►
From YouTube: Beacon Zoning Board 5-17-22
Description
COURTROOM, CITY HALL
1 MUNICIPAL PLAZA
BEACON, NY 12508
THE ZONING BOARD OF
APPEALS WILL MEET AT 7:00
PM. A TRAINING WORK
SESSION WILL TAKE PLACE
AT 7:00 PM AND THE
REGULAR MEETING AND
PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL
BEGIN IMMEDIATELY
THEREAFTER, BUT NOT
LATER THAN 7:30 PM.
May 17, 2022
7:00 PM
Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda
Regular Meeting
1. Review and hold Public Hearing on application submitted by Scott Ramsey & Brian Donnelly,
18 North Walnut Street, Tax Grid No. 30-5954-28-912934-00, in the R1-5 Zoning District, for
relief from Section 223-17(E) to construct an accessory structure (accessory apartment) which
requires relief from section 223-17(E) to allow 858 sq. ft. of cumulative lot coverage (720 sq. ft.
maximum cumulative lot coverage permitted)
2. Review and hold Public Hearing on application submitted by Thomas Butler, 97 Union Street,
Tax Grid No. 30-6054-46-219567-00, in the R1-5 Zoning District, for relief from Section 223-17
to construct a 14' x 15'11" second story rear addition over a new deck and patio with an 8.3 ft.
side yard setback (10 ft. required)
Miscellaneous Business
1113 Wolcott Avenue - SEQRA Review
June meeting date reminder - The June Zoning Board meeting will take place on Wednesday, June 22, due to the Juneteenth holiday being observed on Monday
B
A
A
A
A
The
statute
of
limitations
for
article
78
proceedings
is
generally
four
months
after
a
determination
becomes
final
under
the
civil
practice
law
and
rules,
section
217,
subsection
one,
that's
what
we
call
cplr.
So
you
might.
This
all
turns
into
alphabet
soup,
but
the
cplr
has
a
has
a
four-month
statute
of
limitations.
A
A
A
A
So
filing
of
the
decision,
what
does
that
mean?
So
a
zoning
or
planning
board
concludes
its
review
of
a
land
use
application
when
it
renders
its
final
decision
on
the
application.
The
decision
may
be
in
the
form
of
a
vote
by
board
members
taken
at
a
public
meeting
or
in
a
written
decision
approved
by
the
board.
So
we
prepare
our
formal
resolutions,
but
that's
not
required
in
every
municipality
general
city
law,
section
81,
9
states
that
filing
of
a
decision
and
notice
or
pertains
to
filing
of
a
decision,
a
notice.
A
The
decision
of
the
board
of
appeals
on
the
appeal
shall
be
filed
by
the
office
of
the
city,
clerk
or
the
zoning
office.
If
such
office
has
been
established
within
five
business
days
after
such
decision
is
rendered
and
a
copy
thereof,
mailed
to
the
applicant,
the
statute
does
not
require
that
filing
with
the
clerk
of
the
municipality
indicate
individual
member
votes.
A
Nor
does
the
failure
to
include
such
information
of
the
filing
alleviate
petitioners
need
to
observe,
observe
the
statute
of
limitations,
so
the
requisite
filing
of
the
decision
has
to
take
place
within
five
business
days
after
the
day.
The
decision
is
rendered
and,
like
I
said,
the
law
further
requires
that
a
copy
of
the
decision
be
mailed
to
the
applicant,
but
it
does
not
specify
a
time
frame
within
which
the
mailing
must
occur.
The
time
frame
is
only
the
filing
of
only
the
filing
of
the
decision.
A
The
filing
of
a
written
decision
will
start
the
running
of
the
30-day
period
that
30-day
statute
limitations.
However,
several
courts
have
held
that
the
limitations
period
may
also
be
triggered
by
the
filing
of
minutes
of
a
meeting
at
which
a
decision
was
rendered,
provided
that
the
minutes
reflect
the
vote
of
each
board
member.
So,
while
a
decision
doesn't
have
to
reflect
the
vote,
you
know
your
resolution
doesn't
necessarily
have
to
say
how
everyone
voted.
A
The
minutes
absolutely
do
and
that's
a
requirement
in
general
city
law
and
in
the
open
meetings
law,
so
failure
to
commence
a
proceeding
within
this
time
within
the
30
days
requires
dismissal
of
the
petition,
and
I
keep
using
this
word
petition.
That
is
the
document
that
starts
the
proceeding.
That's
what
you
file
with
the
court.
Does
everyone
follow
so
far
to
start
the
appeal
to
start
your
appeal
of
the
zba
decision?
If
you
file
a
petition
right.
A
So
that's
actually
what
we're
going
to
be
talking
about,
but
it's
their
responsibility
and
when
I
say
they
oftentimes
the
petitioner
is
the
person
that's
filing
the
petition,
appealing
the
zba
decision.
So
if
I
say
any
legal
terms
that
are
unclear
just
let
me
know,
but
so
it's
your
responsibility
to
follow
up
with
the
city
to
see
if
it
was
filed
with
the
city
clerk,
so
that
might
mean
calling
the
city
clerk's
office
or
filing
for
a
foil
request
just
staying
on
top
of
you
know.
A
Where
is
that
decision,
because
it
seems
straightforward,
it's
30
days
from
the
filing
of
the
decision,
but
we're
going
to
see
there's
a
lot
of
nuances
to
that
and
it
is
a
complicated
issue
and
it's
important
to
stay
on
top
of
because,
if
the,
if
you
mess
up
that
30
days,
if
you
miscalculate
by
one
day
your
petition's
dismissed
you're
done
and
you
can't
you
lose
the
opportunity
to
take.
You
know
your
appeal
to
court:
there's
no
going
backwards.
D
A
A
A
Than
that,
for
our
purposes
it's
being
aware
of
these
timelines,
so
that
we
make
sure
that
all
our
decisions
are
filed
and
that's
not
so
much
the
responsibility
of
this
board,
but
I
think
you
know
it's
it's
our
responsibility,
as
administrative
staff
to
you
know,
make
sure
that
things
get
filed-
and
you
know
minutes
are
done
appropriately
things
like
that,
but
I
think
it's
important
for
this
board
to
be
aware
of,
which
is
why
I
thought
it
was
an
interesting
topic
to
talk
about.
Plus
the
cases
are
are
interesting
because
they
are
so
nuanced.
A
A
So
that
brings
me
to-
and
these
are,
this
is
not
a
case
law
update.
These
aren't
new
cases
across
the
board.
They're
from
you
know,
different
years,
I
don't
think
I
went
back
farther
than
1991
might
be
the
oldest
one,
but
these
are
not
like
super
recent
anyway.
So
this
case
involves
an
article
78,
proceeding
being
brought
to
review
a
determination
of
a
village
zoning
board
of
appeals
which
granted
a
developer's
application
for
a
use,
variance
so
village
law.
A
So
the
petitioner
argued
that
the
statute
of
limitations
was
not
told
because
the
decision
failed
to
indicate
how
each
member
of
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
of
the
village
of
great
neck
voted.
So
my
question
after
we
had
that
preliminary
discussion
was
the
statue
of
limitations,
told
no
judy
says
no.
A
A
A
Meanings
of
such
board
of
appeals
shall
be
open
to
the
public
to
the
extent
provided
in
article
7
of
the
public
officer's
law.
Such
board
of
appeals
shall
determine
minutes
of
its
proceedings,
showing
the
vote
of
each
member
upon
every
question
or,
if
absent
or
failing
to
vote,
indicating
such
fact
and
shall
also
keep
records
of
its
examinations
and
other
official
actions.
A
And
and
section
81
a2
also
talks
about
filing
requirements,
and
it
says
every
rule
regulation,
every
amendment
or
repeal
thereof,
and
every
order,
requirement,
decision
or
termination
of
the
board
of
appeals
shall
be
filed
in
the
office
of
the
city
clerk
within
five
business
days
and
shall
be
a
public
record.
So
there's
two
documents:
you
have
meeting
minutes
and
a
decision.
A
Now
some
municipalities
incorporate
their
decisions
in
their
meeting
minutes
and
only
have
one
document,
so
it
becomes
even
more
complicated
because
you're
not
getting
the
same
necessarily
the
same
document
in
every
municipality,
so
being
a
land
use
attorney.
You
got
to
kind
of
stay
on
your
toes
and
know
what
you're
looking
for
so.
A
F
G
A
Talking
we're
not
talking
about
the
stuff
we're
just
looking
at
these
cases
for
statute
limitations,
issues
and
a
lot
of
the
times
once
the
courts
decide
whether
or
not
the
statutory
limitations
pass.
It's
usually
the
first
question
they
won't
go
on
to
elaborate.
You
know
how
they
would
have
come
out
on
the
issue.
You
know,
statute
limitations
passed
we're
done
here.
A
A
A
So
the
law
permits
a
person
aggrieved
by
a
zoning
board
of
appeals,
decision
to
challenge
that
decision
in
an
article
78,
but
requires
that
the
proceeding
be
instituted
again,
the
rule
within
30
days
after
the
filing
of
the
decision
in
the
office
of
the
clerk.
In
this
case
the
appellant
commenced.
The
article
78
proceeding
37
days
after
the
minutes
incorporating
the
respondents,
the
zba's
decision
were
filed
in
the
office
of
the
village
court
village
clerk.
A
A
A
I
D
D
D
A
I
G
I
A
C
A
A
It's
it's
interesting
in
my
position
because
you
know
my
firm
does
work
on
both
sides
representing
applicants
representing
boards,
and
you
know
some
of
the
laws
we
appreciate
and
some
are
frustrating
it's
definitely
not
necessarily
fair,
but
there's
a
lot
of
pressure
on
the
applicant
or
anyone
who
wants
to
file
an
article
78
to
stay
on
top
of
it
because,
as
you're
seeing
in
these
cases,
it's
not
consistent.
So
you
know
making
sure
you're
following
up
with
the
clerk,
because
that's
what
starts
the
clock?
What's
getting
there?
A
D
D
B
H
B
B
And
what
I'll
actually
do
amanda?
We
can
talk
about
this
afterwards,
but
when
you
get
the
minutes
together
for
this
meeting
or
the
first
draft
of
home,
let's
take
a
look
at
him,
real,
quick
before
the
meeting,
just
because
you're,
understandably
getting
up
dispute
on
doing
this.
So
all
right!
So
if
that's
all,
we
have.
D
K
K
So
the
the
lot
coverage
allowed
for
our
district
in
our
zone
is
720
square
feet
for
the
entire
lot
and
this
accessory
apartment
we're
going
to
remove
the
third
bay
of
our
garage
and
use
some
of
that
square
footage
and
put
it
towards
the
accessory
apartment,
which
would
take
it
up
to
858
square
feet
total
for
the
whole
lot,
but
the
accessory
primer
itself,
I
think,
comes
in
at
448.
If
you
have
it
on
your
on
your
plans.
B
So
what
I
was
curious
about
was
currently
what
it
says
is
that
for
an
accessory
apartment,
that's
located
or
a
second
apartment
accessory
apartment,
that's
located
in
an
accessory
building,
as
opposed
to
in
the
primary
building.
It's
a
minimum
of
300
square
feet
and
a
maximum
of
600
square
feet.
I
would
be
curious
to
know
what
that
requirement
was
before
that.
Most
recent
amendment.
B
D
B
A
Law
that
was
adopted
in
1989
for
accessory
apartments
states
with
relation
to
apartment,
size,
the
minimum
floor
area
for
an
accessory
apartment
within
a
detached
single
family
dwelling
shall
be
400
square
feet.
The
maximum
floor
area
shall
be
650
square
feet,
but
in
no
case
shall
the
floor
area
of
the
apartment
exceed
30
percent
of
the
total
floor
area
of
the
dwelling
building
in
which
it
is
located
for
accessory
apartments
located
in
an
accessory
building.
The
minimum
floor
area
shall
also
be
300
square
feet
and
the
maximum
shall
be
600
square
feet.
B
D
B
G
K
Whatever
yeah,
it
was
sort
of
everything
we're
talking
about
right
and
dave
was
kind
enough
last
year
to
come
over
and
sort
of
look
at
the
space
with
us
and
start
to
think
about
what
makes
sense
from
a
square
footage
perspective.
What's
reasonable
within
the
zone
and
in
the
area.
And
then
we
just
decided.
We
wanted
to
keep
the
garage
separate
as
a
functional
garage
and
you
know
even
toyed
with
turning
that
into
the
apartment.
K
K
K
K
K
G
O
K
B
Okay,
so
that
language
for
an
accessory
apartment
located
in
an
accessory
building
did
the
prior
the
minimum
floor
area
shall
be
300
square
feet
and
the
maximum
shell
be
600
square
feet.
Did
the
prior
version
then
say,
except
that
the
planning
board
made
permit
a
smaller
or
larger
accessory
apartment,
where
appropriate
than
an
existing
accessory
building
wall?.
K
C
B
The
applicants
propose
to
do
a
partial
demolition
of
an
existing
garage
and
construct
a
488
square
foot
accessory
apartment
in
the
backyard
of
our
single
family
house,
section
223,
17e
of
the
city.
Zoning
code
permits
720
square
feet
of
maximum
cumulative
lot
coverage
and
the
applicant
is
proposing
750
square
feet
board
members
board
members
reviewed
the
applica
reviewed
the
proposal
and
af
after
careful
consideration
of
the
variants
needed
voted
unanimously
to
send
a
positive
recommendation
recommendation
to
the
zoning
board
of
appeals.
B
A
F
B
B
J
Theresa
craft,
I
spoke
in
support
of
this
project
at
the
planning
board
meeting.
Looking
at
the
architectural
plan
submitted
with
this
application.
I
believe
this
is
exactly
the
type
of
quality
designed
accessory
apartment.
One
would
hope
to
see
from
other
applicants
that
come
before
this
city.
This
project
is
only
seeking
138
square
foot
variants
and
best
of
all
the
main
dwelling
is
owner
occupied
plus
the
applicant
is
reducing
the
overall
footprint
of
these
existing
garage.
I
don't
think
this
build
will
change
the
character
of
that
neighborhood.
Thank
you.
Q
Well,
primarily,
I
have
a
question:
suzanne
moss
and
my
property
orders
their
property.
The
back
of
my
property
is
along
the
edge
of
maybe
three
quarters
of
their
property
in
the
back,
and
I
have
a
view
from
my
second
floor
bedroom
that
I
treasure
I
can
see
a
sliver
of
the
graveyard,
and
that
is
very
important
to
me
and
I
can't
tell
how
high
this
new
room
is
going
to
be
and
whether
or
not
it's
going
to
block
my
view
of
the
graveyard.
Q
I
think
it
doesn't
go
far
enough
west
in
order
to
block
my
view,
but
I
can't
tell
for
sure-
and
there
don't-
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
any
indication
on
the
plans
that
I
can
see
as
to
hi
how
high
it
will
be.
Is
it
going
to
be
higher
than
I
have
a
garage?
That's
blocking
some
of
the
view.
That's
already
there
and
I
have
a
feeling.
I
suspect
it's
not
going
to
be
a
problem,
but
does
anyone
know
how
high
the
building
is
going
to
be?
E
D
Q
Q
H
D
Q
D
D
D
Q
I
D
Q
D
G
A
A
structure
that
would
be
138
square
feet
left
smaller
at
this
height
and
he
could
put
it
in
this.
You
know
in
the
in
the
front
location
that
could
potentially
still
block
the
view
that
would
be
as
of
right,
but
this
exact
proposal
is
not
fair
to
say
it's
as
of
right,
because
he
is
here
for
the
variance,
but
it's
a
lot
coverage
variance
not
related
to
height,
but
now
you're.
Thinking
of
you
know,
positioning
of
the
of
the
accessory
apartment
on
the
on
the
on
the
lot.
You
know,
but
you're.
G
Q
H
I
H
B
A
In
response
to
that.
The
comment
that
was
raised
you'd
want
to
keep
the
public
hearing
open.
While
that
you
know,
information
is
submitted
to
the
board,
but
if
you're
satisfied
with,
what's
before
you
and
feel
comfortable
rendering
a
decision
at
that
point,
I'd
close
the
public
hearing,
but
maybe
have
the
discussion
first.
So
you
know,
if
you're
satisfied
with
the
information
in
front
of
you.
B
B
Here's
one
observation:
I've
got
which
I
was
somewhat
getting
at
before,
but
we've
got
several
different
overlaid
requirements
here.
We've
the
the
accessory
apartment
provision
in
the
city
code
says
300
to
600
square
feet.
We're
within
that.
The
schedule
of
regulations
that
applies
to
accessory
buildings
says
it
has
a
list
of
requirements,
yard
requirements,
mac,
eyed,.
B
Maximum
square
footage
of
the
accessory
building
requirements
based
on
the
size
of
the
primary
structure
and
then
as
well,
there's
simply
a
stated
limit
on
how
much
square
feet
all
of
the
accessory
buildings
on
a
lot
can
be.
The
apparent
purpose
of
that
is
to
effectively
make
sure
that
accessory
structures
don't
take
over
the
lot
in
relation
to
primary
structures.
D
B
The
section
of
the
city
code
that
governs
accessory
buildings
says
with
regard
to
detached
garages
and
other
accessory
buildings.
They
need
to
comply
with
this.
You
know
the
schedule
of
regulations,
the
document
that
has
grids
and
side
yard
requirements
etc,
and
it
also
must
meet
the
following
additional
requirements
list.
Five.
B
One
of
those
five
is
in
no
case
show
the
total
square
footage
of
all
accessory
buildings
exceed
the
limits
established
in
the
schedule
of
regulations,
which
seems
to
be
an
indication
that,
in
putting
these
provisions
in
place,
the
city
was
particularly
concerned
about
making
sure
that
that
maximum
square
footage
restriction
was
being
followed.
Now,
at
the
same
time,.
B
I
know
that
there's
been
a
lot
of
a
significant
amount
of
discussion
in
city
council
recently
in
substance,
going
to
the
interest
in
trying
to
make
accessory
dwelling
units
more
available,
which
would
potentially
be
something
that
would
be
suggesting
that.
Well,
maybe
we
should
be
looking
at
this
differently.
B
D
D
Head
yeah
and
when
I'm,
what
I
was
trying
to
say
is
what
I'm
looking
at
here
is
that
there's
a
720
square
foot
allowance
and
the
petitioner
is
requesting
a
variance
so
that
they
could
have
858
square
feet.
So
to
me,
I'm
looking
at
a
difference
of
of
just
the
square
feet,
I'm
not
looking
at
height,
but
it's
within
the
height
variances,
and
that's
what
I
was
speaking
to
that
it's
within
the
height
allowances.
What
I'm
looking
at
is
that
we're
just
looking
for
another
hundred
and
thirty
eight.
C
B
B
Thing
that
should
also
be
noted
is
this.
So
this
is
our
one:
five
zoning
district
minimum
five
thousand
square
foot
lot
size
and
we've
got
a
6
500
square
foot
lot
now,
at
the
same
time,
even
in
r1
7.5,
which
is
the
7500
minimum
watt
size
zoning
area,
it's
still
a
720
square
foot
maximum
for
accessory
buildings.
D
G
B
I
B
Thanks,
okay,
so
what
I'll
do
is?
I
will
walk
the
discussion
through
our
statutory
factors
here.
Overall,
we
are
considering
the
benefit
to
the
applicant
of
the
variance
is
granted
weight
against
the
detriment
to
the
health,
safety
and
welfare
of
the
neighborhood
or
community
by
such
grant,
and
in
doing
so
we
are
considering
five.
F
B
D
B
F
C
They
could
achieve
their
assuming
if
their
benefit
that
they're
hoping
to
achieve.
I
you
know
if
you
frame
that
as
the
ability
to
construct
this
apartment,
then
they
could
achieve
it
without
the
variance
by
removing
the
second
garage
bay.
So
I
think,
if
you
frame
it
that
way,
then
the
answer
is
yes,
they
could
achieve
it
through
another
feasible
method.
H
G
B
C
B
D
D
C
B
Well
I'll
be
the
dissenting
voice
currency,
I
I
do
think
it's
substantial,
because
I
I
find
it
hard
to
read
that
720
square
foot
restriction
it's
something
other
than
a
hard
and
fast
statement
that
they're
looking
to
control
the
total
amount
of
accessory
building
footprint.
That
is
on
a
lot
as
to
whether
the
alleged
difficulty
is
self-created.
D
B
Well:
okay,
every
application
that
comes
before
us
is
self-created
and
the
extent
to
the
extent
to
which
we're
not
someone
not
proposing
to
change
the
status
quo.
They
wouldn't
be
here
and
it's
to
that
extent,
self-created
beyond
that
baseline
consideration.
Is
there
some
reason
here?
We
think
this
is
self-created.
D
I
think
that
is
our
big
thing.
Is
someone
coming
into
the
city
buying
a
property
that
is
smaller?
That
is
different
than
what
they
actually
want
and
knowing
that
it
doesn't
fit,
what
they
want
and
buying
it
anyway,
and
then
thinking
that
they
should
by
rights,
get
a
variance
which
that
then
they
can't
that's.
What
I
think
of
is
more
or
less
self-created
in
a
more
negative
way.
But
I
I
agree
with
jordan
that
they're
pretty
much
all
self-created
well.
B
C
C
F
D
C
F
B
D
B
I
I
I
don't
think
so.
Either
I
mean
when
we're
talking
about
physical
or
environmental
conditions
in
the
neighborhood
overall
it
it
seems
like
it's
within
the
scope
of
our
consideration
to
go.
Okay,
look
this
used
to
be
a
two
family
house:
we've
got
a
lawn
place,
the
loud
that
allows
for
accessory
apartments.
B
This
720
square
foot
restriction.
The
apparent
purpose
of
this
is
to
avoid
having
accessory
buildings
effectively
take
over
a
lot
on
the
specific
facts
presented
here.
I
don't
really
see
the
granting
this
variance
getting
significantly
in
front
of
that
purpose,
but
I
wouldn't
want
to
set
a
precedent
of
that.
Maybe
that's
a
good
way
of
putting
it.
H
F
B
B
Sorry
comments
could
convince
construction
to
detain
a
co
within
24
months
after
the
date
of
permit
issuance.
Second,
that,
before
the
permits
or
certificates
of
occupancy
are
issued,
all
fees
that
are
required
to
the
city
will
be
paid
just
wanted
to
ask.
Is
there
any
issue
at
this
point
with
complying
with
those
constructions
or
those
conditions,
particularly
the
timeline?
B
B
C
D
B
G
P
P
P
P
M
M
Yeah,
that's
why
it's
so
close
to
the
my
neighbor's
property
line,
yeah
and
the
deck
that's
going
to
be
removed
and
where
the
patio,
where
patios
that
deck
is
actually
a
larger
footprint
than
the
back
of
the
house
like
it,
extends
even
closer
to
the
property
line.
So
I'm
essentially
taking
away
a
structure.
That's
even
closer
again,
I
didn't
build
that
tank.
That
deck
was
there
prior
to
my
purchasing
in
the
house.
M
D
M
B
Then
I
was
the
next
thing
I
was
going
to
ask
is
whether
anybody
had
come,
who
wanted
to
speak
on
this?
I'm
doug
donaldson,
the
next
door,
neighbor
at
101
union
street
of
thomas
butler
97
union
street
as
a
next
door,
neighbor
and
home
closest
to
the
requested
variants.
I
support
the
proposed
change,
which
would
include
a
second
story,
rear
edition
and
new
deck
and
patio.
B
This
change
aligns
with
the
look
and
character
of
the
neighborhood,
doesn't
affect
our
property
and
would
enhance
the
value
of
their
property.
I
request
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
approve
the
variance
for
97
union
street
at
its
may
17
meeting
for
any
further
comments
or
questions
with
contact
information.
B
R
R
R
R
Although
that's
not
a
material
consideration
for
this
body,
it's
sort
of
the
same
thing.
It
would
cut
away.
One
quarter
of
my
view
of
the
reason
I
moved
and
bought,
or
and
buying
the
house
that
I'm
buying
for
as
much
as
I'm
buying
for
the
gentleman
I
spoke
with
today
is
very
kind,
very
nice
and
very
well-meaning.
R
R
R
R
G
R
G
R
R
P
B
R
B
This
is
what
I
wanted
to
ask
you
just
we're
on
the
same
page,
that
what
being
asked
for
here
is
a
1.7
foot.
Variance
on
the
side
yard
requirement
right
if
they,
if
we
denied
that-
and
they
built
a
structure
that
effectively
stepped
in
not
effectively
that
stepped
in
1.7
feet
from
the
current
side,
but
was
otherwise
the
same
structure
by.
R
And
I'm
not,
I
I'm
not
amused
all
right.
I've
heard
for
years
I
used
to
be
a
landlord
tenant
attorney
in
the
city
where
we
actually
have
real
problems.
This
is
in
addition
on
the
second
floor.
It
may
or
may
not
turn
out
to
be
an
office.
It
could
easily
be
facilitated
on
the
grounds
of
the
property
without
rooting
sight
lines,
encroaching
on
other
people's
property.
R
D
R
H
R
G
D
R
H
R
H
B
G
C
F
I
D
R
D
B
D
L
G
L
To
you
today
as
a
neighbor
that
happens
to
live
with
a
home
facing
the
back
of
the
applicant's
home
as
well.
I
come
here
to
speak
as
a
as
a
beacon
resident
since
2012
and
in
support
of
what
I
understand
is
a
1.7
foot.
Variance
from
my
angle
of
my
home.
I
can
see
the
back
of
applicants
home
and,
if
I
understand
a
structure,
can
be
built
1.7
feet
in
and
not
flush
from
the
existing
part
of
the
house.
I
would
love
to
see
something.
L
A
J
J
I
believe
this
application
is
requesting
a
small
square
foot,
variance
of
only
1.75
feet
versus
the
overly
large
relief
we
generally
hear
requested
by
other
applications,
and
this
is
building
within
the
original
footprint
of
a
larger
deck.
I
don't
see
how
this
addition,
with
the
same
height
of
the
original
structure,
changes
the
overall
visuals.
Will
this
really
change
the
nature
of
the
neighborhood?
Without
granting
this
variance,
they
still
have
the
right
to
build
a
second
floor,
but
1.75
feet
shallower,
I
say:
go
for
it.
D
B
M
M
The
back
property
I'd
have,
if
I
were
trying
to
get
a
variance,
I'd
be
like
I'd
end
up
with
about
10
feet.
I
think
the
I
think
the
back
measurement
is
about
30
feet
wide
at
the
very
back,
because
at
some
point
the
house
next
door
bought
like
a
third
of
my
backyard.
So
it's
like
that
really
narrow
space.
M
Also,
the
second
floor
is
serving
my.
My
backyard
faces
south
there's
very
little
shade.
I
know
there
are
other
ways
to
create
shade,
but
one
of
the
benefits
of
having
creating
a
covered
patio
area-
I
assure
you
it
is
only
for
the
purpose
of
an
office,
both
my
wife
and
I
do
fair
amount
of
work
at
home
and
we
discovered
during
combat
that
it
would
be
nice
to
have
a
little
bit
more
space,
and
that
is
the
reason
I'm
here.
Thank
you.
R
R
R
I
B
H
B
D
F
B
H
D
O
Up,
we
just
looked
to
see
if
it
conforms
with
the
code
or
not
so
that
that's
why
this
applicant's
before
the
board.
I
understand
the
question
from
the
board
to
the
applicant
but
again
to
monto's
question.
If
they
want
to
shave
it
down,
they're
going
to
get
a
permit
and
they're
going
to
be
allowed
to
build
it.
D
B
D
D
B
C
H
I
mean
I
heard
the
gentleman
speak
about
concerns
about
water
fall
off,
but
at
this
point
I
have
no
factual
to
back
that
up.
So
I'd
have
to
say
right
now
I
don't
see
how
this
would
cause
any
adverse
effect
or
impact,
at
least
the
environmental,
because
I
think
that's
what
the
gentleman
was
speaking
to
before.
So
without
those
facts
I
can't
say
it
does
again.
I
think
the
point
is
if
this
were
on
the
first
floor.
F
H
F
I
B
B
H
I
B
B
Application
for
a
building
permit
within
six
months,
commencement
of
construction
within
six
months
after
that,
completion
within
24
months
after
obtaining
the
building
permit,
as
well
as
payment
of
all
fees
and
costs
before
certificates
of
occupancy
and
permits
are
issued.
Does
any
of
that
appear
to
be
an
issue
right
now?
Okay,
and
if
there
is
an
issue
in
particular
with
the
time
requirements,
sometimes
pandemics
happen
whatever
on
a
showing
of
good
cause,
we
can
give
you
more
time.
B
B
E
C
E
E
A
lot
of
different
hats
tonight,
I'm
not
joined
by
mike
bodendorf
or
ra
siegel
or
rich
d'andrea.
So
I
don't
have
hats
with
me,
but
just
imagine
not
the
bald
spot,
the
rest
of
it.
So
tonight
we
are
here,
as
the
chairman
mentioned,
for
continued
review
of-
is
a
secret
review,
not
a
public
hearing
associated
with
the
project,
and
I
even
had
a
better
joke
by
the
way
I
have
to
go
back
to
it.
E
While
I
have
not
appeared
at
the
supreme
court,
I
did
file
with
our
supreme
court
today
an
answer,
but
that's
our
lowest
court,
not
the
state
country's
highest
court.
In
that
event,
it's
our
lowest
court,
so
part
of
our
discussion
we
had
last
appeared
before
you
on
april
19th.
We
had
a
very
productive
conversation
on
the
board
there
about
a
lot
of
questions
that
the
board
had
and
the
board
had
submitted
some
supplemental
materials.
I
know
the
chairman
had
brought
up
a
copy
of
the
resolution
or
a
draft.
E
At
that
time.
We
have
since
seen,
I
think,
a
refinement
of
that
draft
which
had
some
additional
questions.
I
have
just
provided
the
zoning
board
secretary,
a
copy
of
a
letter
that
we
we
prepared.
Typically,
we
don't
provide
materials
not
with
within
the
submission
time
frame,
but
given
the
nature
of
this
review,
we
thought
that
it
would
be
appropriate
to
get
you
something
in
writing,
so
you
had
it.
E
I
know
you
have
your
resolution
really
as
sort
of
a
guide
for
the
discussion,
but
we
tried
to
address
each
of
those
questions
that
the
board
had
in
each
of
our
two
letters.
So
we
did
submit
a
letter
to
your
board
for
the
submission,
which
was
the
first
couple
questions
that
had
come
out.
We
had
since
seen
some
more
yes,
yes,
so
by
no
means
do
we
expect
you
to
to
read
all
this
tonight.
It's
really.
I
have
all
these
details.
E
I
know
it's
been
a
long
night
tonight,
so
I
don't
want
to
get
too
far
into
those
questions
and
we'll
certainly
be
more
reactive
to
the
board's
comments
than
otherwise,
but
before
we
do
dive
into
those,
I
did
just
want
to
touch
on
a
quick
note.
We
did
also
receive
some
communications
from
the
new
york
state
d.o.t.
I
think
we
had
just
gotten
them
when
we
had
met
with
you
all
last
night,
where
we
were
still
waiting.
E
I
think
at
that
time
for
d.o.t
to
get
back
to
us,
so
we
did
adjust
the
circulation
and
we've
since
responded
back
to
d.o.t
right
now,
the
circulation
will
doesn't
look
like
it.
I
told
them
max,
don't
work
on
the
the
clicker
but
the
site
plan
as
it
stands
to
the
existing
entrance
into
the
property
we're
now
proposing
to
gate
off
during
other
than
during
events,
the
secondary
means
of
ingress
egress
into
the
site.
So
that
was
just
a
way
to
help
manage.
E
There
would
be
a
monitoring
period
where,
once
the
the
project
itself
is
underway,
the
hotel's
in
operation
events
are
being
utilized.
The
monitoring
study
would
monitor
whether
there
are
any
impacts.
Are
there
any
backups
or
if,
oh
god,
anything
would
take
place
that
wouldn't
function,
the
applicant
would
have
to
go
back
to
proverbial
drawing
board
with
the
planning
board
in
order
to
address
any
issues
that
came
up
these
are
you
find
these?
E
F
F
F
S
D
S
E
And,
depending
on
what
work
comes
out
with
the
planning
board
on
the
back
end,
there
may
not
be
a
gate
or
anything
at
all.
They
may
require
that
it
go
in
one
direction.
Ideally
right
now,
we'd
be
able
to
come
out
of
the
of
the
existing
main
calling
it
the
main
entrance.
All
these
are
existing
entrances
to
the
site
right.
These
are
not
we're
not
proposing
a
new
access
onto
9d,
but
the
state
dot
controls
for
the
most
part.
E
E
F
If
you
have
people
heading
north
on
nine
day
during,
say
pickup
they're
going
to
be
crossing
a
large
event,
they're
going
to
be
crossing
in
front
of
the
exit,
so
you're
going
to
have
people
trying
to
get
out
and
go
either
north
or
south
across
a
line
of
cars.
That's
trying
to
get
into
the
event
space.
E
Space
right,
so
we
design,
so
we
did
submit
a
couple
times
in
our
materials.
So
the
last
couple
submissions
we've
provided
have
included
the
traffic
and
and
parking
studies.
We've
also
done
a
sensitivity,
analysis
and
other
details
that
have
helped
assess
that
there
wouldn't
be
backups
onto
90.,
so
the
site
is
designed
and
well.
E
Right
right
so
you're,
you
know,
you're
the
scenarios
you
somewhat
presented
and
I'm
not
to
words
in
your
mouth
lane-
is
that
everyone
that's
coming
to
this
facility
is
driving
or
being
dropped
off.
No,
no,
I'm
just
I'm
just
playing
out
the
scenarios
right,
I'm
playing
out
the
scenarios
we're
taking
we're
able
to
take
credits
based
on
our
study,
it's
all
in
the
study,
but
so
this
is
not
taylor,
math
or
or
taylor
on
traffic.
It's
just
in
our
study,
so
there's
people
that
get
dropped
off.
E
E
Or
right
or
there
may
be
uber
drop
off,
so
there
may
be
people
coming
from
the
train
right.
So
all
of
these
are
factored
into
the
the
traffic
analysis,
the
point
being
that
there
aren't
hundred
cars
coming
to
the
drop-off.
That's
all
part
of
the
traffic
studies.
So
it's
all
in
the
study
to
show
that
there
wouldn't
be
a
backup
under
9d
and
the
idea.
E
F
Yes,
please,
I
read
your
assessment
form
and
under
item
j
sub.
I,
where
you
state
peaked
when
peak
traffic
is
expected,
you
state
morning
evening
and
week
weekends
and
randomly
between
the
hours
of
7
a.m
and
11
p.m,
and
your
hours
of
operation
are
8
a.m,
to
11
p.m.
Seven
days
a
week,
am
I
correct
in
assuming
this
means
large
events
could
occur
at
any
time.
E
F
F
E
Right
so
we're
so
maybe
I'm
hearing
the
questions
differently,
so
we
just
so
for
the
benefit
of
the
board
that
you
now
have
our
letter.
So
that
specific
comment
is
comment
16
to
our
letter,
which
is
on
page
10
of
our
may
17th
letter,
and
our
response
noted
that
the
original
proposal
had
about
420
large
events
was
going
to
be.
Mack
was
going
to
be
capped
at
420.
E
F
E
Right
in
our
traffic
study
and
analyzed,
for
example,
that
the
original
traffic
study
that
had
been
did
the
evaluation
of
the
off
street
or
the
the
public
parking
lots
was
then
re
reevaluated
to
consider
those
counts.
So
they
they
looked
at
different.
They
they
were
asked
to
go
back
by
your
your
cities
consultant
to
go
evaluate
those
additional
times
and
they
and
they
did,
and
they
came
to
the
same
conclusion-
that
there
would
not
be
a
impact
to
the
existing
off-street
parking
facilities
for
the
proposal.
E
But
again,
there's
a
lot
of
factors
that
go
into
that
all
related
to
the
fact
that
people
may
walk.
There
are
many
people
that
will
be
staying
at
the
facility
itself
will
be
utilizing
the
hotel
and
we
actually
did
the
sensitivity
analysis
we
were
taking.
Originally,
our
study
took
credit
for
100
people.
Staying
at
the
hotel
would
be
utilized
if
there
was
an
event
would
be
util
would
be.
At
that
event,
the
city
planning
board
requested
us
to
what
they
call
a
sensitivity.
Analysis
so
say,
don't
take
your
100.
E
E
The
planning
board
consultants
confirmed
that
there
was
still
available
parking
facilities
during
the
hours
proposed
for
the
applicant,
and
I
would
note
that
the
applicant
is
willing
to
limit
not
only
the
hours
of
operation
and
and
certainly
the
the
number
of
large-scale
events.
The
idea
here
is
we're
just
trying
to
we're
trying
to
confirm
which
we
have
through
our
studies,
that
we
wouldn't
have
a
significant
environmental
impact
associated
with
this
application.
H
Can
I
can,
I
ask
a
question
to
our
attorney,
so
regarding
the
correspondence
of
may
17
response,
1a
second
page,
where
it
says
the
applicant,
the
applicant
has
met
with
representatives
from
the
neighboring
developments
willing
to
continue
to
be
responsive
to
the
needs,
the
applicants
willing
to
etc,
etc,
etc.
How
do
we
hold
them
accountable
to
that?
How
do
we
measure
that?
How
do
we
hold
them
accountable?
What
are
the
ramifications
if
they
don't
deliver
to
what
they're
saying
here
in
the
responsiveness
once
they're
in
ongoing
operations,
yeah.
H
A
O
E
To
that
point,
that's
why
we
propose
the
post-monitoring
study,
we're
self-imposing
a
requirement.
That's
not
typical
of
an
approval
to
confirm
that
what
we're
saying
in
practice
happens
because
we
hear
a
lot
of
hypothetical
or
other
feeling
concerns
not
from
the
board
in
general,
but
just
in
general
that
it
may
have
an
impact.
Our
study
shows
that
it
won't,
but
we're
willing
to
put
that
into
practice,
get
the
thing
operating
and
show
through
traffic
reports
post
approval
that
it
functions
and
if
not
we're
coming
back
to
the
board
for
further
review.
E
So
just
want
to
point
that
out.
As
far
as
what
that
post-monitoring
study
is,
it's
not
you
know,
sort
of
a
toothless
component.
It's
a
self-imposed
restriction
that
we
have
to
show
that
our
mitigation
and
management
plans
work
and
that's
not
typical
of
an
approval
sort
of
as
the
billions
people
said.
He
has
to
live
with
it
this
one.
We
have
to
live
with
it
before
he
has
to
live
with
it.
Hi
taylor,
hey
jordan,.
G
C
C
C
It
sounds
you
know,
but
just
you
know
it
sounds
somewhat
condescending
in
2022,
but
at
the
end
of
the
day
there
are
going
to
be
people
in
you
know,
dress,
attire,
presumably
and
they're
going
to
want
to
be
the
closest
they
can
be
to
the
event
space.
It's
just
and
because
of
that,
how
do
you?
How
do
you?
How
do
you
actually
mitigate
people
from
parking
on
those
streets?
I
don't.
I
don't
see
how
people
are
going
to
park.
E
Sure
no,
I
totally
appreciate
that
comment
and
we
and
we've
just
made,
if
I
may
just
just
briefly
to
address
that.
We've
noted
and
our
traffic
management
plan
tries
to
analyze
that
because
it's
true
people
are
going
to
do
what's
you
know
the
easiest
thing
and
we
hear
it
all
the
time
when
we're
talking
about
applications
on
main
street
people
complain
about
the
parking
situation.
You
go
back
to
the
randy
days
and
say
you
could
roll
a
bowling
ball
down
main
street.
E
We've
all
heard
that
before
and
now
you
know
to
say
we
have
a
parking
problem.
I
parked
right
in
front
of
the
farmers
market
on
saturday,
one
spot.
You
know
in
fr
sorry
sunday,
one
spot
away
from
it.
You
know
from
the
farmer's
market,
that's
two
weekends
or
two
weekends
in
a
row
where
I
was
able
to
do
it
within
one
with
on
main
street
on
a
sunday.
You
know,
I'm
just
speaking
to
you
know
real
life
circumstances
and
it's
true.
I
tried
to
park.
Close
I've
got
a
two-year-old.
You
know
it
makes
sense.
E
You
want
to
be
there.
You
want
to
be
close.
That
was
that's.
That's
approximate
thing:
I
get
it,
but
what
we've
been
doing
with
this
application
and
this
management
plan
is
defining
all
the
ways
that
we
can
try
and
assess
that
attendees
of
the
of
the
event
will
receive
pamphlets
and
brochures
that
get
get
out.
The
word
about
where
these
locations
are
we're
going
to
have
attendance
on
site
directing
people
to
these
locations.
E
So
it's
not
and
we're
willing
to
put
up
signage,
whether
it's
at
you
know
west
end
lofts
or
if
it's
at
you
know
any
of
the
other
areas
where
there
might
be
that
concern.
We
can
certainly
do
that,
but
the
idea
here
is
to
make
it
as
functional
as
possible,
knowing
that,
no
matter
what
we
did,
even
if
we
had
40
people,
you
know
or
100
people,
there's
still
going
to
be
that
one
person,
that's
that's
going
to
do
it
and
as
a
local.
E
You
know
where
to
go,
and
you
know
where
to
park.
But
that
also
comes
with
time
too,
when
these,
when
these
projects
are
in
place,
maybe
not
might
be
those
first
six
months
are
tough,
but
once
the
event
is
functioning
and
occupy,
people
understand
and
learn,
I'm
not
going
to
park
over
there,
because
this
is
how
I
can
do
it
and
we
have
beekman.
We
have
access
through
the
site
to
beekman
that's
being
proposed
through
the
cemetery,
so
we
have
a
a
walkway
that
connects
down
to
beekman
and
linkage
zone.
E
D
E
So
valet
parking
is
noted
as
one
of
the
potentials
in
in
the
plan.
If
our
all
of
what
we
propose,
then
our
management
plan
isn't
operational.
The
thing
about
a
parking
and
traffic
management
plan
is
that
sort
of
like
a
comprehensive
plan.
It's
a
living
document,
the
idea
being
that
it's,
what
we're
proposing
is
how
we
can
mitigate,
manage
perceived
or
potential
impacts,
but
it
has
the
ability
to
grow
and
adjust,
as
the
site
is,
is
part
of
the
community
and
it
and
to
change
and
reflect
what
indeed
is
going
on
on
the
site.
E
S
We'll
certainly
do
that
as
well.
I
also
I
wanted
to
to
respond
to
mr
hogg's
question
about
parking
on
streets
such
as
academy,
so
in
reality
our
study
has
shown
us
that
the
public
parking
available
to
us
is
actually
more
convenient
and
closer
than
the
academy,
streetwood
and
wrong
bout
street
would
be
anyway.
S
S
So,
with
all
those
spaces
available,
there
is
little
need
to
park
on
streets
such
as
academy
or
wrong
bout
in
neighborhoods.
If
it
happens,
then
we
I
mean
what
we're
going
to
do
is
try
to
mitigate
that
with
with
giving
out
information
ahead
of
time
and
also
possibly
posting
signs.
If
we
can,
that
say
no
event
parking
on
a
street
such
as
academy,
but
we
don't
see
that
as
being
a
a
huge
problem
with
the
given
amount
of
public
parking
available
in
the
close
proximity.
E
Sure
and,
and
that's
an
excellent
point
and
one
that's
we've
discussed
with
your
board
and
and
at
length
with
the
planning
board
the
same
way.
We
can't
take
credit
for
the
future
growth
and
proposals
that
the
main
street
master
plan
and
the
parking
committees
are
working
towards.
We're
are
as
it
stands
today
and
that's
absolutely
correct
with
including
the
tompkins
lot.
We
have
sufficient
area
parking
to
ma
to
manage
the
large
events
so
where
we
provide
all
the
parking
needed
for
the
hotel
component
of
our.
E
You
know
our
property
on
site,
the
balance
of
it,
whether
it's
the
cafe
or
the
event,
the
large
events
that
are
needed
for
this
additional
off-street
parking
are
managed
or
available
during
all
the
times
that
we'd
be
utilizing
those
spaces.
So
even
with
that
reduction-
and
I
can't
speak
specifically
to
that
number-
it's
only
again-
it's
only
a
few
spaces
and
it
wasn't.
You
know
a
tight
number
as
far
as
our
traffic
consultant
was
concerned,
we're
also
working
on
private
agreements
to
help
further.
E
You
know
make
available
parking
to
us
that
otherwise
isn't
available
to
the
public
in
general,
which
is
one
with
the
funeral
home
and
in
proximity
to
the
site,
and
I
will
also
just
add
that
the
the
functionality
or
the
walkability
of
this
area-
I
mean
it's
exactly
what
your
comprehensive
plan
has
called
for.
I
mean
we're.
E
To
the
train
station
we're
approximate
to
main
street,
we
were
butting.
The
linkage
district
itself,
which
we
noted
in
in
the
the
the
document
itself,
was
to
encourage
the
urbanization,
the
residential
component,
the
mixed
use.
All
of
these
things
to
function
bring
folks
from
the
train,
bring
them
to
main
street.
So
it's
all
a
big
part
of
this
application
is
to
work.
F
E
P
H
I
know
it's
work
in
process
right,
but
you
talk
about
you're
working
on
dedicated
parking.
I
think
you
mentioned
the
funeral
home
potentially
is
an
example
correct.
Even
though
it's
working
process,
can
you
talk
a
little
bit
about?
What
is
the
term
you're
talking
with
them?
Is
it
a
one
year?
Is
it
a
three
year?
Is
it
a
50
year
and
then
how
would
you
enforce
that,
and
how
would
you
sustain
that,
for
the
term.
E
E
So
as
a
as
a
operating
site
there
they
don't
have
any
general
speed,
you
don't
have
conflicts,
they
don't
have
night
services
or
that
they
operate
during
the
day.
So
there's
a
good
symbiotic
relationship
there.
Typically
those
are
licensed
agreements
than
they
are
for
a
year,
but
again
just
to
be
very
clear.
We
don't
need
it's
based
on
our
study.
The
available
parking
in
off-street
parking
areas
that
are
public
spaces
is
more
than
sufficient
to
meet
the
demand
of
this.
The
largest
events
at
this
site.
E
That's
an
additional
layer
and
we're
not
done
with
just
with
that
one
tenant,
but
just
to
be
clear.
That's
that's
we're
just
trying
to
add
value
or
add
available
parking
spaces.
So
I
don't.
We
don't
have
a
specific
term,
but
license
agreements
are
ten
generally
speaking,
revocable,
but
I'm
not
sure
what
the
the
reason
for
revocability
would
be
there
unless
we're
partying
in
the
that
sounds,
like
I'm
gonna,
say
a
funeral
home
parking
lot
that
just
doesn't
that
doesn't
sound.
E
E
We
are,
I
mean
for
event
purposes.
The
idea
of
the
center
is
not
just
a
private
for-profit
operation.
The
intent
of
this
facility
is
to
be
able
to
provide
events
and
work
with
community,
and
those
are
all
things
that
we
want
to
be
able
to
utilize
here.
So
to
be
clear,
this
isn't
just
some
wedding
factory
or
anything.
This
is
a
performance
space.
This
is
all
the
things
that
can
be.
You
know
great
community,
driven
conferences
or
otherwise.
S
E
But
again,
just
this
area
as
you're
all
familiar
I
mean
it
is,
it
is
hilly
it's
it's
part
of
you
know
beacon's,
charm
and
part
of
our
workouts,
but
that
said
there
are
crosswalks.
There
are
sidewalks,
there's
existing
pedestrian
facilities.
That
will
not
be
tasked
from
a
significant
adverse
environmental
impact
perspective.
Walking
distance
is
most
certainly
not
a
significant
adverse
environmental
impact.
S
I
would
also
add
that
in
if
you're,
if
you're
talking
in
terms
of
the
distance
of
dia,
the
distance
to
the
mta
lot,
which
has
free
available
parking
on
weekends
with
over
350
spaces,
is
also
something
that
we
can
use
as
a
contingency
without
all
the
other
parking
available.
If
that
were
to
happen,
and
that
would
just
be
for
larger
events
on
weekends
of
course,
but
that
that
whole
lot
is
available.
S
The
other
thing
is:
if
we're
I
mean
we're
not
talking
about
future
lack
of
parking
or
what
the
fire,
what
the
thompson
slot
is
going
to
be.
But
there's
also,
the
city
has
brought
up
striping
25
new
parking
spaces
on
walcott
as
well,
which
we're
not
using
to
our
advantage
at
this
point,
but
so
there's
a
trade-off
with
what
people
could
do
in
the
future
or
what
people
can't
do
in
the
future.
E
E
So
to
those
points
we
we
understand,
there's
a
lot
at
stake
and
a
lot
of
things
can
change,
so
we're
not
taking
those
credits
and-
and
the
idea
here
is
we're.
The
plan
is
designed
to
update
or
reflect.
If
and
when
those
lots
change,
then
we
have
to
make
sure
that
there's
availability
and
there
are
abilities
to
condition
these
things
too
in
in
the
resolutions
at
the
planning
board
level,
in
particular
when
it
comes
down
to
it,.
A
G
A
Shape
or
you're
happy
to
send
it
back
to
the
planning
board,
you
are
not
making
a
decision
on
the
on
the
parking
at
this
time.
You're
you're
just
telling
the
planning
board.
What
are
your
concerns
with
respect
to
environmental
issues
related
to
the
parking
there?
Potentially
the
parking
variants?
The
planning
board
is
then
going
to
continue
their
seeker
process
and
they'll
either
render
a
negative
declaration
or
a
positive
declaration,
and
I
believe,
taylor.
You
said
there
is
a
subdivision
involved.
E
So
if
I
made
to
the
plain
zoning
board,
attorney's
comments:
we,
while
a
public
hearing,
is
not
required
for
seeker
analysis
of
this
project
because
we
do
not
have
a
subdivision.
It's
actually
one
of
the
first
that
I've
been
involved
that
doesn't
have
a
lot
line,
removal
or
subdivision.
So
we
don't
have
a
seeker
public
hearing
requirement.
We've
the
applicant
wants
to
encourage
the
public's
participation
at
the
planning
board
to
try
and
get
a
lot
of
the
issues
or
concerns
or
comments
from
the
neighboring
community
involved
in
this
review.
E
In
the
analysis,
so
we
actually
requested
the
boards.
The
plain
words
set
their
public
hearing
before
a
secret
determination.
So
we
will
have
a
public
hearing.
I
think,
where
drew's
going,
we
will
have
a
public
hearing
on
the
it
will
be
for
the
site
plan,
but
it
it's
just
using
the
special
permit
and
site
plan,
but
it
will
be
coterminous
with
the
secret
review,
so
the
public
will
actually
get
to
get
comments
and
input
at
the
next
month's
meeting
and
can
go
towards
the
seeker
review.
A
E
A
I
don't
want
to
rush
this
board
if
you're,
not
if
you
don't
think
you're,
even
close
to
being
ready
that
that's
fine,
but
this
is
going
forward
at
the
planning
board
level.
There
will
be
a
secret
public
hearing.
After
that,
secret
public
hearing
is
closed
and
a
seeker
determination
is
rendered
by
the
planning
board.
A
That
is
correct.
Taylor's
comment
is
correct,
so
I
think
this
board
needs
to
start
kind
of
formulating
its
ideas.
If
you
have
any
specific
comments
on
the
memo
that
was
circulated
or
anything
any
questions
or
concerns
you
want
to
put
in
the
memo,
I
did
change
high
heels
to
formal
attire.
I
think
that's
much
more
appropriate,
so
I
apologize
high
heels.
You
know
this
is
my
head
and
then
I
did
also
add
you
know
just
based
on
the
discussion
you
were
having.
The
board
would
like
to
encourage
the
applicant
to
pursue
valley
parking.
A
C
A
Yeah,
so
what
I
would
like
is
feedback
now
that
way.
If
any
questions
come
up,
then
if
the
applicant
can
address
that
would
be
good,
but
you
know,
I
think
we
keep
asking
the
same
questions
kind
of
phrased
a
little
differently
and
and
again
we
are
going
to
have
another
opportunity
to
look
at
this.
We're
not
making
any
decisions,
so
feedback
now
would
be
great.
My
plan
would
be
to
get
feedback
now
circulate
a
draft
to
this
board.
A
H
H
H
Even
though
the
applicant
is
working
on
securing
some
of
those
spaces,
I
I'm
going
to
use
a
term
that
dave
used
earlier.
I
think
there's
a
lot
of
weak
enforcement
in
this
and
given
the
amount
of
shared
or
public
spaces
that
they're
relying
on,
I
believe
it's
very
substantial,
thus
related
to
you
know
it's
impacted
the
environment,
environmental
impact.
E
If
I
made
you
might
I
just
comment
just
on
on
one
particular
point
of
clarification?
There's
just
I
would.
I
guess
I
certainly
defer
to
your
council,
but
the
enforcement,
which
is
a
mandatory.
It's
something
that
the
code
enforcement
officer
is
charged
with
and
and
respect
to
mr
buckley
not
trying
to
put
more
on
his
plate,
but
that's
not,
generally
speaking,
a
grounds
for
for
for
having
an
impact.
It's
it's
an
enforcement
duty.
The
zoning
would
only
is
only
as
strong
as
it's
as
its
enforcement.
E
And
I
would
note
we
did
note
that
in
our
our
first
response
letter
earlier
this
month
as
far
as
the
subject
substantiality,
not
in
your
five
factor
version
of
the
substantiality,
but
we
would
we
would
also
know
what
we
did
note
in.
That
correspondence
is
whether
it
was
you
know,
really
the
350
person
max
events
or
300
person
max
events,
the
amount
of
parking
that
that
that's
associated
with
those
two
numbers
is
not
a
meaningful
impact.
E
So
we
sort
of
did
an
alternative
analysis
which
we
discussed
at
the
last
meeting
to
show
you
know
the
substantiality.
So
it's
not
just
a
percent
of
the
deviation
from
what's
permitted
what's
required
and
the
variance
necessary
because
we
even
talked
percentages
at
the
last
meeting.
So
it's
that's,
that's
not
the
standard,
but
we
certainly
understand
that
and-
and
hopefully
our
comments
have
tried
to
address
how
we
mitigate.
E
Right
and
you'll
recall
we
had
that
conversation
at
the
last
meeting
where
the
church
you
know
the
church
is
not
maximizing
the
space
and
it
can't
mean
it
can't
keep
it
open
because
it
doesn't
have
it's
not
utilizing
the
states
to
it's
the
space
to
its
capacity,
so
we're
we're
certainly
trying
to
use
it
to.
You
know,
find
a
more
fulfilling
passion.
E
Of
course,
the
most
important
part
of
this
application,
too,
is
the
applicant
is
taking
on
a
significant
you
know,
project
to
to
you,
know
better
and
improve
and
maintain
this
historic
building
that
and
a
cemetery-
that's
been.
You
know
foul
for
for
a
hundred
years
and
not
looked
after
so
there's
other
aspects
to
this.
So
the
ask
that
we're
asking
is
certainly
unique
to
this
property
unique
to
this
area
of
the
city.
So
when
considering
all
of
these
impacts,
you
know
think
of
it
too.
You
know.
E
H
And-
and
let
me
acknowledge
for
the
record-
I
do
appreciate
what
you
said
before-
that
the
applicant
wants
the
public
to
speak
in
the
planning
board,
because
I
think
that's
important.
We
haven't
heard
from
the
public
yet
right,
so
we
have
when
this
does
come
to
us,
we'll
hear
from
the
public
right
now
we're
we're
just
giving
you
at
least
I'm
giving
you.
I
shouldn't
say
we,
because
I'm
not
speaking
on
behalf
of
the
board,
I'm
giving
you
my
perspective
in
the
three
months
and
hearing
I'm
trying
to
back
up
why.
H
E
We
appreciate
all
the
comments,
and
certainly
we've
we've
been
doing
everything
we
can
to
work
it
in
we've.
We
made
the
request
to
come
to
your
board
to
get
this
feedback
because
we
thought
it
would
be
helpful
to
to
put
all
this
in.
You
know
into
the
proposal,
and
I
think
a
lot
has
gone
into
it
since
we
first
started
meeting
with
you
to
make
this
a
you
know
to
hopefully
get
this
to
be
a
viable
development
taylor.
Mr
happ.
C
C
Drew
I
I
like
the
draft.
I
think
you
probably
have
taken
notes
tonight.
I'm
sure
you
just
took
additional
notes
with
montoz's
comments.
You
know,
I
think
I
think
my
comment
earlier.
Regarding
you
know
the
path
of
least
resistance
is
an
important
point
to
add.
I
also
just
just
one
comment.
I
was
you
know
glancing
over
their
submission
like
again
response
one
a
I
don't
know.
C
C
G
B
B
All
right,
so
look,
let
me
in
the
interest
of
advancing
this
along.
Let
me
just
throw
this
out
there,
so
in
terms
of
the
draft
memorandum,
if
you're
looking
at
the
third
page
of
this
at
the
top
right,
the
beginning
of
the
section
that
says
comments
after
reviewing
the
information
submitted
and
the
criteria
and
other
considerations
set
forth
in
section
617
of
the
new
york
regulations.
B
After
that,
what
I
would
say
is
well,
I
would
propose
saying
I'm
asking
whether
people
agree
with
this.
For
one
thing,
the
board's
view
is
that
the
proposed
parking
variants
may
include
the
potential
for
at
least
one
significant
adverse
environmental
impact
to
it:
increased
local
traffic
and
parking
on
nearby
residential
streets
period.
The
mitigation
efforts
outlined
by
the
applicant
could
alleviate
some
of
these
impacts,
but.
B
This
potential
for
this
potential
alleviation
is
not
sufficient
to
overcome
the
possibility
that
there
will
be
adverse
environmental
impacts.
I
throw
out
there
that
I
kind
of
think
that's
the
conclusion
we
have
to
reach
and
then
from
there
it's
a
matter
of
what
else
do
we
need
to
say
to
the
planning
board?
So
they
can
address
this
and
beyond
that.
E
B
C
C
C
F
E
E
I
would
I'll
add
one
more
point
that
you
do
have
a
traffic
consultant
at
the
planning
board.
That
is
reviewing
these,
for
example,
the
turning
in
and
out
site
circulation
and
dot.
So
all
of
those
will
be
managed,
but
certainly,
if
that's
a
comment
back
from
the
board,
but
the
problem
would
appreciate
it.
D
H
D
H
D
So
to
me
I
feel
that's
very
ver.
I
have
to
agree
with
montos.
I
feel
that's
extremely
substantial
and
I
think
that
the
project
needs
to
find
a
way
to
purchase
some
more
parking
spaces
and
mitigate
that,
because
I
can't
see
really
coming
back
to
us
and
having
this
particular
numbers.
Looking
at
us
and
being
able
to.
I
don't
see.
E
E
G
D
G
E
G
D
G
D
B
All
right
so
should
we
should
we
assuming
we're
in
agreement
on
the
language
I
mentioned
before?
Should
we
be
saying
at
least
one
significant
adverse
environmental
impact
to
which
increased
local
traffic
and
parking
on
nearby
residential
streets,
as
well
as
impacts
due
to
noise
from
individuals
traveling
to
and
from
off-street
or
off-site
parking
locations?.
D
D
A
C
B
B
E
Right
and
we'd
ask
the
board
just
to
consider
in
making
that
recommendation
back
but
you're
supportive
of
the
use,
meaning
the
re
adaptive
reuse,
the
historic
preservation
aspects
of
it.
The
use
is,
you
know,
because
that's
that's
two
part
of
this.
This
analysis,
part
of
the
seeker
analysis,
is,
is
consideration
of,
what's
being
posed
on
the
site,
we're
hearing
very
clearly
the
size
is
the
the
max
event
is
too
much,
but
that
the
use
itself
is
a
is
a
great
or
not
I'm
saying
it,
but
I'm
the
applicant,
but
a
great
reuse.
E
D
S
H
E
E
H
G
E
E
B
B
Right
look:
I
had
two
wordsmithing
things
in
this.
The
second
paragraph
below
we
were
just
talking
about.
It
is
also
unclear
to
the
dba
how
much
traffic
this
project
will
generate.
First
of
all,
I
think
we
should
be
saying
how
much
traffic
the
parking
variants
will
generate,
because
that's
kind
of
the
question
in
front
of
us
how
many
people
from
the
hotel
actually
go
to
events
at
the
church.
There
is
too
much
uncertainty
and
speculation
surrounding
the
project
has
proposed.
I
don't
think
there's
too
much
uncertainty.
B
I
certainly
think
there
there
remains
uncertainty
about
surrounding
the
project
as
proposed
or
uncertainty
and
unknowns.
Yeah
tighten
it.
I
just
think
that's
kind
of
too
strong
of
a
statement
frankly
and
then
in
the
next
paragraph,
if
you're
looking
at
the
third
line
down,
it
says
people
will
not
walk.
B
B
C
C
D
H
A
Q
A
I
think
it's
obvious
great.
I
think
everyone
has
done
an
excellent
job.
This
is
not
something
we
deal
with
very
often,
and
the
board
has
put
a
lot
of
time
in
the
applicant
has
put
a
lot
of
time
into
responding
to
the
questions.
So
this
has
been
a
very
good
discussion
and
so
we'll
see
what
the
planning
board
does
for
next
steps.
I'm
going
to
take
this
I've,
my
notes
are
kind
of
scattered
dave.
I
did
not
get
the
full
sentence
that
you
read
before.
A
Why
don't
why
don't
I
just
clean
it
up,
send
it
out
and
then
you
can
just
add
it.
Everyone
can
can
send
it
back
to
me
with
either
your
comments
in
an
email
or
send
it
back
with.
I
would
I
would
ask
track
changes
that
way.
I
can
kind
of
see
what
the
changes
are
and
then
I'll
you
know
every
time
I
do
an
update.
D
A
D
A
A
A
A
E
G
E
Have
to
submit
to
the
planning
board
supplementally
within
the
next.
I
think,
probably
two
weeks,
two
weeks
from
today,
so
if
possible,
even
like
two
days
before
that
deadline
that
we
could
have
so
we'd
be
able
to
refer
this
information
in
our
supplemental
submission
to
that
planning
board.
Because
if,
if
your
comments
come
in
in
a
month,
we'll
have
to
hand
deliver,
unfortunately,
to
amanda
this
type
of
athletic.
B
A
B
Dave
buckley
and
then
before
we
conclude
just
one
fyi,
I
got
a
request.
We
were
going
to
mention
this.
We
got
a
request
from
the
planning
board
on
lead
agency
designation
on
what
was
the
project?
Do
you
remember
I
I
can
hold
on?
I
can
pull
it
off.
I
forgot
they're
proposing
to
be
lead
agency
on
146
for
planck
and
after
talking
briefly
with
drew,
I
signed
off
that
we
had
no
position
on
the
main
league
agency
not
opposed
to
not
in
favor
whatever
cool.