Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Very long odds.

That is crazy. That's really crazy. We're notoriously not very good at soccer.

Okay. All righty. This is the planning board meeting of Tuesday, July 7th. We have a quorum. Is there a motion to open the meeting? Motion. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. We have a single item this evening, and this is a public hearing. This is for COSOLA. I THINK THIS IS, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? I THINK THIS IS THE FIRST TIME.

YES. FIRST TIME.

SECOND. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON KASOLA 14 HOLLOW RIDGE ROAD. APPLICATION FOR A SITE DEVELOPMENT PLAN OF APPLICATION, STEEP SLOGES PERMIT, TREE REMOVAL PERMIT, APPLICATION FOR STORM WATER AND EROSION AND SEDIMENTATION CONTROL FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW RESIDENCE.

GOOD EVENING. AM I ALLOWED TO SHARE?

ABSOLUTELY, PLEASE. OKAY, GREAT.

FOR THE RECORD, JERRY TORTORELLA OF HOCKMAN TORTORELLA AND WEXTEIN AND WHITE PLAINS. AND WITH ME THIS EVENING IN THE ROOM IS JOE TREMELLI, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER WITH KSCJ CONSULTING. WE HAVE ALICIA CUCCIA ON WITH OUR ARCHITECTURAL FIRM. AND WE MAY SEE, I DON'T SEE HIM YET, BUT RICHARD LOFFLER, OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, IS GOING TO BE JOINING US. HE'S ON. HE'S ON. GREAT. Sorry, Richard, I didn't see you there. So we're here. We've been here two times before, and we have gone through the process of developing the site plan and addressing some modifications that the board had asked us to do, most significantly lowering the elevation of the house by about five feet on the site, which, as you know, we discussed last time, had a significant impact on reducing the impacts with respect to the disturbance on the site, et cetera. At the time when we met with you last, we had submitted only some of the plans that were necessary because we wanted to make sure we had a meeting of the minds in terms of the development, and we have since submitted all of the rest of the plans and finalized the materials. One of the changes that we made in this application, and I'll just jump right to, I hope, I WILL JUMP TO C103, IS ACTUALLY MODIFYING THE CLEARING AND GRADING LIMIT LINE TO ADDRESS TWO COMPONENTS THAT WE TALKED ABOUT AT THE LAST MEETING THAT HAD NOT BEEN WITHIN THE CLEARING AND GRADING LIMIT LINE. AND THOSE ARE THE SEPTIC EXPANSION AREA AND THE AREAS THAT WE ARE PLANTING. AS I EXPLAINED TO YOU WHEN WE WERE LAST HERE, WE DIDN'T want to include those within the clearing and grading limit line initially because we didn't want to look like we were overdoing it, and they were for very specific reasons. But in discussing it further, it seemed to make sense to include them. So that's why our clearing disturbance numbers went from about 41,000 to 60-some-odd thousand square feet, 68,000 square feet. There's over a 26,000 square foot difference only by virtue of the fact that we had added this additional area for the septic expansion, which I'm indicating here. And then the area around here and in here, well, I'm sorry, the area in here. So the pink on this plan is the – Well, excuse me.

On the septic, you have a waiver from the county, so it will not necessarily be developed. But if you do need to develop it, you don't have to come back. It's done. The clearing grading limit line is set.

Right. And we were always trying to be sensitive about the fact that we didn't want people, you, to think or the record to look like we were trying to get additional area that was other than for the purpose of the septic expansion area. And that's why we designated this in kind of some different colors. I don't know that it makes it easier to understand, but we did want to make the distinction. And as you indicated, you know, we're here for constructing a residence, a pool, a pool patio, and some equipment, an equipment pad, a driveway, a walkway or two, and a turnaround area at the top of the driveway because we have a very long driveway taking you from the road to to the pad where the house is located, some retaining walls to try to help us contain some of the disturbance areas and limit the degrading that needs to occur, as well as an emergency generator. And then, of course, the infrastructure we need is the septic area that's to the north of the house. We have public water for this site. We have added stormwater improvements in the northeast and northwest corners of the property, which were not ever contemplated in the original development plan. And because there is a wetland now off-site that throws a buffer onto our site, we also have wetland mitigation. And a lot of the landscaping is related to the additional disturbances related to the wetland mitigation. improvements that we have added.

I think it's important to note that the walls themselves will be reduced in size as a result of the five-foot change in the elevation of the home.

Both size and number and length, right? So we were able to, in essence, if you think about it, we were able to tighten up the site as a result of lowering the elevation of the house. But, you know, There are a lot of comments we can make about what was and wasn't included on the integrated plot plan for Faravecchio subdivision. But one thing I will say is that kind of the location of that residence, you know, it really did make sense on that integrated plot plan. And so this house largely relates to and is in the same general location as the approved subdivision for Faravecchio for lot 888. driveway is the same. You know, we did look at some alternatives, but they are generally the same. We've added some improvements that were not on the Farabecchio subdivision to kind of make the site work better. It's more aesthetically pleasing and more functional for us. It included the The turnaround area in front of the house, which we've talked about at length, this is a 270 linear foot driveway. It's about 12 feet wide. With the advent of daily deliveries from e-commerce, as well as just people being at the site, domestic assistance, vendors, contractors, things of that nature. You know, we really felt like we needed an area where we could turn around and we've given you a vehicle maneuvering plan to show you why we think that's needed and why we think this is a reasonable amount of turnaround area and parking court in front of the house as opposed to being excessive. and to make the site work. And we've added a pool and a patio in part because the site, if you remember just from prior discussion, we go from a low point on the northeast and northwest corners TO A HIGH POINT RIGHT IN THE SOUTHWEST CORNER IN THIS AREA. AND THE SITE CLIMBS. I MEAN, IT'S A GENTLE CLIMB. MOST OF THE GRADE IS, YOU KNOW, ZERO TO 15% SLOPES. WE'VE GOT SOME STEEPER SLOPES IN THE SOUTHERN AND WESTERN PART OF THE PROPERTY. BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF HAVING TO GET TO THE PAD WHERE THE RESIDENTS AND THE ACCESSORY IMPROVEMENTS ARE PROPOSED. AND THEN FROM THERE, YOU KNOW, MAKING USE OF THAT AREA. We have kept the house and the pool and the pool patio area within the original approved clearing and grading limit line. So we've tried very hard to keep those things contained on the site. And where we have to exceed those clearing and grading limit lines or disturbances or the coverage numbers, we've tried to do it thoughtfully. The building coverage is slightly more than what was approved for Ferro Vecchio. We've got about 65 square feet additional building coverage. And that really relates to the connection between the garage and the mudroom in the front of the house. And development coverage, we exceed the maximum that was permitted by 3,385 square feet. Now, a lot of that is attributable to the driveway. which accounts for about, and the parking area, which accounts for about 4,900 square feet of development coverage. And then on top of that, we have limited walkways, really just to get from the front of the parking court to the front of the house, and a walkway around the southern side of the house to take you to the pool area from the garage. But those are really the only walkways that we have proposed on the site. And then we have retaining walls to try to contain the disturbance areas. So in this area and also some retaining wall around the parking court. And then we tightened up the retaining walls around the north side of the pool and a little bit of the south side of the pool in order to be able, again, to keep it at a reasonable level and reduce the amount of disturbance that's necessary. And then the other improvements that contribute to development coverage are ones that we think are reasonable on a residential property. They just weren't considered when the integrated plot plan was approved for Farabekio. And we're talking about, you know, mainly the pool and a pool patio. Because of the slopes of the property, you know, we don't have a lot of usable lawn area. So that's really kind of where the recreational use, you know, is largely going to be centered. You know, the only real level area on the site to do that. You know, I know you have looked at a number of different lots in this subdivision because I've been involved in one or two of them, you know, and they've come back for exceedances of the development in the building coverage. You know, we've looked at those in relation to our proposal. And if I can just let me see if I can go back. Joe, do we have that plan? Is it this one? Oh, it's the other way. OK. So this is just, if I can comment briefly on this. So we had provided, this is among the materials that we've submitted previously. And we did look at some of the surrounding and nearby lots. This lot here is, I'm sorry, it's not that lot. We are over here. And it's this lot right here in the subdivision and around the development area. WE ARE, THIS PLAN SHOWS THE DISTURBANCE AREAS THAT WERE APPROVED FOR THE FARRAVECCHIO SUBDIVISION. AND THIS IS OUR LOT HERE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE AREAS OF DISTURBANCE, THIS IS, AGAIN, OUR APPROVED AREA OF DISTURBANCE. NOT SO DIFFERENT, NOT SO MUCH LARGER THAN WHAT YOU HAVE ON SOME OF THESE OTHER LOTS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR DEVELOPMENT. And then of course you have this very large, it's a large lot, but it's a very large development area as well. And this particular lot is constrained by wetlands on both sides. So just in terms of looking at it from a bird's eye view, it's not a lot larger area than what we had approved, that the board had approved in other locations. Strictly numbers wise, based on my review of some of the FOIL research, we're actually smaller in building coverage than a lot of our surrounding properties. And straight numbers-wise, we actually have less development coverage. However, for reasons I can't figure out, this particular lot was not allowed as much building and development coverage as some of the adjoining lots. And I can't make a lot of sense about that because it's not really a heavily constrained parcel. I mean, there are no wetlands proper on it. And in fact, at the time, there were none at the time of the approval, right? There was a change. Just to remind everybody, the reason we have wetland implications now is because of the creation of the environmental overlay district and the fact that that throws off 150 foot setback if you're in that district area. So that's why we have wetland buffer implications in this instance now. So it's a change of regulations that really led to that. Percentage-wise, you know, the other lots were allowed slightly more protection. you know, square footage than we were allowed. So if I did a pure mathematical comparison, we're on the higher end percentage-wise of development coverage. But again, just looking at pure numbers and kind of size of lot and relationship of improvements to the lot. I think we're certainly within the scope, if not, you know, smaller.

So it's fair to say that's not inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood, the rest of this development?

Not at all. And certainly not, no more impactful, I think, on sensitive environmental features than property to our immediate south, which is not the town of Newcastle. It's the town of Northcastle. I mean, the development on that site is much more extensive than on this property. And if you know the area, it sits at a much higher elevation. So we did look at that. I don't think it ever got to the board, but the initial application was for a much larger sprawling proposal because the owner wanted a one-level HOME THAT HE COULD AGE IN PLACE ON. THE COMPROMISE WAS TO MAKE IT A SMALLER FOOTPRINT AND PUT A MASTER BEDROOM ON THE FIRST FLOOR. THAT WAS THE COMPROMISE AND GAVE THEM THE ABILITY TO REALLY REDUCE THE EXTENT OF DISTURBANCE AND THE AMOUNT OF BUILDING COVERAGE AND THE AMOUNT OF DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE. SO WE'VE TRIED VERY HARD TO MAKE THAT WORK. You know, and be thoughtful about it. We also wanted to come to the board and show you what we wanted, as opposed to if you look at some of the history of the other lots, you have instances where they came, they got the house approved, they came back, they never built what they approved, they changed it, they added a pool, they added... you know, other accessory amenities and things of that nature. You know, our hope is that, you know, in coming in and being thoughtful about it, we're one and done, hopefully, right? And that we're not going to continue to come back to the board, especially if it approves, you know, the expanded clearing and grading limit line for the septic expansion area. IN AREAS WHERE WE DO EXCEED THE CLEARING AND GRADING LIMIT LINE, I ALSO THINK THAT THOSE ARE AREAS WHERE IT'S JUSTIFIED. YOU KNOW, THE SEPTIC AREA, FOR EXAMPLE, ON THE NORTH. LET ME JUST GO HERE. SO THE SEPTIC AREA ON THE NORTH, THIS IS THE CLEARING AND GRADING LIMIT LINE THAT WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED. So we need this additional septic area to be outside the originally approved clearing and grading limit line. And we have the same situation for the septic expansion area that goes around here and needs some grading area. Also, with respect to the parking court, with respect to this on the northwest corner, we have the infiltrator system. And then if you remember, when we lowered the building, we were kind of creating a bowl somewhat from the southern end. And so, you know, a yard drain was put in this location so that we would be in a situation where we could take some of the runoff away from, you know, directed at the house. And also just kind of, you know, after we had kind of tried to soften some of the grating in this area so it wouldn't look so dramatic. So, you know, we also wanted to make sure that there was adequate space for turning around, adequate space for functioning and operating on the site. We haven't kind of figured out how to take it out of the equation, but the areas in green are actually not going to be disturbed by us other than in connection with the plantings that we're proposing. So it's, you know, to me, a high value disturbance. I mean, this section is within the clearing and grading limit line. This section is within it, so it's not creating any problems, but just to help you understand kind of some of the disturbances that we have are for, you know, not for preferential purposes, but for good solid kind of objective reasons and high value reasons. So that's in a nutshell what we're proposing. We're happy to answer any questions that you might have if you want to look at the turning movement plan or the vehicle truck maneuvering plan, vehicle maneuvering plan. Yeah, I would ask Joe to describe that to you, but we're happy to answer any other questions that you might have.

Okay, great. Thank you. Sabrina, did you have any questions or thoughts?

I ACTUALLY DO. I HAVE SOME COMMENTS IN MY MEMO. I THINK JERRY COVERED THE ISSUES WITH THE DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE AND THE BUILDING COVERAGE OVERAGE ENOUGH FOR THE BOARD TO CONSIDER TONIGHT. THERE WERE A COUPLE THINGS. I THINK THAT YOU SHOULD ON YOUR PLANS, REMOVE THE 616 SQUARE FEET FOR THE DRIVEWAY THAT'S AT THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY. YOU DO NOT NEED TO INCLUDE THAT IN YOUR COVERAGE TABLE. AND YOU SHOULD INCLUDE A FOOTNOTE CITING THE CODE THAT SAYS YOU DON'T NEED TO INCLUDE THAT. SO I THOUGHT WE HAD DISCUSSED THIS LAST TIME, BUT IT'S STILL ON THE PLAN, SO YOU SHOULD ADDRESS THAT SO THAT THERE'S NO MISTAKE THAT THAT AREA IS NOT INCLUDED IN YOUR CALCULATIONS. the clearing grading limit line um you know jerry did talk about clearing the leading grading limit line um and dennis i believe will cover mitigation for disturbance or the change of 26 456 square feet um there is the septic expansion area on the landscape plans is mislabeled that's drawing number lp dash i forgot the number on other plans that there's a note on the site plan in the site plan set that should include both digital and print format as in addition to note 12. And then there should also be a new note 14 that talks about the annual reporting requirement for maintenance of the stormwater infiltration systems. This is something that we are responsible for under the MS4 permit. And so given that there is stormwater practices on this property, we will record that they are being maintained. And again, that language should be reflected in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan on page 37. So those are the sum of my comments. I think if the planning board is in a position to really endorse the coverage issues, I would have no objection to closing the public hearing or at the very least asking that a draft resolution be prepared for your next meeting in July.

Okay. Thank you. Jeff, you have some comments?

I do. Mostly minor. The two major ones, the stormwater system, it needs to be expanded a little bit. The first one is really the size of the chambers they account for. There's sort of a treatment area, and they include that in the entire area, which is supposed to be separated. the driveway is not taken into account. IN THE STORMWATER DESIGN, SO THE ENTIRE AREA FOR THE DRIVEWAY, BECAUSE IT'S GRAVEL, IT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE STORMWATER DESIGN.

RIGHT, AND YOU INDICATED THAT YOU DON'T GET IMPROVIOUS CREDIT FOR IT.

WELL, YOU WOULD... THEY COULD GET A CREDIT FOR IT, BUT IT WOULD HAVE TO BE DESIGNED FOR RUNOFF REDUCTION CREDIT. THE CURRENT DESIGN IS NOT FOR RUNOFF REDUCTION CREDIT. YOU KNOW, IT COULD BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STORMWATER DESIGN MANUAL. THE ONLY CONCERN I HAVE WITH THAT ARE THERE ARE SOME MAXIMUM SLOPES, I BELIEVE, for permeable asphalt and permeable pavers, things like that, and gravel.

Does the driveway square footage go into the development calculation? Yes. Okay. Just checking.

So like I said, it might be difficult to use the driveway, at least portions of the driveway, for runoff reduction credits. So likely a portion of the area is going to have to go into the infiltration system, which means, like I said, larger infiltration system. So you might have a little bit more disturbance based on that design in the hundreds of square feet, not thousands.

Right, right.

THE OTHER TWO OTHER COMMENTS I HAVE, I DIDN'T MENTION THIS IN MY MEMO, BUT IT MAY BE WORTH RECOMMENDING, CONSIDERING THE DROP-OFFS OF BASICALLY THE DRIVEWAY HAS A FOUR-FOOT DROP-OFF ON EITHER SIDE OF IT IN MANY LOCATIONS, SO FOR A PORTION OF IT, RECOMMENDING SOME KIND OF A GUIDE RAIL IN CASE AN IRON DRIVER, YOU KNOW, So, in which case, the retaining wall would have to be designed, you know, or, you know, widened or something to be able to... And that would add to coverage, wouldn't it? Possibly. It would depend on if the guide rail was integrated into the retaining wall. If it was a concrete retaining wall, they integrated it. Probably not. If they had to widen it in order to accommodate the guide rail, you know, post for guide rails, then...

In the area of increased infiltration, would that be in the wetland area up there?

uh a portion of it yes again you know wherever there's you know where well so the it seems like it would be a logical place we would see it right yeah so there's the stormwater system at the at the north north corner of the property that would be affected by a property larger but it really depends on how they you know how they decide they could they could move it other places it really depends on on flows um last point is something that we had mentioned in the pre-application meeting but i don't think it made it onto a memo and so i wrote an today regarding the water main. So when the Frovecchio subdivision was created, there was a covenant with all the property owners and future property owners that if they connected to the water supply, they would have to pay this, basically their portion of the capital improvement to install the water main, plus there's a 5%, I think, increase on the $14,000. It was around $36,000 would have to be paid to the town in order to... Those are all my comments, basically. A couple of minor things, but nothing.

Yeah, right, right. Any issues, questions on any of those?

No issues, no. They were fairly minor. We've actually gone through the design and made modifications based on your comments already. I think the system as it is is good. I don't know, maybe it was missed, but we did account for the driveway as a gravel surface. and it does drain and it's collected and drains to that system in the front. We did conservatively just today, we took a look at it as if it were paved and used a higher curve number and the system still functions as it is. We'll take a closer look at the pre-trainment. But to your point, if it changes, it's going to be a relatively minor modification to the plan that you see before you. As far as the driveway, the guide rail, we'll certainly look at it. We do have, I believe it's a four-foot shoulder, if you will. The driveways will be curved on either side. It will be a four-foot wide planted shoulder before the wall. Whether that wall is designed with maybe an elevated kind of parapet top to it, we'll have to look at it and see what makes sense. Yeah, yeah. Jeff, please.

But a good point. Jeff makes a good point because we customarily do look at those guide rails once we get to a four feet or more.

And then just finally, on Sabrina's comment with regard to the driveway, the existing driveway, we included it on the And it's not on the plan you see before you. But what I intended to do was continue to show the 616 square feet of existing impervious because it is there and we do have a table that shows existing verse proposed. But as Sabrina suggested, I added language in a footnote, clarifying that and that reference to the code that right, it's really not yours towards our proposed improvement or development coverage. So hopefully that that suffices.

yeah or or what we can do is just do the opposite of that flip it right and take it out of the number and then footnote it and acknowledge in the footnote that it's there but that it doesn't i think that that is a better suggestion yeah

Good.

And we are aware of the payment for the connection to the water system. I don't know the amount. Dennis has been bringing this up, so he is.

I know he mentioned it in one of his notes, too.

Yes, yes.

Well, Dennis is wholesale. He's got retail.

Yeah, well, I have to look at the number, because $36,000 sounded high to me compared to what I had looked up. But it is what it is. It is what it is. And our client does recognize it.

I attached the covenant to my bank.

Compounding interest at 5%.

$36,000 is cheap.

So, we've got that.

I did have one other thing. So, at least in my copies, the proposed clearing gradient limit line does not encompass the septic expansion area. Even on this drawing that I'm looking at right here, it does not include it. So, again, we just want to make sure that that's accurate. To me, it makes sense. I suggested it. That way, if somebody ever does need to use the expansion area, nobody has to come back to the planning board to adjust this again. But it's not adjusted on these drawings.

Yeah. So, if I can just take a minute and show it to you. So, it's actually this red line? So it is included. So the pink is the original approval that I'm outlining here. And then we created this red line, which is probably a little hard to see here, but it goes around and comes down here and actually.

That's the blue. Oh, I'm sorry. It goes around. Oh, you know what?

It goes around the whole property line like this, right? It goes here, cuts in, goes back down.

What's the blue line?

So the blue is what we need to actually construct the improvements minus the added landscaping at the periphery.

So I think of it in terms of immediate improvements, right? House, driveway, septic. et cetera. Construction. Right. Immediate construction.

So like the blue going down the middle is the trench going to the... Yeah, I was thrown off by all the different colors.

I didn't see labels on them. I didn't know what it was.

Yeah, so immediate construction excluding the landscape.

And that's why the blue is so narrow because it's just your trench. You tried to clarify it in the legend on the upper right. That makes sense. There's a lot going on there.

I spent a while. I got it. Don't worry.

So maybe there's just some confusion here. The septic expansion area is at the very south end of the property. On the west end, that's the second stormwater infiltration system.

Right. So this red line continues to go around and it encompasses the The septic expansion area.

Oh, this area. It looks brown and maroon on mine. Okay.

Oh, okay. But I guess the question is, you raise a good point about making it accurate. We would not have all of these, you know, necessarily have all of these on the revised plan that we... file a covenant for?

We would just need the currently approved and the proposed.

Right, okay. So we would do that. And we just wanted to make sure the board didn't want any extra notes or anything with respect to the expanded area as it relates to septic expansion and the plantings.

What's the gold line for? Those are soil boundaries. Yeah, right here.

Those are just different soil types.

Do we need that on the map, Jeff?

No.

Well, we typically include that in erosion control.

Yeah, I understand. Which really should only be on the erosion control plans. Okay. That's what we're looking at.

It is the erosion control plan.

What if, this is the site plan, if we were to take, that's the approved LOD from the subdivision, if we were to just turn on a single layer that showed our overall limited disturbance, including the future septic expansion area, including the plantings on this sheet.

Would that help? Yeah, we only need, I think we only need one sheet that shows the existing and proposed and everything else can just have the proposed. Okay. We do want to make sure that, you know, whatever the disturbed area is going to be the current disturbed area. So I guess this is your sort of your blue line. Whatever the currently disturbed area, we should just have

construction fencing around it just uh yeah that blue line was where we started with our typical disturbance envelope and the added plantings came in and then we had the discussion about it's a one-time disturbance for planting so we tried to illustrate that with this kind of quasi all-encompassing disturbance line that the a lot of it is a one-time and and much of it is a potential future disturbance area for the septic.

Yeah. So the disturbance, and I don't want to step on Dennis's toes. So, um, if there's disturbance that's strictly related to plantings and those plantings don't require machinery to be planted, machinery to plant them, like we're not talking about large trees, if things are going to be carried by hand or, or whatever, um, it doesn't necessarily need to be included in the limit of disturbance. Correct me if I'm wrong, Dennis, are we?

Right. I mean, to kind of like expand on that, you know, I'm struggling a little with the concept of infinity, which doesn't exist here, because you're using land for green space purposes as part of mitigation. How do you then mitigate for that as part of the concept of clearing and grading limit line? In other words, you would eventually run out of land as the dominoes start to fall. So there needs to be some sort of conceptual concept here that I don't know if it's ever been implemented before in terms of you have an area that's being quote unquote disturbed to install native plantings as compensation for wetland mitigation. And then you have a remaining area that granted, it is allowed to be disturbed in the future, but doesn't have to be disturbed now and may never be disturbed. So it's like to compensate for that now, that's, you know, we're not a mitigation banking program. So that's, so those are like a couple of just even conceptually, this is just the unique application for me. So I, my focus was just on the trees and the wetlands. And then I was going to bring this up at the end that, you know, I circled these you know, from Jerry's initial correspondence that I'm like, yeah, but these are, one's a disturbance maybe in the future and the other is to compensate for wetlands mitigation. So, you know, how do you then compensate for clearing and grading limit line encroachment for the purposes of putting in plants for wetlands? So I think we're all in the same category in that it's not disturbance as a level that is associated with the project that needs true disturbance.

I don't know if I need to adjust the clearing gradient limit line or limited disturbance. If the only reason for the disturbance is for plantings. Does that make sense? Right.

Yeah.

Hand planted.

Hand planted. Yeah. So, you know, obviously no. Unless it's a cannabis farm or something like that, but this is, you know, obvious reasons.

So you can adjust, you know, adjust the lines where only, only, mitigation for plantings, again, assuming hand plantings, we're not putting any large trees, you know, to remove that from the limited disturbance and remove that from any clear and gritty limit line adjustments. But again, we'll help your numbers. Yeah, right. It should help you.

And again, we would still need to include the area of the future expansion. So we wouldn't have to come back to this. Correct. Right.

Right. So the future septic expansion would make sense.

God willing, we're doing that all winking at each other also.

So I mean, you know, we're not going to disturb it at this point. But my understanding is we only deal with that kind of disturbance when it's a wetland, because we consider any activity in a wetland or a wetland buffer to be permitted situation when dentists would have to approve. So hand planting trees anywhere on the site is not totally disturbing.

I'm going to call Richard Loffler into this discussion just because I think if I hear you correctly, we're really talking about this stippled area and this stippled area in terms of landscaping that's outside of the originally approved clearing and grading limit line. And I don't know the answer to the question of whether or not that's hand Areas are going to be hand planted or not.

This is Richard and they can be implanted. It's probably feasible because the plant sizes aren't that large and If we were working in a site where that wasn't a concern, they might actually bring a machine in and plant them with a machine, but if it's stipulated that that's not an acceptable practice, they can be planted by hand.

Okay. So we can look at doing that. Because I struggled with the same concept as Dennis, you know, mitigation on mitigation on mitigation. You know, where do you stop and what's the reason for it, right? I look for the rationale for it. They're not permanent impervious surfaces. It's, you know, high value disturbance, if you will. And again, kind of statutorily required.

Okay, that's great. Dennis, did you have other comments?

Yes, we're going to get beyond the Morton Salt Girl concept, if you know that concept of infinity. So number one is just it seemed editorial. I just couldn't find the sugar maple because you had included a photo of it, but it wasn't in the plant list, and I couldn't find the symbol. So if that indeed was an error, that's just a simple omission. And then the other item that I mentioned was which I probably should have mentioned earlier, but I don't think it's a big deal. But certainly it is to the plantings, I would say, just, you know, consideration of deer or some sort of herbivory protection. You know, mostly, you know, a lot of the trees and the shrubs, you know, I mean, they can get nibbled at, but I really worry about the trees because even some other approvals for the planning board, when they get planted, you could see those, the young two and a half inch caliper, three inch caliper trees that you get from the nursery, For whatever reason, when the velvet starts on the antlers, those deer love to rub those things and they just totally destroy the stem. Not those evergreens, not the ones that are all full of, I guess, the phagocytate cultivars, but if you have a nice clean trunk before the first primary branching, you want to protect those barks in some way just so the deer don't rub them. Just something like that in the plant as the final. I put it as I have no objection to those were, you know, obviously conditions of resolution. I don't know if you're at that stage, but I'm kind of, you know, backing off at this point.

Yeah. I'm sorry. We did speak with Richard about that earlier today. And, you know, he agrees that there's a technique that we can use. I don't know if you want to comment on it, Richard.

Yeah. What happens, and this is right, when you have a clear stem on a tree and then you have branching at six or seven feet, the deer definitely use those stems to rub on at the time of the year when they're trying to clear their horns. And so if there was a mesh cylinder placed on the trees that have a clear stem with no branching, it'll frustrate them from ruining the bark. So that's a good idea. So we'll address that.

Good, great. And then are we clear we don't need additional mitigation? We'll just clarify the areas that will be planted by hand, but...

If you do it that way, I think we're fine.

Great.

Yep, that would be fine.

Like a one-gallon plant. That's about it.

That's fine. Okay. Thoughts, comments from board members?

I know this comment might seem like it's coming late in the game, but I'm still wrestling with the 3,400 square feet over the development coverage. I mean, it's about a 35% over. It's not an existing piece of property where they're doing expansion and they're left with hardships from people in the past. It's a whole new piece of property. And to me, it seems like we're just way over. And I understand your neighbors are over, too. That's great. But I'm looking at this application and I'm looking at areas where maybe we can nip and tuck and you use the word parking court. I don't know why this single family house needs to have a parking court for all these alleged visitors and trucks and vendors and contractors that's going to come visit. I think you can trim up the parking court. I think maybe you can even trim up the patio around the pool and maybe try to get this 3,400 down a little bit lower. I mean, you already have the 15% increase. Now we're looking for another 35% increase. I know in the past we wrestled to do 10% more, and now we're looking at 35. So I know we don't have the full board here, so it's a hard thing to discuss. But I'm just thinking there's got to be some way to trim some of the area. Those are my thoughts. Leave it at that. Board can discuss it. You guys can talk about it. I just had a hard time with the big number.

Is it just the number? Is there a functional or impact-based reason you're concerned about it?

I'm concerned because it's a big number that's over what's permitted. We have codes and regulations for reasons. People are constantly coming in asking us to push the boundary, push the boundary, push the boundary. Usually, not usually, sometimes people have hardship. They have a good reason. Sometimes they just want bigger is better. Here I just see they just want bigger is better. I don't see a hardship here. Other than that, I want a bigger house. I want a bigger pool. I want a bigger patio. I want a bigger driveway. Now, if the rest of the board is okay with that, I'll be quiet. But I'm just saying for me, it feels like we're constantly letting people have bigger just because they want bigger. And the more we let into that, the more applicants come and want more and more because they just want more. So it's just, I'm not drawing a line in the sand with you. I'm just asking, is there a way for the 3400 to come down? You know, does that carport really need to be bigger than the footprint to the house? I don't think it does. I mean, maybe the carport doesn't have to be that big. It'll maybe be trimmed up a little bit. Maybe the patio around the pool doesn't have to be as wide on the ends. Maybe it's trimmed a little bit. You know, I'm just saying, you know, the driveway at 12 feet probably has to stay 12 feet, right? It's a long, curvy driveway. I don't think you can narrow it up there. But, you know. The carport, the parking court, you have a car park there. It looks like you could park three or four cars there. You could park three cars in the garage. I just see a lot going on there. That's all. Maybe that could get reduced a little bit. So just food for thought. And it could fall on moot ears or the board could discuss it or whatever. That's my say.

My thought about that is maybe if there's a justification, again, the driveway is over 200 feet long. If you compare it to the development coverages of the other properties in that subdivision, are we an extra 3,000 square feet in driveway versus everybody else? So there might be some justification for why it needs that. That's my only thought about that.

Yeah, I mean, I want to be clear, too. It's not that we're exceeding a zoning limitation, okay? This is a limitation that was imposed as part of the approval process for the Farrah Beckett.

I'm just reading what was approved, and you're going over. If it's zoning or a prior board, that's what it is. I'm just reading what's here. So I'm just saying, is there a way we can bring it down?

I hear you. I hear you. And I will tell you that I think it was a huge concession on our client's part to bring the house down by five feet. Because in doing that, they really did end up, I know we saved on...

I missed that meeting. I apologize for missing that. And I appreciate that they lowered it five feet. But I'm talking about something different.

No, I know. But in the whole mix of trying to kind of come to the right balance between what the applicant wants and thinks is a reasonable use of the property and what the board can tolerate, and then, you know, factored into that, whether there are impacts that are associated with that, those exceedances. I mean, to us, that's kind of the formula that makes sense here, right? And to be fair and equitable about it.

I mean, in 2000... Do you have the turning radii that we've looked at that? But what I'm wondering is whether or not the turning radii needs the extra space where we have AREA FOR PARKING OR WHETHER OR NOT, TO GREG'S POINT, THAT CAN BE PULLED IN A BIT AND STILL THE TURNING WILL BE APPROPRIATE. IT'S THAT DRAWING RIGHT THERE, C-300, THE DRAWING ON THE RIGHT.

IF YOU REMEMBER AT THE PRIOR MEETING, WE HAD A PLAN WITH VARIOUS ALTERNATIVES.

THAT'S RIGHT.

AND WITHOUT THAT ADDITIONAL PARKING AREA, THERE WAS AN It was a ridiculous number of turns to make. Yep. No, I recall that.

What's a ridiculous number of turns? Two? Three? No, I think that's two or three. Because that to me is he comes in, he backs out, and he goes out. Okay, that's fine. But he could come in, he could back, he could go back, he could go back, and then he could go out. Right? So don't use a ridiculous amount of turns. Well, that's all. It's not ridiculous. It was three as opposed to two.

It's excessive in my opinion.

Okay. Oh, fair enough. I think the parking court is excessive in my opinion. Okay. And I'm using parking court because that was your term that you phrased as parking court, not myself.

From a life safety perspective, you know, I'm not looking. You start your turning radius from a box truck that looks like pulling out of a garage spot. But if an ambulance goes up there, for them to turn around is tough.

Okay, but are you looking at that in every single application of an ambulance? No, no, no.

I'm looking at it in real life. And like last week, my neighbor had an ambulance come. We have a similar thing. And not going into the driving capabilities of our ambulance drivers, but it was an issue.

And the ambulance came to our house at 2 in the morning and drove across our lawn and run it up in the middle of winter, and that's life.

I'm just saying from a life safety perspective, this is a box truck. Do we have a requirement for a fire truck turnaround or anything like that up there? Not at this length.

When driveways get over, I think, 600 feet, at that point they need to have turnoffs for passing for fire trucks. We have that, I think, on the Ormunk Road side.

And with the geometry and the topography, we don't have the ability to drive across the front lawn if we had to. Right, right.

Because you've got a four-foot drop on either side. To Greg's point, I mean, are there areas, to borrow Greg's statement, that you could be nipped and tucked? You know, it looks like there's a paved sidewalk that's going back from this truck court or from the parking area to the

We've made people remove pavers in their backyard for a company because there are a few hundred feet over, right? Right. So this is my point. I want to be fair to everybody.

Utilize, you know, changing that type of from an impervious to pervious block of some sort where you're minimizing the overage. Now, granted, it's a large overage, but if there's areas where we can reduce it, that's one of, I understand your position there.

Let's just take the patio around the pool, for example. Joe, if you can talk about the dimensions here, because we have looked at all of these, and we looked at other alternatives, too, in terms of even the building, right? Reorienting the driveway. having it face on, flipping it to the right side of the building. We looked at all of that as part of the analysis and had talked to you about it previously. In making some of those changes and even trying to bring the house closer to the road, we're fighting grade when we do that. And we're going to end up doing more disturbance as a result.

You're pretty close to max grades even now, I believe.

Our driveway is, yeah. We were able to bring it down to 11%. It was 13 when it was at the five foot higher. Now we're down to 11%. But yes, we need that driveway, that length in order to meet driveway grade.

What are those dimensions of the proposed patio? I don't seem to be generous, frankly, to Greg's point. And we've asked people in some cases to reduce it. Just use grass. You know, have maybe three feet.

But you can't here.

Why?

Because it, right, Joe? Because it's...

I don't have the dimensions here. I could try and scale them while we're here. But we did, in an effort to reduce coverages, you'll see there's no patio on the backside of the pool. We eliminated that completely. I understand. I see that. Yeah. could certainly look at pulling in the sides the space between the house the back of the house and the front edge of the pool is maybe just looking at scale it's probably on the order of 12 feet 10 feet if that because that walk that walkway going around the side of the house for reference is three feet wide so that that patio dimension is maybe think is reasonable for separation from living space to the pool.

So I did scale it off. The patio itself is about 30 by 60. And then the pools inside of that. There's approximately 10 feet on the north and south side of the pool is approximately 10 feet on either side. And then between the pool and the house is supposed to be about the same, probably. It's about 10 feet also. So they have about 10 feet on all, on three sides of the pool. Well, we've done that before, Greg.

We've had people just put in, say, three feet, and then grass. Right. And I think what you might also, I don't know what that gives us in terms of numbers. I don't have my calculator with me.

The pool's like 40, 45 by 16, plus or minus.

In the carport, the 53-foot dimension, if that went down to 45 and the 50-foot dimension went down to 27, oh, I'm sorry, if the 40-foot dimension went to 27 and the 53 went to 45, I think you could probably still do your turning radiuses. And you'd probably take 500 feet off of your pervious, just by pitching that up.

If you look at the turning movement diagram, Anything that's not part of the turning movements doesn't need to be there. I just point that out. So where the actual car is parked, it's not required for the turning movement. And then the opposite where the car is parked, there's an area that's not required as part of the turning movement. So I'm just suggesting areas that might be.

You can pinch that area up.

If you zoom in on that, anything that's not part of the turning movements, it's not required for the turning movement.

So we can't sit here and debate it. In that one particular instance, but sure. If, say, the car to the far right was backing out of the garage, that area there in red where that vehicle is in the apron or the expansion might not work with that vehicle.

Well, if there's a car parked there, many residents, all they have is a little spot for a K-turn. That's all they have is an 8-foot wide, and we don't allow parking. In the driveway. In the driveway. So like I said, we need to be fair to how we've restricted other applicants on things like this. That's all. To Greg's point, if we allow this, somebody's going to come back to us and say, well, you allowed this. In this case, we didn't allow for mine. So it puts us in an uncomfortable position.

Yeah. I mean, if you look in this neighborhood, and we can flip back to the aerial for this area, I mean, all of those homes have parking courts. So they all have turnarounds. And in some instances, the layout was such that they could go straight on and it would work. But in our instance, it doesn't. You have to curve around. So you can see it.

And I'll go back to where I mentioned before, justification. Again, you know, if there's justification for what you want and there's precedent for it, that makes the board's job a little bit easier to approve something like that. And I think we had requested that before. That's how I would have requested sort of an analysis, a little more than what you did here as far as the development coverage, you know, with respect to, you know, why this extra 3,500 square feet, which, you know, over what the 15%, increase was over the approved.

Yeah, I mean, with all due respect, I thought we had done that, right? We gave you a breakdown of all of the areas on the site and what contributed to what square footage. It's right on the plan, right, for development coverage.

I'm saying comparatively to other properties that are in the subdivision, even in the subcommittee.

Well, in the Newcastle subcommittee.

In the Newcastle subcommittee. In the Newcastle subcommittee.

I mean, look, I can give you those numbers now, right? I mean, I can, you know, five, lot five, which is 22 Hollow Ridge Road, has building coverage of 4,920 square feet and development coverage of 14,372 square feet based on approval documents that we had looked at. 20 Hollow Ridge Road is less than that, right? It's got 3,605 square feet building coverage and 6,805 development coverage. 18 Hollow Ridge Road, which I think is the one right next door, right? Yes. It has 4,331 square feet of building coverage and 11,510 square feet of development coverage.

So again, you know, more than... Are the lots relatively the same in terms of size?

Size, yes.

I mean, I think if you showed something like that in a chart, that might help justify what the applicant is asking for. The planning board obviously has to be able to see that comparison or make that judgment.

Right. I mean, you know, I also think that some consideration should be given to kind of how we're trying to limit the development area. I mean, if you look at 18 Hollowridge Road, and I don't know whether this conforms to the approval or not, but this property is clear all the way up to the property line, right? We're right next door. We're trying to limit the area of our clearing, et cetera, plus we're supplementing it. I mean, we can give you those numbers, but I guess my question to you is I've just recited them to you. Do those numbers really have meaning? What does 500 square feet really mean in terms of a reduction? On this site, we don't really have a lot of yard area, which is why, you know, the pool and the patio really function as kind of our recreational area on the property. Everything else is sloping.

Well, I don't think amending the patio to part of it to the lawn as opposed to impervious, when you still have the use of it, you can still put lounge chairs on it. It still works. I don't think that impacts it at all. I don't know what the numbers are, but you might be correct. It might only give us 200 square feet or something like this, and it becomes de minimis after a while. I am concerned about Greg's comments about the parking area and whether that could be tightened up and Might that also help us with some of the slope issues as well in front? We don't have as much impact. Possibly. But I would leave it to you guys if you come back with us and just let us know what can be done with a patio reasonably. As a hint, we've seen that many times, and many, many times, either as additions or as part of the original construction. We've seen lawn area. We've drawn it in, and I think we have kept patio concrete areas as limited to three feet wide around the pool, around the coping of the pool. In some cases, I think we just did the coping, where it was really an extreme case. This is not extreme. And then I don't know what to say about the parking area. I understand what Greg is talking about. I share his concern, but I don't know if it's – I guess the other issue is what are the numbers? So if you could just calculate the numbers and say, look, what we're talking about, if we did all these little things, it's 700 square feet. And then to Jerry's point, what does that really mean? It actually does mean something in terms of 3,500 over because it reduces by 20%.

And does this number have the 660 feet in it? Oh, for the driveway? Yeah. Does this overage number? It does. It does. So right there, there's 660 feet that comes out of the calculation, right?

No, I think that number does not. It's included in there, but we backed it out when we did that calculation. So without the... It's 11,032 square feet without including the 616. Without including the 616.

It's in the chart. You have it added in.

Yes, but then we backed it out. That was a much higher coverage number. So if you deduct it from the 11,648 or whatever it is. 11,032. 11,032, right.

If you did that difference.

I thought we had gone over this point in the last two meetings that we were here. We provided the breakdown. We talked about the mitigation and the changes that we made. We offered the justification for what we were proposing. I didn't know that the board was still concerned about coverage numbers, because it really doesn't, if you look at it from the aerial view, we're not out of whack in terms of what we're asking for improvements-wise, types of improvements, or I think that, you know, kind of the nature of the disturbance areas and the nature of the coverage numbers. Yes, we are over. But if you look at that original site plan, it didn't make any sense, right? So the limitations that were imposed originally were kind of plucked out of thin air, you know, based on the applicant's proposal. I'm not suggesting the board came up with those numbers. I know it didn't. But that layout had you drive right into a garage, no area to turn around, not a single walkway, no stormwater improvement, certainly no mitigation, no patio, no outside deck or anything like that. So it simply didn't contemplate a reasonable development of this site.

Yeah, for this site. But it's interesting to see when you had the aerial up there, Many of those, even the larger ones, have those direct driveways straight in. But in this particular lot, I think, frankly, your design is much better and much more handsome. It looks better and works better. We looked at the other thing coming in straight off from the road in another area. was unreasonable.

You do have it straight in, but you also have the court.

Yeah, but that court and that straight in, that's a lot shorter than what you're proposing. I mean, it's way under that. That's the problem. I mean, you're being hampered by the driveway. I mean, in a way, you have to have it, but in a way, it drives your numbers up.

And having it work. Right.

But to Greg's point, if you have to do that, then can we balance it in the patio or in the pool and do something with the parking court? And not to hold you guys up, but can something be done, if it can be done, to pull it in? I'm satisfied with the driveway and what you've proposed there. I think it makes great sense. And whatever little changes you have to do in terms of the drainage infiltration, fine, no big deal. It's easy. It's going down to a wetland buffer area anyway. That's fine. But I just wonder about those issues. Frankly, I mean, I overlooked the patio.

I'm glad you brought that up. We had spent so much time on the clearing grading limit line that I kind of wasn't paying attention to that. It wasn't until tonight that we started to get into it. Okay.

So I pulled up your memo or your letter from the last meeting, and when you reduced it, the comment was that the earthwork was reduced to a net fill of 226 cubic yards, which reduced it from reduction of net fill by almost 2,900 cubic yards. And then, Sabrina, in your memo, you're referencing that what appears to be roughly 3,100 feet of fill.

The table on our plan is incorrect. The numbers, we double checked them today. The 226 odd cubic yards is the correct number. Just didn't make it to the edits with the short time frame we had to get the submission in. Got it.

And one of the other benefits, of course, of lowering the house was we vastly reduce the number of truckloads. Yeah, that we were going to say at this site. I mean, I know you're saying we know you gave up something by going down to five feet, but you know, the five feet was really important to us.

To be fair, I believe by lowering the house, they had to introduce a stair, which probably made the footprint of the building bigger, which increased your development, right? We record that required a stairwell on the north side of that. Yes. So that that increased your development towards your building coverage. Okay. So I just want to have all the data, and things like that have to be taken into consideration.

What's the deal with that sidewalk on the side that you're proposing to?

The connection from the garage?

Yeah, garage, house, and pool patio.

Just a three-foot walk. I could have shown you little pavers or nothing at all, but again, to Jerry's earlier point, we're trying to be realistic and forward-thinking. I think a modest walkway from what will be a side entry to the garage to the rear yard for just routine use and maintenance we thought was reasonable.

The feet will never touch grass. The feet will never touch grass. That's okay.

Sorry, that's stepping stones.

I mean, you know, we talked about but but by the time you do that, and then measure each stepping stone, I mean, you know, again, we were trying to be reasonable in terms of how it was being addressed, you know, and also just in terms of the material that we want to use on the on the driveway and this court area, you know, we're trying to, I know it doesn't, it has to be counted for development coverage. I know it's counted for stormwater purposes, but we're trying to use a material that was a little bit more friendly to the environment, you know, the chipped stone.

Jeff, there are some materials that can be used for the parking area, I don't think for the slope, that will get credit, right, for being pervious? We saw the one out there on the western side of town.

Not development coverage, so anything that really gets installed, even if they install some sort of like a grass paver, grass pave, which was proposed on another application that they have in front of you. It's still considered development coverage because you have to tear it up and you're installing something man-made.

So hear me out. I just question. So let's say the parking court, yes, it's development coverage, but if they put in a pervious material that lets infiltration, that helps overall, does such a thing exist that doesn't bust their bank?

Oh, sure. There's... MANY DIFFERENT PERMEABLE MATERIALS.

IS THAT SOMETHING YOU GUYS WOULD ENTERTAIN? THE GRAVEL CAN BE PERMEABLE. work for you as a pervious material? It can be turned into pervious coverage.

It would still be considered development coverage.

I hear you. But for me, it's a way to help mitigate my head on development coverage versus pervious and impervious. So if it's coverage but it's pervious, it's not so bad.

That's what we have right now. But we didn't design it as a pervious pavement Could you? Because of the grades and the topography.

But is it a flat on the carport? The courtyard is. Yeah, the courtyard. Not the driveway. The courtyard I'm talking about.

We were just talking, I think, just about the parking lot.

Yeah, maybe just the place up top, the big flat rectangle. So it's pervious now. But does it work as far as infiltration and things like that? Is it pervious, but is it the good pervious? It will.

We just didn't take credit for it in that location. We accounted for it in the infiltration system.

So the way it's built, you didn't take credit, but if you wanted to take credit, you could.

I'd have to probably do more testing there. Because now that we've lowered the house in the courtyard five feet, I don't know what the soils are. Okay, fair enough.

Depends on what you're applying for.

We tried to anticipate all of these kinds of questions and concerns and come in with a plan that we thought, you know, reflected giving those things some thought. Which is why material etc.

I mean, you know, there's different, there's a hex pave that that comes in, which is just it's like, it's concrete pavers that have and you have grass growing through them, which is a little more pleasing. Yeah, but you know, that's, you know, there's many options.

I mean, I can I can show you some of the like, I think my neighbors did something like that recently, that area is roughly 2600 square feet. Yeah, yes, right. And I saw them and there's four catch basins, but I don't know how the water that comes on to that gravel is getting to that catch basin. It's going to go right through the gravel to the ground underneath.

Well, it's going to be a compacted, probably over time, certainly be compacted. So we want to have something in there to control it. But yes, it's likely that, and conservatively, it'll be a one-inch stone chip surface.

Right, so to get the water from right outside that garage to your catch basin on the other side, that water's not making it there. It's going to go into

Get a significant storm, it'll get there.

This is how the DEC considers gravel. I know. It's just something in practicality, most of it's going to perk right through.

Saturday night storm, the catch basin will see some flow, but what we had earlier today, you're right, probably not.

It's realistic versus theoretic, and they use theoretic even though in reality it's probably not going to function.

Well, wouldn't that water go down to the other basin that you've got over here, the side basin? Yeah. What I'm saying is rain.

Gravel. It's gravel. You have to flood it and grade over there in order to flood the gravel in order to get over there.

But because there's a concern over time that it becomes compacted, You know, you frequently, you have to count it as development coverage.

I'm trying to help you here.

No, I agree. I agree with you. I agree with you. But I've had that argument here with your predecessor, you know, and we get it. Like, we accept that we have to. But, yes, we tried to build things into this design that was its own mitigation, you know, for some of that extra coverage. Instead of waiting for you to ask us to do it, we just tried to be sensitive to that and respond to it.

In the construction.

I mean, the only thing we didn't do was the wetland mitigation because the wetland was, you know, not hydrologically connected. But with Dennis's guidance, you know, we focused on kind of enhancing habitat. So that was really kind of one of the big changes and then lowering the building, you know, and all the associated improvements to it. But we looked at whether or not turning this driveway to face the road saved any square footage. We looked at the garage and we put it on this side of the house in one of our analyses. We looked at the driveway bringing it straight up and not curving so that we could shorten the driveway. But again, all of that ended up creating additional disturbance that didn't seem to make a whole heck of a lot of sense. you know, and could be criticized for other reasons.

Well, I'd be, just speaking for myself, I'd be satisfied if you just reworked the proposed patio, gave us a little bit there to help us with the $3,500, maybe bring it down to $3,000 or so. And the parking court, I think at this point, if you know, any kind of, even a small redesign is going to create big problems for you and costs. And I think you guys have been very reasonable and have thought about this very carefully. And that's where I am on it. So I know we've looked at a number of renditions, and I know you looked at many, many more with staff way before you came to us. And we concluded that this was the way to go for this particular site. So I'd be satisfied with that. And I think administratively, it depends on what you guys think and what you want to do. I mean, you heard Sabrina was saying she's happy and she would be willing to close the public hearing and move on to a draft resolution. But I don't think we're ready for a draft resolution if we don't have the information in terms of those additional tweaks that we may or may not want to see. Jeff, you may not be interested in. Greg, you may be interested in more. I don't know.

I have one other thing. Sure. We've heard from the applicant. There's a lady sitting behind. I don't know. She's a plant. Okay. If there's any public comments. Because it is a hearing, so. It's Jeff's daughter. Oh, okay. He couldn't imagine who would put the child to that torture. All right. Are there any comments online? No hands are raised. No hands are raised. Okay.

Look, I think we could get to 3,000 square feet. Right, Joe? We would be able to do that from the 33.

It's about 35, isn't it? What? Do what you can to soften it up. If you get to 30, if you get to 3,000, 29, 33, 2, whatever it is, just let's see. I need to feel comfortable in a month from now, the next applicant comes up and that we have a discussion. I need to be able to speak to that. So I understand that we made you, the stair kind of came from us. So that kind of kicked you up a little bit. But maybe the patio and the parking court could just get trimmed up a little bit here or there. I mean, the park, I understand the neighbors have large parking courts too. I hear you. And I know you want to keep up with, they want to keep up with the Joneses. I understand that. I'm just trying to tighten it up. Okay. That's all. That's my say. Okay. And I'm not going to hold up the works. Yep.

Jeff, being mindful of one July, and we don't meet in August, I would be in favor of what the chairman proposed, but also directing staff to draft a resolution for so that at the next meeting, we, we can go through what their changes are. And we can put the number in and not because over the last couple meetings, this applicant has Everyone's been very professional and worked with us. So I don't want to negatively impact them moving forward on that. But at the same time, they're still outstanding items.

So if we basically direct you to come with your best efforts, to reduce that development coverage And then once we have that number we'll just plug it in but in the meantime what we could do is close the public hearing direct staff to draw up a resolution Probably won't be approved anyway though until September, but you know the resolution Why would that be? You're going to have to supply information, and they're going to have to do it in two weeks, because our next meeting is the last one. Yeah, there's no meetings in August. We don't meet in August. Right, right. So we meet again on, what, the 21st?

Yes, you meet on the 21st.

So, I mean, I'll let- How quickly do you think you can get me revisions? Yeah. How quick do you need them?

Probably remove like a single parking stall, right? Center it, shave a little bit on each end, maybe four feet or so on each end, tighten it up there. Maybe the patio, the two ends of the pool we reduce. I'd like to keep the patio on the rear of the house for the length of the pool at a minimum. Ideally, the length that we have it, maybe just eliminate the two areas on the sides on the end. Reduce it to a coping.

Maybe use an alternative just in the sense of good faith, change the material of the sidewalk.

The 192?

I THINK WE CAN DRAFT UP A RESOLUTION THAT TALKS ABOUT A LOT OF THE ISSUES THAT WERE RAISED TONIGHT WITH THE JUSTIFICATION OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND KIND OF WHAT ELSE IS BEING SEEN AND THEN SPEAK TO THE REDUCTIONS THAT WE WILL SEE AT THAT MEETING, RIGHT? And we can plug in the numbers. I don't think that there would be a need to bump this to September.

No, if we can get the information in, those changes in really very quickly, in a day or two, then they can work on the resolution. Yeah, agreed. We're happy to consider it and have it considered for the next meeting. Okay.

Can you do it that quickly?

Yeah.

And it's really up to you. You could keep the public hearing open tonight if you wanted to. Otherwise, you can close it.

Is your daughter coming the next year? She's had enough?

I mean... She's not going into this field, even, just so you know.

You don't know how many litigant lawsuits there are because you didn't ask the public, right? And then they come back in two years because someone's opposed them.

Always try to get well, we're gonna see additional information so we could do everything that night. So we have the public here open Well, we'll intend to close it and we'll intend to vote on the resolution that will be drafted and with your changes and Hopefully we're got you out of here Okay, do we need a motion to continue the public hearing? Yes, I guess yes motion to continue Second all in favor aye. Okay DID YOU WANT TO SEE THOSE NUMBERS, JEFF, ALSO?

THAT'S UP TO YOU. DO YOU WANT TO SEE THE NUMBERS COMPARED? NO. I WAS HAPPY WITH WHAT GERRY TOLD US. I DON'T WANT TO GIVE AN EXTRA TASK. OKAY. YOU'RE OKAY WITH THAT? YES.

OKAY. GOOD. OUR NEXT ITEM IS THE MINUTES. THE MINUTES OF WEDNESDAY, JUNE 17. Stakes had the same question or same issue. The votes are showing six people.

Yeah, I thought they said they were going to fix that for last time.

Right. So as far as I'm concerned, the absences should be just one. It should be four, zero. Okay. And not two. Okay. Any changes, anyone? No. Other than that one?

I had a little typo someplace.

I forgot where it was. Okay. I didn't find it. Okay. Is there a motion to adopt the minutes of June 17? Motion. Second. Second.

As amended. As amended.

As amended.

Yes.

All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. Is there a motion?

The motion is seconded. I'm sorry.

Jeff motioned it. Greg seconded it.

Thank you.

You're welcome. And is there a motion to close the hearing?

Meeting? Second. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Aye.