Planning Board - Regular Meeting

14 7 PM. Welcome everyone. Um, so first order of business is we're going to review and approve the minutes from March 14th. Did everyone get a chance to look at those? Any uh comments or additions or Well, okay. Good. So, without Did you want to do roll call? Uh, let me just do this motion, please. Okay. And so, um, I'd like to make a motion then that we, uh, review and that we accept the minutes from, uh, March 10th, May 26. Second from Sean. All in favor? I I Okay. Um and I I'm gonna do roll call now because I want to introduce Scott Matthews to everyone. So, okay. So, um David Creel here. Scott Matthews

here. Here first evening. Marcus Cassich here. Julia Weisenberg is here. Sarah Lewis here. Sean Davy here. Great.

Great. Thank you. All right. So, let me uh just introduce you to Scott. Okay. Um so, just have a few things written down here. Um so, um Scott has been living here full-time. Um he is a sailor, runner, and loves to walk his dog. Um and when he interviewed we were uh very impressed with his uh expression of looking to find a balance between uh preservation and development on Shelter Island. Um at the same time trying trying to promote uh the long-term uh environmental, social and economic health of Shelter Island. So uh that's his focus and his practice um in architecture has been focused on architectural lighting. So, he's done a lot of um consultations um with uh other architects and he's had some really big projects. I mean, he worked at the New School University in New York. He's done work at the US Air Force Academy. Very, very large lighting projects and consultations with others. Uh Bing Concert Hall from Stanford. I tried to pull a few that might resonate with some people. Um

the better ones. The better ones. Yeah. We've uh got the Museum of the United States Army. Um you worked on for the Marines, too. One of them. Yeah. And you worked on a big um terminal project in India. Yeah. Yeah. Two of them. Two. Yeah. And most recently the Davis Center which is part of the Central Park uh conservancy. Um so we look forward to working with you. I've never appeared before a planning board. All new.

And then the other thing I just want to also acknowledge it was in my email that I disseminated to everyone on the board. I think it's really important. Um, with people coming in, there's always someone to party. Um, so I just wanted to uh acknowledge the service that David Austin um gave on the planning board. As I said in my email, I I really respect the makeup of this board. I honored the the diversity of our intellect and our backgrounds and all the productivity that goes into this board. And David was someone who was always here, always prepared, and he had a neck for keeping us in check when we got off um on a tangent. Um so I just, you know, being in public service is not easy. So I just want to um acknowledge again the service that David Austin gave from February 2022 until this year, March of 2026.

And in that email, I also included again Matt Fox's email. If anyone didn't get a chance to reach out to Max uh to Matt and say um hi to him, we are a close-knit community. you got to see people in IG and at the beach and I think it's good to send send them some best wishes. So, um thank you again to Matt and um David for their service.

Fabulous job.

Good note. Good note, Sean. Okay. Um we are now going to look at the bills. In this case, we just have one uh from our attorney. Um, and if you took a look at the bills, it's from um March 2nd all the way uh the last entry was March 30th. Um, and uh, it's approximately 82% of the bill um was designated for wetlands review. That was the that was the bulk of his service. Um, and actually I did excuse both our attorney and our engineer this evening um, since the agenda was very light. Did everyone get a chance to look at the uh, bill from my own dealer? Any any issues there? Uh then I um ask for a motion to approve the bill um for $5,950.

Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Second. Second. Sean, but Greg had his hand up. Thank you. Okay. All in favor on that. I I Okay. Now, um did you all see the correspondence from um engineer Matthew Sherman in regards to WestNet Creek Cottage um subdivision? They were asking for an extension. Matt sent an email on someone's phone. Uh Matt sent an email. Me. Now we just need the saxophone and clarinet. And you play instrument. Oh, I um

All right. So, he sent us that correspondence on April 9th. Um and basically it's it's held up with the Suffach County uh Department of Health. Um and Matt did indicate that it's likely going to take another 6 months before. So, they asked for an extension. Um Rick Whan put that together for us. I believe everyone got a copy. So, we're going to based on the fact that it's out of the applicant's hands really dependent on the Suffach County uh Department of Health which is causing this delay. Um whereas the planning board finds that in the circumstances presented in Matthew Sherman's April 9th, 2026 letter, the applicant's failure to meet the conditions of the board's approval within the time specified is excusable and an extension of sketch sketch plan approval for an additional period of 6 months is appropriate. Now therefore, after due consideration, the planning board resolves uh will exercise its power pursuance to 11143 of the town code to grant the applicant a time extension of 6 months or until October 13, 2026, in which to meet the conditions set forth in the board's sketch plan approval, which was dated October 8th, 2024. Um can I get a motion to approve um this resolution, which is number three of 2026?

Motion to approve. Thank you, Marcus. Second, Sean. Second. All in favor? I I Okay. Uh, I need a motion to close the business meeting at 7:06. Motion to close. Thank you. Second. All in favor? All right. Um, last month by two minutes,

maybe. All right. Um, moving into our work agenda. Um, we have the Ratican latline adjustment. We did get those maps. We're waiting for them to be filed. I did sign them. Um, on our subdivision application, we extended um them for uh this was the Bloom subdivision and now they have until August 11th. I believe we did that either last meeting or two meetings ago. Uh we just did the Westnet Creek Cottage subdivision. We gave them an extension. Yep.

Ballard Trust uh still have they still have ample time and they're they're going to be working on their uh final application. They have until June 9th. Crescent Beach LLC likewise has until June 9th. Um the Row Minor Subdivision uh we we just still waiting on their uh sketch sketch plan revision. and the white performance bond. I took the liberty of being proactive I think like a week and a half ago and I reached out to uh Thomas uh Rick and the board and I just uh I mean you guys have access to that files anyway, but I put in all the old files from that um the bond and just to see if they they could wrap that up so that we can get it off the agenda. Um, the other thing I wanted to say is that, um, we turned in our site plan review legislation draft. Um, it was at last week's Tuesday, I think Tuesday town board meeting, and the town board determined that it should be sent back to the subcommittee. Um, so we're going to meet, I believe, not this coming week, but the week after. Shouldn't be in the subcommittee long. Maybe one or two meetings of maybe like two or three hours and that's it. and then um the town board will begin working on that. So, we have that on the agenda. And then we sent our wetlands draft back to the town board. I saw Rick send that over uh to uh Jessica and then to you folks. And then um I believe that's going to be put back to the subcommittee on wetlands. And same thing, maybe like one or two meetings at most it'll go back to town for.

Okay. Can you explain that process of once it goes to subcommittee? Does it ever come back here? It goes that's just between the subcommittee and the Yeah, that's yeah we sent I mean all their revisions that we do the subcommittee will look at it again um and the town town board had an opportunity to look at it already um I guess they felt with the attorney to send it back to the to the um subcommittee to see if there was anything because then in that case they have their original draft they'll see how we what improvements we made on if they have any objections contributions corrections I don't know we'll say um anything else you want to add to that or was on the subcommittee Yeah, for uh site plan review it was David from our I mean I was focused on the wetlands.

Oh, wetlands. Um it's Albert, myself, Reed. Uh who else was on it? You were you are you on it? Oh yes. Yes. Howard Johansson from CA. So I think it's a person but I can't remember. So is it typically two planning board members? One planning.

One planning board member. Um, for the site plan review, I had a conflict. So, I sent David Austin in my seed, but he since he's now resigned from the plan board, I'm going back on the site plan review. Oops. So, um, and also want to thank Sarah who went who was not present during the site plan review process, but she took some time um, today and went through it and, uh, sent me some comments. So, I really appreciate that and I'll definitely bring that up with the subcommittee. Great. Is there a hopeful like would you get ideally get those through by September through the town board by end of September? Like you have any any sense of where I would think that would be the latest they would go through

because it should only take one or two meetings in the sub meeting that should go back to the town board and then town board should set up for a public hearing and depending on over the summer. Yeah. If we don't show up we deserve to be shot. Yeah. And then it's enacted. Mhm. So Scott, you have to learn two codes. Sure. One for the next three months and then the new one. Yeah. Um anything else on on that? No, that's it. It's going to be a very short meeting. Okay.

Um so if we don't have anything else, Jessica Oh, you know what I do want to say though? Um, I probably should acknowledge that um, we did have we did have a piece of correspondence um, we had a piece of correspondence um, which came in on April 9th and it was um, from Diane Diane Penes from two co I may have mispronounced her name. she's listening to Cobitz Lane and it was an objection to the um uh the uh Sylvester Manor site plan review which was had had already closed and I believe we weren't the only board that received that email that went out town board and other committees. Um so you did see it. We can't really comment on it but uh you know

it was closed. It was closed by the time the email came in. So that was the only other thing that we received. Yeah, we've been able to clarify that. Um, she thought that there was going to be parking put in that area where they were pulling all the invasives and there's no parking going in there. They were just clearing invasives. Where does it go? Just out of cur. It's down by the manor house. There's Yeah, there was none indicated on the site plans and there's none planned for the future up there. That's great. They were just pulling in bases. There's pile all kinds of stuff up there. Yeah. So, they were cleaning it up. I thought she was talking about the lot proposed at Second Bridge. which is at the head of the trails,

right? Yeah. That's the one that's immediately adjacent to her property. And we spoke to the manor and they're not putting any parking in there that they were just clearing out the invasion. That was cleared a while ago cuz it was literally right next to her driveway. Mhm. Right. If it were to be there, it was right. It was for four cars. Understandable. She might have assumed that. But that's not insubstantial, right? I I mean someone could build 6,000 foot houses. The good thing is there's parking spaces. If it was residential, it wouldn't be regulated. So anyway, Scott, don't worry. It's it's the the record was closed on that once.

Yeah. Well, I I I read the letter and I couldn't figure out where the parking would be that she would complain about, you know, because Yeah. But anyway, so it's all sorted out. All right. So um would someone like to make a motion then to close the meeting at I do have one question before you okay and and uh Crescent are pretty or major applications so we're reviewing it at the June meeting that uh unless they come and ask for more time for they'd have to have a valid reason. So the question how much time do we get to look at their application before the meeting?

I was going to say uh we actually have correspondence from like two months ago. Ballard has already asked that they likely are going to be asking for an extension in June, but Rick felt it was we didn't have to do that until we get closer to June. So, I would imagine Crescent will as well if we haven't heard from them, but but are they obligated to give us a submission prior to the hearing? No, they can they can just ask for an extension which is Crescent. Crescent. Um that's serpentine 11 serpentine with a steep slope going down. Yeah. What's supposed to go on there house? Yeah.

But when I when we had our new members come in I that was one of the first readings was to make sure that's why I had mentioned you to brush up on those two big applications and Sarah knows as well. So um so that you might want to use your time wisely. is your I thought your question and maybe I was wrong was are they required to get it to us say 30 days before the meeting so you have time to review it I think I'll take two days I mean yeah I don't think that that was what it understand that that was the question Julia yes you did okay

um I don't know the this app um Bennett typically gets us the has always gotten us the material prior to the main I don't I've never seen come in like at the last minute, especially this one. I I assume he's going to be sending it out. Yeah, but there's no statutory requirement. I don't think so. I mean I mean it's usually before the meeting, so we have to have it before the meeting, right? Did you want to ask anything else? All right. Um David, you were going to make the motion before you asked that you that we close the meeting. Yes, you were. You said you said first I'd like to ask a question and then you asked a question. There was a second. Now you can go. Motion to close the meeting. Okay. Can I second? Second.

All right. Thanks. All in favor? I thank you everyone. 714.