Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

the zoning board of appeals meeting for Wednesday, July 9th, 2025. I apologize for the uh 40minute delay um which was due to the fact that this criminal that criminal court happens on Wednesdays and we usually meet on Thursdays, but we're here tonight. Um what will happen here is um our secretary will call the um applications. when your application is read, um could you please come up to the podium here and um tell us what it is you want to do or whoever is representing you to tell us what they're going to do. Um it is a public hearing so people in the audience or on the Zoom call can um can comment and I will open it up to them for comments and if we hear nobody, we'll probably close the public hearing if we can and then move on to discussion amongst ourselves um and hope to reach a decision this evening. Um, I've got Roger Van Loverin who's a member. He's on Zoom and um, one of our other members, Meredith Black, is on her way in. Um, but we can start since we have a consensus. Mr. Chair, and just announcing that Mr. Van Lin has a health reason, so he'll be able to participate and vote as a full member in the uh, in the proceedings. Thank you. Y, that was our town attorney. John Abbott is seeking a variance of article 5 section 125-50 at 398 Cross River Road Katona designated as section block and lot 50.6-1-4 6-1-4 in the residential 4acre zoning district to permit the construction of a 1 and a half story addition over pre-existing deck and staircase and for the expansion of an exist existing deck where the impervious surface coverage results in 8.76% where the existing imperous surface coverage is 8.6% 6% and where 8% is the

maximum permitted impervious surface coverage in the residential 4acre zoning district. Thank you. Hi, good evening. Thanks for your time. Um Craig and Tinerelli of Craig and Tinelli Architects. I'm representing John and Kathy Abbott for this application. Um as you can see, the real reason we're here is because of the driveway. The driveway is 12,581 ft. The house is a very modest house up at the top of the hill off Cross River Road. And our addition really is just to enclose this small little area that has a deck. We're adding about 350 ft to the house. And um we have like an additional.1% for proposed AC condensing unit pads. So that's why our variance is 8.76. [Applause] You're currently 876. We're proposing 876. Currently 86. Yeah. Okay. And I mean it's a little garage. It's like a two-car garage and the house. There's not a lot out there. Yeah. Got you. Is there anybody in the in the audience that wanted to speak on this application? I'm hearing no one. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? I'll make it. So moved. I will so move. All those in favor public hearing close. I um any discussion? Oh, I have a question. Just the largest amount of impervious surface on everyone knows this is going to come up with me. Is um is there any possibility for that percentage so that you could save that and remove some macadam long driveway? Well, it's services only this house. So, it's 100% uh by the owner and there's not again there there's a generous

turnaround to come around the property, but there's not a lot to go in front of the garage. So, I think just with, you know, car turnound and backing up, I don't think that they can sacrifice that because what happens is right after that turnaround, it drops downhill. As I recall, it's on an angle and it's on an angle. So you would need a hard surface for a plow in the winter time and it's windy and you're going up probably 100 ft. Keep it in consideration for the future because you're now overd. Anyone else? Roger. Nothing. No. All good. Anybody have any other issues? None. No. Okay. Yeah. Then I'll start off and make a um make a proposal that we grant a variance. Close the close the hearing. What's that? Close the public. We already did that, right? Uh grant a variance to approve um the request of John Abbott at 398 Crosser Road as noticed. Uh doing so, we believe um uh the benefit cannot cannot be sought by the applicant in any other way possible. Uh there will be no undesirable change in the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. This is a fairly it's a fairly minimal uh project that they're doing. The variance requested is not substantial. The variance requested will not result in an adverse physical or environmental effect on the neighborhood or community and the alleged difficulty while self-created is only one of the factors to be considered by the board in making its decision and it's not determinative. Um, if approved, the applicant shall use their best efforts to ensure that a building permit is issued within one year of the board's approval of this variance and then diligently pursue such construction to completion. Uh, the applicant shall submit a certified asbuilt survey including building and impervious coverage calculations to the building department prior to the issuance of a CFO and the variance is granted in accordance with the plan submitted to the board dated June 5th, 2025. Thank you.

Do you want the page numbers? No, it's okay. which I mean we the whole plan will be submitted. Yes. Um and um as Rosemary pointed out in the you know as you go forward in the future if there's a possibility of changing some of the macadam to grapple to to decre decrease the impervious or the pvious I guess to make it more impervious that would be helpful. We'll keep that in mind. Thank you very much. Thank you. I need a second. I'll second that. Thank you Mr. Mr. Stern, yes. Miss Lee, yes. Mr. Van Loverren, yes. Mr. McCallis, yes. You got it. Thank you. Grab the extra plans. Yeah, we can certainly give you plans back. Greg, do you need plans? Are you going back before the planning board or anything? You want to take the extra plans back? Sure. Thank you. That way you won't need them. If you leave them here, you'll need them. Okay. Yeah. I'll keep them in case I see you again. Just to remember. In one second. He's not going anywhere for a little bit. Parker Gilbert Jr. is seeking a variance of article 3 section 125-11D and article 5 section 125-50 for 167 Hook Road Bedford designated as section block and lot 73.11-1-1 in the residential 4acre zoning district to permit the construction of a 1 and a half story addition for a studio to a pre-existing legal non-conforming garage which received the variance 11-832 on 11283 for a sideyard setback of no less than 33 feet which resulted in 34.5 ft where 50 ft is required in the residential 4acre zoning district and where the

addition creates an increase in the dimensional height of the structure and where the total impervious surface coverage results in 8.63% 63% where the maximum impervious surface coverage is 8% in the residential 4acre zoning district. Hi, good evening. I'm representing Hi, I'm representing uh Parker Gilbert uh and his wife Carolyn. Um I believe you received two letters of approval for this application. We have one from Michelle and Harry St. John across the street in support at 183 Hook Road in support of the um that's their most immediate neighbor what the Gilberts are. And then we um Rick and Barber boy. Yes. At 151 Hook Road, right? And it looks like they're in support as well. So uh this is a accessory structure that received a variance back in uh 1983. Um the setback uh variance was for no less than 33 ft. You know, we have a much more sophisticated survey than that was done back then. We're actually less than that variance. We're at 34. We're actually more than that variant. 34.6 ft. So, our proposed um studio is to add a second floor to what is now a garden room, which is basically that dog leg that runs parallel to the east side of the property. And we're taking over an existing uh roof over coverage. So, we're not increasing our impervious surface at all. Um the cottage is really I mean the studio will really be beneficial to um Parker and his wife to have a an office, a gym, and of course to maintain the existing twocar garage. That is the uh application. Is there anyone that wanted to comment on this application in the audience or on Zoom? Um, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? Make a motion to close the public

hearing. All those in favor? I I public hearing is closed. Discussion. The 183 hook. Is that the person whose driveway is just next to the property? Yes. Across the street. They're across the lane. No, it's next to Yeah, it's next to it's right here. This is 183. They're looking Yeah, that's the one I was thinking of. Yes. The most immediate neighborhood. the one whose driveway just runs right next to your property. Yeah. Thank you. I I was the one that opened your gate yesterday but didn't come in during the rain cuz I got there when it was pouring rain. Did our dog come running past? No, no, no. But then I went to the neighbors and I got out and I was able to observe. The dog liked me. Yep. Absolutely. I in in looking at this uh it's it's really set back very well from both neighbors on the side and and certainly it does it's probably not even going to be visible from the roadway. So it's very much in conformance with uh with you know the homes in the area and and not not really visible. Agreed. There's healthy screening already there and so we'll maintain that. Okay. Any more discussion? No. Rose, you want to make a motion? Oh, sure. Thanks. Um, the town of Bedford zoning board zoning board of appeals uh has heard the um request for a variance uh for a property located uh 167 Hook Road uh under the uh Parker Gilbert family. um for uh setbacks and also uh construction of addition to a garage. Uh the board has uh discussed and reviewed and visited the site and uh determined that

um that the benefit to the applicant by granting this variance outweighs any alleged detriment to the community. We have determined the following. That the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another means feasible to the applicant and there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties as determined with by the uh letters of the neighbors in the area and the sighting of the uh new addition. The variance is not substantial and the variance requested will not result in any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or community. And the alleged difficulty is self-created, but that's only one of the factors to be considered by the board in making its decision and is not determinative. Um, the approval of this proposed variance would be subject to the following conditions. Correct. The applicant shall use their best efforts to ensure a building permit is issued within one year of the board's approval of this variance and then diligently pursue such construction to completion. Uh the applicant shall submit a certified asbuilt survey including building and impervious surface calculations to the building department prior to issuing a certificate of occupancy and the variance is granted in accordance with the plans that have been submitted to the board which are dated June 4th 2025 and the variance is granted in accordance with the plans submitted to this board. Second that. [Applause] Mr. Stern, yes. Miss Lee, yes. Mr. Van Loverren, yes. Ms. Black. Yes. Mr. Melis, yes. You got it. Thank you. We got some more plans for you. Okay. Thank you.

[Applause] [Applause] Robert Gold and Alexis Givanter contract bendy are seeking a variance of article 3 section 125-11D and article 5 section 125-50 50 for 69 Pound Ridge Road, Bedford, designated section block and lot 84.11-1-9 in the residential twoacre zoning district to permit the construction of a twostory addition three season room and covered porch to the rear of a legal pre-existing non-conforming residence which creates an increase in the height of a dimensionally non-conforming residence which resulted in a sideyard setback of 21.92 ft. where 40 ft is required and where variant 7-991 was granted on July 7, 1999 for a sideyard setback of 21 ft where 40 ft is required in the residential 2acre zoning district and where the existing front por porch front yard setback is 27.66 ft where 50 ft is required in the residential 2acre zoning district. Thank you again, Craington representing Rob and Alexis. Um, this is the James McDonald Bates House uh in Bedford Village. It was built in 1842, well before our zoning codes. So, as you know, this whole road is full of vintage non-conforming structures. The um proposal really is we're not adding any more to the footprint again to what's there. We're basically rebuilding a portion of the second floor which is in the uh the rear of the house. Um

again I think we received a variance back in um this was in 1999 1999 99 for 21 ft. Ours is actually 21.92 ft. So, um, the the other, uh, point is we received a Bedford Village Historic District Commission approval back in June unanimously. Um, also, I think you received letters of, um, recommendation for this project from Paul and Kathy Dixon. Uh, they're their neighbor that'll be most affected by this construction at 65 Pound Ridge Road. Another very close neighbor, Kurtley Cameron, has sent a letter of approval. and Jim McIll at 25 Cartwway Lane. Gotcha. The other part of the construction is outside of this. It's well within this the property and as of right [Applause] on the um Can you just point out where the road is on that? Oh, it's Pound Road. Okay. So, you're talking about on the This is Pound Ridge. Yeah. This is enlarged. So, Pound Ridge is here. Yeah. Okay. So, um, where's the pool? Sorry. The pool. The pool is here. Can you show me on the bigger map? Is it on the big one? There's the corner of it right here. This is this a blow up. Okay. Yeah. Corner is there. Gotcha. Okay. There's a little gate past the driveway. The pool's back there. Correct. Yeah. And so that and that's where the work is being done that you're talking about doing. Well, the work is really being done to the rear of the house and then to this portion of the second floor uh right here. Okay. adding a little bay window which is within the setback but it doesn't encroach any further than what's existing. Yep. And um like everything else this is pretty much within the property. Got outside of the setbacks. So you are you're removing uh original

uh front and rear porch. Yes, we are. So that actually reduces some of the frontage on the on the poundage road size. I can show you what that elevation looks like. So that's a very large porch on the front. Not this one. We're keeping this. You're keeping the main that's from 1873. Yeah, that was I was So the porch that we're removing is a little, you know, stick framed porch that was that a later addition to that? A later. Okay. Yeah. It's beautiful. Beautiful house. It's a beautiful home. Did you say what was the owner uh the original house name? James McDonald Bates. Bates house. Yeah. You got to keep that front part because we'll make we're going to make a condition that you put the wreaths up every every uh Christmas time. Um is there anybody in the audience that wanted to speak on this application? See nobody's on Zoom. Uh hearing no one. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? I'll make the motion. Second. All those in favor? Public hearing is closed. discussion. My only comment is you're reducing your s your your your square footage from 3864 to 3713. It's probably you're moving one of the decks would be it's this it's that large terrace in the rear. We're minimizing that a little bit. Yeah. Your footprint doesn't change, but there's the area isn't an issue. The the coverage isn't an issue. Yeah. Howard, do you want to make a motion? Thank you. The uh zoning board of appeals has heard the application for 69 Pound Ridge Road. In particular, the board found that the benefit to the applicant by granting the

variance outweighs any alleged detriment to the community and determined the following. The benefits sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another means feasible to the applicant and there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby properties. Uh I add that you also have uh historical permission as well which I think is important and the variance requested is not substantial and the variance requested will not result in any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or community and the alleged difficulty while it is self-creative that is not one of the the only factor to be considered by the board in making its decision and is not determinative. Approval of the proposed variance would be subject to the following conditions. Applicants shall use their best efforts to ensure that a building permit is issued within one year of the board's approval of this variance and then diligently pursue such construction to completion. The applicant shall submit a certified asbuilt survey, including building and impervious coverage calculations to the building department prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The variance is granted in accordance with the plan submitted to the board dated June 5th, 2025 and all of its pages. And that would be my motion. I'll second that. Mr. Stern, yes. Miss Lee, yes. Mr. Van Loverin, yes. Ms. Black, yes. Mr. McCallis, yes. You got it. Thank you very much. Thank you. As long as you got those rees up there. [Music] If you need any more plans. Yep. Take the plans. Then you won't need them. Your score tonight was lucky, Craig. Sorry. Three for three. I know.

Wow. Don't expect that every time we go play the lottery. Thank you. This is Can I Craig? Benchmark Beverage Retail LLC is seeking a variance of article 10 section 125-102A and 125-1 11A for 625 to 629 Old Post Road Beford designated as section block 84.7-2-6 in the neighborhood business zoning district for approval to convert existing office space into a restaurant where seven off Street parking spaces are required for 650 square ft of gross floor area and where zero off- streetet parking spaces are provided. And where one off streetet loading space is required where one where off zero off- streetet loading spaces are provided in the neighborhood business zoning district. Good evening. Good evening. I'm Jordan Pogle. I'm the owner of 629 Old Post Road. I have a vacant space in the building that was previously occupied by Vincent Whitmore, the the real estate brokerage company, and I'm partnering uh with Thomas Kelly, who's here as well, to open up a uh a bar/pub uh which I think will be a great use for the community in Bedford Village. Uh the building was built uh in the 1930s. Um there's currently four parking spots for this building. Uh when Mass Market opened their market, they asked if they could use that parking and turn it into an outdoor seating area, which I know that they see approval from the town, and that seemed to be a better use that for the parking. I also own the building

633 Old Post Road, which is the building where uh the Bedford Playhouse is located. And I have 68 parking spots behind that are part of that land. And since I own both properties, uh, I'm seeking approval to designate seven spots at 633 Old Post Road that would be used for the for the Oak, which is the name of the bar at 629 Old Post Road. Is there anyone in the audience that want to excuse me, speak on this application? Again, seeing no one, can I have a motion to close the public hearing? A motion to close the public hearing. Second. All those in favor? I I public hearing's closed. Um discussion any a bar or because this says a restaurant bar. So, uh I recently learned that there's no uh zoning code in Bedford that's with the word bar. Uh the choice for us was should we call this a cafe or a restaurant? And I felt like calling it a cafe would be misleading. Uh, so a restaurant we are planning, we're not going to have a kitchen, but we are going to be serving food like light bites. It's all going to be made in a convection oven and a panini press um with a really good chef. Um, there'll be appetizers. It's not going to look like a restaurant, but I I thought that that would be more representative or for the board than me saying I'm a cafe and then you come in and say, "Why are you serving martinis?" I guess we have some work to do on that. Any relationship to Peter Kelly? No relationship to Peter Kelly. It sounds like a great opportunity for that space. It's a very deep space. I happen to get some ice cream while I was there. So, it was a very nice The ice cream will be for the kids and for the adults, but it's a very a very deep space. So, you're going to have to do a complete renovation.

Correct. It's pretty empty. I I think the parking was the issue. The other item that's mentioned here in the application is a loading zone. Are you able to cover that? Yeah. So, currently uh all of the retailers at both 629 and 633 are required to do the loading in the parking lot. And then with the uh with a small wheelie truck, they just roll the the stuff onto Old Post Road. There's there's it wouldn't work any other way because otherwise you're blocking a state Iowa. I think I would use the approach we use kind of in town here with requiring a license for off those off-site parking spaces to run with the variance for the use so we make sure we don't run into a parking issue down the road. So to the extent that you currently own the property and have available parking, we'd ask that you have a put a license in place for those spaces and but the license would require you to have that off-site space parking regard. You can place it anywhere within usually we have within 500 ft or something like that we've done so that if a future owner you end up selling the property or whatever transpires they can proceed but they still need to have parking. If the parking is not available at the current location, they still would have to find it within the community in some sense so that we don't wind up with a parking issue as best we can. But we're utilizing the parking that is available. Understood. Um that would that would be my suggestion because we've done that in the past and that seems to be a pretty reason. So the parking would run with the the requirement for the license. They would have to have a license to have off-site parking within f for that parking deficit within you know 500 feet or so or 1,000 feet whatever we want to make it of the facility. So so the variance requires them to have that it doesn't have to be with obviously on his lot that he's now suggesting but they need to provide some source for that off-site parking and that allows the flexibility for a future owner

I get it if something's you know is differentiated in some reason. Okay. Do you want to turn that? Yes, Peter. Yes. U just two questions. Uh sorry. So, do you recall um how many employees were working at the Vincent Whitmore at at most of the time? Five or six. Five or six. And that was mostly daytime. Correct. And for the for the restaurant, when do you think your busiest usage time is going to be? Evenings, you know, 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. Okay. So, it's actually a favorable sort of usage of parking then street park, right? In the daytime. Yeah. you you you lost five or six constant parking spaces and now you'll have um consistently hopefully evening spaces. Correct. Yeah. So, it sounds like a a pretty good swap actually. Is there anything else? Make a motion on that. Yeah. Great. Um thanks, Roger. I would move to approve the application as noticed. Um the variance that's being sought here, the benefit sought by the applicant cannot be achieved by another means feasible to the applicant. Uh when we look at what's going on here with regard to the existing parking conditions, they are what they are. Uh but here the applicant has sought to offset that particular issue and we're willing to proceed with requiring the applicant to secure an a license for um seven off- streetet parking spaces within 1,000 square feet. uh uh sorry thousand feet thank you not square feet thousand feet of the uh premises um and

that uh will have to be produced at the time of um seeking uh co to uh use an occupancy permit for the uh facility itself and that will remain in place for so long as the facilities remain operational as a restaurant/bar. Uh that requirement also will extend to the loading space that we'll have to have that so that we have operational integrity there. Um but the building itself we know is existing. There are changes of use. The change of use is in part what's triggering the parking requirement. That's not something the applicant can control itself but is by zoning. We're looking to mitigate that particular um issue by way of requiring the license for off streetet parking spaces. There will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to the nearby properties. Um the variance here is substantial as it is it's essentially asking for a variance of all off- streetet parking spaces for the site but again we are offsetting that by requiring that off-site parking to be provided within 1,000 ft of the premises and the applicants expressed a willingness to do that. So while the variance itself is substantial on the face of it the way that we're addressing I believe results in that variance not being substantial because we're able to mitigate it with other off-site parking spaces. The variance will not uh request will not result in any adverse physical or environmental effects on the neighborhood or community. This is an existing space um that's being converted. Again, the off- streetet parking is being found within the community. Uh and in fact, here is being provided by the owner of the property on an budding lot. The alleged difficulty uh is not self-created. But again, this is an existing property with existing or lacking thereof parking spaces and the board and applicant have worked to find a way to resolve that. Approval of the proposed variance is subject to the following conditions. Uh you'll use your best efforts to secure the requisite permits within one year um of the board's approval of the variance and

then diligently diligently pursue such construction to completion. Um there's no asbuilt certified survey required here is there's no construction of a new building or um amendments or additions there too. So that particular requirement is not being um is not necessary in this place. The variance though is granted in in conditioned upon the plans that were April 15. Thank you. Uh what is that? April April 15, 2025. April 15, 2025. Um the plans note also do include an existing survey of the uh facilities as they exist today. So that that is is of record for everyone. Um and the uh requirement for the license for those parking spaces shall run for so long as the property is require is being used as a bar/rest. Do we need to put in any um just a condition that I mean you have to seek a liquor license. I said permit whatever permit required. Okay. Yeah. I didn't limit it in this case to the building permit. So permits with the winger. Um I second that. Okay. Mr. Stern, yes. Miss Lee, yes. Mr. Van Loverren, yes. Ms. Black. Yes. And Mr. McCallis. You got it. Thank you very much. Take extra plans. Good luck. Yeah. look forward to its opening. Yeah. Then we'd get in trouble the correction. Tanrackk and Farm LLC is seeking a

variance of article 5 section 125-50 for 145 Broadbrook Road, Bedford designated as section block and lot 72.11-3-5 in the residential 4acre zoning district to obtain the variance for an indoor riding ring arena shed row structure and all other buildings and accessory structures which resulted in 4% of building coverage where variance 9-101 was issued June 2nd, 2010 for 3.8% of building coverage and where a maximum of 3% of building coverage is permitted in the residential 4acre zoning district. Good evening. Good evening. Jamie Spain Hogan Ross Lori for the applicant Tenraken Farm. Uh Tenraken Farm is a equestrian facility on uh on Broadbrook Road. Our application in front of you tonight is for an additional uh coverage uh variance um of 0.02% or 2%. Uh in 2010 when the variance was uh issued there must have been a miscalculation because no new construction is proposed and there hasn't been construction in addition to what was proposed in 2010. Uh but at that time they saw a variance for coverage of 3.8%. 8% uh8% over what was permitted under the code uh when in fact it should have been 4% that they were seeking at that time. Uh so we are not proposing any new construction. We're not proposing any changes in use on the property. We're just seeking to get approval on what is existing currently. [Applause] Is there anyone that wanted to speak on this application? Can you please come to the podium? Yeah. Thank you. and introduce yourself, please. [Applause] My name is Larara Lebron. I'm the

neighbor, 135 Broadbrook Road. And I would like to use this opportunity, one to address some issues that were not completed when they originally got the um permission to build the in the indoor riding facility and the structures, some other structures on the property. one they were asked to do there was an entire screening plan that was put in place to screen their parking area um between the two properties and they ignored that request and it's almost 20 years later they've put in maybe four trees only recently um I would excuse me uh between which properties between my property 145 minus 135 and between my property and 145 so there there was a whole screening plan that was put in place before they were given permission to actually build the facility. Um I would really appreciate it if that was actually completed prior to getting you know this variance and everything complete. My understanding is it is changing hands shortly and I think this is my only opportunity to really enforce that plan. There was there was a request. Can I interrupt you one more? Could you just show on this if you could just show me where the screening that's not been done and was it listed in here in their variance? the original between the when was 20 I don't know what year it was 2010 maybe um there was a screening plan that they were asked to do that they never did and it's right here just here pick a big thing around it it's like here 2010 the screening plan there and there was some screening for a dumpster okay gotcha so that was you know not done Um, so I would really, so my request is that they actually do the screening plan and I would say I

would say that they don't have to screen the dumpster if they would actually move it to the southern end of either their riding um, their barn or their indoor riding facility. Is that their manure dumpster? The manure dumpster. And this is because I have to tell you this has been the nicest summer ever because I am not swatting horse flies in my pool area. You know, it's they have like stalls for I don't even know how many 20 some odd horses and it's it's a lot of manure. Um so it'd be really great if they can, you know, not put it near my pool and behind some of the structures in the back. Um they were also asked to put drainage in um when they were building uh some of I guess it was the house or whatever whatever was going on at that time. And they did put a pipe in that went to a cement block and then when we get a lot of rain the water goes out of the cement block and dumps in a like lovely little river going down onto my property. It would be really nice if that was actually appropriately channeled to a place where the water could go. And then um so those are my kind of like closing of of that piece from a you know this indoor riding facility variance. I don't have a problem with the fact that they're requesting um extra footage for the indoor riding facility. I do have an issue there. The shed row was brought in one day. It was never it's just brought in and dumped on the property. It has three stalls. So, in the town of Beford, from my understanding, zoning or planning or whatever, they're allowed, I think they have 17 some odd acres, they're allowed 14 stalls. They have been grandfathered because they have two older structures. I think they are grandfathered for maybe 18 stalls or whatever are in the existing

two structures, which is already well above the Bedford code. Putting an extra three stalls in. And it's not these are not being used for shavings. These are actual stalls with doors. This is a new structure that has been added since 2010. And um I and it's not that, you know, obviously I love horses. That is not I'm involved in the riding community. I love horses, but it's a small it's not a huge property. And so the more horses you have there for that contained space, it just creates more traffic, more manure, more noise, and I think it's kind of unnecessary. I think they have enough stalls there in place. Is um the thing you're talking about, the thing that's labeled here on the plan shed? Yes, the shed route 645 square feet. Yeah, there are three stalls in that. I I went through them. I counted, you know, more than 20 in the large one and then there's another section with maybe eight or 10 more. I I didn't really get a final count on how many stalls are existing. Well, the two I don't I don't really know. But the two principal structures were grandfathered. I know that. And it would exceeded what the Bedford code is. Fine. I understand that. But now they have placed a new shed row for three stalls. It's unnecessary. I don't know why it's there. It's just when you it's like when you put stalls there, they will put horses in and it's it's just not our it's well beyond what our code allows. It already was and then they're asking for three more. Got you. We have a copy of the plans that were from the variance in 2010. I don't think I the v we have a copy of the variance from 2010 which mentions odors uh and noise and it indicates that the residents came in and were concerned

about other issues they but it specifically says in order to minimize noise and odors from the post or smoke. Um so I think you mentioned the odors and that you know certainly should be properly managed. When I was there, there was a basically a large pile and a truck came in and they were removing. So I don't know are they is is it the normal procedure to uh enclose that in a dumpster? So yes, it's normally you have a very they used to have a very when they have horses there, they have a very very large dumpster and that dumpster they have it a lot of a lot of the dumpsters in town are sort of buried and that would increase footage but normally they're buried into not like so they can be lifted but they're somewhat buried into like a cement and kind of block structure around it so you can wheel everything in. Yeah. You can just lift the the truck goes in, it lifts it up or it takes it away. This one is I mean it would be nice if they would bury it. I think that would be more respectful in general, but it's a very very large dumpster and when you have 20 some odd horses, that's a lot of manure. And when you have a lot of manure, you have a lot of horse flies. And I that manure dumpster happens to be located very close to my pool. So it's like when we're like sitting there lounging in the pool all you're like swatting it's normally not covered is what you're saying it's not a covered it doesn't have them and they're never covered there. You know they always they take all the manure and all the shavings and they're all dumped. I thought there was something called a like a fly there's like a spray or something. No, not a spray. It's a fly like a fly netting or something like that that goes over the dumpster. I've never seen anybody with it. I mean, if they get it was brought up in I know who it was brought up with, but I generally I haven't seen it when I've gone up to say some name for it. I think what I what I would want to see I guess given the neighbors concerns are two things. I'd want to see the old I know that we're looking at through our

file. I would like to see the 2010 application and plan. And I also want to see the planning board approval because I suspect the conditions she's referring to are from the planning board approval as opposed to the variance portion of it, especially the plantings. Yeah, given that it's not specifically referenced in the um in the resolution, but it does reference the fact that there quite a bit of time was spent with the town board looking at issues, the planning board. Planning board. Yeah. So, I think I'd like to see that and understand that cuz also to the extent that the shed was placed, was there were those replacement stalls that were bought shed or those new sh you know? So the there this pro property has a long history in front of the town of Bedford. Um this is this is a agricultural commercial boarding facility that is in the Westchester County a district. Uh there's been numerous agricultural and markets opinions on this property. Um specifically um as regards coverage even we there was at least two letters that were sent to the town regarding the coverage issue that stated that they believe agen markets believes that the coverage 3% coverage requirement is unreasonably restrictive for a farm property. Uh despite that we are here in front of you because we are trying to work with the town rather than going the route of going through a markets on this issue. However, these are all matters that have previously been addressed with Agon and markets in order to keep this commercial boarding stable up and running as is as it currently is functioning. And the board the board should be aware there was a stipulation of settlement out of a lawsuit with respect one of the shedro was one of the specific items that was authorized through that lawsuit. um with respect because there was a claim it was exempt from any zoning regarding agen markets and that stipulation of settlement allowed the

shed row to be constructed. It's been expressly shed. So the new shed row yes okay so that that that structure was you know that structure was authorized pursuant to that and it's not subject to um the certificate of occupancy and building permit requirements. So I guess I'm just curious. I mean the variance that was given there's no changes in the structures or facilities, right? But I mean the three so there's should be the 4.0 I take is really a correction. However, if it's a new shed row, I'm curious as to what changed on the site because it's that would have adjusted. That was before 2010 though. I believe was it was I believe it was that shed row came in that new shed. Yeah. Well, the the completion of the uh the stipulation was in 2020. Uh in 2018 was the litigation and the stipulation was signed in 2022, right? But the uh the 4.0 calculation I went back through the surveys and the difference in the calculation is because the tennis court was calculated incorrectly. Uh the current even the indoor riding arena the approval in the resolution was 14,000 uh 14,661 square ft. The existing riding arena is smaller than that. So it is possible that in doing the calculations that some of the numbers were less and that is why that's not creating an increase in the coverage. Okay. Okay. But that 4.0 accounts for everything in existence on the site. Okay. And you're saying because it's a a property and because it's a large portion of acreage that the coverage is really uh not very extensive. Exactly. Compared to the some of the other Okay. Yes. Exactly. Uh you we're talking about a difference in coverage from the 3.8 to

the 4.0 of 14,040 foot on an 18 acre parcel. I don't I mean personally I don't I see it as a correction. We wind up having slight corrections that come in as surveys get updated and corrected. But I guess what I would want to make sure is to the extent that there were conditions that were were required by the planning board and a sense you know many times the DBA says well you got to do all the conditions in the planning board that's all rolled in to how you give an approval. I would want to know that was done because it doesn't sound as though all the prior conditions were satisfied. Well we are in touch with uh the building department to make sure that's part of the reason why this came up. So if there was a condition that hasn't been filled in front of a different board, we'll certainly be addressing that with the building department in moving forward to make sure that everything is taken care of on the property. That is the reason why this came up to begin with. If the coverage issue is not really extensive in terms of what we're describing with this size of the property, the two issues that that did come up with our variance were odors and noise. So odors to me relates back to the care, you know, how you provide for the the dumpster and the extensive. There's some calculation about how much each horse produces every day. It's like phenomenal. And I think that it's reasonable to assume like other property, horse properties I've been at, they have I know you're saying there's no covered dumpster, but I think they make provisions can so that you don't have that much open um material even. So, is it possible to relocate that dumpster to another portion of the site so it wouldn't be as disruptive to the neighbor? We can do it at the southern end of the barns and the indoor riding facility. We can certainly look into if there is a location that'll be less impactful that will still work with making sure that there's no issues with pickup and things of that nature. Yeah. In other words, the truck has to get access and

absolutely. So, is the southern end going towards interstate uh over here? Oh, over here. Yeah, it's going towards 10 rack and farm. There's still an issue. So, is it Are you telling me that they can just put as many horses on that property that they want, but the Bedford constraints do not apply to them? I'm not sure what stall limitations you're referring. This is the first time we're hearing any of this first of all. So it's very The first four acres is one horse two acres. So there's but there's two different overlapping issues here I think is what you're identifying. One is a regular residential property where they have uh horses as a pet let's say. Okay. And that's clearly governed by town regulations and controls. There's a secondary overlay that happens with regard to a rules. and the a rules can in fact supersede municipal rules such as the town's guidance on you know the limitation on horses. So there is um some discretion there that the A um has I've seen this come up with other farms before in that type of regulation. And so while the town does have regulations around horses and particularly keeping them as more kin for as pets let's say um the controlling factor really on with regard to the number of horses when it comes to the a district in a commercial use is actually slightly different and isn't governed by the t controlled by the town so much is controlled by the county and state a regulations. So, is there a kind of some kind of math to how many horses a status that they can have for a given property? I don't know off the top of my head. I'd have to look at the eggs statute and see if they what Well, do we know how many horses were on the property? Yeah, but this variance is for coverage. It has no relationship to the number of horses on there. It's only the coverage for the exist. It's to correct a um I think though her point is the reason for the shed is that in expan in her mind sorry I don't mean to frame this wrong in her mind it's because of the expansion of number horses on the

properties why those this shed is is needed but they're two in from the perspective of the law they're two different issues because technically if we give them a variance to allow coverage of the property of 4% it doesn't it does but it doesn't matter how those structures are used depending on the property. So they if we say you can have 4% coverage then yes they could have another structure which could be a shed or or stall or whatnot for horses and it's two different aspects. One is the number of horses as you point out which in this case because it's a commercial use you're looking at the a district question. The other one is actually the structures, physical structures on the property and um that's usually governed by the town although I know at times there's there's been some back and forth again with the act district because they relate to one another when it comes to commercial uses but in this case as the applicant points out they're not trying to fight us with regard to the coverage requirement. they're trying to go through the municipal uh process here of saying look on the covered side of it we're looking to legitimize the site in this way and that's where that that comes in and the applicants has represented there's really been no structural changes to the property that are impacting that that calculation it's more of a correction which we have seen before on properties across the town and stuff and as just to answer that a little further agon markets would take into account each property individually to determine what would be an appropriate amount of horses. So, it's not just an acreage per horse. It's property constraints and different things of that nature that would be taken into account. And a shed row does not necessarily mean more horses are staying on the property. Uh oftent times the shed rows are used for horses going in and out of during the day when they stay in the stalls at night of the barn. So, doesn't necessarily uh equate to more horses staying on the property having um the shed row. Usually they're used uh during the summertime for shade and things of that nature. And and one thing I can point out, I

know the building the building department has been looking at this property very carefully over the years. Um and so the issue of the number of stalls has never come up as a zoning violation previously, which I I'm the building inspector is not here, but I was personally involved in the litigation, the the analysis of all the structures. They were required for the riding rink to get a variance from the state for certain fire access. So, I'm sure the building inspector carefully looked at all the issues relating to compliance with zoning um with zoning issues. Uh, you know, I can speak for him on that because I was personally involved in it. Um so it you know until unless we have a calculation saying that there's some you know uh some you know just it's very difficult to say oh there's too many stalls on here without knowing you know the history here and going through that. So it sounds a little bit though um from what you're just I'm not familiar with the egg um I'm familiar with the egg district but I'm not familiar with who actually controls that. what you just said was that they determine uh a pro how many horses of property can um handle and and I'm kind of encouraged to hear that because our law um our town law is I think ridiculous. Um you're allowed the first horse is two acres two acres and then you're allowed another horse for every acre thereafter. If you have a 100 acres, you're allowed 99 horses. If you have a 50 acre pond in the middle of that 100 acres, you're still allowed 99 horses where it sounds like the A district would maybe take the 50 acre pond into a consideration and reduce the number of horses. So maybe um one of the the you should be taking that to the that concern to the A district. But I certainly would agree with Meredith for

what I heard in terms of um the uh we should we should just make sure that the um planning planning board didn't require certain screening that that wasn't done and if it is possible to consider moving the shed to that southwest corner. Not the shed, not the shed, sorry, the manure, the manure dumpster. So it's a little bit further away from the closest neighbor, which it looks like there's a lot of other place. I mean, you could put it even closer to to 684 where the smell goes. It can't be too far from the stalls. Stalls. Gotcha. Okay. I understand. And it's also you don't want to put it so it's in the sight line of the maras that are up the hill. Okay. Gotcha. So that's why I was saying the Yeah. Behind the high behind Well, I don't know if we can separate the issue. In other words, since we're discussing the coverage and the existing buildings, to me, that seems reasonable to move forward. But there there are other unanswered questions that we can't really resolve tonight about whether the dumpster will be moved or see to me the property has a capacity. You know if you count all the stalls there's a capacity of possible and then there may be horses that come for for the day. So you know it is a question that really should be answered as well as the screening that you mentioned if we can document or even if we can't document that it may be in the planning board. So, you know, my question is, do we need more information about the capacity and how that relates to the agricultural district and can we move forward on the We can we can certainly look, we can certainly go to the planning board and review that. It's 15 years later that this is the first time the issue has been brought up about screening. We're more than happy to go to the planning board and review those plans. And um uh the neighbor, I'm sorry, I forget your name. We can certainly have you in look at the planning, look at those plans from 2010 or whenever they're from and see if there is screening that was supposed to be put in that was never put in. But that is really not related to the coverage issue. If if there's a condition that is not being complied with, then the building

department can of course enforce that condition. And I I believe you can move forward on this coverage issue. I think that's what we move forward on the coverage issue and and and and have them and have it put into place that if something hasn't been done it needs to be done as part of Well, my question is if it doesn't show up like clearly the noise and the odors, you know, were an issue and it's in our variance. If it doesn't show up in the planning board uh about the about the screening, then we we have no option there unless they Is it possible for you we have another matter on tonight. Is it possible for you to reach out to the client and see if they'd be willing to if they could move that? I certainly can because what I would suggest then maybe if we could just take the next matter for a few minutes if you could check because to me that's an important matter if I think if we get that resolved the coverage itself almost takes care of itself there in that sense we could earmark on the plans where the dumpster would be relocated to so that it's shown on the plans with regard to the other conditions that were previously provided. we can make that part of the variance that all those conditions have to in fact be have been complied with and satisfied. The building department will confirm that prior to giving whatever they need to on that um and that would kind of allow everything to continue to move forward in a productive way. Absolutely. That would be great. So, do we then So, we're going to leave the hearing a joining a journey for a second. Yeah. No, exactly. And then what happens? Do we go to the planning board and then No, no, no, no. We're going to get an answer right now from And then pick it back up in a few minutes. Meanwhile, we'll go to move on to Ripple. [Applause] Ripple Cisco school is seeking pursuant to the zoning ordinance article 9

section 125-75 for 425 KTO street in Beford designated section block and lot 73.13-2-5 in the residential 2acre zoning district an amendment to an existing Special use permit granted to Ripawam Cisco school to permit alterations to convert existing thirdf flooror apartments currently being used as unoccupied storage to office space which will not result in an increase of occupancy in the residential twoacre zoning district. Good evening Mr. Chairman members of the board P. Daniel Hollis, Skettinger, Waldinger, Montilone, Gishu, and Hollis, attorneys for Ripple Cisco school. Here tonight with Travis Schnell from KG&D, the architects for the project, and Kyle McMahon, the head of school. Um, we were here in 2023 for this approval, uh, which was quite large for a master plan expansion of the school. And at the time, the approval involved the third floor being unoccupied open space. Um, at the time the school knew it might eventually want to use that space for offices, but we didn't want to hold the process up uh and not get the approval we needed then by going to the state board for a variance. Since the approval in 2023, we've gone to the state board, obtained the approval to convert this to offices. So, we're here tonight for an amendment to the special permit to permit the addition of the three offices that we're showing here. Three four offices, excuse me, four offices that are shown on the plan. And Travis will walk you through the plan and show you the what was approved as and contrast that with what we're asking for uh just to make it clear for the record. I'll hold let want me to hold that for you. Yep. Yeah, please. Okay, so refresh everyone's memory. This was the area that we welcomed up for the last approval. We have since we're almost

done with construction. So that's just an updated photo of that. This area in yellow, that is the existing 100 plus year old structure floor on it that was an existing non-conforming space. Is that in that picture? It behind the dome of behind the dome. new addition kind of covered that old house. All right, this is just clearly showing you know everything in gray now is constructed. We are looking at the third floor. You can see the addition is in front of it. I think it's about 1300 square ft. This is what we previously submitted to you for the third floor and we're going to leave this. The gray is all um unrenovated space. It was previously a pair of apartments that was um non-conforming use. So we did away with that and we submitted to the building department um in order like as Dan said to keep it moving. We just left it as unoccupied space. So now we are submitting the renovation work. You can see here this is the renovation work. Everything there in that magenta color those are existing walls. We're just looking really to do to redo finishes. We already have the stair going up there. We have the proper egress and this is again we put in a series of four offices for staff that's already on campus. There's no change to footprint. There's no change to occupant load. Um they are currently housed elsewhere and that space is needed for students. They'd like to get proper offices. Do you have any residents on the property? Any of the staff or the the directors? on our official property. We have three uh residents that are on the actual property. I'm one of them and then we have two maintenance members, but they live in an adjacent building on the top. So, no nobody on in that building itself. Okay. And as we said in 2023, there's no expansion in the student body, no

expansion in the staff necessary uh administrative or uh professional teachers uh to cover that number of students. So, is this area sprinkled? Yes. my letter of September 23rd 19 2023 only a century ago I set forth you're getting younger dude yeah that's how I stay young I just you think I'm you know it seems like that exactly sometimes um but we set forth clearly our compliance with both the general conditions for a special permit and the special conditions for a special permit for a private school. I can go through those again, but as you can see, this is pretty straightforward a change of a space that previously unoccupied to be occupied by professional uh staff. Right. But did anyone want to speak on this application hearing? No one. Can I have a motion to close the public hearing? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. All those in favor? I. Public hearing is closed. Any discussion? I have a question. When you did the plans in 2023, I was not blessed to be a member of the board. Did the Bedford uh fire department, were they consulted or did any of this was any of this discussed before the It was all reviewed as part of the plan. I just want to make sure I also am involved in this town and I'm very concerned about that. And you did mention it's sprinkled. So, it's sprinkler in the ferry and this is allowing and and you're less than a mile from the fire department. There you go. Yes. I don't have any problem with it. I don't have any problem with that. It's not, you know, there's no nobody residing there. There's plenty of parking on the on the property. So, it's a a good use of vacant space. So, I'll make a motion that we approve and grant the variance as required. Special permit amendment is special. Special permit. You're absolutely right. I'm sorry. Not just me. That is being by Ripple Cisco school. Um, the proposed use will serve a community need or convenience and will

not adversely affect the public health, safety or general welfare. The location and size of the use, the nature, intensity of the operation involved in the connection with the use, the size of the site in relation to the use and the location of the site with respect to streets giving access to the use are such that the use will be in harmony with the appropriate and orderly development of the area in which is located. The location, nature, and height of buildings, walls, fences, and nature and extent of existing or proposed plings on the site are of such that the use will not hinder or discourage the appropriate development and use of adjacent land and buildings. Um, operations in connection with the special use permit will not be more objectionable to nearby properties by reason of noise, fumes, vibration, light, or other characteristics that might be the operation of any permitted use not requiring a special use permit. And the parking areas will be of adequate size of particular use, properly located and suitably screened for adjoining residential use. And the entrance and exit drive shall be laid out so as to achieve adequately adequate safety. Um all those that last one has already been accomplished. This is the district on the third floor. Um I guess um would you think you want might want to add again I don't mean to overstep but the compliance with 12575 the special uh conditions of this private school. I can recite them for you and you can incorporate those from the statute into the resolution. Sure. Why don't you paragraph A says the school shall comply with all licensing site area and dimensional requirements established for the schools by the New York State Department of Education and Department of Social Services. And we do that. Such schools shall have at least 250 ft of frontage on an improved through or collector road as shown on the town's adopted town development plan. We have that maximum building area as a percentage of lot area shall not exceed 10% and the maximum building area plus paved area as a percent shall not exceed

20%. I believe we achieved variances for at least one of those before. And D all yard setbacks shall be equal to twice those required in the adjoining district but in no case shall setbacks be less than 75 ft. We're compliant with that and a buffer area of at least 20 ft in width containing evergreen landscaping or fencing as in the judgment of the board of appeals will be adequate to screen the use from neighboring residential area shall be required along any adjoining residential property boundary. So while none of that may seem to apply I just wanted it to be in the resolution so that no one can say when none of us are here 100 years from now that we didn't cover all our bases. Understood. We get back to that. Yep. Need a second. Roll call. Second. May got a second. Mr. Stern, yes. Miss Lee, yes. Mr. Van Loverren, yes. Ms. Black. Yes. Mr. McAllis. Yes. Good night all. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks so much. Extra plans. Plans. Oh, sure. As I say, you won't need them if you take. All right. in your area. Thank you very much. Thank you. Good night. All right. Should we see if she's ready to come back? Yeah. If not, can we can we do this where we make an approval and the condition upon or Well, here's the thing. Is the is the dumpster where it's located? We may not love where it is, but it's not like a it's not addition, but is that really within the scope of your conditions? That's that's the question for granting this variance that is well I think I think the original variance they've raised the concern when they were placing and looking at things about noise odor and the like and so this is an adjustment of that you could say as a condition they have to move it I mean that's that's just another

I in the first instance want to hear from the applicant you know because they I understand the problem with accessibility maneuverability and the like um that comes up they have to make sure the dumpster can be emptied by the trucks and but I would I think that there's probably another location on the site that could facilitate. I was going to say if anybody's more aware of that, it's Lara Brun who's got horses herself. For your education, a typical 1,000 lb horse produces roughly 50 pounds of manure per day, which is nine tons per year. Oh my god. Yes. Uh so my client indicated he doesn't have any issue with moving it to the south end of the barn. Okay. So long as it's by the barn so that because that's the convenient location to address the stalls. Would you mind just flagging that on the survey here and then she can add that in the file so that we have a record of where the applicant is going to have that move [Applause] take that and I'm going to pen. She's going to borrow 10. There you go. Thank you. Let me come up and see. So it be probably okay. All right. And if they could I mean I just like if they could plant what was originally promised um a screening and I would really appreciate if the drain was at least you know the didn't go to a box that was flowing. What's the drain you're talking about? Where's the drain? They were I think when they originally building all the the the house structure and whatever, they were asked if I can drainage in. And right now there is literally like I think it's like right here or right there. There's like a pipe that goes to like Vert. Is that it?

Yeah. PVC. And then it stops there and then what happen? But it stops there in like a cement box. So that when it's overflowing, it just starts bubbling and then starts, you know, going down towards me and through my paddic area. Then I get all the run off of the soil, you know, going through my So the d is rain rainfall. Yeah, rainfall. So it's coming I don't know where it's coming from, but it goes and it stops. It doesn't go anywhere. So So do you know what she's talking about? I I don't and frankly the resolution doesn't have anything about drainage in it. If there's other conditions and other approvals, then we'll certainly work with the building department on those. But so what what I suspect is probably in the planning board resolution, they they dealt with drainage in some way, shape, or form, and that's probably where that's coming from in some fashion. Again, we can look and see if there's any requirements with respect to drainage. If you feel that there's that the that the um property owner is is is channeling water onto your property, you need to deal with that with the with the building department. It's actually not the town's responsibility unless it's unless it was required unless they were supposed to construct it in a certain way and they didn't on those original plans, which we're certainly I think we we will definitely look at those. I'll have the planning department take pull those plans out. I just I just need to indicate to the to the to this board Yeah. that you know the in the guidelines for horse farm operations which this is you know and and the I just want to point out that that this property owner has been cooperative because they've been coming for site plan approval. There are indications that site plan approval is not even required for these types of operations. So, but we are more than I think the applicant said they are willing to implement any of the conditions that were part of that original um site plan approval back in 2010 and I think they're willing to do that. So, um of the approval I said we will look into any conditions if there is conditions that they're not complying with. We're certainly going to

to work on those be as the you know the reason we're here today is because we learned of an issue that's not my issue. I'm here because stuff that was promised was never delivered and I'm not going to get that done unless some there's some kind of hold up, you know, and that's my concern is that it will never get done. You know, it was promised. I understood that that the application tonight though is solely for the 4%. The building department has ongoing jurisdiction to review anything that's existing on the property and any conditions that may have been previously So the simple fact is if there was a condition imposed by any of the prior approvals those requirements remain in place. They don't dissolve because time has passed. They also don't resolve with the new owner. Correct. So I think with the board what we could do is we could just make note that the expectation is that all prior conditions of prior approvals will in fact be um confirm that they're in compliance with those and you know we can look at that the manure. Yeah. Well we have that here. Yeah. that's going to be part of it. I wanted to just note for the home for the neighbor here um because I've had this issue myself with the increasing amounts of rainfall that have happened and different conditions that are unrelated to actual development. There are unfortunately larger flows of water that were anticipated as certain con kind of um building constraints were put in place and protections. Generally, the law is that you're supposed to contain the water from your own property on your property. But where the developments have occurred and the rainfalls have increased such that those parameters aren't don't don't meet the needs anymore. There are instances where there are overflow and that winds up being a different issue than a non-compliant issue with a permit or with an approval because they built it according to code

but or the requirement but unfortunately global warming and everything else has changed what those parameters look like in real life. So I've seen it on my own site where I've had since I've been there you know over 10 years I've had an influx of flooding from the neighbors property. It's not they didn't do anything. They didn't change their property, but I had to add additional drainage and cultex to my own property to deal with runoff from their property, which is why we need less impervious service, which is why we're very sensitive to imperous service and the like. But all the same, if there is an excessive runoff problem, then you should contact certainly the the town and say, you know, there seems to be some type of issue going on here. I don't know what there is that. But if if the applicant is is channeling water onto your property that's not in compliance with the drainage plan, you need to raise that with them. It's not this board has no jurisdiction to say you can't have that water flow property. I have a suggestion for you. The watershed agricultural council went to Kristen Corolla's property, a nearby uh uh property, an act property and she had uh runoff because they have a slope. They paid for the installation of uh pvious pipe. There's a stream down there. They had to redirect it so it didn't go into the stream. they covered the the purpose of the ad council is that they want to prevent pollution of the wershed. So they paid, she applied and they gave the money to resolve that. So um it's certainly something maybe the owner would consider. Yeah. Well, I know there's definitely a water issue on that property because the the barns actually the slope. Yeah. Because the slope the barns owner has no water. So whatever happens with whatever owner at some point somebody's going to have to properly divert all the water so it goes away from you know the barn and you know because I always felt like my understanding is if you're going to build a drainage system you're going to have to make sure that you know where that water you have it go to the lake or

you know like I I don't think of a drain going to a box a box it it depends see so there's cult. There's different types of cults that are built over the years and they're intended to hold the water and allow it to filter naturally back into the ground on your site. But where the cults overflow because the water rate is so high coming through or it's more than it can handle, then the cults overflow and that's not their intention, but that does happen. If there's more water than what they can hold um and also can be sediment it could be sediment captured in there that could be pumped out. It's not difficult. Um So anyway, some hopefully maybe easier solution on the No, on the whole thing. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I can make it. Yeah, because you can you've covered it nicely. Um I don't believe we close the public hearing. Thank you. You're welcome. So I didn't close the public hearing. No, we left that open and now we can do that. Um can I have a motion to close the public hearing? I'll make a motion to close the public hearing. Second. All those in favor? Public hearing is closed. Thank you, Howard. All right. I would move to approve the application. Um, as noticed, I will say the benefits off by the applicant cannot be achieved by another means feasible to the applicant. As we've heard, there's in fact no new construction going on in the site. And I would really garner this as more of a correction of prior calculations for coverage. And um there will be no undesirable change to the character of the neighborhood or detriment to nearby properties. Again, this is a correction of calculations that we're looking at here. Um, that being said, to the extent that there are prior approvals by the town uh, planning board and by the zoning board that had certain requirements as part of those approvals, um, this approval is still conditioned on compliance with those prior conditions of approval. And in fact, and one of the modifications here

is that the existing dumpster from newer will be moved to the south side of the barn as is shown on the plans and was agreed to by the applicant. So hopefully that will be less disruptive to the immediately abuing neighbor and hopefully will improve in fact the uh the impact of the this particular property and functioning on the neighbor's property. Um so in that sense the variance is is somewhat successful here in that aspect. The variance itself I would say is not substantial. It's a 0 2 correct and again I look at as a correction. There's no new construction or modifications going on site that are triggering this. The variance request will not result in any adverse physical or environmental effects the neighborhood or community. There's no physical changes to the property going on here other than the moving of the of the dumpsters discussed. The alleged difficulty um is not self-created um and it's only one of the factors to be considered by the board anyway in making its determination. Approval of the proposed variance is again subject to the following conditions. The applicant will use their best efforts to ensure that any requisite permits are secured within one year of the board's approval of the variance and then diligently pursue to completion. Um in this instance, the applicant does not need to submit a certified asbuilt survey. They submitted one as part of the application and there's no new structures or uh buildings or facilities going on on place here. We do make note that that the survey will reflect a dumpster in a different location, but that our meeting notes and the plan submitted today um to the board secretary reflective relocation or general area where the dumpster will be relocated to. So that will be an adjustment from the um filed survey uh for this particular property. Uh again, one of the aspects of the this approval is that all prior approvals and conditions of those approvals really um remain in place with the exception of an amendment to the prior 3.8 to allow for 4 4.0 in condition uh in coverage. But

to the extent that there are conditions that were required by those particular approvals, those conditions continue to remain in place. And we would ask the building department to look specifically into if there were any conditions regarding screening that need to be um looked at or confirmed on site as that's been raised by the neighbor as a concern that maybe that one wasn't fully complied with or that there were changes and so it's not in compliance at this time. So just ask for additional um look at that particular aspect of it. Um I think that's it. I'll second that. [Laughter] Mr. Stern, yes. Miss Lee, yes. Mr. Van Loverin, yes. Miss Black, yes. Mr. McAllis, yes. Thank you. Thank you. There's some extra plans if you want to take them. I'm waiting for you to go. I got it. I got it. You're talking, Jamie. I'll be talking to you. Navigated navigated well tonight. Yeah. I have two questions. Are we meeting Are we meeting in August? Um, no, we are we have our next meeting is now scheduled for Wednesday, September 10th. September 10th. The other thing is Peter is going to a forum to talk about zoning and these other just just brief us. I just saw a note about it and I know you said you were going. Is it to discuss zoning issues or I think it's to listen to what the town wants to do on July 22. That's the house. I think that's for housing. The housing. Exactly. They just they just asked dealing with the housing shortage and you know possible. So it's like a public forum. Yeah. Yeah. It's a public I don't know if the public is going to be participating. I think it's more of a work session where the where the town board's going to be discussing it with various like roadblocks housing. Yeah. or how how possible, you know,

zoning changes that we could that may be um implemented to address the housing, the parking issue and all that. By the way, I read in the police brought that the new building over here that something got caught in the elevator, they had the fire department had to come and take them out. The new building, I'm not surprised they want to close the meeting. Um we're going to close the public meeting. Can I have a motion to close the uh meeting until September 10th? So moved. All those in favor? I I