[0:04] Thank you, Tom. Good evening and welcome to the village of Putjustor Planning Commission meeting of January 18th. We all rise in joining and saying the pledge of allegiance.

[0:31] Thank you,

[0:38] Kurt and the Planning Department have prepared a very full agenda this evening, so we're just going to dive right into it.

[0:46] So, Kurt, first item on our agenda in the extension section is case 2013-0097 and

[0:55] S.E.U. Special Youth Permit Renewal. This is for 999, 99 High Street Excuse me.

[1:05] Good evening.

[1:06] Good evening.

[1:07] My name is David Kenney. I'm the attorney with Snyder and Snyder.

[1:09] I'm here tonight to represent the applicant team, Mobile North East LLC.

[1:13] The application is to renew the special permit for the wireless telecommunications facility located

[1:19] on the rooftop of the 999 high street. We filed this renewal request in December of 2021.

[1:27] We received report dated December 18, 2021 from the Village Consultant, recommending approval

[1:32] of the special permit renewal.

[1:35] Thank you.

[1:36] Kurt?

[1:37] Yes, I do. This is just as mentioned. I gave it. This is a renewal of a special

[1:42] of Section U's permanent for a telecom facility, and, again, as mentioned, our radio frequency

[1:48] engineer has weighed in, letting us know that conditions are good, and that this can be

[1:55] renewed.

[1:56] Please know that for both this and the next case on the agenda that I do not have resolution

[2:01] prepared at this moment, but if the board sees fit to take favorable action, then I'd

[2:06] to prepare those resolutions before five days and invite me to Chairman to sign it.

[2:14] Okay, thank you.

[2:15] Questions from the members of the Planning Commission to either current or the applicant on this matter?

[2:21] Let's start.

[2:22] Oh, sorry.

[2:23] This meeting, we're going to start on this side.

[2:25] Just like we promised.

[2:27] Mr. Noelle, you're up on that.

[2:30] Yes, ready?

[2:32] Okay.

[2:33] Thank you. Jerry any questions? No questions. I have any questions?

[2:37] Back to you, Pete.

[2:38] I know you guys in the talk about these antennas and so forth.

[2:45] You have a lot of pull in the front of government such. What's going to happen when they

[2:49] tear down 999 high street in your school? Still within your contract period?

[2:54] So that's not only just a requirement of the federal government and the FCC has

[3:01] prohibitions against taking down an actively transmitting site, but I think it's also a

[3:05] leasing question on how the applicants have leased with the property owner.

[3:09] I don't have a copy of leasing, so I was not involved in leasing this site, so I can't

[3:12] properly ask.

[3:13] I answer that question, but I'm sure it's something I can pass along to Team Mobile

[3:19] to their well, they've been well heard about the redevelopment potential of the 99

[3:24] in high street, so I think they're staying tuned to see what will happen with any approvals

[3:30] of that property, but it'll be a leasing issue, whether or not they have to move and

[3:36] where they'll relocate to.

[3:38] Thank you.

[3:39] Thank you.

[3:40] Do you want to do?

[3:40] No comment.

[3:42] No comment.

[3:43] Okay.

[3:44] I had one question.

[3:45] Previously, the planning commission, when we were dealing with these rooftops, had requested

[3:51] And when these came up before us a rooftop of inspections right where it a rooftop review,

[4:00] you know, currently previously our engineers to do this, I don't know who you would get

[4:04] to do that between now and when we could approve this.

[4:09] Yes, we did have a staff engineer to do this previously and in order to make sure the conditions

[4:17] are safe on the board full. We can turn to either consulting engineers. That's the only idea

[4:29] I have for that.

[4:31] Okay.

[4:31] If I'm out, I may offer a solution. So both of these applications actually came to the

[4:35] technology as a modification request and during the review of the modification was learned

[4:41] that the special permit needed to be renewed. So we do have an active building permit

[4:45] application in for a modification. So as part of the close out of that building permit application,

[4:50] there would obviously need to be inspections performed by the village as part of that.

[4:54] So I know that's not directly related to the special permit renewal,

[4:57] but these sites will be inspectors part of the modification application.

[5:02] When would that happen?

[5:04] So we have an act of application right now for the building department,

[5:08] but we've been stalled until we have our special permit renewed.

[5:11] So I've been told as soon as our special permit has been renewed the building toggle and continue with the review of the modification application

[5:19] The building permit is issued and construction moves forward. There should be an inspection at the close out of that building permit.

[5:26] Okay, feedback from the other commissioners. Do you think that would satisfy our ongoing concern about these rooftops?

[5:31] I had just one thing to add to that question.

[5:34] If the resolution you're going to write up, if it's going to be the same equipment, there's

[5:39] a good updated or something new being in, and the old ones that are being put at service.

[5:45] So it's two different applications.

[5:48] One is to a special permit, new for the special permit for the equipment that's already

[5:52] there.

[5:53] There is an application for an eligible facilities request modification to replace the antennas.

[5:58] That has been filed with the billing departments so they are going to replace in the antennas.

[6:03] My concern with that, anything that's not being used anymore or adequate will be removed from the side as well.

[6:10] Absolutely, but the point of it is to upgrade the antennas out of there.

[6:14] So we're all agreed.

[6:19] So.

[6:19] Is that any questions?

[6:21] So, Kurt, would you need a motion for each of them to direct you to their approval documents?

[6:27] each of those two renewals on the agenda. Yes, we can. Okay, so we'll take them one of the time you're

[6:32] representing both. I'm representing both so we can handle it. The other one is for 125 North Main Street.

[6:39] This one is a similar situation. It was filed December 22nd and we also received a village consultant

[6:44] recommendation of approval in a January 4th 2022. Okay. And again, this is another application that we have a

[6:52] modification application being reviewed by the building department. So it's a similar situation as the first one. Okay

[6:58] So we'll take on one at a time can I get a motion to direct the plane department to provide the renewal document for

[7:05] 9999 high street

[7:07] Case 2013-0097

[7:09] Yes

[7:10] Thank you, Madam. Three second

[7:13] Thank you Pete

[7:16] Connie, when you're ready?

[7:20] Exactly.

[7:22] Yes.

[7:22] And the learner?

[7:23] The learner?

[7:24] Yes.

[7:25] Yes.

[7:26] Yes.

[7:30] One, zero, two, two, six. This is for one, twenty, five, North Main Street.

[7:35] Thank you, Jerry, sir. Second. Second. Thank you, town. Connie, when you're ready?

[7:41] All that in? Yes.

[7:43] Tender Larry? Yes.

[7:45] Yes. Yes.

[7:46] Yes.

[7:50] Okay.

[7:51] Thank you very much for your time.

[7:52] Thank you very much. Have a good evening.

[7:54] Okay, next on our agenda is a Resolution section, and this is for Case 2021-0215 for

[8:05] 208-216, King Street.

[8:08] I believe Kurt Mr. Sereto, you have a letter from Mr. Churchill to explain things to

[8:16] us.

[8:19] Good evening.

[8:20] Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

[8:24] a number of the law from Cuddy and Fader, 445, Hamilton Avenue, away Plains, New York.

[8:31] I didn't know if you wanted to go to the letter you just referenced first, but as far as

[8:35] work and certainty, application has been complete. The hearing has been closed. We're

[8:40] waiting for Sue as to do something with the bill, as you recall, you're one of your part

[8:45] of meetings. I've requested that the Planning Commission provides some direction or whatever

[8:50] you could in urging the Board of Trustees to do something about this situation. This is

[8:54] The only issue that's outstanding, it's out of our hands, there's nothing that we can do.

[8:59] We've been trying to reach out to Suez to know of how we're waiting for the village,

[9:02] to schedule meetings or come up with some type of resolution with Suez.

[9:07] We've been waiting for months.

[9:09] I understand as a letter which I have not seen.

[9:11] I did have the opportunity to speak briefly with Mr. Sereto earlier.

[9:16] But we encourage the planning commission to, as you've done, with other matters of interest to you,

[9:24] to please request the Board of Trustees to do something about this situation.

[9:30] This doesn't impact just developers of larger buildings, but this could impact single-home

[9:35] home home home home home home home home home home home home home home home, this is really ridiculous

[9:37] of awaiting months and there's no discussion of where, what's the weather that's going on.

[9:41] It was discussed that the December meeting was discussed that as we

[9:45] did prevent up with the abortions.

[9:47] When we had a workshop with the Board of Trustees in December, we covered a

[9:52] number, the planning commission covered a number of topics.

[9:54] We had two or three formal items on the agenda and as with anything, you get through

[10:00] the formal items and then you have other conversational topics that arise that came

[10:05] up after that and I believe the Board heard us.

[10:10] I don't think, well, I don't know if they provide in a follow-up response to us or an update

[10:14] to us, but I think they heard us.

[10:16] Well, I thank you for that.

[10:18] So, as if you could send a follow-up letter or resolution, but I do thank you for that.

[10:22] Well, I think we're going to, well, I don't want to get ahead of myself.

[10:25] I think we're going to ask Kurt to give us something and then Kurt can go through the

[10:29] chain of the village machinery to do that.

[10:32] But first, let's get Kurt and Mr. Sereto our village attorney to explain what is summarized

[10:38] to recap the letter we've received from Mr. Chair Talk.

[10:43] Mr. Chair Talk has provided us a correspondence regarding the only outstanding issue

[10:49] on the application, which is the water issue, and Mr. Chair Talk has advised us that we cannot

[10:54] take any action until that issue has been resolved.

[10:58] Of course, the secret decision has to be made before you reach the merits of the application,

[11:02] so this has to be deferred until such time as that matter is addressed.

[11:06] You have a copy, I'm sure you have a short talks, of course, buttons.

[11:10] I have no objection and transparency to provide a copy of that to the applicant tonight.

[11:17] So we can have for his file as well.

[11:19] I agree.

[11:20] It is a very significant issue.

[11:21] It needs to be addressed, and I'll defer to Kurt.

[11:24] Because there has been some discussion with Sue S.

[11:27] Since that joint meeting with the Board of Trustees.

[11:30] So it's not like things are not being done.

[11:32] It's just not being done as quickly as we would like.

[11:34] on the front of Curtis's details.

[11:36] Thank you.

[11:37] Because planning has its function within the village process, I know there's other areas

[11:43] within the village that are doing their functions and addressing the topic.

[11:49] One question I had Mr. Sarato on the memo from Mr. Truttag?

[11:54] Well, it speaks to this case, and I believe this is going to be applicable to a number

[11:59] cases that are in the pipeline following this case. My question is, how does this apply to applications

[12:08] that came prior to this case, but since the form base code was adopted, which I believe

[12:15] is what those cases would be applicable because they are much greater than what was in the previous

[12:24] code. So my thought is that this might apply as well to all applications that have occurred

[12:31] since the adoption of the former East Code.

[12:35] There is another application, also represents a necessary job rate. I believe it has

[12:41] been affected by this issue as well. I would like to advise the board that the village

[12:49] can be of assistance. We are fortunate enough to have Council, as I counsel, a general

[12:56] ticter who represents the village, right, broken city, or any watery cases for the past

[13:00] 30 years, has very good relations with Sue and the public safety commission, and perhaps

[13:06] the village can utilize the services of Mr. Ticter on an escrow basis to assist that application

[13:12] perhaps that's and may be other certainly situated applications. Just to move things along

[13:18] and find out what the true issues are and perhaps be a assistance to all parties.

[13:22] It's something I spoke to Mr. Jofi about last week.

[13:25] He said he was being to his client.

[13:27] It's something I think we should pursue.

[13:30] Maybe it will bear some fruit.

[13:32] We should not be in this situation where we are today.

[13:34] It's not sensible for anyone.

[13:36] It's not good for the village.

[13:38] It's certainly not good for the development community.

[13:40] We're relying upon certain things to happen with the village

[13:43] since foreign base code was adopted.

[13:44] So, hopefully that answers your questions,

[13:48] what we can do going forward.

[13:50] Because it's not just this applicant.

[13:51] It's not.

[13:52] It's not. It's when the.

[13:53] It's a very active time.

[13:54] It's going to come before you.

[13:56] That can everybody in this room after this application and before.

[13:59] And before because right around this time,

[14:02] or at least in the the life span of this particular application,

[14:05] as when a CARF came online,

[14:08] so to speak, to really help us help the village with its pipeline of applications.

[14:12] And at that point, this topic started getting surfaced and included in their scrutiny.

[14:19] So there's a couple of applications that are not held up, so to speak, in planning land,

[14:24] and planning department land that went past us in the approval process that are now past us in the cycle that ultimately are going to be affected in the same way.

[14:35] There are areas of applications throughout the pipeline, some before, some in pipeline after, we'll go ahead.

[14:42] We should tag it from different directions.

[14:45] Indeed, it didn't just sort of, I can interrupt.

[14:47] What's being referred to as the other application is on your...

[15:00] I don't want to conflate the two together, because the circumstances and the facts are different. So maybe we can finish with this one. And if you want to take that one out of order, or if you want to deal with it, where it is later in the agenda, I'm going to be here anyway.

[15:14] So I just want to give us the preview of the application. I don't mean it confuses to the application down further down your agenda, obviously it's more time sensitive. In fact, that there are farther down the road in the pipeline.

[15:25] But there is hope, I believe, I'm taking it from different directions, and that's the point I was trying to make.

[15:31] Okay. So, let me stop there. Let me open up for questions from the Planning Commission to Mr. Sredo, or Kurt, or even the applicant.

[15:40] Certainly about Mr. Trichak's memo or anything else. Maybe I'll start on this side for earlier. Any questions?

[15:47] Okay. Jerry? No.

[15:48] Test.

[15:50] Tony.

[15:51] Is this right on?

[15:52] Does it?

[15:54] Does this problem with sewers affect any of the mega-decorations we have given in the

[16:01] test?

[16:02] It has an effect on it.

[16:04] I don't want to go down that road just yet.

[16:10] So that?

[16:11] Pete?

[16:12] Tony.

[16:12] In your discussions with sewers moving forward.

[16:16] something I just learned from this issue that these will serve letters or leave all of

[16:23] for nine months, I believe it is nine months.

[16:29] And the developers, they're not at a point that they're going to, in most cases, be able

[16:34] to make a water connection at that, you know, within that nine months.

[16:38] So, is there something, you know, we don't want to get caught later on saying, okay, well,

[16:42] it's a year since we gave it to you and we're not going to give you a water now.

[16:45] You're going to hear that discussion later in your agenda.

[16:47] Yeah.

[16:47] I'm sorry.

[16:48] Unfortunately, we don't know the whole story yet.

[16:51] OK.

[16:52] There's ongoing discussions.

[16:53] We are due for meeting.

[16:54] And other for the current as the details of that.

[16:56] We're due for meeting with Suez.

[16:58] We expect further development to proceed.

[17:01] That will hopefully alleviate the short surge solution.

[17:05] And perhaps a long term as well.

[17:07] We need to stay tuned.

[17:08] But for tonight, anyway.

[17:10] We just can't take action in this application.

[17:13] Do you have any questions?

[17:17] That?

[17:18] Okay.

[17:20] So Curtin, Mr. Saretto, and the applicant doesn't.

[17:23] It appears as if we're going to take no action tonight on this application.

[17:27] But you've heard the questions from the Planning Commission on this matter.

[17:31] And I believe we're going to continue to talk about this throughout the evening, actually.

[17:35] So I'm going to keep this to TrueTox Memo handy as we go through the evening.

[17:41] So, there's no action, it's not like we're adjourning it, we're just going to take action.

[17:44] So we need to form a placement of this matter around your February agenda.

[17:48] And again, I would renew my quest that the Planning Commission can direct a letter

[17:52] or resolution to the Board of Trustees to take more proactive approach to resolving this,

[17:57] trying to push Suez to meetings to try to push to some resolution both in the short term and long term.

[18:03] There's two separate issues. Short term issues and long term issues.

[18:07] Correct, Mr. Struddo, do you know, perhaps later when we discuss who is meeting with Sue

[18:16] as perhaps we could request an update in terms of a documentation or a memo, I don't know if the

[18:24] village manager has involved in this, I don't know if there's any, like the officials

[18:27] that are sitting in on any of these meetings, perhaps we can work out some form of communication

[18:32] to request an update for our files on this matter?

[18:34] Yes, and I certainly can say that the Suez has been in touch with my office and they made

[18:43] it clear that they're looking at several, three or four or five possible solutions.

[18:51] And when I say solutions, I mean to provide as much water as the village would need for at least

[18:58] the 20-year buildout and the applications comprising that 20-year buildout in terms of units

[19:04] this year now after 18 months after adopting the form-based code.

[19:10] So they said that this would be if you will a final solution that would go to the 20-year

[19:15] buildout and beyond, since we're really already there.

[19:18] Now they did not tell me in particular the options they were considering, but they did say

[19:24] it was not a short-term solution, but rather a long-term solution.

[19:28] Now, is there an agreement of some sort that needs to be worked out between the village and

[19:33] Suez for this to happen?

[19:36] No.

[19:36] It really is identifying a source of enough water to do just that to provide to the village of

[19:45] Portchester and the other customers enough water to supply developments as we see them.

[19:54] in other words, large mixed use sites and buildings.

[20:00] To do is provide any kind of time frame

[20:02] as to when they might be able to provide something

[20:05] to you, even what it would be, an email or a document

[20:08] or something that you could then pass on to all the applicants

[20:11] in the pipeline to, in terms of Suez's expectations

[20:14] for a target date to be able to start issuing these letters?

[20:18] Yes, in the short term, and I don't know exactly what that means,

[20:22] but in the short term, I do believe

[20:24] that, as soon as it's going to issue a statement to its customers, its potential customers

[20:28] namely developers here, and the village as soon as possible.

[20:34] So I expect that it obviously comes substantially sooner than the announcement of a permanent

[20:41] solution for what our supply for our development.

[20:44] Okay.

[20:45] All right.

[20:45] We'll stop there for this case.

[20:47] But I think we're going to continue this conversation throughout the evening.

[20:51] Any other last questions for Kurt or Mr. Sretto or the applicant?

[20:57] Okay. So no action taken. It will remain on the agenda.

[21:00] Thank you. And thank you again for bringing this to the board.

[21:03] I'll see you in the chat.

[21:04] Attention.

[21:05] Thank you.

[21:07] Next item on the agenda.

[21:09] Public hearing case 2019-0192.

[21:16] This is a continued public hearing.

[21:22] Thank you, Pete.

[21:23] So, second, second. Thank you, tab. This is for 18 and 20 South Main Street and 21 and 25 East Broadway.

[21:33] So, Johnny, could you please call the roll to reopen the public hearing?

[21:37] So, that's right. Yeah. And the way I'm doing good. Yes.

[21:42] Yes. Yeah.

[21:45] And the roll. Yes, plural.

[21:53] Good evening, Mr. Chairman, giving members of the Commission a Mark Lancher here on behalf

[22:01] of the applicant from Blanche in Wilson, 235 Main Street White Plains, New York, 1611.

[22:10] I could just start off by summarizing we have, as you recall, we've been adjourned at

[22:15] Our last meeting, we were waiting for comments to come out of Metro North Railroad.

[22:20] We did, I had the letter here.

[22:23] January 14th is that when the letter was dated, I had no Metro North had sent comments

[22:27] back to Mr. Lavala, you're in.

[22:30] The comments are extensive. We obviously have not dealt with them. Sure, prior to tonight.

[22:36] 14. That's Friday? Yep.

[22:39] All right. Well, the only thing I would say from the applicants perspective, as I mentioned,

[22:46] on the project attorney, I've been trying to get Mitchell North to give us an explicit writing

[22:51] to a swaged board's concern that we do have access to East Broadway. They do not go that far in this letter.

[22:57] However, they are implicitly saying that we're certain things to occur.

[23:03] We do actually have access to the road, but that almost becomes a secondary issue is there

[23:08] a lot of engineering matters within this letter that we now have to contend with.

[23:12] I would just ask on the record if we could meet with the applicant's engineers and traffic engineers

[23:19] could meet with Mr. Lavala and the engineering team.

[23:22] I hadn't brought it up before this evening, so it's not as if I had resistance.

[23:25] I'm just raising it now.

[23:26] I would like to meet with the Planning Department to go over some of the decisions.

[23:31] Okay, thank you.

[23:32] Kurt, any updates from your side?

[23:34] Yes, and first, I do think that's the appropriate step at this point.

[23:37] After all, we've just received a pretty comprehensive letter from MTA Metro North on Friday afternoon.

[23:45] So I think that, yes, we and our consultants today,

[23:48] ref will make ourselves available to meet with the project team for sure.

[23:53] Okay. Any big error? Any comments or you just get ready?

[24:00] I couldn't figure out how to get them like that.

[24:03] No, we don't have any comments. I agree. There were extensive comments.

[24:07] We need to discuss them with the applicant and kind of figure out what comments

[24:17] What comments have to do with the overall feasibility of the application versus really construction-level details, because there might be both, but, on the other hand, there are some that do implicate kind of the overall feasibility of the application.

[24:36] need to make sure that the villages in a position to understand from Metro North what it is they would

[24:44] approve. Obviously we're not going to get a letter from them saying we would approve this if these things are

[24:50] met, right? But we need to get a sense of very clear sense of what is approval so that we're not in

[24:59] situation like a retail D here or something else.

[25:04] Thank you.

[25:05] And there's any initial questions to the applicant or Peter for make a wrap?

[25:12] Okay.

[25:12] Jerry?

[25:13] No.

[25:15] Okay.

[25:15] Peter.

[25:18] Okay.

[25:19] Being that this is a public hearing.

[25:20] Let me stop for a moment and ask if there's anybody in the audience that would like

[25:24] to speak on case 2019 0192, which is 18 and 25 South Main Street and 21 and 25 East Broadway.

[25:38] Okay, Connie, please let the minutes reflect that no one stepped forward to speak on this application this evening.

[25:46] I just have one question and then we'll do the adjourn.

[25:49] I know we're waiting for Metro North and that was a big deliverable and I can't wait to hear what comes out of that.

[26:00] I know there was another topic that Mr. Sereto, I think the applicant, was to follow up with you regarding the boss.

[26:11] Yes, the things that are in the middle of Wistester Avenue that are going to prevent the left turn and there was in Wistester County

[26:17] Pretty much said well, you can do whatever you want. So I'm as you guys do your own thing, but I believe that there was

[26:24] Some eyes to be dotted T's to be crossed between the two of you have you had an opportunity to because I know it was the holidays

[26:31] But if not perhaps that could be added on to the January list. Yeah, that's how I might to do list

[26:36] I talked to Mr. Sorano about that.

[26:37] I talked to Mr. Chor talked about that.

[26:39] I'll be sharing the agreement,

[26:40] revise the agreement with both of them.

[26:42] We have, our position remains the same.

[26:44] The applicant has stated on the record.

[26:47] We're undertaking that expense.

[26:48] I just have to finalize the agreement with the attorneys.

[26:50] Okay, so that's a follow up for next time.

[26:52] We haven't gotten the, I'm sure it's coming.

[26:54] Okay, so we'll hear more about that next month.

[26:58] Okay, so Pete, do you have a motion to adjourn?

[27:00] Thank you, Pete, is there a second?

[27:02] Thank you.

[27:02] Thank you, Jerry.

[27:04] Connie, when you're ready, please call the roll.

[27:15] Yes, I have a good night.

[27:21] Next, case 2019-0186, a new public hearing for 108 South Main Street.

[27:36] Can I get a motion to open the public hearing?

[27:39] Thank you.

[27:40] Thank you.

[27:41] Thank you.

[27:41] Thank you, Jerry.

[27:43] Connie, when you're ready?

[27:46] Yes.

[27:49] Yes.

[27:53] Okay.

[27:53] Good evening.

[27:54] Good evening, Mr Chairman.

[27:55] Members of the Board of Commission.

[27:56] David Cooper, a partner to the law from the Zaryn Simetz.

[27:59] Here representing 108 Gateway LLC.

[28:02] The owner of the subject property.

[28:04] with me is Ralph Rossi of the owner. This is an application for a

[28:10] amended site plan approval. The applicant is seeking to modify the

[28:14] residential program of the of this project. It was previously approved by

[28:19] this commission in 2019 with the purpose of to better reflect the the

[28:23] market. The proposal is previously there was 115 units approved. The

[28:29] proposal is to reduce that to 95 units and change the bedroom count by adding

[28:34] additional two bedrooms, as well as increase the parking on site to 120 neat spaces.

[28:43] We are here tonight for the public hearing, having to take you through the project, although

[28:47] I know the commission is well aware of the project, and really kind of hit the highlights

[28:52] already, but my notes of public hearing, so we'll take a direction from you.

[28:56] If you could, if you could, for summary, for the benefit of the public.

[29:00] So, the site in question is one of the way South Main Street, the site is just shy of about a half an acre.

[29:07] It's at the intersection of South Main and Boston Post Road.

[29:12] In October of 2019, this commission issued site plan approval for a mixed use building at the site,

[29:19] consisting of nine stories, 3, 190 square feet of first floor retail.

[29:25] By a 2600 square feet of office space, as I said, 115 residential units, as well as 134

[29:32] parking spaces.

[29:34] The proposal before the commission tonight is only dealing with the change to the residential

[29:38] component.

[29:39] Everything else footprint, the entrances, et cetera, are remaining the same.

[29:44] To change this to a 95 unit residential beltment with 128 parking spaces.

[29:51] the bedroom counter.

[30:00] The Fedor mix, excuse me, would change. Previously, 65 studios and 51 bedrooms were proposed. The proposal now would be 40 studios, 35 one bedrooms and 22 bedrooms.

[30:13] But other than that, what was already approved is this going to remain.

[30:18] Thank you.

[30:19] Kurt, planning department? Yes, and as mentioned by the Project Council, this is a limited scope, amended

[30:28] site plan approval for this project, which you know very well from one eight, one o' eight South

[30:34] Maine. And we also have planning, engineering, and traffic comments from AKRF, and of course,

[30:50] Peter, do you want to go first or should we put some of the folks on the phone first?

[30:55] Well, just, we don't have that much to say. We have issued a memo November 23rd, which the applicant has.

[31:03] It doesn't have that many comments, mostly statements, but a couple, a couple little minor questions and clarifications for the record.

[31:12] And you know, I don't, I don't think we necessarily need to go through all of them here.

[31:17] because you would like us to. We're happy to. I'm okay with that at this time of your

[31:23] receipt of. We are. Yes. Okay. Any initial questions to the applicant,

[31:30] plane department, or a care. Jerry, we're sure how many more parking spaces are you

[31:39] on you now? It's going from, yeah, 25, so 100, but we need to 120. One issue that we do want to

[31:47] address although I think it can come later out of public hearing, but there was a condition

[31:51] of the Commission's approval previously for a post-construction parking study to be

[31:57] undertaken on the assumption that there are only behind in three spaces. We'd ask that the

[32:01] Commission reconsider that because I think with 128 that post-tarking post-tarking, post-tarking,

[32:07] post-tarking won't be necessary, but we're happy to discuss that with you,

[32:11] if I guess after you call them, okay.

[32:13] Thank you.

[32:13] I have any questions?

[32:17] Okay.

[32:17] Did you have any questions?

[32:18] There was a condition in the previous approval

[32:22] about a lot they were going to use for staging.

[32:26] What are your plans for staging?

[32:30] So the staging plan has changed slightly.

[32:35] I'll go either using portions of the auto auto zone law.

[32:40] If that's not available, then there's another lot, there's three additional lots that could be used.

[32:47] So there will be another lot that will identify for a carrier, for the commission to put in a resolution that would take place of the, yeah, yeah.

[32:57] Okay, the attorney will be trying a contract show and if you have access to that.

[33:02] Whichever lot it would be.

[33:10] So, what do you believe are next steps?

[33:15] I have to look at over the memo of November 23 from ICAREF, what's your thoughts on next steps?

[33:24] Yes, in addition to hearing anyone that might want to be heard at this public hearing

[33:29] for this amended site plan review.

[33:30] But in addition to that, I tend to agree that now that we're exceeding the, of course,

[33:37] when we are current parking standards, there were none with the previous code in this

[33:43] location.

[33:44] However, the standard is now one parking space for multi-family unit.

[33:49] We know that there are reductions that an applicant can take, but here we're exceeding that

[33:55] standard without any reductions.

[33:58] I'm inclined to say that a post-development traffic study

[34:02] may not be warranted, but I would want to hear from Elaine

[34:07] and they care if, if not now, then later.

[34:11] So Peter and her team, OK, Elaine?

[34:15] Oh, I'm sorry, I think.

[34:20] I think that's the best way to get to that.

[34:23] Sure, please.

[34:25] At the fourth mixing, I think the fourth one, and there's those kicking fairs, thoseberg

[34:30] and those who flickers the five and those who flickers the swoop and also that particular

[34:34] one will be apt as the three of them, try it. So,

[34:39] these are the good- hm problems we just did not want people to be doing it two or four,

[34:44] four, four, four, four, four, it all, and all, and, as the one, as

[34:51] And there are so many things to read that book,

[34:53] or can you read the sign and there are so many things.

[34:57] But there are a lot of people for a month of our day

[35:02] and you can read the book, or to let us show it to you.

[35:06] So we're going to get into this.

[35:10] Elaine, can't see it.

[35:11] But I'm shaking my head, yes.

[35:12] The African is okay with that.

[35:14] Thank you.

[35:16] Thank you.

[35:17] Thank you.

[35:18] So at this time, let me ask the public.

[35:21] at this time, there's only one here to comment on 108 South Main Street, the amended site plan.

[35:32] Okay, Connie, could you please let the minister reflect that no one came forward to speak tonight on 108 South Main Street?

[35:40] So, to the rest of the commission, I'll be get your thoughts on next steps.

[35:45] You have a few minutes, are you right here?

[35:48] Tony, we'll take action on them.

[35:52] So, well, if I can, if I can try to be heard of, I haven't seen the memo yet, and may it not, may it not, may not.

[36:01] There's already an existing negative declaration for this project based on a similar, almost identical development.

[36:12] The fact that the will serve letter itself might have, might have, might have,

[36:22] getting a new opinion that we will serve for this building. From a secret perspective, I would

[36:32] submit that there's no change in circumstance such that you would need to re-open

[36:37] secret or determine whether or not there'd be a potential significant adverse impact.

[36:41] From an approval perspective, that may be another issue. The bill may not want to issue building

[36:45] the government until it knows that there's a, there's a, there's a, there's water capacity.

[36:50] It was when the water looked up. That, we end the applicant understands, I would just make my pitch for the fact that since this is a unique situation from a secret perspective, it doesn't necessarily have to hold up the process before your commission, certainly probably going to hold up a building permanently.

[37:06] Mr. Strato.

[38:44] And I'm immediately going to have to get back to you on that only because we represent that the new owners are not at the time when they were dealing with Suez, but sure. I was hoping that the net deck would have said if I don't see it years ago.

[38:58] Okay. So Justin is that is is that in for the moment?

[39:06] Okay. I think so.

[39:09] Okay.

[39:30] Thank you. Mr. Sereda.

[39:32] Why we haven't spoke to Mr. Sure talk about this application.

[39:35] I know me and Kurt have talked about other applications in the pipeline.

[39:38] Yeah. We did not talk about this one.

[39:40] Right. And you know me quite concerned in my approach.

[39:43] I would rather speak to Mr. Sure talk about this before we take any action on this application as well.

[39:47] Sure.

[39:48] And I hope that Mr. Cooper is expecting and asking for this application to be adjourned very least

[39:53] until next month.

[39:54] Okay.

[39:54] That answer.

[39:55] In the meantime, perhaps some of the minor requests, I don't call it, categorized as minor,

[40:02] but the impression I received was that the, what's indicated on the November 23rd, a

[40:08] care of memory, perhaps something that could be ticked off between now and next month.

[40:14] There are other issues.

[40:16] Right.

[40:17] Yes.

[40:18] Okay, so, any other questions from the Planning Commission to the applicant's Planning Department

[40:23] to filter his office or a care off?

[40:28] Okay, so then can I get a motion to adjourn 108 South Main Street?

[40:32] So, next month, which is February 28th, so thank you, Matt, thank you Jerry, and thank you, Connie.

[40:50] Thank you very much.

[40:53] Next item on our agenda is a new public hearing case 2021-0216.

[41:00] This is for 121 Peningo Street, a new public hearing, can I get a motion to open the

[41:06] public hearing?

[41:08] Thank you.

[41:10] Sir, second.

[41:12] Thank you.

[41:13] Connie, when you're ready?

[41:16] Yes.

[41:17] You're ready?

[41:20] Yes.

[41:21] Yes.

[41:23] Okay.

[41:25] Good evening.

[41:27] Good evening.

[41:31] by Pierre Ceresic, the architect, and Luigi Robilliano, the applicant.

[41:36] We appear last month and gave a brief presentation on the proposed construction of the

[41:41] three story, eight unit residential, multi-family dwelling, and they proposed a 12-month

[41:46] min go.

[41:48] Since that last meeting, we have appeared before the DRC, because there were some questions

[41:53] about the overhead wires.

[41:55] Unfortunately, at that meeting, most of this step, typically attending the DRC meeting

[42:00] was not able to attend.

[42:02] So we don't have much feedback from that meeting

[42:04] unfortunately.

[42:06] We are still working to schedule a meeting

[42:08] with the fire department to get information regarding that topic.

[42:13] But unfortunately, we have no feedback from that DRC meeting.

[42:17] We also have been working to respond to a number

[42:21] of the outstanding comments in the AKRF review memos.

[42:25] We don't think there's anything too major to significant in there,

[42:27] but it's just a matter of getting updated materials

[42:30] prepared.

[42:31] We will have those for the February meeting.

[42:35] So considering that this is a public hearing,

[42:38] I can ask Pierre to give you guys another brief point

[42:40] through the plans.

[42:43] Yes, please.

[42:46] Thank you.

[42:47] Good evening.

[42:48] For the record, again, it's up here.

[42:50] It's airs and airs in architecture.

[42:58] Here we have the microphone.

[42:59] We can still hear any.

[43:02] And that first thing we've got all those zoning data.

[43:07] I know on Mr. Rose comments was a front-age type, we're going to work with a big aircraft.

[43:16] You know, we don't want any variants, so we're going to make sure that we fit in that direction.

[43:24] This first sheet is the lower level.

[43:26] It has a very small base for cellar.

[43:30] really just more kind of a utilitarian board play which is a electrical mechanical service

[43:38] and we have more chatting exactly what that is but it's going to be really just kind of that fast.

[43:47] This is the first board plan which is our parking plan.

[43:53] We have a small lobby, elevator, two stair towers for the community, we've made a lot of

[44:01] the patients to have a parallel front of the building and meet all of those requirements

[44:11] this is the second third floor plan, which has four units, pretty straightforward,

[44:23] we're happy to get into detail on some of these units.

[44:29] If you're wanting, this is a modification we did is a group plan showing a hip that's

[44:38] in the blind.

[44:39] I thought it was a question on the group pitch, but we will make sure that we are able to

[44:44] respond.

[44:49] It's our site-lighting plan to get through one comment, we're going to throw on the

[44:56] I can't lose it to zero off the line.

[45:03] We don't have a whole lot of grease case here. We need the requirements. We do have one tree and some strokes.

[45:13] We'd love to have some planters. We can't be with the flag, just a minute.

[45:19] Mark that interest.

[45:25] This is the final station.

[45:30] So we're going to have to ask for a single group.

[45:34] It was a corn list.

[45:35] It'll be the pilot monster, the corn list.

[45:38] The brickwork.

[45:41] And it's a recessed parent.

[45:43] It's going to come up as we're going to be under comments from the board.

[45:48] Again, our rendering is showing this case.

[45:52] But we're going to update our rendering to make sure we have to push back to the clients.

[45:57] And we'll update that run in a bunch of different parts.

[46:06] And then you have the side of the location.

[46:08] There's any questions you're out of here.

[46:10] I'm going to go through the slide.

[46:11] Thank you.

[46:13] Yeah.

[46:13] In some, it's a fairly modest proposal.

[46:16] There's, like I said, they units of the two studios,

[46:19] two one bedrooms and four two bedrooms.

[46:22] Currently they're opposed to the proposed as affordable.

[46:26] But the applicant is going to be working with the county to ensure that he

[46:29] funding so is not committed to all of them, but that's the intent is to have all of them

[46:33] affordable, but you can't commit to that at this time.

[46:37] Currently there is six off-tree parking spaces located with them building.

[46:41] That plan could be changing because there was some comments from AKRF regarding the internal

[46:46] circulation for those, but maximum required by the code is 4.

[46:51] So we have two spaces to work with, but we're trying to maximize the amount of parking

[46:59] Thank you.

[47:02] Kurt Plain of Harvard.

[47:03] Yes.

[47:03] Thank you Mr. Chairman.

[47:06] So, we do have one of the changes that was made since the last time we saw this project

[47:13] is that the front elevation is now parallel with the street and the right of wind line.

[47:22] itself, which is something that is emphasized in the form-based code and does serve a purpose.

[47:28] So we appreciate that.

[47:30] We also have just received this afternoon a letter

[47:35] from the County Planning Department upon our referral

[47:38] and they were aware that we were meeting tonight.

[47:41] So they provided that in time for me,

[47:44] at least to send it out via email.

[47:46] And I can characterize the letter from the county

[47:50] as generally favorable, given the standards

[47:54] that they use in order to review projects.

[48:00] I would say that it probably is important before the public hearing is open to know whether

[48:09] to know whether the developer finds it feasible or infeasable to make one or more units affordable

[48:16] and work with the county named group that's named in our code that helps us administer those

[48:25] provisions over time. And also of course, A.K. Erath does have a memo. I think it was noted

[48:34] that I don't think there was a new submission for this application, but nonetheless we do have a January

[48:41] 14th memo from A.K. A.R.F.

[48:45] Thank you.

[48:47] Peter?

[48:51] Thank you.

[48:52] Yeah, we had a couple comments not many.

[48:56] I agree Mr. Sarasins characterization that these are going to be pretty, at least the planning

[49:01] comments, pretty easy to kind of work around and just discuss with tab as well

[49:06] and other, what a nuance let's call it to one of the comments that I have made.

[49:14] And I can let Elaine and Justin talk about the engineering and traffic comments, but overall they weren't.

[49:23] There's nothing major.

[49:25] Okay, should we hear from Justin and then Elaine?

[49:30] Yes, Justin and Elaine, if you do have comments, please go ahead.

[50:18] Thank

[50:22] you, Justin.

[50:23] Elaine?

[50:24] I'm so excited, I think I'm really amazed by this.

[50:29] And we have to get some of those earlier.

[50:33] It was so much.

[50:34] This is pretty limited.

[50:36] There are six basic components,

[50:38] but four fantastic major projects,

[50:40] there's either the walls, the columns,

[50:43] the columns, or even the parks, the abos.

[50:46] There's the awesome way to move on.

[50:48] Some have spaces, however,

[50:50] that would be some big conflicts with their major.

[50:55] We're contact states as well.

[50:57] I believe for those who chose

[50:58] and it takes a natural look.

[51:00] 30% contact states will use a direct message,

[51:05] really reworking that a regular state

[51:09] because it's not going to work at this.

[51:12] One second comment involved the fight line

[51:15] and because the fight line can be limited

[51:18] because we've got to be out to the target,

[51:28] Okay. Thank you. At this time, let me just reach out to the public and then we'll get into questions.

[51:38] Is there anyone here tonight to speak?

[51:41] four against or offer thoughts on the application of 2021-102-126-21 Peniglistry.

[51:54] Okay, Connie, if the minutes could please reflect, no one came out to speak on this.

[51:57] Okay, so questions to the applicants or I care after playing the department?

[52:04] I'm sorry, the parking, I can't visualize, where's the parking, how to get to the parking?

[52:10] I don't

[52:15] have the civil drawings.

[52:19] We show them art, but it should be in your package.

[52:31] There's three statements here and you're trying to get three statements.

[52:38] You're going to apply. There's room for, you know, we can move some columns. We can work with, I think, this a little more efficient and work with our engineers,

[52:49] as far as turning, hammering that, and navigating to this part of the world, feel like we're

[52:57] going to be at least in compliance with the four stages. I think we feel confident

[53:01] that we can get the five stages, but this six was looking a little too.

[53:07] Okay.

[53:09] Chair, yes. Thank you.

[53:11] Thank you.

[53:11] What is the width of the drywood?

[53:13] Distinct wood or is a 14 feet?

[53:16] It's a time-for-wide driveway with a six-for walkway adjacent to it.

[53:22] And that's one of the comments I was raised in the eight-air of my mother.

[53:24] I wrote it down.

[53:26] I'll give it to you.

[53:27] I'll give it to you.

[53:27] And to your question,

[53:30] Exhibit D for from our November 16th,

[53:34] on submission has parking diagrams

[53:36] and the internal circulation diagrams.

[53:38] And also you can say,

[53:39] Unable economic.

[53:40] So it just to be clear that the driveway,

[53:45] the opening in the building,

[53:47] in the front of the building between wall and wall, the 16 feet,

[53:56] so they're proposing basically

[53:57] a 10 foot curb cut, not including the neighbor and the 10 foot curb cut that goes up and the

[54:07] gate opens to a 16 foot opening.

[54:15] The maximum width for the driveway is 10 feet.

[54:25] I'm glad I'm not sure I always do, but it's what's a driveway, right? If this

[54:36] building's at the lot line, is the opening to the building the driveway is the

[54:42] curb cut the drive what right there's not actually a driveway next to a house right

[54:48] this isn't we're leading up to a house you got a sidewalk which is all the same

[54:54] it's all concrete so what is the driveway I

[55:02] think we need to talk more about it

[55:06] yeah okay so

[55:09] what is the purpose of that 16 put it right out there gonna be a side walk

[55:14] that's gonna join that correct when it's separated to track for someone

[55:21] If you're exiting or entering the driveway in a car coming out, you're not like swimming out of the way.

[55:27] Right?

[55:27] It gives you that sick look off for that.

[55:28] You have a clear path to test the car.

[55:35] I'm going to follow up on that.

[55:37] Peter first.

[55:39] You should, you require four parking spaces, correct?

[55:42] Correct.

[55:43] Let's go.

[55:44] I mean, they'll be able to get forward into that space.

[55:47] You comfortable with that?

[55:51] I mean, the question is asked by people.

[55:53] And if the maneuverability and the size of the vehicles is adequate, if I'm stating that

[56:07] We'll have to speak in the way out with four cases, and I can't yet, because not you

[56:12] can be like five as well.

[56:14] We have to speak in the way out as well.

[56:16] We're trying to communicate with each other, and we have to communicate with each other.

[56:21] I can't speak for sure at the moment.

[56:23] Understood.

[56:24] And that actually reminds me, and Elaine mentioned, of course, that we like other municipalities

[56:32] do allow up to approximately 30% of spaces for compact vehicles.

[56:39] Please be careful, in other words, I think it's clear that compact spaces were created

[56:45] when cars were tiny in the early 80s.

[56:49] And between the wheelbases, their size, their turning radii, this is, it's getting unrealistic,

[56:58] I get it.

[56:59] No one who wants to really repeal Parkland for compact spaces.

[57:04] It was thought of as a good idea and accommodating allowing for more

[57:11] Parkland capacity.

[57:12] But I think until the trend changes, I think that's a bit ridiculous

[57:20] to have compact spaces at all.

[57:25] I mean, you're really good.

[57:25] Can you imagine interviewing a tenant showing them the building

[57:28] and then saying, oh, after all that, you know,

[57:31] sorry, you don't have a compact car,

[57:33] or they choose to buy a larger car.

[57:35] I mean, I can tell you, it's difficult to maneuver

[57:40] into a compact car space when you don't have a compact car.

[57:46] Julia?

[57:47] Um, in terms of the outdoor parking,

[57:50] or the parking outside the building,

[57:52] I do think that it is a hazard

[57:54] to have those spaces in front of the building

[57:57] for the sort of reviews.

[58:01] So I think moving those bases are good.

[58:03] Thank you.

[58:09] Yep.

[58:10] So I'm getting back to the walkway, which

[58:12] I think was raised at the November meeting.

[58:15] It's six feet wide.

[58:17] And I think some people express that that is a little narrow,

[58:23] as far as, you know, a special emergency.

[58:28] Is there any way you guys can entertain

[58:32] widening that walkway, does it fit into the footprint of the property at all?

[58:36] So currently there is a 16-foot wide driveway there right now, because the code only permits

[58:42] a 10-foot wide driveway in this zone for this use, and we have to reduce the side of the driveway

[58:47] to 10 feet, but in order to build like we just said a little bit of buffering, hopefully in the

[58:52] future if the board trust either means a code to modify that limitation in the 10-foot wide

[58:57] driveway, it can easily be converted to a 16-foot wide driver, which is much safer and much

[59:02] better for multi-family use development like this as opposed to, you know, a 10-foot wide

[59:08] driver is more suitable for a single family and I'm more or two-family now I'm not going to

[59:12] want them to do that as we quickly do.

[59:15] Sure, would you think that one point is going to hit the lobby, so it's not coming in a dry way,

[59:21] It's, you know, separating the, I'll show you understand, you have to, you got a lobby next to me, right?

[59:31] So can't you put the walkway, make a lobby bigger, and then make it from the parking lot into the lobby, rather than just stick with a ten foot driveway, just from cars.

[59:43] And the people walking walk the way through the lobby.

[59:44] Well, it's also for you up to date for delivery drivers, for people that have gotten more packages, you do have it.

[1:00:00] We call them. So just allow us, you to enter the building without necessarily having to go to vote. We don't want to challenge everyone to vote.

[1:00:09] The building, you know, I'm trying to give you an out if it was a safety call.

[1:00:16] I'm going to move up to maybe 20 feet, you know, we have a 16-foot crow club to kind of enjoy it.

[1:00:23] Well, the best way we can.

[1:00:25] To build on the peak's point, that wall of your mid building is opening to the garage.

[1:00:33] Right.

[1:00:33] Okay.

[1:00:34] Turn it up wall to the lower part of where you just move it.

[1:00:37] This wall.

[1:00:38] Right in the entrance.

[1:00:40] Right there.

[1:01:10] I said we could make it 20 people, I didn't get out of 10 books on it.

[1:01:15] Right, but we're a little bit of a gray area there.

[1:01:19] Yeah, the sidewalk that is internal to the garage that you're talking about,

[1:01:25] so that cars don't run over you, so that you're walking in the garage.

[1:01:29] Are you talking about this straight away?

[1:01:33] This is...

[1:01:35] Okay,

[1:01:38] but to be clear, there's nothing raised.

[1:01:40] Well, that's where I was going. I think I thought it was a year ago, is it paint or is it actual raised sidewalk that's internal?

[1:01:54] Is there some way it could that

[1:01:58] The way it's designed now was intended to use the existing curtain, but I think what if you're suggesting

[1:02:04] and moving the garage door opening further down on this way.

[1:02:08] You can buy it, too.

[1:02:09] Because some garages that I've walked in actually have a,

[1:02:13] it may not be a fully raised sidewalk,

[1:02:16] but there's definitely something which if the car tire hits it,

[1:02:20] tells the driver you're now off the road and onto a sidewalk of some sort.

[1:02:24] So, you know, something that's slightly raised

[1:02:26] if you're going to have an internal sidewalk that is going to be as narrow as that

[1:02:31] for people to walk in or out as an idea.

[1:02:34] That you can continue discussion with a carer.

[1:02:41] Any other questions for the applicant on this?

[1:02:44] I just don't know.

[1:02:48] So current Washington thoughts on next steps?

[1:02:51] Yes, I think we spoke of a recent mission regarding the carer without any outstanding comments.

[1:02:59] And for that purpose, you may wish to adjourn the public here until that time, the regular meeting on February 28th, and see where we are then.

[1:03:11] And also, we would need, we ask the applicant to please continue analyzing the feasibility of one or all of the units being affordable.

[1:03:22] But again, I think that's something that is a significant element of the application for purposes of presenting it to the public and asking them for the answer.

[1:03:30] So we need clarity on that aspect.

[1:03:33] Now, one last topic that was raised, this is the chair of memo page two.

[1:03:44] This is in the engineering section.

[1:03:46] It is the regard in the fire department.

[1:03:50] Now, the applicant mentioned that there was a meeting, a DRC meeting, that was scheduled,

[1:03:56] but didn't quite happen.

[1:03:57] How does the applicant get that information from the fire department to provide to a

[1:04:03] care of?

[1:04:04] So, I have been trying to assist our applicants in getting in touch with the fire chief,

[1:04:12] is, of course, a volunteer, but nonetheless, the chief of the fire department, and in some

[1:04:18] cases have been successful. Now, in the end, for all of the time and energy, everyone on both

[1:04:28] sides of the table has been on this issue when it comes down to it. It is a ministerial approval.

[1:04:36] So it's not really within the Planning Commission's purview, but I can't, no.

[1:04:42] I can't help forget that we were all there.

[1:04:44] We were all been talking about it.

[1:04:46] It's been the subject of a lot of conversation.

[1:04:52] But so in this case, I don't know.

[1:04:54] I believe the project has been designed to alleviate the need to bury the wires,

[1:05:00] but just know that that's not necessarily, I can't verify that myself.

[1:05:05] Okay, so hopefully between now and next month we could perhaps get some input on that topic as well?

[1:05:11] Yes, and as much as the fire chief makes himself available, I have been working with applicants and their professionals to have them have a conversation.

[1:05:22] Okay, that was my last question.

[1:05:25] Yes.

[1:05:26] Excuse me.

[1:05:27] Excuse me.

[1:05:30] Yes.

[1:05:30] I think it would have given my understanding of where we're at now, but I would say that the

[1:05:37] definitive statement will be made by Sue as itself most likely in the coming weeks.

[1:05:46] So we'll all have more clarity than we have at this time.

[1:05:51] It's just right away, anything else?

[1:05:53] Okay.

[1:05:54] So motion to adjourn then.

[1:05:57] Thank you, Pete.

[1:05:57] Sir, thank you, Jerry, Connie, when you're ready?

[1:06:02] Got it.

[1:06:03] Yeah.

[1:06:03] Can you marry her?

[1:06:04] Can you marry her?

[1:06:05] Yes.

[1:06:06] Yeah.

[1:06:08] Yes.

[1:06:09] Yes.

[1:06:10] Okay, have a good night.

[1:06:11] Thank you very much.

[1:06:16] Okay.

[1:06:17] Next item, our agenda is a public meeting.

[1:06:27] This action is to Sereto.

[1:06:29] We're going to insert a follow-up on something before we go forward.

[1:06:35] on the public meeting stage. We received a communication from the Board of Trustees regarding

[1:06:44] how we should proceed or on this case.

[1:06:48] Sure. You still want to call the case and then we can make this statement on the record.

[1:06:51] You are fine.

[1:06:53] So next case on the agenda is case 2021-0218. This is a continued public meeting on

[1:07:12] two

[1:07:12] I was in a commission again for the record Tony Dough,

[1:07:15] ready to remember the law from Cutting Fader.

[1:07:17] Here on behalf of the applicant for the proposal for a 2-16 south mage.

[1:07:32] I may still have a thunder, but we've appeared before the Board of Trustees, and a letter in the Board of Trustees

[1:07:39] has authorized the execution of a letter of authorization as you're aware part of this proposal

[1:07:45] involves the municipal parking lot, agreed. He's Broadway that we're proposing to incorporate

[1:07:52] into the development. We've been appearing before the Board of Trustees, and they did authorize

[1:07:58] a letter of authorization allowing us to proceed the application that's before you.

[1:08:04] I don't know.

[1:08:04] Do you want to move this through to what's there anything to add on that particular item?

[1:08:09] Mr. Chairman, I've spoken to some of you between the last meeting tonight regarding the correspondence

[1:08:16] from the Board of Trustees. Some of you, notwithstanding the authorization and the resolution

[1:08:21] adopted by the Board, allowing the applicant to proceed before you. You have had some concerns

[1:08:27] whether or not this Board should still proceed to a public hearing stage on this application.

[1:08:33] Tonight would be the time for you to know and your views about a proceeding to the public

[1:08:39] hearing stage. I think the intensive Board of Trustees was to allow the applicant to provide

[1:08:45] this Board the opportunity to review the application to talk about some potential public

[1:08:51] amenities that the village would be obtaining in return for being a property on his Broadway.

[1:08:58] That would enhance the downtown. Those things would be coming to the village if in fact

[1:09:04] they acquired the property. But I think the that discussion would need to be pointed back

[1:09:11] to the board of trustees as to your thoughts on those things. But as far as your concern,

[1:09:16] not to take actions far as the public hearing. That would be a bridge too far for some

[1:09:20] of you. I'm not sure if that's the majority well of this board, but that would be the time

[1:09:24] for you all to talk about it.

[1:09:26] Yeah, I think that can, I'll speak for myself.

[1:09:29] And on the against the applicant, this is more of a process thing.

[1:09:34] When we go to a public hearing, we're presenting to the public what we believe is coalesced pretty closely into a final product.

[1:09:42] I don't see how we could do that if we had this significant element of the case that's still undecided

[1:09:50] with respect to the disposition of the village on property.

[1:09:55] So in terms of working with the applicant doing the normal process

[1:09:58] in public meeting stage that I get, and I think that's a good thing to do.

[1:10:04] I have reservations about going to a public hearing stage when we get there before we get

[1:10:11] into the nuts and bolts of, you know, what's in our document package.

[1:10:15] I don't see how we could present that to the public and ask for public input when there's

[1:10:22] such a significant element that's still in flux.

[1:10:24] So that's why I reached out to you to try to, now I understand what the Board of Trustees

[1:10:29] did with respect to giving us direction to proceed right now.

[1:10:34] I'm usually, I'm thinking, a couple of steps in advance.

[1:10:36] Now that's why I reached out to you first to get your thoughts on the matter.

[1:10:41] I know we're getting Mr. Trudeck involved in everything, but hopefully this is something that I think could be, well, we'll say, that was my initial thought.

[1:10:50] And I think a couple other members also called you shortly after the Board took that action.

[1:10:57] Chairman Skull, if I could just be heard on that.

[1:11:00] And again, I think we have some things that we need to discuss germane to what's before you this evening,

[1:11:05] prior to getting to a determination of whether we're not ready for a public hearing or not,

[1:11:09] but we have authorization to proceed before this board and NATO or agency with respect to approvals.

[1:11:14] Now, I think particularly, it would be particularly relevant to getting to a public hearing stage,

[1:11:19] because no member of the public can speak on this application,

[1:11:22] I think. However, if you have a public hearing, and there is input that the public would like to provide,

[1:11:27] I think that we remain not only to your discussions,

[1:11:30] the things that you are thinking about, which go to the entire application.

[1:11:34] As well as potentially to the Board of Trustees,

[1:11:40] I'm one voice, so let's just try to

[1:11:42] express my thoughts on it, and I'm looking forward to working through the application

[1:11:48] in the public hand, public meeting stage, and I just want to surface it now, so that way

[1:11:55] I know you prefer not to be surprised when the time comes, right?

[1:11:58] No, I think it's good to put all this on a record before the presentation is made.

[1:12:01] I hear both sides of the issue.

[1:12:05] I think that the applicant and the village and the public commission all have common ground.

[1:12:09] We want to see the best application we can for this particular piece of property.

[1:12:13] We deserve it.

[1:12:14] And for a mere, from the applicant, that if they acquire this village piece of property, which

[1:12:19] right now is a sub-usual, under-utilized parking lot, it will only make the downtown better.

[1:12:25] And I'll go further.

[1:12:26] The Board of Trustees asked us about imminent demand for the two parcels that are on the

[1:12:29] corner that we don't have control over.

[1:12:31] I think that clearly shows the intent or that we're proposing to incorporate into

[1:12:35] the application whatsoever.

[1:12:37] The Board of Trustees wants us to go farther than we have that we are today.

[1:12:43] I hear you, Mr. Delphi.

[1:12:46] To stop, to have formal resubstance.

[1:12:49] The stop was from proceeding in getting, as we all know,

[1:12:53] secretively important.

[1:12:54] You try to get the public hearing as early in the process you can,

[1:12:57] so that you can incorporate public comment,

[1:12:59] which sometimes dictates the way an application goes.

[1:13:02] It sometimes dictates changes to the application.

[1:13:05] To fork that process for a few months,

[1:13:09] I think is another way to do what we're trying to do

[1:13:11] and what the intent of secret is.

[1:13:13] And in this particular instance, we're not back before you

[1:13:16] for a month and a half because of the procedural changes

[1:13:18] that you made over the last couple of months,

[1:13:21] so that the only time that we would be able to schedule

[1:13:23] a public hearing would be for March.

[1:13:28] Well, I'll put my two cents in.

[1:13:31] I would like to hear this application in the public meeting.

[1:13:36] I don't think we should go to a public hearing until closure has come to that property.

[1:13:43] I believe the Board of Trustees have gone out of their lane and telling us to listen to

[1:13:49] an application that is not a true application.

[1:13:54] You want to build something on property that you don't own, or you don't even have any

[1:13:58] rights to. We have another issue with another application in the public is saying that we're

[1:14:07] showing preference to a developer by giving them the right to acquire property without

[1:14:14] legally putting it out for bid. So I will not go for this to go to public care until it's

[1:14:24] I know there's a couple of views floating around, but I think it's important for the

[1:14:29] doctor.

[1:14:30] I think the second is terrible, but you know, I am looking forward to it.

[1:14:34] We will be back here.

[1:14:36] It doesn't make sense for us to be as close to a public view when we got some items that I still

[1:14:43] didn't pay the public.

[1:14:45] We've got things out of the cage and you go to the public view.

[1:15:00] Thoughts? I mean, everyone has a voice on this in terms of expressing to others, for having one more comment.

[1:15:07] I just want to hear from some of the other commission, and you will certainly have.

[1:15:09] I just want to hear from some others on the commission on their thoughts at this time.

[1:15:14] I'm more if you want to dwell on it and follow up with Mr. Sereto, you can, but any additional questions.

[1:15:24] I mean, I have concerns, too, about certain applications that came before us that involved

[1:15:30] village property, and I don't know what's going on with that, but it's interesting how

[1:15:36] we have a resolution before us in much of a same concept, and they're asking us to go forward.

[1:15:44] I mean, this is my concern as Chief's concern, and others.

[1:15:47] No, and I understand what you're saying, all of you are collectively saying.

[1:15:52] I also understand what the Board of Trustees did.

[1:15:54] I think you can work to two together and, you know, we can almost play Solomon.

[1:16:00] We can develop the record, work with the applicant, develop the application, find out what

[1:16:05] are the things that this village actually could accomplish if it decides to sell the property,

[1:16:09] sell the parking lot, what things that the applicant can help us out make that area the best

[1:16:14] can be. That is not taking anything away from the fact that it is a policy decision of border

[1:16:19] trustees to make the decision whether to sell the property. That is their concern. Part

[1:16:25] of their discussion and deliberation will depend upon, I think, what this application is going

[1:16:30] to look like, if perhaps they did decide to sell it. It is not being a decision made in a vacuum.

[1:16:36] So I think you can do, you can write both horses for now. You can have this application in the

[1:16:41] meeting stage, develop the record. Here, the applicant make the best case he can to what he would

[1:16:46] like to see that project look like if they did not get the property from the village and

[1:16:51] see where it goes, make a report to the board of trustees, what you are finding is, and they

[1:16:55] will have to make the decision whether or not to proceed to sell it. That way, you are honoring

[1:17:00] the spirit of the board resolution, which is to try to see what we can do as a planner,

[1:17:06] planners, to make it to the application. I think that is the way you write both horses at the same

[1:17:10] time. Other than that, we'll be sitting here talking about this and not getting to any of Mr.

[1:17:14] Jaffee's presentation tonight.

[1:17:16] We should hear it.

[1:17:17] Yeah, we should hear it.

[1:17:20] Yeah, that's as far as we're going to go until we get an answer.

[1:17:23] Okay, so Mr. Villager, you've heard from us.

[1:17:27] So you understand our point of view on things.

[1:17:29] I think you've made a public record of that.

[1:17:30] I think you've made your record of a scroll, but you do the indicator that you make an additional comment.

[1:17:33] Oh, sorry Mr. Jaffee.

[1:17:35] We get swept out with Mr. Jaffee.

[1:17:36] I get swept out of the word.

[1:17:37] Once Mr. Serato gets going, you know.

[1:17:40] I'm very pleased with the place of something like that.

[1:17:42] To clarify, the other application you're referring to is different.

[1:17:46] They use the different vehicle, which I don't want to get into, as opposed to what is before the Board of Trustees.

[1:17:53] And I was standing, I do believe this commission has gone to public hearing for other applications that had letter of authorizations, both before you, as their vehicle will be called.

[1:18:03] So, I understand your direction. There are a number of different ways, whether you own the property, whether you're contract-vendee, whether you have a letter of authorization, or another legal means to be before this commission.

[1:18:12] This commission has granted, and has scheduled public hearings for other applications. Yes, they, you have applications in the past.

[1:18:21] Notwithstanding, we do have a presentation that we would like to present to you this evening. It goes to what Mr. Serrano did indicate, as well as the Board of Trustees would like to get some feedback and comment from the

[1:18:32] with respect to some of the opportunities that we are presenting in relation to the acquisition

[1:18:38] of that under-in-the-lies parking lot.

[1:18:41] So with that, I've joined by Scott Allen on Representative Ownership of the Application

[1:18:47] Kevin, the Cellular Architect for the Project, and the staff of the way to order the presentation

[1:18:51] to be able to slide that for

[1:19:08] you.

[1:19:16] not like this.

[1:19:21] Pressure is kind of for the pressure.

[1:19:24] Good evening ladies and gentlemen.

[1:19:26] Good evening.

[1:19:28] So tonight we have before you what we are calling the 2SM development

[1:19:31] before Chester.

[1:19:33] And it is a approximately 347,000 square foot gross development

[1:19:41] residential construction.

[1:19:44] And you are proposing

[1:19:48] that you review our application, see thing, most of the plans and drawings and renderings

[1:19:55] have been presented to you previously. And the majority of the information they are presenting

[1:20:02] this evening is exactly as it has been provided previously. What we have now,

[1:20:15] and then

[1:20:15] to some conceptual approaches as to how the parking lock can be incorporated into our

[1:20:24] development site and the options that he has and he would love to present to you with

[1:20:30] respect to how you can provide the additional concessions of the village in order to get the

[1:20:45] I think a lot of this, just like thank you again for allowing us to present today and talk and see you.

[1:20:54] It's really great to be here.

[1:20:56] I'm going to go to the next slide.

[1:20:59] A couple of the renderings and the existing imagery, I think everybody seen it in our application packet.

[1:21:06] This is slide presented to the Board of Trustees to show a superimposed footprint of the development as being felt today,

[1:21:13] as well as an alternative footprint if the lot wasn't, if basically the village lot was

[1:21:20] not included into the development and it's pretty unanimously decided from the five members

[1:21:29] of the Board of Trustees that was there that the obviously the impacts of an expanded footprint

[1:21:36] would greatly help in redeveloping the block and the magnitude of what the development could

[1:21:43] help to do in terms of bringing to fruition of the form-based code that has been passed.

[1:21:50] Next slide.

[1:21:55] And so part of our revised packet, we've basically included average grade

[1:22:00] calculations and all standard updates, we'll go to the next slide.

[1:22:07] And these are also existing. And so one of the comments that was made, especially

[1:22:15] by Tony is that essentially, you know, what's wrapped up in our proposal as well as our purchase of the lot is a series of, you know, voluntary urban infrastructure and food.

[1:22:30] To just south of the development, we've gotten support to do that. We're also looking to expand basically the sidewalk in front of the development, to take up the parallel parking spaces that are right there and subsequently move compensate with those spaces inside of the development. Also to put a brand new street trees and street lighting as well as bicycle parking there as well.

[1:22:59] And so inclusive in that is like all of us wrapped in kind of to our basically integral to the proposal of first thing it.

[1:23:09] And so with that, we also are proposing two alternative scenarios that are additive to that.

[1:23:19] And so we'll go to the next slide.

[1:23:22] So this is actually a basic, another one of the things that's, as you, we'll see it's in our existing application is we're also in conjunction with expanding the sidewalk, we're also offering to basically push our street front or a retail frontage in by three and a half feet, and it's effectively creating the sidewalk actually right there varies in depth a little bit.

[1:23:45] So, but what it will do for the entire frontage of development is create an 18-foot to 21-foot sidewalk.

[1:23:53] You know, dramatically increasing, you know, the pedestrian realm, you know, basically where you walk.

[1:23:59] Everything from restaurant, restaurant seating, you know, and an ability really to have a true, you know,

[1:24:17] And so the first additive concept here is proposing a compensation for all of the parking spaces that are currently on the lot itself.

[1:24:31] Bringing them into the development and essentially perpetually, you know, perpetually giving them, you know, to the village.

[1:24:40] Um, the development which shoulder, you know, all operational costs, all electricity, everything

[1:24:46] to build the spaces, obviously, for, you know, part of the development.

[1:24:50] Um, and so that, and in it itself, was outside of a cash payment, um, you know, for the right

[1:24:55] itself.

[1:24:56] That was also, uh, something that we wanted to put inside of, put inside the offer.

[1:25:01] And, um, and again, you know, we had, we had mentioned to the board that it was, is either

[1:25:05] or in terms of these additive scenarios.

[1:25:08] And the other was a proposal for to renovate

[1:25:14] Liberty Square Plaza.

[1:25:15] I know for a very long time the village has been

[1:25:19] discussing potentially renovating that and also closing off.

[1:25:23] Basically, what is that?

[1:25:24] I guess it turned around right there in front of the front of it.

[1:25:30] I'm just looking at it, building has been rebuilt.

[1:25:31] And so, in part of that, we would basically manage that entire process and we would take the

[1:25:38] payment that would otherwise go on as a monetary payment to the law and put that towards

[1:25:44] construction costs.

[1:25:45] We'd also pay for all the design, we would develop it, entertain them with the product.

[1:25:50] And so, all of the original infrastructural pieces that were coming as part of our proposal,

[1:25:56] We then layered an either or scenario of a lot of these parking spaces, you know, or the Plaza.

[1:26:02] I think a lot of comments that we're had, especially, um,

[1:26:08] uh, trusty breakwood,

[1:26:10] was he was like, if you guys want to do that, we actually happily, you know, pay you to renovate the Plaza.

[1:26:16] So it was a pretty funny comment.

[1:26:18] But, uh, I guess so I am, and as Tony was saying earlier, you know, part of our ongoing dialogue together

[1:26:26] is to try and figure out what is the best position for the village? What is the best way that we can

[1:26:33] collectively renovate and develop this corner and how can we, you know, ensure that this

[1:26:41] corestone, you know, downtown is, is not appropriately. You know, and I will have a mic,

[1:26:48] going to go ahead and take the chance. I, of course, you know, echo Tony's comments about

[1:26:54] public hearing. I think, you know, welcoming, welcoming the public into this process to hear

[1:27:01] comments from the Board of Trustees would be critical in, you know, all of our determinations

[1:27:07] of how to appropriately and responsibly, you know, move forward. And so those are the two that we have.

[1:27:12] I don't know, we'll go to the next slide.

[1:27:17] And a few other things are the bottom where examples of, you know, are output parts.

[1:27:21] And so a few of the remaining signs are excerpts from our site planning packet that you all have,

[1:27:31] revise, you know, root plan and landscape diagram.

[1:27:35] I'm going to go to the next one.

[1:27:39] And this is two more.

[1:27:41] So renderings that you've already seen and then one more.

[1:27:44] I believe we want to, yeah, for the next one.

[1:27:48] Okay, last time we were here, it was a comment about,

[1:27:51] that our nine rendering was not the end night enough.

[1:27:54] So we wanted to make sure that, you know, we updated it to,

[1:27:58] as close to midnight as we possibly could,

[1:28:01] and so this is a revised one as well.

[1:28:03] And then a little key plan with the rest of them,

[1:28:06] you know, close shows exactly where this is,

[1:28:09] and, you know, cameraing on one of the stuff.

[1:28:12] I think it's last one.

[1:28:22] The Board of Trustees was adamant about that they didn't necessarily want a Sri Kash

[1:28:29] payment for the municipal law, so some of the alternatives that you saw the options that

[1:28:33] you saw were presented to them.

[1:28:37] They would like to get some comment and feedback from the commission, so we're at that

[1:28:41] point.

[1:28:41] whether or not there's a particular option that you like better or if you're a recommendation back to the Board of Trustees would be a straight payment

[1:28:49] Or if you have any questions about either of the options

[1:28:51] We'll get back to we're gonna hit here for a couple others, but that's it that's you know, I think that's gonna be a big conversation

[1:28:58] We're gonna hear from from Kurt at the moment

[1:29:09] Our our

[1:29:11] Cash payment offer was based on our praise well that we had conducted that we also gave the board trustees

[1:29:16] You know, there is very sort of you know land transaction tops around what's just accounting. And so that was actually the basis of

[1:29:22] They catch anything that we spoke about above would

[1:29:27] Unless it was a term as a writing like the plot of saying that you know that money would specifically be here

[1:29:32] Martin now for construction costs

[1:29:34] But we would also add in more money, you know for basically you know architecture engineering fees, you know all the other things

[1:29:40] that would go on with it.

[1:29:42] OK.

[1:29:44] Thank you.

[1:29:45] Kurt, part two.

[1:29:47] Thank you, Chairman.

[1:29:48] Yes.

[1:29:49] And again, I recall the details.

[1:30:00] Or, or design for it. I think is an attractive idea. I think it's one time or another. It's

[1:30:07] been said by, I believe, the trustees at some of their regular meetings when we were discussing

[1:30:11] this. As well as, I think, by the planning commission. In other words, this would be a public

[1:30:18] private partnership component where rather than a straight payment for the parking line. That's

[1:30:29] This, this seems to me to be an opportunity for, for Liberty Plaza and I can't help but

[1:30:39] always be struck by one of the expansive pavement that is that intersection, there's

[1:30:47] the opportunity to narrow some of the, the casin between one side of the street or another.

[1:30:55] I know that in a way we have a work cut out for us in the sense that if I understand correctly there may have been concerns expressed about eliminating that 180 that can be made from North Maine around to lower King.

[1:31:15] I'd like to think that that's not a showstopper, but just having been out there as we

[1:31:23] live the lights on the Christmas tree and that ceremony, I mean, it was struck by, we

[1:31:27] obviously, everyone the police took care to protect everyone from traffic, of course, and

[1:31:35] that event.

[1:31:36] But I think on a day-to-day basis, the only way that you can really disregard how inconvenient

[1:31:43] And safe, it may be for pedestrians, is to become accustomed to it.

[1:31:50] I think that's the only way to really accept that as it is.

[1:31:54] So, personally, I think it's worthwhile.

[1:31:57] And I think I was asked to make sure that I made available,

[1:32:02] and speaking with the developer and his team,

[1:32:05] make available previous drawings and slides that have been generated.

[1:32:10] and I have found some of them now in our files from a few years ago.

[1:32:14] So again, I do find that to be an attractive opportunity, and one that perhaps the board

[1:32:21] of trustees may appreciate even more than a fair offer for the Department.

[1:32:31] Mr. Strato?

[1:32:32] Well, because we have to, the those manager is securing an appraisal of the property.

[1:32:38] It took some time because apparently the real estate appraiser market is tough to find one of these days.

[1:32:46] All busy now after COVID is raining and so we have the manager's retaining an appraiser.

[1:32:53] It should take a couple of weeks to get that appraiser.

[1:32:56] At least I don't give the board trustee to the baseline, a monetary baseline for them.

[1:33:01] We always talk about, you know, there are two things we need to do, you want to convey property, as a

[1:33:08] village.

[1:33:09] One of the GF make sure it's surplus to your village needs, and you get fair consideration.

[1:33:14] In both accounts, the village wouldn't afford that to make those two findings before they

[1:33:19] can convey this property.

[1:33:22] And Mr. Jarfield is talking about, the situation is in the eye to be older.

[1:33:26] It could be something more than a monetary consideration or it could be a combination of

[1:33:32] So that's their decision to make as a policy maker.

[1:33:36] Our job here in a very limited fashion so far is to vet out the possibilities and what a

[1:33:44] site plane might look like with that lot in place with the applicant.

[1:33:49] So that's our job.

[1:33:50] I have had the opportunity to really vet all this out so I can't give you more than what I've

[1:33:54] been telling you tonight so far.

[1:33:56] Okay.

[1:33:59] Pete from here, I curve.

[1:34:04] Thanks.

[1:34:06] We had some comments on the engineering, the traffic, planning side.

[1:34:12] One of the big ones has to do with an adult when to take a lane stunder, but coordinating

[1:34:18] the improvements on South Main Street with DOT.

[1:34:25] and adjacent application, which was before this commission earlier tonight, because they

[1:34:34] conflict. Right. And so we need, you know, we need to kind of work that out as a as a

[1:34:41] village and as what understanding what DOT wants. We're going to need to loop Westchester

[1:34:47] county in because clearly they're involved right next door and this isn't new this isn't

[1:34:54] news right this is something we're we were always going to continue to do through the

[1:34:59] course of the application but I do think it's it's important to do because it's a very big

[1:35:05] piece of this application obviously there's I'll just stick to my part okay I'll leave I'll let

[1:35:17] My piece is actually where we're relatively small, have to do with kind of seeker compliance

[1:35:21] and subsurface information, noise information instruction, but those were kind of the

[1:35:30] big ones.

[1:35:30] So I'll let Elaine and Justin kind of take over if they have any other additional big picture

[1:35:35] comments.

[1:35:36] Okay, the link are you there?

[1:37:49] Okay, thank you, Elaine.

[1:37:50] So,

[1:37:55] I think those are a couple of,

[1:38:01] if you will, one, we're still listening to that

[1:39:11] One of the patients, one of the lawyers, he left him in as well.

[1:39:19] One of the first lawyers,

[1:39:23] one of the patients, one of the lawyers,

[1:39:27] one of the lawyers, and one of the second lawyers, and one of the second lawyers,

[1:40:26] Thank you.

[1:40:30] Thank

[1:40:36] you.

[1:40:36] Justin,

[1:40:41] questions from the committee to the applicant or planning departments, bill and

[1:40:47] attorney, and or a little leave you out, Tony, and or a care at this time, Jerry.

[1:40:55] No, right now, but my thing on the floor level at this seat for us.

[1:41:01] All right.

[1:41:02] Good afternoon.

[1:41:03] Good afternoon.

[1:41:04] I have a couple.

[1:41:06] I'm adjusting in your answers to your questions to the applicant, and especially about the electric, specifically in the wires on east boardway, and they indicate they've got to be relocated according to the fire chief.

[1:41:22] If I'm not, I think correct, I looked at the site plan and it would appear that they took that wire from the building to that post on Worcester Avenue, ran it alongside the buildings that are going to remain in front of their facility.

[1:41:37] I'm not sure if I've read that right, I just want you to take a look at that.

[1:41:58] And there's been a lot of the wire in there that you can find out what we've seen before.

[1:42:08] There will be a peer to the wire that's powering over and over and over and over and over.

[1:42:15] So I think that what they've shown, they're narrowing onto it.

[1:42:52] traffic being indicated about the loading zone to be put on south of Main Street. The applicant

[1:42:58] put a portion of south Main Street didn't actually indicate where that's going to be, considering

[1:43:03] they want to take the parking in front of their development and relocate the bus stop. So

[1:43:09] Captain, where is this loading zone and then proposed to put the place? And how does it connect to the

[1:43:17] building inside, because currently that the hallway still goes out to

[1:43:21] Westchester out, so we need to do this.

[1:43:24] And then over onto the sidewalk in front of the facility, I mean, I

[1:43:30] appreciate the wide-side walks, I think that's great.

[1:43:33] I mean, I wish we could do that to have it run as well.

[1:43:36] However, I was just curious as to why the applicant might not have

[1:43:41] pushed in its building front on South May 3, inwards, and kind of

[1:43:45] to sign law, not the way the possibility of preserving the parking spots that are either

[1:43:52] into all realized areas and shortage of parking in our downtown area, specific and there.

[1:44:01] So whether you want to address that or not.

[1:44:03] So we're providing significantly more parking spaces that are required in the code.

[1:44:08] So we are providing a lot more parking that will be available to public than is otherwise required.

[1:44:13] So that is addressed.

[1:44:15] You're a concept of what you want to propose to the village.

[1:44:19] I like both of them.

[1:44:21] We lost with it.

[1:44:24] My concerns are going back to what Curtin was saying about a couple of years back.

[1:44:28] We had a study on our traffic and parking in that particular area.

[1:44:34] And one of the creators called the Uno.

[1:44:38] I believe.

[1:44:40] One of the, one of the,

[1:44:44] we're living squares yes well years ago we spoke about this and one of the ideas

[1:44:50] was taking up lower half a king street behind mainstream yeah and create a lunar

[1:45:30] And to that road, two ways via which is to have a new order left, or to have a new northbound on US-1 to barrel left over there.

[1:45:40] So those were the concerns that I had. I do like the idea that you've winded a little bit towards the 16-18 Main Street.

[1:45:50] So that's one that I think everybody's got to collect the point you think about, but those were some concerns I had.

[1:45:56] One of the things that's here, like that, especially if I could just rest, we'll get, we have not baked in or designed yet.

[1:46:03] So, we'll just try to solicit the quantity of what I'm trying to say if you can cooperate with that.

[1:46:08] When we had that idea of that then, they took the sidewalk on the west side of that first thing's written in the lighting a little bit.

[1:46:18] So, you have it better to say for pedestrian crossway because of the traffic far in that distance.

[1:46:23] So you might want to just kind of see if we can squeeze that in, which are numbers there, if you possibly can make it happen.

[1:46:34] And the last thing I want to ask is your average grade calculation.

[1:46:45] And your site plan on page 007.

[1:46:48] You have a bunch of numbers about elevation and come up with your average grade or 22.5.

[1:46:58] How did you come up with that calculation?

[1:47:01] Is it a standard in the industry?

[1:47:03] Is it something village has a record in it?

[1:47:06] Something you just took on returning and just put numbers together?

[1:47:10] And I ask you that because I saw a plan that was submitted I believe to town.

[1:47:18] that show that similar page less amount of numbers than what you've given to us in your

[1:47:26] device, site plan with much more numbers.

[1:47:30] Difference of 12 being in here, 44 being in the one that you submitted in the

[1:47:34] revised site plan.

[1:47:36] How did you come up with these requirements of how many elevation points you had to come up with?

[1:47:41] And

[1:47:47] as just to continue the conversation, actually, Justin would continue to come and say to me, you're off there.

[1:48:01] Well, if they want to answer now, that's great.

[1:48:03] I know I thought I'm happy to answer your question for you.

[1:48:07] So we had originally done our average grade calculation with less elevation points around the site.

[1:48:14] And we actually commissioned our surveyor to go out and provide even more elevation points around the entire perimeter of the boundary of our development site in order to provide you with the most accurate grade calculation average grade calculation that we possibly could do for you.

[1:48:36] And as you know, if you're familiar with this site, which I'm sure all of you are, there was an over 20-foot great change from South Main Street up to East Broadway.

[1:48:49] So, and that same great change is also apparent in the alleyways in between the existing buildings on the corner of Westchester Avenue,

[1:49:00] And the boardering property line of our development site and the proposed addition of the village parking lot that is there.

[1:49:10] So we added as many elevation points as we could around the entire perimeter,

[1:49:15] at least that we could add.

[1:49:21] And that's the way that we calculated this.

[1:49:23] And that great level that is on South Maine, which is covering our retail space, is actually more than 50% below the average grade calculation, which would define that as a, as a seller, which by definition in the, the zoning code does not count as a story, but that's, that's where we've arrived.

[1:49:53] We've run the numbers about a hundred different ways to be honest with you and we're within a couple inches one way or another.

[1:50:03] So, you know, it really, it's dependent on the height of the story and where it is in relationship to the average grade calculation.

[1:50:12] I'm going to work with clients with all of the required ceiling heights and in the level

[1:50:18] heights, both for the seller and for the first floor, that would be considered a story as

[1:50:25] well.

[1:50:31] Yeah.

[1:50:32] Also, a comment for making our efforts to add more points to increase the accuracy and calculation.

[1:50:38] So we actually had significant, significant more, we just thought giving a point every foot

[1:50:45] I've been a little bit overkill.

[1:50:47] And that's from there's no, there is no definition in the code of how many points for that

[1:50:52] point should be, you know, every 10 feet every 20 feet every foot, it doesn't say as far

[1:50:59] as I know, there's no industry standard.

[1:51:02] I think, you know, we kind of do the best we can and try to make sure that no one's overloading

[1:51:09] the high points, undercounting the low points, which I don't think is what's happening here.

[1:51:17] That's what I was, you know, concerned about not on this application, but in general.

[1:51:24] Sure. And I wish there was a standard, every 10 feet, every 20 feet, every whatever.

[1:51:28] Even then, you could easily, you know, touch the numbers.

[1:51:32] and I think adding a lot of numbers does help and kind of with this site almost anyway

[1:51:39] is slice it and probably going to come out in there just to be just to be clear the elevation

[1:51:47] that you presented in that plan did not include the footprint of this municipal lock that

[1:51:54] like be added is that not the kid no it does it it does include that lock include that yes okay so

[1:52:01] the revised proposal that's changing on you know from the from the outset the application

[1:52:08] included that village owned lot yeah and once you actually get up there that's pretty much at

[1:52:16] the same elevation I want you to get up to easy Broadway

[1:52:23] okay I think there's just a couple

[1:52:27] questions. The parking is done.

[1:52:30] All going to be automated, or is there any self-parking or is all automated?

[1:52:40] What was actually going to be sitting on that property? Is it going to be 12 stories of apartments?

[1:52:48] Is it outdoor space? What is actually sitting? Are you proposing to sit on that building department?

[1:52:54] Well, it's going to be a portion of the building and the retail that's proposed is going

[1:53:01] to be on the Westchester Avenue and South Maine and the rear portion is not proposed

[1:53:06] to be retail.

[1:53:07] It is proposed to be at that elevation that's going to be residential going up.

[1:53:16] Residential.

[1:53:17] I had

[1:53:20] a question about Metro North,

[1:53:21] but just in covered it, and that's all right.

[1:53:24] Now, thank you.

[1:53:26] Juliana?

[1:53:28] Yeah, in terms of parking,

[1:53:30] like how will the people not available parking

[1:53:33] in the building, as opposed to on the street

[1:53:36] where you keep, there's an open spot,

[1:53:38] how will people know if there's available parking

[1:53:41] on the inside means not a full lot,

[1:53:43] so they don't create traffic.

[1:53:48] So we haven't been discussing operational procedures

[1:53:51] for identifying, you know, just like that. I mean, a few things we've been talking about

[1:53:57] or, you know, could be something as simple as a, you know, a light or a sign that shows,

[1:54:01] you know, availability or not availability. Since there are, the two are just one

[1:54:07] to also be clear about the difference. So the, the 14 spaces would be, you know,

[1:54:12] perpetually given to, um, given to the village and, you know, manage and run and all that

[1:54:18] by the operations building.

[1:54:21] The other spaces would also come into the, also come into the development, but they would not

[1:54:28] be part of that 14.

[1:54:29] They would still be set aside for retail tenants and things on an operational basis, you

[1:54:35] know, we would need to be 12 retail tenants, or if it needs to be, you know, 10, it wouldn't

[1:54:40] be anything less than what's already currently there.

[1:54:43] But those are some operational questions that I think we need to, we need to find when

[1:54:48] one of these, you know, scenarios selected, but it is something that, you know, we have to discuss that.

[1:54:57] Okay.

[1:54:59] If anything else, let me know.

[1:55:01] Here.

[1:55:02] Yeah.

[1:55:03] Okay.

[1:55:04] I set a couple of questions.

[1:55:10] So generally looking at the two options.

[1:55:13] I like the liberty square option between the two,

[1:55:17] between the two conversations.

[1:55:19] I'd rather spend time on the liberty square,

[1:55:21] with the square conversation than the other one. So I know Kurt, you're looking for some initial

[1:55:26] feedback from the planning commission, so that's my initial feedback.

[1:55:33] I care a Peter, as I was

[1:55:36] looking at some of the memo in the initial one on the 14th, and looking at this application,

[1:55:45] the pedestrian traffic, right, with the expanded sidewalk and the volume of people,

[1:55:50] And that intersection, because we talked about that intersection and we all know this intersection.

[1:55:56] It's a very wide intersection.

[1:56:00] It's in for me. It's problematic to cross.

[1:56:03] You got to be on your toes, which crossed that intersection.

[1:56:07] I was curious about additional steps that are being made this a question for Elaine,

[1:56:15] regarding pedestrian traffic improvements for that intersection.

[1:56:20] I know we have a lot going on, you've got a detailed deal on the other side, and I always

[1:56:25] like going on, but while we're here, I'd like to spend the time to talk about pedestrian

[1:56:34] opportunities for improving pedestrian experience to cross this intersection as it

[1:56:39] relates to this application.

[1:56:41] So Elaine, maybe I'll start with you, and then I'll follow up with Peter.

[1:56:44] I'll leave you there.

[1:57:17] There's not a whole lot of things for that, but there may be a lot of opportunities

[1:57:21] that you have for instance.

[1:57:24] You know, I have a left corner, and I'm going to try to make sure that we're there

[1:57:30] because we need to be sure that left room to have a crosswalk.

[1:57:35] And we need to let this begin.

[1:57:37] We need to let this begin.

[1:57:38] We need to let this begin.

[1:57:39] We need to let this begin.

[1:57:42] We need to let this begin.

[1:57:44] but I think we need to, I mean, let's try it out there and we really might have to go and talk about what we're going to talk about what we're going to talk about.

[1:58:01] Okay, so.

[1:58:20] Okay, so perhaps for next time, I've heard early from myself, I don't feel like rest of the commission is interested in this, but I've had to write some additional feedback and we only received the CARF members laid on Friday.

[1:58:33] we'll obviously respond to those prior to preparing before you get the next meeting, that's great, that's great.

[1:58:38] But yeah, I would like to continue to spend a bit more time on the pedestrian traffic experience as it relates to this property on this corner,

[1:58:47] so at the very least if we could improve at least how this corner interacts with,

[1:58:55] I think that would be, if we could go all the way around, that would be great too, but at the very least, you know, that's my initial thoughts, but so Kirk is your initial feedback and I prefer the Liberty Square conversation versus the embedded parking conversation.

[1:59:15] Yes, and actually the obviously some overlap between the pedestrian improvements that we've been speaking about for a few moments and and Liberty Square.

[1:59:23] So I realized that there are limitations to what the applicant may be able to do, but we're going to investigate those possibilities and present them in the most likely unified fashion to the Board of Trustees and see what they make of it all.

[1:59:40] And I'm glad Elaine and Peter raised the point that they took a couple of points off of my list here.

[1:59:49] Regarding how this application is going to interact or overlap or not with the application,

[1:59:57] either adjacent to it, or

[1:59:59] pretty close to it.

[2:00:00] And how it's going to work with the rest of that street. Right? I mean, we don't need to go that far, but the commission should be thinking a little bit more about, you know, are we looking?

[2:00:11] As far as Liberty Square, you know, I think is an open conversation as to whether or not that that little you turn gets removed or not.

[2:00:20] I think that's something that could be discussed more.

[2:00:23] Some people love it. Some people are like, why is this here? So it depends upon, I guess, how many decades you've been living here?

[2:00:30] Yeah, I mean, well, I've obviously, I've obviously only been here for a limited amount of time.

[2:00:36] I don't see a lot of use of it. I do wonder as far as trucks making that turn to gain access to get to places on lower King Street.

[2:00:46] I do have to question, how what type of truck is his maneuvering before they're

[2:00:53] driving up on purpose?

[2:00:54] People just trying to beat the light or something, I mean, I understand,

[2:01:01] for taxing circulation,

[2:01:03] I think that that may be it's most used.

[2:01:09] So I think that topic is something that could continue to be discussed as we walk through or move through that liberty square conversation. Hopefully there's consensus on that.

[2:01:22] And to the point where Mr. Chairman, and you may still have additional comments on the question,

[2:01:26] but only two of the commissioners did apply it on which concept or concepts they like.

[2:01:31] So again, I would ask if those commissioners did not give an opinion.

[2:01:35] We were stuck in a request if you could.

[2:01:37] Just so we provide guidance to us and provide guidance to the Board of Trustees.

[2:01:41] Start on the side.

[2:01:42] So Matt, between the two concepts on a high level would you,

[2:01:47] So what you thought on embedding the parking that would be lost from this slot into the

[2:01:55] option one I think, and then we're option two is renovating Liberty Square

[2:02:01] on curious

[2:02:02] as to, so the parking would be gift some of the spaces we're losing in the municipal

[2:02:08] lot being given to the town in perpetuity, but operated by the developer and the owner

[2:02:20] there, who gets that revenue? Does that devolve to the operator? Or is there going to be a payment

[2:02:25] with kind on an annual basis or something to the village? Because there's lots of revenue there.

[2:02:34] So, so the right now, as you may be aware, the municipal out is a completely underutilized

[2:02:39] lot. But we would anticipate, and again, this will be part of the negotiation that we would have,

[2:02:44] which is sort of the struggle in the Board of Trustees, but it will be anticipated that the revenue

[2:02:48] would go to the village.

[2:02:52] As far as

[2:02:57] actually our proposal and that one was that a payment is like

[2:03:02] a simple, you know, fee-simple payment for buying a property that that would be ultimately

[2:03:09] payment that would go to the village and then any future revenue would actually go to the developer.

[2:03:15] You know, that said, I think it was trusty, high-on, dis-study, right in the tonic

[2:03:23] initial product.

[2:03:24] Right, right.

[2:03:25] But did a rehearsal report is to how much revenue actually comes from that?

[2:03:29] A year to the original, and it was trusty pay-on's comments, yes, I think it's $2,500

[2:03:34] a year.

[2:03:35] And it generates them, so our payment, as well as the older upgrades were, that is payment.

[2:03:44] in that scenario. And then also perpetually getting this base, as well as kind of calculating,

[2:03:49] you know, we, we have to make to construct those 14 spaces or something like 1.4 million

[2:03:54] dollars when you actually include it in the basic stuff. So the fees would come back to that,

[2:04:00] okay. But that's the business deal. That's what the board trust is. Right. Yeah, we're just trying

[2:04:05] to develop an opinion on generally another high level, which concept we're more interested in

[2:04:12] exploring if we could have one or the other. Not both.

[2:04:18] Yeah, it's an order.

[2:04:22] So if you have any thoughts on which one you're interested in exploring more than the other, I think liberty square leads to.

[2:04:30] I like the idea of improvements in liberty square. So I think I would need more in that direction, but it's still pretty early in the stage.

[2:04:39] to, you know, I would, I would, you know, declare myself for that, you know, I would

[2:04:47] be there.

[2:04:48] Do you understand that the problem with the commission is not putting us in is if we

[2:04:53] don't develop either scenario and now, then we'll never get to a public hearing.

[2:05:00] So again, we're looking for a comment on which way you would like us to go to with the Board

[2:05:04] of Trustees towards the Liberty Square.

[2:05:12] Okay, I'm sorry for two, I didn't say anything, but the livery squares nice, but what's the two value of that property?

[2:05:24] That's why we have an appraisal and we're waiting for the villages appraisal.

[2:05:27] You're putting them, you're going to have apartments, you're going to be generating income for the next 50 years.

[2:05:32] So $300,000 for the property doesn't really make sense.

[2:05:37] So I'd like to see what the true value of that property is

[2:05:41] with your apartments on there.

[2:05:43] And then you could get something to the village.

[2:05:49] All right, I tell you, completely understand it.

[2:05:53] Well, Mr. Paul, the thing is for the true value,

[2:05:57] another way to answer that is if we develop around that parcel,

[2:06:00] you'll never be able to develop that for anything else.

[2:06:05] But do you have a preference on either one, assuming we move forward the board of trustees?

[2:06:10] Do you want to move this way?

[2:06:12] Thank you.

[2:06:13] I want to go all the way around the intersection.

[2:06:19] To have?

[2:06:22] I do like the idea of moving this way.

[2:06:26] Thank you.

[2:06:27] Do you?

[2:06:27] Yep.

[2:06:28] I do.

[2:06:29] As well.

[2:06:29] Oh, yeah.

[2:06:36] Because it's so many, I'm defined for the Westchester having self-made straight things

[2:06:44] that are still not clear in the middle of the square.

[2:06:48] Okay.

[2:06:49] Okay.

[2:06:50] Thank you for your feedback.

[2:06:52] Up to our level.

[2:06:54] Yeah.

[2:06:55] Certainly both is our number one option, right?

[2:06:59] And then Liberty Square Deluxe is the second option, right, going all the way around

[2:07:04] or pedestrian improvement, but Tony, you heard some initial feedback regarding that whole

[2:07:09] appraisal topic, but that's for the board of trustees to deal with this deal.

[2:07:13] That's a business deal, so that happens on their side.

[2:07:20] So, so next to us, Mr. Duke, I'm presenting up, because we provided you that feedback and

[2:07:25] on option one or two.

[2:07:30] We received a first memorandum, obviously, we're going to respond to that prior to meeting with you again, your next time we have a little bit of extra time because of the meetings are falling.

[2:07:40] So this is very good information and feedback as it relates to the options because we are appearing for the Board of Trustees on the 24th.

[2:07:47] I guess the only other thing is I think I heard the majority of the commission, but I would again ask you to reconsider scheduling a public hearing, because in getting a public hearing, we'll get a comment from the public.

[2:07:58] you can keep that public hearing open. It doesn't preclude you at any point. The Board of Trustees says no

[2:08:03] forward of a reason. Then we don't have that. We have to change our entire plan and the plan

[2:08:09] will have to change before you. Just like if there are other applicants and applications that

[2:08:14] need to change because of something that goes back from DOT, where comes back from Sue as,

[2:08:20] I don't know, what are might they?

[2:08:27] Concept 1 and 2 would be maybe swear at least once

[2:08:31] and you input from what traffic it's in here.

[2:08:33] It's a volume of change in what happens there.

[2:08:37] I'd like to include them in discussions.

[2:08:41] Because we are able to kind of...

[2:08:43] Indeed, we could be currently to give you a direction

[2:08:45] which I appreciate.

[2:08:47] We would anticipate that their input,

[2:08:49] or T's input, are going to be critically important

[2:08:51] as we develop and design what that looks like.

[2:08:53] But we're not going to go down that path until we get a direction of the board of trustees the plan

[2:08:59] Which we're maybe this is where you know the direction we'd like to investigate and as we investigated

[2:09:04] We say, oh wow, we didn't think about X Y Z that makes no sense whatsoever

[2:09:08] And that's where we're back to option one were to restrict cash payment. We don't know

[2:09:17] What's the question

[2:09:18] question whether if you go to public hearing?

[2:09:21] That is it.

[2:09:22] We, I thought, discussed that before we started out.

[2:09:26] And I don't blame it.

[2:09:27] I don't blame the attorney for trying to bring it up again.

[2:09:29] But I think this board collectively did not want to proceed to a public hearing.

[2:09:34] They wanted to advise the Board of Trustees to give them the input.

[2:09:37] I think the next meeting of the Board of Trustees would be very informative

[2:09:39] meeting.

[2:09:40] I think the Board of Trustees will have to make a decision.

[2:09:43] One way or the other on whether or not they wish to even convey their property in the first place.

[2:09:48] It probably is, and I'm going to give some of you all a little bit of credit there, perhaps we should not pre-judge the board in deciding that issue right there,

[2:09:59] whether or not they wish to convey it in the first place.

[2:10:02] I think you've given them a lot of feedback. I think it's very useful. I think it helps them to make their decision.

[2:10:08] Would it appraisal on our side to support it? I think the progress is being made.

[2:10:13] I can't give any more recommendation on that.

[2:10:17] It's sure it's not perceived.

[2:10:19] Your judgment not mind.

[2:10:22] I believe we should adjourn it, leave it in public meeting,

[2:10:26] and look forward to hearing from them, and a care on this matter next month.

[2:10:33] Thank you very much.

[2:10:34] Okay.

[2:10:36] Now, I don't believe we need a motion because it's in a public meeting stage.

[2:10:40] Okay.

[2:10:41] Thank you all.

[2:10:42] Thank you.

[2:10:43] Thank you very much.

[2:10:43] Please see you next month.

[2:10:47] Thank you all for the time.

[2:10:48] Thank you.

[2:10:53] Next item on our agenda, case 2021-0219, a continued public meeting on 229-Willet Avenue.

[2:11:12] Good evening.

[2:11:15] Good evening.

[2:11:16] Mr Chairman?

[2:11:17] Yes.

[2:11:18] That's going to keep on happening.

[2:11:20] Yes.

[2:11:21] A frequent fire.

[2:11:23] That's right.

[2:11:23] Good evening again.

[2:11:25] Members of the Commission.

[2:11:25] Just for the record.

[2:11:26] David Cooper.

[2:11:27] Department of the Law for Reservoir and Insignments.

[2:11:29] Here, representing Willet Avenue Apartments LLC, Willet Avenue Apartments is the contract

[2:11:35] vending to purchase 229 Willet Avenue.

[2:11:38] The proposal is an 80 unit mixed income residential project at the site.

[2:11:43] With me tonight is Robert Deacon from NRP, which is the developer, as well as James Carrus

[2:11:49] and Diego Little Valley, from JMC, the project engineers.

[2:11:54] At the last meeting, there were a couple of open questions with respect to waivers from design

[2:12:00] requirements in the form-based code. I'm here happy to report tonight that the applicant has

[2:12:06] kind of gone back to the drawing board a little bit on the architectural side and has eliminated

[2:12:11] the need for any of the waivers that we were discussing before. So, some of someone else will have to

[2:12:16] to dig into that issue in another patient.

[2:12:19] You know, I was number one on my list

[2:12:21] about that whole waiver topic.

[2:12:24] So what they've done is they have modified the architectural facade

[2:12:29] such that it would meet not only your existing requirements

[2:12:33] to form this code, but the proposed changes

[2:12:37] to the requirements.

[2:12:38] Also, the wall and fence question has been resolved

[2:12:43] such that the proposed retaining wall will meet

[2:12:46] the requirements and won't be available.

[2:12:49] So with that, we believe all of the sort of open questions

[2:12:52] about zoning and compliance with the code

[2:12:55] have the answer, and so we would ask you tonight to schedule

[2:12:59] this for public hearing and move the process

[2:13:02] to the public on the stage.

[2:13:07] OK, thank you.

[2:13:09] Kurt, in the plan of argument.

[2:13:11] Yes, so following up on one of the topics

[2:13:14] for this application. I did get a hold of and speak, and I think Peter, we were there

[2:13:21] with you on that poll and I wasn't able to join. Okay, I'm trying to think of who was there.

[2:13:26] So in any case, it was with the State Historic Preservation Office and a review or an

[2:13:32] name Sloan below.

[2:13:37] So what you reported is that there is some discussion going on which you

[2:13:44] perpetuate between the agency and the applicant regarding alternatives to demolition

[2:13:52] the whole site.

[2:13:53] Now I know that obviously the plan before us is complete redevelopment of this site, but

[2:14:03] there doesn't need to be a conclusion to that, and the board's lead agency is responsible

[2:14:11] for that.

[2:14:12] And I will mention that on the full EIF, it does indicate that I believe it's the Office

[2:14:19] of Housing and Community Renewal at the state level, it does offer some funding for projects

[2:14:26] like this that are all inclusive housing.

[2:14:31] So without, and that was, that was noted as necessary.

[2:14:34] So there is, that does elevate Chippo to an involved agency as opposed to an interest

[2:14:40] agency under secret. However, so far I have not gotten the impression that the agency

[2:14:48] is casual about throwing it, throwing that power around or exerting that power.

[2:15:00] The discussions about alternatives to typically demolition and merely a plaque commemorating the

[2:15:10] site and the structures on it that there may be more fruitful than it has been so far. Obviously,

[2:15:18] I don't want to pretend that there isn't an application before it's that proposed is to use the

[2:15:24] tire to redevelop into developing a project at the scale.

[2:15:30] So, okay, thank you, Kurt.

[2:15:33] You want to jump in before we move on?

[2:15:35] I guess I'm just to piggyback on that.

[2:15:37] And I don't know, Kurt, when you're discussion we should go

[2:15:41] occur.

[2:15:41] We've been going back and forth.

[2:15:42] I've been asking if you'd spoken with them.

[2:15:44] So, in the Sumi, it was built in the last couple of days or so.

[2:15:47] But it was the last couple of days.

[2:15:49] So, the applicant has submitted, and this is a while ago,

[2:15:51] a pretty robust alternative analysis because the question that Shepa was been asking is, is there

[2:15:57] any way to incorporate some of the existing buildings into the proposed redevelopment

[2:16:03] and from a structural and architectural and compliance with the form of his code, frankly,

[2:16:09] there really is not, but it's not just a sort of fact of an applicant analysis.

[2:16:13] A full blown analysis has been submitted, and I think the curb probably has seen it,

[2:16:18] because they're on the Chris system, they get the notification as well.

[2:16:20] We weren't privy to the conversation, at least I have not been privy to the conversation

[2:16:24] between the reviewer, but we believe Shippo has in its possession the study that they're

[2:16:32] looking for, the determine whether or not you can really preserve the building and

[2:16:37] redevelop it in a way that it's been envisioned by this applicant.

[2:16:43] The question of mitigation, which I would submit is different from the

[2:16:47] in Alice's, in other words, once this is a termination that, yes, demolition is necessary

[2:16:52] but what are the mitigation measures to prove to somehow commemorate reserves as much as possible

[2:16:57] the historic qualities of the site? That's different. I don't believe the proposal is just

[2:17:03] just one plaque, but to try to incorporate some of the characteristics of the church and

[2:17:11] some of the buildings into the new building. Unfortunately, that could be with us here tonight,

[2:17:17] but we could certainly go through that with the commission, but rest assured, it's not

[2:17:21] just saying what we're just going to throw a plaque up and that'll be it. Unfortunately,

[2:17:28] because of the way that it works procedurally where in this case is involved in the agency,

[2:17:34] because of the potential state funding.

[2:17:39] They've been waiting for what they thought would be the only agency, the state agency to weigh in.

[2:17:45] I think they've just now have the correct realize that there's also your review occurring.

[2:17:50] And frankly, as the lead agency, they need to weigh in for you.

[2:17:55] At the end of the day, this commission, whether you're here from Shepro or not,

[2:17:57] will have to make an determination to significant something and determination

[2:18:00] about the adequacy of the preservation of the mitigation measures, whether they're who

[2:18:05] should know or not.

[2:18:06] So I'm assuming that hopefully they've gotten the measures that they need to get back

[2:18:11] to you with their comments.

[2:18:12] But that being said, the terms of analysis has been submitted, that that's available to public

[2:18:19] as well as to the knowledge.

[2:18:21] Okay.

[2:18:21] There are knowledge, I should vote, that they have received it.

[2:18:25] I don't think they consider it a complete discussion, but let's put it this way.

[2:18:32] That was my understanding of the conversation, but let's put it this way.

[2:18:38] The agency does seem interested in any comments that the commission may have.

[2:18:45] Okay.

[2:18:47] Peter, take care of.

[2:18:48] So I certainly didn't have any comments that ship a conversation, you know, was one of

[2:18:56] them.

[2:18:57] I just was not able to join for that part of it, but we're happy to continue that conversation

[2:19:02] with Kurt and ship a, and as Mr. Cooper said, it's this board's responsibility to issue

[2:19:10] a finding of significance, whether it could be mitigated, not mitigated, alternatives comes

[2:19:16] after, who really is the significant of the impact that needs to be determined.

[2:19:23] So obviously ship a little way in.

[2:19:25] And then I know we received some more information from JMC today on the parking, and we're

[2:19:35] going over that as well on the study that they did of this running area.

[2:19:46] I don't know if we've had time to review it.

[2:19:48] I think we've literally just got it today.

[2:20:12] And it's been 30 minutes passed, and then it's going to be a pretty different direction.

[2:20:17] It's going to be early morning, hours, and morning, and time, and yeah.

[2:20:22] I want to thank all those who know the path to the level, and all the time.

[2:20:29] It's going to be a full amount of time to the level.

[2:20:31] It's going to be a very practical level, so it's going to be more than hours.

[2:20:35] And there were also opportunities to train a particular relationship with a lot more.

[2:20:40] That means you'll wrap up curtain, pull up where it's not certain that it's, by

[2:20:46] some of the time, like, Lincoln, we can make a parking short call, and then you can

[2:20:51] call the parking short call as well.

[2:20:54] There are really different units, but there are really different things.

[2:20:58] And it's worth thinking about the work of one room together.

[2:21:01] And that's worth a total of $40, $40, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4, $4.

[2:21:08] Well, before we go there, I just jumping in because I have to correct the record on that.

[2:21:14] There's not a shortfall of parking where there's specs to compliance with zoning.

[2:21:19] Under the zoning code, 24 spaces are required.

[2:21:24] So the 30, the 37 are, it's 50% more than what's required.

[2:21:28] Now, the bill is boarded in adopting the finding statement for the Formatist Code.

[2:21:32] has found that compliance with your code,

[2:21:36] with your parking requirements in the form-based code,

[2:21:39] is sufficient mitigation for any potential impacts.

[2:21:43] And so I understand this commission,

[2:21:46] I'm getting the faces that I get.

[2:21:49] And I understand this commission's position on the goal.

[2:21:53] And now it has to be known.

[2:21:55] So I'm in trouble, but I say that talking to you a little bit,

[2:21:58] but I understand this commission's position

[2:22:00] on the goal of one to one, right? But the goal of one to one versus what's required under

[2:22:07] your zoning, as well as what has been deemed acceptable mitigation for potential impacts

[2:22:12] is different. And so when I hear a consultant say that there's a quote shortfall of parking,

[2:22:19] it concerns me because there's nothing in the record in terms of of empirical data,

[2:22:23] them in three of that. There's a short fold.

[2:22:30] Conversation is going to continue to go, but you have to recognize that from what is permitted

[2:22:36] under your code and what is required, we're 50% over that. And so, you know, you can question

[2:22:44] sort of the, what the data that was compiled by James C with respect to the other office resource

[2:22:52] are on street parking, but sort of questioning the professionals and the data that compiles

[2:23:01] is different. It is what it is. We know what the on street parking situation is. However,

[2:23:10] your code only requires 24, we've got 38.

[2:23:15] Again, Mr. Chairman, let me say I didn't hear when a language speaking. I didn't hear

[2:23:24] anything unprofessional or I think she was speaking about a parking space inventory that was mentioned

[2:23:34] at a previous meeting of the Planning Commission done by the applicant. So I just want to

[2:23:40] make sure if we were to hear what Elaine had said, I don't think she was saying that it was

[2:23:48] zoning non-compliant or for anything of that nature.

[2:23:54] Just to get it on the record, I believe what Elaine said she's available to clarify.

[2:24:01] I think when she used the word shortfall, she's talking about a shortfall in capacity in the neighborhood.

[2:24:07] Not a shortfall in your application.

[2:24:09] And we need to be very clear on that, because at the workshop, at least one board of trustee

[2:24:17] members said, we should not try them for any intent in the zoning, because they created

[2:24:24] the form-based code without, for one of the better word, adequate review and planning, and

[2:24:31] they're open to many changes, and parking is probably an area that's going to need to be

[2:24:40] With all due respect, even if you are in compliance with the code as it stands today, I think

[2:24:48] correct me if I'm wrong, the commission needs to remember what the disposition of the

[2:24:52] neighborhood is going to be six months a year, two years down the road for the residents who are

[2:24:59] there now and in the future. So, you know, if we, if we're not careful, we're going to just

[2:25:10] that's what's coming to the surface here.

[2:25:14] And so nothing against your development

[2:25:17] or any attempt to cast dispersions

[2:25:20] on your overall plan.

[2:25:22] It may be compliant today.

[2:25:24] But that doesn't mean it doesn't create other problems

[2:25:29] in the village.

[2:25:31] And I understand the distinction.

[2:25:34] The only thing I would add is it's not just

[2:25:36] compliant with the code.

[2:25:36] It's compliant with the secret finding statement that the village board, as lead agency adopted.

[2:25:43] There is language in there about compliance with our parking requirements is sufficient

[2:25:49] mitigation for the impacts that we're concerned with.

[2:25:51] I understand that there are members in village that say, look, we don't necessarily agree

[2:25:57] with that.

[2:25:58] But as an applicant coming to the village, as of today, with the zoning code in place in a

[2:26:06] Look, as a matter of record, there isn't, you know, a shortfall of parking on site.

[2:26:13] And I understand that we may, particularly maybe talking over each other, but from a impact analysis standpoint,

[2:26:21] which is what I'm focused on important, important to me as the applicant's attorney processing the application.

[2:26:27] I'm saying what's being proposed is 50% over what was deemed acceptable from an impact standpoint.

[2:26:34] Okay, Mr. Serrano and then Justin, I don't want to forget poor Justin, so Justin first.

[2:26:40] Okay, Justin, are you still there?

[2:26:44] All right, you're on deck, engineering commons.

[2:27:53] Thank you, Justin, Mr. Sredo, or I want to thank Mr. Cooper for bringing up a very important

[2:27:58] issue that are zoning compliance and there's secret mitigation and impacts and distinction

[2:28:03] time gets lost. I would like for you all to authorize being heard to speak to Mar sure

[2:28:09] talk. He's our secret go to Guy and ask him to give a read with Guy Mr. Cooper's

[2:28:16] comments is what our finding statement says. I'm sure it's pretty relatively straightforward

[2:28:20] think for Mr. Sure talk to you Marie on the issue. Get back to this board for next month.

[2:28:25] Okay. Let me ask the rest of it. Is there consensus?

[2:28:31] Okay, let's just write on here's an anonymous consensus by the planning commission to direct you to reach out to Mr. Chair Talk to get some some feedback.

[2:28:40] He's been busy mad after this.

[2:28:42] That sounds good.

[2:28:46] And that's a good idea.

[2:28:49] Okay, initial questions by the planning commission to the applicant's planning department,

[2:28:55] It's a little deterrenty and a care app.

[2:28:58] No questions.

[2:28:59] Any other questions?

[2:29:00] No.

[2:29:03] No.

[2:29:03] All right.

[2:29:05] Here.

[2:29:06] No.

[2:29:08] No.

[2:29:09] All right.

[2:29:12] All right.

[2:29:14] Okay.

[2:29:14] So Peter, a care app.

[2:29:16] I do have a question.

[2:29:18] In the planning comment section,

[2:29:21] we're referring to a care app member of January 14.

[2:29:25] So, the planning comment section, section C,

[2:29:32] planning commission must make a finding regarding

[2:29:35] the potential significance of the project's impacts on cultural resources.

[2:29:40] I think that's what you were talking about before.

[2:29:43] I'd circle as a question hoping you could expand on that.

[2:29:48] Sure, well, ship.

[2:30:00] Register of Historic Places.

[2:30:04] The applicant proposes to demolish those structures. And this is similar to other applications

[2:30:14] that have been before this commission. Where should both as determine that structures are eligible for

[2:30:19] listing on the state national register, applicants proposed to demolish the commission as part of its

[2:30:26] figure of finding statement or in this case, this would be their negative declaration or

[2:30:33] positive declaration, needs to determine whether that impact, that demolition is significant.

[2:30:40] And so in most cases, right, where there is not a significant impact, a negative declaration

[2:30:47] is issued, and seekers concluded, if the commission finds there's a positive, that there

[2:30:54] potential for a significant adverse impact, then you have to go to an EIS. That's what the

[2:31:00] trigger is the EIS. So what the Commission has to do is make a finding regarding the significance.

[2:31:07] In this case, you have an agency like Shippo that's a decent amount about this stuff. But also has an

[2:31:16] institutional mandate for his door preservation. So in some instances, this Commission has said,

[2:31:22] We get it. There's an impact to a historic resource, but we don't think it's a significant adverse

[2:31:30] environmental impact.

[2:31:34] And we can move forward with the neck deck. And so that's simply what

[2:31:37] this has, what the Commission asks to do, like it has done in other applications before,

[2:31:45] where, you know, say on Main Street, where it was in what chipote considers to be a national register

[2:31:51] are eligible in the historic district and folks.

[2:31:55] And that goes to where my question was, because in some of the other instances, the buildings

[2:32:02] were old, but we got additional materials that showed that the cost of rehabbing, the building

[2:32:10] was exorbitant, and there were other factors that we couldn't consideration to say, no, this

[2:32:16] is the path we should proceed.

[2:32:18] So we had a way of evaluating, yes, that's significance.

[2:32:23] Here, it's not an old residential building.

[2:32:29] It's a former church.

[2:32:32] So, what's the guideline?

[2:32:34] What's the checklist to evaluate that?

[2:32:37] So I can get back to it a little bit of that.

[2:32:40] It's fuzzy, right?

[2:32:42] Because, this is like art.

[2:32:45] Well, because mitigation,

[2:32:46] right and kind of alternatives don't actually necessarily come into whether it's

[2:32:52] significant or not. It helps you determine it, but you can make it the

[2:32:55] termination of significance even if you don't know much about the alternatives.

[2:33:01] Right, so I'm sorry. I'm dropping in only because I don't think that's correct,

[2:33:06] either, respectively. Okay, which part? I get paid by the word.

[2:33:12] I get paid to not engage in EIS is where it's not legally necessary.

[2:33:20] So that's why I'm jumping in.

[2:33:23] From a ship-o historic perspective,

[2:33:26] ship-o will not only determine whether there's a significant average impact,

[2:33:30] but whether or not the mitigation measures are proposed or adequate.

[2:33:33] That, for package based on your finding statement in this village,

[2:33:37] is what the planning commission would base its determination

[2:33:40] of significant sort. If not just going to look at, well, are these buildings potentially eligible

[2:33:45] and is there an impact to potential impact, I can say, pause debt, now let's see what's

[2:33:50] going to be announced.

[2:33:52] No, no, no, and I don't think that's actually what I said. What I said is, sir. That's okay.

[2:33:56] What I said was the commission needs to determine the significance of that impact. Shippo will

[2:34:02] Shippo has an institutional mandate for historic preservation. It said that large portions

[2:34:07] of your downtown are eligible for a historic district right and so it considers demolition

[2:34:13] of those buildings to be an adverse impact and the commission and the zoning has approved

[2:34:20] developments in those places. This is a very similar set of circumstances just different

[2:34:28] types of buildings and so I don't think there's anyone who's trying to argue that that's

[2:34:35] different set of circumstances, so ship was already said this is an adverse impact. They've

[2:34:40] already said that and that's why they've asked for alternatives. There might be nothing

[2:34:44] you can do about it and ship was going to say, okay, there's nothing you can do about it.

[2:34:48] We're bound to review this under the State Historic Preservation Act. We've got to go through

[2:34:52] these steps. You have a different role of saying, is this a significant adverse impact? And

[2:34:57] you can conclude that before you even get all of that information from shipboat. It helps

[2:35:04] to have some of it. They are the subject matter experts and sometimes it's important to

[2:35:09] know whether there is any potential for reuse. That sometimes does help you determine whether

[2:35:15] it's a significant adverse impact, but you don't need all of that information in order to

[2:35:21] get there.

[2:35:24] You have to describe it in my piece of New York State's financing.

[2:35:28] I'll deal with that change in the other one of them.

[2:35:30] They don't have a guideline that you're talking about.

[2:35:32] No, you have parallel tracks, right?

[2:35:35] Shippo gets involved in two or three ways, right?

[2:35:40] They get involved as an agency that it's a subject matter expert.

[2:35:43] So we contact them because they're interested in these things.

[2:35:47] Then they can get involved when they're state funding.

[2:35:50] and there's a state historic preservation act, they got rules, they got a follow.

[2:35:54] They could get involved if there's federal funding, and there's rules they have to follow.

[2:35:59] And so all of those things kind of conflate.

[2:36:03] And so we kind of run through the processes kind of together.

[2:36:08] But from a, from a, from a secret perspective, they're going to tell you what they think.

[2:36:12] And they did. They already said, we think these buildings have some historical significance.

[2:36:16] Okay, great. We think they're eligible for the state national register of places, and if you demolish that

[2:36:22] You know, that's an adverse impact to those resources. Oh, okay. Is it a significant adverse impact?

[2:36:29] And Mr. Cooper's right, the

[2:36:32] the finding statement for the

[2:36:34] Form-based code does talk about this and it says you got to look at it

[2:36:38] kind of on a on a site specific basis, but it also

[2:36:41] says and kind of presupposes throughout that there might be impacts to historic resources from redevelopment

[2:36:48] It this isn't something that was not anticipated by the rezoning and we see this most often down town

[2:36:55] But we see another places to the code

[2:36:59] Recognizes this

[2:37:00] It also the final state bill also says ship. I was supposed to give you guidance although I guess it's not necessary that they have to

[2:37:07] on what

[2:37:09] Mitigation measures if any would be appropriate

[2:37:12] to avoid that significant impact.

[2:37:14] So that's what I was jumping in on it to say,

[2:37:16] look, if the commission is to say,

[2:37:19] we think these buildings are significant historic resources.

[2:37:23] The inquiry doesn't...

[2:37:30] The next question is okay. Well, what measures are you proposing to incorporate into your project to ensure that those impacts are mitigated?

[2:37:40] So to that, I'm setting that forth to the commission, is look, we've been the applicants have been dealing primarily with ship-o, because of the state funding application.

[2:37:50] But if this commission is saying, hey, we'd like to see XY and Z study or whatever may be. Now's a good time to let us know so that we can provide that to you as well as ship-mo.

[2:37:59] Well, I think it would be very good while we have access to it.

[2:38:03] I think it would be very good to submit that information to the Commission because

[2:38:09] that website is not the easiest to navigate.

[2:38:13] And it's actually not always available.

[2:38:15] If you're not the right consulting party tied in with the right email,

[2:38:19] if you didn't get the token, we all know this is a very complicated website.

[2:38:23] If you could send us those, I think that would go a long way.

[2:38:25] We received other documentation like that for other projects

[2:38:30] who are trying to remember the name of it.

[2:38:34] We've got to put that with the help and another one

[2:38:36] that was one of your clients, but I'm

[2:38:38] thinking of one that was actually approved recently.

[2:38:41] So I think that would be the be helpful.

[2:38:44] And I'm in a way shape or form suggesting

[2:38:47] when I'll come on that deterministic.

[2:38:49] Right.

[2:38:50] I think about the perhaps current, the timeline, or, I mean, if not tonight,

[2:38:59] but went, because

[2:39:00] we have a full planning commission now, so when would we, all right, sooner than later,

[2:39:05] I'm sure to at least communicate to a caref or to you that the majority of the planning

[2:39:13] commission believes that there is something more to try to get the right language, a potential

[2:39:21] significance on the project's impacts on cultural resources, so when, you know, the time

[2:39:27] for the majority to express that to begin kicking the tire and walking down that path.

[2:39:34] Yes, and I think that it is ongoing to a great extent between the applicant and Shippo.

[2:39:41] My understanding is that there was, or at least according to Shippo's agent, I spoke with,

[2:39:48] that there has been some discussion about preservation of a portion of the church.

[2:39:53] Now, again, I think we all understand that this plan is based upon a full redevelopment.

[2:39:59] This is a prior application. We provided some initial direction in terms of concept water concept 2 and it was on a very high level.

[2:40:07] And now we begin the discussion down that path.

[2:40:11] So it sounds like, from what Peter was just depressing that the planning commission should

[2:40:16] express on how our thoughts are on the potential significant I'm using as words here.

[2:40:25] The potential significance of the projects impacts on the cultural resources.

[2:40:29] We should provide some indication on a consensus on that.

[2:40:34] Yes.

[2:40:34] And I was just a long lines of what Peter just mentioned that if the commission can be made

[2:40:42] aware of all the correspondence between Shippo and the project team, that that would

[2:40:49] help at least emphasize or underscore the certain comments that Shippo may or may not have

[2:40:59] It was, again, noted as I think it's very clean to see that unlike some other properties

[2:41:08] that may be eligible, first of all, these buildings, of course, have been deemed eligible.

[2:41:14] They've been spoken, either in another tense, during this conversation about, you know,

[2:41:18] they'll investigate it, but no, I mean, they've made that decision and so with that, if you

[2:41:27] clear that these structures were the congregation took very good care of the structures until

[2:41:35] about 2017, as best as I can figure that services stop there.

[2:41:43] But it's the site, I can't tell that any maintenance has been done whatsoever since around

[2:41:51] the time of this application and our project team has stated that they're not in charge

[2:41:56] to the property that are contract-fandee. I get that. But even with what appears to be absolutely

[2:42:04] no maintenance, the structure is still appear to be sound. Ship will believe there are very

[2:42:09] sound. And if anything, it's just been a lack of maintenance in terms of your work and

[2:42:16] overgrowth onto the sidewalk and some trash accumulating.

[2:42:21] But these buildings were very well-maintained

[2:42:26] And the issue, the historic quality of the building, not whether or not it's being maintained.

[2:42:33] I don't know about the maintenance.

[2:42:36] Again, it's contract-friendly.

[2:42:38] We don't have control over the site to maintain it.

[2:42:40] So when it's been maintained or not, when it's been maintained or not,

[2:42:43] I can't speak to that.

[2:42:45] But the issue, I think the Commission is asking is,

[2:42:49] well, if we are deeming these buildings to be some sort of cultural resource to build.

[2:42:55] What's that characteristic?

[2:42:57] Right, not whether or not they've been maintained or not.

[2:43:01] Right, we're talking about a church, which hasn't been used in,

[2:43:06] I think, I think, since 2017, it was a very earliest,

[2:43:10] Relatist.

[2:43:12] But what cultural resource does this building provide to the village?

[2:43:18] Right, that's the question.

[2:43:21] What is it look like from the inside of this coin?

[2:43:23] Well, I'm a leader, do you, where you're about to jump in?

[2:43:26] No, I was going to say, we can similar to the other request that you've made

[2:43:34] right of Mark and other folks.

[2:43:36] And we can provide some of that information to you as to kind of

[2:43:41] exactly what Mr. Cooper's saying, kind of what, what are the, what are the

[2:43:45] bases on which you make these decisions and what has Shippo said and what

[2:43:49] have use it. Because again, it does have to do with the significance of the impact, right?

[2:43:55] Just because there is an impact, doesn't make it a significant adverse impact, which you guys

[2:44:01] know, because you issue negative debts, right? So I think we can help provide some of that information

[2:44:08] to you. That information is provided to us. We could read it between now and next meeting.

[2:44:14] Yes.

[2:44:14] Perhaps at next meeting we'd be able to come to your conclusion one way or another or

[2:44:19] please provide some direction to the applicant and to the planning department on the

[2:44:22] Commission's thoughts.

[2:44:26] So Peter, if you could provide us.

[2:44:28] Okay.

[2:44:28] All right.

[2:44:29] That was when you actually covered one of the follow-ups.

[2:44:35] Oh, one last question.

[2:44:37] The range of on-screen parking, I know we talked about.

[2:44:41] Mr. Serena is going to follow up this great.

[2:44:43] But the range of parking on street parking that's affected,

[2:44:48] is it will it up to Highland,

[2:44:51] like how far up is actually if the lane is still there,

[2:44:56] perhaps a little bit.

[2:45:00] Coming up to Highland, there's going beyond Highland.

[2:45:20] Okay, so it's just Amidroth plays that surrounds the castle and up will it, but not quite, not necessarily not past Highland.

[2:45:29] correct. It was 500 feet from walking distance from the entrance with the scope of the study

[2:45:37] based on the GMC and the ACRF's discussions.

[2:45:40] Okay, I just wanted to refine in my mind what what streets exactly are you talking about? We're not going

[2:45:48] beyond Highland, we're not going upper down Highland, we're not going up will it past Highland, it's just

[2:45:53] that section of streets. Okay, that's it for me then. So, Kurt next steps.

[2:46:01] Yes, I go those items to be addressed. I mean, I'm not going to take the time to summarize them,

[2:46:07] but they have to do with correspondence from shipovers, as well as responding to any open

[2:46:13] comments from work consultant, take your F.

[2:46:19] Okay. And this is sorry, you've got to follow up as well.

[2:46:23] Okay then, so we'll agree, we'll leave the better in public meaning stage and we're going to read and continue the conversation next month.

[2:46:35] You're not going to ask me for if I can invite anything else up on that.

[2:46:40] I'm joking. I'm joking.

[2:46:42] I'm joking.

[2:46:43] I'm joking.

[2:46:44] I'm joking.

[2:46:47] Okay, thank you very much.

[2:46:50] Thank you.

[2:47:06] Okay, next item on the agenda, case 2021-0220, a continued public meeting on 141-50 Westchester Avenue.

[2:47:52] Good evening. Good evening.

[2:47:56] Good evening.

[2:47:58] for the cutting of air. I'm joined by Pierre Sarasin and my colleague, Dan Patrick's here.

[2:48:02] I'm not wrong. Nick Williams is here.

[2:48:05] Since we last appeared before you, we did have the opportunity to appear before the DRC.

[2:48:10] It was largely uneventful, meaning not much information we shared back before.

[2:48:17] We did do a presentation.

[2:48:19] We did receive recently the comments from EKRF, which are

[2:48:28] and address all of these comments very, very quickly.

[2:48:32] We, the Icarre for memorandum, does know however that this application does require

[2:48:36] variances.

[2:48:38] We would ask this evening for you to refer us to these OV Board of Appeals so we can

[2:48:43] commence that process.

[2:48:45] We would like to start that process while the board does evaluate the secret impacts of

[2:48:49] this application as you're aware.

[2:48:51] We'd like to do that simultaneously as you're aware.

[2:48:53] This commission does need to adopt a determination of significance before we can complete the ZBA process.

[2:49:02] And effectively, that's where we are at this point.

[2:49:06] Thank you.

[2:49:10] Kurt Plane Department.

[2:49:11] Sure.

[2:49:12] So the first thing is that this afternoon, from the Westchester County Department of Planning and Planning Board,

[2:49:17] we received their comments, as a matter of course.

[2:49:20] They're going to rather than get into that now, just know that it has been sent to

[2:49:25] each of you as commissioners.

[2:49:27] And we would request the copy.

[2:49:28] Yes.

[2:49:29] I can do that for sure.

[2:49:30] And then both parties can take a look at those comments from the county and we'll have that.

[2:49:40] As far as the termination of significance, we'll, I mean, obviously we can conduct coordinated

[2:49:47] the reviews, especially in situations like this. I'm not sure if I fully understood the opening

[2:49:55] statement about a determination of significant needed now before the zoning board of appeals.

[2:50:03] So, the zoning board of appeals can't take action until this board adopts the negative declaration.

[2:50:10] Right. And the board of this board has declared itself to be lead agency and circulated

[2:50:13] that in time. We do need a determination of significance, and that deck to be adopted before the zoning

[2:50:19] of appeals can take action before they can take action. I would agree with that.

[2:50:23] However, I don't think that, and I think this is reminiscent of other applications,

[2:50:30] but the concurrence of those R-sake review, as was just mentioned, continuing,

[2:50:37] and the LZVAs proceeding, I think, can run concurrent. So again, if there is a sort of legal

[2:50:46] principle that I'm missing then I can discuss it with the bill attorney after the meeting.

[2:50:52] All about that has came and refreshed my memory because I'm trying to remember the sequence of events in terms of

[2:50:57] but that could have been under the old code where we sent stuff off to ZBA and then we would do the

[2:51:03] neglect and the approval of the same night at the very end of the process but that was the old code.

[2:51:16] So maybe

[2:51:16] have we done a notice of intent? Yes we have. Would the zoning board? It was done

[2:51:23] circulated in November. So the board acted to circulate in the zoning board as

[2:51:30] that was planned. No, but there was nothing to my knowledge in it that identified

[2:51:37] the zoning board of appeals as in the well-dagency. The application identified

[2:51:42] deficiencies, so they should have been notwithstanding if that needs to be re-referred.

[2:51:47] That can certainly be done, or that could be circulated again, notwithstanding we do

[2:51:52] need a variance, so you can circulate to the extent that it hasn't been done to the

[2:51:57] disowning board appeals to this board. I'm confident it's going to be acting as lead agent,

[2:52:02] and we would ask for referrals so that we can commence the process in review before

[2:52:05] the disowning board appeals. I can curb it all three points. The main major job is we certainly

[2:52:09] can also suspenders, make their referral again, they have 30 days to respond, you have

[2:52:15] to get in their calendar anyway.

[2:52:17] So what we need to do is, in the reason I'm asking for referrals, we need to make application

[2:52:22] to the sort of...

[2:52:30] We can't do that until this board makes that patrol because no special permanence required. So we're just trying to move the application.

[2:52:37] I'll show you. Sure.

[2:52:39] So just to jump in just so that everyone else will have their opportunity for questions.

[2:52:45] We just clarify the current perhaps, the variances that are going to be sawed by the ZVH.

[2:52:52] So that way we know what we're referring, so I can do something like that.

[2:52:55] Yes, so if you refer to page 2 of the January 14th memorandum, there's the number with of the

[2:53:02] curb cuts proposed to see the number provided in section 405.n.1.i.v and security gates for the

[2:53:10] garage and loading and just do not occur to me through requirements of section 405.n.d.2v.

[2:53:17] We are looking at that.

[2:53:18] We're looking to see if to the extent that we can make some modifications in the interim.

[2:53:21] Those are the variants that have been identified.

[2:53:23] But you said, page two of the January 14th memorandum here.

[2:53:31] There's only three pages.

[2:53:34] It made me say, I don't for it.

[2:53:35] I don't for it.

[2:53:37] I don't want to refer to it.

[2:53:38] I don't want to come.

[2:53:40] Oh, yes, I don't for it.

[2:53:41] So, on January 14th memorandum page two,

[2:53:45] number four, planning comments,

[2:53:47] be general zoning compliance.

[2:53:49] There you go.

[2:53:51] Those two bullet points.

[2:53:55] We're going to get to that referral in a moment after some questions, Kurt, did you have anything else from for your update?

[2:54:07] And I'm at this time.

[2:54:09] Mr. Strav, just one point.

[2:54:10] I believe Mr. The applicant is also making a request on the Board of Trustees for some action perhaps.

[2:54:16] So we did submit, and we are being placed on the January 24th Board of Trustees agenda for the

[2:54:23] Pocker Park, the improvements that extend beyond, again, as we've indicated to you.

[2:54:28] We don't require that, that's not part of this development.

[2:54:31] However, we think it's a nice remedy. It's consistent with the intent of the code and some of the strategic planning initiatives

[2:54:37] and the village competence plant, so we are before the board in that on the January 24th.

[2:54:44] Additionally, there is access to a portion of the site over that village lot that has not been

[2:54:51] required of the owner of that parcel or any applicants that currently utilize access over that

[2:54:58] lot.

[2:54:59] We don't believe that we need from the board trustees to the extent that we do.

[2:55:02] We requested that and we are before the time of January 24th.

[2:55:07] So Mr. Sharp, who would have been prudent for this board to also circulate?

[2:55:11] And there was the intensive Board of Trustees as well.

[2:55:13] Did you accept that hasn't been done previously?

[2:55:15] I'm just trying to cover all the bad guys.

[2:55:16] I'm with you. Thank you very much.

[2:55:20] Peter, take care of?

[2:55:24] Yeah, I mean, I think the big zoning issue and it's also a traffic issue and a site circulation

[2:55:30] and site layout issue is the number of driveways, which we've talked about.

[2:55:38] So, I think really that's kind of one of the biggest issues is the planning commissions

[2:55:47] thoughts about that as it relates to traffic circulation and slightly out.

[2:55:54] That's, I think, again, the biggest comment that I had, and I'll turn it over to the

[2:56:01] and just okay. The link.

[2:57:39] Thank you all, Lynn.

[2:59:04] Thank you, Justin.

[2:59:08] Mr. Chairman, there also was a last week.

[2:59:12] The State Environmental Conservation Department sent a notice to me.

[2:59:19] It is a D.C. invites public comment about round-filled applications per site in Worcester,

[2:59:24] Redmond, and Portchester, round-filled application.

[2:59:27] I don't know if that necessarily means it comes from our applicant.

[2:59:32] The site is located at 140 Westchester and 148-150 Westchester and pertains to the grand union hotel bowling alley site.

[2:59:50] So that's so common, certainly submitted by February 11th, 2022.

[2:59:57] I don't know enough exactly about how these...

[3:00:01] Those, either owning or controlling the site or whether they are, or whether it's not exactly like it sounds and it's something that they initiate on their own as the department. So I'm not sure. But that's that's ongoing in conjunction with the application.

[3:00:18] So my understanding is the applicant did submit an application for ground to enter the Brownville cleanup program. You have to be accepted by the DEC.

[3:00:27] In addition, they provided this commission a phase one and phase two environmental site assessment.

[3:00:34] Those are, for those that don't know phase one, these are standard environmental site assessments.

[3:00:40] The phase one is documentary research.

[3:00:44] You take a look at the site, you take a look, you do a lot of documentary research.

[3:00:49] And you figure out if there are concerns that might need to be addressed in terms of subsurface conditions.

[3:00:55] Phase two is we identified some concerns so now we're going to go into the ground. We're going to take some samples and we're going to figure out what's what's there

[3:01:03] And this isn't you know, we don't Swiss cheese the site. We look at what was in the phase one. And we say let's identify and address those and pretty standard for urban redevelopments

[3:01:14] For previously used it's very standard. They submitted that information. We're still going through it

[3:01:20] We know that they submitted an application of the Brownfield cleanup program one of the items in our memo was please

[3:01:25] of data on the stands of that application, and it sounds like the DEC started to beat us

[3:01:31] to it a little bit, but it would be nice to know where that application stands with that

[3:01:38] clean up.

[3:01:40] So, just a couple of interesting and a couple of comments that were raised.

[3:01:44] It doesn't really need to be easy when we respect our request copies of that correspondence.

[3:01:48] We will respond to the comments that were just indicated as well as everything else that's in this

[3:01:57] We are going to be relocating that, so we'll be in the public right away so that we

[3:02:02] update that you will see going forward.

[3:02:05] Obviously, we are going to be looking at the other things that we can do in order to improve

[3:02:09] this application anyway that we can, and we will be addressing any comments that you

[3:02:14] do have this evening and I'll start going forward.

[3:02:17] Okay, thank you.

[3:02:18] So before we get to the zoning referral, let's do general questions.

[3:02:24] Let's go over here.

[3:02:25] All you have to do is the applicant playing the department for a care of.

[3:02:31] No.

[3:02:31] Okay.

[3:02:31] General, right now.

[3:02:34] Just go back.

[3:02:39] No.

[3:02:40] I need for the ZVA acts.

[3:02:42] Yeah.

[3:02:43] I think Mr. Redo worked that out with the applicant and with the care of

[3:02:48] So you declared yourself to be lead agency in the past that lead agency was circulated.

[3:02:53] It may not have gone to the Zoning Board of Appeals.

[3:02:56] So Bell and Suspender says, re-circulate it.

[3:02:59] If you've done it already, so if you're going to be re-circulated,

[3:03:02] and we're asking for you to refer the application to the ZVA,

[3:03:04] so we can start that process.

[3:03:07] We have simultaneous, we would like to continue processing before your commission.

[3:03:11] We cannot, the Zoning Board cannot take the determination,

[3:03:14] they cannot take final action until a secret determination

[3:03:17] So we'll be assumption that you will not be able to start there with you and I'll see you later.

[3:03:28] Okay.

[3:03:31] Yeah?

[3:03:32] That's twice as much.

[3:03:33] I think it's a record for you.

[3:03:36] That's fine.

[3:03:38] Slow and down.

[3:03:42] Matt, you're sorry?

[3:03:43] You're good?

[3:03:44] Yeah.

[3:03:44] Okay.

[3:03:46] Right, so my questions were on I sell and I'd be these variances.

[3:03:57] So if you could provide us with a little rationale as to why just give us a little more

[3:04:06] flavor as to why you think it's a good idea for us for the planning commission, not only

[3:04:12] to refer to a degree, or disagree, give us a little more flavor as to why you think

[3:04:18] her is an idea for these variances.

[3:04:20] First, we have absolutely, ever, ever, ever in order to request the variance.

[3:04:27] That said, there will be a rationale that we will provide to the Zoning Board of Appeals,

[3:04:32] which is going to be different that, based upon their state mandated analysis, they

[3:04:37] have to weigh the benefits of the applicant and granting the variance, wait against the

[3:04:40] to help safety and welfare of the community. There are five factors that they look at and

[3:04:44] do in that balancing analysis, which is different in the review that the commission does

[3:04:48] as it relates to the site planning requirements, secret impacts. So, I want to state that

[3:04:55] the outset. We are evaluating it to the extent any way that we can alleviate or eliminate

[3:05:01] variances, but we do have the determinations made that variances are required with what's

[3:05:06] for you and we're asking for that referral to be done as we continue to work with AKRF as it relates

[3:05:12] to some of the traffic issues and we are examining some of the modifications that can be done

[3:05:18] to the building in the inter. Hopefully we can eliminate or less than some of those variances,

[3:05:23] but carefms. I think my only comment was that just keep in mind that this loading area is not

[3:05:34] So this current cut is something we think and we're hoping that it's being evaluated

[3:05:41] in a perfect case by case basis.

[3:05:44] And then this makes it better for the reason to take still the power of the public areas.

[3:05:51] So I think we like this current cut.

[3:05:55] I think it makes it a better project.

[3:05:56] It makes it a better building.

[3:05:58] And that curve cuts on what street?

[3:05:59] This one's not a new grocery.

[3:06:02] I just want to make sure I know what I'm looking at.

[3:06:04] I didn't depart from here.

[3:06:05] I haven't seen the parking lot.

[3:06:06] It isn't a parking lot.

[3:06:14] It's a unique side.

[3:06:15] I mean, you can see it's a, it's a, it's a challenging side.

[3:06:22] But you're working, you're working, you're working as far as, you know, this is where it's going.

[3:06:28] And this occurred on some grocery.

[3:06:31] Now I know there were comments from the aircraft about, you know,

[3:06:34] close to that intersection, you've done everything possible to try and keep it in the way of the intersection.

[3:06:40] There's an existing group that there right now.

[3:06:42] There's an existing group that right here.

[3:06:45] We are exploring other ways of making this work.

[3:06:51] Not telling you anymore, but we're doing everything else.

[3:06:56] We'll look at the feasibility of it until we can determine that it works.

[3:07:00] You can't present anything at this point.

[3:07:03] So, one of the variances that's being requested is to have the additional curb cut on north-brud.

[3:07:09] There's only the coat allows only one curb cut per lot, per lot, per lot.

[3:07:16] Okay.

[3:07:16] And you have three?

[3:07:18] Four.

[3:07:19] Okay.

[3:07:20] I'm sorry.

[3:07:21] One one's loading.

[3:07:22] Let's get rid of the application.

[3:07:25] Oh, how are you going to do loading on the street?

[3:07:30] This is a benefit. Should two on new broad.

[3:08:10] on the previous application not 141.50.

[3:08:15] The emergency room.

[3:08:17] Yes.

[3:08:18] How many current can we love in the dark?

[3:08:21] You had your entrance in that particular room in that area.

[3:08:24] You had entrance to the parking in the trash back there.

[3:08:28] Yes.

[3:08:29] One of those existing cuts.

[3:08:31] There's a system of the corrupt.

[3:08:33] You utilized that.

[3:08:36] That's the same location that you don't know the same dimension or it might be, I'm just saying it's very close.

[3:08:44] And again, this code has the improvements in the old code.

[3:08:47] Because that 140 application was approved on the old code.

[3:08:51] It works fine.

[3:08:53] But anyways, what's wrong?

[3:08:55] What's wrong?

[3:08:56] Eight months or so.

[3:08:58] And you have two parts on that.

[3:08:59] This is misleading.

[3:09:01] This is shot in the lower level here.

[3:09:04] Oh, it should be honest.

[3:09:07] I had that same question, look at that.

[3:09:11] Let's see.

[3:09:11] Let's see what we're talking about here.

[3:09:13] That's lovely.

[3:09:14] So he's only one here.

[3:09:16] There's this below in space.

[3:09:18] Correct.

[3:09:20] That's two.

[3:09:22] Two.

[3:09:23] What is that yellow thing in the front there?

[3:09:25] Right there.

[3:09:26] That's probably a generator.

[3:09:28] Maybe a transformer.

[3:09:31] When you build a little key debt, take this to our hands and make just one, be

[3:09:35] hurt cut and just lie inside.

[3:09:40] There's also a width.

[3:09:42] Maximum width.

[3:09:45] Right.

[3:09:45] 10 feet.

[3:09:46] No, I think it a little more here.

[3:09:50] But those the issues that were okay with the new code and with the applications, we're

[3:09:54] finding things that, I think the code.

[3:09:58] Well, I think one of the biggest problems with the code is limiting a one-curcut to an entire lot it just makes no sense whatsoever

[3:10:08] Okay, so the all you have you you have hoped there because as I stayed earlier the board of trustees kind of opened the door to say that it's not a completely big problem

[3:10:18] So if you this is that when they adopt it the code

[3:10:20] Yeah, so if you raise that issue and

[3:10:25] taking on the thing, you know, that might be a very unreasonable demand. So, you know,

[3:10:31] not as remember the commission, but just as or the board of observation, you know,

[3:10:38] steps, your thoughts and see if you can get a clue from the picture on that.

[3:10:43] So the benefit, the benefit, the benefit of the angel. I mean, we're here to facilitate this, you know,

[3:10:49] development and just here. No, I believe that every time I get the board of trustees,

[3:10:55] they adopted to recognize that there were going to be things that came up.

[3:10:58] They've already made changes to the code.

[3:11:00] They're contemplating, you know, is there a public hearing?

[3:11:02] They have just completed one.

[3:11:04] They have a UIC and Lair in the agenda.

[3:11:06] They're at, you know, you're going to be considering providing a recommendation on another.

[3:11:10] There are, there are, the Board of Trustees is keeping a list of the things that they are going

[3:11:14] to do.

[3:11:15] I know they asked Mr. Forrom, Mr. Lavala for, for there.

[3:11:18] But I don't know, things that need to change.

[3:11:19] Mr. Lavala, most of all, have conversations all the time.

[3:11:23] what's going on? There's a way and we'd we'd we'd question to this doesn't seem to make any sense.

[3:11:27] We give care input every week if we could just go to the second variance.

[3:11:33] Please thank you.

[3:11:34] So the second variance.

[3:11:38] So there's a section of code that says that you're going to have a gate or an over-end door and that's

[3:11:45] So, for example, in this area here is set by the gate 20, it really gives you the basics.

[3:11:57] Same thing with the lovely area, we need to probably keep it open during the day.

[3:12:30] So maybe that's a nice, so much of a concern, but definitely in the slower level of

[3:12:32] the entire entire world. So it's whether it's virtually still a bit of a week, we have

[3:12:36] two minutes, but here you've got too much, really. I mean, that would suggest, in a

[3:12:42] course, you know what you want. I would suggest that you run this through AKRF, especially the

[3:12:48] Pearl Street one, before going to zoning. This is a work of progress, and we're in

[3:12:55] constant contact with them and trying to work out some musicians we have designed. We'd

[3:12:59] to at least get the referrals in the interim, the plan may change and the plans often do change.

[3:13:06] This way, if we have the referral, we can start to prepare our zoning board of appeals

[3:13:09] applications.

[3:13:10] There's a time frame and a lead time before we can get to the zoning board of appeals and that's

[3:13:14] what we're asking for the referral.

[3:13:18] If the zoning board of appeals doesn't like it, or if it does change, or if it's a lesson,

[3:13:23] there's any over here, or if it doesn't like it, the nail will make a recommendation

[3:13:28] of the board of Peals, which is the agency that make the determination.

[3:13:35] Okay.

[3:13:36] So, any other questions before we get into the referral of variants of this by anybody?

[3:13:41] No.

[3:13:42] You said that.

[3:13:45] Certainly back to Pearl Street, and the two curb cuts.

[3:13:48] You look, you consider that an internal ramp, but that's not going to work for you.

[3:13:52] That was you said not yet.

[3:14:10] So we're looking at everything at this point to see what we can do.

[3:14:14] We haven't been able to finalize anything.

[3:14:17] Should we get what we're going with this?

[3:14:19] All right.

[3:14:20] So then on that question, if you don't hypothetically, if you don't get the variance for the curb cuts on Perl, what

[3:14:41] does that space could be used for?

[3:14:44] I can't do that.

[3:14:45] I can't have any mail on this radio.

[3:14:48] Yes, I can't have any radio.

[3:14:48] Yes, I can have any radio.

[3:14:49] Yes, I can have any radio.

[3:14:50] So, one another, one is there.

[3:15:42] If you didn't have that second curb cut on Pearl, what if you only got one on Pearl? How would you?

[3:15:49] We had one on the floor and one on the floor and still we were.

[3:15:59] I'm just addressing the question.

[3:16:02] What's your then deal?

[3:16:03] So regardless, you still have one.

[3:16:06] Well, I said that again.

[3:16:08] The deal is going to sit very soon.

[3:16:14] Right.

[3:16:17] We're going to die as well.

[3:16:19] Yeah.

[3:16:20] You'll be at least two.

[3:16:36] Yeah, I think that's the way the code doesn't differentiate between the CD3 district and the CD6 district.

[3:16:47] Okay, so

[3:16:52] let me ask for a motion to refer, hold on a second.

[3:16:59] Let's do one, yeah, in order to re-circulate the notice of intent for 141-50,

[3:17:06] Westchester Avenue,

[3:17:09] to the Zoning Board, to declare late agency.

[3:17:13] And the BOT.

[3:17:15] And the BOT.

[3:17:16] Oh, all agencies.

[3:17:18] All agencies.

[3:17:19] We have to understand, everyone plus ZBA and Board of Trustees.

[3:17:24] Yes.

[3:17:24] OK.

[3:17:24] So that's the motion.

[3:17:27] Sir, sir.

[3:17:28] So thank you.

[3:17:30] Jerry, is there a second?

[3:17:32] Thank you, Julia.

[3:17:34] Connie, when you're ready?

[3:17:35] Yes.

[3:17:35] That is.

[3:17:36] Can you marry us?

[3:17:38] Yes.

[3:17:39] Yes.

[3:17:41] Yes.

[3:17:44] Okay, so that's not a result of intent.

[3:17:49] Next is the referral for the variances to the ZBA.

[3:17:52] You can generalize that.

[3:17:54] That's all for the couple of variances that may be required.

[3:17:58] So next is a motion to refer 141-50 waschester Avenue, case 2021,

[3:18:05] 1, 0, 2, 2, 0, 2, 0, 2, the ZBA for all variants since requested.

[3:18:17] Look, all applicable variants.

[3:18:18] This is a maybe required.

[3:18:19] And I'd maybe need required.

[3:18:23] At least it'll be.

[3:18:25] But we're going to discuss the motion.

[3:18:26] But I at least want to get the first in the second.

[3:18:32] Thank you, Jerry.

[3:18:33] Sir, second.

[3:18:37] Okay, Julianne.

[3:18:38] Discussion on the motion.

[3:18:39] So what do you guys think of this motion?

[3:18:42] I don't like to hear something wrong.

[3:18:45] I have to admit that to the extent that our form-based code only allows one point of access

[3:18:54] for a lot.

[3:18:57] I can see that that type of one size fits all standard.

[3:19:02] We would not work well till the twide and I can see without saying more.

[3:19:09] I mean, I can see a rationale for a proper argument being made for the CBA to consider.

[3:19:19] Any other thoughts before I jump in on discussion on the motion?

[3:19:24] And just concerned about proletory, would it's the future holds for immunolid development

[3:19:32] stuff in the world around that malaria, which we all know proletory is mayhem as it is right

[3:19:38] now, it's no bill.

[3:19:41] Okay, I'm just not sure how I'll have it true.

[3:19:45] Andrew.

[3:19:45] Andrew?

[3:19:45] Yes, sir.

[3:19:46] And again, is Mr. Serz in?

[3:19:48] Okay.

[3:19:48] We're looking at potential options in order to lessen the number of variants, or the extent

[3:19:52] of the variants.

[3:19:53] And to the extent that you have the feeling is this commission has done before, you've given

[3:19:58] recommendations to the zone where you even know they look at this for a completely

[3:20:03] different perspective with their analysis.

[3:20:05] Yeah, current, that's what I'm going to say.

[3:20:06] This is a procedural referral.

[3:20:08] While we are grading and refer it, I think planning commission would also want to send an advisory

[3:20:15] memo, whether it be baked into this motion or because we have done that in the past, where

[3:20:20] we will find on each specific variance to reflect where the consensus is on the planning

[3:20:27] commission for each specific variance. So, in this case, we may have some thoughts on

[3:20:32] the first one, but we may be unanimous on the second one, just as a hypothetical example.

[3:20:40] Yeah, I'm not sure that the variance is to be requested of the ZBA, or is that entirely clear tonight?

[3:20:53] Yeah.

[3:20:54] I don't have the exact variances that they're going to answer for it.

[3:20:57] So how could we wait for it?

[3:20:58] No, we should go through.

[3:21:00] You don't have to go through.

[3:21:01] If you propose three of them to us tonight,

[3:21:03] and we saw a notion about it.

[3:21:04] We'll go online and recommend that.

[3:21:07] So, first of all, you're not obligated, first of all, you're not obligated to make a recommendation.

[3:21:18] It's a procedural referral on the variance on the degree of not compliance.

[3:21:22] Certainly understand the position that you're making.

[3:21:25] I'm trying to send a signal to you that there's likely going to be a change in this plan,

[3:21:29] and let Mr. Williams speak further.

[3:21:32] I thought it might be useful if I explain what we think we're going to do.

[3:21:39] So right now we're asking for two Kirkcuts on Pearl Street, two on Broad.

[3:21:44] I think what we're going to be able to do and I need to do more analysis is to have one

[3:21:48] Kirkcut on Pearl and two on Broad.

[3:21:51] That's what I think, but I need to get to the zoning board and we need to do a little bit

[3:21:56] more analysis so I can make that happen.

[3:21:58] But right now, the plan is for a self-park, two curb cuts on Pearl and two on Broadway, if we do self-park.

[3:22:06] But we'll see you never, isn't it? You're going to send something up there and they might ask the change.

[3:22:11] It didn't come from a customer.

[3:22:13] I feel more comfortable with what you just said, but I just wanted to give you exactly what's going through.

[3:22:19] Would you add it to us?

[3:22:21] Right, is that again?

[3:22:22] I wish that I knew it was presented to us.

[3:22:24] But I don't have it fully fleshed out. That's the problem.

[3:22:26] So, of course, for Tony, if I may.

[3:22:30] You're asking for a referral to go forward to the ZBA. We're going to come back to us. We're going to have to go back again.

[3:22:37] We're asking to process simultaneously. So the two boards can effectively talk back before, because we still need this commission to act before it is only a board connect.

[3:22:49] At that point, I would anticipate by the time we get the zone board, you're going to see the final plan whatever it is.

[3:22:53] You're going to have to with a practical matter, you can't take an action, to see if you can't take an action, to you to your secret.

[3:22:59] You can't do a secret to they figure out what they're going to do with all of this.

[3:23:02] So it's going to take some time to flush itself out.

[3:23:06] This way it's good to get a comment from this commission as we continue to move forward.

[3:23:10] Now get, I'm sorry.

[3:23:11] To interrupt Tony.

[3:23:13] There's been times when this you all have been criticized for not making a substantive recommendation.

[3:23:18] Right?

[3:23:18] is on board and now you've been urged not to make that.

[3:23:22] Well, since the beginning of the four-based code, we have been sending additional

[3:23:27] comments with the, because I remember Mr. Baxter did it a number of times, I've, all right,

[3:23:33] so we're just, I don't know, my memory is that we did send in a company summary of our thoughts

[3:23:43] on, in some cases we were formed, that particular variance, or some cases we're against,

[3:23:48] similar where we had multiple variances. We expressed what we were for this one, but not so much

[3:23:53] without one or what other additional thoughts we had for those that we were sending. And we heard

[3:23:59] loud and clear that the ZBA appreciated that information. The rubbers in this case, we're not sure

[3:24:05] at this moment what those variances are going to be. Right, but all we can go by is what's being presented

[3:24:10] to us and right now some of us don't like the idea of two curb cuts on per street, some of us

[3:24:17] only like one curb, one curb kind of prostrate.

[3:24:20] So I asked you if you make that recommendation.

[3:24:23] That's part of your opinion.

[3:24:23] You can make that express your opinion.

[3:24:26] So I'm only one voice, but how important is it?

[3:24:30] All can only be in one quarter to the time.

[3:24:32] It's going to go to CGA and then it comes back to us

[3:24:34] and you're saying one thing is in parallel.

[3:24:37] No, what I'm saying is that in this happens in a ton of municipalities

[3:24:41] that I process application before,

[3:24:47] you or the lead agency.

[3:24:49] You are taking your reviewing an application with a certain set of criteria, simultaneously, we're

[3:24:56] before the Board of Trustees next week, simultaneously before the Zoning Board of Appeals.

[3:25:01] You're all going to comment on different aspects of the application with different perspectives

[3:25:07] and different things that you're reviewing.

[3:25:09] That makes for a good obligation, as opposed to let me process before you for six months.

[3:25:14] Then go to the Zoning Board of Appeals. They say something totally different.

[3:25:17] Now I've got to come back to you, and undo what I've done for six months, that I go to the board of trustees, and then it happens all over again.

[3:25:24] I'd like to express in terms of discussing the motion. I'd like to, and everyone jump in. I'd like to present, we're communicate that, at least for myself, the preferences for, at least for what's been proposed tonight,

[3:25:41] one curb cut on Pearl Street and I'm okay with the two two curb cuts on the

[3:25:47] broad street side that's my initial impression from what was presented tonight, but at

[3:25:54] this point I would not be in favor of for curb cuts, and my understanding is now if

[3:26:01] they change it on that, you can't go anywhere right now, you're sort of chomel check

[3:26:04] right now because the way the code works now is really a lot of one curb cut for

[3:26:14] So if we are able to, as Mr. Williams indicated, if we are able to work out these final details and eliminate the one curve cut on Pearl.

[3:26:24] I'm still going to need a variance from the ZBA.

[3:26:28] I'm still going to need a variance from the ZBA.

[3:26:30] I'm still going to need a variance from the ZBA.

[3:26:38] So let's say it's a little bit of a way.

[3:26:39] So if I had a 20-yard 20 foot front yard set back,

[3:26:44] and then I changed the, where the house is being located,

[3:26:47] I'm less sending the virus.

[3:26:49] I might still need the virus, but I'm less sending the virus.

[3:26:51] And that's what we're hoping we're going to be able to do.

[3:26:54] Well, the farming problem we did our workshop at the CBA a couple years ago.

[3:26:58] One of the things that he indicated to us is that they always felt

[3:27:01] we didn't know what we are to use to launch our foundations.

[3:27:04] We felt the same. The fact that white is recommended in the night, I agree with them, as at least if we send them our ideas of what we would like to see, then we'll probably make it easier for you guys, you know.

[3:27:19] Well, I'm not objected at it.

[3:27:22] The kind of airfives of flying all of the ZBA,

[3:27:24] they're going to say, what was the planning?

[3:27:27] I'll tell them exactly whatever one of you said.

[3:27:30] No, paraphrase.

[3:27:31] I'm not objecting to you making a recommendation.

[3:27:33] What I said is, you don't need to.

[3:27:35] You're not obligated to, certainly if you want to do so,

[3:27:38] I'm not telling you not to do that.

[3:27:40] Since the Foreign Base Code, we really try to provide,

[3:27:43] not only the referral, but at least some communication

[3:27:45] to the ZBA is to where, whether where,

[3:27:49] whether we are supportive of this or not at all, right?

[3:27:55] But so my at least for myself, I'm not supportive of

[3:27:59] four curb cuts, but I'd be glad to recommend

[3:28:03] or express a preference for one curb cut on Pearl.

[3:28:08] And the two that was presented tonight on Broad Street.

[3:28:10] Why, where was the ABCC?

[3:28:11] Why are you being with that?

[3:28:13] Okay, Gary, what are you doing to have this?

[3:28:15] No, I am.

[3:28:16] You know that's basically, you guys?

[3:28:18] Okay, so I think we're unanimous on that. So crazy.

[3:28:23] What's your service?

[3:28:25] When EPRF tells us what...

[3:28:28] The applicant tells us what they want to do in EPRF tells us what they feel about it.

[3:28:34] No.

[3:28:34] Okay.

[3:28:36] But I'm so understanding, isn't it?

[3:28:38] Right.

[3:28:38] But Pils gives them this variance.

[3:28:41] That doesn't tire our hands later to say, well...

[3:28:45] Well, actually it does.

[3:28:52] That's why I'm not going up. I wouldn't vote for four curb cuts based on what I saw tonight, and as I understand it, I'd be comfortable referring it for

[3:29:16] with respect to parking, but there are secret impacts that can't be mitigated.

[3:29:20] There's more concertally take action that's different.

[3:29:23] In this particular instance, if there's only more grants of variances,

[3:29:29] maybe there's only quite a broader.

[3:29:30] But if there's a conflict issue and a traffic issue that can't be mitigated,

[3:29:35] certainly you can make a big and determination.

[3:29:38] That's what I'm saying.

[3:29:39] That's why I'm adding all of that to you on the secret.

[3:29:42] We can further use the secret.

[3:29:43] And you have to make that determination before this easy attack.

[3:29:49] So it's totally everything.

[3:29:51] Okay.

[3:30:01] So if we leave expressed ourselves, so Kurt, when the referral goes to the ZBI, you have what

[3:30:08] enough tape to why you summon the language that we've expressed on this to bed our comments and the referral document.

[3:30:15] Yeah, I mean, I'm concerned about accurately portraying the consensus, but again, I mean, as mentioned date,

[3:30:22] okay, I know what you stated that the ZBI often appreciates planning commissions input when

[3:30:29] requires. There's seen to be a consensus of support regarding one curb cut on Perl and two on the broad street.

[3:30:38] But we're going to refer it as as we originally using the language, Mr. Strado provided to us to the ZBA.

[3:30:46] So we have a motion we have a second and Connie, when you're ready, you can call the roll.

[3:30:50] Is that okay?

[3:30:51] Yeah.

[3:30:52] And Larry?

[3:30:52] Yes.

[3:30:53] We're ready?

[3:30:53] No.

[3:30:55] And do a bit?

[3:30:56] Yes.

[3:30:57] And a five-row?

[3:30:58] Yeah.

[3:30:59] That's really?

[3:31:01] Yes.

[3:31:04] Just go with now.

[3:31:05] You feel better.

[3:31:11] You'll stay with it.

[3:31:13] No.

[3:31:14] No.

[3:31:14] I said yes.

[3:31:17] Thank you.

[3:31:19] Yes.

[3:31:20] Thank you.

[3:31:22] Okay.

[3:31:22] We'll see you next month, and did you want to schedule a public hearing for next month on this application?

[3:31:33] We'll see you next month

[3:31:39] I don't believe that's the consensus tonight. We'll see you next month over.

[3:31:43] I have to make you feel good about something, thank you.

[3:31:48] Next item on the agenda, case 2021-0221,

[3:31:53] a new public meeting for 15 North Main Street.

[3:32:10] Okay, to grab that.

[3:32:13] That's what I was joking, he has enough taste to listen to,

[3:32:16] to use a foreign discussion as the text or a referral.

[3:32:21] Good evening.

[3:32:22] Good evening.

[3:32:22] Michael Mashujak, one of the design engineers for the project.

[3:32:25] What we have in front of you today is in proposed 6-storey, mixed-use building at 15-month

[3:32:31] being street, just adjacent to one north-been street, off-Wishwester Avenue, over the past

[3:32:37] once since our submission will work to which it consults, to go through the designs of the project

[3:32:42] and make sure that everything needs code and we're still working with dominance and detailing.

[3:32:47] I'll just walk you through the project.

[3:32:51] I'm sorry, one thing that the building

[3:32:52] to the right, as we tell the evidence, in construction.

[3:32:56] This is under construction, so I superimposed what

[3:32:58] I, the final product will look like.

[3:33:07] We have, of course, the story building, it is sent back from building

[3:33:11] to the rear of us, in order to operate in points

[3:33:14] based on the requirements we can meet from the node.

[3:33:17] We have LV-D, first of all, to meet you in point

[3:33:19] both in the base of the node.

[3:33:21] LV-D, we have created the untering within the wheelchair

[3:33:25] left and order to meet in K-Code.

[3:33:28] And the first floor has the retail space, one, then the apartment in the rear of the

[3:33:38] canclet units, the other windows, the other windows, the other windows, the other windows,

[3:33:45] the other windows, the other windows, and the other windows, the second and third floor, also

[3:33:49] provide proper, affordable units to the retail space.

[3:33:57] Thank you.

[3:33:59] Kurt from quite a part.

[3:34:01] Yes, again, it was a few months ago that I first met with the

[3:34:04] two gentlemen before us and, of course, this is a true

[3:34:07] infill project.

[3:34:09] I see that the design professional has, as Tav mentioned, shows it

[3:34:13] seamlessly next to retail date when I saw true infill meeting

[3:34:18] vacant lot and literally a piece of the block namely a building

[3:34:24] missing.

[3:34:28] So this was something that I actually expressed at the time of the pre-application conference

[3:34:33] that I would welcome. Given the circumstances, the nature of the infill, the vacant

[3:34:39] line. Obviously there is no room for parking on the site. There are ways to reduce that and

[3:34:54] There are several ways whether it be reductions that are available or even monetary cost for

[3:35:04] a space missing, but we can get to that in a bit.

[3:35:09] So I'm very pleased to see this project being introduced tonight.

[3:35:13] And of course, you can see that already before we've even gotten to it, it's elevated

[3:35:19] out of the flood point, I'm going to guess it's on the VH.

[3:35:24] Face one elevation plus two feet plus two foot.

[3:35:27] All right.

[3:35:27] So it's already there where we're not having to engage in that

[3:35:33] in the middle of the process.

[3:35:37] So this is something that I wanted.

[3:35:41] I was looking forward to the commission seeing.

[3:35:43] All right.

[3:35:45] All right.

[3:35:46] There's a different site.

[3:35:47] we haven't got the most recent site plan that fixed the retail for the support of the retail.

[3:35:53] My site plan at home is so different.

[3:35:57] You know what?

[3:35:58] Have I heard you further?

[3:36:00] If I, I see.

[3:36:02] I mean, I can chat against what we've gotten for that.

[3:36:05] Let's put this way.

[3:36:05] I mean, you usually write on the mark when you say what you got or what you didn't get.

[3:36:10] We go and show the retail on the first floor.

[3:36:12] One of the previous designs had tool apartments on the first floor.

[3:36:15] So currently we have 16 units total, so the upper five floors, three units each, and one residential

[3:36:22] now prior to that we did when we were thinking of having a basement where we'd have a

[3:36:26] chemical, and we had two apartments.

[3:36:29] I think working with consultants because we had to be about the base photo, the base photo,

[3:36:32] the base photo, the mechanicals, we redeveloped into remove one apartment in order to make

[3:36:36] them from a chemical space.

[3:36:38] So maybe that was a conclusion.

[3:36:39] There's been a couple of changes within the last month, you know, especially last couple

[3:36:47] Okay, that's a good question, because I know we're, you know,

[3:36:51] version control, conversations, everyone's so well, yeah, so,

[3:36:57] all right, so currently you're up to Peter for make care of?

[3:37:03] Yeah, and we just, we've been working with them for a month, two months,

[3:37:07] you know, going through a lot of the details to get it complete, and I think, you know,

[3:37:12] really good progress.

[3:37:16] I had a couple comments, I know you already submitted some responses

[3:37:20] to them. Thank you. I have not had a chance to look at them. One question had to do with how

[3:37:24] the steps in wheelchair lift, fit.

[3:37:30] We're on the lot. I mean, it's clearly, they're not in the right of way at all. But the question is, kind of, the building

[3:37:35] set back a footer two minute. It looks like there's one riser that's, and I'm just kind of wondering how

[3:37:40] that works. It does that first riser, kind of stick out a little bit and, and kind of how that

[3:37:46] looks. And then the project has to include two affordable rental units. But it's important to note that

[3:37:56] code places minimum sizes on those affordable units by bedroom size and only the first floor

[3:38:06] I'm sorry only the one bedroom apartment on the upper floors and meet that criteria

[3:38:12] because the other units are all smaller than that minimum standard so be this situation where

[3:38:19] two of the, you know, they're four larger, one-bedroom units and two of them would have to

[3:38:26] be reserved as affordable units. And the balance of them of the units would be smaller than

[3:38:33] that. So it's just an odd situation, nothing wrong with it. It's just an odd situation for the

[3:38:41] the developer.

[3:38:51] It's very odd.

[3:38:57] It's a tight lot. It's a tight lot and it's a tight lot and the way it is and it the code most affordable hasn't got didn't anticipate this type of development.

[3:39:09] for the coverage of the situation.

[3:39:12] Just in that alone.

[3:39:39] Thank you.

[3:39:40] Just in.

[3:39:47] We tracked this slide.

[3:39:49] Again, I got a question in the menu.

[3:39:51] It's not a question.

[3:39:53] It's not a question.

[3:39:55] It's not a question.

[3:40:43] Okay.

[3:40:46] Thank you. Questions from the commission to the applicant or court or the CARF?

[3:40:56] Go ahead. Yes. You said you had two affordable.

[3:41:07] We have five floors above that are

[3:41:10] reasonable. That's one, two, three apartments, a studio, a small alone bedroom, and a larger

[3:41:16] one bedroom at the front. So this is more of an injury. So on the second and third floor,

[3:41:22] these two larger apartments will be used for the affordable housing. Okay. So then you just have

[3:41:29] studios in one bedroom for it.

[3:41:34] Thank you.

[3:41:36] Thank you.

[3:41:37] Okay, Jerry.

[3:41:37] No, no questions.

[3:41:39] No, no.

[3:41:40] No.

[3:41:46] It's.

[3:41:47] Again, I apologize for not remembering the site plan.

[3:41:51] I probably don't.

[3:41:52] But just.

[3:41:54] It's your facade or the design of the front building.

[3:41:57] You know, is that cast in stone because I feel like it just looks like the other building.

[3:42:02] And then it's attached to it.

[3:42:04] Well, any developments that you can incorporate in the front of your building that might carry in the streetscape, historical streetcape, you know, maybe some cell, some archway or some keystone or something.

[3:42:16] Right, so we do have limestone cells on all the way down here.

[3:42:19] We have also headers as well, limestone headers.

[3:42:23] We do have some design trim as some design trim work around the storefront.

[3:42:28] plus the limestone at the waist.

[3:42:31] It's a great bump, some limestone and some great work.

[3:42:34] You also have some bendable leg and such in the top of the building.

[3:42:39] We can look at some access, it's going to be doing some great points.

[3:42:42] And maybe a header course we can access of that.

[3:42:46] We want to try to keep the look more historic to our theme.

[3:42:49] Well, yes, that's right.

[3:42:50] I mean, across the street for me, they just finished the boat.

[3:42:53] They just put them in militants along.

[3:42:55] Of course.

[3:42:57] So what we sometimes ask, if some applicants, but this is very small, if we replace

[3:43:03] me, see what the view of the building would have had it down from the north of the main street

[3:43:10] And so I had a vision way of just again an idea of how it's going to work with the building

[3:43:16] that's true after you're there.

[3:43:22] And we can do a couple of different questions.

[3:43:25] Let's go for a minute.

[3:43:27] I think it's a bit weird.

[3:43:28] How many feet did you say are being in the back end building between the back end

[3:43:32] and the back end is building in the end of the other building?

[3:43:40] So we're interested in that.

[3:43:45] Approximately four and a half to four foot nine inches, so those back apartments, the windows, are basically up against the, at least on the lower floors, so it's all over.

[3:43:58] Well, yeah, I mean, you have a building behind me, so I mean, you still get sunlight because the building that wraps around this is lowered.

[3:44:05] You know, as you show on the rendering, it's only three stories, we're taller, you still get some sunlight, you still get some fresh air.

[3:44:11] It does mean you don't control it in your environment.

[3:44:17] Trudeanne?

[3:44:18] Yeah.

[3:44:19] Okay.

[3:44:20] Matt?

[3:44:21] How much space is there between you and me adjacent?

[3:44:25] Nothing.

[3:44:26] Nothing.

[3:44:26] What do you want?

[3:44:28] Again.

[3:44:29] Back to it.

[3:44:30] Peter's point.

[3:44:31] There's no window.

[3:44:32] There's no light coming in from that side.

[3:44:34] I'm the size now.

[3:44:35] What can I do?

[3:44:36] Because we have a railroad platform.

[3:44:38] Well, if we did try to...

[3:44:40] something those buildings are built right up to the property line. So you're going to have a three-foot alley,

[3:44:46] and the new building being built is almost as slow as us. It's going to feel like an alleyway.

[3:44:53] It's an interesting point because...

[3:45:00] His code, envisioning projects that are proposed, have noticed, and they said, well, what is the regulation?

[3:45:09] What is the way that you allow for air and light? And I believe that those standards are in the building code.

[3:45:17] I'm looking at the desired professional tip, confirmed.

[3:45:21] So I mean, this is where we're at given our zero-lot line allowances and the interest and

[3:45:31] continuing to have an urban downtown.

[3:45:36] But it's an interesting point and a good discussion.

[3:45:40] My other question is, as far as the rooftop, what's that going to be like?

[3:45:49] I mean, it's in an area that already has, I mean, I know you run up a big quick quick, but it's in an area that, as you know, you send your two feet above the plug plant, but that's an area that collects a lot of water, a lot of water, so I'd like you a little bit more about what you want to do with this.

[3:46:04] I'm here right now, which has a standard platform that just starts to back and close the drain.

[3:46:11] It brings it to the storm.

[3:46:13] So the roof is going to be the last four of the air conditions that are units.

[3:46:17] So because we're going to put many split systems in each of the apartments.

[3:46:20] So we need a place for the conversation.

[3:46:23] We have to be two-point both.

[3:46:24] Based on what everything we have, we have no side yard rear yard to put them in.

[3:46:29] We're not going to put it in the back.

[3:46:34] So we put everything up on the, we've utilized it in a way where we can minimize any energy and we'll also have a piping, you know, that will be staggered, that will be in this.

[3:46:45] I did supply a, that was one of the key comments from the materials opens, and I provided a little claim that they're all, you know, this was just recently that they comments from the 14,

[3:46:59] like to hear more.

[3:47:02] Not related directly to your development, but in general, I suppose for a car RF, at least

[3:47:08] for myself, I'd like to hear a little more about what the situation is when it's storm

[3:47:14] runoff, I know there's an issue where there's a drain of collapse, I don't have a clear

[3:47:20] idea in my mind, we're about to drain runoff exactly, and what other, what the rest of

[3:47:26] infrastructure looks like downtown, maybe at some point the commission gets a kind of workshop

[3:47:34] or presentation outside of the scope of your application, you know, in general, because

[3:47:41] I'm curious, I'm just in your life here.

[3:47:44] Yeah, I'm in commission, so I don't know if I'm in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[3:47:48] Maybe it's just as an idea.

[3:47:51] Maybe in your right it's the other's application, but maybe at some point this calendar year

[3:47:55] we could have a workshop with the playing department,

[3:47:58] making you invite Justin to give us a refresher or a crash course

[3:48:04] on sewers and water systems and something like that for you.

[3:48:10] You know, for use my project, I think it's the implement.

[3:48:12] That's fine.

[3:48:14] I've let you have to stand because it's a story.

[3:48:18] That's because we've had prior planning staff,

[3:48:22] prior members of the playing department,

[3:48:24] sometimes even the village attorney's office give us more of these concept refreshers as they're called

[3:48:31] Nellie for for new folks on the plane commission, but for those of us who sometimes need a

[3:48:36] refresher. So the timing would be good Mr Chairman to do it as soon as possible in this

[3:48:41] calendar year. And Mim Matthew has reached out to me to to express a few generalized questions.

[3:48:48] And and I suggested that there would be a place in time for that and I hope to deliver on that soon.

[3:48:53] But we have a lot of our new members.

[3:48:55] We have a lot to cover, but in terms of code fixes and all kinds of other projects.

[3:49:01] And even if we only have one workshop a month, we still couldn't cover it all.

[3:49:04] So we're going to have to pick and choose, you know, but that's a separate conversation.

[3:49:09] If you had one additional question, the question.

[3:49:12] Can we ensure that the part of the part weighs in on this concern about access in the event of emergency?

[3:49:19] Sure.

[3:49:21] Yes, I mean, that should be, well, it should be a matter of a fire-coding building

[3:49:28] code, namely the fire chief and the building department, but yes, I think it's important

[3:49:37] for everyone to understand.

[3:49:39] I just have one question.

[3:49:40] If we go to the screen that showed the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, you know, the

[3:49:49] the first floor with a retail space, please.

[3:49:59] Yes, that's the one.

[3:50:02] No, no, just what we're looking at, that's perfect.

[3:50:07] So the, you know, the first floor retail,

[3:50:10] and you had a pedestrian access coming in off the door there,

[3:50:14] going, and then you know, the choice to go into the retail.

[3:50:18] What's the, what's separate, what stops the pedestrian from going further into the building

[3:50:24] to the residential section, what are we going to do with the access residents, to keep an access

[3:50:34] control?

[3:50:35] It's a whole lot of the store to get it.

[3:50:36] Okay, now somebody won't be in trying to get their storage, let me get through to the

[3:50:40] key access.

[3:50:41] Okay, now the retail, because you are in that flood area, so it may not, well, it's up to

[3:50:49] the retail owner, I guess, whether or not to put inventory in the basement, but we're

[3:50:54] would they put their inventory because I'm used to seeing some kind of storage room or something

[3:51:01] behind the actual retail area that's open to the customers. So where were their inventory?

[3:51:07] Where's their stock going to be?

[3:51:09] Well there's no basement before.

[3:51:10] Right.

[3:51:12] So right now we're just creating what they know about.

[3:51:14] So right now we're just creating what they know about.

[3:51:25] So, at that case, you know, we design an area with a little bathroom and some sort of source depending on what's going to be the use.

[3:51:33] I didn't see the bathroom. Where's the bathroom for the employees of the retail?

[3:51:38] Any of them? You don't know exactly what you're seeing, you know, which kind of materials.

[3:51:42] Yeah, because we want to separate the bathroom for the customers of the retail user, even the employees of the retail use from the residential unit in the back.

[3:51:55] I guess I guess I'm not

[3:52:10] sure.

[3:52:10] So maybe that could be updated to show the bathroom facilities for the retail use.

[3:52:20] I'm sure future, because you know...

[3:52:34] So, the inventory and the bathroom use is going to happen in that box.

[3:52:46] Now, based on the size of the retail area, what would you expect for deliveries? Because if you're going to have a limited inventory space, then you're going to need frequent deliveries.

[3:53:01] I'm guessing in just thinking retail.

[3:53:03] With knowing exactly what we feel is going to take the space.

[3:53:07] It's hard to say.

[3:53:08] How large is that audience?

[3:53:10] What about the retail?

[3:53:12] The virtual media.

[3:53:14] Six hundred ninety point five by switch.

[3:53:16] Just on the set of the press.

[3:53:17] Kurt, what do you mean?

[3:53:18] We require to have that document.

[3:53:21] What will the assessment have a complete flight plan?

[3:53:24] We're going to build the board.

[3:53:25] Well, you mean, for us to see a full floor plan.

[3:53:30] Could it, it's not my point, not a very good one.

[3:53:33] I could stop being completed.

[3:53:35] So, well, it's part of this way.

[3:53:36] I mean, I understand the concern.

[3:53:40] Although the site plan process should not

[3:53:43] should not force a specific tenant or category of tenant

[3:53:48] to be the, to be the renter of that space.

[3:53:53] In other words, I,

[3:53:54] I understand the concern but you guys, you know, worked that out. I'm just, you know, sharing that as I was looking at it. It wasn't, it wasn't intuitive to me. What was happening there and how it was going to happen. So I'll, I'll let, I'll let it.

[3:54:10] To be honest, I'll let the wise, you know, to be honest with you, I guess I'll get some a little bit more concerned about the larger projects, where we don't require loading zones or loading spaces.

[3:54:21] Well, I didn't ask where their shipments were going to arrive yet.

[3:54:25] In terms of their loading spaces or where is that going to happen?

[3:54:30] There are a few deliveries to the retail.

[3:54:32] And I'm going to emphasize that for this space,

[3:54:34] you can probably share, you know, from a very strange moment,

[3:54:37] right, excuse me, I'm not going to try this.

[3:54:40] Thank you very much, George, for the rest of this space.

[3:54:42] You have to deal with it in terms of your comment.

[3:54:44] If we navigate this space, we're going to have to select the mobile lines,

[3:54:47] but the limit of visual, they don't plan on.

[3:54:49] Right.

[3:54:53] It is small, I'm just raising it, you know, I think it's something to be thought about.

[3:54:59] The other thing you want to be asked to hear a question was if you heard him how would you

[3:55:03] handle the trash?

[3:55:07] So when we did a lot of each in the footage, we had a refuse one.

[3:55:10] So the time is going to have their own garbage can.

[3:55:13] And then, twice a week, we've got to pick up and pick it up.

[3:55:17] I need that.

[3:55:17] I'm going to put it on the sidewalk.

[3:55:19] Then how many can I take?

[3:55:21] Well, you know, get it.

[3:55:24] Two before.

[3:55:25] Two before.

[3:55:26] Each.

[3:55:28] No,

[3:55:34] who's going to bring those cans down, is it that the government service that then goes in and takes the cans down?

[3:55:42] Or is it the tenants responsibility to bring the cans down?

[3:55:44] We haven't really gotten to that detail.

[3:55:47] You know, it'll probably be the tenants responsible to bring that down.

[3:56:02] I mean, obviously, the village did not pick up multi-family house or trash, however, I'm going to take the gas and say that some smaller

[3:56:21] multi-family buildings do benefit from that actually and I don't even know I could be

[3:56:26] entirely wrong. Yeah so I'm not sure in this case whether the village would be

[3:56:33] providing take on as a as a business and municipal service. That was the only

[3:56:37] questions I had was on that that first floor with that retail component in

[3:56:42] there. Okay, those are my questions. So, in terms of stormwater management, there's

[3:56:52] psychonepigopinis stormwater on plate. Well, there is no room to put any kind of drainage,

[3:56:59] you know, actual drywalls or whatever. So, what we've done is we've designed it where we have

[3:57:04] We're just going down to two yard drinks and then I pull into the tiniences in which we're going to catch these in time.

[3:57:13] So catch these in.

[3:57:17] Just wait a little less.

[3:57:24] I had a

[3:57:30] question at this point.

[3:57:32] Kurt next steps.

[3:57:34] Good next step would be to,

[3:57:35] And again, I just want to commend the applicant and our concerns take care of for bringing

[3:57:40] the project as far along as they have before it's introduced to the commission.

[3:57:45] And the next step would be the circulation for Secret and asking the county to give us their

[3:57:53] advisory recommendations from the County Planning Board.

[3:57:57] So motion to direct the planning department to circulate and test for lead agency on this

[3:58:02] case.

[3:58:02] Thank you, Terbs.

[3:58:05] Thank you, Jerry.

[3:58:07] Connie, when you're ready?

[3:58:10] Yes.

[3:58:12] Yes.

[3:58:13] Yes.

[3:58:15] Yes.

[3:58:16] Yes.

[3:58:18] Okay.

[3:58:19] And you still have the latest E.K.

[3:58:21] rough memo to work through a few things and we'll see you next month then.

[3:58:25] And then when do we use the public here next month?

[3:58:28] Well, next month we'll...

[3:58:30] current.

[3:58:32] Sure.

[3:58:33] And I can do that.

[3:58:33] I'm just very quickly.

[3:58:34] The coordinate review that we do in Fortchester requires that we give 30 days, which

[3:58:40] will occur in a well-equipped 20 minute.

[3:58:43] Oh, the meeting.

[3:58:44] So we'll know that there are no adjustments on the agency.

[3:58:47] And then the commission will be free to have the review for long, including the public

[3:58:55] area.

[3:58:56] Then you can continue working on this memo to perfect your application.

[3:58:59] And when you come back to us next month, we'll hear from Kurt,

[3:59:02] how things are, what the landscape looks like,

[3:59:04] and then we'll go from there.

[3:59:06] Okay, great.

[3:59:07] Thank you very much, I have to see you later.

[3:59:13] All right, Kurt, we're getting there.

[3:59:15] We're getting there, Kurt, yes.

[3:59:17] So the next item on the agenda is in the request section,

[3:59:23] request for timing relief case 2019 to 0194.

[3:59:29] request for timing relief.

[3:59:54] The commission will recall that you grant it safely at a pool in March of 2020.

[4:00:00] The application that will sort of later has expired. Demolition has commenced on the property and a basal morning. He's ready to commence work and awaiting a billing permit.

[4:00:12] The condition of approval indicates in condition number four, which I provided a courtesy of a provision for your convenience.

[4:00:19] That part of the issues of the billing permit, the applicant shall confirm the sue as any required order main improvements to serve the proposal and provide a schedule for providing those improvements.

[4:00:30] We're trying to work with Suez, obviously there's no communication at this point and we are

[4:00:36] asking for a timing waiver in order to provide that documentation.

[4:00:42] I did put a request for the CO in the letter, but based upon some discussions with staff, obviously

[4:00:50] we did not need to wait that long, we're looking for really five, six months to be able to

[4:00:54] the work, you know, tie this to a podium, as part of the project, facing comments work

[4:01:02] on the foundation, so that would have for us the time, so that we don't need to sit around

[4:01:06] and wait until Suez deans to give us, you know, the new will serve letter. So that's where we are.

[4:01:14] We did have a conversation on Friday with, we had two conversations last week with the

[4:01:20] of staff. Mr. Donahue did indicate that he is not authorized to issue a building permit

[4:01:28] until that is done. I have since spoken to a building inspector for a much larger municipality

[4:01:33] who said that that is not the practice. That is contrary to what he does. I get in my client

[4:01:40] to ask Mr. Donahue for direction on the code provision that would prohibit that he is

[4:01:46] indicates what prohibit him from prohibitioning a building permit. He indicated that

[4:01:51] The site plan that was issued by this commission was for a total building, and he cannot

[4:01:57] issue a small apartment, so we sent a pre-esitory foundation permit, and we can't go any further

[4:02:03] than that. After the conversation that we had on Friday, I thought back, and if I recall correctly,

[4:02:10] the castle had multiple permits. I think there was a shell permit. I think there was a permit

[4:02:15] for each individual unit if I recall correctly.

[4:02:17] So, I find it hard to believe that the building inspector cannot issue a building permit for a smaller section of the project, as opposed to one building permit for the building and that is it.

[4:02:31] There are electrical permit, there are plumbing permits on the types of permits.

[4:02:36] So, we're really just asking this commission to provide some relief for us, and it's not really from having to comply with the commission.

[4:02:44] And we know that Sue is going to issue us a Wolster letter at some point, really asking for a timing waiver and that we provide this information to the village five six months time.

[4:03:00] Kurt from a plane appointment, and then Mr. Sereto.

[4:03:04] Yes, and so indeed we did have a meeting last Monday and last Friday.

[4:03:11] I offered that meeting on Monday,

[4:03:17] in an effort to perhaps get the basis for the request and

[4:03:23] any other information in advance, because I thought that there would be some sense of urgency

[4:03:30] on the part of the applicant to have a decision tonight.

[4:03:37] The, we had that meeting, and then I wasn't expecting another one before the Planning Commission meeting,

[4:03:44] but we did have one on Friday, the building inspector was, was present,

[4:03:53] and did state that,

[4:03:56] that, well, there are, I think, as I was just mentioned, well, there are some permits for electrical and plumbing,

[4:04:02] And I think that's relatively well known.

[4:04:06] I don't think every municipality breaks down permits.

[4:04:09] Mr. Donahue, the chief inspector here said he didn't.

[4:04:14] So we were all, I mean, everyone present before you tonight

[4:04:18] on the village site and the project team site.

[4:04:22] Was here there for that and heard that.

[4:04:26] I mean, I don't know how to work with.

[4:04:30] Actually, during those meetings, it was said, well, repeatedly that other municipalities don't require certain things that we do.

[4:04:46] Again, just as the same, along the same lines, the common about another building in spectrum, I don't know what to do with that.

[4:04:54] Okay, I don't know. I can only deal with that, right?

[4:04:58] So, some of us to see what's the military's offices view on this request for this timing

[4:05:09] relief that is this that the path between, to never even process in the impact that's occurred

[4:05:17] as a result of something that's out of our control.

[4:05:20] Well, I certainly understand the desire of the applicant to try to defer the issue to the CO has the building permit stage.

[4:05:29] I understand that he's a difficult spot.

[4:05:32] But the building inspector is the first in last word on the subject.

[4:05:35] And you can't tie his hands because he can't do it himself.

[4:05:39] He's telling us he told us I'm Friday.

[4:05:42] That was not part of the phone call, he had technical issues, but I got a translation later.

[4:05:46] He can't issue a building permit without the water issue being addressed.

[4:05:52] So how can the Planning Commission tell him to do something he can't do on his own?

[4:05:57] Right, basically it comes down to.

[4:05:59] We don't have oversight over the building department, right?

[4:06:04] So I understand that Mr. Joffrey probably will know and make another attempt to speak to Mr. Daniel

[4:06:11] and seek him to perhaps have been other places.

[4:06:15] how they do their processes and maybe that might influence Kevin and maybe he won't, but

[4:06:21] it's not your concern right now.

[4:06:24] Our concern is, and we have a mutual interest, we talked about earlier in the meeting.

[4:06:28] Yes.

[4:06:28] We have mutual interest in seeing these developments proceed.

[4:06:33] We adopted zoning to accommodate these large scale developments in our town of Township

[4:06:37] bring back our village and they're here and they're not going anywhere without water.

[4:06:41] So different ways we can go, we can certainly have the conversation with the water company and I think Kurt talked about some kind of public statement that the Suez is going to come out with, you know, so we can also go out through it, I was talking about which is trying to talk to someone who knows Suez, knows the PSE, knows what buttons and people to push and to talk to.

[4:07:06] And I talked to our outside lawyer for the watery cases

[4:07:10] who's been doing this work for 30 years.

[4:07:12] And he said that he'd be happy to work with us,

[4:07:14] work with the applicant, and looks forward

[4:07:16] to a phone call with Mr. Joffrey and other interested folks

[4:07:19] whose applications are in the similar situation.

[4:07:22] This is the app.

[4:07:30] They had their approval. Right. There's some way way to get building permit. You can't get better than that. Right. Okay. And I understand that the dilemma that the applicant has, you know, he's in a tough spot. He's the smallest buildings here. He's on a lot of work. So I'm offering the services of our outside attorney to work with us and work with the applicant to see if there's any common ground with Suez while we're waiting for this public statement. It may very well be. This public statement may not be satisfactory to anyone. We haven't seen what we've done.

[4:08:00] We don't know. We're hoping. And I would like to go down in multiple directions and see where they go.

[4:08:08] So that's what I'm offering this board. Some hope that perhaps we can talk with Sue as

[4:08:15] understand and position better in a lease of perhaps on this application when it goes through

[4:08:20] and renew their serve letter.

[4:08:23] Okay, what's up and what's try to make the attempt?

[4:08:29] I think the village owes it to the applicant since they gave the approval.

[4:08:33] Maybe I'm a legal sense, but certainly we as a village want everyone to succeed.

[4:08:40] Any questions in the military?

[4:08:44] There's a question for me, sir.

[4:08:45] I know these, I think one or two businesses, or many industries is still open, right from

[4:08:53] these projects.

[4:08:55] I understand there's one business that's still open.

[4:08:57] And I can't comment any further, is there?

[4:08:59] No, no, I understand.

[4:09:00] But it's okay.

[4:09:01] It's not working.

[4:09:03] I'm not going to comment.

[4:09:06] I'm going to give in this presentation.

[4:09:09] Okay.

[4:09:09] Well, again, it's not that the question is unreasonable.

[4:09:12] Well, the applicant simply answered that he doesn't feel pervero confident, but it's

[4:09:19] not that the question was misplaced for a producer, be quick.

[4:09:24] Peter, a character you have anything to add to this, or certainly not, only two words.

[4:09:35] So the action step would be, if you accept my recommendation would be to authorize me to speak

[4:09:40] or obstinators or in children, and sign a retainer agreement on behalf of this applicant.

[4:09:48] And may perhaps others simply situate applications for right now.

[4:09:51] This is what it would be for you to see if he can work something out.

[4:09:55] And at a very short time frame, consulting basis, I can give a scope of work to Mr. Joffrey.

[4:10:03] So I think he can explain to his client where his money is going before.

[4:10:06] And see what happens.

[4:10:08] And I'll report back to the report for next month.

[4:10:10] Okay, is there consensus on that?

[4:10:12] Would you be clear that?

[4:10:14] I don't know.

[4:10:14] That's basically to, to, to press forward with trying to get a most sort of money around

[4:10:20] as soon as.

[4:10:20] Which, yeah, we're trying to, we're trying to, we're trying to bring water to the project.

[4:10:23] When it, however it takes, you know, if we need to go down one route, go up or to leave with the

[4:10:28] southwest curve, we'll talk to you about where they're initiating a public statement and they

[4:10:32] will go long-term and short-term plan.

[4:10:34] And we also have an application of trying to get.

[4:10:37] That has a rule.

[4:10:38] and they can't get a building for an out of the cabin and it would be fair to twist his arm and break up both his legs to the tissue of building for him.

[4:10:49] So I'd like to offer some assistance through hiring someone who's the applicant would pay through the escrow, which would help us out.

[4:10:58] So those consensus?

[4:10:59] Okay, so let's try out on what you believe that there's consensus for you to proceed to do as you

[4:11:07] just described to see what can be done for this application.

[4:11:16] I guess I'll listen to

[4:11:19] John.

[4:11:20] I'm a needle to where I should be, obviously, depending on the details.

[4:11:23] Absolutely.

[4:11:24] There's thread when I will speak hopefully more.

[4:11:27] We'll share the truth.

[4:11:28] Absolutely.

[4:11:29] Okay, otherwise I think that's what we're going to do at this point in time for this matter.

[4:11:35] Thank you. I

[4:11:44] believe this is where we would have an add-on. This is where not an add-on,

[4:11:52] but something that is not on the agenda document that should regarding a local law of extending the time period.

[4:12:04] Yes, Mr. Chairman and Commissioner Zayam, I apologize. This was a referral from, I believe,

[4:12:09] December 20th, Board of Trustees meeting.

[4:12:13] What it refers to is a local law that's proposed, and then of course, what it would

[4:12:22] amends owning to allow for, as the state had had it, as New York State had issued, a sort

[4:12:34] of additional time for projects that may have been affected during the course of the pandemic

[4:12:42] up to this point.

[4:12:47] So that requires a course of referral to this board, and that's about all I know about

[4:12:57] it.

[4:12:59] What this would do is grant the applicant for the station lofts project, additional time for them to get their building permit.

[4:13:07] It's all tied to COVID in the impacts of COVID.

[4:13:11] It's not part of the general broader discussion which you all have been talking about for a while,

[4:13:16] which is how long site planer for which it could go for.

[4:13:19] We don't want to thank all of this application with that broader issue tonight.

[4:13:22] I don't believe in it, is a time box local law, it'll expire on its own terms next year.

[4:13:33] The extension would go all the way till April of next year, 2023, and that's what it would accomplish.

[4:13:40] It's all tied to COVID. The applicant has had a whole host of other concerns.

[4:13:46] They've been driven to distraction by the MTA and other issues.

[4:13:51] But the local law as it's written is all tied to COVID, all tied to the government's declaration and what he did last year.

[4:14:00] So that's essentially it.

[4:14:01] The applicant representative isn't the audience or was might still be.

[4:14:07] There he is.

[4:14:08] Evening.

[4:14:11] I'm sure coming up.

[4:14:25] Good evening chair.

[4:14:27] My name is Scott Gianz, one of the principles for our station loss, which is a project

[4:14:33] that we've been working out for quite a while, we're starting to see light at the end

[4:14:36] of the tunnel.

[4:14:38] Unfortunately, one of those lights was a train coming at us, which is called the MTA.

[4:14:43] They've been very professional working with us, but they're very large and very slowly.

[4:14:49] We had received our site plan approvals in April of 2018.

[4:14:54] we've extended the provost through.

[4:15:00] To get our entry permits, from NTA, just to do a catch basing cleaning and scoping, because we're

[4:15:05] going to be draining into the MTA's basin, and also to do some test warnings, mostly for environmental

[4:15:13] purposes. And then when we were starting to get ready to bring out a rigs on to do our drilling

[4:15:19] or our warnings for the structural engineering to complete the plans of working on COVID hit. MTA

[4:15:27] it down just about everyone did and then our entry permits expired and it's going to take us

[4:15:33] now another six to nine months to get those reinstated and it's also a matter of to spend

[4:15:40] the money our investors are telling us to get the building permits done which is about

[4:15:46] $800 to $900,000 and then pay another million dollars for the building permit application.

[4:15:52] And they must know that we have sufficient time to complete all that.

[4:15:57] And the MTA is that wild card.

[4:15:59] So we have a complete vested interest in doing the right thing

[4:16:05] by Fortchester, which is evident at the 1618 North Main,

[4:16:10] which is the mutual trust building.

[4:16:12] We went to a great extent to salvage and bring that building back

[4:16:16] to its glory days.

[4:16:17] And we're going to be having a walkthrough for a lot of the staff

[4:16:22] and commissioners and the trustee's as soon as we're finished, which would be in the next

[4:16:26] time.

[4:16:26] Tell me two months.

[4:16:28] Even though that's been told to me several times, I think we are getting there.

[4:16:33] But we really want to bring Port Station lost to a successful completion.

[4:16:39] So we dial in need.

[4:16:40] You're helping doing that.

[4:16:42] All right.

[4:16:43] Thank you.

[4:16:43] I'd like to hear a speak to us on the matter.

[4:16:48] So, questions to Kurt or Mr. Sereto on this local law that's been provided to us for

[4:16:58] feedback, Mr. Sereto?

[4:17:00] You have required a microphone to provide recommendation on selling changes, back to the Board of Trustees.

[4:17:05] That's why it's before you.

[4:17:07] Thank you.

[4:17:09] Any questions from Mr. Sereto?

[4:17:13] Go for it. This was approved under the old code, right?

[4:17:17] It was two years, it wasn't three.

[4:17:21] Didn't you ever come before us for any extensions?

[4:17:25] Yeah, that required under the code?

[4:17:28] Well, let's say at night, I have been in summer of 2019.

[4:17:33] So, I think the project.

[4:17:36] Thank you.

[4:17:38] That's it.

[4:17:39] I would have that sound like he's addressing the issue of extension to our new formist code for three years.

[4:17:48] In your fact that we're not a position if the three years expired to renew a code doesn't allow us to do that.

[4:17:55] Maybe that's the comeback to get a renewal with that piece or another three years, or that being yearly from that point on.

[4:18:04] the local law is drafted to allow this or other projects that may have experienced a similar delay,

[4:18:17] because of directly or indirectly because of the pandemic.

[4:18:20] So the question you asked have was a different one.

[4:18:26] This is just for my reading of this, this seems to say regardless of what it was issued,

[4:18:38] whether it be the four main code or the prior, if they received an approval prior to this date,

[4:18:45] then they get the extension.

[4:18:46] Is that right?

[4:18:47] But yeah, in that date, that's in the local law, is the date to government, the former

[4:18:50] governor declared his emergency, dry COVID, that's the magic date.

[4:18:55] There was a state law that was passed, which extended these development application

[4:19:00] approvals, that legislation expired once the governor's declaration evaporated, so we're

[4:19:07] back to relying upon local laws to try to give their relief to the applicant.

[4:19:11] It's a, it's a surgically targeted, focused local law.

[4:19:15] We don't believe it affects any other application in the pipeline.

[4:19:19] But this one.

[4:19:22] So, it seems to, and again, as far as the larger discussion, we've talked about this before.

[4:19:29] Right.

[4:19:30] We talked about this before in a different approach.

[4:19:32] And we should definitely put that back on our front burner.

[4:19:37] Well, Kirk had had Matt work two days a week from now, for the next three years.

[4:19:44] to do nothing but code updates, but then Kurt only has

[4:19:49] Matt available to help him for Monday's Mondays and Tuesdays.

[4:19:54] So we have to work that out, or perhaps get

[4:19:56] Kurt a couple extra people to start typing away

[4:19:59] and all the required changes that are needed in the form

[4:20:02] base code.

[4:20:04] Any other questions from Mr. Serenot,

[4:20:06] regarding the local law that's been presented to us

[4:20:08] for feedback?

[4:20:11] On the side?

[4:20:12] OK.

[4:20:13] So, can I get a motion to respond to the Board of Trustees with a positive recommendation on the local law that's been provided to us and many of the code, extending the time period for site plan approvals, prior due to, or use the title of Tony, due to COVID-19 pandemic impacts.

[4:20:37] So I think it is fair.

[4:20:39] I think so.

[4:20:43] So moved, anyone?

[4:20:45] Thank you, Jerry.

[4:20:47] Second.

[4:20:48] Thank you.

[4:20:49] Do I have any discussion on the motion?

[4:20:52] This is the only, this is the only course of the meeting.

[4:20:56] Well, if they don't get this, they have to start a process all over again.

[4:21:08] That's correct.

[4:21:10] Mark R. Code.

[4:21:11] The offer better for us.

[4:21:13] Doesn't offer a lot.

[4:21:15] That's why we need to have that further discussion.

[4:21:19] Again, we had this issue with, what do we, self mean?

[4:21:25] Approved on the old code, two years, and now, all of a sudden, you can give them three years.

[4:21:31] I don't want to hurt the applicant, but how could we,

[4:21:40] how could we just change, change directions and make decisions that, I mean?

[4:21:51] The new code is in D three years.

[4:21:56] This was a new code.

[4:21:58] Yes, it was a code under the old code.

[4:22:00] Although I don't think that changes the draft local law.

[4:22:05] No, it does.

[4:22:05] I think there's making it a different point.

[4:22:07] Yes.

[4:22:07] And I do appreciate that.

[4:22:10] It's just that this, of course, instead of being a request of the planning commission

[4:22:18] is was done in the direction of the Board of Trustees and of course the planning committee.

[4:22:32] I'll just say that I'm going to be consistent on the board against it. I feel what I have to get up and get up. I don't think we should make those feel out and do things like that.

[4:22:48] Any other discussion on the motion?

[4:22:53] Okay.

[4:22:55] I mean, this is going back to the Board of Justice, correct?

[4:22:59] So maybe we could also make a recommendation that the,

[4:23:03] some kind of language that was addressing this, you know,

[4:23:08] it's a wonderful, better term for us to ensure,

[4:23:11] exception. So that we don't have to carve this out. Now, hoping that it doesn't come back

[4:23:18] to affect this with other applications. You know, I tell, I strongly

[4:23:22] don't come back to you. This is all COVID focused and it all goes back to the declaration

[4:23:29] of the government last year and I consider it beginning to provide remarks. It expires

[4:23:35] on its own terms next year. This local law would see that right after this year. You'll have

[4:23:39] No presidential value or anything else.

[4:23:44] Okay, nothing else that, thank you Matt.

[4:23:46] Connie, please call the roll.

[4:23:48] Oh, right there.

[4:23:49] Yeah.

[4:23:50] Yeah.

[4:23:54] Yes.

[4:23:54] Right there.

[4:23:55] Yes.

[4:23:56] Yes.

[4:23:58] Okay.

[4:24:00] That would be nice.

[4:24:04] Kurt, last but not least, almost.

[4:24:08] Almost.

[4:24:09] Almost.

[4:24:09] Yeah.

[4:24:10] Mr. Chairman,

[4:24:11] As I briefly mentioned before, might I suggest that the two listed BOT referrals and the discussion

[4:24:26] amongst the planning commission and staff and consultants about parking requirements

[4:24:30] in the CD-5 and the CD-6, if we were to be able to secure, you know, we only need to secure

[4:24:37] the Village Conference Room, would give in the work and the length of the resulting

[4:24:44] mamal for making our F and Morture talk on the rezoning portion of the United

[4:24:51] Hospital and also the second item which has been stalled. Is it possible that the commission

[4:25:00] might consider the workshop at a time of its choosing perhaps in as little as one week in the

[4:25:09] village conference room?

[4:25:14] I think we're all nodding our heads on that when our heads are, so it's appreciated and so the topics

[4:25:22] for the workshop would be this BOT referral for the proposed United Hospital redevelopment

[4:25:29] petition and the other topic would be the parking requirements for CD5 CD6.

[4:25:35] So that when we notice that those are the topics that we're discussing.

[4:25:39] Yes.

[4:25:39] And but also to the extent that the Commission would act on the Board of Trustees request that

[4:25:48] it's last meeting, which was, you'd only be able to hear it on audio and it's agenda meeting.

[4:25:54] The request was, and it relates to where we left off at the joint workshop.

[4:26:00] Is there more than just what was proposed as a, as a contradictory and big list,

[4:26:08] an asterisk, would it, and I think it relates to, of this, the building heights?

[4:26:14] Yeah.

[4:26:15] So that's a third topic.

[4:26:16] Well, I mean, yes.

[4:26:18] In other words, the Board of Trustees on December 29th had asked that,

[4:26:23] that they just make sure, I mean if the best I could explain it was that I think the commission

[4:26:29] sentiments were that regard was so of what side you were looking at of a building and

[4:26:34] regardless of the grade that you wouldn't see anything but the maximum number of stories

[4:26:43] allowed in that district, regardless of grades. So that's topic number three for the workshop. It

[4:26:50] would be. And it's not the whole subject over again. It's a portion of it. In other words,

[4:26:56] that the code I had proposed when we first discussed it to leave in the portion about the,

[4:27:04] if an exterior wall of a basement is exposed up to 4 feet, it would not be counted as a story.

[4:27:11] But if it's more than 4 feet exposed, as it currently states in the code, it would be considered a story.

[4:27:18] So to the extent that I may pursue what the planning commission would like, and I think it was expressing at the workshop.

[4:27:33] So that's our third topic for the workshop.

[4:27:37] All right.

[4:27:39] I don't want to be a Kilnjo here, but that's also a bit of a clue.

[4:27:43] Discussions about?

[4:27:45] Yeah, so I think if it isn't what if if what I proposed isn't what the planning commission wants in

[4:27:55] In its entirety, I think the board of trustees wants to know that and wants to consider they just

[4:28:02] They would like to be clear on it.

[4:28:15] I just want Kurt to come on up, you know,

[4:28:26] I just want Kurt to finish this thought before I mean, you're talking about three different things.

[4:28:39] The Board of Trustees accepted a resolution on the petition and referred it out in September.

[4:28:47] And I understand that the memorandum that Mr. Level is referring to is with respect to the environmental assessment

[4:28:54] the environmental narrative, the conceptual cycle and the petition, so it's, well, it may

[4:29:01] be a lengthy memo. That memo really does not address the petition. That memo addresses

[4:29:07] the, you know, Mr. Froke, make one wrong. It's really the environmental narrative that's

[4:29:13] been submitted in response to the scope of work that's been requested many, many months

[4:29:17] ago. And what I understand as before you is, any comments you may have on the petition,

[4:29:24] for zoning text amendments, that memo does not go into that.

[4:29:30] Although there were two memos, right?

[4:29:34] The memo that we, that we authored,

[4:29:39] A.K.R.F. Courts Office, Mark Chertoff,

[4:29:43] had to do with the environmental assessment narrative

[4:29:47] a portion of which related to the environmental impacts

[4:29:52] of the rezoning.

[4:29:54] and what we try to do is separate potential impacts of the rezoning and the tons.

[4:30:01] Just the rezoning from the concept, we lumped those two together. So I

[4:30:12] think what Mr. Joffers said is correct. We don't have recommendations purely on the rezoning. We have kind of thoughts about the rezoning and the concepts I plan as they are treated together for a secret.

[4:30:28] So that memo has a different focus, right?

[4:30:30] I just want to clarify that.

[4:30:32] If it's a referral that's before you tonight, that memo goes well beyond the scope of what

[4:30:39] referral is that's before you're receiving and we are here before the Board of Trustees on

[4:30:43] the 24th.

[4:30:46] So the one I have is re-unite and hospital application begins.

[4:30:54] This memorandum summarizes the procedural history of the application.

[4:30:59] Yes.

[4:30:59] Okay.

[4:31:00] And it looks like I have two versions.

[4:31:03] It looks like I have one which is,

[4:31:06] is none of the stuff.

[4:31:08] No number pages.

[4:31:11] 1, 2, 3, 4.

[4:31:13] I remember my name.

[4:31:15] It's on fire.

[4:31:17] It's firing myself.

[4:31:19] It's on fire.

[4:31:19] Yeah, no, that's right.

[4:31:21] And this one is all right, so it's all one side.

[4:31:26] So that's the same document.

[4:31:27] So, is that what it is that we're expecting to review, Kurt, or is this so we've got it right?

[4:31:36] The referral from the Board of Trustees was for the Planning Commission's recommendations on the rezoning proposal.

[4:31:46] Again, I hope I have that right.

[4:31:47] I will just leave the door and go.

[4:31:52] I will just leave the door and go.

[4:32:01] I will just leave something.

[4:32:06] To simplify things.

[4:32:08] I will just leave a lot of information.

[4:32:13] To simplify things.

[4:32:14] Your charge as planic commission is to review

[4:32:16] Zoing changes from Zoing changes.

[4:32:19] Right. That's what your job is.

[4:32:21] So to the extent we're going to have a workshop, we're going to review the zoning changes.

[4:32:25] We'll talk to Mr. Scherntock. Is he going to be with us on that night?

[4:32:29] Well, he can be. I just know that when I was, we haven't, we haven't set the date yet.

[4:32:36] We'll try to, I think.

[4:32:37] I'm sure I won't. I want to get the agenda straight.

[4:32:41] That's the first thing.

[4:32:43] I guess I, my understanding was I, I thought that there was something we received in December.

[4:32:50] from the applicant, and in conferring with my colleagues Mark and Peter, it was not thought

[4:33:00] that they could fully respond before the holidays.

[4:33:05] So that led to January 10th, and that's when that's when I received the board card.

[4:33:11] So as a possible to have, with the workshop, have either AKR, excuse me, AKRF, and

[4:33:19] normalist at your talk, there is present to go over this with us, or at least to be available

[4:33:28] for Q&A, if we have the right document front of us?

[4:33:32] I mean, subject to their schedule, and perhaps because we'd be in the conference room, perhaps

[4:33:38] even allowing more core AKRs, AKRF staff to perhaps be there remotely, and I'm not entirely

[4:33:48] remembering exactly what our capacities are in the conference room.

[4:33:53] Okay.

[4:33:53] Well, we have the right document.

[4:33:58] If we have the right document in front of us, and we read that between now and men, and

[4:34:04] have someone to kind of walk us through it or to be available for Q&A as we go through

[4:34:09] the course, that we could be able to provide some feedback or at least talk to what

[4:34:17] doesn't, it is not intuitive.

[4:34:25] So Kirk, could you? Because Pete has a hard county from

[4:34:30] over there. Who knows when? Could you make sure that we have the right document for that

[4:34:37] job that we need to review. If this isn't the right one, that's okay. I just want to make sure we have the right one in front of us for the workshop.

[4:34:47] Yes.

[4:34:47] The question? Well, we got two months ago, the world's largest package. We got two months ago.

[4:34:52] Yes, about that.

[4:34:54] So that, for me in the hospital?

[4:34:57] Yeah.

[4:34:58] So that had all the site plans as well.

[4:35:00] So I think the question, if I'm here incorrectly, is this scope of what you want to talk about at the next meeting zoning site plant, right?

[4:35:13] I think is that the question to mine here?

[4:35:15] I think the question is, have we got this tonight?

[4:35:17] Yep.

[4:35:18] Thanks most of us put that on the back burner.

[4:35:21] Got it.

[4:35:21] Deal with the holidays.

[4:35:22] I'm going forward.

[4:35:23] Yep.

[4:35:24] Come back to us the light.

[4:35:26] I need more speed.

[4:35:27] I don't think we're up to speed.

[4:35:29] That's fair.

[4:35:30] And it's this memo, our acre of memo deals with a heck of a lot more than just the

[4:35:35] rezoning.

[4:35:37] So to the extent that that informs your decision, that it deals with a heck of a lot more.

[4:35:43] So that this United Hospital topic itself could occupy the entirety of the workshop, depending

[4:35:50] upon the size of the scope of the zoning changes that need to be discussed and evaluate

[4:35:55] First understood, then evaluated, and then feedback provided.

[4:36:01] Let me go up to you, but I think that the scope of the requested amendments

[4:36:05] are the amendments.

[4:36:07] They are really clarification items and clean-up of things.

[4:36:11] But also, you know, I'll defer to you.

[4:36:13] I haven't.

[4:36:13] So I wouldn't, I would generally agree with Mr.

[4:36:16] Jaffrey that they are relatively small zoning changes.

[4:36:22] The zoning changes have to deal with the definition of assisted living facility, whether it's a quote unquote residential use or not, whether it's residential or commercial.

[4:36:36] We can talk about why that discussion matters. Permitting the assisted living facility use in the village, in this district, it's defined but it's not permitted anywhere right now.

[4:36:49] So, right, permitting that, giving the Board of Trustees discretion over the placement of the wireless telecommunication facility at this site because the language in the code now says it can't be between a building and a road.

[4:37:09] Well, it's hard not to do that on that site, no matter where you put it.

[4:37:13] where you put it right next to the particle, right next to the cooperative of a particle.

[4:37:16] So we have to, so does it have language to speak to the aesthetic impacts,

[4:37:21] or are we going to end up with another rooftop that looks like?

[4:37:30] You say it, it only has to do with the location of it, all the other special permit criteria, everything else is the same, so you still get to evaluate that, and they're proposing a monopol, not a rooftop.

[4:37:53] So they can put it next to the highway.

[4:37:55] And they wouldn't want to be further to say that we should go back and examine that document.

[4:38:01] If we could come to the meeting with more knowledge of that document,

[4:38:04] then this will have to go ahead and send it to us tonight.

[4:38:07] Yeah, and we can try to not only that document,

[4:38:12] it's the petition.

[4:38:13] I think that's a very good document.

[4:38:14] If one's going to talk about the petition.

[4:38:17] But, and you'll see that the zoning changes themselves are relatively small.

[4:38:21] What they're also proposing is a very detailed site plan.

[4:38:25] Well, while we attempt to search and rummage through the hard copy, is it possible the soft copy

[4:38:29] could be recent?

[4:38:31] I can absolutely do that.

[4:38:33] I expect to do an apology for not doing it for, uh, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.

[4:38:38] Okay, so it was so difficult to get a hard copy.

[4:38:40] I believe the agenda for the United Hospital petition for zoning amendments number one.

[4:38:50] Number two is the parking requirements for CD5 and 6, which is often this agenda.

[4:38:55] And number three is what you just mentioned, building heights, refresher, to make sure

[4:39:03] Playing commission is clear on what we're hoping the outcome will be.

[4:39:11] Okay.

[4:39:12] You asked Connie to just follow up with us on dates.

[4:39:18] Yes, and again, we're fortunate that we can use the

[4:39:21] the building of the conference room or the senior center rather than

[4:39:26] a little bit more tricky to get to get this room.

[4:39:31] We'll try to do this.

[4:39:35] I really like to.

[4:39:38] And with the board's cooperation and its availability.

[4:39:44] I'd like to secure that.

[4:39:45] So that would be in as week.

[4:39:50] Well, I think it.

[4:39:51] The budget or is what we're going to work.

[4:39:53] We can.

[4:39:54] Can you work?

[4:39:55] That's.

[4:39:56] Anyway, we're going to work this next month.

[4:39:58] Right.

[4:39:58] So we're going to work.

[4:40:00] Don't we have to notice?

[4:40:03] If seven of us are assembled, yes, again, that would, yes, I apologize, I didn't mention that.

[4:40:13] So I didn't mean to do that.

[4:40:15] What's this with me?

[4:40:18] More please.

[4:40:22] More 24th of a month.

[4:40:23] So this one will be correct.

[4:40:26] Yeah, that's, you have to know something for two weeks.

[4:40:29] That may have been crucial.

[4:40:31] My thoughts, by Monday.

[4:40:32] Yes, you can notice a special meeting.

[4:40:37] You don't have to have those time requirements.

[4:40:39] Okay, I'm to justify your need for a special meeting.

[4:40:42] Special meeting in response to a request for feedback by the Board of Trustees.

[4:40:47] And then you get the best knowledge you can get under the circumstances.

[4:40:51] Okay, that's a special meeting.

[4:40:52] Okay, so a lot of the special meeting later this week in order to provide feedback and time for Monday's meeting for the POTA.

[4:41:00] I can't do Thursday not that I should I can call in I can't be here. Well, we'll need someone from a K or F, and

[4:41:09] Maybe Mr. Chair talk

[4:41:12] No, he says this is

[4:41:14] Yeah, I can try to work way

[4:41:23] Well, if we can't do Thursday, that's going to be either tomorrow or Friday

[4:41:39] Any time as far as on concern of the day or evening that the commissioners are willing and able.

[4:42:19] I know it's just, this is too complicated.

[4:42:22] And the afternoon or the I get morning.

[4:42:25] So what about there, day after night?

[4:42:36] Point timing, the afternoon.

[4:42:38] Fort Park.

[4:42:39] What time are we looking at?

[4:42:43] Fort Park.

[4:42:44] What time are we looking at?

[4:42:46] It's not Fort Park.

[4:42:48] Fort Park, fair for a bar and fair for a bar and fair for a bar and fair for a bar and fair for a bar.

[4:42:51] Yeah, Fort Park, one of your days.

[4:42:53] Fort Park.

[4:42:55] Five?

[4:42:57] Five, five, five, five better?

[4:43:00] What about what is probably better than there's after that?

[4:43:09] This is always a source that I find it close, right?

[4:43:14] How can you do it?

[4:43:17] There's a lucky one.

[4:43:20] Yeah, it's a job.

[4:43:21] Yes, well, or before we can try with what about in a meeting like this, which starts at 630, that way people can do their normal day jobs, but it's far as 630, but it's far on 630.

[4:43:35] We're going

[4:43:42] to have to perform with some subset of us.

[4:44:24] That is a critical that we do this before this morning, well, and I know the border crossing is a beating, but they're not going to vote.

[4:44:32] It's a good question.

[4:44:36] I'm not positive from that.

[4:44:40] I'm not sure.

[4:44:42] I'm not sure.

[4:44:42] It's very critical.

[4:44:44] I mean, I'd like to do it sooner rather than later, as well.

[4:44:48] But I don't think we should all kill ourselves in reality.

[4:44:57] I mean they're not going to find the right thing.

[4:45:00] If we don't do it before, if we don't do it this week, I don't want to put it off for a month or two months.

[4:45:07] So if we can get it done next week, I'm confident that that will still accomplish the goals.

[4:45:12] We still are going to be appearing before the Board of Trustees.

[4:45:15] But we really need to, you know, move this along.

[4:45:17] But this has been heading since September.

[4:45:20] And we're just talking about, you know, the Board is certainly not going to vote on this coming Monday.

[4:45:27] for the height. And the other issues, right, those are, I don't know, but the Board of Trustees

[4:45:32] isn't taking action on the 24th.

[4:45:35] I mean, obviously I'll go back at the burden of letting the Board of Trustees know that the

[4:45:42] matter of the discussion of height is a little take place along with these items, presumably

[4:45:49] that we can't for this one next week.

[4:45:57] So I would kind of circulate for times for next week, maybe some evening appointments similar to a 630 slot like tonight for some time next week.

[4:46:09] The majority of us can be there.

[4:46:11] Now we have a better chance of getting a care of you, Mr. Serrano, and I don't have a follow-up.

[4:46:17] Why would we do Tuesdays?

[4:46:19] Why would you just cut some time to digest that?

[4:46:23] Okay.

[4:46:26] We'll carry all of us.

[4:46:27] We'll can Sir.

[4:46:28] Can follow up with all of us too.

[4:46:31] Now they have important ethics media tonight.

[4:46:33] I'm not sure.

[4:46:34] No, don't.

[4:46:35] We're going to have a business.

[4:46:36] Does it?

[4:46:37] Send something out.

[4:46:38] Yeah, definitely.

[4:46:39] Yeah, I'm going to call you.

[4:46:41] I'm going to call you.

[4:46:42] I'm going to call you.

[4:46:43] I'm going to call you.

[4:46:43] We're going to call you.

[4:46:46] We don't want you to say anything.

[4:46:49] Yes, now we've got a time.

[4:46:50] We're already saying close.

[4:46:52] I'm sorry.

[4:46:53] Thank you.

[4:46:55] Thank you.

[4:46:56] Thank you.

[4:46:57] Thank you.

[4:46:57] Well, that's, but like I said, this has been around this for quite a while now.

[4:47:05] Mr. Saro, anything else?

[4:47:07] No, I'm asking you, it was right.

[4:47:08] Anything else?

[4:47:08] It's an working requirements for CD5, CD6.

[4:47:11] The only other thing that I had on our list from the last time we talked, and I don't

[4:47:16] know if we're going to talk about it during our workshop or not, was there was interest in getting

[4:47:20] issuing an RFP for an architect.

[4:47:26] So that's a job rate. So that the planning kit, because

[4:47:32] a CAREF does the best that it can, but however, you know, planning departments doing the best

[4:47:38] that it can, but the planning commission still is interested in getting an architect to evaluate these

[4:47:46] applications in the context of the four-based code, confirming that it truly is compliant with the code and providing

[4:47:54] feedback to us on from an independent standpoint.

[4:48:00] Now, that would be aligned with each application.

[4:48:07] Would that be retaining the architect for some grandiose, large-scale topic?

[4:48:13] gets on a per application basis.

[4:48:20] That was the only other thing I had.

[4:48:21] The parking requirements for CD-5 and 6

[4:48:24] that would have been another part of people

[4:48:26] we could talk about that, or should we,

[4:48:28] at the workshop?

[4:48:31] That's it.

[4:48:32] All right.

[4:48:33] Anything else?

[4:48:35] All right.

[4:48:36] Good meeting, everybody.

[4:48:38] Thank you.

[4:48:39] Motion.

[4:48:40] Motion to end the meeting.

[4:48:42] All is a favor?

[4:48:43] All right.

[4:48:44] Good night, board judge.

Planning Commission

Transcript