Planning Board - Regular Meeting

Planning board meeting today is August 11th, 2026, 7. P. M. I am going to begin with roll call. We have David. Present. Scott man is present Marcus. Julia Weisenberg. I'm here. Sarah, sorry, we have Sean Davey on zoom.

I think he stepped away for a moment. We have his couch.

Great. OK, great. And we have our attorney here. And I believe Rick Wesnowski is not coming today. Yeah. Didn't get any correspondence, but OK. Sean, did you get a beer?

I was debating a glass of wine, but I'll wait.

You have to wait and like it, like, you know, 45 minutes or so. Okay. But we're both commenting that you're kind of in the place where you would be if you were seated here. We have the TV screens, like, just above your chair. Looks like you're almost here. All right. So, 1st thing we're going to do is we're going to approve the minutes, hopefully from our July 4th meeting to everyone get a chance to look at that. Anybody who's here? Good. Okay.

So can I get a motion to approve the minutes from July? Motion.

Scott Matthews and second from David Kriegel. All in favor? Aye. Aye. Here's Rick. Okay. I thought maybe you were not coming today. Okay. We have some bills from our attorney, our engineer, and we've had the posting for the Kenny Bacall public hearing. So I'm going to just go over what each of the amounts are and just for efficiency purposes, we'll consolidate into one motion. So we'll begin with the smallest. We'll go smallest to largest. So we have invoiced to the Times Review, a.k.a. Shulton Reporter, from July 17th, in which we had to post that legal notice for the public hearing tonight. That came to $71.20. It's not on you, though. Okay, it's actually, Jessica, it's not on the agenda, but I'm just going verbally now on record about that. So that's, again, $7,120. The second invoice is from the Rainer Group. That's for Rick Wesnowski. Mostly that was work on our subdivision, which is tonight, and site plan review. and some in-person meetings, and that came to $367.50, again, for Rick Wesnovsky. And thirdly, our last invoice is from 8-3, and that's for our legal services from our attorney, Rick Whalen, who's here tonight, and that came to $1,598. So again, we need $6.00. Thank you. $1,598. Thank you. So, again, thank you for the accuracy. Okay.

So, again, just just review.

We have 7120 for the reporter. We have 36750 for Rick Wisnowski engineer and for Rick Whalen services at 1598.

No, it says 98 again.

So, just on the voucher, I'm just going, there's a little discrepancy with the voucher says 98 and that may just be a type. So I just need to know which it is.

Invoice should be right there, but.

No, I have these, so your invoice says 98 and we have 89 on the agenda. So, which is it? Is it 98?

on the invoice, the actual invoice.

It's 98. Yeah, it's just a typo on the agenda, everyone, so. Okay. So 1,598. Yeah, 98. Okay. All right, so can I get a motion to approve those three invoices? Motion to approve. Marcus, thank you. The second? Second. Scott Matthews, all in favor?

Aye.

Okay, we received a request from engineer Matt Sherman, and just to let you know what that was, basically the DEC has granted them approval. I think I went over this with everyone on the blind meeting. They are going to be extending their water main to give the property water. They're right now in the process of installing the water to line to both houses, but the house on 69 North Mananik has to wait for the main extension, which is going to occur in the fall. So that's why they're asking for another extension. We sent that to Rick Whalen. It looked good. And so we're going to grant the blooms. Hopefully this is the last extension as Barbara indicated on her request. So this is extension number seven. of this year, 2026. So the planning board finds that under these circumstances, the applicant's failure to file a final application for minor subdivision approval within the allotted time is excusable. And so we're going to give them six months. And so be it further resolved that other than as expressly set forth herein, this resolution shall not alter it. And we grant that application until February 9th, 2027 or 6 month extension. Motion to approve the extension for the blooms. I'll make a motion. Okay. Thanks Sarah. 2nd from Greg Cranford all in favor of that. All right. Okay. Thank you. Everybody on that. Okay, we're going to go into our public hearing. Can you call application? So tonight's application is for Carrie A. Kinney and Gil J. Bacall, the owners, for approval of a lot line adjustment, which would reconfigure the lot boundaries among three existing lots, which total 4.502 acres of land, otherwise 196,125 square feet. This is on the west side of Cartwright Road. also known as county road 69 and the north side of congdon road so all existing and proposed lots are at least 40 000 square feet in size and no additional lots will be created subject property is situated in c district c residential as we know from our official zoning map of town of shelter island And it's identified on Suffolk County tax map. We received the affidavit, right? Rick from Matt Sherman showing that everything was appropriately posted. Neighbors were informed. We got everything was in order basically. Yeah, and they both.

Appeared to be improper.

Excellent. So, Rick, just check that before we proceeded with our public hearing tonight. So I'm going to open it up. We have Matt Sherman. The applicant's engineer is online on zoom Matt. You're here to answer any questions.

Yep, that's correct. Matt Sherman, Sherman Engineering. I'm here for Kenny and Bacall. As you just described, the project, it's really, or the application, it's really fairly simplistic. It's three existing lots that are all over the minimum lot size requirements, have the minimum road frontage requirements. We're doing a reconfiguration so that what was the largest lot will now be reduced in approximately half. And then the lot that's wholly on Congdon Road will be increased by approximately doubling the size of that property. So it's really kind of just a robbing from Peter to pay Paul kind of scenario here.

We had had a discussion Last time I raised the issue of future subdivision of proposed lot number one. Could anyone remind me of what the thinking was on, what sort of the consensus was on that concern that I had about further subdivision of lot one?

I know where I sit on that one. I'm generally in favor of putting restrictions on further subdivision. I think when you brought that up, I was okay with it.

Somebody was not, and I don't remember why. It just seems to me that this is the time to put a restriction and not to wait four years until someone decides they want to make a further subdivision of lot number one. And I would like to recommend that we discuss that again.

Matt, did you bring that up to the applicant at any point in our earlier meetings?

I don't believe we discussed it with the applicant, no, but I can certainly check with her and see if that's something that would be acceptable.

Anyone else on that? Marcus or Scott? Sarah?

We spent a good deal of time talking about flag lots.

generated all over the island because of this sort of situation where it's the back 40 that's an attractive development parcel right but in this case if somebody would abolish the house on lot one they could have sufficient street frontage to do two full lots and they'd be you know an eighth quarter each i think given the proximity to the fairly sizable freshwater wetlands know anything we can do to reduce potential runoff into that wetlands is advisable it just misses the corner of the property well it's not about setbacks but i mean that is a sensitive area and well in this area it's already prone to flooding as we know right

So I just have in my notes that that was the only the only thing that there were no other objections generally in this group. Well, first, I just wanted to see if anyone on the board wanted to ask anything. So,

it's certainly doable as as as drunk but um can we have a long-term position on this or what would um is this set up a precedent let's see it might be legally challenged or where where do we stand on this um it's up it's up to the board i'm just um greg is bringing it up again if there's anything that and this is a topic that you'd like to discuss we can i mean

We have done it. We've done on other properties. So I don't see anyone on Zoom.

Matt, yeah. Julia, yeah. I had just texted the property owner and they have no problem with that kind of limitation saying that no further subdivision of lot one. This is creating lot one. So going back and doing a subdivision later would just be undoing what we're doing right now, basically.

So, if that's the case, I would like that we make that a condition of the subdivision. Okay.

Anyone else besides Craig? I agree. I'm okay. So, at least four. Agreed. Just on that one. Agree? Okay. Sean?

Agreed. I have a couple of other questions.

I'm just looking. I just noticed that there's not anyone else on Zoom except Matt and our board member, Sean. Is there anyone from the audience? I can't see them. I only see three people on Zoom. Well, ourselves plus Sean and Matt. I see one gentleman in the audience. Did you have any questions about that?

Not on the main screen, but.

I just wanted to just make sure I understood what the thing was and now I've seen it might happen. I understand what they're talking about. We move across the street. Does that make sense?

And we didn't receive any correspondence. Jessica, you had indicated to me that I didn't see any correspondence. There was no correspondence on this application. nobody else wants to say anything okay oh yeah well i have a couple of questions let's close the public hearing and we can talk all right okay marcus could you wait a minute like just we're not going to close we can't we're not in a position to close the public hearing right now until we just decide what we're doing here before i just want to can you just can you hold off a minute so we can figure out what's going on we can discuss this after the meeting okay thank you gentlemen anything else on that uh Sean? Nothing. So, if I understand everyone correctly, the only concern we have right now is possibly imposing restrictions on future development, subdivision of lot 1. Yes. Okay. And putting that aside, everyone else is good with it. Yeah. Okay. So we've, yes, Dave.

It's for Matt. Matt, I'd say the groundwater level is pretty high. It's 14.8. um and i don't know the condition you know if that's an average or that's the elevation on one specific day because we know in this area there's a lot of fluctuation if you remember when they had to pump out congan road because it was

You certainly remember that, absolutely. Keep in mind that when you're looking at a test hole, I'm not sure how this gets confusing, but that 14.8 is 14.8 feet below grade. Grade is 6.5 feet. So that 14.8, if you look below on the bottom of the test hole, it says groundwater elevation 14.8 feet below grade at an elevation of 1.7. So really the groundwater elevation there, if you're looking in, in reference to mean sea level is just below two feet. So 1.7 feet. So groundwater elevation is not that high and it's right where we would expect it to be the, um, Shelter Island's done, or not Shelter Island, but Shelter Island has commissioned several studies and several studies have been done in this general area, the corner of Cartwright Road and Congdon and whatnot. And the groundwater contour that runs in this area is at two feet. That's the accepted elevation. This runs right in line with that. So, you know, that's it's not high by any standard. It's about middle groundwater on shelter island goes from 0, right at the shoreline to between 4 and 5, right in the center of the island. So it's right exactly where we would expect it to be.

Okay. Which is, yeah, it's slightly confusing that they show elevation 16.5 on the left of the test hole and 14.8 on the right, and they're not at the same data.

And this is, I'm not sure why this is the convention that test holes are done at. We just follow the convention. But you see zero to 0.5 is dark brown loam. That's basically topsoil to a half a foot below grade. Then down to 14.8 where you hit water. Got it. So that's 14.8 feet below grade.

Understood. And for the house on lot three, there's no septic shown? You don't know where it was?

Yeah, the house on lot three, we've got the septic there. We don't need to show it on this subdivision or the lot line change map, so we don't, just so it doesn't confuse things. There's nothing planned for that lot. It's there. It's existing. There's nothing to do with it. So this is a miscellaneous map as far as the county clerk is concerned. So we don't have to put all the same information that we would on for a typical subdivision. But if you look just to the east of the house on lot three, there's a manhole, a little round circle with MH above it. That's the septic system for that lot.

So that's existing, but an insufficient distance between the well and the septic.

yeah and because it's a miscellaneous map it's exempt from the Suffolk County standards so that we don't have to worry about upgrading wells and septic or anything like that in a situation like this now if there was something that was two properties being served by one well that would have to be addressed but these kinds of issues they're exempt from the county regulations so as long as we're not creating a non-conforming situation

we're fine we don't have to fix previously existing non-conforming situations as long as we're not creating one um suzanne crocker did you wish to ask any questions of the applicant i see suzanne online and ed heideman no i guess not um so again there's nobody from the audience that wishes to make any comments if you're okay with that okay um how do you guys feel about now we're just closing the public since we have nobody from the physical audience and we don't have anyone with any more questions from zoom motion to close the public hearing good scott math okay second second second from louis all in favor all right all right well matt you need to go back to your site i'll start on vacation next week

I won't be back until the day after Labor Day, the day of our next meeting. Just so Matt knows, it's very unlikely. It sounds like you're going to approve this. So I would imagine that the approval resolution won't be until October.

But we'd still be within the 60 days. Yeah, it's actually the 67th day. So second week of October then for us. Okay. Thank you for letting us know that. Great.

Very good. Thank you very much. We appreciate it.

Yeah, thanks, Matt.

Thanks, Matt.

Thank you for coming in.

Thanks for coming in.

All right.

I have a question. It is normal in your practice .. Do you want a miscellaneous map file?

Oh, we do file a miscellaneous map, I believe. Oh, yeah. I do remember some of the old ones we had.

If you do a proper social division, that should be filed with the county clerk. You know, the health department stands there when he has an active job. Something like this is not.

If this came up a while ago, a few years ago on the planning board about filing miscellaneous maps, I'd have to go back to the correspondence and see what we determined. I feel like this came up and I believe somebody had filed it. Yeah, but I think I've seen it in a couple. I think I've seen them. Yeah. So.

A miscellaneous map, you can file a survey of your property if it's miscellaneous. Yeah. It doesn't have any real legal, you know.

Correct. It doesn't have legal there.

Yeah. But somebody wanted to find it and it's on the record somewhere.

Yeah.

So do lot line modifications like this have to be recorded by the health department?

They have to be approved by the health department. The health department does not require that they be recorded. They're not a subdivision. The health department treats them as a subdivision for their purposes, for ambulatory purposes. Under state law, though, we're not creating any new lots. So it's not a subdivision map. And really under state law, you don't have to file a map that's more than four lots. Although some of the municipalities will file subdivisions of less informed, like you said.

So, has this been filed with the health department?

Yes, it has, we're basically waiting on the town's secret determination, I believe, and the planning board's approval and what ends up happening. And this is where that miscellaneous map subdivision map line got blurred is a lot of people. did the planning board approval and filed it with the county clerk, created this new lot configuration. If it was done after 1981 and they didn't go to the health department, then they come in in 2000, 2020, 2026, and apply to do something on a lot that was changed. through the town and through the county clerk, but not through the county health department, then they gotta go back and do a lot line change after the fact and make sure everything lines up with the health department as well. And it's a huge pain in the neck for people. And so because of that, the planning board a few years ago said, hey, let's just make it a requirement of our lot line change process to make people go to the health department so it doesn't come up and bite somebody in five years or 10 years. So, it was really looking out for the property owner or the future property owner that the planning board made the requirement that the, the applicants have to get health department approval at this time.

So, I'm not subject lot 1. You don't show the septic as well. Is there any discussion about putting in a system there? Not at this point, there's not no, and is that something that the planning board can request?

But they're not building anything yet that we know of.

It's just a line modification. It's not a subdivision.

They're not creating an additional lot. They have three lots now. They still have three lots. They'd be in a stronger position if they were subdividing, landing, creating a new lot. And then I'm not sure the health department, if you're doing an actual subdivision, the health department might, with an existing house on it, the health department might require a separate

it depends on the specifics of the application yeah okay so i mean i know there have been a lot of applications before us whether it's wetlands or something else where people voluntarily said and to mitigate what we're asking for here we'll upgrade our septic not for not for a lot of adjustments now when when they go in to build a house yeah it's gonna that's what's gonna trigger it now

lots that were already built on. Yeah, yeah, those major of those they won't have to upgrade.

And if if this property owner then decides either lot one lot three that are already developed and they want to make a change that would require a health department application, then in all likelihood that application would also trigger an upgrade to a septic. And obviously the lot two, which is vacant at this point, if they want to build a new house on that, that too would trigger a new septic system.

I just noticed Suzanne Crocker has her hand up. I don't know if that was earlier.

No, I do.

I was trying to call out to you earlier.

I know. I've been just sort of listening and kind of being quiet about this, but we're neighbors, and I was just wondering what the intentions are for these three lots, because I've been seeing a lot of clearing going on, and I don't see that as part of the... application. You know, there's been heavy equipment in there taking out a lot of vegetation and trees and I just was trying to understand what's actually happening here.

Well, so technically we just closed the public hearing a few minutes ago. I was trying to get your attention on Zoom. But I don't think, Matt, you don't have a problem just answering that question.

No, no, not at all. Not at all. And right now what the immediate plan is, is on the proposed lot one, which is the lot that's wholly on Congan Road and is getting extended to the north. um just northeast of the house they're going to be putting a small greenhouse like a uh you know a homeowner's type of greenhouse um and that's it for right now they may end up looking at doing something on lot three doing some renovations to that building upgrades to that building um but that's you're the kind of plane with ideas right now so it's that um that greenhouse is really the uh the only thing that's being planned at this point. They might be doing some clearing and freshening up of the property as any homeowner would do, but that's it. Things aren't being completely redeveloped or anything to that effect at this point.

Okay. Well, I guess what I walk by, there's definitely clearing down to the dirt between the larger trees, like all of the vegetation is being taken out with backhoes and so forth. So it does seem that there's a larger plan in action. And I guess I was just questioning what that's all about.

If there is, it has not been communicated to me. As I said, the only thing I'm aware of is that that greenhouse that would be going in on the northeast of the existing house on lot one.

Well, I do know that the building department had to put a stop work order on that action that was happening. So it was happening.

I'm not okay.

Anyway, I just trying to get a full picture of what's happening.

The thing is, for purposes of this application, they're looking to adjust the lines of the property, right? They're not before us with an application to expand a structure or, like, for example, if they're building in the wetlands, they would be before us. But so it's really just amount of adjusting the lines. Anything with, like, the building department with a stop work order. I would suggest that you ask the building department about it. That's. open you can get that's you can get those records you can just walk in there and ask them about it um but nothing that it wouldn't what they're doing on that part of it wouldn't affect what we're looking at just here in this hearing if that makes sense thank you sure matt thanks for just fielding that question though we appreciate that yeah you're welcome you're welcome All right, so we close the hearing as I just explained to Suzanne about so for Canadian Baccal and in our work session, we actually have that listed. But I think we sort of. Went through everything that we're thinking of, right? Just in terms of, like, the putting their sections a lot. 1, everything else is pretty self explanatory. in terms of our other oh and again just a note as rick said he will be away in september or you wouldn't actually have time to probably put that resolution on for september so it's in our best interest to the day of our meeting i think it's in our best interest to put it off to october but this week i'll probably have that time okay but we'll have that ready for october All right, in our other subdivision applications, we have the bloom subdivision, which we just approved their extension earlier. Yes. Oh, yeah. Sorry. Yeah. We're going to close our public hearing at 728 and we're going to move into the work session agenda. I just went over again what the agreements on call for October. We'll have that ready for October. And then in our other subdivision, we just approved the Bloom subdivision extension until, I think, January 2027. West Neck Free Cottages already had their extension. They are still good until October 13. Same thing for Fowler Trust. December 9th is their extension deadline. We have Crescent Beach LLC, which you all know about. That's a similar deadline of December 8th. Roe Minor Subdivision, we're still waiting on that revised sketch plan.

matt says i have you online any we didn't get any updates from you recently on that one anything with ro i talked to reed a couple of times about it and the um fire apparatus access road and those those issues are still out there um you know quite frankly it's looking like the the the deck is stacked against that application um and it might end up being um being withdrawn i'm not sure yet um but it's um it's looking daunting All right.

That's Roe and Anna Westmoreland. Okay, now for the Robear subdivision, we did, Matt, you saw that we did get an opinion from read Karen from the billing department on that. It came in this morning. Jessica did distribute it to you. I did a cursory look at it as David and I were talking about. I didn't get to read all of it in depth. Did anyone else really get a chance to read it? I'm thinking that we could wait till September, give everyone a chance to really look that over. Matt, they haven't gone to ZBA with anything yet, right?

No, they haven't. I talked with Reid about what he was doing, but I haven't seen it yet. So I'll have to go back and look at what his opinion was. I know that his concern was, ironically enough, talking about the Roe one, was the fire apparatus access. And Having too many possible buildings being served by a, an entryway that wasn't going to be sufficient. So I got to go and look at that and see what the finer details are on it. And and then we'll be able to come up with a, you know, with either an agreement or response or a, you know, some kind of a comment.

I did read the memo since madness. I mean, I'll just bring up 1 thing that could be an issue. That is the most erudite building instructor number I have ever seen. Reed is definitely one of the guys. The one question that struck me might still be out there is, so Reed determined that the right of way, I forget the name of the family, Walter, right? Yeah, Walter. That is a street.

That was the big question that we needed answered.

Yeah, so Lot 1, which is the eastern lot, has street frontage. The issue, though, might be, and he didn't address this, is I think I'm in the street, but it's requirement is in the in the season.

Yeah, it's 100 feet.

Yeah. And it only has frontage on the end of the right of way, which is 50 feet wide. We didn't address that, but it seems to me, Matt, that you might need a frontage variance for that lot.

Yeah, agreed. But is that a flag or is it a street?

It's not a flag. It's the end of a street.

Along that line, who owns the flag that goes to Ram Island?

The owner does.

So he owns all the way to Ram Island. And the other houses that are accessed off that?

But it's a physical, that's physically part of the subject property. So that's why it's a flag trip. The Walther right-of-way is an easement going out to North Hartwright that is not owned by the applicant, but over which they have rights.

the the trigger for fire department access road i thought in the back of my head was 500 feet and i don't i don't know where that's measured from but that flag is under 500 feet

But it serves more than or it can serve more than I think it's 5 buildings is the maximum. It's what you get over 5. I think you have to go to fire access.

He actually states it in the memo.

He says, okay, it's in the memo and it also includes on an out of our instructions. Correct. That's in his memo.

Yeah.

Can you say that again? About 500 feet.

I thought the trigger for an access road was over 500 feet.

That's the trigger for a hammerhead.

So is that on your, if it's on someone's property and the house is more than 500 feet from the street and a hammerhead or a circle is required?

Yes, they can, you know, I've seen it.

The road only has to be within 150 feet, I think of the structure, 130 feet. I don't remember exactly.

The only dimension I know is 500 feet, less than 50 feet. Four structures, that's it.

I guess my point is I really need to read this memo carefully and go back to the code and make sure there aren't, you know, footnotes that we're not looking at. So, yeah, we need a little, at least I need more time.

Well, I haven't seen the memo yet. I don't think that Reid identified an issue with fire apparatus road going west as long as the subdivision does not potentially serve an additional line. I mean, I guess that's a big caveat. But going to the east, meaning out to North Cartwright, his conclusion, I think, is that would be required. It already serves for lots, first of all. So that would require a fire apparatus road, which has to be at least 20 feet and old weather surface.

All right. Is that a hardened road? I didn't walk up that street. Or is it dirt?

Oh, the car ride? It's hardened. Three-quarters of the way. There's a small gravel at the end. So they might have to improve that chunk of it.

But what mechanism would they use to increase that width? I mean, if the property... Well, it probably would be a condition.

I mean, as I understand Reed's memo, you would probably have to impose it or even be required to impose it. It may be automatic. But if you grant the subdivision approval, you're referencing the state fire code and the fire apparatus requirements would probably say, as a condition of disapproval, the applicant has to improve that road. One thing that Reed asks in his memo is, does the applicant have the right to do that? I think the answer is yes, because they have an easement, according to this 1978 document, they have an easement for all purposes over the Wolfe right-of-way. So if they choose to improve it, I'm not sure that the owners whose property it crosses can prevent that.

But the Cartwright Road, which is too narrow, how would that be mitigated? the wide road well they it's not their ownership the road from carter right right away we're 55 50 foot wide right away yeah the right-of-way is 50 feet and and it's pretty well clear to both sides and the road running down the middle is is improved it's not a driveway the one off of car sorry off of ram island no ram island is and that's the one that's too small i'm sorry that's that's Was really my question that one's really ram the ram island access is only but it's a virtual people are 16 for the use of a 12 foot approved.

yeah but is that i'm not convinced that road is required to meet the requirements of a fire department access road, I think.

I don't think that read concluded that that has to be upgraded. For this subdivision, if you added an additional lot right on, that would trigger, that would trigger, it would have to be a fire apparatus for it. It doesn't have the width for it. They'd have to, you know, they only own 16 feet of land.

Four buildings need a bigger truck, 75,000 pounds worth and 20 foot wide roadway and all that stuff. But it's, but the fire operators would still be serving the three existing buildings that are on there. And plus the new one, which is lot two's building. Does that kick anything?

The subdivision is laid out. So one lot takes access off of Ram Island Road and one lot takes access off of Cartwright Road. So you're not adding a building lot to either end. You're splitting it.

think in the an issue that's going to come up with this is what we were just talking about on this kidney the column that is whether you want to put restrictions on these lots that they cannot be further divided we talked about that yeah a majority yes already that was in previous discussions it was reid also brings up the there's a landlocked town-owned property

And whether access to that is, you mentioned that in the memo. There's some, there was a brief mention of it. And, you know, there's that sliver of land that's, there's a sliver that goes around the wetlands. That's, I think was.

I remember seeing this in the past. Yeah, there's some weird thing there.

And I think you just raised the question, you know, whether that could cause an issue. You know, I tried to print out their survey before I came, but I couldn't get it to print. Anyway, next time we'll have time to really go through the memo.

Thank you. All right. 9 West Neck Road. Matt, we have you on. You did get our memo, right? You're discussing it with the applicant?

I did, yeah. And there's a couple of things in there that I wasn't real clear on that if we could touch base on real quick on them. One of them was, and I know that there is a hesitancy among some of the board members about approving flag lots. But that being said, flag lots are allowed. Flag lots have been... Approved routinely and without exception. I don't mean anyone who's asked for a 20 foot wide flag lot, which complies with the code has been approved that I'm aware of. So I'm, I am going to want to discuss it with the board a little bit about whether it's appropriate to limit a new flag lot on this property to not allow that 20-foot flag that's allowed by town code. I understand that people have personal opinions on these things, but the code allows it, so I'm a little concerned about going in a direction that then prohibits it um and then the other thing was the um the clearing of the property the and the construction of the building on the road that building permit was obtained prior to submitting the uh subdivision application so you know The idea of putting the cart before the horse, I guess, is a good way to put it. On doing some of that clearing work and that new construction work is something else we're going to have to kind of iron out and figure out what exactly the issues are or are not. I know there's issues with the trees, taking down trees and the bats, and that is turning into... more of a struggle than I had anticipated with all of the contractors, getting them to not take down trees other than during the window that the DEC is allowing. But that's another thing that is going to further complicate this one as we try to move it forward.

How about the issue of this screening to the other neighbor? Because that was really the top one that came out of our discussion. I mean, the other things you mentioned too, but it was basically like the effects of what is basically becoming a new roadway to the adjacent neighbor. We were thinking that maybe an additional 10 foot setback from that flag strip to the lot line just to help with the buffering of I figured the applicant might be open to that.

Yeah, and he might be. And I'll talk to him about it. You know, terming it as a new roadway to the house in the back, it's not a roadway. It's a driveway. There's a significant difference. And it may just be semantics, but it's still a difference. adding a little bit of extra width to it so that we can put some decent screening vegetation in there to protect the neighbor, I think that's not an unreasonable ask. If we're going from a 20 foot wide flag strip to a 30 foot or a 40 foot wide flag strip, now that starts to make a significant difference. But I don't think it's unreasonable for the board to ask them to put in a little bit of extra width five feet i i'd concede to 10 feet being reasonable um additional width and some plantings in order to protect that neighbor i think that's a you know good plantings make good neighbors right

Well, I mean, I think given that there is a row of large diameter trees right near the property line, I think the discussion was more of would the owner take a look at that and consider moving the driveway to permit those trees to remain. And then maybe give me another five feet or so to add planting along the trees to provide more of a visual buffer at people level instead of the huge trees that are already there.

It's kind of like you've got an existing natural buffer right there with the trees.

So I don't think it was good. There's no interest in calling it a road or taking more property from the owner. And it's absolutely necessary to provide the visual buffer.

That's why we did put it in quotes in the memo. We said, you know, it's not a roadway, but just, you know. Fair enough.

And I'm still trying to get the surveyor out there to do the topo work, which is one of the other things in the memo. And I can certainly put on his to-do list to flag those number of trees that are going down that property line so that we can adjust that plan accordingly to help, one, protect them. We want to keep traffic as much off of their route systems as we can. Right now, these are trees that are in the middle of the woods, basically. And we don't want to have too many people driving too close to them. So we can help try and protect them that way and also get a real feel ourselves. And so the board has a good feel for where exactly they land as far as the property line is concerned. what kind of adjustments need to be made to protect them.

Sean, did you want to add?

It just sounds like we're headed in the right direction and we'll get there. I think I know from my point of view, when I looked at it, They had yet to remark the boundary lines for some reason. I guess when they were clearing, they took them away. So I couldn't really see. When you look at it, you realize that actually there is very significant tree buffers on both sides that presumably you would think they're intending to leave. And so if you're using that plus a little, you know, and some vegetation, I think you from my perspective, you'd be fine.

So just to clarify, the applicant applied for the building permit for the house. At that time, he wasn't contemplating a subdivision?

Oh, he was absolutely contemplating the subdivision. The subdivision has been contemplated on this property for five or six years, predating the current property owner. And he was contemplating it, but he wanted to get the house going first, knowing that the subdivision process is a multi-year process, get the house built first. be living in it and as the subdivision process is working through its steps. So it was an idea that the whole idea was to have the two things happening concurrently, but with the construction of the building starting first.

Right. Unfortunately, that gives him a vehicle to clear the whole lot, even though he knows he's going to subdivide it, which would have prohibited from clearing the lot until we had a chance to review it. which is, it's just a loophole in the way.

Yeah. And that's probably more on me than on him. Cause I did not advise him of that. I wasn't aware of that, um, that the town did not want people to do any clearing on properties that are going to be subdivided. Um, so that's on me. Um, You know, had I thought about it, we probably would have delayed the application of the subdivision a couple of weeks until the clearing was done. You're still doing the same thing when the day is done, but it does protect the integrity of the code, which is obviously very important. You know, that's... looking at the timing of the subdivision is really what we were thinking about. I wasn't thinking along the lines of, you know, clearing a lot or a little or whatever the case may be. So, you know, that's more on me than that's on the applicant.

No, but as it stands, anyone who buys 15 acres can apply to build 1 house, clear the 15 acres and then apply for subdivision, which.

Absolutely good.

Once they start the subdivision application, then there's a clause in there that says they can't.

So.

And I don't know how you would correct that, but that says that on our list of loopholes that we encounter as we review applications.

It's an important 1 action. And I would just like to. make a comment about, Matt, your comment about it being a driveway and not a roadway. We absolutely, I think, concur. But the impact on a neighbor who may or may not have anticipated a flag lot subdivision adjacent to their property, it can have a huge negative impact for which the adjacent neighbor has very little recourse. So for us to have the discussion about creating a buffer is completely legitimate.

Yeah, absolutely. I agree. And that was my comment earlier that good, you know, good vegetation makes good neighbors. You got to respect the people you're living next to, and you don't want to have a negative impact on your own property or on your neighbor's property and vice versa. So, yeah, I don't question the legitimacy of that at all.

And you'll talk to them about that different. Absolutely. Yeah.

Yeah, and I'm going to shoot an email over to the surveyor who, when he goes out there and gets the topo done, like I said, I'll have him locate those trees and characterize those trees along that property line so that we can do what needs to be done to protect those and account for their actual field-located locations on them.

Perfect. I think that would satisfy us a great deal since the property was already clear. We can salvage what's left on the borders, you know, so.

And if I may just add, Matt, in terms of sensitivity, and I appreciate that you actually sound like you are sensitive to some of these things and talk to applicants. The neighbor to the right is faced with some very big dirt mounds, you know, kind of in from the property line. OK. You know, it is what it is. I mean, to some degree, I would have loved to seen him put it at the back of the property. So it was not like right there at the neighbor. But I get, you know, excavation. I would just hope that they are engaging their neighbor and doing what they can so that they don't park their cars in the driveway and they're filthy every day from a heavy wind kind of thing that they're trying to be good neighbors in that respect.

Yeah, fair enough. Thank you for letting me know that. I'll reach out to the property owner and let him know that that's a concern of the board, and we'll see what he can do to address that. Absolutely.

I mean, it's a side comment off the record. It's not necessarily a power thing, but you're sensitive to it, so I'm just asking you to be aware and sensitive, good neighbor comment.

Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.

Thank you. Um, just 1 other little update, um, Meg, Albert and I, and Howard, Johansson and Reed, Karen and Rick was there with us. We went, we had our last meeting for the wetlands code update and we are not going to be meeting anymore. We finished us. We just gave it back to Rick and it's going to Megan Albert and the rest of the town board. As soon as the last draft up, I guess, I think it was a good meeting. Productive meeting was 1 of our better ones and we got through it all. So I'm very pleased about that. So we're seeing the end of the line. We're coming to the end of the road on that. So thanks for asking. Thanks to the wetlands subcommittee. All right. I think that's it. Unless anyone else has anything else they want to add or you can make a motion to close the meeting at 7.51. I'm going to make a motion. Thanks, Greg. Second? Second. Marcus, thank you. Second. All right. All in favor?

Aye. Thanks, everyone.

All right.