Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I call me in order. Please rise for the pledge of

allegiance to the flag of America to the republic for which it stands. One nation under God indivisible. All right. So, uh the minutes from our previous meeting of two weeks ago we um continued the public hearing for uh Redlist Private Family Cemetery. Uh and we voted to have a sitewalk which took place this past uh Saturday to increase the escrow. And then we uh continued the uh public hearing to uh tonight. Uh then we had a um discussion about uh Windingale Solar and uh then a motion to set the secret public hearing uh for the uh public scoping session uh for May 4th, which is our next meeting and to also have a discussion this evening about the uh scoping document that our planner walk us through. And uh under new business uh we looked at the uh Lake Ellis Country in uh project and uh we had a sitewalk this past Saturday and set the escrow for that as well. And uh then we adjourn the meeting. Uh motion to accept the minutes made by so moved by

member Williams second by member Lovadier. Uh discussion. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say I. I. I.

Any post say no. Okay, that passes uh 4 Z with two absences. Right. Uh next we have uh continuation of the public hearing for Redless Private Family Cemetery. Uh so before we continue the public hearing if a representative could come to the podium please. Any members of the public wishing to speak at this uh public hearing please uh do sign in. Uh

uh good evening. Uh we are here for Mr. Redlist for a proposed cemetery a private family cemetery that's located on uh a vacant property of Mr. Redlist. Uh again, the cemetery is uh supposed is uh 40 by 80 foot located in the southwest corner of the property. Uh one of the reasons that we've chose this particular location is that it's uh avoids the conservation easement and the Iriccoy gas pipeline that's in the back. So, we can't place it back in the rear of the property. Uh it's also a flat area of the property and it was designed to be on the boundary line kind of as their basis because they uh Mr. Redless and the surveyor when they were walking the property, you know, this this area is currently hay. It's an open field and they felt it was more appropriate to have the cemetery off the boundary line rather than just kind of smack dab right in the middle of the property. Um, I believe you had a site visit uh on Saturday and um I won't uh I know that you'll probably be discussing that today, but um I just want to just mention that I believe I spoke to Mr. Redless and Mr. Chase following the meeting. I think there was some discussions about possibly putting some trees um you know as a way of buffering visually screening the cemetery from the neighbors. U Mr. Redless is amendable to that. Um we can discuss that further uh with you. Um but again, this is a use that's permitted in the zoning law. It's a special use permit um in the RU and the AQ uh overlay district. Um I know at the last meeting we talked about section 1401 of the not for-p profofit law which did include a discussion about separations between uh cemetery uses and uh dwelling units. Um, again, as it was discussed um by your attorney and also by myself, section 1401 of the

nonforprofit law is not applicable in this case. Uh, we do think it's inappropriate for the board to be um considering that distance even if it's for guidance purposes. Uh, you know, with, as I mentioned, the state does not regulate cemetery uses. Uh, it's under local jurisdiction. The town of Dover has allowed this use that's a special use permit has not provided any separation distances and we are in compliance with the department of health separation distances. Um so that's um again if you have any questions for me I'd be happy to address them. Okay.

Um we did go on the uh sitewalk. Um anybody want to comment on sitewalk? Well, was a nice day for it. It was a nice day for it. And it looked like a good site. Uh, you know, they pointed out the different uh houses and they came up with a couple of suggestions for where they could put screening if it turned out to be needed.

Mhm. Um, they didn't want to make any screening that was real going to be real high because that might uh block the neighbors view of the mountains. So they they were looking looking east, right? What? Looking east. Yes. Yeah. Yeah. So, okay. Um, they were there. I I I wasn't at the sitewalk, but if screening isn't amendable to to to the applicant, I think that might be a good option. I of course, that's my only comment. Okay.

Uh the site seemed fine to me. Uh the only thing I question I asked was, you know, the number of grave sites that were potentially going to be in that spot, right? And he indicated that it was not going to be more than maybe two. And that doesn't preclude that later on there will be more, but in the near future that was the uh capacity that he was looking at, which you know with screening I I don't see a problem, right?

Um okay. Thank you. Thank you all. Uh so you know just being on the site um you know I understand about the conservation easement that nothing could be uh put uh in that space. Um, and I understand, you know, that the that New York State law doesn't apply, but I don't believe that means that we can't set a uh reasonable setback from other people's um, uh, you know, houses. Um, I mean, what is it? 1,650 ft. seem like a lot, but uh you know I uh I think as you're standing on the site um you know it's uh clear that it's you know relatively close to uh one neighbor's house. Um you know uh there is a bit of a um cresting of the property and then I know it goes downhill uh into the conservation easement area. Um, so you know, as I'm standing there, one of the things that occurred to me was that the um, you know, maybe the proposed cemetery could be a little farther away. It might be uh, over the crest of that hill. I'm not entirely sure. Uh, I was trying to look at the um,

turn the train on. Yeah. So if I'm that's what I'm trying that's what I was trying to figure out with this. Is there a way to this terrain you go up in the mapping? Yeah. Which third one down here. Map layers. Okay. Yes. Right. Right. You got topography. Second one down. Thank you.

That should be five foot contours. Yeah. It pretty much peaks right where he has Yeah. And actually you can see right where it's cuz it what was interesting is that the the proposed location um has a depression in the ground. Uh and talk and talking with the applicant. It was it seemed like that might have been like a maybe a drainage pond or something like that was that was kind of dug out at some point. Yeah. There was a big tree there. Vines were kind of impeding on that tree a bit. Um but that's it's right there. like it's this spot where

um so you know you could see that it does drop off um as you go farther east uh the um um let me try and zoom out a little bit

every time I zoom in or out it seems to change the page location. So, this is only focusing on, you know, right where um cemetery is, which makes sense. Um, so one of the things that I'm thinking that um might be of use to see is if the cemetery was up against somewhere along somewhere in here is the border for the conservation ement.

Not exactly sure where. Um, I don't believe it would show up on here. If you went back to this, um, it appears as though the conservation easement line from here to from here to here is just slightly bigger, slightly longer than the the line from there to there. So, it makes me think that the that the conservation easement would maybe be around there. Yeah, about right. Which would

probably put it at what you say this 5T. Yeah. They got If you zoom in, it has the elevations on them. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, it gets uh more detailed as you zoom in. Let me see. That's pretty much the middle. It's probably right around there. So, what is that? That's five. The problem is it obviously when I do this on the wall, you don't see it. I don't see it on the screen. Too far away to read that. Maybe you can.

No, I could. Yeah, that's 560. So, this is 560. 562. This is 570. looping around here. Um so if it's over the crest of that hill um and um you know as discussed the grave markers being low to the ground uh maybe it's something that no one um that none of the um neighbors would see. Um, alternatively, um, the, uh, the applicant also owns uh, this property to the south of the property. We're discussing, this property, and then the property where, um, the, uh, what was Argyle Ranch, I believe, was called. Um, so I presume this also has some kind of conservation easement. I mean, you kind of see where the pipeline likely is somewhere, you know, in this kind of almost like a flattening that had happened in um installing that pipeline. Uh, you know, putting it down on this property then maybe just shifts it down to be a concern for a different neighbor. So, I'm not say suggesting that's a uh um

that field also isn't as accessible. H that field the the field to the south the property to the south isn't as accessible as as this one is. Okay. And again, I'm just trying to find something that is more, you know, I mean, yeah, up in the corner is all wooded. It's all wooded. And then if you also see see right where the house site is, see there's like a big that one does have quite many. So this is the house and these are like two garages. Yep. And then if you go right where the 550 line is, there's a pretty steep the 550 this flattened area is like a riding rink. Is that what Yeah. And then right by there there's it kind of goes it's a not it just kind of drops off and so again that would be very hard to

Well, and also presumably there's probably a conservation somewhere in here because Yeah. It's kind of cuts all the properties. Yep. Uh if I may speak though, I understand uh what you're suggesting. I do feel that if the main concern is visibility, I think this can be resolved with the screening um as opposed to moving it back. I think um that would kind of resolve the issues and again it kind of still maintains it in that corner so we're not disrupting other parts of the field. Right. And what I'm suggesting as a possibility is that if it's moved

to be up against the conservation ement, because you're saying it can't be in the conservation ement, um then if it's over the the other side of the uh the hill, maybe no one sees it. Um so I just something I was thinking about while being on that sidewalk. Um let's see. uh engineer burger you were you were there and then uh Miss uh block from from ARF was there in l of u warner. So either of you want to go first and then we can go to attorney.

Uh everything you said I agree with. It's uh it's close to houses. Some screening would be nice to see but it is in a location that's stays away from the field. There's no real engineering concerns on it other than the only concerns I always had was whenever we have the location determined that its exact location be memorialized for the future. Right. Yeah. I mean, as the applicant said, you know, if and when he gets an approval, hopefully nothing happens for 50 years, but obviously everyone needs to be aware, fully aware of what would eventually go there if and when it's approved. So,

correct. Um, and another concern that did come up in the past was about um, water on the site. I don't know if you Yeah, I looked I didn't see that it was going to be a problem. Yeah, I looked at the soils maps in the area. There's no high ward. Not in that site.

I know there are there are parts of Cricut Hill. Uh particularly because of the view it has she mentioned that was brought up. Um she mentioned also that it was pretty clear the neighbor's house was visible so you could tell you know it's pretty close.

Mhm. Um and if screening is something that's going to be considered that should be submitted. The applicant should provide all those details to the board so the board can make the right decision on that. um and alternative site locations were were discussed, but you know, the conservation easement is is something that's a factor, right? Um also that this is a long-term type of commitment by the applicant. It doesn't anticipate it even being used for like another 30-ish years. Um right. So yeah, that's pretty much the the same takeaway that I got from her notes on this.

Mhm. Um, so I don't really have anything to add right now. Right. Okay. And just as we're talking, I mean, just a quick distance check from that location to the closest house is 334 ft, which again, we, you know, we agree that state law does not apply, but in terms of setting a reasonable distance, I mean, it's 20% of of what the the law would say. Um, so thank you, Planner Warner. Uh, attorney Paulo, anything to add?

I was checking to see if the conservation easement would allow the use now that there's a determination that there are no structures. But it it says may not be used for any purpose other than recreational uses that do not result in disturbance. So I think even if they aren't considered structures, this terms of this conservation easement would still prohibit the right. So like soccer field or I mean clearly digging a hole six feet into the ground is a disturbance. Yeah. Yeah. And I wouldn't say it's recreational use. H I wouldn't say it's recreational use either. I mean France in France they would think so. But maybe one time.

Yeah. Yeah. one time maybe. But um and this is actually an easement held by the town of Dover. So one that the planning board uh should consider. So right, I don't think that helps. But I think if the applicant should explain why alternate sites are not available or wouldn't work and or give you some kind of plan with screening that shows the height and the species of that screening so that you can determine if it's adequate,

right? Okay. Um All right. Well, we're going to continue the public hearing now. Um engineer Burger, if you could just pass up the uh Thank you.

Nobody signed. Nobody signed. Okay. Well, we'll still continue it. Can they make some? All right. So, back to the agenda here. Did anyone want to sign up? We'll get to Okay. Yeah, we can sign up. It's fine. All right. Motion to uh continue the public hearing for Redless Family Cemetery. Motion made by So moved. Member Palmer. Seconded by Second Member Lobier. Discussion. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor of continuous public hearing say I.

I. I. Any post say no. Okay. By vote of 402 absences, this public hearing is continued. Uh no. As I said, no one has signed up. Any members of the public wishing to speak at this public hearing can please come to the podium at this time. Thank you. I just say your name for the record.

Yes, I will. Thank you. Uh Holly Marcy, 2021 Cricut Hill Road. Um I appreciate the comments by the board and the time that you spent on Saturday. Um to the attorney's point, first of all, I again I don't think this should be approved at all due to the deed restrictions that are all Mills Seabolt subdivision. Um I find it questionable that Mr. Redless picked that spot because of the view, which is precisely why it shouldn't be there for everyone else that lives there. Mhm.

Um your point about alternative spots, rather than putting it on that 8 acre lot on the east side, he could put it on the west side which borders his other lot and has trees there. There's large pines there within the fence line. So it'd be closer to his other lot and I don't think any of us would see it. it. He also has Thank you. Sorry. Yeah, just so we're clear. These trees

right on those. Just put it over there or put it towards the I guess it's the north end as far close to the conservation area that you can put legally. He also has the 30 28 acre lot

with the riding rink, plenty of coverage. He also has, I believe, a deed open spot. Put it down there. None of us would have to see it at all. Why put it on an empty lot that is so visible? Um so that those are my questions. But again, uh bottom line, I don't think should be approved because of deep restrictions, but um I appreciate the thought that's being put into this. Thank you. Thank you.

All right. Uh, any other members of the public wishing to speak at this public hearing? Please come voting at this time and just again say your name for the record. Randy Benson, 240 Cricut Hill Road. Um, I just wanted to say that uh I appreciate uh what the board did taking that that site view on Saturday and I I do like the idea of the movement and moving it down a little farther off the hill. That way we won't see it. Mhm.

Because even if you do leave it there and you're going to put up uh screening over time that screening is going to grow. It's going to ruin our view that we have there. And that's the whole whole premise of what you know we why everybody bought on this on this uh hill. But uh I just wanted to say that I think that's an excellent idea to move it where we don't see it. So thank you guys very much. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Uh any other members of the public wishing to speak at this public hearing, please come to the podium at this time. Okay. Okay, seeing no one approaching the podium, need a motion to continue. Close close with writing thoughts I mean at this point. Is there anything further that the public could give us input on? I don't think so. Okay. Um,

okay. Um, our next meeting is May 4th. Okay. Which is May the Wednesday before that would be April 29th. Yeah, that'd be 29th. Yes. All right. Uh, I would entertain a motion to uh close this public hearing allowing for written comment until uh noon on Wednesday, April 29th. I will second that. Okay. Uh, so you're making that motion. I will make that. You said you were making the motion. I was entertain I'll entertain a motion. I put it out there. You're making it. I will make the motion. Seconded by second.

Seconded by um member Williams. uh discussion. I mean, I think that just gives people some time to finish collecting their thoughts. We could have it then for um in writing from them in time for the May 4th meeting. Uh member Roier, thoughts on that? That sounds good. Okay. All right. Seeing no further discussion, uh all those in favor say I. I. I. Any post say no. Okay. That motion passes 40 with two absences. Uh so this public hearing is now closed. Uh as stated uh planning board would accept uh written comments until Wednesday, April 29th at noon.

Okay. And all right. So um Mr. Chairman, accept. Yes. Just for the record, so you have uh information on setbacks for cemeteries in New York State for public wells. Mhm. New York State NYCR title 10 appendix 5D states a 200 foot separation for public water wells and a 100t separation from cemeteries for individual wells just so you have the information on separations. Right. Okay. And there's a map note on the um on our survey map that says that there's no known wells within 200 ft. Right. Okay.

U Mr. Chairman, is there a way that we could move forward with Seeker at this time? Do some of the part two? I know one of the reasons that we haven't done Seeker yet is because we were waiting on the Chris uh consulting report, which we received, and also uh the ZBA if the ZBA was an involved agency, which they're not. Mhm. So, I didn't know there was a way we could move that forward as well. I think it's uh probably best to wait until we receive any public comment we might get by the middle of next week. Okay. And then uh makes sense to me that we take such action um possibly on May

May 4th. Okay. And I just wanted to um sorry uh did you want to say um there was just one other thing that was discussed during the site visit and I just bring it up because it might be helpful to put it on the map note if we're going to be making any changes. Uh I know that we had mentioned in our application that we want to have a fence to kind of outline the boundary of this. I think it was discussed that we don't have a purpose for putting the fence up at this time.

Mhm. Um, and that way it also just maintains the view as it currently exists. It remains open. It doesn't look like anything's changed. And we would maybe want to put like a map note on the survey map to just say that we, you know, at the time that it's absolutely necessary, a fence would be installed and the fence would be like what's similar to what's on the property now, the wood wood board. Um, just outlining the property. I just wanted to know if that was something that you would be interested in just to kind of put it for the record for any future land owner to know that if a fence were to be installed that's what the kind of fence would be

right um I think it's something we need to discuss because I mean the argument could be made that putting a fence there may draw attention to it whereas if there is no fence um then it may not uh also if it's going to be moved it may be a moot point Um, yeah. I just it was just if if we wanted to have it as a map note, we would like to have the time to draft it and so that it can be reviewed. I mean, I guess, yeah, it could be done and then possibly taken out. I mean, sure. All right. Did you want to Oh, I just wanted to be clear on what, if anything, you're directing the applicant to submit and when the deadline for that submission would be,

right? Um I mean the deadline is already so it would be for the second meeting

after May fourth meeting. Um so just um I guess an alternative um as I stated uh showing also the contour lines. Um and then the you know as I look at the parcel access uh again if considering uh Mr. Redlist owns these this property and then this this is the property we're mainly talking about but also owns this property. You could see that there's a clear line here which we all know what it is. Um is there a potential for an alternative uh location on um this other property that he does own? Yeah, it's not accessible because there's also like a there's a fence line that's kind of goes around and then like I said there's like right around um I don't have a a pointer if I may just

Sure. You could borrow this one right around here. Okay. There's like a pretty steep incline. So it's like if you know just for again accessing it or getting uh you know anything that needs to be back there just is it's very hard to do. The place that's the proposed location is really what's most easily access. That's all wooded. Again, that's you can see that's where the air quo uh gas line goes through, right? And I think that's that area is also wooded. Mhm. To there. And I think it's just just really I think it that whole area kind of slopes down. Even if it's not a steep slope, it's still, you know, if you need to access it, it's just difficult to do. Whereas this other property to the south is all flat. Does it does slope away and Mhm.

What about that corner to the left right there? Yeah, I think that's used for uh I think that's also it it's I think it's used for horses. There's unclear. Um and then you know that could um potentially shifting the you know different neighbors may have a concern with fencing that runs all along here. You see the fencing right here? Because I know we when I was able to get to the point, we weren't able to Yeah. See there's fence right here. So really to gain access to that area, you got to go to that slope area. Yeah. I mean, but realistically fences can always be moved.

Yes. But also realistically a cemetery is permitted in this zone and we're proposing it for that location.

See, it's also wetland. Wet land at all. I was wondering it just look as we zoomed in it it kind of had this look of a wet land to it. So yeah. Um okay. Well um again at this time I don't know if there's anything else to discuss. So what time would you So you had mentioned you were talking about showing contours. Yes. On the map. Uh it was an alternate alternative location with contour lines. Yes. or or why the alternative locations could not work. I mean, I guess you could show why every Yeah, I guess you could show why it might not work, but could not work

and perhaps the draft of the map note of the fence that Sure. I thought there was I thought there was one more the screening the landscape if you're going to propose keeping it where it is, what the screening would be so it could be evaluated. BPS of Maryland. Thank you. I just put it over there. Thank you.

And if we were able to kind of keep this on the track, I know I am past the deadline. Uh but that's with the two week um moving it out two weeks, but is there a way that I could have uh flexibility on the extension? Not not a flexibility exception, but a flex flexibility on the deadline. Right. Because the deadline for the May 18th, I think it's already probably passed maybe last week or something. Would be the 29th. The the deadline for which meeting? May 18th. May 18th. 29th. So, how much time would you need?

Well, I mean, if I could I mean, I if I could try to get some So, are you suggesting that I wouldn't be able to make anything and I can't submit anything for the May 4th meeting? Well, um I'm trying to think of what would be a reasonable timeline that then could be reviewed by everyone. Maybe. Sure. It's pretty simple to review that one week before. So, um Monday the 27th. Yeah. A week from today. Yeah. A week from today. Okay.

Um that's acceptable to the board. motion to uh allow the deadline for submission by the applicant for uh Monday um April 27th. So moved. Thank you. Second if I second. Okay. Discussion. No discussion. All those in favor say I. I. I. Say no. Okay. So that passes. So thank you. Close the business on chairman at noon. Noon. Yes. said you that's new. Thank you. Thank you. Okay.

Thank you. All right. Um Okay. Next on the agenda is old business Wingdale Solar. Step out. Thank you. Uh, Attorney Polaro, uh, with two absences and a recusal, we are lacking a quorum. We sure are lacking a quorum. So we can't discuss uh board business but perhaps we could um

yes what we could say is that uh for uh the public's edification that there is a draft of the scoping document that has been or will be posted to the town website that was prepared by your consultant. Yes. And it is can be commented on during the public hearing which you've already scheduled. Yes. Yep. That's accurate. There's so the applicant submitted a scope. We at your request did a lot of editing to that. Yes. Um and if the public wants to is prepared to comment during the public scoping period, which is technically happening now. It's on now through May 4th. Um and possibly beyond that.

Um they can look at both versions because they should be both posted to the project page on the town's website. um and offer comments on either one. Um right. I mean the better version is ours. Correct. I would I would recommend waste your time commenting on theirs. I would recommend looking at the one that's been edited substantially. Yes. By a consulting firm that writes EIS's all the time. Um so that would be my suggestion. You just refer your third person.

Uh attorney Paulo. I know the representative of the applicant is here. Can they even I mean can we even what are we doing? Just I mean look technically we we don't have a quorum but everyone's here. I don't know if you want to make a statement. The board can't take any action, right? So not that we were going to I mean I mean we were just going to review the edits. Yeah. Right. We can't even do that. We we and we have nothing to say and we weren't expecting any action to be taken. We're mostly here to just be involved in the conversation and if the conversation can't happen, right, then it is what it is.

I'll say we can reserve we can walk through this um prior to the scoping hearing being open on the 4th. Yes, that's what we'll end up Okay. needing to do meeting. Um is there any chance Mike shows up late? Do you want to put this off to the end or any any word on member? Well, we know member Sedor is not attending this night tonight. Has any word on member attending? No, he just he just texted me that he couldn't attend that he's not. Okay. Uh we will see you on May 4th. Yeah, if you want to do a long one on May 4th, we're we're ready.

Okay. Thank you. All right. Uh moving on. Uh we'll go to new business amended Sherman Hill Development. So, we just need member Palmer to return. Do the dice. Thank you. You can have a heads up. Thank you. Hello. Hello. Heard you guys had a nice sight walk on Saturday. Yes. Missed you guys. I woke up in my bed. I was like, "Oh man, these guys are walking out on the site. Wish I was there." It was 9:00 a.m. You weren't awake yet.

I was at Pikipsy. Hours are different in Pikipsy. Yeah. You weren't zone different. You obviously weren't at Tony's, right? Okay. Good evening.

Hello. Good to see you all again. Uh Peter Sander representing the applicant for the Sherman Hill amended specialist use permit and site plan. So what we have here is an amendment to the special use that was issued for the two family residences on lots 14 and 15. Uh back in 2024, the planning board issued a site plan and special use permit approval for four two family residences on two on each of these lots. The proposed application will convert the basement area of these existing structures into one single family or one-bedroom apartment, changing the two family use to a multifamily use. Otherwise, there's no other additional work other proposed on the site other than the expansion of the existing septic system. We provided correspondence from DC do who essentially said the plans are looking good for the expansion. they're just waiting on the planning board approval of the project. Um, so what ultimately what we have here is a type two action because this is a uh three family residence. So there's no more seeker required for this um with limited grading and disturbance for the site and no additional parking required. So with that, I'm happy to answer any of the board's questions.

All right. Um, so this is proposed to be a basement apartment. Basement apartment. Yep. Mhm. And also a communal laundry. Yes. Okay. So, everyone in the building would have access to the laundry in the basement. And there's also an apartment that would be down there. Correct. Okay. And there currently is no apartment in the basement. Correct. But there are currently people in the other apartments. So they they currently go to this basement to do their laundry. Okay. Yeah. The communal laundry is existing. Okay. And it will remain in the same location. So is there a communal laundry in every basement? Yes.

Mhm. So four communal? Yes. Okay. And four apartments. All right. So the proposal is for each lot to go from four apartments to six apartments. Yes. Each building going from two apartments to three apartments. So for lots 14 and 15, we're going from 8 units to 12 units. Okay. And just so we're being very clear, this this has nothing to do with these two parcels. Correct. Okay. You're here for the two parcels on the left. Mhm. Okay. All right. Um, there's a plane board. Any other comments, questions at this time?

Excuse me. I do have a question. You you you don't see the um reason to have any additional parking areas adding an an apartment which could have two occupants. Mhm. So, basically the code is structured so that if it's a two family, you require two spaces, but multif family is a space and a half each. So we're providing 10 spaces for each of it. So we're actually going to be two spaces above the requirement for the multif family use. So each lot will have an additional space than what's required. Okay. So six gives you nine. Mhm. And there's you're saying there's a 10th one. Yeah.

Okay. Fair enough. Yeah. All right. Any other comments? Ever Williams? Oops. We're a little over here at this time. Okay. Um, whoever would like to go first. I can start. You want to start? Some simple. Yeah. Um, I did take a chance uh to go out there on Saturday in advance of the others just to look around, see the sites in good condition, but I also observed that there were uh excess parking spaces in each parking spot at 7:30 in the morning. At least two in each parking spot. Okay. So, there were at least eight extra empty spots open at 7:30 in the morning.

Okay. Thank you.

Okay. Yeah. So, I have a comment memo that's been sent around. Um, parking was addressed in it. It's comment number six, but we'll start at the top. Um, just quickly, uh, this is a an amendment to a special permit. So technically by the code and I think your attorney would agree um we can't we have to have a public hearing for this. Um technically since it's not really a site plan amendment like a minor amendment it's a site plan amendment plus a special permit amendment because the previous special permit allowed two family dwellings and now they're proposing it to be multif family um for these two lots. So technically it's uh per your code um underlining the text there it says that uh section 145 I'm looking at comment three

comment three okay section 14568D3 states if the planning board determines that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the terms of any special permit approval it shall be considered um a new special permit amendment pursuant to 14562. So, um, it just needs a public hearing. Um, I think referral to county planning as well, uh, technically cuz it's a new application. The the previous application was referred to county planning. They had some comments at that time. Um, but I think, you know, just to follow the rules, we should send it again to them.

Uh, comment number four about um floor plans for the units. Technically, uh I think we looked at those for the previous app and it's the planning board serving as the ARB. So, um the buildings are already there. We know what they look like on the outside, but just showing a floor plan of that apartment layout in the basement would be helpful. Um just on the it's communal laundry, but and they have access to it from inside the building already. So, there won't be any like shared entrance, you know. I saw that you're adding the a walkway and then like a a new like entrance to that apartment, but that's only for that resident to use. No one else can use that. They don't need to use that to get to anywhere else in the basement.

How they get to so currently there's a laundry in the basement and everyone goes outside of their apartment to go into the basement. Okay. Correct. So there's no like outside the building. Got it. Go into the basement. Okay. Okay. Um All right. Um, so then, so we floor plans would be helpful there. Uh, I defer to Joe on the septic and do stuff. Number five, um, number six is about the parking. The applicant stated it correctly. It is code compliant now. They were technically overparked with the previous application, too. So, um, by over park, you mean there was they provided more than

parking to provide. Yes. Um, so under this amendment, accounting for everything, all the unit types and the code requirements, you need 18 spaces for these two lots, nine per lot. Um, and they're proposing 20 between the two. So, they have enough

based on the codes requirements for um, two family versus multif family designation. So, these buildings are going from two family to multif family. So technically they're meeting that 1.5 space per unit from your code. Um for number seven just on seeker the applicant mentioned that it was a type two but I don't know if I agree just because it's we're adding more than three total. Um the type two provision that the applicant's bringing up is one to three one two or three uh units on an approved lot but this is over three. So, um I don't think it's a new type two. My recommendation would be you could either just keep the negative declaration you've have for the previous action because this is a minor increase and not really substantial and there the buildings are there already. The parking is adequate. They're not disturbing any other parts of the site. Um you could just reaffirm that neg

um for these reasons I laid out here. Um it's already operational. Construction is done. They're not building any new structures. No substantial ground disturbance. Um the density is within limits of the subdivision that was approved in that area. Um they're only increasing the footprints by 63 feet roughly according to the plan. Um and they're also proposing minimal impervious surfaces to for that access into the basement. So I think you can just rely on the previous seeker review that was done for the other application um rather than but you still need to classify it.

Classify it as an unlisted action. um that's fine, but you would just rely on the previous negative declaration is my recommendation. Um moving on, there's referrals to you mentioned the referral to the county that's required. I think the fire department too wouldn't uh would like to see this just because there's basement apartments and I also recommend the code enforcement officer just to weigh in on the sprinkler requirements now that these are multif family and what he has to say about that. And finally, um, the planning board might want to do a sitewalk to check out the project that they approved

and also, you know, see what parking conditions are like and just get a sense of what's changing out there, which isn't much. Um, yeah. So, I think you can make those referrals tonight. Um, classify it as unlisted, but probably just rely on the other NEG deck. That's what I have. and also a public hearing if you're prepared to do so because it does require that right as well. Just back to uh Thank you. Um just back to engineer Burger with the addition of the

um each lot. So each lot has its own septic system and going from four a part four units to six units. Does that change the septic in any way? Yeah, they'll have to add a little bit to it, but it's minor. It's still under the threshold for a a small system with So, it doesn't need like a another tank or an extended feet. No, just another line. I assume you're putting one more line. Two lines. Okay. But it's a minor. It's under a thousand, you know, linear feet requirement, which would be the threshold. So, it's minor in increase the addition of two lines. Then also the um I'm not going to get the wording right. the overflow the uh

expansion area has expansion area also have to be bit larger that would be have placed but there's no physical work on that there just providing it if it's needed yes right mhm okay it's considered minor by a health department understood okay thank you and then and the other the impervious and the disturbance of the site is well under the any need for chapter 65 so there's no erosion control issues right thank you attorney Mary Poddero. Um, when you said the health department was waiting on the planning board, did you mean for seeker review? No, they wanted an uh show of approval that the planning board is authorizing the expansion.

We already submitted the expansion and we have it. Basically, what you're saying is they've approved it, but they don't want to stamp a map until we approve it because they can't allow me to in case there's some notes of things we want to add to it. They don't want to be given an approval letter and a stamp map until they we take action at the planning board approving it. So they basically said they've gotten their approval pending the planning board doing our approval. Yeah. Okay. Because like you said, it's a minor Exactly. Yeah. Cuz like you said, it's a minor action. Yes. It's a minor action, but if they approved it now and issued a stamp on the map, then that map can't be altered by us.

Right. We might say, well, wait, maybe it should now be here. or we may had some notes relevant to parking or things that have nothing to do with the health department. Now then we'll have it's happened in the past where they had two tracks of approvals, health department map and planning board map and they don't want to see that. They want to see one map at the end. So they've gotten to this really good point where they won't right give any approvals until they hear from the planning board that's approved. Gotcha. Understood. Thank you. Are these uh onebedroom, two-bedroom? One bedroom.

One. Um, so I do agree that it's not a type two action. It's unlisted and so the board needs to classify it and if you're comfortable with that there are no changes then then you can reaffirm your prior seeker determination. Okay. Um, we're going to set a sidewalk. Um, and I guess just on the question of the it being now a multif family, does that trigger in the code that it would need sprinklers or is that up to the code enforcement officer to determine that? I think he needs to do a review because the code changed in January of this year. Mhm.

So I don't know what the new requirements would be for multif family and it would be subject presumably to the new code because it's a change, right? You know, he needs to make that determination, right? So if it if there was already any multif family structure in the town doesn't need to put in sprinklers just because the code changed, but if you're now going to become multif family, you may have to put in a sprinkler system. Yeah. Is that if that's a requirement? It's based on square footage and the material. Okay. So, you I'm sure that your office has done the code compliant check and you're underneath the square footage and your and your fire rating. Yeah. Michael's been working with the building inspector on the sprinkler requirements.

So, it's not a clear multif family doesn't automatically. Okay. It's not a it's not a just an automatic trigger of it's multif family therefore sprinkler. It's No. Yeah. It goes in the the building code. I see. Yeah. If there is no, you know, single family, duplex, no. Multifamily. Yes, it's not that clear. Okay. It just says that multif family with the following square footage usage, gallonage, and material usage, right? Okay. Will then require sprinkling, right? There's certain classifications of multif family that do not require it. Gotcha. We should get that interpretation though because if you need a sprinkler, would you need a tank here?

The they've been talking and at this point it doesn't look like we'll need any tanks for the sprinklers if they are required. can be done based off the existing well system and that would be actually a part of the health department approval as well because since this is a water supply system that's individual and not a town water system if it was determined they needed to have a sprinkler that would be not only our building department but the health department would have to approve it because it would be supplied by the well right so if the health department must have looked at that as well all right and so what what I think I'm hearing from you is that you don't believe you need a sprinkler system, but if you do, then there's enough wellhead pressure to supply the water.

Okay. Y but the the first part is also accurate that you don't believe you need a sprinkler system or you're not sure. Defer to Mike on that one? Uh no, I would say we need a sprinkler system. Oh, you do? Yeah, that's the way it looks. It's really It's not It's not a No, no, it's it's not a like a choice kind of thing. It's just the code says you meet it or you have to or you don't. Right. Yeah. That's why I've been working with uh the building department and the fire department. Okay. Because like a lot of codes, it kind of like gets a little gray and well if you do this or it says that like you're saying building material there's a lot of back and forth. So that's why I'm working with them to kind of get a concrete answer. Sure. Right now it looks like we need sprinklers, right? You know, but like if it was a you said where concrete maybe thing like if it was a concrete building maybe you wouldn't need the sprinklers. Yeah. Yeah. Or fire rating. Yeah. Fire separations.

Gotcha. I don't know. Get the separation between your first and second floor. But I don't know. But if if you do need tanks, they need to go on the plan. No, absolutely. Okay. Well, that's why we went down the sprinkler road, we'll say, right now, early on, to see if we need to do that. Okay. There's no indication that we need to ground. So, you think so? You're you're you're thinking is you likely do need a sprinkler system. And again, that would be for the the whole building, not just the basement, right? Well, that that's where we're uh discussing with the building department. Okay. There's there is some exceptions to that where you can do egress pass or certain units because the upstairs units are rated and we're working that out to see what's happening. Okay. All right.

Okay. Well, sounds like they've already been talking, but you can still make a referral and get something in writing from them to you so you know what they're thinking. The building department and the fire department. Um, just I guess as a relevant aside, do you know if we're having a meeting next Wednesday morning like we've done? Oh, uh, meeting? Yeah, I sent out a memo. I sent out an email. Okay, good. All right, we'll have it come up there. Yeah, we'll bring it up. We have a Usually there's a monthly meeting of

next Wednesday. Yeah, next Wednesday of um myself, uh the planning, zoning secretary, possibly the zoning board of appeals chair, the building inspector, the code enforcement officer, the town supervisor just to kind of go over all different projects in town. And so we usually kind of bring up new projects or what's going on with this or that and just so everybody's kind of on the same page. So Don, he's one of he's aware of that in the fire chief. Gotcha. Discussions. Okay. Uh our consultants have anything else here?

All right. Uh having heard from our consultants, any members of the plane board have any other comments, questions? I would I would say consult the international uh fire code and if you pro you probably have already done that and I know it's like like you have said it's it's like the kids say 67 you go to one town it says one thing or one county but from my experience with a three unit apartment or building I should say excuse Excuse me. Uh they would want it's it fire suppression. Yeah. Something from my experience. Yes. That was our understanding is or at least our thought process as well.

Right. So I mean the current state of it is we have a plinary drawing from a sprinkler engineer. That I had to basically at that point to sit down with Don and the fire department and say like hey does this work? Right. Acceptable. So this be engineered by a sprinkler engineer. Right. All right. Uh, we should set up sitewalk. Um, does this Saturday morning doesn't work for me? Doesn't work for you. Doesn't work for you. Says spring cleanup. Sure. Town clean up, I should say.

Oh, okay. What time you starting that? I'll be probably starting at 6. Jeez. Wow. Okay. I just I I know I can't do it the next Saturday. Um I mean we're at the time of year where you can still see things in the evening. Um whatever works for you guys. Is there an evening that works in the next week and a half for anyone? If it helps. I mean I'm willing to meet some people one day and others it could be more accommodating. It's not right. You're welcome just to drive in there any time any evening at like say the only one that doesn't work for me is the 28.

Okay. Any other evening is fine. All right.

Um Saturday morning or maybe how about Monday evening at I don't know 7. Is that was it Monday does next Monday evening work for either of you? No. Okay. We can't all make every Yeah, they walk in. Yeah, that's fine. Remember Per uh that What's the date on it? The 27th. 27th. Yeah. A week from tonight. Yeah. Okay. Remember that? That's Monday. I wouldn't be able to Monday. It's a cherry big charity thing I'm a part of. Oh, okay. hate that. Uh, is it possible you could have uh any other time? Oh, okay. Any other time. I didn't know if you could have, you know, um your consultant there.

I mean, if that's what it takes, then yes. Yeah. That's what it takes. Yeah. Yeah. What does Monday morning work for you or does a Saturday morning work for you or Monday evening? I have company coming next Saturday. Okay. So, Monday the 27th at 7. Yes. Okay. So, why don't we set two sitewalks? One for Saturday morning 8:00 a.m. and one for Monday evening at 700 p.m. 8 a.m.

Yeah. I mean, to be halfway through Joe's day already, so I'm gonna What? What's that? So be halfway through your day already at 8 a.m. 8 a.m. That's lunch time. Does that work? Okay. One of you can be there for one. One be okay. No problem. All right. And then that way gives more options because you know there's two plane warmers that aren't here.

We don't know when they might be available if at all. So all right. Motion to set uh sitewalks for um amended Chairman Hill Development for uh Saturday, April 25th at 8 a.m. and Monday, April 27th at 700 p.m. Motion made by So moved. Uh member Palmer, second by myself. Discussion. Seeing no discussion, all those in favor say I. I. Any say no. That passes 402 absences. Uh is there anything else we were going to look at this morning?

Yeah, we're going to make a a omnibus motion to classify as unlisted, refer to Duchess County Planning, refer to the building inspector, and refer to the JH Ketchum host company. Okay. Motion made by moved. Member Palmer, seconded by second. Member Williams. Discussion. If you could just say that again, please. It was a motion to classify as unlisted, refer the application to Duchess County Planning, refer it to the building department, and refer it to JH Ketchum Hose. Okay. Motioned and seconded discussion. Uh, see no discussion. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any oppose say no.

Okay. That passes 40 with two absences. The the next question is whether you want to set a hearing for a month out or whether you want to wait right for the sitewalk. Yeah. Set it on the 4th. Uh I mean we're going to have the sidewalks before the next meeting. We could set it at the next meeting for the uh meeting on the 18th. Uh we should then hopefully hear back from everyone else, you know, the next four weeks.

Yeah. I mean I I think because there's really no nothing in this application that's going to change. um we would like to request it as soon as possible even if it's to discuss the sitewalk comments at the next available meeting and then we can work on addressing that for the the public hearing meeting right well okay I mean we could set the public hearing tonight for the meeting on the 18th okay

and uh you know I yeah it's typical that we discuss um not always but typical that we would discuss a sitewalk at the next you know okay meeting Um, all right. So, motion to uh set a public hearing for amended Sherman Hill development uh for uh Monday, May 18th uh at 7:00 p.m. or soon thereafter as uh public can be heard. Motion made by member Palmer. Second by second.

Discussion. See no discussion. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any post say no. That passes 40 with two absences. Okay. So, um yeah, I I think that we'll we'll we can have a discussion on May 4th um about the sitewalk. Mhm. And um then we have the public hearing already set for May 18th. Perfect. Okay. Anything further this evening, members of the board, consultants, would it be possible um if I can't make those two dates to check it out before the May 4th meeting? Like I mean you could always work it out with the applicant. Yeah. Besides next Monday just drive through and check everything out.

If you want me to teach you there now. Yeah. Or I can just do it on my own. Yeah. I don't want to walk around but I'll just take a look from the car from the from the road. That works. It's okay. Interesting. That's okay. Sure. Sure. All right. Uh anything further? Nope. Thank you.

That's all. Thank you so much. All right, next we have a double JK Ranch accessory apartment. Good evening. Good evening. Uh, for the record, my name is Robert Milo and I'm here tonight on the behalf of the applicant, Jason Ginder, the owner of the Double JK Ranch located at 39 East Mountain Road, Dover Plains. We are here this evening uh requesting a special use permit to allow the construction of an accessory apartment over an existing garage for the owner on his 245 acre agricultural property. Double JK Ranch is a large long-standing farm that has been in operation for nearly 100 years. It represents exactly the type of rural agricultural character that defines this area of town. The property remains an important open space resource and is continued maintenance and stewardship are a priority of the owner. Mr. Ginder currently resides in Texas, but he remains actively involved in the care and operation of the ranch. And in order to

One second. I'm sorry. One second. Could you just close the door, please? Thank you.

It's just a little hard to hear you even with the microphones. In order to properly oversee the property during his visits, he is proposing to construct an accessory apartment strictly for his own use uh when he is on site. I want to be very clear on this point. This apartment is not intended for rental, short-term occupancy, or any commercial use. It is solely for the owner's personal use and had and has no connection to any other activity or use on the property. Okay.

The proposed apartment will be approximately 1,274 square ft and will be located above an existing 3ay garage. The design also includes a small approximately 200 square ft silo structure which will provide access to the second floor. Architecturally, the building has been designed to resemble a traditional barn. The intent is to ensure that it blends seamlessly with the existing agricultural character of the property. This is not new or out of place an out ofplace structure. It is consistent with what you would expect to see on a working farm of this size. From a site planning perspective, the re recently approved septic system was designed to accommodate this future apartment so that the infrastructure is already in place. In addition, there is more than adequate parking available on the property. the three- bay garage, the existing three-bay garage. And this proposal will not create any circulation or neighborhood impacts. Under the town code, this application qualifies as a minor project. It does not change the overall character of the property, nor does it intensify the use beyond what is typical for a principal agricultural resident with an accessory structure. Ultimately, this request is allowing the owner to maintain a presence on the property so he can continue to invest in it, care for it, and preserve it. that continued stewardship is beneficial not only to the property itself but to the surrounding community as well. With that, I respectly uh respectfully request the board's favorable consideration of this special use permit. Thank you.

Okay. Um so the um proposed apartment would be over this entire structure or just part of it. It's the apartment currently would only be here. Actually, I'm sorry, but I think there should be a different plan. They're showing the silo on it. Okay, let me uh show you. Yep. Let me just see what else. Nope. It's an old plan. Should be page. It's It's this one. Elevation. Yeah.

C1. Is there a page C1 I'm not seeing one page paper? That's what I was. Do you know which of these docu which of these files it would be? You know what it got broken up into a bunch of little because it was a big file. I can't tell you off hand. Well, let me try A1. Oh, there we go. Okay. There's a set of architectural plans and a set of like site plans. So I think he's referring to the architectural which shows like it looks like there is I don't know if I didn't see that one.

Okay, there's four four PDFs labeled site one through four and I didn't see Yeah, I clicked on those. Yeah, those don't have it right. It's on the bottom here. Yeah, I see it. Okay. So, it's on the south end. South end. Yeah. Closer to the and that silo. So, the silo is currently not there. No. Okay. No, it's a pro proposed for the stairwell. Yeah.

Okay. You should take that back. Thank you. Would any of you want to see it? Sure. If it's not part of it. Okay. Yeah. It's not It wasn't in what I got, but it's okay. Thanks. Okay. So, there'll be a garage. this department over the garage. Yeah. This was an existing structure, okay,

that they just rebuilt under a building permit. They decided about 3/4 of the way through the project that the owner had moved to Texas and now he's trying to find a way to be able to maintain and stay at the property as needed. Um, so instead of finishing it, we stopped all construction at this point. It's right now there's no windows, there's no siding. Uh, it's been sitting like that for quite some time. and uh and we came up with this drawing to try to create an apartment for them. Okay. You said it was 1300 ft if if I got that right. It was 12 Yeah. Plus the silo, the stairwell silo. Yeah. It's 1274. Okay. Thank you. So, the silo is the entrance to the

Yeah, the silo up. Yeah. There's a door on the back side of the silo that leads up the staircase and then there's a door off the silo into the garage. So, they can park their car in the garage and then go right in. Sure. Okay. We'll talk about it. Give us a moment. Let me just see if there's anything else here. Floor area definition

just sorry. Okay. So, it's going to look like this. as you're looking at the what you would say is the front of it. Um, so then to the left of this there's a there's the existing clubhouse. Clubhouse, right? Yeah. Okay.

There's no there's no connection besides it being up against each other. There's no access between here and the clubhouse. Okay. Over here, the garage area. It was an old barn that they tore down for the most part to rebuild it because it was really dilapidated. Gotcha. So, any of us that have been there from previous sitewalks, where the clubhouse ends, that's where this building begins. Okay. Yeah. It sound as though so nothing happened with the clubhouse portion. No, they just re- roofed it under a building. But basic face, not like it got longer or shorter. No, no, no. Everything's exactly what was approved under the special use permit from this board. Okay. Um,

again, the building's the same exact size that it originally was. There's no difference and we I think I believe the engineer established that at the last special permit. All right. Uh I don't have any further comments or questions this time or Williams. Nothing over here. No. Okay. Um whomever like to go first. I can start.

Okay. Yeah. So this was last approved. Um the site was under a special use permit that was amended or redone in 2025 cuz it expired and at that time I believe the this barn garage structure was um shown as proposed then. So that was part of that approval but the this use as an accessory apartment wasn't part of that. So they're going through a new special use permit process just for that use. Was this the silo part of that? I don't believe it was no silo's new. It was their access to trying to get a really just about having a garage I think. Yeah. And I think it was something like Don also raised that it was built like it wasn't part of the didn't get a permit or something. So that was all the

the relication that was done um included legalizing that that barn too as well if I recall. So um so now they're just proposing an apartment on the second floor of this. Um just going through the comments. It's a minor project. It does require a public hearing as we do for all accessory apartment applications. Um we do need ARB review which the applicant has provided those architectural plans. Right.

Um it does require a county referral. Um there was a wastewater engineering report that was uh submitted that seems to show it was approval there was approval by the county. there was a stamp of approval um showing that the the property septic can support this unit, right? Um Joe can comment if he has anything on that. I believe that might have been one of the holdups or that the septic took too long or something reason why the last one expired. It took us some time to get the uh septic permit. I remember there was something about the septic.

So the current septic now includes the apartment. Yes, under the special use permit for the club, we had added the apartment at the time to that to accommodate so we wouldn't have to go back and start over again with the health department. So, it's large enough to support what's that? You have approval for a system large enough to support the extra unit. Yes, I provided that in the documentation and now you're applying to the board for approval of that unit. Exactly. Okay. Um I want to get the property owner through becoming legal so that we can continue moveing forward legally. Mhm.

So, um, comment number five refers to further down, which I I feel like there might be a variance issue on this, um, based on the size of the apartment. We can talk about that when we get to it, which won't be long. Um, and then just, uh, referral to the fire department, um, since you're adding a unit there and there's the, um, silo stairs, access, and ingress and egress issues, if there's any concerns there. Is it like a spiral staircase going up? It's a 15 foot wide staircase. It's a very wide staircase.

Um, okay. So, number seven just talks about general code compliance for accessory apartments. So, in this case, it's a accessory structure on an owner occupied property. Um, the code doesn't allow units larger than the,000 square ft. Um, here you're saying it's about 1,200. Um, the application said about 1,500. I think that's where I got the 1,500 number from. Including the silo. I didn't know if I just wanted to include everything. Not including the silo. It's still over a,000. Yeah, it's 12274. The silo was I I believe two something. I mean, I think that's a that's an area variance for the ZBA to consider, right? So,

Oh, yeah. Think we might need to make that referral tonight cuz it's an accessory because it's not it's not within the principal house. It's a separate structure, right? Um, and that's the code says, you know, the underlined section of that number seven there or a dwelling unit no larger than 1,000 ft located in an accessory. Because of the agricultural use of this site, are they allowed to claim any kind of I mean they if it was farm worker housing, but that's not personal housing. The owner know how to use a scythe? He works the site. I don't know. I'm just I don't know. Do we have that? Is that something we I just know of other

I just know of other places in town that are agricultural where Yeah. stuff gets built and doesn't even come to us, right? Because it's agricultural and they're just kind of like, "Oh yeah, we just we built this thing for farm workers or whatever." Like, who knows? Yeah. I mean, then we could get an interpretation from a markets, but honestly, it's probably faster to get a variance than have markets give an interpretation. Okay. All right.

Um, yeah. So then uh I still think yeah, we could talk go back and forth about it, but technically even though the owner is not on the property all year round, um they would be occupying the unit. So technically it's owner occupied. So I don't think there's an issue there. Yeah.

Right. Right. It's kind of like multi family, but 20. I mean, it's not like this is a real Yeah. four. No, but it does count as building height, right? Sure. It just Right. Is it 35 ft or is it I don't think it is 4 ft. Yeah. I mean, you know, 28. Confirming that'd be good. Yeah. Um Yeah. And then so number eight is just materials. Yeah. Well, yeah, for the ARB technically it's um elevations, floor plans, and if you have like the color scheme, like the building materials, that would be helpful to add to that as well. Yeah.

Um Yeah. So, on the site plan, I noticed you have something there that I didn't see. And what's the date of that one? Is that that's fairly new, right? Cuz uh date on this is February 3rd, 2026. And is that was that done by insight or a different No, it was from the architect.

So what we've looking at in here is we have a bunch of plans labeled site that are the insight drawings from last year's approval. So that's why I raised that as an issue like the applicant seems to be using last year's site plan is the site plan they want to use for this. Um so I asked for there to be a separate standalone set or drawing that shows this this area what's proposed. you know, rather than showing it as proposed, it's now existing. That building's there. It seems like you've done that. So, just take a look at this comment 8 and maybe just add to that. I got to clean up some of the language. The dimensional Yeah, the dimensional table would be helpful, too. Um, from the RU district, just taking the requirements of the RU and showing compliance, including the building height.

Um, so yeah, it seems like we're partially addressing that comment, which is good, but just resubmit that for the record. Yeah, I'm sorry it didn't get submitted. It's okay. Um, and for Seeker, it's a type two action. Um, with this apartment and the primary residence, you're at two a two family residence on the on an approved lot. So, technically, it's a it falls under the type two, um, C11 there. So, um, but if the ZBA was to review this, um, we got to figure out who can be the lead agency. I think, well, if it's type two, you don't need one.

That's true. You're right. There's no environmental review at all, but I think the ZBA wouldn't have to declare it type two. Or would they be the ones to do that? Yeah, they could declare their own type two. That's what I meant by that comment. I think not designating lead agency, but who's going to actually make that type two finding, ZBA or the planning board? I would think the planning board's more geared to doing that. Well, if you go to to the CBA for a variance or one of the type two categories is area variances is they can so they can call it a type two. The planning board can do their own type two or they could just rely on that type two. It doesn't really matter.

Okay. Yeah, just some housekeeping there. Um yeah, so the recommendation was to uh discuss these comments, see if about a site plan, which seems like it's been partially done, and we'll take a look at that when it comes back. Um a sitewalk if the board is willing to undertain that. Um, and I think once we get that plan officially, the referrals can be made to the county, but um, it sounds like ZBA is the first stop for this with the variance issue. Okay. Um, thank you, Engineer Burger. Anything to add?

Yeah. Uh, health departments approved, but I think so that there's consistency. It hasn't been built was Has has it completely been built for the additional lines needed for the accessory? Nothing has been done currently. So Don Anderson knows we should probably have note on there somewhere referencing the health department approval and the dates and of that map of this map. No, the map you have from the health department has a stamp on it. Yeah, that's all part of the application. I know. But on this site plan so Don sees that so he doesn't misses it. just reference the approval date in the map it's on. Got it. So Don knows when he's looking at his review where it is and not having to go uh run around to find it.

Yeah, no problem. It's clear since it was approved in advance of this and not part of this stamp that you're going to be stamping as a town planning board. That type of note is important for when Don and I are out there, we look at and we know what we're looking for. Right. Okay. Thank you. Is there any follow? I have no additional comments.

Okay. Uh having heard from our consultants from the plane board, any comments, questions? All right. Um so uh we said a sitewalk although it seems like this was uh already a little difficult. Um, I mean, I would propose Saturday the 25th at 9:00 a.m., but no one else could seem to make it. I don't um engineer burger or it's

fine with me. Okay. And then is there an alternative? Does that work for you? Yeah, that works for your Yeah. Who's living on the property? We'll be there. I'll show you whatever you need. I be I'll be away. 25th at 9. Yeah. And I guess it is I don't know a secondary date for anyone else who I guess it has to just be another night of the week or um I I've already walked every inch of the property. Sure. The last 40 years. Sure. Okay. I mean, if there's just no, you know, if you don't need to see it again, I guess you don't need to see it again. But, uh, I guess just for legalizing. Uh,

I can send you plenty of pictures if you need. Is it silo up now? No, there's no construction. The only thing that's there is the threec car garage, which has been there for the last probably 50 years. So, there's not any visual change from the last. No. Okay. No, not from last year or the year before, the last 10 years. Okay. So, maybe there's nothing actually to really Right. Yeah. I can provide pictures if you like, just for the record. Pictures of just Oh, what it looks like? Yeah. What it looks like currently. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I guess I mean, just like I said, I I'm trying the last time we had a sidewalk there, I don't know if anything would have from what you're saying, I don't know if anything would have really changed other than maybe some landscaping or

Yeah. I mean, he's been improving the property. He's planted last year 200 trees, okay, that are 4 in in caliber on the property. Wow. So, I mean, he's investing in the property tremendously on things. is just cleaning up stuff, you know, taking invasive species, weeds out, stuff like that, planting new stuff on the property. It's just continuing to make it better. I mean, I guess we could just forego a sidewalk then. I mean, if I mean, unless you feel you need to see it and I can go I can also be, you know, if if we're going to be at a sidewalk at 8 a.m., what's to stop there at 9:00 a.m.? I would. Okay. So, a motion to have a sitewalk uh Saturday, April 25th, 9:00 a.m.

Anyway, yeah. Motion made by myself. Seconded by Second. Member Williams. Discussion. Seeing no discussion. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any post say no. Okay. The motion passes 40 with two absences. All right. We'd also like some photos though for the record. Yeah, sure. Pull whatever you need. I'll submit them. Um All right. Is there any other You want to make a motion to formally refer them to the zoning board? Yeah. And what about the rest of like the county and all that? I think we can we would have to wait, wouldn't we, until I mean, we can we can hold off to see what the zoning board does or we can send it. When would the zoning board then look to meet it on this?

June. Wow. So, hold on. Let me just check. You could make it smaller, but I think Yeah. When's there When's the meeting? No, May 11th. The deadline for May 11th is April 22nd. So, they could do May 11. Yeah. Okay. May 11th. Good. All right. So, motion to refer this application to the ZBA. Motion made by So moved. Member Palmer, second by member Ladier. Discussion. See no discussion. All those in favor say I. I. Any post say no. Okay, that passes 402 absences. Um, any other referrals or

let's wait for the plans to get cleaned up and then we'll send it to county planning because he was Yeah, it's using the old foot the old this one. Yeah, technically didn't get this for the record. So, I guess if So, if they're going to meet with the ZBA on the 11th, uh I guess we could have you back on the agenda for the 18th to discuss what if anything maybe has come of that. Just uh make sure you get the application to me by Wednesday. Next Wednesday. This Wednesday. This Wednesday for the ZBA. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. I'll do my best. If not, I just have to wait. Just as long as you fill it out and you get it, email it to me. Oh, okay. And then send the checks in. Oh, okay. So, it's just filling out the application. Okay.

Do you want to get it online or do you want a copy from here? I'll take a copy from here. It's fine. Thank you. Is it to weigh in before they I don't know that it needs to Yes, it'll stay on the I think it's on the application. Yeah. Okay. All right. Anything further um for this application? Can I ask if going to the zoning board I would I uh could I say that you planning board's in favor of this? No, we don't wouldn't say that. We don't do that. They've not voted on that. Uh yeah. No, the the zoning board has to make their own. No, but termination on the variance, but I can't say that you're against it.

How about you just say the planning board referred us to you? Yeah. And they called it type two. Trying here. Come on. I mean, we can make a motion to classify it as type two if that helps. So, I mean, right. Yeah. Okay. Motion to classify as a type two action under secret. Motion made by So moved. Member Williams. Second by member Palmer. Discussion. See no discussion. All those in favor say I. I. I. Say no. 4 Z with two absences. Um yeah. I mean again you can see what the code says. Yeah. It's an area. I think it's a very it's up to them. Yeah. It's not a large variance. So

the question is we couldn't we were looking at it whether the staircase is included or not included. Well, that was kind of why it broke it apart. I wasn't sure how to include it and I tried I played phone tag with Don today. So him and I kept calling each other back and forth and I it didn't work out. So you might want to get his opinion that's what I'm going to do before I make my application so I know exactly what I'm asking for. The floor area definition says you exclude basements and sellers but it doesn't say to exclude staircases. So okay, even if it's not it's kind of an uninhabitable staircase, right?

It's not internal to the to the unit, right? Like I think like my own house has my own house has a staircase up to an apartment over the garage but it's I mean it's enclosed but it's not like it's cold in the winter. I don't know like it's not like like it should count. Is this going to be heated spa? Conditioned space. Yeah. Yeah. We think it has to get heated. The wrong answer be cold in there. So I you know I don't know. It's not my call. That's something just needs to be figured out before you go. I know some towns exempt staircases, some don't. So, I'll find out. Squirrel's warm. But yeah, well, I got a laundry room at the bottom. If you look at the plan, there should be a laundry room there with a washer. So, I'm going to have to heat it for the washer. Oh, so it's part of the apartment, too.

So, there's a separate door that's like its own space. So, like a little closet that has a stackable washer in it. Don't remember. Okay.

I'm just trying to get a sense. So, is it basically like 30x 40 or uh current? I think it's 15 by 15. It's like a 15t round circle, I believe. No, no, no. The the apartment. Oh, the apartment. Uh I think it was I guess it was 29. I think it was 29 by 41, I believe, if I measured from interior walls. Yeah, I'm looking at like 5 12 17. Yeah, I kind of just squared it out. 20 29 by 41. Okay. Okay. Yeah. All right. Uh I think we're all set. Thank Thank you. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Appreciate it. Take out the internal walls. Um see I don't want to do leasable space. I take out the walls. Right. Yeah. Take out closet face walls. Sir. Yes. Here's the application for you. Just go around the I I don't I don't think it's I think it's broader than that. No, it's not the same as Lisa. No, it actually said including the zone actually includes I think so. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Um and would you like me to submit once I clean up that plan right away for for the consultants? Yes. Yeah, sure. Okay, I'll do it as quick as possible. Thank you.

It says including the interior. The deadline for the May 18th meeting is It's pantries and hallways. Does that mention walls? All right. So, uh, our next meeting is doesn't mention walls. Uh, the deadline for that has already passed. Um, although we extended the deadline for that one application. So, on the agenda for May 4th, we would have the public scoping session for Windingale Solar, right? And um old business would be uh Lake Ellis Country in right we talk about the sidewalk for that and just where we are and then Sherwood Hill development

real if the information's in right and double date K if in more information comes in that's for May 18th okay May 4th that's for May 4th okay no that'll be on May 18th that's what I'm saying Okay. So, May 4th is the public scoping session for Wingale Solar, right? And Lake Ellison, Sherman Hill and Redless, maybe. Okay. All right. On the motion to adjurnn. Motion made by myself, seconded by second. Member Palmer. All in favor of adjournment say I. I. We're journ.

All right. Maryland. Sherman Hill is only to discuss the sidewalk though. Really? Sherman Hills only to discuss the sidewalk. Their hearing is on the 18th, I think.