[00:00:01]
DO IT.[Call to Order]
WE'RE GONNA ASSUME WE'RE ON CAMERA AND BEING RECORDED.UM, GONNA CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER OF THE, UM, THURSDAY, UH, THE OCTOBER 23RD MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS.
UM, ARE ALL OF THE MAILINGS IN THE ORDER, DO WE KNOW? YES.
UM, WELL, I KNOW YOU'VE BEEN HERE BEFORE.
AND I'LL SAY IT AS IF THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE HERE.
[Case No. 16-25]
GONNA DO TODAY IS, UM, GO THROUGH, WE HAVE ONE CASE TODAY.UH, THE APPLICANT IS GONNA PRESENT, UH, WE'RE GONNA TAKE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE PUBLIC OF WHICH THERE DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE ANY.
UM, WELL BOARD MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
WE'LL DISCUSS THE CASE, WE'LL VOTE, UH, AND THEN THAT'LL BE THAT.
UM, PLEASE DO INTRODUCE YOURSELF, UH, AND GO RIGHT AHEAD.
BEFORE I DO THAT, IS THE SCREEN'S WORKING TODAY? YEAH, I CAN GET, YEP.
OH, JUST, UH, JB HERNANDEZ, A-R-Q-P-C ARCHITECTURE.
UM, THIS PROJECT, I'M NOT SURE WHICH OF THE BOARD MEMBERS WERE AROUND A FEW YEARS BACK, BUT THIS PROJECT WAS IN FRONT OF YOU A FEW YEARS BACK.
UH, THIS IS IN THE INTERSECTION OF CLOONEY AVENUE AND FARGATE AVENUE.
UM, AND DUE TO SOME, UH, ISSUES, PERSONAL ISSUES WITH THE CLIENT, HE DID NOT PROCEED AT THE TIME.
WE RECEIVED THE VARIANCE, BUT WE NEVER OBTAINED THE SITE, FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL.
SO WE CAME BACK NOW AND WE WENT IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
WE WENT IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD.
THERE WAS A SUGGESTION TO KIND OF UNDO SOME OF THE CHANGES WE HAD DONE A FEW YEARS BACK.
AND I GONNA TRY MY BEST TO PUT SIDE BY SIDE.
WELL, UM, THIS IS TWO EXISTING LOTS.
THEY'RE APPROXIMATELY 13,000 SQUARE FEET.
UM, WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING THE LAST TIME, AND WE'RE PROPOSING NOW, IS TO KIND OF ADJUST THE PROPERTY LINES OR CREATE TWO NEW LOTS AND THIS LOT BEING, UH, AT THE CORNER OF CLOONEY AND FARGATE.
UH, WE WENT THE LAST TIME WE WERE IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD AND IN FRONT OF THE PLANNING BOARD AND WITH, THERE WAS MORE NEIGHBORS IN THE
SO WE WENT THROUGH AN EXTENSIVE, UH, WORK AND REDESIGN.
AT ONE POINT WE DID HAVE THE DRIVEWAY ALONG CLOONEY AVENUE.
IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT WE PUT IN ALONG FARGATE AVENUE.
THERE WAS A LOT OF WORK BEING DONE ON THAT AS WELL.
WHAT WE DID THE LAST TIME THOUGH, THIS, SO KIND OF, THIS WAS
THIS WAS THE LA DESIGN THAT WE HAD.
UH, IT WAS SUGGESTED TO KIND OF DO THIS TRIANGULAR SHAPE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A LITTLE BIT AWKWARD.
WHAT IT WAS DOING WAS ELIMINATING THE, UM, ONE OF THE VARIANCES.
SO THE ONE LOT WAS FULLY COMPLIANT AND THE OTHER LOT WASN'T.
UH, THIS TIME AROUND WE WERE, UH, IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND UM, I HOPE, I THINK THE MEMO WAS GONNA BE SENT TO YES.
IT WAS DECIDED THAT IT IS MORE, BETTER LOT OF PLANNING DESIGN TO HAVE A STRAIGHT LINE AND ELIMINATE THAT TRIANGULAR SHAPE.
AND THAT'S KIND OF THE ONLY CHANGE FROM THE LAST TIME.
SO WE ARE ADDING ONE MORE VARIANCE, BUT WE ARE REDUCING THE MAGNITUDE OF THE OTHER LOT SIZE.
UH, AND ALSO THE FAR RATIO IT GETS IS BEING REDUCED BECAUSE NOW WE INCREASE THE, THE LA SIZE.
AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR, UM, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? DO WE HAVE ANY LETTERS IN THE COMMUNITY? UM, NOT THAT I KNOW OF FROM, FROM THE STAFF AND EVERYTHING, BUT THIS HAS BEEN AT PLANNING A FEW TIMES YES.
FOR AT WHICH THE PUBLIC WOULD HAVE BEEN NOTICED AND HAD A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
AND THIS PROJECT WAS CONCEPTUALLY APPROVED A FEW YEARS AGO AS WELL.
IS IT JUST A NEW ITERATION OF IT? UM, I GUESS THE ONLY FOR ME, THE THING THAT CHANGES THE MOST, UM, AND THE THING THAT I WOULD JUST LIKE YOU TO TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT IS THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR LOT TWO.
JUST HELP US UNDERSTAND WHAT IT SEEMS. LOT TWO AGAIN.
[00:05:01]
THE BLUE LOT, CORRECT? RIGHT.SO BECAUSE IN, IN, IN, I THINK WE, WELL, I WON'T SPEAK FOR ANYBODY ELSE BUT ME.
THIS SEEMS LIKE A MORE RATIONAL, UM, SUBDIVISION.
AND FOR, FOR, FOR ME PERSONALLY, THE AREA BASED VARIANCES ARE NOT AS BIG A WORRY BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT PARK LAND THAT BELONGS TO THE TOWN ON THE CORNER.
AND SO TAKEN ALL TOGETHER, THIS IS MORE THAN 20,000 SQUARE FEET.
AND SO TO MAKE 2 7500 SQUARE FOOT LOTS ON IT.
IN TERMS OF WHAT'S IMPORTANT TO THE AREA OF THE COVERAGE, FAR LOT SIZE, THOSE ARE ABOUT DENSITY.
AND GIVEN THAT THIS IS OPEN, I'M NOT AS WORRIED ABOUT NANCY.
THE THING I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE, I'M MOST INTERESTED IN IS HOW IT MIGHT AFFECT OTHER NEIGHBORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND THAT GOES TO THE SETBACKS AND ALL THAT.
WAS TO ASK YOU THIS QUESTION I ASKED LIKE FIVE MINUTES AGO ABOUT THE SIDE, THE SIDELINE.
WELL THE, UM, THIS HAS NOT, THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSE DID NOT CHANGE.
THE ONLY THING WE DID CHANGE WAS HAVING THE LOT LINE IN THE BACK.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT NOW INCREASE THE, UH, REAR SETBACK.
'CAUSE THIS USED TO BE PART OF THE OTHER LOT, WHICH WOULD'VE CAUSED MORE ISSUES WITH MAINTENANCE AND THE TREES THAT WE'RE GONNA PLANT, UH, AS THIS AREA HERE, WHICH IS THE ONE THAT INCREASES THE, UH, REQUIRES A SETBACK, UH, UM, THE SHAPE OF THE HOUSE AND THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY.
'CAUSE WE, WE COULD HAVE FLIPPED AND I THINK WE EVEN EXPLORED THAT AT ONE POINT, TO HAVE THE DRIVEWAY CLOSER TO THE INTERSECTION.
BUT THIS IS THE BEST LOCATION FOR THE INTERSECTION FOR THE DRIVEWAY AWAY FROM THE INTERSECTION.
AND ALSO YOU NEED IN, IN AN AREA TO BE ABLE TO MANEUVER AND, AND TURN AROUND FROM, UH, THE STREET.
THE HOUSE IN ITSELF IS MODEST SIZE.
I THINK WE, UH, HAD COMPARISONS AS TO THE, UH, AVERAGE SIZE HOME IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, UH, WE FELT THAT THIS, YOU KNOW, THE ASKING OF THE SIDE YARD, ESPECIALLY ALONG CLOY AVENUE WHERE THERE'S GONNA BE, UH, UH, THERE IS NO DRIVEWAY, THERE IS, YOU KNOW, IT SHOULD ONLY GONNA BE LANDSCAPING THERE.
UH, IT'S NOT A BIG ASKING, IT'S NOT A, SO TO CLARIFY FROM WHAT WAS APPROVED PRIOR, UM, THE PROPOSED RESIDENCE IS NO CLOSER TO THE EXISTING HOUSE THAN IT WAS.
AND UH, THE EXISTING RESIDENCE IS OBVIOUSLY NO CLOSER TO THE NEIGHBOR THAN IT WAS.
AND IS THE DRIVEWAY THE SAME TOO? YES.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ANYBODY? NO, I MEAN, I, I, I, UM, LOOKING AT THE, UH, AT THE MAP AND HAVING, YOU KNOW, KIND OF GONE THROUGH YOUR INITIAL APPLICATION, UM, I HONESTLY THINK THAT THIS USE OF SPACE IS, IS A BETTER USE OF SPACE THAN, THAN, UM, THAN THE, THAN THE INITIAL, THAN THE INITIAL ONE.
UH, AND YOU SAID THE, THE, THE DRIVEWAY IS STILL IN THE SAME LOCATION AS IT WAS BEFORE.
UM, THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME.
THE ONLY CHANGE THAT WE HAD DONE ONCE WE CAME BACK TO PLANT BOARD IS CHANGING THE PROPERTY LINE.
ANYONE ELSE? QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT, THEN MAYBE WE'LL JUST QUICKLY RUN THROUGH THE FACTORS AND CONFIRM THAT WE'RE ALL COMFORTABLE WITH THEM OR BRING UP ANY CONCERNS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST.
UH, WOULD ANYBODY IN THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? SORRY, I'M SORRY.
WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS CASE? UM, I KNOW MY NEIGHBORS ARE COMING IN SHORTLY AND MY HUSBAND'S ON HIS WAY UP, SO, UM, I THINK WE DO.
LEMME JUST TELL HIM HE WAS JUST PARKING.
I DIDN'T SEE ANYONE CADET COME IN.
JUST WHILE WE'RE WAITING, ONE THING I WANNA MENTION IS IF THE BOARD IS INCLINED TO ISSUE AN APPROVAL TONIGHT, I'D SUGGEST AS A CONDITION JUST TO HAVE THE APPLICANT RESUBMIT PLANS OF THE CORRECTED ZONING TABLE.
THE FAR FOR LOT ONE WAS BASED OFF OF THE PREVIOUS LAW AREA.
DOESN'T AFFECT THE NOTICE OR ANYTHING, JUST TO CORRECT THE PLANS AND RESUBMIT THEM FOR THE RECORD.
I THINK THE OTHER THING WE CAN DISCUSS WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THE PUBLIC, UM, YOU DID MENTION THIS MEMO.
[00:10:01]
UM, UM, IN ESSENCE IT CONVEYS PLANNING SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION.WOULD ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC LIKE TO SPEAK ONCE THEY CATCH THEIR BREATH? YES.
HELLO, PLEASE, UH, STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, UH, WHEN YOU GET TO.
I LIVE AT 30 T APP PEER PLACE HASTING ON HUDSON.
AND WHAT ELSE DO YOU ASK FOR? THAT'S IT.
UH, THANKS FOR HAVING ME HERE.
UH, MY NAME IS MICHAEL IS, I LIVE AT AN 11 N PLACE, WHICH IS ADJACENT TO SEVEN N.
SO I JUST HAVE A THING TO, ON A DOCUMENT HERE THAT I'D LIKE TO READ.
SO LET ME START OFF WITH THIS.
I DO YOU MEMBERS OF THE BOARD, I'M READY TO EXPRESS MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO BUILD ON THE NON-CONFORMING ON THE CORNER OF CLOONEY AND FARGATE AVENUE.
WHILE I FULLY SUPPORT IMPROVING THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WOULD WELCOME A HOME BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY, I BELIEVE IT MUST BE DONE RESPONSIBLY AND IN A WAY THAT CONFORMS TO THE SURROUNDING AREA WITHOUT CREATING ADDED ISSUES FOR RESIDENTS.
THE LOT WAS PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED, NOT BUILDABLE, DUE TO AN OIL SPILL.
CONTAMINATION MORE THAN 40 YEARS AGO USED TO BE A GAS STATION NEARBY THAT DOWN TANK LEAKED IT WAS A MESS.
TOTAL INSOMNIA, UH, WHICH AFFECTED THE SOIL AND SURROUNDING AREA.
TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO RECENT ENVIRONMENTAL TESTING HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO CONFIRM THAT THE CONTAMINATION HAS BEEN FULLY REMEDIATED.
UM, BEFORE ANY WORK BEGINS, I STRONGLY URGE THE TOWN TO REQUIRE UPDATED ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOIL STUDIES TO ENSURE THAT DISTURBING THE GROUND WILL NOT RELEASE HARMFUL SUBSTANCES OR PUT NEARBY RESIDENTS AT RISK.
YOU WANT ME TO READ THIS? ALRIGHT.
NEIGHBORHOOD IMPACT AND DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS.
THE LOT IS CURRENTLY OVERGROWN WITH TREES.
DYING THE BUILDING AND BUILDING A NEW HOME COULD HELP IMPROVE THE APPEARANCE OF THE BLOCK.
HOWEVER, IT IS IMPORTANT THAT ANY NEW CONSTRUCTION FITS THE SCALE OF THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
A SMALLER CONFORMING HOME COULD ACHIEVE THE GOAL WITHOUT THE NEED OF FOUR VARIANCE OR AN ADDED STRAIN ON MORE VEHICLES CONGESTION.
THE APPROACH WOULD BOTH REVITALIZE, REVITALIZE THE LOT AND KEEP THE BALANCE OF OUR RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY THE TRAFFIC AND PARK PARKING CONCERNS AT THE PRESENT.
FARGATE AVENUE DOES NOT HAVE A TRAFFIC OR PARKING ISSUE.
CAN'T CARS CAN TYPICALLY, CARS DO NOT TYPICALLY PARK ALONG FARGATE AVENUE ALONG THE TRAFFIC.
CARS DO NOT TYPICALLY PARK ALONG.
FARGATE AVENUE GOES FROM FARGATE AVENUE EXIT AND ENTRANCE TO FARGATE PARKWAY.
CURRENTLY, RIGHT NOW, IS THAT DOWN THE SOUTHBOUND SOUTH? CURRENTLY NOW WE DON'T HAVE CARS PARKED ON EITHER SIDE OF THE ROAD.
CARS COME IN, CARS COME OUT, IT'S PERFECT.
BUT WITH THE NEW CONSTRUCTION, IF A NEW HOUSE IS BUILT ON THAT CORNER, HOWEVER, THERE IS A, THERE'S A CONCERN THAT ON STREET PARKING WILL BEGIN TO OCCUR.
THIS COULD CONSTRUCT, THIS COULD OBSTRUCT VISIBILITY FOR PEDESTRIANS, INCLUDING CHILDREN WALKING TO SCHOOL AND NEIGHBOR NEIGHBORS WALKING THEIR DOGS, AND POTENTIALLY CREATE NEW SAFETY HAZARDS WHERE NONE CURRENTLY EXISTS.
LIKE THE TRAFFIC ISSUE CURRENTLY HAPPENING ON JAMES STREET.
MY, MY IN-LAWS LIVE ON CROSSBAR.
SO WE CONSTANTLY GOING UP AND DOWN.
CARS ARE GOING BY AND, AND YOU GOTTA BE CAREFUL, KIDS ON THE ROAD.
UM, SAFETY AND CHILDREN'S SAFETY FOR CHILDREN AND PEDESTRIAN.
THERE IS NO SIDEWALK FOR CHILDREN WALKING TO THE MIDDLE SCHOOL.
STUDENTS MUST WALK ON THE STREET AND WHEN THE CARS ARE PARKED ALONG AND BLOCKED OR LARGE VEHICLES BLOCK VISIBILITY, IT BECOMES AN EXTREMELY DANGEROUS, AND ANY AND ANY INCREASE IN PARKED CARS OR CONSTRUCTION RELATED TRAFFIC WOULD HEIGHTEN THE RISK AND MAKE IT LESS SAFE FOR FAMILY AND PEDESTRIANS.
SANITATION AND QUALITY OF LIFE ISSUES.
SINCE THE SAME PROPERTY OWNER EXPANDED PARKING ON
[00:15:01]
HIS NEARBY TWO FAMILY HOME RESIDENTS HAVE NOTICED A RISE IN RATS DUE TO GARBAGE BEING LEFT OUTSIDE OVERNIGHT.THIS HAS RAISED HEALTH AND SANITATION CONCERNS.
THIS UNUSUAL HIGH NUMBER OF VEHICLES ASSOCIATED WITH THAT PROPERTY ALSO SUGGESTS OVERCROWDING AS IT EX IT EXCEEDS WHAT IS TYPICALLY OF A TWO FAMILY RESIDENT.
THE TWO FAMILY OWNED BY MOHAM, I'M SORRY, I MIGHT NOT SAY YOUR NAME CORRECT.
CURRENTLY HOUSE IS UP TO 10 VEHICLES.
IN ADDITION TO ANOTHER FIVE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES, THE BACKYARD DRIVEWAY ADDED TO PROVIDE TENANT PARKING HAS INSTEAD BECOME AN AREA WHERE COMMERCIAL VEHICLES ARE OFTEN PARKED.
YOU DRIVE UP AND DOWN THAT ROAD, YOU WILL SEE FIVE VEHICLES OF COMMERCIAL IN THE BACKYARD WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE RESIDENTIAL.
CONTRIBUTING TO FURTHER CONGESTION.
PARKING ON CLOONEY IS ALSO EXTREMELY LIMITED.
IT IS DIFFICULT TO SEE HOW THE AREA COULD SAFELY SUPPORT ANOTHER FIVE OR SIX MORE VEHICLES FROM THIS PROPOSED HOME.
HISTORY OF THE PARK, DAMAGE NEXT TO BOTH PROPOSED PROPERTY LINES DURING 2020 AND 2021.
PRIOR CONSTRUCTION AT SEVEN NAPE PLACE OWNED BY MOHAM HEAVILY MACHINERY WAS DRIVEN ACROSS IN NAP P PARK DAMAGING THE GRASS AND SOIL, LEAVING LARGE CONCAVE HOLES IN TOWN PROPERTY.
NAPPE PARK BELONGS TO THE TOWN AND THE COMMUNITY.
IT DOES NOT BELONG TO, TO ADJACENT SEVEN NAPPE PLACE.
UM, CONCAVE TO TALKING ABOUT RESIDENTS WERE UNABLE TO USE THE PARK DUE TO THE DANGEROUS UNEVEN GROUNDS.
THE TOWN HAS COMMITTED TO REPLACING THE FENCE AND LEVELING THE GROUND ONCE THE WORK WAS COMPLETED.
BUT MORE THAN FOUR YEARS LATER, THOSE REPAIRS STILL HAVE NOT BEEN MADE.
THIS UNRESOLVED ISSUE RAISES CONCERNS AND ACCOUNTABILITY OVERSIGHTS AND CARE FOR THE COMMUNITY IF FURTHER CONSTRUCTS CONSTRUCTION PROCEEDS.
OH, I THINK THAT WAS, THAT GIVEN THE ENVIRONMENTAL RISK, THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY DAMAGE, ONGOING PARKING AND TRAFFIC ISSUES, AND THE LACK OF INFRASTRUCTURE ON SUCH SIDEWALKS, I STRONGLY URGE THE TOWN TO DENY THE VARIANCE REQUEST UNTIL ALL THESE CONCERNS ARE THOROUGHLY INVESTIGATED AND ADDRESSED BY THE VILLAGE OF HASTINGS OR HUDSON.
PROTECTING THE RAP REPAIR PARK FROM BECOMING A CONSTRUCTION SITE FOR MR. MUHAMMAD.
ENSURING ENVIRONMENTAL SAFETY AND KEEPING THE INTEGRITY OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND MAKE THE MUST TAKE PRIORITY OVER NEW DEVELOPMENT ON ZERO FARGATE AVENUE THAT WAS, THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY CONSIDERED UNSAFE AND UNSAFE FOR BUILT AND REQUIRE VARIANCE TO BE BUILDABLE.
THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION IN THIS MATTER.
AND THE C THE COMMITMENT TO PROTECT OUR SAFETY, OUR HEALTHY AND CHARACTER OF OUR COMMUNITY.
SINCERELY, ERIC AND CAROL HORST.
I CAN, I CAN EMAIL THIS COPY TO YOU IF YOU WANT.
DO YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ANY QUESTIONS? SO, I'VE BEEN A N I'VE BEEN IN, I'VE BEEN IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FOR OVER 25 YEARS.
UM, THE ISSUE NOW, I I DON'T, WE DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.
LOOK, SOMETHING HAS TO BE BUILT.
DURING ONE CHRISTMAS, WE BASICALLY WERE OUT OF POWER.
WE COULDN'T EVEN COOK OUR HOUSE BECAUSE THE TREE FROM THAT LOT FELL DOWN ON THE LINES AND KNOCKED OUT THE POWER FOR ALL FOR THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, YEAH, SO IN THAT TIMEFRAME, UM, AFTER COVID, SEE THERE'S LIKE FIVE OR SIX 50 FEET.
WASN'T IT A TALL, UH, TREES ON THAT VACANT LOT.
SO THEY OLD, SOME OF 'EM LOOKED DEAD.
SO IT, IT, SO IT FELT, IT, IF SOMETHING, UM, WITH, WITH THE SCALE THAT WOULD MA YOU KNOW, LIVE, DON'T CONFORM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD FIVE.
SO THERE'S A, THERE'S A HOUSE ACROSS THE STREET IS ABOUT MAYBE 900, MAYBE A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET, MAYBE 1200, SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO CONFORM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WOULDN'T BE BAD.
IT WOULD PROBABLY HAVE WHAT, TWO OR THREE CARS TOPS? FOUR CARS.
BUT WHEN WE HAVE IN STEM NPI RIGHT NOW WE HAVE CARS ROUNDING THE BEND OF THE PARK, OF THE PARK.
WE HAVE CARS PARKED ON THE SIDEWALK.
IF YOU GET OFF OF THE FAR, IF YOU GET OFF OF FARRAT PARKWAY AVENUE AND YOU TRY TO TURN ONTO NAPPI, YOU CAN'T BECAUSE CARS ARE COMING ONE WAY TO GET TO, TO EXIT NAIRA.
AND THEN ALL THE CARS FROM SEVEN NAIRA ARE PARKED RIGHT ALONGSIDE.
THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN MOVE TWO CARS THROUGH THERE.
THEY USED TO BE, WE USED TO HAVE A NON, IF YOU'RE GONNA SPEAK, PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE.
ASK MY HUSBAND ERIC THE STORE.
BUT THEY USED TO HAVE A SIGN, AND THIS IS PRIOR TO THEM SELLING, PRIOR TO, UM, MR. MOHAMMED PURCHASING THE HOME.
UM, WE USED TO HAVE A SIGN THAT SAYS NO PARKING FROM HERE TO CORNER.
AND THE REASON WHY WAS BECAUSE IF SOMEONE'S TRYING TO TURN DOWN THE STREET, IT GIVES THEM ENOUGH TIME TO PULL OVER TO THE RIGHT AND LET THE CARS PROCEED TO EXIT OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S A VERY SMALL STREET, BUT NOW WHEN YOU HAVE 10 OR 15 AND TOPS, AT ONE POINT WE HAD 15 CARS ROUNDING THE BEND.
YOU AND YOU'RE TRYING TO TURN, YOU'RE GONNA COME INTO AN INCOMING CAR.
UM, AND, AND PEOPLE WALKING THEIR DOGS, YOU MIGHT HIT A PERSON WALKING THEIR DOG AGAIN.
[00:20:01]
I DON'T MIND A HOUSE BEING BUILT THERE, BUT MY CONCERNS IS IT'S GONNA CAUSE MORE TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. MY CONCERN IS THAT WE'RE GONNA TURN INSIDE JAMES STREET WHERE YOU CAN'T GO UP AND DOWN THAT STREET.RIGHT NOW, WE DON'T HAVE THAT ISSUE.
AND YOU COULD IMAGINE PEOPLE EXITING THE PARKWAY HAVING CARS THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO, YOU KNOW, LEAPFROG AROUND.
IT IS NOT A GOOD ENVIRONMENT TO BE IN RIGHT NOW.
THE SCALE OF THE HOUSE CANNOT BE OVERWHELMING.
THERE'S TOO MUCH CONGESTION AS IT IS.
SO IF YOU'RE GONNA PUT A HOUSE ON THAT LOT, YOU'RE GONNA, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS PERSON PLANS ON DOING WITH THAT HOUSE.
HE MIGHT RENT IT, HE MIGHT LIVE IN IT.
HE MIGHT JUST LET IT SIT THERE.
BUT IF IT'S ANY, UH, HOW CAN I SAY IT? CASE, AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT GOES ON AT SEVEN.
I LIVE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO SEVEN PLACE.
IT IS A TOTAL, I I DON'T EVEN WANT TO GET INTO IT.
IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST DISGUSTING.
THERE'S TWO GARBAGE PAILS FOR 20 PEOPLE.
ON TUESDAYS, THERE MUST BE 40, 50 POUNDS OF GARBAGE BAGS LAYING ALL OVER THE PLACE.
IT'S JUST LIKE, IS THAT WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN IF THIS MR. I ABRAHAM GETS A APPROVAL TO BUILD A, A NEW, UH, HOME ON THAT LOT? I DON'T KNOW.
SO IT'S LIKE IT'S, I I I WOULD RATHER HAVE IT NOT BUILT BECAUSE OF THE EXAMPLE THAT HE HAS SET WITH SEVEN NAP PIRA.
THERE ARE PEOPLE LIVING, OKAY.
IT'S LIKE RANDOM THINK YOU, I THINK HAVE THE SLEEPING BAGS AND BACKPACKS.
I THINK, UH, I THINK WE, WE'VE GOT THE, THE GIST OF IT, YOU KNOW, O OBVIOUSLY, UH, SOME OF THIS RELATES TO WHAT IS WITHIN OUR JURISDICTION AND SOME OF IT DOESN'T.
UH, SO THERE'S ONLY, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ARE HERE TODAY TO, UH, LOOK AT THE VIABILITY OF THE VARIANCES.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE, UM, THEY'RE NOT DEPENDENT ON WHO THE PERSON IS.
THEY'RE, THEY'RE JUST DEPENDENT ON, UH, THE ZONING.
AND, AND THAT'S WHY I STATED SO THOSE SPECIFIC FACTS UNDERSTOOD.
CONCERNED ABOUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THE TRAFFIC CONGESTION, CONCERNED ABOUT THE CONGESTION, CONCERNED ABOUT THE SCALE.
YEAH, LIKE I SAID, I'M, I'M FOUR BUILDING SOMETHING THERE.
I THINK SOMETHING WOULD LOOK VERY NICE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE THERE.
IT WOULD ONLY IMPROVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
BUT IT HAS TO BE DONE WITH CONSIDERATION FOR THE OTHER NEIGHBORS.
UH, WOULD ANYBODY ELSE LIKE TO SAY ANYTHING? UH, NO.
I ALSO HAVE ONE OTHER THING REALLY QUICK TO SAY.
WE GET FLOODED A LOT BECAUSE THE SOIL RIVER IS OVER ON THE OTHER SIDE.
AND IT STARTS TO TIP, IT JUST COMES DOWN THE SOUTHBOUND LANES AND OUR STREET GETS DESTROYED.
SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT, WHAT THE ARCTIC, THE ARCTIC TAP IS RIGHT HERE.
I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THIS DRAINAGE, UH, PLAN IS, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WHEN IT RAINS IT JUST GOES INTO DIRT.
SO I CAN, I MAYBE WE'LL GIVE THE ARCHITECT CHANCE TO, TO RESPOND.
BUT I, I WILL SAY JUST GENERALLY THAT, UM, YOU KNOW, ALL NEW CONSTRUCTION GOES THROUGH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND ALL OF THE DRAINAGE ON THE SITE WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT UP TO CODE.
OBVIOUSLY AN INDIVIDUAL BUILDING THEIR HOME CAN'T CHANGE THE DRAINAGE OF THE STREET OR ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF THEIR CONTROL.
BUT I WOULD GENERALLY SAY TO YOU THAT, UM, HAVING NEW CONSTRUCTION ON AN ON A SITE WILL IMPROVE THE DRAINAGE AT LEAST AS MUCH AS THAT SITE CAN CONTRIBUTE TO IT.
BECAUSE THEY'LL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE CODE.
THEY'LL BE REQUIRED TO BE REVIEWED BY THE VILLAGE ENGINEER AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS.
JUST TO ADD ON TOP OF THAT, FOR THE BOARD'S BENEFIT, AGAIN, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE PLANNING BOARD AND THE ZONING BOARD A FEW YEARS AGO.
UH, THE LOCATION OF THE HOUSES HAVE NOT CHANGED.
THE ONLY THING THAT'S CHANGED IS THE POSITIONING OF THE LOT LINE.
UM, THIS PROJECT DID UNDERGO A SECRET REVIEW PREVIOUSLY AND IT DID RECEIVE A NEG DECK FINDING NO ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
SO THINGS LIKE TRAFFIC AND FLOODING AND DRAINAGE AND WHATNOT.
THEY WERE STUDIED IN THE PLANNING BOARD, ACCEPTED THE FINDINGS.
IF YOU WANNA DO, DO YOU WANNA RESPOND TO ANY OF THAT OR YOU, I JUST WANTED TO WORK THROUGH THIS IS KIND OF THE LESS TIME THAT WE'VE BEEN AND, UH, THE NEIGHBORS WERE PRESENT AS WELL.
SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT WE HAVE, UM, WE DID TO THE, UM, TO THE BUILDINGS AND TO THE SIZE OF THE HOME, WERE ALL TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT.
THOSE CHANGE ISSUES, THOSE CONCERNS FROM THE NEIGHBOR AS TO ANY ISSUES WITH SEVEN IMP PARA, I MEAN, THERE'S MORE AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE.
UH, YOU KNOW, NOT SURE WHAT GOES UNDER THERE, BUT THE LOT THAT USED TO HAVE THE GAS STATION WAS THIS ONE HERE AND I THINK OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY HAVE BEEN DONE.
AND, AND THAT'S THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THIS VILLAGE HAS TAKEN CARE OF THAT, UM, AS PER TREES, I MEAN THERE ARE, RIGHT NOW THERE ARE LIKE SIX TREES THERE AND I THINK WE KEEPING TWO OF THEM AND FOUR OF THEM ARE
[00:25:01]
COMING DOWN.UM, THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE PARKING ALONG CLOONEY AVENUE.
THAT'S WHY WE REMOVED THE DRIVEWAY FROM THERE.
UH, THERE WILL BE NO PARKING ALONG, UH, FARGO AVENUE AND THERE IS PARKING FOR TWO CARS.
IT IS A TWO CAR GARAGE AND, UH, UM, ONLY ONE CAR GARAGE.
AND THERE'S ENOUGH PARKING THERE FOR ONE FAMILY.
BUT YOU'RE NOT ASKING FOR A PARKING VARIANCE.
PARKING, NO PARKING IS COMPLIANT.
AND ALSO, JUST TO NOTE AS WELL, THE VARIANCE IS FOR LOT TWO, WHICH IS THE NEW BUILD, UH, THE NEW BUILDING LOT.
IT'S FOR LOT AREA, IT'S SLIGHTLY UNDERSIZED AND ALSO FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK ABUTTING THE STREET, THIS IS A CORNER LOT.
SO IT'S CONSIDERED TO HAVE ESSENTIALLY TWO FRONT YARDS, WHICH ARE SUBJECT TO A HIGHER SETBACK REQUIREMENT THAN A TRADITIONAL LOT.
SO THAT'S WHAT'S REALLY DRIVING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCE HERE IS, IT'S, IT'S CORNER LOT STATUS.
AND THERE WAS, UH, UM, LANDSCAPING AND ENOUGH LANDSCAPING PROPOSED TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS NO ISSUE WITH THE, UH, ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
AND IT'S ALSO, THERE IS LANDSCAPING PROPOSED, UM, ALONG SEVEN APPERA IN THE, UH, VILLAGE PROPERTY AS WELL.
UM, AND THE HOUSE IS AT, YOU KNOW, ONE FAMILY HOME.
HOW MANY SQUARE FEET IS THE IT'S ABOUT 2,400 SQUARE FEET.
THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT, WELL WE STILL, SO AGAIN, THIS, THIS HEARING IS NOT ABOUT THE DESIGN OF THE HOUSE.
WE ARE ONLY LOOKING AT THE VARIANCES.
SO I THINK, UM, I THINK WE'RE, WE HAVE, UM, WHAT WE NEED AND WE CAN HAVE OUR DELIBERATION.
CAN I, CAN I SAY SOMETHING? YEAH, SURE YOU CAN.
WELL, I DO APPRECIATE THAT, UM, THAT THEY SAID THAT THEY DID THE TREES ON THE LINE OF THE PARK.
WHAT I DID NOTICE IS THAT HIS DRIVEWAY IS VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THE PARK AREA.
WHERE IS THE BUFFER BETWEEN HIS DRIVEWAY AND THE VILLAGE PARK? SURE.
UM, AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY UM, UH, VARIANCES, WHICH IS WHAT'S IN OUR PURVIEW ON THE DRIVEWAY.
UM, THE DRIVEWAY IS EXISTING FOR THE EXISTING HOUSE.
AND SO THEY'RE NOT CHANGING IT.
THE, THE DRIVEWAY DOES NOT EXIST BECAUSE FOR THE EXISTING HOUSE AND FOR THE NEW HOUSE, IT IS COMPLIANT.
SO THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO, UH, REQUIRED SETBACK FOR A DRIVEWAY.
IT'S TO THE HOME TO THIS PHYSICAL STRUCTURE.
SO IF THIS GETS APPROVED, IT WILL BE GOING BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY REALLY IS A PLANNING BOARD ISSUE.
THERE'S NO VARIANCES RELATED TO IT.
SO THE BOARD REALLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THIS BOARD.
THIS BOARD REALLY CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
IT CAN REALLY ONLY WEIGH IN ON THE ITEMS THAT ARE, THAT ARE BEING VARIED HERE.
SO THEN ONE OF MY CONCERNS TOO IS BECAUSE LIKE I SAID BEFORE, WHEN THEY, WHEN THEY BUILT THE DRIVEWAY FOR SEVEN, THE PARA PLACE, THEY BASICALLY USED THE PARK AS THEIR LITTLE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
AGAIN, AGAIN, THESE ARE THESE, THESE ARE ENFORCEMENT ISSUES.
SO THE, THE, THE ASSISTANT BUILDING INSPECTORS HERE DURING CONSTRUCTION, CONSTRUCTION IS MONITORED.
IT, IT'S NOT THAT WE'RE NOT SYMPATHETIC TO THE ISSUE, IT'S JUST NOTHING THAT WE HAVE ANY JURISDICTION OVER.
WE'RE TALKING ABOUT JUST THE VARIANCES.
UM, SO THERE'S NOTHING WE CAN PRODUCTIVELY TALK ABOUT TODAY.
THE DEPARTMENT, WHEN, IF IT GETS APPROVED, WE'LL LOOK AT DRAINAGE, WE'LL ASK FOR THOSE STUFF.
AND FOR SITE PROTECTION, ALL THAT STUFF, WHEN THE CONSTRUCTION HAPPENS, I, LIKE I SAID, I'M JUST CONCERNED WITH THE PARK BEING A CONSTRUCTION SITE.
'CAUSE IT'S BEEN DONE BEFORE AND THE VILLAGE THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT IT AND THEY HAVEN'T.
I HAVE EMAILS BAITING BACK FOUR YEARS THAT THEY WERE GONNA FIX THE PARK BECAUSE LOOK, WE DON'T HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD TO WALK DOGS ON, PEOPLE WALKING DOGS ON IN FRONT OF PEOPLE'S HOUSES.
THAT LITTLE PARK RIGHT THERE IS MEANT THAT WE CAN USE IT AS PEOPLE CAN BE SAFE ON THE, INSTEAD WALKING ON THE STREET, THEY CAN WALK IN THE PARK AREA.
IT'S DANGEROUS TO WALK IN THE PARK.
THEY LEFT, THEY LEFT HOLES FROM THE VEHICLES THAT WENT OVER THE PARK LAND TO AGAIN BUILD THE CONSTRUCTION.
SO I'M JUST SAYING, I DON'T WANNA KEEP CUTTING YOU OFF, BUT I, BUT THERE, THERE'S NOTHING ABOUT THE PARK THAT WE HAVE ANY JURISDICTION OVER THIS BOARD.
AND SO I'D LIKE TO JUST MAKE SURE THAT WE STAY FOCUSED ON WHAT WE NEED TO DO TODAY.
UM, AND AGAIN, THESE ARE, THESE ARE LEGITIMATE ISSUES THAT YOU HAVE.
WE, WE HAVE TO FIND YOU TO THE, YOU HAVE TO FIND THE RIGHT PEOPLE IN THE VILLAGE WHO HANDLE THOSE THINGS.
LIKE I SAID, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING FROM, BUT, BUT WHAT'S GONNA CREATE THOSE PROBLEMS IS BUILDING THAT THE LAW.
SO THAT'S WHAT'S GONNA CREATE THE PROBLEMS THAT WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DEAL WITH HIM.
AND WE ARE STILL DEALING WITH THE SAME PROBLEMS FROM WHEN YOU MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE.
SO WE'RE STILL DEALING WITH THE PROBLEMS FROM WHEN HE DID THE, AGAIN, WE, WE CAN'T MAKE IT.
THE GUYS APPROVED, WE CAN'T MAKE ANY ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE DOING THIS.
I'M ACTUALLY STATING CLEAR FACTS THAT HAPPENED ALREADY.
I, WE, WE, WE ASSUMED THAT HE WAS GONNA, OKAY.
I HAVE TO CLOSE THE PART, I HAVE TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THIS AND WE'RE GONNA DELIBERATE THIS CASE.
ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I SO
[00:30:01]
THANK YOU FOR THE COMMENTS AND I DO JUST WANNA FOLLOW UP TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND.UM, AND MAYBE THE, THE TOWN'S ATTORNEY CAN CORRECT ME IF I, IF I MISUNDERSTAND THIS, UM, WHEN I LOOK AT THE APPLICATION THAT WAS ENCLOSED IN OUR MATERIALS MM-HMM
IT DOES TALK ABOUT AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT.
SO THE, UM, THE COMMENTS ABOUT THE OIL SPILL AND THE HARM TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, IF THE SOIL WAS TO BE DISRUPTED, HAS THAT ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND ADDRESSED AT THE PLANNING BOARD? YES.
THAT'S COVERED BY THE PLANNING BOARD'S.
UM, ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR QUESTIONS? OTHERWISE I SUGGEST WE WALK THROUGH THE FACTORS AND TALK ABOUT THEM, UM, EACH ONE.
SO, UM, IN, UH, CONSIDERING VARIANCES, WHICH IS THE ONLY THING THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT TONIGHT, UM, WE HAVE FIVE FACTORS THAT WE LOOK AT.
THE FIRST ONE IS WHETHER AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WILL BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY THE GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCES.
I THINK, I THINK I UNDERSTAND THE, THE, THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED TONIGHT.
BUT THE, I WILL SAY THAT I, I DON'T THINK THAT THE VARIANCES ACTUALLY, UM, ARE THE THINGS THAT ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE, WE'RE NOT OFF, WE'RE NOT MAKING A DECISION ABOUT DRIVEWAY OR SAYING OR PARKING OR PARKING FOR LOT TWO.
WE'RE ACTUALLY NOT MAKING, WE'RE NOT BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT FAR.
THE FAR THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, AS I UNDERSTAND IT IS IN, IS THE EXISTING RESIDENCE FOLLOWS THE RULES.
UM, SO IN TERMS OF THE SCALE, I, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ALWAYS THINK ABOUT REALLY CLOSELY HERE, BUT THAT'S NOT ON THE TABLE.
I THINK THE LOT AREA AND SIDE YARD SETBACK VARIANCES ARE ACTUALLY QUITE SMALL RELATIVE TO WHAT COMES IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD.
AND THAT THE PROPOSAL THAT THE PLANNING BOARD MADE MAKES A LOT OF SENSE IN TERMS OF STRAIGHTENING OUT THE LOT.
UH, THIS, THIS CASE HAS COME, I WAS HERE WHEN THIS CASE CAME THE FIRST TIME.
I THINK THERE WERE A LOT OF CONCERNS.
I THINK A LOT OF THEM HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED.
I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERNS, BUT THOSE CONCERNS ARE NOT IN FRONT OF US TODAY IN TERMS OF VARIANCES.
THEY'RE IN FRONT OF THE, THEIR PLANNING BOARD ISSUES, THEY'RE ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW ISSUES.
SO IN TERMS OF WHAT'S BEFORE US, I DO NOT SEE A NEGATIVE IMPACT IN TERMS OF THE CONCERNS THAT WERE RAISED.
I THINK THEY'RE VALID, BUT I DON'T THINK THEY'RE WHAT WE'RE ACTUALLY VOTING ON TONIGHT.
AND I THINK EVEN IN THE CONCERNS IT WAS NOTED THAT THE CURRENT, UM, PARK IS NOT, WELL, SORRY, THE CURRENT EMPTY SITE IS NOT WELL MAINTAINED AND, YOU KNOW, A HOUSE THERE I THINK WOULD BE AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, AND I WANT TO BE CLEAR AND ECHOING SOMETHING THAT YOU SAID, THAT HOUSE ON LOT TWO REQUIRES NO VARIANCES FOR THE SIZE.
IT IS A COMPLIANT SIZE FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR.
THEY'RE NOT ASKING US TO BUILD A HOUSE THAT'S BIGGER THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ALLOWS ANYBODY ELSE ON THE NOTION OF NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER.
SECOND ONE IS WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME METHOD FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE OTHER THAN AN AREA OF VARIANCE? I MEAN, WHAT I WOULD, WHAT I WOULD SAY ABOUT THAT ONE IS, UM, THERE THERE IS NO WAY TO MAKE, UM, THE COMBINED SITES INTO TWO SITES WITHOUT SOME RELIEF FROM THE AREA VARIANCE.
AS I SAID BEFORE, I THINK ON THE ONES THAT RELATE TO DENSITY, IT'S HELPFUL THAT THERE IS THE, UM, TOWN'S LAND ON THE CORNER THAT GENERALLY LOWERS THE DENSITY OF THAT AREA.
ANYBODY ELSE THOUGHTS OR CONCERNS?
UM, I, I I THINK THAT THAT, THAT WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IS THAT THE, THE VARIANCE THAT IS, IS IN LINE WITH, WITH, WITH SOME THAT WE HAVE GRANTED BEFORE.
I ALSO, I THINK THAT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THIS PROPOSAL THE FIRST TIME, UH, WAS, WAS THAT IT IS IN LINE WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I I, I DON'T THINK THAT WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED HERE FALLS DRAMATICALLY OUTSIDE OF WHAT YOU SEE IN THE LOTS, UH, NEARBY.
AND MAYBE ONE OTHER THING TO NOTE IS THAT THIS IS NOT, UM, THIS IS SIMILAR TO SOME OF THE RECENT CASES WE'VE HAD WITH EXPIRING APPROVALS WHERE, UM, WHAT WE'VE SAID IS, UM, HAS THE LAW CHANGED? HAS OUR THINKING CHANGED OR HAS ANYTHING ABOUT THE PROPOSAL CHANGED? AND THE ONLY THING THAT'S CHANGED HERE IS THE RELATIVE PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THE TWO PLACES.
[00:35:01]
OTHERWISE ALL OF THESE FACTORS, UM, WERE CONSIDERED AN APPROVED PRIOR.SO IN LOOKING AT THESE THINGS, I THINK A LITTLE BIT OF THE LENS IS, UM, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THE, THE LAW OR ANY OF THE, UH, FACTORS HAVE CHANGED SINCE THE LAST TIME AND I WAS HERE AS WELL.
SO I DO REMEMBER, UM, OKAY, LAST, UH, FOUR IS WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT.
AND AGAIN, JUST WANNA BE VERY CLEAR THAT FOR US IS LIMITED TO THE THINGS THAT ARE BEING ASKED FOR ON THE VARIANCE.
SO WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT ANY OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS THAT WERE CONSIDERED PRIOR.
WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT WHETHER SPECIFICALLY THE GRANTING OF THESE VARIANCES WILL HAVE A, A NEGATIVE IMPACT.
AND AGAIN, THIS DID RECEIVE NEGATIVE DECLARATION FROM THE PLANNING BOARD.
ANYBODY ELSE? ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT.
AND THE LAST ONE IS WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED, WHICH CONSIDERATION SHALL BE RELEVANT TO OUR DECISION BUT NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDE THE GRANTING OF THE AREA VARIANCE? I THINK WE OFTEN ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THEY COULD JUST NOT BUILD A HOUSE, BUT IF WE'RE ACCEPTING THE PREMISE THAT UH, THEY WANT TO BUILD A HOUSE HERE, UH, YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS A REASONABLE, UH, APPROACH AS HAS NOW GONE THROUGH THE PLANNING BOARD TWICE.
AND I THINK ONE THING TO NOTE, AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THE LOT, ONE AREA VARIANCE THAT'S BEING DRIVEN BY THE PLANNING BOARD SPECIFIC REQUEST TO ADJUST THE LOT LINE TO HAVE MORE SENSIBLE LOTS.
SO THAT'S, AND AGAIN, HAS NO EFFECT ON THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE HOUSES, UM, OR THE DENSITY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? OKAY.
UM, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION IN THIS CASE? I WILL DO IT 'CAUSE I WAS HERE BEFORE
I MADE, I, I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE CASE NUMBER 16 DASH 25 MOHAMMAD IBRAHIM.
SEVEN NE ROW PLACE AND ZERO FARGATE AVENUE RELIEF FROM STRICT APPLICATION OF VILLAGE CODE SECTIONS 2 9 5 DASH 20 F 2 9 5 DASH 69 E 2 9 5 DASH 69 F TWO B 2 95 DASH 69 G FOR THE CREATION OF TWO BUILDING LOTS AND A PROPOSED NEW PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING ON HIS PROPERTY AT SEVEN NERO PLACE.
SAID PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE R SEVEN FIVE ZONING DISTRICT AND IS KNOWN AS SBL 4.150 DASH FIVE FIVE DASH THREE AKA LOT ONE AND 15 BAKA LOT TWO.
ANYONE? SORRY? UH, WITH THE, DO YOU WANNA PUT THE CONDITION UH OH YES, WITH THE CONDITION, UM, THAT THE PLANS BE CORRECTED FOR? UM, FULL REVIEW AND FOR, FOR THE FAR FOR, AND THEN IT GOES BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
IS THAT, THAT'S NOT A CONDITION, BUT IT JUST GOES BACK TO IT'S JUST THAT APPLICANT RESUBMIT PLANS WITH CORRECTED FAR.
THIS WILL GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND IT'S GOING BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
UH, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A SECOND? I SECONDS.
UH, WE'RE GONNA TAKE A ONE BY ONE VOTE.
UM, APPROVE, APPROVE, APPROVE, APPROVE, APPROVE.
ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UM, AGAIN, I WILL SAY TO THE PUBLIC, I DO ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE YOUR CONCERNS TO THE PEOPLE WHO CAN ACTUALLY WORK ON THEM PLANNING WORK.
WELL AGAIN, THAT WOULD BE ABOUT PLANNING, BUT A LOT OF YOUR THINGS ARE ABOUT ENFORCEMENT.
UH, SO I SUGGEST YOU LOOK AT THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
UH, MAYBE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.
I'M NOT AN EXPERT, BUT THAT'S CAN I, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION BECAUSE I I IT COULD BE VERY QUICK.
UM, YOU, I DIDN'T KNOW THE HOUSE WAS GONNA BE 2,400 SQUARE FEET.
YOU HAVE TO COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND ASK IF WE'RE GONNA BE TALKING WITH THIS APPLICATION.
THIS REALLY, THERE'S NOTHING THE BOARD CAN REALLY DO.
I'M JUST ASKING A SIMPLE QUESTION TO JUST MAKE THIS AWARE.
UM, THE HOUSE IS GONNA BE 2,400 SQUARE FEET.
I'M JUST AND YOU'RE SAYING IT'S CONFORMING TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WELL, AGAIN, WE DIDN'T, WE DIDN'T APPROVE A HOUSE TONIGHT.
SO THEY PUT A HOUSE PLAN ON THIS.
FOR THE PURPOSES OF US STUDYING THE VARI THE, THE VARIANCE, WHEN THEY GET PLANNING APPROVAL, THEY WILL STILL NEED TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT, BUILDING DEPARTMENT PERMIT.
SO AGAIN, WE DIDN'T TALK ABOUT THE HOUSE, BELIEVE ME, LIKE I SAID, I'M FOR BUILDING IN THAT PROPERTY.
BUT MY CONCERN IS YOU SAID 2,400 SQUARE.
HOW MANY HOMES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ARE ACTUALLY OVER 2,400 SQUARE? SO THEY ACTUALLY DID A WHOLE STUDY IN THEIR PRIOR.
SO IF YOU GO ON THE VILLAGE'S WEBSITE, IF YOU GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD OR ZONING BOARD'S, UM, AGENDA PAGES, YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE, UM, PLANS PROVIDED ALL THAT INFORMATION'S ON THE PLANS.
I ENCOURAGE YOU TO TAKE A LOOK AND WHEN YOU GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD, YOU CAN HAVE THAT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF YOU TO DISCUSS.
BUT THEY, THEY LOOKED AT EVERY HOUSE.
GO BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
THEY'LL BE GOING BACK TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
ALRIGHT, NEXT THING ON OUR AGENDA IS A DISCUSSION ITEM.
CAN I ASK THE MEMBERS? PROBABLY IF
[00:40:01]
YOU WANNA, IF YOU'RE WELCOME TO SPEAK, JUST STEP OUTSIDE PLEASE.[Discussion Item]
SO NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS A DISCUSSION ITEM AROUND, UH, THE PROPOSED LOCAL LAW G OF 2025.ALRIGHT, SO I CAN GIVE YOU JUST A, A QUICK OVERVIEW OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE.
YOU SAW AN ITERATION OF THIS ONCE BEFORE THE PLAYING BOARD AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES AND THE HARD WORK AT IT.
BUT BASICALLY THIS RELATES TO THE NOTICING AND PLANNING BOARD HEARING REQUIREMENTS FOR ADUS.
AS THE LAW CURRENTLY STANDS, NOTICE IS REQUIRED TO ALL NEIGHBORS WITHIN 300 FEET OF A PROPOSED A DU.
AND IF ANY NEIGHBOR OBJECTS FOR ANY REASON, IT TRIGGERS A PUBLIC A, UH, PLANNING, EXCUSE ME, A PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD.
AND SO THE PROPOSED CHANGE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS NOTICE WOULD ONLY BE REQUIRED TO THOSE NEIGHBORS WITHIN THE 300 FOOT BUFFER IF THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A WAIVER.
THAT WOULD BE A WAIVER FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS OR FOR EXCEEDING THE REQUIRED SIZE OF AN A DU OR IF THE A DU IS PROPOSED IN A BRAND NEW ACCESSORY STRUCTURE.
SO THE IDEA REALLY IS TO KIND OF MAKE ADUS A LITTLE EASIER FOR THE APPLICANT.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S CONCERNS ABOUT SITUATIONS WHERE A NEIGHBOR OBJECTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE ISSUES WITH EACH OTHER AND IT TRIGGERS THIS WHOLE EXPENSIVE PLANNING BOARD REVIEW PROCESS JUST REALLY BASED ON, ON ILLEGITIMATE CONCERNS.
SO IT REALLY JUST HAS TO DO WITH PLANNING, BOARD HEARING AND NOTICING.
UM, I, I SENT HER AN EMAIL 'CAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT, UH, THE REQUIREMENT WAS ELIMINATED TO HAVE, UM, THE MAILING GO TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THEN THE MANDATORY, UH, MOVEMENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
BUT AT THE FIVE YEAR JUNCTURE, IT REQUIRES A, A MAILING.
UM, AND THEN IF THERE'S AN OBJECTION, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, UH, NO LONGER, IT'S NOT MANDATORY THAT GOES TO THE PLANNING BOARD HAS THE, UH, OPPORTUNITY, UH, OR THE OPTION TO PROVIDE THAT OBJECTION TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
SO THAT SEEMS A LITTLE STRANGE TO ME THAT YOU, YOU GIVE THAT THERE'S A FULL DEGREE OF, UM, DECISION MAKING ON, ON THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WHETHER OR NOT TO FORWARD THOSE OBJECTIONS, WHICH COULD BE LEGITIMATE AFTER FIVE YEARS OF USE OF, OF THE STRUCTURE, UH, OR NOT TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
UM, AND I DON'T REALLY UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT DEGREE.
SO THAT'S ACTUALLY EXISTING LANGUAGE OF THE CODE THAT'S NOT BEING CHANGED.
AND I THINK THE ONLY CHANGE HAS BEEN FROM 100 FEET TO 300 FEET.
SO THEY'RE ACTUALLY INCREASING THE NOTICE RADIUS.
BUT THAT'S, THAT'S THE EXISTING PROCEDURE THAT WAS REVISED A FEW YEARS AGO.
BUT I, I THINK THE IDEA IS, YOU KNOW, IT GIVES SOME TIME FOR THE A DU TO EXIST IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND PEOPLE CAN REACT TO WHAT IT'S LIKE TO LIVE THERE BEFORE THEY OBJECT.
UM, SO WHEN THEY WRITE TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR FOR THE RENEWAL, THEY CAN ACTUALLY HAVE LIKE AN INFORMED UNDERSTANDING OF THE ACTUAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE A DU.
THAT'S, THAT'S MY INTERPRETATION OF THAT, BUT THAT IS AN EXISTING PROVISION IN THE CODE.
YEAH, BUT I, I GUESS MY, MY CONCERN IS IF, IF YOU ELIMINATE THE OBJECTION, UM, OPPORTUNITY AT THE START, UM, AND YES, THAT, THAT FIVE YEAR POINT IS FROM THE PRIOR LAW, THEN I WOULD SUGGEST AT THE FIVE YEAR POINT, YOU GO BACK TO THE REQUIREMENT THAT IF THERE'S OBJECTION, THEN IT'S A MANDATORY FORWARDING TO THE PLANNING BOARD RATHER THAN AT THE DISCRETION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO BE THAT WAS THERE BECAUSE THERE WAS AN INITIAL MANDATORY AND AT THE FIVE-YEAR POINT, IT, IT'S DISCRETIONARY ON THE PART OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, BUT YOU'VE TAKEN AWAY THE INITIAL, UM, MANDATORY OBJECTION.
SO I THINK THE FIVE-YEAR POINT IT SHOULD BE SENT TO THE PLANNING BOARD BECAUSE THAT'S A, THAT'S A PERIOD BY WHICH THE, THE NEIGHBORS CAN ASSESS WHAT THE IMPACT OF THIS IS.
UH, AND I, I JUST HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT LEAVING THAT DECISION ENTIRELY UP TO THE, THE, UM, DECISION OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AT THAT FIVE-YEAR POINT.
IF I, IF I WAS MAKING AN OBJECTION AFTER FIVE YEARS WHERE I DIDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO OBJECT TO THE GET-GO, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW THAT, UH, MY OBJECTION OR MY NEIGHBOR'S OBJECTIONS, UH, HAD TO GO TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, TO ASSESS IT.
AND THIS IS GONNA BE A MEMO TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES, SO I'M JUST TAKING YOUR FEEDBACK AND IT'LL BE FORWARDED OVER TO THEM TO USE HOW THEY WISH.
SO I'M NOT GONNA DEBATE THE MERIT LAW.
I'M CURIOUS IF ANYBODY ELSE HAS A DIFFERENT VIEW.
OH, I AGREE IN THAT THE LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT THIS IN JULY, WE DID TALK ABOUT THE NOTICE PROVISION SO THAT THOSE IN THE COMMUNITY HAD A CHANCE TO OBJECT.
BUT WHEN YOU JUST SAID THE SUMMARY, I, I READ THIS AS THERE'S ACTUALLY NO ABILITY TO OBJECT EVEN UNDER A, A COUPLE OF SCENARIOS THAT YOU JUST PROPOSED.
SO I'M WONDERING IF I'M MISREADING IT.
I WAS THINKING THE ONLY OPTION TO OBJECT IS ON RENEWAL.
YEAH, THAT'S NOT THE CASE NOW.
SO THERE'S AN, CAN YOU JUST, SO HERE, SO IT IT'S THE PUBLIC HEARING REQUIREMENT THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY BEING ADJUSTED HERE.
[00:45:01]
IT'S, IT'S NOTICING.SO CURRENTLY IF AN A DU IS PROPOSED, ANY NEIGHBOR WITHIN 300 FEES IS GETTING A NOTICE.
AND IF ANY NEIGHBOR WHO RECEIVES A NOTICE OBJECTS, IT GOES TO THE PLANNING BOARD FOR, FOR A HEARING.
WHAT'S GOING, WHAT THIS LAW IS PROPOSING TO DO IS NEIGHBOR NOTICES WILL GO OUT IF THE A DU IS REQUESTING A WAIVER.
SO FOR PARKING, IF THEY CAN'T PROVIDE THE REQUIRED PARKING OR IF THEY'RE PROPOSING AN A DU BIGGER THAN WHAT'S ALLOWED BY THE LAW, ALLOWED BY THE LAW, OR IF THEY'RE PROPOSING AN A DU IN AN ENTIRELY NEW STRUCTURE, THE THOUGHT BEING, YOU KNOW, IF PARKING AFFECTS THE NEIGHBORHOOD, HAVING AN OVERSIZED APARTMENT COULD AFFECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND UM, YOU KNOW, A NEW STRUCTURE IMPLICATES PLANNING ISSUES.
SO THAT IS THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES RATIONALE FOR AMENDING THE NOTICE PROVISIONS.
SO YOU CAN STILL OBJECT IF THE PUBLIC HEARING, UH, NOTICE IS WARRANTED.
IT JUST, IT TAKES OFF, IT TAKES OUT THE UNILATERAL OBJECTION.
SO WOULD ANOTHER WAY TO SAY IT, 'CAUSE I WAS TRYING TO KIND OF WRAP MY HEAD AROUND THE SAME THING.
WOULD ANOTHER WAY TO SAY IT BE THERE IS NO NOTICING IF THE A DU IS A HUNDRED PERCENT AS OF RIGHT IN AN EXISTING STRUCTURE.
SO HYPOTHETICALLY, IF SOMEBODY HAS A GARAGE, THEY WANT TO CONVERT THAT INTO APARTMENT, BUT CHANGE NOTHING ELSE IN THEIR HOUSE, THERE'S NO OR NEED NOTHING ELSE.
THEY MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW.
SO THEY'VE PROVIDED ENOUGH PARKING, THEY'VE DONE EVERYTHING TO NOT NEED ANY WAIVERS.
WAIVERS, THEN IT DOESN'T GET NOTICED.
AND, AND, UM, BETH, I KNOW THIS HAS BEEN A CONCERN OF YOURS.
I WAS SORT OF THINKING ABOUT THIS AS PARALLEL TO HOW BUILDING PERMITS WORK.
SO IF, IF THESE VERY SAME PEOPLE HAD AN ABSOLUTELY COMPLIANT, UM, PROJECT, THEY COULD GET A BUILDING DE PERMIT, BUILDING PERMIT WITHOUT ANY PUBLIC NOTICE.
THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO FOLLOW THE LAW.
AND THE ONLY THING THAT TRIGGERS IN THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, A BUILDING PERMIT WORLD, ANY OF THIS STUFF IS IF YOU'RE ASKING FOR SOMETHING THAT ISN'T OF AS OF RIGHT.
SO TO ME THIS FEELS SORT OF PARALLEL TO THAT.
RIGHT? THIS IS ASSUMING THAT THERE WAS ENOUGH NOTICING IN THE LAW AND THAT PEOPLE HAD A CHANCE TO GO TO A PUBLIC HEARING AND TELL THE TRUSTEES WHAT THEY THOUGHT AND ALL THAT STUFF.
IF YOU ASSUME ALL THAT HAPPENED AND THE LAW IS THE LAW, THEN IT DOESN'T STRIKE ME AS THAT STRANGE THAT IF YOU MEET EVERYTHING OF THE LAW, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO GO TO A PUBLIC PROCESS.
IT'S ONLY IF YOU DON'T MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW THAT YOU DO.
AND TO ME, THAT'S HOW THIS IS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, IF I'M UNDERSTANDING IT.
I IN THE FUTURE IF WE CAN GET RED LINES, I THINK THE PROBLEM WAS MY COMPARE WAS WRONG, BUT NOW I SEE SECTION FOUR THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO AND I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
I HAVE A QUESTION IN A PRACTICAL SENSE OF, LET'S SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, THE FIVE YEAR WINDOW GOES BY MM-HMM
THERE'S AN OBJECTION MADE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR GOES, HAS A LOOK AND, YOU KNOW, DECIDES THE, THE, YOU KNOW, THE OBJECTION IS WARRANTED.
AT THAT POINT, THE A DU HAS BEEN BUILT, IT'S BEEN OCCUPIED.
UH, WHAT HAPPENS? IT WOULD GO TO A PLANNING BOARD, PUBLIC HEARING.
AND SO THE PLANNING BOARD WOULD HAVE TO WEIGH IN ON, ON THE RENEWAL AT THAT POINT.
SO THEORETICALLY, I, I THINK IT DEPENDS WHAT THE INJECTION IS BASED ON.
IT COULD RESULT IN THE PERMIT NOT BEING RENEWED.
OR IT COULD RESULT IN CONDITIONS BEING ATTACHED TO REMEDY THE BASIS FOR THE OBJECTION.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU HAVE ANY MORE YOU WANNA FOR, FOR RENEWAL? YEAH, PRETTY MUCH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR THOUGHTS? SO I HAVE TO WRITE A MEMO BACK TO THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES.
SO I'LL CERTAINLY NOTE THE CONCERN ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO WEIGH IN AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE PROCESS.
IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU WOULD LIKE ME TO INCLUDE IN THIS MEMO? 'CAUSE IT REFLECTS THE ENTIRE BOARD, NOT JUST INDIVIDUAL MEM UH, MEMBERS.
MICHAEL, WAS YOUR, WAS YOUR OBJECTION SORT OF THE ASYMMETRY OF THE FACT THAT YOU DON'T GET TO SAY ANYTHING AT THE BEGINNING AND, AND IN FIVE YEARS YOU, YOU DO ONLY IF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE YES, YES.
IT'S THAT OBVIOUSLY IT'S THAT THE ORIGINAL DRAFTING OF THIS THOUGHT IT IMPORTANT TO HAVE AN OBJECTION PROCESS.
AND IF THERE WAS OBJECTIONS, IT WOULD BE A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT THAT IT GOES TO THE PLANNING BOARD.
I UNDERSTAND THE POLICY REASONS TO ELIMINATE THAT TO, FOR PEOPLE THE ABILITY TO, TO RENT THEIR PROPERTY IF THEY'RE HAVING A HARD TIME PAYING THEIR TAXES AND CREATING MORE, UH, HOUSING OPPORTUNITY.
UM, BUT THEN IT SEEMS TO ME, IF, IF YOU'RE LEAVING THE, THE, THE LANGUAGE AT THE FIVE YEAR POINT, UM, I THINK THAT LANGUAGE WAS CREATED TO HAVE THE, UH, HAVE IT NOT MANDATORY BECAUSE
[00:50:01]
AT THE, AT THE GET GO IT WAS MANDATORY.YOU'VE TAKEN AWAY THE, THE INITIAL OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A MANDATORY PLANNING BOARD MEETING AND THEN FIVE YEARS LATER IT'S SOLELY AT THE DISCRETION OF, OF THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
WHEREAS I, I THINK AT THAT POINT THERE SHOULD BE, UH, A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT.
IT'S REALLY ESSENTIALLY TO TAKING AWAY THE, THE OPTIONALITY OF THE, UH, PLAN, THE BUILDING INSPECTOR TO DECIDE, YOU KNOW, ON THEIR OWN WHETHER OR NOT THAT OBJECTION OR OBJECTION SHOULD BE FORWARDED ONTO THE PLANNING BOARD.
DOES THAT HELP? THAT THAT MAKES SENSE.
YEAH, I THAT MAKES SENSE TO ME.
I WOULD SAY AGAIN, THAT'S SOMEWHAT CONSISTENT WITH, UM, BUILDING PERMITS.
THERE ARE A WHOLE BUNCH OF CASES WHERE IT IS THE BUILDING INSPECTOR WHO'S THE GATEKEEPER ABOUT WHETHER IT COMES TO US OR NOT.
SO IN A NORMAL PROCESS, IT HAPPENS A LOT THAT, UH, UM, THERE IS A, THERE IS A DISCRETIONARY MOMENT WHERE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR SAYS, I'M COMFORTABLE APPROVING THIS.
AND IF THEY'RE NOT, IT GETS BUMPED TO US.
AND I WOULD SAY IN PRACTICAL TERMS, MOST BUILDING INSPECTORS, IF IT'S CLOSE, ARE LIKE, OKAY, YOU GUYS TALK ABOUT IT.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT ANXIOUS TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT RELATES TO THIS.
IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, UM, IT'S NOT UNPRECEDENTED TO HAVE THE BUILDING INSPECTOR.
I I JUST THINK WHEN YOU'RE TAKING AWAY THE INITIAL OPPORTUNITY AND YOU'RE STILL ALLOWING A FIVE YEAR, THEN I, I THINK THERE'S, IT'S, THERE'S SOME BENEFIT TO HAVE THAT MANDATORY IF IT EXISTS TO SEND THAT TO THE PLAINTIFF BOARD.
ANY OTHER THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS TO INCORPORATE INTO THE MEMO? SO I'LL DRAFT A MEMO AND I'LL CIRCULATE TO THE BOARD JUST FOR YOUR REVIEW JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I'M NOT MISCONSTRUING ANYTHING.
AND I SENT THIS ROUND A LITTLE BIT IN AN EMAIL.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WERE ON THAT.
THERE'S A ZONING BOARD EMAIL THAT GOES TO ME AND THEN WHEN IT GOES TO INDIVIDUAL PEOPLE, I DON'T GET IT.
YEAH, IF YOU INCLUDE LIKE ZONING BOARD, THEN I THINK IT AUTOMATICALLY GOES TO THE BUILDING INSPECTOR AND YEAH.
[Approval of Minutes]
NEXT ITEM OF BUSINESS IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE SEPTEMBER MEETING.I THINK FOUR OF US WERE THERE, RIGHT? BECAUSE WE HAD, YEAH, I WAS NOT REALLY, I REMEMBER YOU BEING THERE, HUH? ALRIGHT, WELL WE THREE IS ENOUGH RIGHT TO APPROVE THE MINUTES, SHARON? YEP.
UH, DID YOU GUYS, EITHER OF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS, CORRECTIONS OR CHANGES? NO CHANGES HERE.
CAN WE GET A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER MINUTES MOTION TO APPROVE THE SEPTEMBER MINUTES? SECOND.
[Announcements]
NEXT MEETING, WAS IT OUR LAST MEETING? DECEMBER 4TH? IS THAT POPS? 'CAUSE WE DON'T HAVE A NOVEMBER MEETING 'CAUSE OF THANKSGIVING, CORRECT? UH, NOVEMBER, DECEMBER 4TH.UM, WE, WE NOW HAVE AN ALTERNATE WELCOME MICHAEL.
I GUESS WE DIDN'T SAY ANYTHING ON THE RECORD, BUT WELCOME.
I KNOW, BUT AT THE BEGINNING WITH THIS HUGE PUBLIC
HOPEFULLY WE CAN GO BACK TO A MORE NORMAL PROCESS.
ANYTHING ELSE? CAN WE GET A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING? I MAKE A MOTION.
I THINK ALL IMPROVED MEETING ADJOURNED.