Planning Board - Regular Meeting

You're good.

There you go.

Move that for you.

Yeah, that's why I dropped my shoes. They always got it great.

Kurt, you all set? I'm all set. Just getting situated. All good. Okay. It's now 6.01. So I'll call the planning board meeting to order for Monday, August 24th, 2026. Can all rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge of Allegiance. Do it. Yes. Yes. Yes.

Yes. Thank you. We do have meeting minutes for the May 26 meeting.

Nobody has comment or questions. Do we have a motion to accept? Motion by Barry. Do we have a second? Second that. Second by Kurt. Roll call.

Jim Abdullah. Yes. Barry Finnegan. Yes. Tom Cosgrove. Yes. Carly Leary. Yes. Kurt Gurvich.

Yes. And again, we have the same thing for the July 27th. Meeting minutes?

I'll make a motion to accept them.

Okay, do I have a second? I will second that. Roll call.

Jim Abdallah? Yes. Barry Finnegan?

Yes.

Curly Leary? Yes. Kurt Gurvich?

Yes.

We have to go back because Barry could not vote on the May minutes. He was not there. So someone else needs to make a motion to accept the maintenance.

All right, I'll make the motion to accept the maintenance.

Second by Kurt. Okay, roll call again.

Jim Abel.

Yes.

Tom Cosgrove.

Yes.

Carly Leary. Yes. Kurt Gurvich.

Yeah. Sorry, Barry, I didn't see that.

Sorry, no, I didn't either. All good. I just assumed we were talking the last week's meeting, our last month's meeting.

We didn't get a chance to review that in the previous meeting.

Okay, moving to the first application on the agenda is Planned Board Historic Site Review for 26-08, 34 Brinkerhoff Street, First Presbyterian Church. Applicant is Bill Merrow.

Bill, I'll give my presentation first and then you can go up.

All good.

So, yes, this is a historic site review for 34 Brinkerhoff Street church rehabilitation. The request is to repair deteriorating limestone steps to the Marion Street glass door entrance of the education building, which is adjacent to the historic building. The repair will use a combination of salvaging and replacing limestone stair treads and limestone landing stones. In addition, repointing approximately eight square feet of the base of the wall adjacent to the glass door entrance and reporting approximately 30 square feet of stone wall adjacent to the Marion entrance steps. The parcel zone commercial, the advocate is in attendance, and this is in the Brinkerhoff Street Historic District. And in your packets, you have the building structure inventory form, and the initial date of construction was in the mid to late 1800s. Your packets provide the materials lists for the mortar that will be used to do the repointing. Matching existing color as much as possible. This application was sent to the county for the 239M referral. but because of a lack of quorum, the county was unable to make a decision, but we are still able to make a decision regardless. The application was also sent to SHPO and we received a letter back on August 6th stating that It is the opinion that the in-kind repair and replacement of the stone steps, in addition to the pointing of the historic stonework mortar, using the mortar appropriate in strength and color as described, would have no adverse impact on its properties. I did not receive any departmental comments for this application. For seeker, I have a type two listed, no further action required, and this is not in a disadvantaged community. And there's no specific staff comments in the staff report.

Okay, thank you, Mr. Merrill. You have the opportunity to address the board.

So my name's Bill Merrill, and I'm in the Presbyterian Church. Again, we covered these four steps that are deteriorating and we'd like to replace where I used to make a contractor with a a background in historic renovations. So they'll be doing the work. They've already been out to the site. They've matched the steps as close as possible. The two top steps will be replaced and the bottom two will be salvaged and then reused. The kitchens have been doing a nice job on the mortar to finish the historic building. They can now get their full head in there. So while the Lupini group is here, we ask that they repoint those areas. I believe it's a whole mortar. It should take three to four weeks, and we're hoping to start this fall.

Anybody on the board have questions.

You have a separate ADA entrance.

I guess. Okay. Further down further south. It goes into the historic building. There's a rating.

Okay.

We have an elevator to get people to the sanctuary.

Following along those lines, will you be doing anything with the handrail? Yeah.

I think they're going to salvage it if necessary. Okay. So replacing kind as is.

Honestly, anything beyond that would be coordination with the code's office in terms of any other improvements required or not. But they're going to leave it in time, so.

Yeah, that's good.

I have a question. The other stones with the top two, you said those are getting salvaged from another site, essentially trying to match up the period of color and all that?

Yes, they've already... They had 2 different options for it. I'm not sure there's 1 that I know. The project manager came back with some samples that found that they match. As well as possible, right? And the same thing with more of a field deal with next. And then to make sure whatever color suits the best, but. Make sure to use that on that. Yeah. Yeah.

Okay, any further questions from the board?

Nope.

Thank you, Mr. Merrill. If not, then we do have a draft resolution 26-0A to support our seeker findings as a type 2 act and no further review required.

I'll make a motion to accept resolution 26-08A. I'll second that. It does say 06.

I was going to say one correction on the resolution written for us is that it's 2608A, not 2606A. Yeah.

All right.

We have a motion and a second. Mm-hmm. Roll call.

Jim Abdallah? Yes. Barry Finnegan? Yes. Yes, yes.

Yes. We do have a public hearing associated with this application. So. Move to open the public hearing nobody to offer public comment. Is there anybody online? No, if not, we will close the public hearing. And move to, uh, resolution or consideration of draft resolution 26. Dash 0, 8 B, which is resolution addressing the application.

As presented, I'll make a motion to accept resolution 26. 0, 8 B as presented.

So, 2nd, all seconds. So, motion and a second. Roll call.

Jim Abdallah.

Yes.

Barry Finnegan. Yes. Tom Cosgrove.

Yes.

Carly Leary. Yes. Bert Grivich.

Yes. Thank you.

Thank you.

Have a great night. Moving to the second item on our agenda, the application 26-07B, which is for subdivision of 56 Cumberland Avenue. Owner is 6B Holdings, LLC. So with this application, I will recuse myself because I represented the applicant in some of their building work. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Good.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- All right. HAB-Masyn Moyer- So that's okay Emily do you want to take us away from here.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes, so we have a subdivision application for 56 Cumberland have.

The request is to create a three lot subdivision separating the former Elks lot property to create two new single family residential parcels. The parcel is zoned residential one, the occupant is 6B Holdings LLC, and this is on company staff. In your packets, you have a project narrative that has been provided. I'll be the submitted sub-event Subdivision plan to fix portions of asphalt to be removed to accommodate the bulk area open space requirement for all new parcels. In approval of this application, we'll create three tax parcels that are labeled as one, two, and three. All three parcels have an existing curb cut for access to and from Cumberland Avenue. And in my opinion, each of the three parcels meet bulk area control requirements established by the zoning code. And you have copies of This location is not in a disadvantaged community. I did not receive any departmental comments. I've recommended a type two action through Seeker. And in the staff report, we will see some staff comments. One, it is recommended that the planning board classify the subdivision as a minor subdivision. It is recommended that the planning board condition final approval upon the city chamber and confirming that the project parcels are not delinquent on any prior tax obligations to the city. Three, please clarify the special note on the plan regarding proposed easements on the parcels. And four, please use updated signature block on plan.

Thank you.

T. folks for that if you have anything else you'd like to add.

T. That's really it. We should do a good job giving a summary. The one thing I'll add is that we definitely had a T. evolution to determine the amount of asphalt that would be T. coupled with an 18,000 square foot construction on a single boundary line to accommodate the open space.

For both each lot?

Yes. Oh, the 2,000-square-foot structure essentially going up. Yes. Got it. No real challenge for you as to what that footprint is. It's just what's allowed, what we deal with.

Got it.

So there's no actual building plan yet. We're going to build the two lots. But that design will have to accommodate and decide. Got it.

Does that include for Lot 3 specifically, but I guess Lot 2 as well, that 2,000 square foot building, would that be before that pretty big slope?

Probably the end of the slope is actually the dot. So the viewshed remains low from the existing Mufflin property, instead of the two-story structure, the two-second story would actually be below the Mufflin viewshed.

Mufflin.

So basically, here you are without basing Mufflin. I don't honestly know that I'll be doing the plan and resolve, but yes, that's how we engage in conversation with the applicant. So that's the thought.

Okay. And that includes if the water was at the mean high water level? Yes.

The space is from the mean high water upland. We did not account, take into consideration the area between mean low water and mean high water. So all of our area

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Awesome. Thank you. HAB-Masyn Moyer- As in the spring. It's a little different.

Right.

HAB-Jacques Juilland, So no plans necessarily to develop at this time, but just forward-thinking, maybe depending on... Forward-thinking.

The reality is the existing health club building is substantial enough that the renovations are financially real enough that looking to accommodate your health bills and revenue, it's sure that you lost to take care of that.

Makes sense.

Thanks.

In the environmental impact form, on number nine, does the proposed action meet or exceed state energy code requirements? You have yes checked.

I would always check yes for any subdivision of land if it meets any energy requirement. Subdivision has no draw on energy, so that's what I answered it as.

Okay. And then can you tell us about the... remediation on number 20 has the site of the proposed action or an adjoining property been the subject of remediation ongoing or completed for hazardous waste?

I'll have to see if they give in Canada what those are and do some investigation to see because that's one of the questions I've automatically answered when I'm at EAF Mapper.

Oh, like when you put in the parcel number it fills in it for you?

I haven't recently done that. It just says yes. Yeah. I could do some investigation. I don't know if that has to do with Plattsburgh Bay, the dredging of, that would be my guess. Yeah. Actually, the clean up. Yeah. The proximity of that was that parcel to the mouth of the river. I'll be sure to have an answer for you. Okay. Yeah. in a fancy cup or just lands beneath the water probably 15 years ago.

That's a lot of parcels that have gotten cleaned up.

Basically, anything along that vein is going to come back.

Yeah, I'm just curious because if you're talking about Going into the slope side there and into those soils. And if there's been a remediation on that site, which maybe there hasn't, those soils may not be able to be disturbed.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. That would be my concern.

Yeah.

Yeah. Yeah. And then can you talk to us about the driveway? This is a shared driveway for the three lots.

Well, it does have their own access. But this plan is going to incorporate a shared address egress agreement for all three parcels so that everyone has the right to circular drives and the movements throughout the property. And we're going to coordinate more with the applicants as to how much that's going to extend to pedestrian movement. So it's going to be restricted to just vehicular on the drives. But that is part of the discussion. We have talked about that. The idea is that all three parcels will be able to be used to serve. Sure. Shares with the CBCs, you know, we'll coordinate. to lot three to access the lake, things like that. It was spelled out in that agreement.

Okay, but curb cuts for all three lots, is that right? There are three there. Okay.

Three curb cuts.

One, two, oh, three, yeah, okay. I guess my question is, how is this, delineate for me the difference between this driveway and a road? How is it not a road?

Only the three parties have the right to use it. Only the three lots have the right to use it. Okay. So it's not open to the public.

Okay.

It's actually gated.

Okay. At all three entrances?

I think it is now. I don't think it used to be, but it is now.

Okay.

Yeah, that might be just some coordination with the city in terms of, you know, the building department in terms of what are they going to consider that or not. Are they going to want to see it closed off or not? We've seen some other areas that are like that, but it's not usually used there.

It's usually kind of themed to a public life, shared grabways, and he's going to bring this to playing parties. And they'll already know what to do. That'll make it nice to meet them.

And Emily, we didn't have any utility concerns, right? Because we don't have any, we don't have any good at this time in terms of plans, nothing back from any of the departments.

Actually, we had an MLD comment, which did not make it for my presentation.

MLD came back and said,

We will need an electric right-of-way from Cumberland Ave to both new lots on the lakeside. Power will not come from the existing transformer. Separate fees need to be installed.

And then between lots two and three, I understand that the structures that may be built there are imaginary at this point, right? But the, you've got 15 foot setbacks on those side, side setbacks between lots two and three, but on the outside to the adjoining properties, they're 10 yard side setbacks. Why the difference?

So the requirement is 10 foot minimum, 25 foot total. Okay. So that's where you're getting the 25. The idea was to keep as much of an open view in the middle as possible for the lottery. Okay. Okay.

Oh, okay.

To be able to see the light.

And there's already between the neighbors, some fencing and some

even like a little encroachment of stone walls that's civil they're all aware of it and they are in communication and everyone's no one's challenged anyone to a duel yet it would be more exciting that way but you know if there's um

Other properties along this row that would have that have structures this close to the lake. It's okay. If you don't have stuff your head.

Top of my head actually just south of you. Um, Just south of this property, there was a children's and his own son saves probably that he built down on the mouth. And it's pretty similar.

Oh, yeah, that one's pretty good. Those ones are pretty close.

Not as I mean, with the slope on this property, nothing is as close. I mean. It's going like to here.

Yeah, is there a reason why you pushed it so far? Sorry, why Lot 1 goes so far back?

Yes, because there's so much pavement. The reality is there's such a substantial footprint of the building that I had to meet 50%, so the area of Lot 1 had to get bigger. The footprint of the building is so much larger.

Okay, that makes a lot of sense. Thank you.

Well, the other note I think we were discussing in the group meeting was about, you know, flagship lots, talking about, you know, long-standing driveways and wider, you know, sort of lots kind of in the back end from that and maybe any potential issues that might arise from any zoning code that can come up from those or not. Looking at the rest of the map fromumberland out and seeing a couple other sort of units that are already in that sort of situation for you there, so I don't know about my answer yes out of that.

That's the chip that are in our social that's that's the one that sort of that down here is Dr canner smoke and.

So I don't know that you're going to necessarily have as many issues with that as maybe we thought in the pre-meeting. Because there was some discussion about, you know, the zoning code itself. I'm not right angles versus what's allowed and not allowed. I've been there trying not to get you into a spot where we'd be okay. I'll have a subdivision that things can't be built on later. We don't want to be in that position. We don't want you all to get that.

We're not going to have a subdivision. Absolutely. We're going to have to pay it off soon.

I don't know if anybody else on the board has any questions. Yeah.

That makes me feel better about the journey of life situation.

Yeah. We were just looking at all 13 and 15.

It's often tough when it's like on properties actually and then how setbacks both controls are applied. I can tell you that the lake side, we held the rear setback because it was greater. So the rear setback is 30 feet, whereas the front yard setback, 25 feet. There's an argument to be made that that's an applicable body of water. That's the road frontage as much as the road itself is. So it should be within the 30 foot just to let it be known that they didn't want me to go closer. yeah yeah and the reality is is that that shoreline that you see that the 30 foot rear setback i don't see the house being built on that it's literally i think that 108 elevations where you'll see a base a little building uh I mean, yeah.

I mean, water is frequently at 103.

So. It's not frequently at 103. The base flood elevation is 102.8. So if it's above, if it's 103, it's FEMA's coming in.

Yeah, but which happens. I mean, we have that situation.

It's happened once.

Well, in the last hundred years, it's happened five times.

I don't think so. What is it? 95 is your average lake level? Average lake, I would say, is around 97.

Yeah, well, I think it's increasing, but we've had five of those in the last 100. But anyway, I don't need to argue the numbers of floods that we've had in the past 100 years.

We raised up the base flood elevation to 102.8, or is it 102.8? So, yeah, I question how many times it's done above 103, but if you've done some research and you feel like it's done it five times, then maybe so. But, yeah, I can tell you that two foot three board above that 102 would be whether an insurance company would want 104. It would be the bottom. So we're going to be eight feet above that, so.

Yeah, and this will maybe apply more when somebody comes in to build, because it is in the waterfront overlay. So there will be more strict requirements, especially for that zoning overlay.

I will tell you that this has progressed here because we have been waiting for a couple years on the zoning. So this is not a new application or it's a new application because we've been waiting on the zoning and I think we've been working on it for at least about four or five years now. So we lost hope in it getting accomplished at a time that matters, but we're here for you now. Because you wanted to wait until... We wanted to wait and make sure it would be accommodated in the subdivision relative to the zoning. The idea, the goal is to have a approved subdivision that is approved by right, approvable by right. Thanks. Yeah, great class.

Really thoughts or questions from the board. It was my best gym impression.

Stairs at all of us.

I think you just want to get out of here. I think so. It's nice.

It's a nice one.

Working on this project and this current thing we're looking at, you worked with the building. oh absolutely this is the first yeah yeah yeah that's what you were saying yeah okay probably the third one yes okay yeah yeah i just like yeah it just stinks i guess that there's so much pavement so i'm like it would be nice if you could just move it back a little bit.

I've even asked the applicants, is there any chance any portion of this would fit here in Obama's shirt? Yeah. Because they're less than the size, they need for the size of the ally and they really don't want.

Yeah. Sure. Yeah. It's not cheap to build right now, so I get it. I'm looking through my papers for resolution on here, unless anybody else has any other questions.

And am I right that as we approve the subdivision, we're approving property lines only, right? That setbacks are not part of that.

Well, the setbacks would have to be a part of it if you're approving the line.

That's true. Although there's some flexibility on how you get to 25. Right. So there's some movement there. Yeah.

I was just saying it would have been nice if the property line could have gone more towards Cumberland. Yeah. But there's not enough room. Big building.

It is a big building. Yeah.

yeah and it might just you know i mean 2 000 square feet is pretty big but might just limit what types of buildings can be put on lock two and lock three and maybe it maybe they're not huge you know yeah it might be more of a uh waterfront camp-esque thing And we'll see you guys again. This is just the sketch plan.

Unless you want to do it all tonight.

Because we didn't advertise it.

We have to host a public hearing tonight. Yes. Public hearing foul seeker. So resolution A is seeker and sketch approval saying that the applicant has completed the requirements for a minor subdivision review the board is stating that it's a minor subdivision and classifying as a type two seeker action and then a public hearing was advertised so we will have to hold a public hearing so yes i have to come back to you for detail right that's what we're saying is i think you would have to have a detailed the detailed also has no detail those stops detailed will not have a public hearing if we hold one tonight and it was advertised

All right, well, thanks for clearing that up. I do not have resolution 26-08A in front of me, unless someone else does. I've got 26-07A.

It's supposed to be. It's a typo.

Okay, that's all. Okay. Just making sure. I think it's just not in my packet. So if you guys want to, I'm going to leave this. There's nothing else that's left. Yeah. Emotion room. Um, any questions on any of the staff comments just before we use you on there. Um. The obligation. Special notes on the plan regarding the proposed easement. Of the parcels, I think that's what we were mentioning regarding the travel easements and any. Pedestrian easements for that and then I think that's it. So, okay. Any other funnels from the board? All right.

And I believe we're... Actually, Sartain, one more question. Do... And sorry, maybe this is just me not understanding how the process works, but do you have to... Do you guys have to remove the pavement before you sell the lot?

That's a good question. I would hope that that can be done in conjunction with the building application and the way to protect, the way the city can protect you. I'm sure if that happens, it will get you a CO for that. So I would hope it can be a part of the construction. I would hope we wouldn't condition that it be removed before the finalizing of the subdivision, or condition a certificate of occupancy or building permit. I understand it can end in conjunction with the physical act, not the Theoretical self-indition.

Yeah, I understand that from that perspective. It's like if you're going to have them remove everything now, you're locking them into this plan. Whereas if somebody comes in and they say, we're going to buy both parcels and we want to make something else on here, do something else, they'd still have some change.

Yeah. They say, you know what, we're going to get rid of that south entrance altogether. They've opened themselves up to some more open space. You just have to do one entrance. You know, they... I would hope we could use the building permits to condition them to make sure that protect the cities.

Okay. Is that something that, sorry for my ignorance on this, is that something that you would have to get our approval for or whoever removing the pavement? I'm just concerned about removing all of this pavement this close to the lake and not having a lot of proper erosion control.

Okay. Okay. Okay. get it ready and then wait for some construction. I would hope that the removal would be in conjunction with the family dwellings. And we could, you know, make sure that the media, you know, whether it's supplying the code office to the drawings that show that there's zoning requirements for that.

Yeah.

Use their building permit to control that. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Yeah, I just don't want a bunch of paper going into the lake.

I'd be a huge advantage to have that parking lot during construction. Right. That would make life easy. And then tear it up.

And in that way, Block 2 isn't beholden to the development of Block 3. You know, Block 2's can happen and then Block 3's can happen. They're not. They don't have to go to the same place. I think if you can vision it, the reality is they're very obvious to want to do it in Level 2. Yeah.

Okay. Turn it up twice instead of turning it up once. Yeah.

Okay. It's a good question.

We didn't ask it till the end.

Was there anything the board wanted me to get more clarification on from any city departments?

We talked about, I think the waterfront development, but that's already been discussed with the buildings department for this. I don't know.

What was the question?

Just I think we've already discussed regarding, you know, building close to the lake, building on the ledge, you know, building near to the high water line, all those kinds of issues.

So there, yeah, I mean, I have concerns about all of those things and others on this division. And I'm curious about, I hear you on the, because of the size of the structure, lot one has to be sized as it is. Like, I'm curious about the opportunity of getting variances to some of the other regulations so that lots two and three move together. move towards Cumberland Ave, right?

The applicant's specific desire to not... That might be a desire.

I would desire that also if I were the applicant.

It adds color to title. It's not necessary.

It adds, sorry.

It adds color, it adds something to the color of title. Meaning there's a restriction there that could affect the buyer, that affects marketability, whereas...

Well, I think you're already potentially in that space of impacting the viability of those two lots as you're so close to the water. And I think there are other, I mean, there was a project not far away that was terminated because of common loon habitat. the state identified so i think there are other issues that put that in danger and that just just getting that variance allows those lots to move slightly that might free them up i don't really have answers to that i don't either

Okay. Any comments? Anything else that the board might want to add to the resolution of the condition of approval or not approval of that motion?

Tom, do you want to copy?

No, that's all right. Got it here.

Are you waiting on us?

Yeah. If there's anything the board wanted to add to this before we go to our next step here.

Our next step is the seeker?

Yeah. A would be the seeker determination type two. And B would be under the vision of planning agent.

I do have something I want, or maybe I could request, is just maybe in writing that from the code officials that the flag-shaped lot is okay. I mean, it's in neighboring properties, but maybe just so that we have our bases covered.

Sounds to me.

Yeah, I mean, it's kind of all down that road, obviously.

Let me be quantitative to that with the no comment from the code office.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I think it's just like we just want it for precedence and not setting precedence.

Sometimes we don't know if a no comment is a no review. I can tell you that. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Yeah, yeah, yeah. It's not that we don't believe you.

When I put no response, that means they did not respond to me. When I put no comment, it means they specifically said no comment. Understood.

So no comment means they reviewed it. Yeah. Okay, cool.

Got it.

Thank you. Does that help?

Yeah, I'm... I think I'm good. I feel my questions were answered. Yeah, and I think that when somebody tries to develop a lot, we will have a lot to talk about. But I think for this, my questions are answered.

Any other thoughts from the board?

I don't know. I think my questions are answered.

All right. So then do you have a motion on resolution? Twenty six, twenty, twenty six. Oh, seven. Which would be okay.

Yes, I can. I think for seven, the last guy was over.

Because they started.

I think we were all six. Oh, we were all seven. I think it's just when it was started. I thought you were going to hit me on the agenda.

I haven't seen you come before seven.

So I would make an amendment. I don't know that amendment is, I would make an amendment to the short form environmental assessment form on specifically on 13 on page two of three. with the proposed action.

Number 13, bottom of page two of three.

So this is the, I mean, this is, I'm challenged here because I understand that we're just approving a subdivision and we're not approving structures and we don't have structures in front of us. But with the proposed action, it says physically alter or encroach into an existing wetland or water body. And I think the division as we are creating it allows the rear yard setback to encroach below the high water line and what is becoming more regular water line. No. Show me how not.

So your 30 foot setback is at 103, you know, 103 here.

Yeah. So that is not a wetland. Agreed.

So you're not approaching into the wetland for water body. Water body doesn't start until that mean high water. It's flooded if it's above that.

Well, flooded is still the lake, right? And so my fear here... So my fear is that potentially we're approving a subdivision that makes the lots potentially unbuildable in the way that they are currently configured because the setbacks allow building to that point. And I'm just curious if... If a variance just to move those forward, I have no issue with the principle of the three lots here, but if that actually just removes a large problem that we're going to have to deal with in the future.

I mean, the P&R has to deal with it. That will be the building department's going to deal with it and how that whatever the building plan is, that's how every property they get developed.

Well, that will come to us also, right? We'll need to approve a site plan, right?

For residents, there's no site plan approval for residents.

For this on, no? No. This will not come back?

No.

This is a single family home. Yeah, I don't think it's a historic district.

Even with water, we don't get any side?

Emily, I don't know if you can zoom in on this. Is your question where the lot line ends, like on the water side?

It's not where the lot line is. I understand where the lot line is, and we can't move that lot line, right? Because that's deeded. My issue is... We can make it.

We could even be opposed to conditioning that setback being 50 feet from the mean high water.

Well, now we're getting reasonable. That's fine.

No matter what we do, the design is going to have to accommodate. Yes. Totally agree.

So, you know,

If I want to build a 2,000 square foot 40 by 60, well, that's not going to work. It would do that. Right. It's a big geometry, but a lot where the shoreline is. Right. But I think it's certainly cool.

So I may have... Tom, your question is about where the... The property line is on the water side or on the driveway side. Well, we can't change that property line, right? Because that's deeded. That's where the property line of what is currently the Elks club sits north.

Yeah.

Yes. But the newly drawn property line to the west of right along the edge of the driveway, right. That's being newly created that has the ability to be adjusted.

Right.

And by shifting that property line.

That's right. It would require a variance. Okay. Okay.

Well, then my concern is that we're currently encroaching on the lake. Yeah.

Yeah. I don't know if it's easier for you to show us kind of where it is. I think what the disagreement is about is about, from understanding this, right, is it about where the line is on the eastern side, on the lake side, what's considered the edge of the property line?

So, no, not the property line, because that's deeded.

We can't, right, that's the setback. You're concerned where the structure is.

Yeah, yeah, what's up?

The actual structure is going to be located.

Yeah, so if you're willing to condition that this setback moves further up the slope, which I think is, if I heard you right, was what?

Yeah, well, I mean, I think that condition, we'll talk about it at the next meeting. I want to discuss with my bosses. Yeah.

Okay.

But I wouldn't, so it's at 30 now. There's plenty of room, and I'll have to discuss with the applicants, do they have an idea of a footprint of what they want to build? Because I can tell you, most buildings can fit from here to the top of the bank. We're utilizing the bank to have a walk-out basement and not a strut with a viewshed or a lot one. So we're using the bank, the idea is to not push that building close to the lake, but to push that building to the earth. So I don't think it's a problem. I don't know if we can go as far as conditioning it or, you know...

condition and it's a 40 foot setback or a 50 foot setback for low luck um something like that and for you you're essentially saying you don't want the high water line the medium the mean high water line is too low you're looking for it to be above the flood line yes yes yeah yeah yeah and and i think potentially we're in agreement yeah i hear what you're saying you

sign of law. You're covering the title owner in his rights based on the desire of where you want the building. He has the right to put the building within 30 feet of that title boundary setback. Whether he ends up paying flood insurance for it or not, that's the question. But it's not your purview or care.

Yeah, I don't know. I'm in agreement that I think that that could potentially put the city in a tough spot. Is that enforceable or not? If that makes sense.

Yeah. I think if we had a stronger waterfront overlay district. But I don't think our waterfront overlay district is strong enough. Listen, I... I agree with you. I agree. No, I understand. I agree with both of you. I think, right, it's the property owner's right to build. I don't like seeing houses super close to waterfronts because I just don't think it's, yeah, like ecologically and climate change wise. But as you said, there's also the possibility that lot three owner could apply for a front yard setback variance. Right.

And they don't want that. If they want it. Yeah.

No, I'm saying whoever.

No.

Whoever, whoever. Issuance of the building from there. If they chose could see if they've got granted a variance to move their setback so that they could build closer to that U driveway.

Or you can call that a side yard. So we called this side yard. And we moved it, you know, it's a 15 foot. So your 15 foot came up along the side to 15 foot from here. And then your only front yard is going to be on your flag. So the idea was you'd have a front, not a back. Probably like the front.

We've played with, I mean, people have encouraged us to play with those before and we've gotten pushed back against that. Yeah.

From the city?

Yeah.

From the codes?

Yeah. Just like you can call whichever side you want, the front and the back.

Yeah, but this is, I think that's the issue with having flag-shaped properties is like, what is the front? Yeah.

Interesting though, in this case, it's not a budding a road, it's a budding a driveway.

And so the, I don't know, but then we get the front up here. I mean, and the truth is, it's a bit more comfortable, but it might be. something that has to be communicated with the codes so they don't go out and push that out.

No, I think that, I'm not saying that we should do that. I'm saying that if lot three owner, whoever ends up buying this property, and they want to build on this lot, and they think they need more room, and they don't want to be on this slope, that's up to them to figure out. Yeah, because I agree. I think that this is really close to the lakefront.

Even in addition... building permits on the issuance of plot plans that shows the proposed building footprint. That way you're not going to be able to issue, it kind of helps the code office in that they're not going to be able to issue a building permit until they actually see a design plan and how that's going to be relative geometrically to setbacks, title boundaries, things like that.

But if I'm hearing it correctly, we won't see any of that.

No, it would be the code office. You could condition the subdivision on the code review of the thought plans based on the proposed development.

Yeah, I hear you.

Okay, but for tonight, for the sketch plan and the seeker, that's what we have to do tonight. Yes. Yes.

Okay. Tom?

We put it to a vote. Kurt, you had some conditions that you were looking to think about kind of within that.

Oh, yeah.

I mean, I think they're good conditions. I understand where you're coming from with them. My concern is it's defense ability in terms of, you know, set precedents and things like that. Does the city have the ability to say, you have to, you know, we're picking this line and not that line if the other line is more traditionally used in construction. So that's, you know, that's maybe just a different way of seeing things. But I mean, based on The no comments from the environmental services from building inspectors office doesn't sound bad concerns that these would be lots of could not be built on in some way, shape or form. And, you know, when this comes back before them if if there's something that would be out of alignment with the rules of the city, it would be flagged at that time when understanding And, you know, barring again the new zoning or any municipal water. The front zone that says this is where things have to be now. I don't know that I have a better answer.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Are any Corps of Engineers been involved in this at all? Not in subdivision, no.

If somebody messes with me and as there is a proposal for us to walk. So let's say, two or three, the developer of that side to make a shoreline and they will be able to have vacations on for DC, but there's no plan. I just heard the word.

This in a secret way talks about that was the case here. Well, into weather or water bodies. So the thought was really Would anyone like to make a motion?

I mean, we need to move, right?

What are we off?

The 26-07A. Or see her first, and then we would have 26 dash of seven be after that. And then you would have a public hearing public hearing in between those two or public hearing after the meeting.

Um, just a reminder, um, staff on it. Number 3 and 4 would be conditioned. so that they can be taken care of next meeting yes i'm sorry emily i missed what you just said staff comment three and four if the board conditions the approval on the sketch review tonight those two conditions will have to be met before detailed review okay

But I have to do the secret first for someone.

They're the same resolution.

Oh, okay. I will. Oh, thank you. Okay. That's why I didn't hear what you said because I was reading the second one, which said detailed plan review, and I was getting confused. All right. I will make a motion for resolution 2026-07A with two conditions being the staff comments number three and four. Any other conditions to add anybody?

Wait, your motion is on Seeker?

Seeker and the sketch plan review.

Got it. I didn't read the sketch plan review.

And then next time we'll do the detailed sketch plan review.

Yeah. Okay.

Do we have a second? Second.

Very thin again.

Yes. Yes.

Yes. Yes.

All right, then our next course of action here is to open the public here. Yeah, I'll never get back. Yeah. Thanks. Open the public here. Anybody online? And comments from the room. All right. We'll move to close the public hearing.

Who's the person that is online?

Terry.

Gotcha.

Okay. All right. Okay. I think that's all set then for this application. Yes, Emma? Okay. Thank you very much. Thank you. Appreciate it.

I'll keep emailing you.

Okay. All right. Thank you, guys. Thank you both. Have a great evening. And I'll push on the, and I'll do some, see if they can come up with a footprint that we can maybe show on there. I'll show it as a sketch. I won't show it on the subdivision plan because I don't want to do a footprint, but I'll try to add some geometries for a sketch just to show what. Thank you.

Okay.

Yeah.

Thank you. Thank you.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Even to like help visualize.

I don't know. No kidding.

That's the third thing about approving this is that once we approve it, then it is a no-tie.

She's a lawyer. Sure. Whether it be in the building design or

having a footprint that means they're a foundation behind the needs of my population, if they decide to set back.

Yeah.

I will also try to focus on when you pay any grants, because, you know, it's very stonky. Well, I... Sure. And I'm not on the zoning board, and so that variance doesn't come from us, and so... But I do think that a variance in order to...

in order to stay, in order to move further from the lake, is different than a variance to increase density or a variance to, you know, that's a fairly... They get sticky.

That is not an environment. We build over water. So we build over water. That's not an environment.

Just because it's allowed doesn't mean it's not an environmental issue.

But, you know. Yes. Yeah.

Yes.

Yeah.

No, no, no. Yeah. Yeah. I understand. I understand what the laws are. Yeah. I just... We just don't always... No, no, no, no, no. I know you're not. I just... I think Kurt and I just don't always agree with what...

HAB-Masyn Moyer- The regulation say.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Tomorrow. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Okay.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Thank you.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yeah, we do have any other business. No.

Okay. Do you have a motion to adjourn the meeting. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Motion seconded. Or all in favor. All in favor. Aye. Aye. Aye.