[0:20] Now 7 p.m. We'll call the Order of the September 9, 2026 Plenty Board Meeting. Please rise.

[0:40] We are a 7-member board, we have a little 7-member president, so we established a forum.

[0:47] You have a public hearing tonight, so it's kid over 7 pm, so we can start with that.

[0:56] We have a public hearing, especially used for men for Aspen, located on Calisplace, Aspen,

[1:03] Health, CDG, LLC, beginning the public hearing by reading the legal laws.

[1:11] The town of East Grimoire Claim Board shall conduct a public hearing pursuant to New York's

[1:16] State Town Law Section 274-B6 and Section 3.11.02 of the Town's Comprehensive Zoning Law

[1:26] A application for a special use permit for the property located at Cal's Place, East

[1:31] Screamish, New York, tax map number 155.16-2-14.1, which is zone NMU.

[1:42] The AFKP proposed this to build a 2,970 square foot duplex to be utilized as a two-family

[1:48] home.

[1:49] The review of the proposed work requires a special use permit for the town's comprehensive

[1:54] zoning law.

[1:55] Specifically section 2.7.2.c permitted special uses for the use residential two family residents

[2:04] Said public hearing will be held on Wednesday, September 9th, 2026 at 7 p.m.

[2:09] At the East Grimrich Town Hall, 225 Columbia Terrap like East Grimrich, New York at the above time and place all interesting parties

[2:16] We'll be given an opportunity to be heard so with that

[2:22] Is the applicant here?

[2:24] Yes.

[2:25] Would you mind just give us a just a real quick overview of what you're proposing to do?

[2:28] Sure.

[2:30] Uh, David Depp from the West Furniture Committee, the applicant has been known as PDG LLC.

[2:37] I also have a representative company here with me as well as this payback.

[2:42] The applicant is proposing to put a two family glowing on a parcel.

[2:46] I think there's a picture better showing the front view of this with a separation would

[2:53] be the garage.

[2:54] It would be a separate one.

[2:55] Basically, there's two of these structures with the garage in the middle and that's what

[3:00] the separation is.

[3:02] I believe it fits very nicely in the concept and the NMU district satisfies all that.

[3:09] The NMU?

[3:15] I think the big issue we had and we went over the last meeting was whether or not the

[3:24] square footage requirement was met and there was a apparently an easement and whether

[3:30] or not an easement was included within the scope of property ownership and determine

[3:36] that it was and I think there was an old town memo, one of the town attorneys from 1993

[3:42] or so that came at the same conclusion. So we've had that conferred conducted survey and

[3:48] titled search and determine that they would need a variance on square footage. But other

[3:54] than that it's barely standard residential to family development. Any specific questions

[4:01] that I can address on the board.

[4:03] I will open up to the board.

[4:06] So again, this specific public hearing

[4:08] is about the special use of a two family residence.

[4:11] So it's not necessarily a site plan per se.

[4:16] It's whether or not, you know, it's essentially

[4:19] an allowed use, but every forest per special use

[4:23] reveal the approval for that two families.

[4:26] So that'll open up to the board for any comments or questions.

[4:30] Each of the units would be approximately 1,600 square feet, is that right?

[4:34] That's right.

[4:35] Are there any public subsidies involved at all?

[4:39] I don't believe so.

[4:40] No.

[4:41] Other

[4:47] comments or questions before we open up to the public?

[4:54] I guess I would say I used to live across the street for about nine years.

[4:58] I'm glad to see the parcel being redeveloped.

[5:01] Is this the parcel I have that house that was collapsing on itself, right?

[5:06] No.

[5:07] Where's parcel of this?

[5:08] This is all this is like a bust on our report

[5:17] You know when you're talking about it. Yeah

[5:27] Um, any other questions from the board?

[5:32] I open up to the public

[5:35] I'd like to say that I think it's a fantastic use of that parcel

[5:39] And it's nice to see that it's not a parking bill but instead it's a family home, so that has to be actually necessary.

[5:49] Yeah, this has had a couple of uses proposed in this parcel in the past.

[5:53] And largely it's set vacant with overgrown grass that someone uses a residential one dollar.

[5:59] I think it's worth a while.

[6:01] Any

[6:04] other comments or questions? Any

[6:10] other comments or questions from the board?

[6:17] That's quick. But anyone would like to speak in favor of the special use permit?

[6:21] Would anyone like to speak in favor of the special use permit?

[6:25] Finally, would everyone like to speak in favor of the special use permit?

[6:28] Would anyone like to speak in opposition to the special use permit?

[6:32] Would anyone like to speak in opposition to the special use permit?

[6:35] And finally, would anyone like to speak in opposition to the special use permit?

[6:39] Look at that. I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.

[6:43] Second.

[6:44] Second.

[6:45] Second by Mr. Tierney.

[6:46] The roll call is established.

[6:47] Mr. Mathsick?

[6:48] Yes.

[6:48] Mr. Viola?

[6:49] Yes.

[6:50] Mr. Nuant?

[6:51] Yes.

[6:51] Mr. Tierney?

[6:52] Yes.

[6:53] Mr. Warren?

[6:53] Yes.

[6:54] Mr. Conway?

[6:55] Yes.

[6:55] Mr. Shanley?

[6:56] Yes.

[6:56] And it's a very exciting to hear about.

[7:00] So next we'll move on to the old business and review of the project.

[7:05] How to folks deal with this project?

[7:07] Does anyone have strong feelings against it?

[7:31] I'm going to make a motion to approve a special use permit for COS Place, Aspen Hill,

[7:39] CDG, with all conditions listed.

[7:45] Do I have a second?

[7:49] Second motion.

[7:50] I'm John Schanley.

[7:50] The roll call is at the last minute.

[7:52] Is the file on?

[7:54] Yes.

[7:55] Is the one?

[7:55] Yes.

[7:56] Is the one you love?

[7:56] Yes.

[7:57] Is it godly?

[7:58] Yes.

[7:58] Yes, it's a journey.

[7:59] Yes.

[7:59] A journey by the 70 year old.

[8:02] That's the one.

[8:03] Thank you.

[8:04] Thank you.

[8:08] You're going to business, number of VGA reports, number of referrals, and you have a town board

[8:13] at all, for town board friends that are going to want an event.

[8:21] You guys show?

[8:22] Yeah, so we sent you guys over an email with a memo with some extra documents, and there's a local law proposal from the PZD.

[8:32] So we're proposing right now amendment two, the subsection of the code 271-2, which governs the town center's district two-story habitable space, second-story requirement.

[8:45] So this amendment would effectively give the planning board opportunity to grant a alternative compliance to applicants who, you know, provide, provides improve that they are meeting or exceeding the expectations of the intent of that district, maybe without having a second, having real space within that second story.

[9:07] So this would give you plenty of the opportunity to kind of vet those projects for possibly waving that portion of the requirement.

[9:17] So it's not a waiver of the second story or the facade. That would be separate relief from the ZBA. This is purely that component of habitable space.

[9:27] essentially it still requires two stories but the second story doesn't have to be

[9:31] happened. It grants the plenty more of the opportunity to a great relief, not

[9:36] relief, but a waiver from the habitable space part of the requirement if there's

[9:40] alternative compliance met that meets the needs of the of the district just for

[9:45] a history perspective prior to the new zoning establishment we had that two

[9:49] story minimum requirement along the majority of the corridor. The new zoning

[9:54] update basically, you know, centralize that requirement, the two-story

[9:59] mental requirement, just the town center.

[10:01] What we're looking to do here will still allow us to retain the authority to enforce

[10:05] that admirable space requirement in the hands of the planning board while

[10:09] offering more flexibility from a development perspective for new uses within the

[10:18] district. So it's not development prohibitive. The admirable space

[10:22] requirement which we have we have had a history of in the past that being a

[10:27] prohibitive requirement. So that's the intention.

[10:34] So just to understand the

[10:36] mechanics of this, a developer would come here for alternative compliance, is

[10:41] that what we're calling it? Yeah, so much like the planning board grant

[10:45] waivers for landscape or parking considerations in some cases where they have

[10:50] that authority. This would be a way for the planning board to grant that

[10:54] turn of compliance towards that habitable space if they meet those if they meet

[10:59] with the playing board sees fit. It's the playing board determines that they they

[11:04] have met this alternative compliance would still have to go to the zoning board.

[11:09] No no unless they're looking for for further relief they don't want the

[11:13] facade for example they don't want a second floor at all in which case they

[11:16] would they would certainly have to get relief elsewhere. A single-story building

[11:19] is going to require an area in there and you're happy?

[11:22] Yeah, correct.

[11:23] Even if granted this waiver from the Habitable Space

[11:26] Requirement, they would still need to have a two-story facade,

[11:30] a false frontage.

[11:31] We have that along town center currently.

[11:33] There's a couple of uses that have that currently.

[11:36] They would still need that.

[11:37] If they didn't want that, they would need a standard area

[11:40] variance from the zoning border, but feels.

[11:43] Yeah, it is structured very clearly, too,

[11:45] so that they are aware that this is not

[11:47] a variance for anything other than

[11:49] and the habitable space component in

[11:55] the climate that I have is that I like the new narrative.

[11:59] I like the sense of such as improved building architecture.

[12:07] I like the terms improved building architecture.

[12:10] And I don't see that in your draft statement.

[12:18] You mentioned the fact that there are other things that you

[12:27] say street state improvements,

[12:31] landscape or circulation, public improvements, and it says beside treatment, but it doesn't

[12:40] to have the term improved building architecture.

[12:44] I don't know how much this written stone,

[12:49] but I'd like the fact that we would be able to say,

[12:53] you know, take that mental signing walk

[12:55] and come back with a brick facade

[12:57] that was a little more enhanced

[12:59] or a little bit more professional for that area.

[13:04] Yeah, I think, yeah.

[13:06] And we couldn't certainly look into that and add it

[13:09] as you know you could you could have that in your recommendation. I know the way

[13:14] this is this these that's kind of suggestive of what suggestive of what can you

[13:20] know permit or permit the alternative compliance so for example I don't think it

[13:25] should be big right and I think we're being a little bit okay I think it's

[13:30] important to make recommendations like that right because I'm five years

[13:36] If majority of us are not in here, whatever, right, and when this was passed and someone else

[13:42] is given a hold on the front of them, it gives us some ideas, I just want to propose, you know what they might propose.

[13:47] And I think the intent of the two story, right, is visual aesthetic.

[13:51] And if you're talking about kind of trade-off or admirable space, right, like having to go that step further with the architecture

[14:00] or makes a building that's nice.

[14:02] I think adding those recommendations in the air is amazing.

[14:06] Yeah, sure.

[14:10] Yeah, along those lines, you know, I've always been kind of puzzled by the

[14:13] head of the space requirement.

[14:15] You know, I went back and looked at the comprehensive plan,

[14:18] and see anything in there about head of the space or even the second story.

[14:22] Yeah.

[14:24] And I think I was kind of surprised to see it carried forward.

[14:28] I know there was that language in the old.

[14:32] Yes, it was a long majority of 9 and 20 had a requirement for the two-story

[14:38] minimum. The town center and the intention from the planning perspective from

[14:42] the top grants plan, as it released the top grants plan, it particularly has to

[14:46] place making. The intention with the town center is to establish a land use

[14:51] development structure which fronts development along the term pipe with that

[14:56] that two-story look, the purpose of the Haberow.

[15:00] The most-based requirement is the type of land use we're really looking for in town center particularly is really the commercial downstairs, the residential upstairs, similar to the town center project that we have. That's really the type of land use that we're looking for in town center as a release of the comprehensive plan. So that's the reason it was retained.

[15:20] It was, you know, the subject of extensive deliberation for the establishment of the zoning

[15:25] was do we eliminate this requirement altogether, or do we centralize it to a smaller area

[15:30] in town, center, the creation of that district primarily, the intention of that was to be able

[15:35] to retain that admirable space to for a minimum requirement without, while also offering

[15:41] flexibility in any assumptions primarily along the term, like generally speaking.

[15:45] So we did achieve that, but there was interest from the

[15:50] disowning steering committee at that time to retain that

[15:53] that habitable space requirement and the two-star

[15:56] minimal push-and-tops center.

[15:58] So, and I think there's been that at the, in some instances

[16:03] to it, right, there's been some proposals that the ultimately

[16:06] was forward with when was, in all the park store,

[16:09] I mean, I'm not pretty in town with, I don't know,

[16:12] I'm personally pleased with what's their hours, you know, on a park's door at that location.

[16:18] So I think it's worked out.

[16:20] I agree, like, the arrow part of it is still long to bait, right?

[16:24] People like, can I put a sink up there and call it an allable.

[16:28] It seems like a good option to maintain, you know, the overall intent, right, to the most work.

[16:36] Open it up to more potential, you know.

[16:39] And we're trying to establish more of an opportunity for transitional development than going

[16:46] from one to the other.

[16:47] Because obviously, as you see down there, we have Town Center Project, which is kind

[16:51] of exactly what we're looking for.

[16:52] We also have a lot of other uses where they're offered the opportunities to redevelop

[16:58] without having to comply to the two-story minimum standard.

[17:02] However, in the very limited amount of parcels that we have that are not redevelopment parcels

[17:07] but development parcels, you know, what we were, of course, looking for the original

[17:12] 10 list is to establish that commercial downstairs, you know, residential upstairs, however,

[17:18] it's not necessarily compatible with the existing district at the moment.

[17:21] So what this is planning to do is to allow for some, you know, transitional development

[17:26] opportunity where we can still get the look that we want to achieve without, you know, making

[17:33] it develop perfectly.

[17:35] Yeah, it's a rough point, and the way it's worth it now and just in strengthening it will only result in a better outcome for the planning where to have conversations with these applicants, because I think it actually will end up strengthening kind of that conversation of what maybe Kendra can't be done as well as oftentimes when we see pushback or architectural comments or something of that sort.

[17:59] in this case, you know, it is a good opportunity to kind of make the negotiation, have a deeper conversation with comments like that.

[18:10] I think, you know, I'm spending our last point too. I think it's important to put some thought into what those trade-offs, maybe it's not a trade-off.

[18:19] what might be in suggestions in our memo might be.

[18:24] I think of it kind of like the PDD,

[18:26] or at least the PDD in its own blog.

[18:28] We're at a recommendation where to approve a PDD,

[18:32] there was like a cash payment to the town,

[18:34] or you seemed odd, right?

[18:36] And Parkland, and there'd be some really bizarre proposals

[18:40] that we were sitting in the playboard

[18:42] like what the hell would we do if that's right?

[18:44] It's a little bit arbitrary where this I think

[18:47] we can truly say, we approve the design and we agree it gets underneath them.

[18:53] Great.

[18:54] Sure.

[18:55] And, yeah, I also have no twos.

[18:57] The department is interested in developing specific architectural design standards for town center in the future.

[19:03] That was something I was deliberately identified with on top of the answer plan.

[19:06] It was absolutely something that we're looking to move forward with.

[19:09] Hopefully, you're relatively assuming that to your point,

[19:12] that will absolutely provide the opportunity for the board as well as the

[19:17] department to essentially establish standards for how things work in town

[19:23] center regardless of you know the site planning process and the story

[19:27] especially use process or anything of that nature so we do have interest in

[19:31] doing that as well even more you know even more than what this would provide to me

[19:39] kids were given the development of privilege opportunities for that privilege opportunity.

[19:47] I feel that they should be cognizant of the fact that we want to help scale our potential.

[19:55] Look, we want side wasn't want to protest, we're friendly, we want fences, we want to

[19:59] You know, absolutely escaping, you know, that blocks the other neighbors, you know, we want a lot, we want a lot of things that are going to enhance the site and make it a worthwhile project.

[20:14] But, you know, just to have someone walk in here and say, well, you know, I'm not going to go to the story.

[20:21] with the heck with anything else you recommend.

[20:24] That's why I really, the place to check in that paragraph.

[20:30] And it is discretionary, completely discretionary

[20:33] of planning board, right?

[20:34] So if there's a developer that comes in requesting,

[20:36] you know, a waiver for the habitable space requirement

[20:38] and the board doesn't feel that what they're proposing

[20:41] is sufficient.

[20:43] The waiver would be denied if they wanted to move forward.

[20:45] They would have to go and get a variance

[20:47] from the zoning board appeals for that process.

[20:52] I wonder if this is an opportunity to also further define what habitable means, and I

[21:00] just have to have a lot of experience with you.

[21:03] It mentions cooking for a person, you can mention food, yeah, every day I work with.

[21:09] But I mentioned cooking.

[21:09] We attempted to further define it, as best as we could, it's much more further defined

[21:15] than it was previously.

[21:16] I would say that much.

[21:17] The old code was very much just said habitable space and depending on the code enforcement officer that we had that meant very different things occupied by

[21:27] One more person for living sleeping eating or cook eating includes veterans living in the kitchen's deniers and other similar spaces.

[21:33] Yeah.

[21:34] Does it match the bathroom?

[21:37] No, I was occupied by it.

[21:39] It says occupied by it.

[21:40] there was some flexibility there whereas like well could it technically occupy?

[21:44] Does that satisfy that definition because it could technically occupy and you

[21:50] know so there was so there was a little too much probably flexibility within that

[21:53] definition. I think you know adding this subsection allows for us to kind of

[21:59] not necessarily ignore that definition but you know figure out what a better

[22:04] what a better project looks like is the office space and option for habitable space?

[22:11] Could be.

[22:12] Yeah.

[22:13] The

[22:15] other similar spaces category, maybe?

[22:17] Yeah.

[22:19] And again, the intention for the habitable space is to say, you know, if we have a development proposal

[22:24] come in and they were to only do, if they did not have a habitable space requirement, a pilot

[22:30] in a situation where that business or whatever it may be goes out of business, the redevelopment

[22:35] pretend potential is much more limited in the case where you don't have that

[22:40] habitable space component. So what we're trying to achieve down there is

[22:44] opportunities for, you know, situations where we don't have someone going out

[22:50] of business and the parcel just sits there for a very long time because there's

[22:53] not much redevelopment potential. When you do have habitable space whether it be

[22:58] office or apartments, it becomes a lot more conducive to redevelopment in the

[23:04] case where so we were trying to look 20 years in advance you know if we have a new parcel

[23:09] that's developed in town center you know what do we want to look like after that use is concluded

[23:15] because that is a problem or an issue that we've seen a long Columbia term pick historically is

[23:20] we have a lot of when businesses leave it just sits there so we're trying to establish something

[23:27] that's conducive for not only the original development but for also the redevelopment long term.

[23:32] Just a waiver forever for a look at the split as long as it maintains an ice cream place.

[23:41] Redeveloped opportunity does not require two-story room for existing uses of town center

[23:48] currently.

[23:49] You know another two is it really haven't given the two-story height requirement.

[23:53] An actual minimum number is it twenty three hours and twenty two a year is it?

[23:59] the the high requirement there's a max 50. Yeah, it's by code. That's why it's by building code. So I have to look at this. Yeah, I have to look at building code. It's her. It's whatever requirement is for a second floor for a habitable second floor. Yeah, so it is it is. It's not. It's code. That's required, but the two-story minimum requirement makes it the New York state. Yeah, it's a waste. Yeah.

[24:27] Yeah.

[24:28] I don't wonder if we want that documented video.

[24:31] Yeah.

[24:31] That's a good point.

[24:32] Yeah.

[24:32] We could put it in as a minimum height requirement or something.

[24:36] Yeah.

[24:38] So what are, you know, what's the process here?

[24:41] So we would write a recommendation as a board, whether the town board, outlining, you know,

[24:47] what we'd like to see in a local amendment.

[24:49] Correct.

[24:50] Yeah.

[24:50] So we would effectively do it somewhat like a major site plan where we would draft a recommendation

[24:55] in to the town board and that recommendation

[25:00] can include all comments made here today

[25:03] and comments in the next 30 days that you might think of.

[25:07] It's a 30 day window.

[25:08] And our process, our zoning code dictates that process

[25:12] that the planning board provides advisory opinion

[25:14] to the town board on proposed local all amendment

[25:17] to our zoning code.

[25:19] So it's really from a planning perspective,

[25:21] what the advisory opinion of the board is

[25:23] and then the town board typically utilizes that as part of their process for the approval of the local law.

[25:30] And then of course we have to have a special public hearing at the town board for any local law

[25:37] so we follow the local law process after that and then it's filed with the state and then it goes into effect.

[25:44] Where's the town board in the process?

[25:46] So initiated secret today referred to the planning board today, scheduled public hearing for October 14th, thank you.

[25:55] October 14th, public hearing will happen.

[25:58] If it's a special meeting, make a technically move on it because that's a 30-day assuming planning board also issued their recommendation at that point.

[26:06] Otherwise, they would make wait until the following week, that's board meaning so pre-board is on the 14th.

[26:13] They could wait for the following week and actually adopt the local law.

[26:17] So I mean we have one meeting before the 14th of October.

[26:25] You know, preferably I would hope the town board could wait until after the 14th meeting

[26:30] because if we had a draft, right, at our next meeting to talk about, sure, and I could see

[26:34] a final draft that we could vote on on our 14th meeting as a goal, that would be good.

[26:40] And

[26:43] I would imagine that board wouldn't want to vote on anything prior to receiving the recommendation, so if the board needed more time for recommendation, that's...

[26:53] Please tell him, is that please?

[26:54] Yes.

[26:56] So

[26:59] there's already a proposed provision.

[27:01] Correct.

[27:02] Correct.

[27:03] Essentially, yes.

[27:04] Playing boards before would be...

[27:06] We approve this proposed provision and or want these additional additional language in there.

[27:15] Well I guess that was kind of my question. So is this like are we doing this?

[27:18] This will be in the form of a resolution with our recommendations from them, from the

[27:24] town, from us. Yeah, from us it'll be, it'll be a form of recommendation as a referral.

[27:31] It's like the planning board would, you know, votes to recommend that the

[27:36] town board approve the proposed provision, right, to read as follows, however the

[27:41] the playing board also recommends the following language being included.

[27:44] Right.

[27:44] Almost.

[27:45] Yes.

[27:45] And that would allow us to amend the sessions in accordance with the comments here.

[27:52] And then had that in time.

[27:54] I mean, we could have that in time further.

[27:56] Right.

[27:56] We could do that in a while.

[27:57] Yeah.

[27:57] So I guess along the line, right?

[27:59] So what I was for the next reading, you know, we'd want to outline what that minimum building height would be.

[28:04] Yep.

[28:04] to add some information, architectural standards,

[28:06] if anyone else has ideas between now and next meeting

[28:09] that you'd like to see included,

[28:11] should these guys have an email,

[28:12] or should the larger group an email,

[28:14] I think would be better, so we can all see it.

[28:15] Yep.

[28:16] Well, I was wondering about,

[28:18] I went down through the list of things,

[28:20] amenities too, like roughed it,

[28:23] and I was wondering, do we say anything at all

[28:26] about negative sort of impacts?

[28:29] I mean, there are certain things that developers

[28:31] proposed that really are not conducive to the intent of the town center. I think it may not

[28:39] agree with it, but I'm thinking about a drive-through that drops out to Columbia Turnpoint.

[28:45] That's more of a design standard, I would say, for a drive-through specifically in something that we

[28:52] would look to include within our design standards when we start drafting those. But I would say that I

[28:59] I think the language itself does allow for the planning

[29:02] where to have some flexibility

[29:04] as to what they consider appropriate for that,

[29:08] for that alternative compliance.

[29:11] So, you know, for example, if the board disagrees

[29:13] with the or feels that a drive-through

[29:15] that is doing a twinzy does not meet the intent

[29:19] of the district and you simply don't grant that

[29:21] alternative compliance.

[29:23] But I think we gotta be careful about not changing

[29:26] a lot of use.

[29:26] Yes.

[29:27] I was about to make that clarification, we could not say a drive-through use that's permitted

[29:32] whether a BVA permitted use or special use permit is not permitted anymore because of

[29:37] this.

[29:37] We cannot do that.

[29:38] Especially because not only in this instance, but folks in other districts might say, hey,

[29:43] you guys changed the use requirements in that district.

[29:47] Absolutely.

[29:48] You can't do that.

[29:50] You cannot do that.

[29:51] However, to your point, John, we absolutely can, through the normal site planning process and

[29:55] through, you know, this way we're requiring a week. We do already have the ability.

[30:02] We do have standards in our parking code for the amount of curb cuts you're allowed to do for a specific parcel. So, you know, those are already things that we regulate, however, to your point, these are things that we do have the authority and would have further authority do under this.

[30:17] Yeah, it's okay. It's a practical matter isn't this all going to be part of the site plan review?

[30:22] Yeah, yeah, it's practically yes, that's the way it's supposed to be.

[30:24] Yeah, just clarify like it is a review for that waiver.

[30:29] So you're not necessarily right, so we're not necessarily ignoring the use or denying the use

[30:33] if they don't get the with the get the alternative compliance.

[30:36] They could certainly still meet normal compliance, right?

[30:39] So if you're taking consideration towards that drive through, I think the board has some

[30:44] justification there to consider it if it's meeting if it's meeting a district's intent or standards or not

[30:50] and this doesn't mean that we have to approve something because they are

[30:54] proposing all of them exactly still that aren't right and not true and that's that's

[31:01] expressly why we did it this way it's we wanted to plan where to have the authority to still

[31:04] enforce the requirement in cases where it makes sense to enforce the habitable requirement but

[31:09] allow flexibility in cases where we feel there's alternative means to comply with the standards

[31:16] that we're setting forth in the district itself. So administratively a project comes in with the

[31:21] intent for alternative compliance we would ask that to be upfront in their application and I would

[31:26] accept that application under the scope that they are looking for alternative compliance right so

[31:32] for example if it's if it's a project that would be a major site claim with the second floor but a

[31:37] a minor with a first floor or with not haveable space.

[31:42] I'll look at it as a minor, a common as a minor cyclan.

[31:45] If that alternative compliance is not crazy,

[31:48] they'll have to come back as a major, right?

[31:50] That makes sense.

[31:51] So that's how they administratively we would handle those

[31:53] applications.

[31:54] So now we're just going to make sure we're addressing

[31:56] to a good gap.

[31:58] I think of the second floor.

[31:59] So it's not 20-foot tall, but two feet in that.

[32:03] Yeah, it's truly at the side.

[32:05] Yeah, it's got a passing structure to it, a little bit, so you can see it from different

[32:09] sides.

[32:10] It's still going to have that massing.

[32:13] Well, we're still going to keep it at 20 point, yeah, that stays, I guess, that's the

[32:18] point.

[32:18] Can you go back to the definition of drag service, which seems to actually have some discretion

[32:25] because it says drag service, or curve service, so you're a strong drag driver or curve service

[32:31] designed.

[32:31] So, you know, I interpret that as somebody comes in with a drive through,

[32:36] planning work that's like, you know, an actual drive through, may not be appropriate

[32:40] or going to be critical.

[32:41] A curve up?

[32:42] A curve stop?

[32:42] Yes.

[32:44] Particular.

[32:46] Particular.

[32:47] Particular down on vehicle traffic and certain pedals that are supposed to be-

[32:50] And that's the stretch we already have.

[32:53] Particular, when there goes out onto say, Columbia term five, that's the stretch we absolutely

[32:58] we already have, but one that would be bolstered by this

[33:01] provision is the word pivot word, where a developer could

[33:06] propose a drive or a drive up order station on one side of the

[33:14] building, and a pickup station on the other side of the

[33:17] building, and the traffic flow in the park who just doesn't

[33:20] work. So, you know, and that's particularly why these use

[33:25] drive-to-use, particularly special uses, and not

[33:28] permit deduces because the entire purpose of that is to get that traffic circulation piece

[33:34] in front of the board because if there's a situation where in one, you know, we would like to have

[33:40] the ability to make sure the way in which the traffic circulation works within the parcel is

[33:46] something that's up to the planning board's discretion as a special use department offers in the first

[33:51] place. Second, we want the ability to make sure there's not, you know, they're not proposing 40

[33:55] I've heard cuts 9 and 20 because it makes the most sense for what they're trying to do.

[34:00] We don't want that either, so our current regulation is allowed for that.

[34:04] But again, this proposal here on turning compliance, you know, will give us a little bit more

[34:08] TV.

[34:10] Well, the term alternative compliance really should be used, the term waiver shouldn't

[34:16] be in here.

[34:17] Any options?

[34:18] Yeah.

[34:19] The last waiver we ever did was a mistake.

[34:23] That's the one and only waiver did, but alternative complaints is a nice way of saving it.

[34:32] Yes, because if you're right, it's not a waiver, it's not a relief.

[34:35] It's a true mail term in science.

[34:38] Yeah.

[34:38] I mean, that's a fair point.

[34:40] When it was a waiver before the engineer came in and tried to compare it to every parcel around and it was very, very...

[34:50] He felt strongly about his opinion that he was meeting in our attorney tent and I

[35:00] suppressed

[35:01] that back in my brain right now.

[35:04] I trust me.

[35:05] I drive, I drive, I drive live that waveroom.

[35:15] Okay.

[35:17] So next meeting we'll plan to talk through a draft in the meantime if anyone has anything

[35:23] I'd like to see in, they'll turn out compliance, send it to a larger group, and then we'll

[35:29] let it talk about it please.

[35:30] Yes, of course we will.

[35:32] Oh, when the draft will be, the draft will be ready, but next week for sure.

[35:36] Yeah.

[35:37] So we'll try to send that with a 25 minute band, so we're going to take a look at what we want

[35:42] to be doing.

[35:43] These comments are great, because once we get the minutes together, I'll go through and we'll

[35:50] put something together, you know, instead of going through just pre-prociting.

[35:56] Okay, I just want to say something praise of being big.

[36:01] I think about being specific, I buy into that too.

[36:04] We need to do that too, but I really think that you should continue to emphasize the intent of the district.

[36:12] I think that provides great guidance.

[36:15] Sometimes we do it. I don't want to lose sight of the forest, but we're dealing with the trees.

[36:20] And that's, you know, I think the way the language is proposed now, it's the language that's in the alternative compliance standard is deliberately from the town center in tension.

[36:31] That's the intention of the town center district, all these things that are in there with us on the streetscaping, that's deliberately identified as a new attempt.

[36:38] And I think this specific comment is more around like you don't want an applicant come in and say we're going to plant too our

[36:44] Provide it didn't even ask the property

[36:48] So it's it's got to be a more pointed direction towards how they achieve that. Yeah

[37:02] Then I'm at the August 26th meeting minutes. I cannot wait. That is right. I don't think you can discuss anything on the matter either

[37:11] I don't know what that means, it's all up to the job.

[37:15] It's like the first set of events all year, actually getting comments on you.

[37:19] And then you can't discuss it, and it's totally the state that happened in those meetings.

[37:25] It still says chairman, then.

[37:27] And the weather is crazy short.

[37:29] Yeah.

[37:30] Any comments or questions on minutes?

[37:34] I mean, personally, I thought there were fantastic some of the best minutes that she was talking about.

[37:38] I'm going to have a better myself, make a motion through the RS-26-26 meeting minutes do I?

[37:46] I will sign it.

[37:47] Thank you, Mr. Carlin.

[37:48] I have a roll call as I follow.

[37:50] Mr. Masking.

[37:51] Mr. Violet.

[37:52] Yes.

[37:53] Mr. Carlin?

[37:54] Yes.

[37:55] Is it you, Ma?

[37:57] Yes.

[37:57] Do you hear me?

[37:58] Yes.

[37:58] Mr. Shannon.

[37:59] Yes.

[37:59] Motion carries my 6-0 to 1-0.

[38:03] From the past, they weren't so well-written.

[38:11] Yeah, Gilgen Road, that's a good one. We are almost through the process for receiving

[38:18] final design approvals through DOT, which is great. We're on schedule for that project.

[38:26] After that, we have to get authorization from DOT to initiate right away. Matt's already

[38:32] got the phone right back on that so we'll be working through the homeowners in the school

[38:36] district and all the other relative property owners that church as well through the right-of-way

[38:41] process. Not many, right? Not many, no. Now primarily because most of the majority of the

[38:46] past is on the ones that have the work process entering. You know it's the school district in the church

[38:51] and then there's the three homeowners when it crosses and then it's primarily the developers from

[38:58] there, we have relationships with just about everybody, so we don't attend that

[39:04] aerated-way process, which typically is part of the process that takes

[39:07] forever. We don't intend it's going to take too long. So with that, if we're

[39:12] able to get through a right-of-way relative quickly, though we have the LEM,

[39:16] DOT paperwork for authorization, which can take a while, we are anticipating we

[39:22] couldn't go into construction, which would be great. So yeah, that's the latest

[39:37] on that project. We're trying to stay away from the baseball and softball, so it's scheduling

[39:46] right now. We're waiting until we get the right way to even think about it because there

[39:50] may be a case where we can't even think about doing it next year if right away it takes

[39:55] long enough. However, we are going to be in constant coordination with baseball

[40:01] software in the school district regarding construction. Obviously, main intent

[40:06] hopefully would be to do an outside of school hours, however, you could run it

[40:10] to baseball software in that case. So we need to find an alternative that works for

[40:15] everybody. But you're going to be doing, you know, the land takings until the end of

[40:21] and then they're going to bid for 45 days.

[40:25] Correct.

[40:26] You're going to bet a little bit, right?

[40:28] And that's going to take a little bit

[40:30] and then the project keep off being.

[40:32] I mean, it's kind of naturally dragging it

[40:34] which happens when the summer starts.

[40:36] Probably, yes.

[40:37] Like, I'm don't ask, don't tell me that.

[40:41] I'm intending, you know, for our purposes,

[40:43] administratively right now with DOT,

[40:45] we're trying to get the authorization piece done

[40:47] before we get our design approval

[40:49] that doesn't always work but I'm working on it as we can achieve that and we in

[40:55] right away goes away we think it's gonna go. We we do have a real possibility of

[41:00] getting into it by summertime. Next year we have springtime is not not at all

[41:05] likely to be to be competitive and of course you know it would start with you know

[41:12] obviously the demolition part of it. We have to do right away coordination as

[41:17] as well as utility, poor coordination and national

[41:20] wherever you have those goals.

[41:22] We're trying to work with the post office

[41:25] to move some mailboxes, however that's been difficult.

[41:32] We've run into that in the past as well.

[41:35] So there's some coordination things

[41:36] that we're working on right now.

[41:38] But as far as design goes, it's in DOT's answer

[41:41] flag of approval, which is great news.

[41:44] And with their comments, I can think about this.

[41:45] for very minor, which is great.

[41:48] So, but yeah, so we should be looking forward to that.

[41:51] Hopefully next year for construction, if not,

[41:54] you know, we have to move to 2028 before we use it.

[41:57] We've received a full funded construction allocation

[42:01] through last year's time, so that's great.

[42:06] So we're going to pay for about,

[42:08] the town's going to pay for about with the federal

[42:11] authorization and the state authorization.

[42:14] Well, we will likely pay less than 10% for the entire unit project.

[42:19] Yes.

[42:21] My first reply for that money draw away in 2010 when I worked there at a college.

[42:28] Didn't have a chance to really aim to see it move forward.

[42:31] Yeah.

[42:32] Yeah.

[42:32] It's been a long time coming.

[42:34] Well, three mailboxes are going to be your get chance.

[42:37] I'll say that too.

[42:38] I'm not going down.

[42:41] I'll be covering it.

[42:43] Well, the snow club driver, yeah, that's the problem with the NAC Red Bulls, it's got the

[42:48] real close to the road.

[42:51] And then I will in the NAC Mid Park.

[42:54] Yes, also.

[42:55] Yeah, well in the NAC Mid Park, we are waiting on if we have an award out a grant application

[43:05] on the holidays for the New York plays grant, we're waiting on that to come back, we're hopeful

[43:09] that we get that. We're looking to move forward that project either way. We have a design for the

[43:14] playground structure itself. We have the money security for playground structure itself. We're

[43:19] intending on moving forward that project. We will be moving forward that project in April.

[43:24] Of next year, we're going to do some probably we may do some preliminary minor site work

[43:28] towards the end of this year. We are contracted and we have everything good to go for the playground

[43:34] will enactment to begin construction in April when the ground falls. So you can actually see those

[43:40] plans to online both DPW site and planning zoning projects site. You can see those the sketches.

[43:46] And there will be a delay improvements as well to the part we're looking to do a dedicated

[43:54] parking lot in there. We're going to do some improvement. We're going to resurface the basketball court,

[43:58] of course, maybe do some new hoops in the back there soccer nets, things of that nature. And if we were

[44:04] to get to near a place grant, we have a lot more funding to do more auxiliary improvements.

[44:11] That's great.

[44:12] A ton of kids in that.

[44:13] Yes.

[44:14] Greater neighborhood.

[44:14] Yep.

[44:15] And the parking lot, too, is going to be.

[44:16] Yes.

[44:17] Very helpful.

[44:20] All right.

[44:20] How are you doing?

[44:21] Don't go down manic food very often.

[44:23] But I went down there this week.

[44:24] It looked like there was a new activity there.

[44:28] For a barber.

[44:29] Or that housing belt.

[44:31] Yeah, in Barbara. Yeah, another they've been steadily building. They're coming in getting permits, so

[44:38] I don't think I've ever received before

[44:41] So, quick sign

[44:50] No, they're very large

[45:22] I've been up a couple times now. I went up that twice last week. I'm going to go up again this week,

[45:28] went up once two weeks ago. So I believe them, they've sent me pictures. I had

[45:36] Erin Warren, the time bond over there as well, and we did have a discussion with

[45:40] Carver. Apparently it was in one of their trucks that got dumped, like a soil

[45:43] truck that got dumped with glass in it. I don't know. Thought we cleared it out

[45:48] about a month or two ago. Sounds like there's still some there. So yeah, so I'm

[45:54] going to be needing with time bond as well that up there to see what we need to do

[45:58] to resolve that. Yeah, I also be trying to knock on that neighbor's door a couple times,

[46:04] but I always go in the middle of the day. So, you know, you know, you're able to work

[46:07] in. So, you're going to grant my read, isn't it? Yeah, exactly. It's safe, my trips.

[46:14] The data is ready for movement on that campus dispensary housekeepers.

[46:19] No, surprisingly no. When we heard from them maybe a month after their approval,

[46:24] you know just confirming things that they've been approved and then they went

[46:29] kind of quiet. I did hear some interesting I guess inside about how the

[46:37] licensing works and so there might be there might have something to do with the

[46:41] way that these distributors or dispensers are getting licenses they

[46:46] apparently sell them off after receiving a perils and getting the license so you

[46:51] you know, I don't know if maybe they were just holding on to it.

[46:53] There is a deadline from the state until December 31st,

[46:56] where if you don't have an active permit,

[47:00] then you'll just lose that license.

[47:02] So maybe we hear from them somewhat soon,

[47:05] but as far as I know, it's been quiet, you know?

[47:09] In our approval from the plane board had a deadline too.

[47:14] Yeah, pretty much.

[47:15] Not the site claim on.

[47:22] Yeah, this came in prior to the new zoning,

[47:24] which has dispensary code but before the news on it it just came in as retail because we had nothing else to do which we will soon need to change the state keeps changing yes our original code mimic the state's code the state keeps reducing their buffer requirements they courts have been very clear that municipalities can't grant the state law on the cannabis issue so do you think yeah or reduce it if you keep doing it closer to churches primarily and

[47:54] And it's from door to door now and set up for our little parcel and it's on the same street.

[47:59] Competing incense and wheat smell?

[48:01] Yeah.

[48:02] It's not in my hands.

[48:04] We like the way our regulations are right now.

[48:07] We're still unclear on whether we can regularly be especially useful.

[48:09] We're working on that because we're told that we can regularly be a time, place, and manner.

[48:14] But then we're also told to especially usefully be considered unnecessarily restrictive.

[48:20] is the language that they're using which, frankly, I think it's a bit ridiculous because

[48:25] the time-placing manner restrictions are authorizing municipalities, their specialties

[48:28] permit. So, if we can't do specialties permit, I think it eliminates our ability to regularly

[48:33] time-placing manner. But we're working on that right now. We have a contact over it. Oh,

[48:38] Sam, that we're trying to work with on the outdated regs because we're going to need to.

[48:42] Well,

[48:45] that's so plain, didn't we have a DOT for our redesign in there?

[48:52] Yeah.

[48:54] So they'd have to do that, mostly.

[48:56] Got building for that.

[48:58] Yeah.

[48:58] Exactly.

[48:59] All right.

[49:01] Well, over the summer it's time for people to go and drive the weather, but now it's dark.

[49:06] So, we're supposed to close the meeting.

[49:09] All fairer.

[49:10] Hi.

[49:11] Both.

[49:12] Have a good night.

Planning Board

Transcript