Planning Board - Regular Meeting

full spring day. Thank you for coming out tonight. Welcome to the meeting for the town of Mount Pleasant plan and board meeting regularly scheduled for May 7th, 2026, 7:30 p.m. First up, we have business items. Those are items that we have discussed in the past and we ready to discuss um those those items. First up is minutes from the 420 2026 planet board meeting. Any questions or comments from planning board members? Okay. Do we have a motion on the minutes? I'll make a motion to approve the minutes of 420 2026. Motion from Walter. Second.

Second from Eileen. I'm going to go backwards today. Steve I. Eileen. I. Jean. I. And Walter. Hi.

I. Okay. Next up, we have 28 Country Club Brier Cliff Manor, adoption of resolution of approval for the structural stabilization of an existing and failed slope as well as the construction of a new single family residence which has been designed to better fit with the existing topography of the site steep slopes application PSS26-3 R20104.15-1-33 Dave Yun and Relle U. So, that's an application that we've we've heard before. The board uh agreed to adopt a resolution. The consultant drafted that resolution. The board has reviewed it and now we need to make a determination if the resolution is done the way that we wanted it to be done. So, with that being said, any questions or comments on the resolution for 28 country club lean incliff manner? And that was just for people who were here, that was the situation where the the retaining wall fell down toward Metro North and all of that kind of good stuff,

right? Okay. So, any questions or comments from board members? Mr. Chairman, before you take action on that, uh Dave Smith recommended because of the amount of fill that's being brought into the property, it may in fact damage the roadways around there. So he's asking that we um include a bond a performance bond to repair any damage that's done.

So okay. So we can say that noted. Okay. Any thoughts or questions from board members? Okay. We are at the point we need to make a decision what we want to do with that resolution. I make a motion that we approve the resolution amended to include the uh town engineers recommendation for posting a bond for roadway repairs if needed. Okay. Motion from Eileen. Second. Second from Jane. Steve I Eileen I Jane I Walter I

and an I from me. Okay. Next up, we have continuing public hearing number one proposed 95 Braders Lightel Children's Hospital three-phase improvement plan including expansion for long-term care parking deck and improvements to site utilities and infrastructure application site plan SP25-02 location 95 Brad Avenue, New York section block lot numbers 117.17-1-2 zone 20 or applicants children's hospital engineer architect is Langan Kier and E4 architect texture. Okay, welcome. Come on right up. We're ready to have our conversation.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. For the record, my name is Janet Garris. I'm a partner with Del Bellow Denell and Wingart and Wise and Whitaker uh here this evening on behalf of the applicant. Um I know that your agenda is very long this evening and I know that we've been before you a number of times with um a number of um presentations. I don't think we need to go through our presentation for you again this evening, although we're happy to do so if you'd like us to. Um, what I'd just like to say is that over the course of the last 14 months, number of times we've been before this board, we have um made some modifications to our project to try to address the uh comments raised by both your um professional staff and consultants. Um we have had five different individual traffic professionals review this application. First we had our own traffic professional, your town engineer, your first um consulting traffic engineer, Leella Nisd, and then your second uh traffic engineer. So we believe that we've addressed the traffic comments that were raised and in fact um if at such time the project is actually implemented the traffic conditions will be improved over existing conditions today with the kinds of improvements that are proposed including the crosswalks and the sidewalk improvements and the bus stop improvements. So, um, just wanted to mention that. Um, as you know, Gladell is, um, it's a nationally recognized hospital. They take care of our most vulnerable, uh, child population. We've talked to the board about the fact that there is a shortage of beds in the state. And we are proposing, as you know, the addition of 44 beds that would take place in the third phase of a project. Um, as we mentioned to you last month, we're seeking uh 44 beds from this board. um that application would

also have to go through the New York State Department of Health and ultimately they would be the determiner of the number of beds not to exceed 44. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention. Um I know that over the course of the um application process you have looked at various areas of concern again the traffic um concerns that you had. We've also looked at landscaping and visual impacts. Um, with regard to visual impacts, we've provided a very substantial landscape buffer between the proposed parking structure and the homes on Lisa Lane. Um, as a matter of fact, in response to comments both from your from the board and from the neighbors, we have um increased the caliber of the trees that are proposed there. One of the things, Mr. chairman that you had asked for last month was that we include um maintenance obligations for those landscaping materials on our plans. Um I wasn't aware but those notes are already on the plans that have been submitted in our before you and then we've included some additional notes just to make it clear as to what it is that is required. So that's been done. Um, again, very substantial landscape buffer intended to screen neighboring homes on Lisa Lane from the parking structure. Um, there were some questions raised about storm water management. We have our civil engineer here this evening. There will be a storm water management a storm water pollution prevention plan prepared for this project which will mitigate any storm water impacts that um that could occur as as part of the project. Um, I think those are the main areas of concern. You've taken a look at those. We've uh provided ample information to you in our written submissions, our most

recent submissions in uh March and April, address all of the SRA items uh and and the outstanding uh items that you had raised. So, we're here. We can walk you through things if you'd like us to. Again, again, I know your agenda is long. We do have our entire consulting team here this evening. What we are hoping, Mr. Chairman, you are prepared to do tonight is to close the public hearing following the addition of any public comment this evening. I know you have invited your most recent traffic engineer here to address the board, and we're here to listen to that as well. Uh, and that's what we have for you this evening.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, any questions or comments from board members? Okay. Let the record show there's no additional questions. Is there any additional questions or comments? Not to sign. Nope. Okay. Okay. With that being said, we are here for public hearing. If anybody like to address the board on 95 Braders Blightville Children's Hospital, please raise your hands. We'll give you a number. If you have a number, you can speak. We have number number one, two, three, four, five, six. Anybody else? Okay, keep me straight. We have six speakers and come on up. Number one,

good evening. Welcome. Hi, Michael Savino, one Lisa Lane. Good to see you all again. I'm gonna be very brief tonight. not like last week or last month, but um you know our position on where we stand. Not going to rehash that again. I actually just had two questions for the board. If I can ask a question as opposed to a comment. Um the signal at the corner of Grasslands and Bradhurst. Does the New York State DOT control that? My understanding is yes. And if they make changes to it, do they have to notify someone at the town or when you say they meaning who's there? like if it changed recently cuz I can tell you something's changed there. Oh, the DOT. So, you're noticing Let me just paraphrase what you're saying. The the uh the light has changed. It's

Yeah, the timing is completely different than it was when we were here last month. That would be the New York State DO. Okay. He's asking does the town get notified? Is there any notification? They could just do whatever they want. They can do what they want with their And it is the state that's okay. I was just curious because it's definitely changed the traffic. Anyone else could back it up? Probably the hospital themselves. I don't know what's happened there. It's gotten worse. Um my second uh comment is um regarding the traffic, I read the latest study that you're the the second group you brought in to reaffirm what they brought and he came to the same conclusion or that he agreed with their conclusion that there will be no increase in traffic. Right.

Um at the end of the last meeting, we asked the the traffic their traffic engineer directly, will there be an increase in traffic, yes or no? and he said yes. So there's a conflict there. I don't know what the right answer is. I I can read the report, all 218 pages of it, and I know they come to the conclusion that there's not any more traffic, but I don't understand how that's possible mathematically. And then when I asked them in person last time, he said there will be an increase in traffic. So there's some confusion there. I I don't know what the right answer is, but I just want to throw it out there that it's not clear. Okay. All right. Okay.

And then lastly, third question for the board. This is a three-phase approach. Um, does the board have the power to obviously we'd love them to deny everything, but can you pick and choose that, you know, phase one, yes, phase two, no, phase three, no, or is it all or nothing type scenario? It's this this is presented as a package deal to the board. So, we're looking at the entire application and that's what we're looking at is the entire package that we're looking at. We're making a determination on the entire package that's presented before us tonight. Okay. So, we need to make a determination yes or no. And that's the entire package conversation at this point.

Okay. So, there's no precedent for denying one piece and approving another piece. We can't they would have to if we turned it down and they came back to us with a different proposal, then that would be a different story. But if but for tonight, what we're looking at is just one solid application. One, two, three, whatever it is. It's the the road, the the school, the building, the um the garage, the landscaping, all the other elements that are around it. It's it's one solid application, one solid block. If the application was turned down, then they could come back and represent it differently if they if they chose to at some point. But tonight's not about turning it down or not turning it down tonight.

Tonight is one step still a long way the process for them. The the question we have before us tonight is is is is do we need to do a positive or negative declaration or nothing at all for the secret process. Okay. Then they still need to do some zoning amendments. That's another place that needs to not zoning amendments zoning the ZBA board before the ZBA board. So there's a couple things that need to happen. If the ZBA board is a no for them, they may come back to us with some changes to the application. So they have a ways to go still. Okay. Okay, tonight Tonight is definitely not the last night for them either way. Okay, thank you for that thorough explanation.

Yeah, regard to your second question regarding obviously cars will be coming. There will be um additional cars, but the changes that they're making are they're saying that it won't um create a negative impact on make it worse than it is now and in fact that it will make it better the kinds of improvements that they're proposing. Okay, they can say that. But I think it's subjective, but I mean, we'll see. And and I am remissed, by the way. I realize we do have our traffic consultant here tonight. So, I know who is our for speaker number two. I'm going to ask you to come up and just give us preview of what you said. So, we'll have some more answers for you hopefully on that. All right. Thank you very much.

I'm sorry I forgot that you come on up. Number two, I'm sorry. We're just going to take a short little intersection break here.

Good evening. Morning. I'm Amanda Larosa, traffic engineer with Kraton Manning. I was asked to review all of the previous work that had been conducted on behalf of this board. Um, so I had reviewed the original traffic study, the comment letter by Labella, the changes that were made to the traffic study, um, correspondence with the NISDOT, and then, uh, the off-site improvements. Um, and overall, I do concur with the methodology that was conducted. uh they conducted a trip generation study at the existing facility to establish their trip generation rates that were used within their study which is uh industry standard for an application like this. The scope of off-site improvements seems to address both the concerns of the prior engineer and the DOT and ultimately a lot of the improvements that are offsite are under the DOT's control and those will be subject to permitting through the state's process which will be rigorous. uh they'll meet design standards in line with federal guidelines and state guidelines. Um so I really don't have any concerns about the overall scope of improvements.

Okay. Any questions or comments from board members? I have a question. Yes. The the crash monitoring period two years at DOT requests. Who controls that that study? Who owns it and then collects that data and disseminates it? Who does that? So the consultant will have to answer to DOT on that. The uh permit engineer will review a crash study similar to what was actually included in the report, but it'll be in the two years prior to the construction following the construction rather. Consultant meaning Blightes consultant. Absolutely. Collars or Yep. And did you anything else Walter?

That's all. Did you put any um thought in during the construction phase of the project with the in with all the truck activity that's going on? Was that something that you you reviewed or had the I did not. You did not. Okay. Okay. Any other questions or comments from board members? Okay. Thank you very much for coming out. I'll be there. Okay. Number two. How you doing? My name is Alan Howard. I live at Tree Lisa Lane. Welcome. Thank you for coming out tonight.

A few bits and pieces. Hopefully won't be too long. Okay. So, we moved to the house in 2015. Initially, we did a tour of the hospital, um, which we're very impressed by the work they do. We also donate to the hospital every year. So, we're big fans of what the hospital do. Um, we built up a relationship with the hospital, especially John Flanigan, who helped resolve some issues like a fence, a new fence for us, trees for privacy, and support for a petition of a sidewalk in Bradhurst. Uh, when expansion was initially mentioned, I was told the parking garage was to be substantially smaller. We set back roughly a third of the way back from the end of the car park. That's a rough estimate. Um, and somewhere along the way that changed. I sent pictures to the town this winter of a 7 foot to 8 foot mound of snow that had appeared um at the end of the car park. Um there was a sign there to show that it was 7 to 8 ft. Um and that just gave kind of perspective of what a 22ft building would do to our property. You could see from the pictures from my patio how enormous that, you know, looked over our back garden. Um, at the first public meeting, the board asked about time frames and the developer, the liar said the parking garage was supposed to be built in March, I believe. Um, showing us that the developers had no real regard for the board or the residents and presumed everything would pass swiftly. This is no reflection on the people who run the hospital in my opinion. Um, they talk about trees. Trees die. Are they going to replace trees continually? Is that going to keep happening? one tree dies or they're going to put a tree and how many years is that, you know, to take to catch up? When they put the trees in, they lost roughly, I would say 65, 70, 70% of the trees that they did put in a year and a half ago. Um, are we really going to take down the large trees that are established and have been there for

I don't know how many years, 40, 50, 60 years that overlook our backyards? Again, I send pictures of them trees in. They're beautiful trees, you know, full of leaves now in the middle of coming into the summer. in that area. Unfortunately, recently I've had some urinate, you know, people urinating. I've sent, you know, had a town Fenzi has said he'd call the town right behind my fence. One morning I walked out, there's a person I believe doing it. Another day I walked out with my children. They were right up the person was right up against my fence doing it. and I my two kids and um they're talking about this um parking garage only being 44 ft from the property line. And I don't think that we should be listening to people saying it's our house is 150 ft from the parking garage when you got people urinating right on my fence. It's my property that matters. It doesn't matter where my house is. It can be down the front of the property. That's irrelevant. It it matters where the property is. Um, so I just want to say thank you to the board for listening to the residents, not getting bullied by the hospital's legal team into a swift decision favoring them because they obviously thought this would be a done deal and would be done by now and they'd have their parking garage built. And thank you to the neighbors, not just my neighbors, the neighbors across Bradford who fighting on our behalf. So thank you for all that. And I'd like to sum up by saying all in all our family feel like many others on the street and across in the other streets that the hospital has simply outgrown this space and they have alternatives to the to this plan and we've given them alternatives. So that's all I got to say.

Okay. Thank you very much for coming out tonight. Okay. Number three. Getting better at this. Welcome. Thank you for coming out tonight. How are you? I'm Megan Kappa again at five Lisa Lane. I do have two questions and since they said Bllight said their engineer is here tonight, we didn't get an answer to the question last uh last meeting that Mr. Hickeyi had asked. Is theruct parking structure able to hold another level? Is the parking well address just address us? Is the parking structure able to hold another level? Okay. for future.

Okay. And you have we'll get an answer to that question, I hope. And then you have a second question. Um, well, it's more of a comment, but I'm the one who keeps sending traffic pictures. I don't know what time this traffic study is being done by whom. And I I understand she got up and said these her findings of the study. However, going from Lisa Lane to Grasslands between 3 and 5:00 in the afternoon takes me 10 minutes. Yeah. It's not even a half a mile. And that's the reality of things. So that's

So do we have the engineer here and you we'll just have the the qu we have an an active question. I just like to get it addressed. Could the parking structure support another another layer? Dan Pisano the owner's representative for Ble. The answer is no. So we it is not designed to hold another level. Can we make sure we get that in the minutes? So, thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. So, number four, please.

Welcome. Thank you for coming out tonight. Good evening, M. Collins, board members. Nice to see you again. Um, let me just start with today. I was informed that a response from the petitioner. Excuse me. I know where you are. Can you name the record?

Uh, shooting quickly. Well, hello. Sorry. Uh, the petitioner's attorney responded to two of my letters in March, March 23rd and March 30th. On April 2nd, that was the last public hearing. And I just got that response today, 35 days later. So, I want to make that point on the record that I want to be able to respond to her letter in writing. Okay? I want to make that part of the record. Okay? I'm not sure why it wasn't on the website, but I just got an email late this afternoon on that. Uh, Miss Mlan, I just heard you comment about there's not going to be any impact. That's what their engineers are saying. That's always the case with these developments. All of the years I've been coming here, that's all I hear. There's no impact, but there's a huge impact to the the lived experience of the residents who live there. I hear it constantly year after year. They bring in two, three different consulting teams and that's all we hear. There's no impact. So, I have just a couple of questions. Mr. Collins, I wrote them down. I don't want to go off scope like I did a little bit the last time, but it's

okay. Um, my first question is, has any cumulative environmental analysis ever been conducted for this site across its successive expansions over the past 25 years? I don't have an answer to that question. Mr. Clearary, do you have an answer? You've been here for 22 years, haven't you? So, we haven't gotten to the point where we would do that. So makes a decision one way or the other, they would have to take into consideration the cumulative impacts. And so since 1998 till now, there's been no you're here for 20 plus years, there's no cumulative impact analysis.

So at each time the board considers an action, they would have to take into consideration the cumulative impact. And my question again is my question again is for the for the expansions that you've been here for, that's never been asked for. Correct. The last time the board approved something, there was a cumulative impact analysis that was done. So such a thing as well. Where is that in the record? To the determination of sign the seeker determination of significance. Okay. So that's in the record. It is okay. It would have to be in the record if they choose to move in this case. Second question is on critical environmental area. I know we've been going back and forth on that. It is adjacent to a CA. To a what? To a critical environmental area. It is adjacent to the critical environmental area in Greenberg.

Yeah. Your note I read your note. Yes. That's been on the books since 1993. Right. Here's my question. The applicant's own 2025 FEAF page 12 checks yes to CA adjacency. The first time in three expansions spanning 23 years. Has this board ever analyzed this site's potential impacts on the Greenberg critical environmental area? And if so, where does that analysis appear in the record? Again, I don't have an answer to that question. Mr. Clearary, you've got me on that one. I have to go back and see what we did last time. It's never been analyzed.

It's been a while. I don't know. We have to look because I sat back here for I don't know how many hours over multiple days looking through the whole file. It's not in there. Condition 21 of this board's own 2008 approval imposed binding drainage protection obligations on this property. Mr. Clearary wrote it. Has the applicant addressed condition 21 in the current application? If yes, where in the record does that response appear?

Taking notes on that. My fourth question is on ADA pedestrian safety. Yesterday I submitted a video of a wheelchair dependent Blelightdale patient medically fragile child in a wheelchair with his caregivers navigating the end of Bleedale's northern driveway on a state roadway shoulder with no accessible infrastructure. a deficiency the applicant's own consultant identified in April 2024 and it's never been addressed. It's never been remediated. Has this video been transmitted to Kraton Manning?

It would it would have been it would have been I'm assuming it was. Yeah. Has there been any assessment of medically fragile, handicapped children that have to navigate with their caregivers two treacherous roadways, Bradhurst Avenue and Grasslands Road. I've submitted two still photographs to this board of people in wheelchairs. one at the corner of Grasslands Road and one at the end of the northern driveway of Blitale. Still shot and a video. And you see in the video, I'm assuming it's a mother standing about 6 in from the white line on Bradhurst because there is no infrastructure there whatsoever. No apparatus. There's not even a path. There's no pad there. and her other child is standing almost in in in in the line of traffic, southbound traffic, the young girl drinking the bottle of water. So, I get all of the traffic analysis and all the experts and all the brain trust behind me, but who's assessing that? Who's analyzing that? There is enormous exposure to the town of Mount Pleasant taxpayers from a liability standpoint. enormous. I asked the last public hearing, "What is the plan?" Mr. Clearary asked it in his memo for 250 truckloads of 10,000 cubic yards of fill coming out of that job site. You're going to have that with handicapped children like that? I haven't heard any plan. Enormous exposure for this town.

So they could crunch all the numbers they want. I live over there. I live right on that corner. And I've seen time and time again, whether it's employees, caregivers, parents whailing their handicapped children up and they cannot get from point A to point B. It's astonishing. My last question, this could be a mistake, but I don't know if it is. I was looking I was reviewing your tracker out on the out on the Tom Town website, your planning tracker that has all of the all of the potential expansions that are coming before this board.

Y

95 Bradhurst is out there. unlisted action. Directly across the street at 108 Brad Harurst Avenue is a 1acre lot right across the street from where I live. 43,000 square foot lot. The owner wants to put two private homes there. Beautiful. No history of drainage failure, no history of flooding into a residential home and no steep slopes. How in the world is that project classified as a type one and this is classified as an unlisted? Somebody explain that disparity to me because I can't reconcile it in my own mind that a massive project like this is classified as unlisted and a basic subdivision. Two residential homes, flat piece of property, no steep slopes. I've been there 20 years. I know the property well and I know the property owner. How is that a type one? Anybody? Mr. Clearary, how is that classified as a type one?

I'm going to stick to 95 bread at this point. It's a huge fair question, but okay, fair question. It's a huge disparity, right?

In my view from a classification standpoint, it just doesn't square with me. You can't. It doesn't make sense that a basic residential subdivision, two houses, and 40,000 square ft, 132 incremental parking spaces with handicapped children, going to wherever they have to go to get on a bus. I know you have a tough job. I am well aware of that. But that's my lived experience over there and my neighbors lived experiences. We see it every day and you go back and you look at that video. What's the response from this team?

Okay. So, so just to paraphrase your biggest concern though over there is is what? We went through the questions. Was there anything else there? The I've I've submitted 13 I think different letters to this board. There's a lot of concerns in there. There is. Do you want me to repeat them? No, no, no. Okay. No, but you've heard all the concerns. I think I think they have Here's the biggest concern, Mr. Collins, now that you asked. They've blown out their footprint. They've blown it out.

Guys, I'm going to ask you just a quick favor if you don't mind. And And I know we have to We have to keep the meeting calm. We have to keep the meeting calm. And I it's my job to make sure that we don't have the yelling and the screaming and the cheering, the jeering. And here's why. Because we are in a room with a lot of emotion. It can go one way or the other. And I want to make sure that everybody's treated respectfully. Everybody is treated with the the integrity that they're entitled to. So, let's just try to keep keep it calm.

Mr. Collins, I appreciate that. My big concern is you've heard it here. these public hearings, they've blown out the footprint. They're looking to build that parking deck 44 ft from my neighbor's property line. That's absurd. I know that's a zoning issue. It's a huge concern. That's a huge concern. You're going from 150 ft buffer to excuse me, 250T buffer, 200 ft buffer, 22 and two, 600 ft. They're clawing back 475 feet and leaving the community with 125 feet of buffer. It's absurd. Huge issue. Safety issue. Pedestrian safety. How in the world can this not a a handicapped child on the shoulder of the road not be a significant adverse impact from a secret standpoint? You know what else is my big concern is I would like to see Mr. Clearary and S Panel and the rest of them when they get called to a petitioner 2 three years early and they come up with their plans and say okay what do you think? How about saying no every once in a while? It's always yes and then we go through this for years at a time. That's a big concern of mine because they're not taking these things into consideration. Handicap children, safety, traffic, classification. It'd be nice to hear no every once in a while. Listen, you guys have we have accommodated this hospital for 30 plus years. We've allowed them to do everything that they've wanted to do. Everything. Never. No push back. It's all in the record. I've read it. How about every once in a while say no? There's a community there. Those buffers

were put in place for a reason to separate institutions from residential areas and we have to deal with that. Losing all of that buffer. There's a lot of concerns, Mr. Collins. I don't want to take up any more time. I've written them. I put it in my my letters. I want an opportunity to respond to Miss Gearus on the record. She put a six-page response into my letters. I want an opportunity to respond to her. Okay. Thank you. And listen, I I understand your frustration, but I also want to thank you because you've put a lot of work into you could do anything else other than what you've done. You could you could sit on your couch and watch TV. So, and I say that to everybody who comes, not just to you to see it's my routine now. When I see people are engaged, whether it's this application or other applications, thank you for doing the work that you're doing because it does help us understand your perspective.

You're welcome. So, thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. Okay. So, number Okay. Number number five.

Your your hand raised. So, you're coming up. Good evening. Dominic Vita Hawthorne. So, I haven't done as deep a dive as the residents who live nearby on this application, but I have listened to past meetings and the points they've raised. They're similar to points that I've raised with other applications. Their concerns mirror my own. So, I thought I would step up tonight in support of them and just ask a couple of clarifying questions. Chairman Collins, I think you started off by saying the next step here is either a positive or negative declaration. Is that where the Okay, thank you for that.

So, considering that, it sounds like from these last several meetings and all the written submissions, you have more than enough on your plate to justify a positive declaration and a further deep dive into the environmental impacts here. Traffic, which is of course close to my heart as an impact, is horrible in that area of town, which I do not live in. I live up the road from another development which received a negative declaration. We don't need to relitigate the past, but we can learn from it. And the big lesson with that development that I live up the hill from is there were impacts that are environmental. We're still dealing with today. We're dealing with state roads that are impacted just like state roads are impacted here. They said no increase in traffic, huge increase in traffic. So here, I do think you're going to have a tremendous amount of impacts. I think you also have to take into consideration that you have down the road an almost 500,000 square foot development. You have down the road the other way a development that's coming, a senior living center. And then in another direction, you have an expansion of a hospital yet again, Westchester Medical Center. There is a lot of traffic that is primed to hit this area in the future. I'm not sure. I haven't again done a deep dive so I apologize into these traffic studies. I'm not sure having seen other traffic studies and the work done by traffic consultants that they really take into consideration the cumulative impacts of these future developments that are planned, approved, and coming. That is huge. That will make its way into an environmental impact statement. That is something to consider a positive declaration in support of in addition to the flooding, the nuisance and the other things that the our neighbors have brought up and Mr. Quigley who just spoke is correct. We all pay the price when the operating costs go up. All of us including our neighbors sitting on the side of the

deis all pay the price when the operating costs go up and that's sometimes a large price to bear and it's gone up and that is a big concern for all of the residents in every part of town not just those who live close by. So this impact is going to be big and much bigger than just that intersection and I hope that you give it a positive declaration. Thank you Mr. I I have Mr. Glenn. Can you Can you hold on for one second? We have some I thought was the last No, there's one more behind him. Glenn, come up.

Glenn Cassella Valhalla.

Yeah. You know, I urge you all to look at this when you review this meeting and look at the faces of all of you people that I looked at tonight after Mr. Quigley asked you all these questions and most people didn't have and I don't mean any disrespect to you, but didn't have any response to any of his questions which were important questions. This property isn't just we don't want it there. We know they do good things there. It's not the question of that. This property is grossly grossly overdeveloped already. There's been a lot of talk in this town about development and the properties going forward in so many of these properties that are being looked at right now. Okay. We have to start this board has to start looking at all these developments and how it's affecting the whole Mount Pleasant in a whole. this intersection at Bradhurst and Grasslands Road in their southernly driveway. Okay. If people leave a gap at the driveway, people from their uh facility come out into the left lane only. Now, you have two traffic engineers tonight. Nobody brought this up. Their own traffic engineer at the last meeting said I was 100% right about who's doing what at that intersection. If somebody's going straight down no road, the traffic light is red. Somebody will come out of their property. They will go into the left lane to go east on Grasslands Road and make the right turn. Okay? Very dangerous situation. It happens all the time. They said last time that this was AI and people. I'm the AI. I took these people to wheelchairs sitting out there. I watch them struggling. That's no lie. These people are there. I've been asking for them to walk on the internal section of their property.

It it has to be looked at going forward. There has to be a positive declaration on this property. Bottom line, it's too much going on. I think that was proven to you from Sean Quigley and other people that spoke. It has to be it shouldn't they shouldn't be allowed to be able to put a shed on that property. Look at the over map of the the structure of that property. There's only one grassy area and that's where they want to put this addition. There is no buildable property left on that lot. Grossly grossly grossly overdeveloped. It's not that we don't want them there. We just don't want any more gross overdevelopment. And it it should be looked at of all the developments going forward in this town of what gets developed.

And and the question about all the developments also I would encourage people and I've seen other folks doing it. Bring this conversation also to the town board. I have I we did it with coffee when I was here with coffee um with Carl. I brought it to his attention and I almost I even said it to him then that the board or the town should look at in a whole of all these developments going on. There should be a fund that is looked for infrastructure improvements in this town. Smart development, smart infrastructure. You can't just keep building and using the same roadways and the same structure

because we're only talking about this one application. But the conversation about the wider town, I can't really do much with it. But I but I know you you get very passionate, but I also encourage you and I've seen other residents here who have gone to the town board to bring the same concern and they're valid concerns, but I can only tell you what this board can do and can't do. So that's a bigger conversation for the the wider town and that's something you I encourage you to bring to Yeah. But all the projects come through the planning board. They do. So you got to look at what you're developing and how much you're developing. Yeah. This development, it's not just a vacant property. I'm looking to put a property. They've developed and developed and developed. You know, at the end of the day, the question is when do you say no?

Okay. Thank you. And you know, I get passionate. I wasn't that loud tonight, so I apologize for last time on that. And thank you. But you got to listen. You got to listen to the people that live in that neighborhood. None of these people that are making all this money. Well, here's here's what we have to do. They don't see these people driving like I said I do. We listen to everybody, including the people here tonight, also the applicant and all the consultants and all the studies and all that. So we have to listen to a lot of people, a lot of different things, but I have heard you loud and clear. So thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Mr. Steven Cab.

Good evening. Stephen Cavie, Conservation Advisory Council Chair. I hadn't planned on speaking tonight, Mr. chairman, but after hearing the other speakers, I thought it was important for the record to show that uh the conservation advisory council has been listening to these comments and uh the issue before you right now with regard to a declaration of significance. Um the council I think should be on the record as well to suggest that a positive declaration would be an appropriate uh response at this point. Clearly there are negative uh environmental impacts that need to be addressed and studied with uh with with great scrutiny and um not the least is the storm water issue, the traffic issues. Um and uh I'm actually not that familiar with the proximity to a CA, but I think this is also something of some concern. Uh there are a variety of other things and a and a more substantial uh review of this application through the secret process with a full DEIS a full environmental impact statement study rather uh would be a valuable next step and a positive declaration would be the appropriate response.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. Okay. So we heard from six plus the CAC. Any final questions or comments from board members? Okay. Any final comments from the applicant?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and you know, thank you for listening to all of us. Once again, I think that on behalf of the applicant, there's a few things I'd like to address. First of all, patients who are at this hospital are arriving at the hospital via ambulance, ambullet, some type of private transportation. They're not arriving to the hospital via public transportation. So, if families are visiting their child at the hospital and they take their child out, they're not prisoners at the hospital and the hospital doesn't control what a parent does with its child. So if a parent takes his child for a walk someplace, whether the hospital thinks that's a good thing or a bad thing, it's not something that's within the hospital's control to prohibit a parent from taking their child someplace. I appreciate the comments with regard to a wheelchair in the street. All we can do is try to encourage them not to do that. Um again with regard to the traffic, you've had five experts review this. Um the classification of this project under SRA is clear. We've stated to you in our submissions what that classification should be. We stand by that. Um the review of this project under SER is the same. What you have to do is take a look at the areas of concern and determine whether or not those areas of concern, you've taken a hard look at those. So, what would you look at? You would look at traffic. We've looked at traffic. We've looked at traffic five times. An environmental impact statement regarding traffic isn't going to reveal anything different than what has come through in the five different reviews of the

traffic for this potential project. Again, I understand that people are unhappy about the traffic in the area. We are not responsible for correcting the traffic in the area. What we're required to do is to mitigate the impacts of our project to the maximum extent practicable. We have done that. We have done that with each and every area of environmental concern. Um, and all of that information is in the record. With regard to storm water, again, I'll reiterate, we have a storm water pollution prevention plan prepared for this project. will mitigate any storm water, additional storm water, uh, as a result of this project. There's been some misinformation that's been shared with the board. We've been clear to you in our submissions about that, and I don't need to go through that with you all again. Um, I take exception to Mr. Cabby's presentation here this evening. We are not aware of the CAC having taken any look at this information or any action other than to stand before you tonight and to listen to the public and their concerns without having reviewed the record. I'm not aware of the CAC having any purview over this application, nor am I aware of the them having reviewed or taken any official action with regard to this. So to stand before you and say that one, a positive declaration is appropriate when it is not as a matter of law and number two that the CAC has taken some sort of look at this application is just not right. Um so you have all of the information before you. Again, we stand by what's in the record and um we hope that you close the public hearing this evening. There is no information that's being presented to you with regard to the record that you have before you. Um, we are comfortable if you close the public hearing and leave the record open for additional comments for written comments for a certain period of time.

We're comfortable with that. Um, you know, we've made our submission. I don't know why somebody didn't receive something that was submitted to the board in response to comments at your last meeting. It was a matter of public record and was in the portal. So, I ask, Mr. Chairman, that we get to the point now where we close the public hearing and we ask you to take action. We ask you for that negative declaration. We believe that we're entitled to it. We have all of the information that's in the record. And what we've done is we've designed a project that mitigates any impacts of this project to the m maximum extent practicable. That's what we're required to do under the law. And that's what we've done. Thank you.

Quickly. And

yeah, come on up. far be for me to try and address a legal issue. I'm not an attorney. uh but it's been my experience in reviewing uh land use applications that uh if in fact there is an adverse significant environmental impact that seeker could require a planning board to call for a full environmental review. So I was speaking specifically on the seeker process. Uh the Atkins attorney is correct as I stated from the start that we have not reviewed this application in great detail. Uh I would be happy to if you want to extend the public comment period in public hearing to review and come up with more detailed response on this but as I said we're speaking specifically to the secret process and there is an adverse significant there are adverse significant impacts.

Thank you. Thank you. Is there something new? Okay, one additional comment. It It has to be something new that I haven't heard before in the last six months. All right, come on up.

It's not exactly a flight deal, but about Bradst. Um, I work for Westchester County. I've been told from high up people in Westchester County that they've already spent $18 million developing a new facility in the Grasslands campus is going to be fasttracked. It's going to be 100 people working in there. Four stories high and we have over 3,000 pieces of equipment. Not all road worthy, but you know, a lot of trucks, cars, tractor trailers, everything. So, I just want you to take that into account that that facility $18 million is already spent on its development. the plans are there. We know how many lifts are going in the garage. We know the department's going into it. And just take that into account because that's a lot of tractor trailers, cars, pieces of equipment for, you know, hot boxes, trucks, everything that would be used in Brad.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Okay. So, we've heard from the public, we've heard from the applicant, we've heard from the traffic consultant. Um, we have a public hearing that's open. We can make a decision to close the public hearing or not. I would make a motion to close the public hearing, but keep a public written comment period open for a period of how long? 30 days.

30 days, 10 days, 30. I don't think where the applicant has submitted new information that changes what we've been looking at for some time now. And um the comments that we've received have been very well thought out, very well studied and will help in our decision- making. Um but I think 10 days ought to do it. Um so is that a motion? Yes. Okay. So motion from Arlene. Have a second. A second. Second from Jane. Steve. I. Eileen. I.

Jane. I. Walter. I. And I for me. So the public hearing is now closed. So now we need to make a determination on SRA. It seems that the there are two secret questions. Uh is the applicant correct that this is an unlisted action? Yes. Okay. Then that's not a subjective decision. It's right there specified by the statute.

Okay. So that puts that to to rests. Type one or unlisted. Um so then we have to decide whether we want to do a positive declaration or negative declaration. Um, can I just ask kind of our my fellow board members, is there anything that you feel that we need more information on or something that has come to light that would cause you to need additional research in a particular matter whether it you know visual impacts, traffic impacts, storm water impacts or are we satisfied with the information that we have or like slow down, we need more information.

Could we hear from um the CAC formally within the 10 days and then decide after that? I think I don't know. I don't know.

Well, hold on, guys. Come on up. I don't know that the CAC is going to be able to do a substantial amount of research to to sway the board in one way or another. I don't know. Would you could I pull the board to see what their position? I I don't think Hold on. I don't Listen, at the end of the day, this application has been here for a long time. Mhm. And we could have had a CIC comments this whole entire time. That is correct.

And we have not. So in fairness in fairness to the applicant I think you more than welcome to write comments because the the end of the road is not here for many reasons like they have to get zoning but at the end of the day it's it's we have to be aware of the fact that they have been here for quite a long time and the CIC could have written comments for over a year if not longer. I don't disagree with the timeline being extremely long, Mr. Chairman. Uh, frankly, uh, the degree of impacts only became apparent, uh, as I started to attend these, uh, public hearings. Uh, we we applications come to us for specific review with regard to wetlands and some other significant environmental impacts or much larger subdivisions. So this one frankly did not cross our path until I happened to attend public hearings and public meetings.

Okay. And so I acknowledge that and the CSC does tremendous work, but I also want to make sure that we're we're not doing something we shouldn't be doing. I agree. And and frankly, I don't want to be in a position of uh of of offering written comments to to be the deciding factor on a positive declaration. Yeah. I I think the board can weigh their decision. Um I do believe as I said that as a matter of fact in the seeker process that there's a significant adverse impact and it's it is not inappropriate for a planning board to make a decision a positive declaration under seeker. But whether this particular application merits that we may not have a meeting of the minds on

but you've also established that you really haven't digged into the application either. Well, I've attended I've watched the presentation. I've attended the public hearings and I've listened to comments and I've heard from the applicant on what the what the application is about and there certainly and clearly are uh issues of storm water management. Uh and and I don't disagree with some of the residents who suggested and I that and I've seen it over the years that I've never seen an applicant say that impa impacts uh can't be mitigated. So I you know and the degree to which they can be studied even further may be beneficial. This is a very large project and and u taking the closest sharpest look on it may be beneficial to the town.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I just want to add that the record on this application is is quite um extensive. So I believe you have enough documentation to allow you to make the judgment that you need to make. And if it's a positive declaration, then we're going to be instructing the preparation of an EIS. Correct? That's why I'm asking, is there anything to be gained by doing an EIS? Is there additional information that we will be uncovered through an environmental review process that has not been presented in the record yet? I think that was a question.

Yeah. Does anybody have an opinion on that? Because that's kind of the crux of what we're deciding.

And if and if to be candid, if you believe the record is missing information, you should let the applicant know that now so they can supplement whatever information you believe is missing. But you've heard from all of your consultants, all of the town staff that the information you have before you um addresses the concerns. Whether you agree or not is the decision you have to make. Now, I for one think that the record is um complete. There are parts of this project that I struggle with, but we're not looking to approve this tonight. I don't know that I would learn anything from additional environmental um research and pres presentation in EIS and if there is something we should Yeah, as you say, let them know what's coming.

Okay. Any any thoughts or comments based on that? Going once, going twice, going three times. So, if you're not prepared to make that decision now, you can wait the 10 days till the public comment period is complete. So, you have Mr. Quickley's comments, the rest of the public comment, whatever Mr. Cavy may have. And that may influence your decision one way or another. Okay.

But that would 10 days. When is our next meeting? We would have to kind of tie it into that. I am a little hesitant about as much as I do uh respect what the CIC does, I I feel it's kind of late in the game for that. But Mr. Quickley, you know, has comments, too. So, and you're not limiting public comment. So, by by establishing a written comment period, anyone can comment or provide additional information. So, you don't know what would be delivered to you during that period.

Okay. So, what do we want to do as a board then? We can wait just as you're suggesting wait until the probably our next meeting till the public comments are in and then we can make the determination about a positive or negative in case something comes in that you know sheds light on something that we haven't considered.

Is that is that in the form of a motion? Do we need a motion? Yeah, you're not you're not you're not taking action on that because you don't need a motion on it. Okay, I'm comfortable with that.

Anybody else? Okay. All right. So, what does that mean? That means we'll place this on the next agenda. Yeah. Um, and at that point you'll direct preparation of a negative declaration or positive declaration. Okay. Okay. And that's it for 95. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay. Next up is new public hearing. Two Walker Road proposed solar photovoltaic panels installed on the roofs of the UV treatment building on the generated building using a rack and rail system underground electric and equipment pad. Application site plan PSP26-3 location two Walker Road Valhalla section block lot numbers 116.16-1-2 zone OB2 owner department of water department of water sub GE what does that mean

it's too long okay applicant engineers Emma Resco Stephen McDonald it's a new public hearing I'll make a motion to wave the reading of the public notice Motion from Jane. Second. Second from Eileen. Steve. I. Eileen. I. Jane. I. Walter. Hi. And an I for me.

Greetings Mr. Chairman and members of the board. Uh Steve Mcdana from Amaresco and here to present uh the project of a rooftop solar project at Chew Walker Road. Uh the project will consist of uh photo voltake panels on the building of uh the UV treatment building roughly 601 kilowatts on the UV building and on the for bay building it there'll be 177 kilowatts of uh solar uh there'll be uh underground uh utility connecting to the um equipment pad you know from the panel boards of the buildings and there'll be a 7 put um chain link fence around the equipment pad. That's the extent of the project.

When we came here and presented, if anybody can I just realize we're in public. If anybody here from the public like to see this, come on up. We can um turn and pivot this around a little bit so people can see this. This is for Two Walker Road. you pip this little and I can plug in my computer too if that's actually if you can do that because I think we're here for the public. I just realized this is a public hearing. Y I can do that. Give me

two minutes. Yep. Okay. You see that?

Yeah. Okay. So, should should I go through that again? Uh, no, we should. We're good.

Okay. All right. And the one outstanding item that Mr. Clearary had was confirmation that the building heights were less than 40 ft. uh we had a survey team go out there in March 19th and we provided the survey uh to the town planning board and zoning board and the maximum height of the UV UV building was 30.1 ft. The maximum height of the four bay building was 38.8 with the solar panels. It adds another 6 to8 inches on top of the buildings and uh that would bring the maximum building height to 39.9 ft. So those are my only comments in

Okay. Anything else? No, that's it. Don't sell past a sale.

Okay. We are Any questions or comments from board members though? Okay. There's no additional questions or comments from board members. Let the record show. We are here for a public hearing. Would anybody like hear tonight speak about two Walker Road proposed solar I'm not going to read this whole thing. Solar panels installed on the roofs of UV treatment building yada yada yada and two Walker Road. Anybody here tonight for this? Going once, going twice, going three times. Okay. Thank you. I'd let the record show there's no additional comments or questions from the public for two Walker Road. Okay. With that being said, we do have a public hearing that's open. We have no additional comments or questions from board members. We have a public hearing that's open. So, what is the pleasure of the board?

I make a motion to close the public hearing. Motion from Eileen. I second it. Second from Steve. Steve. I. Eileen. I. Jane. I Walter Hi and I from me. So the public hearing is closed. So now we are at the next question. What do we want to do with the application itself for the site plan uh PSP26-3? I make a motion that we direct the preparation of an approval resolution. Motion from Arlene. Second. Second from Jane. Walter. I. Jane. I. Helen. I. Steve. I

and for me I'm keeping you guys guessing the order. Okay. So we are good to go then. There's nothing else for us to do. And what are the next steps? Is it the next meeting that you would vote on the resolution? The next meeting of business item they'll vote on. Okay. Yeah. Thank you very much. Should be at that meeting. Okay.

Okay. Next up on the agenda is 50 Deerfield Lane South. Installation of a 35 foot times 24 foot pool with patio in the rear yard. Adjacent patio intrudes into the wetland buffer of the drainageways. Application wetland number W25-04. Location 50 Deerfield Lane South Pleasantville section block lot numbers 107.5-1-5 zone 40. Owner Gerard Sva Salvagio applicate engineers Daniel Sherman. Welcome. Thank you for coming out tonight. Thank you. Congrat Sherman, landscape architect. And we are back here for the public hearing. Yes. For the presentation.

I'll be back. I was going to say I I didn't want Steve to miss it. Oh, Steve never misses anything. It's another uh new public hearing. I will make a motion to wave the reading of the public notice. Thank you, Jane. I second it. So, we have a motion from Jane, a second from Steve. Steve, hi. Eileen, I Jean, hi. Walter, hi. And an I for me. Okay, you're up. Okay, so the main uh change since the last meeting was that we relocated the perimeter fence to be in and I'll tell the distances as I show the map in from the flagged wetland line. And so, do I need this for the

Yes, you can. along the south side. We're 10 feet in the green line, dotted line, dashed line, is the flagged wetland on both sides in the north and the south. And here we move the fence in 10 ft. And we have plantings along the way between the fence and the uh and the edge of the brook or the stream or the water course. And the plantings kind of go meandering inside and out. So it would look quite natural. And uh the fence is a eight foot I mean a six foot aluminum picket fence with 4inch openings and it's two inches above the ground to meet New York State code but there's no bar on the bottom. So it creates these four by these 4in openings and along at further along where there's a pine tree we're 15 ft in with the fence and then here on the north side we're 14t in. It goes right along inside the existing plantings. That's the principal change I think. Did you see the note from the CAC today?

No, not today. No,

I I did read the letter from Steven. Thank you for that. And um my comment as the homeowner, Gerard Svagio, for the record, is that we believe I I my hope is that the board would consider 2 in of clearance from the bottom along with 4 in between every post to be sufficient to let any sort of wildlife that would get through get through. It's not that different from the 6 in from the bottom that the CC is proposing. So to me, I can't think of much wildlife that would can't get through a 6 inch open that can't get through a 4 inch opening. Uh, additionally, I just want to point out for the record that Kellen had some comments that he submitted in late March of the New York Wetland Services and his comments were that because the Brooks connect in the back that wildlife should be able to traverse this way around around it and that in according to him not much wildlife is going to traverse across the yard, you know, anyway that couldn't fit through these open ends. But he his biggest point was that the connections would help. So, my hope is that the board would consider the openings that the fence has uh along with the fact that the waterways connect to allow for any sort of wildlife to to fit through.

Okay. Thank you. Anything else from you or your representative? Not really. Okay. Any questions or comments from board members? 4 in that's within the pool pool code, right? 4 in between New York State, which is the same Some var.

Okay. It it wouldn't matter what pleasant your Mount Pleasant code would apply. Okay. So, any other questions or comments from board members? I go ahead. You go first.

I have uh a couple of comments. I like the um landscaping improvements. It's a beautiful neighborhood with deep, beautiful lawns, um front yards, and I'm put off by a six-foot fence that looks like a cage coming so far out. And I was wondering if you would consider aligning it with the rear wall of your house and unenclosing that whole area in the front because it's atypical for the neighborhood to have a big, you know, fence going in and and it would keep that buffer area more exposed. You know, it would you'd have a lot less fencing. You'd protect the pool, you'd protect your backyard, but that whole area up front um would then be remain the same.

I appreciate that. And we considered everything from the rear of the house also to the front of the house, I think, could look um a little bit more in line. There's a lot of space between here. This doesn't do a good job of showing it, but there's a significant amount of space between here and the sidewalk. The reason we did this is we're just a very active family and we would love to use the space without having to cut it in half. So, just was hopeful to play soccer here and and truly use the space while we're in the backyard and not have a fence completely cut it. I have a massive front yard like from this side of my property to here is huge and grass is growing in nicely. Uh everything's looking good, but the uh like we don't use it. It's because of the way we like gravitate towards the back of the house. Like I don't put soccer nets in front of the house. I don't put the kids lacrosse goals in front of the house. I put it all in the back. So the goal would be to plant this so that it looks completely um you know we're not showing any of the fence. And there are some properties uh on the corner of Deerfield Lane South and Bear Ridge uh one of them where they have a pool there and you they do have some arbor vites and fencing and it does look natural. So, I I would like to preserve as much usable yard for activities without having to cut it in half.

Understood. The fence is behind. I know. It's just it's um it's kind of cutting off the front yard. Um not a deal breaker. Um but I don't love it. Also, not the It looks like you've got a two car twocar garage, space for six cars in the parking area that you have and now parking for four more cars. Like, why are you um Well, that's like uh 50 feet by 20 ft. It seems like there's enough for four cars there. Um Yeah. So,

there's so much paving cuz I just felt like when I was looking at it, like your whole front yard that's gorgeous is going to be gone. it there will I can't deny that the fence being up here will will cut into this part of the front yard. Although I do believe there's a lot a lot of space and this will cut into some of it. The the truth of it is our house pushes people towards the back of the house. When you get there and you park here, there's a big element of like you get out of your car and you kind of walk through the back. We wanted the there to be an option to park and make your way to the front of the house. like uh it's just we feel like there would be we would get a lot of use out of having this here and and and having visitors really park here while we would still park here. Um that's sort of a again a lot of property. I mean the there's so much space here that we never use that I I don't want to in any way destroy the integrity of of the look, but I I do want to try to use it a bit more. Um, I have a basketball hoop here that I would love to play more basketball with and like just be able to park a couple cars here. Sometimes when we park here, we park down the driveway. It's just it's it's not impossible, but it's just there is so much space to use and it that that that would be my ask. And by my neighbors are fully supportive of the project. Uh, I got three letters of recommend uh of support, not one objection. Uh, and I just wanted to point that out for the record.

Okay. Okay. The fence. The fence in the front. What is the landscaping? I see there's landscaping circles. What are you planting on? And that's on the outside of the fence. The shrubbery and Oh, those are arbitens. And they're on the outside of the fence. On the outside to screen the fence. Okay. Okay. Uh Walter, I think you had a question, right?

Yes. the the wetland Westchester wetland services and the CAC you recommend using native species in the the wetland buffer area and you're using arborite which is not native well I have an arborite screening the fence but the other ones are I'll read the list eastern red the white spruce and the yeah the green giants are up But around the back it's mountain laurel and um service berry clethra is native viburnum

and all the perennials and the ferns are are native. So but along the streamline is there arborite there or native species? No these are existing arborvite but I'm not adding any new ones. There's ferns along the edge of the bank that Kellen wanted me to add. And um what about the left side? The left side is ferns, the northern white cedar. That's a new a northern native cedar. The viburnum, the clethra, holly, mountain laurel. I think it's native.

Just one more thing. You know, this the CAC is very concerned about a fence around the the property. so to speak, near the wetlands uh delineation line. This my kids continue to go into these wetlands all the time. Soccer balls roll in, which is why we see neighbors put up fences and fences that have no clearance whatsoever with them. Never mind 2 in and 4 in of clearance. Uh continuously going in, I mean, in some ways, they're climbing down, climbing up any sort of bank is going to get eroded. So, you know, to me, from the moment I've lived there, I've wanted to put a fence up because as they've gotten older and we play soccer, they kick the ball a lot harder. And it's just going flying in there. I mean, they must have went in 20 times the other day in in 20 minutes for to get the ball. And we play baseball and lacrosse. So, to me, it's just a function of like it keeps them out of it more and we can plant stuff. And I I think the wetlands uh report from Kellen was very supportive of the planting should help wildlife there versus nothing right now.

You can give a kid a beautiful flat piece of grass and they'll find it and and they'll skip the grass. They'll go right to the That's to the stream. That's true. They're getting a little bit Some of them get a little bit older. They want to play, but my four-year-old still traverses in every Okay. We had a gate. They can get to the screen. Hold on, Steve. Hold on, Steve. Let's just let them wrap up. Are you all Hold Hold on. Hold on. Are you guys done? No, that's where I'm Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Stephen Cavi, Conservation Advisory Council Chair. Um, there's a lot of issues that the applicant just raised. I hope I can remember them all. I wasn't carefully taking notes, which I should have done, but I think I'll address them all. But let me start with one really important basic fact. We've got a wetlands code that requires a 50-ft buffer that that 50-ft buffer around wetlands, which by the way is is the minimus. It's well, that's the exact term. It's a very small buffer. Typically 100 ft is uh not unusual in most municipalities. It's recommended in the master plan that we change that. Many municipalities have 150 foot buffer. Many municipalities who have an application like this with a pool within the buffer would outright reject it. This plan has a a pool within. Look, this is a property that has constraints. I'm sympathetic to that. There's no question about it. You buy a house with a water course on either side of it. Then you are subject to the codes which have placed specific restrictions in order to maintain and manage the wetlands and water courses on your property. That's the situation that we have right now. So there is a 50-foot buffer and the plan calls for among other things a pool that exceeds to some extent within the buffer. That's one issue. this planning board can make some decision with some sympathy for the applicant and maybe consider that the pool itself. It's not what we would recommend because the buffer is there and it's not meant to be encroached. But that's one issue. The other issue that the planning board is dealing with that the application is looking for is one that's even more disturbing and by that I mean more than one way. There's disturbance in the buffer and it's disturbing in how the code would be read and how the playing

board would would deal with the code. The idea of placing a fence along the perimeter of two water courses that restricts access. But the and there are two issues here. There are many multiple issues. There's a fence that restricts access, but beyond that, it's a fence within the wetlands buffer. As a practice, the CAC has typically over the years strongly recommended against fences within wetlands buffers, and there are good reasons for that. Now, the wetlands town's wetlands consultant suggests that there's a good possibility that wildlife may find their way to the corner and traverse at that point. But that's the code isn't designed to guess at what wildlife may choose to do. The code is designed to protect natural resources to the maximum extent possible. That's what the code is designed to do. And while there may be other possibilities for wildlife traverse across this this buffer, by placing a fence there along the along the entire extent of it, even though it's no longer within the actual wetlands, but now just within the buffer, that's not good practice. Even if you were to put a fence there, and we've seen applications with small fence area, areas that have minor encroachment into wetlands buffers. In every case that we've seen that here in the town, the gap underneath has been sufficient to follow what are best

practices to provide access and transit for wildlife. And let me say something, I don't we didn't do a natural resources inventory. But we don't know what wildlife is on the site, but we do know that wildlife exists where water exists and we have two water courses that can support habitat. Also, I want to say that language is important here. Uh the the applicant continues to refer to this as a uh let me find the exact words a drainage way. These are not drainage ways. These are water courses and they're controlled by the wetlands code. I think it's important the application

he's he just selforrected by his facial gesture so he he knows he's saying it was it was said once in the initial and I' always consider them to be wetlands and respect. Okay. The record shows drainageways. Okay.

The application shows drainageways. The correspondence all shows drainageways. That that that minimizes the definition of what this is. Anyway, look, Mr. Chairman, you got a long agenda. I I think I've tried to make it very clear that wetlands should be protected. Wetlands buffers should be protected. Fences do not belong within wetlands buffers. Pools are not, it's not unusual to see applications with pools with some encroachment into the buffer area. That is a separate issue. There are other mitigating things that could and should and maybe should be done. Specifically, the additional permeable well, it's permeable, but it's still an encroachment. more patio space could be reduced. But that's you know that but but the the more egregious part is the idea of putting a fence along the corridors of uh these wetlands corridors and and a fence that does not provide for transit that best practices would suggest.

Okay. Our our my in short my our recommendation which we said in the letter is put a fence around the pool.

Yeah. And frankly in other municipalities, move the pool, reduce the patio, reduce the impacts in the buffer, keep the buffer as pristine as possible as the code would provide. And I want to say I do support and appreciate the wetlands plantings. The buffer areas are transitional plantings. They are native. Green giants are not as Walter pointed out as we said in our letter. But the landscaping plan is nice. That's not the mitigation for this kind of encroachment. It's it's a natural and uh and it's it's it's it's the proper way to do landscaping. It doesn't mitigate against the impacts. Thank you.

Thank you.

Just my final point is I'm committed to building a fence here one way or the other for the reasons I mentioned. We want to play. We don't want to continue to go into these waterways. We don't want to continue to go down there. So in the fence in in in my in my eyes, if if the CAC is saying it needed to be six inches and the board would have vote that way, I would then have a fence here and another one here for hopefully 6 in that that I would get positive approval for. So to me, like there's so I I truly truly believe we are doing more to protect these wetlands by building and protecting them with a fence. any wildlife in my opinion and I' I've lived there for 10 years. I see what traverses the property. A deer's not going to get through the six inches and it won't get through the two and the four, but everything else will. And I really believe we're protecting it. And I understand what Steve is saying by the letter of the code. But I just think a little bit of of like kind of I don't know more like common sense to it's keeping us out. It's planting species that will help habitat grow. it'll and and there is connection behind it that I just from a from my perspective it it it's there's not much harm done to any real thing that the most wildlife can still traverse through and uh and and that's my point in terms of trying to keep my kids and and and and have stuff continuing to fall into the stream. Everything banks down, banks down, banks down. So, it's just we're continuously in there.

Make it make it very very quickly. 6 in is the minimum recommended best practice for a fence. The other is we had an application not that dissimilar from this a couple years ago on Bedford Road where an applicant wanted to build a fence around a pond and uh she was instructed that there were very specific conditions and restrictions that would be involved in doing that. And she elected not to build the fence that required the b uh the permit. Instead, she moved the fence outside of the bucket. Now, that's not an option here, but the point is that the code was the engineering department responded, the CAC responded, the code was um clarified and and defined, and she chose to not have to subject herself to a wetlands permit and instead kept the fence out of the buffer.

Thank you. Okay. Okay. Any other questions or comments from board members? I have a question. Uh, does the town of Mount Pleasant require a building permit for installation of a fence? Okay. Yeah. And so we were going to see them either way if with or without a pool. That's correct. I think and there's some confusion about that this four and six in. So are you talking about the distance between the pickets of the fence?

So that's a state code requirement. Um, and I don't believe it's four inches. So, we just asked the building inspector. He's getting back to us with that answer. So, you don't have a choice. It is a code requirement. The six inches Steve is talking about, I believe, is the the distance between the bottom of the fence, right? So, I just want Okay. So, cl Joe has just clarified it's two inches, not four inches. Okay. So, we are here for a public hearing though. So, I want to make sure we give an opportunity for the public if there is public here to speak on this tonight. Before we do that, just do one final questions or comments round with the board. Any final questions or comments?

Can I just say I completely agree with um Steve Cavy about um the fencing and uh uh wetland buffer. Um but my um commitment to that is uh tempered by the fact that this is a mowed lawn. This is already a field. It's not in a natural state. It's not It's not there aren't critters living on the lawn there now. It's it's it's your yard. It's your used yard. So, I don't feel, you know, as protective of it as if this were in a natural state and you were mowing down everything to create your backyard and your field. Um, so I'm weighing, you know, those things.

Okay. Any other questions or comments? Let the record show there's no additional questions or comments. Okay. Okay. So, we're are here for public hearing. Is there anybody here tonight who would like to address the board on 50 Deerfield Lane installation of a 35 ft by 24t pool uh in Pleasantville? 50 Deerfield Lane. Anybody here tonight to address the board on 50 Deerfield?

Come on up. Um, Nancy Gallard, that's 816. Hello again. Uh, Sleepy Hollow Road, Mount Pleasant. Um, I mean, I feel for you because it's your property and you want to do what you want to do. But I I would just echo that there is a town code, this the buffer, and you should apply the town code. It's that simple. And in fact, the um strategic plan, I can't think of the right name like this. Comprehensive plan. Thank you. Comprehensive plan is to increase it. Yeah.

To not even like be crazy, just increase it to match most of the towns around us. And we keep going back to the fact that we should be codifying that agreement plan, but that's not your job. I understand. Thank God. Yeah. But I think there was a spirit there. Yeah. you know, going in the right direction. And so, I don't know why you're even considering compromising. I get it. I think it's a problem, you know, but it needs to be enforced somewhere. Somebody has to say this is the code. I'm sorry people have drawn up additional plans. That was all that needed to be said. So, that's my input. Thank you very much for coming out tonight.

Okay. Any other questions or comments from public? Let the record show there's no additional comments or questions from the public. Okay. So, we have a public hearing open. What is the pleasure of the board in the public hearing itself? I make a motion that we close the public hearing. Motion from Eileen. Second it. Second from Steve. Walter. I. Jean. I. Eileen. I.

Steve. I. and I have to be the public hearing is now closed. Okay. So what is the thoughts from the board on the application itself in in in addition to Mr. Cav's response, you know, the town engineer has also weighed in and he he duly notes in in his memo that you know the structures are within the wetland buffer and they reduce the effectiveness of protecting the wetlands. So not only the CAC but the town engineer has also weighed in on this matter.

Yeah. Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments from board members? We have a public hearing that's closed and we need to take make a decision on what we want to do with the application itself tonight. I'll tell you, I'm a little struggling with the fence myself too because either we have a wetland buffer rule or we or we don't. And that's my personal struggle with it. And I get it's a constrained lot and you have um a need to use the the lawn to its fullest maximum potential. But I'm struggling with the videos I see repeatedly of flooding in the town and a lot of things happening throughout the town constantly where there's floods and people getting severe damage. I don't I don't know about your neighbor having flooding issues, but the wetland buffer for me should be closer to sacrian than we sometimes let it be. And um that's just my personal take on it. Any any other thoughts from questions from the board members?

No. Did we ever propose any alternatives? I remember early on we did that there were not really any Well, he we we did talk about the pool the fence around the pool, right? I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm I'm a little soft spoken tonight. I'm trying not to be a yeller. Um, my question was about any other alternatives that were proposed and I remember it was just a fence around the pool

and we agreed to turn all the pavers around the pool into permeable pavers to allow drainage to come through. I I mean I just I do want to reiterate here. I I I'm not trying to blow smoke. We truly are going to protect the wetlands more by having people stop going into them all the time, going up and down the bank, putting more plantings there, having space for any wildlife to come through that would normally come through. And this is all manicured lawn anyway. I I I'm just trying to and my lawn is I put a lot of money into my property. My grass is spectacular. That lady who spoke, I don't think she's ever seen my house, but if she would have come see it, it's beautiful. I I I I spend a lot of money and time making sure my house looks very nice and this is all very nice. I will do the same thing with this project. I'm just asking for support to build a pool for my family on what is already manicured lawn.

But I I do think I think in the beginning of this process, I think there were a couple comments from board members expressing concern about the fence and its location from the from the beginning. I mean that's a fair statement, correct? Yes, it's a fair statement. So, so, so the application really never really changed since then. It's the fence further back as per Kellen's. Uh, we my original intention was to have it as not be a slotted fence, was to be a a a fully panled vinyl fence, but in the effort to get as much wildlife through, I've agreed to make it a slotted fence.

Okay. Okay. Anything else from the board?

My one thought, it seems I have a lot, but uh is are we protecting? Frankly, I don't really have a problem with the pool, but with the fence, are we protecting the environmental feature, the wetlands to the maximum extent practicable to get you what you want and still protect? Um, and how much, you know, does a fence impact that? Yeah, I I guess I question anyone to say what is the negative to the fence. It's it's it's there's n I I can't think of an animal that can't get through uh something with 6 in of clearance, which was what the CAC letter said with this this clearance. It's protecting balls and other things from going into the wetlands all the time, including my children. And it's protect and we will do all these plantings to make it a a better wetlands with more sufficient wildlife better than it is now.

Fences are not natural features. Wetlands buffers are meant to be natural features. fences are implanted with material that uh creates unnatural features and unnatural material into the buffer area. You may feel that this particular specific application doesn't seem that big a deal, but every there's there's a death by a thousand cuts. Every time an application comes before a reviewing authority and the code is not followed to the best possible way to provide the very best protection for our shared natural resources, we undermine the value of these protective codes. And I think it's important as much as and I and I do sympathize with the homeowner. He has a piece of property that is challenging. He bought a house with a water course on either side and he's trying to build a pool. The fence is the wrong place. Does not belong in a buffer. It's not how the law was designed. It's not the best way to follow the code.

Okay. Thank you, Steve. Stephen. Okay. So, it's 911 and I know we have a full agenda. Oh, not to push things through, but I have to push a little bit. Um, okay. So, we we've closed up we did close the public hearing, correct? Okay. We forget now. So, what is the pleasure of the board on the application itself? To help. So, the option is direct preparation of an approval resolution for the plan. The plan is proposed, a denial resolution of the plan as proposed. If you were to propose that, I'd be willing to bet the applicant would think of alternatives. Um, like the fence around the pool or a natural fence, you know, a hedge is a is effectively a fence as well. They've added landscaping, but you can supplement the landscaping to function as a fence. So, if you were to indicate you would deny this plan, I'd be willing to bet Mr. Sherman will think again about alternatives. So,

a hedge would not be within pool code. Like, you would have to be natural planting but it's not within New York State pool code. Again, the fence would the pool would have to be fenced to meet the code, but the the problem of soccer balls going down in into the creek could be accommodated by a natural. So it would be fencing just the pool perimeter and then adding which would achieve the owner's objective in some ways install sensitive to the environmental concerns you're hearing expressed tonight.

I'm so sorry. The last thing I just the point of considering a hedge versus the a slotted fence. I think there's a little bit of being lost in terms of what the the co the wetlands code says, the spirit of it versus reality of what we're dealing with where things are still going to be impeded and things can go through more with the slotted aluminum fence that is on manicured grass. That's that's my last point. Sorry. Okay. What do you guys want to do?

I I struggle with it. I agree with Eileen though it's already manicured grass you know and I and I do struggle with it and I do think that the 50- foot buffer it it is what is now I think it should be more but this is the application that we have in front of us now um I you know do I love it no but you know it is your property and it and you should be able to use it so those are my feelings Okay. So, so we we need to move this along a little bit. So, we have Do we have a motion or not? We don't have to have a motion. Theoretically, sooner or later,

we do. We do. Yeah, we keep kicking it down. Um, I'll make a motion for denial. Have a motion from Walter. Do we have a second? procedurally. I'll just say I I would have Can I Can I second? Yeah, sure. And I'm going to second that. So now, if I were the applicant, I might determine how you want to handle that.

Um, not sure what the order is here. I So, so they've just directed a denial for that plan. You can accept that, in which case you can't build that, or you can think of something else and come back to the board with an alternative. Okay. And that's like the majority vote is the denial. Just to be clear, they haven't voted on it yet. So, the motion is before them. They haven't If they act on it and deny

Oh, sorry. Sorry. Yes. Okay. I didn't I didn't know I had a Sorry. Thank you. Uh I was like kind of Yeah, I'm concerned that if more people say denied, then I can't make a change after the fact. and and then no, I I I would concede to bring the fence around the pool, but I would still like to build a fence around the property for all the reasons I mentioned. Keep my kids out of it, keep their sporting equipment out of it, and so if that's a 6-in fence, I just don't really think we accomplished a lot of 2 in of clearance. I'm sorry for being a little passionate about it.

So, but your objective was to pull. Was was your was your objective to pull or the fence along the river or the stream? Well, again, for years I've wanted to put a fence there. And now now in the sense of I I want a year ago I decided to do this pool and put the application before the town president and it came to the planning board. I said, "Okay, well then we'll do the fence then." And and it all kind of came together in that in that regard. I've wanted to do a fence for years there for years. I I I get it, but I al the the wetland buffer has a different different desire, right,

than what you desire. And it's and I'll just say one last time like I I've said it many times, Google Town of Mount Pleasant flooding. I don't know about flooding on Deerfold Lane, but it the flooding in this town is tremendous. And I I personally feel we need to be much more diligent than we've been for the last 50 years as a as a society with protecting the wetland buffer. So I respect that completely. I just I I guess what I would say is for the effort for the for this motion I I would cuz I'm now nervous that I'm going to get another negative vote. I would consider I will move the fence around the pool. But I I if the CAC's letter today said that they recommend 6 in of clearance, I'm going to also be I guess hope maybe not in front of the planning board, maybe that can just go through building permit to build a fence with 6 in of clearance. I I really do want to stop things from continuously rolling in there. A lot of things, power wheels, just stuff like it's just things keep like everything that has a little bit of motion rolls into the ravine.

I I get your I get your dilemma, but it's it's we we have to we we either we respect the wetland buffer or we don't. That's my take as one board member. So, okay. So, are we going to go back? I have a motion and a second. You can request an adjournment if you'd like to do that or I don't know. Then I then I request an adjournment. All right. All right. Thank you. Okay. And um we'll see you again.

Yeah. So um just formally withdraw the motion. Oh, okay. By withdrawing the motion. So, Walter has to withdraw the motion. Is that what he has to do? Make a motion to withdraw the motion. Motion from Walter. And who second it? It was me. Yeah. I mean, thank you very much. Thank you for coming out tonight.

Okay. Okay. And now we're going into non-public hearings, which means we're not going to be uh listening too much to the public, more to the applications. But next is up 11 Suzanne Lane, grade rear yard to make usable family space. Application steep slopes SS26-4. Location 11 Suzanne Lane, Thornwood, New York. Section block numbers 107.5-30-40. Zone R40. Owner Tom Sku. Is that the right way to say that? SECQ. SECQ. Thank you. applicant engineers Jonathan Palani and Associates. Thank you for coming out tonight.

Good evening. Jonathan Vani representing Enzata and the Milani Design Consultants regarding 11 Suzanne Lane for the SecU residence. Um we were uh in front of the engineer for their steep slopes permit obviously. Uh we it was a back and forth with Suzanne when she was there. Um we performed soil testing. Uh we received a um one contaminant that was a little high in level and it's be it was in a agreeance that we would put some verbiage in the CFO containing um uh stipulation that they couldn't grow in that area of vegetation in that area. Uh we received comments from Clearary Consulting that we've addressed on the drawings of since the comments were issued.

Um we u we are not bringing in any more soil. We're not removing any soil. were just regrading the property as is with the soil that was brought in that was tested. Um it was part of an application that they're proposing to do a new deck. So they were trying to level out the property to make it uh usable in the in the rear yard. Um at this point it seems that we've addressed all comments. I don't know unless I don't know if Pat has any additional comments if Clear Consulting has any additional comments. And the engineering comments were very minimal in in nature and there's no impervious surface being constructed on the property on this the regraded soil. So there's no uh additional drainage.

So the question we have tonight for this is is this ready for a public hearing or not? And I think we have read everything, seen everything and understand everything to be ready for the You have anything else to add? No. Anything else to add? No. Any questions or comments or board members? Okay. So for 11 Suzanne Lane, do we want to entertain a motion to schedule a public hearing? They've they've buttoned up all the loose ends and they're ready to talk to us. Yes or no? I'll make a motion to schedule the public hearing. Motion from Jane. I second it. Second from Steve. Walter. I. Jane. I. Eileen. I. Steve.

I. And I for me. Okay. We're good to go. Okay. Okay, next up, new application 388 Nandhagen Road, construction of a new accessory apartment on the ground level of an existing home. Application accessory department PAA26-1. Location 388 Nhagen Road, Thorber, New York. Section Palaka numbers 107.17-2-12, zone R40. Owner Thomas Cara. Applicant the architect Jonathan Wani Sausage. Oh, you're back.

I'm here. Yeah, actually I show this person. Jonathan Palani representing uh 388 Nanny Hagen Road for the car residence. Uh a proposed um accessory apartment in the basement. Uh we've uh presented and had a couple meetings with um Clear Consulting as well as South Panella regarding and Joe Bante regarding the um accessory apartment in the basement of the existing residence. The homeowners have a um daughter that's living with them with a a daughter that has special needs. So they're moving into the apartment uh in the in the basement. Um so we've we've addressed all the requirements by the accessory apartments and it seems to comply with all of them as concurred by Clearary Consulting. Uh we plan on uh constructing a kitchen and bathroom in the basement for a proposed accessory apartment roughly 569 ft. There was a building inspection performed on Friday. Uh I've spoken to Manny the building inspector. There was two two concerns. One was he wanted me to add a uh an entry to the apartment from the outside at the rear of the building which we've we've done there as well. He was concerned with I had an asbuilt survey performed on the property and there's a pool on the property. So, we were working with an um an old survey that didn't have the existing pool that's there. So, he was just concerned about the addition that we're putting on the house in reference to the 20 ft to a pool edge, but has nothing to do with the apartment, but it was just a concern of his. But besides that, I think his concerns, he had no other concerns besides those.

I I had a question. It looks like the addition is about 600 square ft and the existing uh space is about 618 square ft. So, don't you blow through the 600 ft limit for an accessory apartment? Well, on my drawings, it's 569 ft. That's that's the I've done a net uh a hashed area of the apartment. Yeah. So, the hashed area includes all the walls in the bathroom. Um, so hold on. I'll just let me take this. Yeah. What part? Because you have the the addition in the back there. So this addition is not part of the This is a separate permit. Yeah. Okay. So this is act the actual apartment right here. Okay. I misunderstood. I was adding those two together and saying

well there was a long discussion. It was a long discussion from a from a scheduling standpoint whether or not we were including their addition as part of the accessory permit permit or trying to combine the two or whether we should do them separately or not. But simultaneously I drew it. I drew both. So okay. So the apartment is just in the existing as as required by the accessory apartment requirements. You can only have it in the existing structure. So it's in the existing structure and those three bedrooms and office would be accessed how? From the staircase. So the this this wall right here, this hatch wall right here. Yeah. Totally separates this apartment from the communal staircase that the staircase that's going to the first floor for the main residence.

Okay. So, the main residents can access this through here and come to here. Okay. Any other questions or comments for board members? Okay. Let the record show there's no additional questions or comments from board members. Uh we have dotted all the eyes across the tease. Chairman, this fully complies with the 13 special permit criteria for the accessory appointment. Okay. So, the decision the board needs to make is Public hearing. Do we want to schedule public hearing? Yes or no? Yep. I'll make a motion to schedule the public hearing. Motion from Jean. Second. Second from Walter. Walter. I. Jean. I. Eileen. I. Steve.

I. And I from me. You're good to go. Thank you.

Okay. Next up, there's also a a new application. major subdivision of two parcels of former Rockefeller property totaling 21441 acres into 65 parcels to develop an 18hole golf course, fully amenitized country club, a Village Green, and approximately 75 single family homes and town houses. Application also includes a petition for a text amendment to change the language of the section 218-43 nonprofit membership clubs application of subdivision PSDs 26-4 site plan PSP26-4 steep slopes PLLSS267 wetlands PLW26.1 special use PL PLSU26.2 too town board for No, it's location. This is blending into each other here a little bit. Okay. Location 835 855 Sleepy Hollow Bright Cliff Manor section block lot number is 11.8-1-1 104.20-1-1 zone R40 owner and applicant South Rock LLC DBA Fable Club LLC Engine Architect GMC Engineering Site Development Company attorneys and Steignments. Oh my goodness, that's a lot. Welcome. Thank you for coming out tonight.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman, members of the board. David Steinmets from the law firm of Xarin and Steinmets. Pleased to be back before you uh this evening. As the chair indicated, we are here uh on behalf of Southworth Development and its development partner partner Panico Hills Group um together South Rock LLC. Uh Panico Hills actually um is comprised of some members of the Rockefeller family. We're here um sort of for a doover. So, I'm going to take a step back. We were here um last month after initially filing with the town board and being asked to come in in connection with a minor referral uh from the town board with regard to a text amendment. We did a full presentation for your board at that time. Uh however, there was no formal application pending at that time for um any official planning board action. So, we conferred with staff uh and we were told to come back and sort of do the presentation again for those members of the public who may not have known that we were going to be here last month doing essentially the presentation. So, bear with us. Um I know it's late. I know you've had a fairly um extensive meeting. We're going to try to be efficient, but we want to make sure that the record is complete and that the public has an opportunity, Mr. Chairman, to hear the application. So, um I'm joined by our full development team. I will not introduce everyone uh for the sake of efficiency, but suffice it to say that Troy Miller uh from Southworth, our uh project uh manager and golf course designer is here. Members of JMC uh our engineers and planning consultants uh are here. Uh members of AKRF, our planning consultant and EIS uh uh team as well as my colleague Vincent Pedone. The application um that we have uh before us is to develop um a wonderful piece of property that has been in the Rockefeller family uh for essentially a century. Um that property was acquired by Southworth last year. Um, and as I explained to you last month, that

acquisition, that sale and acquisition only took place after members of the family sort of vetted um what they wanted to see this magnificent property uh reused and redeveloped as and by whom. So, Southworth was actually selected by the family because the concept was to keep a substantial amount of this 200 plus acre property open uh open space um scenic uh attractive and most importantly preserve some of the legacy structures that are located on the property. As we told you last time, uh this application is for a uh 18hole uh championship golf course, a private uh membership uh country club with associated amenities and 75 homes uh substantially uh leaning towards single family homes and approximately 18 townhouse dwellings. All of which would be located on the property uh with a tremendous amount of perimeter buffer. I will let some of my other uh team members uh speak to you about that. I mentioned to you that we started this process in front of the town board. We started this process in front of the town board because the code presently allows exactly what we are proposing to do on this property. In fact, the code allows substantially more development in terms of residential units upwards to 200 residential units. We are not here seeking that. But the code, as Mount Pleasant's code is written, presently only allows for notfor-profit membership clubs. This is proposed to be a for-profit membership club. And as I have discussed with the town attorney and the town professional staff, that's technically something um that zoning doesn't normally permit. Um zoning is about land use, not land user. So if the use as a country club, golf course, and residential community is the same, whether the operator of the country club portion is a for-profit entity rather than a not for-p profofit entity, that's a technical legal issue. It is not a

land use issue um as we will go through the process. Um so we have filed an application to the town board. We have a zoning text amendment pending in front of the town board that would clean up that and would also give your board some authority, some additional authority on things such as parking and um uh golf uh golf course design. Not this board. It's not going to give this board additional authority.

So, actually, no. Um actually, it does. So, your board under the proposed text amendment, Mr. chairman um would have some authority at the request of staff and the building inspector to allow for uh the parking analysis to be done correctly. Let me take a step back. We talked about this last time. This provision in the in the town code has never been used. Um you you have no country club um in the town in the unincorporated portion of the town. So there are aspects of your code that we don't need to get into the weeds tonight, but there are aspects of the code and I'll defer to Mr. clearly to explain it to you and to town attorney Shafazada that relate to Teta Green angles that relate to parking. Both of which sort of didn't make an awful lot of sense. This application would require probably four or five times more parking than it needs based upon the way the code was originally written. So, we have suggested a text amendment that would allow your board with professional guidance to make that determination. That text amendment has not yet been adopted, but that's in front of the town board. So that you will not make that decision. The town board will make that decision. So let's so let's reel it back here. What are we here for? We're here because this application requires subdivision approval, site plan approval, special permit approval, wetlands approval, and a steep slopes permit. All of those actions, each and every one of those five actions is something that's jurisdictionally in front of your board, not in front of the town board or anyone else. So, as you know from our last meeting and you know from our correspondence, we have suggested that your board should serve as the lead agency under the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act and commence the secret process. We're here tonight simply to commence what will be a comprehensive environmental planning and engineering analysis. We suggest that your board and I believe the town board has also um acknowledged

that your board is positioned most appropriately to take the lead in regard to that. So the only action that we're that we have before you tonight is introducing the project formally. We did it once before, we were asked to do it and we're going to do it again. um present it, allow you to ask us any questions, and allow you to start the secret process. That's it. So, um that having been said, um the I think as your as you indicated, uh Mr. Chairman, in your introduction, most almost all of this property is in the R40 zoning district. A small portion of it is in the R10 zoning district. We'll walk you through that uh momentarily. Um I want to also correct something that occurred since we were here last time. No portion of this property is parkland. Uh no one is taking away any of the 1771 acres that the Rockefeller family has donated uh to the public for the benefit of the public. That remains intact. Um, in fact, the aqueduct trail will continue to traverse alongside this property. And a tremendous amount of this site itself will not only remain open, visible, and attractive, but it will be actually buffered um and provide protection for the property as well as for the aqueduct trail. So, uh, that's one of the reasons why we're excited about this application. This is a wonderful way um to make use of this property and not chop it up into the 180 to 200 residential units that would otherwise be allowed um at least mathematically under zoning. And we actually think it could be developed in that fashion under zoning. So with that having been said, I'm going to uh hand off to Troy. Troy wants to tell you a little bit and tell the public a little bit about Southworth, why they were interested in this property and how they plan to develop this much like many of their other residential communities. This is not their first residential community.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, members of the board. Uh my name is Troy Miller. I am the chief development officer for Southworth. Um we are a private club development community developer around the world. Um, I myself as a uh land planner and landscape architect have spent my career developing uh communities and developing very special pieces of property all with a sense of place and authenticity to where they exist in the world. Um, that has been on three different continents and I have been in front of a lot of boards like you and I certainly respect uh the role that you have and appreciate what you do for this town. Um, I'd like to tell you a little bit about this project and where where it sits for us and why we were drawn to it and why we see this as being an incredible opportunity for the town to do something special. Um, for for my perspective, uh, first of all, with our partners in the Rockefeller family, uh, coming to this project, uh, this piece of property has an incredible amount of history that we intend to preserve. Uh we have four very special buildings on that I'll get into a little bit that have been there since the early 1900s that we intend to preserve and utilize as part of our amenity core for the club. Um and as it relates to the to the property as a whole, um we've really studied this in a way that will provide buffers around the property to protect the the areas that are adjacent to the Rockefeller State Park preserve as well as the aqueduct trail um from any development and really focused any of the changes in development to this property as much to the center as possible. So um as you can see here, the site um is is surrounded. you can go and go to the next one is surrounded by the Rockefeller State Park Preserve to the uh to the east and to the south and then the Aqueduct Trail to the west um and down into Rockwood Hall.

Um and so we are generally surrounded and kind of the the hole in the donut so to speak of all of this state park preserve land. um from the from the perspective of what we are planning here. I'm going to try to take you into three dimensions for a second and just talk about what is here on the site and the physical components of the site. This is a dynamic site with some with a lot of topography as you would expect in in your town. Um essentially this site is almost like a wedding cake. It sets from the middle where you see uh where we're proposing the clubhouse um is kind of one of the higher ridges. The highest ridge we intend to preserve as a open space. And then as you step down to the next level, we have our amenity core and our residential density closest to the center. And then as you step down another level, that is where we intend for the golf course to generally lay. And then as you step down another level which is closest to our boundaries, we intend to preserve uh more than 50 acres of open space around the borders to the east, south, and to the west um to to really just try to layer in the uh levels of impact on this property and protect against uh any anything that surrounds it. Um I will go a little bit into you can go ahead and go to the next one. Um, again, from a vision perspective, my goal here is to create something that is incredibly authentic to the site and incredibly authentic to the history that it has. Uh, really preserving the legacy of the family. And from a few in a few minutes, you'll hear from Christian Rockefeller, who is passionate about this project and has grown up on this site and, um, and can give you a little bit of insight into what this means to the family. Um, from a golf perspective, again, something that really reflects this place, utilizing the incredible assets you have in your town of granite outcroppings, rock outcroppings, incredible views of the Hudson River, and some really

incredible rolling topography that from my perspective as a golf course architect, um, which I've designed over a dozen golf courses around the world, um, is a incredibly suitable site for golf and something that has an opportunity to be really special. Um I mentioned the amenity core. This is generally where these existing historic buildings lay. Uh a large part of the uh trail system and building layout were done by the Mstead uh firm in the early 1900s. Um and so we intend not to argue with that. Um and to keep and preserve those locations and utilize those as our our core. So the the existing manor home will become our main clubhouse. The existing Angus barn will become a fitness and pool facility and then the existing stables will be retrofit into a racket facility. Those three buildings along with the gate house which we intend to maintain as the entry to the property are really the core of this legacy asset that we want to make sure is uh is preserved in every way possible. My goal for this project at the end of the day is that you have the same experience when you drive through that gate today as you do when we're done in five or 10 years of this experience of rising up through the property and having this manor house just kind of uh reveal itself to you in the way that it does today in a very elegant way. Um I mentioned the gate house. This is the entry point off of Sleepy Hollow Road. We intend on maintaining the gate house and maintaining this as the as the primary entry for the property. Um the Angus barn uh again uh one of the historic structures that we will retrofit maintain as much of the building as possible and be able to utilize it as an amenity for the club. And then the stables same. Um and then the manor house uh is kind of the center asset and

probably the center of body heat. And again, as I talk about this, those uses that we're talking about and you'll see in the pres that you see in this presentation, um they they are drawing people to the middle of the property. The idea here is to maintain that center of activity, the center of energy, the center of body heat in the center of the property, protecting the edges as much as possible. Um from a residential perspective, um we are very early in this process obviously, but our intention is to make sure that what what uh what gets built on the site is appropriate for the site and is also inspired by Rockefeller commissioned architecture with uh with the with modern w with a with a modern impact um over the course of of its property. So really honing in on making sure that we are doing something that's authentic to this site and really reflects all the history that it has. And from a site planning perspective, I'm going to turn it over to Diego to talk a bit about the technical stuff.

One one quick comment before we hand off to Diego. Um Troy walked you through the the various buildings on the property. We've talked about its size and its magnificent topography. You should all know we would be delighted to get the board out there for a site inspection at the earliest possible date when you are ready. I do think this is an application. We're getting the board out to conduct a site inspection. Whether you do it collectively or individually, Troy and our team are more than happy to schedule that. We have told that to staff and when you're ready um I would commend that it would be a wonderful way for you to see these buildings, understand why they're proposing to preserve them and use them the way they are and how the site can be laid out nicely with a golf course and yet still maintain the buffer. And I'll let Diego walk us through.

I'm going to follow up quickly before uh just in case I don't get another chance. I uh um I just wanted to also just express uh our commitment as Southworth Development to this project uh and this process. We understand that this is a a long process and we take it very seriously. This is not the first time that we've gone through this and um and I uh I will commit to being uh fully transparent and available to help in any way as possible and make sure that we uh make this as smooth of a process for this board as possible. Thank you.

Thank you, Troy. Uh again, just for the record, Diego Viller Ali with JMC um engineering consultant for the applicant. We've had an opportunity now to work with them uh obviously for the last several months going back to last year. Um when we really started working with Troy, you heard a lot about the vision uh that they had for the property. That was kind of step one was to really understand what they were trying to accomplish on the property and the different components and the vision that they had for it. um at that time was an opportunity where we came in and we helped them uh start to understand the constraints of the property um the different features on the property starting with some of the things that Troy spoke about in detail the topography conditions how this site slopes from one side to the other where that ridge line is on the center portion of the site. So um starting with a survey of the property um there was a full topographic survey that was prepared boundary survey again just really trying to hone in and understand the different constraints even though we are very early in this process and I know David alluded to this earlier on uh during the initial presentation as well. We are very early in this process. Um we are going to go through the full seeker environmental review process including the preparation of a DEIS. That was something that was uh discussed early on. We're not coming in looking for a neg or anything. We are coming through getting a or requesting a positive declaration and we'll be initiating that secret process if this board does decide to do so where we will be going through that full environmental process. So regardless of the fact that we're really early in this process, it was important to gather this information and to really understand those constraints so that the site plan that was put in front of this board was a plan that was well thought out that respected those environmental constraints on the property. We've heard a lot about wetlands and water courses and different features on the property on other applications tonight. Those are

things that we've already started to dive into that will be further expanded in the DEIS process. there will be you know sections of the DEIS that will be dedicated to that but it was important that even during this initial phase we start to identify those uh environmental features on the property. So understanding where the water courses are, how they traverse the property, where they're located centrally, uh, on the different areas. Again, all of that will evolve as we go through this process, but it was important to start identifying those. And that's what really led to the layout that's before you. As Troy has indicated, uh, the idea is to respect a lot of the natural features that are on the property, the existing buildings, the roadways, even the access points. Um, the current access to this property comes off of Sleepy Hollow Road. It's right about center along the perimeter of the property there, and you can see it right along the middle of the uh page. That's the existing driveway. The the plan as currently proposed will utilize that existing driveway. It will follow the exact location as it comes up to uh what will ultimately be the clubhouse. Um, the driveway will have to be improved. There would be some modifications that may be needed to accommodate fire access and things like that, but maybe I'll step away. That help me.

Um, you It's me. It's me. Okay. You don't have a phone in your pocket. Do I have a phone? I do have a phone in my pocket. I know. Okay. I'll try that. Try it.

Try it. See if it works. Um, so again, just back to the access. I'm just going to step back and I have a loud voice and I can speak up. Um, the access to the property is central on the property and like we were indicating before, um, that driveway will continue to be utilized and we'll be able to do some improvements to that. That access will also provide access to the residential portion of the property that you see kind of central a little bit towards the eastern side of the property. That's where a majority of the single family homes would be located. Um David alluded to the fact that we are proposing the cluster subdivision. Um the zoning uh the R40 zoning district, the single family residential homes that are shown on the property right now do not conform to the R40 zoning district requirements. We're proposing lots that are a little bit smaller, a little bit more consolidated and to a very specific area of the site that they can be situated working with the topography and the natural land features are there. So that's where you can see the residential that's situated there. What David alluded to before as well is just demonstrating that we have the ability to have a zoning compliant residential subdivision with those R40 zoning district requirements. So, and this is something we've spoken about in other applications with this board as well. We've already evaluated the property to look at if we were to develop this property as a zoning compliant single family subdivision, how many lots could be constructed on the property respecting the natural conditions, the wetlands, the water courses, steep slopes, different areas, all of that. And it is significantly more than the 75 that is currently being proposed. Again, just the detail that will be further vetted out as we go through the DEIS process, but again, it was important just to acknowledge it and let the board know that this is something that was being considered in the development of

this plan. So, when you see the 75 single family homes, there was a thought process that went into that on where they're situated and the number of lots that are being proposed right now, too. Um, Steve, uh, the access we spoke about quickly You want me? Okay, I'll keep going. Keep going.

Okay, the um slopes and grading. Again, we spoke about that and how the site has been designed with the different plateaus um uh respecting those natural conditions, the golf course being laid out in a way that works with those natural conditions on the property there. Thank you. Um so that is again something we'll dive into in a lot more detail as we get into the environmental review process. But again, these things were considered as we went through this process. Drainage, we jumped into drainage as well, making sure we understood the drainage patterns. Uh, Mr. Chairman, you've mentioned it several times. Obviously, um, you know, we know flooding is a concern within the municipality as it is throughout Westchester County. Um, these are things that we look at on a regular basis with these individual projects that we study. Um, we have zoning requirements, we have code requirements, we have state requirements that we have to comply with. There's consideration that's been built into the plan already identifying areas where we have storm water management features, areas that would be dedicated to that. Again, just that initial planning to make sure that the concept that is before you right now considers these different features that need to be incorporated into the plan. And then finally, water and sewer is another thing that we started to dive into as well. We need to service the property. This is actually located within the Briercliffe Water District. It's in the town of Mount Pleasant, but the Brier Cliff Water District is what services this property. We've already initiated conversations with them to talk about how service would be brought into this property. We've already initiated conversations with Westchester County regarding sanitary sewer. again early in the process but just trying to understand the different constraints that we are ultimately uh need to consider throughout the development of this. So I'm going to at that point unless there's any questions that are specific on the site plan itself we're going to jump to the town actions which I believe I'm going to turn it over to

Peter now uh and he'll take you through uh that portion of it there.

Good evening. Um, my name is Peter Fau. I'm with the planning firm AKRF. We are going to be helping Southworth with the planning, the environmental review, uh, the environmental analysis, and that includes preparing the seeker documentation, um, as well. So, stepping back just a little bit and and as David and Diego said, the there are a number of actions that are required for this project to move forward. The first and foremost is the approval of the subdivision. Right now the the property um is two lots. It's being proposed to be subdivided into 65 different lots. Right? So you will have the golf course, you will have the residences, you will have the amenity core, you will have the roadways, the maintenance areas. So first and foremost, this is a cluster subdivision application. We're then seeking special permit approval for a membership club. With that special permit, we'll then be seeking a site plan approval for the club itself. So, the golf course, the amenity core, and those facilities in conjunction with that site plan approval and the subdivision approval, there will be wetlands and steep slopes permits as well. So, those are the primary actions. As David um alluded to, we also have a zoning amendment application into the town board. And that zoning amendment does uh three major things. First,

into the zoning board. Correct. To the town board. To the town board. Okay.

So, we're requesting the town board make minor text amendments to the town zoning code. And those there are three amendments that we're seeking and they're all to the um special permit that is required for membership clubs. So currently the town permits membership clubs in the R40 and R10 districts. However, as David said, the the limiting factor right now is that a membership club needs to be organized as a notfor-profit entity. Not sure why, but that's how it was. probably because most membership clubs were not for-profit entities when the zoning was written. We're requesting that that designation be removed. It's still a membership club. It's the exact same characteristics. It's just this would be operated for profit. The second piece of the zoning amendment is to allow discretion on the layout of the golf course. So there is some language in the current special permit requirements about um the proximity of a line drawn between the T and the green and roadways and probably very well-intentioned but it you know as you saw our site kind of squiggles a lot and we need a little flexibility. So, what we're asking is that the town board permit the planning board during its review of the subdivision site plan special permit to vary those standards if they deem it appropriate. The third piece is we're asking the um the town board to modify is the parking requirements. Um currently the parking requirements for membership clubs are one space per member. It really hinges then on how you define a member. There will be several different classes of members and they don't all need a parking space all the time. Um that's just not how these clubs operate. So again, what we're asking for in the text amendment is to give the

planning board the authority to review this specific application and within the special permit identify the parking that's required for this particular membership club based on information we have to provide you. We've got to provide you with the information to let you uh make the determination if there's adequate parking. Be clear that that decision on those text amendments is not done here. Obviously, it's not, but at the town board level, the decision on the text amendments would be done on the town board level. That's correct. Okay, that's correct.

So, as the seeker person, um, what we're asking tonight, right, is is to take the preliminary seeker action. So, before you, we have a site plan, subdivision, and special permit application as well as wetland steep slopes. Those those applications have been filed with your board. We're asking that you classify the that this action as a type one action pursuant to seeker which it is um and declare your intent to be lead agency as you have the preponderance of the um approvals and basically that does as you know it circulates the EAF the application materials to all the involved and interested agencies in order to get some preliminary feedback. Then, as Diego mentioned, we're hoping to come back and begin the EIS process. We know this project's going to require an EIS. So, what we're asking then is in a month or so, we come back, you declare yourself to be lead agency, um, issue a positive declaration formally requiring us to prepare an EIS. We're asking you to require us to prepare an EIS. Not many applicants do. we're asking and then start getting public input on the scope of that EIS. So those are the next steps. Um EIS process really briefly. It's it's comp it seems complicated but it really breaks down into three steps. The first step is preparing a scope. What are we going to study in the EIS? We submit a draft to you. You put it on the website. give it to the public, the agencies. We hear comments on what should be studied. You mark up that scope and you say, "Here's what you're going to study." And that's the first step in the first line of the EIS. Once

you tell us what we have to study, we go study it. We say, "We think we've done it. We give it to you and your consultants. You take a look at it and you say, "You hit 1 35, but you missed 2 46. Go back and fix it." and we go back and forth until you're satisfied that everything you required is in that document. Once that happens, we open it up to public comment and we hear what the public has to say. Then we're required to respond to every substantive comment from the public and every other agency as well as your board in writing. And that's the final environmental impact statement or FIS. From there, it's just a couple more votes on the findings. the site plan, the special permit, and we get into all those nitty-gritty details. So, I basically break it down into three steps and and each of them has opportunities and requirements for public input. And my job is to make sure that uh on behalf of Southworth, we keep this as uh as straightforward and accessible and uh digestible for your board that you're getting the information you need and the public's getting the information they need.

And I can't imagine there'll be any questions, but I'm sure there will be. So, Mr. Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we'd like to do is allow Christian Rockefeller very briefly to just introduce himself and um tell you a bit about the family and the family's involvement here and why they selected Southworth and then we're ready to wrap up.

Mr. Chairman, Mount Pleasant Planning Board, thank you very much for your time. It's an honor to be with you this evening. I believe last month my older brother Steven had the opportunity to introduce himself. My name is Christian Aldrich Rockefeller Senior. As my brother had mentioned last month, uh my siblings and I and our cousin Sebastian Gamina. We grew up on Bedford Road in Mount Pleasant. We went to Mechanical Hills School, graduated from Briercliffe High School. So Mount Pleasant is our home. I currently reside in Mount Pleasant with my wife and three children and it's been very good to to our family. Two of my children's were two of my children were born at Phelps Hospital. So, uh very grateful for everything that the town has done for me and my family. Regarding Fieldwood Farm, as you know, it's a Rockefeller family property. As David alluded to, it's been in the family for over a hundred years. It was a it was the country home of John D. Rockefeller III and Blanchett Rockefeller. My great-grandfather Nelson Rockefeller's older brother, John D. Rockefeller III, they magnificent property. Uh when I was in college, we would do woodwork at the barn of off of Sleepy Hollow Road and the John D. Rockefeller III family on occasion would host the extended family there. So I got to know the property quite intimately for the last 30 years approximately bit longer after Mrs. Rockefeller passed away, their eldest child, Sandra Ferry, Miss Sandra Ferry, was the steward of the property and she kept it pristine, kept it open to the family. And when Miss Ferry, Miss Sandra Ferry, passed away October 24th of 2024, the property was potentially coming up for sale. and

I along with my siblings and cousin Sebastian Gamina worked with the Sandra Ferry Trust and worked with them to try to find a great outcome for the property we care so deeply about and Southworth worked with us. They earned the trust of the Sandra Ferry Trust that they would care for the community, the property, and you have my word. I'm committed to my family, my cousins, the Johnny Rockville, the third branch, Mount Pleasant, and to do everything in our power to make Fieldwood shine, to be a great asset of the community, and to do well by everyone in the town of Mount Pleasant. Thank you very much for your time. We are we are definitely willing to help get a new sound system for the town of Mount Pleasant.

Um we appreciate your time. As I said, this was largely a doover. I don't think you heard anything really different tonight than you heard the first time, but we wanted to make sure that those members of the public I could do this with no mic quite easily.

What? Whatever. In any event, um we we are here simply for one procedural step. Um as you heard from our entire team, we've spent quite a bit of time, months and months, uh putting together the material, meeting with staff, meeting with your outside consultants. This is not something that um was uh done by mere whim. This was something that both our client and the Rockefeller family thought long and hard about and we have come a long way just to get to this point which I would consider the starting gate. I am asking on behalf of uh our team to simply emerge from the starting gate and ask that you designate your intent to be the lead agency and circulate to the other involved and interested agencies. you will be guided on that by Pat um in terms of to whom it needs to be uh circulated to as uh as you heard from Peter. We would then come back after the requisite uh 30-day period elapses and you would then be in a position to actually formally become lead agency. That's the only thing we're asking you to do tonight to allow us to begin a process that's going to take some time and effort and we look forward to working with you on that.

Okay. Thank you. Um any questions or comments from board members? Would we declare at this time that it's a type one? Say our intent to as lead agency of this type one action. Okay. And then after the 30 days, that's when the town board makes their decision on the text amendment. Let me just you have to complete the secret process before they can act on the text amendment. Okay. Okay. Because the because the text amendment is a technical action under SRA. We can't ask them to vote on that until we go through this process. I get it. Then it would be doing that for this. I

But it's one of the reasons why we met with them at the outset of this whole thing. Okay. Okay. Any any other comments or questions? No. With that being said, the record show no additional questions or comments. Um, what is the prevailing thought from the board? I'd like to make a motion that we declare our intent to serve as lead agency for this type one action environmental review. Motion from Eileen. Second it. Second from Steve Walter. Hi. Jean I. Eileen I. Steve

I and a nay for me. Thank you all. We will be back at the end of the 30 days. Very good to see you then. Thank you very much.

Okay, next up. Next, I propose uh where are we now? Here we are. Seven. Thank you. We're we're we're an OT now. Graan View Farms major subdivision three lots into 16 S single family residential lots and one conservation lot application PSD 26 location Washurn Avenue cliff man section block lot numbers 98.11-2-37 3839 zone R40 I'm sorry what was that I'm sorry ma'am what's that I'm sorry you get your question

I'm sorry all right thank you owner and applicant infinity prior cliff LLC engineer architect Rory Frederickson PE. Okay, thank you for coming out tonight.

Thank you. Uh good evening members of the board. Greg Ketchupi, uh consulting engineer for Elite Land Design, uh here to present uh the project at Grand View Farms. Uh the property was previously before the board many years ago. Uh believe in 2006 to 2012. Uh it went through a review. It was approved. uh it was approved with access uh through here to Charleston I believe uh and uh long story short I'm sure u Mr. Clear will be able to explain in more detail uh it was litigated that uh the roadway couldn't cross through open space on that end of the site and uh the subdivision could no longer go through. So, we are here back uh we're back here with modifications that eliminate that roadway that was previously an issue uh for the subdivision with the the same subdivision uh that was previously approved. Uh it did go through an intensive uh environmental review. Uh we it it received um the FEIS was accepted the environmental impact statement and uh there was a a determination letter that was provided back in 2012. Uh we did our best to uh show you how the plan is consistent with that plan that was reviewed over the six years. Uh all the environmental aspects, traffic, uh steep slopes, uh etc. and we're just here to reintroduce the project, put it before you for the first time.

Okay. Any questions or comments, board members? The application didn't include the what was originally approved. Pat, your letter was very, you know, went through it, but is there any chance we could see what was I don't know if anybody on this board was and what we'll make available is the environmental impact statement, the findings that were done for Taconic Track. So, you have all of that information. So if they if they if they had the original application and didn't change anything, they wouldn't need to come before us. No. Well, so it's changed. So it would have to be modified in any event. So that's what's before you, the modification to the plan. But if I guess my question is if they never changed anything,

if they didn't change anything and they had approved, so the problem was the final approval was challenged in court and the connection to to Char to Carlton was removed was eliminated from that. Okay. So, the plan was sort of in limbo. They would have to Yeah, absolutely. So, I'm I'm trying to trying to I'm trying to see the comparison between then and now. So, so that so that's the issue that's before you now to compare then and now. So, they went through a full environmental analysis. I looked at it. Thank you. You have to redo that analysis. Oh, I know this well. Yeah.

So, Mr. Chairman, you have to redo the analysis. Your conclusion may be everything's the same or it may be that things have changed since the prior application and they and you have to re-evaluate those things. So, for example, the traffic implications are different now. There's only a single means of access into the property as opposed to the two means that were previously proposed and challenged through the litigation. So, that's different. You have to evaluate that. Okay. So, so this is not a rubber stamp and simply the filing of a building permit to do. I was just wondering why we open the box again. it they've they're they have the box has been caused to be opened again. Okay. So, it's open. Okay. All right. Understood.

So, so all what they're doing tonight is the same thing prior application was doing. You can designate lead agency to begin the process all over. And there's there's no there's no zoning text amendments or anything like that. No zoning text amendments which is a little different than before. And and there's history here that you can utilize to the extent it's relevant. So if we declare ourselves lead agency and your letter indicated that the current proposal improves many aspects of the previous pro uh project um we're we would declare our intent to be lead agency for this. I mean, if if the if the former

before you the modified subdivision, so it's for this subdivision, but we're not determining that an EIS is required again at this point. Not at all. So, you will make that determination moving forward. Um, but not yet. All you're doing first and absolutely and the applicant is I think the applicant has shared with you, they've provided a little sort of chart comparing private um previous impacts to current impacts. We have to dig into those particularly the the traffic impacts and impacts like visual impacts and so forth. It's a little bit different. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Maybe we don't need to sell past the storm then sell past the sale. This is pretty administrative.

So you can you can start the process again tonight by designating. Okay. Any final questions, comments or board members? We can go right into the vote. Are we declaring our intent to be lead agent or Oh yes. Yep. Okay. Does that sound like a motion? Then I would make the motion that the board declare its intent to be lead agency for the not to lead you, but I felt let's let's get this second. Steve Walter, hi Jean. Hi. Eileen I Steve. Hi. And I for me. All right. That's good. Thank you very much. Yes.

Well, this is not a public hearing. So, so um thank you very much. We want to hear from you and we will hear from you I'm sure during the process but definitely you can write us tomorrow or tonight to to staff. Okay. Good night everybody. Good night. Good night. Thank you very much. Make a motion to close the meeting. We should technically technically technically