Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Welcome, everyone. It is June 3rd, Wednesday, 2026. Town of Chester Planning Board is now in session. So for attendance tonight, we have Chris Steers. Present. Mike Mallon. Present. Mike Popoloski.

Present.

Don Higgins.

Present.

Laura Mosier. Present. Myself. And we have John Queenan for our engineer. And James is sitting in for Dominic as our attorney. So if we could all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. So did everyone get the meetings for, I believe it was for February and April. Maybe we didn't have a meeting. So everybody received the minutes and was able to review them. someone want to make a motion to adopt the minutes from both february 2026 and april 2026 and no minutes for may 2026. i can move to adopt both of those second bye bye all in favor so for tonight what we are doing is we are going to review the zoning amendments as provided to us by the town board as you may recall we did the review in fall of 2025 where we went through them with liz and now these amendments are just the refinement of the initial ones that we did with them So what I feel like we will do, everybody has had them in their possession and been able to see them and kind of go through them. I think maybe what we'll do is we will go through them and when, you know, just the ones that have a red line to them, otherwise we've already seen all of it. And we can have a discussion or if it's something minimal like, you know, an addition of a word or something like that, we can go kind of cruising through it. but I feel like if we go through them all, we'll have some kind of idea if anyone has. Okay, so let's see, Melissa will come up and she'll be able to put them up on the board for us.

tourism. Yeah.

So in agritourism, I guess the I'll read the part that has changed. And we can kind of go from there. Examples of agritourism include we're not limited to produce picking and the like hayrides, craft wineries, breweries and distillery, farm tours, farm to table dining experience and farm festivals designed to support on site farm operation. Craft wineries, breweries, and distilleries have production limited to, and I'm sure she sees that typo there where it needs to be separated, to 250,000 gallons per year for wineries, 75,000 barrels per year for breweries, and 75,000 gallons per year for distilleries. I think that they're trying to emphasize the onsite part and for some reason adding the limitations to how much the volume is. So I'm sure that it came at some kind of calculation, but are there any questions to that or concerns that it's... Are the facilities now conforming to this? Not that I'm aware of. I believe that this is something new being put in place, or at least it wasn't in writing of what it is, but we can definitely double check. There might be New York State mandates too as well.

Okay. I think there were some New York State level legislative changes or permissions that happened that resulted in all these craft breweries proliferating, which, you know, it's a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

And the multitude of them that are popping up, that it's better to have a handle on it than not. and onsite, I mean, but are not limited to produce, but they are designed to support onsite farm operation. I guess they're also trying to kind of rein in what agritourism really is. because it's kind of loosely defined now, I think.

Is there a zoning category? So when I read through the rest of this, I didn't see that this is necessarily a special use or anything weird. Is it included in one of our zoning categories?

I think it's in the agricultural zoning.

Okay.

But unless it has a special use, but I didn't see it in the special use either. So I have a note to ask Liz if that is.

will definitely ask her for that but this version so it's not like the um it's not like uh rush rushing duck or something like that this those are standalone special uses or whatever that goes with right this is a use that is connected directly to a farm operation right okay gotcha thanks as far as i the way it seems like it yeah

Okay. But there is a question here from Tim Barg.

It's just a brewery. It's not agritourism. Got it. Okay.

Okay.

Cool.

But maybe Longlock is agritourism.

Grow their own hops.

Oh, yeah. Okay.

All right. So, okay.

That would be a good way to do it. Okay, good. Okay.

Also, I think these are big, really big numbers. Yeah, I've got a barrel, a barrel of one in the growing industries, 31 gallons. That's, that's a lot. I was going to say, are they numbering them as they come out?

Right. As a business, they should have an idea what they produce.

I was going to say, they probably publish that somewhere.

I mean, they have to track it, you know, but it's a lot. You get a microphone too, dude.

When you're looking at providing special use permits in the future, site plan amendments, these types of production limits could possibly be worked in as conditions of the approval again, to commercial brewery, imagine one of them wants to convert to the next Anheuser-Busch, it gives the planning board a way to come back in and put a cap on it.

Gotcha. No, that's, it's decent. And I wouldn't be surprised if some of those numbers come from that state legislative track, you know, that kind of thing that allowed these things in the first place.

I would think that it originated there.

Yeah.

I would think so. Yeah. Some kind of tracking and let's hope they do keep track, but it's,

only going to come up if there's a problem it's true that's right this is just this just keeps the honest people uh in check right okay so then we're going down to page five it is uh

So method of harvesting where substantially all trees on an area of land in excess of one acre are removed. Clear cutting is prohibited except where it is associated with land disturbance activities within the limits of disturbance shown clearly on approved site plan, subdivision plan or land disturbance permit. So I guess the addition was the nexus of one acre and the addition of the land disturbance permit. So it's not only on an approved site plan or subdivision plan, it's now classified on the land disturbance permit, which is generated, I'm sure, through the building department. But it has to be coming from a site plan, I would think. Well, maybe not.

No, it looks like a land disturbance permit could happen independently.

You could do all three. So you could do an approved site plan or approved subdivision plan or a land disturbance permit.

So you don't need a site plan approval to have a land disturbance permit.

No, but the permit, that permit, as I read through here yesterday or Monday, I guess I was reading that part. That requires a good description of what it is that you're doing. Correct. Yes.

That's a permit that goes to the building department. Building department. And then the building department, they feel that it's a bigger permit than they're anticipating and they could forward to this point.

So does anybody have any problem with the addition of that permit or the excess of an acre?

No, I'm curious about the choice of an acre as a measure. Do you know what that was, John?

Yeah, that's the trigger for state stormwater speedies permit. Ah, okay. One acre or greater would trigger that.

Okay. Could you repeat that, John?

I'm sorry. Anything over an acre, an acre or greater, requires a New York State D.C. stormwater speedies permit. Anything less does not.

That's where they got that from. Okay. Is there a definition of what they're calling a tree?

So if we go down further, they have some kind of tree description, which doesn't really make sense to me because it's a three inch to five inch caliber tree, I believe. And it's three feet tall. If a three inch or five inch caliper tree is three feet tall, we have a problem. No, no, no. It's where you measure the diameter.

Yeah. I actually have two, I actually have two comments about that exact measurement coming up. Yes. You know me. I've got that, but we'll get there. Yeah. Yeah.

I have notes. okay so we're going there's nothing for liz to once we'll get down to the um clarification of the trees maybe we could tie it back into there and then in the cluster development right here below it uh residential development that modifies the lot dimensional air and area requirements in the town of chester zoning code for the purpose of providing open space to the town consistent with the comprehensive So the addition of the word open space, which is definitely a perk of a cluster development. So that wording was missing, that's why it was added in, something that needs to benefit the town before allowing cluster development. Any problems or concerns with that? Not at all.

okay so we're going to page 11. oh and before we go past before we get there i do have a question only because i saw them referred to later in the document but since this is the place where there are definitions i'm wondering if we should have or if somewhere else there is a definition of what a flag lot

There is in there and the allowable amount of flag lots or where flag lots are allowed. I believe that it is in there.

Yes, that I saw, but it doesn't define what makes a flag lot. Like, is there a width, a length of the flagpole? Is there, you know, do we care about that? And there's no definition for it. So that's a note that I have. Well, it might be, and that would be fine if it's somewhere.

We are on page five.

So that was a note that I had on there.

So we can always flag that to her, too. We can go through and see if I'll reread and see if I see it in there prior to.

I just found it. It's wording a little weird. It's lot, comma, flag, or rear in the definition. Aha.

Okay. Okay. Thank you. Great. So that would be in the O-O. Oh, look at that. Duh. I didn't even notice. Thank you very much for that. Excellent.

Okay. So we won't flag that. Nope.

Don't flag it. I'm good.

And I will X out my comment because we're done. Perfect. Okay. So moving to page 11, I believe.

Sorry, I missed that. Yeah, I'm just trying to bring up the page.

So under hotel, a building or group of buildings or any part thereof which contains living and sleeping accommodations for transient occupancy with principal buildings having a common exterior entrance or entrances and which may or may not include dining facilities and which group of buildings may also include individual detached units with separate exterior entrances, example cabins, on the same lot. This term shall not be deemed to include an inn, bed and breakfast, boarding house or other such accommodations. So I guess that it's just trying to elaborate or be more specific on what a hotel or a group of buildings is, giving the entrance types and different entrances for it, but also taking out bed and breakfast, boarding house and inns. Anybody have any concerns with that?

Is there any kind of historic example or thinking behind this that made this

made it important to make this very specific i mean is there an incident a precipitating incident i don't think if there's a precipitating incident but there probably is something on the horizon they're trying to make sure that there are t's crossed and eyes okay that's fine up in fishkill i believe there is a project like this that is one larger hotel at the center of the lot and then cabins around the surrounding area so that would seem to fit this definition so i

I would guess that if the town board is seeing these pop up in other areas, that they'd want to get it expanded into our code.

Right. That's what I think that's generating. Sometimes up in Gardner, there's a glamping resort, you know, yurts or tents or whatever. So, yeah. I was just wondering if there was anything specific that had happened.

And they can only serve 75,000 gallons of stuff.

Okay, we're good with that one.

Page 13. Livestock. Okay, livestock. Cattle, sheep, horses, goats, and other domestic animals ordinarily raised or used on a farm. Very good with that definition. Sounds pretty straightforward. Yeah. So moving on to lot, one or more contiguous parcels of land united by common interest or use considered as a unit designed to be used by one use of or structure or by a related group of uses or structures and the accessory uses or structures customarily incident thereto, including such open spaces as are required. A lot may be or may not be in the land shown as a single lot on the duly recorded plat or other official record.

the term lot includes the words plot or parcel so i'm going to leave to james and let him take that law kind of terminology yeah so the the main difference i'm seeing is they remove this section having not less than the minimum area and width required by the regulations of the district uh it seems that they want to scrap that so that if an applicant is before the board and you know it's not uncommon for a developer to block by up neighboring parcels with the intention of coming for the board to put together a lot line change to consolidate the parcels so it seems like that's what they wanted to get here um it seems to accomplish the same goal because even the the previous definition has not necessarily coincident with a lot or lot shown on a map of record So I believe the inclusion of common interest or use also sort of gets to the ultimate purpose that if somebody's buying multiple parcels with an intent purpose of developing a certain way, that's gonna be their sort of end to getting into this definition of lot, regardless of what the bulk payables or how big the lot is. But ultimately, it's not gonna have a huge application with how the town or this board specifically does its business.

Would it also apply to a situation where a developer would say doesn't want to merge the lots together, wants to keep them as separate parcels, but does an application and wants the board to look at everything he or she owns? the area that they need to develop. So if they gotta meet some kind of bulk requirement, I've seen situations where some towns will have a, what's called a zoning lot of record where you'll have smaller parcels. Usually I've seen this on big commercial projects where you'll have multiple small lots, but they want the board to consider everything they own.

That's what I think this does is that what really stuck out to me was the, in that first sentence, united by common interest or use. So the common interest there, interest as the legal term is often used to represent your ownership in something. So that situation you described with a lot of minute lots, but an applicant wants to get everything under one cover. I think that's what this does here.

But still keep them separate.

Exactly. On the actual tax map, the lots can stay separate, but as far as the board is concerned or the ZBA,

Okay, so we're good with that.

Okay, so then the lot area.

An area of a lot which does not contain slopes of 25% or greater for a contiguous area of 2,000 square feet, federal or state wetlands, water bodies, floodplains, or restrictive easements which limit use. Minimum lot area identified in the schedule of use and area requirements is to be buildable. So I guess the operative word is buildable, right? that those requirements need to be met in order for it to be, right? Any concerns, questions with that one? So 18, yeah. Principal building use. principal building or use the primary purpose for which a lot or building is designed or used or in which the principal use is conducted. In certain cases, multiple principal uses may be located in a single building or on a single lot where such uses may operate in harmony with one another. Where more than one principal use is proposed, the cumulative minimum lot dimensions for each use So that's encompassing, if it has multiple uses, that all of those requirements are met for that single purpose or those multi-purposes in a single area, right? And I think further on, it's something that states about as being in harmonious too, right? So, okay. So no problems with that. No concerns. So then we're going to page 18, further down. religious institution, a church, synagogue, temple, mosque, or other similar facilities that are used for worship by persons or similar beliefs of similar beliefs and particularly adapted for the primary use of conducting formal. organized or regularly scheduled religious services, or secondarily for special religious occasions, including but not limited to funerals, weddings, or celebration of life events together with accessory uses, customarily incidental thereto. Religious institutions shall be subject to a special use permit as set forth in 9829 Section F of the Town of Chester Code, also known as place of worship. So I guess we get deeper into the use further on, but this is just kind of defining obviously for a definition of what a religious institution is or what is allowed at a religious institution. Any problems, questions? 20, page 20. Seasonal use or structure. Buildings or use is not intended for year round permanent occupancy. Pretty straightforward, right?

Good?

Here it is effective establishment of districts think it's page 29. Following the effective date of this chapter, no yard open space or minimum lot area required in connection with any building or use shall be considered as providing required yard, open space or minimum lot area for any other building or use on the same or any other lot space.

It's just saying you can't take one from the other. Right. Where you have what you have, you can't.

Yeah. I read it a couple times. Okay. We're good with that? Yeah. Accessory buildings, page 38. Mine's flag locked on 36. I have accessory buildings shall not be constructed within areas designated as a utility easement. Right. Is that what we all have? Yes. My only question about that is if the easement is viable or still in effect. Sometimes the easements, and it would be on the notice of the applicant to prove that that easement is no longer. That would be my only clarification, but I can, I mean, it's definitely a broader description or definition.

Yeah, they would need to get the easement vacated before they could say that.

Yeah, and it would be on them. It would be on them to prove that.

And you would think that would be a pretty easy burden for most of these applicants to meet when you're buying the land to get your title search done. And if there's any easement of record, you're at least going to have a record of it in your title search, or at least should not be too difficult to chase down if it's your own property.

Like they're abandoning the lines over Sugarloaf, right? So, I mean, they have to first abandon them and vacate it before it comes off of.

A lot of utilities don't want to do that because they might have future use. 100%.

They never give it up. Exactly. Oh, man. It's too valuable to give up. I'm sure they'll have to lower it.

Okay, so we are at five. I may have the wrong page number, so I probably shouldn't say the page numbers then, right?

I think what happens is I know that when I, when it was forwarded to me for some reason, I guess the margins or it was a little off. So I have different pages.

Okay. So I have page 40 issuance of land disturbance permit. But prior to that, yeah. 40 where existing and proposed topography based on a two foot contour. plan showed the winnie at all areas with grades of 15 to 25 percent grades 25 percent greater before we go if i could just add one thing to that section okay which is

letter a which is on my page 37 under land disturbance activities we should just add clearing and grading because it just says excavation soil mining and quarry just to be consistent it should just say clearing and grading all

And where is it?

Oh, at the capital A, not this one. Correct.

So where it says 9812?

Yes. Just add that just so it's clear. So you want to add grading? Clearing. Clearing or grading. Yeah, that's good.

I see it. OK. So you want to add clearing and grading.

Correct. We did have an issue in the past with that language by saying, I'm only clearing a grade and I'm not mining. Yeah.

Cool. And on H, for the existing proposed topography based on, I would suggest or like to see a maximum two foot contour interval. A lot of surveys nowadays are one foot. And sometimes you need one foot. But I don't see us wanting to prohibit one foot contours, right? OK.

So not just jump to two. We'll just .

Yeah, that's good.

OK. So we're eight. Okay, let's see, what page are you on? What page do you use? 38. Oh, performance standards.

Proposed grading and drainage plan including. Oh. Page 38, that's what I'm looking at.

Okay, so we captured that, right? We changed that. What page are you looking for? So some are on 38, I'm on 40.

You've got to go find them.

I think we're probably within a few pages of each other.

It's like 9812 Lannister.

So we address the one foot. We address Q for the 9812A, right? Yes, grading and clearing. So that would bring us down to maybe if I just keep forwarding offline. What were you referencing? Another section? Another section?

I think we were there, right? 98-12.

There at 98-12, yeah. I'm just going to scroll through so I don't miss anything since our pages aren't. Right.

They just stuck in the word by.

Yes.

A typo. Now I have a question on

as we go forward, it's on my page 45, but it's D, activities exempt from a land disturbance permit one. And I just want to make sure that I understand it. I made a note. So if you find that, it's coming up fairly soon. It is under, it's still under land disturbance permit stuff, but it's D one.

the capital D1. So depending on how this is.

Yeah, it should be, it's a couple more pages, I think. Okay, right there. You see D1. So what this is saying is that if it, these, I just want to clarify. So an approved site or subdivision plan constitutes approval of the land disturbance that is undertaken for that approved development, correct? They don't need a land disturbance permit. Correct, because that application would have before this point okay okay so then that that tracks back to what you said earlier which is that the land disturbance permit is a building department situation and it's generally not it's not for a site plan it's for just doing some kind of it could be it could be someone coming in saying i want to fill my backyard right you know it's three quarters of an acre they would file that disturbance permit with the building department and then they the building department would go through its review and if it determined that it was

too close to a stream or it was a very steep hill and they didn't want to make the determination, they could refer to this. Okay.

All right. So, but it also means that if you have an approved site plan or subdivision plan and you are disturbing land, you don't need a separate land disturbance permit as long as you're taking it, you're doing it in accordance with the approved plan that you have. Correct. Okay. That was all I wanted to make sure of.

So I think, well, I'm going down to page 58 in mine. So let's see where that lands everyone, which is.

I probably have something really, really picky just before that.

So red line, right?

It's actually not. So if you don't want to.

The problem with that is that. we were asked to do the red line.

Gotcha. Okay.

I'm not sure she's open. I'm sure she'd be open for discussion.

No, that's okay. It's, it's just, it's a, it's, it's actually a very picky grammatical situation. Oh, well, no, that now's the time to do that. And you see something grammatical. Well, it's, So, yeah, I mean, if you want to see it, it's one line, and I can just really quickly explain it. So it's under 98-13.1, Wetlands and Water Courses. And on my document, it's on page 52. It's D. 98 yep it's right under this so it's going to be um capital D paragraph under this section heading so whatever page it falls on okay right there so it says wetlands shall be no closer than 100 feet to a septic system drain field but we can't choose where the wetlands are we can choose only where the septic system drain field is so it should be flipped in other words drain field Septic system shall be no closer than 100 feet to a wetland. It just has to be flipped.

You must have been an English student.

Oh, John, he's giving me the evil eye here. I know it because he remembers what I used to do to all the reports at Lincoln.

We definitely recommend that. so that it reads correctly.

Yeah, I mean, everything else is in that format. It's whatever you're doing with the natural world, not the natural world has to be far away from what you're doing.

Well, that makes sense, so. You haven't lost this time.

I have not. All right, and that's, I think that's probably the last.

That was a good catch. Non-read comment that I had, sorry. That was a good catch. Okay, so buffer strips down to mine is, or no, no, we're above noise compliant. Right, performance standards, 58. Gotcha. I'm on 58. I don't know where.

I'm just scrolling through it.

Actually, a little bit before, a couple pages off. Okay.

Before that, they- Yeah, 55. 55. It's 58 for me.

You can work out a word on swing holes if you want to comment on that.

Oh, yeah, there was a, as such in 9818E. 18E. I didn't see the pool strike out.

Yeah, I think it was just a word out. 9816. So basically, E struck out the prior noise

definition and just added shall not exceed the standards that sets forth in noise chapter right right no question or problem with that right makes sense okay so then buffer strips go down a little bit and you're at b Okay, so unless otherwise directed by the Schedule of Use and Area Requirements, a side over your yard in an LB or GC district adjacent to a residential district AR3, SR1, SR2, or SR6. So I guess we're just elaborating so there's no question. She'll have a minimum width or depth of 50 feet. So I guess it's just an elaboration so nothing is missed.

Yep.

Right? Sounds good. down to see a side or rear yard and OP, IP or I district adjacent to a residential district calling out again and then corrected to 150 feet nearest, right? So she'll have a minimum width or depth of 200 feet of which the first 150 feet nearest the residential district shall be planted with a screen of evergreens. So, and down further, you see that the one was left out of the 150 as well. so that was the clarification of most of both right 50 feet any questions with it nope i look perplexed yeah really john what's up

that help or we can all if you only had 200 feet so wait a second let's go back so yeah oh there

maybe it's been a long day no go ahead what are you what are you thinking i get a little thrown off when it says that you have to have a minimum depth of 200 feet right that's that side or rear yard has to be 200 feet deep but the first 150 nearest the residential district so you're only left with 50 feet well

though i guess it's um more or less if it's going to be more than that they're trying to cover what it should be from a minimum it says the remaining 50 feet you can park and right oh within the side yard so our side or rear yard so you could so in other words you can use you can have a lot that has is required to have 200 feet deep side or rear yards you can use the 50 of those feet that are closest to your use for something associated with that use but the rest of the 150 the rest of the 200 the 150 has to be somehow a buffer now does that mean it has to be planted where and how much do you have to fill that 150 feet up I mean, is that where you're going with that? The first 25? Yeah. Like, where would the screen be?

Because the old version was, yeah, it was 50. So it kind of, to me, the lot is going to be, again, you want an increased buffer.

Right. That's a lot of buffer. 200 feet is a lot of, right. I mean, it's for OP, IP, or I. So it's industrial.

right or have a neutral screen however smaller trees okay i'm assuming because it is the opip right it's for that you know you'll have a sizable watt right

That's if they're adjacent, because the next one is if they are located across the street. Across the street, yeah. See, now that's... See, that one made more sense to me, because that's just basically saying you have a 150-foot buffer setback.

And after that, then you can do whatever you need to do. The other one would make sense if you have a larger piece of, if you have a... It's going to kind of be...

Correct, depending on... lot size and if you have residential i don't have any lots of components but you have residential on the side in the back in the rear you're going to have that you're going to be you're going to have a small building right right okay i mean we can bring it up to her it's definitely something we can or it's it's also one of those things that it's you know it's not a bad thing to have and as we get applications right at the moment we'll see how it applies yeah yeah

so then we're good with the ipo or i districts from the across the street right yeah that's fine yeah and then when we get to paragraph f which is the next one that's redlined right um

I actually want some clarification on that because my note, so it says where new residential lots are created adjacent to existing non-residential uses, it's asking for a landscape buffer. So my note here is the burden on this is on the new residential lot, not the existing non-residential use. So a newly created lot needs the landscaping. yes right and that's provided by the subdivider the lot owner somebody correct okay and what if and and so in this case we're telling a new residential lot oh you're next to this business area you have to put up a buffer on your property that's what we're saying here is that correct okay what if they don't care and don't want to put one there i mean i understand that we want to put we want to have buffers between non-residential and residential uses i get it but this one seemed weird to me because it was like well

if it doesn't bother you to be next to industrial buildings.

The only language you could put in there would be instead of saying a landscape buffer designed to satisfaction of the planning board, you could put in there a landscape buffer at the discretion of the planning board.

I don't know. I mean, talk about it. It just struck me as odd. That's all. Not that people don't want a buffer between something, but it seems odd that we're imposing something on a residential lot they already know they're going to be next to something because there's no way to hide that. I don't.

I like that word discretion, not satisfaction, giving the planning board the opportunity to, or to pose it to the applicant because they're driving force might be, they don't want to spend the money on the worker.

Or it's heavily wooded and they're not going to disturb the 20 feet.

It's kind of like Pond Road, heavily wooded.

Correct. Mm-hmm. Correct. Okay. That would ... and and the red line the red line part is that it it it also applies across the street right and so depending on the lot and the and the setback and all that they may not they might not want to put something in that area right along the street i don't know they might but discretionary makes me happy yeah that's a better better use of words thanks john that's good

um so so the attorney does they don't like that well i mean does it make sense yes chime in because if i'm just making problems shoot me down i think your point completely makes sense i don't think it's as easy as doing a clean swap between satisfaction and discretion okay like you proposed earlier sort of swap the sentence structure so maybe lead with the planning board and their discretion may require the rest of it because they're sort of like you said you're leading the planning because you can at that point you can even leave satisfaction in because it would be up to the planning board's discretion to even institute this requirement and then even if they institute the requirement you still have to be satisfied with the end result gotcha so i think you lead with the discretion and you can leave pretty much the rest of that intact okay yeah no i i think we're that's good thank you uh yeah it just seemed like a weird way to

And please don't just jump in, like, especially if.

I was mulling it over. You guys are so good. I'm like, what is the best way to word that? Thank you. I was cooking it up. That's good. Yeah.

Yes.

Yeah, exactly. 100%. Yes. That's what I'm thinking.

Oh, 100%. I mean, it sounds to me like the same kind of thing that you would put on, you'd put on note on a subdivision plan that's next to farmland and say, when you buy or off here, know that you're next to a farm and it's a working farm and you're going to smell manure and you can't come to us and tell us that that's wrong. But it's not...

correct way to do that then like you're saying that if the first owner sells it to the next owner and there's no buffer put in place there's no leverage for anybody then to make somebody do it it's true there's no leverage if you want to put it in

certainly could on your own on your own but you're also typically you'd say i don't remember that eyesore they should clean up their of course yeah i mean why didn't you do something how come you didn't do something how'd you let this go yeah right no i i just like quick flood things when the house floods why do you let us why do you let something build here yeah you got no control over that

Any wording for that?

I think I agree with that point. But I also think there's a little more, especially with residential lots, because I understand if there's a commercial use that the general public is accessing, they may have concerns about if you're in a floodplain. But as far as residential lot, like I do residential real estate at TradeGlobe, I would tell them, don't buy the house. If you don't like it, there's no screening. So I think with the residential lot, there's a little more room where somebody wants to come and complain. It's an easier answer to say. Sometimes businesses change.

nothing was used there. All of a sudden, they started bringing rail cars in, It's just one of those things where it could have been handled prior. If you have an opportunity to fix something before it can become a conflict with the next owner or.

Oh, yeah. I don't know.

So what's the worst that could happen to an applicant where to see commercially from the same? We'd like to have a 20 foot buffer, but they're already there.

and you're going to buy the house and you see this building.

That commercial use would have to come. Yeah, that commercial use would be back to us. It would. These are things that changed over time for that business. Right. You know, they've changed the lighting. We have the same, we have lighting orders and people are still changing the lighting without following the ordinance in some cases. And then you're going back after.

Well, then you have to, yeah, then there's a different kind of enforcement for that, right? Building department. Yeah, the building department enforces that. I mean, unfortunately, we can't prevent anything because we can't foresee everything.

know what you're talking about yeah and people with their houses they want to do what they want to do yeah yeah all right clarify things where you yeah the most the most clear

Yeah, that's true. Take vague out of the... Okay, we're on G. Is that where we are?

What are we doing? Are we leaving that in or are we taking it out?

So what I can do, what we can do as a board is we can give her all of our thoughts and let her decipher through. Sure. And James can come up with the wording for us and then we present it to her. We're going to present all of ours and then they will... take it take it under advisement yeah they'll put it to the test and see where it goes okay okay um so we're at parking areas for uses yep right so should such let's say should such use be subject to a larger buffer as set forth in 9819 the more restrictive standard shall govern so that's kind of leading back to that right so be as restrictive as possible

We have a problem with that.

This was just a wording, uses in the, right? And here comes Tom in perpetuity. So it shall be maintained by the proper owner in perpetuity as a condition of approval. We seem to do that a lot now when we're doing site plans, just so, but this will make it so it won't be missed. absolutely yeah that leads us 9820 is reserved for something don't know what that's for 9820 is a reserved right there it says yes section 9820 reserved for we don't know

laws right now for campaign signs.

The village allows a four by four sign. In town, I think it allows a four by eight sign. So there are differences in that type of signs.

And when do you have to go pick them up? Isn't that part of it? It's all part of it. I saw it.

It's here. It's in there?

Oh, yeah. It's there, right?

Yes, it's in there. campaign signs hold on i know it's there because laura knows it yeah no i i read it i saw it political campaign signs up to an area of 32 square feet and private property and removed within 14 days. My page is 69. My page is 69. Yeah, so 16. Is foot candle wrong?

Or technically they could have one sign of 32 square feet.

Right.

It's a big sign.

32 square feet, yeah.

we don't have anything we don't really have red line except oh illuminated by a hooded reflector unless okay and the illumination of signs in any district yeah right that's the next red line

with the illuminated yes I have 71 like Mike said it just clarified yep and then I go to 97

oh okay oh pardon me this is the trees this is part of the tree stuff let's see where did i have my notes i'm scrolling through my notes yeah i did that's not restrictions and procedures citing

Cross out the word. Features. Features.

Features. Which is that? Is that the D? That's D. Okay.

I have a highlight there that goes back to where? Shoot. I have a 2D. Oh, below. I'm sorry. All right. Where is that?

Oh, tree surveying. Right, right. Oh, so 9D3?

Yeah, I have, yes, I have. So under, I don't know. Page 91. All right, well, my page, now I'm nervous, but I missed the sound. No, no. Why is that on such a weird page for you?

Because I open up all the comments.

Oh, yeah. Mine did not.

I'm in pages, not words. So it did weird stuff.

But yes, that one thing. Because that says three feet. Yeah. But that's not the lowercase d. Yeah, lowercase d. measured at three feet which is which is what they call dbh no dbh is four and a half so this was 48. okay so we're at the tree survey part right yeah i'm sorry i'm not standing up for anything except to see what john's looking at but but Yes. So I actually looked this up because I wanted to make sure I remembered my forestry background. And DBH is measured, it's 4.5 feet. And so in one paragraph, we're talking about DBH for measurement of trees. And that's on my page 97, where features is a red line, right? and then in another paragraph a little bit below that there is a this is the tree survey and this is where jackie it says the diet type and diameter of every tree of five or more inches in diameter measured three feet above the ground and if there's a special reason for a difference between three feet and four and a half then that's fine but i don't know if there is Because the standard forestry measurement is DBH, which is 4.5. But if we know that we want to measure it at three feet for a particular reason, then I don't care.

I brought this up months ago, maybe last year. Same thing, it's three different numbers, three feet, four feet, and DBH. I thought maybe the tree law would rectify that, which is being consistent in here as well.

So what Dee is saying, Dee is just saying that you should be looking for trees to preserve that are 18 inches in diameter at breast height. So it doesn't give it a height of what DBH is.

No, but a forester who does the survey would know that it's four and a half feet.

So then when you move down to D in the same section under visual impact assessment, I'm sorry, tree survey, it's saying that you need to measure it was 48 inches now went to three feet yeah that's okay so if a surveyor reduced i would not be going down three feet to make i mean measurements are usually right exactly four and a half feet that's the that's the deal so yeah we should just recommend whatever whatever the forestry requirements for dbh yeah the standard dbh yeah per forestry requirements or policies or

approaches or what are you going to use it's not red line but to locate every tree that's five inches that's a lot of trees yeah i mean i'm i'm good i'm good with the 18 inch you know those significant trees right six inch well most of the codes are maybe i would say 12 yeah i would say 10 to 12 and up really you know if you have a wooded lot Mm hmm. Yeah, that's a lot.

Well, that ties back to the other comment regarding trees where what's the definition of a tree? Yeah. Are you worried about the little little guys where you're going to be there forever? Right, right, right. If you're looking if you're defining clear cutting.

Mm hmm.

Do you care if somebody blows through a bunch of little two inch trees? Exactly.

Exactly. Usually it's, I've just seen my experience, it seems like eight.

Yeah, eight inches and up. Something that's significant.

Yeah, that's a kind of...

I mean, what is the purpose of the tree survey? So that's for any site plan development, anything?

We don't do that for any or every, I should say, right? We recommend them usually for a wooded lot where the house is, where there's a very established wooded lot. Right. We don't usually recommend it all the time for a tree survey.

The whole thing seems discretionary based on our initial finding that proposed development could result in adverse visual impact.

so you're in the rich preservation district true true that's right it is there and so what it's saying is that you should be concentrating on preserving features trees 18 inches in diameter right along hedgerows etc and the same application subject to site plan or subdivision review the planning board shall review the applications within the ridge line preservation district simultaneously

the planning board makes an initial finding that the proposed development could result in an adverse visual impact on the ridge line it shall review and evaluate the following and then it's hidden gotcha okay so that only comes into play so that paragraph small d is only comes into effect if we as a planning board say that's going to have uh an adverse impact or there's a potential adverse impact therefore do a tree survey yeah and they're in the ridge line preservation district only in that district so it's narrowed in i still don't love five or more inches but or five inches i i feel like it probably could be the only way i could see that making sense is when you get up into those elevations the trees change true and usually

that you have growing up there.

And it's probably, they want to go smaller so that you don't end up saying, oh, I don't have any trees 12 inches up there. And then all of a sudden they're, they clear cut like right into the side.

Yeah. Okay. All right. I can see that. I mean, it's, yeah, it depends on, you're right. It depends on the trees that are up there because if you've got conifers, you know, if you've got certain kinds of spruces, then it doesn't matter how big they are. You take it down and there's a big empty space, you know, so. Okay, well, I just wanted to know about the consistency of those numbers. We should define it wherever the dbh is. Yeah, what dbh should be four and a half feet. That's based on the ingrained forestry knowledge that I have since I was younger than you. I only cut them down. Yeah, yeah, I know. I know.

So religious institution.

Oh, goodness. Yeah. All right. oh yeah okay wow yeah okay yeah I mean oh yeah what do I oh I do have this may not be the place to ask this question but I did have a question in the under the short-term rental section that I went flying by um but this is probably it's not really for the planning board it's for the town board but I so I don't know if anybody cares so we can pass by it I'll ask I'll ask the lawyer in a sidebar that'll be after the meeting I'll ask you offline first so yeah because I'm curious about this one thing

All right, so religious institution, whichever page it lies on everyone's, right? Right. So a religious institution is presumed to be in furtherance of the public health, safety, and morals of the town, a presumption which can only be rebuted by a substantial showing that the religious institution at a particular location would actually have a net negative impact on the surrounding neighborhood, where it is found that the religious institution imposes, among other potential negative impacts, A significant traffic congestion problem that jeopardizes public safety based on an analysis of traffic issues, including but not limited to sight distance, a substantial adverse effect on surrounding property value, a significant overtaxation of basic municipal services, and or a cognizant, I can't say that word right, and substantial fire or other emergency risk. where it may be shown that a proposed religious institution will sufficiently detract from the public's health, safety, welfare, or morals. An application for a special permit to establish or expand the institution may properly be denied by the planning board. In less adverse cases, appropriate restrictions may be imposed in the form of conditions to be attached to the grant of a special permit limiting either the extent of the religious or educational use itself, or the nature and or extent of its proposed accessory uses, if any. In any event, such conditions shall be reasonably drawn to counteract the deterious effects of the public's welfare, but not by their cost, magnitude, or volume, operate indirectly to exclude the religious or educational use altogether. And the coverages follow, not to exceed. and that shall have a minimum of 250 feet frontage on and suitable access to a public road. So that's a lot. Basically leaving the discretion to the planning board, if it's a detriment or if it has negative impact in various

This is tricky.

Yes.

So I'll let James go. What a presumption is is essentially there is a presumption of innocence here in line with first amendment religious protections there is now a presumption in favor of the religious applicants saying that their use is proper it is only in cases where the planning board is concerned about the impacts to traffic surrounding property values over taxation municipal service or one of those other risks it is on the planning board it's not really up to the discretion that planning board pretty much do whatever it wants as long as it was not outrageous it's a little less it's a little more limited here you have to give a showing does it give a substantial showing yeah um so it puts the pressure on this board to say if you want to deny religious use you're better It gives you the output restrictions on it, but it is important in the second piece of that added section, but not by their cost, magnitude, or volume, operate indirectly to exclude the religious or educational use altogether. So an example there is, say, For example, say you're concerned about a megachurch coming in and you're concerned about the traffic. So you say, okay, I want you to put in all these new traffic control devices on 17M, that's gonna cost you $1 million. There, the magnitude of that condition would be found to be so excessive that you're excluding it altogether. Yeah, you can practice your religion if you pay the town a million dollars, less of a choice. So the test, if this ever got brought to a lawsuit in First Amendment law, is you need to provide reasonable avenues for the practice of the religion. So you can still impose these restrictions for reasonable time, place, and manner with the public concerns as they're listed here, traffic, congestion, things like that. but you still cannot eliminate the use altogether without getting into those sort of tricky first amendment.

So it will give us avenues to not restrict, but to impose certain conditions.

I think restrict is an okay word. You can restrict, but not exclude.

It gives you tools.

and you can control some things right because you know the residents around are going to have issues with it and you need to have some tools to work with to guide yourself i think the difficult one to prove is property value how do you existing properties there how do you prove that you detrimentally

Does this still give us the freedom to compel escrow to order studies? So the phrase here, where it may be shown who is showing it.

ah so in other words if there's if we're concerned that there's a traffic impact then we could request that the applicant do a traffic study and they normally do that right they would have to foot the bill is that what you're asking yeah and in some cases the escrow is so that we can order it not them ordering

So they order somebody to provide a favorable report.

We will then bring in our own traffic person and for him to do his own traffic study. they can bring in their person, but usually correct me if I'm wrong, that it is up to them that they still have to pay for that.

Correct. Yeah. Same thing with land values, right? We could have appraisals done, right? We could do that. That's true. Appraisals throughout.

I would think of maybe if somebody has a very scenic residential lot and somebody wants to throw up the mega across the street that's a hundred foot tall skyscraper, you know, affecting the property values based on the surrounding view. I think that would be a compelling case for the property value argument. But as John said, this is going to be a very strict case by case basis, especially with religious uses. You don't want to get into sort of the shoehorning these into categories. And I think that's what these changes do. It gives you the tools to sort of look at it case by case.

we're concerned with these with issues a b and c on this project but not on the other right and and you will process these applications like any other site plan application that comes before you so traffic is a concern lighting is a concern drainage they have to do the same studies that than any other applicant would be required to do it's just that our burden of proof or that though the amount of restricting that we can do is

is well it's clearly defined that it defines yeah authority right but not prohibit correct yeah i mean it's part of that law yeah and that's sort of in line with larger first amendment religious protections laws and case law on the books already so i think it just sort of keeps the town in check to make sure we're not strange it's far outside yep so we're good with the wording yeah

Our attorneys are good with it. We're good. I'm good with it.

Accessory uses. I'm on. Page 112 with the alternates.

We have, yes, and I have 124 on mine.

for the majority, once in a while.

Oh, I don't know, majority. But yeah. Yeah, there's quite a few. There's a lot of red text here, but.

This wording makes sense, right? Mm-hmm. Not an issue? Yeah. That the certificate of occupancy shall not be granted? No, I think it's all good. Yeah. Okay, no problem with that wording. Okay, and down to 13, kitchen equipment.

Yep.

That's fine. Makes sense and compliance, right? 16?

Yeah, I think so. Let me ask one question about 13. And this is more of a legal I think, getting at it says such equipment shall be utilized only for the preparation of foods to be served on site.

I thought about that too. But I think that when they're, it's a different application of say, like Meals on Wheels and that type of thing. Okay, that's a different use. It's not

this is solely for right okay yes yeah because i was wondering you know soup kitchen or you know uh the meetings of the church or whatever and that's all on site but if they're doing something where they're going to take food to people you know and distribute it but if there's a different way of of covering that that's fine i think that's correct

Because my reading, because it's all under the religious institution subheading, and religious institution, I believe when it was in the definition section, it referred to regular on-site worship services. So I think it sort of matches up with the earlier definition. As has been said, if they're doing some type of Meals on Wheels program, that's not necessarily related to their religious services that we're holding on site. So I don't think that would really be a concern in this section. Gotcha.

So kitchen equipment at 13 is fine? Check. And 16, maximum height?

On 16, I just had, is there a maximum for the...

the spires and the it says it doesn't say it says it's not shall not apply to them so you can have like skyscrapers to john's point you could do a separate it was a separate edition that the maximum height of the building does not include the spire but the spire itself may not be larger right so i'm going to put a hundred foot spire on it exactly this would be exempted you could separately regulate the height of the cupolas, domes, or similar pertinences.

Or if you want to put a figure to it, which will not exceed 120 feet of heartbeat. only reason i bring it up is in another town this language was in here and they they had a they ended up with like almost 140 foot tall spire no kidding well yeah exactly exactly the only other thing i would caution on this one also is for human occupancy and again in another town similar language there was a building that exceeded the height and it wasn't going to be occupied by humans, but by robots. And they use that clause said humans, there's no humans with a religious institution or with.

Yeah. Well, okay. Okay.

So I would just put not use for any occupancy.

Hmm. That are not used for human occupancy. For any occupancy. Correct. OK.

I think.

OK. That are not used for occupancy. Interesting. OK. Funky.

So we're either going to have to come up with a recommendation for that height of a spire, or we're going to have to say not to exceed a percentage of the height or something.

The two uses I've ever done, they were about 100 feet.

OK.

the one was pushing 17 the Planning Board may impose good right and 18 within the exception of waivers to New York State Uniform Code mm-hmm discretion to weigh these conditions, right? But only to the extent necessary if the same place is a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, religious assembly, or institution. So again, that goes to the burden of proof, right?

This one feels a little weird to me because if you're waiving any of these conditions, I don't see how it could be a burden on the religious exercise. Because to me, it reads that all of these requirements are the burdens themselves. I don't think it hurts to leave this in just to cover our bases, but I'm just struggling to think of an application where we could waive a burdensome requirement, but have that waiver somehow be a burden on religious exercise.

Woodbury has the exact same language.

Interesting. That's probably working. Yeah. I don't disagree with you. No, it's fine.

I think it's fine leaving it in because it's, again, you're trying to avoid substantial burden on religion. So I think it's just a good piece to have in the code. But I think just practically I'm struggling to think of where that would come into play. But better to have it and not need it than to be missing it when you

they'd agree, but you're waiving the conditions only to the extent you need to waive them.

Only to the extent the condition places the burden. So I think it's... Yeah, no, I was misreading it. Any more questions? Okay. So it seems like you can only waive the condition if you find it's having a substantial burden on the previous exercise. Right.

Okay.

So that then makes sense to me because what I said earlier, you want to be consistent in your application. So by requiring you to say that you're only waiving these to the extent necessary and So you cannot, you could decide to waive the conditions with no explanation for one organization, but then when the other one comes up, you decide not to waive anything by locking you into only the extent necessary, if the same place is substantial burden, it's sort of equalizing the analysis each time.

You have to read it like five times.

Okay.

I think we're going down to motels, right?

Yeah. One minute.

There, there are page numbers.

so permitted accessory uses but are not limited to include restaurants and shops not to exceed 10 of the lot event venues an auditorium conference center swimming pools and related facilities

This is for motels and hotels, I'm sorry.

Any comments? It seems fine. The 10% was already there. It's just clarifying some language.

Same with the event and conference facilities, right, for the parking, such facilities.

Why is the butt there?

Committed accessory uses but are not limited to. Where do you say that?

I think it should be after include. Committed accessory uses include but are not limited to. But are not limited to.

Oh, yeah, there's a word missing there. It should be, that phrase was supposed to be put in between include and restaurants, I think.

Mm-hmm.

or wherever we're at.

Okay, one more.

We're okay with three. Additional parking shall be provided for such facilities as separate use with not more than 20% credit grant for overlapping parking use.

Yep.

Okay, so for motel or hotel unit shall not contain a kitchen, right? Just in addition to transient guests only for stays limited to not more than 14 consecutive nights. Motel or hotel unit shall be subject to the hotel room occupancy tax assessed fourth in chapter 87 taxation. Multiple principal buildings and accessory structures and uses may be permitted on a lot provided the site is operated as a single cohesive unit. That goes back to definitions, no? Hotels are permitted in the AR3 district subject to the following. The lot shall have a minimum lot area of 75 gross acres. The maximum building height may be increased to 45 feet or four stories provided such structure is located more than 200 feet from the nearest public road. Development coverage shall not exceed 35%. Applicants shall demonstrate the ability to provide adequate sewage disposal and water in accordance with the applicable Department of Health regulations. And the maximum number of guest rooms shall not exceed 150. Up to 40% of guest rooms may be developed as detached units with separate exterior entrances, example cabins on the same lot. That goes back to the definitions as well. And they missed E, so I don't know if E was left out on purpose. or overhead from there. So I guess we need to be okay with the lot, minimum lot area of 75 gross papers for the AR3 district?

I was at the ballot, I was curious. It's quite a parcel.

Yeah, it's a big piece. I don't know. Yeah, I don't.

It feels like it's very spot on for something that may have happened somewhere. Just saying, like, oh, if something happened, how do we make sure that that thing doesn't happen again?

Or something is about to happen.

True, true, exactly.

It might be tied into F, maybe, as you spread it.

Oh, cabins. Right, right. Exactly. Also, again, the you know, the glamping the tents, the thing, the Holiday Inn Express is on 75 acres, right?

No, no. Why do we need 75 acres?

Mostly?

Well, that's not a AR three, though, that would not be the AR three district, right? So this is only four. Yeah, right. So the AR is agriculture, residential

three acre yeah yeah okay well then that makes a little more sense if it's i think it's kind of tied partially to the agribusiness too sort of right if those kind of businesses are expanding and you have then cabins or things associated with them right so i'm saying if you get into more of that right and you're going to start to spread because right now the code you get

Every room needs 1,500 square feet of lot area. And you cap them at 150 rooms. It's about five acres. That's what it is. But they need 75 acres of gross.

That's big.

Yeah. But how is that in all fairness to someone who is not trying to do something that large? Right. Right.

well i mean you would you'd be covered you know i mean if you make your tracks exactly i mean if you backed out of that right and where's the buffer

maybe that's it maybe we do just throw it back some things don't leave questions yeah where they came up with this 75 has got to have been derived from somewhere yeah it had to be so divided how much per so the unit is 1500 1500 square feet of lot area per

yeah okay that's ridiculous if we backed out of 75 acres it'd be 2 000 over 2 000 rooms you know yeah yeah so i mean it's no i don't know where that came from this this one would be if the if somebody could explain where they came up with that it would be interesting and so what we'll ask them is to question the determination like where yeah make sure you let them know mike asked

might that yeah that's the correct way to approach that right throwing it back to her yeah you're looking at me okay not to her to the town board yeah i think that's a good question So we'll kind of tie everything together if they can answer why that was started with the 75 acres and then. Right, I mean. And that development coverage not to exceed 35% of that. Yeah.

I don't think it's a permitted use in the AR3 now.

I think it has to be a special, right? Wouldn't it have to be a special use? It's not. I don't know.

well it's odd because if it says it's if they if it's permitted subject to the following it's not saying it's permitted as a special use permit or a special you know but this is new hotels are permitted in the ar3 district subject to the following so this seems like it's creating a whole creating it possible yeah yeah the reasons behind it would be interesting to know

See what the response back is.

Okay. Planned adult communities.

25 acres. 25 acres. Right. A buildable lot. A buildable lot. Right.

Okay. That's fine. That's okay, right? That's okay.

Yep. Minimum lot area, the minimum area shall be 25 acres of total lot area. No limitation on that. We're good at that.

Yep.

Jump to schools.

Ah, yes. I do have a question about one of these.

Schools of general instruction shall demonstrate adequate sewer and water capacity to serve the intended use to the greatest extent practical. Okay, general schools of general instruction with the exception of waivers to the New York State Uniform Code over which the planning board has no jurisdiction, the planning board shall have discretion to waive these conditions, but only to the extent necessary if the same place is a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, religious assembly or institution.

Yeah, that's where I stuck a note in for myself, or I made a note on my page, why the religious language here, and if it's needed because of the federal law about, you know, religion and allowing exercise, free exercise thereof, right? Because some churches or some places, they'll have a school. You know, like St. Columba had a school. I don't know if they still do. But other places will have a school. If we need the religious language, then I wonder if general instruction is enough of a term to encompass K through 12 and secular and religious? And this is a question for our lawyer, sir.

That is why I'm Googling right now. I've never seen this phrase, school for general instruction.

Yeah, right. Okay, okay. So I guess I'm not.

It's not in the definition section. Right. I do not trust these AI overviews on Google, but it says that it's based on broad curriculum and it does not refer or exclude religion.

include could include religious that's your definition says that okay it does say general so school general instruction is any public or non-public school that offers instruction at least five days a week seven seven months per year which include pre-k kindergarten elementary junior high or high schools subject to a nycr part 100 regulations which i'm assuming are educational regulations or other schools of religious or specialized training

uh-huh dormitories are not included as part of this okay i missed that definition okay so there you go because it's given the same okay protection all right as long as that does encompass that that's good because i thought what is this happening here i know but i i get it excellent thank you but it it only calls out religious should it call out general instruction too like i don't know if that makes any sense um i think if i wasn't sure if they meant by institution at the end it says religious assembly or institution i don't know what that meant like a general well i'm figuring this is the same i'm i my impression is and i could be wrong about this and that's why i i lobbed it over to our our attorney here our council is that You know, a religious institution may have a school, but they're... Oh, how do I say this nicely and clearly? If it's a religious school, they will be subject to and covered by that freedom of religion law, which I actually pulled up if it's the right one behind here, but I'm not gonna bother. But there is a federal law that allows for all of this and controls all the and places the burden on us to say that they're doing something that's too to anything for us, right? And so their school would be under that as well because it's religious. And so I'm guessing that this paragraph is there for that reason.

Correct. The reason that these, that same language is only applying to religious institutions because if it's general school the planning board would still maintain the discretion to kick this back for any reason right that they see fit under the code but as it relates to a religious school you're getting into those sort of free exercise issues where the presumption has to shift again to put it on the board to say well hang on planning board this religious school in particular

So I understand why it's there. I just wanted to make sure that schools of general instruction did encompass so that it didn't feel like it was completely weird to have that.

Like it was just applying to one.

Okay. I'm good with it. Minimum, there we go. Buildable lot area, yeah. No problem with that. Minimum 10 acre of buildable, right?

137. We're in the market rate.

Yep. And then site plan approval. Mine's 159. I don't know where. Oh, right. Site plan approval 141. Oh, it's just...

137 is that that yeah 137 157 i have 98 30 yeah exactly okay the only thing that i had in here was formatting the formatting is crazy correct and then under under oh i see 156 c6 was in it yeah

where two or more principal uses are proposed on a single lot or parcel, the planning board shall make a determination that the proposed uses can be operating in harmony with one another.

Is there any language anywhere that defines harmony? I'm just wondering, because that's...

common sense. I mean, I'm good with that. We don't want the chemical manufacturing company next to the daycare.

I understand that. But I, you know, just I was just wondering, I hate words that are so loose. They're so, you know, I have a complaint about something later. I think there's some place where

there is the phrase undo visual impacts and i'm not sure where it winds up i see which section it's actually in this it is actually in this section nine it it is in here where did i put that anyway so yeah so we're good with six i'm good yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah and then d for the conversion of seasonal use right joe yeah subject to site plan approval i think that's good no I know where it is. I found it again. Yes, it's actually a red line. 146. 165.

XIV, adequacy of site design for the avoidance of undue visual impacts.

146. 146.

14. You need glasses, John. Or a boot camp in Roman numerals.

Could be either, right? Site design for avoidance of undue visual impact.

Is there any kind of, so this is all part of the

site plan review. It's under review criteria. The planning board's review of the preliminary site plan shall include but is not limited to the following consideration, one of which avoidance of undue visual impacts. It just sort of puts another tool in your toolkit where if you're concerned about site lines, it's included but not limited to. You can bring it up if you like to. It gives you an avenue for pursuing ugly or unattractive structures.

Right. And that's where I'm kind of going with that. One person's lovely little modern house in Maybrook is somebody else's eyesore. You know, because I drive past it all the time and go, oh, that's cute. And somebody else said, you like that? So, I mean, what visual, it feels like it's too subjective and squishy.

So yes and no, but I think that gives you the route of if a project like this comes up and you're having a public hearing, that's an opportunity where... what do you guys think about the visual impacts?

Give you a conversation.

It's the same as it would be in some of the other requirements for site plan or special use permit approval. Does it fit the character of the neighborhood? What's the character of the neighborhood? It's more, I think maybe a conversation starter is the better way to use it. Okay, that's fine. When you open a public hearing, what do we think?

It's kind of like Sugarloaf for us too.

Mm-hmm. Oh, yeah.

The architectural review board.

True, okay. No, I get that. I just, I have... not nightmares, but I have imagined scenarios where we say something about visual impact and the applicant says, well, where is your guideline on visual impact? Show me what I'm violating. And we don't have something to put. Right. And so, well, all right.

I guess I've been here before.

Right. And I don't like if they say, show me the chapter and verse of what the adverse visual impact is. I want, I feel like I want to have something to point to.

but there is that would be a good opportunity of if you're concerned about something like that coming up that might be a circumstance where the board says we want to have a public hearing on this that way if they complain you can have a have some comments as your record of all these people said they're concerned about how it looks so that's where we're getting this from gotcha okay that's fine i don't have a problem with it i just wanted to discuss like all of this yeah um ability

I'm on 174 C. So it's just sectioned together with requirements identified in 9829. I think it's just an explanation or further. Right. Anybody have an issue? Nope. That's fine. Public hearing.

getting into battery storage so you're gonna make a big jump to 180 getting to the end We're under the battery energy storage and the definitions. A battery energy storage system. Gotcha.

Mm-hmm.

You said 188? 188. 188. 188.

188. 188. 188. 188. 188. 188. 188.

Go back up. Go back a little bit. Just go up a little bit.

Keep going.

Up, up, up, up, up.

Keep going.

There. Keep going. Nope. Okay. Keep going. Up, up, up, up, up. There we go.

That's the definition.

Keep going. Keep going. Right there. There. There you go.

Mm-hmm.

the moratorium expires and the town board decides not to prohibit the electric consensus right now with the board that they don't want energy storage at this point. There's a need for it, but it seems like the board is not in favor of it. Yeah. The information we've got from the fire department.

I think there's been a lot of incidents around that have created kind of... So do we have a problem with this? I don't think that.

I just, it just jumped out at me because it was redlined and it was not actually the law. We can question her or highlight it for her that once the moratorium is

Yeah, there's pluses and minuses. It's the systems and Warwick, you know, like anything else, new technology, some kind of fly-by-night firms that slap stuff together and sell them cheap. And the thing lights on fire. It's not waterproof properly. You know, people want it for whatever reason. They want to save some money or whatever, right?

You're saying that this actual company,

You know, that's contrary to my understanding.

And like what you're saying is you feel like the right person in place with the right structure that it should just have more restrictions or more.

Well, the new, this whole, all this markup, I think in this section, my opinion is based on old code. The new code, which was presented at the seminar on Friday run by Orange County planning department, highlighted that New York State code, which came into effect this year, is toughest in the country. So companies that come in, they have to adhere, New York State, doesn't matter what the planning board thinks, or town board, they have to adhere to this New York State code. It's fire code. And it's, again, so tough that, you know, Presumably, people have to adhere to this code. The safety issue becomes somewhat moot. The concern I have is that does it hamstring the town from having some pretty nice ratables for not a lot of impact?

If you look at what they've done with cell towers, something very detrimental now we're very restricted with cell towers even location you're restricted to it but you can't stop this may be the same thing with storage I'm not overly thrilled with the location either away from this or away from residential their footage away it's like two on the

The location of these facilities are critical.

Well, really, the way the utilities scale. So there's different types of batteries. I have one on the back of my garage that is hooked up to my solar. If you have renewable energy, you have solar, and you don't have a battery, you're kind of shooting yourself in the foot. So same thing if you have a solar farm. Right. Solar farm without a battery, same idea.

They need to be able to store that energy, especially with systems that are coming in.

The utility scale side, which, full disclosure, I work for Tesla. It's my full-time day job. And I work in the commercial energy department. I manage the survey work for these projects. And we put gigawatts of storage around the country. The siting of these things, by the way, if you happen to own property next to a substation, yeah. where you could put those types of battery systems. They have to be near one of these substations.

They have to be near that, but that doesn't take into consideration the residential that's in the same area.

Yeah, of course. That's the thing, is the substations there now, that's the infrastructure. That's why they're going where they're going, because you have a new substation that's just You've got to connect. That's where you've got to connect. The big battery systems, that's where they go. Can't they also build these near the solar? Also, it has to be by substation. That would be somewhat of a different purpose, but still, the interconnection to the grid is going to be at one of these existing substations.

Yeah.

And so even if it's a big solar farm, you know, being able to run that connection from this, like, think about running across country, if you're going through people's getting easements and all that opening roads and putting it, it becomes a trend, another transmission line. So that's why

So maybe I missed, but where is the potential battery storage sited here? Okay. Makes sense. That's right.

on the fire side, things like we do is say, look, if you're a volunteer, understood you have a volunteer department, not as well equipped as you need to be, that's part of the, that becomes part of the package, right? Training, like there's training. In fact, Mike, I think New York Fire Code now says something about training must be provided. and the chemistry battery chemistry guy that was presenting made an interesting point about how an average house fire has the same toxins as you know the lithium ion phosphate battery fires so you know as far as smoke and yeah nobody wants to breathe it is not good for you but you know if you're building an apartment building you probably have more risk of hurting people right So, yeah, it's again, safety is paramount. We also, as town boards, you know, we want to think about, hey, we don't want to shoot ourselves in the foot either.

That's not the need.

Yeah. I'm trying to think. I don't think we've done, worked on with NYSEG some behind the meter, in front of the meter stuff. But, you know, there's a weird relationship in New York between utility companies and these batteries and the way that they don't, public service doesn't allow them to essentially operate them themselves. Because they want to be done by kind of industry. Yeah. Well, it's the whole, Remember when they decoupled generation from delivery? And then they said, oh, you're a power generator now. Like Orange or Rockland had to sell off all their power plants and all the other utilities that do the same thing. So they decided, let's call these battery systems generators, kind of like dance camera or gas fire plants, which it's just holding but that's how they classify it so that meant that the utilities couldn't build them themselves right because then they could play the market you know the whole electrical market issue where they're bidding out and they're saying well i'll sell you a megawatt for this much or that you know so there's like that stock market going on behind the scenes every day in the grid for people buying electric to sell to us as consumers. So don't let them do it. So now the utility companies are out of the picture and they don't like it because they're in business to make money as well. And they like to have to build new infrastructure, upgrade Like you said, that's where the government may come in because the grid is so undersized. The government might come in and say, that's nice, you don't like it, but...

The way it was explained is they want these at the substations to take the peak, the peak demand is when they get the spike in demand.

We're not hitting like California has blackouts or whatever.

Correct, because the system is taxed beyond its...

Does that leave the door open for like your IA, your AI? Oh, I see what you're saying.

Right now, once you make it available, it's always going to want to use it. Correct. And it happens faster. And it happens faster.

That electricity, that's going to then go out on the grid. Having one in your neighborhood doesn't mean you're going to attract energy-hungry businesses to your neighborhood. It doesn't actually benefit them. It's a shared social benefit. It's smoothing out the final...

but the location is critical not only from their side to be close to a substation for transmission to get into the distribution system but you also don't want to put them behind the school so it works both they were aggressive they learned they learned well we did a project in actually a couple hundred projects

we did these, it was one, two megawatt level batteries for emergency backup. So critical infrastructure, power, you got hospitals, you got water, you know, water pumps that gotta keep running, sewer treatment plants. In those cases, it's not an utility scale backing up the grid, it's for that particular infrastructure there just to keep that thing running because another benefit of the batteries is that they're instant, right? So the grid goes down, the battery can keep that thing running like it never happened. So California had this program where they wanted to keep all, because all the fires and all the other issues that they're having, things would go down, grit was weak out there, so they want to get these batteries installed to keep critical sites up and running. And they don't want a piece of power down. Correct.

Also fuel.

So the discussion goes on, so our recommendation

It looks like right now that you have prohibited the bigger, the bigger, the bigger tier. And you are allowing at this point, the smaller tier.

Okay. Decommissioning. Anybody have an issue with that?

usually like residential real estate, if there's an underground oil tank, the decommissioning includes the removal, but also a requirement to return the surrounding area to the extent that you can back to how it was before the installation. So it's not just the removal of these batteries or other types of installations, but if you stripped out all the grass, maybe you gotta throw down some grass seed.

Maybe restoration.

Some type of work just to try to get it back into the original condition,

remuneration restoration something like that you have something similar with the solar there's always some restoration condition something like that yeah that's a good catch and the decommissioning price is usually um a bond right so that it can be returned to that state too depending on that yeah that would apply to which level are we talking about

ones that people just have on their houses or are we talking about i guess this this tier one goes up to 600 kilowatts so that would be that wouldn't be house size right the decommissioning is just referencing tier two the red line i see just tier two so and we don't allow tier two correct

Right under 9854A, it says, for any existing Tier 2 facilities, the property owner shall submit a decommissioning plan.

Maybe that should say Tier 1.

mean every any of them anything that comes out should get it should have it any of them should have d commissions i mean if there's an existing is this saying that existing tier twos have to be it's saying for an existing tier two no it's saying they need to submit a decommissioning plan within 90 days of adoption as code okay because there was never a requirement before correct ah gotcha okay so they can exist if there's but there are no existing tier ones or i don't know if there's any existing currently in the town okay or tier ones because any of them should have a decommissioning plan right and a restoration kind of Right, decommissioning slash restoration.

Well, the ones that people have on their houses, it's an appliance.

Right, right. Okay, that's fine. So if that's just what that tier one is, then that's fine.

But the tier one is, like I was saying, is pretty broad, going up to 600 kilowatt hours. So a typical house, you're down around 20. Right. So like the one I have is 13 kilowatt. So what is 600 kilowatt? I mean, that would be a commercial business.

But would that require the extent of decommissioning as a tier two?

You start getting up towards the 600, then I would say you're looking at a pretty sizable battery, not utility scale, but still something that's not able to hang on your wall. So then you're looking at using concrete pad, fenced area, kind of like with Adam Warwick, actually. That was probably about that level.

So it would be smart to at least include it since it goes up to that.

Yeah. But you don't want to have all the people resident.

Right, right, right. I got it. Hmm.

So it's a question, Cooper.

Yeah, it might be a question or it might be something that.

Tier one. You could break it out and you could say, you know, any tier one with the exception of a single family or residential. Right, right. A residential application is not required and then any commercial application would require it. I think that's good. Okay.

Yeah. That's good. Public utility facility. This is definition, yep. Anybody have an issue with the definition? Nope. I need for applicability. be considered permitted non-conforming uses battery energy storage systems such existing battery energy storage systems shall not be expanded modified or retrofitted in any manner including but not limited to in a manner that increases their energy capacity except in conformity with this article yep that seems to line up with how non And D? Anybody have a problem with D? Yep. Makes sense. Tier 1 battery energy storage systems must be serving the principal use located on site. That makes sense. If it's a business up toward the upper end or if it's home, it's serving that site. Right. Based on what you said, that makes sense.

Yep.

um tier two in 952 are prohibited with all zoning districts in the town of chester notwithstanding the prohibition any battery energy storage systems with an aggregate energy capacity greater than 600 total or that is comprised of more than one storage battery technology in a room or enclosed area existing with the town as of january 1st shall be considered a legal non-conforming use so are they covering that there are some or can In case?

They're covering in case.

In case, yeah. Does exist. That makes sense. And the decommissioning? Right, within 90 days of adoption of this code. Right. Okay, with that.

How is that, so I'm curious about how that's enforced. If the code is adopted, is someone in the town going to reach out? to any to determine i mean do we determine if there's a tier two and then someone in the town reaches out to them and says now that this has been adopted you have 90 days to develop a decommissioning plan i mean that's what this is saying be the building department okay okay yeah so yeah i mean that's what it's saying so i guess i'm asking will that happen right right so that may come true

I think we covered it, right?

There it is. we got to live with it too we've got we've got to use it so it makes sense oh things will start moving and it's great that it's great that it came to us to review because that doesn't that's great so thanks

The secret, do you want to do the secret? Do you want to move the secret to July? What do you want?

I think because there's one comment on the secret that I think relates to the zoning amendments. So generally the big thing that the planning board needs to be concerned about, there's two main timing deadlines that got opposed with secret. From the time that you declare yourself a lead agency for a project, you're going to have one year to determine whether an EIS is needed. So that would come usually with your positive or neck deck. From when you declare lead agency, you're going to have a year to make that and then adopting the final version within two years. Those are not hard deadlines. So you do have the right to request extensions or applications are incomplete, if there are changes to the plans after you have required EIS. So you're not gonna be, the main concern is that a crappy applicant could walk in with incomplete plans and essentially run out the clock to force the board the applicant is coming back month after month and say, hey, we really need you to address these traffic impacts and they're just not doing it, you can push that deadline back to give you the flexibility so you can still raise those concerns. The next biggest thing to be aware of is there are now five new exemptions under Seeker. This is different from a type two action. If you declare something a type two action, you're saying that it's not subject to Seeker, that is already after you've declared yourself lead agency and classified the action. With an exempt action, by the action as exempt. There are a couple different examples. The biggest one for the board to be concerned of comes with housing. So there are a couple different types of housing construction projects, two of which have the concern in town. So any housing projects that exceed 100 dwelling units or 300 in a census urban area. For anybody not familiar, you can go on the census, United States census map, and they have little diagrams of what is in the urban area. So if an applicant is before the board with a large housing development, either the applicant or the board itself should go on the census map to see if it's the 300 cap for the urban area or the 100 cap for the non-urban area. So that's one piece of how you get the exemption. The second is that this proposed housing project has to occur on a previously disturbed site. How that is defined is the site or anything adjacent to it, and that includes directly neighboring parcels or parcels across the street. rationale there is there's been work done previously in a recent time frame if there were going to be negative impacts to wildlife water air quality we would have figured them out there so there's been a previous disturbance the state feels that this person should be allowed to go through with their development without us having to essentially relitigate those I don't think it's on this association of towns handout. It does apply if, yeah, it's not in here. It does apply if there was a previous residential use on a property still within that two year time.

if we had if i had a property and next door they were building i could come and say jason property is disturbed i want my hundred units yes you could and no is required so the the third piece of that is it's only exempt if

the key word there is connects it does not give any discretion for yes you can hook into the sewer line but this sewer line is 50 years old and severely overloaded and doesn't have capacity the applicant can say well i just have to make sure it's connected who cares about whether it can support it that makes it exact so to that end as far as the zoning amendment goes 9831 is your special use permit factors right Pull me back up. Another piece of the seeker reforms, it's called the construction clause, preventing other laws or local authority. It still gives... It's that last bullet. The bill further preserves the authority and discretion of cities, towns, and villages under applicable state or local zoning law, including things like site plan approval to raise these concerns that were eliminated by moving these actions to the Senate. So to that end, I would probably suggest to the town board to include in the site plan review elements some of the things that you would be losing in Seeker. uh excuse me special use permits if there's going to be an adverse impact to drinking water there's going to be an adverse impact to wastewater facilities um so the stuff that you're losing by getting these project moves into the exempt category you're still retaining the authority to oversee the project through your site your special use permit so that is that's really the bulk of the secret requirements that the board needs to be concerned about there are a couple of other like statute of limitations if somebody wanted to sue the board to challenge a determination but as far as your operation those are the big things to be concerned about the deadline for positive neck decking the one year and then two years to get the final eif published and then being aware of these certain exemptions for the housing progress There are separate requirements for New York City. The dwelling units relate. The dwelling unit number is different. And the city has their own version of Seeker that also applies. So I'm not sure how those have been amended. But I know there is some impact to the city.

Crazy utility.

Correct, so that I think is a good example if you might want to add that in to the special use permit criteria that the board can consider whether the applicable utilities have the capacity for the project. Because again, as it's written in the exemption language, so long as it can connect to the utilities, get to it would that satisfy it would because it's about whether it's connected on the day I want to get this right the commencement of habitation so say it's an apartment complex and okay we can move tenants in July 1st as long as on July 1st you were hooked into some type of utility you're good to go so A lot of questions. Yeah. And this is the stuff I unfortunately don't have the answer. And I don't think the state will have the answer until some court will anymore get sued. Right.

I mean, connected to me that... if the if the sewer and water lines are in the street by the property but there's no physical connection into the property then that's just a potential connection that's not a connection to me no no it says yeah it has to be connected prior to the commencement of habitation but they also but what leave eats out is they have to get permission to connect if there's more they're never going to get the permission to connect so i was not going to give them permission the county's not going to approve them

but that's what you're saying that it should be in the special use area yes because even even regardless of the connection you like there are other concerns of seeker that are not covered by that utility connection concern so character of the neighborhood which i believe is already in there noise levels is already in there uh is there one about yeah exactly like that undo visual impacts so you may want to consider just putting them into this special use permit criteria because you know some projects that may not be a concern but i don't think the planning board wants to give up their right to look at it like that have to be added into

Into the document, yeah, into our site plan review.

I would probably, as far as when looking at what to add into the special use permit criteria, I would go through the seeker code of, okay, what does seeker say we can look at? What do we have in our criteria? What's missing? Make your special use permit essentially your own mini seeker.

right it's going to be it'll be a separate public hearing we're going to have an additional public hearing on this because of the amount of changes i don't think we're going to do any other changes right now and since this just happened with seeker i think the first step would be to get the map see what urban areas this is not for the town right

It's mainly the village it looks like yeah, right industrial park area down with the project it looks like it go covers like most if not all the village part of the industrial park by ups over that way and then across black metal creek heading towards 94 and then up 17 m corridor heading towards the ocean

The attorneys at the seminar that we were at on Friday mentioned that since the state passed this through this budget action, that means that there's going to be a couple of years of redefining. The DEC is going to get, they're going to do, they're going to have clarifications, and then there's going to be lawsuits. So it's going to be, it sounds like it's going to be a moving target for a while.

considered proven.

they're assuming it has the density so if you have the density then yeah 100 units once the one goes and then that's disturbing then it's the next one excellent excellent excellent

to do an email now on that uh discretion one but just a little change in the language everybody will have that great uh motion to close the meeting first second by mike all in favor