Planning Board - Regular Meeting

And this would be different. We'll start on this side. Greg Cranford. Cranford here. Okay. Shawn D present. Matt Fox here to not be here. Julia Weisenberg here. Marcus Cassich here. David Austin present. David Cleel here. Terrific. All right. Um, first order on our agenda is to review and approve the minutes from May 13, 2025. Did everyone get a chance to look at those? Any uh comments or concerns or additions on those? Greg, you were okay. Okay. So, if somebody could make a motion to approve the minutes from May 13. I'll make a motion to approve the minutes. Thank you. A second. Second. Second. All in favor? I. All right. Next thing, we're going to um pay a bill from the Rainer Group um which is our um engineer. And the bulk of this invoice um pertain to um subdivisions, namely Crescent Beach LLC, our uh Fowler um subdivision. And a third thing was um some extra meetings and um debriefing uh bringing our new engineer up to speed. So, uh, we have Rick Wesnowski here, um, in Joe, but so that was the third portion of that bill. The amount of the bill is $1,675. Um, make a motion that we pay the bill. Thank you. Second. Second. Second. All in favor? I carried. Okay. Uh, next thing. Just put that away second. Okay, we're going to go over some um extension requests. Uh the first one is um Elliot Bowsman. Um and this uh

basically pertains to submitting the county um approved map. So that's what they're they are still waiting for. U Matt Sherman asked for an extension. Um I think it's appropriate. It's not really on the um owner for this. Um so if everyone's okay with that, um can approve uh this one. Uh Jessica, do you have the number on this one? Okay. Um can I get a motion to um accept the extension approval of this particular lot line adjustment for um Elliot Bowsman? Motion to accept. Okay. Second. Second. Uh David, sorry. Um thank you. And all in favor? I I that's carried. Second one is the Ratigan lot line adjustment. And so these deeds were approved um by the planning board. Um and they were given to the owner to file with the county. Uh but the reason they're asking for the extension is that they um still need to final um finalize uh sub county health department um approval. So again, it's a just a matter of getting that through. Um so I think it's appropriate for us to extend um this uh timeline. Um is everybody okay with the resolution? Um and then so this would be number 10. Jessica, thank you. Um can I get a um motion to approve the resolution extension for the lot line adjustment for Rick Ratigan? I'll make an motion. Thank you, Marcus. A second. Second. David Creel. All in favor? I I Okay, that extension was approved. And the last one, number 11, uh this next one is Defo and Sharer, uh which is a lot line adjustment. And um it's a

similar case. They're just waiting for Suffach County Health Department um stamp of approval on that. Um so if everyone is okay with that one, I think it's an appropriate. Again, it's not on it's not that the owner is causing a delay. They're just waiting for the health department to approve the map. Um, may I get a motion for moving defa? I. So, that resolution extension was passed. Thank you everybody on that. That's it. So, can I get a motion? So, we're going to close the business meeting. Motion to close. Second. Okay. Close. We'll close that and we'll go into our work session. David, do you want to ask if you wanted to open it for the anybody in the parking world, but Okay. Um I don't know if it's appropriate or not. There's nothing there's nothing there's really nothing. I mean, we could, but All good. Yeah, we can always do at the end if we need to. Um Okay. So, we just went on on our lot line uh modification application agenda. We just did Basman. We did we did Ratican. Um Burough Hall. They are still waiting on the deed reporting and they they have not reached their deadline yet. They still have time. I'm sure they Yeah, I have reviewed those feeds. I got I have those from a whole and I reviewed them today. I approved them. I sent an email to the applicants attorney and I'll send a letter um you know to your office uh indicating that I'm approved the deeds. Okay. And that just happened today or Yeah, I reviewed I got the deeds from I don't know. I don't know, Jessica. send them to John Wag. Okay. You can send them to me directly. Yeah, thank you. You know, I have them forward them to you. Thank you. Okay, good news. Um, thank you for that update. Okay, defer we just went over. Um, next on our agenda under our subdivisions, we still have the Bloom minor subdivision. Again, their deadline is August 11th. They

still have sufficient time to complete that. If they need an extension, I guess they'll come forth. uh Westnet Creek Cottages. We don't have anything further on that, but again, their deadline is a little bit later, October 14th. Still sufficient time. Um now, under Fowler Trust, um we received some correspondence. Um Carl, you're here. So, did you want to speak about just that you're asking for us to postpone discussion of it until next meeting? That was the corresponding That's okay. Sorry. Sorry. Okay. No, no, come back. Why am I here? Fall back. Come back. Sorry. Too many, too many applications. No, feel free to speak or Thank you, Madam Chair. When we were last here, the the issue arose um Mr. Whan was going to consider and analyze whether you could in fact use conservation easements to meet the park requirement. Yes. Uh I received a memo which I'm sure you got that well very thorough well-written memo um indicating that uh it is his opinion that you can factor those uh that was how we had um designed sketch plan uh approval with easements when we were last here uh there was discussion about ext I think it the correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the board had mentioned consideration of removing that setback from the easement and actually having the the preservation extended uh into the setback. If you recall each of the lots has a goes with a 50ft easement and then uh for four of the lots a 25- ft setback from that easement and one of them a 20ft setback. I believe was Mr. Davey had asked that we consider uh essentially forgoing the setback to a degree increasing the easement. I'm willing to certainly engage my client

with that conversation. I think but first we need to determine if easements were acceptable and I think we're at that point. So we would have that conversation. I did ask Rick if there had been a any response to secret coordination. I don't know if he's aware. I might have no I Joe about that cuz but I didn't see any correspondence. We did. So that correspondence was with Joe Lombardi and we didn't start it yet based on the facts that there would be no point in doing that if the maps are going to be changed. So that's why we just uh we held up the only step we we sent it to the um planning commission and we got the standard letter back you know giving local jurisdiction and whatnot promising anything with the erosion on the beach and the usual stuff. That's yeah. Okay. So um I guess how would you like to proceed? Well, just just to be clear, that may be the easiest route to address what I was saying. I didn't I wasn't specific about make it a conservation. We were just discussing the idea that that within that setback, we didn't really want clearing. That was ultimately the goal of it. And so, and so if it's easier just to slip that into the conservation because that's the neatest way to do it rather than write it some other way or whatever, I I I'm indifferent. Just to be clear, I was not. You just want to pro um um enhance or extend the preservation. Correct. Okay. Yeah. And if there's a, at least from my perspective, if there's uh a preference for your client from one way versus the other based on I don't know what advantage they may get. I I'm indifferent. It's just as long as we accomplish that goal. Okay. I appreciate that. And is is the board's position to wait for SE referrals until we come with with a revised proposal on the clearing? Yes, that's the best. I think you could

turn it out now and we could adjust the clearing. I would think so now that we've like determined that these are fine. Yeah, I guess I guess at the time Joe was just waiting. We weren't quite sure. We didn't have that memo. Yeah, there's a legal question of course. But if you're comfortable with that, I mean if you think it's appropriate Rick, if that's in your experience, if that's what is the map showing right now? The map is showing ements on the lot. easements uh 25 25 and then the one is 20 the ements are 50 50 set step back sorry but the ements are not going to change in size uh potentially they're talking about they could absorb some of the they could absorb some of the setback uh the only involved agency is the health department right well these planning commission commission um You know, I ideally you send in the map that you're considering for approval. You know, these are minor changes. Uh probably not going to affect them. Certainly not going to affect the health department. So I I guess I'd leave it up to you. That could be the biggest obstacle the health department. So if you're saying that it's not Well, they're not going to be care about the ease. So we'd ask that the referrals can start and then we'll come with a revised just that slight revision. Okay. Okay. How do you gentlemen feel about that with just what do you think? I think it's fine. I think it's I don't know if it's going to speed it up or slow it down if you put a delta, but what what you have to do for lead agency referral, you have to send them a copy of the application, right? U presumably the map. That's why the map could you know maps can change after lead agency referral, but that's really what you're doing. You want to you want to confirm that neither the DEC nor the health department neither one of them wants the responsibility is going to claim lead agency right so that you can legally be the lead agency

and naturally there's there's often after you do your secret hearing there would be some adjustments to the map anyway well I'm in favor of getting this ball going on secret you are you mark Yeah, it gets us locked in as big agency which is probably better to do sooner versus later. Yeah, also on our flowchart it has to go to shut on uh fire commission. So it's on so that can be just that can be done easily now. Um okay so we'll we'll go ahead and do that. Great. A couple of questions if I can ask. There was the flag lot question. Has that been put to bed? the flag question would arise if you made the these um the buffer areas into parkland because then I think four or possibly all of the lots would be flag lots technically because they'd have to go around the corner of the park property to to hit uh to hit the parkway and your code says that no more than 60% of lots I think in a major subdivision can be flag lots that's one of the problems with Having made that, if you were to make those areas park properties, you then are making flag lots, you're not allowed to have more than three of the five lots as flags, which is not what the proposal was. If they're easements, then the lot has full frontage on the road, even though you can only use a corner of it for your driveway. So, the answer is that if these are conservation easements on the road, we're okay. We don't have problems like us. But in in a conservation easement, and I've read this thing five times and I still don't fully understand it, it's the proper the easement is conveyed to a not for profit or to the town. Can I just add that this was the memo that that Rick put together you multiple. So a park property would be a

separate parcel of land, right? That property would have to be owned by someone other than the lot owner. So it could be deed to the town of Shelter Island. It could be deed to a property owners association which the developer would form but it's a separate parcel of land. It could be multiple separate parcel of land if each individual buffer was a park property. If you do a conservation ement the conservation e is an easement. It's an encumbrance on the lot. So the property is still owned by the lot owner but the easement is granted to the town of shelter out. So, so then that's not the scenario in paragraph seven number seven of this on the last page of it. Paragraph seven of your memo. Oh, I'm sorry. No, of the town of the town code. Um, we can't read it at all under these overlay district, right? The waiver the waiver allowance here only apply it does not apply in the peninsula and nearure. So that cannot be applied in this bracket. Got it. Okay. I mean I I know the concern the board before I I became chairperson was that it was the scenic vista. It was the look of North Parkway. We didn't want that altered. And I think we we've sort of accomplished that. And as long as like Bash was Sean's saying, as long as that setback and the easement are not developed, not cleared, that preserves that look. That's the look of it. Yeah, that would be wonderful. So consideration pretty I just also note I for I know there are new members this was we had a yield of seven. So this is already reduced subdivision by two lots. So you know my clients there were there was an inquiry are they planning to develop and sell this? They

are not. their family and they are interested in keeping that book. So you are okay and thank you Rick for putting together that memo. I think that was really helpful in helping us determine this. Jessica, can you can you post that memo or did you already do it? I I think we should post it. It's a good I do have a question. Yes. I I don't know if this is the appropriate time to ask it, but um I had asked previously, is there anything that um prevents further subdivision? I was thinking that as he said it, but I think that's going to come up later. We'd agree to a covenant and no further subdivision. Yeah. And I given the offer, I would recommend that you have some sort of instrument that precludes future submission because that's about that's about Good point. I was almost going to ask that, but then I realized we're going to touch down. area of the individual lots could be further. Yeah. I'm not sure based on their size. Some municipalities though, if you're even like halfway there so that no one comes in someday for a variance, you know, so if you're getting anywhere close to the size that might be allowed to subdivide, you can still file a non-s subdivision covenant just so no one can even come in. Well, you know, I got I can I'm pretty close. I can do a I got a variance to, you know, slightly undersized lots. You don't even want that to be an option. So, uh, you know, it was always my understanding that there would be a continent precluding further subdivision. So, those are good. I I remember when you brought that up. That was a good point. Well, I don't know if this has been discussed. This is the first major subdivision that I've short since board member. Has there been a discussion about duration of construction, whether it's sequential or it has to happen in within a certain period? Because there should be because I live on a road with a major subdivision with there now three houses which have been bent built sequentially. Each one is an 18-month process which

means I'm in year almost year five of where I used to have 10 trick trips a day of traffic on the road. I now probably have 150 or 200 for 4 and a half years because there was no stipulation that okay this is pandeon subdivision. There's no stipulation that okay you can subdivide it but the houses have to be built as a single mobilization. I don't know if I think it's different like if a builder is doing it as like spec right because then then it's reasonable to put a time limit. At least my understanding is this is a family and the kids don't know when they're going to build when they'll have the money when they have the time whatever. So it'd be hard to do that, but in a builder specking out I I agree that you know that but to the neighbors on Nor Parkway or whatever street the nature of the developers is not a consideration. What's consideration to them is how many hundreds of truck trips you're now going to increase and for how many years. And I doubt anyone in Northern Parkway is going to be delighted to have dump trucks rolling down the street for the next 5 years. Um, but I don't know the mechanism that you could use to that's not here at this level right now. I'm mentioning it only because we're talking about your subs, not yours in particular. Yeah. But just with respect to ours there as as uh Dave mentioned, there's no plan to develop all of them at any in the immediate future because this is going to be familyhown land. So I I in that sense I don't know how that if you're forcing them if you can't develop outside of a window you don't be forcing them to develop in the short term. That's true. Yeah. And I don't believe there's anything in the code and there isn't there is but that's something that you I mean that's a that's a nice thing to come board with. Yeah, that's what I would do andor we'll have public meetings about this and if any of the neighbors but there are a couple of houses I thought you mentioned

might happen sooner rather but not all five right the only I can think of where they do that maybe is the heights properties owners may might have the heights might have some stipulations on I don't know but I'm not sure they might have in their own another question that also this is probably not the right venue is um you know we don't really have any time frame for construction. In other words, you can start work at 4:00 in the morning and work until midnight and you can do it seven days a week, right? I that is something that I and wherever the correct venue is, I think we need to talk about. So that's something that as a board we could talk about and put together an advisory member for the town. We've done that in other capacities prior to you gentlemen coming on. So we can definitely do that. I'm totally open to it. Um but I don't think we can we can't do it right now. So just all right. Thank you. Thank you. Thanks. Okay. So I I was looking down at Crescent Beach and I'm thinking G Beach LLC. So, uh, that applicant, uh, Crescent Beach LLC is the one who, um, reached out to us and asked us to hold off on any further discussion. The things that we had asked of them in their memo, they have not gotten to yet, and I believe they need more time. Okay, we'll take that. Do we have any role in the water issue that came to us via email? No. So um uh yes but for the record we did receive some correspondence from the Heights properties uh owner corp and they sent a memo to everyone as you know to us and uh asked us when the application comes back and we open the discussion because the applicants asking us to hold it for now but when we do they asked us to consider the history of um health department approval um because at the time when they planned to build their home the heights was not able to adequately supply the volume and the

pressure that was needed for the water and that was back then. Now it's under different conditions for depending on how the subdivision turns out, what we decide, they will have to get that letter from the Heights Properties owners Corp. again saying that they can supply water and that has to go to the health department. So we just have to we can bring that memo up again next meeting actually when we discuss it if the applicants attorneys here. Is that even a criteria that we use in our evaluation or is that strictly a heights issue? It's a heights thing. Yeah, it's a heights and stuff county health. Yeah. Yeah. Um but what we decide could influence if they they're going to have to go back and do an engineers um uh evaluation again on that. So what we decide could influence them. So um okay uh row minor subdivision. We're we're still waiting on them to submit us to submit their uh revised sketch plan. At some point can we take this white performance final? Yeah. Sure. Councilman Larson, do you have any? Okay. I I'd love to not see that at some point. It's a It's an artifact. Okay. All right. Um, so actually we had I had I had Jessica put down as other business to go over the town code uh park requirement versus subdivision, but Rick, we sort of tackled that when we went over that with uh Yeah, it was a well-written memo. Yeah, it was really Yeah, and it's awesome. Still understanding it, but it was well written. It's a great well-written memo that tells me that we have a great opportunity to revise the code. Say something about this meeting. It seemed to have been designed around the idea that subdivisions would create park areas. Yeah. Presumably for the res, but park areas in the traditional sense, actual park, playgrounds, maybe walking paths, things like that. Um, given the nature of shelter around and the school size of

most of your subdivisions, you probably don't really want or need a bunch of little playgrounds for, let's face it, most of these people are probably second homeowners anyway. You may not even be most of the year. Um, and yet you can't really use the you can't necessarily use this effectively for open space preservation. One of the things that's in there that's very unusual and odd, but it makes sense in the light of if the integrity of parkway is you can't have wetlands or wetland adjacent regulated areas within your park. Y which if you're thinking of a playground, I guess makes sense, but if you're trying to use it to protect sensitive areas like wetlands, you're not allowed to park. So yes, I do think it's something you guys and the town board probably should should look at. Yeah, to me this is this is a comprehensive plan conversation about what's the goal of potentially dividing up things in the future and how do we want to affect the the island because it's like I said I I believe also when it was originally coded it was we want more parks and recreation spots because that's that was where the count the island was going and that's probably not applicable as much now. Well, that's where the island came from. If you look at the Heights, which is kind of the only real organized development, it's full of parks and rightways. Y and presumably the intent was it builds community. Now, you know, at this moment in time, if you had a subdivision and you built a park, is it going to, you know, are people going to put up hedges anyway? uh you know as they say in urban planning you can provide a park you can't ensure that people will use it but if you don't provide it you can ensure that they won't right um okay are we ready to go on to some of our wetlands advisory okay great uh so uh first was uh Keller uh so I

went to Keller on my own I know uh Greg and David Kay also went to Keller Not that we all can't go to Keller, but um and I passed around just a skeleton just so we had some structure with like the basic information on top and we can fill in. I'll fill in from our notes tonight. Um so uh so on Keller basically uh there is a foundation um which is existing right there on the waterfront. They'd like to demolish all of that foundation. Um the foundation had no approvals. Uh I don't know if you noticed there was a stop work order which I took a photo of for everyone. Um and uh they basically are going to build a two-story single family dwelling, three bedroomedroom and with a garage and two bedrooms over the garage, new septic IIA wood decks they're going to put in a gravel driveway. So basically the new construction is landward of the 100 ft. We're really looking at the um disturbance of having to demolish this uh big foundation that's sitting there. And then um we we had some questions I think about the the two uh what looked to me like kettle holes on the north and south either side which we think we all of us saw as we walked in there. Um so you've got the wetlands right in front of you and then you have these two kettle holes on either side. Um so did you want to say anything uh Greg and David further on that? Yeah. Well, weirdly, they don't neither of them appear on the survey. Um, and as you mentioned, it may be because they indeed are more than 100 ft from the edge of the property. When I, you know, collected ticks walking through the woods and piecing it off, um, it was very, I mean, if you, if it was 95 ft or 102 feet, I don't know, but it was it was in that neighborhood.

So, I'm just surprised that it it wasn't at least marked and then flagged because, you know, the delineation of the wetland is based not on getting your feet wet. It's based on the plants that go around it. So, they may very well be within. Yeah. You know, the 100 foot or 75 foot. So, I think it should get flagged. So, I I did it too. I I walked cuz I saw you went and I So, uh my foot is 12 in. I'm very lucky. So, I can pace anywhere. So I walked it and I came I was it was close. It's really close to 100 ft. So I was a little was questionable. My pace is three feet so I don't have to take quite as much to do. I did the whole thing one after the other. Anyway, um but then I I I was uh listening to u one member of the CAC who's a former building inspector um mentioning that you know usually the the the DC letter of jurisdiction has value meaning that they you know they they had said that's out of their jurisdiction. So, as Marcus pointed out, that might be why um this the surveyor didn't look to include it in there. Um however, in that CAC discussion, he did mention that sometimes these letters, you know, they typically have a lifespan of importance, but when something substantial is happening, you know, it it it could call into question the validity of the DEC statement at that time. And this is from I did notice that this was from 2011, so it's an old jurisdiction letter, right? Um, and Reed Karen was talking to us in another group about, you know, the the DC just changed their regulations about how they view wetlands. And a funny story was a a person um a homeowner who had made a man-made pond and uh that would almost fall under DC jurisdiction just because he made it himself. So, um you know, fresh pond wetlands are of greater interest to the DC. So, I'm just thinking it it it it could be wise just

to say, okay, if they're not out of the 100 ft, show it then. Um, that's very fair. I think so because as we observed I it's just it's such on the it's so much on the edge you know it's a question maybe just make sure that and again it's not it doesn't even even if it is right it would be part of the factor of protecting runoff during demolishing or doing anything into those anyway so you'd want to see them and see where they're putting barriers and recovery the request. Um, now, uh, David, you also noted, uh, in terms of the leeching field being on that slope, right, which is a substantial spot that the bottom of those rings would be closer to to the groundwater. Yeah, it it it's not unusual, but the test wells, you don't know, you know, they do the test wells before you even necessarily know where you're going to locate anything. Uh so the location and depth of the test wells I think really needs to be confirmed in terms of the currently proposed location of the septic and well because you know you need what 2 or 3 feet from the bottom of the ring to the water and they were right there. I mean there was not an inch to spare and because it's tidal there you know the water's going to go up and down. Yeah. So and I forget this is Matt Sherman right? It's not Matt. Matt is the only one. It's a very different look than Matt's. You can tell if I look. Um, but if the if the if that parking expansion were relocated, field could be potentially moved up another 25 years potentially.

If nobody's here from there's nobody's here obviously for for this. Nobody's here from uh they'll probably be we'll get the town board meeting but um I guess we can raise in our advisement the requests and the town board can deal with it. Did you have anything? And there was the the shower in the guest house. Yes. to put to put a dry because it just said um drain to grade or something. It didn't have any. I should go to a drywall. Seems like they're trying to fix a mess here, you know. Yeah. Foundations. Yeah. No, it's good. They're doing some good things, right? But the foundations that they're now was the foundation of the original house. No. Yes. But what's interesting is the the plans that are submitted say 2021 and we're at the stop work order. I went up close to it. It's a little faded. I tried to call Reed, but he didn't get back to me. But it says 2023 is a stop work order. And the stop work order has to do with the building of that foundation without permits as far as I know. But that means they knew they were going to build this other thing back in 2021. And so it's just a little questionable. It's a mess. As you mentioned, it does. I I mean I'd been in that house when it was more than just a foundation and it was right about where that foundation was. So I'm I'm a little confused by the foundation looks older. It does. Yeah. I think that was the foundation from the original house. I'm sorry they're not here, but Okay. It could be. Um any concerns with uh drainage uh parking of um construction vehicles? I guess down that narrow. I just thought of that. It's sort of a shared driveway. It's shared. You have that other uh dwelling, other residence, right? If you go straight to the left. So, I'm just

thinking like we had that case in Silver Beach up with one property where they had an easement down by bootleggers and we said about just being cautious with uh putting construction vehicles over to one side so you don't block the neighbor. Anything else on that, Marcus? Like you can um Well, the LJ says there's no, you know, there's nothing in the in the web. So, we've used old LJ letters that go back the last century from many owners ago. What you could do is you could just send an email to the DEC and explain the situation. Yeah. You know, but that was that based on a site inspection or on a survey because it's um it's based on the LJ. I don't know how exactly they do their work, but it's it's only as good as the data you're given. The survey you have doesn't show the wetlands and it's not I understand what they're given. Yeah. Do they actually do they No, they're not going to come physically. They're not going to Yeah, I'm looking at you have to find one with no leaves. Yeah. 16. Okay. And there's the one wet line and then there's one up. You go north. I was mainly looking to see if the when the if the foundation was there. Well, that was the house. That was the house there. This one. Yeah. Well, there was there was a house and the guest house which is still there now. 2019. Yeah. 2020. All right. in terms of controlling, you know, construction sediment reveation. I think they did a perfectly responsible job. Okay. Are we good on that? So, I'm going to take what we have in our DS and I'll guess I'll I'll recirculate it with a

few edits and then we can send it off. Um, okay. Next one. O Sullivan uh which is uh 74 Platonic. Um, I went there alone again. David Creel and Greg went together, I believe. Well, you went there, too. Uh, I also took some video with all his permission for the rest of you to place them to. Um, so this one, while I wish all of them could be like this nice where um, it's what I like to see. So, new construction, which is on existing foundation. It's going to be better, you know, upgraded, code compliant. They're basically going from a threebedroom to a four bedroomedroom. Uh but that's only a case of like 330 gallons per day going up to 440 gallons per day. Uh they're putting in a bunch of dry wells, new IA. Um they even have a uh vegetation plan. I think Christian did a vegetation plan. Um the only thing I thought of because Sean and I live in that's not in adjacent to this property but we live in the area is the saltwater intrusion potential. over beach has just played with it and I was thinking we in those cases on other applications we've asked for the slow flow pump um so we can do that one other addition um I I had a question that brought up with David um which David felt was probably a ZBA question and that is on the second floor uh where they are within the sideyard setback. Um, one could argue they're making an existing condition worse by building second floor within the setback, but that's more of a zoning issue. Yeah, they have to go to the ZBA, right? I think that's listed as a place they have to visit. It's on the list of things

that they have to do. Yeah, they have to do that. There is a strange thing I noticed in terms of the setbacks which is that the survey refers to the I guess they're east west or north south property lines as being sideyards. Right. The architectural drawings refer to one of them as being a front yard. In other words, it's a corner lot and there are two front yards because that is a map street that goes right to the bulkhead. That's the old Yeah. So I was wondering why they showed two 40ft setbacks and I think they must have interpreted it as a corner lot. Yeah. Doesn't affect us, but it certainly affects um the the ZBA, but you know, the architect did go to an effort at least on the 40ft setback side to shrink the second floor. Uh and they shrink it on the other side not quite as much. Uh was this the one where you commented about uh having the north direction be more? Yeah. Well, that's just confusing because the architectural drawings have north down and the other drawings have north up. It's come up a lot now and I until we met you I never had that. They should always be good at Yeah. Even if it's not north up because it doesn't always reason, but just make them all the same. It says they're keeping, I believe, most of the existing foundation, right? But we don't know. Is there anywhere that anyone saw like how much of that is and how much of it is new and what is do they have some sort of crawl space? No, the basement with a kind of recreation area because they're putting in an egress window and an areaway to access it. So clearly they have high hopes for the under the what is currently the garage

that not doing not digging it out anymore or anything. didn't appear that they were it didn't say there were no notes that they would I mean for instance maybe it's a 75 but there was no notation saying excavation to and is there's a little too many numbers for me is everything contained in the existing footprint of the existing house it's just the second floor is going up on one side just the second floor a little bit on the side a little bit there but I don't I think no, I don't think they're expanding the footprint at all. In fact, it's just going up. It's going up. In fact, they're reducing there's a little porch taking some deck out and they're removing I don't know 2 or 3 feet of it. The reason I brought up the second floor set back is because it is so close to the adjacent property line in its existing non-conforming condition. Yeah. I just it seems to me that if you're building a second floor that that second floor should not be within the set. Yeah. Well, at least as a way to mitigate it, removing the shallow peak roof and at the end of the house and making decks. That's true. So, it does get a little bit lower. In fact, pool goes to ZBA, too, given that it's so close to the street. Well, yeah, I think so. Yeah, it's on I mean it's on the other on the street. That's a small it's a practically that's a big hot tub. It'll kind of be like that 10 by 25 ft pool. They have their pool, you know, it's a lapper. Um they don't have a lot of choices if they want to have a pool, but that's a I'm sure the neighbors are going to struggle with whatever however they're going to try to just hedge it in to keep privacy. But well, they're doing a lot of planting. It's not really our jurisdiction for

sale. Yeah. Okay. Are we one thing just as a general comment? It would be really helpful if they would include the FEMA map. Oh, yes. That was on I had Yeah. And I'm surprised the survey doesn't give the flood zone information. Or maybe it doesn't. I missed. Usually it does, but I don't see it. And because the one on um Oak Tree, Marcus and I had previously that usually FEMA that had the FEMA stuff. Usually it' be nice to know the base flood elevation. The existing house is at 12.7 ft. In the new drawings, they call the first floor at 0 0. So, I don't really know. Really z Yeah. Where's I mean, it's not zero. It will be underground, but where are they setting the first floor elevation? I mean, it's not really a wetlands issue, but it's connected. Um, I assume they're raising it the required number of feet above base flood elevation. Um, it's pretty high there. I never seen it float there. It is. It is high. I don't if you notice in the in the video you you know when you look down the bulkhead beach. You can't like just jump off and like hit the beach. You have to But I'd imagine that in a storm surge waves are crashing over the bulkhead. Yeah. That whole line there in Silver Beach is struggling. all those homes along there and they're with the wave action and couple down even. Yeah. You know, reinforcing their bulkheads. It's just scooping sand. Keep scooping sand right at him. Yeah. I mean, it must be the eroded over the last 60 years. Well, people said there used to actually be a pretty goodiz beach out front of that whole entire area. Yeah, there was. Yeah, you can walk it, you know. Okay. Yeah. Did you gentlemen want to excuse

yourselves? I mean, just you can I think we can let you go because uh we're just doing we just have Yeah, we don't Not that we don't love to have you, but our bill. Thank you, Nick. Thanks, Rick. Okay. Uh, next one is Grady Riley Gardens, which is site plan review application and we have to send the advisory to the town board about this and I had uh sort of divvied up the work for everybody a little bit. I mean, some of this was like kind of a moot point like some of it didn't pertain but um, so landscape and screening that was David K and Marcus comp plan was Matt and myself. uh compatibility with the existing development was David A and Marcus. Some cultural features David A and Matt that's not here. Uh natural features Shawn and David A. just in terms of the general size of this uh you know nursery uh Sha and Greg C. and then emergency response access. Um I put that on you David since you are active member of the fire department. You probably know have more information on that. Um, all right. So, I'll start because Matt's not here, but I'll speak for both of us. Uh, looking over the existing comp comprehensive plan. Some things that stood out to me in in terms of this um Brady Ryland nursery is that uh the comp plan, current comp plan, this is again this is the one from 93. Uh, it talks about the importance of the quality of of the island. Sorry, an important quality of the island is the diversity of its neighborhoods. And so efforts should be made to maintain the distinctiveness of neighborhoods and use that as a guide to future development. They also talk about um encouraging uh businesses that are typically important because of their value as

quote third places, places other than home or work where social interaction can take place. I'm thinking of like IG, the dump, you know, and Grady Riley perhaps. Recycling center. Was it recycling center? Recycling center. Sorry. Well, if you come up here, it's the dog, but we say it affectionately. We say affectionately. Um, and the other thing is that they talked about um let's see, they also talked about uh they want to encourage local businesses that are sorry, businesses that are operated by local people making that are making light demands on non-renewable resources and having a balance in the type of businesses that you try to attract for yearround population. summer residents and short-term visitors and businesses that are on a small scale. They do say in the in the original comprehensive plan that given all this, they want these local small light scale businesses to be wary of water usage and septic and compatibility with the neighborhood and and to avoid traffic and parking issues. So having said that, I feel like, you know, at least this site does sort of fit in the original comprehensive plans vision of what it should be. It's in a it's in a business zone. Um so that's just my my contribution for compatibility with comp plan. Um anyone else on screening or Well, I had a question about that. Um in the past that shop has really been oriented towards the street. It's been a front oriented. Yes. um operation as is the um the bagel shop next door. Everything faces out towards the street. Um so when I went back the I I can't I don't know who lives in that house behind sort of elevated up on the stars family. Yeah. Yeah. But they they

haven't done their own screening. So they must not be bothered by uh by the fact that there's commercial zone right behind them. But um the difference I see is now there a lot of the public is now back at that residential property line which has never been the case uh before. So it raises the question of and and without putting an undue burden on you know a small retail operation is there any way to create some kind of screen separation so that there yeah I I I went the day I went it wasn't even that crowded but you know the the public is right there uh at the at the backyard I had that in my notes uh because what came to mind was when Matt and I visited um Walter Richard's uh uh lawn care site. Okay. And he had personally, to be very neighborly and you know, courteous to his this side lot neighbor, he worked something out with her where he paid for all the screening and he put it in and he did that before he even went ahead with the site plan because he knew that was going to be an issue. Although he had I think he's got a business on the other side and the back is not the concern but the one neighbor is kind of like Starzy and I was thinking to myself that you know shelter way here would be for the owner to maybe approach Starzy and and work something out with screening. And I'm thinking maybe even like it could be something like he had to say like fake where it's you know just something because he's got the sweet there. It was the only thing that jumped out at uh me and I'm you know clearly the natural thing would be like okay can you put up something the question is is does it really accomplish anything because they're at an elevation and they're

they're pool area is sitting up there. So anything at 6 ft high is is really doing very very little probably for the cost benefit. Although if they make the argument that it was then I think you have to you know consider it the I don't know all the requisite uh regulations the fence that he put up to house his business he said is right on the property line. So, I don't know. Can you do business then right up to the property line cuz he has then all all the flowers and stuff right up against the back of the fence and I if they can, you know, I don't it's kind of I talked to the folks there and clearly the neighbor is not happy. I think has written the town board and expressed uh a lot of frustration. Um, I think their response is they bought a home next to a business district and they sit up high and you know, you have to have reasonable expectations. It just unfortunately what used to be a quiet back thing is now busy, but the person always had the right to be there and do something. And so, but I think that's a that's an important change in this. I mean, it is it's always been commercial, but it's a significant change of usage or to go from a a back lot commercial to a public usage area. Now, the guide is a landscape business. So, maybe there's no as in Walter's case, he paid for the owner. He paid for the owner to put up screening. I don't know, maybe this owner would, you know, they are doing consider what it could do. They are doing like the fabric shade structure which will also will block some of that view in the back. Right. So, well, I I was just thinking the fencing as you said, it's way shorter than her property line where she has the pool thing. But,

you know, Okay. So, it's noise coming off from customers walking around, but yeah, I guess even at that height, just Well, the problem is you can only do so high up fence. You're limited. It's you're really not can't do it. It's it's not going to change much of the only you could really do is plant trees. But is there another option? It might be any of the word. It might be an irregular option, but instead of planting the trees at the bottom of the hill, offer to assist the owner in putting something at the elevated or that's what I meant. That's what I'm saying. But not at the bottom. It's pretty steep. I don't know where they have room if they're going to maybe put it on the outside of their fence and what it's it comes off pretty quick. But I think that's a conversation they should have. Yeah, there's power, you know, if there is some, you know, or at least it's also the business should think about what they should do and offer up there is the only other thing that jumped out at me and I don't know that there is what regulation exists. It would really stink. We can't have talking. It would be really stinct to h be that homeowner and having big landscape trucks making deliveries at 7:30 in the morning back there. But I don't know whether that's regulated in any way, shape, or form. No, but I think at our at our preliminary hearing, um, the owner mentioned that that the truck comes in once, I think once, does everything, and that's it. And then they're dropped, and there's there's not like trucks coming in every single day. Um, right, Meg? I think that was that. Yeah, that's what they said. The only other thing I thought of was to cover it. Like I I feel like I've been at different like it's kind of like landscape horiculture places where it's covered. Not not with a covered roof, but like you know where you can breathe. There's ventilation, but just a trellis. Like a trellis. Thank you. Trellis. And this way air could still go through and then that would cover like you wouldn't

see necessarily see so much people walking by. I don't know how that would work. Isn't that what this temporary 20x40 fabric shaped structure is? Not. It's not really a a trellis though. It's just a very gauzy kind of Well, I think that's just a question for for him. Is it kind of he was allowed to go there before this process because the summer was getting started. So, what is his vision if he's allowed to stay there? Is he going to build something there? What could he do? for shading, you know, ask him to kind of put forward some what his thought process is so we're not just guessing because I would think he would try to create a little bit more permanency and structure there to operate. He was in the other place for pretty long time. Yeah. Yeah. Right. Okay. Are the I'm just curious. Are the pallets that he has shown right up against the property line is that a permit encroachment in those setbacks. I know it didn't look to me like it was like right it wasn't right on Starzy's line. There was like a space. I asked them and I I asked them. I said, "Oh, is the fence, you know, in a setback or whatever?" And they said, "No, it's right at the property line." I was like to me like And I was like, "Oh, like, you know," and that was my question then. Even if you're allowed to put fencing right at the property line, I guess you're allowed to do business right up to the property line, which just stinks, but it is what it is. If you bought next to a business district, you know, that's kind of the rules. Well, we can ask the town board just I mean, they're going to look for anyway. We can just, you know, note it. We can observe it and say what um size compatibility with the neighborhood. Were we fine with that?

Basically, it's business. So, I'm going to David A. Yeah. Yeah. It I think I looked which part I'm trying which part you wanted to ask me about. You're asking about which you ask me about emergency response. How are they going to get It's pretty simple. Okay. Move the gravel up. Gravel driveway. Yeah. It's wide enough. We can get in there with a engine pretty easy. Okay. We weren't necessarily assigned that thing, but yeah. No, I I always look I always look. Um and it's not a problem. We can get we can get up that road. That goes with what we were saying as asking him what does he see as the permanent state because the footprint that he has now may not be what he thinks it's relatively contained and would he imagine expanding it coming out a little bit more or what and so we should know what kind of what is the final state that he's envisioning right this was sort of like a like a ad hoc just to get him going season I would think but I don't All right. Um, you also asked about natural. Yeah. Uh, I think the main thing is right across Sean, you probably like that too. So, obviously right across from across West Neck there is a natural area right about Yeah. with a ice pond. Yeah. But it seems like what they're doing is not going to affect it in any way. So, I didn't see any major effect. That was the only thing as far as community and right on the other side you've um got the hair salon building is right there. Yeah. It's a back of another building. So it's really only stories use property that Yeah. And as you come in on the right hand side there are some big trees and stuff. It's just unfortunately not in the place that's providing you know a block to you know the neighbor that probably matters more. But again with the with the lack of like it's not going to be the kind of place where trucks are

coming in all the time. I then I would be thinking like noise but again it's other businesses there too. Yep. Um but he should be able to buy trees and mitigate the edge immediately because he's a landscape guy. And if you look at for instance white oak as soon as they populate their property with trees, you know it becomes this sort of blush environment. Yeah. And um I would think that a landscaping alternative should be something that he could accommodate. Says because it's lower they have to be pretty tall trees there. You can get 20 foot tall crepe myrtles and put and it will immediately reduce his commercial space. Yeah. Not much. I mean it goes right into that area where the pallets are. I should ask him what he's willing to do and if he has a thought process around it. I mean in an in an ideal world yes I agree with you but that expense for that type of business you know huge trees to you know whatever I'm not really sure more towards approach starsy offer to maybe pay for some planting at her elevation that's what I'm I think that would be more effective that's kind of what we had in the other site plan review so okay um I think that's it. David, did you want I remember there was something else you asked me. Oh, yes. Well, no, no, I had you features. Yeah, there there really isn't any uh compatibility with existing development, but we sort of we already hit on that. Yeah, maybe. Sorry, I'm just double checking. Yeah. No, you're okay. Um and I think that was it. Uh the other thing is landscape stuff is it's not that bad to look at, you know, it's not that hard on the eyes like crushed concrete.

bags of compost and trees mixed in, right? You're looking at hanging and if he makes them more attractive trellis than a temporary thing that might be more temporary now. I I picture a trellis this way. If Star is up there in her pool, she, you know, you're not going to see just this open thing with people walking around carrying stuff and walking out with, you know, plants. You're going to it's going to be kind of masked masked a little bit. But um so the only thing I just want to add is that uh the reason I asked our engineer and our attorney to to leave is that if we're not doing uh applications of which we have jurisdiction, it sort of uh a little bit more conservative on paying them by the hour then. Okay. Um uh so can I responsibility? Yes. Fiscal responsibility. Okay. Does anyone uh have anything uh uh does anyone from Zoom have anything from the earlier part of the meeting? I I may have jumped right into our work session. Anyone on Zoom out there that have anything they want to add? No. Okay. Can I have a motion to end the meeting? I'll make a motion to end the meeting. Second. All in favor? Evening is closed.