Planning Board - Regular Meeting

I'd like to bring this meeting of the bedroom planning board to order. Uh before we begin, I'd like to tell you that if you're here for the 1719 Babbot Road property, that that's been adjourned for the day. So, you can go home now. Um, first item on our agenda tonight, uh, is to consider an application for a special use permit for the conversion of a barn to a cottage greater than 20 ft in height pursuant to town code article 3125-27D3 and 125-79.1. The owner applicant is Kavi Trust. The address is 422 Mount Holly Road in Katona. Is there someone here for the applicant?

Yes. Hello, my name is Sarah O'Shea of the law firm of Gettinger, Waldinger, Montleó, Gishu, and Hollis. And I'm here with Mr. Hollis on behalf of Kavi Trust and their application for a special use permit for a conversion of a an existing barn into a cottage. We previously appeared before your board on October 20th. with respect to this application during which meeting your board opened and closed the public hearing and granted us a permit with respect to the height of the existing barn which is just over 20 ft. Um and then you sent us to the zoning board of appeals for a few variances that we needed. We did appear before the zoning board on November 6. They reviewed and granted all the variances we had requested and now we are here to request a vote on the special permit. Thank you. Do you want to go just quickly through the the ins and outs of the application just to refresh everybody's minds?

Yes, of course. Um, so it's a it's a historic property with an existing stone barn. They're looking to uh convert that barn. Um, the the there are currently six bedrooms on the property. They're essentially seeking to redistribute the bedrooms between the house and the barn. and they've already received a no objection letter from the Westchester County Department of Health and a administrative permit from the Wetlands Control Commission. Okay. Are there questions uh from members of the board?

Um anybody? Okay. I had one question. Okay. The frame and stone building behind the barn is what? I'm sorry. On the survey, there's frame and stone building behind the stone barn.

Not sure that I I don't believe the conversion is going to affect that building. But what is that building? So, we know what else is on the property. may just be a chicken, but I It may just be a chicken coop. I just want to know, of course,

what I mean, I've walked by, but I haven't walked by in a month, so there's many. Yeah, I'm I'm sorry. I'm just looking at my plans as well to try to see if I can discern what it is. and just no it's not coverage I think they it's used for storage I think it's just storage for equipment okay you know gardening equipment y it's hard to see it's it's exactly be it's behind it from the

right. I I see that. That's why I said it might just be a chicken coop. I just wanted to when we're thinking of what we're approving, I just want to know what else is there. That's all.

Okay. I did have one question. Uh, I'm trying to now find the the page, but um I I know we always have a a little bit of a a question about the rule that the owner has to occupy one of the uh premises when it's a trust that's involved. Um but I think our understanding is that so long as whoever is living there is shares in the trust uh that's that's okay. the the the excuse me the copy trust the uh grtor of the trust the creator of the trust and the beneficiary of the trust are all within the same family and mother father children that's who's going to live on the property.

Yeah. The the one thing there was a caveat on on what you what you put in the answer to the question which was the granter or his relatives and friends. Yeah, I saw that too. I don't think friends are over weekend guests, you know, not as full-time res. Well, but it's in the answer to the as if that would satisfy the full-time residents. I mean, we don't anybody can have as many friends staying in their accessory apartment or in their home as they want, but having a friend staying in their home while they're not there does not. It's the grand the the husband and wife.

So, would you object to taking the friends out of that? No objection. Um because I I think the way it reads now, you you can you can check me on it, but I think I I agree. Yeah, I understand. Yeah, we can. So, so amended.

Okay, that was my any other uh questions, comments. Um so if we were to grant this today, the one one condition that I would raise is is that the um the issue of who will live in the house will be clarified uh to read that it will be the the granter or or immediate members of the granter's family. Fine.

Period. Friends don't friends are wonderful things to have but they don't come in handy for some things. Um are there any other condition the main house?

Yeah. Well and it doesn't actually have to be the main house. The the owner the owner of the property has to live in one of the two residents. So, um, well, I'm not going to go into details, but it there are plenty of different ways to do it, but it has to be somebody who counts as a an actual legal connection to the owner of the property. Uh, are there any other conditions that um, Madam Chair, I'd make a couple motions and recommendations to the board for conditions. um that you include the zoning board resolution, also the wetlands control commission permit, um and then the standard conditions that do apply under chapter 125-79.1 where applicable.

I've got I've got to learn to to always mention the standard conditions. That's why I'm here. Yeah. Okay. Could I have a motion to approve with the conditions just enumerated? Yeah. Is there a second? Second. Okay. As far as secret is concerned, I believe this is a type two action. Uh could I have a motion? So moved. Second. Any further discussion? All in favor of being a type two action? I uh back to the original motion on the the table. Uh are there any further Is there any further discussion? All in favor?

I I All opposed. You have it. Thank you very much. Good luck with it. The next item on our agenda is to consider an application for a two lot subdivision pursuant to town code uh 107. Uh the owner is Michael Messenger and the address is 16-20 Washington Avenue. Good evening.

Good evening. Um, as you may remember, I was here on a uh in the at the October meeting and uh requesting a subdivision for this property that is adjacent to the town park in Bedford Village on Washington Avenue. Uh there was a there's a wetland that was shown on a town map which I since have gone to the wetlands commission. Uh the consultant came out and took a look at the property and found that there are in fact no wetlands. Um, so that report was forwarded to the planning department last week. And so I'd like to pick up where we left off uh with that information, okay,

in hand. Um, we had talked about the possibility of being able to do both um, preliminary and final at this meeting if if that's if you if you but I believe you have to have the plaque done. Correct. And I I don't have that done because I wanted to do it in Okay. Then then I think we c I think the rule is we can't do final if we don't have the plat. If you don't have at least a draft plan, you just have a site plan. I just have a site plan. Yeah. Okay. So, I think we we can only do

preliminary. Um, does anybody have any questions about this? Um, I think we we asked any questions we had and it's it's a pretty straightforward application. it uh I don't have any if we were to do this the conditions would be the standard subdivision conditions. Uh I can't think of anything special that came up. Does anybody have any anything that would be specific to this? I would just incorporate by reference the letter from the town's environmental consultant regarding that there are no islands

to just confirm it. Correct. Okay. Not as a condition but as a as a reference point. As a reference point. Okay. So could I have a motion to grant preliminary subdivision approval with with that um addition? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Second. Okay. We do have to do seeker. Uh, and I believe this is an unlisted action. So, let's table the motion for the moment. Um, could I have a motion that this is an unlisted action? So, move. Is there a second? Second.

Any further discussion? All in favor of being an unlisted action? I I All opposed. This means we have to go through the uh short form part one which is uh in our packets. I believe we got it somewhere. Yes. Does everybody have it? No.

It's on page four of the packet. Yes. It starts page one looks fine to me. Brief description subdivision of a lot in the quarter acre zone with the town within the town of Bedford. current lot previously uh existed as two separate lots and were merged at some point prior to 1999 subdivision will result in two separate lots. Um all land uh that occurs on or joining near it seems to residential and parkland are the two that I've checked. That would seem to be appropriate. Uh it's a permitted use. We're I'm I'm on to page two now. So permitted use um is it consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan? I would I don't know why not not applicable would be checked there

which be yes I would say yes. Um so we correct that is the proposed action consistent with the predominant character of the existing built natural environment. The answer is yes. Is it um located in or join uh a state critical environment environmental area actually isn't most of Bedford village the CA? Yes with the principal aquifer. Sorry. Yes, you're correct. Okay. So, that needs to be checked. Yes. Okay. What is What is that? I couldn't quite hear you.

Um I'm sorry. I should be talking louder. The uh the property your property is in a critical environmental area. Um to find how it like it's because it's over the it's over the aquifer. Okay. Not not because of D because it's not in D that. No, no, no, no. It's it's it's essentially anything that's over the aquifer in Bedford isn't part of the CA. So that needs to be checked as a yes rather than as a no. Okay, that's fine.

Uh will the proposed action result in substantial increase in traffic? No. Nor will it uh increase public transportation. Uh, are there any pedestrian accommodations or bicycle routes available on or near the proposed action? I guess that there are sidewalks there, aren't there? There's a sidewalk on Route 22 and there's a walkway into the park and that's about it. Yeah, but I think that that merits the yes that you Okay.

put there. Does the proposed action meet or exceed state energy code requirements? Uh, and you said yes. Will the proposed action connect to an existing public or private water supply? Uh, you said no. It's got a drilled well. The site is located between two municipal water systems, but the connection to this street has not been provided. Okay. Will the proposed action uh connect to existing wastewater utilities? Uh no, there will be an on-site treatment system. It's not uh substantially continuous to an archaeological site. um well contain or is it substantially contiguous to I suppose it's it's about how far away is it from the the border of the Bedford Village Historic District probably about two or three blocks is

probably well Greenwich Road I don't know where the actual border is but it's it's not it's not in it I know that I know that

I I think that's probably the answer is probably correct that it's not continuous to is it near an area designated as sensitive archaeological sites? No. Is the next one is about wetlands and and it does have wetlands on the property. Um but the proposed Oh, that that but you've now found out that there isn't. So that should be changed. That'll be corrected. Yeah.

So we'll correct that. And then um would the proposed action affect any existing uh wetland or water body? No. Uh habitat types. You checked suburban. I think that's probably legitimate. Does the site of the proposed action contain any species of animal that's uh threatened or endangered? No. Uh it's not in the 100redyear flood plane. Uh the proposed action will not create uh water discharge or non-point source pollution. Um, it's not going to involve the impoundment of water. It's not near uh it's not a location that's been either an active or closed solid waste management facility. Um, it's the side of Oh, sorry. Has the side of the proposed action or an adjoining property been subject to remediation? No. And that is it. Uh there's no that's the end of the part one. That seems with the with the few minor corrections that we suggested. I think the part one is fine. Uh so we have to turn to part two. And I I don't think we had a part two in our packets, but I thought I found found it online. Do you have one that's quickly available?

I I have one actually. No, I thought I had it and I don't. Did you say you had one? I have one if you want me to read it. What could you do? Go through it with us then. Thank you. So the part two begins, will the proposed action create a material conflict with an adopted land use plan or zoning regulations? No. Will the proposed action result in a change in the use or intensity of use of land? No. Or small. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of the existing community? No.

Will the proposed action have an impact on the environmental characteristics that cause the establishment of a critical environmental area? No. Will the proposed action result in an adverse change in the existing level of traffic or affect existing infrastructure for mass transit, biking or walkways? No. Will the proposed action cause an increase in the use of energy and fail to incorporate reasonably available energy conservation or renewable energy opportunities? No. Quite the contrary, uh, will the proposed action impact existing public private water supplies or wastewater treatment facilities? No.

No. Will the proposed action impair the character or quality of important historic, archaeological, architectural, or aesthetic resources? No. Will the proposed action result in adverse changes to natural resources such as wetlands, water bodies, groundwater, air quality, floor, and fauna? No. Will the proposed action result in an increase in the potential for erosion, flooding, or drainage problems? No. And will the proposed action create a hazard to environmental resources or human health? No. So given all of the that I would propose I I move that we find that based on the above the proposed action will not result in any significant adverse environmental impacts. We have a motion. Do we have a second?

Second. We have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? All in favor of a negative declaration? I I All opposed. Okay, we've taken care of seeker. Uh, back to the original motion on the the table. I believe we did have a motion going going into this. Um, is there any further discussion of the motion or its conditions? All in favor? I I all opposed. You now have your preliminary. Great. Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And we'll see you back for final when Yes.

when it's finalized. Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. Next item on our agenda uh is to consider an application for a 90-day extension to a previously approved subdivision. Uh the owner is R. Richard and Gail Sworn and the applicant is James Foley. The property is located at Hickory Lane in the village of Mount Kiscoco. Is there someone uh here to represent the applicant? Yes. Um I'm here James Foley. Welcome. Good evening. Good evening everyone. Um so so

I know you did send us a letter but since you're here could you just quickly summarize why

so um this is now going to be our extension. um board of health, uh I'm not sure if you know, but they've moved from Mount Kiscoco to White Plains, which pushed a lot of the applications back. We did have our preliminary review. They made comments, um sent them back to my engineers, which were addressed and then resent back to them, and it's been about six weeks. So, we're anticipating hopefully a final in the next couple of weeks. um at which point uh hopefully we'll be coming to you for signatures on the final subdivision and uh you know get get going on the project sooner than later.

Okay. So, you're requesting another 90-day extension. That's correct. Yes. And I don't see any particular problem with that. Um the law provides us with the ability to give the extension. Uh could I have a motion? So move. Second. I have a motion and a second. Is there any further discussion? I don't think there's any conditions to put on an extension. All in favor? I I All opposed. You have your 90-day extension. Thank you very much. Have a good night. Thank you. And good luck with getting it done. Sometimes it takes a while to get through the health department.

That's unfortunate, but yeah, I appreciate that. Thank you very much. Okay. The next item on our agenda is to consider a waiver of site plan for the creation of a cafe and ice cream parlor. In this particular case, um the address is 107109 Kona Avenue and the owner applicant is Gooser LLC. Is there someone here to speak for the applicant? Yes. Um my name is Dan Janelle. Steven Helm sadly had a his son had a bad accident and will not he was supposed to be here tonight but he can't so I'm going to try and fill in.

Well, thank you. Uh so can you tell us something about the application?

This is a a daughter that my daughter and I purchased. Um, she wants to open a very small ice cream shop in the far right side, which historically was a separate store. I think it was Oaken Oil or something like that. It then had been combined with the two other retail stores on the first floor of 107 109. She is proposing to separate it and create a 323 square foot um ice cream shop that has no seating, just has a counter um as shown in the plan and um no preparation on site. So just basically a ice cream shop that would be selling premade ice cream off premises with no no inside seating or um basically complying with the cafe ordinance which I believe is under 450 square ft.

This is 3 23 square ft. I know it seems to fit the definition extraordinarily well. Actually, it uh hopefully bring some vibrancy to a very vibrant Katona village. Uh I had a hard time understanding the where the entrance I guess the entrance is is from the front. In some of the drawings it looked like there was a connection with the the main store and in others it looked like it was completely

I can't share the the the picture but there's a picture of the front of the building which has been painted in a darker color and the door on the right was the original doorway to when it was a separate store. The door on the left is a stairway up to the apartments above, but the this the doorway on the right would be access uh into the store. And then there is a a a counter. There is a rear access for ADA compliance for someone who wants to get up to the to get ice cream. Sorry. You just froze um a window uh

access for see the two doors for a customer to you know get the ice cream at the back of the building. But so so when you talk when you talk in the application about a walk up window that window would be in the back of the building.

Yes. the you know the the the bulk of the of the customers would be coming in the if you look at the the the the drawing of the first floor the space colored in blue the the from the street it goes in about 15 ft to a counter and that's really the extent of the the customer access to the to the space with the exception of the rear um for ADA compliant to be able to have someone get ice cream from a from a wheelchair is my understanding.

It seems like it seems like a very good use of a tiny space. So, and I it I think an ice cream store can only add to Katona Avenue in a positive way, but then again, I'm addicted to ice cream. Any any other questions, comments from I I agree with the chair sentiments. Is that a motion? Sure. I uh I move that we wave the site plan uh for the applicant.

It's and it's not just a waiver site plan. It's Well, yeah. I guess we don't have to set it up as a cafe. No, it'll be a waiver. Yeah. Yeah. and the us will be the cafe and I don't think there are any conditions. Madam chair, before you take a vote, I do want to point out that the applicant is correct. They had put um on page 102 in the proposed package that the planning board may um wave up to 50% at the off streetet parking spaces that are required by code. Um so I just wanted to bring that to the board's attention and if you'd like to address that or I'm happy to walk through it for you.

I think we should walk through it. I had forgotten about the parking and that's not a smart thing to do in in Katona. Well, except for this use. Well, we don't forget about it. We handle it. Right. Right. Right. So, the use itself is um as the architect had uh properly shown on the plans, it only provides about 1.6 parking spaces. So, even if you round it up to two, you can wave half of that. So, one space. So, effectively one space would need to be provided. Um, I do understand that there is parking in the rear of the building. Um, that, you know, it because it is a shared space, we can look at it that way. So, it may But they're all identified for rental apartments.

Pardon? Yep. There's posted right on the fences. Okay. So, then you can only wave one. So, we can wave one. Um, do we have to take do a motion to wave? I would. Oh, can we make it a condition of the the waiver? A condition of the Well, the waiver can't be a condition of a waiver, can it? Right. It'll be an acknowledgement that you're agreeing to wave and then I'll just include that in the resolution of a program. But then what do we do about the other parking space? Um, unfortunately a variance may need to be granted for that

unless the applicant could I said a variance would need to be granted unless the applicant could pro show and provide that um or I should say in addition that a permit might be able to be obtained elsewhere. Um but this may be a case where you know it makes perfect sense for um for waving I'm sorry for granting a variance for there's two there's two spots shown between 107 and 109 and the twostory carriage house that's behind it where where I thought that's what you were saying no along the whole back wall those are not part of our property our property only extends about in identified for both buildings right Yes.

Cuz the carriage house has to have its own parking. So So what you're saying you you feel you don't have the parking? No. Yeah. We're We're I I think I believe my daughter is paying for parking from the town for the retail um customer. I mean retail employees. Um I think there's she's purchasing spots from the town. on an annual basis, which I assume could be done for the employee, for the um

for the for the for the ice cream store, but not obviously not for the customers. We're we're envisioning mainly, you know, people walking through through the village.

No. And I think that makes sense. And and because we can wave the requirement, I don't know if you could hear all the conversation we had here. Because we can wave half of the requirement and a little more than one. So it has to count for two. Two parking spaces is all that's required. We can wave one of them. So it's just one one parking space you have to come up with. So paying for parking for an employee would probably do it. Um, but I think the the problem is I don't see that we can vote on this tonight without knowing that the variance has been granted.

Or you could condition it as it is seemingly a very straightforward application. I know that's not the practice that the board does, but you do have that option on the table. Yeah, especially since they have the one spot that they're going to be paying for. But we have no way of I'm confirming that except that's an easy condition, isn't it? Am I wrong? It's an easy It's an easy condition and it's a sensible one for the zoning board to make in a variance. Okay. But you can't. But I I think it's a very dangerous road to go on to start parsing which parking things

okay we'll wave and which we won't it um fair enough. Yeah. Is it just so I'm clear is it less than one parking space? No it's it's one parking space. Okay. So I think uh we have to with I I don't think we can help you tonight. Um, we can advise you to to Well, can it be subject Can it be subject to our obtaining a variance just so we can be done with this aspect of the process?

As as it stands now, um, we basically there's nothing that that completely sets you apart from everybody else in Kona that needs parking variances. If you want my own humble opinion, which you probably don't, um I think we should redo the way that we talk about parking in in the hamlets and possibly give the planning board the ability to wave more parking uh depending on what the circumstances are. But right now, we've we have we've well, we're going to wave and and we should should do that in an official vote. Um, one of the two parking spaces, but that's all the law allows us to do. So, we're we're doing as much as we can. We're not sending you to the zoning board for two spaces. We're only sending you for one.

That's fine. So you you can can but can you approve the waiver of site plan and the one parking spot sub and then subject to the variance of the other spot by the zoning board? No. Okay. No, that's that's what I thought I just said we couldn't do. Could I have a motion that we would wave one of the two parking spaces? So moved. Is there a second? Second. Uh, any further discussion? Sorry. All in favor of the She likes ice cream even better than I do.

That's true. All in favor say I. I I. All opposed. Um, do you have the waiver of the parking space? And I'm sorry to be stubborn about the uh the parking in general, but I just think it's important that we be consistent. No problem. So, we we'll make an application to the zoning board. Um and I don't think you'll have problems with with us uh after you get the variance. And I don't think you'll have problems getting the variance. So, chair, may I pose a question to the applicant before they leave? I'm sorry. May I pose a question to the applicant before they Sure.

Um Dan, the plans do say that a proposed bracketed sign with a light fixture above will be provided at some point in time. Can you confirm that this will be done under the tenants application? Yes. Great. Thank you. Okay. So, I think that's all we could do for you tonight. I appreciate it. Thank you guys. Take care. Okay. Bye. Bye. Bye. Bye.

Bye. Okay. The next item on the that's on the published agenda again has been adjourned. Uh that's 179 Abbert Road. Uh the final item on our agenda for tonight is to consider an application for steep slopes permit in connection with the construction of an ingground pool, spa, and associated patio along with related ancillary equipment and storm water management pursuant to town code 102-4. The owner applicant is John are Donna and Lisa Chambers and the address is 95 Oliver Road. Hi everyone. I'm Carol Kurt and I'm the architect for this project. I'm here with Yan Johansson from Kellard Engineering. Um this is a special project for me because I designed it at the start of my career multiple owners later and here I am back on this project.

So it's kind of a fun one. Um it's a very cool site on the quaries over on Oliver Road. And um when um I first got to meet this client, one of the first things they wanted to do was think about a pool overlooking the quarry. And we did investigate that with Paul Janick and had some sitewalks. And at the end of the day, we decided that it would be a very complex approval. And so we did some walks around the property and found a location out of the wetlands. And um it's a great spot though, however, it does fall into what's technically a a designated steep slope area. Um although the area that we're looking to build the pool in isn't quite that steep. Um anyway, we're here to try and get this moving along because the client would love to be swimming by Memorial Day. We have a contractor lined up. Uh we think we're being very sensitive to the site. We've established an elevation for the pool. Um working around with some retaining walls and uh spillway and dramatic waterfall planter and we've had uh Yan develop all the site engineering for it. So I'll let him explain that part. Okay.

Thank you. Thank you. Yandre Hansen, KFCJ Consulting. Thank you.

Good evening. Yan Johannes, KSCJ Consulting, um with the site civil. Uh we have uh conducted a wetland delineation on the property which has been verified by Paul Janick. As originally indicated uh we had um proposed the pool kind of very close and or overhanging um the quarry uh on this side. This is the steep slope that goes down to the quarry. Um that was going to be uh a rigorous approval process. So, we've relocated the pool outside of the wetland buffer uh in an area that is uh less severe slope than the remainder of the property. We're at about 10,000 square ft of limit of disturbance overall. Um we are at uh 3,049 ft of steep slopes disturbance. So, we're outside of the New York City wershed. We're not hitting any thresholds for storm water permitting. Uh we're not required to uh attenuate any uh storms. Um there is a uh a swale that runs along the existing driveway and the terrace is going the majority of it is going to sheet flow onto the property and get collected in that swale. We do have a channel drain around portions of the perimeter of the patio which will also discharge to that swale. uh where pool equipment is going to be on the opposite side of the driveway next to an existing garage. It's going to be screened with a fence. Um that that pool uh pool will be connected to the house, water and electric. Um all within the limits of disturbance. We've provided a cut and fill calculation per the code. We're at 396 cubic yards of fill and all of that's going to be retained within proposed retaining walls that around the perimeter of the uh the terrace. So by using the retaining walls, we're able to limit the amount of

grading that's required while being contained within the walls. Um I did have a conversation uh with Will from Hans's office. I understand his uh review letter is forthcoming. We did talk about um pool water draw down. He thought that because we're not in a wetland buffer and underneath the thresholds, we wouldn't require a pool water draw down system, we did identify one. If it's determined required uh to Colt system, our colt units would take the 6-in uh pool water draw down and that would be piped from the uh pool equipment um pad. We've provided a uh erosion and sediment control plan ax construction access would be directly off the driveway. Uh we have a soil stockpile location uh in a an area that's not steep. We have a concrete wash out in an area that's not steep. Um silt fence uh at the the base of the retaining wall. Uh some proposed temporary check dams along that swale. Um the septic system is is off sheet here. It's shown on our existing conditions plan. Um but we're not anywhere near it. Uh the well is up by the uh up here at the top of the house. And uh that that's basically the plan. We're trying to find a location that is um you know as as much unreal unregulated as possible being outside the buffer in an area that really is the the flattest area possible uh for the pool.

This was not an easy property to deal with. No, by a long shot. I'm very familiar with it. No, it's it's a challenge and it's a beautiful property and um I'm very familiar with it and it's and its characteristics. I also did the other quarry houses in that same time period all from Bis and the other one over here. So, it's kind of like a deja vu. Also, no tree removal. Yeah, no tree. No tree removal.

And um we've set the pool in elevation that we hope that there's either none or very little rock chipping. um because we're mostly uh working with the topography and setting the height of the pool deck such that you know we're working with the terrain.

Well, it does seem to me that you've you've done with with the design what we had hoped people would do when we've passed this slopes ordinance years ago, which is try to work with the topography instead of work against the topography. Um I think you I think you know that we can't move forward with it because we haven't had the the letter from Hans's office. Um but if the engineering uh works out the way the appearance works out I at least would favor it. I don't know if there are any comments any members

that that would be great. That would be great. So we have to come back just because of a formality letter kind of an approach. Is that Well, we we have to have an assurance from the town engineer that he recommends the approval. Um and and that makes sense. I this can look great to me with my degree in medieval history, but that degree in middle medieval history has probably not prepared me to uh handle the engineering involved in a in a steep slopes situation like this. So would it be possible to calendar it on the December agenda so we can have fun uh memo by then and potentially I would think we

we will for whatever reason we don't have it but intention on December. Great. Perfect. Yeah we do have a contractor already you know lined up and who wants to work over the winter to try and meet our deadlines. So he said he's ready to work December 15th even. So, um, if we can make it happen, we'd love to break around January, assuming we get the permitting and everything in place. If if we have the engineering report saying what it needs to say, then that'd be great. John, do you know the height of your retaining wall? 12 feet. Yeah. About 12 12 feet right here. Okay. So, you need a building permit for that.

Yes. Yeah. The the pool contractor um has an engine Yeah. is engineering that wall. Yeah. So, they'll be part of the building permit application, that wall design. Yeah. Great. Okay. Well, thank you very much. All right. Thank you very much. And I believe that that is the last item on on our agenda. Does anyone have anything else to bring before the meeting tonight? Could I have a motion to adjourn the meeting? So move. Is there a second? Second. All in favor? I

I All opposed. The meeting is officially adjourned.