Town Board - Regular Meeting

We received one letter from Dee Morehead that she read to you guys. Enough is enough is enough. I wrote a letter similar to this 35 years ago and addressed to the Shelter Island Town Board with petitions of 90 signatures, three times requesting the speed on St. Mary's Road be lowered. It took so long for it to happen that it was printed in the reporter that it was achieved. I'm again on a quest to get the speed on St. Mary's Road lowered to 25 miles an hour as it is on New York Avenue. Why New York Avenue and not St. Mary's Road? Somebody explain it to me. Before tragedy strikes. It's become quite obvious this is the cutoff route for speeding to South Ferry and North Ferry. Ginny Drive, Mark Street, and St. Mary's Road have more children on them, families, grandchildren, in a localized area than anywhere else on Shelter Island, yet this issue continues to be ignored. It's a responsibility of the town to protect citizens, and they are not doing so on St. Mary's Road, as it is a speedway. Recently, my partner and I have begun taking pictures of the cars that are running us off the road or passing us at high speeds. My life has taught me one thing, which probably no one cares about but me, live with no regrets. I do not want to have the regret of not speaking up and have someone hurt on this road. I am also delivering this letter to every single house on St. Mary's Road, Ginny Drive, and Mark Street by hand, as I did many years ago. I've also spoken to a few of the neighbors, and we are considering purchasing solar-powered flashing light speed signs as they had done on Brander Parkway. Three families have committed to buying them and are happy to do so. Feel free to contact me and help get this area made safe for the residents, their children, and grandchildren.

D. Morehead.

Is there anyone in the audience who has a comment on any of the resolutions that were not subject to public hearing?

Stephen Jacobs, very briefly back in March, I was here expressing some exemption uh the two objections which various other people joined were a at that point there was no limit on the income for an applicant so levy could have applied and b there was no limitation on the rent being recharged for the unit since then happily the board has responded to both concerns provides resolution addresses them. I just wanted to commend you for doing that. Thank you.

Anyone else in the physical audience? Anyone on Zoom? OK. Liz, would you like to start us off with resolutions?

resolve the town board of the town of shelter island hereby directs that a public hearing be held monday july 20th 2026 at 6 p.m or as soon thereafter prevailing time to hear any and all persons either for and against a local law entitled a local law amending chapter 53 entitled docs to update the town code to address the following scrivener's error which provides as follows And then don't need to read. I'm just going to read the ledger. So I'll just read the legislative intent. Do you just change? Okay. The change is. And it's just in Section G, where designing and construction of private and commercial docks. G, splashboards are discouraged but may be allowed if after review and consideration of the criteria set forth under, and here's the change, it says 53-17, it should say 53-16 of this chapter, the town board determines they are suitable. So, 2nd, all in favor.

All right.

Where is an application for site plan? Approval was submitted by the shelter island history museum on November 17, 2025 to renovate and convert the existing factory storage farm into habitable space with an assembly a 3 occupancy. And where is the project located? 16 South Ferry road. So, the kind of tax map number 729 to 88 in 8. 87,414 square foot property located within a B business zone. And whereas the proposed action includes installation of sprinkler and fire alarm system, including extension of fire service, extension of existing security system, including extension of cabling. Construction of a new exit deck and associated walkway construction of compliant access, including new exterior ring. and installation of building lighting fixtures, whereas the project was deemed a type 2 action for state environmental quality review purposes. And whereas the project was referred to the building department, conservation advisory council, the planning board and the town's environmental consultant and the town engineer and reports therefore were issued and taken under consideration. Whereas on May 18th, 2026, June 8th, 2026, there were public hearings held on the subject application where public comment was received and taken under consideration. And whereas the Town Board has reviewed said application with regard to the standards of review enumerated in Town Code 109-3, and now therefore be it resolved, the Town Board hereby approves the subject site plan for the Shelter Island History Museum to renovate and convert the existing accessory storage barn into habitable space for assembly A3 occupancy located at 16 South very roads at the county tax not 729 to 88. As shown on the shelter on history museum site plan dated April 6, 2026. As prepared by Jeffrey fine gold architect, he LLC subject to the following conditions 1, anytime that the applicant by separate license or agreement with the town of shelter and uses the property at 12 South very road. So, the kind of tax that number 719 to 90.1 for overflow parking such parking must be contained within the front portion of the lot and must not extend beyond the flight strip providing access to the property. Additionally, such parking cannot block access to the rest of the property. So moved 2nd, all in favor.

I motion carried whereas the public hearing was held on April 6, 2026 to hear any and all persons either for against a proposal to increase the senior property tax exemption percentage up to 65% based on the sliding scale pursuant to real property tax law. Section 467 now, therefore, be it resolved with the town board hereby adopts a proposal to increase the senior property tax exemption percentage. to up to 65% based on the sliding scale pursuant to real property tax law section 467. So moved.

Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Motion carried.

Whereas a public hearing was held on Monday, April 6, 2026, do you hear any and all persons either for or against a local law entitled a local law amending chapter 115 taxation article?

Because Benjamin's missing and Liz and I have to recuse ourselves, we have to take this one.

I just realized that not two of us can't vote and there's only two of us too.

We'll take a wrap till next meeting.

Whereas the public hearing was held on Monday, April 27th, 2026 to hear any and all persons either for or against a local law entitled a local law amending chapter 115 taxation article 8 exemption for accessory dwelling units in article 9 tax bill enclosures. Now, therefore, be resolved that the town board does hereby adopt local law number 4. 2026 being enacted by the town board of the town of Shelter Island. as follows. Article 8, exemption for accessory dwelling units. Section 115-25, exemption granted eligibility requirements limitations. A, pursuant to real property tax law section 421, be a qualifying accessory dwelling unit defined as an accessory apartment under section 133-1B of the Town Code of the Town of Shelter Island constructed, reconstructed, altered, or improved after the effective date of this local law that provides independent living facilities for one or more persons on a year-round basis shall be exempt from the increase in assessed value attributable to the qualifying accessory dwelling unit limited to a two hundred thousand dollar increase as determined in the initial year of the exemption for a period of five years where the Equal equalization rate equals or exceeds 95% the increase and assess value and shall equal the market value. The exemption shall be reduced over an additional 5 year period as follow. Number 1, in the subsequent 3 years of the additional period, the exemption shall decrease each year by 25% of the exemption base. Number two, in the final two years of the additional period, the exemption shall decrease by a further 10% during the final two years. Number three, the exemption shall expire at the end of the additional five year period. B. In order to be eligible for this exemption, a qualifying accessory dwelling unit must have a value of reconstruction, alteration, improvement, or new construction costs of at least $3,000, must not include ordinary maintenance and repairs, and must meet each of the following additional requirements. number one must be registered as an accessory apartment with the building department in accordance with the procedure in town code section 133-171 17c excuse me must be the owner's primary residence the yearly rent charge to the tenant of the qualifying adu must be at or below the new york hud fair market rent for nassau suffolk The owner must qualify for the star exemption in order to be eligible for this exemption. Article 9, Tax Bill Enclosures. Section 115-26 definitions as used in this article, the following terms shall have the meanings indicated. Enclosures, a notice, circulate, pamphlet, card, handbill, or code, or other enclosure concerning a matter of public concern of service. Section 155-27 authorization for tax bill enclosures tax receiver Shelter Island shall include with a tax bill of the Town of Shelter Island certain enclosures so long as a the enclosure has been authorized by a resolution of the Town Board, b the enclosure includes a notation that is included by order of the Town of Shelter Island, C, the enclosure does not reference an elected official by name, but only the title of the office. And D, the enclosure does not include any matter that is of a political nature is propaganda or any type of advertising. This local law is adopted pursuant to the authority granted by municipal home rule or section 10 general powers of local governments to adopt and amend local laws. If any section provision or part of this local law shall be up judged, invalid or unconstitutional by a court, of competent jurisdiction, then such adjudication shall not affect the validity of the local law as a whole or any section, provision, or part thereof, not so if judged invalid or unconstitutional. This local law should take effect immediately upon filing with the Secretary of State. So moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye. All in favor?

Aye. All in favor? Aye. All in favor? Aye. All in favor? Aye. All in favor? Aye. All in favor? Aye. All in favor? Aye.

All in favor? Aye.

Whereas Section 82-12 of the Shelter Island Town Code authorizes the Town Board to prescribe rules for future regulation and restriction of the use of irrigation systems and other consumptive water uses upon making a determination that emergency conditions exist, potentially creating a shortage of the normal water supply either throughout the Town or in any particular area. And whereas the water advisory committee has recommended unanimously at the town board prescribed rules for the use of irrigation systems on the basis that the town of shelter island is experiencing severe drought demonstrated by freshwater levels. And the town aquifer at 10 year lows and substantially below normal precipitation. And whereas the proposed action is deemed a type 2 action for the State Environmental Quality Review Act purposes, now therefore be it resolved that the Town Board hereby finds that the emergency conditions, that the emergency conditions exist which require the enactment of temporary rules to regulate the use of irrigation systems under section 82-12 of the Town Code and resolved that the Town Board hereby adopts the following rules effective immediately. One, sprinkler use between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. is prohibited in all zoning districts in the Town. Resolve that the Town Board hereby recommends the following guidelines to minimize water waste. One, use drip irrigation systems on plants that need it, but limit irrigation cycles to 20 minutes per cycle and three cycles per week. Two, avoid prolonged pumping of wells. Three, use an electric leaf blower, not water, to clean driveways. Four, use a car wash that recycles its water. Five, use water-efficient appliances and plumbing fixtures. Six, check toilets for leaking tanks. So moved. Second. David, a discussion?

For item number one. be it resolved that sprinkler use between 10 and 4 pm is prohibited we wanted to specify sprinkler use for the purpose of irrigation that's prohibited that way if you have you know kids who don't have air conditioning and their parents want to pull off a sprinkler or something it's not preventing that from happening but the intention was for it to be irrigation restriction okay so i don't have a problem with that does anyone else that's fine so as amended all in favor aye

Motion carried.

We're at Shelter Island Fireworks, Inc. PO Box 452, Shelter Island, New York, 11964 has submitted an outdoor assembly application requesting permission to have a fireworks display at Crescent Beach on Saturday, July 11th, 2026 at 9 p.m. with a rain date of Sunday, July 12th, 2026, 9 p.m. And where a set of fireworks will be launched from a barge anchored approximately 800 feet from the low tide mark by fireworks by Grucci, Inc., It will be producing the fireworks show and whereas the required fees of 100 dollar application fee, 100 dollar compliance fee have been submitted. Whereas the applicant has requested an exemption from the noise ordinance for set event as well as the town services of highway police, fire and EMS. And whereas pursuant to section 33 to V2, the town board has determined that the proposed fireworks are a benefit to the town and no fee will be required for police highway EMS costs associated with the event. And whereas the Shelter Island Police Highway and EMS Department, the Fire Department, the Shelter Island Yacht Club, and the Advocate held a meeting on June 22, 2026 to coordinate all aspects of said event, And whereas the police department reviewed the application and finds nothing that will prevent the town from granting preliminary approval to the applicant, final approval will be based on a U.S. Coast Guard Marine event permit and the department is prepared to assist with this event as it has in the past. Now, therefore, be it resolved that said application is hereby approved and permission is granted to Shelter Island Fireworks Inc. to have said fireworks display and be it further resolved that said operation shall be in compliance with the New York State law and the usual and normal precautions in Cited. Incident. Okay. To said operation shall be complied with. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Motion carries. Where Shelter Island Fireworks Inc., PO Box 452, Shelter Island, NY 11964 has submitted an outdoor assembly application requesting permission to hold a fundraising event at SALT 63 South Monantic Road on Friday, July 10, 2026 from 6 PM to 12 AM for approximately 500 attendees. And whereas the applicant has requested an exemption from the noise ordinance, now therefore be it resolved that said exemption from the noise ordinance is hereby approved. So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye.

Whereas Allison Allison 11 mark street on behalf of salt 63. South romantic road and the American legion legion Mitchell post 281 has submitted an outdoor assembly application requesting permission to hold a fundraising event at salt on July 3rd, 2026. From 5 PM to 11 PM for approximately 200 attendees. And whereas the applicant has requested an exemption from the noise ordinance. Now, therefore, be it resolved that said exemption from the noise ordinance is hereby approved. So move.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carried.

David Gentile and Kathleen Navarro, 11 point lane have submitted a request for an 11, 100 foot wetlands exemption in order to construct a small bump out to an existing deck, which is situated above an existing brick patio and garden area together with a new staircase to provide access between the deck An existing brick patio, and whereas the town board has reviewed and discuss. That request at the June 9th, 2026 work session now, therefore, be it resolved that the town board hereby approves this request. And this approval shall constitute a 1 time exemption in accordance with. Chapter 129 dash 3 H of the town code. So moved 2nd, all in favor motion carried.

Whereas Bradley and Margaret token of 6 Charlie's lane were issued a permit number 3743 on August 8th, 2023 to perform a maintenance stretch of 1324 square foot area to negative 4 feet below mean low water, removing approximately 120 yards of material with all dredge spoils to be removed off site to an approved location as her plan prepared by Costello marine last provides May 24th, 2023 and approved by the New York state with the permit valid through June 4th, And whereas said permit was previously extended by the town board in 2024 and 2025, and whereas the applicant have requested an additional one year extension of said permit now therefore be resolved pursuant to chapter 53-7C of the town code of the town board does hereby approve the requested extension. And that permit number 3743 shall be valid through August 8th of 2027. So move. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Motion.

There is Elizabeth Larson who has met the civil service requirements for justice court clerk. Now, therefore, be it resolved that Elizabeth Larson is hereby appointed to serve as justice court clerk effective June 12th, 2026. So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Abstentions? Motion carried.

Resolve that Debbie Brewer is hereby appointed to serve as assistant recreation leader for the year of 2026 to be paid at a rate of $25 per hour. So moved.

Second. All in favor? Aye. Motion carried. Whereas, pursuant to section 31 of the public officer's law, a town officer must sign and file a constitutional oath of office within 30 days after the term of office begins. And whereas the below persons have not yet signed and filed the said constitutional oath of office, and whereas the town board desires the below persons to have to serve the town of Shelter Island in their designated capacities, now, therefore, be it resolved that the town board hereby appoints the below persons to their designated positions. Peter DeSantis, EMS, Scott Campbell, Darren Tick, James Eklund, WMIC, James at WQI, Rosie Hanley, Recreation Aid. So moved. Thank you.

All in favor?

Aye.

Abstentions?

Abstentions? Motion carried.

Resolved that the supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to sign the agreement with Tri-State Planning, Engineering, and Land Survey, PC for boundary survey and riparian Yeah, riparian analysis. So move 2nd, all in favor.

Motion carried.

Whereas the separate county. Department of health services has announced the opening of the application portal for the 3rd, distribution of opioid settlement funds with applications due by July 6, 2026. And whereas the funding will be awarded to organizations that provide critical services to combat the opioid epidemic and set the county with funded projects expected to begin effective January 1st, 2027 with a maximum 3 year period of performance and. Whereas the town of South Brown is currently utilizing the Suffolk County Opioid Supplement Funds to support participation of the Shawtown Police Department in the Eastern Drug Task Force, as well as provision of social work services to support opioid prevention, treatment, and recovery support services with the current period of funding to end effective January 31st, 2027. And whereas the Town of Shelter Island intends to continue participation in the East End Drug Task Force and to continue offering social work support to the community for opioid prevention, treatment, and recovery support. Now, therefore, be it resolved that the Town of Shelter Island hereby authorizes Town Supervisor Amber Brock-Williams or her designee to act on its behalf in the middle of an application to the third round of Suffolk County Opioid Settlement funds for an amount of 346,768 dollars to offset projected costs associated with 3 years of support for police department participation in the eastern drug task force and provision of community support by the town social worker. So moved 2nd, all in favor. Motion carried.

whereas filming permit 2026-03 was issued to Jonathan Bang of the New York Times for filming at the end of Peconic Avenue on June 15th, 2026, and whereas a positive $1,000 was paid to the town for cleanup, and whereas the highway superintendent has determined that no portion of said fee was utilized for cleanup, now therefore be it resolved that the supervisors hereby authorized and directed to return the deposit of one thousand dollars to jonathan bang new york times 242 west 41st street new york new york 10036 so moved second all in favor aye aye motion carried whereas the town board approved an outdoor assembly application for the shelter island 10k

run and 5k walk run on june 8th 2026 and whereas a compliance view of a hundred dollar cleanup deposit was paid now therefore be it resolved that the supervisor has hereby authorized is hereby authorized and directed to return the deposit of 100 to the shelter island 10k run and 5k run walk p.o box 266 shelter island new york 11964 so moved second all in favor aye motion carried

It was all that the supervisors hereby authorized and directed to issue a refund and the amount of a 1000 dollars to Christina Lang 82 Smith street from the 2026 B, 2, 1, 1, 0, zoning fees, revenue code.

So, 2nd, all in favor motion. It's all the supervisors hereby authorized and directed to issue a refund in the amount of 1000 dollars to morrow deep in data. 16 children this path from the 2026, a 2040 concrete dockage revenue code. So. Second on favor. Aye.

Aye.

Motion carried.

Ricks, he's all that the supervisors hereby authorized and directed to issue a refund in the amount of $1,000 to James pew 13 South car right row from the 2026 a to 2040 condens creek dockage revenue code so move.

2nd, all in favor?

Aye.

Motion carried. Resolved that the supervisor is hereby authorized and directed to deposit the sum of $7,760 from GovDeals and that the following 2026 budget modification is hereby approved. $7,760 increase to a new A2665 sale of highway equipment revenue code and a $7,760 increase to the A1490-200 public works equipment expense code. So moved. Second. All in favor?

Aye. Motion carried.

Result of the following 2026 budget modification is hereby approved. $14,150.50 increase to the A3589 New York State Ferry Flood Mitigation Revenue Code and a $14,150.50 increase to the A572497 Ferry Flood Mitigation Study Expense Code to account for the reimbursement request to be received. So moved. Second. All in favor? Aye.

Motion carried. It's all the following twenty twenty six budget transfers hereby approved five thousand dollars from the a sixty seven seventy two point four five zero nutrition Presbyterian church rent to a six seven seven seven point two hundred senior center equipment to use the overage from spending longer time out of the church kitchen toward the purchase of a new club. So moved. Check it all in favor.

Um. I got to read these transfers or?

You can, they're on file.

They're still on file in the town office.

Yes.

Number of financial transfers. So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Motion carried.

And similarly, I'm going to be talking about 2025 budget transfers that are on File so moved.

2nd, favor. Motion carries.

Results of the following 2025 budget modifications are hereby approved and it's only, so I'll read them. 14, 530 increase to be 2590 building permits revenue code and a 14, 530 increase to the 8020 497 planning board, professional services for the year overages. And. $62,234 increase to the DB 3501 state aid chips, entitlement, revenue code and a 26,234 dollar increase to 62,234 dollar increase. 5112444 chips contractual expenditure code to reflect grant monies received. and $7,433.91 increase to the A3801 State Aid FTA 5310 Mobility Grant Revenue Code and a $7,433.91 increase to the A6870-100 FTA 5310 Enhanced Mobility Grant Expenditure Code to reflect surpassing the initial estimate of ability to utilize the grant. So moved. Second.

All in favor?

Aye.

Resolved that the 2026 general claims numbered 1070 through 1212 in the amount of $209,098.08, 2026 highway claims numbered 97 through 105 in the amount of $4,457.18, and 2026 community preservation fund claims numbered 8 through 9 in the amount of $14,006.44 are hereby approved for payment as audited and the supervisor and or any town board member is hereby authorized and directed to sign the approval for payment of same so moved second all in favor aye motion carried okay we will adjourn the regular meeting and start with public hearings and the first one that we have on the agenda is this application by suffolk county water authority slash west mcmurray site plan review application and it was a continuation And I know we have Tim on Zoom. So I see you've unmuted yourself. What I had from when we had our last public hearing was we had a few open items, one of which was getting the planning board memo to the South County Water Authority in order to review the items that they had concerns about. And then we also had concerns about the size and noise and vegetative screening by one of the neighbors. Another neighbor was concerned about the right of way. And then there was also a concern about the timeframe for construction. I want to just let Town Engineer know that we're on this. All right, Tim, I'll let you pick it off because I know that you did send over some information.

Yes, I did. So what I did was I was able to compile from the memos that Shelby provided me after the last meeting and kind of cut it down to actionable items for each. For instance, P.W. Grocer, the planning board consultant, had requested a note regarding silt fencing at the site that's been added to the drawings. Um, Mr. Karen principal building inspector had requested a lighting schedule, exterior lighting schedule and locations that's on the modified drawings that were sent earlier today. I also provided a cut sheet so he can take a look at what the actual, uh, fixtures are going to be. And then in terms of the planning board comments. So I did provide, even though it's not part of this project, I did provide a cut sheet for the generator. Excuse me, because there were questions about noise. There were also several questions that maybe the planning board had not had the ability to look at the building elevations and plans that I had sent prior to that meeting. So those are there and they're on the revised drawings as well. But you can clearly see from those drawings that all the equipment is to be placed inside the proposed building. So there is no equipment. The screening for the equipment is the building itself. So they had concerns about, I suppose about equipment being left outside, but both the filtration system and the hydropneumatic tank are meant to be inside that new building. And then I think maybe the largest issue that I heard at the previous meeting was, excuse me, the right of way issue brought up by Mr. Wallace and his family. I've had several emails back and forth with Mr. Wallace Brett KenCairn, And also, I know that Mr finora had had written a letter to the town board to explain at least his position on the subject. Brett KenCairn, So the way I left it with Mr wallace at this point on the water authority as the operator of that site hasn't changed the traveled right away and the easement is what it is and has been, and so I think. uh Mr Wallace had proposed that that he and I meet at the site to discuss it which I'm perfectly willing to do but I think the town needs to have a representative at that meeting because ultimately this is a town this is a decision when it comes to the right-of-way I think Joe should be there he's already looked at it oh definitely and I had a great in the day conversation I think you still have my map my site plan oh yeah um

So we did discuss it, and I went down to the site, I think, as well as Ken Wallace. So the neighbor Wallace family, right now, there is staking that was done. And Tim, was it South Carolina Water Authority that did that, the survey and put in the stakes?

Yes, we did. I had told Mr. Wallace that we were sending our survey crew out. And one of the issues he had as well was he said that water authority personnel had been parking on his parcel. So we took steps to stop that from happening. And as part of that, we also shared with our crews that the stakes were going up so they could clearly see where the property line was.

Yeah, so if you go down there, you can see. I think a little bit of the berm may be over the Wallace family's property line. So they need to correct that. But the easement does emanate from the two neighbors coming right off of West Neck Road. So there's a 15-foot easement. And try and explain this and then let the attorney jump in when I get it wrong. So we need to make sure that we stay on the 15 foot easement and we are currently driving over the Wallace family's property. So we need to correct that. But in order to correct that, there are two big trees that are within the 15 foot easement. So in order to not trespass, we will need to have those two trees taken down. what we're in the process of trying to find out is who is responsible for maintaining the easement um and i'll let you step in on this one yeah so

Title company, the covenants and restrictions search for our property there. Basically, there's an access easement, which just, you know, as it's shown on the survey lays out the access and then there's typically in these situations, a common driveway declaration that gets recorded. Against all the properties, basically, that's just an agreement. that's you know between the neighbors of okay you know who pays for what who maintains what so i request both of those um you know so we can figure out like logistically how how we get this sorted out but it's pretty clear that the the access easement goes you know not in the way that the driveway is currently going so that's we need the large that needs to get corrected through this process so but once i have the easement and the common driveway declaration we'll be able to figure out exactly how and who and you know uh pays for correcting this and we need to we need to correct that situation regardless of the cycling if you know this can draw to our attention have we made a submission to the uh county commission of public work

regarding being on a county road. I'm just reading from reads. Additionally, it's worth noting that according to state law, the applicant must apply to Suffolk County Commission on Public Works and obtain a Suffolk County 239-F approval for expansion of use on a property served by a county road. And any work performed in the county right of way for expansion of use on a property served by a county road. Have we submitted that?

I think that has to be done. Well, what would be the definition of an expansion of use? It's treatment. It's currently a water supply facility and well field, and that's what it's remaining. I guess that would be for an attorney to answer.

I think there is more equipment that's being brought in, is it not? I think that would constitute an expansion.

Well, there's already water treatment at the site in terms of disinfection and pH buffering, but there is going to be more treatment added. The hydropneumatic tank is a straight replacement of existing hydropneumatic tanks. There's no expansion there. In fact, it's a decrease in the amount of tanks.

I submit that we go through the procedure.

Was this given to Caitlin? I'm just curious. I'm looking because I feel like something was missing. something was submitted to Suffolk County, and it was kicked back to us for local, it was a matter of local jurisdiction.

Oh, that was Colligan's application.

Okay, all right. It was something that just came in last week. Okay, so it wasn't this one.

It was this one on the Planning Commission.

The Planning Commission is what you were thinking of? Yeah. Not the County Department of Public Works? That's true.

We just indicated that this can't move, we can't issue a building permit until this is, it's clear, it's going to count.

the planning commission is the one who came back and said it's local jurisdiction we don't okay the planning commission didn't look at this okay so we do a little contamination yeah okay

So Tim, if you want to talk to Christina Martin, she'll be in tomorrow to work out. Either we can reach out or if you reach out.

OK. Yeah. If you could send me her contact information, that'd be great.

OK. We'll do that. Thank you. Does the board have any other questions?

No. They sent us the siting and the writing and everything that we asked for.

yes comfortable with what they're proposing um and then the other thing with concerns to the screening um we would not because we need to stay on the right of way we will not be able to screen that section where the tournament is so that the neighbor if the neighbor wants screening we'll have to do it on the other side of the easement but we'll work all of that out when we get the information about the easement and who's responsible for clearing it.

It was an issue, I think somebody brought up in discussion, is this going to be used as a parking area for vehicles? Only while they're working in the buildings or is this going to be a parking area?

I believe it's only while they're working on the system. Yeah, I don't remember that.

That's correct. It's not a parking area. There's no parking area. It's an unmanned site. When the site is visited, there'll obviously be a vehicle there, and then the vehicle leaves.

All right.

I feel that either it takes place today, and we see cars on there. They're working. All right. All right, so if there's no other board questions, I'll open it up to the public. And I just ask, because this is a continuation hearing, that the questions be directed at any new information or new questions that people have. I see a hand in the back. I can't see who it is. Oh, Lori.

I'm Lori Beard-Rudman. I'm a customer. I did ask at the last hearing, I don't think we got an answer in terms of the timeframe. So we were told, the customers were told this would be what would be done last fall. Then we were told it would be done by the end of the year of 2025. Then they said it would be done by spring of 2026. So I just want to know what reality is.

Well, since I don't think we're closing the public hearing tonight, that's going to delay it yet another three weeks and then add another three weeks or special.

Yes, thank you. They can't do anything until the site plan is done.

Yes. Anyone else in the physical audience? Anyone on Zoom? All right, so we will adjourn this public hearing until July 20th.

Hi, can I ask a quick question before I log off? It's Nicole Waldbauer. Sure. I was asked to attend this evening in case anybody had any questions about our application for the mooring.

Yes, we have two more public hearings before we get to yours. So if you just hang, we will get to your number four on the agenda.

Okay. All right. So the meeting is still going on then? Yes. Yes. Okay. Sorry about that. I will hang on. No problem. No worries.

Thank you. So we'll now open the public hearing for 13A Harbor Lane, Vernon and Melinda Carroll, adopt application. Shelby?

On the 18th day of May, 2026, the town board of the town of shelter island duly adopted resolutions. Public hearings to be heard on the 29th of June, 2026 at 6 o'clock PM, or as soon thereafter prevailing time on the application of Brian and Melinda Carol 13, a harbor lane for permission to remove a 6 foot by 8 foot platform, a 7 foot by 16 foot platform. A 3 foot by 15 foot section of platform a 3 foot by 3 foot section of platform. two 3 foot by 3 foot triangular sections, a 1 foot by 9 foot section of stationary dock and remove 5 piles and to relocate two existing orange piles and to construct a 3 foot by 11 foot platform then install a 3 foot by 12 foot aluminum ramp leading to a 6 foot by 24 foot float secured in place with two anchor piles as per plans submitted by Costello Marine Contracting last revised 4-25-2026 and approved by the New York State DEC 12-23-2025.

And we have a WMAC report that was given to us for the meeting on June 15th. However, the application was revised since then, so we are looking at I'll find the date on here. No, there was June device plans that came to us on June 23rd. This latest reiteration has not been reviewed. So, Albert, as a WNAC liaison, do you want to read the report or I have it if you don't?

I just have the, yeah, I don't.

Susan Nemitzki, All right, so their June 15 report is the dock is 175 foot two existing non conforming structure, the application was previously tabled because it did not comply with the requirements of the new dock boat. Susan Nemitzki, The proposal includes the removal of five dock sections and the addition of a seasonal ramp and float. Members discussed the code requirements for material reduction in nonconformity and noted that the proposed 1% reduction did not meet the standard. Several members stated that the reduction was not material or significant and expressed concern that approving such a minimal reduction could set an undesirable precedent under the newly adopted code. Members also noted that the DOC does not meet current code requirements related to both linear footage and width. Other members stated that the proposed modifications would improve the DOC safety and functionality for the applicant and enhance overall usability. The applicant indicated that they are not interested in pursuing an alternative design and requested that WMAC vote on the application and forward its recommendation to the town board. WMAC voted three in favor, two opposed, one abstention, and one person, one member was not present. Did we have, we had correspondence on this as well.

I passed it out to everyone.

We got 1 letter of support from the village of Taring Harbor mayor, and then you also received 2 emails, 1 from Bill Garrity and 1 from Matt Williamson, both of the WMAC.

Yep, it's here for the applicants.

to vote on so we can move forward with it. They asked me to tweet a couple things, which I did. You know, Tom Fields requested that we do the Warren files off the property line a little bit more, which we did. You know, I spoke with Dan Peck when we had the meeting. He had a concert they had to go to that night. I thought he had sent an email even before the hearing. You know, it ended up voicing his approval of his concern was. Hopefully that alleviates his concerns. And he had fainted and James was absent. So I reached out to Tom, I spoke to James. But this is a pretty minor alteration to a pre-existing non-conforming. And we're removing 250 square feet, putting back in about 213. Of that 213 that's going back in, 180 feet have been Overall, footprint of the dock is six months out of the year, the floating dock goes back to my facility in Greenport every fall, and comes back every spring. So this is a situation where the reduction, I feel, is fair. And I'm just here to answer any questions. I believe that Mr. Carroll would also like to speak on this, but .

Let me just do a screen share, because we've had

That's a good page. All those crosshatch areas are all the areas being removed from the dock.

And those are all full-time, year-round permanent structures?

It is a significant material reduction of the dock.

And then how much, do you have square footage on what's being moved in total from in this?

The square footage is about 250.

I'm sorry, what? 250. 250. And if we go to the next.

And then we're just putting that in. 33 permanent and then 180 of season.

Why does the document need to be this long? Because if you're doing a rebuild, the code does ask that you have this non-conforming block. And looking at this, it looks like you get to deep enough water get a shorter, shorter place on this. I don't know if you can see it on this screen, but it looks like right now the end of the dock goes out to roughly five feet of water. It looks like further back you can get to, you know, three feet of water and possibly be in compliance.

Well, I mean, it's sort of the go-go's of the material reduction of the dock, I feel, The dock has been there for 100 years, maybe. It doesn't interfere with the navigability of the channel. It doesn't affect either one of the neighbors. There's a fair amount of space between the neighboring docks. And I don't feel that there's any need to decrease the overall length of the dock. I mean, the value of the dock, this dock was obviously purchased and paid fair market value for this. I don't think there's any logic in reducing the size of it with giving up all that we've already given up. I mean, the value of the dock You know, with the current codes, they also have a diminished value because of the water depth that you can have a modem. So, I mean, Doc was, you know, purchased with the idea that we have a, you know, five feet water depth. And that's the value. Decrease the length of it, it decreases the value of it. You know, when I originally met Mr. Carroll on the dock, explaining to him the material reduction of the dock, you want to modify this, you got to get rid of that. You got to get rid of that. You got to get rid of that. Hey, wait. I just bought this dock. I mean, that's what I go through on every one of these pre-existing modifications. And like I said, now you see how this is laid out. The dock is much cleaner. We're getting rid of all those weird little swim platforms to clean up a functional dock.

Go ahead.

I was just looking at it in the GIS and it's like in line with all the other docs and the doc next to it is significantly larger.

Yeah, well it sounds like you enforce a pure line. Yeah, I can share my screen. And if I were to guess, I would guess that the neighbor .

Yeah, a lot of the docks in that street wire. So I believe this is the Carol's dock? Yes. So these are the platforms that are being removed. This is being reshaped. And then the float would go out here. And then this is the neighbor's dock.

It's for putting the reference.

Any other board questions?

I'd like to hear your presentation. All right.

Thanks, Jeff. I appreciate it. First of all, thank you very much for being in the application this evening. I knew this evening for the record. My name is Brian Harrell. I was along with my wife, Linda Carroll, who was on Zoom. She couldn't be here because she's not with her children, but she may also join in on Zoom as well. First of all, thank you very much for taking the time this evening to consider our application. I realize that the board has a difficult job of balancing the historical legacy of Shelter Island and legacy situations with history with modern codes and recent developments. As Jack mentioned, this is an existing historical dock. I think it's been there for probably 100 years. Our house was originally built in 1923. The house on the site before that was actually known as an original, well-documented landmark house its current state and including the proposed modifications it has really no impact on neighbors the village or the waterways the dock sits and it's consistent with the number of other docks along the stretch of the harbor i think you would just pull it up but you can see in these drawings here it's the eastern side of carlos harbor you can see our dock is here number 13 The cell bus is Ressler number 11. Up here is Modica number 17. And our dock sits within that perspective along the harbor. Our proposal is for minor modifications to make the dock less awkward in the way it sits today and make it safer and more accessible for our family to access boats and use the dock. To do that, we're removing a number of lower platforms that today are currently under work. on its angles and paths there. As Jack mentioned, we're removing 250 square feet of platforms. We're replacing that with primarily seasonal float and rain. So it's a significant reduction of the size of the dock today. We're also removing five tiles. We actually originally proposed, I believe, to remove 21 tiles, but the waterway committee invited So we've landed at removing only five piles based upon their guidance. We're also moving two of the tile pilings off the property line closer to the dock, which was a change the Waterways Committee suggested that we were happy to accommodate as well. I would like to address the discussion at the Waterways Committee regarding the material significant reduction in non-conforming docks. As Jack mentioned, we purchased the property in 2021 at its full market value. This included the land, the house, the dock, and everyone on the property. We paid property taxes based on the full assessed value of our property. Reducing our property by any amount, one foot, one inch, represents a significant reduction in value of the property. I think if you told another homeowner that the town wanted to reduce and take a foot off their house, they would think that's significant. If you told a homeowner or landowner the town was going to reduce their front lawn by five feet, I think they would believe that's a significant reduction in property. So any reduction in the length or square footage of the dock is a significant impact to our property and our property value. Even a one percent reduction of our property value or assessed value is a significant amount. Yet our proposal does bring the dock closer to conformity. It does reduce the length. It does reduce the square footage. It makes part of the dock seasonal. It moves the tile pilings off the property line. So we have already made, we believe, significant concessions. I'm also aware that two members of the Waterways Committee have submitted letters to the Town with an alternate design for our dock. It's my understanding that the Waterways Advisor Committee's mandate is not to design My understanding is these were submitted letters were submitted as individuals, not from the waterways committee. The committee fully members are more vocal or persistent does not mean their views are any more important or credible. If any other members in that committee, every member has 1 opinion and 1 vote and after that full discussion, the waterways committee. Furthermore, I believe there is a recent precedent that's similar. The Tatanas dock at 2 Charlie's Lane, a 237-foot-long dock in West Meck Harbor. In this application, they removed 60 pilings and replaced them with eight pilings, a net reduction of eight. They removed 192 feet of stationary dock and replaced it with 250 feet of ramp and float. So this was actually a net increase in the size of the dock. And they did not reduce the length of the dock by even one inch. The dock is 237 feet long versus our 175 feet, so 35% longer than our dock. And the town of Shelter Island issued a permit to approve that dock on April 15 of 2026, approving the modification less than three months ago. So this approved application is longer than a dot, had zero reduction in length, increased the square footage versus our decrease, and it was approved by the town over the last three months. In the waterways committee, Mark Wayne told a story, which I think is actually relevant here. He gave a good example. And I think Mark has been around Shelter Island for many years and has a strong appreciation of the island waterways. He told a story that he said, look, I live in a home that's 40 feet from the water. It was built 90 years ago and it's not violating any laws when it was built. If I wanted to expand the footprint of that house today, I would not be allowed to do so. However, if I sold the house and a new owner wanted to change the den to a library because it better serve their purposes, they'd be free to do that. He went on to say, this stock served the previous owner fine, did not violate any laws when it was built, Mr. Harold House took the den and changed it to a library within the footprint. It would be a change, but not an egregious change. His needs are different than the previous guys, just like in my house example. He is keeping the link and he should not expand. That would affect the town waterways and the neighbors. That is not what we proposed here. In his words, this modification is not changing anything with the neighbors, the character, or the community of the island. So Mark thought it made sense to, quote, rearrange the furniture, and he voted in favor of our application. And our proposal passed the waterways committee, so it is fair to say that the majority of members felt similarly regarding our application. Finally, we've been homeowners in Shelter Island for 22 years. We'd like to be very sensitive to the community, the island, our neighbors, and the waterways. We do not believe the existing dock or the proposed modification has a negative impact we did receive a letter of support from the mayor of uh and we've not heard any concerns from any of our neighbors uh it's been posted properly outside our house for a number of days or a month i think and we have not heard any concerns if you've heard concerns i'd appreciate if you let me know as well so we appreciate your support in our application and we'd love to answer any questions you have

Any questions from the board? We'll let you have a seat. And the public has a seat. Thank you.

Shelly said if I told her that we do have a program in the DC, are we going to eventually

That's on which version?

The only thing different really is we cut an additional one foot off the end, and we moved more files. So it's basically what they approved is more than what you're seeing now. Because we gave you one foot, we just moved those files off the property line.

Thank you.

Anyone in the fiscal office who has any questions on this application?

Anyone on Zoom? Any other questions?

I have some things to say. To clarify, the Daytona stock application.

OK. Oh, Matt, I'm muted. Matt, did you want to? Yeah, I'm sorry. OK. Yeah. So we'll let you speak and then go back to you, Albert. Go ahead. Just state your name for the record, please.

This is Matt Williamson. I'm the chair of the WMAC. A couple of things about this application. I guess first, since Albert was just mentioning Teutonus, I think that Teutonus is not a precedent. It's a different situation. Each situation is different. I will note, however, that I did oppose that application because it didn't actually substantially reduce the footprint. And in fact, it extended on both the length and the overall linear length of the dock. I think that point didn't come across to the rest of the committee and to the board. I regret that, but in any case, it should not be a precedent. There's a depth issue, which is quite different at that location. In any case, with this application, a material reduction is material. It's significant. I appreciate Mr. Carroll's point that an inch may feel that way, but from the loss perspective, it's not material. And especially in the situation where you can approach a floating dock in that exact location from inshore, as opposed to going all the way out to the end of the dock and then going down a ramp from the end of the dock back to the floating dock, you can actually achieve that goal of having that floating dock right there, mooring a boat on that exact location with a shorter dock, which is what the code requires. Now, I can appreciate that It might feel like the town is taking something, but this is the law. The law we just passed makes that point a material change when there's a change to the dock. They want to make a change. I think the change is fine as far as it goes in terms of getting a floating dock where they want to have it. But it can be achieved with a smaller footprint. And that footprint does come at a cost. You know, there are different assertions that the neighbors don't care or haven't made any points or Costello hasn't received any complaints. They're not going to receive those complaints. But the point is that the water bottom there is town. And this is a private use of public space. It needs to be justified. There's a change in the dock. They need to make a material change. Because they're not currently, it's not to code. They're making a change. They can make a change and achieve that goal while still reaching their desired floating dock at that location. Next, there's talk about seasonal. There's no provision in the code for seasonality. It's not relevant. Finally, I do take issue with some of the points about coming back to the WMUC. Coming back to the WMUC with the same basic proposal again and again is actually not working with the committee, and I really don't appreciate that characterization of the interaction. I think that really covers my points. I think you can achieve what this applicant wants to do, which is fine as far as it goes, having that floating dock there in that deep water. You can achieve it with a ramp coming in from the inshore side. We're not designing it. We're making a point that this is something that can be accomplished. They can achieve that goal with a shorter dock, and I think they should.

Thank you.

Thank you, Matt. Back to you, Albert.

Yeah, I was going to say the Totona stock was predicated on the old code. This new code, as we know, says if you're going to modify a pre-existing non-conforming dock, you have to have a materially impactful reduction. Material is, as we know, significant. When you came back with your application, Jack, when you came back to the WMAC, um you had to respond to this i'm just saying when you came in you want to talk to the homeowner he said you know we need more modification he said i want to talk to the homeowner when you came back you came back with the same application pilings move yes you agreed to that but basically you took a foot off the end of the dock For me, that's insulting. I don't know what the hell that was. Take a foot off the end of the dock.

We've already given other stuff about.

Yeah, but you don't want those are cursory appendages that probably don't even use. But that's immaterial. A foot off the end of the dock. Well, that's impressive. For me, that's obnoxious. Anyway, reduce the nonconformity materially or significantly. That's what the code asks for. And to grant a variance on this, what's going to stop us down the road for somebody saying, well, you gave it to Carol. I'm looking for a variance as well. Enough of that. He has his doc. He's not suffering any consequences financially. He has the doc that he bought, yes. If he wants to modify it, we're asking for a 24 reduction in the end of the doc. But it's your decision. You still have what you have. You're not going to have to change it. That makes no sense to me. It's a financial, it's whatever.

But Alan, if you look at page six out of 10, you can, you know, like which, ever put up on the screen before, you can actually see, you visualize the amount of square footage we're actually taking off the dock.

I don't think you use that, Jack. And I don't care if you do or not, or if you tell me you do. I don't think you use that appendage, those appendages. I don't think you really use it. So you want it out of there as a visual thing.

The house was just modified, and now we're modifying the dock. So basically what we're asking, what are you exploring?

The WMAC has to come back with a new application.

And they approved.

I came back, and it was approved. They approved it. It was approved. It was approved by him. Three to two to one, whatever it was.

And also, like I didn't talk to James.

That doesn't necessarily make it right, Jack. The WMAC approved it. You have to have the town board approve it now. That's all. That's what I'm asking. That's it. That's what I'm asking.

Melinda Carroll, I see that you turned your video on. Would you like to speak? You just have to unmute yourself.

We still can't hear you.

Let me try, I'm just gonna send, okay, you're unmuted now.

But we still can't hear you.

Yeah, I think you need to turn your volume up. I'll struggle.

I guess, you know, while my wife is getting her Zoom unmuted, I guess I'd respond at one point in terms of seasonal. I don't know if seasonal is in the code or not, but I would think that a seasonal dock that's only in for five, six months is more positive environmentally than a permanent dock. I believe environmental concerns are part of how this is thought out here in terms of waterways.

Still not getting any sound.

Sorry, Melinda.

She's calling in back up. Here we go.

Bringing the young people. Yeah.

There we go. Oh, we're connecting to audio. It's trying.

Not hearing anything.

Oh, maybe she wants to turn off the video.

Now you have to unmute.

Yeah, let me.

OK, you should be. You're unmuted.

Still can't hear. I'm sorry, yeah.

I guess it's. I guess it's in your husband's hands.

All right. So I guess since you can't come on, I guess my only further comments would be in terms of materiality. You know, I discussed this before, but any reduction is material.

When you own a property... Material, excuse me, I have to interrupt you there. Material is significant. One foot off the 175-foot dock is not significant. Okay. Thank you.

Reducing the size of the dock is a material reduction to our property value. We purchase the property as other people have done with other properties with docks. Shrinking the size of a dock reduces the property value. So we would do that as a material reduction. We have offered some reduction in terms of pylons, square footage, seasonal small reduction in length. So we've tried to accommodate that. And we also did look at Tatanas, which had zero reduction in rain and had an increase in the number of power feet in that situation. And that was approved by the town less than nine days ago. So that was something we also took into consideration.

Yeah, that was the old code. The new code, we made significant changes.

But even in this, I would consider the removal of the platforms a material reduction. So we may have a different view on what it means to have a material reduction on the dump.

And we will take this to a work setting to duke it out. So my question is, is there any additional information that we need before we can close this, or do we need to adjourn?

I'm comfortable closing. I feel like I have the information I need.

What'd you say, Liz?

I said I'm comfortable closing. I have the information that I need.

Hold on just a second. I saw Melinda Carroll coming back in. One more second. Okay, you're unmuted. let's hear we can't hear you you still can't hear you sorry all right so um if we have the information then i'll make a motion to close this public hearing second all in favor All right, the next public hearing is for the Mark Gibson mooring application.

On the 29th day of June 2020, at 6 o'clock p.m. or soon thereafter prevailing time on the application of Mark Gibson, one would bind way for permission to install a mooring at a location designated as latitude 41.08831 degrees north and longitude 72.32279 degrees west.

They're taking over an existing mooring located in Kuckles Harbor off Captain Bob's Landing. The vote was 6-0 to approve. Straightforward application.

We'll open this up to the applicant here. No, any questions from the public. Anyone on zoom. Okay, I'll make a motion to close this public hearing 2nd. All in favor. Next we have the more friend morning application.

At 6 o'clock PM, we're soon thereafter prevailing time on the application of Marco Northland, 57 Dino Rock Road for permission to install a mooring at a location designated as latitude 41.10308 degrees north and longitude 72.33856 degrees west. Anyone here on behalf of the applicant? Oh, I'm sorry. WAC report.

Northland, located off Diana Rock Road, vote 6-0 to approve WMIC.

And this application is for private mooring rather than a road carrier, even though the location is in front of the applicant's house.

Yes.

And they don't own any other mooring, so that's fine. Anyone here for the applicant?

Oh, OK. Any questions?

Anyone on Zoom? Okay, motion to process 2nd, all in favor. Moving on to the opening the public hearing for the 1st, our morning application.

6 o'clock PM or soon thereafter prevailing time on the application of Robert wall power 6 community drive. permission to install a mooring at a location designated as latitude 41.06562 degrees north and longitude 72.36335 degrees west.

Do you have the WMAC report? Somewhat.

The mooring is located in West Neck Bay and they're picking over the an old location and the WMAC was questioning, has the gear been removed? Are they installing new gear? I don't know if those questions have been answered.

I have all the formal. The application is lacking information, including the type of anchor and size. There's no indication of the contractor who will be installing the mooring and members expressed concern about the lack of information on the gear in the water. The applicant has since indicated the size and type of mooring. However, the harbormaster has pointed out there is no mooring ball or stake marking the mooring and that the ground tackle appears to be missing. And the applicant confirmed that the installer was stuck. So I see the wall bars are on. So if you wish to speak to those questions.

Hi, everybody. Hello. I just state your name for the records.

Sure.

Bob and Nicole Waldbauer, Sixth Community Drive.

Okay. So the questions we had was the type of anchor and size was not specified.

Yes, so I did supply that information to Linda Cass. I reached out on May 11th to Shelby about what the correct application was to fill out since at that time I thought that we were doing some sort of a transfer, not a new mooring request. Shelby put me in touch with Linda Cass and I worked with Linda Cass up until recently and provided all of the information that she was requesting and all of the supporting documents, the pictures, the license, the registration and everything that was needed. The application I was told was complete. So I was surprised when I heard that it was lacking information. So we were emailed and told that the information that was lacking was the contractor on our application. and the type of anchor and the weight. So I responded again that the type of anchor, which we had already previously supplied that answer to, but the application, the anchor was a mushroom anchor and the weight being 300 pounds. So that was the information that we provided. We did not know that the mooring had been provided apparently taken out by the town and sold off for auction. Mr. Mooring, I'm sorry, Mr. Moore, Warren Moore, our neighbor, was gracious enough to offer us the mooring a few years ago, but we didn't at that time have a boat. So, you know, we kind of kept in touch with him over the years. And I know he had been reapplying for the mooring and maintaining the boat and the paperwork. He's since given us all the paperwork and transferred everything over to us, including a registration for his trailer and a registration for his boat that goes through 2027. So I think a lot of you are familiar with Mr. Moore. He's been a Shelter Island resident for a very long time. and I think may have not renewed the mooring application. I was told by email May, 2025 that the mooring was canceled. So it was May, 2026 that I started this process about a year later after being told that the mooring was canceled. But Mr. Mooring was Mr. Moore. Sorry. That's kind of a, A twist. Mr. Moore, Warren Moore, Warren, our neighbor and friend, was under the impression that the mooring still existed. Jim Minigan, who's been also helping us and who's been helping Warren also over the last few years as he's been, you know, kind of slowing down. Jim's been helping us as well, and Jim was also pretty surprised. So I asked Jim to go and confirm if he could, and he did confirm that what Beau said was correct, that unfortunately somebody took the equipment out of the bay and I guess sold it off for auction so that Mr. Moore no longer has any equipment in the bay, sadly. And that was a surprise to us. So I guess we're starting from scratch and the contractor that was suggested if we needed one was Paul Brewer. So we're not gonna be able to do it by self. Well, I guess contact Paul Brewer at some point and start the process to look into purchasing and installing the equipment. for the mooring if we're approved for this to take over his location which we all thought was still in existence and that's kind of where we're at.

Thank you.

I don't know if you have because that has been a question I'm sure Warren's going to want to know and I'm sure you know We would like to know if there was any, you know, any paperwork that was sent to him to let him know that his equipment was going to be taken out of the bay. I don't know if that's part of your process to provide any type of a warning before anything's taken. But as you know, his health has been not the greatest and maybe he overlooked something and that's quite possible. But I would love to have, if it's on record, a copy since we have all of the rest of his paperwork now of that in notification that his equipment was going to be taken and sold off at auction.

That would go through the bay constables just because they would have noted if there was an abandoned mooring and cleared any tackle that was left behind.

Okay, thank you.

Questions from the board?

No, I mean, I feel like that answered the information.

Yeah, and the only thing we don't have is whether or not that location would be approved by the WMC.

Didn't they already review it, though? Just the question was about whether it was helpful. Was the location problematic? Or, I mean, it doesn't look problematic.

It was the gear. The gear was the question. But they didn't vote on it because they wanted the blanks filled in.

But none of them had concerns about the location, right?

OK. OK. And it was an existing mooring location. Right.

And we're actually going to be putting the same exact boat there. So in terms of the weight, the anchor and everything like that, you know, we're not looking to put anything tremendous there. It'll be it'll make him happy to see his and Jeannie's boat out there again on the mooring that was taken away and will be reinstalled.

Is there anyone in the audience who has any questions? Anyone on Zoom? I don't have an issue. We were going to have it in for a resolution for later this evening application and there's no issues with it. We could go one of two ways. I'm thinking I would just like to modify the resolution later to just say that the template software is to issue a permit subject to review by the master that the location and tackle are sufficient for that site.

The contract agreeing to that is still here.

So, I'd say subject to the master review and approval. Yeah, that's fine.

Yep. Yeah, I'm good with that.

All right, then we will make a motion to close that public hearing.

Second.

Sounds good.

Beaver? Aye.

Okay, thank you. Thomas, if you could just kind of reword that or reword that resolution for later. Thank you. Okay, next public hearing is STARS at White Oak Site Plan Review.

PM or soon thereafter prevailing time on the site plan review application for Stars Cafe at White Oak or Minn Waring Road to convert a wine tasting business to a coffee and prepackaged goods retail shop.

We have a plan board in Miranda.

So.

I'm just going to read the summary. In summary, we appreciate the applicant following through with the site plan review to ensure this minor change of use is properly vetted. We recognize the cafe is a small scale business. In keeping with our island's character and lifestyle, the majority of the planning board would like to see the applicant remedy the parking concerns to ensure the continued safety of patrons and success of their business. Once the parking layout is addressed efficiently, the planning board believes the town board would be poised to approve this project. And the parking concerns had to do with the first entryway closest to the stop sign. Because when there are people parked up against the fence, like people come in and they just pull right up against the fence instead of driving all the way down. Sometimes it blocks line of sight to people who are leaving the establishment. So they're coming out the door and down the stairs. If there's a car parked, then someone pulling in can't see around that car to see if there's a pedestrian walking down the steps and into the driveway. So that was the concern that the planning board brought up.

Do you have notes on the CDC? No, you weren't on that one. I was out on that one. I just am looking at it, and it's the start at White Oak, but then it also references something kind of water quality.

Yeah, and that one was even longer.

Yeah, I was like, I wasn't there and I was like, it was approved. I remember that it was as submitted. I think just natural features and landscaping was not part of the proposed application. Right. Okay. Let me just make sure I'm not missing any other.

So the county planning commission says it's a local jurisdiction.

So, let's see, we have Matt Sherman here on behalf of the applicant.

I'm here on behalf of shelter around the corner LLC is the actual property owner, but stars at white white oak is the is the applicant. Lydia Martinez is here as well. The owner and operator of stars. This application is basically just a change to the previously approved site plan that was approved a couple of years ago. It was originally approved as white oak line casing. And they tried that for a couple of years, decided to go in a different direction. So as far as the site is concerned, nothing's going to change. We're not proposing anything to change. The, we still have the same parking still the same building, so the same decks, patios, walkways for the parking. I was at the planning board meeting and I discussed some of the parking issues with them. I also spoke with with Lydia about some of the parking issues. There was concerns about parking on the road side of the fence on the outside of the fence. There are no parking signs there and the police do regularly ticket cards that are parked on the outside of that sense. So, it's a issue for police enforcement, and they are enforcing it. We did take the planning boards concerns about parking to heart and looked at a couple of different options. 1 of the things was to shut off what's currently the entrance. To the driveway area, the parking area, which is closest to 114 closest to the corner. Um, with that is. The flow of traffic through that entryway into the business and into the parking area would get significantly hampered if people had to enter and exit on what's currently just the exit and then have to back up and do a T and go back out into the main road. So what we're proposing to do is kind of have a modification of what's there now, but not only throwing it out. And when people pull into the entrance along that split rail fence that's right there, blocking off the first half of it. So right now you can realistically get four cars parked parallel in that area, block off the first two, so cars can't park in that first half of that entry, and then you wouldn't have the issue with the visual blocking of people coming in and out of the entry, because cars will be past the entry, and cars coming in would have a clear line of sight. To anybody that's in the parking lot and walking in and out of that entry space. So, I think that's a good compromise for the parking issue. There are lots of parking spots. I don't actually have it on the plan. But there's those 5 parking spots that are gravel. And then there's also people park parallel to the road to perpendicular to those 5 parking spots. You get 3 or 4 cars up. It's more than what we need as far as the town code is required for parking. But it does, there is more realistic on site parking or. Realized I should say on site parking than what we're proposing to maintain on site. 1 of the issues that had come up during the town's initial meeting where everybody got together and kind of divvied up the project amongst the different committees and boards was issues for event parking. And the events are not associated with stars so it's kind of a separate thing from this specific application, but it is in reality part of the overall site, so we want to address it. The the event where they occur occur through wider and on that property that on the site plan is refers to Richard Clark to the South there's a large area in that. that part in the back of that property, that's a parking lot. Right now with all of the nursery stock, you could fit about 30 cars on it. You could rearrange the nursing stock and you could get significantly more than that. In the off season, when you don't have all that stock on hand, you could get closer to 60 to 70 cars in that area. So events that occur at White Oak on the property that also houses stars, If parking is an issue with the board, we could just say that they're required to park in that back area behind the nursery stop and just have a, you know, somebody's having a graduation party or a family wedding or something of that effect. The kinds of events that they have had there. Then they could just have somebody help people direct traffic to that area behind.

How are you proposing to block off those 1st, 2 parking lots of people initially pull in? What were you thinking?

Yeah, that's something simple about, you know, big enough. So people aren't going to run into it, but not anything that's going to be obnoxious or, you know, look like Jersey barricades or anything like that. Got to go with the general aesthetic.

I just realized, when I was going through the reports, the building department did issue a report. So I just wanted to cover those items. There was not a handicapped space designated. So we'd want to see that because the minimum of one is required. I thought- It's on the plan.

It's on the revised plan. Yeah, make sure you look into the revised plan.

Yeah, the 6-2. These big red letters in the upper corner, but I also, yeah, I do want to cover these as well.

And. Did we get an outdoor lighting plan with a schedule of fixtures to be showed? Alternatively, the time to that stipulations requiring invites to be fully.

I would appreciate the stipulation because they're open during the day. They're there from 7 to 4. If they have to install lights to meet a requirement, they absolutely will, but they're the places in an operation when lights would be on.

There's a requirement that forces well, the footlights it's just if you want lighting, it has to be dark size compliant.

So, yeah, there was no issues with drainage. For public utilities, proposed structure appears to have added access to power and no change services been proposed other than the 220 volt line for the baking. And then the energy code compliance that we reviewed as part of the application process. I just wanted to make sure we covered those.

Also, the town engineer had a memo, which basically, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but phrased what a good plan it was. And basically just said he didn't have any issues with it.

Let's point that one up next.

OK, sorry.

Any other town board questions?

Yeah. In the building inspector's report to the town, no change to the use, the structure, or site has been proposed, only the addition of a baking oven. Yeah. When was that installed? That was installed last year. Last year. When did STARS take, when did they start business? Last year. Last year. Okay. So I assume that's all cognizant with the building department and approvals and fire suppression if needed or anything of that nature?

That's not needed on the oven that was installed, but it was all done through the building department. The permitting as far as the oven, whether it creates a need for health department permitting for a kitchen or Department of Agriculture, that was all worked out. This is everyone's agreement. It's a Department of Agriculture application, and they've got their approval through the Department of Agriculture. And without trying to oversimplify it, Basically, if you do something like that big bread do some kind of on site food prep it's got to be less than 50% of what you're selling in the business. If you remember to feed you know feed users department of agriculture to the belly in the back, but they had everything up front was on the drive, this is the same thing if you walk into stars you'll see. that it's 95% baked goods and coffee and 95% dried goods and 5% to 10% baked goods. So that's what makes it under that 50-50 threshold to this Department of Agriculture rather than the Health Department. But as far as everything else that's occurred on the site, on the building, inside the building, that's all been through the building department.

The other thing that he reed brought up was the patio with the pergola over it that they're seating for 50 people now the stars use that i assume they use that for people getting food to sit down at it go by and look at it the best thing you need to do is to go look at the site and you'll see there's not seating for 50 people there it's a patio just going from what i read i have been better yeah i would certainly i would certainly what i would recommend it's really good

So go there and partake. But two, go there and look at it so that as you're opining on the application, you've got a better feel for it. The square foot area for the patio, if you were to just take strictly square foot area and apply it to a building code application, that's where that 50 people come from. It's not how it's set up or how it would be set up in any reasonable, realistic layout. But if you go and look, you'll see there's a couple of tables and chairs.

things along those lines it's not uh it's not set up for food the uh you also on the drawing you showed what is it 10 parking spaces in front of the five or four Yeah, if you go straight into how, how are they access again?

If you if you go there, you'll see there is a gate on the left hand side that could be opened up if they need to have more parking in the back in the field area. If you want to call it that in the back. So that's how they would get back to those end spaces. There's a, there's a big gate that they could open up and that people go back.

All right.

You know that. The issues you're going to have with parking on a property like this on a business like this. On shoulder island, there are going to be times where it's going to be. That's kind of the, you know, that's the goal of the business. They want to have as many people coming out as they reasonably can. That's 1 of the reasons why we're eager to work with the town and the planning board recommendations on limiting the parking right outside the door. So that minimizes that. Chaos as people are coming in and people are leaving. The reality of how often is it going to be that busy? Maybe a half a dozen times over the course of the summer over the course of the season. Um, and even under that, that timeframe. You're it's a coffee shop and you're going to have people coming in, sitting down, having a cup of coffee. Maybe. Maybe just going on down the road, so the idea that they're going to need. A large number of parking spots. It's just not very realistic.

So there will be the availability for parking. It'll be designated.

That's exactly right. There will be the spot. And all they have to do is open up those gates.

The planning board spent a lot of time. They didn't feel comfortable with it. The chairperson felt uncomfortable with pulling in. Yep.

And that's exactly why we're eager to work with the town because I did respect what Julia was thinking and a couple of the other members when they were thinking about They don't want to allow a possible foreseeable problem. So let's adjust that party a little bit so that that line of sight is clear and as people are pulling in, they can see if somebody is in there and it doesn't create that kind of absolutely

Did you do any consideration to a redesign? Have it come in and look at this, because it is kind of convoluted in essence, and it does pose safety issues with people walking in and out of the building, cars pulling in the entrance. It is a concern.

It is a concern, and we both acknowledge that. And that's what we want to talk about. We were offering to remove those couple of parking spaces to alleviate some of that concern. We did not bring in a traffic expert and if the town really wants us to. Then the data can say, so that's obviously, um, there, uh, the idea of reconfiguring the entire driveway and parking area. Obviously, anything is possible. Is there going to be a real appreciable improvement to that? I don't I don't see it, but maybe other members of the board. Do you think that that's a possibility? I think that minimizing the taking Julia's recommendation and minimizing the parking spots by that entrance. Is a good is a good solution. Um. But again, you know, it really depends on what the board wants to have us do. We're here for your approval. They're not here for us. So yeah, be happy to hear whatever the whatever the bullet wants.

I think we're in a great position because we have had now season and a little bit just to actually see how it works. So we don't have to like imagine it from from home. So,

i kind of brainstormed a couple of reconfigurations after the planning board made a lot of it like one of them i had was if you open up the entire front like take out the toasting rail fence then people would just pull straight in but then you have the chaos of multiple people pulling in and pulling out i think that would actually add a little more chaos so i think having a designated in and a designated out works for the space yeah and i think it's just opened up the line of sight so you can see people coming out of the building then that alleviates the concern that uh julia brought up in the meeting where all of a sudden there's someone there because you didn't see them because of a large suv or something so i think that's sufficient i think it's well addressed and i think it's like doing it with like landscaping keeps it with the character of the surrounding neighborhood

Yeah, the planning board did do a lot of deliberation on this. They were talking about maybe doing angled parking along the road in the parking lot facing toward the road. That really wasn't going to work out. They were talking about the delineation of spots. I think that was either in their memo or the building department memo or both. The handicap spot that will will delineate which is going to be right next to the right next to where the pergola is you know closest closest spot to the building official spot in the building i should say um and then also the access to those parking spots in the back or something that was brought up i think it's great so busy that we have to worry about i know i agree i agree

from the board before I open it up to the public?

I wouldn't mind having an expert look at it and see if they could be reconfigured to make it safer. That's all.

Again, I'm not going to argue with the board. If the rest of the board agrees with the same thing, then by all means, we'll do what we have to do.

That's necessary. How do you think?

I didn't hear what was that list.

I said, I would agree with make nice and I don't think that's necessary.

Okay. I need to have something happen there.

Of course, no, no one would love to have something bad happen.

That kind of goes without saying, I think it's a prudent thing to do.

Basically, they got the line of sight. Questions from the public.

Again,

I would just like to say it's hard to imagine better corporate citizens than operations are a glue inside of the community. And places like this, this is an iterative process. They're going to be there operating forever and it's going to be changing forever. And I think the history of how they, what they contributed to the community, them, folks like Meredith at Ace Hardware and other folks that have been around here forever, I think Pepe is probably the only guy who gets up on the island earlier than I do. He's making muffins over there. And the cost of Matt Sherman ain't nothing. And getting experts and all this other stuff is crazy egregious. My wife and I went over to Greenport. I hadn't been over there for a while. I try not to leave my property. We went over to Greenport this past weekend, and it's polite. over there i think six properties have closed down on front street over in greenport and you're seeing that happen over here and so anything we can do to encourage local businesses uh to support them especially good local businesses we should deal those are my comments thank you thank you anyone else in the physical audience anyone on zoom

I'm in a position to close this. I'm in favor of closing. I am also in favor of closing. I wanted to take one last look at Joe's memo about traffic. He didn't discuss any traffic related improvements. yeah i don't think i'm not sure a traffic study would add anything i don't think the traffic study would add anything given the site conditions

I disagree, but I don't think it's harmful to have.

So I would like to make a motion to close this public hearing. Second? All in favor? Aye. Opposition? No? OK. All right. The next public hearing is 9 South Park Road. A zoning change .

On the 18th of May 2026, the town board of the town of Shelter Island duly thought the resolution setting public hearings to be heard on the 29th day of June 2026 at six o'clock in or soon thereafter, prevailing time on the zone change application of wind polygon nine South Cartwright road to remove the designation of her property in the near shore peninsula overlay district. We have correspondence on there. Yes, so I handed out packets to you all and you've also been receiving them as I've been getting them. We have 18 letters of support. I'm going to list out who sent them in. If anyone wants, they can contact me. Then we had one letter in opposition and then we received one letter from Jerry Siller who wanted me to read it into the record tonight so I can do that. I was town supervisor when the near shore overlay was created. We used streets to create the zone boundaries for ease of implementation. Doing it that way included some properties that should not be in the district. That is why the town code allows for a property owner to request a change in zone if their property does not meet the criteria for the district. I urge the board to view the zone change application with an open mind And if it's shown 9 South Cartwright does not meet the definition of a property that should be in the overlay, vote to approve the zone change. Jerry Siller.

And we have Matt Sherman here for the afternoon.

Good evening, Matt Sherman from Interior Consulting. I'm here on behalf of Lynn Colligan, the property owner who's here in the audience. Our attorneys are here as well. Karen Fogue is on Zoom. And Jackson Hubbard is here in the audience as well. This application is for the changes zone for a property that's on the outer boundary of the near shore overlay district. It's our contention that the property does not meet the criteria of a property that would be in the near shore overlay based on the criteria spelled out in the town code. we do recognize that the zoning boundary districts the overlay boundary districts are laid down in a way that is as jerry put in his letter for the convenience or the expediency of putting out you know of implementing the zoning district and we also recognize that the town has this this mechanism in place for a property owner to ask for review if they feel that their property should not be in that district i want to give you a little bit of background on this one though um when we first talked about it, when Lynn first came to me and asked about whether or not there was any flexibility in the near shore or why her property was in it. And if this kind of a removal from the near shore would be possible, we looked at the town code and we saw that the town had the provision in the code that says you can apply for a changing zone, not necessarily just the near shore. If you're in B zone and you want to be in C zone or A zone or double, whatever it happens to be. you can apply to make that change. So I talked to the town clerk and we both came to the realization that there was no mechanism in place. There was a provision in the code to apply for a change in zone, but there was no mechanism. There was no way to actually put in an application. So she got to work with the rest of the town, town attorney, town board members, other committee members, and they put together the process and procedure to actually apply for the zoning change. While that, internal mechanism was good was undergoing we applied to the zba for two variances a use variance which was for the near shore overlay district and allowing the accessory dwelling unit within the district and an area variance so the area variance was because this property is mapped as a double a zone property it's significantly undersized for a property that would otherwise be allowed to have an accessory apartment on it Um, the, the use variance, the idea of it being that same logic. Uh, plays out there that the, the criteria of a property being in the near shore overlay district did not apply. So, therefore, we felt a, a use variance under that standard. Would be appropriate. However, we recognize, as did pretty much everybody else, that that's not the only standard that comes into play when you're looking for use variance. The primary standard that we could not overcome was the reasonable financial return. And in order for a use variance to be approved, granted there was a use variance previously approved for an accessory apartment on Shelter Island about 20 years ago. Um, and the, uh, the reasonable financial return on that 1 that enabled the to approve that variance was they had built an accessory building with a garage on the 1st floor and apartment on the 2nd. And the money laid out for that building. It really couldn't get it back unless they rented out the, the accessory apartment. That was the logic that the ZBA had used at the time. The logic that was presented as opponents of the ZBA use variance was there's a legitimate use on this property that does not require a variance, and there's a reasonable economic return. She could sell her property. That's basically the argument. And it's a reasonable argument. She doesn't have to live on the island. She can commute from somewhere else. She doesn't have to own her property. So the ZBA heard the arguments, both for or against. They closed the hearing. After the hearing was closed, the town finalized the procedure for applying for a zone change. So we pulled our ZBA application. And we submitted the application to the town board for a change in zone. So that's what got us to this point here today. One of the other things that had come out of the ZBA hearing, so it actually was a good thing that we did that, because it helped shed some light on some things that I had taken for granted. I assume most people know my background, they know what I do, they know that I'm an engineer first, and a permit expediter second. But not everybody knows that. So kind of to set the stage a little bit, I'm a professional engineer. I've been an engineer since 2001. I started my engineering career with PW Grocer up in Bohemia as a town secret consultant. They're engineers, civil engineers, environmental engineers, hydrogeologists. That's where I learned the profession. So I was there for a number of years before I left there and I went to the Heights. And at the Heights, I was in charge of their water and wastewater systems. I've designed hundreds of water and wastewater systems on Shelter Island, East Hampton, South Hampton, Riverhead. I don't really go south, I don't really go too far west. I worked on the South Hampton critical wild lands program, which was a plan that was through PW Grocer. And we evaluated groundwater, groundwater recharge, and what kind of withdrawal, and looked at different areas, very similar to the towns near shore overlay, what kind of areas should we be protecting and how should we be protecting them? I worked on, I headed up a hydrocarbon collection and recovery system for Habenza, which is one of the largest oil refineries, certainly the largest in the Caribbean at the time, where we had a series of, about 120 supply wells, excuse me, recovery wells and monitoring wells, monitoring groundwater plumes. We mapped the flow of the groundwater. We did groundwater modeling and we did adaptive recharge or adaptive adjustments to the plan in order to have it turn into one of EPA's model plans for groundwater remediation in that kind of an environment. I've done stormwater designs on the island. I've done groundwater modeling on the island. I've helped the town rewrite portions of the near shore overlay district, bringing in storm water control for impermeable surfaces. Um, 1 of the reasons why the town puts the 5 gallon per minute wells on most near shore overlay projects is because I started that. So, I'm not just. I'm not just another pretty face up here selling projects to the board. I actually know about this stuff. I'm not a hydrogeologist. That's true. But I am very well versed in that. I've got both undergraduate level study in hydrogeology and I've got continuing ed study in hydrogeology. So this isn't something that we're just throwing out there and just hoping that it sticks. There's actual meaning behind what we're doing here. So, with that, we'll get into the nuts and bolts of the application. Basically, what we're talking about here is a relatively small, just over a quarter acre piece of property. It's on South Cartwright Road, and it was built in 1955, goes back quite a ways. It's about 800 feet from Congons Creek, and it's a little over 800 feet from the closest freshwater wetlands either going toward Lily Pond or going back over toward Meshamic or the Heritage Area. And the Nearshore Overlay District, one of the things that the district limits is the use of accessory buildings. So this whole project, this whole application started with an application to put in an accessory dwelling unit in the basement of Lynn's house. So the only physical expansion to the house would be a window well to allow emergency egress into the basement and a stairwell to allow typical entry and exit, independent entry and exit into this accessory dwelling unit. So the house itself, the site itself is going to remain almost entirely intact and unchanged as far as the footprint and its impact on the site. In 2021, Lynn put a new IA septic system on the property. That septic system is good for up to four bedrooms. It's the smallest system she was allowed to put in. As luck would have it, the house is three bedrooms. The accessory dwelling unit is going to be one bedroom. There are two uses combined to be able to work with that four bedroom septic system that was installed, IA septic system. For the near shore overlay, for the important part of this. And the reason why the application focused on why this site did or did not meet the criteria of the nearshore overlay and didn't focus on the idea of the accessory dwelling unit is whether she's doing an accessory dwelling unit or not, the site doesn't comply with nearshore overlay stipulated goals and the things that the town's trying to protect with respect to the nearshore overlay. And the neutral overlay has five different components that they use that they use to say why a property should should be in the near shore. It's freshwater table is close to sea level with risk of saltwater intrusion is number one. Land surface is close to the level of the freshwater table increasing increasing the risk of pollution to the aquifer. And really what that is saying is if let's say you're at a very low line site it's a eight foot elevation and groundwater is at six feet you've only got you know, a couple of feet of of soil. for groundwater that's going through that soil to get cleaned out before it hits the aquifer and it starts moving. So that's the issue there. Third point is land surface is close to the level of the fresh water table, inclusive, wait a minute, that's what I just read. We've got land surface, no, that one's the same. Let me get on to the next one. I messed up on mine. I found a typo in my report. Let's see. All right, let's go. We'll just take them one at a time and then we'll come back to them. So we've got land draining towards creeks and bay waters, increasing potential pollution, density for development, anticipated future development or threatening ecologically sensitive areas, and then land drains toward freshwater ponds, which are hydraulically connected. So the kettle holes, areas around Machamek areas, those kettle holes between Heritage Drive, Lily Pond, that whole area, it's all hydraulically connected. So looking at the first one, freshwater table is close to sea level, risk of saltwater intrusion exists and has occurred through consented use of available potable water sources. So the well at Lynn's property, which is really the best way to judge how deep the aquifer is there, she's got 42 feet of water in the well. And what that means is if you've got a well, they drill down to groundwater, They continue into groundwater as deep as they reasonably can based on water quality and based on the soils that the aquifer is in at that spot, what kind of water they can get out of it. The health department for a typical supply well, they want 40 feet of water above the well screen. When you hear me referring to the amount of water in the well, we're talking about the total depth of water. So if you've got a four foot screen, they really want a 44 foot total depth of water in the well. Most of the wells on Shelter Island are anywhere from 40 to 44 to 46 feet of water in the well. The shallowest the health department will allow you to do a well is with 10 feet of water above the screen. So 14 feet of total water in the well. At Lynn's, she's got 42 feet. So very close to the top limit that the health department requires. Significantly larger than most wells within the nearshore overlay. Silver Beach, Montclair, Tuttle Drive, areas of Hay Beach, a lot of those places have 20 feet or so of water in their wells because they're at that shoreline area, they're in the near shore overlay, and they're rightfully so, they've got relatively shallow fresh water in the wells. One of the things we do is we drill down to see how deep we can go in an area where we may be concerned about saltwater intrusion. The well driller will test, do a field test of the water, see what kind of salt content there is. As long as the salt content is fairly acceptable, they'll set the well at whatever depth they get to that's near 40 to 44 feet. That's what happened, I presume, I wasn't there, but that's what happened when the well was drilled on Lynn's property. For other wells in the immediate vicinity, the well right behind her, Jim Pugh's well at 11 South Cartwright, it's got 28 feet of water in it. A well a little bit further down South Cartwright Road, 27 feet of water, and then the well right behind that one has got 41 feet of water. So for all the wells in her immediate area, they're not considered shallow, but not anywhere close to that 10 foot depth. And two of the four are almost as deep as the health department wants you to go. So they're all on the deeper end of that well profile. The town's irrigation committee commissioned the hydrogeologic data review and evaluation for Shelter Island. And they had said that the area of where Lynn's property is would have for a total freshwater lens approximately 57 feet of water. That's coming from the town's report. And that bears out because Lynn's being 42 feet into that 57 foot bubble, that makes perfectly good sense. You've got a fair amount of water below the well and you've got a fair amount of water above the well That's exactly how you would want a well driller to install your well in that scenario. Growth Team, Groundwater at the subject property, which was done by a test all done in 2020 by. Growth Team, Sean Baron who's one of the go to guys for doing test holes had a two foot elevation of groundwater and that's based on again a little bit of background. Growth Team, When we talk about the elevation of groundwater it's with reference to zero, which is mean sea level, so if the grade is at 17.5 feet and the you've gone down. so that you're gonna have 15.5 feet, you're at two feet, and that's where you hit groundwater in the case of Lynn's property. The aquifer on the island, it's a lens, it's water flowing through soil is what it is. It's deeper up in this part of the area on the island, you're gonna have four feet, five feet in your wells, excuse me, four or five foot elevation of groundwater in the center of the island. And then it's like a slow, dip as it goes down toward the outer edges. Groundwater flows along that drop in altitude, which is why groundwater at the center of the island flows towards the outskirts of the island. Stormwater from rain collected, I believe the number, I'll have to look it up, I thought it had it written down, but stormwater in the center, in the island as a whole, there's approximately a little over 4.4 billion gallons per year of rainwater hits the island. And this was from the town's, one of their watershed, I believe it was their water and groundwater management plan, I believe it was. But I'll get that for the board. And of that, I believe it's 12 million gallons is pumped. So the vast, vast majority of water, somewhere between 10 and 13 million gallons per day of fresh water flows across the top of the aquifer out to the shoreline, out to the outer edges of the island. The vast, vast majority of water that hits the island goes out to the shoreline. As we noted in our report, groundwater elevation is not constant. it's not steady it's not fixed it fluctuates you've got um shallow groundwater at times you might have a little bit thicker groundwater at times i forget what year it was where we had the big flood when we were pumping water overboard you know groundwater was exceedingly high people's basements that were never even close to being dry wet were flooded out so that was all the groundwater is a very dynamic thing um so with the groundwater at that snapshot at lynn's property of two feet, you do have to ask the question, is that a true representation of where groundwater always is? It's certainly not. It's going to fluctuate. We know it's going to fluctuate. But that two foot elevation is also supported by the town's groundwater management plan, watershed management plan, where they've got figure, there's its figure four of the water table contour map showing the two foot contour going right over top of Linn's property. So that also helps substantiate the fact that two feet is a reasonable average groundwater elevation at her property. When her well was drilled, like I said, we don't know what the conditions were, but when we tested it when she got her septic updated, she had chloride levels of 33.2 parts per million. 33.2 parts per million is right in the middle of the range of 10 parts per million and 40 parts per million, which the town's hydrogeologic report refers to as indicative of impact from human activity. So basically just a borderline chloride level. So there's zero indication that there's any kind of elevated chlorides at this property or in the general area. It's also USGS has also stated the groundwater and urbanized area of one island generally has an ambient chloride concentration of less than 40 parts per million. Again, reinforcing the idea that the water at Lynn's property has no impact in any way, shape or form by saltwater, which is another concern of properties in the near shore overlay district. The 2nd point land surface is close to the level of fresh water table. increasing the risk of pollution of the aquifer the grade fluctuates at her property from about 16 feet to about 18 and a half feet maximum of 21 so the average is in that 18 and a half foot range a test hole as i was saying was done and it showed groundwater elevation at two feet which again as i just mentioned confirms with the information that the town has compiled themselves um Whether or not land surface is close to the level of the freshwater table, the code doesn't really define what that means. So we'll go to the next best thing. We'll talk to the health department. If the health department deals with sanitary systems at or above groundwater, they try to have it as high above groundwater as we can reasonably get them with a minimum 3 foot separation distance. And what they say is anything less than 11 feet is considered shallow. So at Lynn's property, she's, what did we say she was at? At the grade, she was at about 17 and a half. So she's 15 and a half feet from grade to the groundwater table. Shallow is considered 11 or less. So that doesn't apply. The third item, land drains towards creeks, bays, or increasing potential pollution from surface or below ground drainage. the closest shoreline is Congon Creek, which is uphill and 800 feet away. So unless something happens and water starts flowing uphill, that doesn't apply. So that's item number three. Item number four, density of development and anticipated future development threaten the ecologically sensitive areas. That's absolutely true in all of Shelter Island, not just the Nearshore Overlay District, But when you look at her property, there are, and this is another error I found in my report, I said that 11 dwellings on the 13 lots immediately around her, there's actually 12. So 12 of those lots have buildings on them. They all range from 0.7 acres to an acre, acre and a half. Largest one I think is 2.2 acres. You also have mishami immediately to the south of this area you've got the newly acquired town property six I believe that six acres immediately to the north of this property. There is an undeveloped property to the west, but it could be developed. It's got potential. Somebody could put a single house on it. Somebody could try to subdivide it. So we don't really, I don't really count that as something of open space because it's not protected. But for the most part, most of the properties around this are, Lynn's is the outlier being at just over a quarter acre. Most of them are just at about an acre and they've got typical single family dwellings on them. And then the last thing, which is item number five, land drains towards freshwater ponds, which are hydraulically connected to outcroppings of freshwater table, excuse me, which may result in pollution of the freshwater table. Lilliput, perfect example. Again, same as with Cockles Harbor and Condon Creek, it's uphill toward the Lilliput and it's over 800 feet away. So groundwater flow isn't going in that direction. Groundwater flow is going the opposite direction. And overland flow isn't going in that direction. It's going in the opposite direction. So let's get to the comprehensive plan. The town comprehensive plan adopted in 94 had a 25-year outlook with goals with respect to managing growth, retaining the island's human character, and they focused on responsible stewardship, resiliency, maintaining vibrancy, and diverse community. All of those things are just as important to the comprehensive plan, not just one of them, all of them. So several components of the plan factor into the current request. Chapter 3, natural resources. The plan mentions many, many, many times A groundwater table elevation of 1 and a half feet above ceiling. They don't say 2 feet. They don't say 1 feet. They say 1 and a half feet and then they do say plus or minus. What is plus or minus 2 inches an inch? I don't know. But it's 1 and a half feet. It's not too. So, the aquifer at 9 South Cartwright is 2 feet above sea level 25% more than the criteria mentioned in the comprehensive plans. And it's also backed up by the other data that the town has in its management plan. Um, the recommended the recommendation to limit accessory dwellings is directly connected to areas where groundwater is 1 and a half feet or less above sea level bullet point item number 3 on the comprehensive plan. So. There is no ambiguity. There's no question. They said it many, many times. They called it out. They bullet pointed it. One and a half feet is the number that the comprehensive plan was looking at. We can speculate what they meant by plus or minus, but one and a half feet is a number and it's there all the time. Chapter five deals with land use and zoning. The plan again reinforces the protection of most aquifer-sensitive lands, such as those having a water table of one and a half feet or less above sea level. It's everywhere, one and a half feet. Chapter six is housing. Housing means maintaining a balance between full-time working residents, part-time vacation, or resort populations. It's created a challenge since the mid-1800s. They go on to say that to create and maintain affordable housing opportunities, is one of the primary goals of the town and of the comprehensive plan. So based on that first bullet point under that chapter, the affordable housing really needs to be looked at when you're examining the comprehensive plan, not just debt to groundwater or other components. So as we wrapped all this stuff together, it became very clear that one, the site does not comply with the requirements or align with the requirements of why a property would be in the near shore overlay district to begin with. And also it complied with the comprehensive plan and complied with the goals of the town by enabling somebody who's a vibrant member of the community, a teacher at the school, somebody who's on town committees, And volunteers are time to the town and ability to stay on an ability to improve her property and improve it in such a way that she can still remain a viable environment member of the community. And people are going to argue various different things for and against this. The reality is just that. That if the board agrees to a zoning change. based on the facts of the case, the facts of this specific property, that what you'll be doing is creating a, you'll be creating a situation where a property that should not have been in the near shore overlay to begin with can be removed so that a property owner is not inappropriately constrained in the way that she would otherwise legally be able to use her property. And I want to get back to something I started out with. When we went to the ZBA first, we went for a use variance, and we went for an area variance. If the board approves a change in zone, that takes care of the use variance issue. We still have to go back for an area variance. And it's not an insignificant area variance. The lot is just over a quarter acre, and it's double A zone for whatever reason. I don't understand, but that's what it is. Even if it reverts back to single A zoning, That only applies to setbacks that doesn't apply to the minimum lot size required for an accessory dwelling unit. So she's in a quarter acre. She should be at an acre and a half. So that's going to be a heavy left of the, and I don't know how that's going to go out. But that's what our next step would be if the board decides to grant the changes. I didn't want to hit on a couple of quick things. I know I've talked quite a lot here and I don't want to. Overstating my welcome, but I do want to hit a couple of quick things on the letters of support. Toby had written had read the letter from. Supervisor seller, and I appreciate that. We also have letters of support from Jane Jacqueline. Catherine Brigham, Jennifer. Glenn, Wyden previous town council person who Sherman previous town supervisor. Jose Montalvo. Peter reach previous town council person. I've got 4 council people. So I think that's pretty good. Um, John Cronin previous town engineer. Uh, see, we got, uh. Jim Q Jim Q is a professional engineer. He's also an immediate neighbor. In this column, and he's in favor of this application. Patty quickly. Elizabeth Eklund. Kelly Smith. Paul and Vanessa who are also immediate neighbors to, uh, to the applicant. Christina laying. I'm not sure I've got all of them. Lisa Murphy. And respond, so those are all people who decided. You know, they look at the information, they decided that it was important enough for them to reach out to the town. and express their support for this application. So all we ask is that you look at it, as Jerry said in his letter, look at it with an open mind. And if you think that water can flow uphill, or you think that two foot is actually the same as a foot and a half, or if you think that this property that's on the very outskirts of the nearshore overlay should be treated as any other property that's smack dab in the middle, on the shoreline um you know i hope that you don't but that's where we're uh that's where we're coming from um ms colligan's attorney would like to have say a few words i believe um and then i think um we'd be open for a link or support

I'm not going to off the line. I apologize. I just wanted to cover very quickly just a discussion of what's in an anticipatory manner. There may be something, so this could be essentially a spot zone. It always gets tossed around, these kind of questions, these kind of situations. We would just reiterate that in this case, it doesn't make sense here. This is not evidence. Generally, this is a spot zone. Generally, when you're speaking about spot zoning, you are looking at something that's not in line with the comprehensive plan and also in opposition to if there's no legitimate public purchase. So as Matt covered and as we have in our submission, our letter from Bob Herman, this is exactly the kind of thing. And in looking at your recent submission for your potential update of the comprehensive plan, many aspects of that plan that sorry of that plan that uh proposed plan that uh comply with this application and with her her plans for the property um it discusses at length um having you know education for new adus when available with that she went to a meeting about it she applied she's doing all these things she's following her her um all the steps have been laid out for her to do this correctly um And she, in the same vein, looking at the comprehensive, post-comprehensive update to the plan, any issues with water quality, she's already stepped ahead and done that herself too. The new update looks very heavily at IA system. She has that already. She did it herself. Push that ahead. Her system can handle this kind of development. Again, like Matt had mentioned, Not even expansion of the other part of the house, just in the basement. And sadly, having said for owner-occupied rentals like this, especially one in her own, the same building, she'll be living herself year-round. Part of the issue that I've seen in the plan is that if you're looking for year-round residents, which I'm referring to be, when is year-round resident, she would love to have a year-round resident with her there. And like I said, I don't want to, go over too much of what Matt just went through, but I do really feel, and we have taken great steps and strides to make sure that this is going through all necessary steps, that your code allows for approvals of change of zone. This is exactly the kind of application that would be amenable to that. And any kind of precedent, like Matt also noted, negative precedence As you're always told, and as we've been over all these boards, everything's a case by case basis. This is exactly the kind of case that you are looking for for this kind of change. Hopefully it'll help other people as well, and help the town, because this is a community you have. Just make sure I'm not missing anything. I apologize, I'm sweating a little. And I apologize that I'm a little stuffed up too, so I'm not speaking as I should be. But like I said, again, she's a conscientious citizen. Not only has she taken the steps necessary to apply for the EU, she has that approval, she has her IA in place already, all those approvals, and she is really just taking the steps she needs on her own. I can take any questions if you'd like. I know she'd like to speak as well, but I mean, we're hoping to have, I think we'll see first. Thank you.

And did you want to speak now or later?

I can wait till the end if you want to open it up.

Questions from the board to start with? I don't have any questions. I did have one question for you, Matt, on page 11 of your report. You did speak to, this was under number five, the land drains towards Fresh Pond, which are hydraulically connected. Um, so I just wanted to clarify like lily pond and then the kettle holes and wetlands. It is draining towards those, but they're each point to to a quarter of a mile away.

Uh, closest lily pond on common road is probably a quarter mile away. Freshwater weapons, kettle holes. No, where do you see that dream towards fresh?

Well, no, that's what I was trying to find topography that included section that I could see the.

The biography you can see on page 9, it's the town, it's the town's it's 5 foot contours. Um, you can also see it on figure 4, which is service elevation. It's not, it's not as good because it's a color coded map. We can't see the actual contours on it, but that's. That's where the information came from as well as just, you know, general knowledge of the area, seeing the surveys. And we didn't compile all of the general area surveys into 1 topographic map. But we can certainly do that if the board would like that.

It's hard to see on these, but I also, I can go back to the Nelson report for these plans and go to the GIS. Thank you. Anyone else have something to upload before I open it up to the public? I'll open it up to the public. Steven?

Stephen Jacobs, good evening again. Last week, I submitted an eight-page letter with quite a few citations to the 1994 comprehensive plan, the attempt in 2008 to revise the plan, various of the relevant water studies. and various other documents. I'm not going to go through any of that. It's all there for you to take a look at, verify if you want to verify. Instead, I want to focus on the big picture and just some of the main points that are really that issue here. This is an unprecedented application. Mr. Sherman conceded that. There wasn't even a procedure to make the application. and it's an application that attacks the protections for the bays creeks and groundwater that have been in place for over a generation these protections originated in the town's comprehensive plan they haven't been questioned either by this town board prior town boards or those who study the relevant data now to start with the big picture question why do we limit development in the near shore overlay in the first place. Why protections? Two things, mostly. First, we're protecting the bays and creeks. Why should we care about them? Who should care about them? Well, we all should care about them. Some islanders depend on them, particularly the bays, for their livelihood, for fishing, aquaculture.

Others depend on them for swimming, some for boating. sailing, tourism.

There are probably some folks that don't rely on them for any of these reasons, but they should care because the other people do. What's the risk to the bays and creeks? Well, it's pollution, particularly septic waste. And septic waste, particularly nitrogen, has caused algae blooms and massive fish kills.

Various septic systems reduce septic waste, but they don't eliminate it.

Various forms of nitrogen end up in the drinking water, and they ultimately flow out to the . But adding housing units, whether it's big units or small units, necessarily increases the bad stuff entering the environment. And beyond question, I don't think even Mr. Sherman would dispute this. Contaminants end up more quickly getting into the drinking water and out to the bays and creeks when you're closer to the shoreline as opposed to, for example, in the center. The second reason to limit development near the shore is to protect the drinking water. I have three major concerns here about drinking water. One is the additional nitrogen that comes with more houses, again regardless of their size. Second is increasing the other bad stuff that gets into the drinking water, pharmaceuticals. There's been attention to that and some other nasty household things. And the new advanced septic systems don't address any of those problems. And the third issue is that allowing two dwellings on a lot increases water usage. And what's the problem with that? Well, the problem with that is that increasing water usage, particularly near the shore, increases the risk of saltwater intrusion. especially in the busy summer months. So along comes this very well-liked member of the community who wants to remove the longstanding protections of the near shore overlay from her individual property. Her claim is, it's only a basement, it's on a lot that's not close to the shore, it's okay to give this a pass, it's trivial, it's for a good person. From a legal standpoint, as set forth in the submission last week, this application can and should be denied outright because the need for the protections that are under attack here is embedded in the town's comprehensive plan. And the board, frankly, need not think about anything else that's truly enough to resolve this issue and to avoid the other stickier issues that it would have to face if it doesn't resolve it that way. The applicant argues that her property doesn't belong in the nearshore overlay. And when I say the applicant, I'm including her representatives. doesn't belong in the near shore overlay and cites affordable housing as a reason to approve this application. But neither approach holds water. The water data referred to in the application and just now is at the very best incomplete. The submission last week points to one of the most obvious areas in which it's incomplete. And we've just heard the fudge. Well, it's really 1 and 1 half feet, and that's sort of the same as 1 and 1 half feet. More or less, that's the language that's throughout our ransomware. Yesterday, so far as I know, for the first time, posted on the town website was a report from a an additional consultant media consultant uh interestingly dated uh july june 11th so it took until yesterday for the public to hear about it but one of the most significant things about that report is that it doesn't just rely on

the data that was provided to the consultant by the applicant's engineer.

It recommends obtaining more information, including, for example, a new test hole. And that's certainly a key issue. And as pointed out both in the submission last week and even again by Mr. Sherman, The levels of groundwater are dynamic. And it's clearly not enough to rely on one test that's six years old, more or less. We don't even know the date, six years old. We haven't actually seen the report itself. We've only seen a reference to it. So if the board goes so far as to scientific data to start shrinking the near-shore overlay it really needs to engage an independent qualified and objective consultant to review all the relevant data and to qualify the risks not just of this proposed basement but the risks of increasing the number of houses that can be placed on other lots like it. We know there's some nearby. And back in 2008, 2009, the report of the then Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee noted that there are literally hundreds of nonconforming lots in the near shore all the way. And the need for an independent review stand regardless of the credentials of Mr. Sherman or any consultants. Because the fact of the matter is, they're representing a client. They're not representing the town. So if the town board wants to get into this as opposed to just saying, this application with the comprehensive plan. It needs to get a qualified and independent consultant, ideally a hydrogeologist, to really look at this, look at this plot, and also look at the implications of starting to shrink the nearshore overlay in this matter. There's an obvious need for affordable housing on this isle. I don't question that, I've never questioned that. I don't question the ADU program. As I said at the beginning, I think a tax break for people building ADUs is appropriate, but it really is not a relevant factor here. And the reason I say that is not just because the accessory apartment that the applicant is seeking would not have to be affordable. There's no dispute over that. But it appears that for a variety of reasons, the applicant does not qualify for the ADU that she is seeking and apparently has been told she qualifies for. At a recent, I think it was the May Housing Board meeting, the Housing Board said in words of substance that it had delegated responsibility for determining eligibility for ADUs to an outside entity unrelated to the town, Community Development Long Island. But whatever this outside entity has done here, and suggestion again today is they've actually approved this application. The fact remains that applicant does not meet the applicable standards. The standards set forth on the housing board's website a CDLI document that has been submitted to the board. And the reason she doesn't apply, first, unquestionably, is the location of her property in the near shore overlay. Second is the size of her property, because under the published guideline, a property for it to qualify for an ADU has to be an acre, 40,000 square feet. Finally, based upon evidence submitted first to the zoning board and last week to the town board, last year, the applicant apparently earned roughly $15,000

Limit, which is that no bearing on on this application, the financials of the applicant have nothing to do with whether or not. The zone is appropriate for the property, so please stick to that and does not issue the grant. We have nothing to do with the qualifications that's done by the state. And the state has designated to run that program for them. We have nothing to do with it.

So it's.

So it actually has no bearing on whether or not the zoning is appropriate for the property.

I respectfully disagree, because although not made clear in the application, I think we've heard tonight clearly that the reason this is in front of you is that the applicant wants an ADU grant to build an accessory apartment. Otherwise, there's no indication we'd be here. And given that, I think it would be highly irresponsible and very difficult, frankly, for you to justify to the public, turning away, turning a blind eye to the fact that this applicant does not meet at least two and apparently three of the clearly set forth requirements for an ADE grant.

Finally,

It's important to note that this application is about far more than a basement on a single lot in the near shore overlay. Some of applicants neighbors we've heard are awaiting the application of this app, awaiting the outcome of this application and the further application that this applicant would have to make for the zoning board. The as I mentioned before, plan group noted that there are hundreds of non-conforming lots in the nearshore overlay. Applicants' property just has to be one of them. And to throw the skunk on the table, so to speak, housing board members in the past have argued that ADUs should be allowed in the nearshore overlay. Nevertheless, after significant consideration and debate the town board and adopted in 2023 a housing plan that specifically said no accessory apartments in the near shore overlay and it certainly would appear the wall would certainly appear that those who wanted to remove the protections of the near shore overlaid then are now seeking to change it, but initially just one lot at a time. In closing, this application should be denied as a threshold issue and the Board may go no further as contrary to the comprehensive plan. Current protections of the bays our drinking water should be maintained. As I said, the board need not go further. But if it does, it should certainly not consider changing any of the current protections for any part of the nearshore overlay without a thorough analysis by a qualified consultant, a consultant that people can agree is impartial and not retained or acting for one party. Finally, the general need for affordable housing does not justify putting the bays or drinking water at risk. And that consideration is particularly inappropriate coming from this applicant. Thank you for listening.

I saw Greg Turner first.

Hello. This is Greg Toner. I'm coming here as an individual, not as a committee. This was really, really interesting, I think, from both sides. The recognition which hadn't come into my brain was we're talking about two relatively different things. I was very much focused on the ADU situation. But the implications to what might be changed because of this situation with the zoning just goes so far beyond what's potentially happening with the PFA. A couple of things on this. Steve covered it a little bit on the concentration of contaminants in water. And you're right, the water level is relatively low there, which means that waste materials such as pharmaceuticals, PFAs, nitrogen, I don't know.

But I wonder if the prior community plans had any conversation about nitrates in the drinking supply.

I don't know. Certainly, I doubt it had PFAs. So I just encourage you to not rush the first part of this, which is the code change, the potential for a code change. And recognize the implications of killing the near shore zone would be huge. people may be lining up you know at the tour because don't be surprised people will be lining up to see what this procedure that she's developed and right behind the residents are going to be the people that are developers and what they are seeing is a beautiful opportunity to uh to really do something that I think old time shelter islanders, which I'm just an observer to that. The island isn't what it used to be. And if this change to the zoning code, just amp that up by a dozen times, because it could be really very significant for homes that might be torn down and then built bigger because now there's no business code that doesn't protect our land. So, and more. Thank you.

Michael Gaynor.

Hi, Mike Gaynor, Acobits Lane. I want to voice my extreme support for Ms. Colligan getting this accessory dwelling unit, whatever you guys have to do in order to make it. And as I told you, I went over to Greenport over the weekend and I bumped into a town employee and his wife. And we got to talking about living on the island. And I'm not going to mention his name because hanging out with Mike Gaynor is equivalent to hanging out with a leper. And they were saying they didn't even flinch. They're like, we're out of here in four years. We can't afford to live here. And our kids definitely can't afford to live here. As you guys know, I won't go on like Matt did about my professional experience. I operate the largest permanent expediting firm in the United States. We process thousands of permits every month, all from the United States. The housing shortage is not a Shelter Island thing. It's not any STEM thing. It's a national thing. And the same thing's happening. And I see this in communities every day, right? And not in my backyard, we can't have housing, but there's no housing. People peeing too much on the island is not what's going to kill this island. It's going to be a lack of housing. 100%, that's going to happen in all of our lifetime. When town workers can't afford to live here, and this housing stuff, ridiculous, glacial, slow pace. It's not keeping up with the needs. Whatever the needs are with the water, take the money that we're giving over to Sylvester Manor or something, like I've said, and deploy it to sand and gravel to go put nitrogen treatment systems. Literally, I'm not joking. There's so much money. There's so much public money laying around. And those systems, I've seen Meg come over to my house and pull water out of there. It's crystal clear. It's a solvable problem. That's a very solvable problem through technology. Housing problem is that we are not doing anything to move the needle. And that will 100% sink this island in the near term. I've seen it happen in Sag Harbor. I've been around on this island for 20 years now. I've watched Montauk turn on a dime. I've watched Sag Harbor turn on a dime. The North Fork now, freaking the North Road and the Main Road have turned into Montauk Highway. It's unbelievable. In a short period of time, in a short period of time, no one's going to be able to afford to live here anymore and have housing. That's going to happen. We're not going to run out of water. We're not going to pollute all the groundwater in a short period of time. That's a long term agenda item. So anything we can do, and just for the record, everybody's talking personally about Lynn Colligan. I'm not a big fan of Lynn Colligan, professionally, because of her position on the zoning board appeal. So just so we're clear. That being said, I think we should do everything to get Miss Colligan whatever it is she needs to get housed.

Jennifer Rohrer. I am Ms. Madeline Colligan. I have a student in high school. He's going into senior year. Ms. Colligan has been involved with him at the school, teaching, mentoring, class advisor for the last six years. This is not about bays and creeks. This is about a problem that this community has of keeping teachers, good teachers, who need to be able to afford to live on this island. So if we have a teacher who is in a three bedroom, just her, her two grown children come back maybe a couple times a year for holidays. If she is allowed to have an apartment in her house where another teacher, in theory, can come and live and afford to live and be a part of the community and be a part of students' lives, that is something that we should absolutely be doing. That is so important for this island.

Thank you.

Anyone else? No? I saw Bill's hand up. OK.

Bill Mastro, I am speaking only for myself, not for any committee or any association that I'm associated with. I'd like to bring this back for a minute to what I think tonight is about, which is zoning. And we've gone to a lot of other different places during this conversation. I want to state just for myself, I am very sympathetic to Lynn. And I love anyone that wants to build an ADU that's going to be rented on a full-time year-round basis. So I'm less speaking to the application itself. I want to make the suggestion to the board, which is this is kind of unique. It's got all these situations surrounding it. And part of that reason is because it has, even though Matt, I think, did a great job, an undefined process. And I know you've heard me say this before, process matters. And probably the best solution, whether or not you're inclined to approve or whether or not you're inclined to disapprove of this application, is to come up with a methodology that if someone wants to change their zoning from the near shore overlay, it must fit within very specific, objective, scientifically approved criteria that have been developed by an outsider. I think Matt set forth some of those types of things that would be part of that consideration. And I think it's more important to think of going forward. You can prove this. You can decide not to approve it. Once this is in place, whatever way you go, that there is something that can happen so that there isn't all of this noise surrounding it. That if there are these criteria, You've got those criteria, you address the criteria, and if you fit within that criteria, you're no longer in the near-shore overlay. Very simple, very easy. I'd also say, because I can never shut up, it might be good to also do the reverse, which is to have some criteria But you might think because of what's happening with climate change, et cetera, you might want to reverse and bring something into the near shore home lake that currently isn't. But that's kind of my own little place. Most importantly, regardless of this application, I think a process perspective is really needed to take noise out of the whole process. Thanks, guys.

Thank you. Pardon me, you had your hand up next.

Well, I'm usually here at the podium, but it's interesting. I'm listening to all your comments. I'm going to try to make it as brief as I can, but I tend to ramble a little bit, so you'll pardon my long-windedness, OK? It's interesting, listening to the words that came out here tonight. It's not the script, but precedent. Heard it over and over and over again, so I think that we really should listen to. And the other thing that sort of came to my mind, we're talking about a basement apartment. And we're concerned about water and septics and all these other things. And yet, my own laughing is that we have the center of our island, which we have not addressed. I just needed to say that because it seems that we have water issues and we have septic issues. little basement apartment and the real the big elephant in the room okay is the town the municipal buildings which has nothing has been addressed okay the other thing is you know i'm i'm going to try not to be current with you know our one of our last supervisors when we talk about environment um we were trying to put a wastewater treatment on preserve land OK, so I just think we have put some things in context, and I think we really do need to have a better conversation. But let me get back to my brief script here. This question beneath the carving out in the existing town code a specific parcel is not a personal attack on the applicant. It certainly is not an attack on housing or neglecting the affordability issue on Shelter Island. With respect to the ADUs in the Nearshore District, the Town Clear really is very clear. Even the Community Housing Board published a guideline that is clear, not in the Nearshore Overlake District, period. Last year, the chairman of the Community Housing Board and got very local when questioned about ADUs in the Nearshore overlay and basically said it was only a discussion and it's not the intent to put ADUs in the Nearshore overlay. Fast forward, we have a new chairman of the community housing board and he speaks out before the zoning board on behalf of the community housing board in support of an application that does not conform to our code and now we have the prior chairperson of the community housing board as a councilwoman on the town board in a position of responsibility to enforce the existing codes and or make a proposal to review and modify the existing code in its entirety, but certainly not circumnavigate the existing legislation. I encourage the board to adhere to the town's established regulations and to enforce the guidelines developed and published by both the Community Housing Board and the CDLI organization. And if you feel they are not appropriate, go through the legal process of changing them. Thank you.

Lynn, I think you had your hand up next.

Hi, I'm Lynn Weichert. I can't believe I'm agreeing with Matt, because I don't think I've ever agreed with him before. I usually just confine myself to money matters, but I can't resist this. When I go down the Manhattan Lane at Hay Beach and I'm looking out at the water and I turn to my left, And down there is a huge house. It must be only 200 feet from the water and it was built in the last two years. I go to Bootlegger's Alley and there's this huge place right next to the water. I think you have to stop seeing your shore as holy. It isn't holy. People who seem to have a great deal of wealth seem to be able to manipulate things in such a way that they get what they want and frankly that really bothers me because what we need in the island is a lot more diversity and i don't mean diversity in terms of race that would be great but diversity in terms of age we need our families and the only way we're going to get that is we if we have a lot more rentals and that makes people nervous because oh my goodness what about density what about density Well, I think it's something we should talk about. If we could have rational conversation without shouting each other, but but I think we should really seriously look at what kind of community we've developed. I mean, I've been on this island for 50 years, 40 years. I own the house and clearly we're at the point where you can't buy a house here unless you're fairly wealthy. You have to come up with a more you want to buy a house here well we want working families here not just because i like public schools and i want to keep public school boring as usual but i want to have wonderful kids having a great time in shelter island and i want them to be working class as well as wealthy we need to focus on affordable housing And if the near shore is a problem for that, then I think you need to refocus yourselves about what is near shore done. Has it really worked? I would maintain it has not. And what do we really want? What is the goal? If the goal is clean water, we have new technologies. When we first wrote these rules, we didn't have these technologies. We have them now. Does that change? Does that change our near shore? Overlay, what does it mean with the new technologies? But I think we have to come back to what are our goals. In my mind, our goals are keeping the working class and middle class on this island. And that means you support affordable housing, not just affordable housing, you support long term rentals. A month ago, someone came to me who I will not name and said, Could I stay with you for a couple of weeks? Because my rental's up. They want to rent it out for the summer, so I can only rent from September through parts of June. And so I need a place to stay until I finish work and I leave at the end of June. I said, sure, come on over and stay. I mean, that's ridiculous. There are people working on this island who can't find a place to live. We have people who want to live here, working class people and middle class people, professionals. They can't afford to buy a house here. You're going to end up with a whole bunch of millionaires and very few other people if you keep this up. Revisit the near shore. Revisit those regulations and decide what your goals really are. In my mind, the goals are, yes, they're clean water. We have to understand our new technologies and diversity of income and diversity of wealth so that we can have working class and middle class people on this island. Thank you.

Anyone else in the fiscal audience? Gary, anyone that can't see if it's in the way back corner?

I hadn't planned on speaking.

Can't hear you.

I hadn't planned on speaking, but I'm going to speak tonight. Before I give a little bit of history about the whole near-shore overlay and how it was put in place, I want to make a statement. And I wasn't going to make a statement, but one of the previous speakers mentioned me indirectly about a project with wastewater. and on town land and projects in the center not being addressed. And I just want to say everything we're doing tonight, everything we're doing tonight has to do with housing. You can talk about water protection, you can talk about near shore, and you can talk about anything you want. The bottom line is everything my administration tried to do, everything Liz Hanley tried to do, everything Amber's tried to do, and Megan, the center, It all goes back to it. So don't kid yourself with all these other things, okay? Before I took over as Hooch Herman's administration, passed the comprehensive plan, he worked on it, he got it in place, then Hooch retired. I took over with his town board.

I spent the first two years of my first term rewriting the zoning code, addressing the comprehensive plan. That's what we did for the first two years.

The main thing we did was the near shore overlay district. It was a unique thing on Shelter Island. It was crazy. You know, changing the zoning when you're out of your mind, adding a whole thing. Took us two years. Helen Rosenblum, God bless her, walked us through it, held my hands. We got it done. The one thing that happened, and it probably, if you know me, you know that I want to get things done.

I'm not going to waste a lot of time.

We were expedient, but we probably weren't efficient. The easiest way to do it was to define the near shore with the roads. We didn't use science. We didn't say 400 feet exactly because then we'd have to re-survey the entire island. We used roads. So it didn't make sense. A lot of the issue, it doesn't make sense if you look at the map.

Okay.

And quite honestly, I texted Matt today and I said, is this the first time somebody's actually questioning, you know, the near shore? And I can't believe in 26 years, it's the first time somebody's challenging it. I mean, it's amazing to me because it is arbitrary. And that's why you're here tonight. You're not here about housing. not hear about is lincoln a good person you're not here about a quarter acre that's going to go with with the size of variance that's something completely separate this is the ability to change the boundaries of the near shore you have the ability to do it you're allowed to do it and general locations

So I wanted to talk about something different, but I'm just going to respond to several things that various speakers mentioned. So first, I'm going to respond to what Lynn said about the big houses in New York shore overlay. I completely agree that many of the that should be stopped and many of us who are worried about the environment and character of the island do not support those huge houses. And it's not us who granted the permission for the huge houses, but the town board is Many of us argued for a strict putting card limit on 6,000 square feet on the house anywhere on Sholto Island. But certain town bookmakers who are very, very prioritizing property rights and tax revenue generation do not support that and keep issuing those permits. OK? So, you know, if there is a somebody who you should address your concerns to, it should be a town. No. Flash yards. No. Flash. So that's number one. Number two, this unprecedented spot zoning application. It is unprecedented because there was not even an application for it, which was just created. I guess Mark Sherman was somebody. And just recently a fee, substantial fee was decided on it because it's so unprecedented that probably it has never happened before. So it is sponsoring application, which is not something that typically is looked upon favorably by the courts. And it's discouraged as a bad planning practice, you know, changing a zone for the benefit of a single applicant. Then I wanted to address Mr. Siller's comments that he himself says who's That's kind of an interesting statement from somebody who oversees the creation of that zone. But also Mr. Sherman raised that allegations initially that the near shore overlay zone is arbitrary. Okay, so if we're going to weaken the near shore overlay protections, which is One is the AA zone, a second one is neutral overlay district, okay? They both, the intention is to limit density, drawdown of potable water and generation of wastewater. So, if we're gonna, we can start weakening this build by, first of all, there's one implication of this Puzzle E application, which is This is going to create very dangerous precedents, and it's a line of people who are looking to see whether it's going to be granted or not. There is not only a number of people that will apply for creation of the ADOC, which is a possibility. There are also hundreds of accessory slipping quarters. which all of a sudden, if you're not disposing the application for Mrs. Culligan's apartment, then everybody else can say apply. I have an accessory sleeping quota, which I haven't used yet this year. And I use it maybe once a year for my kids' friends once, you know, one weekend. So all those people might be eligible. My accessory slipping quarter probably will meet those minimum standards, 1.5 feet above something. How would you know that?

I'm sorry? Because I know the area that you live in.

Yeah. Keep going. Could you stop smoking and not interrupt, please? Yes, I can. So there are hundreds of accessory slipping quarters, which on your application, then they would be applying. On my street alone, every house has access to a sleeping quarter, which cannot be used for living. They have no kitchen, they cannot be . All of a sudden, they will be all eligible for this. There's hundreds of those buildings. So you're creating a precedent that would be then the AA zone and Niasha'o district. So, like, is there a concern?

We're listening to you this evening.

Yeah, I would like to, like, you know...

I don't think this is in the dialogue. It's public hearing, so...

It's your comments, yes. Right. So, this is a Now, with respect to whether NSO was created arbitrarily or not, well, that's an easy way to answer this, okay? I mean, testimony of, you know, Sherman, he, you know, he is the answer. or not. There should be an independent consultant supervised by an expert, recognized expert in the area who should then maybe review entire NSO if there's a question whether it's safe or not. But just eliminating protections based on piece by piece, it's not only arbitrary, but basically it ends up, you know, eliminating zoning. So what do we have zoning for if now we're going to be taking two properties from the zoning, two properties from the zoning, changing zoning left and right? It's a precedent setting application, which will not only weaken the zoning because other people will want to take out their properties from an SO or maybe change it from AA to A. Why not? Or from A to C. wherever they want. So that's a real concern. Well, I'm going to end it at this. But basically, my concern is precedent setting with respect to zoning and NSO. Without any environmental analysis, we should not be doing things piecemeal, taking on problems here and there. We want to change the boundaries on the FEMSO. Commission expertise provided by recognized environmental such that the community will believe this was an independent analysis, not you hire consultants that tell you what you want to hear. There are experts in Syria, there are special experts most recognized specialist from the University, who is a specialist in aquifer and marine life. Somebody like this says, yeah, you can reduce NSO here, increase here. It's all good. That is credible. If it's just like some one of the consultants that do the work from time to time, that will not be credible. Thank you.

Thank you. I read a book, The Wailing Days of St. Albert. In the last paragraph of the book, the gentleman wrote, do not let these people with big, big money come into your small towns and ruin them. Started Montauk, the Hamptons, Greenport. Now it's right here in our own shopland. It's very sad because they have the big money and they can seem to build anything they want. The monastery, that never should have been developed. And right now it's a farce because they got two huge big mansions down there and nobody wants to buy that property because there's a water problem. That used to be wetlands and they filled it in and now they're just finding that out. But a lot of people that worked there years ago knew that there was, you could hardly use the water. The, uh, when they had the, uh, the priest there, they'd had kids there. So that's just, we can't keep up with the lawyers. that these millionaires have. And they seem to be able to build whatever they want. That's what's ruining the island. And another gentleman told me many, many, many, many years when I was working with him, probably about 20 years old. And he says, Steve, he says, it's going to happen someday where all the working people are going to be coming to Shelter Island from Lapa Island. And it's happening. That's all I have. Thank you.

Thank you.

Christina? Good evening. It's getting late, so I'll be very brief. Christina Wang. First, I want to make the statement that I believe my commitment to protecting the environment on Shelter Island and beyond is evidenced by my 15 years in working full-time for an environmental conservation organization. and we protect the land, water, and wildlife. I basically wanted to kind of reiterate what Jerry and Lynn said about the arbitrary nature of the Nearshore Overlay District. And the proof is in the pudding. My little house on Smith Street is about it's a maybe a football field and maybe another hundred feet or so to the end of menante creek in winter time it's great i have water view which is a house has been i am not in the near shore overlay property across the street from me is but i am not so i just wanted make that point and to say that i i very much support lynn colligan's application for relief here it's important to look at each case individually and come up with the best determination for that property and then if it's deserved give that property owner

Anyone else? Lori?

I'm just going to speak briefly and just a little louder. Oh, sorry. The process and you know somebody earlier this evening spoke about the undefined process and how the process matters. and i just wanted to reiterate that because that is you know essential when you're looking at something like this um application and you know i watch many of the town meetings and um watch as many and committee meetings as possible and um you know the application i don't recall it ever being discussed um in a town board meeting or work session and um I think it could have been, you know, better. There are many things in that application process that I think are insufficient to look at something like this, especially when you're talking about changing zoning, even in the National Holiday District. And on several occasions tonight, people have talked about the existing septic system and how it's been upgraded to an IA system for four bedrooms. That approval from the health department for four bedrooms was for a single family residence. We're not talking about a single family residence now. We're talking about a single family residence plus an accessory apartment. That's a very different approval from the county, regardless of how many bedrooms that you have. So they look at that a different way, and there's a form for that that has to be approved by the county, and it's a WWM 105. haven't seen any mention of that tonight so it's the county who decides whether that septic system is sufficient and the plan that was submitted shows you know two rooms and whether the county will concern consider those two rooms better regardless of their label or not depends on the layout for the rest of the building so i bring that up only for the fact that Again, process matters. Having an application form with all the data that's required to look at something like this, that's just one of many examples. But it's getting late, so I'm not going to go into so many things. But I really think you need to look at the criteria of what that process should be on any kind of zoning change, whether it's this application or any others that come before you. Because otherwise, you're not doing your here and there. Do diligent. Thank you.

I'll see the fiscal audience before I go to the Zoom audience.

Yeah, I'd like to speak.

I was going to go to the Zoom audience.

Oh, yes, sure.

Pam? You're muted if you're talking.

Okay, I know I'm muted and I'm going to put my video on. Yeah, good evening. This is a very interesting application. Just state your name for the record. Pam Demarest. It's a very interesting application because of how it came to be. And obviously, Mr. Sherman described that for the town board. And just to reiterate, this application was originally before the ZBA for a 60,000 plus square foot area variance and a use variance to allow this accessory apartment in the near shore overlay district. Now, Mr. Sherman has said this application before you now is to eliminate the use variance. The thing about the use variance is that it's also part of the community housing board's plan. And it says that they won't issue licenses in the near shore overlay district. And the CDLI applications say that you can't apply up there in the near shore. And the chairman of the CH of the community housing board said, oh, we have a bunch of applications in the near shore, but they've been withdrawn. I mean, there's a lot of things going on here. I'm going to give you one number to think about. I got the accessory structures list from the assessor's office. And as it stands, there are 143 garages with accessory sleeping quarters in them in the Nearshore Overlay District, 143. And then on top of that, there's about 80 pool house deluxes in the Nearshore that are allowed to have oddly enough kitchens, but not bedrooms. So there's over 200 properties that have existing buildings that in one case, all they'd need to do is put in the kitchen and pay a $2,500 fee for a zoning change. And the same goes for these pool house deluxes. That does not include the other garages that have second stories that maybe were supposed to be used for storage. They're also in the near shore peninsula overlay district and should be vetted. as you look at this application. Because as Mr. Sherman said, this is a zoning change application. This could relate to any district on Shelter Island, anyone. So a person can come before you with $2,500, fill out your form here, not put an intent or reason on the application, get a date for a public hearing, and then reveal the intent of the application the day before the public hearing by the posting of that document from EN Consultants that was dated June 11th. Again, this is absolutely a process problem. You only just set the fee, you only just made the application, and you're not looking at the true data and the ramifications of allowing this zoning change. Just as the argument here that the nearshore boundaries are arbitrary it doesn't really quite make sense because if you in fact look at all the studies that were done prior to the adoption of this district and setting these boundaries and they go back to 1986 1977 um the one that's probably the best is the one that was adopted in 2014 that nelson pope and borsi has put together uh and and it does delineate a lot of things that go to issue about the criteria in the town code and why properties were put there I would like to remind the town board that the town code says it's only one of those needs to be applicable to the property in order for it to be in the zone. Only one of the five. So I'll just stick with, let's stick with the groundwater at two feet. The comprehensive plan says in every case, and you can look at it, I can send you the references, that it is one and a half feet more or less. Okay, that was 1993. We've had sea level rise. We've had storm surges. We've had super storm Sandy come through. A lot has changed on the shoreline of Shelter Island since this district was established. But the science is still the same. And I'll read you something about the difficulty with the two feet of groundwater and the chloride level that was discovered at this property a couple of years ago, which what the level was 33.2 milligrams per liter. The Nelson Popenborghi study says a chloride concentration of 40 milligrams per liter was determined to be indicative of the uppermost boundary of the freshwater mixing zone. Well monitoring found that the mixing zone or zone of diffusion where elevated chlorides were detected was above the marine clay unit. And in the near shore areas, the concentration of chloride exceeded 250 milligrams at depths of 20 to 30 feet. It seems like that could be an issue here. And my issue with reducing the boundary for this property is that, OK, if you do, she has a straw in the ground. What happens to the other people down the block? The density of this neighborhood is a low density neighborhood. I actually looked at all the properties there. And the fact of the matter is this parcel in particular is the highest density labeled for the Florida area ratio at over 12%. All the other houses on the block are maybe the next closest is 8%, and then it goes down to an average of 4% in density. Unfortunately, all of them have full basements except for one out of the 13 lots. One is vacant and the rest of them all seem to have full basements except for one. So that's 11 houses in the neighborhood that have basements that maybe don't want to be in this district any longer because they want to put an apartment for housing. It's something to consider. And I will submit all this information to you after I'm finished so that you can look at what I put together. Because what I basically did was go through the entire watershed management plan that was adopted. And on another page, we have the near shore areas are most susceptible to changes in water table elevations influencing the position of the interface. Okay. So we're talking about saltwater intrusion here. The near shore areas are most susceptible to pumpage. and water table fluctuations as a result of changes in recharge, thus making these areas most susceptible to saltwater encroachment and upconing. And these are studies that the town paid for many years ago, and the science still sticks until you can prove to me otherwise. And in this application, I see no proof otherwise that things have changed. There is no scientific data to back up this arbitrary nature of this piece of property. And I'm talking about the location of the land, because when it's a zoning change, you're talking about changing land use. As Mr. Sherman said, this is all about avoiding the use variance of the ZBA. That's very interesting. And as far as the land draining toward the creeks and bays, which is another criteria, there is certainly data available The group for the East End put together a conservation agenda pamphlet for the town a couple of years back. He's got a wonderful map of the aquifer and the directions of the water and which way it flows from the center of the island to the shorelines. There is also a map of that in the Nelson Pope Voorhees study that shows the same thing. I pulled up a topographical map from the USGS just to see, because Mr. Sherman was claiming he couldn't find a good one, but on their website, you can actually do that. And clearly you can see which way the water is going to be moving. So that's three out of the five here that we're talking about. And as far as the question about the freshwater ponds, The question is that the land drains toward the ponds, which are hydraulically connected to outcroppings of the freshwater table. Well, do we know what the status of that hydraulically connecting outcroppings is today? Because back then it was important to them. And unless we know that today, I don't think that you can make a really reasonable decision on this. Again, We have another statement that they put in here in the thing about the freshwater wetlands. These areas are of critical importance to the watershed underlying Shelter Island since they are major conduits of groundwater recharge in the region and represent ecologically sensitive resources. So these are the studies that when Nelson Popen Voorhees put this together, they went back to the studies that were done prior to the establishment of the district. And he reiterated that in 2014. And now here we are in 2026, and someone's trying to tell us that these studies and this science is arbitrary. And I really take offense to that. We have all the data. We have more data from the New York State DEC. We could look into, you know, one of the other quotes that I have pulled on this is that, you know, as a result, water conservation is a prudent course of action with extreme caution regarding groundwater withdrawal in the near shore areas. So these are the things I'm expecting the board to look into. We have the studies already and perhaps it is worth getting a more recent evaluation at this point because it has been 26 years since this district was established and here we are having a challenge to it. I would caution the town to do the right thing and consider that. I mean, obviously you do have to do the secret review of this and in let me just say that that the short environmental assessment form that was submitted did not put any uh intent on it we didn't know what the intent was it was just it was just that oh we think that the boundary is arbitrary well i don't know if that flies in the state law the reason should be there and now that we know the reason i need The town board to request that all the information on the structure of this ADU, the existing septic system that's put in, the test holes should be redone. Absolutely. And EN Consultants has said that. And EN Consultants has also said that the applicant should submit the information from the Suffolk County Department of Health. So if we're now going to turn this into a conversation about is the ADU safe in this area, well, that changes a few things, but it certainly becomes a part of this application. And I would like to default that I could submit this along with another letter in regard to this application for your review so that you can see how many places I pulled from this watershed management plan that discusses upconing, saltwater intrusion, excessive pumping, you know, increase density in this area because it does affect everyone. And if this is true that the groundwater is at two feet, he just said the water goes in and it goes right to the water table then. Oh, it goes through the ground in two feet and then whatever was running off the property and other neighboring properties is now in your groundwater. There's no filtration like in the center where it's a longer time period for the water to get to the aquifer. So I am going to just ask you to consider this very carefully as you do your environmental review for the SECRA. I would assume that you are going to call this an unlisted action under SECRA. And I would request that you ask the applicant to file a full environmental assessment form or at least a revised one indicating exactly what's happening here. So I thank you for your time, and I would wish that you would keep this public hearing open to get more information from those who have asked for it. And if any more information has been submitted on this application, I would really request that it doesn't wait for about, what, 17 days for it to get posted on a weekend. And I appreciate your time. Thank you, Pam.

Bob DeLuca.

Good evening, Madam Supervisor and town board members. My name is Bob DeLuca and I've served as president of Group for the East End for the last 34 years. I want to thank you and all those in the room for your endurance and your patience and listening. Just for the record, the Group for the East End is a professionally staffed nonprofit environmental organization representing the conservation and community planning interests of several thousand member households across the East End of Long Island, including many households on Shelter Island. For my part, I hold undergraduate and graduate degrees in environmental science, and I've worked as a land use practitioner on the East End in both government and nonprofit sectors since 1985. I've also taught coursework as an assistant professor of environmental studies and land use planning, zoning, and environmental compliance for about 20 years. I thank you for your attention to our comments regarding the proposed zone change, which I assure you my comments will have nothing to do with the character or intentions of the applicant nor the ADUs in general. Simply stated, this application is a concern for us because the precedent it will set for a substantial number of other properties located in the near shore overlay district. Specifically, if the boundaries of this considerable district are open for individual interpretation and debate, There is a very objective risk that the town will find itself facing additional landowners who begin approaching the board to argue that their individual circumstances should qualify them for removal from the district. And those consultants and lawyers representing them, as sure as I'm sitting here, will be quick to highlight and wave before you any and all other exemptions that you may have allowed. And there was some testimony earlier about precedent and everything is looked at individually. In my four decades of doing this work, I don't see that happen. Anytime you do something, somebody will bring it back to you. So sadly, the board's time and energy and the opportunity for conflicting and potentially actionable outcomes can all flow from this decision, and that should give the board significant pause before moving forward. This is always a risk with spot zoning, but it's even more so when the rezoning can have implications for a wide swath of similar properties located across substantial areas of the town's fragile and valuable coastal environment. It's important to remember and easy to overlook that if you approve this subject application, you for the first time as far as I know are also affirming that the town's near shore district boundaries are to some extent accepted by you as being arbitrary and now subject to challenge. With an awareness of this risk, I would offer that if the town feels the present restrictions in the near shore district should be reimagined or redeveloped in some way or amended, It should be done through a current comprehensive planning update and in conjunction with an environmental analysis to evaluate the potential impacts across the entire district and ultimately be supported by clear and defensible planning. Each individual that application that comes before you will clearly tell you that that application is not going to cause a problem nor the next one, but it's the death of a thousand cuts that is very difficult to navigate unless you look at it ahead of time. And I feel a lot of sympathy for people who are caught up in this, but the reality is you're trying to figure out what's going to happen once you take an action like this. And most of the time, the history on the East End is somebody who may not be a model citizen is going to show up and want the same thing. And you're going to have to find a reason to tell them no, other than the fact that, you know, you just feel like it. So for these reasons, we strongly urge you to consider this zone change before you very carefully with a full understanding of the broader implications of what might otherwise appear to be just a minor action. The town adopted the Nearshore District with substantial consideration and a commitment consistent with strong public interest in the town's comprehensive plan. Today, we ask only that the current town board apply the same level of careful deliberation to the matter at hand with a recognition of its potential unintended consequences. And I thank you very much for your time and attention to these comments. And if possible, I'd like to submit them in writing. Thank you.

Thank you.

David Lopez. Hi, thanks. It's David Lopez. Thanks for the opportunity to speak. There are various issues about this application that trouble me, and some have been touched on by others. So for brevity, I'll just address a couple. The first is that spot zoning by its very nature is not a very good tool. crunched across the country. Spot zoning is disfavored. And if you look back, many Shelter Island residents expressed opposition to spot zoning during the comp plan hearings in 2023. And you can look back at the boards to see what I mean. I think one reason for that opposition is that this process puts the decision maker, which in this case is the board, in the awkward position of favoring one individual with special treatment. And that treatment in this case is going to be at, if it's approved, will be at the expense of weakened protections for everyone else who lives in the district. But whatever the reality, spot zoning has the tendency to have the appearance of favoritism. And I think that's it. For that reason alone, it's a tool and a process that we should not want introduced into our community. But there's another problematic aspect to spot zoning that I'd like to talk about. Bill Mastro, I completely agree with him that the process really matters, but I come to a slightly different issue with process here, which is spot zoning is the wrong process here. Spot zoning will result in, as people have mentioned, a lot of others coming to you and asking for special treatment. And that is a one-way street. That will only result in the shrinking of the district. No one's gonna come to you and voluntarily ask to be included in the district. And so that in and of itself is asymmetric. I think that's a very good reason why we should not be doing this piecemeal. I really think that the board should, as was previously mentioned, should hire an independent consultant, somebody everybody agrees is independent, who is well credentialed, to do the appropriate study. And let's figure out, if we think the boundaries aren't right, let's figure out what the right boundaries are by both excluding and including properties according to some agreed upon standards. I think that's really the much better way to move forward here. Another thing that I just want to mention is that one of the reasons people are worried about the precedent is that there really isn't anything that special about this particular piece of property. It looks like many, many other properties that non-conforming lots, the hundreds that were mentioned that are in the NSO. And I think that's part of what's frightening about this is that It's not just this one decision. This one decision will apply basically everywhere. So I think that's part of the reason for the great concern that you have here. And the consequence of Double density in some of these lots is, as has been mentioned, a lot of additional effluent going into the water table. I appreciate the idea that there are some technologies out there that will reduce pollution. The IA systems are great when addressing nitrogen, but they don't address a lot of other things that households routinely flush into the water table. uh forever chemicals were mentioned they're in a lot of the retail products that we all buy you know drug stores and elsewhere household solvents all of those things are not addressed by the current technology that's available on shelter island so this is not an academic concern it's very real um i guess the last thing i'll mention is just the question of uh stewardship I mean, as you know, it's your job as the board to manage the island as representatives of all of its residents. And that role, I've said this before in a different context, that role comes with an obligation to be informed about the questions that come in front of you. There's a saying that you can't manage what you haven't measured. And I think the measurements that you guys have in front of you right now through the application that was submitted, that information is incomplete in some places, it's stale in other places. I think that, you know, clearly the, you know, Matt Sherman is very knowledgeable, but as was previously mentioned, he is a hired advocate here and it is his job to emphasize the information that helps his client and to de-emphasize information that doesn't help his client. So I think if, and certainly if I were in your position as a manager, I'd want to hear from independent experts that I can trust for a balanced view. And I would really just urge you to engage in that investigation here rather than making a piecemeal and potentially uninformed decision that will have knock-on consequences for years to come. Thanks for your time.

Thank you. Anyone else on Zoom? Anyone else in the room? No, there's no one who's got a hand up or is unmuted. Lynn?

Hi, Lynn Colligan. I'm the applicant. Thank you for your time. I will be brief. I've crossed out half of my notes given the time. I've been a full time resident on the island for over 20 years and I have taught at shelter island school for close to 20 years my two grown daughters have graduated from school. As you know, I am zoning board Member and because of this, I did go before the ethics committee to get permission to speak on behalf of. I bought my home a 1400 square foot 1950s ranch 10 years ago. In 2021, I installed a Fuji IA septic thanks to the state, county, and town grants. I did not need a new septic, but I wanted to install it to help protect the groundwater from intrusive nitrogen. In 2024, I attended a CVLI plus one ADU presentation at the firehouse, and I applied for and was approved for A grant to build a 600 square foot apartment at ADU in my basement. I feel confident that adding a fourth bedroom to my three bedroom modest property will not adversely affect the environment. Even though I did hire Matt Sherman and I did hire Robert Kerman of EN Consultants to verify this, that doesn't, just because they're hired doesn't mean they're not credible. I have the support of my three immediate neighbors and many others in the Community about 20 as I can count, so I wanted to thank them for that, as well as those of you who have spoken on my behalf this evening. Building a basement at you will add a year round apartment to the island, while allowing a person me of modest means to remain on the island, as I each. I don't. care to directly address individually those who are opposing my application i will however say this i don't appreciate my integrity called into question as i am following all of the protocols while maintaining the environmental integrity of the nearshore overlay and i'm trying to participate in a town initiative initiative called the adu plus one program um Those who oppose my application do not speak out at hearings against these large waterfront homes that are in excess of 6,000 square feet, which Mr. Jacobs refers to as the big units. They do not speak out against them. They come before the zoning board and Pam Demarest will be on the Zoom call, but she does not speak out against these large homes. These are eight, nine bedroom homes, 10,000 square foot homes. They do not oppose those. And I believe that is very telling about their ulterior motives with regard to their DM and opposition to the news. I hope you will take the time to read the letter by John Cronin. I don't want to belabor this. So please read that on your own. And thank you so much for your time and attention. I appreciate it.

Pam, I see you've raised your hand.

Yeah, I just want to take a minute to respond to that. I have opposed large houses. I had one built right next to mine. I opposed that vehemently, and the zoning board didn't listen. I opposed the dock that was built that should have gone to the zoning board, and they were never involved. I've opposed other projects that have bad process and are not following the town code. I do not ever attack an applicant. I attack the application. If you look at my history, it's the application that is lacking here. And that's all there is. So to speak up in zoning board meetings, it's not really so good. I don't think that Phil D'Orio finds me as one of his favorite people. So I'm very careful about what I say at those meetings. And I don't like to disrupt their process because they have a way of doing things. So I just wanted to get that out there. Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else? Steven?

I just have a procedural comment or question. And that is, the applicant just referred to letters she suggested you read and take into consideration. It seems problematic that the public doesn't know what you're hearing and not sharing. So I'm not sure how to deal with that. reports. Obviously, the last report, I'll be belatedly, was submitted yesterday. Some letters have been read into the record. Some members of the public know what you're hearing, but other letters aren't.

That and I do wonder whether or not we should, since we haven't read into the record, these letters of support, that you have them all collated, putting them on the town website.

Yeah, the applicants get the letters of correspondence. That's why Lynn is referring to. Yes.

No, no. But I mean, since we haven't read them all into the record. I'm not sure what other towns do.

Letters as received in comments in a public hearing are just part of the record. There's no obligation to post like posting them on the website or sending the applicant is kind of optional as far as the record is maintained by the town clerk. It should be accessible via FOIL. Many times somebody wants to FOIL it. But whether or not it's posted to the town website has no bearing on whether it's part of the record.

an applicant standpoint what we do is we reach out to the clerks of the various committees and boards um a week before a couple of days before the afternoon of to see if any new correspondences come in for or against the public is always allowed to speak and um they're allowed to speak at public hearings and observe but it um

it's not like it's to observe, it's not to participate one-on-one. Just have it written down in the other room from association towns. I think it's what they gave us on open meetings law. So just kind of toss it out there. I'll bring it next time. That's really it. But getting back to what would we like to do? Do we want to keep this open? Keep it open.

I'm in favor of closing it. I feel like we have the information we need. I mean, if you want to leave a written comment for a week, I guess we can. But I don't have any questions about outstanding information that I would keep the hearing open for.

I heard you say the hearing open and with that information coming in, keep it open.

I was just saying, and what are we looking for?

The reason we keep it open is for comments or comments. People can digest things that were said. If I can give us more comments, more information. Doesn't hurt to keep it open. Are we in a hurry?

No, I'm just, I like to be, you know, I like to have purpose to why we, you know, why we keep things up. This week.

We sometimes have things dresses on just see it's a pretty contentious.

advocate here i'm just I want I want to like let's keep it open okay i'm just asking that's my opinion.

I think I mean, I have what I need. To start talking about it, I mean, I guess, I would say. If we were going to our to your point to keep it open, I think we should put some parameters into what we were looking for. And what the time, like, what, like, I think we need to have some. Guidelines of where are we keeping it open and definitely put limits on it.

Let's let's have a public hearing and let people come in and talk.

We are having a public hearing. That's literally what we're doing. There's nobody else.

I mean, I don't think you're saying put limits on it or restrict or define information.

You have, I think. We can't just keep hearings open indefinitely for all time.

I didn't say that.

So I'm asking you, so what is, so what are you waiting?

I don't know. I would like to have another hearing.

Another hearing.

Probably more information will come in.

If we're looking for more information, then I think that we should.

Liz, you and I agree to disagree. Let's leave it there.

All right.

Disagree. Natasha, I see you raised your hand.

yes i just want to comment on this question of keeping it open and there was an enormous amount of information presented this evening i had a something that i plan to say but i need to digest i'm not going to say it because i need to digest all the very substantive comments that were made on all different sides of this issue and i would like to ask as a full-time resident of shelter island I would like to ask that we keep this open and you can say for another week or two, you know, I'm fine with setting a limit on it, but I would like you to keep it open because I want to listen to this meeting, digest what I heard and submit comments in writing or if there's another public hearing, I will speak at that time. There's a lot to take in here. Thank you. Thank you.

Follow up on that, if I may.

close the hearing keeping it open for a week or two weeks for written correspondence that seems entirely reasonable to us no no it's not the same you've been open you always say that matt you always remember of course you always say that come on admit it matt come on yeah i would suggest that

because it's a sponsoring application and it's weakening of the environmental protection. Okay, no question about it. I would suggest that the board invite some expert other than Mr. Sherman, who is obviously the advocate for the applicant, to have a say, issue an opinion and discussion. The more you know about this, the better. expert for the uh testifying on behalf of the african it's not a credible witness okay as many people already said that so i want to suggest that you keep the meeting open and call an express uh several available thank you thank you can anybody else speak i'm teresa mason

Hi, Theresa Mason, your environmental consultant, I just want to point out that a change of zone is a type one action pursuant secret. So you do need to undertake secret before you can complete the record for this project. Thank you.

Michael.

Mike Gaynor, New Cabot's Lane. I think we should keep the hearing open, if only to illustrate how ridiculous this process is. This woman's trying to put a basement apartment inside of her property, and this thing has taken on a life of its own. The resources that are being assigned to this particular project are just absolutely ridiculous. It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. And so I think just for the

know we could you should keep it open yeah absolutely yes it sounds like that i have learned so much tonight about the work that's been done by these people and it there's so many open questions it's you gotta keep it open what comes down to me wait um pam is that a new hand or

It is.

It is. It is. Thank you. Yes, it is. I just want to just make a comment then. If, in fact, as Ms. Mason just opined, this is a Type 1 action, then, in fact, the applicant needs to, in fact, fill out the full environmental assessment form, which you do not have on record. And that would be required for this action. So that's another reason to keep it open.

Thank you. Once Teresa spoke, I definitely want to keep it open. So we do not have a majority to close it, so it remains open. So it will continue at the January 20th, or July 20th.

I was going to say July 20th.

Oh, not January, July 20th. So I'll make a motion to adjourn. There is my second.

even though it's closed i would like to thank you very much it was uh even though it's adjourned okay we have one final public hearing so we're gonna let we're gonna take a five minute bathroom break

And this gets to leave because she is accusing herself from a Sylvester Mann reputation.

Best farm committee I've ever known.

No more.

So just a five minute break. So then we will return.

I know. Okay, we will now open the public hearing continuation for Sylvester manner and Thomas, could you just go over just find my notes public notice. For the hearing, sure. Yeah, that's what I was just yes.

On the 2nd, day of June, 2026, the town board of the town of shelter adopted a resolution setting a public hearing to be reopened and heard on the 29th day of June, 2026. At 6 o'clock, or soon thereafter, prevailing time on the site plan review application of Sylvester manner, educational park, 80 North very road in order to review additional information necessary for the town board's determination of significance under secret.

And Thomas, I was just going to ask if you could explain, like, we are opening up the reopening this public hearing, but we had a specific focus. So could you just explain what that was?

Yes. When we closed hearing last time and Caitlin from, I think it's on now started preparing the secret documents. She had a number of. Of, you know, items that were not in the record that needed to be addressed because the board. Basically, I determined it was an unlisted action. And so she provided a list. Some of it had to do with what was the status of the entryway with the DOT. There were a few other items I think she can go over with the board. So, the applicant. As provided, I believe everything that is requested. You know, for her list, so I'll let her go over what she requested what, you know. If anything is outstanding, thank you.

Turn it over to you, Caitlin and thank you for hanging in here until 10. 12 this evening.

Of course. Good evening. Caitlin Kime for the record with Peter B. Grosser Consulting, Environmental Planning Consultant at the town board. So, yes, as Thomas had explained, there were some outstanding items that were needed for the determination of significance under SECR. And that included drainage plans from the applicant, updated total land disturbance, status with the DOT and SHPO concurrence on the entrance redesign. Since that information has been requested in the May 12 and June 18 memos, the applicant has responded to all of the outstanding items. There is one item that does still remain outstanding from the prior memos, which is the town confirmation on traffic and internal circulation. The planning board reviewed the proposed modifications and the applicant responded, but we have not received a follow-up letter from the planning board, building department, or town engineer confirming resolution. But again, all other items have been addressed. Regarding the sanitary plan with the old farmhouse improvements. The seeker documents acknowledge that the potential future sanitary system improvements should the applicant pursue conversion of the farmhouse to accessory office and storage use. However, the proposed action does not include that future build out. should the applicant wish to pursue that conversion a separate application to the town would be acquired at that time um once the outstanding traffic and circulation confirmation is received and subject to the board's consideration of tonight's public comments we would be in a position to move forward with the secret analysis okay um

Do you want to just mention like trying to just take that like it's late. The entryway, we're still waiting for Department of Transportation. So I mean, you're waiting for DOT to finalize. Yeah, talk about that. I'm sorry, I'm just like.

We're all really, really tired. Julia Brennan from Sylvester Manor. The DOT has the design for the front entryway. The approval is the first step, the design improvement. We didn't have a yellow line. We didn't have a yellow line. We didn't have stop lines. We put them in. We responded back and forth to what they call deficiencies in your application until we got to the point where they said, the design no longer has deficiencies. So we have provisional approval that's good for six months. And during that six months, We don't, as just regular folk, get to have a permit to do road work on a state-operated road. We have to hire a vendor who has experience in working with the state and all of its rules and its parameters and knows how to hire a flag full of all the rest. And then we partner with that person as co-permittees. So we have six months to do that. This is an opportunity if you have any questions about the design to weigh in now, because we have an approved design from the DOT, and we're just waiting for our cyclone approval so that we can move forward into an RFP, look for a contract, or hire somebody until about November. First week of November, we can do that. And that's the process. It'll take us a few weeks. Thank you. As far as the other things that sounded to me, and I just want to get Caitlin, if you could confirm it. You're looking for town personnel to weigh in in order to confirm some of the traffic. Correct.

It was planning board building department and town and.

I asked for you today to basically Caitlin had raised. I think it was. traffic involving the entryway or to get comments from the town as far as traffic involving the entryway and internal circulation and Reid only responded to the first half of that. We reached out to him today to respond to the other half.

And then SHPO, we did get SHPO. Did I see that come through?

Yes, and so again, Julie Brennan, we submitted to you what we got back from SHPO regarding this project. And they said they actually don't have a role at this point. But nonetheless, they felt that the design that we were proposing wouldn't be contrary to the goals that SHPO has for the preservation of the place and that it wouldn't there, the impact wouldn't change likely, based on the design that we sent to them, which is the one that was approved by the theater. The town assignments too were handed out in October. And I did meet with many, many people. We've done whatever we can through that process forward and are happy to sit down with anybody who needs additional information. We're happy to answer any questions you have. Our goal is to Get this hearing closed, get a resolution from you that lists all of our site plan approval. Requirements so that we have a way, we have an understanding of what we'll go into the building department with. It's going to change some of the parameters of some of the work that we're going to be doing. We have to incorporate that. Before we go to the building department, the building department is going to take many weeks to go through this permit because it's really, really big. It's very detailed details. appropriately and then we need to go through the whole rfp process for a general contractor with experiments in historic preservation on the east end of long island so we still have quite a ways to go on this and our goal is to get that work started as soon as we can because we have a clock ticket on some of the money and we would hate to have received pledges of grants that we're unable to access for one reason or another because of delays in current We haven't been given the money. We've been promised.

Teresa, I see you're on. I just want to give you an opportunity.

My main concern has been the grading and the drainage, which in discussions with Caitlin that I had been led to understand that they had submitted a drainage plan for three inch rainfall, which was what our previous supplemental reports had recommended. I do recommend that prior to approval of any plans that that gets a reviewed by the town engineer to make sure that that is sufficient. And also that the grading is not going to result in down slope impacts close to the wetlands. Usually that can be accomplished by mitigated by installation of silt fencing. But again, I do recommend that any drainage plan get final approval by the town engineer prior to site plan approval. Thank you.

So there are five subventions that are associated with this hearing. And one of them was just a back and forth with Caitlin because we didn't provide the email from the DOT that explained the parameters of the permits. And that's two of them. One was all of the gross square footages of disturbance. The site went for the traffic. We also submitted a approval from the Suffolk County Department of Health Services for a connection across the Manor House lot from the farmhouse. And Kate mentioned that as well. And that will have minor additional ground disturbance. And that was one of the things also

I just was looking at the just prior planning board and engineer and building department memos just to see what kind of issues, like, just want to make sure we've got everything.

Me too. Thank you.

Albert, do you have any questions?

No. The only thing that I was going to bring up was the fact that we did receive the submission for connecting to the existing sanitary system by the public bathrooms. Um, for the, uh, the farmhouse house, but the farmhouse, so that was an additional submission. So that.

That's something that was new to the hearing.

And our reason for submitting it is it became available. We did not know at the time you couldn't predict about the timing of the 7th county department health services for crossing a lot would be, but they did come through. And so we brought it to you because it does have to do with some of the ground disturbance question. If they had said no, we would have been looking at a new IA system for that person and we're not going to have to do that because we're going to be connecting it to a system that's already functioning and has the capacity to receive that. It's not a benefit from it.

Thank you. So I just wanted to talk about that, the sanitary plan that has the old farmhouse improvements. You know, at this time, as I mentioned before, the seeker documents, they acknowledge this potential future sanitary system improvements. should the applicant want to pursue the conversion in the future or accessory office of storage use. But the proposed action does not include this future build out of, of what has been submitted to the town and before the town board, um, that, um, You know, no application has been submitted in regards to that old farmhouse as has been previously discussed in prior work session. So the secret record reflects that and any, again, future pursuit of that conversion would require a separate town application and review at that time on those items.

That's what we would expect for any conversion of farmhouse property. separate tax lot. It's contained within the manor, like a little hole in the doughnut. But any site work that we do, we'd like you to take a look at, and we certainly are happy to share. When that project is ready to come to the town, it will come to the town. We can't be short of time. Thanks, guys.

So the only outstanding item is from the lead about the traffic in period circulation, because we already spoke to the . Right.

Well, Caitlin said town engineer planning board and building department. I think it was one of those three.

Caitlin, did you need something from all of them or one of them?

No, just one of them. Just somebody from the town that this has been resolved, any of those concerns.

Do you have anything? No. When Teresa don't have any more questions, I'll go to the public. Yes, and I just want to remind you that we've reopened the public hearing for very specific reasons.

Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. Yep. And also.

You've given us a lot of information.

Yeah, we're not going to restate it.

Trust me. I have some excellent news for you, Amber. This is the last time I'm showing up here and talking to you guys. I've broken a lot of orders in my day. You do it at about 2 years old. I'm broken. I give up. You guys win. They can do whatever they want over there. My entire issue with this thing, and nobody cares. If somebody cared, they'd be here and watch this. Yeah, yeah, yeah, right. Nobody cares. What you're reviewing right now, the site plan application. You guys don't get out a lot. I do. Like I mentioned earlier, I've seen what happened in Montauk. I have dozens of friends up there who watched their community get destroyed. Dozens of friends in Sag Harbor that watched their community get destroyed. What's going on? This is not a personal attack about these people. What's going on is a massive, massive property. It's 240 acres. I'm thinking off in the future. It's going to have a generational impact, what you guys decide on this thing. It's gonna have generational impact on this community that you're not thinking about right now. And I've seen it happen. Like I'm talking about the worker housing on the silent. It's going to happen. And i've made all sorts of attacks against all of you and I just want I trust me this last time you're going to see me here i'm not coming back here. No, I want nothing to do with this place. Michael. i've got that i've got that i've got the community's interest at heart here people think I have some sort of issue with the manner and having parties about now by mouse nobody loves going to parties more than Mike gainer trust me. that's not what this is about this thing is that it's at the epicenter of the community it's a massive property you're not thinking off to the future i was reading this is what the this is what you sent out to the community uh it went out in uh uh freaking certified mail this is what it describes the project description the applicant proposes the interior and exterior renovations the existing 1737 manor house the proposed rehabilitation includes removal in 1960 Cabana, addition at the north elevation, upgrades to mechanical, electrical, plumbing, fire detection systems, new IA, sanitary construct, ADA access points, install web, waste, and landscape. Is that what we're talking about? Has anybody mentioned that here? That's not what we're talking about. We're talking about taking an illegal single family residence that's been converted into a An event venue. It happened 16 years ago. They have parties there. They have all these different things. I'm not attacking them. I'm just saying what is the reality here? We're talking this site plan review process is where are hundreds of people going to park? What's the impact on the environment going to be? What's this place going to look like a decade from now when traffic is backed up in each direction on 114? Long after they're gone, long after you're gone. That's all I'm asking for. That's all I've ever asked for. I have all sorts of issues with, you know, there are parties over there with slaves being buried there and all that different stuff. I'm not bringing that up tonight. My much larger, their inability to manage that property over there, I'm not going to bring that up. What happens when a different, even a management team comes over there? Let's just assume that these are the best of the breed. What if a bad of breed comes inside of there and starts managing that place? Like that gentleman, I don't know where that guy is. He's some local guy. He's like the attorney. He's like, we don't have the money to defend ourselves. Do you know they threatened to sue me? That's the kind of money they have. They're hiring a $1,500 an hour attorney over there and they threatened to sue me. That's what's going to happen with that organization. And that's what you guys are creating over there. You're creating a horse who is untrained. And they've been allowed to do all these various things over there. And the reason they're here for this application, it's not because they got cited for having some illegal operation over there. They're here because they want to be here. They opted to go through this site plan review process. Nobody said you have to do this. They're doing it because there's money in it for them. It's the only reason they're here. They have not received any violations as a result of this or anything else. They're doing it because they want that permit in their hot little hand. because it's going to put more money in their pocket. These are not volunteers here. These folks are not volunteers. These are highly compensated executive service, Bester Manor Educational Farm Corporation. And they make, on average, well over $100,000 a year to work part time. OK? So those are the end of my comments on this thing. You guys are clearly going to give them site plan approval. They're going to get it. And I just want everybody to remember that you heard it here first. This thing is going to be a disaster area five years from now. Anybody who knows anybody up in Montauk, anybody who knows anybody over in Santa Barbara who watched the community change like that, that's how it happens. They're in the business of having events over there. And events mean a lot of people. They have these parties, and every additional head that comes in the door means money inside of their pocket. And that's what they're going to do. Okay? Thank you so much, folks. This will be the last year of the week.

Anyone on Zoom?

I just wanted to say one thing, not in direct response to what Mr. Daner said, but simply this,

he is he's saying you know he's gone we're not we're here we're going to continue to be coming back to this town over and over and over again i mean this is this is just what happens this is what we should be doing and yeah we have a 236 acre property which is very complicated um the history is extremely complicated it's full of contradictions it's it's full of complexity um This is the kind of property that's going to take a lot of time, a lot to manage, a lot of planning, and a lot of future work with you all. And this is just the beginning. So he may be leaving. He's out. That's fine. He'll be back. It doesn't matter. But we're here, and we're here to stay, and we're going to be here and coming for you. of work to do together. The manor house, that's obviously what we're focused on right now. The farmhouse and its renovation is going to be right behind it. We're going to figure out collectively how to manage that and how to store it and how to fix it up and how to use it. This is, again, just the beginning. We've got front entrances in it. It's just the beginning.

We're heading back very soon. And we really appreciate your partnership in this work and all of your help.

uh it's not easy uh we have to literally just figure this out together um yeah because it's it's just a complicated project thank you just add one footnote on that you know when status points about there's a lot of work we have an obligation as an organization that is committed to start preservation to preserve all of the resources on that property that contribute the fact that it is an And that's going to be the kind of work that's going to bring us before you. If we want to rehabilitate our barns, for instance, we have to work with the preservation historians. We have to work with the preservation architects. We have to develop plans. We have to do studies. We have to figure eight years worth of research, whatever it's going to be, and then develop the actual plan. What are we going to do with this building? How are we going to make it be sustainable for another 50 to 100 years? That's our obligation. When we talk about the work that we're doing, we're talking about this jewel in the crown of the town of Shelter Island that we work every single day to preserve, cultivate, and share with the people of this community, first and foremost, with their guests, with visitors to Shelter Island. This is an incredible resource that was basically gifted to the community. And we are a small organization that hopes to grow our footprint. We're really proud when we hire new people to come with us. Most of them are from our community. It's a wonderful, wonderful resource. I'm not a volunteer, but I put it on the hosting part time. Thank you. Anyone on Zoom?

Okay, I think that we just need to, we can close this except leave it open for written correspondence from the building department. To answer the question that Caitlin needs for the entryway.

Yeah, internal traffic circulation. I just can Caitlin and Teresa is that. All we need, I just want them to confirm that before we. Decide to close it.

On my end, yes, as long as as Caitlin and the town engineer are fine with the drainage plan. I don't I don't see that that we need anything else.

I'm just trying to think timeline how much time we give reading Joe to. get us comments and then if there's anything that you that the ma'am needs to respond to but i don't think there will be we should play it safe wait two weeks from today so july 13th yes as you say july 13th My 13th. So we will make a motion to. Page. close it for except for written course comments specific documents from read yes from read and gel so we got drainage and interior circulation so july 13th i'll make that motion second all in favor aye aye okay that's closed We will go back into the regular meeting and we have three resolutions. Thank you. Yes. Thank you very much. Thank you. Do you want to start this off?

Sure. Whereas Marco Northland 57 Dinah Rock Road is petitioning the town of Shelter Island for permission to install a mooring at a location designated as latitude 41.10308 degrees north and longitude 72.33856 degrees west. Whereas the public hearing was duly held on the 29th day of June 2026 for all interest of persons to be heard in favor of or in opposition to now, therefore, be resolved the town clerk is hereby authorized to issue a permit for the aforementioned installation. So move 2nd, all in favor. Aye. Aye. Motion carried.

Where is markets and 1 would find way his petition, the town shelter for permission to install morning, the location designated its latitude 41. point zero eight eight three one degrees north and longitude minus seventy two point three two two seventy nine degrees west and whereas public hearing was duly held on the twenty ninth day of June twenty twenty six for all interested persons to be heard in favor of or in opposition to now therefore be it resolved that the town clerk is hereby authorized to issue a permit for the aforementioned installation. So moved.

Second.

All in favor? Aye. Motion carried.

Whereas Robert Walbauer, 6th Community Drive, has petitioned the Town of Shelter Island for permission to install a mooring at a location designated as latitude 41.06562 degrees north and longitude at a 72.36335 degrees west. And whereas a public hearing was duly held on the 29th day of June 2026 for all interested persons to be heard in favor of or in opposition to, now they'll therefore be it resolved subject to review and approval of location of tackle location intact that the location and tackle will be reviewed by the town harbor master that the town clerk is hereby authorized to issue a permit for the aforementioned installation that didn't come up right i think we got the gist

all right last item on the agenda is public comments um we have no one left in the room uh we have a couple people on zoom any any chocolate comments there being none make a motion to close the meeting second all people hi thank you everybody for being in