►
From YouTube: Beacon Workshop 9 5 23
Description
The City of Beacon Council Workshop
A
Georgia
we're
live:
okay,
okay,
welcome
everybody
to
our
Workshop
of
September,
5th
2023.
I'll
be
sitting
in
for
the
Mayor
Lee
who
is
attending
remotely
council
person.
Wren
is
also
attending
remotely
Paloma
is
excused,
and
our
attorney
Nick
Ward
Willis
will
be
represented
by
his
associate
Jennifer
Gray.
Regarding
few
of
the
items
on
the
agenda
tonight
and.
A
C
C
Myself
and
the
planning
board
seem
to
think
it
made
a
lot
of
sense.
There's
it's
a
very
small
parcel,
it's
in
the
block
North
of
Commerce
Street,
so
it's
surrounded
by
CMS,
Central,
Main,
Street
businesses,
it
faces
on
Commerce
Street
and
it
was
included
in
the
R1
7.5
District,
primarily
as
I.
Remember
it
because
it
was
a
single
family
house
at
the
time
and
single-family
houses
are
not
a
permitted
use
in
the
Central
Main
Street
District.
So
even
though
it's
very
small,
it
doesn't
meet
the
standards
of
a
7.5
District.
C
C
It
doesn't
meet
the
standards
of
a
CMS
District
in
terms
of
lock
depth,
but
it
doesn't
make
any
standards
under
the
7.5
residential
district,
so
it
seemed
to
make
sense.
It
was
in
a
commercial
block,
it
was
refurbished
for
commercial
purposes
and
the
planning
board
thought
there
was
no
reason
why
it
shouldn't
be
considered
by
the
council
for
resigning.
A
D
B
A
I
personally,
don't
see
a
problem
with
this
and
it
seems
to
make
a
lot
of
sense
given
its
location,
even
if
even
by
the
simple
fact
that
it's
on
Commerce
Street
and
it
seems
like
it
should
be
a
commercial
entity
but
I
think
I,
think
they've
done
a
beautiful
renovation,
job
and
I.
Think
it's
a
it's
almost
a
direct
connection
to
Main
Street
as
well.
So.
E
I
agree,
the
one
thing
I
have
questions
about
and
John
I
don't
know
if
this
is
a
question
for
you
can
answer,
but
if
it
is
in
the
Central,
Main
Street
district
and
let's
say
they
wanted
to
open
a
restaurant
there
or
a
business
that
had
evening
hours,
it
does
face
Residential,
Properties
and
I'm
wondering
in
order
to
do
that,
would
they
have
to
go
through
the
planning
board
or
another
permitting
process
or
because
they're
in
the
Central
Main
Street?
They
would
be
allowed
to
do
that
as
a
right.
C
Just
do
it
under
as
a
right
if,
if
it
wasn't
a
specially
permitted
use
in
the
CMS
District
restaurants
are
as
of
right,
it
would
run
up
against
parking
issues,
I
think
for
a
higher
in
higher
intensity
of
use
like
that,
and
so
the
planning
board
might
have
some
leverage
about
what
what
couldn't
and
couldn't
pass
muster
on
that
site.
But
it
is
an
acid
right
use
if
it's
in
the
CMS
District
most
commercial
uses
would
be.
It
also
could
be
a
mixed
use,
residences
or
multi-families
allowed
on
the
Upper
Floor.
F
F
You
know
they've
redone,
some
of
the
the
way
the
parking
lot
behind
Bank
Square
accesses
at
a
Commerce
Street,
which
I
thought
was
a
nice
ad
and
it
probably
ends
up
with
more
parking
than
it
would
have
been
if
it
were
just
a
single
family.
The
way
it
was
so
again,
I
have
no
issues.
They've
done
a
very
strong
renovation
of
an
old
building,
so
I've
got
no
issues.
D
G
They
all
turn
alternative,
hi
everyone,
it's
Jennifer,
Gray
cambean
on
the
alternative-
would
be
a
use
variance
from
the
zoning
board
of
appeals.
Youth
variances
have
a
very
high
standard
of
review.
They
are
difficult
to
obtain.
They'd
have
to
show
that
their
their
difficulty
isn't
self-created
for
use
variants
and
they'd
also
have
to
show
that
they
can't
get
a
reasonable
rate
of
return
for
any
other
use.
That
is
permitted
in
the
zoning
District
in
which
they
are
located.
So
it
is
a
high
standard
so
where
it
tends
to
potentially
make
sense
to
rezone
the
property.
F
Yeah
I
guess
the
other
thing
I
would
add.
Is
you
know
if
I
I'm
thinking
about
zoning
I,
you
know
look
20
years
down
the
pike
and
forget
this
owner
and
forget
the
issues?
Would
you
imagine
this
space
being
and
it
belongs
as
a
commercial
use
right
I
mean
I
could
see
a
residential
upstairs,
but
it
is
so
close
in
to
about
way
too
many
businesses
that
I
just
don't
see
it
making
sense.
Does
a
residential
20
or
something.
C
C
Once
that
the
Bethlehem
church
becomes
a
commercial
use,
it
will
be
more
integrated
with
that
site
and
I
think
it.
It
makes
it
harder
to
imagine
that
that
would
maintain
itself
as
a
residential
use,
given
the
commercial
uses
that
surrounded
in
the
rear
entrances
to
the
Inn
next
door
and
the
the
church
building.
B
G
B
C
A
A
B
E
G
Yeah
I
think
that's
that's
always
the
case
when
you
have
an
application
before
you,
whether
it's
for
concept
plan
in
the
Fishkill
Creek
development,
District
or
a
site
plan.
That's
before
the
the
planning
board.
You
know
you.
Obviously
you
have
an
application
for
a
particular
piece
of
property,
but
you're
also
thinking
about
how
the
proposed
development
fits
in
to
its
its
neighboring
properties
and
the
neighborhood
in
general.
E
G
G
You
know
one
mitigation
measure
for
protecting
the
creek
off
of
one
project
might
not
be
applicable
for
another.
So
that's
something
that
you're
going
to
want
to
look
at
in
a
case-by-case
basis,
unless
there's
a
specific
reg
in
the
code
that
says
otherwise
that
there's
a
blanket
protection
and
I,
don't
recall
there
being
one.
B
Great
thank
you
and
I
would
just
say:
we've
had
a
couple
calls
to
figure
out
more
details
about
the
pump
station
that
serves
the
property
we
want
to
make.
My
team
and
I
want
to
make
sure
that
whatever
infrastructure
is
offered
to
the
city
fully
meets
the
current
and
future
needs
there.
So
we're
we're
evaluating
that
with
them
as
well.
B
E
Yeah
and
just
to
name
the
question
behind
my
question,
so
it's
not
a
mystery.
Is
that
I
think
this
is
brought
up
in
that
meeting
as
well.
The
idea
that
their
neighbor
right
to
the
north,
the
rest
of
hiploft,
is
not
built
out.
There's
another
property
further
down:
Fishkill
Creek,
that's
not
built
out!
E
So
when
it
comes
to
the
Seeker,
which
I
think
they
already
have
a
negative
declaration,
meaning
no
impact
I
just
want
to
kind
of
understand
more
about
how
that's
done
when
they're,
looking
at
the
totality
of
the
Fishkill
Creek
Watershed
and
how
that's
actually
done.
I
didn't
again,
I
didn't
know
if
that
felt
falls
under
us
as
the
council,
because
it
happens
to
go
through
the
concept
review
to
look
at
or,
if
that's,
something,
that
the
planning
board
feels
empowered
to
be
able
to
do
as
well.
A
C
So
that's
what
sort
of
spurred
this
on?
As
we
discussed
at
the
last
Workshop
I,
put
out
a
draft
map,
it
seemed
to
get
enough
support
in
the
council
at
that
time
that
I
drafted
and
was
asked
to
draft
a
law,
so
I
did.
That
is
still
a
work
in
progress.
This
was
the
first
meeting.
If
you
want
I
can
share
my
screen
and
we
can
sort
of
go
through
with
the
this
is
the
existing
Zoning
for
that
area.
C
C
This
is
what
I
propose
that
we
emerge:
the
GB
District,
the
hi
rail
Corridor
and
a
few
of
the
parcels
north
of
the
old
talax
site
into
fiscal
Avenue
district
for
lack
of
a
better
name
and
that
we
use
most
of
the
the
design
standards
and
the
height
and
bulk
come
out
of
the
either
existing
GB
District
or
the
design
standards
I
took
borrowed
heavily
from
the
linkage
District.
So
nothing
you
see
in
this
draft
zoning
is
really
new.
C
It's
consistent
with
what
we've
done
with
other
mixed-use
development
Zone,
where
you
might
want
housing
above
commercial
like
the
Central,
Main,
Street,
District,
or
the
the
linkage
District.
So
I
don't
know!
If
anybody
wants
to
discuss
this
snap
first,
do
you
see
anything
that
you
don't
like
and
are
concerned
about?
Or,
what's
the
initial
reaction
to
the
general
idea
of
creating
a
fiscal
Avenue
District
that
would
be
more
design
oriented
than
the
current
one,
which
has
no
design
standards
whatsoever?
C
So
it's
essentially,
if
you
meet
the
the
dimensional
standards,
setbacks
height,
that's
it
that's
the
only
parameters
for
this
district.
There
are
a
few
things
like
lighting
and
things
that
are
in
other
sections
of
the
code,
but
generally
speaking,
Yeah,
it's
a
pretty
free-for-all
territory
out
in
the
general
business
or
the
light
Industrial
District.
D
C
You
know
that
could
be
done.
It's
a
residential
district
now
and
if
the
goal
is
to
preserve
residential
uses
or
create
residential
options,
then
I
thought
that
area
could
be
expanded
for
residential
uses.
It's
a
fairly
the
unbuilt
area
of
that
rd5
is
relatively
yeah.
It's
a
historic
area,
and
it's
it's
already
have
has
quite
a
few
buildings
on
it.
C
So
it
becomes
more
of
a
competitor
to
Main,
Street
I.
Think
the
trends
in
commercial,
and
particularly
the
office,
but
also
retail
development,
is
there's
a
lot
of
scaling
back
going
on
in
the
world
right
now
in
the
United
States,
with
online
purchasing
and
the
work
at
home
sort
of
ethic,
that's
grown
up
after
the
pandemic
office
spaces.
C
So
I
would
even
suggest
that
you
might
consider
making
this
a
real
mixed
use,
District
in
which
you
could
have
first
floor,
residential
or
Upper
Floor
residential,
so
it
would
be
a
mix
of
commercial
and
residential
uses
along
this
quarter,
rather
than
a
strong
out
commercial
Frontage.
The
way
you
have
on
Main
Street,
for
instance.
So
that's
something
to
think
about.
That's
why
I
stopped
it
at
a
certain
point
that
I
didn't
want
to
keep
keep
going
and
make
it
longer
and
longer.
C
I
I
also
contemplated
not
putting
the
LI
Parcels
to
the
south
end
of
this
area
and
just
leaving
them
light
industrial
so
that
the
car
wash
and
things
like
that
would
still
have
a
place
in
the
world.
But
you
know
it
does
front
on
Memorial,
Park
and
and
a
residential
district,
so
I
thought
well
maybe
getting
some
opportunities
there
as
well,
leaving
the
Telex
site
alone.
H
H
C
Well,
that
was
yeah-
that's
allowed
under
this
current
zoning,
but
it's
not
required.
So
the
applicant
came
in
and
decided
that
he
could
have
just
done
a
straight
one-story
office
rehab
or
something
to
that
effect,
but
he
decided
to
do
a
mixed-use
project
hired
an
architect
who
was
familiar
with
Main
Street
type
businesses
and
they
came
in
with
a
brick
and
and
fiber
cement.
Building
that
is
similar
to
the
types
of
buildings
you'd
see
along
Main
Street
with
multiple
stories.
C
C
E
John,
what
would
be
the
impact
on
the
plots
that
are
sort
of
between
Wingate
and
Hedgewood
that
are
currently
r175
if
we
were
to
convert
them
to
fa
as
well?
I
assume
that
the
houses
could
remain
as
long
as
they
wanted
to
remain,
but
would
that
impact
the
ability
say
for
those
homeowners
to
add
a
garage
or
add
to
their
buildings?
If
we
change
the
zoning
underneath
their
land.
C
I,
don't
think
it
would
add
to
it.
You
know,
there's
certain
juices:
they
they
couldn't
certain
things
they
couldn't
do
under
non-conforming
status.
It
does
great
complications
for
a
non-conforming
use.
That's
why
I
didn't
put
it
in
those
are
sort
of
setbacks
from
the
street.
They
are
more
they're
connected
in
some
cases
to
rear
access.
F
F
F
F
E
F
Right
yeah
so
and
then
on
the
other
side,
I'm
just
trying
to
identify
the
adjacent
Parcels
on
the
other
side,
as
you
mentioned
to
Dan's
question
the
site
further
up
past
the
Dummy
Line
on
52,
which
is
in
the
historic
overlay,
the
red
zone
is
between
Front
Street
right
right
in
there.
That
little
section
I
do
note
that
the
Front
Street
homes
are
all
on
the
south
side
of
Front
Street.
F
There
are
no
homes,
I
believe
on
the
north
side
of
Front
Street
in
that
strip,
and
so
maybe
that
might
be
interesting
and
then
what
you're
saying
after
that
is
hi
right
right
on
the
North
and
on
the
south
side
and
dance
question
about.
Would
we
consider
extending
it
to
the
end?
So
a
lot
of
those
questions?
I
I
have
similar
ones
and
I'm
thinking
if
the
zone
is
fairly
flexible
and
so
not
as
you
know,
you
know
not
as
specific
as
our
main
street
or
our
Fishkill
Creek.
F
I
like
your
idea
of
being
flexible
enough
to
say
we
might
want
ground
floor
residential,
so
it's
a
long
strip
I,
don't
think
we're.
Gonna
ever
have
a
main
street
style.
You
know
fully.
There
I
think
that's
part
of
that
flexibility.
So
if
it's
flexible
enough,
I
would
like
to
consider
the
possibility
of
maybe
extending
it
along
the
edges
of
some
of
those
properties
that
we
discussed.
I
don't
know
I'm,
just
raising
it
as
a
conceptual
question
to
be
considered.
F
We
don't
have
any
other
place
in
Pekin
for
them
and
so
I
think
it
should
be
flexible
enough
to
cover
that
I
think
you
know
the
Kaufman
was
great
as
a
description
of
something
we'd
love
to
get
there.
The
only
issue
I
had
with
the
Conklin
and
52
development
is.
There
was
too
much
parking
and
I'd
love
us
to
see.
I'd
love
to
see
us.
You
know
kind
of
make
that
smaller
and
to
have
seen.
You
know
more
of
that
land
be
used
either
from
landscape
or
for
additional
housing.
F
Then
those
are
my
only
comments
on
that.
I
did
have
one
other
one
which
is
it
struck
me
that
this
is
one
we
might
have
to
alter
the
comprehensive
plan.
So
I
I
did
a
quick
search
in
there
for
Route
52,
and
it
is
surprisingly
silent
in
General
on
Route
52.
I
saw
three
statements
in
there,
two
of
which
were
doing
one
statement
was
creating
access
to
Beacon
Correctional
from
Route
52.
F
As
you
know,
I'm
working
on
that
and
would
love
to
see
that
that
was
in
the
comp
plan,
so
no
contradiction
there,
improving
the
streetscape
and
the
landscape
was
another
comment
in
turn
in
the
comp
plan,
and
obviously
we
would
be
doing
that
here.
So
I
think
that
would
be
consistent.
The
only
other
one
was
maintaining
the
existing
retail
and
service
mix.
F
C
C
You
can
still
do
a
four
big
floor,
plate
grocery
store,
for
instance,
if
you
really
wanted
to
there's,
there's
a
couple
things
in
the
draft
zoning
that
would
make
it
not
as
likely
that
for
that,
some
of
that
to
happen,
I
did
say
that
you
have
to
screen.
You
have
to
set
back
any
sort
of
Auto
oriented
parking,
lot,
store,
fuel
pumps
or
drive-through
windows,
at
least
40
feet
from
the
property
Frontage,
and
it
has
to
be
screened
and
landscaped
so
that
it's
you
know
not
the
frontage
piece.
D
Hey
John:
do
you
mind
if
I
interrupt
you
for
a
second,
because
you're
you're
touching
on
a
lot
of
points
and
there's
a
couple
in
there
that
I
want
to
have
a
conversation
about
I?
Think
the
mayor
made
a
lot
of
really
good
points
about
the
business
mix
and
the
the
usage
mix.
I
I
like
the
idea
of
preserving
Auto
usage
on
Route
52.
D
C
H
F
I
I
would
assume
that
the
market
would
sort
that
out.
I
am
aware
that
our
Main
Street
zoning
doesn't
permit
gas
stations
and
so
I'm
expecting
those
uses
to
sell
out
to
something
far
more
valuable,
because
the
square
footage
you
know,
pricing
of
Main
Street
is
very
high
now
so
I
do
think
we're
going
to
need
something
somewhere
where
it's
permitted
in
the
city.
C
You
know
you
could
take
them
out.
It's
it's
they're,
probably
less
likely
to
be
put
in
if
this.
If
the
proposed
zoning
goes
through
because
they
would
be
required
to
do
a
two-story
building
and
put
the
pumps
in
the
back
or
the
drive-through
window
in
the
back,
which
isn't
as
convenient
for
the
standard,
Burger,
King
or
or
you
know,
Dunkin
Donuts.
F
Yeah
I
think
there's
some
would
be
unlikely
to
get
a
gas
station
as
a
standalone
use
of
a
new
building.
That
just
seems
uneconomic
I
had
a
question
on
the
drive-through,
so
there's
a
there's
like
a
Dunkin
Donuts
on
route
90
a
little
north
of
Beacon
they've
got
parking
in
the
front
we
were
sending
if
they
wanted
to
do
a
Dunkin
Donuts
with
a
drive
through
they'd
have
to
bring
the
building
up
to
the
front.
They'd
have
to
put
the
drive
through
the
component
in
the
back.
C
That's
the
way
it's
drawn
up
now,
because
I
I
sort
of
based
it
on
the
linkage
District
as
a
as
a
you
know,
the
only
changes
as
I
remember,
I,
made
in
this
district
from
the
linkage
district.
There
was
some
minor
things
like
instead
of
the
first
50
feet,
has
to
be
commercial
in
the
CMS
District
of
linkage
and
Nissan
made
75,
so
you
could
have
bigger
stores
there
or
more
likely
to
have
bigger
stores,
but
generally
speaking,
I
borrowed
from
the
linkage
District
design
standards.
D
D
C
So
in
theory,
you
could
put
a
three-story
building
there
or
a
two
and
a
half
story.
Building
the
only
thing
changes
I
made
were
I
put
in
a
15
minimum
landscaped
area,
no,
where
they
don't
have
any
now,
as
you
can
tell
as
Dave
told
her
almost
entirely
there,
but
they
would
have
to
have
at
least
15
percent,
which
is
what's
required
in
the
linkage.
District
and
I
took
away
the
the
per
unit
minimum
lot
size
per
unit
right
now.
C
The
GB
district
has
1500
square
feet
per
unit,
but
I
I
think
it
always
works
best.
If
you,
if
you
allow
the
whatever
to
happen
within
the
building
envelope,
that
you
can
provide
a
three
up
to
a
three-story
building
up
to
a
certain
amount
of
landscaping
and
and
and
setbacks
and
parking
if
it's
still
required.
So
it
gives
maximum
flexibility
for
housing
in
this
area.
D
Yeah
and
the
reason
I
was
Raising.
That
is
because
that
stretch
of
Route
52
actually
has
some
really
spectacular
views
of
the
mountain,
and
if
we
put
a
lot
of
tall
buildings
in
there,
I
mean
the
way
that
I'm
reading
the
the
zoning
proposal
here
is
that
we
could.
We
could
put
three
for
a
whole
bunch
of
344
main
streets
along
Route
52
and
it
would
conform
as
long
as
we
had
Shutters
on
the
windows.
So.
E
I
had
a
similar
question
actually
related
to
The
Hip
Lofts
as
well,
because
they
don't
have
any
views
right
now
and
I
wonder
because
we
do
have
that
view
shed
law.
This
is
an
area
we
also
concurrently
want
to
take
a
look
at
and
think
about.
Are
there
any
particular
view
sheds
we
do
want
to
protect,
which
means
that
we
don't
have
to
this
this.
My
understanding
of
you
shed
law
is
that
this
could
be
a
version
of
this.
E
D
Thing
is:
is
that
that
whole
thing
is
a
view
shed
and
if
you
start
putting
in
stretches
where
the
buildings
can
be
tall
and
then
put
in
a
few
that
are
short
just
because
that
one
area
is
a
view
shed
you've
effectively
cut
off
the
view
shed.
You
know
it's
just
a
view
shed
with
texture
or
it's
a
Skyline
with
texture.
E
C
C
A
few
locations
that
would
be
designated
there
was
one
in
this
area,
and
that
was
at
the
base
of
State
Street
as
I.
Remember,
because
you
had
a
particularly
spectacular
view
there,
because
there's
no
car
dealers
or
car
washes
or
anything
in
front
of
you,
it's
it's
the
southern
end
of
the
grovedale
site
and
you
get
a
really
broad
Panorama
there.
So
you
can
certainly
designate
views.
I
I
refer
to
that
in
the
draft
zoning
that
view
quarters
and
even
access
Corners
can
be.
F
Yeah
money,
I
I,
do
want
to
take
a
walked
in
on
that
section,
because
I
just
want
to
get
a
sense
of
that.
I'll
also
go
look
up
where
we
had
identified
view
sheds
my
two
cents,
and
this
is
all
conceptual
thinking
it's
like.
Well,
we
don't
have
residential.
You
know
running
right
up
against
a
tall
building
like
we
do
on
Main
Street,
which
is
a
reason
to
kind
of
limit
height.
F
This
might
be
an
area
where
you
know,
especially
if
you
want
housing
going
to
a
fourth
story,
is
probably
quite
economic
for
a
builder,
because
you
still
can
do
a
stick.
Building
don't
have
to
do
more
than
that
we
might
be
able
to.
You
know,
get
some
additional
affordable
as
a
result
and
I
think
if
we
limited
it
to
certain
stretches
like
you
know,
we
identified
the
view
you
should
we
identified
where
there
were
single-family
homes
of
budding
and
we
limited
those
I
might
be
willing
to
see
it.
Go
higher.
A
A
A
C
A
C
Things,
yes,
it
can
be.
You
know
it's
generally,
you
don't
like
to
split
parcels,
but
there's
no
prohibition
against
it
right.
It's
just
policy
wise,
very
few
Parcels
are
split
in
the
in
the
in
the
city.
We
that
one
in
Highland
Place
caused
quite
the
controversy,
because
it
was
a
split
parcel.
If
you
remember
so,
there
are
a
few
Remnant.
C
A
Yeah
I
guess
I'm
just
trying
to
see
if
there's
an
opportunity
to
have
you
know
to
have
our
cake
and
eat
it
too,
and
keep
yeah.
You
know,
keep
the
industry
keep
the
job
potential
as
well
as
create
some
affordable
housing
or
you
know
even
just
a
a
streetscape
a
you
know,
a
pleasant
streetscape
that
you
drive
past.
So
it's
not
just
an
empty
lot
or
a
parking
lot.
I.
D
A
F
F
D
F
D
E
I
see,
there's
bar
Brewpub,
microbrewery
micro,
Distillery,
there's
Coffee
House
I'm,
also
thinking
of
things
like
bottling
services
or
things
that
are
not
necessarily
as
intense
as
you
know.
What
chempre
might
do,
but
things
that
we
might
want
to
thinking
of
this
as
a
flexible,
District
kind
of
other
businesses
that
we
might
want
to
encourage
in
this
area.
And
if
we're
going
to
be
okay
with
auto
services,
are
there
other
kinds
of
small
scale
or
light
touch
manufacturing
that
we
might
also
be
okay
with
in
this
space.
E
C
F
C
D
C
C
If
you
build
out
that
District,
that
parking
might
get
to
be
a
crutch
and
you
need
to
put
in
some
Central
facility
in
the
long
run
or
some
private
mixed
juice
building
might
want
to
put
in
a
second
level
working
or
something
to
if
they
had
enough
residential
use
or
whatever
so
I
allowed
that
by
special
apartment.
But
otherwise
it's
consistent
with
the
GB
district,
and
it
is
relatively
consistent
with
the
LI
District.
F
F
A
C
D
C
The
reason
it's
put
in
The
House
of
the
Kennels
special
pyramid
by
the
planning
board
is
not
an
onerous
process.
It's
part
of
you
know
can
be
done
in
conjunction
with
site
plan.
It's
when
the
special
pyramid
is
by
the
city
council
that
it
turns
into
a
significant
delay
in
going
back
and
forth
between
the
two
boards.
F
E
C
C
Well,
is
that
you're
encouraged
to
have
parking
towards
the
rear
behind
the
building,
but
you
can't
have
it
in
the
side
as
long
as
it's
40
feet
back
from
the
property
line
and
it's
screened,
so
it
has
a
a
low
wall
or
a
landscaping,
hedge
or
some
method.
So
the
parking
lot
is
set
back
enough
and
then
presumably
40
feet
allows
enough
for
another
building
to
fill
in
over
time
in
front
of
that
parking
lot.
C
D
I,
you
know
this
might
be
an
unpopular
opinion,
but
I.
You
know
when
I
was
looking
at
the
at
the
setbacks
for
this
Zone
I
actually
thought
we
were
probably
putting
in
a
little
too
much
space.
I
wouldn't
just
I
was
interested
in
seeing
you
know.
For
example,
the
front
yard
set
back
to
be
more
akin
to
the
the
CMS
like
zero
to
ten
to
get
the
buildings
as
far
away
from
the
creek
as
possible,
and
even
the
the
20-foot
side.
D
The
setbacks
on
the
sides
seems
a
little
much
as
well.
That
means
that
there's
you're
always
going
to
have
40
feet
between
every
building,
which
you
know
that
you
could
fit
a
whole
building
a
whole
other
building
from
Main
Street.
In
that
space
I,
don't
know,
I
guess
I
was
wondering
what
you're
thinking
was
John
with
regards
to
these
setbacks
and
how
you,
how
you
chose
them,
the
front
and
the
side
setbacks.
C
H
C
It's
going
to
be
hard
to
do
anything
with
any
significant
setbacks
here,
for
instance,
I
I
wanted
to
keep
it
as
simple
as
possible
on
this
first
pass,
so
as
not
to
upset
anybody
that
we're
making
drastic
changes
is
essentially
the
same
GB
District,
except
that
we
have
better
design
standards
for
both
architecture,
Landscaping
walkability
sustainability,
that
sort
of
things.
But
if
you
want
to
go
less
I,
think
it's
perfectly
appropriate.
I
think
10,
foot
on
the
side
and
10
foot
in
the
front
would
be
perfectly
reasonable.
F
Yeah
I
I
looked
at
your
GBS.
Obviously
it's
the
two,
the
two
business
strips
along
Wolcott
and
then
the
silos
on
tyronda
and
then
in
front
of
the
Roundhouse
I
I
would
think
we'd
be
okay,
easing
up
those
setbacks
just
to
make
them
similar
I
like
the
idea
of
shortening
the
setbacks
in
this
Route
52
and
it's
to
be
consistent.
F
E
The
only
thing
that
I'll
say
about
the
fish
skill
one
is
that
and
John
you
actually
explicitly
included
this
on
the
the
south
east
side,
making
sure
that
people
have
access
to
the
rail
trail,
which
I
guess
would
necessitate
at
least
some
Pathways
between
the
structures.
So
I
don't
know
if
that
needs
to
be
explicitly
written
into
these
setbacks,
but
that
would
be
the
only
thing
there
but
I'm.
As
aside
from
that
I'm
fine
to
go,
as
you
know,
as
as
close
could
be
10
feet
could
even
be
zero
feet
in
some
cases.
E
I
I
C
Yeah
and
I
left
the
25
feet
for
that
reason,
as
the
rear
yard
setback,
but
that's
for
the
building
and
then
I
also
put
in
the
zoning
that
you
had
to
have
a
minimum
eight
feet
between
any
parking
lot.
That's
landscaped
with
a
fence
if
it
fronts
on
either
residential
property
or
the
rail
trail,
so
that
there
would
be
a
landscape
buffer
of
at
least
eight
feet
and
I
did
put
in
a
thing
in
one
of
the
design
standards
that
says
site
development
plans
adjacent
to
the
rail
trail
right
away
in
Fishkill.
C
Creek
shall
be
sensitive
to
the
property's
relationship.
With
these
important
public
features
shall
be
developed
in
such
a
way
as
to
protect
any
City
designated
public
views
and
may
be
required
to
establish
a
view
or
access
quarter
from
the
public
sidewalks
through
the
developments
of
the
rail
trite
of
way.
C
C
Front
and
then
you
know
you
ruined
the
whole
aesthetic
of
the
of
the
district.
So
that's
why
I
left
the
side
yard
possibility
in
with
a
mandatory
setback
of
40
feet
at
minimum
and
and
put
in
that
mandatory
eight
foot
landscape
buffer,
so
at
least
there's
something
where
you
can
put
in
trees
and
high
Hedges
or
a
fence,
or
something
that
interrupts
the
view
from
the
rear
Lots.
C
F
D
D
As
long
as
you
just
had
10
feet
on
each
side,
and
so
that
seems
a
little
that
would
scare
me
a
lot.
Those
would
be
I,
don't
think
that
would
be
very
nice
and
so
I'm
wondering
if
we
should
put
in
here
a
maximum
footprint
so
that
they're,
if
you
had
a
property
like
you,
know,
a
long
property
that
you
end
up
putting
multiple
buildings
in
there.
Instead
of
one
really
long,
building
I
really
am
not
a
fan
of
these
long
buildings,
where
they
just
kind
of
put
up
different
types
of
siding.
D
C
C
F
E
E
Chris
I
have
a
question
for
you
as
we
talk
about
this
daily.
Do
you
have
any
insight
about
the
water
and
wastewater
infrastructure
kind
of
serving
these
now,
if
we
were
to
put
in
buildings
and
more
different
types
of
uses,
would
that
be
something
that
you'd
want
to
check
with
our
department
heads
and
see?
If
there's
any
concerns
around
that,
we.
B
J
H
B
E
B
C
Well,
we
ran
into
this
in
one
case
in
on
Main
Street,
where
they
wanted
to
put
an
accessory
buildings
in
the
back
or
an
accessory
secondary
Wing
one
story,
and
it
wasn't
allowed
in
the
code
because
they
had
this
minimum
two-story
and
it
applied
all
over
the
building.
So
I
would
say
you
could
have
a
one-story
accessory
building
to
the
rear
of
the
principal
building
or
a
one-story
secondary
Edition
set
back
at
least
50
feet
from
the
principal
building
facade.
C
E
C
I
think
in
previous
years,
yes,
because
there
wasn't
enough
track
record
in
people
who
were
familiar
with
how
to
do
green
rooms,
and
things
like
that,
but
nowadays,
we've
been
at
the
planning
board,
have
been
convincing
people
to
put
in
either
solar
panels
or
green
roofs
in
many
cases,
and
if,
if
they're
not
willing
to
do
it,
we
get
them
to
at
least
paint
the
building
top
white.
So
it's
it
reflects
Heat.
C
D
J
I
I
don't
know
if
this
needs
to
be
discussed
now,
but
in
visiting
other
towns,
rail
trails-
and
this
might
be
something
that
Chris
could
advise
on
as
well
or
maybe
already
has
I
noticed
that
there
is
limited
access
to
the
rail
Trails
I've
been
the
like
the
wall,
Kill
Creek
and
the
chicken
rail
trail,
the
Justice
county
rail
trail.
Is
there
anything
we
should
address
it,
and
this
is
coming
to
mind
as
we're
talking
about
access
to
the
rail
trail
between
parcels.
I
H
I
C
C
I
did
put
that
provision
in
that
which
I
read
earlier
that
the
planning
board
may
require
view
career
or
access
corridor
from
public
sidewalks
through
the
development
to
the
rail
trail.
Right-Of-Way,
it's
legally,
it's
a
little
tricky
and
I'm,
not
a
lawyer,
but
I've
seen
you
know
read
the
court
cases
in
which
mandating
public
access
to
a
private
property
is
is
the
Supreme.
Court
is
not
necessarily
look
at
that
favorably
and
there's
been
case
studies
where
you
can
get
in
trouble
about
doing
that.
C
Mandating
private
access,
but
I
put
it
in
may
be
required
because
you
can
take
advantage
where
you
have
a
willing
applicant
based
on
the
use.
You
know
if
it's
a
restaurant
type
use
or
a
you
know
some
other
use
that
accesses
the
rail
trail
or
he
takes
advantage
of
the
rail
trail.
They
might
want
to
have
a
public
access
through
to
get
more
business,
make
their
parcel
into
a
corner
parcel
pedestrian
in
terms
of
pedestrian-wise
access.
K
C
The
best
place
would
be,
you
know
opposite
a
street,
so
people
for
the
residential
neighborhoods
could
walk
down
State
Street
and
continue
straight
down
to
the
ground
rail
trail,
for
instance,
or
along
Conklin
Street,
or
something
like
that.
So
it
creates
an
actual
pathway
from
an
existing
Street
sidewalk.
B
E
H
E
Also,
an
opportunity
to
say,
or
if
you
provide
access
to
the
rail
trail
like
something
about
some
trade-off
with
the
developer,
so
we're
not
requiring
it,
but
it
is
a
perk,
a
potential
perk
for
the
developer
to
be
able
to
give
that
access.
If,
for
some
reason,
Landscaping
provides
other
challenges
or
if
they
just
prefer
it
I
don't
have
I,
don't
have
the
exact
percentages.
C
You
know
like
on
Main
Street,
you
you
allow
a
fourth
story.
If
you
have,
you
know,
Public
Access
benefit.
You
could
do
something
like
that.
That's
that's
the
typical
way,
as
you
add
more
development
potential
on
the
site,
but
Landscaping
would
be
one
way
to
do
it
too.
It's
just
you
don't
want
to.
You
only
required
fifteen
percent.
C
C
E
C
I
could
certainly,
if
you
want
I,
could
you
know,
obviously,
when
you
actually
propose
a
law,
it
has
to
go
to
the
planning
board
for
their
recommendation,
but
I
could
do
more
of
an
informal
review.
We
have
a
half
hour
work
session
before
every
meeting
and
they're
always
looking
for
topics
I
could
I
could
bring
this
up,
as
what
do
you
think
you
know
early
on
in
the
process
and
get
some
reaction
at
the
meeting?
Maybe
even
this
month.
E
E
We've
talked
about
the
uses
and
the
architecture
as
well
seems
to
want
to
be
flexible
and
there's
also
such
things
as
like
requirement
for
a
top
floor,
cornice
feature
which,
in
my
mind,
means
that
you're
leaning
towards
the
type
of
buildings
we
have
along
Main,
Street
and
I'm
just
curious.
There
might
be
other
options,
another
opportunity
to
build
more
variation
along
this
new
Corridor,
but
wanting
to
kind
of
get
the
planning
boards
much
more
professional,
experienced
opinion
about
that
as
well.
C
Yeah,
the
design
standards
are
relatively
flexible
and,
remarkably
so
they've
they've
they've
been
used
in
some
different
ways
like
say:
248
tyronda
when
they
came
across
that
corner.
So
all
they
did
was
put
a
simple
horizontal
band
at
the
very
top
of
the
brick
other
people
have
just
tapered
out
the
brick.
C
You
know
a
half
a
brick
width.
That's
meets
the
standard
of
a
cornice
feature,
so
you
don't
have
to
do
a
you
know,
elaborate
bracketed
quartus.
Some
people
choose
to
do
that,
but
other
ones
have
actually
done
relatively
you'll,
see
in
particular
at
two
cross
streets
that
that
building
has
some
some
very
contemporary
types
of
architecture
details
so
that
it
does
allow
flexibility,
even
though
it
has
certain
standards.
C
C
There's
a
couple
Corrections
that
when
tables
were
done,
were
either
missed
or
mistranslated
by
e-code,
which
I
think
is
more
the
case,
but
so,
for
instance,
on
the
dimensional
tables.
These
footnotes
don't
apply
so
I
cross.
Those
out
this
is
section
12
I,
but
they
made
it
12
1.
So
it
looks
like
section
121,
so
I've
separated
that
out
and
what
was
the
other
one.
C
They
left
out
the
bottom
end
of
this
sentence
from
what
was
previously
in
there,
so
those
changes
I'm
doing
as
well
as
adding
a
an
fa
row
here
of
new
types
of
uses
and
in
the
use
table
there
was
a
couple
mistakes
as
well.
We
we
didn't
include
Apartments,
we
we
say
multi-family,
but
sometimes
the
code
refers
to
that
as
apartments
and
sometimes
multi-family
is
meant
to
apply
to
both
so
I
included
that
here
and
then
the
other
one,
which
was
the
historic
district
overlay.
C
For
some
reason,
the
special
permit
was
still
under
city
council
Authority,
rather
than
planning
board,
and
that
was
changing
in
text
of
the
law
and
it
didn't
get
translated
into
the
table.
So
I've
changed
that.
So,
if
you
see
those
other
changes,
they're
just
corrections
to
e
e
code
conflicts
with
what
was
intended
when
we
redeemed
the
text
back
in
2020
or
whatever
it
was.
E
F
C
Yeah
there
were
two
places
there
were
four
references,
I
found
that
were
at
least
should
take
a
second
look,
two
of
them,
which
I
think
should
be
changed.
I
think
should
be
changed
even
though
scheduled
business
uses
and
still
be
allowed
here,
one,
whereas
it
said
that
residential
development
should
be
focused
on
the
Central
Main,
Street,
Fishkill,
Creek
and
linkage
District
down
to
the
train
station
as
opposed
to
outlying
districts
such
as
the
GB
District.
G
G
So
you
want
to
make
sure
that
that
you
are
being
consistent
and
if
there
are
tweaks
that
need
to
be
made,
you
know,
as
the
comprehensive
plan
is
kind
of
a
living
breeding
document,
so
the
needs
of
the
community
are
going
to
change
over
time
and
you
want
to
make
sure
that
you're
you're
adapting
to
that
so
John
I
appreciate
you
pointing
those
two
things
out
and
we'll
take
a
look
at
them.
Okay,.
A
A
B
H
F
I
think
it's
very
exciting
and
we
need
to
you
know,
take
our
steps.
I
know
that
there's
some
urgency,
because
you
know
things
are
becoming
available
and
I
think
if,
if
we
let
them
know
what
we're
thinking
about
I
actually
think
that
potential
buyers
would
be
more
interested
with
that
sounding,
so
I
think
we're
going
to
be
pretty
aligned,
and
if
we
manage
the
access
into
Heaton
Correctional,
it
actually
opens
up
some
opportunities
for
additional
residential
or
other
things
in
that
direction.
It
is
still
out
into
this
area.
F
It
should
support
a
commercial
space,
so
you
know
I
think
it's
it's
very
exciting.
It's
probably
the
most
kind
of
forward-looking
area
we've
had
to
consider
for
a
while,
and
it's
it's
in
some
reflects
shocking
that
we're
so
far
along
and
we
can
think
about
it
and
I
I.
Think
it's
you
know.
A
lot
of
these
ideas
make
a
lot
of
sense.
So
sorry.
A
J
K
I
am
yes
good
evening.
Mayor
and
Council
I
won't
belabor
too
much
of
the
written
materials
that
I've
been
provided
to
the
council
onto
the
public,
but
we're
bringing
two
candidates
forward
that
we
believe
have
pretty
strong
backgrounds.
That
would
be
a
good
fit
for.
The
committee
would
bring
the
committee
up
to
full
membership.
We
did
have
one
member
step
down
and
we
have
one
vacancy
already.
So
we
have
school
openings.
K
The
first
of
the
two
members
we're
bringing
to
you
tonight
is
Andrew
and,
as
my
memorandum
Rochelle
he's
very
involved
in
volunteering,
already
I'm
very
involved
in
environmentally
related
volunteer
opportunities,
including,
but
not
limited
to
the
Green
Bay
Trail
committee.
He
co-founded
the
green
Beacon
Coalition
and
has
been
a
volunteer
for
the
Mahon
preserve
for
past
seven
years,
he's
also
on
the
Main
Street.
It
was
on
the
Main
Street
access
committee
as
a
co-chair,
and
he
currently
works
for
the
New
York
City
DEC.
K
The
second
member
we're
bringing
to
you
tonight
has
a
very
exciting
resume,
including
working
as
an
arborist,
which
the
code
does
require,
having
an
arborist
on
the
tree
advisory
committee,
and
he
has
a
number
of
great
educational
experiences,
including
a
bachelor's
Environmental
Studies
from
Ambassador
and
currently
working
as
a
fellow
for
conservation.
So
we
thought
that
they
would
add
some
very
valuable
skills
to
the
committee
and
help
bolster
the
ranks
and
keep
it
active.
Both
members
get
the
thumbs
up
from
the
current
chair,
Pete
Bailey
and
Mark
Price,
our
Recreation
director.
K
A
B
We
realized
this
year
that
the
The
Firm
that
had
done
that
the
person
who
had
led
the
fiberglassing
was
retiring
next
year
and
it
and
we
realized.
We
need
to
do
this
pretty
quickly,
so
we
didn't
between
when
we
did
the
capital
program
and
now
Mark
has
figured
out.
This
is
our
one
window
to
have
this.
This
one
firm
come
back
because
of
the
amount
of
the
the
cost
we
had
to
go
out
to
bid
and
the
good
good
thing
is.
B
E
E
B
Mean
it's
a
it's!
An
old
pool
and
we've
gotten
a
lot
of
good
years
out
of
it,
and
it's
kind
of
we've
been
fortunate
to
get
the
the
length
of
use
out
of
the
last
fiberglassing
that
we
did.
But
it's
it's
it's
at
the
end
now
and
we
wanted
to
have
somebody
that
we
knew
could
do
this
well,
do
it
before
they
don't.
You
know,
are
no
longer
available
to
us
and.
D
I
I
know
one
of
the
reasons
that
we
have
this.
This
kind
of
online
system,
as
opposed
to
just
the
walk-up
and
swim
system,
is
because
of
the
The
Limited
number
of
people
that
can
be
into
the
pool
at
once
and
I.
Don't
want
to
open
up
a
huge
can
of
worms
but
I'd
love
to
know
what
it
would
take
to
have
a
second
pool
beside
it
or
to
double
the
size
of
the
pool.
D
B
There
are
people
that
are
not
happy
with
the
new
system
and
that's
something
that
should
be
discussed
when
we
do
our
budget
with
Mark
Price,
because
we're
looking
at
a
number
of
variables,
we
can
turn
in
terms
of
better
funding
the
pool
hours
better,
paying
the
lifeguards.
So
we
have
a
longer
season
the
hype,
the
system
that
we
have
came
out
of
covet,
but
it
also
had
fixed
a
problem
where
you
get
your
kids
in
the
car
and
you
take
them
to
settlement
camp
and
it's
full
and
you
sit
there
for
two
hours
White.
B
You
know
the
kids
are
just
hot
and
nobody's
leaving
right.
So
the
online
system
gave
some
kind
of
regularity
and
consistency
to
okay.
I
know
I'm
gonna
get
in
I've
I've
challenged
them
to
come
up
with
a
different
system
that
allows
for
some
walk-ups.
They
they
do.
Allow
walk-ups
you
just
if
there's
a
spot
left,
then
you
do
it
on
your
phone
and
they'll
even
help
you.
B
So
we
have
you're
trying
to
balance
a
couple
things
of
not
having
people
show
up
and
get
really
mad
because
they
can't
get
in
and
and
we've
actually
had,
people
remove,
because
their
behavior
has
been
so
bad
having
the
internal
control
of
having
cash
accepted
at
that
site
and
then
having
you
know,
making
sure
that
you
can
fill
up
as
many
spots
as
possible,
so
I
think
I
think
there
are
changes.
We
could
make
that's
something
we
we're
discussing
now
internally
in
terms
of
a
second
pool.
B
B
B
H
G
G
G
So
that's
the
easement
document,
the
first
part
of
the
easement
document.
The
second
part
is
towards
the
rear
of
the
property.
As
you
are
entering
the
property
from
Bank
Street
there,
the
developer
is
proposing
a
water
main
that
will
be
dedicated
to
the
city
once
it's
constructed
and
has
met
all
of
the
city's
requirements.
G
So
the
second
part
of
the
easement
is
to
provide
the
city
with
access
over
the
private
property
in
order
to
to
maintain
an
access
that
future
water
main
moving
on
to
the
offer
of
dedication.
This
is
kind
of
an
odd
situation.
There's
a
little
sliver
of
property
about
29
square
feet.
It's
over
the
city,
sidewalk,
that's
currently
owned
by
the
private
property
owner
I
have
a
feeling.
It
dates
back
to
urban
renewal
days.
G
As
far
as
how
this
little
sliver
of
property
was
retained
by
the
private
property
owner
and
not
not
in
the
hands
of
the
city,
considering
it's
within
the
city
sidewalk.
So
the
offers
the
developer
as
part
of
this
project
has
offered
to
kind
of
correct
that
situation
and
offer
to
dedicate
to
the
city
that
29
square
foot
level
of
property
on
the
sidewalk
of
West
Main
Street
wow.
So
those
are
the
two
documents
that
are
before
you.
H
E
G
E
G
The
property
owner
would
still
be
responsible
for
sidewalks,
as
is
every
property
owner
that
has
property
of
budding
a
city
sidewalk.
It's
really
just
to
correct
right
now.
The
prop
this
parcel,
the
shape
of
it,
is
kind
of
you
know
it
has
that
little
tail
on
it,
I
guess
you
could
call
it,
whereas
it
would.
G
Owns
the
subdivision
at
44,
Kent
Street
during
the
process
of
this
application.
During
this
review
by
the
planning
board,
it
was
discovered
that
there's
actually
a
pretty
large
Culvert
City's
Culvert,
that
that
runs
underneath
these
properties,
but
there's
no
existing
easement
agreement
so
as
part
of
the
process,
the
develop
the
property
owner
I'm
just
offering
to
the
city,
an
actual
recorded
easement
agreement
to
allow
the
city
to
continue
to
maintain
that
Culvert.
Underneath
that
property,
the
Culver
is
for
the
purposes
of
of
storm
water
drainage,
oh
as
with
the
other
document.