Zoning Board of Appeals - Regular Meeting

Please rise for the pledge of

allegiance to the flag of America to the stands one nation indivisible with liberty and justice for all. [Music] Okay, good evening. So, before we start tonight's agenda, I'd like to announce that um the mailing from the planners office, the town planner's office, went to the wrong HOA. It went to the HOA that you've had previous years. And evidently the retreat changed HOAs in the last year or two. I'm not familiar with that. And never updated the files here. So the mailing went out Sep September 25th, but it went to your old HOA. That being said, I spoke to council for the planning board. We want to reopen the public hearing for November 13th. That's I believe our next meeting. So, anyone that wants to speak will be able to speak at the November 13th meeting.

Thank you. [Applause] So, Mr. Chairman, so the the public hearing will have to be renoticed, republished. A new notice will go out to the uh managing agent for the HOA, and hopefully they will then pass that along to the members. So what what uh Mr. Shabino just said is that the public hearing will be renoticed. It'll be in the newspapers. Another email will go to the your newer HOA and we'll have the meeting on November 13th. Joe, did I miss anything there? And everybody within 500t

everybody within 500 ft, but not beyond that. So if you're beyond that, just look out for it. Also, [Music] yeah, we'll be in the newspaper also. So, get your thoughts together and you have uh two weeks, well, a little bit longer than two weeks to prepare for the next meeting. All right. I just thought we'd do that first so I don't tie you up. Thank you. If you would please exit quickly and quietly because we have a long agenda. Thank you. I'm

sorry. It's only It's probably just going to go to the HOA, but you know the deal. Next month, you can come here. It'll be on your It goes to the HOA. All any uh HOA in town, data point of contact with the town and they they have all your email addresses. Are you not 500 ft? 500 ft. Would you please exit so we can continue our meeting?

Excuse me. Would you please exit so we can continue our meeting? Thank you. [Music] The people these are the people from retreat people USA.

I guess they're giving us [Music] This is crazy. [Music] for a fight.

Come back next month. I'm sure it's going to be a biggie. Take care. Excuse me. Will you please exit the room? There's a meeting that has to be conducted.

All you in the back, will you please exit out the right hand door? Hey, how are you? Good. How you doing?

Okay, I got a big day tomorrow. I got a lot of cat scans neck li [Music] [Music] The same. [Music]

Well, should be an interesting meeting. [Laughter] feeling she's still.

Okay, let's first on the agenda is TC Graphics 893 Route 6. Is anyone here from TC Graphics? He wasn't here last meeting either. He was not. That's the second one. TC Graphics. Okay. Second on your agenda is Michael Festo, 52 Crafts Road. Jack, isn't that you?

We discussed this afternoon that we're going to we're not sampling until tomorrow. So, we're going to put this off until the next meeting. Jack and I spoke this afternoon since the testing of soil is going to be done tomorrow. Uh, I'd prefer you come back when the sampling is done. Okay, Jack, since you're up there, uh you can also do uh Pelini Greg 381 East Lake.

So, I just want to clarify on number two. So, we left open the public meeting last time, so it's still open then. Okay. Thank you for that. Yes. And uh we're going to collect them tomorrow and Rich is going to be there. Rich is going to be there, too. All right. So, Jack, you'll be able to have a quick turnaround within two weeks to interpret them and give us a report. Is that what you're estimating?

Yeah, I hope so. So, look on all this soil testing in the future. If you don't have the results, I don't think you should come in front of the board. So, let's make sure of that. I think I think everyone on the board agrees with that. You get the results, you come forward. So, if you get in two weeks, great. If you don't, then we push it off. Thank you. All right, let's do a 381 East Lake Boulevard regrading application. Um, Mike, did you have any comments on this? Pellegrino. Yes. No, this is a minor regrading, correct? I have no comments. Excuse me, Rich.

So, the application involves a leveling of a yard at the reference location. Uh, work already has been performed on the site. It's about under 5,000 square foot of disturbance so that doesn't trigger the New York State stormwater regulations uh that was issued or it was I don't even remember if I issued a notice of violation or not but it was spoken to while the work was being done. When I visited the site, they put up silk fencing immediately at that point in time. The for the information provided uh provide a legend on the drawing, provide a survey separate from the site plan. It wasn't identified if any fill was brought to the site or not, if it was just releing. So, at least at least some kind of documentation there and assessment of runoff not to cause erosion as per section 15643 and the location of any wells and depth thereof of natural water courses. So, there is a water course that runs adjacent to this property. Uh, so it is shown on the drawing, but it's more the wells. I don't believe there are any in the area, but Jack just needs to show that as part of his plan.

Thank you. And Pat, no planning issues associated with this, Mr. Chair. So, Jack, I didn't see a sign outside this property. There was no sign. We We didn't have a sign. It's not on for a public hearing. It's it's just this is the first crack at this thing. And if I can explain sign only go up for public hearing. No, it should be up for when the application goes in. Correct. What? The sign should go up for every applicant that comes in front of the board. Site plan, subdivision, everything. There should be a sign. There was no sign put there ever. I'll talk to Rose and get a sign. But they didn't do it when they gave you the application.

No. Interesting. I I'll speak to Rose also, but uh

Okay, I just want to say that um the three trees were removed and some brush and he fixed a footing drain. And in order to fix the footing drain, he had a small um track excavator and that's what tore up the front yard. Um and there's water off the road I met with that comes into down his driveway and makes a mess on his property. And um we're we I met with the county and they're going to put catch basins on the road and um he wants to move some bushes back because the sight distance is terrible coming in that driveway. So my plan shows the the bushes moving back or getting removed and he's going to put some abbravites along the front there and that's it. Um, if I I'll talk to Rose too and and get a sign and I'll address u Rich's comments, but it's a minor thing that

it is. Any comments from the board? Otherwise, we need a motion to schedule public hearing. I make a motion to schedule a public hearing. A second. All in favor? I. What was the motion? Public hearing. Public hearing. Thank you. Thank you. Next on the agenda is Knights of Columbus, 10 Fair Street. Mr. Chairman, with your uh with your permission, Mr. Clear will vote me as a uh abstent. Sure. Good evening. Uh Mike, I don't believe you had any comments. No. Well, it might have been addressed.

And Rich? Uh no, I have no memo here for this evening. It's on for a resolution. Pat, I believe you have a resolution, Mr. Chairman. Any comments from the board? No. We need a motion to adopt the site plan. I'll make a motion to adopt the site plan for the Knights Columbus 10 Fair Street, Carmel, New York. Second. All in favor? I I And anyone abstain? There we go. Just wanted for the record. Thank you, sir. Thank you. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Have a great evening.

Thank you. We have to offer the resolution. Pat, yes, we we offered the resolution. We did, but we didn't cite tax map number and all of that. I didn't hear you. I'm saying as far as the resolution, we voted on it, but are we okay with the way it was offered? Do you need a tax map? Oh, when you made the motion that it's fine. The resolution has the tax map, so it's the document will prevail.

Next on the agenda is 355 Yugenot 85 Glenita Avenue also for a resolution. Mike, any comments? All of my all the variances were granted. I have no comments. Rich, I would get addressed to all my comments. It's on for resolution. And Pat, and you have a resolution. Comments from the board. This has been around for a while. I know we've discussed this quite a bit. Any other comments? Nope. Not from me. We'll need a motion to adopt the uh site plan resolution.

Mr. Chairman, I'll offer resolution to the planning board of the town of Carmel number 25-26 October 22, 2025. Tax map number 44.14-1-6 355 Hugenot Inc. 85 Granida Avenue. Final site plan approval. Second. All in favor? Thank you.

Thank you. Uh, next on the agenda is People USA. We're going to hold that over uh for the next meeting which is in two weeks follow actually the November 13th. Next on the agenda is Verie Batista Batista Drive residential site plan. Mike. Yeah. All the necessary variances were granted by the ZBA and the parking spaces are now shown to be permanently improved. Um, all my comments have been addressed. Rich,

the engineering department does not have any comments regarding this application. And Pat, and the the parking area was the one issue. Whether it would be improved, that's been addressed. So, with the variances, they're all ready to go. I believe there's a business operating out of the tree business. That's that's been gone for quite a few months. Yes. Yes. Oh, in the back when you pulled down onto Right. But it's gone. I It's gone. Any uh questions from the board? No. No. No. Okay. I think public hearing. Let's schedule a public hearing. We need the motion. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to schedule a public hearing. Second. All in favor? I.

Thank you. Thank you. Next on the agenda is Viscovich South Lake Boulevard special site plan. Mike, your comments, please. Yeah, the submission was here about four or five years ago. Um, you now have to put all the requirements of the 2025 zoning code on this map, which I Well, I will do that.

They have to be on there. I need it updated. Uh, wetland permits required from the ECB and the platforms over the lake and the sitting in the mud. A use permit is required from the state of New York. It's past the property line, so it has to everybody has to get a use permit out there. OS, by the way. Thanks. Well, actually, uh, I just went back to the minutes a few years ago and it was before the ECB and there was a list of things to be done. Then the pandemic came, so we'll follow through on that. Yeah, it's just 5 years ago, so it's I know if they got some, it's expired. Okay. No, of course. And Rich,

so the applicant, you know, it's it's been here was here years ago. So, um, there's a flood plane that's needed for this. Applicant had noted this comment prior. I don't know if it ever was provided or an associated fee was included. uh ECB. They noted that they would meet with the ECB, but no, has this occurred. Um states that the project is on Route 6, which is a state road and does not believe we need to apply to DOT as there is an NOT drainage easement and pipe on the site. Applicant has provided an easement which should be provided to planning council for review, but that was way back when. We should still confirm if that's still the case. Thank you, Pat.

And it's been five years. So Joel, update, what's gone on? anything changed in the area and if in fact you did go to ECB you said went we went to the ECB uh they did not vote on it they gave me a shot even if they did 5 years is a long time so I think we'd want to send you back no we we definitely go back to them also just to just to note uh there were a whole series of uh variances that were required and uh with my submission I submitted the DNO from the zoning board that all the variances were granted hopefully it still complies with that because what's that hopefully it still complies if the new code made it worse and you may be back. So, we'll Yeah. Well, we'll check the When was this in front of the zoning board? How long was that also? 5 years ago. Uh, hold on.

I have it as age 2720. 20. I have the DNA. Hold on.

June 29th, 2020. And there were total of four variances that were that were approved. So Joel, I'd like you to give an overview of this. Um, it's at least 5 years old. Zoning board's actually six years old and the zoning. So, you know, I'll open it up to the board, but I'm actually leaning to sending it back to the zoning board because it's six years old. So, we need a new zoning, right? So my question is for the new if the new zoning changes they will obviously go back but let's say for sake all the variances are still good

speaking to my all the variance is still good but once the variance is granted it's good for life unless things change like Mike said if the code has changed we obviously have to go back so we'll go through these ECB and the ZBA and find out what we have to do where you've been for the last five six years on this question I've been at my office. Where have you been? Where's the where's the applicant been? Why why are you gone for he's he's been back at his country way back. I forgot what country it is, but uh he's back now. Can you give us a overview of this project? I'm not I don't remember it that well. Some people weren't even on the board.

It's a very small piece of property. I think it's a little over 400 square feet. It's at the It's on the curve here uh on 6N and uh there is a major 18inch concrete pipe that is owned by the state of New York. Uh and it takes the drainage from Route 6 through his property uh out to the uh to Lake Bayac. Uh and there's there's some uh a deck uh ramps, a uh porta potty, and a proposed shed that was on there. And uh basically at this point way back when you sent us to the both the zoning board and to the conservation board and uh so as Mike said we'll update it. The zoning has changed so we'll see if any of these variances still good. If they're not obviously we'll go back to the various boards. Uh we did get a shopping list from the ECB but again let's make sure it's updated so to to meet any of the codes that are in effect at this at the present time. Is this the application that we had grave concerns about the visibil site visibility trying to get?

There were lots of DOT related issues height sight distance all of that because it's a tiny site. Yeah. Yeah. But we if you remember we spent a lot of time dealing with this right. All right. Exactly. I I think in in my memory I think one of the things we were talking about was um putting as a site condition that he can't park his car. Well, actually it's a very good point because that was one of the variances we got. We got a variance to uh have zero cars parked there. But then but then that raises the issue again of the site distance that we were all concerned about, right? Because of the road

and their pipe. That was the issue too. So you can't park on the DOT pipe regardless of the variance Joel's talking about is the number of parking spaces. The issue is what what they're going to do on top of the state's pipe that goes through the property. So state had something to say about that as I remember. That's correct. So that may be a limitation condition restriction. That's part of your approval. And the portaotty was another issue that came up if you remember. Yeah. Yes, that's correct. Joel, does the did the owner of the property live across the street from this parcel? No. All right. I thought we said city. Doesn't he have a house right up the hill? Uh I remember there was discussion that we would say there's no parking allowed on there. That's correct.

So often times he said when your house is across the street. No, basically uh his address is 169 Sheer Hill Road. Shear Hill. But wasn't the complaint that the tenant that lived in the house up the hill was using this? I don't remember that. So Mr. Chairman, might I suggest? So, the letter that Joel gave us as part of this whole submitt was, hey, we got all our variances. We're back. I think what Joel needs to do is bring everything back to us and explain it to us. Not the way we're doing it right now. Well, I think

so that's that's my suggestion. Like they had DOT. What did you do with DOT? What's changed? Mike has conditions with zoning. He needs to address that. I you know, we're asking a lot of questions and we're trying to go back five years. Joel should have provided that as part of his application or resubmitt just to refresh us on this thing. I think we can since it's so old I think you can almost treat this as a new application. I mean I think it needs to go to ECB and it with the fact that we have new zoning. We have to look at it as a new application. Yeah.

I think I like Rich's suggestion. Have a have a meeting review the file review the plans. Review the documentation. Make a determination if we're still in compliance with the new code. And then depending on what happens there is what direction we head. And can we Joel can we get a better diagram so that what I can do is enlarge that so it's much more it's much clearer to see what's going on. I mean I got the one that Rose sent us and you know I'm straining my eyes trying to figure it out. Oh shouldn't give you the magnifying glass.

Joel you should have a separate drawing that just has a site and then all the other details should follow it on a separate sheet. Right. I mean that's how that should be done. Right. And that's how we've asked you to do that in the past. So just just do it that way. It's a lot easier for us to review and look at without magnifying glasses. I think we'll take the suggestion of the vice chairman and let's three of us meet and just go over it. So I do it one we give me the give me the list once and we'll do it and let's make sure the property is posted with a sign. Yes, it was but it's gone. Yep. Any other questions from uh the board? No. All right, Joel, we're going to hold this over. Okay. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Joe, you dropped a piece of paper. Next on the agenda is Bunet subdivision 103 Pigot Road sketch plan for two lots

Mike uh there are variances needed I don't know why This is here. I think you got an update on some improvements. No, I think Rich had some comments that he wanted some additional information and we provided that. Um, any other comments, Mike? Just the same as last time. Nothing changed. Rich.

Right. So, so Paul did provide a response back to both Pat and mine. I don't remember if Mike's were there. So, uh, referrals, uh, to the DEEC, Putnham County, DOH, Tanacoma Highway, and Mayapac, he's noted those referrals. Um, stormwater pollution prevention plan. Uh, the area of disturbance is estimated to be 34,000 ft. So, he needs to have a SWIP. Um, it's not required to have one for New York City D. Provided a letter as such. Um, there applicant has noted the comment that no areas would be preserved for open space. So that means they're going to pay a fee in lie of applicant has noted the notes for public improvements advised that a storm water bond it would be necessary. They noted that comment. Um we recommend that all utilities serving in lots be provided. Applicant has provided that info. All should note that all electrical services for the new lot must be buried. Right. You're showing it as a wire going in. It should probably be buried.

Right. That's fine.

Okay. Uh applicant noted um applicant meets and bounds of the proposed internal laws should be provided. He said they would be provided once ZBA variances are granted. All Phil brought to the site uh you know should have uh manifest and certifications and then he has to follow up with all the other regulations of chapter 131 uh of our subdivision uh code. And Pat, so this is still at the sketch plan stage. So the additional information that Rich is referring to related to whether you can make a judgment as to whether they're buildable lots, whether it can be done. So there is now a grading plan. Paul's clarified that there are no wetlands on the site or within 100 ft of the site. All good there. There's an issue that you should be aware of, which is Paul has asked that he not do the tree survey and identify trees on the property. He's indicated he do he would do that after he comes back from the zoning board. Typically, that's something we would see during the sketch plan stage. So you need to make a judgment as to whether you would want to wave that or push that down the road, but typically we require the identification of the trees that would be removed. So you can understand the impact, the environmental impact of what's going on on the property. Um, and Rich touched the other ones regarding that he doesn't need SWIP or any other DE D approvals. So Paul, why would we wave the tree survey and then applicants that follow you inside engineering and you they're going to come up possibly next meeting say we want to wave the tree survey.

I'm not I'm asking you to wave it. I'm I'm postpone it.

I'm I'm asking that we postpone it until we go to the after we go to the ZBA because if we don't get the variances, there's no lot. So why should the person have to go through the expense of having a surveyor come out, identify, locate, and plot trees on the property if he if he ends up not having a project? The the answer to that, Paul, is we've had the conversation many times, which is this board can't determine if the lot's buildable until they can assess whether there's an adverse environmental impact associated with it. So it's it's you know this the process that we've established is that this board makes that decision first often times because that leads to a neg prior to the zoning board taking an action. So um again it's not a waiver. You would be Paul's asking you to kick it down the road. We typically don't kick it down the road. We it would be hard for us to make a positive recommendation to the zoning board

without the information because we make we can make a positive recommendation or a negative recommendation to the zoning board. So I'm not sure how we can say a positive without this tree information. Board any questions? No, I agree. I agree with

I don't think we want to push it down the road. I think we want it up front so we can look at the project and send it off to zoning with a positive recommendation if that's how we feel at the time. But we can't without the data. Any other questions? So, um, Paul, come back when you you have the Oh, we can do it. I mean, and basically be able to be on the next meeting, which is whatever the first meeting is in November, November 13th. Um, with the tree sizes and locations,

and it's only in the area of disturbance. So, areas that are not being disturbed, you don't have to go out and pick out those trees. Okay? So then you can get on November 13th and if for some reason you don't get the information we need then just pull yourself off the agenda. Fair enough. Thank you. All right. Thank you.

Barrett Hill Road Evans sketch plan for three lots.

There was also a letter Rose distributor. Yes. Rose did distri Rose did distribute on this. Mike,

yeah, they proposed to divide a 22.8 acre lot off Barrett Hill Road into three lots. This has been here a long time ago. It came to us. I don't remember what the name of it was, but um it's a difficult lot. They have a stone right at the entrance when you come in. Um it's going to be need to be recreated to allow for the driveway to comply with the slope requirements. Will there be blasting? how many yards of material material are going to be moved or removed from the site. Uh lot depth and width lines are incorrect on this plat. Um several variances required. Once I see the corrected lot width and lot depth lines, I will provide a full list of variances. The net lot areas were provided, but they are not needed because it's the LDR zone. Anything over three acres, we don't require the uh net lot area and provide all easements and maintenance agreements for the shared driveway. The driver will be shared by all three lots if I

That's right. Correct. Okay, Rich. Thanks, Mike. Rich, your comments.

So, so referrals, standard referrals, New York State DEC, Putnham County DO, D Highway Environmental Board, Mayapac, Fire Department, storm water pollution prevention plan will be uh probably required. Additional information must be provided so we know the area of disturbance. They may have to meet with New York City D for their uh water based on waterershed rules and regulations. There's no information regarding areas preferred reserve reserve for open space. Uh they should provide an EAF for the subdivision, public improvements, storm water bonds, all that stuff needs to be ultimately provided. Uh they will minimally need to provide additional information as part of the preliminary plaque because this was identified as a sketch plaque if I'm not mistaken. Uh so whatever the next step is but all regrading driveway profiles access lanes utilities meets and bounds you know all that kind of stuff we don't have that just yet. So

thanks Rich and Pat.

So the issue with this one is you can see what the issue is. It's a very unusually configured property. They have plenty of land for three lots. Um, and what they have proposed is two undersized lots in the front and one really large oversized lot in the back. The only way to subdivide it is to create flag lots. So, the two lots in the back are essentially flag lots, one common driveway serving all three of them. So, that a lot of things that we typically don't like in this subdivision. Um, and I'd like Adam to think about options and alternatives. I just don't know that there are many in this case because of the unusual configuration. But I think we have to spend some time on this one. Simply saying nothing works, so this is the best we can do is probably not the right approach to this. I think we should spend some time really turning the crank on this and trying to get it to be as appropriate as we can. And just the issue that um why two undersized lots when you have plenty of room to spread them out and move to the back to Mike's point earlier that's where you start getting into the constrained portion of the property whether it's deducted or not it's steep and slopy back there so and there's wetlands at the very bottom so this is a real challenge there's no question about it um other point that I wanted to raise site Rich mentioned on the road that's That's an issue. And Adam, just give us a long EF with this if you wouldn't mind resubmitting.

Okay. Again, there's a lot of stuff going on here. Adam, would you give the board Thanksg.

Yes. Adam Thyberg, Insight Engineering Surveying, Landscape Architecture PC, and I'm joined by the project attorney, uh, Frank Smith from, uh, Schilling and Smith Law. We're here representing Charles and Fran Evans, uh, the proposal for the three lot subdivision that was described by the consultants. Um, so yes, the property is obviously an irregular um, shape. So it runs from Barrett Hill Road. We do on the east end have a DEC wetland and that runs out toward the Stonewall Farm Road subdivision uh, to the east. So it's mostly wooded rolling hills. Um, but the grade does, as as Pat mentioned, the grade does drop off significantly on the east end. Um, there's no proposed development in that area uh, for that reason. It's it's far from the road. It's very steep. It's not really a developable area. And we're also respecting the DEC wetland and and and that constraint where our uh our proposed development is over a thousand feet from that wetland. So, we're trying to respect that as well.

Uh I should mention that the site is also uh encumbered with a Central Hudson gas and electric uh easement, but we're also respecting that. We're not doing any development in that area. So, as was mentioned, the gross area of the existing lot is 22.8 acres. Um, so this by lot area alone would yield significantly more than three lots, but we're coming in with the three lots for for the reasons we talked about to respect uh some of the n the the natural constraints, the slopes, the wetlands, and then also because of the irregular shape of the lot. So that said, uh the three proposed lots uh like the parent lot are also irregularly shaped and require as Pat mentioned a flag configuration uh to accommodate the frontage and access. And as again as was mentioned, we would have an access easement uh that would uh provide access to the three to the three lots. Um as was also mentioned at in this current configuration and Mike, I'll get with you on the the lot width and depth. Um, obviously we're not going to have a referral to ZBA because we got to clear that up. Uh, but we'll do that. But this, it is anticipated that with this configuration we're going to have some variances. We're trying to minimize that. Pat mentioned about, you know, are there other alternatives where you could get an equal number of lots. I think there may be, but I think to do it any other way, you're going to wind up with more nonconformities rather than less. you you may have and that and that doesn't mean it's not going to be more favorable to this board and you know but I I do think we would if we did this a different way I think we would wind up with more non-conformities and more variances that would be needed but we're having a question um

the owners of Evans right yes I noticed on the plat Evans owns the adjacent properties the same property same owner same owner would that property could that play into a a modified configuration if that were brought into the mix no because it doesn't go back very deep and it's already fully developed with their home. Um there's not really I we could take a look at it but I don't just just standing here now. I don't see Would you point that out on Yeah, it's right here. So this is the this is the owner's um and their driveway goes out to Barrett Hill

there. Yep. Exactly. Comes out to Barrett Hill this the same way. It's it's developed all through here. Um again we could take a look at it but I don't know that we're going to find a way to make a through connection. But maybe if it's not lot configuration, maybe it's access or utilities. So it it to me it offers some opportunity for flexibility. See, I think it would be tough, but we'll definitely look at it. Can you move that one lot line to get to 120,000 square feet because if you can't be at 120, you do need the net lot area and that's going to push you way back. You have to actually have 120 to be exempted.

Okay. We need we need to be 120 with the with the front lot. I think that three lots any new subdivision for single family lots within the LDR zone which conform to the minimum 3 acre which is 120,000 right the the lot the lot including the cluster subdivision are exempt the lot areas that are shown in the table are the top one is regular right so it would be it would be lot two is is is not currently at the 120,000 feet correct if you could get that to 120 your varianes go down substantially the challenge we have is the presence of of this slope. You know, we've got kind of a plateau. It does go kind of up and down through here at this point really right at the back of where we've got that house.

That's where it really starts to drop off. So, we we looked at that as our constraint and we're trying to keep all the development. I'll I'll just draw right on here. You know, basically from there over because from there back we've got that's where it really starts to drop off and and getting a driveway down there that'll be in any way conforming or of a reasonable length. uh would be tough and and it's not really developable area. So, I was just trying to minimize your lot area variance because that's a big hanging point for a lot of the board members

and and I think that's going to be tough when you have plenty of territory, you know. So, has the applicant considered scaling it back to two lots? They wanted uh five lots and and uh that's obviously not given the constraints of of the uh

you know where you can fit your separation distances between wells and septics and everything else and the zoning uh would you know we thought we could come in with you know maybe a few variances needed and that would be kind of hitting the target as as Pat mentioned of finding the best solution for you know something that's not going to be perfect uh that will require some relief uh but um would be a a well balanced uh project in terms of dealing with an irregular lot, some, you know, some site constraints and what the applicant's looking to do. And, you know, to be honest, on a 23 acre lot, you know, three lots, you know, doesn't seem like doesn't seem like a lot to ask.

No, it doesn't. But by your own admission, I mean, a lot of the property is undevelopable because of the slopes, you know, you were saying towards the back. So, it's not truly all available acres. You're sure you're you're dealing with a lot of constraints. Adam, how long is the driveway? The driveway to the third lot. Yeah. A scale on me. Um, I'm going to say we're

five or you we're probably close to a thousand feet 500 to a,000 uh feet. And do you think the fire department would require like a fire access drive to be able to access that back property since we've got three houses back there? Yeah, we could look at that. Um, and potentially widening it, providing pulloffs and turnarounds and that. I think I think that would certainly be doable. Yeah, Nick, typically it's pulloffs along that length if not an emergency access in another way. But yeah, that's often what the fire department will come back with. Yeah, we can we can definitely accommodate that. Yeah, I know it's probably premature to ask, but who would be responsible for that driveway? The three houses that are on there.

Yeah, there would be an easement that would come through here. And with that easement would come an agreement for maintenance and everything else, which is always a problem and it never works. The neighbors never cooperate. So that's why we don't like shared driveways. Yeah. So again, if there's an opportunity to separate driveways, let's think about it. It might might start out fine and then one house gets sold or find out. Yeah. I mean the challenge that we have is we've got we've got a house that was mentioned, you know, it's 1,000 ft back from the road. You were asking, you know, create three separate driveways that, you know, these houses back, right? You got Stonewall uh stone the Stonewall Mexico on the top. Yeah, Mexico's up here and then there's uh Stonewall Farms is out over here. So, it's really landlocked.

Yeah, it's not I mean it's it's got it's got plenty of frontage on Barrett Hill. It's just it then comes down to this hammerhead kind of shape. This is really, this is obviously the pinch point here. Um, so the only way to make lots work is to stack them into the depth of the site. Uh, and the only way to access them is through a shared driveway realistically. And again, to Pat's point, we'll take a look and see if there's something we can do, some way we can get creative with with the owner's uh, property to the north, but I I I doubt that's going to work, but we'll take a look. How wide is your driveway currently? I think we had it at 16. 16? Yeah. Is that wide enough, Mike, for a fire truck? 16 feet.

Yeah, plenty. The issue is with long driveways like this, it depends on how far the house is from the driveway. Correct. If the if the piece of apparatus needs to set out outriggers and so forth, now 16 ft may not be appropriate. If they can get into the lot in their driveway, it's a different story. So, this these are complicated and challenging. Yeah. I mean, you would have access to each house. um we can make it as wide and provide as many pull-offs and you know that that I think we can we can get to those those details,

right? So then you're fighting a whole bunch of other issues, right? The more impervious, the more storm water practices you have to put in, right? They're going to be maintained by the home. Uh that's going to have a maintenance agreement associated with it. So there's a lot of a lot of lot in this, right? So in this um and you know, so and it's only a sketch right now. So, it seems to me I'm e echoing Ray's comment. Um, a lot of a lot of problems go away if you ratchet down from three to two lots.

The project might go away if it goes down to, you know, if if we go below three lots. It's just there's a point where it's it's it might not be worth the owner's expense and and and effort to to put up two houses on 23 acres. Adam, I think uh you work with the consultants and come back when you're ready. Yeah. Would that be reasonable? Yeah. Any other comments before we no move on? Yeah. We really wanted just to get your initial um input on again the irregularity of of of the shapes of the lots. And you know, I think we're we're getting your message and we'll

tricky lot. I'd almost rather see an open development where you chopped it up nicer and go for the open development to be honest with you. Agreed. Yeah, but again there's not much flexibility in the lot. No, agreed. But I'm just saying but it would be it's a it might be a better tool. It might turn out better instead of worrying about getting the frontage for everybody because you're you're making wiggles and your lot width and depth lines are going to go in and out of the properties. This is going to be variance after variance. Mhm. Yeah, that we can definitely look at that. Yeah, I'm sorry. I I know you you indicated where the owner's property is, but where where is the owner's house right there? Uh it's this this is part of the outline. It's just a little overwritten by by the name. That's the house right there.

Cuz I was going to ask you if there was any way you can maybe the part that juts up maybe come across there with one driveway, but that's obviously not this part here or Okay. Yeah, it's We'll look at it. Yeah, we'll look at we'll look at our different Okay. Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Next on the agenda is Braar at Carmel, 49 Seminary Hill Road, reapproval of final site plan. Mike, did you have any comments on this, Mike? I do not. Uh, this is on for regrant or reapproval. Reapproval. Reapproval. Um, they should I mean, we should sit down and go over this with the applicant to discuss. Are there any changes that affect it codewise? You know, just to make sure that everything is still good. It's not a re It's a reapproval, so that would restart the thing. Um, did you go through all that and check everything, make sure it's good?

Yeah. Yeah. So, and this one um this this one was similar to another one that we were looking at with where was it there was a use issue and so the new ordinance um in the zoning code allowing for the grandfathering if you have a neg or an approval would be in effect I would think on this um so yeah I think we should be good on that front so this has been around for a while also right

yeah exactly so again this this one got approved right before uh the outbreak of COVID. This is an assisted living facility that obviously was a was a tough time for that industry. Continues to have ripples. Um there they still have intention to to build out the project. Uh I think with a couple years ago they were getting close. Uh and then the um there was the uh the bank that minor banking crisis that happened a couple years ago and the bank their lender I think went out of business and so that set them back quite a bit. So, they're continuing to look for financing with rates seeming to be continuing to come down. You know, they might be in a position to move forward soon, but they do intend on building the project.

And I'm just curious, are they funded through federal money in any way? Not to my knowledge. We've heard that from some of these facilities that that money's gone away in many instances. Curious if it may be, but I I just I don't know to to say on the record. This is for one year we call. Yeah. Yeah.

Right. So, so all the permits uh have been updated and are still current. Um the the new they have to do the meet the new construction permit of January of 25 for the stormwater pollution prevention plan. So, they're going to have to really take a look at that. Um and they never really had there's no documentation of uh them getting that permit. So they might have to upgrade their SWIP accordingly and what they have to do. So uh there's no documentation from the October 30th, 2019 resolution. Performance bond, stormwater control maintenance agreement, water and sewer approvals, and water and sewer connecting permits. The engineering fee and bond were calculated in 2019. They have been increased by about 20%. Uh, and in the memo I have, it goes to $1.5 million in change and $78,000 uh, in change, respectively. So, those need to be updated. Uh, and whatever information Adam can give us regarding the new stormwater rigs and how that's going to impact what they put on paper already, I don't know if that's going to trigger anything that's going to change this. So, I have no problem with the reapproval, but they need to provide additional info.

Yeah. And again, it's a reapproval. It's not an extension. So all those old conditions get rolled over as brand new conditions now moving forward. Anything to say about this project, Adam? I mean, is there anything new to share with the board? Do you see anything happening in the next 12 months? Uh, that would certainly be the hope. You know, obviously I can't make promises for for my client, but uh yeah, that they they continue to pay to maintain this, and I'm told that they continue to desire to build it. there just the time is hasn't been right just yet. But, you know, hopefully that will be the case in the next 12 months. But I I just I can't necessarily promise that

it gets to a certain point where we need a new application, right? You know, the issue with this always is what's changed. So over time, things like background traffic growth rates change and things like that. So after a while, we have to go back and revisit all of those things that went in. So, if you remember, this was a fairly elaborate environmental review. We were separating it out from the rest of the parcel. There was a lot of um complicated issues with this portion of that property. So, there were a lot of thresholds that were built into the NEG deck when we approved this. So, at some point in time, those were going to change. Just the earth keeps spinning, things keep changing. So, at some point, we're going to have to send them back to do it all over again.

And minimally, the storm water regulations have changed since then. they promulgated at the beginning of this year. So, has that impacted what they've proposed to us? Will it impact anything on the site? My guess is no, but again, the board needs to be aware of that and applicant needs to provide us that information accordingly. Adam, how large is the facility? It's a I know it's 152 beds. Uh I don't recall the square footage off the top of my head. Um I don't I don't have that. Yeah. All questions from the board.

Do we have a motion to grant reapproval for one year? I'll make a motion to grant reapproval for one year. Second. All in favor? I.

Thank you. So, the uh next two items on the agenda, GN GNF subdivision lock six and seven, it's more of an administrative uh to do here tonight is to we need a motion to refer them to the town board. We didn't do that at the last meeting. Uh let's take each one separately though. Uh last meeting they presented to us. Uh, do we have a motion to grant uh to refer to the town board gateway and fairway subdivision lot 6 2054 Route 6?

Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to refer to the town board. Second. All in favor? I. And also U Gway and Fairway subdivision lot 7 2054 Route 6. Uh, we also need a motion to refer to the town board. Chairman, I'll make a motion to refer to the town board. Second. All in favor? I. Thank you. Uh, Rose distributed minutes of September 24th, 2025. Did anyone have an opportunity to review those? Uh, I did review them and I'm happy to report. I had no comments. I I move approval. Second. All in favor? Bob, thank you for reviewing that.

No comments. Mr. Chairman, I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All in favor? Good night, everybody. Thank you.