Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening everybody and welcome to the city of Houston planning board meeting. Uh my name is Suzanne Kenn. I am the planning director for the city of Kingston. Um before we begin the meeting, I want to just go over a few quick announcements. Um, if you do have a cell phone, I'm going to ounce that you please put it on silently so that it interfere with your meeting. Um, if we have an emergency, we're going to ask that you please do not use the elevator, use the stairs. If you need assistance, please ask us. If you have any conversations that um you need to have and they're not with the planning board, we just ask that you please take them outside. Uh, conference room 2 has a meeting going on, but you're welcome to use the chambers. Uh, bathrooms are out the door and through the chambers on the opposite side of the building. Men's is to the left and women's to the right. Um, I do want everybody to also be aware that we are live streaming the meeting and it is being recorded. So, be cognizant of that in your speech and your actions. And with that, I'm going to open the meeting at 6:02 p.m. and turn it over to Chairman Platt to introduce the other members present and staff.

Thank you, Suzanne. Uh, introductions. Uh, again, my name is Wayne Platt. We also have Charles Blanco, Matt Gillis, Vince Archer, Sage Newkerk, and Kyrie Grundy. You've already met Suzanne Kah, our planning director. Kyle Dday is the assistant planner. And welcome aboard to Alderwoman Ruth Cats, our common council liaison to the planning board. All right. Item number one is the adoption of the December 8th, 2025 planning board meeting minutes. Everybody's had enough to look at them. Any questions, additions, or deletions on them? Seeing none at this time, we'll make a motion that we adopt those minutes. Do a second. Matt Gillis with a second. All in favor? I suppose. All right.

Excuse me. Moving on to public hearings. Item number two is 256 Washington Avenue. is a public hearing for administrative renewal the 10 room boarding house second block of lattice 56.90-4-36 secret of termination transct 3 256 Washington Avenue LC is the applicant anybody's the applicant on wishing to speak the legend of the truth

this is just administrative so this is yes you are only be doing this for public hearing tonight. It's no special permits. So, we're handling it administratively. There are no changes to any of the uh conditions. Um but we have to have a public hearing. So, being by renew um probably to be consistent with our August renewals when it does not meet and then the renewals will take place administratively that way. I'm just going to make a note from the record disability of any obligation on any geneal term. Um, well, this is just going to August for this one, right? Huh?

This is just going to August for this one, right? They still have an active building on it, right? They're still not This is the This only covers the 10 room boarding house. Yes. Yes. The other was straight sight. So, so this one is currently occupied. Currently occupy occupied. Um, and there's no changes to it. They're just renewing it. They've been proud of the plan for it. This this part of the building, right? Yeah. Just original. And there's no issues with KP and all that.

There's I mean stuff, but it's nothing. So to get it to August would be a seven-month renewal. Do you want a 19month? Do you What are you recommending for this? I'm I'm thinking to take it to August and then just do annual renewals. That was in the um your original resolution said annual renewals. That's something you could have modified. Um whereas you said you said annual renewals. um in the resolution it doesn't it's not required to be an annual renewal by total right you know so we could look at

in the past been there issues with this is the different ownership is prior to this now it's a new company a new corporation we don't even say boarding house annual okay all right so we'll continue that. Okay, great. Quickly. Any other discussion on this? All right. So, this time I'll make a motion that we do close the public hearing. Make a motion to close the public hearing. Matt from the second. All in favor?

I oppose. Barry [clears throat] first. All right. [clears throat] under new business. Uh 329, this is item number three, 329 Foxhole Avenue site plan and major wavers to renovate an existing building and construct an addition for wholesale and retail ice cream cakes section blocking lot 48.318-8-7 transex zone T4 and W 6 Rich Voice is the applicant. Foxhole Enterprises LLC is the owner.

Hi everyone. Hi. How are you? Good. How are you? I'm John Gallagher architecture from representing Bridge is putting it up on the screen behind you. of all. Yes, we approved a while. So, I apologize for another conclusion. [clears throat]

No, we we approved a um different variation of this. Um I forget the exact date, but uh prior to uh this and it was much a much larger edition that was going to go all the way to the street, if you recall. um and they are scaling it back um due to economic uh costs of building that addition. So there's two structures currently on the property. One is still to be demolished and a smaller addition uh one will be retained and restored renovated and a smaller addition being added to that. So this shows existing conditions steer um and then this one shows the the ability to be retained and the small addition and D let you take it from there.

Sure. Right. So this is the existing garage. Uh what Rich wants to do is add a freezer and a uh refrigerator onto the side of that building, but it will be enclosed and it'll be uh sided to uh match the existing building. The existing building siding and roofing will all be removed and replaced with new. Um the existing gravel drive will remain. The existing concrete uh patio will be patched and extended just to uh connect to the gravel driveway. And we are proposing some new plantings along the side the existing sidewalk that's there. Now if you want to go to the next slide, please. Uh this is the existing garage that's on the site now. This is the floor plan of it. uh the interior would be uh u demolished and then uh this is the existing you know CMU block foundation garage door wood slat siding. It's in pretty bad shape right now. Um if you want to go to the next slide. Uh so the new uh proposal is to create a new bathroom inside an open plant where he will have uh soft serve ice cream machines where he's going to make his cakes. This is to make ice cream cakes for wholesale and retail use. Um, and then a uh new refrigerator and a new freezer. So, we're proposing new board and bat siding, new lighting, uh some minimal signage. This is where the garage door was. It'll be a new aluminum and glass uh system. Uh new windows. Um and that's that's basically it. New gutters, no down spouts. uh storm will just go onto the ground, you know, very minimal.

So, as as in a previous submission they were here for. Yeah. This is not retail space, right? This is not going to be people coming in. Correct. Yeah. I don't think the original one was either. No, it's had a very small area like screen kind of followed. You could walk in and where the small like just a very small area but you could buy homes and think he was going to have stuff like that. That was part of the the last I thought it was just for cakes the last time. No. Yeah, it was for both. But this one he just wants to do the cakes and wholesale.

I thought he was just for cakes. Well, the compliance issue was over the wholesale operation and not you need to do this part of it, right, for operating the commercial side of it out of it. But no, no, the retail brought into um like having to have the glazing in the front. Uh was it was those uh zoning regulations? Oh, the glass. And then and then there's also the height issue. They figured the retail zoning required like a 12T floor above requirement. Uh there were other issues with that

but the scale of the operation to have it in the space versus the space that was originally proposed hasn't changed. It's just been like reduced. Yeah. But the amount of people and the staffing and stuff like that has not been changed. Yeah. He's he's not going to have as much staff here. It's just going to be him and his daughter. Yes. Now, that was also another you could go there and pick up your order, your cake order and all that. That's that won't happen in this location. It'll be at the main store. This will feed the main store with the cakes. This will be the the cake assembly. Yeah. Then we plot.

Yeah. Uh if you want to just go to the next slide please. Yeah, this is the uh site plan. We're proposing to bring in a new water uh service uh a new gas service and then a new sewer service. And also as part of this project, as I understand, not part of this project, but part of city Kingston is redoing Foxhole Lab. So there will eventually be a new sidewalk. All right. in the area. Is there a time frame of the Foxhole project when that'll take place?

Um they're going to probably look to be starting I believe next year or maybe the end of this year but um they this area I guess be starting on this area is not going to be starting immediately. So this location might be a couple years out. Okay. Right. Flappish on the flatish. Yeah. I I don't know. They're starting on both ends and working towards the middle one end first. That has not the logistics have not been but they wouldn't start the middle. Do you remember one little glass? Right.

This place. Yes. Yeah. Not the environment is correct. [clears throat]

So a little discussion in the previous mission, but I mean that's all been out deliveries or all that. So um well you you can ask they're a little different obviously but pretty much the same um smaller box truck type of deliveries. Um, I don't know if we had the information on frequency. Will there be a vehicle left on site for he has um, you know, like swans at those trucks? That's where he has a shorter those lower. Okay. Where he has the doors on the side. Yeah. Okay.

Okay. Yeah. And I don't know if he plans on keeping it on the site or house. Yeah. There was a question on the links. Mhm. Um on this on that plan, you're showing it along the street. I saw this. Yeah. And then that's that's not Yeah. And then if you see the other plan, it's up by the It should be back here. So this would all be That's not So that's it. Okay. Yeah. All right. So we need that to be That's a printing modified print. Yeah, correct.

And then there was a note that um juniper is not native. So we we need a swap for that. If you want suggestions, um we can hook you up with the city's forester and he can give you some suggestions. Yeah.

Great. alternatives that you can choose from. Sounds good. So overall, the intensity of the fight has been reduced because there's no retail component now, right? Yeah. [clears throat] Is the plan for revenue still the same?

What's the trash situation? I remember us discussing that and I remember discussing parking which now is not an issue under the original review. He was going and taking off site himself. I'm assuming that's it. Were any of these waivers discussed first go? No. No. Want to um the reason for uh the waivers, you've got multiple waiverss here to consider if you want to look at what they are. If you film through the staff notes, um we've put them um in order. There's a facade transparency requirement for the ground floor non- retail. Um [clears throat] you have um your front um your setback because technically you have to build within the build two zone along the street but the building the building that's being retained is already set extremely far back

and the addition is not large enough to even get to that front build two zone. So that is a um a waiver that is being requested that you need to discuss and then the other one is the rear setback. Um in this particular zone it's required to be 10 ft and I believe you have my memory like three or four feet. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. even and it's even [clears throat] and the existing building is obviously not set back

um accordingly. So they tried they're trying to obviously be in line back side of the existing structure that would look out of right character. Where are what are we at with percentages? The facade fancy new application.

It was 22% and it's required to be 30%. So it's an 8% deviation. their reasons for the dev just because we were are we using the existing opening from the existing garage. I'll say you stay with the thing. Yeah. Now is that just the side street side street? It's a street facing transparency. Um, obviously the addition is a cooler and you know um on on the front end um it's a walk-in refrigeration system

so you really can't have a window unit in that um it wouldn't be economical. Um, and the other side, I mean, they basically used where the garage door is and made that 100% of their transparency. The other side of that building is, I believe, the floor. Well, the floor plan's right there. Is, you know, the workspace. Um, there might be an opportunity to put a smaller window there. I'm not sure. Um, to make it up, um,

would that book out of place? you necessar I mean I don't I don't believe so something you see like on the side of the building there could be um and you can probably get I think a not close if not meet the transparency but you'll get a lot closer I think on that front to the left of the Yes, that would fit nicely. Yeah, but he only 30% that would get him to

I I don't know if it would quite get him there, but he'd get him a lot much closer and I think then he would at least have the only other location be above the basin sink which it's going to be looking at the building next door. Right. Right. And there is a window there. It's existing. You can't [clears throat] dispute from such a building. Not not the sides. Only the front facade. We're concerned with the operation itself. I think that if it [clears throat] if it was on that left hand side, our left hand side natural light in that part of the space, it would necessarily be a bad thing. You know,

just be able to see straight out and it's just going to give you that much more perception of what's going on in front of your business. there would be nice. We can handle that. Okay. But it makes sense to like I I understand from the cost savings keeping using what the existing part of it is

and then sad you knew about that. Yeah. So, and does does any blazing have to be a true transparency? They're only going to be they've had buildings before that. No, that fake like I think CDS did in town, right? Do they have some fake wisdom or um um to match matching? Yeah. One of them or two of them does not have you can't look into them or look out. It's just you

know that's you can look out but you can't there's a few of them in town. I mean I need both. Can I just ask for a little bit more information as to why the stepbacks um don't fall into the range of the code just so that I understand it that we're being okay under the new form base code. Yeah. um there is what they call a build two zone BTZ and or there's contextual setback and each transct has a specified build to zone defined within for the front yard. Okay. Before in the old code, it used to say you had a minimum setback of like 15 ft and then that's that had to be clear and then you could build anywhere behind that. Okay.

But in the new formbbased code, it's meant to develop a more walkable type of street environment. So they're looking to put pull the buildings closer to the street typically. So you have a build to zone. So you have to build within a certain distance. So you can 15 ft back is maybe where you can build and then you can build in front of that. So if you want you can do contextual 5 to 15 ft. That's where they want the front of your building in this I think in this zone. And then contextual if you have a contextual setback then you have to look at what is on either side of you within a certain distance and try and not exclude you know somewhere in a range nothing what it sticks out as an eyesore

right

so the reason why this doesn't comply and needs a waiver is because they're using the the foundation that's existing and it does not fall in well they're using they're they're adding putting an addition onto an existing structure that they currently they're reusing and that is well behind the build two zone. So in order for them to meet the build two zone they their old plan came basically all the way out to the street almost and that worked. But this is a much smaller addition. It's only for the refrigerator and the freezer section. So they don't need that huge addition. They'd have to build all the way almost all the way out to the street and they don't need that. They're trying

out here. This is the street out here. Yeah, the existing building is way back here. This is the rear property line. The previous uh application had a This was the building. It came all the way out to here was much larger. So, this is an existing garage that's on the site now that's remaining. We're redoing it. Just adding on the refrigeration. and it's, you know, 51 ft from the property line. Does it require signage at all? Because it's just a wholesale amount of retail like any new construction has to follow the current code. So, as as you

So, this is your property line here. Okay. Y so your build to zone say is 15 ft back your building has to be up to this point here. Okay. So for them to put an addition on this building back here it would have to come all the way out to here to meet the build to zone. The addition would okay the existing structure is fine the way it is. If you was just reusing the existing structure then the setback waiverss wouldn't even be applicable because it's pre-existing. because it's new construction. This has to meet your current setbacks. So, they're going this way with it instead of going this way. But

even if he came out this way, it would still be well right fall well short of that. So, the issue really and the reason why that exists in the code is for the visibility from this front street. Well, they're trying to create, you know, a streetscape where, you know, you're walking along the street and and if you have a a shop front or a storefront or even, you know, houses with porches, they want them closer to the street. They want to create that walkable environment. So, having things way back it, you know, they're trying to connect the the buildings and the uses to the use of the street.

Thank you. Okay. Yeah. So, another change is that there is no um dumpster. Um we did talk to the project owner on that and then um he's basically going to be removing the trash um on a daily basis to his other location. So if there's no dust of this paint on this site that's it talk about the negatives because you do need to go through your form and come up with some findings. And so do you [clears throat] as far as the facade transparency with one that's unimplied to grant that to support granting that um

do you want them to move forward with adding the window to the front left to increase? So as part of granting that there was a call if if there's a need for after adding the window and [clears throat] you still do not meet the 30% then that's okay. Yeah. Oh, that actually did. [clears throat] Does everybody else feel strongly about that?

Um, the next one for not meeting the front build zone. Um, I think that would create a lot of the the applicant doesn't need all of that unusable space and doing so I think would kind of make the building look out of [clears throat] character for the site.

I would agree. I just would consider either situations in the past or situations maybe in the future that are under the fall under the same kind of reasoning. The intent of the code was written to create something like specific. Well, I'm thinking this is this is an adaptable reus current building he's going to use. So keeping that in in in my focus is that any addition to that, you know, coming towards the street and make it look

and it's not I I I would agree with that. I could because I mean the building's already hiring somebody to build on more they don't need doesn't [clears throat] make sense.

Yeah. pulling a project back to make it economically sound is a worthy thing to adapt to. But I think when you think about it like that, it's like you wouldn't be achieving that goal by shifting that addition around the other side. So regardless, it's being built with for the intended use within the scale that that they need. Then things kind of line up to you which goes into the next one of the setback, right? The rear yard setback. Again, I think that if uh if we did follow that rear yard setback, it would it would be a jog in the building and it just wouldn't line up. It wouldn't flow. It wouldn't function properly in there.

Correct. Same kind of thing. Yeah. Sure. from demolishing the building and starting fresh which you're not going to do. Yeah. Just wasteful half million. Does those that those labor plus? Yes. But we got to go to the checklist too, right? Oh yeah, we going to B in the top part of this meeting. Yeah. Good. All right. So, this is the Let's go ask the questions.

Yeah. The planning board waiver checklist for for 329 Fox Avenue. Um first one is the applicant has included a waiver request letter that clearly identifies and describes the waiver being proposed accompanied by plans and other visual representations as applicable. That is a yes correct. Uh in their letter, the applicant describes in detail why the waiver is needed and how the waiver request is consistent with the intent, design, and compatibility of the transet zone in which the project is located. I agree with that. Yes. Yes. [clears throat]

Three. Will granting the waiver contribute to the realization of the overall intent of the transex zone and result in an approved project which will be an attractive and durable contribution to the transex zone. I mean we're putting an addition on an existing building that sets back. So I'm going to I'm saying yes to that. Yes. Restoring restoring be restored too

to support walkable neighborhoods andor mixeduse centers. The project emulates the neighborhood context for how far the building buildings relate to the sidewalk, how the facade is designed, and how the building interacts with the street. Um, is that an on yes? I would say yes more than anything. Yes or no? I agree. It doesn't really take away from it doesn't really

take away from the project supports a green and resilient future by for example reducing vehicular miles traveled providing green infrastructure and/or street trees andor including high quality usable open space. So they're reducing the size of the the addition. They mean so they're keeping preserving more green space. Mhm. I'm saying yes to that. Yes. Yeah. Okay. [clears throat]

Um the project supports incremental development patterns in its size and density and supports infill development for the reuse of existing buildings. I would say that is a yes. Yes. Right. Okay. The project supports the provision of a variety of housing types to support a range of income levels, age groups, and family units. That's an NA. Great. Great.

And the last one is the project specifies street design that is walkable and bikable and reinforce safe and comfortable environments for all users. All right. This answer. [clears throat]

All right. So, do you um we can do seeker in this thing? You It's type two driving threatening.

Perfect. And we recognize this as a type B to see if the further is required. [clears throat] Any other questions? Okay. At this time, I will make a list on there. I will make a motion that we approve item number three and sue the list of condition policies. board policies 4 485 6 7 10 11 13 18 22 23 and 24 and the mod we'll modify the landscaping plan to show the landscaping up front and we'll swap out the juniper to a native species in console with the urban forester and then we'll add window to the front left of the current of the door to increase the transparency percentage and recalculate and you have the with the waiverss.

Okay, [clears throat] that was a motion. Do I have a second? Second by Sage. All in favor? I opposed carry. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah. Yeah. Uh item number four is an extension request. uh 2068 Flatbush Avenue is the extension request to remove block line of the lands of the case of housing authority section blocks 48.74-3-24 and 48.74-3-19 secret of termination transct zone SD-mf 6 Kingston housing authority is the owner even my name is John Ferguson I'm the attorney for the Kingston Housing Authority. Also with you tonight is Nick Shell. He's the uh deputy executive director. Well, Kingston Housing Authority newly I think it's been a couple minutes.

Right. Months or weeks. I'm still on the honeymoon phase.

And then you brought security behind the operation. [laughter] Um so the board may recall back in July of 2025 we received a conditional site plan and lot line deletion map approval. Um the Kingston housing authority is proposing or you guys approved the demolition of two existing buildings at Penor uh and replacing it with a 180 unit building. Also included some other site improvements on Colonial Gardens. those two complexes were on separate tax parcels. We needed to remove that lot line to combine them to merge them and to make them one larger parcel because of the funding with the state. Um so this is this all kind of happened in July. Um so we've been working on the conditions of the approval. There's there's there's there's uh actually the lot line map which which we hear tonight is really the easements and the deeds. Um the city's already reviewed the easements and the deeds. We're kind of just working with the state, working with all the lenders, working with Mount Co. uh to finalize everything for closing. Uh so they're hoping to close sometime in March, April of 2025. Um so we do need a little bit more time to to kind of dot the eyes and cross the tees and get us across the finish line. Uh but we should be wrapping things up within the next two months.

Okay. Um so we'd like to have an extension for the approval. [clears throat] You have any questions? Am I here? Did you check the universe on the back? You might know we we were asking we saw in the law could extens the extension could be granted for 90 days and you're asking for two consecutive extensions of 90 days. We had put the question to our court counsel if that's possible for us to just grant the two so at the same at the same time. In my experience in other municipalities, they usually grant the two 90-day extensions

for another one at the same time. So that way we're not coming back in 3 months. Yeah. So that's been my practice where I represent boards when I ask for these extensions. Uh it's always kind of packaged up into two 90-day extensions. So, cuz I think the law says 90 days, but everybody always asks for. So, the law says 90 days, but you can't go past that. That's You can. It's just we would like two consecutive 90day extensions. You can grant that now. Could you just do a year? You can't. No, the law says that's what I was just asked was the law says that you can't exceed that, but I thought he said no. So, okay. 290 days. Okay. Thank you extends. [clears throat]

That's as far out as we can go. No, there'll be hopefully every month. Yeah, I would stick with the the 180 days. That's the the practice is you can, you know, 90 days is the limit. You can grant as many 90-day extensions as you want. So, I'm just asking for two for one on this request to save everybody more time. I think it's the moving parts there. Don't mind. This just makes sense, too. I got to do that secret.

I don't even know what those say in here. I know. Okay. All right. Is there a way to agree to the um request contingent on checking with the council just to make sure that that's not an issue? Yeah, we will double check with Matt. Okay. As soon as we said under secret, this is a type two action. So, no further review of the board is required on this matter. Um any other questions? So, we're looking at it. Do we learn it to 90 days or do we do it under?

So all the other original conditions will remain in place. You're authorizing an extension of two 90day extensions consecutively issued with confirmation from corporation council that we have that authority. Okay. So how soon has just described that? I'll put that into the form of a motion to approve item number four. We have a second on that. Second by Matt Gillis. All in favor? I opposed. Gary. Okay. Thank you very much. Good luck everything. Nice seeing you. Thank you very much.

We have to support that. There is an extra item that we got a request from our grants office today for a letter of support for a New York State DOT transportation um alternatives grant application that the city is making out of safe school and it's for the Bailey and Edson school area and it's a sidewalk um and other pedestrian improvements. It includes multiple streets around those two schools and a portion of Lucas Avenue. So, as we heard in our last few months of discussion on Blue Stone that there are sidewalks in the area desperately needed. So, um I wrote a basic paragraph saying in the letter, the form letter that was given that as a planning board, we are seeing new building activity in the area being targeted for the funding. New housing development will bring more families and children and safe walking routes are critical to allowing the city to achieve higher densities of muchneeded housing. Additionally, new sidewalks will accommodate promoting a healthy community with access not only to schools but services, employment, and other opportunities.

And have they identified where are they still working on where these sidewalks are going to be? Um, I'm sure that they have the project outline. I expect it's late afternoon. So I would have it tonight. I figured that there wouldn't be an objection to the application. I just need a motion to allow me to sign this in a second. I'll make a motion. Second. Okay. And seconded by Matt, please favor. All in favor? I opposed. Very good.

[clears throat]

Okay.

Any other business before the board? Um, the only other thing I want to just do is remind everybody if you have not done so, you need to do your financial statements, get that in line. Um, that's not the middle of February, but you need to get your uh get it notorized. Um, there are notaries here in the city hall. You need them. Um, but if you do have it notorized elsewhere, put it in a blank envelope, there's instructions with the um, form on what to write on the front and then you have to seal it and sign across the seal of the back. So, make sure you do that and then you can bring it in at any time.

She usually does that in right across from clerk's office. Yeah. And she usually comes in later in the day and stays later. So yeah, she is not. She comes in the said is a notary as well. Yeah, there's a couple of them in the building. So the banks, you know, there's Yeah, most banks have them. Mhm. Is there any? She's an engineer. She's an engine. Yeah.

And many of the attorneys are too. So, okay, that's all I have. Is there a motion to adjourn? Matt, have a motion to adjourn. Chuck with a second. All in favor? I was journed at 6:36 p.m.