►
From YouTube: Beacon Planning Board 8 8 23
Description
The City of Beacon Planning Board Meeting from August 8, 2023
A
Okay,
so
we're
going
to
start
the
workshop
portion
of
our
meeting,
which
will
take
us
until
7
30,
at
which
point
we'll
formally
open
the
the
formal,
the
formal
agenda,
so
with
that
John
Clark
suggested.
We
start
discussion
about
the
concept
at
this
point
of
amending
our
our
laws
to
remove
the
requirement
for
parking
and
I'm
over
generalizing
right,
so
John
will
get
into
more
specifics.
A
B
It
away
John
yeah,
there's
no
one's
at
this
point,
proposing
eliminating
parking
standards
in
the
city,
but
they're
great.
There
are
discussions
about
at
least
reforming
the
parking
standards
in
the
city.
Another
early
discussion
is,
nothing
is
on
the
table.
Yet
so
I
thought
I'd,
give
you
some
background
information.
B
The
theory
going
back
to
the
70s
was
that
the
city
would
provide
public
parking
along
Main
Street
behind
the
businesses
with
big
parking
lots-
and
this
is
the
Legacy.
You
can
see
all
the
gray
areas
where
there
are
parking
lots
that
are
run
by
the
city.
It's
over
nine
acres
of
land
over
400
000
square
feet.
B
That's
a
lot
of
land!
That's
set
aside
for
nothing
but
parking
and
Mainstreet
access.
All
this
they
said.
Well,
you
know,
there's
a
lot
of
complaints
about
not
enough
parking
on
Main
Street,
so
they
looked
at
a
variety
of
different
options
and
the
first
option
they
took
was
to
increase
the
amount
of
parking
spaces
without
increasing
the
amount
of
asphalt,
so
take
the
existing
parking
lots,
the
existing
streets
and
make
them
more
efficient.
And
by
doing
that,
we
found
something
in
the
neighborhood
of
170
some
spaces.
B
E
B
Is
a
big
parking
lot
was
only
50
full
and
there
was
a
lot
of
parking
on
the
Pines
side
streets.
So
if
you
look
at
the
percentages,
if
you
want
to
park
right
in
front
of
the
store
on
Main
Street-
tough
luck,
but
if
you
wanted
to
go
a
block
or
so
away,
then
it
was
parking
and
that
was
on
a
peak
day,
not
a
Tuesday
afternoon
or
a
you
know,
February
Sunday
or
whatever.
B
So
the
story
was
that
the
generation
was
is
that
we
don't
have
a
severe
problem
yet,
but
it's
getting
there
it's!
The
summers
are
worse
than
they
were
in
2014
when
the
last
parking
survey
was
done
and
especially
on
the
East
End
things
were
very
tight
and
you
know
people
don't
want
to
walk
down
that
hill
and
have
to
walk
back
up
to
a
parking
space
on.
D
B
B
So
there's
different
ways
to
attack
the
problem.
One
is
to
make
the
parking
lots
more
efficient.
This
is
an
example
of
a
inefficient
parking
lot.
The
County
Center
lot
has
92.
Total
spaces
takes
up
a
huge
chunk
of
that
property,
including
the
corner
facing
Main
Street.
You
could
reconfigure
the
Lots,
make
it
more
efficient.
You
get
113
spaces,
21
more
parking
spaces,
and
you
can
put
a
building
in
a
a
green
space
on
the
front
end
of
the
parcel.
B
So
you
could
make
that
a
lot
more
efficient
and
make
it
buildable
and
hide
the
parking
at
the
same
time.
Right
now,
there's
no
Landscaping
in
that
lot,
not
a
single
tree,
and
you
could
provide
Landscaping
as
well
and
Screen
the
parking
to
the
back.
So
there's
ways
of
doing
that.
Coming
up
with
efficient
Parking
Solutions
that
still
involve
surface
Lots.
B
B
B
C
B
A
great
place
to
have
a
parking
lot
next
to
the
creek
Frontage,
but
it's
highly
used.
So
this
is
where
the
biggest
parking
crunch
is
so
using
the
hill
to
take
advantage
of
the
Hill.
You
can
have
an
entrance
on
one
side
up
one
level
in
an
entrance
on
the
other
level,
so
you
don't
have
to
have
internal
ramps.
That
makes
the
parking
more
efficient
and
you
can
fit
147
spaces
on
that
parcel
where
right
now,
there's
only
50
something.
B
B
Out
there
hey,
the
access
committee
proposed
a
three-step
process,
add
more
parking
just
by
re-striping
and
being
more
efficient.
The
second
one
is
to
look
at
paid
parking.
You
can
control
parking
by
controlling
the
price
and
since
the
primary
crunch
for
parking
is
on
the
weekends,
when
it's
really
tourist
generation
and
not
generated
not
residentially
generated,
why
not
make
the
people
who
are
visiting
they
can
pay
for
some
of
the
upkeep
of
all
that
parking,
it's
very
expensive
to
maintain
all
those
lots.
A
C
C
B
D
B
D
B
Whereas
housing
for
people
is
restricted
in
many
ways
and
always
expensive,
we're
really
valuing
cars
over
people
or
housing
for
cars
instead
of
for
people,
because,
if
you
look
at
parking
lots,
they
typically
represent
10
to
20
percent
of
the
total
housing.
Cost
of
a
project
adds
17
percent
to
the
average
apartments
rent
and
there's
a
lot
of
people
who
don't
have
cars
or
don't
need
cars
you
can
get
by
with
walking
in
public
transit
in
place
like
Main
Street
in
in
Beacon
and
since
lower
income,
people
are
less
likely
to
have
cars.
B
Yeah.
There
are
argument
is
that
our
our
parking
regulations
and
Beacon
haven't
been
updated
since
in
any
general
way,
and
since
the
1970s
and
family
formation
was
completely
different
in
the
70s
in
terms
of
number
of
people
per
household
and
that
sort
of
thing
so
the
parking
standards
we
have
are
way
overdone
the
amount
of
parking
they
require.
B
G
B
Yes,
there
was,
there
was
a
breakdown
in
which
some
people
have
a
lot.
Most
people
only
have
one
or
two
cars
per
Hospital,
okay,
so
one
way
of
looking
at
this
is
to
there's
several
arguments
that
have
been
expressed
about,
and
it's
mainly
in
the
context
of
our
decision
talking
about
affordable
housing,
how
to
make
more
more
affordable
housing.
So
if
you
can
require
less
parking,
you
can
lower
rents
in
theory,
because
they
don't
have
to
spend
so
much
on
land
and
upkeep
parking
lots.
A
B
B
One
thought
the
other
thought
is
to
just
take
our
1970
standards
and
look
at
them
again,
update
them,
lower
the
standards
of
what
makes
sense
more
now
across
the
board,
so
every
category
probably
can
be
lowered
to
a
certain
degree
and
still
because
most
of
those
standards
in
the
70s
were
based
on
Suburban
1950s.
Everybody
drives
a
car
sort
of
mentality.
B
B
B
B
In
place
for
a
long
period
of
time,
but
I
know
in
Buffalo
they
did
pre
and,
and
they
found
that
they
haven't
had
any
major
problems,
that
the
reduction
of
parking
is
something
that
I
I.
Don't
have
the
number
in
my
head
offhand,
but
I
think
it's
something
like
has
gone
on
like
30
some
percent,
but
people
aren't
complaining
that
there's
a
huge
crunch
in
parking.
B
You
could
also
do
it
only
in
the
business
system
where
there
is
public
parking
available,
so
you
wouldn't
do
it
in
the
residential.
Maybe
you
lower
the
standards
for
a
single-family
house
or
a
multi-family
dwelling,
but
you
eliminate
it
in
the
main
District,
where
there
is
Surplus
parking
and
public
parking
available
at
side
street
parking
and
that
sort
of
thing,
Syracuse,
Schenectady,
Ithaca,
Rochester,
Scranton
and
Brattleboro
have
all
done
that
in
their
major
Central
districts.
There's.
B
B
D
B
D
H
A
I
find
it
useful
that
you,
you
preface
the
start
with
an
understanding
of
what's
available
at
least
City
parking
right.
So
there's
con,
there's
some
context
there
to
the
start
of
a
conversation
about
what,
at
least
in
my
experience
as
a
part
of
the
board,
is
the
biggest
challenge,
and
that
is
how
the
laws
are
currently
written.
A
In
contrast
to
what
it
feels
the
reality
is
in
terms
of
the
fact
that
we
we
tend
to
always
end
up
finding
parking
after
waiving
land
banking,
struggling,
basically
right
with
the
question
of
parking
on
just
about
every
single
application.
So
from
at
least
my
perspective
and
I'd
be
curious.
What
the
rest
of
the
board
thinks
just
that
practical
piece
alone,
I
think
warrants
a
look
at
our
codes
relative
to
Modern
parking,
modern
understanding
of
parking
needs
and
how
the
house
households
operate.
A
People
getting
a
little
concerned
about
eliminating
parking
requirements
altogether
and
wanting
to
sort
of
ease
into
the
the
subject,
but
just
from
a
practical
standpoint
from
what
we
do
here
on
the
planning
board,
I
think
we
just.
We
simply
need
to
look
at
how
the
codes
are
written,
how
they're
applied
against
the
reality,
because
it's
it's
always
a
constant
Challenge
and
it's
a
struggle
and
it
takes
a
lot
of
time
out
of
our
planning
board
meetings.
Yes,.
I
B
B
A
A
So
again,
I
see
it
as
basically
two
parts
to
the
same
kind
of
puzzle.
One
is
just
that
available
parking
under
utilized
available
parking
to
some.
The
great
you
mentioned
paid
parking,
I,
don't
know
if
it's
seen
as
a
deterrent
or
a
management
device.
Rather
a
you
know,
a
revenue
generating
maintenance,
supporting
device
paid
parking,
but.
B
A
A
A
B
G
B
B
B
Yes,
the
state
has
input,
I,
don't
know
if
the
legal
person
is
up
there
on
this
one
but
I
know
in
certain
cities
and
I,
don't
know
I,
don't
know
about
city
law,
but
in
Village
Law
you
actually
have
to
have
it
approval
from
the
state
government
that
they
do
residential
parking
permits.
Is
that
difficult
to
come
by?
No,
it's
just
a
member
item.
You
know
it
usually
goes.
That's
my
understanding,
I'm,
not
sure
about
that
one.
B
A
So
John,
if,
if
the
city
were
to
develop
the
impetus
to
do
something
right,
at
least
from
my
perspective,
I'll
go
back
to
this
sort
of
practical
aspect
of
the
codes
and
how
they're
written
and
how
they
they
tend
to
challenge
our
applications
right
would.
Would
the
council
need
to
charge
you
with
that
and
hire
you
for
that
part
of
a
study?
Yes,.
A
B
B
A
B
A
A
But
yeah
I
think
it's
definitely
an
important
again.
I
continue
to
go
back
to
how
we
in
just
about
every
month
struggling
and
talk
a
struggle
in
the
discussion
about
the
requirements
for
parking
and
I.
Don't
know.
I
personally
would
like
to
see
the
council
start
there,
and
then
you
know
move
on
to
other
bigger
topics.
B
A
B
J
K
So
when
you
make
reference
to
communities,
removing
minimum
parking
standards
that
there's
almost
certainly
more
than
one
approach
but
are,
are
we
talking
about
just
eliminating
Harder
Faster
requirements
that
are
written
along
the
lines
of
say
two
parking
spots
per
single
family
unit?
Or
you
know
our
formula
for
multi-family
dwelling.
D
B
B
B
They
determine
what
it's
appropriate
and
through
a
secret
process,
I
assume
they
determined
that
this
is
the
right
amount
of
parking
for
that
space
by
use
and
area
and
surrounding
ability
of
off-strike
parking,
and
they
come
up
with
a
solution
for
each
space,
but
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
them.
That
just
say
we're
going
to
leave
it
up
to
the
developers
and
they'll
provide
sufficient
parking
and
we
provide
backup
parking
based
on.
K
K
B
K
L
L
D
A
A
A
N
O
N
And
the
one
thing
I'd
encourage
is
not
to
base
long-term
decisions
like
this
on
anecdotal
things,
but
to
study
it
analyze.
It
analyze
it
with
the
specific
lots
and
buildings
and
demand
that
we
have
in
this
building
and
the
development
potential,
because
what
I'm
afraid
of
is
it
will
be
giving
away
things
that
are
public
and
not
ever
being
able
to
reclaim
them.
H
A
D
A
Otherwise,
I'll
accept
a
motion
to
enter
them
into
the
record
motion
by
Kevin
second
by
David,
all
in
favor
aye
aye.
So
then
we'll
go
to
our
first
item
on
the
agenda,
which
is
public
hearing
on
an
application
for
site
plan
approval
and
subdivision
mixed-use
commercial
and
residential
152
158
Fishkill
Avenue
good
evening.
F
Good
evening,
Mr
chairman
members
of
the
planning
board
for
the
record
Taylor
Palmer
law,
firm
of
cutting
Invader
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
tonight,
I'm
joined
by
our
project,
architect,
Jacqueline
Tyler
of
Nexus
creative,
together
with
our
traffic
consultant
Rich
D'andre
of
Mazer.
Excuse
me:
Colliers
engineering
and
Mike
morgante
of
organ
Consulting,
as
this
is
a
public
hearing,
Mr
chairman,
if
I
may
I'll
give
the
public
a
quick
background
to
maybe
to
save
Christian
the
the
benefit
of
of
laying
out
the
the
process.
A
D
F
You
John,
by
way
of
a
brief
procedural
background.
The
applicant
is
Seeking
a
site
plan
and
subdivision
which
in
this
case
is
a
lot
merger
approval
and
they're,
proposing
a
mixed
use:
development
at
152
to
158
Fishkill
Avenue
for
those
in
the
public.
You
might
know
this
is
the
blue
multi-family
house
and
then
Double
D's
Auto,
along
fiscal
Avenue
across
from
the
Valero
gas
station
before
I,
do
turn
it
over
to
Jacqueline
who's.
Just
put
the
site
plan
up
on
the
plans
for
the
benefit
of
the
public.
F
We
are
dealing
with
two
lots
existing
today
and
the
applicant
is
proposing
to
consolidate
those
down
into
one
result
lot.
The
property
is
presently
classified
and
the
city's
t
or
transitional
zoning
district
and
the
prop
is
not
in
the
city's
historic
district,
Landmark
overlay
District.
The
property
is
again
located
across
from
the
Valero
gas
station
and
surrounding
area
includes
the
high
density
multi-family
at
31
Hamilton,
Fish
Plaza,
which
has
70
plus
units
and
then
town
home
and
residential
developments,
as
well
as
the
gas
station
and
other
mixed
use
in
the
area.
F
Jack
will
go
into
this
in
a
little
more
detail
in
just
a
minute,
with
the
benefit
of
the
renderings,
but
for
the
benefit
of
the
public
and
the
board
at
the
high
level.
The
new
building
program
is
again
a
mixed
use,
building
with
office
space
on
the
first
floor
and
then
16
residential
units
on
the
upper
floors,
which
again
are
both
permitted
as
of
right
uses
in
the
T
District.
Two
of.
D
F
Apartments
will
be
below
market
rate
units
in
accordance
the
city's
below
market
rate
or
affordable
Workforce
housing
law.
There
will
be
a
rooftop
Terrace
provided
for
residents
of
the
development,
as
mentioned
earlier
earlier
presentation
about
parking,
the
property
is
very
heavily
parked
and
provide
the
parking
for
the
the
components
on
on
the
site.
Importantly,
I'm
recognizing
the
transition
between
Main
Street
and
the
surrounding
mixed
use
communities.
We
were
designed
in
furtherance
of
those
different
sort
of
balances
in
the
surrounding
neighborhood.
F
The
application
has
been
before
your
board
for
for
several
months,
and
we
have
been
working
to
address
your
comments.
The
building
height
indeed
was
reduced
to
a
zoning
compliant
Building
height
throughout
that
process,
and
there
were
other
enhancements
to
the
parking
area
and
others
that
have
worked
on
throughout.
We've
also
worked
to
incorporate
Landscaping
Planning
by
Deborah
adamson's
into
design
last
week.
Is
the
board
is
aware
for
the
benefit
of
the
public.
The
board
adopted
a
secret
negative
declaration
confirming
that
the
project
will
not
have
any
potentially
significant
adverse
impacts.
F
We
have
also
been
before
your
subcommittee,
the
ARB
subcommittee
twice,
and
they
provided
recommendations
that
were
posted
online
Additionally.
The
zoning
board
of
appeals
held
its
meeting
at
a
public
hearing
last
month
and
at
that
meeting
they
adopted
a
very
they
proved,
the
variance
for
the
specifically
for
retaining
wall
height
for
certain
sections
of
the
retaining
wall
in
the
parking
area.
So
with
that,
I'll
ask
Jacqueline
to
briefly
walk
through
the
site
plan
for
the
benefit
of
the
public
and,
of
course,
we're
here
with
any
questions
the
board
might
have.
P
So
as
Taylor
mentioned,
we've
been
in
front
of
the
board
for
a
couple
of
months
now,
I
know
at
the
last
board
meeting
one
of
the
topics
that
was
brought
up
specifically
was
requesting
a
landscape
buffer
area
at
the
north
side
of
the
lot.
Can
you
see
my
okay
I
know
at
the
zba
it
wasn't
showing,
so
we
did
Implement
that
which
actually
reduced
this
aisle
width
to
24
feet.
I.
P
Believe
that's
one
of
the
concerns,
as
well
with
the
planning
comments
that
have
come
back,
that
that
will
be
updated
on
the
Civil
drawings,
but
it
has
been
updated
here
on
the
architectural
site
plan.
We
also
Incorporated
a
triangular
Island
at
this
area.
I
know
I,
think
that's
an
area
as
discussion
at
the
last
meeting
as
well.
That
does
reduce
the
I
o
width
here
to
24
feet
and
provide
some
additional
buffer
and
Landscaping
in
the
center
of
the
parking
area.
P
I'm
gonna
now
turn
the
attention
over
to
the
architecture
itself,
so
this
looks
much
different
than
you
all
saw.
The
last
few
times
we've
been
in
front
of
you
I'm,
going
to
take
us
through
a
couple
of
the
subcommittee
meetings
and
the
comments
and
how
we
addressed
each
of
them.
So
at
the
April
subcommittee
meeting
we
received
the
comments
that
they
would
like
us
to
look
at
the
roof
refinements.
Previously
they
felt
that
the
main
roof
volume
was
too
linear
and
they
wanted
us
to
introduce
forms
to
break
that
linear
component
up.
P
They
also
asked
us
to
look
at
the
entry
and
a
way
to
incorporate
brick
at
the
entry
as
well
as
Define
it
more
as
an
entry
signature.
We
were
also
asked
to
explore
the
materials
there
was
a
palette
of
three
different
material
types.
You
all
saw
that
as
well
before,
and
we
were
asked
to
address
that.
We
went
in
front
of
the
subcommittee
in
July
with
a
version
of
this
we've
since
made
refinements
that
were
addressed
at
the
meeting
itself.
Those
included
and
I'll
take
you
through
a
full
scope
of
this.
P
After
addressing
each
of
them,
they
did
ask
us
to
look
at
the
transition
from
the
ground
floor
to
the
second
floor.
They
felt
that
they
wanted
it
to
either
be
a
little
bit
more
distinct
or
blend
one
of
the
two.
So
we
I'll
walk
through
that
in
a
minute
they
asked
us
to
review
what
has
been
referred
to
as
parapet
conditions
on
the
2N.
The
bulk
ends,
so
those
at
the
at
the
last
meeting.
P
They
felt
that
they
weren't
necessarily
contributing
to
the
architecture
or
they
wanted
them
to
look
at
us
to
look
at
how
to
incorporate
those
in
a
vocabulary
that
would
be
more
consistent
with
their
original
use
and
I'll
walk
you
through
that
as
well.
They
also
asked
us
to
study.
Oh
I
did
the
transition.
They
also
asked
us
to
review
the
glazing
patterns
between
the
first
floor
and
the
second
floor.
P
So,
in
order
to
address
some
of
these,
what
I'd
like
to
oh
and
as
another
comment
was
to
make
sure
we
were
showing
the
rear
elevation,
which
we
do
have
on
here,
as
well
as
a
perspective
View,
which
I'm
actually
going
to
take
us
to
the
perspective
view.
Simply
because
that's
the
way
you're
going
to
view
the
building,
you
typically
will
not
be
viewing
the
building
with
a
straight
on
elevation.
P
So
some
of
those
relationships
between
the
first
and
the
second
floor
will
be
hard
to
realize
unless
you
are
standing
across
the
street
in
front
of
the
building.
But
we
did.
We
feel
we've
addressed
many
of
the
comments
with
the
that
the
board
had
over
the
last
two
meetings
in
addressing
the
parapet,
condition
and
I
am
going
to
flip.
Back
to
this,
we
did
look
at
refining
that
we
felt
it
was
important
because
there
in
our
mind,
there
are
two
different
volumes
which
you
can
see.
P
On
the
left
hand
side
those
Define
that
volume
on
the
left
the
right
hand
side
is
lower.
So
we've
contained
that
within
the
bulkhead
areas
there
the
parapets
and
then
we
have
addressed
the
glazing
and
the
vertical.
So
we
introduced
a
new
window
pattern.
You
can
see
the
the
vertical
connection
between
the
first
and
the
Upper
Floor
doors,
the
Dormer
areas
themselves
have
their
own
signature
and
their
own
vocabulary.
We
did
extend
the
roof
eaves
on
those
to
define
those
a
little
bit
more.
P
P
We
also
looked
at
incorporating
the
same
material
color
up
on
the
pergola
up
on
the
roof
deck.
That
was
a
specific
request
from
the
board
itself
and
then,
as
as
I
mentioned,
we
do
include
the
rear
elevation
here
at
the
bottom.
That
will
be
the
view.
That's
the
parking
lot
and
then
I'll
show
you
the
actual
view.
That
would
be
the
view
from
the
adjacent
neighboring
area
and
we
did
include
a
view
of
the
rooftop
Terrace.
P
It's
something
that
is
important
to
the
owner,
important
to
make
sure
that
we're
giving
the
amenity
space
to
those
to
the
residents
within
the
the
building
and
back
to
the
front.
As
I
mentioned,
we
did
incorporate
the
brick
entry
and
giving
that
entry
more
of
a
signature
item.
One
of
the
items
that
was
important
throughout
the
beginning
of
this
process
was
incorporating
the
accessible
ramp,
which
is
included
behind
this
Landscaping,
so
you're
able
to
enter
here
at
the
corner
and
travel
up
to
the
entry
along
here.
P
So
if
somebody
is
along
Main
Street,
they
are
able
to
access
the
building
from
the
front
along
Fishkill
Avenue.
On
the
right
hand,
side.
These
were
the
renderings
that
were
indicated
at
the
last
meeting.
We
would
update
those,
so
you
can
see
that
they
haven't
updated.
You
can
see
the
material
that
is
included
and
those
are
the
retaining
height
wall.
A
Q
So
since
the
last
time
we
were
here,
what
we
had
done
was
essentially
tried
to
put
together
a
storm
water
management
plan
for
the
project.
That
was
our
big
push
for
this
last
submittal
we
were
able
to
at
the
end
of
the
month
of
June
I,
believe
go
out
with
Mr
Russo.
He
witnessed
the
soil
testing
associated
with
the
proposed
Throne
water
management
system.
Everything
seemed
to
be
adequate
in
terms
of
the
type
of
material.
That's
there
for
infiltration
of
the
system
and
for
overall
stormwater
Management
on
the
site.
Q
We
prepared
a
stormwater
management
report
for
the
city's
review,
which
again
Mr
Russo
did
review.
There
were
some
ministerial
comments
that
he
had
a
little
dotch
or
I
cross
their
T
kind
of
stuff,
but
in
general
the
stormwater
management
plan
seems
to
be
acceptable
and
will
be
suitable
for
the
design
of
this
project.
There
are
still
some
small
items
that
we
need
to
address
again:
dotting
your
eyes
crossing
your
these
kind
of
stuff
in
terms
of
maybe
reducing
the
width
of
the
entrance
still,
which
we'll
continue
to
work
with
the
city.
Q
On
that
aspect,
we
need
to
do
some
soil
test
pits
along
the
property
line
to
confirm
depth
of
the
Rock
and
things
of
that
nature,
which
none
of
which
I
don't
believe
will
impact
the
overall
design
of
the
of
the
site
plan
in
itself
other
than
to.
If
we
reduce
the
driveway,
while
aisle
width,
we
may
be
able
to
add
more
landscaping
and
enhance
the
plan
is
even
further
as
shown
right
now.
Q
We,
the
stormwater
management
system,
is
actually
located
behind
a
building
beneath
the
parking
lot.
There'll
be
catch
basins
that
are
located
within
that
parking
area.
That'll
capture,
the
stormwater
runoff,
send
it
to
this
subsurface
drainage
system,
it'll
recharge,
a
lot
of
the
stormwater
runoff
into
the
ground.
Q
The
soils
on
the
site
are
a
very
Sandy
type
loan
and
then
any
overflow
storm
events
for
like
a
10-year
or
100
Year
storm
will
go
to
an
outlet
control
structure
which
will
release
the
storm
water
from
the
site
into
the
city's
drainage
system,
at
rates
that
equal,
the
pre-development
conditions
for
the
site.
So
that's
a
general
summary
of
how
the
stormwater
management
system
will
work.
Q
We
prepared
a
lighting
plan,
a
corresponding
landscape
plan,
I
think
the
plans
have
been
developed
and
advanced
pretty
well
at
this
point
again,
there's
some
minor
items
that
we
need
to
address
from
both
the
planners
comments
and
the
City
Engine
planning
board
Engineers
comments
which
we
will
work
to
address
for
the
end
of
the
response.
Submittal
for
September.
A
A
B
The
one
thing
that
I
I
keep
asking
for
and
not
getting
is
that
the
aisle
width
over
here
by
the
terrorist
retaining
wall
is
like
35
40
feet
across
and
it
seems
like
you
could
put
an
another
layer
of
Landscaping
in
front
of
that.
Terraced
wall
effect
not
inhibit
the
driveway
in
any
way
or
the
truck
movements
and
get
a
good
chunk
of
additional
Landscaping.
So
I'll
lay
out
that
I
think
the
throat
of
the
driveway
is
too
wide
yeah,
but
I.
B
I
A
Q
Yeah,
no,
we
have
no
issue
with
reducing
the
aisle
with
even
further
I
thought.
I'd
mention
that
during
my
presentation
and
as
we
reduce
that
aisle
with
we'll
take
advantage
of
any
additional
area
to
the
right
of
the
entrance,
it's
available,
we'll
add
more
Landscaping
there
as
well.
These
are
good.
Q
D
R
A
Yeah
yeah,
so
no
objections
or
challenges
with
any
of
those
outstanding
items.
Okay,
as
far
as
the
architecture,
my
assumption
is
that
what
we're
seeing
on
the
latest
submission
is
in
response
to
the
full
ARP
report
and
the
work
that
you
did
together
with
the
ARB
correct.
So
that's
great
I,
just
a
few
questions
on
the
the
final
architecture
as
you're
describing
in
here.
So
just
a
number
quick
observation,
so
material
and
it
has
evolved
quite
a
bit
into
the
positive
since
we
first
saw
this.
A
So
thank
you
materiality
great
I,
just
I
think
in
terms
of
the
materials
that
you've
evolved
to
now
are
much
more
in
context.
You
know
a
much
better
representation
of
you
know
how
I
think
this
area
can
can
look
in
this
building
form
wise.
It
has
evolved,
I,
think
better
as
well.
I'm
just
really
curious
about
the
resolution
of
the
two
sort
of
truncated
Gable
ends,
especially
as
they
interplay
with
the
the
shed
Dormers.
A
P
C
I
P
A
P
D
P
D
C
P
P
P
P
A
D
A
P
P
A
N
A
A
A
P
N
I
feel
like
I'm
happy
with
the
way
that
you,
the
the
street,
facing
facade
I'm
happy
with
the
way
we
resolved,
that
I
think
that
there
were
a
number
of
things
that
were
idiosyncratic
and
not
aligned
and
sort
of
odd.
Looking
and
one
of
the
things
about
that
that
John's
picked
up
on
is
around
the
corner.
Now
that's
not
resolved
in
the
same.
A
A
You
know
the
scale
of
things
the
the
way
you've
broken
up,
the
the
very
long
facade
to
feel
much
more
sort
of
scalable.
You
know
more
about
a
human
scale.
All
very
positive
and
again,
materiality
I
think
is
evolved
very
very
nicely.
It's
just
those
two.
Those
two
ends
that
just
don't
sit
well:
okay,.
A
G
A
G
A
Knowing
Deborah
Deborah's
work
with
the
Landscaping
planning
that
you're
sharing
with
us
here,
how
it
will
evolve
and
mature
I
think
we'll
really
start
to
help
to
soften,
not
just
the
frontage
but
the
impact
of
the
wall
right.
You
do
have
your
variants,
but
your
your
Landscaping
will
also
help
to
minimize
the
impact
and
the
feeling
the
effect
of
that
yeah.
P
And
we
Act
have
it
with
me
tonight:
I
can
look,
but
we
did
show
a
picture
of
the
ARB
meeting
of
how
this
wall
will
eventually
look
like
a
growth
wall
as
opposed
to
what
it's
viewed
in
the
renderings.
We
just
we
didn't
want
to
portray
it
that
way,
because
it's
not
going
to
be
that
way
from
the
beginning.
D
D
F
M
M
Yes,
I
have
this
thing
about.
You
know,
there's
never
enough
green
space
and
all
the
the
you
know.
I
haven't
been
here.
This
long
I
understand
that,
but
for
all
the
plans
that
I'm
seeing
come
before
me,
it's
all
about
how
many
apartments
they
can
cram
into
the
lot
and
there's
nowhere
for
these
people
to
go.
Okay,
you
have
the
pergola
up
on
the
roof
and
that's
to
be
commended.
H
S
S
I've
lived
there
for
eight
and
a
half
years.
I
I
live
there
with
my
seven
and
a
half
year
old
son,
a
dog
and
a
cat
and
I've
printed
out
just
some
images,
because
I
was
really
confused.
When
I
received
the
proposal,
it
didn't
look
like
an
accurate
representation
of
what
is
there
across
the
hill
right
now.
So
I
just
thought,
maybe
for
like
clarification
purposes,
I
would
print
these
images
out.
If
it's
okay,
if
I
approach
it
yeah.
M
S
S
Is
the
front
of
my
house
I
took
this
while
standing
on
my
front
porch
and,
as
you
can
see,
there's
a
lot
of
Green
Space
there
it's
one
of
the
only
pockets
close
to
Main
Street.
That
exists
like
this.
Unless
you're
looking
at,
like
Madame
Brett
or
down
by
the
creek,
a
lot
of
people
walk
by
my
street,
it
is
a
main
artery
into
town
folks
from
the
Assisted
Living
Center.
Come
families
walk
by
my
home
as
they
go
to
Memorial.
S
The
list
goes
on.
You
know
people
go
into
the
beacon,
High
School
for
Art
events,
people
going
to
my
neighbors
for
art
events
I
think
it's
important
to
provide
green
space
for
the
folks
in
Beacon
that
live
here,
because
it's
dwindling,
it's
dwindling
everywhere,
I.
Also
just
printed
this
out,
because
I'm
really
confused
where
this
retaining
wall
is
going
in
I
printed.
C
S
Comparison
from
the
rendering,
because
I
just
can't
place
it
right,
so
you
have
the
on
the
on
the
Green
image,
which
is
what
it
looks
like
right
now,
the
green
one
you
have
the
Old,
Stone
Wall
right
and
then
the
the
white
retaining
wall
which,
to
my
understanding,
is
the
beginning
of
the
property.
What
double
these
is
am
I.
Correct.
S
D
S
S
You
know
throughout
the
night,
I'm
also
really
worried
about
that
entrance
to
that
parking
lot.
Existing
that
close
to
Main
Street,
the
that
corner
on
Main
Street
sees
a
lot
of
nightlife.
There
are
several
bars
several
late
night
establishments.
We
all
know
that
it
can
be
really
active
late
into
the
evening.
Just
a
couple
of
months
ago,
I
had
a
fist
fight
on
my
front
porch
at
four
o'clock
in
the
morning.
S
I
would
really
like
to
avoid
further
loitering
and
illegal
activity
happening
in
parking,
lots
and
alleys,
and
that
extending
up
Fishkill
Avenue
right
across
from
my
family
home,
so
I
I'm
not
necessarily
opposed
to
this
development.
I
just
really
want
Clarity
on
where
the
retaining
wall
begins,
and
also
perhaps
to
make
the
suggestion,
which
I
think
is
kind
of
a
reasonable
request
to
maybe
move
the
entrance
to
the
driveway
to
the
other
side,
closer
to
Main
Street.
So
it's
not
facing
into
my
house
and
my
neighbor's
house,
that's
it!
Thank
you.
A
F
D
F
A
T
F
See
trees
down
I
mean
all
that
green
space.
That's
going
to
remain
right,
it's
only
that
which
is
on
our
property.
There
is
some,
you
know
cutting
into
that
hill
to
make
the
retaining
wall,
but
much
of
that
will
remain
as
is,
but
we
can
certainly
reference,
of
course,
where
the
retaining
wall
will
begin
and
how
it
will
extend.
F
B
F
A
R
D
R
C
So
I
would
just
ask
the
Architects
and
Engineers
who
are
designed
this
as
the
water
is
now
coming
down
more
that
they
have
a
good
way
for
the
water
to
get
off
that
large
parking
lot,
not
flood
the
streets,
because
all
even
though
they
have
the
storm
drains
I,
just
sometimes
Landscaping
can
very
much
help.
Thanks.
A
U
U
One
question
that
I
had
was
about
the
location
of
the
driveway
and
why
it
was
considered
better
to
move
it
away
from
the
intersection
when,
in
fact,
at
the
there's,
the
alley
that
alley
driveway
right
there
there's
the
driveway
across
the
street,
for
not
only
the
Salvation
Army,
but
also
the
back
of
kid
was
that
kitchen
and
coffee.
Now
that
driveway,
it
seems
in
a
way
almost
more
sensible
to
have
all
the
driveways
in
the
right
in
the
same
place
together.
U
Then
it
would
also
help
the
residences
across
the
street
from
the
driveway,
so
just
a
bit
of
two
cents,
the
other
question
that
I
had
and
again
I'm
playing
catch-up,
the
parcel
access,
says
or
sorry
not
parcel
access,
but
the
somewhere
in
the
plans.
It
says
that
the
the
Blue
House
was
built
in
1940
is
that,
based
on
the
the
infamous
records
fire?
U
Is
that
true
to
the
best
of
your
knowledge
John?
No,
so
we
live
in
an
old
house.
As
you
know
old,
and
we
figured
that
you
know
it
says
it
was
built
in
1920,
but
it
was
it's
actually
somewhere
between
1904
and
1910,
based
on
all
the
you
know,
Maps
or
sorry
photographs
that
you
can
find
online,
but
I
guess
I'm
wondering
about
the
historical
value
of
that
house.
U
C
U
A
E
Teresa
Kraft
I'm
still
opposed
to
granting
this
site
plan
and
subdivision
approval.
Purpose
of
subdivision
control
is
to
provide
for
future
growth
and
development.
In
my
view,
this
is
a
massive
overbuild
in
our
business
district
that
will
forever
impact
the
chance
to
have
any
future
locations
for
commercial
buildings
like
the
new
docuware
that
offers
employment
opportunities
to
residents.
If
you
listen
to
last
night's
Council
Workshop,
they
discussed
turning
the
car
dealerships
into
more
space
for
affordable
housing,
eliminating
all
potential
for
future
commercial
space.
E
We
are
becoming
a
full-blown
bedroom
community
for
many
who
already
can't
afford
to
live
here.
Well,
employment
is
scarce.
The
building
design
may
have
evolved,
but
this
is
still
smack
in
front
of
residential
homes
with
families.
The
applicant's
representative
just
said:
if
acceptable,
they
can
build
a
buffer
green
wall
on
the
neighbor's
property,
how
cruel
to
suggest
to
build
a
wall
and
crush
them
in
we
are
we?
The
people
should
not
be
forced
to
change
for
their
profit.
This
project
is
too
big.
E
B
In
terms
of
the
history
of
the
house,
it's
much
older
than
1940..
It
was
looked
at
by
the
council
when
they
last
did
their
looks
at
historic
district
designations
in
Main
Street
area,
and
they
decided
because
of
the
multiple
changes
from
the
original
structure
that
they
weren't
going
to
list
it.
So
it
was
a
council
decision
not
to
protect
this
building.
F
F
A
F
F
If
I
may
miss
chairman,
there
was
this
was
a
first
for
me.
A
neighbor
did
contact
me
directly
today
late
before
the
meeting
I
did
want
to
note
her
name.
Kimberly
Garcia
of
159
Fishkill
Avenue
I'll
give
it
to
Mercedes
a
copy
of
her
email,
but
she
did
note.
She
was
concerned
about
Double
D's
and
the
auto
body
that
had
been
an
auto
body
shop
for
as
long
as
she
remembers,
and
that
these
sites
can
have
elevated
levels
of
metals
to
the
to
the
effect
of
I'll
incorporate
that
it
was
sent
to
me.
D
F
Provide
that
to
Mercedes,
but
we
have
provided
to
the
city
as
requested
at
the
beginning
of
the
process,
a
phase
one
and
two
environmental
assessments.
So
all
of
the
the
testing
of
the
site
has
been
done,
but
it
would
have
to
be
cleaned
up
in
accordance
with
regulations
notwithstanding,
so
all
that's
been
provided.
So
testing
has
been
done
of
the
site,
but
there
was
that
letter
from
Kimberly
Garcia
159
fish
alive.
Thank.
A
A
F
A
R
T
D
A
D
B
A
Okay,
we'll
move
on
to
our
second
agenda
item,
which
is
the
continued
review
of
an
application
for
site
plan
amendment
to
cross
street,
which
is
a
three-story
mixed-use
building
submitted
by
Hudson,
Todd
LLC
and
again.
This
is
an
amendment
to
a
previously
approved
site
plan,
specifically
around
our
favorite
topic
parking
and
so
welcome.
V
W
Yeah
Rich
dandria
Collier's
engineering
and
design.
So
as
far
as
the
parking
goes,
you
know
we
didn't
really
change
much
in
our
in
our
analysis.
From
the
last
meeting,
the
only
thing
that
we
specifically
added
to
our
our
letter
was
a
specific
request
that
we're
looking
for
the
board
to
modify
the
parking
requirement
for
the
commercial
space
to
reduce
the
parking
requirement
down
to
the
25
spaces
that
we're
providing
on
the
parking
parking
lot
that
you
know
we
went
through
the
shared
parking
analysis
in
pretty
good
detail.
W
A
You
know
understanding
on
a
certain
number
of
waved,
spaces
and
and
organization
of
parking
that
is
satisfactory
and
since
then,
based
on
some
different
math,
I
guess
just
give
us
a
little
bit
of
history
on
this
and
I
mentioned
five
at
the
beginning.
It.
My
understanding
is
that,
because
of
that,
different
math
there
there
is
the
resultant
is
a
need
for
for
additional
spaces.
Over
and
above
what
we
were
talking
about
last
month.
So
could
you.
W
Describe
that
so
yeah
our
shared
parking
analysis
that
we
had
done.
We
had
done
it
two
ways:
we've
done
it
on
the
C
code
requirements
and
at
that
point,
at
this
at
the
city
code
requirements
we
had
identified
a
need
for
25
29,
total
spaces.
We
had
done
it
then
also
on
the
Institute
of
Transportation
Engineers
requirements
for
the
the
Assisted
Living
category,
that
we
talked
about
really
the
senior
units
that
were
they're
in
here
and
the
affordable
housing
units
and
we
came
out
at
25
spaces.
So
that
was
that
that
was
this.
W
A
W
From
you,
but
before
we
go
there,
the
one
thing
that
I
just
wanted
to
mention
was
I.
Think
what
we
had
discussed
towards
the
end
of
the
last
meeting
was
that
we
were
gonna,
and
this
is
what's
in
our
letter
was
provide
25
spaces
on
the
Slate
designate,
six
of
them
for
the
senior
units
specifically
and
that
all
other
the
northern
19
spaces
on
the
site
would
be
a
fully
shared
spaces.
N
A
A
X
Best
practice
is
to
use
the
85th
percentile
rate
for
determining
Peak
parking
demand.
Based
on
that
rate,
and
also
we
found
that
there
is
a
time
of
day,
specific
or
a
time
of
day
specific
demand
table.
So
what
they
were
using
was
for
the
time
of
day
specific
data
for
just
multi-family
housing.
There
is
one
specific
to
Assisted,
Living
So,
based
on
that
and
the
85th
percentile
rates
for
the
affordable
housing
and
the
Assisted
Living.
We
calculated
the
share
parking
out
analysis
to
meet
a
demand
of
29
spaces.
X
W
Mean
I,
understand,
I,
understand
the
use
of
the
85
fifth
percentile,
but
I
I
will
say
that
right
out
of
the
the
ite
book,
so
it
specifically
says
that,
in
reference
data
for
potential
rates,
this
number
is
not
intended
to
recommend
and
a
policy
about
the
level
of
parking
that
should
be
supplied
is
provided
solely
as
a
qualitative
reference
for
the
analyst.
So
it's
something
to
consider,
but
it's
not
necessarily
for
policy
the
and
the
the
average
rate
that
we're
talking
about
is
an
average
Peak
demand.
It's
not
just
an
average
rate.
W
X
A
A
X
D
A
But
there
is
this
question
of:
can
we
based
on
the
85th
percentile,
to
be
extremely
conservative
and
cautious?
Can
we
look
at
the
possibility
of
and
I'll
start
with,
the
idea
of
land,
banking
and
I'm
glad
to
hear
you
say
that
there
is?
There
is
some
potential
to
do
that,
because,
just
from
my
point
of
view
it's
always
best
to
if
we
don't
need
to
build
them,
don't
but
reserve
them.
Should
we
need
that
as
a
fallback
right,
that's
sort
of
my
working
Theory.
So
let's
talk
about
whether
oh.
V
There
you
go
so
so
we
thought
we'd
bring
an
exhibit
with
us.
Obviously,
you
haven't
had
a
chance
to
do
this,
but
it's
two
hours
off.
Basically
what
we
did
was
we.
We
showed
that
there
was
a
way
to
put
some
60
degree
parking
in
here.
We
would
probably
have
to
just
extend
out
the
pavement
a
little
bit
further
on
this
area,
just
to
give
it
a
little
bit
more
of
a
back
out
area,
but
we
feel
that
we
can
get
those
four
in
there.
There.
V
B
I
D
A
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
X
X
You
can
land
bank
them
and
kind
of
have
a
have
the
safety
valve
or
just
wave
it
entirely.
Okay,
I
think
what
the
question
that
goes
back
to
David's
or
David's
question
was
about.
If
you
take
away
the
six
that
are
reserved
solely
for
the
Assisted
Living
component,
there's
still
enough
spaces
shared
amongst
the
other
three
uses
to
function,
yeah.
A
And
again,
we
spent
a
lot
of
time
talking
about
those
priorities.
Last
month
right,
the
Assisted
Living
top
priority
does
take
precedence.
Those
are
going
to
be
designated,
we've
all
agreed
and
then
for
the
other
residents.
Then
there
is,
there
is
ample
parking.
It's
really
the
commercial
parking
aspect
that
we're
looking
at
here.
K
A
K
But
would
be
24
spaces,
the
nine
for
the
the
structures
that
are
currently
there,
the
nine
for
the
workforce,
affordable,
yep
housing
in
six,
so
The
Proposal,
that's
in
front
of
us
right
now,
is
basically
just
meaning
that
it,
it
would
definitely
seemed
like.
If
that's
what
we're
doing,
we
shouldn't
be
doing
what
we
can
to
try
to
preserve
potential
parking
space
in
the
future
if
it's
needed.
A
Well,
that's
the
non-line
bank
scenario
would
be
a
waiver
scenario
which
we
have
the
authority
to
do
and
again
which
we
did
when
we
were
last
together
in
understanding
some
of
the
restrictions
we
agreed.
We
went.
We
left
that
meeting
with
the
understanding
that
we're
agreeing
to
waive
the
commercial
in
order
to
accommodate
the
the
residential
parking,
including
the
Assisted,
Living
piece.
K
L
K
Its
own
compliance
I
wanted
to
ask
about
that,
because
I
know
that
when
I
went
over
John
Clark's
Commons
for
our
original
meeting
on
this
back
end,
I
think
June.
It
was
an
open.
Basically,
it
was
an
open
question
whether
that
could
be
filled
and
then
I
think
as
they
switched
over
onto
the
current
proposal.
I.
B
A
But
also
one
of
the
you
know
the
within
800
feet:
finding
the
ability
to
adequately
Park
the
commercial
component.
To
this.
That's
still
a
that's
still
an
available
Factor
right.
So
take
that
into
consideration
when
you're
talking
when
you're
sort
of
thinking
about
the
commercial
aspect
to
this
parking
Rich
again.
A
L
B
B
G
V
G
G
23.
we're
providing
25
.
I,
understand
that,
but
I
feel,
like
the
residential
house
in
the
middle
is,
would
be
a
terrible
place
to
live
with
the
parking
right
in
the
backyard
like
that.
It
would
be
my
opinion
that
we
should
provide
parking
for
the
residential
need
and
waive
the
half
of
the
half
of
the
commercial.
Then
it's
clearly
like
residential
only
parking,
you
could
put
a
sign.
It's
you
know
much
less
complicated
for
who
can
park
there.
D
G
G
T
To
add,
yeah
I
probably
should
address
that
a
little
bit
that
obviously
any
there's
a
million
options
out
there,
but
that's
something
we're
particularly
unexcited
about.
We
invested
a
huge
amount
acquiring
in
a
very
sensitive
and
considerate
way.
These
three
properties
on
this
side
of
the
street
in
order
to
get
the
parking
on
the
same
side
of
the
street,
so
people
wouldn't
have
to
cross
the
street
we're
really
close
to
being
able
to
satisfy
all
the
requirements
with
the
with
no
waivers
we're
we're
really
asking
for
a
pretty
mild
accommodation.
T
T
Nonetheless,
we're
if
you
want
six
of
them
dedicated
to
spaces
dedicated
for
that
purpose,
we'll
accommodate
that
it
really
impacts
our
ability
to
creatively
reposition
and
improve
the
property
on
the
west
side
of
the
cross
street.
That's
a
sad
collection
of
properties
that
we
really
want
to
continue
to
improve,
and
we
really
don't
want
to
encumber
it
any
more
than
we
have
to.
G
G
B
B
G
T
T
We
work
on
the
Assumption
and
the
state
works
on
the
Assumption
they're
going
to
want
to
extend
for
that
full
30
years,
and
our
assumption
is
that
that
we
would
continue
in
that
use
indefinitely.
We
have
no
ability
to
terminate
it
before
the
30-year
period
is
up,
they
could
terminate
it
at
the
end
of
the
15-year
period.
O
N
I
would
tend
to
lean
towards
land
banking
rather
than
waving.
Just
because
I
want
to
be
conservative
about
waiving
spots
in
general
yeah,
where
a
property
owner
has
the
ability
to
provide
the
spots,
they
should
make
every
effort
to
do
that.
I
think
they
have
I,
think
the
partner
they're
providing
seems
to
be
adequate
and
they've
done.
A
lot
of
they've
gone
to
a
lot
of
effort
to
do
that
and
to
save
that
tree.
N
K
A
I
think
the
way
we
laughed
last
left
it
was
something
somewhere
in
between
right.
That
and
I
don't
know.
Maybe
this
is
false
logic
that
that,
when
we
last
discussed,
the
the
six
required
for
those
with
disabilities
would
be
designated
for
that,
but
it
sounds
to
me
like:
if
they
don't
have
cars,
there's
no
need
for
it.
D
M
You
know
ambulances
are
going
to
be
coming
in
and
out
so
you
know
and
and
that's
not
to
say
that
each
and
every
one
of
these
people
don't
drive
or
don't
have
a
car.
So
there
has
to
be
something
for
them
for
these
people
that
come
to
visit
that
take
care
of
them.
The
attendance,
the
nurses,
whatever
that
they're
somewhere
to
park,
yeah
and
and
I
don't
I.
A
Don't
well,
the
the
sense
is
is
that
there
there
would
be
somewhere
to
park
the
question
meaning
they've
met
us
they've
met
the
requirement
for
the
residential
component.
Right,
that's
a
fact.
The
question
is
whether
it
makes
sense,
then,
to
of
the
of
those
total
parking
spaces
which
are
all
residential,
make
sure
that
those
required
for
assisted
living
are
dead
designated.
Those
six
right
as
opposed
to
you
know.
You've
got
enough
for
everybody
who
lives
there
and
you
know
you
can
choose
yeah
right.
So.
V
Yeah,
so
the
notation
we
put
on
the
plan
was
that
we
showed
the
six
bases
and
the
priority
is
senior
first
and
Hudson.
River
housing
will
be
running
this
whole
project
and
they're,
going
to
have
that
authority
to
designate
those
spaces
to
those
that
may
or
may
not
have
carbs,
and
then
it
would
fall
to
another
residence.
I
M
M
Okay,
because
you
know
having
lived
with
someone,
that's
that
you
know
incapacitated
and
I
have
a
you
know:
I
live
in
a
private
house,
I
have
a
driveway,
but
sometimes
you
know
you
have
two
cars
in
the
driveway.
So
now
how
do
I
get
them
out?
You
know
or
how
does
that
bus
get
in
there?
So
it's
it's
a
you
know
something
to
really
be
taken
seriously.
So.
A
V
V
A
A
A
X
K
A
Versus
commercial
use,
there
will
be
so.
It
sounds
like
since
you've
met
so
again
once
again,
since
you've
met
all
of
the
residential.
Now
as
it's
drawn,
we're
land
banking,
we're
asking
the
applicant
and
they're
going
to
come
back
with
a
revised
application
to
land
back
four
additional
spaces
and
those
ostensibly
then,
if
they
ever
were
activated,
would
be
used
by
commercial
because
it
wouldn't
otherwise
be
necessary
for
the
residential,
because
you
have
enough
already
and.
K
D
A
A
A
L
L
W
W
A
V
A
A
L
A
Great,
so
a
motion
to
table
so
that
we
can
approve
secret
and
then
come
back
to
an
approval
on
the
site
plan
motion
motion
by
Kevin
second,
second,
by
Karen,
all
in
favor
all
right.
So
then,
let's
go
to
the
the
secret
egg
deck
again
drafted.
I,
don't
believe
any
amendments
are
necessary
based
on
what
we've
been
talking
about
tonight.
So
with
that,
hopefully,
everybody's
read
it
and
are
clear
on
it
and
I'm
ready
to
accept
the
motion
to
approve.
G
D
A
C
A
F
F
Just
for
by
way
of
procedural
update,
of
course,
back
in
July,
the
planning
board
adopted
its
negative
declaration
for
the
project
following
the
two-year
review
of
the
application.
We
also
at
that
meeting
the
board
also
adopted
a
lwrp
consistency,
determination
finding
that
the
Project's
consistent
with
those
policies,
our
subsequent
July
25th,
submission
trying
to
work
to
address
comments
from
the
board's
July
11th
meeting
and
also
identified
some
other
details.
Just
some
minor
other
updates.
F
F
For
the
1.5
and
the
findings
supporting
that,
we
also
adjusted
that
same
plan
to
include
some
changes
limited
to
the
post
monitoring
study
in
the
period
of
time
in
categories
of
the
events
that
are
being
monitored.
So
that
was
a
question
between
the
board,
so
it's
been
updated
as
reflected
in
your
resolution
and
additionally,
at
the
request
of
the
board,
we
did
update
the
site
plan
to
include
proposed
building
materials
designating
a
smoking
area.
That
was
another
discussion
that
we
had
near
the
trash
enclosure
and
revisions
to
the
proposed
historic
building
and
Cemetery
restoration
notes.
F
So
those
are
pretty
specific
to
what
the
ongoing
obligations
are:
law
mowing,
Rush,
overgrowth
and
clearing,
and
then,
of
course,
the
applicant's
affirmative
efforts
to
pursue
best
efforts
at
the
restoration
that
require
outside
consultation,
additional
funding.
That
was
also
updated
into
resolution.
As
we
reviewed,
we
respectfully
submit
that
these
latest
revisions
and
obviously
the
substantive,
substantive
changes
that
have
been
made
throughout
the
long
review
of
this
project,
responsive
to
the
board,
the
public
and
its
Consultants.
F
You
know
among
many
others,
the
reduced
capacity
The
Limited
hours,
the
days
of
operation
and
the
adoption
of
mitigation
measures
really
established,
how
we've
satisfied
the
city's
zoning
code
standards
and
the
special
permit
regulations
for
this
site.
So
we're
certainly
pleased
to
address
any
other
comments.
The
board
might
have
and
again
provided
comments
on
the
draft
resolution.
A
F
F
So,
ultimately,
we
were
suggesting
that
the
renewability
to
be
focused
on
that
and
the
same
being
true
of
the
cafe
space,
that
component
of
the
accessory
to
the
hotel
itself
is
a
a
naturally
regularly
occurring,
and
certainly
something
you'd
want
to
provide
as
an
amenity
somewhere
to
provide
food
or
drink
for
res
for
for
folks
staying
in
the
hotel
itself.
So
we
suggesting
simply
that
the
renewability
of
the
special
permit
be
Associated
exclusive.
A
A
F
A
F
F
A
B
D
C
B
Could
have
full
approval
and
the
event
space
would
have
conditional
approval
or
your
approval
based
on
the
monitoring
of
operations
and
that
sort
of
thing
to
make
sure
that
everything's
working
according
to
the
management
plan,
I
think
the
same
argument
could
be
made
for
the
cafe.
That
is,
you
wouldn't
get
an
operator
to
go
in
and
put
all
the
investment
into
building
a
space
without
having
long-term
viability
in
mind.
N
I'm
skeptical
about
the
whole
financial
expectations.
That
of
that
have
resulted
from
the
limitations
you
put
on
yourself
because
of
the
impact
of
the
assembly
use,
and
so
that's
I.
I
think
one
of
the
biggest
issues
is
whether
the
plans
that
have
been
put
forward
are
realistic
for
the
development
and
of
the
of
the
space
for
that
year.
N
F
Yet
again,
the
applicant
has
a
is
evaluated
the
the
functionality
and,
and
certainly
the
ability
to
function
on
the
site.
I
mean
this
is
the
minimum
viable
really
alternative,
but
we're
doing
that
to
address
the
The
public's
comments
and
the
board's
comments
respective
to
this
site.
So
they
have
looked
at
that
and
and
naturally
that
I
think
we've
highlighted
the
key
Focus
there
being
the
hotel
and
the
the
cafe
space
being
in
in
tandem
working
together.
You
know
and
of
course
the
event.
F
A
A
very
specific
my
senses
distinction
that
and
again
business
cases
and
financial
there's
nothing
none
of
our
purview
right
right
so,
but
theoretically,
the
the
the
the
application
of
the
Year
renewal
to
the
special
use
pyramid
specific
to
the
event
space
only
theoretically
enhances
the
financial
viability,
yes
of
the
whole
magella.
That's.
A
F
Right,
you're,
looking
for
a
rational
relationship
if
you've
had
a
mixed-use
department
building
that
had
a
restaurant
on
the
first
floor,
certain
codes
May
regulate
through
a
special
permit
that
restaurant
but
they're
not
going
to
require
the
apartments
to
come
back
before
the
board
annually
for
Renewal.
So
it's
you
know
it's
not
exactly
on
point,
but
it's
the
same
sort
of
discussion
here
that
the
driver
or
the
rational
relation
of
a
condition
that
requires
an
applicant
to
come
back,
which
is
already
very
significant
to
come
back,
is
tied
to
that
yep
views.
H
L
F
The
principal
uses
the
hotel,
the
accessory
uses
of
the
cafe
in
the
event
space,
so
the
principal
use
would
was,
is
not
wasn't
the
two
years
of
discussion
before
this
board.
It
was
the
events
base,
that's
an
accessory
component
right,
so
that
was
the
driver
for
parking
discussions.
All
the
discussions
before
the
board
that
we've
addressed
and
substantially
reduced
this
project
time.
A
C
A
A
A
Say
that
I
don't
think
honestly
Donna,
that's
not
what
we're
talking
about
here.
We're
simply
talking
about
a
request
by
the
applicant
to
amend
language
in
the
resolution
right
specific
to
this
one
point:
it
has
nothing
to
do
honestly
and
again
we're
talking
about
viability
theoretically,
but
our
purview
has
nothing
to
do
with
viability.
F
The
applicant's
plans
will
function
as
designed,
but
the
board
has
expressed
concerns,
so
the
goal
was
that
if
there
were
any
instances
of
not
we're
doing
a
post-monitoring
traffic
study,
all
kinds
of
things
to
ensure
that
everything
that
is
in
this
plan
and
has
been
outlined
before
the
board,
even
though
our
Consultants,
your
Consultants,
have
all
agreed
that
this
works,
that
if
there's
any
Growing
Pains
or
these
don't
function.
Accordingly,
your
board
has
the
ability
to
reevaluate
or
reconsider
those
components
of
it.
F
So
that's
why
we're
we're
focused
on
a
specific
issue
and
it's
that
event
space,
not
the
the
hotel
or
the
cafe
that
had
driving
those
conversations.
So
that's
this
specific
component
is
just
saying
that
the
renewability
the
each
year,
the
city
is
looking
at
this
or
the
planning
board
it's
specific
to
this
space.
Typically,
this
type
of
requirement
to
come
back
before
your
board.
F
It's
very
atypical,
that's
not
something
you
typically
see
in
in
our
approvals,
so
with
that
we're
providing
sort
of
an
additional
ability
for
the
board
to
sort
of
look
back
at
this
if
it
doesn't
comply
again.
We're
submitted
and
as
proposed
and
your
Consultants
have
all
reviewed
this.
It
works.
But
this
is
just
another
sort
of
we
I.
Think
I
referred
to
it
as
a
belt
to
the
suspenders
on
top
of
the
other
belt.
K
So
I
mean
the
the
amendment
that
you're
proposing
makes
logical
sense
to
me.
My
overarching
question
was:
if
granting
a
special
use
permit.
That
seems
to
a
use
in
the
first
place,
because
sometimes
you
know
we're
creating
special
permit
interaction,
whatever
they're
labeled.
Is
it
normal
to
require
someone
to
come
back
after
some
period
of
time
for
renewal
of
the
of
the.
A
F
I,
don't
remember,
for
example,
you
didn't
require
a
renewal
requirement
of
the
other
outdoor
event
space
in
the
city
that
came
before
your
board.
Recently,
it's
not
a
typical
requirement.
It's
certainly
permissive
if
there's
a
rational
relationship
or
an
essential
Nexus
between
the
condition
and
what
it
is
that
your
conditioning
here,
the
board
is
expressed
concern
about
the
operations
we
put
forth
a
plan
that
will
satisfy
that.
So,
of
course,
we
would
ask
that
it
not
be
included,
but
we're
not
going
that
far
we're.
A
A
But
the
board
put
conditions
on
my
special
use
permit
to
come
back
and
have
it
renewed,
so
we've
done
it
before
and
in
this
instance,
I
think
it's
appropriate
right
and
the
applicant
obviously
agrees
and
it's
appropriate
and
the
the
point
of
the
conversation
we're
having
right
now
here
is
it's
appropriate
most
specifically
to
the
component
of
this
application
in
this
special
use.
Permit.
K
K
On
this,
not
once
that
permit
has
been
oriented,
even
if
they've
got
to
come
back
and
renew
it
the
bottom
line,
it's
not
going
to
be
a
situation
where
we
suddenly
got
a
bullying
check
to
decide
whether
or
not
we're
going
to
redo.
It
boring
some
sort
of
significant
change
circumstances
were
probably
maybe
we
have
to
go
back
into
the
back
room
and
get
advice
and
Council,
but
we're
likely
going
to
wind
up
having
to
renew
that
permit.
A
A
F
Goal
is
to
say
yeah:
we
our
position
is
that
this
works
and
it's
going
to
function
and
it's
going
to
operate
accordingly.
It's
giving
the
board
another
an
atypical,
as
as
John
mentioned
in
the
last
seven
years,
I
agree
but
atypical
level
of
additional
Authority
beyond
what
would
typically
be,
but
it's
not
that
it's
impermissive,
it's
that
it's
a
it's
utilizing
its
special
permit
authority
to
include
this
condition
that
we
come
back
before
your
board
and
it's
it's
ensuring
it's
adding
further
assurance
that
we're
complying
with
these
regulations.
There's
mentions
of
enforceability.
F
A
A
A
A
B
F
R
R
F
F
F
Q
A
K
A
Piece
right,
okay,
so
that
brings
us
to
the
bulk
of
the
draft
resolution
with
amendments
right,
because
the
latest
version
I'm
looking
at
here,
has
Red
Line
right.
So
those
red
line
would
be
the
most
recent
and
keeping
keeping
in
mind
as
well
board
that
this
resolution
does
delineate
those
conditions
of
the
special
permit
and
also
keeping
in
mind
that.
A
G
B
The
the
way
it's
written
as
I
understand
it
is
there's
certain
things
that
on
the
list
that
they
have
to
do
for
the
CEO
maintain
the
property
clean
it
up,
but
for
a
longer
term
what
you
do
with
the
headstones.
You
know:
what
do
you
do
for
permanent
landscaping?
Or
you
know,
plants,
materials
or
whatever
they
want
to
consult
with
experts,
come
up
with
a
plan
and
submit
that
by
the
CFO
and
the
city
building
department
would
approve
it.
I
G
A
I
F
A
H
N
Yeah
now
I
have
a
question
it
doesn't
have
to
do
with
the
draft
resolution.
Is
that
all
right
yeah?
It
has
to
do
with
the
use
of
the
church
right
and
if
we
approve
this
right
and
it
takes
three
years
for
this
development
to
right
right
and
in
each
individual
year
we
give
a
continuance
or
whatever
that
has
been
developed.
What.
N
N
F
E
B
F
N
A
F
A
A
K
A
A
N
Yeah
I
mean
obviously
this
has
been
an
application.
That's
been
of
a
lot
of
public
concern,
and
that
is
that's
because
the
original
zoning
intent
didn't
contemplate
this
being
used
as
a
as
in
an
assembly
space
in
the
way
that
is
being
discussed
and
is
of
most
concern
right.
It's
the
uses
that
generate
noise
and
traffic
and
other
things,
all
of
which
we
felt
with,
and
the
secret
process
has
been
right.
N
It's
a
it's
been
a
convoluted
process.
The
set
of
special
agreements
that
we
have
are
very
convoluted,
the
set
of
uses
that
are
being
proposed,
the
hotel,
the
accessory
use,
all
those
other
things
which
aren't
I,
think
weren't
part
of
the
original
intent
of
the
of
the
applicant
are
convoluted
and
make
this
a
very
complicated
application.
It's
not
a
simple
thing
right.
This
was
this.
N
N
It's
preferable
to
have
as
of
right
applications
right
as
of
right
uses,
so
that
these
special
applications
don't
need
to
be
special
permits,
don't
need
to
be
so
burdensome
on
the
applicant
and
on
the
on
and
worrisome
to
the
community.
So
those
are
some
of
my
concerns
that
this
wasn't
part
of
what
was
contemplated
in
the
original
zoning
of
the
area
right
because
of
the
dense
adjacent
residential
uses
and.
N
But
if
you
are
doing
a
rational,
if
you're
going
to
rationally
it's
difficult
to
find
it's
easy
to
imagine
that
this
is
not
a
rational
proposal
in
many
ways
right,
but
I.
Unfortunately,
I,
don't
think
that
it's
I
think
that
there
are
limitations
on
my
ability
to
project
what
my
judgment
on
whether
this
makes
sense
or
not
so.
N
That
I
appreciate
you
giving
me
that
opportunity
yep,
because
I
I'm
still
skeptical
about
this
and
I,
don't
think
it's
good
for
the
applicant
or
for
the
community
that
this
that
this
process
went
on
like
this.
Obviously
it
was
very
expensive
and
long-term
and
and
I
do
not
think
that
it's
all
going
to
go
as
as
expected
in
many
ways.
K
A
N
B
G
B
Yes,
it's
in
the
law
that
hotel
and
accessory
uses
to
the
hotel
are
permitted
use
are
specially
permitted
use
in
the
hdlo
district,
and
this
qualifies
Okay,
so
it
is
contemplated
in
the
loss.
It's
not
inconsistent
with
the
the
district
as
imagined,
because
Council
put
this
provision
in
the
law
to
as
an
incentive
to
restore
and
maintain
historic
properties
to
have
some
incentive
to
do
this,
and
if
you
want
this
really
important
Church
to
be
maintained,
there
has
to
be
some
sort
of
use
for
it
in
the
future.
B
In
churches,
don't
seem
to
be
as
viable
as
they
used
to
be
in
some
cases.
Obviously,
some
churches
are
thriving
in
some
aren't,
so
it
is
consistent
with
the
law.
I
would
have
bet
at
the
beginning
of
this
process.
This
was
not
paper
approved,
but
the
applicant
has
made
diligent
compromises
all
the
way
along
the
line.
B
I
think
the
crucial
one
was
limiting
the
hours
such
that
this
can't
be
really
used
for
a
concert
venue,
it's
more
of
now
an
event
venue,
that's
consistent
with
church
type
activities
so
and
the
fact
that
the
board
approved
the
negative
declaration
last
time
take
certain
other
issues
like
noise
and
parking
and
traffic
into
the
area
where
it's
been
decided
that
this
is
not
going
to
cause
significant
impacts.
If
the
operations
act
as
it.
H
G
You
that
was
my
understanding
as
well.
I
feel
like
it's
been
a
long.
It's
been
a
long
journey
as
it
was
first
presented.
It
did
not,
in
my
opinion,
meet
the
assessment.
Like
the
events
part
of
the
did
not
meet.
You
know
the
definition
of
a
accessory
use,
given
the
intensity
I
think
that
the
the
Amendments
made
over
time
at
in
the
end
it
now
stands.
T
L
There's
one
thing
that
I
would
like
to
say:
as
as
John
Clark
said,
you
know,
the
applicant
is
proposing
a
use
that
is
allowed
in
the
district.
It's
an
accessory
use
and
also
as
of
right-
and
you
know,
I
think
the
record
has
shown
that
the
applicant
has
put
forward
considerable
concessions
and
events.
L
However,
this
this
application
was
there's
been
a
lot
of
work
between
the
planning
board
and
the
applicant
and
a
lot
of
dialogue
and
a
lot
of
Consultants
involved
and
I.
Think
that
the
shows
not
only
this
board's
dedication
to
serving
the
people
of
Beacon
and
making
sure
what
are
to
the
best
of
their
ability,
harmonious
and
I.
Think
that
the
applicant
has
also
shown
such
a
willingness
to
footboard.
A
Yeah
thanks
I
appreciate
that
I'll
just
add
I
may
have
mentioned,
but
I
that
I've
been
doing
this
a
long
time
and
I've
seen
a
lot
of
the
development
from
the
early
days
2003
when
Beacon
wasn't
even
on
the
map
till
now,
and
even
you
know
somewhat.
Ironically,
you
know
through
the
challenges
of
the
residential,
the
view
all
of
the
you
know
the
residences
where
the
folks
live
that
are
now
in
a
pose
in
a
opposition
to
this
all
of
the
struggle
in
the
opposition
to
even
those
applications.
A
So
you
know
it's
part
of
the
evolution.
It's
part
of
the
growth
we've
been
able
to
absorb,
accommodate
and
continue
to
be
a
thriving
growing
Community,
even
with
countless
contentious
concerning
applications,
and
it
is
I
have
to
say
a
testament
to
I
think
a
thoughtful
city
council
who,
who
spends
a
lot
of
time
with
great
consultancy.
A
Looking
at
the
zoning
thoughtfully
crafting
the
zoning,
you
know,
of
course,
nothing.
There
are
some
unintended
consequences,
but
I
think
for
the
most
part,
the
work
that
we've
done
as
a
city
in
the
hard
look
at
the
comprehensive
plan
in
0.506
to
the
update
10
years
later,
to
the
continued
focus
on
appropriate
zoning
for
the
city
as
a
growing
City.
D
F
Designed
to
be
adversarial
to
not
make
a
project,
it's
designed
to
make
a
project
better
and
in
a
way
that
meets
with
all
of
the
collective
and
I
think
this
project
has
done
that
it's
gone
to
the
public.
It's
gone
to
the
board's
comments
to
really
significantly
reduce
itself
and
control
itself
to
properly
fit
Within
the
character
of
the
community.
A
So
so
the
last
thing
I
wanted
to
say
was
that,
given
all
of
that
and
given
all
of
the
change
in
the
tumult
and
the
concerns
over
all
of
the
development
that's
happened,
my
hope
is:
is
that
with
this
application
that
the
community
can
absorb
this,
welcome
it
and
see
it
as
an
opportunity
to
embrace
you
know
a
component
of
our
culture
as
Beacon
as
creatives.
That
can
be
positive.
F
F
A
F
A
A
Hi,
are
you
28
Townsend
great
welcome,
so
there
have
been
challenges
in
the
past
when
we
do
these
of
the
record,
meaning
the
recording
being
able
to
pick
up
so
yeah
if
you
could
for
for
our
benefit
and
for
at
least
the
record
just
at
the
mic
just
share
what
you're
submitting
to
it
guys
guys
sorry
we're
in
the
middle
of
a
review.
Sorry
share.
O
A
A
O
N
I
I
mean
I,
don't
know,
I,
don't
know
if
we
have
the
remit
here
in
some
ways,
but
what
you're
showing
is
like
a
field
of
shingles
like
a
hatch
in
a
drawing
right,
you
see
what
I'm
saying
above
the
the
pitched
window.
This
is
Lot
number
one
right,
so
you
have
this
pitch
right
here
and
then
you
have
a
series
of
shingles
that
are
all
going
to
get
cut
on
a
diagonal
on
a
piece
of
thin
right
trim
of
some
sort.
N
N
It
really
looks
odd
to
treat
it
as
if
it
is
a
fake
material
or
that
it's
like
a
sheet
good.
That's
just
printed
right
that
isn't
how
shingles
are
detailed.
Shingles,
don't
go
up
to
the
top
of
a
ridge
number
one.
They
don't
get
trimmed
in
little
triangles
they're
on
thin
pieces
of
trim
right
and
also
generally,
you
would
never
in
a
traditional
or
even
in
a
contemporary
Suburban
setting
use
that
from
the
tip
of
Eve
tip
of
a
roof
Gable
to
the
base
right
that
isn't
how
Shingles
get
used.
N
Looking
at
this
building
from
a
distance,
a
favor,
if
you
just
separate
it
out,
either
got
rid
of
the
shingles
and
just
did
it
straight
as
as
a
collaborate
right
or
if
you,
if
you
wanted
to
break
it
up
more
right,
that
you
use
the
shingles
either
on
the
lower
part
or
separated
the
the
Gable
in
it
and
use
that
as
a
different
material.
Maybe
vertical
right,
like
the
vertical
in
the
other
part
of
the
cable.
So
it
was
consistent
right.
N
O
N
Yeah
I
almost
think
it'd
be
better
if
you
didn't
do
it
just
at
the
Gable,
if
you
pulled
it
down
yeah,
maybe
not
in
line
with
this
mullion
here
right
this
horizontal
volume,
because
if
you
do
it
right
here,
it's
going
to
be
just
these
awkward
two
little
things
you
just
extend
it,
but
not
in
the
line.
It
actually
just
do
it
like
six
inches
down,
because
then
it
that
breaks
it
up
more,
so
you're,
not
just
on
a
straight
line
across
and
I.
Would
that
would
solve
your
problem.
A
A
A
A
O
A
G
W
N
H
J
J
D
G
N
No
I
think
in
general
Jason
also
Bruce
I'd,
really
like
people
to
have
more
consistency.
You
know
just
taking
pictures,
I'm,
not
gonna
nitpick,
this
guy
he's
just
doing
a
house,
but
like
it'd,
be
nice,
if
you
just
somehow
got
them
to
the
habit
of
having
the
applicants
or
the
guys
who
are
putting
together
the
drawings
just
color
according
to
what
their
color
the
elevations.
Of
course
in
a
presentation,
it's
not
that
much
work.