Planning Board - Regular Meeting

All right, folks. Welcome. Happy New Year to everybody. Welcome tonight to the Town of Mount Pleasant Planet Bar Meeting. Regularly scheduled for January 7th, 2026 at 7:30 p.m. First up, we have business items. minutes from the 12:15 2025 planner board meeting. Any questions or comments on those minutes that were done for 12:15 with no is the prevailing sentiment. Do we have a motion? Move adoption of the meeting minutes from 12:15. Motion from Eileen. I'll second. Second from JD Walter.

I abstain. I didn't attend that meeting. Jean I Eileen I J D I Steve I

and I for me that was the minutes. Next up, six, requests for a 90-day extension of a subdivision application approval number SD20-6 for the development of a fourstory 170 unit service enrich senior housing residence Bright View Senior 11364 and 236 Grasslands Road, New York 117.17 dash, excuse me, 1-28 Grasslands Estates, owner Bright View Senior Living Development. Any questions or comments from board members on this six request for a 90-day extension for sub for the subdivision application of Brightfield? With no comment or questions.

Do we know why? If you remember, they had a number of approval conditions and they're still satisfying. Okay. Any other questions, comments? J. Any other questions or comments? Okay, let the record show there's no additional questions or comments. Um, let me just adjust my mic. Okay, what is the pleasure of the board? I'll make a motion to approve the request for a extension. Okay. Motion from JD. Second. Second from Eileen. Walter. I. Jane. I. Eileen. I. J. I Steve

I and I for me. We'll catch you up on this one. Okay. Next up, 715 Steepy Hall Road to make a determination of a closure date to accept written comments from the public on the secret draft. Final environmental impact statement asked for the proposed subdivision of a 36.82 acre residential lot into 31 single family residential lots roughly 1 acre in size. Do you remember accusing myself from this application? Thank you. Cluster subdivision is proposed to conserve green space and reduce disturbance. Any questions or comments from board members?

Trust. What date do we want to extend the comment period to? Well, we opened the this conversation when we had the last meeting December 4th. So, that means we need we should do at least 30 days from December 4th. So, we can pick a date from from there. We can pick a date next week. We can pick a date whenever we want to pick it.

Okay. So, why don't we go to the middle of the month? Okay. So, January 15th. January 15th. January. They're saying they're proposing January 15th.

Okay. Okay, I'm not going to go back and forth. We're just doing deliberation up here. This is not a public hearing there. Let me finish, please. Last meeting got a little bit out of control. Okay, we have to make sure we follow the quorum. We have to make sure we follow the quorum. We have to make sure we follow the quorum. This is a public meeting with public people, but it's not a public hearing. So, we're trying to deliberate when we can do this in the most expedious and efficient manner and make sure that the public has the opportunity to provide their feedback. This has been open since December 4th. This is highly unusual. This is highly unusual at this point of the juncture to have public comment. So, we are going to have plenty of time for public conversation, public hearings, and things of that nature. So, this is not the last time we're going to talk about this application.

Then, please move please move up. Okay. Okay. So, next up, so what is the conversation? So, we have motion. We have a motion. Do we have a motion? January 15th. Do you hear that? What? We have a motion January 15th. To close the period for public comment, written comment. Second. We have a second. Mr. Chairman, you may want to indicate if when you accept the FAS, there will be a public hearing on the FBI. Yes. So, once we accept the once we get to that point, we will have a public hearing.

Do we have a second? There was a second. There was a second. JD, I'm sorry. I'm here. Okay. So, Walter, I Jean, recused. Eileen, hi. JD, hi. Ste Steve. Hi. Oh, I'm sorry. Hi,

John. I from John and I from me. Okay. Next up, new public hearing proposed 16 Skyline Drive. Change of use warehouse office to pickle ball paddle board business. Potential adoption of resolution pending closure of the public hearing application PSP 25-10 location 16 Skyline Drive Hawthorne section block lot number is 11611-1-3.1 zone OB6 owner RMD 14-16 Skyline Drive LLC applicant is Damian Finley engineer architect Al engineer in Dul Rutfield Engineering Division

uh good evening chairman members of the board my name is Diana Kv I'm with the firm of Delbello Denell and Wine Garden Wise and Whitaker and I'm the attorney for the project. Um we also have here tonight Jeremy Frank um Damen Finley could not be here tonight and we also um have the um representative for the tenant which is Kevin K. Um so as uh I know that you've seen this application before but we were before your board previously um before the opening of the public hearing. Um, this site was originally approved in 2023 for two one-story warehouse um, distribution buildings, 14 Skyline and 16 Skyline Drive. Excuse me. Yes, it's a new public hearing. Oh, thank you.

Um, I'll make a motion to wave the reading public notice. Sorry. So, thank you for doing that. Motion from Jane. Second. Second from Eileen. Walter. Hi, Jane. I JD. Hi. John. All right. And then we have Steve at the end. Thank you. I and an eye for me. Okay. Thank you very much for the interruption.

Sure. Um so now that the public hearing is open, um as as I mentioned, this was previously approved in 2023 for two uh one-story warehouse buildings, 1416 Skyline, um together with uh driveways and 109 um off- streetet parking spaces. Um the buildings are now fully constructed. Building 14 is in use. Um and it is um um it's currently being used as a warehouse uh distribution center. Um, so the application before you tonight is to change the principal use of building 16 from a warehouse to an indoor recreation facility consisting of six pickle ball courts and four pedel courts to be open 7 days a week from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. Um the use is permitted under the zoning code in the OB6 district um as an indoor recreational facility and um the site will accommodate the existing 109 off street parking spaces will accommodate the anticipated

I'm sorry can you can you just we're trying to have this this discussion over here so we're hearing trying to make sure the record Yeah. And we're hearing you over here so try to Thank you. Sure. Proceed.

Um sure. So it will um the existing off- streetet parking will accommodate the um anticipated peak parking demand of this facility of of approximately 16 parking spaces. Um so we did submit the application in October. Um we then supplemented it with a memorandum in November. Um we were before your board on November 17th for an initial presentation. Um and um at the meeting the board considered the application and directed that this hearing be scheduled. We then submitted um in December 1st a letter responding to comments from the board and um from the memorandum that we received from your planning consultant and from the town engineer. Um so it was a a pretty comprehensive responsive memo. Um together with that letter, we also provided a traffic evaluation that was prepared by Kier's engineering um which supplemented the traffic study that was done for the site in 2023. Um and that uh evaluation concluded that the traffic generation for the proposed use is comparable to the previously studied warehouse use and is not anticipated to require any mitigation beyond that which was included originally in for the two warehouse buildings. Um and also in response to your inquiry chairman um we provided a safety plan um memorandum that talked about um the anticipated demand on local emergency services which um we concluded would be uh would be minimal. Um there are safety measures that are going to be in place on-site safety equipment, incident preparedness training and just um the usual um emergency sort of preparedness um that would be in any you know commercial business. Um because because pickle ball and pedel are low impact non-cont activities, we're not expecting anything um beyond the usual uh uh uses um commercial uses. Um so we're here to answer any questions that you might have, any further questions

you might have. I understand that there is um a resolution that um was before you um that you may, you know, may want to consider for approval. Um so we're here. Okay. Thank you. and thank you for the public safety uh research or uh findings. Okay. Any questions or comments from board members? Okay. Let the record show no further questions. No, I do have one question. Oh, okay. Um, previously we discussed about a light being installed on 9A

traffic light and the last time you said Verie Electric was in the process of installing this light but to date I haven't seen any functional light there. Sure you can give an update. The uh the poles have been installed. The wiring and signals are to be installed over the next week or two and then kind of it just needs to power it up. the the poles are up, but the the arms and the the fixtures are not. That'll be installed over the next week or two. They just got slowed down with the holidays.

Um and you know, the the memo that was received from Collier did address that and that um the purpose of the light was to address the existing traffic. This isn't it's not um it's it's not anything any additional traffic that's being added by this use. the the light is intended to um to improve the the existing condition. But about is that it that will be a condition for a condition of the original approval. Um and again because it wasn't project related, it's not a condition of this project, but it's a condition of the priority.

Okay. Any other questions or comments from board members? Going once, going twice, going three times. Let the record show there's no additional questions or comments from board members, but this is a public hearing. So, is there anybody here tonight for Let me see. Let make sure I get the right address. 16 Skyland Drive change of use warehouse offices to pick up Fidel business. Thanks. Potential adoption of resolution pending closure of the public hearing. Any people? We have one. Anybody else? Okay, we have speaker number one and our final speaker.

Good evening, Dominic Vita Hawthorne. As you all know, 9A is a very sensitive corridor, especially in Hawthorne. There's been a lot of development since 2022 when this first came up. There's been development since 2023 since this came up. Regeneron has expanded. Westchester Medical Center expanded and they continue to expand. There was a negative declaration back in 2023 that was granted before a use was known for this building which boggles my mind but is totally understandable. But now that there is a tenant known, what I would ask and wonder from this board is if you're going to open the seeker to have this reviewed as opposed to what's been done and what I've heard has been done with a few questions and a few things from their engineer being tossed out in favor of in support of their use. I love the idea that pickle ball and padell are coming to town. We need more of that and people have expressed the desire for more of that. Recreational use is wonderful. I don't have any problem with those buildings, but there we didn't know the use before. We didn't know the tenant before. Someone came in, they put two buildings up based on a 1988 master plan. We didn't know what those two buildings were to be used for when they were first put up, but they had the right to do it based on that 1988 master plan, which by the way, Hawthorne looked very different back then. But fine, they were able to do it. But now we have to consider traffic impacts in that corridor. You've approved us high. You've approved 40 Sawmill River Road expanding. You've approved a bunch of things that have added traffic in that little corridor. There is an open house on February 3rd. The state DOT to address traffic in that corridor. My suggestion advice ask here is to open the reopen the seeker have public comment and comments come in whether it's public hearing or comments come in in writing on that seeker so we

can all see what the what Kersier has produced in their traffic report and ask some questions against that as concerned public members. Thanks. That traffic study is available isn't it? It is. Okay. And just to be clear that there was a use that was presented for the original application the distribution warehouse. So that was the basis of the one of us of the original that was made. Okay. So use that was evaluated the original approval. The current study compared that to the develop. So is the traffic study available? It is online. Okay. So it is available online as an FYI. It'll be there tomorrow. We'll make sure it's up in the morning. You haven't seen it. Okay. It'll be there.

Okay. No, it's it's should be should be available publicly. So, it's going to be available tomorrow. Collins. My request is on the basis of a different use now that we know who the tenant is. Reopening the seeker on that basis. Understood. Thank you. Thanks. But it but it is going to be available as well. So, the traffic study will be available. Understood. But but again, my my request is for the seeker to be reopened. Thank you. So the public can review and Yeah. Understood. Understood. Thanks. Okay. So, it's 916 Skyline Drive. We have a public hearing. We heard from the public. Any final questions or comments from board members?

If I may, if I may just point out that um this is uh this change of use is a type two action under SRA, which does not require further secret review. We did review the we did prepare the traffic evaluation to um in order to uh you know address the comments that were raised by the town but in terms of SRA this is this does not require any further review. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So once again just any final questions or comments and board members. Okay. Let the record show no final questions or comments from board members. We have an open public hearing. I make a motion that we close the public hearing. Motion from Eileen. I second it. Second from John. From Steve.

Or Steve. Well, heard John first. So John. Walter. I Jean. Hi. Eileen. I John. Hi. Judy. Hi. Steve. Hi. And I for me. Okay. Thank you very much. So now we've closed the public hearing. So now we have to make a decision what we're going to do with the resolution that's out there as well that we've seen and reviewed.

So Mr. Chairman, you do have a draft resolution. There's one change proposed to that resolution which is condition 12 which prohibited tournaments. Um the recommended modification is that tournaments would be allowed. This is a club so they would compete with one another but it's uh spectators are permitted. Okay. So, so the adoption of the resolution as amended. Okay. Do we have a motion on that? Motion. Motion from John. Second. Second from Eileen. Walter. Hi, Jane. I John. Hi, JD. Hi. And Steve.

Hi. And I for me. Okay. Next up 17. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up, 174 Arthur Avenue. Legalize existing accessory apartment on first floor of residence. Application accessory department number PAAA25-03. Location 174 Arthur Avenue, Thorwood. Section block lot number is 106.19-2-37, zone R10. Owner applicant is Steve Thomas Hersburg. Thank you. Yes. Good evening. Stephen Hersburg, applicant and resident.

So what just so this is new to you? What? So, last time you came and you spoke to us, now you're speaking to the public. So, you went through the process explaining that you bought a home and and you you're making an apartment and in the basement and all of that kind of stuff. So, you're going to address the public this time. Sure. So, pretty much the same thing, just a little bit more of conversation to the public and then uh then we can go from there. Okay. Thank you. So, just explain what you're doing. I'd like to make a motion to wave the reading of the public hearing. Oh, I thank goodness I have good good teammates. Okay. Motion from Eileen. Second. Second from Jane. Walter. Hi. Jean. Hi. Eileen. Hi. John. Hi. JD. Hi. Steve. I.

And not for me. Okay. So, you're just going to do the same skill intro and but you're explaining it to the public.

Thank you. Uh I'm the owner and applicant at 174 Arthur Avenue. Uh we purchased this house in 2024. We have essentially an in-law apartment on the south side of our house and we want to uh legalize it as an accessory apartment uh as of right so it meets all of the requirements by the town guidelines. Um, and we're just going through the process of submitting to the planning board and having these additional public hearings and then going to the building department and making sure that the uh the plumbing, the electrical need current code and then applying for a new certificate of occupancy for that space to use it as an accessory department. Okay. So, this particular application, he's he's doing what is right. He's going through the process of going to the legal accessory apartment uh path of legalizing a um a space in the apartment and space in the it's not really an apartment, but there's a space in the house that he wants to legalize. So, that's the right path to go through and I hope more people do go through that path to legalize them the right the right way. from my from my understanding from the town has checked all the boxes that all boxes

meets all the compliance so it meets everything that needs to meet. Um so now we're at the point we're presenting to the public is there anything out there that we should be aware of that would make the decision of the board go one way or the other. Before we speak to the public I just want to ask the public one the board one last time any questions or comments? No. No.

Okay. No more questions or comments? Thank you. Hang hang on. right here. Let's see if there's any public here tonight for this application. Is there anybody here tonight for 174 Arthur Avenue in Thornward to legalize the existing apartment? Anybody here for 174 Arthur Avenue Thornwood to legalize the accessory apartment? Anybody here for 174 Arthur Avenue to legalize accessory apartment? I'm not seeing any hands go up. Let the record show there's nobody here to discuss from the public on 174 Arthur Avenue. So with that being said, we have a public hearing. And what's the pleasure of the board with the public hearing? Make a motion to close the public hearing. Motion from Jane.

Second. Second from JD. Walter. Hi. Jean. Hi. Eileen. I. John. Hi. Uh JD. I. Steve. I. And an I from me. That's it. You're done. Need to direct the preparation. Oh. I make a motion that we direct the prep uh Oops. Town consultant to uh prepare a resolution of approval. Motion from Eileen. Second. Second from Jane Walter. I Jane. I. Eileen. I. John. I. JD. Hi. Steve. I. And from me. Now you're done. Okay. Thank you very much. Good evening. Have a good night.

So, we're going to now go over to another public hearing. Item number three, proposed 273 Lake View Avenue, Kensico Cemetery habitat restoration and the development of a recreational pathway for cemetery visitors within an approximate 5acre portion of the Kensico Cemetery parcel. Application wetlands number W24-04 location 273 Lake Avenue Bahala at Kensico Cemetery section block lot number is 117.18-1-1 zone R20 owner Kensico Cemetery applicant Matthew Paresi engineer wetland studies and solutions incorporated welcome welcome back

thank you chairman thank you planning board uh saw you maybe a month ago uh did a presentation on the 5 acre restoration of the Kensico cemeteries is proposing to do. Uh as we mentioned earlier, it's a combination of trails, boardwalks, open for the public to come walk. Uh the cemetery has been doing restoration through invasive species management over the past 3 years. This is purely voluntary. Uh they are doing it simply to improve the grounds and come here to ask uh for permission to do work in the wetlands as per the local wetland orgs uh regulations. Uh as I mentioned before, we already have Army Corps nationwide permits. Approval has gone through. Uh we are in the process of getting uh submitting uh New York State DNR permits. Uh they confirm the jurisdiction is they have jurisdiction over the wetlands and we have a pre-lication meeting coming up uh next couple weeks to determine exactly which permit we need to uh complete the restoration.

Okay. Thank you very much. I just want to make a motion that we wave the reading of the Thank you again. We're just skipping them every time this time. All right. We have a motion from Eileen. Second. Second from JD Walter. Hi Jane. Hi Eileen. Hi John. Hi JD. Hi Steve. Hi. And I from me. Thank you very much. Okay. So we just went through a high level conversation. We may have a couple questions. Sure.

I would be interested in hearing from me personally from our friends at the CIC or friend from the CIC in singular form tonight. But we'll wait one second on that. Any final questions or comments from board members? Let the record show no final questions from board members. Um before we talk to the CAC, let me just ask the public. Is there anybody here from the public tonight to talk about this application on Lake View Avenue, 273 Lake View Avenue? Come on up, sir. It's the other thing I came here for tonight. I think this is a wonderful idea. I love it. I'd love to learn more about it, how the public can get involved in any particular way and I encourage you to get this approved as quickly as possible.

Just just state your name. Sorry, Dominic Vita Hawthorne. Thank you very much. Thanks. And now our friend from the CAC who has been providing very good insight into this application.

Good evening. Stephen Cavy, Conservation Advisory Council Chair, and I'll be almost as brief as uh Dominic. Um, I did want to make just a couple quick points. First of all, I want to say that when this uh application first came before the CAC, we're a little I was a little little reluctant about creating this kind of an impact on a wetlands and and what the consequences might be. But the plan looks to be exactly what we're hoping for, which is restoration of a natural resource using natives and ongoing maintenance to make sure that they're established and providing that kind of habitat opportunity. So the only concern I have is that the resolution of approval should be crafted in such a way so that it is clear that this is a very unique um location. It is a cemetery. It's not a uh recreational space. It's not uh it's the the use is specifically designed to be passive recreation, not active recreation. And the reason for this is we want to be sure that the outcome uh doesn't create any additional impacts on the wetlands and the wetlands are actually protected and the restoration and establishment of the species are are uh can be done without any uh negative impacts. So, one of the things that I'd like to ask is that when the uh resolution of approval is is written and the warehouses are all written up, um one thing we want to be sure is that uh we clarify that there's no commercial use being put that no commercial opportunities being put to use in this site. So, for instance, we want to be sure that we're not setting forth a process where a restaurant or a catering hall could have a wetlands on their site and say, you know, uh, let's turn this into a wetlands amenity and put a boardwalk up and and so, you know, it's it doesn't become a free-for-all. There's a very unique situation with this specific site. It's a cemetery. Uh, it doesn't have a large volume of uh traffic, physical car traffic or

anything like that. uh the uh it's a place of peace and and comfort for people. So the the idea of having any kind of uh intense activity would be extremely limited. And um what we want to also be clear about is that uh I guess that's my mic. Uh what we also want to be clear about is that the application that the approval rather the resolution of approval specifies the restoration of the site, the removal of invasives, the ongoing establishment of new plants and native plants. So that it's clear that the reason why a plan like this uh with these kinds of impacts on wetlands are being done because there's a positive outcome which is the restoration as as I said. So um other than that uh just at the risk of being repetitive which is never a problem because it's good to underline things. What we want to make sure is that we're establishing a process where an approval is granted because of the very unique character of this site. It doesn't open the door to the possibility of commercial development of wetlands because somebody may say that they want a boardwalk also. And again that the uh the type of landscaping plan and the very specific way in which the applicant has designed and is and is continuing to work to uh eliminate invasives and put in natives is is again a unique condition that should be part of the the conditions of approval. So, what you're proposing is um which is I I think I moved the mic down because of the noise, but um what you're proposing is to distinguish it from any other site in town essentially, which I think is reasonable. We can we can craft something to that effect if the board agrees to amend the uh the resolution to include something like that. Again, as I said, what I just want to be cautious about is not to have

somebody down the road say um again, there are restaurants and sites around the town that are no doubt or very possibly adjacent to wetlands and they want to see the possibility of a development for use of that picnic tables, uh party options, wetlands, party thing. These are not out of the realm of possibility if approvals like this are not conditioned about the specific way in which this site is unique. Thank you. Well, I wouldn't actually go to I'd be turning them in. No, it's a it's a good thought. I'll see what the board thinks, but I I personally think it's a good idea.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And and by the way, we think it's a a good plan and a good way for uh stewardship of of open space like cemeteries. Yeah. Okay. So, we heard from the public uh one member of the public from the C two members of the public, Mr. Vita and and the CAC. Um with that being said, we have a public hearing that is open. What is make a motion to close the public hearing? Motion from John. Second. Second from Jane. Walter. I. Jane. I. Eileen. Hi John. Hi J D. Hi Steve. Hi.

And hi from me you. So I remembered there's one more step. I should be proud of myself. We closed the public hearing. So now what do we do? We have some conversation from the CAC that came in. Um and we have make a decision on the do we do a resolution or not? I make a motion that we direct the pres preparation of a resolution that includes the comments from Steve KBY. focusing on the uniqueness of this property and uh ensuring that it's not a commercial enterprise. Okay. So, we have a motion. We have a motion from Eileen. Second. Second from John

or Walter. Okay. Sound travels slowly. I don't know. I I hear different speeds, I suppose. Okay. So, Okay. So, so a second from Walter. So, Walter, hi Jane. Hi, Eileen. Hi, John. Hi, JD. Hi, Steve. Hi. And I for me. Okay, so that one is done. Thank you for coming out tonight and interested to see how this materializes and it be a nice benefit for the community. So, thank you.

Thank you very much. Okay, next up continuing application proposed 790 Hard Scrubble Road subdivision one lot into two for the development of a one family dwelling application subdivision PSD25-2 location 790 Hard Scrubble Road Chapla section Barack lot number is 99.6-1-4 6-1-4 zone R40 owner to room Gahani. Close enough. Yeah. Not right. Okay. All right. Thank you. Applicant architect is Michael Picarillo Architecture. Welcome tonight. Thank you for coming out tonight.

Okay. So, we've reviewed this quite a bit. So, where are we tonight?

So, uh from last time's meeting, we had two follow-ups, right? One was to review the screening and landscaping uh plan which I have here uh which I did upload as well. So we can do that and then the other one was to look at go back to the engineer here to see his comments on the various options uh to get access to the the backlo. So we subdividing 790. The back lot is where we need access to. Uh and uh so that's the review. So we went back to the engineer. The engineer has provided their pros and cons just their comments. Um so that's where we are. So those are the two follow-ups. So we have both of them. But I can go through the screening plan first if that would uh work and then we can address the whichever way you want to go. The comments, did they get addressed?

Say again. Comments from the engineer. Yes, they were. Yep. There was a memo from me. Okay. There's a email from a resident. I want to make sure that the applicant gets it on 790 about Paragan Eagles that I just want to make sure he has it. Um, can Caroline, can we make sure he has the email for the eagle paragan eagles? The paths. Yes, I have it. Oh, you have it. Okay. Yeah, it came in today. Uploaded. It was uploaded today. I just want to make sure you have Mr. Mr. Gropar sent that out today before the meeting. Yes. To the DEC. So, we did the DC thing uh addressed all the DC concerns uh last meeting.

So, uh this is not a critically uh environmental DC area. We addressed the marshland. I just want to make sure you have the email. Yeah, absolutely. So, okay. Yeah. Okay. So, so we satisfied the engineering uh comments. Um, we are at the point now we need to talk to the board to find out any other additional thoughts or questions from them and then we'll see what the board does. So, any additional questions or comments from board members at this point. So, is the access to this house going to be from the back now, not along the uh driveway? That's what we have to decide. Yeah, we still want the option three which is through the access hard scribble

through the hearts. That's our because we are not uh troubling any of our neighbors directly. It's all within contain with our property. Uh but you know we are open to whatever the board decides. Okay. Any questions or comments? The real question you the tantam tant tantamone I'm trying to be fancy words I'm screwing it up. The big question is is this ready for public hearing at this point? So I guess to be ready for the public hearing we have to be in some sort of alignment on We've had a public hearing on this we isn't this a this is a continuation of a public hearing. So they actually public hearings been closed on this you just have to make decision on time. Yes.

So that that confuses me a little bit. Yeah we did have a public hearing. How are we back to a continent application again because this issue was left open on which option? If you remember they presented three options to you at the last meeting. Yeah. So would do we so we if we pick an option we have to then do another public hearing I would think right technically all three options were subject to that last public hearing so technically you don't have to have a new public hearing unless there's some change material change to one of those three options.

Gotcha. Okay. Okay. Any questions or comments beyond that? If I could just recap, the town engineer does not uh would not require building out the road for if you used Pleasant Road South. So, you would be able to continue to use that road. If you chose to do that and use the existing 25 ft easement at the back of 675 765 hard scrabble, you wouldn't even need the board here for anything. you could just go ahead and do that because you already have the lot. You would just get access through that. If they go through the uh don't do a shared driveway and build what their preferred alternative is, which is the driveway additional driveway coming out to Harts Gravel Road. There were neighbors who opposed its um uh construction um the ones that would be most impacted. So, at this point, the board's being asked to decide whether to allow them to build a new driveway, require a shared driveway or go in off of Pleasant Road South and

nothing on the Pleasant Road south. I know the engineer made the comment but initially you know there was a concern that we would be subject to zoning uh for 765 for 765 which we also own. So initially when we started this back in January they did raise concern that we would be subject to zoning and that's why we we just dropped that option and said let's just do this in 790. So I just wanted to and that's why we demolished the garage that we had on 790 to satisfy all the conditions so that we had no variance issues and so we could clearly do that. So our you know our preference obviously is not to trouble our neighbors in that sense that we're not

have we cleared that up? So I believe we have a similar opinion with respect to that. So there is there's no new zoning issue with respect to the use of that property. the the demolition of the garage. If they had chosen to use the the common driveway on the west side of the property, that garage would have been in a non-conforming condition. So, the applicant elected to remove that issue entirely from consideration. Otherwise, you want to car. So, that wouldn't be a thing that you needed to consider, the creation of a non-conforming condition. They've eliminated that. They did that with the assumption you would like that alternative. you may choose a different alternative in which case they demolish the garage unnecessarily.

So just for my clarification, we can approve option one which would be to use Pleasant Road which is already on their existing property and you're going to create an easement along the back of the property on on their own existing property which is less impactful to all the neighbors. So people neighbors I know there's people here to hear this application. Just move on up and just speak it to your mics if you can. Thanks. Yeah. Two different neighbors. So the neighbor in the back would be impacted by that. The neighbor on the side would be impacted by the new ship. But but that that seems the least impactful solution. It's an existing right, right? The one in the back, right?

Yeah. The one in the back. Mhm. Right. Yeah. So, I know we have this is a little unorthodox, but I'm going to propose just having it's not a public hearing, but I know we have people from the public here tonight. And I feel a little like we're not really settled yet on what option we're going to do. And I would like to hear from the public briefly. So, if we can just, you know, be concrete and specific and and just just be clear, we can only the board can only make decisions on facts, not emotions. So just present a few facts and we can help us help us guide our conversation. So come on up one at a time.

Just grab the mic. State your name for the record. Uh Nancy Tur 806 Arts Scrabble is where I reside which is the neighbor just north of 790. Yep. So, the proposed um new driveway off of Hearts Scravel Road would greatly impact us. You're the house next door, right? Pardon me. You're the house next door. With the house next door,

whose property, you know, the full length of our property is along the driveway that they are proposing to build, which would require cutting down of trees and paving or whatever they're going to do to the driveway. You know, we have concerns about storm run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run run runoff um noise for sure privacy for sure and it just seems like Pleasant Road is such an an option that would not impact the other surrounding neighbors nearly as much as building this new driveway that would basically be a road going down the full length of our property. We already have an easement going down the other length of our property which was there when we bought the house. We knew that. But this would sandwich us between basically two 400 ft long easements.

Okay. Thank you. Very. Yeah. Thank you. Sure.

Um Colleen Gropa 793 Hearts Travel 793 793 right next to

with the uh property being built. Um, I just wanted to know, I know that he mentioned a couple of things, but I thought one of the concerns was the well being put like extremely close to our property and it could change the quality of our water. It could change the quantity of our water, contaminate it. I'm not willing to give up my great drinking water that I've had for 30 years. Um, I'm also the person that mentioned the Pelgrine Falcons. We've had a nest in our property. We have a nest on their property. Um, I have photos I showed you last time of all the falcons up there. Um I also have photos of it on his property that it's going to build. So they are there. There's lots of deer, lots of other wildlife that have babies. Turkeys have babies. The deer have babies there. Have had them years and years and years because before our property um it was apple trees and fruit trees. So for a long long time they've been coming up both sides of our property and living there. But um I didn't hear him mention anything about the well and if someone's going to check that if it's going to affect our well.

We will tonight. Okay. All right. Thank you.

Thanks. Okay. Um, hi, my name is Willis Duran. I'm at 763 Hard Scrapple Road, which is uh the property immediately downstream from the property being built. Uh, thank you again for the opportunity to uh speak with you today. First, want to reiterate that I am not objecting to the development of this property. I just want to make sure that it's done responsibly and in in consideration of a few factors. One is because I reside at the back of the property. It is a downstream slope and I just want to make sure that because we all I've already experienced basement flooding and my soil is chronically saturated with water. I just want to make sure that any construction done done anywhere by anyone um is responsible and takes into account that any um uh that there's any if there's any drainage or water movement um in the area that's already compromised. I want to make sure that it doesn't get worse um and that it doesn't compromise the quality of our lives or the quality of our neighborhood or the quality of the wetlands behind my property. Um and so with that I do have a few kind of specific asks like my my my ask is is effectively that um that there be like an independent analysis to understand sight specific storm water and like drainage analysis to ensure that there's no adverse impact to my home or the environment behind me. Um,

so just just to answer that question, so the the town engineer has been extensively involved in this application and every application and they they do look at all of that stuff as part of their job. So site specific site specific site specific. Ah, excellent. And it's the applicant's obligation in constructing the road driveway house to capture all of the increased the increased impervious surface areas. They're obligated to capture that on their site and detain any storm water that increases that isn't able to infiltrate into the ground and they will have

and the town and the town engineer, he's he's a good engineer and he takes it very seriously because there there has been an increase in rain for whatever reason and flooding and things of that nature. And the town has had parts of town that have had increased flooding. So, it's a big big conversation point with the town board as well as us as well as the town engineering as well as everybody in town hall. So the but there is a specific engineer within town hall who has looked at this application as well as every other application that comes before this board and it's a big conversation and will continue to be. Fantastic. Can I ask a quick follow-up question just to um can I ask if it considers beyond just kind of the storm runoff if it also because a basement is subsurface.

Can I ask if it also considers subsurface flows of water? They look at everything. Okay. They look at everything. So that's I mean he's a licensed engineer. That's that's what they do. Got it. So if they can if they ensure basically if if I'm following correctly, the town engineer kind of certifies that there's no adverse um drainage or flooding impact to a downstream home. Um if that's true, then uh I I feel that my concern is addressed. I just want to have on record that that is in fact the case. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. And just to clarify that, Mr. Chairman, so it is the the assurance that this project will not result in. So they're not going to fix your existing flooded basement,

right? But anything that this project creates will not impact your flooded basement. And that's just uh on record that that that that's true. In fact, it's the law of the town. Yeah. Okay. So can we just address the well conversation? Uh so there were uh so department of health has already come in they did three separate sites the one that uh eventually will be chosen obviously they looked at everything uh they did the tests and everything so there three different sites that are uh can work but they did make sure that there's enough distance between their well and the well that will be eventually chosen. So

okay thank you. Yeah, it's department of health is so has the location been chosen yet or it's still with the department of health and that would change depending on the plan we chose. Right. So the issue is not the the viability of the well that's a health department issue and they would not be allowed to create a well unless it met the health requirement. The issue is the geometry of the site. So there are setbacks around wells which within which they can't do certain things. That's the ch the site planning challenge with respect to this. Okay. Okay. Any other questions or comments?

I feel like we know what all the issues are and we just have to the direction. So what what I think you would do at this point is select a direction which which is your preferred alternative. they would return to you with that plan which would then get the final review based on the well location and all that information before you would then consider the approval of it. So I I would propose the the Pleasant Road uh option as that being the least impactful. Any other questions or comments? Questions? Sure. What would that mean? Can you just present I'm sorry. Is there a mic?

Yeah. Thank you. What would that option mean for the zoning for 765? Well, our my understanding of that and that's why I just clarified with with Mr. Clearary is that there is no impact on it. The zoning remains the same. There's no change to the zoning. We're not taking land from 765 in order to create this. No, the right of way that that JD is speaking to is a is a separate parcel than the back parcel. So we would not remove property from that based on what we understand is that option. So that's why you have to give us that option to verify. That's what your your plans have shown us that it would not create a condition but give us that final plan to verify. Y

yeah I went up there to we've been talking about it as option number one tonight but I don't know if that's official. It's option four. Oh it's option four. There you go. Just just pleasant road. Pleasant road south. four. Yeah, I would call it the Pleasant Road option. The numbers are cutting to once we start going to, you know, four and a probably we lose it. Okay. So, so we have an idea or is that a formal motion, John? J. Sure. I'll I'll make that as a motion. Any other conversation? We have an open motion. We don't have to act on it right now, but we do have a motion on the table. Any other any other thoughts? Additional curb cut out.

I don't have a strong preference. I feel conflicted because that's a lot of houses coming off of Pleasant Road, which is a very narrow roadway. Um, so I am I am conflicted about it really for for me. I'm thinking if they if they choose that option, they don't need us because they're only with us for that flag pole, right? Yeah. So they wouldn't even need to come back to us and explain wells. They'd just be dealing with the building department using the existing right of way to access their own property. But it makes logical sense though.

It makes a lot of logical sense and it takes us out of the equation. We don't have to make make that decision because that's why that that's why that was the way it was to begin with in the first place. Yeah. Is the public hearing still open? No. No. No. And and just the caveat to that, I mean, is if they would to choose to modify that lot line between the two lots to create a more buildable property in one way or another, that would require you to be involved, right? If they left the line as it is, it's a All right. So, let me just ask any other questions or comments from board members because we have an open motion on the table, but we haven't acted on it yet. Are there anybody want option two, three, four, five, six, seven, nine, 10?

Okay. I uh I agree I agree with Jay. These uh Okay. Okay. So, we have a a motion on the on the on the table. Was that a second? Yes. Yes. A second. So, we have a second from John. Okay. So, I'm going to go through. So, Walter, just to clarify I Well, wait, let's clarify that before we go on. Then we have the screening option. So we have to Oh, were they screening? That was for option one. Well, there's no there's screening in the rear though.

So that was the point. If you select an option, they would bring that plan back to you and that's where you discuss screening or any of this. But do they even need to come back if they're doing something as of right? Um what I would suggest is they would not. Um however, there's been so much at stake with this. it would be a good idea for us to see the plan. We could put that into any resolution that we make tonight, right? You may not have to act on this, but you've been curious about it. So, the plans that the building inspector would review, probably you should see that. Yeah. Okay. Sorry. So, no, that's a good question. So, that would be

Yeah. Yeah. Yep. So, we're just deliberating up here, folks. Just give us a second. I mean, by going out of our hands, which is what it's intended to be. We shouldn't have to. So, this is the so motion. What are you thinking, Jame? Four. Right. Okay. We can convey that to build inspector. Yeah, they can. Yeah.

Okay. So, so we have a we had a motion from JD. We had a second from John and then we had right. So, we're Walter, then we went to be up. So, we have an I. Okay. So, John that shows that John, can I have the map? Sure. Sorry. Now we're going to Eileen. This is already This is already JD. Hi. And Steve. Hi. And I Steve. It's the blue line on the left. Okay. This was this is where we are tonight. So it's option four or the south road, whatever you want to call. There's different names for it, but that's where we are tonight.

So with that being said, let's give them clear direction so they know where we are. I see confus well yeah I see that and we are figuring it out too. Y so deliver what option four is tomorrow whenever to Carol we'll review that it may be that if that's what you want to go with with no change it would not require this board's action building permit if you want to make an adjustment to the lot line in one way or another to improve the configuration of the lot this board would then have to approve that so so that 25 that ement that you'd be putting your new driveway in you have it's 25 ft wide

I would ask that Not off of Pleasant Road. You're going to make a right at the end of Pleasant Road. Yeah. And go into the back of the property. Okay. That's a 25 foot wide easement on there. I would ask that you not go all the way to one side or the other because your back backyard neighbor is awfully closed. Yeah. Okay. So, do you have to wrap it up? All right, let's just finalize the conversation with them really quick. So, so anything else? No, they're going to submit the plan to us.

Yes. So you know your letter to the trigger we don't have the question. Okay. So so one thing we we one thing we shouldn't do one thing we shouldn't do folks one thing we shouldn't do is I'm sorry just matter of formality we shouldn't have sidebars up here. So if you talk to the board but just talk to them from over there. Okay. Yep. So any other conversation?

That map is actually from your application that was initially submitted. So this is uh with a different neighbor and this is the front. So this is actually No, that's four because it's at the back of the lot. All right. 769. Okay. All right. That's it for this. You guys are settled then, right? as long as you want. As much as you love each Okay, thank you. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, next up. I wish more applications neighbors worked like this and had conversations rather an argument.

Agreed 100%. Okay, next up, new application. This means it's a brand new application. We haven't heard this one before. 108 Bradhurst Avenue, subdivision of one lot into two. Application subdivision number PSD25-7. Location 108 Prers Avenue. Section blockout number is 117.17-1-15. Zone R20. Owner is John Cooney. Applicant architect is Damoski Architecture. Welcome tonight, Mr. Deamoski. And when you get a moment, just state your name and all that for the record. Sure. Uh uh good evening. My name is Steve Dowski with Deowski Architecture. Um, so we have one option actually for the subdivision.

It's not enough. Come back when you have more. Right.

Right. So it's it's actually a two lot subdivision on on a on a property that's in an R20 district. It's um the propertyy's about 1 acre just over 1 acre is about 43,000 square ft. Um this is the existing site plan. the existing house. There's an existing house on the property that's a little orange uh square on the right side and there's an accessory building on the left side which is a big old barn. Um and the area around is a is a u a driveway an asphalt driveway. So, what we're looking to do is remove these two buildings, remove the uh asphalt driveway and basically subdivide the property into two lots which will again be in an R20 district and they will uh they'll both be conforming in size to the R20 district. They're a little bit over. Um the property sizes are uh 22,800 on the left side property and 20,900 on the right side property. So they're they're over the 20,000 square ft. Um well within the code. Um the the only variance for the property itself that we're going to that we would be asking for is the mean depth which is the required is 150 in this direction. So, left side property, you can see the property kind of gets a little bit bigger as it as it goes down the page. So, the um on the left side property, we have 112 uh 112 ft. On the right side, we have 106 ft. So, we're going to need a variance for the mean depth. Otherwise, everything lot width, size, um setback lines are all inconforming

for the property. What we did also show on this property is a potential house for each property. Uh the propert the house will be about 3,200 square ft while within the the similar to the neighborhood properties um neighborhood houses. Um but we are going to need a a a rear yard setback on both properties. They are because of the shallowness of the property. Um so that's not for this board. I guess that's for the zoning board, but um you know in our 20 50 ft is required. We're going to have 30 ft and um uh 24 ft. So we're going to be asking for about a 20ft variance on the rear yard. So this has to be 50 on this on this one showing 32 and this is about 26.

What's that? What's that? I know it's not a road. Is that an easement? That road looks Oh, so that right there that's an existing sewer easement. Okay. That's not going to be touched on the project. It's not going to be affected. Basically, it comes from the neighborhood up here and it connects into the sewer line. That's right over here. Arman place. Okay. Not in place. Yep. Steve, can you give us the details of that easement? Make sure there's no restrictions and limitations on it.

Um, I got your comments. We'll get all the information for this for the uh for the easement. Um, I got just just a quick aerial view. This is you can see the uh uh this is this is Arman Place. This is uh Bradhurst. So the empty the empty property is right over here. That will just basically finish off the neighborhood. So,

so on the left hand side, this parking lot is White Yeah. Yep. Yep. So, we are eliminating the one single family, a tiny little house on on Braders. We're eliminating that that has street access directly to Bradhurst, which now we're going to put the driveway on Arman Place, which is a better condition for the house, for the for the for Brad itself.

So, now you're going to need two curb coats. Two curb cuts in armor place. two unarmed eliminated and and that property uh the property proposed goes to the it's equal distance equal distance to number three Thomas place ending at three Thomas place. So I'm show trying to show the parallel between Arman Place and and uh Thomas Place. So where number three Thomas Place ends. That's where this property begins. If you go to the next door, right? Similar. Okay. Y So the jointing property owner with three and the number one Thomas Place.

So in in kind of what you're you're talking about, Mr. Chairman, is it it really will continue this as a neighborhood. I mean, it will kind of form the neighborhood into a typical street corridor uh environment. Yeah. Know the property pretty well. drive by it almost every day. Yeah, it'll be better my on my way to work. So, yeah. Okay.

Um there's no steep slopes, there's no wetlands. Um you know, there is there is a slope on the property. Arman play starts high on one side and it goes down in the in our area. There's really no effect for that slope. It's very minor. Um I don't think there'll be any impact to any of the neighbors, any of the houses, the road. Well, there's could be two driveways on Armor Place, right? Yeah. So, that's just that would be a slight impact to the neighbors, right? But that's it is what it is. I'm not sure it's an impact, but it will be a consideration. Yeah. Yeah. It would be I think with respect to that issue, so the real benefit is eliminating the driveway that's now on. Yeah, that's a big benefit. Yep. Agreed.

What we would look at is the proper sighting of those driveways to make sure they're not in conflict driveways across. That's Yeah, that's where my mom's going. But this is a straight level road, so no sight distance issues. Yep. Yeah, cuz that that that entrance onto Brador is not the best entrance. Yeah, that you have there, which it was probably good 50 years ago, right? But not not now. But not now. And just to just to remind the board, this this application was in front of the planning board, I think maybe like 10 or 15 years ago, John. More longer than that. I've been here since 2011 and been here since maybe a little bit more. Maybe when you were young still. Yeah. Um

were Yeah. Um but uh that's actually a that was a we all got gray hair. Yeah. Sorry. Um there that was actually a three lot subdivision. This is a two lot subdivision. when they went for the three lot subdivision, there were undersized properties. There were many variances that were being requested. Um, so we did with with the owner, we did bring it down to reality with the two lot subdivision. And I think again from a zoning perspective, it really works well. There's nothing we can do about the mean lot depth because of the nature of the existing property. There's really nothing we can do about that.

Yep. Okay. Anything else? Is there water and sewer here? There is water and sewer. Yep. Steve, um I'm looking at your setback lines. If you can just trace them for the board and you'd see that the only house that could be built on that is looks like it's about 10 ft wide when you have your yard setbacks. Yeah. So, this is it right here. That's your building envelope. So, anything that gets built on these lots is going to require variances. At first I was thinking those are whoppers of variances but the lots the building envelopes are not viable.

Right. And we are we are respecting the front yard setback. So when when you're coming down the neighborhood it all lines up. So it will be inconformance with the neighborhood in the front yard. You'll really never know that these properties are requesting variances if you're walking the dog down the street or driving through. You know, you'll only really realize it because they don't have the depth in the backyard. But conversely, you have bigger sideyards. So, I this will probably be their entertaining areas on the sideard. So,

but I was looking at it from your neighbors, your backyard neighbors on Thomas Place and what they're going to have houses a lot closer to them than they might otherwise if you if you were able to honor the yard setback. Somebody's got a pool in the backyard. You know that they're going to be I would expect that they're going to come out for a public hearing. They may. Well, that that that pool is actually on the site because it's it's No, that I think that pool is actually um there is another house there. The one at the beginning, that little white house. This one right here. This one has a street access to Bradst. So, I believe that's this property right here. And this this empty land right here belongs to this property right here. Yeah, that's the same owner, right? Yeah.

So, so I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I got confused. So, the White House is staying. This is staying. This one's going the one the one on the corner here is going. Okay. But this is all of the property, right? So this Right. So this house, the little little white house is going. Yep. That the house that's next to I think that's sold recently. That's that's staying that's staying. And then behind that house there's a pool and that that pool belongs to this house. And that house actually is going to have since that little house is going your house is going over more. So they're going to have like no they're going to have a view of nothing there. There'll be no house to you know. Yeah, that's true. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Okay. And you're set back from Brad Hurst, which is nice. Yeah. Yeah. We'll be set back from Brad Hurst.

Okay. So, we need to do a couple things with you do at least for the zoning board, right? Yeah. So, do we So, first this we have to deal. So, designate your intent to be lead agency. Okay. Do that. I make a motion to uh as lead agent. Lead agent. Okay. Okay. Motion from John. A second. Second from JD. Walter. Hi. Jane. Hi. Eileen. Hi. Scoochu. John. Hi. JD. Hi. Steve. Hi.

And a couple of things with respect to this. The barn is a big building which troubles me a little bit. What was it used for? Do you have any historical knowledge of what that was? Was it a commercial operation 50 years ago? In this case, we need to worry about the commercial operations. It was, but it was not chemicals. John to our knowledge is owner. Hey, John, can you just go to the mic? John Cooney from Valhalla, New York. He's the owner. I'm the owner. I know

my dad originally purchased the property in I believe the late 70s, early 70s. It was existing house and I'll call it a salt shed that's there. Um it was used previously before our time all our gray hairs and then for a sand operation that was in the lower part of arm and place used to be a old sand pit mining sand pit. So that's it makes sense for storage for equipment whatever was around in the early 1900s. Yep. Okay. Thank you. So that that's the answer we were looking for. suggested it was a bigger operation. It was

we used it as just a garage to park vehicles from this 1970s till now. That's right. And to Eileen's point, um you may want to in the improvement plan, not the subdivision flat, impose landscaping requirements or limitations that you can't put pool in the backyard because it's so close to the fangles or whatever it is. So that's in order to mitigate that compressed rear yard, you may want to impose those as conditions of your approval by the time you get Yeah. Shouldn't they go to the zone first? Well, the zoning might make make those same. Absolutely. Just put a pin on that. That's something you may consider. I'm sure to your point earlier, I'm sure the neighbors will once that bor comes down.

Is there going to be excavation under that? Are you taking that soil out? Um the bar is roughly found. Does the So, it's Yeah. So, it's it's going to be Yeah, there's no foundation side. Um so we will be taking that slab out and soil off as well as I mentioned in the memo that that so the the demolition work is something there's a lot of asphalt on the property that's something that the building department has to pay some close attention to you can consider that in your environmental determination but it's something that we would pay attention to. So are these comments related to the possibility of contaminated soil? Is that the concern

based on the previous and yours too? That's where and and that we would have to review that admit to mitigate that. We have a building demolition and removal protocol that they would have to comply with. If we had a sense that the property was used as a oil storage facility or something like that, we would request a phase one analysis to be done. That was part of your environment determination. The fact that the history of it is relatively benign. It's not a U issue necessarily, but it is a building issue or building department issue. Yeah. And then we would take input from from town staff and hear what's going on over there. And we have protocols with respect to that. So they have to do it in accordance with certain the building is got asus in it. All those protocols apply, right? That's down the road.

Yeah, that's down the road. Okay. For the demolition, we will have to get a soil test, the demo test, best report, all that good stuff. What's next after the secret already? So if you're comfortable with the plan as set forth, you can make a referral to the zoning. Yeah, I I I Yeah, you always have the option. You can have a public hearing first to get public input and then make the referral. You can make I I think we should send them I personally think we should send them to the to the zoning board and let them come back to the planet. Once the zoning board does their thing, the only reason that I would agree with that, Mr. Chairman, is that there really isn't an option. It's this or nothing. It's not like the prior application. Yeah.

So they can't reconfigure this in any other way. But if we do send it to the zoning board, my me Jim Collins, I I would like to send to everybody in Arma Place. Like if they do public notice to the zoning board, I think we we could make a recommendation. They may or may not do that. Everybody in Arma Place is notified plus the people on Thomas Place. What's that? Got to know. Yep. I'm sure when one person finds out the whole Oh, I know. But and the guy across Well, we I'm just, you know, I've been burnt neighborhood come out. I know, but we've we've been burnt up here. We didn't know. And and just just tell everybody at this point. Yeah. No, that's not a problem. Notify the whole

Yeah. What's standard is ad joining property owners as opposed to um we we had the discretion of going a little further. Notifying Armor Place. Plus, you have to notify the two houses on on uh Thomas Place as well. Okay. So, we kind of have an idea what we want to do, but we haven't formalized that in a motion. So, we can put that into a motion unless there's more comments. So, we want to send to the ZBA. We want to maybe make amendment. That's just me of notifying people in AR place as well. Anything else? We need to just say it those specific types of words and put it into a motion. So, we want to put all that I make a motion for all that and send it to the zoning. Right. Okay. So, motion from motion from John. Second. Second from Eileen. Walter. Hi

Jane. Hi Eileen. Hi John. Hi Jy. Hi Steve. Hi. And I for me. Okay. We'll see you when we see you. Sounds good. Thank you. Okay. So that leaves us with that's it. Nope. No tricking me. You keep skipping me. I know but you know I wrote you in the wrong order. What's your dependent? It just screws up. Okay. Number six, proposed vacant parcel Brad. This is not Brat Avenue though, is it? No. So, it it's actually when um the max map doesn't have an address. It just says zero. Yeah. This is actually um Jackson Avenue. The Jackson Avenue address.

Okay. Developers of single family dwelling on vacant parcel steep slope number SS25-17. Location vacant parcel Jackson Avenue. Section block lot numbers 112-9-1-2 zone R10 owner applicant cooling homes incorporated engineer catchio Paulo I don't know engineer thank you very much plc this one we are a little familiar with this is um we've had conversation on this site before with lawn green it's that lot that was next door

one No, it's it's been growing. We got to figure out a way to do it quicker though with um wirelessly and new technology and

welcome back. Hey, I guess it's adjusting. Do we want to move the um the stand? Can you do me a favor? Can you just pop that stand over? The stand right in front between us and thank you. Sorry to ask you, but no problem.

Okay. Uh good evening members of the board. Greg Ketchupi, engineer on the project here on uh I believe it's 346 Jackson Avenue. It's a vacant lot. Uh we are proposing to construct a single family residence on the lot here. Let me put the proposed plan uh here uh which would involve uh some disturbances or steep slopes in order to access the property uh and do some construction mainly in the front uh in the front portion. So uh here on the previous page I have a uh overlay here of some steep slopes with the uh proposed construction. So mainly you know the disturbances are due to uh the construction in the front yard to access the property or the garage and uh you know it does dip uh a good amount. So, we do have some retaining walls that we need to construct and some regrading that needs to happen in order to uh you know keep the driveway slope to a minimum. That's really the the point of of coming up with the fill. Uh so, we I did there's no wetlands. We do have some tree removals uh that are going to be required in order to to construct the home. Uh we did get some comments from uh Clearary that I can go through. I did address them uh in advance of the meeting because I don't think they were too intense. They were uh things that I can address quickly. So if you don't mind, I'll just go through that.

Yep, please.

Uh so uh one of the recommendations was to superimpose the proposed site plan onto the steep slope analysis, which I had just finished showing you. Uh, another was that we were proposing retaining walls uh around the home that were uh six feet in height and uh 6t walls are not permitted in the sideyard. So what I did was some regrading uh in the sideyards to bring those walls you know to 4T. So we got 302 to 298 now. uh you know pending review by the engineer but you know it works. We have 2:1 which is considered a stable slope. Uh we have a document the amount of cut and fill required uh and you know the number of trucks. I did that too. It's about 21 20 cubic yards and about 106 trucks uh that we need to uh bring in bring infill. to to raise it.

So, why are you bringing in the fill? Is it more for the house or for the for the backyard? It's more for the driveway. Uh cuz the driveway right now I have it at uh 10%, you know, it's not very it's not a very long run from here to the garage and the street is up at 315 six. And when I slope 10% from for this distance from here to the 310 mark, you know, that's where I get I get down 5.6 feet because it's 56 feet at 10%.

So, I'm kind that's how I gauged where to put the house. I really started there because the street is fixed and I needed to determine where the spot for the garage would be while maintaining a usable driveway. Uh, and then I kind of massage the rest of the property that. So, you know, everything was really based on street elevation and how to make a usable driveway, uh, you know, while maintaining some conformity. Um, so, uh, another document, how the proposed retaining walls on the west side right of the property, uh, near the property line adjacent to the residence on Jackson Avenue will impact drainage flows and storm water management. So this comment is really uh was really in regards to this side. I do have some some proposed contours that were kind of heading this way and I think uh the goal is to to manage that water and make sure that it doesn't cross over the property line. So what I'm proposing to do is a swale in between the property line and the lower wall which uh these arrows represent flow path and you know the the swale would bring any uh potential runoff that that would try and go in that direction out to the back and flow as it always did uh down toward Brighton Avenue. Uh the visual impact of the walls should be addressed. Yeah. Uh I didn't put together a landscaping plan, but I don't think we're certainly not opposed to that. I think it's something that that we can definitely come back with. Uh

we'll need that.

Yeah. Landscape plan to help screen the walls. Um the eight trees being removed and document the uh the density factor. Uh I did a a calculation where we we uh you know we're well in conformance with the tree ordinance. Uh the required density factor is 12 and I have like 49.6 existing density factor after uh construction. So, uh that's in compliance and uh uh and that's it. That was the uh the comments from from Clearary for this particular review.

Okay. Any questions or comments from board members? I got a question on drawing 206 on your submission. Just out of curiosity, it's called a play area. What is that?

Yeah. Honestly, I the surveyor picked it up. Uh maybe it's a neighbor using it as a play area. Like maybe there's mulch there or something. Uh I'm not exactly sure uh what it is. It's very dense up at the street, so I didn't really wasn't able to like, you know, go deep into the lot. but uh at least at the time that I visited it. So, I'm not really sure exactly what what that is. Okay. Does the the owner know about it? Uh only as part of the survey.

So, hasn't really been discussed with him yet. You look at the survey, Walper, there's a there's a perimeter around it. It looks like it's the N's play area that they vacant piece of property. I don't think there's a fence there. So they just assume I'm assuming they just their property or thought they were going to get away with putting a play area on this sketch property. Yeah, that's so I guess ultimately

so as you know the final condition of any of our approvals is an asbuilt plan that's gets picked up it would be eliminated or they would buy the play area and assume it's their player. It would be it would be resolved. Could there be an adverse possession is this year? He didn't. I'm sure he didn't want to tell his neighbor that, but yeah, that's that's a condition where that would 10 years and they had noticed they have a claim to do. Would that need to be cleared up though before we move forward?

No, it's not. So, that's a private issue between the two property owners. So, we wouldn't care whose play area that is. If it's lot, we don't care. But that would have to be clarified one way or the other. And if they want to fight about it, it's their fight. Yeah. That would have to be done before they come back before us. Yeah. So the issue conceivably JD is that if an adverse possession claim was filed and that territory was transferred to the other lot, it would affect the area of this lot. But this lot is oversized to begin with. It probably would have no material effect, but it wouldn't be a change. That's why that final survey is necessary. We'll get it cleaned up though. We'll definitely come back with something next time.

Okay, just just an idea. I always like this idea going back I think to 2017. There was a house on Prospect Avenue number 44. They just built it and he had a steep lot like that and he actually had to struggle with the driveway trying to figure out how to do the driveway. I'm not suggesting because that's not my job to do it, but just an idea. The drive by 44 Prospect Avenue, he he did a he did remember he did the uh the the bridge It's actually came out nice. It's worthwhile taking a look at it and everything goes in a level level. He came he was doing what you were doing. Then the steep slope became an issue for him. He figured out how to do this bridge and he's in California. Saw it. It was common in California. And I have a picture of a street view here. But it's you can see how they just did this bridge here to the front to the front driveway.

Interesting. So it's not my job to tell you how to do your 44 cross. Yeah. It's worth driving by for a couple minutes. Yeah, I I I thought that was so innovative. It may help you. I don't know. Okay. Thank you. So, but um other than that, there's not much more for us to discuss other than Yep. May save you a ton of my friends. Oh, really? Yeah. I mean, bridge doesn't sound like a saving. It's not that it's not that crazy. A few peers. It looks like just looks like blue. Yeah, he he was exactly because he was before us originally with the steepness and he was trying struggle trying to figure out how to make it level and and that that became his solution. So maybe it'll work, maybe it won't. I don't know.

So Mr. Chairman, this plan hasn't been submitted to us yet. So what we would do is the applicant would submit that plan, get reviewed by Dave. Yeah. Before he Okay. So there's really not much more for us to do tonight other than talk about uh your next steps, which is going to be working with Dave and everybody else, right? Okay. Okay. Anything else, Ben? I don't think there is. Right. No. Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you for coming out. Thank you. Have a good night. We have a motion to close the meeting. Motion John. Motion from John. Second from JD. Walter. Hi. Jane. I. Eileen. I. John. You're in the wrong order. JD. Hi. Steve. Hi.

And I. All right. Motion. Motion carries. Thank you. Yeah. I don't know if this works for this favor. It could maybe have to wait. It's a pain in the ass. You guys Something just changed the order. It throws me off. You know what? We should come