Planning Board - Regular Meeting

We can start it.

okay thank you for coming out tonight on this hot day and the day before big fireworks tomorrow down in Valhalla and 4th of July over the weekend so I know this is a tough tough time to come out but thank you for coming out it doesn't work without people showing up so welcome to the town Mount Pleasant planning board meeting we're going to regularly scheduled for July 2nd 2026 7 30 p.m First up, we're missing a couple board members. We're missing John Piazza, J.D. Suma, and Jane Abate. Everybody else is present. Just do a little record of attendance. Okay, first up on the agenda adoption of adoption of resolution of approval for site plan application PSP 25 dash 9 for the demo of existing buildings construction of a new multi use building with 12 proposed dwelling units. One office space to commercial retail spaces in a rear parking lot with 70 parking spaces for 23 for 29 Commerce Street Hawthorne 1, 1, 2, 1, 1, 12. Dot 5 dash 1 dash 27 and 28 owners 423 Commerce Street 429 Commerce Street LLC. OK. Any questions or comments on that adoption or that resolution. With the prevailing sentiment of being no. What is the pleasure of the board.

Adoption of the resolution of approval. Seconded.

Motion from Arlene a second from Steve. Walter. Aye. Steve? Aye. And an aye from me. Okay. Next up, minutes from the 6-15-2026 planning board meeting. Any questions or comments on those minutes?

No. Move adoption of the meeting minutes.

Motion from Eileen.

I'll second it.

Second from Steve. Walter?

Aye.

Eileen. Aye. Steve. Aye. And an aye from me. And finally, 2-4 Summerlin Lane, update an application determination on scheduling a public hearing for subdivision application PSD 26-1 for the proposed lot modification from filed map 223429. That's Summerlin Lane. That was before us a few weeks back.

It was. All the issues were addressed, Mr. Chairman, and for whatever reason, we never scheduled a public hearing. So the court request is to schedule a public hearing.

Can I just ask a couple questions about that, even in the absence of the applicant? I went through the materials, and I couldn't see what – the existing lots are nonconforming, right? Okay. Because when I – because they're still nonconforming. Right. One, will they need variances? OK. And two, I felt like we were creating a lot that squishes the new lot to the back and will force any house that gets built there to be on steep slopes, whereas in its current configuration, There's a level area where they could put a house without needing much, you know, steep slope impact.

Yeah, so they've demonstrated that they can. They have a spot for a house that's not in the regulated steep slopes, but it comes back for a building permit for a steep slope permit or from you for a steep slope permit if they need it.

Also, they would pick up a little bit more building area if that rear yard setback, that 50-foot rear yard setback, was on the other side. And since they have frontage on two streets, if they moved it, you know, so that their frontage, we could do something like that.

You have every opportunity to do that moving forward. It was simply that the material was suitable for public hearing. You haven't rendered a decision whether the plot line is appropriate yet.

Okay. Thank you. So then we want to make a motion too.

Yes, we're ready for a motion if that's the pleasure of our board.

I will make a motion to schedule a public hearing on the lot line adjustment.

Motion from Eileen.

I'll second it.

Second from Steve. Walter? Aye. Eileen? Aye. Steve? Aye. An aye from me. Okay, next up is a new public hearing. This is where we can hear from the public. And we have to waive the reading of the public notice for 420 Nantahangan Road. Is that a motion? So moved. Motion from Eileen. Seconded. Second from Steve. Walter. Aye. J.D. J.D., I'm going through my list here. Eileen. Aye. Steve. Aye. And aye from me. Okay, so it's 429 Higgins Road. Amend previous subdivision approval for subdivision application PSD 24-1. One lot into two lots for the purpose of developing a new single family dwelling. Amendment include a change to water service as prescribed by the Western County Board of Health. Application subdivision PSD 24-1. Location 420 Nantahagan Road, Thornwood, New York. Section block lot number is 107.17-2-16. Zone R40, owner and applicant Nantahagan 420 LLC. Architect Spearman, architectural design, PC. Attorney Phillip Rimaldi. Welcome. Welcome, thank you for coming out tonight.

Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

Okay, so we're here for the public. We've heard your talk before, so let's just be prepared to talk to the public because this is what we're here for. And for the public, if you'd like to move up closer and hear what's going on, feel free to move up. Okay, let's jump into what we're doing for this 420 landing road.

I was just going to say we're here to answer any questions, like you said. Sorry, Robert Palfamante, applicant, Manhattan 420 LLC. We're here to address any questions. As you mentioned, this is a change from the original subdivision approval for a water main down Davidson Drive. We've submitted Work plan to the board as well as a letter Identifying how this could be done safely right and maintain access for the neighbors I won't go into everything but some of the key points are limiting the open trench to two feet wide but 20 feet long at a time Maintaining roll plates on the side of the trench Providing certified flaggers, all staging, all spoils, all material to be on new lot two, nothing to be stored on Davidson Drive.

So do you have a picture or a map or something to show what we're doing?

So last summer I was here, I had the 11 by 17 map of the 300 feet of the water main. I mean, I have it here. I didn't

Well, I'm just saying it's for the public. So, you know, they're here. I'm not sure what they know or do not know. So maybe we can speak to it at this point, but it's just always preferable to kind of have something to look at when we go through these deliberations. Okay, so you're putting in a water main because when you came before us before, the County Board of Health, you had a little problem with them, right?

So they state if you're within a water district, you can't have a drinking. Well, you have to connect to the water main and we are in a water district. However, the town water main that services our property for 29 Hagan Road and five and six Davidson Drive isn't large enough to connect an additional house to for new lot to. So we went through the process of doing a water main upgrade application. That water main upgrade application was signed off on and approved by Town of Mount Pleasant Engineering. It's actually on behalf of Town of Mount Pleasant, but us doing the engineering, as well as Westchester County Department of Health. But of course, since it pertains to a subdivision, we're here to prove that it can be done safely and efficiently. And in our letter, I want to be clear. We do say it's affecting two single family houses. Right. For approximately nine days. Right. And that is absolutely not to if it was affecting one house for one day, we believe it's important, but it's important to put it into perspective, the scope and duration of the work and how many houses it's affecting, right? So it's a 300 foot long trench, two feet wide that we're only opening 20 feet at a time for approximately nine days, which includes testing. So some of those testing days may not even have it open. So I just want to be clear that when we said that in our letter, it's not that it's unimportant how many people it's affecting, it's just to put the scope into perspective.

Okay. Any questions from board members?

So you're extending, you're doing a trench and you're extending a main that's a suitable size.

So I'm sorry, but the main is there. We're just putting it right next to it. This way, the disruption to water service is minimal to just the connection point. So the existing main is there. We're putting a six inch one right next to it for only about half, only 300 feet of it. tying the existing main into the back of it and tying it into Nantahagan Road. That increased size allows us to connect one more house.

So the other houses off of Davis, they won't tie into the new line that you're putting in or they will?

Their existing service from their house will still come to the existing line and then we'll tie into our larger line about halfway down Davidson Drive, maybe a little more.

And can you describe the difference between what you're currently proposing and what the planning board approved?

Absolutely. So the lot itself, right, lot lines, everything to do with the lot and the subdivision remain the same. Exactly the same. The only change is the water service. So previously there was a well on the property. Now there's a water line running up from our property to Davidson Drive and connecting to that water main. But the difference is that water main was undersized. So we're upgrading it to Manahegan Road.

Thank you.

Any other questions from board members? So one of the big questions I think that was out there was during the construction of the water main, how are the people on Davis? And I know you did some thinking on that and I saw some of it. So can you just sort of enumerate what you're doing?

Yeah, absolutely. So, uh, first of all, uh, I don't want to call it a concession, right? But constructability wise, we're only opening 20 feet at a time, which is two road plates, right? Those could be put back onto the trench quickly. It's two feet wide, but 20 feet long to real place can be put back quickly. This trench is fairly small. It does not call for some huge excavator right at the biggest size, like a 13,000 pound excavator, right? That could be, uh, put the road plates back on very quickly. We likened it in our letter to a red light, a standard red light. So if someone had to come in and out, the road plates go back on, the exterior pulls aside, people go in and out. Other, like I said, certified flaggers to get the cars through. Actually had some notes here. Once again, I said this before, but it is important. Right. It is a fairly narrow road. Right. So the fact that we have new lot to write and we own it and that all the spoils, right, all the pipe, all the material could be stored there. Right. So the dump truck and excavator sit back to back. Right. And if something Someone had to come through right the dump truck pulls right onto new lot to which is Circa 200 feet away right the road plates go back on the excavator pulls to the side. That's really important to know How we could allow traffic back back and forth how we could store all the spoils all the material they have a dump truck and allow traffic and But by limiting the length of the trench, by limiting the size of the excavator, by limiting any storage at all, by employing certified flaggers, that's really all a 24-hour number, right? Of course, if there's ever any issues for neighbors to call.

So let me just walk with you. So I live on Davidson, and I want to get down there. So I have to wait for some truck to move for me to get past it to get back down to my house. Is that correct?

That's correct. So the dump truck, when the excavations happening, which is not for the full duration, right. But in the event that the excavations happening, right, which is the main disruption, right, the dump truck would pull right onto new lot to which, like I said, is a couple 100 feet away, it takes no time at all. The road plates would be pushed on to two road plates, we pushed onto the trench, and the excavator move move to the side and they would, they would pull on to in and out of their property. Okay.

Could we limit the time of that type of activity to not during rush hour when people are heading out to work or, you know?

I think absolutely. You know, listen, I'll say there's no secret, right? This has been contentious with the neighbors. You know, I'm a contractor in town. I would say in normal situations they would have, you know, a cell phone number to say we're leaving our house in five minutes, right? I'm just saying, like, a normal situation. This, unfortunately, is not going that way, but we can limit the time, right? We could start a little bit later, whether, you know, normal start time, say, 8 o'clock. We could certainly start at 9 o'clock. We're open to suggestions like that.

But there's also the potential for emergency situations, right, with ambulance and fire. Right. So we have to think about that, too, because if an ambulance needs to get down to one of the homes on Davidson, and now we have to wait for this truck to move, those minutes can create a problem for the person that's being rescued or helped.

Right. So I think for emergency vehicles, first of all, it can be pulled back on very quickly. I understand every second would count in an emergency situation. Let's think realistically, in case of a fire, of course we would know about that and the road plates would be on. way before any volunteer fire truck arrived. In the case of an ambulance, I believe police or Westchester EMS would show up first and the road plates would be deployed once again in 90 seconds is what we say in our letter. For emergency vehicles, I think we would know about the emergency. We would be able to put the road plates back. Also, we're not depending on this, but It's a two-foot-wide trench, right? So emergency vehicles with train drivers and with flaggers, if needed, I strongly believe could navigate. You know, an emergency vehicle is 20 feet long, so it's essentially the length of the trench, right? And resubmitted wheelbases in excess of six feet, right, from inside to six feet. So if needed, I think there would be a backup plan in a very, very unknown quick emergency, which, you know, I honestly don't see, but is an option for that. But, you know, in reality, a fire we would know about, even an ambulance situation, you know, there would be police or AMS first that would allow us to get these road plates back in plenty of time.

Okay. Any other questions?

For the trench, are you going to saw cut that? How are you opening that up?

Absolutely. So all that saw cutting could happen ahead of time, right, for the entire trench to limit, like Eileen said, you know, the disruption of digging. Saw cutting doesn't disrupt anything. You could drive over a saw cut road, of course. So we could do all that ahead of time and really try and limit the actual excavation activities.

I think you're describing a situation that's not unlike, you know, all of us wait at flaggers all the time around town for construction going on, whether it's tree trimming or, you know, utility work that we have to wait until, you know, it's okay to pass.

Yeah, so I would agree. And this situation is, like I said, with the two-row plate situation and limiting, like I said, I don't want to call it a concession, right? But let's be honest. If I was doing this the most efficient way as a contractor and really think about only cost, we would open this whole trench up, right? You'd have dirt everywhere. You'd never be able to get down the road.

How wide is Davidson?

Those pictures are good.

It's double the width of the car in this one.

Fifteen feet?

Yeah, we measured 16 but.

When you actually get 20 feet, install your pipe, then are you backfilling or the trench stays open and that remains plated, then you do another 20 feet where you connect your pipe.

That's correct.

So at some point you're going to have the whole excavation covered with roadway plates.

Correct. Because due to testing requirements, I don't think we'd be able to fully backfill and temporarily restore. We'd have to temporarily restore without road plates. So I don't think that's an option. But eventually, the 300 feet would be completely road plated.

And these plates get pinned at the end of the work shift?

We certainly can pin them and do a cold patch to make sure there's around that.

And if they shift, there's an emergency number that the police or somebody can reach out and then you respond within a certain time frame.

100%. So we in our plan, we offered the 24 hour number for anything such as emergencies or access or anything like that. We didn't offer exactly the time response, but it would certainly be be timely, especially if it was a safety condition.

Does the new main go right down the middle of the street?

For all intents and purposes, it's not down the middle. It's off to the side. We just have to avoid the existing utilities, because there is sewer and water down the street. So it's a little bit off to the side. But the road plate would need to be put back on to pass.

And can I add another question?

No, go ahead.

I'm just still thinking this through as to... And how do we restore the street back to where it's original?

Right. So that'll certainly come up, I'm sure, tonight. Yeah. It is our position right now that the trench itself needs to be restored to full depth standard, you know, one foot wing back, you know, you know, full depth asphalt restoration. Right. It's not a town on road. I know town requires curb to curb. But as far as, you know, it's we've been told that nauseam that it's not a town road.

So are you going to just cut to the chase? You're going to pave the entire road? Are you going to pave just where you dug up?

Right now, the proposal is to pay full debt what we dug up. If that needs to be altered, if there's a concession to make people happy, we can entertain that. But we feel like that's what we're doing.

Why would we not do that right from the beginning? Because if we think that's going to be a better experience for the neighbors, why would we not just do that right from the beginning? Because here's the thing. You're going to be digging up the road, trenching it out, And now the integrity of that street is now compromised because now we have deferring asphalt and a cut in the asphalt and it doesn't look clean like it does today.

It is in poor shape today and we can offer mill and pave for the sides of the trench, full depth asphalt at the trench and mill and pave for the remainder if that is something that needs to be offered.

Now that's something I don't know a lot about like and I think Pat like if we were to pave the entire road the only thing I do know is that not all asphalt is the same.

So what we normally have is applicant indicated. We would require on our roads, curb to curb, town standard improvements. That's the standard. It's a private road, so there's a little distinction with respect to that. But I think if the applicant's agreeing to meet our roadway standards, that would be what we would do. Curb to curb, town standard improvements.

Typically in highway construction, roadway, street construction, depending on the depth of the excavation and the quality of the compaction, you get settlement. So for some time after the street is left alone, it's allowed to consolidate on its own with traffic. Then the contract comes back, takes out all the temp asphalt, And then repays. Is that your plan as well? Or are you just going to put finish it and then six months later, these people are going to be going down the street, giving their shock absorbers a run for their money?

Yeah, so that's certainly not a plan, right? Let's be honest, right? I'm going to be trying to sell a brand new lot on that same street with a driveway, right? So that's the last thing I would want as well. My plan right now is proper compaction, binder, right, you know, and top, you know, as per standard full depth asphalt. I'm not going to lie, I'm not an expert on what exactly happens. I know proper compaction. I know binder. I know all that stuff. If it needs to sit for a while, whatever the standard is that needs to be in the resolution, we're open to that. Like I said, I'm used to proper compaction, binder, and top.

So, Walter, what we would normally do if this were a public road is there would be a bond that would be posted to ensure that the road is satisfactory. This is a private road, so we wouldn't have the same ability to impose a public bond. However, the applicant could agree to bond in case or provide remedy if that were the case. So there's a way to negotiate that.

So we protect the town by requiring it to be done side by side. So if we don't do it in this case, then we're passing on that future expense to the people who are by or in on that maintenance agreement. OK.

Once again, I want to be clear, you know, maybe we weren't clear on it now, but in terms of a resolution when hopefully we get to that, we're certainly open to what that looks like. I mean, I, I bond and, you know, like I said, I'm a contractor, I bond the stuff all the time. So I'm able to do that. Um, if that is something that should be in the resolution and makes everyone happy.

Okay. Any other questions for board members? Going once, going twice, going three times. OK. So hold on. We have a public hearing. So that means we're here for the public to talk. So if the public would like to speak, just raise your hand. We'll give you a number. And if you have a number you can speak. If you don't have a number, you can't speak. So we'll start off with number one, the guy in the suit. Number two, number three, number four, number five. OK. You guys work it out. everybody will get up. And I have to say, anybody wearing a suit, I said to Mr. Cleary the same thing. I give you credit on a day like today. Mr. Grimaldi, you as well.

Uniform, I guess.

Three pages here. I apologize.

Good evening, Chairman and members of the board. My name is Michael Sheridan, attorney with Snyder and Snyder, the attorneys for Gerard and Mary Ann Pagelo, owners of 6 Davidson Drive, which is at the end of Davidson Drive on the opposite of Nantahagan Road. Here tonight in connection with the amended application filed by the applicant. First, I just want to mention to the extent that... This board is concerned about the public hearing. For some reason, the notices for this hearing were mailed from North Carolina. They took a little while to get here. I will say that my client did receive it, but received it yesterday. My understanding is that some people may not have even received it yet, and that to the extent people received it yesterday or the day before, as the chairman mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, it is a holiday weekend. It's also over 100 degrees, which may have prevented people from showing up who have an interest. I don't know that, but it is a possibility. I just hope that Board keeps that in mind, perhaps keeping the public hearing open. to the next meeting to allow people who are perhaps not in town on this holiday weekend and only receive notices at some point this week to be able to come and give their comments. I also want to mention, I believe I mentioned last time I was here, there is ongoing litigation with this application and one of the reasons The ongoing litigation is in connection with whether this should be an amended subdivision or restarted subdivision. Because as this board is hopefully aware, as I discussed last time and in my letters to this board, the approval resolution that this board provided to the applicant back in the beginning of 2025 expired. There is a provision in your code. There is a provision in New York State Town Law that allows for, and there is a provision, I believe, even in your approval resolution that allows for the applicant to seek extensions to its subdivision approval. The applicant did not seek any extensions within the time that the subdivision approval was valid, which was 180 days. Specifically, condition one of your subdivision approval says within 180 days, they shall submit the final subdivision plat. They did not do that. They did not seek any extensions. Courts have found that if you don't meet the condition within that time or request the extensions, which I understand requesting the extensions is a fairly quick process. I've seen it on other applicants do it on your agendas. I've been here for some meetings where it's happened. It's usually a quick turnaround. That wasn't done. The application, as far as we're concerned, has expired, which means they need to start again. This should not be an amended subdivision application. This should be a new subdivision application. And you should have to go through the process again for everything.

And that's in the courts, right?

That is in the courts.

The courts can do their thing and...

Well, they can, but we would ask this board to refrain from making any determination until the court's made its determination because then you could have the case where there is conflicting determinations, one by this board, one by the court, if you approve the amended subdivision and the court says, no, it's expired, then we have conflicting approvals out there, conflicting determinations. So we would request that this board not proceed and make a determination until such time as the court has had its time to come to its conclusion. Second thing I'd like to mention is that which was not mentioned by the applicant, is that now that there's a water main being put in, there's going to be some disturbance to a existing wetland. There is a stream that is identified as a federally regulated wetland that crosses 412 Nannyhagen Road and then actually crosses 420 towards the front. and drains down towards the kensco river uh reservoir this is um now something that is going to be uh something that they're going to be disturbing that this board needs to take a look needs to take a view a secret review a hard look to make sure that um one that it's not gonna that the disturbance is not gonna uh impact the wetland in any negative way uh two if there's any um wetland permits that are needed, either through DEC or local wetland permits, and who's making that review and determination if they provided the information for that. So we would request that this board take the time to review the impact to that wetland, which is, again, on 412 Nanny Hanging Road, and refrain from closing the public hearing or making a determination tonight. Interestingly, on the application that was received for this subdivision amendment at this time, it says on it there are no wetlands located on Lot 2. And whether that's true or not, I'm not going to say. But the wetland that I'm talking about is not located on lot two. It's located again on 412 Nanny Hagan Road, which is the lot that is in front of or between Nanny Hagan Road and where lot two would be. So that is something I would request that this board take a hard look at that before they proceed. We're also in receipt of a letter from Mr. Bufamonte that goes through a few things, some of the things I have already mentioned, but those are other points that I just want to go through, hopefully briefly. And some of the things seem to be false, for lack of a better term, that he indicates. First, in his letter he states that the appropriate parties from DEC were informed about the original subdivision, unclear about that, and have now also been informed about this amended subdivision. That seems to be not true, as my client, Mr. Pagelo, has reached out to DEC himself and received an email this morning which I have copies of if you'd like to see it, from Ashley Johnson, who's a regional attorney for the NYSDEC, and she states that she has not received any permit application or correspondence from the project sponsor for the proposed project. Again, that's from this morning. I also have an email from DEP that Matt gianetta the chief regulatory engineering program division from for nyc dp bureau of water supply, who is interested because it's you know located. The property is located right above the kensington reservoir they own the property adjacent to where a lot to is going to be, he has been in contact with the town engineer. We don't have an indication of how far or what discussions they've had or if there's going to be an issue, if DEP is going to have an issue or require any concessions. So I would say that at this time until the Board, until DEC has been notified properly and until the Board has received the comments and conclusions of the discussions between your town engineer and the DEP that you not close the public hearing and you not make a determination tonight because we'd love to see what comments they have and have the ability to make our own comments at the public hearing in connection with that. Another instance of what appears to be incorrect information is that in his letter, Mr. Bufamante states that the town currently maintains an existing water main within Davidson Drive in substantially the same location as a proposed upgrade. The town does not maintain that water main. That is not a town water main. That is, the main is maintained by the property owners around that property. Pursuant to their deeds, there's a one-third interest in maintaining the road and the water main, and that is 5 Davidson Drive, 6 Davidson Drive, and 412 Nanny Hagen Road. They maintain this water main. It is not a town water main. So there's... no ability for someone, or there should be no ability, for someone outside of those three people to come in and start changing it. It's on 412 Nanny Higgins property. It's owned and maintained by 412 Nanny Higgins, 5 and 6 Davidson Drive. It is not a public water main that somebody could come in and just change. Additionally, this was back in August 5, 2024, your town engineer basically confirmed this when he gave his engineer memo that said, in a review of our records, we're unable to locate the town water utility easement for the water main installation located within for Davidson Drive. It is recommended this easement be secured to the town at this time when an HOA is established for maintenance and operation of a private road. No HOA is currently proposed to be established, and the easement has not, from my knowledge, nobody, 412, 5, or 6, none of them, as my understanding, have been contacted to secure that easement. So your town engineer says that should be done. It hasn't been done. Additionally, even Mr. Buffamante seemed to agree with the town engineer. When in correspondence with the New York State Department of Health, he indicated that based on the deeds and survey, Davidson Drive private road is actually owned by Budding Properties, which is not a private road, but it's a right-of-way easement. But the important part that he gets to is, without a common recorded utility easement for Davidson Drive, Installing a new water main would require extreme difficult and timely legal work to establish this easement. So he admitted to the Westchester County Department of Health that an easement needed to be established in connection with locating the water main on Davidson Drive. Again, there's been no effort made to establish this easement and we're not aware of any easement because it would need to be established with the owners of 412 Nantahagan five Davidson Drive six David to drive the people who are currently in charge or or yeah in charge of maintaining the road and the water main so again we request that this board refrain from making decisions in this matter until sometimes the easement recommended by the town engineer and notice is required by the applicant is obtained by the applicant The construction plan, which Mr. Bufamonte just talked about. Again, in the construction plan, one of the things that is not correct, it says that currently the town of Mount Pleasant currently owns and maintains the water and sewer mains on Davidson Drive. As I just stated, that is not true. Another statement that appears to be false is that he states in his letter that emergency vehicles, ambulance fire apparatus can safely straddle the trench if required. That is what Mr. Bufamonte is saying and it's unclear if he's correct at this time. We had requested that the applicant reach out to the fire department or emergency services to get a determination on whether it is and they can straddle that or they can maneuver it or the plan that is set up in the construction plan is something that's acceptable. to the emergency responders. That appears to have not been done. Mr. Bufamonte in his letter states it's not realistic for service providers to issue advance guarantees regarding access under every possible circumstance. We'll admit that's true, not every possible circumstance. We're not looking for every possible circumstance, just the likely circumstances. And I think the first responders can determine what the likely circumstances are as they do this on a regular basis. What Mr. Bruvimonte seems to be saying is that because the fire department will not comment on every possible circumstance, they shouldn't be consulted at all. We disagree. We think the first responders need to be consulted, need to be brought in, and need to confirm that the construction plan is something that they can work with and that will be acceptable to them in the event of emergency. Mr. Buffamante says, we believe emergency access can be safely maintained. And we disagree. We believe that first responders should make that determination. In fact, My client, Mr. Pagelo, recently reached out to Thomas Owen, chief of the Thornwood Fire Company, who indicated that he did not have a copy of anything, but including the construction plan, and indicated to Mr. Pagelo that the Board of Fire Commissioners meets on July 8th, and he would do his best. to try and raise it with the Board of Fire Commissioners at that time. So again, we would request that this board not close the public hearing and not make a decision tonight until such time as first responders, fire department, police, ambulance can give its opinion on the matter. Additionally, This code section, this town's code section A227-8D requires notification of the substance of the proposed use to be provided for an application. Those notifications need to go to fire, fire protection district having jurisdiction, which we confirmed that they didn't get notification, water district, sewer district, sanitation, town supervisor, a list of things that I think when we originally did this, that was not provided initially. And it was something we had to force the applicant to send out those notifications so at this time to the extent they weren't done which upon our information and belief they weren't done that we would request this board require the applicant to send out those notifications pursuant to the code almost done a couple more pages um another thing is an update a couple more pages an updated survey uh the the underlying survey for this we mentioned this before but we think it's important the underlying survey for the property is over 20 years old That is two decades worth of not having a survey. Circumstances change on properties. Nobody knows exactly what's changed. What T.C. Merritt provided was a map. What T.C. Merritt said on its map was, this is a map that's based on a survey 20 years ago. Section 8227-31-A3 states, provides that a preliminary plot shall include the location of all existing structures plus an accurate topography no more than two feet. Moreover, the topographical data shall be determined by field survey. The field survey is similar to which was similar to a Survey that we're asking for also the Mount Pleasant website the planning board application requires an updated survey on your own web page This planning board has requested an updated survey Hasn't received one still is dealing with one. That's 20 years old The one of the final things I want to talk about is there's several deficiencies In the application itself I mentioned one of them before another one is And near the bottom of page one, the subdivision application, the application, the applicant answered yes, indicating their existing easements or covenants present. And they will either remain or new CNRs are proposed. In connection with that, the subdivision application requires, if yes, attach copies. No copies were attached. It's unclear what and I'm curious myself what easements or covenants they were talking about. So I would request that this board require the applicant to provide whatever easements or covenants they were talking about so we have time to review them and if need be respond, comment on them. So that is one of the things that I think was missing from their application. So just to summarize, this matters before the court because it's our opinion that this application is expired. They would need to do a new application. Seeker obligations, we would like you to take a hard look at how they are impacting a stream that crosses 412 Nannyhagen Road. The board and its consultants need to communicate with DEC and DEP. to the extent that anything's required. They should make sure that that is completed. This board needs to obtain copies of any local or state wetland permit to the extent it's required. The applicant needs to provide those easements. The board needs to obtain confirmation writing from emergency services, fire, police, and ambulance that all emergency service vehicles, including the vehicles of volunteer fire department personnel, because that's my understanding when I see volunteer fire department show up. It's not always the big truck. Sometimes it's a car, several cars that show up first. They need to be able to straddle that or mark the road as well. That this board obtain an updated survey and that... they receive an amended application from the applicant or actually, in our opinion, a new application that corrects all the deficiencies. So we would ask that at the end of tonight's meeting, this board not close a public hearing, this board keep it open so that all those deficiencies and additional information can be compiled by this board, reviewed by this board, sent out to the public that is interested in this application so they have time to review it and come to comment on it. There's a lot, a lot of information that we still don't have yet, a lot of unanswered questions, and we feel like we need time to review and respond to all of it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Okay, so that was number one. Number two. Welcome. Thank you for coming out. Just grab the mic and do your thing. Good evening, Mr. Chairman.

My name is Carmine Iannacchino. These are my two sisters. We are the owners of 412 Nannyhagen Road. I want to give you a little history about Nannyhagen Road. I shouldn't say Nannyhagen, about Davidson Drive. Mr. Buffamonte mentioned a lot of things to you about the trench that he's going to dig, how 300 feet of it is going to be roughly the length. Well, what he didn't mention to you, unfortunately, is that 200 feet of that sits on our property. We own the road. You can call it a private road. You can call it whatever you want. It's a right of way. it's basically an elaborate little driveway to give access to five and six okay our home faces nanahagen road that's why we have the 412 address but some 200 feet of that is on our property the whole road is on our property now we do split the costs for the maintenance So I don't know how they can come about and just basically say, you know, we're going to put a home back there and we're going to just build or we're going to just dig wherever we want to dig. We have not been contacted by Mr. Bufamonte. He has not asked for our permission. He has not consulted to us about anything. Certainly hasn't offered any compensation. And when he talks about, well, we're going to just dig and put a pipe in and we're going to patch it. And to your point, we don't want to see a patch. It's a nice clean road. It's private. So again, this is just a right of way. I don't know what kind of information you were fed, but we own the road and we have not given permission for the development to go forward by bringing a water main to our property. I don't know how much more I really need to say. Thoughts, questions?

But they do it for right of way. Can you talk to the right of way?

The right-of-way was, again, so my father, who built the house, was the first home on that property. Deckers Davidson put in that little drive to give access because he wanted to do a little subdivision. Had he wanted to do four homes, there's currently three homes right now. We're one, and then there's two and three in the back. If he wanted to do four, he would have done four back then, but he didn't do that. He was very close with my father, and he used to say, I love my property. There's a pool on his property, and he loved the two-acre lot. They came in, bought the property, and came up with this scheme that said, we're going to carve this up, and we're going to get another home back here. So I don't think that was ever the intent of the original owner, Deckers Davidson. That's just my opinion. So again, my father knew Deckers, and my father was the first home built there. I think the previous attorney mentioned to you, there is a 24-inch pipe that comes from our neighbor from the other side across the road, across our whole property to spill into the stream that eventually goes down to the reservoir. So that's a 24-inch pipe. There's no way it's going to withstand the traffic. of the construction that they're talking about, trailers, machines, backhoes, whatever it might be. So I'm just completely against this whole process. I don't know what they're going to find when they go to dig. First of all, there's a pipe directly underneath the road. Where's this trench going to go? Are they going to go down three feet, four feet? I didn't hear how many feet it was going to be. So, I mean, there is already electricity. There's already water. There's sewer. So there's a lot of things that are already in the road. cable TV, all those things. So I think there's still a lot of questions that have to be answered.

Okay. Okay, anything else?

Yes, I'd like to show you this map real quickly. Perfect, thank you. Okay, so a lot of this comes back to the very origination of all this. The question was, is Davidson Drive a road? Davidson Drive put his name on it because it was his property. It was a cute little idea, Davidson Drive. It rhymed, it was nice. It's nothing more than a driveway, believe me.

What I'd like to show you, this is the town map.

This is this subject highlighted area.

Just do me a favor. Can you grab the mic so they can hear you?

This highlighted area here is the whole property. This is our home here on Nantahagen Road. This is our neighbor to the north. You'll notice, if I may, if I can just put that other piece up. Can you give me that for a second? This has been enlarged. This came right off of the town map. You can see all the other streets in the area, right? Okay. So, again, let me turn this upside down. Let me just put it this way. Here's Nanahegan Road, okay? There's no mention of Davidson Drive because there is no road. It's a driveway. I'm sorry. Keep switching this on you. It's a little confusing, so. Yeah, so here's Valentine. Here's the turn, right here, right? So this represents this diagram below. Okay, here's the subject. So you can see this property The original 420 has access to Nantahagan Road. I still don't understand why they just go directly up their driveway to go get the water main from there. Why do they need to disturb this road here, which is not a road, but we're referring to it as a road. It's a driveway. This is our property right here along Nantahagan Road. There's the 200 feet that we own. He's coming on our property with no notification, no permission, no compensation, nothing. That sounds a little odd to me. how they can proceed with these hearings and just show up one day. Now, my water main, I believe, comes from Nanny Hagan at the time, I don't think, because it just went directly out, because there were no homeless behind us at the time. So it doesn't, I don't think I tie into that, but it's all underneath our road, granted by my father. Any questions?

Any questions?

There is one thing I'd like to add. I think our neighbors, the Pajelos and the Calabros, have received a letter about this meeting. We never received one. We checked the mail just about every day. Certified. Certified. We were never even previous meetings. We don't get any communication. It's almost like they don't want us to know.

Why is that? Why is it that? We're 412 Nanahagen. We don't get anything, but our neighbors do. Why?

Because they understand how pivotal our property is to this project. That's the reason why they want us to know certain things. Again, zero communication.

So we need to address that conversation. So do we know where those notifications were sent to for tonight's public hearing?

The exact list that was provided.

But this is an adjoining property owner.

Yes.

So if you want to give me your address, it doesn't, it goes to 412. Yeah. Yeah.

That's where there's always been three homes in this conversation. Yeah. That's something we have to button up. We did not get anything. We checked our mailbox just before this meeting.

Okay.

So, okay. Well, thank you very much for coming out. Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, so we are on number three. Good evening.

Frank Calabro, my wife Ellie. Hi, welcome. I don't really have much more to say. I believe the previous two speakers had mentioned our concerns. I don't know if I have that much more. You know, we're obviously concerned about the whole thing.

Yeah.

I don't know if I could really add much more on it.

We sent you a letter, as you know. Yeah. I provided some pictures for you to see some of what the road looks like. And I just hope that you do the right thing, maybe prolong it so that we get the right information and so that we can move forward. But we have to have the right information on everything before we.

Okay.

And hope that you could prolong this till you have everything like they had indicated. I mean, I'm really concerned that there's no easement. for the water as well. And that brook, that stream that goes across, I'm concerned about that.

you know if they dig is it going to collapse it's not in great shape right so i just hope that you do the right thing we trust in the board well we always do the right thing and sometimes it's we love the community here we get 37 years and i mean it's wonderful living here i gotta say that yeah it really is it's a nice town good people honest hard-working people yeah great great being here yeah all right well thank you thank you number four

Number four? Okay, is there a number five? Okay, you consolidated, okay. Okay, so we heard from the applicant, we heard from the community. Yes.

First of all, I heard the comments of the neighbors. And they're going back to something that was already decided. By the way, my name is Philip Kamali. I'm the attorney for the applicant. The zoning board of appeals already decided this is a road. They already decided that we have a right to use it. And my understanding is I sent a letter to Mr. Shafizadeh, who is a town attorney, that we also have an easement right to connect to the water main. Easements don't always have to be written. Now, the two owners of 5 and 6, if you look at their easement, it's merely an access easement. Yet they have... utilities running under davidson drive because those easement rights are pertinent to their access rights that's the law that's the black letter law okay does it have to be a written easement saying i give you the right to lay your pipes underneath david's drive because neither five or six they don't have that right they just have access seasons that's number one number two okay The applicant said, I own Davidson Drive, and nobody has a right to use it. That's not true. We own Davidson Drive, too. We own about 150 feet, and there are utilities running under our property as well. And again, our rights come from the fact that ZBA has already determined that this is a street. We have a right to use it, and that was determined. It was never appealed. And furthermore, this board made a determination on January 3, 2025,

There's no reason to yell at the planet board.

I'm not yelling. I apologize because this has been dragging on.

We're going to go through this a little bit more.

I apologize. But also, you gave us final subdivision approval. Unless there's a compelling reason to deny that there's been compelling change, you're bound. to abide by the determination you made in January 2025. The only difference is now we're tying in to a water main, okay? Now they're telling you about, I guess there's a wetland now. Well, guess what? There's a 15 foot wide road over that wetland. We're disturbing the road, not the wetland. If there is a wetland, we'll get a wetlands permit if that's needed. The other point I want to make is now the owner said, well, Mr. Davidson said, I love my two acre lot. I'll never do anything. Well, guess what? It was not a two-acre lot, it was a three-acre lot, and Mr. Davidson subdivided it 35 years ago for a significant amount of money, okay? The city owns the back. He gave the city an easement to lay utilities underneath Davidson Drive. Now, if he didn't have that right, he couldn't have done that, but he did that, and we're doing the same thing. So again, these are legal arguments that Mr. Shafasada understands and agrees with. So, again, all they want to do is they want to delay this, delay this, delay this. And I just want to call your attention to the first time we were here, what the neighbors said. This is going to devalue our property. That's the only issue here. That's the only issue. Okay? We've done everything. We've done everything by the law.

We're going to take it down a little bit of a notch. There's no reason to... To go down that path.

Again, this has been dragging on for years. We won one case in Supreme Court, won one case, and they basically said the same thing. You don't have a second bite at the apple. You can't relitigate this. I gave the board a copy.

So what we're hearing tonight is specific to the water main, and I understand that.

That's right, and we'll do whatever it takes. If you want a maintenance bond, we'll post a maintenance bond. We'll do it. Whatever it costs, we'll do it.

So why are we not proposing that right from the beginning then?

Because it's a private improvement. You don't have to do it. But if that's what you want, we will do that. 100% we will do that.

Okay. Anything else?

That's it.

All right. Thank you. Any other questions or comments from board members?

I came in a little late.

I didn't get a ticket. Come on up. it's like a bakery right yeah my name is tom liberati uh 28 milford street hawthorne i'm the uh owner operator of let it flow ny uh so as far as i was a little late sorry the excavation of roadway it's it's what i do for a living uh i've been doing it on my own for five years now Um, I've been part of a bigger company that's done prevailing wage union work for close to 10 years now. So as far as excavating two foot wide trench, we dig the trench dump trucks right behind us. We load up cars, common dump truck goes off. Machine comes to the side, put the plates on like, okay, we're not gonna, so, so let's, let's pretend it. Let's let's okay.

We're gonna, we're gonna hold on. We're hold on. We're going to do a couple things. We're not going to be shouting from the back, number one. Number two, you're going to be talking into the mic and addressing the board. You're not addressing the people over there.

Well, I don't want to sound like I'm yelling.

So just speak to the mic, less of the back and forth, please.

So here's how the order of operations works. First things first, nobody would be notified of anything. What comes in, we go to the engineering department, highway, DPW, you apply for permits, right? So then they give back a list of things of what they want. Traffic control, what type of bond they're recommending. dollar value on the bond, we do all that paperwork. Now, since it is a private road and it's not a public road, we reach out to private utility locators, not 811 dig safe. So the private utility locators come out, they locate all the utilities that come out with their wands, they mark them out, they do their thing.

So they mark all that out.

When we have all positive confirmation, you guys, we can notify you as well because of traffic, and everything else, we let them know when we're going to start. Can we start at 9 a.m.? Like, we'll be there at maybe 8 o'clock warming up the machines on the lot, but can we start at 9 a.m.? Yeah, we can do that.

How long is this going to take, this whole thing, do you think?

I would say, and again, the only unknown is the testing of the water main. So that's a Department of Health thing. As far as the excavation, the four-foot deep hooking up and everything else, you're looking at the nine to ten working days, essentially two weeks.

So what's this unknown thing with the Department of Health? So if we dig this thing and the Department of Health says...

they don't like whatever you did no they don't say they like whatever they did there's certain tests and i'm not versed inside and out so i'm not going to comment i don't perform those tests i just do the installation of the pipe and the restoration of the roadway those guys come in they do the testing they make sure there's no air in the line or anything else that that's what there is so they come back with their reports they present it to the department of health and then we we backfill and restore the roadway okay anything else uh as far as As far as how we're digging from what I heard. So if this is the road right here, I'm sitting in my machine, I'm digging, I'm swinging outside. I'm moving off my truck. I get noticed. Oh, cars coming. Okay. Guys in the truck, he pulls it that way.

Take the machine. I put the plates on.

I back, I back off and the cars go through.

Okay. Unfortunately in 2025, you could go look it up in June. On Kensico, it's like Kensico Road in Mount Kisco. It's a dead end street. I had to do a sewer main there. Somebody was drowning in the pool. So as the emergency vehicles were coming, we had our flagger down. We have a flagger there, another guy there. We're pulling the plates. We're directing those emergency vehicles and EMS to get down there. So we did the sewer line. It's in the building where Empress is, actually.

Okay.

So we, we have experience with that as far as the restoration of the road. Um, so it's, it's typical bedding. You go one foot above the water main, and then you put what's called in Capri. It's not as hard as concrete, but it hardens up as concrete. So then you do four inches of binder. You cut wing backs. You do, you do a two inches of top, and then you do tar strips. You could drive around Westchester County. I'll take you to all my sewer lines. Nothing since. We restore the right way. That's what we do. And that's also why we put up a bond. So that's as far as that. As far as emergency vehicles, I used to be a volunteer firefighter over at Hawthorne. I stepped down at the end of this year. Here's my old badge. I got three active children. And the business took a life of its own. So I couldn't spread myself then. You get an emergency, unfortunately. Phone call goes in, 911. God forbid, my house is on fire. That call goes to police and it goes to 60 Control. As you mentioned, we have volunteer firefighters. They have to get from their houses, there's no personal vehicles except for the chief cars. But the first one to show up to the scene is the police. So if we see the police coming, we know we got a problem. Boom, boom. As far as the trucks, the apparatus, if they heard me say trucks, the wheelbase is a lot wider, you know, tire to tire than a trench. At the end of Nantahagen is unfortunately where the fire hydrant is. And I think we're proposing to put a fire hydrant in town. I can tell you right now, I don't know why you're complaining. You're going to have a fire hydrant closer to your house. I can tell you the difference in timing to hook up to that fire hydrant. and get that water down to your house is the difference of your house burning to the ground or not. So that's, you know, EMS fire, anything else with the excavation, the road, any other questions as far as curb to curb? I mean, I'm not getting involved in that, but I mean, if you're asking somebody to make, you know, concessions to some, well, he didn't come to us after everything you've gone through, would you be knocking on doors? You know what I mean?

I would. I would. I would. I haven't finished. I haven't finished. It's very, very important to build the relationship when a contractor or a developer goes into a development and bridge those gaps. So I personally would have done that. I would have bridged those gaps because it does seem like there's not a lot of, there's missing communication going on here.

I believe that was done at the beginning. And I've done stuff myself. And at the beginning, once you get the no, it's like asking a girl out. How many times are you going to ask her out? She already said no, right? As far as private road, I mean, I just pulled up on Google Maps, Davidson Drive. It shows up there. on the map they presented eton road is also a private road and i believe the lot just went up for sale the last couple days there was there was a house there was a house there which was subdivided and now there's a flag lot on that okay any anything else that's about it all right thank you any questions about the road anybody else have any questions about the road and the construction of the of the pipe okay thank you very much okay

What could possibly be new? Come on up.

Gerard , 6 Davidson Drive. I'll be brief. The gentleman you just heard from is 429 Higgins contractor. Who we have not heard from is a fire chief from Thornwood. I received an email from him this morning that he knows nothing about this project, received no notification, and that he would do his best to have the department address it at the next board meeting on July 8th.

And we heard that tonight.

The developer made a representation that New York State DEC had been notified. I have an email from their attorney. They know nothing about the project. I have an email from New York City DEP.

So when you say you have a notification from their attorney, there's more than one attorney for the DEC?

I have a copy of it if you'd like to see it.

So it's a attorney. It's not the attorney.

It's the regional attorney. for New York State DEC for this region.

So is there an agreement with some DEC attorney already?

I think, Mr. Collins, he's confusing the DEC with the DEP. I am not confusing. No, I'm not talking about you. I'm talking about my client. When we first did this, we had to notify the New York City DEP. And the Zoning Board of Appeals made us go back to the DEP to see if we could get an easement DEP IS A NEW YORK CITY AGENT. WE ALSO HAD TO GIVE THEM NOTICE. THAT'S WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. WE DON'T HAVE TO NOTIFY THEM. THANK YOU. NO BACK AND FORTH. CAN I ADDRESS NEW YORK CITY DEP, PLEASE?

I have an email from New York City DEP telling me two things. Number one, that they received no notice of this meeting. And number two, that he had discussions with the town attorney this week over the phone and had some issues that needed to be addressed. And he also told me over the phone today that they were going to have a field crew come out next week and evaluate.

Was the DEC notified as an adjoining property owner?

They were not. I have an e-mail.

Or I'm asking a question. Okay. Or are they even an adjoining property owner? DEC is not.

DEP is.

Right. DEC is not. So was the DEP notified through the mechanism?

They called me and they said they got a notification.

Who called you? I have an email from the Regional Bureau of Water Chief that he had not received anything. I have copies of all these emails if you'd like to see them. So I'm wondering if you have three people that I just told you have not been notified. We'll put DEC to the side for a second and I will tell you that the reason that they're not involved is because the applicant has told nobody through this whole process, including Westchester County Department of Health, that they were crossing land owned by 412 Nanihegan Road. And in addition to that, I would ask respectfully, the applicant has maintained for the last two years that they have a legal easement for the right of way known as Davidson Drive. I have a certified title policy that I had done that shows no easement. And if they're going to tell this board that they do have an easement, respectfully, I think you should ask them for a copy of a certified title policy from them showing that they do have an easement. And I'm talking about for vehicle access, And as far as the right-of-way is concerned and the water main that goes through there, That is a private water main that comes from Manninghagen Road. Myself and my neighbors are responsible for the maintenance and repair of that water main that is in our deed. So they have absolutely no right to touch that. They have pretended to the town and they have pretended to Westchester County Department of Health that that is a public water main. It is not. And you should find out properly if what they're saying is the truth.

Thank you. Thank you. Okay. So we have heard from a number of neighbors. We've heard from the applicant. We have a couple things to think about. Some of them are, I'll hold off my own thoughts. What are your guys' thoughts?

I have a few. Carolyn, is the applicant responsible for providing proof of proper public notice to the, okay, and have they done so? Okay. That's number one. And we're getting caught between lawyers on this side and this side telling us something. I'm not a lawyer, not interested in interpreting it. We have attorneys to do that, and our town attorney has advised us that the subdivision is still valid. He has reviewed both sides, you know, your documentation submitted. So I don't want to get involved in reinterpreting three different attorneys' interpretations. Mr. Bolfamonte, you have... heard all of the concerns about going in, putting your water line in there. Is the health department aware of all of these? If I were you, I would take Mr. Sheridan's letter and say, here, health department, these are all the reasons why I should be able to put a well in here. And all of these objections are flying around. Did they say, absolutely not, you've got to put your water line in there or you're dead in the water? Or did they say, gee, it would be great?

So there's no secret, right? Because he foiled all those emails, nor do we want to have any secrets, right? We absolutely made that argument. And that's what Mr. Sheridan was reading to you. Department of Health saw right through that argument. Once again, I'll be honest, because why not? I didn't want to do a water main. It's expensive. I was very happy with my wealth. So that's why we made that argument. And they saw right through it. They said, absolutely not. There's a utility easement. There's a water main there now. And then they saw it on the subdivision map and all the easements and subsequently forced us to do it and approved the, don't forget the water main upgrade application is approved by Department of Health and they asked for that. That is part of the approval process of the approved water main upgrade application that we provided.

So this is not your preference. You don't want to put in this water main. You'd rather do a well. The house is coming no matter what. So it's a question of where it's, you know, that was already, you know, approved.

And that is the reason why those emails were sent. We tried to fight and they said absolutely not. Of course there's an easement. It's basically what we were told and

And we've been told by the zoning board of appeals they've said that he has access and the pertinence there too that you can put a water line in there. So I feel like we're just being put in a position of you know he says and he says and we don't want to get into that. Yeah.

I mean the only thing we're hearing tonight is the water made itself not the validity of of the subdivision that we've already approved and then the conversation is really more about the water main itself and and and the restoration of the road so that's the one concern I do have about the restoration of the road and how it's going to look and feel that I have that I yeah I think that's in our wheelhouse but I mean as to the water line and that we do land use you know not utilities not law not you know so

I was very careful not to tell this board what they can and cannot decide on, right? But I did say that's why we've provided the approved water main upgrade application to you. And Mr. Chairman, you're right, right? It wasn't in. I don't really want to address the relationship thing at the beginning. You know, I went to school with both of their children. Mr. Bogello was inside the house when we were renovating it on a daily basis. We had a great relationship. So unfortunately, that was beyond my control. I just, you addressed that and so I did want to tell you that. And no, we didn't agree to that initially, right? Because it is a huge expense and quite frankly, it's been very contentious, right? But if it is obviously your prerogative to put in the resolution that, and I will say if that needs to be part of the resolution of Mr. Cleary, the drafts were open to that, the bond and the full restoration.

Okay. Any other questions?

How old is the existing water main?

How old is the existing water main?

I mean, it looks like the road's pretty old. I mean, here's a storm drain that's rusted through to failure. I'm just wondering, is this something that's not going to last and will need to be replaced? Is there a beneficial use to the neighborhood from doing this?

So that existing water main, we're asking the age of the existing water main.

Unfortunately, I don't know the age. I apologize. I wish I did, but we did provide a benefit to the neighbor section of the proposal, and it was a new, right, blue plastic water main, which is reliable. And that's the right word, not deficient, right, not undersized, as well as the hydrant halfway down the street, huge, you know, say 400 feet on a hydrant. And now the other benefit would be that road is in very bad shape. It doesn't matter what anyone says. So a new road would be huge.

That's getting outside of our wheelhouse in a way, because the water main itself, the town staff is going to get involved with that, and also the county Department of Health. And if they don't like the existing water line that's there, then something needs to change. But we as a planning board can't make that determination just on what we think is good or not good. So OK, thank you. So the question in my mind is, to me, is the bond conversation and the restriction of the road conversation.

I believe the applicant indicated they've received the bulletin.

They said they would be willing to. But I think we need to say that's what we want as a board. Because I think we need to make sure that if we're digging up that road, we're restoring it to a decent capacity. And also, I think the bond would be a belt and suspenders, not just saying you've been in the business. So I think that would be something we need to think about.

In thinking about that, do you know offhand if the applicant were to, first of all, I want the neighbors not to be stuck with a bill three years from now to repave the whole roadway, but if they repave the roadway, ARE THEY GOING TO GET STUCK PUTTING IN CONCRETE CURBING AND THINGS LIKE THAT? WELL, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, WELL, AS A PRIVATE ROAD, I GUESS THEY'RE NOT OBLIGATED TO.

THEY'RE NOT OBLIGATED. UNLESS THERE WERE SOME ENGINEERING REASON TO DO THAT FOR STORM WATER DIRECTION OR SOMETHING, THE COUNTY ENGINEER WOULD NOT REQUIRE THAT TYPICALLY.

AND WOULD THAT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO CLOSE A ROAD FOR LONG FOR THAT WHEN YOU'RE PAVING OVER A ROADWAY. NO, THAT'S OKAY. OKAY.

The only thing that is pausing me a little bit is I do think we should send a notification to the fire department.

So, again, absolutely. No question about that. But that relates to the construction management of the hole in the ground, essentially. It doesn't relate to the legal issues of the easement and so forth that the applicant's attorney is raising. Yeah, I'm not going to be involved with that.

Could we do something like make a sign-off from the fire department a condition? A requirement. Yeah, a requirement. It seems that the building department would want to look at that, too.

Normally, you wouldn't be dealing with these issues. These would be issues that are addressed by the building inspector during the building permit phase. Obviously, they can be conditions of your approval. I would only offer the caveat that you not overly restrict the building inspector's ability to go above and beyond. So if you say you must do these five things, the applicant's gonna only do those five things. Sal may want 10 things done, and he typically will do that in the field as work is progressing. So I would only offer that not restrict what the building department would typically do.

Yeah, and that's not my bailiwick. So, okay. With that being said, any other questions or comments from board members? Okay, so we have a public hearing that's open. What is the thought about the public hearing?

I would make a motion to close the public hearing.

A motion from Eileen.

I'll second it.

Second from Steve. Walter. I mean I Steve and I for me. OK so we have a close public hearing now. So what is the pleasure of the board for the water main conversation specific we're not talking about the subdivision again we're talking specifically about the elements that is being added to this conversation which is a water main.

From the start, I think this is a little odd that this is even coming to this seems like something that should have been handled outside of you know, by by town staff and that it doesn't really have planning issues since we already approved the subdivision.

So I would make a motion to direct the preparation of an approval resolution for the amended subdivision just offer that it also be reviewed and approved by the law department just to make sure we're consistent with the legal issues that they're raised with.

Yeah. So moved. Okay, so motion from Eileen.

I'll second it.

Second from Steve. Walter.

With the items that were talked about, the bond, they'd be worded into this resolution?

They will be, again, with the caveat that those are limited. There can be more. And a minimum.

Including but not limited to.

That's the language. Okay. So Walter. Aye. Okay, Eileen. Aye. Steve. Aye. And aye from me.

Okay.

Moving on to the next application, new application, one 23 Castleton change of use to part of the building from existing warehouse office to warehouse office and sports car court. New parking lot for the change of use. Application site plan PSP 26-6. Location 123 Castleton Street forward. Section block on numbers 106.10.6-4. Zone M2. Owner Prospero Real Estate Company. Applicant James Flandreau. Flandreau. Did I get that right almost? Close. Okay, we'll stick with that.

It's been mispronounced so many times.

JMF Architects, Engineer Architect, JMER Engineer PC. Welcome. Thank you for coming out tonight.

Thank you for having me. Good evening. My name is James Flandro. I'm the architect for the project. So what we are doing, it's an existing warehouse with an office space within this location here. They got an addition back in 16, I believe it was, to put the office here, an additional warehouse space. Since then, they are going to change the use of part of the building. So within this area here, they're going to make a sports court There's a place so they're talking to a couple different people about Coming in one being pickleball one being a training center for young girls for athletes We're also proposing a small addition here, which would house the bathroom facilities the lobby to entrance and the overall the front desk of the counter With this, we need more parking because there's more parking required for the sports court than for the warehouse and the office space. So we're going to add a parking lot to the property that they own next door. So we with our parking with the calculations, we are still short for the actual overall parking that we would need. So we need to go to the zoning board of appeals for that. OK.

Okay, any questions or comments from board members?

What is the square footage of the area proposed for courts?

A little over 7,000. Okay. That's for the courts itself, so there's additional space within that for egress path and travel and stuff, so.

Any other final questions? Not final, actually. We've got a ways to go.

There's construction going on currently. There's steel framing being put up.

Yes. So part of the process we were dealing with the town, it was a two-phase process. One is to enclose the office space that wasn't built. With that office space, there was going to be two floors. So we're removing the floor for the second floor, and we are redoing some steel work to make it one big open space.

Say on a street map, you can go down Castleton, but then there's a street before it. So they're parallel to each other. I forget the name of that street.

Irvington Street.

They don't connect. I guess it's the parking lot that adjoins it.

Yeah, so the street ends here. So it comes down to the end, and it then ends at their property. So the parking lot would be at the end of the property for here, and then the other parking lot for the existing warehouse and office spaces here. So with the parking, when we do go to the Zoning Board of Appeals, the amount of spaces needed for the warehouse is a lot more than that they... how many employees they have. They have five employees in the warehouse, nine in the office, and we need 35 for the warehouse. So right there, there's additional parking spaces that will hopefully, when we talk to the zoning board, they'll be able to grant the variance because there's not that many people in the warehouse portion of the building.

Okay, so what do we need for this one? This one is... Pretty straightforward, Mr. Chairman.

The issue that is a little different from the one that you saw on Skyline Drive last year, I guess, is that this is a to-be-determined recreational facility. The one on Skyline Drive, it was seven pickleball courts, three Bedell courts, no tournaments, this many people. You had a very good understanding of exactly how it would be used. We don't have that unless the applicant can provide that here. So that's really... an issue that could be an issue or who knows, but that's the only sort of open-ended issue. There's also one other issue about the retaining walls in the parking lot. Just a little bit of clarification.

Yeah, we lowered it for the application.

But other than that, this is reusing existing space, so this is a good reuse of space. The only other question related to this is if this is somehow impacting Prospero's operation in some way or another. uh because they're losing the space do they need are they going to come back and add warehouse space somewhere else because they took it away from here so that's just a question okay but from a town staff perspective there's really not much more that we need what are we being asked to do tonight so so uh public hearing and sending it to the zoning board that's where we are with this there's not a lot of site plan or site engineering issues here okay

All right the night's getting long let's figure this out.

What is the pleasure of the board on this one.

So there's two things.

Do we schedule a public hearing yes or no.

And do we send it to the zoning board yes or no. Yes and yes. Okay. Sounds like a motion.

I make a motion to schedule a public hearing on this application and send it to the Zoning Board of Appeals. Now, will a public hearing occur after the Zoning Board of Appeals? Because you'll have a public hearing in front of the Zoning Board of Appeals. They will.

Right.

Okay. But we're just saving you one trip back here after your ZBA determination.

So you want me to go to the Zoning Board of Appeals first, then I can come back? Yeah.

But if I were sitting on the Zoning Board, I'd want to have a good idea of whether the proposed use is going to generate more parking than, say, Pickleball. Let's say something else wants to go in there that...

I know from experience with the sports training facilities with my son playing sports You have a team there and you might have 13 14 kids Compared to so if you have two courts going, you know maybe you have the same amount of kids or same amount of people as the pickleball courts if you have a We have eight pickleball courts, so that's, you know, with four people playing, with extra people coming in for parking, it's kind of almost a trade-off of that. But what I do for the zoning board, I'll put something like that together.

Okay, so we have a motion from Eileen. I'll second it. Second from Steve. Walter? Aye. Eileen? Aye. Steve? Aye. And I for me. Okay, you're good to go for tonight. Okay, thank you. That was easy.

Thank you.

okay next up and it's our final one for tonight because number four if you're here for number four that is off the agenda tonight it's been adjourned tonight is proposed 51 Westchester Avenue removal of an existing two-story single family residence construction of a two of two two family residences one unit with three bedrooms one unit with four bedrooms with a shared driveway associated utilities and stormwater management systems application site plan PSP 26 dash 5 CPSO PSS 26 10 special use PSU 26 dash 2 location 51 West Avenue forward section block on numbers 106 dot 15 dash 2 dash 89 and 90 zone PRD team dash 2 owner 51 Kenson Kensington Avenue applicant engineers Nicholas or raw touching engineer. Thank you for coming out tonight.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Nicholas Shirai with Hudson Engineering. To my left is Lou Damasi. He's the architect for the project. So this is the two existing properties fronting on Kensington Avenue. The properties were subdivided. There's an existing structure on what we're calling lot one, which is known as 51 Westchester or 51 Kensington. We are proposing to remove the existing structure, the portion of the existing asphalt driveway and gravel driveway and other impervious areas on the site. And we're proposing to construct two two-family residences with a shared driveway. The existing curb cuts and existing driveway are to remain be reused. There are some improvements proposed due to needing the access for both new residences. Along with that, we do have some steep slope disturbance for the driveway, for the shared access driveway here. We also have utilities onto Kensington Avenue for each structure, which we're proposing to connect on Kensington. We have water sewer on that street, so that's what we're proposing to connect. On the lot itself, we are proposing five parking spots for each residence. So two for each, two family and one guest parking. let's see um that's about it the the structures themselves are a little over um the allotted or the um permitted max coverage um but just talking outside we're like right there we're a little over 20 on the coverage for the buildings we can cut that a bit to make sure we don't need a variance for that otherwise um the buildings may need a variance for uh for height okay quick question why shared driveway so um if we look at the the right-of-way here these are um extremely steep slopes it'll be difficult to construct a driveway that would meet uh the town's uh a permissible uh driveway slope uh which i believe is about 12 percent So we would need massive walls to actually get a driveway access for this lot. It seemed a lot easier, a lot more efficient to just reuse the existing curb cut, make it not widen it. Actually, we're reducing a little bit, but just using this area here to come through. And make it shared. We will have a turnaround for a lot one on this end. So we're not really inconveniencing any of the residences that would use this driveway. We've made it wide enough so that two cars can pass.

It's sharing driveways is not something the sport typically loves because sharing is not really a good thing with driveways.

Did you hear the last hour and a half of what was going on?

So that makes me a little nervous. Just me as one board member, like the sharing driveway conversation definitely makes me a little bit nervous because maintenance of the, I mean, it may be easier for you now, but 20 years when someone's living in that house, that driveway needs to get paved, one wants to pave, one doesn't want to pave it, or there's issues with whatever. So the sharing conversation I think we need to dig into a little bit.

Okay.

So the reason for the shared are they're going to be rental units. They're not going to be for sale. So we're going to keep them under one ownership and they're going to be rental units.

But at some point the building's going to sell, right? And let me, so they're going to be okay. And that's really immaterial because whether it's rentals or not, it's going to be, there's going to be one, one owner of both, both, both houses.

Yes.

It's under one ownership. So he's going to rent them, not sell them. Those are two different lots though. Could those two lots sell differently? Meaning could one house sell to person A and the other lot sell to person B? They could, yeah. Eventually?

But we're not looking to do that.

That's today, right? So at some point, every property sells. And we've been promised the world and the moon and the sun on this board. And I could see that lot one being sold at some point because it happens in 10, 15, 20 years. Every piece of property in this town sells eventually. And I can see someone selling that off as a piece lot one to one person, a lot two to another person. Now we have the shared driveway conversation going on.

Sure.

So it gets a little bit dicey and how do we maintain it? How do we make sure that the understanding of who does what on that driveway is maintained and snowing and all that kind of stuff.

So can you flip it again so we can see where all the steep slopes are? Sure.

So right in here is approximately where the, sorry. So right here is where the proposed driveway, part of the driveway goes through and a section of the house on lot one. These are 15 to 25%, these are 35% or more, Steve Slopes.

I was actually looking to see if a driveway could come in off of Westchester Avenue and go serve the back of the left lot and then come straight back. Because I was put off by the amount of impervious surface for the driveway going across the whole front of the property. and the grading that would be required for that, even in the flattish area.

Can I add a few things? So the right-of-way is unusually large around these properties. So a lot of that driveway is actually in the right-of-way. It's not on the property until you make your way up a little further. That's where most of the steep slopes are, in the right-of-way. So that's an unusual circumstance. So yeah, the ability to look at Westchester Avenue made a little bit of sense. there's also an unusual situation where that existing driveway that you're going to move the driveway access to appears to go up to the homes in the back i'm not sure what's going on there but do they have some right again from our prior application and easement right what's going on with that um so that's sort of an unusual circumstance that we need to clarify as well so there's a there's some stuff going on here that makes that complicates this a little bit

So, um, that driveway in question, we do want this to remain, um, does provide access through, uh, to the, um, the houses on the back of the slide. Yeah, correct. So this is existing. Uh, we want this to remain just because, you know, it does get used.

They have an easement over your lot to go to that area.

Is that correct? Yes. Yes they do. So, I mean, I did look at this a bit. I do hear what you're saying about accessing through here, but the steep slopes would pose, you know, we would need to work with engineering to kind of get a usable driveway through here, just because of how steep this area is to get a curb cut here and get a driveway to access from this lot.

I'm thinking more of using the existing driveway, that cross-hatched area for the house on the left, And using the existing driveway and sharing that driveway to get to the house on lot two.

I mean, keeping this whole section just coming off here.

Or spinning off of that driveway into there.

Yep. I mean, we have, it is kind of a version of that. We just kind of try to minimize disturbance, or not disturbance, but like try to keep it, let me see the curb cut. Yeah, so we kind of wanted to just reduce the amount of disturbance we would have with a second driveway coming through here. So, I mean, that's really the reason, but we're open to changes to the access way.

One last.

Sure.

All the pavement to the left, way left. Yeah, what's all that for? Why does it go beyond that part?

So this is a turnaround. It's not really a spot. It's just if someone wants to back out, they would have to go this way. They can come this way, come out, come this way.

I think that's inevitably going to be a spot for like a hammerhead. You know, they can scooch a little bit.

We can reduce this a little bit. It does look a little excessive, but we can stretch it out. We do have guest parking on these sites. I've kind of numbered them to show what the parking spaces are.

When you, when you come up Westchester, say from the shop right area for the Mavis tires, you hit Albany and Westchester, not Albany, Kensington and Westchester, and it's all overgrown and that's, that's the right of way. Yeah. So then nestled in within the overgrown is the staircase, concrete stairs that most of that's in the right of way.

Yeah.

And then you have this sadly looking garage in the hillside, which is very steep, and you can just barely see the house up on top. So then it marries into a stone wall to the adjacent property, past the garage. So none of that is being touched as part of this project. That old garage is staying, all that overgrown corner, the staircase. That's just... Some walls are not being touched and the garage is not being touched.

That's on this section of the... Yeah, I'm placing onto Westchester. Yes. There's no plans to remove that. The walls are actually in pretty good shape.

It's... Yeah, because it's so overgrown. It's like these old vines and everything when you pass there and then The house next door, further up Westchester, it has like a stone wall, a mortage stone wall with the house up on the top, which I think they access from Albany to come around the back there. Because there's no access off of Westchester, because they just have a steep staircase going up. I don't know the address. There used to be a politician who used to look at Sue Swanson. Her name used to be on the mailbox, and all but he's now called Sue Swanson Layers or something like that. But I know there's no access from Westchester to that house. You have to come off Walman, which is probably loops around, and you can probably come right down to Kensington from that area. talking about is that you're not doing anything from Westchester up to that first retaining wall.

That's correct. Our proposal really focuses all the work on the Kensington side. Really, we'll be concentrating a lot of our erosion control and limits of disturbance right on that edge there, right on the property line. Yeah, we have no intention of touching anything on that side. As I said before, all our connections, especially for utilities, everything is kind of located on Kensington. There's sanitary sewer there. There's water there. So all the work is concentrated on that end.

So I guess historically, I think this house was built in 1950. The house that's there. Did Kensington even exist? or access was just maybe from Westchester Avenue as a single road? Because the houses on the other side of Kensington are rather new looking, say.

I'm not entirely sure of the history. Can you speak to that? Yeah, I'm not sure what year it was built. But I don't know.

Do you know?

Yeah.

80s.

So this house is 1950. Correct. So 36 years later, they used Kensington to access those two houses. So I guess across the street where these houses were, that was just probably a tree lot or something.

Or maybe water was accessed from Albany. That's what that driveway is. Maybe that's how they act. Who knows, right?

It's an interesting little area, right? Yeah.

Because that asphalt walkway didn't exist, say, 30 years ago on the street. Westchester didn't have a sidewalk. It was just a drainage gully. So if access wasn't from Kensington, the cars just parked on Westchester and went up those stone stairs.

It could very well be. And Nick, you can go back through some of those historical aerial photographs and see what was going on. That makes that simple story. So, Mr. Chairman, we have not yet gotten Dave Smith's comments on this. This is a steep slope application, so we really need to hear from the engineer.

Yeah, I can only say, it would take a lot of convincing for me as one board member to approve an application with a shared driveway. It's, and I know it's easier for you, but it's not easier for the people living at home 30 years from now.

You know, in considering all this, it's not really an ease for us. It's really about what's approvable, right? So a driveway, again, just to give you some background, to put a driveway through here, And I don't know if the board would weigh in on the height of walls that would be needed for something like this to put a driveway, a separate driveway just for this lot, but it would aesthetically be unappealing.

That may bring us to the conversation. Is it appropriate to have two houses on that lot then, even though you have the square footage for it? But if the solution for it is a shared driveway, it's concerning because Again, who's going to maintain that? Who's going to shovel it? Who's going to do all this stuff? And you are going to be the owner, whoever's going to be the owner. But that house is going to sell in 20 years, 30 years, 40 years, at some point. And you may have two different lots now, two different owners. How do you handle that? We're always thinking about the future homeowners as well. So where would the school share this care? Come up to the mic.

There's an existing easement now. Oh, my name is Gregory Kusloff, and that's my partner, John Zacco. We own the property. There's an easement now that's in the deed that already gives that road, that driveway. It's already in the deed.

You have an easement on the property.

That lets to go to get to the house on 51 Westchester.

Because it's currently two lots and you have to cross the vacant lot in order to get over to the lot with the house. Correct. As it is now. Correct. The other side shows it.

Apparently that lot also has an easement, that other driveway that goes up.

Up to Albany, correct.

Yeah, it's odd, but it still doesn't make me comfortable.

No, I understand.

But that doesn't really mean anything. Okay.

There's a sign above Kensington that says Private Road.

Oh, no.

Is that another Davidson Drive?

Could be. I don't know. Like those signs, who knows who put the sign there, what it means. We can look into it.

It's a yellow sign that says Private Road. Right above it.

So we want to send this out to city staff, to town staff for review, engineering. Yes.

Okay. So, yeah, the primary issue is how you would engineer this. The legal side of this, there's ways to deal with that, some better than others, as we heard earlier this evening, but it's really about engineering. So I have no doubt that it's gone through alternatives and so forth, but you can share us, share those with us so we know that what you've done is the best option available.

But we're also going to need them to weigh in on whether a building coverage and building height variance is required.

That's not your issue. Those would be building permits. The lots exist. They file building permits. The problem is getting access into those lots, which requires the steep slope permits.

Building coverage also will not be an issue. We are, like I said, we're just a little bit over the 20% allowed. We're going to just take a look at that and make sure it's compliant before we get to the building stage.

A little bit more work to do. But, okay, thank you for coming out tonight.

Thank you.

Okay, anything else?

We're good to go.

Second. All in favor, any opposed, you can stand.