Planning Board - Regular Meeting

the planning board meeting of February 10th. It's now 7 PM. Um, we're gonna start with Oh, is there Greg there? Right. Okay. We're going to start with roll call. Uh, David Creel. David Creel here. David Austin. Austin here. Jisenberg is here. Marcus Cassich is excused. He's ill tonight. Will not be attending. Shawn Davy here. And Greg Cranford on Zoom here. Okay. Um, first order of business is to review and approve the minutes uh from our January 13th meeting. Did everyone have a look at that? And any discussion or additions or a motion approved? Second. Second. All in favor? I

Okay. Uh, we're going to look over some of the bills. Um, our portion, you may have seen the full bill, but our portion is only 2,414. Um we did not have a invoice from our engineer. There was really no um work that was performed in the time since our last meeting. Um but for our attorney um Whan Feler again approximately 76% of the bill um the bulk of that was uh site plan review legislation obviously a little bit on um Crescent Beach LLC and um a little bit on um well attendance actually in a inerson meeting. Um, so I I need someone to make a motion to um approve Whan Fieler for $2,414.

Motion to approve. Second. Second. All in favor? Filer. What did I say? Field. I'll write out the phonetics on that next. He's going to charge us for that time. All right. All right. Well, I'm taking the European dealers.

All right. Um, we do have to do the extension request uh for the Bloom minor subdivision. And I just want to say that we did um in the request for that um extension, we got a letter from Mr. and Mrs. Bloom, right? You all saw that. So ju just to summarize um the health department the health they well basically first they had to get in touch with Suffach County Water Authority um and they received a water availability letter. You remember that from from last month. Then the health department responded and they wanted an updated survey. Hence uh Barbara Galum had to send an updated survey to the health department. They got it. Um now the also they're also waiting for Suffach County Water Authority who sent an application to DC in December to extend the main which again has to do with the water hookup. So once the survey has been sent now and they get the hookup uh you know approval once that main is extended everything on their part is done. So they they anticipate early spring of 2026. So hence why we are asking um to do the resolution tonight. Um so whereas the planning board finds that under the circumstances the applicant's failure or inability to file a final application for minor subdivision approval within the allotted time is excusable and that an additional 6 months may be necessary um for the applicants to file such. Uh now therefore be resolved. The planning board hereby grants the applicants an additional six months or until August 11, 2026 in which to file an application for minor minor subdivision approval and be further resolved that other than as expressly set forth herein, this resolution shall not alter the conditional sketch plan approval granted to this application on January 11th,

2022. Um, so can I get a motion um to approve the Bloom resolution um for extension? It would be number one of 2026. Our first one. Motion to approve. Okay. Motion from David Creel. May I have a second? Second. Second from Shawn Davyy. All in favor? I I I Okay, that resolution's passed. I did get a voice from that folder. I know it got it this afternoon. So I my correction then I did not uh so it is in your Sorry about that. Shall we go back then? Let's go back to Sorry.

For some reason I thought Did I come in late today? Yes. Yeah. Okay. Um so I actually didn't Okay. I need to take a quick look at it because I did not see this earlier. Um, bulk seems to be Crescent Beach LOC, which would make sense with this, uh, SRA parts two and three. Okay. So, uh, for our engineer from the Rainer Group, uh, that bill total was $75. So, can I get a motion to approve um, the Rainer Group's bill for $75? Motion to approve. Thank you, Sean. Second, David Creel. All in favor? I.

Thank you for catching that. Jessica. All right. Um All right. So, I'd like to make a motion then that we uh close the business meeting. Second, David Creel. All in favor? All right. Almost the shortest one I've ever done. No, that's not done.

706 going to uh go into our work session. Um we still have one lot line modification application which uh we're waiting on updated survey from them. That is the um Ratican uh lot line adjustment. That's the only one we have pending. Under our subdivision applications, we just did the resolution number one of 2026 for uh the Blooms. Um and so that's going to be extended as per the resolution I just read. Uh West Neck Creek Cottages, we are they have until April 14th. Um, Ballard Trust Major Subdivision. We all know where that is. And um, they have to submit their final application on June 9th. Crescent Beach LLC minor subdivision. Same situation. They now have to submit their final application. We just spent a lot of time on their sketch plan. They have until June 9th, pardon me, 2026. The Row Minor subdivision. We're still waiting on a um a revised sketch plan if we get that in. and the white performance pot. There's nothing I can say about that. That's in the hands of our town board attorney. So, we'll hear something on that. All right. So, um Oh, actually, one thing I I do want to make note of um since I didn't get to do it between the last meeting um and earlier is uh just that we wish Matt Fox, our seventh member, well wishes. He got a promotion, so we're very happy for him. I'm sorry to see him leave. U Matt's been a member of the planning board since October 18th, 2022. Um so we miss we uh wish uh Matt well.

So who's he promoted to? Um he works for Mnt Bank, I believe, and he he's now a branch manager. Where did he buy? I thought it was right. He was on the island and I think now he's now he's now he's off the island and you got a bigger role for him.

Yep. Um, okay. So, uh, the other thing is that, um, because we have a few members that have to recuse themselves on the Sylvester Manor educational farm application, um, we're going to push that one back. And subsequently due to Matt Matt Fox's resignation, the fact that Marcus Cassich is absent tonight and Greg is has to recuse himself, we're actually not going to be able to discuss the Sylvester Matter Educational Farm application. We're going to have to put that off until the March meeting. Um, therefore, I'd like to propose that we start maybe with the history museum. This way, they can leave earlier and then we'll do wetlands review. Okay. So, we got uh history museum. Give you a second to get all your papers in order. David Pel was kind enough to um take lead on a skeleton draft for us. So, we have that which will make it easier for us to insert any changes before we submit our advisory memo. So, thank you for that.

Great job. Welcome. Very good job on this. Yeah, possibly more than I needed to to write, but set a high bar.

Um, well, you know, one interesting thing that popped into my mind was that the in terms of the code with the calculation for parking, you do recall on the Liberty landscaping, we had such a case where the code was actually demanding more than was needed on that application. And that's in the we Oh, also I should just say that we had some correspondence with Reed uh Karen, our building inspector, who um was very informative and sort of, you know, rounded out some of the some of the questions we had as we were making up our draft. Um so again, sometimes it's too high or in this case it seems like it's insufficient for an assembly type permit. May I ask? Yeah.

What is it that the historical museum is proposing? We're actually going to go over that right now. Yeah. Uh so David, do you want to lay us through the followup?

Well, what the propologist summary, they're proposing uh changing the use of the barn to an assembly to A3 occupancy. And per the code, that kind of a change automatically triggers a site plan review. Um, the parking question is interesting because the the code is sort of almost sketchy in that it blanketly says a parking space per 200 square ft of interior volume whether it's a warehouse or a church or a school which are going to have vast vastly different occupant load. So, you know, at some point that should probably be looked at again. Um,

and the term it uses is what's the term that it uses that it's going to use? Is it what is the term that's in there right now that triggers 200 ft of parking? No, no. Oh, 200 ft of of interior floor space triggers one parking space. That's a good place to use the term gross floor area. Yeah. Right. Well, actually, it doesn't use gross floor area. It doesn't exist. Uses interior floor area. But but I think more importantly it should be based on occupant load and not square footage. But it's not.

Yeah. I mean a 10,000t warehouse with one employee you know doesn't need 50 parking spaces. So whatever in any case so so the need is triggered to look at the parking again. Um, in looking at the existing parking lot, there are, for some reason, three different counts within it. There's a state DOT application that was done when they renovated the museum, which shows, and I may get this wrong. One shows 17 spaces. The site plan shows 18 spaces. The survey shows 16 spaces. I may have that mixed up, but it's inconsistent. Um,

I've been there once, too. I think gravel online parking space. I that's one part. Yeah. I I went to look at it the other day and it's covered in snow so I couldn't tell you but I think it's gravel or a hardened gravel. Um and it's not it's paved, isn't it? I don't remember. Wait, which Could you just repeat which area you're talking about? Where the mark where the market's normally set up? The parking lot. Yeah, it is. It is a gravel. Yeah, right off 114. It's kind of gravel. That's that part. That's town uh property. No, no, no. There there's a distinct within the stone walls. There's a small parking lot. Exactly. That's what I'm talking about. That's

the market the market parking lot is gravel with um it has stone demarcations uh inlaid for the for the parking spaces. Yeah. I mean, and it's worth pointing out that for special events, overflow parking has been on the town-owned adjacent lot, you know, and that seems to happily be working, except that that may not always be what it is, and you know, there's been talk about uses for it. So, you know, another solution needs to be addressed. So, going back to the state approved plan, it shows parking not that distinctly, but on the grass adjacent to the barn, right?

It shows half the 17 or 16 spaces along the street, which I guess it's really a private road, a shady lane. It it then says there's a hedge, which I don't believe is there now. And then the balance of the parking is on the grass. The site plan that was submitted shows all the parking on the grass. I don't remember 30 three spaces I think. Thank you. Um so to go back to the analysis of how many spaces you need

per the code and Reed pointed this out. It's not based on occupancy whether it's storage or assembly space. You need to count all of the space including the second floor of the barn which I don't think was done in the original calculations. It's not a huge difference. It adds about 2,000 ft there. That's 10 more. It's more spots, right? Which would be more spots, but there's already provided the 33 plus the other part is already slightly over what's required. The museum isn't arguing that they already have the building and therefore it's already pre-counted into their parking requirements.

You know, I when you look at the totals on both the site plan and the state approved, it specifically is the first floor of the barn. For some reason, the second floor wasn't. And I don't remember what the second floor looked like originally, but now it looks like there's access up there and it should probably be counted, right? Because he had said he wasn't sure if it was he couldn't recall if it was specifically for storage or whether they were going to allow people to kind of walk through and observe predominantly storage. I got a little twist, but I know

I just I regarding the upper level, I just recall, and I could be mistaken, but I just recalled that they don't typically allow people up there because the structure is not suitable for assembly. Yeah, there's a significant amount of work proposed a to structurally reinforced both the first and the second floor to the second floor as well. Yes, it was. Uh there's also railings that are there's a I guess an existing hole in the floor 10 by or 12 by 15 or something and railings are going to be put around that. I don't remember if there's a guard rail now.

There is there is but we can ask I'm Jeffrey Fle. Yes. Hello Jeffrey architect for the history museum. If anybody has any questions I'd be more than happy to answer them. So, if I can be of any help with this question, period, please. Well, I I I think Greg, I mean, in a way, it's an important point whether it's going to be used from a code perspective. From a parking count, at least per the building inspector, it doesn't matter. You got to count it anyway. Okay. So, okay. You know, we're talking about parking cars on grass. The occupancy of the second floor is was and is for storage. If it right,

it is our understanding the way that was the way it was computed for the state application that the law space storage space does not copy its occupancy. However, if if Reed says that it does count, we will accommodate. Right. I I since since the bulk of the barking is on the grass, it probably doesn't matter to add the additional space, but I think what would be helpful on the site plan is to not to jump into recommendations, but okay,

is to indicate actually how many cars you really could park on the grass, taking into account the trees and how you're going to access it. and and I I can imagine during special events it's typically the case there's going to be a couple of kids there you know directing people so the fact that parking is not you know delineated is less of an issue I mean that's what happens at at the manor and in a lot of places where there's so but I think we should demonstrate that if we're going to say 33 or whatever it's required 35 cars on the grass we should ensure that you can actually pit 35 cars on the grass

shut I will remind you that that parking for on the grass is just for provisional temporary you know events like the Sunday market for instance it has to be always available because in theory it's all based upon the space and the space says those spots have to exist so there always has to be enough space for that many vehicles to park that's right the number is there and I'll be happy to show on a revised plan this

space would be help the other thing is I think when we get above I I believe the count is 54 if you include the second floor, which now triggers three handicap accessible spaces. Um, the way the parking is shown in the the the gravel parking lot, I don't think the space is shown include the 60in extra space you need behind the car. So, if you need three, if one's on the grass, so be it. But I think in terms Well, I did that's what I was going to say in in terms of, you know, you're putting in an accessible ramp, but there's no way shown to get from the museum to the barn other than across the grass.

We need to show we need to show an additional path that connects the existing path with the new path ramp. Right. We will add we will revise our plan to show that. That was an oversight. Right. C can I also just ask about you had a good note in there about the actual width of those parking spaces since we have Jeff here just because the site plan basically the witch on the site plan is under eight feet and ADA spaces don't meet the minimum requirement which is 13 right existing parking yes I don't know what that

yeah weirdly I mean there's no national standard for the size of a parking space. Um, what the shelter island code says, a parking space is 10 by 20 ft, which is an unreasonably large space, but it's unclear if that is the area you need within the parking lot for all the cars, including the aisle, or that's the individual space. It's just not written that specifically to understand how big it really has to be. I mean, nobody does 10ft wide parking spaces in my experience. On the other hand, a 7 foot 8 parking space is kind of narrow when half the people are in pickup trucks. So,

East Hampton has standard alternative. You can be 10 by 18 or you can be 9 by 20. Both of which are 180 ft, right? Just for the parking space, right? Yeah. The business that seems to work. The business code, our code in business B is 10 by 20 in business zone. Sir, are you on the planning board? No attorney. He's our attorney. Okay. Okay. Sorry. He knows more than we do. Probably. Yeah. Something.

So, in any case, I think the capacity of that lot should be looked at realistically with real ADA spaces and a reasonable bay width for each parking space cuz it I mean, as as I said, the site plan, the dot drawing, and and the survey all show a different number of cars in that lot. So yeah, they're off by Yeah, we should just figure out what it is and then put those in the grasp. And then again, just to be careful with assuming that the parking availability that the town has that that's not a given. I mean, it is right now, but things can change. So I would never bank your plans on something that's not a defin. You're already not counting it anyway. There's no mention of it in your drawings, but you can't.

Yeah. Is it would it be appropriate at some point, Julia, for uh a recommendation that perhaps there would be a formal agreement with the town? That's a whole another Well, they could do that on their own outside of our decision on this. Yeah, we we think that they'll get to the requisite number of spots within their own

space. They just need to delineate it. Whether that's what they use on a regular basis is kind of irrelevant. Right. Um the other I mean that's really I think the the brunt of our the recommendations. There were two things I noticed which have nothing to do with site plan review or wetlands issues and they're extremely minor. The survey shows a temporary outhouse in the adjacent vegetated buffer where it probably shouldn't be. I don't know if that's existing or if that's proposed.

No, it's actually an exhibit piece. It's histo one of those plastic things. It's quite a bit. It's literally an outhouse. Okay. Well, I leave it there. How about facilities are um the other thing is I mean just for looking she says, right? Is that a oneholeer David screening screening for parking you? Well, that's a criteria, but again, I couldn't remember if that hedge existed anymore. I don't think there's a hedge.

I don't never seen a hedge. Yeah, the the DOT drawing shows a hedge between Shady Lane. It was never built. It was never planted. Okay. So, we went it said 33 parking spaces there. That's what we Yeah, that's what we laid out or let go layout. I mean, one of the site plan criteria is when parking is proposed, we could ask for screening in the case of this since it's used so infrequently and actually the view of the museum is probably an asset. Yes. And also the access to the parking is going to get a little difficult otherwise. Uh I mean personally I don't see the need for it.

If it was like I agree site I'd say yes. But I I would I would like to ask a question if I may. Um it seems to me that uh having seen how that parking is um utilized there is it's not so organized. Is there a way to recommend that they have some mechanism for even on a temporary basis to give a notation of where the limitations of the parking are or how the sort of ad hoc spaces would be delineated,

which is you're referring to the town property? No, I'm I'm actually referring to the grass grass

because um I mean it works it works on a on a a casual basis, but um it it's always a bit of a mystery because some people pull 60 feet into the property, some people pull 20 feet into the property. Um and it's in practical in practical terms it becomes a bit random. That's true. The you know the other thing thinking about a lot of events that I've been to there where they put up a tent the oyster thing you know it kind of wipes out half of the parking. So I I think a question as you're laying out the parking is how much space is actually available because it's when you have the tent that you actually have the most people visiting the you know coincidentally

I think we rely on the the town right but that's I think that's part of the question that I think you need to think about is that you can't assume that that cuz we have to look at it as its entity by itself and so you need to at least show some reasonleness of you're anticipating that that actually isn't there somehow. Yeah. May it may be tight. I don't know. I think you'd have to look at the plan for the tent that's usually used and see what what you can really fit.

Okay. Well, we could play it both ways and you can use a smaller tent, you know, to make more room for we could we could show a a suggested layout with a tent if that's what you I think it's reasonable. Yeah. Yeah. I mean, you know, the reality is people will park on the road, which is not what we're supposed to advocate, but that's if there's no room, that's what they're going to do. So, it's not meant to make you jump through hoops. is just that

in advance think about then if in you know would you move the tent to a slightly different place? Would you use a slightly smaller tent? How would you if you needed to accommodate all those spaces at that time? Would you do it and show us that it can be done?

I hope I didn't harass you with too many questions during our emails. One thing you you you mentioned in that that was interesting was the sprinkler system having to be a dry sprinkler system. Well, it's a wet system and it has what I call antifreeze and it is plaquearded. Uh and it the system gets put on a maintenance contract with the company and they'll pick it up every year. They'll make they'll flush it out and replace it. There was a period when you couldn't do those because they discovered the glycol was somewhat flammable. But I think people have the market has responded to that.

Thank you. Thank you so much. Covered it. I think we covered all the aspects that we Yeah. And and there is the fact that we are by building the new ramps on the side, we are actually actually extending the barn but just with ramps right on the side. Are those and those are permeable ramps I assume. No wooden slash. There's a ramp on one side and a platform and steps on the other side just to be ADA compliant. Right. Yeah.

Just to close what I think that other conversation on screening. I personally the way the property is oriented don't think you need screening for that you know parking if that town parking lot was their parking then I you know I personally would be like can we do something to put some screening but that's really not part of the I I agree with you on that right I mean in fact it's a private road and I don't know if you can have any jurisdiction over that view Okay.

So, are we good on that if for end to discussion on uh history museum? Okay. So, I will well we'll just check this over make sure anything changes to it and I'll pass around one more time and then we'll send it off. Okay. So, just in so I understand the procedure if there's a revised site plan that shows the parking that simply would go to the town board for review. Okay. We'll just make a recommendation. We probably like to see that.

To this. So, we're going to receive written report first and then when I revise the plan, I'll get in touch with town clerk about how many copies she wants to to distribute. Correct. Yeah. Again, just raise it procedurally. If there were a number of issues, we could always postpone sending it to the town board and say, "Come back to us first." Right. Where it's kind of a judgment call of where we decide when we close. Yeah.

All right. Uh so I'm we're jumping into other business before. Uh so uh wetlands review. We did site plan review. Now we're into wetlands. Right. Seems somehow much simpler. Well, that hopefully that means our committee did a good job.

You said you had a few questions, David. Yeah. Um I guess it's kind overall one thing I noticed that was interesting about about it is the it similarly what was being done done with scyp doing administrative or a simpler pastor. What I thought was really interesting about this was where that decision process landed and the fact that it's entirely on the building inspector to make that call. Yes. was part of the

that seems very different very different than anything that's been done before and I wanted to kind of understand since obviously I wasn't in the room how that decision was made because it kind of pushes it in theory no matter what it's always been pushed down administratively either comes to the comes to came to us but usually it's been the town board who are people are voted in to decide whether or not to accept something or not so and this kind of seems to give a lot of uh opportunity for the building inspector to make a lot of it might accelerate things but it it also makes it very dependent upon that one person.

I think the part the reason why that actually came about and Albert will correct me if I'm wrong but I believe it's because at that point and we still don't have jurisdiction over wetlands. They were looking at it even then and Reed was part of the discussion that since it was he was actually the individual who pushed a lot for having the administrative review and because we don't have jurisdictions they wouldn't necessarily kick it to us. They you know it would be staying right. No I understand but inor stay in the town board. No. Yeah. No I think that's because I think the fair point regardless

at least from what I read so far about what are in theory up for APRs still is relatively arbitrary. there's enough arbitrariness in there that I worry about to me it goes to the classic if it's a you know this is independent of the individuals involved but if you have a thing where where one administrative body can make calls on things then you'll get a potentially some scratching you know you scratch my back I'll scratch your back and it's outside of the v you know basically it won't go become public it will not go through a public hearing So I I'm concerned about that. Yeah,

agreed. And that was the only thing when I looked at all everything I thought was looking really great. I think I I worry about that delegation personally. But can't we define specific and very narrow uh situations where an administrative view is permitted? I think potentially, but I believe currently what I saw in there seemed broader and broader written that I would personally be comfortable with on first blush. And so I just worried a little bit about that. I just and I wanted to understand how it kind of came about because I obviously wasn't there. But that was it. And I think that the legislation's looking

I remember others in the group asking would that be too much on his plate already given all his other and I'm not worried about plate. I'm worried about it's better you have a better consistency of judgment with more people involved in the processor. Right. Both ways in all honesty because there's also things still in here about like a a wetlands um what do they call it? Uh, I just discovered it today. A wetland cuz it was mentioned in one of your notes about could shouldn't this be something the wetlands monitor. What's the person the person in theory? It's like a wetland

wetlands officer. Yeah. There's only one mention of a wetlands officer and it's kind of buried in somewhere. It's not defined. It doesn't exist. It's like definition was deleted, right? But it's still in the code and it's and and so it's like there is no artifact, right? And so it's like so who's actually going to So that's actually another concern especially when you're pushing

I would be probably more comfortable if there was going to be more review pushing things down like the building department but if there's nobody there to just like with code enforcement we don't do code enforce we barely do we do have some right we do have actually a code for which is great um and maybe that's person supposed should be doing wetlands I don't know but That's that's one. Yeah. So, it's a good catch up.

So, those those are the actually the only two things I I thought that things were looking really good. Obviously, the changes from the 75 and if I'm talking too much, I'm sorry. The 75 ft to 100 foot is kind of like it's just pushing it out. Um, but it is actually interesting that there's still actually some things allowed in that 100 foot somewhat even more so than today because right now it talks about the fact you have a walkway. Yeah. Unlimited walkway. 5 foot wide. Yeah. Zip zip zip zip zip zip zip zip zip. I'm all over. That's all.

Right. So, it's like I this goes back to the definition of being really concise and explicit about some of the stuff because it it there's there's and we know this. There are ways of working around some of these things that are actually could be detrimental to the wetlands which I think is what we're trying to make sure it doesn't happen. Um can I um Rick did um I'm just wondering did you have a chance to look at this? Yes. Oh, you did. Okay. I just want to I want to make sure we haven't seen you in months. So, I want to make sure you saw something like No. So if we ask you a question those are the only two so those are the things I was worried about and there's no definition of that wet wetlands all yeah that got removed

it was in there in our past versions also there is what walkway wetlands officer oh right no but we have a definition of walkway as far as I remember there's definite walkways but it's it's 5 foot wide thing it's like okay so you can do a 5ft wide thing it's way too much freedom to do what you want with them. So again, you can zigzag all the way down. Get every tree out of the way. Take every tree. Well, every bush and every it's like you can take everything. So I think I think there's an easy least invasive path, you know, and if you're removing trees, it has not worried about the

accelerated, you know, approval. Like if you're removing trees, then you have to come and get the accelerated approval and the the standard is you take the least invasive path to make your 5T down to Can I suggest that we start at the beginning and go through the comments? Jumped in. Sorry. Sorry. I just want to make sure I think I want to ask about what's the APR.

Um, all right. So the first the first comment that anyone made on it was under article 2 so 129-2 definitions and David K that was you um you said this actually a good point that the um adjacent vegetative buffer a also known as ABB was removed from this version and it may be useful to retain a definition for reviewing applications with prior approvals. you just go back and look at the old code in theory if it was proved under an old code.

Well, there's a term that we we used to use that we took out of this draft to be more consistent. We've got ARRA and AVB and buffer. So, there were there were a lot of different terms floating around depending on who was doing the application. Like the building department used something different than the town board used. So, we just took that out. But David's saying, should this older term that was on some of the previous applications and the code adjacent vegetative buffer, should we have that in the definitions just in case there's a No. Yeah. First of all, I that was the great one of the great improvements of this was to take out those stupid buffers which no, which didn't make any sense anyway. Okay.

Uh so the end of but the reason why you don't do it is because I read I did see some of the comments. uh if somebody came in for a modification or extension or whatever, they're under the new code anyway. The code's been changed. So you don't need to worry about the old terminology. Granted, they may have used at the time, but you know, the code changed. So whatever they're modifying, you would modify it under the newly legislation. Yep. I would be only thing I would say on that is to be careful about saying just getting rid of this because what it does actually is it changes it from a really 75 ft buffer to 100 foot. So you used to be able to do a lot of things in that 25 foot that are no longer allowed. That's right. So I would

you could say well maybe it should have just been 75. So I think saying it was a dumb different thing is I think judgmental on whether the distance should be right. Again it's an arbitrary distance anyway. Bill the other reason is if you're not using the termin term in the new code then it's confusing to put it in your definition. Why is it your definition? Only for those situations where we're looking at a covenant from 20 years ago which addresses the ABB and someone says what what's the AB changes nor just have to deal with it under whatever your reg um all right the next one going down is under boardwalks.

I know you starting from the top or you Yeah, we the first comment only came at uh 129-2s though. Huh? Can I give you my comments as you go? Yeah. Yeah, we'd like. Yeah. Yeah. I I was just giving the the planning board members their you know Go ahead. So, one thing I would do in the So, the first section is purpose and findings.

Wouldn't be a bad idea to have in here a sectional authority. What is your authority, your legal authority to implement wetland regulations in the town? Whether that's taking out of the municipal rule law where you take art of the town law because remember yeah the DC has title and freshwater jurisdiction under itself. I forget I think they do have some something there because I know at least at the town village site this I think there's some authority that you can borrow out of the Atlanta you know the state legis regulations but you definitely want to found it on the town law article 16 which is zoning power. Uh, so I would I would recommend there be something, you know, maybe a different section. Um, or maybe you can fit it into purpose, findings, and authority, something like that.

Be nice to have it up front, but you should have something stating what the you're because otherwise somebody would come over and say, "Hey, wait a second. The state has preempted this field. You don't have any." That's a good point. Yeah, we did not have that in the past, but it would be good to have in our purpose bindings. Did you have anything else in the first article? So that that was all for um for the first section. Let me just see if we have Isn't that consistent? Did we do that for site plan? What's that? Did we do that for site plan as well? Did we put Cuz we should I don't know that we did, but site plan's a little bit more straightforward because there's no preeemption issue site plan. The New York town law specifically allows you to have plenty in section 374.

Wetlands are a different Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Got it. Um I and expansion I question the use of the term bulk but then it goes on to actually explain what bulk is. So uh as long as you're okay with any physical increase in dimension triggering the permit you're skipping past ours yet we're at boardwalk where you are again definition of expansion. We have one on boardwalk before that from a town board from a right. We have a planning board member had a comment on boardwalk.

Uh the board, this is from David Ferel. The boardwalk definition has a few pitfalls as seen in the Dickerson application where it was an 80 foot long. Uh there are areas in the vegetative buffer that consist of turf. That's a good point actually. And our wetlands by definition only. You wouldn't, for example, you wouldn't get your feet wet. In the case of Dickerson, the boardwalk was to form an accessible connection and should be permitted. Although less obtrusive solutions were possible, but in most cases, if permeable paving of grade is possible, it's a less intrusive solution than pilings and treated lumber.

I I made this comment before I got to the end, which that's how we do things where it actually specific specifically says boardwalks through the wetlands are permitted if it's part of a dock application. Yep. Yeah, which seems crazy to me. Yeah, the doc code overrides been around for a long time because but in the in the dock code it says that approvals are done in concert with whoever is the wetlands authority. So in fact it would have to come to us anyway. So there's something I don't know not quite contradictory but a little wacky about that.

Let me just say one thing about that last sentence in boardwalk. it's not that important in this area and maybe I don't know whether you want to leave it the way it is now but general rule uh it's not wise to put your regulations in the definition definition should explain what the term means but then don't go a lot of times you'll see people do this or you see you know uh public bodies governments do this they'll also insert extraneous stuff in the definition that is a very regulatory That really should be in the body of your law. The definitions are to define things because right

when the law changes now you're stuck with you just a whole second sentence there about what you know how you designed the boardwalk. Yeah. Quarter inch gap that can it's not a big enough field in this case to probably change the code. That kind of thing I would normally put within the body of the Well, in all reality, we probably I would recommend that we do because that's similar to what we probably need to do for walkways as far being putting some more regulation in. So, we probably do it for both boardwalks and walkways in some form, right? And you don't want again you don't want to put that in the definition of the walkway. Yeah, that'd be my recommendation, too. I don't know what the right points are, but we need something,

but we're kind of aiming for the a standard that is the least obtrusive. Yeah. My question is, is that is that a will that work legally? That's why that's why it's like the lawyers need I mean, I would say that I'm sure you can work it. I mean, I personally would use for both of those some sort of like lease obtrusive, you know, eco-friendly, whatever. or leave it to the lawyer to figure out how to minimal impact or that exactly what's the and we have those kind of terms in the side plans too. It's like how do you say usually we're like reasonable because I know again you're getting walkways you know you don't want somebody to abuse that. Yes.

Um I will say that you're doing a four or five foot walkway especially four feet uh it's generally pretty easy to put in a 4ft wide path without taking trees down. Yeah. But the but what we're trying just just to be clear at least from when I approach all of this this is I'm trying to anticipate bad characters cuz that's we've seen a lot of it. So if someone says I can't cut those trees down

because the town won't let me but they allow me to do this if I go I can take out all the trees and I can have a perfect view and there's nothing to stop me from doing that. If we put in something that says if you're taking down a tree then you have to come for an accelerated approval and the standard is a you know least obtrusive you know minim minimal impact you know solution you know kind of thing you have some standard to hold people to I actually think it shouldn't be accelerated should be you have to come to a well yeah I mean whatever you want the full thing you want to come to the you don't want

you don't want you don't want the building inspector making that call right No, I'm Well, if we go back to that point, I agree with you. Let's get it away from the building inspector. So, you you might want to put that in the list or table maybe. Yeah. I have to think about solve that. I'm sure we're leaving that to you a little bit. Yeah. So, Rick, as we're going through, you're you're just also making notes on this, right? And then can we uh take that out that the boardwalk to a dock is not an automatic. We can just change it here, right? That it's

I don't think it would be in the definition. I think I know we can change it in the table and override anything that might be in the dock thing. I think we need to go when we get to the table. Yeah, that' probably be the right place. All right. Um Rick Whan, anything else on that? Uh as we're in that definition section, I had a comment on the footprint thing. Yeah, because it's odd. It seems to me it's a different definition of footprint than say a setback line would use because it's saying that uh it includes covered porches

but excludes patios, decks, stairways, steps, and balconies. All of which would be included in the footprint if you were talking about a distance from a setback. So I'm not sure, you know, in other words, if you built your patio or stairway over a sideyard setback line, that would be considered an encroachment. Yeah. But we're saying it's not an encroachment in the definition of footprint. Why would it's because I think they only use footprint for expansion.

Yeah. I mean, what comes to mind to me is that if you're saying, for example, you're allowed to stay within your existing footprint and go up or something, right? You might be inadvertently allowing more freedom than you really want, which I think you have to look at the interplay. But yeah, cuz right now, I think what it does, it talks it uses footprint expansion and it also uses it in the table and it talks about what you you know, basically if you go outside the footprint. So basically if there's a stairway that doesn't count as the footprint which is I'm not sure where it would let me go back to one of my things I brought before yeah that terminology gross floor area

you could define gross floor for a building like a thing with you know roofs and you could also use it for an external structure like a porch or patio. I think one of the problems with the definition of footprint here and I think I saw this in somebody's comment. Um, someone asked well this is include does this include pools and comment. Yeah. So it says footprint the outside perimeter exactly how I would write it anyway but the outside perimeter of an existing foundation for structure including any covered porches. But then it goes on to say if it's not covered like a port like a like a patio or a deck or pool then it's not part of a footprint in a structure. Yeah. Pool actually

well it doesn't mention pool which is what the first thing I was thinking of. Yeah. So what happens with the pool? Yeah. Is a pool you have a does a pool of footprint as a foundation. Yeah. Well, but I think it becomes we say when it becomes tricky and it is leading into a later discussion of if you have an existing obtrusion into the 100 ft, right? And they're saying I want to renovate and expand. Are you saying you can stay within your existing building footprint or are you giving them credit for everything that's there that you know kind of and I think or could they keep the same area but reconfigure it and say I kept the same that's a whole separate conversation I

so I mean I'm just throwing out there you you know you could replace that with the term gross floor area and you could have a gross floor definition for buildings which are structures that have roofs that include porches and gross floor area for things that are clearly structures but are not roofed. Patios, decks, pools, pool decks. Mhm. Yeah. Cuz right now all of the things are around uh specifically Well, it's around it's around the around this um footprint and that's how all the tables driven which means you can do whatever you want with your pool in some ways cuz there's not even

Well, they throw another term into the table which is living area. Yeah, it's not a defined term, but alth every term you use should be really every term you use ought to be defined. Where's living area though? Oh, it's in it's in the table. Should we use gross floor area? It's in 129.3. Thank under expansion. I think it's independent of whether you new construction expansion of existing living areas outside of those. We need to define that area in some way both for a pool or for because it just seems clean to do it that this way you can have gross floor area as you said for structures like dwellings with and

it's the same as having footprint for structures and footprint for other things. It's just a word. It would be good. It would be good I think to delineate both of those separately and then we can choose when we want to reference one versus the other. is a very pliable term that you can use it as David Kringles pointed out under expansion in the list or table it uses footprint of existing square foot living area. Yeah, that's that's old code terminology to right.

Yeah. So, I think this construct, you know, these definitions are probably key to getting this stuff straightened out a little bit. Um, cuz you might even be able to use that in some ways for the maybe the walkways. I I don't know. But it's like there's like cuz how much covered anyway. So, but definitely for what's allowed, what's not allowed, we need to be able to include both building structure, square footprint, square foot area. And

so, it sounds like I I think that we're trying to delineate between building structure footprint and other that are probably non-permeable surfaces like pool and p hard patios and whatever. and if we can create a definition for both and then we can see if we want to use the second one or we can mo we're mostly relying on the first definition but we're drawing a distinction between the two east town

why why can't you say something like gross floor area including additional ancillary structures such as walkways, exterior stairs, pools and other site structures something like that where you just clarify to extend beyond just um footprint. But I think what we're anticipating and we're just not there at the conversation yet is that if somebody is for example wanting to renovate an existing structure and you're trying to con think about how much room you're going to allow what you are going to allow. Do you want to be talking about the living spaces as where your maybe trigger of uh or structural spaces of where you'll there's some permitted expansion whereas the other pool and other things are extraneous and you don't necessarily want to be granting

let me give you an example if you define let's you use say you turn GFA and you just put it all in somebody could take they had an existing large patio they could say I'm going to expand my house into that house is exactly what my GFA is exactly what and that is exactly what I do not want and exactly what a separate discussion that I think we need to have of I just I just want to let me Larson's one of our leaison has her hand up me go ahead

so the intention behind the definition of a footprint was uh exactly to avoid what Rick was just talking about, right? So, when someone's talking about expanding uh their house or the structure, we don't want them to be able to include anything beyond the existing foundation of that house if it's in the wetlands area, right? So, we were trying to make it so that they could not include the area for patios, decks, stairways, steps, balconies. A swimming pool in our minds doesn't even come into this because if you have a swimming pool in the wetlands, there's no way we're letting you modify it any way other than smaller or gone. Right? So the whole point of the definition of a footprint was to define that you're not allowed to build outside of the existing foundation of that structure into the wetlands. That was the whole intention. Um, not like that's kind of why we stayed away from gross floor area because let's say you have an existing two-story home that's 3,000 square ft, but now instead you want to build a one-story home that's 3,000 square ft. You're going to take up more area in that lot. And is that better or worse? I don't know. But you can't have three stories. So, at least if you're sticking with the two stories in the footprint you have, you're not doing more ground disturbance in the wetlands area. So, that's what we were shooting for. if there's a better way to do it, we're totally open to recommendations. But that's how we got to where it is now.

I think what you have is 100% what is needed. But I think there's also a piece missing, which is the what if you're cuz right now if they have a swimming pool, there's nothing here that tells them they can't expand their swimming pool because it's not in your list of expansions, right? So it's like there's things they could do because there's kind of things outside of. So I think what you have is correct as far as expansion for footprint for building structures. It's the fact that we're not worrying about expansion or change of non-building structures. It's sort of that making sure we cover that as well. So I think you what you have what what exists in here is exactly what we need, but I think there's probably something missing that we need to make sure we don't let through so to speak. I I agree that's what you're not covering. But also Meg's point is also very good, which is you don't want somebody to to go from a two-story house and how they would do this, but from a two-story house to a more expensive one and say, "Well, you increase my GFA."

Yeah. Yeah. Yep.

And so that's goes back to how do you it it's the same. This is why I think in the the definition of expansion and a footprint or expansion specifically talks about uh adding floors, changing floors, dormers, roof lines as well as as the actual uh threedimensional expansion. So, it's like I just think I think we're like 80% there. It's just like figuring out that 20% that's getting missed. Are we how do we cover it and make sure that we cuz I think the intent's very clear. I think me what you guys are trying to do is like very clear what the intent is. I just don't know if the specific words and table cover all those weirdnesses. Um because people just find their way around things.

We've seen that over and over again with the existing wetlands code. So the more bulletproof we can make this the better. Um we're moving on. Rick, did you have anything else in that little section there? Uh the next one is also David Creel then reconstruction. David, these are these are related repair and reconstruction are kind of related and it's a little unclear the thinking behind this. So does a repair that exceeds 50% of what? I'm not sure. It just says 50%. Become pretty much reconstruction pretty much. Yeah, if you go over if it's 50 or

but it doesn't under repair it doesn't say that. It just says it's customary usual normal activity to restore blah blah blah. inherent then you have reconstruction which kind of it kind of covers it because it's any I I think it's confusing if I was doing either one I'd be confused. So in the case of like the one we looked at on paconic sims had that where it became reconstruction because they got in there found more deterioration correct and then it was over but it's basically 50 or over. Why do we say reconstruction replace at 50% but we don't say repair is less than 50%. And it's 50% of what? The area the value. No, I think it's not it's not identified.

We just wanted in there a straight up definition of repair as far as I remember. I think I think that was just to clarify what repair so that people couldn't say like something was a repair that wasn't. Do you know what I mean? Right. So David is on to something here I think. Yeah. Uh so repair the definition repair is there because repair is a no permanent required activity. Exactly. So you better define what it is so people can say you know it needs the definition of repair. Fine. You're allowed to go repair your house or whatever structure. Y

reconstruction is dealing with something that is not merely repair. It's beyond that. But under this definition, it has to be 50% or more of the existing structure inflation. So what happens if you tear down 48% of your house? That's not repair, but it's not under reconstruction either. So what is it? Well, well, let's go. What's the goal? Are we saying that certain threshold of construction is more threatening to the wetlands?

That'd be demolition, by the way. Well, you could repair you could replace your roof, siding, windows and do a lot of damage and it would still be a repair. So, repair, but look at demolition definition. But if you if you start to regulate that that you really get trouble. Yeah, exactly. Cuz that's not going to happen that often. Um, you know, you could be very sloppy about how you replace your windows and you get damage. Well, that's true. But but if you start to regulate that kind of stuff then you you know people begin to lose track of what you're doing that's so do you think it's implicit by saying reconstruction is more than 50% that repair is less than 50%.

No no I think that I think what you want to say is construction not necessarily re just reconstruction reconstruction would be typically tearing down and replacing existing structure. Um, what happens if you are tearing down part of it? If you're tearing down part of it and replacing that, to me that's still reconstruction. But it's demolition thereof. It would be demolition and then potentially if it's more than 50% then it would be in theory reconstruction. Well, otherwise it's just considered demolition or

and that goes you could do an APR through the building department colonel based on what has read. the 50% rule comes in play in in a number of things. One of them is FEMA. Okay. You know, if you're in a flood zone, then if you do work that is equal to either 50% or more of the of the value of the structure, then federal regulation says you have to upgrade. So that's why codes often use this 50% bench benchmark. Sometimes the theme is based on value specific can be based on value or size area. Yeah. Uh I I just thought of something here. So we're basing this 50% on the contractor's integrity that

they're determined by the building department. That's how it is. I mean also could it be tied into whether the work requires a building permit? You don't need a building permit to put in a new roof. You need it to replace walls or to move walls. Potentially you do need a building permit to put up a new roof. Yeah, I was going to say just to strip off an old roof and put new shingles. Yes, you absolutely need a roof permit. Really? Yeah. I didn't know that.

You don't need a permit to put since I just went through this to put on new decking. You need to replace your existing decking. Yeah. to replace a new deck. No, no. To replace existing decking, but if you end up doing the structure under the deck, you need a building permit. Yep. In that case, yes. Having just crossed that threshold. So, we're saying repair work could also require a building permit. Oh, yeah. All right. So, forget that strategy. So new construction could include anything that is I guess that's I we'd have to look at it more carefully know how construction is being defined here.

Okay. Let me just ask you. I mean, are you are you guys saying that suppose somebody was to reconstruct, meaning tear down and rebuild, let's say, 45% of their existing house and they're within the regulated area. Would you want them to get a permit? No, they have to get a permit because well, at least an APR because they're doing demolition. So, by definition, they're doing demolition which requires an APR at a minimum. Oh, yeah. Okay. Right. Demolition. Yeah. They have to come in. So I think that's how they're covering some of that part. By keeping the any part thereof, it brings them back to that table. Yeah.

Okay. But if you're just reconstructing basically you're altering any part of a structure like you're changing a I guess it' be like a wall. You're moving a wall, but it's only like one wall inside the thing and you're not having to remove you having to do demolition, which is I guess here for alteration, which is a by the way a good idea to have that

reconfiguring. Yeah, I think most of the definitions are are all pretty good. I think the big things with things are APR versus

well an alteration I suppose is a reconstruction less than 50%. Because reconstruction says it's an alteration that's more than 50%. Look at the definition of reconstruction. Yeah. Sub sub50 is alteration replacement. So I have to have to go through this carefully compare them all.

All right. Well, it's hard because they're alphabetical is actually how the construct is, right? I think you got I think you just found it. You got to be really really careful with your definitions. So, did we agree that uh on the repair definition that we're that we're not adding anything about under 50% because it's just a simple definition because it's just an alteration. Don't if you can. But it's interesting. So, but alteration isn't in the 1293 table. Yes, it is. Where? I just searched for it. It's under construction, creation, elimination, alteration, relocation, or enlargement or diminishment of waterway. Where are you looking?

Only the table only of water of of a waterway. Oh, I searched for alteration. That's the only other place used other than in the But that's only related to waterways. Yeah, waterways. And the only other place it's used is that definition of repair. Well, it needs if it exists as a work type, it should be included in the 1293 table. I think you're right. Are you referring to something specifically right now? No, we're just saying that the word alteration, the only place it's used is either in reconstruction,

the definition of reconstruction or it's mentioned under waterway alter altering alternation of a waterway. In other words, you're so you're saying it should be covered somehow with the

it probably should be just like we have repair under you have existing structure repair, we should probably have existing structure alteration and the fact that more than likely it's Uh probably no permit required would be my guess because it's a guess. Yeah. So um these definitions, the exact ones that you're talking about, we went round robin on these quite a few times. So part of the reason why we have repair, reconstruction, and alteration. And yes, alteration is part of the reconstruction definition is because when we have bad actors, let's say, and someone says, "Oh, I'm only taking down this wall." We go and do an inspection and now there's three walls missing. Okay, that's no longer an alteration or a um or a repair. This is now a reconstruction and it kicks you to a new level of review. like it's a way for us to have a a better enforcement definition. So, it may not necessarily be a big thing in the chart, but when it comes to enforcement, it will be helpful for Reed to have those types of definitions.

Sure. But I would think if you have repair and there is no permit required that you probably have alteration there's no permit required just to be really clear or else or else it's just sitting out there in the wind. Right. Makes sense. I mean first let me just say I think by and large the definitions in here are very good. Yeah. That's what I thought. You did a pretty good job. Thanks. But you really need to let me look at it and just Yeah. Yeah. You map it. You got to map it out. See how everything fits together.

Yeah. And that's the thing is like when it's alphabetical, it's really hard to see it versus how it plays into the table. And yeah, it's a it's a slight brain twister. You guys did they did you guys the team did really good work, but yeah. Okay. Are we out of the definitions yet? I think we're not definitions. So there were a few comments under wetlands, freshwater wetland. That's the next thing. Yeah, I didn't I I just assumed that No, I didn't know what those we should have made definitions of racial

because we have two types and I think we just want to be clear that both were both do have our jurisdiction to answer your question. Was that David or No, actually you sorry Sean. Yeah, title title. This is the same as the old code. No, no, sorry. David Creel. Yeah. Well, are Yeah, of course they're equally worth protecting us. But are they DC jurisdions? Tennessee regulates both both there's a title wetland act. So why would the why would the town code want to exclude freshwater wetland? We don't man-made I think is man-made. Well, it becomes it's like same with DC.

And that's the question I like is at some point if it's man-made, doesn't it become a freshwater wetland of sort or can it be deep enough or big enough that you be it becomes something that you do? They don't consider man-made pools wetland. No, that's I mean I think there is that's I thought that was a good topic. But I mean if you go deep enough that your man-made is now like you know tapping to where the freshwater mark right you've created a well that is doing construction more than likely in the wetlands and so cuz it's some you know what I mean it's like I don't know so here's how east yeah I mean we may never you may never get there but

always back to east does regulate man-made wetlands to an extent there's a size limit I think it's 10,000 square ft or and I think this is what you're referring to. If it's situated in the groundwater table, it's if it's going Yeah. it has effects that dry land would not have. Exactly. So the town does, even if you've made it yourself, at a certain point it becomes a regulated wetland. Now, I don't know whether you want to do that or not, but just so you know, you know, that's at least one jurisdiction. We definitely have had a problem with one.

Yeah. I mean could you just change it uh to adapt to to the extent that it is reaching the you know the freshwater line or you know or something that it becomes that then it becomes ours and yes you have to determine whether that is the case or not but it gives you an end to me on that

I just I just wanted to clarify that the DEEC doesn't regulate it based on depth it purely regulates based on the type of vegetation and animal life, a water body. So, um they don't care necessarily if it's man-made or not, if it becomes a habitat for certain species. So, the DEC just updated their freshwater wetlands significantly and it's it's rather challenging. So, um, but there are certain things like those small man-made koi ponds where it's all plastic liner, it's got the filter, it has all that, you know, those are the things that we didn't want to be considered a wetland, a wetlands permit for a man-made 2x3 plastic lined koi pond.

Yeah. So, I guess for the big question is we need to probably really clearly define man-made pond. Make sure it doesn't go over that into something that is actually affecting wetlands. You don't have a definition. So it's I was just gonna double check it. There is uh contra but it's inland. That's pretty large. It could be really big. Oh, and not recognized by uh DEEC. So what you're saying is the DEC will recognize. So we'll have to deal with them. Correct. So we're we're using the DEC as the mechanism to regulate man-made. Yes. cuz they are Is that conservative enough for our It's very conservative. She just said that it doesn't do it based on depth and it's only if like species have inhabited it or whatever

which is very similar to what our wetlands definitions are. Our wetlands definitions isn't based upon depth. It's based upon whether you're doing uh hitting titles. Again, if you look at our actual wetlands or fresh wetlands, it's not based upon how close to the groundwater it is. It's independent that do we want? Right. But this is it's kind of a unique situation. It may be just such a small area that it's like you're trying to solve for something that's not really going to exist, but it jumps out at me, especially because we had the other one that what's out there that we don't know, you know? Well, I think like the one we saw, yeah,

it has a bunch of these shrubs and everything growing around. Yeah. Basically, this it is created it. Well, yeah. But it basically becomes a DEC wetlands, especially the new code the DC has, it probably would get but theirs was a little that they extended an already existing freshwater and dug it out more whereas somebody else could just come and build fresh a new one. If people think it's a question that is like it's such a small thing and no, you know, you're never going to find it. That's fine. It just is what came to my mind. Yeah. I think the thing that's interesting is is if somebody's just going to go build a man-made pond, right? So there's no DC things cuz they're not there's no none of the

there's no coniferous swamp or shrub or whatever. Then the question is does that want to be regulated in some way by the town? Now that may not be a wetlands thing. It may just be a how you regulate man-made ponds and I don't know if there's something cuz really that's the issue is is it getting in the aquifer that's because that could be way from the wetlands right yeah no it would be just like any freshwater reconsense has nothing to do with where close you are to the ocean it's really that you're well the fresh water is because fresh water potential for greater contamination when it's naturally created versus a man-made right man means it's constructed which in theory it should go is there a man you know is there currently a permit require ired to create a man-made pond dredging or something.

No, not not if it's inland and you're not in the wetlands. Like if you're just in the middle of the island somewhere and you want to put a little pond in your backyard and you've got a shovel, you can do it. But the risk with that is that the DEC may end up regulating it.

You have there are man-made ponds on the island that are DEEC regulated. they're on the DEC mapper and um you know that was a whole conversation we had between the building department and a homeowner who put a rather significant plastic lined pond in their yard and now the DEEC is considering it freshwater wetlands. So, you know, that's a risk a homeowner takes on when they do it. But it's because of the types of plantings and it's about the types of animals that live there even though it's plastic lined and doesn't necessarily have an interaction with the groundwater. So, you know, it's really build it at your own risk. Yeah. Interesting. So, it sounds like we're not doing anything to

we're going to punt on it cuz who wants to do that and draw in the DC? And then if they did join the DC, I guess the only question is what I would put point it to is like do you want to potentially I think it's I think maybe it's separate from what lands part of is regulate because in theory somebody does construction and they're getting too close to groundwater. They have things about that but we that's like so I would think this would be construction. The question is but right now currently it doesn't require a permit at all. sounds like and I think that's something that should be considered is whether the town wants to require permitting for man-made pools uh if it's within a certain depth or a certain size but I don't think it's a necessarily a wetlands just

yeah I don't think it's a wetlands issue at the point they're contemplating building it so I don't think we need to discuss it the question is only this thing a man-made pond is not considered a wetland do we want to say unless the DEC has detected No, it we don't have to say it. It's inherent already in the definition of man pond because it talks about the fact if it is then as a wetland leave it alone. Two two things. Some people will look at the demand table and they won't check the definition. So they won't realize that man-made pond is a term of art and it means as we define it here.

The other thing is just FYI just yeah so you know what's done elsewhere in East Hampton. You do need a permit for a man-made pond, an artificial pond over 10,000 square feet in size, quarter of an acre or of any size if it penetrates the groundwork. That's just so you know, that's how we brilliant. Put that on the list. I think that's again Hey Meg, take that one to a note for you guys to figure out how you want to do that. I'm gonna I'm gonna go look it myself. I'm going to look at the new DC regulations. I want you to see Yeah. They're interesting. All right, moving on. All right, so

129 the first line. Reconstruction. Yeah, pass that repair on over within and on or over. We really mean it. Um, and this is the same definition. I think landward boundary of title wet land with 100 ft boundary of wire measure horizontally. I think that's the same as we used to have in general. Uh I have a question actually here that I didn't find the answer to. So activity prohibited AP.

How do you how can you do it? Is that does that come to the last section in the in the the chapter where it says the town board can vary this? It's not clear to me. So in other words, if if the if the activity is prohibited, but you still want to attempt to do it, like you want to build an addition to your house, new construction, whatever, you're within 100 ft of oil land, there's got to be a way if you, you know, there's got to be some every prohibition that has to at least type of option for relief. There's general rules, zoning regulations, can't absolutely prohibit everything. You got to give them a chance at least for variance. Even though the variance states are very tough and you're probably going to get denied, I think has your answer. Go ahead,

May. Um, one of the things that we tried to include was like a waiver. So, if for some reason you have no option, the only place you can build is in the wetlands, then you can ask the town board to review the application anyway. And then we had that the town board has to take into consideration the unique character of the property. um it should not alter the essential character of the neighborhood that the hardship was not created by the applicant and the health of the waterways would not be impaired and then you know so we tried to create an outlet for that if it's I don't know yeah I I I just want to clarif All right. Cuz that's what I thought you were doing. 129-7.

Gota. Yep. Yeah. Coup. Um, you address your thing about the boardwalks. Yeah. So, I, you know, I think going back to the walkway, we wanted to kind of create a a better give us more room and oversight over that, you know, and I think we need some actual regulation line about Yeah. that and accordingly it would require a permit if there's trees as part of it and then it sounded like where we have boardwalk not part of a dock that we're trying to take that back. I think it's something like the not part of dock.

Well, it's something in 12934 is probably where we need to add for the walkway and the and the things and I'm not what I think the only thing we have to figure out and make sure is are we in conflict with the dot code? So, I know the dot code is I I I checked the dot code. I think I even excerpted it in there. Uh, and it specifically refers to the wetlands code. The board is not part of the do. The only thing I would say about that is then you're otherwise excluding docks, but then you regulated back. That's what that would need a walkway to get and this is why I'm raising the point that we need to make it work together.

Yeah. So the reason why we have it a boardwalk not connected to a dock is a wetlands application, but a boardwalk connected to a dock is part of the dock application because what was happening was people were applying for a dock. And in order to access the dock, they needed that boardwalk to go from the land to the dock. And so then they were being told, well now you need a wetlands application and a dock application, which didn't make sense for the same review for the same structure from two different entities when um you know the whole point of a dock is that it is in and beyond the wetlands into the water. So that should all have been one review by one entity. And then if you were going to just put in a boardwalk with no dock whatsoever, that we thought would be purely a wetlands review instead of wasting town resources to review the same application through like a million different committees. But wait, what about what about the fact that

the people who are determining a dock are not necessarily wetlands experts or you haven't put them on there to worry about they're not they may it's not a standard for them to be concerned at least as I know about the destruction of in the vegetative you know buffer or in that 100 ft in the dock code. So, while it's efficient, if they're just focused on the dock part and the walkways and whatever you want, whatever, then you're bypassing the oversight that we're looking for.

But it says specifically under the dock codes that uh uh water related structures requiring a wetlands permit pursuant to winter shall undergo coordinated and concurrent review of the respective applications. Right. But it's not like Beg was trying to say they're trying to take that away. Well, I think the instance, for instance, If you have a bulkhead with lawn going right to the edge of the bulkhead, you shouldn't get a pass on building a boardwalk 100 ft long to your house if it's just going across a lawn,

right? And there's no need for that. It's there's certain times where you have either a steeper slope that requires some kind of access to the dock or there's tall grasses and there is a request by the DEEC that you have a higher boardwalk to get to the dock without destroying grasses. So many times it's actually recommended that you have an elevated boardwalk as opposed to a like a a permeable walkway in the ground itself because it kills the vegetation. If you have an elevated boardwalk then you can still have things growing underneath it. It still has an ecosystem. So part of it is that um you know docks are ultimately approved by the town board not the waterways committee. So they do have that oversight. So the town board is used to looking at things for wetlands, right? So we're not if you don't need a 100 foot boardwalk to get to your dock, we're not going to give you a 100 foot boardwalk to get to your dock. Like it's expected that the request should be reasonable. We just we did just have an application where they wanted a 90 foot walkway that went up from elevation six to elevation 14

for accessibility purposes because the person is in a wheelchair like there's extenduating circumstances. So those would be taken into consideration review of the application. All right. And I think well I don't know if our code or the doc code should have this accessibility issue. Of course if the accessible person in if the person who needs the accessibility no longer lives there. Is there a provision to have to remove the boardwalk? I I I I doubt it. No grandfather did. Uh there's no is there any current plans to change to revise the dock code. Okay. Um I mean we just finished revising the doc code. Yeah. I couldn't remember. Okay. So So cool.

Well, did you take that provision out of the doc code calling for a concurrent review? I have to look and see. But the intention was to do that was to make it two separate reviews. If it's a boardwalk attached to a dock, it goes with the dock application. If it's a boardwalk with no dock, then it's a wetlands application. That was the intention. Is the dot code approved and in the code yet? I believe the new dot code is in the code. So, let me look. Yeah, I've just pulled this off the code this afternoon. So, unless the website hasn't been updated yet.

This is as of 2025. So, this is the new doc code. All right. Well, it still says that a concurrent review is required. Assuming when I go to the town website, it's showing me this is under 5315 that it's correct. 5315 15 coordination wetlands provisions. Yep. All right. So the chapter engine

that would go for things also like bulkheads um jetty like anything like Yeah. Okay. I hear what you're saying. Okay. Yeah. It looks like it still requires Well, the way it's supposed to come out. Yeah. It got missed probably in the It did. I mean I don't know I don't know administratively who's responsible for alerting vice versa that a wetlands review is required the building department it's always the building department

all right it's where al that's where it starts next to document you go to build go get a permit are we ready for 1295 Five. Four. Four. Um, in four. I have a question. Do I have a question? I think it all goes back to definitions now. I was just looking at the table. I'm trying if there's anything on the table else I saw that was questionable. Sure. Too much. Do Do you find these acronyms incredibly confusing? APR.

Yeah. AP, NPR, PR, and APR. Yeah, we used to close that. I had to go back to that chart every time. We say no for APR.

Let me just say, and I'm not going to try to get you guys to change cuz it's too big deal, but Eastampton does not do it this way, right? Most jurisdictions out here follow the DEC's approach with the stupid paving system, which I despise. Eastampton does something completely different. E Stanton says if you're within 100 ft or in some days 150 ft for like ethics you need a variance and if you're within the jurisdictional area like this you need a natural resource special permit which is a type of special permit which is recognized in the New York town law and everyone knows what special permits are special use permits special it's a wellestablished zoning tool. The problem with changing once you're in the DEC system is East Hampton set that up in 1984 and they put jurisdiction with the ZBA, the zoning board of appeals. What power does the zoning board have? The power to grant variances. So we've set it up from the very beginning from 1984. And if you're within 100 ft of the wetlands for most things, structure, building structures, clearing, whatever, maybe 50 ft, then you within those setbacks, you need a variance.

So I prefer the setback system. But for you guys to do that, you would have to switch jurisdiction of your wetland review to the zoning board because only the zoning board could grant variances. But yes, I hate the acronyms. Well, if we put all that there, then we can get them sighted. We could just make we could just make the column wider and write the words out too. It would we used to say for a for AP we used to say no. Right. Basically, it's like, can I do this? Yeah, you're right. But it's But it's okay. But I I definitely get I I have to keep on going back and looking like which

we should color code it. Can we color code it? General. So, we're in 1294. Just a couple comments here. Well, we're jockeying for comments. I'm I'm still on 1293. minor thing under a you just put I you know this and I'm not suggesting we change it leave it but as a practical matter you can't really regulate the use of fertilizers pesticides herbicide no legal really way to do it um I still think you can leave the language in there because if you're reviewing a permit then we know and the applicant should know what kinds of vegetation you don't want planted right

and you can use that as a way to say sorry that that will requirement fertilization you know, like grass. So, you can't have that. You can't count those as vegetation. Um, under the wetland officer, I think you can just I think elsewhere refers to the town environmentalist or the, you know, that's really what that should become. But I think that building department, it doesn't exist. But you do use the term elsewhere in the town. I think they call the environmentalist which is like you know what not in this an environmental consultant but we don't uh there's a short form environment there secret stuff we don't did that come up consultant

we do we do that in uh well we do it in the existing code we don't do it in here all right well I'll show you I've highlighted it I have to look and see who that should be Um there is yeah it's not in there at all. The the question is because it really comes down to is code enforcement. Who's going to do code enforcement on this? That's it's building department. Who's going to ensure that they met the condition of their permit? Building department. Building building inspector. It's all going to build. Yep. That's why there's a lot on the building inspector in that department.

Well, only because there is no other designated individual. yet. I mean, unless you want to Well, that that's going to take you to 1295, which would put a lot more in his plate. Can we go back because I still have questions on it because I think it was ready. Let's go back to We're not done with four yet. Three. Sorry. Everybody keeps on jumping past three. Um cuz I think even Sean raised, do we should we do something about like fencing? Right now it's an APR.

Oh, yeah. And uh I should say again depends on it's putting a lot of onus on the building department to know the impact on wetlands. That's the problem with the APR currently when fencing could go bad or hits. So, I don't know. Maybe maybe it's all kind of the same problem. Like temporary irrigation. Well, by the way, temporary and permanent, they're not defined terms. Long temporary and long-term. I don't even know what the

So, the irrigation thing we're addressing in another code, so we can tweak it here. Um, and the fencing issue. So, a lot of these things that came up with an administrative permit are things that we've had issues with. Like fencing, we don't regulate. There's zero regulation right now for fencing in the wetlands. Um, some of it is DEC says you can't do XYZ, that kind of thing. But, um, we have nothing right now in our code for fencing. Um, for the Let's see, what was the other one I just looked at? Okay. So, I have another recommendation as I'm looking at these. We should group like things together. So, if it requires a permit, it should be clustered together. If there's no permit, it should be clustered together.

That's a brilliant idea. Maybe even maybe even three tables. Exactly. So, I I'll make that recommendation to myself. So, for these things with administrative permits, you get crazy, you're going to spell it all out instead of acting. Yeah. I'll just give it a heading. No permit required for the following. Permit required for the following. It's going to be fancy. They still get color coding. Anyway, go ahead, Me. Sorry. I'm down with the color coding. I love um so things like event tents, right? We went round with I believe that and Sylvester Manor about their event tent. The the DEC said, "We don't care. It's a temporary structure." Yep.

And it's up to you to decide what you want to do with it. It just went back and forth. And so for 2 days to have an event tent to go through an entire wetlands application seems silly when what we really need is the building department to go inspect it, make sure it's constructed safely, note the condition of the property before the tent goes on, and then note the condition of the property after the tent comes down and make sure that they restore it to its original condition. So if there's holes from where the the poles went in or if there's some kind of damage, then they have to correct it. And that can all be done in an administrative permit. That way we can keep track of it, make sure they aren't doing undue damage to the wetland area. Um because the DEEC doesn't care. They don't care if you put up an event tent that's, you know, a million square miles.

Yeah. Um, but that's just so that we can have eyes on it so that we can make sure things are put back and also so that the building department um, they have to inspect the tents anyway for their structural integrity to make sure they're done correctly. So it kind of feeds into that. Meg, is that event tent event tents only in the wetlands or event tents anywhere? That's specifically in the regulated area. So in other words, we don't regulate event tents not in the regulated area at all. We do with a building permit. So you have to get a permit to put an event tent. Okay. So specifically for event tents in the wetlands or the regulated area,

but if they're having to get a building permit anyway, couldn't they just do it there? And like why have it lead over the wetlands code? If they have to go get a building permit to put up any tent anywhere, right? They look at it and say, "Well, you're in the wetlands, so we make sure we do this." It's administrative. That's what kind of business is.

The reason it's administrative is because right now the code says you're not allowed to have anything in the wetlands area, but we get people who have a front yard and that's the only yard they have and they want to have their daughter's wedding. It's a bulkheaded property, you know, put up a tent. Okay. We just want to make sure everything's restored. So, it's it came around because of a series of situations that we had where people wanted to put up a temporary tent. We went to the DEEC cuz we didn't really have anything in our code. Historically, we'd always allowed them to do it and it became a problem. So, we're like, okay, if we have an administrative permit, then we can make sure the condition is restored to how it started. We can make sure it's a safe structure. you like, you know, anybody who gets an event tent needs a permit for it anyway. This just allows you to get a permit in the wetlands.

Okay. But so is that because it's considered some form of construction? I'm trying to understand why it is why it's special in the wetlands versus just covered under a normal bill. I I think she was saying that because technically you're not allowed to do anything in that area and so it didn't exist. No, no, no, no, no. You're you're not not allowed to do anything in that area. You're allowed to do lots of things in the area. Well, for this because because it's a structure, right? Because you're building a structure in the wetland even if it's temporarily. Is it considered a structure? Yeah, it's temporary. It's got a roof and it's got going into the ground usually sometimes. Yeah.

Attaching. Okay. So, that's new. It's considered new construction. Okay. So, got it. It's considered new construction. It just happens to be a tent, right? Sorry. Sorry. Sorry. covers everything that's that's temporary, right? It's temporary, but Yep. Okay, I understand. You have any more than three? I reserve my rights to come back later.

Okay, that's always a right. So, jumping to four or you know, I missed that actually you covered uh fences and put them in there under the APR. I guess uh the question with regard to fences is should there be any guidance in what we permit or what we don't permit. I you know my point of view is if you're literally going to take up the entirety of your property with a fence and you're cutting off any wildlife pathways and what have you cuz you're going up right into the end. That's kind of defeist to some of the fundamental goals. So, you'd need some sort of language to say, you know, uh I, you know, I don't even know how to say it. A reasonable space for either your pool, your dog, your kids safety, but you know, you know, whatever. Maybe we just say it's not within the last 50 ft or, you know, or something. But there needs to be some guy.

Something they do do in East Hampton. I just want curious what Yeah, this you're talking about this. East Sand used to kind of ignore the whole issue and then in the last several years they've started to treat fences like wall structures. You're 100 feet of wetland. You need a variance. You need a natural resource special permit. It can be overbearing because a lot of times fences are minor structures. Now you could abuse it too. Yeah. But um so I don't know. I have kind of like mixed feelings about that because you can you can go overkill but then again somebody might do something really stupid and you didn't regulate it. So we said right now it's treated like every other structure even though it's going to be defense.

I think right now we're we're only going a little bit because we're saying it's an APR not a full but the question is so it comes to us and then what is allowed and what's not allowed? That goes it doesn't come to you. It goes to the APR administrative approach. It doesn't say anything about only only. So the idea is currently it's up to the building inspector to decide if it's significant impact. So maybe we don't agree with it. No, no. What I'm saying is currently in this in the way it's read, the building inspector will say, "Okay, you're doing just a deer fence. That's fine." Or this is a big thing. You're like constructing a concrete, you know, wall like that needs to go to full wetlands, right? So then it would go to the town board.

Um, and then we'd be asked like it wasn't actually clear in here whether we're actually asked to write anything at all. Uh, advisory memos. I don't remember this in the advisory rooms but um so that's right now it's all on building inspector decide whether it is a but it's impact it's APR but it's eligible for an administrative wetlands permit so I guess you're giving him a lot of discretion of whether he could which we don't want to do I think we've decided we don't want to do that I don't there's lots to think about whether we want it's really going to be a town board decide what we want to do but

we're talking about what we we're giving them the benefit of our view Well, the qu the question is and it may be there may some of these things that we think are probably fine because they're so minimal that maybe could be the veteran may that's where I think we just need to figure out. Well, so I I mean without spending too much time on it, I'd love to see something that gives some boundaries around fence, whether it is uh priority is giving to maintaining a wildlife buffer and balancing the need for the homeowner to have, you know, reasonable safe use of their back of, you know, property and whatever. And if in default that's like we try to state people like the last 50 ft, why do you need it going all the way to the end or what have you, but you have to have something to guide you that there's a preference to keep kind of.

Yeah. Right. Well, right now it would go into the umbrella of the building inspector deciding if it is in the the what's the word they use? Uh consistent with this regula with the wetlands regulation. Well, let me give you let me give use the electron. So, you could have a scenario where a person is an existing lawn that goes down close to or into regulated area pre-existing lawn and look I don't have deer fencing on my property. So, I'm like but we now people are so they want to put a deer fence and of course being the kind of people we you know they they want to enclose their whole lawn. Yeah.

So, you know they're going to want to put the fence at the edge of the lawn and the lawns at the edge of the wetlands. So it may not be practical to tell them to have a 50ft setback because then the fence would be in the middle of their lawn. Well, that's why maybe it's not 50, but it's using language that says, you know, something about maintaining a boundary of wildlife, you know, a corridor or something. I think I think I think every single thing in here we'd have to go and do that kind of thing. And to me, the biggest issue is whether it's something that can be just decided by the building inspector or whether it should go to a full permit. And I think that's kind of the big issue.

The way the ideal way to deal with that is through a permit system because then a reviewing agency typically a board has to look at it and use judgment. What you're dealing with is a scenario where either it's a no permit required situation. So it's as of right and you want to build in some automatic protections or it might be an administrative permitation which right now the code is delegating to the building inspector who by the way is given authority to impose conditions and when we get to that I'll give you my thoughts on the whole building inspector thing but um the issue arises if you don't have full perfect

so if we get the building inspector not to have so much discretion and we try to pull that back to us. That's one step of it. I this comment is going to continue to come up from me of where then it comes to the benefit of the town, you know, a planning board to use their discretion, then we're we're back to we're just using precedent. Like so the first time we decide and then the next time is it very different where there's no guiding factor at all and and if you want to live like that that's fine but I'm going to keep making that comment because when we go back through and it's all historical where people are doing things to existing stuff that's there if there's no guidance as to you know what the boundaries of what they can and can't do yeah you don't want to get overly detailed but I think that you know you're going to say, well, you know, 10 ft is fine away from, you know, the edge of, you know, the whatever, and I'm going to say, you know,

same problem with the septic. Same problem with the in any of these items in this table has that problem. Oh, but we're not exact.

Understood. But this doesn't I think I would just say that that doesn't mean well, if you do it in one, you got to do it every single place. There are places where you can do it strategically. I'm throwing that out there. I'm just one man here, you know, but you know, I I'm worrying and and I'll say it again later in the conversation likely of I am trying to distance oursel from precedents in the past and give us the ability that this is a new code that is somewhat more conservative and we do we have the ability to say it doesn't matter if that was approved back then. This is a new code and new standard. And if you're less precise, that stuff's going to come back to you.

So it would come down to three things that it would be the distance from the wetland, the height of the fence. Yeah. And spacing in the fence. That those are the three main things. That's what you want guidance on, right? Yeah. Same with boardwalk that's not part of a dock. Same with uh any temporary care, any any of these APRs and potentially even some of the permit requirements. Same thing. We're not specifically defining any of these things. It's like I'm not saying we shouldn't, but I'm saying it's like well the boardwalk. Yes. I don't know if the fencing is the most important one. There's other ones that are much more damaging to the to the wetland. Agree. And we're just like, yeah, whatever.

I agree with Sean. I I think that uh having some guidance on that would be important. Well, it's going to be what I said, width, height, and distance. Yeah. Yeah. You just name a number of factors of you know the amount of space that you know that we should do the same with everything of all those cuz walkway the same issue it's like with it's like how much space you're taking it's it's the same issue many ways in the case of of fencing though it's so dependent on the context. Yeah. No, I get it. So like it's thickly wooded you're never going to see the fence. If it's turf, then it's a whole different

and if and if we want to move to look, we're going to find a mutual understanding as they come into us and it get there, that's fine. I'm just raising the, you know, the question. Yeah. Well, and currently we're not because currently it's going to be APR. So, the building department's going to decide. Well, but we're saying maybe we I thought we all just sort of agreed that we're we'd like to get away from just That's our recommendation. Yes. Well, yeah. You never know what they're going to take. Right. Building department's gonna be very busy. You have to start somewhere. If if you say

so the other the other moving on, we already talked about walkways and trying to you know make that uh you know the least in least invasive etc. The other is also that we are we permit um trimming up to 15 feet uh for water views. Uh and true with lots of things cuz I'm a tree hugger and I've talked to the town about whatever you could have a 16 ft tree and they you're letting them cut 15 trimming. There's nothing in here about trimming. Right.

There is tree limbs can be removed upwards to a max of 15 ft to permit water views. So all the trees you're trying to protect in the buffer that is uh it's 123 B5 or B4 or yeah and so without putting any kind of

you can't start cutting tree limbs unless the tree is a certain height or you can only cut up to 25% of the height or you know something you know that's reasonable because you will have people that say it's a 20ft tree and I'm going to cut everything off up to the last 5 ft and they're basically destroying the tree. And so, and it is not unreasonable to have that, you know, you're altering it, you know, but have to be reasonable and customary, not do damage based on a certified arborist. And most of the tree guys here who are doing that kind of work are arborists. And so, they can tell you whether you're going to kill that tree or not.

I guess my question, Meg, is like the numbers here like 15. How was that, how was that determined? Where did this information this decision of what was allowed versus not allowed where did it come from? I think that that number was carried over from the old code. Yeah. I mean that that's been in there historically and it's probably you know someone sitting on their deck at the second story of their house and what's about you know what's about can I see the waterer and they pick 15 ft. So, so I think the recommendation I would say is I would recommend the town board talk to our environmental consultant and figure out what's actually would be good for the wetlands in this regard. That's fine because I I think it's like

I don't know what the I'm not aist or not good but that's fine. I mean we can ask them to engage and I think I would just you know throw a couple of those suggestions out there that are there. It's like, you know, only up to 25% regardless of height or can only trim, you know, 15 ft if it's, you know, x size some way of,

again, to me, this is coming down to like an arbitrary decision based on a field, which is sort of like 100 ft versus 75 ft for the thing. It's like it's not sciencebacked. So, it's like either going to go with what's actually good for nature or based upon what feels right. I'm trying to back in just something that's science and they can ask an I, you know, an an environmental, you know, consultant about what's reasonable. I I trying to make the conclusion on its face tree that you cut everything off of except the last 5 ft, it's not going to be good for the tree. And that's why I think if we can get that,

it's a better chance of being actually put into code than than us picking something else. I think I think you would agree, Meg. This current how it's currently defined. It's the old code, it's very arbitrary and whether it's really helping anything is unclear. Yes, I agree. Yeah, we could even just cross out the tree limbs may be trimmed upward from the ground to a maximum of 15 feet to prevent water view to permit water views. Just like eliminate that line. You can just take it all out. That would even be better. Yeah. And then basically if they want to do something they have to come to the town board and they go we really want to view and you guys could decide as a variance or a waiver right that's why that see yeah there you go

but also you might want to just clarify it's not like Sean just pulled this out of thin air it comes from it actually comes we're on another subcommittee and it comes from scientific research that was shared from with um Tim Patell was another I'm sure I'm sure it all does but I'm just saying I am not a person to make an expl so we can that's fair enough to have somebody apply that I had a question maybe again I'm not sure all of this section how much is driven by

arbitrary bas or it might have been the best science at the time when the old code was originally writt I just don't know so I on the shrubs and stuff too which I was less focused on I think all fair to ask the environmental person to look at all of that should be reviewed by somebody who actually knows because we've learned a lot is that all code exist um that'd be the recommendation I guess could I think yeah uh Uh, this is where it does the construction of a dock. As long as they've gotten the dock people to say, "Okay."

I think this is where you're trying where Meg where you said that we got it here right, but the old the doc code didn't right. It was supposed to be changed in the dock code and somehow didn't make it into the final draft. Yeah, sounds like an opportunity for an amendment. Yeah, I agree. And there's something else in the doc code we needed to adjust. So maybe we could do them at the same time. Brilliant. I'm actually not still not comfortable with that. But having the marine committee make the decision about whether the boardwalk all the way through the regulated area is proper. I disagree.

It's the town board who that call in the end. I think again we talked about we make a recommendation that we think blah blah blah and you guys do what you want.

I think I think you're right. I while I generally agree with you David I think the what Mega is saying is and that I'm sure the doc people are great people and hopefully they have a broader perspective but that the town ultimately has a final say and they are mindful at least in theory to those same concerns that we would have in that area. I think big thing is like always back to the town board are voted and decided by the people to make these decisions. We're just assigned. So it's like they can make the call. That's the way I look at it. We're just trying to give advice on two.

We're trying. Yeah. Do you want to talk about your administrative? Yeah. Administrative stuff. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So first of all, so I think that your town board is working to this backwards. So wetland permits are now and I guess still will be the current currently reviewed approved by the town board. Yep. As far as I can a little bit surprising that the town board wants to deal with this, but whatever. That's where it's so far. So far. Yeah. I mean, if I was ch I wouldn't do it, but anyway. So there has to be a reviewing board which at the moment is the town board.

And so if you're going to try to get some sort of a you know expedited process we'll call it administrative permit process you have to figure out who to delegate that to y

uh it is very unusual in my mind to delegate it to the building and the reason for that is because building inspectors traditionally their function is nondiscretionary. they are minister they act in a ministerial way meaning they're supposed to compare an application to a set of objective standards such as state building code for example and theoretically although sometimes there's ambiguity but theoretically they can compare what you're proposing to some written or adopted code and they can make a declaratory judgment that you meet that requirement or you don't and they don't exercise much discretion there supposedly they're using their you know their their ability to compare the proposal to what's written. This is different because it would accord the the building inspector discretionary judgement approval. Having said that though, because I'm leading you to say, well, this is terrible. I understand why the where the why the temp board is doing it.

Um, and I there's there's divergent risks here for an applicant. the risk that the building inspector is going to deny them the permit is very low because if he denies you the administrative permit, you simply apply for the normal full wetland permit. So there's not much risk for an applicant. The applicant has the opportunity potentially to get some sort of expedited approval. So there you'll be fine with it. From the from the other point of view, there is the risk the building inspector could use his unfettered discretion to issue permits that we otherwise think he shouldn't do and he has the power to do that. So he could issue an administrative wetland permit for things that you like what you did that. So that's more of the risk. I don't have an immediate alternative. Um because again the only other way to get around this is you have to assign another board of which I think you've only really got two planning board and the zoning board right if you can take it away from the town board

CAC but that's my advisor again yeah unless you create a board like you know Santa harbor village is a harbor committee they want the harbor committee they issue wetland permits there okay not the zoning board the not the planning board the harbor committee so you know you can set up a board to specifically do that but that's so I kind of understand why the tword is is doing this. You could try it and see what happens. If it turns out that it's a bad idea, then the code I mean that's we come back to the code. It takes a very long time. So you want it. I'll just say that it it is unusual to give discretion. How do we do it in the site plan for the ad? I mean can we create a less can't it comes here just like can it come here but in an expedited fashion you don't require the same

the problem is it's a month it's it's like once a month only big difference here is yeah you're trying to do is you're trying to expedite for time people because there's always somebody there to review and you they'll get fast response so I understand the reason you had I just worried about as you said the little bit of the I think we all share that the arbitrariness of it a little bit not arbitrariness the judgment. Again, I'm not worried about the individuals. Actually, probably do a good job. I'm worried more about just kind of putting the precedent of that in that body. And the building inspector then has a lot of power. I mean, because he gets to make that he or she gets to make that judgment. Yep.

They can do it. They can issue the permit. Yeah. It's just it. It's a lie. Well, I'd favor just bringing it back here in an expedited fashion similar to site plan if we can do that. The challenge is Go ahead. Thank question. Um, what are the things that you have an issue with being an administrative permit? So, like is it just the fences and the boardwalks?

No, the the problem with it is not fact we like the idea of an administrative permit. We're worried about who's responsible for making the decision whether or not it's an administrative permit. We're concerned about it being with the building inspectors.

So, the reason why we identified these specific things was because we didn't think that they were worthy of a full wetlands application. And unless someone's doing something really extensive with a boardwalk and they're going wacky and they want a 500 ft boardwalk through the wetlands at Ziggs and Zags, then the inspector would just kick it to the full wetlands review. But something like uh a septic upgrade, if it's just a septic upgrade, that's already gone through the DEC, that's already gone through the Department of Health. There's nothing that we're going to apply to that that hasn't already been put on that permit application.

Um temporary irrigation we can get rid of because that's a different thing. Um event tents, there's no reason for someone to apply for a full wetland application for a temporary tent. demolition with no reconstruction or building. It's really just making sure that they've restored the wetlands after they've done the demo. Right? So, these are things that if you're just doing demolition and you're getting things out of the wetlands, you shouldn't have to go for a six-month wetlands review. Right? So, that was the intention of this and we really don't have a different board to give it to. So, the building inspector seemed like the logical choice. And he also has the ability to call in the environmental consultant to give conditions for something like a demolition permit that's going to require reveation. Um,

forgot about her. Yeah. So, that's kind of that may be very fair that then if there are a few things that we'd prefer him not have discretion over, we don't make them eligible for that. But, we leave some several of those. When I look at the actual list, it's actually really small, right? I think that's because it's all it's all spread out. It was hard to realize how few things, Maggie, I think that's actually that's that's a good one. And I think it's the only one I think we have that I think this probably is anybody's concerned about is the fencing in all honesty. I think and maybe boardwalk if want to take those two out and then we're I think we're I'm probably pretty comfortable with the rest or just you're fine with tents and that's irrelevant. Yeah.

All right. So there's five altogether. That' be a good recommendation. So that that'd be the recommendation app. Cool. Okay. I agree that means So I think that's the right again they're going to do whatever they want to do anyway, but I think that's a good recommendation. Right, M? You're going to do whatever you want, right? No, part of this was, you know, there was a reason, and I don't remember exactly what it is, why fences and boardwalks ended up on this list. Reed had a very good argument for it, so I'm sure he did. Yeah, I'll let him feel that when it comes back. Yeah, cuz I can't remember what it was right now. It's all good. I it all good. I get the expediting part. It's just then you make the tradeoff of

which things you want to better to have oversight than make it fast. You know, I would be more concerned if it would be really easy to move things between APRs, Mrs. As we know, it's changing code, which is pretty hard. So, okay. Next. See, did you have anything else? I'm full one procedure, right? Yeah, we have 129. Yeah, I think we killed that one. I mean as far as now there was one small comment where administrative proceedings you have to provide a location map and survey but it doesn't say the wetlands have to be flagged on the survey so why not add that

uh that's uh 129 A2 A2 yeah yeah cuz he you that you're going to want you're going to need that if the he's he needs to know where the westbands Yeah, I mean in theory we usually always good point. Yeah, trust me it's not in the way. So show showing the proposed improvements on the gallery.

I used to always love get the wetland stuff that have here's what it is now and here's what it's going to be and here's where the lines are. That's extremely useful. showing the proposed improvements to let

just ask Matt what he does.

Yeah. Go to the big one. 1296. Nobody had any comment. No, it's it's all pretty straightforward. I have a few comments. Should I Y please, please. 1296. 1296. Yeah. All right. So, um the basic, you know, setup I think is is good. I would state at the outset who the reviewing agency is. I know it's now the town currently the town board, but you have to go pretty far down into this whole column to find out that wetland permits are issued by the town board.

Well, I think that goes back to the very at the very top too. You mentioned adding that kind of in Yeah, I think authority. So, at least when we get in 1296, who's issuing the darn term? Especially since it's in 1295, we directly say it is the building inspector. So, we should do the same thing here. Yeah, I agree. Exactly. So and we can change it someday to not be the 10 point to change that part of the code. So a few comments on it but so the basic structure of it is is is pretty good. Um I do have some overall C. Let me hit my overall comments. I do in 1296A2. I just want to notice the short form EIF required by SER.

Most of the stuff that requires wetland permits is not going to be subject to SER. Single family home construction and accessory structures for single family homes are all type two actions. So probably should at least recognize that where required by SERA because most of these wetland permits unless it's some kind of commercial structure or docks docks don't appear to be exempt. Most stuff that's going to go through wetland permit review will be a type two action. Yeah, I agree and we wanted to take it out but we thought that the public would hate that and rebel.

Well, they don't have a choice because you don't have a choice. You can't make something subject to sequin that's on the DEC type two list. So that's the public complaint saying, "Well, we're not allowed by law. If it's tied to you under the statement, you have no choice. It has to be on your list." And maybe it's just being more explicit here about just saying that kind of saying it, right? We'll leave it in, but it'd be really clear that it's exactly there may be some things that are subject to and then the EF split it interest. So I'd say something like we're required by law. Yeah. um A3 and I know you guys do things a little bit different way but do they have to get disapproved by the buildings inspector until they apply for the

that's the way that's way down that's I know a lot of municipalities do it that way too I find that bureaucratic very I think the idea is because it always goes to the building department first right because they're coming in usually always to do something and so that they're having and they're going to say oh maybe I'm going to do an APR so it makes that And then he writes up, "No, you can't because of these reasons." And then we use those reasons as part of the Yeah, I guess actually that actually I just I'll comment. Yeah,

I was going to say the also the reason we did it is because sometimes people come with a a plan and it actually requires multiple levels of review and so we want to know in advance if we have to do a concurrent review with with planning board or zoning board or you know doc code or something like that and the building inspector does that. I withdraw my comment. Just say sometimes we get too void about how Eastampton does things. Eastampton has a full-time planning department that reviews these. Exactly. You don't have that building department. We 100% have that. It's called read.

Yes. draw I would withdraw my gun. Okay. Going to be and this is I guess this sort of little editorial thing here, but you guys are going to have at least two possibly three reports prepared and going to the town board. So before the town board can even consider issuing the permit, they need to get a report from you, the planning board, the conservation advisor. That's the way it's been. I know I'm and the environmental consultant eventually I know

that's why we had reduced it when we had it because at least we didn't have to write an advisory min because then anymore so it was only the CAC and the thing so it reduced it by one but now we're back to the all anyway that sounds like a lot of review um see I do have kind of a substitute totally unnecessary so and this can interact with secret too if there is secret. So it says the temporary rolling accept and process wetland applications that accompanied by the requisite authorization from the New York State DEC or the health department per so a couple of that. First of all, it means that these permits have to proceed sequentially. Yeah, they can't go to the DC and to the town at the same time.

It looks like ore is crossed out supposed to be and a copy. So it looks like maybe it's well right. It shouldn't shouldn't be or it would have to be and although sometimes you won't need to be the but you won't need a health department for everything depends on what the work is. Okay. So I just commented that first that's so you definitely lengthening the process because you have to be complete with one before you go to the other. Yeah.

But secondly suppose it's not type two you are required to coordinate review with agency. So, for example, if it's an action subject to see, you can't tell the DA, we're not even processing. We're not even looking at this until you make because they are they're supposed to try to coordinate as lead agency, for example, and then the secret determination. Same thing with the health department. If you've dealt with the health department, you would know the health department doesn't ever want to do secret. So, they always want to defer to the municipal agency and say, "Hey, you guys make lean agency decoration. Tell us when you're done. send send us your CP operation then we'll move. Yeah.

So the health department doesn't follow that process. So I think C has for that reason C is has got its weaknesses. Um D I know you guys like a lot time from hearings but 30 days that takes two months because you got to schedule the thing then put in the newspaper then you know get the newspaper 30 days before the hearing. So you basically created two-month delay process before you can have a you know before you can have a hearing. That's always been too. Okay. That's everything every single thing we do.

And F. Um I guess F is okay. The permit must be started. I mean I guess my question with F is you should state in here somewhere. I think specifically that. So this is the town board issuing the wetland permit. Y I think that and I this is partially on fact it's on your flowchart that's supposed to lead to the building department issuing the building permit. I believe that's the way it should work. So I think we should say that the town wetland permit but then I think that's that that's what the work covered by the permit I think is what they're trying to they're alluding to. Yeah. But it's not clear.

Yeah. It's not so clear. And I mean once you issue the building permit, what are the rules for when does a building permit expire? Sure. Usually at least it does allow for the template to extend time. So that's in that's an H. That constantly I don't know if this mentions the process for renewing permits. Is there a section on that? Uh H look at H. You have to go back. You have to come back. A permit may be extended by resolution board for an additional period of one year without a public hearing provided that the request for the extension is submitted prior to the expiration date. So I guess that's after the two years you can apply.

Yeah, just before the two years is that yeah you're really strict I mean that there is tasteful on that but if you're really strict on it you can really set the whole first have to reapply from the beginning all over again. I personally bottom line is with extensions of time if the underlying circumstances haven't changed and the law hasn't changed then there's no basis for a different decision may

sorry I thought I was unmuted right now we don't really have a process for uh kind of renewing the permit application If there's no changes, there's there's there's no amendment procedure. So then you have to start all the way from scratch from square one. So, we're trying to put in things to allow people to extend the permit if they run into some kind of delay and now they just, you know, they're halfway through the project and they just need the time to finish it up or if there's like a minor amendment to the original application that was approved because they ran into like a boulder or something and there's something that they don't have control over that they need to tweak the plan and it's minimal. We don't want them to have to go all the way back to square one to start the process over again. So that's why we were trying to put in some kind of wiggle room for people to renew or extend their permits or get minor modifications that don't have a significant impact.

Does that H and I I agree with both. I think that's a good idea. They weren't saying not I think B I think what you were saying which is like in theory they might it might be more time than this. Yeah, you might again because if if if the facts and circumstances haven't changed and the law hasn't changed, you don't really have a basis for making a different decision from the one you already made. So you should be fairly so in theory, you should have to go back and do it all again, but in theory nothing's changed. So you can't the board won't be justified making a different decision unless the underlying law changed and then there's no significant change in circumstances.

You can't legally render a different decision. That would be arbitrary capriccious. Mhm.

Before we move on to 129 7, can I just ask a question? I I thought I had a comment in there and either maybe I did or maybe uh or didn't. Do we have the explicit authority to have someone have to come in front of the planning board if they are building outside of the 100 ft but the nature of the construction either grading dredging anything else could reasonably impact have an impact in the 100 ft area either because of work area or whatever. And if we don't, why would we not? Because people build then say, "I'm going to build right at the 100 feet." And they're clearly going to have like tractors and whatever. And unless somebody says, "Come on, you're not going to get around the back side of the house and do this and that without like so the building inspector now currently, if you're going to do it actually do, you can do it here, but if you're gonna actually do that's why it used to be it wasn't a big deal because they was in the adjacent area. So that's okay." Right?

Now it's going to be harder. They're going to say, "Hey, you're doing something. You're building right to 100 foot. You're there. You're going to have to do something there. You're going to need potentially an APR or a wetlands permit. Period. But do we need to put something in there so that it's a more of a I don't know if it's in the wetlands thing because basically it's anything if any of the things are happening. You'd have to be doing an activity within 100 ft. Yeah. There are general requirements for site protection with any building per silt fencing and hay bales and if you're on any slope in particular if you're doing any you're not going to get it permit for the hay bales right no

no no I'm just saying that the building inspector is going to require general sight protection anyway well maybe it's an odd odd example but Crescent Beach because of the slope right that kind of they kind of got waved through we think I think the, you know, wetlands part. It's not clear how that's going to wind up where because of the nature of the disturbance, even though the whole thing is happening outside of whatever, you know, you want you would have wanted them to be forced in to come in here. And there's got to be other instances like that where you want to be more explicit about, you know,

so I I I hate to keep bringing East Hampton, but here's how Russell Stein, who drafted the East Hampton Town Code in 1984, handled it. And Russell Stein, in my opinion, was a brilliant draft. He created this the system that Eastampton uses today. Um what you're calling wetland permits. East Hampton calls natural resources special permits. They deal not only with wetlands but also with bluffs and beaches, things that occur on or near bluffs and beaches. And the regulatory system was let's just take it limited to wetlands. Right now, if you're within 100 ft of wetlands for a structure, within 50 ft for clearing, but 100 ft for structure, 150 ft for a septic system, if you're inside those numbers, you're inside the setback. You need a variance of the zoning board. But there's something called a natural resources special permit that has a larger jurisdictional reach. So let me limit it to the structure. You're building a new house. If you build a house within 100 ft of the wetlands, you need a wetland setback variance and you need an NRSP, a natural resources special permit, a type of permit recognized in the town law. Special permit. If you're outside the 100 ft, which is what you're talking about, Sean, up to 150 ft, you don't need a variance because you're meeting the setback. But for that extra 50 ft, because we know that you might have impacts to the wetlands, you still need a natural resources special permit. So that's how

exactly what Jason used to be. That's why but so so what so that's so that's the question of do we define you can you can say something you can make it sorry you can make it 75 100 150 300 it's like it's arbitrary distances it's not anyway they are and they aren't arbitrary because there's plenty of science that has been done about how far can you get back away from the wetlands that have reasonable like minim ize you know depending upon grade it depend on all that stuff but we're not doing any of that so

no no I know but right so I mean you we are taking some of the factors out you know that if you wanted to get minutia but it's not just it's not totally a finger in the air there is like plenty of scientific studies that have tried to a lot of them more around rivers and things like that than oceans which I'm sure somebody will point out at some point but well we did already remember to any site I mean any construction site the first thing they do is scrape all the top soil about 8 in a foot down put it in a giant pile where it sits for 2 years. So,

so I would love to give and that's where I would say I' I'd be comfortable with the building inspectors, you know, like if he makes a determination that there's sufficient risks to the wetlands based on a construction outside of the wetland barrier, he can refer it to the and I think I think that's cuz right now he has to decide everything, right?

One of one of the things I think Eastan's learned with the NRSP process after years of doing this is you're Exactly. what you're talking about. There are s certain routine precautionary measures that you simply implement and that's how you deal with stuff that's within let's say 100 ft 250 ft. Most of that stuff there's, you know, your project planning fence, you know, you know, they do it, I mean, they do, you know, they're going to require the straw bales and the, you know, and all that kind of stuff, but there's some instances it's going to be a lot more invasive and you want to take a closer look about like

steep slopes is, you know, certainly one of them. So, I don't know. I mean, I consider about how we might maybe put something explicit so it is a trigger to, you know, if he's uncomfortable, he can say, "You should go to the planning board. You look like you're fiddling with something." to the town board. Our town board. Yeah, they can do that anytime anyway. No, I think it's a it's a good point, but you know, the reality is you can't turn a backhoe or bulldozer around in, you know, less than whatever. Well, that's the So, and most people are going to try to go like as we've seen 100 ft. That's where a foundation of my house goes in, you know, kind of. So,

that's what I was wondering. It's like but it talks about any fill if you're going to do any regrading or filling which is kind of what you you're doing in that construction right that requires a permit. So it's in here as a permit required if you're having to do anything within the 100 ft. So in other words if you're building a house up to the 100 ft I would hope that it would be realized that you're going to be doing well that's the that's the you he could say I'm going to have my back hole on this side of the 100 feet and I'm going to be digging and in reality they're not. So it's it just gives you that thing of where like you know well I the reality is I mean these tamped also the requirements for reveation are very specific. Mhm.

And and with the assumption that anything within 50 ft minimum of the house is going to be utterly destroyed. Exactly. You should have to reveate it with the appropriate species. And I don't think we see that really. No. No. You said do replay. What was the one I land permit that we were handling when I destroyed it? Was the what was the road up there on the That's Crescent Beach. No, no, no. The one. So,

you know, you allow grasses that theoretically it's not supposed to be lawn. They be caring on the grasses. Even they would not be happy with that. they would want woody vegetation because they know the people are liable to encroach those grasses over time. So, well, so I I think it would be good to make a recommendation to the town board to include something specific about giving the ability for it to be referred here, even if probably indirectly somewhere. It could always happen, you know, maybe it's just an addition of construction activity. Yeah. as a line item for that's either APR and then they say how much of it is

exactly maybe that needs to be a additional yeah it can be reasonably determined to have foot it ignores the fact that you have to go outside the footprint to do the construction so and maybe you know you could think maybe that's covered in the the grading or the fill or the but maybe we need to be more explicit by a definition of a Yep. And maybe it's considered clearing because you're kind of clearing but maybe that's not a good enough but it's clearing I don't think is necessarily defined. Yeah, it would be good to just specifically call it out. So it's not well dredging is uh Yeah, I don't think you definitely with

or no we were proposing yeah they took it out. Yeah. Well, here like okay in theory placement of material on over or within the regulated area you're going to place material inherently by doing a backhoe back there you would think but people can say they're not going to and again that's part of like filling maybe not the right word because people think I'm not filling I'm doing I'm just driving at so it's like coming up with a maybe it's another word that explains that if you're having to do construction uh I don't know what Yeah, ground service.

Yeah. Can be reasonably determined to, you know, result in ground disturbance and adverse effects. The building inspector has the ability to refer it to the planning board. It's not again, it just becomes either an APR or a permit required. If you're going to do ground disturbance in that regulated area, the permits required or No, but the point is what if you're building outside the regulated area, but you know, you're going to disturb it from your construction.

No, it's fine. That's fine. So the the the the if we happen in here the fact that ground disturbance in the regulated area requires either an APR or PR that means the building inspector is going to hey you're building right to here you're going to do ground disturbance within the regulator it it falls underneath the on wetlands which means you need an APR or PR. So you are you suggesting that the list or the table it be amended to include that grass? That's exactly what my wreck is is an idea. And maybe that's not the right words. Maybe the right get you close enough there. I think and I bet you Reed could come up with define it well. Well, fine with just the building inspector making that decision. No, that's a whole other topic.

You know, he he's he's saying that if you put it in there by its nature, it's going to require a permit, right? Well, again, you could say it's we our recommendation should be PR and they might decide that they can APR. You got to go back. Yeah. PR is required. Diversity. Yes. APR is building department. Yes. Me. What do you think? Are we crazy?

I guess I guess my comment is well then where's the line? Why are we saying 100 feet if 100t is not going to matter if you're going to end up putting silt fence within like the zero to 100 ft? because you want the silt fence to be on the outside of the construction between the construction and the house. So would that then trigger a wetlands permit just because there's going to be silt fence which you guys decide whether it's an APR or PR if you want you could say it's an APR and so basically read could make that call if it's only silt fencing within blah blah blah then it's just it's it's approved right so that's your kais call I mean that would usually be handled under the building permit

out the difference is if just by nature of your building you're going to do the protections and put hay bales and fencing in the 100 foot just because that's what you naturally do. It's different if you're going to have a concrete mixer drive into the, you know, 100 foot area because the only way to adequately, you know, get the cement poured to the back part of the foundation. And someone will tell you, I'm going to do it from the front. It's fine. I'm not going to go anywhere near there, you know, whatever. And then in practice, they're going to go drive the truck right over there. So this you need some ability to say this looks risky enough you know

you can maybe an APR but at least it's explicit and they if he goes and does it then they are out there doing their review and look what you did then he has grounds to it's not you know I mean in New York City when you're building a building you don't have the option to go on the other side of the property line because there's another building there you can buy the building from the street and get to the back of the building and you pump the concrete up 30 floors you know We don't. It's possible, but we have to make it a stipulation. I think we're we're there. We need to move on. You hear where the recommendation is, Meg. You guys can do what is you will. Yep. I love being advisory. We're 1297. I think we're done.

1297. These are the standards or criteria for I think they're pretty good. Yeah. Yeah. uh in one I might want to refer back when it talks about the values of weather and still also refer back to the first section which to some extent you know lays out what those values and things are but you know what why you were seeking to protect wetlands but u the standards are pretty good so I think is always the one that kills us which is demonstrating there's no practical alternatives it's a very arbitrary decision but

so I Just a couple of things because I put some comments in there and it it it comes down I guess my concern is as I said uh I think that we that the planning board historically has kind of had a view or a practice of do no more harm. So, if you're already in the buffer and you're changing things, as long as you're not expanding your footprint that's even beyond the building footprint, patio, whatever. I personally would like to raise that standard that it's where possible you lessen the impact. And so the question is is are we really wanting to give that gimme somebody has 3,000 square foot of you know footprint uh including patios and things like that in the 100 foot. They are knocking down the house and changing everything and they can and plan to move the house back. But they say, "But I'm still going to put the pool or this and that in the 100 foot because because I'm not many worse off than I was before."

Well, I know. But in practice, that is what has been done. So, but this is not that allowed anymore. Well, I I guess the question is is can it be what are we going to do in practice? And so about the ones that are already existing in the wetland. So they're coming if they're grandfathered in. Oh, that's how are they grandfathered in? Are they permitted? Oh, no. If they come in, like I said, if they come in and they want to do something, they have to follow this code. But what if they're permitted reconstruction?

But so and so that's that's my question. If I think if if you are within the existing footprint and you're going up and stuff like that, right, that's a whole different game. even realize that's that's if you destroy the house, right? Game on. Nothing nothing applies. They like you're right right back and they say you're 100 feet and you're I mean as long as that's the way because historically that's not cuz someone's going to say I'm no I'm no worse than I was before, right? So, I'm moving my house back, but I want to put a patio where the old house was. And if we're like, "No, it would be considered new construction."

I think the definition of reconstruction, new construction, is pretty articulate in that. I think it would I think it would cover. That's my I think this is my That's my question because you said because we what we skipped and I'm not attacking you. I'm just saying more generally. People go, "But I'm grandfathered." What? And do we want to be more explicit of

you know I don't think it hurts to say you know once you're destroyed more than 50% of your house or you've destroyed the house you are subject to the full you know regulation of whatever there is there is no like give me because well I already had it before I'm making things better why because that's the way we've applied it before even with the 7525 people have been like Well, I'm I'm no worse than I was before. So, how you know? I mean, yeah. My understanding of the definition she couldn't do that, but I understand you're worried. I think that someone had a house there and they're moving the house. It was already disturbed. Why can't I put my pool there? Yeah.

Yeah. And I want to make sure that there's clear new building and and you can't do new building in the I guess the question is would it help us to put a few lines in there so that it's incredibly clear that the grandfathered you know historical ones don't get any benefit if they move beyond the existing footprint and foundation that they have.

Wait wait wait. So the big change between this new code and the old code is that the old code had a 25 foot area where you were allowed to do work and construction. That 75 to 100 foot area, you were permitted to do work and build in that area. The 75 ft line was the hard stop. That 25 foot area was the trigger that required you to go for a wetlands permit. It did not mean that you could not build in that area. So what we've done now is we've taken that 75 foot hard no you can't build line and we've pushed it to 100 ft. So if you have something that's pre-existing in that space like about 500 properties are going to have because of the age of the property and the code that they were originally built under. They are allowed to keep those things unless they tear them down. If they tear them down, they have to move it out of the 100 foot. That's the new rule.

I wanted that as part of the public record that that's way people believe this is going to be applied. So my and and so that's wonderful. I think the last question I'd have is if you are in a constrained lot where you and I don't know that many more of these still exist, but even if you're in a constrained lot and you're at a tear down and you can't everything is within 100 ft for the most part, right? Yep. There's a lot of that. What What are the rules of the game?

It goes into the town board and they do a variance if they want to do something. Well, I mean that's fair, but I mean, so from what I was trying to get at in some of my questions was in those cases where you may by nature think of it as a hardship case and that they have to like be able to build some, you know, modest house or whatever is and I've seen this term in legal cases against the town where it's the reasonable use and enjoyment of my property. Does the reasonable use enjoyment of the property in those instances include a pool, a deck, or are you just like, look, if you're constrained, don't come to me and say, I want my house with my pool with my deck and my whatever because I don't have any place else to put it. Is it like, no, you can have a house because that's the only reasonable thing in your constraint lot and all that. It all would have to be a waiver from the town board and it's their call. That's the way this is written.

The constitutional standard is you can make a recommendation for something like that. Yeah. Yeah. But don't don't say it's up to the town. No. No. We can make we can make a recommendation for a thousand different things. It's up to the town board. No, I get it. You say that a lot. You say that a lot, which is fine because it is. I I would rather make an assertive recommendation to the town board and have them reject it than say this is I don't know like you know that's just my own I'm saying for your specific thing you're talking about which is basically there's no place to build on this land unless I'm in this 100 foot area 100 foot thing

that no matter what is probably not even going to get to us because it's going to be like a big wafer because like that's the only way anything would happen at all. And so I we say and we say our recommendation forget if the waiver is explicit in here or it's it's the last

it's explicit in here my recommendation that we put some language around it that you know essentially the reasonable use and enjoyment of your property does not include all the amenities. It includes the right you know the the request to have a basic living structure. That would be my preference or my point of view because I think people are going to say, "Well, I'm like everybody else. I want a pool on a patio and you know, what have you." And I don't I don't think that if if you're not explicit about that, you're going to then be battling, do we allow the pool? I want to ask Rick, what what's the constitutional? Yeah. The constitutional minimum, if you have vacant land, something you're not you don't ever have. Yes.

Um you cannot be deprived of the reasonable use of your property, right? in an area like this, a parcel of land basically, you know, we don't have, you know, you can't just hunt on it. It's not going to be enough for an economic return. So, the typical standard in a place in the northeast area like this is if it's residential, you have to be able to build a house. Okay? That you don't get to build a giant house. should we pay the bill whatever the minimum is that allows you reasonable use of your property concerning the constraints of the property. So even if it's mostly wetlands and lots of wetlands

and if the government doesn't buy it from you they have to allow you reasonable use. Does that include a swim people? No, not in my view. I don't think courts will find that those amenities are you know minimum reasonable use. What does that basically mean? You got to be able to build a dwelling. Maybe it's a twotory maybe 800. I mean, I backed into the constitutionality because of my reasonleness of what the inter my interpretation was to begin with. Um, I would still suggest that if you have a future town board that is loosey goosey and they're going to say, "Oh, come on. Everybody has a pool." Why not put it in there if we think that that's a reasonable restriction? That's that's my recommendation.

To jump ahead for 129-9, which is the waiver language, I would strengthen that. And my my looking at that, I think that's kind of weak. They also used the term unnecessary hardship, which was basically replaced in the New York Town in like 1993. You know, it's a term of art that's no longer used. So, I think that could be strengthened. Would I specifically put in, you know, we're not we don't know what you're dealing with. So, I don't think you could put in something that you can't have a swimming pool within 100 feet of the wetlands. You have a helicopter or maybe you just use that term. they'll be you know will be considered for the reasonable use and enjoyment and there's a standard historically whatever I leave that to you I just think

put a case low rule in there but I I would I would strengthen the waiver lang you want to make it like a variance so use language like what you would have to show to get an area variance that's really what I would do 1297 okay can't do the silver Sylvester Manory. It's early still. No, I'm kidding. No, we we're not going to be able I know that's a joke. I'm glad we had the time to do all this. I guess I will have to go towards the channel though at some point and talk about it. Yep.

Are we going to get it revised? Did do a second review all these comments in. He has to get it back to us. We have to take one last look at it and then we ship it off to them. Great. Yeah. So, I'm going to be writing this up. Be aware that it's only still at an early stage. I'm not going to take too much time on it because it's still got to go to the tab. The stuff to give one last look on it. And I'll I'll get you back something uh even if in some cases isn't fine language, then we'll go to the tab. Yes.

Yeah. And thank you everyone. I thought that was constructive. And I I mean I do think I'm glad that everyone is viewing the 100 ft that way and that's the way they believe it. will be shown in practice and I think with some of the tweaks that we talked about it'll we'll have a much stronger uh code and the ability to you know remove ourselves from a lot of the precedents that maybe you know having worked on the seven cheek avenue thing which I found the code that time very dict like the idea of having a clear 100 foot and you're inside the 100 foot it's a whole on the rules. I didn't like the AVB. Oh, no. It was It was horrible, but it was what we had.

I'm thrilled. And excuse my ignorance. Was the 100 square foot exemption. It was in here and it's been taken out. All decided. He's gone. So, there's no more pieces than 25 here and unless you're putting a three-holeer in and it's a public facility. A three-holeer That's what I got on my heart. Um, I think that's it. We're get a motion. Oh, actually, wait. Anyone Zoom Zoom land? Uh, Pam Pam Pam's still on. Pam, you still

No, but may I just say that was a wonderful uh conversation about the code. I really appreciated it. I think you did quite well. I learned a lot. I hope that more people listen to this meeting so that they know how you've come to the wording of the language for the new code. Yeah, very very helpful. I'm glad I attended. Thanks very much. Thanks. Thank you for attending. All right. So, can I get a motion to meet? I'd like a motion to close the meeting. Second. Second. All in favor? I 43.