Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Good evening and welcome to the August 6th meeting of the Town of Mount Pleasant Planning Board. Welcome and I am Eileen McLean and I'll be serving as chair for this meeting as the chairman Jim Collins is unable to be here tonight. SO WE CAN GET STARTED. THE FIRST ITEM IS A BUSINESS ITEM, 420 NANIHAGEN ROAD, ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPROVAL FOR THE SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NUMBER PSD 24-1 ONE LOT INTO TWO LOTS FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING A NEW SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING. AMENDMENT INCLUDES CHANGE TO WATER SERVICE AS PRESCRIBED BY THE WESTCHESTER COUNTY BOARD OF SO TONIGHT THE BOARD IS BEING ASKED TO APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION APPROVAL RESOLUTION THAT WAS GRANTED ON JANUARY 2, 2025. THE BOARD APPROVED A TWO LOT SUBDIVISION WITH A WELL FOR WATER. THE WEST CHESTER COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH REJECTED THE WELL BECAUSE THE PROPERTY LIES WITHIN A WATER DISTRICT. AND THE APPLICANT WAS INSTRUCTED TO INSTALL A WATER MAIN IN DAVIDSON DRIVE TO SERVE THE NEW LOT. The applicant sought and obtained approval for this change from town staff. Staff considered the switch from well to water main a minor field change. But a legal challenge was made to that determination and the town recommended that the planning board review that switch. regarding concerns expressed by the public during hearings about access damages to the private roadway and potential water course impacts. We have a resolution that addresses those concerns. The conditions included in that resolution are the continuation of all conditions from the subdivision approval granted in January, 2025. We want to note that the Westchester County Department of Health has already approved the installation of a six inch water main to be dedicated to the town. A performance bond and engineering inspection fee will be required prior to the issuance of a building permit. THE NEW YORK CITY DEP HAS DETERMINED THAT NO PERMITS OR APPROVAL ARE REQUIRED. AND LASTLY, ALL WORK WITHIN DAVIDSON DRIVE SHALL BE UNDERTAKEN PURSUANT TO A CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT PLAN APPROVED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND SHALL EXPRESSLY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE RIGHTS AND CONCERNS OF THE OTHER OWNERS OF DAVIDSON DRIVE AS PRESENTED TO THE PLANNING BOARD. I THINK THAT INCLUDES ADDRESSES THE CONCERNS THAT WERE VOICED. THE BOARD HAS A DRAFT RESOLUTION OF APPROVAL. AND WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION?

I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION.

I'LL SECOND IT. MOTION FROM JOHN. SECOND FROM STEVE. WALTER?

AYE.

JOHN? AYE. STEVE? AYE. EILEEN? AYE. IT'S APPROVED. THE NEXT ITEM LISTED ON THE AGENDA IS MINUTES FROM THE PAST TWO MEETINGS WHICH WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW. SO WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO ADOPTION OF A RESOLUTION FOR SITE PLAN NUMBER PSP-26-2 FOR THE PROPOSED RENOVATION OF AND IN ADDITION TO AN EXISTING 1930s BUILDING POST FIRE. RENOVATIONS INCLUDE CREATING A NEW LOADING ZONE. THIS IS AT 630 BEDFORD ROAD, PICANTICO HILLS, STONE BARNS RESTORATION. SBL 111.14-1-1. IS ANYBODY HERE FOR THAT APPLICATION? OKAY. WELL, THE BOARD DOES HAVE A RESOLUTION AND WE CAN ACT IN THEIR ABSENCE, CORRECT? OKAY. So if you've read the resolution, if anybody would like to make a motion?

I make a motion for the adoption of the resolution. This includes the revised parking plan.

Okay. A motion from Steve?

Second.

Second from Walter. Walter?

Aye.

John? Aye. Steve? Aye. Eileen? Aye. Okay. That carries. Next, the big one, 715 Sleepy Hollow Road. Accept as complete seeker final environmental impact statement for the proposed subdivision of a 36.82 acre residential lot into 31 single family residential lots roughly one acre in size. Cluster subdivision is proposed to conserve green space and reduce site disturbance. SO TONIGHT THE BOARD IS BEING ASKED TO ADOPT A SECRET RESOLUTION THAT STATES THAT THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT DATED JUNE 23, 2026, IS COMPLETE. THAT THE BOARD FINDS THAT THE FEIS ADEQUATELY RESPONDS TO THE COMMENTS MADE ON THE DEIS. THE RESOLUTION ALSO SCHEDULES A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FEIS. Tonight we're not adopting an environmental finding statement, which would be the next and final step in the environmental review. Not until that is complete can the Board make a decision on the actual subdivision. Before accepting a motion on the resolution, I would like to summarize the milestones of the SEQR process. THE APPLICATION SUBMITTED IN 2021 PROPOSED SUBDIVIDING THE 36.8 ACRE PROPERTY INTO 31 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS AS A CLUSTER SUBDIVISION. THE 31 LOTS WERE BASED ON THE APPLICANT'S BELIEF THE 31 LOTS COULD BE DEVELOPED AS A CONVENTIONAL SUBDIVISION. THE BOARD DETERMINED THAT AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT WAS NEEDED TO ASSESS THE IMPACTS OF THE PROPOSAL. THERE WAS A PUBLIC HEARING ON WHAT SHOULD BE ANALYZED IN THE DEIS. THE APPLICANT PREPARED A DEIS WHICH AFTER SEVERAL REVISIONS WAS DETERMINED BY THE BOARD TO BE COMPLETE IN DECEMBER 2022. THE BOARD RECEIVED HUNDREDS OF COMMENTS ON THE DEIS DURING THE FIVE-MONTH PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. THOSE COMMENTS WERE CONSIDERED AND RESULTED IN CHANGES TO THE PROJECT WHICH ARE PRESENTED IN THE FEIS. The major changes are the number of residential lots was reduced from 31 to 25, which means that 23 new houses would be built because the two existing houses on the site are proposed to remain. The lots were made smaller and moved farther away from Cantico Lake. The lots no longer encroach into wetland buffers or conservation area, and the roadways are shorter. The plan preserves 60% of the site as a conservation area. The board will not be taking public comments on the FEIS tonight. Tonight, the board is considering a resolution to accept the FEIS as complete and to schedule a public hearing on it. Although not required by seeker, it has been this board's practice to hold a public hearing on an FEIS so that additional comments can be received. The resolution before the board sets the date of the public hearing for September 21st, which is six and a half weeks from today. Should the board declare the FEIS complete, it will be posted on the town's website and available for your review and comment. JUST AS A HEADS UP, FOUR YES VOTES ARE NEEDED TO CARRY THE MOTION. THAT WOULD BE ALL OF US. IF IT DOESN'T CARRY, IT'S NOT A DENIAL. THE APPLICATION WILL BE PUT OVER FOR THE NEXT MEETING FOR A REVOTE. SO, WILL A MEMBER OF THE BOARD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION AND TO ACCEPT THE FEIS AS COMPLETE AND TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE FEIS FOR SEPTEMBER 21ST?

I MAKE THAT MOTION. I'LL SECOND IT.

MOTION FROM JOHN, SECOND FROM STEVE. WALTER?

AYE.

JOHN? AYE. STEVE? AYE. EILEEN, AYE. THE MOTION CARRIES. SO LOOK FOR THE FEIS ON THE TOWN'S WEBSITE, AND YOU CAN SEND YOUR COMMENTS, BUT THERE WILL BE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE 21ST, SO YOU CAN COME AND SPEAK AT THAT MEETING AND OFFER YOUR COMMENTS.

There were so many omissions in the FDIS that just dropping the house count in no way addresses the substantive comments that were received from major environmental law firms, major other environmental companies or consultants. And those haven't been addressed. So you should really be ashamed of accepting this from the get-go. Not to mention that the original house count SO VERY, VERY BAD DECISION AND SURE RESULTS IN SOME KIND OF LEGAL ACTION.

THOSE COMMENTS, YES.

THANK YOU FOR HAVING THE FBI'S POSTED TOMORROW AT LATEST.

OKAY.

PROCEDURAL QUESTION. SEPTEMBER 21ST IS YONK REPORT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT NECESSARILY MEANS YOU SHOULD MOVE IT OUT FURTHER OR NOT, BUT JUST FYI, YONK REPORT, SCHOOLS ARE CLOSED.

You can put that request in writing to the town and we'll handle it from there.

But we're going to look into that. But we would have to amend the resolution if we want to come up. Do we want to decide on that tonight or do we want to?

We'd have to have an alternate date. So I don't think you can do that tonight.

Okay.

We'd have to see if the room's available, all the logistics of the dates.

So how will it be handled? How will we?

You'd have to amend the date and the resolution prior to that date.

We would do that at a meeting?

Yeah, let's, let's look to see if there's an alternative time. Okay.

Um, but that doesn't affect the posting of the FEIS on the town's website tomorrow. Okay, great. Okay. Thank you.

You just object to a further public hearing. There's really no statutory procedure for that.

Understood. It has, though, been this Board's practice to have a public hearing on an FEIS, and we thought it would be irregular to not have it for this application. Okay. Okay. Okay, moving on. Give people a minute. Next up is 790 and 780 King Street, Chappaqua. The proposed lot line change contemplates the dedication of .22 acres of land. You jumped. Apologies.

The next one is 2-4 Summerland Lane.

update on application determination on scheduling a public hearing for subdivision application psd 26-1 for the proposed lot line modification from filed map 23429 good evening good evening i'm not sure i heard you correctly but we have scheduled this for a public hearing Yeah, I think that the title for this, this is a new public hearing. Correct. That's correct. Okay. So let's see where we are. This application, if I may, was essentially a land swap of .22 acres between two abutting lots. Can I have a motion to waive the reading of the public notice?

I'll make the motion. Second.

Motion from John. Second from, I'm sorry, motion from Steve. Second from John. Walter?

Aye.

John? Aye. Steve? Aye. Eileen? Aye. And can I get a motion to open the public hearing?

I'll make a motion to open the public hearing.

I'll second it. John. Steve. Walter. Aye. John. Aye. Steve. Aye. Eileen. Aye.

Good evening, Ms. McLean, members of the board. I'm Bob Davis of Singleton Davis and Singleton, attorneys for the applicant Joe Lichtenstein, who's with me here tonight, along with his engineer, Ralph Mastromonaco. As you'll recall, we made a presentation before you at the May 18th meeting, but as this is a public hearing, we'll offer much of the same information, along with some updates that have occurred since then. In short, as Ms. McLean alluded to, this is a simple boundary line change between two lots owned or controlled by our client. His house is located at 2 Summerland Lane, which he owns personally, and the adjoining vacant lot to the rear at 4 Summerland is owned by his LLC. There are no new lots or roads being proposed. We're only changing the lot line between two existing lots. Our client has resided with his family at 2 Summerland since 2015. The other lot is undeveloped, and there are no present plans to build on it. Essentially, our client, who has a very small lot, has used it as part of his backyard. The basic configuration of the lots and their access points on Summerlin will not change. Under the code, both remain corner lots because they have frontage on Summerlin and Washburn Road. the location of the rear lot building area remains essentially the same at this point as it was from the outset in response to mr cleary's comment at our may at the may 21st meeting about reducing possibly the irregularity in the lot line we did make some adjustments to remove some jogs at that particular time But then after that, we listened to Ms. McLean's comments and questions at the July 2nd meeting, which we appreciated. And as a result, we've further revised the line in our July 27th submission to exchange the rear and side yards of the front lot, which resulted in keeping the rear lot a bit larger and also being able to reconfigure the potential house site on the rear lot to a more level area and a bit further from the closest neighbor. The existing walls and shrub row make it fairly easy to discern the new lot line location. It was drawn with careful consideration for existing structures and walls, conformity of setbacks, and the locating of all existing and possible future accessory structures on the house lot. It bears noting that in any event, there's hardly any, if any, regularly shaped lots in this 20-lot subdivision. Essentially, the two lots are just swapping their relative lot sizes. Our client's house lot will become a bit larger, increasing from a pretty small 0.594 acres, or 25,885 square feet, to 1.01 acres, 44,018 square feet, and the vacant lot accordingly will decrease from 1.05 acres, 45,831 square feet to 0.635 acres or 27,698 square feet. And that's still larger than at least seven lots in the original subdivision. It's fairly larger too than the current house lot is. And it's very similar in size to the lots on the same side of Summerland and also on Canterbury Road, which is also another subdivision road. The main purpose of the application is simply to create a more usable backyard for our client's house lot, which is one of the smallest lots in the original subdivision, so that it will be in place if the lot is ever sold in the future, but it's not for sale presently and there's no plans to put it on the market in the foreseeable future. In addition it resolves some code setback and location issues with respect to existing structures We've also worked out some stormwater and slopes issues with the town engineer Which related to work done many years ago and really unrelated to the boundary change I just want to note that our client has beautified the property since he's owned it with over 500 new specimen trees and shrubs decorative retaining walls a fountain and a a rather lush sod lawn area. By way of background, our client's two lots in the R40 district are part of a cluster or a lot averaging subdivision that your board approved back in 1988. And there's actually been two prior re-subdivisions of the original lots directly across the street from our client's property in 1992 and 2006, respectively. As we've noted before, as a lot line adjustment, this is expressly a Type II action under SECRA, so by operation of law, as you might expect, it has no significant adverse impact, and there's no SECRA review by your board. Under your subdivision regs, Chapter A-227, this is classified as a resubdivision only because it's modifying the lot line on the original approved file plat. Resubdivisions are treated like subdivisions under your code. However, under A-227-15G, Since there's no new road and since three or fewer lots are affected, only two are affected, you may classify this as a minor subdivision and waive the requirement for preliminary approval and allow us to proceed to final without the need for an additional hearing after tonight. So we respectfully do request that the Board exercise that provision tonight, deem this a minor subdivision, waive any additional hearing, And, respectfully, also, upon opening and closing the public hearing tonight, we would request that you grant final approval. So, at this point, I'll just ask our engineer, Ralph Mastromonaco, to take you very briefly through the lot line change plan. We'd be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

MR. Good evening.

MS. Hello. Can you grab the microphone, please?

This entire property was part of a cluster subdivision years ago. And here's the house, if you can see this. And if you can follow this, this is the actual original dividing line between these two lots. You can see that this house is strangled by, it has virtually no rear yard. This revised property line gives this lot some breathing room. This is really the main lot of the subdivision. And what we're doing is we're following the sort of small stone retaining walls as much as we can. And we're including in this lot some of the terraces that were created. This was a basketball court. It was removed because it was in violation. We went through a series of dialogues with the building department, and we needed to do that in order to make this conform to the code. That's essentially what we're doing. I think it's a reasonable plan. There is a place for a house up in this area. It's in the same place it always was, really, even without this change. And all in all, I think it makes some sense for the owner to do this.

I had a couple of questions. You're going to have to pick one yard. If the rear yard setback is 50 feet along the northerly lot line, then your front yard would be off of Summerland.

This is a rear for this lot.

No, for the new lot. Sorry, for the new lot.

This one here?

Yeah.

This is the rear.

Well, it has two front yards by operation of being a corner lot. So it's a little funky, but there's a front yard here. and has other frontage up here, and then we can select which is the side yard and which is the rear yard as we did with the front lot.

Didn't we ask that sliver on the left-hand side there to be part of the house lot? Not that one.

The one that driveway access to.

This is the driveway to the rear lot. That's in the same place it's always been.

They made it more narrow so that the accessory building is included on the lot with the house.

That's right. That was something we had to clear up for the building inspector because, as you know, you shouldn't have an accessory use on its own lot and not on the lot to which it's accessory. So we did change the line over there to create a proper setback for that.

So basically, it's currently two lots, and you're remaining with two lots. You just want to adjust the interior lot line so that all the structures are on to Summerland, leaving for Summerland as open and available for some future development.

Future development. As we say, it's owned by our client through an LLC. He owns the front lot individually, and he's got children and a family there. They don't have any plans at the moment to be selling that lot or to be building on that lot.

I think there might be sufficient steep slopes there that you would have to come back to this board anyway for a site plan approval. That's probably true.

We put it in accordance with your comment at the last meeting in the most I'll use the word level area possible, which is where it was originally kind of where it was originally envisioned. Um, so I would suspect that because of the disturbance of the site to build it in the future, it would need a steep slopes permit.

Okay. And the, the issue of the yards would be clarified whenever they file a building permit for that lot. It doesn't have to be. That's right.

Okay. That's right.

And engineering has given the okay. They're okay with this.

So there was an initial review of this. I haven't had a final sign-off from Dave for final approval. So if you wish to advance the application, the applicant's asking for final approval this evening. I don't know if we're ready to do that. However, if you were, your normal course of events would be to have a resolution at your next meeting. You could put this over to the next meeting for final approval, and we could have the resolution at the same time, subject to Dave's final sign-off. So they wouldn't lose any time.

The engineer did submit an email to Carolyn with that. He had no real further comments, as did the town attorney.

Okay. The only caveat is it was not with respect to the final plot. So I'm being picky, but we don't lose any time anyway.

Okay. Do any board members have questions? Is anyone here from the public to comment on this application? Okay, then I will entertain a motion to close the public hearing.

I'll make a motion to close the public hearing.

Motion from Steve.

Second.

Second from Walter. Walter?

Aye.

John? Aye. Steve? Aye. Eileen? Aye. Carries. So can I get a motion to direct the preparation of an approval resolution subject to final sign off by the town engineer?

And that's final subdivision approval?

Final subdivision approval.

I'll make that motion.

John.

Second.

Second from Walter. Walter. Aye. John. Aye. Steve. Aye. Eileen, aye. Motion carries. Thank you very much. You're welcome. Next we have 790 and 780 King Street. A similar application. It's essentially a land swap of .22 acres between two abutting lots. Can I get a motion to waive the reading of the public notice? I'll make that motion. Steve?

Second.

WALTER?

AYE.

JOHN? AYE. STEVE? AYE. EILEEN? AYE. AND CAN I GET A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING?

I MAKE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

JOHN SECOND? I'LL SECOND IT. WALTER? AYE. JOHN? AYE. STEVE? AYE. EILEEN? AYE. WELCOME.

Good evening members of the board. On behalf of the applicants, my name is Dan Conant, an attorney with the Law Office of Cuddy & Fader based out of the White Plains office. I'm appearing on behalf of Laura and Michael Strober, the owners of 790 King Street, and Claire and Joseph Dunn, the owners of 780 King Street, in support of the proposed lot line revision that you just described. At the outset, I'd like to note this proposal does not involve any new construction, site disturbance, grading, tree removal, or changes to the physical use of either property. And due to the location of the proposed lot line change, it will not enable future development either due to setback restrictions and existing nonconformities. The purpose is to regularize long-standing conditions, resolve some encroachments, and address a boundary discrepancy, and improve practical and zoning-related conditions for both properties. As you noted, the proposal involves the conveyance of .22 acres from 790 King Street to 780 King Street in the town of Mount Pleasant, and .22 acres from 780 King to 790 King in the town of New Castle. The exchange generally follows existing physical conditions, primarily fences that have been up for a long period of time, and that's also noted on the plat before you. And the practical, the result was just a modest reapportionment of land between two consenting property owners with no intensification of use now or in the future. Before going into the substance of the proposal, I'd just like to briefly summarize the procedural posture of this after applying to both towns at the beginning of May. And I appeared before this board on June 4th, and the night prior, Newcastle formally issued a resolution approving the lot line change within their jurisdiction. And since then, the incident application has been reviewed by the engineering department, who had no comments on the proposal, and notice was published and mailed to neighboring property owners as required by the town code. And the real purpose of this application is to address encroachments that were made pursuant to an agreement between the Strobers and the former owners of 780 King. on the western side of 780 king there's a what i describe as a guest house and that is where the former owner's caretaker lived and he built a garage without permits adjacent to that house and it encroached upon the strober's property and Trying to not cause a ruckus, the Strobers asked permission to expand their driveway area and perform some landscaping along King Street. And there's a handshake agreement. And unfortunately, having not known that the former owner was going to sell the property with much notice, they were unable to formalize the agreement before the sale. After the sale, the strollers approached the Dunn's and Dunn's being good neighbors and also recognizing the practical benefits of this proposal, agreed to proceed with this application. As noted in our initial submission, there are safety benefits to 780 King by having a wide driveway with better visibility and access to King Street they're now able to have a parking and turnaround area so they don't have they and deliveries and guests do not have to reverse in or out onto King Street and it also offers snow removal benefits because they don't have to have a company come with an excavator and also you know further reduce the ability to turn around within the driveway The proposal also offers several zoning benefits, including land within this board's jurisdiction and to the lands within the town of Newcastle's jurisdiction. With respect to the lands within your jurisdiction, that being the area being conveyed to 780 King, The 0.22 acres will reduce the non-conforming coverage of the property as well as reduce non-conforming setbacks to the guest house, both of which are existing conditions. With respect to 790 King in the town of Newcastle, the proposal eliminates non-conforming side yard setbacks of the garage and reduces the non-conforming lot size in the two acre zone in which the house is located. As I mentioned earlier, this will also address a discrepancy within the existing property descriptions. There is a gore or a gap between the two properties, essentially going from King Street to where that conveyance will be at the rear of 780. We couldn't pinpoint when that gore came about, but it's something that was identified by TC Merits. Um, we do note that we are requesting this board to exercise their discretion, um, for a, uh, variance or waiver from section 8, 2, 2, 7, 26 B one of the town code, uh, which generally requires side lot lines to be at right angles to street lines, unless you allow for such a variation to provide a better street or law arrangement. We respectfully submit that such a variation, uh, is warranted for the reasons I described earlier. And principally, because as one of the central tenets of zoning is to eliminate and reduce nonconformities, the benefits outweigh the exercise of not exercising your discretion. And we also, as noted in our submission, we requested limited waivers from certain subdivision application requirements, namely some of the plat mapping requirements, because we are not proposing any disturbance or improvements. From an environmental review perspective, This is a Type 2 action under SECRA, and as such, there is no significant impact and does not need to be considered by this board. For the aforementioned reasons, we respectfully request this board vote to authorize the issuance of a resolution of approval at the next meeting. Submit that the proposal is limited practical mutually agreed upon by the affected property owners will result in no harm and offers safety zoning title benefits to both properties.

Okay. I have one question. In your discussion as I'm following along, I have that you're drawing. Can you just, this one, the smaller lot is 790. Yes. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that I had that right. Oh, sorry. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Okay. And this, as you mentioned, decreases the nonconformity of some existing nonconformities. Correct. Okay. Are there any members of the public who wish to be heard on this? No. Okay. Do any Board members have any questions about this application? Okay. Then can I get a motion to close the public hearing? make a motion to close the public hearing thank you Walter a second yes second John Walter John Steve Eileen I um and can I get a motion to direct the preparation of an approval resolution thank you John second second Walter uh John all Steve? Aye. Eileen? Aye.

Dan, were there any conditions from North Castle's approval that we need to know that?

They asked us to make two alterations to the zoning table, which in the version of the plat before you is the version that was submitted to recently to the town engineer and it is on file and it has those changes already incorporated. I'm happy to email you And so call out those changes.

The other change, you're still referencing this as a preliminary, so change that to final. Yes.

Yeah. I forget. Yeah, we're all set. We did it. We voted. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Okay and last we have 300 Lakeshore Drive rebuilding two existing decks attached to a house. Application wetlands permit number PLW-26-2 location 300 LEAKSHORE DRIVE, PLEASANTVILLE, SECTION BLOCK LOT 99.15-4-9, ZONE R10, OWNER AND APPLICANT, CHAIRS LAURENT, ARCHITECT WILLIAM SIMIFIORITES. ANYBODY HERE FOR THAT APPLICATION?

I'M NOT HERE FOR THAT APPLICATION.

IF THE APPLICANT IS NOT HERE, WE DON'T HEAR YOU.

Uh, we did close that public hearing. So this is, oh, we, we closed all the public hearings. This is the new one.

So if the applicant's not here, we adjourn it.

Okay. So we'll adjourn this to a later date and I will hear a motion to close the, uh, meeting. Thank you, John. We'll second it. Thank you, Steve, Walter, John, Steve, Eileen. Aye. Thank you.