►
From YouTube: Beacon Planning Board 5-10-22
Description
May 10, 2022
7:00 PM
Planning Board Agenda
Regular Meeting
1. Continue Public Hearing for SEQRA environmental review on applications for Subdivision and
Site Plan Approval, "Beacon Views Townhouses" 40 units, Conklin Street, submitted by Beacon Views, LLC.
2. Public Hearing for SEQRA review on application for Site Plan Approval and Subdivision (lot
merger) Approval, Multi-Family Residential (62 units), 16 West Main Street, submitted by Farrell Building Company.
3. Continue review of application for Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval, hotel and event
space, 1113 Wolcott Avenue, submitted by Prophecy Theater, LLC.
4. Continue review of application for Subdivision Approval, 2-lot residential, 146 Verplanck Avenue, submitted by James Petty.
5. Continue review of application for Special Use Permit and Site Plan Approval, indoor and outdoor event space, 4 Hanna Lane, submitted by Jason Hughes.
6. Review application for Subdivision Approval, 2-lot residential, 46 Judson Street, submitted by 46 Judson Street LLC.
1. Zoning Board of Appeals - May meeting
Miscellaneous Business
Architectural Review
B
C
All
right,
we
discussed
last
time
having
a
an
open
discussion
about
what
sort
of
training
ideas
and
that
you
might
have
for
future
sessions,
and
we
thought
we'd
do
that
today.
I
did
want
to
update
you
on
the
main
street
advisory
committee
report,
the
access
committee
they
issued
an
advisor
report
to
the
council,
presented
it
two
weeks
ago.
I
think
on
monday
and
you've
seen
most
of
it
in
parts
over
time.
We've
previewed
it
got
feedback.
C
You
can
see
main
streets
being
striped,
presumably
with
the
recommendations
of
the
access
committee
in
mind
to
get
more
spaces
out
there.
So
if
you
have
any
questions,
it's
on
online,
it's
not
on
the
city
website,
except
if
you
look
at
the
workshop
agenda
for
that
night,
when
the
presentation
was
done,
you
can
see
it
there.
E
F
F
E
C
B
G
Like
the
analysis
of
how
much
housing
exists,
what
the
demand
is
and
then
sort
of
following
the
whole
arc
through
where
they
we're
talking
about
what
the
what
the
affordable
housing
commitment,
they
had
a
certain
term
that
they
used
for
each
community
in
the
county
might
be,
and
so
there
were
actual
numbers.
There
were
goals
that
they
generated.
H
G
This
is
what
you
can
do.
This
is
the
this
is
the
burden
that
you
should
bear
as
a
community
in
order
to
help
out
your
citizens-
and
I
thought
that
was
really
useful
and
it
was
like
five
units
per
year,
something
like
that
and
200
units
over
another
period
of
time.
Tell
me
if
I'm
wrong
with
the
numbers,
but
it
seemed
like
an
achievable
number
that
if
we
planned
it
and
thought
about.
G
Either
subsidized
housing
other
there
are
many
many
ways
to
do
it
and
they're
people
with
experts
on
people
with
expertise
in
that
field
that
we
can
be
pretty
certain
that
it's
going
to
actually
have
an
impact
to
help
people
based
upon
all
the
experience
that
people
have
working
this.
So
any
further
information
detailing
other
communities,
experiences
right
and
the
outcomes
I'd
I'd
love
to
learn
more
so
that
we
can
focus
our
efforts.
G
G
C
G
Fewer
cars
and
beacon
that
it's
in
some
ways
more
affordable
and
that
it's
it's
that
there's
a
benefit
to
having
that
broad
range
of
housing:
pricing
in
beacon
for
a
lot
of
different
types
of
incomes,
because
in
east
fish
kill
you
have
to
have
a
car
for
your
family.
You
need
two
cars
and
it
can
it's
almost
it's
difficult
to
be
poor
in
the
country.
I
think
anymore,
I
guess
is
what
I'm
saying
in
the
suburbs
and
there's
many
benefits
in
denser
communities.
C
I've
seen
these
housing
studies
come
and
go
and
they
always
project.
You
know
the
town
of
washington
and
the
town
of
you
know
unionville
and
some
of
those
more
rural
communities,
and
it
never
happens
out
there
and,
and
it
really
maybe
shouldn't
because
they
don't
have
the
transit
services
and
they
don't
have
the
proximity
to
grocery
stores
and
the
things
that
you
really
should
to
have
supportive
services
for
affordable
units.
So
that
doesn't
happen,
they're
more
out
more
likely
to
happen
in
the
cities
and
in
the
tight-knit
suburbs
and
villages.
C
I
You
know
the
walkability
and
livability
of
cities,
but
to
get
a
kind
of
a
steady
feed
of
innovative
solutions
or
ways
of
looking
at
problems
so
that
we're
kind
of
just
keeping
up
with
our
peers
around
the
country
and
even
if
it's
a
little
bit,
maybe
you
know,
even
if
it
seems
a
little
bit
too
innovative
for
us
to
consider.
I'd
still
like
to
know.
You
know
where
the
where
the
zeitgeist
is
what's
happening,
so
that,
if
there's
something
that
we
become
aware
of
and
we're
like
hey,
we
need.
We
need
to
do
that
here.
I
We
need
to
look
at
that
strongly
here.
You
know
we.
We
maintain
an
awareness
of
of
what
the
the
state
of
the
practice
is.
That
would
be
really
useful
and
and
something
that's,
maybe
even
something
that
we
could
distribute
the
research
responsibilities.
A
little
bit
among
the
board,
if
it
takes
a
little
more
effort
to
do
it.
D
B
A
Well,
I
I
wanted
to
comment
on
the
main
street
action
report
because
I
I
was
on
the
committee,
so
I
know
how
much
work
was
put
into
it.
I
was
on
you
know,
and
they
met
weekly
and
I
would
encourage
the
city
residents
to
actually
read
the
report.
24
pages
has
a
lot
of
information
about
the
history
and
personally,
I
think
more
training
about
the
history
of
beacon
could
be
helpful.
There's
a
lot
of
information
there
about
how
main
street
changed
over
time.
A
Urban
renewal
changes
you
know,
even
just
where
matt
mathewan
and
fischer
landing
were
set
were
separated.
I
didn't
know
that
myself,
it's
chest.
North
chestnut
street
is
pretty
much
the
border
between
the
two
towns.
So
a
lot
of
interesting
history
in
that
report
that
I
think
residents
would
benefit
from
reading.
A
D
J
D
Is
never
dead,
it's
not
even
passed
and
the
implications
for
that
in
terms
of
acknowledging
beacon's
past
and
what
it
means
for
planning
for
the
future
so
and
that
that
impacts
all
these
things.
So
I
think
the
linkage
zone
is
a
really
good
example
of
that
from
when
it
was
from
my
understanding,
primarily
an
african-american
community
that
was
bulldozed
during
some
misguided
urban
renewal
during
the
70s.
Is
that
correct,
mostly.
D
Yeah
and
never
rebuilt,
or
basically
the
community
was
never
rebuilt
to
the
way
it
was
and
when
we
first
moved
in
moved
to
beacon.
18
years
ago,
my
husband
and
I
and
our
house
backed
up
our
house,
backs
up
to
a
house
that
was
owned
by
the
former
pastor
of
the
springfield
baptist
church,
and
we
heard
from
her
daughter
that
there
was,
there
was
still
some
bitterness
there
that
they
had
torn
down
their
church
there
and
and
really
disrupted
the
community,
which
is
still
a
very
vibrant
community.
D
B
I
would
say
that
something
that
I
think
is
very
important
as
part
of
the
overall
structure
with
everybody's
saying
is
understanding
the
balance
between
what
the
board's
capabilities
are
and
so
that
the
community
understands
what
our
limitations
are,
because
we
have
different
previews.
Everyone
looks
at
things
from
a
different
optic
view
and
I
think,
as
the
training
happens,
I
think
we
need
to
understand
those
borders
in
those
guidelines.
B
Step
with
those
shifts,
while
we
look
at
and
then
address
the
things
that
become
challenges
that
we
face
as
community
changes,
and
I
think
that
takes
in
consideration
our
past
our
present
and
as
best
as
we
can
looking
towards
our
future.
So
I
think
those
things
need
to
be
part
of
the
collective
learning
process
so
that
we
always
stay
within
our
own
scope
of
what
we
can
do.
So
john
I'd
like
to
get
mr
russo's
thought
on
what
things
you
think
would
be
very
helpful
for
us,
because
what's
interesting
you,
you
know
our
our.
K
K
K
K
Yeah
your
city,
you'd
like
to
have
a
walkability
to
get
around
and
yeah.
You
have
a
train
station
right
down
below
the
traffic
coming
in
when
I
came
off,
the
bridge
was
backed
up
at
least
four
blocks
right
now,
so
traffic
is
one
thing
we're
looking
at
as
far
as
the
environment,
you
know
we're
dealing
with
one
project
where
we
have
wetlands
disturbance,
the
wetlands,
you
know
and
mitigation.
You
know
the
board
has
made
it
very
clear
that
they
want
to
see
that
mitigation
occur
within
the
city
for
the
benefit
of
the
residents.
K
F
Yeah,
the
one
other
thought
I
had
was,
I
feel
like,
if
there's
a
way
that
we
can
have
better
or
see,
if
there's
other
what
models
are
out
there
for
interacting
amongst
different
agencies
in
the
city,
because
I
feel
like,
for
instance,
we
have
a
climate
smart
coordinator
now
who
we
could
be
getting.
You
know,
information
from
on
the
vision
that
they're
creating
on
what
we
need
to
do
to
make
sure
we're
resilient
community
in
face
of
environmental
changes.
C
C
Now
the
the
city
is
looking
at
its
parking
lots,
it's
public
holdings
and
trying
to
come
up
with
solutions
where
they
can
provide
parking
on
the
on
the
ground
level
and
build
take
care
of
the
air
rights,
build
two
or
three
stories
up
over
the
parking
so
that
they
can
do
affordable
housing
designated
work
with
developers.
The
way
they
work
with
westland
loft
to
create
affordable
housing
in
central
locations
where
we
have
parking
lots
now
that
are
unproductive
and
you
know
a
drain
on
the
tax
base
instead
of
a
useful
part
of
the
city.
C
D
C
E
I
Know,
at
least
with
churchill
topographically,
a
structure
like
that
would
be
a
little
bit
kind
of
diminished
in
terms
of
its
impact.
It's
still,
you
know,
you're
between
main
street
and
the
ridgeline,
but
you
know
when
I
hear
about
you,
know
residential
structures
on
top
of
parking
garages,
and
I
start
envisioning
those
at
places
like
henry
street
or
I
just.
I
have
a
visceral
reaction
that
isn't
positive.
You
know
just
kind
of
from
an
aesthetic
standpoint
which
is
not
the
most
important
thing
in
the
world,
but
well.
C
There's
ways
to
do
it,
though
there's-
and
this
could
be
a
topic
too.
How
do
you?
How
do
you
deal
with
parking
structures
and
not
have
them?
Look
like
you
know,
layer,
cakes
of
parking,
lots,
there's
green
facades.
There's
historic
facades
have
been
put
on
examples
from
around
the
country.
I
could
show
you
what
a
lot
of
people
are
doing
now
are
liner
buildings.
L
C
C
I
I
I
feel
like
we
need
to
keep
preparing
ourselves
for
eventualities
and
if,
if
it
is,
if
looking
at
it
reveals
a
concern
that
we
could
have
a
an
undesirable
situation,
then
that
would
be
a
trigger
for
re-looking
at
zoning.
You
know
you
know.
We
we've
heard
a
lot
of
comments
from
the
public,
about
projects
being
too
too
large
on
main
street,
that
you're
you're,
putting
in
kind
of
monolithic
structures
on
a
main
street.
That's
composed
originally
of
a
lot
of
individual
lot
buildings,
cheek
by
jowl,
with
some
neat
details,
differentiating
them
for
each
other.
I
People's
heads
are
going
to
explode
in
terms
of
what
the
visual
impact
is
going
to
be
in
the
in
the
level
of
change,
and
I
don't
feel
like
we're
totally
prepared
for
that
eventuality
that
we
could
get
blindsided
by
it.
If
it
comes
up
on
us
faster
than
we
expect
and
there'll
be
no
time
at
the
point,
a
project
is
being
proposed
to
say:
should
we
have
tried
to
change
zoning?
Was
there?
Was
there?
I
A
A
As
a
as
a
as
a
board
would
be
to
sort
of
contemplate
the
future
of
our
public
space
overall,
and
why
do
I
say
that?
Because
really
that's
where
the
main
arm
that
can
do
that-
and
you
know
this
month,
I
think-
is
the
anniversary
of
olmsted's,
200th,
birth
and
there's
a
lot
of
events
about.
You
know
his
role
in
developing
central
park
and
parks,
and
it
seems
to
me
that
a
city
needs
to
anticipate
future
development.
A
So
you
know
what
would
new
york
city
be
without
central
park
if
they
didn't
envision
future
development?
It
seems
to
me
that
one
of
the
things
that
we
could
do
is
to
anticipate
what
peaking
would
look
like
in
50
years
100
years,
and
where
do
we
want
to
develop
public
space
in
my
opinion,
should
be
main
street
main
street.
Should
you
know,
be
strengthened
in
terms
of
a
public
access
to
the
city,
to
the
to
the
river
and
to
the
mountain.
G
We
got
one
minute
before
we
start.
Okay,
a
lot
of
communities
are
looking
at
no
build
options
as
one
of
the
alternatives
to
analyze
when
you're,
proposing
like
expensive
or
infrastructure
things
or
other
large
developments.
They
should
be
compared
against
what
the
cost
benefit
is
of
doing
very
small
interventions
or
doing
nothing
and
that
that
sometimes
really
helps
the
decision-making
process.
G
B
B
B
E
B
I
I
O
E
O
O
Vehicular
access
to
the
property,
john
and
others
have
indicated
that
they
were
hoping
we
would
be
able
to
get
through
to
townsend
on
the
13
lot
subdivision.
That
was
next
door
to
us,
and
I'm
now
told
that
that
subdivision
was
purchased
by
an
active
developer.
A
bond
was
put
up,
the
street
will
be
put
in
and
our
plans
will
show
us
go
in
and
out
of
that
new
public
street.
O
So
I
think
that's
one
significant
piece,
a
second
significant
piece
and
we
have
jim
bates
here,
who's
our
wetlands
man.
If
you
want
somebody
who
really
knows
what
they're
talking
about,
but
I'm
told
that
our
engineer
reduced
the
lot
count
by
three
lots
from
40
to
37,
which
is
enabling
us
to
do
our
one-to-one
wetland
mitigation.
On-Site,
which
I
think
was
another
point-
that
your
engineer
and
your
planner
were
big
about
and
were
able
to
do
that.
O
We,
I
don't
know
if
there
are
any
open
engineering
issues
that
are
left
so
we've
covered
mitigation
for
wetland
we've
covered
access,
those
were
with
the
big
ones.
I'm
hoping
that
when
you're
finished
tonight
that
you
will
consider
closing
the
public
hearing
on
seeker
and
that
you
will
consider
asking
your
counsel
or
your
planner
or
engineer,
to
draw
up
a
proposed
determination
of
significance
for
your
next
meeting,
hopefully
a
negative
declaration.
That's
your
call!
O
Obviously
we
don't
think
there
are
any
significant
adverse
impacts
that
have
come
to
the
surface,
and
we
would
also
ask
that
for
the
next
meeting
you
open
schedule
and
open
public
hearings
on
preliminary
subdivision
and
on
site
plan
approval.
So
with
with
that,
I'm
going
to
turn
this
over
to
the
engineer
and
the
wetland
consultant
and
see
if
what
I
said
makes
sense-
and
I
assume
that
mr
russo
and
your
planner
will
chime
in
when
I
think
it's
appropriate.
P
Hi,
adam
kleiberg,
from
inside
engineering
surveying
landscape
architecture
pc
so
just
to
hone
in
on
something
that
richard
had
alluded
to
what
was
impacted
in
terms
of
the
site
plan.
The
revision
of
the
site
plan
is
the
three
units
that
were
eliminated
that
were
had
previously
been
proposed
in
the
northeast
corner.
P
The
removal
of
those
units
has
opened
up
space
for
additional
mitigation
in
that
area.
We've
also
introduced
a
new
retaining
wall
which
has
somewhat
reduced
our
disturbance
that
put
together
with
the
mitigation
that
had
previously
been
proposed
to
the
south
of
the
the
property,
gets
us
to
the
one-to-one
mitigation,
as
richard
mentioned
just
to
make
sure
that
it's
clear
so
those
hatched
areas
there
in
the
northeast
corner.
That's
the
the
new
area
of
mitigation
and,
of
course,
the
in
this.
L
So
so,
as
we've
been
in
front
of
the
board
in
the
past,
we
discussed
the
fact
that,
right
now
the
board
was
really
one
to
see
one-to-one
mitigation,
at
least
with
you
know.
Within
the
city
we
were
able
to
do
that.
The
army
corps
may
or
may
not
accept
one-to-one
mitigation.
We
are
still
looking
to
go
out
to
the
other
site,
just
within
the
village,
as
well
or
within
the
city
limits
as
well
up
on
van
buren.
L
L
So
that's
really.
It
there's
already
been
preliminary
wetland
mitigation
plans
submitted
to
the
board
that
didn't
include
the
one-to-one
we'll
have
to
update
those.
The
engineers
are
working
on
the
final
grading
plans
and
we
can
update
the
mitigation
plans
to
go
along
with
those,
but
that's
pretty
much
where
everything
stands.
We
we
can't
go
to
the
army
corps
until
there
is
significantly
along
with
the
board,
because
the
court
won't
approve
fills
on
a
project
that
doesn't
exist.
B
Q
Q
So
I
went
over
to
delavan
avenue
and
pulled
out
a
tape
that
street
is
38
foot
wide
with
sidewalks
there
used
to
be
a
traffic
light
there
and
there's
a
basic
two-lane
entry
to
that.
Neighborhood
street
is
30
foot
wide,
with
no
sidewalk
and
at
the
end
of
the
downtown
street,
where
the
intersection
of
towns
and
50
through
there
right
now,
you
can't
get
out
of
there.
Sometimes
can
you
imagine
when
you
have
a
new
neighborhood
coming
in
there
of
13
houses
and
37
units,
the
quality
of
life.
J
Q
Q
It
was
never
meant
for
a
full-scale
access
through
and
some
of
the
neighbors
were
kind
of
hey
you're,
not
going
to
start
progress,
but
I
guess
we
could
live
with
that
now.
It's
changing
a
whole
scheme
of
things
so
take
that
in
consideration,
because
there's
a
lot
of
homes
there
that
strollers
and
dogs.
You
know
people
walk
there,
they're
infants
around
there
when
you're
gonna
have
you
know
13
houses.
Q
R
R
I
also
agree
with
what
nunzio
said
with
delavan
was
built
to
have
a
hospital.
A
hospital
was
there
for
numerous
years
in
our
past
and
townsend
street.
Yes,
it
had
a
knights
of
columbus,
but
it
was
a
development
and
it
still
has
a
development
with
about
50
houses
which
we
are
going
to
get
at
13
additional
houses
which
they're
already
working
on
that
project.
R
I
understand
people
want
to
profit,
but
I
feel
you're
selling
everybody
short
of
being
able
to
get
this
profit,
and
I
I
strongly
urge
you
to
reconsider
this.
I
also
have
a
petition
from
the
neighbors
as
a
resident
of
mead
avenue,
townsend
street
desoto
avenue
or
conklin
street.
I
strongly
urge
the
beacon
planning
board
to
reconsider
this
proposed
beacon
views
project
on
adjacent
wetlands
property
and
for
the
primary
access
of
this
land-bound
property
to
be
accessible
via
townsend
street.
R
B
S
S
I
That's
it's
not
how
it's
not
actually
moved.
It's
just
created
somewhere
else
in
some
ratio,
so
you're,
essentially
creating
or
rehabilitating
wetlands
another
location
in
order
to
make
up
for
the
wetlands
that
you're
destroying
they're
not
actually
relocate,
they
don't
relocate
the
plants
or
the
animals.
S
S
S
B
J
This
build
will
bring
in
a
lot
of
cars
with
the
potential
for
fuel
and
oil
runoff
emissions,
traffic
and
traffic
noise.
I
believe
it
will
have
a
negative
environmental
impact
on
the
parcel
and
surrounding
neighborhood
infrastructure.
Already
traffic
on
route
52
in
this
location
of
beacon
is
horrendous.
J
E
J
T
Good
evening
my
name
is
peg
o'leary.
I
work
for
highland
meadows
senior
residents,
I'm
here
this
evening
to
ask
the
planning
board
to
please
keep
the
seeker
public
hearing
open
and
not
close
it.
I'm
also
here
this
evening
to
advise
the
planning
board
that
the
stormwater
easement
is
in
dispute
and
is
in
the
middle
of
litigation.
B
L
So
right
now
the
where
we
are
going
to
be
doing
one-on-one
mitigation,
which
means
the
exact
amount
of
wetlands.
That's
there
now
is
what's
going
to
be
there
when
the
project
is
is
completed,
so
there
will
be
additional
mitigation
done
on
another
site
as
well,
potentially
for
the
army
corps,
but
basically
just
with
it.
I
L
By
by
this
town,
or
by
this
city
and
by
the
army
corps,
there
are
other
ways
of
doing
it
by
hydrology,
by
vegetation
and
by
soil
type,
which
comes
up
with
as
close
to
a
definitive
line.
It
was
a
little
bit
here
and
there,
as
you
can
get
dec
if
this
was
a
12.4,
acre,
wetland
or
larger.
At
this
point
in
time,
dec
has
different
parameters
which
is
is
solely
based
on
vegetation.
L
L
P
P
There
is
some
coincidental
disturbance
around
the
periphery
of
the
wetland,
and
that
is
on
the
scale
of
the
the
property
fairly
minimal.
As
I
said
about
a
third
of
an
acre
against
the
you
know
a
site-
that's
over
eight
acres
I
did
want
to
just
briefly
also
just
touch
on
the
board
was
asked
to
look
into
traffic
implications
and
as
the
consultants
and
as
the
board
is
aware,
traffic
studies
have
been
prepared.
P
All
those
implications
have
been
kind
of
closely
studied
to
this
point,
starting
with
when
access
was
coming
from
another
direction,
and
that's
also
been
that
work
has
also
been
done
with
regard
to
the
currently
proposed
site
access.
So
all
of
that
work
has
been
presented
to
the
board
just
wanted
to
make
sure
that
was
clear.
O
All
of
the
concerns
raised
by
your
engineer
and
your
planner
as
far
as
the
litigation
referred
to
by
ms
o'leary.
That's
a
private
dispute
between
neighbors
we've
provided
your
council
with
evidence
that
there
are
facially
sufficient
easements
both
now
for
emergency
access
and
for
drainage,
and
the
dispute
again
is
a
private
dispute
between
two
neighbors.
B
C
Probably
the
the
engineer,
the
one
is
that
when
25
towns
in
the
the
adjacent
13
lot
development
was
approved,
there
was
an
access
connection
to
this
property,
but
it
incorporated
a
traffic
circle
because
we
didn't
know
when
this
property
might
be
looked
at.
Is
that
is
that
application
that
adjacent
property?
Do
you
know
if
they're
going
to
reconsider
the
traffic
circle.
P
Yeah
we
we've
met
with
the
owner
of
25,
townsend
and
they're
open
to
making
adjustments
as
needed.
Obviously
they
have
their
time
schedule
for
construction
and
and
so
on,
but
they
are
they've
expressed
that
they're
perfectly
open
to
making
adjustments
that
you
know
as
as
required
by
the
city.
Okay,.
C
O
Beyond
the
easement,
we
plan
to
proceed
and
do
it.
If
some
judge
says
we
can't
do
it,
then
we're
going
to
have
to
come
back
to
you
because
we're
not
going
to
be
able
to
do
that
which
you
approved,
but
we're
asking
you
to
approve
it
on
the
land
use
end
and
again,
you
know.
We
believe
that
we
have
those
rights
if
it
turns
out
that
in
the
private
litigation
we
don't
we'll
be
here
with
our
tail
between
our
legs
telling
you
we
couldn't
do
what
we
told
you.
U
Yeah
and
I'll
just
I
concur
with
with
mr
cantor's
comments.
Ultimately,
you
know
before
permits
are
issued.
They
will
have
to
demonstrate
that
they
do
have
the
valid
easement
that
we
all
believe
that
they
do,
but
if
a
judge
determines
otherwise,
then
the
risk
is
really
on
on
the
applicant
side,
because
the
applicant
will
have
to
come
back
for
amended
approvals
from
the
board.
U
I
We
have
any
idea
of
what
the
something
else
could
be,
though,
what
would
be
the
you
know
the
alternate
plan
and
should
we
know,
or
at
least
have
some
idea,
because
I
the
only
thing
that
concerns
me
about
that
description-
is
that
we
then
end
up
in
a
situation
where
you
have
a
limited
number
of
choices,
perhaps
and
they're
not
really
desirable,
and
then
you
know
we
have
an
applicant
saying
I'm
hamstrung
here,
you
know,
are
you
gonna?
You
know
what
are
you
gonna
do
to
me.
U
Yeah,
I
think
that
the
again
it
would
be
up
to
the
applicant
to
come
back
with
a
plan
that
that
works
within
the
confines
of
of
the
reality
at
that
time.
If
and
when
a
judge
determines
that
they
don't
have
the
easement
access
that
we
they
believe
that
they
have
and
that
we
believe
they
have.
We
could
be
look
it's
it's
hard.
I
don't
think
we
can
speculate
right
now.
What
that
plan.
V
W
U
I
I'm
often
called
upon
to
develop
contingencies
in
my
job,
and
so
then
I
have
to
say:
okay
well,
all
of
the
things
being
equal.
If
I
could
not
do
this
one
thing,
what's
the
solution,
so
I
mean
I
don't
think
that's
completely
unorthodox
to
ask
that
question,
and
I
I
just
I
get
a
little
bit
concerned
about
you
know,
like
I
said,
being
being
that
there
ends
up
being
pressure
on
the
board
to
approve
a
band-aid.
B
B
K
K
They
do
have
some
outstanding
comments
that
I
have
they've
provided
some
responses
to
them,
but
until
we
see
revised
plans
I
can't
say
whether
they
were
completed
or
not,
with
the
revisions
to
the
plans,
they
will
need
to
revise
their
swip.
Also,
that
will
have
to
be
updated
to
reflect
the
recent
revisions
to
this
plan.
J
K
So
we
still
have
to
take
a
look
at
what
they're
going
to
be
doing
with
the
storm
water
on
site.
So
there
may
have
to
be
some
revisions
with
regards
to
stormwater
also,
and
then
we
had
some
previous
outstanding
comments
that
they
provided
responses
to.
But
until
we
see
the
plans,
I
can't
confirm
that
they've
been
completed.
Okay,.
F
I'm
interested
to
know
there
always
there
seems
to
be
often
a
tension
between
the
like
the
real
world
experience
of
traffic
and
the
world
of
traffic
studies,
and
I'm
wondering
if
there's
any
mechanism
in
place
that
the
city
can
use
to
extract
improvements.
For
you
know,
sidewalks,
stop
lights.
Stop
you
know
to
address
the
traffic
impacts.
U
So
if
an
impact
is
identified
as
a
direct
result
of
an
application,
then
the
applicant
is
responsible
for
mitigating
that
impact
through
things
like
traffic
lights,
signage,
you
know
striping
options
here
and
we
do
have
the
the
city's
traffic
consultant
here
at
the
meeting
tonight.
Who
can
speak
to
you
know
the
review
that
they
did
of
the
traffic
impact
study
that
was
submitted
here.
If
my
memory
serves
me
correctly,
I
don't
think
any
of
those
mitigation
elements
were
required
here,
because
there
were
no
impacts
to
be
mitigated
based
on
the
traffic
studies.
B
I
Good,
because
that
that's
a
it's
a
the
intersection
of
townsend
52
is,
is
somewhat
busy.
You
have
the
laundromat,
the
dunkin
donuts
is
currently
closed,
but
that
was
a
pretty
busy
terminus.
You
know
terminal
because
of
the
there
were
some
business
uses
that
were
that
were
highly
utilized
one
of
them's
not
now,
but.
X
X
I
was
unable
to
pull
up
the
old
study,
but
we
had
gone
through
three
comment:
letters
prior
to
this
review
letter
that
has
been
submitted
for
the
planning
board
for
this
meeting,
and
there
was
no
outstanding
comments
at
the
end
of
that
third
letter
and
this.
This
fourth
review
letter
is
kind
of
acknowledging
their
reduction
in
size
of
the
development
when
it
comes
to
generators
or
traffic
generators
on
site,
going
from
40
units
to
37
units.
X
F
X
U
I
think
also
something
to
just
to
kind
of
tack
on
to
what
stark
was
saying.
I
think
you
know
it
depends
on
the
the
distribution
of
the
traffic
right
at
peak
times
versus
non-peak
times.
It
depends
on
which
intersection
you're
looking
at,
but
I
think
also
for
secret
purposes
when
you're
talking
about
a
significant
adverse
environmental
impact.
One
of
the
thresholds
that
secra
sets
forth
just
sort
of
generically
is,
I
believe,
it's
a
hundred
new
trips,
a
hundred
vehicle
trips
as
potentially
being
a
significant
adversary.
X
That's
that's
a
state
threshold
right
there's
also
like
an
industry
standard
threshold
that
the
state
drew
that
from
which
is
a
hundred
site
generated
trips.
That
being
said,
if
it's
you
know,
if
the
site's
generating
80
trips,
you
might
want
to
look
at
it,
but
100
trips
is
that
threshold
for
a
project.
F
X
U
F
I
X
L
So
the
army
corps
of
engineers
is
basically
all
waters
in
the
united
states
is
regulated
by
the
army
corps
of
engineers
and
everything,
so
they
have
the
ultimate
responsibility
of
issuing
permits
and
things
like
that,
this
would
fall
under
a
nationwide
29
permit,
which
is
up
to
a
half
an
acre
of
fill
in
waters
of
the
united
states
with
mitigation
and
the
army
corps.
Once
we
do
all
the
submittals
decides
on
the
exact
amount
of
mitigation,
we
can
give
our
recommendations.
L
L
Instead
of
going
out
to
conflict,
we
can
show
that
at
minimization,
if
you're,
trying
to
instead
of
blowing
through
it
and
doing
all
kinds
of
other
things
you
show
minimization
and
then
the
mitigation,
that's
how
it
goes
with
the
army
corps
of
engineers
and
it's
a
process
they
want,
but
they
don't
issue
a
fill
permit
until
they
know
that
we
have
at
least
a
preliminary
or
conditional
site
plan
approval,
because
they're
not
going
to
go
through
all
the
issuances
that
they
have
to
do
for
something.
That's
not
going
to
happen.
L
L
G
U
So
we
had
reached
out
to
at
least
one
wetland
consultant
who
was
not
able
to
be
retained
if
the
board
is
still
interested
in
retaining
someone
given
the
revisions
in
the
plan
that
you
see
now,
with
the
you
know,
the
reduction
in
units
and
the
one-to-one
mitigation
on-site
that's
been
achieved.
We
can
certainly
you
know,
re-invigorate
those
those
efforts,
but
to
date
someone
has
not
been
retained.
Okay,.
I
Because
and
what
I
recall
was
the
driving
or
was
the
impetus
behind?
That
was
the
question
of
off-site
mitigation.
Correct,
and
so
can
we,
you
know
if
if
the
army
corps
were
to
come
in
and
say
we,
we
want
more
than
a
one-to-one
mitigation.
That
would
be
the
point
at
which
the
applicant
would
have
to
go
to
the
off-site
location
to
make
up
the
difference,
so
we
would
be.
If
that
occurs,
we
would
be
back
to
that
same
impetus
that
was
driving
us
to
request.
U
Your
your
approval
would
not
be
based
on
that.
You
would
by
by
saying
that
that,
by
approving
this
plan,
you're
saying
that
you
are
comfortable
with
the
one-to-one
mitigation
that
that
your
concerns
about
the
wetland
disturbance
that
we
heard
about
earlier,
the
13
000
square
feet
of
wetland
disturbance
of
the
two
acres
is
properly
mitigated
by
what
you're,
seeing
right
here
on
site.
That
offsite
would,
if
I
understand
the
applicant's
proposal
correctly,
the
off-site
mitigation
will
come
into
play
only.
I
Okay,
thank
you.
So
the
second
question
is
given
that
we
haven't
retained
a
wetland
scientist
who
you
know
of
our
consultants,
who's
reviewed
the
the
measures
that
are
proposed
to
protect
the
existing
wetlands
during
construction.
So,
right
now
we
have
about
a
two
acre
wetland
out
of
an
eight
acre
site
of
which
about
a
third
of
an
acre,
is
going
to
be
disturbed
and
require
a
one-to-one
mitigation
and.
K
C
D
C
U
U
I
U
So
I
don't
know
how
much
input
you
would
have
into
the
army
corps
process.
So
if
say,
for
example,
the
army
corps
said
the
selection,
the
site
that
they
selected
is
not
sufficient
for
the
army
corps
purposes,
but
you
find
it
sufficient.
I
you
know,
I
don't
know
how
much
I
haven't
seen.
Local
planning
boards
have
interplay
with
army
corps
on
that
level.
E
B
F
U
E
D
L
Does
not
require
mitigation
to
be
done
on
a
phys
on
the
physical
property
they
they're
they're
truthfully.
If
this
region
had
what
they
call
in
lua
fees,
which
is
wetland
mitigation
banks-
that
is
their
first
line,
then
it's
second
to
be
within
the
watershed,
so
we're
in
what
they
call
the
lower
to
middle
hudson.
So
it's
anywhere
within
the
middle
hudson.
L
Z
Z
That's
number
one
number
two
is
the
army
corps
requires
that
we
perform
an
annual
inspection
of
the
mitigation
once
a
year
by
our
licensed
and
professional
wetland
specialist
for
five
for
a
five
year
period
once
a
year
for
five
years
after
the
mitigation
has
been
put
in
place
to
make
sure
that
everything
is
working
properly.
So
that's
that's
another
safeguard
by
the
corps
of
engineers.
I
Someone
to
say
like
the
wetlands
that
are
being
disturbed
on
the
site
are
very
high
value
habitat,
and
because
of
that,
you
know,
because
of
mitigation,
can
never
bring
it
back
to
what
it
was.
That's
why
you'd
be
within
your
rights
to
ask,
for
you
know
greater
than
one-to-one.
You
know
on
the
off-site
because
you're
losing
you
know
more
than
your.
I
mean
without
that
kind
of
advice.
How
would
we
I.
U
Mean
you
certainly,
you
would
have
to
have
a
basis
and
a
reasonable
basis
in
the
record
to
make
that
request
whether
you
need
an
expert
to
make
that
request.
I
I
don't
think
that
that's
absolutely
necessary.
I
think
you
can
look
at
the
information.
That's
before
you
that's
been
presented
by
by
the
applicant.
You
could
even
ask
the
applicant
tonight
whether
they
have
any
objection
to
you
requiring
that
if
the
applicant
is
willing
to
offer
that,
then
I
think
it's
it's
a
you
know
it's
kind
of
a
moot
point.
Z
I
So
so
you
know
what
what
might
be
appropriate
in
light
of
some
of
the
comments
from
the
public
would
be
to
ask
your
wetland
scientists
just
to
describe
for
us
their
characterization
of
the
site.
We
heard
some
public
comments,
saying
that
there's
a
diversity
of
wildlife
that
they
have
raptors
or
hawks
utilizing
the
site
is
that
in
line
with
what
the
report
and
the
characterization
of
the
wetland
has
been
and
and
therefore
you
know,
maybe
you
want
to
talk
about
how
the
project
would
protect
the
habitat
such
that
it
would
be.
I
L
E
E
L
And
amphibians,
the
habitat's
going
to
stay
roughly
the
same.
In
fact,
it's
probably
going
to
get
a
little
bit
wetter
because
the
storm
water
and
things
will
be
going
that
way
so
it'll
be
provide
more
things
for
frogs
and
salamanders,
and
things
like
that.
But
there
is
there's
going
to
be
a
definite
change
in
the
habitat.
There's
just
no
way
around.
Can
you
comment.
Z
L
L
L
I
Going
on
so
that's
something
that
that
the
community
has
to
recognize
that
if
there
is
off-site
mitigation,
there's
an
expectation
that
that,
even
though
it's
not
in
the
same
place,
it
would
be
a
greater
benefit,
because
that
habitat
is
probably
a
higher
quality
already
and
and
enhancing.
It
is
going
to.
L
Because
it's
it's
literally
at
the
end
of
the
road,
there's
nothing
up
there
so
and
and
there's
it
it's
tying
into
a
nice
watershed
system
and
it's
got.
You
know
spring
water
coming
down
off
the
hill
into
it.
It's
it's
a
really
nice
area
and
it
and
there's
no
disturbance
and
there's
no
planning
on
disturbance
by
that
family
up
there.
L
We
just
have
concepts
yeah.
We
we
never
went
down
the
full
mitigation.
I
thing
because
until
the
board
said
yes,
thus
moved
forward.
I
spoke
with
mr
russo
and
we
both
agreed
that
until
that
the
board
said
this
is
preliminary,
we're
the
way
we're
going.
It
didn't
make
sense
to
keep
doing
drawing
after
trying.
A
B
U
A
N
C
N
F
I
think,
oh
sorry
go
ahead.
I
just
have
a
procedural
question
on
this.
If
we
as
a
board,
decide
the
one
that
you
know
we'll
take
the
one
to
one
on
the
site
as
our
before
preferred
resolution,
and
the
army
court
asks
for
additional
mitigation
off-site
which
is
out
of
our
hands,
is
there
a
mechanism
for
us?
I
know
they.
You
know,
I
know
they've
agreed
to
do
it
within
the
city
limits.
Is
there
a
way
to
kind
of
you
know
to
codify
that
in
our
approval.
U
I
And
you
know-
and
so
that's
and
that's
a
a
good
issue
for
the
community
to
consider-
is
that
you,
you
can't
always
get
the
benefit
in
the
exact
disturbed
area,
but
collectively
we
would
still
benefit
as
a
community
from
having
additional.
You
know:
mitigation,
rehabilitation
of
wetlands
or
enhancement
of
wetlands
somewhere
else
within
our
city
limits.
You
know
that
we're
still
going
to
collectively
be
able
to
enjoy.
If
we
you
know,
can.
N
U
F
B
I
B
E
U
B
B
AB
Y
You
know
detailed
comments,
sort
of
construction
comments
that
you
know
do
need
to
be
addressed,
but
we
think
we're
we're
close.
So
the
first
image
we
have
up
is
just
an
overall
aerial
view
of
the
neighborhood
there.
In
the
center
of
of
the
image,
there
is
the
ferrara's
auto
body,
which
is
the
subject
property
right
there
on
the
corner
of
west
main
and
bank
street,
to
the
right
or
to
the.
Y
The
hardware
store
you
have,
the
the
local
brewery
there
kind
of
a
little
commercial
space
as
well.
Then
you
have
a
surrounding
residential
homes
throughout
the
neighborhood
up
bank
street.
You
know
you
have
river
street
and
then
you
have
the
metro
north
train
station
on
the
left
side,
with
some
commercial
and
industrial
uses
down
by
the
train.
Y
So
just
a
little
bit
of
an
overview
and
then
the
next
slide
will
zoom
in
a
little
closer
and
we've
overlaid
the
proposed
development
onto
the
slide
there.
So
it's
it's
a
one
one
and
a
half
acre
property
and
it's
it's.
It's
currently
developed,
and
it's
got
three
lots
right
now
and
we're
proposing
to
consolidate
it
to
one
lot
and
there's.
You
know
pretty
much
most
of
the
property
we're
proposing
to
disturb
and
redevelop
it's
it's.
A
lot
of.
J
Y
You
know
it's
in
two
different
zoning
districts.
The
front
lot
is:
is
the
linkage
district
and
then
there's
a
small
kind
of
appendage
lot
off
to
the
north
east,
behind
the
adjacent
commercial
property
which
is
in
a
residential
area,
and
that's
the
one
we're
looking
to
propose
some
parking
in
and
then
we
need
the
special
permit
for
that.
J
Y
Building
right
now,
there's
a
few
curb
cuts
on
west
main
street
two
driveway
and
then
there's
a
driveway
on
bank
street
along
adjacent
to
the
corner
of
west
main
and
there's
a
driveway
up
bank
street
sort
of
towards
the
north
end
of
the
property,
and
so
the
building
is
situated
kind
of
on
the
right
there
and
you
have
a
parking
area
in
front
on
its
left
side
and
in
the
rear.
So
you
know:
there's
there's
parking
out
there.
There's
stored
vehicles,
there's
some
materials
from
the
commercial
use.
Y
Y
So
the
access
off
of
west
main
street
would
be
one
driveway,
that
sort
of
shifted
a
little
bit
to
the
west.
From
the
current
curb
cut
off
west
main
street,
and
you
would
drive
underneath
the
building
or
through
the
first
floor,
where
you
know
it
would
be
open
for
vehicles
to
pass
through
and
get
to
the
parking
in
the
rear.
Y
And
then,
as
you
head
up
bank
street,
there's
units
along
the
the
side
of
the
road
there
and
there's
a
driveway
in
the
upper
corner
there
and
part
of
the
pro
property,
where
it's
currently
a
driveway
now
and
we
would
widen
it
and
and
improve
it
a
little
bit
in
terms
of
its
safety
and
access.
And
then
you
would
come
back
down
into
the
property
from
the
back
as
well.
You
could
you
could
enter
there
and
and
go
park,
and
then
you
could
see
in
the
upper
right
corner.
Y
Y
I
think
it's
about
13
feet
clear,
which
is
which
is
adequate
for
the
for
the
largest
fire
truck
and
typical
delivery
trucks.
There's
a
lot
of
improvements
to
be
made
along
the
frontage
new
sidewalk
curbing
streetscape
landscape.
You
know,
as
you're
along
west
main
street
and
along
bank
street,
the
sidewalk.
That's
there
now
you
know
was
a
little
deteriorated
over
the
years
and
as
part
of
the
project
this
this
would
all
be
replaced.
So
I
think
aesthetically
there's
a
lot
of
improvements.
Y
And
I
think
it's
just
important
to
know
too
that
it's
you
know
currently
it's
a
it's
a
commercial
use
and
you
know
we're
proposing
a
residential
use.
So
it's
we
think
kind
of
more.
You
know
maybe
more
in
character
with
the
neighborhood,
and
you
know
it's
a
really
beautiful
building
that
rea
has
designed.
You
know
a
few
other
things
are,
you
know
we've.
We
think
that
there's
significant
drainage
improvements,
currently
the
site
has
no
stormwater
quantity
or
quality.
Y
You
know
or
very
little
and
we're
proposing
quite
a
bit
more.
You
know
new,
newer
green
practices,
things
like
that.
There's
improvements,
you
know
in
access,
there's
we
think
the
driveway
to
the
north
there.
Currently
you
can
exit
out
of
it,
which
is
an
unsafe
condition
due
to
sight
distance.
So
you
know
we
looked
at
that
and
it
would
be
in
an
entering
driveway.
Only
so
there's
there's
some
improvements
that
we've
sort
of
worked.
N
Y
The
board
and
and
its
consultants
along
the
way
you
know
to
kind
of
address
some
of
the
existing
issues
that
that
there
may
be
on
the
site.
So
I
think
at
this
point
you
know,
maybe
rea
would
like
to
present
the
portion
of
the
building
to
the
to
the
public
here
and,
and
you
could
get
a
feel
for
what
we're
proposing
and
then
we'll
we'll
answer.
Any
questions.
H
So
we
don't
have
a
lot
of
significant
changes,
since
you
saw
it
last
month
when
we
came
back
to
look
at
this,
we've
been
working
with
the
arb
subcommittee
and
going
back
and
forth
with
them.
So
there's
a
few
more
changes
that
we
discussed
last
week
at
that
meeting
and
then
I'll
be
bringing
that
back
to
them
and
then
you
know
we'll
bring
the
design
back
to
the
full
board
after
that.
H
There's
some
hardy
board
features
on
it,
but
mainly
brick
and,
like
I
said,
we've
gone
back
and
forth
with
the
arb
subcommittee
to
refine
the
design
and
look
at
window
proportions
and
materials,
and
you
know
how
to
split
up
the
facade
and
you
know,
get
peers
on
the
building.
So
we
we've
done
a
lot
of
work
with
them,
but
you
know
that
that's
basically,
where
we
are
there
and
we'll
be
back
with
that.
B
J
That's
short,
I
do,
I
believe
this
development
plan
is
designed
and
redesigned
is
still
too
big
for
this
parcel.
Small
footprint
and
the
location
of
another
towering
building
will
take
away
from
the
beauty
of
beacon
and
the
views
heading
west
towards
the
river.
Adding
congestion
of
62
or
more
cars
is
infeasible.
J
W
You
know
down
into
town,
they
come
back
from
school,
the
kids
come
back
from
school
and
I
imagine
if
the
you
know,
access
is
on
bank
street
that
a
lot
of
the
cars,
if
they're,
going
like
the
other
way
toward
wappinger,
are
going
to
go
up
bank
street
and
turn
right
on
tompkins
and
already
you
really
have
to
be
careful
of
the
kids
walking
and
you
have
to
be
careful
of
a
lot
of
the
pedestrians
because
there's
just
a
lot
of
people
without
cars
over
there.
So
that's
my
other
concern
and
then
I
also
wondered.
W
I
know
I
go
to
him
actually
he's
my
mechanic,
but
you
know
that
he
it's
kind
of
run
down
which
it
is
the
property's
kind
of
run
down,
but
it's
quiet
and
he
you
know
it's
very
quiet
and
he
doesn't
he's
been
there
a
really
long
time.
It's
just
like
a
you
know,
it's
just
a
very
quiet
block
and-
and
this
is
going
to
change
things
totally,
I
think
it's
going
to
make
a
big
impact
on.
You
know
the
streets
that
are
next
to
it
like
high
street
and
bank
street.
C
C
It
meets
the
parking
requirement
and
there
used
to
be
a
three-story
factory
on
that
corner.
So
in
many
ways
it's
sort
of
bringing
back
a
previous
quarter,
building
similar
to
what
used
to
be
there
and
the
architectural
review
subcommittee
has
sort
of
kept
that
in
mind
when
they're
looking
at
the
architecture.
V
My
name
is
juliet
harvey,
I'm
a
beacon
resident
and
a
beacon
business
owner.
I
as
well
feel
like
this
project
is
too
big
for
the
property.
My
business
is
beacon
pilates,
which
is
right
next
to
it
on
16
west
main
street,
I've
been
in
business
for
16
years
and
I
think,
maybe,
if
you're
saying
that
there
used
to
be
a
three-story
building.
V
I
own
a
pilates
studio
and,
as
you
can
imagine,
owning
a
gym
over
the
last
two
years
has
been
extremely
challenging
and,
after
not
being
sure
if
my
business
was
going
to
pull
through,
I
am
seeing
some
stability
now
and
the
noise
pollution
and
the
dust
coming
from
this
project
will
put
my
business
in
jeopardy
for
sure
my
clients
spend
a
lot
of
good
money
to
come
in
and
take
class
at
my
studio
and
they're
not
going
to
want
to
sit
in
a
space
with
construction
noise.
My
window
is
right
there.
V
B
B
C
These
sort
of
basic
ideas
were
formulated
why
there
was
a
linkage
district.
What
was
the
intent
of
it?
The
idea
was
to
create
residential
development
between
the
train
station
and
main
street,
so
that
people
would
be
able
to
walk
to
either
the
riverfront
or
to
the
businesses
on
main
street,
so
that
whole
hillside,
which
had
been
demolished
in
the
urban
renewal
period
in
the
70s
and
80s
and
had
set
had
primarily
stood
vacant
for
40
years
undeveloped.
It
was
leveled
for
new
development
and
then
the
new
villain
ever
happened
in
that
area.
C
I
know
zoning
is
hard
to
understand
for
people
who
don't
deal
with
it
every
day,
but
there
is
a
section
in
the
code
called
the
linkage
district
that
has
illustrations
in
it
of
approved
building
types.
So
there
is
it's
not
just
dense
language.
You
can't
go
to
the
linkage
district,
it
it
gives
you
dimensions
and-
and
there
is
a
requirement
for
affordable
housing
on
a
10
of
the
total
units,
so
six
units
would
be
designated
for
below
market
rate
housing.
B
K
They
did
provide
a
limited
submittal,
more
or
less.
They
were
looking
at
sight
distance
that
mr
clark
spoke
to
to
try
and
reduce
the
amount
of
parking
that
was
being
eliminated
along
west
main.
So
with
that
all
of
our
previous
comments
of
our
april
8th
correspondents
are
still
outstanding
at
this
time.
K
X
X
X
X
X
Noted
in
that
previous
letter
possible
study
of
the
tompkins
avenue
ralph
street
intersection
at
nine
on
9d,
which
is
where
one
of
the
members
of
the
public
kind
of
noted
that
drivers
may
not
go
to
beekman
street
to
go.
You
know
up
to
the
bridge,
they
might
take
a
right
and
then
take
a
right
onto
tompkins
up
to
90..
X
Traffic
features
there
not
a
impact
analysis,
but
the
conditions
of
the
stop
signs
of
the
striping
of
the
intersection
itself
to
see,
if
there's
anything
that
can
be
done
to
enhance
safety
at
that
intersection,
because
it
is
an
unsignalized
intersection
and
the
impact
city
that
was
prepared
did
note
that
it's
operating
a
level
of
service
f,
which
is
the
worst
one
but
or
the
worst
degree.
However,
that
was
due
to
projects
out
beyond
this
development,
so
just
the
traffic
on
9d
in
itself
is
bad
enough.
I
If
you
wanted
to
make
a
left
and
get
the
9d
that
way,
you
might
find
it
easier
to
make
a
right
and
then
make
a
right
again
on
on
bank
and
seek
that
other
route
to
90
right
correct,
rather
than
having
to
turn
turn
across
two
lanes
of
traffic.
You
just
have
to
deal
with
one
correct
and
so
you're
saying
that
it'll
exacerbate
an
already
poor
intersection
onto
9d
right.
X
I
I
X
X
D
B
X
J
I
I
Yes,
sir-
and
I
hope
I
didn't
hear
this-
is
there
adequate
pedestrian
walkway
at
bank
in
west
maine?
No,
because
that's
where
I
would
imagine
that
people
who
are
walking
to
the
train
station
commuters
are
walking
down
west
main
crossing
bank
and
if
you're
going
to
increase
the
amount
of
traffic
utilizing
that
intersection
to
go
up
bank
to
the
one
way
in
driveway
to
go
into
the
parking
area
at
the
back
of
the
the
16
west
main
development,
then
it
would
behoove
us
to
do
better.
X
The
last
time
I
did
a
site
visit
here
was
back
in
2020..
I
do
know
that
one
of
our
comments
was
to
have
them
look
at
the
pedestrian
access
from
the
development
to
the
train
station,
because
that
that'll
definitely
be
one
of
the
perks
of
this
this
site.
So
again,
that's
another
recommendation
that
we
had
in
our
previous
letter.
So
I
think
what
would
be
good
is
if
they
take
our
letter
from
2020
and
respond
to
it.
I
think.
I
X
AC
J
AD
Of
up
on
the
hill-
and
I
can
see
quite
a
bit-
I'm
not
sure
when
the
study
was
done
in
2020,
but
it
has
significantly
changed
just
because
of
what
happened
with
the
pandemic,
but
I
came
from
lower
westchester,
so
I
understand
traffic.
So
there
is
quite
a
bit.
There
was
quite
a
bit
of
traffic.
Obviously
it
slowed
down
with
the
pandemic.
So
I
think
if
that
I'm
not
sure
the
timing
of
the
study,
but
I
think
that's
a
significant
change
and
slowed
down.
AD
I
can
see
like
because
I'm
sort
of
on
the
corner,
so
you
know
people
fly
down
to
make
the
train
constantly
right,
they're
just
flying
in
and
out
they
fly
up
high
street,
which
is
where
I
live.
They'll
make
the
illegal
turn
because
everything's
so
backed
up.
I
have
an
office
at
1183
north
avenue.
That's
where
my
office
is
so.
I
see
the
nightmare
with
tompkins
in
90,
always
it's
very
hard
to
make
a
left
out
of
there.
AD
AD
AD
There
is
a
lot
of
noise.
You
can't
really
do
a
lot
about
it
from
the
waterfront
it
comes
across.
The
river
comes
up
the
hill,
you
know,
so
if
it
is
a
roof
deck,
is
it
going
to
be?
You
know?
What's
it
going
to
be
the
view,
I
don't
even
know
if
the
view
has
sold
out
yet,
in
fact,
I
don't
think
it
has
that's
another
new
building.
AD
As
you
know,
that's
right
there
on
beekman,
and
so
I
don't
even
know
if
we've
seen
the
impact
of
the
traffic
from
that
from
the
new
townhouses
that
are
right
when
you
come
out
of
the
train
station
and
I'm
not
really
quite
sure.
What's
going
on
up
on
the
hill,
I
heard
there
was
like
300
units
going
in.
I
don't
know
if
that
is
also
going
to
impact
tompkins,
I'm
not
sure
if
there's
another
way
into
that,
but
there
is
quite
a
bit
of
traffic.
AD
B
F
C
No,
as
of
right,
you're
allowed
to
have
48
foot.
Fourth
story
has
to
be
stepped
back,
15
feet
from
the
front
building
edge
along
any
building
frontage,
so
along
bank
street
and
west
main
it'll
be
have
to
be
set
back
so
that
when
you're
at
least
close
to
the
building,
you
won't
be
able
to
see
the
fourth
story.
C
There's
no
special
permit
required,
or
it's
allowed
by
right
in
the
in
the
linkage
district.
As
long
as
you
meet
the
setback
standards,
I
have
had
problems
with
their
roof
plan
because
it
has
you're
allowed
to
have
bulkheads
stairwell
access
to
the
roof,
but
they're
putting
other
things
up
there
that
don't
meet
the
15
foot
standard.
C
G
Kevin
yeah,
I'm
glad
people
are
talking
about
the
opportunity,
because
this
is
sort
of
a
corner,
linchpin
site
as
as
part
of
the
linkage
developments
that
we're
hoping
to
develop
that
it's
there's
just
the
corner.
Those
crosswalk
that
len
was
bringing
up
is
a
is
a
really
important
part
of
making
that
pedestrian
experience
from
main
street
to
the
train.
G
Just
not
a
you
know
a
better
experience,
and
so
I
think
that
if
one
of
the
one
one
of
the
impacts
that
would
be
easy
to
ask
of
this
applicant
would
be
to
improve
that
intersection
for
pedestrians,
and
that
should
be
something
that
we
for
every
project
that's
developed
and
there
may
be
other
projects
other
developments
along
here.
Hopefully
that
make
it
more
of
a
dynamic
and
interesting
part
of
the
city.
That's
that's
connected.
So.
I
C
One
thing
I've
suggested
in
not
in
relation
to
this,
but
in
relation
to
just
the
traffic
on
beekman
straight
in
particular,
but
I
think
I
raised
it
during
the
edgewater
review
as
well.
Is
that
if
you
put
a
three-way
or
four
now
four-way
stop
at
west
main
and
beekman,
it
would
prevent
people
from
flying
down
the
hill.
C
That
would
be
a
simple
solution
that
I
think,
would
help
tompkins
terrorists,
because
right
now,
any
of
those
buildings
and
houses
in
that
area
have
two
choices:
to
either
take
a
left
turn
out
of
west
maine
or
take
a
left
turn
out
of
tompkins
terrace,
neither
of
which
are
attractive.
If
you
made
west
maine
easy
to
get
out
of,
then
you
have
a
light
up
at
the
beekman
street
and
and
route
9d.
They
would
allow
you
to
get
out
onto
and
it
would
take
the
pressure
off.
I
I
would
just
add
to
the
comment
about
the
pedestrian
use
is
that,
in
addition
to
the
commuters
going
to
the
train
station
I've
I
have
observed,
you
know
in
making
weekend
trips
to
the
hardware
store
that
there
are
folks
who,
using
that
sidewalk
to
get
to
the
riverfront
park.
So
it's
a
it's
an
everyday
use,
not
just
a
five-day
week.
Commuter
use,
but
that's
that's
you
know
all.
I
have
right
now.
Thank
you.
Jill.
D
B
E
U
Y
Y
B
AA
E
A
Y
A
As
someone
noted,
I
do
care
deeply
about
the
sort
of
collective
views
that
are
sort
of
lost
of
the
river
for
for
the
public
when,
when
we
build
these
buildings
that
sort
of
overwhelm
the
views
of
the
of
the
river
or
mains
you
know
of
the
views,
but,
generally
speaking,
I
I'll
I'll
have
to
look
at
these
past
documents
a
little
better.
I
missed
last
month's
reviews
I'll
keep
it
at
that.
Well,.
A
B
B
E
AE
Stuck
playing
golf
or
anything
else,
and
in
the
next
phase
we
want
to
thank
you,
you're
really
model
of
true
great
governance,
and
we
were
very
privileged
to
have
worked
with
you
for
all
that
time.
So
thank
you,
ethan
with
that
chairman.
We
are
here,
as
you
mentioned,
for
the
continued
review
of
the
application.
I
am
joined
by
the
applicant
gavin
hecker
who's
here
on
behalf
of
prophecy
theater
llc,
as
well
as
richard
d'andrea,
our
traffic
consultant
from
collier's
engineering,
r.a
siegel,
our
architect
and
mr
boatendorff.
AE
Our
engineer,
just
by
way
a
brief
update,
I
know
you've
had
a
long
night
so
far
this
evening.
We
are
just
here
to
provide
you
with
an
update
on
our
discussions
with
the
zoning
board
of
appeals.
We
last
appeared
before
you
at
your
march,
8th
meeting
at
that
time.
You
referred
us
to
the
zoning
board,
not
for
an
area
of
variance,
but
for
a
discussion
specific
to
the
seeker
review.
They
are
an
involved
agency
in
the
secret
process,
so
we
were
there
at
their
march
15th
and
april
19.
AE
Meetings
to
discuss
the
project
rich
will
speak
to
these
details.
Just
in
a
few
minutes,
but
we
did
provide
a
supplemental
submission
to
your
board
dated
april
26th,
which
incorporated
some
of
the
dot's
comments.
It
also
just
provided
an
update
to
the
board
about
some
of
our
other
circulation
items
on
the
site.
AE
As
you
know,
we
originally
proposed
a
circular
drive
in
front
of
the
church,
of
course,
based
on
the
board's
comments,
we've
removed
that
and
we've
changed
the
site
circulation
throughout
the
property,
but
again
rich,
we'll
touch
specifically
on
that
and
dot's
thoughts
about
that.
During
our
discussions
with
the
dot,
they
were,
of
course,
focused
primarily
on
the
off
street
parking,
as
well
as
any
potential
impacts
regarding
community
character
and
traffic
circulation
into
and
out
of
the
site.
AE
We
understand
that
a
memo
is
forthcoming
from
the
zoning
board
to
your
board,
so
it
sounds
like
they'll
have
that
prepared
at
next.
You
know
tuesday
or
wednesday's
meeting.
I
forget
which
day
it
will
be
next
week,
it'll
be
tuesday.
It's
juneteenth
that
we
submit
the
different
date
so
that'll
come
to
you
for
june.
We
are
going
to
be
asking
that
the
board
consider
scheduling
its
public
hearing
for
the
application.
AE
We
had
talked
about
in
march
just
getting
the
site
plan
and
layout
sort
of
in
line
so
that
we'd
have
enough
materials
ready
to
be
able
to
put
that
before
the
public.
Of
course,
this
is
not
a
subdivision,
so
ms
gray
pointed
out
how
we
don't
have
a
secret
public
hearing,
but
this
might
be
one
of
those
instances
where
public
involvement
or
input
might
be
helpful
for
the
board
and
considering
the
seeker
impacts.
So
with
that,
I
will
turn
to
rich.
AE
I
just
want
to
know
we
did
incorporate
additional
trees
and
landscape
screening
to
the
plan.
We
did
update
our
trail
and
stair
configuration
as
it
goes
through
the
cemetery
down.
We
did
add
some
more
traditional
historical,
compatible,
light
design.
So
that
was
mr
clark's
comment
previously
and
we
did
adjust
the
the
path
as
well
so
now
for
the
good
stuff
I'll,
send
it
over
to
rich
to
walk
through
some
of
those
updates
for
the
board.
AF
So
that
was
one
of
the
things
that
we
we
provided
in
in
our
response
to
create
the
creighton
manning
comments.
It
was
attachment
as
a
technical
memorandum
or
appendix
to
that
in
general.
Those
analyses
don't
really
change
the
conclusions
of
our
original
traffic
study.
There
are
some
comments
from
creighton
manning
on
that
those
analyses
specifically
which
we
can
address,
but
I
just
wanted
to
touch
on
those.
So
the
other
item
that
we
received
as
taylor
mentioned
was
comments
from
the
new
york
state
department
of
transportation.
AF
AF
AF
So
the
way
that
we've
currently
proposed
to
address
that
is
that,
during
typical
operations,
the
main
entry
driveway
or
the
southern
entry
driveway
as
it
stands
right
now,
would
be
to
a
two-way
driveway.
The
northerly
driveway
to
the
north
of
the
existing
parsonage
building
would
be
a
one-way
exit-only
driveway,
but
would
be
gated
under
typical
operations,
so
would
not
be
used
unless
it's
required
by
emergency
vehicles
and
would
be
gated
most
of
the
time.
AF
The
dod
had
some
other
comments,
which
I
think
are
are
some
of
them
go
to
permits
that
we
have
to
obtain
from
them
and
we'll
get
into
as
we
move
forward
and,
and
some
of
them
were
towards
the
off-street
parking
which
we've
provided
them.
Some
additional
information
on
to
for
some
clarification
and
thing
on
that
on
those
items.
AF
Lastly,
and
and
this
is
kind
of
what
I
want
to
get
into
a
little
bit
more-
is
we
provided
a?
I
think
we
have
previously
provided
your
board
with
a
draft
traffic
and
parking
management
plan
for
the
site
for
the
operation
and
how
we
propose
to
to
handle
the
events
from
for
truck
for
traffic
circulation
on
the
site,
as
well
as
disseminating
information
to
for
parking
where
people
are
going
to
park,
how
they're
going
to
get
to
the
facility-
and
things
like
that
so
like
I
said
it
was
previously
a
draft
we've.
AF
We've
made
modifications
to
that.
We've
updated
it
based
on
some
of
the
comments
we've
received,
both
from
creighton
manning
from
d.o.t
from
your
board
from
the
zba
as
well,
and
we
provided
a
more
final
version
of
that,
not
to
say
that
there
couldn't
be
changes
to
it
still,
but
that
is
was
submitted
to
the
board
and
aria.
If
you
could
switch
to
the
the
next
one
down
yeah.
So
we
I
think
we
I
don't
know.
AF
I
think
we
had
shown
this
to
you
two
months
ago,
but
basically
this
is
our
proposed
circulation
pattern
during
the
events-
and
this
is
straight
out
of
the
traffic
and
parking
management
plan-
it's
showing
temporary
signage
to
be
installed
at
the
driveways
within
the
site
to
identify
that
one-way
circulation
pattern.
At
the
moment,
we're
proposing,
like
three
parking
attendants
on
site,
to
manage
that
traffic
flow,
ensure
that
there's
no
issues
with
backups
onto
route
9d
and
make
sure
that
we
manage
that
traffic
flow
well
and
then
there's
also
some
other
off-site.
J
AF
AF
C
N
C
Assume
you
could
remote
park
and
walk
cafe
people
you
know
residents,
restaurant
patrons
are
going
to
want
to
park
where
they
can
park
and
go
eat.
So
it
is,
it
seems
to
me,
there's
still
that
sort
of
basic
problem
that
there's
not
enough
parking
on
the
site
to
handle
the
three
uses.
Three
major
uses
that
they're
proposing.
E
C
You
know
the
the
agreement
or
tentative
agreement
with
the
funeral
home
is
a
good
possibility.
It's
still
by
my
walking
distance
sixteen
hundred
feet,
which
is
a
long
distance,
and
you
would
have
to
walk
by
a
couple
residentials
or
drive
by
a
couple
residential
streets
where
you
could
park
on
street
like
stratford
or
romdot.
D
C
They
say
dot
recommends
either
designing
for
a
circular
driving
pattern,
a
loop
road
or
eliminating
the
exit
altogether,
which
doesn't
solve
the
dead-end
parking
lot
situation
and
then
the
second
point
expresses
concern
about
potential
accidents
and
car
pedestrians.
Making
sort
of
random
stops
on
route
90
or
crossing
route
90,
not
at
crosswalks,
because
the
entrance
will
be
jammed
and
people
want
to
get
out
to
go
to
the
event.
C
So
if
they
see
things
backed
up
in
the
in
the
driveway,
maybe
they'll
just
pull
off
to
the
curb
and
then
unload
and
in
the
travel
lane.
So
it's
it
seems
to
me,
there's
a
lot
of
problems
here.
The
d.o.t
didn't
like
the
solution,
and
yet
they
to
me
made
it
worse
by
closing
the
gating
the
exit
for
most
of
the
period.
It's
only
at
large
events
where
they'll
have
this.
C
B
K
M
M
M
This
amount
of
traffic
flowing
in
so
a
car
will
be
able
to
pull
in
the
main
driveway
come
out
the
main
driveway
there's
not
going
to
be
a
backup
they're
not
going
to
be
able
to
to
exit
on
the
north
driveway,
because
it's
closed
off
at
that
time.
So
this
this
was
all
a
logical
conclusion
that
we
discussed
carefully
and
came
up
with
this
this
circulation
during
the
event
we'll
have.
M
It
won't
be
confusing
because
we'll
have
people
there
to
to
direct
people
and
and
even
though
you
won't
be
able
to
be
dropped
off
on
the
right
side.
It'll
be
a
better
situation
than
having
to
have
a
quick
turn
into
that
circulation
to
go
the
counterclockwise
direction,
and
that
was
the
thought
behind
that
and
that's
kind
of
all.
I
wanted
to
say
on
that.
M
AF
K
AF
AF
AE
If
you
had
to,
we
would
we'd
also
discuss
that
with
that
same
issue
and
whether
or
not
those
employees
might
also
have
access
or
ability
to
exit
through
that
gate.
That's
also
there.
So
again,
it's
not
a
general
access
gate,
but
if
you're
an
employee
that
might
be
an
opportunity
to
utilize
that
if
that
were
the
necessary,
you
know
ingress
egress
movement.
AF
AE
AE
We
can't
just
live
in
the
realities
of
the
most
of
the
time
we
have
to
live
in
the
what
could
create
the
potential
impact
and
that's
the
large
events
that
are
on
site,
so
we're
certainly
trying
to
plan
for
that
and
that's
why
we're
sort
of
incorporating
all
of
these
details.
You
know:
rich's
traffic
original
traffic
study
identified
that
there
is
available
off-street
parking.
The
board
had
specific
questions
about
what,
if
certain
lots
you
know
are
used
up
for
other
developments
or
aren't
available
for
what?
AE
Whatever
other
reasons
we
went
out,
then-
and
I
don't
know
if
this
actual
information
was
actually
presented
to
the
board,
but
we
have
been
in
discussions-
we're
still
working
out
the
logistics
of
the
agreement,
but
we
have
private
agreements
that
we're
working
to
put
in
place
to
also
provide
for
off-street
parking
during
those
hours.
So
we're
we're
adding,
although
the
study
says,
we've
already
got
it
available
in
public
parking
areas
in
proximity
to
the
site,
we're
trying
to
put
some
more
gravy
on
on
the
potatoes.
AE
As
far
as
having
some
more
available
park,
you
know
assured
parking
for
those
of
those
larger
events.
The
same
is
true
of
this
traffic
circulation,
as
as
gavin
was
just
sort
of
discussing
the
general,
the
general
use
of
the
site
will
function
effectively
and
the
traffic
study
and
our
sensitivity
analysis
goes
through.
You
know
some
of
those
details.
I
don't
think
I
don't
know
if
they've
incorporated
fully
dot's
comments,
yet
we've
just
had
initial
responses,
because
it's
really
just
dot's
initial
comments
here,
but
ultimately
that's
the
the
the
general
conditions,
not
the
major.
AE
You
know
the
large
event
conditions
where
we're
implementing
those
other
signage
and
other
avenues.
John
and
of
course,
we
did
also
remove
the
original
circular
driveway
in
front
of
the
church,
so
we're
trying
to
do
a
lot
of
things
here
to
address
the
comments.
We
certainly
understand
and
we're
not
you
know
done
by
any
any
stretch,
we're
here
to
hear
your
comments
and,
of
course
you
know,
we'll
certainly
want
to
hear
at
some
point
too
from
from
the
public.
F
Could
you
speak
to
it
seems
to
me
that
if
you
had
a
consistent
traffic
pattern,
where
you
enter
on
the
southern
driveway
and
you
exit
on
the
northern
driveway,
that
would
eliminate
any
confusion
as
to
how
you
navigate
the
site
during
event
times
or
non-event
times.
Could
you
speak
to
your
reasoning
why
you
won't
just
have
a
circular
driveway.
AF
Again,
I
think
we
can
consider
that,
in
my
opinion,
the
the
what
we've
laid
out
in
the
traffic
and
parking
management
plan
for
the
circulation.
It
applies
regardless
of
the
access
condition.
So
if
we
have
a
gated
driveway
on
the
north
driveway
or
if
we
have
that
as
the
full-time
exit,
I
think
it
still
needs
to
be
managed
to
ensure
that
the
circulation
happens
appropriately.
There's
no
queuing
back
on
onto
9d.
So
we'll
look
at
the
the
axis
conditions,
but
I
think
the
the
traffic
parking
management
plan
as
it
stands
applies
to
both
conditions.
K
K
AE
I'm
going
to
I'm
gonna
just
do
one
solid
here
and
and
throw
your
traffic
consultant
onto
the
the
hot
mic.
Might
we
ask
the
the
city's
traffic
consultant
is
here,
so
we
certainly
have
prepared
our
reports
to
try
and
incorporate
these
comments
not
to
to
defer
from
mr
russo's
comments,
but
just
in
case
there's.
You
know,
criteria
there
because
we're
trying
to
address
the
traffic
issues,
we're
hearing
the
other
community.
AE
You
know
pocket
into
the
overall
seeker
discussion,
so
we're
hearing
that
to
work
it
into
the
design,
but
just
in
case
there's
specifics
there
on
the
traffics
we're
that
is
part
of
what
we're
we're
working
on
here
and
and
I'm
sure
they
only
got
it
as
recently
as
we
did
for
d.o.t.
But
I
don't
know
if
the
board
wants
to.
E
X
X
We
noted
that
they're
in
the
agreement
or
working
sorry
working
on
the
agreement
for
the
additional
parking
riverview
funeral
home.
We
also
looked
at
their
traffic
management
plan
for
the
events
and
we
had.
We
had
one
comment
that
we're
kind
of
going
back
and
forth
on
about
the
attendant
at
the
entrance.
Eventually,
we'll
come
down
to
the
board,
to
kind
of
maybe
opine
on
that,
I
will
say
that
I
know
that
the
d.o.t
has
a
regarding
the
two
entrances
or
two
driveways
on
a
state
roadway
the
state
does
have.
X
X
X
X
C
X
X
U
C
C
AF
Next
to
each
other
yeah.
So
to
to
that
point,
I
did
specifically
ask
d.o.t
the
question
as
a
follow-up
to
this,
I
haven't
received
a
response
yet
of
if
we
went
to
a
one-way
circulation
in
either
direction,
would
they
have
a
preference
and
and
or
if
we
went
to
the
situation
that
we
currently
have
now?
Would
that
be
an
acceptable
situation?
So
I
haven't
received
a
response
on
that,
but
I
anticipate
that
so
that
that
was
one
item.
The
other.
X
AF
Commercial
development
has
a
specific
generation
associated
with
it
and
or
it's
over
100
000
square
feet
in
total
area
of
development
of
the
buildings.
So
I'm
not
sure
this
actually
falls
into
that.
That's
why
they're
classifying
as
a
minor
commercial,
that's
just
their
standards,
part
of
their
standards.
AE
And
I
just
want
to
flag
one
other
point:
there
was
a
the
points
are
well
taken
brought
up
by
about
you
know,
putting
showing
the
seating
upstairs
the
cafe
isn't
being
designed
to
accommodate
that
many
people
it's
not
being
designed
to
to
so
we're
we'll
have
to
submit
something
to
the
board
that
reflects
those
that
information.
We
were
asked
to
show
what
you
could
put
out
on
that
deck,
so
we
did
but
we'll
be
very
clear
in
supplemental
submission
as
to
what
capacity
and
utilization
that
cafe
will
stand.
AE
The
non-simultaneous
use
discussion
aside,
we'll
we'll
address
that,
but
we
appreciate
those
comments.
The
intent
is
not,
as
I
understand
it,
to
have
x
and
y
meaning
inside
and
outside
it's.
It
was
showing
what
could
be
done
on
that
location,
whether
it
is
at
an
event
or
otherwise.
So,
we'll
we'll
address
that
one.
C
AF
I
would
anticipate
that
it
would
be
for
any
event,
basically
whether
that
necessitates
having
three
traffic
monitors.
For
that
event,
I
don't
you
know
for
a
certain
size
event
we
didn't
get
into
that
specifically,
but
I
would
think
that
if
we're
gonna
have
all
parking
off
site
and
have
potentially
pick
up
and
drop
off
operations
happening
on
the
site,
then
we
have
to
have
some
kind
of
monitors
on
site
to
ensure
that
it
flows
correctly.
B
G
AE
I
You
know
that
you're
you're
bending
over
backwards
to
try
to
figure
out
how
to
utilize
that
structure
with
what
you're
left
with,
because
we
you
know
it
doesn't
seem
like
we'll
run
into
this
again.
But
we
may
you
look
at
like
st
luke's
as
a
church.
That's
not
doesn't
have
a
congregation
using
it.
You
know
on
a
weekly
basis
right
now,
and
you
know
this
may
not
be
the
last
time
we
run
into
this.
AE
Certainly,
I
would
address
that
just
because
it
sounds
like
a
concern
of
setting
a
precedent.
Naturally,
the
location
of
this
church
or
the
the
existing
facilities
is
down
close
to
the
train
station.
You
know
we're
we're
talking
about.
You
know
a
different
end
of
main
street
proximity
to
you
know,
walkability,
there's
a
lot
of
distinctions,
so
each
applicant
application
would
have
to
be
looked
at
its
own
merits,
whether
it's
in
a
historic
district,
all
kinds
of
other
considerations.
B
D
AE
So,
there's
a
couple
different
concepts
that
are
incorporated
into
the
different
strategies,
so
the
traffic
management
plan
and
then
the
sensitivity
analysis,
which
can
probably
speak
more
specifically
to
the
valet
aspect
of
it.
But
there's
considerations
of
shuttling,
one
of
the
private
parking
agreement
that
we're
considering
would
allow
for
people
to
park
there
and
walk.
But
there
is
in
in
our
management
plan
we're
identifying
if
there
is
need
the
ability
to
to
have
shuttle.
AE
A
A
It
seems
to
me,
like
you
know,
just
what's
the
word
just
very
straightforward-
to
have
a
circular
around
the
building
circulation.
That
would
avoid
confusion
and
again
just
looking
at
the
plan.
I
mean
again.
I
mentioned
this
two
months
ago
that
I
personally
don't
see
the
benefit
in
sort
of
cutting
off
that
existing
pathway
at
the
curb,
which
seems
to
me
like
unfortunate.
A
You
know
outcome
of
this
wider
driveway.
If
this
was
a
thinner
driveway,
you
wouldn't
you'd
have
that
historic
path
connecting
to
the
to
the
sidewalk,
which
I
think,
makes
better
sense
and
also
again,
I'm
not
convinced
personally
that
having
a
crosswalk
relatively
close
to
a
exit
to
a
to
driveway
is
necessarily
an
unprecedented
thing.
You
know,
because
most
crosswalks
are
at
the
corners
of
blocks
where
cars
exit
you
know
and
turn.
A
So
it's
it's
somewhat
a
similar
situation
to
a
corner
intersection
where
a
car
comes
out
of
the
corner
and
meets
the
crosswalk.
So
there's
there's.
I.
I
just
think
that
there's
a
number
of
reasons
why
avoiding
the
the
debt
the
possibility
of
a
dead
end
during
during
hours
when
the
when
the
northern
exit
is
closed
off,
there's
a
number
of
reasons
to
keep
to
to
to
maintain
that
option
that
the
d.o.t
obviously
has
also
supported.
A
AE
AE
AE
You
know,
components
that
may
benefit
again
from
public
input,
understanding
that
the
board
may
consider
incorporating
those
comments
into
the
seeker
review
again,
not
a
requirement
by
seeker
analysis
purposes,
it's
an
unlisted
action,
but
if
the
board
would
see
fit
in
potentially
scheduling
a
public
hearing
for
the
june
meeting,
as
I
mentioned,
the
zba
will
be
submitting
its
comments
at
they've
already
drafted
a
resolution.
It
has
to
be
discussed
at
their
meeting
next
week,
but
you
would
have
the
benefit
of
that
in
advance
of
that
meeting.
AE
You
know
again,
the
comments
are
going
to
be
a
lot.
You
know
spoiler
alert.
There
are
a
lot
of
what
we've
talked
about
for
good
reason,
because
those
are
the
issues
that
are
driving
the
discussion,
the
parking
access.
You
know
the
circulation.
Those
are
all
a
lot
of
what
you'll
hear.
So
I
think
it'll
be
beneficial
for
the
board
to
have
those
recommendations,
but
there'll
be
a
lot
or
almost
very
similar
to
what
you've
you've
seen
with
our
discussion.
So
that
would
be
the
only
ask
acting
chairman.
U
B
B
O
AE
N
N
G
B
N
J
AC
J
X
AC
B
C
B
K
AC
Back
in
business
folks,
sorry
about
that
so
we're
just
here
tonight
they
just
discussed
their
comments.
They,
you
know
they're
pretty
minor,
and
you
know
just
general
housekeeping
style
comments.
So
we're
here
to
ask
the
board
tonight
to
declare
lead
agency,
possibly
grant
a
negative
declaration
for
seeker
and
provide
a
positive
referral
to
the
zba,
and
we
would
also
ask
if
we
could
possibly
set
a
public
hearing
for
the
july
meeting
for
subdivision.
I
AB
C
A
I
Considers
then
so
so
the
the
variances
between
the
existing
will
be
between
the
existing
house
and
the
proposed
house
right,
and
so
I
recall,
the
applicants
were
they're.
Building
the
the
new
home
is
their
proposed,
they're,
building
their
new
home
and
then
moving
out
of
the
existing
home
right.
So
I
I
don't
have
a
problem.
I'm
positive
on
the
yeah.
F
B
U
U
Okay
and
then
you
also
have
before
you
part
three
eif
part
three
with
the
negative
declaration.
The
draft
was
submitted
to
you
in
advance
of
tonight's
meeting
len
mentioned
during
his
comments
that
he
reviewed
the
document
doesn't
have
any
comments.
So
if
you've
reviewed
that-
and
you
are
fine
with
it-
you
can
make
a
motion
to
adopt
a
negative
declaration
motion
motion.
U
U
U
N
E
H
H
Okay,
so
just
to
recap,
the
properties
at
forehand
lane
and
it's
part
of
the
former
italics
foundry
property,
so
the
applicant's
proposing
to
create
an
indoor
event
space
in
the
existing
building
and
there's
also
an
exist,
an
exterior
event
venue
in
the
yard.
So
we
submitted
revised
plans
this
month.
Based
on
the
comments
we
received
at
the
last
meeting,
we
provided
a
project
narrative
to
explain
the
operation
in
more
detail.
We
provided
a
design
and
drawings
for
the
new
food
service
structure.
H
We
clarified
some
of
the
site
features
and
we
also
provided
an
overall
site
plan
and
parking
requirements
for
the
full
site,
including
the
other
tenants.
On
the
other
parcels.
I
spoke
to
john
russo
about
some
of
the
his
his
current
engineering
comments.
So
we're
we'll
provide
more
information
about
that.
H
So
the
applicant's
currently
in
discussion
with
the
neighboring
talents-
property
owner
about
how
they
might
share
parking
spaces
and
how
they
might
get
permission
to
put
additional
lighting
and
landscaping
on
on
the
adjacent
property,
so
that
that
that
I
believe,
is
still
under
discussion
but
and
then
the
only
other
thing
we're
looking
to
establish
a
parking
requirement
for
the,
for.
You
know
for
the
outside
event:
venue
right
right
now.
It
says
to
be
determined.
H
I
I
spoke
to
dave
buckley
about
that.
He
mentioned
using
the
sort
of
indoor
auditorium
type
or
you
know,
church
use
parking
requirement,
which
is
one
parking
space
for
every
hundred
square
feet,
because
it
it
would
be
a
measured
thing,
not
a
seated
thing.
So
using
that
we
we'd
come
up
with
somewhere.
You
know,
depending
on
how
we
measure
it
between
50
and
58
spaces,
but
but
that's
sort
of
assuming
a
full.
H
You
know
fixed
seat
scenario,
and-
and
this
is
much
more
spread
out-
people
aren't
you
know
blankets.
They
bring
chairs
they're
seated
in
groups
so
we'd
like
to
you
know.
We
are
talking
about
providing
at
least
that
number
of
spaces,
but
we'd
like
to
determine
with
the
board
some
kind
of
a
figure
and
then
we'll
add
that
to
the
you
know,
overall
parking
count
and
have
a
set
number
for
that.
H
AA
I've
had
a
number
of
positive
discussions
with
several
well
with
more
than
one
board
member,
as
well
as
a
number
of
the
residents
of
talc's
commercial
condo
association.
No
one
has
expressed
any
concerns.
The
biggest
issue
is
that
their
board
is
only
three
members,
and
so
they
cannot
come
up
with
a
quorum
without
everyone
being
there,
and
they
cannot
seem
to
get
all
three
of
those
people
in
the
same
place
at
the
same
time.
Right
now,
so
that's
my
biggest
hold
up
with
them.
AA
AA
C
AA
AA
In
my
conversation
with
dave,
buckley
we've
put
a
number
on
that
of
100
as
the
cap,
based
on
based
on
egresses
and
based
on
the
lack
of
sprinklers
dave,
put
us
at
by
at
100
or
less
and
as
to
one
other
one
of
the
question
comment.
It
would
not
be
simultaneous
occupancy
indoor
and
out
so
we
would
not
have
up
to
100
indoor
with
200
outdoor
in
in
the
event
of
an
outdoor
event,
the
indoor
space
is
ancillary.
AA
AA
C
So
and
that's
what
you
know,
I
I
agree
with
dave
in
the
sense
that
it
seems
that
the
best
solution
is
one
for
each
four
indoor
seats
and
one
space
for
each
hundred
square
feet
of
outdoor.
So
come
up
with
your
peak
scenario
and
make
the
case
that
there's
no
simultaneous
use
of
indoor
and
outdoor
that
would
add
to
the
parking
count
and.
E
E
AA
I
I
lived
on
that
property
for
seven
and
a
half
years,
and
I
can
tell
you
that
there
has
always
been
a
steady
flow
of
pedestrian
traffic
down
hannah
lane.
People
coming
from
all
over
prefer
to
cut
down
hana
lane
rather
than
walking
over
to
blackburn
even
after
the
city
put
sidewalks
on
my
side
of
blackburn
hannah
lane
is
definitely
the
pedestrian
thoroughfare.
C
AB
AA
C
AA
AA
E
AE
K
AA
N
K
H
AA
AA
Yeah
I
mean,
but
that's
on
the
I
would
say
that
some
of
our
parking
I
mean
an
18-foot
parking
spot,
makes
sense
for
most
vehicles,
but
some
of
our
parking
involves
a
box
truck
and
you
know
a
26
foot
long
sprinter.
So
you
know
those
are
two
of
our
company
vehicles.
So
a
couple
of
longer
parking
spots
isn't
crazy.
C
E
C
B
N
N
I
U
So
the
next
step.
Well,
I
will
mention
one
thing:
I
I
know
at
the
last
meeting
the
board
authorized
circulation
of
notice
of
intent
for
secret
purposes
in
looking
at
the
information
submitted
by
the
applicant.
It
looks
like
this
is
actually
a
type
2
action
which
would
not
require
sql
review
whatsoever.
U
So
a
lead
agency
letter
has
not
gone
out
because
there's
no
need
to
circulate
if
there's
no
secret
review.
So
if
that
changes
at
any
time
as
a
result
of
further
information,
you
know
we
can
talk
about
that.
But
at
this
point
I
think
you
know
myself
and
the
rest
of
the
consultants
agree
that
it's
a
type
2
action
that
wouldn't
require
secret
review.
Procedurally,
the
next
step
once
you're
ready
for
it
would
be
to
schedule
a
public
hearing
on
the
application.
B
AB
J
AB
And
a
house
on
which
will
remain
on
one
lot:
we'll
divide
that
we're
hoping
to
divide
the
property
into
two
lots
of
about
eight
and
six,
a
little
over
eight
thousand
square
feet
a
little
over
six
thousand
square
feet
each.
We
have
received.
Mr
mr
russo's
comments
with
regard
to
one
with
regard
to
a
item
in
the
zoning.
AB
Let
I
miss
that
I
have
to
correct
a
couple
of
other
questions
that
he's
revived
that
he's
raised,
that
we
feel
we
should
we
should
address
before
we
go
into
any
real
detail
in
the
in
explaining
the
subdivision
to
you,
and
so
what
we're
hoping
tonight
is
that
you'll
just
declare
yourself
to
be
lead
agency.
If
that's
appropriate,
that
we'll
receive
any
other
comments,
you
might
have
and
answer
any
questions
you
might
have.
Q
AB
It's
it's,
it's
actually
quite
difficult.
We've
looked
at
that
and
we
came
up
the
same
thing
basically
trying
to
trying
to
match
your
downward
grade.
Then
your
upward
grade
and
then
and
then
flattening
it
off
to
go
into
a
garage
from
that
end
is
quite
difficult
and
there's
a
large
I'm
going
to
say
maple
tree,
but
I've
never
never.
AB
Will
which
will
cause
some
tight
distance
issues
for
somebody
exiting
the
driveway?
So
it's
it's.
It
was
my
immediate
reaction
to
the
when
john
advised
us
that
we're
too
close
to
the
property
line-
and
I
started
fussing
with-
and
I
said
well
I'll,
do
that
and
it's
we're
still
looking
at
that
it
is
is,
is
it
is.
K
E
D
C
AB
That's
a
real
pus,
that's
a
real
possibility.
Another
possibility
is
to
is
is
to
seek
a
variance
on
on
moving
the
driveway
closer
to
the
property
line.
If
the
board
it
that
would
probably
be
easier
for
us
if
the
board
was
of
the
mind
that
that
would
be
a
good
idea.
I
can
talk
with
you.
Talk
with
mr
russo
about
the
advisability
of
that,
but
with.
AB
C
B
K
So,
as
for
every
project,
we
would
require
an
ini
study,
an
inflow
and
infiltration
study
be
conducted
to
the
existing
dwellings
and
the
property,
as
mr
watson
discussed,
they
are
going
to
have
to
shift
the
driveway
slightly.
Zoning
doesn't
allow
for
the
driveway
to
be
within
five
foot
of
the
sidelines,
so
they're
going
to
have
to
take
a
look
at
that
and
drainage.
There
are
concerns
with
drainage
on
the
site
coming
off
the
site.
I
know,
there's
an
area
marked
proposed
drainage
on
site,
so
we've
just
asked
for
you
to
expand.
AB
B
U
B
A
AB
C
It
could
also
help
slight
drainage
by
on
the
existing
house
on
the
northern
proposed
lot
has
an
incredible
amount
of
asphalt
in
front
of
the
building.
The
whole
front
yard
is
asphalt
in
front
of
the
garage
in
between
the
garage,
so
you
could
help
drainage
in
the
neighborhood
by
reducing
some
of
that
asphalt.