[0:09] Hello everybody.
Welcome.
[0:12] Um,
great to have so many of you here today.
[0:16] Got packed agenda. Um, let's see. It's
my first time doing this, so I have
[0:24] really good support, but in case it
looks a little bumpy, it is. So
[0:28] [laughter]
um right so I think uh the first thing
[0:32] we want to do is uh open up this
>> yeah so just confirm that we have a quum
[0:38] and then uh open the uh meeting.
>> Okay to confirm we have a qu for quum
[0:43] there are three of us here today and uh
the uh zoning board of appeals meeting
[0:51] August 19th 2026.
[clears throat]
[0:56] All in favor ask for a second.
>> Oh, second.
[1:03] » Very good. Um, so I think the um there
are a couple modifications to the posted
[1:10] agenda. So I will hit those first and
then we can talk about items from last
[1:15] meeting. Um, first of all, the um the
Miller Road preservationists have been
[1:24] rescheduled from tonight until next I'd
like to propose that they uh that we re
[1:34] » Yeah. Okay. So, uh at the last meeting,
uh we the ZBA scheduled public hearing
[1:39] for the Mill Road preservationist. They
didn't get the notice out.
[1:43] » Um so I suggest that we um make a motion
to reschedule the public hearing for
[1:48] September 16th.
[1:52] » Well, I can't make a motion.
I was going to make a motion. Okay. So,
[1:57] I'd like to make a motion that we
reschedu the Milro Preservationist
[2:00] public hearing to September 16th. Do I
have a second?
[2:07] All
>> in favor? Uh
[2:11] Um
the second change is that uh the foster
[2:19] flooring public hearing was actually
closed at the last meeting. So that will
[2:23] be part of business
if there's anybody here for that.
[2:28] » And Cara, just on on that note, I do
have um some resolutions drafted for
[2:33] Foster Floring and Samuels and Gotley
Graham. Uh I usually try to get them
[2:38] posted uh but I wasn't able to do that.
So there are some um at the top um at
[2:43] the top here for anyone who's interested
in the audience for those.
[2:48] Thank you very much.
Um so uh then our next order of business
[2:55] is to uh approve the meetings from the
July 15th
[2:59] meeting. Um, has everybody had a chance
to take over those? And you know, all
[3:05] looks good. Okay, I'd like to make a
motion to approve the minutes from the
[3:09] July 15th. Do I have a second?
All in favor?
[3:16] Um, okay. And with that, we have three
new applications on the agenda for
[3:22] tonight. Um, we're hearing about those
and we are uh ready to open this
[3:28] section. No, little writing. Okay. Um,
so we'll start with our first
[3:33] application and that is uh Eric
Grimbleman 55 Lane. You want to come up
[3:40] and take the mic and
is this you you already have your
[3:45] presentation up? Is that
[3:52] » Thank you, R. I guess this is the first
time he's done that.
[3:56] » Fabulous. Thank you.
Good evening. Um my name is Kurt Sen.
[4:01] I'm an architect um working with Eric
Ruiz on the project and um we're
[4:08] actually before the planning board um
for a special use permit. Um but we do
[4:13] have uh a front yard setback that's been
determined uh to meet an area. Um so
[4:21] that's why we're here tonight. Um,
and
[4:26] I'll walk walk you through it. Um,
people
[4:34] could be okay. Do we have the pointer?
[4:43] » Are we deciding?
>> We're deciding whether or not
[4:51] » I'm going to bring that up. at the
question. So if you could just proceed,
[4:55] I'll bring that question.
>> Okay. So
[5:01] » point.
[5:06] » Can everybody hear me?
>> People usually stand over by the mic to
[5:10] do it.
[5:14] » All right. Can everybody hear me now?
>> Yeah.
[5:17] So um uh this is a single family uh
residential property. It's a historic
[5:24] site. It's a um old stone house. Uh it's
comprised of three land parcels. One
[5:30] here that's blowing off the screen. Uh
the second one here which the um house
[5:36] is on and then there's a third parcel
that kind of goes off the screen over
[5:41] here. Um so Mine Coupe Lane is a dead
end road and it kind of ends at a
[5:46] lollipop right here. There's one more
house at the end of the road here and um
[5:51] the road cuts right through the middle
of the property. Um so the question came
[5:56] up is this the front yard and we um have
taken position that the road um
[6:02] determines you know the front yard and
so uh this would be um this is the
[6:08] existing house that's not hatched. So
the front of the house would be this
[6:13] face right here. Uh the front face is 36
ft from the center line of the road. Our
[6:19] new addition is on the back of the house
completely. Um and that is um 65 ft from
[6:25] the center of the road. Um but there is
one edge of the addition that comes
[6:32] towards the sideyard two feet and I
believe that is um the element that is
[6:38] triggering the variance because um we
are even though we're on completely on
[6:43] the back of the building um uh speaking
with the zoning administrator um the
[6:51] addition goes closer to a property line
and that's what triggers um the
[6:56] addition.
as per the clause that he cites. So, um,
[7:01] basically, um, I'll just walk you
through a couple of the other elements.
[7:05] There's an existing garage here. There's
an existing cabin cottage here. Um, and
[7:10] there's a garden here and garden shed.
Um, there's ponds on the property. Um,
[7:16] it's residential world.
So, that's pretty much the lay of the
[7:22] land.
Um
[7:25] uh this is a closeup of the existing
stone house which is right here. Um this
[7:30] is a 1950s edition that came off the
stone house and you can see our hatched
[7:37] edition here. This is our new hatched
edition. It's a kitchen. And then this
[7:42] is an extension of the terrace. There's
an existing terrace right here and we're
[7:46] extending that back.
Okay. And I don't know if you want to
[7:51] deploy plans. I can go through them, but
they also did provide renderings of what
[7:54] the proposals would like.
[7:59] That would be helpful. It just needs
quite a clarification. The the I thought
[8:04] the issue was the projection into the
front yard set back. So, [clears throat]
[8:10] » yeah. Yeah.
>> So this is the section of the zoning law
[8:16] that is um being cited here. It's um so
as Mr. Sutherland had mentioned um this
[8:27] is a pre-existing house. It's actually
on the historic district. Um I think
[8:31] it's from 1730. Is that where the house
is from?
[8:34] » Yeah. So section H this is the section
125-19 which is talking about um zoning
[8:41] district regulations and what section H
says is that the existing front side and
[8:47] rear yards adjoining existing structures
built prior to December 2009 um one or
[8:52] more of which may be less in depth than
the minimum setback set forth with
[8:57] article 4 area bulk rigs
um and therefore not complying shall be
[9:01] considered grandfathered upon this
chapter.
[9:05] Additions or other improvements to such
structures that may be proposed shall be
[9:09] authorized without requirements of an
area variance provided that the addition
[9:13] or other improvement is no nearer any
property lines than the existing
[9:17] structure. So what um I spoke with Mike
Gard who's the current zoning
[9:23] enforcement officer and he had pointed
to the second se sentence um which says
[9:29] no mirror to any property line in the
existing structure. So that's what um
[9:33] the applicant was just explaining is
that even though it's not further into
[9:36] the setback of the front yard, it's
still closer to sideyard because it
[9:42] projects a little bit closer and the
rear yard bicycles
[9:46] » of course. Um,
but the I was looking at this because I
[9:51] had always kind of been under the
impression that you don't want to create
[9:55] more of a nonconformity and I think that
in the past and perhaps it's just that
[9:59] any additions happen to be further
encroaching into what you know kind of
[10:02] further encroaching into the setback
and what I had read from the first
[10:07] sentence was that it's saying that the
if you have an existing front side or
[10:12] rear yard that is non the non-complying
that's considered grandfathered in. And
[10:19] then the second sentence says, if you
have an addition that goes further to a
[10:25] property line, then you need an area
variance. And I guess the question that
[10:30] I posed as the DPA, you could interpret
this zoning law. I didn't know if you
[10:37] also interpret it as the zoning
enforcement officer that just focusing
[10:42] on the second sentence alone saying that
additions that um are now closer to the
[10:49] property line require an area variance
in which case we'll continue with this
[10:52] application.
Or if you also read it that with in
[10:58] conjunction with the first one, the
first sentence kind of is saying that if
[11:02] you have an existing structure that's
within the setback already built prior
[11:06] to 2009,
those setbacks are grandfathered in.
[11:12] And if those additions that are already
in the setback go closer to the property
[11:17] line, then the area of variance is
required almost like making it
[11:21] conforming. So my question I was under
the impression that this side and rear
[11:27] yard uh they would not begin
not infringing on the side and rear yard
[11:34] set
>> right the current set those are fine
[11:38] » right so this the and and yeah so the
side and rear setbacks in the RC5 is 50
[11:43] ft and they're within those 50 ft it's
because the addition on the side
[11:50] » is closer to the property property line
a property line happens to be the side
[11:54] property line that Mike Dugard was
reading the second sentence and saying
[12:00] you know focusing on this line no nearer
to any property line so that's what he's
[12:06] picking up on I think the ZBA could
reasonably interpret this as
[12:13] two sentences one is that if the
existing building is already within the
[12:19] setback
the lines lines are grandfathered in.
[12:24] And then this second sentence about
nearer to the property line is in
[12:28] conjunction with the existing
non-conforming.
[12:31] » Exactly. That's how I read it.
>> Right. So that's and apply to the front
[12:36] is is the way I read it.
>> Okay. Yeah.
[12:40] » And in this case, it's not any closer to
the front
[12:44] existing.
>> But do we need to bring them into
[12:46] compliance since they're touching the
bit that's in the setback? Well, with an
[12:51] area variance, what you're trying to do
is that so with a setback, you're not
[12:54] supposed to have any structures within
from the road to where the setback is.
[12:59] So, we typically calculate that from
where it's closest to the road, in which
[13:05] case they're already kind of
grandfathered in because they're 35 ft
[13:10] from it now and they're still in the
setback, but they're not any further.
[13:16] That kind of goes to that they're not
any nearer to the property line. than
[13:20] what the current nonconformity is. Does
that make sense?
[13:23] » Absolutely. My only question was because
they're doing work, does that trigger
[13:29] the need to bring it into compliance
with
[13:33] » Well, again, I think it depends, I
guess, on how you how the board is
[13:37] reviewing this section. That is what we
need to
[13:40] » Right. Okay. Does everybody on the board
understand what the the question is?
[13:44] » I think so. Could [snorts] you put the
map up?
[13:46] » Sure.
[13:50] Just make sure.
>> So,
[13:52] » sorry.
[13:55] [laughter]
>> The way I read the second part of that
[14:00] um piece in the code,
>> any new addition would need a variant,
[14:06] » right? I mean that's that's how and
actually I did speak to um uh Mike
[14:12] Dardard on it and he kind of had said
too any addition likely is going to be
[14:19] unless it's like L-shaped
>> well it will be closer to some property
[14:23] line
>> most say nine out of 10 times and I
[14:27] think I think what happened in the past
was that anytime there was a new
[14:31] addition it just so happened that it was
further into the appropriate so um one
[14:35] of the keys when you're interpreting the
zoning law is that you also look at the
[14:40] whole section, too. So, I just bring
that up because I think that there's a
[14:44] way that you could interpret it that if
you're extending the nonconformity
[14:49] closer to a property line, that's when
you would need a variance. But I also
[14:55] understand this if you just read the
second sentence and it does say any
[14:58] property line. So that's why I think
it's an appropriate question to bring to
[15:03] the board as one of your um duties and
um that you can do is to interpret this.
[15:10] Okay. Thank you very much. That's why
we're here basically because when I
[15:15] first read this I thought how could it
possibly be more feed.
[15:21] So we were confused by the writing and
the town one may want to take that up.
[15:26] We couldn't figure [snorts] out what to
do but just to be on the safe side we
[15:30] wanted to bring two guys to make that
decision.
[15:32] » Yeah. And just to to um go on that. So
the way that it actually also came in
[15:37] front of this board was that it um this
uh issue was flagged during a
[15:41] pre-conference for the planning board.
So, because it's a historic house, they
[15:44] do need site plan approval. And um when
the planning board refers a variance
[15:50] application to the zoning board of
appeals, they don't need to go in front
[15:53] of the um zoning enforcement officer.
They kind of can not have the middleman.
[15:59] So, like I said, when I spoke to um Mike
Duggard, he kind of had said, "This is
[16:03] how I read it." But I think he's open if
if we have another interpretation
[16:08] because he kind of sees the same
practical problem, too. But you know, we
[16:14] have to stick with what the zoning law
is, but we can also interpret it as a
[16:18] whole as well.
>> Thank you very much. Yeah, you could see
[16:23] how that second sentence could be
rewritten in the zoning law to say, you
[16:29] know, the nonconforming setback, you
know, if if the addition got any closer
[16:34] to the nonconforming, you know, property
line,
[16:40] then it would be a variance of required.
I think that would be that would be my
[16:46] interpretation.
>> Maybe see that. Oh, sure. Yes.
[16:56] Well, it is actually helpful to just see
the picture of the house really quick.
[16:59] Right. So, here's we're we're online
googling right now looking at the the um
[17:04] front face of the building. Although the
front door is around the corner here,
[17:08] but these it was a building built in
stages. So, one of these was the
[17:12] original front door probably at one
point. Um okay. And then I just just
[17:18] want to show for the board. This is kind
of taking it this is likely where the
[17:21] addition would probably be.
>> Yeah. Right. Right back in here. So it
[17:25] would be behind these trees.
>> This is that little um dead end area is
[17:30] right over here. So you can kind of see
and it's on the same parcel that's on
[17:35] directly opposite on this other side of
the road.
[17:38] » Yeah. This is Yeah, they they own their
parcel spans you know the road both both
[17:44] sides.
[17:47] Okay. Yeah. So, um, so this is a view
from like wine wine coupe lane would be
[17:53] running right here where my cursor is.
So, this is the view we were just
[17:56] looking at with the trees in front of
it. Um, that's the front face of the
[18:00] building. This is the south side and
then the addition would be on this back
[18:06] portion of the building. This lower roof
is existing. So, our new addition
[18:10] attaches to the existing uh package.
And then this is the new kitchen here.
[18:17] That's the existing uh room right here
in the first room. And then uh now we're
[18:22] looking just at the new kitchen edition
here.
[18:29] » What we wanted to do was not touch the
house.
[18:32] » Yeah.
>> So we're we're extending this since
[18:35] 1950s or so kitchen and bathroom.
We're attaching to the latest portion of
[18:41] the house, preserving the original parts
of the building, faces of the building.
[18:46] » So what we need to decide is whether or
not
[18:49] » Yeah, I I would say the well I would say
the first question that the board should
[18:54] be considering is is an area variance
necessary. That would be the first
[18:59] question. Uh if a variance is necessary
then we'll go into the procedural um
[19:06] acceptance of the application seeker
referrals. If you determine that a
[19:10] variance is not necessary um you can
have those discussions now and then I
[19:14] can draft up a resolution. I'll pass it
if that's what the board decides. I can
[19:18] pass along to the planning board so they
know what will be coming but then I'll
[19:21] take time to draft it up and prepare it
for next meeting.
[19:26] » I I have one question. If we decide that
an area variance is not required in our
[19:34] reading of the code, does that then
effectively set a precedent for anybody
[19:40] else coming down?
>> Yes.
[19:44] » So we're essentially kind of rewriting
it.
[19:47] » Well, I I guess it would be a rewrite.
It would be an interpretation. Okay.
[19:52] » Um but
>> like other interpretations,
[19:54] » yes, you your decision would have
precedent.
[20:01] But it's not it like I said your job is
to interpret the zoning law. So um that
[20:07] would be what the interpretation would
be um made for but you're not rewrite
[20:11] you're not you know making a legislative
change or anything like that.
[20:19] My first my first reading would be
[20:24] that variance is not required
that um
[20:31] it's not encroaching anymore on the
setback that's too small that the
[20:38] grandfather.
It's not worsening that situation.
[20:43] And then to read it the other way as as
we discussed virtually requiring
[20:48] variance for every
edition. Yeah.
[20:52] » Every edition which
I don't think was the intent of how that
[20:58] was written. That would be my that would
be my reading
[21:03] and I'm inclined to agree. My only
um question was was whether whether
[21:11] because they are doing the work whether
they would be in the areas where it's
[21:16] already in the front step back.
>> No, that would be grandfathered because
[21:20] they're not expanding on that work.
They're not doing anything on the front
[21:23] of it.
>> If it if if the addition were on the
[21:26] other side of the house, it'd be a whole
different discussion,
[21:28] » right? No question. I think then then it
would be the question is if it's so
[21:33] right now it's it's at 35 ft and the new
addition is at 65 ft but I think if any
[21:39] work was done in the front where now
you're encroaching further into that
[21:43] front yard setback
>> or if the addition was on the south side
[21:48] and came 2
>> of the original front of the househ.
[22:01] [clears throat]
[22:04] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[22:08] Everybody else.
>> Okay. I can draft up a resolution um for
[22:13] for next month just to kind of put that
and then you get a chance to kind of see
[22:17] it
>> and then the resolution wouldn't really
[22:19] be about this application. It would be
about
[22:22] » well it it would be about this
resolution but we would put the l I
[22:27] would put your reasoning in there to
explain it which might have a
[22:31] presidential value to future
applications for similarly situated
[22:35] applicants. In other words, applicants
that might have a non-conforming house,
[22:39] additions are not encroaching further
into where the nonconformity is.
[22:44] » Correct.
>> Because it's really only applying to
[22:48] applications [clears throat]
where they haven't grandfathered in.
[22:51] » Yeah. Structure that was erected before
200.
[22:56] » Okay.
[22:59] » Um, so when is when is this applicant in
front of the planning board again?
[23:05] September 8th
first is a public hearing
[23:10] » is a public hearing. Um so just for
here's what I'm just thinking because
[23:18] the next ZBA meeting is um
>> the yeah September 16th.
[23:26] Um what I would suggest car is that if
you make a motion to just say that uh
[23:32] based on our baza's interpretation of
125-19h
[23:38] no area variance is needed for this
application and then ask for a second
[23:44] and then that way you they the applicant
has the vote and they can continue on
[23:49] with the planning board. I'll draft up a
resolution just to put it in in for the
[23:53] file.
>> Okay. So, I'd like to make a motion that
[23:58] um that I can never recall that um that
uh our interpretation of 12519H
[24:07] uh lead us to the DBA to feel that there
is no area variance required for this 55
[24:15] win
project. Do I have a second? All in
[24:20] favor?
[24:24] Thank you. And then I would just um also
suggest you can make a motion to direct
[24:28] lines to draft up a resolution putting
your rationale in make a motion for
[24:34] grant alliance to uh write up a
resolution that can be put in the file
[24:38] passing the planning board so that they
can continue with their with their
[24:43] project. Do I have a second?
>> All in favor? Thanks.
[24:50] » I'll let I'll let um Melanie and Jim
know um the decision as well so that
[24:55] there's no
>> Great. Thank you very much.
[24:58] » Thank you. Thank you for
[25:08] our next order of business is
differently challenging.
[25:12] Um, next on the agenda is a project at
35 road, case 1017.
[25:23] Thank you very much.
[25:30] » Great.
>> Good evening everyone. Uh, my name is
[25:33] Anthony Penda. I'm an architect here
representing Aaron Patel, the owner of a
[25:38] property at 35 Y Road. Uh Aaron actually
owns two plots here which are shown on
[25:44] the site plan.
See
[25:48] uh the smaller of the two lots is a 86
acre lot. It's a existing non-forming
[25:53] lot. Aaron also owns this uh
approximately 30 acre lot here as well.
[25:59] This application is also in front of the
planning board for site plan approval as
[26:04] well as a review of the historic the
locally designated historical
[26:08] characteristics of the existing home.
Uh for the zoning area variances that we
[26:16] are uh requesting both are entirely
focused on the smaller lot the 86 acre
[26:23] lot where there are three existing
structures. Would you like me to go to
[26:27] the site plan that has all that?
>> Yeah.
[26:31] » Yeah. So, on the on the smaller lot, the
address being 35,
[26:36] there are three existing structures. Uh
here along the road, there is a
[26:42] dilapidated shed. Uh it's leaning over
uh likely to collapse um imminently. Uh
[26:50] that uh structure is over the property
line currently.
[26:55] Adjacent to that there is a large uh
agricultural garage
[27:01] and then there is the existing home.
The proposed project includes
[27:06] demolishing the dilapidated barn,
relocating it uh within the footprint
[27:14] within the property lines itself,
demolishing the large agricultural
[27:20] garage, rebuilding it in a similar
footprint and similar square footage.
[27:25] uh while aligning it to um the existing
home and the uh the adjacent uh proposed
[27:36] gate house.
[27:41] Uh the house itself
uh there will there's a proposed
[27:45] addition to the south which would be a a
twole open air um structure
[27:53] uh for outdoor dining. Uh there is uh an
existing sun room at the ground level
[28:00] here which we are proposing to demolish
and in its footprint we build a twotory
[28:05] addition uh to the east of the home. And
then this rectangle here is an addition
[28:10] on the west side which will be a cover
entry porch for the home.
[28:18] Any questions so far?
>> Um the building that you're demolishing
[28:23] and first building closest to the road.
Yeah, that one.
[28:26] » Uh is that going to be a garage or is it
did you say it was going to be a guest
[28:31] house? It it will be a utility garage
used for storage of recreational
[28:37] equipment, bikes, lawnmowers. Uh there
will be a bathroom in there as well as a
[28:43] a mezzanine area. Um
and then the the larger garage would be
[28:50] for equipment to maintain the the larger
parcel of land, tractors, brush, etc.
[28:56] and you know um you know one or two cars
that that might need protection during
[29:02] uh bad weather. Um I will say we we got
some good feedback from the the planning
[29:08] board. Uh we have our public hearing on
Monday. Uh and we are already making
[29:13] adjustments to what you're seeing now.
Uh in terms of the bulk of the uh the
[29:19] garages, its relationship to the house
and although you know historical
[29:25] preservation may not be your main
concern, we are also looking at the
[29:28] details of those uh to uh preserve that
historical integrity uh and carry that
[29:35] through this next chapter of the
property.
[29:38] May I ask is when you are you're
referring to something in there as the
[29:43] as the gate house.
>> Yeah, we have floor plans of each of
[29:47] these.
>> Is this meant to ultimately be sort of
[29:49] the gateway to the that bigger property?
>> Uh that's a good question. Actually, if
[29:55] you go back to the overall site plan
[30:01] » this this one or the the
>> No, this one's great. Thank you.
[30:06] » Yep. So right now there are there are
two proposed entrances
[30:11] into the site. Um both from the from BL
road are into the larger property, but
[30:18] you can see this road here services both
the smaller property and then eventually
[30:23] the the future proposed uh house up
here. Uh so there's a entrance here,
[30:29] there's an entrance here. This would be
the main driveway servicing both both uh
[30:34] residences. Uh this this one would be
used in winter months. Uh the case that
[30:40] the owner cannot get this plowed or
there's you know kind of a shortcut
[30:44] there to get a more direct access into
the home.
[30:48] Um you know the the intent behind this
project is to maintain
[30:55] uh the larger property as a single
family residential home. There's no
[31:00] intention whatsoever to subdivide. Uh
and we are also, you know, you might be
[31:06] sensitive to the vernacular of um you
know, the the traditional farmhouse. And
[31:12] um you know, that's that's kind of
what's behind the arrangement of the
[31:16] buildings in the smaller parcel. you
know, as much as we can while improving
[31:22] things such as prop buildings being over
the property line and uh setbacks. You
[31:27] know, we're maintaining those two
structures as a nod to those
[31:31] pre-existing dilapidated buildings.
[31:39] » I have a good question. uh with that
second um driveway that you were talking
[31:44] about, the one that can be used for the
winter.
[31:46] » Um it's it is off the property lines. I
know that you own both of
[31:52] I know in your application you mentioned
talking about lot adjustments. Would you
[31:56] » be consider and I know you said you're
just you're making some adjustments now
[31:59] to the area and bulk and I just didn't
know is there um I know that there's an
[32:04] existing driveway that kind of comes off
pretty close to where the gate house is.
[32:09] I guess I just want it's not really a
ZBA concern. I just my question is just
[32:15] for the future because you probably need
to have some sort of like
[32:19] » easement or rightway and I just didn't
know if you were considering just even
[32:23] doing a giving you know yourself to
yourself uh just so that the drive
[32:28] second driveway is all on the property.
Yeah, it's a good point and one that's
[32:32] that's been raised as a way to resolve
some of the the issues we're having
[32:37] here. Uh, as we're going through the
process and having um our our monthly or
[32:42] by monthly meetings, we're getting more
information. Um, so we're waiting for um
[32:49] ourselves to make adjustments, but also
to to get feedback from from the town as
[32:53] to as to what is the best best path
forward. As you may have seen in the
[32:58] application, you know, that is an option
to adjust that lot lining and may solve
[33:03] things, you know, more than just that
for the driveway.
[33:11] » There's no intent to join the two laws.
>> We can um also a question to you guys
[33:17] what is best.
[33:23] We wouldn't be allowed to have two
principal dwellings on a single lot.
[33:27] » Oh yeah.
>> Or even give some more of the to6 41.4
[33:34] plus.86. So if it needs to have five or
10 and very agreeable, but the main
[33:38] point is I don't want to subdivide it.
It always wants to stay as one. So
[33:42] whatever you guys think is open to
>> I was thinking that might help adding a
[33:47] little bit to it might help with the
ratios and some of the area variances
[33:51] that are on the list. Yeah, certainly
for the building coverage and the um lot
[33:57] coverage certainly. And if you can
expand on the setback, it would still
[34:01] have the question the accessory
structures limitations of 1500 ft
[34:05] wouldn't change because the structures
are the structures, but it probably
[34:09] would eliminate a lot. Okay.
>> Yeah, that we we assume there'll be a
[34:16] commonality for those accessory
structures between your board and the
[34:19] planning board and we've already has
this discussions of of modifying those
[34:23] to better appeal to both groups um and
the code
[34:29] » and I think could you just also explain
I know you talked about this but this
[34:33] will a lot of it will be um paved or
gravel I guess is that
[34:38] » yeah so I'll just outline the gravel
area.
[34:44] Yeah. So, I mean everything you see in
the grid would be
[34:49] but you can take a look at that as well.
[35:01] » Do you I can't remember. I think you
have I'll just go through uh they do
[35:05] have just existing structures.
>> Yeah, we have photos. There should be
[35:09] some photos in here.
[35:14] Yeah. So, here's the main house. Uh,
this is the east side. So, we would
[35:19] propose to demolish this sun room uh and
build a two-story addition here and the
[35:26] same footprint.
This is the approach from the driveway.
[35:30] Uh, this is where that covered porch
would be uh to act as the main entrance
[35:35] into the home.
This is the elevation facing the road,
[35:39] the north elevation.
We would relocate these condensers to a
[35:44] more concealed area. Uh, and we're
proposing a door here to gain more head
[35:50] height space in the the low ceiling of
the main bedroom upstairs.
[35:56] And off of this facade here, uh, we
would maintain the same roof height,
[36:00] same roof pitch, extrude that out. And
then the top level, you would have a
[36:06] covered porch. At the lower level would
be your covered patio.
[36:12] Here is the that structure that's over
the property line.
[36:17] And then here is that garage, existing
garage that we would match in square
[36:22] footage and footprint. Well, I believe
somebody set back or you know how far
[36:28] it's back from the property.
[36:42] Do you want to see the floor plans? I
can
[36:46] see but I also don't
do you guys want to see
[36:52] I take time. Okay.
[36:58] » Like a very complete application.
>> Yeah.
[37:01] » What are the
>> Yeah. So um so one one I'll go through
[37:07] and and please correct me if I'm if I'm
mistaken on any of that. Um but this was
[37:14] another application that was referred um
from the planning board during their
[37:18] pre-conference to the ZPA. Um, if you
are continuing with this set of plans,
[37:23] my recommendation would be that we also
just let the zoning enforcement officer
[37:27] just kind of go through the plans just
to make sure that we're getting all the
[37:30] area variances and getting the right
calculations. But their um map kind of
[37:34] had a lot of DNS that map
81.
[37:40] » Yeah.
[37:45] » Uh so uh one of them was maximum
building coverage required is 7% and
[37:51] they're proposing 12.6%.
Um which is a I don't know if you want
[37:57] to go into square footage and acreage
just for information purposes. This one
[38:01] to kind of cover um minimum lot
coverage. So the mill maximum building
[38:06] coverage is the amount of the structures
that are on there and lot coverage is
[38:10] all impervious surfaces including the
structures which would include the
[38:14] parking lot.
>> So the minimum it's gravel.
[38:18] » Yeah, it's well that's why I wanted to
have it checked but okay.
[38:22] » I would I think it's parking.
what we've seen as what we're proposing
[38:27] is considered impervious even though it
is graphic.
[38:31] » So the minimum coverage uh this is in
the RC5 district is 25% and what's being
[38:36] proposed is 49%.
Um maximum building height for accessory
[38:40] structures um is 20 ft. Uh both the
garage and the gate house are proposed
[38:46] to be 25t 2 in. That's one we're going
to drop down below.
[38:55] » They're
>> 18 ft.
[38:59] » Uh front yard setback for the garage. Um
is uh so you can't have an accessory
[39:06] structure that's either closer to the
fronting house or located within the
[39:09] front yard setback. So 100 ft is the
setback in the RC5 and they're proposing
[39:15] for the garage is 50 ft um 8 in.
And sticking to the garage um sideyard
[39:24] setback is 37.5 ft proposed is 3T 9 in
and the rear yard setback for the garage
[39:32] is um required to be 30 ft and they're
proposing it to be 6' 10 in for the gate
[39:38] house. That's the red barn that's
closest to the road. Um same um most of
[39:44] them are the same uh 100 ft set back for
the front and they're proposing 12 ft 11
[39:49] in. And the sideyard set back um which
will be moved into the boundaries of the
[39:55] property. It's supposed to be 37.5. It's
proposed to be 4'2 in.
[40:00] Um aggregate floor area for accessory
structures which would be the uh gate
[40:04] house and the garage. The limit is 1500
square f feet and they're proposing
[40:09] 3,322
square ft. And this one I had a question
[40:14] on. You had the front parking set back
and the rear parking set back. Um 25 ft
[40:20] for the front parking and 5 ft for the
rear. But I didn't know what those
[40:23] measurements are on that.
>> Okay. Uh and
[40:28] » which might change I understand.
>> Do you have those measurements by
[40:33] chance?
>> I don't believe so. I mean roughly I
[40:35] think you were pulling them off of you
know this side and this side.
[40:39] » Yeah.
>> And I guess we'll check and the zoning
[40:44] officer just know what constitutes it
gravel or is it just the where?
[40:51] » Yeah, it looked like from the zoning law
just where you park. Um because I was I
[40:57] wasn't sure that a resident a
residential lot would need parking but
[41:01] it did say all uses. So I guess I guess
get that it's triggered. So that's where
[41:07] a change in the lot line on that side
would definitely help out any number of
[41:13] those varants.
>> Yeah. Not not so much the front. The
[41:16] front probably is unless they move the
buildings back, but I think that you
[41:20] want to try to keep the existing
footprints. Well, certainly with the
[41:25] house, you're not
>> um what's the size difference between
[41:30] the existing shed and then the new gate
house? Because it looks a little bigger.
[41:36] » It is bigger and that's another um piece
that we would reduce to to get more in
[41:42] line with the original footprint.
>> I don't have the square footage of the
[41:46] existing [clears throat]
structure.
[41:47] » Okay.
[41:51] I think that makesense to the accessory,
[clears throat]
[41:56] » right? Yep.
>> The proximity is not like a very cozy
[42:01] little property.
>> Yeah. The the intent, you know, the
[42:06] larger site plan is to create an
experience into the site rather than
[42:10] just pulling off a main road. There's
that, you know, a long long path in
[42:16] these undulating hills and you come in
what is now the back of the property and
[42:20] you're in this little enclosure,
this courtyard.
[42:29] So, I guess um a question for the board
and also for the applicant. You said
[42:33] that you're considering making changes.
How soon are you thinking about making
[42:37] changes? because I don't want to waste
your time and I also don't want to waste
[42:41] the board's time.
>> I want to keep the process.
[42:43] » Yeah, we're going to try to get them in
before the deadline, the two week
[42:46] deadline ahead of the next meeting.
>> So, was that next couple Mondays from
[42:53] now? September 21st.
>> Yeah, I think they're on for
[42:59] » Oh, it's the
21st
[43:04] meeting Monday. So ZBA will be meeting
before the planning board meeting. Okay.
[43:08] » Um
so one thing that the board could do and
[43:12] we'll wait for Joe on just well I'll
just go through it right now but then
[43:17] before we take your vote is that um it's
always um
[43:24] you know one of the first questions is
that this application is complete. Um,
[43:29] as Katherine had mentioned, it is a
fairly comprehensive
[43:34] application, but we also want to make
sure that whatever when we publish for
[43:37] the public hearing that it's also the
most accurate up to date. So we could
[43:42] accept the application, schedule the
public hearing, and then if you don't
[43:47] get it in time before the public, you
know, the public hearing is done, we can
[43:52] always keep the public hearing open just
to make sure that the public has the
[43:55] opportunity to review what the most
upto-date information are. Or we could
[44:04] not we can also say that it's not
complete until you get the full set and
[44:09] then we'll just move forward with that.
If that's doesn't create great hardship,
[44:14] I would say there are enough moving
parts still that it would be good if we
[44:19] waited to the next meeting,
>> get the most current up-to-date
[44:23] application, up to date application, we
accepted it.
[44:28] » So does that mean even if we got it in
before you know
[44:32] I mean you would still need to get it in
two weeks before to be on the agenda
[44:37] anyway. But this way the benefit is that
we're not, you know, you kind of have a
[44:42] chance to make sure that you are
presenting the most up-to-date plans for
[44:46] the um for the ZBA and also gives the
zoning enforcement officer times to also
[44:53] adjust with the because when you put the
public hearing together, you also need
[44:57] to be explain what all your variances
are. So, the benefit is that we're not
[45:01] we're it's a it's a a month delay for
you, but it also provides both for the
[45:08] board and the public the most accurate
up-to-date information and it could save
[45:12] you time down the road too because a lot
of questions were raised then you go
[45:17] back to the drawing board. So if we can
get it ironed out. Now
[45:21] » I'm happy to do that. It sounds like
everyone.
[45:26] » I just have one question which is more
for your information than for us. But if
[45:33] they want to do a lot change, doesn't
that have to go before the timing board
[45:38] be reviewed?
>> Yes, that would be minor subdivision.
[45:40] » It would be a minor subdivision.
And then does that add a bunch of time
[45:46] onto everything or if they're if they
know what they want to do, they can just
[45:51] kind of wrap it up.
>> What would be most beneficial for the
[45:53] applicant was to have a a most a most
complete and upto-date plan. So if they
[45:59] want to include the lock line, it would
be beneficial for them to consider that
[46:05] now so that you don't get further and
then you have to go through another
[46:08] application process. because you know
this way everything kind of move in
[46:12] parallel
>> and that that's not to say you need to
[46:15] do a lot that we're recommending that
but if you just if you think you want to
[46:19] do it
>> it would probably reduce a lot of the
[46:22] variances
[46:28] » okay so I think for now we'll say that
it's um incomplete
[46:34] yes
you'd like it to be more yeah more up to
[46:38] date with what
[46:43] Okay.
>> So, do you need a motion for that?
[46:46] » I think it's it's your statement that
it's incomplete. You're not making a
[46:50] motion that is complete. So,
>> I just forotion
[46:55] for anything. [laughter]
>> I don't think you need a motion.
[46:59] It's not an official action to to to
have them back at the next.
[47:06] So, I'd like to make a motion that we
>> You can make a motion that we're
[47:09] declaring it incomplete and the
applicant will provide a more upto-date
[47:14] plan
like make a motion that we're finding
[47:17] that uh the current application
could be more complete and we're and we
[47:26] are uh therefore suggesting that they
come back at the uh next meeting on
[47:31] September 16th.
>> Yeah. Or whatever. But if you need more
[47:34] time, you know, obviously don't rush it.
>> You make it so that it's u what you
[47:40] envision, what you want for the board.
>> Do I have a second?
[47:46] » All in favor?
>> Thank you.
[47:49] » You're very welcome.
>> Great project.
[47:56] Next on the agenda is uh aqua check. We
got case 118
[48:05] uh 805 route 9g. It is a variance for
science
[48:11] square footage science.
>> Hi. Hi there. I'm Desiree. I own a
[48:18] laboratory. Jeff Newman.
Thank you very much for coming today.
[48:24] » You're welcome. Um we're here today ask
for our area variance so that we can
[48:28] install a sign
on the same sign pillars underneath the
[48:33] four brothers pizza sign which is the
building that we share. Um
[48:38] so what we're asking for is a 4x8 sign
that would be directly underneath the
[48:42] four brothers pizza sign.
[48:46] When this photo was up in this photo,
you can see the existing brackets where
[48:50] the previous sign had been with a
cabinet sort of
[48:54] » Yeah.
>> Exactly. So there would be no no other
[48:58] changes to the lighting or the structure
design just install it on the existing
[49:06] » like that.
>> Yeah, just like that. We think it would
[49:08] be um appropriate for a couple different
reasons. First and foremost, when you
[49:14] are coming to this property, either from
the north or from the south, the
[49:18] building is not visible until you're
literally on top of the entrance to the
[49:22] parking lot. And that area is 55 m an
hour. So, we're of the opinion that the
[49:27] sign should be large. It should be easy
to see, visible um just to ensure the
[49:31] safety of the motorists that are that
are coming to the laboratory. And there
[49:35] are photos in the application you've
seen that show that approach and the
[49:38] difference between being, you know, a
couple hundred feet away and being right
[49:41] on the hill.
And and the idea is, you know, the sign
[49:45] is there so that this is driving and
you're looking to the direction you're
[49:48] driving. Hopefully that the map is going
to guide you to where you're going. You
[49:52] see the sign
[49:56] tricky tricky
tricky turning along there.
[50:01] Um, so you can't see any of the front of
the is is there sign I can't remind me.
[50:07] Is there signage on the front of the
building as well other than what
[50:10] » you're as
good? Yeah. So this you cannot see until
[50:16] you pull into the parking lot. It's
quite kind of small as you can see in
[50:20] the photo.
>> Oh, right.
[50:23] » Um, [clears throat] it's more
instructional that signage that we put
[50:26] on the front of the building. um hours
and also instructions about how to
[50:29] utilize the dropbox. You can't see that
unless you're in the parking lot.
[50:36] » Is the signage on the glass, but is that
part of all these calculations?
[50:39] » No. Okay.
>> No, we would remove the signage on the
[50:42] glass.
>> Oh, okay.
[50:49] » So, the standing sign under brothers
would be your signage for both.
[50:55] » That's correct. We want to utilize the
brackets that already exist and put our
[50:59] sign underneath it. Exactly like cabinet
makers signs always
[51:06] the business hours and the dropbox
direction sign.
[51:10] » Yes. Right.
>> But you said the the window
[51:15] » we would remove the window decals. Yes.
>> They're not visible anyway. Can't see
[51:19] them until you pull into the parking
lot.
[51:22] Do you imagine to have uh photos of the
the cabinet? Uh what was that before?
[51:27] Okay. I'm just curious.
>> Imagine Google Earth
[51:30] » probably. I was just thinking Google
Earth might have.
[51:32] » He hasn't been gone for long. Yeah, I
think you said 2 years or so.
[51:35] » Yeah. Yeah. Just that's a I can check.
>> But it's the same dimensions as the cab.
[51:42] They took that that the um cabinet maker
signed down when we decided to rent the
[51:49] building from the space and they
literally just took it off with the two
[51:52] white pillars.
>> Okay.
[51:54] » So, we're we're putting in we're
planning to put our sign exactly where
[51:59] his was. Don't want to change the way
that that was in any way, shape, or
[52:03] form. We just want it to be visible from
the road.
[52:08] » Yeah, I'll I'll see if I can find I'm
sure you can probably find some through
[52:11] the historical
Is the material going to be similar? I
[52:15] mean, I'm just looking at the two styles
of the sign and they're stacked like
[52:19] that.
>> Um, it's a bit jarring.
[52:23] » It's a bit jarring
>> between the two.
[52:25] » I know that's a mockup, but is the aqu
sign is it going to be painted wood as
[52:31] well? And
>> it Yeah, be painted wood. I don't know
[52:33] that a background color is what we
decided.
[52:36] » No, no. I'm not expecting you to adopt
the branding of four brothers. this this
[52:41] branding is unique to our so this is
something that I would like to have is
[52:45] that branding.
>> Um the material had not been decided.
[52:51] » So there was some way to make them blend
a little bit a little bit.
[52:56] » I don't know. I think without changing
the nature of my branding versus
[53:00] brother's branding. I'm not I'm not sure
about that. It is a mockup so it looks
[53:04] really bright because it's a it's a
computerized photo. if you would prefer
[53:09] in order to maybe make a compromise so
that we can have the sign that we're
[53:13] asking for that the white background
perhaps not be so bright.
[53:18] » I think that would be helpful.
>> Okay, that's fair. I mean, if you did it
[53:22] if you if you did it in assuming the
four brothers pizza sign is in wood, it
[53:28] looks like this would and are you
proposing to to have a more
[53:32] maintenance-free material?
>> I would have preferred that. Yeah.
[53:35] » Okay. Because I mean even just how you
frame it like right now it has no
[53:39] framing on it and the cool brothers is
kind of has the molding.
[53:43] » Yes. Make that fit obviously with the
wood. You know it has to you have to
[53:48] construct it so that it fits on those
two wood pillars.
[53:53] » Mr. Brad that the the
infrastructure of the sign is white. It
[53:58] doesn't appear white in front.
[54:02] That framing is [laughter]
more
[54:06] realized.
>> Yeah.
[54:09] » Picture put it in there. Yeah.
[54:14] » Okay.
So, in terms of the application
[54:19] for
>> uh Yeah, I just had a question on that.
[54:23] So, in the I read the um the zoning
enforcement officer's determination and
[54:29] they uh the determination made it sound
like the square footage sign was like
[54:34] 65.97
ft, but in your application you had it
[54:38] at 132 square ft. So, I guess I just
want Is that like maybe all the signage?
[54:44] » Yeah. Yeah. Total including four
brothers existing. I see. Okay.
[54:47] » So, so the property is a little bit
unique. There are two businesses which
[54:51] the lotteryies slightly differently u
but we wanted to include the total
[54:55] signage.
>> So what is this? So I know you said 4
[54:59] by8. So what is that 32?
>> It would be 32 per sign. the world was a
[55:03] gas
[55:12] whether they need
I guess they do need
[55:20] » um
I I can look into that. I'm not it won't
[55:24] affect your application but just so that
we give you the proper variances and
[55:27] what consider
>> yeah I don't agree but
[55:32] But I don't remember.
>> It almost seems Yeah. I mean, I guess I
[55:35] guess we uh if as you continue
discussions, we can always make sure to
[55:40] kind of explain the differences of not
like this is one 130 square foot sign.
[55:46] » The new um
building that's the tree service and the
[55:52] final adjustment.
>> Yeah.
[56:00] » Yeah. Actually, I think Mike the
chiropractor
[56:05] with Mike's tree. They were actually in
front of the pling board maybe last year
[56:09] or something, but they weren't in front
of the I have to look. I have them on my
[56:14] » No, they didn't. But they were on the
planning board. I know because they were
[56:18] um referred to them by an interesting
question. I'll look into them.
[56:29] I think sizewise um you know these end
up similar to other signs that are
[56:48] » yeah
we need do
[56:52] other
more detailed drawings or anything
[56:57] » I I know that a lot of times with uh
sign applications, they kind of provide
[57:01] um an elevation which kind of an
elevation of it just just to kind of
[57:06] show like what the the measurements are.
Um if the board would like that, I think
[57:09] that might be helpful.
>> And we will do a site visit. Yeah.
[57:14] » Or at least a drive by if you want
something in that space.
[57:21] » Yeah. Uh we usually usually do the site
visit after the public hearing.
[57:26] » Right. There wouldn't be it wouldn't
have to be done immediately if you just
[57:31] down the road.
>> So actually put something this close in
[57:34] the space for the sign to go
>> ideally
[57:42] just
>> yeah.
[57:49] So Car, I believe you had a motion to
accept it with our second.
[57:52] » I I was just questioning whether we were
good as far as whether I was stepping in
[57:57] it or not. Um, so I'd like to make a
motion to accept the this uh [sighs]
[58:03] application
[58:07] as complete
>> subject to the elevation to measurements
[58:13] uh elevation measurements and to the
investigation of whether or not
[58:18] » Yeah, that would be the uh brothers
signage is included in the totals should
[58:23] be included in the totals. Do I second?
All in favor? I
[58:30] » thank you for your time.
[58:34] » Um, so chair, we can also do seeker for
this. Uh, should be a type two action
[58:39] under C7.5
C22, which is installation of traffic
[58:44] control devices, which includes signs.
>> Did you want to?
[58:50] » Oh, just to see if they're available or
>> Yeah, they're running out.
[58:55] We'll track them down. We can double
check
[59:03] for Gretch just to confirm um their
availability of the public or you want
[59:06] to do a motion for the speaker
>> which goes like [laughter] ask for a
[59:13] motion to classify this as a type two
action under 67.5 C22
[59:19] » 17.5
[59:24] » C22
>> C2 it's
[59:29] Um, I'd like to make a motion to
uh accept this as a type two application
[59:36] for seeker um
under
[59:40] » 617
>> 617.5C22
[59:46] also known as 22.
>> Yeah. Do I have a second?
[59:49] » Second.
>> All in favor?
[59:53] Yes. Thanks.
>> And what's the date of that?
[59:57] » September 16th.
>> Oh,
[1:00:02] thank you.
>> Okay. So, uh you can make a motion to
[1:00:07] schedule the public hearing for
September 16th.
[1:00:11] » Like to make a motion to schedule the
public hearing for case 108, uh for the
[1:00:17] for September 16th.
Do I have a second? Second.
[1:00:23] » All in favor?
>> I
[1:00:26] And then uh we should be referred out to
the Reinbeck Planning Board, the WAC
[1:00:34] um and also the Duchess County Planning
Board.
[1:00:43] » They haven't all seen this.
>> Not for this application. Not for this.
[1:00:47] No, we've had a few applications that
have been on this route. um like fossil
[1:00:51] touring.
>> Okay.
[1:00:52] » Um but uh this particular every
application has to be submitted.
[1:00:57] » Okay.
So uh we need a motion to make a
[1:01:02] referral or I can make a motion to refer
this application to Ryback
[1:01:09] County Planning Board and WAC
for their
[1:01:16] comments.
Do I have a second? Second. All in
[1:01:20] favor? I.
>> And um Gretchen, while you were
[1:01:25] verifying their availability, we made a
seeker classification as type two and
[1:01:30] Cara made the motion and Catherine
seconded.
[1:01:34] Very
[1:01:43] person. Oh, anybody want any point
clarif
[1:02:09] hearings?
>> Uh, yeah. We have, uh, one public
[1:02:13] hearing. um for right. Oh, no. Public.
Yeah.
[1:02:17] » Okay. So, yeah, I would open a public
hearing for each individual application.
[1:02:22] » Um Okay. So, I'd like to make a motion
to open the public hearing for case
[1:02:27] 1104, Gabrielle Tenzer, 3 Buttonwood
Lane. Um is there anybody in the
[1:02:34] audience about uh that is here for that
application? Either to tell us more
[1:02:40] about it or to comment on it. For which
application?
[1:02:44] » Tensor.
>> Tensor for Lane.
[1:02:47] » That's me.
[1:02:53] So this is uh my client
and Tom Angel
[1:03:01] 1 foot variance on your dear friend's
ordinance that would allow my client to
[1:03:09] uh re landcape for her property and
protect the plannings that she plans to
[1:03:15] do there on the front of the planning
board. And um we uh are seeking your
[1:03:21] approval for this steer fence. You've
seen some mockups here on the um screen.
[1:03:28] It's barely visible. It's constructed in
a way that it won't uh really much of an
[1:03:36] appearance role. There's no plan to put
a gate across the driveway. Plan is to
[1:03:43] put a cattle guard type structure there.
uh after our last meeting we moved back
[1:03:50] fence so we were not requesting a
setback at this point in time so the
[1:03:54] site plan was amended to reflect your
comments that you made when I first
[1:04:00] presented
and uh that's basically
[1:04:05] our application
>> do can you remind remind us is any of
[1:04:10] the fencing visible from the road
>> well you can see a mockup But um I mean
[1:04:19] I think if you look hard you'll
>> this is the one I think.
[1:04:22] » Yeah. You can kind of barely see it but
>> not very much.
[1:04:28] » And that's Buttonwood Lane that's
running.
[1:04:30] » That is correct.
>> Past that.
[1:04:31] » Yes.
>> And not the driveway.
[1:04:33] » Yes.
>> And I think it could be a little bit
[1:04:37] further back. At this point, I think
when we gave you the original photos, we
[1:04:42] had a [clears throat]
we were 50 people from
[1:04:52] » I think is there anybody here from the
public to comment on this?
[1:04:58] » It's your project.
>> No. No. Oh. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, please.
[1:05:02] Uh, uh, Mr. Angel, if you are
>> I thought it was your client.
[1:05:07] » No,
[laughter]
[1:05:11] » totally confused when she
[1:05:16] [laughter]
[1:05:21] » was already
[1:05:31] did and then we were all Yes.
>> Sorry.
[1:05:44] » If you could just introduce yourself for
the record, that be great.
[1:05:47] » Uh my name is Burn Barber. I'm uh
from
[1:05:54] Skyler Rakers, 15 Buttonwood Lane.
I'm one of the residents in the
[1:05:59] subdivision that this property is part
of.
[1:06:03] I don't know how familiar you are with
Skyler Acres.
[1:06:08] It uh is a 113 acre parcel
bordered on the left side by Miller Road
[1:06:18] on the north side by the landsman killed
on the east side by 140 acre
[1:06:28] note but property and on the south side
by the horse horse farm. Okay.
[1:06:36] Uh
[1:06:40] there are 23 lots in the subdivision.
Um
[1:06:47] 17 are are occupied.
Six of them are undeveloped.
[1:06:54] The six are on the north edge that are
are adjacent to the landsman killed when
[1:07:04] the subdivision was built. Mr. uh a
gentleman who lived across the creek
[1:07:10] bought all six locks that bordered the
landscape land to protect them and keep
[1:07:16] them natural. They are basically in the
same condition they were 200 years ago
[1:07:22] that a woods
uh the road that
[1:07:28] ah you got it there.
>> Thank you.
[1:07:30] » Okay.
[1:07:33] I think Mr.
[1:07:37] So
[1:07:41] this area is the part that I just
mentioned where the gentleman bought the
[1:07:46] six acres lands McKill runs through
there. This is part of the pond that's
[1:07:53] you would see if you drove into the
scholar scatter park.
[1:07:59] Right. So that's undeveloped.
This is the area we want to talk about.
[1:08:05] So, but one lane comes in, turns, goes
up a hill, and terminates at a culde-sac
[1:08:14] at the junction of the horse. This is
all wooded area over here.
[1:08:22] Um,
essentially
[1:08:27] subdivision has been there since the
late 1980s, 37 years.
[1:08:33] And in that 37 years, there have been 35
different property owners
[1:08:39] and not one has ever wanted or installed
deer fence.
[1:08:46] And you can say the same thing for the
Nolan subdivision in Rybeck Estates.
[1:08:53] They have been there for 40 years and no
one has ever put up deer fence in any of
[1:09:00] those three subdivisions.
[1:09:05] And now we have someone requesting to
encircle their property with a 7 foot
[1:09:11] high tear.
[1:09:18] I'd like to talk briefly about kind of
natural aspects that are going to be
[1:09:22] impacted by this. The normal flow of
animal life in here starts over here in
[1:09:29] what used to be a sands property.
Remember the sands of the house that
[1:09:34] burned down here as it was a colonial
house. And they move across the road
[1:09:39] into this area that's undeveloped.
And then they move across the road into
[1:09:46] guess what? This property, right? And
then they move back into here.
[1:09:53] All these houses, if you start here and
go around, they're all about 3 acres.
[1:10:00] And the houses are generally closer to
the road. So the back ends of them are
[1:10:05] all natural.
So this area here is about 45 acres.
[1:10:11] If you take the natural part where the
houses are, that's about 25 acres.
[1:10:18] So that 25 acres is all natural.
It's woods, ponds, water, swamp, etc.
[1:10:29] It has been for 37 years.
[1:10:34] If this lot is allowed to be encircled
with a 7ft fence,
[1:10:40] there will no longer be an avenue of
movement for the animals into and out of
[1:10:46] the subdivision
from the north.
[1:10:50] So, it effectively blocked any movement
of animals. This property here already
[1:10:55] has fence on it. We had no opportunity
to object to that.
[1:11:00] Right?
So
[1:11:04] if you follow this line, this expedite
property is the primary path for animals
[1:11:11] moving into and out of the subdivision.
I'll give you an example.
[1:11:17] Coming out there Tuesday,
I had to stop at the road right here.
[1:11:24] There was a snapping turtle in the
middle of the road.
[1:11:29] It was moving from the pond down here
across the road to the ponds back here.
[1:11:36] They do it every year. Every summer we
have to avoid the snapping turtles
[1:11:43] migrating from the ponds into there.
If that fence is put up there, they will
[1:11:50] no longer be able to do that. A deer
fence 7 foot high will block the access
[1:11:57] for every animal, every 4 footed animal
larger than a
[1:12:07] excuse me, larger than a squirrel,
right?
[1:12:11] They will not be able to move through
that property. It'll be blocked by that
[1:12:15] fence.
[1:12:19] They move in here. They wander around.
are free to move. This is my pond. I
[1:12:26] restrict all the movement on my property
in the summer while the geese and the
[1:12:33] ducks are nesting on the farm and the
birds and other animals are having their
[1:12:39] babies and they operate it basically as
a nature pursuer.
[1:12:45] One example, the geese nest on that
pond. When their little ones are born,
[1:12:50] they move back here and they go through
here the front yard of that truck.
[1:12:55] That's grass of the pond and they feed
the babies there. And we all drive in
[1:13:00] and we stop and watch them, right? Mama
and the five or six babies feeding on
[1:13:06] graves. If that fence comes in, they can
no longer do that.
[1:13:12] Right.
Have a question.
[1:13:17] What other properties along Buttonwood
Road are fenced
[1:13:22] » on Buttonwood Road?
>> The one to the right, the next one, the
[1:13:26] next one, the next one. You don't think
animals would
[1:13:30] » just move to the next property?
[1:13:34] » I I mean, I'm just curious
>> because there houses here and that the
[1:13:38] the topography isn't
isn't conducive to to normal movement
[1:13:44] like that. very used to moving on flat
surface across.
[1:13:50] So there's a house right there. There's
another one right there. Another one
[1:13:55] right there. So
if they they can come around here, but
[1:14:03] they normally don't.
They go through here. That's their
[1:14:07] normal path.
The turtles sometimes come out of here
[1:14:13] and go a little off there. But they come
across here and here and here.
[1:14:21] This is the primary path for the moment
from here in here. They don't normally
[1:14:26] come over here and go in. None of the
deer typically come over here because
[1:14:31] [clears throat] of this area is mostly a
swamp.
[1:14:35] Okay?
So they're inhibited from movement in
[1:14:39] here.
So they move from there easily into here
[1:14:44] through my property up here and over in
the in the form.
[1:14:53] May I ask actually uh what is the I know
that one of the primary objectives of
[1:14:58] the applicant [snorts] is to restore is
to get rid of the invasive species on
[1:15:04] the property and I was curious what the
state of invasives is on the other open
[1:15:11] » what form of an invasive species plants.
>> The plants mostly
[1:15:16] » plants
>> the plants all the you know we I live in
[1:15:20] a similar area we've got uh
How is the 74 to remove invasive
[1:15:27] species?
>> Well, I think I think they're doing the
[1:15:30] work on their property and the they're
and doing landscaping and restoring the
[1:15:35] wetlands and the deer fence is to
prevent the deer from eating the
[1:15:38] landscape that they're putting in
>> because because that we're building to
[1:15:45] water.
the the the the
[1:15:50] native plants are thought to attract
native animals and so they could
[1:15:58] actually be making it better for birds
and butterflies and things like that by
[1:16:03] getting rid of invasive.
>> Anyway,
[1:16:08] » one of the complaints typically with
deer is they're eating my shrubbery,
[1:16:13] right? and I want to get rid of them
because they eat much shorter.
[1:16:18] We have all figured out that problem 37
years ago. You don't plant what the deer
[1:16:24] like to eat. You plant what they don't
like to eat and then they will pass
[1:16:29] through your property and not cause any
problem and go on their way. [cough]
[1:16:34] We all do that. But they come through my
front yard, my side yard, the backyard,
[1:16:40] in fact my meadow.
So
[1:16:45] the planting is a way of
stopping the damage,
[1:16:52] » but you don't want to stop them moving
through.
[1:16:56] It's their normal life cycle. It's where
they live. They've lived there. People
[1:17:01] don't generally think about it, but the
animals have been there since the last
[1:17:05] ice age. We're the invaders,
and we're going to be there a little
[1:17:11] while. We don't really own the land. We
pay to use it. When you're done, someone
[1:17:17] else pays to use it and the animals will
live there forever.
[1:17:23] My opinion, it's our job to protect
them.
[1:17:27] » Okay. And I I don't mean to cut you off,
but I I do typically we do have sort of
[1:17:32] a three to five minute limit.
>> All right. I'm sorry, but I knew it was
[1:17:36] going to be
>> It's very It's very uh
[1:17:39] » There is one point. If you see this
property line and this one here, that's
[1:17:45] mine. If that fence is built, you're
[clears throat] f and essentially
[1:17:50] fencing my property.
[1:17:55] Now, that that little dog leg you see
there, I initially owned all of this and
[1:18:01] I subdivided and sold these off. And to
get that 3 acres, they put this little
[1:18:06] dog leg in there. Okay. Well, that's a
little flat area that's about 100 ft
[1:18:12] wide.
So, putting a fence here when all of the
[1:18:18] movement is through there, it's going to
block it coming into my property.
[1:18:23] And I object
[1:18:29] my house sits right there. Right.
Just a little side note, uh, deer,
[1:18:39] whether you like them or not, although
they don't eat anything in my property,
[1:18:45] I have one that I left there
specifically for the deer. It is a
[1:18:51] miniature
peach tree that does not grow peaches
[1:18:55] the size big enough for people to eat,
but they're big enough.
[1:19:01] They come in when they're ripe, they
stand on their hind legs and pick them
[1:19:06] off and eat them and then spit the seeds
out and they'll go up and get another
[1:19:10] one and do that. And I sit in my office
30 ft away and watch them do that.
[1:19:18] And I can look out my kitchen window and
watch deer feeding their young on the
[1:19:24] lower edge.
afternoon fox ran up through the wood
[1:19:30] road. I get to see all of those animals.
They're free to roam on my property and
[1:19:35] I want that to continue. And if there is
a fence put there, that's going to block
[1:19:39] that. And I do not want that to happen.
I've worked for 37 years to make sure
[1:19:45] the animals are free to move in and out
of there on the structure.
[1:19:50] And basically, you put the fence there,
you're fencing my property.
[1:19:55] » Thank you. I don't want that to happen.
>> Understood.
[1:19:58] » Right.
>> Thank you very much.
[1:20:00] » Appreciate the time. One more comment.
I'm not sure why the objection, and I'm
[1:20:07] assuming this is a lady that owns a
property. I've never met her.
[1:20:11] But if the issue is a deer eating
shrimp,
[1:20:17] I hereby volunteer
to purchase deer resistant plants to
[1:20:24] replace the ones they're eating on our
property.
[1:20:28] Sam's defense.
[1:20:35] » Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you very much.
[1:20:43] So that
>> Well, is there anybody else speaking?
[1:20:47] » I don't think so. Is there anybody else?
>> No. So, do we need to discuss?
[1:20:54] » Uh, if you believe you have all the
information, you can close the public
[1:20:58] hearing or continue it if you have
information.
[1:21:02] » If you would like
from a third party,
[1:21:06] » like what? life
input.
[1:21:13] » I don't just putting that out there. Do
you guys feel like you have enough
[1:21:17] information to
>> I have a couple of questions for Kim?
[1:21:21] » Okay.
>> What's the rule on fencing in this area
[1:21:26] here or otherwise?
>> The like the property on the left that
[1:21:30] he said put fencing up. Is it height?
>> Typically it's height. It's it's most
[1:21:36] likely height. Uh you the the height
limit. So there's there's two kind of
[1:21:42] main features for uh fencing. Um one is
that if it's let's see if it's within
[1:21:52] the rear or sideyard setback, the height
limit is 6 ft. If it's if it's within 50
[1:21:57] ft of the front lot line, it's a height
limit of 4T. So in this case, the
[1:22:02] application is doing a a seven foot
[laughter] high fence, but there was a
[1:22:05] setback. And so um although Mr. Angel,
which one did one of your um did you
[1:22:13] remove one of the variances?
>> We did. So we moved back the from 50 ft.
[1:22:18] And I think if you put up the site plan,
you'll see that the deer fence isn't
[1:22:25] » the same as the parcel. It's it's
>> it's not the same.
[1:22:29] » Same. No, it's
parts and lines.
[1:22:32] » I I don't seem to have that. That's why
I was telling you they did see a site
[1:22:36] plan. That's an excellent
>> way. Just are there any subdivision
[1:22:42] restrictions on fencing?
>> I don't believe subdivision there is.
[1:22:48] But you can get
the gentleman pointed out the neighbor
[1:22:52] has a fence.
Um,
[1:22:55] » I don't seem to have a site to
see I can see it's in the application
[1:23:06] and the gears forcibly have to go all
the way to the ground. I it's doesn't
[1:23:11] need to go all the way
[1:23:16] have true access.
[1:23:29] » Just trying to see if I have a Oh, this
might be it. There we go.
[1:23:47] So the deer fence you can see is the one
here [clears throat]
[1:23:55] » I think this is it right?
>> Yes. And the property line
[1:23:59] » property line is the dash.
>> Yes.
[1:24:03] See if I can.
>> So there's quite a there's you could
[1:24:07] call it a wildlife quarter.
>> So on the right hand side here's the
[1:24:11] property line
[1:24:16] and the top side is on buttonwood. This
is buttonwood and then the deer fence,
[1:24:22] » but it actually starts back further than
that now.
[1:24:25] » Right. It goes back.
>> Okay. So you don't need the front yard
[1:24:29] the four foot limit,
>> right?
[1:24:31] » Gotcha. Thank you.
[1:24:35] Okay.
>> Um the other requirement for fences is
[1:24:38] that if they're um solid fences or like
stockage fences like that that allow
[1:24:44] path of the you need special but it's
mainly the height limitation.
[1:24:51] » So I'm sorry I'm not as good at reading
these maps as I would like to be. Does
[1:24:56] this elevation go up significantly?
>> It actually goes down there. It actually
[1:25:01] goes down.
>> Yes, that's actually um
[1:25:07] it's a low area. If the turtles were
going to cross, that's where they would
[1:25:11] go. It's it's wet wet.
>> So,
[1:25:16] » they wouldn't tend to want to go up the
hill and then go down the hill.
[1:25:20] » So, we'll do a site visit.
>> Yes, I was just thinking that. And it
[1:25:24] would be, I [clears throat] think,
really important as a site visit to, I
[1:25:28] mean, if at all possible, to flag where
this fence would go so that you could
[1:25:32] walk
that area
[1:25:37] and particularly with particular
interest in this area right here.
[1:25:42] » So, that's wooded area down there. Um,
so you have a difficult time walking
[1:25:50] down there. Um, but see it.
>> Is there any way to put Is there any way
[1:25:57] to put anything on the
visible on the far side of the pro the
[1:26:04] on the property line so that if you were
standing on the ridge where the fence is
[1:26:08] actually going to go, we have an actual
sense of where the property ends because
[1:26:13] sometimes it's hard to
>> So you want the property boundary. I
[1:26:17] don't think you're going to be able
>> to see it. [clears throat]
[1:26:20] » It's quite dense. You're looking from
the clear area down. I think if you look
[1:26:25] at some of the photos, you'll get a
sense of um the street.
[1:26:31] » Well, let's get the
>> So, this is this is the side of the
[1:26:37] property where the existing fence exists
on the neighbor's property.
[1:26:44] » Okay.
And you got to got to keep going.
[1:26:49] » Did your fence run right along the side
there fence?
[1:26:52] » So there you get a sense of the of the
wooded area that's not cleared.
[1:26:59] » Uhhuh.
>> So the fence would basically run along
[1:27:02] the you can see.
[cough and clears throat]
[1:27:06] » Yeah. Here's here's the current
conditions. And then
[1:27:10] » and there's like 100 ft behind that to
the property line. Correct. That's the
[1:27:14] corridor you're talking about.
>> Yes.
[1:27:17] » Okay.
>> I don't think you'll really I mean
[1:27:20] you're welcome to come to for a site
visit but I don't think you'll see
[1:27:26] » I mean the what we usually ask for in a
site visit particularly in a situation
[1:27:32] like this and unfortunately it might be
a little bit difficult to do but is to
[1:27:36] have things stake out. I mean, if you
want it
[1:27:40] » so that we can see, get an idea of where
is that corridor, where's that property
[1:27:45] line over there, and where is the fence?
>> I don't think you'll we can stake out
[1:27:50] the fence. I don't I mean, we if you
want us to stake out the property
[1:27:54] [clears throat] line, you can do that,
too. I don't think you'll be able to
[1:27:58] see it.
>> I think
[1:28:03] because it's imponderable woods. Well,
it's
[1:28:06] » pretty hard.
>> So, nobody nobody
[1:28:12] [laughter]
>> I can I can add that the planning board
[1:28:16] I was part of the site visit from the
planning board to this property. You It
[1:28:21] is so wooded in the back. He can stake
it out, but you won't see. You just
[1:28:26] won't see it. It's very, very wooded.
And okay,
[1:28:29] » the area that he's talking about, which
would be on the right on the map,
[1:28:34] » Yeah. You know, there's a there's a
corridor right through there.
[1:28:38] » You could mark out where the fence is
going to be.
[1:28:40] » We can do that
>> and we can kind of
[1:28:43] » I I can confirm what he's saying about,
you know, how wooded that back area is,
[1:28:47] how densely wood it is, and we just
won't be able to see.
[1:28:51] » And then on the next property over,
>> is it wooded all the way up? So, the
[1:28:58] if you're looking at the parcel access
map here,
[1:29:03] » yeah,
>> to the right there, there's you can kind
[1:29:08] of dig out a little bit of a creek
bottom there.
[1:29:15] » No, over to the left
>> here.
[1:29:19] Oh, I see.
>> Yeah. And so it you can look over and
[1:29:25] see the neighbor's property, but it's
just because the contour of the land.
[1:29:29] It's high, it goes low, and then it goes
up high. So you can see the high part,
[1:29:35] but you can't really see the low part.
>> Okay.
[1:29:42] » No, there's no room between the fences,
between the client's property and the
[1:29:46] neighbor's fence.
it it's basically um
[1:29:52] » well there's
>> the lines
[1:29:54] » right
>> the lines would be similar um there I
[1:29:57] mean their fence is on their property
and my proposal
[1:30:02] » just just from the board's uh you know
reminder you know so what's being said
[1:30:06] here is a is a foot variance from the
sixt height to the 7 foot and so when
[1:30:11] you are doing and doing your site visit
you know you make sure to kind of stick
[1:30:15] within the five factors
um you know including you know detriment
[1:30:21] to the character of the neighborhood
substantiality
[1:30:25] impact to the physical nature of stuff.
>> So let me let me ask them questions. I
[1:30:30] think I know the answer but if they
wanted to do a sixoot fence all the way
[1:30:34] around the property they're back from
the setback they could do that.
[1:30:38] » Yes. with the exception that I think
it's usually,
[1:30:43] » you know, a deer fence is usually to
deter the deer from crossing. It has to
[1:30:48] be a certain height to prevent them from
take over. But yes, if they had a six,
[1:30:52] they would not get married.
>> If they wanted wanted to do a six foot.
[1:30:56] » Yes.
>> And hopeers
[1:30:59] [laughter]
were not other people would have been
[1:31:02] before you for
>> Yeah, understood. Okay. And I mean just
[1:31:09] imagine neighbors coming
>> but you know the deer are also pretty
[1:31:14] resilient that they will find a way.
>> I do think animals are
[1:31:20] » okay.
>> Okay.
[1:31:21] » Okay. I think I know what I need to
know. I think
[1:31:26] » yes.
>> They can do something right. So I mean
[1:31:29] they they want seven
[1:31:33] that guy can't stop them from doing
something some kind of
[1:31:36] » Yeah, it could be a six foot. Yeah.
>> Or if it's even uh outside of the
[1:31:42] setback, they could have the seven. I
don't know how close it is to to the
[1:31:47] side.
And I think there are turtle crossing
[1:31:51] solutions out there from the various
things that I've attended that that we
[1:31:57] can accommodate.
But, you know, we like find a way
[1:32:01] because it is it is important, but I do
think
[1:32:05] um so with that, I'd like to make a
motion that we close the public hearing
[1:32:11] on
um
[1:32:14] uh 114
on three Buttonwood Lane and uh schedule
[1:32:20] a site visit.
>> Well, uh yeah, let's do one motion at a
[1:32:23] time.
>> Sorry.
[1:32:28] I second.
>> Oh, any do I do I have a second?
[1:32:32] » I do. I
>> All in favor?
[1:32:35] » I
said
[1:32:39] » and then
>> and then I'd like to
[1:32:42] » Yeah. Well, we don't need a motion.
>> We don't need a motion for visit, but
[1:32:45] you guys usually do discuss it uh where
you would when would usually do it the
[1:32:49] Saturday before the
>> Absolutely. September 12th.
[1:32:52] » September 12th. If that if that works
for you
[1:32:57] for your client and if you think you can
get that
[1:33:01] » sure um
[1:33:05] that available
>> I don't know that I'll be there but uh
[1:33:12] someone else
>> okay
[1:33:16] we'll make arrangements
[1:33:21] » great thank you very much
>> thank you.
[1:33:24] » Yeah, we usually try to do them in the
morning. Um,
[1:33:29] so
>> I think I think I think they're going to
[1:33:33] try to accommodate 10.
>> Thank you very
[1:33:44] on the side that faces this.
>> Well, the one on the west already has a
[1:33:49] fence on it,
>> right? So I don't think we
[1:33:56] is this the one line that you want to
take down.
[1:34:03] » Yes.
>> Um and then if it is it easy to
[1:34:06] understand where the back property line
is.
[1:34:08] » It's basically the cleared area is where
the fence is going.
[1:34:13] » Okay.
>> Maybe just putting like one stake at the
[1:34:15] corner might be helpful.
>> Yeah.
[1:34:18] » It's it's a threeacre property, right?
Correct.
[1:34:21] » But if you can see from the property
line,
[1:34:24] it's bigger than the f that's
>> Yes. But if you state the corners of
[1:34:31] where the fencing goes maybe corners,
>> if you if you could Yes, please.
[1:34:37] » Okay. All right.
>> Because the property line comes down
[1:34:41] below, right? It
>> does.
[1:34:43] » Yeah. So to understand where this is
this this side will see the other
[1:34:48] neighbor's fence,
>> right?
[1:34:50] » So it's primarily on this side and back
there.
[1:34:53] » Yep.
>> But just the distance from the other
[1:34:57] neighbor's fence. That's the other thing
I'm curious about because if you're if
[1:35:01] you're not in your setback, that means
you've got what 50 ft from the property
[1:35:06] line.
>> I think you were planning on the left
[1:35:10] side.
Have you changed the fence on the wooden
[1:35:16] front setback?
So everything else that's
[1:35:22] » this is not 50.
>> This is where the this is where the main
[1:35:26] setback comes from. So really not even
the back honestly because the back is
[1:35:30] more than 50 ft. It's really this is
clear focus for the variance.
[1:35:38] So again that yeah
>> I just think you know you've heard that
[1:35:41] the concerns were raised by by the by
the neighbor. So I think anything that
[1:35:45] you think will reasonably help us be
comfortable that the animals will be
[1:35:51] able to circulate
and that it's you know valid.
[1:35:55] » So we'll we'll take the corners for you.
>> Okay.
[1:35:58] » Okay.
>> Very good.
[1:36:01] » Thank you very much. Thank you.
>> Have a good evening.
[1:36:06] Um so here before we move on um just a
quick so the planning board uh responded
[1:36:13] and found no significant planning or
environmental um concerns.
[1:36:18] Um so I know that you will be looking at
this on a site visit but do you have
[1:36:22] some initial discussions or um
deliberations that you have for this so
[1:36:27] I can start working on a resolution
subject to your site visit?
[1:36:40] I think I I mean I
[1:36:47] [laughter]
>> I think that I think that uh you know I
[1:36:51] take the neighbors concern very
seriously but I I and and uh but if
[1:36:58] there is enough room for animal movement
[1:37:02] Um
[1:37:06] I
[1:37:09] think
I don't have any additional
[1:37:16] » are you points to make I think so the
reasons why we would think it was okay
[1:37:23] for [clears throat] them to have the
resolution should be
[1:37:27] why
>> so so your main your main question in
[1:37:30] considering in granting or denying an
area variance is first of all an overall
[1:37:34] balance between if the area is v is if
the area variance is granted what the
[1:37:39] benefit to the applicant is versus the
detriment to the neighborhood.
[1:37:44] » Yeah. And then with that you look at the
five factors of course is there you know
[1:37:51] an undesirable change in the
neighborhood. Is there an alternative
[1:37:55] that the applicant could do that's
feasible that doesn't require a um area
[1:38:00] variance substantiality
physical impact of the environment of
[1:38:04] the district and self-cre absolutely
that I I don't think we can do any of
[1:38:09] that till we've seen the property.
>> Okay. Because
[1:38:14] So, so would you suggest then that you
do the site visit and then do
[1:38:20] deliberations at the September meeting
and not have a resolution prepared?
[1:38:26] » So, I just need direction as to if you
want to be granting it or not
[1:38:34] » and I do want to just
>> that is a a point. I'm not sure exactly
[1:38:38] how far it is, but again, the variance
is because of
[1:38:44] the side setback. So, it's kind of this
I know you were kind of talking about
[1:38:48] the rear and this side,
>> but um those are actually within the
[1:38:53] setback. So, they could build
>> they they it's really it's just the
[1:38:58] side. It's really just it was this
because it's right on the property line
[1:39:01] and then it was initially up here
because
[1:39:04] » so
>> yeah because it's again the way that the
[1:39:09] code is written is not just that you
can't have a fence that's six foot high
[1:39:13] it's um
>> you can't have it within the setback.
[1:39:17] » Yeah it's uh so
move the fence into the setback. Well,
[1:39:23] yeah. Well, the question is that I think
if they want to protect their plants and
[1:39:26] landscaping, they have the landscaping
right up here. I think that if they put
[1:39:30] the fence outside of that, then they're
not deterring the deer if that is what
[1:39:35] they're trying to do.
>> And there's already a fence there,
[1:39:40] you're saying. So,
>> I I don't know what the where the
[1:39:45] neighbor's fence is, right? I think
[1:39:51] » Okay. Well, like I said, listen, we have
we have 60 days from the close of the
[1:39:55] public hearing to issue um this uh and
if you then if you feel like you need to
[1:40:01] do the site visit to have a better
understanding, then we can have the
[1:40:04] deliberations um at the September
meeting and then I can prep with your
[1:40:08] directions, I can prepare the resolution
for October or we can deliberate.
[1:40:13] » Sorry.
Mind you too when you deliberate and I
[1:40:16] and I draft a resolution it is a draft
resolution of course and and I can
[1:40:20] always draft it in a particular way and
then if you you do the site vis and you
[1:40:24] say
>> let's go the other way we can do that
[1:40:27] too
>> we do two versions
[1:40:32] » he just makes good change
>> I mean I guess if if you I can certainly
[1:40:38] draft two resolutions but I would need
directions from you as to pro or against
[1:40:43] so that I'd know how to draft it for
you.
[1:40:46] » Yeah.
Okay.
[1:40:49] I I mean, my impression for listening to
the neighbor was not a problem,
[1:40:56] you know. I mean,
um, I do think animals are fairly clever
[1:41:02] and I think there's been lots of studies
of animal traffic patterns that show,
[1:41:07] you know,
when I want to keep them out and I put
[1:41:10] something here, they find another place
to go. So, at the same time,
[1:41:16] I'd like to be sensitive to that and I'd
like to look at the site to see what I
[1:41:21] think.
But yeah, that's that's my initial
[1:41:26] » I think I I'm uh I think the fence is
probably fine um
[1:41:33] for those for those same reasons. I
think if that is a wetlands there to the
[1:41:38] one side, I think if they can uh make
some accommodations for the movement of
[1:41:43] wildlife that does move between the key
areas um
[1:41:49] you know that that would that would be
great. But on the whole, it's a private
[1:41:54] property and they should be fence if
they want.
[1:41:58] » No, I mean I I I know firsthand what
having a deer fence does through
[1:42:03] landscaping versus not having a deer
fence. I mean,
[1:42:08] » it's a huge difference in what we can
do.
[1:42:10] » I love the neighbor school. I if if they
don't eat it, I grow it.
[1:42:16] » But um so is that helpful, Tim?
>> Yeah. [clears throat] Okay.
[1:42:23] » He's like I mean his land isn't actually
the same too but it's
[1:42:29] » Yes. And it seems that other you know
there's also east west and south
[1:42:35] that there's only one way.
[1:42:43] » Okay. Okay.
[1:42:47] Thank you all.
[1:42:51] » Yes, we did.
>> We did. Okay.
[1:43:01] » Um, okay. So, the last uh public hearing
for the evening. Um, I'd like to make a
[1:43:08] motion we open the public hearing for
phase 11 book.
[1:43:14] » Sean is at the ready.
>> [laughter]
[1:43:17] » approach.
>> I'm just going to hand a petition to
[1:43:20] Gretchen that was signed by some
community members. I emailed it earlier
[1:43:24] but already
before we um you want to open the public
[1:43:29] » public hearing.
>> I did but I didn't ask for a second.
[1:43:33] » It was already
well continue. So you make a motion to
[1:43:37] open it.
>> I'd like to make a motion to continue.
[1:43:45] All in favor? Bye.
>> Okay. Good evening. Uh Sean Kemp on
[1:43:50] behalf of the community at Brookme. Uh
we were here last time for a pretty
[1:43:55] spirited uh public hearing and I was
here in May to outline uh what was at
[1:44:01] issue. This is concerning an appeal from
a notice of violation that was issued by
[1:44:05] the zoning enforcement officer in late
March of 2026.
[1:44:10] Um I don't really have anything further
other than uh the petition um to add to
[1:44:16] the record. Um I would ask that um you
know you the board has had an
[1:44:22] opportunity to hear the public speak. I
my personal opinion that there was
[1:44:26] overwhelming support uh in favor of
Brookme and I think that um you know
[1:44:32] there are legal limits to what can go on
at that property and your council um
[1:44:37] will obviously advise you about what
those limits are but there's also a
[1:44:41] considerable amount of discretion that
you have in determining what's uh an
[1:44:47] accessory or incidental and subordinate
use. um and also a discussion in
[1:44:54] determining how the resolution that was
previously passed by the board should be
[1:44:59] interpreted. And I would just um
respectfully request that this board
[1:45:03] exercise that discretion and grant the
least restrictive uh interpretation uh
[1:45:09] to the community of Brookie. With that
said, I thank you all very much for
[1:45:13] entertaining the application. there's
any further questions, Kim, if you
[1:45:18] happen to have questions while you're
kind of going through things, you know,
[1:45:21] you can always contact me.
>> Thank you.
[1:45:23] » Um, you know, I remain available, but
otherwise, um, from our perspective,
[1:45:28] it's fully submitted.
>> Thank you.
[1:45:32] » Is there anyone else here from the
public who'd like to speak?
[1:45:42] Do you have any questions to Sean for
the applicant?
[1:45:54] » I had actually a question on is your
initial application. So you were talking
[1:45:58] about um how the ZBA has in your um
arguments that they have discretion to
[1:46:05] look back at the previous ZBA decision
from 2025 and you had provided in your
[1:46:10] application
um your thoughts as to how the ZBA could
[1:46:15] interpret accessory structures and the
fundraising. Um would you mind perhaps
[1:46:20] just discussing that with the board what
your opinions is on that? like you said
[1:46:25] like uh you know looking at fundraising
you could look at you know five factors
[1:46:31] or something like that.
>> Uh yeah I mean that
[1:46:35] factors off the top of my head. I think
you might have
[1:46:38] » it's right here.
>> I don't know.
[1:46:40] » Well this this was my proposed
interpretation
[1:46:44] um of what what the board could consider
you know because like I said it's not
[1:46:49] like you can just Brook should be able
to do whatever it wants as a property.
[1:46:54] um there are restrictions that are in
place and we're mindful of the fact that
[1:46:59] it is a pre-existing point. there's
further kind of shifting that but
[1:47:03] essentially what I was saying is that
with respect to some of the events that
[1:47:07] were at issue and any other events that
we would like to hold there is that you
[1:47:11] know in order to have there's been some
discussion about Brookme being turned
[1:47:16] into some type of uh profit center right
having the use of the pavilion uh
[1:47:24] translate into some other type of stream
of revenue and Brooklyn's position is no
[1:47:30] I I mean it to a certain extent it is
because it helps fund our programs but
[1:47:35] it's not like some type of um corporate
activity that's going on there. It's not
[1:47:41] a corporate enterprise. So um what I had
had in mind and these were just
[1:47:45] suggestions obviously is that one that
the events that um that would be
[1:47:49] considered are sponsored controlled were
formally co-sponsored by Brookme or the
[1:47:54] Brookme community foundation and um the
co-sponsorship happens a lot sometimes
[1:48:00] with like a chamber event and a Brookme
event or something to that effect. two
[1:48:05] was the primary beneficiary is Brookme,
the Brookme community foundation or
[1:48:10] Brookme's nonprofit senior care adult
resident health and wellness or senior
[1:48:15] community programming. So that kind of
ties the event to what's going you know
[1:48:20] what is being provided by the community.
Third is that the event remains
[1:48:25] incidental and subordinate to the
principal campus use and does not
[1:48:29] materially interfere with resident care,
adult day programming, campus
[1:48:33] operations, parking, traffic
circulation, or neighborhood conditions.
[1:48:37] Um, again, this is going to to show that
the events are, you know, whether it's
[1:48:43] fundraising or any other event that it's
related to what's going on at on the
[1:48:47] community or on your on the campus and
it's not related to some totally
[1:48:52] unrelated thing like a wedding, right?
Because we kind of went over that uh
[1:48:57] first round of this and it's clear that
that type of uh use is not permitted.
[1:49:05] Uh and then fourth is that the event is
not marketed or operated as a general
[1:49:09] commercial rental of the pavilion.
Again, this speaks to the private
[1:49:12] celebrations and weddings. Uh and
outside fundraisers are unrelated public
[1:49:18] entertainment. Okay. So, it's really
making sure that the it's tied to um the
[1:49:25] use of the campus which is a senior
living facility. And fifth is that the
[1:49:31] in the event is conducted within
reasonable uh limits as to frequency,
[1:49:36] scale, hours, parking and management
noise. There was some discussion that I
[1:49:40] had uh it might have been with um the
zoning enforcement officer
[1:49:46] uh I believe believe it was but he
raised the idea of like well Sean what I
[1:49:52] mean if you have a fundraiser every day
like doesn't that start to make it look
[1:49:57] like it's more of a business and I tend
to agree with that you know if it's
[1:50:01] every single day and it's like okay
here's another fundraiser and it starts
[1:50:06] to look and feel more like there's some
type of um business or profit center
[1:50:11] that's going on here. The events that
are being challenged uh by the zoning
[1:50:16] enforcement officer though were all tied
to some type of holiday. We had St.
[1:50:22] Patrick's Day. Um, and then, uh, the
Marty GR Easter Bunny, the breakfast
[1:50:27] with the Easter Bunny, and then of
course we have, um, the craft, uh,
[1:50:32] events that are tied to either like the
winter holiday season, and then they
[1:50:37] usually would have one in spring,
summer, warmer months. Um, but they're
[1:50:42] not something that is like, okay, well,
you're going, it's not a farmers market,
[1:50:46] right? We're not trying to do a craft
fair or a fundraiser every single
[1:50:50] weekend.
and we're, you know, just trying to um
[1:50:55] kind of have a improper use of of the
property to have like a commercial
[1:51:01] enterprise like I've said in the past.
Um so those were just some some ideas
[1:51:06] that I had because um like I said, the
board is in a unique position to
[1:51:10] exercise this discretion and come up
with, you know, some clarity with
[1:51:15] respect to the other resolution. And
it's it happens a lot. you know, things
[1:51:18] are written and you you think that
they're they're clear at the time and
[1:51:22] everybody's in agreement and then an
issue pops up like we're dealing with
[1:51:26] now and all of a sudden it's like, well,
maybe we need to revisit this and make
[1:51:29] it a little bit clearer. Um, so I think
that that's kind of uh one of the main
[1:51:35] points about the being able to exercise
the discretion with respect to the
[1:51:39] interpretation of the prior resolution,
but then also taking a step back and
[1:51:44] saying, okay, big picture, what are we
did we miss anything the first time
[1:51:48] around? Let's let's try and see if we
can solve this once and for all. And I
[1:51:53] would only note that um the community
foundation, we have made uh some
[1:51:58] progress with approaching the town um
for zoning ordinance. Uh I think um I
[1:52:06] only say that forformational purposes. I
don't say that to um try and unite the
[1:52:11] one the two at all. I think that um
Brookke needs rights to uh use the
[1:52:17] property as a pre-existing
non-conforming use and and have these
[1:52:22] other accessory uses. I think that's
separate and apart from what could be
[1:52:25] done at the zoning level. Um so I would
I think that it's important for the
[1:52:31] board to understand that the issue
before it is not like oh well the
[1:52:35] applicants going to the the town maybe
you know they'll just get a zoning
[1:52:39] amendment or something like that and
that will sol solve the problem. No the
[1:52:43] you know that may or may not occur. I
hope I hope we do are able to get to
[1:52:48] that point. But if it doesn't, we are
pre-existing non-conforming use 75 acres
[1:52:55] in RC5 district historically used for
you know what we are today a senior
[1:53:01] living uh facility or senior care
facility. Um and you know we need better
[1:53:08] guidance and and I think the town needs
better guidance from an enforcement
[1:53:11] perspective as far as what's permitted
and what's not. And I I know it's a it's
[1:53:17] a lot to put on on your plate. Uh you
you're all volunteers. I'm mindful of
[1:53:22] that. Um but I also respect you very
much for taking the time to do the hard
[1:53:29] work and you know with Kim's assistance
to try and formulate, you know, the best
[1:53:34] possible resolution.
Um,
[1:53:39] can I ask some questions about
and I know you want to keep them
[1:53:44] separate, but
>> they're not entirely separate in my
[1:53:47] mind. What you are going to
even gotten far enough that you can say
[1:53:54] that.
>> So, it's in the early stages. The good
[1:53:56] news is, I mean, if you want to go down
that path, I'm more than willing to talk
[1:54:00] about it.
>> Well, I'll tell you why. I mean, go
[1:54:03] ahead.
>> Yeah. No. So, um, for many years now,
[1:54:06] I've, uh, attempted to reach out to the
town in order to discuss this issue
[1:54:12] because there are there's a policy, um,
that we don't want to uh, expand
[1:54:20] pre-existing non-conforming uses, right?
Forget
[1:54:24] » that
>> within within reason, right? So the idea
[1:54:28] is having such a expansive campus um in
the RC5 and and um
[1:54:39] [clears throat]
I want to be careful about how I say
[1:54:43] this. So having such an expansive use in
campus in the RC5 which is clearly
[1:54:48] non-conforming I'm not sure why it
wasn't dealt with at the comprehensive
[1:54:53] plan level uh because it it was a senior
care facility then uh and if you look at
[1:55:00] the the zoning and comprehensive plan
and you look at that gateway uh east as
[1:55:05] you come into the village um there
aren't particular parcels that are like
[1:55:11] you can have a flower shop type thing.
There just happens to be a flower shop
[1:55:16] there, right? So, I think that they were
looking at what was there and they were
[1:55:21] um kind of including that in the
comprehensive plan, which is all fine
[1:55:23] and good, but they didn't think to look
at at Brookme, which is an issue. Um,
[1:55:30] and and that's what we're dealing with
today because this is a [laughter] very
[1:55:33] in um I mean, the infrastructure is
incredible uh for the facility. It has
[1:55:38] its own uh sewer treatment plant. um the
water is village where I if I'm not
[1:55:44] mistaken um but you know all the
buildings and things like that this is
[1:55:50] like we're not talking about uh a couple
of stick build structures but there
[1:55:55] significant improvements that are there
so anyway I approached the town on a
[1:55:59] couple occasions didn't really uh make a
lot of progress this past December um I
[1:56:05] went appeared before the uh town board
and I requested um the opportunity to
[1:56:11] meet with either the planner or members
of the town board to just have a
[1:56:18] discussion because in my view and I
aside from uh being an attorney that is
[1:56:24] in this area before that in undergrad
I've studied land use policy and things
[1:56:28] of that nature and I've always been of
the opinion that you know good policy is
[1:56:32] not developed in a vacuum good policy is
not developed by one person sitting by
[1:56:36] themselves trying to figure out you know
what I can do I mean the RC5 district is
[1:56:42] probably greater than 70% of all parcels
of land in our town, right? So, you do
[1:56:48] one tweak to that that district, it
could have pretty big consequences. Um,
[1:56:54] so I wanted to engage in that dialogue.
Unfortunately, that didn't really pick
[1:56:59] up steam for whatever reason. Then um I
uh was able to speak with recently I um
[1:57:08] submitted an application for a
pre-application meeting after speaking
[1:57:11] with I think the town attorney um and
there was that his suggestion that we
[1:57:16] could do something like that. So I spoke
with Jim Ley few members of the planning
[1:57:21] board were there. We're just trying to
we're in the early stages. Uh I'm very
[1:57:27] um kind of optimistic because I have
spoken to uh town board member that is
[1:57:34] uh expressed the desire to have that
conversation which I I greatly
[1:57:39] appreciate. Um so that's where we're at,
but it's in the very early stages and
[1:57:44] and even if we were further along that
that's a very long process. It's not
[1:57:49] something that like you just here's the
new ordinance. It's got to be well
[1:57:54] thought out, especially when we're
dealing with so many properties. I mean,
[1:57:57] there's creative ways that we can deal
with it that um you know are not akin to
[1:58:02] any type of spot zoning or things like
that. But it's a discussion that needs
[1:58:06] to be had be had and um you know in the
time being I think it's only fair that
[1:58:13] the community at Brookley is given the
guidance that it needs so that they're
[1:58:17] they don't operate in such a way that
like they're always afraid of you know
[1:58:22] having a a fundraiser for something that
seems like very benign having to call me
[1:58:26] and say oh is this okay and my
interpretation of it is yeah and then if
[1:58:32] there's a different interpretation then
we end up here. Um, so you know, any
[1:58:37] anything that you can do to help provide
that clarity and of course the least
[1:58:41] restrictive um interpretation is what we
would prefer. Uh, but I do understand
[1:58:46] that there's, you know, there has to be
reasonable restrictions on it. And
[1:58:50] that's kind of what I put in in my
submission.
[1:58:53] It was just to try and get get the ball
rolling to think about how we can deal
[1:58:58] with this because it's I mean it's an
asset, you know. Um and
[1:59:04] » I don't have to repeat everything that
we heard the last time we were here, but
[1:59:07] I I really can't um
overstate the importance that um Brookme
[1:59:15] has, not only for the people that it
serves, but for our entire community.
[1:59:20] Um, thank thank you, Sean. Uh, and I'm
I'm glad that in whatever infant stage
[1:59:28] discussions are happening because I
think that is the path to a real
[1:59:32] solution. Um, and I don't Joe, were you
on when we went through this before?
[1:59:39] Carol, I know you were on the
>> I don't think so.
[1:59:44] » I'm already trip.
>> Yeah, he he was on the board.
[1:59:50] No,
Joe, Scott, Richard,
[1:59:56] » and Brian
>> and Brian.
[1:59:58] Oh, yeah.
>> So, because I went back and I read the
[2:00:03] 28 page resolution that we wrote before
and [clears throat]
[2:00:08] I actually thought it was pretty clear
and I thought there were some things
[2:00:13] that very specifically said
for you not to have and can help me if
[2:00:19] you if I'm misremembering my own
rereading of this, you know, and one of
[2:00:24] them was craft crafts.
So, and I think what we tried to do
[2:00:32] in that resolution and in that whole
discussion
[2:00:36] um let let me just stop for a second.
The support for group meet as an
[2:00:43] institution, as a community in terms of
the work that you do is crystal clear.
[2:00:51] The fact that it's an asset to the
community as it is regardless of how the
[2:00:56] remediator is used is also crystal
clear. I mean there's a huge service
[2:01:01] that's done.
However, some of these things got
[2:01:05] missed.
They did and there's some very specific
[2:01:10] guidance in the zoning law and so we
tried to go back to also what was
[2:01:15] granted by the planning board and adhere
to some very specific activities that
[2:01:23] they mentioned and I just remember Scott
saying
[2:01:28] even though that may have actually been
an error on the part of the planning
[2:01:32] board and everybody forgive me if I'm
getting some of these things wrong they
[2:01:36] and mention those things. They called
them out. They said, "You can do these
[2:01:40] things." And we didn't want to lessen
that.
[2:01:45] So, we tried to stay within that Darl
framework that had already been
[2:01:49] established in 2017.
Um,
[2:01:54] and but I think we were relatively clear
in trying to stay in that framework. Do
[2:02:00] » you agree?
>> Uh, yeah. So with the 20 2025 resolution
[2:02:06] uh from the ZBA, one of the the
questions that was really the the main
[2:02:10] point was trying to just determine what
so in 2017 Brookne came before the
[2:02:18] planning board to get uh the adult day
camp um which is where the pavilion
[2:02:22] erected the pavilion and was going to
have the adult day camp and then the
[2:02:26] 2017 planning board application in in
addition to the adult day camp also said
[2:02:31] a brook meat accessory uses and I think
the question and the question that had
[2:02:36] popped up from that was what is we know
what an accessory uses what's a brook
[2:02:41] mate accessory use and that's where we
kind of went through the history of the
[2:02:45] events that took place we also went
through the 2017 planning board review
[2:02:50] process to kind of see what was
represented that was anticipated to be
[2:02:55] there and with the 2025 ZBA decision I
there were essentially three main points
[2:03:03] that it went through. One was discussing
what the brook meet accessory uses that
[2:03:09] were allowable and a lot of it was
talking about how it had to have a nexus
[2:03:12] or connection to the principal use as an
accessory use
[2:03:16] » right back at home. Well, yeah, it was
it was about
[2:03:22] » Yeah, that was even that was actually
even also within the planning board's
[2:03:26] resolution from 2017, but it was more of
like if you were to have uh lectures or
[2:03:31] educational courses that were geared
towards, you know, aging in place or or
[2:03:37] anything to that effect or um I think
there was like veteran celebrations and
[2:03:43] and uh to that something that had that
nexus to having Brookme as the senior
[2:03:49] living facility.
Then there was, as you mentioned,
[2:03:52] Katherine, we looked back at the 2017
application where there were certain um
[2:03:59] organizations that were discussed like
right back at home um voting vote having
[2:04:03] it as a polling place, blood drives, and
we the ZBA had kind of thought that
[2:04:09] those were explicitly stated and even
though they might not have that clear
[2:04:13] nexus to brook me as the principal use,
it was represented and it was known at
[2:04:18] the time. So that was allowed to kind of
continue as a brook meet accessory use
[2:04:24] more so than maybe an accessory use. And
then the third criteria was the
[2:04:29] activities that the board felt had
didn't have that nexus or connection
[2:04:35] which included um the craft fair for
example. I think it included yeah
[2:04:42] weddings um and the weddings also
because we didn't want it as a special
[2:04:46] event pending which is not allowed in
the RC5 district and also in Rybeck
[2:04:52] you're not allowed to have two principal
uses on a singular lot. So that was the
[2:04:56] other issue too. Um so then so that was
kind of how the resolution was drafted.
[2:05:02] It's kind of like explaining what an
accessory use was that was allowed and
[2:05:07] how it could be determined with that
nexus or connection to the principal
[2:05:11] use. Then it was talking about uses that
were considered to be permitted
[2:05:19] because it was represented when they
granted their approvals from the
[2:05:22] planning board in 2017 and then those
uses that were not listed. Uh, I think
[2:05:27] one of the questions that is brought up
by this notice of violation that was
[2:05:31] issued is fundraising. Um, and I if I I
haven't reviewed the minutes from the
[2:05:39] last time this uh application was in
front, but I think one of the concerns
[2:05:43] was,
you know,
[2:05:46] we didn't want it to be, as as Sean had
mentioned, you know, we didn't want it
[2:05:50] to be that, oh, we're going to rent it
out for a birthday party or graduation
[2:05:54] party, but we're collecting funds that
will be used for the Brook Foundation
[2:06:00] because at what point is it a fundraiser
that's connected to the use or when it a
[2:06:06] rental help
>> for lack of a better phrase, but that
[2:06:09] was I think the concern. So, we didn't
address
[2:06:12] » because
>> fundraisers specifically in that, but it
[2:06:15] also wasn't really
a question at that stage and that's what
[2:06:20] the there was violation in this case is
that there were several fundraisers, the
[2:06:25] the takeout dinners for St. Patrick's
Day, Marty Gro, and then the Easter
[2:06:29] Bunny, and then the craft fair, which as
you mentioned was specifically excluded
[2:06:33] from
>> right
[2:06:34] » from the in the 2025,
>> you know, because I mean, so
[2:06:40] and and what I what
[2:06:46] because of the nuances of the zoning law
and [clears throat] obviously all this
[2:06:50] discussion is relatively I think
complicated.
[2:06:54] Um,
[2:06:58] [clears throat]
it's when I read the letters and I
[2:07:02] listen and I speak on behalf of Brook
Media,
[2:07:08] what's desired by the members of the
community who support Brookme is very
[2:07:13] open.
[2:07:17] » It's very It's very
It feels very open to me. Well, I I
[2:07:22] think that what we need to focus on is
what we're requesting in our our letter.
[2:07:27] The the public, many of them are are lay
members of the public. They're out to
[2:07:33] show their support for Brookme that I
can tell you that one of the reason why
[2:07:38] so many people showed up was because the
craft fair was cancelled because they
[2:07:43] couldn't have the breakfast with the
Easter Bunny. So th those are they're
[2:07:46] showing up to say don't issue these
violations. I think that's pretty
[2:07:51] specific, you know, and I think to put
the the burden on the public to show up
[2:07:55] and say, "Well, this is my this should
be my interpretation or this is what the
[2:07:59] board the board should advance is is a
little bit different." You know,
[2:08:04] » I don't think that's what Catherine was
saying.
[2:08:05] » I'm not what that's not what I was
saying at all.
[2:08:08] » So, I'm sorry if I misunderstood.
>> I'm trying to acknowledge the public
[2:08:13] input while also reiterating the narrow
focus that we have to talk about. I
[2:08:19] think what a lot of Katherine please
correct me if I'm wrong but I think your
[2:08:23] cons one of the things that has been
presented by the public is all the use
[2:08:28] and utility that the pavilion can have
which may extend perhaps be you know
[2:08:33] like having it as meeting rooms um you
know for the beekeepers as an example um
[2:08:38] you know or having it as an available
space to be using for the community
[2:08:42] » is that what you're um is that what you
are
[2:08:47] » yeah thank you
>> this desire to have to have. Yes. I
[2:08:52] think that a lot of what what
has been brought up in the course of the
[2:08:57] public hearing is stuff that is outside
the scope of what it is what you are
[2:09:02] here to decide. So, um I don't know if
you wanted I mean which which is really
[2:09:07] hard because it would be really nice to
be able to say
[2:09:12] we do need community space and we do
need this and we do need that. It's go
[2:09:16] on. But I think that that even with an
inter reinterpretation of things is not
[2:09:21] what we
is before us at the moment. Um but I
[2:09:28] think that one of the things that that
that uh sort of intrigues me is this use
[2:09:32] of the of the uh nexus requirement. And
I'm wondering if perhaps you have ever
[2:09:40] considered doing a schedule of events
for the course of a year uh that would
[2:09:46] allow you to promote them more
effectively and get more out of them. um
[2:09:52] that could be agreed with the zoning
board that you know the nexus is there
[2:09:59] and that it everybody agrees that it's
it fits in in the requirements and then
[2:10:05] you just go ahead and if you see flyers
around town you know that it's been
[2:10:10] approved. Um do you plan
far enough and ahead ahead for us to
[2:10:16] operate something like that? Yeah, I
mean I don't know if a year uh if they
[2:10:20] go out a year all the time, but yeah,
the these events are not just
[2:10:25] willy-nilly, you know, thrown together.
Um there's a lot of coordination that
[2:10:30] goes into it because it it it serves a
lot of people. Um so it's definitely not
[2:10:37] like, oh, um Labor Day is coming up, so
why don't we see if we can do a Labor
[2:10:42] Day takeout dinner, you know? Um it's
not like that at all. So, I think that
[2:10:47] something along those lines um is
something that we would definitely
[2:10:52] consider.
>> I I think um I just want to just just
[2:10:55] kind of I didn't mean to cut you off
strong, but I know that at the the 2025
[2:11:00] decision uh one of the things the board
had asked for was like that list of what
[2:11:05] events had taken place. Um maybe
something that might be helpful for the
[2:11:10] board um is like a list of what your
your your
[2:11:15] » activities
>> desired activities what your fundraisers
[2:11:17] are and that might also even if it's not
so much a black and white list it's
[2:11:22] perhaps a way to to put like those
>> um I don't want to say boundaries but
[2:11:28] you know those who the board could then
take what that list is of anticipated
[2:11:34] events that would take place decide how
that nexus connection plays for it to be
[2:11:40] an accessory use and then perhaps build
a [clears throat] a foundation around
[2:11:45] that that might be helpful with that
list.
[2:11:48] » I think that that could be a very good
idea.
[2:11:50] » I Yeah, I think that I mean even when I
look and I I appreciate that this is a
[2:11:56] proposal. This is like you could look at
it this way. Uh that the event is
[2:12:01] sponsored, controlled or formally
co-sponsored by Brookie. You know, I I
[2:12:08] think the thing that at least I'm afraid
of or you know, you anticipate could go
[2:12:12] that direction is you could be a
co-sponsor of almost any public event,
[2:12:18] you know, and as long as it could be
managed in that facility, it's like, oh,
[2:12:23] good. And maybe that's something that
can come out [snorts] of the discussion
[2:12:27] on the town, but I think, you know,
we view our role at this point is not to
[2:12:35] to effectively
rewrite the zoning so that yes, it's
[2:12:40] okay in RC5 to have a community center
and this other property operating
[2:12:45] because it's not.
>> No. you know, or an event center
[2:12:50] that really functions as an event center
because it's not. So, you know, we're
[2:12:55] trying to find that narrow space.
>> Correct. And and that's why I thank the
[2:13:01] board for it's it's a little bit of a
lift for sure to to dig into that. Um
[2:13:07] but and it's not that we're requesting
to rewrite anything. It's it's about the
[2:13:13] interpretation that exists and for that
interpretation there is a lot of
[2:13:18] discretion that's given to his own board
of appeals and with that interpretation
[2:13:23] there's also guard rails which you know
Kim will be able to advise you about as
[2:13:29] far as like this is too far or whatever
but I think as far as opening up uh
[2:13:34] dialogue or getting more wheels turning
as far with respect to the tighter
[2:13:40] events I think that's a great idea and
that's something that I could provide to
[2:13:43] the board very easily.
>> I mean I I I really think that this
[2:13:48] situation calls for black and white at
least in the first year so that we can
[2:13:53] all get comfortable with with how
everybody's interpreting things and
[2:13:59] things [clears throat] run smoothly. So
I would invite
[2:14:03] um I mean [clears throat] I I I really
think that the 2025 resolution was
[2:14:09] pretty good. So if the problem that we
missed or that we didn't address was
[2:14:14] fundraising,
which has I think been a lot of the
[2:14:20] focus of the discussion, then let's
really define what seems to be from this
[2:14:26] a little bit better.
>> Yeah. I I think that, you know, to me, I
[2:14:31] think every organization that's a
nonprofit has to figure out fundraising.
[2:14:36] I mean, that's, you know, Sure.
>> The the black and white event that you
[2:14:42] have seems like that's totally
controlled by you. That's totally, you
[2:14:47] know,
>> managed by you.
[2:14:50] » Is that
your annual
[2:14:56] any question about that?
>> I believe at the LA because I think your
[2:15:00] gala was coming up at the end of the
2025. I think we had said that that made
[2:15:05] sense to that you know didn't make sense
for you to have the ball [snorts] and
[2:15:09] stuff like that and I think that yeah I
think that there was a little bit I
[2:15:15] think it is overall 2025 is good work uh
it's good work product I think there are
[2:15:21] some inconsistencies
in it um that give rise to some
[2:15:28] debatable topics
um and you know as far as us being able
[2:15:34] boost our dollar there. Yes, we were not
a problem.
[2:15:40] » Um,
>> and then that went on. There was no
[2:15:42] violation for that
>> spectrum, you know.
[2:15:45] » No, I'm sorry.
>> Your gala for this year, there was no
[2:15:49] violation site for that or anything.
>> That's correct.
[2:15:52] » Yeah.
>> Which which the public can attend just
[2:15:55] so that we're clear.
>> Right. And but I mean that kind of event
[2:16:00] to me that's at one end of the
fundraising spectrum where it makes
[2:16:04] perfect sense. It has a total nexus with
your overall operating or supporting the
[2:16:09] program overall. And so there's not a
question about that. But then
[2:16:16] at a craft fair or something like that
where it's like some portion of the
[2:16:21] proceeds benefit the foundation that
feels to me like at the other end there
[2:16:26] could be one a week. I mean
>> well and that's why I said
[2:16:32] » that's you know so that's I think why
we're trying to wrestle with that.
[2:16:35] » Sure. And I that's why I specifically
referenced frequency as something that
[2:16:40] should be controlled. And I think that's
even it's in one of my uh bullet points
[2:16:44] there. Uh number five, you know, there
definitely should be reasonable limits
[2:16:51] on frequency,
time, hours, things of that nature. Um
[2:16:57] for sure. I I I'm not definitely not
coming here asking the board to say,
[2:17:03] "Well, if it's a fundraiser, if you call
it a fundraiser, then you can do it."
[2:17:07] That I'm
I'm not suggesting that in any way.
[2:17:12] » I'm I'm not sure that that the issue is
strictly about fundraising events. I
[2:17:17] think it's events that are open to the
public. Well, I think
[2:17:20] » that's the I'm sorry, but that's that's
why we're here, I think, because the the
[2:17:25] zoning enforcement officer was like,
"This is an event that's open to the
[2:17:29] public,
>> and that's not allowed
[2:17:31] » and that's not allowed." And the
rebuttal is it's a fundraiser. It's
[2:17:36] clearly
uh subordinate and incidental to our
[2:17:40] primary use. So, it it should be allowed
because we know from the last resolution
[2:17:46] that the Chamber of Commerce who's not
even I mean it's a it's an organization
[2:17:51] in town, but they were allowed to have
their um
[2:17:54] » good egg award. Correct. And that's a
fundraiser. So, it would seem odd to me
[2:18:00] that we would elevate somebody that has
no real right property other than, you
[2:18:07] know, the community. We're we're friends
with them and you know we're friends
[2:18:10] with other not for profofits but why
would we
[2:18:13] » why would an outside
>> actually what I just want to just
[2:18:16] explain why so so the 2025 uh
interpretation appeal came because of
[2:18:22] the good egg uh event and that goes to
that second point in that 2025
[2:18:28] [clears throat]
decision was that in the 2017 planning
[2:18:31] board approval the Rinbeck Chamber of
Commerce was specifically listed
[2:18:35] » Sure and that's how it came So it wasn't
that it was just because you know the
[2:18:40] board supported the chamber of commerce
or because it wasn't worth the
[2:18:43] organization. It was because it was
specifically lifted in the 2017
[2:18:47] » correct planning and I'm not saying that
the the chamber was given preferential
[2:18:52] treatment by this board. What I'm saying
is that the CEO's interpretation of that
[2:18:58] resolution to say that we can't have our
own fundraising when other organizations
[2:19:04] were identified as being able to have
fundraising on our campus just doesn't
[2:19:08] make sense. How do you reconcile that?
How can you say that, oh, you're a not
[2:19:12] for-profit property owner and your your
fundraising is not allowed, but this
[2:19:17] other not for-profit organization that
was identified in a that actually came
[2:19:22] from a cover letter from the architect.
>> Yes.
[2:19:25] » That right.
>> And and in the minutes, it was also in
[2:19:27] the minutes. We did
>> Yeah, I know. And I did a lot of
[2:19:30] research myself, so I know exactly what
you're talking about. But I think that
[2:19:33] we can get to a point where we say,
"Okay, this doesn't necessarily make
[2:19:38] sense to preclude us from having
fundraising activities and allow
[2:19:43] somebody else to do that." At the very
least, I think that the the resolution
[2:19:49] needs to be revisited to clarify that.
>> Um, I think the latest uh
[2:19:57] uh the latest violation was about the
crack, right? No, it was about the It
[2:20:02] was craft fair
breakfast with the Easter Bunny.
[2:20:07] I'm sorry.
>> Yes, it was all they were all
[2:20:09] advertised. That's why. And and so so I
believe the dinners may have taken
[2:20:14] place,
>> but the craft fair was cancelled and the
[2:20:18] » breakfast,
>> but the Yeah, the Easter Bunny breakfast
[2:20:20] was cancelled, but but I think that the
dinners went through. I I believe what
[2:20:25] the concern was um was was as
it was the fact that with like the
[2:20:31] dinners it was just the public kind of
coming picking up the dinner and then
[2:20:37] leaving you know kind of you know
doesn't have a
[2:20:41] » that's what the American Legion does
very often. It's churches do it you know
[2:20:47] fish fries all types of things. There
was, I think, 15 people that attended
[2:20:52] each of those and the great majority of
those were our own employees or campus
[2:20:58] residents.
I And I'm not hearing, you know, I I
[2:21:02] heard some opposition to Brookme, very
few, but I'm not hearing about traffic
[2:21:08] issues. I'm not hearing about noise, any
types of complaints. foiled the um the
[2:21:15] town to find out what complaints have
been received. There was maybe a
[2:21:21] reference to one complaint, no formal
written complaints on record of saying
[2:21:25] this is unacceptable. I think we noted
before when we had the um the voting. We
[2:21:31] had over 5,000 people come through to
campus. So, you know, on on that
[2:21:36] occasion, it's okay to, you know, wear
and tear on our building, wear and tear
[2:21:41] on our resources. That's okay. We we
don't get paid anything for that. That's
[2:21:46] that's something that we we allow to
happen. And and quite honestly, it's
[2:21:51] like, well, you know, we're we're good
when we need something for Brookme, but
[2:21:57] then, you know, Brookme wants to do
something. All of a sudden, it's like,
[2:22:00] well, we got to look at this a little
bit more closely. And and I respect
[2:22:04] that. I understand that there are
boundaries, but there's also
[2:22:06] reasonleness
>> and that's all I'm asking for the board
[2:22:09] to exercise.
>> And I I think that's one of the main
[2:22:11] questions that perhaps the board should
consider. You know, as Sean said, you
[2:22:15] know, they're not saying that everything
they do, what you were saying is that
[2:22:19] you don't want it to just be, oh, we
slap our names on this and now it's a
[2:22:22] fundraiser. So I think that you know
there does have to be some sort of
[2:22:26] perhaps
like I said a foundation to kind of
[2:22:29] better understand what's permitted if if
the board wants to do that. But again,
[2:22:35] just to say the voting was again in the
2017 resolution and I'm just
[2:22:42] picking and choosing because
>> the board when they decided that was
[2:22:45] that they you're kind of giving you guys
a bit of a softball of saying
[2:22:50] » this really isn't an accessory
structure, but we we realized you made
[2:22:53] these representations and we want to let
you continue doing them. So, you know, I
[2:22:58] just want to say it's not like they're
picking and choosing. there was a
[2:23:01] limitations set forth and we I think the
board want to try to be as fair to
[2:23:05] repeat as they can and you know
not have it thrown back in our face
[2:23:10] which is kind of what it's doing because
again we're just trying to
[2:23:13] » I I don't well I don't think it's being
thrown back in your face from from the
[2:23:17] brookie perspective at all. I think that
an unreasonable interpretation by the
[2:23:23] zoning enforcement officer is what
brought us here today. That's what I
[2:23:27] think and that's why I'm asking the
board respectfully [clears throat]
[2:23:30] to overturn with the notices of
violation to revisit to the extent
[2:23:36] necessary to the extent that you deem
it's necessary to revisit the
[2:23:40] resolution. I I'm not suggesting that um
we're coming back here saying you got it
[2:23:47] wrong because we did. We we would have
and we had other means if we thought
[2:23:52] that you got it wrong, right? and and
and we worked together very well last
[2:23:56] time around and I was very appreciative
of the process and if if it's helpful to
[2:24:02] provide that you know list or to engage
in any type of dialogue whatsoever to
[2:24:08] just help get a little bit of clarity
>> yes
[2:24:11] » be greatly appreciated
>> I think a list of of
[2:24:15] » Yes. [clears throat]
I would like to see if if something we
[2:24:21] can ask for.
>> Sure.
[2:24:23] » The uh um
overturn the variance. I mean that would
[2:24:29] be by
>> what's what what do we overcome the
[2:24:32] varian
the violations?
[2:24:34] » Oh the violations.
>> Uh with the with the condition that we
[2:24:39] move forward with an agreed calendar.
Well, before we I guess do you want to
[2:24:44] see what the list is first? You just
want to ask you want to if if you
[2:24:50] » I think that'd be helpful.
>> Can do that. That would be helpful. Yes.
[2:24:55] » Sure. If we're working from a list
of of things that you feel like should
[2:25:01] be are in the gray area.
>> Well, I mean I I mean I guess the whole
[2:25:06] question is what's the gray area and
what's the black and white? So,
[2:25:10] » and you're not going to make a list that
you think is in the gray area, right?
[2:25:14] [laughter]
>> Because then we wouldn't be here. So, so
[2:25:18] if you make a list and that we can
consider it together and say, you know,
[2:25:23] you have these concerns about this and
these seven things or whatever it is is
[2:25:29] is fine. Then I think that we, like I
said, we can all get comfortable with
[2:25:34] with how the fundraising and and and
other um
[2:25:42] activities with the Nexus can be
conducted on the Brook campus.
[2:25:48] » I I I think we want to avoid, and I'm
sure you do as well,
[2:25:54] being where we say something kind of
general.
[2:25:57] » Yeah. And then there's like no specific
guidance about does this thing that
[2:26:02] we're doing fit into that or not, you
know. So I think we want to try and
[2:26:07] » take away the guessing.
>> Yeah.
[2:26:09] » Yeah. I agree.
>> You know,
[2:26:12] » Sean, I think, excuse me,
>> yeah, the public hearing a little bit
[2:26:17] Oh, thank you. I think
>> Sorry.
[2:26:25] » Thank you.
uh Karen Strut with the Brook community.
[2:26:29] Thank you for your time for hearing
this. Again, I think what occurred in
[2:26:33] 2017 was a list was asked, you know, of
certain events that are occurring uh at
[2:26:38] the facilities now. So, we have Barri
the independent living where the voting
[2:26:42] was taking place. So, we we put together
a list not I don't think was the
[2:26:47] understanding that all inclusive because
we had Omega on there because Omega was
[2:26:52] coming in. Megan, you helped me with the
list. um running that chamber. There
[2:26:56] were meeting in the rooms, craft fairs
we had in the nursing home, um you know,
[2:27:01] employees appreciated it, the residents
and visitors and guests that came
[2:27:04] through. So, those are the kinds of
things that we threw together on the
[2:27:08] 2017 list
without understanding that whoa, you
[2:27:13] know, that's what happened. So, we live
with forever.
[2:27:16] » Yeah. No, I think I think what happened
when when we had requested the list. I
[2:27:20] think when we started looking back in
the 2017 application, it said, you know,
[2:27:25] it gave like a list of like these are
the things that are happening or like
[2:27:29] Brook accessory uses such as blah blah
blah blah blah and then it said and
[2:27:33] other events happening. So we were like
well what other events are happening? I
[2:27:37] think that's what we had wanted to kind
of understand
[2:27:40] uh you know to see what was represented
to the planning board at the time of the
[2:27:44] 2017. So it wasn't so much a list. It
was just that was what that request was
[2:27:49] to understand.
>> We had a penny social every year. People
[2:27:52] are borrowing baskets from the community
that came in. They used to be a garage
[2:27:56] sale when I first started working there.
The activities room was filled with
[2:27:59] donations like couches and things like
that that took up the whole rehab room.
[2:28:03] Uh because they had an annual garage
sale. So there's all of those kinds of
[2:28:08] different fundraising efforts. um and a
lot of those programs which in turn
[2:28:13] turned into a craft fair which you see a
lot of people the high school did did
[2:28:17] that kind of event and it just I mean we
spoke to some of the residents it brings
[2:28:22] just different life uh to them and um
yeah so I just want to add that piece
[2:28:27] but we didn't I didn't understand at
that time that it is an all-incclusive
[2:28:31] list that we put together
>> it was just to be clear Karen that was a
[2:28:34] different question in the 2025 we were
just we were trying to better understand
[2:28:39] what approvals were granted you in 2017.
>> But this list I gave you in 2017 is what
[2:28:45] you would say would be the fundraising
list.
[2:28:47] » Yeah. It wasn't like I didn't realize
that you could like I put Omega on there
[2:28:51] and we love Omega because they were
coming to the buildings. I didn't I
[2:28:55] didn't know that okay only Omega will be
able to come or only Ryback Chamber
[2:28:59] because I provided a list that was uh
some give us some ideas of what the
[2:29:04] space would be used for. I said it'd be
great. we can remove this from Marbor
[2:29:08] Ridge the voting we can move the you
know these certain things that were
[2:29:11] happening uh that were in the in the
living space of our residents there
[2:29:16] » but I think the concern is that you know
I think from the public comments it was
[2:29:21] very clear that you know there there is
a good utility to to have you community
[2:29:26] and it's a nice um opportunity for
groups that may have outgrown their
[2:29:30] space such as the beekeepers but I think
the concern is that when does it now
[2:29:37] go from an accessory use to Brookme to a
community center which isn't permitted
[2:29:42] in the RC5 and which is now kind of a
separate use. I think that was the
[2:29:48] concern raised with the beekeepers or
you know we wanted to understand well
[2:29:52] well who have you been
>> far above what I can understand
[2:29:56] [laughter]
[2:30:00] have like multiple principal uses you
kind of have to [snorts] that's why we
[2:30:03] keep talking about that nexus or
connection because it has to be
[2:30:06] » overall connected to Brookme and I think
it's very clear that that it's that's a
[2:30:13] great space to use but it has to still
as as the board has mentioned be the
[2:30:18] confines of what's permitted
>> right the I totally understand where
[2:30:23] you're coming from about when I wrote
this list it was like these are things
[2:30:27] that we do
>> the kind of codification of that list
[2:30:32] that then happened in the two in the
2025 resolution was
[2:30:39] to not take something away that had been
explicitly granted but all the things
[2:30:45] that weren't explicitly granted is the
area worth.
[2:30:49] » Kind of like we didn't want to keep
expanding.
[2:30:52] » What's not really an accessory use like
you know giving it to you know I I think
[2:30:57] there were like a I think there was the
Star Library I think had wanted to have
[2:31:01] a gala at going to a fundraiser there.
>> Yeah. and and that's why we wanted to
[2:31:06] say these were the ones that you had
mentioned and and represented to the
[2:31:11] board, but there has to be a limit
before we start getting into another use
[2:31:16] completely. You know, using the pavilion
as a meeting space or a community space.
[2:31:21] There's a point where just we're now
having two separate uses on
[2:31:25] » or unrelated
>> unrelated, right? Yeah.
[2:31:28] » So, I think I think if we put together
like a more forwardlooking
[2:31:33] » Yes. document that kind of outlines what
our activities, what we would see them
[2:31:38] to be. Um, that might be uh
>> I think that would be really helpful for
[2:31:43] the board to
>> I think that would be very helpful.
[2:31:46] Sure.
>> I think for in particular
[2:31:49] things that
would be marketed to the public. So, so
[2:31:55] I think that you know you having a group
come in and it's in that list that's in
[2:32:01] the 2017 list if they come and have a
meeting we don't need to know about
[2:32:06] that. Um but if but if you're um you
know if you are marketing something to
[2:32:12] the general public something that we're
going to see and go I wonder what that's
[2:32:17] all about. We need to be concerned about
that. then those are the things we want
[2:32:22] to know about and then and be able to
say so for example the star library
[2:32:27] having a valid there to me not
fall into the current permitted uses
[2:32:35] because that would be a total third
party
[2:32:38] » and just to be clear that that did not
[laughter]
[2:32:41] exact but
>> no I just wanted to just give an example
[2:32:45] we're clear on the things on the on the
things that were sort of grandfathered
[2:32:49] in were cleared on that were clear on um
on things that happened within the
[2:32:56] confined to book and the thing that that
this particular violation where it falls
[2:33:01] foul is the is the is opening it to the
public and I think we're acknowledging
[2:33:08] that
maybe some things should be open to the
[2:33:11] public and we just want to be clear on
what what those things are
[2:33:15] » and and so that when
>> yeah so that we don't end up here again.
[2:33:21] » Sure. No, I appreciate that
>> and I think my client appreciates that
[2:33:25] as well.
[2:33:28] » Sure. Is it okay?
[2:33:38] [laughter]
>> I'll be I'll be very brief. Um, one of
[2:33:43] the things I My name is Michael Green.
I'm uh the board president at that
[2:33:48] community group meet.
One of the things I think that that it
[2:33:53] really bothered me was
people were telling us what we can do
[2:34:00] and can't do for the the the the
residents at at the uh at the Baptist
[2:34:07] home or now our now it's the medals. Uh
I get it. I know
[2:34:13] uh or at the community of Brookby. What
what I what I think you really
[2:34:16] [laughter] have to understand too about
our community is it's not just a nursing
[2:34:21] home. There's we we have uh assisted
living there. So little more a little
[2:34:28] more vi viable to go out a little bit.
We have independent living there as well
[2:34:33] as we we have the uh the adult day, you
know, where people bring people into
[2:34:38] elderly and some younger people, you
know, disabled people.
[2:34:43] So, when we do these things, I've been
on the board since since uh 99 199
[2:34:50] when we did all these programs, it was
always because we wanted the whole our
[2:34:56] residents involved in these things. when
you when you when it kept coming up. Um
[2:35:01] I was shocked at at at the fact that we
couldn't do the uh the craft fair.
[2:35:08] Yeah. People from the outside come in,
but do you see the pe the people going
[2:35:14] in there with wheelchairs
going and and socializing in the craft
[2:35:20] fair with with with people that are
outside of or within the community? um
[2:35:27] you know they they'll never remember
when somebody's in a nursing home it's
[2:35:30] usually because they can't do functions
of daily daily living ADLs daily living
[2:35:36] activity living and
now we can get them to these places and
[2:35:43] they could by a little something walk
around talk to people uh then of course
[2:35:48] we have our seniors um the independent
they come down there to the craft fair
[2:35:52] they're in our community they can
actually drive for car down there if
[2:35:56] they want to. Then we have the assisted
living.
[2:36:00] They they they can they can get up on
their own. It's just across the street
[2:36:04] actually. So, you know what I'm saying
is when you look at some of the
[2:36:09] activities we're doing, it may look like
you to you that oh, it's just a
[2:36:14] fundraiser and they're just trying to
make money or they're trying to do that.
[2:36:16] We're trying to involve our community in
it. And if if these people can come in
[2:36:21] and and that the residents that live
there can do these things, um it makes a
[2:36:27] big difference in their life. And I know
it because I I have somebody living
[2:36:32] there in my family. And
what she can do there compared to what I
[2:36:38] can give give to her, it's just it it's
just just blows me away. So I just I
[2:36:44] just wanted you to when we give a list,
you know, the the I [clears throat] I
[2:36:49] hate giving lists because we might want
to add something to it later, but but
[2:36:53] when we give a list, um we're we're
trying to it's involving the whole
[2:36:59] community there and yeah, people from
the we want people from the outside to
[2:37:02] come in. First of all, that we want them
to know that we exist, how beautiful our
[2:37:07] place is, and that maybe they will bring
their loved ones there when it's time. I
[2:37:11] mean, it's it's it's so it is a
marketing thing. I don't want to deny
[2:37:16] that, but it's it's more than that. It's
it's it's allowing our residents to be
[2:37:20] involved in community activities. I'll
stop there.
[2:37:25] » Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:37:26] » Thank you.
>> There's [clears throat] another
[2:37:28] gentleman who would like to say
[2:37:34] I'm not being repetitious. Let me just
finish saying everything I was going to
[2:37:39] say. My wife was a resident of uh for
media for four years and with that I was
[2:37:46] in there on the LA basis. I'm a wife
resident. My name is Oral Johnson. I
[2:37:51] worked in this area for many many years.
I was locally and around the area live
[2:37:58] in German Town. So I mean involved with
so many people from around the area that
[2:38:05] and even on these petitions they weren't
necessarily people just from Rybeck that
[2:38:09] signed them. There were people who had
family down here. We have a very high
[2:38:15] percentage of people you know we have
New York City. We have them in different
[2:38:18] places. On the other hand, we have a
very high percentage of local people.
[2:38:23] And the family comes in when we have a
prayer fair or we have some of these
[2:38:27] other things, you know, and a gather or
whatever and they'll bring their
[2:38:33] resident uh family down. And so in
reality is it that part of a stretch to
[2:38:40] say yes, this is for residents too when
we are having some sort of a fundraiser
[2:38:46] because where are they going to go?
You're not going to take them down to
[2:38:48] meet him in arms to go dancing or to see
dancing or to see activity going. You
[2:38:54] know what? In a wheelchair, can you
whirl down there? You know, they're
[2:38:58] faculty still there. They can be a
little bit off, but still enough to go
[2:39:03] and appreciate the things that are
happening and see people other than the
[2:39:09] people you're going to see in the dining
room and to go and say have a selection
[2:39:13] of folks. And it's very, very important.
I just cannot stress it. In addition to
[2:39:18] that, I think it's so important.
After my wife passed, it seemed like my
[2:39:24] car didn't know how to pull out of my
driveway without turning left. I put in
[2:39:29] as a volunteer
probably 100 hours a month. I am in
[2:39:36] there almost seven days a week
generally. Oh, are you here again? No.
[2:39:41] And and uh that's how much this place
really means to me because the way it
[2:39:46] was treated and the environment and
people see new people to talk to. I mean
[2:39:51] I spend a bunch of time just walking
around chewing a breeze. If I can put a
[2:39:55] smile on somebody's face, which these
events would do when you're seeing other
[2:40:00] people, then it's well worthwhile. I get
more out of it than I put into it. But
[2:40:06] it's I really hope you come up with some
very very favorable decisions because
[2:40:11] it's really needed and it's an important
place. Thank you very much.
[2:40:15] » Thank you very much Mr.
[clears throat]
[2:40:27] » Good evening. I'm Rebecca Stz. I'm the
director of the Ryback Community Nursery
[2:40:31] School. And in 2021, I contacted Bryant
and Karen and asked if they had a place
[2:40:37] to rent because we were currently
homeless. It's a nursery school that had
[2:40:41] been established in the town of Rimebeck
in 1997. And we have been happy happy
[2:40:47] residents there for the last few years.
And we did come before the Reinbeck
[2:40:52] zoning board, not the board of appeals,
but the zoning board,
[2:40:55] » excuse me, planning board. Yes. in 2021
and it was determined that we were an
[2:41:00] accessory use that we were given the
variance because we were integral to the
[2:41:04] needs of the senior citizens who resided
at the community at Brooklyn and it's
[2:41:09] been an incredible partnership. I just
wanted [clears throat] to second what
[2:41:13] Mike said and what Arie said and also to
say when you do look at that list if
[2:41:19] there's a way you can make a lens that
really values and looks at the senior
[2:41:26] citizen involvement and emotional and
social enrichment because that's what
[2:41:31] we're there for. That's what most of
these things are there for and that's
[2:41:35] what we try and do effortly. So thank
you. Thank you very much.
[2:41:45] » Okay. So, as far as homework goes, I'll
prepare a list to submit to Gretchen and
[2:41:53] then that can be circulated along the
board. If you come up with anything else
[2:41:57] in the meantime and get that to you
within a week.
[2:42:00] » Okay.
>> Is that
[2:42:01] » that should be reasonable?
in New York.
[2:42:06] » I would continue the public hearing so
that the board has a chance to look at
[2:42:09] the list and in case any public
>> Okay. So, let's make it two weeks.
[2:42:14] » Can I get it to you in two weeks?
[laughter]
[2:42:21] » Yes, that would be fine.
>> Okay.
[2:42:22] » So, we continue
>> continue the public hearing September.
[2:42:27] So, I'd like to make a motion to
continue the public hearing for
[2:42:33] September 16th.
>> Do I have a second?
[2:42:37] » Second.
>> All in favor?
[2:42:39] » I.
>> Thank you very much.
[2:42:42] » Thank you.
>> Appreciate it.
[2:42:43] » Very welcome.
[2:42:50] » All right.
[2:42:57] » [laughter]
[2:43:07] » Paul from family signs and I'm here to
represent foster flooring. I believe we
[2:43:12] have to close the public hearing if
anyone's here to talk about that.
[2:43:16] » I think the public hearing was closed.
So you're you're just on the public
[2:43:22] hearing in general, not just
[2:43:30] » Yeah. Um
>> are we doing are we is God with
[2:43:35] grandma's too?
>> They're for resolution, but they're not
[2:43:38] here. Okay.
>> So if you want to just they don't have
[2:43:43] no
>> Yes. are back on.
[2:43:48] [laughter]
[2:43:50] Um, okay.
>> Uh, I have no idea.
[2:43:55] » Uh, Joe was so do you want to discuss
this the site visit?
[2:44:01] » I could not make it. So,
[clears throat]
[2:44:06] » please.
>> Yeah. Uh
[2:44:08] » I felt like the the sign in terms of the
proposed look and feel of it was fine.
[2:44:16] This of the building certainly
uh
[2:44:20] that's what was proposed.
Uh the placement I think uh Kim you did
[2:44:27] clarify that it needs to be 20 ft from
the property line.
[2:44:31] » Yeah. Do you have a do you know what
measurement it is? It wasn't clear on
[2:44:35] the map. Um, let me check.
[2:44:40] There's a couple of
>> It was challenging. You didn't really
[2:44:44] know where the property line was.
It wasn't marked, but I believe that
[2:44:49] there was a an orange stake in the
ground [clears throat]
[2:44:54] that looks like it coincided with the
um
[2:45:03] where the property line shown on the
site plan
[2:45:08] of that one there. You see this line
here? This is the this is the property
[2:45:13] line.
>> Okay. when they were This is the
[2:45:16] building. This is the road. This curb
cut was installed shortly before we we
[2:45:22] got there. Okay. Um a couple days ago,
um when they were putting the
[2:45:28] landscaping in, there was u an orange
state about right there. And I think
[2:45:34] that this is the property line and it
goes here. Um,
[2:45:40] it's 35 feet from the edge of the road
and it has to just be within the
[2:45:46] property line. It doesn't have to be 20
ft from the property line, right?
[2:45:53] » I think it said that it had to be uh I
don't have the thing on there.
[2:46:00] It said within 20 20 ft of the property
line. No more than 20 ft of the property
[2:46:05] line. See if I can
>> can't be any closer more.
[2:46:09] » I need to look at what I mean. It's got
to be near the road.
[2:46:12] » It's 55 ft then. I mean, that's just
>> on the propert 20 ft from the road.
[2:46:17] » 55 ft from the road because um you know,
the last one we did here for Decker uh C
[2:46:23] um rentals. Um that was 20 ft from the
edge of the road. Um, now I don't know
[2:46:31] where their property line is, but um I
think the 35 ft back
[2:46:40] um was from the road.
>> Yeah. Well, this was this is for
[2:46:45] permanent signs in other districts. I
don't know what the residential
[2:46:48] districts are then, but I believe that
Decker was in a residential zone.
[2:46:51] » Yeah, that was an outlier.
>> So, here's what Yeah. So, what it says
[2:46:54] here is uh freestanding signs on the IC
6 ft in height nor be located closer
[2:47:00] than 20 ft to any property line.
>> But what I said in the resolution was
[2:47:05] that I encouraged you to go to the
building department just to verify that
[2:47:09] just so you didn't need another
variance. That's all
[2:47:13] is there. You have to go for a sign
permit. Correct.
[2:47:16] » Yeah. I mean, we have a check for a sign
permit. It's been in here for four
[2:47:20] months. So,
>> yeah.
[2:47:21] » Yeah. Just just double check the the
measurement just so that you don't we
[2:47:24] just want to make sure you don't have to
come back here. That's
[2:47:28] » um this this went through site plan
review with that sign on the site plan.
[2:47:34] No.
>> Yeah. I think the issue is we couldn't
[2:47:36] tell where you were going to put the
sign when we went to the site.
[2:47:40] » Well, they didn't take the fence down to
that.
[2:47:43] » Everyone, let's take a picture.
>> It wasn't actually the fence that was
[2:47:46] the problem. We didn't know where the
property line was definitively so that
[2:47:50] we could measure 20 ft from it. So
that's why, you know, we went through
[2:47:55] that little thing where the sign was
over here, it was over here, it was over
[2:47:58] here, just so we could get a sense of
depending on how far away it is.
[2:48:04] » All we're saying is that we assume that
the [clears throat] building permit
[2:48:08] or the person who's going to close that
permit is going to make sure that the
[2:48:13] sign's in the right place at this point.
and that we didn't have any issues with
[2:48:19] the our aspects of
the sign.
[2:48:24] » I mean, I think I think that last photo
that you showed
[2:48:28] » was that was about the furthest away
from the road
[2:48:34] » that we have it.
[2:48:39] » See, now that that's up closer and then
of course you've got the cut in there,
[2:48:43] too. So, it's hard to it's hard to know
exactly
[2:48:47] where I think Kim I think
>> can you go back to the site plan real
[2:48:51] quick.
[2:48:57] » This is where we were showing the sign.
Okay. Right.
[2:49:02] » Oh, yeah. Yeah. Yeah.
>> Right. This this is the property line.
[2:49:05] There was an orange steak.
>> Somebody got a picture of that.
[2:49:09] » This is the property line.
This is where that fence came around. We
[2:49:14] were showing
this the sign was about right here as I
[2:49:19] recall. So if this is the property line
and I mean I'll ask them to mark it out.
[2:49:25] The site contractor probably has a very
good idea of where that property line
[2:49:29] is. It may even be marked up here and
they can pull a line or something.
[2:49:34] From what you're telling me is this this
sign needs to be back 20 ft.
[2:49:40] 20 feet from here to here. Like whatever
that the leading edge of that sign is be
[2:49:44] 20 feet back from that property line.
>> Yep.
[2:49:47] » Okay.
>> And I can put it anywhere in here at our
[2:49:50] discretion.
>> Well, just
[2:49:52] » Yeah. I mean,
>> well, wherever it is on a site map where
[2:49:55] it is on site map.
>> Well, that's not 20 ft.
[2:50:01] » That's what I'm saying.
>> You have another drawing. There is
[2:50:03] another drawing that shows it 20 from
something.
[2:50:06] » But just I I need clarity. You say just
your legal counsel. I'm This This is the
[2:50:11] property line. I'm going in here 20 ft.
>> 20 ft? Yeah. It can't be It can't be
[2:50:16] closer than that.
>> Can't be closer to
[2:50:18] » Okay, that's where it's going to go.
[2:50:22] » I didn't I tried to look for the
planning board. I didn't see it on the
[2:50:25] planning board. So what I was just going
to ask you if it is on the sign site
[2:50:30] plan it's not in the correct
>> I I have that in the resolution
[2:50:34] » but it could
>> put the field as
[2:50:40] I'll go through that. That's why I
that's why I didn't say you had to go
[2:50:43] back for an amendment in case it could
be a field change
[2:50:45] » right because it's required by this yeah
>> basically we just wanted to draw it to
[2:50:51] your attention just so that
>> when you go to permit you just couldn't
[2:50:55] tell. I mean, I think it'll work.
>> I do it by today. They planted in a
[2:50:59] grove of trees right where the sign is
supposed to go. So, it may not even be
[2:51:03] visible after all this work, which I
don't understand
[2:51:07] » how that ends up happening. But, um cuz
this the sign is the only thing in that
[2:51:12] area on the site plan and people just
planted literally about 12 trees in the
[2:51:18] area we looked at on Saturday.
[2:51:22] So, you know, trying to get this
completed so I can go with my life.
[2:51:28] [laughter]
[2:51:30] » And, you know, if it's 25 ft, it's 20
ft, whatever it is from the property
[2:51:34] line, we'll do it. Um, but I, you know,
they've got to move the trees. Um,
[2:51:39] otherwise, they're just wasting their
time and money on a barren and a and a
[2:51:42] sign that no one's going to be able to
see. So,
[2:51:44] » yeah.
>> Um, I'll go talk to Jacob from Hal
[2:51:47] Halton Construction.
Um, I didn't think they were going to
[2:51:50] plant any trees over there. I drove by
on the way to the meeting. It was
[2:51:55] » a forest.
>> A forest. It was a forest. An immature
[2:51:58] forest. But in 3 years,
>> Yeah.
[2:52:01] » you're not going to see that sign.
>> Yeah.
[2:52:03] » Yeah.
>> Yeah. So, I'll um
[2:52:07] » I'll talk.
>> I think we were agreed if the sign is in
[2:52:10] the right place for the line. All right.
>> Didn't have a problem with the design of
[2:52:14] the sign. Just making sure
the sign is not Yeah, it really isn't.
[2:52:19] The sign is a 12 foot sign, but because
it's double-sided,
[2:52:24] we needed another 12 square ft for the
second sign. Yeah, it's it's just the
[2:52:28] way that the code is written, it's not
um real conducive to um like a double
[2:52:34] side on a highway situation. So,
>> yeah.
[2:52:37] » All right. I'll um
>> So, do we need to resol
[2:52:42] » Do we need to
>> Don't you have to draft a resolution and
[2:52:46] send it to me? Oh, you do? Okay. Yeah, I
usually post it online with the
[2:52:51] assistance of the town clerk, but I
didn't get to it.
[2:52:53] » Well, that's okay.
>> But that's why
[2:52:55] » you're not looking at it online.
>> Yeah, you can take a photo right there.
[2:52:59] » All right.
>> So, I'll just go through with the board.
[2:53:01] I have circulated to use seen. I'll just
show you what I've changed since you've
[2:53:05] seen it.
>> Okay.
[2:53:06] » Um, so I got in the referral dates
thanks um to Gretchen for providing
[2:53:10] those to me.
>> And then I clarified who was on the site
[2:53:15] visit. This was Scott, Karen, and
Catherine. Yeah.
[2:53:18] » And so based on um Karen and Katherine's
comments, I just added that um due to
[2:53:23] the current condition of the property
with ongoing construction, it was
[2:53:26] difficult to fully evaluate the position
of the sign in relation to the property
[2:53:30] boundary for a town and bind zoning law
section 125-373.
[2:53:36] It's noted that prescending sign shall
not be located closer than 20 ft. The
[2:53:40] applicant is encouraged to confirm that
no additional area bearings are required
[2:53:43] for the sign placement. no business or
deliberations were conducted on the
[2:53:47] site.
Um, and then I just kind of added that
[2:53:54] to a little bit of that discussion to
the undesirable change criteria which
[2:53:59] just said again it was unclear if it met
the setbacks. Um, applicant is
[2:54:04] encouraged to verify that it's in the
right location.
[2:54:11] And then if anybody wants to read
through the now therefore be resolved
[2:54:16] about the honors.
>> Sure.
[2:54:19] » Should I read that's got changes so I
got to read it from them. Right.
[2:54:22] » Yeah. Does that one have the Can you
see?
[2:54:26] » I can.
>> I'm not sure it doesn't have
[2:54:32] Can you read it? Okay, Joe, from this
>> I think that's the change.
[2:54:38] » Yeah.
You think this one right here?
[2:54:43] » Yeah, it should.
[2:54:46] » We'll follow along. Is that the one you
sent me?
[2:54:49] » Yes.
>> A red line. Yeah.
[2:54:52] » Yeah.
I want to do it again.
[2:55:02] » Are you okay? Now therefore,
>> I forgot to do I got to state the I
[2:55:09] forgot.
>> No, no, no. Here's now.
[2:55:11] » Now, therefore get resolved based on all
the facts described above and upon
[2:55:16] reasoning the reasoning described above
as follows. The CPA hereby creates the
[2:55:21] variance requested by the applicant
finding that the benefit to the
[2:55:25] applicant outweighs the detriment to the
health, safety, and welfare of the
[2:55:30] neighborhood or community by such a
grant. The applicant's existing wall
[2:55:34] identity sign only faces one direction
along route 9G. So, a double-sided
[2:55:43] double-sided freestanding sign is
illogical and necessary to demonstrate
[2:55:48] Frostford Floring's location along 9
Route 9G. Along this stretch of Route 9,
[2:55:54] there are many businesses with signs,
most of which exceed the permitted 12
[2:55:59] square foot area. Therefore, the
proposed sign will not be out of
[2:56:03] character with the surrounding
neighborhood, [clears throat] excuse me,
[2:56:06] and will properly identify the location
of the foster flooring on Route 9 G. The
[2:56:12] grain of these variances are expressly
contingent upon the problem. Proposed
[2:56:16] structure must be constructed in
conformity with the application and plan
[2:56:21] submitted. The sign shall be located in
the same location that was approved by
[2:56:26] the planning board in the site plan
approval. If the sign is not consistent
[2:56:31] with the location approved by the
planning board, the applicant may be
[2:56:35] required to seek an amendment to the
site plan to its site plan. Furthermore,
[2:56:40] the applicant shall confirm with the
zoning enforcement officer that the
[2:56:44] location of the sign is within the
necessary setbacks and that no further
[2:56:50] area variances are required for the
location for the location of this
[2:56:54] proposed sign. [snorts]
The granting of these variances shall be
[2:56:59] expressly contingent upon the evidence
for payment to the town crime deck of
[2:57:03] any fees and escro deposits through
connection with this application and
[2:57:08] full compliance of article
14
[2:57:13] deposit uh article 14 fees fee
reimbursement of the town private zoning
[2:57:19] water. These variances shall not be
deemed granted until all such fees are
[2:57:23] paid for by the equity. Section four,
the granting of these variances does not
[2:57:29] absolve the applicant from having to
secure any other required permits and/or
[2:57:34] approvals. Section five, very variances
shall be null boarded
[2:57:40] constructions
of this resolution.
[2:57:45] Upon specific written request by the
applicant, a timed extension may be made
[2:57:50] in writing no later than two weeks prior
to the 12 month expiration date of the
[2:57:56] adoption of this resolution. The cons
the consideration to grant such an
[2:58:02] extension request shall be the in
discretion
[2:58:10] over here.
Motion to approve the resolution.
[2:58:15] » Yeah. Any discussion from the board?
>> Any discussion from the board?
[2:58:20] » No.
[2:58:23] » So motion to approve the resolution by
>> No.
[2:58:27] Second it.
>> Seconded by
[2:58:30] » Okay. Carol,
>> yes.
[2:58:33] » Joe,
>> yes.
[2:58:35] » Yes.
[2:58:41] » Good. Okay,
thanks. I will um
[2:58:46] seek the advice of the uh ZV
CEO.
[2:58:51] » Yeah, we'll get that. Um I think we got
some trees to move first, but um
[2:58:57] » I just got to go talk to the GC and see
what we can figure out.
[2:59:00] » Yeah, just make sure that the you know
whatever was approved with the planning
[2:59:04] board is pretty consistent. What
direction was saying is that sometimes
[2:59:07] if it's like a minor change like you
know moving the over like a few feet or
[2:59:11] something just to be informity um it's
called a field change you don't even
[2:59:15] come back in front of the planning
board. So that's just just double check
[2:59:19] your approvals and double check with the
CEO.
[2:59:22] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Thank you.
[2:59:31] What do we need to read from the last?
[2:59:36] » So that's the same. Um
this was uh provided to the board. Um I
[2:59:42] didn't get a chance to send it to Jan.
Um but there's copies available
[2:59:49] that we got.
[2:59:56] » And then uh I can't remember who had
this.
[2:59:59] » Richard.
Okay, I'm happy to do so.
[3:00:06] » Are you approved?
>> Y
[3:00:10] this is for the sle.
>> Exactly.
[3:00:15] Okay.
So, uh for the matter of area variance
[3:00:21] application of Andrew Samuels
Brian CBA case 1094
[3:00:32] Now therefore, let it be resolved. Based
on all the facts described above and
[3:00:37] upon the reasoning described above as
follows, the TBA hereby grants the
[3:00:42] variance requested by the applicant
finding that the benefit to the
[3:00:46] applicant outweighs the detriment to the
health, safety, and welfare of the
[3:00:49] neighborhood or community by such a
grant. The proposed accessory dwelling
[3:00:53] unit is numerically large, but it sits
within a 14 acre lot in the RN10 zoning
[3:00:59] district. The applicant proposed a
principal dwelling
[3:01:04] unit [snorts] and an accessory dwelling
unit. comparison the principal dwelling
[3:01:08] unit. The proposed accessory dwelling
unit.
[3:01:13] In comparison to the principal dwelling
unit, the proposed accessory dwelling
[3:01:16] unit while exceeding the permitted 900
square ft requirement of the zoning law
[3:01:21] is incidental and subordinate to the
principal dwelling and the overall size
[3:01:24] of the property. The property remains
residential in nature. The accessory
[3:01:29] dwelling unit proposed for family and
friends visiting. The layout of the
[3:01:33] accessory dwelling will not be visible
from Mill Road and avoids the
[3:01:36] conservation easement in the at the rear
of the property. The accessory structure
[3:01:40] has been carefully designed and well fit
in the property. Although the driveway
[3:01:45] is large and will require much work, the
planning board's consulting engineer and
[3:01:49] fire inspector have reviewed it and
found it to be satisfactory, safe,
[3:01:53] accessible, and feasible. Section two,
the granting of this variance is
[3:01:57] expressly contingent upon the proposed
structure being constructed in
[3:02:02] conformance with the plans and
application materials submitted by the
[3:02:05] applicant and reviewed by the CDA.
Section three, the granting of this
[3:02:09] variance shall also be expressly
contingent upon the applicant's full
[3:02:13] payment to the town of Ryback of any and
all fees and escrow deposits due in
[3:02:18] connection with this application in full
compliance with article 14 fee
[3:02:22] reimbursement of the town of Ryan zoning
law. This variance shall not be deemed
[3:02:28] granted until all such fees are paid in
full by the applicant. Section four, the
[3:02:32] granting of this variance does not
absolve the applicant from having to
[3:02:36] secure any other required permits and or
approvals. Section five, the area
[3:02:41] variance shall be null and void unless
the proposed construction is commenced
[3:02:45] within 12 months of this resolution.
Upon specific request by the applicant,
[3:02:49] the time extension may be made in
writing no later than two weeks prior to
[3:02:53] the 12 month expiration date of adoption
of this resolution. The consideration to
[3:02:57] grant such extensions request shall be
at in the sole discretion like the ZBA.
[3:03:04] I'd like to make a motion to approve
this resolution. Do I have a second?
[3:03:10] » All in favor?
>> Have any discussion?
[3:03:13] » Oh, any discussion.
>> All right. Ready?
[3:03:17] » Ready. Terra.
>> Yes.
[3:03:19] » No.
>> Yes.
[3:03:21] » Yes.
[3:03:26] That's right.
[3:03:30] » I make a motion
like to make a motion to adjourn
[3:03:37] the meeting of the zoning board of
appeals. Do I have a second?
[3:03:42] » Second.
>> All in favor? I
[3:03:47] » It's sure you want to stop.