Planning Board - Regular Meeting

May 13, 7 pm. Um first um thing before uh we review and approve the minutes from the last meeting. Um at the towards the end of last meeting, I believe it was off camera. Um we got an uh announcement that Joe Lombardi, who was our engineer, is going to be retiring. and Joe has been probably serving here for close to 25 years if not over 25 years and coming to shelter on that long. Um so we've you know we're we're so happy for you Joe and we're going to miss you though and we wanted to just take a moment to thank you for your service. Um honestly I think your calm demeanor and your expertise has really helped you know a great deal in the success of the playing board past and present. So um Joe brought his colleague who is uh Rick Wesnovski who will be replacing um Joe as our uh engineer for the planning board. So welcome uh Rick as well. So thank you Joe for your service. [Applause] It was only six months in where he turned gray. So I'm sorry Rick. Um okay so uh let's review and approve the minutes from the previous meeting which was April 8th 20125. Um everyone got that circulated by Jessica. Were there any corrections additions? So if somebody could kindly make a motion then to um motion to approve. Thank you Sean. Second Dave Austin. Thank you. Thank you. That motion carried. Um, actually, let's just do roll poll. So, um, David Creel, David Creel, is he? David Austin is present. Present. Marcus Cassid here. Julia Weisenberg here. Uh, Matthew Fox here. And Sean Davyy

present. Um, and Greg Cranford is well is not here tonight. Okay. Um, I'd like to um go over some of the bills that we have. Um, so the first one is from the Rainer Group. that's for our um engineering services. Um and this was for the month of April. Uh in particular, the bulk of that work was Crescent Beach LLC and the Ballard um trust subdivision. Both of those are subdivisions. Um and so that that was the bulk of uh that invoice uh from April. The amount was $4,418.75. Um so if that's acceptable to everyone, then I would just need someone to make a motion to accept. I'll make a motion to accept it all. Second. Okay, good. Thank you, gentlemen. And that motion carried. Um second one invoice from Pillo Hill. Um so that is our uh outgoing attorney uh Tim Hill who was actually our interim attorney uh for this um beginning of the year. Um so that was for professional services back in February and March. Um and the bulk of that was uh Cheekwood Avenue. um some attorney appearances here in person uh teleconference and um also reviewing some of the um resolutions and reviewing correspondence in particular helping Rick who was our incoming attorney. So there was a little bit of overlap there. Um and that's from Tim and that amount was $3,260. So if that's acceptable to everyone here then I would just need someone else to make a motion to make a motion to accept Matt. Second from Sean. All in favor. Okay. Motion carried. Uh third one is our invoice from PW Grosser. Um that was for um the SRA uh for Cheekwood Avenue LLC wetlands application and that was from April 2025. That that was the largest per that

was actually their only services that they provided to us and their invoice was $2,625. Um if that's you like make a motion to accept. Yes. Thank you. Second. Second. Second from Sean. All in favor. Motion carried. And the last one um this is from Whan Filer. That's our current attorney Rick um for services uh provided April 25. Uh the breakdown is that was again just inerson appearances secret um sort of the overlap and working with uh Tim and um going over correspondence and advising myself as chair and one other um planning board member and that amount is 6,324. Um so if I could get a motion to Thank you. David Fel second and second Matt. Okay. Ty tie on that one. All right. All in favor I Okay. A motion carried. Um before we go on to Sean, did you want to just question? I know the I believe the town board made some amendments that is will have applicants pay certain parts of expenses going forward. I think some of it applies to us and maybe just environmental reviews or something, but I just wanted to clarify because I wasn't really quite sure what the changes were. And I don't know, Meg is here. So maybe I guess Meg Larson, can you or whichever one? Uh yes. So the town board has we just had resolutions that would put some of the environmental expenses onto the applicant. So we did that for all the different code chapters that involved an review or some kind of analyst. Um, so the last one that we have to do is for the dot code because the dot code hadn't yet been adopted by the state. So now that it's been adopted by the state, we can do the amendments.

So that any seeker reviews that are under the dot code would also be um the paid by the applicant. Are they in effect now then except for the dot code? No, they still have to be adopted, right? We still have to vote on that. We had a hearing but there was no comment from the public. So now we'll go uh to resolution. If adopted and there is an application in process, does it apply if an environmental review has not yet started or it has to be the application first? I would have to look at the language in the code to see when the start date is and how it would impact um current in process applications. I'm not sure. Thank you. I'll look into that for you. Let you know get your applications in applying, right? Um the other thing I wanted to go over is um just take a couple minutes to talk about meeting decorum. Okay. Now just very quickly I mean obviously the town board, planning board, town committees have been pretty fortunate in that we generally don't encounter that much strife at uh meetings and we've had mostly respectful um interlocution, you know, natural turn taking. But I think it's always really important to think ahead and prepare for occasions where, you know, you could have a meeting where emotions run high. I mean, obviously, we're dealing with applications of people's most treasured thing, their land and their dwellings, right? Their homes. Um, and we're very sensitive to that. So, um, we basically our job is to listen to these interactions, to ask questions, to get answers. And when we are somehow impeded from doing that, I think it really causes delays. It makes everyone frustrated and and we can't do our jobs. Um, and so if it ever comes to a point and and again, we're we're very fortunate. This usually doesn't come up in our meetings, but if it ever comes to a point where an applicant or an

applicant's representative or maybe somebody from the public or even members of our own board are not able to engage in that natural turn taking, being able to articulate sentences, being able to answer um and if someone is is not being respectful in that way and not adhering to meeting decorum, the best practice that I would like to move, you know, have this in place moving forward is that we will ask that person or persons to stop or sit down, take a little break until they can comport themselves and we'll move on to something else on the agenda and we'll round back to that person and see if they're now ready to proceed just to give someone a moment to relax and gather their thoughts. Okay. Um so that's that's how we will maintain decorum in in the planning board uh moving forward and I and I trust that everyone is going to be able to do that without any problem. Well said. Thank you. All right. The first thing we have to act on is our resolution for Cheekwood Avenue LLC wetlands application. That's n that's number eight um for 2025. It's a very long resolution and I actually just spoke to our attorney a few minutes before we started the meeting because I wanted to get permission to maybe a bridge some of this because it's seven pages. Um, hold on one second. Excuse me. Um, I think I'm going to start basically um if you look at the if you look at the front page with the hearing dates that we had uh that were noted here by our attorney are December 10th, January, sorry, December 10th of 2024, January 14th of 2025, February 11th of 2025. Um, and we go over the findings of facts and determination of the board. Basically, Rick summarized the purpose of the applicant's uh,

application. Obviously, they were seeking a wetlands permit as per 129 of our code. They were building a 2,287 foot accessory building with living orders within the adjacent regulated area. We go over all the dimensions of the uh, application. So, I'm I'm not going to go over those because we we're we're quite well verssed in that. We went over the flooding information, the secret determination, which recall was a type one. Um negative declaration. We put down the the date of determinance, April 8th. We went over the standards, which we also uh already know. uh that the location not impose a risk, that it not diminish the wetlands, that the project not have a negative impact on the quality quantity of groundwater, that it will not uh create a net increase. And then five, that the applicant has demonstrated that there are no practical alternatives, and that the applicant has submitted information to describe alternative site locations and configurations in order to validate number four to show that it's not okay. Um so in our finding of fact which is on page three um we declared ourselves um well we were named um um lead agency and um basically uh the town comprehensive plan calls for regulatory action directed towards the town to protect our wetlands. We went uh our attorney put that uh summary in here. Um, we went through all the relevant pieces of SRA. I'm on number three. Um, four, we reviewed the difference between the vegetative buffer and the adjacent regulated area. Deem this first 75 and and the additional 25. Um, again, so pages 2 three are mostly summaries of our law and the applicant's description and facts of the application. Um, we

talked about where it's uh located. Um, we talked about, uh, the property is lowlying with elevations that just reached 7 ft above mean sea level. Um, we talked about the bulkhead a little bit. Um, FEMA management. Um, on to number seven, we looked at the, um, property line and basically where this building would be situated in terms of the town code. Um, our attorney summarized all the configurations of the applicant's rooms on the accessory structure. Um, we included the factual information about the um letter of uh no jurisdiction from the from the New York State DEC. Um, I think this is important to go over right now. So, uh, 10, the applicant offered mitigation in connection with the project, uh, including the installation of the seven dry wells, uh, configured for a 4-in storm event and provision of the now 15t non-turf, uh, nearshore buffer consisting of fescue and clover. Um, the board's environmental consultant had uh recommended planning beach grass as more suitable to retain soils in the sandy and salty environment. Um, we went over the proposed storm water runoff mitigation and the minimal t uh non-turf buffer. Uh, the applicants engineer provided the town with some examples um uh of other projects that were done in the adjacent adjacent regulated area. Uh, but the board uh disagreed with those characterizations. By and large, those other applications involve renovations or additions to pre-existing buildings or addition of um uh amenities such as pool patios, sleeping quarters, join to a garage as an example. Um and in most recent cases, there was no practical way for the applicant to avoid construction within

the regulated areas of those named those 10 named uh uh examples. Uh they did not concern however building um buildings uh new construction of more than 2,000 square ft designed for living and sleeping uh sleeping and living purposes. Pardon. Uh the applicant did uh had not has not established that it cannot build its accessory living quarters outside of the town's regulated area from wetlands as per our code 129-5A 5 and 6. Um, under our town code, the applicant bears the responsibility for finding um for demonstrating that there are no practical alternatives which allow the project to be cited outside of the regulated area. Uh, with respect to the covered porch, which um represents a large part of the intrusion into the 25 ft adjacent regulated area, uh Deborah Shepard stated uh at a public meeting on June 13, 2023 that she had always wanted a covered porch and that was the reason for the porch. Uh the applicant's desire for a porch which projects forward into adjacent regulate area is not sufficient to satisfy the requirements of town code 129-5. The porch may be a desirable um amenity but is not necessary to the primary function of the proposed accessory building which is to provide sleeping accommodations for the applicant's guests. Um the applicant failed to show that there were that there were no alternatives uh that would uh allow the accessory living quarters to be constructed in that outside of the uh regulated area. Uh but it's pretty it's patently obvious that such alternatives do exist. Um, even accounting for the 40ft yard front setback from Cheekwood Avenue and the 20- foot sideyard setback from the adjoining property to the applicants west, there exists a building envelope landward of the regulated area from wetlands which is which is suffic sufficient in size to accommodate the building itself minus the covered porch. Uh this is apparent um from the review

of the applicant's floor plans as uh uh given by Ann McDonald of se January 17, 2025. Um and the applicant attempted to argue on January 17, 2025 through the EAF um that there are no practical alternatives and they stated, quote, "The applicant looked at reducing the size of the building. However, it could not be reduced in a way to allow it to be located outside the regulated area. while meeting the goals of the project which are to provide additional living space that would allow for short-term guests to stay at the property with reasonable privacy and autonomy expected with extended family and close friends. That was straight from the from the narrative. So, the board disagrees based on the information presented to the board. It is possible for the applicant to stay outside of chapter 129's um regulated area by eliminating the said covered porch and redesigning the building such that it is smaller uh while still having two bedrooms and two and a half bath. Um and then the applicant contended that such a reduced building side would eliminate quote the ability to have design elements, layout and amenities allowed by town code and desired by the applicant. It is unclear to the planning board what important amenities would be disallowed by a smaller accessory building that does not transgress into the regulated area. It cannot be reasonably argued that the covered porch is necessary to the applicant's uh aim of providing its guests with reasonable privacy and autonomy. Um the planning board is cognizant of the town code about accessory structures uh being has to be at least 480 ft and the applicant asserts that the proposed building has 780 square ft of eligible floor area on the first floor plus another 536 on the second. Um and on February 13, 2025, although it is not clear whether this includes the covered porch, the portions

of both floors in that do intrude into the regulated area. Um I'm on the last page here. Um, the board's own calculations based on the applicant's architectural floor plans, which were revised January 17, 2025, would seem to indicate that approximately 130 square ft of each floor is currently proposed within the adjacent regulated area. Um, we conclude that the applicant could readily reconfigure the proposed building such that each floor would still have at least 480 square ft as required by 133-7. A reduced size accessory building fully outside the reg the adjacent regulated area would likely still have a gross floor area of approximately 1,600 square ft, although it would have no porch. that is ample for a two-bedroom accessory building with sleeping quarters and would still um and would still uh enable the applicant to meet their expressed objectives for the project. It is unnecessary for the planning board to specifically detail environmental drawbacks associated with this application. The Shelter Island Town Board has has already determined that projects outside the wetlands regulate area will have a reduced environmental impacts as compared with those projects which take place inside. As just noted, the applicant has reasonable alternatives that would allow it to build accessory sleeping quarters fully outside the um regulated area. Um so disposition of the application is in part G basically for for the reasons set forth which I sort of abridged here because again it's a seven-page document. Um I sort of skipped over the summary and the applicants uh you know the actual piece of the structure because we've been over that so many times. Uh but for these reasons set forth above, the planning board finds that the applicant has failed to satisfy the requirements of 129-5 uh A5 and six of the town code which are required for permit issuance. The board therefore u uh the board therefore denies the application discussed herein

for a wetlands permit pursuant to town code chapter 129 for the construction of a 2287 ft two-story accessory building with sleeping quarters. Um, so we're going to take a vote. We're going to do um roll call for the with a a vote. Um, so I need someone to make a motion uh to put that forward. I'll motion that we have vote. Second. Second. David Credo. Sorry, I looked over. It's Dave. So, um, all in favor? No, just to make the motion. Just make the motion. Okay. Favor vote. Yes. I I that was carried. Um okay, so let's take a vote now. Um David Creel, I should have had you. I'm sorry. It's h because I'm looking over there. I'm sorry. Okay. David Austin, you're too late. I vote opposed. Opposed. Okay. Marcus opposed. Post in favor. Favor. In favor. Sean. In favor. Okay, that motion carried. So, the wet whales application is denied as stated. It's probably why I had you and Greg sit out the last one because I look over and you're right there. It's just it's it's too tempting. But we're done with that now. Don't All right. Um, so we're going to we're going to close it. and we're going to go into our work session. Uh so on the work session, we have um a couple of lot line adjustments to vote to close it. Oh yes, thank you. So we thank you. So can I have a motion to uh close the uh I'll make a motion to close

the business. Thank you. Second on business closure. Second. Second. All in favor? I thank you. That motion carried. So, we're going to uh now move into our work session. And on this one, as I was saying, we have a couple lot line uh modification applications which are still pending. Uh namely Elliot Bowsman lot line adjustment, but they have until June 9th. We're still waiting on final maps for that. um on the Ratican uh Sheldon LLC lot line adjustment. Again, we're we're waiting for the deeds um to be reviewed and they have until June 9th and I'm assuming if they don't I reviewed the deeds and approved them. Oh, you did? Okay. Okay. There's a letter. You have a letter? Okay. Just this past Friday. Oh, it was a couple weeks ago. Yeah. Oh, okay. All right. Because you still have it on there. Okay. So, we did get those. All right. I'll check back on the date on that was. Um, and then we have three and five Burough Hall Lane LLC. And we're still waiting on D. You don't have you haven't gotten those. All right. And they have until July 8th. And then defaer lot line adjustment. Um, that's a similar deadline of close June 10th. And we have I haven't seen those. No. Okay. Um, all right. On to our subdivision applications. Um, let's start with uh the Bloom Bloom Miner subdivision. We're still waiting for that for their final uh application and their deadline is August uh 11th. So, it's still sufficient time there. West Neck Creek Cottage LLC subdivision. Again, we're waiting for a final application. We have not received that yet, but they have until October 14th of this year.

Uh, next up is our Fowler Trust subdivision. And, uh, Joe, uh, they actually, uh, turned in an updated, uh, application. And Joe, you're going to you're going to go over that with us now on that memo. And Jessica made copies of Joe's memo for you. It's in the packet. You want to come up to the to the mic or last time? Well, you know, one last time. But put the map in front of me. True. Okay. Just as long as you can we can hear you. I'll speak louder. Okay. This is a preliminary application. New board. Major subdivisions have three steps. There's sketch plan, there's preliminary, then there's final. So, this subdivision has already received sketch plan approval. Now, we're on to preliminary. There was a map that was submitted initially. It had some items that needed to be changed and that was discussed at the meeting last month. uh those items have been addressed in this provides preliminary map preliminary plat. But just to give go over some of them, um the park areas along those parkway

have been relabeled conservation easements. Some of the conservation easements is 70,321 square ft. This represents 10% of the site. We'll get there. Okay. Problem with that. Yeah, that is a problem with with that. Um, the exterior boundary and lot lines have been changed to solid lines. Principal and accessory structure setbacks and other accessory structure setbacks have been revised and do not extend to the proposed conservation easements. um agent five subdivision agent subdivision the team chapter 20 of the shelter island town code and type one action therefore coordinated review is required first step in this process would be to determine the agency the other agencies that are involved in the suff county department of health services and New York state department of environmental conservation planning board will have to notify the other involved agencies and indicate that it would like to serve as lead agency Copy of the application, long form, long environmental assessment form and the subject map should be included with the letter requesting meet agency status. Involved agencies have 30 days to respond or request. So basically at this point um the map is sufficient. We have the application and long form EAF. We can request lead agency status from the involved agencies at this time. Right. Um now the preliminary application will require a public hearing. That public hearing cannot take place until secret

is done. So, um, hopefully we can send out the the notices to the agencies. They have three days to respond. Probably the next meeting, we'll have an idea of whether it's going to be the lead agency because we're either going to hear from the agencies or they're not going to respond and it'll it'll be lead agency by default. Then we can begin reviewing the uh environmental assessment form do the part two and a part three and come up with a secret determination and then move forward with schedule. So John, I just want to check with you in in addition to um you know uh agreeing to send out the letters um and the package. Is that something that that you're sure that your firm can handle to do that? Okay. I just want to double check because I wasn't sure from your email whether you meant that you were just sending out the letters and that was it or you weren't willing to do all We've done that. Okay. Okay. I just want to double check. But what but we have to make sure that the package is correct with the maps and so forth. So you want any comments? Yes, please. So my interpretation of your code is that a park area has to be a separate parcel of land. It's not acceptable to just make it a conservation easement. Park area is a separate out parcel. Um, it could be deed to the town of Shelter Island, deed to a property owners association, but it should be a separate parcel le or multiple parcels. It doesn't have to just be one parcel, but it has to aggregate 10% of the property's lot area. And in the nearshore peninsula or peninsula overlay district, you cannot wave the park area requirement. So the dilemma as Joe has pointed out because we just talked about

this just before the meeting began is uh if those conservation easements along um no parkway converted to even multiple park areas which they could be. The problem is that the lots then become each of the lots are using a narrow frontage for their access. They become flag lots and your code says in a major subdivision you can't have more than 40% of the property as flags unless a variance is obtained to allow that. So that's the dilemma right now is uh I don't think the map conforms to your code and I don't think you can send out a lead agency letter without you have to send it out with the application and with the map or proposal before you and that map that proposal should meet zoning or should meet the subdivision regulations that's problem right now. Yes. Yeah. So, uh, a couple things just in response to what Rick said and I say your name. Oh, can you say your name? On Zoom. 860 Highway New York for the applicant. Good evening. Um, the code says that there has to be a set aside recorded with the county clerk's office. An easement is a set aside and an easement would be recorded with the county clerk's office. So I I respectfully disagree with Mr. Whan's interpretation. I would note the sketch plan approval called for these easements. I would note that this board has approved previous subdivisions with conservation ements serving as the park. So to change the position now uh would create much larger implications respects the board's authority and there is nothing that says

that this board must segregate these parcels as separate tax parcels beating ownership to the town. It says an irrevocable set aside recorded with the county clerk's office. An easement is recorded with the county clerk's office. an irrevocable easement obviously cannot be revoked and it's set aside for that parkland purpose. So I you know Rick brought this to me his opinion to me this evening and uh we certainly can bet it off on the side but I would uh take a position counter to his as respect to what the code requires. Um, I think that was about all I wanted to say. I think Joe the rest. Can I make a comment on this? Sure, David. Go ahead. You know, I wasn't on the board when the original stretch band plan was proposed or or approved. But that being said, I I don't think the review and approval of that means that the board can have no further opinions about how the land is subdivided. Does it? No, definitely not. There's reasons it's a three steer tiered process, but it certainly guides the applicant in their planning process. At the very understood the sketch plan in the first instance. Yeah. Uh we had vetted the conservation easement at that time serving this purpose and amend remember a conservation ement will prepare will preserve this property in perpetuity for whatever purpose the board prefers. um as far as the town goes and the people of the town go, uh it'll make no difference to them as far as what this property is, except that it'll still be on the tax roles. Uh a and b um it won't be a liability for the town if it's if if the easement is if it's just an easement and not an separate deed

parcel. I'm a little confused by that because there is a section in the code which addresses conservation easements which call for a third party like Ponic Land Trust to take I guess it's ownership of that easement and I would assume it does come off the tax roles but in this case it's an easement without any notfor-profit or conservation agency taking ownership of town the owner of the owner the owner property with Does it come off the tax roles or not? No, because the town wouldn't be the fee owner. It would just own the rights of the easement, which would mean the town preserves in perpetuity. Let me just clarify a couple things. The you can't compel a dedication to the town. So, let's just say the town doesn't want it or the applicant doesn't want to feed the park to the tent. The applicant created not for a homeowners association to own and maintain it. That would be their other alternative. Uh the other thing as far as conservation ements go, they're created under section 247, the general municipal law, and the owner of the property subject to conservation does get a tax deduction uh for the area that's covered by a conservation. So, so they're paying taxes, but they're paying the same tax on it or they're getting a tax. They should be getting a tax reduction for the area of their property that's burdened by the conservation. If it's a conservation, right? And if it's a park area, then they're not paying then obviously not the world's fault. It's it's your the town's problem. Can I go further on this? Yes. You know, my my feeling is that uh the Eastman isn't worth that much because nobody would build a house, a waterfront house on a block with a view of Piconic Bay at the back side of the

property. They're going to like the house that's there, go as far forward as possible. and and and so that area is giving a benefit to the owner because they're getting a tax reduction for doing nothing because they're they're not they're not sacrificing anything as they would if there was a park where there would actually be a piece of land that's now reserved from future construction that's a meaningful piece of land presumably. you know, but the proposal would be to have uh undersized undevelopable park areas. So, not meaningful piece of land and there would be no distinction between we're agreeing to setbacks from the conservation ement. So, there really is no distinction. They don't mean it. Nobody's going to build back there. Well, I shouldn't say nobody. I I guess the question is what's the distinction between owning it in fee title and the easement? That's what we're talking about. because that creates larger implications which are that now we have flag lots this board has approved subdivisions with parkland via easement before I don't think and I'll let Mr. around and speak to himself. I don't think he has a necessary necessarily an uh opposition to the easement. It's just his interpretation is that the code requires the dedication. Yeah, I want to understand that. That's correct. I don't I'm not in any way suggesting that it's preferable to have park areas as opposed to conservation. I'm I'm constraining the code to say and there's multiple provisions in the code that I'm looking at for me to reach that conclusion. My introduction is that a park area is intended to be under the code a separate deed parcel of land. That's all I'm saying. And in the description of the kind of subdivision methodology, the first stop is a the first step is a is

the parkland set aside. And it's only if if that's not possible, then you can resort to another type of easement. But our land can't do that in a nearshore and peninsula overlay district. You can't because in other districts you can you can accept a fee as new of the dedication, right? But the code specifically says that's not an option in this overlay zone. Was there early on a study of parkland set aside as opposed to this narrow strip of easement? Was there a study of when they first came in with with a subdivision proposal? Did any of them ever include a park set aside or was it always this narrow conservation ement? This was the set aside that was offered. So it was never it was never presented as a potential parkland. It was always it was always this conservation easement. Yes. Are you talking about the the legal distinction or just the position of it and where it is? He's asking what did they ask for first? Was it Did they ever ask for that was the first ever idea was just to have it right on? Yes. The board vetted it in sketch plan approval asked for setbacks from it for further conservation so that we couldn't build right on the line of the right that was updated and the revised building envelopes are on this new map that you have before. I'm curious does the beginning of the easement begin at the property line at the road because there is a I think it's a 10-ft centrally town rightway. I know that because they just came and cut a bunch of trees down. I think you're you're talking about setbacks, front yard setbacks. No, I'm talking about where the town can come in and say this tree isn't healthy or whatever reason they have and cut it down, which they just did. Well, traditionally, your road right of way is wider than the pavement. Correct. The

pavement is 28 ft wide, the town is still going to control area along the edge. So, shouldn't the But the right of way is not on these properties. It's up at the boundary line. The right of way is the area of the road unimproved and improved. And does does the conservation easement start at the pavement or does it just start at the town property line, right? The owner's property line which is in from the road in from the road that that dimension. Yeah. Understood, David. at the time it to to the board then it it seemed favorable to have this easement parkland whatever you want to call it out in front because that that preserved the look of Northern Parkway and that was a concern for all of us at the time. So that's why at that at that point in time it seemed that's that was actually the only idea you came forth with and the applicant was very willing to do that. So yes, I'm sure they were because they didn't really have to set anything aside. So ultimately ultimately it's I guess the question is is it I think that it does benefit the town to have that treeine area on the road, but it's also really easy for them to give that because they really wouldn't be using it anyway. And so I think you've agreed to additional setback from that, right? And so and so I think that some of the accommodation we ask for we might we might want more. And I think the question also is within that setback is it also untouched? So it's not just a setback but you're leaving it natural so that functionally it is still your land but you are not taking down trees and creating an open area. I think that would for me personally that would go a long way because you have a functional functionally and creating a larger

conservation space but it's still your land. So the setback was for structures and from what I hear you wanted to be increased the buffer in other words not just methods. I think that's partially the goal is that I think there were we leaned in my guess my belief is that they leaned into its setbacks for structures but the the underlying reason was really we want more natural yeah a conservation isn't it and I I would qualify that it's not a nothing give because we could have cleared up to the road whether or not it's within structural setbacks we could have cleared for once. Fair fair enough. But then is that what they would really want for their own privacy or what have you? So we're in this kind of like who's benefiting? Is it 50/50? Is it the town benefiting? Is it you benefiting? And so that's why we're looking for some greater some greater accommodation. I think mutual you know it's not about that's why I think the setbacks or some other accommodation and the interests of the property owner are not irrelevant. Certainly not. Absolutely. So, uh, but I think so, just to get back to the point that Rick was trying to make in terms of the package that we have to send out to move this along is we need to make sure that the maps are acceptable. And your concern as our attorney is that right now they are not because we have to make a decision on whether it's supposed to be whether we're going to accept conservation easements or whether we're looking to make this park land. Yeah. And I'm not trying to create trouble here. Uh this something, you know, I was going through the map today and I went back through the code, but you know, not my opinion. It's what my opinion is. Um not that there's any great benefit to it being separate park parcels versus conservation, but you know, that's how I interpreted the code. So could you point out, sorry, could you point out where it

says it has to be separate? So several places. First of all, the definitions of this all under subdivision of land. So chapter 111, uh there is a very brief definition of park dedication. Park dedication is a dedication that implies conveyance like a deed. Dedication or conveyance of a fee interest is what I mean. Does it say that? No. No. It just say dedication. It's not even for that. We wouldn't need it either. Um a dedication or reservation of land in the subdivision for park purposes. Uh and then when you go to the park or recreation area. Yeah. And but so and then in the design standards uh section 111-34.1 deals with park and recreation area requirements in subdivision. This whole park area thing is kind of strange. Among other things, certain sensitive areas like wetlands or wetland adjacent areas are not allowed in park areas. So it's almost and then you know the title of this thing is park and recreation areas requirements and subdivisions which almost implies that this was in a traditional kind of recreational playground sense. It's not very clear, but it does say that um you know, as Carl indicated, that the the dedication, if you will, uh is to be memorialized by an instrument satisfactory form to the planning board recordable in the office of the Senate County Clerk. Now, you could do that as an easement. That could be a deed, but other language in here. For example, when you're allowed to when the when the planning board determines that a park dedication or park parial is not necessarily the best thing, which is an

option outside the nearshore overlay zone. You can require a fee in lie of uh of the devocation but the fee then is based on it shall be equal to 10% of the appraised fair market value of the entire lands covered by the subdivision plant at the time of the subdivision application and then it talks about how the park fees should be should be dedicated. So you are valuing the entire property as at an appraised value to determine how much the park parcel would be worth. an Eastman area is not even a separate person of land. So you normally wouldn't have a a value placed on a conservation. So anyway, without going through the entire thing, my interpretation of the code put together is that it really means and there's other language also dealing in the subdivision, it appears to mean that a park area is a separate parcel land. You see that for example on the Crescent Beach subdivision that's a separate dedicatable parcel of land and be Yeah. Now, my understanding, of course, I mentioned I love is that there may have been contrary opinions in the past. All I can do is interpret the code the way I see it today. I don't know what people decided in the past or what the basis for their interpretations were. Um, is there one choice that would um well, at least Sean, I don't know how how the rest of you are feeling in terms of preservation of the woodland. Is there one particular choice which you know ensures that preservation conservation is the property seems could but then you would have flags no with conservation if if you have a conservation because it's part of a lot it wouldn't create fly you still have a defined driveway entrance but um unless unless you reduce the width of the easement such that everyone has the minimum street frontage and whatever's left over becomes the easement

Yeah, it's kind of you could um It's weird. The code says that a flag strip or flag lot has to be at least 20 ft wide but not more than 50 ft wide. So I guess if you had 60 ft of frontage for every lot and you deepened the park area then you could have a park area and then you wouldn't have flood lots. I mean that would be or you then you'd have 60 foot gaps. Yeah. That way you could we could still have a provision that it couldn't be cleared. It's just the ownership. Well, I don't I the park is the park area. I haven't seen it. So, that would be that would be a way around it. You could you could create a strip of land connecting the lots to the road that is wider than 50 ft and then it wouldn't count as a flood lot. I guess you could do that. Again, I think the conservation ement achieves the purpose far more streamlined way. There's nothing that Rick said in my interpret my interpretation for what it's worth that would prohibit an easement as a as a means of getting this done. It's a res an easement is a reservation of land. Uh an easement is such that it takes away and really fair market value for the property. So, if you're going to value an easement, it's probably going to be akin to the value of the fee title. And like I said in in uh in the code section requiring parkland, it says a set aside, irrevocable set aside that can be recorded with the clerk's office and it is certainly that. So what I would like to do and which um you know obviously it's your decision but if perhaps instead of betting this in this form Rick Rick and I could have a sit down and sort of go over our points and then

Rick could write perhaps uh a memo to the board with his final opinion after we have that discussion. That's fine. reason one or two questions about the existing house and driveway and overhead wires which seem to cut across two pieces of property. They do the proposed properties. Yeah. Yeah. Is that house going to remain? Uh in the short term it will remain and actually Mr. Lombardo mentioned we might have to do temporary if we're keeping it in that configuration temporary access and utilities that would be extinguished upon the the demolition of that Carl I had a question actually maybe that's what you're referring to um lot four which contains the house although the driveway is actually coming in lot three has its own access strip so was that intended that this driveway be abandoned forward. Oh, I think ultimately, and I'll talk with the architects, I don't want to speak out of turn because this is a very fluid development, but ultimately my understanding is yes, this would be removed. That access would be abandoned. They gained here and this uh you see between lots four and five there's sort of that joint access point. Well, actually, they'd still be in lot three, that's the only access into lot that wouldn't go cut across to lot four. That would be it. Right. Right. I'm talking for lot three and you know the the access points are all c certainly things we can discuss. How many just overhearing that how many of the lots currently have houses in design being designed? Yeah. Uh um it's tough to say cuz like I said it's I've seen about I think there were two or sort of preliminary design. It's all subject to the approvals and they know that but so these are sort of pencil concerns but just sort of you get a concept and will it be different own I

don't really understand what's happening with these properties but it's going to be owned by one family three four and five will be owned by two siblings a sister and her family 34 and five that's and a brother lot one and two that's who's designing the houses yeah it's this is not a this is not if you're uh curious about whether this is a a devel developer and it's not it's a fairness. That's helpful to know. Yeah. Sorry. That's helpful to know. Yes. And I I would just ask uh that you continue to think about the additional setback that has been discussed and I think that the ultimate goal and perhaps not articulated was really to preserve and protect more land. Not just clear it but not build on it. And so what what they're willing to do would go a long way I think in making us comfortable. Um and I don't think in reality because of where they'll position homes and everything else that they'll be giving up much cuz they may very well have said we weren't going to touch it anyway. So So I will absolutely discuss I know you're trying you want to preserve that sort of wooded cord as much as you can. We appreciate that. Thank you. Um, so Rick, you'll get together with him final point together for us. Yeah. So, as it stands right now, we're we're not going to be uh in a position to send anything out just yet. It's it's that needs to be resolved. And this gives them time to also consider maybe an additional buffer on there. So, can I just ask a question? And it's uh I don't know if it's semantics, but we choose and usually probably most appropriately to exercise we'll be lead agency, right? As a result of doing

so, is that creating another $10,000 of legal bills because we're driving that process and is there any way within those decision- making to mitigate that or it just is what it is? the other agencies generally won't take leave like the DEC and they won't is it another just is what it is. Yeah, it it always they don't they they don't they're not going to respond. I know they're not going to respond but it's kind of you know Yeah. Well, what happens is I mean I I don't doesn't affect me very much unless issue positive declaration which I don't think we do in this application. Um but you will have to have you know one of your consultants has to prepare you know the environmental assessment forms. Yeah. Which we've been through. you haven't. No, I'm sure that's been the norm. I guess it's just a question of is there any way to somehow circumvent that and lower costs? Yeah. For the cost of something else. All right. Um, let's move on to the uh next one, the Crescent Beach LLC minor subdivision. So, Joe, you also prepared a second memo on that application, right? We're still at sketch level. Yes. are aware. There was an initial submission for a sketch plan that had at least three different lots uh three different configurations of lots in the park area. And there was some discussion back and forth and the the preferred plan has been submitted and been labeled three lot sketch plan and that's the plan that has lot one with 172,34 square ft and it comprises all of the frontage

on Shelter Island Sound. And lots two and three are up the hill off of Serpentine Drive. Uh and and both of those have relatively flat areas that can be built on. Now the planning board uh was concerned and I was concerned about construction on, you know, very sloping areas on lot one. And in addition to submitting this revised map, project sponsors representatives also submitted a lot of additional material. Um, and it all had to do with an attempt to get a building permit on lot one. Um, but you know, a a permit from the New York State DEC was obtained. Health Department approval was obtained. Now, that approval um was dated August 16th, 2021. It's good for 3 years, which means it's it's expired. However, it's it's relatively easy to get a an updated permit once a permit has been issued, especially when an IIA system is involved. And this is an instance where there's an IIA system. That's what I had asked you about. So, okay. See, it went to the zoning board of appeals for a height variance and that was granted and that variance was valid for one year and that will have to be. Now, it's interesting to note that in their decision, the zoning board of

appeals had a a condition that no more than two additional lots be created on this property. and with a total construction of no more than 6,000 square feet of living area on each lot. Very detailed construction methodology was uh that was prepared by Bulgar and Associates was submitted. A swift storm water prevention storm water pollution prevention plan was prepared. It was reviewed by reviewed and approved by the town engineer and uh also by the uh New York State DEEC division of water. One thing about the notice of uh about the speed general permit that is associated with the swip is that they uh the requirements were updated earlier this year. So if if the SP if the if it hasn't already been done, the project sponsor should submit a letter of continued coverage under speed general permit. Is it the swift regulations? Yes. Well, the general permit regulations. So anyway, the the map that's labeled three lot sketch plan clarifies the concerns that the planning board raised as to which map the project sponsor was interested in pursuing. The additional materials that were submitted demonstrate that the single family residence can be constructed on lot one and permits for construction have been obtained from the DEC, the health department, Shelter Island, CPA.

that the swift has been approved by the town. So basically they've demonstrated that the other involved agencies that would be required in obtaining a building permit have signed off on single family residence on lot one. Well, weren't all those applications based on the full lot prior to any subdivision drawings? Well, I mean, it was years ago. What was sent to the health department was based on building on the full lot, not on building on a third of it or whatever the proportion is. Right. However, the the the location it's true, but you can't apply for a building DC health department on one piece of land, totally change the configuration of the piece of land and say it's the same permit. Actually, you can really you're entitled to get a building permit on a piece of property and you can if the property is large enough to subdivide, you're entitled to subdivide it. Yes. Let me let you access. Right. Right now, the applicant has no vested rights to build anything at any part of the park. Right. They got the permits that Joe referred to, but they also had to get a special permit for certain size house from the town board at the power of the time. Uh the town board apparently didn't act in a timely fashion. the owner of the property that the applicant wrote in article 78 won in Supreme Court in such that such that the Supreme Court actually directed the issuance of a permit understood has appealed that while the appeal and I talked to Tim Hill today actually uh the appeal is

still pending in fact the appeal was only heard or l was only couple to a few weeks ago based on what Tim told me meaning that we're probably months from an actual decision and in the meantime time when a municipality appeals an adverse decision against them in a land use matter there's an automatic stay. So at the moment the applicant even though they have a directive from the court that directive is being appealed and therefore they can't even apply for building permit right now much less get one. So at the moment they don't have a building permit. They don't have a right to a building permit. Even it might win the appeal, but we don't know. And they don't have and without a building permit you cannot commence construction and therefore you cannot get vested rights. So I just want to be clear. They have most of the approvals. They even have a court decision that said the town board's approval should have been issued automatically, but that is being challenged by the town. And until that's resolved, the applicant doesn't actually have rights to build on lot. There is no lot one as you're indicating properly, but they don't have at the moment any legal rights to build on any part of or at least they don't have full right. They don't write they don't have permits for the town. Understood. But if if they did have the right, you know, if if all the wouldn't those approvals still be called into question because they were for lots that no longer will exist if they if they got vested rights, meaning they pursue they proceed to construction based on a validly issued permit. Once they have vested rights, they've started construction on their project. At that point, they present you with a fade out complete. They have the right to finish the project as proof. Until that day happens, this is from the planning board's point of view in the subdivision a blank piece of land. I hope that answers your question.

Yeah, I don't go ahead. You may not want to answer this in because I think it's uh maybe treading in certain waters, but your understanding of the court decision as it stands now, if it was allowed to proceed, is the court's decision allowing them to build that house in the exact place where it is with the exact driveway where it is and all the details? or they're allowing them to build a certain size house subject to a lot of things that we would still have impact. I think the house could be would be placed I think they would have the right to build the house where they propose to build it. The court did say that the town board could impose reasonable conditions on its approval. So I don't know whether the town board might limit clearing or could they move to tryway location maybe not clear. I would say that the house, if they win the appeal, they could probably build the house where they proposed it. Yeah, we unfortunately they haven't, unless I missed the drawing, they haven't shown the house on the subdivision. So, we don't actually know. I mean, I kind of I measured guessing because it looked like their property line on their old drawings coincided with the retaining wall which is about 30 ft. He expressed in at least in here that it was all within that lot cuz I know it's within it but how far is it from the I assume they'll set the property line wherever they need to to be a legal sideyard. At least they think that's a sideyard at that point. Well, I mean to my way of thinking, if they intend to build what they got, you know, other permits for um and right now have a Supreme Court decision having to build, you would want to show it on the subdivision because they don't want to then have you approve a subdivision with a lot boundary that doesn't match what they're building. So, it would be, you

know, advisable advice to show that in the plan. Is it reasonable for us to request that drawing? I I think you you have to before you can show the proposed outs on the proposed under map. Yes. And what I what I one of the concerns that I have and what I have not seen is it looks like and maybe I'm missing it. It looks like the wetland regulated areas are drawn on one map and then you have the house on the other. So you can't see where they overlay on each other. And so for me it look, you know, so it takes a little bit to discern. maybe it's not brain surgery that the entire work area is in a regulated area. So because they're building right up to the 100 foot mark. So which means if they have to bring in all these trucks and all these things they it's all going to be in the the adjacent regulated area and potentially the regulated area. But that's a separate right but that's after it's another subsequent thing that that doesn't change subdivision. That's well going back it it can just in terms of what sort of if we want to impose any kind of conservation easements on those parcels. So and that that is that uh is within our right to think about and even impose on them. So and like in terms of lot one if let's just say for argument sake we we did impose something that would affect their building which is why it's helpful to just to see where it's conceived. I mean you can see it on this one and what Sean's talking about. This was in the in the last submission. You can see that the the the edge of the dwelling is actually right on it's like 10 point something. No, they just they talk about that they understand it's going to be in a regulated area and that there is a forthcoming reveation plan but you know you really don't know. So does that mean they're taking down 100 trees to work in that area and then what is their vegetation you know area? I I can't I've driven up and down that hill separately

to try to figure out where the driveway comes out because I do have safety concerns and I don't have any there's no landmarks on the map to be able to figure out where there's some telephone poles and there's some whatever. So, and the slope that comes off of that is very high in some cases. And so it'd be helpful to know with some landmarks where is the driveway along that route and then how much are they having to dig into the side of the hill there to create an opening because it is for me a safety concern if of making that a workable lot. So, if you'd like, then we could put together a memo to go back to the applicant's representative and ask them to make improvements on the drawings as is um proposal on the map. Right. That would be very helpful. Hi. Hi, Bailey L. I'm with Bennett and Reed. Oh, slowly making your way up. Yeah. Sorry, I was letting you guys finish up discussion on it. Um we can give you a map showing the proposed house on this. Um our discussion in our submission was just a demonstration because I think the question had been raised as to whether lot one was buildable or not which was we were trying to demonstrate that it is with the approvals that we've received um for that property. So it wasn't a question of you know this house this lot. It's a demonstration that that property is actually a buildable lot. Um, we did include in that package, I think, there was a question about reveation. There's a New York State DEC approved reveation plan that was included in there that Helen Design had submitted on that um application. Um, but we can if you if you'd like, we can have a a superimposed plan showing it. I think sketch plans are typically plans that are don't ever have structures on them. So, we can file it as a separate independent plan from what the sketch plan that's before you for Google is.

Um, but we can show you that the lot's been designed so that that house could potentially in the future be located on that property. Um, with respect to the driveway location, um, it's actually something that was discussed at the town board level when we had public hearings for the town board for the special permit. the driveway was located um in a specific location so that it was outside the regulated area um specifically and there is a construction methodology included in there showing that we can accomplish the construction of that driveway keeping all construction vehicles outside of the regulated area as well. So there's a full parking plan in there. I don't know everybody's got a chance to look at it. Um, and there's also a description of how there was going to be sheet pile construction in order to construct the actual driveway so that there's less disturbance on the property. So, but if it's something the board would like, I can definitely have an additional plan submitted showing the house because I think the concern we're having is if like if the building is right up against that wetlands boundary, there's going to be that's not the building envelope and the obviously trucks have to go in there. you're going to have uh other disturbance going into the adjacent regulator and we're trying to stay out of that area. So, if we were hypothetically to impose another buffer on there that could affect your building because then you're going to have to push it back. So just to in all fairness just trying to think and so I think within there they say you know there is a work area and we tried to put it at the widest point where we think we might have to work and we're really hoping that it won't be that wide but I don't at least as far as maybe I didn't see it never says how wide that actually is. So, it's problematic because if your if your construction goes up to the 100 ft line and you're digging a foundation, you know, the angle of propose is going to be another

20 ft. No. Yeah. Covering at least the entire adjacent regulated area, maybe more. And that's all wooded. So, and the type of construction they're doing is aggressive in order to achieve that in the hill. So that's a lot of destruction in in the wetlands in order to accomplish that. Our um construction methodology actually includes a limited disturbance at that 75. I'm just looking at I was going to say it's right at the 75. It's at the 70 foot line and then there's separate vegetation planation of that 25 entirely after construction. Is there a DEC report on this? I can't remember. It's easy. It's in that It's in the It's in the last little What do they identify other than bats if anything? I don't remember. I don't know if that's a I mean, you'd think it's a pip and clover area, but I'm not sure. I think it has bat regulations, which I think everyone does now, which is a clearing restriction, right? And that's the only species that they identified. Not on this one. I don't I don't believe they identified clovers. saying it'll be the clearing but not the construction. It will take place within that adjacent regulated area. Correct. Between 75 and 100 ft. And there is um on the construction methodology there is actually a site plan drawn up showing the limits of disturbance proposed locations for self fencing protection measures to are they stay clear of the 75 entirely and that's with the swift content that's also that's approved and we have actually um updated the swift and filed the new forms required to uh continue the the coverage under states. So, I'm sorry I may not have seen it because I read something that said a forthcoming more detailed reg vegetative

plan in one of the pamphlets and maybe so that was um do you know off the top of your head in the reveation plan if if in the adjusted adjacent regulated area they're taking down 50 trees are they putting m mature trees back in or they're putting in grasses and you know do you have any sense of confirm for I would definitely I would guess in their view grasses the well that's my point which is you know I it's not like for like right you know but as you've seen there there's great tree growth I mean from the pictures we sent part of the uh location of the drive is also based on the existing trees on shore as well where they were trying to minimize the cut on shore so that they could keep trees alone property frontage as well there which is why the um plan was drawn with conservation reasons in that section as well because it was a concern for at the zoning board level um visibility from short that's what jumped out at me and also really wasn't part of those town board discussions but when I looked I kept seeing well this telephone here and there telephone here and there's this and so you carve out what is your line of sight going to be and I'm sure they're focused on their own protection but what does that mean in terms of how wide And you know, you have to do that. And I can look further in at the, you know, if I missed some detail in there. Also, you have to take into consideration all all the um uh walls that they're putting up. Uh all those retaining walls, those stepped walls. I mean, I'm just looking at my notes here that that that's that you're you're only going to get a little bit of planting in there and you're going to have to take out a whole bunch of trees to get those steep series of steps. So, if you're already taking out trees there, might as well already look to see how we can mitigate it on the down below. The driveway is a little problematic and

as you know, it's a county road, so the county actually has to approve driveway location. But I drove back and forth because one side it's a hill, you know, the other side it's on a curve and from the curve or the hill, you know, where you just come over from the time you can see the driveway to the time you pass it if you're going 40 m hour, which is too fast is 4 seconds. Now, you know, go to Sunset Beach and have three drinks and then 3 seconds because you're going too fast. So, the driveway makes me a little nervous because it's a curve and a hill. So the one thing always concerned me about this was I had to drive with busy road. We had kids going down there, drunk people and we did incident already. This is your sense and I'm sorry like how far up from the yellow arrows would the driveway be? I mean I've driven down close to one of the pole I think it's the first up between the first pole up first pole up and then the next one. Either way, it's about 200 ft or something to the curve. And I had to look this up at 45 milesPH. It's 66 feet per second. And no, I've driven it up and down many times to try to figure out. Yeah. So, if that's something that you could prepare for the next time or get it over to us for the next meeting. All right. Thank you. Thank you very much. Uh uh the next step on this is they're going to come back with the things that we just asked in terms of like the um area of disturbance in more detail. We we'll send a follow just because All right. Uh are we okay with that? Can I move on to next one? Okay. So, uh, the road minor subdivision, we're still waiting

on the revised sketch plan. So, that's on the applicant right now. And the white performance bond is still on the horizon longer than it's being monitored by the town board. So, all right. We have two advisory uh memos to work on in terms of we have wetlands permit applications for Jeffy and Coppins. It's not on Mortgage Drive. Yeah, Jeffy is on on Marvin's job. Is it? Uh, it's So, I went there with Sean and let's start with that one first. It's not West Morland Drive. Weston, right? Yeah. Oh, actually, Jessica, there's a typo on there. Um, it's West Morland. Let me Jeffy 19 West Mored the wrong house. We went to West Morland. Don't worry. All right. was in 191. Nobody's representing them at this meeting, right? We don't know. Oh, okay. All did you want to talk us through a little bit? Um, yeah. Actually, Matt Sherman is also on Okay. for this application. So, I'll let him lead uh his presentation. Sorry. Tell us who you are, right? Ronald, architect for the deputy residence at 19 West Morland Drive. Hey, good evening. Matt Sherman, Sherman Engineering and Consulting. I'm working with Ray on this project. Um, I'll just give you a real quick uh rundown on what we're doing here. It's a developed single family lot uh or residential lot, excuse me. Has a single family dwelling on it um up by the road. has a accessory building that's got a garage and some living space in it uh down by the water. Um two septic systems on site, one supply well, some asphalt and some other

things that the properties just developed over the years. Um all of it predating town um you know town code, town regulations. So the idea here is and there's actually there's two lots. One is the Landward lot and then there's another one that's Seawword which is where the bulkhead is. bulkhead work has just recently been redone. Some work on the dock that's been redone. Um so so some things have been going on here. Um another project happening on the property right next door uh which is loosely associated with this one. Um what we end up having here is the um all the existing site uh construction is going away. So we're removing a septic system from the regulated area. We're removing a accessory dwelling from the regulated area. uh excuse me, not accessory dwelling, accessory building from the regulated area. We're uh um removing the existing single family dwelling and then we're going to be regrading and u um reconstructing on this property with a new single family dwelling um that is uh um designed in order to get the driveway and the parking up by the road. Septic system is up by the road. the uh supply well is down closer to the surface water to the creek, which we didn't really like, but we had to get the separation distance from the septic systems. So, that puts the the well down there a little bit closer to the creek than we would like. Um, and then we've got a swimming pool, a patio, and a covered porch that are going to be within the uh adjacent regulated area. So, the 75 ft to 100 foot setbacks. kind of a a very similar kind of scenario to something that your board saw recently with the DUN application over on Tuttle Drive and a few others where we've got the swimming pool and some patio or decking and some other uh uh associated improvements within that adjacent regulated area. So it was uh it was designed with the idea

of getting everything out of the vegetative buffer, getting that that uh most seawward septic system as far out of the uh the uh away from the wetlands as we could possibly get it, which is what puts it up by the road. And then so when the day is done, I think we've got a lot of significant improvements to the site in order to come up with the design that we've got now. Well said. Are we open for questions now? Yes, you can ask. Yeah. So, so I guess the my question is why are you defining that outer part of the L as your boundary to the setbacks because it's restricting. So you created this angle that is preventing that is forcing the pool and the patio into the adjacent regulated area. Whereas if you you shorten the L and change the angle probably almost all of that would come out of the adjacent regulated area. And all that does is still you're just creating more of a grand driveway at the moment by doing it the way you have it, but they could probably get the same square footage, slightly different design, and be out of all of the regulated area. Um, we we've obviously pushed the house forward to that front yard set back as possible. Um, but only because you chose an L. If you if you if you push the L the other way or created a T or something and shortened it and and move the angle of the house, you could move the house much closer to the setback more generally and the whole pool and all of that would come out of the adjacent regulated area. So, it seems to be that to me they had a

particular design in mind, but that's forcing them into the adjacent regulated area. They're building a totally new foundation. They're starting all over. There's really no reason from my perspective for them to be anywhere in the wetlands regulated area when they have options, plenty of options here and it's just a slight change of some changes in design. That would be my the program requirements for the client are really driving the size of that garage structure and that's what's you know defining the building envelope. Uh I couldn't quite figure out what is in that little filler piece. Is that a laundry room or in between the garage? There's laundry. There's a mud room space. A powder room in there. Um it's pretty generous though. Um, I guess that's I mean I could fit half my house in that little area, you know, have all of it if you just didn't have it as a perfect L. Like, you know, if you if you made it more of a T and you bought I want to redesign your house for you. No, I I mean, look, I I'm sure do it all day. So, I don't need to do it anymore. From the look of it, it's a beautiful house. It's just the question of what we go back to of it may not even be too big. It's just the way they want it laid out on the pro property is their own personal preference which is forcing it into the regulated area. And you could likely have your washroom and all that kind of stuff maybe a little bit further on the back of the house rather than on this long thing of garage, you know, washroom, everything else, and then coming into the main structure cuz that's what's inhibiting you. It's the the angle. I think um we've taken a very close look at entry

into the garage. That's a 28t dimension. That's pretty tight, you know, getting into the garage along that side. Um, so we couldn't really expand in that direction. You know, 28 ft is really pretty uh pretty hard to turn a car around and get into a garage. Um I know I have I thought that was a little tight, too, when I I looked. It's tight. Yeah. Yeah. So, um pushing the garage over along that side or reconfiguring um to accommodate that doesn't necessarily doesn't necessarily work. Angling it gives us a pinch point for that first bay, but maybe they'll put, you know, their kayaks and bicycles and things like that in there. The other two bays will be for the cars. Is that because of the way you design the driveway? Um, no. The the driveway or the the access to the garage is on the back side of the house. They don't want to see the garage doors from the front of the house. I I I get it. Like like I get it. But again, these are all personal preferences that they're program requirements for your client. But that's not Well, we have our own requirements. That's where we go to build in the wetland. This just goes back to and look we'll go through this process but this just goes back to are there practicable alternatives and there are there have these particular things that they would like but that interferes or conflicts with the public interest to not be in this area. And you know as Matt has indicated um previous applications we have had uh very similar um success and and this project in particular um I think there's

a lot of benefits of what we're removing and what we're um kind of creating with this vegetative buffer. removing that existing structure that is 50 ft from the bulkheading or so. Um, you know, there are a lot of other benefits where, you know, I didn't have those on those other projects. So, I think that you should look at the project as a whole um as something as as a huge improvement with an IIA system that's towards the road. This property is also or this project will be built at the elevation of the road level and not down low. Right now you see the roof of the house when you kind of pull up. That's because all of that was built at a very low elevation. Um the garage is even lower. That garage uh is like at elevation four and floods during high tide cycles. um we've seen it come over the bulkhead in there. So to pull that structure out and to pull those retaining walls out and you know that unnatural kind of carving into the existing hill uh that's existing right now would all go away and we would just regrade that as a natural slope. So that's a huge benefit to this application. I think those are that's a you know yes there benefits but that's that those are a bare minimum to improve the site and make it better. I I I don't you know I don't think so I don't think making a good architecture is you know that's that's it goes without saying you should try to do that and I'm sure you can achieve that without encroaching into the wetlands. There's also um you know currently lawn

right up to that bulkheading. Um so creating a 75 ft buffer of you know non-mode nonfertilized non you know uh uh non-native grasses uh is is definitely a benefit. There's an asphalt road that cuts through there. Um there's a lot of benefits to this application and these are things that we proposed and approved uh before wetlands applications before. So um I have a question I guess for probably Matt. Uh on the property also there there were two trees that are sort of like right in front of the house where that's being proposed with like right right in front of the water view. One seems a little bit more sickly than the other. Not sure if that one could the one could be saved but probably the second one. Do you have any intentions of on that particular tree leaving it or the only trees that are uh scheduled to be removed are the ones that are over by that cottage um as a result of the removal of the cottage and the retaining walls and the regrading would be uh taken down. I have that's a little bit in the application it says specifically remove trees in the wetland areas as part of the scope about those couple of trees. I don't know which trees it was. I don't have a drawing that indicates which Yeah, you do. We have I'm not sure. I'd be surprised if they're not. All the drawings you submitted digitally were cropped to print on a small sheet of paper. So when I open them, you only see a little snippet of the entire drawing. You guys You guys each should have gotten a full-size set of drawings. We submitted 20 sets of the entire I did. I got those as well. Oh, so you did get the full size seat. Okay. So then you've got drawing C1.1 that has the vegetation plan on it which in color shows the trees to be removed and the trees that are going to remain to we tried to make it as

explicitly clear as we could. And those couple of trees to be removed are the ones just on the the water side of the house on the opposite corner as the garage as Ray was saying before down by the existing um accessory building. Um, I believe the ones that Julia was describing are the ones that are over closer toward the bulkhead. Yeah. And the intention right now is to leave those trees as as as they are. There's no, you know, that that whole area is going to be reveated with um with native you uh uh adjacent area vegetation. So, there's no reason to take those trees out of there. Got it. Speaking of of C11, I did have a question because we got a second site plan that was from uh Mr. hammer and I don't remember which is what one of them shows a new retaining wall the entire length of the property line going to the bulkhead. I think I don't know I think that's his not yours. That's his Yeah, that was a Yeah. So there's no retaining wall proposed there. Okay. Let me cross that. It's it's it's called as a hedge on raised Wait, I'm sorry, Matt. Are you both talking at the same time? So yeah, hold on a second. All right. The um if you look at my site plan and you look at Ray's site plan, it's called out as a hedge on both of those. Uh we did not notice that it was called out as a retaining wall on the survey. So that's um I've already asked um Rob over at Hemer's office to correct that and as soon as I get a stamped copy of the corrected survey, we'll submit that into the town as well. Y, you know, you mentioned the elevation of the house at 18, which is I guess about a foot above the road elevation right now. Yes, exactly. And and that's great for the road and it simplifies the slope in your driveway. Yes. But on the other side of the house, it means that you have a 6 to 8t high retaining wall depending on how much fill you ultimately bring in. I think the

contours are shown as about the I think there's an 8ft contour line at the at the lower end of the house. And I assume the deck is at the same elevation as the house more or less. Does the deck step down? Yeah, the the swimming pool steps down uh three steps. So that's a it's actually in lower. The 16T contour naturally exists kind of along the back of that house. And we would continue that 16 ft contour kind of along along the back side of the house. Um it does slope off from that point. You know, it goes 14 12 10 and that's the natural slope. So there are no retaining walls required to do that. But what do you see at the side of the pool? You would see a stone veneer wall, but it's not going to be six feet. Um that pool elevation is actually dropped uh a total of like 30 in from the finished floor of the house. Got it. And so you're not going to see a 6ft wall. You're see, you know, maybe uh 30 in or 3 ft. Sounds better. What's your plan for the overhead wire that's over the pool? Those are being removed. Yeah, those are actually uh scheduled to be removed. Buried. Yeah, they're going to bury it and bring it across the front of the property. Yeah, I'm sure the neighbor doesn't like it either. That's another benefit. And those are high tension wires. It's not even like just a regular, right? These are uh squirrels have gotten not want to be in the pool with those over you. Yeah. that that's that's work that's being done in progress right now. Sean, did we forget anything else with the just the wires, the trees? But again, I I think what Sean's trying to talk to here too about is just that I I don't see the hardship either in keeping it where in the adjacent regulated. I mean, there's there's I would just not you you know, this was

not like you were constrained there and you were starting with that. Yeah. And I I'll just add before you reply is you know there it is from my perspective there is and I prefer to try to be transparent in what my thinking is or I'm not you know um existing structures you know some that are already in the wetlands you know so you know yes potentially some improvement um by moving some of them out Um, I personally don't think, especially when you're pouring a whole new foundation and creating a whole new structure, that you get a gimme because, you know, there was stuff there before, right? I think it's more nuanced if you're saying, I'm trying to renovate an existing structure and how do I do that because I'm not moving the house. They've already demonstrated that they're starting totally fresh in a, you know, new place and the only things that are in the adjacent regulated area are not the necessities of the house. They're the deck, the pool, they're the nice things to have. So that's there's no hardship there. You can have you can have all the house you want and not have a pool and you'd be better off in 99% of America, right? So there is not a hardship. And so the idea that I don't want to see the garage or I want my washroom attached to the garage rather than a little further down in the house. You can make modifications to this. You know, I'm not an architect, but you look at it and you go shift it like this and move this back and you're out of the regulated area and you still get probably all the square footage and your pool and everything you want. Yeah. So the the nuances of the things that they particularly want from me are not going to allow them to build this because that doesn't push them over the

threshold of, you know, they they could leave the garage that's there, cut the garage back, you know, so leave the building that's in the regulated area, cut the the building back so that it conforms. We don't even need to have a wetlands conversation. Not sure I understand. You're you're not seriously proposing they're going to keep the house that's there. No, but they could keep that garage that's there that has an existing that's 50 ft from the bulkheading. That's you know, like I don't mean to be semantics, but if if if that right, we're kind of doing game theory here, right? So, if that's the game they want to play and they say, "Well, then we're going to try to reserve our right to keep this existing structure and build it. Put it on the table and we'll we'll look at it." There is no driveway driveway. It is a storage place on a slab or whatever. You want to propose a little guest house there because you shift this all out of the wetlands and you want to keep that and do it. Put it on the table. But kind of like the threat of, oh, we're going to keep that then it's not going to do it for me, you know? Right. Understood. I I mean I understand your reluctance to want to go back into the design. Obviously, you're pretty far. No, not at all. Well, you're pretty far along with it. So, but but I mean, there are elements in that that could be shortened. I mean, it has a pretty substantial covered porch facing that circular area. I mean, is that a use? Are they going to sit out and look at the cars? I mean, it's more of a modern entrance. You know, if it was a little less generous, maybe you could lose a few feet. I mean, you don't have how many feet are we talking about to get that corner out of the out of that zone? You have so much of the front middle part of the house that is further back from the building setbacks, right, that you're you're

choosing by design to do that and that's what's causing you pushing you in there. And so I what I struggle with and that's we're where we will hopefully get to the conversation in the future is that the homeowner will come to you and say I want a building and these are the setbacks and these are the things and you'll design it without going into the setbacks. And I believe Matt has another application that does exactly that where it's like hey we're just going to do the right thing. We're change moving the house and we're moving it all the way back to the 100 line. There's no reason why these people can't do the same thing. I think I think the code says smaller lot. So, but that's where we're at. Yeah, it it is it's a significantly smaller lot. And to that end, and I don't want to argue the point because, you know, everyone has their own point of view on this, you know, and you can ask any of the the architects that are on the board. Um, you look at the code, you look at what the code says you can and can't do. You also look at previous applications and previous approvals. And there's been I don't know how I can't I don't know off the top of my head know how many similar applications to this where we've gotten wetlands permits for this very similar kind of condition. A pool and a patio seawword of the house. The house is at the front yard setback. The pool and the patio are within the regulated area and the wetlands permit was uh was approved. Does that mean, you know, I'm I'm not a big uh proponent of precedent, but you do have to look at what's been approved and never been denied when you're looking at how these applications should be viewed. Yeah, fair enough. I mean, you mentioned done, and I'll look back at several of them to to see how, you know, where they each have their nuances. You know, we we hear that though, I have to say, Matt, we hear that argument, or I've heard it in the ZBA, having listened in, where people say, I want a bigger house. you approved so and so's bigger house, you should approve mine. And you know, it's

like they say with the ads for the mutual funds, you know, past performance is no indication of future gains or whatever. I, you know, I think it puts a burden on the board to say we have an expectation that things will be approved because another board did approve them. I mean, we wouldn't, there's no reason for us, I mean, they brought in some new people, so you know, we should get to exercise our opinions. Can we say that we're fair enough like we're at at a good point to write the advisory memo to the town board? We have enough information and you're satisfied with the answers. Okay. Good. All right. Good. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. We appreciate it. This is a um work session, so I'm I'm not going to be taking any comments from anyone on Zoom just yet. Um all right. uh copins and we had um David I look at it too separately separately. Yeah. But thank you both for going. All right. And do we do we have anybody here from doing that one too? Yeah. Yeah, that'd be me. All right. opens. Yeah, I can give you a real quick rundown on this one as well. This is kind of like the opposite of the last one where we've got a much larger piece of property um already developed, single family dwelling, uh accessory building with living structure, living quarters in it, pool, uh patios, decks, septic, all that kind of stuff. Um th this wetlands application is for the removal of the existing um improvements that are within the regulated area. Because of the size of this property, they were able to push everything back. So all of the new construction is outside of the 100 foot setback. So there's really not a whole lot to talk about on this one. Um the the first 75 ft is being reveated

with um native uh uh adjacent area vegetation. um couple of little pathways in order to get from the house area down to the water, but other than that, it's going to be uh all non-turf buffer. So, this is kind of like the um you know, this this is the poster child, which I think is how the CAC referred to it as the poster child of what you would want to see a wetlands permit um to uh to look like. So, I a couple quite a bit. I've already spoken for a while. I I I'll start. I I only have a little bit. This is interesting. So, um the one thing I thought was interesting was the there is the it's like you got everything out of the adjacent regulator except for this gravel walkway. Was that purely just for symmetry? That's exactly the first thing I noticed. I asked the same question. I mean, we're all looking at the same plans. I asked the same question and that was it. That was so that things looked, you know, had a a a visual uh uh layout that was more pleasing. I mean those kinds of details are lost on me but I'm not an architect so or a design you know that kind of a designer so that's where it falls out but being a gravel walkway that's only a few square feet it's not really going to have any kind of an impact either way so I didn't push the issue yeah I that was my again going here and seeing seeing the space and trying to envision all this on top of us trying to figure out that was the only I could figure uh so Cool. Um, there were some other things on when I was trying to figure out the trees being removed. It was a little difficult the space and it looked like some trees that were being That's the one that shows all the Yeah, that's the one that shows removals. But what was it? But I was trying to It was very hard to tell from the actual process. Those two big trees are buried in a tree. I had to I actually had to measure and see where

they would end up in there. That explains my confusion. Uh, and so I had the same panic. Yeah. Okay. So really, it's actually only a few trees. It's all outside of the graduating area. So I guess I have no other comments major ones. D, I know you had some interesting things around a few. Yeah, Matt, type in clovers and I'll get I'll get back to those. But yeah, Matt, when you're putting these sets together, This is the squares. We have, you know, like five different site plans and three different versions of where north is. And there's some sheets where the same plan is oriented at 180° where north is one way and one and one way and the other. And then there's one where north. Can we make an effort to have north in the same orientation in every plan? Sure. Yeah, we can do that. Just like turning everything over. I was doing the same thing. Um, and the area totals are above 6,000 ft. I mean, that's not a wetlands issue, but at some point somebody is going to recognize that between the the main house at 5386 and the 800 ft of bedrooms above the garage, they're above 6,000 ft. But that's that'll be someone else's business. Okay, great. Um, I see they've already started clearing and and there's three substantial trees that used to be there and they're no longer there. Um, and I just want to emphasize the bat thing. And there's no tree clearing between March 1st and November 30th. I don't know when they're planning on cutting the other four trees down indicated on your removals plan. Yeah. The reason why those few trees came down when they did was because of the bats. We wanted to get them down before the um

uh before they were prohibited to take them down, um I believe the other four trees that need to come down, I think, are the ones that are in that driveway area and by the uh by the septic uh by the leeching field. So, you know, we're we're quite a ways away from having to worry about those. Um and uh uh you know they it's the uh the ones by the house that are the ones that are in more um you know or more uh uh more urgent to have them taken out during this past window as opposed to waiting to the next window. Got it. I think that what is it um November uh December 1st to uh to March 1st is the window that you can take trees down with with some exceptions that we're working on some projects right now trying to work through some of those exceptions right the and you know those two significant trees there's a 34 in or something like that 40in caliper trees that are in this that wetland setback but they're also very close to the proposed demolition uh and potentially to the to the new excavation. So I I don't know what the precedent is for having an arborist identify critical root zones before they excavate and showing protection on your drawings for you know how you're going to put a put a cage around the trunk of the tree so someone doesn't drive a backho into it. I mean, is that a normal requirement anyway? Because those are valuable trees and I wouldn't want to see them demolished. Um, yeah, the timing of the demolition also, they do flag piping clovers on this site. Mhm. And uh, you know, I looked that up and that's like March to August. So, I don't know what their schedule is for def for demolition, but you know, they're endangered, so I'm sure they don't aren't going to appreciate backhos driving over them.

Um, there's some this I I wrote the numbers down wrong, but the storm water calculations between C1 and C11 are a little different. And I'm not I mean, just take a look at those because they don't they don't tie together. Um, but I'm curious in general about imperous areas other than roofs because your your dry wells seem to be based on roofs only. Mhm. And in these sensitive zones where you're going to have runoff towards the the wetland, towards the salt water for that matter, is there a requirement to capture uh runoff from, you know, patios or driveways, even if they're gravel driveways? requirement. The town requirement is for uh impermeable services, concrete, asphalt, things like that. The um and um but I mean you guys can always make whatever recommendation to the town board you think is appropriate for them to take into consideration. Yeah. I mean, don't don't you think I mean I know rainwater sheets off a lawn, you know, it's not even though it's grass, it's not really permeable in a heavy rain. So I I I mean I you'd think that when you're right adjacent to wetlands, it would be good practice to collect storm water, but I I'm not a big fan of dry wells because you're basically injecting groundwater. I mean, you're injecting storm water closer to groundwater. You're not allowing a lot of the natural filtration to occur. I'm a big fan of like the 75- ft non-turf buffer. Let that slow the overland flow down when it long before it gets to the wetlands area. let it, you know, uh, feed those plants that are there and recharge that way. I think that's a much better way to handle it. Um, same thing with plantings around buildings. Um, the idea that you've got to put in dry wells, that's what the town code says. You got to put in dry wells for the roof

areas. I think that kind of limits uh um some of the better ways to handle these things. But it's that, you know, that's what the regulation says, right? And and the last thing is that I mean there is an increase in imperous surfaces on the site with the new construction I think of about 5%. And I mean I I don't know where we are in terms of mitigating that but it's just a fact. They're building a much bigger house. Mhm. Or the Let the record show they're increasing. We have it down. That's all I have. Thank you, Matt. Thank you. Okay. Thanks, Matt. And I believe that's everything. Yeah. Well, gentlemen, I believe that's it for the meeting. Uh me wants to I have to answer Sean from I didn't have further. Um so I did misspeak earlier. We set the public hearings. We haven't had the public hearings. So right now the public hearings are set for Monday for secret fees related to the environmental quality review section of the codes. Site plan review section of the code subdivisions wetland zoning are all going to be public hearings for Monday night. Um and then we're also setting the public hearing for the secret fees for the doc to Monday night. So that'll be next month. But the hearing set is happening Monday. So if anyone has comments on whether or not fees should be passed to the applicant that would be the time to be heard. Did you look at did you see the effective date how the handling the secretary of state? So once the secretary of state accepts them as our new code then they would go into effect. So if you um any application that would come in after that or any environment that would start after that I think would go underneath that. Not sure about the

logistics will be implemented, but we'll sort that out hopefully before. Thank you. You're welcome. Thanks, Mike. Um, can I have a motion to close the meeting? Motion to close the meeting. Second. Second. All right. Thank you. Thanks everybody. Take care everybody.