[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.

8-19-2026 Rhinebeck Town Zoning Board Meeting

Transcript