Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Okay.

I guess we're set. We have a quorum. Is there a motion to open the meeting? Motion. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Okay. This is the planning board meeting of Tuesday, July 21. So our first matter is a continued public hearing, right? Yes. Consola 14, Hollow Ridge Road. Application for a site development plan application. Steep slopes to removal. Application for stormwater and erosion sanitization control. And as well, so here we are, so we thank the applicant changes responses comments from board members last time around. So, if you saw those changes, that would be very helpful.

Great Steve with a is on if Steve, will you share your screen and put up the plan. Just so everybody knows, Steve is part of the team, Richard Leffler and Alicia Cuccio, who you see on the screen.

Right now, this is the plan we last submitted. Thanks, Steve.

So, the plan that you see I can just stand up and just show you that I'll try not to touch. Well, you can. No, but I'm afraid to touch it because I'm not sure what direction it will take us. But this is a culmination of the plan that we submitted on July 13th. We had emailed it, I think, on July 10th. And then also, we sent an update. but i'm sorry i'm sorry jerry do you want me to show the most recent one with the clearing grading limit line updated or this is what we last submitted to the town that they reviewed in june okay let's leave this one steve thanks and then we can jump to the other one in a minute so this is the one from july 13th so you had asked us to make some revisions to reduce some of the the square footage uh no steve this is not the right one because so you want the july one okay yeah this is the one with this yes okay Great. Thanks, Steve. It's up there. So just to quickly summarize for you the changes that we made, we were asked to see if we could eliminate some of the additional development coverage on the site. So the driveway courtyard has been made smaller in this location. It went from 40 feet to 27 feet long, and we shifted it. So if you remember, it was longer, and then it went more encroached into the clearing and grading limit line. And we have reduced that by adjusting the location of it and shifting it northward. So we went from 40, as I said, to 27, four spaces to three spaces. We lost about 175 square feet in doing that, and also reduced the amount of encroachment into the clearing and grading that aligned with permanent improvements in that location. And looked at the turning movements, and we can still have an ambulance go up there and delivery trucks and things of that nature so it still functions, even though it's a little tighter up in that section. if you remember we had a walkway along the southern part of the uh resident structure um that took you all the way from the garage to the pool and patio area we've eliminated the section from the door from the side of the house to the pool and we have converted it was like a continuous path and we just made it stepping stones which square footage away, but there's about 131 square feet that we lost in that location as well. We've reduced the size of the pool that's behind the house from 16 feet 7 inches by 44 feet to 16 by 32. And then we've eliminated this entire section of patio to the north of the pool. So the coping will be, it will be just coping along this section of the pool and The western section of the pool we did expand this area slightly just to accommodate being able to have a you know a Cookout area as well as you know be able to have chairs and a table and chairs in that location But overall there's a reduction in the pool and the patio the pool by 218 square feet in the patio by 68 square feet and And that resulted in a total reduction of 569 square feet. It's about a 9% to 9.5% reduction in the coverage. Steve, if you would jump to the clearing and grading limit line plan. I just want to show you this. We didn't formally submit it to the board. But if you remember, we were talking about how could we reduce the clearing and grading limit line area. How we could reduce the clearing and grading limit line area. We took the hand planted areas where the what the wetland mitigation and some of the tree replacement is going to happen and we reduced it. So, basically.

This section is going to be planted, but planted by hand.

So that is no longer part of the, within the clearing and grading limit line and this section here. has been removed from the clearing and grading limit line. And then this little section down here. So overall, we went from about 68,000 square feet to 57. I'm using just the whole numbers there. It's a little bit more than that. There may be a slight adjustment to this number once we look at the drainage facilities. If you remember, the town engineer had asked us, he had commented that there might be a need to add some additional drainage. We're still looking at that. If that happens, we may have to bump out this disturbance area. just to increase it slightly, just to accommodate and answer the question.

So you don't think there will be any change to the front area by the driveway for the Coltec?

Well, it's already within the clarity of grading.

I understand. I don't know.

We're hoping not, because that's taking mainly the driveway area, as I understand it. But again, we have to look at it more carefully.

Well, the issue there, I think, was that we wanted to make certain medical language in the resolution tight enough, but also loose enough so that if we had to make a field change with any kind of changes in that buffer in the current, that you didn't have to come back to either us or ERV. It was understood that it would have to be done as a field change and not something that would require the applicant to come back to us.

Well, we certainly appreciate that. Or did us. Yeah, we certainly appreciate that. I just don't know the answer to that question today.

Well, look at the language that you see in here, because those are the tasks that we looked at to make sure that we were giving you that flexibility, if necessary.

Yeah, I didn't pick up on that language so much in the resolution.

Well, I think perfectly fine as is, but I mean, is that okay with board members, Jennifer and Stu?

this is for this and i had added a proposed change um you know that would accommodate kind of bumping out some of the clearing grading is that 17 the magenta that is yes okay yeah i but that that was the clearing grading limit line i didn't really address you know uh changes in slate modifications to the uh to the disturbance in the wetland yeah we could probably just add that in there okay that would be great i think we should give you that flexibility thank you that would be appreciated

Do you want to even further reform it and use the word temporary disturbance?

Because it gets returned to nature. It's going to be some form of green space. Sure.

Did you have a place? No, no.

I'm just describing the area and the activity. What you see on the plan here, nobody's going to see, you know, standing on that project is completely subsurface, which I know.

Right. And we're trying and we're talking about really this set of call tech units. That's it. I'm happy to answer any questions and Steve's happy to answer any questions if you have any. move more than I think some other members might have anticipated.

Thank you. Sprint, do you have any comments?

No, no comments. I'm okay with everything.

Okay, great. Thank you. Jeff, you had some comments?

Nothing that wasn't on the conditions. Right. Nothing that wasn't on the conditions. I mean, there's some more to do with the SWPPP, but, you know, everything else is, you know, fine.

Okay. Dennis, any questions, issues? No. Okay. Great. Questions from board members? Jennifer?

I mean, I don't have any reason not to believe that. But given the way the economy is going and the world, a year passes faster than.

meeting the permit. So where does that ambiguous window leave you legally? We just wouldn't be able to issue a CFO. We've issued TCOs

Okay.

Anyone's hand up? Anyone from the public out there on this application?

there's one attendee if you're interested in speaking please raise your digital hand okay i think we're okay okay well not seeing any uh public interest or public comment is there a motion to close the public hearing motion second second all in favor aye and uh we have a draft resolution that

I'm on page 9. Yep. Is that.

Comment 23 Dennis, do you have that with you? Uh.

The question was, there's a condition 23, and it's under prior to issuance of a building permit. And my only question is, not is it a legitimate condition, but is that really something that should be done prior to the issue? And then is there a place that we can insert some of that flexibility language about field changes? Yes. Wetland permit. Again, limited to the drainage improvements.

Yes. I just want to leave that to our educated staff to do with you. And we kind of are loose on that kind of stuff, so we don't take a whole lot of time with the commas and the does and the ands. And then with that further amendment, is there a motion to adopt the resolution? Motion. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay.

Thank you very much.

Very good, thanks.

And Steve, you can stop sharing.

Thank you. So we had another item on the agenda. It was a public hearing. So I guess we have to adjourn the public hearing specifically by motion. But before we do that, we had a conversation earlier today, and one of the issues here was, we were hoping that we would use this meeting to. has not been registered or understood the way it could be. So one of the hopes was that we would direct the applicant to meet with staff specifically to get these final items resolved and so that they could get to the finish line in September. So they're not here to hear that, but I guess we can want to include that in a motion to extend the TO ADJOURN AND RESCHEDULE PUBLIC CARE. GIVE THAT KIND OF All in favor? Aye. Okay, so we'll see you again in September. Okay, we'll move down to our next application. This is 25 South Bedford Road, LLC. This is an application for site development plan for installation of a fueling island counter.

my name is anthony nestle with the firm of jmc who represents the applicant um 25 south boardway llc in their application to erect a proposed canopy over the existing fuel in the island get the gas station located at 25 south benton road i'm just trying to join the webinar that was on there um we are here uh this evening for the public hearing and just rehab the proposed project. So we are proposing to erect that 24 foot wide by 56 foot long by 17 and a half foot high canopy over the existing fueling island. The site is approximately 0.35 acres in size and it's located on the southeast side In those of those variances, would it require a front yard setbacks from history and from South Bedford also aside your setback from. The East property line, which is the residential. Foundry district where 50 funds required the site is an existing nonconforming site. So, while we are hopefully before the to. the variances for the canopy, we would, as recommended by staff, seek other variances that the existing site doesn't comply with. Yeah, clean up the entire site. Correct. So the proposed canopy will have eight recessed lights underneath the canopy, which is really for to provide a safe environment is being proposed really to provide a better experience for the patients at the gas station. You know, it does provide, you know, relief from inclement weather. So, you know, during rain, storm events, things like that, which is really the reason why they're proposing a canopy. Since we were before your board last, we were, there was a couple of comments that came up with regards to the height of the canopy. The original company was 18 feet high total. So there was 15 to the bottom and a three foot parapet height. But discussing this with the manufacturer of the canopy and the requirements for the type of vehicles using certain type of fuels, since they do sell diesel fuel at some of these dispenses. So there was 14 foot clear underneath, so the total top of the canopy would be 17.6 inches. On top? On top. 14.6 underneath?

And 14.6 underneath, correct.

And then the other thing that was asked at the last meeting was to provide an updated lighting analysis plan to include, there's seven floodlights on the bottom fascia upper fascia of the roofline, including the two Kroger heads, one on the King Street and one on South Bedford Road, with the updated and lowered canopy height, which was provided to the board. Um, taking care of was there was a question at the last meeting with regards to, um, at height, having anything to do with fire suppression of fire requirements, which, you know, there was a team up in the fire department. Yes. So we have that. So we're here and actually also, um, the applicant is also here tonight this evening. So if there's any questions for him, then you guys directed to, but if there's any questions by the board or anybody

Okay. Sabrina, you have some comments?

Yeah, for the most part, the applicant has addressed all of my comments. I think there's, you know, I appreciate the lowering of the canopy height, which was lowered from 18 inches down to 17.6. The one question that still kind of remains is the number of lights under the canopy and the impact to the residential neighbor. At the last meeting, the board asked that all of the lighting that's on the site be included in the photogrammetric analysis. And it has been, but it does show a higher candle foot on the neighbor's property. Reduce the 8 fixtures down to 6 or 4 fixtures under that canopy. That's the only issue that is outstanding in my review. And it's really up to the board and the applicant to address that.

In addition to the reduction from 8 to 6. Is it possible to the Eastern side? What are 2 that you put it on the eastern side of the canopy? Can those be directed back toward the west away from the residential area? That might again contain some of the storage off site just for some redirection.

Yes, so what I've discussed with the applicant and actually the manufacturer of the canopy. and we would be able to reduce the lights of the canopy from eight to six and what we would do is we would take um two lights and set into them over each fuel island so in in fact that would do is we'd push those further to east lights, further west, away from the property line. And I think having the two lights over each island, basically over each car, would satisfy requirements for security.

So how would they be staggered?

So right now there's four and four, right? And they're not really located, but if you take the two and then just shift them on actually, you know, parallel so that they are centered within the island itself. And then this way there's two lights, one on either side of each island, it would shrink them. It would take them further away from the edges. Okay. think that would reduce the levels um especially on the property line to the east and also you know and i drove by there on my way here this evening too and there is quite a bit of vegetation and shrubbery trees which this obviously doesn't reflect so um but i think in order to you know make sure everybody's okay with the plan we're willing to reduce the two from the eight.

Right. And again, the spillage seems to be relatively marginal, very modest, but that might just do it and keep the spillage off the other property altogether.

Correct. And I think that's one of the characteristics of the LED lighting, too, is it's pretty much direct down. Right. You know what I mean? It doesn't have a kind of reflective, you know, fixture where it's spreading light over a real, you know, like a parking lot.

Is any of the spillage the result of the current floodlights?

I did not do an existing before and after, but I would think by the time those floodlights would have to go through the canopy, this is combined. Correct. So, you know, if those floodlights would have to still go through the canopy and actually the lights underneath the canopy are pretty bright. So, I mean, I can't, without doing that analysis, I wouldn't be able to. No, no, that's fine. It would have to go travel through. Right.

it's very bright correct did they get brighter because we did lower even though it was only six inches but the more you lower it the better it's going to get but even the one on the building right you're showing that they're throwing off roughly 42 which is fairly bright for a gas station you know simple chat gpt search says 20 to 30 for cans um ability to reduce the lumens without having to go through swapping out lights or something that, because right now those floodlights that are on the building provide significant light to pump gas at night. That's why they're there. Right, right. But now we're putting eight LED lights directly over the pumps. Is it, are those, those, um, canopy or not, are the, are the building lights required even required anymore?

Um, I think they still were required at the door and the entrances to the actual facility itself. Yeah. Um, but for the rest of them, I mean, I don't know if they're going to actually be necessary.

I would first of all, second of all, I would think, yeah, like Anthony mentioned, more so by the two garage bays on the western side of the property, you're not going to really have anybody there. It's going to be pitch black. And the bathroom's over there. So that's pretty important for running purposes. In terms of the I would basically say the answer is yes, some form of light needs to be there because also we have our storage and office at the entrance. there with just the canopy, but I imagine some form of light would probably still be necessary. If there's a way I could reduce something, I would, just for everyone's sake. Perhaps use different bulbs.

Yeah, absolutely. Yeah, something. Or, you know, there's four on top of, four, one, and two. Reducing it from four on top of those bays to in motion sensors, something that we did across fire station where we added that post construction building, we're going to do a lumen test out there. Because my concern is seeing this that it's going to be like the side of the Jersey Turnpike in a residential area. If that would make the board satisfied, we can go from 42. say that's what needs to be. Something along the lines to take into account that the intent of those lights was to illuminate the area, but also to illuminate the pumps. And now you're having lighting that's right on top of the pumps.

to have lighting around the perimeter but to have seven floodlights maybe a little excessive so if you're willing to work with after the fact to reduce we can and actually the types of fixtures that there are you can't just swap things out so i think this the applicant would be willing to work with putting a new fixture in that's less you know bright light and lower lodge sometimes

reduce the lumens here by 20% or 25%, something like that. And however you do that, whatever works for you, whether you want to go to LEDs and lighter ones, if you can do that, it still should be 2700 Kelvin or lower. LEDs might be cheaper for you anyway because they run all the time. And maybe better fixtures will help in the long run as well. But could we do that? Set up a performance standard and reduce it by 25% somehow, some way.

It's closer to that 30-ish range. And then as part of this, we're now making those lights that were installed without any approvals or permits, that's now being morphed into this approval. Yeah, we can incorporate that into it.

Again, like the zoning board, bring everything up to speed so that you

Jeff, did you have any comments? I didn't have any comments on this application, no. Okay. I had the one question again about the bollards, whether or not the bollards would be

have the beam itself okay and that's there's no room the manufacturer thinks that's correct correct yep good enough because we don't want it to interfere with the footing for the candidate for the yeah column and stuff like that okay Okay, anyone with a hand up on this application? Member of the public?

If anyone's interested in speaking, just raise your digital hand. No.

Okay, if not, I'm not seeing any public comment. Is there a motion to close the public hearing? Motion. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Is there a motion to direct staff to drop the- Resolution for this motion motion. 2nd, all in favor. Hi.

Okay, and then to 1 other thing. So we go to the.

Yeah, I think they can go right. We have this tentative approval and by the way, can we add a sentence or 2 to the CPA and say, we. We like these guys, even though they charge too much for gas.

Yeah. I mean, the ZBA does not meet until September. You can ask for a draft resolution for your September 15th meeting. And then as part of that, we can condition that they go to the ZBA. Right. And they can be your board can pass the resolution on the 15th and then they could be put on the agenda as long as they submit the information in accordance with that deadline beforehand. You could submit the information for the September ZBA now, and then you can go right from the planning board and the following week go into the zoning board.

Okay, and we could send a note of support to the ZBA as well.

You don't have to send a notice. You'll have your resolution. Okay. But you do need to direct staff to prepare that.

What's that?

You do need to direct staff to prepare the resolution.

Yes, I think we did.

Oh, you did? Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Very good. Thank you very much. Thank you so much. Thank you very much. Have a great evening. Okay. Okay, this is a CATCH-S 307 Millwood Road application for a site development plan approval, steep slopes permit, tree permit, wetlands permit application for stormwater and erosion and sedimentation control for construction of

So I'm going to log into Zoom for our documents from that. Alan Phillips is our engineer. He met before. He had a meeting in Lewisboro. So he was going to try to get back here in time, and then he was going to try to log in. So bear with me for a moment. I'm going to find Carrie's invitation.

Peace.

So I'm just doing this to be able to share the screen.

and jennifer's on so this is one we're seeing the other application oh okay almost there

I see on my screen what I want to show you. I'm not seeing it on the Zoom screen yet. Do you see me up there? I thought I was on the Zoom. Sorry. do you see that on your computer i see my screen zoom saying town board town board executive session only okay session let me resend your invite just in case okay the right uh hang on yeah i thought i saw a carry email so i just clicked on that link It does say town board executive session with an email from Carrie. It was just today. There it is. Okay. I think I managed to just pick the wrong one.

Oh, there you go.

Turn off your speakers.

I did.

So this should be our first page of our- That's Alan's letter, right? That's Alan's letter. 106 pages of that is after this. So let's just hold here for a moment. We didn't see Alan on here yet, right? We have worked with Dennis. We've gone back and forth on several things. We have the letters that Sabrina's done, Jeff's done, Dennis has done. I'm getting maybe one other one. And feel that the comments are addressable. We have those letters here. We can go through those if you'd like to do that. Ultimately, what we'd like to do is suggest that we get scheduled for public hearing for the next available meeting. So that would be our goal. But would you like us to review the most recent review letters?

If you could put the plan up and show us some of the changes that you made since we last saw you, and then the staff can take the comments. I think you made some minor changes, but they're all good I think.

Okay, and I'm going to say, I know about addressing Dennis's question about a certain spot on the property that was the wet area.

But you changed the area for drainage? Correct. Correct. And reduced it? Correct. Reduced the coverage, reduced the buffer impacts? Correct.

i think the the primary impetus of that i'll try to enlarge the plan and i am just randomly getting to this one plan come on this one and this is possibly the related plan but uh ultimately that focus was on saying that uh we're reusing this existing It's not not a finished driveway in any regard, but, uh, using that. Uh, we're our new driveway driveable driveway is a little bit beyond the boundaries of that pathway. And then, um. We're doing grading efforts on either side of that with some storage drainage, all of that. So what we did in terms of the disturbance area, the impervious area was deduct out that existing driveway, that existing path. And then the other, you know, what the buffer areas that we are disturbing we're restoring those to what the buffer quality so in terms of additional mitigations beyond that was really reducing that down because we have to restore the areas we're disturbing that are presently around that driveway. So that's kind of the concept of that reduction in the purpose area that we need to then mitigate. Now I know there's definitely calculation is and how we can do those mitigations and other portions of the property to accumulate to that total. Anything else you would say about that?

No, I think, Dennis, we should probably go together.

We should walk the property. We talked about that. We should probably go walk the trees, wetland areas where we want to restore the house.

you identified areas on here that's fine and if there's others that that's fine too um i guess we'll get to the numbers we get to registers sort of in the absence of numbers just wanted to provide some classification just for reference for those purposes uh you know how these relate in terms of total number of plantings etc etc based on some of these guidelines and principles so

It wasn't a disowning by any stretch. It was just for a, you know, sort of demerit discussion. Okay. Yeah, part of the problem with the property is where to put the tree. If you put the trees in the woods, they're not going to make it. I mean, it's pretty wooded.

Yeah. It's very wooded area. putting wetland native planning around an area that better filtration area. So I think that's, you know,

Sabrina, did you have some comments?

I think that the applicant has addressed all of my comments. The plan is zoning compliant as it stands. I think the real issues remain with Jeff and Dennis regarding mitigation and the design. So I don't really have any additional comments for the board.

Okay. Jeff, you had some comments?

JEFF RUBENSTEIN- I did. Mostly minor. Nothing I think that's going to take too much to fix and make acceptable. Something with the driveway is a little bit with the SWIP. There was a spot where the driveway change in grade was a little out of zoning. The retention basin may need to get adjusted a touch. And there are some slopes on the driveway, which this may impact something the planning board would consider. So the slopes on the edge of that driveway, they're a little bit steep on the low side. They're like a two-to-one slope. Generally, you want to keep something that's a little bit more three-to-one just in case a tire slips off or something. You don't want to But obviously, as you extend that line out, you're increasing disturbance. So that's sort of something they can talk about. you know, if this is going to be, you know, one person driving down or two people driving down, they know it's, you know, steep. One thing they may want to consider is if they want to keep the two-to-one, then to put some sort of like a wood guide rail just to prevent people from, like I said, you know, worrying about, you know, going down the hill. That's it mostly, nothing major.

Okay. Dennis, you have comments, and the ERB also supplied you with comments.

Oh, I got to read them. ERB meeting was first, so that one I just kind of presented the summary of their discussion. The project layout, you know, obviously taking advantage of what's existing, you know, that was, you know, I like using the proper word, most practicable alternative in consideration and that really was the, you know, predominant component that's in the weapons buffer. They didn't really have much to say about anything that was located outside of the buffer. So I guess that started the discussion of development of the mitigation plan. And that would be what would be defined as the impact. And the ratio of one to one would be acceptable for mitigation. Recommending, I guess, myself and the applicants and their professionals needed to identify candidate applications and come up for what it would look like. There were other considerations in that, like as we were talking, you know, sometimes first reaction is, well, you know, the area is all treated natural. Gee, is there anything we can do? And, you know, as I said, and we just discussed briefly before that, you know, there's many structures vertically to a forested community. So if you have a mature canopy cover, that's great, because that's probably the hardest thing to replicate. And also, that seems to be the area to focus on. When I mentioned that, they seemed to be amenable, obviously, to that consideration. They didn't really discuss trees, because they knew that that was 121, and that would be the planning board responsibility. And they were not concerned with this applicant having to return to the ERB. As long as the project is proposed within the buffer, it doesn't change substantively So then moving, I guess, forward to the submission, which was subsequent to that ERB meeting. I guess the first thing that Mr. Janning went back out for a second field verification. And, you know, from reviewing his report, you know, I concur it didn't meet all three criteria to be classified as a wetland. One of the two borings, though, definitely, you know, could meet the definition of hydric soil. So there's water there, but it's just not there sustained long enough during the growing season to develop the other characteristics you need in order to, I guess, have a predominance of hydrophytic vegetation. So it was not a hystic epidome? It was not a hystic epipedidome, but it certainly felt like it when you were on it. I was like, my God, you're floating menstruating all at the same time. So that's why, to your point, it's probably good, Alan, made some consideration to get more water away from the area, considering what you'd be traversing all over. That's what I said. Exactly. So these were the next part is the breakdown of the buffer, which, and again, the ERB was amenable to this suggestion about removing what was existing as a path for quantification purposes, which obviously takes out over 1,900 square feet. So that lowered the requirements area-wise in terms of mitigation to 6,100 square feet. And I guess the initial proposal was considering, you know, they're separate areas, but they're kind of contiguous to the project and they're all within the buffer as, you know, potential candidate locations for mitigation. And, you know, assuming that 6,100 square feet, just a blanket, since there were no plans or numbers presented, I just throw that out there for the board to sort of generally envision what would that look like, how many shrubs would that be, et cetera, et cetera. Switching to chapter 121 and tree replacement. So not a big deal. I found one less tree than I guess what was indicated. So I had 22 individual trees that needed to be removed for this. Um, and I know understanding, you know, the role of an arborist, um, you know, which is sort of like this individual assessment of each tree, you know, that is arboriculture and, you know, considering Mr. Katchas' property, you know, obviously there's a component that is the forest. It's not, you know, a typical quarter acre lot, which has a giant tree, any which way it falls could crush the house. So I, you know, felt it was reasonable, you know, to consider the report. in the condition of the trees that they had labeled for or hazardous in relation to, you know, what is the receptor? Because a squirrel is not going to respond to a hazardous tree. That's the squirrel living in its environment, right? But as the trees get closer to what would be developed portions of the property, insurance, loss, risk, et cetera. So for me, it was the, you know, pool cottage that's sort of the existing structure that was closer. So I just, you know, for purposes of just laying out in full disclosure, trees, their diameter, what the conditions were and anything that was poor or considered hazardous by the arborist. That's why I bolded them and said, look, even though they may be hazardous, they're nowhere near the pool house or their size in relation to their distance to the pool house. It's not a hazard to anything on the property. I feel that those trees would require a replacement. And then those that were potentially hazardous to the pool house being within a thousand were removed from that equation. So that resulted in 47 replaced trees required. If everything was considered, it would have been up to 61 trees. Oh, we took off all the poor and, right? I took the ones off that were like, right. Like, like for example, just to, just to quickly point out an eight inch tree that's in poor condition and a

And I noted that your study showed that there were a lot of so-called basic trees like the one with maples, but again, not to get into that argument again, as we did once before, you still count those as trees when they come down, no matter what their condition, well, if they're good condition.

Yeah, I had every assigned tree number, I just kind of went with condition. Right. So it doesn't matter what the species is. Yeah, I kind of left that out.

And I think, I thought you wanted to get rid of Norman. Okay. Yes and no. Offline, we could have full discussion over a pipe.

Not going there. So I guess initially, there were, per this attachment four plan, I guess there were some candidate locations proposed with associated, or there was a candidate location with those, it's like, what's for the sharks, or for trees, or the potential for trees, and... So I just, you know, again, turning it into numbers, how many trees would that be in consideration of the square footage of the area that was designated? Using 10 on center, which is, you know, a wide spacing, but not super wide. You know, in a 4,200 square foot area, you could fit, you know, 42 individuals so that, you know, it could be entirely reasonable and acceptable to like the term that I use is spot locator, spot plant.

You know, not everything has to be clustered.

Not everything has to be, you know, like a geometric pattern. It could be, you know, I had one fall last year or whatever, and now it's this big one.

Dennis, I had a question for you. In Alan's memo, and this is just point of information, has the DEC abandoned their so-called new regulations since they're not responding to applicants? I hadn't heard that. I'm disappointed because I wasted my time taking it.

So I think there was a challenge to that at some level. And I'm not sure how aggressive they have or have not been since they

I could speak to that if you'd like. I am. I just managed to get online. So what happened was we sent off the DEC jurisdictional determination. request in early February. And it was, I believe, in late February that it was upended or rescinded by the Albany Supreme Court. Anyways, so as a result, the entire program has been suspended. And so here we are, they're supposed to respond within 90 days. Here we are now, what, six months or five months later, and they're not going to respond. So we're far enough away from the DEC permit that it will not be, it's quite distant from us. So it will not be under their jurisdiction period. So it's strictly a town wetland permit. So the Supreme Court sitting in Albany, which rescinded the law, which basically, and there's DEC, and what they're doing is they're rewriting the law, and who knows, it'll probably be after the election when it will occur.

Okay. Alan, I had another question for you, and that is, you know, you did the study of the cut and fill, and it's a very, very modest amount of cut. Is there any way you can just find a, areas and space on the property to use that and not truck it off?

I can certainly discuss that with Mr. Katches and ask him if he has some areas where we could place this material. It's not a lot of material, that's for sure.

Yeah.

Essentially what's happening is the material that's being removed from the to construct the garage is actually being placed under the new driveway. That's essentially what happens.

Yeah. Okay. All right. Good. Anyone else? Any questions? Board members?

Just to clarify to what What do you want to call it? A previously mapped DEC wetland, a now returning to currently mapped DEC wetland, regardless, it doesn't appear on their mapping. So it wouldn't be regulated even if you went down that pathway as well. Right, Alan?

Yeah, I'd have to look at the terminology that's used when you go on the environmental resource mapper.

Right.

I can't recall it offhand. But it's actually quite distant. It's quite a bit to the south. That's my recollection.

Right, right. I don't remember any green blob overlying this property. Not even close.

So we still are operating under the old regulations to what, 12.7? Okay, if not, is there a motion to schedule this for a public hearing in September? And that would be which one? September 15th. And the stuff materialized by?

August 24th.

Motion. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. Okay. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Alan.

Thanks for your time. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, do you want us to draft a resolution for that?

Yeah, Dennis doesn't have sufficient details. Okay, so we can hold. July 7. Anyone, any changes?

No changes.

No changes. If not, is there a motion to adopt the minutes of July 7? Motion. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye. And is there a motion to approve the activities for the summer? Motion. Second? Second. All in favor? Aye.

Have a good night.

Happy summer, everybody.