I guess also that you might have that you might have seen.
Perry Allen 0:04
I wish that I knew more about it, so because I was gone for the past week and then I just got back to it a couple days ago. So great, so great. Tomorrow on
Karen Smythe 0:19
the largest study group. Two printed colored copies that are. Oh, okay. Then you always have
Perry Allen 0:27
a printed copies. I was going to say I think because
Karen Smythe 0:29
I have a copy. Two minutes we need. Two minutes. I don't have one, so there's one going. I would like. Just these are for upstairs. We're keeping them upstairs in the conference room. But if you want to, I just I brought them down for folks to look at. If you wanted to, if you wanted to look at it, can I
Perry Allen 0:46
keep one over here just for a meeting in case you need to reference? I don't know
Karen Smythe 0:49
if you all need a copy to just peruse. Oh, okay, yeah, it should
Speaker 1 0:55
be fun. Tomorrow night is it
Melkorka Kjarval 1:00
630? Okay, and it's here, right?
Perry Allen 1:03
Okay. I think we have the conference room set aside. Oh yeah, you're
Melkorka Kjarval 1:08
going to use the conference room.
Speaker 1 1:09
Yes. Okay.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:13
I just did a doodle poll for the initial pedestrian show using time and the only to see the different spaces, but then I was just facing.
Speaker 1 1:24
one to just put a little yeah put up on the elevator theater and that
Karen Smythe 1:39
won't perhaps the first one to get this one also the first. Now, do you have do you have someone coming in via Zoom?
Perry Allen 1:49
I do. Thank you for setting that up.
Karen Smythe 1:51
Yes. So I'll start. I'll start the meeting for you and turn on the post. Yeah. Turn on the post.
Perry Allen 1:56
Okay. So do you have to be present here for
Karen Smythe 1:58
that? No, we can do that. So you can do that. Yeah, for sure. Okay,
Perry Allen 2:01
fantastic. Of course.
Frances Uku 2:02
For this meeting, or this is the next night.
Perry Allen 2:04
That this is for tomorrow's wetland meeting. Yeah, there's a committee member. Yeah, I forget that.
Karen Smythe 2:12
Lots of lots of good options.
Perry Allen 2:14
Yeah. Thank you for setting that up.
Karen Smythe 2:17
So just to clarify, we're waiting just another couple minutes For Bonnie, she is arriving as we speak. So rather than get started and then have to restart when she gets here, because she's leading our discussion. So apologies for the delay. Traffic seems to make that happen.
Frances Uku 2:35
So that's for committee for tomorrow. Yes,
Perry Allen 2:39
at that committee, we're going to talk about looking toward funding possibilities, et cetera. I'm sure the understory grant is going to come up. That's great. In addition to the, I first heard about it through some of the public spaces members. They were sharing it.
Frances Uku 2:56
That's awesome. I wasn't
Perry Allen 2:57
at the most recent meeting, and I don't know if it came up there. Okay,
Frances Uku 3:02
maybe maybe you can push for us to have them at our meetings also.
Perry Allen 3:07
Was that the Zoom? Oh sure. Oh, do you need it sometimes? Oh, you mean these meetings? I'm sorry.
Frances Uku 3:13
No, no. Yeah. Well, that'll be ongoing conversation.
Perry Allen 3:16
Our meetings. Gotcha. Yeah, for it this time. Who is it? No problem. I'm glad you're here. Asked for it and safely personally set up my Zoom, but I don't have to. Yeah, yeah, no. We just did a fran a green one, and
Frances Uku 3:40
and there was a member who attended who was like she had the baby on her boob. She was like, "Thank you for making it possible for me to attend. I mean, everyone knows how I feel about the Zoom. Yeah, for
Melkorka Kjarval 3:57
you, I love it. I met the traditional gift for that.
Karen Smythe 4:12
right, I think we're all here, so let's let's go ahead and call this meeting to order. Our fourth trustee is unfortunately dealing with illness, so Craig will not be here today, which is too bad. But we're grateful to have Candace so that we have a record. And the purpose of today's meeting is to review the zoning, the local law A, and the proposed proposed zoning amendments. And as we started at the last meeting, we have a list of we kind of at the last meeting we sort of went over the general concept and and how it all came to be, et cetera, and started going through some of the questions that we had. And so what I'd like to do, Bonnie, unless you have a different approach, is to take the list of questions that we had and keep going down that list, and then we have some additional questions. I know Perry sent in some questions. Fran sent in a document that has some questions and suggestions in it, and I think you had a couple questions which I did not print out, but I can go. I can do that if need be. Did I
Melkorka Kjarval 5:17
have any other than the what we had discussed before? Okay, it was yeah.
Karen Smythe 5:21
Gotcha. Okay. It's probably why I didn't print it out. But with that, let's because what I'd also like to do, we're sort of at a point we've had the the basis, the groundwork, and I'd like to kind of move forward and and keep things moving so that we can direct you, Bonnie and Victoria, towards making any amendments that that that we'd like to see, or get some additional information so we can make those decisions. Because I think you know we need to
Speaker 1 5:47
wrap it up.
Karen Smythe 5:48
We can we can discuss this for a very long time, but I think it's it's going to be important to move forward. And I think as we said at the last meeting, it's you know perfection is. I would argue perfection is always the goal, but the reality is, I think we need to move forward with something that's going to work that will then allow us to do the next level of work after that, rather than trying to thought of
Bonnie Franson 6:13
doing a bigger zoning effort at a later date, subject to getting some funding due from being made, etc. So
Victoria Polidoro 6:21
Yep, this is to try
Bonnie Franson 6:22
and get us through this piece of it
Karen Smythe 6:25
exactly, exactly. All right, with that, I
Frances Uku 6:28
have a question for Victoria. Since we before we begin seeing as we are going to get into this draft, but Mike and we have been working on the draft. The question I have is about whether this is the correct starting point, so this draft and I over the course of even the zoning study and this this process that we are beginning, I have tried to very gently articulate that I do not feel that this draft addresses what we have to address in the zoning study, mainly one because it pre-exists the zoning study, we passed this as an amendment. This land use and zoning study here, as amendment to the comp plan in March 2026, and as we discussed at the first workshop, the zoning law that we're working on now must be in accordance with that. This also predates this draft that we're doing today, predates the sewer expansion considerations, and everybody perhaps is familiar with the fact that we are now entering into an intermunicipal agreement for a grant application with the town, and so this draft also does not address the considerations that we will have to make given the engineering scope and the added, the expanded scope of the engineering and the financials, like the allocation. How many users are we splitting this among? And so, my question is for Victoria: that in your view, do you believe that this draft, as it stands, if we are going to start from this position, do you believe that this is one a faithful implementation of the zoning study that we adopted, which is now our comp plan, and also that the that the draft will stimulate the development that we need because basically the sewer and zoning are the same question. To make the sewer affordable, we need more units of development, and so the only way for the 28 million dollar project we have to be affordable for both existing sewer users and on on sewer users coming on in phase two is for this draft zoning law. For this zoning law, not even the draft. The the draft is what we will work on, but the zoning that's adopted to facilitate those things. So, in your view, this draft we are working from now, does that get us
Victoria Polidoro 8:48
there? I mean, that's a big question. I think start off with the question. I don't see a problem starting with the draft that was drafted before the land use study was adopted because I think they were drafted contemporaneously, and you have to start somewhere, right? So, whether it's this draft or a different draft, it's just something for you guys to sink your teeth into, because you know you guys as board members are the ones that need to decide if this is the right policy for the village and if this implements what you just recently adopted as your lender's corridor study. I mean, there are probably 50 different ways to get to where the village wants to be, so you know that's why we're having these discussions today. Is this the right way for you to get there, or do you feel that there is another way that you'd rather use? But I do think you have to have a starting point because otherwise we're just talking in abstractions, and starting with something, then you can decide what you like or dislike about it. is probably the most efficient way to go.
Karen Smythe 9:46
I also need to add that the sewer expansion actually has been in consideration for over two years, if not three, and so to say that it wasn't considered is is actually not accurate. And the project of the sewer expansion is based on is based on a map that has an expected number of users. So yes, absolutely. For the village's stake, we want to encourage and support development, and the Rupco project was certainly incorporated into the thought process and the sewer use area for the expansion of the sewer, and part of the zoning amendment, and part of the reason why we're doing the zoning amendment is not just to think about what we'd like to see Repco do, but also to encourage additional infill development in that area, and so both of those things, they're they're both important, but I don't think they're I don't think they're intricately linked from that standpoint. So, you know, the sewer expansion is a project, and it's a project that's again been in been in. I mean, we've applied for grants for the past two years, so and we have an intermunicipal agreement with the town in anticipation of their participating in the expansion, we did that over a year ago. So just just to sort of make sure we're all clear on, it wasn't not thought about. It wasn't necessarily the primary driving factor. We just like more development. We'd like to see more housing, and the sewer supports that.
Bonnie Franson 11:21
I would only add that the land use study started. The first draft was about about April 2024, and then as that moved forward, the first zoning draft was 10 around 1024, and I have about 10 to 15 drafts of each of those as we continued the process because we were ensuring that as changes were made to the land use study, that the zoning was intended to be consistent with it. So that's where we are today.
Frances Uku 11:55
But you mentioned drafts, and did the drafts come before the board?
Bonnie Franson 12:00
There were various drafts at all the boards, yeah.
Frances Uku 12:02
But I looked in the minutes, and I don't see a record of the deliberate the discussion that happened in relation to that. Like, what did the board decide? We like this suggestion. We don't like. We decided. We
Karen Smythe 12:14
decided that we would focus on the land use study. That we had a number of public comments that commented on the zoning amendment, and ultimately we decided that it would be best to focus in on the land use study and get that to completion rather than do both at the same time because it was it was becoming a little confusing for I think for all of us and it made sense to just let's complete the zoning study, put it to bed, and then focus on the zoning. Yeah, because
Frances Uku 12:42
that's the process. That's the appropriate process. So we, but we finished that as you said. You set aside the zoning law, and so I wouldn't say we
Karen Smythe 12:49
set it aside, but we decided that we would, because we did discuss and we did review the zoning amendment back in which.
Bonnie Franson 12:56
Yeah, and we had to cover at the time the larynx study was adopted. Plus, there were drafts that were happening because I think we had two work sessions during the day, or I think so. Yeah, two or three, I forgot. And then, of course, the public hearing. So all of those, you know, generated edits, you know, to keep the flow going.
Karen Smythe 13:16
But anyway, here we are. I mean, we have we have the the zoning study, which has been passed. We have the amendment in front of us, which, and the whole point here is for us as a board to discuss and determine if if there are changes or or additions or what have you that we put.
Bonnie Franson 13:32
Where are we on the list from the last time? I don't know that we got very far because we started to get into the detail of going through the zoning itself. I think we got to question two. I have
Frances Uku 13:49
another question, Victoria. Since at the last workshop you had said that even though the the law does the zoning law does not have to faithfully, you know, doesn't have to do, does it? It doesn't have to be match everything point for point, but it cannot be inconsistent with the law, right? It
Victoria Polidoro 14:04
doesn't have to cover. Yeah,
Frances Uku 14:06
yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah. But it cannot. So there are a number of points in the draft because I have gone through the draft very rigorously, and there are points, and I have them identified. If everybody has a copy of the study and the law. Can we
Karen Smythe 14:21
do that? We do have a list of questions to go through, and your question is: there are certain areas that you believe are inconsistent. So we'll get to those. But what would be the
Frances Uku 14:30
point of? Presumably, the questions are to work on the draft, like decide if anything needs shaping. But if the draft is, if the draft has issues at root, then why would we spend the time doing this?
Karen Smythe 14:41
My understanding of what you had put forth is there a couple of spots where you feel that there's an inconsistency, not the entire zoning. If what you're suggesting is the entire zoning law is inconsistent, then I would, I guess I would.
Melkorka Kjarval 14:55
We agreed last last meeting that we would all submit questions and we would go through the last. That was that was the format we agreed to last meeting, right? As I
Karen Smythe 15:04
say, I mean, I think you're you're you're putting forth the question of are there areas that are inconsistent, and we can address those issues, we can address those questions, but we also have other questions that are relevant to the to the zoning law. So I think I'd like to you know let's let's move forward to get through this, and then we'll get to the question of where you where you think there are inconsistencies as as we go forward. Because
Perry Allen 15:29
because otherwise, you're saying scrap the whole document, and from a because last time we talked there were different methods with which you can approach this through the restrictive or the permissive, for my layman's terms, right? So that's that's essentially what you're advocating. Otherwise, is that we strike this and then
Frances Uku 15:48
and specifically approach
Perry Allen 15:49
it the other way.
Frances Uku 15:50
That would be my that would be what I would push for because that is one honest and it directly starts from here, as well as the engineering report. Now that we have those both updated, the I know you said that there have been considerations of the engineering and of the desires for development and all of this prior to this draft, but we just got an updated engineering report. In we've just got a new one with the with the EFC filing. So,
Victoria Polidoro 16:18
can I ask? You know, you guys are professionals. You've done this before. What would a sewer project engineer report have that would be relevant to zoning amendment? I don't know what was in the report. I didn't see it. But if there's additional capacity and if you need a certain number of units, right? You might want zoning that's more permissive to create more units, or if you're going to have capacity issues, you want to have larger lots. So the engineering
Karen Smythe 16:44
report has a specific area, sewer use area, that is accounted for the units that are in it, and has has three potential housing developments. One is Rupco that we're very familiar with. The other one's Ross, which we're very familiar with, and the other one is Anderson Commons, which is over there, and not in the area that we're looking to discuss. So I'm not sure. And there's
Frances Uku 17:08
infill in that area also, and there's the town. And
Karen Smythe 17:11
we've considered that in in the area in which we are focusing on this on this. Did the report?
Victoria Polidoro 17:17
I mean, the report took those general numbers into consideration.
Karen Smythe 17:21
I think it would just be. I think there's a there's a certain amount of flexibility in the total number, but not a not a ton. I mean, the the idea is that we're because we're not servicing the whole village, so we're looking to service the village plus a portion of the town in with with an expected capacity, and it will not cover the entire village. So there will still there'll be a future potential for phase three for the sewer expansion. So I guess I'm a little confused as to what the relevance of the updates that were in this engineering report would be to the specifics
Speaker 1 18:00
in the zoning amendment. The
Frances Uku 18:02
specifics in the zoning amendment, as drafted, there are a number of of limiting factors, and some of which we have we've covered previously that will in fact limit what we can do as far as development. And per I know you haven't seen the engineering report, I'm assuming, but I have been talking to Robert Flores and the Delaware team all of last week, and their position is that without both grants, which we are hoping to secure from EFC, circa 10 million, if we're lucky, that's the 40% of the
Karen Smythe 18:35
19 million.
Frances Uku 18:37
Okay, so even with those plus their predicted. This is in the engineering report. Per the predicted development spec'd conservatively in the engineering report, both of those should we get all of the grants and should we have all of the growth will still make the sewer unaffordable. That's Robert Fran. Okay.
Karen Smythe 19:00
So first of all, I'm not sure that's I'm not sure where you're getting those numbers. Robert
Frances Uku 19:03
Florence.
Karen Smythe 19:04
So 20. If we don't get any grants, it is absolutely unaffordable. 28 million dollars to be covered by 170 properties is not affordable. So we absolutely need the grants. We're applying for a 10 million dollar grant, a 9.4 million dollar grant. We have two and a half million dollars already in the bank. We have also the contribution from the town, which is somewhere between two and a half and 3 million. If we get all of that, we're down to about $4 million that needs to be covered in in a in a bond, which is very affordable. That would be less than what the current group is paying for. So I'm not sure how that's relevant to the zoning amendment that we are trying to get to get through. Happy to have lots of conversations about the sewer. I don't think this meeting is the time for that. Luckily, we will have one of those. Yes, but I'm
Frances Uku 19:51
responding to the mayors because the mayor made a statement, and I would like to also not just ignore what she just said, which is that we have a meeting with Delaware this evening, and so we will hear more about how this perhaps affects or does not affect how the two are intertwined. That's all.
Melkorka Kjarval 20:09
So, what question are we on now? Can we go back to going down the list as we've written? We've written over two. Okay, great.
Victoria Polidoro 20:18
So we talked a little bit about the curb cuts last time, you had asked about a special assessment. You can do special assessments when there's a cost that needs to be shared. Okay, so you know because most of these curb cuts are on Route Nine, I don't think special district curb cuts is going to work because you're not doing the maintenance of those curb cuts. Like the village is not maintaining them themselves. You can't create a special district as a penalty. Normally, it's can't be a okay. It can't be a penalty.
Karen Smythe 20:48
So the opportunity would be to incentivize. So the other thought would be to combine driveways,
Victoria Polidoro 20:54
right? You can give maybe a density bonus, or
Karen Smythe 20:57
or say, okay, we're going to make that a village road, so the village then takes care of that that road, et cetera, and that could be the incentive. So when it's and
Bonnie Franson 21:05
development by development, the planning board can just mandate or require that one of the curb cuts be closed. I know it's for that purpose.
Melkorka Kjarval 21:13
They don't. We're not never going to have. I don't think it. Yeah.
Victoria Polidoro 21:17
Well, it's hard to require it on the DOT road, but DOT can say no. Yeah, they do right now like to close them up.
Karen Smythe 21:25
They do. Yeah,
Victoria Polidoro 21:26
but they want fewer,
Melkorka Kjarval 21:26
if anything, in small worlds. But I think it's it's a tricky position to put the planning board in because everyone has a case where that's too expensive or they're going to lose something. So you know, so yeah,
Victoria Polidoro 21:39
it's very easy when you're dealing with a new development, it's very hard when you're dealing with an existing building with an existing pattern of
Bonnie Franson 21:46
yeah. I think if it's a change of use, then I don't see it happening. But if someone's asking to do more, and they have to go before the planning board, then I think it's there's going to be other improvements, so it's more likely to happen. That kind of
Melkorka Kjarval 22:01
product cuts that you can literally not cite a crosswalk up there. You know, it's just yeah.
Karen Smythe 22:10
Okay, recreation fee. I think we've talked about that in that we need to do a study to justify the recreation fee, which is which is separate from the exercise we're doing now, correct. But something for us to keep in mind because I think that connects to public spaces. It's currently up there. We don't own anything, so there's no existing public space. But if we create an incentive, we could potentially get some public space out of it, or have an incentive to create some public space. Right. But the part that's
Perry Allen 22:43
in the that's in there right now, we need a study for before it can be included.
Karen Smythe 22:47
That's for rent fee and
Bonnie Franson 22:48
fee part. For the fee
Perry Allen 22:49
part of it. Yeah.
Bonnie Franson 22:50
So the zoning now doesn't have any language about being able to collect a fee. So this is just establishing, and it's consistent with village law that allows you to collect a fee for either subdivisions or site plans that include dwelling units or lots on which dwelling units will be located. But establishing the fee, you can't just say 10,000 per lot unless there's a basis for that number, and that's where the recreation plan comes in. So that's the separate assignment to this.
Perry Allen 23:24
Okay.
Melkorka Kjarval 23:25
Do you know how much those usually cost, like
Bonnie Franson 23:27
a study? Yes. What the process for that? I can tell you they've been done 10 to 20,000, but where there's a lot of involvement by a recreation committee, it can be less. Is that
Perry Allen 23:41
something the Public Spaces Committee would talk about on the committee level?
Bonnie Franson 23:46
We could give you a framework. We have samples, so we could give you a framework of what they look like, and the data is collected. I think the one thing that you want to do is have a survey, just so that you get the pulse of the village and what those are. You want to build something that no one's not interested in using. You know, right now it's pickleball courts. You know, everybody seems to want those. But you know, it may be that there's a big outcry for children's playsets. So that's what the survey would be for, and that could be readily amplified again by committee. Okay,
Frances Uku 24:22
And the 10,000, roughly 10,000 unit would be for the study.
Bonnie Franson 24:26
That's if you have someone do it a consultant where you don't have a rec committee where they're not getting a lot of involvement. So the consultants having to develop all the baseline. When you have a committee that's developing all that work, they can, you know, either the committee could create the document, or the consultant could come in and just take the pieces and put it into a plan and something that you adopt.
Victoria Polidoro 24:52
But I mean, once when you get the numbers, though, you do want to carefully look at the fee that you're going to end up charging because you know some communities they charge 5000 per lot or 7000 per lot because people are creating big lots and selling houses. But when then when you're creating a multifamily property and you all of a sudden you've got 10 apartments, that adds up very quickly and it ends up increasing the cost of that rental over time. So you know you have to find some balance in getting the money for the village's recreation needs, but also if if the goal is to create more housing units, you don't want it to be so high that you're you're not pricing
Melkorka Kjarval 25:30
them. It's only on new, right? Yeah, it's only on new. Yeah,
Bonnie Franson 25:33
there are some communities that will do a smaller scale, so they'll presume less for a single family house on a large lot because they presume you can put something in your backyard versus you know multifamily. If it's a one-bedroom, there are fewer people being generated, less recreation demand than like a four-bedroom multifamily. So they've just developed these different costs, and that's something you could consider when you get to that point.
Karen Smythe 26:04
I think we did talk a little bit about the streets and sidewalks designed to accommodate allow for a snowbank. I think it was more we had talked about the site plan, and a lot of that is if there's a buffer to the sidewalk, there's a place for the snow to go, and there's also a buffer to the road, making it a more pleasant pedestrian experience.
Bonnie Franson 26:26
So we were talking about just ensuring, and it is in the plan about grassy bridges. You know that that's the objective, not to have the sidewalk right at the curb, but have the grassy verge, so it's curb place for snow storage, et cetera, and then the sidewalk. Yeah, yeah. And street trees and theory and all those other great amenities that you can go within the grassy verge. So we'll we'll just make sure that there's some language moving in the site. You call it the
Perry Allen 26:53
grassy verge.
Bonnie Franson 26:54
I
Perry Allen 26:55
do. Cool. I like that.
Frances Uku 26:55
It's more more the sidewalk. The
Perry Allen 26:58
health strip. Yeah, I like that. What do you call it? Hell strip.
Karen Smythe 27:07
So consideration of minimum lot sizes. You said you mentioned that as are the bulk standards.
Bonnie Franson 27:15
Yeah. So those are the bulk standards. When you have a planned development, we have this separate special use for the planned residential developments that have different minimums, and then we also have regarding not so much minimum lot sizes, but we have a per lot size requirement for how many dwellings you can get, especially when you have mixed use, and those to a large degree mirror what's already in the code as well. So we did look at the kind of the plan of metrics for lot sizes. We can look again, but we did do that, and we're just trying to create a balance between not making nonconformities, but being reasonable in terms of how big you want the lot size to be. So I'm sorry. What was the genesis? What was the context for this question? Consideration minimum lot sizes. Were they looking for Francis? Did you have that comment about minimum lot size?
Frances Uku 28:19
I did. Yeah. That well, actually, specifically, my question was about coverage, and about specifically on the frontage of of Route Nine, you have currently 150 foot setback, right? The 150 and the 35% coverage on the thing, and the 20s on the side, the 20 feet on each side. If you have if you have a lot side like that, this basically it gets you what you have there currently. Like if you have 150 feet built to line in the frontage on nine, like it doesn't.
Bonnie Franson 28:51
150 was for the PRD, not for all actually for
Karen Smythe 28:56
the multifamily. Yeah, so the 150 was so that no one could build residential on Route Nine, so that was to accommodate the existing commercial different. Yeah, no, the addition existing commercial buildings that people can't take those and transition them into into residential. Right, but we wanted to allow for fully residential in the back.
Bonnie Franson 29:17
If you could put design it in a way that you put it in the back. Yes, so that's where that
Victoria Polidoro 29:21
commercial storefronts at a smaller setback. But if it was anything that was just residential, had to go behind it. Right.
Frances Uku 29:29
But in the study, we had said that for nine to be, we had the the goal was for there to be limited. If you remember, mixed use on the frontage, so there would be store commercial as well as apartments upstairs. Apartments on the second
Frances Uku 29:41
floor. Yeah. Yeah. on the
Frances Uku 29:43
second floor.
Karen Smythe 29:43
That's allowed. Yes.
Frances Uku 29:44
Right. So that's that's residential. That's mixed use. So this does not apply to those. Like, you can't get that.
Bonnie Franson 29:51
It was for purely residential. Yes. Purely where the residential is on the ground floor. Those are the ones that have to be set back. But if there's commercial space on the ground floor, then,
Bonnie Franson 30:02
and there's the apartments above that was allowed.
Frances Uku 30:05
But the issue is then the the the apartments above requires planning board approval, as you have it in the draft.
Karen Smythe 30:12
It may unless they're existing. If they're not existing, then yes, they would require planning board. Right, that's true. They're not existing. Apartments
Victoria Polidoro 30:19
always right now. Apartments always require planning board approval. It's a policy discussion. You think they should be allowed as a brain, then you know that's something that you could take away from the planning board. You could say anyone could build an apartment as long as they meet these standards. But then, then you're shifting, you're reducing the cost potentially, but you're shifting the onus onto your building inspector to do that review to confirm that you know it has the right mix, that it has sufficient parking. I mean, then you're not getting all of those exterior improvements. You're just getting the apartment inside.
Frances Uku 30:53
Right, but they would still. I mean, if we have set the standards in in the code in the law, then they would know even before a building inspector comes into it, like it would be obvious, you know, like from the plans they submit.
Victoria Polidoro 31:06
I mean, you have that now in your code, right? You have you have a whole bunch of site plan regulations that say you have to be in the back, you need to have this much landscaping, you need to have this kind of light, and you know, yet the plans still come in not meeting every Every requirement, so you know, if you wanted to shift that, you just have to be very specific, and it would be on your building inspector to improve, and his it would be in his he decide, and that would be that. And
Melkorka Kjarval 31:35
he'd approve the plans before they're constructed, or would he? Yeah, yeah, would need to. Yeah,
Victoria Polidoro 31:39
wouldn't be able to issue a building permit unless the plans met all the criteria, like a single-family home.
Bonnie Franson 31:46
I think the benefit is also that the planning board has some architectural review authority, so they're also looking at it from that perspective as well, so that you know the building inspector doesn't have discretion on what something looks like. So whenever there's that kind of discretion, you want it to go some board. So if it's a planning board,
Frances Uku 32:06
whichever,
Melkorka Kjarval 32:08
and not necessarily that it's always that way, but it's sort of like a business when someone's bringing bringing multifamily because it's usually an owner that is on site, right? So usually, correct.
Bonnie Franson 32:20
And then once the building's there, you know, if there's a business change on the ground floor, usually those shouldn't have to come back because it's the same same occupancy.
Victoria Polidoro 32:29
So, like right now in the general business district, because it you know creates your feel of your community. Anytime anyone does anything that requires an exterior change, it triggers site plan review. Okay, and so that's that's how the general business district operates versus you know when you go out to the neighborhoods the single family homes are not generally subject to that level of review.
Karen Smythe 32:53
So the next question I think is is related in terms of the setbacks. It's in keeping with the existing buildings. The
Bonnie Franson 33:03
remove uses. No. Oh, sorry. I was thinking about setback buildings. Keeping with the existing buildings.
Karen Smythe 33:11
I mean, the notion is, you know, could we make the setbacks closer to the road? The issue is, it's kind of built out there for the most part. No one's going to take down a building, and it'd be very rare for someone to take down a building to be built. And so it seems to make more sense to keep the the sight line or the setbacks in the front. I assume I thought we wanted.
Bonnie Franson 33:41
That's where we were talking about a max setback, so that the building is still related to to the front. Yes. That's e4 on page my page.
Speaker 2 34:00
So the
Bonnie Franson 34:01
building.
Victoria Polidoro 34:04
Not less than 10, not more than 20. Okay, and so what was the what's the question? Should it should it take into consideration the neighboring buildings?
Melkorka Kjarval 34:16
Do we know where that question came from? Does anyone recognize it? I believe that's Francis.
Frances Uku 34:20
Which one? Setbacks, in keeping with the existing buildings. Well, it was related to the the 150. What we were just what we were just discussing about how you get that at Route 9 for you know the continue like the the feel of like from CVS. I I I think what they did, and I believe this was the Planning Board Melkor had mentioned before, but I think they did a great job where where CVS is. But continuing that along nine is what you know what I thought we were discussing in the is the is where we were getting to with the study,
Bonnie Franson 34:56
and that's where so we're trying to establish a maximum built to line of 20 feet, and just sort of for you know a sense of order magnitude, your typical spark parking space is 10 by 9 by 18, 10 by 20. So you're talking about that kind of spike. So that's pretty close. But that also enables for someone to put maybe a little sidewalk cafe, have a little area on the house, you know, like CVS, you know. Maybe accommodate the grassy verge if the sidewalk can be moved, and so that is the build two line at this point in time.
Victoria Polidoro 35:31
So what would be? So it's you can't go more than 20 feet back, but why not say like zero feet? Is that just too close to the road? It might be too close. Your door and your steps
Bonnie Franson 35:43
are, because then you're trying to still accommodate the light posts. Yeah, you know, maybe sidewalk. Yeah, so it's supposed to be five
Melkorka Kjarval 35:50
feet, and then we're trying to do the verge, and then right side.
Bonnie Franson 35:53
Yeah, and and I don't think this is trying to be the typical like the absolute downtown. Downtown environment where they're right to, you know, the highway right-of-way line. Yeah, I think you are trying to keep a little bit of greenness, so it wasn't that kind of a feel. You're still trying to keep that transition that you're as you're going out on the village. There was a suggestion that it would be useful to have a visual aid, and that could always be inserted into these, and I think that's useful. So we can include a visual aid if that helps, you know, in understanding the bill to line. So we could add that.
Melkorka Kjarval 36:30
Does the bill two line in the PRD could someone put a commercial 10 feet from Route Nine there? They could.
Bonnie Franson 36:38
If they didn't pursue the PRD and they were just the underlying. And that's something I really want to focus on. Yeah, is we're so focused on envisioning that RUPCO or some other similar group will build there. Yeah, and that's the desire. But if something were to happen, that is now in this zoning district, and it's going to have those same regulations, so should envision what that would look like, and if we need to do any adjustments to it.
Frances Uku 37:07
Then my question for you on the PRD is that, as you just said, it's the so this is for this is applies with lots 10 plus acres, right? In this the PRD, but Robco is the only cooking. That lot is the only one that satisfies that.
Bonnie Franson 37:22
And Ross. Ross is under 10. Yeah.
Frances Uku 37:30
Yep. Or eliminate.
Karen Smythe 37:32
No, that's that's a different discussion, and we'll actually see that we should address that when we when we get there. No, but I'm
Frances Uku 37:39
really I'm just saying that because that the PRD is we've been discussing and that's a big factor in this draft. This it's like 18 percent of the draft, so it's a big, it's a big set of constraints that you
Victoria Polidoro 37:51
know. So and there's very specific reasons why it's in there. So let's have that conversation when we go through a few more of these questions. But I just want to make sure it's clear that there's going to be the underlying zoning on those parking. Of course, PRD is only an option. So someone could say, "Not interested. I'm just going to develop as of right under the the base code under the regular zoning district.
Melkorka Kjarval 38:13
If only if someone wants to go for those specific residential. Right. If only if
Victoria Polidoro 38:17
someone wants that additional flexibility that they become subject to the PRD. But
Frances Uku 38:21
that's exactly my point. That there's only one lot that satisfies that.
Melkorka Kjarval 38:25
Well, I mean, you guys can discuss decreasing the PRD's minimum lot acreage, so that additional lots can apply for it. And we could also discuss applying it to other developable areas. Yeah. So it
Bonnie Franson 38:36
wasn't necessarily. So at this point, as we're focusing on the gateway north. It does apply. If you want to apply it to Ross, we would have to go to to smaller lot size. But this can also apply to other properties in the village, which would give the same mixed use type of environment for someone who wants to do a mix of residential. If you would just have to add it to the applicable zoning districts where you think it might be appropriate.
Karen Smythe 39:07
Okay, the next item that we had was removing uses, and I think we talked. We did talk about this last time, and I think we determined that that we would not remove any of these.
Victoria Polidoro 39:18
But you're changing formula business to a different word, you decided.
Karen Smythe 39:23
No, I think we won't. Oh, fast food. Fast food was the one we started.
Victoria Polidoro 39:26
Casual dining potentially. Oh, that's a good word.
Karen Smythe 39:30
Just to a well, casual fast. I mean, it's the whole idea is that you something. It's Bubby. Something you go into Bubbies, you grab and you go. Yeah. It's not McDonald's, which is non-formula. Non-formula. fast food. Is that
Bonnie Franson 39:44
formula is more about chain stores? Yeah, chain whatever. Well, and I think fast
Karen Smythe 39:49
food. I think a lot of people think McDonald's a chain, the chain. Yes. So,
Melkorka Kjarval 39:53
and we currently allow chain in the village, just so that
Victoria Polidoro 39:58
yes, and I think we have
Bonnie Franson 40:00
limitations in the towns, but I think we have restriction in our proposed zoning here. Yes, and there is a definition as well. Yeah.
Speaker 3 40:08
Okay. All
Karen Smythe 40:08
right. So we're good with that. The
Melkorka Kjarval 40:10
brewery that was the idea of having open hours for the tasting room. Discussed that last time.
Karen Smythe 40:16
That's no issue. Good. General retail uses.
Speaker 2 40:23
This is we talked about about all the. Oh, is it? This is like a. It's a catch a riff on the same on the question from earlier.
Karen Smythe 40:36
But is this getting into the formula business question? Well, but I so the general retail uses. I think there was a question of does this mean that retail stores are not allowed, which I think it's the
Victoria Polidoro 40:47
opposite. General retail means any any kind of retail that someone hasn't thought of is permanent,
Karen Smythe 40:55
except for the things that we specifically prohibit, like formula business, which we have a definition for, and we have said is is excluded, and that's now excluded in this zone.
Bonnie Franson 41:07
So and so my question was, how how does the village board want to address a formula business? Do you want it for all uses or just for retail uses? What about banks, grocery, pharmacy, etc.
Melkorka Kjarval 41:18
We have talked about Stewart's is within that that zone, and we don't want to outlaw Stewart's because that is an affordable, you know. But definitely restaurants. I mean, I think that they would undermine the the restaurant strip. Is
Perry Allen 41:33
there any rationalization to Stewart's being a franchise as well, too? So it's something more locally owned.
Karen Smythe 41:39
Is it a franchise? Yeah. So Dunkin' Donuts is a franchise. Do you? I mean, again, this is the question. And well, Dunkin' is
Frances Uku 41:44
not in the town. I mean, Dunkin' is in the town. I'm just wondering
Perry Allen 41:47
if they gave us some sort of rhetoric with which to justify certain words. Yeah,
Speaker 2 41:51
they're like convenience store, not. Oh, that's true. It's really hard with like. There's no such thing as like a single store bank, right? It's very hard banks,
Victoria Polidoro 42:01
even with like insurance brokers, a lot of them are independent, but they're franchises. Yes,
Frances Uku 42:07
sure, sure. I was going to say I
Karen Smythe 42:09
don't see I don't see an issue with banks. I mean, if a bank determines that that's a good spot to be, you know, we're going to have more residents there. They can walk to their bank. I don't see that as a problem. We've outlawed, we've prohibited drive-throughs, which I think is good. I think groceries. We want, frankly, as many groceries as we'd love a grocery store there. I think and pharmacy. I don't think you can restrict. Maybe nice to have local pharmacies again, but that's not happening. So I think those those are sort of figure uses that we're really talking
Victoria Polidoro 42:39
about restaurants, not retail.
Bonnie Franson 42:41
Unless number 12 general retail use says except formula businesses are prohibited, and then 20 is restaurants not including drive-through windows for more formula businesses. Those are the two areas. It's just general retail and restaurants where formula businesses are not allowed. So anything else, if it's a bank, pharmacy, etc. the stewards, I don't know,
Melkorka Kjarval 43:10
because we don't want to. I mean, but then again, it would be grandfathered in, right? It wouldn't. It wouldn't become non-conforming if it grandfathered. It would
Victoria Polidoro 43:18
become non-conforming, so it could expand or improve. Well, you know, it's appropriate. One
Bonnie Franson 43:24
of the things you can do, you know, in terms of uses, sometimes a municipality will add, you know, fast food pre-existing on the date. So that's actually an allowed use, pre-existing. Okay. So you're you're actually grandfathering the existing one, but you're not allowing any new ones. And I've asked because some some have said, well, then aren't you being discriminatory, saying one can stay but no new ones? But you know, then my I've understood that that's not a problem. Do you then defer to Victoria?
Frances Uku 44:00
Would you then like amortize? Like, do you? Is there a way to phase those out? Like,
Victoria Polidoro 44:05
you could amortize over time, but that then you have to be ready to enforce it and close them down at the end of the amortization period. It's rarely
Bonnie Franson 44:16
for a sign. You know, signs you see amortization, but something like a use a business that tends to not be popular. City
Victoria Polidoro 44:23
of Hudson has a formula business law, and they include retail. They had an issue. Formula
Karen Smythe 44:30
restriction,
Victoria Polidoro 44:31
correct. It includes retail, and they had an issue last year because you know some woman had a store in Hampton and a store in Boston, and then she opened one in Hudson, and she couldn't do it, so what she ended up doing is she got all the DBA and changed the color on the sign, and then it was allowed. So,
Karen Smythe 44:50
so that formula business was defined as if you have another business anywhere. It was
Victoria Polidoro 44:53
five or it was if you're five or more.
Karen Smythe 44:57
Because that's I think what we have in here.
Frances Uku 44:59
Right. Yeah. Okay.
Karen Smythe 45:00
So she had five, and this was six. Four
Victoria Polidoro 45:02
was five. Yeah. However they defined it, and so she got around it by simply.
Melkorka Kjarval 45:06
And that's because she has the flexibility. She had to sell the brand to do that. She wasn't a fran.
Victoria Polidoro 45:10
Yeah. I don't know. I think it's it's easy with easy to do with restaurants. It's a little bit harder. You have to think about it more if you're including the retail, because then we have, you know, then we start doing the exemptions for pharmacy and grocery store. I'm worried
Melkorka Kjarval 45:28
about the Dollar General coming in on that Rupco site. If Repco doesn't, you know, what, I don't want that being developed so big. Could we do a size limit on the size of a formula retail business, or or or
Frances Uku 45:44
But but Rupco is it? It's a state run.
Karen Smythe 45:47
So if Rucco were to fail and someone else bought the property, they could sell it. They could they could sell it and someone could put $1 General right there on on Route Nine. If it
Melkorka Kjarval 45:58
took us five years to pass this law, they could decide it was too expensive. They could sell it, and we could, you know, end up with something we don't want.
Frances Uku 46:05
But this was something to the study that I had proposed about why do we not then make that lot the affordable? Like, okay, Rocco goes away, but if that lot is, you know, if the if the code sort of dictates that that law, I mean that that lot remains affordable housing. Then how would how would Dollar General? Then
Victoria Polidoro 46:28
you'd have to create a you'd have to create a use which was affordable housing, right? And then you'd have to say that this lot can only be used for affordable housing. I mean, normally the way that we've seen it done is you. It's so many affordable. We require affordable units, but we also allow the market rate units because otherwise it becomes difficult for people to get their money back on it. But
Frances Uku 46:52
but we can do that in the. I
Karen Smythe 46:53
think there are other restrictions on that property. I think the way it was purchased. I'm not. I believe the way it was purchased by the town is the reason why they were able to sell it to Rupco without putting it out to bid was because it was affordable housing. So if Ruppco were to were to disengage, I'm not sure what the town would have to do. But
Bonnie Franson 47:14
and that property, so the the future property owner is being told all they can do on that property is affordable housing, and I don't. I don't know if that creates a legal issue in terms of spot zoning, or I mean, I'm
Victoria Polidoro 47:26
thinking through that. I'm not sure they'd have to argue that there's, they can't afford, you know, that they wouldn't be able to make any kind of profit or their money back about the purchase price. I mean, this is ultimately where the workforce
Karen Smythe 47:38
housing section of the zoning came from was with the idea if Reppo were to were to weave the the picture, then we'd have no affordable housing, and so one option obviously would be to figure out a way to make that parcel have to be, but if it's not Rubco, to me it makes more sense, and it it makes sense in general To support affordable housing throughout the village, so that was sort of the reason behind the workforce housing section in Ritz Code.
Victoria Polidoro 48:09
Even if it's not regulated, like it must be affordable with a dedistrict, you can make housing more affordable by allowing higher density and you know small units. So there's other ways to get at that without the regulatory aspect. I'm just not sure. I've never seen it done where someone said this parcel can only be developed for workforce housing. Exactly. Exactly. Because then I'd have to. I'd have to look.
Frances Uku 48:39
Yeah. Yeah, and and the the workforce housing, as written currently, doesn't really get you very much affordable because you can buy out, you can do all, you know, fee and lieu, and all of these other things. So, if you were based on based on the workforce housing description language in this draft, you you wouldn't get very many. Like you'd be lucky to get. So, so I'd like to
Karen Smythe 49:02
come back to that because I think Perry had that same point in one of your questions. So let's, because we're talking formula businesses, this one's a little tricky. I think we we probably ought to hone in on what you know what we're regulated related to retail. You know, there is the Dollar General. You know, which is it would seem to me that it wouldn't be that hard to say. I mean, I, you know, there's banks, groceries, pharmacy. I don't know what other types of retail we would want to, we would want to limit. I'm sure some people would love to have a Starbucks and others would rather not. But I,
Bonnie Franson 49:40
the Dollar General would have more than five, so they wouldn't be allowed. Yeah, they would retail. No, right.
Victoria Polidoro 49:45
Right now, though, the way the code is written, I think it's. Oh, okay. No, you're right. No restaurants except for formula business, and no general retail except for
Melkorka Kjarval 49:55
formula business. Yes, the Dollar General couldn't come in if they had five or more because we consider it general general retail, and it's not specifically called out as one of the allowed, which is banks, pharmacy, general retail. You're not allowed formula businesses. Do
Victoria Polidoro 50:09
we need to write in an exception in the definition though for financial institutions? I think we. I think for financial
Karen Smythe 50:15
grocery and and pharmacy.
Bonnie Franson 50:18
So do we because that
Karen Smythe 50:19
would make CVS conforming.
Bonnie Franson 50:22
So we have pharmacy listed separately, I believe. Right, but
Victoria Polidoro 50:26
I could make an argument that pharmacy. Someone will say, sure, it's pharmacy, but it's a formula business because it's CVS. I
Bonnie Franson 50:35
mean, the only thing I'd rather be clearer than less clear. So, and then we also have financial establishments listed separately. So let's figure out how to write it so that it's clear that they don't fall under the general retail category. I don't, I don't think that'll happen. Only like I said, because it's specific to general retail. It's right in that use that it says no formula business.
Victoria Polidoro 50:56
Oh no! But if you look at the definition of formula business, it's broad. I was saying formula business. Yeah, that we
Bonnie Franson 51:01
could say wherever prohibited as per the uses and the zoning. Okay. So the only okay so on the definition. Okay. The
Melkorka Kjarval 51:11
only thing that I would add to to complicate this that I would possibly want as allowed would be something that supports farm and agriculture because we have agway, there there are places that you know.
Karen Smythe 51:27
Are they individually owned, or is it a max ag max agway here is individually owned, but it's an ag way. But right, it
Melkorka Kjarval 51:36
is. That's just the only thing. Yeah, like I do think one of the reasons why farming is hard is that there's less of those important things. Having banks is great because that allows a lot more. But you know,
Victoria Polidoro 51:47
so I will say that you know probably your formula business thing will never be challenged. But the more
Frances Uku 51:53
yep,
Victoria Polidoro 51:53
the less uniform it is, the more
Frances Uku 51:57
you're exposed to. You're exposed
Karen Smythe 51:58
should
Victoria Polidoro 52:00
Starbucks or someone came in and say, "Wait, you're allowing everyone but me, essentially. Yeah, yeah. And they have the money to do that. Have them, and they really haven't been challenged. We can just say shall not apply to agricultural uses under formula of businesses.
Melkorka Kjarval 52:18
And we can think through that. But then, yeah,
Perry Allen 52:19
also I want to think about it for a second because then are we also saying tractor supply co could come in? Is that what also you know at the same time right? Which also might not be exactly what we want. I want to reinforce the agricultural grocery store for allowing
Melkorka Kjarval 52:34
grocery stores, right? Yeah, so Adams would be allowed.
Bonnie Franson 52:37
They're like a nursery grocery store.
Melkorka Kjarval 52:40
I don't think that would be a bad thing. I I don't think more, like, I think that would support people living here. Like everyone goes to Kingston. I don't think it'd be bad for those dollars to be here. Another thing
Victoria Polidoro 52:52
you could do is increase from a business to 10 or more.
Melkorka Kjarval 52:56
Yeah,
Victoria Polidoro 52:56
because then you're kind of getting rid of some of the regional.
Melkorka Kjarval 53:00
Yeah,
Victoria Polidoro 53:00
chains like Samoanas and yeah. Williams Stewart. United
Bonnie Franson 53:05
States. I don't know if you want to limit it to New York. I'm sure that there are lots of McDonald's in New York and lots of Starbucks in New York and lots of Dollar
Frances Uku 53:13
Generals.
Bonnie Franson 53:14
Dollar Generals. I don't know if that. I'd be more inclined to do the 10 instead
Karen Smythe 53:19
of five rather than limit it to New York.
Victoria Polidoro 53:24
I mean, we should we should take a look to see what that keeps on using. But like Sabonas, I think only has
Melkorka Kjarval 53:30
six locations. Yeah, that's. Can we keep talking
Perry Allen 53:35
about this one? Can I think about this one a little bit more? Yeah, yeah, because I think this is really interesting. Yeah. Yeah, I want to circle back on that. I want to talk about it. So if
Karen Smythe 53:43
there's something different that comes up, I mean, if you all disagree and think no, should be five formula, you know, five locations, and that should be the max, you know, you know that for sure. Say it now. I I think that I'm just thinking of like Rossi's Deli. I mean, I think they have, they probably have five locations now. If they wanted to come up here. I'd be really sad if we couldn't have them. So
Melkorka Kjarval 54:02
number has seven. Yeah. So I think that's that's an you're you're allowing local business or locally owned business
Karen Smythe 54:11
regionally to have a few outlets. But I
Melkorka Kjarval 54:13
mean the fear is like having a corporation come in like CVS where we can't get them to put up a hard Scrabble poster. You know, like that. There's no community interaction whatsoever. They, they're just you're just dealing with a corporation. They don't necessarily pay that much for people. Right. Anyway, okay. So let's studio. There was a question on what studio meant.
Bonnie Franson 54:37
Right, and it's defined in the zoning graph, so I added it there. So I just wanted to find out if there's still some confusion. Oh,
Karen Smythe 54:44
was it now? This question was related to the use, correct? Like
Bonnie Franson 54:48
the the studio use.
Karen Smythe 54:49
Studio use is that right? Number nine. Not like a
Bonnie Franson 54:52
studio. h2.
Speaker 1 54:53
Right.
Melkorka Kjarval 54:55
July three to Mayfair. I think it's great.
Karen Smythe 55:03
Chu Express would propose parallel road. Okay, so I think you know this is a this is a question about the parallel road. I think Perry, you mentioned let's let's not do that in this domain. 100% agree. Yeah, no, that was loosely brought up. So there, so there, there are really two roads that we're looking at in that in that area. One is an extension of Grave Street, and there's lots of questions about that. It's all private property. We do have an easement. My understanding is we have an easement for CVS, so we have an easement through the
Victoria Polidoro 55:42
rear, not through rear. Of course, yeah, absolutely,
Karen Smythe 55:45
and that's what we agree. That's what we would want. The opportunity, the next parcel is, I believe, Tom Legrand's parcel. That's the L shape, and that's an opportunity to create more of a, you know, grass, some parking, some you know a little bit more of a I don't know a little bit more community feeling back there, so you're not always coming off Route Nine to get to whatever's in the back there, because I know that that the owner would like to build two apartment houses back there, and it also just creates another way to get there that doesn't require you go to Route Nine always. Whether or not it would go across the Ross property and into Rock Cove, that's a question. It's not a given. It would be ideal because it would allow for sort of alternative traffic that keeps some of it off Route Nine. But if it stops at the existing at the existing apartment houses, that still would be a positive, I think, because then you'd sort of then you'd you'd head out to Route Nine and and head out that way. So I think that's the notion, but the notion is not to dictate has to happen. We really would need to come up with an incentive aside from CVS, to make make that a desirable thing to happen. But when you say eminent domain, you're saying that we are taking it from people you don't want to do, or do you want to say that we won't do a map that says where you're not allowed to build? Because imagine if we have a a road that will work
Melkorka Kjarval 57:20
because five five different properties are like that works for me, and then someone's like you know what I'd rather not, and they just put a house in the middle, and therefore we don't get that traffic calming of dispersing, you know all the traffic through the grid. We don't have the ability for people to be able to walk through that neighborhood safely. You know, they always have to walk on nine. There's considerations that way too, you know. Wouldn't that be addressed by our deciding
Frances Uku 57:45
where the roads go?
Melkorka Kjarval 57:46
That would be the street map, but that's what I wanted to know. What when he says eminent domain, is it that he doesn't want to claim it in through that legal process, or does that mean that you don't even want to go the street map option? Sorry to put you on the side. No, that's a good question.
Perry Allen 58:03
I certainly don't want to go the legal route of taking property, especially in this political moment.
Bonnie Franson 58:14
I think let's
Perry Allen 58:15
then secondary question. Let me think about that for half a second. Yeah, because I understand what you're saying.
Bonnie Franson 58:19
So I was going to say, Victoria, you had explained previously that you put it on a map. Yes. Someone comes in. Yes. They don't want to do it. They want to use the whole thing for something, some rebuilding. What happens at that point?
Victoria Polidoro 58:34
Right. They can ask. They can come and ask the village to demap it. They can come to the village board and make a presentation and say, "Look, you've had this paper road for 30 years. You've never done it. You really want to develop my house. At that point, the village can say yes or no. They can try to get an area variance to build there, or at that point in time, the village can make a decision that you know what we really do want this, and let's work out a deal where we can build the road.
Bonnie Franson 59:01
Can they continue to say no, and then you would have to do eminent domain, or is it harder because there's a map?
Victoria Polidoro 59:09
I mean, potentially, right? Potentially, if you're preventing any kind of development on the lot, there might be a point where they're saying you're taking all the value from my lot. You're not letting me do what I want to do, and then there'd be a negotiation.
Bonnie Franson 59:23
I think that's where you're getting the eminent domain map because there is that potential, but in the future, in the future, but it's not the same as just saying now or taking it.
Melkorka Kjarval 59:36
You're claiming a right to exercise that in the future. It's like an option to buy,
Victoria Polidoro 59:41
yeah, or an option for the for the public good,
Melkorka Kjarval 59:45
right? For the idea of the development of the of the community in the future, like it's it's hard when you have individual owners. Like it's the same with me. Like I don't want to cut down the tree because it's expensive right now for me, but maybe in the end it'll be better, you know. So we have that thing where it's in the right of way. The village is supposed to take care of the bridges in their right of way, right? For the public good. Anyway, sorry. Most aggressive
Victoria Polidoro 1:00:13
right now. The village says, "I want this road. I'm laying out a map. We're taking this road from everyone and the domain here, everyone. Or
Frances Uku 1:00:22
asking nicely, right? Or or asking and play off
Victoria Polidoro 1:00:26
the road now in in reality and get entitled to it. That's most aggressive. Second option is the map where we map
Frances Uku 1:00:35
it
Victoria Polidoro 1:00:36
so that no one can build in it without further review. Right? It would stop anyone from just building their house there without the chance to go to the village board first and say, you know, do you want this or not? Or we do nothing, in which case it is hard. We're at the mercy of people coming in with plans that that work around for them.
Bonnie Franson 1:00:59
I think it needs to be understood that the zoning is being written in a way to put housing in the back, which isn't allowed at this point in time, and that's why that's sort of the trade-off. We're giving you more development rights to build housing because we want more housing, but you're going to need an access road to get it, so I mean that's stated in the land use study. I think people should just understand that that's the case. But again, do you want to go as far as putting it? And and it doesn't affect the zoning draft, but how to make sure it there's there's strength behind what you want to do is to put it on the official
Frances Uku 1:01:44
map,
Karen Smythe 1:01:44
but then again, which is a separate position, which is a separate process that you do with
Bonnie Franson 1:01:49
correct. And then I
Karen Smythe 1:01:50
just want to mention in this context, the other potential road is through Cherry through the Ross property into the Rubco property, and then out Camp Lane. Camp lane is currently a private road, and the Ross property is going to have to have access somewhere. That you know, if they build houses in there, you got to get in there somehow. And the topography makes it where Cherry Street is the place to come in. There is a 50-foot flag to Route 9, but that's not going to be the ideal way for folks to get in there because you're going to have to go up and over the mountain there.
Bonnie Franson 1:02:24
Yeah, there's a lot of tilpo. Interesting part. The
Karen Smythe 1:02:28
southern part of that property is is prime for for development. It's the the northern part less so. So logically, there'll be just for that property. There's going to be an there's going to be an inlet outlet, and to connect it for two reasons to me up to the Rubco property. One is it adds to the opportunity to spread out the traffic. It gives an alternative way to sort of get to and fran. But the other is with the Rubco property, it's known to be affordable housing, what I don't want is for it to be well. That's where the affordable is, and then frankly, we've got tradition over here, which is where the you know where the wealthy folks are, and I don't want to segregate it that way. I really want that whole area, whatever it is that ends up being built there, part of the village, and by creating that road and that intersection, that creates more of the integrated grid-like system that we have in the rest of the village, and and you know my understanding is normally the way. I mean yes, if we do a street map, which I think we should do, because we have some other possible streets to talk about, but not today. But would be, you know, Ross would build their road, Repco would build their road, and then they would turn it over to the village, and then it would become a village road that we would have to take, that we would have to plow and pave and all that sort of thing. But I think that's a win-win for the village.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:03:59
But only in it. grows the village's goals, right? If it is just like a cul-de-sac that doesn't connect to anything, exactly, then we should not take it over. There's no
Karen Smythe 1:04:09
reason for us to take it, right? It should be
Melkorka Kjarval 1:04:11
something that is like allows pedestrian walking and like community to interact with, and that yeah, and that's the other benefit to connecting it to yeah. We
Bonnie Franson 1:04:20
did field walk through the Ross site, and it's very easy to get and connect to Ross to the east, away from the steeply sloping area. So it's very doable. It's just we can't hit the rock that's on the kind of the westerly side of the Ross property.
Karen Smythe 1:04:38
Yeah.
Frances Uku 1:04:39
Since we are talking parallel road, though. Is this again for Victoria? Is this an appropriate time to? This is just one, one. I, I asked for these to be put on the agenda, but they they weren't. So this is just the question is whether, just as we were talking about possibilities for the road and the official map, like, is this the kind of thing that we could be? Sorry, I I do have copies. I'm
Perry Allen 1:05:08
sorry.
Frances Uku 1:05:10
Here, I printed them for if you wish.
Victoria Polidoro 1:05:14
But what's the question? Would you say is this the type of thing? This is yeah. This is a potential parallel road.
Frances Uku 1:05:19
But but we what we're currently talking about is kind of Ross and then Rockco up above that goes in the back. But what if we were talking about having residential? So we were just talking about now like the apart on Route Nine apartments above commercial. You have you
Melkorka Kjarval 1:05:41
have a road going through one of the highest points, right? This is going over that ridge.
Frances Uku 1:05:46
No, no, that's where you see the the pink. No, there's there's the ridge, and then there's one east, one west of the ridge, and then two going east.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:05:57
I'm looking at this blue one right here.
Frances Uku 1:05:59
Mm-hmm. The blue one. I have them very helpful in color, so I bought more of them. Is the one option? Yeah, the CVS one. The existing entrance, new entrance. Yeah, right. Again, these are just. This is just dreaming. That's all it is. I'm not saying build it now.
Bonnie Franson 1:06:35
The blue is the question mark because of the way that it's running perpendicular to the slope,
Frances Uku 1:06:44
perpendicular to the slope. You mean the you mean under the ridge, like with the? It it doesn't go over the ridge. A road can't go. Okay.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:06:55
Those are elevation lines, right? You see how it crosses over the high ones. But
Frances Uku 1:06:59
it's hugging the bottom of it.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:07:01
That's an elevation. That's a huge wall of rock. So,
Karen Smythe 1:07:05
so I have a question. You know, the notion is talking about the street map.
Karen Smythe 1:07:11
The street map is something that's separate from zoning. Yeah. Correct. Okay. So this is something that would be this would be discussed and identified as part of the street map, correct? If
Victoria Polidoro 1:07:21
if you guys go that route, yes, and then you guys could decide whether you wanted to put you know the CDS entrance on that map or not, whether that made sense. But yeah, I mean, this is the kind of work that would go into creating the map because you'd have to decide where you're going to lay out. But you get an
Melkorka Kjarval 1:07:37
engineer to do that, right? And they're yeah
Victoria Polidoro 1:07:40
to assist. Yeah. Yeah. So
Frances Uku 1:07:41
that's not that's not us.
Bonnie Franson 1:07:43
So, so the land use study conceptually shows it just shows graphically conceptually where a parallel road cross to cross to Rupco, and then it also showed conceptually, you know, what a parallel road could look like. I believe, but the exact location really means if you're going to put it on a map, you have to know. Yes, of course. Yeah, and and so I think to to your image there, the person layout would be that let's say on an apartment building, it's going to be on the east side of that orange road, whereas I think the thought was it was going to run farther west to have a building on the east side of that road, and so that's where you really need to get you know an additional route. This
Karen Smythe 1:08:38
also presumes that the entrance, the the entrance to the Ross property is in the middle of that section, as opposed to from Cherry Street.
Victoria Polidoro 1:08:46
So I think the point is well taken that without something to force a road, it's true that the land within the zoning might never get erode, right? It's a concept, and you might not get it, so that's why we were talking about other potential tools.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:09:04
Yeah,
Karen Smythe 1:09:05
right.
Perry Allen 1:09:06
So in the zoning, yeah, without the street map, the street map and paper map that then officiates that process. Other than that, in the zone, it's just an ask in theory.
Frances Uku 1:09:15
Not even we would
Perry Allen 1:09:16
like this at some point. Is what it's in an aspirational statement.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:09:21
street map comes out before the zoning is for example. This shows
Karen Smythe 1:09:26
a connection, but it doesn't show a road. So it shows the concept, but it doesn't show the concept, and it
Melkorka Kjarval 1:09:35
would be it would go in front of these, you know, and then you'd be able to put apartment buildings in line with the existing apartment buildings.
Bonnie Franson 1:09:41
So it is more. than just a landing study because it is in the zoning. It says parallel road to the maximum extent. New buildings in operation, existing buildings, uses double design, parallel road running along the east side of North Broadway. So it's in the zoning for the planning board to follow, but the location-it's gonna, you know, the way that it's set up right now, absent a map, is as the planning board reviews these things. At that point, they're going to have to say, "All right, what's realistic as far as where this road could get be? And it would be in pieces.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:10:18
Yeah, an individual story can be persuasive to a board that really wants housing to happen. Correct. Yeah.
Victoria Polidoro 1:10:26
I mean, look, the other option is what they do in cities, right? Where the city comes in, lays it all out, designs it, and then says, "This is what we've approved. Builder, come build it. But this is cities that have planning departments and resources, and yeah, like you would do a whole secret review on it yourself, and then they'd be stuck with that. But you know, I don't think that's the proposal here. You're not willing to undertake that level of review and detail.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:10:52
But if we got an engineer, they could they could tell us what could fit, what can't fit, what we could do that would allow our goals.
Bonnie Franson 1:11:00
And you know you could probably someone with the mapping that's been done as part of the engineering, because I'm guessing that it's showing building footprints. It's showing let's say the width between a property line and and the end of a building. So you'll know that's X feet, and so they'll say really to fit buildings in, you would need to put it here, closer to a building, etc. What we can anticipate is if someone comes in and says, "Okay, I'm gonna, I'll demolish the back of my building because I'm going to go a story higher. I'm going to put another building in the back. We can never anticipate that. So that's,
Melkorka Kjarval 1:11:37
but we talked about we talked a bit about like because if you put in another road, you're allowing a different front, right? It's like frontage, and frontage allows you like more density because you get to go up front and do different things. So there's like an incentive there, possibly with.
Karen Smythe 1:11:54
And you can subdivide your parcel.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:11:56
Like we wouldn't be taking things away. We would be allowing an opportunity, and the amenities are really what drives investment. That's right. So if we are like increasing the amenities through a road and pedestrian access, that's a positive. Even though the evident domain is something we definitely want to stay away from, but ultimately, hopefully, seen as a positive.
Karen Smythe 1:12:18
Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Let's let's move on to the next the next two questions are related to workforce housing. I know Fran, you've suggested that we eliminate it altogether. Harry, you have asked the question of we are requiring 10% Could should
Perry Allen 1:12:37
we require
Karen Smythe 1:12:38
that we do more questions at one of the other questions? And I think it's this is the perfect opportunity for that question because I think, and this is where our professionals can also weigh in. You have that balance of yes, would we like more affordable housing? Absolutely. Or workforce housing? Absolutely. On the other hand, we want to balance it so that we are still encouraging development because there's some folks who aren't going to be interested in doing that, and we don't want them to walk away and not do any because even market rate, more housing is more housing, and that that helps in the affordability of housing, particularly if it's different shapes and sizes of housing available. So I don't know what your thoughts are.
Victoria Polidoro 1:13:19
I actually will jump in and say this might be worth having a conversation with Hudson River Housing about. They have good resources and they have some experience with all the towns in Dutchess County, and they they might give you some feedback. I know that when the village of Rhinebeck was working on this. They came in and they told them, you know, for a small project it wasn't realistic to require more than 10% because there just wasn't enough profit in it that someone wouldn't develop, in their opinion. But that was up to 10. But if you're going to 20 or 30 units, then that formula changes, and so they are going to have the most recent data. It might be worth a reach out. I don't know if you.
Bonnie Franson 1:14:04
Yeah, we could reach out, or if you want to reach out, whichever. And I would just say that for those circumstances, that's in part why we have the fee, because someone who's doing 40 units, you could probably more readily say, look, you're getting an extra dwelling dwelling unit, you can also build it. Whereas if it's the 10, which is sort of the starting place, you know they may say, "Look, you know it's a lot for us. We'll do a fee, and then you save that for the time when you know you get a bigger project, or or use it for other purposes. So other affordable housing Purposes, but my understanding, you know. So the question is whether it should be 20% and what the percentages are. We could talk to them. I think the question was, do we take it out altogether or we leave it in?
Karen Smythe 1:14:55
That's another. It's another part of the question. That's another question. Yeah. So leave it in. Number
Bonnie Franson 1:14:58
one, and then if we're going to leave it in, should we increase the amount, which might require an increase then in the incentive as well? But that's again a question I think we have to ask. We could ask Hudson. My question about
Karen Smythe 1:15:16
I have a couple of contacts with us in your house, so I'm happy to reach out. Okay,
Perry Allen 1:15:21
that's great. Yeah, that'd be nice to hear from them. That's great. My question
Frances Uku 1:15:25
about workforce housing, as as written, is that this. Oh, sorry. Yes, the the 10% set aside gets you. So, say for instance, you have a. This is even larger than Robco. You have a a developer that's proposing 50 units. So with that, you would, if you designate this workforce housing area, you get five. Like 50 would be a lot to give you just five. And in the meantime, while you've restricted this, this with this code, you have all of this market rate housing that is not happening because they cannot meet the workforce housing stipulations. This is a lot of stuff in here that is not only onerous, as Victoria is saying. About this is this is like town level stuff. This is this is a lot of things in here that seem to me like very onerous for the village to administer. Administer the fee in lieu. Administer the the recreational. You were saying the the all of the things that we just talked about. The all of yeah all of the stuff that we'd have to administer. We're just a small village, like to get
Bonnie Franson 1:16:35
the village of Montebello has done it. They they actually have a standalone affordable housing project, and What's population of Montebello? It's in Rockland County. I'll check. I see. And then they have 93 units that they administer themselves. Other communities use a third party, and so you're not actually administering it. You retain a third party to do it for you, but that's a decision. Yeah, that we'd be paying.
Frances Uku 1:17:06
Yeah, we have to pay that.
Perry Allen 1:17:08
There was a position that was discussed in here, an individual who would oversee all of that. Yes.
Frances Uku 1:17:14
Yes, but paid by whom? By us, right? By the board.
Perry Allen 1:17:17
I believe so. I would be. I know. I would feel comfortable figuring out in the budget how to support that.
Frances Uku 1:17:23
Another main issue I have with just this section. I may have issues with other parts of it, but this section. And forgive me because I've I've tried to to be politic about this and diplomatic. But this this draft is copy pasted almost directly from Carmel, mainly Fishkill, but also Carmel, and I have
Karen Smythe 1:17:47
read. What's wrong with them?
Frances Uku 1:17:48
We are not Carmel or Fishkill. Like there are considerations.
Karen Smythe 1:17:52
We took someone else's existing code.
Frances Uku 1:17:54
Yeah,
Karen Smythe 1:17:55
and we're adapting it for ourselves.
Frances Uku 1:17:56
But that happens
Karen Smythe 1:17:57
all the time.
Frances Uku 1:17:58
I get
Bonnie Franson 1:18:00
it. It was adapted. Who's the trustee that? Charlie.
Karen Smythe 1:18:10
I mean, I'm I'm just curious as to what sort of what you're suggesting is by taking someone else's code that that by Denhash. It's just what
Frances Uku 1:18:19
I asked with Bonnie talking about, and Bonnie said in the case that she quoted, that's a municipality on a size or maybe even less. But Fishkill is not on a level like these
Karen Smythe 1:18:30
are the
Frances Uku 1:18:31
town, the town, and also Carmel, and these are bigger municipalities, so they can take the admin and all of the things that would be required to administer something this big that again is a 10% set aside, so you eliminate all of these developers or individuals who would like to build stuff, but then have to conform to the the workforce housing stipulated for the whole district.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:18:55
Can I add? You said something earlier, and I was trying to follow. You were saying that there's a bunch of market rate that cannot comply. Is that what you're saying? How can they not comply? Because they can either pay out of the of the affordable, or they can get one extra unit that they can that they can build an affordable. What was what's not comply? Sorry.
Frances Uku 1:19:16
No, I'm just saying that does it actually get you the goals that you're after? So if you want the affordable, the workforce, and you're giving an easy way to buy out of it, and then we have to administer the. Do you see what I mean?
Melkorka Kjarval 1:19:28
That we've administer the. But then we have a the fee in lieu. So that could be part of what the fee pays for, right? I mean, the fee could be
Bonnie Franson 1:19:35
a Habitat for Humanity or similar kind of a group buys a house, it's you know run down, and they fix it up, and then they put the limitations on that it's for an affordable family. That could be how the and the village subsidizes that with the fees that they've received. Yeah, so it's not that the goals wouldn't be met or accessory dwelling units,
Karen Smythe 1:19:57
and it wouldn't
Melkorka Kjarval 1:19:58
require that the developers do affordable housing. It just requires that if they're investing in our community, they invest in our community goals. You know that. The question
Bonnie Franson 1:20:12
don't have this. Then what's the alternative?
Frances Uku 1:20:15
Rupco.
Karen Smythe 1:20:18
That's that's it. Well, there's 40 young. There's no more workforce or affordable housing in the village. It's
Frances Uku 1:20:25
not a not in the village. In this district, we're talking about. Are we non-zoning for this district? No, the workforce housing. Oh, that was not my understanding. I thought that we were this. This was to do with the.
Karen Smythe 1:20:37
That was the. That that's the. That's the purpose and the goal. But when we started talking about the workforce housing, we said why limit it to just this district? It should be relevant to the whole village.
Frances Uku 1:20:48
I did not understand that to be what we were working on. I thought we were working on the Gateway North zoning for the village,
Victoria Polidoro 1:20:54
but then required in the Gateway North. Under the way it's drafted, someone could propose it, but it is required in Gateway for any development of 10 or more.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:21:06
What do you mean they could propose it? Like
Victoria Polidoro 1:21:09
the I mean, sure anyone could propose workforce housing, I suppose, but
Karen Smythe 1:21:13
without the requirement.
Victoria Polidoro 1:21:15
I'm not a page of 10.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:21:16
What you're saying is, if let's say the place by Baxter Road gets developed, the this affordable housing provision would not apply to them. They could propose to no
Victoria Polidoro 1:21:29
Bonnie the way I
Bonnie Franson 1:21:30
thought was that was only in Gateway North. Yeah, no, it's the entire village. But okay, we talked about them, so we should make sure it reads that way because that might have been the impression. But it is the entire village.
Frances Uku 1:21:41
Yeah, I didn't get that from notice. News to me.
Karen Smythe 1:21:49
So under D1, it's saying gateway. So so page eight at the bottom is where it starts, adding a new section 200-40. That shall be required in
Perry Allen 1:22:00
the following zoning districts, and it's just Gateway North.
Bonnie Franson 1:22:04
My recollection is the village won the entire. Yeah, like the village board won the entire village to which it would be. Those are the conversations.
Karen Smythe 1:22:12
That was that was part of the conversations we had.
Frances Uku 1:22:14
Newport.
Karen Smythe 1:22:15
Does that change your perspective, Fran?
Frances Uku 1:22:17
Does what change my perspective?
Karen Smythe 1:22:19
If if the workforce housing applies to the whole village. It
Frances Uku 1:22:22
does because I-I mean, I don't even like it in Gateway North, and so I would-I would like it to see the correct. I would like to-I would like to first establish that what we're doing here. This is not something I've been a part of. I'm now on the board. I would like to understand what we were talking about in the scope of the district. We had said before that form-based code that we can look at rolling that out to the village at a later time. So in the same way, I did not realize when we're discussing workforce housing that we were talking about the scope of the whole village, and I think we should vote on that.
Karen Smythe 1:22:55
Conversation, you know, sort of for the past. I mean, this is not a new conversation.
Frances Uku 1:23:00
I was not on the board whenever
Karen Smythe 1:23:02
a year plus. Yes,
Melkorka Kjarval 1:23:04
we've talked about this anyway. I understand. No, it's not that I didn't understand.
Frances Uku 1:23:09
Thank you very much. It's just that there is not an on-the-record decision that has been made. If you can show me that, then that's fine. But don't talk about I don't remember or I wasn't listening or da
Karen Smythe 1:23:20
da da da. Okay. There is
Frances Uku 1:23:24
discussion, but just like we're discussing now, we could decide that we're going to vote and we're changing the.
Karen Smythe 1:23:29
I very much would like to do that. It's kind of why it's in here because we've had this discussion. I very much support developing work as much before. No, I mean it's you know it's a it's a way in and it's also something that we. Why don't we use
Frances Uku 1:23:49
the opportunity then of what we have with the Robco and that lot? If it's not Robco, although it seems very likely, and we they are waiting, like they seem very ready to proceed. If we have that lot, why are we? We need a lot of housing, and we need people need to be able to live here, and the affordable restrict that is a restriction. Wouldn't you agree that that's a restriction? I think doing so. It's a build.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:24:12
They can do more affordable. I'm sorry, they go beyond and do even more goals. We're just requiring people that come in and develop, and it will. The idea is there's a lot of different parcels around the village that could get developed. When we have the the expanded sewer, there are more opportunities. And having the ability that that either they pay into a fund so that we can have that, you know, or okay, yes, Perry, go ahead. You might be receiving there.
Perry Allen 1:24:42
I think that if we don't disperse intentionally disperse affordable housing and workforce housing throughout the village, then we're segregating poor people to a certain neighborhood. No,
Frances Uku 1:24:55
that's not what it is, Perry. I think we're we're
Perry Allen 1:24:58
built we're we're building a project, right?
Frances Uku 1:25:00
That's one project, but anyone is known others. But but compelling people compelling people to a workforce housing requirement, by definition, will limit what what market rate housing is available. I'm not saying that we shouldn't have, but we have a very real problem. It would be
Perry Allen 1:25:18
like a handful of units.
Frances Uku 1:25:21
Exactly, exactly. It will be just a handful of units. So
Perry Allen 1:25:25
you're willing to stop all of those units from being. You're willing to stop those five units from being gone.
Frances Uku 1:25:29
No, no, it's not that I I want those those five to be gone. Like, I'm just saying that we have multiple goals, and if we're looking for density, and we're looking for people to be able to afford to live here, including like what what the limits that we're talking about in terms of the medium household income that the limitations as described in this draft make it such that it is very difficult for you to get teachers and and are you know just bus like people should be able to live here without that like the market rate, it's not when you say that you're going to build market rate housing that everything is going to be sky high and the poor people are going to be relegated. No, but everybody deserves an opportunity to be able to enter the market at whatever price point. Not so.
Karen Smythe 1:26:15
How does eliminating the workforce housing requirement, limited as it is, help towards that goal of creating spaces where people at different levels can can live.
Frances Uku 1:26:25
Because if you offer, if you not everyone is going to build a luxury mansion, or some people will build. I would
Karen Smythe 1:26:31
submit that if we don't have a requirement for workforce housing, they're going to build the the housing that they can charge as much as possible for, and this is just making sure that there's a a grounding of something, and again, it's for 50 apartments. It's five. We're not talking about an awful lot, but we're talking about some. It creates, it moves us in a positive direction towards the goal of wanting a community that has mixed income levels, which is the you know has been shown to be the best kind of communities, not just to have super wealthy and not just to have low income, to have everybody all in the mix. I understand why
Victoria Polidoro 1:27:14
it's important to get the the percentage right and the bonus right because you're not just saying you have to do this. At least as it's drafted now, you get an incentive for doing it, right? So one affordable unit, you get one extra market rate unit on top. And so I think you guys need to decide. And again, I recommend you reach out to the professional. What is the right mix for this village so that you're still incentivizing construction, but still managing to get some units set aside.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:27:45
And there's still choice there. Like a person could decide to do all they could put a bunch of McMansions, right? And then they could just pay into the fund, or they can get one extra unit and make that one affordable. They can make that decision. Whoever's developing, and there's very few spots in the village that people would have 10 plus units that are available for that. Sorry. So
Bonnie Franson 1:28:06
I I think number one we need to just determine are we going to have workforce housing for the entire village.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:28:13
My vote is yes.
Karen Smythe 1:28:14
So I was going to say this is this seems to be the perfect opportunity to make a formal decision as a board. So
Frances Uku 1:28:19
can we? My understanding was that we were. This was going to be a workshop. I did not realize that we were going to be taking. I mean, this is highly. I could just
Bonnie Franson 1:28:28
do consensus so that I can know what to take, what I should. It'd be nice if Craig was here as well for this conversation. Well, but on the
Karen Smythe 1:28:35
other hand, we also need to keep moving, and so there becomes. This is kind of a critical. Are we? Aren't we? There's lots of specifics. The percentages
Bonnie Franson 1:28:43
will there'll still be research. The market rate, how many, but just in the concept of requiring some workforce housing for any new developments throughout the village, is the general consensus that yes, that's a good thing. I would need to
Frances Uku 1:29:00
know numbers for me personally. I would have to have that mix.
Perry Allen 1:29:03
I support the idea of having workforce housing throughout the village,
Karen Smythe 1:29:06
and I do too. So I think with the group we have here, we have we have that consensus, and then we'll work on the we'll work on the percentages. As I say, I will reach out to member housing. I'm saying
Bonnie Franson 1:29:17
in the next draft, it wouldn't just say GN; it would say all district, and then we work on the percentages, and then we can at some point get the other trustees' thoughts on this, and maybe he can even add to the thoughts otherwise. So then,
Frances Uku 1:29:35
do we? So do I understand by this then that we have? So so what have we just done now? Because we are still working on the draft of this, but you're
Bonnie Franson 1:29:44
moving the words "GN. It's going to apply to the entire village. That's the only change at this point until we get input. So the mayor
Frances Uku 1:29:52
on the workforce housing section.
Speaker 1 1:29:54
Correct.
Perry Allen 1:29:58
I hate to do this, but I have to excuse myself. We have some childcare things I have to go do, but thank you so much. It's been a pleasure. I will check back in on the video for everything else we discuss. Otherwise, thank you so much. I don't think if we're going to go in order. I think I don't think we'll get to mine today, even though I am very curious just for these, obviously, but thank you so much. Thank you, thank you.
Karen Smythe 1:30:24
Okay, but the next item is formula businesses, which we did discuss already. 123, 4/4, one down on the page. Sorry, yeah. See you all tonight.
Bonnie Franson 1:30:35
So 12 was workforce housing in general. 13 was workforce housing. When did we sell value? Shouldn't they profit?
Karen Smythe 1:30:45
I think I think we should I think we should have a broader discussion specifically once I once we have more information about workforce housing.
Bonnie Franson 1:30:52
So that'll be on 13 too.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:30:54
And I think that you had a good explanation for that. That was something that Amy brought up, and you had a good explanation about the time period of that and when it when it flips over to yeah yeah because someone could
Bonnie Franson 1:31:04
buy it and they flip it and they get it and then fall so that's what it's intended to avoid but yes okay so number uses business 14 addressed 15 uses very general no limit still but regarding allowing use is not intended. This, I believe, in general uses this had to do with the form-based 15 and 16 are related. Where remember we had this discussion about the way that the zoning's set up right now in the Gateway North. It lists all the uses that you would want to allow the alternative was to be more form-based, where you allow everything, maybe prohibit a few legal.
Frances Uku 1:31:48
You cannot not everything. Like you have to, you have you would have restrictions that you cannot have illegal activity. You would have restrictions for like noise pollution or light, and all of these no considerations. Yeah, through performance.
Bonnie Franson 1:32:02
15 and 16 are related. So I I I know we discussed this at the last meeting. I don't know there was support to go for form-based code at this time. But again, that's a very board.
Karen Smythe 1:32:21
Well, also, I think the discussion was around the fact that going to form base is is a significant change.
Frances Uku 1:32:32
Can you say more about that, Victoria? Because I think you had, you had. Oh, or maybe this is Bonnie. I don't know who the response about why it would be? Oh, sorry. Why it would be considered? I think you had village board. You want to consider? Yes. Zoning could be changed. It would require some additional time and effort to reformulate. Could you could you explain?
Bonnie Franson 1:32:55
Form-based coding is very graphic intensive because you're really regulating in accordance with the form, not with the we're not necessarily restricting uses anymore, except as you said, if you wanted to by performance standards. So that's just going to require coding that meets Form-based guidelines, and that's just a rewrite. So we would be starting over to figure out what that looks like.
Frances Uku 1:33:31
What that looks, I mean, so in the general business,
Bonnie Franson 1:33:35
I was going to say literally what that looks like because now you have to come up with architectural standards of what could be applied on a parcel by parcel basis. So you talk about the type of architecture that would be appropriate. You talk talk about the windows. You talk you know to some extent what you already have in your design guidelines, but it's actually coded for particular zoning district, and you have to create set architectural and bulk standards for that form-based code, and so it's just it is a rewrite because it's a graphic tool, very graphic as opposed to written narrative.
Frances Uku 1:34:15
I guess this brings me back to the question from last workshop because my it gave me a different understanding of what we're talking about, look and feel, and the historic. But I, I understand. I think from what you're saying that that that's not what we're going for in this district. That we are.
Bonnie Franson 1:34:31
So the the what I had talked about was you had an image that you had developed, and it showed I think three Mansard buildings in Grove, and they look very much like row-style buildings, like we have in the
Frances Uku 1:34:45
general business district. Which you
Bonnie Franson 1:34:47
have, especially in the downtown area. But I, my recollection isn't that's not the feel that you're trying to achieve as you transition out of the village. It's starting to increase the setbacks a bit, having some bit of a fran lard, it is having some separation between the buildings, so they don't look like one long, you know, large building, and so they may be more eclectic in architecture, and that's my understanding of what the intent was. I had said that form-based coding is like in Kingston. It's often to create a almost a row-style look. But again, every code is different. It just has to match what the vision is that the village board and the village have for that area, but the zoning here is based on more of an open type of esthetic with spaces between buildings, but not too much because you still want to relate the buildings to the sidewalk, to the pedestrian, etc.
Frances Uku 1:35:58
Yeah, it's it's a different kind of feel if you're, I mean, because you have 20 foot on the, you know, side side distance, and and that's a lot. But to Mel Coca's, if I may, I don't want to. Mel Coca had spoken last week about food trucks and what I thought were some really cool ideas for the downstairs commercial when you're talking about above apartments. But my understanding was that we're not going for what is there now. Like what we described in the study is kind of that density, allowing for mixed use and pedestrian, and keeping in the with the feeling of the village, as opposed to kind of like more of. I mean, it it is more of a strip mall feel right now. You have parking, all the parking in front, and yeah, and every yes, and and there's no residential there currently, which I thought would be something that we were discussing during the not that I thought we were discussing as part of developing the study and adopting the study. So, I guess I I'm wondering if I'm misunderstanding our.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:37:03
if you look just if you look physically at the spot we're talking about, do you see all the curb cuts?
Frances Uku 1:37:08
Yes.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:37:09
So there would be no way, as it is now, right, to do the same sort of setup that we have with those like row buildings right next to each other. Like my
Frances Uku 1:37:18
question was esthetic because that's what we have defined in here, not what it how it appears today. But the idea,
Melkorka Kjarval 1:37:26
what I'm saying is that there there's curb cuts. If we can't close up the curb cuts, right?
Frances Uku 1:37:30
Why can't we close up the curb cuts?
Victoria Polidoro 1:37:33
I mean, we have to do it on a case by case basis as they come in.
Frances Uku 1:37:36
Sure. So if the code
Karen Smythe 1:37:38
also the general notion and the reality is, most of those buildings, nobody's going to take them down and redo them, and so we have an existing esthetic that's there, and the idea it's a gateway. It's not the center business general business district, and so we want a similar feel to the village, but it's not going to be the general business district. So we're not asking. And maybe I'm reading it differently than you, but we're not looking to completely rechange the change the face of the existing buildings that are there. We're going to encourage to move in a direction, and there's there is actually housing there. It's just not on the front of those sections behind CVS. There's housing. No, of course there is behind. But what we had
Frances Uku 1:38:24
discussed in here was making the frontage on nine complement the west side. So it's not like mirroring. They have the great lawns and the you know the big Victorians in the back. But the idea I thought was that the east side would complement that in a way that is village-like, as opposed to what's there right now. And when to speak about the curb cuts and things, what
Bonnie Franson 1:38:50
it's not to do is to create a downtown rope-style look to it. So
Frances Uku 1:38:57
I was
Bonnie Franson 1:38:57
just looking up images. So when you think of Rhinebeck, right, and you're right in the heart of Ryanback. You have row style buildings, two three stories. We have that right. They're all right, right in your your middle downtown. If you go to Millbrook, Millbrook there are places where they are individual buildings, but they're quaint. There's a greenness. There's a front yard. There's a little seating area. They're separate, but there's there's a unity to it because they're close together. And as we transition from the downtown, the intent is to make it look more like a notebook. That that kind of separate. I don't want to compare. Well, I I wish I could see Mel Mill.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:39:44
Karen liked Village Center, by the way, not tap down. It's like a transition.
Speaker 4 1:39:50
We've always talked about and similar to right now.
Karen Smythe 1:39:53
You know, you mentioned that it feels a little bit more like a like a strip mall. Yeah. A lot of that has to do with the fact that the parking's in the front. Correct. And so the point at which we can get the parking to start going to the back, and then ultimately requiring it to be in the back, and then greening the front, like CVS, they spent a lot of time making sure that that that they had that green in that front. It was a that I I know that starts to change it towards being more reflective. I mean, it's never going to be across the street. No, it shouldn't be. But it's that it's that kind of thing towards over time, as opposed to expecting the buildings to change structurally. Right. That's less likely to happen. We have sketch plans that show that, but it's not likely to
Bonnie Franson 1:40:40
happen. Which is the building that changed recently? The one that was modified architecturally. The battalion. No,
Karen Smythe 1:40:47
no, that's probably with Salvatore's Pizza. Yeah. Right.
Bonnie Franson 1:40:50
So that building has changed and evolved. Yeah. And so, so architecturally they can change and evolve, but what didn't happen was forcing any parking to the back. So yeah, because we don't have this code, so that's so that's why it dominates. So in time, the desire is to have those green spaces in the front of the buildings, which is why we need the parallel road or some drive in the back that connects all of them, so the parking can go in the back. That's the other important consideration. And to
Frances Uku 1:41:21
your point about that's what I feel we have captured in the study, but the law we say you know we can't just expect if you create the conditions for a developer to see that then someone does buy the stewards, someone does buy the and then they per the code they fill it in and then we have our greenery in front and our
Bonnie Franson 1:41:41
it will be property by property
Victoria Polidoro 1:41:42
so. Yeah, it can be.
Frances Uku 1:41:48
Oh no, we're just we're talking about the permitted uses versus form-based. That's form-based as well. Oh, okay. We were talking about. I thought. But it sounds like you're concerned that what is being proposed isn't going to meet the goal. So I was wondering if there was. Yes, it's the you know we were talking about the what Karen was just saying about over time the ideal is for the parking to go in the back and for there to be green space in front and the only way those things happen is if if the code has has made it that
Melkorka Kjarval 1:42:18
that and that it's economically feasible right so like the TND that hasn't happened because they haven't had the TND. Yeah, sorry, they haven't had the infrastructure to actually meet those those zoning requirements.
Frances Uku 1:42:29
Same for us.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:42:30
But you've seen how it hasn't been anything for 10 years. They haven't done anything except for Mighty Donuts, and it's just dead. There is a point where
Frances Uku 1:42:37
they need infrastructure. So the
Bonnie Franson 1:42:39
zoning does do and and regulates, I believe, what the intent is. It, but it's not framed in a form-based look, in a form-based code feel to it. That's why the land use study really got into some of that in terms of description and and the zoning and the land use study go hand in hand, because you can't say everything that you want in zoning. You need form-based coding, but you can say what the intent
Frances Uku 1:43:09
is
Bonnie Franson 1:43:10
in the land you study, which is what was
Melkorka Kjarval 1:43:14
done. From what I'm trying to, from what I'm understanding what you're saying, you're saying the priority should be moving everything up, right? That should be the priority. That's
Frances Uku 1:43:23
priorities are different. The it's what is in here, so we can choose what we want priorities as
Melkorka Kjarval 1:43:30
well. But you're saying that that is the the prior. You would if if the same buildings stay and they are you know accommodated, that's a failure to you in in what our goals? Meeting our goals.
Frances Uku 1:43:42
No, I don't understand. You say if that you mean if everything stays as
Melkorka Kjarval 1:43:46
is. If a certain amount of those buildings are retrofitted and still work within the you know the goals and it's done piece by piece, you feel like that would not be the the goals that are met out here.
Frances Uku 1:43:58
They they wouldn't be unless we implement this here. What
Victoria Polidoro 1:44:02
even under form-based PDF? Just want to be clear. Yeah. If we say that you know lot A has to have the building up front and it needs to be 10 feet back with a little area, if that person is not willing to knock their building down and rebuild, it becomes very hard for the planning board or the village to say, "I understand you want to go from a clothing shop to a pizza shop, but you have to knock down your entire building and invest a million dollars before you can do that. There's a point where the change is just so small that the village, even if you had a form-based code, they can't make you knock your building down. So
Bonnie Franson 1:44:37
maybe point in Hyde Park, the Pine Woods form-based code, there are waivers because the reality is we're dealing with existing buildings, and we can't force existing property owners with existing buildings. We can get them to go so far, but unless they're taking, you know, they're taking the option to do big redevelopment of the site, they just want something little. You can't push them in that direction. It's just hard. But doing it this way would allow us to push in that direction. I mean, both are both schemes. We've
Victoria Polidoro 1:45:08
got the same. We we talk about
Bonnie Franson 1:45:11
no parking in the front yard. Yeah, we actually do say no more than one curb cut per lot. We talk about the 10 to 20 foot built line, so it's there. It's just in a language, in a narrative form than it is in a form-based code. It's not.
Victoria Polidoro 1:45:30
You know, we had this when the dentist office came in. You have something that said no parking in the front, and there was nowhere else for them to park. That's the board feels very conflicted. And then you
Melkorka Kjarval 1:45:41
need to still meet the. You mean the dentist
Frances Uku 1:45:43
here, or when they came in
Victoria Polidoro 1:45:45
a few years ago? And this is off the top of my head. I don't recall exactly, but there was, you know, there was discussion about trying to get rid of that parking. Yeah. And
Melkorka Kjarval 1:45:53
they did close up one of the curb cuts. They did. They did. So they did compromise. Yeah. But
Karen Smythe 1:45:57
ultimately, but even Stewart's. I mean, if you were to say to Stewart's, you have to put parking in the back. You can't. There's nothing there. It's really, frankly, they're probably got too much coverage on their lot. I mean, it is physically impossible to park in the back. So, yeah, there are going to be waivers. All right. I think you know we've had a lot of conversation around form-based versus, and I think we've you know we did talk about this a fair amount at our last meeting, and I think the general notion is we have something that moves us in a direction. It indicates I think we just need to make sure, you know, check those boxes that we have all the things that we want to have happen, and make sure that they're in the, in the code that we're proposing, and that that gives the planning board the teeth to make those requirements when changes are happening.
Bonnie Franson 1:46:47
Can we already discuss the road arrangement, or is this 17 economic benefit test? That was that has to do with the planning board.
Frances Uku 1:46:57
Yeah, that was me. We can strike up.
Bonnie Franson 1:46:59
I don't think that's the new goal.
Karen Smythe 1:47:02
Yeah, you can strike that. Yeah, okay. And then the I think that was, you know, that because the PRD is a separate overlay, yeah, it's not two separate districts. So I think this goes back to Fran suggesting that we take the Repco property and zone it separately, but I I'd be uncomfortable doing that. I I myself I like the idea of because again I know sorry
Frances Uku 1:47:31
just to interrupt you a second, but you can go on. I never suggested that we should zone Repco. You mean specifically for affordable housing? I didn't say that we should zone it separately. I said that we could consider allowing, like, not having an affordable requirement in the rest of the district, and just let that and let that be affordable. Well, we don't actually require them to do anything, as you said earlier. Like, that's a state, and you said we were going to check in with the town and find out what the restrictions are on that, but they can't just sell it to to a market rate developer, as I understand it. So
Karen Smythe 1:48:06
I'm not sure what, but Rubco can choose to back out of the deal. Sure. At some point, in some way, I'm sure that someone else could buy it, and then they could choose not to do the PRD, and they would be subject to the zoning that exists, the underlying zoning that we're talking about here. That that was more what. So in any case, I think the notion of two past the two zoning districts.
Bonnie Franson 1:48:32
Well, again, and if everyone's especially focused on the two, doesn't happen because I created a sliding scale to make sure that in fact, you know, you were anticipating the rucko level of intensity for that property, and you suddenly want to have a lot more than you anticipated. Yeah, and so, so we just need to look at those numbers. Okay, and we did, but again, I just want to make sure.
Karen Smythe 1:49:03
We've already talked form-based code use standards.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:49:07
We already talked about this, right? Am I in the wrong thing then? No, page two.
Bonnie Franson 1:49:11
Prohibit any business based on ownership. Section feels don't allow formal business. I
Karen Smythe 1:49:16
think we did discuss this. Yeah, that feels like something we've discussed. And then road arrangement, we've already we've already talked about that mandating across street. Are we? Can we mandate a cross street?
Melkorka Kjarval 1:49:28
It would be the same thing as the roadmap, right? It would be talking about going doing a parallel attitude. I mean, I I think it would be great to have one find a milk plant in between the pizza and that would be oh yep Village Road. Then we can have a bunch of things that open up onto it and allow parking lots. I do think that would be a good thing in the map, but again, that's an engineering question, right?
Karen Smythe 1:49:54
Yes, I think you're in a
Speaker 1 1:49:55
location.
Frances Uku 1:49:56
Which one is the milk plant? The
Melkorka Kjarval 1:49:58
milk plant is where the George Cole auction is it's right below the pizza place. Okay, I just didn't know that
Frances Uku 1:50:05
it was. Okay, thank you. That was its history.
Karen Smythe 1:50:08
Yes, it was a dairy. Yeah, it was a dairy back in the creamery. Silver
Melkorka Kjarval 1:50:12
Lake. Oh, interesting.
Karen Smythe 1:50:14
Are we allowed to mandate a cross street? Queen Street. I. You know what? I read crosswalk. Sorry. Oh, that's what you're saying. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Oh,
Melkorka Kjarval 1:50:24
now you so this was the cross street from Route Nine to the parallel road to the east. I got you. And that is not within the the study, but it's yeah. But it could possibly be done in a street map because it's something separate. Yeah, if
Victoria Polidoro 1:50:39
that's how you want to make
Bonnie Franson 1:50:43
Okay, so page three, buffer between residences and conservation land, and I indicated you need a buffer from already conserved land. Consider buffer between proposed residential, existing residential, but generally residential uses next to residential uses are compatible. You don't normally put.
Karen Smythe 1:51:09
Right, and I'm trying to think of where this might be. So you've got the
Victoria Polidoro 1:51:14
land north of the lot, but it's also being farmed,
Karen Smythe 1:51:19
and it would be farmed. I mean, there are a couple of houses that that are sort of in the upper area. There would be on the rough road, sort of in the back, where where the tower, where the water tower is. I mean, there are residents that are there, but there's a setback, correct, for the houses, so they wouldn't be right up to the fence, so there wouldn't be a requirement for a buffer there.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:51:44
But the thing about the Rupco thing, if they wanted to put a business there, they could, right? If it wasn't residential, they could put a business. If
Karen Smythe 1:51:51
they do a PRV,
Melkorka Kjarval 1:51:52
no, I think in just general. No, because they're just
Victoria Polidoro 1:51:54
GN.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:51:55
So let's say like they wanted to put some sort of like storage business, then they'd have to. Do we have a buffer there? Because
Karen Smythe 1:52:03
that's commercial versus residential
Melkorka Kjarval 1:52:05
between towers. The tower. Yeah, and I think that would be something to consider. Because, yeah, okay.
Bonnie Franson 1:52:13
Have to think about that. You have
Victoria Polidoro 1:52:14
to put some kind of buffer. I don't know how.
Bonnie Franson 1:52:16
Yeah, because it would be buffer there, but you don't necessarily want a buffer elsewhere in the zone,
Melkorka Kjarval 1:52:22
yeah, because it's in the same, right?
Bonnie Franson 1:52:24
There as opposed to the rest of the zone.
Karen Smythe 1:52:26
I was going to say you'd have to think because you already have those two apartment complexes, and you've got a business in front of it, and then the next spot with the open space, the notion possibility is that could be residential. What what would the buffer be?
Melkorka Kjarval 1:52:39
But it's a possible residential. It can be whatever. Like what we have between the general business and residential here, they have to put up a buffer. That's just part of the code, is because the idea is that they could put a parking lot right up to a backyard, and that's not compatible. Like if we're,
Bonnie Franson 1:52:58
but we could put it to single family, because I think what's happening in the GN zone is mostly multifamily, whereas that other neighborhood is single-family. So that maybe the buffer is between commercial, non-residential uses and single-family. Yeah, and maybe that'll take care of it. Yeah,
Karen Smythe 1:53:18
we'll look at that. And
Frances Uku 1:53:18
then
Karen Smythe 1:53:20
there was a question of a buffer to the cemetery. I would imagine that that's just a question of. I mean, they have a fence around it. I don't know what kind of buffer we would.
Bonnie Franson 1:53:35
Did you have thoughts? I think this was your first buffer to cemetery.
Frances Uku 1:53:38
About the cemetery, I don't remember now.
Karen Smythe 1:53:53
It's owned by the United Methodist Church, correct? Yes. I don't remember if that's being mined. So maybe maybe it's a reach out to the Methodist Church just to ask them about that property, and maybe also just connecting with Historic Red Hook to see if they would have any concerns. There is a fence around the. I don't think it's on the property line. I think there's already a buffer. I mean,
Victoria Polidoro 1:54:16
when you look at the aerials, it looks like
Karen Smythe 1:54:21
it's a house right next to it.
Victoria Polidoro 1:54:25
Yeah, but when you're, it doesn't look. It looks like there's already a wooded buffer on the lot itself. Okay. Like, I mean, I don't know how good this is, but
Melkorka Kjarval 1:54:33
yeah,
Victoria Polidoro 1:54:34
like it kind of ends here, and then there's and there's all that buffer, big buffer on the lot, right? And I think, and then it's up against the
Speaker 1 1:54:41
stormwater bases on the west. Yes, we're probably in the region.
Bonnie Franson 1:54:45
I think you're okay.
Karen Smythe 1:54:46
Okay.
Frances Uku 1:54:49
Yes. Sorry, I do have to go. I was going to say we're
Karen Smythe 1:54:53
a couple minutes after three, so yes, exactly. So we. So what I was hoping to do, we may not be able to do right now, is establish our next meeting.
Frances Uku 1:55:06
Yeah,
Karen Smythe 1:55:06
because and ideally we'd establish maybe the next two or three, because that also means that the notification can be one time and not each one. So perhaps the best thing, I mean, these Mondays seem to work. Are we doing the same thing, the
Melkorka Kjarval 1:55:26
same as the village board meeting and workshop? We know that we're in town. I
Frances Uku 1:55:32
don't. I need to. I have my calendar, but August is a tricky month for me, so I would need. So here's what I'm going to do.
Karen Smythe 1:55:41
I I will. We're also meeting tonight, so maybe at the very end of tonight's meeting we can confer. But
Frances Uku 1:55:47
10th
Victoria Polidoro 1:55:48
and 24th work for me personally during the day. I
Karen Smythe 1:55:51
don't know. Do they work for you, Bonnie? During the day. This is in August. Yeah. So.
Frances Uku 1:56:03
Yeah, we can we can see if it works for that,
Melkorka Kjarval 1:56:07
and then we'll then we can check our august 10.
Bonnie Franson 1:56:16
It's okay. Normally, I have a staff meeting, but I'm getting out of it. The 10th is okay, and then the other one was the 24th. Yeah, and 24th is the same thing. Either so, if it's one of them, it's okay because I can go to the other.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:56:36
Okay.
Bonnie Franson 1:56:36
So it'd be the 10th or the 24th, or you think of the 10th and the 24th.
Speaker 5 1:56:41
We were thinking and.
Karen Smythe 1:56:42
And.
Melkorka Kjarval 1:56:44
Is there different Mondays that are better for you?
Bonnie Franson 1:56:45
My my preference my preference then would be to be the 10th and the 17th, or the 17th and the 24th, just so I get one of my staff meetings in.
Karen Smythe 1:56:57
Okay, I can't do the 17th, so we'll um, we'll confer here, and we'll get back to you. And then, and then we'll also want to look out into September because again, we're we're going to want to get this resolution. So if we follow the same pattern, that would be 14 and 28 in September.
Frances Uku 1:57:15
Yeah, and just so I know for next time, Victoria, because you said in your email that we would be discussing, I wasn't sure if you were referring to my questions in the email or referring to the document. Just I still had a few, and I know you're. Oh, I
Victoria Polidoro 1:57:29
thought that. So at the last meeting, we said everyone should send questions that we can put on the agenda for discussion. So that's all we're saying is I wanted to include Bonnie and everyone so that your questions could be added to this agenda.
Frances Uku 1:57:42
Thanks. Okay, so maybe for the next one, I will. Well, several several of
Karen Smythe 1:57:47
the several of the items that you have on here we did discuss today.
Frances Uku 1:57:50
Yeah, but yeah, but no. You
Melkorka Kjarval 1:57:53
had some comments on sidewalk thing. Yeah, she dresses.
Speaker 1 1:57:58
Okay,
Victoria Polidoro 1:57:59
pie skyish. Maybe there's something else. We'll keep thinking. And then carry some comments too. I know. Okay. I'm formally
Karen Smythe 1:58:08
adjourning. No, I need a motion to adjourn. So move. Second. A
Frances Uku 1:58:12
second. All in favor? Aye.
Karen Smythe 1:58:15
Aye. You're adjourned.