WHEN THEY INITIALLY CAME IN.
AND, UM, THEY UNDERSTOOD THE VALUE OF, OF THE LARGER ACREAGE AND THE BENEFITS OF CONSERVATION EASEMENT, THE RESTORATION OF THAT AREA POST, UH, GOLF COURSE.
LET'S HOPE WE DON'T EVER GET THERE.
BUT NONETHELESS, I DID WANNA NOTE THAT, UM, THE, THE, THE VERY COLLABORATIVE, UM, EFFORT FROM THE APPLICANT, WHICH WAS APPRECIATED.
SO, UM, IF IT'S OKAY, DAVID STEINMAN, SO I'LL TURN IT OVER YOU TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH THIS CONCEPT.
GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, DAVID STEINMETZ FROM THE LAW FIRM OF ZAIN AND STEINMETZ HERE REPRESENTING BRIGHTVIEW SENIOR LIVING, UM, AND WORKING AS, AS, UH, GARRETT INDICATED IN CONJUNCTION WITH METROPOLIS COUNTRY CLUB.
AND I WANNA START BY THANKING YOU, GARRETT, FOR ACKNOWLEDGING THAT BECAUSE, UM, UH, UH, QUITE A BIT OF TIME AND EFFORT HAS GONE IN, NOT JUST BY THE APPLICANT, UM, BUT QUITE FRANKLY BY METROPOLIS COUNTRY CLUB.
IT'S BOARD, ITS MEMBERS, UM, QUITE AS YOU CAN SEE IN FRONT OF YOU, THE ISSUE THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH TONIGHT IN TERMS OF THIS THREE ACRE CONSERVATION PARCEL.
UM, IT IS A PIECE OF METROPOLIS COUNTRY CLUB'S PROPERTY.
UM, SO THEY ARE THE ONES, UH, THAT HAD TO REVIEW AND, UM, ACKNOWLEDGE AND, AND AGREE TO, UM, THIS ENCUMBRANCE WHAT WHAT WE'VE DESIGNED OR WHAT WE'VE PROPOSED.
UH, WE LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT ITERATIONS.
WE CONSULTED, UH, WITH GARRETT, HIS STAFF AND, AND, AND THE CLUB.
AND WE FELT THAT THIS ITERATION WAS MOST PROTECTIVE OF, UH, THE JUNIPER HILL NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, IT WAS DESIGNED TO PROVIDE A 50 FOOT CONTINUOUS BUFFER, UM, EXTENDING ALONG THE 11TH FAIRWAY, AS YOU CAN SEE, UH, PROTECTING THE NEIGHBORS THAT, UH, AARON AND GARRETT ARE GESTURING TO HERE.
UM, IN ADDITION, IT PROVIDES, UH, A BUFFER BETWEEN THE FIVE ACRE DEVELOPMENT SITE FOR BRIGHTVIEW, UM, AND THE OPERATION, UM, THE BULK OF THE OPERATION OF THE GOLF COURSE AND COUNTRY CLUB.
SO, UH, AS I SAID, WE LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT WAYS TO DO THIS.
WE THINK THAT THIS PROVIDES BENEFIT NOT JUST TO THE, UM, TO BRIGHTVIEW, BUT IT ACTUALLY SPREADS IT OUT AND PROVIDES 50 FEET.
IS, IS, IS A SIGNIFICANT AREA.
UM, IT WOULD BE A CONSERVATION EASEMENT, UH, THAT WOULD RUN IN PERPETUITY.
HOWEVER, IT WOULD ALLOW, UH, AS WE, AS WE ALL KNOW, THE CONTINUED OPERATION OF, UH, GOLF COURSE OPERATIONS, REPAIR, MAINTENANCE, ET CETERA, PROVIDED THE COUNTRY CLUB, UH, CONTINUES IN ITS CURRENT, UH, IN ITS CURRENT STATE.
THE GOAL IS TO KEEP METROPOLIS, UM, WHERE IT IS, HOW IT IS FUNCTIONING PRODUCTIVELY.
AND, UM, WE THINK WE HAVE STRUCK A GOOD BALANCE HERE.
OKAY, WELL NOW THIS, UM, SUBDIVISION WILL, WILL COME BACK TO THE BOARD TO LOOK AT.
SO THE PURPOSE TONIGHT IS INFORMATION.
SO WE ARE NOT GOING TO DISCUSS THIS IN DETAIL BECAUSE WE'LL SEE IT AGAIN.
SO THIS IS JUST TO GIVE THE BOARD A HEADS UP, THIS IS WHAT IT WILL, UH, LOOK LIKE WHEN IT COMES BACK TO US, AND, AND I'D JUST LIKE TO GET A REVERT BACK TO GARRETT AND HAVE HIM LAY OUT ALL THE STEPS THAT WE WILL HAVE TO PURSUE NEXT.
SO, UM, AT PRESENT, THE, THE, THE TOWN BOARD, UM, IS AWAITING A RECOMMENDATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD ON THE LOCAL LAW, THE SPECIAL PERMIT LOCAL LAW FOR THE C C.
SO THAT, THAT'S REALLY THE ONLY ACTION THAT'S, THAT'S BEFORE YOU AT THE PRESENT.
UM, ONCE, ONCE THAT RECOMMENDATION IS MADE, THE PLANNING, THE TOWN BOARD WILL BE IN A POSITION TO, UM, UH, RENDER A SECRET DETERMINATION ON THAT LAW AND THE IMPACT OF THAT LAW, UH, AS WELL AS, UH, THEN SUBSEQUENTLY TO, UH, MAKE A DECISION ON THE LAW.
SO WHEN THAT, IF THAT LAW IS APPROVED, UM, A REFERRAL OF THE SPECIAL PERMIT FOR THIS SITE SPECIFIC APPLICATION WILL BE SENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
UH, YOU WILL BE REFERRED THE SITE PLAN.
[02:00:01]
UH, SO YOU, YOU WILL BE LOOKING AT THOSE THINGS TO REVIEW AND RE REPORT BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD TO CHAIRPERSON.SIMON MENTIONED THERE'S A, UH, SUBDIVISION PROCESS, UH, THAT THE PLANNING BOARD, AS YOU KNOW, HAS APPROVAL ON.
UM, WE'VE KNOWN ALL ALONG IN THIS PROCESS.
THERE, THERE'S SOME SLOPES, UH, SO THERE'S A STEEP SLOPE PERMIT, UH, AND TREE REMOVAL.
SO THOSE, UM, ARE THE, THE, THE, UH, I BELIEVE, UM, THE GAMUT OF, OF LAND, LOCAL LAND USE APPROVALS, UM, THAT, THAT, THAT, THAT ARE, WILL ENCOMPASS THE NEXT, NEXT, UH, FEW MONTHS.
THE SPECIAL PERMIT, THE SPECIAL PERMIT'S A RECOMMENDATION THOUGH THAT OUR BOARD IS REFERRED TO US FOR RECOMMENDATION, NOT APPROVAL.
THE LOCAL LAW SET UP SUCH THAT THE SPECIAL PERMIT, SIMILAR TO ASSISTED LIVING FACILITIES, UH, APPROVAL JURISDICTION OF THE TOWN BOARD WITH A REVIEW AND PLANNING BOARD.
CHAIRMAN, THE ONLY THING I WAS GONNA CHIME IN ON IS, UM, WE'VE STARTED TO LOOK AT THE, ALL THESE DIFFERENT STEPS ALONG WITH, UH, WITH GARRETT.
I AGREE WITH WHAT HE JUST SAID.
I DO THINK WE'RE GONNA BE BACK BEFORE YOUR BOARD LATER THIS MONTH.
AND THEN LIKELY, UH, AGAIN, POTENTIALLY IN NOVEMBER, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF STEPS THAT WE HAVE TO HIT IN ORDER TO KEEP THINGS, UH, MOVING IN ACCORDANCE, NOT ONLY WITH BRIGHTVIEW SCHEDULE, BUT REALLY QUITE FRANKLY, UH, FOR THE CLUB AS WELL.
AND SINCE, UH, DAVID COOPER AND I SAW HOW WELL OUR COLLEAGUE KATE ROBERTS DID, WE'LL DO EVERYTHING POSSIBLE NOT TO SHOW UP AT ANY FURTHER.
I I, I'M GLAD WE LET HER KNOW.
YEAH,
SO I TURN ON MY COMPUTER TO GET READY FOR THE MEETING, AND I HEAR KATE'S VOICE AND I WAS VERY THROWN OFF.
SO, UH, BUT WE APPRECIATE WHEN I SAW YOUR NAME.
WHEN I SAW YOUR NAME, I WAS GONNA TELL HER, YOUR BOSS IS ON HERE.
SHE DID, SORRY, I SEE, UH, HAS A QUESTION THERE.
I HAVE A, UH, IN RELATION TO THIS LOCAL LAW, UH, WHAT HAPPENS IF SOMEBODY HAS ALREADY ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AND WANTED TO CONVERT IT TO C C F CAN'T BECAUSE THERE'S, WE DON'T HAVE ANY ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY WITH ENOUGH ACREAGE.
NOW, IF THEY HAD ENOUGH ACREAGE, THEY WERE, THE CLOSEST ONE IS THE CHELSEA, AND THAT'S SEVEN ACRES, I THINK.
AND I THINK GARRETT DRAFTED SOME LANGUAGE.
YOU, GARRETT, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, PRECLUDING THAT CONVERSION FROM AN A L F TO A CCC PARTICULAR, THAT LANGUAGE IS NOT IN THE LOCAL LAW.
IT WAS CONSIDERED AND, UM, OH, WAS DROPPED.
UH, SO WHILE THERE'S NO PROHIBITION, UH, I, I, I DO AGREE WITH WHAT, WITH WHAT HUGH INDICATED IS THAT, UM, THERE ARE NO SITES THAT, THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT PRESENTLY HOUSE AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY THAT HAVE THE ACREAGE THAT THIS LAW CALLS FOR.
I MEAN, THEY COULD DO IT, BUT VIA VARIANCE, POTENTIALLY, BECAUSE IT'S AN, AN AREA VARIANCE IS THE ONLY WAY.
THAT GOES BACK TO MY ORIGINAL POINT, THAT IF SOMEONE WAS TO GET EIGHT ACRES, SAY, UH, THE SCHOOL FOR THE BARN, THEY SELL A APPLICANT EIGHT ACRES.
RIGHT? THEY DECIDE TO ONLY BUILD OUT WHATEVER, 60%, WHATEVER THE CASE, THEN THEY DECIDE THAT THEY WANT TO, UH, ADD A WING.
THEY'RE NOT PROHIBITED FROM DOING THAT AS LONG AS THEY TOOK EIGHT ACRE WALTER.
AS LONG AS THE SUBDIVISION FOR THE ORIGINAL A L F WAS EIGHT ACRES AND NOT LESS THAN THAT, THEY COULDN'T ADD ANOTHER ACRE AFTERWARDS.
IF YOU DON'T BUILD OUT, YOU COULD, YOU COULD BUILD LATER ON.
WE JUST WOULDN'T WANT IT DONE IN A SEGMENTAL FASHION MUCH LIKE ANY OTHER.
BUT, UH, I'M NOT SAYING, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THE WAY THE LAW READS WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD LIKE IT TO BE DONE THAT WAY ISN'T THE POINT.
WHAT DOES THE LAW, UH, PERMITS AND IF THE LAW PERMITS, YOU KNOW, NO PROHIBITION.
AS LONG AS IT CARVE OUT EIGHT ACRES TO BEGIN WITH.
WE HAVE TO CAR CARVE OUT EIGHT ACRES TO BEGIN WITH, THAT'S ALL.
UH, THE OTHER THING, UH, MR. STEIN, I I I WOULD JUST ADD THAT YEAH, THIS BEEN, UH, A LONG SECURE THIS ROUTE THAT WE HAVE TAKEN, UH, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK THAT, UH, GRANTED WAS A LOT OF WORK THAT WAS PUT IN BY YOU, YOUR STAFF METROPOLIS, THE PLANNING BOARD, AND, AND, UH, THE C A C AND OTHERS.
AND, AND I THINK IT, UH, IT, IT, WE NOW SEE SOME DAYLIGHT FOR THIS PROJECT.
UH, I TOO WOULD LIKE TO, FOR IT TO MOVE FORWARD, UH, SWIFTLY AND, AND WE MAKE A DECISION.
SO AS SOON AS, UH, IT'S REFERRED BACK TO US TO DO, UM,
[02:05:02]
UH, THE SITE, LOOK OVER THE, YOU KNOW, THE, THE STEEP SLOPES AND EVERYTHING, I WILL ENDEAVOR TO GET THAT BACK ON THE AGENDA SO WE CAN GET THIS, UH, UH, DECISION MADE IN, UH, IN A TIMELY FASHION.MR. CHAIRMAN, IS THERE, IS THERE ANY REASON WE CAN'T, UH, DO ALL OF THE ACTIONS OR GARRETT, UH, ALL OF THE ACTIONS AT THE SAME TIME RATHER THAN BIFURCATE THEM? IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'RE ALL RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN RECOMMENDATION ANYWAY.
AND WE'VE, I WAS HOPING WE COULD DO ALL OF THE ACTIONS EXCEPT THIS ONE TONIGHT WHEN THE LAW C WHEN IT COMES BACK TO US AS A RECOMMENDATION.
SO DO THIS, EVERYTHING YOU SAID ALL AT THE SAME TIME.
IS THAT POSSIBLE? YES, WE WOULD DEFINITELY ENCOURAGE A, UH, CONCURRENT PROCESS.
THE ONLY ACTION THAT'S FOR YOU TONIGHT, UM, UH, TO, TO, TO POTENTIALLY VOTE UPON WOULD BE A, UH, RECOMMENDATION ON THAT LOCAL LAW.
BUT ABSOLUTELY, NEXT TIME THIS IS IN WORK SESSION, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO ONLY DISCUSS SPECIAL PERMITTED SITE PLAN AND NOT DISCUSS, UH, PLANNING BOARD, UH, SUBDIVISION AND STEEP SLOPES.
WILL ALL BE DISCUSSED, UH, CONCURRENTLY.
AND LET, LET ME JUST ADD, UH, WE WOULD DO THAT BECAUSE SUBDIVISION IS A TWO-STEP PROCESS.
WE WOULD DO THAT IN THE FOREFRONT, UH, AND TAKE CARE OF THAT ON THE PRELIMINARY, PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION SIDE.
AND, AND, UM, DAVID, I'M, I'M NOT CERTAIN YOU CAN DO THIS IN GREENBURG, BUT I WANT TO ASK, CAN, CAN WE, UNDER NEW YORK STATE TOWN LAW 2 76, YOU HAVE THE ABILITY TO WAIVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON FINAL PLATT APPROVAL, WE WOULD ASK YOU TO CONSIDER GOING TO FINAL PLATT APPROVAL, THE EVENING OF PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION PLATT PUBLIC HEARING.
YOU COULD CONDUCT A PRELIMINARY SUBDIVISION HEARING, CLOSE IT, UH, DO, UH, WAIVE FINAL, AND GO TO A FINAL RESOLUTION SUBJECT TO DIEGO, GOING TO THE COUNTY HEALTH DEPARTMENT AND GETTING THE PLATT SIGNED BEFORE WE COME BACK FOR SIGNATURE BY THE CHAIRMAN.
WELL, WE WOULD HAVE TO, WE WOULD HAVE TO CONSIDER THE FIRST, I'M HEARING THIS STATEMENT.
I'M NOT SURE IT SAVE YOU ANY TIME, DAVID, AT THE END OF THE DAY, AS LONG AS WE, I DON'T RULE THAT.
I, I DON'T RULE THAT PROCESS OUT, BUT BEFORE, BUT I'M NOT WILLING TO COMMIT TO THAT PROCESS TONIGHT.
WE NEED TO SPEAK TO, UH, OUR ATTORNEY AND SPEAK TO GARRETT AND OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, UH, AND, UM, AND THAT DISCUSSION WILL TAKE PLACE PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
SO YOU'LL NOW GOING INTO THE MEETING EXACTLY WHAT THE DECISION IS, BUT I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND WE WILL THOROUGHLY EVALUATE THAT AND SEE IF THAT'S WORKABLE AND LEGAL.
TOTALLY APPRECIATE THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN.
I MEAN, IN THE, IN THE NATURE OF THAT AND THE SPIRIT OF THAT, HOW MANY DAYS IN ADVANCE DO YOU NEED TO NOTICE A PUBLIC HEARING? BECAUSE IF IN FACT, WE'RE TRYING, WE'RE, WE'RE GONNA BE, UM, IN FRONT OF THE TOWN BOARD AS WE UNDERSTAND IT, ON OCTOBER NEXT WEEK, ON OCTOBER 15TH, IF EVERYTHING GOES SMOOTHLY, IF YOUR REPORT COMES OUT TONIGHT AND THEY GET IT, AND WE GET ON THAT AGENDA, UM, WE'RE, AS WE DISCUSSED IT WITH STAFF, WE HOPE TO BE BACK IN FRONT OF YOUR BOARD ON OCTOBER 21ST.
DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TONIGHT TO DECIDE THAT WE'RE COMING BACK FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SUBDIVISION ON THE 21ST? NOT TONIGHT,
BUT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO GET IT AND LOOK AT IT AND, AND, UH, AND AFTER LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, IF WE FEEL COMFORTABLE, THAT'S A POSSIBILITY THAT WE MIGHT DO THAT.
BUT I'M NOT WILLING TO COMMIT THAT WE WILL DO THAT TONIGHT.
BUT I, DAVID STEIN MEDS, IT'S TYPICAL.
IT'S VERY, I I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE EVER SEEN THE PLANNING BOARD NOT HAVE A WORK SESSION ON THE, ON THE SUBDIVISION.
UM, AND THEN, AND THEN HAVE THAT EVOLVE TO A PUBLIC HEARING AT THE NEXT, I MEAN, WHAT COULD HAPPEN IS, IS JUST GO EVERY TIME COULD HAVE A VERY SUCCESSFUL PUBLIC HEARING, DAVID, OKAY.
ON THE 20, UH, NOT PUBLIC HEARING WORK SESSION ON THE 21ST.
AND IF EVERYTHING WENT WELL, WE COULD SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE MEETING AFTER THAT.
BUT POTENTIALLY, BUT WE NEED A WORK.
WHAT WORK SESSION? WE COULD DO THAT, DAVID, BECAUSE OUR NOTICING REQUIREMENTS ARE 12 DAYS, SO WE COULD SCHEDULE BACK TO BACK AND WE'D STILL HIT THAT REQUIREMENT.
JUST, I'M JUST, NONE OF US WANT TO CUT CORNERS INAPPROPRIATELY.
WE'RE JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO, HOW TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE.
CAN WE FOCUS BACK ON THE LAW AND SEE IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS QUESTIONS ON THE LAW, AND THEN, THEN DECIDE WHETHER WE'RE GONNA VOTE ON IT? OH, YEAH.
[02:10:01]
WE CAN VOTE.UH, ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR CONCERNS OR, OR POINTS OF THE LAW THAT WE NEED TO GET CLARIFIED? I HAVE ONE QUESTION, WALTER.
WHO'S GONNA BE RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE LAND THIS EASEMENT PROPERTY? OF COURSE.
I'M HAPPY TO TAKE THAT, GARRETT.
UM, THE, THE INTENTION, AS I SAID EARLIER, BUT I WANNA MAKE IT TOTALLY CLEAR, IS THAT, THAT IT'S GONNA BE MAINTAINED AND ENJOYED AND USED BY METROPOLIS COUNTRY CLUB AS IT HAS BEEN FOR DECADES, HOPEFULLY IN PERPETUITY, AND AT LEAST FOR DECADES.
UM, HOWEVER, SHOULD, AS WE ALL KNOW, A TRIGGERING EVENT OCCUR, WHICH IS THE CEASING OF OPERATIONS OF THE CLUB, A SUBDIVISION OF REDEVELOPMENT, THEN IT WILL BE CONVEYED TO BRIGHTVIEW.
AND IN, IN ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION DIRECTLY, WHO WILL MAINTAIN IT? NO ONE, BECAUSE IT'S GONNA BE REQUIRED TO BE OPEN, NATURAL, UNTOUCHED, NO FERTILIZERS, PESTICIDES.
IT, IT'S, IT'S GOING TO BE A CONSERVATION AREA.
MUCH LIKE YOU MAY NOT REALIZE WHEN THIS, WHEN YOUR BOARD APPROVED, UH, BRIGHTVIEW ON ONE 19, WE ENCUMBERED COLLECTIVELY A ONE ACRE PARCEL BEHIND THAT BRIGHTVIEW WITH A CONSERVATION EASEMENT CURRENTLY UNTOUCHED, NATURAL, ET CETERA.
JUST TO ADD TO A WINDING RIDGE, WHERE I LIVED BEFORE, WE HAD ABOUT A 21 ACRE, UH, CONSERVATION EASEMENT.
UH, YOU COULD WALK THROUGH IT, BUT THERE'S NO MAINTENANCE.
IF THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY.
IF THERE'S NO, NO OTHER, UH, QUESTIONS, I WOULD, NOW THIS, UH, NOW THIS IS NOT APPROVAL.
THIS IS A PO THIS IS A REFERRAL.
'CAUSE IT'S GOING BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD.
IT'S, UH, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTION, SO, RIGHT.
THE QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, I JUST TO RE AS A REFRESHER, THE PLANNING BOARD DID VOTE POSITIVELY TO RECOMMEND WHEN IT WAS, UM, YOU KNOW, A SIX ACRE SPECIAL PERMIT, UM, THE CHANGES TO AN EIGHT ACRE.
AND, YOU KNOW, THE BOARD CAN CONSIDER MAKING ITS RECOMMENDATION AT THIS TIME.
NOW, DO WE HAVE TO, WE ALREADY FORMALLY, UH, WITHDREW OUR SUPPORT OF THE SIX ACRE, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO SAY THAT WE'RE, WE SUPPORT THE EIGHT AND WE'RE DRAWING FROM THE SIX BECAUSE THAT'S ALREADY OFF THE TABLE.
IS THAT LEGALLY CORRECT? YEAH, THAT THAT, THAT'S CORRECT.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT I THINK IS BEFORE YOU RIGHT NOW IS JUST WHAT WAS REFERRED TO YOU, AND THAT'S THAT LOCAL LAW WITH THE EIGHT ACRES.
AND LET'S JUST, IF THE, IF THE PLANNING, IF THE PLANNING BOARD STAYED CONSISTENT AND WENT POSITIVE ON THAT, WHAT WE WOULD DO IS IMMEDIATELY UPDATE ESSENTIALLY THE LAST RECOMMENDATION AND TAKE OUT ANY OTHER REFERENCE TO THE FLOATING ZONE AND JUST UPDATE IT POSITIVE WITH THE EIGHT ACRES.
WE WOULD UPDATE THE REPORT AND WE'LL CIRCULATE THAT TO YOU TOMORROW OR FRIDAY SO YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AND THEN, UM, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS THERE'S NO OBJECTIONS, WE'LL THEN FORWARD THAT ONTO THE TOWN BOARD.
'CAUSE UH, THEY, THEY, THEY, THEY ARE IN A POSITION TO RENDER A DECISION ON, UH, THE 14TH, WHICH IS A WEEK FROM TODAY.
TO BE COMPLETELY ACCURATE, THE SPECIAL PERMIT WAS NEVER ACTUALLY OFFICIALLY REFERRED TO US FOR RECOMMENDATION BY THE TOWN BOARD.
WHAT WE DID, WHAT WE ACTUALLY DID WITH THE VOTE THAT WE DID, WAS ACTUALLY VOTE DOWN THE FLOATING ZONE AND, AND RECOMMEND TO THEM THAT THEY CONSIDER A SPECIAL PERMIT.
SO THEY'RE REFERRING A SPECIAL PERMIT BACK TO US OFFICIALLY.
SO WHAT GARRETT'S SAYING IS RIGHT.
ALL WE'RE VOTING ON AT THIS TIME THE ONLY THING ON THE TABLE IS WHAT GARRETT PRESENTED TONIGHT.
WITH THAT SAID, AND WITH THOSE CLARIFICATIONS MADE, DO WE HAVE A, A MOTION TO GIVE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO LOCAL LAW? UH OH.
THEY DON'T HAVE NU OH, AMENDING LOCAL LAW CHAPTER 2 85.
SO, SO THAT IS, UH, WILL GIVE A POSITIVE RECOMMENDATION TO, UH, UH, THE BOARD.
WE'LL RECIRCULATE THE REPORT AS WELL, AS WELL AS THE, UH, UPDATE THE RECOMMENDATION.
[02:15:01]
I'LL LET YOU HAVE A LOOK AT THAT.AND IF YOU COULD REPORT BACK TO US MAYBE BY FRIDAY, UM, THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
WALTER, YOU HAVE ANOTHER ITEM, RIGHT? YEAH.
UH, WHAT, UH, WE DID, UH, EARLIER I SAID THAT WE WOULD TRY, WE WOULD PUT CERTAIN THINGS IN PLACE, UH, IN TERMS OF HOW THE PLANNING BOARD OPERATES IN, IN TERMS OF, UH, UH, UH, TRYING TO MAKE OUR MEETINGS MORE EFFECTIVE.
UM, AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, IT WAS A, AM I STILL ON? YES.
OH, MY SCREEN, SOMETHING TO MY SCREEN.
I TOUCH, I HAVE A TOUCH SCREEN, STEVE.
I MEAN, UH, COMPUTER AND I TOUCH IT.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WAS OF CONCERN TO THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS IS THAT, UH, UM, WHEN THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR GETS INVOLVED AND SPEAKING WITH OTHER BOARDS THAT YOU WANT TO BE KEPT IN THE LOOP.
UH, SO AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, UH, UH, SPECIAL PERMIT, UH, HUGH AND I, UH, UH, HEARD YOU AND WE, AND WE MADE AN ATTEMPT TO KEEP YOU IN THE LOOP.
UH, UH, WE HAD FOLLOW UP PHONE CALLS TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY WAS UP TO DATE.
AND SO I WOULD FIRST THING TO SEE WHETHER OR NOT YOU FELT THAT WAS A EFFECTIVE, AND WHETHER OR NOT THAT ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS THAT THE BOARD HAD IN TERMS OF BEING KEPT INTO THE LOOP AND, UH, UH, WHEN WE HAVE ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION.
SO I JUST, I WANNA GET SOME FEEDBACK ON THAT.
UH, I THOUGHT YOU BOTH DID AN EXCELLENT JOB.
I WAS VERY PLEASED WITH THE THOROUGHNESS AND, YOU KNOW, BEING CONTACTED AND, UM, BEING ALERTED AND FELT, YOU KNOW, REALLY IN THE LOOP AND FULLY INFORMED.
SO I, I JUST, I THOUGHT IT WORKED VERY WELL.
UH, UH, THE, THE OTHER THING, UM, WE, UH, WAS MENTIONED THAT SOMETIME WHEN WE TAKE VOTES, WE DIDN'T, WE WEREN'T KEEPING GOOD TRACK OF WHO MADE THE MOTION, WHO SECOND IT.
AND, AND THEREFORE YOU LOST TRACK OF WHAT WAS ACTUALLY TAKING PLACE DURING THE MEETING, BECAUSE WE WEREN'T KEEPING GOOD TRACK OF THAT.
UH, I MADE, I'VE BEEN MAKING AN ATTEMPT TO MAIL, MAKING SURE WE, WE RECORD WHO'S MAKING THE MOTION, WHO SECOND IT, AND, AND THE VOTE.
AND, UH, I'M JUST HAD, AGAIN, WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE CHANGES TO HOW THAT'S BEING DONE, OR DO YOU FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO KEEP TRACK OF THE VOTING AND, UH, AND, UH, AND THE MOTIONS BEING MADE, YOU KNOW, SO ANY FEEDBACK IN THAT IS.
AND THEN THE OTHER, AND THEN THE OTHER POINT WAS THAT, UH, WHEN WE GET, UM, WE MOVE ON TO AN APPLICATION THAT, UH, IT'S INTRODUCED BY AARON AND HE OUTLINES ON THIS APPLICATION WE HAVE TO DO, UH, STEEP SLOPE AND, UH, REFERRAL.
AND SO WHAT, WHATEVER ACTIONS THAT ARE REQUIRED THAT THE BOARD KNOWS, OKAY, IN THIS APPLICATION, THESE ARE THE FOUR OR THREE OR ONE, UH, DECISION I HAVE TO MAKE.
SO THAT, AND THEN, UH, AND THEN THE LAST ONE WAS, UH, ABOUT, UM, MUTING, UH, SPEAKERS, UH, DURING THE DISCUSSION, UH, I FELT STRONGLY THAT WE SHOULD DO THAT.
HOWEVER, IN THE LAST FEW MEETINGS, I MUST SAY THAT THE BOARD MEMBERS THEMSELVES HAVE BEEN MORE DISCIPLINED AND NOT INTER, UH, NOT, UH, INTERRUPTING OTHER BOARD MEMBERS AND ALLOWING OTHER BOARD MEMBERS TO FINISH WHAT THEY HAD TO SAY.
SO I'M NOT AS STRONGLY IN FAVOR OF THAT AS I WAS BEFORE, BECAUSE I THINK THE BOARD ITSELF HAS TAKEN ON SOME RESPONSIBILITY.
SO ON THOSE THREE THINGS, I'D LIKE TO GET SOME FEEDBACK ON THOSE THREE POINTS.
HOW, WHETHER OR NOT YOU THINK THAT THOSE THINGS ARE WORKING, WHAT DO WE NEED TO DO TO CHANGE IT? OR, OR THEY'RE WORKING FINE.
[02:20:01]
AT ZOOMING WALTER.UH, YOU KNOW, ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YEAH, I THINK IT HELPS WHEN PEOPLE ARE MAKING MOTIONS AND VOTING WHEN YOU REPEAT THE NAMES AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S REGISTERED, ESPECIALLY IF WE'RE IN A PUBLIC HEARING OR SOMETHING.
BUT IT DOES HELP BECAUSE SOMETIMES TWO OF US SAY THE SAME THING AT ONCE AND WE CAN'T HEAR THE OTHER PERSON BECAUSE OF, OF ZOOM.
UM, I THINK, UM, THE OTHER POINTS, I THINK THINGS HAVE BEEN WORKING WELL AND PART OF IT IS BECAUSE THE COMPLICATED ISSUE, LIKE THE LAW FROM TONIGHT, UM, WAS CLEARLY COMMUNICATED TO US WELL ENOUGH IN ADVANCE THAT QUESTIONS COULD BE ASKED.
SO IT WASN'T THAT WE WERE DIGESTING IT, YOU KNOW, ON AIR FOR THE FIRST TIME WHEN THAT I THINK CAUSED A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT THAT CAME UP.
AND THAT IS, UM, YOU KNOW, WHAT WORKED VERY WELL, UH, WAS WHEN YOU HAD A QUESTION FOR, UH, STAFF TO POSE IT, AND THEN WE COULD GET ANSWERS FOR YOU AND PRIOR TO THE MEETING.
THE, THE OTHER THING I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE, IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT LEGAL ISSUES, UM, CONTACT ME BEFORE THE MEETING SO I CAN ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.
AND, UH, OFTENTIMES, UH, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN SHARE WITH, UH, OTHER MEMBERS OF THE BOARD BECAUSE THEY MAY BE HAVING IT.
WELL, I'M VERY HAPPY TO ANSWER, UM, THE LEGAL QUESTION.
UH, AND ACTUALLY I PREFER THEM OFFLINE BECAUSE IF I'M GIVING YOU LEGAL ADVICE, THAT CAN BE, UH, PRIVILEGED INFORMATION.
SO I'D PREFER ACTUALLY, IF YOU, WHEN, WHEN YOU ARE AWARE OF IT BEFORE THE MEETING TO, TO CONTACT ME BEFOREHAND.
OBVIOUSLY, UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN THINGS COME UP TODAY, SUCH AS THE IDEA OF A MAREN SUBDIVISION, THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT, UH, CAME, WAS NEW TO ME, UH, AT THE MEETING.
SO, UH, OFFLINE, I WAS JUST, YOU KNOW, SUGGESTING TO AARON, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO, UH, TALK WITH THE ATTORNEY BECAUSE THERE ARE A WHOLE HOST OF ISSUES THERE, WHICH YOU, UH, STARTED RAISING
I JUST WANTED TO ADD THAT, MUTE OUR MICS BETTER.
I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT, UH, MY PERSONAL OBSERVATIONS HAVE BEEN THAT, UM, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH, WITH CHAIRPERSON SIMON, THAT THE MEETINGS HAVE BEEN MUCH MORE SMOOTH AS OF LATE.
I HOPE THAT, UM, STAFF IS, YOU KNOW, BEEN ABLE TO GET YOU GUYS THE INFORMATION YOU NEED SO THAT, AS MR. HAY SAID, YOU'RE NOT COMING IN BLIND AND KIND OF TRYING TO DIGEST EVERYTHING ON THE FLY.
SO WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO OUR BEST WITH THAT.
UH, REPEATING THE MOTIONS IN THE VOTES IS CERTAINLY HELPFUL FOR ME, AND I'M SURE IT'S HELPFUL FOR MATT AS WE TRY AND, UM, TAKE OUR NOTES AND MAKE SURE THAT WE GET, YOU KNOW, THE, THE APPROPRIATE INDIVIDUALS MAKING THE MOTIONS AND SECONDING AND THE VOTES WITHIN DECISIONS AND WITHIN THE MINUTES.
SO WE CERTAINLY FIND, UH, THAT TO BE FAVORABLE AND AND ENCOURAGE YOU TO KEEP DOING THAT.
SO JUST WANTED TO ADD THOSE COUPLE OF, I JUST WANTED TO, TO SAY THAT I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE METROPOLIS AS ALERTING EXPERIENCE TOO IN A COUPLE OF WAYS.
ONE, THAT IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT FOR US TO READ CORRESPONDENCE FROM EVERYBODY, INCLUDING OUR SISTER BOARDS THAT WORK JUST AS HARD AS WE DO.
UM, THE REASON WE'RE IN A BETTER PLACE TODAY THAN WE WERE TWO MONTHS AGO ON METROPOLIS IS A RESULT OF THE C A C.
UM, THEY WROTE A LETTER, IT MADE US AWARE OF, OF BRINGING UP SOME QUESTIONS, WHICH WE HADN'T BROUGHT UP OURSELVES, UH, IN DECEMBER, JANUARY.
AND THAT'S WHAT LED TO WHERE WE'RE ARE NOW, WHICH I THINK IN THE END OF THE DAY IS A BETTER PLAN THAN WE STARTED WITH.
SO, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO DO THAT.
WE NEED TO BE, I THINK, A LITTLE BIT BETTER, FRANKLY, WHEN IT COMES TO A LAW LIKE THAT AND DOING OUR OWN DUE DILIGENCE.
UM, I FOR LONG TIME, AND I'M HAPPY TO SAY THIS ON A RECORDED PUBLIC LINE HERE, UH, NOT APPRECIATED.
UH, WHEN WE HAVE A LAW AND A PLAN, A LAW THAT'S WRITTEN FOR AND BROUGHT IN FOR A PARTICULAR PROJECT, IT SEEMS TO BE CAUSE DIFFICULTY, UH, A A LOT OF THE TIME.
AND IN THE FUTURE, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE COULD DO IS SEPARATE THEM OUT COMPLETELY.
UNTIL WE'VE WORKED OUT THE LAW, WE SHOULD LOOK AT THE LAW AND MAKE SURE THE LAW MAKES SENSE WITHOUT EVEN LOOKING AT
[02:25:01]
WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.'CAUSE EVERY TIME WE'VE DONE THIS OVER AND OVER AGAIN, AND IT'S RUN US INTO TROUBLE ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT WE THEN HAVE TO GO FIX LATER, NO FAULT OF THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT AND AND THEIR ATTORNEY ARE DOING WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
A, YOU KNOW, THE ATTORNEY'S ADVOCATING FOR THE APPLICANT.
SO I, IT'S NOT THE FAULT OF THE ATTORNEY, IT'S OUR FAULT IF WE GET CAUGHT UP IN THAT AND WE REALLY CAN'T IN THE FUTURE.
BUT, UH, IT REALLY WAS A GOOD LEARNING EXPERIENCE AND IT WAS, I THINK WALTER, YOU KNOW, FOR, FOR LISTENING EARLY ON WHEN THIS STARTED.
'CAUSE IT WASN'T EASY FOR US TO HAVE TO REVERSE OUR DECISION, WHICH IS NOT SOMETHING, YOU KNOW, WE MAY HAVE DONE IN THE PAST.
SO THAT'S A CREDIT TO WALTER THAT WE DID THAT.
AND AGAIN, I THINK WE CAME OUT IN A LOT BETTER PLACE BECAUSE OF IT.
ARE ANY OTHER COMMENTS FROM, UH, FROM ANYONE? I, I THINK I WOULD JUST ONE COMMENT CONSIDERING LOOKING BACK THE EXPERIENCE WITH TOP, UH, IS THAT WHEN THE, WE RELY KIND OF HEAVILY, UH, WITH A CHANGE OF LAW THAT FITS THEIR APPLICATION AND SOMETIMES GET MISGUIDED TO INTERPRETATIONS, THAT WAS NOT COMPLETELY, UH, IT WAS NOT COMPLETE AND NOT NOT PROPERLY COMMUNICATED.
AND THAT'S WHY I THINK WE HAD TO DO WHAT WE HAD TO DO IT.
AND I THANK YOU ALSO, WALTER, THAT UH, WE WERE ABLE TO MAKE IT RIGHT.
I, I, I THINK THE POINT THAT YOU MAKE WAS A VERY GOOD ONE IN, IN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WERE TRYING TO EVALUATE APPLICATION IN THE LAW AT THE SAME TIME.
AND I THINK THAT WAS THE START OF MASSIVE CONFUSION AND UH, AND UH, UH, WHAT DOCUMENT WE WERE REALLY LOOKING AT WHAT PROCEDURES THAT WE HAD TO DO BE, BE, UH, PRIOR TO, UH, UH, UH, THE OTHER PROCEDURE.
AND I THINK THAT MADE MASSIVE CONFUSION.
WHEREAS YOU LOOK AT THE LAW, YEAH, NOW THE APPLICANT COULD GIVE YOU, GIVE US SPEED, UH, FEEDBACK IN TERMS OF THE LAW.
BUT, YOU KNOW, NOT TO EVALUATE THE APPLICATION BEFORE WE EVALUATE THE LAW.
AND I THINK THAT WAS OUR FIRST MISSTEP.
WE TRIED TO DO BOTH AT THE SAME TIME.
BUT, YOU KNOW, BUT LISTEN, AS HUG SAID, IT'S BEEN A, A, UH, LEARNING EXPERIENCE.
UH, I REALLY APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK OF ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS, UH, MADE.
I MEAN, THEN THE FACT IS THAT ALL TIMES WE ARE LOOKING TO MAKE IT BETTER.
AND I THINK ALL THE BOARD MEMBERS, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T ALWAYS AGREE ON EVERY ISSUE, BUT HEY, WE DON'T HAVE TO, AS LONG AS WE ARE COMMITTED TO DO OUR DUE DILIGENCE TO DO, MAKE THE BEST DECISION WE CAN.
AND IF WE'RE RIGHT MORE THAN WE'RE WRONG, THEN THAT'S, I THINK THAT'S PRETTY GOOD.
BUT, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO ALWAYS AGREE, BUT WE COULD DO IT IN A PROFESSIONAL MANNER.
AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY, UH, I ENJOY WORKING WITH THIS BOARD.
I HAVE TO SAY IT WAS AN INTERESTING EXPERIENCE FOR ME BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I'M LEARNING THINGS THAT, UH, YOU ALL ARE AS WELL.
SO IT'S AN EVOLUTION FOR YOU GUYS.
UM, FOR ME IT WAS, IT WAS VERY INFORMATIVE, THE ENTIRE EXPERIENCE.
UM, IT WAS KIND OF A TRIAL BY FIRE AND I FEEL THAT I LEARNED A LEARN, LEARN A LITTLE BIT MORE GIVEN THAT EXPERIENCE THAN THE ROUTINE, UM, EXERCISES THAT, UH, AS A BOARD WE HAVE TO UNDERGO.
SO I, I PROBABLY APPRECIATE THE EXPERIENCE MORE THAN MOST.
I KNOW IT WAS A PAINFUL FOR SOME, BUT FOR ME I ENJOYED IT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT A LAW LIKE THAT THAN WHAT WE NORMALLY LOOK AT BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE CAN'T REALLY ANTICIPATE EVERYTHING THAT MAY HAPPEN IN THE FUTURE, IT'S A LOT HARDER 'CAUSE WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT JUST A PARTICULAR SITE.
IN THAT CASE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE WHOLE TOWN AND THAT'S WHEN IT GETS A LITTLE BIT MORE DIFFICULT.
UM, THE ONE OTHER RE THERE ARE TWO OTHER RECOMMENDATIONS THAT I WANNA MAKE, UH, WHICH IS THAT, UM, IF THE C A C ACTUALLY HAS A STRONG OPINION ABOUT SOMETHING LIKE A LAW LIKE THAT, THAT WE ACTUALLY INVITE THEM TO ATTEND A WORK SESSION AND BRING THEIR POINT OF VIEW ACROSS.
[02:30:01]
TELL YOU, UM, I PROBABLY SPENT, I DON'T KNOW, 20, 30 HOURS WORKING WITH MIKE SIEGEL ON THIS PROJECT MAYBE MORE.THERE WAS A HUGE AMOUNT OF WORK BE BEHIND THE SCENES.
AND MIKE AND TERRY WERE TERRIFIC.
THEY REALLY HAVE A LOT TO OFFER IN TERMS OF PERSPECTIVE.
NOT THAT WE'LL ALWAYS AGREE WITH THEM 'CAUSE WE WON'T.
BUT I THINK THAT THERE ARE TIMES WHERE IF THEY HAVE A STRONG OPINION ON SOMETHING RATHER THAN JUST IN WRITING, I THINK THEY SHOULD BE INVITED TO, TO ATTEND OUR MEETINGS.
AND THE OTHER THING, DAVE, THAT I'D LIKE TO SAY IS I THINK WHEN WE GET A LEGAL OPINION FROM AN ADVOCATE, UM, WE SHOULD ASK FOR IT IN WRITING IN THE FUTURE BECAUSE IT WAS THAT WRITTEN DOCUMENT THAT WE GOT FROM THE C A C THAT LED US TO CHANGE OUR CONCLUSION, FRANKLY.
SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL.
MAKE YOUR JOB EASIER TOO, BECAUSE THAT WAY YOU, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW WHAT THEY'RE BASING IT ON, YOU CAN GO BACK AND LOOK AT IT MM-HMM.
YOU SHOULDN'T HAVE TO DO THAT WORK RIGHT UP FRONT.
LET THEM DO IT AND THEN YOU VET IT.
UM, I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT IN THE FUTURE.
FUTURE BECAUSE I THINK THAT WAS THE OTHER PLACE WE WENT A LITTLE BIT OFF THE RAILS 'CAUSE WE REALLY DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THE LAW AND FOR THE LAW.
AND FRANKLY, IT'S VERY COMPLICATED.
THE MORE WE GOT INTO IT, THE MORE COMPLICATED IT GOT.
UM, BUT I THINK WE AGREE ON, WE AGREE ON THAT.
YOUR SUGGESTION IS VERY, IS IS A VERY GOOD POSITIVE SUGGESTION.
SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I I, I FEEL THE SAME WAY WALTER DOES ABOUT THIS BOARD.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, WE'VE COME A LONG WAY AND THIS WAS A, THIS WAS A GOOD LEARNING.
THIS ONE PARTICULARLY IS ONE TO LOOK BACK ON AS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE, I THINK.
UM, I HAVE JUST A FOLLOW UP TO WHAT YOU SAID.
UH, LIKE WE FOR TRAFFIC ISSUES THAT, UH, THE TRAFFIC CONSULT, THE APPLICANT'S TRAFFIC CON TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS, UH, PROVIDES THE OPINION.
AND THEN WE HAVE OUR INDEPENDENT TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS THAT PROVIDES THE KIND OF REALITY CHECK TO IT.
COULD WE HAVE A SIMILAR THINGS FOR THIS KIND OF, UH, UH, LEGAL THINGS THAT THEY'RE PUTTING UP? SO IT BACKS UP DAVID'S, UH, UH, KIND OF REVIEW ALSO.
SO WE HAVE A KIND OF, UH, UH, ADDITIONAL LEGAL OPINION, UH, NOT REQUIRED ON EVERY CASE, BUT SOMETHING LIKE THIS WHERE IT WAS A UNCHARTED TERRITORY THAT WE WERE GOING IN.
WELL, THIS, SO DAVID, DAVID HAS TO KIND OF CHIME ONTO IT.
THE APPLICANT COMES IN WITH THE, UH, DEAD TRAFFIC CONSULTANT AND WE HIRE A HIRE OUTSIDE EXPERT, UH, TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.
WELL, THE SAME THING WITH LEGAL.
WE, THE, THE, THE APPLICANT'S LAWYER, UH, COMES IN WITH OPINION.
DAVID IS OUR EXPERT, SO BECOMES DAVID'S JOB RIGHT.
TO LOOK INTO, TO VET IT, TO GO THROUGH IT AND, AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO I THINK WHAT THE SUGGESTION THAT, THAT, UM, HUGH WAS MAKING IS SOMETHING THAT, UH, COULD HELP DAVID AND DAVID AGREE SUGGESTION IN PROVIDING THAT LEVEL OF LEGAL SUPPORT TO THE PLAINTIFF COURT.
LET ME, LET ME FOLLOW UP ON THAT BECAUSE, UM, WHAT WAS SORT OF DIFFERENT ABOUT THIS IS THAT THE APPLICANT CAME WITH A, A VEHICLE, THE, TO COME IN AND THAT VEHICLE WAS, UM, THE FLOATING ZONE.
UM, WE DID LOOK AT IT, UM, WE ACTUALLY HAD AN OUTSIDE CONSULTANT THAT WE, WE DEALT WITH, UH, AND WE HAD DISCUSSIONS.
AND THE ISSUE THAT WE FOCUSED ON WAS THE LEGALITY OF THAT, AND IT WAS LEGAL.
WHAT WE DIDN'T, AND WHERE, YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHERE THE, WHERE THE DIFFERENCE CAME IS THAT WHILE THAT, UH, VEHICLE WAS CERTAINLY A LEGAL WAY OF DOING IT, THERE WERE OTHER OPTIONS.
ONE OPTION WAS A SPECIAL PERMIT.
THE OTHER OPTION WAS, UM, THE, UM, I'M FORGETTING, I'M FORGETTING THE TERM TERMINOLOGY.
IT WAS A FLOAT, IT WAS AN OVERLAY ZONE.
AND WHERE, UH, YOU KNOW, WHERE, WHERE THIS FELL DOWN A BIT WAS NOT, NOT
[02:35:01]
DETERMINING NECESSARILY WHICH WAS THE BEST OPTION HERE.AND THAT'S WHERE THIS PROCESS REALLY THRESHED THAT OUT.
AND THAT'S HOW, AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE GOT TO THE REAL, THE REAL ISSUE WASN'T WHETHER IT WAS, I MEAN, LEGAL WAS ONE THING AND YEAH, IT WAS LEGAL.
THE INTERPRETATION THEN WAS IT REALLY CAME DOWN TO A MATTER OF DOES ONE GIVE US MORE DISCRETION THAN THE OTHER? THAT'S STILL AN OPEN QUESTION, RIGHT? AND IT'S A, IT'S A QUESTION IN THE COURTS AND HOW YOU INTERPRET EVERYTHING.
UM, BUT WE THOUGHT IT WAS A SLAM DUNK WHEN WE DID IT.
AND IT TURNED OUT NOT TO BE A SLAM DUNK.
AND OUR CONSULTANT, OUR INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT WHO HAS DONE A LOT OF THESE THINGS, BY THE WAY, UH, WITH MR. STEINMAN, UM, DIDN'T OPINE ON THAT.
HE ASKED FOR, HE, HE WAS FAIR.
I SAID, LOOK, I CAN'T OPINE ON THAT.
UH, IN HIS OPINION THAT HE WROTE US IN, WHAT WAS IT, DECEMBER OR JANUARY, DAVE SMITH SAID, HEY, LOOK, YOU KNOW, I CAN TELL YOU HOW IT WORKS.
I CAN'T TELL YOU THE LEGAL RAMIFICATIONS IN TERMS OF DISCRETION, AND THAT'S SOMETHING YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIGURE OUT YOURSELF.
THAT'S BASICALLY WHAT HE SAID AT THE TIME.
WHAT I LEARNED OUT OF THIS, UH, WHAT I LEARNED OUT OF THIS WAS REALLY TO THINK LATERALLY.
IN THAT CASE, IT WAS, UH, RIGHT? YES.
I MEAN, THAT WAS A, THAT THAT WAS A VIABLE OPTION.
MAY EVEN BE A GOOD OPTION, BUT MAYBE NOT THE BEST OPTION.
AND, UH, IT WAS REALLY TO THINK LIABILITY, UH, NOT LIABILITY LATERALLY AS TO, WELL, YEAH, THIS MIGHT BE GOOD, BUT ARE OTHER, UH, OPTIONS BETTER, RIGHT? AND, AND IT REALLY CAME DOWN, I THINK, THINK WHEN WE, WHEN WE WORKED ON THIS, UM, TO, UH, THE DEVIL, YOU KNOW, VERSUS THE DEVIL YOU DON'T KNOW, TO BE HONEST.
I I, I THINK THAT'S WHAT ACTUALLY SETTLED THIS.
'CAUSE MAYBE IF WE KNEW MORE ABOUT, MAYBE, MAYBE IF, IF AARON HADN'T CANCELED LAKE GEORGE ON US THIS YEAR, WE WOULD'VE LEARNED ABOUT FLOATING ZONES.
AND UH, SERIOUSLY, WE NEED, I'LL BE SURE TO NEVER ALLOW A CANCELLATION AGAIN.
BUT SERIOUSLY, WE JUST DIDN'T KNOW ENOUGH.
AND, AND I, AND THERE WAS A LOT OF RESEARCH DONE AND, AND DAVE DID A LOT OF RESEARCH.
IT'S FUNNY 'CAUSE DAVE AND I WERE TRYING TO GO BACK AND FORTH ON WHETHER YOU COULD DO THIS WITHOUT AN E I S DAVE.
DAVE HAD VERY VALID EXAMPLES WHERE THEY DIDN'T DO IT WITH AN E I S SS WITH THE FLOATING ZONE.
I HAD A LOT OF EXAMPLES WHERE THEY DID, AND IT'S ON BOTH, IT'S 50 50, IT'S ON BOTH SIDES.
AND, AND I THINK, UH, AND THAT WAS ANOTHER REASON WHY WE SUPPORTED, THERE WERE SEVERAL REASONS WHY WE SUPPORTED A FLOATING ZONE, BUT, UH, UH, A MAJOR ONE WAS EXACTLY THE POINT YOU MADE THE DEVIL, YOU KNOW, VERSUS DEVIL YOU DON'T KNOW, RIGHT? WE JUST COULD NOT FIND ENOUGH INFORMATION ABOUT A FLOATING ZONE TO MAKE US FEEL COMFORTABLE.
AND THE ISSUE IS WHY DO IT WHEN WE HAVE ALL THIS EXPERIENCE WITH SPECIAL PERMIT? WE KNOW HOW IT WORKS.
WE KNOW WHAT THE LIMITATIONS ARE.
UH, WE KNOW, UH, WHAT ARE THE, UH, THE, THE WATCH OUTS IN, UH, THAT WERE TO BE AVOIDED WHEN YOU CREATE A SPECIAL PERMIT AND, UH, AND THE LAW.
AND, UH, AND SO THESE ARE ALL THE REASONS WHY, UH, UM, WE FELT STRONGLY ABOUT PUSHING IT, UH, TO THE, UM, THE TOWN BOARD.
AND I THINK A VERY VALID POINT QUESTION THAT, UH, UH, MIKE GOLDEN HAD, HE SAID, HE SAID, WHEN I SPEAK TO HIM, HE SAID, YOU KNOW, WE MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE TOWN BOARD ALL THE TIME.
YOU KNOW, WHY ARE YOU AND, AND, AND HUGH AND, AND THE C A ALL WRAPPED UP IN, IN, IN PUSHING SO HARD FOR THE SPECIAL PERMIT, WHICH IS A VERY VALID QUESTION THAT, UH, AND MY RESPONSE IS THAT THIS IS A, A LAW THAT WILL HAVE A MAJOR EFFECT ON THE FUTURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF ASSISTED LIVING IN THE TOWN.
AND, AND THE FACT THAT WE, UH, TO ADVOCATE SOMETHING THAT A FLOATING ZONE WHERE YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW, UH, WHAT'S THE RAMIFICATIONS ARE, IT, UM, IT, IT, IT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THE WAY TO GO.
I THINK, ONE, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, UH, HUGH, BUT EVEN IN ONE OF THE REVIEWS OF THE LAW AND THE APPLICATION THERE, THERE
[02:40:01]
WAS ONE INTERPRETATION THAT SAY WITH THE FLOATING ZONE, THERE IS, UH, A POSSIBILITY THAT YOU COULD GET OTHER TYPES OF BUSINESSES USING THE FLOATING ZONE, EVEN THOUGH WE INTENDED FOR IT TO BE FOR ASSISTED LIVING.BUT THE WAY THE FLOATING ZONE OPERATE, I THINK THERE WAS ONE CASE, UH, IN THE LAW THAT YOU FOUND THAT SOMEONE, UH, WAS AT LEAST ADVOCATING THAT AND PUSHING THE IDEA THROUGH WITH, FOR A BUSINESS THAT WAS NOT A ASSISTED LIVING SHOULD QUALIFY UNDER THE, UH, FLOATING ZONE.
WELL, WHAT THE PROBLEM, THE PROBLEM WITH THE FLOATING ZONE, ONE OF THE BIG PROBLEMS, AND ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I THINK THAT TOMBOY BACKED OFF IT WAS THE CONCERN THAT YOU CHANGED THE UNDERLYING ZONE.
SO, UH, UNLIKE EITHER THE OVERLAY OR, OR A SPECIAL PERMIT WHERE THE UNDERLYING ZONE STILL EXISTED.
SO YOU'D STILL HAVE A RESIDENTIAL ZONE UNDERNEATH.
YOU WOULDN'T HAVE THAT OPTION.
YOU'D HAVE TO GO FOR USE VARIANCE IN ANY CASE, WHICH COULD, YOU KNOW, IF YOU'RE GONNA GO FOR USE VARIANCE, YOU MIGHT AS WELL GO, YOU KNOW, GO FOR WHATEVER YOU WANT IN, IN, IN THERE, RIGHT? 'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA CLAIM THE FIRST, THE FIRST HURDLE OF USE VARIANCE IS HARD HARDSHIP AS WE KNOW.
AND IT'S A HARD, IT'S A HIGH STANDARD.
OKAY? BUT, BUT IT'S HARDSHIP IF YOU GET OVER THE HARDSHIP THING, YOU KNOW, AND YOU CAN SAY, THIS IS THE ONLY OPTION I HAVE, AND IT'S NOT RESIDENTIAL, IT'S SOMETHING ELSE.
IT'S THE ONLY OPTION THAT'S GONNA SAVE MY LIFE.
YOU KNOW, IT, IT COULD BE A PROBLEM.
SO THAT'S WHY YOU WANNA LEAVE RESIDENTIAL.
YOU WANNA LEAVE THE UNDERLYING ZONE ALONE, WHICH IS ANOTHER REASON WHY WE, WHY THE FLOATING ZONE, UH, YEAH.
BUT, BUT I RECALL, BUT WASN'T THERE SOME LEGAL SITUATION OR SOME LEGAL CASE WHEN SOMEONE WAS TRYING TO PUSH, UH, UH, AN APPLICATION IN A, UH, IT REALLY WAS GREATLY EXTENDING THE DEFINITION OF A FLOATING ZONE IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE TO GET IN A DIFFERENT APPLICATION THAT WAS NOT INTENDED BY THE MUNICIPALITY.
MAYBE I, I, I DON'T REMEMBER THAT.
I MEAN, THE FLIP SIDE IN, IN OF THIS, I DON'T REMEMBER THAT ONE.
THE FLIP SIDE OBVIOUSLY IS YOU DON'T WANT THE LAW EMASCULATED WITH VARIANCES EITHER.
BUT SPECIAL PERMIT IS NOT REALLY AS OF RIGHT.
WHICH SOME PEOPLE THINK IT IS.
UM, WHAT GARRETT DID IN OUR, IN, IN REWRITING THE, THE SPECIAL PERMIT LAWS WAS TO ENSURE THAT THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT REMINDS PEOPLE BASICALLY THAT SEEKER STILL APPLIES.
UM, AND SEEKER, A SECRET DETERMINATION IS NOT SOMETHING A, A, A, UH, ZONING BOARD COULD OVERTURN.
OKAY? THEY CAN'T, THAT, THAT'S NOT A DECISION THEY COULD OVERTURN.
UM, THEY CAN OVERTURN AREA VARIANCE AREA VARIANCES ESSENTIALLY IS WHAT THEY CAN OVERTURN OR GIVE A USE VARIANCE.
AN AREA MEANING ANYTHING DIMENSIONAL OR PHYSICAL, THEY COULD OVERTURN THAT.
BUT, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO SEEKER, THEY COULDN'T DO THAT.
AND THAT WAS A CONCERN WE HAVE.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S ON SOME OF THESE OTHER PROPERTIES POTENTIALLY FOR THIS.
SO AGAIN, AGAIN, THIS WAS AN INCREDIBLY HARD, DIFFICULT LEARNING PROCESS AND THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK PUT IN BY A LOT OF PEOPLE ON THIS, INCLUDING A COUPLE OF PEOPLE THAT YOU'D BE SURPRISED THAT, UH, WORKED ALONG WITH, WITH US FROM THE COMMUNITY AND, AND GETTING THIS THING DONE.
YEAH, WE, UH, IT'S TIME TO GET READY FOR THE DEBATE, GUYS.
AND THEN I REALLY, I THINK THIS WAS, UH, THIS WAS ABOUT 20, 25 MINUTES WELL SPENT.
I APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK FROM THE, FROM THE BOARD AND STAFF AND APPRECIATE, UH, UH, ALL THE SUPPORT I GET FROM THE GROUP.
AND I REALLY ENJOYED WORKING WITH THE GROUP.
I HOPE THE RECORDING'S AWESOME.
WHEN SHE SAID THAT