Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay, good evening. This is the Planning Board meeting of Wednesday, June 17. We have a quorum. Is there a motion to open the meeting? Motion. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, our first item today is a referral from the Zoning Board of Appeals. This is for the First Congregational Church, 210 Orchard Ridge Road. This is an amendment to the special use permit application for installation of solar panels on the church roof.

I'm a global architect with my partner and colleague, Keiko. I'm also on the board of trustees of the First Congregational Church, so. And you also play softball. I also play softball and pitch badly when playing Jeff's team. Well, thank you. No problem. So, I do all kinds of things. We, the First Congregational Church, would like to install solar panels on our mostly flat roofs on the church. And since we're regulated by the Zoning Board, we started with them. This was a use that had to get approved by them. They wanted to get your feedback on the proposal, and particularly the aesthetics of it. And we also went to the ARB. They approved it two weeks ago. So we're here as hopefully our last stop. And then back to the Zoning Board for the final sign off on the resolution. and we hope to be installing panels next month. So what I wanted to do was go through a visual analysis, certainly the solar panels on the roof with the biggest visual change to surrounding properties. So I want to show you photographs in these diagrams to show essentially the churches surrounding properties surrounded by woods, and very mature trees. And so you'll see diagrams I think show that to all of the You can hardly see the church even, let alone specific parts of the roof. But just to familiarize you all with it, this diagram you see on the screen, that's showing all of these views that you're going to see. Don't worry about trying to pick out specific numbers. We have eight surrounding residential properties that I'll show you the views from. And then I'm going to also do a quick spin around the church's property to show you what that is. You can see on the church, which is mostly U-shaped building in the middle there. Bill, do you want this? Oh, yeah, I could do that. Thank you. Church. Keep pushing it and it goes away. There's predominantly the church. There's a U-shaped wing with a little wing at the top for where our kitchen is. The dark squares with the red lines around them are the proposed locations for the solar panels. Mostly these are flat roofs. All through here is flat roofs. This piece is flat roof. We have two sections that are going on gable roofs. This little piece here, which you can see is towards the front parking area. And this piece on this back gable roof faces this back parking area. And so we'll see all the views from there. And North is up, right? North is up, yeah. This is the submission by the solar company, GHES. It's a 73-kilowatt DC system and a 50-kilowatt AC system. I don't know more about why DC is a higher number than AC, but that's what it is. There's people who know why that is. This shows a blowup of that same diagram in terms of where the These are the flat roofs through here with solar panels. These panels go from essentially the panels are about three inches thick. They'll go from zero on the roof up to eight and a half inches off the roof on this back edge. Same thing there. These are on what I would say is probably a six and 12 pitch roofs in that area. A quick circle through the property. This is from the front entrance area. Our proposed panels are going on this flat roof, that flat roof. There's a little piece of that gable there that'll have solar panels sort of from this white parapet wall in the back. And then on the back side of this gable roof that you see there and a flat roof on the other side.

So the gable roof is in the back on that far side?

Yeah, on the back of this one is that gable roof. That was looking east like into the woods down the road, right? Correct, correct. And we'll see a little piece of solar panel there on six panels on that piece of gable roof sort of above that parapet wall. And then solar panels on this flat roof, this flat roof. You can see from the perspective, the building is about 11 feet tall to the roof. We're about three and a half feet above sidewalk level to the first floor. And then this parking area slopes down. From this vantage point, your eye level is just about at that parapet wall, stone retaining wall, and so that roof line well above your eye level and everything on it is back pitching in terms of perspective.

What about the six on the little gable there?

Yeah, those six will be visible. Will you be able to see those? You will.

Is that the front entry?

This is our education wing entrance. There's classrooms back here. There's a memorial room here. This is the offices. The main entrance to the church is back here to the sanctuary. So from within the church's property, those panels are probably the only ones you'll see. Right.

Thank you. Again, just a quick buzz around. Yeah, so it's right behind that tree to the left, right? Yes. That's what we're looking at? Correct, right in there.

And then as we move around to the north, looking back south, flat roof would have panels on it, but you won't see those. Further away, looking south, basically southeast, lots of trees on the property too. Now this is looking directly south from the parking lot at the north end of the property. This is our kitchen, one story piece there. It will be flat, solar panels on that roof, no solar panels on the pitched roof beyond it. And then this is from the back, really the east side of the church. this roof will be predominantly covered by solar panels. So you will see it from there. And I'll show you this is looking back at that same roof again from directly east. Now we'll go look at surrounding properties. So you remember there were eight. This is the first property is north. And by the way, those I should have pointed out the diagrams we gave you, too. So those eight properties are represented on these diagrams. You can see that one side is the churches, the blow-ups of those. And photographs you'll see up here are the ones that are on the diagrams there you can see that we're representing both the grade and the mature trees that are in the way and all views from the house to the church are substantially blocked by so no panels no panels on the small house up here no that one's not getting them yet didn't think of that we should try that So this is looking sort of northeast a little bit to 303 Bedford Road from the church. And then this is looking from the front yard of 302 Bedford Road back to the church. Up the hill in the distance would be that wing that will have the solar panels on that roof line. Can't see that even from that view. Next, the next property south, you may remember seeing this at some point in terms of any approvals they did. A new house was built, cleared out the whole front yard. There were lots of trees there before. They cleared that out. So then from that, This is looking back towards that house from standing in front of that wing of the church that has all the solar panels on it. Obviously, you see lots of mature, dense trees there. This is looking back from that front yard back towards the church. Again, the whole street line of Orchard Road is significant mature trees.

Right, so even though the new property is open, on the west side of the road, on the west side of 117.

And then as well, it's about a 40-foot grade up from here to the grade level in front of the church there. I keep looking at the screen to move it. This is the one picture I had of no leaf scenario looking back at that new house is through there getting constructed and even in the fall when there's no leaves on the trees very crowded even tree trunks that are through the property. And this I'm standing slightly down the hill from that parking area that's the building with the wing with the roof panels on it. So that's 297. Now moving further south on Bedford Road, this is the corner of Orchard Ridge Road and Bedford Road and sort of a state property right across the diagonal there. Looking back towards that, significant, obviously mature trees along Bedford Road, screening that property. And then from in front of that property back towards the church. You can see there are some openings to see the church building. This is the sanctuary. That wing, office wing with the flat roofs on it is back buried behind here. And then this is the education wing. No roof, no solar panels on that. And then that wing that's going north that has the solar panels, can't see it from here because it's blocked by the education wing. So that's 275, 215 Orchard Ridge Road. Now at the Orchard Ridge Road, the first property at the corner there has significant mature trees already along Orchard Ridge Road. And then looking from that back towards the church, again, like 275 Vector Road, the sanctuary, no solar panels there. The flat-roofed office wing is back behind the sanctuary. You can't see that. This is the education wing, no solar panels there. And then that wing that has the solar panels on it is going north from there. Further in on Orchard Ridge Road, They have a six foot high wood fence along Orchard Ridge Road, so their property is fairly well screened at sort of eye level already. Our open lawn area with few trees on it, a little more view there, but then once we look back from that property, look back at the church, the enough trees that are here that really block the view even of being able to see There's the one story office wing that would have panels on it. And back through there would be that piece of gable roof with the solar panels on it. Can't even see that part of the building in this view. So interestingly that most of the time where you can see the church at all through the trees, you see the sanctuary. That's mostly what's in the view. Now further going along Orchard Ridge Road, 188. This is on the west side of the church along Orchard Ridge Road. I could go back to that original map. So to the west of the church, same side of Orchard Ridge Road, beautiful property. They have a three acre lot there. view back toward this is the view from the church to that property significant mature trees along that edge of the property and then from their properties looking back those same bank of trees can't even see the church through there so that is well screened then Now, to the northwest is Lawrence Farm South development, and there are a couple of properties down below the church that back up onto the church's property. So this is the view from the church's parking lot at that northwest corner back to 24 Highway. It's about a 30 foot or so down gradient from The church's parking lot, and again, the church's parking lot is about 11 feet below the church itself. But again, there's obviously significant mature vegetation there. No view both from and to the church. This is then the front yard of that property looking back towards the church. Church is back through there. And significant vegetation trees there. And lastly, 310 Bedford Road is the property immediately to the north of the church. It's obviously a significant parking lot up to that property line. This wood fence is the property line. There's a house back through the trees there. You can't see the house from the church. And then sort of standing in front of that fence line looking back, You do see the gable end of that. It's our centennial hall. The kitchen is a view I showed you before. We're getting flat panels on top of that flat kitchen roof, no panels on the gable. So that's the quick tour through the views from the church to the surrounding properties. The church is surrounded by trees. Can't even see the church building for the most part. I think that the solar panels would not be a visual issue for any of the surrounding neighbors. We've appeared to the zoning board. The neighbors were notified of that appearance. No neighbors appeared at the meeting. We've heard no objections to it. So I think we've got a good solution here.

Okay, great. Sabrina, you got some thoughts, comments?

No, the only comment that I would have is make sure you submit all of this new information to the zoning board as soon as possible because we are drafting a resolution because they're under some time constraints with funding and so next week the zoning board will be meeting and hopefully adopting the resolution provided your board doesn't have any issue. But the applicant has met with all of the requirements in the code regarding solar installations.

Elevation angles.

Elevation angles, everything, the height, all of that. So, you know, the biggest issue was that they hadn't shown the view shed analysis. With this, I think their application is definitely complete and satisfactory.

So is this something that had to be referred to the ZBA because of solar panels, because it's commercial or institutional, or is it even applied to residential?

The church exists within the residential zone as a special exception use permit, and because it is... their special use permit doesn't call for solar, they had to come in and amend that special use permit, which is why it's before the zoning court.

I think you said in your memo, traditionally, that church would come back like three times to do things in the past.

Exactly.

So you had to kind of keep up with the decades.

All special use permits have to be renewed every five years, according to our town code. And anytime they make changes to their properties, they have to come back.

Fair enough. Great.

Any thoughts, comments from board members? I got a question. Could you get a plan? Oh, you have a plan then. Just out of curiosity, because I figured you were sensitive to keep the solar panels off the gables.

Yes, yes.

For just, you know, to keep it off.

If you don't mind, I want to add something while you're figuring that out. You're getting rebates, both a grant and a rebate for the cost of it, substantial, like 60% of the cost is ultimately getting covered by that. There was a limit to the kilowatt rating of the system under that program. So we've maxed out what the panels were showing. That's the maximum we could do under that program. So that's the maximum numbers of panels you can have right now.

Correct. So is that why you guys ended up putting on that one gable spot? That's right. Just to max out? That's right.

You know, while you're there.

No, I'm not arguing with you. I'm just, okay. And does that max out? Do those extra panels get you those extra panel lots? Yes. Oh, yeah.

And in fact, we had to move. We initially had them, I gave up the cursor. Here you go.

Take it back. Thank you.

We initially had them here. There's a piece of roof you can't really see. It's in shadow from that tree. They were there. This garden area is fenced in. So the fire marshal saw that and said, well, fire department can't get access to that in that fencing area. So we had to move those. And those are those six panels there were originally back here. So we were really trying to keep it all out of view at all from.

So that's why I'm assuming you didn't put any right there. Correct. Because that's the view right from the street and everyone's going to see it. Correct. Okay. That's what I thought.

In that choice of our, we only have, it's like it's 70 panels altogether. We could only.

And that would be an ideal spot. Yeah.

Because it's south facing. There's a tree there. So, you know, we said, oh, I don't think we have to, you know, do that. Would we embark on that? But, uh, Yeah, we just felt that we would put them on flat roofs to the greatest degree possible. And obviously that section is still a significant amount on that gable roof. But then we wanted to still max out what the available grant funding was.

And you can't squeeze those panels right there?

They tried. They tried, okay. I'm done. Yeah, thank you. Yeah, you know, obviously would have preferred we didn't have any visibility of it right in front. Then again, it's nice to let people know we did something. All you'll see is the corner of three or four panels and at least communicate a message that we've done that. That's probably something I should have said at the outset in terms of the church's effort is to be environmental and sustainable. We're doing several other things that we're trying to achieve that. and be a relevant part of the community from that perspective. We, of course, love that we're trying to do things more environmental and sustainable. The building, it's a brick facade on concrete block. The finished inside is paint on the concrete block. So it's the least environmental building, unfortunately, that you can produce. And somebody said, well, there's probably insulation in between the brick and the... And the block, all right, you know, we've got an R4 out of that or something. So we have oil heat. We have, you know, gobs of money that go out the door for obviously out the roofs and windows and walls for heating. The solar panels will cover all of our electricity. usage. With the grants, we're projecting that probably in four years, we'll have paid back the cost of the panels. And from there on out, obviously, they do geotech. Geothermal, geothermal heating system. Yeah, no, you know, looking for that you know, the next wave of the grants and funding that are available for that. Maybe you have to wait for the next president to come along to, you know, reinstitute some of those programs because it's actually sunsetting. The one we're getting the significant federal tax credit for is ending in July. This July? This July. Wow. And tight. Hence why we're moving this along. That's right. So thank you.

Moving like lightning. So stop with your comments.

Can you please just tell them what is the piece de resistance? The piece de resistance? The number of trees being removed. I think that adds to zero. Correct. It can be done. It's all the friggin' same. Thank you.

And no wetlands impact? No wetlands impact.

So would that be a positive referral?

I think it would be a positive referral. So what will we do? Just a one sentence? No objections? Do you need a motion?

Yes, we need a motion.

Motion? Second?

All in favor?

Aye. Aye.

So we'll get this out as soon as possible. Thank you. Are you planning on doing any battery energy storage systems?

That has been part of the consideration. I think there was, yeah, I think there was something from the town that was raised concern about that. So we were looking at that and the, you know, the rebase would have covered that as well. So, but I'm not totally certain, but I think we're not doing that at the moment. I don't know if that's due to the towns. He can convert it to a data center. Okay. Oh, is that right?

Okay. Yeah, but it looked like, because I was looking at your electrical diagram, you're just doing net metering, it appears.

Yeah. Okay. So, you're beyond me in terms of doing that, but that's, yeah, net metering, as in...

As in you will use power at night, for instance, and during the day, solar is shining on the panels and it's going back. But if you were using one kilowatt hour and you're making 10 from the solar, you're sending nine back to the grid.

It is a church, altruism. Yeah.

making more. The church is doing this directly? Yes, correct.

We're funding out of our resources that the 60% let's say and the solar panel company is the one getting the grants and the

to them. So they for some reason, that doesn't work. And we have more money to pony up at a later point. It's great. You know, it's great. batteries on. What's that?

Thank you. All right.

Thank you. Thank you.

I folded mine, sorry.

But I did it in a professional way.

You must know how to fold drawings, right?

We're going to keep this for our file. Okay. Thank you.

OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANKS. OUR NEXT MATTER IS A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT THAT'S BEING ADJOURNED TO THE SECOND MEETING IN JULY? CORRECT. CORRECT. WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY MATERIALS FROM THE APPLICANTS, SO WE ADJOURNED IT. THE NEXT MATTER IS AN INFORMAL APPEARANCE BEFORE THE BOARD. THIS IS 25 SOUTH BEDFORD ROAD, LLC. 25 SOUTH BEDFORD ROAD. This is an application for a site development plan application for installation of a fueling island canopy.

You have to open up the public hearing and order it. Oh, we didn't open it before? No. This is the first one? This is the first one.

Oh, okay. Is there a motion to open the public hearing that we're not going to hear? Motion. Second? Second. And then is there a motion then to adjourn the public hearing? Do we have to do aye?

You have to do aye.

Yeah. Okay. You need to ask us to vote. All in favor? Aye.

Thank you.

Motion. Don't be laughing. I mean, the attorney is giving me a hard time here.

Maybe I should go on Zoom, okay? You behave much better when I'm on Zoom.

There's so much pressure when you're here. Is there a motion to adjourn the public hearing to the second meeting in July? Motion. Second? Second. All in favor?

Aye. Okay.

Second. ANYWAY, WE ARE NOW NEXT TO OUR NEXT MATTER, THE INFORMAL HEARING FOR 25 SOUTH BEDFORD ROAD.

GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS ON BOARD AND STAFF. MY NAME IS ANTHONY MESTER WITH THE FIRM OF JMC. I AM APPEARING HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANTS 25 SOUTH BEDFORD ROAD LLC. and their application to construct a fueling canopy over the existing normal station located at the intersection of King Street and South Bedford Road. So the site is located at the southeastern corner of the intersection of South Bedford Road and King Street. It's about approximately .35 acres in size. It's on the aerial here on the screen. I'll show you kind of an area, however it is. The site is located in the BR, which is the Business Retail District, and it is a permitted use as a special use permit, but it's also an existing non-conforming use with regards to, I believe, setbacks, and there's an existing driveway within a certain distance So the proposal is to construct a, it's a 24 foot wide by 56 foot long, 18 feet high canopy over the extinct fuel island in the northern portion of the site. And you can see that that is indicated here by this dark shaded area. And with the constraints of the site and how it's situated, The canopy would require three variances from the ZBA, which we would, I think, Sabrina, correct me if I'm wrong, we still, the ZBA is the approval authority because it's an amendment to an existing special permit. But we're here before you tonight just to go through site plan issues.

It's not a special permit. This is a, it's an as of right use. It's actually a pre-existing non-conforming use in the BR zoning district. there are existing pre-existing non-conformities but because they are coming in for the change for the canopy then those non-conformities will then become variances so so what will happen is if this board approves your project they will as part of that approval recommend that you go to the zoning board of appeals to achieve those variances

So you can see on the site plan here, let's see if I can zoom in a little bit here. I just zoomed in on a corner. So this is the corner, obviously, of South Bedford Road and King Street. The building is located in this part here. Fueling stations I should say three on either side and then the canopy is obviously placed right along the center of the island It's 24 feet wide 56 feet long to cover the you know patrons that are coming in there with the cars and the Variances that we would need to seek we've kind of labeled them a B and C since this property has double frontage, so the requirements and I think I canopy is a special condition for the use within the VR zone and you need it to be 50 feet from the property line and obviously 50 feet from the property line takes it way back here so I'll say on the east northeast side on A the canopy is approximately 10 and a half feet off of the property line there and then to the northwest it's 18.9 feet approximately there and 14 feet along this part of the property line placement of the canopy I just wanted to point out to it's the total height is 18 feet but to the bottom of the canopy is 15 feet high so that it will not you know conflict with the fueling trucks, which I think they've confirmed it's I think it's only 11 feet high. The trucks that deliver the fuel. Okay, I think that's still okay for regular trucks to like box trucks.

So usually 13, usually 13.6 is where things max out. And 14 is a pretty standard rule of thumb.

But underneath the proposed canopy, there are proposing recessed lighting. And then AND THIS DIAGRAM SHOWS WE DID NOT DESIGN THE LIGHTING. THEY HAD A LIGHTING COMPANY DESIGN THE LIGHTING. BUT THERE ARE EIGHT RECESSED LIGHTS. THESE LIGHTS ARE 140 WATTS. I THINK THE COLOR IS 2700. AND IT DOES DELIVER, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY UNDERNEATH THE a decent amount of foot candles and brightness just to aid in, you know, making sure everybody can see what's going on there. So we did provide that. And then also during the pre-application meeting, it was suggested that we kind of do a little 3D rendering to see what it would look like in certain perspectives, you know, in the intersection, what it would look like with the canopy on. So here we kind of took looking north on South Bedford, you know, in the corner. So you can see here's the existing islands there. And then we superimposed the canopy over the top of the pumps there. The roof of the canopy, which is really a parapet, it's going to be like a Mansford type of roof. And I know the color looks dark here, but I think that's just the program. BECAUSE OF THE SHADOWS WHERE IT'S LOCATED. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE A DARK GRAY TYPE BLACK THAT MATCHES THE TYPE OF ROOF THAT'S SIMILAR TO THE BUILDINGS IN THE SURROUNDING.

IS THAT ROOF HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING?

BASED ON, WE DID NOT. I DIDN'T TAKE A TAPE MEASURE. BUT FROM THE INFORMATION WE HAVE, YES, IT IS.

GETTING BACK TO THE HIKE QUESTION, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME SORT OF FIRE SUPPRESSION SYSTEM. Will that be just over the pumps or will it be over the other area and then will they protrude down below this footage that we're talking about, the height that we're talking about?

Yeah, based on what I know, and again, I don't know if that information wasn't provided to us, but from what I know of gas stations, that would probably be up on top of the canopy itself.

I'll talk about the nozzles that come down. They're going to come down. They're going to come down. Well, the issue is you don't want those clipped by trucks coming in fueling. So I'm sure it'll be engineered properly, but it's something that we should just make sure we have on the planet.

So I think we're all not concerned. We're thinking about the height of the new canopy. Mm-hmm. I'm going to start off with does it have to be 18 feet? Is that being driven by best design practices that it needs to be that to function? Or is that somebody saying, oh, 18 feet sounds like a nice number. Let's make it 18 feet.

Well, I think to answer your question, they tried to create as much space in between there as possible, because the closeness to the existing building, if it was any lower, they thought it would be too much like a tunnel. Because there really isn't much distance between the roofs of the existing building and the canopy. So they kind of wanted to create some air in there a little bit.

But if you were to lower the canopy two feet, I don't know if that's going to affect the tunnel effect that's created between the canopy and the new building. I could ask the company. When you come back, I'd like to get some... engineered information as to why it's 18 feet high and not 16 feet high.

I think it's shown in this sheet. I have that sheet for your profile, where you're caught here, you've got your clear height of 15 feet, and then you have the supports that are protruding on top of the roof. And the parapet is hiding those. Right.

I mean, I'm trying to figure out, can we, can the silhouette be thinned, right? Can the silhouette be thinned a little bit, right? If that silhouette is three feet, can it go to two? And can the 15 feet go down to 14 feet? And we clip off two feet and we just don't have an 18 foot, you know, canopy in the middle, a busy intersection, that's all. I'm just trying to shrink it down. But if engineering says, or if the fire department says, no, no, no, no, no, we need 16 feet clearance because this is what we like, then it's a moot point. I will find it. Yeah, that's all.

He's also dropping roughly two feet with his roof for water, for the sheet flowing of the water off the roof.

Yeah, here and here. Are you, are you? It's just a gutter system. Okay. It's not the whole roof. It's just the whole roof isn't pitched.

The roof's flat, but you have a, gotcha, okay.

And those gutters are pitched to the columns, and then they just what you can do for us. I absolutely can do that.

Can you go back to the visuals that you had, their existing condition, and then with the, because I don't think we have the existing condition in our packet.

No. It's not in there? No, we just have two shots.

So, you see those lights right there? Think there's eight of them These right here. Yeah. Yeah.

Well, there's total of eight. Yeah.

Yeah go to your next shot So these here to these animals, yeah, we have to go back one Or back to the that one right there So you see you have the lights here and then on the next one where you show the canopy. Oh, they're gone. They're gone.

Oh

Are they removing those?

They are not.

Okay.

It was just when they modeled it, we tried to model the fascia and the roof to make it align properly with regards to the elevations. So the intention is not to eliminate those lights.

So I think where Jeff's going is across the street, there's another project with a lot of lights. I know.

I think they were installed at the same time kind of thing. And then looking at your photometrics, You're stopping your foot candles the second it goes outside of the canopy. So I think for the next middle, you need to show what the photometrics are from this around here. And then I don't know if we ever got to the bottom of if those lights, similar to the fire station where they permitted, those eight lights that went in on the gas station around the same time.

So you want it for the whole parking lot area?

Yeah, well, I think those lights are... They contribute to the whole lot. They contribute, and if these were not permitted, I would suggest as part of this submittal, it's utilized to come into compliance with our code.

Yeah, so show the lights from the... Show the illumination from those eight lights and see where that leaves you.

And is there a time that the lights currently go off at the garage?

So right now, from what we're told, the hours are from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m., and then everything gets shut off. So the canopies will turn off also, except for some emergency safety lights. I think the only lights that will be on are the pumps themselves, you know, the blue glow from the thing. Everything else is shut off as far as that.

Okay, so the neighbors across the street won't have an issue after the test. So the intent with this is not to make it a 24-hour operation?

No, they're not going to change the hours of operation. I guess it's been like that from 5 a.m. to 10 p.m.

I could be next. I've shown up at 11 p.m. for a snowblower and it came again.

So, we'll include the lights on there.

Yeah. Great. Does this go to the ARB? It will. It will. Okay. So, they'll talk about colors and materials and stuff like that. Okay.

So, and then the other thing I wanted to point to on the canopy, there's no proposed signage on the canopy. Confirmed, right? Okay. And if you look at, if you zoom in here, there's not much space on this little flat fascia and then the mansard studs up on top so there's there's not enough space and we were told there's not going to be any signage on this at all.

Have they told you are there any other modifications to the existing structure? Are they planning on changing the garage doors or anything?

None.

Since I've noticed some of the renderings the garage doors changed.

I think what they did is they just changed it's it's again modeled the existing building here so we tried we didn't have all the existing signs of that around here and things like that so if you look really look closely this is all generated textures and stuff on the drawing just to try to make it in there but there's no intention to change any door locations or anything like that so this is what it would look like looking north on Bedford And I'll just go this is still on Bedford kind of looking south a little bit, which is kind of like through the intersection. That shows and you can see here clearly, like the building, the existing building was modeled.

So just the reason I'm curious. So when the canopy goes in, and the owner realizes that when you're coming up 120 You cannot see any of the mobile signage because the new canopy blocks it. Does that applicant come back for additional signage down the road?

They could.

They could? OK.

I just see that as the- You've retained jurisdiction over this, so.

I mean, the only sign that's on the building itself is this mobile service in this corner here, and then you have the pylons on the side.

If they do decide to change their mind on signage, I would guess now is the time to do it and not come back later. I think when they start rendering this and they see that this big canopy is going to block most of the signage on his gas station, he might get a little worried. Though everybody knows it's a mobile station, it's been there for a long time, but still. He's a business owner and getting his brand out there I know is important. I will ask.

Thank you. So this is the view, the view with the canopy. And you can see the roof color is lightened up a little bit just based on the location and the shading. And then this is on Kent Street looking west and here. So I think this is, you know, you can see what it is right there. And then really the rest of the plan that's included in the package were the canopy drawings that were provided by Mohawk. And that's the end of the presentation. If there's any other questions.

I had a quick question. It might be just the way it was modeled, but the protective bollards around the pumps, which are existing, The way it's now sketched, it looks like the bollards inside of the structural beam that's going to hold the canopy. Should that be changed so that the bollard is moved so it's on the outside protecting the beam as well? Or maybe that is the plan. It could be just the way this is rendered in the modeling.

Yeah. I will confirm that. Let me just see if it's on their drawings. But I think the intent is that they were between the pump itself and the column.

But it should be on the outside. I think it probably should be on the outside. It might already be designed that way. But it may be just the way this thing's modeled, this picture.

If you go back to this section. Yeah, that one. How deep do those foundations go? Just out of curiosity. There's two of them, right? There's going to be two, and they've got to go down the front. For sure. and this company engineers all this, right? That is from a structural standpoint. And wind also. Yeah, I'm just, it's a- Seven feet. Oh, I think it was seven feet. There's a detail on the plan. If I have a digital here, I can zoom in.

Yeah, yeah. I mean, I had it as well. It's a big cell. Yeah. It's a big concrete. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay.

And I'm assuming there's no tanks right below where they're going to put the foundations.

That is correct. Okay. Yeah, I mean, I guess I was just gonna voice sort of a little bit of a separate question slash concern. Just because we're talking about the height of the canopy, right? Like when you're coming on Bedford Road, I guess from the Pleasantville direction, I mean, I guess I what I'm concerned about is this is not the best intersection. It's kind of curves when you're coming in that direction. And I guess the only question would be that top of my head, I don't recall this, but if you're on 120, if you can make like a right on a red, you know, are you being obstructed at all by the canopy when you're approaching the intersection as you go to make that right on the red? That's sort of the only other thought I would have. And so when we talk about the height of the canopy, I don't know if that, you know, how we factor that in. That's just, you know, are we obstructing the view of drivers coming from 120?

Can you talk about this direction here? Like if you were making this right?

Yeah, I guess if you're coming from, I guess I'm more concerned about the people coming down King Street. If you can make a right on a red, if, you know, as you're approaching the intersection, are you at all, is your vision at all obscured by the canopy so that you don't necessarily see the cars on Bedford Road? Coming up from Peeville?

Yeah, exactly. I don't think so. I can zoom in here. Let's see.

It was Stewart. Because it replaced all the landscaping in that corner? which now you can see.

Okay, yeah. And this is the existing pylon sign right here, too, so I think that if you were projecting a line, you know, I'm not good at drawing straight lines, but you would have to be pretty far back from the stop sign. I think if you were stopped way back here, that looks almost like a car length. Probably the pumps obstruct your view more so than the canopy would. Yeah, I figured I'll just ask the question. Good question.

Sabrina, you have some thoughts, comments?

Well, it is a type two action in courts with the State Quality Review Act. You pretty much talked about everything. He does need a variance for the separation distance. There are two front yards. And this change will necessitate the setbacks for those as well. And the canopy will need a side yard set back from the residential zoning district next door. So there's a host of variances that will be needed that will make this site not pre-existing, non-conforming. It will be non-conforming with variances. lighting the one thing that I'd ask is I know you said they were 2700 we need a little more specification regarding the light fixtures that you're proposing and again to determine what is the minimum amount of light you need on the site and the planning board has asked to include the existing lights on the building and then make sure that the hours of operation especially for the lighting are on the plan set And then I think if the applicant is willing to make these changes and, you know, talk to the fire department, make sure the fire suppression system and details and that information is on the plans and he addresses your comments, I have no objection to you sending a public hearing for this. Right.

Did you say on the lighting we wanted the existing lights are going to stay, so we want them to be included in the photometric?

Yes.

So an expanded photometric study.

Yes.

Also... Your photo metrics at the perimeter of the site right now.

You're just showing underneath the canopy, but really what matters is And I just and I know you know, but There's this utility pole right here on the thing here and this other one over here that have Cobra ads on it as well, so We'll do the best we can to try to get What exactly happens Joe knows. He dealt with this across the street with us. He warned me.

But you could go out there right now and see what the photometrics are with the existing condition with those cobra heads. And then when you run your analysis, we'll be able to see what's there.

And color and temperature of the lights that you're proposing as well.

And I'm going to see, I'm going to ask if they can get a picture that has the 25th.

That would be helpful. I'm sure they can.

Great. Okay. Jeff, did you have any comments?

He's having, he may be having.

No, I have audio. I didn't like my work. supporting the canopy require protection from bollards as well.

Okay, good. Dennis, are you okay with the tree clearing? And the wetland. Two in a row. What a streak. Great. So as soon as you can get the material in to us, we'll reschedule. And why don't we, again.

Set a public hearing.

Set a public hearing. Is there a motion to set a public hearing? Motion. Second meeting in July. Does that work for you for the materials? When is the material due? The next deadline is June 29th for the second meeting in July, which is July 21st. You think we can make that? Okay, great. So is there a motion to accept the public hearing for the second meeting in July? I think we did that and we seconded it. We just have to vote on it. I really want a fat motion.

All right. All in favor?

Aye. Okay.

Motion's carried. Okay, great. See you then. Have a good night.

Have a good night.

Okay, our next item is the referral from the town board regarding the MFRVSC legislation. So we have, the goal is to try to come up with something that we finalize tonight and we can give to the town board. But when we give it to the town board, I WANT TO MAKE IT REALLY EMPHATIC THIS TIME. I THINK BOARD MEMBERS SUPPORT THIS, THAT WE REALLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A MEETING WITH THE TOWN BOARD ON THIS ISSUE. YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS THAT WE'RE SENDING THESE NOTES OFF AND NOT HEARING ANYTHING. MAYBE WE SHOULD SEND THEM A CERTIFIED RETURN RECEIPT AND MAKE SURE THEY GET THEM. BUT, YOU KNOW, IN ALL SERIOUSNESS, YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY SORT OF COMMENT WHATSOEVER ON THE BEST COMMENTS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE GAVE THAT AN AWFUL LOT OF THOUGHT. So it would be nice to, not nice, but I think it would be important in this case to really try to set something from the town board on a joint meeting basis. So it could be very truly yours, but we'd like to see you at the end. So we have an opportunity to exchange thinking and thoughts and hopefully come up with something that works.

Yeah, I would just say I know it doesn't really carry the day. But for those of us who sort of have personal relationships with the members of the board, or at least some of them, I mean, that's what they've expressed in private. So I would hope that that would be the case.

I heard that in private too with Bess. Yeah, exactly. So I think others did too. So I understand that. And you know, I'm not, look, they're busy. They have a busy schedule and it is in their purview. But it seems to me that The usefulness of these referrals is more than just to say, check the box. We did it. We sent it to ARB. We sent it to Planning Board. We sent it to ZBA. We sent it to the county. Okay, got them. And then we can go off and do our thing.

So that would be my thinking on it.

So anyway, here we are. So we had a memo that Sabrina prepared last time. There were some comments on that memo. Obviously, I went off the deep edge. My thinking on it was, as long as we're doing this, why don't we do it in a way that makes more sense and reflects what hopefully the town would really like to see, rather than just responding to what developers send in. And I've been doing this a long time, and it seems to me that very often we are just on a responding basis, defensive responding. and not out in front in terms of articulating what is important to the town. So, you know, and I know we've, Greg, you raised issues about, you know, where are we, what's inventory, what are the numbers, you know, and Sabrina's echoed that and said, yeah, we just don't know. It seems to me that as we talk with the town board, there should be some sort of idea of what are the goals. Are they just development goals? Are they design goals? Are they number goals? What is the number if there is a number? Where do we want to see that number? And these are important, I think, really important questions. And I think they require some thought, some study, and some information. Just my take on this. So I wasn't trying to be obstructionist, but it just seemed to me that Again, we did not have sufficient information on inventory, what could happen with what we have now, what do we have right now, and then, you know, what would be the delta in terms of reaching that goal if we do something, you know, along the lines of what the initial proposal is, and, you know, what does that mean? So what's important to us, what's valuable to us, I think it's more of a once we have that information, then it's a design issue too. You know, what does the town board, what do we want to see? How do we want to see the town? What kind of scale? What kind of texture? What kind of feel? What are we looking for? I mean, I'm not afraid of someone saying, I'd like to see a wall of condominiums like we see along in Tarrytown, where they put those brand new condos up. Very, very expensive. But it's a different feel there. It's a different feel because they have resources there that are very different from what we have. They have the river walk there, they have parks there, they have a town pool there, all kinds of resources right there from those places. We don't have those in town for people. So I thought it was very important to bring some sort of livable scale to whatever our thoughts are. That's not to sit there and say you have to retain you know, every broken down building or every nice building or every old building or new building. And we're against new buildings, but what are we doing and how are we doing it? So I'll shut up now.

After our conversation and then your, not your edits, but your summary memo that you attached, it also brought to light one thing which I which is it relates to the handicapped and disabled apartments where giving someone, like to have a one-bedroom for an able-bodied, right, you need X amount of square feet. For someone who's handicapped, someone who's in a wheelchair, just to get the same condition, you need a lot more area. and we should incentivize that more, right, because we're all getting older, some sooner than others, but you need that, and we should be incentivizing that if someone does one of those or does a couple of those, right, they get the ability to, within the code, deliver a product that is livable, not trying to fit a handicapped Accessible unit in a box that doesn't that's unrealistic. Yeah, that's unrealistic for that, you know for that use.

Yeah Yeah, and again on that issue It's not rocket science look around This town has done virtually nothing for the aged in terms of aged housing memory housing and When Chappaqua Crossing first proposed it, it was rejected. So look around. You see in Mount Pleasant. You see in North White Plains. You see in Armonk. You see in Mount Kisco. There are facilities all around here for assisted living, aged living, whatever you want to call it, memory places. And this town, I think, has – I don't think we have any. And it seems to me that that's something that we would want to incentivize, along with some of the others that I identified. And I've heard so much about we're all desperately afraid of our volunteer fire department. I don't know what the right number is, but certainly there should be some sort of incentive to try to get volunteers in the ambulance corps, the fire departments, incentivizing them to stay in town and be in the hamlet. Whatever the numbers are, I don't know. I will tell you, as I went through the features, I was kind of frustrated because, again, we've heard that the MFR was really in response to a particular case, an old case, the Berenson case, and it was designed for larger pieces of property. And so when you look at your first incentive, it's for rentals. You get two points for rentals. It's all rentals. Why do we have that in there? That's ridiculous. Take it out. I mean, we don't give incentives for rentals. It is rentals. But the ones that we like or the ones that the town identifies as appropriate rentals incentives, I think that we should set the tone. The town should set the tone on that and say, this is really what we'd like to see. We want to work with you. But in so doing, we want this to be the way that we think it will help us best. It's exactly the thing that we did in Chappaqua Crossing when the old building was converted to housing. And we said, we want to see a mix of housing. And we want it to be invisible. So on any given floor, market, workforce, affordable, no one knows by looking at the door, looking at the hallway. It's all the same. That was a policy goal, a policy requirement, and it worked out fantastically. And they got an award, didn't they? Yes, we did.

Yeah, we did. So, you know, I really liked your memo. And you and I aren't completely coming from the same side on this, but I really liked your memo. And, you know, I'm harping back to, I think it's like 12 years now I've been on boards in this town. And I think I've sat through four or five public outreach sessions where we've had yellow stickies and monkey surveys and outreach and walk around the town. And I don't know how many times we've done stuff and we've gathered data, we've gathered data. We've come up with conclusions that the public wants to see, and then every administration seems to just kind of not push it forward. Last year, I got very excited when we got the memo because it was tons of incentives there to give current owners the ability to do more with their property, right? It wasn't. going to be a thousand units on Greeley. It might be six units on Greeley. It was those kinds of numbers. But it let people who had a piece of property go, oh, wow, maybe I can get three handicap units instead of two because I can get this bonus, right? So I was very excited about that. What we got last two months ago pulled all that meat out. And My reasoning for wanting to sit with the town board is just to find out what's their goal. Is their goal to bring a diverse and affordable housing for all different types of people into the downtown or not? And if their goal is not, then we know how to kind of shape a legislation. But if their goal is, yeah, yeah, yeah, we want to bring handicapped and senior and affordable and workforce and firemen in the Hamlets, not so much Millwood because we don't have sewer, but more in Chappaqua, let's do it. that needs a discussion where we can sit around the table, go through this. Maybe, I mean, I thought I was aggressive with my incentives. I think yours were even more aggressive. So I think that's wonderful. And they're aggressive for the totally underserved people, not in this community, but in the county and the state, right? All those people are totally underserved. And Briarcliff has stuff, Croton has stuff, Austin has stuff, everybody has stuff, but Newcastle. So this is our opportunity to start to do something, right? But, you know, we need to have everybody kind of sitting around the table talking about it. And I think it's so important for goals.

I mean, again, the policy goals. I mean, not the numbers. And, you know, I've talked with a number of people on this. And, you know, again, and we've talked, Sabrina. We don't have the information. Staff can get this information. We don't have to go out and hire and spend all kinds of money. But we can find out. Where are the pieces of property? Where are the properties that are suitable for, for example, if we relax the ADU rules? Where are the incentives if we relax the accessory apartment rules? And as you said, give property owners an ability to stay in here, but also it's a win-win situation. They can stay and also someone else can come in.

So folks, can I make a suggestion? Sure. Because I see where you're struggling with this. Is it possible to respond to the referral for the referral's sake or not respond to the referral for the referral's sake and request a meeting? Because these are the things you want to talk about. I mean, I am charged with getting a memo from you in response to a referral. It's a process. right? We were almost there and then things changed and I respect that. But my question is, do you want to respond to the changes that are in betwixt right now? Or do you want to say we're not going to respond because we would really like to have a more fruitful conversation or whatever that adjective may be with the town board.

And if I may, just on that same token, I THINK THAT IT'S IN YOUR GUYS' BEST INTEREST TO LOOK AT THE LEGISLATION BEFORE YOU AND THE METRICS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU AND BETWEEN THE BOARD COME TO A CONCLUSION ON WHAT YOU THINK THOSE METRICS SHOULD BE COMPARED TO WHAT'S AS WRITTEN IN THE LAW. THAT WAY WE CAN AT LEAST GET BACK TO THE TOWN BOARD WITH YOUR SUGGESTIONS. I THINK THAT MIGHT... SO THE INCENTIVES, THE METRICS, LIKE IF YOU CAN ALL COME TO A UNIFORM CONCLUSION ON WHAT YOU THINK THOSE ARE IN COMPARISON TO WHAT'S WRITTEN DOWN ON THE PAPER, THAT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL.

The problem I think I have with that is I don't think we're in position to conclude the metrics good, bad, or indifferent because, again, we don't have the inventory information. So maybe the response should be we're not in position to support or argue with any of the metrics here. Our position is there's been insufficient study and information supplied to make what we believe is an informed decision on the proposal. And in addition, we think, and I think we should really enumerate these things in a bullet way and just say, look, whether you agree or disagree with what I said or if anyone wants to add anything else, that's fine. But we should put in a bullet, I think, here are the kinds of things that we think should be looked at and changed or incentivized. And we think there should be, we should have an inventory of all eligible lots so we know what we're talking about. what happens when we go to a quarter acre? By the way, what happens if we go to a tenth of an acre? Why are we just stopping at a quarter acre? I mean, is there a reason? I don't know. There might be, but maybe we should do that and say, or maybe it should be a half acre. Did we look at alternatives? What's the impact of those? I don't know where the quarter acre came from. I mean, I know where the acre came from because it came from, you know, last century, but I don't know where it came from. And again, the setback at 10 feet, we know what that came from in terms of downtown, but we want that. I think there's a feeling here that, you know, we want to be flexible on that. What do we want for coverage? Again, we've, you know, I think it was great last time around Sabrina explained to us, you know, it's not 100% coverage. It's unlimited, but subject to all the constraints that we always have to go through. What does that mean? I think the only place you get 100 is a town municipal parking lot. That's it. And that's a really, really good site because that site probably has tremendous potential. Yeah. Because it's got a parking lot that's like a giant stadium and it's unused, like giant stadiums should be unused. Not right now. And, you know, you could really do something there. So it's a great example. So I think that's why I would like to do what I think. I hope folks agree or whatever the thoughts are. If we say, look, very respectfully, we just don't think there's enough information here to give you an informed opinion on this. And we think here are the following things. All these kinds of things should be considered and looked at and considered in one area. Then if you want to talk about incentives, as I did separately, use those, change them, add those, add some. Here are the kinds of things that we really... need to talk about. The thought I would have is hopefully we engage the town board and they're excited to talk about these things. Whoa, wait a second. This is really important. It's not just me flapping my lips or Greg flapping his lips. It's, you know, this is important stuff and we want to really, yeah, we want to get some excitement on this because it's an opportunity. Let's not lose another opportunity in terms of trying to set guideposts that we think are important for the town. And that includes design, it includes architecture and density and types of use and where it is, et cetera. I mean, we decided last time, I guess, that North Greeley was kind of different, and maybe it is. But again, if all of a sudden the tenth of an acre becomes the right number, maybe North Greeley's in play again. It's considered the same. I don't know. But these are the kinds of things that have got to be, it seems to me, discussed. openly, respectfully, frankly, and with information. And the staff can do all this, right? Sabrina, you have this. I mean, you have the stuff somehow available.

I do.

You have to dig it up and get it.

Yeah, listen, I think that there has been studies done. There's been information produced which identifies which lots are subject to this. You know, there's a handful of them. What sizes they are, the existing buildings, the existing setbacks. You know, the question is right now, and I'm kind of stuck here because this is what I'm supposed to do. I am supposed to talk you through a referral that identifies proposed changes that the town board has put into a draft law. Right. You guys are reluctant to support or refute those changes because you haven't seen the supporting information or the data that is attached to that decision making. You don't understand the town board's goals or their priorities. And you'd like to open a dialogue to discuss that with them. I think that that should be your memo.

That makes sense. That's perfect. That makes sense. I mean, we're not in position to support the law because we're not, we don't have.

Right, support or refute it.

I don't want to say refute.

Well, what would you like to say?

We're not positioned to support it. I think refute's kind of strong. I mean, then we start to be obnoxious. Some of us have been obnoxious before, but, you know, I don't want to.

To support it, maybe enhance. Maybe enhance. Right, to support it, enhance it, maybe make it better. That's even better. Enhance the town policy. Yeah. I mean, there may be a clear reason. They may have discussed why a quarter acre, and they may have a totally legitimate logical reason. Okay, just tell us, and we'll go. That makes sense. Okay, let's move on.

Okay, so I can put together that memo for you, and you can tell me whether the... I'll circulate it to all of you. I'll give you until... FRIDAY. RIGHT. SURE. OKAY. TO RESPOND TO IT. OR WE'RE NOT HERE ON FRIDAY.

BECAUSE FRIDAY YOU'RE CLOSED, RIGHT? YES.

SO I'LL, SO.

IT'S WEDNESDAY, REMEMBER, SO. IF YOU GET IT TO US TOMORROW, I'LL GIVE YOU AN ANSWER BY TOMORROW NIGHT.

OKAY. I'LL GET IT TO YOU TOMORROW.

WHEN DOES THE TOWN BOARD MEET ON THIS AGAIN?

I DON'T KNOW.

WERE THERE PACKETS?

I DON'T KNOW.

OKAY. I CAN'T DO IT FRIDAY BECAUSE I'M OUT FRIDAY.

I'LL GET IT TO YOU TOMORROW. OKAY. IF YOU GUYS CAN RESPOND TO ME BY MONDAY. HOW ABOUT THAT?

Sure. And again, you know, if this was not meant to be an exhaustive list of incentives, or the appropriate, appropriate numbers, etc, if you think they should be better, worse, but if you have other thoughts that you have, this is, this is the opportunity for the planning board to do planning. In the downtown. In the downtown. Yeah.

You know, hopefully some good planning.

Yeah, exactly. And I think, look, we've done this before. I think when we work together with the town board, we come out with some very good solutions. and it's an opportunity to do it.

Yeah, we did all the Chapelcourt Crossing. Remember we had all those meetings, 11th hour in December?

I want to point the difference, though. Chapelcourt Crossing was a private entity who was asking for the town's permission to do things on his property. This is a law that is currently on the books.

I'm just saying we work with the town. I understand.

I'm not talking about the relationship of working with. I'm a very different subject matter. I didn't know that.

I was just saying the example of working together as a group. It's happened before.

Yeah.

Okay. Thoughts? Anyone else? I mean, Stu, anything else you want to add? No. I mean, I guess my only other comment as we sit here and talk about this, though, is, right, I mean, there's a relatively new economic revitalization committee or whatever the proper name is. So, I mean, obviously... You know, yeah, I mean, we want to understand, you know, that's like a broad concept. So more, we need to get down to the nuts and bolts. What is specifically, what are we, you know, when we put pen to paper, how do we figure out how to do that? No, agreed.

No. Okay. Jeff, anything else? Thoughts?

I mean, Stuart just brought up a very good point, right? We've deputized, the town has deputized a group that I think has broad expertise from brokerage development all that for this economic revitalization and you know getting their opinion whether it's with the town board at the same time or separately very useful yeah yeah it's more than just the old fire station that needs exactly so yeah good point could be very powerful any trees being cleared

I want a marine mammal protection sanctuary and rehabilitation center in downtown or glacier preserve. I'll take either one. It's my wish list. Okay.

Does that sound good?

Yeah, I will pull something together for you.

Thank you so much. Okay, great.

Feel free to edit. Just try and all be on the same page. Do not add pages of additional information. Play nice.

I added like two words.

Chuck, you want to add to the memo?

One thing.

Okay. You got to come up, I think.

I'm coming, I'm coming.

She just started a while ago.

I heard some real good stuff. Thank you. I heard about property owners and I heard about incentives and I would like to also include one other possibility of looking at what incentives are. If we incentivize the property owners to be developers by tax incentives, rather than giving them more apartments, which creates more density and more coverage. Maybe we look at, there's a whole different way of looking at it, but look at every property owner in the Hamlet as a developer that we are willing to help develop with maybe lower fees, possibly quicker applications, processes, and also tax incentives for bringing to the town what we want. So we're buying a context with those incentives. It's not an incentive to add apartments. It's more of an incentive. for developers, for property owners to develop their property. So it's a whole different look at the word incentives. That's all I want to put out there. Because if I have a property owner that has a store and an apartment now, and if the law changes where he can have an apartment on the bottom, an apartment on the top, and an ADU in the back parking lot, He's got three rentals now. And we can help him do that. We could give him lands that are already approved. We could, whatever sites will take it. So it's more of a holistic look at a new incentive to get the things we want in our town. So incentive one way, incentive another way.

Right. Thanks. Great. OK, thanks. Well, Chuck, for clarification, having some more density in the downtown, which has some more residents living in the downtown, which has some more boots in the downtown, It's not a bad thing for the downtown. That's what we're talking about. Right. So you said don't bring any more, don't build. I'm just saying by building more, I understand your incentive, and I'm just saying you could also build more too. So you said let's do one in the back of the parking lot, let's take away the retail, convert that to resi, and let's do something on the second floor. I'll say he could build a third floor and get another unit up there. Well, technically he could. So we're on the same page. Oh, definitely. And I'd like to keep the retail, though, in the street if we could. Not on the hill.

Not on the hill. What is also really simple, and it's not a hard task, is that we have already an accessory apartment law. We've had it since 1985. What we could... All of a sudden, if that A property turns into a residential property on a sewer with water and the house is already there, the ability to maybe add on an apartment is a lot simpler, a lot cheaper. A tax break, boy, I'm happy about that. A planning board, fast process, I'm happy about that. The best part is that I'm eliminating retail parking. I put a little ADU back there, and I solve what I think is the stormwater problem. I end up with more grass and less pavement because I don't need all those parking places. But you need the parking for the resi? Well, guess what? It goes right under the little garage underneath, go upstairs, a little apartment. The two spaces or the space is already there. We're just reusing it. So I don't want to get into the details of design, but there's a lot to look at. that can inform the town board as to can this possibly accomplish their goals and get more revenue and get more feet on the street. I think just looking at ADU and accessory apartments, that law is already there. Just tweak it a little bit.

And I think that's what the chairman has been pushing. The laws are there.

Yeah, definitely. He's been doing that a long time. And I think it's time to look at that seriously. If you look at nothing else, take a look at our existing accessory apartment law and see how that can be applied downtown to every single residential property. And the one thing that would have to be tweaked is that the law says now that the owner of the property has to live there when there's an apartment. Well, get rid of that because it's the owner of the property. That's another good tweak. That's a good tweak. That's interesting, yeah. And so it would help a lot. Sure. And, of course, what's holding back all of the ADUs on our residential properties is that you need septic. And while we're here.

Or you have to give up a bedroom in your house, which is tough.

And even the new AD, the accessory apartment law, allows you to add another building for an ADU, believe it or not. So it's really there. It's close. And if we just looked at that alone, I would say how many properties could we use if we did a residential property? Accessory apartment code. How many apartments? You want some numbers? That would give you some numbers. You could look at it right now. Real simple. ADUs and accessory apartments. Boy, you could probably come up with 40 or 50 new rentals. Thanks for letting me talk. Thank you.

Okay.

So you'll draw up the memo. Did we do a resolution for the new memo?

No, because you're under a referral right now. Okay. And I'm going to write it tonight. I'll get it to you. Great. Thank you. You can respond to me. If you all respond to me tomorrow, for example, then I will finalize this before Friday. If not, if you can respond to me by noon on Monday.

Okay.

And when I email it, I'll put that in there so you know. Okay. And then you can mark it up. Great. If you take great lengths to rewrite it, then we will have to put it on your next agenda.

I promise you I will not rewrite it.

Bob.

I'll try.

And there's always an opportunity for any one of you to submit a letter to the town board. Just saying.

Okay, great. We have minutes of June 2nd. Any thoughts? Any changes? No. I have one little minor one. Okay. I actually had a question for Dennis. Which property was it? Oh, Fornells. Did they agree to the limited mowing in those areas? And then was that also something that we were thinking about in terms of the clearing grading give back that it would be limited mowing and so maybe on the east or west north or south side of the property.

So the only place that they were applying that I recall the seed mix that, you know, talked about metal, so I'm like, okay, well, that implies that it's not going to be turf cover was in the wetland mitigation area. That was on the western on the other side of that. So they had not, they had not proposed anything anywhere else in the property with respect to how are you going to offset your clearing? Okay.

SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT WHEN WE SEE THEM NEXT. OKAY. GREAT. OH, I HAD THIS WAS A NUMBER OF TIMES. WHEN WE HAD THE VOTES WERE FOUR AYES, ZERO NOES, AND TWO ABSENT. WE ONLY HAVE FIVE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD. DO WE COUNT THE ALTERNATES ALL THE TIME?

I ALWAYS DO.

YOU DO? IS THAT PROPER? IS THAT OKAY?

YEAH, THAT'S FINE.

Jen joined at one point, and it says on the front cover that she was here.

Yes, she was here. She did join. But she joined remotely, right?

Yeah, but she was still at I. Yeah, she never said I a couple times.

I'm just wondering how we count alternates. Do they have a vote when we already have five people here?

They don't have a vote when we already have five.

They don't have a vote, so I don't think it should be two on those.

No, it shouldn't be counted.

So I think when Jen was here, it should be 5-0. And then when she was not here online, it should be 4-0-1 absent, not 2 absent. Correct.

So I shouldn't, you don't want me to count? I don't think I should be counted. I don't either, because you can only have five.

Yeah.

So Kanaan, you don't count her unless she's actually here?

Yeah. Okay.

Okay, right. So with that amendment, is there a motion to adopt the minutes? Motion. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. And is there a motion to close the meeting? Motion. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay, thank you.