Planning Board - Regular Meeting

uh planning board meeting of September 9th. It's it's now 7 pm and um we are going to take roll call. Um Greg Cranford here. Here. Um Matt Fox here. Julia Weisenberg. Marcus Cassich here. David Austin present. David Creel present.

Thank you. And I have a big note because you're not going to have to wait while I forget that we review and approve the minutes, but I have a big note on my desk because I typically forget to look over the minutes. So, we're not going to do that tonight. We're going to do them. So, review and approve the minutes from our meeting on August 12th that was circulated to you by Jessica. Did anyone have any discussion or anything on that? Yes, please. Great. So, we just need a a motion to um review sorry to approve the minutes. I'll make a motion. Marcus, thank you. Do I need a second? Second. Second from Matt Fox. All in favor?

Okay. We had uh two bills. One was from uh Rick, our attorney, uh for July 2025. And I looked over that the bulk of that bill, 75% of that of the total bill was basically Fowler Trust subdivision, major subdivision. Okay. So that's where his time went to. Um, and that was in the amount of $1,020. Secondly, we had the Rainer Group. That's our um engineer, Rick Wesnovski. Um, and that was also from August of 2025. And I looked that over. That was 100% um focused on the Fowler Trust major subdivision again. And that was for $2,10. So again, 1,020 for Rick and for our engineer Rick Wisnowski. Um, so I will need a motion to approve both of those.

Motion to approve. Motion approved. Second from Matt. Thank you. All in favor? I. I. All right. We have um gotten from our uh Matt Sherman um for Def Sheer the lot line adjustment. Um my records show that's an issue still with the Suffach County Health Department services. That's that's where it's still being held up. Um so he requested an extension uh which Rick prepared for us. Um so we'll just need an extension on um the finger and this is resolution number 14 of 2025. Mhm. Um so you have that you guys have a copy of that in front of you? Yep. Okay.

Yeah. Okay. Um so I'll just need um a motion made to extend extend for that. I have a motion to extend. Okay, Matt. And can I get a second on that? By David Austin on the second. All in favor? I I Okay, next one is the Ratican lot line adjustment. So, to clarify, these draft deeds, they were uh they were approved by us but by the planning board and they were filed with the county, but we're still waiting. Same situation. We are waiting on Suffach County Health Department services. So, uh, same I don't know that the deeds have been record the deeds shouldn't be recorded yet till the back of file.

That's what I probably holding the deeds. Maybe they're holding I saw an email correspondence and said that that I said they were okay and they could be approved for an old condition. Okay. Um, so again, they're just so the extension because that's going to be up on September 8th. Um, but we got that in time. So, uh, Rick prepared that as well. So, uh, I just need a motion if everyone's in agreement for to to extend um their request and this resolution would be 15 of 2025. Can I get a motion to approve their law life? Motion. Sure. David and anyone second? David Craigville. Thank you. All in favor then on that one. I thank you.

Okay. Uh, now the third one. Uh we are actually scheduling a public hearing. So So we have a resolution to schedule the public hearing for the Trudy Fowler Trust major subdivision. Okay. And they're going to be going over there. It's a technically it's it's a plat schedule public hearing. Um and that will be at our next meeting um which will be October 14th. Um I I'm I'm not going to run through the whole resolution, but basically that's the public. I mean said by the bottom of the paragraph one it should be tax 1421 not 14

last show the paragraph again right quickly uh your first paragraph paragraph number one the last what's the last member of the lesson or 14.1 14.1 is and then the period at the end of the sales but okay is that correct? Okay. I originally added 14.

Um and did we also change the PO box that you fixed that right? Okay. Cuz all corresponds doesn't go since since we don't have general deliveries all goes to our PO box. So want to make sure. So does everything else look okay on that or Rick? Anything else on that resolution? All right. So, I need a motion then to um make the public hearing on September 9th um for the Fowler Trust subdivision hearing. I'll make a motion for the public hearing. Marcus, thank you. A second. You want to fight over it? Okay, David Craig. All in favor then?

I I Okay, that was carried back. All right, let me just put these back in here. All right. Uh, and I'll I'll need I'll need a motion again to close our business meeting. We're gonna Motion to close. Thank you, Matt. Second. Thank you. And All in favor? I

We're going to move into our work session. Um, of course, under a lot line modification applications, we uh we just approved this in our just now. So, that's the Radican lot line adjustment. Um, to foul and cheer, I'm just jumping down number three. We just did that as well. Um, Burrow Hall, we're still waiting on these maps to be filed. So they technically they haven't missed the deadline. Oh, I signed those, right? Okay. So, but they have to be sent over. So, all right. Thank you for reminding me. So, I was here and I did sign them. Are you sure?

Jessica was my witness. Okay. Um All right. So, that's those are the only three on the lot line adjustments and two of those we just took care of. Um the Bloom Miner subdivision is we already approved that extension at our last meeting. All right. So, uh WestNet Creek Cottage subdivision, we haven't gotten anything yet, but their their deadline is October 14th. Um

you haven't heard anything further right now. Okay. I think we reached out to the engineer. Okay. Um Fowler Trust Major subdivision. We just did we just scheduled the public hearing. Um Crescent Beach LLC. I I we got correspondence two days ago maybe or yesterday or two days ago um asking for an extension. They just asked us not to to put the application on hold. So, we're not discussing that tonight. That I guess we'll put it on the agenda for October unless we hear otherwise. Um road minor subdivision. I think we heard from Matt Sherman fire apparatus and and and the roadways. So, he I think he said he was getting close to finishing that. So, we may be hearing from the road minor subdivision soon. And the white performance bond is still under the interim attorney review. Oh, which is actually that's now you.

Yeah. I don't know. That was the interim attorney, but you your firm is our attorney now. So, okay. So, the town attorney. So, theoretically, um, Thomas is reviewing this. Well, I don't think it's high on the agenda, but I don't know. I I've seen on the agenda, but I don't know anything. Yeah. I'm not going to take time now to go over it, but I think we can discuss it a little bit. Yeah. Um, okay. So, that brings us to the bulk of what tonight's going to be, which is uh site plan review up updated legislation. Um, Julia, before we move on to that, is this do you want to It just came in. So, I mean, do you want to I'm happy to be one of the people doing it.

Okay. So, Okay. So, here's the thing. uh this application I am going to have to uh re reaccuse myself because I'm personal friends with this applicant. So Marcus when it comes time he's going to go over all all this where he's going to run the meeting too. Um but we can certainly assign uh two people. Happy to. Okay. Thanks. Anyone else? I noticed it's in your backyard. Well that too. Um but are we assign more than two? Yeah, we can assign more than two because we have a seven board. So, who anyone else want to go? Rather not be me because I'm running a meeting. Well, you're running a meeting.

Well, you can also go. I mean, I I used to go I mean a wetland application. Anyone else? Matt, you're in the neighborhood. Yeah. Okay. Sure. Okay. I just I volunteered Matt and he said yes. Anyone else? Sean's in the neighborhood, too. Well, Sean, well, Sean, I have to say, but anyone else for right now? All right, let's start with that, David. All right, let's David, you want to go talk? So, let's start with you three and uh we'll do that. Okay. Uh and you're okay. So, when that comes forward, you'll you'll take over those. Um All right. Site plan review.

Well, there there's a lot here. So, I I went into SharePoint. Uh I I am one of those folks who I work first from paper and I'm I'm half oldfashioned and half updated. So I do paper first and then I uploaded all my comments into the uh SharePoint. Although um I apologize I kind of I put them in today. So it's not that great. But I looked at I think everyone else um I saw Sean uh David was kind enough to respond to some of his things. David K was there's a bunch of stuff in there. Matt, thank you. And every and um Greg, I I met with Greg because you had broken your wrist and he needs some help on learning SharePoint. So, we got that all squared away. And I know that uh Greg has stuff on paper, right? Mostly on paper. So,

um but I David integrated some of my So, it was a team effort. That's great. I did it right. He would Okay. Um so what the only thing that I printed for you all just because in and this comes up a lot whenever we have done site plan review um just in the previous board under the other chairman I for some reason was always tasked with well not for some reason I was on the comprehensive plan task force so probably it was most suitable that I did it but I would always be the person to pull up stuff from the old comp plan and apply it to the

uh uh application. So all I did was I just made a summary of some of the I looked at like three site plans that we had done where we went back to the comp plan looked up and it was always the same paragraphs or the same phrasing that was used used. So all I did was I just copied those onto a document for you just in case you find that helpful rather than having to pull up the old document and paragraphs and paragraphs. So So this is the old comprehensive.

It's the uh 1995 comp plan with the 2008 addendum. How but however until we adopt the new comp plan, this is actually our comp plan. And I do have to say that although it's the date is extremely you know in the past uh a lot of the sentiments that are in here have are showing up in the in the new draft of the comp plan. So and it is our current document. So it does have validity even though it's old but it's a good one. It's it's yes you see well you see the same themes come up early 20s.

Um okay let me get out my notes here first. And then the other thing I thought is that so we don't get too much in the weeds here because I could see this we I don't want to be here for three hours working on the comments. So I thought we would just actually move down through the draft on SharePoint. I have it open in front of me. That's okay with everybody and then this way we can just kind of stay organized. Um can I just uh make a a broad comment? Yes, of course. Um, and it relates to Rick's um, comments from 84. Yeah, let me just get that out. Hold on. I have that on top of Yeah, I have it here. Okay, go ahead. I just wanted to add that I thought his comments were extremely helpful for me.

Yes. Um, especially item one related to purpose. Um, and item three, applicability. Um, it's just sort of an initial comment. Yes. Um, I I wrote some stuff in there too about applicability and purpose. Okay. Um, just so I understand in terms of how we're marking this thing up, all of my comments except the stuff I pasted at the end were in the sidebar.

They're in the sidebar. I can see them. I I I see everyone. The only people I don't have here is Marcus, but I'm assuming you have like notes. Marcus, you didn't put in SharePoint. I I never like the site plan, as you know, like I I've got I got a history with it going all the way back from its beginnings. Yeah. And I like what you pointed out is that, you know, there's no there's no what is the purpose of it? You know, what's the purpose? What is the mission statement? You know, like if you start a law or start a business, you have to start with like what is it, you know, and then define it and and if you don't, then you you you can be subjective. That could be dangerous.

Okay. Um All right. So, when when we could that that that actually does relate to a piece that I I put put a critique in there, too. It's similar. So, I'll just hold that thought what you just said before we get to that. But again, so the only thing I didn't I didn't get was Sean has his comments in there and Greg has his ones on paper here. So, uh, so let's go through from the beginning here. Um, let's see. So David, the first thing you were pointing out was about the state legislation, how far back this goes to 76 granting site plan review to planning boards and uh you were mentioning how they have some great guidelines and you offered the link. Um Okay. And you mentioned that uh quite a bit of our comments could be addressed using this particular document which Rick you're very familiar with the

Yeah. It sounds referring to like the um uh the Department of State summary of site plans. Yeah. He's got that in there and and I mean as I put them up side by side I found that in fact some of the draft really came right out of it which is you know perfectly good document. Yeah. Um, so that's something that we can look at when you go to help us re reddraft it. Yeah. First of all, I expect that now our firm now has been hired as the town attorneys, right? So in that capacity, I would imagine that I'll be the one doing the drafting. Yes, you will. So you're the town attorney now.

Yeah, Thomas Crouch is the one primarily going to like he was at a town board meeting today. I'm kind of his backup at the town board level. But the code drafting would come under our representation through there meaning we just do that as part of it. We get a fixed fee. So um but I would imagine I'll be the one doing that. Okay. I have you know I have a lot of experience writing code. Great.

Um okay the next comment down is from Sean um in which he says I would insert an explicit purpose section. This actually is what I wrote too. and he said you could pull from um objectives below and expand. And he, you know, obviously he didn't write it all in there, but he said if if you looked at Greenport, he was pretty pleased with how Greenport um had that. Um and he said he'd consider a reference to any future comp plan as an overall standard to capture. I might say we might want to reference the current comp plan. That's the only thing I I would add on that rather than future because we don't you can't write a law based on something that hasn't come out yet. Um and David responded actually. Okay. So, right and your comment was that you didn't believe that the proposed laws should include any reference to future proposed plans as we just said.

Um you mean proposed comprehensive plan? Yeah. Okay. Yes. your the notes that you have on SharePoint. I believe eventually I will see those at some point. Uh we can add you to SharePoint. Can you add attorney on SharePoint? I'm not positive. I have to find Yeah, I'm not sure. The answer is yes. You'll get access to it. If not, some way if not I I don't have a problem. I'm I I'm good. I I like to write. No, I can we can Well, we can print comments. I mean, I was going to say for now if you or if you need to type stuff out everybody's comments, but this is that your is that your I can put myself in. That's fine. Does that have Julia's comment? Does not have

Yeah, it doesn't have my comments, but I can just I can say I can just I don't want all of them unless you have disagreements among yourselves that you have to resolve and the town board obviously weighs them too. I would use these to help the current access has planning board owners. I mean, planning board visitors and planning board members. So, in theory, there's a SharePoint group called planning board visitors who have access to this document. I don't know who's on that, but that I mean, my guess would be the board's attorney would be probably the one person. I would think so. Okay. But it's set it's already set up to have that kind of sharing. Yeah. I don't I think

it could be something related to if you don't have a town um email address. I think that may be that may block persons from I mean all right so that's what I thought but we'll find out about that um that would make it a lot easier I'll just say but let's we'll we'll tackle that after the meeting I mean tomorrow um okay so let's see what else um but you do agree with Sean that an explicit purpose section should be created um sounds like we all yeah we sort of agreed

see I said the same thing I said. Uh, let's hold on a second. Where's mine? No, I I was I offered some helpful phase uh phrasing. Um, I actually might have dropped my comment down below on by mistake instead of I didn't put my comment in the right place. Um, but it sounds like this is definitely something that at least three or four of us Yeah, we and we talked about last we talked about in the last meeting that we should do that and I thought we were going to propose actual language. Um, And then Sean says he didn't think we had any language. I think there might have been some confusion amongst us.

Well, I think in talking with Rick it, we sort of said that it it was be left up to up to our attorney to actually craft the language that we would put in like these are the sentiments what we're feeling and what we want. I think right is what we said and then you would actually craft sentences rather than all of us. Obviously you guys in town review it. I'll tell you what I'm most interested in hearing comments on applicability. Yeah. The way the code is written right now, it says everything is subject to site plan review. Exactly. Except for a few things. That's really broad. Um you know, all new land use activities that covers a lot of ground

and material exp what's material expansion. So I would prefer my recommendation would be you actually itemize the things that you want say for example traditional traditional examples I love you is a commercial building or the parking lot with it you know commercial a new commercial operation that's established on vacant land that's a traditional example or an enlargement of that building parking lot but commercial or at least a nonresidential for example if you had hospital, you don't. But I mean, if you had some other kind of nonresidential, non-commercial use, not a public use because that wouldn't be subject to site plan. Schools are not subject to town review, but things like that. Those are the traditional things that uh municipality usually want site plan review over.

I don't know to what extent you want site plan review over residential properties. I don't know whether you do. Well, it says explicitly. It's already Yeah, I see that. But it's it can I ask what uh in crafting that you I'm sure you guys had a a good reason why you why you wanted it that way.

Yeah. I think the idea was we weren't sure what all else might fall under. And so the idea is we knew it generally commercial but with everything going with zoning everything it's like we decided to just remove residential and do everything else with the idea that it's worth reviewing. It doesn't mean it necessary has to go to a full site plan, but the idea is to make it so it's looked at. That was the I think the general consensus of the of the draft. What what that's what might come before the reviewing board um other than you know straight business. Um

well I guess the real problem is we didn't see it in the existing code a clear definition of business you know it's like so it's like since there wasn't clearly defined somewhere yeah so we didn't want to it's like it's based on zoning right so it's based on zoning and based on multiple things so we didn't want to try to inherently wrap this as the code was kind of not clear one thing I I mentioned in my memo I'm going to recommend that you cross reference or or incorporate in the definitions in the zoning code. Yeah. Because you you write a chapter of the code. You don't write code and not have definitions. You have to define the terms.

So we'll use what's in the zoning code. But then we have to just check and make sure that there are no terms that we want to use different because you got to make good also somebody writing or rewriting the zoning code has to be aware that those definitions are being used in the chapter of the code. I think that's when we were reviewing it because we knew other things were happening out there. We didn't want to make as many assump this this is the problem of doing this in a vacuum somewhat. So it's like well this what's the best we can do? Well best we could do is no we're not going to do these things and we'll just say we'll do everything else because that way we won't miss something. Right?

That was the thinking whether it's valid. I mean the challenge in writing you know municipal code is always you don't want to leave big loopholes so that you fail to capture something that was I think but you also don't want to overkill and capture stuff that you that's too trivial that's always the challenge

I believe it's very possible that the folks who all of us who are reviewing you know can all of us recite all of the code verbatim no so it's like It was to make sure we didn't miss something. If somebody can go through and review and have a more exact understanding, all in, you know, it wasn't because we were explicitly trying to make it vague. We were trying to make it manageable. So, the subdivisions would potentially be subject to site plan review. Oh, no, no, no. Site plan review is for physical improvements on land. Exactly. And not like a subdivision road. that would be covered by subdivision. Yes,

subdivision is essentially you're dividing the property into a lots. So that's not a physical improvement. The road work might be, but that would remotely cover that within your subdivision. So So I have a question in East Hampton for instance, um residential is is also included in in site plan. Not normally in East Hampton. Um there are things that can occur in a residential zoning that require site. For example, that's what Ian means.

There there's there's a lot of you know in the east side of town there are certain non-commercial type uses that we classify as semi-public use semi-public facility uses. A hospital, you know, certain types of private school for example, public schools are exempt from municipal vehicle. a private school, a hospital, a museum, a private library, something like that. Those would be semi-public facility uses that are allowed in residential zones. There are certain kinds of uses that aren't commercial in the sense that they're not not for profit, but they're busy. They can generate a lot of traffic and need a lot of parking and they're sometimes allowed in residential zones. So, you want to capture them because those are traditional cycling things. big building with a parking lot and a lot of traffic generation. That's what you want to look at.

So, but but residential improvements normally are not covered. There's a couple minor exceptions for that if you're in an agricultural district, but generally we don't East does not have site over residential property. That's what we talked about um Greg when we were meeting about cuz that I I actually put in a note based on that discussion and for the other gentlemen here but it was we we were thinking of things like if you have like a single family home attempting to go multif family or excessive maybe um excessive clear cutting or possibly regrading and to but a big extent residential would

it says in single family residence districts and then it articul weights basically what Rick is saying then it does. Now let me ask that single family line appears in that state guidelines for site plan review but does that mean it's statutory and a town planning board can't do site ramp the state state law near town like I think it's section town law 274 gives grand site plan review power right but it's really up to the local municipality as to what they can cover

if you want to cover single family homes you could you I think I think your average single family home probably not. I think when you're talking about a 6,000T house and a 3,000T accessory building or two on a sizable piece of lot, it might it isn't out of the question. Well, that's why I wrote in the comment I I posed that question to everybody because I said that I think we were tasked with looking at businesses businesses looking to change use non-conforming pre-existing businesses and residential, you know, all the that's what we were tasked with. And do we want to get into extending this over into some residential cases such as those I just said? I think I or I think David brings up a conundrum actually and the conundrum is there seems to be currently and I maybe I'm completely wrong on this but there seems to be no mechanism in Shelter Island at the moment for any kind of overview within a residential um context. And I think

but the building department tech something's not working. If that's the case because the the example you bring up is not an abstract example. It's built. We can go see it and I don't think it's within the realm of what was intended to be built in shelter Iowa. Yeah. I mean,

and then and then there's another example um that I find concerning um in terms of what it portends for residential development in the future. And I think one of the things we have to think about is not Shelter Island 30 years ago, but Shelter Island 30 years from now. And I just drove by a new building, uh, a new residence that has a 30foot poured inplace concrete wall 10 ft from the property line adjacent to a small shingle style house. And it could I mean, it's like the the inappropriate scale and materiality could not be more jarring. Now, is that what we want in Shelter Island? I think that what David is bringing up at least bears some kind of discussion and if we're not the agency to review, we need to find out who should be doing it because there are lapses currently that seem to have no overview.

And the example you gave is not in a wet land. So, we it wouldn't have come to us or It's it's on Midway Road. Okay. And I would hate to have the house next door. I think the reality is is there's building code and if it conforms to the building code, then it can be built. You know, even that's exactly the problem. I'm not saying it's why I'm bringing it up so we can talk about if there's a problem,

do we just want it to stay a problem or, you know, is it something to review? But you have to differentiate between New York State Building Code and Shelter Island zoning or shelter island local ordinances which might cover things like a pyramid law percent of lot coverage reveation which is not going to be part of New York State building. I wasn't I wasn't by saying building code. It's like I mean what the building department has to review to say you can build right which is lots of things.

A government review a there's two different ways of handling things looking at things or types of actions. One kind of action which is traditionally what a planning board exercises is discretionary. You can use judgment and you know exercise your judgment in deciding whether or not to approve something. The building inspector traditionally exercises his actions are typically called ministerial. A ministerial action. The building inspector is compliant kind of comparing what is proposed to the state building code to the zoning code. Checking to see does it meet building code requirements for ingress and egress and number of windows and stuff like that. Is it meeting the town zoning codes requirements for coverage and setbacks and size if you regulate size in some matter and those are purely ministerial actions. He's he or she is supposed to be looking at an objective set of standards. if it meets the objective standards permit issues. A planning board and site plan review, you can exercise judgment. For example, you might, well, we don't like the parking lot over there. We don't like when the access is coming out. That's not something you deal with objectively. That's subjective. You know that that's a busy intersection. We need more distance away from the intersection from the driveway. So, those are the two kinds of actions. There's the discretionary subjective action and then there's the ministerial objective action. Typically, that's what's exercised by the building. So, for example, if you think that a particular building is too large for its neighborhood, there's two different ways to deal with that. One is you could change your code and put in things that make that building a limit the size of that building or its location on a lot, increase tax. The other way is to actually have site plan review over it, but that's more judgmental. It's subjective.

Those are the two different ways you can approach it. the town was working on a proportionality uh law at one point and that just slipped away. I don't know what happened to that.

I think there's a the challenge we get into here is a slippery slope of how many things we're trying to control in all honesty. And the current comprehensive plan doesn't say we want to have less than 6,000. It's like it's it's very objective. And if you look at purely based on percentage of coverage of a plot or you know flat, all these some of these bigger buildings are totally fine because they're on five acre lots, right? according to code and everything else. We could say we don't like them as individuals but there's nothing in the rules that say don't not similarly we have no architectural review board which means people can make something that we think is ugly but it may be beautiful to them I also think that's part of the good thing about being individuals and people get to do can do what they want on their land their property do things so it's a very hard it's like what kind of place do we want to be as a town and I think that has to get driven from the comprehensive plan down into the town board determine what they want to put

those things that you're talking about when it comes to a business a business not res we have those things like protect the island's small town community and way of life it's rural character and you know all those which is why we subjective on commercial but we we don't have the ability generally to be the subjective voice on residential I would say if we wanted to consider doing that I'd say we have to go back to the town board and ask if they want us to do that because that's more than what We were given I I I I my interpretation is that we were tasked with doing site plan review for businesses existing wanting to change use pre-existing all the usual cases that we have you know that was my understanding

Liberty and South Ferry and I'm not saying it's a bad idea I'm just saying I think it's going beyond our charter of what we've been asked to by the town board and I would certainly say I'd want to go back to town board and have them decide if they want cuz we sure could. Well, I think it's a question worth asking. We can ask it. That's what I'm David is basically saying what I'm trying to articulate that that I think in doing this we can be purely myopic and look at this old document and revise it

or we can begin to ask questions that I think need to be addressed and if we're not the right agency that's fine but I think they haven't been asked and um I think to David's point you know yes there needs to be the individual's ability to do what they want to do but I would say there are also parameters of civility that you know somehow require overview and that's that's what this is all about in fact so uh

we just have to be careful are we talking about just a few cases like some but basically site plan review for businesses with the exception of a few types of residential things like regrading what's do we draw the line on the if you don't draw the line then you go to architectural we are not tasked with dealing with residential in this particular item how do you I guess ask the board if they want us to do that but in the meantime you need to deal with this I I don't disagree with you but I think it's something we need to discuss so within within the context of what of that review of reviewing that document so Is everyone um okay if I draft a letter and just ask them to make it official on that? Okay.

Absolutely. Great. All right. Um but it it it's good that we got to it now in the applicability section because that's where it would go if it's going to be inserted or not.

Um okay, moving on. Um see these very um Okay. So in terms of purpose, um David, you had also said that you said it's quite hard to define explicitly where a site plan review applies if we expand the purpose language above. Um to be clear, this is meant for commercial properties. That's what we just covered. All right. Um so in I then my next comment was uh really to Rick, but to everybody uh so you had a question about the the standards and guidelines and when I looked up I just went to different towns. I actually looked outside of um Long Island, some towns that I frequent and what looks like our objectives is are their standards and guidelines. I don't know if you noticed that. So, I think they they're there, Rick, but they're lower. So, I don't know if we want to move that around and give it a different title, but everything that all the standards and guidelines are basically what we have in section B, traffic access, you know, all the things that we look at, those are our guidelines. Well, for example, yeah, I mean site plan review um guidelines and standards are generally are usually somewhat general in nature. They have to be, right? But you want to say something like, you know, your you know the purpose of site plan review, the standards that you're purposes and standards kind of go hand in hand because the standards should effectuate the purposes. But what do you want to try to accomplish? Well, generally you want to make sure that um the site plan that you're reviewing doesn't create traffic problems. Uh that ingress and egress to the site and parking lots are properly located and not in a dangerous location. Um that there's sufficient um you know the parking lot is designed so you can get in and out of it and into

the parking spaces and stuff like that. Um so you know community character because you know in site plan sometimes you do want to get into you know you may not have architectural view but you do have jurisdiction through site plan with vegetation landscape right so you know you can use landscaping to you know kind of help to create a screening some screening so can I just stop for one second so that that I guess what what the reason I brought that up is that you had asked about that and perhaps it wasn't clear but actually it it's in the document it's just that it's under our way of the way it was composed before it's under objectives of site pan. So a b sorry b 1 through 11 names all the things that you just named. So I'm just wondering

doesn't cover in the proposed in the no in the proposed one. So I'm just wondering I think it's there. It's just that we called it something different and is everybody 109.2. Yes. Yeah. 2B I mean I just checked like six different townships. Okay. and they they have all the things that we do except they call it standards guidelines. Okay. So that's why I just want to make sure is everyone. So So the only one I did I add anything covered.

So the only thing I added that I didn't see and I I brought this up in the in the wetlands review committee also was excessively sloped areas because we have everything else like landscape you know natural features. I that maybe that's under natural features, but um I just I noted that we didn't have anything about excessive sloping and we did I believe I'm trying to remember we might have added it to wetlands, but we could be doing site plan review where there's no wetlands nearby. And so I'm just wondering if that's something that we want to capture. So typically we we talk about places where it's 15 to 25% steep or 25 to 35 which is considered very steep and they usually judge it by like the footage horizontal 25x 25 continuous sloping.

What is the consideration? Is it is it we're concerned about runoff or concerned about safety of walking? What's the reason grading and also like we had at let's just say Crescent Beach LLC was it going to be a business not just residential? Then you've got the thing of people coming out of uh the driveway. In some ways that's in theory should be covered because it's traffic access. In other words, I think the idea is sort of like a sub. That's what I'm asking. Sometimes those aesthetics, you know, because if you have to cut it to a really steep slope, you create stars and you're, you know, making changes to your landscape. You could even incorporate it into item eight, which says drainage. That's what I'm saying. asking like this is

in there, but I was thinking if that came up, how would you fit that in or or is that sufficient for everybody? Cuz I all all of these are all of these are slightly they're all objective. They're not exact. So, I think adding in

uh slage or basically the adding some verbiage into any one of these I think would be a positive thing. I think every one of them needs to be totally specific about what the thresholds are for determining what actions are are permitted or require special consideration. Let me give you like on slopes for example where I'm coming from. Uh traditionally 20% is considered to be a steep slope. So the code is designed to discourage development on slopes greater than 20%. But I think any regrading of a site other than within the footprint of the building should be subject to some review. Uh I mean I know the town requires I think they call it an excavation permit which and I don't know what exactly that review is but I assume it takes into account effects on on drainage but none of that anything with massive regrading implies you've clearcut the site and gotten rid of every living thing before you started work. So, I think it does bear a careful review

and drainage is in here. I think I'm concerned. I hear you, David, about you want each one of these to be exact. I don't think we're going to be able to do that person. I think that's like Well, I started to at the end of this thing cut and paste from in in particular the East Hampton Town Code, which is really specific. If you're going to screen it, you plant this kind of plant. It has to be this big every so many feet. and and it's simply a minimum. It's not saying that's what you have to do, but that's the least you have to do. So, I think that's a reasonable approach. I think it help work, but

I think it helps give the applicant a a clearer understanding of what their minimal response needs to be. And when I read read through this and made comments a couple weeks ago, that's exactly what I was thinking. I was looking at it as an applicant. It's like what does screening mean? And that's one of the things I I noted, right? And a few other things. Um, and I think it is I think it's a worthy endeavor to try to make these as clear as possible. Um, but there's going to be some ambiguity no matter what we do. But we're not we're not beast reinventing the wheel. I know other towns in there. Good stuff.

I don't know what the copyright issues are with other towns. I'm just bringing up I just brought up the slopes as just one example that I felt a concern about. I said, "Oh, it's not here." So, if we had a sloping business application, how how would I which category would I work that into? And would it even pass because maybe, you know, it's not in this objectives list here, I I both natural features maybe. Okay. I mean, I definitely would put in there to some extent drainage because major um regrading often affects drainage. Right.

So, how so can I get a feel for that? We we're all looking to make it a little bit more specific or do we have concerns about this could just get out of hand and being way too I'm I'm worried about it being 12 pages long in all. Don't you want to leave some to the planning board discussion at the moment the application comes in and then we go we hash and I'm not saying I just am I'm concerned about it being too that doesn't mean we shouldn't do some

I I think the the way East Hampton does it which is there's essentially a technical appendix which are design standards planning standards specifications so it's not in this kind of boilerplate narrative but it tells you where to go to find out what screening or it's in the definitions. You know, I think it's true. Put it because each of these ones could be a page long. I I think that should be an appendix to the document. Just I just say E standard because I'm very familiar with it. Um they they they exercise a lot of uh judgment. They don't it isn't boilerplate in terms of what your screening is. It depends on the site. They'll look on it in a case by case basis, but they have quantifiable

elements. some things very it's very it's very minimal but it it's not ne I mean it's not without any kind of qualifications. No, but you know screen landscaping is usually a pretty subjective field. I think we wanted to have some subjectivity. I'm not saying we don't but I'm just I agree with David that what would be possibility of getting getting a version of the of their town code? It's online. You just We looked at it. I mean, I stuck it at the back of this, but I mean, you know, as an example, planting shrubs

4 ft apart, staggered or in a straight line, 3 ft from the parking area boundaries, minimum height, it should be 2 ft. You know, I just tell you what the minimum is. I think that's perfectly reasonable. It doesn't that but that's I mean that that to me seems like then we're branching off into actually changing other parts of our town code. Like we don't have all those yet. and and we're not law we're not lawmakers here per se for everything. We're just I'm I'm just thinking this could get out of hand. I mean how how much we're going to start writing a technical appendix and you know I don't know if to the degree it doesn't exist any place else it would be useful. Why not? I mean it's not

it's only a few it's only in a few areas where it requires some kind of clarification or quantification. What if we what if we did this? I mean, Paul, we all read through it. Paul made some comments. Um, those of you who are more familiar with East Hampton code, I'm not I'm not in that side. I'm not in that business, okay? I'm a banker, but I do care about this island. Um, maybe we can do as kind of a a homework thing, pick the ones that you want to be real specific on because if you look at the the few comments I made, it was pretty much always let's be more specific. I saw that

because I hate the ambiguity that we run into. Look at what we had with wetlands and we had with with these these problems that we had before. Um, it will take more time and it will take an appendix probably or if we decide to have one or not. But for those of you who are really good with the East Hampton thing, I'd be happy to work with you if you clue me in on it a little bit and let's talk about it through this through the SharePoint about each one. Go through it and figure out which are the ones that we really want to target for specificity and see if we can come up with I don't think we can get to it tonight. All these not talking about tonight. No, definitely not talking about that doing that tonight. But would you mind if I just

respond to Matt's Yes, of course. Matt, in in for instance in East Hampton, this is East Hampton's planning. Uh they've got a a section called necessary elements of site plans and it lists um you know A through O. Um some of them are very, you know, obvious things that we already have like a lot area, floor area, uh dimensions of property. That's that's a lot of it. Um but then under um it's got things that we don't currently have which you know David is David Austin has expressed um concern about this level of specificity probably but um item N says elevations of buildings and structures shall be to a scale sufficient to show design character materials heights roofs overhang special design features Um, we don't have anything like that. Um,

quite a bit here. And do we want it or do we not want it? But it's a point of discussion. No, I I totally agree. I'm saying I agree with you guys in that that I am all about specificity cuz I in in every business I've ever been in, if you have ambiguity, it causes problems. Now, there's going to be that's going to happen here no matter what cuz cuz none of these houses are cookie cutter. None of these businesses are cookie cutter. Nothing is the same. But if we can reduce that, I think we can create a better document than than what we have. All right. So, let's put that on a task list sometime before the next meeting. Let's go through and I would be happy to to entertain, especially with you guys. You guys are in that business. I'm not. And I'd be happy to talk to you guys.

Sure. And and maybe we can come up with a a little bit more of a let's take this one and look at. Let's take this one to look at. And but I'm also the kind of person I'm not I don't want it to be this big either. So we may have to make a compromise here and there and keep it from being too unwieldy. Sure. I I think it's a good point because most of the people who are applying are not have done millions of these applicant site plan review chapter is not especially long.

I just don't I know I haven't read it. I'm just you know and I agree with with Julia that we don't want to get too far in the weeds. None of us want this is it. It's not that it's not I don't consider that. But I think for going forward to go through some of these things I'd be happy to you have access to this SharePoint. Yeah. Because we'll take a look at my comment and what I put at the end of it because I I mean there's only three or four sections that I thought I was useful. Um ju okay just just jumping down here. Um David, you had mentioned the one acre threshold should be deleted. What's that? Uh I think that was under grading or drainage.

You know, it's interesting when the uh the comment to always find out where the comment you have to Well, if you click on the comment, it lights up in the in the text. I know, but I don't I don't see it lighting. I'm sorry. Which which where are you? One section. What section? I just Okay. I I hit it and then I lost it. Okay. So, it's in drainage. Oh. Oh, it's in drainage, right? Yeah. So, uh you were just saying that you you weren't sure why they were using the term construction activities being used unless that this is related to drainage during the period of construction, right? Well, what Yeah. So, let's read the one thing that they mentioned. Well, he's actually in Yeah. Yeah. The one acre

because that's that's Oh, right. Yeah. say you have this in my opinion incredibly stupid uh you know rule that you have to prepare a swimming plan storm water protection with a little piece of forehead uh and if you're disturbing more than one acre and depending on what municipality you're dealing with I help with east village in New York 20,000 square feet

yeah they make yeah smaller in New York City but it's pretty brutal um so they're maybe tying it to that so generally speaking if developing property, unless you have a lot of money, try not to go over one acre because you go get the whole swip, you know, this is limited to to say an acre is a threshold. If you have a half an acre and you regrade it and it drains onto your neighbor's property, you can cause a lot of problems. So why have a why have the one acre limit? I don't I'm not seeing the point of that.

It's not it's not a oneacre limit. It's just saying that if it does go more than if it goes more more than one acre, it has to be in compliance with these other programs. That's all it's saying. It's not saying you can't look at drainage 30 ft of more than the planning board for looking at something more. But as David, if it is more than acre, you have to conform to this whole SWIP business. And that's what that's all it's saying. It's just giving a stay in. Yeah. It's just it's just informing that there's additional things you have to do if you disturb more than an acre, right?

It's just it's a deformative. I I understand. I mean, this this paragraph comes right out of the New York State thing. I don't think we need to mention MS4 because nobody's going to know what it is because it relates to municipal sewer systems for storm water, which we don't have here. So, I wasn't sure why that we have some municipal ice. We have ice water and we have and then we have Yeah. So we do have something but MS4 is typically an independent storm water system not sanitary sewer. It's storm water storm water only. The one I think relates to this the SWPP. Okay. So we

the language came from I think the recommendation probably it's where it came from originally. Then you were also asking David about why they took out anything about the nitrogen reducing septic systems uh under public and private utilities. Um number nine I don't remember that being that was in there. You know I didn't bring a copy of the old one but yes it said okay uh I mean I remember I remember the utility section. I don't remember that being in there but um I have the old code. Do you remember when this was? It's a requirement. Septic systems are a requirement, but any I mean

now we have the charge for having new IAS. So is that is that Well, that's what it was. That's what it was. It was I think the the original site plan stuff was pushing toward more IAS but which we still which we still are in general but there's a bunch of financial considerations around that right that I think are we kind of had ignored when they had did that old code I think the idea was to not be prescriptive in this code well what the old one said is public utilities 10 plans for water supply and sewage disposal are adequate installation of a nitrogen reducing septic system this is under standards of review. Right. I see.

Which I guess implies that installation of nitrogen nitrogen reducing substance system was something that was required. It doesn't actually say that, but it doesn't say it doesn't even have full sentences, right? So that may be why it was taken out in the next that's that part we do have in our town. It's already it's already I mean the only thing you could do is re refer to the part of the law. I think that was the idea. It was not this was before was mandate. Exactly. Yeah. Okay. And and that's part of it was so we tried to take out things that were kind of in conflict with so to speak with other things. So we just simplified it. But if there's a good this might be a good place to refer to that though.

Yeah. Maybe we could refer to her since it it is in existence and that would be more specific following what you want to. Um let's see. Basically, the law is all new construction needs an IIA system, right? And expansion over 50% needs an IIA system. No, Marcus, is that town law? Because I'm not sure that's town, but it may be also county too because the you know, yeah, I'm not sure of the status of the county health department. I'm pretty sure it's the town and then I think the county followed with it, you know, because that's the exemption does it pretty much the same. Yeah. New construction is substantial, you know, 50%. Yeah.

Good.

Um, okay. So, the next one, um, I I gave a lot of thought to this because I I got down a rabbit hole, but it was quite fascinating. I I went to a couple towns where they had a task force that was actually uh discussing whether presubmission conference should should happen or not. and I got really deep into I forget the township. But uh and one of the things that I thought of like uh initially when I read Rick's comments about okay, why do we have a presubmission conference? It seems like almost like it's a waste of time or but the thing is I think where it's coming from is uh it's always been common practice to seek advice from the planning board. Um we actually almost had one on the agenda tonight, but person wasn't ready yet, so we took it off the agenda. Um, that was the one that you asked about midway. But I think somebody could argue that that the informality I wrote here of presubmission conference could favor seasonal applicants. But after I gave it more thought, I realized in keeping with our current comprehensive plan that actually having a presubmission conference is important because you can that will actually help the applicant prepare a more solid uh application and not have to go back and you know redesign everything after the planning board members all tear it apart and say well this is wrong and that and wrong. This way they know what the potential public concerns could be and what the and what the board's potential concerns are be. And I think it's actually excellent because if more people came to one of us before they did a wetlands application say okay tell me what you guys are concerned about and how can I make an application that will fit well and that will have the most chance of being approved. I think that would make our job easier. Right? Instead we have these this type of business where they're coming and asking for a change. I think most of the presubmission conferences I've been to have been really helpful and the person comes in like I'm thinking of South Ferry Liberty

all those applications were quite well done but that's because they came to a presubmission conference. I'm a little confused because it seemed like reading the description of the presubmission conference. It's to find out the the content of your submission not for design guidance. No, it's it's where they they've they've got a application polymer uh application kind of like a sketch plan. You could think of it as like like that what he just said like because that's a little different than what they describe as happening. It's basically a practice that we've always done, but I I guess David, they they wanted it in there as because it's I mean I I at first thought this is kind of silly. It's done, but do we need to put it in? But then I realized no, maybe this is the right thing.

The idea was to save a lot of time. That was the goal was to make it so we don't go all the way to the next step. Well, they spent a lot of money. They spent a lot of money and a lot of time and then they have to go spend another six months going back. It's like it was it was to try to reduce the articulated a little differently to maybe give a more guidance to

there's two concepts in in this one sentence. The purpose of such a conference shall be to a discuss proposed usage of development in order to determine which of the site plan elements shall be submitted to the planning board in order for the board to investigate conformity blah blah blah. So it's not really giving design input. It's saying based on what you're proposing this is what you have to submit. Now maybe that's not what we mean. your coach should say I mean I I think I agree with what Julia is saying is the purpose of that should be to assist somebody with design right that's a whole different thing I I think the well the elements of the submission that should be spelled out for code

yeah and I don't think it should be subjective or even up for discussion this is what you have to submit I mean why would we say to one guy you have to do I mean I guess it there is a scalability you know it depends on how complicated it is But the basic requirements should be consistent, you know, to an applicant is what does the planning board think about my proposal in the conceptual design aspect, you know? Yeah, I think we could work on the wording. Yeah, I think the idea concept is good and we didn't fix the wording. Yeah, me too. But it is one of the things

I just think it's going to reduce time and cost and you have to remember that not every you have to also keep in mind that we have to support mom and pop businesses as well as corporate like Pwin with runs the whole gamut. So we have to think of that person who's going to go back and have to redesign it, you know, several times and waste a lot of money. It's not always an applicant who can just do it no problem. So I think this gives um a nice way to help them get it more and more before they do you are you looking at it to be mandatory or optional they have well site plan review we've actually I mean the pre the presubmission part presubmission I recommend I redired doing it required I think they should do it yeah and how what's the format that's they come into a work session

they come into town hall the building inspector is usually there uh the planning board chair CA this this is just the planning board the presentation yeah I know I'm I'm telling you how it used to be this is how it used to be you know CAC would be in here who else am I but is it a monthly meeting or is it No it's just it's a scheduled meeting got it but just to clarify David just said this is also this is what we used to do this is it's not a public meeting it's not meeting okay well that's that's the thing but the reason why we should keep it

I think the reason why it was also there was Not a quorum of any board there. It was just but I mean this can be now a law where they have to come in Rick. Right. So that's a different story than it than it can be. It should be it should be public. Right. That was the right there is a kind of flowchart discrepancy. In the old version the first stop was the town clerk. Now we're saying the first stop for planning which is this wheelchart which goes to the first stop is the narrow building describing it is is the building the first building department

the first yeah the first stop within within site plan review is the planning board but before it gets to site plan review it goes through building department building department which I think which also I think sends things to the town clerk. We were trying is like not to describe everything outside of only with but if someone wants to know what to do. I mean and I think they should go to the town clerk first who's they always go to the building department first has to go to and the building department tells them that's not what it used to say and I'm not sure what it says now. Yeah. But that's not what anybody did. It was like everybody would because it's always related to

I'll tell you how East Tampa used to do it which I think is better than how they do it now and that is that site plan applications went to the building department some partially they could be logged in. So the building I knew that an application was submitted to the planning group and also but also that was the other key part of it was that so the building inspector theoretically would look at it and just do give it an initial check to see if it conforms with other you know are you submitting something that beats your coverage rules your setbacks things like that and then the building department would refer the application to the plane board and you know you really want only one agency to be approving these things right

you know you don't want to be bounc back between the plague board, the town board, right? Got to be one agency in charge. I think I think I agree. It should go to the building inspector because what if there's a ZBA issue? Does that take precedence before? Well, that's on the old chart. The part that's kind of grayed out. It's not great. It's just a lighter font shows that it could be sent to ZBA. It could be sent to us. It could, you know. But do we can we approve a site fund that may require ZBA hearing? Yes, of course. Well, where does it go first? building department building. No, but then if it requires ZBA for whatever reason, would they have to approve it before we got it or are they concurrent?

Building department would notify the owner with a a notice of disapproval that what you're trying to do here needs ZBA or planning board approval to then come to us. They say, but I think David's correct. What if it's ZBA? how you not every municipality does it this way. Um and East Hampton didn't always do it this way, but today if you need a variance, you have to get the variance. That doesn't mean that you can't go to the pling board at the same time. So in cycling, you might want the playing board's input, you know, in part of your design, but ultimately you need a zoning variance from some setback requirement.

East would say you're not complete for the plane board to give it approval till you get your variance. So the zoning board acts first and then the plane grid second. Well like you know like a good example is Sylvester Manor right now is at the ZBA right and then it's going to be coming to us. So well more than likely I would get sooner but

so I think that the thing is no matter what the different groups we have to know what's going on right so it's like and I think the important thing is who's the decider on site plan review that's the planning board the ZBA decides zoning if in the plan or in here in the site plan we realize there's a variance required and that would have been highlighted because the building department would have said so that should come we'll know that from the get-go so we would just like But we're not obviously going to finish this until that's determined. Okay. I think. Yeah. Right.

All right. So, that actually this whole discussion just got us way down into I'm already now into like 109-6. Um, uh, David asked, David K, sorry, asks, "What is the criteria related to size of the parcel?" And that was under D. Look under D. It says, "In determining whether to approve an application, the planning board shall consider the following factors." And then number one is the size of the subject partial parcel pardon me. So that gets back to your you know specificity request like it just says size and rehearsal. I'm on D. This is 109.5

five. Yeah. Yeah. 6. Okay. And this is under administrative site plan application procedure. I think a lot of my comments apply equally to the full okay procedure if they flow I mean they're they're just more of the full but most of it should not be everything we do in the full we would have done administrative side right and I think it is important to have both types the the full review and the administrative I'm totally on board with that I mean there are other township other townships just to be clear my own mind how what the distinction between the two I mean administrative doesn't require public hearing. Full does. What are the other distinctions?

Well, let's look right through again. Well, I think there's a limited list of what is can go for administrative. What is administrative? What's the benefit to? What are you what is the outcome of it? You don't have to do the full I mean everything that you would do in site plan review to total submission. You get a resolution at the end of the day. I don't think so. I think a lot of it's handled that right. It's I don't know. I don't think so. No, I think you still get a resolution. It's just a mainly you're probably mainly avoiding the public hearing. I guess that's one part of it. Yeah. And it's based upon again eligibility based on because basically it's not a large change. Basically the idea is that these are relatively small

right is the idea is to make it so we can get that done. Um, I believe I was kind of confused. So, it's in a 1094 A1. 109-4 lists what kinds of projects Yeah. you're applicable for like you're doing something on the inside of your commercial building or you're doing, you know. Oh, and the other right I couldn't think of what the other thing was is that it's only going to be assigned to uh if your committee came up with two two members, it's only assigned to two members for the administrative review, right, David? And then those people report back to the main board. Yeah, that's what it says here. Or did I imagine that's what it Okay. Right.

Two members of the board selected by the chairman in consultation with by the planning board committee shall receive an application. Again, the big thing is if you look at it, Richard, the the things that within that are really pretty small like you're doing a short form. it well it's it's but I'm saying is the the impact of what's changing and what's being proposed is is it is it's not dimminimous but it's small and that's the goal if we look at this and it's too bigger you know if we think oh we need to conrict we should constrict it more but that was the goal was to make it so that

and especially things that were like grandfathered in or things that are uh they already have a site plan and they're doing a revision to it like they're small it's it's to make those less cumbersome uh Well, somebody did ask about um signage. I think one of our you asked about number five changes to signage as approved by the planning board as part of an approved site plan or or was that uh in the full review? Oh, we had a we discussed that, but I don't know if I ever discussed it. I was so baffled by the comment that I I don't know if I'd ever wish comments about the requirement for the sign being approved or something like that.

That would be administrative. So, you wouldn't want to have a whole full board review on this ch a little change of signage, right? And in any case, signs are approved by the building department under the statute sign. I'm not sure why it even But this might have been a business that just came in for that, right? And so, they don't need a full site plan review to change their signs. I think that's what it's talking about. No, I think the big thing is if they've already have a site plan that had signage and stuff going on it and they're revising that site plan and changing the approved. The idea is like let's have a small administrator thinks we just review it, make sure it doesn't do anything weird because it affects

I can't tell you that the building department was in support of this. Even on the wetlands comm we had the same thing. We talked about having administrative. It just helps out the building inspector make, you know, things go a little faster. Basically, the sign law is the sign can be no bigger than 3T by 3T unless it's attached to the building. And then how big can it be? Then when it's attached to the building, it can be much bigger. It's attached to the building. like on

that's what they came up with you know in there potentially as big as the building. Oh, there must be some limits as to how big it can be probably. I don't know. But that would when that application came in, we'd have to look at all that. We'd have to look at that on the structure, you know, aesthetics, building, you know, screening, all that stuff would be wrong. We have to um pardon me, I was I was listening to Marcus. So, did uh was somebody looking up something on that or we moving ahead? Okay. Um, okay. That actually Yes. While Sorry, I can I While I'm scrolling down, I'm going to just get to where the next comment is.

I I didn't get to make a comment earlier except I was reading um something about the East Hampton um code of review. And I wanted to just ask about one of the things that they require uh which we don't require um and which we discussed briefly um relative to um submission of elevations of buildings and structures as part of site plan review. Um I would like to advocate that we should be doing that. Um, can you say again just the what happened Stampin? Uh, um, elevation on the structures on the building on the actual building because I was going to say that comes into us. We we see those.

Well, the way that this is this is under this is uh submission again. Hold on. 109.6 six uh A number four is site plan and then you go down to C. It says uh plans for all required improvements must be submitted. Now plans can have two meanings. It can mean literally a floor plan, right? Or it can mean the whole set of design drawings. Let me have a set of plans. It's very different than here is the plan. So I think we should be specific and as Greg was saying we should say it should be you know plan section elevation at a minimum of 1/8 of an inch.

What what East Hampton says is elevations and buildings elevations of buildings and structures shall be of a scale sufficient to show design character. buildings and structures, materials contemplated, heights, roofs and overhangs, special design features. Um, so it just articulates a little bit more specific because I don't I'm not yet familiar with all of your processes. You don't have anything akin to architectural view, right? even on commercial. So, East Hampton does on commercial property. That's one reason that they're requiring all the exterior elevations and so forth,

right? Because that's going to go to the architecture. That's true. We do not have but um I think it look I I think we should but that's not our mandate today. But I do think you should be able to review what a building is going to be three-dimensional. I think just looking at the plan is insufficient. And I think it's I think the question is how much what kind of plans do we want to see, right?

I would I would I think just like we have wetlands, we get three dimension, we get we get all that normally. So I think there's a and maybe we should be more specific, but I think there's an assumption that we're going to get all the plans, right? So yeah, but we I remember getting a couple almost handdrawn ones. Exactly. So there might be some value. There might be there might be some value in to just articulate I'm with you on this Greg. I think it's no problem. I don't think it's any problem saying that we want adds to the spec elevations and we want full full scale with all 3D. I mean I don't exist floor plans everything well it's usually free tight we always get in wetlands we t if if it's matt sharm for example we'll get the

well I think the real question is we have to look at it we should think about it for just a second I don't know what the right answer is is whether administrative would be that given the minute how much that's not too much or only the full ones I'm not saying it shouldn't but I'm just saying we should think about whether when we ask for it whether should ask it for I just want yeah I think it depends on depends why we have to have pre submission preubmission. I think what makes sense is to ask for all of it and say unless wave by the board at the presentation conference fine but yeah just come up with and I think I stuck the stamp and list on the end of this document but that's why that conference is so important to make sure sorry that was out of sort of out of context remember

I like it I think I didn't say that earlier I support it I like it um let's see plans is ambiguous okay so David you already saw that All right. Um, uh, the planning board should not take on the responsibility of distributing an application to any other municipal or county agency. That's what I said. Well, there there's something in there that says the board will then distribute it to I forgot what section that was. Well, we that's what we do now when you know in like subdivisions, you know, we send it to the

suffic planning commission. I mean, I'm just thinking off top of my head. You send things to DC County Department of Health Services. I think what they mean is they mean send off the clerk's office. Yeah. But but some of these things I mean there's a separate application and there's a fee and and why do we want to take on that responsibility? We're not taking on fees. It's just transmitting. It's just informing. It's informative. If if the site plan package is consistent with the submission requirements to the other agencies, yes, I suppose you can send it. But if each agency has its own criteria, like the health department or something like that, but it does say as deemed necessary by the planning. Yeah, I don't I don't

I can't remember what page this is on. It's B page six. Yeah, it's a C. If the planning board determines the application to be complete, it shall transmit the application to the building department and any other municipal or county agency or district that has jurisdiction that is 109 by the proposed development as deemed necessary by the planning board. So, it's up to us 1097B. That's where I see it in the in the formal site. 1097 item C. Item B.C. C. Yep. You're right. Sorry.

To transmit the application to any other municipal or county agency or district. I thought that was a little broad. You're not going You're not going to accept the health department application. You're going to submit that to the health department. Yeah. I'm trying to figure your require your requirement to do the following. If it's subject to or may be subject to county planning conditions that's county planning. I think that's what we were thinking. And if it's unless it's for if it's unlisted or type one action then you have to do your lead agency coordination and you have to send a copy of the EF part one and I think the application form to other involved agencies and so those two things are required by the law

and I think that this is written I believe with the goal of this like kind of covering that but not saying specifically these two because who knows what might come up in the future is what I think is why it was written kind of word we just we deem it necessary. But we could do this in bulkheading and you know we could get into the Army Corps. There's all sorts of applications. What about own that? I don't think we need to put that in. I think I I think it it's g this is somewhat general but it almost needs to be a little general. It just says invol says involved agencies right county agency or district necessary. Yeah. You can't be the you're not going to handle another AY's application. No not at all. That's what it's saying. It says it says transmit the application

to building the agency. It's just basically making as deemed necessary. Basically, it's like make a copy. What Dave is saying is it sounds we're all talking at one time. Everyone just remember to take turns so we can they hear each other, please. Okay. Go ahead, Greg. I think Greg I I was just saying it it seems like Dave is just saying that it it should be clearer in terms of that it's the applicant's responsibility for dispersal of certain information not just us isn't that what you were implying

maybe David is it David is it possible that this was in reference to like a determination letter because letters that we send out are our responsibility and we're not going to have the applicant send them off. We send them off because that's the only thing I that that's when I read that I was thinking of those sorts of things like a memo, you know. I'm trying to remember I'm trying to remember where the language came from in honesty and I don't remember. Meg's got me. Sorry, I was looking down. Go ahead. Do you remember me?

Yeah. So, I think one of the things that came up was um Reed had a question about how we deal with curb cuts and who submits for the curb cut. Is it the town that submits or is the applicant that submits? So there are certain things that sometimes have to go to the county or the state and sometimes we have to be the ones who do that liazing so to speak I guess. Um I know planning commission we usually submit to the planning commission if we need a you know if we have questions or if we need them to rule on something. So there are certain things that we are required to submit to some of these agencies but it might be written too broadly. Um, but that was I believe the intention is because there are times where we do have to submit to planning commission or there's a curb cut issue or um there are other things that have to go to the county. Sometimes you have to go to the fire district. It really depends on um the project.

Yeah. Maybe it just needs to be more simply written in some ways. I think yeah it should be refined. Yeah. All right. Um, okay. Now, just this actually is good. So, in uh just I went on to the next page. We were on page six. Now, jumping over to page seven. David asked about is David K asked about is it 20 days uh uh statutory limit in chapter 133. It seems aggressive and dependent on the inspector's workload. Rick, is that mandate mandate that the

I I'd absolutely do to see whether you have any timeline. The basic rule on most applications subdivision site plans is you're if the thing is required to have a public hearing, not always required code, right? But if something's required to have a public hearing, you have to hold the public hearing within 62 days after that's in there. It's complete. Okay, that's Yeah, that's that's coming up, right? This is just saying the building inspector has 20 days. I have a feeling this is from the building department because it says he has to certify on each site amendment the plan that's required. So, I guess that might have come out from building

probably presumably is in your building building code chapter. Um uh okay, next. I mean, I'm skipping over some that we've kind of already touched on, but uh 10, you David was asking, uh, 10 days is inadequate for people who may want to attend or come into a plan. So, just 21 calendar days. That's not enough time. What's not enough time? Sign shelves be displayed for no not less than 10 days. Well, especially if it says mailed. So if it's mailed, you might get it four dates before the actual

I believe this is consistent with all other parts of the code where we're sending out notice on. So we should look and double check to make sure it's the same as because we do this for everything and so we don't want to be different and I believe this was what we do every place else. I'm not saying it's right and that that does happen. Uh I'm part of a association where we got something like that and we it was mailed. I looked at the time the stamp on the envelope but we actually only got it in our mailbox like 6 days after that. So that it actually only left us a couple days to react. But so it does happen but I'm thinking that like David A said that might be what we we should review and make sure

what you want to be aware of is you guys meet once a month. That's not changing, right? So you should be able to schedule a hearing in one meeting, have enough time to get it published in the newspaper with whatever the requisite hearing notice you want to give before your next monthly meeting. So you have to know what your not notice you know when will it go to the newspaper how much time does that give you know right well I think news also the posting of signs 10 days I don't think is enough that was your other comment that was

yeah and also that I don't understand that it has to be within 10 ft of the street which means if it's 10 ft from the street it's on the person's property and you now have to trespass to go read the sign that's posted on the tree in the front lawn 10 ft is you can go up to 10 ft is not not more than 10 ft from the street line. So if it's 9 ft 11 in from the street line, you can't read it. It's tiny. You just go up to it. It's well then you're walking on somebody's front yard. But you can't legally you can because it's 10 ft is is uh the border of that is town control that you can walk 10 ft onto somebody's property. I don't know. Do you ever see people walking 10 ft under front lawn? 100% all the time.

Thousand% This didn't come from the committee. This was based on practice. This is what we do. I mean, these guys, this is from, you know, for instance, there was a sign posted across the street from me for a subdivision that or a hearing for a CBA thing. It had fallen off. And the only reason they saw the sign is because it was down in the bushes. Um because they posted it only in front of their house. And and I think the what is it 200 ft or something like that? That's another thing. Oh, this is that's about notifying neighbors within 200 feet, which means using your code right now. Yeah, this is just Well, it's a crazy it's a crazy thing. I mean,

we can't change all the feet everywhere, right? That's the problem. That's why it's I don't think we can change that right now either. No. Well, it's not 200 ft isn't useful if it's, you know, large plots of land. That means nobody's going to be notified. No, it's 200 ft the edge of the your land. Well, I I'm across from a 40 acre subdivision and someone in the subdivision had this posting didn't go to anyone because their house is more than, you know, 200 ft from the main street on a culde-sac. So, I think it should be based on adjacent properties. I don't know if there's any precedent. Well, you you have three methods of notification in your subdivision rules and presumably do the same plan.

Publication the newspaper. Yep. sending a notice to anyone who abuts or within 200 feet of the subject property and posting a sign within 10 ft of the street in which the property price. So the theory is maybe not everyone gets all three of those but one of them should serve as notice. That's why they do three. Yeah, that's why they do three. Yeah. I I I think if the intent is really to make sure people who are affected are notified instead of being, you know, an abuing property, maybe it's three abuing properties or maybe it's the 200 200 ft of the subt property. I that's always worked.

I guess the big thing is if you want to make that change, I recommend you go to the town board because it's a broader swamp. All right. I would go and tell them that maybe it's not adequate. they might I don't disagree with you, but it's just like I mean in practice I don't judging from you know who shows up at DBA meetings. Not sure everyone else. I'm less concerned about that than the meat of what we call and that's what

um okay so I'm going to skip over the 200 feet because that we already did that and then um the only thing on Jay uh we had no regrading or and this is any other work but David offered how about lock clearing we talked about Greg you I I think lock clearing is a problem It just says they can't do it until

Yeah. This actually though brings up the subdivision issue again or not subdivision, the residential issue again. Um where residential lots or there are instances recently of of properties just being clearcut. So there is a committee working on that. Well, a like subcommittee that's working on it. I I know Sean's in that and Tim Patell and so forth. So, I know they are working on that's to hopefully influence an actual change in legislation in the town. So, that's in works. I mean, that's yeah, I have to we have to let them do their work and finish it up, I think. Right. I mean,

so I think what you're saying is you'd like to see lot clearing also explicitly expressed. I think that's reasonable. I'm fine with that because in theory it's it's it's within the other work in preparation but I don't think there's any problem with being explicit. So agreed when you build you have to clear and see what you got when you get you got to clear to see what you got. Well no but but this is again this is just until they get it approved. Exactly. Because it's like you got to say I'm going to do all these different things. We don't want them clearing like so there's the reality that before they do the site plan they could go do clearing because they haven't even applied because you can just get clearing you can do clearing of your lot.

Yeah. Right. So there's nothing to stop them from going to the clearing before they submit a site plan for you. Right. All right. Let me just ask a question relative to that they can't do. So for instance, the town owns the property currently adjacent to the IGA parking lot. Correct. Every everyone knows that it's it's one of the sites identified for community testing. Um, is community housing considered a commercial property? It's residential. Even though it's multif family,

it's it is not commercial. It is residential. Zone. What's it What's it own? What is What does the map say? So, they could go in and they can clearcut that. They could do that now. They could do that now. Anybody can clear cut their land up to an we're trying to make rules around things that basically people can do now at any time. Well, you know, we don't have any limitation on lot clearing. East Hampton has, you know, trees over 12 or whatever this and that's what Tim Pertell is working on. Is that what you're

Well, well, actually tree clearing. So I don't know if it would include if like other things but basically their their focus was was on on tree clearing. Many many counts do have this. This is not an unreasonable thing for us to at some point advocate if if it needs to be advocated on this one. I I agree with you and I'm pro I'm all for that too. However, just on Jay what we're saying is we can add in lot clearing which would include all that. We're saying no regrading or lock clearing in preparation of a future use of the site plan. I would say I would keep I would keep the or any other work or any other. Yeah.

Basically, they're saying they they can't do it until they get the site plan. But the reality is before they submit their site plan, they could go clear. Oh, they could. Right. Well, it's interesting with East Hampton, I pasted that in here,

says up to 11,000 square ft you can clear 100%. up to 20,000 you can clear 75% up to 280,000 you can clear 25%. I think but but I think what we're talking about doing interview someone could basically it says without we say you can't basically mean they come in and go hey I want to do this clearing before we finish the site plan review is that cool and then we can make a determination it leaves it up to us which is great I think and so but I just want to be clear that if we want to go stop people from clearing their lots in general that's a town board issue not a plan they they've tried that like every 10 years and it failed you Yeah, not going to happen. You mean the town board it? I hope so.

Yeah, it's not going to happen. Well, they'll have another shot at it and hopefully um and then David I'm going to skip over but I'm just going to make note David K mentioned the specific place in the East Hampton section. So, that's helpful. He just noted in there. So, we'll get this to you uh Rick. Okay. Now, just going down further. I saw a good comment from Sean in terms of Oh, okay. So on 109.9 uh enforcement he was asking uh maybe per day we uh a week seems generous and do we address do we have a way of addressing higher fines if they don't stop doing business before you get the thing approved.

Yeah. And I think the problem is I think this is consistent with other legislation of how we do our fines and stuff why it was written this way. But I don't I'm not sure. Meg might know. We can look at it. We can look at it. Um, is that something that you want to have them look at? Like just I think we should I think it's again this we should be consistent because trying to do something different than what Yeah, especially violation. You're saying that this you're saying this is correct. You think this would lift it off our I believe so, but I can't I'm saying let's double check it% I mean it's very hard to know what's a meaningful penalty. If you're operating a hotel, $1,000 a week doesn't mean anything. If you're, you know, if you own a backhoe, it could be a lot of money.

Yeah. No, it's all, this isn't generally kind of arbitrary pain like mom and pop versus corporate, it's a very different piece. We have to all of our fines and stuff are kind of generic, right? And for some people, they could consider it nothing and some people consider it huge. But the town board at times has adjusted their fines or increased or they just the fines require the county to go to justice court. We talked about civil violence. That's a town justice court um proceeding. Y

and the judge at discretion presumably will take into account you know whether it's a major motel or it's a you know mom and pop contract. And I but I believe this language was just consistent with other but we should double check if it's consistent with the other one because that was the goal which is to be consistent and make sure we address

and then all the mention when we got into clear cutting and all that Greg okay that it if you well maybe you didn't see in SharePoint but at the very bottom David actually David K just cut and pasted a lot from the East Hampton every there's a bunch in there it's all at the bottom so you can get through the main document and then you can see it towards the bottom it's Hampton code 255-6-50 and you thought that that section was really good. So, we got to the end of the document, believe it or not. Amazing. Well, you feel good about it. You feel good about what we accomplish. I like I like the fact that it makes we're endeavoring, so to speak, makes makes things more specific.

That's good. So what what will happen now? Um I am going to make a draft letter uh to the town board which I will circulate to everybody on the planning board uh asking what is just to specify our charge. Do they want us to specifically look at the site plan legislation in terms of businesses change of use, you know, the usual pre-existing non-conforming type thing, or do you want us to look at some of the other residential things like excessive regrading? Yeah. What was the other one? Large buildings. Large buildings and clear cutting. I think

I've got some thoughts. I'll text to you. Uh and also you you had mentioned um single family to multif family. Uh was the other one that you thought of? Okay. Excessive Yeah, excessive regret. Anyway, I'll just put that in there. I'll send a draft around. You you guys can uh get back to me if you want to adjust anything before I send it up. I think we should start with that first before we jump further. But everything else in terms of content um we're gonna So Jessica, the only thing Rick didn't get was maybe my comments that went in today. just print those for him so he has those. Um, can we see about getting him access to? Let's check on that too. But I Okay, she's already wait on that.

And I would recommend the other thing we could work on is a subset or something to work on the specificity. Oh, we No, actually that was your idea, Matt. So, so let's do that. So, on that section, it was 1 through 11. And I didn't I and I didn't realize that you had already cut and pasted the stuff on the bike. Did you just do that recently? Uh, this morning. Okay, this morning hours ago I didn't see it yet. So, but so this is it. It's it's section 109.2 and when you go down it's 1 through E1. Let's go through cuz that's that's our guideline. That's our criteria. So, let's go through this and if we don't think it's it's specific enough, just put put it right in there. Just edit it and put it on. Fine tune it if we

and then let's discuss it at the next meeting. Y 109.2 29 really 1 through 11 and we're going to retain it as 109.2. Oh, we we have to objectives. Yeah, that's our main criteria that we these are our guidelines that we follow when going over any application. Wait, I'm sorry. Wait, wait, I'm confused. Are you talking about 109.2 in the proposed? Yeah. So we I guess with the group had a consensus that we don't think it's specific enough and we're going to go in and tackle it try to it's not specific some of it. Right. I'm sorry somebody had to somebody No.

So um if we are adding in a purpose um will that now become 109-1 as it was originally? The numbers don't matter so much, but basically the lawyers will re number things if they have to. Well, I'm asking because um if it becomes a separate section, it will become more defined, right? The purpose section. No. Well, it's going to stay in this section. I I think it's actually standards and guidelines is what I think this really is. But they're just

I think we're talking about two different things. Sorry. I think you're talking about the broader purpose, right? Right. Yes. We're going to that's going to be a section added up above probably the legislative intent. That could be section. We didn't decide on that yet. We didn't quite gather. So that would be 109.1. That's what I'm asking. No. Well, it could be under section one legislative intent and then it could be, you know, section three legislative intent come first and it would have how about we say it would have its own section but we don't care about the numbers right now. Okay. I I think what I'm trying to say is what Rick just said should probably come first. Yes. Yes.

Okay. Is there any I think that was it. That was it for our All right. So, can someone make a motion? Make a motion that we stop the meeting now. We stop the meeting. Yes. Second. I'll second. Okay. All in favor? All right. Thank you, everyone. Thank you. Sorry. I just