Planning Board - Regular Meeting

was a lot. It was a lot. Okay, great. This is uh March 17, St. Patrick's Day here. Uh planning board meeting on March 17. Uh we have a quorum. Is there a motion to open the meeting? Motion. Second. Second. All in favor? I. Our first item tonight is a public hearing. This is the first time we've heard this as a public hearing. Is there a motion to open the public hearing on the Rine Rhymer 93 Pinesbridge Road application for a site development plan approval? Motion. Second. Second. All in favor? I. I. Okay. I don't think we've had much in the way of material changes from what we saw last time uh from the applicant. Um

that's correct. It's hard to say. It's clear to say that there's no one here. presently in for the public on this, but perhaps online. Is there someone uh interested in this matter online other than the applicant who's probably very interested? Okay. Um uh again, Sabrina, I don't think there have been any changes right from where we were last time. And I think Jeff, you had a couple of comments and I think uh you know, those are going to be conditions. Uh so I don't think there are any showstoppers here. And um I I guess the issue is does anyone have any questions or comments from board the board on this? No. No. If not, is there a motion to close the public hearing?

Motion. Second. Second. All in favor? I. So, that was about a minute and a half for a public hearing. Two minutes. Two minutes. You timed it. Okay, good. We have to work better. We have to do better.

In any event, we have a resolution here. Uh it's been drafted. I hope the applicants had a chance to look at it. There's been uh a couple of minor changes that are really uh administrative uh some some standard language that I don't believe has any impact on the applicant, but if the applicant is okay with it, we'll tackle the resolution. Any any questions or objections or issues from the applicant? Uh no. Uh I've reviewed it the uh the draft resolution and uh looked at mainly at the conditions and uh don't don't have any problem with uh what we're being asked to do.

Okay, sounds good. So, um any questions at all from staff? I think we're all set. Everyone's looked at it. So, is there a motion then to adopt the resolution as drafted? motion or actually as amended based on what we see this evening on the desk with a couple of those administrative changes. Correct. That new motion. Okay. Second. Second. All in favor? I I Okay, you're all set. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Happy.

Our next item this evening is uh an amendment to a resolution of approval. This is Rosanski 10 Cynthia Court. This is uh amendments to the resolution for time extensions for the application for site development plan approval for a pool. So this was I guess last approved in back in October 20 2024. There was a there was an amendment in se in October of 2024. Okay. Okay. So um uh Jerry perhaps you could tell us what uh what you're seeking here. Yeah, I will. Let me just see if I can get this thing to share. Everyone's soft. Volume is soft on everyone. He can.

Did that happen to show up on everybody's screen? CJ, can we raise the volume, please?

Has my plan uh shared? Yep. Got it, Jerry.

Okay. All right. So, so yeah, this project we came before the planning board and this was if you recall this was a we we we got to the project the project had an approval except it didn't have a provision for a trail to get down to the lower area in their backyard. It didn't have a swimming pool. Um, and these were the things the owners wanted and we worked with the planning board to amend and balance out the clearing and grading limit lines so we can get everything to work on the site. And that all worked out nicely and it was approved. And so the owners are getting ready to go and they got ready to go and then they went to bid on it and then you know they got back and the pricing was out of it was stratospheric. And what we decided to do was why don't we why don't we break this up to put the retaining wall and the trail in. So then when you call for a pool company to give you a price you say it goes there on that flat piece. I think the pool companies were coming in and they were overwhelmed with all the site work that was involved to get the retaining wall and everything in place. So, we decided, let's get a site contractor to build that and then we'll get a pool contractor to come in when that's done. We filed for the building permit for that and it was that's what it was picked up that the resolution of approval originally it contemplated everything being built at once and we don't think that that's a practical way to do it. And we talked to staff about it and we decided that why don't we try to phase it. So we had phase one that would be this area here and that would include the trail area and where this retaining wall is right here. And then once that was done uh they would come back and then do phase two and build the pool and the storm water management system in the front yard associated with that. Um the owners like the idea of that because it helps them spread out their costs. Um, it's also from a practical point of view, the site is so tight and so steep that you can only really have one contractor

working at in in there at at a time. So, we talked with staff again and decided, well, how would this work? And we came up with, well, once the trail went in and the retaining wall went in, then the balance of all the mitigation plantings and invasive removals and all that kind of stuff, all that would be done as part of phase one. So when it came time for the pools to go in and a pool building permit be issued, all of the required mitigation and everything else is already in place. So what we would ask the planning board to consider is to basically split it up or bifurcate it to allow the trail and the retaining wall to be installed under a cut and fill permit and the swimming pool and the storm water management to be installed subsequent to that under a building permit for the pool. Um, and the other thing is that we asked in our letter is that currently the plan the original planning board approval for the project ends in July of 26 if a building permit for the pool hasn't been filed. And you know, we won't have everything built by we might we might if we can get going on it, we might have the site work done by July of 26, but we won't have a pool contractor hired by then. So, we're asking that that would get extended instead of expiring in July of 2026. We asked in our letter to July of 2028 and had a conversation with the owner today and he said, "Do you think we could push that to 2029 and give me a chance to catch my breath between uh these expensive components of the project?" So, that's kind of where we are and we're hoping the planning board concurs with us that this makes sense from a project development point of view. And um and the nice thing is that the approved plan has not changed at all. It's still the same plan. It's just being done in two pieces. Okay. Uh Jerry, question and maybe for

you and uh or Bob. Are there any storm water elements to the first segment of your work phase one that is the trail and the wall or is the storm water triggered solely by the installation of the pool? Uh Alan, are you on? I am. Alan, why don't you respond to that one because I I think that the storm water is all to do with the pool, but I'm going to leave that to Allan because he designed the storm water.

I would agree with that. I think it really is related to the new imperous services of the pool. Um and that's the time when you would want to um uh install the storm water management, which is all in the front yard. um that that would seem to me to be the time to do it when there actually is a change in the amount of imperous surfaces and we're increasing the amount of runoff. But the construction of the trail, which is really a pvious trail,

uh and um and and a a stone wall really doesn't even come close to any thresholds at all. So that's why I don't think it's going to modify any um or change any increase cause any increase in the amount of storm water runoff. So to me it it really should be associated with the construction of the pool. Okay. So the trail itself doesn't uh trigger any sort of storm water concerns at all. Whether it's through, you know, the acceleration of water coming down what would become a pvious trail. Um and if that's the case, it's fine. But I just want to confirm that that's uh the situation. We certainly have seen in the past where any kind of clearing on a steep slope

can trigger some impacts in terms of acceleration of storm water flow. But if you say it's below the threshold, that's fine.

Or maybe I'll ask it a different way. If you guys just did project one and never did project two, would there be something out there that had to be done to mitigate work from project one? I think it goes back to Allen's threshold number. No, I don't think it would trigger the the threshold. But keep in mind that this uh keep in mind that currently what's there now is when the builders built the TR built the the property, they created this trail. There's a dirt compacted trail right here, right now. And that's how you get to the lower area. And it's very, very steep. And that's why we kind of came up here and we kind of like tried to, you know, lessen the gradient and make it a little bit safer. So this will be this will be reclaimed to native planting. So that will take that out. And then so and then what this area is, this is a this is a stabilized trail and it has the uh the you know that that that geo that geo webbby on it that's filled with a with a gravel base and then it's filled with like a stone dust and top soil mixture and then it's seated to like a lawn to a to a ground cover mix. So it it will be a grass trail. Um, so you know, we think net net will have a more stable situation here because we're creating a less steep gradient and we're taking the one that's right now like a slle coming right down the hill and uh and we're reclaiming that to planting. So we'll be eliminating that that part part of it. So I don't I don't think I mean in my opinion we don't trigger it but I I defer to Allan. So I'm ask this is a question for staff. I'm just wonder if if the client goes forward and does phase one and I'm just going to call them project one and project two. If the client goes forward and does project one um and then five

years or six years or seven years comes back to do project two. Is it just two separate burning building permits or are they tied together as one big project and we cannot let have a window be so wide between the two projects? Well, I can answer that if you don't mind. Sure.

Well, that's why we're going to break it up in a fill in and grading permit for just the site work. And by the way, I do agree with uh Mr. Pilchu's assessment of the storm water. Um it's there's going to be no increase in any runoff. If anything, there'll be very insignificant. But but but uh that's why we decided to go phase one phase two. Phase one is going to be strictly a fill in and grading permit, which we issue in the building department all the time. just basically site work, no occupiable building, no new impervious. Now you just have the retaining walls which is very minor in nature. Uh that's going to be a separate permit into it itself. And then I believe uh Jerry, you're asking for an extension to what year? 2028 or 2029?

I think the owners would like would feel more comfortable 2029 just because the costs keep coming in higher and higher and they'd like to have catch their breath.

Well, that's up to the planning board. But anyway, then once that's done, that'll be all stabilized. And keep in mind, they're going to be doing all the landscaping mitigation, all the invasive species to Dennis's satisfaction. Uh if there's any bonds that have to be placed up, they'll do it. It's going to be a separate entity. And then that will all be stabilized in and then as Jerry said before, they're going to call in the contractor and the that work will be considered a second building permit for the pool and the storm water. If that answers your question. So if there's like a 2year threeear span in between, it's not going to make much difference because the site's going to be completely stabilized during that interim anyway. I hope I answered your question mitigation for phase one. So yes,

right. Okay. And and and again just to confirm if there are any material changes in uh in phase two, they would be coming back to the board in terms of any you know changes that they might u um prefer at that time. Yes. So Jeff and Sabrina will look at that and Dennis will look at that. Uh and I believe you and me if there's any changes in coverage uh calculation, Sabrina will pick up on it. Jeff will look at the engineering end of it. So yes, that will definitely be looked at when they come in for the BP for the pool and the storm water. Okay, great. Um question for Sabrina or David and that would be does this have to go to a public hearing?

No, no, it's just an amendment to the resolution. Okay. Unless David, you disagree with that. No, that's necessarily it. Okay, great. So, that's just a matter of uh uh do we have to approve that uh that that wording when it's done, but that staff drags it up and put it together. You have to just direct us to uh draft the resolution. Okay. Draft the amendment to the resolution. Correct. Okay. But don't we always do extensions only six months? Are we allowed to do something for three years? Um It depends on the application. It depends on the uh permit. Some are much longer than than six months. It depends. I mean,

every time the school comes back, we only get, you know, they only get 180 days. Um I'm not so sure if that's because of the regulation or because that's our preference. That is because of the regulation, the type because that is because the type of of um approval. This is a building permit. They don't have to be tied to six months for a building permit. Oh, so we it's at our discretion to give them a longer window if we like. For a building permit, you can. I don't think that there's a restriction in the code to limit that. Um, so you can give the three years, but a tree permit, a wetlands permit, a subdivision, or a site plan, those are all tied to co codified time frames.

Okay. Right. And so that's a preliminary uh approval of a subdivision for the school, right? So, I guess it's it's a six-month window then. Okay. So, we're tied to that by by legislation. And and this may be a question for Tom, but if let's say this delays a couple years and the building code changes, does the applicant have to come back to Oh, okay. Yes. Yeah. Thank you. It's the risk. Okay. Great. Um, I think we're set here. Uh is there a motion then to instruct stra staff to uh draft their amendment to the resolution to grant them to do this? Okay. Motion second. All in favor? I. Okay. All set. Hey, thank you very much. Good night. Good night.

Good night. Okay. Good night, guys. Yep. Good night, Bob. Good night. Thanks, Bob. No problem.

Yep. So, our next item uh is not going to be on the agenda this evening. It's been pulled. This was an application for Perkins 76 random farm circle. Uh the application was deemed not to have been complete. So our next item is the U discussion uh referral from the town board on the proposed legislation for the battery energy storage system. Um this is a proposed law that concerns the adoption of a battery energy storage system legislation. We last heard it February 3. This is our I think our third swing at it. Uh we have a a draft memo that staff has put together for us. Um we had one amendment to that based on I think a comment that we all um participated in and supported. That was we were going to ask the town board to consider uh a change to the legislation to uh disengage uh the BESS from uh having to be uh solarbased. And uh but Jeff has got some additional comments that that he's put together. Uh I have some comments that basically, you know, don't really materially change things. It's just um my my old age and tur style. Um but also I did want to make sure that the solar was included, but Felicia already took care of that. Anyway, so um Jeff, why don't you I haven't had a chance to read your comments, but perhaps you can read us lead us through those. So, one of the one of the topics that I brought up last uh at our last meeting was we have our code and then we have the state code and the state code is just was just issued and maybe years before they amend it or could be next year. Um, so I do think that we should incorporate something so that to not impact and have groups consistently

coming back to us for variances or exceptions or whatever it may be that we have something in there which not only relates to the technology but also to the building and fire code amendments for instance

you know we don't want we don't want to be conflicting and I think in some instances we may want to be more restrictive but at the end of the day Uh I don't think the intent is to stack the planning board and the zoning board with BESS variances. Um that was the first one. Um the second one is relates to just where that demarcation between tier one and tier 2 is. Um you know the intent of this local law is to hopefully reduce our dependence upon fossil fuel generators. Um, so there is the possibility that um that it could could inadvertently prohibit residential properties from installing systems and in essence eliminate to to eliminate the need for the generator. So I want to just and I'm not beholden to my legal ease here. Um, so the the next one, number four, was an addition about the local law where right now you can only have BSS systems or BSS BSS's. Um,

BE

BE God, it's been a long day. When there's solar arrays on the property, the intent is to potentially expand that to where you could utilize that in instead of a generator. And then the last one, number five, was related to the law currently says that it can only be applied to one or two family dwellings. Again, this may inadvertently prevent the intent of the local law. Um, so similar to the language that was at the end of number three said that we recommend that these would be through a special use permit. So if it's a more than you know multif family again if it's if it's safe and it the intent and it and it makes sense why not um and the same thing with a commercial property if especially the lower gly there's some buildings that currently could put them in from a commercial standpoint because they have solar arrays on the roof. Um, again, if it if it assists in reducing the release of carbon into the atmosphere and other greenhouse gases, all all for that.

Like right now, does Whole Foods have solar on top of their roof? I don't know. Okay. Just wondering. Oh, tomorrow when I fly over. Gotcha. Um, I have to make a correction actually, Jeff. the the law does not allow one and two family dwellings. That that's not what the prohibition says. So, I would change the reference to that. I think the sentiment of the rest of the sentence is good, but we don't want to talk about limiting it. What we want to say is um the prohibition may limit the use.

Okay. And looking at the top of page two where battery energy storage systems for one to two family residential dwellings that's the shall not shall not exceed that amount. So by are we saying that B then applies to the others if it's not a one and two family dwelling? I I I think that the prohibition um is in reference to one and two family with solar and so I think separating it from solar but I think that you're you're I think that the sentence should be more general generalized that one two or multifamily dwellings should be allowed to have a bets. Is that what you're looking for?

Yeah. I mean I I was just reading again the top of page two where it says that this is the limitation on the best is four one to two family residential dwellings and a list one through four that that not be misconstrued to that's the only place that they can be utilized that they can be utilized on other residential dwellings and potentially commercial properties subject to a special use permit process. I'm not sure which law you're looking at.

It was a draft that was provided probably two meetings ago. Yes. Was that the SAB comments? No, it was the referral. Is it the actual referral? Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure we're referencing the right thing. I I I think I agree with Jeff. It's it's can be construed, I think, very tightly to one and two family homes. If that's not the intent, that's fine. But that should be um that should be clarified and worded better, I think. Yeah. Again, I'm not holding to my language. Right. I'll make sure it makes sense when I have the law.

And and and um are you finished?

Yeah. the the the thrust of my comments were um trying to reflect what I understood and that was currently tier 2 may be too tightly defined and that there are uses currently in place right now that would technically exceed the maximum threshold for a tier one and might be considered to be tier 2. So I don't know what the number is but uh by one of the comments was to basically uh expand that uh that definition of tier one and tier two um and um um the solar source again that's in there but I think one of the other themes that I have uh put throughout this is um flexibility so that again unless you know look how long it takes to change any laws around here um it seems Seems to me that there has to be some sort has to be some sort of flexibility in this law to permit an amendment to special use permit otherwise for an applicant to make a sensible um u application and we should have some sort of objective standards for um uh looking at those applications. I I think at this point it really is the closed system that just says that's it. And I think we really should provide that kind of flexibility in view of the changing uh technology uh that's probably changing faster than we could ever change laws and um uh so that was one of the themes that certainly I mentioned in here. Um and also I think you know um whatever those standards are it seems to me that since it seems to me that the main concern for bees development is u the threat to health and safety from fire and fire suppression but it seems to me that we've we talked about it a little bit last time there are mechanisms to you

know control the fire suppression chemicals. You can put vaults in there. You could put concrete base in the bases in there and it seems to me that you can take care of a lot of it. Now, it's not going to take care of the air pollution from the fire or from the fire suppression chemicals, but that's relatively temporary. I mean, at some point it blows away. Uh it's not so temporary when it goes into the groundwater. So it seems to me that we should provide some sort of outlets where appropriate for tier 2 for whatever the use might be whether it's commercial uh industrial u institutional uh as well as uh dwellings. I I it's hard for me to believe that at some point we would not want to see for example uh perhaps schools have bees uh equipment

or other institutions, churches, whatever it might be, synagogues, you know, for backup and a lot of these places are also used when we have disasters around here for uh for people to to go to. So these these places need to have it seems to me the ability to have the this backup. So, I think the prohibition is uh the definition of tier one, tier 2 needs to be expanded. I I leave that to the experts who know what that means. I know Jeff explained to us that, you know, as far as I got was Cadillacs exceeded or can't exceed it. That's my takeaway. That's that's my science. Um so, that should be expanded. And then flexibility. I think the solar thing is is restrictive. And I think Jeff's comment on on the one and two family needs to be explored too. Overall, I mean, I think the thrust is I think we we we support this. And I and I I think Jeff's caveat about

not being terribly inconsistent with the state law makes a lot of good sense because we're just going to ask for trouble. And your point about life safety and fire suppression, you have to think as every week and every month and every year goes by, the technology to address that is going to get better and better and better.

Sure. I would think so. And two years from now, the fire departments are probably have so much more information about how to deal with this. Um, and they're going to share it. It's not as if they're going to just keep it to themselves. Um, theoretically, I I have a question maybe for Jeff. I remember in the first memo that came out, we talked about one, two, and three, and then everything I've seen lately just been one and two. Is three like completely off? And what is a three? Like, is three a nuclear power plant? I think I think we've made up these tiers like I don't I I couldn't find a like a set to bring I don't know that we made up madeup is the wrong word but we we we I we came to these levels if I is my understanding correct

okay so we're one and two so but to give you context a Tesla mega pack which is about the size of a shipping container is 39 3,900 kilowatt hours in that shipping container um per container. So then my next question So that's a really big Cadillac. That's a big Cadillac. So you know my next question just trying to think down the road as we're writing these these laws and stuff. I mean I does does this get into zoning? Does the town start to think about okay certain parts of the town where maybe we can have a zoning right?

It's all this is all about zoning. Chairman is correct. If can I is anybody looking at that? Is that the zone we're looking at? Okay, that's you. I mean, I'm just asking. That's how this all started. Dad, so you're doing that's why David's here tonight. I mean I mean is it a I mean I would think because in the in the spirit of not precluding the town from so the town doesn't cut off its nose to spite its face. I would think that we've got a humongous utility in the West End and we've got access to it all over the place. If any facility were ever to happen, it just seems like it would be happening around the Coned substation in Milwood. Yeah.

And that would be our focus about making sure whatever is happening with ones and twos is really sensitive to that area because I can't see anything significant popping up. The the the sensitivity around that area is not about ones and twos. It would be more towards threes. But you just said there is no three. There is no three and right now there is no two based on this local law. Okay. But I'm saying IN THE FUTURE YOU GUYS ARE ASKING FOR ONES AND twos to be considered in certain circumstances. Like let's say Khed said we really need a we don't regulate Khan.

I know we don't regulate. So my point is if Khan come says we're going to put this here we don't have anything to defend ourselves unless we already have something on the books that says to Khed oh we've thought about this and maybe this is what we're thinking they need to follow the New York fire code they don't need to follow any of our local law they could just do whatever they want to do yeah and then international like NFPA and all service commission decides to do this it's an interesting endout but um I mean there's this need there's a need of public necessity right where no it doesn't matter what laws we have they're going to do it right

and there's I mean today there was an announcement where um in Michigan they're converting a the plant that was going to be building GM batteries for their for the EVs because there's no demand for them anymore Tesla and LG announced that they're now a partnership where they're going to be making batteries for the mega packs in that building. I mean, this is coming. The utilities are going, my experience across the country, utilities are going to work with local communities because they don't they don't want the opposition, but at the end of the day, they're going to do what they need in order to maintain the grid reli the grid reliability. I think a lot of this came to head as we got those emails from after a comment that I made at the last hearing. One or two people emailed us. Here's information on the shingle house project which you know went down and that I think was 273 megawatt hours. So that's that would need about 3 to four acres for the amount of deployment

with and and that's not under the New York building code. So I don't even know what you know kind of setbacks and would be required under the 2025 code for something like that. But it's a large deployment. Yeah. And that site's got a leak in the middle of it. Um I don't I don't I don't even know. But you know KED will go and but there's not in that scenario if KE were to go buy that property and say we're putting it there. We would have a tough time preventing it. Right. Okay. Okay. Well those are my two questions. Okay. Stuart, anything? Any questions, thoughts? Yeah, you're a lawyer, Stuart.

Well, yeah. No, no, I I mean, even as council, No, I think uh No, I you know, you guys have recapped, I guess, what we've discussed in the last couple of meetings, so I don't really have anything to add. I mean, I just have tons of questions about the technology, but you know, I'll save those for another day. Okay. So I guess um if um staff can take um the thoughts from uh the various input um and try to put together a melded into a single u memo. Yeah. And if you wish I I understand that the town board wants it by Thursday which is March 19.

So if we can do that next day or so and if the uh if the board will authorize me to uh punctuate it or whatever uh out of out of the meetings then we'll get this off to the town board. uh in time for their have they still extended the public hearing on this? They haven't. Um the they will be hearing this again on their meeting on the 24th. That is when the public hearing was extended to. Mhm. Okay. They haven't made any decisions beyond that. Okay. So to um echo uh what Greg uh was was speaking about, has the ZBA weighed in on this or? No, it was not referred to the ZBA. Oh, really? Okay.

But I I can tell you the entire discussion of this local law has been about zoning. Yes, exactly. So that's just because it's peculiar to the law that the referral is to the planning board and not to any other board or additional boards. Okay. Correct. As far as you know, is the town board interested in sending it to the ZBA or any other board for their thoughts? I do not think so. Okay. There's nothing for them to appeal, right? Yeah. Again, it has to do with the It has to do with the responsibilities of the different boards under the code.

Yeah. Okay. No, I get it. Okay. Does that uh seem to make sense? And if so, is there a motion to uh direct staff to put the put together a kind of a final draft here? Motion for chair's signature. Y for chair signature. Second. Second. All in favor? I I Okay, the next item, last item is minutes from March 3. I have no comments on these minutes. I had a couple little changes which I'll just slip over to material not. Um, okay. Anyone had any change questions? If not, is there a motion then to adopt the minutes of March 3 as amended by you? Yes. As amended. Yes. Motion.

Second. Second. All in favor? I. Great. And is there a motion to close the meeting? Motion. Second. Second. All in favor? I. 36 minutes. All in favor? And we all Wow. I got a question. Don't hang up. Happy. This is for extra credit. Are we off live? Are we still on camera? CJ, I think we should be off. Bring the shot back up so that they could talk. No, no, no, no. You can turn it off. Just off the record. There's no way for us to do that off the