* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. GOING TO TRY TO KICK [00:00:01] THIS MEETING OFF. UM, I THINK WE ARE BEING RECORDED. [Call to Order] SO I WANT TO CALL TO ORDER, UH, THE JANUARY 22ND MEETING OF THE ZONING BOARD OF APPEALS. UM, WHAT WE'RE GONNA DO, UH, WE HAVE A NUMBER OF CASES TODAY. WE'RE GONNA CALL EACH CASE HERE FROM THE APPLICANT. UM, THERE'LL BE SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD, IF THEY HAVE ANY. UH, WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC IF ANYONE IS HERE TO SPEAK ON ANY OF THE CASES. UH, AND THEN WE WILL DELIBERATE AND HAVE A VOTE. UH, IF YOU DO COME TO THE PODIUM, PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. UH, WE ARE QUICK SCHEDULING NOTE. WE ARE GOING TO OUR, OUR FIRST CASE WAS DEFERRED UNTIL FEBRUARY. WE'RE GONNA REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CASES ON THE AGENDA, UM, IN DEFERENCE TO WHAT WE ANTICIPATE WILL BE THE TIMING OF EACH CASE. UM, SO WE ARE GONNA START [Case No. 03-26] TODAY WITH CASE NUMBER, UH, 3 26, MATT CUMMINGS AND HOLLY JACKO, 33 FENWICK ROAD. THANK YOU. I'M CHRIS BOYER. I'M FROM MICHAEL LEWIS ARCHITECTS. UH, OUR ADDRESS IS 1 45 PALISADE STREET. UM, AND WE'RE IN SUITE, UH, 3 0 7. UH, I'M HERE, AS YOU MENTIONED, UH, TO PRESENT, UH, THE PROJECT AT 33 FENWICK ROAD ON BEHALF OF OUR CLIENTS, UH, MATT CUMMINGS AND, UH, HOLLY JACKO. UM, MATT AND HOLLY HAVE BEEN RESIDENTS OF THE VILLAGE SINCE 2022. THEY HAVE TWO YOUNG DAUGHTERS, AND THEY DESPERATELY NEED TO INCREASE THE SIZE OF THEIR HOME TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR GROWING FAMILY. MATT AND HOLLY ARE DEDICATED, UH, TO THEIR COMMUNITY AND THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD, UH, AND THEY VALUE THE CHARACTER AND CHARM OF THEIR HOME. UH, THE PROJECT INVOLVES, UH, FRONT ENTRY ADDITION, AS WELL AS A REAR ENTRY, UH, REAR EDITION, UH, AT THE REAR AT THE FIRST FLOOR. WE'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE A FAMILY ROOM, UH, AT THE SECOND FLOOR, UH, PRIMARY SUITE BEDROOM, AND THEN ON THE ATTIC, HALF STORY LEVEL, OFFICE LOUNGE AREA. UM, THE, THE, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN R 10 ZONING DISTRICT. SO THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE IS, YOU HAVE TO SPEAK INTO THE MICROPHONE. OH, I'M SORRY. THE LOT SIZE IS 10 REQUIRED. LOT SIZE IS 10,000 SQUARE FEET. UM, AND THE EXISTING LOT IS SIX OU, 6,000, UH, 98 SQUARE FEET. UH, AND THE REQUIRED LOT WIDTH IS A HUNDRED, UH, FEET, AND THE EXISTING LOT IS 50. SO YOU CAN SEE VERY QUICKLY THAT THE LOT IS UNDERSIZED. UM, SO JUMPING INTO THE CONTEXT, UH, YOU CAN SEE HERE AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE, A VIEW OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, UH, FROM THE STREET, UH, TO THE WEST IS, UH, 31 FENWICK TO THE EAST IS 47. FENWICK. BETWEEN THE TWO PROPERTIES IS A VACANT LOT, WHICH IS OWNED BY 47 FENWICK. UM, UH, AT THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THE PAGE, YOU CAN SEE IMAGES OF THE BACK OF THE HOUSE, UM, JUST FOR REFERENCE. UM, SO, UH, IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT, WE'RE REQUESTING FOUR, UH, VARIANCES, UH, THREE OF WHICH PERTAIN TO THE FRONT ENTRY OF THE HOUSE. AND THE, UH, FOURTH ONE, UH, IS RELATED TO THE, THE REAR OF THE HOUSE. I'M GONNA ZOOM IN HERE, UH, SO THAT YOU CAN SEE THIS IN GREATER DETAIL. UH, THE FIRST VARIANCE IS FOR FRONT YARD SETBACK. THE REQUIREMENT IS 30 FEET. THE EXISTING HOUSE IS SET BACK 25 FEET. UH, YOU CAN SEE THAT DIMENSION HERE, UH, IN THE TREES. SO THAT'S FROM HERE TO HERE. AND SO WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE NEW, UM, FRONT ENTRY. UM, WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIATION FOR 23 FEET, ONE INCHES. THE SECOND VARIANCE IS FOR A SIDE YARD SET BACK. UM, THERE'S A VERY SMALL SLIVER OF SPACE HERE. UH, YOU CAN SEE THIS HATCHED AREA. THE REQUIRED SETBACK IS 18 FEET. UM, THE HOUSE IS SET BACK 17 FEET, AND THE PROPOSED ADDITION, UH, WOULD ALIGN WITH THE EXISTING HOUSE. SO WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE, UH, OF 17 FEET FOR THE SIDE YARD. AND THE THIRD, UH, VARIANCE, UH, RELATED TO THE FRONT ADDITION IS A PAVING REQUIRED IN A YARD. YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO HAVE ANY, WE'RE PROPOSING TO HAVE A SMALL AREA FOR THE FRONT PORCH THAT'S 55.5 SQUARE FEET. I JUST CAN, IF IT'S HELPFUL, I CAN JUMP TO THE, UM, THE PLANS TO SHOW YOU WHY THIS IS NECESSARY. UM, THIS [00:05:01] IS A PLAN, UH, FIRST FLOOR PLAN, THE EXISTING CONDITION. AND SO THERE ARE STEPS FROM THE DRIVEWAY UP TO THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. THE FRONT DOOR IS HERE, AND IMMEDIATELY AS YOU STEP THROUGH THE FRONT DOOR, YOU ARE CONFRONTED WITH THE KITCHEN AND THE LIVING ROOM. SO YOU'RE IMMEDIATELY RIGHT INSIDE THE KITCHEN AND LIVING ROOM. WHEN YOU ENTER THIS HOUSE, ONE FEELS LIKE YOU COULD ALMOST START DOING DISHES, UH, AS YOU ENTER THE HOUSE. SO THE PROPOSED PLAN, UH, ADDS A, A MODEST, UH, ENTRY VESTIBULE, UH, CONTAINING A COAT CLOSET IN A LITTLE AREA THAT ONE MIGHT BE ABLE TO TAKE OFF THEIR SHOES. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S KIND OF A LITTLE BIT OF A QUEUING AREA BEFORE YOU GET INTO THE HOUSE. SO I'M GONNA GO BACK TO THE SITE PLANS. I GUESS IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THESE THREE, I, I WOULD CERTAINLY TAKE THEM, OR IF YOU WANT ME TO JUST SHOW YOU THE FOURTH ONE, I COULD ALSO DO THAT. IF YOU COULD IDENTIFY THE HATCHED AREA IN THIS DRAWING. OKAY. SO THE HATCHED AREA, THE CROSSHATCHING IS AN EXISTING ENCROACHMENT, AND THE, THE DIAGONAL LINES IS, IS A NEW ENCROACHMENT. THANK YOU. YEP. UH, SO MOVING, UH, TO THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, UM, WE'RE REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR A SIDE YARD SETBACK. THE REQUIREMENT IS 12 FEET. THE EXISTING HOUSE RIGHT HERE FROM HERE TO HERE IS FIVE FEET. AND WE'RE, UH, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR FIVE FEET, SIX FOR THE ADDITION. SO THAT WOULD BE FROM HERE BACK TO THE PROPERTY LINE. UM, I CAN JUST RUN YOU THROUGH THE PLANS OF THAT, UH, IF YOU'D LIKE TO SEE. SO THIS IS THE ADDITION AT THE REAR OF THE HOUSE, WHICH HAS A, A FAMILY ROOM. UH, THIS IS THE AREA, THE PROPOSED AREA OF ENCROACHMENT. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY THE EXISTING, UH, ON THE SECOND FLOOR, UH, A PRIMARY BEDROOM SUITE. AGAIN, THE AREA OF ENCROACHMENT AND THE EXISTING, UH, ENCROACHMENT. A LOT OF THIS HOUSE IS ALREADY ENCROACHING ON THE SETBACKS BECAUSE THE LOT IS SO, SO NARROW. UH, AND THEN UP IN THE ATTIC, UH, AGAIN, THIS AREA OF ENCROACHMENT. UM, I'LL JUMP AHEAD AND JUST SHOW YOU SOME IMAGES, UM, OF THE EXISTING AND THE PROPOSED NEXT TO EACH OTHER. NOT NECESSARILY EXACTLY THE SAME ANGLE. UH, BELOW HERE, UH, YOU CAN SEE, UH, A VIEW, UH, OF THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE, UH, IN ITS EXISTING CONDITION. AND UP HERE IN THE RENDERING, YOU CAN SEE THE, THE SMALL, UH, ENTRY, VESTIBULE, ADDITION AND, UH, AND THE PORCH. UM, HERE YOU SEE THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. AND THIS PORTION HERE IS THE ADDITION. UM, IN THIS ONE, YOU'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. SO AGAIN, THIS WOULD BE THE PORCH EDITION. UM, YOU KNOW, IN THE EXISTING CONDITION, IT'S HEAVILY SCREENED BY LANDSCAPE. SO THERE'S, IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO SEE, UM, THE HOUSE FROM THAT VIEW. UH, AND THEN ALSO ANOTHER VIEW FROM THE BACK OF THE HOUSE. THIS IS THE AREA WHERE THE ENCROACHMENT WOULD, WOULD REALLY, UH, WOULD REALLY OCCUR. SO WE DO HAVE LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM, UH, A NUMBER OF NEIGHBORS. UH, 31, 32, 36, AND 47 FENWICK HAVE ALL OFFERED LETTERS OF SUPPORT. COULD YOU PLEASE FORWARD THOSE TO MY OFFICE SO I CAN KEEP THOSE FOR THE RECORD? BELIEVE, I THINK THEY WERE SUBMITTED AS FAR AS THE OH, OKAY. POSTED. OH, NEVERMIND. THANK YOU. YEP. NO, NO PROBLEM. COULD YOU IDENTIFY THOSE ON THE SITE PLAN, THE ADDRESSES YOU JUST GAVE? OH, SURE. YEAH, SORRY. YEAH. SO THIS IS 31 FENWICK, WHICH IS THIS HOUSE RIGHT HERE. THIS IS 47 FENWICK. AND AGAIN, THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT THERE'S A VACANT LOT BETWEEN 33 AND 47, AND THEY'RE TOTALLY IN SUPPORT OF MATT AND HOLLY'S, UH, PLANS. AND THEN ACROSS THE STREET IS 32. I'M SORRY, IT'S NOT ON, UH, THIS, UH, THIS KEY PLAN. UH, 32 IS HERE AND 36 IS RIGHT ACROSS. WHERE'S 47? 47 IS OVER HERE. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. YEAH. AND THIS IS THE VACANT LOT. OH, I GOT YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEP. SO I THINK THAT KIND OF, UM, DESCRIBES WHAT WE ARE REQUESTING. UM, THE VARIANCE, THEY REQUIRE AN EXTENSION OF EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY. I THINK THAT'S KIND OF A STANDARD THING THAT GOES ALONG WITH, WITH THE VARIANCE REQUESTS. SO, UM, ONE THING I NEGLECTED TO DO WAS ASK THE [00:10:01] BUILDING INSPECTOR IF THE MAILINGS WERE IN ORDER FOR THIS MEETING. ALL THE MAILINGS ARE IN ORDER, I'M INFORMED BY MY STAFF. YES. UH, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD? I, I HAVE ONE JUST ABOUT THE REAR STONE PATIO. OKAY. CAN YOU SHOW US, DO YOU HAVE ANY OF THE RENDERINGS? I'M THINKING IT'S THE VARIANCE ABOUT PAVING IN THE REQUIRED YARD PROPOSED 55 AND SOME CHANGE SQUARE FEET. YOU KNOW, THIS ONE WAS ADDED ON AND I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED BY IT, IT WHEN I SAW IT. AND SO I, IN, IN OUR SITE PLAN, WE HAVE AN AREA OF 55 SQUARE FEET ON THE FRONT. JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR. SO HASTINGS HAS THIS WALL. YOU'RE NOW ALLOWED TO PAY FOR REQUIRED YARD. SO THIS IS THE AREA OUTSIDE THE SETBACKS. THAT WOULD BE WHAT'S REQUIRING THE VARIANCE. THIS IS WITHIN THE SETBACK, SO THIS IS OKAY. OKAY. YOU KNOW, I THINK WE, WE, UM, MATT, THE OWNER IS HERE ALSO. UH, AND I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED THIS PATIO AND SORRY, I, I UNDERSTOOD IT TO BE AT THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE BECAUSE WE HAD A 55 SQUARE FOOT, UH, UH, AREA IN THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. SO I, I MEASURED WHAT WAS NON-CONFORMING AND PUT THAT INTO THE NOTICE. YEP. YEAH. OKAY. SO, SO THE BOARD DOES FREQUENTLY GRANT THIS TYPE OF VARIANCE, ESPECIALLY AT THIS PARTICULAR SCALE, 55 SQUARE FEET ISN'T, ISN'T VERY LARGE. DID THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, BETH? YES. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? QUESTIONS? I HAVE A COUPLE WHILE YOU'RE THINKING. SO JUST A COUPLE OF CONFIRMATIONS IN THE FRONT ADDITION. NO, PART OF THE NEW STRUCTURE IS BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. IN OTHER WORDS, IT, THE EXISTING BUILDING TO THE SIDE YARD, IT'S NO FURTHER TO THE SIDE YARD. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE FRONT ADDITION AND NO FURTHER TO THE FRONT YARD. I, I GUESS THE, THE ROOF, IT GETS A LITTLE CONFUSING BECAUSE YEAH, THE ROOF OF THE OVERHANG IS, IS FURTHER, THE ADDITION ITSELF IS WITHIN THE EXISTING LINE OF THE EXISTING HOUSE. THE PORCH ADDITION IS, IT'S LIKE, UH, ONE FOOT 11 BEYOND, BEYOND THAT, BEYOND THAT. SO, BUT THAT'S AN OPEN PORCH. SO THE, THAT'S AN OPEN PORCH. THE INTERIOR CONDITION SPACE IS WITHIN THAT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. YEP. AND THEN FOR THE SIDE OR THE REAR YARD, IT IS NO CLOSER TO THAT SIDE THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING IT SIX, IT'S SIX INCHES BACK FROM THE EXISTING HOUSE. YEAH. AND MY OTHER QUESTION IS WITH REGARDS TO BULK, UH, VARIANCES, BULK REGULATIONS, YOU'RE NOT REQUIRING ANY VARIANCES. IN OTHER WORDS, IN TERMS OF BULK MASSING HEIGHT, FAR AND COVERAGE, THIS IS ALL AS OF RIGHT. WE'RE ALL, UH, AS OF RIGHT WITH THIS PROJECT? YES. OKAY. I HAVE ONE QUESTION. UH, ON THE MAP OF THE NEIGHBORS, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S ONE DIRECTLY BEHIND THE HOUSE THAT IS ON RAVENSDALE. OKAY. WHAT'S THE POSITION OF THAT NEIGHBOR, DO YOU KNOW WITH RESPECT TO THIS? UH, I, WE CAN GO, YOU HAVE TO COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE. SIR. THIS IS MATT. MATT, THE OWNER. UH, THEY'RE VERY NICE. I'M HAPPY TO GET A LETTER FROM THEM IF THAT'S, PLEASE JUST, JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. OH, SURE. MATT CUMMINGS, 33 FRICK ROAD. UM, YEAH, I MEAN, I, I'M HAPPY TO GET, UH, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE WE WEREN'T REALLY GOING BACK FROM BEYOND WHERE OUR CURRENT PORCH IS REALLY. UM, BUT I'M HAPPY TO GET A LETTER FROM THEM TOO, IF THAT'S NECESSARY. THIS MEETS THE REAR YARD SETBACK, CORRECT? UH, YEAH. YEAH, WE'RE WITHIN THE REAR YARD SET. THAT'S AN ISSUE. LISTEN, IT'S REALLY THE SIDE YARD, YOU KNOW, THE, THE, THE LOT IS SO NARROW THAT IT'S VERY DIFFICULT TO, TO COMPLY. THE EXISTING HOUSE IS, YOU KNOW, IT'S IN THE SETBACK CONSIDERABLY, SO. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UM, LET ME JUST PAUSE TO SEE IF WE HAVE ANYBODY HERE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK. ALL RIGHT. AS NOTED, FOUR LETTERS WERE RECEIVED, UM, FROM, I WOULD SAY THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS BOTH ACROSS THE STREET AND ADJACENT. AND, AND ONE OTHER JUST THING YOU, YOU SAID A FEW TIMES THERE'S A VACANT LOT. I I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. IT IS A DOUBLE LOT. IT'S A DOUBLE LOT. YEAH. WHICH IS A DIFFERENT THING, RIGHT? BECAUSE A VACANT LOT WOULD, MIGHT BE MORE LIKELY TO HAVE A BUILDING BUILT IN IT. THAT HOUSE IS 47 IS CLEARLY BUILT ON THE ENTIRETY OF THE DOUBLE LOT. IT'S A DOUBLE . THANK YOU. YEAH. UH, MATT CUMMINGS 33 FUND REAL QUICK. OH, OKAY. . UH, IT'S, UH, IT'S OWNED BY THE HOLSTEINS ON 47. RIGHT. AND THEY, THEY, IT'S A DOUBLE LOT OF THEIR HOME. AND SO THAT'S WHY THEY ARE VERY SUPPORTIVE IN YEAH, I'M JUST CLARIFYING. 'CAUSE IT ISN'T TOO, IT'S NOT BIG. IT ISN'T. WHICH WOULD BE A DIFFERENCE. NOT LOTS. IT'S ONE LOT. YEAH. YEP. BUT JUST SORT OF EMPTY. ALRIGHT, ANYBODY ELSE? QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT THEN IF, IF NOT, MAYBE WE'D WALK THROUGH THE FACTORS A LITTLE BIT. UM, SO OBVIOUSLY I THINK IF IT'S OKAY, WE CAN TAKE THE VARIANCES TOGETHER AND, AND TALK OF EACH OF THE FACTORS FOR AREA VARIANCES. WE LOOK AT WHETHER AN [00:15:01] UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WILL BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, OR DETRIMENT TO NEARBY PROPERTIES WILL BE CREATED BY GRANTING OF THE NEW AREA VARIANCE. WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO COMMENT OR RAISE CONCERNS ON THAT FACTOR? NO CONCERNS, BUT I DO THINK THAT THE LETTERS INDICATE THAT THOSE IN THE COMMUNITY DON'T SEE IT AS A NEGATIVE. AND I THINK WE CAN SEE THAT IT'S IN SIZE AND CHARACTER WITH ITS NEIGHBORS. MM-HMM . UH, WHETHER THE BENEFITS SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME METHOD FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE OTHER THAN THE AREA VARIANCE. ANYBODY WANNA COMMENT ON THAT ONE? IT SEEMS LIKE A REASONABLE APPROACH ARCHITECTURALLY TO EXPANDING THE HOUSE. YES, . ALRIGHT. UH, WHETHER REQUESTED AREA VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL, CAN YOU LOOK AT SUBSTANTIALITY IN TERMS OF THE NUMERICAL VALUE OF THE, OF THE VARIANCE AS WELL AS THE ACTUAL IMPACT? YOU CAN HAVE A LARGE NUMERICAL, UH, VARIANCE THAT DOESN'T HAVE A LARGE IMPACT. PRACTICALITY. AND I THINK IT, AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS CON ESSENTIALLY CONTINUING EXISTING NON-CONFORMITY. SO WE ARE NOT CREATING CONDITIONS THAT DON'T EXIST. WE MAY BE EXTENDING THEM, BUT RIGHT. ALRIGHT. EVERYONE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? AGREED. YES. WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL OR ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. I DON'T SEE AN ARGUMENT FOR THAT. OKAY. AND FINALLY, WHETHER THE ALLEGED DIFFICULTY WAS SELF-CREATED, WHICH CONSIDERATION SHALL BE RELEVANT TO THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF APPEALS, BUT SHALL NOT NECESSARILY PRECLUDE THE GRANTING OF AN AREA OF IGNORANCE? I THINK AS WE OFTEN SAY, IT'S SELF-CREATED BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS SELF-CREATED, SELF-CREATED . UM, BUT I, AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS A, A REASONABLE APPROACH TO A YEAH. EXPANSION. CONSIDERING IT IN BALANCE WITH THE OTHER BACKWARDS. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. UM, SO GIVEN THE, UH, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR DISCUSSION BEFORE WE, WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? I CAN MAKE A MOTION. UM, THANK YOU BRIAN. IN CASE NUMBER 3 26, MATT CUMMINGS AND HOLLY JOCKO. 33 WICK ROAD RELIEF FROM THE STRICT APPLICATION OF THE VILLAGE CODE SECTIONS 2 95 68 F1 A AND C WITH 2 95 55 A AND 2 96 20 C 0.2 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW COVERED FRONT ENTRY, REAR EXTENSION AND REAR STONE PATIO. THERE'S SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING LOCATED AT 33 FENWICK ROAD. UM, SET PROPERTY LOCATED IN THE R 10 ZONING DISTRICT AND KNOWN AS SBL 4 1 20 DASH 1 31 DASH 13 ON THE TOWN OF GREENBERG MAPS. MOTION TO APPROVE? ANYONE LIKE TO SECOND? ALRIGHT, WE'LL TAKE A QUICK ROLL VOTE. AYE SURE. APPROVE, APPROVE, APPROVE, APPROVE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HAVE A GREAT NIGHT. ALRIGHT, [Case No. 02-26] UM, NEXT CASE IS CASE NUMBER 2 26 RBT WASHINGTON, LLC 9 3 7 WASHINGTON AVENUE. OKAY. YOU SHOULD ANNOUNCE YES, I, UM, BETH HADDOCK. I'M GOING TO RECUSE MYSELF FOR THIS CASE. OKAY. GOOD EVENING. UM, I'M KAREN BECK WITH FROM CGA STUDIO. I'M HERE WITH OUR TEAM, UH, SUZANNE LEVINE AND OWNERSHIP FOR THE PROJECT. UM, I'M HERE TO PRESENT OUR PROPOSAL FOR, IT'S SUPPOSED TO COME UP ON THE OTHER SCREEN. IT'S COMING. IT'S COMING. OKAY. WE'LL START WITH THIS ONE. I'M HERE TO PRESENT OUR PROPOSAL FOR THE PROJECT AT NINE 17 WASHINGTON AVENUE. UM, THE PROJECT NAME IS WASHINGTON MUSE. UM, THE PROJECT IS A PROPOSAL FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, UM, TO BE LOCATED, UM, ON THESE TWO LOTS. UH, THAT WOULD INCLUDE, UH, 20 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UM, AND A COMBINATION OF, UH, SMALLER UNITS AND LARGER UNITS. A COMMERCIAL SPACE, UH, WHICH WE, UM, PROPOSE VIA CAFE, WE'LL CALL IT, REFER TO IT AS A CAFE, COULD BE A CAFE, UM, AND, UM, PARKING SPACES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS LOCATED BELOW. UH, THE, UM, BELOW THE HOUSE, BELOW THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS BELOW THE MUSE THAT THE, THE MUSE, UH, SORRY, BELOW THE MUSE. AND THE MUSE IS AN OPEN SPACE CONNECTING, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THAT SERVES AS A PASSAGEWAY. UM, BUT BETWEEN, UH, THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND ALSO PASSAGEWAY BETWEEN WASHINGTON AVENUE AND, UH, THE REAR OF THE LOT, [00:20:01] WHICH LEADS, UH, WHICH IS BUTTS UP RIGHT AGAINST THE ZINZER PARKING, UH, LOT SO THE MUNICIPAL LOTS, UH, WHERE THE FARMER'S MARKET IS AND CONNECTION TO THE METRO NORTH. UM, WE ENVISION THIS EXCITING PROJECT AS, UM, A NOT ONLY IN ADDITION OF 20 RESIDENTIAL UNITS, UH, TO, UH, HASTINGS, BUT ALSO, UM, A, A A, A DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES AN OPEN SPACE, UH, THAT CONNECTS THE RESIDENTS, CREATES A SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND MAINLY AND PROMOTES, UH, THE USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, BOTH FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT AND FOR HASTINGS AT LARGE, SINCE THE MUSE IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC DURING, UH, SELECT HOURS. UM, AS YOU COULD SEE IN THIS RENDERING ON THIS VIEW OF THE PROJECT, UH, ALONG WASHINGTON AVENUE, THE PROJECT HAS BEEN DESIGNED TO FIT THE SCALE AND CHARACTER OF THE STREET. UH, THE STREET, UH, HAS BUILDINGS RANGING FROM ONE TO FIVE STORIES BASED ON, YOU KNOW, THE TOPOGRAPHY AND THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE VIEWS OF THE RIVER. AND, UM, AND THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSES, UM, A SINGLE BUILDING CONNECTED AT THE LOWER LEVEL WITH UNITS OF TWO STORY GROUPINGS, OF TWO STORY, UH, RESIDENTIAL UNITS CONNECTED BY A MUSE. AND I'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THE PROJECT. UM, AS WE WERE, UH, MOVING FORWARD WITH THE CONCEPT OF, UH, A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, INCLUDING A MUSE. UH, WE DIDN'T HAVE TO LOOK QUITE SO FAR. THERE ARE PROJECTS SUCH AS WASHINGTON M IN, UH, NEW YORK CITY, UH, THAT ARE INSPIRATION AS WELL AS THE MUSE TYPOLOGY IS PRETTY, UH, COMMON IN, IN PLACES LIKE IN LONDON. THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MUSE. AND THE IMAGES HERE SHOW, UM, YOU KNOW, THE, THERE ARE OUR INSPIRATION FOR THE PROJECT AND OUR VISION FOR THE MUSE. UM, THE MUSE WOULD BE AN AMENITY FOR THE RESIDENTS AND FOR THE PUBLIC. AND IT WOULD BE, UM, A PEDESTRIAN SCALED SPACE, UH, WITH PLANTERS AND GREENERY, POTENTIALLY A FOUNTAIN SURROUNDED BY PEDESTRIAN SCALED, UH, BUILDINGS. THE, UH, SITE PLAN SHOWS YOU THE LOCATION OF THE PROJECT. UH, IT'S LOCATED MIDBLOCK DOWN WASHINGTON AVENUE BETWEEN WAR BURTON AND SOUTH SIDE. UM, AND AS YOU COULD SEE AND DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO THE ZINSER LOT, UM, AND THE IN METRO NORTH STATION, AS YOU COULD SEE, THE LOT IS QUITE DEEP AND, UH, THE, THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT IS UP AGAINST AN, UH, CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED SPACE. UM, GET THAT TO WORK. ALRIGHT, AN UNDEVELOPED SPACE THAT IS A STEEP SLOPE SITE WITH A NUMBER OF TREES THAT IS RIGHT UP AGAINST THE METRO, THE SENSOR PARKING LOTS. UM, AND I WILL AL ALSO NOTE THAT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IN, UH, HASTINGS IS, HAS A MIX OF, OF DIFFERENT, UH, SCALES OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AND COMMERCIAL SPACES AS WELL. IT'S PRETTY VIBRANT PEDESTRIAN, UH, SENSE OF, OF, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD HERE. AND IN THAT SENSE IT'S A, IT'S A REALLY GREAT LOCATION FOR A PROJECT THAT PROMOTES, UH, UM, A MIX OF, OF COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL AND A PEDESTRIAN, UH, AND, AND, AND ENCOURAGING PEDESTRIAN USE OF THIS SPACE. THESE ARE PHOTOS OF THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE SITE. UM, ON THE UPPER LEFT, YOU CAN SEE, UM, THE TWO STORY BUILDING AT 17 WASHINGTON AVENUE. AND NEXT TO IT IS A ONE STORY BUILDING THAT, UH, SPANS THE REST OF THE LOT. THESE BUILDINGS CURRENTLY CONTAIN SIX RESIDENTIAL UNITS. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTOS, THE BUILDINGS ARE QUITE DILAPIDATED AND IN NEED OF UPGRADE. UH, THESE, THIS, THESE PHOTOS ARE SHOWING, UM, THE UPPER PHOTO IS LOOKING AT THE LONG SIDE OF THE LOTS, RIGHT? WASHINGTON AVENUE IS THE SHORT SIDE OF THE LOT. THIS IS THE LONGER SIDE OF THE LOT LOOKING EAST AT THE TOWNHOUSES ALONG WALL BURTON AVENUE. AND THIS, UH, TALL RETAINING WALL IS THE BACK OF THOSE TOWNHOUSE PROPERTIES. AND AT TOP OF THAT RETAINING WALL IS A WOODEN FENCE. AND I'M POINTING THIS OUT BECAUSE THIS, THE HEIGHT OF THAT FENCE PLAYS INTO THE HEIGHT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT, UM, BECAUSE WE'VE TAKEN CONTEXTUAL CUES TO INFORM THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS. UM, THE LOWER RIGHT PHOTO IS SHOWING YOU THE MUNICIPAL LOT AND, UM, TO THE LEFT OF THE LOT IS THE OPEN, UM, VILLAGE OWNED LAND, UH, AT THE BACK OF OUR PROPERTY. UM, I'M POINTING OUT THAT AREA OF LAND BECAUSE THE KEY, UH, CONCEPT OF THE MUSE IS THAT THE MUSE CONNECTS WASHINGTON AVENUE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE BACK OF THE DEVELOPMENT. AND WE ARE PROPOSING A, UM, A PUBLIC ACCESS STAIR DOWN FROM THE DEVELOPMENT THROUGH THAT, UH, THROUGH AN EASEMENT WITH THE VILLAGE, UH, THROUGH THAT VILLAGE OWNED LAND TO CONNECT THE DEVELOPMENT TO, UH, TO THE ZOR LOTS. AND I'M SHOWING THESE IMAGES OF OTHER SUCH, UH, YOU KNOW, POCKET PARKS OR CONNECTION STAIRS THAT ARE NOT JUST A UTILITARIAN STAIR, BUT AN EXPERIENCE AS WELL. AND THAT'S HOW WE ENVISION, UM, WHAT WE CALL THE POCKET PARK IN THE BACK OF THE DEVELOPMENT. UM, SO I AM GOING TO SHOW YOU THE, [00:25:01] UM, PROJECT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN THREE DIMENSIONS BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE BIT EASIER TO UNDERSTAND. UM, SO THE DEVELOPMENT IS, UM, IS BROKEN INTO, OKAY, MY POINTER IS WORKING, IS BROKEN INTO THREE SECTION. WELL, IT IS CONNECTED, IT IS CONSIDERED FROM A BUILDING CODE PERSPECTIVE, ONE BUILDING CONNECTED AT THE LOWER LEVEL WHERE WE HAVE PARKING FOR THE UNITS. UM, SO PARKING IS CONCEALED FROM VIEW AND THAT PARKING LEVEL SERVES AS A PODIUM ON, ON WHICH THE MUSE IS BUILT. AND, UH, THESE UNITS ARE IN GROUPINGS AND THE GROUPINGS ARE, UM, DICTATED, UH, OR, YOU KNOW, A GROUPINGS OF THE AESTHETICS OF THE UNIT, THE SIZE OF THE UNIT, THE TYPE OF THE UNITS. THESE ARE THE SOUTH UNITS. OVER HERE THERE ARE FOUR MULTISTORY, FOUR MULTI-STORE UNITS AND ONE SINGLE STORY UNIT BELOW. UH, THESE ARE THE EAST UNITS. OVER HERE THERE ARE SIX MULTI-STORY UNITS AND ONE UNIT BELOW. AND THESE ARE THE WEST UNITS WHERE THERE ARE SEVEN MULTI-STORE UNITS AND ONE UNIT BELOW. AND AS YOU COULD SEE IN THIS AERIAL VIEW, UM, THE EAST UNITS ARE NOT PROPOSED TO HAVE ROOFTOP ACCESS. THERE WOULD JUST BE A SKYLIGHT THERE. UM, AND WE ARE PROPOSING ROOFTOP ACCESS TO THE SOUTH UNITS AND TO THE WEST UNITS. UM, AND WE'LL GET INTO THAT IN MORE DETAIL. AND PART OF THAT WAS CONSIDERATION OF THE FACT THAT THE EAST UNITS ARE CLOSE TO THOSE WARTON TOWNHOUSES, THAT WOODEN FENCE THAT I MENTIONED OVER HERE. UM, SO THIS SHOWS YOU OVER HERE THE VIEW A SCHEMATIC VIEW DOWN WASHINGTON AVENUE, ENTRY TO THE MUSE OVER HERE. UM, AND IN THE SITE PLAN OVER HERE, IT WOULD BE THE ENTRY TO THE MUSE. OVER HERE YOU WOULD GO THROUGH AN OPEN PASSAGEWAY WITH RESIDENTIAL SPACE ABOVE AND ENTER THE MUSE. SO, UH, LOOKING AT THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, ARCHITECTURALLY AND IN SITE PLAN, UM, THE MUSE IS THE OPEN SPACE HERE IN WHITE, UM, A FOUNTAIN POTENTIALLY IN THE CENTER. WE HAVE BIKE STORAGE OVER HERE. AND AS YOU GO DOWN THE MUSE AS WE DISCUSSED, UM, YOU WOULD REACH A STAIR THAT'S WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT COULD TAKE YOU DOWN TO WHAT WE DESCRIBED AS THE POCKET PARK CONNECTING TO THE ZINSER LOTS. UM, AND I'LL NOTE HERE THAT IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE, BUT THE DASH GREEN LINES ARE THE OUTLINE OF THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. SO, UM, THE EXISTING BUILDINGS ARE LOCATED AT THE FRONT OF THE LOT OVER HERE. AND SO AS WE, UH, GET INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THIS PROJECT, WE DO WANT TO SHARE THAT WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS VISION FOR WASHINGTON AVENUE, BOTH ARCHITECTURALLY IN TERMS OF INFILLING THE BLOCK AND UNIFYING THE STREET WALL, AND ALSO FROM A COMMUNITY PERSPECTIVE, UM, BY, YOU KNOW, INTRODUCING A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S STRENGTHENS THE EXISTING SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND ADDS TO THIS VIBRANT AREA OF HASTINGS. SO, UH, THE REASON WE'RE HERE TONIGHT, , IN ADDITION TO ALL THAT EXCITING STUFF, IS THAT WE ARE HERE, UM, REQUESTING VARIANCES FOR THIS PROPOSAL. UM, WE ARE REQUESTING FIVE VARIANCES SINCE, UM, I BELIEVE THE SETBACK VARIANCES HAVE BEEN GROUPED IN YOUR NOTICE. I'M LISTING THEM AS SIX, BUT IT'S ACTUALLY FIVE, I GUESS. UM, AND I WILL GO THROUGH THE VARIANCES AND THEN I WILL SHOW YOU BRIEFLY DRAWINGS OF THE PROJECT JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND IT IN A BIT MORE DETAIL. AND THEN I WILL ADDRESS, ADDRESS EACH VARIANCE INDIVIDUALLY. UM, SO, UH, THE PROJECT PROPOSES ABOUT 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS, A TOTAL OF 20 UNITS, UH, 18, TWO BEDROOMS AND TWO ONE BEDROOM UNITS. THE PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH REGARD TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS. WE'RE PROPOSING THREE AFFORDABLE HOUSING UNITS, TWO, TWO BEDROOMS, AND ONE ONE BEDROOM. UH, THE PROJECT IS DEFINITELY COMPLIANT WITH REGARD TO OPEN SPACE. THERE'S PLENTY OPEN SPACE HERE. THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT IS FULFILLED JUST BY THE MUSE, NOT BY PRIVATELY OWNED OPEN SPACE. UM, THE MUSE IS CONSIDERED AN OUTER COURT, SO THE WIDTH OF THE MUSE REQUIRED IS 20 FEET. WE ARE REQUESTING A VARIANCE SINCE THE WIDTH OF THE MUSE IS DESIGNED TO VARY. AND AT ITS, UH, SMALLEST IT IS 12.4 FEET AT ITS WIDEST IS 21 AND A HALF FEET. AND I'LL GO OVER THAT AND PLAN. UM, THE DRIVEWAY IS COMPLIANT WITH REGARD TO, UH, SLOPE. THE, WE ARE REQUESTING A PARKING VARIANCE. UH, THE UNITS, UH, UNIT COUNTS, UH, WOULD REQUIRE 35 PARKING SPACES. WE ARE PROPOSING 20 PARKING SPACES, WHICH WOULD BE ONE PER UNIT. WE'RE PROPOSING 20 RESIDENTIAL UNITS. UM, AND ONE OF THE PARKING SPACES IS AN A DA COMPLIANT UNIT. UH, WE ARE REQUESTING A PARKING AISLE VARIANCE. THE PARKING AISLE IS REQUIRED TO BE 25 FEET. WE ARE PROPOSING 24 FEET. UM, THE PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH REGARD TO BUILDING COVERAGE. UH, 65% PROPOSED 80% PERMITTED. THE PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH REGARD TO FRONT SETBACK AND REAR SETBACK. UM, THIS IS A DISTRICT THAT HAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR FRONT AND REAR SETBACK. UM, BUT THE, THE PROPOSED PROJECT HAS NO FRONT SETBACK AND PROPOSES A THREE TO FIVE FOOT REAR SETBACK, SO IS BEYOND COMPLIANCE. UM, AND THE, UH, SIDE SETBACKS IN THIS DISTRICT A LOT THAT WERE WERE, THAT WOULD BE 50 FEET [00:30:01] OR LESS IN DEPTH WOULD HAVE NO SIDE SETBACKS REQUIRED. HOWEVER, THE LOT IS DEEPER THAN 50 FEET. AND, UH, YOU KNOW, FOR EVERY 10 FEET ABOVE 50, THERE'S A ONE FOOT SETBACK REQUIRED. SO THE PRO, BASED ON THE SITE, UH, DEPTH THE PROJECT REQUIRES 17 FOOT WEST SETBACK AND 13 FOOT EAST SETBACK. UM, AND WHEN I GO INTO THOSE SPECIFIC VARIANCES, I'LL GO INTO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING FOR THOSE SETBACKS. UM, AND THEN THE PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH REGARD TO MAXIMUM STORIES. THREE STORIES ARE ALLOWED, TWO STORIES ARE CURRENTLY PROPOSED FOR THE PROJECT. UM, AND THE PROJECT IS, UM, REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT. UM, AS YOU KNOW, IN HASTINGS HEIGHT IS MEASURED FROM THE SITE PLANES, WHICH IS KIND OF A COMPLICATED THING TO WORK OUT ON A, YOU KNOW, SLOPE SITE LIKE THIS. SO WE, I WILL SHOW YOU SPECIFICALLY WHERE HEIGHT VARIANCE IS REQUIRED, BUT IT'S LIMITED TO THE BULKHEADS ON THE WEST UNIT. SO I WILL GET THERE. SO TO WALK YOU THROUGH THE PLANS, I WILL GO THROUGH THEM QUICKLY. WE OBVIOUSLY CAN COME BACK TO THEM. I JUST WANT TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE PROPERTY, UH, THE DEVELOPMENTS. UM, THIS IS THE ENTRY TO THE MUSE OVER HERE. YOU WOULD GO UNDER A COVERED PASSAGEWAY PASSING THE CAFE, UM, IN PURPLE OR SORT OF COMMON SPACES OR PUBLIC SPACES. THIS IS A STA IN AN ELEVATOR OVER HERE DOWN TO THE LOWER LEVEL. UM, THE MUSE IS THIS OPEN AREA. THERE'S A BIKE STORAGE HERE ENCOURAGING, ONCE AGAIN, USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION BIKE USE, UM, AND A TYING INTO IDEAS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR HASTINGS. GOING TO THE BACK HERE, THERE'S A, A SECOND STAIR THAT GOES DOWN TO THE LOWER LEVEL. THE LOWER LEVEL IS THE LEVEL THAT CONNECTS TO THE OUTDOOR STAIR THAT GOES TO THE ZINSER LOTS. UM, EACH ONE OF THESE, UH, YOU KNOW, GREEN AND BLUE ARE DIFFERENT, UH, RESIDENTIAL UNITS. UH, SO THEY WOULD EACH HAVE THEIR OWN FRONT DOOR OVER THERE. UM, WE, UH, WORKED IN DETAIL WITH THE PLANNING BOARD ON THE, UH, ENTRY TO THE MUSE, THE LOCATION OF THE ENTRY GATE, THE HOURS OF THE MUSE, UH, REGULATIONS. I'M HAPPY TO GO INTO THIS IN DETAIL. I'M JUST LETTING YOU KNOW THAT WE, UH, WENT THROUGH THIS WITH THE PLANNING BOARD AND HAVE INFORMATION TO SHARE WITH YOU. UM, IF YOU WERE TO, UH, GO INTO THE MUSE AND GO DOWN THAT FIRST STARE IN ELEVATOR, OR IF YOU WERE DRIVING A CAR AND WERE TO GO DOWN THE DRIVEWAY, YOU'D GET TO THE LOWER LEVEL IN ORANGE ARE THE PARKING SPOTS FOR THE PROJECT. THERE ARE 20, UH, SPACES AS WE DISCUSSED, ONE PER UNIT. AND THE SPACES IN BLUE ARE THE RESIDENTIAL SPACES THAT EXIST AT THIS LEVEL. SO THERE'S A SINGLE STORY UNIT OVER HERE, UM, ANOTHER SINGLE STORE UNIT AND ONE SINGLE STORE UNIT HERE. AND THEN THESE ARE THE LOWER LEVELS OF MULTI-STORY UNITS ABOVE. THIS IS THAT SECOND STAIR AT THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY THAT CONNECTS TO THE POCKET STAIR AND POCKET PAR, SORRY, POCKET PARK AND STAIR THAT GO TO THE, UH, ZINZER LOTS OR THAT ARE PROPOSED TO GO TO THE ZINZER LOT, I SHOULD SAY. IT REQUIRES A, YOU KNOW, AN EASEMENT FROM THE VILLAGE BOARD. SO, UM, THESE ARE, UH, THE, IF YOU, IF YOU WERE TO GO UP INSTEAD OF GOING DOWN, IF YOU WENT INTO ANY OF THE UNITS, THIS IS THE SECOND FLOOR OF THE DEVELOPMENT, UM, WITH A ONE BEDROOM UNIT HERE. AND THE REST OF THE UNITS ARE TWO BEDROOM UNITS. UM, THIS IS A ONE BEDROOM UNIT AS IT'S LOCATED ABOVE THE CAFE. UM, AND THEN THE NEXT PLAN IS THE ROOF PLAN. AND AS I MENTIONED, THE EAST UNITS ARE NOT PROPOSING TO HAVE ROOFTOP, UH, ACCESS, NO DECKS OVER THERE. AND WE ARE PROPOSING ROOFTOP ACCESS FOR THE WEST UNITS AND FOR THE SOUTH UNITS OVER HERE. THE WEST UNITS ARE PROPOSED TO ACCESS THE, UH, ROOFTOP VIA STAIR WITH A STAIR BULKHEAD, UM, WHICH IS REQUIRING THE VARIANCE. AND THE SOUTH UNITS PROPOSED TO ACCESS VIA, UM, A ROOF ACCESS SKYLIGHT. AND I WILL GO INTO DETAILS FOR THAT. I WILL WALK YOU THROUGH THE ELEVATIONS FOR THE PROJECT. I HAVE A KEY PLAN UP HERE BECAUSE, UM, IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, JUST A RECTANGLE WITH FOUR SIDES, SO IT GETS A BIT CONFUSING WHERE WE'RE LOOKING. SO THIS IS THE ELEVATION ALONG WASHINGTON AVENUE THAT YOU SAW BEFORE IN DASH GREEN ARE THE EXISTING BUILDINGS PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE SITE? UM, AND IN RED IS THE HEIGHT LIMIT, UH, FOR THIS AREA OF THE SITE. UM, THE, UH, EASTERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING HERE, THE UNIT S FOUR IS, UH, 12 FEET BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT AND IS, UH, 13 INCHES HIGHER THAN THE EXISTING BUILDING ON SITE. AND THE, UH, WESTERN SIDE, THE UNITS S ONE THROUGH THREE ARE SEVEN FOOT 11, ALMOST EIGHT FEET BELOW, UH, THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THAT SECTION. UM, AND I'M NOT GONNA, I, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT GOING INTO THE ARCHITECTURE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I WANNA GET THE PRESENTATION MOVING FOR YOU, BUT WE'VE PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO IT AND BASED ON OUR INSPIRATION IMAGES, REALLY HAVE THOUGHT HARD ABOUT HOW A MUSE WOULD WANNA LOOK IN TERMS OF GROUPING OF UNITS, BUT STILL DISTINCTIVE, UM, YOU KNOW, FACADES FOR EACH UNIT. THIS IS THE EAST ELEVATION OVER HERE. UM, SO THESE ARE THOSE EAST UNITS THAT, AS YOU COULD SEE ARE WELL BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THOSE UNITS. UM, AND THIS IS THE EASTERN, UH, ELEVATION OF THE SOUTH, UH, UNITS, WHICH HAS THE [00:35:01] CAFE AND THE ENTRYWAY INTO THE MUSE. UM, THERE'S AN OPEN PASSAGEWAY WITH A RESIDENTIAL UNIT ABOVE IT, AND THIS IS THE ENTRANCE TO THE MUSE, UM, IN RED. FOR PURPOSES OF DISCUSSION, MAINLY WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, WE ATTRACT THE HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALL, THAT EXISTING RETAINING WALL AT THE BACK OF THE WAR BURTON TOWNHOUSES, JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF THE DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION BETWEEN, UH, OUR PROPERTY AND THE PROPERTY ADJACENT TO IT. UM, THIS IS THE, UH, IF YOU'RE STANDING IN THE MUSE LOOKING AT THE WEST UNITS, THIS IS THE ELEVATION, THE EAST ELEVATION OF THE WEST UNITS. SO YOU COULD SEE EACH INDIVIDUAL, UH, ENTRY DOOR, AND ONCE AGAIN, UM, YOU KNOW, STRICTLY, DEEPLY INFORMED BY THE TYPOLOGY OF THE MUSE WHERE YOU WANNA HAVE A, YOU KNOW, COMMONALITY BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT UNITS YET DISTINCTIVE, UH, TREATMENT OF THE DIFFERENT UNITS. AND HERE, UM, WE ARE SHOWING YOU THE HEIGHT VARIANCE REQUIRED FOR THE BULKHEADS OF THESE, UH, UNITS. UM, AND I WILL GO INTO THOSE WHEN I GO INTO THE VARIANCES SPECIFICALLY. UM, THIS IS, IF YOU'RE LOOKING THE OTHER WAY, THIS IS THE ENTRANCES TO THE, UH, EAST UNITS. SO THE WEST SALVATION OF THE EAST UNITS. AND AS YOU COULD SEE, THE EAST UNITS ARE EIGHT FOOT THREE BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THESE UNITS. AND IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE OVER HERE, BUT THIS IS THE HEIGHT OF THAT WOODEN FENCE THAT I HAD SHOWN YOU. SO IN PRIOR DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE, THE IMPORTANCE OF PRESERVING NEIGHBORS VIEWS OF THE RIVER WE HAVE, WE HAD DECIDED TO KEEP THE EAST UNITS NOT HIGHER AT THE HEIGHT OF THE WOODEN EXISTING WOODEN FENCE. SO THAT'S WHY THEY ARE EIGHT THREE BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMITS. THIS IS THE NORTH ELEVATION OF THE, OF THE DEVELOPMENT AS SEEN FROM THE ZINZER LOT. UM, YOU COULD SEE OVER HERE, THIS IS THE, THESE ARE THE EAST UNITS. THIS IS THE, THESE ARE THE WEST UNITS, AND YOU COULD SEE THAT THEY'RE CONNECTED BELOW, UH, BY A COMMON LOWER LEVEL. THIS IS THAT REAR STAIR THAT WOULD LEAD YOU DOWN TO THE POCKET PARK. UM, AND I'LL NOTE THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION BETWEEN THE PARKING LEVEL AND THE SENSOR LOT IS ABOUT 18 FEET. SO THAT'S WHY WE TALK ABOUT A POCKET PARK, UM, AND A STAIR BECAUSE THERE'S QUITE A DIFFERENCE IN ELEVATION, UH, BETWEEN THOSE TWO LEVELS. AND THIS IS OUR LA THESE ARE MY LAST ELEVATIONS. THESE ARE THE, THIS IS THE WEST UNITS AND THE WEST ELEVATION OF THE WEST UNITS. UM, AND YOU COULD SEE THAT SOME OF THEM ARE TWO STORE UNITS. SOME OF THEM HAVE THAT LOWER LEVEL DOWN BELOW. UM, AND UH, BELOW THIS AREA OVER HERE IS WHERE WE HAVE OUR STORM WATER, UH, SYSTEM. UM, BEFORE I GO INTO THE VARIANCES SPECIFICALLY, I WANNA TOUCH ON THE CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT BASED ON OUR WORK WITH THE PLANNING BOARD. UM, WE HAVE PRESENTED THIS PROJECT TO THE PLANNING BOARD FROM SEPTEMBER, 2024 TO DECEMBER, 2025. SO, UM, 15 MONTHS, A YEAR AND A QUARTER. UM, AND, UM, AND BASED ON THOSE, UH, PRESENTATIONS AND MOCKUPS AND DISCUSSIONS, A FEW CHANGES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PROJECT. UM, SO THE FIRST OF THOSE CHANGES WAS THE REMOVAL OF THE THIRD FLOOR FROM THE S UNITS. UM, THE PROJECT IS INITIALLY PROPOSED, UH, HAD A THIRD FLOOR ON THE S UNITS. UM, AS WE, AS YOU KNOW, ZONING ALLOWS THREE STORIES ON THIS LOT. UM, AND THE, UH, THIRD FLOOR WAS AT THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THE, UM, WESTERN SECTION AND THREE FOOT FOUR BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THE EASTERN SECTION FOR S FOUR WITH A CAFES. UM, A MOCKUP WAS BUILT IN FEBRUARY, 2025. IT WAS REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS, SOME OF THE ZONING BOARD MEMBERS POTENTIALLY. AND, UH, BASED ON THE REVIEW OF THAT MOCKUP DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY, THE THIRD FLOOR WAS REMOVED. THAT WAS, THAT, UM, WAS EQUIVALENT TO AN AREA REDUCTION OF 2,454 SQUARE FEET OR 30% OF THE S UNITS. UM, THE STAIR BULK HEADS OF THE S UNITS WERE THEN REMOVED AS WELL. THE S UNIT WAS PROS TO BE TWO STORIES WITH STAIR BULKHEADS TO ALLOW ROOF ACCESS. THE BULKHEADS WERE ONE FOOT SIX BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT ON THE WESTERN SIDE, AND THEY WERE FIVE FOOT SEVEN BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT ON THE EASTERN SIDE. UM, A MOCKUP WAS BUILT IN OCTOBER, 2025, REVIEWED BY THE PLANNING BOARD MEMBERS AND SOME ZONING BOARD MEMBERS. AND AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE COMMUNITY, THE STAIR BULK HEADS, UH, WERE REMOVED FROM THE SOUTH UNIT AND REPLACED WITH, UH, ROOF ACCESS SKYLIGHTS PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE ROOF, THOUGH LESS CONVENIENCE, UH, THERE IS STILL ACCESS TO THE ROOF. UM, THE UNIT MIX, UH, NOW PROPOSES SMALLER UNITS THAN INITIALLY PROPOSED. INITIALLY THERE WERE 20 UNITS PROPOSED INCLUDING ONE THREE BEDROOM AND ONLY ONE ONE BEDROOM. THE CURRENT UNIT MIX IS ALSO IS 20 UNITS, UM, BUT IS 18 TWO BEDROOMS AND TWO ONE BEDROOMS. UH, IN DIS IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, THE PLANNING BOARD ACTUALLY RECOMMENDED HAVING MORE SMALLER UNITS, UM, TO ACCOMMODATE DIVERSE NEEDS OF DIFFERENT FAMILIES MOVING TO HASTINGS, YOU KNOW, BEING CONCERNED WITH AFFORDABILITY AND PROXIMITY TO THE TRAIN STATION. UM, AND, UH, ELIMINATING THE THIRD FLOOR OF THE S UNIT ABOVE THE CAFE [00:40:01] LED THAT TWO BEDROOM TO BECOME A ONE BEDROOM. AND, UH, THE INCREASED SIZE OF THE STORM WATER SYSTEM ON SITE DEVELOPED WITH, UH, THE ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT. HUTCHINSON ENGINEERING AND THE VILLAGE ENGINEER LED THE THREE BEDROOM IN THE LOWER LEVEL TO BECOME A TWO BEDROOM. SO THAT'S HOW THOSE UNITS BECAME SMALLER. AND, UH, FINALLY THE MUSE ENTRY WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED TO BE PARALLEL TO WASHINGTON AVENUE. AND AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH THE NEIGHBORS AND CONCERNED ABOUT SOUND, AND THAT'S WHEN THAT DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HEIGHT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORS AND THE PROPERTY CAME UP, WE PROPOSED TO MOVE THE ENTRY OF THE MUSE 13 FOOT FOUR FROM THE THESE PROPERTY LINE TO CREATE A BUFFER BETWEEN THE MUSE AND THE NEIGHBORS. UM, SO GOING BACK TO THE, UH, VARIANCES THAT WE DISCUSSED, UM, I WILL, UH, GO THROUGH THEM, UH, ONE BY ONE ON THE RELEVANT, UH, PLANS. SO LOOKING AT THE COURT DIMENSION AND SETBACKS, UM, I'LL GO THROUGH THE COURT DIMENSION FIRST. SO THE MUSE IS AN OUTER COURT. IT'S REQUIRED TO BE 20 FEET, AND WE ARE PROPOSING THAT IT VARY IN WIDTH, UH, MAINLY TO, YOU KNOW, ACCOMMODATE THE NEEDS OF THE PROJECT, BUT ALSO TO PROVIDE VISUAL INTEREST SO IT'S NOT JUST A, YOU KNOW, AN OUTDOOR CORRIDOR WITH A, A MAINTAINED, UH, WIDTH, BUT THAT THERE'S VARIETY AND THE SPACE IS FEEL DIFFERENT. THERE'S A SPACE HERE BY THE BIKE STORAGE ELEMENT THAT'S 15 FEET. THERE'S A SPACE BY THE, UM, BY THE ENTRY TO THE MUSE THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE 12 FOOT FIVE. AND THEN THE MAIN MUSE ITSELF RUNNING NORTH SOUTH IS PROPOSED TO, YOU KNOW, INTENTIONALLY VARY REALLY TO CREATE VISUAL INTEREST BETWEEN 17 AND A HALF FEET TO 19 AND A HALF FEET TO 21 AND A HALF FEET. UM, IN THIS DIRECTION, UH, THE SETBACKS ON THE PROPERTY ARE REQUIRED. YES. INTERRUPT YOU FOR A SECOND. I SURE. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE PRESENTATION AND THAT YOU'RE GOING THROUGH EACH OF THE VARIANCES. UM, I THINK IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL IF WE JUST PAUSE ON EACH ONE AND SEE IF BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS ON THAT PARTICULAR VARIANCE JUST TO KIND OF TAKE THIS IN SMALLER PIECES. YEAH, YEAH. UM, ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD ON THE, UH, REQUIRED COURT WITH VARIANCE? I GUESS MY ONLY QUESTION IS, UM, THAT THAT VARIANCE ISN'T TIED TO ANY LIGHT AND AIR OR WINDOW TO WINDOW SETBACKS. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE'S NO PART OF THAT VARIANCE THAT MAKES THESE UNITS NOT COMPLIANT ESSENTIALLY WITH EACH OTHER BECAUSE OF LIGHT AND AIR OR ANY SUCH THING? NO, IT'S, IT'S SEPARATE. I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S REGULATED BY BUILDING CODE, AND THAT'S REGULATED BY PERCENTAGE OF OPENINGS ON A FACADE. UM, BUT THIS IS MORE OF A, UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, IT'S A REGULATION ON OUTER COURTS. UM, AND WE WENT THROUGH THIS WITH, UH, INSPECTOR OZZI TO DETERMINE THAT IT IS AN OUTER COURT MM-HMM . AND, UM, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE BASIS BEHIND THE 20 FEET, BUT IT, THAT'S A REQUIREMENT FOR AN OUTER COURT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THE COURT? UM, IT DOESN'T HAVE SO MUCH TO DO WITH THE VARIANCE PER SE, BUT I DO JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND THE WAY THAT THE MUSE IS WORKING. BUT GOING FROM WASHINGTON TO THE PARKING LOT IS, IS, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO GO THROUGH THE MUSE, LIKE AS ESSENTIALLY A CUT THROUGH TO GET TO THE YES, THAT IS THE INTENTION OF THE MUSE. AND I GUESS I'LL SHOW IT ON THIS PLAN THOUGH. IT'S NOT THE MOST CLEAR VISUALLY, BUT, UM, YOU WOULD ENTER WA FROM WASHINGTON AVENUE OVER HERE AND THERE'S A GATE OVER HERE. THE REASON THERE'S A GATE IS BECAUSE THERE ARE HOURS OF OPERATION IN THE MUSE AND THAT'S REQUIRED FOR, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE IT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD AND RESIDENCE. AND THEN YOU COULD WALK THROUGH THE MUSE OVER HERE AND GO DOWN THIS OPEN, UH, STAIRCASE TO THE LOWER LEVEL AND GO, UH, DOWN THE POCKET PARK, UH, STAIR TO THE ZINZER LOT. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. AND I'LL NOTE THAT THE ACCESS TO THE ZINZER LOT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR EGRESS. IT'S REALLY JUST AS A CONVENIENCE. OKAY. YEAH. AND I THOUGHT THAT, THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS MY PERCEPTION, BUT THANKS FOR CLEARING THAT UP. NO WORRIES. UM, SHOULD I TALK ABOUT THE SETBACKS? EVERYBODY GOOD? YES. OKAY. YES, PLEASE. UM, AND I'LL NOTE THAT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THESE TWO, UH, SET, UH, VARIANCES RELATING TO THE SITE PLAN, I'D WANNA NOTE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT, UH, THE DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE OF THE PROJECT IS 68% AND THE PROJECT, THE ZONE ALLOWS 80% HERE. SO THE PROJECT IS COMPLIANT WITH REGARD TO DEVELOPMENT COVERAGE. WE'VE JUST ALLOCATED BUILDING MASSES DIFFERENTLY. SO VARIANCES ARE REQUIRED FOR THE EASEMENTS AND THE COURTS. UM, SO THE E SETBACK IS REQUIRED TO BE 13 FEET. UM, WE ARE PROPOSING 10.7 FEET TO THE EAST UNITS, THE GROUPING OF EAST UNITS HERE, AND ONE FOOT TO THE EAST PATIO, EAST PATIOS, UH, THE, YOU KNOW, GRADE LEVEL OUTDOOR SPACE FOR THE EAST UNITS. UM, AND WE, UH, THE WEST SETBACK IS REQUIRED TO BE 17 FEET. WE ARE PROPOSING, UH, ZERO SETBACK TO THE, TO THE RETAINING WALLS AND DECKS OVER HERE. UM, BUT 5.3 FEET TO THESE, THE GROUPING OF WEST UNITS AND ONE FOOT [00:45:01] TO THE SOUTH UNITS. UM, I WILL SAY THAT, UH, THE EXISTING SETBACKS, WHICH I DON'T HAVE NOTED HERE, BUT I HAVE THEM ON MY ZONING CHART, I COULD CHECK, BUT WE ARE IMPROVING THE EXISTING SETBACKS IN THAT SENSE BECAUSE THE, THE OUTLINE OF THE EXISTING BUILDING IS THIS GREEN LINE HERE. AND, UH, THOSE BUILDINGS ARE CLOSER TO THE SIDE SETBACKS THAN THE EXISTING, UH, THAN THE PROPOSED PROJECT. I COULD GET THE, I COULD SCROLL BACK AND GET THOSE NUMBERS, BUT, UM, WHAT ARE, YOU KNOW, SETTING THAT ASIDE BECAUSE WE'RE HONESTLY PROPOSING A DIFFERENT PROJECT THAN WHAT EXISTS ON SITE. WE ARE, UM, ASKING THAT THE DOES IS THE SETBACK PARENTS BE APPROVED SINCE THE, UM, OR THE REQUEST BE UNDERSTOOD IN THE FACT THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO PUT THE SPACE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE AS SIDE YARD SETBACKS IN THE CENTER OF THE PROJECT. AND TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, THE MUSE IS A RESULT OF TAKING THAT SPACE THAT WOULD OTHERWISE BE BESIDE YOUR SETBACKS AND MAKING IT A COMMUNAL, VIBRANT COMMUNITY SPACE. AND, YOU KNOW, A A A PUBLIC AMENITY, UM, IN THE CENTER OF THE PROJECT AND UP ON THE TOP WE HAVE DIAGRAMS OF, AS A RIGHT APPROACHES TO THIS LOT, YOU KNOW, YOU KNOW, AS SEPARATE LOTS. YOU COULD HAVE VERY SKINNY BUILDINGS THAT WOULDN'T REALLY WORK ON THIS LOT. AND THEN AS A COMBINED LOT, YOU COULD HAVE A VERY LARGE, UM, YOU KNOW, MASS OF AN APARTMENT BLOCK THAT WOULD NOT, THAT WOULD BE, UH, COMPLIANT WITH THE SETBACKS, BUT WOULD NOT PROVIDE THIS PUBLIC AMENITY, UH, THAT WE WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE AT THE CENTER OF THE PROJECT. MR. CHAIRMAN, JUST TO REITERATE, WHICH HE HAD MENTIONED WHAT THE APPLICANT MENTIONED EARLIER IS THAT WE HAVE AN INTERESTING CODE IN HASTINGS WHERE THIS, THESE WOULD BE ZERO SETBACKS, BUT BECAUSE OF THE DEPTH OF THE LOT, IT DRAMATICALLY INCREASES BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A DEEP LOT JUST TO KEEP IN MIND. YEAH, I THINK MY QUESTION AROUND THAT, I DON'T KNOW IF, IF EITHER YOU, MR. MENZI OR, OR YOU MIGHT KNOW, ARE THERE OTHER LOTS IN THIS IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH SIDE SETBACKS? I DON'T KNOW. I'D HAVE TO GO TO OUR, UH, AREA PLAN. UM, THE BUILDING ONE DOWN HAS A NARROW, A NARROW ALLEY, YOU KNOW, AND THE ONES ACROSS THE STREET I DON'T THINK HAVE ANY. RIGHT. WELL, IF YOU CERTAINLY GO DOWN WAR BURTON, THERE ARE NO SIDE LOTS MM-HMM . UH, AND DOWN, UH, I COULD ZOOM IN HERE, BUT YOU, I MEAN, YOU COULD SEE YEAH. UM, THERE, THERE ARE, THERE ARE BUILDINGS WITH SIDE SETBACKS, BUT NOT, NOT SIGNIFICANCE, YOU KNOW, HERE THERE'S A SIDE SETBACK. UM, BUT YOU'RE RIGHT, EVEN ON THESE LOTS THAT ARE DEEPER THAN 50 FEET, UM, THESE WERE PROBABLY BUILT BEFORE THAT CHANGE TO THE CODE OF THE 50 FEET. YES. AND EVEN, I MEAN, INTERESTINGLY, THE WAR BURTON TOWNHOUSES, UM, POSSIBLY WERE BUILT BEFORE THAT CHANGE OR GOT THAT VARIANCE. I'M NOT SURE. OKAY. UM, AND WHILE I'M FLIPPING BACK, I WILL CHECK THE EXISTING SIDE SETBACKS THOUGH, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT AS RELEVANT 'CAUSE IT'S NOT THE SAME BUILDING, UM, WITH ZERO AND 10 FEET WE'RE NOTING. RIGHT. SO THE, THE EXISTING BUILDING IN THAT SENSE IS NOT COMPLIANT BECAUSE IT HAS A ZERO SETBACK ON THE, ON THE WEST SIDE AND A 10 FOOT SETBACK ON THE EAST SIDE. UM, SO I WILL MOVE TO THE NEXT VARIANCE. THE NEXT VARIANCE IS FOR, SORRY, SORRY. YEAH, GO AHEAD. SORRY. THE SIDE YARD ON THE WEST, YOU SAID THERE'S A, SORRY ABOUT FIVE FOOT SETBACK, IS THAT RIGHT? THE SIDE YARD ON THE WEST, UM, THERE'S A ONE FOOT SETBACK TO THE SOUTH UNITS OVER HERE AND A FIVE FOOT THREE SETBACK TO THE WEST UNITS. AND THEN, AND THERE'S WEST UNITS, THE SPACE BETWEEN THE, THE STRUCTURE AND THE LOT LINE, UH, THERE'S A, THERE'S A, IN THE DRAWINGS IT WAS A BIT UNCLEAR. IS THAT OCCUPIABLE SPACE? WHAT, WHAT IS THAT SPACE? THESE ARE, UH, BALCONIES. THOSE ARE BALCONIES? MM-HMM. OKAY. SO THE BALCONY DOES GO TO THE LOT LINE? YES, YES. OKAY. UM, AND THEN THE SPACE BEHIND IT, IT'S HABITABLE ROOMS, UH, IT LOOKS ON THE FLOOR PLAN. YES. LIGHT AND AIR FOR THOSE HABITABLE ROOMS IS COMING FROM. SO THERE IS NO THE, THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, AS ASSUMING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RELATIVE TO THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR STOPS OVER HERE, THIS REAR PORCH, UM, THE, THE, THE BUILDING NEXT DOOR ONLY GOES AS FAR BACK AS, UH, THIS AREA HERE. AND, UH, THERE'S A REAR, THERE'S A PORCH OVER HERE UNDER CURRENT CONDITIONS. BUT YES, HYPOTHETICAL FUTURE CONDITIONS, IT IS AT THE LOT LINE. RIGHT. THAT BUILDING HERE, WE DO NOT HAVE WINDOWS ON THE FACADE AT THE LOT LINE. SORRY. WE DO, WE DO NOT HAVE WINDOWS AT THE LOT LINE. WE HAVE, UM, WE HAVE THE SOUTH, BUT UNITS ARE ONE FOOT FROM THE LOT LINE AND THEY DO NOT HAVE WINDOWS ON THE PORTION. THAT'S ONE FOOT FROM THE LOT LINE. THEY HAVE WINDOWS HERE AT THIS AREA THAT'S, THEY MIGHT HAVE WINDOWS AT THAT AREA THAT'S JOGGED BACK, OR WE MIGHT ACTUALLY, WE DID THAT IN DEFERENCE TO AN EXISTING WINDOW ON THIS BUILDING HERE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE JOGGED BACK OVER HERE. UM, BUT WE DO NOT HAVE WINDOWS ON THAT. UH, ELEVATION. I COULD DOUBLE CHECK THE PLANS, BUT I BELIEVE THAT'S THE CASE. AND THE, THE WINDOWS THAT ARE FIVE FOOT THREE FROM THE LOT [00:50:01] LINE ARE, ARE HERE. AND I BELIEVE PER BUILDING CODE, IT'S UM, THERE'S LIMITATIONS IF YOU'RE UNDER FIVE FEET FROM THE LOT LINE, AND IF YOU'RE OVER FIVE, THREE FEET, IT'S EASIER. SO THAT'S WHY IT'S FIVE UNDER, UNDER THREE FEET. YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO HAVE ANY WINDOWS PER THE FIRE CODE. RIGHT. OKAY. YEP. BUT IN THIS CASE THEY'RE SLIDING DOORS YEAH. OUT TO A, A BALCONY. YES. THEY'RE AT FIVE FEET. SO THEY'RE CODE COMPLIANT. YES. OKAY. AND IN THAT SECTION, THOSE, THOSE SIDE, LOTS OF THE PROJECT ARE ADJACENT TO REAR LOTS OF THE BUILDINGS, UH, ON THE, ON THE STREET BY THE RIVER, RIGHT AT, AT THE, ONCE YOU COME AROUND THE CORNER. OH, YES, YES, YES, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT. THESE ARE, THESE ARE THE REAR, YES. THIS LOT ENDS OVER HERE AT THIS DASH LINE OVER HERE. YES. SO THEY ARE ADJACENT TO THE REAR, LOTS OF THOSE, UH, PROPERTIES, BUT I GUESS THOSE REAR LOTS MIGHT HAVE A ZERO ZERO LOT SET BACK. SO, YOU KNOW, TO YOUR POINT OF THE CURRENT CONDITIONS VERSUS WHAT COULD BE PROPOSED, THAT'S WORTH CONSIDERING. RIGHT, RIGHT. THIS WOULD BE THERE NO PROBLEM, ESSENTIALLY. AND THE RIVER'S, THIS ONE. YES. THANK YOU. OKAY. UM, SO IN TERMS OF PARKING COUNT, UM, UH, YOU KNOW, I'LL GO THROUGH THIS QUICKLY. UH, YOU KNOW, WESTCHESTER COUNTY DEFINES A TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, AND THIS DEVELOPMENT IS A TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. UM, IT ENCOURAGES, UH, DEVELOPMENT AROUND LOCATIONS THAT ARE WELL SERVED BY TRANSIT WITHIN WALKING DISTANCE OF TRANSIT AND OTHER THINGS THAT WOULD SUPPORT, UH, THAT KIND OF LIFESTYLE. UH, YOU KNOW, A LIFESTYLE WITHOUT A CAR, OFFICES, RETAIL. UM, AND YOU KNOW, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT RESIDENTS ARE ABLE TO REACH THEIR DESTINATION WITHOUT THE USE OF A CAR. UM, THE COUNTY GUIDELINES FOR PLANNING ENCOURAGE EXPANSION OF TRANSIT SER UH, SERVICES AND, UH, ENCOURAGE ANYTHING TO SUPPORT ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. UH, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, UH, FOR HASTINGS RECOMMENDS ARE, YOU KNOW, THAT, THAT HASTING CONSIDER REDUCING PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO BALANCE ADDRESSING NEED HOUSING NEEDS AND AFFORDABILITY WHILE PROMOTING SUSTAINABLE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. AND SPECIFICALLY SAYS THE VILLAGE CAN UTILIZE THIS IN ITS DOWNTOWN. DUE TO THE PROXIMITY TO THE METRO NORTH STATION, UH, THE WESTCHESTER, WESTCHESTER COUNTY REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND ISSUED A LETTER, UH, IN NOVEMBER, 2024, UH, WITH RECOMMENDATIONS SPECIFIC TO THIS PROJECT AND NOTED THAT THE REQUIRED RESIDENTIAL PARKING RATIOS IN HASTINGS ARE HIGH COMPARED TO OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS NEAR TRAIN STATIONS WITHIN THE COUNTY. AND THAT BASICALLY ENSURING ACCESS TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, UM, AND REDUCING SPACE DEVOTED TO PARKING ARE PRIORITIES. UM, AND SO OUR, OUR PROPOSAL HERE IS, UH, IS A ONE-TO-ONE RATIO FOR RESIDENTIAL UNITS TO, UH, PARKING, UH, WHICH SEEMS FEASIBLE GIVEN THIS PROJECT'S, UH, DIRECT CONNECTION TO PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. AND IN ADDITION TO ITS LOCATION, DOWNTOWN ACCESS TO BUSES AND, UH, REALLY WOULD, UH, ENCOURAGE USE OF PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION FOR THE RESIDENTS OF THE PROJECT, EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT ALSO ENCOURAGES IT FOR HASTINGS AT LARGE. UM, AND I WILL GROUP THAT VARIANCE AND HAPPY TO DISCUSS IT WITH, UH, THE PARKING AISLE, UH, VARIANCE. UM, BECAUSE, UH, THE TWO ARE LINKED IN THE SENSE THAT HAVING ONE TO ONE RATIO OF PARKING SPOTS TO UNITS, IT'S IMPORTANT TO HAVE THOSE PARKING SPOTS BE LAID OUT IN A WAY THAT THEY, THAT THEY COULD EASILY BE ACCESSED. AND WE PROPOSE THAT THE PARKING SPOTS BE DE BE DESIGNATED TO UNITS, SO THERE'S NO CIRCULATION IN THE PARKING, IN THE, IN THE PARKING LOT LOOKING FOR A PARKING SPACE. UM, AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AISLE IS 25 FEET. WE ARE PROPOSING 24 FEET ON THE APPROACH HERE AND 24 FOOT SIX WHERE WE HAVE SPACES FACING EACH OTHER. UM, AND THE PROJECT ENGINEER, HUDSON ENGINEERING HAS PERFORMED AN ANALYSIS SHOWING, UH, YOU KNOW, THE ACCESS TO THE VARIOUS PARKING SPOTS AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE ALL EASILY ACCESSIBLE AND WE PROPOSE THAT ALL STRUCTURE REMAIN OUTSIDE OF THE PARKING AISLE. ANY QUESTIONS ON EITHER OF THE PARKING RELATED VARIANCE REQUESTS? ARE THE PARKING SPACES ASSIGNED OR IS IT ESSENTIALLY GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, KIND OF A FIRST COME, FIRST SERVE TYPE SITUATION? SO WE, THEY WOULD DEFINITELY BE ASSIGNED. YEAH. UM, BECAUSE THAT'S CRITICAL TO, UM, HAVING A, UM, SLIGHTLY TIGHTER AISLE AND ALSO, UM, YOU KNOW, IF IT'S A ONE-TO-ONE, IT'S IMPORTANT THAT THEY BE ASSIGNED. YES, DEFINITELY. RIGHT. OKAY. SHOULD I MOVE TO THE NEXT ONE? YES, SURE. YES. OKAY. UM, SO, UH, AS YOU'VE SEEN ON THE ELEVATIONS, THE HEIGHT PLANE VARIES THROUGHOUT THE SITE AND THE RELATIONSHIP TO HEIGHT VARIES THROUGHOUT THE SITE. YOU KNOW, THE EAST UNITS, AS I POINTED OUT, ARE EIGHT FOOT THREE, I THINK BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT. AND THERE ARE TWO STORE UNITS. THE WEST UNITS ARE ALSO TWO STORE UNITS, AND THEY'RE CLOSER TO THE HEIGHT [00:55:01] LIMIT. SO THE HEIGHT LIMIT REALLY VARIES BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE. AND SO FOR THE EAST UNITS THAT ARE CLOSEST TO THE EXISTING TOWNHOUSES, WE HAD DECIDED WE WOULD NOT HAVE ROOFTOP ACCESS IN DEFERENCE REALLY TO THE NEIGHBORS AND PRESERVING THEIR VIEWS. THE WEST UNITS ARE FURTHER DOWNHILL, AND SO WE ARE PROPOSING, UH, ROOFTOP ACCESS AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO GET THERE VIA STAIR BULKHEADS, WHICH IS THE PREFERRED METHOD FOR ROOFTOP ACCESS. AND, UH, WE HAVE REALLY LIMITED THE FOOTPRINT OF THESE BULKHEADS. UM, THEY'RE SLOPED IN THE OTHER DIRECTION. UM, AS YOU COULD, YOU SAW ON THE 3D, LIKE THE ROOF IS SLOPED HERE, FOLLOWING THE PROFILE IS THERE, AND THEY'RE GROUPED, SO THAT ONE BULKHEAD SERVES TWO UH, UNITS WHEN POSSIBLE. AND AT THE HIGHEST POINT, WE, THEY ARE PROPOSED TO BE THREE FOOT FIVE ABOVE THE PER MINUTE HEIGHT. ONCE AGAIN, THE BULKHEADS ARE AT THE SAME HEIGHT, BUT THE HEIGHT LIMIT VARIES. SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S AT THE HIGHEST POINT. AND, UM, UH, I COULD SPEAK TO HEIGHT IN GENERAL BEFORE I GO INTO THE VIEW STUDIES. THAT SORT OF GETS, I DON'T LIKE, THIS IS THE ONLY ITEM I HAVE AS A HEIGHT VARIANCE ITEM. WE COULD ASK QUESTIONS. I, I THINK YOU COULD, MAYBE YOU WANT TO GROUP THIS WITH VIEW PRESERVATION. OKAY, THAT SOUNDS GOOD. SO, UM, UH, SO PAST HIKE CONCESSIONS, VIEW PRESERVATION, UH, AS, AS YOU KNOW, ALLUDED TO WITH THE MOCKUPS, THERE WAS QUITE SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THE S UNITS. THE S UNITS AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, ONCE AGAIN ARE TWO STORIES. UH, THEY ARE 12 FEET BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR S FOUR FOR THE, UH, EASTERN SIDE OVER HERE. AND THEN THEY ARE SEVEN FOOT 11, ALMOST EIGHT FEET BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT ON THE WESTERN SIDE. AND AT THE HIGHEST POINT, THEY ARE 13 INCHES ABOVE THE EXISTING BUILDING ON SITE. UM, AS PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TO THE PLANNING BOARD, UM, THE PROJECT WAS FOLLOWING THIS BLUE OUTLINE OVER HERE WAS A THREE STORY, UH, S UNIT, BULK WITH, UH, WITH BULKHEADS. UM, AND ONCE AGAIN, UH, THE ROOF, UH, THE TIDE OF THE ROOF FOR THESE UNITS, S ONE THROUGH THREE WAS AT THE HEIGHT LIMIT AND, UH, SLIGHTLY BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT OVER HERE. FOLLOWING DISCUSSION WITH THE PLANNING BOARD, THAT THIRD STORY WAS REMOVED, REMOVING 30% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE S UNITS. AND WE PROPOSED A TWO STORE UNIT WITH ROOFTOP, UH, BULKHEADS. UH, THOSE BULKHEADS ARE, WELL BE, UH, BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT. AS YOU COULD SEE, THEY'RE 18 INCHES BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT AT THE TIGHTEST POINTS AND ABOUT, UH, FIVE, FIVE FOOT SEVEN BELOW THE TALLER POINT OF THE HEIGHT LIMIT. AND THEY WERE REMOVED FOR REVIEW PRESERVATION CONCERNS BASED ON REVIEW OF THE MOCKUPS. SO WE ARE PROPOSING A, UM, A TWO STORY, UM, S UNITS, WELL BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMITS WITH ROOF ACCESS, VIA ROOF ACCESS, SKYLIGHTS. UM, AND I WILL GO INTO THE VIEW STUDIES. SO WE PERFORMED VIEW STUDIES, UM, FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, 4 83 45 WASHINGTON AT THE CORNER HERE, 4 87 AND THEN THE TOWNHOUSES 4 91, 4 91 A, 4 93, AND 4 93 A AND WE PERFORMED VIEW STUDIES USING TWO METHODOLOGIES. SO BOTH, BOTH, UM, MOCKUPS WERE BUILT AS WE DISCUSSED, TWO MOCKUPS WERE BUILT. AND WE ALSO HAVE A 3D MODEL FOR THE PROJECT. SO WE HAVE, UM, DIGITAL, UH, VIEW STUDIES FOR THE PROJECT. SO OVER HERE, UM, YOU CAN SEE A COMPOSED, UH, PANORAMA, UH, THAT WE TOOK BY ASSEMBLING PHOTOS TAKEN FROM 4 91 WARBURTON ON THE SECOND FLOOR. 4 91 SORT OF SITS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NEIGHBORS THAT I JUST POINTED OUT. AND, UM, YOU COULD SEE IN THIS PHOTO IN THE DISTANCE HERE IN ORANGE IS ORANGE MESH CONNECTING, UH, TWO BY FOURS. THAT WAS THE MOCKUP FOR THE THREE STORY S UNIT, NOT THE BULKHEADS FOR THE THREE STORY S UNIT, BUT JUST THE THREE STORY S UNIT. BECAUSE ACTUALLY THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, THREE STORIES PLUS BULKHEADS, THREE STORIES, NO BULKHEADS, TWO STORIES, BULKHEADS. THOSE WERE, YOU KNOW, IT WAS LIKE THREE ITERATIONS BEFORE WHERE WE ARE NOW. AND, UM, IN RED IS THE PROFILE OF THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. AND YOU COULD SEE THAT THE, YOU KNOW, VIEW IMPACT HAS BEEN DRAMATICALLY, WE BELIEVE, DRAMATICALLY REDUCED, UM, AS, AS COMPARED TO WHAT WAS, UM, PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED. AND OH, IN THE LOWER SLIDE HERE WE ARE SHOWING THE EXISTING, UH, RIVER VIEWS. AND THEN IN DARKER BLUE WE ARE SHOWING THE, UH, APPROXIMATE INCREASE IN RIVER VIEW AS A RESULT OF TREE REMOVAL. THAT WILL HAPPEN IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT BECAUSE A NUMBER OF THE TREES THAT ARE BLOCKING THE VIEW HERE ARE ON THE SITE AND WILL BE REMOVED IN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT. SO, UM, THIS WILL OPEN UP ADDITIONAL RIVER VIEWS THAT DON'T CURRENTLY EXIST. UM, AND THEN, UH, THE SECOND MOCKUP THAT WE BUILT WAS, IS OVER HERE. THIS WAS A MOCKUP OF THE BULKHEAD ON THE TWO [01:00:01] STORY S UNIT. AND WHEN THAT MOCKUP WAS BUILT, WE WENT TO THE FEW LOCATIONS THAT STILL HAD, UM, YOU KNOW, CONCERNS WITH VIEW OBSTRUCTION AND TOOK PICTURES FROM THOSE LOCATIONS. AND THAT'S WHAT I'M SHOWING YOU HERE. AND I'VE OVERLAID ON THOSE PHOTOS, THIS RED LINE, WHICH IS THE PROFILE OF THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED, UH, PROJECT. UM, SO JUST, YOU KNOW, REFERENCING THE IMAGE BELOW, WE INSERT THE MODEL INTO THESE PHOTOS USING, UH, ACCURATE POINTS THAT WE HAVE, LIKE THE CHIMNEY, AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE THE, YOU KNOW, THE BULKHEADS TO USE AS A BASIS AND CAN INSERT THE MODEL IN THERE AND, UH, CAN SHOW YOU THAT THE, THE PROPOSED PROJECT DRAMATICALLY REDUCES THE IMPACT ON, UH, VIEW OBSTRUCTION AS COMPARED TO THE MOCKUP. AND THIS IS VIEWED FROM 4 83, 4 85. SO THE CORNER BUILDING, UM, UNIT ONE S ON THE FIRST FLOOR, UM, THIS IS VIEWED FROM 4 87. THAT'S ONE BUILDING OVER FROM THE CORNER, BUILDING FROM THE FIRST FLOOR UNIT. SO ONCE AGAIN, THESE WERE THE MOCKUPS OF THE PROPOSED BULKHEADS. AND IN RED IS THE PROFILE OF THE CURRENTLY PROPOSED BUILDING. AND UH, THIS IS FROM 4 91, THAT TOWNHOUSE THAT WE TOOK THE PANORAMA FROM, FROM THE SECOND FLOOR, UM, IT'S A LITTLE BIT HARD TO SEE 'CAUSE IT'S TWO BY FOURS UP AGAINST THE BEIGE BUILDING. BUT, UM, THE, UH, THE MOCKUP WAS UP HERE AND THE, UH, THE PROPOSED AMASSING IS, UH, LOWER THAN THAT MOCKUP SIGNIFICANTLY. CAN I SEE A QUESTION? WHAT WAS THE, UM, HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED BULKHEADS THAT WERE, UH, ELIMINATED AND NOW THERE IS THE SKYLIGHT OPENING ACCESS? SO THE, UH, THE BULKHEADS THEMSELVES WERE, I BELIEVE EIGHT FEET, LIKE THE, BUT THEY, YOU, DO YOU MEAN THE HEIGHT RELATIVE TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT OR NO, THE, THE, THE ACTUAL HEIGHT OF THE BULKHEAD THAT WOULD BE SITTING ON TOP OF THE ROOF DECK. SO, UH, I DON'T HAVE THAT EXACTLY. WE HAD AN EIGHT FOOT CEILING HEIGHT, SO IT WAS PROBABLY ABOUT NINE FEET. UM, IT WAS ONE FOOT SIX BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT AND, UH, FIVE FOOT SEVEN BELOW THE HEIGHT LIMIT HERE. DID YOU, THAT WAS, YOU'VE MADE IT THROUGH ALL YOUR VIEWS? UH, YES, I HAVE A CONCLUSIVE SLIDE, BUT I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT VIEW PRESERVATION. I'M NOTING, I'M NOTICING HERE THAT THE HEIGHT, YOU KNOW, THE HEIGHT OF THE BULKHEAD TO YOUR POINT IS NOTED AS SIX FOOT FIVE, BUT THAT'S ABOVE THE PARAPET. THE PARAPET IS, THERE'S A MASONRY PARAPET, THERE'S A SOLID PORTION OF PARAPET THAT'S ABOVE THE, UM, THE ROOFTOP. SO, UM, THE SIX FOOT FIVE IS NOT THE HEIGHT OF THE BULKHEAD, IT'S THE HEIGHT OF THE BULKHEAD ABOVE THE PARAPET. OKAY. UM, I THINK, I THINK THE FIRST QUESTION IS ABOUT THE BULKHEADS THAT ARE CURRENTLY PROPOSED. UM, YES, THAT IS, YES, IN THE WESTERN PORTION, THE WESTERN BLOCK OF, OF, UH, UNITS WHERE THERE ARE STILL BULKHEADS PROPOSED. UM, WE APPRECIATE THE SOLUTION IN THE SOUTH BLOCK OF PROVIDING THE, UH, ROOF ACCESS SKYLIGHTS. I THINK THE OBVIOUS QUESTION IS, DID YOU CONSIDER ROOF ACCESS SKYLIGHTS IN THE WESTERN BLOCK AS WELL? SO WE DID. AND UM, THE, THE REASON IT TOOK US THREE ITERATIONS TO GET TO THE ROOF ACCESS SKYLIGHTS ON THE SOUTH UNITS IS IT'S NOT THE PREFERRED METHOD OF ACCESS TO THE ROOFTOPS. UM, IT'S, IT'S FEASIBLE, IT'S SAFE, IT'S FINE. IT'S JUST BULKHEADS ARE PREFERRED. SO THAT'S WHY WE WOULD PREFER TO HAVE BULKHEADS ON THE WEST UNITS. AND THE REASON THAT WE'VE KEPT THEM HERE, BUT NOT ON THE SOUTH, IS THAT THEY WERE NOT RAISED AS A VIEW PRESERVATION ISSUE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE, UM, BECAUSE OF WHERE THEY SIT RELATIVE TO, UH, TO THE RIVER, UH, THEY WERE NOT NOTED AS A, A VIEW OBSTRUCTION. AND THAT'S WHY THERE WAS NO MOCKUP BUILT FOR THE WEST, UH, BULKHEADS. YOU KNOW, IT WAS EASY ENOUGH FOR THE EAST UNITS. WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE TO BUILD A MOCKUP. WE JUST SAID THE EAST UNITS ARE AT THE HEIGHT OF THE, OF THE WOOD FENCE. SO THAT WAS FULLY UNDERSTANDABLE. AND THE WEST UNITS, UH, YOU KNOW, SIT LOWER AND, UM, AND IT, THERE WAS NOT A VIEW PRESERVATION CONCERN, SO WE WERE NOT ASKED TO BILL A MOCKUP FOR THEM, AND WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE, YOU KNOW, THAT IT, THE BULKHEADS WERE A CONCERN FOR VIEW PRESERVATION. OKAY. BUT THAT IS THE, THE HEIGHT VARIANCE IS YES. LIMITED TO THOSE BULKHEADS. YES. I JUST WANNA MAKE A QUICK NOTE. AS IT RELATES TO VIEW PRESERVATION, ONE OF THE ITEMS THAT WAS DISCUSSED, BUT THE PLANNING BOARD AS IT RELATES TO VIEW PRESERVATION WAS KIND OF MITIGATION OF EFFECTS OF THE EFFECTS OF PEOPLE BEING ON THEIR, THEIR ROOFTOP DECKS. AND SO INCORPORATED TO THE NEG DECK ARE SOLUTIONS, INCLUDING, YOU KNOW, ANY FURNITURE ON THE ROOFTOP DECKS MUST BE LIMITED TO THE RAIL HEIGHT. YOU KNOW, UMBRELLAS MUST BE CLOSED WHEN THEY'RE NOT IN USE. AND ALSO ANCHORING OF THE UMBRELLAS TO PREVENT ANY, ANY IMPACTS FROM WIND. SO THESE ARE ALL SOLUTIONS THAT CAN BE INCORPORATED TO ANY CONDITION OF APPROVAL AS IT RELATES TO [01:05:01] YOUR PRESERVATION TO FURTHER MITIGATE ANY POTENTIAL IMPACTS. SO YEAH. THANK YOU. JUST TRYING AGAIN. AND WE DEVELOPED, AND I HAVE IT IN THE SLIDE DECK, WE HAVE A PLAN, A FURNITURE PLAN. WE PRESENTED, YOU KNOW, THAT THERE'S HURRICANE RESISTANT FURNITURE THAT WILL BE, AND, AND, AND LIKE YOU SAID THIS, THESE ITEMS ARE PROPOSED TO THE PLANNING BOARD TO BE INCORPORATED INTO THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AGREEMENTS. UM, SO THAT, UH, THERE'S A WAY TO ENFORCE, UM, THESE AGREEMENTS THAT WE CAME TO WITH THE PLANNING BOARD. ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO PRESENT? UM, I THEN HAVE A CONCLUDING SLIDE THAT'S, THAT'S THE END OF OUR PRESENTATION. UM, SO I COULD GO THERE IF WE'RE READY FOR THAT. UM, I THINK SO. OKAY, GREAT. UM, SO I WILL JUST CONCLUDE AND SAY THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS WE DISCUSSED, PROVIDES 20 NEW RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH OUTDOOR SPACE, WHICH WE HOPE WILL ADDRESS, HELP ADDRESS THE HOUSING CRISIS IN WESTCHESTER COUNTY, INCLUDING THREE NEW AFFORDABLE UNITS, WHICH WILL BE A DA COMPLIANT. UM, THE DEVELOPMENT WILL CONTRIBUTE TO MEETING THE GOALS OF THE UPDATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDING INCLUSIVE, DIVERSE TRANSIT ORIENTED HOUSING. THE PROPOSAL IS A PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY DEVELOPMENT THAT PRIORITIZES THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE OVER VEHICULAR REQUIREMENTS. UM, THE PRODE, THE DEVELOPMENT PROVIDES A PUBLIC PEDESTRIAN ACCESS THROUGH THE MUSE AND PROPOSED POCKET PARK AND STARE OFFERED BY THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE INSTER MUNICIPAL LOT AND THE WEEKLYS FARMER'S MARKET, WHICH WILL BE A PUBLIC AMENITY TO ENHANCE THE LIFE OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. ALL RIGHT. UM, NEXT UP, UM, WE WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC, UM, JUST A COUPLE QUICK REMINDERS. UM, WHEN YOU COME UP, PLEASE SAY YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. UM, I DO WANT TO, UM, SAY THAT WE APPRECIATE THAT THE APPLICANT, UM, GIVE A FOCUS PRESENTATION ABOUT THE FIVE OR SIX VARIANCES DEPENDING ON HOW YOU COUNT THEM THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING IN VIEW PRESERVATION. AND WE WOULD ASK THAT THE PUBLIC ALSO LIMIT THEIR COMMENTS TO WHAT IS BEING DISCUSSED TONIGHT, WHICH IS ONLY THOSE VARIANCES AND VIEW PRESERVATION. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JASON BRANDMAN AND I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF BROADWAY TRAINING CENTER, A NOT-FOR-PROFIT ANCHOR INSTITUTION IN HASTINGS FOR OVER 34 YEARS, AND THE OWNER OF 10 AND 12 WASHINGTON AVENUE DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM THE PROPOSED MUSE DEVELOPMENT. I'M HERE TONIGHT WITH TWO LONGTIME BTC BOARD MEMBERS, TERRY SMITH AND RAY REYES. WE ARE EXCITED TO WELCOME THE MUSE, WHICH WILL BE A BEAUTIFUL ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH A LOVELY FACADE, COURTYARD AND CAFE. AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO NEW FAMILIES JOINING WASHINGTON NAV. OUR PRIORITY IS ENSURING THAT THIS BLOCK IS SAFE, ACCESSIBLE, AND WELCOMING FOR NEW RESIDENTS, OUR EXISTING NEIGHBORS, AND THE MORE THAN 250 FAMILIES WE SERVE WEEKLY. BASED ON OUR FIRSTHAND EXPERIENCE MANAGING TRAFFIC ON THE STREET EVERY DAY, WE RESPECTFULLY ASK THE BOARD TO CONSIDER SOME CRITICAL ENHANCEMENTS TO THE CURRENT PROPOSAL. FIRST, WE ARE CONCERNED THAT THE TRAFFIC STUDY DOES NOT ADEQUATELY CAPTURE PEAK USAGE. OUR STREET EXPERIENCES, ITS MOST INTENSE CONGESTION BETWEEN 4:00 PM AND 8:00 PM WHEN SCHOOL PICKUPS AND DROP-OFFS COINCIDE WITH RUSH HOUR AND FREQUENT TRAIN TRAFFIC. THIS CONGESTION IS FURTHER COMPOUNDED BY THE STREET, STEEP GRADE, NARROW WIDTH, POOR LIGHTING AND LIMITED VISIBILITY, ALL OF WHICH SIGNIFICANTLY IMPACT SAFETY CONCERNS. WE STRONGLY BELIEVE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE TRAFFIC ASSESSMENT DURING PEAK HOURS IS NECESSARY TO PROTECT BOTH RESIDENTS AND CHILDREN. SECOND, WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS THAT THE PROPOSED PARKING VARIANCE DOES NOT REFLECT REAL WORLD CONDITIONS ON WASHINGTON AVE. THE PLAN REQUESTS A 15 SPACE REDUCTION FROM THE REQUIRED 35 SPACES IN AN AREA ALREADY BURDENED BY SEVERE PARKING SHORTAGES FOR BOTH RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES, PROVIDING ONLY ONE SPACE PER UNIT DOES NOT ACCOUNT FOR FAMILIES WITH MULTIPLE VEHICLES OR VISITING GUESTS AND WILL ALMOST CERTAINLY WORSEN EXISTING CONGESTION. WE ALSO WANT TO ADDRESS THE PROPOSAL ON PAGE 39, THE FINAL PAGE OF THE PDF, WHICH ELIMINATES ON-STREET PARKING ALONG THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE. THE REMOVAL OF THESE SPACES DOES NOT SEEM TO BE ADDRESSED IN THE PARKING STUDY. REMOVING ON-STREET PARKING UNDER THESE CONDITIONS WOULD NEGATIVELY AFFECT ACCESS TO BTC AND SURROUNDING HOMES TO SUPPORT A SAFE AND FUNCTIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD ONE REEVALUATE PARKING REQUIREMENTS TO BETTER REFLECT ACTUAL USAGE. PERHAPS CONSIDER USING A SMALL PORT. PERHAPS CONSIDER USING A SMALL PORTION OF THE TRAIN MUNICIPAL LOT AS SOME OF THE DESIGNATED PARKING FOR THE MUSE, WHICH WOULD BE ACCESSIBLE VIA THEIR PROPOSED STAIRWAY FROM THAT LOT. THAT'S JUST ONE SUGGESTION. TWO, CONSIDER CONVERTING THIS BLOCK OF WASHINGTON AVE TO ONE WAY TRAFFIC GOING WEST DOWN THE HILL TOWARD THE TRAIN STATION TO IMPROVE VISIBILITY AND SAFETY. AND THREE, ENSURE THAT BT C'S PREVIOUSLY APPROVED A DA ACCESSIBILITY [01:10:01] PERMIT, INCLUDING A DESIGNATED HANDICAP PARKING SPACE ADJACENT TO OUR FACILITY, IS FULLY INCORPORATED INTO THE FINAL NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR PRIORITIZING THE SAFETY AND LONG-TERM SUCCESS OF WASHINGTON AVE. WE APPRECIATE YOUR DEDICATION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND LOOK FORWARD TO CONTINUING TO SERVE THE HASTINGS COMMUNITY. AND I JUST WANT TO ADD ONE, ONE THING, WHICH IS, I DID START OFF BY SAYING THIS AND I I REALLY WANNA MAKE IT CLEAR WE THINK THAT THIS IS A BEAUTIFUL, UH, ADDITION TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. LIKE IT'S IT'S LOVELY. I THINK YOUR PRESENTATION WAS, WAS WONDERFUL AND, AND WE DO HOPE THAT THIS GOES FORWARD. UM, SO I JUST WANTED TO BRING UP THE ISSUES OF PARKING AND, AND TRAFFIC BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY A PROBLEM ON, ON, ON THAT STREET AND, AND SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S JUST BEING LOOKED AT AND ADDRESSED UNDER REAL WORLD CONDITIONS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. DO YOU WANNA RESPOND TO THAT ? UM, I CAN, WE SUBMITTED A TRAFFIC REPORT WHICH YOU HAVE. UM, AND I DO WANNA ADDRESS THE PARKING SPOTS BEING REMOVED ON WASHINGTON. WE'RE NOT PROPOSING TO REMOVE THE PARKING SPOTS ON WASHINGTON AVENUE. WE ARE BELIEVE ARE PROPOSING TO REMOVE, UM, ONE AS NEEDED TO ACCESS THE DRIVEWAY. UM, BUT WE ARE PROPOSING TO KEEP THE PARKING SPOTS ON WASHINGTON AVENUE. CAN, CAN I, UH, POINT OUT WHERE WHERE WE SAW THAT? JUST YOU HAVE TO SPEAK IT TO THE MICROPHONE. I'M SORRY. ALSO JUST, UH, JUST, JUST IN CASE 'CAUSE IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN FROM AN OLD STUDY, BUT ON IF, CAN YOU GO TO THE LAST PAGE? THE THIS? YEAH. THIS IS NOT THE SAME SET AS WELL WE SAW ON GOTCHA. SO ON THE LE ON THE LAST, WHICH WE CAN PULL UP ON THE COMPUTER, BUT ON THE LAST PAGE IT'S, IT ACTUALLY HAS A NOTE THAT SAYS THE ENTIRE FRONTAGE OF THE BUILDING WOULD REMOVE THE PARKING, UH, WOULD RE WOULD REMOVE HER PARKING SPACES ALONG THE TIRE AND FRONTAGE. AND I COULDN'T TELL HOW MANY WAS YOU SPACES THAT, YOU KNOW, AND THE LAST PAGES MIGHT HAVE BEEN THE LANDSCAPE DRAWINGS. I'M NOT SURE IF THAT WAS WHAT THE LAST PAGES WERE. UM, IF YOU WANT I'LL BRING IT UP ON MY COMPUTER, BUT IT WAS THIS, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT IF I REMEMBER WHAT WAS IN THE PF ARE THESE THE ONES? NO, IT WASN'T THIS. NO. OKAY. NO, I I DON'T KNOW WHAT YEAH, I CAN SHOW IT. I WAS JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE IT WASN'T MENTIONED IN THE PARKING STUDY AND I YEAH, I IMAGINE THAT WOULD BE AT LEAST THREE TO FIVE SPACES ALONG IT COULD BE AN ERROR BECAUSE I, THAT IS NOT OUR INTENTION AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SHOWING ON OUR, ON OUR SITE PLAN. UM, WE'RE NOT INTENDING TO REMOVE, UH, BEYOND WHAT'S NEEDED TO ACCESS THE, THE DRIVEWAY. GOT IT. GOT IT. YEAH, IT WAS, IT WAS SHOWING, UM, WELL I CAN PULL IT UP IF IT'S HELPFUL, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S GREAT TO HEAR. IF THAT'S NOT, THAT'S NOT, IF THAT'S NOT A PART OF THE, AND I WILL ALSO ADD, JUST FOR CONSIDERATION, I THINK THIS WAS BROUGHT UP AT THE LAST PLANNING BOARD MEETING 'CAUSE THERE WAS ALSO A CONCERN ABOUT THE TRAFFIC REPORT, UM, THAT THE TRAFFIC REPORT WAS PERFORMED FOR THOSE INITIAL, UH, SET OF UNITS THAT WE HAD THE THREE BEDROOM UNITS AND LARGER UNITS. AND ACTUALLY, UH, WE DID NOT PERFORM A REVISED TRAFFIC STUDY FOR THE REDUCED UNITS, BUT THE USE WOULD BE REDUCED FROM WHAT WAS IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY. MAY I ASK A QUESTION ON THIS SLIDE TOO? THE ARROWS THAT POINT GOING IN, UM, UH, THERE AND THEN COMING OUT DOWN THERE, I WASN'T SURE IF, IF YOUR PROPOSAL ALSO INCLUDED A PROPOSAL FOR THE SAME IDEA OF A ONE WAY ON WASHINGTON AVENUE BECAUSE OF THOSE ARROWS OR YES, I BELIEVE THAT'S IN THE TRAFFIC STUDY ALSO. IT'S PROPOSING ONLY A ONE WAY TURN OUT OF THE DRIVEWAY. YES. SO, SO SHE'S NOT PROPOSING CHANGING THE TRAFFIC FLOW OF WASHINGTON. GOT IT. BUT THEY'LL LIMIT THE PEOPLE LEAVING THE UNIT CAN ONLY GO TO THE RIGHT FOR THEIR OWN SAFETY. THAT'S THAT'S FAIR. THAT'S, THAT'S CERTAINLY A, A A GOOD DIRECTION FOR, FOR, FOR THAT. YEAH. I THINK A LOT OF TIMES, UM, BTC IS BLAMED FOR, YOU KNOW, TRAFFIC WHEN OUR PARENTS ARE TRAINED VERY WELL AND IT'S ACTUALLY ALL THE TRAFFIC COMING FROM THE TRAIN STATION AT THE END OF THE DAY COMING UP WASHINGTON AVENUE. IT CREATES A LOT OF THE HAVOC. I KNOW THAT THAT'S NOT RELATED DIRECTLY TO YOUR PROPOSAL, BUT I PUT THAT OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, JUST, JUST WHEN LOOKING AT, AT ALL OF THIS. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. I JUST DID YOU, THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY WANTED TO SAY SOMETHING? I JUST WANNA NOTE FOR THE, FOR THE BOARD, YOU KNOW, THIS HAS BEEN BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD FOR, FOR OVER A YEAR NOW. THEY DID A VERY ROBUST ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW UNDER CCRA AND THEY DID ADOPT A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. ONE OF THOSE ANALYSES ALSO INCLUDES IMPACTS ON TRANSPORTATION. AS THE APPLICANT HAD MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THEIR CONSULTANTS PROVIDED A TRAFFIC STUDY WHICH WAS REVIEWED BY THE VILLAGE AND ITS CONSULTANTS ULTIMATELY ACCEPTED. AND THAT HAS BEEN FACTORED INTO THE, THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION WHICH WAS PROVIDED TO THE BOARD BEFORE THIS MEETING. SO. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? THIS JUST, I PULLED UP THE, THE PAGE JUST SO THAT YOU CAN SEE IN CASE YOU, IN CASE YOU WANTED TO COMMENT ON ON THAT. SO, ON ON THIS TRAFFIC STUDY, IT JUST SHOWS, IT SAYS, UM, IT SAYS, UH, PARKING TO BE ELIMINATED ALONG ENTIRE FRONTAGE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S, I KNOW IF THAT'S ALL, SO THAT'S TERMS SITE, I THINK THAT IS OLD. I THINK THAT WAS AN INITIAL CONCEPT OF, AND MAYBE THAT WAS WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO GET THEM TO BE ABLE TO TURN OUT BOTH WAYS. UM, BUT I THINK THAT THE TURNING ONE WAY, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, ELIMINATES THE NEEDS FOR THAT TYPE OF VISIBILITY THAT WOULD ELIMINATE THE CARS. OKAY. SO THANK YOU FOR POINTING THAT OUT. THANK YOU. SORRY, I'M ACTUALLY JUMPING IN FRONT TOO. UM, JENNY EPAN, UH, 15 RIDGE STREET. I'M ALSO HERE FOR THE SAME REASONS THAT THEY ARE FOR THE PARKING CONCERN. I'M [01:15:01] THE ONE THAT BROUGHT IT UP. THE CONCERNS AROUND THE PARKING ASSESSMENT, UM, THEY ARE SUGGESTING, I MEAN, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I'M HEARING THAT IT'S A ONE WAY OUT OF THAT DRIVEWAY, BUT MY CONCERNS AROUND THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT'S GONNA COME UP BETWEEN FOUR AND EIGHT AND THE PARKING ASSESSMENT THAT WE WERE, WE SHOWED DIDN'T ASSESS ANY TRAFFIC FROM THE TRAIN STATION OR FROM THE SCHOOL. THEY JUST TALKED ABOUT THE PARKING AROUND THOSE TWO RESIDENTS. AND THOSE RESIDENTS HAVE BEEN EMPTY FOR YEARS. SO THE TABLE ONE AND TABLE TWO THAT THEY CITED ON THAT PARKING ASSESSMENT, UM, ISN'T ACCURATE. SO WHAT I'M PROPOSING IS THAT THEY DO ANOTHER PARKING ASSESSMENT, INCLUDING THE TRAIN STATION AND BTC TRAFFIC. I THINK THAT'D BE REALLY IMPORTANT. AND I CAME UP WITH A SIMILAR CONCLUSIONS AS BTC, THAT IF WASHINGTON WERE TO GO ONE WAY FACING E UH, WEST, IT WOULD PROBABLY ALLEVIATE SOME OF THAT TRAFFIC. AND IF EVERYONE'S GOING THAT WAY, BECAUSE CURRENTLY THERE ARE TWO BUS STOPS THAT COME THAT COME AROUND THERE AROUND THREE 30, WE'VE GOT THE TRAINS. MY KIDS CROSS THAT STREET AND IT'S, IT'S HARD, UH, WITH ALL THE CARS, MR. CHAIRMAN, THESE ARE PLANNING ISSUES. YES. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANKS. THANK YOU. HI, UH, I'M ANITA JAM, UH, 4 9 3 A WAR BURTON. I'M IN ONE OF THE WAR BURTON TOWNHOUSES AND I JUST WANNA SAY THAT, UM, WE AGREE WITH YOUR MR. BALDER'S COMMENT ABOUT THE BULKHEAD AND IT WAS RAISED THAT THE WEST UNITS WERE ENCROACHING UPON THE VIEW AND IT'S, UH, THE VIEW PRESERVATION CODE IS VERY STRICT AND WE WOULD SAY THAT THOSE ROOF ACCESS SKYLIGHTS THAT WERE PUT ON THE SOUTH UNITS SHOULD GO ON THE WEST UNITS. THERE WAS, IT WAS AN ABSOLUTE ISSUE. I MEAN WE'VE BEEN IN THIS FOR A YEAR AND A HALF IN THE PLANNING STAGES. VIEW PRESERVATION IS VERY STRICT AND IMPORTANT TO US. THEY PUT A LOT OF FOCUS ON THE SOUTH UNIT. THEY DID A MOCKUP ON THE SOUTH UNIT, YOU KNOW, THEY REDUCED THE SOUTH UNIT, THEY REMOVED THE BULKHEAD FROM THE SOUTH UNIT AND THE SAME CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE WEST UNITS BECAUSE THEY DO DEFINITELY ENCROACH UPON THE VIEWS FOR THE MORE BRITAIN TOWNHOUSES. SO I, AND I SENT A LOT OF LETTERS TO THE PLANNING BOARD AND I WILL RESUBMIT THEM. SO YOU COULD SEE VIEW PRESERVATION HAS BEEN ALWAYS A CONCERN FOR US LOOKING WESTWARD, OBVIOUSLY. SO, UM, I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT YOU LOOK AT THOSE LETTERS JUST TO SEE HOW MUCH THIS HAS GONE THROUGH WITH RESPECT TO HOW DETAILED THE PROPOSAL IS. AND, YOU KNOW, WE, WE RESPECTED ARCHITECT'S, THOUGHTFUL ANALYSIS OF EVERYTHING. THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT, UM, DID THE APPLICANT WANT TO RESPOND TO ANY OF THE, OKAY. UM, GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR BOARD MEMBERS. MY NAME IS JACOB AMIR FROM Z AND STEINITZ AND I'M THE ATTORNEY FOR THE APPLICANT. I DON'T HAVE MUCH TO, TO ADD TO KAREN'S PRESENTATION, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS, WAS REALLY THOROUGH AND COVERED PRETTY MUCH ALL THE BASES. AND I KNOW YOUR BOARD IS GONNA GO THROUGH THE FIVE PART TEST, SO I'M NOT GONNA BELABOR IT AT AT THIS POINT. UM, JUST WITH RESPECT TO THE, TO THE VIEW PRESERVATION, THE CODE IS SPECIFIC ON VIEW PRESERVATION. I DIDN'T, IT INTERESTINGLY, I DIDN'T SEE IT DEFINED THE WORD OBSTRUCTION, BUT I EQUATED I SAW STRUCTURES DEFINED IN YOUR CODE AS FIXED PERMANENT THINGS OR, OR, OR BEING. SO FOR INSTANCE, UMBRELLA AS A FURNITURE I DON'T THINK WOULD QUALIFY AS A STRUCTURE FOR THE PURPOSE. UM, UN UNDER THE CODE, IT'S A CONSIDERATION FOR SAFETY PURPOSES. I'M NOT SURE IT'S A CONSIDERATION IN TERMS OF TECHNICALLY FOR OBSTRUCTIONS UNDER VIEW PRESERVATION WITH REGARD TO THE SOUTH BUILDING OR THE SOUTH SECTION VERSUS THE WEST SECTION. UM, I ATTENDED MANY OF THE PLANNING BOARD MEETINGS. OBVIOUSLY THEY ISSUED A NEGATIVE DECLARATION. THEY WENT EXHAUSTIVELY THROUGH THE VIEW PRESERVATION. AND THIS PROJECT WENT THROUGH ITERATIONS BECAUSE THE PLANNING BOARD LOOKED AT ALL OF THE SECTIONS OF THE PROJECT. SO IT MAY HAVE BEEN RAISED BY, BY NEIGHBORS AS A CONCERN. UM, BUT THE PLANNING BOARD CLEARLY EXHAUSTIVELY LOOKED THROUGH VIEW PRESERVATION AS TO THE WEST, BUILDING AS TO THE SOUTH BUILDING WAS SATISFIED WITH, WITH THE CONCEPT AS FINALLY PRESENTED AND THEN REFERRED IT TO YOUR BOARD. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH. UM, ALL RIGHT. I THINK WE WILL, UM, DISCUSS THESE, UH, IT'S QUITE A FEW DIFFERENT THINGS. UH, YES. SORRY. ARE YOU ADJOURNING OR ARE YOU CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING? [01:20:01] IS THERE ANYONE ELSE FROM THE PUBLIC WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK IN THAT CASE? WE'RE CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING. UM, AND THE BOARD, UM, WILL DISCUSS EACH OF THESE. UM, I THINK, YOU KNOW, ON THE, ON THE PREVIOUS CASE, WE WERE ABLE TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF THE VARIANCES AND THE FIVE FACTORS SORT OF AT ONCE. I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE PRODUCTIVE TO TALK ABOUT EACH OF THE VARIANCES HERE. UM, I AM GOING TO MAYBE BRING THEM UP IN AN ORDER, WHICH I THINK MIGHT HELP US GET A FEW PASSED. UM, I'M GOING TO SUGGEST THAT THE, UH, THE VARIANCE REQUESTED FOR THE REQUIRED MANEUVERING AISLE, UM, FROM 24 TO 25, FROM 25 TO 24 FEET, OR A VARIANCE OF ONE FOOT IS ONE THAT I WOULD SUGGEST MEETS ALL THE FACTORS. UM, I WOULD ALSO SAY TWO THINGS ABOUT THAT. ONE. ONE IS THAT, UM, IT IS A PECULIARITY HASTINGS CODE. THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER CODES THAT, UH, ACCEPT A 24 HOUR, A 24 FOOT MANEUVERING AISLE. AND I WILL REMIND US ALL THAT THIS BOARD VERY RECENTLY APPROVED A VERY SIMILAR VARIANCE, UM, FOR FIVE 50 WAR BURDEN WHERE WE APPROVED A 24 FOOT, UM, MANEUVERING AISLE. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH REGARDS TO ANY OF THE FACTORS ON THE, UH, MANEUVERING AISLE? NO. AGAIN, THAT IS RELATIVELY STANDARD ACROSS CODES THROUGHOUT WESTCHESTER TO HAVE 24 FEET. HASTINGS IS SOMEONE OF AN ANOMALY AT 25 FEET. OKAY. . UM, AGAIN, WE WON'T, WE WON'T VOTE ON THESE UNTIL THE END, BUT I'M JUST SORT OF TALKING ABOUT THEM. UM, I'M LOOKING FOR SOMETHING ELSE. UH, I THINK PERHAPS WE COULD TALK NEXT ABOUT THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS. UM, THIS ONE, AGAIN, IT SEEMS TO BE A LITTLE BIT OF A CODE ANOMALY. I'LL ADMIT. IT TOOK ME A LITTLE WHILE TO KIND OF FIGURE IT OUT. UM, IN GENERAL, IN THE DOWNTOWN CORE, THERE AREN'T A LOT OF SIDE YARDS. UM, THERE'S A LOT OF ZERO LOT LINES. UM, I GUESS I, I UNDERSTAND THE INTERPRETATION OF THE CODE AND THE FACT THAT, UM, BY THE LETTER OF THE LAW, THE, THE MORE THAN 50 FOOT DEEP, UM, THE MORE THAN 50 FOOT DEEP LOT DOES TRIGGER THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING THE, THE PART OF THIS, WHAT'S INTERESTING IS, AGAIN, THE REASON WHY THERE'S A ZONING BOARD IS THAT THE CODE CAN'T ANTICIPATE EVERY SITUATION. BUT THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE LENGTH OF THIS SITE IS SIDE YARD TO REAR YARD. UM, WHICH IS A VERY DIFFERENT CON CONDITION THAN SIDE YARD TO SIDE YARD. UM, THE SIDE YARD TO SIDE YARD CONDITION ALREADY EXISTS FOR THE EXISTING BUILDINGS AND IT'S BEING IMPROVED ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT. AND THE REST OF THE SITE IS SIDE YARD TO REAR YARD, WHICH, UH, TO ME MAKES IT LESS OF A CONCERN 'CAUSE THERE'S A BUFFER IN BOTH SIDES. SO THIS IS ANOTHER ONE THAT I DON'T PARTICULARLY HAVE ANY CONCERNS RELATIVE TO THE FACTORS, BUT DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS ON THAT ONE? NO, I THINK IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE CHARACTER OF, OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND, AND EVEN WITH THE EXISTING STRUCTURE, SO. OKAY. UM, WANTED TO TALK MAYBE NEXT ABOUT THE COURT WIDTH. UM, SO THIS IS, THIS IS THE ONE WHERE REQUIRED IS 20 FEET PROPOSED IS BETWEEN 12.4 AND 21.5, BUT AT THE WORST POINT, THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED IS 7.6 FEET. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE RELATIVE TO THE FIVE FACTORS? I THINK IT MAKE IT MAKE SENSE FROM A, AN AESTHETIC POINT OF VIEW, AND IT'S ALMOST, IF YOU TAKE THE AVERAGE, YOU'RE SORT OF WELL WITHIN WHAT THE, THE REQUIRED WIDTH WOULD BE. YEP. I ALSO THINK SO GO AHEAD, I'M SORRY. NO, IT'S AN ENTIRELY NEW SPACE AND SO I I ALSO THINK THAT BECAUSE IT IS CREATING A NEW SEMI-PUBLIC SPACE, UM, THAT THE, ANY ADVERSE EFFECT BY NOT STRICTLY MEETING THAT COURT REQUIREMENT IS, IS ONLY AFFECTING THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF. SO I THINK THERE'S A PRETTY SMALL IMPACT THERE. YEAH, I WAS GONNA SAY SOMETHING SIMILAR WITH REGARD TO THE FACTORS THAT LOOK AT NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTER AND EFFECT OF THE CONTEXT. THIS IS AN ENTIRELY INTERIOR COURT. I WOULD ARGUE THAT IF THAT DIMENSION IS TOO, TOO NARROW, IT WOULD BE, UM, IT WOULD, IT WOULD AFFECT THE RESIDENTS OF THE UNIT. IT WOULD AFFECT THE DEVELOPER'S ABILITY TO SELL THOSE UNITS IF IT FELT LIKE YOU WERE TOO CLOSE TO YOUR NEIGHBOR. SO [01:25:01] AS THE PUBLIC IS CONCERNED, UH, THAT'S AN INTERIOR COURT. I, I THINK TO THE EXTENT IT'S A PUBLIC SPACE THAT PEOPLE WILL WALK THROUGH, I'M NOT SURE THAT THEY WILL FEEL THAT IT'S A LESSER SPACE BECAUSE IT VARIES AS OPPOSED TO BEING 20 I I THE PUBLIC EFFECT IS MINIMAL. SO I I'M ALSO FAIRLY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT ONE. UM, ANYBODY ELSE FACTORS ON THE COURT WITH THOUGHTS OR CONCERNS? ALRIGHT, I THINK IF IT'S OKAY, WE'LL LEAVE THE HEIGHT AND THE VIEW PRESERVATION FOR LAST. THE NEXT ONE, UH, IS THE REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING. SO AGAIN, UM, 20 SPACES ARE PROPOSED, 35 WOULD BE REQUIRED. HAVE WE CONFIRMED IF IT'S 35 OR 34? SO WOULD YOU WANNA WEIGH ON ON THAT? YES. SO WHEN YOU DO THE MATH, IT COMES OUT TO A FRACTION 34 POINT SOMETHING, WHICH OBVIOUSLY WE HAVE TO ROUND UP TO 35. OKAY. SO THAT'S WHY I HAD TO MAKE THE CHANGE WITH THE NOTICE TO 35. OKAY. SO THAT THE CORRECT, THE CORRECT REQUIREMENT, THEY ROUNDED DOWN, I ROUNDED UP THE CORRECT REQUIRED WE CAN'T HAVE A 10TH OF A PARKING SPACE. WELL, YOU COULD, I GUESS . UM, SO THE, THE CORRECT REQUIREMENT IS 35. AND SO THE VARIANCE BEING REQUESTED IS 15 SPACES. DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THIS ONE? I CAN GIVE YOU SOME TIME. , THE ONE THING I WILL AGAIN REMIND THIS BOARD IS THAT WE RECENTLY ALSO APPROVED A ONE-TO-ONE UNIT TO, UM, PARKING SPACE RATIO FOR FIVE 50 WAR BURTON. UM, THE DISCUSSION THAT WE HAD AT THE TIME, WHICH MAY OR MAY NOT APPLY HERE IS SOME OF THE THINGS THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, UM, THAT THERE IS THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT. THERE IS, UM, YOU KNOW, BOTH BY OUR GOVERNOR AND OUR MAYOR AND OUR BOARD OF TRUSTEES, UM, PUSH TO CREATE DENSITY IN THE URBAN CORRIDOR NEAR PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION. UM, AND THERE IS, AGAIN, THE APPLICANT MENTIONED THIS, UM, OUR CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS RECOMMENDING THAT IN THE FUTURE HASTINGS CONSIDER GOING TO ONE PER ONE. UM, SO I THINK THAT WAS SOME OF THE DISCUSSION WE HAD WITH REGARDS TO FIVE 50 WAR BURDEN. IT DOESN'T MAKE THAT NECESSARILY THE SAME, BUT THAT THESE ARE SIMILAR. I THINK, I THINK IT COULD BE SAID THESE ARE SIMILAR IN THEIR RELATION TO THE DOWNTOWN CORE GEOGRAPHICALLY. AND AGAIN, PARKING WAS ALSO EXAMINED IN THE BOARD'S, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD'S SIGN A DECLARATION. I THINK IT IS ALSO WORTH, YOU KNOW, ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE IS A, YOU KNOW, A STAIRWAY GOING TO THE PARKING LOT OF THE TRAIN STATION THAT, THAT THEORETICALLY COULD PROMOTE, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVING A SINGLE CAR RATHER THAN TWO CARS JUST 'CAUSE IT IS SO EASY TO GET TO THE TRAIN STATION FROM THIS. UM, I CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, SHARE THE CONCERNS OF OF, OF PEOPLE WE'VE ALL, YOU KNOW, KIND OF GONE UP AND DOWN THAT STREET BEFORE. BUT I THINK THAT WE'RE, UM, YOU KNOW, REALLY LOOKING AGAIN AT THE, UH, AT AT AT THE ZONING FOR THIS. UH, SO, UM, I I, I DO THINK THAT THAT WE HAVE, UH, APPROVED THIS FOR OTHER BUILDINGS THAT ARE IN VERY, VERY SIMILAR SITUATION. I ALSO WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE COMPLETELY OUT OF OUR SCOPE TO APPROVE, I THINK A LOT OF GOOD IDEAS WERE DISCUSSED HERE TODAY, BUT THEY'RE, THEY'RE NOT, UH, WITHIN, WITHIN OUR POWER TO, UH, TO WEIGH ON FOR THIS PROJECT. UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING, UM, ADDING MORE PARKING AND MORE CARS ALSO DOES ADD MORE TRAFFIC. SO REDUCING THE NUMBER TO 20, UM, IN TERMS OF LONG-TERM PLANNING, I THINK MAKES SENSE. THE CONTEXT, THE TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, I THINK THERE'S A, A CLEAR ARGUMENT AND, YOU KNOW, RESTING ON THE, THE ANALYSIS DONE BY, UM, BY THE, THE PLANNING BOARD AS WELL, UM, GIVES ME MORE COMFORT IN IN GOING ALONG WITH THAT AS WELL. YEAH, I WILL ADD AGAIN, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW, IT'S ALSO NOT THE APPLICANT'S PURVIEW TO CHANGE STREETS, RIGHT? THEY'RE REQUIRED TO, UM, DO A PARKING STUDY, UH, AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. BUT HAVING SAID THAT, I DRIVE DOWN THAT STREET EVERY SINGLE DAY TO THE TRAIN STATION, AND I AM SHOCKED THAT THERE ARE NOT MORE ACCIDENTS. I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, IT SHOULD BE ONE WAY. IT'S ONE OF THE BEST IDEAS I'VE EVER HEARD. UM, I WOULD SUPPORT IT FULLY, ALTHOUGH I HAVE, AS BRIAN MENTIONED, NO AUTHORITY. UM, BUT MAYBE AFTER THIS, UM, WE COULD, WE COULD ALL GET TOGETHER. I I THINK THAT WOULD BE MUCH SAFER, UH, AS A ONE WAY STREET, UM, FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED. UM, BUT [01:30:01] AGAIN, IT'S NOT, UM, IT'S NOT A, IT'S NOT A VARIANCE WE CAN GRANT AND IT'S NOT, UH, NECESSARILY FAIR TO PUT THAT ON THE APPLICANT OF THIS PROJECT. BUT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, IT'S IN THE RECORD. UM, LET'S MAKE WASHINGTON ONE WAY. OKAY. . UM, OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT HEIGHT AND VIEW? ALL RIGHT. UM, I THINK THERE, THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS. WE HAVE A VARIANCE FOR HEIGHT. WE HAVE APPROVAL OF THE VIEW PRESERVATION. I THINK THEY'RE RELATED IN DISCUSSION BECAUSE THEY'RE BOTH BASED ON THOSE BULKHEADS, RIGHT? SO I THINK I WILL SAY, UM, THAT, UH, THIS, IF WHATEVER YOU THINK OF THE PUBLIC PROCESS, SOMETHING HAPPENED IN 15 MONTHS, THIS BUILDING HAS GOTTEN LOWER. I, I MYSELF HAVE GONE TO TWO BACKUPS. UM, THERE HAS BEEN DIALOGUE AND BACK AND FORTH. SO I DO THINK THAT'S THE PROCESS WORKING. WE'RE DOWN TO THIS SORT OF LAST PIECE OF THE ISSUE. UM, AND UH, YEAH, I THINK THE, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE APPLICANT HAS DONE THINGS TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS THAT, THAT THE COMMUNITY HAD. UH, AND, AND I THINK THE VERSION OF THIS BUILDING THAT IS HERE 15 MONTHS LATER IS DEFINITELY, UM, I GUESS WE'RE TALKING TODAY IF THEY'VE, IF WE'VE MADE IT TO THE FINAL HURDLE. BUT IT'S DEFINITELY MUCH MORE, I THINK, VIEW FRIENDLY AND HEIGHT FRIENDLY THAN IT STARTED. UM, WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD THING. UM, AGAIN, YOU KNOW, SOME OF US GOT TO SEE THE MOCK UP IN PERSON. WE COULD BRING BACK, MAYBE YOU COULD BRING BACK YOUR, YOUR, YOUR VIEW PRESERVATION SLIDE THAT HAD THE UM, THE VIEW THAT SHOWED THE MOCKUP. UM, THERE, IT'S ON MY SCREEN. IT'S JUST NOT COMING. IT MAY TAKE A MOMENT. TAKE A MINUTE. IT'LL TAKE A SECOND. YEP. AND JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE BOARD, UH, THE VIEW PRESERVATION LANGUAGE SAYS YOU'RE SUPPOSED TO CONSIDER, YOU KNOW, THE BEST CITING DIMENSIONS AND CONFIGURATION OF THE PRINCIPLE BUILDING AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES, YOU KNOW, AS TO CAUSE THE LEAST POSSIBLE OBSTRUCTION OF THE VIEW OF THE HUDSON RIVER AND THE PALISADES. THANK YOU. THAT'S THE NUMBER. THAT'S THE ONE. VP TWO, IT'S V VP TWO I THINK IS THE, PROBABLY THE BEST ONE TO LOOK AT. COME ON. TVS THE BACK END, YOU'RE BEING A PAIN IN THE BUTT AS THEY USUALLY ARE. MAKES SENSE. I'M GLAD IT WORKED FOR THE REST OF THE PRESENTATION. I KNOW, RIGHT? UM, WELL I'M HAPPY TO FLIP THIS AROUND AND PASS IT BY YOU. WE HAVE IT ON A COUPLE OF SCREENS UP HERE. THIS IS A CLEARER VERSION OF IT. I THINK WE'RE GOOD. WE HAVE IT ON THREE SCREENS HERE. OKAY. UM, MAYBE I COULD JUST ASK YOU TO TALK AGAIN ABOUT TWO THINGS. YOU SAID THAT, UM, THAT THE REASON WHY THE BULKHEADS WERE NOT MOCKED UP WAS BECAUSE THEY, I, I DON'T WANNA PUT WORDS IN YOUR MOUTH, BUT THERE WAS A, CAN YOU DESCRIBE SORT OF A MINIMAL IMPACT? SO THE REASON THE WEST BULKHEADS WERE NOT MOCKED UP WAS BECAUSE, UH, THERE WAS A MINIMAL IMPACT. IF YOU SEE IT ON THE PICTURE I HAVE HERE, YOU COULD REALLY SEE THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, VERY MINIMAL RIVER EXISTING VIEW THAT'S BLOCKED, IF ANY, AND THAT THAT RIVER VIEW IS CURRENTLY BLOCKED BY TREES THAT ARE ON THE SITE. UM, SO IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED A VIEW PRESERVATION CONCERN AND THAT'S WHY IT WAS NEVER REQUESTED BY THE PLANNING BOARD THAT WE MOCK UP THE WEST BULKHEAD. YEAH. AND AGAIN, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'VE, WE'VE DONE A FEW VIEW PRESERVATIONS OVER THE YEARS. YOU KNOW, THE MOCKUPS IS ONE METHOD. PEOPLE HAVE WHATEVER THEY THINK OF THAT THE DIGITAL COMPS ARE ANOTHER METHOD AND PEOPLE HAVE WHATEVER THEY THINK OF THAT. BUT YOU KNOW, I [01:35:01] I DO THINK THERE IS A GATING AUTHORITY, UM, THE PLANNING BOARD AND SOMETIMES THE BUILDING INSPECTOR THAT DECIDES WHEN WE ARE IMPACTING, UM, WHEN WE ARE IMPACTING THE RIVER ENOUGH TO DO A MOCK-UP. AND SO I GUESS THE CONTENTION HERE IS THAT THESE ARE, ARE LARGELY BELOW THE LEVEL OF THE RIVER AND OR OVERLAP WITH EXISTING STRUCTURES, UM, WITH EXISTING STRUCTURES AND EXISTING TREES. YES. AND THE, THE OTHER THING THAT YOU MENTIONED, JUST CLARIFYING AGAIN, IS THAT YOU ARE ESSENTIALLY CLAIMING THAT MORE RIVER WOULD BE REVIEWED THROUGH THE REMOVAL OF TREES. YES. SO, SO JUST SO I UNDERSTAND THIS, SO THE, YOUR, YOUR CONTENTION IS THIS BUILDING AS IT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED WILL INCREASE THE VIEW THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS, WHICH I SEE LOOKS SIGNIFICANT IN TERMS OF THE AMOUNT OF WATER THAT YOU SEE AND THE PERCENTAGE OF THE PALISADES THAT YOU SEE WITHOUT THE TREES AND THE BULKHEADS HAVE A MINIMAL IMPACT ON THAT VIEW, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THE BULKHEADS AS PROPOSED ARE OBSTRUCT IF, IF THEY ARE OBSTRUCTING ANY VIEW OF THE RIVER, THEY'RE OBSTRUCTING VIEW THAT IS ALREADY OBSTRUCTED AND, AND, AND THE ADJACENT VIEWS IN THAT, YOU KNOW, VICINITY WILL BE OPENED UP BY THE REMOVAL OF TREES. CORRECT? EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. TO THE PRINCIPLE OF MINIMUM POSSIBLE, THERE IS AN ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF ANOTHER POSSIBILITY IN THE SKYLIGHTS, THE ROOF ACCESS SKYLIGHTS. RIGHT. SO THERE A SOLUTION BEING USED IN THE PROJECT ALREADY, IF APPLIED HERE FURTHER REDUCES THE IMPACT OF RIVERVIEW. THAT IS TRUE. I MEAN THOUGH VIEWED IN THE FACT, YOU KNOW, THAT UNEQUIVOCALLY THE PROJECT WOULD PREFER TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE ROOF BULKHEADS FOR OBVIOUS REASONS. UM, AND UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, AS, AS MEL MURS I MENTIONED THAT THE VIEWS ARE BEING OPENED UP IN THAT AREA AND THAT VICINITY THE VIEWS OF THE RIVER BEING OPENED UP BY THE REMOVAL OF TREES. SO THE IMPACT OF THESE BULKHEADS, IF ANY AS LIMITED AS IT IS, IS IN AREAS THAT ARE CURRENTLY OBSTRUCTED AND AREAS ADJACENT TO AREAS THAT WILL BE OPENED UP THAT ARE CURRENTLY OBSTRUCTED. COULD. SO IF WE LOOKED AT IT MATHEMATICALLY, UM, YOU KNOW, IT, WE COULD SAY THAT THEY WOULD BE ENDING UP WITH MORE RIVER VIEWS THERE, EVEN IF THE BULKHEADS WERE OBSTRUCTING SOME RIVER VIEW. COULD YOU ELABORATE THE BENEFITS FROM YOUR PERSPECTIVE OF BULKHEADS VERSUS THE SKYLIGHT? MM-HMM . UM, THE PREFERENCE FOR THE BULK? YES. YES. IF YOU WANT TO TRY UNPLUG, RESTART. WE PLUG IN. OKAY. SO WE RESTART THE COMPUTER, YOU THINK? YEAH. OKAY. UM, SO, UM, THE, UH, PREFERENCES ARE AS, I MEAN THE ACCESS SKYLIGHTS ARE ELECTRONIC. THEY REQUIRE MAINTENANCE. THEY COULD, THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE FAIL, THEY'RE SAFE. SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE FAIL, UM, YOU KNOW, FAIL SAFE SO THAT THEY, THEY'RE, YOU'RE NOT, YOU'RE NOT LOCKED ON THE ROOF IF YOU LOSE ELECTRICITY, BUT THEY ARE ELECTRIC. UM, THEY HAVE, THEY COULD BREAK. SO THERE'S ALL THAT ASPECT OF, OF THEM MAINTENANCE REQUIRED TO THEM. UM, THEY'RE LIKELY MORE EXPENSIVE THAN, UH, A CONVENTIONAL BULKHEAD. AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, UM, WHEN THEY ARE OPEN, YOU KNOW, YOUR SPACE IS OPEN TO THE ELEMENTS. NOW YOU'RE NOT REALLY GOING TO YOUR ROOFTOP WHEN IT'S POURING, BUT YOU MIGHT BE ON YOUR ROOFTOP AND IT MIGHT START POURING. SO IT'S NOT AS CONVENIENT AS A A BULKHEAD. OKAY. YEAH. THANK YOU. WAS IT YOUR RECOLLECTION OF THE WEST BULKHEADS REALLY WERE AN ISSUE OF THE PLANNING BOARD? THE WEST BULKHEAD WERE NOT AN ISSUE. THE, I THINK OFFICIALLY WE'VE CLOSED THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. UM, BUT I CAN IMAGINE WHAT YOU WOULD SAY. YEAH, WELL I THINK THEY SHOULD BE THE LETTERS THAT I'VE SENT, I SAID TO THE PLANNING BOARD, I'LL SUBMIT THEM. OKAY. I REALLY WOULD ENCOURAGE THEM. YEAH. BUT TO BE, JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE, A LOT OF US HAVE, UH, READ THROUGH ALL OF THE PLANNING BOARD TRANSCRIPTS. OKAY. UH, AND FOLLOWED THAT. AND WE ALSO GET, UM, A MEMORANDUM FROM THE PLANNING BOARD SUMMARIZING THEIR FINDINGS. SO WE ARE AWARE OF, UM, I, I WON'T SAY EVERY LETTER, BUT GENERALLY WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT, BUT WE CAN'T SPEAK FROM THE AUDIENCE. YOU HAVE TO COME UP TO THE PODIUM. PUBLIC COMMENT IS CLOSED IN ADDITION TO THE HUDSON RIVER FOR THE RECORD. OKAY. YOU KNOW, UM, DOES ANYONE WANT TO DISCUSS THEIR THOUGHTS AROUND, UH, THIS VIEW PRESERVATION APPROVAL? UM, I MEAN I, WE OBVIOUSLY WE WOULDN'T APPROVE THE HEIGHT WITHOUT THE, LIKE THEY'RE, THEY'RE PRETTY, THEY'RE CONNECTED, RIGHT? I MEAN, HEIGHT AND VIEW RESERVATION. VIEW RESERVATION. RIGHT. YOU THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY POINT IN IMPROVING WHAT, JUST, JUST TO CLARIFY, THE HEIGHT RELATES TO THE BULKHEAD, I BELIEVE ON THE WEST YES. WESTERN BUILDING THAT REALLY WASN'T RAISED, RAISED AS A NEW PRESERVATION ISSUE BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD. SO THEY'RE RELATED, [01:40:01] BUT ALSO NOT AS CLOSELY AS, AS YOU MIGHT BELIEVE. OKAY. BUT AT, OKAY, THAT'S IMPORTANT CLARIFICATION. 'CAUSE AS IT'S BEING PRESENTED, IT'S A NEW PRESERVATION ELEMENT. YEAH. SORRY, JUST TO TO, TO CLARIFY. MAYBE THE APPLICANT CAN CLARIFY THAT POINT FOR, IF YOU WANNA JUMP IN THAT THE, I'M SORRY, I WAS PAYING ATTENTION TO THIS. I'M SORRY. GO AHEAD. THE WESTERN BULKHEADS, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE RELEVANT FOR THE HEIGHT VARIANCE, BUT IT WASN'T REALLY RAISED AS A VIEW PRESERVATION ISSUE BEFORE THE PLANNING BOARD. IT, THE, THE PLANNING BOARD DID NOT FIND IT TO BE MUCH OF A IMPACT AS, AS THE, THEY WERE WHEN THEY WERE ON THE SOUTH SIDE. MM-HMM . THAT WAS MUCH MORE OF AN IMPACT ON THE SOUTH SIDE THAN THERE WAS ON THE WEST SIDE. THE, THE, THE, THE PRESENCE OF BULK HEADS. THE BULK HEADS, YEAH. AS, AS A VIEW PRESERVATION, AS A VIEW PRESERVATION ISSUE. THE HEIGHT LIMIT IS CLEARLY NUMERICALLY DEFINED. RIGHT. THAT'S EXACTLY VIEW PRESERVATION IS SOMEWHAT MORE SUBJECTIVE AND THE CORRECT WESTERN BULKHEADS WERE NOT FLAGGED. SO THEREFORE NO, OUR DETERMINATION, JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING MM-HMM . SHOULD NOT TAKE THEM INTO ACCOUNT AS A VIEW PRESERVATION CONCERN. WELL, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THEM INTO CONSIDERATION BECAUSE THEY ARE IN THE PRESERVATION DISTRICT AND THEY DO HAVE AN EFFECT. THEY DO COVER A SMALL PORTION OF THE RIVER, SO THEY, YOU HAVE TO TAKE THEM INTO EFFECT. OKAY. BUT IT'S NOT ALL OR NOTHING AS IT RELATES TO THAT. THE PLANNING BOARD FOUND IT AS DI MINIMI. SO. WELL THEN LET ME UNDO SOMETHING THAT I MAY HAVE DONE INCORRECTLY. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE HEIGHT VARIANCES OF ITSELF. SO NOTHING TO DO WITH VIEW PRESERVATION. UM, THE HEIGHT VARIANCE BEING, UH, THAT'S BEING REQUESTED HERE OF 43.4 REQUIRED 43.4 FEET HIGHER. IF YOU RECALL THE CHART THAT WAS IN ONE LOCATION AND IN OTHER LOCATIONS, THE INTERSECTING SAWTOOTH OF THE HEIGHT AND THE, UM, BULKHEADS KIND OF INTERSECTED. THE WORST CASE SCENARIO WAS 3.5. UM, OUTSIDE OF TAKING VIEW PRESERVATION OUT OF IT, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CONCERNS RELATIVE TO THE FIVE FACTORS ABOUT THE HEIGHT? AND IN THIS ONE, MAYBE WE SHOULD DO THEM ONE BY ONE. SO, UH, WITH REGARDS TO, UM, WHETHER IT'S AN UNDESIRABLE CHANGE WILL BE PRODUCED IN THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY CONCERNS OR COMMENTS ON THAT? NO, NOT HERE. UM, WHETHER THE SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT CAN BE ACHIEVED BY SOME METHOD FEASIBLE FOR THE APPLICANT TO PURSUE. OTHER THAN THE AREA OF AREAS, I THINK TECHNICALLY WE HAVE THE SKYLIGHT. SO AS ANOTHER OPTION. AS AN OPTION. SO THAT, SO THE BULKHEADS ARE WHAT'S CAUSING THE, THE HEIGHT, VARI FIBER FOR THE, THE HEIGHT VARIATION EXCLUSIVELY, RIGHT? YES. UM, WHETHER THE REQUESTED AREA, WELL, SO THERE, THERE IS SOME THOUGHT THERE THAT THERE IS UM, THERE IS SOME OTHER METHOD POTENTIALLY YES. WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT THAT IT'S NOT EXACTLY THE SAME. THAT THERE ARE CONSIDERATIONS ONE OVER THE OTHER. BUT AGAIN, I THINK IN THE BALANCING OF THIS, IT, IT, AND MAYBE THIS SPEAKS TO UM, WHETHER THAT SPEAKS TO THE NEXT ONE, WHICH IS WHETHER THE AREA, THE VARIANCE IS REQUESTED THERE AMONGST THOSE, I THINK THERE ARE FOUR OR FIVE BULKHEADS. IT'S A SMALL PERCENTAGE OF THEM THAT, UH, PIERCED THE HEIGHT, UM, LINE. SO IF WE COULD PUT UP THAT SLIDE, WE COULD LOOK AT IT AGAIN. UM, THERE YOU GO. THERE IT IS. GOT YOUR WISH. YOU ONE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU. IT'S THE IT PERSON TELLING ME WHAT TO DO. . SO AGAIN, IF WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS, THE BULKHEAD ON THE LEFT IS MINIMAL. THE BULKHEAD SECOND FROM THE RIGHT IS MINIMAL AND, AND THE CENTRAL ONE IS THE ONE THAT I THINK IS MOST, MOST THROUGH THAT SPACE. SORRY, THE CENTRAL ONE IS THE ONE THAT IS HIGHEST. YEAH. I MEAN IF YOU LOOK, THEY'RE ALL THE SAME HEIGHT, BUT IF YOU SEE THE, THE STEP DOWN LINE OF THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND THEN THE RED NUMBERS ARE THE VARIANCES BETWEEN THE BULKHEAD AND THAT MOVING HEIGHT LINE. MM-HMM . ON, ON VP TWO, WHICH IS THE, THE MOCKUP OF THE BULKHEADS AND THE RIVER VIEW. THAT CENTRAL ONE IS ALSO BLOCKED BY WHAT APPEARS TO BE A TREE THAT WILL NOT BE REMOVED. SO THAT ONE THAT IS HIGHER THAN THE REST WOULDN'T MATTER IF IT WAS A SKYLIGHT OR A THAT'S INTERESTING BULKHEAD. YEAH, THAT'S TRUE. UNLESS YOU MOVE 10 FEET TO THE LEFT OR THE RIGHT. RIGHT. THIS IS FROM A SINGLE PERSPECTIVE POINT. MM-HMM . SO THAT'S WHAT POINT, THAT ALIGNMENT IS NOT UNIVERSAL. SO I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT, THE TREES ARE WIDE TREES, SO YES. YES, YES. AND YES. WELL, STAYING WITH UM, HEIGHT UNCOUPLED WITH, UH, VIEW FOR A MOMENT, UH, WE TALKED ABOUT WHETHER THE VARIANCE IS SUBSTANTIAL. I WOULD POSIT THAT AGAIN, [01:45:01] RELATIVE TO THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF BULKHEAD, IT'S RELATIVELY SMALL. SMALL, YEAH. UH, WHETHER THE PROPOSED VARIANCE WILL HAVE AN ADVERSE EFFECT OR IMPACT ON THE PHYSICAL ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR DISTRICT. UM, AGAIN, I THINK THE ARGUMENT COULD BE MADE HERE THAT, UM, THAT'S PART OF YOU. BUT I THINK THE ARGUMENT HERE IS THAT IT'S A SMALL IMPACT AND TAKEN WITH THE REST OF THE PROJECT. AND AGAIN, VISUAL IMPACTS WERE STUDIED AS PART OF, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD, STEEP REVIEW. AND THE LAST ONE IS OBVIOUSLY THE SELF-CREATED ONE AND TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THAT, UM, THIS IS PART OF THE, WHAT'S TRYING TO BE BUILT HERE. ALTHOUGH ACCESS TO THE ROOF IS NOT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE UNITS THEMSELVES, IT'S DISCRETIONARY AND AS, AS PROVEN BY THE, THE EAST BLOCK NOT PROVIDING ROOF ACCESS FOR THE WEST DOES. YEAH. ALTHOUGH I'LL ADD TO THAT IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ROOFTOP USE IS RELATIVELY COMMON IN HASTINGS AND OTHER DEVELOPMENTS. AND THAT WE FOUND THAT IT ALLOWS FAMILIES TO STAY IN UNITS LONGER IF THEY HAVE OUTDOOR SPACE AND SIGNIFICANT OUTDOOR SPACE. IS THERE A HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL DIFFERENTIAL AT ALL BETWEEN THE SOUTH AND WEST, THE TOPS OF THE SOUTH AND WEST BUILDINGS? ARE THEY ALL ALONG THE SAME LINE? UM, THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I'D HAVE TO PULL UP ONE OF OUR ELEVATIONS THAT SHOWS BOTH OF THEM. UM, I DON'T THINK THEY ARE THE SAME. SOUTH AND WEST OR EAST AND WEST. SOUTH AND WEST. BOTH OF THEM ARE, I MEAN, EVEN BOTH CASES, THEY'RE NOT THE SAME. UM, IT'S EASIER TO PULL UP EAST AND WEST 'CAUSE WE HAVE THAT ELEVATION. UH, YEAH. BUT THAT'S NOT GONNA SHOW SOUTH, BUT I COULD, YOU KNOW MM-HMM . THIS IS SHOWING EAST AND WEST AND ONCE AGAIN, IT'S BASED ON THE TOPOGRAPHY. UM, RIGHT. THE EAST IS AT 1 23 0.5, THE WEST IS AT 1 22 0.5. SO THE WEST UNITS ARE SLIGHTLY LOWER. OKAY. UM, AND, UH, AND EAST AND WEST ARE, I'M SORRY, EAST AND WEST, ARE THEY THE AND THE SOUTH LINE, SORRY. AND THE SOUTH IS AT, UH, THE TOP OF THE PARAPET FOR THE LOWER PORTION OF THE SOUTH IS AT 1 24 0.84. MM-HMM . AND, UH, THE, UM, TOP OF THE PARAPET FOR THE S FOUR IS AT 1 27. OKAY. THE WEST. OKAY. UM, TWO QUESTIONS. ONE OF THE BOARD, IS THERE ANY, UM, INFORMATION, UH, OR FURTHER ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL IN MAKING YOUR DECISION THAT WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE? WHILE YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT THAT, I'LL ASK THE VILLAGE ATTORNEY. IS THERE DO, WOULD THE, WOULD, WOULD, SHOULD WE GO THROUGH THE VARIANCES ONE BY ONE OR A BLANKET APPROVAL? I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE IT MIGHT BE BEST TO DISCUSS THEM ONE BY ONE. WE'VE DONE THAT, BUT IN TERMS OF OH, YOU MEAN, YEAH, IN TERMS OF, UH, IF WE'RE VOTING READY TO VOTE, I THINK YOU CAN DO THEM ALL IN ONE, ONE FELL SWOOP. OKAY. SO BACK TO THE QUESTION TO THE BOARD. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE WE ARE ASKING OR REQUESTING OF THE APPLICANT? OKAY. NO. ALRIGHT THEN, UM, WHAT WE ARE GOING TO DO IS WE ARE GOING TO EACH, UM, SPEAK ABOUT WHAT WE INTEND TO DO, UH, AND UH, THEN WE WILL DO AN OFFICIAL VOTE. UM, AT THAT TIME, ARE YOU GOING TO TAKE THE VARIANCES FIRST AND THEN VIEW PRESERVATION? SURE. BECAUSE IF, IF WE DEFINITELY SHOULD, YES. JUST 'CAUSE THERE'S SOME CONDITIONS FOR VIEW PRESERVATION THAT THE BOARD MIGHT WANT TO CONSIDER. YES. OKAY. MM-HMM . OKAY. DOES ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK TO THEIR FEELING ABOUT THE VARIANCES? THE VARIANCES, ASIDE FROM VIEW PRESERVATION? MM-HMM . I THINK, UM, I THINK THEY'RE WELL REASONED. I THINK THAT, UH, WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT, EACH DECISION, EACH VARIANCE IS PRESENTED FOR A COMPELLING REASON. UM, THAT IS TO THE BENEFIT OF THE DESIGN AND TO THE PUBLIC IN GENERAL AS [01:50:01] A, A NEW PUBLIC SPACE. AND OF COURSE, UH, NEW UNITS, UH, NEW, NEW HOMES. UM, I AGREE THAT THE HEIGHT IS THE, THE ONLY ONE THAT GIVES ME PAUSE, BUT THAT'S REALLY BECAUSE IT'S TIED TO THE, THE VIEW. UM, BUT IT IS MINIMAL AND I THINK MEASURES HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO MINIMIZE IT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. UM, SO YEAH, I WOULD, YEAH. I I I, I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU THERE. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CHARACTER OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, THE, THE SETBACK SEEM TO BE A, A PRETTY EASY CALL. THE HEIGHT, UH, IS, UM, WERE THE VIEW PRESERVATION NOT PART OF THIS DISCUSSION AT ALL? I DON'T THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THREE FEET OF, UM, YOU KNOW, OF, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, IN, IN THE OVERALL PART OF THIS DISCUSSION. UM, SO, YOU KNOW, IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, OUT, OUT OUTSIDE OF VIEW PRESERVATION, YOU KNOW, I, I I THINK THAT WOULD, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S A RELATIVELY, UM, EASY CALL TO MAKE. I THINK IT BECOMES MORE SUBJECTIVE, BUT WE'RE NOT DISCUSSING THE VIEW PRESERVATION PART YET. MICHAEL, I THINK THEY'RE ALL REASONABLE EXCEPTIONS TO AFFORD THE COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT AND THE ADDITION OF HOUSING AND HASTINGS AND AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. YEAH, I, AND I AGREE. I THINK, UM, YOU KNOW, TWO OF THE VARIANCES WITH REQUIRED TO PARKING AND MANEUVERING AISLE ARE VARIANCES THAT WE HAVE GIVEN BEFORE IN SIMILAR SITUATIONS. I THINK THE, THE COURT AND THE, UM, AND THE SIDE YARDS ARE UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. UM, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, WERE, WERE DEALT WITH WELL. UM, AND I THINK THE HEIGHT IS FOR ME, PART OF, UM, SOME SOMETHING WHERE I WOULD COMPLIMENT ALL PARTIES HERE. I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED THROUGH THE PROCESS. I THINK THE PLANNING BOARD HAS WORKED THROUGH THE PROCESS. I THINK THE PUBLIC HAS WORKED THROUGH THE PROCESS. UM, YOU KNOW, PART OF PART OF BALANCING AND COMPROMISE IS THAT EVERYONE'S A LITTLE UNHAPPY. UM, AND I THINK THAT'S, THAT'S MAYBE WHERE WE ARE. SO I'M, I'M COMFORTABLE WITH ALL FIVE VARIANCES, UM, BASED ON THE FACTORS THAT WE'VE CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED. UH, WHICH BRINGS US TO A MOTION. SO THIS WOULD BE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCES FOR THE REASONS DISCUSSED. YES. SO THAT MEANING THAT THAT'S ALL THAT HAS TO BE SAID? YES. WOULD SOMEBODY LIKE TO SAY THAT IT CAN'T BE ME, . , UM, THEN I'LL SAY ME AT ONCE. IS IT, SO IS IT JUST A MOTION TO APPROVE THE YEAH. YES. OKAY. I'LL, UH, AS, AS DISCUSSED. OKAY. SO AS DISCUSSED, UM, IN CASE NUMBER OH TWO DASH 26, RTB WASHINGTON, LLC 9 9 17 WASHINGTON AVENUE, UM, THE VIEW PRESERVATION APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 2 9 5 82 B OR JUST THE VARIANCES? WE'RE JUST DOING THE VARIANCES AT THE MOMENT. JUST FOR THE VARIANCES. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. AS, AS DISCUSSED. UM, UH, MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE. CAN WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. ALL RIGHT, WE'RE GONNA VOTE AGAIN. RICHARD. APPROVE. APPROVE. APPROVE, APPROVE. OKAY, THANK YOU. THAT BRINGS US TO VIEW PRESERVATION. UM, DOES ANYONE WANT TO SHARE THEIR THOUGHTS ON THE VIEW PRESERVATION? ALTERNATIVELY, WE CAN JUST VOTE AND PEOPLE CAN VOTE HOW THEY WANT. I'LL SHARE MY THOUGHTS BECAUSE I'M CONFLICTED ON THIS ONE. UM, I DO FEEL LIKE THERE'S MORE THAT COULD BE DONE. UM, THE SAME TIME I THINK THE REASONS PRESENTED ARE, ARE ALSO REASONABLE MAINTENANCE ON, ON A BUILDING IS AN IMPORTANT FACTOR. UM, ALSO THE IDEA THAT NOBODY CAN EVER BUILD ANYTHING BETWEEN ANYBODY ELSE. AND THE RIVER IS OBVIOUSLY NOT REALLY TENABLE, UM, AS, AS A, YOU KNOW, OVERALL POLICY. SO EVERY CASE HAS TO CONSIDER THE, UH, YOU KNOW, ITS UNIQUE CONDITIONS. UM, I FAIRLY, LIKE I SAID, TORN ON THIS, BUT, UM, I THINK THAT GIVEN WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED, THE ALTERNATIVES THAT HAVE BEEN PURSUED, I, I THINK THERE'S A REASONABLE ARGUMENT TO, UM, TO APPROVE IT WITH THE IDEA THAT, YOU KNOW, IF THERE, THAT THIS, THIS ROOF SPACE WILL BE PART OF PEOPLE'S VIEWS [01:55:01] AND IF IT'S APPROVED AND, AND BUILT THIS WAY, I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE THE TEAM TO, TO MAKE IT, UM, YOU KNOW, A, A GOOD PART OF THE VIEW. UM, BULKHEAD AND ROOF SPACES CAN BE CONSIDERED A SECONDARY, UH, BUT THERE'S NO REASON WHY THEY COULDN'T BE GIVEN THE SAME TREATMENT AS ANY OTHER FACADE AND, YOU KNOW, BE SOMETHING WORTH LOOKING AT WHILE YOU'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE RIVER. DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO SHARE A THOUGHT BEFORE WE, I, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK IT IS FROM, FROM, YOU KNOW, WHEN THIS PROJECT, THE FIRST TIME THAT WE WENT THROUGH A WALKTHROUGH OF THE, THE BUILDINGS AND TOOK A LOOK AT THE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE PROPOSED, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, STRUCTURE, UM, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY BEEN A LOT OF WORK DONE BY BOTH THE COMMUNITY AND THE PLANNING BOARD AND, AND THE ARCHITECTS AND, AND EVERYONE ELSE TO KIND OF LIKE, UH, MAKE THIS A MORE REASONABLE, UH, UM, STRUCTURE, UM, YOU KNOW, FROM, FROM A, FROM A LOT OF DIFFERENT STANDPOINTS. BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I, I I THINK THAT, THAT YOU CERTAINLY COULD ARGUE THAT THERE IS GOING TO BE A, YOU KNOW, A, A, A GREATER, UM, ACCESS TO, TO THE VIEW OF THE RIVER, EVEN WITH THE BULKHEADS. AND I CAN CERTAINLY UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN ABOUT THE BULKHEADS. UM, BUT I I, I DO THINK THAT THERE IS, AS JOSH MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, IF WE ARE TRYING TO KIND OF REACH A, A POINT OF COMPROMISE AND UNDERSTAND THAT LIKE NOT EVERYTHING IS GOING TO BE EXACTLY PERFECT FROM EITHER SIDE OF THE, UH, UH, YOU KNOW, ARGUMENT. UM, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I, I, I FEEL, I I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A, A PRETTY REASONABLE SOLUTION, NOT A PERFECT ONE. THERE'S NOT A PERFECT ONE, BUT REASONABLE. SO I OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT PART OF THE INITIAL REVIEWS OF THIS, BUT IT DOES SEEM TO BE A CASE WHERE THERE'S BEEN SIGNIFICANT COMPROMISE AND SIGNIFICANT EFFORT TO TRY TO COME TO THE BEST POSSIBLE SOLUTION FOR, UH, THE NEIGHBOR'S VIEWS HERE. UH, AND CLEARLY THE VIEW IS OVERALL IMPROVED BY THE ELIMINATION OF THE TREES. UH, SO I'M, I I BELIEVE THAT THE DE MINIMUS IMPACT OF THESE BULKHEADS, UM, IS, IS A REASONABLE, UH, ALTERATION. AND I THINK THE, THE BENEFIT OF THE BULKHEADS VERSUS, UH, THE, UM, THE SKYLIGHTS, UM, IS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH THAT, UH, I, I WOULD NOT THINK THAT SHOULD BE CHANGED. OKAY. UM, YEAH, I, I THINK I, UM, WOULD AGREE GENERALLY WE, YOU KNOW, VIEW PRESERVATION AS ONE OF THE HARDEST BALANCING THAT WE DO. UM, AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, THE, THE LANGUAGE IS ABOUT A MINIMUM IMPACT, UH, TO THE RIVER AND THE PALISADES SHORT OF NO IMPACT. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO IMAGINE A SMALLER IMPACT THAN THIS. UH, AND SO I THINK IF SOMETHING WERE TO MEET THE SPIRIT OF MINIMUM IMPACT, I THINK THIS DOES. AND, UM, WE, WE, WE DO ALSO, UH, RELY ON OUR, UM, COLLEAGUES AT THE PLANNING BOARD WHO HAVE BROUGHT THIS TO US WITH A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. UM, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR 15 MONTHS, AND SO I GIVE THAT SOME WEIGHT AS WELL. I DO THINK IF WE ARE CONSIDERING APPROVING THIS, UH, THE PLANNING BOARD ALSO SUPPLIED, UM, SOME SUGGESTED CONDITIONS OF OUR APPROVAL, WHICH I BELIEVE CAME OUT OF, UM, MULTIPLE ROUNDS OF NEIGHBOR CONCERNS WITH REGARD TO FURNITURE AND OTHER OBJECTS AND TO, UH, HIGH WINDS AND SAFETY. SO I THINK, UM, IF WE ARE GOING TO PUT THIS FORWARD TO THE, FOR A MOTION FOR APPROVAL, IT WOULD BE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS. DO WE NEED TO, I'LL, I'LL READ THEM JUST FOR OKAY. FOR THE BOARD'S BENEFIT, IT RELATES TO THE VISUAL IMPACT FOR ITEMS ON THE ROOF DECKS. SO PLANTINGS AND FURNITURE SHALL NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE RAILING. TEMPORARY UMBRELLAS OR SHADING STRUCTURES MAY EXCEED FIVE FEET IN HEIGHT, BUT MUST, BUT MUST ONLY BE DEPLOYED WHEN IN USE. THEY MUST BE CLOSED WITH THEY'RE NOT IN USE AND SECURE AND TAKEN DOWN AND TAKEN DOWN. AND THEN NO DEVICES WILL BE USED WHEN THE WINDS EXCEED 15 MILES AN HOUR. AND ALL SUCH DEVICES WILL BE ANCHORED TO A WEIGHTED BASE OF AT LEAST 155 POUNDS TO PROTECT, TO, UH, PROTECT AGAINST WIND RESISTANCE. AND THESE WILL ALL BE RECORDED IN A DEED TO BE RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY. CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THAT? MR. MENZI TAKEN DOWN, UM, UMBRELLAS? YES. SO, YEAH, 'CAUSE IT [02:00:01] STRIKES ME IF EVERY ROOF DECK HAD A 10 BY 10 UMBRELLA, UH, YOU WOULD HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON, ON YOUR VIEW. SO THEY WOULD BE REQUIRED TO ACTUALLY TAKE DOWN THOSE LARGE UMBRELLAS AND LAY THEM FLAT ON THE ROOF DECK. YES. OKAY. I BELIEVE THAT'S FOR WIND AS WELL, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT. SO THAT THEY WOULD BE, UM, IT'S FOR VIEW AND SAFETY. OKAY. AND THESE WILL BE ENFORCEABLE CONDITIONS. SO I THINK THAT IF WE COULD HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE VIEW PRESERVATION, IT WOULD BE WITH THE CONDITIONS AS NOTED. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION? I DON'T THINK I CAN. RIGHT. ? SURE. WHY NOT? ANYBODY WANT TO? ALL RIGHT. I WILL MAKE A MOTION, UH, TO, UM, IN THE CASE OF, AND THE CASE NUMBER, OH BOY, IS THAT OH 2 2 6. THANK YOU. MM-HMM . UM, WE RECOMMEND, UH, FOR THE APPROVAL OF VIEW PRESERVATION WITH THE CONDITIONS, UM, THAT WERE JUST PREVIOUSLY READ REGARDING, UH, SAFETY AND, UM, VIEW. CAN I HAVE A SECOND? A SECOND. ALRIGHT, RICHARD, APPROVE. APPROVE. APPROVE, APPROVE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. UM, GOOD LUCK. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU TO THE PUBLIC. ALL RIGHT. UM, THE ONLY THING WE HAVE IS APPROVAL OF THE PREVIOUS MINUTES. UH, COME ON BACK, BETH. OH, WE DO NEED BETH BACK FOR THIS, I THINK. YES. MM-HMM . THE PREVIOUS MINUTES WERE FROM OCTOBER AND I WAS NOT HERE IN OCTOBER. YEAH, WE, THAT WE MAY NEED BETH, BETH MAY NEED YOU. I WANT SAY HI. PLEASE TAKE YOUR CONVERSATIONS OUTSIDE. THIS MEETING IS STILL GOING ON. THANK YOU. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU. VERY CLEAR. IT'S VERY FAIR AND KIND, UH, FROM ALL OF YOU. SO THANK YOU. I'M A BIG FAN OF BTW, SO . THANK YOU. MY DAUGHTER WAS THERE TONIGHT. SO . YEAH, IT'S, IT'S, LISTEN, IT'S A TOUGH, LIKE NO MATTER WHAT, IT'S A TOUGH SITUATION. OF COURSE, OF COURSE. IT'S LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE PROXIMITY TO THE TRAIN STATION AND THAT NARROW STREET IS, IS A TOUGH, TOUGH. DID YOU SAY THAT SOME OF THIS IS FROM THE PLANNING BOARD TO, IS THAT WHO WE WOULD LIKE TALK TO ABOUT TRAFFIC AND YES. THAT'S FOR PLANNING. THERE'S ALSO A TRANSPORTATION SAFETY COUNCIL WORKING GROUP AS WELL. WE SHOULD REALLY? YEAH. LET US, IF YOU JUST GET ONE SECOND, WE'LL CLOSE THE MEETING AND IF YOU WANNA STAND AROUND FOR A FEW MINUTES, WE'LL BE DONE PROBABLY IN FIVE MINUTES. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. UH, OKAY. SO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE OCTOBER 23RD MEETING. I WAS HERE. BETH WAS HERE. RICHARD, THAT'S ALL WE NEED. THREE. IT'S ALL, YOU NEED A STORY. YOU WEREN'T, DO YOU KNOW IF YOU WERE HERE, MICHAEL? DO YOU RECALL? I THINK I WAS HERE FOR THAT MEETING. YEAH, I THINK YOU WERE TOO. UM, IT WAS MY FIRST MEETING. 'CAUSE I WASN'T BECAUSE YOU WEREN'T. YEAH, THAT MAKES SENSE, . ALRIGHT THEN. [Approval of Minutes] UH, CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 23RD MEETING? COME ON, BETH. GET ON THE RECORD. I'LL MAKE A MOTION. THE, FROM THE OCTOBER 23RD MEETING. ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. UH, I THINK WE DO THIS BY SHOW OF HANDS. YEP. ALL RIGHT. PROOF. [Announcements] UH, ALL RIGHT. NEXT MEETING IS FEBRUARY 26TH, THE DAY AFTER TARN. AND MY BIRTHDAY SHOULD BE A NATIONAL HOLIDAY. EVERYONE SHOULD BE A NATIONAL HOLIDAY. UM, AND WE, I THINK WE, WE WILL DEAL WITH ATTENDANCE FOR THAT. UM, HOW ABOUT A MOTION TO ADJOURN THIS MEETING? MOTION TO ADJOURN A SECOND. SECOND, EVERYBODY. ALL RIGHT. MEETING ADJOURNED. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. TWO HANDS UP. THANK YOU. GREAT JOB. VERY GOOD JOB. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.