[00:00:03]
WELCOME EVERYBODY[Call to Order]
TO THE, UM, MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS OF AUGUST 28TH.UH, SORRY I WAS A LITTLE BIT LATE.
UM, SO, UH, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF CASES TONIGHT.
UM, DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE HAVE A HUGE PUBLIC GALLERY, SO I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY MOVE FAIRLY QUICKLY.
UM, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IS WE'LL CALL THE CASE NUMBER, WHOEVER'S PRESENTING WILL PRESENT.
UM, WE'LL HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
WE'LL OFFER IT OUT FOR PUBLIC COMMENT, UH, AND THEN THE BOARD WILL DISCUSS AND VOTE.
UM, IF YOU COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE JUST SAY YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS.
UM, AND OTHERWISE WE'LL HOPEFULLY MOVE THROUGH FAIRLY QUICKLY.
I HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY MY STAFF THAT ALL THE MAILINGS ARE IN ORDER, MR. CHAIRMAN.
[Case No. 13-25 ]
WILL GET STARTED WITH CASE NUMBER 1325.UH, CHRISTINA GAGLIARDI AND JOSEPH PASCARELLA.
RIGHT ON MARK 49 BRANFORD ROAD.
UM, I CAN HOOK UP, YEAH, YOUR CABLE'S RIGHT THERE HANGING.
YOU CAN PUT YOUR LAPTOP ON THE PODIUM.
JUST, JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF, PLEASE.
UM, SO MY NAME'S JOE PASCARELLA AND, UM, I'M SPEAKING ON THE BEHALF OF MYSELF AND CHRISTINA GAGLIARDI.
UM, SO WE ARE PRESENTING TODAY FOR 49 BRANFORD ROAD.
UM, IT'S IN THE R 10 DISTRICT.
UM, SO WE ARE LOOKING TO, WE ARE LOOKING FOR RELIEF FOR THE APPLICATION FOR THE 2 95, 68 F, THE SUBSECTION ONE A, WHICH CALLS FOR EVERYTHING IN THE R 10 ZONE TO BE IN THE MINIMUM SETBACK OF 30 FEET.
THIS IS THE, WHAT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE.
FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY TO THE HOUSE ITSELF IS 30 FEET.
UM, TO THE STEPS ITSELF IS ROUGHLY 22 FEET, BUT THERE IS NO ROOF ABOVE, UM, IN THAT ZONE ITSELF.
AND WE'RE LOOKING TO RENOVATE THIS HOME AS A OWNER'S OCCUPANTS, UH, PRIMARY RESIDENCY.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE LOOKING TO DO IS, UM, PERFORM A, INSTALL A PORCH WITH A COVERED ROOF.
UM, IT'LL BE A NEW GABLE WITH A FULL ROOF.
WE, WE DESIGNED IT FOR THE SETBACK FOR THE NEIGHBORING, UH, BUILDING, OR EXCUSE ME, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY BE 12 FEET.
SO THAT WE WANTED TO ABIDE BY, UM, UM, WHAT THE CODE STANDS FOR FOR, IN, IN THAT REGARD.
SO WE DIDN'T HAVE TO GO FOR A VARIANCE IN THAT.
UM, BUT THE VARIANCE THAT WE ARE ASKING FOR IS A SIX FOOT VARIANCE FOR TO HAVE ESSENTIALLY 24 FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY TO, UM, TO THE, UH, BEGINNING OF THE PORCH.
UM, THIS IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING TO DO ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE IS THE ELEVATION WITH THE ARCHITECT PUT TOGETHER CHRISTINA GRIFFIN.
UM, AND THEN TO THE RIGHT IS ESSENTIALLY THE RENDERING WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO, TO SORT OF LOOK LIKE AT THE END OF THE DAY.
SO DON'T TAKE EVERYTHING THAT, YEAH.
DON'T TAKE EVERYTHING YOU SEE THERE FROM THE ELEVATION ITSELF.
IT DOES, IT LOOKS PRETTY CLOSE TO CHRISTINA'S PLAN.
YEAH, AND, AND YOU KNOW, WE'RE, WE'RE DEFINITELY LOOKING TO DO EXACTLY THAT, BUT, UM, IT REALLY, WE THINK IT'S GONNA BRING A LOT OF CHARM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD NONETHELESS.
AND IT'S GONNA BRING A LOT OF CHARM TO A HOME THAT'S DEFINITELY BEEN OUTDATED.
UM, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO BUILD UP, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO BUILD, YOU KNOW, 4,000 SQUARE FEET ON THIS PROPERTY, EVEN THOUGH WE CAN GET UP TO THAT POINT.
WE ARE REALLY JUST LOOKING TO KIND OF BRING THAT CHARM TO THIS HOME TO MAKE IT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IT IS.
AND, YOU KNOW, A QUAINT CAPE COD STYLE HOME.
UM, WE DO THINK AROUND THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF, UM, THERE'S A LOT OF FRONT PORCH, EXCUSE ME, A LOT OF FRONT PORCHES THROUGHOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO WE REALLY DO THINK WE CAN ADD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD ITSELF WHERE PEOPLE DO DRIVE BY AND THEY'RE LIKE, WHOA, YOU KNOW, THIS FITS, THIS FITS RAID IN, IN HASTINGS AS WELL.
UM, SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
AND UH, IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER 'EM.
ANYBODY, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? NO.
DID WE RECEIVE ANY LETTERS? NO, SIR.
NO COMMUNICATIONS ON THIS PRO ON THIS PROPOSAL.
AND EXCEPT FOR THE FACT THAT YOUR CHAT GBT IS GONNA REPLACE PEOPLE LIKE MICHAEL LEWIS AND MYSELF
IT'S NOT ACCURATE, SO IT'S OKAY.
IT HAD TO USE CHRISTINA'S PLAN.
AND I THINK YOU STILL NEED THAT HUMAN TOUCH.
THERE'S, THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN EVER REPLACE INSIDE ARCHITECT 'CAUSE IT WOULDN'T COME TO FRUITION WITHOUT THEM.
SO, UH, UNFORTUNATELY THE RENDERINGS ARE PRETTY NICE, BUT I, UH, CAN'T REPLACE THE ARCHITECT ITSELF.
THEY CAN'T SIGN AND SEAL A PLAN.
THERE WERE ENOUGH DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE TWO THAT I THINK WE'RE SAFE FOR ANOTHER COUPLE OF YEARS, BUT IT'S COMING.
UH, BUT I, I, REALISTICALLY, I DON'T SEE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS, SO I THINK, UM, WE COULD BEGIN OUR DISCUSSION.
UM, I THINK, UM, RELATIVELY A STRAIGHTFORWARD APPLICATION, BUT WE CAN STILL GO THROUGH THE FACTORS.
UM, AND SO, UH, UH, AS YOU ALL KNOW THAT, UH, THE STANDARDS THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR, THE FIVE FACTORS HERE ARE WHETHER ONE, WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WILL BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR,
[00:05:01]
UH, DETRIMENT NEARBY PROPERTIES.DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CONCERNS ON THAT FRONT? NO.
UH, WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME METHOD FEASIBLE, UM, FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE, OTHER THAN THE AREA VARIANCE, BECAUSE THE HOUSE IS ALREADY AT THE, AT THE SET BACK LINE.
WE CAN'T ADD A PORCH WITHOUT IT.
I ALSO SAY THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS I DID GO AND LOOK AT THE PROPERTY, AND TYPICALLY WITH THIS, WE LOOK, UM, CONTEXTUALLY AT YOUR NEIGHBORS AND THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, YOU KNOW, DON'T HAVE ANY PROJECTIONS.
THEY HAVE WHAT YOU HAD AGREED.
BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER THING I THINK THAT'S RELEVANT HERE IS THAT YOU ARE ACROSS THE STREET FROM NO ONE.
SO THE CORRECT, THERE'S, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S DAN RILEY PARK, IT'S A PARK.
SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK PART OF THE, UH, INTENT OF A FRONT YARD VARIANCE IS COMBINED WITH THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE OPPOSITE FRONT YARD VARIANCE HOUSES ARE FAIRLY FAR APART.
I DON'T THINK THAT'S AS RELEVANT HERE BECAUSE THERE IS NO HOUSE, UH, ON THE OTHER SIDE.
UM, WHERE THE REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL.
SO WHAT IS, IT'S, UH, SIX FEET OF 30.
AND I, AGAIN, I THINK THE STAIRS ARE ALREADY PROTRUDE TO 22, UH, IN THEIR CURRENT LOCATION.
WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT.
I THINK THAT MAY BE THE ONE ABOUT THE, THE PARK ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND THEN THE, THE FAMOUS FIFTH ONE, UH, WHETHER THE, THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED, UM, WHICH CONSIDERATIONS SHALL NOT BE RELEVANT TO THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, BUT SHALL, SHALL BE RELEVANT, BUT NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDE GRANTING THE AREA OF VARIANCE.
SO I THINK WE TYPICALLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU COULD NOT HAVE A PORCH
BUT, UH, I GUESS IT SEEMS LIKE A FAIRLY REASONABLE ASK.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD BEFORE WE VOTE? NO, THAT WAS GOOD.
UH, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? HAPPY TO BRIAN.
IN CASE NUMBER 14 DASH 25, ANDREW, EXCUSE ME, CASE NUMBER 13 DASH 25.
UH, CHRISTINA GALLI AND JOSEPH PASCARELLA, 49 BRANFORD ROAD.
UM, I MOVED TO APPROVE RELIEF FROM THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE VILLAGE CODE SECTION 20, UH, 2 95 DASH 68 F1 A FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW COVERED FRONT PORCH AT THEIR SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT FOUR NINE BRANFORD ROAD.
SAID PROPERTY LOCATED IN R 10 ZONING DISTRICT AND KNOWN AS SB 4 1 10 DASH 1 0 9 DASH THREE.
THE EXISTING IS 30 FOOT PROPOSED 24 FOOT, UM, REQUIRED 30 FOOT, UM, AS PER 2 9 5 68 F1 A.
THE VARIANCE REQUIRED IS SIX FOOT VARIANCE.
UH, I'LL TAKE A, AN ALL IN FAVOR BY SHOW OF HANDS, EVERYONE.
ALRIGHT, APPRECIATE, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
APPRECIATE, THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH.
[Case No. 14-25 ]
UH, NEXT CASE IS CASE NUMBER 1425, ANDREW MARY WILSON, 6 23 WARBURTON AVENUE.UM, JUST WANT TO, BEFORE YOU START, MICHAEL, SO DO WE WANT TO JUST SAY THAT THIS HAS ALREADY BEEN HERE OR THAT'S MICHAEL WILL SAY THAT.
UH, WE, UH, WE GOT APPROVAL, UH, A LITTLE OVER A YEAR AGO, AND FOR VARIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES, WE WERE A LITTLE LATE, UH, IN, UH, FILING FOR AN EXTENSION ON, UH, THREE OF THE FOUR VARIANCES, UH, ON TIME ON ONE OF THEM.
THAT'S ACTUALLY WHAT HAPPENED IS WHAT IS WE, IS THREE OF THE VARIANCES WERE APPROVED IN MAY.
AND THEN IT CAME UP DURING THE MEETING THAT THERE WAS A, UH, AN ERROR IN A NUMBER OF SQUARE FEET FOR THE DRIVEWAY.
SO WE CAME BACK TO CORRECT THAT ERROR IN JUNE.
AND ON OUR CALENDAR, WE HAD OUR APPROVAL WRITTEN DOWN AS JUNE.
SO WE, WE, UH, WE MISSED THE DEADLINE TO GET BACK FOR THE MAY APPROVALS.
IN ANY CASE, UM, THE PROJECT HASN'T CHANGED AND WE'RE HOPING WE CAN, UM, GET THE, UH, APPROVAL, UH, REINSTATED.
SO AS A REMINDER, I CIRCULATED TO THE BOARD, UM, YOUR FINDINGS AND DECISION, UM, ON THE THREE VARIANCES FROM LAST YEAR.
[00:10:03]
SO THIS TECHNICALLY, BECAUSE THEY WERE TOO LATE REQUESTING AN EXTENSION, IT HAD ALREADY EXPIRED, SO THEY HAD TO RE REAPPLY.SO YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY, YOU CAN'T JUST APPROVE AN EXTENSION.
YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY REAPPROVE THE VARIANCES.
YOU CAN DO IT ON THE SAME BASIS THAT YOU DID IT LAST YEAR.
SO THE MOTION WOULD BE TO APPROVE ON THE SAME BASIS AS THE PRIOR.
THERE IS, UH, ONE OTHER THING.
UH, IN GOING THROUGH THE PAPERWORK, WE NOTICED A TYPO IN THE RESOLUTION.
UM,
AND THEN ON THE, UH, ON THE APPLICATION, ON OUR APPLICATION, UH, INSTEAD OF 20 FOOT ONE INCHES, IT'S, IT SHOWED AS 20 FOOT 0.08, 20.08 FEET CONVERTED TO FEET INSTEAD OF FEET AND INCHES.
BUT ON THE RESOLUTION IT SHOWS 20.8 RATHER THAN 20.08.
AND THAT WOULD, UH, COST US, WHAT, SEVEN OR EIGHT INCHES, UH, ON, ON THE VARIANCE THAT WE ACTUALLY, UH, SUBMITTED FOR AND WE BELIEVE WAS APPROVED.
SO IT'S JUST A TYPO ON THAT LINE ON THE RESOLUTION.
AND ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD HERE? I MEAN, WHAT IS IT SUPPOSED TO BE 20.08? MY QUESTION WOULD BE, HAS ANYTHING CHANGED? AND THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO.
I GUESS THE QUESTION TO THE BOARD IS, HAS ANY OF OUR THINKING CHANGED? WE COPIED YOU.
AND THE, AND THE ZONING LAWS HAVEN'T CHANGED.
AND THE ZONING LAWS HAVEN'T CHANGE POINT.
SO WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I THINK WE WOULD ALSO WANT TO, WE WANT TO PICK UP THE CHANGE IN THE RESOLUTION.
WILL AND WILL WE DO THESE AS LIKE, WILL THIS BE ONE MOTION? I, I ASSUME IT'D BE TWO MOTIONS, CORRECT? WELL, TO, FOR EACH OF THE TWO JOBS THAT, THAT
SO THIS IS JUST FOR THE, THOSE TWO SEPARATE.
UM, I'LL MAKE A, I'LL MAKE A MOTION.
I'M NOT, YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ IT ALL.
YOU CAN SAY PER THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED APPLICATION WITH THE ONE CORRECTION.
AND, UH, CASE NUMBER 14 DASH 25, ANDREW M MARY WILSON, 6 23 WARD BURTON AVENUE.
UH, MOTION TO APPROVE, UH, FROM THE STRICT APPLICATION OF VILLAGE CODE SECTION 2 95 DASH E ONE, UH, D 2 2 95 DASH 52 A 2 95 DASH 20 C TWO, AND 2 95 DASH 41 A, UM, WITH THE CHANGE, UH, FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AND THEN GROUND POOL.
DO WE NEED A SECOND? CAN WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND.
UH, ALL IN FAVOR BY SHOW OF HANDS.
[Case No. 06-24]
NOW WE WILL CALL CASE NUMBER SIX TWENTY FOUR.ALSO ANDREW AND MARY WILSON, 6 23 WAR BURDEN AVENUE.
YES, WE, UH, THE, UH, APPROVAL EXPIRED AND WE WOULD LIKE TO, UH, RENEW IT.
THIS ONE HASN'T EXPIRED THOUGH, RIGHT? THIS IS THE SECOND ONE.
NO, THE, THE REQUEST WAS MADE BEFORE IT EXPIRED.
SO WE, WE GO BY WHEN, UM, THEY HAVE TO REQUEST THE EXTENSION BEFORE THE EXPIRATION, AND THEN ESPECIALLY SINCE YOU DIDN'T MEET IN JULY.
SO, BUT THE REASONABLE, THE REQUEST WAS ALREADY SUBMITTED.
AND AGAIN, JUST 'CAUSE IT'S SOME OF OUR FIRST TIMES, IS THERE, WHAT IS THE CRITERIA HERE? THAT AGAIN, THAT WE REALLY, THERE'S BEEN CHANGE.
JEN, IF IT WAS PRESENTED TO YOU AGAIN, YOU WOULD STILL APPROVE IT BECAUSE THERE'S NO CHANGE IN CIRCUMSTANCES.
ANY QUESTIONS? ANYBODY LIKE TO TRY THIS ONE? I CAN.
UM, AND LINDA, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF I DON'T GET IT RIGHT.
UH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION FOR CASE NUMBER, UH, 0 6 24.
ANDREW MARY WILSON OF 6 23 WARBURTON AVENUE.
AND THE MOTION IS TO REAPPROVE AND EXTEND.
IT'S FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION.
ONE YEAR EXTENSION, UM, ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF THE RELIEF FROM THE STRICT APPLICATION OF VILLAGE CODE SECTION 2 95 DASH 41 A FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW DWELLING AND IN-GROUND POOL AT THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 6 23 WARBURTON AVENUE.
ALL IN FAVOR? SHOW OF HANDS AGAIN, WE HAVE FIVE.
[00:15:01]
YOU ARE EXTENDED ANOTHER YEAR.[Discussion Items ]
LAST ON OUR AGENDA ARE A COUPLE OF DISCUSSION ITEMS. UM, I'LL TAKE THE FIRST ONE FIRST, OR, UM, SURE.SO, UM, JUST TO REMIND THE BOARD, WHENEVER THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IS CONSIDERING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE, THEY'RE REQUIRED, UM, UNDER VILLAGE CODE TO REF REFER THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE BOARD OF APPEALS FOR ADVISORY REPORT.
UM, SO THESE ARE TWO LAWS THAT HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO YOU, AND I CAN SUMMARIZE THEM SO WE'LL.
SO, UM, THIS CAME OUT OF, UM, A NUMBER OF DISCUSSIONS OVER THE LAST YEAR OR TWO.
UM, SOME OF YOU WILL RECALL THAT A FEW YEARS BACK THERE WERE SOME AMENDMENTS MADE TO THE ACCESS, WHAT WAS THEN THE ACCESSORY APARTMENT LAW.
UM, BUT THERE'S BEEN SOME ONGOING DISCUSSION AND REQUESTS BY THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE, UM, FOR ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS.
A LOT OF THESE CAME OUT OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITTEE.
UM, SO I CAN SORT OF SUMMARIZE THE CHANGES TO YOU QUICKLY.
UM, THE FIRST THING WE DID IS WE CHANGED THE TERMINOLOGY FROM ACCESSORY APARTMENT TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT.
UM, BECAUSE THE VILLAGE DOES PERMIT THESE IN STANDALONE STRUCTURES, AND YOU'LL RECALL YOU RECENTLY.
THESE USUALLY DON'T COME TO YOU, BUT YOU HAD ONE RECENTLY BECAUSE IT WAS BEING LOCATED IN A NON-CONFORMING, UM, GARAGE.
UM, SO, UM, THE WORDING WAS CHANGED.
WE ALSO DID SOME REARRANGING OF THE CODE BECAUSE THE PROVISIONS WERE BURIED IN THE R 20.
SO WE'VE NOW SIMPLY REFERRED TO ADUS AS AN ACCESSORY PLUS.
YES, DWELLING AN ACCESSORY USE PLUS HERE, UM, AN ACCESSORY USE UPON THE ISSUANCE OF AN ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PERMIT.
UM, AND WE'VE PULLED OUT THE ACTUAL REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES AND PUT THEM INTO A SEPARATE SECTION SO THEY'RE EASIER TO FIND THE BORDERS.
THIS WHOLE HOWEVER MANY PAGES ON BORDERS DOESN'T CHANGE EXCEPT FOR A COUPLE OF REFERENCES THAT USED TO BE TO ACCESSORY APARTMENTS THAT HAD TO CHANGE TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
BECAUSE OF THAT, THE WHOLE THING HAD TO BE PUT INTO THE LAW, EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T CHANGE.
UM, AND THEN WE GET TO THE PART THAT IS THE NEW SECTION UNDER SUPPLEMENTARY REGULATIONS FOR ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS.
THE STATEMENT OF PURPOSES IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME.
UM, WE HAVE EXPANDED THE LIST OF ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE ADUS WILL NOW BE ALLOWED.
AND THE INTENT OF THIS WAS THAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED IN ANY DISTRICT WHERE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IS ALLOWED.
SO YOU COULD HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME, FOR INSTANCE, IN THE MR 1.5 OR THE MRO, IF YOU HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY HOME IN THOSE DISTRICTS, YOU CAN HAVE AN A DU.
UM, SO WE'VE LISTED OUT THOSE DISTRICTS NOW.
THEN A LOT OF THESE OTHER THINGS ARE THE SAME.
THE OWNER HAS TO LIVE IN ONE OF THE UNITS, BE LOCATED IN PRINCIPAL BUILDING OR A CONFORMING ACCESSORY BUILDING.
UM, THE FLOOR AREA, THE SIZES REMAIN THE SAME, NO MORE THAN TWO BEDROOMS. UM, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT REMAINS THE SAME.
THE PLANNING BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO WAIVE THAT.
UM, AND OBVIOUSLY IT HAS TO MEET ALL CODE REQUIREMENTS.
WE THEN, AGAIN, PULLED OUT THE PROCEDURES AND PUT THEM ALL TOGETHER.
UM, THE ONE BIG DIFFERENCE IN PROCEDURE IS THAT WE ARE NOW PROVIDING FOR AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OF AN A DU IF NO WAIVERS ARE REQUIRED.
SO IF IT PROVIDES THE REQUIRED PARKING, IF IT MEETS THE SIZE REQUIREMENTS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
SO IT'S COMPLETELY COMPLIANT WITH ALL THOSE REQUIREMENTS.
THE PERMIT GETS ISSUED BY THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
UM, OTHERWISE IT GOES TO THE PLANNING BOARD AS THEY'VE ALWAYS DONE.
UM, THE, BEFORE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR CAN ISSUE IT.
HOWEVER, HE HAS TO SEND A NOTICE
[00:20:02]
TO ALL PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN 300 FEET.UM, IF HE RECEIVES WRITTEN OBJECTIONS WITHIN 30 DAYS, THEN HE CAN SEND IT TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
THE PLANNING BOARD ACTUALLY HAD AT THEIR MEETING LAST WEEK WHEN WE DISCUSSED IT, HAD SOME CONCERNS WITH THAT PROVISION.
THEY DIDN'T LIKE GIVING A NEIGHBOR WHO MAY JUST NOT LIKE SOMEBODY, THE ABILITY TO MAKE THEM GO TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE THE PRO THE, THE PROCESS MORE ONEROUS.
SO WE'RE DOING A MEMO FOR THE PLANNING BOARD TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, UM, CONVEYING THAT CONCERN JUST SO YOU KNOW WHAT THE PLANNING BOARD'S CONCERN WAS.
UM, OTHER THAN THAT, THEY WERE SUPPORTIVE OF ALL THE OTHER CHANGES, UM, BEING PROPOSED HERE.
THE RENEWAL PROCESS HAD ALREADY BEEN CHANGED TO ADMINISTRATIVE A FEW YEARS BACK.
UM, WITH NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET.
UM, SOME OF THE TRUSTEES, UM, REQUESTED THAT WE INCREASE THAT TO 300 FEET.
UM, AND THEN WE CHANGED THE PROVISIONS FOR CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP.
IT USED TO BE THAT ON A CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP, THE NEW OWNER HAD TO MAKE A NEW APPLICATION WITHIN A CERTAIN PERIOD OF TIME.
WE'VE NOW PROVIDED THAT THE NEW OWNER HAS TO GIVE NOTIFICATION TO THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT THAT THEY WANT TO CONTINUE.
UM, THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH AN APPROVAL PROCESS.
THEY JUST HAVE TO STATE THAT INTENTION WITHIN 90 DAYS OF TAKING TITLE TO THE PROPERTY.
UM, I CAN DO THIS 'CAUSE I WROTE THIS
UM, AND THEN THEY GET A NEW FIVE YEAR, UM, TERM WITH IT.
SO AGAIN, THAT WAS TO, TO MAKE IT EASIER.
UM, AND THEN THE REST OF THIS IS JUST SOME MORE CLEANUP IN TERMS OF REFERENCE.
SO, UM, THAT'S THE SUMMARY OF THE CHANGES TO THE, UM, A DU PROVISIONS.
AND, UM, IT'S JUST IF THE BOARD HAS ANY COMMENTS OR WANTS TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS OR ADVISORY REPORT BACK TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, I HAVE SOME COMMENTS.
AND THEN MAYBE WE CAN DISCUSS, DEPENDING ON WHAT THE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS THINK.
AND LINDA, IF, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THE PROPOSED CHANGES INCORRECTLY, JUST LET ME KNOW.
BUT THERE'S SORT OF TWO THINGS.
ONE IS HYPOTHETICALLY IT'S LOT OF DIFFERENT ZONING, UM, SECTIONS.
SO HYPOTHETICALLY, IF THERE WERE A LOT THAT CAME IN A SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME, ONE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULD, A LITTLE WOULD, WOULD NOT HAVE NOTICE BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REALLY PROVIDING VILLAGE WIDE NOTICE OF THIS CHANGE.
SO I'M WONDERING EITHER YOU SOLVE IT BY HAVING A CAP.
LIKE THERE ARE CERTAIN CAPS, I THINK FOR BORDERS, I WONDER IF YOU HAVE A CERTAIN CAP IN A HIGH DENSITY AREA, OR IF IT'S NOTICE ABOUT THIS CHANGE TO THE ZONING LAW, OR IF IT'S A MORE OBJECTIVE NOTICE FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
SO THIS WAY PEOPLE KNOW BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE.
SO MOST OF THESE ZONING DISTRICTS ALREADY ALLOWED THESE.
THE ONLY ADDITIONAL ONES ARE THE MR DISTRICTS AND THE MR DISTRICTS ARE ALREADY HAVE A GREATER DENSITY AND PERMIT GREATER DENSITY.
IN A LOT OF INSTANCES IN THE MR DISTRICTS, THEY COULD JUST BE CONSIDERED ANOTHER UNIT BECAUSE THEY'RE MULTIFAMILY.
UM, SO THE R 20, R 10, R 7 5, 2 R, AND TWO R 3.5 ALREADY PERMITTED.
DID THE TWO R THE TWO, IT'S TWO R.
UM, SO, SO THAT, SO THAT'S NOT A HUGE CHANGE WHAT WE'VE, BUT THE VILLAGE HAS FOUND, THE VILLAGE USED TO HAVE A CAP IN THE LAW.
THE CAP WAS REMOVED BECAUSE THEY NEVER EVEN GOT ANYWHERE AS CLOSE TO THE CAP.
NOT EVEN CAP, NOT EVEN HALFWAY TO THE CAP WHEN, SO I THINK PEOPLE GET AFRAID THAT THESE ARE GONNA PROLIFERATE, BUT, AND HASTINGS WAS ONE OF THE FIRST MUNICIPALITIES TO ALLOW THESE, ONE OF THE EARLY ADOPTERS.
AND THE NUMBERS WERE NEVER AS HIGH AS PEOPLE THOUGHT.
WHEN WAS THAT CHANGE MADE TO REMOVE THE CAP? FIVE, FOUR, OR FIVE YEARS AGO.
IT WAS OH, THAT ALL, ALL THE CASH OUR LAST, YEAH, IT WAS ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE YEARS AGO.
IS THAT RIGHT? I COULDN'T TELL YOU.
IT USED TO BE 50 AND 50 WAS THE GAP.
NO, I THINK THE MOST I'VE SEEN HERE IN MY 14 YEARS HAS BEEN ABOUT ALMOST 15 YEARS, IS 24.
I'M, I'M SORT OF RAISING A QUESTION ABOUT
[00:25:01]
WHETHER THERE'S ENOUGH TRANSPARENCY FOR THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND ABOUT THE CROWDING.I'M SENSING THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THE REASONS FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGES IS TO INCREASE.
SO I'M JUST THINKING LIKE, IF THESE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE SUCCESSFUL AND THERE ARE INCREASES, DO WE HAVE A GOOD PROCESS IN THERE? IF THERE'S CROWDING IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS, AND IF IT'S ACTUALLY NOT GOING TO BE A CHANGE IN THE HIGH DENSITY DISTRICTS ALREADY, THEN PERHAPS THAT'S TAKEN CARE OF.
BUT MAYBE FOR, IT'S LIKE THE NOTICE.
DID THE PLANNING BOARD SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO KEEP THE NEIGHBOR NOTICE IN PLACE, BUT RECOMMEND SOME SORT OF OBJECTIVE CRITERIA FOR OBJECTING TO THAT WAS PART OF THE DISCUSSION.
UM, AS A POSSIBILITY, I DON'T THINK THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IS GONNA TAKE THE NOTICE, PROVISION AWAY.
I, THEY, IT, IT WAS, IT WAS A BIG POINT.
IT MAY END UP GETTING HANDLED DIFFERENTLY.
IT WAS A HUNDRED FEET, NOW IT'S 300 FEET.
SO THAT THE NOTICE HAS ACTUALLY GOTTEN BIGGER.
AND OKAY, SO THEN ONE MORE, AND THEN THAT'S IT.
WHICH IS WHEN THERE IS THIS TYPE OF CHANGE, IS IT COMMON TO GIVE A NOTICE OUT TO THE COMMUNITY? WELL, NOTICE DOES GO OUT BECAUSE THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES HAS TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC HEARINGS HAVE TO BE NOTICED.
SO THAT NOTICE, ACTUALLY I PROBABLY ALREADY WENT OUT 'CAUSE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS TUESDAY NIGHT.
UM, SO I CAN TELL YOU THOSE OTHER CHANGES.
I CAN TELL YOU WHEN THEY WERE MADE, UM, THEY WERE MAY IN 2019 DECEMBER OF
SO YEAH, THOSE WERE THE THREE, THE CROWDING, THE INDIVIDUAL NOTICE FOR THE NEIGHBORS AND THEN FOR THE VILLAGE WIDE, SHOULD THIS, THESE CHANGES BE EFFECTIVE.
AND THERE HAPPENS TO BE A LOT POTENTIALLY CONCENTRATED IN ONE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT EVERYONE'S GONNA HAVE A CHANCE TO SEE IT.
WELL, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW IT WOULD BE POTENTIALLY CONCENTRATED IN ONE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S SORT OF ALLOWING IT ANYWHERE WHERE THERE'S, WHERE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ARE PERMITTED AND UNDER THE, WHICH IS MOST OF THE VILLAGE.
AND AS WRITTEN, UNLESS THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TRIES TO, TRIES TO DO SOMETHING, IF THERE WAS A, IN A POTENTIAL CROWDING SITUATION, YOU'D ASSUME THAT THERE WOULD BE MORE OBJECTIONS AND THEN THEY WOULD GO IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD, AND THE PLANNING BOARD COULD FACTOR IN THE FACT THAT THEY'VE ALREADY BEEN 30 IN THEIR APPROVAL OR NOT.
I ALSO THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, IF, IF THAT STARTED TO BE THE CASE, THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES CAN ALWAYS CHANGE THIS AGAIN IF THEY STARTED TO SEE A PROBLEM.
BUT THEY'VE, THERE'S NEVER BEEN A PROLIFERATION, EVEN TO THE EXTENT THEY, THEY EVEN THOUGHT THE CHANGES IN 2019 WOULD, WOULD LEAD TO MORE BECAUSE THEY, IN A LOT OF WAYS, UM, WERE DONE TO MAKE IT EASIER.
AND THERE WAS NOT, NO, THERE HASN'T BEEN.
THERE, THERE'S BEEN MORE, YOU KNOW, LOTS OF TIMES WHEN A HOUSE TURNS OVER, THE NEW PEOPLE DON'T WANT IT, SO YOU LOSE THEM.
THAT'S BEEN THE COMMON FACTOR.
BUT, BUT TO JOSH'S POINT, I, I DON'T THINK THE PLANNING BOARD HAS THE ABILITY, BECAUSE THE ZONING LAW WILL BE THERE AND THE PLANNING BOARD IS GONNA HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
IT WOULD, IF THERE WAS A CROWDING, IT WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES TO CHANGE THE LAW AGAIN.
SO THAT'S THE REASON TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION.
NOW, IF WE WANTED SOME SORT OF, DOESN'T THE PLANNING BOARD PROVE THE AUDIT DISCRETION? YEAH.
THE PLANNING BOARD HAS THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IMPACTS ON THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, AND THEY COULD UNDER THAT DENY A PERMIT.
I THINK THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE ADMINISTRATIVE ONE.
IF YOU MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS AND YOU DON'T NEED ANYTHING, THEN YOU COULD GO WITHOUT THE PLANNING BOARD.
BUT IF SOMEBODY, IF ONE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS FLAGS IT, OR YOU DON'T MEET EVERYTHING AS OF RIGHT.
THE PLANNING BOARD GETS A BITE AT THE OUT.
THE BIG THING ON THAT IS PARKING.
LIKE, IF YOU DON'T COMPLY WITH THE PARKING, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS TO LOOK AT, OKAY, IF YOU DON'T HAVE THE PARKING, IS THAT GONNA BE A PROBLEM? IS THAT GONNA IMPACT THE NEIGHBORHOOD? AND THEY COULD NOT GRANT THE WAIVER AND THEREBY NOT GRANT THE PERMIT.
SO IN THE CURRENT PROPOSED LAW, THE PLANNING BOARD HAS THE DISCRETION TO DENY, UM, ADU FOR CROWDING, IT SOUNDS LIKE.
YEAH, I MEAN THERE'S, THE LANGUAGE TALKS ABOUT CONSISTENCY WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
I MEAN, IF, IF THE BOARD AS A WHOLE WANTS THAT COMMENT RAISED TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
[00:30:02]
YOU KNOW, WE CAN DO THAT.BUT, AND JUST KEEP IN MIND ALSO IN THE MORE CONCENTRATED AREAS, THERE'S MUCH, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF PRIVATE PARKING MM-HMM
WHICH IS GONNA SEND THESE TO THE PLANNING BOARD ANYWAY, WHICH MEANS IT'S GONNA BE PUBLICLY NOTICED.
YOU KNOW, IT'S GONNA BE ON, THERE'S GONNA BE A HEARING'S, GONNA BE A HEARING, YOU KNOW, IN THESE, IN THESE MORE DENSE NEIGHBORHOODS, THERE'S NOT, THERE'S NOT A LOT OF PARKING.
SO THEY'RE GONNA BEGIN REQUESTING, UM, UH, PARKING WAIVERS, WAIVERS, THANK YOU.
MELIN WAIVERS FOR PARKING ANYWAY, WHICH MEANS THEY HAVE TO AUTOMATICALLY GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND, AND IF I LIKE WHAT JOSH'S COMMENT WAS, SO AS LONG AS THAT IS ALREADY CLEARLY THERE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL ADVICE ADVISORY REPORT OUT TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
IF THAT IS AMBIGUOUS, THEN PERHAPS THAT IS ONE THING WE COULD RECOMMEND THAT'S CLARIFIED.
I THINK IT MIGHT MAKE THE PLANNING BOARD WROTE, I WROTE DOWN BETH PLANNING BOARD BEING ABLE TO DENY FOR CROWDING.
ANYBODY ELSE? BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THIS IS AROUND THE, THE ADOPTION OF THE NEW TERMINOLOGY.
JUST WANTED TO, TO MENTION, I KNOW THAT IN THE CASE, I'M SORRY, COULD YOU SPEAK THE MICROPHONE? SURE.
IS IT NOT PICKING UP? NO, IT'S NOT, NOT AT THAT DISTANCE.
UM, IN, IN THE CASE OF NEW YORK CITY, EVEN THOUGH ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT IS THE SORT OF STANDARD TERM OF PRACTICE IN THEIR ZONING TEXT, THEY ADOPTED ANCILLARY DWELLING UNIT TO AVOID CONFUSION WITH OTHER ACCESSORY TERMS. ACCESSORY USED ACCESSORY STRUCTURES.
AND THEY WERE INSISTENT ON IT.
THEY STILL CALL THEM ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS, BUT IN THE ZONING TEXT, THEY'RE ANCILLARY DWELLING UNITS, UM, CHOSEN PRESUMABLY BECAUSE IT RETAINS THE SAME, UH, INITIALISM ADUS.
UM, IT MAY NOT BE A CONFLICT IN THE CONTEXT OF HASTINGS, BUT JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT IT WOULD BE REMISS NOT TO.
AND, AND I CAN TELL YOU THAT THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY THEY ARE REFERRED TO AS ACCESSORY DWELLING.
THAT'S, IT'S, THAT'S THE STANDARD TERM.
IT'S THE STANDARD TERMINOLOGY.
SO IT'S PROBABLY JUST A QUIRK OF NEW YORK CITY LAW AND THERE'S LOT OF NEW YORK CITY.
BUT SINCE WE'RE SO CLOSE, IT BEARS MENTIONING AT LEAST.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS FIRST ONE, CAN WE TAKE, I, I WILL PUT SOMETHING TOGETHER.
IT DOESN'T EVEN HAVE TO BE A VOTE.
I'LL PUT JUST SOMETHING TOGETHER AND I'LL CIRCULATE IT TO THE BOARD TO REVIEW.
UM, SOMEHOW I'M DOING BOTH OF THESE TOMORROW.
YOU, ANY CHANCE THAT THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO MAKE A STATEMENT TO THE BOARD? SO THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING AS IT WASN'T WITH THE PLANNING BOARD.
THE VILLAGE BOARD WILL HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE, THE BOARD'S PREROGATIVE.
BUT I MEAN, THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD NORMALLY TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON OR HAVE TO TAKE PUBLIC COMMENT ON.
AND I'LL JUST POINT OUT THAT THE SAME INFORMATION THAT I WAS HOPING TO BE ABLE TO GIVE TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO SHAPE THEIR DECISION IS WHAT I'M LISTENING TO YOU AND THINKING.
ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE, UH, DAVID, YOU CAN'T SPEAK FROM THERE.
YOU HAVE TO GO UP TO THE MICROPHONE AND INTRODUCE YOURSELF IF YOU'RE GONNA SPEAK.
WE DISCUSSED THIS AT THE PLANNING BOARD MEETING LAST WEEK.
YOU'RE NOT MAKING A DECISION ON THIS.
ALL YOU'RE DOING IS COMMENTING.
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES MAKES THE DECISION.
THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES IS HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING, UM, ON TUESDAY NIGHT.
SO IT'S, IT'S UP TO YOU WHETHER YOU WANNA ACCEPT PUBLIC COMMENT OR NOT.
WELL, UM, CAN YOU MAKE IT FAIRLY BRIEF? OH, VERY MUCH.
PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE TO SPEAK.
UM, DAVID SKOLNIK 47 HILLSIDE.
UM, WHAT I'M CONCERNED ABOUT ACTUALLY WOULD PROBABLY BE, BE BEST ADDRESSED BY, UM, UM, LINDA.
UM, WHAT'S MISSING, WHAT'S TAKEN OUT OF THE NEW VERSION IS THE ENTIRE SECTION D OF THE PREVIOUS, UM, LAW AND THE LANGUAGE THAT I LOOKED CAREFULLY AND TRIED TO FIND WITH REGARD TO THE, UM, LEVERAGE GIVEN TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UH, IS STATED ON, UM, UH, THIS IS, UM, OKAY, SECTION KL, UH, THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY APARTMENT SHALL NOT ADVERSELY AFFECT THE SINGLE FAMILY CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IN APPLYING THIS REQUIREMENT, THE PLANNING BOARD SHALL CONSIDER THE EFFECT OF THE PROPOSED ACCESSORY APARTMENT ON TRAFFIC, NOISE, CONGESTION, APPEARANCE, AND ANY OTHER FACTOR THAT THE PLANNING BOARD DEEMS CONSISTENT WITH THIS, UH, PURPOSE.
UH, WHEN I LOOKED AT THE NEW DOCUMENT, I COULDN'T FIND ANYTHING THAT SO CLEARLY SPELLED OUT THE LEVERAGE THAT THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, WOULD HAVE.
AND THE NEXT COMMENT TOO, IT IS THE INTENT OF THIS SECTION THAT NEIGHBORHOODS ZONED AS SINGLE FAMILY MAINTAIN THEIR SINGLE FAMILY CHARACTER.
UH, THE LANGUAGE, SINCE SO MUCH OF THIS
[00:35:01]
HAS BEEN ABOUT CHANGING THE LANGUAGE, I LOOKED AND I WAS GONNA ASK YOU IF YOU COULD SHOW ME IN THE NEW DOCUMENT WHERE ANY ANY OF THAT CLARITY, UH, EXISTS.AND, UH, THE LEVERAGE, BASICALLY THE PLANNING BOARD TO MY MIND, HAS MUCH LESS LEVERAGE IN THIS NEW PROCESS THAN IT HAS HERE.
THAT'S WHAT I WANTED YOU TO BE AWARE OF.
UM, WELL, DOES ANY BOARD MEMBER WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT? I MEAN, AS LINDA SAID, I I HOPE YOU'LL BRING THAT TO THE, UM, BOARD OF TRUSTEES MEETING.
'CAUSE THEY WILL, THEY WILL BE THE ONES.
AND JUST ONE POINT, THE, THE LANGUAGE ABOUT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS IS NO LONGER APPLICABLE BECAUSE WE'RE ALLOWING THESE IN MORE THAN JUST SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS.
DO YOU WANNA MOVE ON TO THE SECOND ONE? SURE.
THE SECOND ONE IS REALLY EASY.
SO, UM, AND DOESN'T REALLY IMPACT YOU.
UM, THE ONLY THING THAT IM, WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE IS WE'VE CHANGED SOME PROCEDURES FOR HOW PRIMARILY PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS ARE HANDLED IN TERMS OF HOW THEY'RE RECEIVED AND REVIEWED AND PUT ON AN AGENDA.
UM, WE DID, IT WAS REALLY JUST PLANNING BOARD, NOT YOURS AS MUCH BECAUSE THE PROCESS IS DIFFERENT.
I READ THROUGH IT LOOKING FOR REFERENCES TO THE ZONING BOARD.
I'M GONNA TELL YOU THE ONE REFERENCE TO THE ZONING BOARD, SEE IF YOU MISSED IT.
UM, AND UM, WHEN WE STARTED TRYING TO LOOK AT CHANGING THE PROCEDURES, WE NOTICED THAT SOME OF THESE THINGS WERE ACTUALLY IN THE CODE.
UM, THE ONLY THING THAT AFFECTS ZONING BOARD PROCEDURES IS WE MADE SOME, UM, REALLY A CLARIFICATION ON NOTICE.
WHERE NOTICE IS WE NO LONGER REQUIRE CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT.
WE RE REQUIRE WHAT'S CALLED A CERTIFICATE OF MAILING, WHICH IS WHEN THEY SEND THE NOTICES, THEY HAVE TO GO TO THE POST OFFICE.
AND THE POST OFFICE ACTUALLY LOOKS AT THE LIST, STAMPS THE LIST AND PROVIDES WHAT'S CALLED A CERTIFICATE OF MAILING.
WHICH IS ACTUALLY BETTER BECAUSE WHEN YOU DO CERTIFIED, UM, PEOPLE DON'T PICK UP THEIR CERTIFIED MAIL.
IT GETS LEFT AT THE POST OFFICE BECAUSE ALL THEY GET IS A NOTICE IN THEIR MAILBOX SAYING YOU HAVE A PIECE OF CERTIFIED MAIL AND NO ONE GOES AND GETS IT.
SO THIS WAY WE STILL GET ADEQUATE PROOF OF MAILING THAT'S RIGHT.
BUT IT'S NOT DEPENDENT ON SOMEONE GOING TO THE POST OFFICE TO GET THEIR MAIL.
BUT IT'S, IT'S LEGALLY ACCEPTABLE AS A PROOF OF OH YEAH.
AND IT'S AND IS PROOF OF MAILING.
YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY GO TO THE POST OFFICE TO DO THE MAILING AND THEY, THERE, THERE'S A FORM WHERE YOU LIST ALL THE ADDRESSES.
THEY LIST THEM IN THE, IN THE POST OFFICE STAMPS, EACH SHEET.
SO IT'S, IT'S REALLY A PROOF OF MAILING.
UM, SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT AFFECTS ZONING BOARD PROCEDURES IN THE LAW.
AND I JUST HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT, IT'S A NEW, I THINK, PRE-SUBMISSION PROCESS FOR THE PLANNING BOARD.
SO IT WON'T IMPACT THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS, LIKE WHATEVER THAT PRE-SUBMISSION PROCESS, IT'S, IS IT FAIR TO SAY IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE INSTEAD OF DEALING WITH ANYTHING THAT MIGHT COME BEFORE US? IT'S SO, YOU KNOW, PLANNING BOARD APPLICATIONS TEND TO BE A LITTLE MORE COMPLICATED THAN YOUR TYPICAL APPLICATION.
SO IT'S REALLY AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO MEET WITH THE APPLICANT, GO OVER WITH THEM WHAT THEY NEED TO SUBMIT, ALL THE DIFFERENT PIECES, ANY CONCERNS WE HAVE, IT WILL RELATE TO YOU ONLY IN THAT IT ALSO GIVES US AN OPPORTUNITY TO HELP IDENTIFY WHAT VARIANCES THEY MAY NEED, UM, EARLY ON SO THAT WHEN MAYBE THEY'LL ELIMINATE SOME BEFORE, YOU KNOW, BUT IT, IT'S JUST TO KIND OF HELP FREELINE IT AND MAKE SURE THAT WHEN AN APPLICATION GETS TO THE PLANNING BOARD, IT'S COMPLETE.
IT'S GOT ALL THE INFORMATION THE BOARD NEEDS.
SO, UM, AND SOME OF THOSE APPLICATIONS DO EVENTUALLY COME TO YOU.
SO IN THAT SENSE IT WILL HELP YOU.
AND HAVE YOU SEEN THAT IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS? WELL, WE'VE BEEN DOING IT, YEAH.
UM, WE'VE ACTUALLY, IT'S NOT A REQUIREMENT.
WHAT WE'RE DOING IS PUTTING IT IN AS A REQUIREMENT.
UM, WE'VE BEEN DOING THEM ON MOST OF THE BIGGER APPLICATIONS AND A LOT OF MUNICIPALITIES REQUIRE PRE-SUBMISSION MEETINGS.
SO YOU WILL SEE WITHIN THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS ON THE, IF YOU'RE CURIOUS, UM, THE INFORMATION ON ALL THE NEW PROCEDURES WILL BE GOING UP ON THE PLANNING BOARD WEBSITE.
[00:40:01]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR SUGGESTIONS? SO I'M, I'M ASSUMING THE BOARD HAS NO COMMENTS ON, ON THAT LAW.[Approval of Minutes]
LAST MEETINGS MINUTES.WHO WAS HERE? I THINK I WAS, I DO REMEMBER.
YOU HAVE WHO WAS HERE? UH, NO, I DON'T HAVE THAT LIST.
UM, I MIGHT, I'M PRETTY SURE I WAS HERE.
I KNOW BRETT WAS NOT HERE, RIGHT? WAS JERRY HERE? WAS THAT BRIAN WAS HERE? NO, JERRY WAS NOT HERE.
THAT WAS YOUR, YOU WERE CHAIR FIRST.
GIVE IT TO WELL, BRIAN WAS HERE.
OH WAIT, YOU KNOW WHAT, TARA DRAFTED THESE AND SHE'S GONNA HAVE WHO WAS HERE IN HERE A PLUS FOR OUR MEMORY.
SO WOULD ANY, WOULD ANYONE ACCEPT BRETT HAVE ANY CORRECTIONS? NO.
ANY CORRECTIONS TO THE MEETING MINUTES? NO.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THEM? UH, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
UH, MEANING WHAT, WHAT MONTH? IT WAS JUNE 26TH.
ANYONE SECOND, SECOND, RYAN SECOND, AND THE FOUR OF US.
UH, JOSH, I KNOW THAT KAREN SENT YOU THE RESOLUTIONS, BUT I JUST FOUND A MISTAKE.
SO WE'LL SEND YOU A REVISED ONES.
[Announcements ]
IS SEPTEMBER 25TH.UM, ANYBODY, ONE THING I WOULD SAY IS, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THIS IS THE ENTIRETY OF THE BOARD.
SO I, I KNOW THAT MARY BETH SENDS US A, A CONFIRMATION MAYBE A WEEK OR SO OUT.
BUT IF YOU DO KNOW YOU'RE GONNA MISS A MEETING, MAYBE WE COULD GET OUT IN FRONT OF IT A LITTLE BIT.
BECAUSE WE, WE DON'T HAVE AN ALTERNATE RIGHT NOW, SO THAT WOULD BE GREAT.
I WILL NOT BE HERE ON THE 25TH.
WELL, MAYBE WE'LL TAKE A MOMENT TO CHECK NOW.
REMEMBER WHEN IT WAS MY SON'S BIRTHDAY AND I DIDN'T REALIZE THAT
I WAS LIKE, JERRY, I THINK THIS IS AN EXCELLENT BIRTHDAY ACTIVITY.
I WAS LIKE, I CHECKED WITH MY HUSBAND AND HE WAS LIKE, NO, YOU CAN'T DO THAT.
IT'S, I, NO, IT'S NOT ANYONE'S BIRTHDAY.
THE SCHOOLS ARE CLOSED THE TWO DAYS BEFORE THAT, BUT THEY'RE OPEN ON THAT THURSDAY.
I, SO JUST BETH SEEMS LIKE JUST BELL BE HERE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW WE'RE DOING IN THE SEARCH FOR AN ALTERNATE, BUT I, I ASK EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE.
I, WELL, I WAS TOLD NO MORE ARCHITECTS, SO I'M NOT OH, YEAH.
I CAN'T HELP YOU FIND ANYBODY.
UH, YOU NEED THE LAWYERS TO I MADE A RECOMMENDATION,
MAYBE THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S PENDING BEFORE THIS DEVOLVES WOULD, COULD WE GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING? MOTION TO ADJOURN A SECOND.
THE PLANNING BOARD IS ALSO SHORT, SO.