Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening, please stand for the pledge.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Good evening, everybody. Welcome to the planning board meeting of July 9th, 2026. I'd like to welcome one new member. Thank you. Thank you for joining us. First in the agenda for a public hearing is Liberty Bell Trucking. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to be heard on this applicant? Any comments from any of the consultants or the board? I have no comments.

There's some minor comments they still need to address, but it is on for a public hearing.

And they have addressed all the site planning issues, Mr. Chairman. Should we keep the public hearing open regarding the issues?

No, it's not necessary for that.

There is, and Paul had mentioned to me, you still don't have the drawings finalized that we asked for, correct?

Correct.

I'm okay to close the public hearing since there's no one there for that tonight, but you need to get them to us.

Yes. All right. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.

I second.

All in favor?

Aye. Thank you very much. So you want a resolution, Mr. Chairman? Yeah. So I would say we would withhold the resolution if we don't get the plans. All right. Fine.

We've got a little to do there, and we'll hold the resolution until then. Perfect. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the agenda is Putnam County Housing Corp. 11-17 Seminary Hill Road. Good evening, Joel. Ed, I believe you had some comments.

Yes, I do. The applicant proposes to convert the existing Putnam County Housing Corporation offices into three additional accessible dwelling units and relocate the rear access to the building for the housing corporation. The property is in the HMC zoning district. Dwellings in the HMC zoning district 156-36.13 are permitted. Principal use is allowed by special use permit. Conditions 156-36.13 A through M must be adhered to. There's a note here to provide floor plans, which Joe provided. Second request, provide lot coverage. 45% is allowed. A variance may be required. The architect claims only 28% lot coverage. Be advised, lot coverage includes paved areas, patios, and sidewalks. It appears to be over 50%. Provide lighting plan for the existing lights. Variances are required for the following. However, additional variances may be required once all details are provided. No referral to ZBA until info submitted. Parking width required 10 foot, 9.5 foot provided, 0.5 foot variance required. Side yard, 10 foot required, 3.5 foot provided, 6.5 foot variance required. Parking space length, 20 foot is required, provided 19, one foot variance. Parking spaces, eight spaces required, provided seven spaces, variance of one space.

Ed, thank you. Rich?

So as Ed mentioned, it's conversion of office space to two new three one-bedroom apartments. Applicant needs to provide a water and waste order report. Otherwise, there's no comments as no real site work is being performed.

thank you rich and pat so the issue with this mr chairman is the building that exists today which they're not changing the footprint of was constructed under the prior zoning of the property the property has subsequently been rezoned to the new hmc zoning district And as Ed was indicating, it fails to comply with a number of the zoning provisions. Under the HMC zone, two dwelling units would be permitted in this building, seven are proposed, significant off-street parking, no usable open space. So those are provisions that were created by virtue of the HMC zoning district. Joel is reusing that existing building. So there's a tension between what was built, what's there, and what the code currently requires. So yes, in order for this to be approvable, it needs a bucket of variances.

Before I turn over to the board, Joel, do you want to speak, please?

Of course. As Pat said, under the new ordinance, there is now a whole bunch of conditions about 2025, about. that now are required because in addition to planning board approval, zoning board approval, you also have to provide a special permit for the project, too. Pat and I went over this thing very carefully over each of the units that are required. And there are obviously, in addition to what Ed said, there is a total of nine variances that would be needed. ordinance, even though I'm sure the town spent a lot of money and a lot of time, but nowhere in that ordinance did they take into account that there may be existing buildings that want to be converted. And so therefore, as Pat said, we have to meet all those conditions or we have to get variances. And if you look at my drawings here, we need approximately, well not approximately, exactly nine variances and it the ones that Ed said, plus the ones in that special permit. So that we would like to be able to go to the zoning board, because without those variances, there's really not much you can do, number one. And number two, as you discussed at the previous meeting, the use of the building, and we have to apply for grants. We're a non-profit, obviously. And the problem is, if we get the grants, we have to be so-called shovel-ready. And if we're not shovel-ready, we lose the grant. So we'd like to get the process moving. I don't think there's anything that any of the consultants said that's not usable. And I think the upgraded and revised site plan basically covers all that, On the cycling, you have the list of the nine variances that are required, some from the zoning code and some from that special permit requirement, which has approximately, I think there's about 25 different conditions that have to be met.

Pat?

Yeah. So we would like to go to the zoning board and find out if we can get the project going and get the variances. There's nothing on, as I said, as Rich said, there's no site work to be done. Basically, the building is there and everything that's being done is interior work. And we'd like to get moving and hopefully if we get the grant, we want to be ready to accept the grant.

One thing that stands out is we don't have a water and wastewater report on file from you. And our water is pretty sensitive in this community. We don't have excess water in most of our areas.

Well, based on the requirements for those three apartments, we're talking about approximately 330 gallons a day.

We do need a report on file.

Fine, that we can do. But at least let us go to the zoning board because, again, if we get the grant, we're not going to be ready.

So tell me why we don't have the water and wastewater report.

On my site plan, it says exactly how many gallons. I have no idea what the capacity of it is. If Rich gives me that, then I can do it. But we have 330 gallons a day, excuse me, and that's not a tremendous amount of water.

Rich, any comments?

Provide a water and wastewater report. Well, give me what the capacity is, and I'll give you a report.

It's a standalone document, not on your drawings. It needs to be what you have going on now, what it's going to be in the future. Just provide that information, please.

Okay.

That's pretty standard on all applicants. Comments from the board? I drove around there again the other day. You're really squeezing that property with seven units. There's not even, I don't even know where you would put a barbecue or a bicycle rack or never mind a basketball hoop. I don't know what, there's really not a lot of room there.

Well, I don't know, but it seemed that the last meeting, most of the board members seemed to think that we were doing something good for the community. I disagree with you.

I tend to agree with the chairman. You're asking to make the parking spaces smaller and shorter just so you can get the number in there, and then you're asking on top of that for a variance on the number.

Let me also add, and I think Pat will agree, that under this new code, they also allow street parking. So we would actually have three additional spaces. So in addition to the seven, we would have basically 10 spaces. And as far as the spaces themselves, we have had this building for over 40 years. And we basically, out of the four apartments that we have there now, there's never been more than one car in the parking lot. I agree. Again, 50 years or 40 years is pretty good. Again, we're located at the point where you can walk to shopping centers, walk to most of your things. I said we're trying to do something for the community. I really am disappointed that you feel that way.

I'm sorry. I don't think we disagree with you trying to do something for the community. That's absolutely needed and we want that. It's just whether or not it's the right fit and the right amount, right use of the space that's there. That's it. We'd agree something for the community is always good. But what is it going to mean when it's done?

Well, I don't know. The last meeting, you guys had a totally different opinion.

So, Joel, tell me, you have not submitted a lighting plan either, have you?

Yes, there's a comment on my, there's already lighting all around the building.

Have you submitted a lighting plan? Pardon? Have you submitted a lighting, Ed's comment says you've not supplied a lighting plan.

Well, we have the note on the drawing. I mean, I don't know, it's there, it's already existing. If it was new lighting, then we obviously would show what the new lighting is.

So you're not touching the lighting as it is today? No.

No, because it's on a sensor. So if a car goes into the property or if a person walks by, the lights automatically go on.

Ed, are you satisfied with the floor plan? This says provide floor plans for the second floor for clarification.

Yeah, he sent it to us. It looks good.

So then, in my mind, the biggest thing that we need, as Rich made very clear, is a waste water report.

Fine. You've talked about the fact that this is going to be affordable housing. Correct. Can you expand on exactly how that is determined, what numbers you're using?

This is Suzanne Broad, she's our Executive Director and maybe she can discuss how the rentals were described or determined.

I'm sorry, state your name?

Suzanne Broad, I'm the Executive Director of Putnam County Housing. We base our rents on, right now we are the administrator of the Section 8 in Putnam County. We also base our rents on 80% of AMI, so no one would ever pay more than that. The rents would probably be roughly around $950 a month. It is handicapped accessible, which we do not have here. I know that you're saying basketball courts and there's not enough areas for picnic tables. These apartments are going to be meant for seniors and disabled people, not those who have children and are running around.

So just to follow up on the money side, is this a statutory or regulatory definition?

So when I write the grant, yes, those stipulations are in those grants in order to get the funding.

Will they be in the site plan as well?

Will they be in the site plan? What, the rents?

no the your your standard for i don't know if we're calling this affordable or low income whatever it is they're affordable whatever the numbers are going to be in terms of percentage of what we can do basically is to uh i can give you a letter suzanne and i can write to explain exactly how the but I'd like it in the site plan so that so that yes let me finish let me finish I'm sorry so if the property gets sold at a certain at a future date and the next person is not interested in doing a lower income they're going to be bound by this or they're going to have to come back so that's why I wanted in the site plan

Your comment is perfect because I think you made the same comment at the last meeting. And absolutely, we have absolutely no problem with once we get the three handicap apartments, that will be in perpetuity. And anyone, if God forbid we have to sell it, that would be part of the condition that it remain that way.

And if that person wishes not to do it. they're not going to buy the property. So I'd make the point, if that's a condition of approval, and it is 80% of AMI, for example, that's forever. So if the 80% provision changes two years from now, and it's 82% or 78%, you would be stuck with that, and if it modified, you'd have to come back to the planning board for an amendment. So know what you're committing to.

Absolutely, no problem. And that could be on the site plan, and as Pat said, will be part of the approval.

And if you look at our track record and all of the units that we do own, you would see that that is what we commit to and have for the last 40 years.

And are these apartments only available for folks who qualify for Section 8? No. So anybody could rent? Yes. And be the same rent? Yes.

Oh, yes. Section 8 you would get more for if they did get that apartment, yes. But then they would only pay 30% of their income.

Right. Understood. Okay, thanks.

Suzanne, maybe you can educate me. I mean, I think we all like the idea of apartments and walking distance. We've been saying that for a couple of years now. Last week, Joel used low-income housing. Yes. Tonight, Bob mentioned affordable. One of my notes here says low-income versus affordable. Can you explain that to me?

It's really not much of a difference, I guess, just in terminology. Affordable and low-income, to me, is the same. Okay. Thank you.

Any other?

I just want to clarify. Who are you employed by? I'm sorry? Who are you employed by?

I'm Joel Berg. Grimberg is the president of our board and I am Putnam County housing, the executive director of Putnam County housing.

I'm sorry. I just wasn't 28 years.

So wait a minute, Mr. Chairman, just so you know, 42 years, the fact that they need a water and wastewater report shouldn't preclude them from going to the zoning board. If that's what the planning board wants, they do need to provide that. and they should probably provide a lighting spill plan even though it's existing lighting. But again, those two issues really are not relevant to what the zoning that he needs. So again, that's the board's decision. But as long as that information is provided, and it should be because we've asked for it a bunch of times, I don't see any reason why because of that you should hold them up. But again, board decision.

Agreed.

Any other comments from anybody? Questions?

I'm personally in favor of sending it to the ZBA as long as the file is complete. Like Rich just said, you submit the lighting plan, you submit the water.

We will submit that way before the zoning board.

Otherwise, we'll just stop it. No. Right? I agree. Anybody want to make a motion?

I make a motion to deny to the zoning board.

I second. All in favor?

Aye.

Thank you very much. Good luck. Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next on the agenda, S&S Holdings, LLC, to Dyckman Road. Ed, I believe you had a couple comments.

The applicant proposes to add an addition to the existing gas station on Dyckman Road and Route 52 in Carmel. The property is in the TZ zoning district, town commercial. Auto service stations are permitted. However, there are 13 conditions that must be met. The floor plans do not include enough information to determine conformity. The elevations do not include any details. Complete the submission showing compliance with 156-36.1 A through M. A variance is needed for lot coverage, 50% allowed, 54.3% proposed, 4.3% variance needed. Variance is needed for lot area, 40,000 square feet required, 20,005 square feet provided, 19,995 square feet variance needed. How did you compute the parking? Provide the calculation on the plat. The building sign does not include any dimensions. Are there signs on the canopy? Provide the details. Provide details of the dumpster enclosure.

Thanks, Ed. Pat?

So they've noted the comment to be referred to the Carmel Fire Department. The area of disturbance is less than 5,000 square feet, so they don't need to get a general permit. However, while the applicant has noted that common erosion sentiment control measures must be provided, must be shown on the drawing. Again, they may be required to supply a stormwater maintenance agreement. Applicant notes that the facility has been in existence for many years and the stormwater facilities have been maintained. Are there stormwater facilities there? You got to provide some additional info. You wrote that as a comment, but I don't know what's there. So if there's something there, then it should be shown on the drawing and we should know what it is. Again, performance fund engineering fee would minimally include those erosion and sediment control plans in any landscaping. And then you need to show those details of the erosion and sediment control.

What was the last thing you said? Show detail of what?

Erosion and sediment control measures.

Okay.

Thanks, Rich. And then Pat. So, Mr. Chairman, we had some significant criticism or comments about this project initially. Joel has made all of those revisions, the primary revisions. So if you remember, there was a secondary driveway next to an existing driveway. The parking didn't set up appropriately. All of that's been modified. That was presented to you at the last meeting. So the big picture issues have been resolved on this. He needs to go to the zoning board for at least those two variances. But you also have to grant, as Ed indicated, the special permit approval for this. And there's a bunch of criteria that must be satisfied. Joel's provided a narrative demonstrating some of that compliance. But is that indicated the floor plans necessary to confirm all of those so it could be that there's an additional variance or two that are necessary that's up for up to Ed to determine but he needs to go to the zoning board anyway so in this case most of the major changes have been made I wouldn't object to sending him to the zoning board if he needs an additional variance we'll just add it to the pile subject to Ed's Ed's review so that's where I am on this

Well, Mr. Chairman, this is very similar to the previous project we just talked about. Again, because of the new master plan, again, all those items that Pat talked about and that I discussed with him are basically related to a site that's vacant and starting to put up a new building and so on and so forth. It doesn't, unfortunately... have anything with regard to an existing building. All we're doing in this particular case is we're adding a small 15-foot addition to the building, and that's all we're doing. But as Pat said, some of the variants are just simple area variances, but some of the other variances are based on all those conditions for special permits. So again, we really can't go any further unless we know that the zoning board will approve all those conditions and plus the area variances that Ed mentioned. And I think I sent letters to all of you going through all the conditions that Pat and I discussed.

The problem with this file, if you will, is Ed's comments. The floor plans do not include enough information to determine conformity. How did you compute the parking? The building site does not include any dimensions. Are there signs on the cab? Provide details of the dumpster enclosure. It's just these nagging things that need to be closed on.

Well, again, obviously, when we come back to the planning board, all those items will be addressed. But without, again, this is not normal because not only do we have the area variances, but we have to go through all the conditions that Pat mentioned, and that's a lot. So if we don't get those variances, we don't have a project. So we'd like to go to the zoning board. And I think Pat also indicated that he had no problem going to the zoning board.

the signage issue just for less to zero in on one particular issue the signage issue could result in multiple variances no not just a single variance it's if there's several criteria that a sign must comply with you're also the architect And so it's not just send it off. It's the zoning board's problem. It's kind of your problem, too. So you need to be comfortable with whatever it is is suitable to you and then send it to the zoning board.

Just to answer that question about the sign, the sign basically is eight square feet. So I think we're well below the requirement.

Is there a sign on the canopy? Is it just a sign on the building? It's on the building. I can show it to you if you'd like.

So Pat, you mentioned that Ed needs to finish reviewing before he can determine if additional variance is needed. So my question is, will he be able to do that and let Joel know before the zoning board meeting, or should we hold off until Ed has a chance to review it? That's your question.

I can't speak to Ed's timing on this.

Excuse me, I think I can answer that question. Actually, at the meeting that we discussed. Joel's going to tell you, yeah, Ed, you're doing it tomorrow morning. Really? No, no, no. No, you know, that's not true. Basically, there was a meeting with Ed, Pat, and Mike at the time, and there was a whole discussion about how to figure out the parking. And I checked the new ordinance, and it specifically says in a grocery store or convenience store that it's one space for every 300 square feet. We have nine spaces, and we have more than enough parking. So the answer is we'll never need a parking variance.

No, I'm not talking about parking, you know.

And the same thing with the sign. Our sign is eight square feet, which is far below the maximum.

But my issue here is a little... My issue here is a little bigger, right? My issue is... You know, I don't want to get applications that are 90% complete. You know, we don't have drawings that show the details for erosion, sediment control measures. If the pocket isn't clear in Ed's mind, if the signage isn't clear in Ed's mind, if the lighting isn't clear, I think I'd rather these applicants be clearer and cleaner and more complete. And the last one, yes, similar. This one, I just want to set a precedent that we start getting more complete applications.

What would be the harm in going back and doing another turn of the crank to get these things out of the way?

The two things that you're concerned about don't need balances.

But we're talking rather than writing. And what is the problem in getting this down on a piece of paper?

They should be here now today is my point. Okay. No problem.

100%.

We gave grace on the last one, in my mind. We gave grace on the last one because if anybody up here is sensitive to the grant world and how terrible it is to live under that, I promise you it's two of us. I think that was grace that we gave on the last application. You could use the word precedence. That's a big word for me, Mr. Chairman, but yes. Otherwise, we're just sending everything 50% whenever people want to go 50%.

I think we need to cross some T's and dots.

No problem. Mr. Chairman, what I think we would offer is a sit down so everybody's on the same page.

If you need me to attend, I'm happy to, as you know that. Ray, are you okay with this? I agree. Does it make sense to you? Yes.

Yeah, no, that's fine.

Bob? Yes. All right. So, look, just get the application. There's these little nagging things, signage, lighting. Just let's close down on these things before they come to us.

Let's sit down together and go through the list inch by inch and mark them off and solve the problem.

Exactly.

No problem.

Thanks, Joe. I appreciate it.

Thank you.

Next in the agenda is 161 East Lake Boulevard and 728.6, residential site plan. We could probably discuss these two at the same time. And the following item on the agenda is 161 East Lake lot line adjustment. As we've done in the past, Joe, we could probably speak to these both at the same time right now. Ed, I believe you had some comments.

Yes, lot line adjustment. The applicant purchased a piece of land from the town of Carmel. He now wishes to merge this with 76.22-1-60 by proposing a lot line adjustment to transfer 147.16 square feet from 76.22-1-54. to 76.22-1-60 and merge 76.22-1-55 to make one large lot and minimal change to 76.22-1-59. The required lot area for the HMC zone is only 10,000 square feet. No variance is required for the lot area for any of the lots. No objection to the lot line adjustment. It is important that the lot line adjustment gets fully approved before the site plan is approved. Site plan comments. Is this project 100 feet from Lake Mayapac? Section 156-36.13b requires a 100-foot setback to the lake. Provide a lot depth and lot width lines on the plan. The lot depth line exists and reenters the property, variance required. The PE asks for clarification. The lot line clearly exits and re-enters the lot. Provide copies of any easements between the two properties for review by council. Variance is required for density. Six units are allowed, 10 are proposed. Variance for side yard, 10 feet required, 3.5 feet provided, 6.5 feet variance required. Verify the light coverage as defined in the code according to the zoning table, 5% variance needed. Please check the numbers prior to the referral to ZBA.

Thank you. Rich?

So the applicant has noted just all the comments that I have, the referrals, permits that are needed, water wastewater report where they're working with the county and they're going to have to get permission from the city. They have provided the stormwater pollution prevention plan, which is under review. We're not taking ownership of any management facilities. provided a copy of your maintenance agreement you've noted comments with regards to the performance bond a light spill plan has been will be provided in a future submission top and bottom of walls meet over five feet need to be certified by structural engineer applicant has noted that as the lot line adjustment has not been approved detailed comments will follow based on the planning board's decision with the lot line no comments from the engineering department on the lot line itself I did it backwards. Lot line, no comments. The other ones were for the site plan.

Thanks, Rich. And Pat? So we've been through this now a few times with the applicant. The issue that you left the last meeting with, that you're picking up tonight, is the density issue. So it's 6 to 10. That's really the last issue you have before you. And one other thing that I would raise, excuse me, is the revisions to Seeker. that have just been adopted. This project is now exempt from seeker review, so we do not have to adopt any seeker approvals for this project any longer.

Thanks, Pat. Let me turn it over to the board. Any questions here?

I've got one. I'd like to zero in on sheet two, if you can, of the drawings. Sheet number two.

Of the architectural or the site plan?

The site plan.

because you're covering the back of the phone.

So if I'm not mistaken, it's showing that the setback from the road from East Lake is 10 feet. Correct. Firstly, is that in compliance with existing setback requirements?

I'm sorry, I did not hear you.

Is that in compliance with existing setback requirements? no we need a variance a 10-foot variance so what is the requirement 20 feet 20 feet so this goes to the density issue um i was there today and i was looking at the building to the right as you face your property and i marked off i did paste off with my feet so not exactly accurate but But that building is at least 20 feet from the road and probably a little bit more. So if you did 10 feet setback, your building is going to be jutting out. We're not going to have a clear sight line. And it also looks like sardines packed into a tin at that point. And so I would urge that you move back to the same distance as the building next door. Okay.

It goes to the density issue, right?

So I agree with everything Bob was saying. And I think also with the density issue, The building is very wide. I mean, there's very little room for cars for ingress and egress. It just seems like you're really trying to put a lot in a small space. I mean, personally, I don't know how everyone else feels, but personally, I think that 10 units is a little much for there. It's a proof. Six is what the code would allow. I think that's probably the number we should be looking at. Then we wouldn't have all these issues with the lot line and cars going in and out. That's my feelings. Vicki, any thoughts on this?

Yeah, I remember talking about that as well, about whether or not you can cut it back from the 10 to 8 or 6, only because some of the things Bob said, how much bigger is it than the other buildings, you know, the difference, you know, spaces around the building. So is it possible? I mean, I know it's redoing the plans, but is 8 units even feasible for what you're looking to do?

Clearly at this point the applicant is hoping to get 10. Eight is possible, six is possible, but at this point he's trying to forward a 10-unit plan.

Right, and that's for what reason? Why 10 over 10?

Well, he thinks the return for him works best at that density.

It's going to be tight.

John, any comment on this? This is one of those cases where I see both sides, right? It just feels like it's the second or third application in a row where it might be just... almost too much for that bag, right? Where the rocks are more than the bag. I can't say I like eight, I like six. I'd have to see it or at least draw it myself, but turn radius, you know, that ingress, egress, like Ray was saying, a lot of it does worry us. I'm not sure where I stand.

Thank you, thanks. Joe, can you come back with a drawing for six but also eight? I don't want to just spend a lot of money and a lot of time on it. If you can come back with something on that.

A six and an eight or an eight?

Well, let's see. Are you okay if we see if the eight works first? We want to work with you, right? We want development. I think it's a great use for that space. Maybe you come back with an eight and we'll see if that flows better. don't want to force a six if if 10 is your sweet spot well maybe there's a compromise there i'd like to look at the eight if it's not if we still the density problem so be it um but maybe we won't i think uh you've heard from everyone on the board tonight that 10 is probably too much maybe six isn't enough to to make a profit um Would the board be satisfied to look at an 8, not lock in on any number, just at least look at it? Let's see what it looks like.

Yeah, absolutely. It's the aesthetics, too. And like Bob said, it looks like sardines almost. So if it could be spread out a little more or pushed back a bit, that might do it. So if we could do 8, I'd like to see that.

I just want to point out, comparatively speaking, this building compared to the building to the right is about two-thirds the size of that. that building that building next to is much that one comes i believe all the way to the setbacks the rear yard and the front yard where this one doesn't and that building is deeper than this building wider than this building so do they have more lot size what's that do they have a greater lot size i'm sorry is their lot size bigger It may be, but I'm just speaking from an aesthetic point of view.

Because when I was there today, I was looking at the driveway, which, you know, it's hard to visualize when you're looking at your plants on paper. But the perspective I had was that their driveway area is more spacious than yours. So it tells me that their lot is probably a wider lot.

It most definitely is a wider lot. Yeah. But they also... um have a park have a parking lot along that North property line right where we don't we don't have a parking lot there the parking lot's in the rear but you know here's my concern if you're if you keep it at 10 and you're 10 feet from the road

And this is a mixed, what is it called? Mixed use area. So what happens if the lovely home next door gets bought out by a developer, and then they're going to go and they're going to say, well, you gave this guy 10 feet from the road. We want 10 feet from the road. 10 years from now, we may have a bunch of buildings of this type 10 feet from the road. I don't think that's what we want. Okay.

And is it more the 10 feet or is it more the density in your mind? If we were to move it back to another 10 feet?

I think eight is the right number without seeing it on the plane.

Understood.

Let's see if eight works with traffic flow, layout, X amount of feet from the road. I walked the property yesterday actually. Does that sound reasonable?

Quick, just one question. If you were to make it 20 feet as opposed to 10, which means pushing the development back a little bit, what's the downside for what's in the back?

It's going to push the parking lot further closer to the parking lot of the shopping center behind it.

So you're not losing spaces, you're just pushing?

Yeah, I can't say offhand without actually testing that, but that's a possibility. Okay.

Joe, thank you.

Thank you. Good night.

Take care, Mike. Rose distributed the minutes of June 11, 2000. And Bob wasn't at the meeting.

So I abstained from voting.

But I did review them. Someone like to approve the minutes?

I will make a motion to approve the minutes of the June 11th meeting.

Second. All in favor? Aye.

I'll make a motion to adjourn. Second.

All in favor? Aye. Good night, everybody. Thank you.