Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, Steve, we're good. Okay. Welcome. Thank you folks for coming out tonight. Welcome to the plan and board meeting regularly scheduled for May 18th, 2026, 7:30 p.m. We have full attendance tonight from the board. business items. We have minutes from the 420 2026 plan of board meeting. Any questions or comments on those minutes? Okay, we'll let the record show there's no further questions or comments. Do we have a motion? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of 42026. Motion from Walter. Second. Second from GD. Walter. I. Jean. I. John. I. Eileen

I JD I Steve I and an I for me. Next up two walker road adoption of resolution of approval for site plan application PSP 26-3 solar photovalttaic panels installed on the roofs of the UV treatment building and the generator building using a rack and rail system underground electric equipment pad 2 Walker road the hall op2 zone department of water sup. So, this is something this board has reviewed. Our consultant has drafted um uh a resolution. The board has reviewed that resolution and this is over for two Walker Road, which essentially is over by the grasslands property. Any questions or comments on the resolution that was drafted by our consultant?

I make a motion to uh adopt a resolution approval. Motion from JD. Um JD, John. I'll second that. Second from J D. Walter. Hi, Jean. Hi, John. Hi, Eileen. I JD. Hi, Steve. Hi. And I for me, that's like when I was growing up, my my parents always confused one of us.

Okay. Fourth, request for a one-year extension of site plan resolution of approval number SP22-02 for the construction of a 10 faculty housing units with single car driveway space 2 with the EF Academy 582 Columbus Avenue, Thor, New York 112.12-1-1. So, this one was done years ago um and this is back before us for renewal for a one-year extension. And what's going on with this one?

So, Mr. Mr. Chairman, if you remember, this is faculty housing to accommodate the student enrollment at the facility. That enrollment fluctuates and it's an international um student body. So, it's hard to predict. So, they haven't had the necessity to retain that faculty up till this point.

Right. Okay. And I think Um CO changed a lot of things for the the enrollment of the schools. A lot. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Uh any questions or comments on that resolution for one-year extension of site plan resolution of approval for EF Academy? Let the record show no further comments. We have a motion. Motion to approve the one-year extension. Motion from Eileen. Second. Second from Jean. Walter. I. Jean. I. John. Hi Eileen. I JD. Hi Steve. Hi. And I for me. Next up is a continuing public hearing. This is the only one that is do 420.

Did I miss something? We going to do 420 before we're doing this is Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. We're But this is good. You see me? So no, we're in good shape. This is a continuum public hearing which means this is an opportunity for the public to speak to us on this particular application which is 361 Brad or Savin renewal special use permit gas filling station in accordance with town code uh 218-33 application site plan PSP25-7 location 361 Braders Avenue Hawthorne New York section block lot number is 1112.9-1-4 zone HH owner Hawthorne Enterprises LLC applicant attorney Zaron and Simons LLP welcome thank Thank you for coming on tonight.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. My name is Vincent Pedone with the law firm of Xon and Steinmets. Here tonight on behalf of CPD Chestnut Market, uh in connection with their application for special permit renewal for their gas station and convenience store at 361 Bradst Avenue. Uh just give you a quick update. Since the last time we were in front of your board, uh the applicant has been working diligently with the building department on cleaning up some items on the site such as trash, debris, firewood. Uh they've added some landscaping. uh all in an effort to bring the site into conformance with the approved site plans. Uh and as a result of last Thursday's site inspection, uh we are pleased to report that the inspection passed and all non-conforming items were deemed to be in conformance with that approved site plan. So, um tonight we are here asking your board to close the public hearing and then uh direct staff to begin preparing a resolution for approval.

Okay. Any questions or comments for board members? Um, I drove by today. I can confirm that it's cleaned up and it's looking a lot better. Appreciate that. Wasn't there some conversation about the landscaping that need to be addressed or no? Uh, so according to everything that I know, um, they did add the landscaping that was missing originally when they went out for the site inspection a couple months ago. Uh, it wasn't in conformance with how the original plans looked. Um, and as a result of last Thursday, they they were satisfied with with the changes that were made. Okay. So, that's why we're we're glad you came back to us, which is why we asked you to come back to us because we wanted to make sure this was done before we move forward. But,

understood. Um, this is a public hearing, which means I need to ask the public, is there anybody here tonight for 361 Braders Avenue renewable special use permit gas filling station in accordance with town code 218-33? So, they're renewing their special use permit, which I think is every seven years. Yes.

And they have to come back before our board our board to make sure that they're doing what they need to do. Um, some things we make them do is clean up the site. If there's debris in the site, firewood, selling things outside of the building they're not supposed to, we get them to clean that up, which they did do. So, now they're back before us and they've cleaned up the site and hopefully it stays that way. We'll make sure our resolution reflects that. Um, so anyway, any questions or comments from uh the community on 361 Brad special use permit? Let the record show that there is no further comments on 361 Bruce Avenue special use permit for guest filling station. Okay. So now we have an open public hearing. What is the pleasure of the board with the public hearing?

Make a motion to close the public hearing. Motion from Eileen. I'm I keep doing this from John. I'll second it. Second from Steve. Walter. Hi, Jane. Hi, John. I Eileen. I Judy. Hi, Steve. Hi. And an eye for me. Thank you very much. The public hearing is closed now. Don't go anywhere just yet. Now, we need to make a decision on what do we do with the application itself. Now that the public hearing is not closed, I make a motion that we uh uh prepare a resolution of approval. Motion from Eileen.

I'll second that. But I just like to have uh some fail safe in there that they're going to keep the property the way that it's supposed to be. In my opinion, it took a little bit too long for us to get here. Okay. So, um if we could have something in there for inspections moved in. Understood. Okay. So, that's a second with a modification from JD. Okay. Walter. Hi, Jane. Hi, John. Hi, Eileen. Hi, JD. Hi, Steve. Hi. And for me. Okay. Thank you for coming out tonight. That's that's it. You're done. Ready to go. Thank you all for your time.

Okay. Next up, we have continuing applications. We do have quick adjustments in this schedule. We have one very quick application. I want to get him out of here. It's probably going to take less than 5 minutes. Um, that is two Broadway conversion of a single story commercial structure to a threetory mixeduse storage of residential structure. Application site plan PSP25-12 is location to Broadway, Hawthorne, New York. Second block number is 1112-9-3-10. his own HHSC owner to Broadway realy applicant architect Jonathan Milani and Associates. Thank you very much and I think we've had you here before. Yes. So I think we can probably do this. Should I go through? No.

You don't need to go too much into it. I just high level. There's a couple open items that you were going to address. Um let's look at it from that perspective. If we address the open items that were Yes. that were out there.

Okay. So obviously uh Jonathan Milanian Associates Inc. uh representing Bridgepoint Group to Broadway. We presented prior uh uh meetings. Since then we've met with the engineering uh actually with Clear Consulting as well as South Panella of the building department. Um in this particular case the engineering has already viewed the site and approved the drainage drawings as well as the engineering of the site. Uh we did make one alteration which we're proposing four stories instead of three stories. Uh, Clear Consulting has laid out all the variances that are required. I don't know if everybody's looked through the variances, but they're all pre-existing non-conformities as well as design criteria that we cannot meet because we're building upon the footprint of the existing building. So, these are obviously things I'm going to have to explain to the zoning board when I do present to them. But as far as planning is concerned, four-story building, four units, uh site plan was approved previously, but we increased the size of the building to four stories.

Okay. You just increase the height, right? The height. Yeah. And we can get into the details of the particulars of all of that in a public hearing. The question that's before the board tonight is, did we dot the eyes and cross the tees? And is it ready for a public hearing? Not yet. So, this is a referral to the zoning board. That's I'm sorry I jumped the gun a little bit. Pearl to the zone board. Yeah. All right. So, hold off on that comment. Okay. Anything else from you? No. No. I think everything has depends upon whether I get zoning variances. Correct. So, everybody's um things that we need to work out in planning need to be approved by zoning. I would prely

Okay. So, here's my take. So, you So, we're doing a referral to the to the zoning board. We can do either a positive referral, negative referral, or no referral at all. Those are three options we could do. So, let me just kind of outline that to the to the rest of the board members. What is the pleasure of the board in terms of one of those three options? And Mr. Chairman, just to remind the board that this plan was originally approved with the footprint that's before you today. The change is simply the addition of the one board member, I give a positive referral to the on board. Is that a motion? Yes. Okay. We got a motion from any other comments or questions from board members. We

have a We have a motion from John. I'll second. Second from JD. Walter. Hi. Shane. Hi. John. Hi. Eileen. I JD. Hi. And Steve. Hi. And I for me. Okay. We cut it in under five minutes. Oh, that was great. All right. Thank you very much.

Okay. Okay, we'll go back to our regular schedule program which is uh proposed 95 Braders Avenue Flight Children's Hospital 3-phase improvement plan including expansion for long-term care, park and deck and improvements to site utilities and infrastructure application site plan SP-25-02 location 95 Avenue Vala section block all numbers 117.17-1-2 zone R20 owner and applicant is BTO children's hospital engineer architect Lankan Collier's E4 for each architecture and that's it. Thank you for coming out tonight.

Thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. For the record, my name is Janet Garris. I'm a partner with Delbelloo Denell and Wingarten Weis and Whitaker here this evening on behalf of the applicant. As you know, we've been before you now for many months. Uh when we were at your meeting last just 10 days ago, uh the board closed the public hearing, left the record open for 10 days. I know you received some additional correspondence. I would submit to you that none of that correspondence raises any new or different issues than what was presented to you or what has been presented to you in the past. Um, just to give you a little bit of a recap, as you know, the property is located at 95 Bradhurst Avenue. It's approximately 12.6 acres. Uh, and it's the location of Gladale Children's Hospital, which was founded in 1891 and has existed on the property since 1922. Uh we are seeking amended site plan approval from the planning board for a three-phase improvement project. As we've expressed to the board previously, the first phase is the construction of a one-story parking structure containing approximately 132 spaces. The deck of that structure is pro approximately 11 ft tall uh with a 4ft uh wall around it. So 15 ft. The um stair towers I think go to 22 ft. The second phase of that project is the construction of an emergency access ring road around the existing hospital building together with the related infrastructure and that will uh provide increased uh services for emergency access to the rear of the building. The third phase is the construction of a two-story addition to the existing hospital building and that's intended to accommodate 44 additional long-term beds. As we've said to you in the past, the approval of those long-term beds is ultimately with the Department of Health. So although we are designing for 44 um there would not be more than 44. Depending on what the department of health would approve it

could be less than 44. Um we've made appearances before you now uh April, June, July, October of 2025, March, April and May of 2026. We've responded to comments from your consultants, your town professional staff, as well as relevant public comment. We've addressed traffic comments with your first traffic consulting engineer in July, August, and September. We worked with your town engineer. We worked with NISDOT to address their comments. The town had, as you know, two traffic consultants as well as the town engineer review. And as I said to you last month, there have been five different professional traffic engineers, including ours, which have reviewed the traffic. fire and EMS have also reviewed this and we have satisfied the comments of the town engineer. Um, as I mentioned, we responded to comments uh from the board, from your consultant, from the public in March, April, and May. Uh, with regard to the improvements that we worked out with NISDOT, they include the the uh bus stop pad at the north driveway to be modified to uh create uh ADA accessibility there. Uh we've included sidewalk at Bradhurst and Grasslands intersection from the south driveway to the corner. The creation of crosswalks across Bradhurst and Grasslands Avenue. The extension of the sidewalk on the north side of Grasslands Avenue to the existing bus stop. Um as you know, we're seeking a negative declaration from the board. We've provided you over the course of the last year and a half with extensive materials for your record. You've identified your areas of concern and you've taken a hard look. Now you need to make a reasoned elaboration for the basis of your determination. Um I'd like to remind you and as we've said in our correspondence to the board, you are not as a board

under the obligation to consider every conceivable impact that's associated with the action. And seeker isn't intended to fix existing conditions in the area, but rather is is intended to help mitigate or eliminate potential significant adverse environmental impacts specifically caused by uh or arising from the proposed action. We've done that here. Um we've taken a hard look at the visual impacts, the traffic impacts, the storm water impacts. Um, and we'd like to remind you that your determination cannot be based on generalized community opposition, speculative assertions, or claims, and must instead be based on competent evidence prepared by qualified professionals. The applicant isn't aware of the submission of any evidence prepared by qualified professionals, and in fact, the community has not submitted anything from qualified professionals. um planning board is required to consider the project in the context of the interests of the entire community and not just a few objecting neighbors. We've said previously that BLE is nationally renowned and it's an institution that cares for our more most v vulnerable population. The project will allow them to create 44 additional beds, which is an indisputable benefit to the community as a whole. That they've been on this property and operating here since 1922 is not irrelevant. It's demonstrative of the fact that they're an essential part of the fabric of the community and that the community has uh been influenced by its presence since 1922. Um, I'd like to also call to your attention the comments of your CAC chair who was here at your last meeting. Um, I know he submitted additional comments today and um I I'd like to reiterate and I'm a little disturbed by it and I would

suggest this board should be disturbed by it as well that the October 20th memo that he called attention to or that one of the neighbors called attention to was not a memo of the board. If you look at the first paragraph of that memo, it says, "I got an email from Mr. Quigley last night on October 19th. If that board meets on the fourth Monday of the month, the fourth Monday of the month was October 27th. That memo is dated October 20th. It's the day after it was determined that it was received. We've looked for minutes of that board. We've looked for agendas of that board. They are not available online. The remarks from the from the chair purporting to be speaking on behalf of the CAC were inappropriate in October as were the remarks last month purportedly on behalf of the CAC and they're inappropriate and ultravirus and quite frankly it's rather troubling. Um the CAC here has no legal authority. um he has no legal right or authority to communicate on behalf of the CAC absent a meeting of the board, a vote by the board and a communication from the board. And even if in fact they did meet and they did authorize the communication, that communication can be no more than official or personal opinion of its members. The CAC lacks jurisdiction over this matter and this communication therefore is void and of no legal effect and is nothing more than personal opinion. We've written a little bit more about that in our communication to the board and we believe that you need to take that into account. I just like to summarize by saying that uh as I previously stated, you've identified your areas of concern. You've evaluated the materials. You've confirmed the sufficiency of the information submitted. you've taken your

indisputable hard look. When we asked last month if there was any additional information or the last meeting whether there was any additional information you needed there was no additional information that you requested of the applicant. Um given this we believe that the record demonstrates that there will be no significant adverse impacts and the preparation of a negative declaration is therefore required under applicable law and regulation. So our team is here this evening. If you have any additional questions, we're happy to answer them. Any additional questions from the board? I don't think there will be any additional questions at this point. Let the record show there's no additional questions from the board.

I don't have any questions, but I have comments directed to the board. Okay. So, we'll we'll have our dialogue. Okay. Board board member Walter Hickey, you're up. Mr. Chairman, I have a few comments for the for the board to consider in reviewing the FBAF signed by Mr. Flanigan on Do me a favor. Just speak up real quick. Can anybody hear me? Yeah. Okay.

So, to reiterate, I I have a few comments, Mr. Chairman, uh for the board to consider uh in reviewing the FAFS signed by Mr. Flanigan on March 14. It was dated March 14, 2025. On page four of 13 D.2 project operations uh line A the question is does the proposed action include any excavation mining dredging during construction operations or both. Uh the applicant uh marked off no. Uh I believe this is an error as the application has significant excavation with approximately 10,000 yards of material leaving the site. If the box was checked yes, that would trigger the applicant to respond to nine more questions. Those questions run out what is the purpose of excavation? How much volume over what time? the nature and description of the material. Um, will there be on-site dewatering or processing of excavated materials? What is the total area to be dredged? What is the maximum area to be worked at one time? What would the maximum depth of excavation or dredging be? Will the excavation require blasting? Summarize this reclamation goals and plan. So, none of these these an these questions were answered at all. No yet. No, yes or no. because they they initiated their response with a no. Uh just considering the watering alone if they do encounter water have to do water is that that could trigger permits. Where is the water being discharged? Is it being discharged into the town sewer? What receiving body of water is is taking on this water? Does the water have to be checked for quality? Does it have contaminants? on page 16 of 13 letter F

that's regarding uh air emissions the they acknowledge um there will be um um does the pros act include or will use on-site one or more sources of air air missions? They acknowledge yes. They do site equipment 18-wheelers for delivery of pre-cast concrete, bulldozers, excavators, crane delivery trucks for m for miscellaneous materials. Um construction of this magnitude also entails the use of compressors, dump trucks to uh um haul out excavated material, concrete trucks, asphalt trucks, spreaders, all that provide emissions. um this this site, this area, this neighborhood is wedged in between the uh the Spring Parkway, Bradurst and Grasslands that we've all seen, you know, the traffic on those roads and uh contributing emissions um to not to this area, particularly this this neighborhood. So there um that's just a statement that this site is is not is not only encounters existing emissions but there'll be emissions um contributing to the the the u say pollution load in this particular area. Um, six of 13 still. Um, um, excuse me, uh, eight of page eight of 13, letter M. Regarding noise, they they do acknowledge noise. Um, ambient noise levels during construction, operation of both. Typical they state under I M small I typical construction noise during the

construction period no noticeable increase in amu noise during operation. Uh this this job will also include say backup alarms, jackhammers. Um if they encounter rock they'll most likely uh involve home rams uh to remove the rock. There's a question later on within later in the a FEF that mentions rock outcropping. Is there rock outcropping on the site? Um that question was never answered. Um letter J, same page. Will the proposed action remove existing existing natural barriers that could act as a noise barrier or screen? uh the applicant checks off no, but there are natural barriers. There's a heavily forested area between uh Lilac Place and the the parking lot. Uh the trees can can be considered a natural barrier. Um and they according to the applicant uh project is to remove all those trees during construction. Um letter N regarding you know lighting uh will be outdoor lighting. Yes. Um back it goes back to another question. Will the proposed action remove existing natural barriers that could act as a light barrier applicant causes off? No. But again getting back to trees. The trees now do provide a natural barrier u knocking down some of the light that's coming from that parking lot to to the backyards of Lilock Place. Um uh letter letter O same page. Does the proposed action have the potential to

produce odors for more than one hour per day? The applicant checks off no. Um there uh for this type of construction there is significant amount of asphalt that produce a produces a very strong odor that will definitely occur for more than one hour per day during the course of the asphalt operation. The project also calls for the um for the installation of a elastoic waterproofing membrane over the pre-cast concrete. Uh my past experience uh this particular material has the potential to put off a very strong odor as well. Um switching over to the secret 617.7 um page 20 or 40 letter C criteria for determining significance items. The criteria considered these criter criteria are considered indicators of significant adverse impact on the environment and just the list a substantial adverse change in existing air quality ground surface water quantity traffic noise. This is just a statement I'm making that's coming out of out of secret. Also on secret uh switch going to page 21 letter V the impairment of the character or quality of important historical archaeological architectural oresthetic res aesthetic resources or of existing community or neighborhood character is also listed as an indicator. The parking garage in close proximity to lilike place could be considered as an

indicator of impairment of character for this neighborhood. Lastly, under secret letter um line XI, changes in two or more elements of the environment, no one of which has a significant impact on the environment, but when considered together result in a substantial adverse impact on the environment. I have no further comments, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from board members? I have a comment, Mr. Chairman. So, first I I think it's important to recognize what this application actually represents. Bldale Children Hospital is not a speculative commercial development. It's a nonprofit institution that served medically fragile children and families in this community for over a century. The hospital existed long before any of the surrounding residential development. long before any current neighboring property owners purchased homes in this area. Every resident has a right to voice their concerns and speaking only as one board member. We have taken those concerns seriously. We have spent substantial time reviewing traffic, environmental impacts, neighborhood concerns, and all materials required under SER. That is precisely what the process is intended to do. and our responsibility is to evaluate facts, studies, and impacts objectively, not with emotion, rhetoric, or external pressure. What concerns me is when the public narrative shifts away from legitimate environmental review and toward what appears to be leverage or threats. Secret is intended to protect the environment and ensure informed decision-m should not be used as a tool to force outcomes in one way or another. Tonight's decision should be based upon the extensive record before this board, professional studies that have been completed, the legal standards in which we are obligated to apply, nothing more and nothing less. I believe this board has conducted a thorough and responsible review. I also believe it's possible to acknowledge neighborhood concerns while still recognizing the extraordinary public value of an institution that provides critical care for seriously ill children and families. At some point, we have to be willing to say that a community can be can responsibly support both residential neighbors and an institution whose mission serves an uni

undeniably public good. I do have one concern that I would like to see addressed as this moves forward and I think that we do need a better plan for screening of the parking deck. Those are my comments and uh if anybody else doesn't, I make a motion for a negative declaration. Oh, let's just make sure there's no other comments. Any other comments or questions? Yes. What's the the road adjacent? Is that Armont Place? Lisa. No, it's Lisa. You said Armont is across the street. Across the street, right? That's a fairly new development, right? No. No. Which is the fairly new development. That's Pat. Um, not Patrick. Um,

thank you. Okay. So, that's a fairly new one, right? Yeah. What is that? last 10 years I was on the board when they came through it. Yeah. Okay. When they had to build those houses and there was Yeah. machines and waterproofing and a lot of stuff that uh that could get off or orders with asphalt and land also. Right. So that's just one uh I just want to know how how long ago that was built. I would say that I would say probably 10 to 12 years. I'm going to guess. My memory could be off but roughly that. Okay. Yeah. Okay. Any other questions or comments from board members?

Is it that um a a positive declaration just triggers the EIS? It's not a denial of the project. It's just that they have to look a little deeper into some of the concerns and possibly come up with alternatives that we haven't seen other than say screening. require them to follow the EIS process. That's correct. Right. So, it's it's not killing the project. It's just additional review. Additional review. That's all. See? Okay.

Okay. One last call. I have a comment, but I'll hold off for one more second. Any other comments or questions? Okay. So, this application is a tough one for me because we do see the medically fragile children and the work that they do. And I I think everybody has said whether you're opposed or not opposed, the work that happens at hospital is is important. However, I'm struggling with the physical size, bulk, and height of the proposed parking structure and I think it warrants closer review under secret. Pursuant to 6NYC RR67.2 2 and 6 RR 617C. We are required, we as a board are required to evaluate whether the physical dimensions of a project fit into the context of the surrounding neighborhood. The structure structural mass of this facility is significant enough to require a full draft environmental impact statement. The we are not looking at a flat ground level parking lot but a multi-story parking structure to understand its visual and spatial impact. We cannot evaluate in isolation under 6NYCR67.3. We must consider the overall development of the site over time. This 12.6 acre parcel already accommodates a 32,000t building, 56,000T inpatient hospital, a 12,000t administrative suite, and a 17,000 foot care unit. The current application proposes an additional I think 3 acres of land disturbance or 3.6 six to construct this parking deck alongside a new two-story building addition. Squeezing a multi-level concrete garage into this space introduces a prominent physical bulk that is out of character in my opinion with the low rise suburban fabric of a hallow. The physical presence of mass the physical presence and massing of a building of this size could permanently dominate the visual landscape for nearby residents on Lisa Lane and Armont Place and Brad and throughout the community because the scale of this parking garage and the corresponding loss for remaining

open space represents a noticeable shift in the aesthetic and physical character of Mount Pleasant. I'm leaning toward a positive declaration on this particular one. Okay. this particular application. I have personally put in hours and hours and hours and hours of time on this fund and I know the other board members have too because it's such an important institution within the facility but we also have to weigh the impact on the community. So um it was it is a tough one tough with the work that the school does but also tough and understanding the impact to the community. I think um the school does marvelous work. That's that goes without saying. But with that being said, I'll ask one last time any final questions or comments from board members. It just it seems that all of the problems are related to the parking deck. I haven't heard many people complain about the actual addition. You already have one and a half times as much parking as required and you won't have twice as much parking as required. Can you not implement some of those um measures that you were going to do implement during uh construction of the garage to make them permanent? Have valet like d parking is driving this project. I personally don't think I'm going to learn anything new through a deis. Um I think you've given us a lot of information. I don't like all of the information. I also think that the project really hasn't changed despite all the input from the public and from staff and this board and it's just kind of gotten some trees thrown at it and sidewalks which are good improvements for the existing but I feel like the parking structure is driving all the negativity about this and I wonder how much it's needed and could the parking be put underground so that you just have

surface or could you use valet to to not need at that actual parking deck. Okay. And those are all fair points and in the secret process if those alternatives could be reviewed in my in my opinion as well.

But okay, I'm going to ask one last time final questions or comments on board from board members. We need to schedule a vote in a second or two. Going once, going twice, going three times. No final questions or comments from board members. So, with that being said, I have to go back to my sheet of board members. What's that? We do have a motion on the table. We do. So, we have a motion from JD earlier and that was JD, can you just reiterate that? Yeah, I'd like to make a motion to prepare a negative declaration. Motion from JD.

Second. Second from John. Okay. Walter. Nay. Jane. Nay. John. Yay. Eileen. Yay. JD. Yes. Steve. Yes. And a nay for me. Okay, thank you for coming out tonight.

I don't think you want to open the bag.

Okay. Okay, next up is not a public hearing. So, what does that mean? We're not taking input from the public. And I know we have a some people here tonight, but this is not a public hearing, and I'm trying to stick to that tonight. So, proposed 420 Nanahhagen Road amend previous subdivision approval for subdivision application PSD 24-1 lot into two lots for the purpose of developing a a new single family dwelling amendment, including changed water services as prescribed by the Wester County Board of Health. Application subdivision PSD 24-1 location 420 Nanigan Road Formwood section block lot number is 107.17-2-16 zone R40 owner applicant is Danny Hagen 420 LLC architect Spearman architectural design PC attorney Philip Kmaldi

Excuse me Jim I'm going to recuse myself as I have a professional relationship thank you thank you for coming out tonight good evening chairman members of boardamati member Nhagen 420 LLC We were here two weeks ago, but we have a full board tonight. So, I'll just run through quickly why we're here. Yeah. The a high level summary. I think you've seen this before.

Yep. No problem. Really high level. This subdivision was previously approved, but this is an amendment because when it was approved, it was a drinking well. Now, it's uh Department of Health, Washington Department of Health is requiring us to connect to town water. There is an existing town- owned water man down Davidson Drive. um but it cannot handle another house connection. Um so this is to increase the size of that existing water man on Davidson Drive from 2 in to 6 in uh for a portion about a 300T portion uh of it and then reconnect the existing 2-in main uh to that increased size um border main with that.

Okay. Any questions or comments from board members? Uh, so last time that we spoke, we were discussing what the logistics of this were going to be and how you planned on getting the neighbors in and out while you were doing work,

right, JD? So that's the main reason we're back today. Uh, we presented a construction plan. Hopefully you were able to review it. Um, I'll go into as much detail, least detail, but um, high level. Uh, new lot two, which is the proposes um, a great opportunity, right? It is a fairly narrow street, right? There's no denying that without that lot for staging, stockpiling, all the materials, equipment, u will be staged on that lot. That allows us to keep Davidson Drive and the driveways free and clear. Without that, it would be difficult. Uh we're also proposing, I don't want to call them concessions, but maybe some things that we wouldn't have done otherwise, like only excavating uh 20 ft of trench at a time. It is a 2ft wide trench. Um we're only going to excavate 20 ft long at a time. have road plates sitting right there able to cover um that 20 foot of trench at a moment's notice. Um we propose in that construction plan that it would not be much longer than waiting for a red light if those uh construction plates need to be pushed back onto 20 ft or less of trench uh to allow a neighbor in or out uh during construction hours. We also propose emergency vehicles was a huge hot topic understandably. We propose a couple things. First of all, coordinating with emergency services to tell them this is happening. We also show some diagrams to show um an ambulance or fire truck can very easily and safely straddle a twoft wide uh trench if it had to make it down the street. Um a dump truck um a small excavator, a 13,000lb type excavator um would clear up from that road um into new lot 2 within moments. um certified flaggers, right, to flag uh any neighbors or any of that through the construction zone uh when required. Um there's a couple other things in there, an emergency number at all times in case anyone needed it to be posted. Fairly

typical. Um and then we go into the tie in Nanahagen that would probably that would require a police uh us to play for police. Um and what was the length of time for the work in that? We proposed approximately nine days. Okay. Any other questions or comments from board members? Are you saw cutting the pavement on the street to your where you're excavating?

We would saw cut first, right? I think we could saw cut the entire the entire excavation first. That doesn't really affect in short term the street and then and then when the time comes, excavate the the trench little by little. So the machine you're excavating with and then the dump truck is it behind it that he's you're digging and swinging behind. Then the truck pulls in into uh Davidson Drive and then dumps. So you're working your way in, but the the truck is always behind the excavating machine.

I understand what you're asking. I think it could be really either way since it's such a narrow trench, right? I think we could load it from the front. It could straddle the trench, right? and to go in and out of of new lot 2 or we could spin it from behind. So depending on So if you're straddled then you're the street is officially closed with with the truck straddling the the uh your back home

there. There's no doubt during physical construction of digging that trench the road would be blocked for a for a moment, right? But if we had to clear up, uh, there's full access to new lot 2 because the trench actually stops um at the existing 420 Nah, if you're familiar with the property, the pool that that's where the the water main upgrade stops. So the trench doesn't continue to new lot too. So yes, the the dump truck uh would drive right off into new lot 2 to clear up the road and the excavator will move to the side.

Okay. Any other questions or comments, board members? Okay. So the we tonight is really the question we had at the last meeting was we needed a construction management plan. Whether we agree with it or not, that's a whole other conversation. Each person on the board maybe have a different thought about the construction management plan, whether it works or it doesn't work. The question that's before the board tonight is is this board is is this plan ready for the public to even hear? We don't agree or disagree with the application at this point, but have they checked all the boxes with scheduling the public hearing? Yes or no? Does does it indicate approval? Does it indicate uh leaning toward one way or the other? It just means we think they checked all the boxes and they're ready for schedule public hearing or not. So, what are any other with that being said, any other questions about that? We frame it that way with the board. Do you guys have any concerns about scheduling a public hearing for this one at this point?

Nope. Okay. So, I'm sensing we have a motion coming. Sure. I'll make a motion to schedule a public hearing. Motion from JD. Second. Second from Walter. Walter. I. Jane is recused. John I. Eileen. I. JD. Hi, Steve. Hi. And I for me. Okay, you're good to go.

Okay, see you soon. Okay, next up is a brand new application uh and which is new application proposed 2-4 Summerland Lane line modification from filed map 23429 application subdivision PSD26-1 loc location 2 and 4 Summerland Lane Barkliff Manor section block lot number is 98.11-3 and8 zone R40 Owner Joseph Lickenstein. Applicant Mark Iiken. Engine architect Ralph Mastro Monaco. Oh, I messed that name up and I tried. Attorney Robert Davis Escort. How do you say your last name?

My name's Robert Davis. That's the easy one. That's the easy name. Monaco. Master Monaco. All right. Well, I'll work on my uh my language skills a bit. Fortunately, Mr. Master Monaco is not here tonight.

Okay. You said it much better. Uh, I'm Bob Davis um of Singleton, Davis and Singleton attorneys for the applicant and owner Joe Likenstein who's with me tonight along with Dan O' Conor our engineer from Ralph Master Monaco's office. Ralph is on vacation tonight. Um, in essence, this is a simple boundary line change between two lots owned or controlled by our client. Uh his house is located at two Summerland Lane and the adjoining vacant lot to the rear is owned by um a one-person LLC uh which is him. There are no new lots or roads. We're only changing the lot line between two existing lots. Our client has resided at Two Summerland with his family since 2015. Uh the other lot is undeveloped and there are no present plans uh to build on it. Essentially, our client has used it for 10 or more years as part of his backyard. U the basic configuration of the lots and their access points on Southerntherland uh will not change. They both remain corner lots. They both have frontage on Summerland and also on Washburn or Chapqua Road. Uh the location of a potential building area on the rear lot uh remains essentially the same. Uh to answer uh planner uh Clearary's comment about the irregular uh lot line, uh we can take a look at that. There might be a tweak or two uh we see we could make on that if necessary, but it was done with careful consideration of the existing structures um and conforming setbacks and the placement of accessory structures where they should be on the lot with the house where they serve rather than technically on a separate lot. Um actually the structures um on which the line was based actually make it easier to know the location uh of the line than would

ordinarily be the case. And we would submit that there's no really regularly shaped lots in this entire subdivision if you take a look at it. Um, accordingly this to answer another comment on the planners memo, this is a type two action uh under SRCAR that's very clear under section 617.5 um C16 of the SRA regulations because it's a quote lot line adjustment and that's made clear um very emphatically in the 2020 SRA handbook. Uh it explains that it makes it quite clear. So respectfully, this is not an unlisted action. Uh by operation of law, as you know, as a type two, it has no significant environmental impact and requires no review uh under secret per se. In essence, in this application, what's proposed is our client's lot will become a bit bigger. It will go from 0.585 acres to 90 uh.93 acres or 40,724 square ft. The rear lot on the other hand will decrease from 1.06 acres to 71 acres or 30,992 square ft. and that's still larger uh than most of the lots in the subdivision, particularly those on the same side of the street and larger than the current house lot as well. Uh the main purpose of the application is to create a more usable backyard for our client's house lot, which was one of the smallest lots, if not the smallest lot in the original 20 lot subdivision, so that it will be in effect if the rear lot is ever sold. There's no present plans to sell it, however. Uh it also serves to resolve some code setback and

location issues with respect to the existing accessory structures um and some other mainly the accessory shed. Um we've also been working on some storm water and slope issues regarding uh work from years ago with the town engineer that's not directly related to the boundary line change. And I believe when at the time uh Mr. Master Monaco left, it was our understanding that the engineer was satisfied with what he had done uh with respect to storm water in particular. Uh by way of background, these two lots are in the R40 zoning district and they were part of a lot averaging or cluster subdivision which was approved by the planning board preliminarily in 1985, finally in 19 uh 888. And it's notable that there have been two prior re-ubdivisions uh directly across the street from our property uh in 1992 and 2006 respectively. Um in that regard to answer uh one of Mr. Clar's comments. Uh, this board has been given a very blanket general uh, omnibus uh, authorization from the town board with respect to cluster authority. That's under various sections of the code A227-32B, 218-95B, A227-26 C. And basically under those um code provisions, this board is authorized to make any reasonable change in zoning regulations. But in any event, this board back in the 80s has already declared this uh and deemed this to be a cluster subdivision. Um and we're only altering one lot line between two of the approved lots. uh one of them will become conforming with more than 40,000

square feet and the other then will become uh lesser vice versa to what it is uh currently. So this board is not limited under the code in looking at this particular application to issues of scenic uh preservation or natural resource presentation or scenic qualities because those items were already determined in the 1985 uh subdivision with respect to the entire subdivision uh as a whole. Um, and accordingly, the 1992 and 2006 subdivisions, which had a lot more going on than this particular lot line change, were not subject to seeking additional cluster approval um, in any way, shape, or form. Um, notably however, uh, our client has in terms of beautifification has added over 460 trees and shrubs in the last 10 years to the property along with a number of other uh, decorative uh, features. um our client's boundary line change will have no impact whatsoever on the two considerations that the board um annunciated with respect to the 1985 cluster subdivision. Uh one was to build the road the subdivision road on an easier grade and the other was to uh maintain some wooded buffer area from the daconic uh parkway. Uh, notably, it doesn't seem to be any open space in this particular subdivision at all. So, we're not amending the entire subdivision. We're just changing one lot line, and that's a lot less than what happened in 2092 and 2006. Uh, in one case, a new lot was created for a pump station at that time. And in 2006, it even involved properties outside of this

subdivision and gave one uh frontage uh on summerland. So, we're just changing a um one lot line. We don't need to come back and amend the entire subdivision uh as has been suggested. Um some towns don't even require a boundary line change like this to be approved. Croin, where Mr. Okconor is from, is is one of those. And the fact of the matter is to to require an amended subdivision plat u which no one does throughout the county for this type of boundary line change that happens all the time would be effectively impossible because you technically would need the approval of every lot owner of all of the 20 lots. This just requires a a in in your code a map that shows the two lots and the boundary line change. Um, under your subdivision regs A227, this is a reubdivision only because it involves a change of a line on an approved filed map. And reubdivisions are treated like subdivisions um, under your code. But under A227-15G, since we don't have any new roads involved and we have uh less than three lots involved, this can be a minor uh subdivision under your code. And that um includes a waiver, as you know, a preliminary approval allows us to go straight to final. And we would ask you tonight to deem this to be a uh minor subdivision.

Okay. When when was the subdivision um created? 1985 and 88. So that's probably one of the earliest cluster subdivision developments. It's it's been around for a long time. My take though on conversation about whether or not we can or cannot do that without the greater subdivision getting involved. I you you're the applicant's attorney, so obviously you have a perspective that may be different than town staff. I would like to have our um town attorney to weigh in on whether or not we can actually do do that in accordance to our town code.

I can understand that. And I I was going to mention that um as uh Miss Arosino pointed out to us you would like to have us respond in writing normally to the comments in the planning memo. We just got that today and we will do that. And then maybe perhaps the the town's legal representative. I I need I need Darius or his staff to weigh in on it because they represent the town legally. You represent the applicant legally and you're representing a different perspective. And my understanding is that we do have to get the greater subdivision uh involved. We do a lot line modification. I I would say that uh that's with all respect entirely incorrect. Um

okay. Well, we we we'll get a we'll get a a decision on that and that'll help. Yeah, because because as I said, it this goes on all the time throughout Westchester County between some minor uh lot line change between two lots owned in common, if you will. Yeah. and and to to follow uh verbatim the suggestion in the planners memo would would subject anyone in a subdivision like this who wants to do a change between two lots even if they were different owners. You would technically need the approval of all of the other lot owners who are shown on the plat.

And I and I really don't it's immaterial to me what the rest of Wester County does. All they care about what does the town code in Mount Pleasant say? Understood. And so and and that and that code was applied properly. I would suggest to you in 1992 and 2006. What what he's trying to say is we have to hear from our town attorney to to Absolutely. We would say I'm not saying you're not telling us the truth, but we got to hear from our town attorney. No, we would welcome that. We would welcome that and we I would wait till we respond in writing to summarize what you know what I've said tonight. Okay. Okay. In any event, um, if you would like, we can take you a little bit through the graphic of

No, I I don't think we need to go too much into it. I I think that may happen naturally if there's a couple questions or comments from board members. I I think we may get some questions. Maybe, maybe not. I have one question, but I'll hold off on that. Um, any questions or comments on two-4 Summerland? My Yes, I have a comment. My comment is my understanding is that because it's a cluster, this overrode the R40 zoning, correct? And that's why this is different than a regular lot line adjustment on any other parcel in Westchester County.

That's the essence of of the issue and respectfully disagree with Mr. Davis. So there is no zoning that applies to those lots today other than the cluster subdivision. They're changing the lot line within that cluster subdivision. Therefore, you have to approve the amendment to the cluster subdivision. I agree it's a minor item. It looks fine and I don't think there's any issues associated with it. It's just a procedural issue. So, we'll have Darius review this. He'll offer his opinion with respect to this. We're arguing about procedure, not the merits. Fair enough.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Cler. Yeah. I I think the I think the issue is it would it would perhaps be a technicality if it did not um potentially implicate the need to have um the approval of people who aren't part of the application and over whom we have no control. At the end of the day, I think you're getting a feel from the board. We want to hear from our town legal representative. Certainly. So, any other comments or questions from board members? Barring that and that aside, I I have a question. What is sparking this right now? Do you have any violations? Because you said you want to move the lot line because of the shed that was there a violation that came up?

Well, what happened was back in I I believe October of uh 2021 before any of us were involved, um Mr. Likenstein had done some of this work, including the location of of the shed where it is, which is technically on the on the other lot, and the building inspector at the time uh sent him a letter, not a violation per se, but potential violations that the inspector wanted him to respond to. So, he ultimately got us involved to take a look at them. For example, some things were already corrected. There were there were some instances of uh stone pillars for the driveway, stone wall uh technically placed in the in the town rightway. Those have been removed. Uh there were other issues raised. We we could disagree with whether they were legally a problem or not, but there were issues of there were uh stairs for example uh because this is kind of a slope lot. There were stairs that went between the lots um you know from one lot to the other. Uh the main thing the main thing was probably the the shed um and and certain setbacks uh that have been rectified. So a large number and it's part I believe it's part of your submission a copy of the uh building inspector's letter or at least has reiterated in a memo that Mr. Master Monaco did where we addressed each of the issues that were raised and most of them have already been corrected. uh some of them we we wanted to correct by way uh of the subdivision application. And the other thing is with you know with the original the original subdivision the reason a lot of that occurred and granted there should have been you know permits secured at the time that that weren't even though the work is of a very high quality that was done there as everyone has has said but this as I mentioned was one of the smaller uh lots if not the smallest in

the subdivision. So the lot line effectively ran like right behind the small patio that's the house. So what are these accessory buildings that we have on the property now? These extra buildings or these buildings that we we built on what what do we build on the property that were why we're here tonight? What what has been built on the property? The accessory buildings. Why do we have the shed? The shed is the only accessory building. When was that built? I'd have to ask Mr. Wstein. When was the shed built? Many years ago. Many years ago. Peritted. You got And you had you had a permit for that, right? Yeah, I had a permit. And may I just say at the time, come on up to the mic, sir.

Good evening, everybody. At the time I was handling it myself and I went to the uh the town, the building department and I had the two properties and uh you know which are contiguous and I asked them where I could put it, where it could fit and they suggested the location and the location was on for Summerland which I you know I didn't think separately in that sense, but they suggested the location and I think later on when someone looked at it, they said, "Oh, that's a problem and you know, one thing led to another and then as um the attorney indicated I, you know, I got a letter and then COVID came and then I hired them and we're trying to rectify everything." But in terms of your question, uh Mr. Suma also it's it's um much better for us to have a lot line that allows the house um the shed over here and um a playground over here all on the property that's actually the house you know just it's a very small lot otherwise this is still a beautiful area to build So, I have a I have a question regarding that. So, you're you're showing a driveway and a proposed house, right?

Yes. You're saying that there is no intention to build right now? Not by me. Right. Yeah. But potentially once you get this lot changed, you could sell a lot to be built on. Well, I have no intention in doing that. Just do it by me from the house. Just right right to the mic if you can. I I got the answer. But so my question is, are there steep slopes on that second lot?

There there are steep slopes on the second lot, but there's a building envelope that had actually long before I was involved back in ' 91, I think, was approved for a house. And there's actually a house, you know, that somebody had submitted to to put on there. Um, so it's a there's a flat area that was a previously approved building envelope, which is still there. And it's a it's a beautiful area to build a house, but it's I have no intention of building the house. And and the access way is exactly as it appeared on the original subdivision. That was always the case. Okay.

I had forgotten the fact that someone had actually applied. We we did a foil of the the town records had applied to build the house. I don't know why it fell through and they didn't, but they were putting it I I I refer to it as more or less a plateau uh relatively flat area. just and I'm gonna step down. The house was actually approved, but they just never built it. Okay. So, at the end of the day, we need to hear from our town at town attorney. Okay. Or or his representative. I would would I assume correctly that that would wait until we actually file a for a written response as we've been requested to do to the planners memo so that they have our would help for sure

that that would be happy to discuss it further too but in my opinion just as one board member we're not ready to make any decision in terms of public hearing until we get that clarification that's just me the other board members may think differently I I understand Okay. Any final questions or comments? Um, uh, the report, the response, uh, from Mr. Matonica, uh, was comprehensive. Was it at all relevant for the subdivision? Okay. I was like, there was a lot there, and I was like, who cares? Who cares? You know, it was illustrative, but it wasn't relevant for the for the lot. Okay.

No, in part, it answered Mr. Suma's question. We thought there might be some questions that would arise related to that. I I call it a tangential relatively tangential matter. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming out tonight. Thank you. Thank you.

Okay. Next up we have um item number six under new application. So it's a brand new application proposed 24 witch construction of a pool retaining walls patio and deck to create usable rear yard application steep slopes plss 26-5. Location 24 Rage Road, Vahala, New York. Section block numbers is 1112.20-2-15, zone R20. Owner Anthony Cruz Jr. Afghan engineers, Katapoli Engineering. Welcome to the Thank you for coming out tonight.

Absolutely. Good evening. Uh Greg Ketupoli, engineer on the project, 24 Rutled Drive. Um, basically the job is the construction of proposed pool with a pool patio. Uh, we are disturbing some steep slopes to construct retaining walls and create a level rear yard. Uh, the owner would like to create the rear yard because she has three kids. They play soccer. Right now, it's very steep back there. Um, so you know, we made an effort to create usable space for the yard, uh, and for the pool and the pool patio. Um, I'm not sure the pool is going to be much help for soccer, but

No, but there is a yard adjacent to it, right? That that did require additional walls to uh, which is part of the disturbance. What's what's what's I forget now. What's behind those that house? The more houses. No, how that's goes out to the reservoir, right? Right. There is the reservoir. Yes. Um, so, uh, basically there's also a sewer easement. I know that there's an access road that goes behind the property in between the reservoir and her property that could be used to access that easement cuz uh, we looked into that as well in the design process. Um, and that's that's pretty much

Can you just review how much how much walls are we are we building? How big and how tall and how long? Yeah, you can just speak to it. Okay. Well, there's along the rear we needed multiple walls because it slopes from it slopes from 60 to about 78 at the back of the house. So, there's 18 feet to make up and about 70 ft horizontally. So, we have two six foot walls. uh off the easement that are separated by about six feet at the back. That's the highest it gets. On the sides, it gets up uh down to four feet and then to zero as you approach the home. Those are those are good size walls.

Yeah, they are. And so you need a variance for them. Yeah. Uh I believe no, only if it's six feet in the side.

Six feet in the Oh, you have six feet in the rear, four on the side. Right. The issue the issue with this as with any time we have retaining walls that run the entire width of a property is that you're completely severing any upland relationship to the downland portion of the property. So typically if there are ways to grade the edges or modify the wall so that it's not a complete wall across the entire property that's more appropriate and the reason it's a little more sensitive in this case is because you're adjacent to water. So for adjusting the flow of water from your property that would go to the waterershed but now it's not it's going the other direction that may be a concern. So

yeah, we'd ask you if you could look at the design of the wall so that it's not so close to the property line and because I the D would have to be notified if we were moving forward because they're no matter what well they're an adjoining property owner, right? So they would be notified and I don't know I'm not I don't work for the DP nor do I know anything what they do but they may have concerns about the walls being next to the DP and things coming down the hill down to them like how are you how are you doing your drainage how you're doing all that kind of good stuff sure road control protection so because basically you have piece of property that's is it all grass going down that hill what's what's behind the house now

I didn't see any like how many trees are going to be there is a tree line, right? Uh pretty much at the sewer easement. Uh there's no trees prior to that. So, there's limited tree removals as a result of this project, which is why there's not many shown on the plan. Uh I mean, it's it's a benefit to be next to that property, but it's also detriment from from in this case. I'm sure you have a nice view in the winter of the reservoir, but we have to be super careful with what we're doing um next to the reservoir property. and they would they would positively would be notified if they were if we were to schedule a public hearing. That's fine. I mean,

so I think we need to think about are there ways to soften that wall and the structure of the wall and to make sure that we're not creating a problem for the D. Is it the wall or just like the the g the grading and the disturbance? Both. All right. In me, my opinion, I don't know what other board members think, but I think both of them are probably going to raise red flags. predicting the DP may get it a little bit involved if they they want to dig into it. So Pat, what would be the process here? Because we really do need to hear from the DP before we can do anything. We do, but I think we would want to give the applicant an opportunity to take that into consideration if there's modifications they can make first so he presents the best opportunity.

Is it difficult for him to speak to someone from Dallen? But we can facilitate that. Okay. We try to help. Yeah. And I I did speak to the owner briefly about moving because I did get some comments from Mr. Clearary about moving the wall off the property line. I don't think there's any problems with that. So, we will come back with an adjusted plan. Okay. To alleviate that. Well, thank you. You You're becoming one of our regulars on the board. I don't know if that's a good thing or a bad thing. Thank Thank you for coming out. No problem. Have a good night. Thank you.

Okay, so next up I think is a lot going on up here. Next up, make sure I'm not missing anybody. Next up is the last one. 640 hard scrabble subdivision subdivision of existing lot for the purpose of building a new sangle family dwelling on new year rear lot application subdivision PST26-5 location 604 hotcore road section block number 9910-2-25 zone R40 owner Travis Elliot Bradley applicant architect Michael Picarella welcome thank you for coming out tonight

thank you um good evening my name is Nicholas Sharia I'm with Huts Engineering alongside me is uh Michael Picarillo, the architect on the project, and the uh good-looking couple behind us is Travis and Alexis Elliot. They're the owners of the property. Um they're wish they wish to subdivide their 2.82 acre lot into two lots. Uh right now there's an existing single family home and a barn existing on the property. They wish to keep both those structures and the new subdivided lot is a new house for them. So they're basically um building a new house um on the new lot. Um, both lots will have uh private Sorry, let me just go through one second. Sorry about that. So, um, both lots, uh, will have private utilities for, uh, on-site wastewater treatment. So there's sewer. Uh there will be septic on both lots. Um the existing house is served by a well uh I'm sorry. You're fine.

You said there's sewer and septic, right? No, no. So the both lots are ser will be serviced by a septic uh system. There is no sewer. There's no sewer. No, sorry about that.

Sorry, I didn't mean to confuse you guys. So um we're showing uh septic fields for both homes as well as private wells uh servicing both lots for um water service. Electric will be by Coned um and propane for gas on on both lots. Um the construction will result in about five trees being removed. Um and the ex the new lot will be serviced or access for the new lot will be serviced by uh a private um shared road on to the left of this property. Uh we're proposing access for a new driveway off of that existing road. Um um the steep slope disturbance uh for the new lot um is kind of uh is located in this area here um for the new driveway. We're proposing about 2500 square ft of uh steep slope disturbance uh for this project. Um

now I think I think there was a couple zoning issues, right? setback requirements or no? No, they're good from a zoning perspective. It's just the numbers need to be clarified. Oh, the other one I'm thinking about. Okay. Yeah, the project is completely zoning compliant. This is before us for subdivision only, not the site plan. Correct. When when the other lock gets developed, it'll be back for a steep slope permit. That's correct. So, right now, I mean, you theoretically you could grant the steep slope permit in anticipation of doing that and they could save the time to do that. Yeah. they know that's what they want to build, then they should file a steep slope permit and we can fold it into this.

Now, you referred to the access point as a road. Is that a private road or is it a shared driveway? What is that? Um, so it's a private road. Um, it does have access for two other lots. Um, 619 is on this side and I believe there's another house in the back. I'm not sure what the number is on the back lot. Do you Sorry, Alexis. Elliot, can you just come up to the mic? Yes, sure. People actually watch us who have insomnia.

Hi. Um, so this is actually an easement uh granted to our property from our neighbors 608 back here. Um, the easement is for egress and ingress uh towards our garage, the the existing frame barn that we use right now. Um, and we would be proposing using the easement that we still that we currently use. Um, and just constructing a new driveway up to the new house, uh, and the existing barn. The easement is currently only used by 608. Um, although I do believe 619, which is um, our neighbor's mother, also has access.

And we have all the easement documents. Yes, that I just didn't read it all. Thank you. Okay, thank you for coming up. So, yeah, hope that cleared that up. Um, so, uh, as I was saying before, like all the all the lots are or both proposed lots are code compliant. Um, as far as what we're seeking to do, um, we have done, um, testing for the septic fields with the county, so we already have that underway. Um, we've designed basically for a six-bedroom house on this lot and uh septic fields for the existing uh dwelling here also.

Okay. And by the way, you took you took extensive notes in your paper. So, geez, he's got a lot of notes on this. So, it's pretty pretty good. We had a little power outside. So, I was trying to Oh, good. be thorough. Okay. So, the question we have before us tonight is not um do we schedule public hearing or not? It's a different question for us is do we want to declare ourselves as lead agency for this or not?

Yes, it requires you to deal with seeker on this. You can start the process by designating agency and there's really only two relatively minor issues with respect to the project. Um the roadway the surface of the roadway within the easement you have to have the fire department take a look at it see if it needs any improvements. And there's a weird thing, Nick, that the Catill Aqua cuts through the property and you got your well. Yes, it does. So, um, in speaking with the architect and with the owners, uh, we do have room to move that well, uh, shown back here, uh, closer to the house, we can be within 10 ft of the the house itself. So, and I don't know that it's, you know, a bad location. It's just that the who controls the background may want to set back or something.

Maybe you could tap right into I was going to say, how how ironic. That'd be amazing. Um, so, uh, Michael has actually been in contact with DP. We're yet to hear from them, but we've we're looking into that to provide more information to the board so they can make a decision. But, um, we do have some wiggle room on the property. It's it's it's a vast property. Um, we have room to move things around if necessary. So, okay. So, the question is, do we want to be lead agency not? And I will say for the applicants or the owners, um it's always better to uh have a cup of coffee with your neighbors and tell them what's coming down the road. We've spoken to already. They're fully supportive. Okay.

Okay. Okay. All right. Okay. So, we are at the point now we unless there's any questions or comments from board members, we need need to make a decision. Do we want to do a um start the secret process by designating ourselves as lead agency? I make a motion to designate ourselves as lead agency. One question. Are we lead agency for the subdivision? Yes. What if we want to fold in the steep slope permit for a site plan? Can we do that separately? Oh, not subject to Okay. Okay. Okay. So, we have a motion from John in the floor. Second. Second from Eileen. Walder. Hi, Jane. Hi, John. Hi, Eileen. Hi, JD. Hi, Steve.

Hi, and for me. Okay, good. You're good to go. Thank you so much. Ask the board a question um regarding I just wanted to clarify something. You guys mentioned uh site plan um you know, review. Um is that so I this we'll be coming back for the steep slope permit. Correct. Correct. You can obtain approval for the site. So there is no site plane approval required for just for steep slope permit. So you can obtain a steep slope permit that locks you into that site. You're not convinced that that's exactly what you want to build. If you came in without a building permit and you have a different steep slope, you have to get a new steep slope. So

yeah. So that's kind of where I was leaning with my question. Um, so the driveway itself, you know, because it's new kind of. So, we're trying to figure out uh if this this is the best driveway to to go with and we might change it based on how um the steep slope shake out. So, we're trying to see if maybe uh if you guys want to see the driveway on here right now, maybe we revisit that at some point after some. It's your decision. This is our decision. Got it. Okay. We have enough decisions up here. So, yeah, we we'll leave that with you. Okay. All right. Thank you for coming out tonight. Thank you so much. Thank you. Thank you. Yes, they they always say don't sell past the sale. Nice.

Uh Michael Picarella, MF Architects, uh representative of my clients. Um so again, the question is of process. So yes, we're going to fold in whatever steep slopes permit you need. We're going to fold it into this process so that we can continue moving forward. The question would be, you know, uh, public hearing, uh, because of the the nature of the comments that we've had before us from from Pat, is it could it be done to basically move to public hearing as soon as possible, especially if Steve hopes is not going to hold us up as it's up to uh, well, fast possible sometimes is not always better. So, number one, we couldn't have the public hearing for 30 days because of the secret circulation anyway.

So, by then, you'll know if you're making any modifications or changes to the plan. Sure. And at that point, they schedule a couple. So, we'd be back next lead agency, they schedule a couple and it it depends on, you know, Mount Pleasant's agenda is packed and we'd like to wrap this up every meeting by 10:00 if we can. So, one other thing, Mr. Chair, it's normally we set a public hearing until Dave Smith signs up on it as well. So, I don't think we've got Dave signed up yet. So we comments comments. So okay, but I comments

I leave the administrative decision of what goes on the agenda. The only thing I ask our town staff to do is make sure that we're not going to be here all night long. So So we it it we do have a backlog of applications from all across the town. So So just keep that in mind. I'm just trying to make that for you yourselves and for No, no. Thank you very much. So your question is basically are you going to have one public hearing for the for for both items? Correct. We're trying to ball it up into a night neat little box. Yeah. And basically get approvals as as swiftly as as possible, right? Uh without you know shortcuts um to make to try to capture the building season and

so the answer is yes, you can do that but it's up to you guys if you have your you know all your information. Got it. I think we're waiting for Dave to Yeah. that comments anyway. So, okay. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you for coming out tonight. Motion to adjurnn. Motion to adjourn. But hey, hold on for a couple minutes. I got to tell you. I know. Hi, Joe.