Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening. This is the playing board meeting on Tuesday, June 2nd. As a reminder, we do not meet two weeks from today. We meet Wednesday, is that the 17th? June 17th, because of the tax day on June 16th. So just for all those fans who are always watching us and want to know when we will next appear, it will be on June 17th. Okay, our first item tonight is

TO OPEN THE MEETING.

MOTION TO OPEN THE MEETING? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. WITH THAT INTRODUCTION, I WAS REALLY NAILING IT, TOO. SO OUR FIRST ITEM IS AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, APPLICATION A LETLESS PERMIT FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A DRYWIDE ADDITION STONE PATIO AND DECK REPLACEMENT.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JANE VITRANO WITH SITE DESIGN CONSULTANTS. JUST FOR NOT BEING HERE. HE'S REWARDING A SCHOLARSHIP AT YORKTOWN HIGH SCHOOL, AND ASKED THAT I ATTEND ON HIS BEHALF. WE DID MEET WITH THE STAFF, JOE AND I, TWO WEEKS AGO, TOOK THEIR COMMENTS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND FELT AND SABRINA, YEAH, I'M SORRY, SABRINA. I WOULD LIKE, I GUESS, ADDRESS THEM THIS EVENING. IS THAT THE BEST WAY TO HEAR IT? WELL, PRESIDENT, WHY DON'T YOU REFLECT ON WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT HERE? RIGHT, SO THE PROJECT INITIALLY WAS TO REPLACE A DETERIORATED DECK IN THE MAIN YARD. WITH THAT BEING SAID, A CONTRACTOR STARTED SOME WORK OVER A YEAR AGO AND DID SOME TREE REMOVALS. STARTED DOING SOME EXCAVATION IN THE BACKYARD. AND WITH THAT BEING SAID, THAT WAS WITHIN THE CLEARING AND GRADING LIMITS.

SO WITH THAT BEING SAID... THE TREE REMOVALS WERE MOSTLY IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE? NO.

WELL, WHAT HAPPENED WAS HE TOOK TREES DOWN ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. HE ALSO, WHILE HE WAS EXCAVATING, HE EXPOSED A LOT OF ROCKS. THERE WERE PILES OF FAIRLY LARGE BULBS IN THE BACKYARD. I'M SURE YOU'VE VISITED THE SITE. THERE'S PULCH BACK THERE. THERE'S TREE STUMPS. SO WE'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT AS A TEMPORARY APPROVAL OF THE CLEARING AND GRADING LINE, AND THEN ONCE YOU REMOVE

Thanks. Chair?

Let's see how this works.

Right there. That's where there is a pile of stumps and mulch here. So we're looking to extend the clearing and grading line temporarily to that area. Once they remove everything, then now establish a new clearing and grading line, which would be right here. by that hatch. There's also a pile of rocks here and here that we'd like to have removed before, obviously, he starts any of the other construction. With that being said, Ms. Fornellis would like to extend the parking area of the driveway. We propose to do that with the voter blocks. We included a detail in the section. It is not an impervious surface.

It is

We're also going to put or propose to put Cambridge pavers in the red area and then the yellow area surrounding that, again, the voter block. We're also extending the square footage of the deck by 232 square feet.

This is the existing deck that has deteriorated.

So the new plans included also extending the deck and adding new stairs and a landing. We tried to take the chart and simplify it a little by lineating

and grubbing line limits.

I know that there was an issue that when Dennis checked our numbers, I think there's an issue of it was a clerical error on math.

One of the numbers was off by five square feet.

We can correct that. But again, let me go to the numbers that Jill and I worked out this afternoon. Talking about the mitigation and the requiring a 1.5 to 1 to satisfy Chapter 64. The actual square footage that needs to be mitigated is 6,587 square feet. It's not clearly identified on that chart, so Joe said that he would correct it. With that being said, the proposed mitigation area There it is. This is the new mitigation area. And again, this was based on the meeting that we had with staff two weeks ago. That area is 12,411 square feet. So it exceeds the 1.5 to 1.

What's going on in this area?

So that area, we added that. Initially, our first submission, this was the mitigation area.

Right. We added this area. What's going on? Is that just going to be lawn?

That's planted area. There's a planting schedule from Steve Miller. Planted area, and we're proposing a fence along this line. That was suggested by staff also.

And it's on the plan to propose a split rail fence. I saw somewhere about the biannual cutting of grass. Yes, that's that area.

And then what's going on out here? lands area, so I don't think anything's happening beyond that. So no planting out there? That's all planting, yes. This is all new planting. Yep. And again, that was reviewed by Dennis. I mentioned to Dennis that we reached out to Steve a little bit too late, so I asked if Steve could contact him directly and perhaps answer some of the concerns that Dennis still has about the species and so on. But this is all going to be new planting.

that you need for support. Will that all be hand... Hand done, yes. What is this going on here?

So that's additional area that's within the wetlands. I forget. If you go back to the chart, you know, we try to... What does that hatch mean?

It seems like some sort of... It's described as some sort of turf. No, it's... Tough track or whatever that is. Yeah, that's the... Well, that's another word for the voter block. It's called tough track.

It's a grid system, right?

And you either plant

THERE'S A SECTION THROUGH IT THAT IS APPROVED, AN APPROVED SYSTEM FOR SLOW-MORTAR MANAGEMENT, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT ANY DRY WELLS. SO THAT'S GOING TO HAVE THE SO-CALLED TOUGH TURF WITH THE... NO, THE TOUGH TURF IS RIGHT HERE, THE YELLOW. OH, THE YELLOW.

THIS IS BEYOND THE TOUGH TURF. SO WHAT'S GOING ON THERE? JUST GOING TO BE LONG? YEAH, JUST LONG. OKAY. YEAH, OKAY. JUST LONG. AND THEN, SO THIS IS THE TOUGH TURF HERE, THE YELLOW? THE YELLOW IS THE TOUGH TURF, AND THEN THIS... CORRECT. The red is the Cambridge blocks.

And that's solid, right? That's interlocking blocks. Yes, interlocking blocks, yep. And this L shape laying down on its side, that's the extension to the existing deck. That's the existing deck. So if you go to the new plan, you'll see the new configuration of the deck. And we included those two sheets. It was all on submission, even though it's not part of this narrative.

All right, so there's the new deck. And is any of this existing out there right now other than just the deck that's coming down? The deck is there. The deck is there. And again, if you visited the site, you'll see there's trenches.

It's muddy back there now. There's nothing else. The original deck. The original deck. Yeah, yeah. Just the original deck. Yeah. So again, so we're asking for two things, right? Within the wetlands.

Okay. Sabrina, you got some comments?

Yeah. I think the applicant has tried to be pretty responsive to our previous comments. There's still a footnote that needs to be changed. I saw that. You saw that. So a footnote to the zoning conformance table. Yes. IN ADDITION, THE COVERAGE. AND YOU DID ADDRESS, YOU PUT THE COVERAGE NUMBERS ON THE PLAN. YES. BUT IT WOULD BE HELPFUL IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY IN THE ACTUAL PLAN WHAT IS 225 SQUARE FEET, WHAT IS THE SCARES.

I THOUGHT WE DID THAT.

YOU DID IT ONLY ON THE CHART, NOT ON THE ACTUAL PHYSICAL PLAN.

I THOUGHT WE DID THAT.

I WOULD CHECK THAT, MAKE SURE IT'S DONE COMPLETELY. AND THEN WITH THE On this landscaping plan, it would be helpful to include the existing clearing and grading limit line and your proposed clearing and grading limit line consistent with the landscape plan.

On the landscaping plan, yes. So we have a better sense. We'll reach out to Steve Marino. And give him those lines. Again, as I said, I asked Dennis if it would be OK for Steve to contact him directly to address some of his issues about species and planting.

And then I'm going to answer for Jeff, since he's unable to attend at the moment. But he did have a new comment to advise that a chairman's signature block has to be placed on a wetland mitigation plan.

Yes. And we put it on every sheet, because the first time was to put it on every sheet. But now it should only be on the first sheet and the mitigation plan. That's what your new director said. First sheet only.

I have no idea. It should be on every page. It should be on every page. Yeah.

That's not what it says. So if that's, yeah, tell me.

We're going to advise you to put it on every page.

Okay. Let me make a note. But should it be on the deck plans also? Because it should be. Oh.

My ink is cheap, apparently.

Yeah. That's what we've been doing.

I know. I sent a bill to the town for my ink.

And then he has his other comments that are still outstanding from previous comments, so just make sure everything is addressed.

I'm not going to say anything. Yes, Joe, he mentioned split rail fence. We do have a fence. It is on the plan.

Do you have a detail for the fence?

No, I The line of delineation is on the cover sheet, map A103. He talked about that. Five was okay, six was okay, seven was okay. And then for approval, told to include on all joins. I'll do that.

I think that was it. Sabrina, I have a question on Jeff's note on number six. I'm not quite sure if I understand it. It seems to be almost like an insurance policy reverse language. So note that the permeable paver section details were amended to meet New York State DEC requirements for impervious coverage. THAT TELLS ME THAT IT'S STILL CONSIDERED TO BE IMPERVIOUS. AND BOB SCIOLI TOLD US THAT LAST FALL, THAT IT WAS IMPERVIOUS. SO WE'RE HEARING THAT THIS MEETS, THAT THIS IS IMPERVIOUS. AND SO I THINK IT REALLY IS VERY DIFFERENT. WE HAVE DIFFERENT CALCULATIONS.

IT NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AS IMPERVIOUS.

WE HAVE A MEMO FROM BOB SCIOLI THAT SAID THAT, AND I KNOW THAT YOU SENT

The recollection was Bob. I asked that specific question.

I know that, but I could send you. Well, we haven't seen it.

Okay.

I sent it the first submission.

It may be in the first submission. So we need to see it then. Okay, sure. We'll check it. I'll send it to you again. Yeah, send it again if you can. Joe did the research on it. The state uses it. It seems that Jeff is still of the same opinion as Bob.

I think it might be considered... It's not considered impervious, but it counts towards development coverage.

Right. That's what he said. Development coverage, but not impervious.

I don't recall. I know we had this with the shooting club out there. Yeah. Because it had all kinds of stuff, and we went through this years ago, and it came back, and it was not counted to be impervious.

So we've gone back and forth on this for years. So we'll need to verify it again, but I think today Jeff and I had a conversation about it, and it is about counting towards development coverage, but it does not count towards the need to do a stormwater practice. Yes, that was the discussion.

I think years ago there was, as I recall, there was a percentage that an applicant received credit. So it was not 100%, but then I thought it went to 100% impervious and you lost all credit, which didn't make any sense to us, but that's what... Well, we'll check.

I mean, I know Bob Seely did a memo on it, so we'll see where...

But that's important because that could really...

Sway the numbers.

Yeah, sway your numbers very significantly.

And again, he specifically told us motor block, and he said we had used it in town before. He said, so why don't you do research on that product? Maybe it's a specific product.

It could be the specific product.

So that was the product we went to. And again, we included that detail in the cross-section.

I'm pretty sure his recollection is correct. Because that's consistent with my conversation today. And I know that Jeff spoke with Bob Scioli about this. And it's because of the type of system. And you changed your system to this system so it would not...

Right.

Yes. Okay.

All right.

We're good. But submit that letter anyway.

I will. Okay. Let me make a note of that.

Anything else from Jeff?

No, not at this time. They have all of his write-up on there. I think Dennis' comments.

Dennis, you had comments, right?

All right. Yeah, so I guess... Starting with number one, I concur that the delineation as depicted is accurate, so I assume represented boundary. I think it's already stated. We just need your clarification on the requirements. Again, that's assuming that you've met the requirements and avoided minimize, which is up to the board. But as far as the mitigation and, you know, So comments on the mitigation plan, and you were alluding to this, Bob, I think when you were reviewing it. So, yeah, that stone wall, if you visit the property, it certainly represents, I'll say, you know, two different environs. You know, I would say to the front side of the stone wall, maybe I guess that's the eastern side, a little more level, certainly kind of flows with the yard, et cetera. And then beyond that wall is where you start to dip a bit in terms of the topography. It doesn't quite get to wetland, but certainly has been allowed to sort of either naturally regrow or maybe was never disturbed from original construction based on its density. And that's why I guess later on we did call for having some sort of demarcation like a fence or boulders because it's obvious just based on that dynamic that, you know, it would be difficult to sustain something sort of as robust as what's proposed beyond the wall. So, you know, a couple of modes of year is certainly reasonable. And obviously I think, you know, it still has property that's accessible, but, you know, I think without those, without those barriers, I think it would just be, you know, accident, whatever, become part of the property maintenance. So, so I think again, I use that stone wall as a good sort of bifurcation. Now, specifics of the plan, yeah, there's a few other invasive species. I just suggested that you add those just so that, you know, we're all in recognition of what needs to be removed. I know, you know, they don't go away with harsh language, so I understand the need for glyphosate or, you know, some other herbicide. But I guess I was looking more from the approach of, you know, you know, hitting them in the beginning, the nuking, is that when those applications are most important. But, you know, as time goes on, there's the hope that, you know, there's less of a need for that because of, you know, competition, what you've put in, and also that there's an ability maybe to remove stuff without the use of chemicals because it's not as dense, as dominant, as creeping. So that's why I had to make those comments, especially since we're in the Environmental Protection Army District that had to, you know, think then. But I do make mention that there is an understanding. We never like to see the word eradicate on any plan because if we could succeed that, we wouldn't have them. So that's why we're here to stay and do a very good job. means assuming that everything goes according to plan. And having said that, this dovetail comment was I have no problem with the mix that you're going to use as far as a seed mix. But I think because of what is here and what you're trying to replace, I think we have to mix in some plant plugs in order to start to get some stimulation going here. Because just to wait for the seed, that's going to be competing with things that are going to want to sort winning that battle. So that's why I was suggesting some of the additional plants. And then the last bullet was again just a repeat of the permanent demarcation. So that summation was just for wetlands and wetland buffers. It wasn't as clear to me because we're looking at redrawing a clearing and grading limit line to the rear and You know, there is a note on the plan, and I tried to, you know, just with a supplemental photo show that there was an area that has, you know, indicated previous removal and now is sod long that's also, like, outside of the clearing and graded limit line. So at this point, we're just redrawing lines with sort of no compensatory offer. And I just bring that to your attention. you know, maybe have to do some additional restoration just to sort of satisfy that intent. But right now, that's the part that I'm a little confused as to where that sits or if that's a consideration. So that's, that basically is the summary of my comments. Okay.

Your question about the clearing grade and other minors is important, I think. And I wasn't able to follow it. I see what I think was the existing clearing grading limit line, but I'm not quite sure what the proposed clearing grading limit line is, especially toward, is that the west side? The southwest side, yes. Where the sod was placed? I don't know.

In discussion with staff, we talked about adding that.

Well, you mitigated the, oh, I see, toward the wetland?

Yeah, that's where we came closer to the rear of the home. Well, actually, most of that sod area falls outside of the wetlands buffer. It does, but again, suggested by staff. It wouldn't be a bad, so we took that suggestion, reached out to Steve Marino, and then when they prepared the new mitigation plan, they extended it from the stone wall

What are you proposing for clearing and grading lemon lights? I think we see it here in the back, right? Yeah, that's it in the back. Basically here. Yeah. I mean, I... What are we doing on the sides, if anything? And then I guess there's another question. I have a mechanical, legal mechanical. What do we do on the wetlands application? So we have an application for disturbance because they have all this building stuff, and then that's going to go away. So I don't think we want to grant a permit that... PERMANENTLY LETS THEM KEEP THE STOCK PODDLES THERE.

SO WE ACTUALLY ISSUE TWO PERMITS, ONE THAT'S TEMPORARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN ONCE THAT'S SATISFIED, WE... AS PART OF THE BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATION, THEY'LL DEMARCATE, THAT'S ONE OF JEFF'S COMMENTS, TO DEMARCATE THE AREA OF DISTURBANCE FOR CONSTRUCTION.

ONLY?

YES.

BUT WE DON'T HAVE TO ISSUE TWO PERMITS?

NO.

WE NOTED ON THE PLAN THAT THIS WAS A TEMPORARY. TEMPORARY VERSUS PERMANENT.

But I don't understand what we're proposing for clearing grating limit lines along the sides of the home.

I'm open to recommendation from staff. We didn't discuss that when Joe and I met.

Well, to Dennis' point, he's raised the issue here, and we're not quite sure what you're proposing. Basically, it seems like, well, we'd like this construction. We're going to put it in the wetland buffer, and we've mitigated the wetland buffer issue. BUT WE BASICALLY ARE IGNORING THE CLEARING RATING LIMIT LINE THAT WE HAD BEFORE.

IT'S THIS LINE ALONG THE SIDE.

YEAH, I MEAN, AGAIN, THAT'S EXISTING. WHEN WE WALKED ON THE PROPERTY, THAT WAS THERE. AND AGAIN, WHEN WE MET WITH STAFF, THERE WAS NO DISCUSSION ABOUT IT. IT'S TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES.

I GUESS THAT'S THE BEST WAY TO SUM IT UP. IF YOU DIDN'T HAVE, LET'S SAY YOU DIDN'T HAVE A WEAPONS SITUATION HERE, WE STILL WOULD BE LIKE, OKAY, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO COMPENSATE FOR encroaching into the clearing and grading limit line to draw a new line. And okay, that takes up a certain amount of area. Well, what are you giving back on the property to compensate for that?

In previous discussion, this was never raised. It doesn't matter. This is a discussion now. It's the board that will make the decision.

I'm looking for direction. Well, I guess we're asking you for some direction, too, because it seems to me, and Dennis's point is, there ought to be some sort of offer on the part of the applicant to restore and is part of the clearing rating limit line. I don't think the board is looking to be punitive to say, well, you've eliminated all this space, we'll measure it all up and somehow, you know, we're going to put a clearing rating limit line through your linen closet. We don't want to do that. But, you know, somewhere it seems to me, and maybe it's appropriate along this side, maybe along a property line to You know, restore that, put some plantings in there, separate it from the neighbor's property, give a little bit more of a visual barrier or a vegetative barrier, and keep it out of the mowed area. It's just a thought. I mean, again, I'm not looking to post stuff on you. That is unreasonable. But it's unreasonable, it seems to me, that an applicant walks in and just says, we're blowing up the clearing grading limit lines, and that's it. Well, that's that. I'm being overly dramatic with the wrong verb, but that's exactly what is happening here. You're adoring the clear ingredient limit lines and making as if it never existed. And that's a problem in a conservation development. And again, you know, I don't, personally, I can't speak for the rest of the board, but I don't, I'm not seeking to impose something as punitive, but it seems that something should be given back, something should be offered back. My thought was that that might be an appropriate side, perhaps five feet on that side, put in the vegetative barrier that enhances the separation to the neighbor.

Again, I'll address I would discuss it with Joe.

I'll discuss it with the board members on that issue. I mean, I think Dennis raised an important issue, and I think as a policy issue, as a precedent issue. But I don't think it's something that we need to be overly punitive with the applicant. It's something reasonable seems to be appropriate.

It's like a push-pull. Exactly. If you're going to push it here, maybe you pull out over here, and we try to balance it. It's a balloon squeeze. It's a balloon squeeze. Okay. Yeah. I think that's reasonable. And not punitive.

Yeah, yeah. It's something also that might make sense for the property itself.

The area in the back, right, there's that wall that goes across, and there's a portion that's page north, page south. It's on the landscaping page. Is the stuff that's page south, the south of the wall, is that in excess of what's required? We were talking about the mitigation.

For the wetland, yes. I think so, right? The total square footage is, it's, again, the mitigation area is a little over 12,000 square feet.

And what, Dennis, the one, one and a half to one, what is the?

Whatever that number turns out to be.

6587. So one and a half is 9,800. So we're like 2,600 square feet over.

And again, as I was saying, I mean, there's definitely two different, there's a bifurcation

give him some credit for that. Oh, absolutely. I mean, that's why I, again, in position of anything unclear and greater than that, I would probably be even less than one to one, just something. And again, it's something that's reasonable for the property itself. Dennis used the word...

I might not know what it means. Yeah, okay.

You used an adjective there and I just wanted to check. But it sounded like to me that the mitigation on both sides of the wall is thorough.

Yeah, I would say one is probably, I think the word I'll use is more intensive than the other, but they're certainly both approaches.

Intensive is a positive. Are you using intensive as a positive? Because people could say intensive as a negative. I want to make sure we're using it.

Yeah, I meant it in terms of number of plantings, plant density. More robust.

More robust, okay. Robust wine tasting. Yeah, sounds good. And that's 2,600 feet over plus or minus what you just said, right? Okay.

Thank you.

Steve, any thoughts?

because they potentially could use that to their advantage to help compensate for declaring a grading limit line issue. Or if the property didn't have that, then that's what they would, they would just be able to rely on that. And that's fine. I'm just, this has happened about three or four times so far during my time here in Newcastle, so I got to highlight those, but the weapons actually weren't potentially to someone's favor. That's all.

All right. Can we call it the Ziegler rule?

You wanted to put your name on it.

Yeah. Might as well. I mean, what's more valuable, right?

I think you're right. I think you're suggesting that the wetland is much more valuable, much more useful. And I think Dennis raises the point where Something on the clearing grading limit and I think that's we would work with you and not not even one-to-one just something so then do we read delineate the clearing and grading line or keep it as is and then just I think keeping it as frankly would be Punitive for you because it's all sided out there and but move move that line to whatever that is the West AND THEN PUT SOME PLANTING IN THERE. MY THOUGHTS. IS THERE ANY OTHER THOUGHTS?

WELL, HERE'S THE THING. THE CLEARING AND GRADING LIMIT LINE EXTENDED UP THE SIDES OF THIS PROPERTY, RIGHT? AND PRESUMABLY THEY WERE TO BUFFER THE PROPERTY FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES. THAT BUFFER NO LONGER EXISTS IN ITS CURRENT FORM. ALL THE UNDERSTORIES, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF TREE COVERAGE IN THE FRONT LEFT OF THIS PICTURE THAT IS ALREADY THERE. BUT THE UNDERSTORY IS GONE. THE REAR IS ROBUST. THE REAR WETLAND IS ROBUST IN PLANTING. Would they have the option of beefing up the robustness of the front planting instead of planting along the sides?

Making the back even more robust? No, the front.

The front of the robot. There's two areas. One in front of the stone wall, one in the back. And the one in front of the stone wall is not as dense in planting as... AS THE ONE IN THE BACK. CORRECT. AND SO, WOULD YOU CONSIDER AS PART OF THE MITIGATION FOR ENCROACHMENT INTO THE SIDE CLEARING AND GRADING LIMIT LINE INCREASING THE INTENSITY OF THE AFTER THE STONEWALL AREA BEFORE THE FENCE? AND, DENNIS, WOULD THAT MEET WITH THE HEALTH OF THE WETLAND?

the buffer.

I'm asking if that is an option.

At first I thought you were going down the road of you know if you want to make a clean cut everything to the east of the 150 foot weapons buffer you know certainly could use some as well. I mean there's right in the absence of designing this there's a couple of alternatives and they don't necessarily have to be you know all in the same location or you know homogeneous right I mean you know When you squeeze the balloon, it comes out one end, it comes out the other end. You're tightening in the middle side. You can go in any direction here. If you want to, let me just see what the limit's like. If you want to expand, I don't know if there's a little bit to talk about.

Has this area been cleared here? Yes, there are a few. There's a large tree there and a few other shrubs, yes.

So it has been cleared or just a few? Yeah, there's some shrubbery there. Maybe that would. Dennis, make more sense there? Would it add more privacy for the deck, et cetera? And that would be the area that we would want to see and leave the front with a side where the lawn may be.

Right. I mean, some of these are considerations for obviously the owner of the property. Right, of course. So, I mean, there's certainly, there's a few alternatives available here that I think the status quo would add. But, yeah, my first lens is, after looking at the litigation plan, kind of went more towards that southern property line, understanding that there's the easement to the northern property line and understanding that there is a sewer line that goes across the front lawn. So really, I mean, you are limited into how much you could do. This isn't Hammond Ridge, I get it. So that's why I was kind of moving sort of in that direction.

I'm just looking at the site plan that has your neighbors and I'm thinking that instead of putting planting behind the house Maybe the planting on the side for these two neighbors just to give them a little more of a buffer.

I

Right? These two guys. And I don't know if it was this applicant or another applicant. We had a neighbor come in talking about they could see how it was this one. Yeah, because of the stockpiles. Yeah. So maybe we help. That's where the planting does. I understand what Sabrina said about in the back to make the front of the wall just as robust as the back of the wall. But maybe the sides need to be the robustness to help out the neighbors. Maybe. Yeah. Take some planting and swing it around. I'm not saying more. I'm just saying adjust. I've said my piece.

I will share all these comments with Ms. Fornellis.

I saw that she was up here, so she's probably listening in. I saw her name up there. Okay. Can I ask a question? Sure. Is there any way to get...

Is there any way that the building department can do that?

I mean, we noted the access road. As long as he follows that, you know, and stays within where this proposed fence line is going, just to clean up that backyard.

I think if your board is okay with that, I can bring it to the building inspector and see what he wants to do. Well, let me ask you a question. I mean, you have on this, you have to make the changes to the plan to compensate for the clearing and grading limit line. You have to do a public hearing, and we have to do a resolution.

Well, if there's a... Scheduled this for a public hearing on the assumption that we'll get all the information. Yeah, and then We can have the resolution done within two weeks of that assuming You know the public hearing is closed So perhaps we can do it that way. I mean, I understand the situation because this has been at least since November, right? Longer than that.

Yeah so That would be probably four weeks right four to six weeks. Well, I ALL TOGETHER WITH THE RESOLUTION. YEAH. THAT MIGHT BE FOUR TO SIX WEEKS BEFORE THEY CAN START TO REMOVE IN THAT SCENARIO. RIGHT. BUT THE GOAL WOULD BE TO GET YOU DONE IN JULY. AND I'M ASSUMING IF THEY GO ON THE SITE WITH EQUIPMENT AND START REMOVING STUFF, IT JUST TRIGGERS ALL THESE THINGS BECAUSE THEY DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE THE PERMIT TO DO IT.

RIGHT.

SO NO.

I DON'T KNOW OF A WAY OF DOING IT, A MECHANISM FOR SO-CALLED TEMPORARY APPROVAL, TEMPORARY PERMIT. Well, yours, if someone has a way of doing that.

I mean, similar to, you know, sometimes we get a demolition permit before we start construction. Right. And building departments have granted that to us on many occasions before you actually get a permit for new construction.

It is common demolition, right? You're removing debris. I mean, right? Is there any... Is it hazardous?

Yeah. Is it clean? Yeah. Yeah, no, there are tree stumps. There's a pile 15 feet high, 30 feet in diameter of tree stumps. Then there's wood chips next to it, and then there's two piles of boulders that exist close to the house.

Honestly, I think the building inspector wouldn't want to set a precedent of having a temporary access permit.

So what's the soonest we can do for a public hearing?

AND THEN FIND OUT WHAT INFORMATION. WHEN CAN YOU GET US DOCUMENTS? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE NEXT MEETING WOULD BE JULY 7TH. BUT WE DO HAVE THE JUNE 17TH. I'M LOOKING AT YOU GUYS.

WELL, THE QUESTION IS, CAN YOU HAVE PLANS DONE?

BECAUSE I WOULD NEED TO NOTICE.

WE'RE AT JUNE 2ND.

CAN I TOUCH BASE WITH JOE AND GET TO YOUR FIRST THINK TOMORROW MORNING?

Well, if they're going to set a public hearing, they need to announce it tonight.

Can we do that? Can we do it anyway? We announce it, and we can always defer it. Adjourn it. Adjourn it.

You can.

I will do that.

Is that realistic on June 17th?

I will verify tomorrow. You have to find out, and we also need the documents sooner rather than later, so reviews can be done. And notice.

Is there a motion then to set a public hearing for June 17th? Motion. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. And if you can't make it, we'll adjourn it. And then we'll go on. I'll have an answer for you first thing in the morning.

Okay. Okay. Tree stumps and stuff. Is that not something that would fall under landscaping? I don't know. I mean, just out of curiosity. You said tree permit.

I just said I issued a tree permit. That's where all that stuff came from. So that's part of the permit? Yeah. I thought maybe they had, like, detachment issues. But, you know. So is that permit still open?

I don't know. I'm sorry? Is that permit still open? Is it an open permit? Is removal of debris from the site? Probably not.

But you came in under violation.

Yeah.

We can't let you do any work other than get the proper approvals to cure the violation. That has to be cured prior to anything happening. Okay.

We're trying. Thank you.

Okay, we're moving now to our next item. This is the Sola 14 hollow ridge ring.

NO. YOU WERE SHARING.

I was having some issues. It was freezing when I was sharing.

I WAS OPENING. LET ME SEE.

SOMETIMES I CAN'T DO IT. WILL IT CHANGE? YES. WHICH ONE DO YOU WANT? THIS ONE?

THIS IS YOUR LETTER.

It's not coming. I have to stop sharing and share it because it's not going to pull it up.

It's only sharing. I can do it.

Just give me a second. It's just I have to open up your file before I share it. I'll open up all of them. Because you want all of them shared?

One second.

Somebody got it. There you go.

I will not do that.

You may have to stand nearby. Yes.

Good evening. Thanks for your patience. Jerry Tortorella of Hockerman, Tortorella & Weckstein, and we're counsel for the applicant. Joe Tramelli from KCSJ, I'm sorry, KSCJ is with me this evening. And we have Alicia Cuccio from the architect's office and Richard Lafleur, who's our landscape architect, are participating remotely. this evening we are here for a very focused discussion on a revision that you asked us to look at and we really tailored our presentation just to address modifying the elevation of the house and bringing it down and we actually did bring it down five feet and there are some considerable reductions in impacts associated with that. So we really want to talk about that tonight. We understand that there are more plans. We have to update all of our plans once we reach consensus with the board. And we will do all of that. But we thought it made sense for us to just address it in this instance. So as a consequence of lowering the house five feet, there are some construction implications for that and some modifications to the site plan. And I just want to review with you. ONE IS IN THIS AREA HERE, WE ENDED UP ADDING A YARD DRAIN. SO WE BASICALLY, WHEN YOU LOWER THE HOUSE, THE ELEVATION TO THE SOUTH WILL BE MUCH HIGHER THAN OUR ORIGINAL DESIGN THAT WE DISCUSSED WITH YOU LAST TIME IN APRIL. AND SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE OF A PITCH OF WATER TOWARDS THE HOUSE, SO THE YARD DRAIN WAS INSTALLED HERE TO TAKE SOME OF THE WATER AWAY FROM THE DIRECTION OF THE HOUSE. You did not see this last time, but we would be extending the clearing and grading limit line to accommodate this yard drain in this location. We also have added a stairwell on the north side of the house from the basement, and we have a sewer ejector pump that's now going to be necessary for the septic to deal with any bathroom in the basement level. Otherwise, everything else is gravity-based. WE DID EXTEND, WE WERE ABLE TO REMOVE A RETAINING WALL, THE SECOND RETAINING WALL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE DRIVEWAY, BUT TO DO THAT, WE HAD TO EXTEND SOME OF THE GRADING IN THIS LOCATION. SO THAT IS SOME ADDITIONAL DISTURBANCE THAT YOU HAVEN'T SEEN BEFORE. THAT'S WHY THE NUMBERS WERE ADJUSTED A LITTLE BIT ON SOME OF THE DISTURBANCE ASPECTS OF IT. AND WE EXTENDED THIS YARD ON THE SOUTH A LITTLE BIT JUST TO GIVE SOME RELIEF BEFORE YOU START CLIMBING UP TO THIS ELEVATION. on the southern side. So because it would become more dramatic once you lower the house, the change in elevation was more significant. We also have, and I just want to point out to you, we have the septic area, the expansion area back in this area. I know that Jeff had a comment about whether or not the clearing and grading limit line should be extended to encompass this. We'll talk about this, I'm sure. But I do want to let you know that we did get reapproval of the septic from the Health Department, and we have the fill waiver. So we will not be doing any construction of this expansion area or any preparation of the site in connection with this project. We'll be able to avoid that in this instance.

Jeff's thought on that was also for you to consider, and that is in case there's a failure in the future, YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BECAUSE THE CLEARING GRADING LIMIT LINE WOULD BE THERE AND THE EXPANSION AREA WOULD BE AVAILABLE, IF NECESSARY.

YEAH. AND WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE COME IN HERE, KIND OF TO THE BALLOON ANALOGY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE EXTENDING IN SOME AREAS, SO WE'RE TRYING TO BE VERY CONSERVATIVE AND THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WHERE WE'RE EXPANDING. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THE BOARD'S DONE THIS IN THE PAST OR NOT OR IF YOU HAVE, HAVE YOU EVER CONSIDERED KIND OF TWO LEVELS OF CLEARING AND GRADING LIMIT LINE. YOU KNOW, IF IT'S FOR CLEARING AND GRADING FOR THIS SPECIFIC PURPOSE, YOU KNOW, WE CAN EXTEND IT ONLY FOR THAT PURPOSE IN THIS AREA. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE BOARD MIGHT WANT TO THINK ABOUT IF WE DO IT. AGAIN, WE DIDN'T WANT TO COME IN AND APPEAR TO BE OVERASKING UNNECESSARILY. And that's one of the reasons why. And we're happy to hear the board's feedback on that. Any applicant I've ever represented would love the opportunity to avoid coming back to boards in the future for these kinds of reasons. So some of the positive effects of the modifications we've done is that we've really been able to eliminate A LOT OF THE RETAINING WALLS ARE CUT THEM BACK. SO ON THIS, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE, YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THE RETAINING WALLS ACTUALLY STANDED FURTHER TO THE WEST, YOU KNOW, AROUND THE BACK OF THE POOL AND THE NORTH SIDE OF THE HOUSE. WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO CUT THOSE BACK. AND WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALLS IN THIS AREA. SO WE THINK THAT THAT'S A POSITIVE EFFECT. THE TIERED WALLS, THERE WERE TIERED WALLS YOU MIGHT REMEMBER NEAR THE PARKING COURT HERE. And we've been able to eliminate that. And then the second tiered wall, there was a second tiered wall on the north side of the driveway. And I had alluded to that earlier with this braiding that we've done. We're actually going to be able to eliminate the second tiered wall and keep the first wall at about four feet on average. Earthwork, substantial reduction in earthwork by almost 2,900 cubic yards. So it's a net fill of 226 cubic yards with this design. And we have reduced total disturbance by almost 1,700 square feet. And that is actually less than what we calculated the approved disturbance was under the Farabecchio subdivision for this lot. DRIVEWAY GRADE WILL REDUCE FROM 13 TO 11%, SO THAT'S A POSITIVE. WE HAVE A FEW FEWER TREES BEING REMOVED, YOU KNOW, ON A NET BASIS. THEY'VE BEEN ADJUSTED SOMEWHAT. AND WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF REDUCTION IN WETLAND BUFFER DISTURBANCE AND DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE. THE STEEP-SLOPES DISTURBANCE DIDN'T CHANGE, BUT THAT'S BECAUSE WE WEREN'T REALLY DISTURBING THAT MUCH IN THE STEEP-SLOPES AREA, AND BUILDING COVERAGE REMAINED THE SAME, THE FOOTPRINT OF THE HOUSE.

The addition is just in this area, right?

Correct. The grading, the additional grading? Right. Yes. Yep, that area. So, Joe, how do I jump to the landscape plan, if I can?

Carefully.

So, the landscape plan has been modified largely to deal with the question of mitigation of the wetland and wetland buffer disturbance. for the driveway. So in essence, Richard has added considerable plantings in this area. Again, let me just point out, this is the buffered line. And just to remind you, the wetland is kind of a disconnected system that's across the street, physically disconnected system from across the street. So the theory or underlying principles of the landscaping plan were really to incorporate native species in this design. that will fit in well with the deciduous wooden environment and hopefully, you know, appear like they've been there for a long term and not look so manicured in effect and hopefully contribute to kind of the habitat benefits for pollinators and other fauna. So that is the the mitigation that we're proposing for the wetland and wetland buffer disturbance that is being proposed. And again, just to remind you, this was not a wetland buffer when Faravecchio subdivision was originally approved. It's because of the enactment of the environmental overlay district and the 150-foot setback. The mitigation is about 1 and 1 half times the permanent disturbance. So hopefully you'll find that that mitigates sufficiently for the potential impacts of what we're proposing in this area. We did update the tree removal plan and the tree survey. I think we need to do a little bit more work to just make some of the numbering of the trees coincide better. We'll work with Dennis on that. But I think some of the modifications we made, we think it's accurate, but we think that there is just some information that we need to clean up a little bit. I DID WANT TO JUST ASK THE BOARD AND SABRINA, JUST IN TERMS OF THE CLEARING AND GRADING LIMIT LINE, BECAUSE THIS HAS COME UP BEFORE ABOUT DEFINING THE CLEARING AND GRADING LIMIT LINE. WE DO HAVE IT ON THE LANDSCAPE PLAN. WE DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL. WE JUST HAVE THE PROPOSED.

I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO INCLUDE THE ORIGINAL.

OKAY. Do you extend the clearing and grading limit line to include landscaped areas?

In other words, movie landscaped areas? Yeah.

So we're adding. All right. So we hadn't done that. We hadn't presented it that way. And so, you know, we're adding landscaping up in this area and around here. We've got all this landscaping around here.

The clearing and grading limit line is intended that anything that is beyond the clearing and grading limit line will not be disturbed in the future. So if you're planting those plants, they're not within your clearing and grading limit line, are you ever going to touch them again?

Some of them, Jerry, are within the original clearing and grading limit line.

Right, right. Some of them are within the original clearing and grading limit line. I mean, look, if they die and you want to cut them down, you know.

Basically, it's just to understand where you're planting, what you're planting, you know, that is not supposed to be disturbed as opposed to what is manicured lawn and trees.

Got it. So I think we need to just make sure that we're covering it accurately and defining the clearing and grading limit line then. you know, that achieves that. And again, not so that we can get an angle and be able to disturb it for other purposes in the future. You know, we want to accurately represent it, but we don't want it to appear like we're looking to preserve.

So in those areas, are you just proposing to plant trees or bushes and shrubs? Yes. That's neither clearing or grading, so.

Well, you have to prepare it.

You dig a hole. You cut out some brush to clear out. Okay. Well, then you're clear. You're doing a little clearing. Okay.

Look, I would prefer to err on the side of, again, being transparent and honest about it, but I don't want the board to think that, and I want to clear on the record that it's not. areas in terms of material.

So we'll need to take a look at that.

And you want to add, you want both glaring and grading limits.

I'd like the board to see what they originally approved as part of the conservation subdivision and then what you're proposing as part of the site plan.

Jeff did raise a question about removal of certain unsuitable fill, which we're not anticipating having here because it's not a site that we have constructed. in the past, although there is a lot of debris on the property that will have to be taken away. But he also had just noted number of truck trips and suggested that maybe we should be thinking about a schedule. It's not really that many trucks that are- It's like 12, isn't it? Right. So I didn't know if the board could give us some guidance as to what you would be looking for. I mean, it's not all going to happen at the same time. We think the road is sufficiently sized and any good enough shape to bear that number of trucks.

Could that comment have been on the prior amount of trucks you had? Because you did have a lot the last time. 160 before that.

Yeah, I think it may have been a previous comment.

Yeah.

Yeah, it didn't look that way to me.

Oh, okay.

Yeah, it didn't look that way to me. And again, we want the next submission to be complete and comprehensive, and so we're just looking for some guidance on that.

that import, he's raising that some of your cut likely will be unsuitable, which you will have to remove. And in the event you're removing that, then you're going to have to bring a truck back with suitable fill. So I don't know if there's any view on spoilage.

Based on the soil testing we did for both the stormwater systems and with the health department, and for our own edification, just we punched holes throughout the site. the soils we found were all suitable. They were sandy soils to its significant depth. So I don't really anticipate anything. We didn't find pockets of clay. We didn't find organics. So I believe everything we excavate and cut will be able to be used on site as fill somewhere for the project.

Yeah, those comments were part of the old drawing.

Even if there is some unsuitables, we're not talking about truckloads here of unsuitables that would be created.

I think it had to do with his previous review. And I think if it's going to be unsuitable, it may be some of that debris that someone other than our client has been depositing on the site.

Donating to.

Yes. Yes. Exactly. So that was pretty much what we wanted to clarify for the board. We're happy to answer any questions you have. If you know, this makes sense to the board, then we'll advance, you know, the drawings and we'll give you a complete comprehensive set and address all the comments. I mean, again, Jeff pointed out a number of notes that needed to be added.

All of those kinds of things, I think, are giving him to take care of. We've addressed all that already. We just need to make a formal submission. So, Sabrina, do you want to go through your comments?

I think Jerry addressed my So comment, again, I think that they're really looking to the board to either bless or not bless the layout. And then they'll submit a complete application with all the plans and the documentation that we need to move on to the public hearing.

Dennis, did you have anything you want to add? Anything from your comments that we haven't covered?

No, just one thing I did want to say. So again, it's the math with the wetland mitigation, that component. But like you guys were saying, I mean, I don't disagree with the late great Bruce Lee that we should be like water. But in this case, I know that it's not hydrologically linked or disconnected is another word that you like to use. But there are other considerations. And I do think the native planting and consideration for wildlife, especially when you consider that you obviously have to keep a segment of the front of the property as turf cover for, you know, line of sight, and then it transitions to the pavement. So I think it's nice to have that softness, you know, between that harsher environment and then kind of transitions to where the wetland is. And I think, I can tell just from what you were saying and tone of your voice, you understood my numeric confusion a little bit from the plan, but to the point of boots on the ground, that one maple exception that I found. So I think it's just make the table work relative to what's shown on the symbols on the plan. And I think that'll come together. And that may change the ultimate tree replacement plan calculations. I couldn't accept that because of that confusion. But on the resubmission, I think that'll be fine because your calculations were on the money for what was presented. Great.

So, seems reasonable to me. Questions, objections? I got a question.

Sure. Can we go back to the other drawing? Sure. If possible. And this is probably education more on my part than anything else. So, this is stormwater, right? And I'm assuming you're taking all the stormwater, you're bringing it down through the woods, and then you're depositing the air to percolate into the ground. Question, how come the stormwater is taken all the way down through these woods and you just don't do it right here?

Good question. So the area that you see that's shaded in the beige or tan, those are areas of slopes that are in excess of 15%. Gotcha. And the state design manual does not let us install infiltration systems in slopes of that steepness.

But if you came over here, you would not be there, right?

Right, but we also have setbacks that we need to maintain to the septic system.

Okay. I just saw you cutting through all these woods to get to that and I'm wondering when you trench all that are you gonna kill all the trees around the trench?

We tried to pick a lane that was as least disruptive as possible to get down the hill to that system and we minimized the amount of water we're sending there. That system in the back collects the patio and I believe a portion of the garage. The house, the drive, all goes to the system. All goes to that one, right? So we tried to split it, but that's exactly why it has to be where it is.

Okay.

Fair enough.

Thank you.

Okay. Any questions? Thoughts? No. Appreciate you doing the exercise.

Yep.

Yeah.

Thank you very much. I think it makes good sense, and we'll look forward to seeing you next time.

going to ask? My ask is, you know, tentatively schedule a public hearing for the July meeting and we'll make the submission, you know, by the by the submission deadline.

Sure. What's that submission deadline for July? Is it 7th?

June 15.

Okay, is there a motion then to schedule a public hearing for motion? July, what was it again? 7th.

For July 7th. July 7th.

Second. Second, okay. All in favor? Aye.

Aye. Okay. Very good.

Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Okay, our next item is the resolution for Stranger and Dunn, 790 and 780 Kings Street. This was an application for preliminary subdivision plan approval. We heard last time, I think we went through any questions or issues, and we decided that we went to public first.

So we closed it, and we just had a resolution.

So any questions or changes or thoughts on the resolution? Line 34, the fifth word is a typo.

Yep. R, so there's an extra B.

No, that's Newspeak.

That's old English. And we got the 150-foot buffer correction in there?

Yep.

Okay. Anyone else, anything? If not, as amended, is there a motion to adopt the resolution? Motion. Second?

WHO MOTIONED THAT?

IT WAS A TIE.

YEAH, THEY BOTH MOTIONED AT THE SAME TIME.

ROCK, PAPER, SCISSORS. SECOND.

SECOND.

ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY, OUR NEXT ITEM IS THE REQUEST FOR AN EXTENSION OF TIME. THIS IS A RANDOM FARM FROM THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. 21 RANDOM FARMS DRIVE AN APPLICATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN APPLICATION WETLAND COMMIT, TREATMENT COMMIT, STORMWATER EROSION CONTROL APPROVALS FOR REPLACEMENT OF THEIR WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT. I guess it should have been asked for about a year ago, but better late than never. I have one question. That was on the request. It referred to redesign. I take it it's, is there a structural redesign or any kind of design?

It sounds like the costs have gotten so outlandish that they have to go back and revisit the design. Maybe re-engineering? Yeah.

So there's nothing material in terms of construction change at all as far as you know?

I WENT TO THE KICKOFF MEETING LAST WEEK, ACTUALLY. IT'S A KICKOFF FOR THE WASTEWARNER?

YEAH.

FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE WASTEWARNER TREATMENT PLANT.

YES.

IT'S A BIG DEAL.

YEAH, BUT IT'S BEEN A REAL PROBLEM FOR A LONG TIME. OKAY. ANY ISSUES, QUESTIONS? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO GRANT THE EXTENSION REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT? MOTION. SECOND? SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. OUR NEXT ITEM IS THE REFERRAL FROM legislation so we put together a memo based on the last conversation I can share it yeah we have it and also I had a chance to read through it all but I see that great And Jeff will offer some thoughts as well. Well, last year's. Oh, this is last year's?

Yeah.

I received no comments on this memo.

Oh, okay. Oh, because I got all my comments here. I thought we were going to discuss it today. We are going to discuss it, yeah. I mean, I think that's the key.

So, any changes, anything that you want to mention, Sabrina?

No, I was asked to summarize your comments. This is my attempt at summarizing them. I full well feel that you will change it. No. But the intention today is to come up with a letter to send to the town board after tonight's meeting.

Okay. Good. Anyone want to go first and talk? So one comment I thought that I made last time that wasn't really captured in the memo was not necessarily the genesis, but the process. And it seems to me that this is a little bit inverted. And it was, I guess, concluded that Seeker doesn't apply because I don't know why, but because their impacts would not be very substantial. And it seems to me that we go through a process to make that determination in secret to see that there were, in fact, no impacts, no problems, no issues. So it seems to me there's a presupposition that there are none, so therefore we don't have to do secret, and therefore we go forward. And by doing that, as I mentioned last time, I think we short-circuit the process, and we also short-circuited the information, because I think we talked last time, we asked about, a year ago we asked about information. It didn't follow through on it, but last time I think we made some observations that there was some information that we would really want to see and hear. So, I mean, I'll start off and just say, you know, the goals and purposes and intent of the legislation pretty clearly set forth, although it's presumptuous language in my opinion, because it starts off by saying we're going to provide suitable opportunities for development of housing designed to satisfy the needs of smaller households. particularly young and elderly, etc., low and moderate income. And yet, to make that statement, do we have any information that suggests that the rents in these new construction, these new buildings, will be the same or lower than the current housing units that exist on King Street?

Are you reading from the existing legislation?

Yeah, the proposal.

Right, so that legislation is already on the books. Just so you're aware, the changes that the town board is making are the red lines in that document. But everything else except for those red lines are in the code today.

So the three changes are the one acre to quarter acre, right? Yeah. The 50 feet to 10 feet. And getting rid of the NA because apparently that was maybe a clerical mistake. We never should have had an NA. It should always be 2035.

Not requiring a maximum threshold.

So those are the three, right? And then maybe incentive for green.

And the incentive for green, and they were talking about, yes, those are the challenges.

So everything else is the code, and these are the four things that they're looking to modify the existing code.

Correct.

And then what we started to talk about last year was more inspirational.

Correct.

And this has been reined in for whatever reason we don't know.

Correct.

I thought last year's, though inspirational, gave the opportunity to start doing real stuff. I think these things start to muddy it up even more.

Yeah, you had made that comment, and it's not... So that's why I'm confused. Well, and I'd love to hear more about your thoughts on that, because Sabrina tried to capture it in here again, and again, I was as confused as I'm reading it, and I wasn't quite sure what you meant. But I'd love to hear what you mean by that, because I think you also said it kind of pulled it back from where we were last year. AND GAVE LESS FLEXIBILITY?

WELL, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WERE TALKING, I THOUGHT, AGAIN, IF WE KEEP HARPING BACK TO LAST YEAR, AND I APOLOGIZE.

IT'S OKAY. LISTEN, HERE'S THE THING. MY GOAL TONIGHT IS FOR YOU GUYS TO HAVE A LETTER, A COMMENT LETTER, BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD BY THE TIME YOU ADJOURN THIS MEETING TONIGHT. YOU GUYS ALL NEED TO RESOLVE ON A LETTER OR COMMON THREADS THAT CAN BE INCORPORATED INTO A LETTER FOR THE CHAIRMAN'S SIGNATURE. TO MEET THE REFERRAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOCAL LAW. THAT'S KIND OF MY GOAL FOR YOU. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT HOWEVER YOU NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE PAST WITH THE PRESENT AND GETTING FROM WHERE YOU WANT TO COMMENT ON THIS LAW.

SO I THOUGHT LAST YEAR, AND THAT'S WHY WHEN I RE-RED OUR MEMOS, I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST GOOD TO CIRCULATE. AND I EVEN SAID IN MY MEMO, MY MEMO IS GOING WAY OUT THERE BECAUSE I WAS REALLY TRYING TO BE INSPIRATIONAL in what we can maybe do in the downtown. And I liked the direction last year because the comp plan that I think we did in 2018, 2019, 2017, and the major goals of the comp plan were housing, housing, housing, housing, and housing, and diversification of housing, and try to get more people living in, in the town and try to focus on the two Hamlets because that's where the infrastructure was. And since Millwood didn't have any sewers yet, let's put our eggs in the Chappaqua Hamlet basket and focus on the zoning and fixing up this. And if sewers come in Millwood down the road, we'll deal with Millwood then, right? And last year, I thought was, oh, great, we're finally getting to it. We had good conversations. It went on the back burner. Now it's coming here. It just... I think it's just a less than a drop in the bucket. I was at a point where I like the setbacks, the 50 to 10. I think that starts to makes it even more confusing for people and we get less of good product because the 50 On part of the hill, 50 is good. On part of the hill, 50 is bad. And I noticed from the sketch you gave us last year, and I think that was a proposed draft, it showed we had zoning up top, zoning on the bottom, but the middle was going to be different. And I read this as the middle is the same as everybody else, and I don't think that's smart planning for that part of town. I do think that the hill has a completely different character than the top of the hill and the bottom of the hill. I think the top of the hill and bottom of the hill could maybe be a 10-foot setback. But the middle of the hill, that would scare me, right? And I feel that... I feel that the board took a couple of things that maybe they thought, oh, we can do setbacks, and we can make one acre to a quarter acre, and maybe they just tried to cherry pick a few things to move it along, but I don't think those are looking big picture on what the objective of the comp plan was to try to get more diverse housing into the town. And if we try to stick on that plan, then the way you do that is the current property owners, what can we do to make it so they can, what can we do to incentivize them so they can take a risk and maybe try to build two or three apartments downtown and try to get some housing stock going? But right now our zoning, I don't believe, offers them any type of opportunity to do that. Or if maybe they could do one unit. And I think if we all start penciling out construction costs and rent and taxes in the downtown, one unit ain't going to fly. You need some scale. And it's not hundreds of units. I honestly don't think. there's going to be a developer that's going to come and buy 10 acres of land on Greeley and put up 1,000 units. I just see that as impossible.

North Greeley, not South Greeley.

North Greeley, I'm sorry. I see that as impossible. I do see a developer coming and maybe buying two or three lots and putting together three quarters of an acre or a half of acre and maybe on a half acre trying to get 10 or 20. On King. On King, yeah. Maybe on a half acre trying to do something that's a little exciting. Or even an eighth of an acre, you could do something. But right now with it at, you know, 2,000 feet, 3,000 feet and 5,000 feet, these little itsy bitsy parcels, you're really, really limited.

Unless a developer comes and starts consolidating. I think Sabrina actually recognized it in the memos, talking about the three distinctive areas. And maybe we want to make that very clear that, you know, the top and the bottom should be treated differently. Similar. But the so-called quasi-residential with retail permitted, you know, the hill is really a different zone. And that's the one that I think we should be concentrating on. It seems to me that the others, and I think that's what the legislation is really concentrating on. The reason I was talking about the so-called goal of the law, which hasn't changed, is I think we should have the information to know what this does. So if one of our goals is to offer and not nullify some of the middle rental housing that we have, I suspect that the new structures will have a different rental configuration. And we have that information. We can start to check and see once 50 North Greeley is built. We can check and see what 91 is and see how that compares with the housing that is on the hill now and understand are we going to be undercutting what we're trying to do, which is give a diversity of housing and rentals and start to actually make it even less affordable than it is now. And I think one of the issues that I have, and I've been talking about this for a while, is it seems to me that there's a lot of potential with much of the existing building stock with a modification in our ADU regulations to add a number of units. to the existing stock without the transformational change that 100% coverage or a 10-foot setback would have.

It's not 100% coverage. It's no maximum coverage. So there's a misunderstanding right now. They're calling it allowing 100% coverage. Not stating a maximum allowable coverage doesn't mean 100% coverage.

It means... What would limit that?

What limits the coverage is the site. It's the site. It's the stormwater requirements.

The things that we always talk about.

Exactly. The landscaping areas that you require. So there is a misunderstanding that by removing a maximum threshold, that that means 100%. It does not.

But also, doesn't the law also lean toward having this application come as a matter of right with very little to do? Absolutely not.

It's your permit.

Our permit, but subject to those... Subject to the code that you have in front of you.

And you have a lot of authority in the incentives to grant the percentages of, I think, 6 through 11, so half the percentages. And you have site plan approval. You approve the basic permitted density, the number of units that they're proposing. This permit solely rests within your purview of site plan approval. So if you don't like the 10-foot setback and they can meet the 10-foot setback and you want to push it another five feet back, you have the ability to do that. You have the ability to work with the applicant to justify why they should do that.

Okay.

Okay, because if it's 10 feet, they're going to say the code says I can go 10 feet.

Right.

But there's also codes within our code that says on the street wall, you have to be similar to your neighbors, right? So in the middle of King Street, if you get an application and they want to move it up 10 feet, There's codes on our book right now that if their neighbors are back 30 feet, then that should be consistent with the surroundings.

So my preference would be that you start with that basis and say the law should be, if you come in with an application... You start off with the current coverage. You start off with the current setback. Then you apply to the planning board if you want to do something different.

So that's not the way this law is written. I know that. I know that.

And that's my problem.

I know.

I think it should be the other way around. I hear you. Because if it comes to us that way, we are necessarily on the defensive. And we all know what that means in terms of lawyers getting hold of it.

I know.

And folks like Jeff driving through it with his truck. His big truck. His big truck going through. If you do something like that with, again, the same sort of policy concerns that you're trying to take care of, but at the same time not being as potentially transformational and being on the defensive, sitting there saying, I want 10 feet, the code gives me 10 feet, and we're trying to argue well. you know, your neighbor is at 25 feet, and they're saying, it's reasonable that I'll be at 12 feet.

There's a certain developer in town, I could definitely see if they came in with 10 feet, and we said, no, we want you to push it back to 30, they would blow their cork and go crazy. Because that 20 feet is all their square footage, right? So, and I guess that, you know, and I know you say that we're discretionary, but still, does it let the applicant... fight us saying that, no, you know, you guys are too discretionary. Does it open us up for a lawsuit?

Yeah, but here's the thing, I don't think, I don't think, listen, I understand you have never had a flexible front yard setback. What you have been flexible with is site planning. The location of the building, the amount of green space, where the dumpster is located, protection of the neighbors. How does it blend in with the neighborhood? You can't regulate a front yard setback. If they don't meet 10 feet or if they don't meet the 30 feet, they're going to the zoning board for a 10-foot variance or for 20-foot variance. Do you know what I'm saying? But your board issues this permit and the legislation gives you authority over the unit count that can occur. It gives you authority over the percentage increase for five of them. And you also, as part of your planning, determine landscaping. You determine driveway access. You determine garbage removal. Those are all of the site planning elements that you have built. directed for other downtown projects.

But we haven't seen very many on King Street because they've all failed because of stormwater. Correct. And so we really don't have that experience. That's all been downtown and that's been fairly easy and clear because it's a business district.

Yes.

This is more of a mixed district.

It is, but you also have stormwater with these.

Oh, yeah. I mean, that to me, as I mentioned last time, I think is really the big challenge. And there's more challenges. I mean, even if we use our standard code for 35 feet average, to me, the site that is going to be presented to downslope neighbors is NORTH OF KING STREET. I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT, WE USE THIS, YOU KNOW, AVERAGE 35 FEET, RIGHT?

I WOULD SAY IT'S AN AVERAGE. IT'S FROM THE MIDPOINT OF THE ROOF TO DOWN TO THE surface.

Yeah, but where? I don't know. Because it's always been an average all the way around. So, in any event, looking up from the neighbors on King Street, they'll be looking at this vast thing.

And you've always asked for a viewshed analysis.

Exactly. So, I mean, these are the things that we really do.

Absolutely. And those are things that you do today. There's no regulation that says viewshed. that talks about a viewshed in our code?

I know that, but don't tell people.

But you asked for it, right? You know, the site plans. I mean, these are just regular. So capricious, no. Arbitrary and capricious, no. This is what your board does.

So are you saying that you think it's... I mean, for example, what... apparently there's some sort of application before the zoning board, or they may consider it. And I talked to the building inspector this morning about it. And to me, that is an attempt by an applicant to bypass the legislative process that puts the zoning board in a terrible position of having to rule and basically ignore what we currently have as our code in the MFRC area without going through the legislative process.

I can't process the application.

Good.

I cannot process an application under this code today. I've had three different applications come in trying to apply for the MFRC. I've rejected all three of them because of the conflicts in the code. The front yard setback isn't a conflict. Okay? That's not. What is a conflict is the building coverage. And there was one of the end. Anchorage. Sorry?

And the acreage.

And that's just a no.

Yeah. Okay.

That's not a conflict. Okay. There is also an alternative way that a good attorney can get in with a smaller acreed property. And I don't know, you know, that's a question for legal. Can they apply through this section of the code? This is the reality of what I'm dealing with, and I haven't been able to process those three applications because there's a conflict in coverage in the code. And I would question the backdoor approach to size.

Is it possible to... Since you said no on these applications, is it possible for the boards and the public to see them or to know what they are?

Oh, no, I don't have formal applications.

Oh, all right.

These are preliminary conversations.

One thing I wanted to say to... I think you have to state your name. James McAuley, 24 Highland Avenue, Chapel 5. I live on King Street. I live on the west side of King Street, in the King Street Hill condominiums. I said last time I built them, it was built 40 years ago, under the MFRC. We're 1.1 acre, so we qualified, it was in the early stages of it. uh from north to south the next property is the Perez property I'm a little confused I thought it was 0.9 but I saw another map a town map that said it's 0.75 so it's below us but we're six to eight feet above King Street all right so depending now ours are back because I what do you call it, a ruler. It's 70, the front of our building is 70 feet back from the road. The next property, the Cavallacci property.

Is there parking between the road and your building? Yes.

Okay. And it's 60 feet over? No, that's only about 30 feet. Okay. The building itself.

What was your front street though?

Huh?

Your front yard. Your front yard is Highland Avenue.

No.

Isn't it?

No. That's our backyard. We come in on Highland because there was no entrance allowed by, it's a state road, so they didn't allow us to cut in an entrance on King. The entrance is on Highland. My unit is one of the two-bedroom units. It faces King. The driveway is in front of me, and then there's a drop-off of 60%. and the height of the buildings, there's two different King Streets even on King Street. The other side that the 211 application is on, those are at street level, they're at sidewalk level. So the setback, is some of the buildings are back, the buildings themselves are back further, but 211 is only back about 15 feet now, I think, the existing building. So I'm looking at it as a resident, and I think we do need more housing, no question. I also know that a unit in my complex is renting for over $4,000 a month. So they're not going to, if anyone builds other than low-income housing, today's building costs, today's property costs, it's going to be, rents are going to be not cheap. They're not going to be low. depictions of it yet, but I'd love to see that across King Street if it's, you know, five or six properties of townhouses all along in one that's going to look like what they call the Chappaqua Crossing Street. I've done it myself, put my own money at risk, my own time and effort over time, and I've done it in other places also. But here, rather than the entire code changing, is there a different way to incentivize the developer to take some risks and put three or four units, put more units in than would but not to do away with the MFRC because that 100% lot coverage and what was in that application is rather scary from an owner, from somebody who's lived there and so on, on either side of the street. And it may not be feasible on our side. Now, similar things happen south of Prospect. on the first couple of properties there. The houses are significantly above King Street, although they come in differently. As you get down then towards the complex where there's the cleaners and so on, those are pretty much at level with King Street. But I'm wondering if the objective of the town and the objective of the developer can't be met with... somewhere in between without throwing out the whole code. Because the code wasn't written for this type of thing. It was written for all farm like. It was written for Chappaqua commons. It wasn't designed for this by any means. So maybe there's another way to get to the same result offered or suggested. The board has come out and sent out questionnaires. There's been a lot of information. There were seminars. There were questions. Pace University was hired. This is happening, it seems, off the impact of one application for a 33 3.33 acre lot, which I have to agree with Chairman Kirkwood that it seems kind of backwards. It seems like the mouse is getting the elephants to run. But there should be a, I think, in this line here and that line here, I know there's a lot of metrics. But maybe there's a middle way that, and yet these 100% type coverage who live there, it isn't just those of us who live on King, it's those of, there's hundreds of other houses, says, you know, not so good. And the results, I think, can be achieved because we all seem to want the same thing, but just maybe not as much of the same thing as a change in the total coverage Thank you. Thanks.

Serena, when you have the coverage issue, what is the coverage issue that is the thing that thwarts your making a determination or processing or going forward?

In the text, it talks about maximum thresholds for building and development coverage. In the table, it says NA. Okay.

I just wonder if we went about it differently. Again, I've talked about this for a while, but if we got a real good, accurate inventory of the units that are in the King Street Hill, including those areas that are currently occupied for retail commercial, which could be converted to housing, get ourselves a full inventory of what we have, And then with a modest change of the ADU regulations in that zone where they could add another apartment or two, probably just one. And then we don't have to, usually we don't have to do anything with parking, maybe even shrink the parking because it's designed for some commercial and ground floor. See what that gets us to in terms of the increase in number of units. But in any event, use that as the baseline now for a developer to come in. You're looking at this building right now. It has only two units right now, but there's a commercial, there's incentive. We can get you to five or whatever it might be and start there and say, we can get you to that level. And it's not going to be a dramatic transformational change where you have to go to extremes for coverage or go to extremes for setbacks, et cetera. But it's a base that we can start with with information in terms of what are we trying to get to? What's the number? What's the delta that we're trying to get to? My sense is that the delta based on the proposal between what we could get to reasonably under the proposed changes, and what we could get by changing the ADU and retaining more of the modest rental units is not that significant. We could get there with a whole lot less impact to what we like about the King Street area, which is the greenery, the trees, the setbacks. It's irregular setbacks. Every single building is set back at some different level, which I think adds to the you know, the charm and scale and nature of the place. But maybe use that as the basis to, so we understand what we're getting to, what we can get to. And again, I would suggest that a better way to do it is to be more subject to the, you know, I think Sabrina raised a really good point in terms of, you know, okay, you set that in the law, then they just go to the zoning board for relief. So, you know, that How do we take care of that? And how do we avoid that? That's an issue. Yeah, I mean, but if we have it in code, and again, the zoning board, they're good, smart people. They react well, and they know what they're doing. And so they're dealing with minor changes. It's not a wholesale thing. change where you're coming in and it doesn't matter what the code says. I want five stories here. No, you're not.

Oh, they won't do that.

Of course not. And again, that's an extreme example. But it just seems to me that that could be a better route. And also more information to know where we are. I think we're dealing a little bit in the dark.

In your referral, right? Let's break it down a little bit so we can... I summarized the discussions you had. We talked about the three distinct areas in the BR who are on King Street.

Is King Street the only place this occurs?

It's in the BR zoning district on King Street.

And that's it? There's no other place?

There may be some BR on North Greeley.

Okay, but would this apply on the BR North Greeley or is it this only King?

It applies to the BR zoning district in the Hamlet of Chapel Club.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, so the conversation has been all about the King Street Hill.

Should we make that recommendation that we should just talk about King Street? And the BR for North Greeley downtown should be a different issue?

This code exists today for the BR zoning district in Chappaqua.

I understand. But should we do something different and just say we're talking about King Street with what we're talking about here and leave whatever you have for the BR on North Greeley unchanged?

That's up to you.

I mean, I think it's a totally different feel and totally different zoning.

So do you want to note in here that The Planning Board reviewed the motion in light of the fact that there are three zones. The BR is only just on King Street Hill, right? And then each zone has its characteristics. And then it's in Mid-Hill. And there's a whole new field. And there's a completely different field on North Greeley.

Yep. And that could be treated as a different zone. Or treated as is right now under the BR.

A completely different area.

So, Sabrina, I'm looking at this. DO YOU SEE THIS? SO MY QUESTION FOR YOU, IS THIS AREA RIGHT HERE WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE KING STREET HILL?

NO.

OKAY.

LET ME SEE.

I THINK IT IS. I THINK IT IS. THE KING STREET HILL IS NOT EVEN THE ARTISTIC.

I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT MAP THAT IS.

IS THIS WHAT WE'RE EFFECTIVELY CALLING THE HILL?

No, this is the hill. This is residential zone here. This is the BR zone here. All in here. And then there's an area up here.

This is what we're referring to as the hill?

Yep.

Okay. And this is flat. This is the hill. And this is resi. This is a whole different zoning district.

That's a whole different zoning district.

Okay. Gotcha. Okay, good. Oh, you got the same thing.

Well, not exactly. I got it in black and white. You got it in color. I'm special.

It's only in the red outlined areas on that map. Gotcha.

Okay. So this is the hill. Oh, yeah. This is not. This is already resi. It's out of the discussion. Yeah, this is the area that is tough, especially for retail.

Right. Yeah.

I think we all recognize that. I mean, it's possible. Anything's possible. It's a pattern.

Is it viable? I'm looking at this one, which was submitted in a letter to the zoning board. where it looks like it kind of jagged down. It goes to the north side of North Greeley, over towards the post office. Does it also go to the south side of North Greeley?

Next to 50 North Greeley? 50 North Greeley is in the BR.

So that whole area would be... could be what we're talking about here would apply to that as well.

Yes, but you have to look at 51 North Greeley has a different special use permit right now. You have the Verizon building. Nothing's changing with that. You have a town parking lot that will remain a town parking lot. And you have the U.S. Post Office.

The Post Office could go away soon. Who's mailing stuff?

I doubt that that post office will go away.

I don't think the federal government gives a plan that easily. You'd be surprised.

And that's the developer dreamer in him.

Uh-oh. No, it's just, yeah, I've always been focused on the hill, and maybe there's limitations to that other portion on the south side, which I... or the north side of North Greeley, which I think is ripe for some form of development. I mean, there's, it's like throwing random stuff with sticks together. But I'm with the chairman is, you know, is this being presented in the right direction? At the same time, I do know that the sound board wants us to give them a memo with our thoughts. So as we're going through it, Sabrina, I think where you were going through, I was in alignment with where, before I interrupted.

I'm pushing for a memo.

Yeah. But this is a very complicated, just touching one or two words or four aspects of it without touching the whole thing can also now open up other holes coming through here. So I'm a proponent of we can put together a memo, but at the end of the memo, we need to talk with the town board and have a joint session of some sort to go through this stuff and have a collaborative work session.

The end of my memo says, joint meeting between town board and planning board to understand the town board's goals. Let staff and planning board work on a draft to present to the town board, and then the town board can adopt. That was the end of my memo.

I think we can give them our thoughts. Yeah. But at the end of the day, our thoughts need also be- Staff needs to say it works. In a work session conversation of some sort, because that's what we're deputized with. Yeah. I think that makes real sense.

Can I have your notes?

Okay, I'll make a picture. Yes, you could definitely.

Well, here's landed upon different area on North Greeley. I don't know if you want to say anything more.

So you think this zone should be separated?

Separate and apart from the King Street Hill.

And constraints aren't necessarily bad.

And then we go, our next topic have been explored. There was a sentiment that the proposed legislation seemed to be walking away, seem to change the goals.

So we have to, I think, elaborate on that. So we understand exactly what you mean there. Well. Or what we mean, if we don't adopt that.

I'm trying to think of a good one.

I know.

I see that. Big picture for the top five goals of the comp plan is more housing. more diversified housing for the top five goals because of because I think I think it's making it more confusing vision I I thought the goal was you telling you that there's conflicts yeah and the back door are you like to what like I eat or not well the right right I think there's still confusion left over from before. And when you go from a half, from a full acre down to a quarter, so that doesn't make it more.

It doesn't make it more confusing.

Maybe it doesn't make it more confusing, but I still know here, I thought those incentives were great for developers to come in and try to think of creative ways to get. But we had talked about really.

Right. I would, I would argue that a goal of the legislation, I mean, one of the, One of the things we talked about last year was clarification. But I think that is the goal is, one of the goals is to, and what we have now, we're going to lose a good segment of what we have now. And so therefore, it's undercut that and also not be, you know, gigantically transformational in terms of the look and feel of King Street. It depends. I mean, my sense is, because we've seen a lot, a fair amount of this, actually, not so much on King, but Standard's been successful. And they tend to be more affordable. Exactly. And for lots of reasons. First of all, it's a little bit easier. They've already got the parking, so they have to buy the parking. Exactly what we want to do and where we get to what we want to do. So without that information, that's why I argued right from the get-go in the process, we don't have the information that we need to make these kinds of judgments. We have tax information, maps. And we've had enough studies.

Yeah. And it doesn't all have to be $4,000 a month.

In terms of what the rents are, I mean, I think it's going to be, my guess, fairly upscale.

Affordable component in both those.

Well, they're required.

It's 10%.

Yeah, yeah at the top of the hill like one of the other things is you know, I Actually had some thoughts on some of those incentives, which I thought were Change to really Incentivize creative development you can say that more should be changed But those incentives are things that the development city to reach maximum permitted building.

And I would argue that some of those incentives are inappropriate. Coverage, more parking, a bigger structure, et cetera, because it has green construction. Makes no sense to me. I think there's an incentive in here for, there's 15% for like, Yeah, stuff on the site, like amenities. And I don't think those amenities should be, you know, incentive options. They should be required. You should have some sort of space on those plots, I think, for patios, decks, outdoor living, grilling, whatever it might be. And that's not an incentive where if you do it as an option, you get an extra 15 extra units. Well, that makes sense.

And in the event, though, that you do have a larger lot and you say, all right, I'm going to put a tennis court on there, so I'm giving up developable area, quality development.

If it's a public amenity, not a fund.

Well, there's another one for public amenities.

You have the town board.

It's still impossible. You're never going to level. But you could see a pocket park, right? You could have a nice little pocket park on King Street. That's a town board launch. Right? That is a DelVal person.

There is no going higher than 35 feet. But that's not in the code.

Okay. But we were talking about incentives.

Yes, but there's no incentive for height.

Okay.

But if we could propose it.

You are limited to the listing of 11 incentives in that code.

Well, I suggest it should be 9. 11? Okay. I only got 10 here.

4 and 4A.

4 and 4A.

Oh, fine. But 4 was rental apartments and 4A was... The stuff that you have in blue in here?

Nope.

Yeah. Okay. So... Let's start with the simple one. The MFRC shall not apply to properties located in the B, right? Right? Yes. Yeah, because I want retail in the B. Attachment 3. What's 60 attachment 3?

It's the table.

Here. And referring to that table, which is, so I think we're good with, and rebuilding practices such as green roofs and use of all electric utilities.

I know, but how does everyone else feel?

I mean, I think it's in the minutes from last, last meeting, put a bicycle rack out and you get some points, you put a shower and you get some points. Is it really the materials often are costing or costing more, right?

If you do a green roof to hold stormwater. Right. That is something that is beneficial. Right.

Warren, you should be able to recoup that cost, and we should incentivize people to do that kind of stuff. Because that's a benefit to help stormwater systems.

Are you okay with that change, adding that in there?

I'm good with making those kinds amorphous. Yeah.

Well, that was for lack of a better reference.

I understand.

But gives the authority for your board to identify what's good for the earth.

Or for the village, town.

Yes, exactly. Then that's your measurement of when somebody comes to you.

I think the intent is we're open to other ones.

Technology changes.

Such as, but not limited to, a green route. Limited to, right?

Well, there is a such as in there now.

Yeah.

Is that?

That way we can do, there's more.

S1, ONE ACRE TO... NO, THE LAST ONE IS WE'RE DELETING THE COVERAGE, COMMON COVERAGE, WITHIN THE MFRC DISTRICT.

I CAN'T SEE THAT.

THE NEW LANGUAGE THAT I JUST READ, IS THAT... SHOULD THAT BE BELIEVABLE BEFORE THAT? IS THAT NEW OR OLD?

THERE IS NO REQUIRED MAXIMUM PERMITTED BUILDING COVERAGE OR MAXIMUM PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE WITHIN AN MFRC DISTRICT.

THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, WHICH IT USED TO SAY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THESE CALCULATIONS, IS THIS.

AND STICKING WITH THE N.A. AND THE CHART. permitted coverage downtown, and we turned that coverage into a community parking lot.

Yeah, that's what you could have. You could do that on the King Street Hill.

Those properties are not set up like that. And you have to understand, a certain size property cannot do this. Period. Which is not even being talked about.

Right. It remains unchanged. Got it. I, you know, this is, obviously you can't cover more than 100%, but as opposed to giving a guide, we can see whether or not, based on your application, there's room for more coverage or less coverage. This starting off with is no maximum. I can pipe it across the street. I can pipe it through this other neighbor's property. And they could in theory. And of course, when they finally went to the neighbor and asked, the neighbor said, no, drop dead. You're not going through my property. Really stretched the truth. We had an applicant tonight who was extremely transparent, refreshingly so. And strikingly so compared to what I find it very difficult because I know the kind of pressure that can be brought to bear by an applicant and really, really pushing and threatening and all this kind of stuff, as opposed to saying, this is what you got. This is what you get. So consider incentives or otherwise to get to what you think is appropriate for the space, the property.

Go, they'll run with it. So if you want to start with a base...

But then again, the other issue, arguing against myself on this, is we talked about flexibility, and each site is different, so... You don't have that ability.

There are side yard setbacks or none. There's a... You have to remain. You need the guide rail to 10 feet. This thing, they want to be consistent with the... And that we need...

This is a different distinct zone, and the 10-foot setback is inappropriate for Fink Street... So drove down this today, I was looking very carefully and the setbacks of these buildings were all different levels, different sizes, different setbacks. And I think that, you know, with different greenery, but because of consider, but maybe that's the starting position. Then from there, we, we can consider something different, different area on North Greeley.

Right now, this change affects all three areas. ARE YOU TOLERABLE OF THAT DISTANCE IN CERTAIN AREAS AND NOT CERTAIN AREAS OR JUST NO? TO 10 FEET. RIGHT. AND SO YOU HAVE SPOKEN ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SETBACKS THAT EXIST ALONG THAT MID PORTION OF THE KING STREET HILL BEFORE THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE, RIGHT? THERE'S THE LOWER PORTION OF THE KING STREET HILL. AND THEN THERE'S THE NORTH GREELEY. side of the br zoning district if somebody wanted to do an mfrc on that side are you opposed to 10 feet zones right within the br zoning district itself application of the mfrc in the Chappaqua-Hamlet area, how appropriate for North Greeley Avenue may not be appropriate for the area that cements your point more so.

Yes, I think so.

Than just saying we don't agree with the 10 feet.

Yeah, yeah, yeah, that's fine.

All right, so I can write it using the example because out of all the changes that Jeff read, that seems to be the most problematic.

Yeah. I mean, that's my biggest issue. That and eliminating any conflicts and ambiguity because that's what's creating a lot of these issues.

Yeah.

Okay.

Are we addressing all the conflicts?

Yes.

Okay.

Yes.

The only thing... As you brought up... quarter acre that could be that's a lot more which is that well what is a lot more we don't know that's wasn't one acre it's like three three yeah right so if it's more than 10 that's a three-fold yeah that's a three times as many right there and i expect that there's more than 10 quarter acre lots in that area could there be under current code or adu or whatever you want to talk about

So what are we talking about? How can we do it? How can a developer do it reasonably, inexpensively?

And how can projects on a half acre lot than on a quarter acre?

Yep. We've been talking about that for North Greeley for years. I mean, that would be the hope. Someone would come in and consolidate on North Greeley and really do something.

Property values are too high.

Yep.

Not going to happen.

It's got to be like Bedford. Find one where you already got it approved.