[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:00] Board meeting of May 2nd. The first item on the agenda is a public hearing for what was once
[0:08] known as Fuelco is now called North Salem Food Mart. Donna, I'd like confirmation that
[0:15] the notice appeared in the newspaper and have you received the confirmation from the applicant
[0:21] of notice to neighbors. Thank you. I'm going to give a very quick history of this and then ask
[0:31] Kevin, let me say Masiovecchio, to take over.
[0:37] So just for everybody's edification, this applicant, this application is for the event
[0:46] and gas station, that is at the corner of Filslein and Hardscrable Road.
[0:54] The fact that it closed down for more than a year meant that it needed a use variance from
[1:01] the Board of Appeals. We actually worked very closely with the ARB, the Board of Appeals,
[1:07] and all the other involved agencies to come to a conclusion in an approvals a year ago.
[1:13] But absent the approval from the city, the applicant came in and wanted to do some slight
[1:20] modifications to the main building on this site. And that is what's prompted this current
[1:29] review and this public hearing. So with that, Kevin, would you please introduce
[1:33] anybody who's here tonight on behalf of the applicant and then give us a quick
[1:38] overview on the changes. Great. Good evening. I'm Kevin Meshevecchio with the
[1:43] JMC and here tonight is Giuseppe, the project architect and Sam Oli, as well
[1:49] the tenant. And we're here to open the public hearing tonight and we're here to
[1:54] that the previous meeting and if there are any other questions with the site plans we're
[1:59] here to answer them and we're here to answer any questions you may have with the building
[2:03] or any other changes since the last meeting.
[2:06] Okay and is there any there aren't any members of the public here for this tonight now?
[2:10] Let's see that. So at the last meeting we actually re-issued the negative declaration and we also
[2:18] So it was either the last meeting or the one before it.
[2:21] We, the planning board, were happy with everything that was being proposed.
[2:27] We've sent you over to the Board of Appeals for the few variances that you need.
[2:32] And more importantly, we've sent you over to the Architectural Review Board because, unlike
[2:37] the previously designed building, the one that was presented to us most recently, last one
[2:45] we saw.
[2:47] Has severe absence of windows and R2 viewsheds that we were concerned about was the frontage
[2:54] on field's lane and the side that faces hard-scrable road?
[2:59] So I believe that you've gone over to the architecture view board and you're still in the middle
[3:04] of that conversation with that?
[3:06] Yes.
[3:07] I think you guys might have received a plan that we sent over today and I was going to ask
[3:11] So just have to come up and explain a little more,
[3:13] if you guys will like.
[3:14] OK, you can do that, but we're not going to get too involved.
[3:17] We really want you to finish up with the ARB.
[3:21] But sure, come on up and do a quick one.
[3:24] Just grab a new one.
[3:27] Do
[3:31] you want me to reduce this or show anything else?
[3:34] Just let me know.
[3:35] Yeah, no, I mean, the main facade is this.
[3:38] So, as you can see, the big difference from the previous elevation was we had the glasses,
[3:53] we had the windows on the size of the main entrance and also the pavement on the main entrance
[4:05] above with the cupola on top. So in this way, we just reflected and respect
[4:13] towards the previous meeting, the comments, what was. This is the typical
[4:19] architecture, maybe also in this area. And on the right, on the left side we
[4:27] Yeah, they'll also the windowed.
[4:29] You added the window.
[4:30] The windowed.
[4:31] So, I mean, just one minute, Mike.
[4:34] What's important to us is that we
[4:37] see that you are going to maintain some stone
[4:41] to the front, and these are remains.
[4:44] And you're still working with the ARB.
[4:46] The one thing I do want to point out to you
[4:49] is when you go back to the ARB and you start working with them
[4:52] through all of these features, you should really pull up
[4:55] the last one that was approved and review what the-
[5:00] Board of Appeals said, because I think they had some commentary on it too. I don't think we really want to get too involved with it. We'd much rather see you finish your work with the ARB. Get them to a point where they really like the character of this building that it reflects what we're looking for for North Salem and then come back to us with that. Mike Palmer, the chair of the ARB is here. Mike, go ahead. Sure.
[5:35] Yes, it is and you know what I want to show you Mike which the reason I really don't
[5:40] want us to get too involved with this right now is we're missing we saw the March 14th.
[5:49] I think you saw another version and now this is another version based on your comments.
[5:55] So, I think what the ARB did last time, you know, the planning board was very happy with,
[6:02] I mean, the memory serves me right.
[6:05] I think the zoning board of appeals weren't too happy with the cupola.
[6:09] And that's that.
[6:11] So, we'll leave it to your board to continue.
[6:21] Yeah, and they're going to go, when are you going to the...
[6:26] May 10th.
[6:28] May 10th.
[6:29] So they're going to be going over to the ZBA before or after they go back to you.
[6:34] I don't think we have any schedule just yet because of the action.
[6:38] Yeah.
[6:44] Right.
[6:44] I mean, you know, I think to make sure that this doesn't keep bouncing back and forth, maybe
[6:49] you want to communicate with the ZBA, that you are still working with the applicant on this.
[6:57] If you don't have a meeting before May 10th, because I'd hate to see the ARB make changes and
[7:03] and then you guys,
[7:03] no, I don't want to be the one.
[7:11] I don't want to do a lot of this needs,
[7:13] but I feel like you don't want to sell it.
[7:15] Yeah.
[7:15] So is there anything else that any clinical or number
[7:18] wants to add or just let this day out,
[7:20] be here with they gonna do?
[7:21] Do you have the virtual plan?
[7:24] I probably have a good call it up.
[7:26] You want to even know what we're talking about?
[7:28] I'm not sure.
[7:29] Well, no, his office did it.
[7:30] Well, maybe his office,
[7:32] but he did it some of the time.
[7:34] Let me see.
[7:40] And Mark's also is my ear, so Mark sends Kevin and Fred and said to me, to say, yeah, and that part of the comment has been from the same officer.
[7:51] I know they're from the same office, but they haven't talked.
[8:18] So basically all the changes that happen to the building is because we actually change
[8:25] the size of the building so everything has to change with it.
[8:30] And instead of having a square building, now we have a rectangle building.
[8:34] So the plan that was submitted or the elevation that was submitted with the change, all
[8:41] it is just the stretched that building and they kept the same amount of windows there.
[8:49] So originally with the square building, the glass was about 90% of the face.
[8:55] But when they switched it, they just put walls, so we need to add more glass there.
[9:02] So we did.
[9:04] And that's what we did.
[9:05] They made the windows on the side.
[9:08] So we did put windows on the side.
[9:10] So this is the original one that was there.
[9:12] This is the original one.
[9:13] Yeah, so when we switch it out, and we also have, like, for our locations, like, almost,
[9:23] It's like an image that we have for all our location that reflects our, yeah, so we tried
[9:32] to change that design just to fit North Salamloch.
[9:39] So our original design does not have, you know, millions on the, so we had to put millions
[9:46] on the glass to make it fit.
[9:48] Our design did not have that bond look so we added a bond look and they have to make it look good.
[10:07] I will. Thank you.
[10:13] So we're going to leave the public hearing open. We have to wait for the board of appeals to consider the variances. We have to wait for the architecture board to get back to us on the building design. And then you'll be back in front of us. Great. Thank you. Any of the board members and any more questions?
[10:31] questions at this point.
[10:35] Get going with construction, I think.
[10:38] Thank you.
[10:40] All right.
[10:40] Thank you.
[10:41] Thank you.
[10:49] The next item.
[10:50] Yes.
[10:51] No, no.
[10:52] Okay. Thank you, Mike.
[10:54] The next item on the agenda under pre-applications.
[10:58] Michael Ligori asked that we carry the Abrams.
[11:01] There's a lot of changes over to the next meeting because he could not be here tonight, so we're going to move to number three, which is a proposed two lot subdivision on a lot on Holly Road.
[11:15] We have Barry Naderman representing the apple.
[11:20] Yes, good evening, folks.
[11:21] Barry Native and Native Land Planning and Engineering.
[11:23] I'm also pleased to be a resident in North Salem.
[11:25] And we're here tonight for a 29.8 acre parcel on Holy Road,
[11:33] which we're going to see in a moment.
[11:38] Going to reduce it, because I'm going to ask you a few questions
[11:41] about your calculations here.
[11:43] Oh, okay.
[11:45] Since I have it here, my curiosity was when you were putting up
[11:50] These areas is this representing 100% or they're 50% that you use for the reduction
[11:57] No, what we're no what we're doing is we're showing that once we once we deduct the wetlands and the steep slopes
[12:04] That's why it's wondering okay, and then I thought that after the deduct I thought it was written that you deduct those and
[12:20] the net light area has to be more than 50 percent of the minimum light requirement.
[12:26] But either way, both lot, we can recalculate that.
[12:29] Both lots are well.
[12:31] So just reread this.
[12:32] Both lots are well.
[12:34] Maybe I was right.
[12:35] Yeah.
[12:36] Well and compliance.
[12:38] I know we're used to seeing that there's a certain percentage of well-lanciductive and certain
[12:42] percentage of steep, closely ducted and then whatever your net light acreage has to meet
[12:46] the minimum light area.
[12:47] And I'm kind of going through this.
[12:50] So that chart is showing the total wetland area,
[12:54] the total steep slope.
[12:55] Yes.
[12:55] Yes.
[12:56] That's all I need to talk about.
[12:59] So let me go back and put it up so you can talk about it.
[13:05] I'm going to reduce it a little bit.
[13:06] Sure.
[13:09] You're driving.
[13:11] Well, I'm going to get it up for you.
[13:12] And then you're going to take over.
[13:17] There we go.
[13:17] really even smaller.
[13:26] There we go.
[13:30] So the overall property is 29.882 acres
[13:34] and then R4 acres in the family residence.
[13:37] Holy Road is up top,
[13:40] doesn't work on there, up top up there.
[13:43] And the existing property consists of,
[13:47] to the left, the existing residence and tennis court
[13:50] and pool and amenities and driveway access.
[13:53] And what we're proposing to do is spin off
[13:57] a 7.8 acre lot for residents that would have access off of an existing driveway on the
[14:04] property that serves the adjoining residents and in this way there's no new curb cuts or
[14:11] accesses off of Holy Road and minimizes obviously the disturbance to the site and so on. We have
[14:18] steve slopes are represented in the shaded areas so where there's no impact to any steve slopes whatsoever
[14:26] and also in the bottom right-hand corner of that lot, we have a small potential wetland.
[14:32] And we do know that we're going to have to get, you know, full surveys of wetland
[14:36] delineation and verification and soil testing for the septics and so on and so forth.
[14:41] But we're here tonight to just get the initial impression of the board.
[14:46] So we can move forward with the serious stuff.
[14:49] So
[14:53] this is the existing driveway that currently serves the neighbor, so he has an easement over.
[15:00] Yes, I believe he does. That's one thing that we have to verify, but the driveway is clearly on our property.
[15:10] He doesn't have a necessary apartment as well, does he? Oh, I don't know that answer. I could certainly find out.
[15:32] that's making us rethink all of this.
[15:34] But the way this stands is just gonna be
[15:36] pre-existing driveway to serve two houses.
[15:39] Correct.
[15:40] I mean, we can go to the,
[15:41] well, not that they would show that there's an apartment there,
[15:43] but if the aerial photograph down below
[15:48] might help us see just what's going on on that adjoining property.
[16:00] No, I guess the only question is,
[16:01] if it's serving two residences,
[16:04] The question is if you bring a third residence under the driveway do you have to bring that driveway up to a different standard?
[16:12] Right, fine.
[16:14] He just sent all of this over.
[16:17] I think it's digestible.
[16:24] Okay.
[16:26] That's the existing residence on the existing residence on the existing property.
[16:29] And his driveway leaves around like this.
[16:32] Oh,
[16:36] no, there was just a general question about whether or not how many residences there were on the joining property.
[16:43] So the driveway for the pre-existing home over here is way over here?
[16:46] Yes.
[16:49] So it's a pretty simple two-lots subdivision?
[16:53] We think so.
[16:54] A lot of self-dividing is vacant?
[16:58] Yes.
[16:59] Well, no, the lot where sub-dividing has the existing residents,
[17:02] but the lot that we're creating is vacant, yes.
[17:04] Is that
[17:08] a joining residence in the town of Loisboro or is it in the town of North Salem?
[17:11] No, that's still in the town of North Salem.
[17:14] That black line is the town line.
[17:19] Yeah, it seems to be bisected.
[17:26] Yeah, there's a survey seem to show there's about a ten foot sliver in the back that is over the line.
[17:40] Well, that's an interesting question.
[17:48] We're not doing anything but...
[17:50] You're talking about this part down here.
[17:51] Yeah, that little sliver in the back.
[17:54] What we've done, we've done a node jurisdiction approval.
[17:57] I don't know if Lou Sprow does reciprocate the same way.
[18:00] You don't have to find out.
[18:05] You're really not creating anything.
[18:09] Now, would you are redefining the property in the description?
[18:20] Well, for one reason, the existing residence has a tennis court that's right there, that
[18:25] we have to meet the side yard setback, so we can't bring that lot line further over.
[18:31] Yeah.
[18:32] And plus, you don't want to compromise the value of that live, either by encroaching on it
[18:37] too much.
[18:39] Yeah.
[18:42] This line?
[18:46] Oh, yeah.
[18:46] That's just a tile on the area.
[18:49] It's just the, the, the areas come in panels and it's just the edge of one of the panels
[18:53] of the area.
[18:54] Yep.
[18:58] I'm going to bring the, I'll bring the subterge map back up.
[19:06] So this is what I had up before which shows that you're meeting all of the, the bulk requirements
[19:14] of the code and this is how you calculated the net area of the lots and so this is a hundred
[19:21] percent.
[19:22] Right.
[19:23] And
[19:32] when we get an update survey, we'll see exactly if the town line is indeed over the property line.
[19:43] Yeah, because this is the town line.
[19:48] Well, the existing pool looks like it might be over the line.
[19:51] Yep.
[19:52] Yep.
[19:54] And
[19:58] before, more time is coming.
[20:04] Okay. And by the way, just another simple note, where we are coming off that existing driveway, there is sort of a little wood road path between those between those two steep slopes that that extend up into the house side. Yeah. So there'll be very little grading going on in there as well.
[20:23] Do you know the grade of the existing driveway? Is it meet our code off fan? I don't, but I'll check on that.
[20:32] But everything else you're designing will meet the code. Oh, sure.
[20:42] Is this a propote like a
[20:44] turnaround area? Yeah, it's a front motor cord.
[20:51] I don't have any other questions
[20:53] anybody else.
[20:56] So I assume you're going to move forward with an application for
[21:00] separation.
[21:04] Unless you're going to be compelling reason why not?
[21:09] Unless Lewis Barrow says Barrow. All right, so I'm going to have you stay at the podium
[21:16] because we're going to bring out the next item on the agenda which is a grant
[21:22] road property. And I'm
[21:29] still barren at them and I'm normally planning an
[21:30] engineering.
[21:33] Alright we are in the R2 zoning district now on grant road.
[21:40] Correct. Here we have 15.38 acres in the R2 zone and again there's an existing
[21:48] residents that we see and
[21:54] existing residents and tennis court closer to the road and an
[21:59] existing pool in the rear. And in the very back of the property there's a very low-lying
[22:06] floodplain wetland, don't go near it, type area. So you know we're certainly we're going to be
[22:15] creating this 4.7 acre lot, which will, again,
[22:23] orient everybody.
[22:25] Okay.
[22:25] And this is the Titicus River.
[22:27] And on the other side is the ball field behind the No Semifire House.
[22:32] So it looks like across the river from the ball field.
[22:36] Okay.
[22:37] So, I mean, you really can't see anything from the ball field because it's all of this woods.
[22:43] And yes, the Titicus River goes on the back of the property.
[22:45] And when you're on Grant Road, this tennis court is the one that has all those pine trees around it.
[22:51] Right.
[22:51] This is kind of stands out because it's like the only pine trees in the area.
[22:57] By the intersection with June Road or...
[22:59] It's south of...
[23:00] June would be over here, going up and down, and Grant Road would come up and meet 116, which goes across the top.
[23:07] So if I bring this location map back up,
[23:10] This is June. This is Grant Road 121, taking you up to Titicus Road going across. So it's
[23:19] like in the middle of that triangle. And here is the firehouse.
[23:27] And on this lot, we do have a wetland slash watercourse that traverses across the frontage
[23:34] of the property. So what we're looking to do for access here to avoid any additional
[23:39] crossings of the wetland slash water course. There was a subdivision next door
[23:46] that had a driveway proposed as shown and once it gets across that crossing we
[23:56] could readily come off of that location and come in and access the
[24:01] additional residence without impacting the crossing again and the crossing is
[24:07] actually is actually there. The Breiter Trail Association has a trail that comes
[24:13] off along that driveway and there is a culvert in head walls and filled that
[24:18] are across the watercourse at this point. I don't know when that was done it was
[24:22] like that when they bought the property but that is existing and again we'll have
[24:29] full surveys and well-inverification and so on.
[24:35] That's in this area?
[24:37] Yes.
[24:37] That's the existing crossing.
[24:40] But just to be clear, this driveway was never built.
[24:43] No, but it's a trail.
[24:46] It is a trail now.
[24:47] But it was never built.
[24:48] Correct.
[24:49] Do you know the accrued plans for that include an upgrade to that call for crossing?
[24:55] No, I think the cover crossing came after the...
[25:13] That was on the planning board when this was re-established. And we didn't go through a full review because
[25:23] it was like a pre-existing lot with a resetting, I think it had a lot line with that.
[25:29] Yes, I think it was a lot line change, yeah.
[25:31] Yeah, so it was given that it was a pre-existing lot.
[25:35] And do you know if they're crossing existed at that time?
[25:38] Well, this is a section of the-
[25:42] Right, you were kind enough to-
[25:43] That was a mile.
[25:45] Right, but you were kind enough to give me a copy of that as well.
[25:52] And I think if I pull the file out of the vault, I'm not going to find any detail.
[26:01] which kind of makes me ask the question, they're going to have to go through a wetland permit process and kind of reestablish that this driveway is viable as proposed.
[26:12] It's been a long time since those wetlands were looked at and verified.
[26:19] It's going to be where it's going to land, but we don't know that.
[26:22] And we do know that there's going to be improvements within 100 feet of the wetland, so therefore absolutely a wetland permit.
[26:28] I mean, this is obviously only a one little piece of the entire puzzle of that application, but one of the things I noted is that it doesn't even recognize if there's a stream or on the map.
[26:39] Right.
[26:39] But it doesn't mean the other maps don't, but that's kind of interesting.
[26:47] Very approach to the owner about getting the needs and to use them.
[26:52] Yes, and there is the ability to do that.
[26:55] It's the same owner, isn't it?
[26:57] No.
[26:57] Different LLCs but the underlying owner is the same.
[27:03] That won't be an issue.
[27:04] It won't be an issue.
[27:05] The
[27:10] line is not simply as before we put the subdivision
[27:12] in light for a little better understanding of that right way.
[27:16] It needs to be done to make it.
[27:17] Yes.
[27:19] Oh, sure.
[27:20] I've been here again.
[27:20] I'll ask about the other one.
[27:21] About that drive line.
[27:22] We need surveys, designs, wetland verification.
[27:26] Yeah.
[27:26] I'll make you know the simultaneously with the subdivision.
[27:30] Not only that, this is going to be a DOT permit here, because this is a state road.
[27:35] We would need improvements.
[27:36] So that we don't know if the DOT ever approved the cut where it is.
[27:41] So we have to do that.
[27:43] Is there a wood road there or is it just a cold report?
[27:47] It's done.
[27:49] Do you want to hear us?
[27:50] This is what's there now.
[27:52] This.
[27:54] It's a trail.
[27:55] There you go.
[27:57] Fine, I just wanted to go back to the map if it isn't all that developed.
[28:02] That's the actual
[28:05] Yeah, okay, you have the area, so we'll see if there's more of us.
[28:11] Yeah, sure.
[28:13] How do you just want me to take the driveway section?
[28:17] It wasn't developed today, and I don't know, but out walking in and out and seeing the grade doesn't look terrible.
[28:23] I wonder if there's an opportunity to redefine not the Cobra crossing, but where that driveway comes in and how
[28:31] I don't maybe get it further out of the buffer.
[28:34] This one?
[28:34] Not that portion, that portion.
[28:37] Okay.
[28:38] I don't know if that's a null or something that's going on
[28:41] that pushes you down there, but you know,
[28:44] whether it's something better here.
[28:47] Walking it, yeah, walking it is my recollection.
[28:50] It's really pretty gentle through there.
[28:53] But what was it that?
[28:55] Yeah, the more you can get away from the wetlands,
[28:57] maybe the better.
[29:00] I don't know about the site when you have a good site.
[29:02] Sure.
[29:04] I mean, one of the earlier things you want to do is to have someone state the wetland
[29:11] and have it verified by our wetland.
[29:13] Absolutely.
[29:14] So as soon as you file the application, that would trigger us sending the wetlands inspector
[29:20] out.
[29:22] Well, we'd probably somehow find a way to do that in advance because when we, you know,
[29:27] if we're going to be getting some surveys, we'd certainly want to have that delegation
[29:32] verified.
[29:32] They put on a survey, don't go out and verify the line before the app.
[29:37] It's just that we haven't established an S.
[29:39] Why?
[29:39] They would sort of do that.
[29:40] They would have done that before.
[29:41] Okay.
[29:42] We would have.
[29:43] If you want to do it under this pre-app, we don't have an S-grow on it, do we?
[29:48] Okay, so yeah, we'll work off of that.
[29:52] You might have to supplement the escrow.
[29:53] Sure.
[29:57] So he'll go ahead, Frank.
[29:58] Yeah, I just want to say it's a-
[30:00] Establishing that driver almost knew, I mean, in terms of the culture and its capacity. So I think you need to analyze and let us know. Make sure whoever put that there was a good size. Yeah. Yeah. Let us know what it's.
[30:22] Exactly. Can the fire truck go over?
[30:28] Yeah.
[30:31] Yeah. This is the
[30:46] I
[30:50] mean, the conundrum on that is that if it wasn't there today, that pie would be different.
[30:59] Well, if it needs improvement.
[31:01] Well, we would have piloted this on a fondness project.
[31:05] Is that right?
[31:06] Yeah, but I'm trying to get that equated.
[31:09] No, it's better.
[31:10] I'm just nervous.
[31:12] I can't wait to start.
[31:13] Right.
[31:13] The
[31:25] board have any more comments or suggestions at this point before they file a formal application?
[31:34] Just about that big wetland, I think the river, I guess, associated wetlands, put it in the back.
[31:42] I need to show the one that's 100-year-old coin, and see how that impacts that.
[31:48] The earlier plot had actually prescribed for this from the 70s, but the earlier plot had actually prescribed that as
[31:58] being a proximate bottom of Steve Bank.
[32:05] Is that this one, the bottom land?
[32:08] Yes, the bottom land was correct.
[32:11] And then there's the Southern vision had a building and encroachment line.
[32:21] But we do want the pipeline line, shall we?
[32:33] Would the applicant, here come the microphones.
[32:39] There's no conservation easement back here now.
[32:41] Would the applicant consider that?
[32:44] Probably, I think the plan does have restrictions on what is noted as the bottom area, so I don't know if that.
[32:53] So if we could formalize that in a conservation easement, because most of the lands to the west have conservation easements in one form or another, especially along the Titicus, our goal was to form a whole strip of conservation easements along the Titicus from June Road.
[33:13] over, and we accomplished quite a bit of that over the years with the different subdivision,
[33:18] so.
[33:19] Yeah, I don't want to be nice.
[33:20] I can't fathom that that would be much of an issue.
[33:23] Thank you.
[33:28] So, this slide is from another subdivision, or are you talking about the neighboring
[33:32] lots?
[33:36] Possibly misunderstanding the question.
[33:39] The subject lot?
[33:40] Yes.
[33:41] That you want to subdivide.
[33:42] Is that from another subdivision, or when you were just talking about subdivision and existing
[33:48] was that on the neighboring property?
[33:54] No, the area outlined in blue
[33:57] was part of a subdivision map from 1973.
[34:02] Right, that's right.
[34:02] There's 74.
[34:03] With the property further up here, right?
[34:08] In this direction?
[34:09] So Cindy, you can get me a copy of that.
[34:12] Correct.
[34:13] The one parcel that, right, that line
[34:15] is the subdivision of the overall parcel at that time and further to the
[34:22] northeast is another residence and that is on five acres. Was it just the two
[34:28] lots of the vision back then in the 70s? Yes, okay.
[34:40] Do you have the five map numbers
[34:42] so me one time. 8 2 3. Last my 10. 8 2 3 9. 8 2 3 9. Yes.
[34:59] Was that the
[35:00] File, subdivide. This is rake. Oh, yeah, rake.
[35:06] Okay.
[35:11] For this new
[35:19] lot, house driveway and also the improvements related to the driveway. How much
[35:28] We're going to have now.
[35:29] So everything on this one, I'll be including, you know, proofs.
[35:33] Sure.
[35:34] Yeah.
[35:34] The whole time.
[35:35] It's up to the system.
[35:36] Is it too late for the trigger for the city?
[35:39] Is that what we're getting at?
[35:41] Well, no.
[35:41] It's more flowing now.
[35:43] And that post-concerction?
[35:44] One acre of five dozen.
[35:45] The fee, the city, kicks in too.
[35:48] Yeah.
[35:48] Yeah.
[35:49] No, it's probably going to be more than an acre of disturbance.
[35:51] So we'll have to do a full stormwater pollution prevention plan and notice of intent.
[36:02] I don't. That one was from 2006 and that was just a lot of line change. No, no, he's
[36:08] talking about the Holly from the 70s. Oh, I'm sorry, Holly Road. Same question there.
[36:13] That actually, you know, I'll have to take a look at that. But if it's over Naker, we'll obviously
[36:17] address it fully.
[36:21] Yes, for stormwater.
[36:25] Yes, we're aware of those.
[36:26] Yes.
[36:36] When I part of the submission, you'll have to submit a proposed easement agreement to
[36:42] the driveway.
[36:44] And I think we'd like to see the one that exists for the other driveway.
[36:48] Boy road.
[36:49] Yeah.
[36:55] Anything else in the board?
[37:00] I'm sorry?
[37:01] Go and send no more.
[37:03] I'm sorry?
[37:04] Darn.
[37:06] All right folks.
[37:07] Great.
[37:08] Thank you so much.
[37:08] Thank you.
[37:09] Thank you very much.
[37:16] Thank you very much.
[37:18] These are several of the details.
[37:22] What's that?
[37:28] Next item on the agenda is the farmer's fish.
[37:34] So did you need this back?
[37:36] You may have that.
[37:43] Do you go fishing for the farmer and the fish?
[37:54] Okay.
[37:54] So we're going to consider a waiver of site plan.
[38:03] It's Mike here tonight. Mike is here tonight.
[38:05] You want to go up to the microphone.
[38:07] Both owners are here tonight.
[38:08] And Taylor and Mike Caffin, let me get this up.
[38:20] So I think all everybody knows is familiar with the farmer and the fish restaurant.
[38:24] This happens to be a structure on the local and the state registry of historic places.
[38:32] Where's the, let me get up the big one, here we go.
[38:36] So a few years ago, we approved this site plan.
[38:42] and here's the actual restaurant building.
[38:46] And in the back there's already one cooler,
[38:48] and they're proposing to put a second walk-in cooler here.
[38:52] There's fencing that offers nice screening,
[38:55] fencing here and fencing there.
[38:57] It's behind the building.
[38:58] There is a 10 foot perimeter that they have to stay away
[39:02] from, which was set by the Historic Preservation Commission
[39:06] to protect the building, and they are away from that.
[39:12] Somewhere I have the height of this cooler and Mike, you mentioned that maybe some of the equipment that you originally thought was going to be on the top, you know, long ago put on the top so could you address that?
[39:22] There's two condensers that were shown to be on the top and I think it would be best off if we actually attached them to the side, the right side where they'd be screened.
[39:34] Yeah, where they'd be screened by the fences, that's why even as you drive down the road you can't see the cool
[39:39] Or you don't want to see the condensers on the roof either. So you want to see them over the fence. Correct. Yeah
[39:44] One thing that we did notice is that there are two
[39:48] Propane above ground propane tanks here and I spoke to the building inspector
[39:53] I was trying to they're not on the last approved site plan, but I had a conversation with Mike and he confirmed that when
[40:00] The restaurant opened. Smaller tanks were replaced with these. So it was an oversight that this wasn't shown on the previous approved site plan. So I think by our action tonight, if the board is immutable, we would just acknowledge that those were changed out and they are on the site. Because this document that he sent us is actually equivalent of an as-built. It's a current survey from November of 2017. So it's showing us all the improvements.
[40:28] It's up until now.
[40:33] As far as I can understand, this cooler will meet all the criteria for the Board to consider
[40:43] a waiver of the site plan procedures.
[40:45] It's an as of right use, the restaurant is an as of right use.
[40:49] It's very small, et cetera.
[40:51] Do we have to notify the one neighbor?
[40:56] The neighbor is the landlord, and he's already signed off on the application that everyone
[41:05] should have a copy of.
[41:06] He technically is the applicant.
[41:13] Yeah, the owner of record has actually leased the land to another party and there's a lot
[41:21] a lot of parties involved in this piece of property.
[41:25] The one other thing that I spoke to Mike about is this odd piece of property is actually
[41:33] has professional office zoning in the front and it has R1 zoning in the back.
[41:40] The restaurant as part of its operation has been creating more and
[41:47] more gardens to produce food for the restaurant, and the latest addition was sheep, and since you're in an R1 zone, I pointed out to the applicant that he's going to have to go to the board of appeals for the keeping of more than two sheep.
[42:06] So I would just make it a condition of this waiver that they take care of that matter.
[42:11] We don't get involved with that use in any way shape of form, it's an accessory use as
[42:21] of right in the R1 zone.
[42:23] So it's just a matter of being able to have as many of the little critters that they
[42:28] would like.
[42:29] How many are you going to have?
[42:30] I'm sorry.
[42:31] How many are you going to have?
[42:32] We have 15.
[42:35] I thought how many are you going to keep?
[42:37] Three.
[42:39] There's 12.
[42:40] We're going to be served for dinner.
[42:41] Mr. Timber yeah it's like a rotating crop exactly yeah every spring you got them they
[42:49] graze how tall is the walking cooler I know Cynthia asked I'm looking at the
[42:55] plans I think I can bring it up there was a drawing up yeah I see it's 14 it
[43:02] looks like it's 14 by 8 feet length and width I can't see the height I actually turned
[43:10] I've learned in technical drawing, I believe.
[43:14] I'm sure you did.
[43:16] Give me a second.
[43:20] There we go.
[43:21] There we go.
[43:21] It's on this one.
[43:23] It's eight foot.
[43:24] He's seven, six and a half.
[43:25] Seven, six and a half.
[43:26] Yeah, okay.
[43:30] That's the overall type.
[43:33] Yep.
[43:37] This is the door.
[43:38] I got this.
[43:38] I should.
[43:39] Correct.
[43:40] Make it life easier for people in roadtapes.
[43:44] There you go.
[43:50] Not a pretty building, but it's way in the back and it's all screened.
[43:54] And it's fencing.
[43:57] So does anyone have a problem with my fashioning a resolution to wave site plan approval for
[44:03] this?
[44:04] No, I just want to have one of the quick questions.
[44:06] Sure, go ahead.
[44:07] You propane tanks.
[44:09] Yes.
[44:10] The distance criteria from any electrical 10 foot minimum.
[44:15] And that's what you have with the condensers.
[44:19] Yes, there will be 10 foot minimum.
[44:20] Currently, yes, there's two, it's there.
[44:24] I was actually going to make that a condition of the waiver.
[44:27] 30, 40 feet from the building, and yeah, the tanks were inspected.
[44:31] Okay, as long as you meet the criteria for separation.
[44:34] Yes, that's not it.
[44:35] Yeah, since Paul was not aware that those tanks were there, so I was going to make it a condition
[44:40] of the waiver that they get a sign off by the building inspector on them.
[44:47] So I will propose that the North Salem Planning Board grant waiver of site development plan procedures for the addition of a
[45:00] Walk-in cooler and recognition of the pre-existing two of our ground propane tanks with a condition
[45:10] that the applicant receive a sign-off from the building inspector on the propane tanks
[45:16] and that the applicant proceed with the necessary variance for the keeping of accessory farm
[45:28] animals in the R2 district of the property. I will make that motion do I have a second all in
[45:37] favor. And when I write it up, it the actual resolution where we reflect all of the documentation
[45:43] that we received and all of the dimensions of that documentation. Thank you. Thank you.
[45:51] They're
[46:00] cute.
[46:01] You can see them from the road.
[46:03] All right.
[46:04] Go for it.
[46:08] Thank you, gentlemen.
[46:12] We're still wrestling with this road, gentlemen.
[46:16] Linda.
[46:17] Madam.
[46:18] Good evening.
[46:19] Good evening.
[46:20] Linda, would you take a second to introduce everybody to?
[46:23] Linda Whitehead from McCulloch, Alberta, and Stout with me are our engineers, Pete Gregory
[46:29] and Alan Pilch and our client, Rich Morganty.
[46:33] We received the memos today, so we haven't had a whole lot of time to go through them.
[46:40] But there's a number of things that are simple comments that we can address,
[46:44] and we'll address in our next submission.
[46:47] But we're happy to talk about the roads some more.
[46:52] And I'm going to let Alan primarily discuss it.
[46:55] But I think that we felt that by reducing it further, bringing it down to 11.8 for only
[47:01] 20 feet.
[47:02] So it's really like a car length or just over a car length.
[47:07] It's really a barely noticeable section that is still over 10%.
[47:13] We were hoping that would be acceptable.
[47:15] So Allen did provide some text about why what would happen if it was made 10% did not actually
[47:24] provide a sketch, but I'm going to let him address it.
[47:26] Okay. Before you do that, Ellen, I'm just going to, for, you've noticed we have a new board
[47:32] member, Dan Seymour. This property has a lot of history. I just, I used to be a brunette
[47:39] on the planning board a long time ago when this application first came in, but you're from
[47:43] this brunette without a plan. So that's how long I've been looking at this piece of
[47:48] property, but at one point in time, we were looking at a road from overlook that would
[47:54] only serve four homes. And it's all to road from Oak Ridge Road coming up and serving
[47:59] four. And we've, as we were getting into the road design in the stormwater, things were
[48:05] getting dicey, as they often are with this piece of property. Once before someone tried
[48:11] to road, taken a highway this way, the high route this way, and that didn't work either.
[48:16] So this latest one we're exploring resulted in the loss of one lot, so it's now seven
[48:23] lots.
[48:24] They're trying to come in and serve them all from here with a private road for seven
[48:27] lots.
[48:29] And the other tricky thing that's being thrown into this is the building inspector is reminding
[48:34] us that under the new uniform building, international building code, is that what it is, Frank?
[48:40] That we have to pay attention that our private road specifications may not be up to code with the with of pavement.
[48:50] And even serving like this driveway here is going to serve three lots.
[48:55] We might have to take a little closer look at all of those issues.
[49:02] But just the planning board and Frank absent that we're still looking at and wrestling with the grade, the grade of this road and I'm going to let Alan walk us through the grade of this road.
[49:17] Well, is that also on the curve though, the steepest part is on the curve, my correct?
[49:23] Yes, let me just say also the road is 20 feet and width from the face of curve to face of curve.
[49:31] That is correct, the steepest portion, if you will, at 11.8% is by 20 feet and it occurs this location here,
[49:42] which is just after this is the straight section
[49:46] and that's about where it occurs.
[49:49] It's just because of the debugger, but that's what happens.
[49:53] And from there, it's the vertical curve
[49:55] that goes down to under 10% before reaching the cul-de-sac work.
[50:00] It's just under 3%, which is the requirement. And there, as I explained before, and I understand
[50:08] you were looking for the sketch and I, you know, there were a couple reasons why it seemed
[50:14] more appropriate to leave the design, I'll call it the amended design, we presented the
[50:21] last meeting tapped and not go to like the 10%. The first was that the 10% grade results
[50:31] in was a more fill that's required. If you could look, if you look at the profile, you'll
[50:39] see that what happens is as you're coming off of, there's a rock out crop that's essentially
[50:45] around here. When you're coming off of it, you're trying to meet rates. If you're starting off, do you want to minimize the
[50:54] rock type? So what happens is you're saying, you're saying essentially on grade, then descending down the slope. And so by coming down the,
[51:04] down at 11.8%, it's unique rate, closer to rate, more quickly than you would at 10%.
[51:16] As a result, where it is in closest proximity to the very yards of the houses, on Oak Ridge,
[51:23] the, if you will, the fill section that would be required for a 10% road in this area
[51:35] right here, and that's about where the maximum amount would be about 50 and a half feet,
[51:42] whereas with an 11.8% grade going to a, about a 9.8% grade, that fill section
[51:53] is about 12 feet, and that's a significant amount, because these signs lost from the edge of road
[52:01] toward, you know, in both directions. So what it does is it pulls the disturbance, if you will,
[52:07] closer to the rear yards of these houses. So it reduces the, you know, the buffering, if you will,
[52:15] that's provided by the woods, which are present between the rear yards of the houses and this
[52:20] subdivision road. So not only is the field section taller but there'll be less buffering
[52:28] if you will from the trees. So that's one reason where it just seems to make more sense
[52:35] to leave it at 11.8% versus going to a straight 10% road. The other factor too is the impact
[52:46] of a 10% road on the elevation of the cul-de-sac,
[52:50] and we reviewed that, it would have raised the elevation
[52:55] of the cul-de-sac by almost 4.75 feet.
[53:00] And what happens, too, is that the driveway grades
[53:05] to both lots, 6 and 7, they really start approaching
[53:10] the maximum.
[53:11] Essentially, a level pad coming off of the cul-de-sac,
[53:15] than descent at the maximum slope to reach the level pad
[53:19] or where the houses are.
[53:21] And to our way of looking at it,
[53:24] that's really not acceptable to have both situations
[53:27] like that.
[53:29] Each one of those dryways about 250 feet and length.
[53:32] And it's by far the, I'll just say there's less grating
[53:40] on each of those lots.
[53:41] and there's less disturbance on lot six and seven and the driveways become less
[53:48] steep. They're more acceptable on those two lots by leaving the driveway at by
[53:57] using that you know that segment that's 11.8% to about 9.8%. I don't recall where
[54:08] where we've left this, if at all, with emergency vehicle and the first responder look at this.
[54:19] I mean, after all that we've been through and the variations on different access points,
[54:27] this in almost all instances in my view is the best yet,
[54:34] But having such a steep grade, ready to be getting over the end of a meaningful curve is a little worrisome in
[54:42] employment weather when you have icy road conditions, so that's the, I think the only issue, otherwise it's a
[54:53] But I'm going to ask an interesting question to me.
[54:58] This...
[54:59] We have
[55:00] Three homes down here, and we have three homes here. The seventh one is straight off of the road. For these three, we're going through the trouble of having this huge cul-de-sac, which is good for the fire equipment and all of that. Does this really work for three homes here? How do the, how do the fire trucks turn around and are they going to be doing all these backing? See, I don't see how they can manipulate
[55:29] over and back up and go down again.
[55:34] And is it, Frank, is it okay to have a driveway so close
[55:37] to this road?
[55:41] I don't think there's anything in the regulations
[55:43] that prevent that.
[55:46] But is it good, is it good?
[55:47] Is it safe?
[55:49] No, there's no problem with it.
[55:50] The graphic conflict is going,
[55:52] it's not going to be that much trusted.
[55:54] Okay.
[55:56] I mean, should I be concerned about fire
[55:59] with a shared driveway situation versus a cul-de-sac
[56:04] and individual driveways.
[56:08] I think we probably have to talk a little bit about
[56:11] those regulations and how they overlay with this
[56:16] particular situation, too.
[56:20] You're talking about that universal code, yeah.
[56:24] So, in this particular one, I know what it says in there
[56:30] about some of these access ways being designed
[56:34] so that two fire trucks could pass,
[56:36] but in that situation, I don't think that's
[56:41] what you're looking for.
[56:42] I thought that was if it's four or more homes.
[56:45] Yeah, I think it's four more homes.
[56:46] And this is really only two, because the one comes
[56:50] a lot off so quickly, so you're really talking about two.
[56:54] The driveways themselves are shorter than some
[56:56] of the other driveways that serve only one house.
[57:00] And also, just so we did modify the alignments to accommodate the SU-30, which is shown
[57:06] in the world we're going to provide to better accommodate them.
[57:10] Yeah, but you're not showing the turning movements so that we can see how it's going to back
[57:15] up and I work, but I want to see those on there.
[57:18] Well, I think they would just back up down the driveway.
[57:21] Well, no, we're looking to see that they don't have to back up.
[57:23] The only thing is that we have a hammerhead type situation.
[57:25] We want them to be able to turn around right now to avoid that.
[57:29] So you're looking more as big or what that would do.
[57:33] All right, this way.
[57:35] So like this.
[57:36] Right.
[57:36] So you could use both of those.
[57:38] Right.
[57:42] We can't have something more creative over here,
[57:47] rather than all of this.
[57:50] What's so weird to me is this homeowner, he's going to come in.
[57:54] And he's not going to go around and go in.
[57:57] He's going to cut right over and in.
[58:05] Your code requires the cul-de-sac.
[58:08] And it requires the cul-de-sac of a certain dimension.
[58:11] So we've complied with the code.
[58:15] Because it's the end of a private road.
[58:18] It's the dead end road.
[58:25] Is it a center island?
[58:26] Not yet.
[58:27] Are we having a center island?
[58:29] There's still, or is that always one?
[58:31] There is one.
[58:32] What's complicating it now is the fact
[58:34] there's a turning radius of an SU-30 vehicle being shown on that plan. Just a sort of
[58:40] little strength that it can make the turn, you know, inside. What size vehicle is this?
[58:46] An SU-30, which is a single unit with a 30-foot long vehicle, it's like an UPS turn.
[58:51] And the grades are such that you really can't connect six and seven. Correct. Yes.
[58:58] that the grade is right there,
[59:00] and
[59:07] wanted we could look to see whether or not
[59:10] the grade was closer to the year,
[59:13] you know, closer to where it's still in the...
[59:19] So it's an easier left hand turn?
[59:20] Yeah, we could take a look at that.
[59:22] I think that would be...
[59:25] Oh, I don't know.
[59:26] Is that a better design?
[59:28] I'm not sure.
[59:29] There's something that says that I should try to...
[59:32] Yeah.
[59:32] Yeah.
[59:34] More of a right angle.
[59:35] I know the roads.
[59:36] It is for roads.
[59:41] Driveways don't get as much traffic.
[59:43] Right.
[59:43] There's not a lot of traffic at the end there.
[59:45] Oh, there's no left.
[59:47] You're going left.
[59:49] You're just going into the driveway.
[59:50] A little more confused as well.
[59:52] It's not going to find that way.
[59:54] It's kind of meld into one.
[59:56] It's not.
[59:58] You're not dealing with a whole wood.
[1:00:00] You're doing very limited traffic, right? I mean, but with respect to emergency vehicles coming into lots two and three, I don't know, did I, do we hear anything final on how they're getting? Are they driving in and backing out? That's, that's what we're talking about. There has to be some kind of jumping around on different topics. That's all right.
[1:00:24] I mean, we're not thinking, we're talking to a gentleman waiting there, but I mean, what's happening here, that this location actually, the access is, or the, uh, the, uh, the, maybe it's access path to the stormwater, that's what's happening there.
[1:00:42] So is it that's dropping?
[1:00:43] I mean, you could use the first, you did that as that driveway.
[1:00:47] Thank you.
[1:00:48] It does, the grade is dropping there.
[1:00:51] You know, the grade slopes towards the room, or it's above.
[1:00:55] Well, you got to drop that driveway, too, though.
[1:00:57] Correct.
[1:00:57] So, you could use the first section of that to go there and then peel off and go to the maintenance.
[1:01:03] I mean, you've someone's driveway for the access road for the maintenance.
[1:01:07] Well, the first point of view or something, I could get access that often.
[1:01:20] And just because we were jumping around a little to go back on the issue of the road.
[1:01:30] We kind of looked at it as a balance.
[1:01:32] We talked about this a little bit last time.
[1:01:34] The balance of the impacts of the additional fill and the raising up the cul-de-sac sort
[1:01:40] of what happens if we make it 10% versus having this short section, which is now shorter than
[1:01:46] it was when we were here last month, and the slope is a little bit less than it was.
[1:01:53] So it's really about, you know, your code does give this board the authority to modify
[1:02:00] that, the 10 percent slightly, so we're within what you're permitted to do, and we've really
[1:02:10] reduced it out and really looked hard at it and reduced it down to really just about
[1:02:16] 20 feet. So we've really tried to balance the impacts of that versus the impacts of
[1:02:24] the additional fill in the call of the second. It just seems like the impacts of trying
[1:02:28] to make it 10 percent. The impacts were much greater for not a lot of benefit.
[1:02:32] Could I say, you're presenting the geometry in just one way and you're focusing on flattening the grade, coming down and adding fill at the bottom, but we would, the Chairman asked specifically last time was to look into the other way, reducing the grade.
[1:02:54] And we talked about that, and that's more rock cut. So again, it's part of the balance.
[1:02:57] Right. That's what we wanted to see.
[1:03:01] What kind of we're talking about?
[1:03:03] And, you know, the short stretch of 11.8 percent, yes, it's a short stretch, but, again,
[1:03:13] it's combined with the vertical curves getting up to that point and coming down.
[1:03:17] If it wasn't that stretch, you'd have a longer area, you know, that you're dealing with that's a
[1:03:24] ship more shallow grade and I don't know the last thing I guess I want to say is it's yes it is a small stretch of a
[1:03:36] higher steeper grade that maybe noticeable may not be noticeable but it's I think it's an issue of liability that you want to consider in the long and also liability to who.
[1:03:58] But you're regulations give you the specific authority to do this, you're not doing something that's safe, and that's the white ability if it's not safe, and we deemed it safe.
[1:04:11] That's our white ability.
[1:04:12] Yeah, but we don't do that.
[1:04:15] Miniscule.
[1:04:16] Yeah.
[1:04:16] Well, the way you do it, because you're going to realize that.
[1:04:19] I defer to your council.
[1:04:20] I didn't.
[1:04:20] We don't ensure the safety of the traveling public on a road that's approved, but I have
[1:04:27] a maybe a more basic question.
[1:04:28] Somebody mentioned at the beginning, but are we all on agreement about the that the width
[1:04:32] of the proposed road is going to be acceptable to the building department?
[1:04:38] We are.
[1:04:38] Yes, because our regs say 18 feet, they've already brought it up to 20, and that's the
[1:04:43] minute.
[1:04:43] I'm sorry.
[1:04:43] I wanted to make sure that.
[1:04:44] No, that's okay.
[1:04:45] And you've got to catch up.
[1:04:46] We're happy to help you catch up.
[1:04:48] And we have to be the Marine Guard because we've seen so many different versions.
[1:04:52] Yes.
[1:04:53] 20 is okay.
[1:04:54] Okay, good.
[1:04:55] So, anyway.
[1:04:55] But there might be other issues with situations like this that.
[1:05:00] We have to study a little more, maybe talk to the Billion Inspector. And we can modify that to make more of a turnaround. You know, it's the same thing with some of the other long driveways. You know, these, if you're talking about a FedEx truck or UPS truck, they back out all the time. There's not a lot of traffic here, so it's not a traffic issue for them to take two minutes to back out into the road. But we can certainly look at making a turnaround.
[1:05:28] around more of a hammerhead type thing up there.
[1:05:35] And again on the other, you know, we can give you the sketches and the analysis, Alan tried
[1:05:39] to give you some analysis in words.
[1:05:42] We can give it to you in sketches.
[1:05:44] We were trying to balance the other concerns we've heard from this board have been impacts
[1:05:49] on rock removal and cut and fell.
[1:05:52] So what we tried to do was minimize both of those and in minimizing both of those, we ended
[1:05:57] up with this 20 feet of steeper road so we can give you more information and I
[1:06:04] yes we'll continue this discussion because I don't know that there's a
[1:06:07] consensus on the board to go one way or the other yet. This area right here is
[1:06:12] heavy rock right yes you can't you can't start the swing a little bit more.
[1:06:18] We also the town has required radii, so that's where we're trying to get there.
[1:06:25] Yep.
[1:06:26] Well, the more you straighten out the road, the harder it is to get the grade you want anyway.
[1:06:29] Oh, no.
[1:06:30] If you lengthen the road.
[1:06:32] As I meant.
[1:06:33] You can.
[1:06:34] You'll have more.
[1:06:35] Yeah, more length to get down the slope.
[1:06:37] So it might help you.
[1:06:38] That's not all easy.
[1:06:40] It would, but all things considered.
[1:06:41] But the grade does drop off in that direction.
[1:06:45] It drops off towards the sun.
[1:06:47] I know.
[1:06:48] And so it is a balancing act, true.
[1:06:51] Yeah, I don't know.
[1:06:51] I mean, again, I'm repeating myself maybe, but I do think that balancing all considerations
[1:06:57] and given what we've been through, this is maybe with some little adjustments here and there
[1:07:05] with the individual access roads as we discuss.
[1:07:08] I think this is the best possible situation, you know, it's not perfect.
[1:07:15] I mean, it's 10% grade before a curve, I think it's too much, I mean, I know it's allowed,
[1:07:20] but still 12% is 20% more than that.
[1:07:23] So, you know, it is what it is, but I don't know that we can do better under the circumstances.
[1:07:29] I don't want to see tons of rock blasting to try to reduce the grade or fill that compromises
[1:07:36] the woods between the road and the neighbors.
[1:07:40] So I don't know.
[1:07:40] Does it snaking the road a little more up here by giving it more length?
[1:07:45] Does that help or are you running into curve issues?
[1:07:50] Curve and septic issues, we have a septic system that's in here, we're trying to maintain some separation distance between the unwanted and the, also, the, um, with the rock and the little spot.
[1:08:05] I'll just say we also looked at a lot of hurtful furniture.
[1:08:10] That's the road, but bring it out further this way.
[1:08:15] And none of them ever seem to, you know, if you bring the road up closer this way,
[1:08:22] there's less radius if you want to tighten the turret.
[1:08:27] It's too, is that it just shortens the length of the road, which makes great use of this.
[1:08:33] If you raise the height of the cul-de-sac to lessen the curve, it doesn't hurt this
[1:08:40] driveway or this driveway.
[1:08:42] It's this one that's-
[1:08:44] No, it's both six and seven.
[1:08:46] They're the ones that are most impacted.
[1:08:48] This one too.
[1:08:49] Correct.
[1:08:50] Yes.
[1:08:52] Remember, it's only a three percent grade across the cul-de-sac.
[1:08:55] So it's, this, this is, there's, really is-
[1:08:59] Well, what if this cut served both?
[1:09:05] There's a great issue here, that's why.
[1:09:07] Here, is the greatest issue in the house.
[1:09:09] That's where the house is, is much lower.
[1:09:11] Correct.
[1:09:14] So if, let's continue with that thought,
[1:09:17] if the cul-de-sac went up two feet,
[1:09:22] the advantage is that you might be able to reduce this grade.
[1:09:27] How much of a disadvantage is it for this driveway?
[1:09:31] Did you look at that did the driveway is about 250 feet in length and generally the drop from
[1:09:40] the you know from the
[1:09:44] Presonally is about 20
[1:09:47] There'll be about 23 from be about 21 feet of gray drop in about 250 feet of length
[1:09:55] That's what it is to where that house is located. What's it called the sack where it is?
[1:10:05] And if the driveway were over here, what are we looking at? Great. I wish we had. Do we have the contour one? Yeah, it's I'm looking at it now. It came with the, all the other. Let me, let me see if I can get a contour one up.
[1:10:25] What? Let me
[1:10:42] just try to get this right, the cul de sac.
[1:10:45] So
[1:10:49] let's say generally this is around 4.52 here and about 4.50 there, and so just in place
[1:10:58] seeing how it's here, the finish for elevation is around 6.4
[1:11:07] .31. So we're really going from
[1:11:11] 4.52 to 4.31 and about 250 foot. And so from here it's a shorter length that's the profit.
[1:11:19] So the reason the driveway is this long is that you can imagine that if you lift it up
[1:11:29] another couple feet or four feet, they're just more grade change to, you know, two.
[1:11:35] Right now, the way is designed is that the upper portion is fairly level,
[1:11:49] you know, it's
[1:11:49] it just as it does here and in the sort of pad around the
[1:11:53] garage, it's flat and down to 50%.
[1:11:57] But in the driveways, the steepest portion of the driveway section
[1:12:02] there, it's probably like 10% or 11% or so on the driveway.
[1:12:05] I just go take a look and see what it is.
[1:12:07] But I'm just saying that what happens is if you raise the driveway
[1:12:10] up four feet, there's four feet of extra gray to make up.
[1:12:14] And that's why, again, it's a balancing act
[1:12:17] I'm trying to, you know, work with the grades that we have.
[1:12:23] You're pushing in lock seven house up is only going to push the house down the hill, right?
[1:12:31] If you move the house either this way or that way, you know.
[1:12:36] Well, now you're just that, but just up, but you run out of room for the driveway, right?
[1:12:40] So, we're trying to get more length, but all that to do is say put the driveway in as that
[1:12:54] I have to go look at it, but as I say, they're not at the maximum at all, they're probably
[1:13:01] looking around.
[1:13:02] I think they're probably done at 10% or so at max.
[1:13:08] Then, as you can see, as it reaches the house, it flattens out, which is advantageous for
[1:13:15] It's about, it wasn't more like six or eight, because then you could raise this up, and
[1:13:19] up a little.
[1:13:23] I mean the bottom line is you're going from a maximum of about 500 feet down to 430 or
[1:13:32] the 4 houses. I mean it's a 70 foot drop you know in total.
[1:13:38] That's going downhill over some
[1:13:43] And I was saying before, it was that the speed was portion, you have 11.8%, actually there's
[1:13:54] right around here and through the 10% and you push it back into the rock area, which you
[1:14:00] can see is here, there's some rock here.
[1:14:03] So we're trying to be as close as possible to really easily by doing a lot of cut.
[1:14:09] You can hear me, sir.
[1:14:11] You can touch me.
[1:14:15] Yes.
[1:14:16] I'm sure that most of us now, we have even more lock cut people.
[1:14:21] We can say we also have, it's just extending the grading and the disturbance
[1:14:27] towards the rear yards of the houses on the bridge.
[1:14:30] Anyone else who do that, if you cut the rock, we're seeing it.
[1:14:34] You'd have to cut the rock.
[1:14:36] Right, in closer proximity to an existing house.
[1:14:42] I have to say I live on a street that has a big curve and the big curve is on the steepest
[1:14:47] part of the street.
[1:14:48] I think it's probably a lot steeper than that.
[1:14:50] I think when you look at older roads it's not that.
[1:14:53] No one goes flying off into the woods.
[1:14:55] No.
[1:14:58] Now, everybody knows to be...
[1:15:00] Careful in bad weather.
[1:15:04] And it serves more than seven houses. Or really, it's only three, you know,
[1:15:10] past this point. It's really only three houses driving on that section of it.
[1:15:27] So we can give
[1:15:28] you more information if you'd like. I don't know, you know, all we can do is really diagram
[1:15:33] it. I think we've explained it.
[1:15:37] What I could see you've optimized the amount of disturbance
[1:15:41] versus the toughs that go on.
[1:15:44] It's a bad one, right?
[1:15:45] Try to minimize the amount of disturbance
[1:15:48] and try to balance the earthwork as best we can.
[1:15:52] You've got the flow that I had.
[1:15:54] You were talking about those three houses together
[1:15:56] in a common driveway.
[1:15:59] If there is concern about turnaround
[1:16:00] with those two driveways meet, if you're just
[1:16:05] cooking, maybe try and go out of that thing there.
[1:16:08] Yeah, we'll modify that.
[1:16:10] That's fine.
[1:16:11] If we...
[1:16:11] No, I don't know that fly trucks would really care.
[1:16:16] I think I want someone who want to turn around and come out.
[1:16:18] Or they're going to back out, to be honest.
[1:16:21] Even if you put a turn around there, they may back out.
[1:16:25] They usually drive where they want to drive.
[1:16:27] They usually drive where they need to drive.
[1:16:29] Yeah, I would tell you that.
[1:16:32] But we'll put it there.
[1:16:34] We'll make a turn around.
[1:16:35] Well, with us two driveways meet.
[1:16:37] Yes.
[1:16:37] Yes.
[1:16:38] Just a great note to tell you that you are making a, yeah.
[1:16:41] We're trying.
[1:16:41] Sure.
[1:16:45] I still would like to know if this couldn't go up just a little bit.
[1:16:50] If this, do you lose this lot or will it could still work?
[1:16:56] Because it looks like you might be okay with this one.
[1:17:00] You'll be okay with that one.
[1:17:02] And what difference would a foot make or two feet make?
[1:17:07] We can look at, you know, if we can bring that down to 11% how much does that raise the cul-de-sac?
[1:17:17] Does the cul-de-sac, by our code, doesn't Frank do you know if the cul-de-sac have to be a certain grade?
[1:17:24] You can only have a 5% grade change. And what are they showing here?
[1:17:28] I thought it was three. I thought I could only have three.
[1:17:32] Can the planning, does the planning go to the authority to waive that a little bit?
[1:17:35] I have three. It's an action of 3% across the country.
[1:17:41] Because we were just over and we brought it down.
[1:17:44] If it could be slightly more, yes it would probably.
[1:17:48] I wonder if the planning board has any flexibility with that.
[1:17:51] I'll have to check the code.
[1:17:54] Would that help the situation?
[1:17:58] Is it a three, a good number to stick with?
[1:18:02] Or if we went to four or five, is that feasible?
[1:18:06] You don't have the answer right now, but this is looking at some of our municipalities.
[1:18:12] I mean, you've got to remember your driveway connections are there at the end where you're
[1:18:17] going to have where you're going to be dropping, where you're dropping it more.
[1:18:20] Right.
[1:18:21] So that's not the best situation.
[1:18:23] No, but if this were lower, it would help with this because you're going down.
[1:18:31] And this were higher.
[1:18:33] We won't help with this.
[1:18:35] I think three is pretty typical in other municipalities.
[1:18:39] Okay.
[1:18:39] I'm not very specific. Three was the requirement.
[1:18:42] Okay.
[1:18:44] Do you have, as far as the rest of the comments go, do you have any questions?
[1:18:48] Sorry, do you need any clarification on any of them?
[1:18:50] Will you address them?
[1:18:56] No, I think the other ones are.
[1:18:57] Pretty clear on the rest of them.
[1:18:59] You know, we have some information we have to get here.
[1:19:02] I have two things based on what we're looking at these drawings.
[1:19:05] Is this one? This is the right way, right?
[1:19:11] Yes.
[1:19:19] Do
[1:19:27] you want me to do more?
[1:19:36] I don't think I raised that in this room.
[1:19:40] Having these areas here that are being labeled in the plan is
[1:19:51] So, you know, in the past, we've had other plans with detection of trees.
[1:20:00] There are various reasons. I've seen to come back and haunt us for various reasons. So I'm trying
[1:20:07] to understand, I don't remember how those one are legally going to be protected over time,
[1:20:12] if they're actually forming a drainage function. As treaties. We could add, you know, into
[1:20:18] the declaration of restriction that those areas aren't to, you know, to be disturbed or treason,
[1:20:23] those areas can't be removed. We could do that. I mean, it would relate to what the function.
[1:20:28] They have a particular function.
[1:20:31] The purpose is generally in those locations, those are lawn areas about the septic system
[1:20:37] and the idea is whether the wood area, wooded area for some type of treatment, if you will,
[1:20:42] for the runoff from the lawn area of the septic system.
[1:20:46] So if the trees give it value and give it purpose, then we would need something that says if
[1:20:53] If a storm comes along and knocks the trees down, they're going to have to be replaced.
[1:20:59] Because what's happening in these other situations that Will was hinting at is the storm comes,
[1:21:04] knocks the trees down, or the people go to the building inspector and say, the trees are
[1:21:08] too close to my house or the kid's swing set, you know, they've got to come down.
[1:21:11] The next thing, you know, the trees are coming down and there's nothing about putting them
[1:21:15] back.
[1:21:15] So if they're serving a purpose, then I think we also need to say something has to go
[1:21:22] back.
[1:21:22] I don't know if it has to be a full-blown tree or does it have to be vegetation other than lawn?
[1:21:28] Is that what you're saying?
[1:21:29] Look at the whole picture because it's not just trees.
[1:21:31] It's supposed, the way they're proposing it, it's supposed to remain intact.
[1:21:36] So the undisturbed vegetation is providing a function, too.
[1:21:38] So technically, if the trees should be protected, it should also say.
[1:21:42] May the area be made, remain undisturbed?
[1:21:44] Yeah, the shatter more wetter than anything else.
[1:21:46] I don't have a problem with that.
[1:21:48] I'm just saying if the tree itself provides a value, if they come down,
[1:21:52] down do they have to be put back, trees have to be put back, or can you, if it turns into
[1:21:58] just low lying shrub that no one's touching. There's value in that.
[1:22:03] There is value in that. Correct. First is being long, that's, you know,
[1:22:06] the value in fertilized. Correct. So it's not that it needs to be a
[1:22:10] tree to area, it needs to be an undisturbed area. Correct. That's the idea. And that's the
[1:22:14] value. And I think there are areas that you get back there and plant any kind of significant
[1:22:20] entry is not going to be easy.
[1:22:23] But we can certainly provide that those areas will remain
[1:22:27] undisturbed.
[1:22:28] Just to find out that we're in the drawing.
[1:22:32] Well, we'll put it on the drawing and we'll also add it
[1:22:34] into the drawing.
[1:22:35] Probably should address the fact that if a tree does fall down
[1:22:38] and is, unsightly, the owners are going to want to remove it.
[1:22:41] So under certain circumstances, if there's a dead tree there,
[1:22:44] it would be a lot to do.
[1:22:46] Right.
[1:22:49] We're not going to see those areas stay undisturbed.
[1:22:53] That's Will's point and I think it's a very valid point.
[1:22:58] They're far away from the houses.
[1:23:00] It's not like it's an area right next to the house
[1:23:02] that someone's going to want to clear for long.
[1:23:04] Their neighbors are all woods, so they may want to clear their own property.
[1:23:11] Because the septic curve will certainly be cleared.
[1:23:13] I guess where I'm going with it is there another way of achieving what you're trying
[1:23:20] to achieve from a storm order standpoint other than just saying you can't do any, you
[1:23:27] can't disturb this area.
[1:23:31] Would it require some other storm order treatment be installed?
[1:23:35] No.
[1:23:36] Usually downgrading a septic system is not the place to do that.
[1:23:39] And typically my own experience with New York City DEP is they looked at those areas remain
[1:23:44] I mean, I'll call it natural, right?
[1:23:46] Because it's what DEP is going to want.
[1:23:48] Okay, so let's.
[1:23:50] No, I mean, really not treating an impervious surface,
[1:23:53] really just treating, it's for a lawn area
[1:23:55] above a separate system.
[1:23:56] That's really the purpose of it.
[1:24:00] Now, in this way, it's not a fertilized area,
[1:24:04] which is typically the concern of DMP, for example,
[1:24:09] and stormwater runoff is that it's not carrying
[1:24:12] phosphorus and nitrogen into the water bottles.
[1:24:14] by having woods there and especially with leaf litter.
[1:24:18] Maybe not with the woods, but shrubs with leaf litter.
[1:24:20] It has an opportunity to infiltrate into the ground
[1:24:21] because there's something that intercepts the flow.
[1:24:25] Enough stuff there to slow the water down.
[1:24:30] Yeah, so that's good if you added to the plan.
[1:24:33] And you added the decoration.
[1:24:35] You know, the key then will be for the villains
[1:24:37] who are going to have to get built
[1:24:38] to stuff they can install or those.
[1:24:44] We will add.
[1:24:45] So on the plot, those areas will be identified
[1:24:50] What's the what's the proximate distance here?
[1:25:00] That's the one that's closest to a house.
[1:25:18] So all these, the trees that are here, if this is where the house is going to be. I can see the letter go into the building inspector. I'm worried about these trees falling on my house. Because that's exactly what happened in the other situation. They're less than 100.
[1:25:38] If this is 100 feet, they're going to claim I want the trees down because they could fall on my house.
[1:25:51] So I'm wondering if,
[1:25:56] okay, so it's not really about the trees, it's about just don't disturb the area.
[1:26:00] You can get the area down and still leave the area, basically, to start.
[1:26:05] Okay.
[1:26:05] I think the understory vegetation problem provides most of the trees.
[1:26:10] Yeah, the more of the benefits.
[1:26:11] So the condition has to be not just that the area remain undisturbed.
[1:26:17] I think it has to be more clarified, shall not be turned into a lawn or, you know, a whatever.
[1:26:24] So I think maybe if you expand upon it, people will get the picture and understand its purpose and intent.
[1:26:33] Because in the other situation, we just said it shouldn't be disturbed and everyone was saying, well, what has disturbed me?
[1:26:37] I don't know.
[1:26:38] We'll go the whole more.
[1:26:40] Thank you.
[1:26:42] You're right.
[1:26:43] How much should be clear?
[1:26:44] Yeah, no.
[1:26:44] We just went through it.
[1:26:46] That's the only reason.
[1:26:47] We're learning our lesson here.
[1:26:48] We have no problem writing this.
[1:26:51] But aren't these working sufficient?
[1:26:53] Proposed filter strip would an area to remain undisturbed to provide buffer from a fill one
[1:26:59] area.
[1:27:00] I'm going to use that language and I'll throw it on the line.
[1:27:02] It's right here.
[1:27:03] It's going to go into the declaration.
[1:27:04] That means you can't take down the tree, so that's the quantity because there are claimants
[1:27:11] on the state, the underfeated vows, which is what they've already done on property.
[1:27:16] Yeah.
[1:27:18] You can say except unsafe trees can be removed with permission of the town.
[1:27:24] Well, that will be all the trees,
[1:27:27] that's what we've experienced.
[1:27:29] It should rein in the natural state and no lawns.
[1:27:32] I mean, I want the two extremes mentioned because this is exactly what we went through with
[1:27:36] the other applicant.
[1:27:39] I don't recall it was part of what you submitted for our approval, the downpourable and state
[1:27:47] DEC approval.
[1:27:49] You could try to remove it and when it gets to the DEP, no, they're going to want the
[1:28:01] is going to say maybe you could try to submit it to them if they don't require it.
[1:28:08] Okay, are we good with the other points?
[1:28:11] You're going to address them?
[1:28:13] No other clarification needed?
[1:28:15] Any of the board members have any more comments?
[1:28:18] I don't.
[1:28:21] I don't.
[1:28:21] Either at this point.
[1:28:24] Thank you very much.
[1:28:25] Thank you.
[1:28:30] I don't know that we can get all of this addressed.
[1:28:34] No, we just keep the public hearing open through all of this discussion.
[1:28:38] Okay.
[1:28:39] Thank you.
[1:28:39] Thank you.
[1:28:40] All right.
[1:28:43] We have the minutes of April 4th and April 18th.
[1:28:45] Are the board members in a position to move on them?
[1:28:49] Yeah, board approval.
[1:28:51] I'll second that.
[1:28:52] on favor.
[1:28:56] The financial report for April I'll make a motion to approve. Do I have a second?
[1:29:04] On favor. With the loss of Charlotte we need a new deputy chair. It would be helpful to have
[1:29:12] someone who is here during the week so I believe a couple of meetings ago I asked Gary if you are
[1:29:18] sort of available during the day, so Gary, would you accept the position?
[1:29:24] Right, thanks position. Chris, you are out.
[1:29:29] I'm not even around on the weekend.
[1:29:31] Oh,
[1:29:34] come on, Gary, it's fine.
[1:29:37] All right, I'll make a motion to appoint Gary and Jacobi's deputy chair.
[1:29:45] Actually, just by announcement, whatever.
[1:29:49] at the end of the work session, I'd like to go into executive session with the town attorney to discuss a variety of legal issues, so I'll make the motion.
[1:30:00] We went to executive session with the town attorney. At the end of the work session, do I have a second?
[1:30:05] So yes.
[1:30:06] All in favor?
[1:30:07] No, you can't.
[1:30:08] Okay, on the work session.
[1:30:11] At our next meeting on May 16th, the town board is going to join us the first half hour or so, so we can present to them the sign ordinance.
[1:30:24] Now, I know Bill, you've had it for a few weeks, and Dan, you're very new to this, but I'd like to do a quick run through tonight and see whether or not the two of you may have any issues because I'd like it to go as smoothly as possible when we have the town board here to talk to us.
[1:30:42] This all came about almost three years ago now when the town attorney mentioned to us
[1:30:48] that because of recent court cases, we had to take a look at some sections of our sign
[1:30:55] ordinance to make sure that they were something, what content neutral, right?
[1:31:00] So we did that and we made it, we decided to do a few other little quick changes to it
[1:31:07] And we would thought we were done with it when one of the applicants who did not want to do signs as part of her site plan approval told us that she was a new member of the Chamber of Commerce, and she thought that other businesses may have concerns, and could we wait until she pulled the members of the Chamber of Commerce, and maybe we talked about some other changes.
[1:31:30] So we waited and waited a few months, and we did not hear from her.
[1:31:33] her, but she did send a memo to the town board, which was a little confusing.
[1:31:38] So we finally got her connected with her, and she did not do a survey of the businesses,
[1:31:45] but she did submit a list of questions.
[1:31:49] And it was very good for us because of the questions we understood that people still weren't
[1:31:55] following our sign ordinance, and Will said, you know what, if we kind of rearranged it
[1:32:02] and redrafted it. It might be more helpful. And she also had a few suggestions in there
[1:32:08] that we thought were good, for instance, when a new business comes to town, they like
[1:32:13] to have some signage that says we're new or open. So we listened to, we went through all
[1:32:18] of her questions, we picked up on a few that made some sense, and with that we redrafted
[1:32:24] the sign ordinance. One of the things that we did hold on to and we held on to very strongly
[1:32:30] was the size of signs and to support that position, I put together in this book, this book
[1:32:40] sits in my office and you're welcome to come in and take a look at it. It is a summary
[1:32:44] of every sign that I could get my hands on. There's also a, like an Excel spreadsheet
[1:32:51] in there of which ones needed a variance, which ones were pre-existing, et cetera. So that
[1:32:58] That was a very handy tool that we had.
[1:33:01] We also brought up on the screen every commercial district in town, and we actually physically
[1:33:06] looked at the buildings, the frontage, the distance to the road.
[1:33:11] To get a better handle on what the impact might be, if you change the size of a sign, it
[1:33:19] might be okay in one area of town, but it might be horrible and like croat and falls or
[1:33:24] parties to have bigger signs.
[1:33:26] science.
[1:33:26] So we went through that exercise and at the end of the day, we were the then five members
[1:33:33] of the planning board were pretty unanimous that we wanted to keep the size of the sign
[1:33:36] the way it was.
[1:33:37] But we did one change that actually increased the size of the sign.
[1:33:43] We decided in the way you look at it, this is the face of the sign and most signs have
[1:33:48] trim around it, so you don't have to count trim up to six inches around.
[1:33:53] So basically changed the square footage of a sign from 8 square feet to 10 square feet.
[1:33:58] We thought that was a good compromise for people.
[1:34:02] So with that, if you could give a very quick overview of, I think everyone now has a packet
[1:34:08] in front of them of the sign ordinance, done, put it in your packets, and if you just highlight
[1:34:20] some of the changes, particularly with the content neutral stuff?
[1:34:27] Yeah.
[1:34:29] In looking at assigned regulations and bringing them up to date with current practices, we've
[1:34:40] added a bunch of definitions and the added definitions came in because of the other changes
[1:34:46] that were made throughout the code.
[1:34:51] The section with regards to permitted signs, exempts.
[1:35:01] We've added clarity to improve what the code is actually saying and what it's allowing. With the whole thing about the, in a sense, uniformity and this issue of contact neutral, that's really a lot of the, that came into play under the exempt signs, where we had to kind of make things pretty much uniform, because you really, when you have one sign for one outfit,
[1:35:27] but you can't really do it differently for another,
[1:35:30] like a church versus a school versus some other charity type event.
[1:35:35] They really are supposed to have the same ability as far as the size,
[1:35:40] durations, and whatnot.
[1:35:42] So we spent a lot of time with that.
[1:35:44] And that's what the, in many ways, is those three boxes on pages five and six,
[1:35:50] trying to bring those into conformity with that larger issue that was kind of
[1:35:55] the beginning of all of this.
[1:35:58] And it's also been condensed into those tables.
[1:36:00] It's a little clearer, I think,
[1:36:02] if you pick out which sign it is from that point of view.
[1:36:07] With prohibited signs, we added a few other clarifications
[1:36:11] as the type of signs obviously that are prohibited.
[1:36:15] Similar with permitted signs, a little bit more clarity
[1:36:19] about the different things.
[1:36:21] We've added the thing about the directional signage
[1:36:23] at the bottom. And the way these signs kind of go, the main signs, the principal signs
[1:36:29] are the freestanding sign and a wall sign, and then the directional signs are the little
[1:36:34] signs that get you in and around the property.
[1:36:38] We provided in the design standards which are
[1:36:44] on page 9.
[1:36:47] We move things around, so some things you may see coming out may show up somewhere
[1:36:53] and a different section that made more sense, so that was part of a rearrangement of some
[1:36:56] of the things in the design.
[1:36:59] Again, being more clear or adding more information as to what the town would be expecting with
[1:37:05] the design assigns, and how to measure the signs, that was another big piece here, that's
[1:37:11] section F, the measurement of a wall sign, the measurement of free standing sign, and that
[1:37:16] was one of the things that Cindy just said, the allowance for this outer border, which
[1:37:22] which kind of made the sign a little better than the traditional heat square feet.
[1:37:27] We talked about sign placement and this is some of the things got moved into here from
[1:37:32] other sections and again we talked a little bit about other types of signs such as awning
[1:37:39] signs and window signs, things that hadn't been dealt with but do occur out in the real world.
[1:37:47] The Materials section, I think these are a lot of things that the board has done over
[1:37:53] the years as people came in with sign permits, so we're trying to codify some of those things
[1:37:58] to make it more upfront as to what's expected and one of the things here, we did a recommendation
[1:38:04] of the character heights and the maximums and minimums of lettering basically on the science
[1:38:09] because there actually is some science to the speed on a road of what you can see, what
[1:38:16] and sometimes people put a lot of words on signs
[1:38:19] and they make it very small and you can't read it.
[1:38:22] So it doesn't give them one,
[1:38:25] it's a distraction on the road for a motorist,
[1:38:27] it doesn't also give you an idea of where you are
[1:38:29] or what you're seeing,
[1:38:30] so that doesn't help the business any.
[1:38:34] And in some respects, some people put too much on the sign.
[1:38:37] So we're trying to deal with the minimum letter size.
[1:38:40] So it's visible, it tells what it needs it to say
[1:38:44] and safe on the road.
[1:38:47] We've added the sections with regard to illumination and street identification, obviously that
[1:38:55] towers in with the 911 process or our system.
[1:38:59] And then some minor changes to the enforcement sections, not conforming section, but then
[1:39:06] we added more to help the buildings factor with regards to the ongoing maintenance and replacement
[1:39:18] There's two things I want to point out if you go back to page 4 at the top item B. This has been very handy and I think very helpful.
[1:39:30] We used to make everybody come in for every sign, but in I think in 2015 we changed it so that if you're a new business and there was a previously approved sign,
[1:39:43] you can just take that one down and put yours up unless you change the size
[1:39:48] height color yard setbacks and we even in this round we're even taking out
[1:39:54] the word color so if you stick in with the same size height yard setbacks and
[1:39:58] illumination.
[1:40:00] Just put up your new sign for your new business. I think this will be very helpful because we've been criticized for that in the past.
[1:40:10] One other thing, Roland, you told us, I believe, that we're writing this for property, signs on people's individual property, that a sign put out in a street right away is not permitted at all.
[1:40:31] I'm almost thinking we have to actually come right out and say it because people don't believe me.
[1:40:36] And I've had so many conversations with the building inspector about it and he says,
[1:40:40] I'm not comfortable removing a sign that's in the right away.
[1:40:45] And I said, why not?
[1:40:47] I talked to the town attorney, he's told us that they're not supposed to be there.
[1:40:52] So is it just he has the right to do it for town right away or not state or unless
[1:40:57] Yes, unless a town board chooses otherwise to permit signs in the right of way, they are
[1:41:05] not approved to be there, and its town property, unauthorized signs should be removed, and
[1:41:11] they should be, as other towns do, they don't throw them away, they put them in a centralized
[1:41:17] area, they inform the, whoever's ever on the sign where they are and they can be picked
[1:41:22] up and relocated.
[1:41:24] Right.
[1:41:24] The same thing whether it's a state right away or a county state does not permit signs on their on their
[1:41:29] I was I'm wondering if we almost should somehow put that in here and make it clear to people. Yeah, I you know, it's funny
[1:41:36] I was thinking the same thing as I was reading through this again, and I wasn't quite sure what this meant on premises on page five
[1:41:48] on premises, temporary signs specific to the property upon which they are placed, and
[1:41:55] the first three bullets I understand, but the fourth bullet has to do with campaigns
[1:42:00] of events of civic, political, religious, philanthropic, and educational institutions.
[1:42:05] They're not going to be specific for property,
[1:42:12] so that's got to be changed.
[1:42:13] But
[1:42:16] that's where I think you would make it clear that these exempt signs can be used
[1:42:24] only on private property and not on public property.
[1:42:27] But it's a subject to discuss with the town board because they may want to tell you that
[1:42:35] they want to set a different policy and they control the property of the town.
[1:42:40] But they could do it for any right away, whether it's state, county or town.
[1:42:44] For some communities designate, you know, a specific area, maybe like the triangle down that's a perfect area.
[1:42:54] Summers has a similar spot near the elephant hotel that they designate for common signs.
[1:43:01] But the town would have to get permission from the state, for instance.
[1:43:05] At that location, yes. But if you had another location that was town.
[1:43:08] It was a town.
[1:43:09] And it would be a town for word decision.
[1:43:11] Okay, so I think we need to point, I think we need to have this exact same conversation with the top board.
[1:43:18] Well, on that point you were raising that I understand that that bullets of the different kinds of signs, obviously political, I mean that's, I get that doesn't really do specific property.
[1:43:33] Is it the town's interest though to allow, you know, those event signs on everybody's property?
[1:43:43] or are they just for the actual property that's holding the event?
[1:43:48] Kagan- We, in this town, if the boy scouts are doing something, they go along and
[1:43:53] they put up all these temporary signs, if the historical side is doing something.
[1:43:57] And we ask people, we can't put them.
[1:43:59] So we want to be able to do, so it's not specific to the problem.
[1:44:02] Kagan- Right, so the question, like, if the high school is having a musical or something,
[1:44:07] everyone puts it on their yard, but kids in the play.
[1:44:09] So the quicker they should add is we would make another category and it would just stand alone right yeah right okay because the first three bullets make sense yeah it's got to be specific to the property.
[1:44:24] Do we have to say with permission of the property or was that just assumed?
[1:44:28] I think it's assumed.
[1:44:30] As always, the property owner will remove it.
[1:44:33] Okay.
[1:44:35] And maybe under enforcement, we can, if the town board doesn't want to allow them in right
[1:44:41] a ways, maybe under enforcement or somewhere, we should state that these, you know, signs
[1:44:50] place not on private property will be removed by the building inspector.
[1:44:55] Do the other towns have similar language or do they or do they
[1:45:01] The other times I'm familiar with, they just, the town board is a policy, just directs the building inspector that, you know, we actually could, we could fix item 254.J on page seven.
[1:45:26] It says that we'll pay seven item J. It says signs which project over street, so we can, say, project on or off that, you know,
[1:45:35] We can we could do something with that sentence to get whatever sentiment because the
[1:45:41] The signs that are of the governmental nature. I think are
[1:45:45] You just say signs that are in right-a-ways if that's what they want you put it right there
[1:45:50] I mean, yeah, we don't have to create a new area right signs within right-a-ways or they project over right-a-ways
[1:45:56] Rather than is our government science exempt somewhere yes and traffic controlling signs
[1:46:04] Right, that's certainly an exam.
[1:46:08] Yeah, so one and two would examine all the typical signs that the town puts in.
[1:46:16] So J would then preclude the school from running its sign, of course, hot scrub or road between
[1:46:22] the two poles.
[1:46:23] So it could be signs within a street right away or which project over street?
[1:46:28] are not subject to term zoning.
[1:46:31] But it's on town property.
[1:46:34] Oh, there's the county road.
[1:46:36] That's the county road.
[1:46:37] Yeah, but they're subject to laws off site.
[1:46:40] OK, so.
[1:46:43] Yeah, they can go put a sign on here.
[1:46:44] What sign do they put up for a festival or something?
[1:46:47] Homecoming.
[1:46:48] They put a stretch of sign across the college gravel road.
[1:46:51] And they've never gotten a permit.
[1:46:53] No.
[1:46:57] Well, it's a conversation with the town board.
[1:46:59] They might want to make exceptions to that.
[1:47:04] So could Jay say something like signs within street right away or which project over a street?
[1:47:15] Actually, I guess you don't have to say the project park exists.
[1:47:19] We're going to have an issue with that, because one of our applicants is already doing it.
[1:47:25] She's doing a lot of things now, so.
[1:47:32] So, are the new board members more, more or less comfortable with this?
[1:47:40] We are going to get a lot of resistance and discussion with the town board.
[1:47:46] I've already been put through the ropes, yes, I did say that a few weeks ago, no, a week ago.
[1:47:54] So I sat down with Warren Logus and Peter Gamonstein and the building inspector because the building inspector was sitting and going through it and I said, why are you doing the sign ordinance now?
[1:48:04] He says, well, Warren and I are, come on and talk to me.
[1:48:09] So this is why we're having the joint session.
[1:48:14] I think it's really important to have all the town board members understand how we approach this and
[1:48:21] why we wrote it the way we did and I tried to stress this with Warren and Peter that when
[1:48:28] you write a code you write it for the entire town you know and if it doesn't work for some
[1:48:36] well they can go and get a variance and it's not that difficult or that expensive to get a variance.
[1:48:42] So I'm hoping that having that sit down with them and taken them through everything that we just
[1:48:47] discussed here that they're a little more understanding of why we want to keep it conservative
[1:48:53] because you can always go and get something.
[1:48:56] You think you use the word resist, do you think resistance are just need for lots of explanation
[1:49:01] because they're kind of looking at this fresh without having had the discussion.
[1:49:05] I mean part of it is it was hard, it's a document that's hard to follow and obviously we need
[1:49:10] well there to walk them through it to understand it.
[1:49:12] I mean, even we had difficulties with some of it,
[1:49:15] and we needed to be walked through it.
[1:49:18] There's also Warren has told me that he's received complaints,
[1:49:21] and I said, can you be specific?
[1:49:23] And he's never been specific.
[1:49:25] So I don't know if it's, you know,
[1:49:28] one property complaining a lot,
[1:49:31] or if there's a lot of complaints.
[1:49:32] Completing that they don't want to go to the planning board.
[1:49:36] It's too expensive.
[1:49:38] It's too this to that.
[1:49:39] And I'm saying, first of all,
[1:49:41] Well a sign permit is generally taken care of is part of the site plan.
[1:49:46] That's when you do it.
[1:49:47] It is a part and parcel of site plan.
[1:49:48] We encourage everybody to do their signage, as we're doing with BP, we do it then.
[1:49:53] And they're done.
[1:49:54] Here's it's only those who don't do it as part of their site plan that have to come in
[1:49:59] for process.
[1:50:00] It's a fee set by the town, but what's 100 bucks? And it's generally one meeting of the planning board. What is so difficult about that? And if they don't like to follow the regulations, we send them to the board of appeals, and they get their variance, and they're done. And they mentioned, well, maybe we should send them to the architecture review board and have them do in the permitting. And I said, they're not a permitting board. You'd have to rewrite your code. I said, I don't understand who's complaining. I don't understand why.
[1:50:30] You're not going to tell me who it is, how can we fix it?
[1:50:33] You do understand who's complaining.
[1:50:36] Well, I did mention that I know that there are two businesses that complain.
[1:50:40] And I all seem to be based on those two businesses.
[1:50:43] I said, we don't rewrite an entire code because a business in the center of your town
[1:50:48] wants to have a lot of signage up.
[1:50:51] I said, go back and read the company as a plan.
[1:50:54] Let's bring it up into weeks when there are lots of years.
[1:50:57] Okay, so that's what we are with that, thank you.
[1:51:00] Do we have, is there any overriding thing
[1:51:03] on agricultural land?
[1:51:06] No, most of the agricultural signs,
[1:51:08] all of the, if I pull out the list,
[1:51:11] they all use the name plate size, which is the force.
[1:51:15] You don't let me do agricultural properties.
[1:51:19] Got a pass.
[1:51:19] Some right to do anything they want to do.
[1:51:22] Not the normal world, not with respect to signage.
[1:51:24] Okay, I'm just asking the question
[1:51:26] because they have a lot of freedom to do a lot of things that others don't have.
[1:51:31] Yeah,
[1:51:33] most of the signs up fall under the exam category.
[1:51:38] People like to put their name plate on the phone, which is what I call them.
[1:51:44] Pretty good shape.
[1:51:46] Oh, one question they did have.
[1:51:47] Can we have different regulations for different zoning districts?
[1:51:53] And my response to that was, why would you want to do that?
[1:51:56] And they picked out fields.
[1:51:58] I said, you might get into this content neutral.
[1:52:00] That's the problem with that.
[1:52:02] So if you will say, no, you write it
[1:52:04] for the whole town on code.
[1:52:07] That will really help squash that one.
[1:52:09] Yeah.
[1:52:10] I mean, it's the same idea when you're trying
[1:52:13] have different size signs based on what they say.
[1:52:16] You can't do that either.
[1:52:19] Same principle.
[1:52:19] I mean, they picked out fields lane, and I said, you know, they need variances.
[1:52:25] At this point, they've all got the permit, they're just going to change the business.
[1:52:29] It's like we're done with fields lane.
[1:52:31] Signs have to be kind of neutral, but they haven't attacked yet legally, the commercial sign.
[1:52:38] But they might.
[1:52:39] So, I mean, having a different size, sign, and different commercial districts, that doesn't
[1:52:46] change content.
[1:52:47] No, but it is uniform because you're putting it in a district.
[1:52:50] Well, what's the purpose of it?
[1:52:52] Yes.
[1:52:52] Oh, no.
[1:52:53] Is the bull from 680?
[1:52:54] No, no.
[1:52:55] I'm not saying to get billboard.
[1:52:56] But if you were to think of that,
[1:53:00] that field plane district is being a more intense commercial district,
[1:53:05] you know, maybe a 10-foot sign makes more sense than a,
[1:53:08] I don't know.
[1:53:08] But that, you know what I mean?
[1:53:09] You don't really have.
[1:53:10] North Ham doesn't have really any of that kind of distance.
[1:53:13] Yeah, I would not encourage anybody to go there.
[1:53:16] I mean, you don't have the post-road, so I mean, yeah.
[1:53:20] And not all the businesses on Fields Lane would fit into the same cat, sorry, they're not
[1:53:25] all set back 300 feet from the road, you know.
[1:53:29] And the signs are out on the road, so why would we want to treat that road any different?
[1:53:33] It is a small area that it doesn't, okay, then anyway, isn't it?
[1:53:40] All right, I just want to do site plan wave is real quickly, I'm not going to do this subdivision
[1:53:44] ranks tonight.
[1:53:46] Roland, we, the reason I asked Will to give a crack at this
[1:53:51] is because if you are in the first call,
[1:53:55] I use, as of right.
[1:53:59] And it's something small like this cooler.
[1:54:01] You can come to us and we can grant this waiver
[1:54:03] rather than putting through a process.
[1:54:05] The way our code is written right now
[1:54:07] is if you are a special permit use, condition use,
[1:54:11] you can't get a waiver.
[1:54:12] Period.
[1:54:12] which means a public hearing and amended site plan application.
[1:54:17] So I asked Will to take a look at it.
[1:54:18] If there's nothing in town law that prevents us,
[1:54:21] I can't even have the wave of provision
[1:54:23] for conditional use and special permit uses.
[1:54:27] If it's a small thing like putting in a condenser,
[1:54:30] a tank, or an air conditioner.
[1:54:33] So Will drafted something that says,
[1:54:34] so long as you're not changing the use,
[1:54:37] and we're just talking about a little fix.
[1:54:40] Yeah, I think I don't see any reason why you can't do that.
[1:54:43] So that was the whole purpose of it.
[1:54:44] Will drafted something, and I don't know if the board had
[1:54:47] a chance to take a look at it.
[1:54:49] I thought he added some really good points.
[1:54:52] If you want to pass on it for tonight, that's fine.
[1:54:55] I like the look at it a little bit.
[1:54:56] Sure.
[1:54:57] So now that Rowan's confirmed that we can go down that road.
[1:55:00] We'll have the next meeting. So I think with that, the only other thing that we have to do, especially with these other applications coming in, is we've got to do some of these side inspections. We're not a board that sets a Saturday or a city for side inspection, but we've been trying to do it for a water view. We're not getting everybody to gather at the same time. I know it's hard. But over the next week, Dawn is going to be emailing you all
[1:55:30] again, if it's possible to do a side inspection before a planning board meeting, if that's
[1:55:37] preferred, speak up, if it's preferred to do it on the weekends, speak up, and that's
[1:55:42] the direction we'll go in, but how do people generally feel about these?
[1:55:47] Generally, I prefer before planning board meeting in the summers, so you can start doing
[1:55:53] that.
[1:55:53] But, well, but sometimes I can't.
[1:55:56] Yeah.
[1:55:57] My schedule allows it.
[1:55:58] I prefer that over weekends.
[1:56:00] OK.
[1:56:01] Dan, how about you?
[1:56:02] I would probably prefer before the plane
[1:56:03] were meeting as well.
[1:56:05] For them?
[1:56:05] Like, you know, 630 or whatever.
[1:56:07] Yeah, it would be like the 630 range.
[1:56:10] It's fine with me.
[1:56:11] I mean, you'll Gary.
[1:56:12] Yeah, for the, you know, through to school starts again.
[1:56:16] OK.
[1:56:17] So, Don, that's what we're going to shoot for with these upcoming.
[1:56:20] And we might actually do one next.
[1:56:22] We have two weeks on the rights on May 16th. May 16th is that possible? We're starting at 7 or 7 30 on the 16th.
[1:56:29] 7 30 with the town board. With the town board okay. So we could do a 6 30 site inspection of what are you.
[1:56:36] Second meeting time. I think so. We'll have 45 minutes. Everybody's there. It's it only takes 15 minutes to drive back over here.
[1:56:45] Who beside us who is are you going to invite mark how the day we've already had the walk through with all the emergency
[1:56:53] Fire police etcetera
[1:56:56] So we'll have the applicant there and we'll have will there
[1:57:02] 630
[1:57:05] Yeah, so we'll check with the applicant see if that's possible
[1:57:12] Okay, and will it works for you? I'll say that
[1:57:15] Waterview. Yeah, I'm good. We could ask Paul to join us because Paul
[1:57:21] could bring in. He was at that meeting with all the emergency people. Help fill in any questions.
[1:57:26] Maybe they're close with 6.45. And I just said that people better, actually, I'm meeting it three that day, but I should be able to get
[1:57:35] questions for you. Excellent. So unless it's-
[1:57:37] The work session on June 20th, may I go on?
[1:57:40] Yeah. If that's the third Wednesday, yes.
[1:57:46] It's going back real quick. I have a quick question which you don't need to answer now necessarily but when we consider the site waiver, site plan waiver modifications the 3000 square foot disturbance is there magic to that number or something we should discuss.
[1:58:04] I'm sorry the 3000 square foot disturbance for oh you know what I did I you know that's
[1:58:14] What I did is I took based on the 1,000 square foot building edition
[1:58:19] I kind of took a building edition and I drew like a 20 foot radius around it and kind of carefully what that area would be that
[1:58:28] You need to grade and disturb generally now that's not everything because there might be other things with parking you have to do
[1:58:33] And I kind of came up with a 2,500 square foot number and dumped it up to 3.
[1:58:38] I mean, you could make it 4, you could make it 5, I mean, it's really just a comfort level
[1:58:42] of how much you want to, you know, open the door to.
[1:58:48] Okay, with that, I think we're done with the regular meeting and I'd like to go into executive
[1:58:53] session so we can turn off the lights.
[1:58:55] Thanks.