Planning Board - Regular Meeting

open the meeting and I'm gonna take roll call. David Ferel here. Scott Matthews here. Marcus Cassie here. Julie Weisenberg is here. Sarah Lewis here. Sean Davyy here. And Greg Cranford is excusing it but he is on Zoom with us. Greg, yes, I'm here but my video has stopped. Okay. First thing we're going to do is review and approve the minutes from our last meeting which was April 14th. Uh Jessica disseminated those. Did everyone get a chance to look at as acceptable to everybody? All right. So, um, motion to approve. Thank you. Second. Second. Second. David Creel. All in favor of them. I.

Okay. We have a couple bills. Um, just two actually. Um, from our attorney. Um, and those dealt mostly with the extension resolutions. We had two last time. Um and so the amount of our invoice from um Whan Filer is $48. So what I would ask for a motion to approve um their bill at $48. A motion to approve Marcus. Thank you. Second, Sean. All in favor? I. Now our second one. Um Oh, that's a good reason. That's your name plate. So

from academy printing because we have a new planning board member um Scott Matthews who is here again. Congratulations and the amount spelled it right. Two T's. They got two T's. Yeah. It was worth the $4946 all just Oh, it's for mine, too. Oh, Sarah said. Oh, I thought you had four though. No. Oh, okay. So, it was both time. I thought it was just yours. It's a deal for $49. Okay. So, that's even better. So the the other meeting didn't have one out. Okay. Excellent. All right. So then I'll ask again for a motion to approve the 4946. Motion approved. Sean. Thank you. Second. David Creel. All in favor? I I Okay.

Um All right. So we do have to do an extension for the um Trudy Fowler Trust subdivision. Um, I just want to note that um, Carl submitted their their attorney, pardon, uh, submitted a formal request to us on April 27th and he asked for a six sixmonth extension and that was basically because they're still waiting for Suffach County Health Department services to approve that. This generally takes that long. Um, so this would be extension number four uh, two of 2026. Yeah. And I ran the time from June. Yes, they asked earlier. They asked a little bit earlier. So, we're asking right to six months from next month. Really?

Yeah. All right.

Um, so whereas the reason for the time extension request is that the applicant is engaged in review of the preliminary plat by the Suffach County Department of Health Services such that an additional 6 months is necessary for the applicant to file its final subdivision applications and therefore be it resolved. The planning board hereby grants the applicant a six-month extension of time to run from June 9th, 2026, which is the date on which the approval of the applicant's preliminary plat is scheduled to expire until December 9th, 2026, in which to file an application for final subdivision approval. And be it further resolved that other than as expressly set forth herein, this resolution shall not alter the preliminary subdivision approval granted to this plat on December 9th, 2025. Um, so I'll need a motion to approve this resolution for 2026.

Motion approved. Sean, thank you. Second, Sarah. Second. All in favor then? I Okay, the resolution pass. All right. Um I'm gonna we're going to ask for a motion now to close the business meeting at 7:04. Someone move to close. Okay. Thank you. Second from Sean. All in favor?

I All right. Um going into our work agenda. Um I have an some exciting news. I know we this has been on um our lot line modification. Um probably Marcus and I are the original members that dealt with this one. Right. So Ratican uh the Rick Ratigan lot line um adjustment. Um I just want to give you some history on this. We actually passed this back in June 11th of 2024. It was resolution number 20. And um I signed it on March 10th, 2026. Um Matt Sherman uh just verified the water and um sewage systems. Uh that was on February 10th, 2026. And finally, it was filed with Suffach County Miscellaneous Maps um as of March 26, 20 uh March 26 of 26. So this application is done and so we can finally take it off um our agenda. And congratulations to Rick Ratigan,

the applicant. This has been on for a long time, but two years and going, but it is now passed. So, um, and filed. Um, so that's great news. Um, so I'm moving on to our subdivision applications. Uh, the Bloom Miner subdivision, um, for those who are new, Scott. Okay. So, they already asked for an extension, and we did that, I think, two meetings ago. Uh, Westneck Creek Cottage subdivision, we just did that as well. Um, not sure if you were here for that one, Scott, but that was, I think, the last meeting. Um, and we just did tonight the Fowler Trust major subdivision. They asked for an extension. So, we we just did that. And as Rich has pointed out, they actually asked for it in advance. They it was going to expire on June 9th. So, that's they're just being proactive in getting that in. Um, Crescent Beach Minor Subdivision. Um, they are still within uh their deadline. Um, we actually received some correspondence, so we know that some work is being done on that on that final application. Um, we had some correspondence um from Mike.

They I got contacted by John Bennett. He wants to talk about something I guess to resolve the litigation over the uh the house that the town board had denied on the waterfront lot, right? What a I don't know exactly understand strategically. So, I'm supposed to talk with Thomas Crouch about that tomorrow. Okay. So, I wasn't on that that this correspondence came to you. you follow me directly. Okay. Um, so I was not privy to that, but that's good. Okay. Um, and actually that uh that contention over the prop the the dwelling would be out of the planning. That's beyond the planning board. That's the other case. Okay.

I don't know where it's felling. I just I'm just letting you know we contacted me. Okay. And so Thomas is the town attorney. So well that would make sense because we also received correspondence from um intracience. that that was the question about the fees. Um because it looks like they're getting ready to put in their final application. So um I saw some movement on the horizon for that just for the planning board members so you know that that's coming in. Um right. Okay. Um the road minor subdivision, we're just we're still waiting um for them to revise their sketch plan. What's the date on that? There's no date.

Well, it's a sketch plan. So it's we're going to come back. I think I think Matt had I think Matt had wrote, right? Um, and the Robera minor subdivision. We could talk about that now. Um, so and I great I see Matt Sherman's online. So I'm uh Matt, I'm just going to bring the the planning board together on this a little bit and then I'll let you address some, you know, give us a summary and all that. Um, so let me move to my Okay. So first thing I just want to make sure that there was a lot of things coming through the inbox. cuz I wanted to make sure that everybody um got everything in in regards to Rober. Uh and Greg, you're on Zoom. I'm not going to forget you. So, you have you have maps, you have the um access to the old documents. So, just to refresh those of you who are new, I believe Marcus and I might be the original members from that. The older application came through in 2021.

Welcome back to the

Yeah. Um and at that time the engineer was Joe from actually from Rick's firm. Um they had some concerns about the right of way and as far as my understanding that Matt will you know go over this um they pulled the application um to work on that aspect of it and now they have come back they've submitted some verifications um in their opinion that um substantiate the use of that 50oot right ofway uh which is coming off a cartrite. And what they're looking to do is take this approximate um 13 acre parcel. Um I had to highlight this all in different colors. I don't know if you gentlemen, but I could barely make this out without color. So uh they're basically putting the line right down the middle in a sense. Um just be aware that there is the wetland um which extends into um both parcels and that part of it is I think about 7 acres and across there is it's a the property is owned by town of Shelter Island. Um so there's some things going on there. The other thing is that I shared with you some correspondence with from Reed Karen, our building inspector, that they have proceeded to build, they got a permit to build a onebedroom accessory dwelling unit. Um, it's very large. It's I think 26 generous bedroom.

It's a Yeah, it's a generous onebedroom with some unfinished space. And I guess um in the correspondence it uh you can assume that I guess they're hedging their bets that will approve the subdivision and then they'll have a dwelling. But is it looks from the map purpose it looks like the dwelling is already up on a lot that technically hasn't been subdivided yet. But um well they could do that,

right? But so I'm just making you aware that that is there and if you noticed it on the GIS that's why you know you would see it. Um, and the other thing is that, um, this narrow, uh, strip coming off of Ram Island Road is another issue that I think Rick will talk with us about, Rick Wesnoffski, because that is less than 20 ft. So, according to our code, if if they choose to use that to get to the property, they will have to get um a variance because it's substandard according to code. Um, and I think that's all I'm going to turn Matt. I'm sure the planning board members have questions for you and hopefully you can, you know, fill this out for us a little bit.

Yeah, absolutely. I'm more than willing to go over the project or just answer questions as you've got them. Whatever works for you guys.

Questions? Anyone? Um, Matt, can you because the way the easement is written, it's based on names and those names no longer have validity with the current tax map. Uh, I actually went back today and looked at the 1981 tax map, which has a lot of numbers, but no names as well. So, that didn't really help me. But, interestingly, in 1981, it still showed that easement. Yeah. Even in the rightway, 50 foot wire rideway. Yeah. Yeah. Which was 2 years before the easement application here. So 1983 the original uh

the the attachment was from 83 83 but it shows in ' 81 on the tax map. That's possible because the Walther subdivision from 1983 is written as though the right of way was already in existence. Right. which by the tax map it was. Yeah. The question is who does the rightway serve? That's what I can't figure out from this document. $54,000 question. So Matt, I guess that's your question.

Yeah. No, that's that's a fair question. And actually that's what caused us to pause this whole thing a couple of years ago was we were trying to figure out who had rights to where and and Dave the the the point that you just brought up was kind of what we were struggling with cuz it's you know things are now being referred to differently. Um so you know trying to kind of reverse engineer which sites which properties had access which ones did not that kind of thing. It it it became kind of a uh a difficult task. So what we did was we had Pattywigley um we gave her all of the title work. Um she worked with a piconic abstract, put together the title work and then came up with her opinion from uh December of last year which we provided to the board um detailing you know that yes, she felt that after reviewing all the documentation that this property does have access to that right away and in her opinion she details why and how. And then she's got a a number of different exhibits that are attached to that opinion to help support how she got there. Um, and it does goes back to the Walter subdivision as well as some previous work that had done that or or or um access easements and whatnot that had occurred prior to that. Um, but really her focus was not necessarily unraveling the entire history of everything, but just verifying that regardless of how we got from, you know, the original settlers on the island to 20C Ram Island Road having access to that 50-foot rightaway, the road that this property does have access to that rightway. Um, there are some other questions as well with regards to the meats and bounds of some portions of the rightway that are not contiguous to our property. And I believe those have been satisfied as well. But really, that's up to the t the board's um uh uh engineer and um and

attorney as to whether or not they're satisfied with that information and what what Patty Quigley had put together. Okay. So, before we go too far, Yeah.

I've read what was submitted by Patricia Quickley. It does not establish that this property has the right to use the right way. She provided a copy of the deed from I think 1986 or 1988 which is to the center lot of the three Walther lots. Lot two has nothing to do with this property. They have not established that they have the right to use that rightway. I mean you do title work. You go back to the original find the original document that created the rightway and see who created it and for whose benefit. Mind you, the right ofway not only serves or appears to serve the three lots in the Walther subdivision, but if you look at your map, there's a lot at the end of that rightway in the lefth hand side that says now we're formerly owned by Rutage.

They're using it. You can see from the map they have a driveway going there. For all I know, the rightway is to serve the Rutage property. Yeah, they're certainly using it because there's cars there.

This is not something that comes down to the pendant. You're either going to find you should be able to find out through the title research whether or not that rightway serves this property. And by the way, if it doesn't, you would be purporting to give access to the developer's lot over someone else's property that they don't have the right to cross. I assume those people would not be very happy about that. So, right now, the materials that are submitted do not establish that the Roar property has the right to use that right away. I'm not saying that they don't. I'm saying what's been submitted does not show that they have that right.

Matt, have they made any attempts to inquire about getting a clearer right of way in that as of yet? No, because up until this moment, I was under the impression that it was established that they did have a so there was no reason to go down that that road. But I can check with uh Quigley and see where my misunderstanding is uh is coming from.

And question that I can't answer and I don't know who's the answer is if that was in turn established either because you got new permission or that we found some reason that it was a reasonable right of way. What is the reasonable then means of access from that point to the house like right is there cuz it doesn't seem like they use that now to get to the house. So if that right of way is fire prevention and whatever if it's all an incredibly wooded lot in there what does that get us for being able to access and prevent fire or you know whatever?

Yeah. If we do have access through that right ofway, and let's for the moment assume that we do. Um, if we have access to it from that southerntherly property line where the right of way is adjacent to the the subdivision property, we would end up preparing a driveway up to clear something. Yeah. Yeah. Up to the existing dwelling because right now the existing dwelling on site goes through the north to uh Ram Island Road. Yep.

Um and that that section would then be that Ram Island Road access would be the access to the property that's to the uh um to the south and west. So lot uh we call it lot two on the subdivision map that would be getting access off of Ram Island Road and lot one on the map would be getting access off of Cartwright Road. That was going to be my next question. Like if you were let's just say you were going to get this right of way. It doesn't it didn't really benefit lot two. Lot two which is still still isn't wide enough. So you're assuming you have to go to ZBA and address that. Is that

Well, I think it's a pre-existing flag lot. So I don't know why. Yeah. That that was never brought up with the first the first round of discussions of this when before we got to the rightway off of Cartright Road. it was never brought up that the uh that existing flag to um Ram Island Road would have been an issue at all.

So, let me just say the codes, the subdivision regulations say chapter 111 says that a flag lot of flag lot has to be at least 20 ft in width. The one thing I didn't actually think about when I was reading that is it is your current access and the sole current access to the property.

So, um I guess I'll have to look at it with that in mind. You know, in other words, obviously you're creating two lots where there's currently one lot, but the access and its width is a pre-existing situation. So I should probably examine it in light of you know whether they can simply say and as to you know the whatever lot will have access to Ram Island Road you know can they simply say well you already have that's our access right now.

So so the fact that it's under 20 would be superseded by existing conditions. So, first of all, of course, if you don't subdivide the property, that's what you can use that access, right? Um, are you creating a flag lot when you do a subdivision? I mean, it's a the lot is a flag lot the way your code defines it. That's what it looks like. Um, but it does exist. So, um, I'll have I'll go back and look at chapter 111 and that again. And how are you going to get I mean, how are you going to get down there if it's that narrow? I mean, in terms of like right now, it serves more than just this property. It's serving the adjacent to at least one of the adjacent lots. It looks like

the Dixon. I guess Dixon. I haven't I clearly haven't gone there, Matt. And it says it's asphalt. Is that a pretty clear, you know, what is the width? Did we say it's 15? 16. 16. 16. It's pretty clear, you know, stretch. The roadway is a little bit less. You know, the the the width of that parcel, that section, that flag portion of the parcel is just under 16 1/2 ft. The roadway is a little bit less than that. So, 13 ballpark, 14. Um, there's there's a row of trees along one side, which for heavy equipment, that reduces the effective width, right? It's certainly possible. That's one thing you could ask them to create a clearer stretch.

What other lots are served on that driveway besides low? Um there's two at the end that are adjacent to the current house. Um and I think that the other one comes off of Ram Island Road. So I believe there's only two others that are houses on them because I can't tell. They have they have houses.

Yeah. Yeah. The two of them both have houses. Yeah. Well and septic on both and um and small houses on both. Yep. So you do have I mean it's a clear roadway driveway, you know, glorified driveway if you will coming in there and then once it gets into the subject property, the driveway then turns into a stone driveway, gravel driveway that goes off to the existing house and they'll, you know, they'll put in a new driveway. Same thing, a gravel driveway going down to the um uh any proposed construction that ends up happening. I don't know. So Rick, can you check on that please about, you know, lack of frontage and existing or I don't know.

This is always a concern with fire though. I mean, this has come up a lot about not having flags like this with, you know. Um, Matt, are you going to talk to Patricia Quley about doing any further title work? No, she shut down her local office as far as I'm aware. Um so uh we'll have to go into a different direction.

I think given the fact that the access driveway functions, you know, as a driveway now, except for the interpretation of the flag lot and whether you need another flag using the rightway, which would be disturbing in terms of the landscape and cutting trees down to make It makes sense to continue the use of the existing driveway for the two lots and cons I mean just like at where we had them condense two houses into a single driveway to protect the the green space. Yeah. Now note that they will if they don't have right rightway

they're going to have to extend this right

that lot one does not have any road frontage so they would need relief of some sort I'm not sure whether it's a waiver from the planning board regulations or a variance another two separate questions one is do they need a variance for the 16 foot wide flag again the flag exists so I have to look at that But even if they did not because the flag with an existing flag strip right now, if they can't go out to Cartride Road, lot two is going to need, sorry, lot one is going to need some sort of relief because it doesn't, you know, it doesn't have frontage on any road. Uh although it has physical access, right? It's got a driving. Well, neither

neither has any. It never had frontage. Well, right now it's all one property, remember? one property, but neither of those properties have frontage on on Ram except they have they have frontage on Ram Island. This flagship strip exists. That counts. I would be saying that one and two are sharing the flag. Well, look at look at the proposed lot. Lot two. If you look at the B the property lines on lot two, none of them touch a road. Right. Right. Right. Lot ones, but the the original No, they're landlocked. They're totally except for right now is landlocked physically. It's does not touch a public roadway,

right? The flag. The flag would be connected with lot two. Is it what what if you extended the flag to reach the you could draw the subdivision line so that you know one other words unless you create two 8ft wide flag strips the flag strip will physically be appended to one lot or the other. But isn't it already serving three lots? Yeah, it is. Yeah, just with this respect, I'm not speaking to the ultimate question of whether or not they get the relief. I'm just figuring out procedurally they're going to need some kind of relief.

Yeah, the access from cartrid seems like you shouldn't that shouldn't really be the focus. It should be how can we get comfortable with the ram island and the access from there and is there modifications to it or um you know given the grandfathering that it already exists the land how can we get comfortable that it then serves two pieces of property because if they have to go through the rightway off a car right they're also going to have to clear a whole bunch of stuff yeah they're going to have to like start clearing things and do whatever which is potentially disturbing urbing. So, it's um that doesn't seem particularly efficient, but

but you've got to be able to get to lot one. Well, that would be a matter of extending the flag then. I mean, uh that's not what Rick That's not what you're saying. You're saying Well, they have to get some kind of relief. Part two doesn't have the flag. Yeah. I guess well then they're sharing the same flag they would both have. But the flag flag strip is only part of one lot or the other. I mean yes they'd be sharing the driveway within the flagship as it exists. Yeah. So the question is can you whether a lot has frontage the flagship provides frontage on Ram Island Road but the flagship is is property that you own in fee. It's deed to one lot or the other.

It can only be attached to one. Only attached to one of two lots. Yeah. But then what's it attached to now? Well, right now the property is not subdivided on the map in front of you. It's part of lot two. Well, why isn't it part of the It could be reformed or before lot two would have existed. It it actually belongs to lot one cuz that was the house. That was the original house. Yeah. Original house that was the the full property, right? Furthermore, Dixon and Richland Mhm. use the same access. Yes. So, one question is who owns the actual flag? I mean, who does?

Okay. So, he owns it. Whether or not he subdivided or not, it's part of the over. But who owns the strip of land that creates the access point? Who owns the strip of land? Roberto does. Yeah. Ro piece right here. They're So, they actually have a right of way. Is it a right of way or do they own like right away is an easement? Okay. Yeah. We have a flag strip that's part of your property. That's not an easement. That's strip of land that you own. And so right now Rober they have this very oddly shaped lot. Is there is there a See there was like they own that access point to Ram Island Road. They they own

and they give a right of way to the other people. So the other people have obviously reverse. Yeah. They must all have Sean. It's what they're trying to do over here in reverse. Like Walther owned that and they're they're trying I don't Matt did you ever get into the history of George Fox Lane and when it was created and for whose benefit? Uh no we didn't go into that at all. The question wasn't asked. We can we can certainly look into it. The name of the easement. It's called George Fox Lane. Yeah. George Fox Lane is the one that so we can certainly look into that and provide that information to the board if that helps shed a little bit of light on it. to use quite

so I assume that Dixon and Richland are pre-existing conditions that predated the whole code basically and everybody's been using what's now called George Fox Lane for 100 years or so whenever however however and it looks as if Rober is claiming ownership Y of George Fox Lane. Correct. This document which was just prepared. Yes. Yeah. Yes. So this is this is Robera's proposal that I own George Fox Lane

and I want to use that for my two and I want you guys to approve access to what may be an existing rightway for lot one. Right. If if we choose to try to get comfortable with George Fox Lane serving both lot one and lot two and not the right of way from Cartwright you're saying technically it's assigned to one property what what would need to be done in order to be able to say it is already giving a right of way to other properties just not right that come in from that

here's what I think. How what would we need to say or be comfortable with to say we'll allow them to access both lots from that same I think it's a ZBA question because technically in a minor subdivision only 50% of the lots can be flagged but a flag lot is defined as a lot with a strip belonging to it that goes to a road lot one doesn't have a flag on it it's landlocked

so what you so technically is not a flag lamp. Although you are correct. The code for reasons I do not understand. By the way, I think it's just a stupid rule. The code says you can't have more than 50% of your lots in in a subdivision be flag lots, which effectively means you could have a two lot subdivision with one lot right on the road and one lot is a flagship. If you had a narrow enough property, you want to have a third lot behind it. You can't do that by flag. It doesn't make any sense. Here's what I think would have to happen. First of all, I have to determine whether or not you can use it at all. The flag lot in a subdivision without a variance. I got to go back and reread the code with thinking in mind that the flag's already there. Lot one as currently proposed does not have physical frontage on the road. So, they will need a lot frontage variance from the zoning board. They don't have any width, but they don't have any frontage. So, they need a lot of frontage variance. And by the way, all this stuff can be done. What you would then do is you would grant an easement over the flagship and over the continuation of the driveway

to get to lot one. So they should also show an access easement over lot two to serve lot one. Okay. If they were to use existing current driveway. Yeah. That almost seems like that seems like the reasonable focus to see if we can make that work.

We we we drop the old cartrite Walther concept. Something we could also do, and just spitballing here obviously, is change the lot line, the lot layout. So the access going out to George Fox Lane out to Ram Island Road is now part of lot one. And you're going to have 150 ft or so of lot two that's going to be adjacent to it. and then give it an access lot two an access uh easement across that George Fox Lane to get out to uh South get out to Ram Island Road. You you could do it either way. Either way. Yeah, either way it works. We can make it work. Yeah.

Can Can I ask a quick question? I'm sorry, Greg. Say it again. Can I Can I just ask a quick question? Um, does this mean that any further subdivision would be precluded on either lot one or lot two because of the access? That's in my notes, but since we haven't even gotten to the question of the getting access to these lots, I was going to hold off on that. I wasn't even going to bring it up yet. this way.

Unless you do something in addition, there's nothing that would prohib well I won't say nothing because they would need further variances. That's a taxis issue. But um the lots are in an A zone, a 40,000t zone. If you don't restrict them in some way in the course of the subdivision, the potential would continue to exist that someone could come in the future and try to further divide either of the two lines. If we are how, whatever word you want to use, generous in considering the access to Ram Island Road to make it work and making exceptions, I believe that would be a reasonable restriction that there are no further subdivisions because of the access issues.

Wait, I'm sorry. This is in this you guys said this this is in zone C. Oh, sorry. Sorry. Sorry. Okay. Make sure my face. It's zone C. Yes. Sorry. Okay. Zone C. I forgot we zone C. Yes. C. Okay. Um, if we ever got that far though, that's something that we could impose a restriction on further subdivision. I also have questions about this wetland, but I think first we have to solve this issue with the the I think the house is like 700 ft from the wetlands or 300 ft. I measured. I don't remember off but it was oneish but two no this one was was no it's the the ADU is but yeah I think 200 ft something like that

yeah you can see it if if you're more if you look at the 100 foot looks pretty let's say it's 30 yeah one in equals six usually it's under 100 right what no from the line I mean over from the green line to the house is probably 250 ft. Yeah, it's right at 200 feet to the closest corner of the uh of the house to the to the wetlands. Yeah, 200 feet. So, just about twice the requirement. Yeah.

Yeah. Okay, I see it. Um Rick, did you want the other Rick Rick Wesnovski, did you want to add anything? No, but I just found something in our old file about a um a right of way um that describes the right of way over this property, I believe. Yeah. But was it two? This was I guess this was in in your file. Yeah, this was in our file that we had. So this 2022 um letter. Yeah, we have it right from Ponic uh abstract. I have not seen this before. From which which uh right away it's talking about the 50 footway

it says we have in our opinion agreed that the above premises of the right over said 50oot right ofway to court right road along with the 16ft access to ram island road premises not bad it's not bad luck it's got 16 ft of frontage on ram island road um so I would there's some supporting documentation with it from 197 78. So, we'll have to take a look at that. Okay. Is that something that you have, Matt, or or do we just have this maybe? No, we had supplied that initially and the uh planning board's attorney at the time wanted something with a little bit more uh um legal muscle. So, that's why we went to Quigley.

Yeah. In other words, if I take this at face value, I'm not going to take some company's opinion that they were right. Right. Right. Where is the deed or There is something attached, but I haven't done it yet. So, so could couldn't um I'm like Patty Quigley wouldn't have just gone through a deep title search like she just said it's my opinion but you got to give me the background for what's your opinion based on. Yeah. Okay.

No right ofway was created. So there should be an instrument created. That instrument should tell us who the right of way was created to benefit. And somewhere it should probably mention the original owners of this or you know the person who owned that properth you know like for example the deed that was attached to Quley's letter had a meets and bounds and I read the meets and bounds and it was for the middle lot on that um Walther Walther something to do with the subject property. Yeah. And I'm um on that letter from Quigley there was a number of attachments to it. I just want to make sure that you guys all got all the attachments with the letter.

Yeah. Um and I, you know, Matt and I did read them. None of them provided necessary backup. So the the just one more I mean the the one on on exhibit C. I I just was looking closely at it and I noticed that it was a survey for Stacy and Glenn Hill. It it had nothing. It like I guess you just took that she took that as more evidence using a survey from somebody else, another owner where it happened to mention the right way on their survey. That's I looked down. I'm like that's somebody totally different. Okay. One of the minor ways it

Well, that's what I was saying. It looked like deeds from other people or surveys from other people. Sorry. you. So, um, Matt, I think there were three exhibits A, B, and C on on on that letter. So, I think I think we have it, right? You guys Yeah, you got it. If you got all three of them, that's good. Yeah. Yeah. Three three exhibits. Okay. And we

in it. I know. And I I won't belabor the point since you've got it, but just to mention it is it does show that that last survey and see and then um in the previous exhibit uh was it A or B? Let's see. Um, I'm scrolling through exhibit A and it goes through the deeds and then it goes through the map showing the three lots that um had been mentioned earlier going terminating at Rutledge but at the edge of Rut at after Rutledge to what I believe was Nicholan at the time which is now the property that we're Yeah.

All right. So Rick Whan, I mean, you're going to go back and look at this again. And Matt, are are you going to see if you can get another attorney to Yeah. Yeah. Absolutely. Title. Yeah. Okay. And I think until we do that, I I would hold off on any other discussion of other I agree. Whatever he's discussing or whatever the application. Yeah. Yeah. All right. Matt, is that okay or good? No. Yeah, that's perfect. Hey, we're we're we're making progress again. So, that's great. Um, you know, not necessarily I would have liked to have these these questions answered already, but hey, now now we know what they are, so we can go after them. Okay, thank you.

Great. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Thank you. This up.

Okay.

All right. Next on our agenda is we have site plan review for Suffach County Water Authority. And again, we're we are advisory on this. Um I attended the preliminary conference with uh our town engineer Joe Fura and Bri Karen and um town board member and uh Howard Johansson from CAC was there. And I came and I sent everyone um our charge which was to look at um parking, landscaping, existing development, pavement, lighting, and size. And I just want to make sure because again on this one there was a lot of back and forth. Um so David Creel, I sent your questions to Joe Fern. I think I went back to everyone let you know. Um, so the chief engineer from Suffach County War authority, Joe sent it over. He didn't. He promised me I would get it back before the meeting. I didn't get anything back. So I just wanted to update you that I didn't get the answers to those questions you had. However, you should have gotten from me and I think I might have sent it twice because I wasn't sure if I sent it before. But um, Jessica, you printed copies too, right, for them. So you have the updated EAF from Joe Fern. have an updated narrative and that was based on the comments that I passed on from Sarah and David to that on that on that preliminary conference. So they updated it hopefully to make it more clear for you and they guess at the meeting we just want uh they want to impress upon us as um advisory that um this is something that's really needed because they want to um improve the POS um filtration of the wells here. So it's um basically public health issue and it needs to be done. So we don't want to make too many impediments so that they can't go ahead and do what they need to do. The other thing is that a lot I was confused also as David was because they showed for illustration purposes things that were going on across over at the

golf course. Nothing's going on at the golf course. This is all about the house over on Manantic. So that was just for purposes for people who are unfamiliar with the project so you know where things are running underground and what's going on there. But it's nothing is being dug up at the golf course and everyone can golf and go hitting calmly. So, um, so tell me what questions you have or um, what did you guys I I know David, we didn't get your questions answered, but I thought your concerns were valid about the noise of the structures and how often they're running,

which is interesting because if you go down the list, it says like PA system, whatever, not applicable. There's not a separate noise thing, but I think that hopefully it would be that it's not incrementally it's not changing anything, but it's a very fair question I think for neighbors of, you know, is is it somehow become resonating and should be soundproofed or something, you know. So, I just thought since we didn't get an answer from the from their engineer, um, we could put it in our memo and hopefully before, you know, before it gets the town board, they can answer those question. Maybe they'll get al also Julia there since it's an engineering document there is no three-dimensionalization of of what this really is going to end up being.

Yes. Um so I think it's quite important that we understand um what this is three-dimensionally. Yeah, I agree. It is this rectangular shape shown on the diagram that was circulated which has the filters and the new pressurized storage tank in it. Mhm.

Is that a building or is it a pad on which the stuff sits in open air and the filters the filtrition was noted in the in in the narrative as being essentially overall 15 plus feet high. So, if that fits in a building, that's a story and a half right there. Um, but or would that would help in in acoustic control that you could then make it do that job as well as keep the rain off.

Yeah, I had put that in the questions. The other thing visibility the visibility from the adjacent properties is unclear um because it doesn't it does not show the adjacency of any of the additional res of the residential properties that abought um this facility. So I think that's quite important. Yeah. And I think if it is visually like impactful to like the residential area, then you know they might want to propose some screening, right? Um because that would help with the noise. One property looks down on this site

and the screening would have to be pretty high to to you know cuz it for sitting on their front deck, you could look down right on top of the existing small building as as well as look down on the access road. it the whole access road issue relative to the property line. It's still opaque to me because there's so many lines overlapping. I couldn't figure out where the 15 ft was and where the property line was. I mean, I didn't see anything that was labeled property line. Uh, but I did see a lot of trees which overlap the road and I assumed they would all be going. I don't think so. I think

No. No. So that was on the updated EAF. They they were very clear that they are not proposing to take out any trees. I had to address that because of the the bat situation. So they can access the existing property and put in their brand new huge generator which is there and a new switch gear and so forth with the the the trucks they're using. Now to get that 20 plus foot tank down there which is and the crane to pick it up

and the crane to pick it up and put it down may be a bit of a challenge. in which case there's there are a line of substantial trees down one side of of the road and the other side uh you're you're sort of going to bash into a neighbor's house cuz it's about 5t away from uh from the you know the edge of the brush around the road. So I mean Joe did did assure me that the infrastructure and everything has to be they have to answer to their authorities. So, um I guess he he wanted to calm our fears that it's not that we have to like dive into like the trans disposal like that job to dig in as a

No, but he also assured me that they they have to do it. They have to comply. So, it's not that there's going to be something health, you know, not anything dangerous going to be going on there. I don't know who communicates directly. I think the clearly, with all due respect, Suffach County War authority is doing it like in-house, right? like some guy is like, you know, trying to just fill out the form and he's probably done it before or whatever, but he's not like a presumably a professional like, you know, planning like, you know, they have a chief engineer in charge of the Well, but he's not he's not used. It doesn't look based on the way they filled it out. It doesn't look like he was like, you know,

doing a robust he was kind of like, we need to do this, right? Like you get it or whatever. And like I don't think we were trying to be an impediment to them. We just need a little more information so that we can feel comfortable that we've done our due diligence for the surrounding neighbors. And it seems like our concerns lie in the screening, right? That's acoustic control and screening. Yeah, I think it's acoustic and they really needed to get an acoustical consultant and they need a list of every piece of equipment and they need to measure the background noise as the lot exists and how much noise this stuff will generate at what periods. I think we need I think we need elevations so that we need that too.

Well, you need to know Yeah. building. So, what do they mean by a building? Yeah. Yeah. I would like to know what the building looks like, you know, that they're using to, you know, this new building, this 700 foot building. We have no idea what it is. I was confused by that because I thought the 700 ft referred to the existing structure on the lot. No, that's that's No, he clarified that in the whole shadow basically. Yeah, it's that is existing. Yeah. So, I don't I it's unclear which of this equipment is indoors and which is outdoors. So, yes,

the only the scope of the work is only on the pump house. It's only it's what the 700. It's not. But if you added up all the other things, it basically did come out to about 4,000. And I think Joe might have misunderstood me. I didn't mean like structures like building things. I meant like adding it all up. It was like a couple thousand worth of things. But I mean it's interesting in the shelter island zoning there is no category that this fits into. There's no kind of industrial process or utility infrastruure but it's pre-existing. It's been there. No, but it's I mean

that's a very good point. So in other words, if the Suffach County Warthog wanted to establish another facility in the town someplace and I think you're right at there category. Yeah. I think the precedent typically is that utilities can do whatever they want and and you still should categorize them all categories. Well, it's true, you know, but you know, half of this is in the B zone, half is in the C zone. So I wanted to say, well, is this permitted in either zone? You don't know because it's not mentioned as a use anywhere.

And by the way, somebody some accounting authorities said obviously it's quasi public, you know, they are basically public agency, but if it's like Verizon, you're you can be a utility company, but you're a private utility company. You don't necessarily get to do whatever you want. I mean, there are, you know, in the law, there are, of course, um, default benefits to a utility because there presumably they're doing stuff for the public good, but they still are subject to p to zoning regulations. Yeah. So, there's height control and certainly noise control and and visual screening, all that stuff. So, it really there really should be a category and it's very good, right?

But we have an exist we have an existing partnership with Suffach County Water Authority for Westneck Water. So I don't think we have to I don't think we necessarily have to worry about it right now this. And will this be a secured facility? Is there going to be a chain link fence with barb wire and access control have a chain link fence? No, they've never I don't think it's ever been controlled at the moment. They have a they have a hardware store padlock on the hardware store. They're a little wooden building. You have a Southern County War pump house in Shelter Island that doesn't have a a fence around it. Chainly fence. This one does. It's wide open, right, Meg? It doesn't there's no there's no fencing around now. No, I think

on the golf course, whatever. If you were wanting to be mischievous, you'd break in and do some damage. But yeah, I mean, you guys have seen it, right? You know the pump. You know where it is, right? You know the pump house. Okay, you guys know where it is. It's just not the world that we've lived in. Trust you guys, correct? I mean, maybe that's a question where we could have our memo. I'm sure it My guess is they probably do have this is something you don't want to invite that either, right? that becomes like a you know a whole different thing of that's naturally not what we want you know um you may say offense that is a good idea so yeah I think we have to ask because

all right but I I just I was clear in my email that we're we're not asking this to come back to the planning board because we're going to we have to send this on because I believe June 18th at your meeting is when you're going to mention you're going to set the public hearing so we need to get this sent in by the end of the week. Well, they they may not want to appear at a public hearing and get yelled at because of noise and so. Right. So, we're going to put that in our letter and maybe I'll maybe like have an answer by 18. Yeah, that's not the greatest. Okay. Good. Anything else that I forgot that you wanted?

I was curious. I mean, I know in the narrative it said it was unmanned, but like are they going to go check on it monthly? They do. They do almost like every week they're they're on the island checking all of these things. And you know, like when they were replacing the ion exchange resin, I mean, what kind of truck and that's what they're in.

That's kind of out of our whatever. But they're Yeah, they have they have people on the island like probably two times a week if not more, you know, that are checking all these things. I would just say as a sidebar public service message that who knows how many people watch this uh take note Suffach County Water Authority is putting in filtration for PAS. Everybody else that's not on public water authority

better get their water tested. you should think about whether you have PAS anywhere and it's below it says very specifically it's below what the mandatory is but they're rolling it out all over because they're anticipating presumably accumulation over time of PAS so um people should be thinking about that for their own private wells where is the well that is going to serve this there's a bunch of them there's actually four wells underneath the little building And those are the ones that are that are either not working anymore or there or they have peanuts content and the there's three or four more in the golf course

in that little building. No, the the wells are grass and then No, in the golf course there's a little building up building. Yeah, but that's their the wells are spread out in that area. I see. They don't fertilize the golf course. Well, actually those wells I believe are for the Heights Water System. Yeah. Which is another old company. Yeah. Did we see any mention about lighting? Yeah. They proposing any lights at night time. The the the uh updated narrative. Yeah.

So their lighting would be on a photo cell with a with a time clock backup. So conceptually, the lights can only be on after dark and they won't they won't come on unless either a somebody's there animal or a person, raccoon, deer down there. I can tell you that walking all the time. So they will definitely set them off. So there may be, you know, at night there may be every half hour some critter walks by and there will be lighting and they said they will use lighting which is you know night sky compliance. So all the lights going down. So I think they're fine on that. It's just all the other questions have to

It's just that we don't have adequate drawings and elevations. We don't have an acoustical testing. We we don't know in terms of like the the closest neighbors. We they need to have shielding that's quite high because of the height of those things. Um so those I have those in my notes and maybe just a little known about safety. And so how are they locking? Yeah, I would I would maybe modify at least from my perspective of I don't know that they need to do acoustical testing per se of this but what is what is like they should have history if they're using this instruments of what is the noise that is comes from them and what isn't provide evidence that you know like that kind of thing you know

yeah I I disagree I think they need to do an acoustical report but if they know but if they've used it before and they know if you're putting like X Y and Z and they can provide that reasonable evidence like these are things we use the manufacturer and us have experienced that the sound is only X when it's this or whatever I mean you're going to ask they could verify it after they put it in but they're going to put it in right and then how are you going to with most of this like with an emergency generator you specify an acoustical enclosure if you need it you don't wait till it's installed to see how noisy no agreed yeah so somebody needs to look at the equipment and look exactly That's that's my point. Yeah. Well,

there has to be history of what it noise it generates. I'm sure that it's not going to be the guy who designs the water that comes up with that. It's an acoustical engineer. But hopefully Well, the if the generator only operates long term in a power outage when everybody else's generator is also operating. Well, but you know, it runs every week for half an hour. Well, that it does that. So that and if they do it at 2 a.m. the neighbors up the hill it because it's a big generator. Um yeah but that's an emergency situation. I mean testing um they have to run the thing weekly to make sure it'll run when you need it when you need it.

So I don't know. Raise your hand if you would want this 200 f feet from your house. They have to they have to provide evidence that they've thought about this and why why how can we get comfortable with it? You know, I mean, it is an industrial facility in a residential zone. Yeah. So, it's I think our obligation to make sure that it's reasonable. Put it in a building and sound proofs the building. You're done. Yeah. Put most of it in a building. The generator has a heart. It's so large. Just before we leave this though, um parking, you know, at the preliminary conference, obviously it's not like we're getting an owner of a restaurant establishment with, you know, 50 just workers there. So, it's kind of somewhat irrelevant. Yeah.

Two people coming in. That's it. And there's really no issue of parking there. So, there's no paving. There's, you know, extra pave. Well, they have a they have a engineered gravel. Yeah. Four court area. Yeah. Oh, this raises the question that's a county road. So, does this have to go to the Suffach County Department of Public Works for the access driveway? The access is already there. No, it's a right ofway. It's existing currently hitting the right of the town county road. I don't think you need I think that's an existing facility. Yeah, it's an existing facility.

It's on town land and I think the town gave them access right away. There's an overgrown goat path. It's not like a driveway. It's not a goat path. It's okay. Cow path is down there. I'm down there all the time. It's fine. I drive all the time. It's okay. Yeah. Show a section in one of the site plans of of road.

I mean, if they improve the went from like a dirt path to a proper driveway and you connect to a county road, I think you need DPW approval. Well, I think this is it's an existing gravel filled some time ago driveway and they're going to improve the part right around their facility. So, you can have trucks parking by there, I guess. But I'm far right, Meg. I think the improvement doesn't need to have any like post approval because it's just existing. I just need to do does not impact the access. I thought they showed a detail of the future driveway construction.

That's the part and then also on the diagram it shows that those parts of of it that are going to have that material. I don't think that's not the whole thing. I don't it doesn't show that pattern on the drawing going all the way out to the county road. I think they're leaving that something to clarify I think. All right. I'm good with it stage. Um, so I'll circulate a draft and if any if I leave something out accidentally I know I'm gonna get some feedback. So I'll make one more comment. Um, just on the existing development and you know alignment with the comp plan. Yeah,

there you know there is a part of the comp plan that mentions water quality. So I think you know we should mention that in the memo that it's a positive. That's good. You know that we're generally supportive of the application. So they get a star for water quality actually service that that's usually an aspect that when we do site plan review they they used to give us the comp plan compliance maybe that is that wasn't it's looped in given to somebody else development no oh it's existing development and comp plan okay I might have just left that okay good because they usually have us do that okay excellent I'll put that in too

okay um just quick update Uh May 20th now, right? May 20th at 2 PM is our I had to think for a second because we changed a few times. So May 20th at 2 p.m. I will go back to the subcommittee with Rick and um town board liaison and we will have site plan review legislation discussion and then I believe 27th one week later May one week later is wetlands subcommittee meeting. So, just to update you, we didn't forget about all the work we did. It's going to our subcommittee meeting. Good luck.

Those are my only updates. Um, anyone else? Okay. So, um, a motion to close the meeting at 802. David Creel, second from Sean. You did a lot of seconds today. Let's go. All right. All in favor? Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Very productive. Thank you. Thanks, Greg.