Planning Board Agendas and Minutes

MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COHOES PLANNING BOARD HELD VIRTUALLY ON SEPTEMBER 14, 2020 at 6:30PM MEMBERS PRESENT: Mr. Mark DeFruscio, Chairperson Mr. Jack Carroll, Vice Chairperson Ms. Stephanie Couture Mr. Bob Bucher Mr. Joseph Nadeau ABSENT: All Members Present ALSO PRESENT: Joseph Seman-Graves, City Planner Sharon Butler, Administrative Assistant Chairperson DeFruscio called the meeting to order at 6:31 pm. Roll Call: All members present CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES FROM THE AUGUST 10, 2020 MEETING Chairperson DeFruscio: We have a full committee, so the first order of business is the consideration of the August 10, 2020 meeting minutes. Everybody was distributed the meeting minutes, does anybody have additions, changes, modifications? If not then I’d like to have a motion to accept the August 10th meeting minutes as submitted. Motion was made by Member Nadeau, 2nd by Member Bucher motion passed unanimously YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X CONSIDERATION OF A NEW BUSINESS APPLICATION FOR 1-23 OLMSTEAD STREET Chairperson DeFruscio; the next item on the agenda is the consideration of a new business application at Unit 23 on Olmstead Street from RM Property Works Inc. The applicants are seeking to open a management/maintenance office in one of the existing residential apartment units. Is someone on the meeting that could speak to this? Hi this is Amy Rich the owner of RM Property Works. Chairperson DeFruscio; Ok Amy, just give us an overview please of what you’re looking to do in that unit. Ms. Rich; sure, so that was used previously as an apartment unit, we’re looking to make that our maintenance office. We do a lot of, all of the maintenance for those buildings from 1 Olmstead to 27 Olmstead and it would be advantageous for us to have an office there, if someone was locked out, we’re on site, emergencies, we’re on site. That’s pretty much the jest of our business. Chairperson DeFruscio; how many employees are you going to have in the office? Ms. Rich; there will be 1 employee part time and the property manager would be there full time. Chairperson DeFruscio; and would you be storing any chemicals in that office? Ms. Rich; there may be paint on site, but that mostly stored out in the garage. We also rent a garage on the property. No, I don’t believe there will be any chemical on site. Chairperson DeFruscio; we’ve got the proposed signage up on the screen for everybody to see. Essentially it’s a small sign that you’re proposing to install between the 2 windows is that correct? Ms. Rich; correct Chairperson DeFruscio; and you know you’re going to have to get approval from the Historic Society for the sign as well? Ms. Rich; yes that meeting is tomorrow night and we’ll be in attendance. Chairperson DeFruscio; Committee members, anyone else have any other questions for this proposal? Vice Chair Carroll; as long as the chemicals are stored off site I’m ok Member Bucher; my questions is do you manage other buildings or just those ones on Olmstead that you mentioned? Ms. Rich; we don’t manage them, we’re just more the contractor that does the maintenance, there’s a separate management company they do manage other building, but we don’t manage any building ourselves, we just do the maintenance. Chairperson DeFruscio; let’s ask the question differently then. Are you going to be maintaining any other buildings other than these from this location? Andrew Martin (Project Manager); the owner of this building, he has a mobile home park over in Troy and a couple of apartment building, a few 8 units down in Albany. We have stuff stored on site to do the work on those buildings. The only real carry over between the 2 would be having the employees like me being there on the site or the part timer coming in and meeting me there and then heading down there, but we wouldn’t be doing like work on site, like building anything then bringing it down there. Ms. Rich; I hope that answers your question Member Nadeau; so you’ll just be doing clerical work, if anything in that building. Mr. Martin; yes that’s primarily what we’ll be doing Ms. Rich; so, as the owner, I’m going to primarily doing the bookwork for the business, so I’m there part time and this is Andrew he is the project manager that does the actual work. So I mean as a company we do work for this owner in other building but he would like us to have an office there so that we’re there for the tenants to be available Member Nadeau; I see, so he’s just going to manage any building projects out of that office? Ms. Rich; correct Chairperson DeFruscio; ok, if the member of the board don’t have any other questions, I’m going to open it up at this point in time for public comments. Is there anyone that is interested in speaking regarding this project? Joe Seman-Graves; no on in the chat Chairperson DeFruscio; so I’ll ask one last time if there is anybody interested in speaking on this proposal the change the use of this apartment to an office on the Olmstead Street apartment building. If not than I will close the public comment portion of the meeting. We’re looking for a motion to approve a special use of this site for an office in the Olmstead Apartments and also a preliminary approval of the sign base on the Historic Preservation approval as well tomorrow. Member Couture; I’ll make that motion 2nd Vice Chair Carroll motion passed unanimously YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Chairperson DeFruscio; that’s approved you’ll deal with Mr. Graves about regarding anything you need to continue. Joe Seman-Graves; I’ll talk to you guys tomorrow at the historic meeting, after that once you get the ok, you’ll be set to go. CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AT 201 COLUMBIA STREET Chairperson DeFruscio; next item on our agenda; Consideration of a Site Plan Review at 201 Columbia Street. Is Mr. Durrant on the line with us? Joe Seman-Graves; I did mute someone I’ve just asked 2 people to unmute not sure if he is one or not. Joe asked if either were Mr. Durrant; but they weren’t. I don’t think Mr. Durrant is here at the moment, he said he would be so maybe something happened. Chairperson DeFruscio; Can we hold this item until the end of the meeting? Then let’s move on to the next agenda item; CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL FOR 220 REMSEN STREET Chairperson DeFruscio; I believe we were all provided with a copy of the site plan for your review. We are familiar with this project, we have open issues with it because we are looking for more detail on the fence and the pergola. I remember in the discussion in the last meeting we were uncertain of how things were going to be finished. Is Mr. Russell on the line? Joe Seman-Graves; he is here Don Russell; yes, I’m here Chairperson DeFruscio; ok, you provided us with a site plan. Some of the issues we had were regarding the detail of the fence, is it finished ow or is there still more things that need to be done? Mr. Russell; no, it’s complete Chairperson DeFruscio; do any other planning board members have questions? Member Nadeau; well, how were some of the items satisfied? The fence is facing in the proper direction, the anchorage, those types of things? Mr. Russell; The architect walked through and signed off the site plan, that was the main concern that you guys had because you guys never received anything from an architect, so the architect walked through, he evaluated the project, signed off on it and sent everything over to Mr. Graves. Chairperson DeFruscio; well from my perspective we had a discussion with you regarding things and when we asked questions regarding the fastening and the way things were done, the answers were they aren’t finished yet. Mr. Russell; correct, they have been finished and then they were stamped by an architect. Chairperson DeFruscio; so the description on the top on the right hand side, you’re telling us, what you’re saying fulfills that obligation to describe to use how everything is fastened? Mr. Russell; correct, an architect seal is ultimately what the city looks for to take responsibility away from the city, heaven forbid anything was ever to happen on anyone’s property; commercial, residential or whatever. Member Nadeau; I’m a little confused, an architect seal doesn’t satisfy city code, doesn’t override city codes? Mr. Russell’ no I’m not saying it overrides city codes at all. Member Nadeau; ok so then the next step is our approval if we accept the fence is facing the wrong direction or the height of the fence, that’s what were here for. Joe Seman-Graves; no, so can bring both; the height of the fence is ultimately going back to zoning, so what they did, this is 3 months ago now, 4 months, they said they wanted to wait until there was Planning board discussion on the site plan, so once this fence went over 6’ it triggered a site plan review. Ultimately zoning will still have to make a determination on the set back but this didn’t need a site plan review until now. I did talk to the architect and walked him through where we were on the project, what we needed, he provided this. I would say this is my personal opinion, if wanted at all, the side of the fence while it was brought into which way it was facing was brought into the planning meeting, because we’re doing a site plan review, I think this Zoning could take care of that. I just want to be sure the site plan here, that’s my priority is we’re ok with the site plan. Code did give the ok on it and we do have an architect seal, so I’ll leave that with you guys. Chairperson DeFruscio; so ok Code enforcement reviewed this and everything? Joe Seman-Graves; Code enforcement they already approved the project on their end now this is just, we are retro actively doing this but this is the next step which should have been done first. Chairperson DeFruscio; yes and mainly Joe I remember us being concerned regarding how things were fastened because they were in a state where we really couldn’t tell how they were going to be finished, how they were going to be fastened, you know the information that is at the top here gives us a description of how the pergola is constructed while I guess we’ll have to assume that, and that was a lot of our concerns was the way the pergola was being attached to the concrete slab. Joe Seman-Graves; yea, he the architect here put that is was anchored into the concrete with r-bar and did his seal. So I try not to overstep my boundaries with my job duties, I’m no architect. I know Bob is if you want to comment feel free Bob. I have to take that by its work there with the stamp. Member Bucher; as you guys know, I very often keep silent with regard to these things because it absolutely correct, the architect here has taken responsibility for this and where several applicants come befoer us, that in my mind is no different than a homebuilder, Jeremy Krug coming before us with architect seal for the construction of those buildings. Ultimately liability is still the same, the embedment is exactly right as Joe was saying, that, is Mark the fastening system at the top of the first line entry with anchor, r-bar anchored into the concrete and those other item, yes construction of the upper framing of the pergola. Chairperson DeFruscio; thank you Bob, I was just trying to make sure everybody was happy with the information we were given and they feel that they have all the information they need. Then any other question that any of the other board members have? Joe are you ok now? Member Nadeau; yes Chairperson DeFruscio; any other questions, Steph? Member Couture; no, I am all set thank you. Chairperson DeFruscio; do we need to open to public comment? At this point in time, I’d like to open it up for public comment. Is there anybody on the meeting that would like to discuss this project? Joe Seman-Grave; nobody raising their hands or comment in the chats. Ed Conlon; I live at 184 Beacon Ave. in Cohoes. I just have one concern. You talked tonight about the pergola and how its anchored into the slab. So one thing I’m unclear about is the integrity of the slab itself. My understand is the slab was poured without code having the ability to check the pre pour condition of how the slab was constructed and I think the code is that it is supposed to be inspected before the concrete is poured for the slab and I don’t understand how that can be overlooked or that cannot be taken into account. So I mean the quality of the slab that you’re anchoring a pergola to, I believe is in question. Now this is nothing directly against Mr. Russell, however, I do believe the backward way things happened here, I think code would want to know, what r-bar was put in, how/was it reinforced, how was it an Alaskan slab, how was it done, that’s my concern, thank you. Chairperson DeFruscio; we appreciate your input and as Mr. Graves stated, code enforcement has been there, has inspected, had integrated the construction people to ensure that the concrete slab was poured properly and the architect has assured us that the pergola is of sound quality and should not have any issues. Joe Seman-Grave; and the architect was also aware based on my conversation and Mr. Russell I have had some conversation with him, that the concrete was poured in concert with the pergola being put in, that stamp I made it clear, that encompasses the patio, as well as the pergola and the fence. Chairperson DeFruscio; other comments, statements, questions? Ok that being said we’re reviewing a final site plan approval for 220 Remsen Street based on the information he provided so we’re looking for a motion to accept or a motion to deny final site plan approval for 220 Remsen Street. Vice Chair Carroll; I’ll make a motion to accept Member Bucher; I’ll 2nd all in favor motion carried unanimously YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Chairperson DeFruscio; based on that, final site plan approval was provided. It will now move to the zoning board for review of the setbacks on the fence and the positioning of the preferred side of the fence. CONSIDERATION OF LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT AT 54 JEFFERSON AVENUE Chairperson DeFruscio: Next on the agenda is a consideration of a lot line adjustment at 54 Jefferson Avenue, is the applicant or representative on the line? Essentially they’re trying to take one lot and break it up into 2 different lots or no just move some lot lines around on the 2 different lots to make a lot a building lot in the rear. Please state your name and to ahead and explain what you’re trying to do. Fred Metzger; I’m the land surveyor for Mr. Desrosier regarding the proposed lot line adjustments located at 54 Jefferson Avenue. Mr. Desrosier has the front lot with an existing unit on it, a single family house which is comprised of 6 older lots that were put together that comprise of 105x220 deep parcel which is tax map Id 15.20 He also acquired a single lot which is 15.10 which is the 25x10 at the north west corner. Basically what you mentioned, what he is looking to do is readjust those lot lines between the 2 parcels between 15.10 and 15.20 with a 20’ strip in the front to access the lot, what would be the lot in the rear, which in essence has it’s frontage on Hawthorne Street even though it is a papers street and not developed, so that’s why we left the 20’ strip, so that way they have access and have their access from Jefferson Avenue. The existing dwelling is services by sewer, water and I think as, not to sure and the rear lot will have the same utilities. It’s located in R-1 residential as I mentioned there is public sewer and water and all the lots will meet the zoning requirements for R-1 zone and that about sums it up. Any questions? Chairperson DeFruscio; lots of questions. Fred lot 1, that makes that less than a ¼ of an acre Mr. Metzger; yes .23 the minimum lot size is 10,000 sq. ft. and we’re just over 10,000. Chairperson DeFruscio; can you explain to us the grading on that back lot? Mr. Metzger; actually this one is pretty good from the front to the rear it probably at most 10’ and grade change over that is probably within 3% and actually a little bit beyond that is pretty flat. It’s when you get to the other side even well beyond Hawthorn Street it’s a slow grad doing down until you get probably another 50-75 feet beyond the paper street, then it drops off to that ravine that’s 150 feet north of our property line—North of our north property line. But just a nice general grade going from front to rear. Chairperson DeFruscio; I’ll open it up to questions from other board members at this point. Member Nadeau; do they expect any drainage issues from lot 1 to lot 2? How will that be rectified? Mr. Metzger; we didn’t really look into that. I mean the existing lots to the right are actually a little bit smaller than both of these and I don’t believe they have any issues over there. But if something does come up I’m sure it will be addressed. We can even at this point, we could come forth if we feel there’s a potential of something that might happened from an unusual storm or something like that, we could put a swale or something to curtail anything that might be generated from the front lot to this, basically go east of the developed area on lot 2 and then continue the drain further north where it enters into the ravine much further north. Basically redirect it around the improvements which will go on lot 2 Member Nadeau; now these line are your line, I’m sure are fairly accurate, does that mean the neighbors fencing is located on this property? Mr. Metzger; yeah it’s a little crooked through there Member Nadeau; ok Mr. Metzger; but its one of those on where they’ve been there probably 50 plus year, maybe longer. Member Couture; would that pose an issue for the 20’ access that’s showing off of Jefferson, would it have to be a little less because of the fence? Mr. Metzger; yes it would be about 18’ which is still more than ample, figured a 10’ driveway, sewer on one side and water on the other would leave ample room to get utilities as well as access back there. Member Couture; ok Member Nadeau; do you know how close the property line is to the next existing house? Mr. Metzger; front or rear? Member Nadeau; the 20’ passage way to the rear lot that, left boarder, that house that’s right along that, what’s the distance? Mr. Metzger; 10’ Member Nadeau; ok Mr. Metzger; 10’ to the property line 12’ to the fence Member Nadeau; ok thank you Chairperson DeFruscio; we understand that that there is a telephone pole, will provide service, it sort of encroaches on that space what are you going to do there, you going to pay to have the pole moved or what? Mr. Metzger; the pole…. Member Nadeau; the one they are referencing is right by the entrance driveway, the guidelines actually, I’m not sure where they land, but they do come pretty close to that 20’ driveway. Mr. Metzger; there guideline, ok I thought that it was the overhead that continued, generally you only put those on corners. I must have missed that but should that become an issue we can address that. I didn’t think they went that far. Joe Seman-Graves; I think there is that, I saw them, don’t know where the land on the 20’ but they might not encroach but they were pretty close. Mr. Metzger; ok Chairperson DeFruscio; any other member of the board have any other questions? Based on that I’d like to open this project up for public comment at this point in time any raising their hand to speak on this? Joe Seman-Graves; I think it’s all of us and Mr. McCarthy on Member Nadeau; typically neighbors wouldn’t be notified of this would they? Joe Seman-Graves; not for these type of actions Member Couture; Fred, did you have any neighbors come up to you when you were doing the survey work? Mr. Metzger; Mr. Retzlaff came out and was just curious as to what was going on and he mentions to Mr. Desrosier that he might be interested in purchasing, which I passed on the information. Chairperson DeFruscio; is the applicant building on this lot Fred or is he selling it? Mr. Metzger; he’s looking to sell. Chairperson DeFruscio; I have some concerns about the grading, other people do as well, because Joe so nicely provided us with a grading map, it does seem to, the grading seems to change quickly. Mr. Metzger; I’m looking at it right now on google map, front, the front road and you can see front to rear and at most I’m saying 10’ drop in elevation, I think that even a lot. Hang on the good part is working from home I can turn on the flanks for everything we shot and the elevations on all of them. And up by the house look like 114 and back along the fence in the rear stockade fence in the rear is 107 so it drops 7’ in elevation over the course of 220’, so I mean that really, its 3% grad from front to rear, it’s really not that substantial Chairperson DeFruscio; ok, Joe Nadeau and Bob you feel that’s adequate? Member Nadeau; my concern would just be the drainage, especially knowing that it’s going to be lot for sale, I guess it would be buyer beware, but that’s not for us to decide. Mr. Metzger; and gain like I said it’s a 3% pitch, it’s not that great so I thing if in the process of doing that you know obviously they would place the house, they’d raise it up a little bit and like most everybody else pitch the grad around the house away but seeing that it slopes from front to rear they would be able to pitch it away then swing to the left and the right and let it continue on to Hawthorne. Member Bucher; 3%, Fred over that, it’s definitely a little more than flat but is not horrible and my concern was always that is does meet emergency vehicle access code with this, even reduce down 18’ at that stockade fence which it makes me feel comfortable with that, it has to meet that, emergency vehicle access. Mr. Metzger; and again as we go forward with the site plan we can also if and when he gets somebody in there, but we can keep the driveway further away from that to leave more access, more room or feel like more room when they go down the driveway. If we keep the driveway, being 18’, we keep it more to the right as you’re going down it you’ll have that extra 3-5’ between the edge of pavement and the actual fence. Member Bucher; right I see what you’re saying and setting the house, how that house get set on that lot that will also help control positive slope away from the structure. Mr. Metzger; sure absolutely. Chairperson DeFruscio; again it’s an R-1 community so we wouldn’t be looking for anything other than a single family house in there. So based on that does anybody else have questions or comments? So based on that I’d be looking for a motion to either approve or deny the application for this lot line adjustment for 54 Jefferson Street. Vice Chair Carroll; I’ll make a motion to approve Member Couture 2nd. Motion carried unanimously YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Chairperson DeFruscio; ok so based on that we’re ok with the lot line adjustment for 54 Jefferson Street. Joe Seman-Graves; Fred when you do submit these to the county if you would be able to just print me out one additional large copy. Mr. Metzger; yes, whatever you guys need. Do you want paper or Mylar? I can give you Mylar’s if you want Joe Seman-Graves; sure Mr. Metzger; sure I’ll email it over to the county tonight and then as soon as I get the slips back on what is owed for the fees I’ll arrange with you to bring them down for stamping and signature then I’ll bring an extra Mylar at the same time. Joe Seman-Graves; thank you RETURNING TO CONSIDERATION OF FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AT 201 COLUMBIA STREET Chairperson DeFruscio; has Mr. Durrant joined us? Joe Seman-Graves; I do not see him Chairperson DeFruscio; so 201 Columbia Street we are looking to do final site plan approval, the applicant has provided us with some diagrams and drawings, on one hand we could review and approve, I know one of them was that we were looking regarding the fire rated venting of the smoker that was to be installed underneath the covered area Joe Seman-Graves; ironically I’m not sure who was on the call when I mentioned this, the cover area is no longer suitable for the smoke, so Mr. Durrant has proposed, if you’re looking at the site plan here, a concrete pad to be fenced in where the new smoker will go. Chairperson DeFruscio; yeah, that’s why I was going over the design, I know Bob wasn’t on the line when we talked about that. Vice Chair Carroll; that’s not going to be covered is it? Member Nadeau; it’s not indicated its covered here Jack or Mark—that becomes the big question, we don’t have anybody here to ask, what, if there’s any additions or things or changes that will be made because Mr. Durrant is not on the line with us. Member Bucher; as you know Mark the last time I just I had significant concerns with that the fire rating of that covered area with the proximity to the neighboring house so, I would like to hear Mr. Durrant’s, just input on that and what’s going to happen….is Joe is the new concrete slab is that where the smoker now is going to be proposed to move, so it’s an outdoor open air thing, is that what I’m understanding? Joe Seman-Grave; there’s a possibility it would be covered, I don’t want to put words in Mr. Durrant’s mouth Member Couture; so we don’t know if it’s going to be enclosed or just a roof? Joe Seman-Graves; I would, once again not trying to tell you guys what to do or not trying to tell Mr. Durrant how to submit things, I’ve tried, but I will say he will need, while this lacks the detail it does have a stamp and that’s what we’re looking for and code will not be approving anything without the fire rating on that new structure. Member Bucher; right Joe Seman-Graves; but I’ll say I’ll leave it up to you guys, I want to say I’m, he’s added this but I have him on the zoning board meeting for parking. So if this is going to be an issue, I would like to address the parking at least in this meeting because I do think he’s addressed that enough to where I can bring it to zoning, now and realistically size spots and there’s enough of them to fit realistically back there so if there is a concern you can just make up part a or part b approval that would be my request if possible. Member Nadeau; so you want us to approve the parking? Joe Seman-Graves; well, I’m not telling you what to approve or not I’m just saying … Member Nadeau; so you want a decision on the parking as is, but the covered, the newly covered patio or cooking area is a separate issue? Joe Seman-Graves; if you guys don’t feel comfortable approving that based on what’s in front of you, I would just ask that you make it a separate issue and not look at it as a whole site plan. Chairperson DeFruscio; we could approve the site plan with a contingency that he provide more detail on the new smoker area before continuing. Member Bucher; that’s what I was going to suggest definitely Member Couture; do you know if the new smoker is already installed and in use? Joe Seman-Graves; no I was there Thursday, he purchased it but it’s not there yet. He hasn’t done any site prep on that concrete pad area. Chairperson DeFruscio; as far as 9 parking spots are concerned, there’s 6 parking spots during the summer because the other 3 parking spots are being used for outdoor dining during the summer months. But did traffic review these parking spaces because they weren’t there before, that was a driveway to get into the parking in the back, there was not parking there. Joe Seman-Graves; the 3 spots up front? Chairperson DeFruscio; yes. Joe Seman-Graves; so they, Paul Johnson does not like them but he didn’t say they can’t have them Chairperson DeFruscio; I have the same issues with the storage just up the road there across from the funeral home Joe Seman-Graves; obviously you don’t want any cars backing out on to Columbia, Paul’s recommendation which would be a traffic commission issue, would be putting a not parking sign at the corner here (shown on slide) going to these spts, that was something they use more frequently. You will see cars parked from Masten to where his first spot is here in front of the Signal 30. Chairperson DeFruscio; yup, so Joe I’m even ok if you tell him not to use these spots in the winter, I just, I’m happy to see there realistically size spots/ Member Bucher; right, comparted to the last plan Chairperson DeFruscio; I guess then we would approve this site plan with 2 contingencies. One being more information on the new smoker location and two being that the 3 parking spots in the front not be utilized. That the plan only be approved with six (6) spots on it and then let the zoning board deal with whether or not they want to give them a variance for only six (6) spots. Comments? Member Nadeau; I don’t disagree with that Joe Seman-Graves; what kind of information do you want on the new smoker area? Vice Chair Carroll’ how big it is, roof? Member Bucher; yes, roof construction and I think obviously it’s the same things as Mr. Russell’s application, if there’s a stamp from an architect, that certifies the safety and that structure meets fire safety then it’s the same situation, I can’t really tell based by that, materials we need more information on the materials, what potentially gives it a UL rating, more fire separation details for me at least. Member Couture; would that incorporate the egress for that new covered smoker area? Member Nadeau; what Steph? Member Couture; based on what Bob said, would that also include where the egress would be for the concrete pad smoker area, do they have to go through the previous smoker area to get out or is there going to be an exit on the back or side? Member Bucher; I think it’s open, sort of open on the side Steph, isn’t it Joe? Again we don’t know, it’s a good question—how much of it obviously at the property line I would assume, it’s certainly enclosed with a fire rated condition at that property line but yes is it open air to the parking lot and the adjacent structure, just a little more information on that and the core area. Joe Seman-Graves; ok Chairperson DeFruscio; we’re looking for a motion for preliminary site plan approval, no final site plan approval with contingencies regarding parking and regarding greater detail on the new smoker area. And our contingency with parking is that the only parking that we approve, we feel as adequate or usable is the six (6) spots in the back, we don’t believe that the 3 spots in the front should be used because of the safety issues on Columbia Street and we need greater detail on where the smoker is going in that pad area. Member Nadeau; I also thing he should be put on notice that his existing canopied area should not become an addition to the addition without further plans-do you understand where I’m going here? Vice Chair Carroll; if he’s going to enclose and store stuff in it? Member Nadeau; its seems he’s been taking kind of his own lead here and I think he should get a heads up on that Chairperson DeFruscio; I mean if we all feel strongly enough we can, Joe won’t like this but we can table tis until next meeting and tell him he has to be here. Vice Chair Carroll; with the details Joe Seman-Graves; it’s not about me liking or not liking, it’s you guys make whatever choice you want. Chairperson DeFruscio; no, I mean is there something that we could communicate to the zoning board that our current discussion is to approve only the six (6) parking spots in the back? Joe Seman-Graves; I haven’t done my memo to them yet, so if you approve six (6) spots in the back that’s all they are going to be looking for—that there’s six (6) spots approved. Chairperson DeFruscio; anybody have comments or opposition to approving the six (6) parking spots in the rear of this site plan and not doing….. Vice Chair Carroll; it’s awfully tight Joe Seman-Graves; he does have enough space by MUTCD standards so Vice Chair Carroll; ok, good enough for me Joes Seman-Graves; yeah it’s tight but he’s got 20’ back there, he only had 18’ last time Vice Chair Carroll; ok Member Couture; is the concrete pad already there, like there’s no chance of that to encroach on that last spot? Vice Chair Carroll; you said it wasn’t there Joe Seman-Grave; as of Thursday nothing was there, I didn’t go today Member Couture; I guess that would be my only stipulation that, I would want to make sure that concrete pad doesn’t go any further out into the parking area. Joe Seman-Graves; no if anything, I don’t want to say that he, so he says this is 16’ I know to this section is 18’ Chairperson DeFruscio; I was going to say he’s not going past the existing building, from the building to the parking spot is 20’, he’s going to maintain that, he just going to have to be aware that he can’t park a truck over in that corner and expect, you know that not a parking spot. Member Bucher, so Joe the bottom on the sidewalk is that going to be paved? Next to the parking space because technically there’s no offloading space for the handicapped parking spot which should be 8’ wide. (Joe pointed to the area on the screen) Yes right there. Vice Chair Carroll; there’s a sidewalk there Member Bucher; there’s a sidewalk there? Vice Chair Carroll; yes it is because I use it every day just about Member Bucher; ok Joe Seman-Graves; he does have plans, he wanted to do it this fall not knowing how the weather is going to go, so it might be spring but he’s going to pave and strip it. Vice Chair Carroll; since the sidewalk is there, your concern is they have room to let somebody out of the handicap area if necessary, without a fence there would be room so they could use the sidewalk, right there. Member Bucher; right it’s there is a code for it but at least if we have an off loading area, it helps Vice Chair Carroll; there’s not a fence there now your saying, next to the handicap spot? I don’t remember that side of the building.. I’m thinking not, but now my memory sort of—you don’t notice when you see it every day. Member Bucher; yea Vice Chair Carroll; my assuredly level isn’t that high Member Nadeau; I might be a little confused, where are you describing the fence Bob? Member Bucher; no I’m just asking Jack since he walks it, right where your cursor is Joe, parallel on Masten Avenue Joe Seman-Graves; no there’s no fence there, the fence is just this rear property line, this is completely open on the street. Member Bucher; I just couldn’t remember that side of the building Chairperson DeFruscio; ok Member Bucher; I would make a motion as Mark described it to approve the six (6) parking with the contingencies we outline, for the rest of it; the site plan obviously the concrete smoker structure and the balance of these little structures, what there intended use is. 2nd by Member Couture motion carried unanimously YES NO Bob Bucher X Joseph Nadeau X Mark DeFruscio X Jack Carroll X Stephanie Couture X Chairperson DeFruscio; so we can just try to keep this moving alone, Joe you’re going to talk to Mr. Durrant about proving the addition information on that structure? Joe Seman-Graves; yes I’m sorry it’s taking this many months but I think there’s progress being made Chairperson DeFruscio; yes, there’s progress being made in couple different directions, we get more information but as we get more information he changes things. Joe Seman-Graves; but he did ask beforehand this time Member Nadeau; just for clarification does he have to come in front of us if he wants to cover that new concrete area? Joe Seman-Graves; if he wants to put a cover over that does he have to come to planning? Chairperson DeFruscio; there’s already a cover over it, we’re asking him for the details on it. Member Nadeau; no, no the new concrete area Joe Seman-Graves; any add on, alteration anything that’s not a 1 or 2 family residential Member Bucher; Joe that plan shows he’s calling it out to be covered, that’s what we’re asking the new concrete area Member Nadeau; the concrete area isn’t even there yet Member Bucher; no what he’s proposing on that site plan is a covered concrete area. Member Nadeau; that’s why I’m asking the question, that’s my concern Member Bucher; that’s what we need more detail on Joe Seman-Graves; he has to ask, I’m happy he put it on there beforehand this time and I think we’ll work with him. To his benefit he’s trying, this isn’t his forte but he has called me to ask several questions. Member Bucher; we want to work with him, we just got, it’s a tight site and for me it is the fire concerns, that the biggest concern just got to get it acceptable. Joe Seman-Graves; I’ve been telling him this whole time now whatever your plan is, think about it put it on paper then don’t add to it until it’s approved Member Nadeau; don’t add to it. Chairperson DeFruscio; so based on that, I’m looking for a motion to close the meeting Motion made by Vice Chair Carroll 2nd by Member Nadeau meeting closed at 7:27PM.