Planning Board - Regular Meeting

And I'm going to take roll call 1st, David.

Yeah.

Scott Matthews here. Marcus casick here. Julia Weisenberg is here. Sarah Lewis here Sean Davey here. Greg Cranford. And we have our attorney, Rick Whalen and request. All right. what'd you say otherwise the two ricks correct um first order of businesses we're going to approve the minutes um from the may 12th 2026 meeting did everyone get a chance to look at those any questions or questions okay would someone like to make a motion then that we accept the minutes from may 12th david creville and a second all right marcus second all in favor then all right thank you We have two bills. First one is from our attorney, which is in the amount of $2,210. Did everyone get a chance to look at the bill? Any questions there? No questions. Okay, so would someone like to make a motion that we accept the invoice from Wayland Fielder for $2,210? This was for services in May.

I'll make a motion.

Sarah, thank you. Second? I was looking at Greg, pardon John. Thank you, and all in favor then? Aye. Second one is from our engineer, Greg Wisnowski, and that was for services done in May of 2026. And that total invoice was for 630 dollars, which you all had a chance to look at. Someone want to make a motion then to accept for the rainer group for 630 for a month of May. Thank you. Scott Matthews and 2nd from Marcus on favor than I think. Okay, so I'm going to add this in because we. I'm going to add this in on the on the work session part here. So. We got an extension from our subdivision. Subdivision for Crescent Beach LLC. Did you all get a chance? It came in kind of late, but today is their deadline. So they did meet the deadline to get it to get us the request. And Rick Whalen was so kind enough to pull that together last minute. We appreciate that. And again, the reason for their asking for a 6 months extension has to do with they are still working through their process with the Suffolk County Health Department. As you all know, that does take a long time. I'm not surprised. So, whereas we received a letter dated June 9 from John J. Bennett. requesting on behalf of the applicant an extension of time within which the applicant must submit an application for minor subdivision approval. And they were explaining that they currently are engaged with the Suffolk County Department of Health Services and seeking that agency's approval. And whereas we, the planning board, find that under these circumstances the applicant's failure or inability to file an application for minor subdivision approval within the allotted time is excusable, and that an additional six months may be necessary for the applicant to file such application. And so therefore the planning board hereby grants the applicant a six month extension of time and that would be until December 8th, 2026, in which to file the application for minor subdivision approval. And so be it further resolved that other than expressly set forth here within, this resolution shall not alter the conditional sketch plan approval granted to this application, which was done on December 9th, 2025. So would someone like to make a motion then to approve the extension for Crescent Beach LLC? thank you this is the easy part okay okay all in favor of the extension all right hi thank you everyone just i'm just gonna move these things away next thing all right um so i'd like to make a motion then that we close the business meeting um at 704 and we go into our work agenda second someone Sarah, I'm sorry you're not. Does that count?

Okay.

Okay. As part of our work session agenda, to begin with, we have this evening a continuation of the lot line modifications, Bacall and Kinney. And we received, which is very nice, very planetary, a memo on the call Kenny from our engineer that was distributed by Jessica. So, to everyone, everyone have that in front of them, or a chance to look that over. So, let's see, I'm just going to get my notes up here. So, this is a case of 3 lots being reconfigured in a sense. To 3 lots, they're just changing the shape. So I did want Rick, our attorney, Rick to just explain a little bit my understanding of the code. It might be some of the other members here too that. On lot line adjustments, you usually, you cannot create more than 2 lots. So, upon 1st, looking at this, you might think, well, how can this be? Because they're adjusting the line. It's creating 3, but they have an existing 3. so did you want to add a little bit about that record?

Backs on that. Code section 116.1 says the adjustment of lot lines. shall result in no more than two parts of the product, and shall not create any newer additional lots, or any substandard lots, or an increase in actual or potential additional lots, unless specifically authorized elsewhere in the checker. So the language is a little weird. Proposed adjustment of lot lines shall result in no more than two parts of land. Well, it's an adjustment of lot lines. It's not a subordination. It doesn't create new lots. They have three lots, more than two, but they already have three lots. So if it was worded more specifically, I might say you can't do a lot by modification or adjustment with three lots, but the language in code doesn't really make sense. In addition, all the lots do meet and will meet though. In fact, I have a change in title here, which brings them forward, the owners of Bacall and Kinney, I guess. They acquired three properties at different times. They own all three properties today. But they don't learn all 3 of the lots, which is 3,000 square feet line area. What are your feet a lot for? So, it's kind of irrelevant chain of title because running lots are not conforming. So you're free to modify them if you.

Um, obviously, they're also going to need stuff to kind of Department of health services to get a lot of. And they're going to also have to go to Suffolk County Planning Commission because two of those lots are up front. It's on North Cartwright. It's a county road.

Planning Commission referral. I have to check. I'm not sure if it applies to lot adjustment.

I don't know. That was actually, that was in Rick's memo. I think it does. It does, yeah.

It does?

And then the only other thing to note, everyone, you did notice that there is a freshwater wetland, but it just skims out. It's insignificant. It's kind of like it's within, it's past 100 feet, and it's right on tippy tippy end of the one for this one lot there. So those are the characteristics of this that stood out to me. I did have a question.

That's great. So I don't have the site map in front of me. The larger parcel after subdivision is in excess of 1 acre and could potentially be subdivided in the future. Did you note that?

I don't think that was in your memo. I think about the size of the, like, the size of the 3 post.

What's the square footage there, Julia?

Yeah, 106,730.

So, I just wanted to raise that as something to review.

And it is in a zone where. Two properties could theoretically be made from that one.

I think that's something for us to talk about.

Do you have any thoughts on this one?

Well, Greg, are you suggesting that we should try to limit future subdivision of that property? I'm not sure.

Well, I don't know if that's what I'm suggesting. But what I'm saying is that we need to look at it as not just potentially a realignment of three parcels, but something that in doing so creates the possibility of four parcels.

which wasn't possible if we agreed to that then it it's then we just have to it's the only one of those three that could potentially right right and is that okay well first of all let me just make a comment that's that's a very legitimate question because if you read the what i just was reading about my adjustment one of the requirements is that you shall not create the potential potential An increase in actual potential fish lots. But looking at the existing configuration, which is very different, a lot more than a lot of the current libraries, the peat lot, the bay lot, that's subdividable right now, I think, under the C regulations, C regulations.

You mean to make a flag lot? Yeah.

Just as it is right now, but with the law.

It looks like they're not, but that is the kind of thing you should look at. It does look like right now, If they didn't do the lot line modification, they could still create a 4th lot by dividing a number. So there's no effort, no. Potential increase in the number of lots they could potentially still afford when that's the area that. It must be minimum to see it go.

Yeah. That's not one acre? I didn't hear that. It's not a true acre. It's less. $40,000. The one that you're saying is large enough to be- It's $107,000. That's correct.

Almost the same size. It's almost the same size as the one they're talking about. So the bottom line is they're not creating the potential for an additional lot as a result

Did you want to ask the applicant questions about this? Because Matt Sherman's on Zoom.

Bingo.

We're not alone here.

And the curtain parts.

Do you have any sense of what their intent is? Is they want one big lot to enjoy no intent on subdividing or any idea if they

Yeah, that is the current intent. And I'm sure that they don't want to give up any future property owner rights that they don't have to in order to get this approved. But as it stands right now, what their intent is like in that area just north of the existing house on lot one, where the clearing area kind of does a semicircular curve as you go from west to east. they're going to be looking to put a greenhouse or something like that in that area once this lot line change is approved. So they're actually thinking along the lines of doing more work on lot one that would make it harder to subdivide it later down the line. So that the subdivision, the further subdivision of lot one is not anything that's entered into any conversations I've had with them at all. And then the idea of being lot one is really their main That's where they live. That's where they use the property. Lot three, the one at the corner of Congdon and Cartwright, they're going to be doing some modifications to that house, just kind of make it a little bit nicer, put in a new septic, things like that. And lot two for now is just looking to stay vacant. So obviously, as time goes on and family needs change, Those intents could, you know, the intention of those different properties will change along with them. But as it stands right now, it's along the lines of what you were just describing, a lot one staying as one large 106,000 square foot parcel and just, you know, with no further subdivision of it. And just, you know, since since I'm on the just to let, you know, the health department has reviewed this as well. Basically, the only thing they're waiting on is the town secret determination. It all meets muster with them got a letter from the, because they always ask about DC approval for these lot line changes where there's a freshwater wetlands nearby. I'm not sure why they still ask the question because every time we get them a letter from the saying, they don't care as far as freshwater wetlands. A lot line changes. Um, so we got that for them and we're getting the same thing from the town to say that there's no, there's no wetlands review or wetlands approval for for a project like this.

Does that answer the members any concerns or did you get some questions answered here? Or what do you think?

No further comments. I mean, we're not really creating new potential for further subdivisions, so I don't think I have any more comments. No more than what's already there.

It just shifted to the bigger lot, which makes it, you couldn't, the subdividing would be more attractive because you have more land to work with, but it's not an addition to what's already there. And sounds like these guys aren't interested our future owner. Maybe though.

There's nothing you can do.

Yeah. Yeah.

There's nothing we can do right now about that. But, um. I mean, I, I have no objections to this as it is again. My only question to Rick was about. The interpretation of our own code about not having more than 2 lots the way it's worded on me for a few minutes and I know David and I were discussing that maybe so. Okay. no objection okay i think it's pretty straightforward given some of these we had so uh matt i think um that's the only thing we had to ask you for this application okay i'll go i'll go behind the curtain again if you want to hang tight yeah just for a little bit yeah we'll do we'll do all right um all right so that was our only one for lot line uh adjustments on our subdivisions we we already did we gave uh the bloom applicants their extension uh we gave west neck creek cottages their extension just this past meeting uh fowler trust we are still waiting for them but they have an extension as well um and uh crescent beach loc we we just did that resolution this evening that was um resolution number five okay um only i do want to say just one more additional thing which is not really it's not part of our discussion of their subdivision but i i did want you to know that the uh they had a previous case um they we were in a appeal um with this applicant to uh fight a ruling about the house being built you recall that was so that appeal was lost And I did put in the shared driver, Jessica, put in the shared drive that the judge's decision on that. So at your leisure, if you want to look at it, that's fine. But that means that at the Monday, I think it was Monday evenings meeting a resolution was passed with that applicant is able to build the house. So the house that is always being referred to it in all our. subdivision documents, that house is now not in contention anymore. That appeal was lost. So that resolution.

Could you just explain the basis of the loss of the appeal? Because I didn't quite understand it. Yeah. So I've dealt with it a little bit.

In fact, I didn't know exactly what happened. I haven't read the decision in its entirety. The town board denied. So the town board has jurisdiction to approve for single family rents, I think, more than 5,000 square feet. And obviously, this is well over 5,000 square feet.

$59.99.

Another square foot.

And so under a prior intent attorney, the application was heard by the town board, or they refused to hear it that night. Because the town board was contemplating, and I think what happened, and I hope I have my facts right here. At the time, the town board was contemplating the moratorium on hours above 5,000 square feet. And they were having a hearing on that, the same time that they were scheduled to hold the hearing on this application. The attorney at the time advised the town board they didn't need to hear the request for each application. So they didn't. I don't know if they did a formal denial or not. But the bottom line is the applicant then sued and pointed out that the town board in the past had granted numerous special permits for similar houses over 5,000 square feet. I don't know if they denied any of them. They denied this one. And the basis for denial appeared to have been that they were then contemplating a moratorium, which is not yet been adopted. So the town was not in a very good position. The applicant succeeded. lowest level. The town appealed and the town lost on the appeal. I know that these tenants still not formally approved this by a town board resolution. So that came when John Bennett represented the outlet. So he contacted me about three weeks ago or so. I referred him to Thomas Crouch, who's really been acting as the town attorney. And Thomas had a conversation, I believe, with John Bennett And I didn't hear what happened later, except Julius just explained it. He didn't adopt a resolution.

He adopted it Monday night. That's all I know.

That was what Ben was pressing for. So the house is approved. It's not built, which is important. Because you don't get vested rights until you commence substantial construction on a duly approved, under a duly approved permit.

So what does that mean?

Growth Team, What it means is that if they have something in front of you, and you want to design things without consideration of that House, you can do that. Growth Team, They build a house, or at least get the foundation in, and they acquire the vested rights, at that point you have to take account of their residents. Growth Team, But if they haven't approved for residence, but haven't begun to build it, haven't made substantial progress towards construction of the house, And they want you to approve a subdivision act. And look, we're talking about the slopes of property. You can take account of the slopes and so forth, and you don't have to, you know, you don't have to accede to the fact that they have approval. Now, they act under the approval, and they do damage the slopes before you act. Well, then you're presented with a fate out of play. You have to deal with that. But, you know, it depends. They have a permit now. But they haven't yet done anything physically on the property.

My question in terms of process, which may very well just fall outside of the subdivision question, is that the original, when the judge originally approved, not on the appeal, the decision says that the town may impose reasonable conditions. So as far as I'm concerned, from a wetlands planning board We, I believe we are likely to have conditions that we would want to impose, or at least discuss. What is the process to have that? Do we just choose to put it on the agenda, discuss it and send them a letter and say, or, you know, what is the process for creating those or in discussing reasonable conditions to submit their final application?

We only have them at sketch approval, right?

But that's separate, potentially separate from the subdivision question.

Right, but our application is the subdivision. So we have to focus any conditions or things that you're considering on the subdivision, which in turn could obviously affect where the house, where this house that was now approved is put.

I think someone's asking whether anyone else can impose conditions.

Well, they put the planning board-imposed conditions outside of the subdivision review on the wetlands review because the judge says... No, the decision by the judge had to do with the town board's design.

So what it means is the town board, and they adopt the resolution. I haven't seen the resolution. I wasn't prepped for this.

They put the conditions in that they typically do for...

They don't have anything unusual. They just have their standards. As far as I remember, it was just... Now, the wetland permit was separate from the special permit for the house size. So I think they would have granted the wetland permit, right, at some point?

I think in the ruling, it mentions the wetland permit that they have to.

Not quite sure about this. Is the wetland permit in it?

The wetland permit was included in the judge's ruling. So we had to issue both at once with the standard condition.

All right. So both permits were issued in the same resolution.

But we can impose conditions on the subdivision.

No, I mean, I read it and I think it's worth looking at again that the original court order said, you know, they can proceed, but the town can impose because the judge kind of wiped through a lot of process.

You know, you know, in that context, but I haven't seen the resolution, so I don't know specifically what the conditions were, but yeah, so the other thing to consider is that we are advisory only on wetlands and this just closed that door.

This is this is closed out with the I mean, I don't know why the town board wouldn't then ask. Does anybody, you know, does any of the committees that are involved in this 1 at 1. Any input in what conditions we impose?

They pass the resolution.

Well, I know. It's kind of a great process. Like, why not ask for input?

But I guess I thought tonight it was important that you all knew about that, that that was dropped in there. But we really don't have, we can't really discuss it tonight because we're still waiting on the final application.

We have nothing.

We've already, it's just a waiting game now.

Yeah.

Guidelines for what to do. formal minor application. But at the moment, you don't have a minor subdivision application.

I assume it's likely, since they've gotten a building permit for the big house, that they'll probably take the time that's already been delayed to probably resubmit the subdivision showing the house. So you have to accept that as a fair complete.

You're showing the house? You're showing the proposed house.

Well, they're showing the proposed house with the foundation maybe already on the ground.

yeah we're going to submit a final subdivision application that's I don't know I can't I can't speak with it for we had to specifically request that they add footprint site improvements for the proposed has onto the subdivision application because it wasn't there difficult and he was saying well but you're not supposed to be considering that. But ultimately he did they didn't put it on.

Put the print of the proposal on the diagram onto the massive retaining wall behind that.

Yeah, there's a housing pool and driveway and parking and upper parking and lower parking. It's a huge.

As Rick, as Rick Whalen, our attorney had said many times, this is an unusual situation because usually you come with a subdivision. You haven't done anything yet, but this is like. The house is approved. Where are we going to plop it? That's that's why that's what makes it difficult. to try to envision how are you going to cut this up.

They might do what David says. They might go ahead and get a building permit to commence construction, establish vested rights. If they don't do that, the fact that they have a permit to build something that they've never built becomes irrelevant at the subdivision stage. You don't have to design around something that doesn't exist.

OK. I think we should move on to the next one. All right. okay for uh the row uh applicants were we never got the revised sketch plan so we're still waiting on that um okay robert let's jump into robert which we started discussing last time we were together and since then rick wisnowski prepared another excellent memo for us and our town attorney did an interpretation on several things here um so some things to consider the right-of-way um the walter right-of-way which we first we had this debate about the deeds rick wisnowski found the information passed on to you which you then showed us the actual half yeah so that was really good so we got the information on on the row on the um right-of-way and it looks like the walter right-of-way is valid okay uh second thing to consider is that that one flag strip of the lot is Substandard, right? It's under 20 feet. It's at 16 feet, which is the question of whether it has to go to for a variance. And that would depend on whether you're interpreting the Walter right of way as a street. Or just a right of way and Rick did this great analysis on the code and the interpretation of street. which I found very interesting. And so his conclusion was that we might want to ask the building inspector for his opinion on whether the Walther right-of-way could be deemed a street, in which case the applicant can count that as frontage and would not have to go to CBA for... Well, that's the one I made the... But now you just... So now I'm going to turn it over to you because you want to add something that you didn't put in the memo.

So first of all, the starting point is we did get additional information showing that This property is entitled to use this water right away. So that's number one. They do have a means of access to that. The next question, though, is do they have street trunkage? So that kind of depends upon how you interpret the definition of street, which is in the zoning code. Definitions of terms in the zoning code are to be interpreted in the first instance by the building inspector. somebody doesn't disagree to appeal that to the zoning board, but the building inspector interprets the language in the code. Not me, the building inspector. So either you or the applicant can ask the building inspector to opine on whether or not that right-of-way is a street. It doesn't, at the end of the day, make a great deal of material difference. If it's not a street, then that lot one has no street frontage at all. Even if it is a street, In the C-zone, you need 100 feet of street frontage, and it only fronts on the end of that right-of-way, which is 50 feet wide. So either way, they will need a variance for insufficient street frontage. They need to have zero feet on the road, or 50 feet on the street, maybe darker. But they do have an access. They can use that to get out to Carbide Road. You only mentioned Lot 2 the other day.

Yeah, can you mention that?

So the other mod would be using the existing flagship that currently serves this property. The only way that this property right now touches the street, and it touches Grand Island Road. But that flagship is only 16 feet wide. And chapter 111, well, first of all, the zoning code, as I said, requires 100 feet of frontage. But you can reduce that the plenty board can avoid that. The plenty board can approve a flag lot that doesn't have the requisite 100 feet frontage because it's a flag lot. And so you have a flag lot. The issue with the flag lot is if you exercise your power to approve a flag lot and move it full frontage on the street, that flag lot, the code says, has to be at least 20 feet wide. And it's only 60 feet wide. And the code specifically says, code, I'm referring to chapter 111, the subject regulations say, if you don't have the record at 20 feet, you can seek a variance in the zoning board. But it actually says you have to go to the zoning board for an area variance. So it seems to me that both lots will require variances of some form.

Does it have any

merit that the lots existed with this non-compliant flag sure but yeah still you still need to you know go to the zoning board make your case and right now it's what a 13 acre parcel it's a 13 acre total 13 acres you know undivided so you know uh but you know they need to get a variance that's you know maybe it's a procedural step but they need to do that and the other thing to think about in

Jo's memo was, sorry, Rick.

It was a former engineer, sorry.

is that these are really quite large lots, even once we do this subdivision. So you might want to consider that there's a lot of beautiful natural features there. And do we want to impose an easement over that to protect that from further subdivision? So that was something that stood out for me in his memo as well. So in other words, some kind of restriction on further subdivision. Like once they do this one, it's done.

I think accessibility is also an issue regarding further subdivision. It's one thing to have one house added to, for instance, the right of way, or one house, for instance, added to the nonconforming flag access. But to allow additional structures and subdivision seems to me creates potentially dangerous situation because nothing would be on a street and that of course would be that would have to be approved anyway in the future if there were subdivisions but proposed but I think it's certainly worth discussing.

Yeah, they would dedicate parkland as well, right?

Well, they don't have interesting questions because. Because of the lot size, they can waive the parkland requirement because I think 200%. At least, but if they wanted to subdivide further, it would bump into the parkland requirement, right? Which would make it a little more complicated.

John Pimentel, Matt heavy had discussions at all about future subdivision and whether what their intent is or recognition that. John Pimentel, Further subdivision down the road could be problematic.

We've had very brief discussions on that, but basically come up with exactly what you just said. They don't have any intentions of further subdividing. They do recognize that there is limited access into this area. 1 lot 1 house off of the existing lot off of Ram Island road. That makes sense, but 2 or more that's starting to push your luck a little bit and the same thing coming off of that 50 foot right away. So, basically the concerns that you guys have all just aired are the same. I wouldn't call them concerns, but understandings that the property owners have about the, about the property and the prospect of a future future subdivision after this, assuming this 1 goes through.

Because even if the right way were considered as road. It has, I think, two 90-degree bins in it, basically. So if you have a number, you already have a couple of thousands off of that right-of-way. And so for fire truck access, you know, we talked about a site last year. Over in Westmoreland that had access issues related to fire access, and so I think you know one could begin to apply the same concern to these properties with. In withholding additional subdivision.

Well, Matt, maybe you could take that conversation sometime in the near future full circle with them and whether that recognition of the difficulties gets them to the point of we're not going to try to further subdivide or reserve the right to do that. And so you don't have to keep discussing it.

Yeah, no, absolutely. And I think too, that if this goes to the, um, I'm sure that'll come up at their level as well, because if we're asking for some consideration for access, there's gotta be an acknowledgement that that access is limited. Um, so I think that, yeah, I will certainly talk to the, uh, the property owners about that and either, you know, correspond back with you guys, either with a, a letter or an email addressing that concern and then also do the same thing when we go to the.

with Reid about that, you know, because he's a fireman also.

Well, that's why we were actually going to kick this to Reid to determine if that could be kind of straight.

When we did the white subdivision, there's, you know, there's the fire code that tells you how many, you know, how wide the thing, what the road has to be based on how many structures there are. and it also needs a turnaround so the fire truck gets in there he just can't he's got to be able to turn around so we we designed it with this thing called a hammerhead where they can back in and they can turn they get back into it and come out you know but there's laws on that you know um so while we're waiting for this um is everyone um okay with us we should still get that interpretation from reed right yeah i think so interpretation of zoning and whether this is

need to refer to a fire apparatus right and there are regulations about turnaround you know the access i need to mention the length of the access road too i don't know this is referred to fire commissioners anyway this has to be referred to fire commissioners anyway i mean in crescent i know that was a much longer driveway that was an issue here i'm not sure it's long enough to

Trigger that I forget how many times it may depend on who else is using the road for lots. Oh, yeah. This one using the road. Right.

Oh, we're fine with the right of way because we saw the proof that. No, no, no, I read it. So we will, we'll ask read for that interpretation.

Awesome.

Okay. And clarify for me, how does this work concurrently? So they would, they could, they could go to CBA and we hold the application and what's going on.

You should determine that the application is incomplete until the applicant obtained the required variances.

Is that what everyone would like to do?

Yeah, that's, that's sounds fair.

And in that time, Matt, you can also work out the other question that Sean was asking you.

Yeah, yeah, absolutely. That sounds good.

All right.

Are we good on it? I just forget and I don't have it in front of me. The. The access road that exists now, is there a very long. Drive away from that point to the house. It's sizable right now.

It's a dirt 100 feet. Is there any.

Is there any kind of compensating where you say, like, you know, look, the 16 foot is already challenging. We're going to say don't create a driveway that is then additionally challenging. I mean, it's their own risk. But at the same time, like a responsibility, do we have to not compound the issue that They have a nice meandering driveway there.

So you're talking about fire, fire patterns.

Yeah.

I think the 16-foot current, it's got to blow trees on one side.

But I mean after that, right? Because then you go, or is that just, that's not our business?

It seems to me they can make their own secondary access down to lot two as wide as it needed to be to satisfy. Because they've already cut quite a few trees there to make it open up a bit.

It feels narrow in there. It's narrow. I mean, once they get into the body of the lot, I don't know the future of .

Well, the structure's already there anyway. Yes.

Minor detail, yeah.

All right. Everyone satisfied with that?

Yeah.

Good. Now, the other application that we got, it came in on May 29. This was 9 West Neck Road. So this is as you're heading, if you're coming up West Neck from Silver Beach, heading past Tuck Shop and on the right-hand side is where there's a big clearing that was done previously. They're proposing one lock behind the other. So, a couple of things here, we got this sort of late. So I personally feel I've not had enough time to review it sufficiently. Rick has not had a chance to do the memo on this. So, I feel at this time, we might want to A sign I like might like, want to assign 2 people to this to go, go take a look. I mean, not that we're all obviously, we're all going to be. Chiming in on it, but I would like to sign maybe 2 people to go out there and give it a look.

Now, this is not over the long flag lot.

I just think it would help us. I'd like us to have the memo and jump into a real robust discussion. It's just better for us. So I was wondering Sean and Sarah, do you. Yeah, I could sort of task you with.

And it's just, is there an existing house there now? No, it's just cleared. So it's cleared, so they're... I didn't understand what... You can see from the road, it's been partially cleared three quarters of the way back.

There's not much to look at, really, but... No, the issue that... Are you sure? I mean, there were two issues when I looked at it and I went by it. We have essentially a lot of 50s and in the subdivision requirements, it says you can't clear the lot until your final plot is approved.

So, at the town code, you can clear it if you own it, right?

So, that's well, no discrepancy because you, you can, I mean, they did, but once it seems like, once you're, you've applied for the subdivision, which started a month, at least a month ago, they started filling out the application.

they shouldn't have been clearing the lot yeah but the lot was you you know the last winter they were shopping that lot's been cleared a long time ago oh no they no it was just cleared it was cleared in the past two years I live right around the corner from it I saw them go in and clear it it's only been recent I think it's been more than a month

Yeah, it's the timing question. If they cleared it and then submitted the application afterwards, they can argue that it was unrelated just by timing.

I think the clearing really happened after the application process started, not after it was submitted. Looking at the states on the signatures and things like that, because they were, I think, in early March, maybe mid-March. And it seemed like the clearing was . I mean, in any case, the penalties are so minimal that it doesn't have a non-existent .

I just want to ask, Mark, because you said that you thought that there was like a foundation there already, like an old foundation.

Yeah, from the 50s. Well, the survey shows these little rectangular.

Yeah, they built, the guy tried to, he got a permit to build all these cottages. That's a story I've heard from old times.

Yeah.

And they took the permit away. And they did that in those days, you know.

If you look at the 1962 aerial in the county GIS, I didn't know what they were, a marketing center. God, they were buildings all over the place. And then they were demolished, apparently, because by 1978, they're all gone.

But they were like little foundations with trees growing in the middle of them. Yeah. So about the site that is the flag, the south side of it opens onto some sort of shared access. I'm not quite sure what that is.

It's the road that goes up in there.

I'm assuming it's a private. I took a look at it today. It's officially a driveway for a house at the end, a big house. But there are now two other houses that use it. So it's a shared driveway.

They might not have rights to use that. I'm assuming they don't. Yeah.

i didn't look at it in w um i figured we would wait for the engineer memo too the reason i had i had asked julia about flag lots and as a general issue um because i personally am not a big fan of flat lots and um but i think i think you made a good point about um being an efficient way to create buildable sites without having to increase infrastructure roadway. But the question I have, and I think this is a good illustration, when you're a neighbor to something that becomes a flag lot, and I happen to be a neighbor to a situation that you end up going from a property, if you look at this, property to the east, which just had a site next to it, it becomes a de facto roadway sort of put in to your environment where you would not have assumed a road would go. And I think it's something for us to think about when we accommodate flag lots. I think it's a double-edged sword, yes. you get the advantage of not having to do more town roadways, but you, in fact, are creating imposition on the adjacent property.

It's very fair, especially if the access point is right at a lot line. Right. What is, what is there?

That is what happened to me.

Yeah. And can you say, you know, I think that's a fair consideration of, you know, should you be further off the lot line to, you know, it is, I mean, we know a lot of these larger acres exist. And so it's, I guess it's not surprising that we're seeing this kind of coming and coming again and coming again. It's concerning. And I think that we should just be mindful of precedents because they're going to keep coming right yeah and and how do we want to think about those types of i think these little piecemeal back watt acres are not in the long run a great asset to the town

And also from a planning standpoint, the concept of minimum road frontage is really in conflict with the idea of creating flag lots. What's the point of having minimal road frontage if you're allowing And particularly when it's this kind of shotgun approach, as opposed to a 13 acre site which you can't get to otherwise.

yeah. Well, if you recall rick had did you do a memo for us on flag lots as well, you talked about the history of it and that's actually how I was. I look back at when Greg was asking me about I was looking at some of you know. your interpretations of like the benefits and versus the, you know...

The early local design ordinances did not provide for flag lots. I can't speak to Shell Brown, obviously, but in East Hampton, they didn't allow flag lots in total, I think, until the early 1970s, going back to 1957. The reason that they did it is that you're alternative. Let's say you have a parcel of land that's big enough only to be divided into two. Let's say you have enough of a margin in an area that you can actually afford to build a road. If you don't let them build a create a flooding lot. Their alternative is to build a subdivision road, 55, 50 feet in right-of-way width, because that's the minimum road that you can create today under the law. And they do have to provide the necessary frontage on the subdivision road, could make it even longer, because they have to run alongside their lot, so they have the necessary frontage on the road. And then they can then, you know, insult to injury, but then say, no, thank you. Now that we've built the road, we're going to dedicate it to town. You can maintain my private, you know, like, De facto private road. So flag lots turned out to be economical in terms of use of space and land. Because of that, and also because in many cases, the towns eventually would accept subdivision roads if they were built to spec, and when they're finished, you know, usually the town would accept dedication to the land, even though the town could refuse to. So they're economical in terms of the use of land, the amount of appearing. compared to the alternative, which is putting in full-fledged.

Or you couldn't do a full-fledged subdivision right here.

If they had enough acreage to create 240,000 square feet.

They could, but in this case, it's likely economically they wouldn't, right? But in a bigger piece, yeah, you might.

If you move it over, the next one doesn't have enough.

Is the comprehensive plan 55? I'm sure it is. I would bet it is.

I don't recall. And the comprehensive plan flag lots. I don't think so.

There are two lots of 65,000 and 50,000. It's over 40,000 required. So they have enough room to put in the subject, or if they have to.

And you'd actually probably take down more trees and more clearing.

The trees are already gone.

Well, but you were bringing up other flag lots that could come up. And this is going to be a problem. So I'm saying that you'd rather have the flag lot. I understand the benefits of it.

That's why they started the law. I bring it up because I think it's too easy to say, oh, it's a flag lot. It's OK. I just don't think it necessarily

let me say this though so let's just say you have a situation where you're concerned that the driveway location is unduly close to the neighbor's lots maybe you make the right open the easement 30 feet wide instead of 20 feet wide and you require some sort of a vegetative buffer along the edge of it because what happened to me there's no vegetative buffer i had to create the vegetative buffer which had a personal cost involved to me yeah no i think that's very fair of you know

You can't the road has to be 10 feet in and there has to be sufficient vegetation along, you know. Reasonable parts of it or something and I think that's we can look at what's there, you know.

So, the board would have the power to put that condition.

Into approval placement of placement of access.

I think that's a really good comment. Yeah.

Is there any history of the board suggesting that the owner might actually approach the people who control that dirt road at the south, right next to the new lot, to see if an easement could secure an easement to use that. You can ask.

You can't force. You can't force.

Yeah.

And the chances that the neighbor is going to want to have the road shared with someone else?

Probably not, no.

Yeah.

Well, because he's already got two people. But it's only 20. It looks like it's only 25.

But, I mean, screening, right, is what you're saying?

Yeah, I mean, it's worth asking if they're interested in doing it, because economically, it might be too. If whoever owned it said, give me $15,000, it might be a lot more economical than doing a road or whatever things might come in with respect to that.

You have to lay utilities down the road, too.

Yeah.

i'm sure there's going to be something else that rick will think of that we didn't think of on this one i mean remember about six seven years ago somebody from this property came here if we can i don't think it was the owner i think it was like a realtor asked if they could

they must have withdrawn as i remember it was the realtor you know because oh yeah trying to work a deal probably thinking of yeah working a deal okay well look at it again next month and we'll see if because anything else you want to ask for um Yeah, stars. Okay, so let's move in. So we're not going to move into our site and review Matt. I'm sorry. You're you're also on that application, but yeah, just think we're just, we're going to wait a little bit till we get Rick's memo on it.

That's good. Just make sure you're looking at the latest plan. The original plan had some mistakes on it. So the new 1 has got a big red date on the top right hand corner.

So mine is digital, so I can't. Yeah. Jessica, did you make you don't have that though? No, we only got 1 version, Matt.

You might get 1, you should have the digital 1 copies got mailed. Okay.

It has red, red notation in the right hand corner. Okay. I just want to make sure.

Okay, good.

So, no, we're looking at the right.

It's hard to read. when they have these giant boxes overweighed over the site plan with the notes and these overlapping kind of giant did you is like this even in the hard copy well i don't have the hard copy yeah i just have it's in your phone and electronic no there wasn't one oh i have wait i have that all right for uh nine western for stars oh for stars i'm talking about stars now right i'm still

One thing at a time. OK. Let me just see if I can get you.

So when you try and you can't see it on my phone, but all you see are a series of giant black rectangles with notes in them. And it's very hard to see the actual. Sounds like Greg just for right now.

I think that's a PDF on a phone issue.

Yeah.

Yeah, because I don't know. I only use it on my computer.

My technology is .

I would say in general, I try to avoid using the phone to open these plans. I just think it's too small anyway.

Oh, it's nice if you can get a point.

So I just, Shawn just gave you, this is the one we have, because I made my own copy. All right, so you all got my email from, let's see, this was from May 22nd. We had the preliminary conference. All right. And we were assigned in that email things we were supposed to look at. I just want to remind everyone that our memo will be due to the town board on June, June 22nd, because they're supposed to have a public hearing, which would be scheduled for June 29th. Did you set that on Monday? Okay, thank you. So, there was also 2 things that Matt. Sherman added, and I think Jessica dropped those to SharePoint and right. So that was just the ag markets license, which they have referred to in their site plan application, but there with the actual license was in there. And then some updated plans, which were revised on June 2nd, 2026. Um, so I, I think I'm going to begin because my, my main concerns with this is parking and I did, I did take some pictures just as 1 member to share with you guys. And we have Greg and Sean, you have a copy over there and I think David, I give you the 1. right? So. um just in terms of parking, and this is just I went down there in person, but some things I wanted to point out this was based on. Some personal experiences that I have had actually going into the establishment and I had to to close falls and it did make me. think about how the parking's laid out because it was an actual occurrence and I was involved in this. So the one picture you have there, so this is the front, you'll notice like at the front of Star's Cafe on the corner at White Oak, there's fencing. And currently in the plans, you'll note that they have one entrance coming in and then you're supposed to exit the other way. So this is the entrance as if you were looking at stars on your left-hand side, the gates of Sylvester Manor over here and IJ's straight ahead of you. somebody could conceivably come in the right-hand lane, turn into that entrance, and then go in and park. And what tends to happen is that at that parking on the corner, people load their vehicles right up against that fencing. You can get, you know, two, three cars there. And then further down, there is the regular parking. I think they designate on the site plan four, five spaces? Five. That's this portion right here. That's over on the left. so there was an occasion where i was turning into stars and on that corner right here the suspense post there was a larger kind of suv vehicle i don't remember the exact kind of vehicle it was but it was not like my blue hyundai it's not a compact car and what happens is it blocks if this car was so high that actually blocks the look of the slate steps And you cannot see anything behind that. So as you turn in, a person came right up behind that vehicle on foot. And it was a very close call. That was one incident. And the second one I had where I was a pedestrian. So now I was walking. Along here coming out of these slate steps here and a car pulled in and almost hit me on foot. So, my thought was, what happens here is that when they're parked right on the edge. So, for example, here's my blue car. You probably imagine another car could be here, here, here and here. And they're expecting traffic to come in. It's so narrow that when I step out of the, that would be the driver's side of the vehicle. It's 12. I measured today. It's 12 feet. to the edge of the stoop where you're going to walk in. And there's constantly people moving in and out. There's kids, there's adults, people coming in and out. You really can't see the person as they're turning that corner. So it's to the point where I actually will not, I will never go in this entrance again because it was, it was quite frightening to almost hit somebody. And I feel like the safer place to park, and now I will, I always park down here, which is this one. So I keep all these pictures, but the one Where is it? Where's the parking lot? Here, so I'll park. I'll park down here and then walk up to STARS. I'm just really concerned about the way they have this flow coming in the entrance out the other way. And I don't think it's on the site plan. I don't think the parking space is along the fence designated, but I'm letting you know everybody parks there.

So that's the problem. This is a in and out coffee shop.

I guess the question is, how many spots are they supposed to be like zoned or whatever for five?

But that's the ones they have over there.

And so I guess, would, do you believe that as long as cars were not parked in the first width of fence post.

It's just that those first three cars is what, yeah, it really blocks it.

But is it just the first width of fence post so that as you're turning, you can see the front door, but the next post down, if they were parked there, that would be okay?

Well, OK, how about this picture? There is my vehicle, and I actually didn't wedge it right up on that last post. I put it down a little bit. There's the steps. Sorry, Marcus. There's the steps and the entrance where you're coming out.

So it would be like two fence posts?

I think maybe it's like maybe two. Maybe two.

Well, this raises the question, is that entrance legally too close to an active intersection?

It's closer than is recommended. I don't know about legally, but I think if it's entrance only, it's less of an issue than if you're pulling out. Yeah, exactly.

It's less than 50 feet.

And that's, I mean, in fact, there is a sign here, if you've ever noticed, there's a tiny sign on the fence, which says entrance only.

That's in the plan, too. It's noted in the plan as well.

But I think if you then, I mean, it seems like an easy problem to fix in some respects in that If you just tell them the 1st, 2 widths of fence posts, they're not allowed to have people park there and they should put signage and blockage up. The next no, and the next 1, I think, because then you're covering that. It looks like then you'd be covering the full entrance to the. Be able to see the full entrance to the.

So the first car, actually, there's a break. Looks like there's a break in that fence. Like there's a breakage in there. Maybe just around that break point and then back. Anyway, I'm just tossing this out there that this is an actual thing. And it terrifies me. And I'm really, I like frequenting stores. I'm just afraid that someone, you know.

They could do that with the designs of the operator.

Well, what if you parked on the other side, on the store side? Yeah.

Instead of parking on the fence, they're always parking there already, but they get there's not enough room because then you have to back out. Then you're backing out into the actual entrance way of where people are going to come in. So, if you're not, I mean, if you back out, if you parallel park right along the front, but on the opposite side.

Right in front of the building.

Oh, on the right.

driving between where people are going to walk.

You might be too close.

No, I mean park over by the star side. So the traffic lane is between where people park now.

If you look at this path right here, there's another little path right here. So you're only going to be able to fit maybe two cars.

I was wondering, is there a minimum requirement for access aisles under site plan review for Shelter Island?

I don't remember there was one. Remember all of these, all these conventional requirements, they're all local. There's no state statutes on these. So it's got to be in your code where it doesn't exist.

Just for clarity, the idea that they have to come through site plan is giving us the opportunity to potentially correct something that's currently existing because the new things they're doing under the site plan are actually not intended to create any extra traffic, correct?

Well, that's, they assert that, no extra traffic.

But I mean, it's kind of, but the nature of it doesn't seem like it would really, it's not a change to draw customers. It's like a production change, right?

Yeah, it's just a production.

So it's really just giving us opportunity to correct something that's existing that in theory, isn't going to be exacerbated by the new, but.

Well, stars may be more active than wine tasting. They certainly hope it will be. So there may be more traffic just by virtue of what they're seeing.

Yeah. So I've got a question. If to the earlier question about the location of the entrance relative to the intersection, if we were, and I'm not trying to pose a solution, I'm just asking a question. If that were to move down, say, 10 feet, a little bit further from the intersection, and if to, I think to someone who was asking, could it go closer to the building? If it were to go, now it's about 10 feet away, I believe, from the building. If it were to be five or six feet away from the building, You would then have enough room to create a couple of angled defied spaces, potentially, on the fence side. Have to be designed for large SUVs.

Can you hold that up? It's just hard to visualize what you're doing.

Yeah, I'm just seeing it. It might not work when I'm suggesting. OK. But. So if you were to move, you would have to have someone look at that, see if it actually works. But if you were to change, your concern is right here. Yeah, that's a thing, yeah. So if you make that an intersection, a proper entry point, and you make a defined space along there, maybe you only can get two in it. Oh, I see what you're saying. So the cars go in like that? Yeah, at an angled space. And then you take this. I don't know what direction that is. South side of the driveway, closer to the building. Perhaps you mitigate the overlap of pedestrians with the entrance a little bit because you define a couple of spaces.

You have people backing out. I don't know if it works.

I'm just saying there is a different solution than what's currently there.

And it's not necessarily just . I'm not entirely sure that when they were thinking people going in the entrance, I think that they were thinking people were going to go in the entrance, keep going, and then .

All the way to the end. Yeah.

Yes. People are quick. They come around and park quick right there where my blue car is, right there.

They're designated as five spots, and the five spots are really at the end.

They had never assumed people were going to park there. The only way you're going to prevent it is if you landscape the parking spaces. I mean, people are just going to park there. Yeah.

That's what I'm saying. You have to change it.

But you could do that for the first... You just got to move it down to sections of fan post and then have it, you know you might still be able to do sideways to cars, you know along the fence that does the board have the power to do architectural.

Suggestions or advisory on this only so we can put it in our memory.

We could tell the town board. They better fix their parking and roadway.

That's what I'm gathering ideas.

I guess 1 silly question that came to mind is that they're doing wine tastings. Are they by appointment?

and do they allow it you mean they were going to work i thought you said they're doing them now previous tenant oh i thought you were saying they were going to do it oh yeah we have stars who will be more successful yeah i mean what used to be there was more of like they would have one event on the weekend and there'd be a lot of traffic and then monday tuesday wednesday it would sit empty and this is more of like every day somebody's going in there but sarah i'm sorry yeah um

i'm not sure i like the idea of the diagonal but i'm not sure it would work just because it's gravel that there's no way to delineate it or well there could be some ways to do it right if you do a concrete um bumpers and there is parking To like meet the requirement further down, so I think you know no parking signs or something.

The other thing I had was how about I don't know why we have to have one entrance and exit I mean there's lots of establishments where it's in and out, why can't it's so wide, in fact, where you come in on the exit part so I go out and exit part, why can't we have.

That even creates more couple.

but there's there's so that's when you come into the park that's how wide is when you come in here it's completely open so how can this be a problem like you know there's lots of space there to go in and out as opposed to this little tight spot i don't know that was my other thought maybe just have in and out on the exit where they have currently have exit now

So they can make a two lane.

Oh, I think you're talking about just on the exit side. Yeah. Yes. I was just saying that both sides are going to be coming and going. No, if it's further down, yeah, that should be both. It should be entrance as well.

Absolutely. I think we're also probably do that because you're not designing anything. You're just saying making one entrance.

Double why we don't even have to come up with an actual design, but just the concept of, I think we need to get it out of this area. I think this is not working.

I think it's sort of all good points that you're making. So, yeah, I agree.

That's my only that's that's my big concern. I don't have anything with changing of the food industry.

And I assume that handicap. Accessible toilets are actually accessible.

It's hard to tell in this. It's hard to tell from the drawing. Well, the doors can't swing into the into the turning circle in the store.

I was, I was unclear about how you actually get to them.

well there's a ramp and a platform that run on this it's shown in the elevation sort of but not really did you also wait did you get the plans that were corrected too because there was the bathroom looks a little different on the revive yes the doors are in a different location but it's still kind of unclear greg you can ask matt matt's online still and matt is the engineer for this

matt do you want to chime in here on stars are you there yeah yeah sure and actually i'll back up for just a second i actually made a couple of notes as you guys were having your discussion i like the idea of jettison the um the entry close to 114 and having a two-way entrance exit on the far end um so i'm sending a note over to the owner and to uh pepe to to see if that's something that they're going to be okay with. I think that's a good solution to that parking problem and being close to Sylvester Manor's entrance and being close to the corner at 114. So I like that idea. As far as the floor plan is concerned, Yeah, I do have the way those doors were installed. They're going to have to flip them so that they're opening out to David's point of the doors not being able to open into the radius of the wheelchair. But there is a small ramp. There's like a... a wood deck and a small ramp that leads up to those two doors going into both of those bathrooms so that you would have ADA access coming off of that patio area where the pergola is, ADA access going up onto that small deck, and then there'll also be a ramp that is to be constructed that's going from there on the roadside up to the um the covered porch um that's on the front of the building so you would have access uh in both of those locations it just wasn't apparent from the drawing i saw can you add the ramp and platform onto the the quarter inch floor plan yeah yeah i'll make a note for that absolutely that would be helpful and and matt to your point i i'm not sure that i'm recommending that that entrance be

eliminated, because if I were the owner, just, you know, from driving on men wearing at that point, I find that entrance is very actually welcoming to the fact that there's a little store there. And if you close it up, you're sort of already past the building by the time you realize it's it's a point there's a point of entry i i don't know i i think it divorces arrival from from the visibility but you could keep a pedestrian path which is inviting but you're just saying like i know what i'm saying is i i'm saying keep an entry point there move it down a little bit and as sean was saying adjust the landscaping so that it doesn't allow for parking right in front of the building but so that you have a so that you have a clearly defined approach to the building i think it's i think it's an asset change the exit sign to be extra an entry that's down there yeah the first ones you can only come in the other one you can go in and

Now with increased usage. That entrance right at the corner there is an accident waiting to happen because it's confusing to people who don't live on the island. Because cars coming from the west do not have to stop. That's true, somebody, and if you don't live on the island, you don't know that it's, it's, we should have had, maybe we can change the whole intersection as part of this project. Oh, actually, so we're in the town engineer. We'll have to deal with that.

I guess they put a traffic circle in.

It's, it's, it's really shouldn't be so close to that intersection is a stop sign there intersection. I mean, it's, it's, you're right.

Okay. Well. I don't know what you would have said.

Or put a stop sign for the people coming east. And that'll have another letter to the editor.

I'd rather not have our project be attached to that new stop sign if we can avoid that.

Exactly. That's not a good way to sell coffee. Yeah.

Also, there's a lot of families that sit right out here. Kids are running around. I've seen them run around. So how can you have kids running around in this little front area, and then people are coming to nap?

I think it's the best way to nap.

Anyway, so are those some things that we want to put in our memo?

Yeah. Very good point.

But you kind of already know about the ADA. He's going to flip the doors anyway. I mean, we can mention that.

It needs to be documented.

i took a look at screening very carefully this week on there and it's actually um a very beautiful property i mean yeah it was the use of it kind of helped in this regard so i don't the irony across the street i mean i don't know yeah the irony is iga looks terrible and white oak six months seven months of the year looks terrible when it's a landscape company

Well, it's one of our main intersections, and it's a disaster.

But now you've got nice stars on the corner. Well, that helps. One third.

And one question. Matt, are they proposing exterior lighting? Because there's a note on the drawings that it'll be compliant, but it's unclear that they really are installing any.

Yeah, no, they're not proposing any. I've got to look and see what's there and see what the rating is on it as far as dark skies and energy efficiency and things like that. But I'll get that information together for the public hearing so that we can either confirm that they've got the right stuff or propose the right stuff. Either way.

Matt, do you know if they're going to expand to have evening hours?

No, they're not planning on it.

Storage usually closes in the late.

Yeah, right.

OK. So that may be a non-issue if they just go home.

Just the neon.

Oh, yeah. That'd be great. I'll even design it for them.

Today's date. Today's the 9th. OK. So we have ample time to get this in. I'll start a draft for the memo, and I'll pass it around. What was the date? It would have to get in by the 22nd, but I'd like to, I don't want to wait till the last minute. I'd like to get it in a couple of days from now. Yes.

I'll just mention 1984 plan, the approval this time. They do mention like, you know, the economics of Shelter Island and small business. And I think we could throw something in our memo that just says, this is a good thing.

You caught that last time.

Yeah. Good. By the way, I looked in, there's nothing tight with that. zoning code does not have minimum aisle widths or anything like that. It does have a parking requirement in the business zone. It's a generic one. One 10-by-20-foot parking space, which is probably 200 square feet, basically, of gross floor area for all uses. Very simple.

Are you including the outdoor seating area as your square footage calculation for parking? But you are including the bathrooms, I think, which doesn't make a lot of sense.

Now, we can't are you talking?

No, I was and I was just agreeing with the fact that the town code doesn't make a lot of sense.

Did you hear David's question?

Yeah. We're just including the interior square footage because that's what the town code wants us to add. During the last go-around of this, when we had the site plan review for the wine tasting, there was a concern about needing overflow parking for larger events might not really be the right word, but for lack of a better one. And that's why we've got those grass overflow parking, those 10 spots going along that easterly property line. But that's where that came from, really from the discussion originally of how inadequate the town's code is with respect to parking for these places. But it's kind of like, it's the code we got to work with. So it's what we're working with.

That overflow parking isn't really accessible now because there's a gate. So, you know, in the event that we lose spaces along the street, you really can't utilize the graph spaces. Unless the gates open, which I don't think it ever is.

I guess they have to work that out with the owner.

But that could be easily fixed just by extending gravel down to a number of spaces required. Yeah. Right.

Yeah.

Right.

Yeah, I think the idea behind the grass versus making it gravel was, at the time, the idea was that five spots was probably going to be okay, except on rare occasion. If Stars is much more successful than the wine tasting was and five spots is not, then, yeah, we'll have to make those grass spots a little bit more permanent or easily identified. But initially, it was... Let's not make it something that's dedicated parking that's probably not going to be needed. But yeah, we can certainly we can certainly adjust, you know, hopefully stars is is successful enough at this location that we do have to accommodate a few more than five spots. And if so, we can, you know, turn those some of those grass spots into gravel easily enough. Yeah.

Can I ask a kind of annoying question? Do you know if the town actually has any intent or intention of improving this intersection with a traffic circle like happens up at the school? No. This is a terrible intersection. It's a state road.

Any insight into that?

But who came up with the circle at the school state or the town, I believe it's been there my whole life, so I can see me standing.

As a kid I can't.

It probably predates both state.

I know there's. There's some discussion, because I know in the Sylvester Manor entrance. It came up, but I don't remember the details of it.

The problem is people come down 114 so fast, and they go straight. Instead of going around IGA, they go straight. It's kind of scary.

Yeah.

Well, I can't, I mean, putting a circle there could be good, but then there'd be very high sound taking some property to do it because the intersection is too small for.

Yeah, so there are, there is some language about, you know, downtown revitalization in the comp plan and the new 1 that's coming out. So there are, there's paragraphs on that about what we might be able to do and what we strive for. But that hasn't even doctor yet. So I wish I had a better answer for you. but it's a valid question for this kind of question i think we should always be asking yes i agree um the last thing i just wanted to say and then i'm i'm gonna just let there's something on pam i know before i want to say something but before i get to pam i just want to say that um the wetlands committee subcommittee so we took back our draft right and we met once and Um, and Albert's in that group with me, so we met once and we have a few more things to go over. We. I'd say we got through, like, a little bit more than 50% of the draft and so we're going to meet. 1 more time again, and then we're going to pass it back to the town board. So, Albert and I, and the other committee members will get together 1 more time, but we made, I think we made pretty good progress. Right? Albert. Yeah.

So, it's coming along any color on. general agreement with what we were doing, or, you know?

I think so, I think so, yeah. Some changes to that, right, based on the meaning that we had. Which I'm not to yet.

Right. But, no, he's asking, like, I mean, I think generally it was pretty much accepted, a few little tweaks here and there.

And this is...

Nothing direct, like, nothing drastic.

School goal to get it passed this summer, that's the... Yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

It'll go to them for sure.

It's been in progress. I think the quote was last time I asked, what is it going to be by the end of the summer? And you guys said, we should be shot if we don't get that done. So that is .

Okay, Pam, would you like to say something on Zoom?

Yeah, thanks for asking. Actually, I don't really have any questions. I was curious about the wetlands code and how you're coming along with that because I know it's been a process going on for at least three years now. So I'm glad to see that it's still on the move on that. And I appreciate all the discussions you have. I always learn things from this board every time I attend. So I appreciate you calling me to attend.

We do too. Thanks for always being there, Pam. Yeah. OK. Benjamin? Did you want to say anything, Ben?

No, I was just dropping in. That's all.

Thank you. Is the current draft on our site? Under wetlands, is that?

I don't think so. No, I don't. I think it's just so it'll when it gets to the town board, that draft will then be posted because they're working on it. Right? So it's still in subcommittee actually. Well, Rick Rick has our draft technically, but. But it's everything that I mean, if Pam, if you were following along through all the discussions, you were probably here in our work sessions when we went through everything and came up with our new draft.

So, but, yeah, yes, I was, it was very informative. It was very good. Very thorough.

Yeah. Okay.

Thank you.

Somebody want to make a motion that we adjourn?

I'd like to make a motion. Thank you.

Second. Okay. All in favor? Aye. Thank you, everybody.

Thank you.