[0:00] Mr. Lansky
>> here.
[0:02] » Mr. Newman
>> here.
[0:03] » Chairman Kenestra
>> here.
[0:06] » Thank you.
>> Uh, thank you. Would I request everybody
[0:08] stand for the pledge of allegiance?
[0:15] » I pledge allegiance to the flag of the
United States of America and to the
[0:20] republic for it stands. One nation under
God, indivisible with liberty and
[0:27] justice for all.
[0:36] Thank you everyone and good evening. Uh
we're going to go to the very first item
[0:39] on the agenda this evening. Uh first
item is of HRE properties. This is an
[0:45] application for a second directory sign
to the entrance of the shopping center
[0:49] where one does not currently exist in a
neighborhood shopping district at 249
[0:54] Route 202.
Is someone here to represent the
[0:57] applicant? Yes, sir. If you could please
give us your name and uh who you are.
[1:02] » James Pollinsky. I'm here from Signs,
Inc. Sign Company in Yorktown.
[1:05] » And you have authorization to represent
the client in regard to this
[1:08] application.
>> Yes, I do.
[1:10] » Okay, great. Could you briefly request
uh I'm briefly describe what you're
[1:15] requesting?
>> So, uh we are requesting a sign for the
[1:19] rear entrance of the Heritage 202
Center. Uh it's been brought to the
[1:24] attention of the new uh owner property
that a lot of uh traffic flows into that
[1:31] entrance and heads to into Heritage
Hills and doesn't make the right into
[1:35] the parking lot there. Uh I believe it
was last month or the previous month we
[1:40] were at the ARB for the front sign. Uh
we're going to be changing the front
[1:45] sign to the exact look that you see
here. Uh as well that was approved. Uh
[1:50] they're just freshen up. the old sign is
starting to rot away. So, um they the
[1:55] new uh company Regency, a lot of their
plazas, they go with the black and white
[1:59] theme. So, that's what we're looking to
do uh here as well. So, the front will
[2:04] match exactly what this sign will be. Um
it's an all aluminum construction. Uh it
[2:10] does not light up at night. Um it's
something that'll uh stand the test of
[2:15] time uh as far as not peeling or rotting
or or fading. Um, [clears throat]
[2:21] so, uh, this is obviously for the the
rear entrance of that property, which a
[2:27] lot of cars exit from and also and like
I said, it was brought to their
[2:32] attention. Um, there's a lot of people,
you know, missing that entrance and
[2:37] going and then turning around.
>> Yeah. From Route 202, you only
[2:41] [clears throat] get onto this property
going south. I guess it would, right?
[2:47] » Uh,
>> you going west?
[2:49] » Is that west? There's only one way you
can go.
[2:51] » You can't make a left from 202.
>> Right. Right. I don't
[2:54] » have to go in this this way.
>> So, okay. So, people are forced. So,
[2:57] this really is a true second entrance to
the property.
[3:00] » Right.
>> And and the only exit out as well,
[3:03] » right?
>> I know that's a oneway going in.
[3:05] » Yeah, that's a out. So, um this just
adds, you know, that the people don't
[3:10] miss that turn and and
>> Yeah, it's it's a true entrance as well.
[3:15] Yeah.
>> Right.
[3:16] » That's what I was just kind of figuring
that that it was and Everybody, in case
[3:20] you don't know what shopping center,
this is where Bobo is.
[3:23] » Yeah, it's a very it's [laughter] that's
the most popular place there. I think
[3:26] » it's a well even pizzeria and I've been
there. I go there quite often and uh
[3:32] it's a very busy shopping center.
>> Right.
[3:35] » You mentioned the black and white theme.
>> Yes.
[3:38] » The individual logos are could be color
as well or I noticed one side is all
[3:44] black and white, the other side
[clears throat] is color. It's just the
[3:46] way it laid out um that some of the
anchor tenants that demanded their
[3:51] colors or whatnot that they they were so
the the property owner didn't scrutinize
[3:59] that everybody had to be black or white
or whatnot. They allowed color and um
[4:04] font or logo var no uh yeah the logo
font variant. They didn't say that it
[4:10] had to be
[4:15] Because one of the accessories I like is
the elephants up on the top.
[4:18] » Yeah.
>> Similar to across the street. It matches
[4:21] other signs in that area.
>> Right. Why is this a variance?
[4:24] » It's a second second pole sign.
>> But I don't see that that reference in
[4:30] the in the code. Second because
we talk about from a structure. There's
[4:36] like separate structures here. Is there
not? Why is this?
[4:40] » Uh I mean we've done we've certainly had
to do these before. remember we did come
[4:43] out on uh
>> the code
[4:46] » it was my understanding it wasn't there
prior and that it was a second that we
[4:50] needed a variance
>> just wondering
[4:54] » yeah I don't know if it's
>> I don't see it in the code
[4:56] » I'm not sure it's a poll sign for each
business then theoretically if there's
[5:01] six or seven businesses
>> this code refers to structures
[5:05] » and so that building in the back is
[clears throat]
[5:08] » right
>> I but but I guess the I guess we're
[5:10] saying the directory sign refers to the
entire
[5:12] shopping centers. Therefore, that's why
I'm just curious logically.
[5:18] » That kind of makes sense because let's
say if there's four structures on a
[5:21] property, would that mean we're going to
allow force four pole signs? I think
[5:25] that would be excessive.
>> Yeah. [clears throat]
[5:28] » Yeah. But I know you make a interesting
point.
[5:30] » I just don't see it here in the
language.
[5:34] » Why I'm curious what
>> there is a section in the code that
[5:38] allows for one sign
and they've only ever had one sign. So
[5:46] to have a sign at their other um
entrance
[5:52] requires a variance to have a second
sign. I don't have the code in front of
[5:56] me, but under 170 signs under um
businesses, it says that they could just
[6:03] have one sign giving this situation.
>> Tommy, what's your feel on this? the um
[6:09] the application uh speaks to 170-126
A3.
[6:14] » Yep. And that's what I'm that's what I'm
reviewing. Um and I don't see that. But
[6:19] but I think what Denise is referring to
is B1, one freestanding identification
[6:24] sign not exceeding 100 square foot in
area may be erected at each entrance
[6:28] drive to a permitted principal office
use. But I this that not necessarily
[6:33] applying to this because it's not an
office use.
[6:36] But that said, that's where that's where
I'm seeing the freestanding sign.
[6:41] And I'm sure it makes sense to have a
freestanding sign. I'm just wondering
[6:44] there two separate streets. Um, and
people do miss that prime pub there
[6:50] because there's not great signage for
that. They do drive by it. It just seems
[6:54] like um that that's going to
I don't know.
[7:03] Finding the code.
[7:12] Is the intent of the owner to replace
the signs immediately? Is this something
[7:15] that's going to happen right away?
>> Yes.
[7:17] » Yes.
And they also own the the plaza next
[7:21] door that they're going to be looking to
update those front signs as well that
[7:25] we're going to be at the Thursday night
ARP meeting uh to do a similar looking
[7:31] sign. [clears throat]
about the one at Stown Shopping Center
[7:34] itself.
>> Correct. Yeah.
[7:38] » Maybe tying in the elephant over there.
>> So, is it you talking about the property
[7:44] across the street or the property next
to it?
[7:46] » Across the street to where the CVS is
and Okay.
[7:49] » Not the Chico, but the the rest of the
shopping center.
[7:53] » Okay. And you were before the uh ARB
with this
[7:57] » for the front sign. They looked at the
front sign and we got approval for the
[8:01] front sign which is identical to the
sign that you're looking
[8:05] » but we were told that we needed the
variance for the for the second sign.
[8:09] [clears throat]
>> Did they have any objection to the
[8:10] second sign?
>> No, they did not.
[8:15] They thought it was a necessary uh sign
since it's not illuminated. It's you
[8:21] know people looking for the center.
>> Yeah. Well, the last last sentence of
[8:27] the ARB's letter uh to us is as
discussed at our meeting, the
[8:32] architectural review board feels that
aesthetically the sign is well done,
[8:36] does not oppose does not oppose a second
sign and understands the need for it.
[8:44] » You still need us to get get the okay,
though.
[8:47] » Yeah. [laughter] Yeah,
>> you understand that, right? Yes. And
[8:49] looks like there's 12 available spots on
the sign. Do you know if every business
[8:55] in there has [clears throat] excuse me
has a space?
[9:01] » Uh I I don't know 100%. Um I know that
the two bottom spaces or or right now
[9:08] said space available at the phone number
so they could be changed out. So I I
[9:12] believe they're my
>> room. Usually what they do um I we do a
[9:16] lot of work for the company. They will
look at the total number of tenants that
[9:21] they can have whether they subdivide if
somebody moves out or whatnot,
[9:26] you know, try to get the total number on
the sign so they don't adds,
[9:31] » right?
>> Yeah. I mean, because right some land
[9:36] some landlords will use signs as a
revenue generator, right? So they'll
[9:40] ask, you know, your leases a little more
if you want your name on both sides. So
[9:46] I want to make sure we're not us up for
>> No, I don't believe so. It's not It's
[9:52] not that much of a draw this shopping
center. I could see maybe Sr's Commons,
[9:58] you know, something like that, maybe.
But
[9:59] » do it at Sr's.
>> One of one of the last items on the sign
[10:04] is an individual's name and a
>> that's the leasing. Yeah, that's for
[10:08] them to if for leasing. So that tells me
I think there's a few spaces that are
[10:15] » that will be removed if the uh all the
ten all the vacancies were filled.
[10:20] » Correct.
>> Well, they have an opportunity for that
[10:24] because they've opened up a place
already called audio something and
[10:29] that's not on there. That's a 13th sign.
>> Okay. Yes.
[10:34] » They will have an opportunity.
>> Yeah. So they would be able to remove
[10:37] and
>> what is the dimensions of the sign
[10:41] proposed 4x6?
>> Yes, you're correct. 4 foot by six foot
[10:46] » which is exactly the same as the
existing
[10:48] » yes
>> square footage stays the same as the
[10:51] front one in the front
>> and looking you know unless I may unless
[10:54] I'm not looking at the correct side
looking at the correct section of code
[11:01] » 4x5
>> it's 4x5
[11:04] » that's that's the section that the
application refers to the only thing
[11:08] looks like it could possibly apply
>> they sorry they got site plan approval
[11:13] when the shopping center was built to
have a 24 square foot sign so it stays
[11:19] with them until
>> if I may
[11:23] years no not that many years ago Vic you
may remember and Arie I don't know if
[11:27] you're on the board at time but we
granted a variance for the sign that's
[11:31] on route 202 and there were at that
point the applicant and the owner not
[11:36] this owner but the owner wanted to make
it larger so we settled on that side
[11:42] that's on
And so is that the
[11:46] » that's 4 foot by six foot would be
>> yes same
[11:49] » because it's saying saying that this is
going to be the same size
[11:52] » correct
>> okay
[11:53] » now that you say that that sounds very
that I recollect that yes
[11:56] » and so my thought process here do we
need to give a variance as to the size
[12:02] of the sign if we grant this
>> because because it exceeds the code is
[12:08] four by
>> this is what we're if we're referring to
[12:11] this code.
Um, I see a variance for 4x6 from 4x5.
[12:18] I'm a little still confused on whether
one or two is a variance, but but uh, as
[12:24] long as we're going, might as well go
>> clean it up. So, it's not an issue. They
[12:29] don't have
>> Yeah, I was unaware of that. I was told
[12:31] by the planning department that it was
approved as 24 square feet. So, yes, it
[12:36] would be two variances.
>> As a result, does this have to be
[12:39] renoticed?
I don't think so.
[12:43] » Okay.
>> And then the code also says 15 ft from
[12:46] the street line,
>> right?
[12:48] » I don't know if that's it doesn't look
15,
[12:52] » but I don't
>> Yeah, I'm pretty sure we are.
[12:54] » Okay.
>> The way the property uh like swoops
[12:58] around. I think it even goes out like
into the road a little bit or that that
[13:03] curve there.
two two signs, the one on 202 and this
[13:08] sign you're proposing, they're going to
be identical size and look.
[13:12] » Yes.
>> The little elephants on top,
[13:14] » wording, everything is going to be
identical.
[13:16] » Fabric time and put them.
[13:28] » Any further comments from the board or
questions before we we'll still have
[13:31] some time. I
>> It's a private road. I don't know if
[13:33] that matters.
I heard it chills there.
[13:38] » Yeah, it's a private road. I don't know
if that makes any difference in our code
[13:43] with our definitions when they talk
about what a street is. Um and we have
[13:48] setbacks on streets. I don't know if
that matters or doesn't.
[13:52] » It's a good point.
>> They they own those roads.
[13:55] » Heritage owns those roads.
>> Um
[13:58] » because Heritage could could block at
the sign.
[14:00] » So it' be more of a setback issue than a
>> Well, they but There's an aesthetic
[14:05] question. I mean, whether you like it or
don't like it.
[14:07] » Yeah,
>> they monitor the aesthetics within
[14:10] heritage. Um, that's within their
purview.
[14:15] » Sign sign wouldn't be on their property,
but it's certainly off one of their
[14:19] private roads, right?
>> Yeah.
[14:22] » I don't I don't know that.
>> Well, it seemed like a like I said, a
[14:26] lot of the residents had reached out to
the property owner anyway to try to
[14:30] avoid the issue. Um we were here years
ago um for a same for best plumbing um
[14:39] » that the trucks would miss and then the
tractor trailers that they're getting
[14:43] wouldn't have anywhere to turn around.
So that was also you know residents
[14:48] » were also complaining at that time. Um
so there was like I said there was a an
[14:54] owner switch year it was bidd now it's
owned by Regency. Um, so they have
[15:00] received [clears throat] feedback from
Heritage Hills residents saying that
[15:05] they're having the same issue that
trucks or people miss and they drive up
[15:10] » and they got to make the U-turn
>> and they got to come back down, you
[15:12] know, and you can see now like when I
just came here and 202 is closed and
[15:16] everywhere has orange signs saying this
is not a
[15:21] a throughway, you know, or pass through.
>> Yeah. So, it was a little difficult
[15:25] getting here.
So, I I I think this sign, like I said,
[15:29] and it's not it's a not an illuminated
sign.
[15:33] I I think it's just purely directional.
>> Neither sign is illuminated.
[15:38] » No, neither.
>> It's double-sided, though. Both signs
[15:42] are,
>> you know, this one says double-sided,
[15:44] but I think that's a mistake. I don't
think it needs to be doublesided here,
[15:47] especially traffic comes down um because
the there's the uh median in the middle.
[15:53] So I location.
>> Yeah. I don't think it I think this
[15:57] might be a since we copied the other
sign. I think the other sign on 202 is
[16:01] definitely
>> that makes sense to be doublesided. This
[16:04] why would doublesided.
>> I think it's I think it just we ducks.
[16:08] » Yeah. [laughter]
>> Yeah. Um but I don't I think
[16:12] single-sided is [clears throat] what it
should be.
[16:14] » That kind of makes sense to me.
>> Yeah. You got the curve, you got the
[16:17] median there. So the traffic coming down
from Heritage Hills is way on the right
[16:22] side. they wouldn't be able to of it
anyway. And so let's say that this is
[16:27] going to be a single-sided. The one on
202 would be doublesided.
[16:33] » But identical look.
>> And what did you say the size is going
[16:36] to be?
>> 4 foot by six foot.
[16:37] » Four by six.
>> Yes.
[16:41] » Did he So you know if heritage was
noticed for this application?
[16:46] » Uh yes. The heritage society was
noticed. they were based on, you know,
[16:51] the formula formula that is used. Um, it
was just the the their main offices
[16:57] right up the road there that were
noticed.
[17:00] » Okay.
[17:05] » So, while we're thinking about this a
little bit more, how about we take it
[17:07] out to the public, see if anybody has
any comments. Uh, so this is our public
[17:10] portion of the application. Uh, anybody
here in the audience who wishes to speak
[17:14] in regard to the application, you're
welcome to do so. Also, anybody online
[17:18] can call into one of the numbers
indicated on the screen. Just plug in
[17:21] the Zoom meeting ID number. You can come
right on and ask your questions. So,
[17:25] we'll leave the public uh opinion
portion of this application open for a
[17:30] minute or two. Does anybody here wish to
speak in regard to this application? Any
[17:33] comments?
>> Okay. Thank you.
[17:38] » All right. Any further comments from the
board discussions while we're waiting to
[17:41] see if anybody checks in on the line?
>> Nobody has come in online. It seems to,
[17:46] you know, it seems to be that uh a sign
[clears throat] preferential to
[17:52] additional traffic up and down, turning
around um further further into Heritage.
[17:59] So that seems pretty reasonable to me.
And it is it is a [clears throat] you
[18:05] know unique entrance exit scheme
in that in that shopping center.
[18:11] » It is a true entrance for people coming
in a certain direction on 202. So, they
[18:15] have to use they have to go this way.
>> Yeah.
[18:18] » Okay.
>> I just wonder if the sign needs to be of
[18:22] that size. And
it it also just doesn't really the
[18:27] colors, the black and white. It doesn't
match to the heritage typical signs that
[18:33] are right there in the photograph that
it just stands out to me a little bit
[18:38] like a sore thumb
>> because of the colors
[18:41] » and the size.
[18:46] We are
12 tenants. Um the panel is a 6 inch
[18:52] panel, you know, so you're going to with
your your five 5 inch letter.
[18:57] » It's going to be barely legible.
You're not going to see it.
[19:01] » You're not going to see.
>> And that was the reason probably why
[19:03] they came for the variance for the front
sign off of 202 is the anything smaller
[19:08] with that. you know, it's a decent size
plaza um that a large sign, you know, is
[19:18] necessary.
>> And I think this is just making
[19:21] [clears throat] it to, you know, be
legible.
[19:24] » No, it's not overwhelming.
>> I was hoping you were going to say that
[19:29] it was all black and white and that's
why you did one side black and white to
[19:32] show color versus black and white.
I don't know.
[19:38] Yeah. What I
>> and I and I if I may, Melissa, I think
[19:41] what your your point is in terms of
aesthetics because if you look at the
[19:46] the photograph we have by the applicant,
right to the left of that are two signs,
[19:51] you know, for the heritage heritage and
they seem to be in brown with a tan or
[19:57] beige border.
>> Is that is that is that your point?
[20:01] » That and and I just feel that maybe you
need notice that there's a shopping
[20:05] center there. I don't think every tenant
needs double marketing that their
[20:11] storefront is there. I think clearly
just delineating that it's a Heritage
[20:15] 202 shopping center is enough to avoid
cars passing by.
[20:23] Then
>> are you are you saying not have any of
[20:26] the vendor names there at all on the
sign?
[20:29] » I don't think you need it. I think just
the shopping center being advertised
[20:33] with the 249 alerts people that there
are businesses there.
[20:39] » I think you know since we did say that
in one direction this is the only
[20:43] entrance into the shopping center it
only helped.
[20:48] » Right.
[20:52] » The current sign that is uh at the
entrance off of 202 going into the
[20:56] shopping center.
>> Yes. Are they all black and white or are
[21:00] they color or com?
>> It's It's a combination, but it's mostly
[21:04] like a like an ivory and green.
>> Um, but I think there's some color on it
[21:10] as well.
>> Yeah, I go past it all the time. If I go
[21:13] past it once, I probably go past it 30
times a day and doesn't, you know, I
[21:17] don't recall.
>> Yeah. Yeah, there's some color on it,
[21:19] but it's mostly ivory and um
ivory and green, dark green, and some,
[21:26] you know, some of the panels are black,
but the like I said, the we're going to
[21:32] be switching that one out as well.
[clears throat]
[21:35] And I I think, you know, a classic look
from Hounds is black and white
[21:41] » because I will say it would be nice to
make the sign where all the names are
[21:45] uniformed in color.
or uniform black and white.
[21:50] » Yeah,
>> we're not at all.
[21:54] [laughter]
>> Third option from Melissa. Yes.
[21:59] [clears throat]
>> Get into a constitutional question when
[22:01] you start telling people what color is
their
[22:04] » Well, that's what the architectural
review board does,
[22:06] » right? It's it's not generally our
purview and it's also
[22:09] » but it is theirs. It is their I mean
they spend a lot of time on color in
[22:13] that board,
>> right? and and we and they approved it.
[22:17] » Yeah,
>> they approved both, you know, they
[22:20] [laughter] both wrote it. They weren't
against it.
[22:22] » I think we should take a vote.
>> I agree.
[22:29] » Okay, we don't have any comments from
the public.
[22:33] [clears throat]
>> Any further discussion amongst the board
[22:35] here?
[22:39] » Okay,
I'll take a motion as to the type of
[22:42] action. Thank you.
>> Second,
[22:47] » Mr. Burke.
>> Hi, [clears throat]
[22:49] » Mr. Leap. Miss I'm sorry, Miss Daleo.
>> Hi,
[22:53] » Mr. Guio.
>> Hi,
[22:55] » Mr. Harden.
>> Hi,
[22:57] » Mr. Lansky.
>> I
[22:59] » Mr. Newman.
>> I,
[23:01] » Chairman Canestra,
>> I.
[23:03] » Thank you.
>> Okay. Can we have a motion to whether
[23:06] we're going to
grant the applicants
[23:12] request for the sign as proposed or
revisions there too?
[23:18] » I would make a motion to approve
uh a variance for second directory sign
[23:24] uh in the size of 4x6
for the uh heritage 202 center.
[23:31] » I'll second it.
[23:35] Mr. Burke.
>> Hi.
[23:37] » Mr. Pledo.
>> Nay.
[23:39] » Mr. Guio.
>> Hi.
[23:42] » Mr. Harden.
>> Hi.
[23:44] » Mr. Lansky.
>> I.
[23:46] » Mr. Newman.
>> I.
[23:47] » Chairman Canestra.
>> I.
[23:50] » Thank you.
>> Okay. Congratulations, sir. Your
[23:53] application has been granted. Since
we're a seven member board, you need
[23:56] four positive votes. And you got it.
>> Thank you.
[24:00] » Okay. Good luck with it.
>> Feel better, Denise.
[24:06] Thank you, Jim.
>> Okay, we're going to go to the second
[24:10] item on the agenda this evening. This is
of William Fernandez. This is an
[24:14] application for a 28A exemption for a
front yard variance to construct a new
[24:20] dwelling in R120 Residential District at
8 Cottage Place, Granite Springs. Is
[24:26] someone here to represent the applicant?
>> Okay, thank you.
[24:31] if you could just please give us your
name and address and uh
[24:37] take your time. Yeah. Put up all your
set up.
[24:39] » Yeah, it's all right. Take your time. No
problem.
[24:42] [clears throat]
[25:03] Good evening, chairman and members of
the board. My name is Dan Pyano, my wife
[25:06] Emily Pyano. Um, we are here on I guess
behalf of William Fernandez, but we are
[25:11] actually in contract to purchase the
property at 8 cottage place. Um, we are
[25:16] is pending uh obtaining a variance um
for the frontage here property. Um,
[25:22] we've been in contract since November.
Uh, and we've worked through a multitude
[25:27] of issues related to this piece of
property. Um, and this would be just
[25:31] kind of the last hurdle that we thought,
um, we need to achieve to move forward
[25:35] with the closing.
>> Okay.
[25:40] » So, uh,
>> if you could just describe your
[25:42] application. It looks like you have a
long narrow driveway with limited road
[25:46] frontage. Is that what we're getting to?
>> That is correct. So, um the property is
[25:51] a flag lot. It has a very long easement
um that has been there in uh
[25:58] uh in plan for a long time. Uh we um
the the easement is about 780 ft. One of
[26:05] the things we've done to date is the
easement was indeed of 20 ft. Um, we've
[26:10] made an agreement with the neighbor to
increase the size of the easement to 30
[26:14] feet um north south uh east west, excuse
me, and 40 feet north south. Why?
[26:20] Because that'll allow proper emergency
vehicle access. We've met with the uh
[26:24] Bureau of Fire Prevention twice um most
recently May 20th and we've obtained
[26:30] their uh agreement that it does provide
a proper emergency vehicle access. Now,
[26:36] um, and the other thing we've done is,
uh, well, um, we've we've looked at all
[26:43] the options to do find a different
easement because at first we didn't
[26:46] think we're going to be able to find it.
We've looked at different neighbors.
[26:49] We've spoke to multiple neighbors. Um,
this is the the best route. Um, we've
[26:54] been in contact with the neighbor,
Anthony, for outage place many times.
[26:59] Um, he's very on board for what we're
looking to do. Um so just wanted to
[27:04] touch on a couple things. Um
so surrounding area uh is developed with
[27:11] single family homes that are lots. Um
many of those lots do have uh frontage
[27:16] [clears throat] that does not meet the
current code. Um which tells us that you
[27:20] know it is a safe viable solution for us
to have this frontage. Um and we also
[27:26] there's no way to possibly build on this
lot without having this easement, right?
[27:30] it would be a unbuildable lot. Um, and
we're looking to build this for our
[27:35] family, our future. Um, I grew up in
North Salem and I like Smers. I love
[27:40] this piece of property. I'd love to
raise my family here. So, I'm hopeful
[27:43] that we'll be able to obtain the
variance to be able to to build this.
[27:46] Um,
>> is the lot about 10 acres from what I
[27:49] see?
>> Yes, 10.5 acres. And we are just looking
[27:51] to have one single family home on it.
>> Okay.
[27:54] » Yes.
>> Okay. I'm sorry to interrupt.
[27:57] » No, no problem at all. Um so couple
things uh we did put together principal
[28:02] points which we provided to you um along
with these uh two uh drawings um one of
[28:09] which is the site plan uh which you can
see it is proposed right this we are
[28:13] looking to build about a 2800 foot house
um it does meet all the other required
[28:18] setbacks and zoning codes and per the
checklist the only one is the frontage
[28:23] um and uh as you can see from the
emergency vehicle turning uh movement
[28:28] diagram that there is proper access as
well. Um, so the proposed home would not
[28:34] be visible from so there's no real
impact to the neighborhood character.
[28:38] We're going to be building a house that
fits in with the with the character of
[28:40] this neighborhood. Um, it will not be uh
it will not be visible from Cottage
[28:45] Place um because it's going to be tucked
behind because the flag lot. We do feel
[28:49] like um it'll create a substantially
more uh valuable ratable for the town
[28:53] taking a property that has no house on
it to a property that will now have a
[28:56] home on it. Um
so as I mentioned the properties uh
[29:01] remains unbuildable uh forever if we
can't get a variance on it. It's just a
[29:04] 10acre piece that would be I guess a
park land or something. Uh the um the
[29:12] expanded easement is only practical
solution that unlocks the property's
[29:14] lawful um residential use. Um, and for
us, uh, there's no real environmental
[29:21] impact. Um, you know, this is, uh, it
fits in with the entire, uh, with the
[29:27] surrounding area. Um, and, uh, leaving
the property undeveloped provides no
[29:33] environmental benefit.
[29:37] So, I just those are some points.
There's a lot more in there. Sorry if
[29:40] I'm not relaying it perfectly, but in
closing, I just want to request that the
[29:43] board grant these variances because of
all the reasons that we've described in
[29:47] our documentation and what I've stated
here. Um, and allowing us the
[29:51] opportunity to take the next step in the
process to building uh our forever home
[29:55] and neighborhood that we've already
fallen in love with. Um, benefits to our
[29:59] family and the town's fiscal health and
the community will far outweigh the
[30:03] detriment. Um, this variance unlocks the
lawful intended use of the lot and it's
[30:07] been waiting for a long time to get a
house on it. Um, it transforms a vacant
[30:12] land to a family home and a meaningful
contributor to the town of Summers.
[30:17] » You mentioned a an arrangement that you
made. Yes.
[30:21] » Uh, the neighbor
>> was co people.
[30:25] » What kind of an arrangement is that? Um,
so I'm going to be buying 9,587
[30:30] square feet of land from him. Um, for a
deter a $30,000 price that we've agreed
[30:35] upon. Um, that is we've agreed in
writing. Uh, I've not we have not
[30:40] exchanged the money yet because we're
waiting till we would obtain this
[30:43] variance and then close on the property
which we're hopeful to do very soon.
[30:47] » And of course, if we grant the variance,
you will then buy be buying the property
[30:50] from Andes.
>> That's correct.
[30:53] » He's the current owner, right?
>> That is correct.
[30:56] the one thing that I was not clear in
the in the material. So, you're saying
[31:00] and I understand you have a an agreement
with the uh one of your one of the
[31:04] neighboring lots to purchase the land,
but there's already an easement if I if
[31:11] I'm correct across that land. Correct.
>> Correct.
[31:14] » So, are you actually purchasing land or
you have an agreement to expand the
[31:21] easement?
>> We're we're expanding the easement.
[31:23] Okay.
>> Yes. So as opposed to buying the land,
[31:26] so you won't be the needed owner of
whatever that additional 15 ft is,
[31:31] you'll be you'll have right to use it
through the easement.
[31:34] » Correct.
>> But you're you're more that if 100t's
[31:40] required or front and they have zero
feet of frontage. [clears throat]
[31:46] » No, no. I I think that the easement
gives them, you know,
[31:50] » you count that as
>> the frontage. It was just in
[31:52] clarification frankly from my
perspective you know it seemed if we
[31:56] have an easement as a as has been
described as a flag. [clears throat]
[32:00] » So presently the ement is 15 ft.
Correct.
[32:03] » 20 ft.
>> 20 ft. Yes.
[32:04] » Okay. And you're you're purchasing or
the additional easement is going to be
[32:09] that you're added to is is 10 feet. Then
>> it's um
[32:12] » I'm just going to step around.
>> 20 plus the 10 to 30.
[32:14] » Yeah.
It's 10 [clears throat] additional feet
[32:20] up here.
>> It's 20 feet on the side.
[32:22] » Okay.
[32:26] » So, fire truck can get up there,
ambulance or correct
[32:28] » in case it's emergency.
>> That's correct.
[32:39] So the other point I had is that it's an
application for two section 28A
[32:45] exemption for a front yard variance. So
are we
[32:50] are you looking for an exemption to
section 28A
[32:54] of the town law or a variance? And I
don't know just be splitting hairs here
[33:00] but I think for the record it's you know
we should be clear.
[33:03] » Good question.
It's a variance under New York Town law.
[33:08] » Okay. So, you're seeing a variance.
Okay.
[33:12] [clears throat]
[33:18] » We're thinking about addition. Let's
take it out to the public and see if
[33:21] anyone has any comments in regard to
this application. Uh sir, if you have
[33:25] any questions, you could just come up or
want to make any comments, please just
[33:28] come up and uh just give us your name
and address.
[33:33] And if yeah, if you could just move
aside. Thank you. Yeah. So they can
[33:35] speak.
>> So I am David Vilman. This is my wife
[33:40] Sharon Vulkman. We're [clears throat]
Cottage Place. We're immediately next
[33:43] door to where the driveway would be
[clears throat] located.
[33:46] » Right.
>> Um and so we certainly don't have any
[33:50] kind of an issue with this as long as we
can have a minor adjustment to it. Um
[33:57] so the proposed new access roadway will
directly abut the northern aspect of the
[34:02] front and side of our yard property
uh for a significant portion of that
[34:08] property line. The roadway uh will
impact our property view and lines of
[34:14] sight. Accordingly, we would request
that the applicant be required to plant
[34:20] mature evergreen or similar trees along
that roadway at the edge of our property
[34:25] line in order to screen our property
from the proposed roadway and related
[34:30] traffic. [snorts] Uh we will gladly
grant the applicant uh a license to
[34:35] plant the trees uh along the roadway uh
with our direction by our property line.
[34:42] There are two mature natural trees on
the property line that may need to be
[34:47] removed uh to put in the road as their
roots will be cut to place the road per
[34:53] the proposed plans. Um to the extent
that this screening is implemented as
[34:58] part of the board's approval of the
application, we have no further
[35:02] objections to the proposed variance
>> right now. Is there any road there at
[35:08] all or is it just woods?
>> It's just mowed down.
[35:12] » It's brush.
>> The neighbor rides up and down.
[35:17] » Okay. So, it's brush and [laughter]
everything.
[35:22] » Okay. There's a rock wall there. All
>> it's like a
[35:24] » well loosely rock wall.
>> Very short. [clears throat] Not anything
[35:28] that
>> So, if I understand this correctly,
[35:31] there's only
two trees that you meant. Correct.
[35:35] They're literally right on the
>> Okay. But there's nothing else right
[35:39] now.
>> No grass.
[35:41] » It's basically the front of the house
that he's describing that they're going
[35:46] to have that property from. It's just
the front of their property is there.
[35:50] That's it.
>> Could you point to that on a chart so we
[35:53] see what you're talking about?
>> Their house.
[35:57] » Yeah.
>> Their house is here.
[35:59] » Right.
>> Okay.
[36:00] » Four cottage place over here.
>> Okay. Right. Cottage place itself is
[36:04] right here.
>> Yeah.
[36:07] » Okay.
>> I'm not I'm not sure how a road though
[36:10] would interfere with your view
>> because a road sits down low. He's not
[36:15] building a structure. He's building a
road.
[36:17] » If you were actually at our house
parallel with the level of the property,
[36:22] » it would literally be driving right past
us
[36:24] » and part of it is a privacy issue in our
backyard, which currently right now is
[36:29] not.
>> Talking about the proximity of the road.
[36:30] So your house is very close to that.
>> Yeah, it would literally on the property
[36:35] like the end of their driveway or road
would go right up against the property
[36:39] line,
>> right? And how many feet does your house
[36:40] sit from the property line?
>> I have no idea.
[36:42] » I have no idea. But
>> what's your guess?
[36:46] » Well, let's see. Shape of the of the
property is like a piece of pizza. Um,
[36:51] and so the fattest parts on the street
on Cottage Place and it goes down to a
[36:56] point in the back. So I'm going to guess
maybe 40 or 50 from the edge of the
[37:01] garage to the property line. That's a
total guess,
[37:03] » right?
>> But basically, our backyard is generally
[37:07] private because nobody's going back
there because there's nothing built
[37:10] there. And the next house is a good
distance away. So, it's it's quiet, it's
[37:15] private, there's not cars going up and
down. And so he's just saying if there's
[37:20] these bushes there then we can maintain
some
[37:23] » Are you proposing or requesting
screening and trees for the entire plate
[37:28] or just the part behind your house
>> the street to where the woods start.
[37:34] » Um and so it's about 150 160 ft. We're
estimating about 30 trees would be
[37:40] required.
>> Um and we would be fine retaining them.
[37:43] We would just want them to be
>> Yeah. Because this is quite a long
[37:46] driveway to screen the whole thing. Is
>> it's not the whole thing. It's just
[37:49] » that one section. Just that once. Okay.
That's just question.
[37:52] » That screening would essentially be
planted on your property.
[37:54] » Correct.
>> Because there would be no room for it to
[37:58] be planted not on our property.
>> Right.
[38:01] » The driveway would go right up to the
property.
[38:02] » And so if I may build a driveway that
close to a property line.
[38:06] » Yeah. But I I wanted to address Tom's
point because I think it's two varian.
[38:11] It's a variance from 28A which says you
can't get a permit if you are not on a
[38:17] town road and it's also a variance
frontage
[38:21] of course. So it's it's uh we'd be
granted two variances
[38:27] requested.
[38:30] » So in terms of the screening if we now
I'm looking at one of the one of the
[38:34] submitted uh drawings where it has a
rock wall that's a neat rock wall
[38:41] » loosely. I would not question
>> I heard your characterization. Yeah,
[38:45] » this is very neat. Would the screening
then be planted on your side of the rock
[38:50] wall?
>> Correct. Because that would be on our
[38:53] property and we're fine with that.
I think it's more aesthetically pleasing
[38:58] than a fence. So,
which would probably be more expensive.
[39:02] This would be less expensive.
>> Now, is there any particular type of
[39:08] shrubs that you would like to have
planted? Um forgot what the
[39:11] » So we we got an estimate from the
landscaper which we can provide.
[39:17] » Uh what did Paul
>> He just he didn't specify what type. He
[39:22] just said planting 30 trees and he gave
a price for each component of what needs
[39:27] to be done.
>> Not not I don't know what they're called
[39:29] but arborites.
>> Not sure.
[39:32] » Evergreen
>> some type of evergreen that basically
[39:35] grows as it grows. The only reason why I
I'm asking is because the fact that
[39:39] there's a lot of things get planted.
It's all deer food and the
[39:44] » screen goes bye-bye.
>> That is true. We have not had that
[39:47] problem.
>> What is the cost of the proposal? I'm
[39:50] curious as to what what and that you
know it doesn't mean that you can't get
[39:54] more quotes. I'm just curious.
>> Our landscaper said including the mulch
[39:57] would be $10,837.50.
>> And had this had you told us to the
[40:02] applicant?
>> We have the first time we're moving.
[40:05] So, we'll have to talk to the applicant
about that. Obviously, a substantial
[40:08] expense. So,
>> understood.
[40:10] » Can you just I'm sorry. Your house is
what number?
[40:12] » Number 10.
[clears throat]
[40:18] » And does your property line go if
referring to here in the bottom one?
[40:24] » Our property line.
>> Does your property line so it goes to
[40:26] the where the curve is?
>> No, before the curve.
[40:29] » Before the curve.
>> Correct. Now, if I understand this
[40:32] correctly, you are asking the applicant
to pay full freight for this,
[40:36] » correct?
>> Would you be considering maybe going
[40:38] 50/50?
>> No. I mean, I think this was expensive
[40:43] way of doing it other than a fence. Not
to mention a fence would be kind of
[40:46] ugly.
>> I'm just asking.
[40:48] » Yeah. [clears throat]
Right.
[40:51] » Okay.
>> Are you finding the the house, Tom,
[40:54] » now? Yeah, now I'm getting there.
because we're already going to have the
[40:59] expense of maintaining it, you know, for
however many years.
[41:03] » So, Illoo is four,
>> correct?
[41:06] » Correct. Okay.
[41:09] There's no six, I guess.
>> I'm not sure if the
[41:15] » one
Okay,
[41:19] » which is also still a good distance from
where you guys would need the road.
[41:26] And is this road going to be a mcadam
road or is it going to be stones or what
[41:31] is it going to be?
>> Your driveway that you're going to have
[41:32] » your driveway. It's quite a driveway.
>> Yeah. So, right now we're proposing to
[41:36] have a stone driveway, you know,
properly graded everything.
[41:40] » Loose stone.
>> Uh,
[41:43] » yeah. Why don't you just tell us what
[clears throat]
[41:46] » Sorry, it's on the back here, but um
[41:52] there's
three.
[41:56] » I apologize. Can you guys turn the mic?
>> Oh, yeah. Oh, yeah. They can't hear you
[41:59] in the mic. I'm sorry. You guys got to
speak into the mic. [laughter]
[42:05] » Okay. So, the the
>> Yeah. The detail you're providing. Yeah.
[42:08] On the on the
>> Yeah. So, there is a detail for the
[42:11] driveway um that we're proposing uh to
our property line. When we get to our
[42:15] property line, we'll we may consider
paving at the property line. It's just a
[42:18] very very long driveway. An upfront
expense at the beginning of uh of
[42:22] » How long is the driveway? It's like uh I
think it's 650 ft or something like
[42:28] that.
>> Yeah, it's
[42:29] » very big.
>> Yeah, it's very long. So to pave that
[42:33] long would be upfront. I mean
ultimately, you know, over time we'd
[42:36] love to do that as we mature in the
house and and do so, but up front we're
[42:40] proposing to do so.
>> Okay.
[42:43] » And the rock wall, regardless of its
condition, is going to remain.
[42:47] » Correct.
>> So there's there's that as a buffer.
[42:50] Okay. And the trees are beyond
>> the trees are beyond the wall.
[42:55] » Yeah. On this on the Yeah.
On the south side of the wall.
[43:00] » Yeah.
>> If I could clarify, like when we say
[43:02] wall, it's just like one rock. It's not
like a stack of rocks. That's a wall.
[43:06] This providing anything. It's literally
like
[43:09] » more of a board. More
>> like a row of stones than it is a wall,
[43:14] say.
>> Yeah. And so I'm just looking at a map
[43:18] here. So, and then I can see in your
your backyard where the sort of tree
[43:22] line is. You'd want it from from cottage
place from the street that tree line
[43:28] » just in the tree line
>> and and your landscaper estimated that
[43:31] would be approximately 30
>> approximately 30
[43:34] » 30 trees.
>> Again, we were trying to be reasonable
[43:38] this from happening. So
>> would something else work in terms of
[43:42] screening besides treat Cynthia or some
type of bushes
[43:48] » because for Cynthia grows out and
provides provides screening.
[43:52] » It does. We actually
>> frankly from my perspective it's easier
[43:55] to maintain perhaps
>> earth. It's we have three of them right
[43:59] near right the the on the corner of this
property and it's we're actually looking
[44:04] to pick them out because they're
terrible. [clears throat]
[44:06] Did your landscaper suggest anything
else besides trees?
[44:10] » Because I I think as as Arie had said a
lot of these especially arborite are
[44:15] chewed up by trees because sometimes
you'll see arborite are the mature ones
[44:21] at from the base to maybe four or five
feet. It's bare because the deer have
[44:28] bud and then above that where they grow
where the deer can't reach certainly
[44:33] ones spread you know and do provide
screening
[44:37] » I suppose
>> where you thought of this but
[44:40] god forbid something happens where our
volunteer fire department has to come to
[44:46] your house.
How easy is it for accessibility of a
[44:52] cottage
versus going over the proposal
[44:58] the
driveway or the rightway?
[45:01] » Immaterial.
>> I'm sorry.
[45:03] » Immaterial.
>> Really?
[45:04] » Yeah.
>> Now, because I'm asking if it's easier
[45:07] for them to come off of the easement
and [clears throat] you put all the
[45:12] shrub in there.
>> Yeah.
[45:13] » Yeah. If if if we had a fire at our
house, they'd be pulling up right in
[45:17] front of our house. Okay.
>> Or in our driveway.
[45:20] » Thank you.
>> Yeah.
[45:24] » Again, our goal is we don't want to
prevent them from from making this
[45:28] purchase. We're just trying to make
something that would be a little
[45:30] aesthetically
>> and I assume
[45:33] you may have considered something on
that culde-sac at the end kind of
[45:37] looping around.
>> Talk to the farmer.
[45:40] » Stuarts is not
>> all that
[45:44] six months. We've done a lot. I yeah I I
mean I assumed you had I check so that
[45:49] people know that you've looked at
>> is a very nice man but I pretty much
[45:53] opened my opened my mouth and he said no
thank you. Okay, [laughter]
[45:59] » this may [clears throat] be one because
I think the screening perhaps, you know,
[46:02] certainly it's in terms of the neighbors
is something that is is a concern. Maybe
[46:08] we need a site visit
because I'm, you know, I I'm familiar
[46:13] vaguely with the area.
>> I have a picture of it if that would be
[46:16] helpful.
>> Picture of what?
[46:18] » Of exactly the area.
>> Please Yeah, please provide it.
[46:23] » What are we looking at? Well, I'm
thinking in terms of if we're going
[46:26] [clears throat] to condition screening,
I think that we'd have, you know,
[46:29] certainly want to be fair to the
applicant. We want to be fair to the to
[46:33] the neighbor.
>> How does
[46:35] » how does screening mitigate the harm?
>> As you can see, how scant
[46:42] this is the first of two trees that come
down
[46:48] [clears throat]
>> to the road
[46:51] right here.
>> What I'm talking just had here.
[46:56] » So once you show Thank you. You can
maybe show the other me.
[47:05] » Okay. Now the road is on the other side
over here.
[47:07] » Yeah.
>> The road
[47:08] » over here.
>> Over over there on the right side. Yeah.
[47:12] » Okay.
Okay.
[47:14] » Thank you.
>> You're talking about the road is going
[47:17] to be on this side over here.
>> Yes.
[47:20] » Okay. And this is the stone wall they're
talking about with just rocks that are
[47:23] just a collection.
>> Yeah.
[47:26] » It's kind of silly to call it a wall
because it's not.
[47:29] » Now the other thing is these trees going
to stay or they plan on cut bring them
[47:32] cutting them down
>> as soon as they as they're grading it.
[47:35] They're going to end up likely cutting
the roots that tree and there's another
[47:40] one back.
>> No, the only reason why I ask is there
[47:43] give shade and you plant something
there. It's not going to make
[47:47] » that tree. It's another tree anyway.
witness.
[47:57] » Thank you.
>> Please show the applicant the picture
[47:59] also just so they're seeing everything
that we're seeing.
[48:04] » My question is what
>> what are we mitigating? If you have a
[48:07] regular lot, 100 foot lot
>> and you have your driveway to one side
[48:11] and you pull in, the lights are going to
go on your neighbor's house.
[48:15] » It's not
I mean, the harm is that they you're
[48:20] supposed to have frontage,
>> right?
[48:23] » Screening doesn't address frontage,
>> right? And and yeah, please please speak
[48:26] into the microphone so we can hear. We
can't hear.
[48:29] » So So we're just discussing exactly
where our driveway goes. So he he was
[48:33] under the impression that our driveway
was going to sit on his property line.
[48:36] It doesn't. It sits about 8 to 10 feet
off of his property line within our
[48:40] easement.
>> It's a 12oot driveway.
[48:42] » So from 30 foot easement,
>> correct?
[48:44] » Okay. From the rock border.
>> Yeah. SLwall
[48:49] eight feet in.
>> Correct. That's correct.
[48:52] » So that's good. So that tree may not be
harmed.
[48:55] » You know, that tree would we would we do
not intend to touch that tree.
[48:58] » No, but I think the the uh Sorry, I'm
sorry. I I didn't write down your name,
[49:03] but the you know, the neighbor here I
think you're saying that the whatever
[49:07] construction it would be to to build the
driveway that would harm the roots and
[49:11] ultimately the tree would die.
>> My landscaper was concerned about that.
[49:15] » Yeah. Okay.
[49:18] But to your point, if the driveway for
the house for number four happened to be
[49:22] on that side of the prop,
>> you would have the same
[49:26] » same situation.
>> Situation. I don't I don't see the nexus
[49:30] between the two things. I
>> I don't have a problem with it. It's
[49:33] always great to have neighbors
>> agree, right? That's that's one of our
[49:37] goals to have a good community.
>> They and they seem like a lovely family
[49:43] and and it'd be great to have uh build a
nice home here um and enjoy what many of
[49:50] us enjoy in SRS. But I don't see how any
of this changes the fact that it's a a
[49:56] really deep flag lot which you know the
people who wrote the code said not only
[50:02] the people who wrote the code the state
said we want to get away with 28A the
[50:07] state right and then our local code says
we want 100 ft and so what mitigates
[50:13] that not not some trees I mean and I'm
okay with the variance I just don't know
[50:19] what the mitigation is by how we're
analyzed.
[50:23] » I'd like to hear from the applicant as
to your opinion on putting in the trees,
[50:26] yay or nay, or are you against it for
it?
[50:30] » Uh, so I'm not overly opposed to it. Um,
I I can tell you that we did over time,
[50:36] not maybe at the initial bill because
we're going to be, you know, bringing
[50:40] trucks and such up and down. Over time,
we did plan to build put some trees in.
[50:44] I mean that may maybe not exactly the
way they had planned it, but we didn't
[50:47] plan to to do some trees over the course
of time as money allowed, right? Um so
[50:52] I'm not overly opposed to it. I don't I
would say I'd rather plant them in the
[50:56] easement where I can control them and
put them where I would like to, but I'm
[50:59] not totally opposed to the idea.
And um for the neighbor, could you tell
[51:05] me if he's do you definitely want or
requesting the trees on your side of the
[51:11] rock wall or would you mind if those
trees were planted in the easement which
[51:15] is on the other side of the stones?
Have you given any thought to that?
[51:20] » They hadn't really thought about it, but
if if the same type of system was set up
[51:25] on their side, um would be
>> you'd be amenable to that. I'm just
[51:30] curious is yeah I'm just trying to
figure out what everybody would like.
[51:33] I think I think it's fine if it's
something that's from the outset and not
[51:37] like a years down the road situation
because by then
[51:50] » well I would anticipate us putting it
into the uh into the off
[51:57] into the premise
[52:01] » for the applicant. Do you think Oh, I'm
sorry. Applicant, do you think 30 trees
[52:05] is
>> an excessive number, a reasonable
[52:09] number?
>> Uh, I
[52:12] » seems like a lot of trees.
>> It does seem like a lot of trees. I I
[52:14] you know, I I would say not sure, but
I'd be again like I would like to have a
[52:20] happy neighbor and I'm not, you know,
I'm not going to I don't want this to
[52:24] not proceed because of a few trees to be
honest with you. I'm going to be
[52:27] spending a heck of a lot of money to do
this. So, you know, if I can control it
[52:32] and I'll buy by the trees and how I
control it, you know, 10 grand could
[52:36] become five or six grand in the grand
scheme of what I'm going to be spending,
[52:40] » right? Yeah. You can price this out
between other, you know,
[52:43] » right? Okay.
>> Yeah.
[52:44] » Now, would you two
families like to step to the side and
[52:49] work this little bit out of what how
many trees you want, how much you
[52:53] willing to spend, so forth so on before
you
[52:55] » Well, I think
>> or do you need to do more shopping?
[52:58] Yeah.
>> But but we can just say so many trees
[53:00] and then they can decide right
>> the cost ultimate.
[53:03] » I mean ultimately the I didn't come up
with that number. The landscaper did. He
[53:06] walked it out and measured it and that's
how he came.
[53:08] » Well, he's selling trees.
>> Yeah. [laughter]
[53:11] » Yeah. But and and uh he's what type of
district want so forth so and the type
[53:17] of trees.
>> And and Mr. Pasano uh I'm assuming
[53:21] you're going to have a landscaper.
Correct. Correct. For your property.
[53:24] » That's correct. So it may well be in
your, you know, in your to your benefit
[53:30] to have your uh landscaper do the work
because you're paying him whatever
[53:34] you're going to be paying.
>> Economy of scale will be doing a lot of
[53:37] landscaping. So
>> yeah.
[53:39] » And and and for the neighbors and I said
to you, I apologize sir, but I'm looking
[53:44] at you know one of the drawings here is
your name Vulkman.
[53:47] » Okay. So Mr. Vulkman and and Mrs. Oakman
in terms of the trees where where where
[53:54] you're talking about are you talking
about from cottage place all the way in?
[53:59] » No. No.
>> Only to the tree line.
[54:00] » To the tree.
>> The tree line. Okay. I sorry. I did hear
[54:04] that. I did hear that.
>> The way I'm
[54:06] » But what are you looking is and how far
in from Cottage Place is your house
[54:13] » from
>> from Cottage Place? What's the length is
[54:15] your is your Do you have it attached
garage? Detached garage.
[54:19] » Yes. You have an attached garage.
>> Excuse me.
[54:21] » You have an attached garage
>> and is and is your attached garage
[54:26] » where the roof will be.
>> Correct. And so you're you do you have
[54:30] any windows from your house that look
onto that side of of your property?
[54:35] » We have windows on the back of our house
that now you can see up to house number
[54:42] four. So we can see
>> Okay.
[54:45] So is that where you would be proposed
to put would that would screening care
[54:50] would that [clears throat] benefit you
as to oppose the screening starting from
[54:54] Cottage Police?
>> No, because the like we sit on our back
[54:59] deck and that's you know
>> I apologize. A little closer to the
[55:03] microphone please.
>> Sure. We sit on our back deck. If people
[55:06] are driving down the driveway, whether
it is neighbors or their guests or
[55:12] somebody coming to do work in their
house and we're in our
[55:17] backyard or sitting on our deck right
now, it's private.
[55:22] We don't have cars driving up and down
along the side of our property. So what
[55:26] I'm trying to do is to determine the
length along that rock wall where it be
[55:32] necessary from your perspective to have
screening
[55:36] » from the street to the tree line
>> from the street to the tree line. So if
[55:38] if say from the street to the front of
your house is not impacted
[55:45] then it may not be nec it may be
necessary to have screening say from the
[55:50] from the side of your house toward
towards your back where your deck is and
[55:54] where the window in the wherever it is
in your house facing that proposed
[55:58] driveway. See what I'm saying? Trying to
be fair to everybody. provide screening
[56:04] where it's necessary but also limiting
it in terms of expense to the applicant.
[56:14] » I'm sure we
again we're not trying to prevent
[56:18] happening.
>> You're just screening.
[56:21] » Okay.
[56:26] So
number four, cottage place, that is a
[56:31] flag lot,
>> right? The the other house on the
[56:36] towards the end of the two
>> two houses
[56:38] » houses are away. Those are flag lots
actually.
[56:41] » Two and four.
>> Yeah, that's what they look like. That's
[56:45] I think the best argument.
>> They do have a long very
[56:49] » they do a very long driveway. haven't
made is that [clears throat]
[56:53] in this neighborhood there are several
flag lots unless I'm reading the map
[56:59] wrong. Two and four their driveways are
adjacent to each other and they're and
[57:05] they're deep back behind.
>> That is correct.
[57:15] » Do you suggest that we should be worried
about them?
[57:18] » No, I'm I'm saying that we're supposed
to analyze this not neighbors screening
[57:24] convenience but based upon criteria and
one of the things is the detriment to
[57:30] the neighborhood and whether it is
um out of context with the neighborhood
[57:37] » right because you said in in front of uh
number four there's actually another
[57:41] house almost in its front that's correct
would look like it's front yard right
[57:45] » so that's so
>> he's behind
[57:48] » six four is behind This seems like a
pretty
[57:54] unusually big flag lot, right? It's a
super long driveway. It doesn't seem
[57:59] like it makes a lot of sense. This is
why they said we don't want flag lots
[58:03] because it's changing the urban street
face
[58:07] um and our setbacks and everything else.
But this street, it already seems in
[58:12] this portion of the street, it already
seems to be fairly normal to right
[58:16] [clears throat] there.
>> So, in other words, it doesn't affect
[58:18] the character of neighborhood. No,
>> that's that's what I'm including.
[58:22] » Plus plus this is one house on 10 acres.
I mean, it's pretty
[58:26] » well the character of the neighborhood
is you're driving cottage
[58:28] [clears throat] place and
>> there's houses in and out.
[58:32] » This one shouldn't change much and so
coming [clears throat] around.
[58:43] All right, let me expand this also. Is
there anybody else here in the audience
[58:45] that wishes to speak in regard to this
application?
[58:50] Okay, Denise, we didn't have anybody
come online who wishes to speak in
[58:54] regard to the application.
>> We didn't put it out for online yet.
[58:58] » Oh, could you put it out for online?
>> Yep.
[59:00] » Just in case.
>> Right. So, we continue our discussion. I
[59:03] just want to make sure we're covering
the public.
[59:04] » So, if it's 100T of frontage normally,
why not 100T screening? [clears throat]
[59:09] No,
>> I don't I don't think that that I'm not
[59:10] looking that that that screening is is
necessary in terms
[59:15] in terms of the the neighbor's concerns.
Yeah.
[59:19] » We have to come down somewhere that's
arbitrary number.
[59:24] » Oh, sure. Yeah.
>> I mean,
[59:26] » there's no one there.
>> I mean, yeah, like you said, it would be
[59:28] great if we had a sense of the street to
the tree line. If if we had a sense of
[59:32] how long that was. I think your point
was a good one. I I can see that where
[59:37] the view is is about half of that
distance, I would say, is what would
[59:43] like some private. It looks It looks
like they're 40 50 feet from the road.
[59:47] The house is another 40 ft and then it's
60. So
[59:51] » yeah,
>> it looks like it's 140 ft or something
[59:54] like that. Um back to the tree line if
we're going to condition it
[1:00:01] number.
>> Well, I said we have to be interest to
[1:00:04] everybody. We if we do condition it
should be something that's
[1:00:08] » somebody going back would say okay
that's what the condition was rather
[1:00:12] than keep it nebulous. Yeah, that's
that's my point.
[1:00:15] » And there's a question too of are we
going to be specific as to the foliage
[1:00:18] to be used and I don't know if we can do
[clears throat]
[1:00:22] » maybe a landscaper has something cheaper
and better and you know so we don't want
[1:00:27] to
>> and I'd be willing to work with our
[1:00:30] potentially new neighbor to decide agree
on what that
[1:00:34] » might be plant is
>> maybe something deer resistant you know.
[1:00:37] » Yes. Exactly.
>> You know so
[1:00:39] » like Andromeda are kind of deer
resistant.
[1:00:43] Correct.
>> Got to
[1:00:44] » research it ourselves [laughter]
where we want to plant figure out what
[1:00:48] the team aren't going to grab.
>> And they they'll eat almost anything,
[1:00:51] but spray them and you know
>> you got to just do the best you can with
[1:00:54] it. But there are some things they'd
rather not eat. So
[1:00:57] » yes,
[1:01:05] » any more comments from the board?
>> How about Melissa?
[1:01:09] » Melissa, any comments on this?
No, none that we haven't already
[1:01:14] covered. Um, I pretty much have the same
sentiments as BART. I don't see this as
[1:01:20] a real substantial ask. The property is
non-conforming.
[1:01:24] What they're asking for is consistent
with the neighborhood. I think if there
[1:01:29] is a screening agreement to be reached,
that's great. But for me, I don't see
[1:01:34] screening as necessary to move forward
on this application.
[1:01:42] I mean, I'll give my opinion. I think,
yeah, the application is very
[1:01:44] reasonable. I mean, got to get to the
lot somehow. You can't just leave 10
[1:01:47] acres sitting there. It's one house on
10 acres. Uh, the required square
[1:01:52] required square footing footage is 120
square feet. Lot is 456,000 square feet.
[1:01:58] So, it's a big difference. Um,
and uh,
[1:02:06] so what we're really doing is
going to prove the variance and then
[1:02:11] screening. I mean we number Pete and the
neighbors to agree upon some reasonable
[1:02:16] screening.
>> I go along with that. How Tommy, how
[1:02:19] close are we this deep?
>> Uh
[1:02:23] what's that?
>> You look at the grades
[1:02:26] » it it drops off in the back there.
>> It's fairly flat where they're proposing
[1:02:30] that the build the dwelling
>> there. It is flat where we're propo flat
[1:02:35] fairly flat.
>> Not within any of the steep slopes. No,
[1:02:38] no, we our engineer has looked at that.
I think I actually included as a part of
[1:02:40] the documents we provided where the
dwelling would be would be away from the
[1:02:44] steep any steep slopes.
>> Okay.
[1:02:46] » And as well as well as the wetlands to
victor's point, the large size mitigates
[1:02:53] u some degree the lack of frontage.
[1:02:59] » Frankly, the position where the proposed
house, I don't think anybody would see
[1:03:04] it from cottage place. The only thing
they would see is is the proposed
[1:03:09] driveway and probably a mailbox.
>> That's it. And I'm sure there are
[1:03:14] mailboxes.
>> I'm sure. Right. Mailbox
[1:03:18] all along Cottage Place.
[1:03:22] » Ready to make a motion?
>> Yep. Are we any further comments or are
[1:03:24] we ready to vote on this?
>> Ready to vote.
[1:03:27] » Okay.
Uh before we vote, do you have anything
[1:03:30] further you'd like to say, sir?
>> No. I think we've covered it all.
[1:03:34] » Okay. Can I have a motion as a type of
action?
[1:03:37] » Type two.
>> Second.
[1:03:41] » Mr. Burke.
>> I
[1:03:42] » Miss Deledo.
>> I
[1:03:44] » Mr. Guio.
>> Hi.
[1:03:46] » Mr. Harden.
>> I.
[1:03:48] » Mr. Lansky.
>> I.
[1:03:50] » Mr. Newman.
>> I.
[1:03:52] » Chairman Kestra.
>> I.
[1:03:54] » Thank you.
>> Can we have a motion whether we're going
[1:03:56] to grant or deny the application and
what any any conditions we might place
[1:04:00] upon it if we approve it?
[1:04:06] You got that?
>> Want to take it part?
[1:04:07] » Uh, who's on the hearing?
[clears throat]
[1:04:09] » I'll uh make a motion to
uh grant varants for
[1:04:16] uh ADA
um exemption uh for frontage as well as
[1:04:24] a uh variance for
for
[1:04:29] front yard.
Um,
[1:04:33] and I will condition that bearings on
uh applicant providing uh 150 ft of
[1:04:42] screening along the edge of the eastment
um towards
[1:04:51] » 10
>> towards 10 cot place.
[1:04:54] Second.
[1:04:58] » Hold on.
>> Yep. 150. We'll
[1:05:04] » just about do that.
[1:05:08] » Yes. Good.
>> Do we have a second?
[1:05:10] » Second.
>> Second.
[1:05:11] » Huh? Yep.
>> Mr. Burke.
[1:05:15] » I
>> Mr. Pledo.
[1:05:17] » Hi,
>> Mr. Guio.
[1:05:19] » Hi,
>> Mr. Harden.
[1:05:20] » Hi,
>> Mr. Lansky.
[1:05:22] » Hi,
>> Mr. Mr. Newman.
[1:05:24] » I,
>> Chairman Kestra,
[1:05:26] » I.
>> Thank you.
[1:05:28] » Congratulations. Your application has
been granted.
[1:05:31] » Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
[1:05:33] [clears throat]
[1:05:36] » Don't forget all your drawings.
>> Nice to see that neighbors were able to
[1:05:40] work trucks out.
>> Good.
[1:05:45] [clears throat]
[1:05:48] » Okay, so we're going to go to the next
item on the agenda. This is the
[1:05:52] application of Danielle Fennesses. This
is an application to renew a special
[1:05:56] exception use permit for an existing
accessory apartment in an R80
[1:06:00] residential district at 31 Valley Pond
Road in Kona. Is somebody here to
[1:06:06] represent the applicant?
>> There she is.
[1:06:08] » Hello. Can you please give us your name
and address?
[1:06:10] » Hi, I'm Danielle Fennessy, 31 Valley
Pond Road, Katona, New York. I'm with my
[1:06:14] husband and my father-in-law.
>> Okay, jumping in at times.
[1:06:19] » Okay, that that would be fun.
[clears throat] Uh so can you briefly
[1:06:22] describe your application? Um I guess
the site plan or the uh layout has
[1:06:28] changed since last time this was
approved. Maybe you could fill me in a
[1:06:31] little bit on what's going on here.
>> Yeah. So the short version of all of
[1:06:35] this is the original plans that we
received when we purchased the home did
[1:06:41] not match what Tommy thought when he
came in for the site visit. Um we did
[1:06:47] have an architect. And we had an
architect
[1:06:51] » architect come in. Um he gave us a a
statement basically saying that nothing
[1:06:58] has changed since then um since the '9s.
So what was in place has always been in
[1:07:05] place and nothing was changed over time.
Um
[1:07:07] » what was approved what wasn't wasn't
ever there basically.
[1:07:11] » Correct.
>> For 20 years.
[1:07:12] » Correct.
>> Um so we were left kind of holding the
[1:07:15] bag. Um,
>> so this has kind of been going on for a
[1:07:18] while and thankfully Denise and Tommy
have kind of been helping us with this
[1:07:22] process. At one point we were like screw
it to be honest with you. We don't want
[1:07:26] to deal with this anymore. So much
drama. But then we were like hey it
[1:07:30] makes sense to have a variance and
potentially good for us in the future.
[1:07:34] So we tried to figure out ways to
actually make the layout happen with the
[1:07:39] square footage of the house. We think we
came up to a solution that um we brought
[1:07:45] to Tommy and that should be what you
guys have.
[1:07:50] » Yeah, there was a variance granted
[1:07:54] [clears throat]
>> variance that was granted apartment.
[1:07:58] » Oh, I don't remember when that was but
it was 93 quite some time ago. A
[1:08:03] » while ago [clears throat] and what we
came up with is is actually under the
[1:08:06] square footage variance that was
granted.
[1:08:13] And the current proposal it looks like
is it a,58
[1:08:19] uh square feet up to 1137
looking at the little
[1:08:24] » 1137 is what variance was approved back
in 93. But what we're looking to do is
[1:08:29] less. And that's the um the 53 you just
noted.
[1:08:33] » The max is 800.
>> 58. I'm sorry.
[1:08:35] » Yeah. 10,58,
right? Yeah. Because 800 or 850 is the
[1:08:40] max for the code.
>> I think it's 800.
[1:08:42] » 800.
>> So [clears throat] we'd have to grant
[1:08:44] you a variance as to the square footage
if we were to approve this.
[1:08:49] And right now this So this really isn't
a renewal, is it Tommy? I mean there was
[1:08:54] tell me what you what's your what's your
take on what's going on here?
[1:08:58] » The the applicant has been before the
board before
[1:09:01] » that I I recall that that was for this
pro same property.
[1:09:05] » Yeah, it was a while back.
>> Okay.
[1:09:08] » The uh as required by the code every
seven years we have to do uh an on-site
[1:09:14] inspection of the accessory apartment.
Make sure everything's compliant with
[1:09:16] the terms of the original approval.
Um when I went out to do that, the
[1:09:24] apartment
um which the applicant thought um was
[1:09:30] the primary portion of the dwelling was
was not. They was they were flip-fpped.
[1:09:37] The original approval showed the primary
dwelling in the upper level of the home
[1:09:41] and the apartment on the lower level of
the home.
[1:09:45] the um the actual was was reversed.
So what that did was it increased the
[1:09:54] footprint uh floor area of the apartment
space. So the applicant came before the
[1:10:01] board to for the renewal of the
accessory apartment with with the
[1:10:06] modifications.
The board was not in favor of granting
[1:10:11] such a large square footage. Was it like
1,500 square foot when it was
[1:10:16] flip-flopped? And you you advised the
applicant [clears throat] to go and work
[1:10:22] on a plan to make it more uh appealing
for a positive of the board which they
[1:10:29] have done.
>> And if I recall, I don't think that was
[1:10:31] an actual application. That was more of
a
[1:10:34] » dual of a special exception permit for
an accessory apartment which was granted
[1:10:40] in the 1990s
>> for 1137.
[1:10:43] » The first the first visit was to renew
the special exception use permit as new
[1:10:49] owners
[1:10:52] and then they came back another time to
have a discussion
[1:10:56] » to see what the board would and would
not be okay with.
[1:11:01] » Okay.
bing at the 1400 square foot size of the
[1:11:05] apartment.
>> Paul,
[1:11:07] » correct?
>> So,
[1:11:08] » only 800's allowed. It's almost double.
Right. Okay.
[1:11:11] » They've gone back and they've reworked
the floor plan to be um
[1:11:17] hopefully appealing to the board so they
can get your approval. And what they're
[1:11:22] explaining is the original approval was
for how many square feet?
[1:11:25] » 1137.
>> 1137. and the proposed with this
[1:11:30] » 158
>> 1,00 so it's
[1:11:33] » less although it's more than the 800
square foot that code permits but the
[1:11:38] original approval in the '9s was in
excess of what they're looking for now.
[1:11:44] So, at at this point in time,
isn't this an application for a new
[1:11:50] special exception use permit? Because
we're talking about from my from what
[1:11:54] [clears throat] I'm hearing, a different
apartment than what was originally
[1:11:58] approved in the 1990s.
[1:12:03] » The uh
>> unless I'm missing,
[1:12:05] » I I was looking at as a modification
to
[1:12:09] approval,
>> but it was on the first floor, now it's
[1:12:12] on the second. So, it is kind of a new
apartment. I see what you're saying.
[1:12:16] » So, the layout of the house is exactly
the same. From my perspective, it just
[1:12:20] looks like whoever drew this
flip-flopped it.
[1:12:23] » Flip-flopped it.
>> So, what they were showing is the
[1:12:26] apartment actually is upstairs.
>> Let me just be, you know, clear. I have
[1:12:30] no real problem with with the plan you
have. It's just I want to make sure that
[1:12:34] we're doing things correctly.
>> I agree with you.
[1:12:37] » And so, what the question is what
cleaning up? What do we what would we be
[1:12:42] approving today? Would it be a new an
application for a special exception use
[1:12:48] permit starting today or is it a uh
continuation of the prior special
[1:12:55] exception use permit
>> that was granted?
[1:12:58] » I think it's a new application now. I I
think it's a new application.
[1:13:02] » That's how to clean it up. If you want
to clean it up, do it right. semantics
[1:13:06] new application. [clears throat]
>> And we we if we approve this, we also
[1:13:10] have to approve a variance of 258 square
feet because we're over the 800,
[1:13:15] » right?
>> Which is a little bit over. This is
[1:13:18] intended to be only a one bedroom
though,
[1:13:20] » right?
>> Yes.
[1:13:21] » Okay. I see the living room is kind of
bifurcated between two areas here, kind
[1:13:27] of cut in half. And u I do see closets.
Usually a closet is an indication of a
[1:13:31] bedroom, but it's not intended to be
another bedroom there. That's detail of
[1:13:35] the existing of the existing floor plan
of the house. That [clears throat] was
[1:13:39] that was designed that way during the
original um proposed um apartment
[1:13:47] application, but that was in the '9s.
>> Yes.
[1:13:51] » But I thought you I thought you said,
Tom, that the original application was
[1:13:54] for the assessment department to be on
the first level.
[1:13:59] » That's what was approved,
>> right? And so,
[1:14:02] » and the and the main dwelling main
dwelling actually occupied both levels.
[1:14:09] It was it's kind of it's it's it's kind
of odd in my opinion how it was how it
[1:14:14] was laid out.
>> How we got here was originally there
[1:14:18] were walls that showed on the plans that
were never there. The architect that
[1:14:22] came in said those walls were never
there. Nothing has ever changed. So, it
[1:14:26] was kind of messed up from the
beginning. Um, but right now the
[1:14:29] upstairs and the downstairs are
identical um, in how they look.
[1:14:35] » But it would seem to me that you'd clean
it up with a new assessment, a new
[1:14:41] a doover and not attempt to change what
was done in 93, which was wrong.
[1:14:49] » I mean, the way the application's
written, it does say an application for
[1:14:51] a proposed relocation.
>> Yeah, I think we'd have to change that.
[1:14:58] Well, the relocation would just be
flip-flopping,
[1:15:01] » right? Can we just can we just can we do
a renewal with a relocation?
[1:15:06] » That's what I was thinking.
>> Yeah.
[1:15:08] » But if the board feels differently, then
>> I mean, as long as the plans are now
[1:15:13] right,
>> I
[1:15:15] » So the next next time you go,
>> which
[1:15:18] » I I just want to make mention of this
and this could even be before Tom Tuma
[1:15:23] time. We have had at least one instance
where somebody changed the location of
[1:15:29] their apartment within their original
footprint. It was the mother and father.
[1:15:34] They were upstairs needed to be moved
downstairs because of mobility and it
[1:15:40] was just it wasn't a brand new
application. We changed the lo it was a
[1:15:45] relocation of the apartment. So, I'm
just I just want to throw that out
[1:15:48] there. Obviously, it's up to you guys.
However it gets done, we need to just
[1:15:53] get it done.
>> And then in terms of the the present
[1:15:57] present uh
accessory use permit, when does that
[1:16:02] expire?
>> It's been expired.
[1:16:05] » Okay.
>> We've been think about new application.
[1:16:09] » Yeah.
>> Because you don't have right now. We
[1:16:11] don't have a an existing permit,
accessory permit.
[1:16:15] » Does that cause us a problem? Do we do
we need it? But it's been expired
[1:16:20] because
>> because we've been going through this
[1:16:21] process
>> and tried to renew it. When Tommy
[1:16:25] [clears throat] came in, it wasn't
>> Yeah.
[1:16:27] » built the way it was approved.
>> So that's the only reason it's
[1:16:31] » So we we've been in process, you know,
from, you know, the beginning when
[1:16:34] Denise said, "All right, you know, um,
Tommy just has to come out and then you
[1:16:38] guys can start renting it out." And
Tommy came out and said, "Nope, you
[1:16:42] can't start renting it out yet."
>> This was when it was very difficult to
[1:16:46] get in.
>> Yeah. I
[1:16:48] » is it is it I mean is there any reason
to not make a new
[1:16:52] » what would be the reason a notice do
would this have to be can we do it
[1:16:55] tonight
>> I don't I don't
[1:16:57] » I think we could do it with that I think
the only question was whether you
[1:17:01] provide a little difference because
[clears throat]
[1:17:04] it's a renewal um you know that
typically gets less less
[1:17:09] » less scrutiny
>> than a new application
[1:17:11] » square footage
>> that said there's a hardship issue here
[1:17:15] where these
purchased something and didn't know
[1:17:19] exactly what they purchased um and
thought they had u you know everything
[1:17:26] legal and a permit and they're trying
[clears throat] to do the right thing.
[1:17:30] So
show the same kind of difference we
[1:17:33] normally would by you know given
and property meets still meets the same
[1:17:41] things right it's 1992
you know they separate entrances there's
[1:17:47] driveway right all those things still
meet so now we're just at the apartment
[1:17:52] the apartment's a little bit big is
there anything else that doesn't meet on
[1:17:55] the apartment besides square footage
>> we uh felt oh we weren't doing That was
[1:18:00] » Yeah, we didn't have our usual checklist
back then.
[1:18:02] » I was looking for that.
>> Yeah, we'd have I'd have to revisit.
[1:18:06] » But you don't know of anything else
that's not
[1:18:08] » No, they have they have they have ample
parking two entrances.
[1:18:12] » Everything else seems to make
>> The only thing that that's not um in in
[1:18:17] um complying with our code is the uh
floor area in excess of 800 square feet.
[1:18:22] » The house was built before that date
that we have.
[1:18:24] » It was
>> it was built. Okay.
[1:18:26] » So,
>> there you go. Given all that and given
[1:18:29] the fact that they have
>> I I don't have a problem if they
[1:18:33] » were doing doing it correctly.
>> Probleming it as a new application and I
[1:18:36] think that's a little bit cleaner and I
don't see it as a notice issue.
[1:18:39] » Okay.
>> We have a notice up already.
[1:18:42] » Excuse me.
>> We already have a notice up in front of
[1:18:44] the house.
>> Yes.
[1:18:45] » For a renewal, not for a new
application. Technicality. Yeah.
[1:18:49] » Semantics. Just
>> we have to write another no.
[1:18:54] You're good Ricky. It doesn't even tell
you anything on that other than the date
[1:18:58] of the meeting.
>> Okay. Yeah. Let's let's try to get this
[1:19:00] resolved tonight.
>> Get this over.
[1:19:01] » Yeah.
>> And in terms of the the plan that we
[1:19:04] have here on the left side, it said
recreation room, which seems which seems
[1:19:10] to be the left side of the the upstairs
of the h left side of you're facing the
[1:19:16] house, left side of the upper floor.
Does the proposed
[1:19:22] apartment dweller have access or would
have access to that recreation?
[1:19:27] » No.
>> No. That's part of your house.
[1:19:28] » Correct.
>> Okay.
[1:19:31] » Because if that's part of the apartment,
then we got a problem.
[1:19:33] » That's why you said no.
>> Right.
[1:19:35] » Well, that put us back where we were.
>> Yeah. Let's not go there. So, yeah.
[1:19:40] » Okay. So, let's let's take this out to
the public and then we can discuss
[1:19:43] further. Uh, is there anyone uh Denise,
if you can open up online if anybody
[1:19:46] wishes to speak in regard to the
application. Uh, is there anyone here
[1:19:50] present in the audience who would like
to speak in regard to this application?
[1:19:55] » Sure. Just give us your It's all right.
>> Come on, Rick. Step up. [clears throat]
[1:20:01] » All right. So, we'll just give it a
minute. Any further discussions from the
[1:20:04] board?
>> There's nobody coming on.
[1:20:06] » Okay, Denise, you can close it down. Any
further discussions from the board?
[1:20:10] » No.
>> Okay. Does the applicant have anything
[1:20:14] further to say before we vote on the
application?
[1:20:17] I have no problem with uh taking out
closets because we already talked about
[1:20:23] that [clears throat] needing to be done.
So
[1:20:26] » upstairs in those rooms,
>> the room the uh yeah the living room um
[1:20:31] would be viewed as a bedroom in the
board of health's eyes because of the
[1:20:36] privacy.
>> Correct.
[1:20:38] » So if those doors were taken out and the
privacy was eliminated, it would not be
[1:20:43] considered a bedroom.
>> Right.
[1:20:45] » Okay. And that might be a smart move
just to prevent issues with the border.
[1:20:48] Does the board of health looks at
bedrooms by Is there a closet?
[1:20:51] » It's uh privacy and reasonable access to
all bath.
[1:20:55] » Right.
>> Right.
[1:20:59] » The closets could stay as nothing.
>> Okay.
[1:21:02] » So just you just take off the doors.
>> Privacy
[1:21:06] access. This a full bathroom. That was a
powder room.
[1:21:09] » Yeah. No, there's no doors on that.
>> Problem solved. I'll I'll be doing an
[1:21:13] alteration permit in conjunction with um
the um with with the apartment if it
[1:21:20] were approved.
>> Okay.
[1:21:22] » Okay.
>> Are we ready to vote on this
[1:21:25] application? I think we should move.
>> Yes.
[1:21:27] » Okay. Can I have a motion as to the type
of action?
[1:21:30] » Type two.
>> Second.
[1:21:33] » Mr. Burke.
>> I.
[1:21:35] » Miss DO.
>> I.
[1:21:37] » Mr. Guio.
>> I.
[1:21:39] » Mr. Harden.
>> Hi.
[1:21:41] » Mr. Minski.
>> I,
[1:21:43] » Mr. Newman.
>> I,
[1:21:44] » Chairman Kenistra,
>> I.
[1:21:47] » Thank you.
>> Can I have a motion as to whether we're
[1:21:49] going to grant the 7-year special
exception use permit? Keep in mind, we
[1:21:53] do approve it as is. We do have a
variance for square footage of
[1:21:58] 258 square feet.
[1:22:03] I make a motion to grant a variance of
258 square feet for the accessory
[1:22:08] apartment at 31 Valley Pond Road. Uh and
a motion to approve to uh grant a
[1:22:15] special exception use permit uh for the
same
[1:22:19] » second.
>> Mr. Burke
[1:22:23] » I
>> Mr. [clears throat] Pledo
[1:22:25] » I and that's with the closet removal,
right?
[1:22:29] » With the doors off the closet. I guess
that's one of the too,
[1:22:31] » right? [clears throat]
>> Is that part of the motion?
[1:22:35] » No, I I think it was only the there can
be no doors on the bedroom.
[1:22:40] » The closets can stay, Tommy.
>> Living room.
[1:22:43] » Sorry, the living room.
>> There can't be doors. Can't be a private
[1:22:46] space. And we've been told there are no
doors,
[1:22:49] » right?
>> Yeah. So, what we're saying is it's a
[1:22:53] one-bedroom apartment,
>> correct?
[1:22:54] » Yes.
>> Right. That's correct.
[1:22:57] » So, can you can Sorry, Denise, can you
just amend my motion to to say a
[1:23:01] one-bedroom accessory apartment?
>> Yes, I added that. Thank you.
[1:23:04] » I amend a second.
>> Okay. Thank you. All right. Let me start
[1:23:08] again. Mr. Burke.
>> I
[1:23:10] » Miss Pledo.
>> Hi,
[1:23:12] » Mr. Kio.
>> Hi,
[1:23:14] » Mr. Harden.
>> Hi,
[1:23:16] » Mr. Lansky.
>> Hi,
[1:23:17] » Mr. Newman. I
>> chairman Canistra.
[1:23:20] » I
>> thank you.
[1:23:23] » Congratulations. Your application has
been
[1:23:25] » very much. Thank you, Tommy and Denise,
too.
[1:23:27] » Thank you.
>> You're welcome. So, guys, your next step
[1:23:30] is Tommy.
[clears throat]
[1:23:34] » Okay.
>> Good night.
[1:23:36] » Thank you. Bye.
>> Okay. Next item on the agenda this
[1:23:40] evening is that of Polia uh Water New
York, Inc. They actually are item four
[1:23:45] and five on the agenda.
Yep.
[1:23:48] » Um sir, if you could please give us your
name and how you represent the applicant
[1:23:56] I see the application here, but you
could also add um an explanation of why
[1:24:02] this is necessary, what we're doing
here, what's you know, you know,
[1:24:05] » we'll do Mr. Chairman.
>> Yes.
[1:24:07] » First of all, Mr. Chairman, members of
the board, staff, uh Lo Sharetta,
[1:24:11] partner with the law firm Blakeley
Platin Schmidt on behalf of Violia. with
[1:24:14] me this evening, Dan Scholenfelder with
Violia and Will Sherman from Suburban
[1:24:18] Consulting Engineers. So, just to get
into the background, um I've been doing
[1:24:23] this a long time for Violia in terms of
these types of projects. So, just to
[1:24:26] give you a background, about several
years ago, the state and the EP the
[1:24:30] federal EPA had a 10 parts per trillion
acceptable POS level, which is
[1:24:34] polyfllorinated alkal aka forever
chemicals that have now, you know,
[1:24:38] seeped into waters and wells. And back
then, back in right before COVID, it was
[1:24:43] a 10 parts per trillion uh requirement.
That that was the acceptable level.
[1:24:47] 2024,
uh the EPA decided to reduce that to
[1:24:51] four parts per trillion. And what that
caused is us and the team going to now
[1:24:57] have to install all these new POS
treatment uh facilities across Hudson
[1:25:02] Valley. Uh we've done about 17 so far
across the Hudson Valley to our service
[1:25:08] area and this is just one of another
other projects that we have throughout
[1:25:12] the region to get us uh basically in
compliance with that federal mandate uh
[1:25:18] which takes into effect in a couple of
years. Um so we're we're all, you know,
[1:25:22] not just here but everywhere trying to
get this done and get these
[1:25:26] [clears throat] facilities built. So
basically what we're looking to do is
[1:25:29] this this project is an existing
treatment facility. It's been around for
[1:25:33] decades. Uh there's five wells that are
served at this site. Uh the last upgrade
[1:25:39] we made to this well these wells were
back in 1980, but it has been a water
[1:25:43] treatment facility for again several
decades. Uh what we're proposing as part
[1:25:48] of this this project and we've been
before planning board uh this was a type
[1:25:52] two action. They deemed it um we're
looking to install 1,700 give square
[1:25:58] foot give or take what's called a gak
filter. It's a granular activated
[1:26:01] carbon. So think of it as a brittle
filter. So it's that's what they are.
[1:26:06] They're larger brittle filters that we
install which basically treat and take
[1:26:09] out POS. Uh boiling it won't do
anything. You know some things you have
[1:26:14] a boil but boiling water doesn't do
anything to the POS. You have to run it
[1:26:17] through these these Gak filters.
>> What is this POS? What is that?
[1:26:20] » Uh so POS was a chemical. It's it's
polyfllorinated alkal. It was used in
[1:26:25] non-stick surfaces, fire, makeup. But uh
over the course of the many years that
[1:26:30] these chemicals have been in use,
they've seeped into the into the water
[1:26:33] system. Okay.
>> You're basically going down getting the
[1:26:35] ground water out.
>> Yeah. In the wells back in. Is that what
[1:26:38] we're
>> Yeah. We're basically having the again
[1:26:41] very simple again go back to the Brit
filter. Uh we're running water through
[1:26:45] the filter to cleanse it out in addition
to other treatment that we have to
[1:26:49] provide the water. So this particular
site we're not changing capacity. We're
[1:26:54] not increasing water capacity. All we're
doing is treating it for POS. So with
[1:26:59] respect to this project again it
involves the installation of a building
[1:27:04] uh again which is a 7,750 I believe
square feet. Yeah. 7 yeah 7:30. Sorry.
[1:27:11] In addition to that there's also some
accessory structures that have to be
[1:27:14] installed. But the main components Mr.
Chair members of the board is the Gak
[1:27:19] building and the accessory structure. So
which takes me to the variances that we
[1:27:22] need for tonight. The variances that we
require, we require two setback
[1:27:26] variances. One for accessory, one for
principal structures, and then one for
[1:27:30] the height. Uh where this is proposed to
be is in not if you if you've seen the
[1:27:35] site, it's not in a residential
neighborhood. Again, it's it's behind,
[1:27:38] you know, where where the land trust is,
Heritage Hills area, but again, there
[1:27:42] are no residences that are currently
existing. It makes it an ideal site for
[1:27:46] this, but this is something we have to
do. It's not like I want to be here and
[1:27:49] I respect and enjoy spending time with
all of you, but it's not something that
[1:27:53] uh you know we we want to do. It's
something we have to do in the federal
[1:27:56] and state guidelines say we have to do
this projects. Uh and that pretty much
[1:28:00] it is it in a nutshell. Mr. Chairman, if
it's okay with you, I just like to have
[1:28:04] Will just come up and just talk about
the the site plan real quick in terms of
[1:28:07] the variances and why we need them. uh
you know it it is important to note you
[1:28:12] know just to just real quick that you
know there was and I'll just give you
[1:28:17] just to get it out in the open. I know
when we were at the planning board I
[1:28:20] know the folks here from land trust kind
of objected to it the location of it but
[1:28:25] you know and I said this to the planning
board and I'll state it just off you we
[1:28:28] have no desire to change this facility
in terms of moving it. We have a
[1:28:32] deadline that we have to comply with. uh
moving the building whether it's 65 feet
[1:28:37] further is going to cost us with
testimony that we presented before the
[1:28:40] planning board over half a million
dollars just to do and additional time
[1:28:44] which we just don't have. We have to get
these things up and running and this
[1:28:47] building right here if you go to your
bathroom has a POS problem. If you look
[1:28:50] at the sign when you go to the bathroom
on your right [snorts] uh and hopefully
[1:28:54] this facility will will take care of
that issue. That's why you have uh
[1:28:58] » we're on well
>> yeah you're on right and
[1:29:00] » we're not we don't we're not fed by
>> Yeah. But one of the ideas is is
[1:29:04] probably once this comes online is
hopefully to get this all worked out. So
[1:29:08] » how far of a range does this thing work
as far as cleaning?
[1:29:11] » Uh there's five wells that this is going
to be treating right now.
[1:29:14] » Yeah. Can you just tell us just for so
sure background?
[1:29:17] » Just Heritage.
>> Who's who is served? Who is served by
[1:29:20] this? All of Heritage Hills and
>> it's uh
[1:29:23] » Dan Shenfelder.
>> Hi Dan Shenfelder with Filelia. uh
[1:29:26] Heritage Hills, the uh community up
there. Uh parts of uh Sr's Crossing, the
[1:29:34] » Stown Shopping Center, oh the condos.
>> There's a small development behind THCO
[1:29:40] we serve. And I believe that there's a
current plan that may not be finalized,
[1:29:45] but there have been talks about this
building here
[1:29:48] » park district
>> being served uh once the department of
[1:29:51] health approves the uh the
interconnection and
[1:29:54] » so this is
>> approves the expansion of the service
[1:29:56] territory.
>> No
[1:29:57] » school's not involved
>> right into it.
[1:30:01] » These five wells give Heritage all their
water.
[1:30:03] » Correct.
>> No.
[1:30:05] » For the Heritage Hills development,
those are
[1:30:08] » huge development. That's why I'm
surprised that these five wells could do
[1:30:11] » it. It's five uh portable drinking water
wells. They get the the water gets
[1:30:15] treated at uh the location that we're
presenting on and then we're proposing
[1:30:20] additional treatment in addition to
what's there uh to remove PAS from the
[1:30:25] the drink.
>> But those five wells serve all of her
[1:30:28] chills.
>> That's correct.
[1:30:29] » Wow. Okay.
>> Yeah.
[1:30:32] » So, this is a new and continuous.
You're not storing the water. So, it's
[1:30:38] going to be a new and continuous
>> atmospheric tank
[1:30:40] » filter.
>> One of the one of these is an
[1:30:42] atmospheric tank.
>> Yeah. So,
[1:30:45] » the heights
>> that's the gak building
[1:30:49] » both they're both above the height.
>> Yeah.
[1:30:52] » Just to make quick comment. Sorry.
>> Will Sherman from Suburban.
[1:30:55] » Will Sherman consulting engineers. So,
the height variance is going to be for
[1:30:59] the accessory structure which would be
the tank. The existing or the proposed
[1:31:02] building does not need a height
variance. We are underneath the
[1:31:05] respective requirements of the mean
height on the zoning table as listed on
[1:31:10] page five. So C00 the height
requirements are listed under note
[1:31:15] number five.
The the accessory structure would be
[1:31:20] requiring height variance. I believe
it's a 34 foot tall built where the
[1:31:24] height variance for the accessory
structure is for the
[1:31:28] » and there's al there's an existing
structure there now. Correct.
[1:31:32] » Correct. Correct. That's an existing
footage and what is the height of the uh
[1:31:36] existing structure?
>> The existing facility is approximately
[1:31:40] 2100 square feet and the height of the
building is about 16 to 18 ft.
[1:31:45] » I'm sorry.
>> 16 to 18 ft
[1:31:48] » and that that building is to remain.
>> That is correct.
[1:31:51] » And what purpose does that building
serve at this time?
[1:31:54] » Uh that building houses uh current water
quality treatment where we are proposing
[1:31:58] to add additional water quality
treatment to the facility.
[1:32:01] [clears throat]
So that the existing facility will be in
[1:32:05] continuous use as well. Is that
>> correct?
[1:32:07] » Yes.
>> And you're going to show us where this
[1:32:12] new structures are.
>> Yes. So this is the facility right here.
[1:32:22] » Will will I'm sorry. Get that microphone
please.
[1:32:25] » You can take it.
>> Hopefully this works.
[1:32:28] » If you could just repeat what you said.
>> Yep. No worries. Yep. Thank you. Yeah.
[1:32:33] So the existing facility is this one
right here where the prelim all wells
[1:32:38] are currently go to this facility where
it gets preliminary treated where we are
[1:32:42] proposing a new treatment facility which
is this box right here to house the PAS
[1:32:46] treatment. So all wells would go to the
existing treatment facility go into the
[1:32:50] proposed treatment facility and then out
to the distribution system.
[1:32:54] » And then in addition to that building
there's also another accessory structure
[1:32:59] for a tank.
>> Correct. The accessory structure is
[1:33:01] right here which is the water storage
tank about 40,000 gallons.
[1:33:05] » Okay. And then can you point to where
the S's Land Trust has their pavilion?
[1:33:11] » Yes. So, their pavilion is right down
here, which I can show.
[1:33:40] What number is that drawing?
>> Uh this is VT 103. So this second last
[1:33:44] page on the set. So this is fire
apparatus turning radius sheet. However,
[1:33:49] it's aerial image that could show
picture of the site. So currently the
[1:33:54] land trustes pavilion right here
[clears throat]
[1:33:58] where the existing facility is located
right here.
[1:34:04] » We are about 750 ft away from the access
road. Uh, US 202.
[1:34:10] » This is this is
>> right. So,
[1:34:13] » be far back. Okay.
>> Well, I don't know if you guys have been
[1:34:16] back to Rhinoceros Creek,
>> the pavilion. There's hiking trails. So,
[1:34:22] we're going to come closer to the road.
So, the the access road to get into the
[1:34:26] Renaos Creek. We're coming on that
coming close the road closer to the
[1:34:32] pavilion.
>> Correct. We be going closer to the
[1:34:35] access road still on the property of the
applicant's property.
[1:34:38] » Okay. Thank you.
>> Is there currently an access road?
[1:34:42] » Uh there's a currently an access road
and access easement all the way to the
[1:34:46] facility from from US 2022.
>> And is there any any part of the plan
[1:34:50] been large in that access road?
>> Uh not at this time. The turnaround
[1:34:55] that's depicted in this this drawing,
the one I believe they have up there
[1:34:59] now, is that turnaround presently in
place?
[1:35:04] » The truck right here?
>> Correct. Yes. So, there is the um
[1:35:08] parking area where there is a agreement
uh pending. We are working with the land
[1:35:13] trust to provide an additional permanent
easement for the entire uh parking area
[1:35:18] there for that turnaround.
>> Oh, is that parking area presently?
[1:35:23] Yeah, correct.
>> Thank you.
[1:35:27] » Just in terms of operational
capabilities, this is not a a fully
[1:35:31] manned facility. I mean, there's one
person that comes to Violia maybe to
[1:35:34] inspect per day. So, it's not [cough]
doesn't get traffic. Again, there's one
[1:35:38] vehicle. It's not a fully manned
facility where it's manned full-time.
[1:35:41] Someone from comes in what once a day
maybe if if that to to basically look at
[1:35:46] the site and inspect
>> the existing building's coronation.
[1:35:51] I'm sorry.
>> The existing building is coronation.
[1:35:53] » Yes, there is chlorination
>> and then the carbon's going after the
[1:35:56] chlorination.
>> Yeah. So the existing facility right now
[1:35:59] is iron and maganesees removal. So
currently the water goes to the iron
[1:36:03] magnes removal. Then it gets treated
right now with um a pH adjuster and
[1:36:08] chlorine. then goes out to the facility
where currently we are proposing to put
[1:36:12] the uh carbon vessels after the iron
maganesees relocating the chemicals to
[1:36:17] the new building where the chemicals
will still be still be the last
[1:36:20] treatment step but no change in
chemicals no change in dosage or
[1:36:23] anything like that
>> and then after the treatment rather than
[1:36:27] going directly back into the wells it
goes into the it proposed to go into the
[1:36:31] storage facility
>> correct it'll go into the storage
[1:36:34] facility
>> which is 30 foot high correct
[1:36:36] » correct and then from there it goes back
to the existing building where there's a
[1:36:40] booster pumps to hit to the distribution
system to meet the grade line of
[1:36:44] Heritage Hills.
>> What is what are the slopes in the area?
[1:36:51] » There are some steep slopes in the area
where the proposed building location
[1:36:55] right now is located on maintain lawn
which is minimum steep slopes. However,
[1:37:00] off to the west of the page
[1:37:06] here,
there are several steep slopes in that
[1:37:09] area which is going to be uh cleared for
staging and replanted for well
[1:37:14] mitigation. [clears throat]
[1:37:18] There should be a steep slope page I
believe on
[1:37:23] » Yeah, I I did see it.
>> The height variance for the new building
[1:37:28] or for the tank? for the tank.
>> The tank that's the hype area
[1:37:31] » that is correct.
>> I got confused because I assumed that
[1:37:35] the second building [clears throat]
was an accessory building,
[1:37:38] » right? That you had a princip there's
two new uses for accessory uses. The way
[1:37:43] they're that their application reads is
this new building is principal building
[1:37:49] as well as the existing one.
>> Right? So the question for the B board
[1:37:54] would be whether it's a pertinent to the
other one or whether it's its own
[1:37:57] princip.
>> I think either interpretation is
[1:38:03] » and do who [clears throat] owns the the
property that these buildings sit on is
[1:38:07] owned by Heritage Hills.
>> Uh Viola
[1:38:10] » viola that property
>> property
[1:38:12] » and how what's the size of that lot?
>> Uh about 2.5 acres.
[1:38:17] » Okay. What caused the contamination?
It's not is it is it is it is it
[1:38:24] [laughter] so it's not that it's so
>> or what caused this that we're trying to
[1:38:27] filter out? What what is I'm trying to
understand.
[1:38:29] » P again POS is a chemical again what I
was stating earlier. It it was it's a
[1:38:34] chemical that was used in non-stick
surfaces uh makeup back in the day fire.
[1:38:39] Okay. So again, but used everywhere,
right? So over the course of decades,
[1:38:44] these chemicals do seep into the ground
and seep into the
[1:38:47] » How would they get to the ground? Yeah.
>> Your your pan.
[1:38:50] » Yeah.
>> Right.
[1:38:51] » Teflon pan.
>> Uhu. Every time you every time you walk
[1:38:55] take something [laughter] you take
something false off of that it goes down
[1:38:58] your drain and it doesn't disintegrate
and at some point in time it aggregates
[1:39:02] enough for over enough parts per
million.
[1:39:05] » Okay. So tired.
>> It's all [laughter]
[1:39:08] the chemical that's treated on uh for uh
carpeting.
[1:39:13] » Cor right. Exactly. I mean when you look
at if you if you look at problem
[1:39:18] » if you look at PAS and just look at all
the what it's been used for it's
[1:39:21] astonishing. So it's
>> vortex but but the thing you around here
[1:39:25] we didn't have the industrial uses like
like Delaware right but
[1:39:30] » here we have people washing their
washing their pants and we have you know
[1:39:35] things
>> standing I think
[1:39:37] » and there are
[1:39:41] » uh products
>> that don't meet the require that you
[1:39:44] know don't meet the state requirements.
Yeah, and you know back when I was doing
[1:39:46] this right before COVID, okay, so when
we tested the wells, they're all some of
[1:39:50] them met 10 parts per trillion, no
problem. But then all of a sudden now
[1:39:53] they're a bunch that do not meet the
current EPA or parts per trillion. So
[1:39:57] that's why we have to go and now install
these these these
[1:39:59] » How many are how many of your five wells
meet the criteria?
[1:40:07] » It it varies seasonally, but to get you
an answer, I'd have to go back and and
[1:40:11] check. But there have been times when
these wells have tested above four
[1:40:15] parts.
>> We are required to install this
[1:40:18] treatment to meet the um
>> you ask if they tested.
[1:40:22] » You have tested above.
>> That's why we're doing this project,
[1:40:24] » right?
>> And with any luck, terrible tasting
[1:40:28] heritage water will get better. Carbon
the carbon filter will take out some of
[1:40:33] the excess chlorine that they already
put in that water. So that's why I was
[1:40:37] » Is there any noise that emanates from
this facility?
[1:40:39] » No.
>> No.
[1:40:40] » Nope. So nobody up uphill or anything's
going to hear anything running or
[1:40:45] » generator.
>> We're we're replacing the existing
[1:40:48] emergency generator uh which is used to
power the facility in emergency when
[1:40:52] lose power. But that emergency only does
right.
[1:40:55] » Yeah.
>> Um and in terms of the and this perhaps
[1:40:59] for the engineer in terms of the slopes
what what I'm concerned about frankly
[1:41:03] the height of the proposed uh port of
storage.
[1:41:07] » Yep. So in terms and looking at the the
fund the front sheet on on the
[1:41:11] submission here of Burrings there are uh
I'll say a number is probably more is
[1:41:18] certainly more than 10 uh properties
private properties I'll say behind the
[1:41:24] facility.
So if you look at it, if I I'll say the
[1:41:29] I'm taking the view that the front of
the facility just
[1:41:34] is what faces route 202.
>> Yep.
[1:41:37] » So now I'm taking what's the rear or the
back [clears throat] of the facility.
[1:41:43] The storage tank is to be on the to the
right of it. Correct.
[1:41:48] » Uh that is correct.
>> Right. So what is the slope of the of
[1:41:52] the property going beyond where the tank
is going to be
[1:41:56] » going way uphill
>> going away?
[1:41:59] » Correct. It goes about several hundred
feet up. I believe it's 150 to 200 feet.
[1:42:04] » I live neighborhood. That's Summit
Circle Lake Drive. That's the
[1:42:06] neighborhood I live in. It goes way up.
Yes.
[1:42:08] » Yeah. So is there [clears throat] have
you gone yourself or somebody from your
[1:42:13] office to any of the streets that look
that would look down on the proposed
[1:42:20] area because I want to get a view what
you know is there is there going to be a
[1:42:25] an impact but on any of these residences
by a 30-foot storage tank. That's my
[1:42:31] that's my point. We don't believe there
would be any impact due to the forested
[1:42:35] area and the forested nature of this
entire facility and with the hill with
[1:42:39] the forested aspect of there should not
be any uh impacts. However, I did not
[1:42:44] personally look at
>> it's a 40,000gallon p.
[1:42:48] » No, I understand. I just I just
>> and and this steep slope is
[1:42:53] on both sides,
>> so there's not another not another hole
[1:42:57] to put it unless you unless it came up
into this front corner.
[1:43:01] » Um That would be the only possibility.
And so if your question is is why can't
[1:43:05] it be over here?
>> No, I just want to make sure that
[1:43:08] there's no impact on on the folks who
live up the hill.
[1:43:11] » You know, it's you're going to see it. I
mean, even even with the slopes, it's
[1:43:14] it's 40,000 gallons. You're going to see
it.
[1:43:17] » What's the color of the tank
>> right now? It's proposed to be cobalt
[1:43:20] blue.
>> Sure. Like the one in Shannrock.
[1:43:23] » Yeah, they they all end up being blend
into the sky.
[1:43:29] » Should be bending blending into the
trees.
[1:43:31] Just curious. [laughter]
That's
[1:43:34] » I know this uh facility has went through
the architectural review board and blue
[1:43:38] was a caller, but they wanted to
>> Oh, boy.
[1:43:42] » That's
>> And who's paying for this? I'm just
[1:43:46] curious. This a state payment
>> rate payers after
[1:43:50] » the customers. Customers.
>> So, at Heritage Hills, this is cost
[1:43:53] going to be allocated amongst all the
and everybody who gets the water from
[1:43:56] here. Well, Viola is a private
for-profit water company. Correct.
[1:44:01] » We're regulated by the New York State
Public Service Commission. They set our
[1:44:04] rates, right? And that's we're state
regulate.
[1:44:07] » So, this project is part of your budget
of maintenance.
[1:44:10] » Yeah. This is they submit a tariff based
upon their cost, which goes back. So,
[1:44:15] your $50 going to be $52.
>> Yeah. Right.
[1:44:18] » Yeah. What is it? I'm curious. What is
the cost of this facility? What's this
[1:44:22] project going to cost? The overall cost
for this project is close to about five
[1:44:26] million
>> estimated. Sorry,
[1:44:30] » I understand. But it's just I just want
to have a general idea.
[1:44:32] » Correct.
>> It is what it is.
[1:44:38] » Subject to change. That's Yeah, that's
engineering estimate. We haven't gone
[1:44:42] out with Fed.
>> Yeah. For more caveats with that.
[1:44:47] » Just curious. Okay.
>> But there's probably people here who
[1:44:51] want to speak.
>> Yes.
[1:44:54] Okay.
So, um
[1:44:58] Okay. So, we'll put it out to public
then.
[1:45:00] » Yeah.
>> Okay.
[1:45:02] Uh so, is there anybody here who wishes
to speak in regard of the application?
[1:45:06] Please give us your name and address and
we'll also open up to the public online.
[1:45:10] » Uh my name is Bob McGregor. I'm vice
president of the Summers Land Trust. Um
[1:45:14] the property that we're talking about,
which is the SLwest property, is at 401
[1:45:20] Route 202. Um, I think that's the
address you want. um as the uh uh part
[1:45:28] of the owner of the uh property that
this is impact significantly.
[1:45:34] Um I've got a couple of things that I'd
like to be able to cover with you and I
[1:45:39] want to also provide you with a document
that will give you some more background
[1:45:43] information so you know that this is not
a trivial project
[1:45:50] as [clears throat] and an impact on the
community is going to be significant.
[1:45:54] Also,
please give the applicant a copy, too.
[1:45:58] » Thank you.
[1:46:05] » And Tom Tuma, please.
>> Yeah, our building inspector there.
[1:46:17] » Thanks, Bob.
[1:46:21] » Thank you.
And like I said, please give the
[1:46:24] applicant a copy if not already done so
so they could take a look and see what
[1:46:28] you have.
[1:46:34] [clears throat]
So um from the SERs Land Trust point of
[1:46:37] view, we um would like you to deny these
variances. Um the reason for that is
[1:46:45] that uh these variances are significant.
Um there's a 60 ft setback and they're
[1:46:52] asking for a variance of 52 feet or over
52 feet. So they're going to come down
[1:46:58] right to the property line of their
property. Um
[1:47:03] and that's going to have significant
impact on how we use the Renosterous
[1:47:08] Creek Reservation.
Um, we also believe that um the
[1:47:16] variances that they're requiring or
they're asking for um are not necessary.
[1:47:22] That as you've already heard uh they
have 2.6 acres of property. They're only
[1:47:28] using about a third of an acre on the
front of the property um that abuts our
[1:47:34] property. Now we abut the property on
three sides. The back side is part of
[1:47:40] Heritage Hills uh property. So the
property across the front is 210 ft.
[1:47:48] Across the back of the property up on
Heritage Hills property is about 220
[1:47:55] ft. And they sit back 560 ft on one side
and 510 ft on the other side. So, it's a
[1:48:04] section of property that provides them
with an opportunity to be able to put
[1:48:11] the building, this new building, and the
uh water uh chemical chlorine water tank
[1:48:20] um on their property without needing any
variances.
[1:48:24] Um what we would ask is that the
uh this new facility be located behind
[1:48:32] the existing facility.
Now when the first uh uh facility was
[1:48:39] built in 1973
um it provided uh the pumping and some
[1:48:46] treatment of the water. Um at a later
point in time they added an addition on
[1:48:52] the back of that building uh and
expanded that building. Uh the what we
[1:48:59] would like them to do now is to put this
new building behind the existing
[1:49:04] building. So, our objective is not to
prevent them from having the building on
[1:49:10] their property, but to move it to a
place where they don't need any
[1:49:14] variances, where they have the
opportunity to be able to put their
[1:49:19] building without significantly impacting
our property. This building, no matter
[1:49:25] where it is on their property, will have
an impact on our property. And I'll talk
[1:49:31] a little bit about that in just a
moment. Um and and I think it's
[1:49:35] important that there's no hardship if
they have to move the building because
[1:49:40] it's going to be on their property and
they don't need variances. We've also
[1:49:45] talked about a couple of other and has
already been mentioned. Uh they have
[1:49:50] already rejected um some options which
we have brought forwards for them.
[1:49:56] » Question.
>> Yeah.
[1:49:58] » Um the backside of their property
appears to be really steep. Were you you
[1:50:02] saying you should put it like is if I'm
am I getting this right? Yes.
[1:50:07] [clears throat]
Because there right here is where
[1:50:11] they're putting it flat. And then if you
want them to be right here where it's
[1:50:14] deep
>> well what am I missing?
[1:50:17] » U it is steep back there but they should
be able to do excavation to be able to
[1:50:22] get that in. Now we had suggested that
they come down on the front aside but
[1:50:28] still need to be a variance for that but
that would move their building um to a
[1:50:34] place which be much more palatable uh
that we could live with. Uh but they
[1:50:39] rejected that. We also uh suggested move
it um uh to the side of the building.
[1:50:47] They rejected that. So um since they're
rejecting all the options, the best
[1:50:53] option from us and from our point of
view is to put this building behind
[1:50:58] their existing building. They're capable
of doing excavation. I'm sure the
[1:51:03] engineering company would be able to
determine how much that they would have
[1:51:08] to excavate and could be able to put in
a uh retaining wall to the building in.
[1:51:15] Um, so we don't want to jump to a
conclusion that says that you have to
[1:51:22] put the building on the front of the
building right up to the property line.
[1:51:26] It's going to have tremendous impact on
our property and basically make our
[1:51:31] property unusable because our property
right now although it is open space is a
[1:51:37] nature preserve. And as Mr. Newman has
already indicated we have hiking trails.
[1:51:43] We have a pavilion. We do education
programs. Uh we do a lot of youth
[1:51:48] projects on our property and uh we're
talking right now about the southeast
[1:51:54] portion of the property. Um and I have a
map in this and we'll get to that in a
[1:52:00] minute. Um
and um what we uh want to make sure that
[1:52:07] everybody's aware of is that the Smers
Land Trust is a not for profofit. We're
[1:52:11] an all volunteer organization and that
we provide tremendous service to the
[1:52:16] community as volunteers.
So, this property is important to us
[1:52:21] because this gives us an opportunity to
be able to do programs to do outreach
[1:52:27] and invite people to a nature preserve
where they could get an opportunity to
[1:52:33] get an understanding about how to deal
with nature, go out on hikes. Um, on our
[1:52:39] property, we have, I believe it's the
only water cascade uh that's uh open to
[1:52:46] the public in the town of Smers.
So, there's a lot of advantage to the
[1:52:51] property and we would like to be able to
keep it open if this facility comes in.
[1:52:57] Um, and again, there's a picture in the
handout I I gave to you which um shows
[1:53:03] you what people are going to be looking
at when they drive in the property. Now,
[1:53:09] the the driveway that they come in in
off of Route 202 uh belongs to the
[1:53:14] Summers Land Trust. They have an
easement to be able to use that driveway
[1:53:18] to get in and out of their property, but
it it it is our property. Their property
[1:53:25] is landlocked.
So, they have the ability to be able to
[1:53:30] uh draw the water and pipe the water um
from the wells on our property because
[1:53:38] we have property on both sides. So, all
five wells are on our property.
[1:53:43] Now, you ask about uh the the quantity
of water. Um they're permitted to draw
[1:53:50] 600,000 gallons a day.
Right now, they're running about 360
[1:53:56] 370,000 gallons a day. So, they have
capacity. Now, the five wells produce
[1:54:03] that, but they do have from time to time
where they do go over 600,000 gallons
[1:54:08] that they're drawing.
Um we we allow them access to the wells
[1:54:14] which they are entitled to under the
easement. Um they're
[1:54:19] from time to time they have to come in
and work on those wells. So they have to
[1:54:23] cross our property. Um they have built a
driveway to get to their high high
[1:54:33] pressure pipeline. Um they filled in a
area on a wetland. uh they put a
[1:54:40] driveway in across that wetland. Um so
uh they do a lot of work and we do and
[1:54:47] we partner with a lot of the day-to-day
staff. Now they talk about yeah only a
[1:54:54] person a technician comes in once a day
maybe. Uh that's not true. The
[1:55:00] technicians are in there two or three
times a day.
[1:55:04] um that whenever they have a maintenance
issue, you have a maintenance team that
[1:55:08] comes in to work on the pipeline. So,
there's often five, six, seven cars
[1:55:12] there of people who are using um the
property to come in and and work on the
[1:55:20] uh the equipment and the maintenance.
And I'm sure with this new facility,
[1:55:24] there'll be even more of that. Uh you
talk about noise, um there is a fair
[1:55:29] amount of noise from the existing
building. uh they have um large
[1:55:34] ventilation fans which we hear quite
frequently. Um that's not going to go
[1:55:39] away. So um we don't want this just to
be pushed through and get a variance
[1:55:46] knowing that they have some other
options. Um
[1:55:51] we've tried to work with VIA um in the
past but u
[1:55:56] it hasn't been working out as well as we
would like. Um, a lot of the day-to-day
[1:56:01] operations we have no problems with. The
technicians that are in and out, we know
[1:56:06] them, they know us. We work together on
that. Um,
[1:56:13] I would encourage you
before you make a decision to uh to come
[1:56:20] and visit the site so you can see just
how this is going to impact us. Now, if
[1:56:27] you look a little bit about the Summers
Land Trust, as I mentioned earlier, that
[1:56:31] we do a lot of outreach and do a lot of
things for the members of the community.
[1:56:36] Um, we will continue to try to do that,
but we need this property to be able to
[1:56:41] continue to have that outreach.
Um
[1:56:46] we uh we're talking about the um uh the
Southwest property and there's a map in
[1:56:52] that handout which shows you exactly
where the the property is in
[1:56:56] relationship to our property and you can
see it's a small cutout
[1:57:01] um that shows
that um we have a a trail network. Um we
[1:57:07] have people in and out of all the time.
Uh the Heritage Hills Hiking and Walking
[1:57:12] Group is in all the time uh because it's
convenient for them. Um
[1:57:19] the Northeast uh property is 60 acres.
It's on the other side of the road
[1:57:24] opposite the Stonehouse. Um they have
three wells on that. Well, three, four,
[1:57:29] and five. Um now the question was about
the wells that they have right now. The
[1:57:35] wells that they have right now, they're
drawing water from only four of the five
[1:57:39] wells. The fifth well they're not using
at this point in time. It's been shut
[1:57:43] down because that's where the PAS are.
The other four wells are providing water
[1:57:49] which are treated through the normal
treatment plant. So there's not an
[1:57:55] urgency to make a decision immediately
because there's a crisis.
[1:58:01] um they've got three year over three
years before they have to have a PAS
[1:58:06] facility in place. So there's no rush.
We should take our time and do it
[1:58:12] appropriately.
Um
[1:58:15] the uh there's um a picture in uh the
this package that shows um what this is
[1:58:22] going to look like. So it's a draw the
two pictures. So, from our pavilion, if
[1:58:28] you look at this property, um you can
see in the background the existing
[1:58:33] building, the new building is going to
be 37 feet tall, 56 feet wide, and it's
[1:58:42] going to block most of the view of the
wooded area from our education and
[1:58:47] pavilion center.
that setback on that building on the
[1:58:52] left hand picture is only seven and a
half feet from the property line.
[1:59:00] So, it's going to be right up there. So,
if somebody drives in and comes in,
[1:59:05] they're going to be get just think about
it. You get out of your car and you're
[1:59:09] looking at the building and you're going
to be looking up at a 37 foot high
[1:59:14] building with a metal building.
When you drive in, the picture on the
[1:59:19] right shows you what you're seeing.
You're walk you're coming in and you're
[1:59:24] just seeing a big square uh blob in
front of you. So, when they talk about
[1:59:31] the fact that it's just open space,
nobody's there, nobody's going to see
[1:59:35] it, it's not going to be any problem,
you got to think about people who are
[1:59:40] coming out and visiting our nature
preserved because they want to be
[1:59:43] engaged with nature.
Coming into a situation where you feel
[1:59:48] like you're in a warehouse situation
is not conducive to being in a nature
[1:59:54] preserve.
>> A question for you just to interrupt for
[1:59:57] a moment. What if the applicant were to
provide screening trees or something
[2:00:01] else there that would soften that
building?
[2:00:05] » They've only got 7 and 1/2 ft. What kind
of screening are you going to put in 7
[2:00:09] and 1/2 ft? need seven and a half ft
between the building and the
[2:00:13] » the property line and they've got to
have a walkway in there and they have to
[2:00:17] have a fence. Are they going to put
>> some trees on your property?
[2:00:20] » They could put some trees on our
property, but they've already indicated
[2:00:24] that they don't have budget for any of
that.
[2:00:26] » Okay. I'm just looking at the options.
>> So, so every time we've come up with
[2:00:30] some things which we would like them to
do, it's always been we don't have
[2:00:34] budget. the concrete base around the
building that we we asked at one point
[2:00:41] in time, could you put Fieldstone on
that? No budget. So, that's the
[2:00:47] frustration that we've had when we
asked, can you move the building down uh
[2:00:52] so that it's less visible from our
pavilion in our education center? That's
[2:00:57] when they come up and said it would cost
us more. We have no budget. So we're
[2:01:04] we're looking at a situation where we
know that they can put it down further.
[2:01:10] They still need variances or put it
behind the existing building. They don't
[2:01:14] need any variances. the height of the
building could be also could be modified
[2:01:21] because
when um I looked at a property or a a
[2:01:27] facility down county uh by the airport
that they're building um they're they
[2:01:33] have to do put in the same kind of
equipment. They needed a a three-story
[2:01:38] building. So what they did was put the
first story underground.
[2:01:43] So the building that they ended up with
is only two stories which is compatible
[2:01:48] with the surrounding properties.
So there are things that you can do that
[2:01:53] that reduce the impact on our property.
And that's that's what we're asking for
[2:02:00] is don't have it in your face. Move it
move it back. Um move it in other
[2:02:06] places.
Um
[2:02:09] » excuse me one second. You mentioned the
um treatment plant down by the
[2:02:15] Westchester airport. Is that the one if
you're going down 684 on the right hand
[2:02:19] side that looks like a church?
>> No. Um it's a it's a different one. It's
[2:02:24] uh just been approved. They're working
on that right now. Um, but I thought it
[2:02:29] was creative that rather than having a
three-story building, which would be
[2:02:34] incompatible with the the housing in and
the areas around it, um, they're putting
[2:02:40] the first story underground, so it's
only going to end up to be a two-story
[2:02:44] building. Now, it probably costs more to
do that, but from a but if if we're
[2:02:50] purely looking at dollars and cents,
then why do anything other than you just
[2:02:56] put in a a basic box with a with a
building and you can put it anywhere you
[2:03:02] want it and um it can be an eyes sore.
Um the other piece is that you ask about
[2:03:09] who's going to see this. Are the people
from Heritage Hills going to see it when
[2:03:12] they look down on it? They may. But more
importantly, uh the people on Stonehouse
[2:03:18] Road on 202 um eight months out of the
year are going to be able to see this
[2:03:25] building. Um the people from the
Stonehouse will clearly see it. Um even
[2:03:31] uh the Timones that are up the road on
202 will be able to look across and
[2:03:36] they'll see the building. So, um, it's
not going to be out of sight and as
[2:03:42] people drive into town, they're going to
see this building on the right as you
[2:03:46] drive south on Route 202.
So,
[2:03:52] what can we do to soften the view, make
it more palatable?
[2:03:57] So what we're asking is um to deny this
variance
[2:04:03] um at least at this point in time to see
if we can come up with another mo
[2:04:07] another option. Um ideally we'd like it
to be put behind the existing building.
[2:04:14] Yes, it's going to require excavation,
but um they do this all the time with
[2:04:21] buildings in many other parts of of the
country and the state and and and in the
[2:04:26] county.
>> The issue is if they spend more money
[2:04:31] than our seniors inherited hills, we'll
get it in the rate. That's how the
[2:04:36] tariffs work. So there, you know what
you're saying is it would be great if it
[2:04:42] were down the hill, but there are going
to be people in heritage which are on a
[2:04:48] limited budget and that delta is going
to be important to them. They're already
[2:04:53] engineering looking at $5 million.
>> Y it's $6 million that may there's a
[2:05:00] certain amount of people which are going
to be very much impacted by that. And so
[2:05:04] I don't I I think you're going to find
that this board is going to be very
[2:05:07] receptive to have doing some screening,
doing some things which are affordable
[2:05:13] and thoughtful to try to make it uh more
attractive and and
[2:05:19] me personally and I know other board
members agree like you have a wonderful
[2:05:22] mission and we're thankful you're here
um and that you're local and that you're
[2:05:27] providing the services that you're
providing and we want to commend you for
[2:05:31] that.
There's there's got to be under [snorts]
[2:05:34] our law utilities have um favor because
they're providing a public good
[2:05:41] balance in how we approach that.
>> Understand that. That's why we first
[2:05:46] proposed
um and um actually I presented a a
[2:05:50] document to the planning board about
shifting the location of the building um
[2:05:57] about 65 or 70 ft to the left of where
it is now. That screens it because then
[2:06:04] you're not looking at it from our
property and there's there's trees and
[2:06:08] shrubs that are behind that that this
building would be behind.
[2:06:13] So,
>> and I I think Bart, you know, if I don't
[2:06:16] know if you've been back there.
>> Yeah.
[2:06:19] » Right. I mean, you know, when you if you
>> when you're driving in, you think where
[2:06:23] where where would we not want a
building?
[2:06:25] » It's where this one is. You say, put it
on this side, on this side, over here,
[2:06:29] over here. It might be just
>> I see nothing but slopes here,
[2:06:32] » right on the road. Well, I and but we we
need to look at what are the
[2:06:36] alternatives, what are the obstacles to
the alternative because we haven't heard
[2:06:40] anything about that. So, let's make sure
that we look at we get information on
[2:06:45] » Oh, we got the we have the top too right
here.
[2:06:47] » Excuse me. I got a question for the
applicant.
[2:06:51] » You want the applicant to come back up
because that's got to come up to come
[2:06:55] back. I got a question for you
>> because the applicant's going to have to
[2:06:57] address all of these things that
>> Right.
[2:07:00] » If you want, we can have public comment
finish and then we can address those
[2:07:03] comments at the end if you want. I mean,
it's up to you.
[2:07:06] » I'm going to want to hear from you,
right,
[2:07:08] » about moving the building.
>> Yeah, we could talk about all those. So,
[2:07:10] if you want to hear from the public and
then we'll back clean up
[2:07:12] » those things. Screening, uh, put it
someplace else, dig out. You know, I
[2:07:16] want I want you to go.
>> Yeah,
[2:07:18] » we're done. Thank you.
[2:07:23] » The difficulty is that if we lose the
ability to be able to use this property
[2:07:28] as a nature preserve, we will lose the
ability to be able to get grants. We
[2:07:34] will lose our volunteer base and we will
lose the ability for people people will
[2:07:41] not want to donate because right now
they want to donate because we have a
[2:07:45] nature preserve in town. You're
basically if this comes in the way it
[2:07:50] is, it puts us out of business.
>> But that's rather drastic and I I don't
[2:07:56] know that probably isn't going to
happen. But have you proposed something
[2:08:01] that reduces the $5 million?
>> Yes.
[2:08:05] » Okay.
>> Well, not like the five the $5 million
[2:08:08] is for the what they're proposing here.
>> Yeah.
[2:08:11] » What they have come back and say that we
propose to move the building further
[2:08:16] down.
>> Yes.
[2:08:17] » On their property.
Um, and they've come up with a figure
[2:08:22] that said that that would cost them uh
$400,000 more to build the building
[2:08:27] further down. That's 400,000 on a $5
million base. So, we're talking about
[2:08:33] seven or eight or nine%.
So, yes, it may have an slight impact on
[2:08:38] the rates. Um, but the rates have
already gone up for Heritage Hills
[2:08:43] people. Um, and the other possibility is
that at some point in time they want to
[2:08:50] expand, and they're starting to do that
now, to offer water to more of the
[2:08:57] people outside of Heritage Hills.
So, they're going to get additional
[2:09:02] monies in for that. So,
it that may offset any increases on the
[2:09:09] Heritage Hills population. Well, I don't
I don't think that's what you're what
[2:09:14] you're proposing here. What they're
proposing here is what they have put
[2:09:18] out. And I'm saying the way to challenge
that, in my opinion anyway,
[2:09:24] » is to say, "Wait a minute. I got a way
for you to do it cheaper. If you say
[2:09:30] those magic words, and it's true,
they'll probably welcome you."
[2:09:35] » Well, the problem is that I know that
they the size of the building. We've
[2:09:39] talked to them. That's the size of the
building they need. No ma matter where
[2:09:43] that building sits, it's going to cost
the same. The the uh water tank that
[2:09:51] they want to put on the property, um
that's going to cost the same no matter
[2:09:55] where they put it. So,
>> but that that isn't part of your
[2:10:00] proposal. What you're proposing tonight
is say to them, okay, we turn down your
[2:10:07] proposal. We have to reasonably tell
them why we did that. And if their
[2:10:14] response is this is the least expensive
way that we can do that, we have to be
[2:10:21] ready to challenge that. We have to say,
well, no, how about proposal one here,
[2:10:27] which is $500,000 less. You'll probably
get their attention.
[2:10:33] » Yeah. I I
>> I think the onus is on the neighbor to
[2:10:36] get into the financials of their
construction projects.
[2:10:38] » Well, it is it is Tom because we're
volunteers.
[2:10:43] We're we're non-paid, so to speak. So,
we have a perfect right to do that. And
[2:10:48] I think we should do that.
>> Yeah. I think that I think they should
[2:10:51] state their hardship and and their
objection to the property. I don't think
[2:10:55] they need to come up with the the
financial solution.
[2:10:58] » Yeah. But I think it's a dollars and
decision. So we should have a dollars
[2:11:03] and cents answer.
>> Well, it would if we follow that logic
[2:11:10] then any project that anybody wants to
do can always say it's a hardship
[2:11:16] because this is the cheapest. if if I
can't if I can't do it cheap, then I've
[2:11:22] got a real hardship,
which is what they're telling us that
[2:11:27] that you've got to go with the cheapest
solution that we can come up with and
[2:11:33] that's what they're doing because they
keep saying they don't have budgets to
[2:11:36] do things. Um, so there the approach is
if we can make it cheap enough,
[2:11:45] don't worry about the neighbors.
Um, just make it cheap and then
[2:11:50] everybody will be happy. But that's not
>> Yeah, but that but that's a foolish a
[2:11:56] foolish path to follow. I wouldn't
recommend that. My recommendation is to
[2:12:01] say, all right, they've already said how
much they're going to spend, how much
[2:12:05] they can afford.
>> Right? If you're ready to come back to
[2:12:08] them and say, "Wait a minute. Wait a
minute. We have a better solution,
[2:12:13] » then we I should hear the better
solution."
[2:12:16] » Okay.
>> So, this application is about setback,
[2:12:19] right?
>> That's correct.
[2:12:21] » Because the the height issue,
>> a water tower is a water tower,
[2:12:25] » but they need a height variance also.
>> Yes. So, no, I know. But I'm saying
[2:12:29] you're not going to change the water
water tower, right?
[2:12:32] » They come how they
>> right. So every I I don't I don't see
[2:12:36] that as an issue. The only the only
question which is really in front of us
[2:12:40] is there is a a very large setback
issue. Um and it's 7 and 1/2 ft from the
[2:12:46] property line where uh it should be 60
ft. Right? So that's really what's in
[2:12:55] front of us. Um and the the mitigatory
things are this is a public good and you
[2:13:02] know we have uh the the population it
impacts is our most vulnerable
[2:13:07] population, right? It's our seniors. Um
and and so the costs have an impact, but
[2:13:14] also the neighbors have there's
externalities here. Um, and so when
[2:13:20] these gentlemen get up for me, I'd like
to hear them how they're going to deal
[2:13:24] with those externalities, which is
sighteline from down below, and and what
[2:13:30] they can do for screening. And hopefully
they have an answer to that. And I think
[2:13:36] that you know I also want to hear from
the applicant because I think summer's
[2:13:41] land trust is
valid points perhaps
[2:13:47] uh
reciting
[2:13:50] the proposed building
on what I'll say the the footprint not
[2:13:56] the footprint that's not correct but the
area that we're talking about in terms
[2:14:00] of the drawings in front of us perhap
because I see on on one drawing the
[2:14:06] existing one frame uh one one-story
woodframe building is to be modified. So
[2:14:12] how what's that modification? Is it
internal? Is it the size?
[2:14:18] Can this can the proposed building be
turned and perhaps put where where the
[2:14:24] above ground 40-gallon tank is proposed
and put that tank where the existing
[2:14:31] backwash waste storage tank is located.
So there may be some alternatives
[2:14:38] in the areas that we're talking about
and that's what I want to hear from you.
[2:14:43] Now I the last page um in what I handed
you was the proposal that we made or we
[2:14:50] brought forward to the planning board of
one of the proposals which we made which
[2:14:55] was to relocate the building by moving
it 68 ft to the left of what what's on
[2:15:04] your plan. It keeps it on their
property. Uh it's in an area which
[2:15:10] they're already going to clear cut
because they're going to take down all
[2:15:13] the trees and remove all the vegetation
because that's where they were going to
[2:15:17] use it as a staging area. So it's
already been cleared. Um it allows them
[2:15:24] uh a relatively flat space because it's
uh directly parallel to where they want
[2:15:30] to put the building.
Um and that uh it also gives us a little
[2:15:37] bit further set back from the driveway.
But key is by moving it that far and
[2:15:43] flipping the building over to have the
lower end of the building towards the
[2:15:48] entrance of of the property. um allows
us to have a a much it allows us to have
[2:15:57] a view of the wooded area and doesn't
create that problem. They don't have to
[2:16:03] put in any any additional vegetation or
buffer. Um if they if they do that um
[2:16:10] now they rejected that.
>> Well, I don't mean to interrupt you but
[2:16:15] okay. So, did you do the the financial
work for your proposal?
[2:16:21] » I I don't have the capability of do
that. I'm I'm sorry. I just don't I'm
[2:16:25] not an engineer. Um I can't do that. Um
and there's nobody within the land trust
[2:16:31] that has that capability that can do it.
We're a not for profofit. We don't have
[2:16:35] cash that we can go out and hire an
engineer to do a financial analysis of
[2:16:40] that kind of proposal. Um
>> the answer is it's it's slightly steeper
[2:16:46] and you got to run the pipes farther.
>> Yeah.
[2:16:49] » So did there there's an associated cost
uh to to going that way
[2:16:56] to help the view,
>> right? Whatever that number is, there's
[2:17:00] a real associated cost.
>> Well, is that a missing number? Is that
[2:17:03] a number we need to have?
>> I don't think so. I I I think I think we
[2:17:09] can we can either we should hear what
the applicant has to say then we should
[2:17:13] decide whether we think this something
we want to look at in the field. Um
[2:17:19] and uh but but clearly you know it needs
to be it's a federal mandate they need
[2:17:25] to build um and you know it's something
that we should uh get to approving. I
[2:17:32] just don't know. I don't have enough
information and we'll see what the
[2:17:35] applicant has to say whether they can
close the loop.
[2:17:38] » I think Bart is right. The the federal
mandate so the applicant has to has to
[2:17:43] build something
for the for the treatment for the
[2:17:47] forever chemical and this is the area
that they own in town. So this is the
[2:17:54] location that we're dealing with and so
that's can it be recited somewhere on
[2:17:58] these plans? Is there screening that
perhaps would would work but would get
[2:18:06] down to it something that has frankly
has to go forward in some form.
[2:18:11] » And the problem is is they've done their
engineering at this point in time. They
[2:18:16] would go back to if we said hey just
make the existing building bigger. Um
[2:18:22] you know we'll give you you have that
space there. You're not in the setback.
[2:18:26] They're now restarting their
engineering. you know, we're now putting
[2:18:30] out, you know, four or five months and
whatever. Whatever.
[2:18:34] » Why don't we hear why?
>> Well, this this has been characterized
[2:18:38] as a noncrisis opportunity.
>> Now, there there there are two other
[2:18:43] locations that they could put put their
treatment.
[2:18:47] If you think about it, they do have
property at 250 um up across uh Heritage
[2:18:53] Hills Drive um where the water tank is
right now. uh they have additional space
[2:18:59] up there. Um so rather than treating it
at the at the lower end, treat it at the
[2:19:05] upper end. Um also with the pipeline
which is about a mile long, uh the
[2:19:11] Heritage Hills Society has uh vacant
land along that pipeline. So if they
[2:19:17] wanted to, they could acquire land ac
along the pipeline or at the top uh
[2:19:22] because their uh water tank is located
in the center with a with uh undeveloped
[2:19:28] land around it.
>> Um so they could acquire property and uh
[2:19:33] move their treatment facility. Um
>> they have their manpower coming here
[2:19:38] every day. Like you're going to you know
and this is where they're doing their
[2:19:43] treatment. And if you're going to push
them up the hill where they have like
[2:19:47] that's that's a burden. That's something
which is really going to get into the
[2:19:50] costs for the the rateayers. Um
>> I'm sure that their their engineers have
[2:19:56] already consulted these options
>> and probably disposed of them or some of
[2:20:02] your same logic. But I I think that what
we're missing is a comparative between
[2:20:09] their cost. I happen to be a recipient
of their bills every month. So,
[2:20:17] so you're dis you're only working on one
side of the equation. You need to know
[2:20:23] what your alternative costs are
>> and quite certainly they have reviewed
[2:20:30] the alternatives and will probably tell
us all about that.
[2:20:33] » Yeah. rather than make a case for
anybody like to hear them explain to us
[2:20:38] how they have rigorously looked at ways
to not impact the summer's land trust
[2:20:43] » by placing this in other places and why
they ultimately
[2:20:46] » have fair enough.
>> Yeah. Can I
[2:20:50] » But Bob, you need to gohead.
>> I I noticed your on on your map of
[2:20:53] Rhinoceros Creek have the green trail.
>> Yes.
[2:20:57] » Like the green trail goes farther
through the back of the property, right?
[2:21:01] » And continues around. Um, if you were to
put the building behind the existing
[2:21:07] building, wouldn't that interfere with
the trail?
[2:21:09] » No.
>> Okay. Enough room between the building
[2:21:12] and the trail building.
>> Yeah. The existing building uh sits back
[2:21:17] 60 ft from the property line because
that's what the uh the DRD requires.
[2:21:24] Uh the building is about 40t wide. So
the back of the building now is about
[2:21:30] 100 ft from the front of the property.
The property goes back 5 and um uh 10
[2:21:38] feet on one side and 560 feet on the
other side. So it goes back. So even if
[2:21:44] they were to put the building behind the
existing building, it would still be
[2:21:48] four or five or three or 400 feet from
their back of their property.
[2:21:52] » The trail
>> um it would be probably 250 300 feet
[2:21:57] from the trail.
>> The trail. Okay. Um now the
[2:22:01] trail and and the property I mean um
uh we acquired the property in 2017. It
[2:22:11] was donated to us uh with the with the
idea that it would be a nature preserve.
[2:22:17] Um and uh if we go back um the the
original building was built in 1973 or
[2:22:25] thereabouts.
Um it was upgraded. Um the water company
[2:22:32] had the opportunity to add to their
property if they thought they were going
[2:22:36] to need it on several occasions, but
they did not did not do that. So when we
[2:22:41] acquired it in 2017, the property was
for sale, but it was not acquired by the
[2:22:46] water company at that point in time. Um,
so, um, we're trying to live with the
[2:22:52] property and work with Violia on the
wells and all the stuff that they're
[2:22:58] doing. Um, there is an advantage to us
keeping the property as a nature
[2:23:05] preserve
because the aquifer runs underneath that
[2:23:10] property from Croin Falls down south of
the hamlet. So, it goes down a little
[2:23:15] further down. That's the aquifer that
they're tapping into. Uh the 115 acres
[2:23:23] which we h we are using as a nature
preserve sits um almost totally on that
[2:23:28] aquifer.
So we're protecting that aquifer by not
[2:23:32] having that property developed.
I mean if you develop that property um
[2:23:39] you could put all kinds of things. It
was going to be a lot of housing
[2:23:43] development in there. Um, there was
going to be a shopping center uh on this
[2:23:48] property here. Arie, you probably
remember that.
[2:23:52] » I do.
>> Um, there was a lot of debate about
[2:23:55] that. Um, that didn't happen. Um, but
that that property has been disturbed
[2:24:02] for many years. Uh, uh, when they built
684, Lton Adams leveled that property
[2:24:09] and excavated that property. Um, that's
why it's so loaded with invasives at
[2:24:14] this point in time. It was totally
disturbed. Uh, we're trying to bring it
[2:24:18] back. Um, we are protecting the ponds.
There are four ponds on the on the two
[2:24:25] sides of the property that sit above the
aquifer. It's a shallow aquifer that's
[2:24:31] recharged with groundwater. It's
probably good that the groundwater is
[2:24:35] coming from ponds that are surrounded by
open space, not developed. Um, so in the
[2:24:44] long term, that's probably good for
them. So, we're trying to be a good
[2:24:48] citizen and trying to protect. So, that
should have some value, too. Um, if you
[2:24:54] lose that capability of that aquifer,
um, then, uh, they're going to have more
[2:25:01] expenses for the water.
So, there are a lot of things that need
[2:25:05] to be considered in this. And
>> yes, sir, I think I'd like to hear from
[2:25:10] the applicant though to address all of
the items you brought up because we need
[2:25:14] to hear we need to hear you you've
brought up some options. I'd like to see
[2:25:18] what the applicant has to say in regard
to those options.
[2:25:21] » Okay.
>> So, just so we keep things moving along
[2:25:23] here,
>> Vic. And before that, is there anybody
[2:25:26] else, you know, right from the
community? Because then maybe they can
[2:25:28] address everything.
>> Yeah. Anybody else here from the
[2:25:30] community that wishes to speak in regard
to the application?
[2:25:35] » Nope.
>> Do you want to go outside if
[2:25:38] » Okay. Yeah, Denise, if you could put it
up on screen. It might have been up on
[2:25:41] screen before. So,
>> yeah, it was up on screen and nobody
[2:25:44] came on.
>> Okay. So, I think we're probably good on
[2:25:46] that. All right. So, I'd like to hear
from the applicant. So, if you could
[2:25:49] address all of those issues of moving
the building, can you put
[2:25:54] [clears throat] it somewhat underground?
Can you put it in another location? Tell
[2:25:57] us what you
>> Sure. So, I'll start to the legalities
[2:26:00] of it and then I'll turn it over to Dan
and to Will as to the engineering. So,
[2:26:05] let me just a couple of points. Mr.
Chairman, thank you for the opportunity.
[2:26:07] I know it's a long night for you all,
but I'll try to be as quick as possible,
[2:26:10] but you know, I know we mentioned like
hardship u at the end of the day, you've
[2:26:16] all been doing this a while. You're a
zoning board. You're looking at area
[2:26:18] variances this evening. Okay? This is
not about hardship. Hardship, they got
[2:26:21] rid of that back in the early 90s when
they changed the zoning law. So, there
[2:26:24] there's no there's not there's not a
hardship issue here. This is about an
[2:26:27] area variance and I think the gentleman
here also mentioned that you know we are
[2:26:31] a public utility. You know we have a
public health safety welfare issue that
[2:26:35] we have to address.
Mr. McGregor mentioned that this
[2:26:39] preserve is 115 acres. This this site
viol has had this in its predecessors
[2:26:44] for decades as a water treatment. That's
not going to change. It's it's in the
[2:26:48] middle of the preserve. We have
easements to use the roadway to get in.
[2:26:51] We have to treat the water for the
federal mandates. There's nothing we can
[2:26:55] do about that. And you know, with all
due respect to the the anecdotal
[2:26:58] comments that were made, it's not going
to put them out of business. Okay,
[2:27:01] Violia has been there. The water
treatment's been there. We have to treat
[2:27:04] now a new chemical. That's what we have,
a new chemical that's in the water.
[2:27:07] That's what we have to do. And another
point that was raised as utilities,
[2:27:12] utilities have a a certain preference in
the law, especially when it comes to use
[2:27:16] variances, different criteria altogether
and even so with area variances because
[2:27:20] we are providing a public health safety
welfare which with all due respect
[2:27:24] trumps viewsheds and trumps you know
what what you know in terms of again
[2:27:28] there's no there's no you have no legal
right to a first of all and especially
[2:27:32] when it comes to utility that's trying
to treat the water that needs to be
[2:27:35] treated. This is something we have to
do. So again, I started the night by
[2:27:38] saying, Mr. Chairman, members of the
board, we don't want to be here. We have
[2:27:42] to be here. And you know, same thing
with costs. We talked about costs. We
[2:27:45] know it's going to be half a million
dollars to do what their proposal is.
[2:27:48] They're not engineers. They don't have
any empirical proof or data that was
[2:27:51] submitted to you this board this
evening. We know what those costs are,
[2:27:54] but even then, costs are not a factor
for this for this board. It's an area of
[2:27:58] variance request. We're giving you that
just to tell you we we're not going to
[2:28:02] shift the building, and we'll give you
the reasons why we're not going to do
[2:28:04] it. But it goes to Yes. As if you look
the news, if you look at the governor in
[2:28:09] the state, they're trying to lower
utility costs throughout. That's been a
[2:28:12] policy from the state. We as a public
utility are trying to do that by
[2:28:17] lowering the cost to do these facilities
and doing it in in the most
[2:28:21] costefficient way possible. We're not a
developer in the sense that we're
[2:28:24] building residentials properties or
retail establishments. We're utility.
[2:28:28] We're providing again a service with
respect to water. And in in my world,
[2:28:33] that that trumps a lot of things. Okay?
Same thing when it comes to electric but
[2:28:36] water more so you know we we heard about
screening we would gladly do screening
[2:28:42] and if if there's room we would gladly
do it as and to I know was mentioned
[2:28:46] that we we haven't done anything we
rejected everything but when it came to
[2:28:49] architecturals colors you know we did
work with the land trust and in terms of
[2:28:54] screening we'll provide screening if if
we can do it we'll we'll do it but we
[2:28:58] can't do a wholesale shift of this
building where we've engineered this
[2:29:02] we've looked at this for months for
years at this with respect this site.
[2:29:06] So, you know, this and by the way, you
you'll hear from the engineer, but
[2:29:09] moving this property or the project to
the back, you have steep slopes. I'm not
[2:29:12] an engineer, but I know I've been doing
this 30 years, more clear cutting of
[2:29:16] trees. You're going to dig into the
slope. As land use guys, you got to try
[2:29:19] to disturb the land as least as
possible. This proposal does that. Okay?
[2:29:23] It puts the facility that is needed in a
spot on the property that's going the
[2:29:27] least amount of disturbance. In terms of
secret, this is a type two action.
[2:29:31] There's no environmental issues here,
right? This is a this falls under the
[2:29:34] exemption under the less than 4,000
square feet of of a non-residential type
[2:29:38] of use. That's what we're doing here.
You know, with with respect to,
[2:29:44] you know, this thing about, you know, we
rejected, you know, we've been here a
[2:29:47] long time. We've worked with the land
trust before and we will continue to do
[2:29:50] it, but this type of project has to be
done. We can't shift it. We're not going
[2:29:55] to shift it. This is this is what it is.
We I've said this to the planning board.
[2:29:59] I've said this to your board. In terms
of cost, again, it's a half million
[2:30:03] dollar expense, not relevant, but it
goes to the fact that someone mentioned,
[2:30:06] I believe it was you, sir. It goes back
to the rateayers. That's unlike other
[2:30:10] applicants that appear before your
board. So, without further ado, I'm just
[2:30:14] going to have the engineer come up and
just explain some of these things that
[2:30:16] we did look at. And just to show you
that what we're doing here is is really
[2:30:20] what what the plan is. This is what's
been budgeted. This is what we're
[2:30:24] looking at to reduce and keep those
values as low as possible. And again, we
[2:30:28] understand that yes, there's going to be
a building there. But with all due
[2:30:31] respect, with 115 acres of nature
preserve, this is not going to impact
[2:30:34] that, okay? People are still going to
visit it. People are still going to walk
[2:30:38] the trails. And this facility is not
going to prevent them from doing that.
[2:30:42] And matter of fact, you're going to want
to see this facility because it's going
[2:30:44] to treat that water for the very folks
that who live up there. So without
[2:30:47] further ado, I'll turn this to to Will.
[2:30:54] » Thank you. in regards to building
alternatives location. So let's start uh
[2:30:59] take a look at the existing building
location as it stands currently. The
[2:31:02] current building location right now is
proposed in a previously maintained lawn
[2:31:06] area. So no additional tree clearing or
grading requirement in that specific
[2:31:11] area to the west of the site. We are
proposing invasive specy removal tree
[2:31:16] clearing for staging area. However, that
area will be put back as a wetland
[2:31:20] buffer area in accordance with the town
regulations.
[2:31:23] If we move the building to that area
into the west uh southwestern portion,
[2:31:28] we would eliminate the wetland buffer
area as well as eliminate the definition
[2:31:32] of the wetland buffer area for the town.
So that is just the one environmental
[2:31:36] impact associated with that shifting of
the building. Along with that, the cost
[2:31:40] for the grading of that portion of the
area. As previously mentioned, there is
[2:31:44] some steep slopes in that area. There is
excessive grading and associated
[2:31:48] requirements associated with that. As
previously mentioned, it was about a
[2:31:52] half million dollar cost to shift that
building to that location, including the
[2:31:55] additional grading, site clearing,
restoration, and related requirements
[2:31:59] associated with new piping, new
conduits, everything else like that. In
[2:32:04] regards to shifting the the building
behind the existing building, that's a
[2:32:08] extremely steep slope back there. We
would have to grade about or the grade
[2:32:13] difference between the top of the
building and the grade where we would
[2:32:16] have to go is about 25 ft. That's
excessive amount of grading that would
[2:32:21] be required and a giant retaining wall
that would be required that will be
[2:32:25] visible from the road.
Overall, alternate areas have been
[2:32:31] evaluated and their cost benefit has
been looked at where based off of the
[2:32:36] site constraints, steep slopes, grading
impacts, driveways, etc., The location
[2:32:42] of the building in previously maintained
lawn was determined to be most favorable
[2:32:47] along with the building or the tank
location.
[2:32:50] » Is there any basis at all for
considering another or this filtering
[2:32:56] plant? I mean I I could see it, but is
there somebody else someplace else you
[2:33:00] could put it that would be cost
effective or
[2:33:03] » other than this site?
>> Other than this site, like along the
[2:33:06] pipeline someplace at another tank
facility. Is there any other place that
[2:33:10] it would make sense at all or is it just
I wouldn't think it would. You have to
[2:33:14] » it's an integral part of the future
system. It has to be located where the
[2:33:18] existing treatment system is before the
water is delivered to the customers. Any
[2:33:23] other alternative location that was
suggested by the storage tank somewhere
[2:33:27] you know down the pipeline the uh res it
it just we wouldn't be able to treat the
[2:33:33] water before we deliver it to the
customer. So it has to be
[2:33:37] » this is where it has to be. From a
treatment perspective, in terms of the
[2:33:40] process, it has to be
>> there. There aren't options. Okay. I
[2:33:43] just want to know that. No. And just
Sorry. Go ahead.
[2:33:46] » All right. Getting back to what I wanted
to ask with this water storage tank.
[2:33:51] Does it has to be
vertical,
[2:33:55] horizontal?
>> Alternate arrangements have been
[2:33:58] evaluated. However, due to the various
site constraints with the steep slope
[2:34:02] and related requirements, the narrower
base was uh most favorable due to the
[2:34:08] site impacts that would have uh in
relation to the height. The height of
[2:34:13] the uh accessory tank would be
underneath the height of the proposed
[2:34:17] building. So, the tallest structure on
site would still be the existing or
[2:34:22] proposed building for PIA.
>> But can part of it be put underground?
[2:34:25] So, this way it's not so high. There
would be conflict with the foundation
[2:34:29] especially with the piping. So there is
rock in that area. So there would be
[2:34:34] excessive amount of rock excavation
would be required and if we say 5 feet
[2:34:38] 10 feet below grade that's a significant
amount of area that would be necessary
[2:34:43] to be removed
>> and I assume that the height of the
[2:34:46] building that you're going to be
building it can't be any shorter than
[2:34:49] that right I mean that's the size that
you need to run the facility right you
[2:34:52] can't make
>> that is correct
[2:34:53] » okay there's no option there once again
>> there are vessels like uh Lo described
[2:34:59] that are required for treatment those
vessels have a minimum height we're
[2:35:02] putting in. They don't come any smaller,
right? There's a certain capacity for
[2:35:06] this facility. We have selected the
vessels to for that for the facilities
[2:35:12] uh capacity, the withdrawal rate. We're
we're stuck with
[2:35:16] » once again, we don't have an option.
>> We don't have a choice.
[2:35:18] » Okay.
>> Now, as I mentioned before, um I guess
[2:35:23] it's a water treatment plant that is
going down 684 by uh the airport. It's
[2:35:27] on the right hand side down by White
Plains
[2:35:29] » by the reservoir there. So, I was
talking
[2:35:30] » by the reservoir. Now, is there any way
I never knew that that was a water treat
[2:35:35] uh a water water plant. Is there any way
to soften this building up similar to
[2:35:40] that like stone to make it look
>> looks like a stone house that
[2:35:45] » stone house or I always thought it was a
church.
[2:35:48] » So, um I guess what hasn't been
mentioned yet is before we started the
[2:35:53] uh the planning board process, we met
with uh Mr. McGregor from the land trust
[2:35:58] um a handful of times to discuss the uh
the proposal what what we were required
[2:36:03] to do and we made some aesthetic changes
from the get-go to the building uh based
[2:36:09] on comments that we directly received
from the land trust um and they've been
[2:36:13] incorporated into uh
>> so there is some facade changes and some
[2:36:17] » yes visual uh we colors we did some trim
work uh we made it look more barnlike
[2:36:23] okay as best as we could Um, and you
know, Mr. McGregor mentioned he provided
[2:36:29] a lot of comments to us. We respect
that. We understand where he's coming
[2:36:33] from. We've incorporated the comments
that we can into the project up to this
[2:36:38] point. what you can do. Um, and I heard
the the language from the attorney of um
[2:36:47] was a binary I thought. Um if you if you
look at our code for DRDS and you go to
[2:36:54] 1712D4E,
it says water supply facilities, tanks
[2:36:58] or towers, wastewater treatment
facilities and public utility stations
[2:37:02] and buildings shall be in such a
location so as to be separated from the
[2:37:05] outside perimeter of the entire
development by adequate topographical
[2:37:09] andor landscape buffering. So, what I'm
saying, what you can do is you can do
[2:37:14] landscaping. And I would like to see you
take another run with the land trust and
[2:37:21] and doing landscaping. I know you're
right up against the border there, but
[2:37:25] if they'll allow you to do landscaping
on their property, I'd like to see that
[2:37:29] addressed.
>> You must have landscaped other projects
[2:37:31] like this. So, I'd like to know what you
would recommend because these are tall
[2:37:34] buildings.
>> What you would, you know, what? So,
[2:37:37] Violia would be amendable to doing
landscaping uh based on the location of
[2:37:42] the the building and our treatment
facility. We have eliminated it limited
[2:37:46] space on our property. If the land trust
is amendable to it, I'm sure we could
[2:37:50] work something out uh with uh with the
land trust to do landscaping on their
[2:37:56] property. Uh disguise visually disguise
the impact of the building. Uh we are
[2:38:01] also just disclosing this trying seeking
an easement from the land trust to use
[2:38:07] their parking lot as part of the
construction process and then long-term
[2:38:11] operations. That has not moved forward
because we're going through this project
[2:38:16] process which is understandable. But
that would be an avenue for us to
[2:38:20] incorporate the landscaping changes um
and make sure everybody's
[2:38:25] » Are you [clears throat] willing to
adjourn your application for oh we don't
[2:38:29] have an August pitch?
>> I mean we can condition that but we
[2:38:32] really again because we have to get back
to the planning board so we can
[2:38:35] condition it on doing some landscaping
and work you can condition your variance
[2:38:39] inclined to do so but we have no problem
with that. Again we said I said in the
[2:38:42] outset if we can do screening if they
allow us to do screen on their property
[2:38:45] we've done it. I mean you could do some
evergreens you know kind of tiered
[2:38:50] closer to the building taller lower you
>> and we by the way we have done that
[2:38:54] » make it look natural evergreens that
would hide this building in effect it is
[2:38:58] an eyesore there's no question about it
>> I have some questions for the for the
[2:39:02] engineer if I may
>> sir in terms of the proposed building
[2:39:08] and the existing [snorts]
why can't that gap be lessened
[2:39:15] » so the gap between the existing building
proposed building meets the current
[2:39:18] require uh variance the separation
between buildings half the height as the
[2:39:22] tallest building
>> that's what I had thought so if we were
[2:39:24] to if the applicant were to say and I
think this board may might be to grant a
[2:39:31] variance you know
>> Tommy what is the what is the
[2:39:35] » move it closer just spacing between the
buildings
[2:39:40] » I'd have to double check the ft on the
plans right now
[2:39:43] » what do you got
>> 19 ft between the two buildings
[2:39:46] Yeah, you got you got zoning and then
you got state codes that mandate
[2:39:53] » if you're going to less than that then
that gives you more room for screening
[2:39:56] » they can
>> the area between the two buildings right
[2:39:59] now is there is infrastructure between
those two buildings so piping there is
[2:40:04] going to be a generator between the
>> I see
[2:40:06] » trying to get equipment to it difficult
>> that because it's not in place it could
[2:40:10] be shifted if
>> but you can you can I mean they could do
[2:40:15] a brief way between the two buildings
and then your your building code issue
[2:40:20] is mitigated
um and that changes how it can be
[2:40:26] interpreted as one building and
therefore they can pull it in. I think
[2:40:30] it's a great idea
>> because the the infrastructure that's
[2:40:33] shown here that has to be built correct
between the two buildings
[2:40:36] » correct
>> not existing so we're not talking about
[2:40:38] moving
>> so there is some existing in
[2:40:41] infrastructure between the two buildings
however most of it is going to be to tie
[2:40:45] back into the existing building and uh
>> that's why I think that if you modify or
[2:40:50] lessen that gap provide then the lot
line uh front yard variance would be
[2:40:57] less
You also and would allow room for for
[2:41:03] screening.
>> Yeah, it gives you more room for
[2:41:05] screening. That's what I like. Move it
eight or 10 feet closer. That's a great
[2:41:08] idea.
>> So, the separation between the Sorry to
[2:41:11] cut you off. Yeah.
>> The separation between the two buildings
[2:41:13] right now is to accommodate the repair
of such utilities. If an an if an
[2:41:19] excavator needs to get into that area to
replace a section of pipe, that area is
[2:41:24] utilized for that sole purpose. Could
that piping be brought out the side of
[2:41:29] the building as opposed to what I'll
call the rear? Because here in the on
[2:41:33] the plan is coming out from what I'm
calling the rear which is probably the
[2:41:37] what northwestern side of the building.
>> Piping may be relocated on site.
[2:41:43] However, it's going to be same um aspect
but right now we are proposing a
[2:41:47] generator between the two buildings to
reduce the visual impact of generator to
[2:41:52] the land to the access road. So
>> I you know I frank I understand that
[2:41:57] engineering has been done but I guess my
looking at the the area here seems to me
[2:42:04] that you can bring in you know an
excavator here if you if if the
[2:42:09] infrastructure that's going to be built
could be put at the side of that I think
[2:42:13] » but the pipe work in the breezeway as
well and
[2:42:16] » right well but I think you're
>> there there's a well yeah I mean I think
[2:42:20] you know we got we yeah I'm not hearing
a lot of solutions from the applicant
[2:42:26] and the other
>> and I think I think we have an important
[2:42:28] resource here in the town of Sers which
is the Soners Land Trust as an
[2:42:32] organization and in particular Reasser's
Creek and in particular this section of
[2:42:35] Renasser's Creek is an important
resource for the town. So, I'd like to
[2:42:40] hear more solutions about how we can
do this better so that the town can
[2:42:47] continue to enjoy that resource way they
always have and we can have clean
[2:42:53] » and I don't I I just would like to see a
bit more effort on that
[2:42:58] in that vein.
>> From my perspective, that's what I'm
[2:43:00] trying to come up with solution with
screening because
[2:43:03] » I would like to see the applicant
presenting solutions
[2:43:06] » in that direction. The other question I
have the the the
[2:43:11] existing backwater backwash waste
storage tank on concrete pad. What's the
[2:43:16] size of that tank?
>> I believe it's a 12 foot diameter. It's
[2:43:21] an above grade tank.
>> Right. And what's the capacity?
[2:43:26] » I don't have off top of my head.
>> Can you just be a ballpark?
[2:43:29] » I believe it's like 15,000 gallons
intake.
[2:43:34] » I don't recall.
>> Okay. But is it and the the above ground
[2:43:39] the proposed above ground tank is is is
40 40 40,000.
[2:43:43] » That is correct.
>> Can that can that proposed above ground
[2:43:48] tank 40 40,000galon tank be put where
the backwash tank is presently?
[2:43:56] » The backwash tank is still necessary for
the iron and magnes. So we are not uh we
[2:44:01] cannot remove that tank. a week.
>> What I'm asking, can essentially they be
[2:44:05] flipped?
>> We would need to evaluate that area.
[2:44:08] However, there is steep slopes area as
previously mentioned with
[2:44:13] » but well I'm looking at the topo and it
seems to me they're similar 237
[2:44:20] and 239 this two foot difference
>> but it's in service.
[2:44:23] » Was that
>> in service? You're asking them to take
[2:44:26] » Well, I I know but
>> I don't service. No, but I'm I'm asking
[2:44:30] part I'm asking trying to come up with
alternatives because then I think the
[2:44:33] proposed building would perhaps screen
the 30 foot tank.
[2:44:38] » That's you know that's that's where I'm
getting at. And if there is going to be
[2:44:41] a cost involved certainly but if if it's
a cost that's that's palatable to
[2:44:46] mitigate that tank you know from
rhinoceros creek and also from route uh
[2:44:53] 202. I'm trying to find, you know,
trying to see if there's alternatives.
[2:44:58] » I think the real complaint from the land
trust was this building sitting in front
[2:45:05] and and you know, if you look at their
their depiction and I and your previous
[2:45:11] idea, I think the best idea.
[2:45:23] » Yeah. But Mr. Mr. McGregor also brought
up the point that essentially somebody
[2:45:28] coming down from Crotonf Croin Falls
road not old cro will see that above
[2:45:34] ground tank and that's why I'm saying if
they can if these two tanks can be
[2:45:39] flipped then that above ground
40,000galon tank would be shielded
[2:45:44] perhaps and I but I think more than
perhaps by the proposed building
[2:45:47] assuming that the proposed building is
some built in somewhere in that
[2:45:53] » just It's a it's a visual.
>> Yeah, I know. But it's it's
[2:45:56] » Yeah. And just public good.
>> Yeah. Just also too from a legal
[2:45:58] standpoint, we we have to get the least
amount of variances. So this board can't
[2:46:02] say get another variance. You we
presented you with the setback and the
[2:46:06] height. You know, we don't need that
variance right now because we we've had
[2:46:09] the separation by state code and your
code. So telling us to basically go get
[2:46:12] another variance is really not for the
ZBA to to to offer because we we're
[2:46:16] we're giving you the minimum variances
that we need for this project, right? So
[2:46:21] telling us to get another variance is
really not for the zoning.
[2:46:24] » I'm just telling you, sir. I'm
>> No, I understand that
[2:46:26] » and I'm asking I'm trying to find
>> No, I understand it. I'm just saying I
[2:46:29] just I'm just saying I'm just
>> say that we're telling you to do
[2:46:33] something. You're you're you're you have
your points and they're well taken.
[2:46:36] » I understand, but I just I just what I
heard I just want to make sure I
[2:46:38] understood correctly because what I
heard was asking us to get on the
[2:46:41] variance and that's all that
>> that would be correct. Okay, that was
[2:46:43] all
>> as as a potential alternative saying
[2:46:46] that.
>> Yeah. Thank you.
[2:46:55] And then the last question for the
engineer. What's what's the the
[2:46:59] one-story woodframe building to be
modified? What's the modification?
[2:47:03] » Uh several internal modifications are
being proposed for the um essentially
[2:47:08] connections to and from.
>> So it's just it's all internal.
[2:47:11] » Everything is be internal to it.
Correct.
[2:47:23] So screening seems to be something that
you're amendable to and maybe working
[2:47:27] with Rhinoceros Creek or the land trust
to
[2:47:31] try to come up with a solution that
you'd both be happy at least assuming
[2:47:35] everything stays where it is.
>> That's correct.
[2:47:39] » Okay.
[2:47:47] And that screening would be applicable
for not only the new building but for
[2:47:50] the tank also.
>> Yes.
[2:47:55] » You know I know they're pretty tall. So
I don't you know screening that would
[2:47:58] hopefully grow over time that would get
up there or
[2:48:03] » I mean some evergreens and some spruces
you know get will get that high. You
[2:48:07] know, I mean,
>> we we could work with the land trust uh
[2:48:09] landscape architect, figure out the the
right native landscaping.
[2:48:12] » You know, it's not going to be 30 feet
on installation. I realize that, but you
[2:48:16] know, it will grow and over the years it
will hopefully get up there and really
[2:48:19] screen it well.
>> Yeah.
[2:48:29] » Perhaps can we hear from Miss McGregor
what his take on screening would be?
[2:48:38] Um,
>> I know you're not happy with the
[2:48:40] location.
>> Yeah.
[2:48:42] » If if we were to stay where it is, would
screening be something I assume you
[2:48:45] would want?
>> Oh, [clears throat] if you if you go
[2:48:49] that direction, clearly we would have to
have that because otherwise when you're
[2:48:56] per our education programs or people are
coming in, they're not looking directly
[2:49:01] at this big box.
Um [clears throat] so a couple of
[2:49:06] interesting things that have come up um
which uh we could probably come up with
[2:49:14] some options. Um but if you have if any
of you have not been there, I would
[2:49:21] encourage you to visit the site um so
that you can see see it firsthand so you
[2:49:28] have an idea and and [clears throat] so
if we can come up with some options that
[2:49:33] may work, but unfortunately I think any
options we're going to come up with is
[2:49:39] going to add some additional cost. So if
we do screening, it's got to be a fairly
[2:49:44] extensive amount of screening which is
going to have a cost. Um
[2:49:50] so and there there's a possibility that
maybe we could do some shifting of the
[2:49:56] building a little bit um [clears throat]
that could could make things easier for
[2:50:01] us um without adding a huge amount of
expense. So, I understand your point
[2:50:07] that the the rateayers are going to end
up having to pay something for this. Um,
[2:50:14] but if [clears throat] we're going to be
held to making it cheaper than what
[2:50:18] they've proposed,
um, I don't think that we would ever be
[2:50:23] able to do that. I think anything any
options that we might be able to come up
[2:50:28] with that we could all live with are
going to have some cost.
[2:50:34] So um maybe at this point in time from
my vantage point um I would like to
[2:50:40] adjourn until your next meeting maybe
you can come to the site and for any of
[2:50:46] you that haven't seen it so that you can
see it um and then um
[2:50:52] we can try to see if we can work some
something out.
[2:50:56] » The problem is we're not meeting in
August and it's it's a burden.
[2:51:00] » It'll push it till September. Yeah. six
six days is a burden on on them. I
[2:51:05] » Well, we'll ask the applicant what they
have to say about that, but I have a
[2:51:08] feeling they're not going to like
>> then then I think it's kind of a useless
[2:51:12] effort to try to do anything. They're
going to get what they want if
[2:51:17] » we we don't look at anything.
>> So, he's mentioning cost. There's a big
[2:51:22] difference in providing landscaping,
which we do mainly for these projects.
[2:51:25] We do provide landscaping, which we'll
agree to do. It's one thing, you know,
[2:51:30] cost landscaping is one thing. Asking us
to shift the building, redesigning it,
[2:51:34] that's a completely different situation.
So, we we stayed on the record tonight,
[2:51:38] we will work with the land trust. Again,
if you're inclined to grant the
[2:51:41] variances, you can condition it that we
would plant evergreens, whatever
[2:51:45] whatever the case may be, whether it's
on our property, the land trust,
[2:51:48] assuming they consent to that, we we'll
do that. That's that's an easy one for
[2:51:52] us to do because we've done that before
with other projects. We could do
[2:51:56] screening. The cost is reasonable
compared to other
[2:51:59] » incredibly immensely so compared to
having a wholesale redesign,
[2:52:03] re-engineering, reshifting the building.
I mean, it's it's that that's something
[2:52:06] screening is something we can do.
>> Well, we know the cost of that, right?
[2:52:09] You said the cost of that is $500,000.
>> Shifting.
[2:52:12] » The alternative. Oh, sorry.
>> So, we have an al we do have an
[2:52:14] alternative.
>> It is a 10% variance in your current
[2:52:18] budget.
So,
[2:52:21] I think where I disagree with um
applicants's attorney was he was
[2:52:27] suggesting that
moving the buildings closer together is
[2:52:33] asking for another variance. But what I
was proposing was that if this portion
[2:52:41] uh the carbon treatment was attached to
the other building and it's one
[2:52:46] building, there's no there's no variance
whatsoever required.
[2:52:50] » And he's now taken the the 60 ft which
is you know the the 52 foot variance and
[2:52:59] he's taken it down by 19 feet which is
almost half the way there. and then I'm
[2:53:06] feeling really good about it. Um, so I I
think that is and I don't I don't see
[2:53:10] these things in the middle as having any
real cost impact. The cost impact is
[2:53:16] that they've already done a design
like this and they'd have to start
[2:53:21] » I mean can you abut the buildings right
next to each other or can you move them
[2:53:24] if we're 18 ft apart can you move it
>> you can
[2:53:27] » to within two feet and put the breezeway
in
[2:53:29] » you can it's a little bit tricky on the
footing
[2:53:31] » I mean I know you might have to redesign
what's involved but tell us
[2:53:35] » your thoughts on that
>> correct so there will definitely be a
[2:53:37] redesign aspect that would be necessary
for that we did look at uh joining the
[2:53:41] building together initially just like an
expansion of the footing However, based
[2:53:45] off of the initial investigations of the
building, that existing foundation is
[2:53:49] not strong enough and not big enough to
house the additional treatment. So, a
[2:53:53] connection like a breezeway between the
two buildings to be considered one
[2:53:56] building may be an option to look at.
However, separation between the
[2:54:00] buildings still is necessary for
equipment in the f uh excavators. Same
[2:54:06] thing with the generator right now is
with buildings as well as additional
[2:54:10] piping the transformers between the two
building related items.
[2:54:13] » Now you bring in you mentioned numerous
times bringing an excavator.
[2:54:17] » Yes sir.
>> The pipes that go from one building to
[2:54:20] the other how deep do they go?
>> Typically the water mans about 4t of
[2:54:24] cover.
>> Four feet.
[2:54:25] » Correct.
>> They make small excavators that go
[2:54:29] through pathways and open gates like
four feet.
[2:54:34] But but they can if they have a
breezeway connecting it, they put it in
[2:54:37] the breezeway. They don't they don't
have to bury them,
[2:54:39] » you know, that change that changes the
whole thing. But but that's
[2:54:44] the the question for the board is is um
where do we land on on this? I I don't
[2:54:51] see the generator and these these other
things. I don't see them as monumental
[2:54:56] issues. It's cheaper to build two
separate buildings because
[2:55:00] that this one's going to, as he said,
has an inadequate footing as compared to
[2:55:06] the weight that they're going to put on
this. And so they'd have to underpin and
[2:55:10] go from one to the next. So there'd be a
little bit of structural but but nothing
[2:55:15] nothing dramatic. It's it's doable. Um
or we can just say landscaping
[2:55:23] screening, you know, and figure out what
how we want to do that.
[2:55:27] » A couple just a couple questions. So you
have a you I know federal mandate has
[2:55:32] been mentioned. There's there was a
state mandate also correct.
[2:55:35] » They follow each other.
>> They follow each other.
[2:55:36] » Okay. And what is the what is the
deadline for compliance?
[2:55:40] » I believe right now it's 2029 to be in
operation.
[2:55:43] » But we have to be
>> in service for one year.
[2:55:46] » It's got to be in service and
operational for
[2:55:50] » So it has to be built by 2028.
>> Operation by 202.
[2:55:53] » That's right. Yeah.
>> 27. We got to start building. And when
[2:55:56] how long I'm sorry how long in terms of
the proposal would the construction be?
[2:56:01] I think I saw something a timeline
perhaps a year.
[2:56:05] » Yes. In past experience about a year for
treatment buildings not if not longer
[2:56:09] for uh uh commissioning and training
>> and and when did these these mandates
[2:56:16] went into effect? When?
>> Okay. Does the wind
[2:56:20] » and you started this particular planning
process for this enhancement when?
[2:56:26] » 25. We started design back in 24.
>> I think our our first meeting was in
[2:56:32] April
>> I believe. So
[2:56:34] » we met internally then we had a client
board meeting but when was our first
[2:56:36] meeting internally?
>> I believe it was like February or
[2:56:40] January.
>> February February 26.
[2:56:43] » All right. Does winter hamper your
operations? you want to pull something
[2:56:48] » for construction. Yes. Especially with
uh concrete footing.
[2:56:51] » Pouring concrete and and digging if it's
frozen ground or whatever.
[2:56:54] » Correct.
>> You know, so the reason I asked some of
[2:56:57] those questions, right, this is a big
project. Yes,
[2:56:59] » it's an important project.
>> Um there are important neighbors as
[2:57:03] well. Um this is been around for two
years. Um this mandate's been around for
[2:57:11] two years. You guys have been working on
it for two years.
[2:57:15] It's a couple years away and
we're saying we got to approve it
[2:57:20] tonight.
>> That's a good question.
[2:57:22] » There are people that have outstanding
concerns and issues. So, I just I don't
[2:57:26] want to We're talking about a four-year
thing here. There's no zoning zoning
[2:57:30] board meeting next month. I understand.
I understand that a 10% variance in
[2:57:36] their initial in this budget is
unacceptable to them, right? Uh, a
[2:57:43] two-month delay, I guess, is also
unacceptable. I mean, you know, it's
[2:57:48] unacceptable.
What does that mean? Unless I get
[2:57:52] exactly what I want, these things are
unacceptable to me. So, I'm having a a
[2:57:56] little bit of a hard time swallowing
that. So, I think this is an important
[2:58:00] project. This is clean water is of
utmost importance, right? But a
[2:58:07] community's resources are also of
importance. So please, it's I I I don't
[2:58:13] think rushing this through if there are
outstanding questions. I believe there
[2:58:17] is an alternative. I believe the budget
variance
[2:58:22] in in the scheme of things doesn't seem
overly significant to me. It's 10%. Um
[2:58:29] it's certainly less significant than the
variances
[2:58:32] um in terms of percentages. So I don't
know. I'm not, you know, I I'm not in a
[2:58:39] position right now to to grant to, you
know, to vote to grant this particular
[2:58:45] request.
Um, I'd like to see
[2:58:50] if we can do better, but it it it
appears we can't. So, if it's a vote,
[2:58:54] it's a vote. But and and again and I
respect what you're saying again if this
[2:58:59] was any other application again for
anything other than a water utility in
[2:59:02] this project. I hear what you're saying
but there's one person that came out
[2:59:06] tonight again it's the land trust that
came out and said these concerns but
[2:59:09] I've seen nothing scientific. I've seen
nothing empirical. I understand yes
[2:59:13] there are concerns with respect to the
view but this project is not going to
[2:59:17] take away from the land trust. It's not
going to take away from the preserve.
[2:59:20] It's just it simply will not. And you
know, I I've read what they submitted.
[2:59:24] Again, these are again the these are
again comments, opinions by an
[2:59:30] individual. Okay. And and with all due
respect,
[2:59:34] this again, I understand the concerns of
land. They provide a wonderful resource
[2:59:39] for the for the town, but at the same
time, this is something that we just
[2:59:43] have to do. And again, it's not that we
don't we discount it. We designed this.
[2:59:48] We've been at this. And again, losing
two more months on this because then we
[2:59:52] still have to go to planning board,
right? Because planning board's not
[2:59:55] done. They it's been adjourned because
we have to get these variances here
[2:59:58] first before we go back to the planning
board that there's no there's no reason
[3:00:01] to go back there without this issue
resolved. And we we expressly told the
[3:00:05] planning board that we're not
redesigning this thing. This is this is
[3:00:07] our project. This is what it is. So
again, with all with all due respect, I
[3:00:12] understand if I was Toll Brothers or
another project coming in, you're right.
[3:00:15] It's it's not the end of the day, but
this is I have a time crunch here. And
[3:00:18] again in 2028 I have to be fully
operational for one year for one year in
[3:00:23] order to meet the EPA and state
guidelines.
[3:00:25] » Yeah. No, I fully understand that. I
would have brought it to the zoning
[3:00:27] board sooner.
>> And you know, we have other projects
[3:00:29] throughout this throughout this region
that we have to and again this is not
[3:00:32] when we go to these local towns,
communities. And by the way, I'm also a
[3:00:35] town and village attorney. So I'm on the
other side of this sometimes as well. So
[3:00:38] I get it. All I'm saying is, you know,
we h we have our our you know, this is a
[3:00:43] big power that goes on with viol. Okay,
which projects need to go on? Which is
[3:00:46] less complicated? And actually, this
turned out to be the least complicated
[3:00:49] out of other projects that I'm dealing
with throughout the state on this
[3:00:52] because it's it's a small facility and
it's it's an, you know, 1,700 square
[3:00:56] feet and change in terms of the the
structure that's being built. We're not
[3:01:00] talking massive structure here and we're
talking 115 acres like I said of
[3:01:03] preserve. That's not going to change. So
again, I understand you don't meet in
[3:01:07] August. I just need to move this. We we
need to move this along and again, we
[3:01:11] respect the request that you grant the
variances. We can condition it on doing
[3:01:14] the screening. We will do that. We'll do
evergreens. We'll do green giants.
[3:01:18] Whatever whatever the land trust in
Viola can agree with, we're willing to
[3:01:21] work with them because we're going to be
neighbors. We've been neighbors for
[3:01:24] decades. So, that's not going to change.
>> The question this again for the engineer
[3:01:28] because I think I just want to make sure
I heard it correct. I think Tom this may
[3:01:32] uh be to your point. If the building is
moved to the left as proposed by land
[3:01:38] trust, did you say that it then is in
the wetland buffer?
[3:01:42] » So, this entire area is in the wetland
buffer. However, if we shift the
[3:01:46] building to the western portion and we
build in that area, we would eliminate
[3:01:50] the wetland buffer mitigation area that
we would be giving back to the wetland.
[3:01:55] So, right now where the building is
located, we are removing the invasive
[3:01:59] species and planting in native species
as well as this would be a continuous
[3:02:03] part of that wetland buffer area. If
there's a fence line between that with a
[3:02:07] building location, it would defeat the
purpose of the wetland buffer area.
[3:02:12] I let me just
>> I guess you know this is for the this is
[3:02:16] for the the applicant. Frankly I'm
struggling right now with uh
[3:02:22] one of the criteria for an area variance
and that's whether the benefits sought
[3:02:26] by the applicant can be achieved by some
method feasible for the applicant to
[3:02:30] pursue other than an area variance. And
I think that you know Bart to to Bart's
[3:02:35] point about
putting a breezeway and then there's you
[3:02:39] know considered one building
[3:02:43] Frankly, I don't know that that that
issue or that suggestion has been
[3:02:49] adequately adequately
addressed by the applicant.
[3:02:53] I would just like to say though um
[3:02:59] small organizations like the land trusts
like small businesses
[3:03:05] it's an individual it and their opinions
matter because without them those
[3:03:10] businesses and those trusts and those
organizations disappear. A lot of our
[3:03:16] enterprises are small and it's one
person leading it. It's two people
[3:03:20] leading it. So it, you know, the we do
have to be cognizant even if there's no
[3:03:27] empirical evidence and views aren't
protected, there is a a reason the code
[3:03:34] puts the setbacks in there. And so we're
trying to we're trying to figure that
[3:03:39] out. Um,
so
[3:03:42] » how much of an imposition is it if we
were to say bring this build new
[3:03:46] building closer to the existing
building? How much of a I mean is that
[3:03:50] something that you if we conditioned our
approval on moving the building x number
[3:03:54] of feet from the from the existing one
and with landscaping is that something
[3:03:59] that is reasonable? Are we asking
something reasonable or are we not
[3:04:03] asking something reasonable? I mean you
you probably have you have to redo some
[3:04:06] of the plans, right?
>> Yeah, we so just speaking to the my
[3:04:10] client, you know, they said we could do
the landscaping but we can't do the
[3:04:13] pushing the building closer or or the or
the breezeway because it's just again
[3:04:17] it's it's a redesign. It's going to
involve us to go back to planning, come
[3:04:20] back here, and again, we just don't have
the luxury of doing that.
[3:04:24] » What are the penalties if it's not an
operation timely
[3:04:28] » penalties?
That's that's a tough one.
[3:04:32] » Uh kind of hard to say, but I think
there's uh eventually fiscal penalties
[3:04:36] from the Department of Health, fines. Um
>> I can't give you an exact number though,
[3:04:42] but the complaint states are firm.
>> Yeah, I would I would expect there to be
[3:04:46] penalty. As I said, what are the
penalties? That's one. There's financial
[3:04:49] penalties. Correct.
>> Correct.
[3:04:52] » Which go back to the rate payer
>> ultimately. Ultimately, right?
[3:05:01] » I do just want to clarify that
[clears throat] the wetlands that they
[3:05:05] have talked about when they put in the
driveway on [clears throat] that side,
[3:05:10] um, they filled in a good portion of the
wetland to make that driveway. So what
[3:05:15] was a wetland is now a p or a driveway
that's was filled in and is stone to
[3:05:23] lead to get to some valves on their
pipeline. So if we're we we should look
[3:05:30] at that and see that it's not as close
to the wetland as it it probably is on
[3:05:38] plans that they've got because it's been
filled in. Um the president of the land
[3:05:44] trust would also like to make some
comments.
[3:05:47] » Okay. Sure. Sir, can you just give us
your name, please?
[3:05:50] » Yeah. My [clears throat] name is um
Michael Barnhard. I'm president of the
[3:05:53] Summers Land Trust. Um I just wanted to
clarify a few things. Um for one thing,
[3:05:59] in response to uh the attorney's
comments about um one person, uh we
[3:06:05] actually have a board and um we are
supported by the community. So you're
[3:06:11] not hearing from just one person. Um
it's a considered opinion. Bob has been
[3:06:15] the lead on this, but it's something
that the organization as a whole um has
[3:06:20] been concerned about. Um Bob stressed
that there was an existential threat to
[3:06:25] the land trust um by virtue of this
property. I think that was dismissed a
[3:06:30] little too quickly um in some of the
comments that I heard. Um
[3:06:36] the there are differing opinions about
the impact of this on our organization,
[3:06:40] but overall you have to understand this
is our major property.
[3:06:46] Uh we have one other property up on
Warren Street that we own. Um but this
[3:06:50] is our our u shall we say our flagship
property. It's actually two properties
[3:06:56] as you well know. It's on there's the
property on which this facility is
[3:07:01] located and then there's the property
across the road which is another 60some
[3:07:06] acres um or close to 60 acres. Um when
we originally acquired the property from
[3:07:12] the Bashars we looked for a place to
locate uh where we would do um public
[3:07:19] presentations and things like that. The
property is very constrained in terms of
[3:07:24] public access and um also in terms of
available space in order to locate some
[3:07:31] kind of gathering area uh that would be
a natural um easily accessible and a
[3:07:37] sort of natural um gathering point. We
landed on the area where the pavilion is
[3:07:44] now constructed that you can see from
202 as you drive um drive north and
[3:07:49] south there.
um that is really the only area in the
[3:07:53] property where we can manage to have
public programs. We were originally a
[3:07:58] little leerary of that because of course
the treatment facility that the existing
[3:08:04] treatment facility is right there and
quite visible. Uh we had always uh
[3:08:09] looked for some kind of agreement to do
landscaping
[3:08:13] um which has eluded eluded us so far. I
mean, I think um I don't think Bob was
[3:08:20] suggesting that we wouldn't be immunable
to landscaping. We'd certainly be happy
[3:08:24] to work with VIA uh in regard to that.
Um and it would be um it would be
[3:08:31] definitely welcome. Um I think the
bigger problem is that you know you have
[3:08:36] a major facility in terms of its size
and the original plan we were given it
[3:08:43] was a blank facade. It looked
essentially like a big metal warehouse
[3:08:47] planted right at the edge of their
property which is already very visible
[3:08:52] from our
[3:08:55] uh primary location for land trust
activities. Um and um so if it had gone
[3:09:02] in if it went in like that some of the
aesthetic um uh changes that they've
[3:09:08] made to the facade of the building are
very welcome and I think will help. Um
[3:09:13] how wherever this thing is located on
the property but um the issue uh is that
[3:09:21] um if you you know is already a
compromised property uh from our point
[3:09:27] of view in terms of having this kind of
public location but we don't have any
[3:09:31] other um and if you drive down visitors
uh the number of visitors you also drive
[3:09:39] down the number of people who are
contributors to the land trust.
[3:09:43] Um you also we also like many other area
organizations depend on other
[3:09:49] organizations. Um in this case we have
uh reing isn't it rewing who runs
[3:09:55] programs there. We get revenue from
those programs. We are a very small
[3:10:00] organization. every revenue source is
incredibly important to us and the uh
[3:10:06] base of uh members is also very
important to us and membership is driven
[3:10:12] largely by people feeling that they are
getting some value out of visiting our
[3:10:17] properties and things like that. So, um,
we, you know, it's it's it isn't I don't
[3:10:25] know whether it's an existential threat
in the sense that we'll go out of
[3:10:28] business, but it would put our, if it's
built as it's proposed, it would
[3:10:32] definitely have a very negative impact
on our organization and it could indeed
[3:10:36] lead to the point where we are really
struggling from a standpoint of revenue.
[3:10:41] So, I didn't want that to pass by
without being commented on. Um I
[3:10:47] appreciate all the issues that you guys
are raising. Um I think uh this board
[3:10:51] has done an excellent job of reviewing
it and um you know I look forward to uh
[3:10:57] the result. Thank you very much.
>> Thank you.
[3:11:05] » Okay. I think we've uh exhausted the uh
public uh opinion regarding this. Does
[3:11:10] the applicant have anything further to
say at this point in time or do board
[3:11:13] members have further questions?
[3:11:17] So I I I guess well well okay I guess
you've addressed moving the building
[3:11:23] closer together would be a redesign of
the plans and a significant delay. I
[3:11:27] mean I think we've
discussed that piping changes plan
[3:11:32] changes blah blah blah. It seems like
both parties are amendable to
[3:11:38] landscaping here and you working
together to come up [clears throat] with
[3:11:41] something that both would be acceptable
to and maybe on
[3:11:44] » not only your property but maybe on
their property
[3:11:46] » and even as a condition we would include
that you know as that landscaping.
[3:11:49] » I think at the very least I don't know
what the board's going to do but I think
[3:11:51] at the very least the board certainly
condition approval with significant
[3:11:55] landscape as approved or as discussed
with the land trust
[3:12:02] board members. further discussions,
questions of the applicant.
[3:12:06] » I guess from you know in terms of the
you know it's all I think well and good
[3:12:11] to say yes conditioned on uh you know
landscaping.
[3:12:16] I'd put I'd like to put some heat on
those bones [clears throat] because
[3:12:23] it's all very well and good to say okay
you know we'll work with with with the
[3:12:27] land trust but what happens if those
discussions break down and no
[3:12:33] landscaping is put in there.
>> You do have a valid point.
[3:12:37] » But but if if if we're truly
conditioning it,
[3:12:40] » um
>> landscaping, they wouldn't meet it. But
[3:12:42] » then they would have to um meet the
condition. Otherwise, the approval
[3:12:48] wouldn't be valid
>> and they'd have to come back to us.
[3:12:51] » They'd have to come back to us.
>> Yeah.
[3:12:53] » Right. If the two of you can't agree on
the landscaping, you're both going to be
[3:12:55] back here.
>> So what I would what I would what I
[3:12:57] would suggest to to your point too, I
[clears throat] mean, obviously the land
[3:13:00] trust is here. So if they because again
there's we have room in our very limited
[3:13:04] room on the Violia side where we can do
things but you know there's more room
[3:13:08] obviously on the landra side. So if they
consent to us coming on their property
[3:13:12] and installing landscaping I think we
should condition that and as long as
[3:13:16] they're here tonight to consent to that
should be in the resolution because that
[3:13:20] way you've heard it on the record that
they would consent to us coming on their
[3:13:22] property to plant evergreens or what
have you.
[3:13:24] » I just don't think they're going to
I' I'd be surprised if everyone was
[3:13:29] going to
be able to do the analysis to figure out
[3:13:34] what trees were going where and how that
would work. I think there's going to be
[3:13:39] a gestation period to understand the
viewsheds and what have you. And they're
[3:13:44] going to want to be thoughtful about
non-invasive species and native plant
[3:13:49] things like that. So I I think we I
think we can condition it. Um but the
[3:13:56] question is is what is our mechanism? Uh
to enforce.
[3:14:01] » I mean, if the applicant wants X and the
land trust wants Y and they can't agree,
[3:14:07] » well, they can they can come back.
>> Then you haven't met the condition in
[3:14:10] our opinion. You got to come back to us.
And we're
[3:14:12] » How do we How do we write the
>> Are we are we saying is it is it for the
[3:14:17] length of the building and then 30 ft of
[clears throat]
[3:14:23] spaced out? We maybe we should just
condition it upon the applicant and the
[3:14:28] land trust reaching a mutual agreement.
If you can't reach a mutual agreement,
[3:14:32] we'll be happy to see them again here.
>> Not to to the mix, but maybe you work
[3:14:36] with a building inspector to come to an
agreement to for landscape plan or some
[3:14:40] kind of landscaping. I don't want to
make any more work for you.
[3:14:44] » I'm [laughter] sorry. I know. That's why
I said, "Let me look to you."
[3:14:46] » This is notector's problem.
>> No, I know. But I'm saying as opposed to
[3:14:50] coming back here, obviously he has to be
satisfied and we have to I'm just
[3:14:53] throwing it out there because I know
>> I mean I assume both fairly reasonable
[3:14:58] » I'm going to chime in here. That's under
the architectural review board,
[3:15:02] » right?
>> Landscaping for a commercial building
[3:15:05] » and we were there and again like Mr.
Barard said, we did work with them on
[3:15:08] the landscape I mean on the
architectural we did provide some way.
[3:15:11] We worked with them requiring screening
that both parties agreed to. If we want
[3:15:16] to leave it to ARB to reconcile that and
get it
[3:15:20] » okay
>> final that be something reasonable.
[3:15:22] » Yeah.
>> Um
[3:15:25] » I mean planning boards do that all the
time. They leave it with somebody you
[3:15:29] know they say go meet with our lady who
likes plants and
[3:15:32] » and both are going to police each other
quite honestly in this situation.
[3:15:36] » I don't have an issue with that. I mean
we we we could create some guidelines if
[3:15:41] you if we thought that would be helpful.
that would have to happen before a
[3:15:47] building permit is issued and building
begins as far as the ARB approving a
[3:15:53] landscape plan
>> and the ARB knows we're requiring that
[3:15:56] as part of our condition upon
>> right I would share that with them.
[3:16:00] » Yes. But you have to understand that
these gentlemen have already stated
[3:16:03] their their place. They said they came
here tonight decided apparently that
[3:16:09] they would uh go along with with
landscaping and that's it. They're not
[3:16:15] going anything else. The rest of what
they're bringing either take it or leave
[3:16:20] it. That's the way they presented it to
me.
[3:16:23] » Here's another thing too. We need an
easement from the land trust. So they're
[3:16:25] not going to give it to us if they're
not happy with the landscaping. So
[3:16:28] because we we so that's another lynch
pin for them as well because we we need
[3:16:33] an easement from them. obviously from
Beijing. So they need to be satisfied
[3:16:37] with the landscape they're providing if
we're going to get the eman. So again,
[3:16:40] if they're not satisfied, we don't get
the easement. And so
[3:16:43] » landscaping a lot to hide this thing.
>> Also in sir,
[3:16:46] » yes,
>> in terms of
[3:16:47] » you want to speak to the engineer now.
You didn't want to talk to me too much,
[3:16:50] but it's okay. I'm just kidding.
[laughter]
[3:16:51] » And in in terms of in terms easement, so
there would be uh an economic benefit to
[3:16:59] the land trust would there not if they
were to give you an easement?
[3:17:05] who would pay the money.
>> He's he's he's referring to the easement
[3:17:09] for parking and
>> the one the easement that you see
[3:17:12] » haven't negotiated the term.
>> Yeah, we don't know those terms are yet.
[3:17:15] » What I'm because the land trust is
concerned with their finances which is
[3:17:20] to me reasonable and I think that if if
if Viola is looking for an easement
[3:17:25] there should be there should be
reinumeration.
[3:17:30] Right.
[3:17:34] » Improvements. Yeah. Improvements.
>> Correct.
[3:17:35] » But we could expand upon that.
>> Do you have a plan in place if you don't
[3:17:41] get the easement to do this
construction?
[3:17:43] » Is not requment
[3:17:50] [clears throat]
[3:17:52] makes sense though if you look at the
site where the parking lot is and
[3:17:57] long-term operations.
it. It's
[3:18:00] » Do you have another place to turn trucks
around?
[3:18:02] » We could take care of it on our property
and on our core area. If you do that,
[3:18:08] » um take it on your property, it's
existing there, right?
[3:18:11] » Our existing easements and property are
sufficient for us to construct and
[3:18:17] maintain long-term the facility. There
happens to be a parking lot directly
[3:18:21] across the street or across from our
property line, an existing parking lot,
[3:18:25] which makes sense long term for these
trucks to turn around on.
[3:18:30] » So, and I'm sorry, I didn't mean to
interrupt you, but what you're just
[3:18:33] saying about improvements to that area
for the land that that would benefit the
[3:18:38] land obviously.
>> Yes. And uh when we originally spoke
[3:18:42] about it, like I said, uh the document,
the letter of intent as we call it, is
[3:18:46] has not been signed, but um we did
include that type of compensation uh at
[3:18:51] their request.
[3:19:03] » Any further comments from members of the
board?
[3:19:08] We ready to vote on this?
>> And the planning board has already said
[3:19:15] it's type two. So we don't need a
motion.
[3:19:19] » We just go directly.
>> They've already made that
[3:19:21] » made that determin.
>> Yeah. Yeah. So we just put the
[3:19:25] » Okay. Uh applicants. Good. No further
questions or no further comments. I
[3:19:29] » think you've heard enough.
>> Okay. [laughter] I think we've all heard
[3:19:33] enough of each other, right? So Okay. Uh
so keep in mind um the we have two
[3:19:39] variances here and uh if we approve the
variances
[3:19:45] uh we have to get specific with we're
not well
[3:19:47] » yeah I have there's two separate
applications
[3:19:51] so we need to vote on each application
as they read.
[3:19:55] » Is that how you want to do it? Okay.
>> Yeah. All right.
[3:20:08] All right.
[3:20:12] Okay. So, the first one is for the water
treatment plant. The next one is for the
[3:20:15] ground storage tank. Okay. So, item four
in the agenda is an application for
[3:20:19] variance for a proposed water treatment
plant in RD district at 405 Route 2
[3:20:24] Summers.
>> Okay. Do we have a motion in regard to
[3:20:30] the um that
application and what conditions we might
[3:20:35] want to put upon it?
[3:20:44] » So here the required is 60 ft proposed
is 7 and a half the relief sought is
[3:20:49] 52.5 ft.
[3:20:53] would like to make them.
>> What's the percentage on that? That's
[3:20:57] 87.5%
[3:21:00] » variance. Correct.
>> Right.
[3:21:03] » So significant
>> that would be considered significant in
[3:21:06] our book.
>> Okay.
[3:21:09] » So I would not I don't have a motion
because support that.
[3:21:15] » Happy to make a motion to deny.
>> Okay.
[3:21:18] » You can make a motion to deny and then
we could vote the other way or I don't
[3:21:22] know. Bart, do you want to make a
motion? [clears throat]
[3:21:25] I would u
make a motion to approve
[3:21:31] the setback as submitted on the
condition
[3:21:38] that um applicant provide uh screening
and landscaping
[3:21:44] um to mitigate
the proximity to the adjoining property
[3:21:51] and the edge of the DRD.
Um
[3:21:57] and that such planting and screening be
approved by our ARB and
[3:22:06] uh that this variance be conditioned
upon that approval
[3:22:10] » and hopefully the ARB will consult with
the land trust regarding this.
[3:22:15] » Well, we could we could also have that.
>> Oh, I'll make sure.
[3:22:18] » Okay. [laughter]
>> Second.
[3:22:22] » [clears throat]
[3:22:25] » Okay. Bart and Tom.
Mr. Burke.
[3:22:30] » Hi.
>> Misty Pledo.
[3:22:33] » I.
>> Mr. Guio.
[3:22:36] » Hi.
>> Mr. Harden.
[3:22:38] » Nay.
[3:22:41] » Mr. Lanski.
>> I.
[3:22:44] » Mr. Newman.
>> Nay.
[3:22:47] » Mr. uh Chairman Canestra.
>> I.
[3:22:50] » Okay. Okay. So, do
>> variance for uh item four on the agenda
[3:22:54] has approved. Uh we're going to go to
item five on the agenda. This is an
[3:22:59] application for two variances for an
above ground storage tank in a DRD
[3:23:04] district at 405 Route 202 in S.
Okay. Let's see here.
[3:23:11] » The variances are for the height.
>> Yeah.
[3:23:14] » And what's the second variance?
>> Let me see here.
[3:23:16] » Setback.
[3:23:23] page two of the application.
[3:23:28] » Okay. So, the the pitched roof, so the
roof roof height and then required
[3:23:33] permitted 30 uh proposed 12.9 relief saw
17.1. Is that a property setback?
[3:23:42] » Yes.
>> So, it's 100% on the roof and
[3:23:49] % on the setback.
[3:23:54] » Once again, they are significant
variances, but because this is a
[3:23:58] utility,
>> these are significant, but there's no
[3:24:01] other way to do the tank,
>> right?
[3:24:03] » There is [clears throat] another way.
>> There is tank we're talking about right
[3:24:06] now, right?
>> Yeah. Tank
[3:24:07] » the 100% there's another way to do the
building. the tank. I I think the tank's
[3:24:13] the tank
my
[3:24:15] » This is similar to when we had when we
used to have the cell tower application
[3:24:19] the telecommunications act
>> you're somewhat stuck.
[3:24:22] » No, frankly under undercut us any
objection then here this is a public
[3:24:28] utility.
>> It's it's a tough one.
[3:24:30] » Right. Right.
>> So once again we're going to need a
[3:24:34] motion. Um and then if we're going to
condition it upon once again landscaping
[3:24:38] and things like that. Bart, you want to
take this one, too?
[3:24:41] » Um, [clears throat]
I'll make a motion to approve the
[3:24:45] variances as stated.
[3:24:50] » Conditioned upon.
>> No conditions.
[3:24:52] » You're not You're not going to do land.
>> No, this this is not in the front of the
[3:24:57] property.
This is not the concern that the the
[3:25:00] land trust brought up. This one's off to
the side, right? We're just talking
[3:25:03] about the water storage thing.
>> Yeah, but the applicant is willing to do
[3:25:07] landscaping. They are
>> now do it.
[3:25:13] » That's the way I kind of look at it. Why
not?
[3:25:18] » Because downhill
is
[3:25:24] this way is what is the coming up is the
is the vista that they're trying to
[3:25:28] stop. And this way they have plenty of
space.
[3:25:32] » It's it's this
side sideyard variant the issue. And I
[3:25:38] don't see them needing landscaping here.
So that's why that's my thought pattern.
[3:25:43] But if somebody if where else where
where are you suspecting to put
[3:25:48] landscaping on this one?
>> I would still [clears throat] like to
[3:25:51] see some landscaping between route 202
because you're still going to see that.
[3:25:56] » But but this is you're saying you want
to see something here?
[3:25:59] » Yeah.
>> I would think the trust would probably
[3:26:01] want land.
That's the driveway,
[3:26:04] » right? They would. I mean, I think if
both sides want to do it, why not?
[3:26:08] » Okay. Yeah. Yeah.
>> That's the way I look at it.
[3:26:10] » Go ahead. I I I didn't see it that way.
I That one That one looks The other one
[3:26:16] clear as day, you know, as much
landscaping as possible. That's it's a
[3:26:20] It is messing up the view. This one it's
a water storage tank and it's 80 ft from
[3:26:26] from the edge of the property.
>> I would like to see it.
[3:26:30] » I think I would too, but
>> Okay. All right.
[3:26:34] » You something like that to really
[clears throat] soften it up like some
[3:26:38] white pines that grow like there's no
tomorrow or
[3:26:42] » you got a He's got a road cutting across
right there and there's that road's
[3:26:48] going to
But yes, we can send that to the ARB as
[3:26:54] well. No problem.
>> Yeah. So, I'd like to I'd like to uh
[3:26:57] take back that l and make a motion to
approve the variances stated conditioned
[3:27:02] upon um applicant uh completing
landscaping in accordance with a plan uh
[3:27:09] approved by the ARB.
[3:27:16] » Who seconded that, please? I'm sorry.
>> I did second Tom.
[3:27:19] » Thank [clears throat] you, Tom. Thank
you, Tom.
[3:27:22] Mr. Burke.
>> Hi.
[3:27:25] Mr. Pledo,
>> hi
[3:27:27] » Mr. Guio.
>> Hi,
[3:27:30] » Mr. Harden.
>> I
[3:27:33] » Mr. Lansky.
>> I
[3:27:36] » Mr. Newman.
>> Nay.
[3:27:38] » And Chairman Kenistra.
>> I.
[3:27:42] » Thank you.
>> Congratulations. Both applications have
[3:27:45] been
very much.
[3:27:48] » Thank you.
>> I just hope the land trust will be happy
[3:27:52] with everything later.
Okay. Uh, we don't have minutes to
[3:27:58] approve, so we're going to, uh, set that
aside for now. And our don't have a
[3:28:04] meeting in August. I'll remind
everybody. Uh, so our next meeting will
[3:28:09] be September I think it's September
15th. Thank you. Night, Denise.
[3:28:13] » Yes. Yes.
>> That will be our next meeting. Um, and
[3:28:16] minutes will do the
>> both sets of minutes. That would be the
[3:28:21] July and the Anything
>> May and July,
[3:28:25] » right? May and Yes. Yes. Is there
anything further anybody would like to
[3:28:28] discuss?
>> Can Denise, can we drop these back off
[3:28:32] in your office,
>> please? No. There's a garbage pail on
[3:28:35] your way out the door.
>> You guys want to see your plans? Do you
[3:28:38] need them?
>> You can you can pile them up. Stand by
[3:28:42] the door.
>> Have Tom, you have them, right?
[3:28:45] » Yeah, Tommy. Yeah, we don't need those.
>> I hate to waste all this paper.
[3:28:50] » It's okay. Wallpaper something in your
house that way. Can you give them to the
[3:28:53] next group? Do you want yours?
>> No, I'm going to keep mine. He wants to
[3:28:56] keep his. Okay.
>> Lo. Lo.
[3:28:59] » Lo, if you really need more, I think
there might be more in my office. Do you
[3:29:03] want me to save them for you?
>> I think I have enough. We're good.
[3:29:06] » Okay. [laughter]
All right. Good.
[3:29:08] » I I left Meresa's office.
>> Okay. Thank you.
[3:29:11] » Okay. Good night, everybody. Thank you.
>> Good night.
[3:29:14] » Okay. So, if there's nothing further,
we're going to close the meeting. Are we
[3:29:16] done? Okay. So, good night everybody and
we will see you uh September 15th.
[3:29:22] » We made up for
>> a good night.
[3:29:24] » Close down the meeting.
>> Good night.