Planning Board - Regular Meeting

In 2026 meeting of the planning board, it's now 7pm. We're going to take roll call David Kriegel. Scott Matthews. Marcus Kasich. Julia Weisenberg. I'm here. Sarah Lewis. Sean Davey. Greg Cranford. Great. The first order of business for us to do is approve the minutes from our June 9th meeting. You got those distributed from Jessica. Did everyone get a chance to look at those? I looked at them. Everyone else? Any comments or additions or questions?

So approved.

Thank you. Perfect. Second? 2nd, 2nd, from Scott on favor. That's approved. We have 2 bills to approve tonight as well. 1 is from Wayland filer. And we just look those up to review with you. The bulk of our attorney's fees were in person being present here travel. And a good deal of work on our 2 subdivisions, 1 of which was robear. Which constituted a decent portion of that and then. The lot line adjustments, and we had a resolution for Crescent Beach LLC, which was an extension. So I would like someone to make a motion please to approve the whaling dealer bill of 2244 for June 2026. I'll make a motion to approve Marcus. Thank you. 2nd. All in favor. Our second bill is from the Rainer group for engineering services. And again, similar to Rick's bill, it was basically the bulk was in person attendance and travel. And then the same thing, our two subdivisions and the Kinney Bacow lot line adjustment, and also preparing the EAF and the memo tonight, which we're going to discuss for 9 West Neck. So we thank Rick. So I'd like someone to make a motion, please, to approve the Rainer Group for their services June 2026, and that amount is $1,882. Motion to approve. Thank you, Sean. Second? I'll second. Sarah, second. All in favor? Aye.

Aye.

That invoice passed. Okay. So, the 1st thing we're going to do is we're going to do the resolution for the Kenny book call lot line adjustment, which was discussed at our previous meeting on June 9th.

Thank you.

What is it?

What's the address there? Yes.

for the address of the yeah i'm going to go over it in just a second okay so as you all saw in the meeting notes and from last week we got a copy of the short environmental assessment form and in short it was basically this lot line adjustment it was determined that based on the information analysis and supporting documentation that this would not result in any adverse environmental impact, so low environmental impacts. So I'm going to at the same time tonight sign the short environmental assessment form. I'm going to go over the resolution for everybody. Jessica, do you have the number on this one? Uh, 6, 6. okay. So make sure I got that. Okay. So resolution 6. so, at a regular meeting tonight, which is July 14th, we are discussing Kerry, a Kenny and Gil, Jay McCall owners who have made an application based on chapter 111 of the shelter on town code to adjust the lot lines of their 3 parcels. The lot line adjustment requests would modify boundaries between. Suffolk County tax map 700-15-4-79, the northwest corner of Condon Road and Cartwright Road, which is also known as County Road 69 and improved. That lot is improved with a single family dwelling and 2 sheds. Also with lot 700-15-4-80, also improved the single family dwelling and two sheds and such that Kinney and Bacall would continue to own these three lots, but with the largest lot, lot one, located on the north side of Condon Road consisting of 106,730 square feet and improved with one single family dwelling and two sheds. Lot two, of course, is located on the west side of Cartwright Road and That consists of 44,709 square feet of vacant land. And finally, lot three, which is on the northwest corner of Congdon Road and Cartwright Road, and consisting of 44,686 square feet, also improved the single-family dwelling and two sheds. The subject property, of course, is in District C, residential, which is shown on our official zoning map of Tower Shelter Island. And the minimum required lot size, of course, for this is 40,000 square feet. The subject application will not result in the creation of any more lots than presently exist. And the planning board finds that this lot line adjustment application does not transgress Town Code 111-6.1. Thirdly, the subject application is classified as an unlisted action pursuant to the CCOR review, sorry, part 617 of the New York Code of Rules and Regulations and chapter 60, which is our environmental quality review of the Shelton-Arlington Town Code. And we are a lead agency on this and therefore we are making a negative declaration pursuant to CCOR, which I just mentioned briefly when I started and I'll be signing that tonight. Four, we have a map prepared by Sherman Engineering, dated April 20th, 2026, which was entitled, obviously, Lot Lines Change Sketch Plan, Kenny Bacall. That is available for inspection for anyone that wishes to see it at the planning board offices. 5th, we're going this is most important. Of course, we're going to be scheduling a public hearing at town hall here on Tuesday, August 11, 2026 at 7. P. M. or soon thereafter to consider this application for the adjustment of lot lines. And therefore, anyone that wishes to come on that meeting, you may do so. You may also send comments and correspondence to our clerk, Jessica Montgomery, whose email is listed for the public. all comments must be received by the planning board by the date and time of that public hearing And so the applicant is hereby notified of the requirement that they must inform that any property which abuts the subject property or within 200 feet of the subject property as listed on the local assessment rolls and they'll have to be sending out certified mail at least 10 days prior to the hearing. And that subject property must be posted with the sign, of course, facing the public street on which these properties exist.

Both streets.

What is it?

Both streets.

Hella Pannewig – City of Boulder OSBT, Hella Pannewig – City of Boulder OSBT, score. Hella Pannewig – City of Boulder OSBT, It doesn't say yeah don't say. Hella Pannewig – City of Boulder OSBT, Both yeah. Hella Pannewig – City of Boulder OSBT, they say both stories i'm trying to consolidate just already. Hella Pannewig – City of Boulder OSBT, Okay, so um I need someone to make a motion that we accept the resolution for Kenny bakal outline adjustment to hold their public hearing on August 11.

Hella Pannewig – City of Boulder OSBT, Make a motion.

Hella Pannewig – City of Boulder OSBT, Thank you star motion and your second from Sean davey and all in favor that on this one. Hella Pannewig – City of Boulder OSBT, I. OK, that resolution has passed. I'm ready to go. And we're just going to note, right, Rick, for the CF, verbally, that we accepted the Short Environmental Assessment Forum.

Yeah, you can voice vote, if you will.

OK, so actually, we should formally do that. So for the Short Environmental Assessment Forum, that we're going to adopt that as a negative deck, right? Anyone want to make a motion for that market?

Sure. I can make a motion. Yes.

Okay. And a 2nd, 2nd from David.

So, no, it's more of your man's reflect that you did that. Then you're going to sign the.

Yeah, so I left it and we just said a group votes all in favor of that. All right.

All right.

Excellent. Thank you. Right. All right, that's actually it for our business meeting. So close that at 708. Um, okay, going into our work session agenda. So we just actually did the kidney call lot line adjustment and we accepted the short parts 2 and 3. So, I'm going to move on for our subdivision applications. I did speak with Matt Sherman just to kind of get an update for bloom because that's sort of always pass through this. And just to let you know that they were able, I think I had mentioned this, maybe 2 meetings ago that they were able to hook up to Suffolk County water. So they are, they do have access to public water, but they have that 2nd lot, which is undeveloped. And so they had to reach out to Suffolk County health department services to find out how they wanted them to, you know. move forward with water on that lot or not. So they are waiting for Suffolk County Health Department. West Night Creek Cottages, we already know about. They have until October 13th. They asked for an extension, so they will submit their final application. Fowler Trust Subdivision, we did that. If you don't recall, we extended that and they have until December 9th. We just did, pretty recently anyway, Crescent Beach LLC Minor Subdivision. They likewise have till the month of december december 8th actually and then for row for the row minor subdivision i also touched base with matt sherman who's the engineer on that application that potential application and so um some of you were not i think here for row maybe it was before your time on the board but basically there was an issue with the fire apparatus and the road being able to come in that road so they are trying to work that out and it's my understanding that the applicant is kind of weighing what that outcome may be and whether any necessary work or revisions or modifications to that road, if that becomes too excessive or too cumbersome, that they may not pursue it. So they're still weighing the pros and cons of that, potentially. On the robear subdivision, you'll recall from last meeting, we reached out to read. We're going to get an opinion on whether the Walter right? The Walter right away would be deemed a street. So that was part of our memo from Rick Wayland that we get that determination. And then I also just reminded and just checked in with Matt Sherman to make sure he was understanding about the ZBA, you know, going to the ZBA to get a variance on the slot two that has insufficient frontage and that long but narrow flag strip. Um, and so Matt is Matt, your, I think message was Matt. Okay. He said he might not be able to make and make it on. But anyway, so that's where we stand with. We just have to wait to see what the determination comes back from read and. So, that leaves us with getting right into 9 West neck road. And, um. Jessica printed copies for everyone of the onsite visit that Sean and Sarah were kind enough to do for us and they made some notes. It was emailed to you, but you also have a copy in front of you in case you didn't bring it to refresh your memory. And then Rick Wisnowski, thank you for preparing a memo on that as well. And I thought that we could begin if you want to run us through that memo and then we can kind of work off that and, you know, incorporate Sean and Sarah's findings.

9 West Neck minor subdivision sketch plan.

Subject parcel located on 7th Street. the area is backfilled. Based on the aerial imagery, it looks like the foundations may have been removed. If that's the case, they should be removed from the map, so there's no remediation.

Those minor subdivisions will create two Certainly, the planning board may waive the requirements to pay a park fee and have the applicant execute and record with the county declaration saying that the subdivision will, that the property will be further subdivided. No fire protection devices were shown, so the subdivision should be referred to the fire commissioners.

Westlake Road, County Road 153.

Based on the short EAF, it shows that there's the northern long-eared bat typically the DEC limits clearing.

But there's the long-eared bat within or adjacent to the property between December 1st and February 28th. So they should receive a determination from the DEC. They plan to clear.

Quick question. On the county road, I thought they had to go to Suffolk County DPW as opposed to the Planning Commission, or maybe both.

I guess for a curb cut. They did help me to get a permit to put in the curb cuts on the new flex road.

Is there much of a review in that process?

I don't think so.

Right.

They're not approving the sub-agency, but they're approving the access to it. So they might be an agency. We're not doing a coordinated review anyway, so. Maybe we could refer to it and see what they say.

Oh, I have a question. So, with with the long-eared bat and somebody else on the David Clegg who brought this up too, they typically like people to do any work they're clearing they're going to do between that time period, which you noted in your memo too, from just visual, you know, verification. This lot was cleared after February 28th. I'm just wondering, like, what, so what happens when it's already cleared and

They're already putting in foundations.

Well, that's another thing. They have a permit for that, but they have a permit for that.

Separately, they are actually starting new, but we'll get to that.

Let's do one thing at a time. I just want to know, but I just want an answer for the bats. I'm just curious. You wrote the memo as if it's probably you didn't know.

I couldn't tell you exactly when it happened. I know it looked like it happened between those months, so I guess it happened in March.

so i'm just wondering like what does there's not like what do you do like it's just already happening nothing because i mean the language you know if you go to the actual code it's it's suggested that clearing be done so it's not uses the word suggestion yeah yeah so they should have probably gone to the dc to get a determination if they wanted to clear outside that window um based on the amount of trees that they if you really get into the weeds of that text i mean not only that you're supposed to do a survey to see where nesting areas like an acoustic survey uh i've never seen anyone i've never heard anything but that's what the code says very effective code using the word suggest yeah that's a big hammer yeah

um just just before i know the digging of the foundation is is on everybody's mind but i have another question too oh something else not about the bats oh yeah i'm done with the pets i just asked yeah it's something that i mentioned to you about um i made a note about about the when one does the 20-foot um flag i'm assuming that it adjusts The setback, the side yard setback is from the new inboard position flag.

I think it's even marked on the drawing they submitted that shows the setback. I think it's only a 10-foot side yard setback, but it shows the 20 foot.

And then what I brought up in the previous meeting was something that's in this report. about the adjacent property and something that I personally experienced. And I really believe that on these flag lots that we should have some side yard buffer requirements because it puts the onus on the adjacent owner to mitigate something that They did not initiate.

Right. And you mentioned that in the memo about having the 2 close together.

I know that they're a lot like, you know, are. Always accurate, but it shows the driveway pretty much right on that line.

This does come up a lot about where you put that right on the lot line and it's not like, it's 10 feet.

it's not reasonable when it when it happened on the property adjacent to me that 20-foot driveway is literally to the inch of property yeah is and in this case the next door house is literally on their setback line which for the for that he's the property looks like about 15 feet which is unrealistic

Given you know how big are the place that a lot we're talking about it's much wider frontage. And so the setback is further, but it would be a real hardship to just drive, you know, cut down the trees that were left by the bulldozers. They didn't cut down quite a group of trees right on the edge of the property.

Yeah, it's really hard to tell. I know that when I visited the property, I couldn't find property markers. Well, they're there now.

It's this afternoon they were there.

I guess once they started excavating, they're there. So it's not clear how much room there is. But my starting point was, no, you shouldn't have a driveway accessing the back lot right along the lot line. You have to actually have some setback, whether it's a standard setback or something that we determine. And now they started building a foundation. And when I look at it by eye, I'm kind of like, if we require that, the access road is going to be right up against their house. I don't know why they aren't thinking of this ahead of time because they're limiting themselves by potentially putting a foundation like right in the middle of the lot and limiting access around the sides, but it looks to me like. that's going to be a you know the friction point but they've created it themselves, because they just went ahead without kind of thinking about the process or getting feedback.

No, I mean, I understand that by law, they, I, by law, they have a permit on that front lot, but still, it's sort of, it's contradictory to our law, which you guys about that subdivision. Obviously, there's like, some stipulations and that the applicant executes and record it before that. It should not be subdivided and that they don't clear anything. I'm always amazed that. They're already starting to break down and yeah.

They've been moving from it to build a house.

Yeah. it's actually they they dug the hole they framed up the foundation big big piles of dirt would be also noted i'm sure they do because

I'm not saying there's anything stopping them from building on the front lot.

What I'm saying is that it seems short-sighted because then they're going to come to us and say, we want to get to the back lot, and we're going to say, potentially, you need a significant side setback in order to access that, and it's going to be potentially right up against their existing house. So that's just...

If you're going for a subdivision like this, that you have to just wait until it's subdivided and then you don't have to by law, but they're creating the conflict themselves.

What does this board have to force?

They have a single undivided.

Our power is that we say, you need a setback. And so if you have a driveway going right by your side bedroom window, that's maybe your problem. But that's how it is.

The new house appears to be more than 30 feet from the side yard property. They're not just going to run their driveway. They're driving by it. So maybe they're planning to combine the two driveways. It may be. But I do feel that I think it's a 10-foot side yard setback in that C zone. So my point would be, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have a 10-foot setback for the flag.

um driveway with very significant uh buffering of and we can get into this it's presumably at some point of like sufficient height and you know all of that and they're really burdening their neighbors and i really think this this should be a precedent for future flags as well um i i think it's a very important um

revision, I suppose, because it's never been codified specifically for a flag.

But something I think it depends on the situation and where the proximity of the where the proximity of the other houses are.

And, you know, I mean, I suppose but you know, if you if you buy a piece of property, with a 10 foot setback on the adjacent property and suddenly by doing a flag subdivision there's no setback anymore I I think that is an unfair revision how what would be the mechanism to say that a driveway is not a permitted encroachment inside your setback

I'd have to check your code, but I don't think you impose .

But that would be the mechanism to ensure there was a buffer to say that.

No, but as part of planning, so the code does not require what is part of planning boards .

And a subdivision is a separate matter, yeah.

And if you believe that the flag driveway to the back lot is too close to the neighbor with an unduly effect, then you could, I think you have the power. to require it to be set on top 50 feet, but, you know, you've got some setback.

At least a 10-foot setback.

And so... I wouldn't tie that to necessarily what the code's setback is. I mean, I guess it's kind of guidance.

I'd say, yeah. I mean, it's what we find reasonable, but that might be a reference point.

It's a process that we put into place. If we see, like, just this is, we deal with these flag rocks.

I think it's important. The other question I had is, is it possible to impose A moratorium on additional tree removal during this process so, for instance, the trees that Scott brought up that are on that property line is it is it possible to. Have the owner. not remove any more trees in that area until we have a decision on how they should proceed.

You're talking about the ones on the flag, right? Yes.

You mean the planning board? Yes. Are you in the power to tell them to do that? No.

We don't currently have the power. The power that we could potentially execute is that if we desire and demand a certain amount of you know, blockage and they've removed the trees, it might be very expensive if we're acquiring them to put very significant things back in place.

I guess my question is they are currently in process of doing construction prior to having approval to do the subdivision. So is there a mechanism for getting them to not do any more tree removal in that zone? It's already been done.

Well, I don't know that there's anything more likely to exist, Greg, because once you are, you've entered into the subdivision process, you're not supposed to clear trees. And I forget what section is until the subdivision approved.

Does the building inspector tell them they can cut down the trees that Scott mentioned that are in the flag? How does that happen? Now, as a right is our attorney.

Yeah, I don't have my the building department would do that. You know, that's what I would think they force it.

The building department should be able to enforce that. No more tree removal would take place in the potential flat.

Well, let me say this. I got to check the code and see if there was something there that says that stopping. I think I don't. I thought I was going to check that.

There's nothing you can do. It's 1138. What does it say? Subdivision design shall preserve and protect natural terrain features to the extent practical. Natural vegetation and soil shall not be disturbed prior to final plot approval, except as approved for minor site preparation.

But that whole language is sort of assuming you have an undeveloped lot you're working with. In this case, it's been thoroughly torn up. And so there is this about 20 feet of undisturbed earth right along the property line. Looks like they were thinking about something when they did this. The whole thing looks so deliberate to me.

So my question is forcing the hand department impose a moratorium on additional tree removal in that moratorium.

They could if they started to clear more now that we're at.

That's what I mean. They have the power to stop them from clearing more now. Just on those trees. That's what I'm trying to say. I will tell you that the vote is weak in that it is likely if they remove it and then the building inspector tells them you weren't supposed to remove that, the remedies are not great.

Well, clearly they're aware because Reid lives next door. Does he really?

Actually, no, he's two doors down. I'm sure he's pretty familiar with what's happening two doors down.

It's out of our, it's out of our powers, but I will say for the record, because we are a body that is looking at it, they are piling dirt. Right next to the neighbor's house, which is ridiculous. There's no reason with the entire lot behind them that they can't put all the dirt there. So you get a good, you put a good windstorm and their whole house is covered with dirt. You know, it is, I don't know what... I don't know what the building in the Spectre's power is to stop that, but they have the whole back lot that they've got to pile dirt away from it, and now it's going to go on these people's cars and their windows and their air conditioners.

They're not allowed to put something right next to the property that would allow runoff to go onto that property. That's enforced by the building department.

That's a construction limitation.

I have one kind of There's a concept in this flag lot, which never made sense to me because we have a minimum lot frontage. Yeah, 100 feet. Well, it depends on the zone, but there's a minimum unless you have a flag lot and then you don't then you have a 20 foot. So. There's a contradiction there.

It's not logical. It totally supersedes the frontage requirement.

Yeah, I'd love to know the history of when flag lots became permitted and why exactly.

I can't speak to Shelter Isle. I would say East Hampton started by the early 1970s. The alternative, if you don't like flag lots and you want everybody to have full frontage, they have they put a subdivision road to the depth of the second lot and then have enough frontage on the subdivision road down a lot to have frontage on the road yeah now you've built a subdivision seems to be a wrecking seems to be a recognition that when they carved up lots

You know, some of these rules didn't exist. And so you're trying to have a reasonable way for people to have. And I love the expression, reasonable use and enjoyment of their property within some measure. And I think that's where we come up. Like, can they do it in a reasonable way that's not, you know, inflicting a flag lot?

Yeah, I mean, it doesn't sound about enjoyment. It's about money.

I was going to suggest that weaknesses that we're seeing like the flag lots and the lack of offering and the clearing prior to anything that we may start making just a list. And I think it'd be better use of our time at the meeting to like, just take take a list of these things and then we. Send that over to the town board as a memo at some point and say, you know, like, in the course of going over applications, we've and then we named the list of things that we'd like to see changing the code this right now. I appreciate that. You mentioned because I have objections to the big piles of dirt myself. but i think the most important thing is to discuss this buffering along that flag i think we that part of it i think we get to by just setting precedence you know of where like where we see where there's not sufficient you know yeah great great suggestion and i think i think i my only objection to they're already starting to digging is that they jump the gun a little bit because they really don't know what we're going to say so yeah

I mean, if they listen to the thing, I believe that before they started the foundation, we had our meeting last time where we talked about buffers and whatever. So I don't know who's representing them or who's whatever. Either they're not listening or they just think we'll figure it out. He was on the last call. Maybe, you know, assumes it's not going to be a problem. I don't know.

So how about you, Sarah, just check through your memo, though, and just go over anything else that we haven't, like, touched on using Rick Wisnowski's, just any other things that... It's there. Well, also the CF is old. It's from 2023. Do you want to mention that?

Yeah. So, I mean, Matt ran the short EAF mapper.

I'm sorry, Sarah was speaking.

Matt ran the short EAF mapper back in 2023. He signed it more recently in 2026. Those things can change over time. It's not likely, but I might make the recommendation that he just reruns it to make sure nothing's changed. And then I think another thing we might want to talk about is just the waiver of parkland dedication. So they meet the requirements in our town code for us to waive the parkland dedication. But it's something we could discuss and implement if we wanted to.

We could fight back a little bit by not waiving the parkland.

Take 10% of that overall property and stick it next to the flag lot driveway. As the tree buffer.

If they're resistant, that's a power.

Rick, any thought on this about the parkland? Usually it's waves. It's usually waves.

Remember the parkland under your sub-district. It's really for recreation.

Yes, yeah. And it implies town access to the park.

On a two-lot sub-district, you're only getting the small town and a little playground there. So you can take money in lieu of. Uh, even here a lot, I get the nature of a lot. It doesn't sound like even if you have reserved area for, like, open space purposes, which would be terribly valuable. It's not enough. It doesn't connect. It's not enough.

Um, but it just says in the code to extricate themselves from that. They would just, they would have to agree to not subdivide further.

That's how it can be small. Yeah. So this so this is it's too small. They don't they can extricate themselves. I don't think from the requirement to pay a fee in lieu. Yes. Yeah.

No, no, they have they would have to. Yeah.

And there's a formula in the code that how you figure that

well i'm trying to figure out we're supposed to act on this application yeah and the whole issue about how flag lots are treated and so that's why i said i'd like to put a memo at some point that's a separate issue with respect to the town board it doesn't uh negate my comment about no no but we have to move this application along i'm not suggesting we shouldn't

Are we at that stage where we need to make our recommendation?

I'm just recommending that we can certainly ask questions.

We can ask questions of the applicant. That's not on us.

For me, their recommendation is that there is a, pick the amount of feet, a setback for the driveway and significant blockage, whatever the term is there, that is, you know, at least six feet high or something, you know, something the length of the screening.

Is there any additional information? If there isn't, then the application's complete. You have to start moving it down the track. So the first question is, do you have all the information you need? And by the way, you can ask questions of the occupant, such as, we have concerns about impact to the neighboring properties. Do you have any mitigation you'd like to propose in terms of your driveway and all that stuff? You can ask something. kind of general like that. And then if there's any other more specific questions. The first thing is, is there any additional information you need or want from the applicant? Because when you reach the point that there isn't, then the application is complete and you've got this.

Well, it's not complete because we don't know where the new house is located.

Well, actually, it's there. You can see it. You can see it on the ground.

But they've got the building.

What we don't know is where they're putting it.

Well, actually, that isn't all the point. There's a house under construction.

It's under construction. You can ask them to show us.

I think that's very fair. Give us an updated with all the details. I thought they did.

I thought the drawing had a little footprint. I don't have it with me.

The drawing also showed a bunch of concrete foundations. I think they've been just graded over. I don't think they do.

It's on. Yeah, I forgot.

They should remove the concrete block foundations, which have already been removed. Yeah, they have some of those blocks on there. Yeah, I think Rick made that point.

The map or survey right now is not up to date, because they've removed concrete block foundations that are shown on the map. They've installed a new foundation that is not shown on the map. Now, I imagine the new foundation probably meets the setbacks and so forth. But you don't know where it is in the property right now. I mean, you go out there, but you don't see it on the map. So you can say to them, hey, you have something under construction. We want to see it. Not the proposed house that's shown here, but the actual house That you're building right now is not shown on the map.

Yeah. It's to verify that the proposed is what's actually happening. That's what we're checking.

Well, where is it that you know you're dealing with the terms that you set? I'm trying to guess.

Well, you can only guess at this point. I assume that it's where they suggested it's going to be. But who knows? Now they're building it. It may not be where it's shown on the map.

OK. And also with that in mind, there may be, we might want to recommend that the driveways be shared Or one would utilize the flag for their driveway, so there aren't two driveways.

And I'm assuming the building permit would show the new house's driveway alignment in order to deal with the curb cut.

Because they have to present it to ..

So if they're building a new house that's going to have a driveway, that should also be on the plan. So then we can go back and say, well, would you consider sharing this driveway with the flag lot driveways? Or they can even flip it to the other side. I could do that. But we have to know where they're going to put it before we can get in.

But even if he has just the building plans, they still have to go on a new map, is what Rick's saying. This is for the subdivision application.

You can't just say, well, here's the new map and show current conditions. So if you have a house under construction and it's not showing the route, you should show it.

And also in the southwest corner of the pair of lots, it's about a 40-foot rise in the corner there. It's on the side of a hill. And that may affect the second lot's setbacks in terms of buildable. What's a buildable?

Because you don't have to, you don't have to power them.

Well, we don't know.

That's right.

You put that in your memo. I mean, Scott, how far back is that 40 foot elevation?

Go when I say it's in the southwest corner of the lot. It's a big chunk of the 2nd line.

You see, if you stay on the road, you look towards the back and you see the whole thing just goes up.

It's the back lot. We'll have to deal with that.

We don't have it. You can always go to the town GIS and saying, I'd like this application to be on the property.

I know, but in terms of you, you can click on the topo layer and do that.

Well, yes, we should have posted more importantly for the public record for someone who's going to be able to look at the application and see it and not have to do that.

So are we requesting from the owner and updated?

So you plan well, there I mean, this is only a sketch plan, but this is a good time, like, because saying to make sure that there's anything else that we need. So we've talked about the. The current building plan should be put on here so that we can see where the driveway is going because they're going to have to get approval right from. So the county planning commission, the proposal that you had about possibly the driveways could be shared. Right? We don't have any topography. And also just that conditions do not really match what was on the application submission, because now we've got a building foundation and the house going up, and that's not how it was presented necessarily. We need the exact plans of what's going on the ground right now. And do I leave anything else out?

Wasn't there an unknown septic to the west?

Oh, yeah. So that's in your memo. Do you want to go over that? There's a couple.

I think it just says more than 100 feet or more than 200 feet, something like that.

Oh, yeah, and the short, they mark that there are no existing structures, but if they have a building permit on 1, then there might be some existing structures that they're in process of. Building, so they should just clarify. If there's anything on site, I think that was my point, but also it's the test.

Well, you were saying that there's a subdivision Tesla.

but you were saying that um they should just confirm that the test well the well they're going to have to yes the drawing they submitted locates neighbors well septic and well on two sides but not on the third side i'm sorry can you say that again the septic or well i can't remember which isn't located on the west side of the property the neighbors

Oh, right. That's not a concern of the planning board. Well, it's a concern of the health department. Right. The health department. They do their own thing.

One to the west does show the septic and well.

The one to the east.

The one on the east shows well and two leaching walls.

I thought one of them had just said well more than two properties to the west.

Okay.

HAB-Masyn Moyer- And i'm sorry I also forgot the possible you propose 10 foot setback. HAB-Masyn Moyer- Yes, from that flag, so that we want them like to prepare ahead of time that that's we're not going to go and we're not going to say none, so if you're carrying their file right application, what is 10 good for you guys um.

yeah well actually if you look at the actual land the width of the trees that have been undisturbed it's more than 10 feet wide the chunk of undisturbed where they ran the bulldozers down and knocked everything to this side left everything it's wider than 10 feet so if they if you if if they one run the driveway down 10 foot from the property line

they'll end up on the tree lacking down most of the trees because they're they're big trees so do we want to make it a little wider well rather than setting a distance why not just give them a caliper size that they have to leave undisturbed

Well, are we making these requirements now or are we trying to get more information?

No, we actually can. That's one thing we can do is we can impose a buffer from the edge to where we're going to put the driveway. That's the one thing that is under our domain. That's the whole point we're saying it's going to be this drive display is going to be so close to the other lines.

It's well, then we need to indicate the survey to mark the mark, the big trees so that we understand where that where it is based on the line point.

Well, let them do the work.

Everything over, you know, 10 and picking up to set, like, just an opportunity to come back with something you can indicate to them your concern.

And that's how they propose to trust. Maybe you have to be somewhat reasonable in terms of the separation of the driveway, because that driveway to the flag ramp is going to be within the flag. So let's say you tell them, we want you 40 feet from the slope. They're going to have a 60 foot wide flag strip. And they're not going to be too happy about that, because that's coming off the, that's usable, not everything you're losing. So I think what I would suggest is you tell them all your concerns and ask them how they propose to address them. And then you ultimately decide whether that's good enough.

I don't see why we can't tell them that we're considering mandating a 10 foot setback. It's kind of the same thing.

We're at a stage that it's kind of like they can take it all in and then come back with what they plan to do.

Greg, the reason I wouldn't say 10 feet, I wouldn't say 10 feet without a survey that locates the trees. Because at 11 feet, there may be an 18-inch specimen. We can tell them, put the trees on the survey as a starting point. We'll make the determination.

We're not going to say none, and we're not just going to say nothing. So it's going to be at least 10 would be a starting point of discussion, I think. Is there any thoughts on that? Yeah.

10 or more. Thank you, Sam, for the policy. Um, yeah, I've seen like on other subdivision applications. I've seen like 18. I don't think I've really seen anything smaller than that. On the survey. 18.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah.

Anything else, Marcus? Thoughts on this?

You know, I'm fine with what they want to do because, you know, because they're within the law, you know, and I don't want to put more on them. You know, they're both big lots. It's not going to be, I don't have a problem with flag lots because you don't see the house, the road goes back, you know, there's, you know, sort of my thoughts on that of course they have they have to go to the fire commissioner anyway to make sure because you you said there was no fire hydrant there right so they had to have on 100 000 feet but the fire commission will make that determination i mean if a neighboring house was further away from its property line

I would agree with you, but in this case it's jammed right up against the setback. It's their front driveway. They've even taken over part of this guy's lot with grass because it makes their place look a little better.

so i think it's it's it's to your point they're going to be really upset when the bulldozer comes down and slices off there you know i my point stands that regardless of how close the house is when you allow a flag lot to go right on the property line of the adjacent property which has assumed a 10-foot setback within their c-zone that alters the nature of their property and then you've put the onus on the innocent adjacent neighbor to mitigate and i just i think that i mean there should be it obviously you know people have to make adjustments to what happens with their neighbor property but Um, I think a road right on the property is just completely agree with you.

I think the quirky thing, however. So, it's not, it's not, it's just 1 of the things that we'll have to consider because I completely completely agree with you is that it doesn't sound like there are any regulations on the driveway of the 1st house. so the first house could put a driveway right along the lot line and then you say okay so where does the access to the second house go and you can tell him sorry you can't continue that along the lot line you've got to go over it's kind of quirky and hopefully they'll hopefully they will come in and say we'll move access to both via one driveway further over as a like more general kind of that that argument means that you can never mitigate any problems uh moving forward with plan i'm not saying it's not mitigating i'm just saying like this guy could say i'm building my driveway to my front house right along the property line and then try to negotiate with us when you made that objection and i agree with you as well and that's a concern of mine rick had said that we need to go to the applicant and say

what kind of mitigation measures are you going to offer? And if they offer zero, nothing, then we say, well, we have an idea, and this is what we'd like. But let's pose it to them and say, let's see if they might come up with something. But it's a course of action I think we should keep thinking about for the next one that comes up, that we require some kind of screening when they're this close to the adjacent neighbor. I'm totally with you on that.

Yeah, I am too.

Is this something that you've seen in East Hampton? Do people ever do this with the screening? Or have you not had many cases where the flag is the flag itself is?

I don't know if I've really seen it too much. I know if neighbors will speak up at public hearings, then sometimes the applicant will come forward and offer it just to appease their neighbors. So it's kind of like, yeah.

So put a 20-foot high hedge the whole way down. Yeah.

Strangely enough, I never, ever remember seeing it in East Hampton. The flag driveways typically go on the side of the property, obviously. And I never recall moving it off the property line. And you would think it would come up. It kind of depends on what's happening on the neighboring property. If the neighboring property is big or is big.

Yeah, if they have a bigger lot and the house is over there, they may be like, whatever.

What you're basically doing, though, is allowing a de facto roadway to be built next to an adjacent property without any recourse to the existing neighbor.

East Hampton allows four-lot subdivisions. You can have three lots with that type of lot. That's not uncommon. You guys don't allow more than one, really. Because you don't allow more than 50%, which for most laws just means if you have one line, you have a second line, the second line can be a flag. But in the East End, it's not at all uncommon to have a front line.

Well, we're just inconsistent. Like the flag that happened next to me already had a three-acre flag property behind. And then the existing property was able to be... dissected with an additional part.

It would be going to come up more often as an issue, but I've never really seen it.

Also to add, I forgot, I was looking at Joe's memo, and you had it too, about the concrete block foundations are still on the original application. But we all noted that when you look at it now, it definitely shows them not there. Well, they are there. Well, it shows sand.

no concrete visible above the sand but that doesn't mean they just took some of the out of the hole and spread it around if they're not there that they should come off the site while we ask them yeah maybe maybe i should get an updated survey from them yeah removed if it is removed um there's the foundation and if it's still there show it yeah yeah i think they should put something on top of it yeah we will do that So, are we moving to move?

So, what we're moving to do is create another memo to the applicant and saying, you know, with this application right now needs a few more things and then put it together to us and come back. To get they can put it together for the next meeting.

Are you going to do that, or do you want someone else to?

I'm going to write it up, and I'm going to circulate it to everybody like we usually do, and the guys can all carve it up.

We may be pleasantly surprised that they have something in mind, and we just don't know it.

So you're going to take a stab at the list.

I'm going to make a list and memo for them. I'm going to take their notes from the site visit. I'm going to take Rick Wisnowski's memo, formal memo. I'm going to mesh it and see what I get out of it. Does that sound good for everybody?

That's really good. We'll see what happens.

Just a quick thing and then we'll end the meeting is I wanted to let everyone know that we got the wetlands review draft back from Rick Whalen, who's here. Thank you. So that went back to the wetlands subcommittee. We'll now take a look at that and we have to meet one more time with our new draft and site plan review draft is still being worked on. We're still working on that. Yes, well, so the notes may have gotten dislodged somewhere or lost it, but we got them again. So anyway, that's good news. And we're going to get to that this week. yeah so thank you and then so we'll get that back to the subcommittee and then that goes to the town board after that so so we're we're basically in short we're moving things along with the two things that with two parts that we worked on previously so thank you everybody is is the board lighting a fire under you to like move those forward well my answer would be for what i was planning to do the site plan revisions first because that's what we met about i couldn't find my notes finally i said i

I've got to do some work on the wetland stuff. So that was, I think, we met on that about a month ago. So I've been a little bit slow in getting that. But the wetland revisions are now done. I mean, some draft came back. But I think I've done everything. I went beyond what the committee did. I rewrote the whole thing. I made some additional changes to the permit title. Now I have to work on the site plan revisions, which I don't think I can do that this week.

Yeah. I mean, for what it's worth, while it's in the board's kind of, you know, hands per se or in the committees, these are two of the most significant things that we're trying to accomplish this year. And so we want to get them done and moved so that next things can get on the agenda because nothing else significant is going to get on the agenda around the entire town until these move off so so that that is the onus on you that like it is it's waiting on you the one that was done that's how board may still want to change something but it might

I don't make the final call on that. It's a legislative decision. But the level of the draft.

Also, you can attest to the fact that I have asked on the way, like, how is it going? I did check in with everybody, like, where are we at? OK. So I'll make the motion that we close the meeting at 7.59. Second. Second. All in favor? Aye. Thank you, everybody. Thank you.