Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Thank you. Welcome everyone to the August 12th planning board meeting. It's now 7 pm. Um I'm going to take roll call. David Creel here. David Austin present. Marcus Cassich here. Julia Weisenberg is here. Matthew Fox here. Sean Davyy present. Greg Cranford here. And then we also have present obviously Rick Whan our uh planning board attorney. And we have Rick Wesnovski our engineer. Um Is that okay? Oh, Rick. No, it's Yeah. Yeahick because you're getting to what?

Rick and Rick. Okay. Um All right. First order of business is we're going to um approve uh we have two bills. Uh one is Oh, sorry. Thank you. Um everyone got got the minutes um circulated by Christina. Um did anyone have any discussion or edits or anything that if not then I would recommend a motion to approve these minutes from the July 8th meeting? A second from Matt Fox. All in favor? I.

Motion carried. Um, next our bills from the Rainer Group. Um, this was for the month of June um for the amount of 650 um and looking over the bill um the bulk of it was the secret lead agency letters um which our engineering firm um sent out on our behalf and attendance at one meeting. Again, that was for 650. I'm going to put these two together and then make the motion. Okay. The second one is from the Whan Feler um group. That's our town attorney. And when we looked at that bill um I just always like to have a little explanation what it is. So the bulk of that was um inerson uh meetings here at our planning board in June. Um and there was a little bit of some residual work on the burrow hall deeds. Um, and so that was that was the bulk of that and the rest were um pretty uh ancillary things that were under $100. Um, so that total bill was $1,394. Um, so we need a motion again to approve the Rainer Group for 650 and the Whan Feler uh bill for 1394.

Motion to approve Sean and a second. David Creel or David Austin could battle it out. David, all in favor? I

I Okay, that motion carried. Um, okay. Now, we have um according to this, we have four things to act on, but uh it's actually going to be uh two and we we'll explain why. So, the first thing is the Bloom extension request. Um you'll recall that the Blooms um are now trying to work on having their water hookup from Suffach County Water Authority uh which would be this part of the West Neck public water system uh rather than trying to go the avenue of getting a new private well which would hold them up even more. So that is not totally finalized yet um but we're very close. Um so uh I asked uh Rick Whan to prepare um an extension for them. Um, they have had other extensions. Uh, one in 2022, two in 23. This would be the third in 24, sorry, in 25, and they had one in 24. Um, but I think we're we're actually getting quite close to seeing this off the agenda. Um, so basically, we're just going to give them an extension. Um, and can I get a motion to ex uh approve the Bloom extension?

I'll make a motion to Bloom extension. Okay, Marcus, thank you. in a second. I'll second it. Matthew Fox, a second. All in favor on that. I

Okay, that motion carried that. All right. Um I'm just going to jump down everyone to the to the third um resolution. It's actually uh not a resolution itself, but I just want to clarify that we were declared lead agency. And just as a followup, I'm sure everyone saw, but just so the public knows, we received um all the necessary responses from Suffach County Health Department, DC, and Suffach County Planning Authority who all said yes, they have no trouble with our becoming lead agency. Um so those are all documented and I you saw them. They were um if if you didn't see them, they're in the record. Um, now going back to the second one, the Fowler Trust major subdivision extension request. We did receive a uh request from uh Carl. He's online right now on Zoom and our attorney uh Rick is going to explain based on your analysis interpretation that we may not actually need to even though they asked for an extension it may not be necessary. So Rick could you explain Carl so Carl hasn't heard this but okay so I was preparing the resolution. I'm getting down to the end of the resolution and I start what do we do an extension for? You've read the sketch plan approval in February, right?

The condition of refinement under town code of sketch plan approval is that within 6 months of sketch plan approval, the applicant is required to submit it could be a minor subdivision. It would be a minor subdivision approval. In this case, it's a major subdivision. So, the next step or the first major step in a major subdivision is a preliminary application. But I check with Rick, they have submitted a preliminary subdivision application and did so within 6 months. So the bottom line is they met the requirements of the sketch plan approval. No extension of time is required. Right. We now have a pending preliminary subdivision application. What's the time frame on that? Is there also a time frame that they have to do that?

Okay. So they don't have approval yet for preliminary. So preliminary approval, there's no time frame, right? But I do want you to be aware. as I mentioned just when you you know when you make your sacred declaration with subdivisions not line modifications but with subdivisions it could be a minor subdivision not sketch plan but a minor subdivision or a preliminary or final subdivision those are things recognized in New York town law you have to always be aware with with subdivisions that from the submission of the applica from the from the time that the application is deemed complete if it's a preliminary or it's a minor and you're holding the hearing on the binder, you have 62 days in which to hold the public hearing. Not schedule it, hold the public hearing. And because you only meet once a month, you have to be very careful in that. And the reason you have to be careful on it is that in the in the New York town law for subdivisions, if you failed to meet one of the two dead two deadlines basically are you have 62 days from the time that an application is deemed complete to to hold the public hearing. Once you've held a public hearing, you have 62 days in which to render a decision. If you don't do either of those things, the applicant is entitled to default approval. We don't want to be giving, right?

So, it's very important to be a aware of that. And in fact, I'll just mention now you're going to turn to it on Fowler if you're making your secret declaration tonight that you're not the application won't be deemed complete until there's a secret declaration. But I believe we're probably complete in terms of information on that one as far as I know. So once you make your secret declaration, then the time clock is running. We don't have a resolution to schedule a hearing tonight. We'll do one. If you make your secret declaration and you make your secret declaration, we'll we'll do a scheduled public hearing resolution at the next meeting and we have to hold the hearing at the following meeting after that. It's supposed to be within 62 days after tonight. So, always be aware in some divisions that once you get into completeness territory, there's a state time clock that if you fail to meet it is entitles the operative to a default,

but having it holding it at our October meeting would still be sufficient. I didn't I didn't check the actual calendar days to make sure you're Rick, I would I would wave to allow them to do that. Right. And and if you're close, you can ask Carl if you'll wave that. Okay. All right. But as it stands right now, then that's what we should aim for having for having having it scheduled for September and it takes place in October. Correct. Okay. So, I just wanted to check because it was on uh on the agenda as an official extension, but based on the discussion now, is everyone uh okay with that? we're not really necessarily expecting. That makes sense.

Do we have a manner of keeping track of those kinds of dates besides relying on your good eye or Christina's good eye or like is there anything? It's clear. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. For you, you don't have that many subdivisions probably, right? That's the saving grace and you have a lot.

All right. But but thanks for catching that Rick. We do appreciate that. Okay. Um so the fourth one down then is basically as Rick just explained uh the next step in that uh in that step is to uh go ahead with our SRA um declaration. So um everyone that all went out to you and um so I'm going to I'm going to open it up. And I know a few of you wrote to me and asked that you know you had some questions for Rick Wisnovski who's here. So you have anything you want to ask him.

I had a lot of questions open in. I read through this pretty carefully and read through your kind of narrative. Um, and I'm not totally familiar with the criteria for these things, but a lot of the questions are very subjective. Um, so let me just read the ones I made comments on and uh you can talk about why you may have decided one way or another. uh and the impact on land uh g is the proposed action may involve the excavation removal of more than thousand tons of material and you said well no based and I wasn't sure I mean if this goes to a bigger question is are we really ruling on the situation where all five lots are developed

that's so so I mean the worst case is somebody by each of these five lots lots as a 6,000 ft house in the large accessory building unless they change the rule. All right, so we have 30,000 ft of construction. I won't go into what the footprint is or how deep the basement and how many dump trucks and tons of fill it is, but I can't say it's definitely not 1,000 tons. It has more to do with um like mining and dredging if you look at the BBC EAF uh workbook.

Well, that's what they didn't do. So that's why as you go and so I went through that and it has what uh actions are considered no or small impacts and then what would be considered uh moderate or large impact. So I mean it simply says a thousand tons of material. doesn't say used for a certain thing plus a swimming pool which is you know another five swimming pools is another you know Lord knows I mean a dump truck is what 70 cubic yards or something I don't remember exactly 40 yards so you know you get 50 75 dump trucks you're at 1,000 tons that's not 1,000 tons though it's the thousand cubic yards

right tons is

I went and did the math and how many dump trucks it was and and living across from a subdivision and counting dump trucks on days and they had nothing better to do. You could have 20 or 30 dump trucks in a day, you know, for going on for a week. So, it it's possible whether that has a great impact on the land. I have no idea. So, all right, that's one thing. The next was proposed action may involve construction that continues for more than one year or in multiple phases. Absolutely. I mean, the the pace of construction on Shelter Island, nobody builds a house in under two or two and a half years. And if they do them sequentially, we're talking about over 10 years of continual construction. And again, living across the street from now 6 years of continual construction. It's not pretty. Um, and I think that has an impact and it's it's it and of course we have no ability to say the sequence or timing or phasing of construction, but it's a concern. You know, if I lived on Northern Parkway and knew I was looking at 10 years of construction at, you know, 100 trips a day, you know, it's meaningful on a nice quiet street. Uh, again, I don't know how we weigh these things, but I'm just the point is there's some subjectivity to this. say something about the form PAF form. First of all, the state environmental assessment form part two is not well written. All right. The test that you're really supposed to be looking at for secret is whether or not there is a potentially large a significant negative impact which would be a large impact. If you have a potential for a significant adverse impact, what do you have to do? Positive declaration required dis. The form is set up. It says there's two categories here. No or small impact maker. Okay, that's fine. Moderate to large impact maker. That shouldn't be together. Moderate will not trigger a

BIS. A large impact will. So, it's kind of the form isn't well set up. But the real question is, you know, all these things you talk about, well, it impacts. Is it a significant large, you know, significant adverse impact? And if it is or potentially significant adverse impact then you would require a dis positive decoration. So there should be a score a scorec card and if you reach 50 points or whatever then it triggers it but there there's no way to kind of do a unit of score can I offer just some uh like advice here. What what I this might help you. I when I started going through it what I did was

I looked up what constitutes a positive declaration just so I can have the two in my mind. And of course, that's not on the sheets that we got, but I just did research. So, for example, this may help. Okay. Uh applications that are deemed positive declaration. Okay. Things like where the subdivision has extensive wetland impacts. I'm just going to go through all of them. Um increased flooding, loss of endangered habitat, um infrastructure expansion. That usually doesn't happen in residential cases, but could be in in more uh you know, urban cases. from sewer, water and transportation effects, more imperous surfaces, possible groundwater contamination, critical habitat loss, loss of biodiversity, death of protected species, federally mapped 100red-year flood plane, okay, which is actually on that map, okay? And then um traffic patterns impacted and community character. Um so I had those things in front of me as as I read through just to have it clear in my own mind. So maybe like that would help you having those uh those criteria. And then the second thing in talking to Rick is that all the concerns that we have, some of these things that we're talking about cuz I'm I'm on your page. I was thinking impervious like every I just imagine every lot um being expanded to its maximal potential, tennis courts, pools, everything. Okay. Um and what that would do to the uh groundwater and uh irrigation on all those well manicured lawns, right? The thing is, our concerns can still be somehow put in as possible um restrictions to the subdivision when it happens. It doesn't mean that that if we vote on a negative declaration that all those things just get tossed out or that, you know, it it doesn't it doesn't preclude us from still imposing things on it. So, just keep that in mind when you're when you're going through it.

Yeah. If I'm not correct, tell me, you know. Okay. Okay. I have a couple more questions really if I can. Um, increased erosion, physical disturbance. I mean, you you can't do that much much excavation and not have physical disturbance. Uh, vegetation removal, which clearly they I mean, again, the worst case, what if people want 3 acre lawns minus our little 50-ft buffer? You know, they could do that until you get to the wetland setback. So there could be tremendous amount of clearing if people wanted to do it. Um uh let's see uh impacts on surface water you know will it cause soil erosion other creative storm water discard it really depends on the percentage of lot clearing and as far as I can tell shelter island code doesn't really limit lot clearing except in the

in the wetlands buffer Nope. And right now, and it's unclear in the 50ft buffer we were asking for, and they showed what their restrictions are. We'll get put in what restrictions. Uh, we're going to be putting those in or assume we're going to be putting Yeah. Soon you're going to be put allow wouldn't allow any clearing. That was actually discussed routine maintenance. Yeah. And that that was actually discussed, David, at the not this past meeting, but the meeting before offered that.

I I vaguely remember that. Um, let's see. Impact on plants and animals. Again, we can't say if it's going to affect habitat because we don't know how much clearing is proposed unless we actually set some sort of scientific restriction on how much clearing, you know, we we can permit to sustain habitat. But I I don't know what that dimension is. And I know it's quantified. Yeah. You know, if you clear more than a certain, you know, then the birds go away.

And can are we allowed to put percentage of lot clearance as a condition? I think no. But Rick, I mean, the only thing we can do is on that impose reasonable conditions on the subs. problem with the clearing I think would be you probably have a hard time coming up with it coming up with a number and justifying the number and a shelf ground you know as J indicated shelf ground does not have clearing restrictions so theoretically you clear the whole purchase the whole property right now except as you said within land jurisdiction uh I mean somebody

I think it'd be subject to kind of a reasonableness test of they want to do something and we're saying hey You can do that, but in order to kind of even out the field, we would require this, but we don't know of them doing anything in that regard. But I think I think the most control we have is on that conservation e that's where we on the conservation easement. That's where we have the most wetlands. Couple things.

Bear in mind the applicant is reducing density by two lots. So you're getting two less houses that would be titled. Um the other thing too is you know I would suggest that you do something about the 100 foot below setback and that you prohibit construction within that area and that would be if you agree to do that and you decide to do that that would be a condition these will be conditions of your final approval.

You know if you don't oppose them now it's your preliminary but that's the kind of thing that you can impose. The reason I'm asking the question sort of triggered by David's comment is I have continued to be concerned about something that was brought up at um I don't know if it was the previous meeting when when when we discussed this previously um and it involved the 25 foot setback um for structures which really the 25 with 50 variable 50 to 55 front yard setback. We talked.

Yeah. It it's just one of the things we've talked about is the is maintaining the u treeine character of the road and I just remain concerned that the 25 ft setback unless I don't know I I just am not convinced that that is sufficient uh considering the size of the properties and um and maintaining that character of Nor as a free run parkway. I just I bring that up because you know it's common. I think there's a 50ft buffer before that setback. I'm sorry, Carl. I I missed the beginning of your sentence.

Sorry. Yeah, I'm sorry. Carl Benasa, 860 MTO Highway, Watermill, York. There's 50 foot wed um wedded wooded buffer before that setback. Yes, I'm I'm aware. Um I'm I'm just questioning the the aggregate number if if the 50 plus the 25 um well just to be clear about that you can clear within the 25 foot that is that is precisely why I'm asking it lawn it just can't be a structure right we

we would agree to extending the wood uh wooded portion or the vegetative portion by 10 ft feet so that uh the setback would only be so that the buffer would be essentially 60 ft and the setback would only be 15. We just would want um we would just want and and I've talked to the clients about this the ability during construction to disturb it and then if that we would try to avoid doing that but if we did to reveate after construction that portion

I I think the reality is these these lots are roughly 450 ft from the bluff to the road. Anyone building a waterfront house is going to push it as close as they possibly can to the water. And that's not true and that's not the plan here. So it's not fair to make that assumption. Well, they haven't designed all the houses yet, have they? They have not. No. Okay. So, but again, it's really not fair to make that assumption.

Only based only based on on observation and I don't know the clients and and they may uh have other ideas. I mean that said, having seen houses firsthand in Montalk and in East Hampton, Northwest Woods that were built as close as they could to the bluffs and then they realized they were losing 5 to 10 ft per year. Uh and and I'm sure you've seen places where people are picking up their houses and moving them because of erosion. Uh I mean, I did look at that bluff line as far as it could go back in aerial views and I didn't see any change. Uh, so that may be a fairly stable area. Um, but so given what you're saying that they don't want to build close to the bluff, would you would you entertain a greater than 100 foot setback from the bluff?

No, I don't I we're we're going to follow what the code says, but I don't think it's fair to say that their envelope should be limited because you're presuming that they'll build close to the water. Um, I think, you know, in line with what the code requires, uh, and actually in add in excess of what the code requires, we're willing to preserve that wooded corridor. I think there's value to it, uh, you know, to my clients in addition to to the board. And when we were last here, we discussed sort of expanding that, uh, vegetated area into the setback. Uh, and we were willing to do that. We're talking about on the roadside now, not the blocks. On the block, I'm talking about the roadside.

And the roadside I'm talking about Parkway vegetated open space side of the property. So, this morphed into another discussion with my point, but yeah, I brought it up because of David's point. I'm talking about the area that's the open space along front the road side of the property. Curl. Yeah, that's that's what I'm talking about. You and I are talking about the same thing. Yes.

But what my question was, and maybe I'm not being very articulate, I I just am concerned that the aggregate of the 55 and the 25 doesn't necessarily protect that treelined corridor sufficiently. I I'm just raising the question. Everyone else might think that it's fine. I I agree. I brought it up at the what the last time we talked about it. 50 ft is is small. I I I continue to be concerned about it. I just,

you know, I just I don't think it is sufficient. And the other thing that I think is the 25 ft setback um if that is lawn theoretically could be lawn. Um, I think that further concerns me in terms of maintaining that the character that's there. Now, maybe the character that's there doesn't need to remain. I I'm bringing up the issue as if it did need to remain. If you look at the the eastern end of Norand where it runs into Boot Lair's Alley, it's all been denuted of trees and has a different quality. Um but I think it bears the question if the natural topography of the property is desirable. It is the 80 ft in aggregate is that sufficient? If the 25 is sufficient then maybe it should also be um maybe there should be a vegetation uh requirement as well. That's all I'm saying. I I'm just concern

what I was saying is we're willing to entertain that uh expanding the buffer into the setback so that there's less of a setback and more of a buffer with my clients about that. U Carl, um just to make sure I heard you correctly. So you're saying that uh aside from the 50oot conservation easement, they'd also be willing to come in 10 ft more into that 25 is what you said. Yeah, exactly. So the thought we were already beyond that. Yeah. I thought that in the last conversation we said the 25 would stay wooded. That's what I thought. And that so that we were on we were debating and that we were debating. No, that's not

what that 25 did it didn't need to become part of the conservation easement. We could just put some clause in there. I thought in the last conversation you were amendable to that and and it it wasn't just 10 feet of that. It was we have no problem with expanding that buffer of treeine area essentially to 80 clean not touching the trees. That's I thought that was where we left. would remain the setback but it would just be vegetated the full the full 25 ft not not just half of it as your

well no that's I operate I don't there there may have been a miscommunication if that's the board's position can I just can I add to that so that was part of our discussion but I have I have a good memory and they actually didn't they didn't agree they didn't agree we discussed it and we all we all agree I know fair enough I mean I thought he was the and he kind of nodded or gave his whatever. So understood. Fair enough. Like fair enough. I think I'm just raising something concern if anyone else has the concern.

It seemed it seemed that the majority of our board was trying to lean that way, but but we didn't talk about the fact that it could be grass. I mean that it just could be lawn and not necessarily. know I I think that was where my comfort was and that 80 ft is clean wooded area not grass not disturbed and replanted and I agree with you know whatever to me that's clean that's good um you know I'm on board I think if we start talking about 10 ft of it replanting 15 I think you're talking a very about a very short area and and it would make me a lot more uncomfortable I I think it keeping it shorter. Keeping it shorter. Yeah. Julia, the other

And I apologize if we assumed that we thought you were on board with that. And fair enough, you know, I Yeah, we were never we were never we had never offered that, but that's fair.

Greg. Yes. The other reason I bring it up is as Sean comments the topography is quite uh important as part of the contributing u aspect of the character along that that portion of no string. So I I just I feel that the 80 ft is extremely important. Um and it can remain as the structure setback line as it's currently noted. But I I would feel more comfortable if it remained a vegetated u setback and and not topographically altered significantly and not long. I just don't think 50 feet is sufficient.

Rick, can I ask you since since they've satisfied the park requirements slashconservation portion of it by having that 50 ft in front, is there any is there any legal authority for us to extend that? Yes. In in the on the basis of a subdivision, you have the power to I'm not weighing in on the pros and cons, but a general principle, you can impose conditions on a subdivision that the applicant does not agree to. you have inherent power to impose reasonable restrictions. Just want to double check. I I think the issue there has to be a nexus to the relief.

I think you know I think Carl what I'm hearing some of the board members say is that their nexus is community character maintain the scenic appearance of Nstream Parkway. That would be the that would be the basis for the you know for the condition and that and that and that would be out of the current comprehensive plan which does name.

You know the issue with this site is is that the street frontage is about 700 and some odd feet long. So if you take the acre and a half roughly of set aside and stretch it out over this length, it becomes a very skinny piece. Which is why the formula for parkland I think was conceived of as a continuous sort of square piece roughly. I mean if this lot was you know a mile long then you would have a 10-ft setback. You know,

that's where I I thought that kind of and and I again, Carl, pardon us if we were talking among ourselves and because I think I think we'll eventually my guess is that we'll all get to a comfortable place. Uh that I thought that that was part of our what our conversation and unfortunately it might have been among ourselves is that you know stretching it thin in the parkland is somewhat of an accommodation in the way we're thinking about it. If they could give us a thicker buffer, you know, we could get comfortable. So I you know I guess Carl and and maybe it's not that you can give an answer now because appropriately so that you have hey push back you know I don't we don't necessarily want to give something away but can they go back and look at what they think they want to do with the property and knowing the importance that the town is placing on the the forestry the vegetation what what can they feel that they can reasonably ly offered to kind of help create that environment and and protect that scenic view.

Sure. So, I had had that conversation with them and uh they were open to expanding as I mentioned. I don't again, forgive me. I there was a miscommunication. I didn't I didn't understand that you wanted the whole buffer always vegetated. uh which could pose difficulty for their development plans provided but you know we could talk about removal for development then reveation uh that was something they were certainly open to but it wasn't like I was met with an absolute no so I will carry your thoughts to them and uh I know that the the proposal they had authorized me to make is being updated or the plans being updated in line with that. So, I will speak to them as as soon as I can to see if there's anything more that they'd be comfortable offering.

Well, it's only 15 ft more that you have a tacit agreement on already.

Fair enough. If you need to have that conversation and I' I'd be surprised, again, I don't know where I don't know how they're laying out their property. I'd be surprised that they feel, well, gee, we we would reveitate it, but we really need it to maneuver to do what we want to do. I'd be surprised cuz it's really not that thick in compared to how deep the property is. But if if you would take a look at it and then let's just have another conversation. I think we'll get there. I think you guys are are trying to do the right thing generally and in the right place. We just, you know, we're looking for a little more comfort. And then just just to bring everybody back again, we we do have to work on either the positive or the negative, assuming a negative decoration. That's actually what we're

we're supposed to be talking about right now. I just don't want us to go around in circles. I think this is important that you, you know, we just ask them again what they're willing to do. And just again for the record, they did offer another 10. I think we have to, you know, be fair to the applicant to and that they're coming back in September and and scheduled public hearing. So yeah, I just I don't have any problem with the negative declaration. I I appreciate the nuances of you know, as he's raising when you look at something that is so preserved and gee, it seems like a lot of disruption, but I think what what the boundaries of what that really are is that it's a negative declaration.

Yeah. And if we get to this point, we can reach your issue and all of our frontage. Um, anyone else like Marcus or any anybody David on the EFs 2 and three? To be clear, we should call it undured, not vegetative because that could be tearing it down what you're asking. Exactly. Yes. I would also say I would only ask one thing, Sean, which is to not say things to anybody with with we cuz we haven't voted on everything. Fair enough. Speak in I terms. Thank you fair enough. appreciate that. Thank you.

I did have a couple again to the subjectivity on it and and in some of the narrative were essentially applauding their decision to do five lots. And I feel like it's not necessarily our place to pat them on the back for doing it because five 6,000 ft houses could be more disturbing than 7 2,000 ft houses. I mean, you can do the math. So, it the number five versus seven is no guarantee that it's going to have more or less of a positive or negative impact. I mean, you could end up with 30 bathrooms on the site, you know, and and that's what's critical. So, that's why it's really hard to do these things without knowing what's being proposed in terms of the scale of the houses and the scale of the lot development. You can just hope based on

at the time that they go to the health department for approval, that's how they're going to do their calculation is they're going to do it on bedroom and and bathrooms. So, if it house does is if a house at some point is going to have 30 bathrooms, you know, it'll come out later. But when they do their calculations, they'll they'll base it on lots and potentially built there, but it won't be it won't include things like pools and tennis courts and whatever. It'll just be dwellings and bedroom potentials. Um, okay.

But I I feel like the concerns that um some of us may have, you know, could be about the frontage on the water and set back by the by Norst Avenue. And those are things that I think can come out as we get closer to either putting stipulations on the subdivision, not necessarily what's going into the secret negative declaration. Um, that's fair. So, do we do we feel like we're at a point where we can just go ahead and uh take a take a vote on negative declaration? Comfortable with that? So, in this case, it would be you're answering in the affirmative, right? Because you're going for a negative declaration. Right.

Right. A negative declaration, no environmental effect. No environmental impact. So I I would like to make a motion then that uh this um Fowler Trust major subdivision um should be deemed a negative declaration. Second. Second on David Austin. So all in favor of having it as such. I Okay, that motion carried 70. Just need to record that in your minutes that you motion second vote. By the way, the next meeting is 62 or 63 days away. The second meeting. Second meeting. Yes. Carl, did you hear that?

Carl, sorry, I was writing the notes and I missed something. The second meeting is 63 days away, which I think means you have to actively wave. So that day to uh hold the public hearing. We'll wave for that 63 days. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Yeah, I got to think. Thanks for if you give us the 10 ft then we'll wave. Sorry, you're cutting you're cutting out. Okay. All right. Um I think Thank you very much. Yeah. Thanks. Thank you.

You um so we're going to um close the business meeting. Um can I get a motion to close? We're actually going to actually now move actually. Uh chair, I'm sorry. I just there is a record here. I should say that was a joke. We are waving the 63 days. Okay. We assume. All right. Uh I need a motion to uh I'll make a motion to end the meeting. Okay. Marcus made the motion. Second to second. All in favor? I Okay. So, we're now going to move into our actual work session. Um Okay. So, we had the uh Ratican lot line adjustment which is just waiting on the filing, right? That's where we because you you look

I'm losing track of of them. Uh I know that there's nothing I'm waiting to do. There's nothing on Europe, but I think we're just waiting for for those filings and technically they have till September 8th. Um Burrow Hall, that's what you had worked on for us a little bit, right? Not the one that were recorded. That was that wasn't Burl Hall, right? It was bar they had to correct. Yeah.

I just reviewed one where they sent us back the recorded deeds. Was it the corrected version or the hall? That was Bur Hall. That's what you look and they recorded the ones after I approved because I had seen the draft and I approved that and they recorded it. So that would mean they are final. That's that's they've recorded the deeds at the end of the online page.

Yeah, I uh I I had asked Jessica about that, but she's on the leave. So, I I'll follow up tomorrow. Okay. Uh then, uh Defoul and uh Sharer, we're still waiting on updated survey. They're they're still within their deadline. Um subdivision applications, our next category, we actually just did the resolution for the Bloom extension, so everyone's clear on that. Um, WestNet Creek Cottages. We We're just still waiting on final application. I haven't Jessica and I haven't heard anything further yet. Um, Fowler, we just did. Okay. And we we know what we're going for next month. Um, Crescent Beach, I received correspondence, right, Christina, on that. They they asked for that was today, I think, and they or Yeah. And they asked, uh, that

we not discuss it because they're they need more time. Yeah. Um, which is fine. Uh and then the row minor subdivision we we don't have anything yet passed. We haven't gotten a uh sketch plan. Uh they're still working on some aspects of that too. Um I think it had to do with the width of the road with that. Uh white performance is under the interim attorney um review. Yes, it's on the list. Okay. So it may end up over there.

Actually that may end up with you and then hopefully you can help us get that off. Okay. All right. Um, okay. Now, next order of business is site plan review. So, a couple things I wanted to say. Um, Christina was kind enough to kind of, uh, go through and give us a history, just a rough history of site plan review. For those board members who are a little bit newer and didn't know the history, um, I know Marcus was on the board for quite, you know, quite some time, so he'll he'll be able to help us with things that or any information that we not aware of. And then um we had Rick who um looked over the draft. I also assigned uh David Austin um as our planning board member who was part of that subcommittee. Um and the subcommittee was um Gordon Gooding who's here tonight, our town board member, Meg Larson, then of course David Austin, um Reed Karen and um Steven um Steven Lquar, right? Yeah. For Yeah. Levthal, sorry. Levventhal. Um the previous previous town attorney I guess as of today's meeting or Okay. Yeah. Um so that that was the composition of the subcommittee. Um and we we often do that if like on the wetlands um committee. I was a part of that since I was already on that. It was appropriate to ask David. I thought he'd be a great candidate for that. So, you know, David, if he needed to can sort of if you have any questions, he can sort of like tell us how the uh how the committee came to some of those decisions. Hopefully, he took a look at Rick's uh notes on it. And let me just get mine out. Um I think so, um I'll go first because when I looked over Rick's things, there were two things that kind of jumped out in his that were the same as mine of what what I had noted. So um the first thing I tried to do going through it was just um imagine myself as an applicant

right just to I always look at language how user friendly the legislation is written um and one of the first things that I I felt since I am on other committees like WQI and so forth I' I've gone through this process of trying to fix applications or whatever um one thing I noticed was that um the layout I guess I felt when I read it I was looking for more of you know this is the intention of this law and these are these are the goals and when an applicant comes forward here here are the things that you need to submit here is what the board is going to look for in looking over your uh application and I do I do like and I and I approve of they're doing an administrative site review sort of that avenue and a and a uh full review in fact we're we're doing that in the wetlands committee as well um because sometimes applications do come in where they just don't need the full-blown, you know, process. I think it's good to have two different routes there. But I but again, as a as an applicant looking at this, I kind of wanted to see maybe like a flowchart um and a and a very clear way of having those those two types of applications and what I the applicant needed to do. Uh third thing was having it this timeline with fees. like I would want to know, okay, if I hit this point and I paid X amount and now it's it's stalled or delayed or whatever, what are the additional fees that I have to pay? So, I guess I wanted to see a timeline with with applicable uh fees. Um, and then the other thing I thought of which I think you noted also, I wasn't I wasn't really sure. I mean, I've I've partaked I I have been part of the uh conferences like the preliminary conferences and I guess when I when I first started to uh attend planning board meetings, I actually saw I think it was the Bloom uh applicants that came in one time just to talk very casually, you know, nothing

formal with the planning board just to kind of see what they might do and they haven't they hadn't even at that point turned in in any application. So I think it's it's always been like the practice that somebody can come into the planning board and just say hey I'm thinking about this and you know could you guys guide us. It's also totally appropriate and it's happened before where a applicant has come to the chair and you know not at a meeting and just said listen I I know that you're the chair of the planning board. Can you tell us you know what what is the expectation in you know doing X and you can sort of guide them prior to their even submitting an application. So, I wasn't exactly clear why the preliminary conference has to be in the legislation. Like, to me, that's just a practice that could occur, but it's not like a formal thing. I feel like when the person fills out the application and turns it in, then it goes to the full board and then it actually comes in for um analysis. So, those were just those the only things that I saw when I went when I when I went through it that kind of jumped out at me as um you know things I would if I if I were the author I'd want to fix but um though anyone else no I had a lot of I did the somewhat painful exercise of reading the existing

Yeah that's pain

code and this side by side Um, and while I understand the the original intent of this is to bring it to the planning board, so I wasn't sure why so many changes were also made in the general narrative. And some of them were good and some of them I thought were a little confusing. Um, and the whole procedure, which currently is to go to the building inspector and and have it funneled to the planning board, seems to have been eliminated. And now the applicant goes right to the planning board, but without any clear idea of what they're are they coming for an administrative or a full review. I mean, the tools to make that decision aren't really here. And it it seems by eliminating Reed or whoever was managing that uh it it puts more work on our shoulders and it makes the process a little more confusing particularly if it's a situation where there's a concurrent application to it to the GBA or wherever. It's now our job to say no you have to go here you have to go here. Um, and also we've now taken the job of if there's another review like a state review involved, we're volunteering to now shunt it over to the state or the county or whoever is reviewing. I'm not sure why we're taking that on. Shouldn't it be the applicant's responsibility through e-web, maybe it's a flowchart to understand or through their professional who else they have to apply to? I don't know why that should be our job.

Yeah, that's why I said it it'd be good to have like a flowchart, which I'm assuming you guys are going to do, right? Yeah. Normally flowcharts are not part of the legislation, right? So we're the whole idea is obviously if the legislation there then we would do a full flowchart and with a checklist and all that kind of such but there are a lot of instructions now which are part of the legislation. So instructions yes but not a flowchart. I mean I think what we're thinking is like an actual like diagram of if this then there then which is which we did like for the wetlands but that's actually not part of the legislation. Right.

Right. And I think that's the big difference here is is is that that's a uh how would I put it? I put it that that is uh to help you to make sure you follow the legislation, but it's not the legislation. So I think we thought a lot about that. We actually worked on like trying to think through the flowcharts and how is this all going to go um and try to simplify things and try to keep things uh so that things are reasonable.

Yeah. I think the problem is it puts a lot of the decisions which are essentially subjective decisions on what kind of application it is and they're undefined as you point out where are the definitions and where's the purpose you know that's been kind of eliminated so it makes it a hard document to use but I mean I think as we edit it you know we can we can fill it in one overarching question I have is in the purpose statement in the original 109 It says it's you know they don't want to impose significant regulatory burden on businesses which we when you read this it's a takes a while to figure out this doesn't pertain to residential properties. Oh no it says very clearly.

Well it does it does say it eventually. This says it in the first paragraph. My question is why why don't we do a site plan review of residential development if it's a single property the same way we did would a business development that's not what site plans for yeah that's not that's like state legislative I don't know every residential property I do I do a site plan so I'm not a site plan from as far as the the town county or anybody else is concerned you have you have a thing called a site plan but it's not a site And the I'm not sure about that. But I mean the point of this

that that actually is the case what what Dave's saying that's the case here. That's what it is. That this our site plan review only really pertain to commercial properties commercial. That's why we have that that's why we need this and need it edited and in place and it's also coming back to us because it used to be with us and then it was taken away as you saw from the history. But in most towns, the planning board is in charge of site plan review for commercial

and it does fall on our shoulders to, you know, screen it and send the person back if if it's administrative because we have now a board of seven very capable individuals and it should come back to us. So that's why we're but that's why we have to edit it now so that we can put into play. Um but it's usually for commercial although okay but on that note Rick did have a few good comments about that. What if like could this apply for maybe like a agricultural like use maybe commercial but clearing sort of thing right you had some you had first of all first thing is it whether you're subject to site plan review should not be subjective that should not be subjective that should be clearcut because it's subject to site plan review not

right and us normally the intent of site plan review is to review commercial or other non-residential uses like something let's have a library or something like that you know it's not a res it's not a commercial use but it's a non-residential use and I would imagine those are the things you want to cover but I found that you know the explanation of what is subjected to be confusing it's like it's everything except the following I would not write it that way that's all I can say I would I would be more this the following is subject to site interview not everything in the world except these things which is cut out of the word.

I agree and and I think some of these paragraphs like you say for drainage for instance number eight uh it says uh that proposal will afford an adequate solution to ended any drainage problems. I mean I think I know what you mean. That means don't make any puddles on your neighbor. But I I think we need to define specifically, you know, okay, well, what's a drainage problem? Instead, I think we should say what steps you have to take to avoid it because one person's problem may not be another person's problem. I mean, I think you have to give a technical description of what that is. Your legislation's going to come Well, they're very long.

I know, but but if the legislation that you can't, you know, cause drainage problems, that's open to interpretation. there's going to be some sub some subjectivity inherent. I think you're right. It's like I think what's important is I think right is being really clear about what needs to have a sub have a site. I think I think we correct me if I'm wrong. We went with uh kind of the what it doesn't because that seemed more straightforward and less we wanted to make sure it was broad enough so that it would take care of the things that we either that are unclear if that makes any sense. So the idea is the challenge from a draft

is to draft something that captures everything you want to capture without leaving loopholes. Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. The challenge. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And so I think that's what was attempted here. Obviously, yeah, there's a subgroup of people. That's why it's being broadened out to this group to look at it in more detail, right? It was here's a steak in the ground. Let's make it a good steak. Right.

Can I ask a question? Um I was wondering and I'm not sure if this is should even be in this document uh but it's a question regarding um coordination of other decisionm bodies u relative to planning board review such as the zoning board of appeals um or the community housing saying I'm not sure what that committee is. Um how do we how does the planning board coordinate the other agencies within the town so that um all of these independent decisions are somehow unified? Is my does that question have I posed that so that anyone understand? Well,

I think no matter no matter what if a if a something in a site plan is going to do any construction on it, then it's going to have to go through the building department and get vetted that way, right? So, that's just going to happen, right? So, there's an assumption here that there's the site plan, but it's going to have to have a building permit. It's going to have to I I don't think community housing is going to be involved because this is commercial. Um, so it's not the issue there. Um, but zoning board of appeals potentially if there's something that they're they're doing that requires it would just be required, right? Right. So I think there's kind of you you can't we can't put into this legislation covering every other group. Right. So it has to kind of exist within this is and I'll just I'll put on my I'll jump on my high horse for a second. The best way to do this would be do all the code and rewrite it all.

We're not doing that. We're peacemealing it which means we have to exist within the fact that there's other stuff out there. Um, and so that's kind of unfortunately let me

if you had all this within your zoning code, the best way to structure your zoning code if you do have to have somebody who makes interpretations in the first instance. Usually that's your building inspector. Building inspector's decisions then are subject to appeal to the zoning board appeals. That's why zoning boards are called zoning boards appeals because before they even dealt with variances, they were supposed to deal with appeals from the chief administrative official and that's usually the building inspector. So regardless of whether you put it in the same code or not, you probably need the building inspector to make where where he needs to. A lot of times it'll be straightforward. But if for example an application may need a variance, the building inspector, if there's a question about that, the building inspector should probably be the one telling the applicant, hey, by the way, you need site rule, but you're going to need a variance, too.

Y that's the way the way the process works is that way. And I think there's an assumption that it's going to continue to work that way because again, you don't come in to do a site plan without having planned to do some building. So again, it really starts at the building permit. Caroline, does that answer your question? Uh yes, I guess. Okay. It sort of goes back to that time. It happens behind the scenes. Well, it well it's it would be nice if there was a giant big flowchart to explain to somebody walking in how to do all this stuff. That doesn't exist.

But there's also not coordination unless something is triggered like we just had the wetlands um uh o Sullivan right that came before us. It went to town board and then it went to ZBA. So now it's at ZBA, you know. So it's just that the other part of the government would be pulled in when needed. But I don't think it would necessarily it wouldn't need to go in here. I think there is a reality that was that was really if this came if this came if something came to us as site plan review blah blah blah and we realize it really needs it's a variance then and they haven't gotten we'd raise a flag hopefully we get caught billions better but the whole idea is that's why you have layers of yeah they're still subject to all those other things should they trigger them it's it's painful that's kind of the reality

I recommend you had your before

yeah I mean just the the few comments I had I think Rick um talked about expanding or clarifying legislative intent um if I recall and I think that's one of the main things that caught me up because as I went through the different components of it said you will take into account these things you will give due regard to these things these should be considered and I was so my I left with the question of like but how right and so either you correct the legislative attempt to be incred incredibly clear that what we're trying to do is like I don't see be reasonably consistent with the surrounding areas blah you know blah blah blah blah blah if it's not going to be in the legislative intent then when you're talking about landscaping or whatever you you need to put in a slightly more specific language to be a guide on the subjectivity not like huge detail but like a little better guide to say like you know what are we actually trying generally trying to accomplish here

the purpose This should tell you what the purpose of the legislation. Let me this was in the current site plan is right now and I I do not favor this. The purpose of this chapter is to create a simple review process that allows the town to ensure that newer changing businesses do not negatively impact the surrounding area. It's okay but very very vague but which does not impose a significant regulatory burden on business. To this end, both the elements of the procedures are intended to be flexible and scalable based upon the needs of the individual project. You the emphasis shouldn't be we're trying to make this easy for the applicant because if you want to really make it easy, don't have site plan review.

You should explain why you have site plan review. You're trying to preserve aesthetics. You're trying to make sure you don't have parking congestion. You're trying to make sure that people get on in and out of a parking lot safely. Those are your purposes traditionally of site plan review. So that should be set forth that the purpose is close. Yeah.

I think you could elaborate a little bit on the purposes and then just look at the individual things like take into account and due regard and whether there's just a like three or four word qualifier that gives you the ability to guide you a little bit. Um I will I will say one thing about that is part of the challenge this is is because we have to live within the environment of our current comprehensive plan. So basically in in theory the comprehensive plan should give us more guidance about what we want to do here but that hasn't been finalized yet. So we so but I think absolutely you're right part of that why we didn't do do it that is I think that's a great use for this body is to come up with

clarifying that and filling that out. I think that'd be a great addition and then seeing how it flows the impact that flows into that. Yeah. I mean, I didn't take the time to try to suggest language, but I'm happy to. But there are plenty of other people that can do that, but um and then just a couple of other things. I think um the presubmission conference, it was kind of like you can put it in there as you can request it or it doesn't have to be in there at all. Like maybe it shouldn't be in there,

you know, like cuz I think that like, you know, either it's going to be known, you can always go in and chat or you can just say I put it in there, but it's you can request it. That's all it is. Like if you want it. Um I assume the timelines the uh building department has look been part of the process and so like they're good with that. And then the the last thing was when I read the statement about nothing's I think it says something like nothing will preclude the town from making a joint or shared improvement you know whatever. And I was like

whoa like if I was a neighbor that seems like a lot of power. Um, and I don't and maybe it's necessary, but the only I could think of and maybe it's implied in the law. Good thing I realized it still it still requires the neighbor to agree. Yeah. I I so I I that just caught my eye of like oo and like there's it doesn't say any reasonable improvements or like there was no qualifying. Maybe that's implied in the law and you know kind of thing. But when I read it I was kind of like you have commercial properties. Maybe you want to combine like parking spaces or whatever. But David's right. If the other applicant, if only one is before you

or even I suppose there are both before you though, you probably have more language. If they won't cooperate, then you probably can't force them to, you know, because you can't force one property owner to get access over their property to another. Maybe I missed a line that said that or it's implied, but when I read it, it see it seemed like it's the reality of law. I didn't read that. Well, but I like I think then something should be in there like you know that which the neighbor would reasonably agree or you have to be you have to be careful in legislation to not put yourself that's already been covered someplace else because then you as long as it is that was just like same thing when I read it like I said when I read it it was kind of like you know

there could be some wording that might make it less So could so could we say it's um a case of the purpose not necessarily being like as accurate as we like it and maybe some like restructuring of these sections

a lot again the the group that was put together put this together was a diverse group across different groups and part of it I think if the if the planning board is going to take on the responsibility of doing site plan then having clarification of what the goals what the planning board believes are the right goals of the legislation would be a great topic convers conversations you put in and then get then review that with the town board and with the other parties. But I think in some ways I didn't push for to get that done in that group because I don't think that was necessarily the right group to do it, right? So because that was just a little working group, right? So it's like it's going to have also fair enough when you know in your mind what you the goal is you're

when you're reading it, you're already putting it into it. So you everybody that's why people like you bring in a second layer and they say you already assume kind of that it was understood but it needs part of it is is because I keep on praying the comprehensive plan gets approved sometime soon maybe before because if that happened that would help a lot but if not we have to live in this language limbo of like pretending we don't know the new comprehensive plan and do and it's it it's kind of a it's it makes it hard. Yeah. And so that and that for me at least was the reason why I didn't push to actually put words in here because it might conflict with that. It's like I didn't Anyway, yeah, you get the idea.

I get it. I I do believe this group collectively working as kind of the new committee to review putting together some wording on this would be great. I think it'd be there would be some value in doing that. I'm not sure how the best way to do that. Well, I'm happy to give you comments. Well, it's not me. It's like it's like us and the other. Okay. Well, at this point, who's is there a point person for controlling the draft and how we're going to modify it? That would be me. Said reluctantly,

I would recommend that you have a draft on SharePoint that all of you can access and all of you put your comments on that draft in SharePoint. So, I don't want But I can't get there through my my Blackberry. Just kidding. Blackberry. I'm saying if I can I want to make it instead of a general comment since you know and Greg does the same. We read code for a living hours a day and you know you read New York City building code.

I mean there's no subjectivity. I mean it just it tells you basically if you could figure out what they're saying what to do. But you know there was this line that says uh we can ask for any other information deemed by the planning board to be necessary to determine conformity of the site plan with the spirit spirit and intent of 133 which is the zoning code which I've read a lot. I mean there's no spirit of the zoning code. It'll tell you 20 ft or 50 ft. You know

you know that wording might have fall over from the older thing. Yeah, we we did we did a lot of this uh just so you know kind of the background. We took a lot of looking at other towns code as well for their site plan to basically try to learn best practices. Some of it's good, some it's bad. And so this small group did the best they could within a limited time frame of time. But well, it's a huge thing you've taken on. I think any but but but now we haven't we've now taken it on, right? So let's be really clear. So, I think getting that feedback on SharePoint, putting it in like I recommend these, having a lawyer review it, that would be awesome. I think that would and it'll make it a better legislation, which is

Could I just ask you a question? Yeah. Uh, and you might not know this, but I don't. um relative to looking at what other towns have done for instance Southampton in their process of a person initiating a site plan for review what is their sequence of events do they go to the building department initially pretty much pretty much so so I guess my question about removing the building department we haven't removed but we haven't removed the building department it it's not in their legislation anything about the building department either It's again this is the site plan. So wait, so I'm asking a question. I might be incorrect in how I ask.

Sorry. Um so just as the building department does sort of an initial review and then sends a wetlands application to us for review, right? No, they recommend that the wetlands be done and the applicant sends in a wetland application. the building department. All right. So, forgive me for not getting it right, but okay. It makes sense that the site plan review has a similar process so that all will be done. It does. It doesn't just like in the wet plan. So, it is going in the in the wetland.

That's what I'm confused. in the wetlands code and I think even the new code it doesn't say this comes from the building department making a recommendation of a wet it's like it says we get a wetlands application right and and what's determines that is based on the legislation of what wetlands are and what the rules are just like a site plan is it's it's contained within that and so it's for the building department again in theory I guess somebody could go I want to do a site plan video or a wetland video and not be building anything which it doesn't make I don't know how that would actually work but it's like

a clearing or something like that but the idea would go back clearing house is is not a bad idea that would probably be the building inspector I sh has her hand up

so the process the way it goes is someone goes to the building department with their plan saying I want to do X Y and Z I want to build this I want to modify this I want to add a kitchen whatever it is they want to do the building department takes the plans looks at them and says says, "You can't do that. You need to go and get site plan review." In order to do that, they write a denial letter saying, "These are the reasons why you have to go for site plan review." Then that applicant has to create a site plan review application, which then would come to the planning board. So, the building department is one who vets it. So, they'll say, "You have to go to zoning board to do this. You have to go to

That's what I was in theory. In theory, somebody could just walk up to the clerk's office and do a wetlands application or walk up and do, but people like that doesn't happen because it doesn't they they usually always are doing billing, right? So, I don't know if we need to put it in legislation. I like I like the idea of going through the building inspector. For one thing, then the building inspector becomes the central record keeping authority. They know where pipeline application was made. they know what that application they they have the central registry of that I 100% agree and if we we were rewriting the all the code I'd say we'd write that into the overall code of how we do but we're not doing all you can do it for

for instance like the site check we can't say you must we say you must go to the building department well the application shall be submitted to the building building department not the site plan the site plan doesn't get submitted to the building inspector building inspector referred to you well the the I don't know who you want to accept the application. You could have the building department accept the application and then hand it over to you. The previous version of the code said submittal of application site plan review shall commence with an applicant submitting a site plan review and application to the town clerk. Exactly. That's the way it usually is. I would use building but you're saying it doesn't go to the town clerk actually goes to

review application goes to the town clerk after they submit to the building department building department says you need site plan review fined to the building department it's a building permit after building it's a very separate and distinct application and based on that application for the building permit they say this requires a site plan we're not going to give you a permit until you go to wetlands go to this go to this go to that so if they're not constructing anything. They're not going to Is there a way to articulate that that simply? So, there's someone like me who hasn't read it 500 times. I just don't It's clear.

Yeah. I mean, I I don't think that's that hard. It could be one sentence. I mean, I think we're antic whether it belongs in the site plan or belongs someplace else. But yes, we'll put it in flowchart. We do have a flowchart. It's just not part of Well, it was in the the whether it says clerk or building department. It said, you know, application procedure and it told you that was removed. There is a general thing here. Everything goes to the clerk, right? The actual application links all go through the clerk's thing for distribution to the right. I says it's very clear right there. Why why should it? Yeah, I'm not sure why that was removed, but it was removed for a simple. Yes.

This is the reviewing body, right? So the application goes to the clerk and then it goes to currently current review it goes to building department to check the completeness right but the completeness isn't set in stone because we have a lot of leeway right during the initial conference which was the presubmission conference we say okay we don't need you to depict the drainage because you're not doing any anything drainage related right uh so it comes to the building department and he says okay we didn't want that and he says fine but then he deems the application complete and he comes to this board that actually has the jurisdiction over the application and one of the members says I think drainage is important and now the applicant is like basically a square one so some completely independent body is making completeness determination for somebody who has a different jurisdiction picture. Does that make sense?

Yeah. So, it it just incorrect process which is why we're trying to Yeah. Trying to But maybe by removing we didn't put in a right process. We just removed the other one. This board should deem the completment of the application. So, you are reviewing. You know what you want to review. It should go to it should go to the clerk. No, the clerk gets it. She gets it. Yeah. Yeah. But but we decide there's technical completeness. Yes.

If there's a document like an authorization agent authorization form, the initial review or whoever that should check to make sure the application is technically complete, right? But the decision about whether an application is actually complete, you know, legally in terms of everything that the reviewing agency might want, you have the right to ask for things. Exactly. That would best with the reviewing point. So site plan is with you then you're the you make note of the decision whether in other words not is is there more included should you come in last night but do we have all the information we want we want more information this or that

and you know that's the larger completeness question that should rest with you. Yeah. And I think what it's like completeness with lowercase is done first. Just make sure like the basic documents are all there and then it's completeness with a capital is done here. It's like that's the actual legal definition. So So are we at a point right now where we can say if we put this document in SharePoint that everyone starts to contribute actual sentences. I I I was like all of us, you know, instead of just we're just going around say I don't like this push. I mean you're absolutely right. Absolutely. It was originally, I think on the original email from you, you said August 22nd. Is is there a timeline that

it was um legislation which I forward to you as well? It'd be nice to see them together. That's with the attorney still I think right they're kind of separate and are separate. They are separate but also still being done by this body and so understanding about process and kind of how we wetlands is just you advisory so you're not really necessarily advising on a process that plans yeah we haven't gotten back authority for jurisdiction for wand there's no intention to doing that town board has I have my own opinion on that I'm just asking a question I don't it hasn't happened yet I

mean you guys do crazy stuff in town board I I I don't I don't think our comments on the wetlands are going to be different because we're not the final looking at way. But is there a I think I think you think about the way you approach the legislation is very different if you're the decider to make sure about how it works versus I'm just going to do advice. So it's like whatever. It's like it's a you do enter it differently. At least I do because if I know that that that that the board's going to make the final call anyway, then it's like I'm gonna advise on the legislation. I'm not making sure the legislation is right.

So I really do at least for me personally, it's like, you know, I'll put 80% effort versus 120%. I'm not saying that's right or wrong. I'm just saying it's just a reality. I think so this came to us first because it's if my understanding is correct, the intention is that this may be given to us sooner than we get the wetlands back. So therefore, this is at a draft now where we can start to, you know, pick it up. What's a what's a reasonable timeline to try to get this for you to reddraft legislation? I think the request for this board is to send the comments in similar to Ricks and then attorney which will be

firm or probably corporation will do reddrafting. So you're comfortable with yes some actual language suggestions but it doesn't have to be we don't have to be trying to dot our eyes we can say we're struggling with this there needs to be more language here or something and you guys can take comments and I hate this word that's what I was thinking I mean I wasn't saying we have to write the whole law over it

you know certain aspects of it kind of in would point to another code section which in some cases don't exist. For instance, we say proposed landscaping, buffering, street tree plans. This is what you have to submit, including material size, quantum location, list of planning should also be shown. Well, what's the criteria to determine if it's adequate or inadequate? Well, that's yeah, I mean, but that's that's what it goes back to legislative intent where it's a trying to create a a reasonably consistent scenic like something like that that gives you some basic guide meet standards. Yeah.

I mean, okay, there's a street tree every 20 ft, you know, or something. Without that, every time we get an application, we're going to be like, well, do you like that? I don't, you know, and it shouldn't be. I think in reality it's going to be somewhere in between that that if you can put a little bit less blanket subjectivity and a little bit more qualifier in there, it's still going to be, you know, you have to go and look and say like, uh, you know, give it

I I agree. And again, I didn't push hard on that during the drafting because I wanted this body to have a chance to actually kind of lean in about what we think. But but but again it has to be within the context of like the rest of again it's it's really hard without a updated comprehensive plan to know because you could say like do we want to build a lot of commercial stuff already. It's like it's it's a hard it's hard there isn't an easy answer to that. What prevents us from making recommendations that maybe get incorporated into

that's what we're just sentence before we say storm water 2in rainstorm over 24-hour period. I mean that's it. That's what you have to retain. Yeah. You know we should be able to give that level of specificity for anything we're telling people to do. Let me say something about that. Yeah, you want to be like what is subject to cycle review? is that should be very objective not subjective but once you get into your review process for whether it's a subdivision or site plan the word I would use is discretion that's you know it's different not very different from subjectivity but the reviewing board has discretion so you are going to have judgment 100%

certain things like that by the way very standard to say required we want training that will handle two train that's pretty standard requirement and that kind of engineering stuff is more objective but how much screening to require you can't really specify that you know there should be one tree depends on the site. Yeah. You're not going to say from a distance of 200 ft you can't see above 4T and like you know whatever you it's have to be I know some qualifiers in there some guy but it's just like the Nord Parkway thing it's like that's like we are explicit about like

can't you can't be that explicit on it. Um, and that goes back to I think you're right like legislative intent on this is really important to capture. The challenge I I see is again it's really hard to put legislative intent in this one piece of legislation without much coverage above other than the existing comprehensive plan. It's just it's hard and I was really I was having difficulty. I tried to do it

and I had to look at the existing comprehensive plan and it's just like so arbitrary. It's like it's like it's not very it's like it we could do that but it's I don't know in all honesty exactly what's in the new draft of the compre. I haven't paid that close of attention cuz it's not done yet cuz I figured I'm not doing it. I'll just wait till it comes down. But that may dramatically change I think the context which makes it hard. Yeah, it does. I I I think just as you thought you said that it I thought about a lot of it being like what's reasonably consistent with what's there, but if there's a vision about something going forward that changes that

the goal is to build up the center. So, you know, so yeah, so maybe there needs to just be language that gives you the flexibility if it's a moving target, you know. Why can't it be altered after the comprehensive plan? Well, it could, but you could also you could potentially also include language with that says readably consistent with existing or plans, you know, or something.

My thought was because it's all about got multiple moving trajectories of things happening, right? It's like this is where it's at. Comprehens plan is not agreed to yet. So, you do it, you do it as best you can, really understand it. Once the comprehension, you might be going back and amending this because you've discovered you want to change things a little. That's the purpose of the comprehensive plan is to guide legislation. So it to answer your question, Greg, it it could change again and so could other legislation based on we wouldn't have jobs four years, baby.

But I think I just just to bring everybody back to center because it's just being aware of time. It's 8:25. Do we feel like we're at an adequate point now where we can we'll put it in SharePoint. Everyone can put comments, edits, whatever, and David, anyone wants to. Okay. And then we'll send it back to them. Is that correct? Sorry with it. Yeah. Are you ready for Well, did I thought it was at the attorney's level for review? It's done. It's done. I'm fine with I mean, but I don't want to speak. I am okay with looking at it, but I don't I ask you, John, if you want to look at the wet wetlands draft, too. Oh, the wetland. I'm sorry.

Yeah. Yeah. Wetland for the beginning part. I mean, I think realistically coming on this is into the next few weeks and then wetlands into September, you know. Okay. Hold it. Get it to us if we had time. But I think I would like to work on on the site plan review first. I think let's I I I'll yield to you on that. Let's do that first. Let's let's finish site plan review first. And so hold off on the wetlands. Is the wetlands legislation simply pointing it to us or is it a rewrite of the whole section? It's a re It's a rewrite. It's a lot of it was redone. Okay. Yeah. And next.

Okay. So, that was our that was our last piece of business on the uh uh anyone from the audience from the Zoom audience. Pam, anybody out in Zoom land there? No hands raised has no All right, then I'll I'll take a motion to close the meeting. Someone I will motion. Wait, I'm sorry, Julia. Yes, Pamra.

I'm sorry. Yeah, I I just have a question about this with the site plan review draft. I mean, will you accept things from the public at this point? And and my concern about all of this is that the only person in town who is employed by the town who has been certified as a site plan reviewer is in fact Reed Karen. It is a civil service test you must take. So, taking the building inspector out of this legislation seems contrary to state regulations. I I'm I'm not really sure why the building inspectors taken out of this when he's the one who's only been the only one in town who's actually taken the test. And I'm sorry, David Austin, if that bothers you,

but I think it's an important Well, you're you're you're raising your head and and and turning your head around like what is she saying? But this is the truth. There are only two people and You can look it up and you can see who took the exam per site plan reviewer in Suffach County and find out who was certified to do it. And I think that that seems to be a very important point that's being missed in this conversation. Do you know that was in the was part of the group that wrote this? Yeah, he was in the he was in the first and I'm sure he'll review it again that we get to but we're not taking him out of the process. Yeah, he's also you hear that Pam? He's not actually being t taken out of the process of site plan review. He's not being taken out.

But but it seems like he's been taken out of the legislation that you people are presenting. So that's my concern. No, I think it says following our approval, it goes to Reed and he has 20 days or something like that specifically. But but we aren't taking public comment at this point. uh if I'm correct time it goes to public hearing and then you would then it would be acceptable to do public comment on it. This is just the preliminary you know review of the draft. Okay, that's certainly reasonable. Thank you very much. Yeah, no problem. Thank you.

Okay. Uh and I think I did have a motion right to close it before we second and all in favor I mean being closed. Thank you. Thank you everyone.