►
From YouTube: Beacon Zoning Board 7 18 23
Description
The City of Beacon Zoning Board Meeting from July 18, 2023
A
A
A
B
E
If
we
look
at
I'll,
give
you
the
ones
that
were
adopted,
just
the
fresh
pepperoni
went
up
and
the
ones
that
so
far
are
discussion,
but
on
page
two
paragraph
one
sentence:
two,
it
reads:
Ari
Siegel
architect
for
the
applicant
summarize
the
status
of
the
project
changes
were
made
in
response
to
some
of
the
board's
concerns
that
one
was
made.
My
suggestion
there
was
to
add
the
word
some
of
the
board's
concerns
because
prior
it
just
said
to
the
board's
concerns
so
I,
don't
believe
all
of
our
concerns
were
addressed
right.
E
Great
so
I
made
seven
suggestions
in
total,
so
suggestion
two
was
page
two
paragraph
nine
sentence:
three,
it
reads
there
are
a
few,
if
any
other
properties
in
the
neighborhood,
with
more
than
one
main
building
on
the
Lots
I
thought
there
are
a
few
if
any
was
a
little
bit
somewhat
contradictory
and
wasn't
specific
enough.
So
I
suggest
that
it
should
read.
There
are
no
other
properties
in
the
neighborhood
with
more
than
one
main
building
on
the
law
and
where
one
of
the
buildings
is
a
multi-family.
E
A
I
mean
the
issue
is
right,
that
the
the
resolution
was
signed
and
been
said
submitted
to
yourself
right
right.
So
the
question,
so
the
issue
is
so
post
meeting
right.
So
what
happens?
Is
resolutions
are
drafted
by
George
and
then
given
to
me
and
I
have
to
sign
them
right
and
so
then
I
sign
them
and
they
get
filed
with
the
city
clerk
who's,
a
no
Amanda,
so
they're
filed
so
that's
filed.
So
I
don't
know.
So
the
question
is
right.
You
haven't
voted
on
the
resolution.
We
we
have
yeah
the.
F
F
F
E
The
third
one
is
page
two,
paragraph
nine
sentence:
four,
it
says
this
change
would
be
adding
a
primary
residence
on
a
lot
where
there's
already
two
family
dwelling.
So
what
I
had
suggested
was
it
should
read.
This
change
would
be
adding
an
additional
primary
residence
on
the
law,
where
there's
already
a
two
family
dwelling
to
be
more
specific
right.
E
H
E
Of
the
next
one,
I'm,
okay,
with
I've
only
been
I,
have
suggested
to
strike
out
page
two
paragraph
10
sentence
two,
because
I
thought
it
set
a
potential
item,
false
expectation
but
I'm.
Okay,
with
the
way
it's
written.
It's
all
and
we'll
ignore
that
one
then
one
that
was
adopted
was
page
10
paragraphs
15
seconds
two.
It
reads
the
board
intended
to
close
the
public
hearing
on
the
interpretation.
Only
leaving
the
public
hearing
open
on
any
request
for
variances
I
just
suggest
that
it
should
leave
the
board
close.
F
It
with
that
I,
my
preference
on
that
is
be,
is
to
actually
go
with
the
former,
which
is
to
say
we
closed
on
the
interpreter,
but
left
everything
open
and
I.
Do
that
because
the
public
hearing
noticed
it
was
initially
adopted
was
for
all
all
three
strands
of
relief
sought
by
the
applicant,
the
interpretation,
the
area
variants
and
the
use,
and
we
only
closed
on
the
interpretation.
I
think
just
in
order.
F
A
I
G
A
A
All
right,
so,
just
to
recap
where
we
have
been,
we
had
a
public
hearing
last
month
on
the
issue
of
three
different
interpretations
of
the
building
code
by
the
building
inspector.
We
had
direct
closed
the
public
hearing
on
that
issue
only
and
directed
our
attorney
to
draft
a
resolution.
Based
on
that
discussion,
the
applicant
post
post
public
hearing
I
had
submitted
a
supplemental
submission
on
those
issues.
The
public
continued
to
submit
comments
to
our
secretary
on
those
issues.
A
J
Just
if
I
may,
for
the
record,
we
haven't
had
the
opportunity
to
review
the
resolution
which
are
typically
posted
before
meetings.
So
the
applicant
hasn't
had
an
opportunity
to
review
that.
So
we
might
suggest
adjourning
any
deliberation
on
the
resolution
or
at
least
providing
time
for
the
applicant's
review
same.
F
It's
it's
a
resolution,
voting
on
an
interpretation,
an
interpretation,
it's
the
boards
alone.
It's
been
distributed
to
the
board,
I
think
the
board's
in
a
position
to
vote
on
it
I,
don't
think,
there's
anything
for
the
applicant
to
add
or
or
take
from
a
decision.
That
is
inherently
the
boards
to
make
I.
J
Understood
but
we
did
provide
a
submission
to
the
board,
which
we
noted
at
the
last
meeting
that
we
would
discuss.
So
we
do.
We
would
respectfully
request
the
opportunity
to
at
the
minimum
present
on
the
one
issue
that
was
outstanding,
because
there
was
information
not
discussed
at
that
meeting
regarding
the
one-year
ceasing
of
a
a
it
used
when
they
use
no
longer
is
on
the
property
for
a
year.
It
ceases,
so
there
was
a
specific
discussion
that
needed
to
be
I,
think
fleshed
out
with
the
board.
I,
don't
know
if
your
resolution
covers.
J
The
two
sections:
2
23
10c
and
223
10d
and
I
have
a
visual,
a
particular
handout
that
I
can
provide
that
just
lays
out
those
distinguishing
points,
because,
rather
than
having
negation
with
the
city
which
respect
to
an
issue,
because
that
will
be
the
inevitable
piece
of
this
I
think
it's
important
that
we
do
discuss
that
point
because
they
are
very
distinguishable
and
I
think
it
doesn't
have
that
benefit
of
that
information.
We.
F
J
Now
and
I
sick
leave
from
the
chairman
just
for
a
brief
presentation
on
these
points,
certainly
I
defer
to
the
board.
You
know
again
it's
a
presentation
on
a
particular
issue
that
is.
Is
it
entirely
distinguishes
this
section
of
the
code
from
what
I
believe
is
being
improperly
interpreted
as
a
ceasing
of
the
use.
J
Thank
you
and
again
I
appreciate
that
and
and
of
course,
the
count
and
council's
review
here.
So
at
the
last
meeting
we
did
have
a
stroppable,
which
mentioned
the
three
different
points
of
the
building
inspectors.
Determinations
of
the
two
different
determinations,
the
one
that
remained
sort
of
an
open
discussion
with
the
board
was
upholding,
so
to
speak,
was
section
223,
10
D.
So
what
I
have
almost
pass
out.
J
J
B
J
Also
provided
to
The
Madam
Clerk
and
the
board's
Council
so
we'll
be
posted
to
the
website.
It's
all
just
zoning
code,
division,
sections
that
are
in
the
City
Zoning
code.
There
is
no
new
information
there,
section,
2,
2310
D
only
speaks
to
Restoration
buildings
when
it
concerns
buildings
either
destroyed
more
than
50
or
less
than
50.
This
section
is
not
discussing
termination
or
ceasing
of
a
use.
J
All
I'm
here
tonight
is
this
one
provision,
and
this
does
not
end
the
use
on
the
property
there's
a
separate
section
in
this
same
non-conforming
use
and
non-conforming
building
section
of
the
code
that
speaks
to
ceases
when
it
used
ceases.
If
a
building
is
destroyed,
such
as
in
this
instance,
if
it's
not
continued,
meaning,
it's
not
rebuilt
and
continued
for
that
use
after
one
year
the
use
is
gone
by
no
means
to
section
D.
J
223D
discontinue
the
use
and
I'll
highlight
that
now,
based
on
your
code,
Provisions,
which
you
have
for
you,
so
the
handout
you
have
starts
with
the
words
the
definition
s
in
your
code
of
building
and
use
just
to
show
again
they're
very
different
things.
In
the
zoning
code,
a
non-conforming
building,
think
of
setbacks.
The
building
height
a
building
may
have
been
five
stories,
no
longer
permitted,
non-conforming
bullying
a
use,
an
SRO
which
is
the
instant
matter
here,
not
permitted
anywhere
in
the
city
of
Beacon.
Now
that's
a
non-conforming
use,
so
non-conforming
building
non-conforming
use.
J
It
then
goes
on
to
provide
the
relevant
sections
so
that
the
handouts
for
you
also
aligns
again
directly
with
our
application.
So
these
are
just
the
highlighted
points
that
distinguishes
Beacon's,
non-conforming,
Youth
and
structures,
sections
with
other
codes
in
the
city
in
other
cities
throughout
the
Hudson
Valley
that
we
incorporated
to
help
again
illustrate
when
a
community
tries
to
remove
a
use
they
explicitly
provide
for
it.
But
typically,
it
ceases
when
it's
no
longer
in
operation
for
a
year
and
that's
how
it's
handled
the
provision
we're
dealing
with
tonight.
J
The
one
that
the
board
held
up
is
saying:
we'd
like
you
to
direct
a
resolution
to
prepare
upholding
that
determination.
The
issue
of
that
that
issue
deals
with
a
non-conforming
building,
not
a
non-conforming
use.
We
have
been
damaged
more
than
50
percent,
there's
two
code,
sections
that
we'll
go
through
now:
foreign,
so
H4
of
the
handout
excerpt
of
the
zoning
codes,
but
before
before
we
get
to
that,
23
10d
is
entitled
restoration
building.
So
this
is
page
two
of
your
of
your
handout.
J
The
regulation
concerning
non-conforming
buildings
in
particular
relates
to
buildings
destroyed
by
more
than
50
that
doesn't
terminate
the
use
in
223
10d.
There
are
two
sentences
that
we're
talking
about
if
non-conforming
building
shall
be
destroyed
by
any
means
to
the
extent
of
more
than
50
percent,
which
is
the
instance
here,
no
repairs
or
reconstruction
shall
be
made
unless
every
portion
of
such
building
is
made
to
conform
to
all
the
regulations
of
this
chapter.
For
the
district
in
which
it's
located,
that's
section
one
that
applies
that's
sentence,
one.
J
The
next
sentence
does
incorporate
the
word
use
and
that's
because
the
building
in
that
instance,
is
destroyed
less
than
25.
So
when
a
building
is
destroyed,
less
than
20.
Excuse
me,
fifty
percent,
when
the
building
is
destroyed
less
than
50
percent
the
clock
this
this
ceasing
of
a
non-conforming
use
doesn't
start
because
you're
just
preparing
the
youth,
the
use,
is
being
continued.
Half
of
that
building
is
probably
still
in
operation,
they're
very
distinguishable.
The
important
thing
to
note
is
that
second
sentence:
it
says
where
the
destruction
of
such
non-conforming
building
is
less
than
50.
J
It
may
be
restored,
and
this
is
where
the
key
is
and
the
non-conforming
youth
continued.
When
you
compare
those
two
sentences
that
sentence
notes,
the
word
used
doesn't
apply
to
this
project.
We
do
so
we're
destroyed
more
than
50
the
section
we're
talking
about
where
the
building
is
destroyed
more
than
50.
J
So
if
we
look
at
223
Tennessee,
which
is
at
the
bottom
of
that
same
page,
that
you're
reviewing,
so
you
have
it
all
in
one
page,
it
notes
that
it
says
non-conforming
use
of
structures,
not
non-conforming
structures,
non-conforming
uses
of
structures.
We
talked
about
the
difference
between
the
youths
and
and
the
buildings.
J
22310C
explicitly
provides
that
when
a
non-conforming
use
of
a
building
ceases
for
any
reason
for
a
continuous
period
of
more
than
one
year
than
any
future
use
must
be
in
Conformity
with
the
current
zoning
code.
That
code
section
is
not
it's
not
a
determination
of
the
building
inspector,
because
of
course
it
applies.
So
here,
23,
section
D.
The
provision
that's
left
for
you
all
to
make
a
determination
tonight
does
not
speak
to
use.
That's
because
22310c
does.
In
our
instance,
the
building
is
destroyed
more
than
50
percent.
J
So,
as
a
consequence,
the
applicant
has
one
year
from
that
destruction
so
as
to
rebuild
this
use
for
it
to
be
continuing,
if
they
don't
do
it
with
one
year.
Youth
has
gone
end
of
story.
This
code
was
written.
That
way
and
that's
important
to
note
when
you
look
at
other
codes
which
are
at
the
end
of
your
your
packet
of
course,
now
I
no
longer
have
one.
J
But
if
you
look
at
those
sections
from
Yonkers,
Poughkeepsie
and
I
believe
white
planes
you'll
see
as
highlighted
each
one
of
those
code,
sections
amalgamates
or
combines
each
of
these
divisions
into
one
provision
and
says
that
if
a
building
is
destroyed
more
than
50
in
those
codes,
it
says
the
use
and
the
building.
So
both
pieces
need
to
be
in
compliance
and
and
then
also
will
provide
that
same
provision
within
one
year
and
so
forth.
J
So
other
codes
explicitly
regulate
those
two
keywords:
building
and
use
together
this
code
on
its
face:
Crystal
Clear,
when
you,
when
you
read
section
sentences,
one
and
two,
only
one
of
those
two
sentences
says
that
the
use
may
continue
or
not
continue,
and
that's
not
the
provision.
That's
applied
to
this
project,
so
I
know
I
started
to
keep
it
brief,
so
I'm
going
to
leave
it
there,
but,
most
importantly,
all
we're
suggesting
is
that
section
that
the
building
sector
is
relying
on?
J
It
applies
to
the
project
in
that
the
building
was
destroyed
more
than
50,
so
the
determination,
that's
appropriate
is
that
if
that
applies
to
this
project
or
this
property,
then
the
applicant
has
one
year
so
as
to
build
and
to
maintain
that
use
on
the
site
or
the
use
is
gone,
but
it
doesn't
terminate
the
use,
and
that
was
the
misappropriation
by
the
building
inspector
in
the
section.
So
that's
that's.
J
The
key
caveat
here
is
just
that
one
piece
the
use
doesn't
terminate,
except
if
it
disappears
for
a
year
or
thesis
operations
for
a
year,
so
I
just
want
to
make
that
point
very
clear
and
I
again.
I
appreciate
you
know
you
all
listening,
but
that
point
was
not
discussed
or
fully
with
the
board,
because
again
the
issues
are
there,
but
I
think
it's
important
to
highlight
how
the
code
protects
that
issue
and
it
was
exclusively
implicitly
removed
and
not
included,
and
when
there
is
any
ambiguity
which
this
is
not
ambiguous,
this
is
Blaine.
J
A
K
I,
don't
know
why
it's
making
that
noise
am
I
too
close
to
Mike
was
made
made
very
clear
to
Mr
Palmer
that
he
has
to
state
all
his
arguments
related
to
this
interpretation
last
month
and
that
he
will
not
be
able
to
add
additional
arguments,
which
is
exactly
what
he's
doing
with
this.
He
saw
that
you
guys
were
leaning
towards
not
accepting
the
things
that
he
came
up
with
last
time,
so
he
added
another
thing
in
terms
of
like
grocking.
This
thing
in
five
seconds,
like
even
with
the
handout.
K
A
C
E
A
Yeah
and
and
the
resolution
will
incorporate
and
adopt
a
written
decision
that
was
prepared,
which
will
be
filed
with
the
city
clerk
and,
of
course,
we'll
give
a
copy
to
the
applicant
with
that.
The
applicant
has
also
applied
for
an
area
in
use
variants,
an
area
variance
and
then
the
second
alternative,
a
use
variance.
B
F
J
A
So,
just
just
for
the
benefit
of
the
public.
What
occurred
right
now
was
we
agreed
with
the
building
inspector
on
one
of
his
reasonings.
To
deny
the
applicant
to
rebuild.
The
applicant
will
most
likely
appeal
that,
but
beyond
that,
in
front
of
our
board
will
submit
or
have
submitted
an
area
and
use
variants.
A
They
are
now
asking
for
a
continuation
to
amend
based
on
what
occurred
today,
because
they
didn't
know
what
was
going
to
happen
today
until
it
happened,
and
so
what
was
noticed,
though,
was
an
area
in
use
variants
for
tonight
as
well.
So
what
I
would
say
to
the
public
is
if
you
came
to
speak
and
you
don't
think
that
you
can
will
be
able
to
speak
at
a
later
meeting
after
the
applicant
is
actually
presented.
You're
welcome
to
speak
tonight.
A
A
Yet
and
so
you'll
I
mean
you're
more
than
welcome
again
to
present
your
opinion
of
the
five,
the
five
factors
in
in
the
area
case
and
the
four
factors
in
the
use
case,
but
for
me
I
think
it
would
be
useful,
almost
attempt
to
rebut
the
applicant
after
they
apply
again,
but
if
someone
will
not
be
able
to
be
here
they're
more
than
welcome
to
speak
now
on
those
issues,
and
so
I
would
welcome
anyone
who
would
like
to
do
that
to
do
so.
At
this
time.
H
H
Don't
know
I'm,
not
a
lawyer,
okay,
but
it
just
seems
like
we're
like
okay,
we'll
do
it
next
time,
but
we'll
do
it
next
time,
okay,
and
we
keep
showing
up
and
two
nothing
related
to
anything
but
and
I,
don't
even
know
who
to
call,
but
can
somebody
get
a
lawnmower
on
the
property
because
it's
starting
to
look
like
a
jungle?
Thank
you.
L
L
B
L
L
So
it's
just
generally
I'm
here
just
to
say
that
you
know
in
the
community
it's
known
as
the
most
dangerous
intersection
in
Beacon,
and
now
my
parents
are
living
in
that
home
they're
reaching
80,
and
it's
just
it's
a
lot,
so
we
would
hope
for
a
quieter
intersection.
That's
all
I
have
to
say
thank
you.
Thank
you.
A
J
J
By
a
procedural
background
on
this
project,
the
applicant
is
Seeking
a
site
plan
approval
and
a
lot
merger
or
subdivision
approval,
proposing
to
develop
the
property
for
a
proposed
mixed
use,
development
at
152-158,
Fishkill
Avenue.
Some
of
you
might
know
that
as
Double
D's
Auto
across
from
the
Valero
gas
station
and
the
blue
house,
which
is
the
apartment
building
before
I
turn
it
over
to
Jacqueline,
as
I
mentioned,
for
the
benefit
of
the
board
and
the
public.
J
As
noted,
it
is
located
in
proximity
to
the
Valero
gas
station,
and
the
surrounding
area
includes
multi-family
high
density
multi-family,
including
31
Hamilton
Bishop
Plaza,
which
is
the
70
plus
units
townhome
single
family,
residential
gas
station.
Other
mix
and
Commercial
uses
transitional
being
sort
of
the
Main
Street
CMS
transition
into
what's,
in
this
instance,
surrounds
is
multi-family
Zone,
there's
no
single
family.
J
Zoning
surrounding
us
Jaclyn's
going
to
go
into
this
in
more
detail
in
just
a
minute,
but
at
a
high
level
the
new
building
program
includes
a
new
mixed
use,
building
with
office
space
on
the
first
floor
and
then
16
residential
units
on
the
upper
floors.
Two
of
those
apartments
code
with
the
low
market
rate
units,
the
city's,
affordable
housing
law.
There
is
a
rooftop
terrorist
proposed
that
will
be
available
for
the
residents
of
the
property
project
is
otherwise
zoning
compliant.
J
That
includes
relating
to
off-street
parking
and
will
also
be
providing,
in
conformance
with
the
city's
new
main
street
or
in
this
instance,
the
Fishkill
Avenue
rehabilitation
project,
so
they're
adding
new
parking
on
street
as
well.
So
there's
off
Street
non-street
proposed
with
zoning
compliant
parking.
J
The
application
has
been
on
review
at
the
planning
board
for
a
few
months,
and
we
addressed
a
number
of
the
board's
comments
before
coming
to
you
on
referral.
From
with
a
positive
recommendation
from
the
planning
board,
which
included
a
reduced
reduction
in
the
building.
Originally,
the
building
proposed
would
have
necessitated
a
variance
from
you
all
because
of
a
funky
to
an
app
story,
calculation,
but
we
worked
that
out
with
the
building
inspector
and
that's
been
addressed
and
the
building
height
has
been
produced
even
below.
J
What's
permitted,
interestingly
enough,
as
you
were
due
to
the
building
height,
it
actually
increases
the
retaining
wall
height.
So
that's
funny
how
those
things
sort
of
go
hand
in
hand.
The
planning
board
last
week
adopted
a
secret
negative
declaration,
so
the
sticker
process
is
complete.
It
was
a
coordinated
review
and
again
what's
interesting
is
this
is
really
a
first
impression
application
for
me
in
the
city,
as
there
haven't
been
other
retaining
wall
matters
before
you,
I
believe
the
building
inspector
might
be
the
first
to
have
side
of
this
code
section.
J
So
you
might
be
seeing
more
of
these
coming
to
computer
near
you,
because
I
can
name
five
projects
off
the
top
of
my
head
that
have
larger
retaining
walls
that
weren't
before
this
board.
They'll
remain
a
secret.
Two
of
them
are
in
the
application.
Specifically,
the
applicant
is
seeking
area
variants
for
the
retaining
wall.
Height,
the
height
has
been
substantially
reduced
from
what
we
originally
proposed,
and
otherwise
we
did
mitigate
that
through
the
secret
process
and
the
right.
J
The
relief
for
seeking
overall
is
15.4
feet,
so
no
more
than
15.4,
and
that's
only
in
a
specific
point
of
the
cycle
in
which
Jacqueline
will
review
with
you
all
so.
The
retaining
wall
height
for
our
project
actually
started
at
20.6
feet
and
with
playing
height
reductions,
pipe
and
changes
parking
lot,
adjustments
all
other
Jazz.
We
did
during
the
secret
process.
It
was
reduced
down
to
a
maximum
height
of
15.4.
J
At
a
specific
point,
there
are
two
other
sections
that
have
maximum
Heights
of
9.1
and
7.5
and
Jaclyn's
visual
kind
of
give
you
enough
representation
of
what
it
will
look
like
it's
being
landscaped
to
Deborah
adamson's,
another
local
Beacon
Landscape
designer
who
has
helped
to
do
a
number
of
these
and
has
done
this.
Throughout
importantly,
the
only
way
you're
really
going
to
see
this
coming
into
the
site
is
quite
literally
when
you're
driving
in
so
the
building
itself
on
fiscal
Avenue.
As
you
come
off
of
off
of
Main
Street,
it
really
is
screening.
The
building.
J
Excuse
me
screening
the
area
of
where
these
retaining
walls
are,
which
is
in
the
parking
area.
The
Topography
of
the
site
makes
it
certainly
unique,
so
this
is
not
applicable
to
every
site,
so
this
is
really
a
way
to
make
sure
that
the
building
which
is
not
even
being
built
to
its
maximum
density
can
be
built
in
a
way
that
meets
the
building
height
requirements
and
otherwise
addresses
all.
J
As
I
said,
all
other
zoning
requirements
have
been
met,
so
so
we
did
include
in
our
June
27th
Mission,
more
a
full
breakdown
of
its
of
how
we
believe
that
the
project
satisfies
the
five
factors
supporting
the
project,
but
I'll
have
Jacqueline
now
go
through
some
of
those
visuals
with
you
to
help.
You
see.
I
A
B
J
A
M
Good
evening,
hopefully,
we
are
not
here
five
hours
tonight.
My
name
is
Jacqueline
Tyler
with
Nexus
creative
Taylor
went
through
almost
everything,
but
I
will
go
through
some
general
specific
information
on
the
site.
As
Taylor
mentioned,
we
were
able
to
eliminate
the
need
for
the
roof
variants
which
we
were
originally
requesting.
With
the
building
height,
we
worked
with
the
planning
board
over
the
last
few
months
to
work
with
the
site,
as
you've
probably
reviewed
the
site.
M
What
I
want
to
point
out
is
that
in
the
top
Corner
we
have
a
grade
of
170
compared
to
the
lower
right
hand,
corner
of
144.7,
so
essentially,
We
have
basically
roughly
a
25
foot
grade
difference
between
the
two
corners
of
the
site,
so
we've
worked
with
Mike
from
Arden
Consulting,
very
specifically,
in
order
to
achieve
the
best
possible
layout
for
this
site.
One
of
the
requests
that
came
from
the
planning
board
was
for
us
to
lower
the
building
the
ground
level
of
the
building.
M
They
wanted
us
to
move
it
as
low
as
we
could
to
the
street
level.
So
originally
we
started
at
a
floor
level
of
153..
At
the
same
time,
the
walls
as
Taylor
mentioned
were
much
higher
in
the
back.
We
had
not
terraced
this
top
left
corner
as
well
as
this
back
corner,
so
with
the
with
removing
the
153
and
lowering
that
down
to
151
feet.
M
Although
we
did
increase
theoretically
the
height
by
two
feet,
we
were
able
to
tear
those
walls
resulting
in
a
lower
height
variance
for
the
corner
right
at
this
corner
right
here
you
can
see
it
is
165.8,
that's
the
highest
point
which
I'll
show
you
in
a
visual
in
a
minute,
but
that
is
the
highest
location.
As
Taylor
mentioned,
everything
that
is
not
circled
in
red
on
this
site
plan
now
is
in
full
compliance.
The
red
areas
are
outside
of
compliance
and
they
vary
with
what
their
heights
are.
M
So
we
were
able
to
meet
the
planning
board's
requests.
The
other
determining
Factor
on
this
when
looking
at
the
drainage
is
the
fact
that
we
were
not
able
to
lower
the
building
any
lower
than
the
151
feet
due
to
the
slope
required
for
the
drainage,
so
that
was
our
lowest
height
that
we
were
able
to
achieve
and
from
that
151
was
how
we
worked
the
back.
The
back
end.
I
do
want
to
flip
over
to
this.
M
So
as
I
mentioned,
this
is
the
largest
height
variance
request
that
we
are
asking
for
it's
over
in
the
corner
of
the
tiering.
We
weren't
able
to
continue
that
tiering
further,
given
the
fact
that
it
would
impact
the
number
of
parking
spaces
which,
as
Taylor
mentioned,
we
are
currently
compliant
with
the
other
Corners
are
in
the
back
back
along
here
and
in
this
corner
right
here
in
the
red,
it's
very
minimal
along
the
back
again.
M
This
is
all
based
on
the
adjacent
grade,
so
we're
not
obviously
able
to
impact
the
surrounding
we're,
basically
at
the
property
line.
In
order
to
achieve
the
parking
required
for
this
property,
we
are
introducing
a
textured
wall,
but
what
I
would
like
to
point
out
is
that,
within
limited
time,
what
you
see
here
is
the
vegetative
growth.
That's
at
the
top
of
the
wall
will
eventually
fill
the
entire
wall
so
that
whole
wall
will
be
more
of
a
vegetative
wall
rather
than
what
you're
seeing
currently
in
this
image.
J
With
these
yep,
so
fish
to
laminate
main
streets
here,
basically
along
CMS
here,
comes
in
the
size
of
the
building
building
blocks.
Most
of
what
you
would
see
from
any
Vantage
Point
gas
station
here
point
where
you're
going
to
see
this
and
the
angles
that
you're
seeing
in
the
plants
are
either
from
the
parking
lot
itself
or
driving
directly
into
the
site.
Correct.
A
C
M
C
M
It
meets
the
adjoining
property,
so
obviously
we
don't.
We
can't
alter
that
at
that
corner.
It
would
impact
the
surrounding
neighborhoods
correct
right,
and
so
that
151
was
determined
as
I
mentioned,
it
was
a.
It
was
a
compromise
with
the
drainage
that
is
on
site
and
how
we
can
make
the
connections
into
the
street
as
well
as
a
compromise
in
the
fact
that
we
mentioned
to
the
board
the
further.
We
go
down.
M
What
we're
explaining
to
you,
the
larger
of
a
variance
we
are
requesting
and
we're
trying
to
keep
that
request
as
minimal
as
possible,
so
I
believe.
With
our
conversations.
We
met
their
requirements
as
far
as
lowering
the
building.
As
far
as
we
could
we've
minimized
the
number
of
steps
at
the
entrance
so
that
it's
down
lower
closer
to
the
street
level.
M
So,
just
to
flip
back
as
as
Taylor
mentioned,
this
is
looking
more
towards
that
hill
right
here
in
that
corner.
So
this
is
that
tiered
portion
in
right
we're
in
the
parking
lot.
So
you
can't
see
this
from
the
street,
as
you
said,
unless
you're
right
at
the
entrance
pulling
in,
and
this
is
standing
at
the
back
of
the
building.
Looking
back
towards
that
that
corner
towards
this
back
corner
over
here.
A
B
M
A
N
I'm
not
sure,
honestly,
I'm
not
sure
they're,
probably
because
they
probably
at
some
point,
they
didn't
want
people
to
build,
retaining
walls
to
raise
their
property
up
and
above
you
know
their
neighbors
I
guess
in
some
cases
the
higher
you
go,
the
more
you
know,
especially
in
a
residential
neighborhood,
on
a
tight
property.
You
know
you're,
looking
at
you
know,
you
build
a
wall
on
a
property
Facebook
neighbor.
The
six
foot
also
falls
in
line
with
the
fence
code
right.
N
G
A
A
F
B
F
A
F
A
A
I
G
A
A
A
C
A
C
A
I
think
out
of
context,
it
could
be
considered
substantial.
You
know
mathematically
Again,
by
reading
the
code,
as
we
always
say,
I
think
you
know
in
context
to
this
project.
It's
it's
not
substantial
as
to
whether
the
proposed
variants
will
have
an
adverse
effect
or
impact
on
the
physical
or
environmental
conditions
in
the
neighborhood
or
District.
The
board
finds
that
Judy
no.