[0:01] this meeting is being recorded all right
it's all yours mayor
[0:05] all right thank you um so folks uh
this is the january 3rd uh village board
[0:11] of trustees meeting for the village of
flower hill thank you for joining
[0:14] apologies for uh those who are stuck in
the waiting room we're having some
[0:17] technical difficulties
uh we now have everybody out of the
[0:20] waiting room and we will start the
meeting
[0:22] i'm going to start with the pledge of
allegiance i'll just lead the pledge
[0:27] i pledge allegiance to the flag of the
united states of america
[0:31] and to the republic for which it stands
one nation under god in the liberty and
[0:36] justice for all
[0:39] all right
um
[0:41] so today's meeting is going to start
with
[0:46] uh public hearings uh the first one is
for a lot line adjustment hearing from
[0:50] 50 uh for 50 and 60 walnut
um this is a carryover of a hearing from
[0:56] the last meeting
[1:00] so
let's start there
[1:02] before we get started
i know
[1:06] we have who do we have from the
applicant here
[1:10] so we have the applicant and i think we
have your attorney as well john farrell
[1:14] yes
okay
[1:16] and now um
jeff we had discussed i think prior to
[1:21] this uh just before this meeting
um jeff blinkoff our village attorney
[1:25] we had some new information from you
today john i think it was submitted uh
[1:29] this morning
um and we also received some additional
[1:33] commentary from the public just before
this meeting mayor don't you need to
[1:37] make a motion to open the public hearing
thank you randall uh make a motion to
[1:42] open the public hearing and then we'll
revisit my comments i'll second it
[1:46] all in favor
all right
[1:54] all right
[1:56] so john i think um based off the fact
that we've just gotten some additional
[2:01] information um
and uh from both you and the public uh i
[2:06] think we'd like to start off with uh
getting your consent to carry this
[2:09] hearing over till the next month uh so
the board can review that information
[2:14] and uh i guess address any questions we
can after the meeting
[2:18] is that possible
[2:21] um i i didn't have this kind of took me
by surprise i didn't have a chance to
[2:24] consult with my client well just just to
be clear mr phil they're not
[2:29] i don't think the mayor is saying that
they're not going to let people be heard
[2:32] tonight uh just that they'll then want
people to be able to review everything
[2:35] that's been submitted
correct okay okay
[2:41] yeah that i mean that's acceptable
yeah john we'd like i guess you uh on
[2:46] behalf of the applicant to walk us
through the information you submitted
[2:49] we'll ask any questions uh how we're
just getting this today i think we'd
[2:52] like a chance to look it over
sure i understand
[2:56] okay so then i'll hand it over to you uh
for okay representation
[3:01] sure um for the applicant my name is
john farrow i'm with the firm son ward
[3:06] braf and koblins our offices are at 333
hovington boulevard street 601 uniondale
[3:12] new york
um on the line tonight are my client dan
[3:17] bombach um the architect on the project
trisha o'neil she designed the house
[3:21] that's currently under construction
and
[3:25] you know as you said we we submitted
some additional information but before i
[3:29] walk you through that i'd like to
you know open the floor to my client to
[3:33] give um his point of view on
why they entered into contract to buy
[3:39] the adjoining property and what they
they seek to achieve by doing so
[3:44] so at this point i just asked dan to
unmute himself and and walk and walk you
[3:50] guys through that
[3:53] sure so hello and thank you for the
opportunity to speak before the board
[3:57] my name is dan baumbach and my family
has lived in manhasset for almost 10
[4:01] years my wife and i have been active
community community members since that
[4:04] time whether through volunteering our
time on the munzee park tree committee
[4:09] various school committees a non-profit
board community groups as a cub scout
[4:13] den leader or as a coach we love our
community and are looking forward to
[4:16] moving to our new home being built in
flower hill as a reminder the home we
[4:21] are currently building at 60 walnut was
already approved by the architectural
[4:24] review committee and the board of
trustees earlier in 2021 and meets
[4:28] village code we did not need nor do we
ever seek a variance for this build as
[4:33] it conforms with village code
when the owner of 51 elaine informed us
[4:38] of their decision to move we were
disappointed to lose such nice and
[4:41] welcoming neighbors the seller mentioned
that their ranch would most likely be
[4:45] bought by a builder to be replaced with
a new home
[4:48] as they discussed selling their home to
a builder we were also approached to see
[4:52] if we had any interest in their property
when my wife and i thought about the new
[4:56] home that could be built at their
address we calculated that a new code
[4:59] conforming house could be placed 13 feet
closer to our home and still meet the
[5:04] minimum size setback
as we thought about how to prevent this
[5:07] section of walnut lane from becoming
denser we realized that if we owned both
[5:11] properties we could request a lot line
shift in order to increase the green
[5:15] space between both homes
further our young family would benefit
[5:19] from having the additional grass to play
on
[5:21] knowing that this is a once in a
lifetime opportunity we made an offer to
[5:24] the seller and are currently in contract
to purchase 50 walnut
[5:29] as incoming residents of the village we
care deeply about our new neighbors the
[5:32] character of the village and the high
standards put in place by the village
[5:35] code the architectural review committee
and the board of trustees deciding on
[5:40] how many feet to move the property line
took a considerable amount of time
[5:44] we chose 21 feet based on researching
village code and at the separate
[5:48] meetings with our architect attorney and
a village inspector we could have
[5:52] requested to move the property line 34
feet which would still leave behind a
[5:56] conforming lot that would be larger than
40
[5:59] of the lots on walnut lane
however we decided on 21 feet as this
[6:03] would leave behind a lot that is
114.64 feet resulting in a lot that is
[6:08] larger than approximately half of the
remaining lots on walnut
[6:12] this lot would allow a new
code-conforming home to be built similar
[6:15] in size to our home without the need for
a variance
[6:18] the purpose of our application is to
request a 21 foot lot line shift we
[6:23] understand that any subsequent build at
50 walnut lane is a separate matter that
[6:27] would be subject to the village's code
and review by the architectural review
[6:30] committee
we'd like to thank the many neighbors on
[6:33] walnut lane and in flower hill who have
offered their support to this
[6:37] application these letters of support
were provided to the village earlier
[6:40] again our intention with this
application is to ensure there is
[6:43] additional green space between our home
and a new home built at 50 walnut
[6:48] as the owner of 60 walnut and contract
vendi for 50 we respectfully request
[6:52] approval of our application to ship the
lot line 21 feet resulting in two lots
[6:57] each of which exceeds minimum code thank
you for your consideration
[7:04] thank you mr brownback
[7:07] so i think that
go ahead
[7:10] as you say i think that about sums up
the the reason um and the thought
[7:14] process that went into it this wasn't
something my client is doing
[7:18] you know off the cuff he did he took a
lot of time to think about this and and
[7:22] really
you know mapped this whole process out
[7:25] before he he started on this endeavor
if you recall at the last hearing the
[7:30] board had asked us to prepare like a tax
map exhibit showing the lots on walnut
[7:36] lane um we did prepare that exhibit and
i provided it to the uh
[7:42] to the village clerk
and i i don't i don't know if i i don't
[7:47] think i have the ability to screen share
i don't know if she can screen share it
[7:51] i know she's on the line i see her down
there um
[7:56] but you know just to walk you through it
since the board members have it in front
[8:00] of them
what i did was i highlighted the lots
[8:03] that are the subject of this application
they're highlighted in red
[8:08] so and i highlighted them in their
current configuration not post
[8:13] not post lot line adjustment because
this is based on the existing conditions
[8:17] so if you look at the properties that
are highlighted in yellow
[8:22] there's the uh
there's the exhibit properties that are
[8:26] highlighted in yellow all have lot
frontage on walnut lane that is less
[8:32] than
114.64 feet in width
[8:36] so
uh
[8:38] it's
out of the there are 31 lots excluding
[8:42] the two lots that are the subject of
this application
[8:45] and 14 of them have less than
114.64 feet of lot width
[8:53] there are two additional lots
that have uh addresses on crabapple lane
[8:58] and boulder road
both of those lots also have frontage of
[9:02] less than 100 feet on walnut so i
highlighted those just to show you that
[9:09] you know
this this area this this particular
[9:12] street
is very uh it's not cookie cutter every
[9:16] lot is is is a little bit different
there
[9:19] many different widths
uh but at the end of the day
[9:23] this lot the the smaller of the two
locks which would be 114.64
[9:28] feet would be
roughly
[9:32] if you don't count the two locks on one
on
[9:37] close to 50
of the lots would be smaller than the
[9:40] lot we're proposing the smaller lot
if you include those it's more than 50
[9:44] percent it would be 17 out of 33 lots
would be less than would be smaller than
[9:50] the lot that we would be leaving behind
on the other side
[9:54] the
lot that we would be
[9:57] creating at at 60 walnut lane would be
156.64 feet in in width along walnut
[10:04] lane
i've highlighted the properties in blue
[10:07] on on walnut lane that have more
frontage than 150 feet
[10:13] so if you look at
the letter that i submitted i created a
[10:19] a chart
that shows
[10:25] um
it shows you the register a lot with
[10:27] from hold on
i'd ask anybody that's not
[10:37] all right john try it again now
okay
[10:41] um so i highlighted the properties that
are highlighted in blue on this map are
[10:45] or lots that have
150 feet or more a lot with a long
[10:50] walnut lane
and the lot at five walnut which is uh
[10:55] the corner of boulder and walnut lane is
175 feet in width
[11:01] the lot at
uh 120
[11:05] for our i'm sorry
uh
[11:10] a lot 124 walnut lane
which is the property at the corner of
[11:16] uh
dogwood and walnut
[11:19] that lot is also
approximately 175 feet in width
[11:24] and then there are larger
similar lot sizes
[11:29] at uh 15 walnut and
i'm sorry just give me one second
[11:38] 15 walnut is approximately 150 feet
and 150 walnut is
[11:45] 156.16 feet
so even
[11:49] even after we create the subdivision
these lots will be
[11:53] similar in size to other parcels there
aren't they won't stand out for their
[11:58] for their largeness or their smallness
uh once the lot line adjustment is
[12:04] is granted
another issue that was raised at the at
[12:08] the hearing was the possibility of
building a bigger home on walmart
[12:13] a bigger home at my clients property at
60 walmart
[12:16] so with the additional square footage we
calculated that my client could
[12:22] theoretically add another 1500 plus
square feet
[12:26] to that house
based on the lot size for gfa and still
[12:31] be conforming
so that would bring the house to about 6
[12:35] 500 square feet
my client has no desire to do that
[12:40] the house is under construction it's a
brand new home there's no reason to add
[12:44] uh an additional 1500 square feet
but even if they did add that 1500
[12:50] square feet it would still be
approximately
[12:55] 2 000 square feet smaller
than the home at 20 walnut lane which is
[13:01] almost 8 500 square feet
so
[13:07] you know you have to take it all in
context the code is there for a reason
[13:11] and
what we're leaving behind are not
[13:14] substantial substandard lots we're
talking about we're not increasing
[13:18] density we're not increasing traffic
we're talking about two new homes on the
[13:22] street which are only going to increase
property values in the community
[13:26] and i think there's going to be a
benefit once this is once this is
[13:30] granted
so and this the lot line adjustment also
[13:34] achieves my clients goal
of you know creating more separation
[13:38] between him and the adjoining property
uh to the to the west
[13:44] we should i should also note that my
client submitted some letters of support
[13:49] from neighbors along walnut i believe
there are nine letters from neighbors on
[13:54] walnut that are in favor of this
application
[13:57] including the two that are most affected
that those are the property owners on
[14:02] either side of this subdivision at 40
and 70 walnut lane they're all in favor
[14:08] of it and the property owner across the
street at 65 walnut lane is also in
[14:13] favor of the application so the three
people that would be most impacted by
[14:18] the subdivision
are all in favor of this application
[14:24] um you know i think that's that's
important i think if the neighbors on
[14:28] the street don't have an issue with it
and it's not going to deter from the
[14:33] character of the community and it's
with the code i don't really see
[14:38] a reason why this application should be
denied
[14:42] so with that i'll open the i'll ask the
board if they have any questions
[14:48] uh thank you mr farrell
uh so i'll open it up to the board for
[14:53] questions to the applicant
[14:57] um i guess while everybody's coming off
me mr farrell uh do you know what the
[15:02] if the lot line change is approved what
would the square footage be for the home
[15:06] on 50 walnut what would be the max there
um i can i have to look at it um
[15:12] i have been i just got a text from my
client
[15:16] uh it was 13 letters from people on
walnut that are in favor of the
[15:19] application
so
[15:22] um just so you know those were emailed
over i think this afternoon so we we
[15:27] have those our possession now yeah with
them to the record um
[15:31] hi mr phil this is frank janiece uh
trusty can you zoom in on this uh
[15:35] particularly at the red uh the red
highlighted watts oh that would have
[15:40] ronnie would have to take care of that
she's controlling the uh
[15:44] it's made from i'm getting there
randolph randall because something's
[15:48] wrong with something's wrong with the
scale
[15:50] the the
50 looks bigger than 60.
[15:54] the uh that's the way the county the
county's tax maps are not all the same
[16:00] scale
so i tried my best to
[16:03] to map this out so if you look at the
the lower right section um between
[16:08] dogwood and uh
and crab apple
[16:12] that those lots look significantly
bigger but they're not it's just the
[16:17] it's just the way the county scales the
tax map it's not there's no consistency
[16:22] to it right because this graphic then
really doesn't doesn't help us because
[16:26] it's not
to the proper scale so it looks like the
[16:30] the smaller lot like 50 is now bigger
than lot 60.
[16:35] well i think you can should be the other
way around and and that lot 50 i was
[16:39] there today will be significantly
smaller than the way it's depicted in
[16:43] that image
well in this image again i didn't crea i
[16:47] didn't make this the size that it would
be because we were i didn't make this
[16:52] i split them the way they are currently
configured i did not split them the way
[16:56] they will be after the lot line
adjustment is made this was really to
[17:00] the point of this map was to illustrate
that there are other lots in the area
[17:05] that are comparably sized now
you know the one thing i would point out
[17:11] is
you can look at this map it's a little
[17:13] blurry online because it's been scanned
and and
[17:17] you know it's you know obviously the you
lose a little bit of resolution when
[17:21] it's a screen share
but if you look at the numbers on the
[17:25] lots the each lot you can see the lot
with the the numbers represent the width
[17:29] of the lot so if you if you look at the
the actual image on that you can see the
[17:34] lot widths are what i'm portraying them
to be
[17:37] um what i've said they are in my letter
uh in support of the application
[17:42] um if i look
on that front john just so i because i
[17:46] know there's people online uh trying to
look at the screen probably right now um
[17:51] as well as we have some people on the
phone so
[17:54] uh this information is at village hall
people can review it um frank i'd let
[17:59] you know it's i think it's in your email
too because i think it was emailed to
[18:02] all of us it's a little easier to see uh
when it's not in this powerpoint format
[18:06] it's getting pixelated on our screen so
you know again this is one of the
[18:10] reasons i think i want to give people a
chance to uh to to view this after the
[18:15] meeting
[18:18] um i have a question for peter um with
respect to what a statement that was
[18:23] made by mr farrell um
i i think you you stated
[18:29] that the maximum you could do with the
revised lot size would be something like
[18:35] 7 500 square feet
did i hear that right
[18:41] hundred sixty five hundred sixty four
ninety seven okay so right um but are
[18:46] isn't there um an upper limit on
[18:55] i think that factors in the upper limit
that was the number oh
[19:01] what what lot size are we talking about
what are we proposing on the larger lot
[19:06] if what would be the largest house we
could build
[19:13] what's the maximum size you can build
out to
[19:17] what's the square footage of the
proposed lot
[19:19] it's 23 000
um 23 000 and change
[19:26] i'll give you great so
gary i think i know where you're going
[19:29] so let me let me ask this a different
way and see if that's what you're asking
[19:33] so peter is there a maximum
to that someone can build to in r4
[19:38] zoning sounds like you're saying it
depends on the square footage of the lot
[19:42] and so if someone put 10 lots together
the maximum will be determined by the
[19:47] square footage of those 10 lots
versus one smaller lot well we also have
[19:53] break points where above a certain uh
a certain square footage you can't do
[19:58] more so now if you're over 22 000 square
feet you're just governed
[20:02] by the the far so this is an r4 if you
can give me that i could do the math if
[20:07] you can give me that lot size again
23 496.
[20:14] and our far is 0.28
for an r4 current correct
[20:21] so that's
6578 square feet
[20:24] so we're not you're above the 22 000 the
next cap is is is an acre so
[20:31] uh only the far would apply on this not
the not our breakpoint cap points
[20:37] okay
regardless i i think the the point is
[20:41] that it would still be smaller than the
lot that uh the house that's at lot 20.
[20:45] i i just wanted to be sure we had
accurate information that's all of
[20:48] course of course uh by those
calculations i believe
[20:53] on the other on the other lot after the
lot line adjustment we can they could
[20:57] build a house that's around a little
over 4 000 square feet
[21:05] that's for 50 walnut you're 450 walnut
right after the lot line adjustment that
[21:11] would be what you could build on 50
walmart
[21:16] and peter any idea of the square footage
on the home on 40 walnut the one that
[21:20] was just constructed
[21:23] if you don't have that handy we can i
don't have that with me
[21:27] okay thank you
[21:32] i mean i can answer that if
it's okay
[21:38] sure go ahead i mean i believe it's 5056
same as what we're building a 60 walnut
[21:43] right around that that number that 5050.
[21:48] all right thank you that would that
would have met the cap at uh less than
[21:52] 22 if it's less than 22 000 then you go
to a cap of
[21:56] uh 5060.
[22:02] all right other questions from the board
[22:09] i guess the only other question i have
is you referenced active space
[22:14] um i know we have encouraged people uh
and promoted some some green scaping and
[22:20] and uh use of patios and porches so
peter is there any limitations on
[22:27] i guess pool or patio space on uh on 60
that would be impacted by this
[22:35] well
you know we have we have percentages of
[22:38] lot coverage um we have percentages at
maximum for uh pools in the back um
[22:45] you know far also includes any accessory
structures so
[22:50] if the lot size increases you could you
know you could you could increase up up
[22:54] to those those numbers as a percentage
of the growth slot area
[22:59] so is 60 walnut currently at its maximum
uh i guess lot coverage percentage
[23:06] i i don't know that information i i
don't i don't believe so
[23:10] but but i don't have the file in front
of me
[23:12] uh i'll i'll open that up to the
applicants then dude are you aware of if
[23:16] you're current
uh
[23:18] the architect would know that that would
be on the zoning submission
[23:23] i
i believe that i don't think the house
[23:26] is is at the limit i think it's less
than 5 000 if i'm not mistaken i thought
[23:30] i want to say it was like
i don't know i can't remember but
[23:34] i all right do you know
[23:39] patricia o'neill is our architect i
don't know if she's hi i'm i'm just
[23:43] pulling that up i want to be accurate
thank you
[23:50] so the maximum lot coverage is 25
percent
[24:11] because i think i just while we're
waiting you know that was another
[24:15] concern that was raised was
the amount of outdoor space as well so
[24:20] um obviously
if you're not at your maximum or you are
[24:24] that could alleviate or address some
concerns
[24:29] or raise concerns
[24:33] the the the bambach's house the the
house that's being built um
[24:37] that's that's currently under
construction the floor area of that
[24:41] house they're allowed 5060 square foot
max floor area and the house being built
[24:47] is
5056 square feet
[24:54] pat do you have the lot coverage
the lot coverage um
[24:59] we're allowed 25 percent
um and we are at 19
[25:06] lot coverage for their house that's
under construction right now
[25:10] okay
so even without uh this lot line
[25:13] approval you the the applicant has
six percent more uh space to use
[25:20] on that property
correct and and that you know just to um
[25:25] you know that that lot coverage that 19
um that includes
[25:32] um you know the house of course the
garage
[25:35] the mudroom porch the rear porch the
pool the outdoor kitchen space and um we
[25:42] have sort of a a a a walk going to the
mudroom so you know that includes
[25:48] you know all the improvements on the
property
[25:51] um i i just want to i just want to add
um when
[25:55] when we were designing the house you
know when i was designing the house with
[25:59] the bound backs
um you know we we did you know consider
[26:04] making the the covered porch larger and
you know we certainly we we can do that
[26:10] we have um a lot of coverage available
um but you know they they felt strongly
[26:16] that they they didn't want to
um you know encroach on the backyard and
[26:22] they really wanted to try to preserve as
much green space
[26:26] um
and uh you know as possible again for
[26:31] um
you know just
[26:33] they they really um
you know having outdoor space and and
[26:39] you know just quote open space so you
know we did
[26:42] um pull that covered porch um and the
patio you know we did we did pull them
[26:47] sort of you know way back
um
[26:50] again just to um preserve green space on
the property
[26:55] all right thank you very much um any
other questions from the board
[27:00] um i have a quick question and maybe for
a follow-up um
[27:03] i would be curious to know what
information the
[27:08] residents i think it was 13 the 13
residents um
[27:12] that signed this um letter of support
were given were they shown this map
[27:18] which is not to scale
were they shown the shading
[27:23] where the larger properties are all
corner properties i would just like to
[27:27] know the level of detail that
the residents that were signed
[27:32] or was it just a generalization of what
the average size was that we originally
[27:38] had before we got new information so i i
would be curious
[27:42] sure so i could take that so my wife and
i went around to the neighbors on our
[27:46] street the new street and
for the most part the majority of them
[27:50] had a lot of questions they
were very curious about the lot sizes on
[27:55] the street itself and
i would say the overwhelming feedback we
[27:59] received was they were
looking forward to having more green
[28:03] space and they were very supportive of
that we did tell them that the resulting
[28:08] lot would go from
135 and change feet wide to about 114
[28:14] feet wide and change and they asked what
type of house could be built there what
[28:19] size so we answered that question and um
i also mentioned that the lot would be
[28:24] bigger than about half the lots on
walnut lane and
[28:28] it was
we had great support so that those were
[28:32] the questions i didn't have the lot map
with me to show
[28:36] um each resident but they received the
certified uh letter with the information
[28:41] um and
you know no one asked me specifically
[28:45] like what is the size of this address or
what is the size of that address they
[28:47] were just
um happy to get more green space
[28:53] thank you
[28:57] all right any other questions from the
board
[29:02] all right um seeing none i guess we'll
turn it over to the public for public
[29:07] comment at this point
[29:10] i i'd say we just please for everybody
participating
[29:14] um
comments uh should be
[29:18] limited to
uh the application for the lot line
[29:21] adjustment on 50 and 60 walnut lane um
randall do they just come off mute they
[29:28] can just come off of you and for the
record please give your name and address
[29:33] yes we need everyone's name and address
for the stenographer if you're
[29:36] commenting
[29:44] any additional comments i'll give
everybody one more minute here to come
[29:48] off mute
[29:56] all right
um
[29:58] and if for uh some reason anybody has a
follow-up comment after they can email
[30:04] us uh
at village hall um
[30:08] the
uh one email that we got um this
[30:12] afternoon
we'll submit that to
[30:16] the um
stenographer for the record
[30:20] jeff do we need to read that into the
record or ronnie are you there
[30:26] or can we just give it all right
it doesn't need to be read into the
[30:29] record but um
i don't know if mr farrell received a
[30:34] copy so maybe we can make arrangements
to share that with the applicant in
[30:37] between as well
and i would just ask that it be made a
[30:40] part of the record by reference
uh let's do that it looks like it was
[30:47] signed
email has 23 people on it and um
[30:53] uh the letter is signed by two four six
eight ten people so uh we'll provide
[30:58] that to you uh mr farrell and mr bomback
um and uh if there's no further
[31:05] questions or comments from the board
we will uh adjourn this hearing and
[31:09] carry it over till next month
so i'd ask if there's a motion to
[31:12] adjourn and carry it over to the next
[31:16] month i'll make that motion gary
lewandowski
[31:20] is there a second
[31:24] i'll second it it's the mayor
and if i could um ask for
[31:30] the trustee collins your vote
uh uh aye sorry trustee dorfman
[31:38] aye
trustee janice
[31:40] hi
trustee lewandowski
[31:43] hi
um i forgot someone trustee
[31:50] hi
thank you um
[31:53] deputy mayor hi
mayor
[31:56] hi
um and the motion carries and just to
[32:00] confirm uh i'm asking the applicant's
counsel and this is with your consent
[32:04] sir
yes
[32:06] thank you
[32:09] thank you appreciate everybody's
patience here um
[32:13] so that will
complete the hearing for the lot line
[32:17] adjustment we'll move now to the
hearing on the public laws
[32:21] so everyone is welcome to
stay and listen in
[32:26] but uh if it's
time for you to go you can go uh all
[32:30] right so
do we need to yeah we need to motion in
[32:34] to the public hearing for these laws or
can we just continue on
[32:39] i believe we
yes i think you had opened it for the
[32:43] public hearing portion ronnie are you
back on the call i am i'm here oh good
[32:47] you take over i'm done being village
administrator
[32:50] oh okay and i thought jeff was doing
such a good job too
[32:54] hey it's teamwork here it makes the
dream work
[32:58] okay so uh next on next on the agenda uh
for public hearings is proposed local
[33:03] law f of 2021 um fee for cancellation of
an inspection appointment um and that is
[33:10] for a cancellation without
any notice
[33:15] this was introduced at last month's
meeting
[33:18] um there was some discussion among the
board
[33:21] uh you've all received the the
local law in your packets there have
[33:26] been no changes um i'll leave it to the
board for any further discussion
[33:33] all right anybody from the board have a
comment or question otherwise i'll open
[33:36] it up to the public for comment
[33:41] all right seeing none uh let's open it
up to the public
[33:45] say the same thing as i said before if
you're on the call for this
[33:50] i'd ask that you uh just unmute yourself
give your name an address and
[33:55] uh make a comment
[34:03] give everybody another second here
[34:08] one last time any comments questions
from the public
[34:12] all right uh seeing none
[34:16] uh any comments or questions from the
board
[34:18] seems pretty straight forward to me
we've talked about it a bunch
[34:22] um i'd say i think
um will you keep it open for one more
[34:26] meeting
see if there's any further public
[34:28] comment or questions and if not
look to potentially adopt this next
[34:32] month
sound good
[34:37] i think we can move on to the next
public hearing again this is also the
[34:41] second hearing proposed local law g of
2021 regarding rental demonstration
[34:48] again there have been you have been
notified of some
[34:53] minor changes in the law it was on the
trustees desks well in advance of the
[34:58] statutory requirement it's also been
posted on our website well in advance of
[35:02] the statutory requirement um
that being said i will uh turn it over
[35:08] to the board
okay
[35:12] one thing that uh that is not included
in this language that i do want to
[35:15] update based off
conversations with ronnie and jeff
[35:19] previously
as part of our food establishment
[35:22] license we talked about adding a
requirement that they submit an annual
[35:26] extermination inspection
that was one of the other issues so i'd
[35:31] like to have that added in as well
ensuring that those businesses don't uh
[35:37] contribute to any sort of public health
issues based off the issues that came up
[35:42] this year um
so uh
[35:47] with that i guess i'll just turn over to
the board for any questions or comments
[35:51] and uh or actually first jeff do you
want to just highlight what the updates
[35:55] were because you talked about in the
last meeting just refresh everyone's
[35:58] memory
[36:01] um
in terms of what what this um
[36:05] local law would
control yeah yeah i think what it would
[36:09] do
some updates around the um the
[36:12] short-term rent
sure so essentially um
[36:16] the the key provision that deals with
the time frame uh i think is section one
[36:23] seventy
[36:33] 13 which talks about short-term rentals
and essentially what this breaks down to
[36:37] is to say that
if a person is going if an owner
[36:42] is going to rent out a property they can
do so
[36:46] for 90 days or more
really without
[36:51] requiring going before the board of
trustees or seeking any particular
[36:55] permission the only time that somebody
needs to come before the board of
[36:58] trustees or seek any kind of exemption
is if the following happens suppose
[37:03] somebody is going to
attempt to rent out the property for
[37:08] more than two 90-day periods within a
one-year period
[37:12] then that person would need to seek an
exemption from the board
[37:15] uh the second would be if if a person is
desirous of renting out a property for
[37:21] less
than 90 days um and
[37:25] the intent of this from from the
reading of the code would be that what
[37:29] the board is hoping to
stave off would be continuous
[37:34] and regular short-term rentals um
i know that there was some discussion on
[37:39] the last date
about
[37:41] what's mentioned in the code that if
someone were to come before the board
[37:46] what they could ask for in terms of an
exemption of what i just mentioned would
[37:50] be
uh based upon if they could show that
[37:53] there was a severe and substantial
financial hardship
[37:56] i just wanted to explain how that at
least from my reading of the intent
[38:00] behind that would be and i think the
easiest way to consider it is if you you
[38:04] think of some examples of what might
come up
[38:07] um
you know and one such example might be
[38:11] that if
uh perhaps somebody had rented out their
[38:14] property uh for a 90-day period and as
well as for a second 90-day period and
[38:20] then there was an unfortunate
circumstance in which perhaps the the
[38:24] structure became unusable for a brief
time so the ranchers were no fault of
[38:28] the renter
left but was unable to remain the
[38:31] homeowner then repairs the home
um and let's assume also the homeowner
[38:36] isn't on site isn't in state lives out
of state
[38:39] and wants to be able to to rent that
property out again um
[38:44] i could see the the homeowner coming
before the board and explaining look
[38:48] this isn't something where i'm in the
you know continuous short-term rental
[38:51] business this is a circumstance in which
i don't i don't i'm not on site
[38:56] i fix the property i should be able to
use my property i should be able to
[39:00] allow somebody to live there
so i could see somebody coming
[39:04] before the board for that purpose
on the flip side you could see somebody
[39:09] if perhaps they're looking toward a sale
of their property
[39:13] but there there's not going to be
anybody taking over the property or
[39:17] taking possession
for say 60 days or so
[39:22] and again they're living outside of the
of the confines of the state
[39:26] i could see somebody coming before the
board perhaps to say look we're on the
[39:30] under 90 day rental uh we would ask to
be able to rent our property for say you
[39:36] know 60 days
um it's going to be somebody's going to
[39:39] be taking possession of it after that
time and we'd ask for permission of the
[39:43] board
and they would
[39:45] i can't speak for them but their
argument would be because i i can't live
[39:49] there i live elsewhere i'm paying
rent or a mortgage elsewhere i'd like to
[39:53] be able to have this property used for
that purpose so i did just want to
[39:56] clarify where i think that particular
provision comes from
[40:00] but that provision the 176-13
is the provision that talks about the
[40:07] time frame of rentals so i hope that
clarifies
[40:11] thank you any questions from the board
[40:16] uh all right before we open it to public
comment there was a um
[40:20] a resident who is on last time uh
commented had sent some follow-up
[40:25] questions i just want to address
them uh briefly if i can
[40:29] um the first one related to
uh how many other villages in nassau
[40:34] county were doing this um you know first
i'd say state that um we're not the
[40:38] first to do it um i certainly don't
think we'll be the last
[40:42] uh and i think we're trying to be
proactive and head off any issues and
[40:47] you know i don't want to sit around and
wait for something horrible to happen
[40:50] before we put something in place we
shouldn't just wait around and be
[40:55] reactive to every issue in the village
so i think there's enough documented
[40:59] cases of bad things happening with
short-term rentals that
[41:04] provides a need for this type of
oversight and not just short-term
[41:08] rentals we're talking about standards
for long-term rentals here
[41:11] uh so as far as the number of villages
went um we had surveyed uh about 24
[41:17] villages most of them in our surrounding
area uh eight of them had a rental
[41:22] registry um and 13 of them had actually
uh limited or
[41:27] banned short-term rentals
um so ronnie's going to continue to
[41:31] reach out to villages there are um
approximately 64-ish
[41:38] i think in nassau county obviously
thousands across the state um but we've
[41:42] reached out to try and get more
information
[41:44] but that's a sampling of of the villages
that we were able to get in touch with
[41:48] and respond to so again we're not the
first
[41:52] to do this
um the second was around crime and do we
[41:56] have problems with uh existing rentals
and specifically uh commenting i think
[42:03] towards or questioning the need for this
around the rodent problem
[42:06] uh and i think holistically here we're
trying to ensure that any rentals that
[42:10] are operating in the village have
proper uh safety protocols in place
[42:15] whether it be fire alarms smoke
detectors
[42:18] that they're meeting certain
quality
[42:21] standards
and then
[42:24] also making sure that there are
exterminator reviews in place
[42:29] so that any rodent or pest problems are
dealt with
[42:32] specifically the rodent problem over the
summer
[42:34] if one property was a rental property
the other property in question was a
[42:41] was the food establishment so it's kind
of a chicken or the egg issue as to what
[42:44] created the problem the rodents were
living on the rental property
[42:48] but they were getting food from the food
establishment so
[42:51] uh in these cases we'd be uh potentially
addressing both problems to ensure
[42:55] there's proper
oversight um
[42:58] uh in addition we can do inspections to
ensure that alterations aren't illegally
[43:03] made uh that could promote safety hazard
fire you know lack of fire egresses
[43:08] uh things like that uh as well
uh finally the third one related uh to
[43:15] go uh this went back to
uh have we had any disturbances and when
[43:19] i checked in with ronnie and our code
enforcer robert rockline um no we
[43:23] haven't had uh occurrences of large
parties or issues like that with rentals
[43:29] uh however again i don't want to sit
around and wait for a problem to happen
[43:33] and be reactive let's be proactive here
so i think those were the questions
[43:37] submitted to the board tried to address
them as best i could um
[43:41] i think we'll open it up to a public
comment now
[43:44] so if there's anybody on the line who'd
like to comment on this public law
[43:48] uh please do so now just take yourself
off mute
[44:07] uh wrote a backer
i assume this is for
[44:11] the rental of the entire property
i just want to make sure that you have
[44:18] some
garages with rooms up above them
[44:23] although they're not
necessarily permitted in certain areas
[44:30] they do exist
i therefore assume that this is not
[44:35] rental of a
garage area or a separate
[44:41] section of our house
[44:45] my understanding was this would if you
were renting a room of your house this
[44:49] would cover that as well
but
[44:52] i'll defer to jeff here jeff uh would if
someone was just renting out
[44:58] a garage apartment or part of the house
would it be covered by this
[45:03] um it would because the dwelling unit is
defined as a building within the village
[45:08] or part of such building occupied or to
be occupied by one or more persons as a
[45:12] residence
and this covers
[45:15] um
single family dwelling units so if
[45:20] somebody
uh the short answer is yes it will cover
[45:23] it okay thank you
thank you
[45:28] thank you rhoda
uh anybody else uh have a comment from
[45:33] the public
[45:40] all right uh thank you very much um
board any other comments questions
[45:46] discussion around this law
[45:50] um
i think i it's maybe a
[45:53] well it's a little bit off the track but
maybe it's something we need to think
[45:56] about um
[Music]
[45:59] and i maybe that's what rota was
alluding to a little bit was
[46:04] you know this idea of accessory dwelling
unit which typically is like a granny
[46:08] flat kind of thing
um
[46:11] is this covered
i mean in other words what's what is
[46:15] there are there like family relationship
things that that
[46:19] can
not be covered on this law or
[46:23] how's that dealt with
jeff help me out here but my
[46:27] understanding is um in new york state a
family unit is pretty broad here so
[46:32] um if someone was just
allowing their daughter or their son
[46:37] their niece nephew to live with them
um or
[46:42] you know again it's pretty broad in new
york broader than that
[46:46] without compensation i think is would be
part of it you know they could be
[46:50] contributing to the bills together
uh but if you weren't renting to them
[46:53] for profit i think uh i think you'd be
covered as a single family dwelling okay
[46:58] i i yeah i
am i muted no um i agree um the
[47:03] definition of family is included here
um so it can be somebody that's related
[47:08] but it doesn't have to be somebody
that's
[47:10] not related um by blood or marriage but
who together constitute the functional
[47:16] equivalent of a natural family and the
trigger of when this does
[47:21] uh go into effect is really when there's
an exchange of funds in order for the
[47:25] rentals
[47:28] i just want to add that our village um
just basically does not permit two
[47:33] family dwellings or mother-daughter
apartments um there are a few mother
[47:38] daughter apartments i think definitely
less than 10 that were granted um
[47:43] through variances
uh
[47:46] that are you know pre-existing but other
than the apartment house um
[47:51] the uh
we i know of one illegal um
[47:56] two-family home
and um other than that uh there's
[48:01] no single dwelling that has uh living
space for more than one family other
[48:06] than these like eight to ten homes
[48:13] all right thank you
any other comments or questions from the
[48:17] board
[48:20] all right um
then uh say same thing for this law
[48:25] let's keep it uh or law proposal let's
keep it open another month and uh look
[48:29] to potentially take action based off
public feedback next month
[48:36] okay so the next hearing is a proposed
local law h2021
[48:41] amend the property maintenance code to
prohibit unsecured ladders
[48:50] all right any comments or questions from
the board on this one
[48:55] i think we're pretty clear last month
the intent of the law
[49:01] all right i'll open it up to the public
anybody who would like to make a comment
[49:04] please come off mute state your name and
address for the stenographer
[49:08] and keep your comment to three minutes
[49:17] all right seeing no comments
um i think that uh concludes our public
[49:22] hearing portion
um or the official public hearing
[49:26] portion for this meeting
um however i'm going to
[49:31] ask for a motion to close the public
hearing portion of the meeting
[49:35] i'll make the motion
do you hear a second
[49:39] uh
trustee janiece yeah i'll make all
[49:42] seconded
okay all the favor
[49:48] hi
okay thank you
[49:50] and he opposed any abstentions
none okay
[49:55] um
so
[49:57] uh let me see i see a bunch of names on
here i think for the parking hearing uh
[50:02] parking restriction hearing
um so
[50:06] uh
i think maybe we move to that right now
[50:10] um and just give people a chance to
comment on that and then they can stay
[50:14] for the rest of the meeting if they'd
like but i see that we have a few people
[50:17] on for that
so i first i apologize to everybody the
[50:21] newspapers did not print last week so
that prevents this from being a formal
[50:26] public hearing but we will take comments
at today's meeting and submit them for
[50:30] the record at next month's uh first
public hearing on uh the proposed law
[50:36] ronnie you just want to give an overview
on what we're proposing for next month
[50:40] yeah absolutely so um
based on some of the comments that we've
[50:45] gotten by mail and email
on uh the kind of parking situation that
[50:50] we'd like to see on ridge drive east we
are proposing to create a no parking um
[50:57] for certain hours zone
on ridge drive east starting from
[51:02] northern boulevard i'm sorry ridge drive
west forgive me was drug bridge drug
[51:07] west starting from northern boulevard
and extending
[51:12] um
all the way to
[51:15] terrywood i'm sorry i don't have to go
in front of me i am digging through my
[51:19] papers
because i'm giving you wrong information
[51:40] and it's the one piece of paper that i
don't seem to have here okay it is
[51:45] ridge drive east
from northern boulevard
[51:48] hold
[51:59] ridge drive right west from northern
boulevard
[52:04] 165 feet north of northern boulevard to
peachtree 8 a.m to 10 a.m and 4 p.m to 6
[52:10] p.m
[52:13] and uh before we open it to the public
we had
[52:17] it was two years ago now um
taken public comment on no parking um
[52:24] during that entire period
um
[52:27] part of this issue is being driven by
um
[52:32] uh commercial parking in the area um i
know we had uh residents submit a
[52:36] petition uh opposed to any charges and
changes in the parking code uh for the
[52:41] area um i think this was an attempt at a
compromise and to solicit public
[52:46] feedback um the board hasn't committed
to doing anything and is looking to get
[52:50] public feedback on this so
um at this time we'll open it up well i
[52:56] just i guess sorry pause board of
trustees any questions or comments at
[52:59] this time brian for the record we're
actually more of a question for ronnie
[53:04] where are we on
the
[53:07] reassignment of middle neck road to the
village
[53:11] uh we have not turned any further from
the planning commission the hearings are
[53:16] over now it is being sent to the
legislature for uh approval what with
[53:21] the changes in the makeup of the
legislature i have no idea how long
[53:25] that's going to take
okay but it has passed through the
[53:28] planning board that was one of the
hurdles that needed to happen there
[53:31] wasn't any objections so at least we
passed that one hurdle no his random
[53:36] planning board was in favor
excellent
[53:40] um thank you randall
all right so we're going to open it up
[53:44] to public comment at this point i know
we have several people to
[53:48] comment on this so please uh be patient
with us here
[53:52] you can take yourself off mute
state your name and address for the
[53:56] record
and
[53:59] we'll start taking public comments so
anybody from the public who would like
[54:02] to comment
[54:12] um is the public off-mute can they
unmute themselves i don't know suzanne
[54:16] maybe can you give us a test
i'll start actually uh my name is stacey
[54:19] messer i live on 19 ridge drive west i
wasn't able to make the the last meeting
[54:25] um i think i guess you said it was two
years ago now
[54:28] i'm trying to understand i
okay so you're putting the um signs to
[54:34] peachtree and then where do you think
that these cars at that point will then
[54:38] disperse because what they'll do
is they'll go up peachtree up east drive
[54:45] west and
east
[54:47] they'll go through the cutthroat middle
neck road they'll park on ridge drive
[54:51] west at overhill they'll find all these
other places i actually don't
[54:55] necessarily think that my house will be
affected because it's so deep in but all
[55:01] the cut-throughs that are around
flower hill
[55:04] will have a problem
and
[55:07] quite candidly when i moved into my
house
[55:10] i saw these big lights from an apartment
building that shine into
[55:16] my
house
[55:18] and tried to talk to the town to get
higher fencing
[55:22] i went by rules there was not allowed to
be higher fencing and i abide by those
[55:27] rules so i'm not exactly sure
and and i moved out of queens for a
[55:31] reason right to not to be able to live
in a in a neighborhood
[55:36] that does not resemble queens that
doesn't have signs on property that
[55:40] doesn't take the
um parking from stores and brings it
[55:45] into the neighborhood so
i'm actually quite concerned as to why
[55:50] we would agree
to now have an entire neighborhood get
[55:54] impacted
um
[55:57] by store traffic store parking
and change the whole dynamic of what
[56:03] flower hill is because it will go out
through rosslyn through manhasset and
[56:08] through port when people are looking for
homes
[56:12] so it is a concern of mine and i'm not
really understanding the thought behind
[56:16] it
okay thank you stacy appreciate that um
[56:21] uh so i'd say definitely not looking to
push any of the commercial traffic into
[56:26] any other parts of the neighborhood
um so
[56:30] uh i think what we're trying to figure
out is is there a balance here
[56:34] uh to maybe push that commercial parking
more into the commercial area
[56:39] i'd say too i think the long-term fix
and i've said this at past meetings is
[56:43] middle neck road
we think there's the opportunity to open
[56:47] parking on middle neck road in front of
the apartment complex
[56:51] and we'll be discussing an rfp later in
the meeting
[56:56] so i really do believe that's the
long-term solution we'll see what the
[56:59] traffic engineers have to say about it
but um just from some initial comments
[57:03] from uh from other meetings uh or other
projects that we've done uh soliciting
[57:08] feedback from them uh they think that
could help and move the commercial
[57:12] traffic out of the residential area
unfortunately this this area of ridge
[57:17] drive is uh being impacted by it and i
think we're trying to
[57:22] listen to the public for potential
solutions
[57:25] and ensure that they don't impact the
rest of the community so
[57:29] that's something we'll be listening to
and considering as we as we move forward
[57:33] these public hearing public meetings
all right is there uh anybody else who'd
[57:39] like to comment publicly
[57:46] yeah it is
six rich dry west
[57:50] uh just like to ask a question
[57:54] is this
the traffic law
[57:58] been changed
is the sport for temporary or is going
[58:02] to be more for permanent
[58:06] uh as the way this is proposed it does
not have a an end date so uh it would be
[58:11] permanent so
um if uh the residents would like
[58:16] something that would only be for a short
period of time uh that's something the
[58:20] board can consider um
uh but as proposed right now it doesn't
[58:25] uh it doesn't have an end point
i see
[58:29] is that something you would be in favor
of or opposed to
[58:33] actually what i'm concerned about is
that
[58:37] whether this is this is the solution
this is going to be the solution for the
[58:42] problem that we've been having
um
[58:45] [Music]
and as the lady i want
[58:48] just one of our neighbors just
share her opinion
[58:53] and i'm not sure whether this would just
disperse the traffic elsewhere in our
[58:58] neighborhood
and other neighbor neighbors in our
[59:02] neighborhood is going to be impacted
and then i think that this is going to
[59:06] be a constantly on the table for
discussion then travel there may not be
[59:11] going to be the best interest of
uh of our neighbors as well as uh you
[59:17] know mayor and
and trustees of our village
[59:22] yeah
[59:24] all right thank you i appreciate that
that is one of the things that the board
[59:28] is wrestling with um
you know state law does not allow us to
[59:32] just allow residents to park on our
streets
[59:35] um and i know other villages have talked
about it it's been covered in the news
[59:40] but that takes an act of state law to do
it and it is uh not uh something that
[59:46] happens uh very frequently so
um unfortunately we we can't do that at
[59:50] this time so
that's what we're trying to listen to
[59:53] the community as to what what uh you
know what other options there
[59:58] are the our business owners uh
in our neighborhood uh have impacted
[1:00:07] with
with the situation uh are they
[1:00:11] are they
aware of the uh seriousness of this uh
[1:00:15] issue
that we've been having
[1:00:19] uh i don't know i we've met with them
several times we call them when uh when
[1:00:24] we get complaints from you i think we've
made it abundantly clear to them that
[1:00:27] it's an issue
they've told their employees not to park
[1:00:31] over there
but unfortunately it seems like it
[1:00:34] continues to occur so
um you know all we can do is can keep
[1:00:38] doing that uh while we while we go
through this process
[1:00:43] okay just just one more comment i'm
sorry
[1:00:46] and then
uh we've been
[1:00:48] the my my myself and my wife as well as
a few of our neighbor neighbors
[1:00:55] uh spoke to
someone an employee of a steakhouse
[1:01:01] who constantly parking in our
neighborhood
[1:01:04] and we
expressed our concern the safety concern
[1:01:10] and some of the concerns that we have
we have had but
[1:01:14] the response was uh
the derogatory
[1:01:18] words
and
[1:01:20] and it was a very
disrespectful
[1:01:24] um
[Music]
[1:01:26] so actually i i sent out a letter to the
owner of the steakhouse just for this
[1:01:32] matter
um so i'm not i'm not sure
[1:01:36] if there may be a better
uh solution
[1:01:40] uh without uh impacting our current
traffic law uh in our neighborhood and
[1:01:46] that's that's what i want to say
all right thank you and please share the
[1:01:50] letter that you sent the business owner
to with us as well i'd like a copy of it
[1:01:56] and follow up with the business owner as
well um and i just uh mentioned as well
[1:02:00] we have asked the police to
please try and monitor the area too
[1:02:04] because of the speeding and other issues
that the residents there have raised
[1:02:08] right
all right all right
[1:02:10] thank you mayor
you're welcome thank you for joining are
[1:02:13] there other comments from the public
anybody else
[1:02:18] again just state your name and address
for the stenographer when you come off
[1:02:21] mute
hi this is carrie o'callahan ridge drive
[1:02:25] west
hi carrie go ahead hey brian
[1:02:29] so i agree with everything everybody has
been saying for these past i think we're
[1:02:34] going on two and a half years now
what we have been asking is that the
[1:02:39] businesses not be able to park here and
i know you've gone through a whole bunch
[1:02:44] of different scenarios and trying to
figure out what that is
[1:02:49] you know the problem has only become
really egregious
[1:02:53] over the course of the past few years uh
say three years prior to that these
[1:02:58] businesses were able to control where
their employees parked so there has to
[1:03:02] have been
some way
[1:03:05] that that was accomplished you know my
my
[1:03:09] underlying request to you for all of
this time has always been we just want
[1:03:14] them to stop parking here in
ideally a way that doesn't impact any
[1:03:18] resident at all
it's not good for the neighborhood to
[1:03:21] have them parking here so we just really
want to do what's best for all of us but
[1:03:26] the answer can't be
you know we went out the other day and
[1:03:29] we counted there were 27 cars parked
between a two block radius between ridge
[1:03:35] drive east and ridge drive west and only
three of those cars were resident
[1:03:40] related
that that's a huge amount yeah that's
[1:03:44] that's a lot of volume so i i just you
know i understand people's concerns
[1:03:49] about it spreading further it is already
spreading further it has spread spread
[1:03:53] down ridge drive east we've now been
seeing them on peachtree so it's already
[1:03:58] happening
experience has taught us here after all
[1:04:01] this time we keep giving them spaces
they keep bringing more cars so we're
[1:04:06] just really desperately looking for a
way to
[1:04:10] maintain the suburban quality of life
that we have all become accustomed to
[1:04:15] and as mr chung had just said in his
email
[1:04:18] these people are really aggressive and
nasty you know if you try to say to them
[1:04:22] hey i have a delivery coming can you
please not park the front of my in front
[1:04:26] of my house
um
[1:04:28] it's not like you get a polite response
um and and for some of us like me who
[1:04:33] don't have a driveway in the front of
our house it's really problematic
[1:04:40] all right thank you for those comments
[1:04:46] anybody else from the public want to
comment
[1:04:56] okay one last ask here anybody else from
the public
[1:04:59] um i guess uh just before i close it out
here so again uh we will um or actually
[1:05:06] we have to do a resolution to hold a
public hearing on this
[1:05:10] uh parking proposal correct ronnie
[1:05:16] yes so uh at this point i would like to
ask one of the members of the board to
[1:05:21] offer a resolution to hold a public
hearing on proposed local law of 2020
[1:05:28] limiting parking on ridge drive west
at the next meeting
[1:05:33] february
[1:05:37] so i'll make that motion and i just say
again to everybody you know we're trying
[1:05:41] to come up with a solution that does not
impact uh any of the neighborhood there
[1:05:46] so
please ask everybody to bear with us as
[1:05:49] we take public comment
and as we work with uh traffic engineer
[1:05:54] and the county to take over middle neck
road too
[1:05:57] so we'll keep this open and continue the
dialogue going here before we make any
[1:06:01] decisions
yes we have a resolution um
[1:06:04] on the floor do i hear a second
[1:06:09] i'll make the second
max
[1:06:17] trustee franco
okay i'll pull the board uh trustee
[1:06:22] frankel
[1:06:24] trustee
dorfman
[1:06:28] you can just raise your hand okay
um our trustee lewandowski
[1:06:33] hi
trustee collins
[1:06:35] aye mr denise
aye
[1:06:38] deputy mayor aye
mayor and mayor
[1:06:41] hi all rights on for uh official public
hearing in february okay
[1:06:47] uh and ronnie i think we still have the
stenographer on um
[1:06:50] uh so stay uh sorry with madeline i i
think madeline if you want to go now no
[1:06:56] no no no mayor mayor um according to the
executive order uh that allows these
[1:07:02] meetings we have to have a transcript of
the entire meeting
[1:07:06] okay so well then we'll we'll keep going
on it the i think
[1:07:10] that will be unless it's recorded and
then it would later be transcribed so
[1:07:13] it's up to the to the point
well i'm not transcribing it later
[1:07:19] all right so let's see what we've done
then i apologize madeline please stay on
[1:07:23] okay
[1:07:26] um
all right um i'm just looking uh through
[1:07:30] the agenda here and i see uh mr clemency
in the middle of my screen and uh he's
[1:07:35] been very patient i appreciate that um i
want to move one uh one that item up to
[1:07:41] uh the front here um north shore cable
commission has requested uh additional
[1:07:46] funding uh for uh attorneys
um wanted him to come in and just give
[1:07:52] us an update on where negotiations stand
north north uh shore cable commission
[1:07:58] negotiates with
um altis um
[1:08:02] for cable service in the area so bill
why don't you just give a little quick
[1:08:06] history and uh and give an update to the
board as to where we stand and why this
[1:08:09] additional funding is needed sure the
the cable commission represents the
[1:08:14] incorporated villages of manhasset and
great neck
[1:08:18] in our negotiations for the franchises
of the various cable
[1:08:22] companies
obviously cablevision is now all tease
[1:08:27] optimum as they're
marketed and verizon
[1:08:32] we have
[1:08:35] been negotiating with them for the past
couple of years now
[1:08:38] our present franchises have expired
and we're trying to get new franchises
[1:08:45] to replace them
unfortunately this has been a very
[1:08:48] prolonged process and they
have not been terribly accommodating or
[1:08:53] forthright up till now although that
being said we do appear to be finally
[1:08:57] making some progress with them
uh towards that end we have an attorney
[1:09:03] that we have engaged to
represent the commission in these
[1:09:07] negotiations and we are coming to the
various villages
[1:09:12] with a request to provide funds for us
to continue
[1:09:17] the process our hope is to have these
negotiations wrapped up by the end of
[1:09:21] this coming calendar year
uh however
[1:09:25] we've pretty much exhausted the funds
that we
[1:09:29] obtained from you earlier
[1:09:34] our expectation is we'll probably need
about another thirty thousand dollars
[1:09:38] to wrap this all up and what we've done
is we've asked each of the villages to
[1:09:41] contribute on a pro-rated
basis uh
[1:09:46] calculated using the number of
subscribers for the individual villages
[1:09:51] uh as a percentage of the overall
users
[1:09:57] for the
the commission um
[1:10:02] i believe ronnie has a
an invoice that was sent to you back
[1:10:08] in december
and
[1:10:11] essentially that's where we are right
now
[1:10:15] the goal is to
finalize the franchises it looks like
[1:10:19] we're
trying to get a 10-year franchise with
[1:10:22] both companies although verizon at this
point is only willing
[1:10:26] to negotiate a five-year has been their
position and that's been one of the big
[1:10:30] stumbling blocks
in the process
[1:10:33] we'd still like to hold out for the 10
years though
[1:10:38] primarily based on the concern that
there probably is a finite life for
[1:10:44] these cable companies the move is to go
to streaming
[1:10:49] and more and more of the residents are
starting to go that course
[1:10:55] we're seeing a small but a notable
downtick in the number of subscribers
[1:11:01] across the board
and
[1:11:04] my own personal expectation is by the
end of this present 10-year franchise
[1:11:10] that we're trying to go
that will probably be represent the end
[1:11:14] of cable television as we know it
so it's it's imperative that we try and
[1:11:18] maximize the return on the franchise
that we're going for right now
[1:11:24] and that's essentially where we are
it's it's a long process it took five
[1:11:28] years last time
to get the
[1:11:32] uh
agreements that have now just expired so
[1:11:36] i'm not shocked that it's taking as long
as it is but it's a frustrating
[1:11:40] prolonged process but
it's important that we get this thing
[1:11:44] squared away
[1:11:47] all right thank you bill
i'd be happy to answer any questions any
[1:11:51] of the board may have
i know this is kind of an out of the
[1:11:54] blue thing for a lot of you you're
really not familiar
[1:11:57] with the cable commission
the other hand there is a trustee for
[1:12:03] north shore television which is the
public access
[1:12:06] channel
which is where much of the funding that
[1:12:09] we're trying to negotiate goes to
so
[1:12:13] that's really where we're at at this
point and as i say i'd be happy to
[1:12:17] entertain any questions that you may
have so bill i have a couple of
[1:12:20] questions
um this is only for the television
[1:12:25] portion
of the service not for the phone and not
[1:12:28] for the interrupt not for the internet
that that's all governed by the psc
[1:12:34] right it is only strictly the cable
television
[1:12:38] component that the franchises
uh
[1:12:42] fund
right so you're asking so you're asking
[1:12:46] for three about three thousand dollars
if i if i read this properly yeah so
[1:12:50] what is the what is the annual payback
that we
[1:12:55] currently get and what we're hoping to
get going forward to show that this
[1:12:59] three thousand dollars is well spent
you know what i'm embarrassed to say i i
[1:13:03] don't know that off top in my head
ronnie can probably know
[1:13:06] it's three percent of the gross
for
[1:13:10] the uh television portion franchise
right so for every hundred dollars that
[1:13:16] they build the village gets three
dollars
[1:13:20] hey so
yeah um
[1:13:25] 2019 actual was uh 71 000 2020 actual
for franchise fees was 79 000 okay
[1:13:34] all right so spending three thousand
seven dollars about right in fact it's
[1:13:37] ten percent of the
public access budget yeah so all right
[1:13:41] so three thousand dollars is a pretty
good investment as far as i'm concerned
[1:13:45] i would hope so i mean that's the reason
we're doing it um and it's also the
[1:13:50] reason that the commission was created
because
[1:13:52] you know 16 villages combining
their
[1:13:58] negotiations
hopefully would yield a much much
[1:14:01] stronger position than what
any one single village can hope to
[1:14:06] accomplish
and and i think that's been true bill
[1:14:09] and i know uh at uh some other villages
have been uh i
[1:14:14] should say i appreciate your
participation in active uh uh your
[1:14:20] activity in this you are our village's
representative uh you're also i know the
[1:14:24] chair um and um i know in some other
villages they're not getting the same
[1:14:29] type of engagement and um
uh sometimes i'm answering questions uh
[1:14:34] before they before they have the
information from their folks so uh
[1:14:38] appreciate your leadership over there
and volunteering to move this along um i
[1:14:41] agree with randall i don't know and
board any other questions on this
[1:14:47] i just want i just want you to note that
it's 2950.
[1:14:52] you forgot to do your paperwork okay
so the invoices for two thousand nine
[1:14:56] hundred and fifty dollars i'll make it a
motion to authorize the payment of that
[1:15:00] invoice all right thank you just have
sucker
[1:15:06] at 160 chestnut road having
been on the commission
[1:15:14] uh
many many years ago
[1:15:18] who's the attorney
who's handling it the fellow's name is
[1:15:22] dan cohen he's a media
attorney located in pennsylvania phil in
[1:15:29] pittsburgh i'm sorry pittsburgh
pennsylvania
[1:15:32] he handles these negotiations for
commissions all over the country
[1:15:38] yes
okay
[1:15:40] thank you
all right thanks
[1:15:43] we have a motion already uh on the table
[1:15:48] i made a motion
i'll second it
[1:15:51] all right
[1:15:54] uh all those in favor raise your hand
say aye aye
[1:15:57] [Music]
answer opposed abstentions none
[1:16:02] unanimously approved all right thank you
very much
[1:16:05] thank you bill
really appreciate your time
[1:16:08] good night
good night um we're gonna go uh back to
[1:16:14] the regular schedule here um
so i'll look for a motion to approve the
[1:16:19] minutes for the meeting
[1:16:24] from the distribution
thank you mary jo
[1:16:28] do we have a second
second
[1:16:31] claire thank you second from claire all
those in favor say aye hi hi
[1:16:38] thank you any opposition
abstentions
[1:16:43] seeing none
proved unanimously
[1:16:47] all right we'll move to the claims
[1:16:51] i'll look for a motion to approve the
claims
[1:16:55] any questions i should say first on the
claims
[1:17:01] none
[1:17:03] seeing none i'll make uh is there a
motion i'll make a motion to approve the
[1:17:07] claims
is there a second i'll second it
[1:17:11] okay
[1:17:14] all those in favor
[1:17:19] abstentions max do you have to abstain
from anything on here i don't think so
[1:17:23] or
no he um
[1:17:27] has his blank ascension for the art of
landscaping and i think i'm forever
[1:17:31] blanking from that there you are perfect
all right
[1:17:38] claims are approved
[1:17:42] all right uh rich uh i know you talked
about the snow before any updates
[1:17:50] um yeah no we actually got lucky today
um right now we're just tracking
[1:17:56] something for friday uh i know they're
talking if obviously again like today if
[1:18:01] this tracks a little bit more north
we'll get more
[1:18:05] more snow but you know we got a couple
of days before
[1:18:09] before we actually have an idea what's
gonna happen but you know whatever comes
[1:18:12] you know we're ready for it just like
today
[1:18:17] all right thank you
no problem
[1:18:21] all right oh one thing i'm sorry i just
forgot one thing i know frank
[1:18:26] we've been talking about that that uh
pothole slash
[1:18:31] problem we're still having over there
uh me and ronnie and heather were
[1:18:34] actually we've been working with this
contractor to get him to fix it and
[1:18:39] nothing has nothing has been done so i
believe now ronnie right we're going to
[1:18:45] uh
get the bond
[1:18:47] on on this contractor
[1:18:52] that's correct uh we're gonna go against
bond um you know not right now since we
[1:18:56] can't you know this is not the time to
fix the road yeah yeah yeah
[1:19:01] yeah we're gonna do it you know in the
early spring
[1:19:04] okay good i just wanted to update you
frank just because i know the last two
[1:19:07] months you were you were asking for it
so i know i don't want you to think i
[1:19:09] forgot about you i i i
i'm
[1:19:13] sure that you did not forget about it
richie
[1:19:18] rich has been actively uh started this
year's road assessment too so
[1:19:24] 2022 yep
feel free to send him any uh comments or
[1:19:28] pictures as he uh moves through the
village uh to
[1:19:32] to score the roads
and just for the record rich told me
[1:19:36] that he can't stripe the streets until
the weather's like 70 degrees
[1:19:41] if anyone was coming by
i mean
[1:19:44] if we get lucky on a day we can get like
60s you know we'll put down the material
[1:19:50] um i mean it's happened before we've had
some we've had some warm weather in
[1:19:53] january february believe it or not yeah
so if we get if we do get lucky i you
[1:19:58] know i have no problem putting it down
just took the material forever to get to
[1:20:02] us and by that time it got pretty cold
so
[1:20:05] but if we get lucky with the warm warm
day we'll definitely put it
[1:20:10] all right thank you um quick sorry quick
question for rich um just any quick
[1:20:15] update on stoningtown road on the
landslide waiting to happen
[1:20:22] uh i'm i'm not sure which we don't have
the latest on that don't worry so um
[1:20:28] peter uh
and jeff uh because i know some of this
[1:20:31] was dealt with in court um there's some
emails on it um
[1:20:36] so
uh the noles lane property owner was in
[1:20:39] court uh
took some says uh she
[1:20:42] stated that he took some steps or the
steps that the village recommended
[1:20:47] um
and uh we're waiting for verification on
[1:20:51] that there was a map that he was
supposed to provide with
[1:20:54] i think
[Music]
[1:20:57] marking out where some of the different
drains were on the property too as part
[1:21:00] of that work so it sounds like knowles
lane
[1:21:03] has done most of their work and then
peter
[1:21:06] just give an update on the stoney town
property please
[1:21:12] well their engineer has been in contact
um we were waiting the the first thing
[1:21:16] we were waiting for them which we
stressed that was important was the
[1:21:19] existing wall at the top of the hill the
stability of that
[1:21:23] uh they had to get a i guess a separate
structural engineer to do that uh we
[1:21:28] haven't gotten that yet
um
[1:21:31] and again we wanted to coordinate both
the plan from knowles and and theirs
[1:21:35] together to see how it worked together
to to mitigate any future work so it's
[1:21:40] been slow and coming we gotta apply a
little pressure here because frankly
[1:21:44] it's taking taking too long from
everybody
[1:21:47] so
um they have both been in court correct
[1:21:50] jeff
so where do their cases stand in court
[1:21:54] they've both been adjourned over the
knolls property was put over to next
[1:21:59] month in order to allow for them to meet
with
[1:22:02] mr obinski and
robert rockline
[1:22:06] the
stoneytown property had also been
[1:22:09] adjourned over but the concern i have is
that
[1:22:12] um
as mr obinski is mentioning
[1:22:16] and and as mr lanazek i think would echo
they've been reaching out to get this
[1:22:20] report
uh the main issue is that report on the
[1:22:23] status of the wall the safety of the
wall
[1:22:26] okay so
and mary jo i'll follow up with you
[1:22:30] separately um i'll follow up with the
rest of the board separately
[1:22:34] um we will uh let me consult with
jeff peter and robert on next steps but
[1:22:40] we'll be taking further action we've
already cited them once and that's why
[1:22:44] they're in court and so
i want to evaluate our options okay
[1:22:52] um
[1:22:55] also uh just from the village engineer's
perspective ronnie i saw the emails on
[1:22:59] the cardinal road property
um they are going to dig on their
[1:23:03] property uh folks may remember this is
the one with the septic tank issues
[1:23:08] so they've offered to dig on their
property and they wanted
[1:23:12] observers from the village
county and town there
[1:23:16] to help establish whether a pipe exists
and see if they can help determine who
[1:23:21] that pipe is owned by um so
that should be occurring on january 12th
[1:23:26] and i know mr einbender said the earlier
the better so
[1:23:30] you know ronnie i'd say let's shoot for
9 a.m and try and confirm that with
[1:23:34] steve uh peter and the rest of the folks
that are supposed to be involved because
[1:23:37] that's next week okay
yeah i i wrote back because i don't
[1:23:41] think he was clear that that's was you
know what was supposed to happen
[1:23:45] i think he he believes that we're just
having a you know a meeting um so i'm
[1:23:50] hoping to clear that up with him by
tomorrow
[1:23:52] okay yeah there's no purpose to i think
have a a group meeting again
[1:23:57] this to death so
um
[1:23:59] the next meeting we have will be to
observe them actually digging on the
[1:24:03] property okay
uh what do we have next and polling
[1:24:08] place resolution
yeah so um
[1:24:13] i'm looking for someone to offer this
resolution announcing the polling place
[1:24:17] in time for the march 15 2022 general
election
[1:24:21] um
uh the
[1:24:23] this resolution must be adopted at least
60 days prior to the election
[1:24:27] and
um we are resolving that the election be
[1:24:31] held at village hall the hours will be
from 6am to 9pm
[1:24:35] um
that certain notices will be provided at
[1:24:40] least 10 days prior to the election
uh notice that you in the polling place
[1:24:44] the hours the polls and the names and
addresses of all those who are nominated
[1:24:48] for for office
and um these notices will also be posted
[1:24:53] in at least six places throughout the
village
[1:24:58] we still need to have we still need to
have a meeting first week in
[1:25:02] [Music]
wednesday yeah you're ready you have
[1:25:05] that february 3rd at 7 00 pm we will
have a special meet to appoint the
[1:25:10] election inspectors
[1:25:15] all right i'll make a motion for that
resolution
[1:25:23] thank you claire
those in favor say aye aye
[1:25:28] aye
opposed abstentions
[1:25:31] again seeing none passes unanimously
all right jeff uh your report uh i don't
[1:25:36] think there's any external uh updates
but uh bza
[1:25:41] bga i
circulated a written report
[1:25:46] um while most is self-explanatory i do
want to follow up on
[1:25:50] item number one
um
[1:25:53] because
at first
[1:25:55] reading that'll appear like it's a very
large uh request that the applicant's
[1:25:59] seeking to increase the floor area ratio
to 10
[1:26:03] 593.96 square feet where the maximum
permitted is 5068.
[1:26:08] um just to clarify this
was before the board
[1:26:13] before
but when this house was built
[1:26:18] the size of the structure
above 10 000 square feet was permitted
[1:26:24] um the code was changed after that house
was constructed
[1:26:28] um they're now requesting a variance but
the house was already built at that
[1:26:32] about now
you know large
[1:26:35] number what they're actually requesting
in the end the variance they're seeking
[1:26:39] will actually reduce
um
[1:26:42] their floor area their floor area ratio
so
[1:26:45] um i'm just looking at mr obinski what
essentially happened was they came
[1:26:48] before zba they were making some changes
and they
[1:26:53] made some modifications even to their
proposal
[1:26:56] which would lessen the impact of of the
existing structure such as
[1:27:00] removing
roofs from proposed
[1:27:04] upper decks and things of that nature
that makes the volume
[1:27:08] uh appear
to be less impactful to those
[1:27:11] surrounding so i'm just looking at mr
obinski if you can share some thoughts
[1:27:15] on that but that's i think the summary
of where that application stands and why
[1:27:19] the board of zoning felt that after the
number of changes that the applicant
[1:27:23] made that it made sense to grant it
because the benefits off by the
[1:27:27] applicant
would outweigh any detriment to the
[1:27:30] surrounding community
yeah so i mean the proposal was it's
[1:27:36] basically alterations but there was some
pushing and pulling of some of the areas
[1:27:40] creating balconies taking away in other
areas when they first came in they were
[1:27:45] i think they were they increased the
area by several hundred square feet so i
[1:27:50] think the
the direction of the of the zoning board
[1:27:53] was they wanted it reduced so that there
was no more than the existing they were
[1:27:58] doing some again pushing and pulling at
some of the different corners of the
[1:28:01] house
and balconies and in the end we we got
[1:28:06] uh got them to go under what their their
square footage was
[1:28:10] and historically i looked at this and it
seems that as soon as this application
[1:28:14] was submitted
that's what tipped off the whole far
[1:28:19] requirement of the village code it
followed like almost within a month
[1:28:23] uh of this after a couple months of this
application being filed
[1:28:28] i guess at the time never realized
people could take it it was only a
[1:28:31] coverage
uh requirement
[1:28:35] uh but not an far
so i think this was the test case to
[1:28:39] that created that
[1:28:45] and other than that i have nothing
further to report unless there are
[1:28:48] questions
all right
[1:28:50] any questions for jeff
[1:28:54] all right um
i do not have uh any updates uh for this
[1:29:00] meeting uh so
um
[1:29:03] claire do you want to talk about the
food drive and the amazing drive from
[1:29:08] thanksgiving through christmas and the
end of the year was it was phenomenal no
[1:29:12] happy too i guess this is my monthly
shout out to the vincent smith school
[1:29:16] who once again um came out really strong
um
[1:29:20] they collected
so much food that they again earned
[1:29:23] another week without a uniform
we had a great ceremony with resident
[1:29:27] milan doshi the mayor came
to thank the children and just educate
[1:29:32] them a little bit on the impact that
they're having in the community uh it
[1:29:35] was a great event all around um again
they collected a
[1:29:39] huge amount of food
really proud of them and just hope to
[1:29:42] continue this momentum into the new year
for sure
[1:29:46] and uh
i gotta tell you it was a great
[1:29:49] experience the kids were so happy um
understanding how they were impacting
[1:29:54] people's lives it was a great civics
lesson um
[1:29:58] and i think a great example for the
community so i know there were a couple
[1:30:01] ideas uh things that the the school
wanted to follow up on and potentially
[1:30:04] partner with the village on so let's
let's definitely do that
[1:30:08] thank you for
uh all the work around that
[1:30:11] that's that's really great that's really
great to hear and we should get this out
[1:30:16] published in some way because this is a
really good story like you know we
[1:30:20] should build on this one
i don't know um if the do we have a
[1:30:24] reporter even in our midst here but uh
let's get the story out there
[1:30:30] were there any photos from the event
yeah we have photos it's up on facebook
[1:30:35] uh and we will put something out yeah
and we should talk about a little bit
[1:30:39] further gary just there there are some
privacy concerns with some of the
[1:30:42] children you know that can't be
fulfilled sure no
[1:30:44] but um i totally agree it's a it's a
real feel-good event for sure good
[1:30:52] all right um
[Music]
[1:30:57] rfp for village auditor is
next okay so um the village went out to
[1:31:04] bid for our um annual ordered services
for the village as well as for the
[1:31:08] justice court um we received four
responses um
[1:31:14] two of them were quite high we
interviewed the two low uh look two low
[1:31:20] responses and uh that was by the the
mayor the deputy mayor suzanne and
[1:31:25] myself
and we were really impressed by the firm
[1:31:29] called skin in faber
they do
[1:31:32] many other villages in our area
including north hills and
[1:31:37] the staff at north hills has been very
happy with them and found them very easy
[1:31:40] to work with
again as i said they were with a little
[1:31:44] bit so um i'd like to ask for a
resolution uh
[1:31:48] uh authorizing the mayor to enter into
an agreement
[1:31:51] to um
sign up with skinning in favor as our
[1:31:55] auditor for a three-year period and also
for the record this this uh
[1:32:00] accounting firm does a lot of municipal
audits that's what they specialize in
[1:32:06] they don't yeah they don't do much of
anything else they do schools villages
[1:32:11] um just special districts
and they do have a lot of government
[1:32:16] accounting and they do a lot of villages
that's our size as well so they have a
[1:32:20] lot of experience they've got to put the
right people on the team and i think
[1:32:24] it's a good choice to go with these
people
[1:32:28] yeah and i just add to that based on our
conversation uh with them and the others
[1:32:32] i felt like this was the best firm uh
for the reasons you've all stated um
[1:32:37] also um
just
[1:32:40] they're not overwhelming themselves like
you're saying they do a lot of municipal
[1:32:43] accounts but i mean when we talk about
these contracts and services right this
[1:32:47] has come up with paving it's not only
just about the lowest bidder it's making
[1:32:51] sure you're getting somebody who's going
to do the work do quality work and
[1:32:55] that the staff is going to have a good
rapport with we have them walk us
[1:32:58] through what their process is
uh when they come to village hall how
[1:33:02] they will communicate with the staff
and so i think they have a really good
[1:33:06] plan in place that will uh achieve the
goals of the village ensuring that
[1:33:11] you know we can make sure that our
finances are in order uh so i'll just
[1:33:15] add that to the comments uh to this
point and
[1:33:18] uh are there any questions from the
board on this uh on this rfp the it's a
[1:33:23] skin in
skinning and far favor sorry is the firm
[1:33:27] that we're talking about going with
[1:33:32] um if there's no questions i'll make a
motion to um
[1:33:37] enter well i have to enter into the
contract right so i'll see if somebody
[1:33:40] else will make the motion i'll make the
motion
[1:33:44] thank you second
[1:33:47] all right um all those in favor aye
aye
[1:33:52] opposed
extension seeing none passes unanimously
[1:33:57] all right um
[1:34:00] sorry just going through making sure i
checked off everything i was supposed to
[1:34:03] i think the last thing we have is the
middle neck rfp is that the last thing
[1:34:07] on the agenda ronnie yes it is
so again we put out an rfp for an
[1:34:13] engineering firm to
design the parking on middle neck road
[1:34:18] um we've got three responses we've got
two very high responses uh vhb who is um
[1:34:26] bob eschbacker's firm was by far the low
bid for uh basically all similar
[1:34:31] services um
i had sent you the entire all the
[1:34:36] packets uh that were part of the
responses
[1:34:39] um if you're ready to make a commitment
now we could test the resolution uh and
[1:34:44] get started ronnie did you say that
ashbaca was the lowest bid
[1:34:49] yes by far so this is a no-brainer
basically because they're the best
[1:34:54] i know that's what i i said well when
the mayor asked me about them i said you
[1:34:57] know
[1:35:01] they're the best traffic and parking
consultants
[1:35:03] agreed i stuff accountability i know did
a lot of work with them too back when i
[1:35:07] was with the county so i know they got
great
[1:35:09] tons of experience they're real pros
they really are
[1:35:13] yeah
all right
[1:35:15] any questions from the board
oh wait did ronnie say can we vote to
[1:35:19] move that or that has to sure no if we
can
[1:35:23] get them on board and get this going
what's the scope what's the scope again
[1:35:28] um
you know it's basically um
[1:35:33] so
measurements and design and watch the
[1:35:37] traffic flow and figure out where we
should put the traffic so this is a
[1:35:41] study this is for a study or is this
foreign
[1:35:45] i'll read it to you they're going to
prepare a conceptual plan
[1:35:48] uh for the total number of parking
stalls that may be obtained by modifying
[1:35:52] striping middle neck road
from
[1:35:55] northern boulevard towards greenway
um so they're gonna look at that area
[1:36:00] and look at how we can adjust the road
to provide for parking um layout uh
[1:36:05] pavement markings and signage that we
would need along the road
[1:36:08] um look at potential sight distance
impacts on adjacent driveways because
[1:36:12] that was one of the things we heard from
the community was they didn't want if
[1:36:16] parking was being supplied on the road
they didn't want their driveway access
[1:36:20] there impacted
and itemized construction cost estimates
[1:36:24] for proposed work i think that was all
of it
[1:36:34] all right uh anybody want to make a
motion
[1:36:37] i'll make the motion uh
to approve
[1:36:40] uh vhp as our traffic
and parking consultant
[1:36:46] yeah
[1:36:49] i'll say okay
trustee frankful is the second all in
[1:36:52] favor aye aye aye
[1:36:56] all right that's everything on the
agenda
[1:37:00] the history report has been submitted uh
we're not gonna have a presentation
[1:37:03] tonight uh but it's been submitted for
the record
[1:37:06] anything else from the board or
the staff at this time
[1:37:11] if not we'll move to public comment
[1:37:16] all right
let's move to public comment we'll open
[1:37:20] it up to anybody from the public who has
comments for the board
[1:37:23] i would say
to anybody wishing to comment please
[1:37:27] state your name address and you have
three minutes to speak
[1:37:32] just take yourself off mute
[1:37:38] anybody
all right
[1:37:42] with seeing nope uh nobody wanting to
participate in public comment uh i'll
[1:37:46] look for a motion to adjourn the meeting
i'll make the motion
[1:37:52] i'll second it
all right all those in favor say hi
[1:37:56] hi
close detention classes unanimously
[1:37:59] everybody have a good night thank you
bye
[1:38:03] good night everyone