►
From YouTube: Beacon Zoning Board 4-19-22
Description
April 19, 2022
7:00 PM
Zoning Board of Appeals Agenda
1) Continue public hearing on REVISED application 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 Section 223-17(E) for a 786 sq. ft. accessory structure (403 sq. ft. maximum permitted)
2. 1113 Wolcott Avenue - SEQRA review
A
A
So
we
did
the
case
law
update
starting
last
month,
so
we'll
just
can
we're
going
to
pick
it
up
where
we
left
off,
I'm
just
going
to
run
through
these
slides,
real
quick.
So
we
talked
about
statute
of
limitations.
Last
time
we
talked
about
the
five
factor
tests
about
how
the
courts
really
didn't
care
so
much
about
the
self-created
element
as
long
as
you're,
you
know,
considering
the
other
four
elements
required
in
the
five
factor
test.
A
A
I
think
those
are
our
topics
for
today,
so
I
want
to
start
off
with
this
case
involving
the
town
of
southampton
zoning
board
of
appeals.
This
came
out
in
2021,
so
just
a
little
background,
the
group
called
dlv
submitted
plans
to
the
town's
planning
board,
proposing
a
seasonal
resort,
slash
planned
residential
development
with
an
accessory
18
hole.
Golf
course
for
private
use
by
the
subdivision's
homeowners
and
their
guests.
A
The
town
planning
board
requested
an
interpretation
of
the
zoning
code
and
eventually
the
zba
addressed
the
question
as
to
whether,
according
to
the
applicable
zoning
code,
the
proposed
golf
course
would
be
allowed
as
an
accessory
use.
The
zba
interpreted
the
zoning
code
determining
that
a
private
golf
course
amenity
would
be
a
permissible
accessory
use
under
the
applicable
provisions
of
the
code.
A
A
A
Is
can
you
establish
standing
simply
because
you
live
in
close
proximity
to
the
project?
So
can
the
petitioners
challenge
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
determination
because
they're
their
neighbors
now
this
rule
of
standing
states
that
petitioners
have
the
burden
of
establishing
both
an
injury
and
fact
and
that
the
asserted
injury
is
within
the
zone
of
interest
sought
to
be
protected
by
the
statute
alleged
to
have
been
violated
in
land
use
matters?
Petitioners
must
show
that
it
would
suffer
a
direct
harm
injury
that
is
in
some
way
different
than
the
public
at
large.
A
The
rules
of
standing
ensure
that
courts
are
adjudicating
actual
controversies
for
the
parties
that
have
a
genuine
stake
in
the
litigation.
This
is
to
prevent
random
people
from
you
know
initiating
litigation
filing
lawsuits.
So
while
it
seems
like
everybody
and
their
mother
can
sue,
that's
not
the
case,
you
do
have
to
show
standing
and
that's
the
petitioner's
responsibility
to
demonstrate
that
they
in
fact
have
suffered
an
injury,
that's
different
than
the
public
at
large,
so
the
zone
of
interest
test
tying.
A
The
injury
in
fact
asserted
to
the
governmental
act,
challenge
circumscribes
the
universe
of
persons
who
may
challenge
administrative
actions
so
simply
stated.
A
party
must
show
that
the
injury,
in
fact
of
which
it
complains,
falls
within
the
zone
of
interest
or
concerns
sought
to
be
promoted
or
protected
by
the
statutory
provision
under
which
the
agency
has
acted.
A
He
also
lived
16
miles
from
the
site
of
the
project,
which
is
a
problem,
so
they
said
you're
you're
too
far
away.
You
can't
sue
like
we
don't
care
how
involved
you
are
in
the
community.
How
connected
you
are
to
these
other
residents.
You
live
16
miles
away.
You
don't
actually
suffer
a
natural
injury.
A
So
they
couldn't
see
the
project
at
all
and
there
was
never
going
to
be
an
opportunity
in
the
future
for
the
project
to
encroach
on
their
land
or
become
visible,
because
there
were
700
feet
of
forested
land
and
the
court
said
you
don't
have
standing
to
sue.
You
don't
have
a
valid
injury.
You
have
this
protected
buffer
between
your
property
and
the
site,
so,
while
they're
a
little
closer
they're,
still
not
connected
to
the
project
in
a
way
that
demonstrated
standing
so
generally,
the
relevant
distance.
A
That's
going
to
be
looked
at
is
the
distance
between
the
petitioner's
property
and
the
actual
structure
or
development
itself,
not
from
the
property
line.
So,
while
that
buffer
was
part
of
the
the
the
resident,
the
development
as
a
whole,
the
actual
construction
of
the
golf
course
and
the
residences
were
farther
away.
When
you
counted
that
you
had
this
700
foot
of
buffer.
A
Aside
from
the
lack
of
proximity
to
the
proposed
project,
none
of
the
petitioners
showed
that
they
had
any
actual
an
injury.
In
fact,
that
was
different
in
kind
or
degree
from
the
alleged
to
be
from
that
alleged
to
be
suffered
by
the
general
public
and
that
any
injury
that
they
tried
to
argue
was
too
speculative.
A
It
couldn't
be
measured,
it
could
be
proven,
so
you
can't
prove
standing
with.
You
know
a
speculated
injury
that
this
could
happen
in
the
future.
If
all
these
other
things
happen,
that's
not
going
to
work
in
the
court
based
on
the
submitted
papers
and
that
oral
argument.
The
principal
injury
articulated
in
this
case
to
support
their
standing
was
that
the
groundwater
would
be
harmed
by
the
development
of
the
golf
course
on
the
project
site.
A
So
I
think
I
I
drove
that
point
home
enough.
You
know
we
get
a
lot
of
sometimes
general
community
opposition
and
general
comments,
but
that
doesn't
necessarily
mean
that
that
person,
while
they're
concerned
about
the
project,
can
turn
around
and
sue
the
city
or
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
for
a
decision.
C
For
what
it's
worth,
there
was
a
whole
line
of
authority,
or
there
was
a
decision
from
the
u.s
supreme
court
that
had
been
on
the
books
for
a
couple
decades
that
regarded
in
effect
standing
for
regulatory,
taking,
grounded
challenges
so
or
someone
saying
in
substance
that
the
effect
of
regulations
is
dead
rise.
So
high
is
to
be
taking
a
property
such
that
under
the
fifth
amendment,
their
owed,
compensation,
odd.
C
Over
the
past
18
months,
there
were
two
decisions
from
the
supreme
court
that
effectively
overturned
both
prongs
of
that
so
in
terms
of
raising
minimally
federal
constitutional
regulatory
takings
claims,
potentially,
that
also
opens
up
or
relaxes
standing
requirements
for
other
categories
of
federal
law
claims
that
concerned
that
concern
the
impact
of
regulations.
The
the
big
picture,
the
big,
a
really
significant
big
picture
issue
is
whether
or
not
all
options
for
variances
or
relief
have
to
be
sought
before
someone
can
say.
A
A
So
it's
definitely
an
ever-changing
area
of
law
that
it's
always
important
to
stay
on
top
of
so
next
year,
when
we
do
a
case,
law
update
I'll,
probably
have
another
case
about
standing
that
might
might
either
shed
a
little
bit
more
light
on
the
standard
of
zone
of
interest
and
injury
different
than
the
general
public
or
be
a
totally
different
decision
in
the
opposite
direction.
You
do
you
just
never
know
so.
From
our
perspective,
it's
always
important
to
stay
very.
A
On
top
of
what
is
the
standing
law
for
this
this
field,
you
know,
anytime,
you
go
to
file
a
litigation
or
defend
a
litigation,
so
standard
of
review,
adjacent
property
owners
brought
an
article
78
proceeding,
challenging
determination
of
municipal
zoning
board
of
appeals
which
granted
zoning
application
to
convert
an
existing
three-car
garage
into
an
indoor,
squash
court
and
workout
area
so
pop
quiz.
What
is
the
relevant
standards
of
review
in
an
article
78?
A
C
A
A
A
The
neighbors
challenge
the
zba
decision,
via
article
78,
proceeding
so
determination
of
municipal
zoning
board
of
appeals
which
grant
a
zoning
application
to
convert
an
existing
three-car
garage
into
the
indoor
squash
court
with
a
workout
area
was
not
subject
to
the
substantial
evidence
review,
but
rather
determination
was
to
be
reviewed
for
error
of
law
for
abuse
of
discretion
or
whether
it
was
arbitrary
and
capricious
where
determination
was
not
made.
After
a
trial
type
hearing
held
pursuant
to
direction
of
law
at
which
evidence
was
taken
in
an
article
78.
A
Proceeding
to
review
the
determination
of
a
zoning
board
of
appeals,
a
zoning
board
interpretation
is
entitled
to
great
deference.
The
record
demonstrated
that
the
zba
engaged
in
the
required
balancing
test
and
considered
the
relevant
statutory
facts.
The
zba
had
a
rational
basis
for
its
determination
that
the
requested
area
variances
were
not
substantial
and
that
the
alleged
difficulty
was
not
self-created.
A
Again,
the
courts
when
they're
looking
and
reviewing
these
these
matters
constantly
go
back
to
whether
the
zba
did
their
job
and
the
job
of
the
cba
is
to
balance
the
factors
and
focus
on
the
five
factors
that
are
set
for
statutorily,
which
we
do
every
time.
But
it's
just.
It
is
so
critical
that
you
go
through
every
question.
A
Any
questions
about
standard
of
review
now
this
is
something
we
don't
deal
with.
Very
often
is
a
rehearing,
but
it
is
a
thing
and
it's
set
forth
in
general
city
law,
section
81-812
and
the
language
states
a
motion
for
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
to
hold
a
re-hearing
to
review
any
order,
decision
or
determination
of
the
board,
not
previously
reheard.
So
you
can
only
do
it
once
may
be
made
by
any
member
of
the
board.
A
A
unanimous
vote
of
all
members
of
the
board
then
present
is
required
for
such
re-hearing
to
occur.
Such
re-hearing
is
subject
to
the
same
notice
provisions
as
an
original
hearing
upon
such
re-hearing.
The
board
may
reverse,
modify
or
annul
its
original
order
decision
or
determination
upon
the
unanimous
vote
of
all
members
then
present,
provided
the
board
finds
that
the
rights
vested
in
the
persons
acting
in
good
faith
and
reliance
upon
the
reorder,
re,
reheard
order,
decision
or
determination
will
not
be
prejudiced,
thereby.
A
A
A
A
So
thus
the
zba
permissively
made
the
challenge
determination
by
a
split
vote
right
because
remember,
if
you
you
have
to
vote
unanimously
to
rehearse,
and
you
have
to
vote
unanimously
for
the
decision,
so
they
challenged
it,
saying
that
the
zba's
decision
was
invalid
because
it
wasn't
unanimous,
the
court
saying
it
didn't
have
to
be
unanimous.
The
supreme
court
ordered
their
review.
Therefore,
they
can
vote
normally
so
contrary
to
to
the
courts.
A
The
lower
court's
ruling,
the
fact
that
a
different
justice
in
a
prior
proceeding
ordered
the
zba
to
revisit
a
related
zoning
application
concerning
the
same
property
was
irrelevant
to
whether
the
unanimous
union,
the
the
unanimous
rule,
applied
to
the
particular
determination
challenge
in
this
proceeding.
So
plainly,
the
prior
judicial
order
was
not
itself
a
successful
motion
by
any
zba
such
that
the
zba
was
barred
from
reversing
modifying
or
nulling
its
order
without
a
unanimous
vote.
So
in
short,
it
operates.
A
A
So
in
a
case
for
the
city
of
long
beach,
in
august
of
2016,
the
petitioner
applied
to
the
zoning
board
of
appeals
of
the
city
of
long
beach
for
an
area
variance
which
would
permit
her
to
build
a
multiple
family
dwelling
on
a
sub-standard
lot
located
in
long
beach.
After
a
public
hearing,
the
zba
issued
a
resolution
denying
the
petitioner's
application
in
an
article
78,
the
courts.
Look
at
whether
a
determination
is
supported
by
substantial
evidence.
What
constitutes
substantial
evidence.
C
I've
got
a
I've
got
a
feeling.
The
answer
to
this
one
is
a
pretty
it's
pretty
open-ended.
It's
going
to
depend
quite
a
bit
on
what
exactly
is.
It
is
an
issue,
but
I
mean
there's
there's
a
whole
field
of
things
that
could
be
considered.
They
could
be
going
out
and,
looking
at
what
other
properties
are
in
the
neighborhood
adjacent
to
it,
they
could
be
all
sorts
of
things.
Yeah
you're,
both
right.
A
You're
both
right,
it's
really
about
the
facts.
That's
what
you
want
to
you
want
to
look
at
well,
the
hard
facts
what's
actually
happening.
What
can
you
measure?
What
can
you
see
so
local
zoning
boards
have
broad
discretion
in
considering
applications
for
variances
and
judicial
review
is
limited
to
determining
whether
the
action
taken
by
the
board
was
illegal,
arbitrary
or
an
abusive
discretion
again
going
back
to
that
standard
of
review
slide
in
this
context,
courts
consider
substantial
evidence
only
to
determine
whether
the
record
contains
sufficient
evidence
to
support
the
rationality
of
the
board's
determination.
A
A
Here,
the
record
demonstrates-
or
in
that
case
the
record
demonstrated
that
the
zba
engaged
in
the
required
balancing
test
and
considered
the
relevant
statutory
factors
contrary
to
the
petitioner's
contention,
the
denial
of
her
application
had
a
rational
basis
in
the
record.
The
proposed
variances
were
substantial
and
the
evidence
before
the
zba
supported
its
findings
that
the
proposed
construction
would
produce
an
undesirable
change
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood,
have
an
adverse
impact
on
the
physical
environmental
conditions
and
otherwise
result
in
a
detriment
to
the
health,
safety
and
welfare
of
the
neighborhood.
A
Moreover,
in
that
case,
the
petitioner's
contention
that
the
zba's
determination
was
arbitrary
and
capricious
because
the
zba
had
previously
granted
similar
applications
was
without
merit,
to
the
extent
that
the
allegedly
similar
applications
identified
by
the
petitioner
actually
involved
similar
facts.
The
zba
provided
a
rational
explanation
for
reaching
a
different
result
and
that
went
again
towards
their
substantial
evidence.
What
was
supporting
their
determination?
C
E
C
F
C
F
F
The
only
variance
that
we're
requesting
at
this
time
is
relief
from
the
40
percent,
permitted
square
footage
based
on
the
existing
building
size
and
the
proposed
size
of
the
building.
We
would
need
the
max
square
footage
comes
in
at
78,
but
our
total
lot
coverage
is
still
well
below
permitted
at
14
percent.
E
F
We've
we've
prepared
this.
The
building
is
not
completely
designed
yet
due
to
the
fact
that
that
design
will
be
based
on
whether
or
not
the
size
and
location
is
acceptable,
but
the
intent
is
that
it
would
be
a
one
car
garage.
The
garage
door
would
face
rector
street
where
the
driveway
is
located.
Now
the
rest
of
the
footprint
would
make
up
the
home
office
for
mike
and
his
photography
business
with
some
storage
in
the
half
story.
Above.
A
I
will
say
we
received
an
email
this
afternoon
from
genevieve
mathis,
saying
hello.
We
just
looked
at
mr
isabel's
revised
plans.
We
would.
We
would
have
liked
to
attend
today's
meeting
but
are
unable
to
do
due
to
personal
circumstances.
We
trust
that
mr
isabel
structure
will
comply
with
requirements
and
have
no
problems.
We
will
watch
the
meeting
when
we
return
from
traveling.
B
F
F
A
E
C
All
right
so
sorry
for
that
delay,
but
here's
what
here's
the
calculation
I
was
just
doing
real,
quick
or
wanted
to
make
sure
because
it's
I
had
done
these
calculations
at
the
last
meeting
and
it's
pretty
much
been
since
then,
since
I
actually
looked
at
the
numbers.
But
what
this
is
indicating
to
me
is
that.
C
Build
a
house
that
was
at
least
it
had
a
footprint
of
at
least
1965
square
feet
in,
in
which
case
800
838
square
feet
of
accessory
building,
just
what's
ultimately
being
proposed
here,
would
be
allowed
as
a
matter
of
right
and
everything
would
still
be
well
within
the
25
coverage
limitation,
all
right,
you're
nodding.
But
does
anyone
disagree
with
that,
like
we
put
that
in
the
minutes
as
a
finding.
C
H
I
made
a
comment
the
last
time
my
name's
teresa
craft,
going
back
and
forth
viewing
this
legacy
tree,
I'm
okay
with
the
overall
design
plan
and
size
of
the
proposed
structure.
If
the
neighbors
are,
I
applaud
the
good
design
build
and
the
revised
plans
aligning
the
structure,
walls
of
the
main
house
and
the
garage
office.
As
far
as
the
large
spruce
tree
it
looks
like
it
may
stand
for
many
more
decades.
H
C
C
E
C
C
C
A
Variance
the
only
variance
at
issue
is
for
a
383
square
foot,
variance
where
the
maximum
permitted
square
footage
for
an
accessory
structure
on
the
property
is
403
pursuant
to
city
code,
section
223,
17e
and
attachment
223
attachment
3.
in
connection
with
the
construction
of
a
786
square
foot
accessory
structure,
two-car
garage
on
property
located
at
866
walcott
avenue.
Is
it
still
two-car
garage
one
car
garage.
A
That's
okay,
the
only
thing
that's
changed
is
now
it's
just
the
one
variance
that
I
just
read
for
the
one
car
garage
it
comes
out
to
383
square
feet.
403
is
permitted.
The
structure
overall
is
786
square
feet.
The
first
factor
to
consider
is
whether
an
undesirable
change
will
be
produced
in
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
or
a
detriment
to
a
near
nearby
properties
will
be
created
by
the
granting
of
the
area
variants.
C
Well,
and
bear
in
mind
too,
based
on
where
it's
now
located
the
the
location
and
proximity
to
the
law
line,
isn't
even
an
issue.
The
only
issue
is
the
the
footprint
of
the
building
is
larger
than
would
be
allowed,
based
on
application
of
the
40
percent
of
the
footprint
of
the
current
house
thing
and
yeah.
I
E
C
Yeah
I
mean
relatedly.
One
thing
they
could
do
that
would
arguably
feasible
would
be
to
simply
have
two
accessory
buildings,
because
two
accessory
buildings
that
were
each
at
that
40
percent
of
the
foot
part
footprint
standard
would
be
more
than
the
square
footage,
but
at
the
same
time,
that
sort
of
highlights
the
absurdity
of
it,
because
there's
no
there's
not
even
a
minimum.
C
C
C
C
E
E
C
At
the
same
time,
the
fact
that
we're
saying
that
saw
something
is
self-created
for
the
sole
reason
that
any
requested
variance
is
self-created
is
also
saying
we
don't
really
have
any
self-creation
concerns
correct.
I'm
not
sure
how
that
translates
into
a
finding
all
right.
Do
we
think
that
the
requested
variances
are
the
minimum
necessary
and
adequate
to
protect
and
preserve
the
character
of
the
neighborhood
and
the
health,
safety
and
welfare
of
the
community?.
C
C
C
As
we
as
we
always
ask
before
voting
on
these,
we
normally
attach
two
conditions
to
the
issuance
of
any
variants,
that's
granted,
one
of
which
is
a
time
time
condition
that
requires
obtaining
a
building
permit
within
six
months,
commencing
construction
within
six
months
after
that
and
completing
construction
within
limits.
I'm
actually
reciting
this
correctly
within
24
months
after
the
issuance
of
the
building
permit.
If
something
happens,
where
you
need
more
time,
we
can
extend.
The
other
condition
requires
payment
of
all
fees
incurred
by
the
city
in
connection
with
the
application.
C
E
C
C
C
K
Let's
do
it,
let's
do
it.
Thank
you,
mr
chairman.
Members
of
the
board
appreciate
the
presentation
by
the
cba
attorney.
It's
always
good
to
get
the
case.
Law
updates
too
hope.
You
all
had
a
nice
holiday
if
you
celebrate
over
the
weekend.
So
thanks
for
joining
us
again
for
the
record,
my
name
is
taylor.
K
Palmer,
I'm
a
partner
with
the
law,
firm
of
cuddy
and
fader
here
on
behalf
of
the
applicant,
as
the
chairman
mentioned,
we
are
here
in
connection
with
a
secret
review,
continued
seeker
review
associated
with
the
application
that
we
presented
to
back
in
march.
I
actually
had
written
my
notes
february.
Somehow
I
just
skipped
right
over
march
because
we're
moving
towards
the
end
of
april,
but
here
we
are,
I
am
joined
again
by
our
architect.
Excuse
me,
I'm
not
joined
by
our
architect.
K
I'm
joined
by
our
traffic
consultant,
rich
d'andrea
of
collier's
engineering,
see,
I
didn't
say
mazer.
So
I'm
somewhat
here
tonight,
I'm
also
here
with
gavin
heckard,
the
applicant.
Since
we
last
appeared
before
you,
we
did
submit
supplement
supplemental
submission
to
your
board,
did
incorporate
responses
to
your
comments.
The
zoning
board
attorney
did
send
some
additional
comments
that
were
provided
to
her
from
the
board
after
the
meeting.
So
we
did
try
to
incorporate
as
many
of
those
into
our
submission
as
possible
to
try
and
help
the
board.
K
So
we
will,
in
a
minute,
just
go
through
some
of
the
updates,
but
I
did
before
turning
over
to
gavin
just
want
to
kind
of
give
you
some
highlights
of
those
updates
and
just
one
thing
that
rich
will
touch
on
in
a
minute.
We
did
incorporate
or
submit
in
our
supplemental
submission
the
traffic
study
and
we
did
incorporate
the
draft
traffic
management
plan,
so
those
documents
are
being
utilized
in
this
project
to
help
manage
traffic
flows,
as
distinct
from
existing
conditions
where
you
could
have
a
wedding
operation
today
and
there's
no
control
at
all.
K
As
the
site
operations
we
are
proposing
to
have
very
strict
mod,
you
know,
monitor,
excuse
me
management
of
the
site
for
whether
it's
smaller
or
larger
events,
it's
a
full
plan
that
accounts
for
really
everything
in
the
operations
of
the
site,
which
is
really
operating
as
a
hotel,
an
accessory
event,
space
and
rich
again.
We'll
touch
on
that
just
in
just
a
minute
one
other
important
point,
because
we
are
talking
secret
issues.
Is
this
thing
for
more
formal
variance
relief?
K
Of
course,
the
nature
of
why
we're
here
before
you
is
the
application,
as
presently
designed,
would
require
a
parking
variance
for
off-street
parking.
We've
submitted
that
traffic
report
to
you
because
it
includes
where
there
are
public
parking
areas
or
parking
garages
and
vicinity
of
the
project
which
our
traffic
report
shows.
There
is
availability
for
times
that
we
would
be
utilizing
them,
which
are
generally
in
the
evening
hours,
larger
events
being
you
know
the
later
ends
of
the
week
friday
saturday,
to
say
the
least.
K
One
other
note
that
I'd
also
mentioned
that
wasn't
in
that
plan
because
it
can't
be.
We
did
mention,
I
think
briefly
at
your
last
meeting
is
we
have
had
discussions
with
a
nearby
property
owner
who
we
have
submitted
a
a
proposed
license
agreement
with
which
would
provide
us
just
over
40
parking
spaces
for
events,
so
we
have
we're
trying
to
really
mix
into
our
our
bag
a
lot
of
options,
not
just
you
know,
municipal
parking,
as
the
planning
board,
and
mr
clark
mentioned
at
the
last
meeting-
we're
not
trying
to
take.
K
K
While
we,
our
report,
shows
that
we
believe
that
the
variance
that
we're
that
we'll
ultimately
be
seeking
we'd
be
managed
or
mitigated
by
a
number
of
factors:
the
availability
of
off
street
park
on
street
parking
or
parking
facilities,
the
private
parking
that
we
are
also
seeking
license
agreements
for,
and
then
the
32
parking
spaces
that
we're
providing
on
our
site
will
adequately
address
it.
Because
again,
the
the
parking
trigger
here
is
the
large
events
that
will
be
limited
in
scope
and
scale.
K
They'll
only
be
they
won't
happen
every
night,
but
they
are
what
drives
our
our
parking
numbers.
So
with
that,
one
of
the
other
comments
that
the
board
brought
up
was
cons
just
a
sort
of
understanding
of
sort
of
the
economics
and
the
and
the
reasons,
reasoning
or
the
the
business
model.
Behind
this
application.
K
We
thought
that
was
important
for
mr
hecker
to
speak
to
just
because
it
helped
the
board
understand
why
these
larger
events
on
these
limited
occasions
are,
are
necessary
or
helpful
for
us
to
ensure
that
this
is
an
economically
viable
project,
because
it's
a
full.
You
know
restoration
and
management
and
maintenance
of
a
historic
church
and
also
taking
over
a
cemetery
that
has
not
seen
a
lot
of
love
in
the
in
too
many
years.
K
So
there's
a
lot
of
projects
that
are
being
taken
on
and,
of
course,
building
out
the
new
hotel
in
place
of
the
parsonage.
So
we
think
we're
we're
really
trying
to
work
with
the
confines
of
the
historic
district
regulations
and,
of
course,
the
intense
development
that
has
been
built
really
around
this
project
in
this
site.
So
with
that,
I
will
turn
it
to
gavin
and
then
we'll
have
rich
kind
of
walk
us
back
on
the
alternatives
to
kind
of
help,
explain
and
justify
where
we're
coming
from.
L
Thanks
taylor,
I'm
gavin
hecker,
I'm
one
of
the
partners
with
prophecy
theater
llc,
and
I
just
I'm
up
here
today
to
just
try
to
explain
and
answer
a
few
questions
that
were
brought
up
by
the
zoning
board
at
the
last
meeting.
So
I
prepared
a
written
statement
here
because
I'm
better
at
doing
that.
So
I'm
going
to
read
this
to
you.
L
So,
with
our
business
model
in
place,
we
are
able
to
adaptively
reuse,
improve
and
maintain
two
existing
historic
structures,
as
well
as
rehabilitate
an
abandoned
cemetery
on
a
property
encompassing
2.2
acres
of
land.
The
restoration
of
the
cemetery
alone
is
estimated
to
cost
up
to
a
million
dollars.
L
By
allowing
the
adjacent
residential
developments
to
be
built,
the
city
again
created
significant
hurdles
for
preservation.
Currently,
we
are
required
to
accommodate
parking
for
336
people
as
well
as
parking
for
the
parsonage
and
cemetery.
Any
future
religious
congregation
would
look
to
maximize
use
of
the
property
with
maximum
maximum
capacity.
Events
that
typically
occur
on
weekends
and
rely
on
off-street
parking,
it's
very
unlikely
to
find
any
existing
church
building.
That
has
a
capacity
which
does
not
align
proportionately
to
its
size.
L
Any
reduction
in
capacity
begins
to
undermine
the
ability
to
assure
the
financial
security
of
such
a
large
and
historic
building.
We've
been
quoted
at
three
hundred
thousand
dollars
just
to
replace
the
slate
the
slate
roof
and
another
100
000
for
steeple
repair.
There
is
an
endless
list
of
significant
costs
associated
with
maintaining
the
property,
and
the
only
way
to
succeed
at
this
is
to
use
the
building
to
its
full
potential.
L
Without
the
opportunity
to
rely
on
our
intended
capacity,
we
would
be
forced
to
pursue
a
significantly
more
risky
and
disruptive
business
model
that
would
not
be
feasible
or
a
holistic
approach
to
preservation
without
the
ability
to
host
a
larger
event
suited
for
the
space.
The
weekly
flow
of
patrons
and
associated
revenue
would
be
both
unreliable
and
inadequate
in
order
to
secure
its
existence.
A
building
that
was
established
for
religious
or
commercial
use
will
always
maintain
an
occupancy
number
that
properly
reflects
its
size
throughout
much
of
its
history.
L
L
A
business's
success
is
dependent
on
the
ability
to
accommodate
a
capacity
in
proportion
to
the
size
of
its
physical
space
within
a
geographic
area
that
has
a
population
base
adequate
for
sustainability.
The
church
with
7
000
square
feet
of
floor
space
and
50
foot
high
vaulted
ceilings
was
built
with
the
intention
to
accommodate
a
large
capacity.
L
Conducting
any
business
in
a
building
of
this
size
and
location
in
beacon
is
only
financially
viable
if
we
can
rely
on
the
ability
to
host
larger
events
on
weekends,
when
there
is
an
increased
opportunity
for
attendance.
Currently,
the
daily
flow
of
local
customers
necessary
to
support
a
building
of
this
size
and
stature
is
not
probable.
Therefore,
it
is
necessary
to
rely
on
a
model
that
allows
our
capacity
to
maximize
its
potential
on
a
limited
basis
so
that
it's
sufficient
for
a
sustainable
future.
C
K
Yes,
and
actually,
since
that
was
working
out,
mr
james
excellent
segway
rich,
you
read
right
into
our
presentation.
Rich
is
actually
going
to
present
the
very
brief
alternatives:
analysis
which
speaks
to
really
that,
because,
as
part
of
the
secret
process,
it
will
speak
to
the
current
use,
the
what
one
would
call
in
a
eis
or
environmental
impact
statement
review
as
a
a
no
build
alternative.
So
that's
the
current
operation
as
the
church,
and
you
know
whether
you
constitute
the
carcinogen
as
a
single
family
home
or
you
know
some
extension
of
the
church
thereof.
K
That's
what
the
uses
are
the
no
build
alternative.
That's
the
current
traffic
layout,
the
current
you
know
entrances
into
the
site,
all
that,
so
we
have
that.
We've
also
came
up
with
another
alternative.
Again,
I
don't
want
to
steal
all
of
I'm
very
good
at
stealing
my
consultants
talking
points
because
they
feed
them
all
to
me,
and
then
I
just
give
you
the
summaries
but
they'll
he'll
they'll
they'll
present
that
to
you,
because
I
think
it's
important.
K
You
know,
as
with,
as
chairman
mentioned,
that
currently
today,
a
church
today
could
have
a
wedding
on
the
site
without
any
of
these
traffic
flow
operations
that
we're
proposing
any
management
plans.
No
other.
You
know
devices
to
help,
control
or
manage
vehicles
entering
onto
walcott.
So
it's
it's
an
existing
condition.
C
C
D
K
Right
so
we
use
so
the
beacon
has
two
guidebooks:
that
kind
of
collectively
help
you
address
the
use
is
in
1963
and
65.
There
is
no
guidance
manual,
I
think
you
know.
Tim
dexter
probably
has
that
squirreled
away
someday
when
he
becomes
the
consultant
for
the
city
of
beacon,
but
the
1964
book
doesn't
exist,
so
we
rely
on
the
63
and
65
and
I
don't
think
there's
any
concern
or
question
whether
this
property
was
a
church.
K
I
think
that
was
what
it
was
known
for,
and
so
we
we
utilized
the
calculation
based
on
what
that
occupancy
was
at
the
church,
and
then
we
can
exceed
that
through
the
1964
exception
we
can
calculate
backwards.
We
look
back
at
the
code
from
1964.
That
tells
you
what
the
parking
standards
were
for
a
particular
use.
K
K
C
K
We
were
trying
to
make
a
justification
to
support
that
the
1964
exception
that
is
available.
If
this
application
satisfied
that
the
permission
that
that
the
64
allowance
allows,
then
we
would,
we
wouldn't
be
before
you
for
variance
we
would.
We
would
be
permitted
to
exceed
right
now.
We
only
provide
32
parking
spaces.
We
can
provide
up
to
86
parking
spaces
on
sorry.
The
use
could
provide
whatever
the
use
is.
K
So
if
it's
a
hotel,
if
it's
a
hotel
and
event
space,
we
could
have
up
to
86
parking
spaces
without
variance
thanks
to
the
64
exception,
but
our
use
requires
significantly
more
according
to
at
the
maximum
event,
so
those
those
large
350
person-
events-
that's
what's
triggering
us
being
before
you
and
that
would
require
136.,
so
the
overall.
What
we
need
from
you
is
the
difference
between
136
and
the
32
that
we
provide.
K
C
C
J
K
K
Made
it
very
clear
we
exceed
the
number
that
would
get
us
an
allowance
from
so
that
that
that
issue
has
been
put
to
bed.
I
think
also
very
eloquently
by
the
zba
attorney
at
the
last
meeting,
so
maybe,
if
I
just
I'll
turn
to
rich
just
for
the
alternatives
analysis
just
to
speak
to
what
the
current
conditions
are
versus
what's
proposed
and
what,
because
again,
I
think,
we're
getting.
We
were
trying
to
make
justifications
that
we
thought
were
applicable.
We
spoke
with
the
planning
board
attorney
about
how
the
exception
worked.
K
We
thought
that
if
we
provided
another
18
or
so
spaces
on
the
site,
that
we
wouldn't
even
need
a
variance
period,
because
we
thought
that
if
we
could
have
we'll
just
call
it
50
spaces
if
we
provided
32
on
top
of
that,
you
know
if
we
provided
the
off
streets
parking
spaces,
we
thought
that
met
the
metric,
but
the
the
attorney
has
advised
us
that
that
is
not
how
the
the
the
64
exception
is
applied
at
all.
It's
if
you
meet
the
number
you
meet,
the
25
increase,
you're
good.
You
go
one
space
over.
K
You
need
the
relief
for
all
the
spaces.
You
don't
need
a
relief
for
one
space,
so
we
we
thought
by
a
logic.
You
know
just
the
jump
there
that
it
would
only
been
for
a
one-space
variance
in
that
instance.
If
we
only
needed
one
space
based
on
the
exception,
the
attorney
told
us.
That's
not
the
case.
You
need
the
whole
relief
that
that
provision
is
only
available.
If
you
completely
satisfy
the
code
requirement,
we
disagree,
so
we
were
just
making
a
justification
that
the
reality
of
it
is.
K
Is
your
code
permits
a
use
to
exceed
the
current
parking
requirements
because
of
the
existing
non-conforming
nature
of
it,
meaning
the
use
that
was
existence
in
1964,
preceded
the
zoning
and
therefore
you
have
this
ability,
because
otherwise
you
couldn't
build
anything
on
main
for
the
most
part
I
mean
none
of
the
applications
would
be
zoning
compliant,
they
don't
have
parking.
I
was
part
of
one
of
the
first
applications
on
main
street.
It
was
it
just
got
approved
last
week
that
actually
provided
the
required
and
actually
provided
two
spaces
more
than
was
required
by
the
zoning.
K
That
was
the
first
that
I've
been
in
in
my
experience
on
main
street,
so
these
this
provision
was
was
prepared,
for
you
know,
applications
to
help
support
those
existing
non-conforming
uses.
We
are,
of
course,
an
existing,
I'm
not
sure
I
would
call
it
non-conforming,
it's
a
church,
so
it's
hard
to
say
where
those
can
be
zoned,
but
ultimately,
maybe
they're
just
to
turn
to
rich
just
to
speak
to
those
alternatives
and
we're
not
we're
not
taking
advantage
of
the
64
exception.
B
D
B
K
So,
if,
if
I
may,
that
excellent
question,
so
the
principal
use
on
the
site
is
a
hotel,
so
this
is
an
accessory
used
for
the
church
space.
So
the
church,
the
hotel,
is
not
being
built
in
the
church.
The
hotel
is
being
replaced
and
rich
if
you
could
just
bring
up
the
directory
directory
right,
so
we
we
just
the
rendering.
So
we
did
also
submit
one
of
the
questions.
I
don't
know
if
it
was
one
of
the
members.
K
That's
here
this
evening
was
what
the
building
would
look
like,
so
we
actually
did
submit
to
the
renderings
to
of
the
hotel
so
that
the
hotel
is
going
to
be
operation
operational.
You
know
seven
days
a
week,
365,
that's
that's.
The
principle
used,
the
accessory
use
will
only
have
specific
events
and
I
will
have
gavin
kind
of
spell
out
more
more
specifically
the
conferences
or
the
events
that
would
take
place
at
the
the
church
building,
but
they
will
not
be.
The
max
event
is
not
a
on
a
monday,
tuesday
or
wednesday.
K
It's
limited
number
of
events,
and
it's
only
specific
days
of
the
week,
and
it
would
only
be
so
many
times
per
year,
so
we're
it's
over
that
the
maximum
event.
Those
large
events
would
be
350,
but
the
regular
events
that
would
take
place
at
the
event
space
are
significantly
reduced
on
number
of
persons,
so
we
wouldn't
be
triggering
this
higher
threshold,
but
those
large,
as
mr
hecker
presented,
those
events
help
maintain
the
sustainability
of
this
site.
It's
it's.
Of
course
the
hotel
is
is
operating,
but
it's
just
like.
K
So
that
all
excellent
questions,
and
so
again
as
far
as
numerically
and
mr
hacker
may
speak
to
this-
this
isn't
your
his
first
experience
in
this
in
this
arena.
So
yeah
I'll.
Let
him
explain
to
that
piece
of
it
and
then
I'll
come
to
your
question.
It's
just
because
the
events
are
they're,
not
all
the
same
they're,
not
the
same
variety
and
again
we're
also
being
trying
to
be
respectful
of
how
many
events
that
we
would
have
on
the
property
so
we're
trying
to
keep
that
reduced
as
well.
K
The
planning
board
will
likely
incorporate
at
their
at
their
in
their
review
of
the
special
permit.
There
are
certain
factors
and
time
place
and
manner
are
often
how
they'll
restrict
or
manage
properties.
So
much
of
that
will
come
through
that
that
planning
process,
but,
of
course
the
parking
you
know
really
drives
a
lot
of
that
discussion.
So
there's
there's
a
lot
of.
I
guess
pieces
like
how
that
will
sort
of
come
out
in
the
wash,
but
typically
that's
done
at
the
planning
war,
where
they'll
restrict
to
hours
of
operation.
K
L
I
could
sorry
this
is
it
goes.
It
goes
to
there's
there's
a
certain
amount
of
of
our
business
model
that
involves
just
being
able
to
have
a
larger
capacity
event
on
on
a
weekend
and
that's
and
that
needs
to
be
available
to
us
in
order
to
to
have
an
event
that
will
help
sustain
the
church
and
and
keep
the
whole
business
going
in
general.
We're
not.
We
wouldn't
even
be
able
to
achieve
those
numbers
on
most
days
of
the
week.
So
that's
that's.
H
L
L
It
would
probably
be
closer
to
200
people,
but
we
have
the
space
to
be
able
to
expand
that
if
we
bring
in
something
an
event
that
requires
the
and
it
wouldn't
be
350
people,
it
would
as
an
audience,
it
would
be
more
like
320
people
seated
and
that,
basically
I
don't.
I
can't
tell
you
exact
numbers
of
how
often
this
would
happen,
but
it
would,
it
would
be
restricted
to
weekends
in
general,.
K
And
if
I
may,
there's
certain
applications
that
we've
been
involved
in
here
in
the
city
of
beacon
that
also
have
special
permits,
including
you
know,
recent
approvals
before
the
planning
board,
where
it
doesn't
just
go
the
time
place
and
manner.
For
example,
certain
there
was
a
central
public
green
space
and
there
were
limitations
on
how
one
could
utilize
that
space
and
and
even
required
review
whether
it
was
with
the
city
administrator
or
with
the
building
department,
to
authorize
those.
So
there's
a
lot
of
different
mechanisms
used
to
to
help.
K
You
know
if
it's
going
to
be
an
event
over
a
certain
size
or
or
other
ways,
there's
a
lot
of
tools
in
the
in
the
tool
kit
that
that
are
utilized
for,
for
us
we're
trying
to
work
through
all
of
the
logistics,
the
site,
logistics,
the
traffic,
the
parking
we've
prepared,
a
study
that
showed
we
will
not
have
a
you
know,
a
negative
impact
on
both
of
those
criteria
based
on
the
maximum
events,
the
frequency
of
those
events,
the
typical
utilization
of
the
site.
So
we've
even
analyzed
it.
You
know
not
just
in
in
theoretical.
K
You
know
terms,
we've
done
it
in
a
study
that
helps
represent.
You
know
what
it
is,
that
the
that
we're
we're
trying
to
and
how
what
we're
proposing
will
be
really
a
better
condition,
which
is
what
rich
is
going
to
get
to
in
his
presentation
and
why
it
really
it's
a
the
function
of
what
we're
proposing
can
operate
on
the
site
at
this
size
or
otherwise.
K
M
There
we
go
so,
I
think,
just
to
frame
the
discussion
before
I
get
into
like
the
the
alternatives
just
going
back
to
what
we
presented
last
month-
and
I
think
taylor
already
kind
of
covered
this.
But
these
are
the
parking
numbers
that
we
require
for
the
site
right,
31
spaces
for
the
hotel,
17
spaces
for
the
cafe
88
spaces
for
the
event
space.
M
The
one
thing
that
we
that
we
mentioned
last
week
and-
and
it
goes
to
the
operation
of
of
what
is
planned
here-
is
that
the
total
occupancy
at
the
maximum
occupancy
of
the
entire
site
is
planned
to
be
350
people,
the
the
hotel's
going
to
have
a
certain
amount
of
people
in
it,
and
and
it's
anticipated
that
a
lot
of
them
are
going
to
be
attendees
of
the
events.
And
then
the
cafe
space
would
only
be
open
during
an
event.
M
Would
only
be
there
to
support
the
event
and
would
not
have
additional
people
from
outside
the
event
attending
that
the
cafe
space.
So
you
have
50
seats
in
there
and
we're
not
planning
to
actually
have
those
50
seats
occupied.
That
cafe
is
there
to
support
the
event.
So,
ultimately,
what
we
really
require,
while
we're
requesting
a
variance
for
104,
because
that's
what
the
code
says
we
we
require.
M
What
we
really
require
is
an
additional
87
spaces
right
because
we
need
we
have
the
88
spaces
for
that
event,
at
350
people
of
occupancy
and
we're
providing
32.
So
we
end
up
with
87
spaces,
plus
the
sorry
plus
the
31
for
the
hotel,
because
those
are
always
going
to
be
there
so
that
that
we're.
What
I'm
really
looking
at
is
is
87
spaces.
For
that
event,
when
you
look
at
what's.
B
J
K
A
simultaneous
simultaneous
use,
so
it
is
accounted
for
in
our
submissions.
We
presented
it
to
the
planning
board
directly,
so
it's
on
the
record
throughout
our
the
scope
of
our
applications.
So
specifically,
the
cafe
will
not
be
open
during
an
event.
It
will
only
be
utilized
to
support,
meaning
it
will
not
be
open
to
the
general
public.
It
will
only
open
to
the
event
operator
that
that's
utilizing
it
for
that
event,
so
it
will
not
be
open
on
separately
from
the
event.
K
B
M
C
C
One
set
of
numbers
is
what
the
calculation
is
under
the
zoning
code
for
the
number
of
parking
spots
that
needs
to
be
included
on
site,
and
the
second
is
the
question
of
okay.
So
we're
doing
this
thing
tonight,
a
bunch
of
people
are
showing
up
how
many
cars
are
going
to
be
that
we
need
to
accommodate
so
yeah,
even
if
the
cafe
is
shut
down
during
an
event
that
may
reduce
the
number
of
or
the
amount
of
demand
for
parking
or
the
amount
of
traffic
coming
in.
C
C
C
I
M
C
C
Of
if
the
answer
to
that
is
no,
we
think
there's
the
potential
for
a
significant
environmental
impact,
then
going
on
and
on
about
why
the
variances
should
ultimately
be
granted
and
how
this
is
good
for
the
community
is
great
but
you're
better
off.
Just
having
a
say
that
going
back
to
the
planning
board
right.
B
K
Right
so
the
calculation
is
is
just
is
a
number
so
oftentimes
you'll
hear,
as
you
said
earlier
this
evening.
You
know
when
we're
looking
at
substantiality
or
looking
at
how
large
something
is
and
that's
all
con.
Each
application
is
going
to
be
looked
at
completely
separately
totally
different.
You
know
we're
not
a
house
single
family
home.
You
know
looking
for
a
setback.
K
What
we're
showing
and
what
we
presented
in
our
our
traffic
report
is
that
there
are,
since
we
cannot
provide
those
parking
spaces
on
site
that,
for
the
the
whether
it's
for
just
you
know
if
it
was
just
the
hotel
or
if
it
was,
we
can't
provide
them
on
our
site.
So
we've
done
a
traffic
report
to
show
you
that
we
can
act.
We
have
total
the
ability
to
provide
them
at
off
street.
Excuse
me
off-site
parking
areas,
whether
they're
public
or
now
we
have
the
private
agreement
we're
working
on
a
private
agreement
for
other.
K
You
know,
there's
shuttle
options,
there's
a
number
of
other
ways
that
we
are
mitigating
the
potential
impact
that
we
don't
have
it
on
our
site.
So
that's
all.
I
think
where
mr
chairman
was
going
was
that's.
What
we're
talking
about
is
that,
whether
or
not
what
we're
proposing,
which
again
will
ultimately
lead
to
a
variance
of
a
specific
number?
Not
you
know,
those
are
all
justifications,
we're
providing
to
you,
but
the
reports
that
we've
prepared
were
specifically
designed
to
show
that
we
will
not
have
a
significant
environmental
impact
by
a
traffic
or
parking.
K
So
that's
making
sure
we
don't
impact
any
residential
neighborhoods
nearby.
What
we'll
be
doing
to
manage
that
and
that's
what
the
traffic
management
management
plan
is
for?
It
shows
circulation
for
the
site.
It
shows
that
we'll
have
you
know
flaggers
for
events.
You
know,
there's
a
lot
of
other
mechanisms
that
we're
incorporating
so
that,
as
distinct
from
the
current
condition
today,
where
a
330
person
wedding
could
come
in
there
and
there's
no
rhyme
or
reason
or
order.
K
This
is
a
ordered
site,
so
we're
trying
to
take
an
existing
condition,
which
is
a
church
that
could
do
this.
You
know
an
event.
Obviously,
a
church
isn't
running
a
hotel,
but
they
could
run
that
event
today
and
and
we're
putting
in
all
these
mechanisms
to
help
mitigate
potential
significant
environmental
impacts
which,
from
a
parking
variance
standpoint,
are,
are
we
going
to
be
impacting
you
know
a
residential,
neighborhood
or
other
communities,
and
our
plans
are
designed
to
mitigate
that
to
show
where
these
parking
areas
is
maps
to
get
you
there.
K
You
know
other
shuttle
options
all
these
things
to
to
address
those
specific
issues,
not
not
as
104
large
number.
That's
not
that
question
we're
asking
you
we're
asking
you
know
is
it
you
know
we're
essentially
what
we're
working
through
with
the
board
the
planning
board
at
this
time
as
the
lead
agency
and
your
board
as
a
as
an
involved
agency
based
on
the
current
count,
is
whether
or
not
we
we're
mitigating
what
would
otherwise
be
considered
a
potential
for
a
significant
environmental
impact
and
that's
what
our
study
was
designed
for.
G
M
Right
so
again,
my
reasoning
for
the
87
spaces
is
really
not
too
much
so
much
talk
about
the
the
variance
but
more
talk
about
the
environment,
the
environmental
impacts
of
the
parking
and
the
traffic
generated
by
the
project,
and
to
do
that
in
the
context
of
comparing
it
to
an
alternative.
Okay.
So
right
now
you
have
this
church
that
can
accommodate
336
people,
as
is
there's
not
enough
parking
on
that
site
right
now
to
accommodate
that
number
of
people.
So
when
you
look
at
that
note,
36,
it's
84
parking
spaces
that
site
right
now.
M
You
know
when
you
look
at
that
compared
to
what
the
no
build
is
today
we're
we're
fairly
similar
to
what
my
point
is
we're
fairly
similar
to
what
is
happening
today
as
far
as
the
number
of
spaces
that
we
actually
need
right.
The
the
other
point
is,
is
the
traffic
portion
of
this
right
and
we
did
a
traffic
impact
study.
We
looked
at
intersections
up
and
down
9w
from
south
south
avenue,
9d
from
south
avenue
up
to
for
plank,
and
we
showed
that
there
isn't
any
significant
impact
from
this
project
as
it's
proposed
today.
M
M
We
can
talk
about
that,
but
in
reality
I
don't
think
that
I
think
that
the
the
traffic
impacts
related
to
a
336
person
church
as
it
stands
today,
versus
what
we're
proposing
for
this
site
with
the
these
occasional
larger
events
are
very
similar
as
far
as
traffic
impacts
go.
So
I
think
that
that
was
kind
of
just
the
point.
As
far
as
the
environmental
impacts
of
the
traffic
in
the
parking
that
I
was
trying
to
get
to.
L
However,
you
know
there
is
something
to
be
said
for
the
fact
that
the
church
that
owned
the
property
before
did
not
have
the
the
proper
amount
of
fundings
to
make
to
maintain
the
church,
because
their
congregation
was
not
big
enough.
So
that's
you
know
that's
part
of
the
problem
here.
It
takes
a
lot
to
to
maintain
this
building
and
the
the
congregation
that's
currently
there
and
the
congregation
that
was
there
before
are
not
able
to
maintain
the
building
without
a
significant
amount
of
of
help
and
funds.
E
K
I
think
to
mrs
point:
it's
a
very
important
point
because
there's
significant
development
pressures
that
were
created
by
the
new
multi-family
development
that
really
surrounds
the
the
property
in
that
area.
Of
course,
this
is
a
historic
district,
so
they
were
allowed
to
be
built
in
that
context.
Knowing
that
this,
you
know,
important
historic
building
was
located
there,
but
that's,
I
think
whether
they
were
parking
permissively
in
those
other
areas
is,
is
distinct
from
the
the
question
you're
asking,
but
but
yes,
they
there
were
parkers.
K
I
believe
that
you
know,
because
we've
heard
this
at
the
planning
board
level
too,
that
had
parked
at
other
locations,
because
again
there
was
available
off-site
parking
in
proximity
to
the
site,
and
the
same
is
true
for
our
application.
It's
it's.
There
are
structured
parking
and
we're
very
approximate,
of
course,
also
to
the
train
station,
but
we
do
also
you
know
we're
trying
to
put
together.
We
do
have
a
license
agreement
that
we're
putting
together
with
another
nearby
neighbor
that
would
be
46
bases.
Gavin
clarified
that
it
was
46
spaces.
C
M
M
M
C
C
At
least
some
of
the
anticipated
hotel
and
cafe
parking
is
is
going
to
be
off-site
too,
but
that's
what
the
that's
what
the
base
suggested
it
is.
So
the
idea
is
in
effect,
whenever
there's
a
there's,
an
event
going
on
all
of
the
parking
that's
associated
with
that
event,
except
to
the
extent
people
have
checked
in
at
the
hotel,
for
the
parking
lot
filled
up.
K
Is
going
to
be
off
off
site?
Yes
right
and
that's
what
we
prepared
our
traffic
and
parking
management
plan
was
to
show
that
that
is
available
for
that
that
off
street
parking
as
similar
to
main
street
uses
and
others
that
rely
on
on
area
parking.
I
think
the
mayor
used
to
say
it
was
america,
sally
used
to
say,
like
you
used
to
be
able
to
roll
a
bowling
ball
down
main
street,
and
that
was
the
parking
problem.
It
still
isn't
a
parking
problem
today,
it's
just
it
may
not
be.
K
You
may
not
be
able
to
pull.
You
know
right
up
to
to
the
specific
look.
If
you're
trying
to
get
a
doughnut
glazed
over,
you
might
not
be
able
to
park
right
in
front.
You
might
have
to
go
a
half
a
block
past,
but
if
you
turn
left
or
right,
you
know
you're,
typically
finding
it
within
that
next
street.
You
know
it's.
Just
people
want
to
park
directly
in
front
of
the
uses.
So
here
we
prepared
this
plan
to
address
those
specific
parking
needs.
K
I'm
not
sure
what
the
so
the
there
are
some
other
factors
just
by
the
way
about
why
we
can't
provide
certain
spaces.
For
example,
we
did
propose
a
loop
drive
that
used
to
be
in
front
of
there's
an
existing
driveway
right
now
to
the
south
of
the
church
to
to
bake
the
property.
You
know
to
really
present
it
from
walcott
we've
been
asked
to
remove
the
loop
drive
which
we
have
and
we're
moving
actually
the
old
driveway,
because
again
it
really
gives
the
the
church
its
own
space.
K
M
So
last
month
we
we
knew
that
we
were
looking
at
getting
this
license
agreement
for
the
parking
spaces
for
the
46
spaces,
but
we
said
at
the
same
time
that
all
additional
for
these
parking
for
the
events
would
have
to
be
off-site.
What
in
and
we've
identified
the
locations
that
are
nearby
as
well
as
more
remote?
We
talked
about.
B
M
B
M
I
K
That's
that's
I
mean
again
the
prop.
We
are
signing
a
license
agreement
so
sure
there's,
there's
always
the
same
as
the
city's
parking
lots
or
any
other
lot
in
general.
There
is
so
it's
not
running
with
the
land.
So
it's
certainly
that
way,
but
that
is
the
consistent
policy
leases
and
or
license
agreements
are
the
typical
parking
arrangements
for
any
of
these
specific
arrangements
where,
for
example,
on
main
street
you're,
just
you
don't
have
parking
and
you
can
just.
This
is
how
it
works.
K
K
There
would
only
be
revocability
if
there
was
a
reason
I
mean
if
there
was
they
could
be
revoked.
There
are
license
agreements
they
could
be
revoked,
but
the
idea
here
is
to
we.
Let
me
take
one
step
back,
so
the
report
that
we
prepared
doesn't
require
this
private
agreement.
We're
doing
this
to
supplement
what
we
already
have
is
available
parking.
K
The
city
right
now
is
working
on
a
significant
parking
plan
for
downtown,
so
we're
not
taking
credit
for
the
fact
that
the
city
is
also
working
to
develop
additional
parking,
so
you
know
sort
of
looking
at
the
application
as
far
as
you're
absolutely
right.
It's
it.
There
is
a
revocability
component
to
it,
but
we're
just
adding
yet
another
tool
to
say
we
can't
take
credit
for
the
city's
future
potential
parking
areas.
We
are,
you
know
what
we
are
proposing
can
be
managed
by
what
is
available
in
the
area.
K
B
It's
possible
that
I
missed
this
in
your
response,
but
I
asked
this
a
number
of
questions
one
around
the
business
case.
I
think
we,
you
talked
briefly
to
that.
We've
talked
quite
a
bit
about
parking
right
now,
but
I
really
want
to
focus
I
oh
at
least
I
want
to
tee
this
up,
and
you
tell
me
when
you
want
to
talk
about
this,
but
around
community
impact.
I'm
just
going
to
read
to
you
what
I
wrote
two
bullets:
how
does
the
proposal
not
deter
business
from
existing
businesses
from
main
street?
B
B
How
would
this
proposal
mitigate
imposing
a
negative
burden
on
the
neighborhoods
and
the
residents
such
that,
but
not
limited
to
noise,
trespassing
encroachment
on
personal
property
and
or
space
late
night
operations
that
might
have
a
negative
impact
on
the
neighborhood's
quality
of
life?
Okay,
so
two
topics
when
you
feel
appropriate
I'd
love
to
hear
your
thoughts
on
those.
K
K
K
Generally
speaking,
we
provide
enough
off-street
parking
just
for
the
hotel
use
alone,
but
that
wouldn't
be
enough
for
the
hotel
and
the
restaurant
component,
but
again
we've
we've
shown
how
we
can
provide
it,
whether
it's
in
public
off-street
parking
areas
and
and
the
like,
so
the
other
part
of
the
management
plan
is
also
important
and
it's
managing
how
these
events
function
and
that's
that's
really.
The
key
from
the
trafficking
partnership
right.
M
So
we
had,
I
had
presented
this
figure
at
last
month's
meeting,
which
is
basically
what
we're
showing
is
how
we're
going
to
manage
the
on-site
circulation
right
and
and
and
that's
part
of
the
operation
of
the
site.
But
a
bigger
part
of
the
traffic
management,
parking
plan
or
parking
traffic
and
parking
management
plan
is,
is
how
do
we
get
information
out
to
attendees
on?
M
We
can
spread
information
when
we,
when
we
sell
tickets
to
these
people
for
a
ticket
event,
if
it's,
if
it's
not
a
ticket
event,
if
it's
a
wedding
or
or
some
other
kind
of
conference,
or
something
like
that,
it
can
be
done
through
the
event
coordinators
and
then
on
the
days
of
the
event.
That's
where
the
circulation
plan
comes
in,
we
can
provide
handouts
to
people
who
are
coming
in
to
drop
off.
They
are
not
sure
where
to
park,
say:
okay,
take
follow
these
directions
to
get
to
the
the
off-site
parking
location.
J
M
I
I
I
look.
I
I
can't.
I
can't
stop
somebody
from
parking
on
beacon
street,
but
in
my
experience
when
people
are
provided
with
knowledge
of
readily
available
parking
spaces
that
are
not
familiar
with
an
area
right,
they
will
take
that
information
and
use
it,
and
I
don't
think
that
the
tompkins
lot
or
the
municipal
lot
is-
is
an
excessive
walk,
excessive
distance
to
walk
we're.
Talking
about
you
know
a
couple
city
blocks
at
most.
J
J
K
Point
of
what
we're
putting
together
here
is
to
show
that
there
there's
not
going
to
be.
There
is
no
no
impact
scenario,
including
the
current
condition.
There's
no,
no
impact
scenario
we're
mitigating
a
potentially
significant
environmental
impact,
we're
showing
how
we're
managing
these
impacts.
So
it's
not
that
there
wouldn't
be
any
impact
that
we're
not
turning
this
into
a
park.
You
know
there
are
other
ways
that
we're
helping
mitigate
and
that's
what
rich
was
touching
on.
You
know
we
have
had
initial
communications
with
adjoining
property
owners.
K
They've
also
submitted
correspondence
prior
to
public
hearings,
we're
not
even
in
a
public
hearing
yet
with
your
board
or
with
the
planning
board.
So
we
haven't
had
all
of
that,
but
we've
individually
been
reaching
out
because
we
know
where
we
are.
We
understand
the
context
and
we're
creating
these
plans
to
address
those
specific
issues.
For
example,
we
also
have
connectivity
down
to
beekman,
so
we
are
proposing
a
path
through
the
site.
K
Similar
uses
are
on
similar
adjoining
properties,
I
think
west
end
lofts
has
theirs
and
I
think
river
ridge
also
has
theirs
so
collectively
we're
doing
you
know
similar,
creating
a
new
connectivity
between
beekman
and
and
walcott.
You
know
all
these
things
are
being
factored
into
that,
and
the
same
is
true
of
managing
to
ensure
that
no
one
is
parking
in
the
adjoining.
You
know
residential
neighborhoods,
that's
all
being
considered
as
part
of
it.
Mr
buckley
makes
an
important
point:
there's
always
going
to
be
the
folks
that
don't
do
it.
K
You
know
and
that's
those
are
those
are
there,
but
those
limited
instances
of
it
or
because
you
have
local
knowledge
and
you
might
do
it
the
same
as
con.
The
converse
may
also
be
true.
They
may
because
they
know
this,
it
isn't
somewhere
they
want
to
go
park.
They
may
already
live
four
blocks
away
and
they're
gonna
say
I'm
walking
today
you
know
or
I'm
gonna
get
dropped
off
and
we've
created
a
plan
where
those
circulation
works,
so
you
can
get
dropped
off
so
you're
not
parking
there
you're
not
parking.
You
know.
K
The
idea
here
is
come
on
the
train.
Come
from
downtown
get
it
get
a
ride.
You
know
these
are
all
ways
that
all
of
that
factors
into
what
the
actuality
is
of
the
parking.
So
when,
when
rich
is
presenting
these
numbers
and
when
I
get
dave
mad
about
the
numbers
that
I
try
and
use,
it's
all
because
we're
we're
justifying
what
is
the
reality?
That's
why
we're
presenting
these
sort
of
alternatives
to
you
is
because
the
reality
of
today,
what's
on
that
site
today,
may
not
be
fully
utilized
to
its
capacity.
K
But
if
you
know
the
church
happens
to
get
a
great
following,
it
doesn't
mean
that
it
couldn't
be
and
it
wouldn't
be
treated
or
managed
the
same
way
that
our
application
is
being
designed
to
do
to
mitigate
what
could
otherwise
be
an
impact.
That
is
a
no-built
condition
and,
of
course,
that's
us
preserving
a
church
managing
it.
That
way,
you
know
making
it
better
bettering
the
conditions
respectfully
because
of
you
know
we're
taking
out
that
driveway
and
also
improving
the
old
graveyard
as
well.
K
L
I
know
I
was
going
to
also
add
that
it's
it's
crucial
for
us
in
order
to
mitigate
these
issues,
to
to
get
this
information
to
people
that
patronize
that
our
patrons
of
of
the
facility-
and
that's
that's
important
to
us-
that
we
that
we
do
this,
it's
important
to
the
community.
It's
important
to
everybody!
It's
important
to
have
this
this
order,
so
there's
never
going
to
be
a
situation
where
we
can
control
100
of
the
people
all
the
time.
L
So
we
have
to
you
know
we
say
like
if
somebody
parks
on
beacon
street,
it's
going
to
happen,
as,
as
I
said,
I
live
there.
I
like
most
of
the
people
that
I
know
that
live
around
me
are
not
going
to
be
up
in
arms
if,
if
someone
happens
to
park
on
their
street,
having
said
that,
we're
going
to
to
try
our
very
best
to
mitigate
these
issues,
so
yeah.
M
K
And
if
I
may,
this
is
also
a
special
permit,
so
the
the
board
has
just
as
your
board
does
in
in
conditioning
approvals.
If
they're
rationally
related,
there's
essential,
you
know
there's
a
nexus
between
the
condition
they
can
do
so
appropriately,
so
that
the
approval
can
be
conditioned
on
on
things
that
are
appropriate
to
mitigate
the
concerns
that
you're
presenting
that
can
be
hours
of
operation.
That
can
be
means
to
to
addressing.
You
know
the
larger.
K
C
Okay,
I
realize
it's
getting
late.
I
had
a
couple
specific
questions.
I
wanted
to
ask:
I'm
guessing
we're
going
to
wind
up
adjourning
this
to
the
next
meeting,
but
the
the
specific
questions
I
had.
First
and
foremost,
how
is
it
anticipated
that
usage
of
the
church
as
a
renovated
special
event
space
is
going
to
is
going
to
compare
with
its
current
usage,
meaning
I
would
assume
it
sounds
like
attendance
is
expected
to
go
up
a
fair
amount.
C
C
L
L
B
L
C
K
And
I'll
address
that
just
in
particular
john
clark
is
not
your
traffic
consultant,
so
john
is
speaking
from
a
planning
perspective,
so
I,
the
traffic
numbers,
are
generated
by
you,
know
the
manuals
and
the
specifics
and
the
uses
we
have
to
consider
not
just
what
is
presently
occupying
that
church,
because
that's
not
you
know
if
taylor
palmer
buys
that
church
and
I'm
running
the
church
of
taylor
palmer.
Maybe
I
have
a
great
you
know
following
and
that
that
that's
the
occupancy
is
the
occupancy
and
that's
driving
the
counts.
K
The
same
problem
we
have
is
that
we're
not
running
a
350
person
event
every
day,
we're
not
we're
a
hotel
that
has
occasional
events.
So
it's
not
to
your
to
your
point.
What
is
currently
today,
2022
still,
you
know
the
re-rise
of
the
pandemic
or
the
re-rise
of
covet.
You
know
whatever
wherever
we
are,
is
not
that's
not
necessarily
the
the
discussion
that
we're
supposed
to
have.
K
We
can
those
are
factors
we
you
can
consider,
but
that's
just
one
of
the
the
site
can
be
occupied
for
more
than
it
presently
can
or
presently
is,
and
so
we're.
What
we're
evaluating
is
what
the
manuals
speak
to
and
your
traffic
consultant
has
reviewed
that
in
that
context,
so
I
understand
totally
what
you're
you're
indicating
you're
interested
about
how
many
what's
going
on
today
and
how
what
we're
proposing
will
be
different
from
that.
I
don't.
I
don't
mean
to
put
words
in
your
mouth,
but
no.
C
That
I'm
interested
in
that
one-
and
the
second
thing
I'm
also
interested
in,
is
how
people
are
getting
there:
the
parking
and
traffic
surveys
that
have
been
done
and
I'm
not
criticizing
them.
For
doing
this,
I
mean
pretty
much
any
study.
That's
based
on
doing
something
like
this
always
result
or
relies
on
assumptions
incorporated
in
here
and
there,
because
otherwise,
you
wouldn't
be
able
to
make
sense
out
of
data,
but
there
are
several
big
picture
or
big
components
of
the
ultimate
calculations
that
are
going
into
that
that
are
based
on
assumptions
that.
C
M
You're
talking
about
there's
two
different
things
right
traffic
and
then
there's
parking
right:
the
numbers
for
traffic
versus
parking,
don't
necessarily
always
line
up
now
they
do
more
so
for
events.
So
that's
number
one,
but
I
think
some
of
what
you're
discussing
here
is
coming
from
john
clark's
comments
where
we
took
into
consideration.
Assumptions
for
10
of
people
are
going
to
either
take
the
train
or
they're
going
to
walk
from
their
homes
or
they're
going
to
take
a
bike.
20.
M
No,
I
think
the
I
think,
ultimately
in
the
in
the
traffic
study
that
we,
our
final
traffic
study
that
was
submitted
10,
was
the
number
that
we
assumed
for
drop-offs
walking,
biking
transit
usage.
It
was
that
was
the
total
10,
nothing
more.
Then
we
took
another.
We
made
another
assumption
that
50
of
the
people
that
are
in
the
hotel
staying
in
the
hotel
were
are
also
going
to
attend
the
event
right
so
that
theoretically
reduces
your
traffic
generation
and
reduces
your
overall
parking
demand
for
the
for
the
facility.
M
So
those
were
the
assumptions
that
we
took
in
in
both
the
traffic
analysis
and
the
in
the
parking.
Now.
Your
other
point
is
comparing
it
to
what
is
happening,
and
I'm
sorry
do.
I
know
for
100
that
there's
going
to
be
50
of
the
people
in
the
church
in
the
hotel
attending
the
event.
I
don't
right,
but
based
on
what
we
anticipate
the
overall
operation
of
the
site
to
be.
We
feel
that
it's
a
reasonable
assumption.
M
The
the
10
credit
that
we
took
there
is
some
basis
in
that,
based
on
census,
data
for
people,
just
knowing
what's
happening
as
far
as
walking
and
transit
usage
in
in
this
area
and
that's
kind
of
where
the
10
percent
came
from,
and
that
was
actually
something
that
we
went
back
and
forth
with
the
city's
traffic
consulting
on.
So
those
numbers
I
feel
fairly
comfortable
with.
Is
there
fluctuation
there
sure?
M
I
think
your
other
point
was
to
the
the
existing
usage.
I
don't
have
any
solid
numbers
on
what's
actually
happening
happening
there
today,
it's
not
something
that
we
considered
it's,
not
something
that
we
would
typically
consider,
because
it's
just
it's
not
super
relevant
to
the
analysis
that
we're
doing
I
mean,
theoretically,
if
I
were
to
take
credit
for
something
for
parking
or
well
parking
wouldn't
matter,
but
for
traffic.
M
Anyway,
it's
really
only
going
to
reduce
my
my
new
impact,
if
you,
if
you
get
what
I'm
saying
like
there's
a
there's,
a
traffic
generation
associated
what's
happening
there
today
and
there's
a
traffic
generation
associated
with
what
the
the
proposal
is
and
there's
a
new
generation
total.
That
would
have
an
additional
impact
so
it.
But
the
point
is
that
the
on
a
traffic
end
of
things,
I
don't
think
it's
really
relevant
and
from
a
parking
st
from
the
parking
end
of
things
based
on
what
I
do
know
of
what's
happening
there
today.
M
K
I
want
to
make
just
I
want
to
just
like
one
point,
just
because
rich
made
it
to
me,
and
it
was
like
one
of
those
light
bulb
moments
too,
but
for
the
purpose
of
secret.
I
know
the
chairmanship
are
getting
late
and
we
do
appreciate
all
of
your
time.
You
know
getting
into
this
details
with
us,
but
the
project
as
proposed
presently
with
with
again
the
limited
events,
the
maximum
large
events
again,
not
every
day.
You
know
specific
large
events.
K
Our
reports
do
show
that
there
would
not
be
a
significant
environmental
impact
because
of
the
availability
of
parking
and
not
creating
a
traffic
impact.
That's
those
are.
Those
are
figures
that
are
in
the
reports
if
we
were
to
say,
reduce
the
maximum
event
total,
if
just
from
300
to
350
350
to
300.
For
some
reason,
all
we're
doing
is
further
reducing
what
already,
as
far
as
a
traffic
and
parking
analysis
works,
so
we're
just
reducing
further.
K
K
Oh
absolutely
yeah,
it's
certain
yeah.
It
would
negatively
impact
the
ability
to
sustain
that's
exactly
right.
I
just
wanted
to
make
clear
that
that
if
there
was
a
concern
that
the
amount
of
that
parking
because
again
we're
here
to
talk
about
potential
impacts,
so
we've
talked
about
how
we're
mitigating
trying
to
mitigate
you
know
any
potential
impacts
to
joining
properties,
because
it's
again
limited
number
of
events.
It's
you
know
we're
talking
about
how
we're
doing
the
hours
of
operation.
You
know
that
we
have
the
availability
in
public
lots
and
we're
creating
private
agreements.
B
L
I
couldn't
just
speak
a
little
bit
to
that,
the
the
more
that
you
reduce
the
the
maximum
number
the
results
in
the
more
in
us
having
to
have
smaller
amounts
of
people
more
often
for
longer
hours
on
a
more
regular
basis.
So,
given
the
opportunity
to
have
that
350
every
once
in
a
while,
we
aren't,
we
don't
have
to
operate
with
as
much
disturbance
to
the
neighborhood
with
having
people
around
all
the
time,
and
you
know
say
we
had
200
people
five
days
a
week.
B
K
Number
so
again
I'll
speak
to
that
right.
I'll,
speak
to
that
very
specifically,
because
we
and
it
you
deal
with
it
all
the
time
when
you're
dealing
with
your
five
factors
and
analyzing
the
area
variance
which
of
which
this
is
it's
not
a
use,
variance,
it's
purely
an
area
of
variance.
Numerically,
that's
not
the
standard
to
say
that
it's
of
significance
is
not
the
numerical
standard,
it's
whether
it
would
have
a
significant.
You
know
the
five
balancing
factors.
K
That's
one
of
the
factors
is
sort
of
the
substantiality
of
the
variance,
so
we've
reduced
already
the
app
the
original
proposal
was
over
400..
So
when
working
with
the
planning
board,
we've
reduced
it
down
to
350,
because
that
was
viewed
as
being
real
to
what
mr
hecker
was
saying.
That's,
where
we're
not
needing
to
have
as
many
events
and
also
it's
it's
a
it's
a
balancing
act
to
try
and
mitigate
what
we're
here
to
discuss,
which
is
the
potential
of
environmental
impacts
and
the
viability
of
the
the
operations,
so
it
would
reduce.
B
B
If
you
can
make
the
business
case
work
at
200,
okay
right
I
mean
we
shouldn't
justify
a
variance
for
the
sake
of
a
business
case
right.
So
if
your
business
case,
if
you
could,
if
you
could
show
us
why
200
or
300
doesn't
work
and
you
minimize
what
you're
coming
to
us
for,
wouldn't
that
make
it
better.
K
So
again,
I
I
think
mr
heck
was
trying
to
present
that
the
alternative
which
we
just
did
identify.
So
if
you
reduce
the
max
events
from
350
to
300
the
the
to
man
to
keep
continue
managing
the
site
and
and
being
able
to
maintain
a
historic
church
to
do
all
the
things
necessary
to
operate
this
property,
you
have
a
cemetery
on
site,
you
have
other
things
that
are
being
managed
here.
It's
not
just
we're,
building
a
church
and
an
event
space
we're
building
a
hotel.
K
You
know
from
scratch,
there's
a
lot
of
history
being
preserved
and
maintained
and
managed
so
there's
other
mitigating
factors
that
I
would
say
respectfully
do
weigh
into
that
balancing
act.
You
know,
balancing
tests
that
your
board
would
be
faced
with
sure
the
the
economic
viability
is
certainly
a
consideration,
but
the
same
way
the
board
couldn't
ask
whether
mr
hecker
has
the
economic.
K
Whether
he's
got
the
bank
account
to
do
the
proposal.
The
board
can't
ask
that
question,
but
can
certainly
consider
when,
in
discussions
that
that
function,
but
what
mr
hecker's
saying
is,
if
you
reduce
the
number
of
so
the
overall
parking
number
is
driven
by
that
max
event.
That's
that's
what's
driving
that,
but
if
we
reduce
that
max
event
just
to
address
the
parking,
it
may
have
other
consequences
that
are
not
they're,
not
consequences,
but
their
changes.
K
M
K
M
M
M
K
Right,
that's
the
issue
with
the
substantiality
and
percentages
and
numbers:
that's
not
that
isn't
respectfully.
How
and
the
case
law
speaks
to
this
too,
how
the
evaluation
of
the
factor
and
your
attorney
can
certainly
speak
to
those
that's
not
the
test.
It's
not
five
versus
eight
sure.
If,
if
it's
reduced
from
that,
you've
reduced
the
number
you're
looking
at
the
you
know,
it
goes
to
a
different
test.
It's
looking
at
the
minimum
you're
giving
you're
granting
the
minimum
relief
necessary
to
for
the
the
overall
application.
So
it's
that's.
K
Why
it's
a
balancing
test
right!
There's
all
these
other
factors
so
yeah,
fourteen
14,
10
spaces.
The
numbers
are
there,
but
it's
looking
at
what
that's
doing
from
a
does.
It
have
an
impact
on
community
character.
Does
it
have
an
environmental
impact?
Those
are
all
the
factors
so
so
the
number
is
you're
absolutely
right.
It
is
a
reduction
from
a
purely
numerical,
but
but
not
impact.
We're
suggesting
that
that
numerical
change
doesn't
have
a
an
impact,
a
community.
You
know
betterment
or
change
that
would
otherwise
you
know
outweigh
what
we're
proposing
I.e.
K
C
C
All
right
drew-
and
I
had
started
working
on
the
template
of
a
memorandum
to
produce
a
response
to
this,
because
you
know
one
of
the
things
one
of
the
things
we
were
discussing
is
you
know
most
commonly
we're
here,
dealing
with
variances
and
we
have
these
statutory
factors
and
or
deny
the
variance
issue
a
resolution
whatever.
This
is
somewhat
different
because
we've
been
asked
to
provide
input.
So,
with
the
caveat
that,
let
me
fix
that
this
is
just
a.
C
C
B
C
32:
okay,
let
me
where
136
parking
spaces
are
required
pursuant
to
the
city's
own
encode.
Thus,
the
applicant's
proposal
would
require
a
variance
from
the
zoning
board
in
order
to
proceed-
and
I
will
just
note
emphasize
this
says-
would
require
a
variance
from
the
zoning
board
in
order
to
proceed,
as
in
nobody
has
sought
a
request
for
a
variance
at
this.
At
this
point
in
time,
we
understand
that
the
proposed
development
is
a
type
one
seek
reaction.
Accordingly,
the
planning
board
cannot
approve
the
proposed
development
until
it
renders
a
determination
of
significance.
If.
K
K
C
However,
if
the
planning
board
finds
that
the
proposed
project
may
include
the
potential
for
at
least
one
significant
adverse
environmental
impact,
then
it
must
issue
a
positive
determination
which
would
then
require
the
applicant
to
prepare
an
environmental
impact
statement
that
addresses,
impacts,
alternatives
and
mitigation.
Okay,
the
zoning
board
us
we
are
not
the
lead
agency.
We
are
an
involved
agency
because,
according
to
the
plans
that
have
been
submitted,
these
would
ultimately
require
us
to
make
a
discretionary
decision
that
would
be
needed
to
approve
this
proposed
action.
C
So
even
though
there's
no
act,
there's
no
application
pending
in
front
of
us
by
by
statute
we
are
in.
We
are
involved
in
this
manner,
because
what
they're
proposing
to
do
would
require
our
sign
off
all
right.
That
means
that
we
have
the
responsibility
to
provide
the
lead
agency
with
information
it
may
have.
We
may
have
that
may
assist
the
lead
agency
in
making
its
determination
of
significance,
as
well
as
other
information
later
on.
Secret
regulations
provide
12,
illustrative
and
non-exhaustive
criteria
to
assess
the
ex
significance
of
environmental
impacts.
I'm
not
going
to
read
these.
A
C
We
summarize
what's
going
on
here.
This
is
a
two
eight
two
and
a
quarter
acre
lot
developed
in
r140
in
the
historic
district
and
landmark
overlay
zone,
the
former
dutch
reform
church,
which
is
no
longer
in
use.
We
need
to
change
that
in
an
associated
record
are
located
on
the
property.
The
applicant
proposes
to
expand
the
rectory
into
a
38
room,
hotel
and
renovate
the
church
building
as
a
conference
center
and
event
space.
C
A
A
C
C
The
applicant
has
stated
that
336
faces,
which
would
correspond
to
69
parking
spaces.
The
building
inspector
has
concluded
in
that
march
one
letter
that
136
paces
would
be
required,
which,
assuming
that
number
is
even
remotely
accurate,
is
definitely
more
than
25,
meaning
that
they
have
to
get.
They
have
to
provide
100
requisite
number
of
parking
spaces
or
get
a
variance.
C
The
ultimate
question
we're
being
asked
to
issue
here
is:
do
we
think
that
this
could
or
would
not
have
any
significant
adverse
environmental
impact,
and
so
I
apologize
for
just
taking
up
over
five
minutes
going
through
them,
but
that
was
we're
having
a
discussion
that
goes
to
a
lot
of
whether
this
project
is
a
good
idea,
whether
the
variant
should
be
granted,
how
much
of
an
impact
there
would
be,
and
the
reality
is.
This
may
be
kind
of
going
a
lot
beyond
what
we
need
to
do
to
decide.
This.
C
I
don't
know,
I
don't
know
if
that's
helpful
for
other
board
members
in
terms
of
thinking
about
what's
going
on
here,
but
the
biggest
thing
is
just
this,
like
assuming
the
project
moves
forward,
whether
they
need
to
get
an
environmental
impact
statement
done
or
not.
There's
almost
certainly
going
to
be
various
revisions
that
happen
along
the
way
and
unless
it
changes
to
a
significant
degree
at
some
point,
it's
going
to
be
coming
in
front
in
front
of
us
and
they're
going
to
be
saying.
C
We
want
a
variance
from
parking
requirements,
but
that's
not
what's
going
on
right
now.
It's
just
a
question
of
based
on
what's
been
submitted.
Can
we
in
substance
say
we
don't
think
there
would
be
any
significant
adverse
environmental
impacts
that
would
follow,
granting
the
variance
they're
asking
for
if
we
can
say
we
think,
there's
we
we
can
say
we
think
there
could
be
significant
negative
environmental
impacts,
and
we
recognize
that
steps
taken
to
mitigate
those
impacts
could
help
to
alleviate
things.
C
E
C
D
C
K
Right
and
just
we
would
just
seek
justification
for
that-
that
point
like
thinking
that
2000
feet
is,
is
a
lot
is
you're
in
a
city.
It's
intended
to
be
walkable,
it's
designed
to
be
so,
and
we
have
proximity
based
on
analysis.
That
shows
that
we
don't
that
the
there's
no
parking
impact
associated
with
the
project,
so
we've
submitted
a
report
to
that
effect.
So
serger
go
ahead.
No.
A
No
taylor-
I
was
just
going
to
say
the
same
thing.
You
know,
as
the
board
considers
what
the
planning
board
is
asking
you
to
do
is
assist
it
in
its
determination
of
significance,
which
is
whether
there
will
be
any
significant
whether
there
may
be
any
significant
environmental
impact,
specifically
with
respect
to
this
parking
issue.
So
that's
what
this
board's,
focusing
on
as
you're,
making
your
comments
back
to
the
planning
board.
You
can
render
your
interpretation,
but
you
definitely
need
to
support
your
interpretation.
Why
are
you
making
a
certain
statement?
A
You
can
also
set
forth
questions
that
you
think
the
planning
board
should
continue
to
ask
the
applicant,
and
you
should
all
you
can
also
suggest
you
know
things
that
might
support
your
determination.
For
example,
you
know
they
keep
saying
they
have
this
they're
looking
into
having
this
license
agreement,
it's
not
finalized.
Yet
one
of
the
things
you
might
say
is
you
know
if
they
finalize,
the
planning
board
should
make
sure
that
they
have
a
final
license
agreement.
A
We
feel
that
46
parking
spaces
that
would
be
approved
as
they
talked
about
at
the
meeting
would
help
mitigate
potential
impacts,
something
along
those
lines
or
other
license
agreements,
because
I
know
there
were
a
couple
maps
about
other
locations
that
they
could
do
parking
in.
So
that's
something
that
we
can
reference
in
our
memo
back
to
the
planning
board.
A
No
I'm
food
for
thought
food
for
thought
because
I
think
we
can
circulate
the
this
is
a
preliminary
draft
I'll
work
with
dave
to
clean
it
up
a
little
bit
more
before
we
send
it
out
and
then
I'll
kind
of
give
these
exact
same
instructions
in
an
email
think
about
it,
because
I
think
it'll
be
helpful
next
week
to
come
with
your
thoughts
next
week.
I'm
sorry.
A
Sorry,
you
throw
me
off
next
month
with
some
more
direct
thoughts
and
comments
that
you'd
want
to
put
in
this
memo,
so
we
can
start
preparing
it
to
get
it
back
to
the
planning
board
to
keep
moving
this
process
forward.
Also,
if
you
have
any
additional
questions
that
you
know
have
come
up
in
your
head
as
you're
as
you're
going
to
bed
at
night
or
this
whole
week
again,
send
them
back
to
me
in
an
email,
and
I
will
forward
them
up
to
taylor,
to
pass
on
to
the.
A
B
C
A
B
Businesses
rely
on
to
dave's
point:
what
will
tomorrow
bring
for
those
shared
spots?
They're
not
guaranteed.
The
number
of
shared
spots
to
me
is
pretty
substantial.
If
I
look
at
it
from
a
percentage
perspective
are
pretty
substantial.
I
think
that
has
my
concern
around
both
environmental
as
well
as
community
impact,
and
then
my
comments
around.
How
do
we
protect
the
residential
neighbors.
D
B
I
C
Kind
of
been
trying
to
get
at
right
now
is,
I
don't
I
mean
I
don't
think
anyone's
doing
anything
in
bad
faith,
but
projections
about
how
much
traffic
this
is
going
to
generate
what
proportion
of
those
people
are
going
to
be
drop-offs.
How
many
are
going
to
park
for
how
long?
How
many
people
who
are
standing
in
the
hotel
are
going
to
go
to
a
public
you're
going
to
go
to
an
event,
that's
scheduled
there.
B
K
I
can
tell
you
my
mother-in-law
is
moving
right
now
and
she
said
I
want
to
move
to
a
downtown
cause.
I
want
to
be
able
to
walk
to
dinner.
I
said
sure
you're
driving
your
car
from
your
house
there's
not
a
question
in
my
mind
that
my
mother-in-law's
not
doing
it
my
father,
I
sure
you
will
but
my
mother-in-law.
Sorry.
C
C
I
mean
there's
also
one
of
the
comp.
One
of
the
comments
that
got
raised
was
that,
in
order
to
comply
with
ada,
you
know
to
say,
handicapped
parking
requirements,
there
might
actually
need
to
be
a
lot
fewer
than
the
31
or
the
32
parking
spots
on
site,
because
you
may
need
to
be
able
to
meet
the
handicap
requirement
for
the
full
350
and
maximum
occupancy.
C
Mean
yeah,
I
mean
long
story
short
like
I
I'm
just
speaking
for
myself
personally,
like
yeah,
I
think
it's
a
good
idea
to
get
this
building
repurposed
and
do
something
with
it.
I'm
having
a
little
trouble,
seeing
how
we
can
conclude
that
there
simply
would
not
be
a
possibility
of
a
significant
adverse
environmental
impact
and
that's
what
we
need
to
conclude.
It
may
be
more
efficient
just
to
conclude
that
and
send
you
back
to
the
planning.
G
H
A
G
A
Right
and
they're
just
standard
species
right,
I'm
gonna,
circulate
and
I'll
do
a
long
form
part
two,
because
I
think
that
provides
the
the
most
information
and
I'll
point
out,
maybe
which
ones
you
should
focus
on
to
help.
You
think,
through
your
thoughts
on
this
project
and
what
other
comments
we
want
to
include
I'll,
also
take
what
we've
talked
about
tonight
and
clean
it
up
into
a
memo
and
I'll
circulate
that
as
well.
Just
this
will
be
a
draft.
K
So
again,
we
appreciate
all
your
time
tonight
we're
really
hoping
that
that,
by
showing
or
or
your
comments
that
that
it
may
not
rise
to
the
level
of
a
significant
environmental
look,
that
may
be
an
impact,
we're
not
suggesting
it
isn't,
but
that
there
may
be
some
suggestions
to
help
mitigate.
You
know
that
those
impacts
and
that's
what
I
think
would
be
particularly
helpful
to
the
planning
board.
I'm
speaking
from
the
applicant's
perspective,
we've
proposed
our
mitigation
plans.
K
We've
proposed
our
off-site
plans,
we're
trying
to
get
you
know
other
solutions,
but
that
would
be
very
particularly
helpful
in
this
application
to
understand
what
could
help
mitigate
you
know
or
if
there
are
things
that
you
think
that
we're
doing
that
do
help
mitigate
that.
Not
just
that
there's.
You
know
a
significant
impact
because
we're
we
are
working
through
it
trying
to
make
that
happen.