the appeals received a discretionary review hearing. those projects were known to neighbors and were of concern. since the primarily i primary goal is to provide certainty of the appeals. this appeal could undermine this goal. adding process is something it that happens all the time. in this case, the department believes that this would be too high a need await benefit. in conclusion the department values the oversight apparently, this would allow individuals to

provide a written petition and this will provide us with the opportunity to consider their viewpoints. there is substantially a need. projects that change after any manner will require a new hearing. so that concludes our recommendations of the e r o is here if you have any questions otherwise move into public comment >> i have a question for ms. rogers. so i can fully understand that. so when a project is submitted for an exemption the drawings

tend to be pretty dpraefk with the preliminary set of drawings i might submit >> i would like to deter to the folks responsible for that portion. >> okay. >> so i'm just trying to understand the procedural process. if you're submitting let's say for example, your republican vavt a house and for your exemption you might have a preliminary set of drawings. if it's a project that requires the same section it's essentially the same set of drawings that would be needed.

we need as much information as possible. so if it's a historic repeal evaluation if it's large we may need additional information but if it's small we wouldn't need detailed drawings. often it's quite early fairly conceptual >> yes, it needs to be done ann at an early stage. >> so if they decide to change like in the materials. >> presuming there are no historic issues involved with the building materials would

come into play that isn't something that both be part of the project description for exemptions so therefore it wouldn't trigger the need. but if it didn't trigger the need would it be appealable and that's the question at hand is how and whether that decision should be appealable >> it's really in the original exemption vs. what's in the real final project. >> right. if we have to do an exemption certificate so if we need to do a certificate there's about a one paragraph project description saying if they have a house of this size and the

believe will be this height and have this many parking it could affect the environment but if you're talking about a landmark we're going to describe for example, the character of the window opening is so we can say in the exemption 3 this project as it's described we know for sure isn't going to have american people effect on the environment. so if you're talking about a more sensitive description the project might be more detailed and it might trigger a new exemption >> thank you. >> don't go because i have a followup question to that. so if the way this comes out there is not an appeal in the

situation. do you anticipate that the result of that system would be that the initial description it is submitted would be more detailed? >> rather than less detailed. >> we've madeor project descriptions more vigorous. we've put our categorical map on line already and we've added a space for project description. so we're i think being very mindful of project discrepancys >> it seems that if someone who wants a project would want to make it as specific as possible

so the appeal would be foreclosed once there's a determination that he or she who supported the project wouldn't want to leave the project open to a substantial modification because it's stucco rather than tiles. >> i don't believe we would add description to the project that is not pertinent to the project at hand. i canned splat that >> i did have i hope - i really have a question for you for supervisor wiener's office. have you seen or has the supervisors seen the

recommendations at the our staff made? >> he has yes. >> he has and what is his opinion. >> he concurs. >> i understand that supervisor kim also concurred; is that correct? >> no that's not correct. the staff recommendations a written recommendation and we're going to have a hearing before the environmental review officer in which the public will be able to speak. one clarification i have is that wouldn't be considered an appeal related to our sequa procedures. that's just an up to the present time for the public to discuss the decision of the e r o regarding accident project hadn't had substantial

modification. so should mr. there be a reverse all that would be the ability to reconsider the determination >> i think ms. jones. i'm really trying to get a handle on the modification. it's relevant to me there are many projects there's an original project it is bulk out to the biggest size and then it's worked with the department and the neighbors may not agree and the sequa determination has been issued and the neighbors are step up still upset and now i'm making my project smaller i've eliminated parking spaces

so the review is a change but, of course, you're now having less environmental impact. so it seems that what may be kim's take on this this still could be appealed and now - >> in the ordinance as it passed first reading yesterday a substantial modification is defined as an expansion or intense indication. so it didn't wouldn't trigger the need for the new plan

>> because i mean mean this says all changes to project scope and this is for projects that have already been approved when there's somewhere along the line prior to or during project construction there needs to be a change to the project. somebody changed their mind or there's an issue that was uncovered that, you know, wasn't apparent without getting into the laws. it's not intended to create a ping-ponging back and forth during the original approval process. i understand that. and i have a couple of projects if my office we have changed because it's been 4 or 5 years

so my client has said let's make that a little bit smaller and basically, you have agreed that that is not considered a substantial change >> yes. >> but basically, if this passes as to what the department is asking us to endorse that would create an opportunity to question that decision. >> i didn't. >> commissioner. >> i have one quick question. the one thing we need to remember the reason to open up a new appeal has been put forth is because projects now it has to

do with projects because the promises once they get their initially project appraisal that's the clock. so this mechanism for appeal has to do with a project down the line after the sequa he appeal you period is achieved so after the initial appeal is over. so after the project has gone through the process for principle of law then at a later date is the appeal reopened. so the way that the ordinance is drafted now it says very clearly if the project changes in ways that are by the planning code like increases no scale or other things the policy recollects it

would be a modified project that requires a new environmental determination which opposite side up a new appeal period. the question is if the project has changed a little bit the window moves a little bit here or there it comes back and the e r o don't the public then have the right to appeal. i understand that because the example i just gave is ms. jones would say that's not a substantial modification but that would be an opportunity for someone to appeal that particular decision. so that's all i was trying to establish. there's this new avenue because it's something the planning code

regulates. >> oh, i have a - sorry commissioner. >> my question pertains to the timing how much schedule after a written decision by the environmental officer compared to the light it's set finding out out for the hearing in other words, i'm comparing with supervisor kim said to the remedies i'm leaning to the department remedies as the more suitable one but i'm interested in the timing. i'm not sure clear how much time it would take the review officer to make the decision on the written appeal >> we haven't defined a

perimeter for the amount of time. i think two weeks would be probably - the procedures that we would put into place that that response to a written appeal will be provided within that time. what the ordinance says is that a hearing would need to occur within 20 days if a hearing is scheduled within the 20 days and to occur on the same day and a written decision by the e r o would be provided within two weeks of that hearing date and a, of course, the staff time of conducting a hearing and the written portion is different >> so the written avenue would

be a short time period. >> yes. >> thank you. thank you commissioner >> i have a process question. so this is only for exemption projects. >> yes. >> so when the evaluation period is approved with the documents. it gets approved and posted there is a thirty or 60 day sequa appeal from the time >> the sequa appeal period is thirty days from project or under the ordinance that is passed the first reading the sequa appeal period is extends to thirty days after the approval action. and that is to allow the project

to go forward. the way the ordinance is structured when the equipment's is structured it is issued sentiments months before it's approved. so the exemption is posted and an appeal of the indemnification maybe filed tattoo during the exemption it's final list so it maybe filed starting with the exemption is posted and ending thirty days after the approval of the project >> i guess i'm not following you. so the projects posting of on exemption is that - >> that doesn't start the thirty day clock. the approval starts the clock

>> the building permit is the start. the equipment's and the approval are issued open the same day. at any time done edify the counter. it's by - >> i want to clarify that. if you submit the project for the environmental determination it maybe 3 months later before you get the complete package important the building permit and a correct all so when the building permit was issued this starts the clock >> if the project goes through the discretionary progress. no discretionary review is requested then it's the issuance

of the permit that starts the clock. so if their issued on the same day then that would be thirty days >> it would be thirty days from that day. so the evaluation of the project that's submitted for the project in comparison to the project that was evaluated in the environmental evaluation that's basically, what our office would be doc to make sure before issuing the permit that that permit committals with the conditions it's agreed to >> under the action that's in question right now this would be for projects that have already been approved. >> prior to the start of the sequa appeal period. >> uh-huh. >> when the department gets the building permit the package for

the building permit that process evaluates that process of what was approved. >> the building permit approval is needs to consider the question of whether the environmental evaluation covers the same project as the building permit being issued. >> so the i'm trying to understand that would be for a project after the building permit is issued and another permit needs to be orientated because of some change. and the legislation is determining that the project is not - doesn't need any additional permit evaluation 3 -

>> yes. >> there needs to be some ability to appeal that. >> yes. that would be the decision appealed that the project has not think modified. even if there's no new environmental impact from it we still need to issue another cad index >> and a new cad index would be appealable. so the ordinance is designed to pick up - it essentially contamination something that is a matter of board discretion that works okay. when the cad index it appealable through the final action >> d but if the cad ethics is required it's appealable.

i want to make sure this is clear. >> that is not a decision whether or not a new cad index it needed but in the project meets the substantial modification. if it meets that standard it needs a new cad index. it's not an environmental sequa determination >> (multiple voices) >> you determine the project hadn't changed enough a that's what's going to be evaluated. yes. i - given that the

substantial modification is specifically designed you know, i think it's up to mann anyone to guess what the specific issues or changes that would be brought up open appeal >> why would - what would be the harmony of having the appeal made as opposed to doing this - this is a over time without proper environmental review is navigate an issue of concern and moreover this decision a tithe

defined and the discretion has been reviewed first of all, creating a new hearing procedure and secondly devoteing the staff and resources is something that's wandered. it appears to be something of a, you know, too big of a solution for something that's not a big problem. just in terms of of being mindful of allocation of staff time and a resources we don't feel this is the best allocation of those resources. >> i be this commission a aware of how extensive is the run hearing. this new hearing process needs

the staffing and the ordinance would require it to be on tv and that's not without cost. so all the mechanics and other things horrify this modification issue was not the only issue the appeals we've seen the issues were well known and the changed were not at the last minute and you stretched through the sent there probably won't be a sense of a extension >> unless you want to use every avenue possible to have an appeal and bring the item back into the body. >> just to add to that as well i agree with ms. rogers.

i do - i wouldn't meanwhile expect 3 the hearings would be requested i think they will be requested. also as was brought up there's an avenue of appeal for this very issue which is the board of appeals. so this is something that is essentially creating a second issue of really a permit issue. >> thank you commissioner pearlman. >> i want to address the unintended consequences. it seems to me this the the path the thirty day period passes and some place isn't aware of the

project at that time, by it goes after a section 311 then it is dred and let's say dr is upheld and the project is modified. so, now again, i'm not understanding the difference between the substantial modification define that seems to apply that any change under the planning code. so if the project were changed it seems like and your office said no. there's no environmental impact of this changed but that potentially opens the door to file for an appeal. ; is that correct? >> just back to the beginning of our story. the thirty day period for exemption does not begin until

the approval action. so even if the exemption is issued 6 months from before a dr period that window doesn't start until after the dr hearing. but the second part of your question it doesn't provide an opportunity to reopen issues on a project after it's been through it's initially building process, you know, for a project that is substantially the same project. it feels like there's a possible door opened for another bite of appeal process >> i have a question for supervisors kim's office. the e r o just stated there's an avenue for the board of appeals

supervisor kim feels there needs to be another avenue so the public can voice their concern. what's our opinion of that? >> i think it's important this is related to environmental concerned and environmental dergsz that a project is exempt from a sequa determination. i think the avenue for that is a hearing from the environmental review officer. >> this is - it is to - this is a question about whether or not the determination of the environmental reviewer officer is that there has not been a substantial change