[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.

Town of Somers, N.Y. ZBA Meeting July 21, 2026

Transcript