►
From YouTube: Beacon Zoning Board 3-15-22
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.
1. Continue review and hold public hearing on application submitted by Rajan Kumar, 1 Iris
Circle, Tax Grid No. 30-5954-43-822637-00, R1-7.5 Zoning District, for relief from Section
223-17(D) to construct a two-story addition with an 8.6 ft. side yard setback (20 ft. required)
2. Review and hold public hearing on application submitted by Jonathan Miller, 64 Beacon
Street, Tax Grid No.30-5954-35-815855-00, R1-5 Zoning District, for relief from Section 223-
10(B)(1) to extend a non-conforming use by creating a 552 sq. ft. home occupation/artist
studio in an existing attached garage
3. Review and hold public on application submitted by Michael Isabell, 866 Wolcott Avenue, Tax
Grid No. 30-6054-45-071581-00, R1-10 Zoning District, to construct an accessory structure (2
car garage) which requires relief from the following:Â Section 223-17(E) for a 6.7 ft. rear yard
setback (15 ft. required); Section 223-17(E) for a 968 sq. ft. accessory structure (383 sq. ft.
maximum permitted); and Section 223-17(E) to allow 1,017 sq. ft. of cumulative lot coverage
(960 sq. ft. maximum lot coverage permitted)
4. Miscellaneous Business - 1113 Wolcott Avenue - SEQRA Review
B
No
worries
you
missed
it.
The
powerpoint
copy
of
the
powerpoint
is
in
front
of
you,
so
today's
training
session
is
just
a
quick
case
law
update.
I
have
about
seven
new
cases.
I
thought
were
interesting
enough
to
present
them
to
you.
I
don't
know
if
it'll
take
the
full
30
minutes,
but
we'll
see
how
it
goes.
B
B
B
This
this
case
is
about
the
statute
of
limitations
and
whether
the
petition
was
filed
on
time.
So
I
lay
out
a
couple
key
facts.
First,
the
board:
the
zoning
board
of
the
town
of
greenberg
granted
the
application
of
formation,
shelbourne
senior
living
services
for
certain
area,
variances
related
to
the
proposed
construction
of
an
assisted
living
facility.
So
here's
the
timeline
on
april
20th
2017,
the
zba
as
lead
agency,
voted
to
adopt
a
conditional
negative
declaration
pursuant
to
seeker.
B
On
june
27th,
the
results
of
the
june
22nd
meeting
were
filed
with
the
town
clerk
on
july
13th.
The
zba
filed
a
certification
of
decision
which
set
forth
the
zba's
findings.
Then,
on
august
11
2017
the
petitioners:
the
greenville
fire
district
commenced
the
cplr
article
78,
proceeding
to
annul
the
zba's
adoption
of
the
conditioned
negative
declaration
and
its
determination
granting
the
area
variances.
D
C
B
B
Yeah
yeah,
okay
elaine.
It
was
timely,
okay,
so
we're
a
little
split
here.
So
the
answer
is
no.
The
petition
was
not
filed
on
time.
The
supreme
court
determined
that
the
petitioner's
challenge
to
the
zba's
adoption
of
the
conditioned
negative
declaration
became
ripe
for
review
and
the
limitations
period
began
to
run
at
the
time
the
zba
granted
the
requested
area
variances.
B
Any
such
challenge
had
to
be
instituted
within
30
days
after
the
zba's
determination
was
filed
with
the
office
of
the
town
clerk.
So
here
that
period
began
to
run
on
june
27th
upon
the
filing
of
the
zba's
meeting
results
which
memorialized
the
zba's
determination
and
recorded
the
vote
of
each
of
its
members.
Since
this
proceeding
was
commenced
more
than
30
days
later
on
august
11th,
dismissal
of
the
proceeding
was
proper,
so
we
lost
that
case
because
we
were
trying
to
argue
that
it
started
with
the
certif
certification
of
the
decision
and
the
court
said
no.
C
B
B
All
right
this
case
is
about
special
use.
Permit
standards.
Now
this
board
doesn't
approve
special
use
permits,
but
I
think
it's
a
good
thing
to
know-
and
we've
talked
about
this
in
some
of
our
other
training
sessions.
So
this
case
is
managerian
versus
zoning
board
of
appeals
of
the
town
of
newcastle.
It
was
also
decided
in
2022,
in
this
case
my
firm
represented
the
town
of
newcastle,
so
here
the
owners
of
properties
that
neighbored
a
rehabilitation
facility
for
disabled
and
chronically
sick
children
brought
proceedings
under
article
78,
challenging
the
town.
B
Zoning
board
of
appeals
determination
granting
the
facility's
application
for
an
amended
special
use
permit
to
expand
the
facility
and
they
granted
area
variances
from
the
requirement
that
nursing
homes
had
to
front
a
state
or
county
road.
So
in
this
case
the
nursing
home
did
not
front
a
state
or
county
road.
The
zba
granted
a
area
variance
from
that
requirement.
B
G
B
A
B
Okay,
so
yes,
the
court
said
that
the
zba,
properly
granted
sunshine
and
area
variants
from
the
nursing
home
special
use
permit
frontage
access
requirement.
The
zba
has
the
authority
under
town
law
to
grant
area
variants
from
any
requirement
in
the
zoning
regulation,
including
those
for
special
use
permits.
So
some
people
argue-
and
this
is
what
the
manchurians
were
arguing-
is
that
it's
actually
a
use
variance.
B
If
you
don't
meet
the
special
permit
requirements,
you
need
a
use
variance
to
allow
that
use,
and
here
the
court
was
saying
no,
you
can
get
an
area
variance
for
relief
from
that
specific
special
use.
Permit
requirement.
In
this
case
it
was
about
the
frontage,
and
they
said
that
is,
is
a
reasonable
area
variance.
A
G
B
B
So
like,
in
this
case,
let's
say,
the
planning
board
was
the
one
approving
the
rehabilitation
facility
if
they
needed
the
area
variants
from
the
frontage
requirement.
That
would
be
an
application
to
the
zba,
in
which
case
you'd
review
it
in
terms
of
the
five
factors
that
makes
it
answer.
Your
question.
H
B
So
it
wouldn't
be
a
use
variance
as
long
as
that
requirement
is
in
the
zoning
code,
you
have
the
authority
to
grant
an
area
variance
from
that
requirement.
If
it's
any
requirement
any
other
requirements
say
it's
like
a
requirement
in
the
noise
ordinance
that
you
cannot
get
granted
a
variance
from
a
noise
ordinance
requirement.
Does
that
make
sense,
because
it's
not
a
zoning
code?
Your
jurisdiction
only
pertains
to
the
zoning
code.
I
B
E
A
F
J
B
Great
everyone
great
points
and
the
court
said
that
the
fifth
factor
shall
be
relevant
to
the
decision
of
the
zoning
board
of
appeals.
It
shall
not
necessarily
preclude
the
granting
of
the
area
variants
in
determining
whether
to
grant
area
variants.
A
zba
is
required
to
weigh
the
benefit
to
the
applicants
of
granting
the
area
variants
against
any
detriment
to
the
health,
safety
and
welfare
of
the
neighborhood
or
community
affected,
thereby
taking
into
account
the
five
factors.
B
If
the
variance
was
granted
just
like
they're
required
to
do
under
statute,
the
court
further
concluded
that
the
record
establishes
that
the
zba's
determination
had
the
request
requisite
rationale.
It
was
therefore
an
error
for
the
lower
court
to
substitute
its
judgment
for
that
of
the
zba.
Even
if
such
contrary
determination
is
itself
supported
by
the
record.
So
I
think
this
court
raised
some
really
good
points,
even
if
there's
another
way
to
go.
If
the
zba's
decision
is
supported,
then
the
court
must
upheld
uphold
that
decision.
B
B
B
C
C
B
But,
interestingly
enough
I
mean
it
had
to
get
to
the
fourth
department,
which
means
in
the
lower
courts.
It
went
the
other
way.
So
it's
you
know
I
just
we
always
want
to
emphasize
the
importance
of
building
the
record
and
balancing
in
your.
You
know
it's
always
better
to
balance
all
five
factors
and
we
do
a
very
good
job
of
touching
upon
each
of
them.
B
B
Again,
I
think
they'd
emphasize
the
balancing
test.
It
was
very
interesting
that
it
happened
to
be
the
self-created,
the
one
that
we
always
are
just
like.
This
is
not
determinative,
and
that's
you
know
what
the
court
kept
saying
is
like
this
factor
doesn't
really
matter,
and
I
don't
know
if
it
was
one
of
the
other
factors.
B
I
B
Mean
maybe
I
just
wasn't
looking
hard
enough.
I
did
a
very
broad
zoning
board
search
and
I
think,
if
you're
going
to
go
back
and
read
the
decision,
because
I
can
picture
you-
maybe
not
sleeping
one
night
and
wanting
to
read
it.
I'd
recommend,
reading
the
fourth
department
decision
and
also
the
lower
court's
decision,
there's
a
lower
court
decision.
B
While
it
goes,
the
other
way
gives
a
little
more
detail
and
a
little
more
background,
information
and
the
fourth
department
was
like
they
were
wrong
like
this,
doesn't
they
they
met
the
criteria,
but
you
know,
for
the
sake
of
efficiency,
we're
just
kind
of
I'm
just
kind
of
giving
you
like
a
little
taste
here,
but
everyone's
points
are
right.
You
know,
when
you
look
at
all
the
facts,
that's
what
matters.
B
It's
about
zoning
board
review
authority,
so
on
june
6,
2017
and
july
12
2017,
the
yonkers
department
of
housing
and
buildings
issued
temporary
certificates
of
occupancy
to
lowe's
home
center
authorizing
limited
use
of
a
substantially
completed
improvement
located
in
the
city
of
yonkers,
specifically
in
ridge
hill.
I
don't
know
if
anyone
hangs
out
in
red
hill,
where
my
doctor's
offices
are
anyway.
K
B
B
B
B
A
B
However,
there
is
a
narrow,
but
well-recognized
exception
to
the
rule
that
zoning
board's
interpretation
of
a
zoning
ordinance
is
entitled
to
great
deference
that
exists
where
the
question
is
one
of
pure
legal
interpretation
of
statutory
terms,
in
which
case
deference
to
a
zoning
board
is
not
required
here.
In
this
case,
the
basis
for
the
petitioner's
appeal
of
the
city
of
yonkers,
department
of
housing
and
buildings,
issuance
of
a
temporary
certificate
to
the
lowe's
was
not
grounded
in
the
enforcement
of
any
use
or
dimensional
requirement
set
forth
in
the
yonkers
zoning
ordinance.
B
The
petitioner
instead
alleged
non-compliance
with
certain
purported
mitigation
requirements
imposed
during
the
seeker
process.
So
what
the
court
was
saying
is
that
the
union
of
firefighters
could
not
appeal
to
the
zba,
because
they
weren't
appealing
any
aspect
of
the
zoning
code.
They
were
arguing
that
hey.
You
can't
issue
this
temporary
certificate
to
the
lows
because
we
were
supposed
to
get
a
firehouse
instead,
and
so
the
court
said
going
to
the
zba
was
not
appropriate.
B
The
zoning
board
had
no
right
to
consider
that
appeal,
because
it
had
nothing
to
do
with
the
zoning
ordinance.
Oh
good
yeah,
so
once
you
once
you
once,
I
explain
it
like
you're
like
oh
okay,
that
makes
sense
and
again
if
everyone
was
reading
the
case,
I'm
sure
you
know
you'd
see
it.
Although
it
took
me
a
a
slow
read
to
figure
out
what
was
going
on,
but
I
think
I
have
some
other
cases,
but
I
don't
really
want
to
rush
through,
because
I,
I
think
they're
pretty
good,
so
david.
A
E
C
We
are
here
for
the
meeting
of
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
and
before
we
get
started
on
our
public
hearings
and
other
matters,
just
one
preliminary
matter
to
get
out
of
the
way,
so
everyone
is
clear
on
what's
going
on
the
application,
this,
the
application
for
secret
review
of
the
proposed
development
at
1113,
wolcott
avenue,
which
I'm
guessing
at
least
some
of
the
people
who
are
here,
have
come
for
just
for
your
information.
This
is
not
a
public
hearing.
This
is
sort
of
the
equivalent
of
when
city
council
has
workshop.
C
C
L
A
M
F
C
Second-
and
we
have
a
second
from
mr
hogg,
all
in
favor
aye
aye,
any
opposed,
nay,
all
right.
The
minutes
are
approved
on
a
5-0
vote
and
now
I
believe
we
can
reopen
the
public
hearing
on
agenda
item
number
one
motion:
I
have
a
motion
a
second
second
from
ms
chacho,
all
in
favor
aye,
aye
aye
any
opposed.
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
He
also
did
make
some
changes
to
the
architecture,
probably
a
little
bit
more
of
an
improvement,
as
I
mentioned
last
month.
This
is
a
raised
ranch,
sometimes
a
bit
of
a
challenge
to
add
on
and
and
make
a
visual
appearance.
That's
that's
tastefully
done
so
there's
a
change
on
that
which
is
this
is
the
front
facade
also,
it
should
be
noted
if,
with
the
10
foot
addition
off
the
property
line,
the
maximum
height
is
less
than
it's
about
19
feet
and
we're
allowed.
O
O
D
O
F
F
O
E
B
D
E
K
A
B
D
B
Properties
for
the
most
part,
the
corner
properties
do
not
appear
to
have
any
variance
is
variances
issued
to
them.
There
does
appear
to
be
some
homes
in
this
development
that
may
be
closer
to
the
side
yard
property,
but
I
cannot
confirm
whether
or
not
they
have
variances
at
this
time.
I'm
just
this
is
just
looking
at
dutchess
county
parcel
access.
O
Dutchess
county
parcel
access
is
not
an
accurate
depiction
of
for
measurements.
I
use
it
all
the
time
and
I've
measured
stuff
on
parcel
access,
and
it's
just
you
never
get
an
accurate
dimension.
It's
it
can
be
office.
I've
seen
it
off
as
much
as
three
feet,
so
it's
really
difficult
tool
to
to
measure
from
it's.
It's
a
good
visual
but.
C
And
it's
not
a
program
that,
like
read,
they've,
got
a
program
that
reads
through
the
meets
and
bounds
descriptions,
but
the
problem
is
especially
in
older
parts
of
the
city.
Those
meats
and
balance
descriptions
are
a
lot
of
times
not
consistent,
and
one
of
the
things
the
surveyor
has
to
do
is
right
piece.
Everything.
B
J
C
Overall,
if
we're
looking
at
the
the
with
a
corner
house,
it's
always
a
little
bit
of
a
matter
of
interpretation
to
say
what's
the
front
of
the
house
versus
the
side
of
the
house,
but
we're
looking
at
what
I
would
call
the
front
of
the
house.
They've
got
a
front
yard
of
about
32
and
a
half
feet
with
a
requirement
of
20..
C
If
they
had
the
20-foot
required
front
yard
requirement,
we
would
be
looking
at
a
different
orientation
on
the
land
and
one
where,
in
particular,
adding
onto
the
side
in
the
manner
being
proposed
would
be
doing
a
lot
more
to
bump
up
against
visibility
around
the
intersection,
but
literal
visibility
in
terms
of
cars
driving
up
to
the
intersection,
as
well
as
the
aesthetic
consideration
of.
How
close
is
this
built
out
to
the
corner,
I
think,
is
a
mitigating
factor.
O
A
B
C
R
O
Well,
there's
been
there's
a
there's,
a
patio
in
the
backyard
there's
a
deck
that
was
recently
improved,
that's
off
the
dining
room,
so
the
cross
over
that
is,
you
know,
would
be
difficult.
Also,
I
would
believe
I'd
have
to
look
at
the
site
plan,
but
we
probably
need
relief
from
a
rear
yard.
Setback
to
some
degree,
and
just
the
access
for
for
the
garage
and
in
the
backyard
is
just
is
just
not
probably
a
better
situation.
O
C
I
O
N
Yeah
and
I've
I've
been,
I
don't
want
to
disrupt
the
neighborhood,
and
I've
walked
around
and
talked
to
some
of
the
neighbors
just
to
make
sure
that
this
wouldn't
be
a
disruptive
project,
and
I
feel
everything
I've
done
to
that
house
since
acquiring
it
has
made
it
better
and
improve
the
value
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
aesthetic
value.
Also.
C
I
L
L
E
F
So
I
don't
think
an
undesirable
change
will
be
a
result
of
this.
I
appreciate
the
applicant
coming
back
and
taking
our
consideration
into
and
bringing
it
down
smaller
and,
as
you
mentioned
earlier,
there's
a
significant
front
yard
that
actually
helps
mitigate
any
concerns
that
I
had
from
a
visibility
standpoint
and
the
fact
that
it's
being
built
over
the
driveway,
the
existing
driveway,
is
also
a
mitigating
factor
as
far
as
I'm
concerned.
So
I
do
not
see
this
as
an
undesirable
change.
D
E
E
C
Okay,
for
my
part,
I
think
at
the
end
of
the
day,
my
conclusion
is
that
an
undesirable
change
will
not
be
produced.
I
I
appreciate
what
mr
hogg
just
said,
in
particular
when
we're
dealing
with
properties
that
were
built
after
the
adoption
of
the
zoning
code.
It
is
a
somewhat
different
animal
than
when
you're
looking
at
something
that's
a
hundred
years
old
and
the
zoning
code
just
got
overlaid
on
top
of
it.
C
Having
said
that
now,
having
had
a
chance
to
actually
look
at
the
property,
both
the
fact
that
the
parking
spaces
are
already
there,
the
fact
that
the
front
yard
setback
is
significantly
more
than
what
it
needs
to
be
and
if
we
were
building
that,
if
they
were
proposing
to
do
this
from
a
point,
that's
20
feet
back
from
the
back
from
the
street.
Instead
of
32
and
a
half,
I
think
that
would
be
a
a
different
proposition,
as
well
as
the
fact
that
that
sidewalk
doesn't
even
come
along
the
side
of
the
house
here.
C
J
E
D
A
C
C
I
E
C
F
D
C
C
N
D
A
C
E
C
C
I
F
C
G
D
C
C
We
think
it's
probably
actually
10
c
1
or
2
that
doesn't
have
any
impact
on
the
variance
that
was
noticed.
The
substantive
variance
is
the
same
more
of
a
technical
matter,
but
the
second
thing
on
page
two
of
the
application
there's
a
certification
that
there's
no
violations
outstanding,
et
cetera
et
and
at
least
on
the
copy.
I
have.
C
C
J
G
Actually,
the
two
to
the
two
floors
above
and
they
go
through
the
basement
to
get
to
the
garage
which
is
so.
The
only
thing
is
the
garage
is
not
going
to
have
anything
structured
different
than
the
interior.
The
building
itself
will
still
remain
exactly
the
same.
It's
just
the
interior
be
finished
for
them
to
use
it
for
a
studio.
C
R
J
P
I
E
C
C
All
right
I'll
go
ahead
and,
for
the
sake
of
a
good
order,
ask
this
question,
but
it's
pretty
clear
to
me
what
the
answer
is.
If
this
variance
is
granted
they're
still
meeting
their
required
parking
space
requirements,
if,
if
the
variance
is
granted
they're
still
meeting
their
required
parking
space
requirements
right.
I
E
C
C
D
L
I
think
this
would
be
an
ideal
artist,
studio,
location
so
close
to
town
both
from
the
aerial
street
view
and
the
street
view
driving
by
it
looks
like
one
structure.
Building
this
for
an
artist
and
a
potential
artist
tenant
in
the
that
live
in
the
main
dwelling
will
only
enhance
the
property
upgrading.
It
will
beautify
the
neighborhood
taking
it
to
the
next
level,
knowing
the
applicant's
eye
for
real
estate
and
aesthetics
for
quality.
This
would
be
a
win
for
the
setting.
L
C
F
D
C
J
D
C
E
C
A
J
C
No,
not
at
all,
no
no
and
the
one
thing
I'd
say
is
because
it
hasn't
come
up
yet,
but
the
fact
that,
were
this
not
a
legally
pre-existing
two-family
residence,
this
would
be
an
of
right
change.
Is,
I
think,
a
significant
factor
here
as
to
whether
the
alleged
difficulty
itself
created
the
board
found.
C
C
I
D
C
Okay,
so,
mr
miller,
I'm
sorry
I'm
sure
you
heard
me
say
before
that.
Normally,
if
a
variance
is
granted,
we
attach
a
couple
conditions
to
it,
one
of
it
being
payment
of
all
fees
that
are
due
before
a
building
permit
or
a
cfo
is
issued
and
the
second
being
time
limits
apply
for
a
building
permit
with
six
months
start
construction,
six
months
after
that
and
within
24
months
after
issuance
of
the
permit
complete
construction.
C
B
C
B
C
All
right,
mr
hogg,
hi
thanks,
that's
fine!
I
got
it.
I
I
will
vote
I
as
well
all
right,
so
the
variance
carries
on
a
5-0
vote
and,
as
I
stated
before,
we
should
have
that
ready
for
you
on
friday
I'll
make
it
a
point
to
get
in
there
by
thursday.
Thank
you
very
much
all
right,
thank
you
and
this
I
think
we
need
to
open
up
the
public
hearing
on
our
agenda.
Item
number
three
motion.
S
C
C
T
T
We
are
looking
to
place
it
basically
where
there
is
an
existing
shed
use,
that
line
along
the
rear
property
yard
and
basically
set
it
where
that
is
bringing
it
forward
towards
rector
street
reusing.
The
existing
curb
cut,
there's
also
a
very
large
existing
pine
tree.
It's
about
30
feet
tall
that
he
would
like
to
maintain.
So
that
is
all
what
contributed
to
this,
as
well
as
the
desire
to
maintain
as
much
of
his
yard
as
possible.
T
T
C
T
T
C
C
C
C
C
Further
at
the
structure
mr
isabel
proposes
would
stand
on
the
south
side
of
our
property,
effectively
blocking
all
sunlight
falling
on
our
house
and
vegetable
and
wildflower
gardens,
ruining
everything
we
have
spent
years
planting
and
tending
and
enjoying
one
of
the
reasons
we
bought.
Our
house
was
precisely
to
have
all
these
things
with
mr
isabel
structure.
Our
view
would
change
from
one
of
fruit,
trees,
vegetables,
flowers,
sun
and
sunsets
to
a
shaded,
barren
patch
and
a
big
wall.
C
L
Name
is
teresa
craft.
Thank
you.
I'm
just
concerned
it's
really
close
to
that
pine
tree
that
they
want
to
save
and
construction.
I
know
that
that
pine
tree
is
going
to
suffer.
I
would
hope
that
they
would
move
it
closer
further
into
the
property
line
and
not
close
to
the
back
neighbor's
property
line.
L
R
R
R
I
mean
you
know,
michael,
you
know
suggested
to
us
that
you
know
I
mean
he
knows
this
is
outside
of
code
and
and
he's
you
know
trying
to
get
as
much
as
he
wants,
and
so
we
have
to
start.
You
know
some
kind
of
discussion.
If
something
like
this
is
going
to
be
built.
You
know
it's.
It's
not
hyperbolic
to
suggest
that
the
light
you
know
the
the
we
we
have
light
from
the
west
that
you
know
I
mean
you
know
we
have
bay
windows.
R
R
U
The
existing
shed
is
6.7
feet
from
our
property
line
and
it's
a
much
smaller
shed,
but
already
with
that
small
shed
the
light
effect
on
our
yard,
I
mean
there's
nothing
that
grows
there
because
of
the
shed.
So
if
this
is
extended
and
made
higher
it
truly,
I
mean
I'm
not
exaggerating
to
say
that
this
will
just
render
everything
that
we
planted
shady
gone,
and
we
are
perfectly
willing
to
work
with
michael
to
to
to
make
him
happy
and
to
keep
ourselves
happy.
U
U
C
C
R
F
J
P
T
T
T
T
These
are
the
these.
Are
the
sun
angles
for
for
noon
of
each
of
these
days,
but
you
can
see
that
in
december
this
building,
yes,
will
cast
shade.
However,
if
there
was
a
fence
along
the
property
line,
it
wouldn't
reduce
that
amount
of
shade
in
the
winter
that
much.
However,
in
the
summer
the
shade
line
actually
falls
on
mike's
property.
T
Going
back
to
the
site
plan,
it
would
be
hard
to
accomplish
what
he's
looking
to
achieve
within
a
much
smaller
building.
He
could
reduce
the
garage
to
a
single
car
garage,
but
he
does
have
two
collector
cars
one
would
be
outside.
He
was
hoping
to
have
a
place
to
score
them
to
protect
them
and
also
just
to
visually,
improve
the
property
not
having
them
outside.
T
Again.
There's
also
this
tree
that
we
are
looking
to
protect
by
that's
the
reason
for
keeping
the
garage
on
the
line
where
the
existing
shed
was
because
if
we
start
to
push
it
into
the
property,
we
will
definitely
lose
that
spruce
tree
and
it's
it's
a
rather
nice
specimen
and
then
again,
if
we,
if
we
turn
it,
we're
removing
a
large
portion
of
his
yard.
So
that's
how
we
arrived
at
this
it
it
wasn't.
A
lot
of
thought
was
given
to
try
to
make
it
work
within
the
bank.
E
I
C
J
T
C
All
right
and
sorry
the
question
I
I
meant
to
ask
before
because
I'm
thinking
I
don't,
I
don't
think
you
understood
what
I
was
asking,
but
the
shed
that's
there
right
now.
I
meant,
if
you
look
at
the
map,
aside
from
the
shed,
if
you
look
at
the
shed,
that
is
basically
directly
to
the
left
of
the
proposed
structure
that
shed.
C
C
T
Right
and
that
that's
part
of
our
feeling
is
he's
not
looking
to
just
max
out
his
lot
he's
looking
to
maintain
green
space.
He
does
have
a
very
large
lot
for
the
neighborhood.
So
yes,
proportionately,
compared
to
his
house,
this
is
a
large
building,
but
when
you
take
into
account
the
the
property
sizes,
as
you
move
down
rector
street
and
the
coverage
there,
I
think
it's
it's
relatively
small
in
a
in
a
coverage.
T
C
They
would
still
need
a
variance
right
now
because
they
have
it.
They
don't
have
a
2350
square
foot
footprint
on
their
house,
but
if
they
had
a,
they
could
build
a
house
at
a
2350
square
foot
footprint
size
and
if
they
did
that
they
could
build
up
to
940
feet
on
this
accessory
building
without
needing
a
variance
for
the
size.
D
D
T
C
Q
Q
I
Q
Q
Q
I
think
it's
clear
from
the
drawing
that
she
heather
showed.
The
sun
is
not
the
issue
that
some
are
making
out
to
be
because
their
house
is
equally
far
from
the
next
house,
and
I
go
around
and
look.
Is
that
casting
a
shot
of?
How
would
I
affect
them?
It's
set
back,
it's
not
like
up
on
the
front
of
the
property,
so
the
quick
question
is:
would
I
take
the
tree
down
if
I
had
to?
I
guess,
but
really
rather
not
so
I
just
want.
Q
I
just
wanted
to
be
clear
that
it's
not
like,
I'm,
not
I'm
just
trying
to
put
a
giant
rectangle
in
my
yard,
it's
really
about
quality
of
life.
For
me,
that's
also
consideration
and
I
very
much
spent
time
trying
to
figure
out.
How
would
this
work
in
here
there's
a
reason:
it's
not
super
tall,
there's
all
these
considerations
that
I've
been
making
for
years
to
try
to
make
it
work
for
me.
E
Q
It's
a
pretty
open
yard.
It's
grassy
that
big
tree
there's
an
oak
tree
near
the
fence
line
the
driveway
and
the
existing
shutter
towards
the
back,
and
it's
a
wide
open,
grassy
yard,
with
also
a
very
beautiful,
symmetrical
view
of
the
directory
house
and
the
mountain
behind
it.
So
visually
it
works
as
it
is.
If
I
was
to
put
that
rectangle
into
the
middle
of
the
yard,
there'd
be
no
more
area
to
do.
E
Q
Q
If
you
look
at
the
way
the
same
time,
it's
over
there
more,
I
don't
know
where,
in
zoning,
the
line
is
between
how
much
shadow
you're
allowed
to
create
with
your
neighbor,
but
I'm
not
trying
to
do
any
detriment
to
their
property.
I'm
just
trying
to
put
where
my
existing
driveway
is
built.
That's
it.
I
T
Q
Q
And
I'm
not
and
I'm
not
convinced
that
the
light's
gonna
be
the
problem.
I
think
that
the
view
is
maybe
some
change
is
hard,
so
maybe
having
a
new
thing,
there
is
difficult
to
conceive,
I
think
it's
a
low
building
and
if
I'm
eight
feet
over,
which
puts
me
within
the
15
feet,
I
believe,
or
eight
and
a
half
8.3
feet
over.
That's
enough
room
to
park
a
car
and
I'm
happy
to
have
that
be
the
way
it
is.
I'd
have
to
extend
the
driveway.
Q
Q
J
J
Q
I've
considered
that,
but
then
it
feels
like.
I
then
would
be
coming
against
this
thing
that
we're
talking
about
where,
if
I
make
that
bigger,
then
maybe
I
come
back
and
propose
a
bigger
building
as
well,
and
I
occupy
more
footprint
of
the
yard.
It's
got
a
very
mature
property.
All
the
trees
are
old.
There's
like
japanese
cherry
trees,
it's
a
very
mature
property.
I
don't
know
how
long
ago
it
was
landscaped,
but
it's
been
there
like,
probably
50
years.
Q
So
as
little
like,
you
don't
see
that
on
this
representation,
but
there
are
a
lot
of
trees
in
that
yard.
So
as
little
as
I
can
do
to
mess
that
up,
I
guess
is
better
better
term,
but
yeah
that's
a
consideration.
I
could
do
that.
I
suppose,
but
currently
this
would
be
easier
for
me.
This
would
make
more
sense
for
me
and
I'm
happy
if
I'm
within
that
15
feet
and
it's
shrunken
down
a
little
bit
to
fit
in
between
those
trees.
C
My
view
is
that
if
someone
is
replacing
an
accessory
building,
that's
already
on
the
lawn
already
on
the
property,
that's
in
a
non-conforming
location,
barring
some
significant
countervailing
consideration.
We
got
to
just
let
them
put
it
in
the
same
place
now
going
up
significantly
higher
and
since
you're
gonna
be
closer
to
the
line
then
you're
supposed
to
be.
That
could
be
a
countervailing
consideration.
C
If
that
consideration,
isn't
there
personally,
I'm
not
super
concerned
about
the
square
footage
thing.
I
mean
it's
a
little
over
what
would
be
allowed
as
a
matter
of
right,
even
if
you
built
the
largest
house,
you
could,
but
it's
not
very
much
over
and
because
we've
got
a
25
lot.
Coverage
restriction
in
the
first
place
maybe
doesn't
make
that
big
of
a
difference
on
the
grand
scheme
of
things
yeah.
Q
I
D
U
There
I'm
not
sure
how
high
that
existing
structure
is,
but
it
does
already
throw
significant
shade
on
our
garden,
regardless
of
whether
it's
summer
or
winter,
and
we
cannot
plant
anything
there.
So
we
already
have
a
bear
patch
there,
which
we
have
taken
into
consideration
with
our
gardening.
So
so,
if
that
existing
structure
is
then
increased
to
the
size
of
the
gray
rectangle
it,
it
really
doubles
the
amount
of
shade
that
we
have,
and
it's
not
just
our
driveway.
We
have
wildflowers,
we
have
very
close
to
rector
street.
U
We
have
our
driveway,
so
basically
one
car
length
and
then
beyond.
That
is
all
wildflowers
and
our
vegetables
and
we
have
fruit
trees
and
they
would
be
severely
impacted.
Now.
I
will
say
that
I
do
not
want
michael
to
have
to
remove
that
beautiful
tree.
I
mean
the
trees
are
absolutely
gorgeous
and
that
would
be
a
detriment
I
think
to
everybody's
view.
I
do
not
want
that
to
happen.
I
you
know
I
want
my
sunlight.
R
A
C
All
right,
so
it
sounds
like
if
I'm
reading
this
or
hearing
this
correctly,
we
we
want
to
adjourn
this
to
the
next
meeting,
give
the
applicant
a
chance
to
consider
some
plan
changes
and-
and
on
top
of
that,
while
I
did
drive
by
there
to
take
a
look.
I
definitely
was
not
looking
at
this
from
the
perspective
of
what
would
the
light
impact
be
on
that
property,
it
might
be
good
to
take
a
look
with
that
consideration
in
mind.
J
F
F
C
D
I
just
want
to
ask
a
question
about
if,
if
they
did
not
need
a
rear
yard
variance
and
they
moved,
they
moved
the
structure
so
that
it
was
by
rights
allowable
we
wouldn't
have
any
would
would
there
still
be
a
problem
with
the
way
the
light
is
for
the
neighbor,
because
I
don't
know
that
the
next
door
neighbor
really
has
the
duty
to
make
sure
as
long
as
they're
doing
something
by
right.
You
know
what
I'm
saying.
D
U
T
U
Thing
no,
it
would
not
be
as
much
of
a
problem.
Ideally
I
for
me,
you
know,
wouldn't
be
a
structure
there
at
all,
but
you
know
I
can't
tell
them
what
to
do
and
what
not
to
do.
But,
but
you
know,
variances
exist,
for
you
know
or
or
codes
exist,
for
people's
properties
and-
and
I
think
that
this
greatly
exceeds
any
code
that
is
allowable
in
a
residential
area
and
beacon
for
us.
J
T
T
He
he
could
by
right,
build
a
much
larger
building
and
then
have
a
garage
that
is
almost
this
large
by
right,
which
would
just
be
maximizing
a
lot
unnecessarily
and
then.
The
other
item
is
we.
We
are
taking
into
account
the
neighbor
and
shade
one
way
we
could
reduce
the
square
footage
and
move
the
building
into
his
by
right
area
is
to
move
the
studio
upstairs,
which
would
create
a
two-story
building,
which
would
then
cast
a
larger
shadow.
D
D
C
V
Mr
palmer
d,
mr
chairman,
all
right:
well,
it's
been
a
long
time
since
we
got
to
see
you
all
face
to
face
hope
everybody's
done
well,
some
new
faces
for
the
benefit
of
the
record
and
for
the
board.
My
name
is
taylor,
palmer,
I'm
a
partner
with
the
law,
firm
of
cuddy
and
fader-
we're
here
on
behalf
of
the
applicant
this
evening.
Now
that
you've
dealt
with
the
hard
work,
we're
here
with
the
easy
work,
of
course,
I'm
a
little
bit
kidding
tonight.
V
V
I
know
there's
a
lot
about
this
project
and
I
want
to
just
if
the
chairman
sees
fit
just
give
the
board
a
bit
of
a
background
just
about
where
we
are.
You
know,
obviously
it's
literally
out
up
the
street,
but
just
to
give
you
a
sense
of
what
we're
proposing
where
we're
located
and
then
let
rich
handle
some
more
of
the
visual
aspects
of
it
up
on
the
board.
V
As
the
chairman
mentioned,
we
are
here
in
connection
with
the
seeker
review,
so
this
is
sort
of
an
interesting
referral
to
your
board,
as
distinct
from
a
formal
variance
application.
Ultimately,
one
of
the
considerations
would
be
a
parking
variance
and
I'll
get
into
that
in
a
moment,
but
today
we're
here
as
a
involved
agency.
Your
board
is
an
involved
agency
in
the
environmental
review
process
that
the
planning
board
is
running
as
the
lead
agency.
V
So,
by
way
of
brief
background,
the
property
consists
of
a
through
lot
that
has
frontages
on
walcott
avenue
and
beekman
street.
So
it
is
just
up
the
road
or
down
the
road.
I
guess,
depending
which
way
you
go
well
walcott
or
beekman
from
here
at
city
hall,
and
it
was
properties
previously
or
has
been
presently
improved
by
the
historic
church
as
well
as
the
rectory
in
the
cemetery.
V
That's
provided
in
the
zoning
code,
the
properties
in
the
r140
one
family,
residence
district,
and
it's
also
in
the
historic
district
overlay
which
in
a
minute,
relates
to
the
uses
that
are
permitted
on
the
property
and
those
that
were
proposing
on
the
site,
and
that
also
relates
to
the
special
permit
application,
but
pending
right
now
before
the
planning
board.
So
it
was
more
detailed
in
our
detailed
submission
dated
february
22nd.
V
We
did
refine
the
program
that
is
before
you
with
the
planning
award
over
a
long
period
of
time.
The
applicant
originally
appeared
back
in
july
of
last
year
in
connection
with
the
application
we've
spent
a
lot
of
months
working
with
them.
The
board's
consultants
who
some
of
whom
were
here
this
evening
to
try
and
reduce
down
the
scope
of
the
development
proposal.
V
The
overall
adaptive
reuse
of
this
property,
because
again
it's
the
historic
church,
that's
being
adapted
very
used,
the
parsonage
itself,
which
again
ra
will
touch
on
just
so.
You
can
see
some
visuals
of
what
we're
doing
is
being
repurposed
as
a
hotel.
So
the
existing
rectory
is
going
to
be
converted
into
a
two
and
a
half
story:
30
room
hotel
with
32.
J
V
V
We
have
a
number
of
important
traffic
and
circulation
improvements
that
we've
added
we're,
also
renovating
the
church
into
an
accessory
space
that
includes
a
conference
center
which
could
have
events
as
well
as
dining
facilities
and
a
cafe
restaurant
bar,
and
we
are
also
restoring
the
cemetery.
So
we
will
also
be
developing
a
path
down
to
beekman.
As
you
may
know,
the
adjoining
properties,
both
river
ridge
and
west
end
lofts,
both
have
connections
down
to
beakman
and
ours
will
be
one
in
the
same.
V
So
while
the
applicant
previously
proposed
the
the
maximum
capacity,
now
we're
going
to
speak
specifically
to
these
these
items
because
they're
important
you
know
part
of
what
we're
here
to
discuss,
of
course,
is
the
the
character
of
the
development,
the
size
and
scale
and
scope
and,
of
course,
the
parking
which
are
all
secret
considerations
before
the
board
and
referral
to
you
as
the
involved
agency.
The
original
proposal
had
a
maximum
capacity
now
again
limited
events,
typically
on
a
friday
or
saturday,
to
420
people
for
a
large
event.
V
So
that
was
a
large
number
and
has
been
significantly
scaled
back
that
now
the
maximum
is
350
people,
that's
people
working
at
the
site.
That's
people
visiting
the
property,
that's
shared
uses
between
those
staying
in
the
hotel
and
those
staying
those
utilizing
the
event
space,
some
items
that
we'll
get
into
in
just
a
moment.
A
V
At
these
larger
events,
so
there
will
be
again
occasional
large
events
that
might
have
up
to
350
people,
but,
generally
speaking,
the
events
will
be
smaller
along
that
same
line.
It's
not
seven
days
a
week
that
we're
talking
about
for
these
these
larger
events
again
we're
limiting
it
to
those
weekend
scopes.
V
The
hotel
itself
will
run
365
seven
days
a
week
as
you
would
at
the
roundhouse
or
otherwise
here
in
beacon
having
gotten
married
at
the
roundhouse.
I
certainly
can
tell
you
there
aren't
enough
facilities
to
have
a
whole
wedding
party
stay,
I
guess,
depending
on
the
size
of
your
wedding.
Of
course,
it's
got
to
ship
them
off
to
fiskill.
So
let's
keep
them
here
in
beacon.
V
V
The
uses
were
determined
to
be
as
the
accessory
uses
and
the
hotel
use
were
determined
to
be
permitted
by
the
building
inspector.
So
we
had
an
original
determination
for
mr
buckley
on
that
particular
use,
and
then
we
came
back
to
mr
buckley
again
because
we
couldn't
get
enough
and
we
asked
him
to
make
a
determination
on
the
parking.
So
that
is
again
part
of
our
secret
discussion
and
he
issued
a
determination
on
march
1st
regarding
our
parking
proposal,
so
in
a
minute
rich
will
help
with
the
visuals.
Because
again,
that's
a
lot
easier.
V
I
think
to
digest
than
the
taylormath
that
you're
about
to
get,
but
I'm
going
to
try
and
I'm
going
to
try
and
stay
in
my
lane
and
and
hopefully
get
you
know,
a
good
understanding
of
what
we're
we're
working
with
importantly,
rich
will
also
touch
on
the
fact
that
it's
not
just
you
know,
parking
variants
or
otherwise
we're
needing.
We
are
implementing
a
traffic
and
parking
management
plan.
That's
going
to
be
having
you
know,
additional
valets
and
other
parking.
V
That's
going
to
be
coordinating
with
off-site
private
and
in
some
instances
it
could
be
public
parking
areas.
That's
going
to
be
utilizing
brochures
and
flyers
to
get
people
to
park
at
beekman
or
take
the
train
to
come
to
our
venue,
a
lot
of
things
that
help
mitigate
or
reduce
potential
any
potential
parking
impacts,
but
also
as
rich,
we'll
discuss.
It's
not
expected,
as
currently
proposed
to
have
any
significant
environmental
impact,
notwithstanding
again
sort
of
the
numerical
value
that
I'll
get
to
now.
V
So
again,
as
this
is
taylormath,
the
project
proposes
32
off
street
parking
spaces,
so
the
site
layout,
as
you
can
see,
has
32
off
street
parking
spaces.
Today
again,
this
is
a
historic
church.
It
had
300
plus
pews
and
people
attending
it
for
weddings
or
other
events
traditionally.
So
this
is
typically
generally
consistent
with
the
uses
that
have
been
on
the
site,
of
course,
the
hotel
being
a
a
increase
in
that
and
that
sort
of
that
change.
We
are
now,
of
course,
circled
by
new
residential
development.
The
west
end
lofts,
river
ridge.
V
You've
got
the
view
at
the
bottom
of
the
hill
and
now
ferry
landing,
and,
of
course,
you
have
hammond
plaza.
So
you
have
a
lot
of
new
development
in
the
area,
and
hopefully
this
will
be
a
welcomed
addition
to
this
end
of
of
main
street,
where
you
know
again:
you're
close
to
main
street
but
you're
you're,
starting
to
head
down
to
the
train
station.
V
Importantly,
there's
a
combination
of
public
parking
lots
and
other
areas,
whether
it's
beekman
the
train
station,
some
existing
public
and
private
parking
lots
that
will
be
utilized,
as
I
sort
of
call
it
the
layer
cake.
You
know
in
case
one
layer
fails
we're
trying
to
create
other
layers
that
could
back
up
as
far
as
additional
parking
options.
For
example,
the
city
is
currently
implementing
new
or
is
working
with
its
main
street
parking
committee
to
potentially
develop
new
parking
areas
in
the
city,
whether
it's
garages
or
otherwise,
that's
currently
being
evaluated.
V
Knowing
that's
not
here
now
can't
take
credit
for
the
future.
We're
also
planning,
for
god,
forbid,
one
of
those
sites
that
currently
permits
public
parking
becomes
unavailable
because
of
development
or
otherwise,
so
we're
taking.
All
of
that
account
putting
it
into
the
blender
to
see
what
come.
You
know
to
make
sure
that
what
comes
out
is
still
not
causing
any
impacts
to
the
surrounding
areas
ensures
that
it
doesn't
impact
the
folks
at
river
ridge
by
keeping
them
out
of
their
developments,
keeps
them
out
of
the
residential
neighborhoods.
V
You
know
again
across
walcott
up
the
hill,
but
hey
if
it's
a
possibility
that
folks
might
be
searching
for
parking
or
finding
ways
and
putting
it
into
our
plan
to
ensure
that
they
don't
negatively
have
those
impacts.
So
I've
been
avoiding
this
math.
I
can't
avoid
it
anymore.
I've
got
to
get
to
it,
so
the
building
inspector
confirmed
that
as
an
existing
non-conforming
use,
the
church
itself
had
69
was
required
to
have
had
69
total
parking
spaces.
V
So
the
code
provides
what
we
what
I
in
short,
called
the
1964
exception,
which,
again,
if
you
had
to
use
the
pre-existing
code
in
1964,
then
they
allow
you.
The
code
allows
you
to
have
a
certain
number
of
parking
spaces
that
that
that
might
exceed
that
that
time,
that
the
time
would
have
been
required.
So,
in
our
case
a
25
increase
over
what
was
permitted
in
1969
was
86
total
parking
spaces.
V
So
as
it
stands,
if
we,
if
we,
if
the
development
proposal
the
com,
the
combination
of
uses
was
80
required
only
86
or
fewer
spaces,
no
variance
would
be
necessary
at
all.
It
would
be
to
call
it
a
permitted
use
is,
is,
is
accurate.
The
uses
are
not
what's
at
issue
here,
it's
the
how
the
parking
is
is
calculated.
V
So
as
I
do,
I
tried
to
make
a
creative
request
to
mr
buckley.
One
of
I
guess
first
in
impression
he
denied
me
rightfully.
So
I
think
in
this
case,
because
he's
the
focus
is
more
specific
and
directed
to
the
code
itself,
the
hard
the
hard
facts.
So
while
we
we're
doing
our
best
to
help
show
where
we
can
find
parking
off-site
where
we
can
find
you
know
and
show
how
we
mitigate
our
our
concerns,
that's
of
no
concern
to
mr
buckley.
V
He
has
a
fine,
you
know
a
direct
rule
and
has
to
tell
you
what
the
parking
relief
would
be
required.
So
mr
buckley
determined
that
we
require
the
overall
project
as
designed
all
uses
accessory
to
the
maximum
event,
not
not
the
typical
daily
event
but
the
maximum
event.
350
maximum
people
is
136
parking
spaces
so
again
we're
grandfathered
so
to
speak,
that
the
the
1964
exception
would
have
gotten
us
up
to
86,
but
the
project
requires
136.
V
So
that's
a
great
question.
That's
a
great
question!
So,
if
the,
if
the
use
was
reduced
down
to
a
the
number
of
people
that
attended
the
maximum
events
was
reduced
down,
that
number
would
then
we
wouldn't
require
a
parking
variance
from
your
board,
but
because
we
exceed
that
our
350
maximum
persons.
For
those
specific
events,
we
require
a
parking
variance.
M
V
V
So
mr
buckley
requires
that
we
have
136
bases
we
are
providing
32,
so
the
variance
that
we
would
ultimately
be
seeking
from
you
is
a
hundred
and
four
got
it.
So
what
we?
What
what
we're
trying
to
tease
out
of
all
of
that
is
that,
while
104
spaces
is
is,
is
the
variance
that
we're
seeking
the
real
difference
in
our
mind,
is,
is
the
number
18.-
and
I
say
that
number
because
and
drew
will
probably
point
to
the
distinction
here,
which
mr
buckley
has
already
confirmed
in
his
calculation.
V
A
B
Montes,
I'm
sorry,
taylor
is
confusing
no
offense
taylor.
Much
respect,
I
think,
is,
is
trying
to
get
the
board
to
see
lower
numbers.
This
board
needs
to
keep
in
mind
that
the
variance
that
will
come
to
you
is
for
104.,
so
taylor's
throwing
a
lot
of
numbers
focus
on
104
and-
and
you
know,
the
1964
exception
in
the
code
does
not
apply.
I
B
F
V
Just
a
point
of
clarification,
the
1964
exception
would
apply
and
the
applicant
could
utilize
the
1964
exception
if
the
uses
required
fewer
had
fewer
people
attending
events.
So
if
the
maximum
capacity
for
an
event
was
only
250,
then
again
that
exception
would
apply
to
the
project
and
we
wouldn't
be
before
you
for
a
variance,
but
because
we're
seeking
to
have
the
larger
events
we
are
before
you,
as
drew
correctly
mentions
for
104
spaces.
V
I'm
just
trying
to
provide
the
board
with
some
illustrative
arguments
that
the
applicant
made
with
respect
to
realities
versus
what
the
code
requires.
So
the
brightline
rules
you
will
drew
correctly.
States
is
104
spaces
so
rather
than
bagas,
specifically
in
the
math.
I
think
what's
important
for
this
project
is.
This
is
a
historic
preservation
effort.
The
applicant
is
preserving
a
historic
church.
V
We
have
to
look
at
it
too,
for
what
the
nature
of
this
application
is
we're
not
proposing
to
develop
parking
spaces
in
the
middle
of
you
know,
in
front
of
the
church
along
the
side
to
river
ridge,
neighbors
we're
being
we're
accommodating
those
considerations,
so
we're
not
utilizing
or
maximizing
the
development
of
the
site
where
we
might
otherwise
be
able
to
put
these
parking
spaces
and
might
otherwise
meet
certain
requirements
that
we're
not
meeting
through
their
code.
So
with
that,
I
will
ask
ra.
V
Excuse
me
I'll,
ask
gavin
just
to
give
you
a
bit
about
himself
and
their
connection
to
the
property,
because
those
are
things
that
are
part
of
this
process.
You
know
it's
the
secret
process.
It's
the
community
impact
we're
preserving
a
church,
we're
you
know
we're
we're
fixing
up
a
cemetery,
we're
we're
taking
on
something
that
the
river
ridge
developers
didn't
that
west
end.
Loft
said
no
thanks
that
down
the
hill
said
no
thanks.
V
Nobody
wanted
the
problem,
we're
trying
to
create
a
you
know,
a
a
unique
development
and
and
doing
all
the
things
necessary
to
try
and
mitigate
potential
impacts
to
that
site.
So
the
numerical
104-
all
I'm
trying
to
do-
is
to
sort
of
say
that
the
number
doesn't
necessarily
the
devil's
in
the
details
and
we're
working
that
out
through
what
available
off-street
parking
could
otherwise
satisfy
these
needs.
H
Thanks
taylor,
my
name
is
gavin
hecker
and
I'm
here,
as
a
partner
in
this
project
with
one
of
our
other
partners,
is
here
as
well,
and
I
guess
taylor
pretty
much
said
everything
there.
I
just
wanted
to
give
you
a
little
bit
of
more
of
an
introduction
of
who
we
are
and
and
our
background
we
we
came
to
this
as
taylor
was
saying
this.
H
So
they
decided
to
sell
the
church
when
they
decided
to
sell
the
church
they
they
had
several
people
that
were
interested
in
it
and
we
had,
and
they
had
us
go
ahead
and
tell
them
what
we
plan
to
use
it
for,
and
this
is
exactly
why
we're
here
they
wanted
the
use
that
we
intend
to
use
it
for
and
traditionally
churches
that
no
longer
have
their
congregations.
There
anymore
are
often
turned
into
another
space
for
people
to
congregate.
H
H
I
live
a
seven
minute,
walk
from
the
church,
I'm
there
almost
every
day
now
and
everybody
we're
working
with
is,
is
pretty
much
a
resident
of
beacon
or
has
a
close
association
with
us,
and
they
want
to
see
this
as
a
cultural
center
and
with
that
I'll
I'll
move
on,
I
just
wanted
to
make
that
introduction.
Thank
you.
K
K
It's
mainly
interior
work
that
doesn't
affect
the
outside
that
there's
going
to
be
a
new
entrance
door
to
the
cafe
on
this
little
north
wing
of
the
building,
and
then
there's
going
to
be
a
new
deck
off
of
the
cafe
in
in
the
back
of
the
church,
so
that
that
wouldn't
be
seen
from
the
street.
But
you
know,
apart
from
that,
everything
on
the
church
building
is
on
the
interior.
K
Then
we're
also
adaptively
reusing
the
existing
directory
building
and
that's
going
to
be
where
the
hotel
is
we're
going
to
be
adding
to
to
that
building
to
the
rear
and
creating.
You
know
that
30
room
hotel
building,
the
detailing
of
the
addition,
is
similar
to
the
existing
building
similar
materials.
K
K
V
Just
I'm
just
buying
time
for
rich
to
plug
his
toggle,
and
so
he
can
do
his
quick
presentation,
but
I'd
make
just
two
two
notes
that
I've
made
everybody's
brain
hurt.
Lastly,
but
leastly
not
leastly,
we
did
speak
to
folks
from
while
we're
not
in
the
public
hearing
process
either
tonight
or
at
the
planning
board.
We
have
made
initial
communications
because
again
we're
their
neighbors
and
we're
trying
to
make
sure
that
their
voices
are
heard
both
through
our
landscaping
or
other
components
of
the
application.
V
So
we
have
met
with
folks
from
river
ridge
and
from
west
end
lofts,
and
we
do
actually
have
letters
of
support
that
would
be
incorporated
into
any
future
submission
when
it
relates
to
this
application.
So
we're
we're
not
going
darkly
in
tonight.
We
are
trying
to
to
make
this
a
project
that
that
is
embraced
by
not
only
its
immediate
neighbors
but
the
community.
Otherwise,
so
with
that
buying
time
from
rich
he's
got
the
toggle.
S
So
I'm
going
to
run
through
a
brief
presentation
just
to
give
you
guys
all
an
idea
of
a
lot
of
the
information
that
was
submitted
to
use
in
our
traffic
study
and
in
the
draft
traffic
and
parking
management
plan
that
we
provided.
The
reason
it
was
a
draft
is
we're
still
in
the
process
of
developing
that
with
the
applicant
and
some
of
the
some
of
the
things
that
actually
we
can
update
you
on.
As
I
go
through
this,
so
I
think
we've
all
been
through
the
the
site
location.
S
S
Looking
to
potentially
park
some
of
the
people,
so
we
have
the
tompkins
firehouse
lot.
That's
in
this
location
right
here,
not
too
far
from
the
site,
we're
also
looking
at
potentially
using
the
utilizing
parking
within
the
municipal,
plaza
lock
here
at
city
hall,
there's
on-street
parking
along
beacon
street,
that's
usually
fairly
available
and
I'll
get
into
some
of
the
the
numbers
that
we've
collected
for
those
locations.
S
We
talked
about
the
site
plan
a
little
bit.
One
of
the
things
that
just
to
mention
is
you
know
the
on-site
circulation
as
it's
planned
right
now
provides
a
two-way
driveway
where
the
existing
driveway
is
today,
there
may
be
some
improvements
to
that
driveway
which
we're
showing
right
now
we're
waiting
for
some
input
from
new
york,
state
transportation,
department
of
transportation.
S
On
the
configuration
of
that
driveway
from
there,
we
have
parking
in
the
back
and
a
one-way
exit
driveway
only
a
driveway
at
the
north
end
there's
an
existing
curb
cut
at
that
location.
Today,
it's
basically
just
the
drive
gravel
driveway
today,
but
we
would
be
upgrading
that
for
for
exiting
movements,
this
is
just
a
more
zoomed.
In
view
of
of
that
plan,
we've
talked
about
the
the
project
description,
not
much
more.
To
add
to
this
to
that
at
this
point,
so
I'm
just
going
to
breeze
through
that.
S
So
taylor
got
into
some
of
the
numbers
on
the
on
the
code
requirements
for
the
parking,
the
hotel,
31
spaces.
We
have
30
rooms
there,
plus
one
one
planned
employee
at
any
one
time.
The
cafes
anticipated
to
be
50
seats
or
50
patrons
so
17
spaces
there,
and
then
our
350
person,
maximum
size
event
would
be
another
88
parking
spaces,
so
totaling
136
spaces.
S
We
talked
about
we're
providing
32
spaces
on
site.
The
total
variance
is
104..
The
one
thing
that
taylor
didn't
really
get
into
is
the
the
anticipated
use
of
the
cafe
during
the
event
times.
So
during
events,
the
cafe
would
only
be
there
to
support
the
event
and
it
would
theoretically
be
a
non-simultaneous
use,
so
you
wouldn't
have
people
that
aren't
attending
the
event
at
the
cafe
at
the
same
time.
So,
based
on
that,
in
my
mind,
the
real
parking
deficiency
that
we
have
here
is
87
spaces,
not
the
104
that
the.
P
S
Agreed
and
the
cafe
will
be
open
to
the
public.
However,
when
there's
an
event
going
on
there,
the
cafe
will
not
have
anyone
outside
of
the
event
is
how
the
the
they
plan
to
operate
the
cafe.
So
that's
just
you
know
in
my
mind,
the
87
spaces
is
the
number
understanding
that
your
board
needs
to
look
at
the
104
right.
S
So,
knowing
that
we
have
to
accommodate
these
parking
spaces
out
above
the
32
that
we're
providing
on
site
somewhere,
we
looked
at
the
available
parking
in
the
area
and-
and
obviously
this
is
there's
a
lot
going
on
this
figure
that
it's
a
little
hard
to
see.
But
we
have
the
tompkins
lot
which,
as
part
of
our
traffic
study,
we
were
asked
to
provide
a
conceptual
layout
for
because,
if
you
go
over
there
today,
it's
just
a
gravel
or
grass
lot
and
no
striped
parking.
So
we
provided
a
conceptual
layout.
S
S
There's
72
spaces
along
beekman
street
and
the
other
thing
that's
kind
of
new
that
has
developed
in
the
last
week
or
so
is
the
applicant
is
looking
at
entertaining
or
entering
into
an
agreement
with
the
riverview
funeral
home
to
obtain
some
the
use
of
their
parking
when
they
have
available
parking
which
can
be
used
legalized
on
the
weekends.
For
these
larger
events
and
things
like
that,
we
also
identified
some
of
the
more
remote
parking
locations.
F
S
S
We
looked
at,
we
also
looked
at
the
cross
street
lot
up
along
main
street.
This
cliff
lot
the
beacon
center
lot
and
then
obviously,
we
didn't
really
get
into
the
actual
parking
availability
in
the
beacon
train
station
lot.
But
we,
we
did
do
some
quick
observations
of
that
and
I
can
discuss
that
a
little
bit
further.
S
We
have
anywhere
between
160
and
240
spaces
available
in
these
different
area.
Lots
and
again
that
takes
into
account
some
of
those
more
remote
locations
across
the
cross
street
lot,
the
cliff
slot
and
the
beacon
center,
which
weren't
were
more
heavily
utilized,
obviously
because
they're
along
mainstream,
but
the
locations
that
are
closer
to
the
the
site
along
tonkin
at
the
tomkins
lot
at
the
municipal
plaza
a
lot
here
and
along
beacon
street
were
more
more
free
at
those
times.
S
Just
wanted
to
touch
on
some
of
the
the
connectivity
to
these
locations
where
the
parking
is
we
mentioned
that
there's
existing
pathways
between
beacon,
street
and
walcott
avenue
today,
along
ferry
street
and
between
the
west
end
lofts.
Here
we're
also
going
to
be
providing
that
same
similar
connection
to
beekman
street.
To
make
this
readily
available.
S
We
estimate
that
to
be
a
three
to
five
minute,
walk
depending
on
where
you
are
along
on
beekman
street
yeah,
the
municipal
plaza
to
the
site
is
about
four
four
and
a
half
minute
walk
tompkins
lot,
two
to
three
minute
walk.
So
all
those
are
fairly
readable
readily
close
to
here,
the
other
locations
are
more
like
seven
to
eight
minutes
walking
but
seem
to
be
fairly
reasonable.
S
Obviously,
the
the
the
beacons
train
station-
it's
a
larger
hill
people
may
not
want
to
walk
up
that
hill,
but
if
the
intent
is
that
we
would
may
be
directing
people
to
park
in
certain
locations
and
if
that's
one
of
the
locations
that
we
think
that
would
be
helpful.
We're
also
talking
about
trying
to
provide
people
coming
to
the
project
information
about
public
transportation
too,
as
that
may
be
an
option.
S
So
this
figure
that
I
have
in
the
plant
on
the
board
right
now
is
what
we
anticipate
for
the
circulation
at
the
moment.
Again,
some
of
this
is
is
in
the
works.
We
we
may
look
at
reversing
the
circulation
of
this,
but
this
is
basically
for
the
management
of
the
traffic
on
the
site
for
pickups
drop-offs
and
knowing
that
there's
no
parking
for
the
events
on
the
site.
So
we
would
have
attendance
there
to
make
sure
that
that
people
do
not
try
to
park
in
those
locations.
S
The
other
pieces
of
the
traffic
and
parking
management
plan
are
really
disseminating
information
from
attendees.
How
are
we
going
to
do
that
via
the
web?
A
website
we
could
provide
them
information
electronically,
if
they're
for
a
ticketed
event
through
representatives
or
coordinators
of
coordinators
of
the
non-ticketed
events,
even
handouts
on
the
day
of
the
event
by
by
attendance
in
the
parking
lot
could
be
utilized,
say:
okay,
this
is
where
you
should
go
to
the
park.
S
Taylor
did
mention
some
of
the
other
main
street
access
committee,
parking
recommendations,
just
kind
of
pointing
those
out
just
two
two
potential
things
here
about
the
the
beacon
center
lot
and
additional
parking
there,
and
maybe
some
parking
along
walcott
avenue
that
were
identified.
Nothing
that
we're
really
taking
account
for
in
our
study,
but
that
may
be
something
in
the
future.
The
other
thing
taylor
mentioned
that
would
be
potentially
impacting
the
parking
could
be
something
happening
in
the
municipal
plaza
lot.
That
may
be
a
future
development
that
may
take
away
some
parking.
There's.
S
Also,
we
understand
there's
plans
for
the
tompkins
firehouse
to
do
some
kind
of
addition
to
their
firehouse
there.
That
may
reduce
some
of
the
parking
that's
available
in
the
tompkins
lot.
So
that's
something
else
that
we're
considering
as
we
work
through
this
and
the
last
piece
of
this
is
taylor
did
mention
you
know
we
could
potentially
provide
parking
in
other
locations,
not
something
on
the
site
that
we
really
want
to
do
because
again
we're
trying
to
it's
a
historic
preservation,
but
there
are
locations
that
we
have
identified.
S
That
could
potentially
provide
some
additional
parking
and
that's
what
what's
kind
of
shown
on
these
figures,
but
really
we're
just
trying
to
show
that
we
could
go
that
route,
but
because
it's
a
historical
preservation
project
is
a
big
key
component
of
this.
It's
not
an
ideal
solution.
We
don't
see
it
so,
and
I
think
the
only
thing
I
didn't
really
talk
about
was
the
traffic
portion
of
this,
and
so
I'll
just
touch
on.
It
briefly
was
so
our
traffic
study
we
took
into
account
the
traffic.
S
Under
our
build
scenario,
it's
been
reviewed
by
the
city's
traffic
consultant
generally,
we
don't
have
any
significant
impacts
shown
in
that
analysis.
It's
still
being
reviewed
by
the
department
of
transportation
and
the
your
city's
traffic
consultant
has
also
asked
us
to
provide
a
sensitivity
analysis
to
go
along
with
our
next
submission,
which
we
will
be
providing
so
there's
some
more
information
to
come
on.
V
So
if
you
want,
we
can
wait
for
the
chairman
to
return,
but
that
generally
concludes
our
presentation.
I'm
sorry
there's
a
lot
there.
We
have
been
with
the
planning,
but
for
quite
some
time
so
and
hopefully
that
gave
you
a
little
bit
of
a
feel
about
what
we've
been
working
on
and
some
of
the
updates
that
we've
been
trying
to
include,
but
again
we're
in
a
historic.
V
B
Yeah,
so
the
planning
board
is,
as
this
has
been
referred
to
this
board
for
an
opinion
on
the
unseeker,
specifically
with
respect
to
the
parking.
So
the
planning
board
is
looking
for
a
memo
from
this
board
back
to
them
on
your
thoughts
and
concerns
on
the
project,
but
specifically
the
parking,
because
that's
where
we're
going
to
have
you
know
a
decision
to
make
when
this
eventually
comes
before
this
board.
So
things
to
consider
you
know
we're
not
going
through
the
five
factor
test
but
think
about
it
for
environmental
impact
purposes.
B
So
think
of
that
fourth,
fourth
factor:
are
there
any
environmental
concerns
that
this
parking
variance
would
raise
that
you
would
like
answers
to
or
clarification
on.
I
think
community
impact
from
this
parking
variants
can
also
go
to
seeker
as
well.
So
I
think
those
you
know
in
terms
of
okay,
how
does
the
zba
look
at
this?
I
think
you're,
looking
at
community
impact
you're
looking
at
you
know
how
this
will
impact
the
environment
and
the
goal
is
to
put
together
a
memo
back
to
the
planning
board,
with
our
thoughts,
questions
and
concerns.
C
V
You
to
the
applicant
yeah,
we
were
just
speaking
about
the
boards
the
objective
tonight
that
it's
not
the
typical
five
factor
review.
It's
looking
at
whether
the
project
would
have
a
significantly
significant
environmental
impact
and,
of
course
our
submission
is
that,
through
the
mitigation
measures,
the
traffic
reports,
the
management
programs
and
the
other
off-site
review
that
it
wouldn't
have
a
potentially
significant
environmental
impact.
So.
F
B
I
would
say:
there's
no
expectation
tonight.
The
board
should
take
its
time.
Ask
questions:
ask
for
more
information.
There
is
no
expectation
from
the
planning
board
that
you
will
have
a
memo
back
to
them.
You
know
for
their
review.
I
think
their
their
meeting
passed
right,
john
well.
They
review
whatever
their
their
meeting
this
month
or
next
month.
So
there
is
no
rush
to
have
a
product
tonight.
P
C
V
It
would
be
a
license,
typically
a
license
agreement
or
you
know
a
lease
agreement
as
I
understand
it,
and
and
we
have
we're
working
out
the
logistics
of
it,
but
I
understand
that
this
funeral
home
does
not
typically
have
evening
wakes
or
other
events
they're
typically
during
the
day.
So
it's
actually
a
perfect.
Well
perfect,
it's
an
unfair
word,
but
it's
a
better.
V
I
would
most
of
the
ways
that
I've
attended
have
usually
been
in
the
evening
hours.
This
particular
funeral
home
doesn't
doesn't
do
that.
We
have
to
get
more
information
to
confirm
all
that.
But
yes,
it
would
be
a
license
agreement
and
it
would
be
you
know
when
they're
not
when
there
wouldn't
be
a
conflict
it
would.
It
would
be
open
to
our
use,
but
we
understand
that
the
hours
of
our
evening
events
or
events
on
the
weekends
would
typically
be
in
the
evening
hours.
V
Some
may
be,
you
know
a
bit
earlier,
but
the
idea
here
is
the
layer
cake
concept
where
we're
not
just
looking
only
at
the
publicly
available
lots
we're
still
in
discussions
with
other
owners
as
well,
so
that
if
something
were
they're
paving
their
parking
lot
and
we
can't
use
it,
then
you
know
okay,
call
up
lot
b
or
redirect
traffic
to
these
publicly
available
lots.
Utilizing
our
traffic
management
plan.
V
Exactly
so,
we
have
to
anticipate
just
that
the
same
way,
as
mr
clark
has
mentioned
during
at
the
planning
board
meetings
that
we,
you
know
and,
and
mr
d'andrea
mentioned
tonight,
you
know
we're
looking
to
the
future
and
seeing
that
there
could
be
more
opportunity,
but
we
we
aren't
taking
credit
for
that.
In
our
analysis,
we're
not
saying
we're
just
highlighting
you
know
some
of
those
points.
V
You
know
it's
the
converse
of
your
point,
mr
jensen,
which
is
that
there
could
be
something
that
funeral
home
could
become
a
you
know
a
I
don't
know
an
apartment
building
or
something
else
where
that
may
not
be
available
to
us,
but
it
is
a
license
agreement,
so
it
wouldn't
be
in
perpetuity
would
be
as
as
long
as
the
events
here
and
the
same.
The
same
could
be
true.
I
don't
know
that
this
event,
the
events
will
always
be
350.
V
They
could
be
less,
but
again
we're
not
we're
not
here
to
kind
of
go
through
that
we're
trying
to
find
as
many
other
solutions.
Our
traffic
and
parking
report
identifies
that
there
is
availability
to
satisfy
our
needs,
but
because
of
all
of
the
potential
development
or
otherwise,
for
those
lots,
we
have
to
find
multiple
ways
to
try
and
satisfy
that,
and
that's
that's
what
what
our
traffic
management
plan
does
is
kind
of
smatter.
C
A
question
for
drew-
and
you
may
not
really
know
at
the
top
of
your
head,
but
hypothetically
speaking
in
the
future,
if
there's
a
parking
variance
request
in
front
of
us
and
part
of
the
rationale
of
approving
it
is
well,
for
example,
while
an
event
is
going
on
the
restaurant's
not
going
to
allow
people
to
attend
who
are
not
associated
with
the
event
or
during
certain
days
of
the
week
on
weekdays,
etc.
Events
are
not
going
to
exceed
a
certain
size
so
effectively
an
occupancy
limit
on
the
building.
That's
tied
to
time
of
day.
V
Because
again,
we
can't
request
the
variance
really
from
you
for
two
days
of
the
week.
You
know-
or
we
would
be
before
you
with
that
more
narrowly
focused
ideal.
It's
it's
in
every
you
know,
that's
not,
unfortunately,
how
we
can
condition
the
relief.
The
planning
board
at
some
future
date
may
condition
hours
of
operation.
You
know
the
typical
time
place
and
manner
restrictions
associated
with
the
program.
C
C
P
B
C
J
M
M
The
planning
board's
been
very
understanding
of
parking
restrictions
in
that
area.
But
when
you
do,
when
you
come
to
a
building
in
the
central
business
district,
there's
something
like
750
parking
spaces
within
a
block
of
main
street,
when
you
add
up
all
the
on-street
parking
and
the
public
lots
so
that
if
one
building
can't
supply
the
parking,
there's
public
reserves
out
there
in
abundance
relatively
speaking.
But
this
is
in
an
area
of
the
city
that
doesn't
have
that.
M
There's
no
on-street
parking
on
walcott,
you
don't
want
them
to
park
event,
space
and
surplus
parking
parking
on
academy
street
across
the
street
directly,
which
is
a
threat.
I
think
if
I
lived
in
beacon
and
knew
the
back
roads,
I
would
park
there,
it's
the
shortest
walk,
and
then
you
have
a
bunch
of
people
going
down
dead,
end
streets
to
try
to
fund
parking.
M
So
there
is
a
constriction
here.
The
planning
board
is
very
concerned
about
the
intensity
of
use.
It's
one
thing
to
have
a
hotel.
It's
another
thing
to
have
a
hotel
with
a
cafe.
It's
another
thing:
to
have
a
space.
That's
going
to
be
used
for
concerts
up
to
350
people
on
top
of
those.
This
would
create
a
parking
deficit
even
during
the
day,
because
the
hotel
only
covers
the
31
out
of
the
32
spaces.
M
M
So
there
is
a
concern
about
the
intensity
of
use.
The
three
overlapping
uses
there's
so
the
first
thing
is
that
the
planning
board
would
have
to
give
a
special
permit
and
there's
a
dozen
half
a
dozen
or
more
conditions
that
are
in
the
law
that
they
would
have
to
satisfy
in
order
to
get
the
special
permit
and
one
of
the
major
one
is
adequate
parking
on
the
site
that
won't
affect
the
historic
character
of
the
church.
M
K
M
That's
our
major
concern!
Normally,
when
you
either
put
the
development
in
a
place
where
there's
abundant
flexible
parking
or
if
you
put
it
in
a
place
where
there
isn't
you
have
some
sort
of
lease
agreement,
so
it
guarantees
that
that
lot
is
going
to
be
available
to
you
when
you
need
it
on
a
saturday
night
for
a
big
concert,
we
haven't
seen
that
as
a
possibility
erased,
it's
more
that.
Well,
if
that's
what's
full,
then
we
could
go
to
this
one
a
little
further
away.
K
I
M
It's
the
constrictions
on
this
side
are
numerous
that
I,
and
there
are
two
relief
valves
that
they
can
apply
to
one.
The
planning
board
has
the
right
to
modify
the
parking
requirements
if
they
consider
it
a
shared
use,
and
the
applicant
has
argued
that
the
cafe
will
only
be
open,
won't
be
open
when
the
event
space
is
full,
and
so
therefore
they
shouldn't
be
asked
to
provide
those
17
spaces
for
the
cafe,
and
that
could
be.
M
M
M
M
I
M
That's
something
different,
but
rely
on
this
potential
for
beekman
street
or
the
two
lots
that
are
closest
seems
to
be
precarious,
and
I
think
that's
the
planning
board's
position
and
they
were
unsure
how
to
proceed
and
get
a
sense
from
the
pla.
The
zoning
board,
if
you
would
be
willing
to
consider
a
substantial
variance
or
how
that
might
affect
their
seeker
ruling,
because
they
they
can't
really
pass
this
on,
for
variance
until
they
make
a
secret
determination
and
the
sacred
determination
is
based
on
parking
availability.
D
E
C
C
If
we
for
the
super
the
purposes
of
discussion,
if
we
took
it
as
a
given
that
we
absolutely
have
to
maintain,
we
preserve
this
church
building
and
the
city
isn't
going
to
buy
it.
So,
at
the
end
of
the
day,
someone's
got
to
come
up
with
some
kind
of
a
workable
commercial,
religious,
non-profit,
whatever
proposal,
so
it's
self-sustaining.
M
Well,
I
I
haven't
seen
they
haven't,
submitted
any
business
plan
to
the
planning
board.
Obviously,
but
there
is
a
brand
new
30
room
hotel
being
proposed
that
the
planning
board
can
see
happening
there
and
they
can
provide
parking
for
that.
The
cafe
would
be
an
accessory
used
to
that,
and
perhaps
that's
useful
and
you
know
the
hotel
could
sponsor
special
events,
just
not
350
person
events.
Maybe
you
know
much
something
much
smaller.
V
We're
not
at
the
five
factor,
if
I
may
miss
german
we're
not
at
the
five
factor
analysis
yet,
but
one
of
the
consideration
is
if
it's,
the
minimum
variance
necessary,
which
does
somewhat
tie
into
that
that
particular
category.
I
do
just
want
to
add
one
piece
to
mr
clark's
comments.
Well,
it
is
a
special
permit.
I
mean
I
we
always
put
this
into
our
submissions
for
the
benefit
of
those
that
aren't
attorneys
on
the
board.
A
special
permit
is
tent
amount
to
a
permitted
use.
It
just
is
subject
to
specific
criteria.
V
So
it's
not
a
special
use.
It's
not
special.
It's
a
use,
that's
subject
to
special
permanent
criteria.
So
if
it
meets
those
criteria,
the
board
has
to
balance
those.
So
one
particular
consideration
is
notwithstanding.
If
this
board
did
grant
the
full
variance
the
planning
board-
as
mr
clark
has
pointed
out,
to
that
board,
we'll
have
to
evaluate
those
criteria
and
whether
or
not
the
project
itself
on
its
merits
meets
those
criteria
will
be
outside
of
of
of
this
relief,
so
you
could
grant
the
whole
variance.
V
V
You
may
all
be
familiar
with
the
cms's
ability
that
gives
the
planning
board
much
more
latitude
to
grant
parking
relief.
You
used
to
see
me
coming
to
your
board
more
regularly
for
cms
projects
before
the
most
recent
amendments.
After
the
comprehensive
plan
update-
and
I
would
wave
my
white
flag,
which
was
here-
are
the
parking
variances
granted
for
all
of
these
uses
on
main
street,
and
that
was
because,
before
that,
that
code
was
updated,
they
were
overly
overly
strict
parking
requirements
and
they
also
had
not
been
updated.
V
V
This
this
request-
that's
before
you
is
not
presidential
in
that,
not
presidential,
but
presidential,
in
that
it's
totally
unique
to
this
site.
The
area
of
beacon,
historic
preservation
aspects,
there's
a
lot
of
things
here.
That
would
make
it
distinguishable
from
any
future
applicants.
So,
while
the
number
again
may
seem
significant,
the
balancing
that
you
would
ultimately
you
know
look
at
in
that
five
factor
test
is
very
specific
to
this
site.
So
I
just
wanted
to
sort
of
highlight
that
the
cms
regulations
have
given
the
planning
board.
V
So
just
to
give
you
a
sense
and
that's
main
street,
now
we're
off
main
street.
You
know
we're,
as
you
see
on
the
board,
there's
a
lot
around
we're
all
familiar
with
that
hill.
We've
all
walked
it
cold
or
otherwise,
probably
in
the
wrong
outfit,
because
you
were
you
know
going
out
that
night,
but
notwithstanding,
we
understand
those,
but
we're
really
trying
to
come
together
with
a
full
gambit
of
ways
to
address
these.
You
know
the
parking
deficiency
through
these
combination
of
available
off
street
and
other
private
agreements
that
we're
working
on.
E
A
B
E
E
I
B
Well,
I
don't
want
to
use
the
words
grant
or
not
grant,
because
you're
you're
not
making
a
determination
on
the
variance.
What
you
say
at
this
point
is
not
determinative
of
your
decision
on
the
application,
because
you're
not
going
through
the
full
five
factors.
This
is
just
to
get
your
thoughts.
You
know
your
thoughts
and
concerns
to
the
planning
board.
Things
you
think
are
good
things
you
think
are
bad
things.
You
have
a
lot
of
questions
on.
That's
what
we're
trying
to
express
to
the
planning
board,
specifically
in
the
context
of
seeker.
B
Exactly
specific
to
environmental
community
impacts,
I
would
say
that
if
you
say
you
know,
this
is
the
worst
thing
for
the
environment
ever
and
you
know
this
is
this
is
crazy.
Bad
and
the
applicant
does
nothing
to
change
the
project
and
it
eventually
comes
back
to
the
zba,
and
you
say:
oh,
this
is
great
for
the
environment
that
wouldn't
that
wouldn't
look
good,
but
that's
not
what
this
board.
R
B
V
If
I
made
this
particular
application
is
an
unlisted
action,
so
there
are
three
types
of
actions
under
seeker:
there's
a
type
two
action
which
means
it's
not
reviewable
by
any
invol
any
agency.
It's
just
it's!
It's
not
reviewed,
there's,
no
environmental
review
process
for
a
type
two
action.
This
is
an
unlisted
action.
Then
the
larger
accidents
could
be
are
called
type
one
action
and
they
meet
criteria
that
would
require
a
coordinator
review.
This
application
isn't
unlisted,
but
in
working
with
the
planning
board
and
zoning
board
attorneys
it's
being
done
as
a
coordinated
environmental
review.
V
So
we're
not
doing
seeker,
sometimes
we're
before
you
and
there
may
be
a
separate
seeker
process,
because
in
those
instances
it
might
involve
a
setback
for
a
house
or
you
know
other
consideration
that
would
the
application
would
make
sense
to
have
it
secret
done
with
both
agencies
or
it
may
not
require
secret
review
by
your
board.
You
are
an
involved
agency
in
the
in
the
planning
boards
review
process,
so
we're
tonight
getting
your
input
on
whether
there
would
be
a
potentially
significant
environmental
impact
from
this
project.
D
V
B
E
M
C
M
And
so
that
scale
of
operation
is
still
part
of
the
the
special
permit
conditions
that
they're
going
to
run
into
as
being
the
most
critically
important
or
the
first
one
is
the
size
of
the
use,
the
intensity
of
the
operation
in
relation
to
the
size
of
the
site.
That's
one
of
them
shorthand
adequate
parking
is
one
of
them.
M
So
that's
why
we're
here
and
the
third
one
is
the
proposed
use
is
compatible
with
the
neighborhood
adequately
buffered
from
any
surrounding
residential
uses,
so
those
are
sort
of
the
three
hurdles
that
you
have
to
get
over.
The
rest.
Are
you
know
not
as
not
as
tough
as
argument?
It's
those
three
okay.
G
B
That's
yeah,
that's
correct,
it's
not
a
public
hearing,
so
you
know
those
you've
received
those
those
letters.
It's
fine
for
you
to
read
them,
but
it
is
not
a
public
hearing.
There
will
be
an
opportunity
to
have
a
public
hearing
before
the
zba.
There
will
be
an
opportunity
to
have
a
public
hearing
before
the
planning
board,
so
the
public
will
get
their
time
to
make
comments
before
both
boards.
But
now
is
just
the
secret
process
and
nothing
can
happen
until
the
planning
board
concludes
secret.
So.
F
B
I
mean,
I
think,
you're
you're,
only
human
you're,
gonna
you're
gonna
read
these
letters.
They
have
been
sent
to
you,
but
I
would
try
and
kind
of
separate
them
out
if
there's
any
questions
that
they
raise,
you
know
make
sure
you
bring
them
back
to
this
table
for
a
discussion
with
the
rest
of
the
board
with
mr
palmer
and
his
team
as
well.
But
I
I
wouldn't
you
know
I
I
wouldn't
take
those
to
heart.
Quite
yet
we're
just
not
there
yet.
B
B
Sure
so
I
always
skim
through
that
in
our
secret
training
sessions,
because
we
don't
deal
with
it
too
often
here,
but
once
if
it
is
a
positive
declaration,
the
applicant
then
has
to
prepare
an
environmental
impact
statement.
They
have
to
do
a
scoping
session,
which
is
a
public
hearing
that
sets
forth
the
outline
for
what
would
be
included
in
the
environmental
impact
statement.
They
then
prepare
a
draft
environmental
impact
statement.
There'll
be
a
public
hearing
on
that
document.
B
When
it's
finalized,
then
there
is
a
final
environmental
impact
statement
where
the
applicant
then
responds
to
every
single
com,
substantive
comment
that
was
brought
up
on
the
public
hearing
on
the
draft
environmental
impact
statement.
Once
that's
concluded,
the
planning
board
would
adopt
it
as
complete
and
then
prepare
a
finding
statement
within
10
days
after
that,
and
that's
just
the
the
secret
process
right.
E
B
V
And
why
I
would
just
note
that
it's
a
very
important
point,
you
know
with
the
application
again
is
an
unlisted
action,
not
as
a
type
one
action.
As
far
as
the
seeker
review
is
concerned,
part
of
what
the
applicant
has
submitted
by
you
know
presenting
the
traffic
reports,
preparing
the
traffic
mitigation
analysis
and
the
management
plan.
Those
are
the
same
types
of
documents
that
would
come
out
of
the
funnel
at
the
end
of
the
review
process.
So
what
the
applicant
is
doing
is
is
essentially
saying
hey
if
there's
a
concern
about
the
potential
environmental
impacts.
V
These
are
the
ways
that
we're
mitigating
them.
If
those
specific
impacts
that
are
already
identified
in
this
environmental
review
process
are
not
sufficient
or
that
the
board
sees
them
as
still
a
potentially
significant,
not
just
a
potential
impact,
not
just
a
impact,
but
a
potentially
significant
environmental
impact
that
would
trigger
the
need
for
a
positive
declaration
or
a
could
trigger
a
positive
declaration.
So,
as
far
as
our
environmental
review
is
concerned,
the
applicant
has
done
what
we
would
call
sort
of
an
expanded
eaf.
It's
not
just
the
form
if
you
just
submitted
the
form.
V
These
are
the
you
know,
sort
of
the
triggers
that
the
board
might
ask
for
these
things,
but
understanding
the
limitations
that
you
know
been
highlighted.
We've
gone
ahead
and
prepared
all
of
these
analyses
to
justify
or
support
how
if
there
is
a
concern
or
if
there
is
an
environmental
potential,
any
potentially
significant
environmental
impact,
we've
mitigated
it
because
we
have
the
availability
of
these
off-site
spaces.
Mr
d'andrea
pointed
out
150
164
off-street
parking
spaces
within
you
know
the
quarter
mile
the
site.
V
You
know
we've
identified
a
potential
private
operator
that
would
potentially
have
lease.
You
know
we
have
traffic
management
plans,
that's
going
to
keep
people
flowing
on
the
site,
limiting
restrictions,
traffic
circulation.
We
do
have
on-site
parking.
You
know
all
these
things
are
into
our
blender,
so
to
speak,
to
try
and
help
justify
or
support
why
we
do
not
have
a
potentially
significant
environmental
impact.
M
M
They
would
have
prepared
a
lot
of
what
they,
what
we'll
make
a
difference
in
an
eis
versus
a
planning
board
site
plan
review,
for
instance,
is
that
you
can
require
the
applicant
to
do
different
alternatives
and
then
measure
how
those
alternatives
would
work
on
the
site.
So,
for
instance,
you
could
say
instead
of
a
350
occupancy,
what
if
we
did
a
150
occupancy?
How
would
that
change
the
numbers?
Would
that
mitigate
the
problems?
M
V
And
we
can
also
identify
that
that
I
appreciate-
and
I
don't
disagree
with
the
statement-
that
alternatives
analysis
is
one
something
that
could
come
out
of
a
eis
review,
but
we
can
identify
that
pretty
straightforward.
What
the
parking
number
would
be
for
a
reduced.
We
can
tell
you
that
there's
about
200
people
that
could
be
at
an
event
for
the
86
spaces
that
are
provided
for
by
the
parking
exception,
so
those
those
numbers
can
be
provided
to
you.
I
think
the
important
aspect
here
is:
are
we
potentially
causing
a
significant
environmental
impact?
V
If
we
have
all
this
available
parking
off-site,
you
know,
is
the
limitation
that's
created
by
the
site,
the
32
spaces
that
we're
providing
off-site?
Is
that
a
significant
environmental
impact
from
offside-
and
I
know
the
planning
board
typically
has
a
seeker
public
hearing.
I
actually
got
myself
learned
by
miss
gray
that
we
don't
have
a
subdivision,
so
they
don't
do
it
in
this
particular
instance.
V
But
at
some
I
believe
that,
when
this
project
is
in
the
form
that
the
planning
board
sees
fit,
I
don't
know
that
they're
going
to
close
the
seeker
process
before
opening
the
public
hearing.
But
that's
just
for
your
benefit
that
the
public
may
be
commenting
on
this
application
prior
to
any
formal
secret
determination.
So
a
lot
of
these
concerns
or
or
details
regarding
a
positive
declaration
are
well
stated
and
well
articulated.
But
the
idea
of
our
review
process
is
to
get
all
this
information
into
that.
You
know
because
we
know
what
the
the
concern
is.
B
That
the
board-
you
know
it's,
it's
10
30.
I
think
the
board
has
done
some
really
good
thinking
tonight.
I
would
recommend
digesting
these
materials
and
emailing
me.
Any
questions
concerns
thoughts.
You
have
that
way.
I
can
keep
a
record
if
there's
any
additional
information
you
think
the
applicant
should
provide.
Let
me
know
the
sooner
the
better
I
can
reach
out
to
taylor
and
and
make
sure
that
the
applicant
has
it
for
the
next
meeting.
B
I
can
also
you
know,
have
that
list
to
bring
up
those
comments
at
the
next
meeting
you
know
of
who
who
said
what
here
are
your
thoughts
that
you
had
after
the
meeting,
and
then
we
can
start
to
use
that
to
formulate
a
memo
to
the
planning
board,
you're,
not
forced
to
email
me,
I
just
think,
or
you
can
write
them
down
yourself.
I
just
think
for
efficiency.
B
S
So,
in
our
in
september
and
november
counts,
we
didn't
look
at
the
municipal
plaza
from
1
to
5
pm
because
we
figured
that's
when
those
spaces
are
being
heavily
utilized
because
there's
people
working
in
this
building
right,
we
looked
at
it
after
five
pm.
So
what
you
see
in
january
is
one
to
five
pm
on
a
weekday
on
a
weekday
right,
correct,
okay,
that's
why
it's
more
heavily
utilized,
there's
less
spaces
available!
There.
E
C
B
Know
I
don't
want
it
to
create
yeah
to
create
a
you
know,
a
string
of
comments.
If
you
have
the
same
comment
as
someone
else
had
you
know,
I
won't
make
a
note
of
it
on
the
public
record,
but
I
do
worry
about
you
know
the
board
getting
excited
and
talking
to
each
other,
and
it
might
even
be
my
own.
My
own
fault,
you
know.
If
I
respond
to
everybody,
I
don't
want
to
trigger
a
conversation
it
should
be
had
in
the
in
the
public
eye.
B
A
V
Requests,
if
you
have
there's
specific
other
details,
you
know
there
was
mentions
tonight
of
other
information
if
there
are
specific
requests
that
we
can
dial
up
and
it
wouldn't
be
a
board
meeting.
If
I
didn't
make
a
request
of
your
board,
if
possible,
we
will
be
submitting
supplementally.
We
have
the
same
deadline
as
the
planning
board
they
submit
on
the
same
day,
and
we
don't
want
to
give
a
bad
taste
of
efforts.
V
We
don't
we
don't
want
to.
You
know
for
the
new,
the
changing
of
the
guard,
so
we
want
to
make
a
good
impression
and
get
things
in
on
time,
but
we
have
about
two
weeks
before
that
supplemental
deadline,
so,
if
possible
in
the
next
two
weeks.
If
those
questions
come
in
that
way,
we
can
try
and
address
them
in
our
submission
to
your
board,
and
that
will
give
you
the
time
too,
to
review
our
responses.
V
Really
appreciate
all
of
your
time-
and
this
helps
direct
us
and,
of
course,
the
applicants
who's
here
know
what
you're
looking
at
and
and
making
sure
that
these
things
go
in,
because
this
project
has
changed
significantly
since
the
the
onset-
and
I
think
you
know
we're
here-
to
make
it
a
project
that
everyone
will
be
proud
of
on
the
back
end.
So
there's
a
lot
to
it
and
we
appreciate
all
of
your
time
tonight.