Planning Board - Regular Meeting

We're gonna start with roll call. David Creel, present. David Austin, also present. Marcus Cassid here. Julia Weisenberg is here. Matt Fox here. Sean Davyy here. Greg Brford. All right. First order of business is to review and approve the minutes from our meeting on September the 9th. Did everyone get a chance to see those? Just circulated. Any comments or discussion on the minutes? Good. Good. Okay. So, would someone like to make a motion then that we approve the minutes from Make a motion that we approve the minutes from September 9th. Second, first from David, second from Matt. All in favor? I.

All right. Uh, we have to act on some bills here. Um, as you saw, uh, we had some postage stamps for the, uh, burrow hall, uh, lot line work in the amount of $105. Uh we had an invoice from the times media uh for that was our public notice for Fowlard subdivision which is on our agenda tonight. That was in the amount of 6417. And third which and last is our invoice from Wher uh Whan Feler uh which is our professional um lawyer fees which were rendered in the month of September. And that those were in the amount of 2,482. Just to give you an idea of those bills, which I always like to do, the bulk of them were again were the legal notices or public notices. And then for um Rick Whan, uh the bulk of that invoice was presence at the last planning board meeting. And the second um was meeting and resolution extensions that pertained to Defa and the Ratigan lot line adjustment and they amounted to about 52% of the bill um for being present at the meetings. Um, so if that is okay with you gentlemen, then I'll just need someone to make a motion to approve those three separate amounts. I'm kind of conflating them.

Motion to approve. Second. Thank you. Second, Sean. All in favor on those invoices? I carried.

All right. We also have to review and act on uh the West Neck Creek Cottage Subdivision extension. Um, so we got some correspondence from the engineer, uh, Matt Sherman and, uh, my understanding is that since they have applied to Suffach County Health Department services, uh, obviously for their approval of the minor subdivision, that's still in process and, um, and that's part of their sketch plan, uh, approval requirements. Um, therefore, we we do have the power based on 111-43 of our town code to grant that applicant extension of six month and uh, Matt Sherman did ask us for that. So the extension would give them until April 14th, 20 26 uh to meet the conditions that are set forth in that first sketch plan. Um so if that is okay with everybody um then I would just need uh everyone who's in favor of that.

Motion to approve. Motion to approve. Everyone second Marcus. Thank you. And all in favor?

I Okay, that motion carried on the uh Westnet Creek Greek Cottage subdivision extension. All right. We also have tonight um Judy Fowler Trust Subdivision uh public hearing. Just get that out here. Um is everyone okay if I just I'll just go ahead and read the public hearing. Okay. Uh public hearing regarding application of 2012 Trudy Fowler Trust owner for approval of a preliminary subdivision application which would divide the 16.142 acres which is approximately 703,148 square ft of land on the west side of Nostrin Avenue with frontage on Shelter Island Sound into five lots. The subject property is situated in district double A residential and within the nearshore Olay Peninsula district as shown on the official zoning map of the town of Shelter Island. The premises are identified on the Suffach County tax map as parcel Suffach County tax map number 0700-13.00-01.00-014.001. The subject application is classified as a type one action pursuant to the state environmental quality review. We know that as seeker uh part 617 of the New York code of rules and regulations and chapter 60 environmental quality review of the shelter island town code and the planning board as lead agency has made a negative declaration pursuant to SRA that was done in our last meeting. So um yes,

gentlemen, we've received an affidavit of service of notice on property owners and we've received an affidavit of the posting of the property. I reviewed them both of them both in appear to be in proper form. Perfect. Thank you. Um Jessica, did we receive any correspondence regarding this? I did not as chair receive any correspondence as well. Okay. Um is the applicant representative here Carl Vanasa, would you want to start this? Just identify yourself of course.

Good evening. Call Makasa 860 Montalk Highway, Watermill, New York for the applicant. As the chair noted, uh the submission for preliminary approval was this five lot subdivision in line with the sketch plan approval. It calls for 10% preservation achieved through this conservation easement which council and I, as you might recall, had some back and forth whether that's an appropriate mechanism. Ultimately it was determined to be an approp appropriate mechanism uh the uh for preservation of the code as noted in August you consumed the agency under SRA and issued a negative declaration. We are accordingly we are here for the public hearing under the preliminary application. Again, I would note the lot is uh has a yield under code under the double A district of eight lots and we are only proposing five. So, this is reduced yield as far as subdivisions go. Um the conservation objectives of the code are achieved through that easement which we previously noted. Uh the building envelopes ultimately will call for setbacks in line with the zoning regulations and the 100th setback from the crest of the dune. Although it is a major subdivision under the code, it's very straightforward. It's reduced yield and we're happy to entertain any questions you've got. I know we've been talking about the subdivision for some time, so a lot of it's old news to you. Uh I would note that the although the conservation easement ends at about 55 ft beyond that proposal is for a building setback from each of the terminations of the easements of 25 ft on every lot except for lot four where the sketch plan call for a 20 foot setback.

You know I'm happy to entertain any questions the board may have. Oh, just to clarify, in the last meeting, um you did mention publicly that you might go for another eight eight. Is that uh Well, we had discussed if if the we had discussed an opport the last thing we discussed was the opportunity to uh to go for an additional setback on lot four. Is that what you're talking about? I think increasing the setback from these on lot four. What we had discussed was permitting initial disturbance and then reveation because there would be construction in proximity to that. That sounds accurate to me. Yeah. That wasn't specific to one lot. What was it? I think it was

but he had offered to reit the other. Okay. Gotcha. That was the one that has the 20. Absolutely. Yeah. slightly does, but they had agreed to reveate on the setback on the on the building set back the we discussed that as as a possible compromise allowing us to disturb it but then reveate.

Um, as I mentioned numerous times throughout this application, uh, this is not the application developer, though that isn't necessarily relevant. This is a family, all of whom the extended family, three generations are presenting tonight. I think some would like to speak with you. The ultimate uh the ultimate ownership of these lots will remain in the family. It just might be um of interest to the public. I mean, we've obviously gone over this many many times, but in terms of the um wetland, the setback from the bluff uh 100 foot the 100 foot set, they're they're not uh per se entertaining anything up up into like the up into the bluff area. That's correct.

Okay. Well, there was a discussion of a of a dog, but that would be in line with your do. So, that would be your no upland structures would be proposed. Obviously, under code could not be occurring within that.

I'm fine with it again because we've done we've done so many times. you know, we're okay with it, but we might want to open up to the public who are here present, obviously, and I'm here to answer any additional questions you may have on the I mean, I have general questions about how the family sees the future of the lots, but should the public go first or what's I believe there are family members here, so it might behoove us to listen first and yeah, we can engage at that point. Amy,

my name is Douglas Knight. I am the grandson of the late Robert J. Fard of which the 2012 Trudy Fowler, Thomas Trust, Trudy, my mother being here as well, um, is the applicant. and Carl did a magnificent job of explaining the tangibles and I love having been a former former planning commissioner myself when we go to a hearing and there aren't very many questions and there isn't a lot of testimony because that means in my mind that a lot of conversation has already occurred at the community level as well as within the board and I think that's all very beneficial and to be commended actually uh as I mentioned the tangibles being 5 watts. Uh the yield being such that uh the density of the post subdivision is quite a bit less than what ordinarily you might see and even expect. And that is because our family um love shelter island has been here since 1887 which I were asking about a little bit the history and I'll give you that now wherein William initially moved um from Brooklyn here to Shelter Island uh in 1887. William Oer as it turns out is my greatgrandfather and Robert Fall's uh grandfather Mr. Robert College's greatgrandfather rather. Um, so in 1887, uh, William bought 1,500 ft of shoreline property from John C. Nor, a Brooklyn civil engineer who owned the development on West Neck called Westneck Park. And if you've seen some of the initial uh subdivision maps of that era, uh you would be shocked to to learn that the full development comprised 230 bills or

800 lots. Uh and it ran from Sterns Point uh southward all the way uh towards today bootleggers alley. And on to even include parts of Silk Beach. And I don't mention that uh because we would ever propose such a monstrosity, but I mention it because uh I think it's illustrative of of what the uh what their mentality at time was, which was that uh they would want to maximize everything. our mentality within the family is rather good stewards of the land to be good uh members of the community as we have been for now seven generations. Um I think it's interesting to note and by the way I'm reading from an excerpt of a article that was submitted to the Shelter Island Reporter on the 2nd of November 1992. So my grandfather wrote what's in my hand for public consumption actually as it would be 7 years before his death. He goes on to read as the island became more popular many improvements were made but it remained largely undeveloped charming country escape the hustlebustle of city life which it remains even today. And so in 1992, that was the description that my grandfather made of the island. And that's the description that I continue to say when asked about Shelter Island. In fact, this mimograph information is information we give to all of our guests visit. So uh I think the words there that I want to to

focus on is that it remains largely undeveloped in a charming country. So as much as we can talk about the tangibles, we can talk about the reduced density, we can talk about how um that it it's quite a bit less ownorous upon the land than what would be a larger subdivision. I think the intangible of what we want to make sure we're communicating and that we definitely focus on as part of the larger uh picture here is that largely undevelop. It doesn't say that we're not going to have development. It says that we're going to do it in a respectful way and that we're going to make sure that we do it in a way that doesn't affect the charm of our community. I promised my grandfather that I would never develop the tree. Um, and that is largely why we chose as a family to create the open space along New Street Parkway to have that private park plan set back away from the rideway as it is a continuous tree tunnel. There's only one other place on Shelter Island where there's a tree tunnel tunnel similar to that. So, I think it definitely deserves respect and uh difference in the subdivision as it's configured. does that. So, uh, without any further comments, I didn't have anything prepared, but I thought I'd share this article from explain a little bit about the family and its history and also the philosophy that the family has. None of these lots will ever be sold, you know, for individual family members of which my niece is here. He's trapped all the way from San Francisco. I would love it if you would say I don't put you on the spot.

I mean to be come up to the and just identify yourself please. By the way, Douglas G Knight 39 Parkway. Thank you. Thank you.

I don't know what's Hi everybody. Um I'm Alton, a descendant of obviously everyone in this room that's related to the Ballard family. Um, I have grown up spending every summer on Shelter Island, watching it grow, watching it develop, watching um, more families come to the island, but I've always loved that the land that we've had has stayed mostly the same. And I've loved the fact that my family has gotten to enjoy time there. And my brother, who's not currently here, my younger brother, also spent every summer here. So, this island is so important to my family and also I can't wait. We have kids and grandkids spend more time here and continue on the generations and I feel so blessed that our family even has this opportunity to divide subw mostly and also un like protected and um remained undeveloped. So I thank you all for even considering this. So thank you.

Thank you. Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak?

I have some questions but I just want to make sure so there's no one else in the audience public anyone who's not related to the family who would uh anybody in Zoom anyone on Zoom? No. Okay. So, David, you can't ask a question.

Yeah. I mean, there's sort of philosophical questions about the family. If there's a collective view about how you develop things and how you see the architecture and and what's special about Northern Parkway because, you know, of course, what's special about parts of Northern Parkway is that there aren't any houses. So to res, you know, to develop it with respect to that is of course a challenge because it will no longer be an undeveloped stretch. It'll be a stretch much more like the rest of Shelter Island which is you know has a certain density. So I think I asked the question at the last hearing about well what's the vision of the houses and the approach to development where would they be cited and I don't think that you'd reach that

point. That's a little premature right now. They're dividing the lots. I don't think they've made ultimate decisions. I Well, I can tell you that I've spoken with the family. They haven't made concrete plans for future development. This is about um dividing ownership respectively and for use in the future. So, I appreciate the question, but I don't think we have a an answer right now, nor do I think we the board's necessarily entitled to an answer. I think you said that last time, too. Um, so,

so I mean, I love the notion of good stewardship of the land and respectful development, but what does it mean to you if anyone wants to be the spokesman of that question? myself Thomas and the 2012 Trudy Ballard Trust was a trust I set up so that this could go on and I could rest in peace that the family was going to be in charge of the land. And so we don't have any intention of selling to outside people. We just I wanted to set up a trust that where I felt for sure that my four grandchildren, two in the N family, two in the Knight family would ultimately know that this is being saved for them. And so perhaps this would clarify why we don't know about styles of homes yet because we have still one in college and one planning to go to med school and another in graduate school at the University of Colorado in environmental policy who wants everything green. And so we plan to be good stewards of the land. And so while I had a chance and was still alive, I wanted to have a way of forming this with an intention that more likely could be realized because of the legal aspects of how it could be done.

I don't know if that helps. Well, it's a great sentiment. It doesn't it doesn't give me any more of a vision of what might be there in five or 10 or 15 or 20 years, but I I mean it certainly seems like you're going to do your best to make it.

At this point, we're trying to figure out communication within the family and working it out as to which family gets which part and working with the lawyers, considering things like the conservation aspects and whatever. So, um, as far as the Fard House is concerned, um, that is really the only structure that's on the property right now. The little house in the woods. Is that the one on the site plan here?

Yeah. Yeah. I mean there is a question because elements of that kind of straddle two lots and I think it's the driveway goes across and the overhead power lines but is there discussion about whether those two lots would be merged or whether you would reconfigure the approach to site via the driveway so it doesn't go across your neighbor. Well, the neighbor would be a family person. Um I think Penny you want to you can I think it's helpful to Hi I'm I'm Penny now and um

so um David you may you certainly may um

unless you're not feeling this positive. Yeah. No, I so helpful if we start at perhaps a higher level. Um, in the aggregate, the family owns about 72 acres on Shel Island. This 16 acre parcel is part of that. Um, over the last dozen years, we've done a lot of estate planning. Um, and there's really only three members of this uh family, the Nut family, the Knight family. So, in the estate planning, um, my brother and his family now own the acres across the street, the 50 acres across the street, which is one large parcel with one house on it. and um and he also owns uh a house down the road that you know I had my wedding my I had a wedding at uh at 39 Street Parkway. So, um the master plan is to recognize that we are so grateful and fortunate to have um this land and the family as long as we have part of great estate planning because this is what I do for a living is to make sure that all to this generation it doesn't die with her. So, the estate planning that we have done, uh, the fact that my brother's family owns the acreage across the street and the other two homes, the fact that this is in trust and graciously set up by my mom for the benefit of um, you know, three lots for the benefit of my family and all and um, her brother, two lots for the benefit of my brother and his children.

We did that so that we can keep this land in the in the family for another hundred years. I know that um Sean that you're a a family law attorney or you have some expertise in that area. Um the benefit of these amazing abilities to put this land in trust means that it will stay um this land in particular um that we're talking about today will only distribute out to children after they have have um you know 21 years after her death. and she's 22, so I'm hoping she'll be around another 80 years. And we're talking at least 100 years in Ben. But the land across the street that's graciously set up a brother, his family, um, it's for his children and his grandchildren that are not even born and will only distribute out after those grandchildren die 21 years after their death. So it's really another 125 years. So, one of the things that we learned from my grandfather and grandmother and um the family is that this is we're very very grateful and um we want to be able to preserve this which in today's world is a rare circumstance and again I spent I spent my first birthday here in Shelley and almost all over since then and because of that we feel very strongly about trying to preserve it and and develop it in a very thoughtful way.

Thanks, Patty. Thank you. I'll just add to that. That was very gracious. Um, but you still haven't had your question answered. I've sort of given up on it.

Don't give up. Um, you should know that uh I was in addition to being a planning commissioner also the vice chair of our local landmarks commission in my community of Ben, Oregon, which I have lived during this school year now for almost 30 years. And with that comes a deep understanding of context of of understanding what the language of the neighborhood is like you so aptly uh mentioned and I don't expect any development pattern to be any different than what's already there what exists already further to the south in the mainstream. I would expect my children having been indoctrinated uh into historic homes and the value that they bring and the charm and the character that they bring to communities to continue that. Now, having said that, I've also built a modern house for myself. I I know that Penny is contemplating a modern house. Dick Tarlo just down the road

has a modern house and those have become a part of the fabric of West Neck and also National Parkway and everything. So I don't I don't think that that's out of context especially since there is existing precedence there but just know that it's going to be done in a tasteful way. And I and one of the reasons that we are proposing a five lot subdivision um is exactly that we are copying the context and the fabric of the existing development pattern that exists elsewhere on this park. We're not trying. Even though the development code, as I said before, may allow seven lots, that would be disrespectful in my mind because it would be a change to that fabric that has larger parcels than just two parcels. So, I hope that

Yeah, it does. And I mean, I I agree with you that I mean, as an architect personally, I could tell who do you know, modern buildings, but I also have a 65year-old wooden boot. So, yeah. I I have sort of span. I think the issue of context here and in many places is more about size than about architectural vocabulary. Mhm. And and uh that's you know and of course there's little as a planning board we can say about the size of a house because it's legislated elsewhere. But that's my biggest concern. And 30,000 square feet of house is a lot of construction.

Yes. you know, so I don't think we would ever submit application for can't speak for everybody, right? They'll be individual lots, I hope that helps. Yes. Thank you very much. I I would just add that you know the the um aesthetic and the corridor that you are seeking to preserve exists because of the stewardship of this. So I think that's a bit of the kitchen.

I have nothing else. I had one question um our last discussion on this. I don't know it relates to I believe it's lot number five the largest one. Yeah. Um I there had been discussion that that had enough area to potentially be divided at some point. Is that correct or not correct? Never discussed. No, I'm talking about in does it have enough area to satisfy if one were to um Greg I think you brought that up at a previous session where you asked if that could be a stipulation that it would not be subdivided again. Um

I did leave you you mentioned that in this I just can't remember what the I don't have the drawing in front of me and I can't read the area. So 445 So yes, I So that's what Yes, it could be potentially subdivided. So my process

my Yes, but my request at the last meeting was that if they were asking for the five that that should be future proofed so that they could not come and ask for a further subdivision. I mean, if we can discuss that, I I think Mr. Austin's right in that back termination of the planning board. So, you you have to go through this process again. And if the plane board that that point has issues or additional requirements, they can be discussed, but if the zoning doesn't change, then they couldn't stop you from the six block. Yeah. That's why I brought it up at the previous meeting, right? Yeah. That's a reason.

I don't remember having this. Maybe I there's a meeting that I was it just to set this hearing that meeting. I I just remember Greg bringing it up, but I I can't at this moment pinpoint where it was. We waited till you had gone. You wait until that I think it might have been public meeting, but um uh well that's Greg. So that's Greg's question. Uh, do you want to do you have a I think I should, you know, and I can submit with a talk with the family and submit a written response to that. Yeah. I I'm I'm sufficient on that. Is that

I mean, consistent with what you've talked about, it would seem that that's probably an easy give, but fair enough that you have to fair enough that you have to discuss that. I think if we can say the eight that you discussed is kind of a a given as part of what we've agreed to. Um you clearly have a lovely FL family and in many ways at least personally I'm excited to see you know kind of land pass through generations with people that seem to be you know have the right mindset. Uh I would just leave you with we only have so much control within our current remitt and regulation. You have said you are conservation-minded and you have I I think it was a you know grandson or someone who is kind of you know be mindful of your use of the property as you move towards development. It's beautiful. There are lots of trees. people dismiss the value of trees and I think you appreciate and I think that we're we've tried to give enough buffer to retain the character of that line that it would hate to see the character beyond that line then just you know kind of become something different that is clearly within your own power but you seem to speak to you love the nature here and what you want to do and just be mindful of your care of the land because it's a beautiful p property so thank So, I will defer with them and and respond.

Sure, that sounds good, Carl. Thank you. This will be held open for written comments, I'm assuming. We were I'm just going to offer that we close it now. We can leave it open for written comments. Hence, because Greg just asked that one question, that's fine. Yeah. Um, how's everybody feel about that? Except for written correspondence. Good. Okay. I would do a voice vote just on the exact window. I'm only hearing it open for what it's open. That's fine. It's open for till what? So, I think we should leave it open for 10 days for written correspondence. Is that okay for you, Carl? That's great. I'll second that. Second. All in favor? I I Okay.

Thank you very much. Fant from anybody? Yeah, because we're leaving open for comments. So, technically from anyone. Yeah. Thank you Valer. Yes, thank you for everyone to close session after this meeting later about this topic or it's on the agenda for a work session. Well, it's a work session. So, we would be discussing it amongst ourselves. Yes. But you know participation participation participation you can listen but okay and that's after your regular attendance. Yeah, that's we have it listed here.

Okay. Although I think it would behoove us to probably get Carl's response on on that Greg's question about before we probably asking should they stay and my guess is no. I think we're good. I'm thinking probably not. I I personally prefer but I don't want to speak for everyone on the plan. I'd like to wait for Carl to get back. So you'll adjourn the work session today's work session. No, no, it's it's on the work section discussion only if it was closed, but we kept it we closed it open for correspondence. So, we have the right then to not discuss pending other things. So, I'm sorry. I think the question is is there going to be further discussion today so they can just go,

right? I'm I'm going to say probably not, but I'm asking everyone else right now. Is that I mean, I'm good. I don't need further. We can wait till next I think. Let's wait. So, this way you wouldn't have to say that. Okay. Yeah, I mean we like to participate in the form of beers before the war. Sounds like that'll happen. It'll be in the next month's meeting, December meeting. But the rest of this meeting is very exciting. You don't want to say you may want to comment on some of those up. Wait, I just want to make sure it calls it wrapped up. Okay. So, um I need someone to make a motion that we close our uh business meeting. Motion to close.

Second. Okay. Closing the public. We just did that. Did we close the subdivision though? Yes, we just closed it. So, we're closing public. That's why I'm asking for a motion to close the work at the business meeting. Sorry. And we I just got two. All in favor? Second. Okay. All right. Yes. When is our next meeting? 18th. Uh yeahve on the third third Jessica is it is it November 18th just confirming because it's veteran stuff a week behind because of the holiday

oh because the holiday uh so I understand the next discussion that will occur regarding the ballard subdivision will be November 18th November correct we'll check in beh uh Rick I see some thoughts there. Are you Are you okay with that or just want to make sure your calendar like you wanted to say something else? He's worrying about himself. The second is Veterans Day. So we will not be meeting, right? So we're going to meet on the 18th, correct? It's not that just as a reminder, it's not

holiday. Once the record closes, we have 62 days to prey decision. So, you'll have to make a decision at the next meeting because I have to write a resolution. I'm expecting us to make a decision. Okay. You're welcome. All right. Uh Okay. Can I I'm going to go ahead now with our work session agenda? Sure.

All right. Um so, we have the Ratican lot line adjustment which is still waiting on health department approval and they have until December 9th, 2025. uh Defining Shearer, we just did that extension. All right. And they are as well waiting on health department approval. Same date, December 9th, 2025. Under our subdivision applications, we have the Bloom minor subdivision. Um I did get some information on the Bloom application. Um I saw Barbara in the office earlier and she indicated that uh they have started discussions with um Suffach County Water Authority to get that pipe in there. However, they are now um going with the Suffach County Health Department to see how that will actually uh unfold. So, that's where they're at right now, and that's why we still have the uh delay. And we just did their extension at the last meeting in uh September. WestNet Creek Cottage Subdivision, we just completed that during our business meeting. We granted them an extension if you'll recall. Um so, because they were due actually today, October 14th. Um, Fowler, we are going to we're not going to go ahead with that because we just gave them to the next meeting and we uh issued them a 10-day extension for written correspondence. Next up, Crescent Beach LLC um minor subdivision. Uh so we had uh Rick Wesnovski prepare an engineers memo on the latest updated um submission from President Beach LLC. And we have and we have Mr. Bennett here for that. I have extra copies.

Um I have mine. Does everyone everyone have it in here? Thank you. Um it it was in your folders. Yeah. It was actually also sent on email as well. U Rick's memo I Rick Wesnoski as opposed to Rick Wland. We got that like early this morning. I think you was in your inboxes early this morning. Or Rick, I'm going to give you an opportunity to We just got that this morning. We just got the engineers. But again, we it's just based on the updated the updated um submission from October

7th, I think. John, right? John, Mr. from October 7th. Okay.

Rick, do you want us like just bring us through a discussion on the engineers memo for that? Sure. Basically, the memo is in response to the memorandum that was issued by you guys playing board dated May 14th, 2025. I asked the applicant to write an updated map showing the house uh about one plan including pulling envelope and anything else related to the house. as driveway, pool house, painting walls, etc. showing the different driver. really quick. It's on short landscape plan drawn filling area disturbance and wetlands. It's not really on the sketch plan, but you can see on the polar plan they showed limits of disturbance during construction.

All the structures are located about outside the 100 uh foot uh set back from the wetlands and then disturbance is all 75 ft of wetland boundaries clearly on one map and everything else requested that's all shown on this sketch plan some point of reference. On the sketch plan, you can see that their utility poles are located along the easterly side of SH Road. And then uh we asked for count on lot one. What's going to be clear for the retaining walls and then also what's going to be cleared within the um between 75 and 100 ft uh the buffer of the wetlands. Um yeah to say that that was not part of skip requirements sketch plan phase. Um so we're going to table that for the next um submission. I believe they uh answered all your questions on your memorandum and recommend this later. I have a question. I wasn't around when this was submitted. Have you guys agency at this point?

So to me take any action sketch plan is still an action. You need to have B you need a B secret determination if you're going to be the lead agent. So we only involve agencies in the subdivision ourselves, the health department and I believe the New York State DAC title one to regulate subdivisions. So you should in my view the first thing you should do first of everything agency if that's what we want to do.

Well, if that's the case, we have to send out the typical letters to the agencies. Um I believe we had uh your office do that Rick. Yeah, we did that for Well, we did that for Fer. Yeah, I believe that was after sketch plan. Uh no, they just did their sketch plan that we just did this. That was sketch. This was preliminary. I think it was preliminary. No, we're discussing Fard, not not your Fard. So Fowler was prelim preliminary, right? Sketch had been approved, right? Yeah.

Preliminary. So we're at the stage right now where we should do those letters then. Um is that something that your office would be willing to for us? Okay. Is everyone okay with that? I don't see anybody else who' be lead. No. Nobody's going to take a step back. We stand up. You should do that formally. I make a motion that we're for lead agency. Yeah. I second. Yeah. Right. All in favor? Barring the responses or non-responses from those other agencies. Typically, if they don't respond within 30 days, it's it's a default. Yes. So 30 days,

it's just about doing the process, I guess. Yeah. So that's going to happen, correct? Correct. Um, this office is going to handle that. Um, the only thing I wanted to add, Rick, on your memo is that under the section where you said this the subdivision obviously subject approval for Suffach County Health Department and services for water supplies and sanitary system. I just would it would probably behoove the applicant to check in with the Heights properties on this corp cuz um I think we had somebody a representative from that group last time. So that's something else that I would probably add to that. Um because the the hookup in the existing capacity depends on some stipulations from I was thinking about heard.

Oh, sure.

That has John benefit to the sketch platform. I' I've reached out to heist. We're having a discussion with them despite the fact there's public water available in the street. They want us to pay to upgrade it. That's the sort of thing that you look at. Um, downro sketch plan approval is oh to enable the subdivider to save time and expense of reaching general review of planning board as the form and layout and objectives subdivision regulations. It's not defined in your code, but Terry Rice in his commentary on town law section 2 site 67 defines this term sketch plan as a rough design map which provides the developer and the board an opportunity to discuss the plans and make alterations before ordinary plat. So this is where we are. Um this has been with you for um 10 months now. Uh, I'm sad that no one advised you before as Rick has properly advised you that we should coordinate if that's what you want to do. It's uh, but in any event, um, we've shown you more than enough information. You have the house on the lot, which is really just a placeholder right now. This is a house that has approval from now expired approval from the CBA. We didn't move forward because the town had uh refused to uh grant approval and the Supreme Court directed that the town grant approval the court the town appealed. That appeal was argued in April. We're waiting for determination. I'll just add never say never. It didn't go well for the town of argument. Um but we might just refresh my memory because it's um it's grade and if you take it from grade

it was a high period uh and then there's you know well all the approvals I've given you uh but we'd like to be able to move forward as soon as possible with your general agreement. as the lot design. I don't know candidly, I don't know where else that these lots could go. Your town code doesn't talk about um subject regulations doesn't talk about slopes have paired lots as if the code did it. I think that's the better plan. Um there's the waterfront lot. Uh and then there are the two lots up near the top flat flatter area by far the flatter areas. So I understand you have to send out a letter coordinate take agency status but we'd like you to move towards scarce funding for quickly as possible. Unless there any any questions that I can answer.

I was just going to add that the we haven't seen you in some time. We had I think we had a German you asked for in German twice. So, the reason I asked uh Rick to just mention that thing about the Heights Properties owners, the last time we saw you, we didn't know that you had spoken to them. So, this is good information, new information. I appreciate that you No, we had I just want to make it absolutely unequivocally clear that uh SK I'm not going to come to terms with the heights. I'm not You can't I You can't tell me to come to terms to heights conditions granting that sketch land, but I know I have to bring public order in. We're going to deal it and we want conditions, but that should not hold up sketch plan. I'm not necessarily saying it would.

Okay. Well, it should. Thank you. That's all I have. I would just ask to move as quickly as possible. It's a sketch plan application that was filed. I think the original amendment to take for submission. Thank you though. I appreciate it. You have a good lawyer at the helm right now who can guide you through the secret process. Thank you very much. Anyone else from anyone else want anything? I have some questions but I don't know like tell me when you're ready kind of thing. I'm you can ask anything you want.

So and uh I don't know if we want to open it up to council to answer. Um and I apologize. I I think some of the overlays are different and labeled somewhat differently, so apologize if I'm missing something. Um, so bear with me. The driveway and the subsequent parking area all outside the 100 from that angle. Yes, there appears to be below that a reveation area if I'm reading it properly.

I'm going to look at an these are more sight issues. Yeah. And and so part of like I I mean I'd love to get some answers. I think there is a fundamental question and I I appreciate that that maybe as where we are in this stage we can answer these later and they're not condition but that's fine.

You know fair enough. Y question on a computer science. So I've worked with John through theations there and also obviously you have science and plan here. So if you have a question about the So below the parking area the great the checked area I I believe that means that it's reveated. Uh yes. And so what is that? I mean why reveated? Are you clearing trees and replanting ornamental? Like what is the I'm sorry for interrupting you.

Y um what is the need there to do that? Uh in order to make sure that the driveway slopes properly and that the parking area slopes properly because everything in this area is extremely steep. So in order to make sure that things drain properly, slope properly, you have to sometimes clear more land than what you would tend to use, but then they will reveate it with not just grasses but also trees and shrubs. And so that was but that is the reveation ultimately falls within the 100 foot buffer. It encroaches into that space. Correct.

Right. And so hence I recognize there is no requirement for a tree count and you know we don't need to beg borrower like you know how that is but I think part of it is when you encroach into that space where you're regrading and then also at the back of the house where you are requiring a I believe a 25- ft work area. The question is how much are you destroying in order to make that happen? And then what is the real reveation plan in that it says reveate? I don't believe and maybe it is at the a different stage but bear with me if you're willing to have the conversation is I believe we had a reveation plan forwarded to us that was in tiny tiny little font you know at the back of something so we never really saw and could make out what is it that you are planning to reveate with. These are more questions for your an application for a wetlands application too. Those are site plan uh application questions which will be answered at the appropriate stage but they have nothing to do with uh sketch plan approval. And I'll remind you that this these very plans are plans that the Supreme Court directed to be approved uh and the town of appeal and we'll see what happens there. I'm not going to pull back now. I'm just what I'm saying.

Bear with me and and and I appreciate No, no, no, no. Because I I candidly object. These are not these are clearly appropriate questions to ask on a site plan if we're before whoever it is who has it these days the wetlands jurisdiction back. Who knows next week it might be back with the pan board. And I I I say that in a sympathetic way because I think it belongs here. Uh, but those are those are are questions that are more appropriate to the more specific slight plan application. Your questions will be asked by you. You're entitled to ask those questions at the appropriate time. Uh, they will be answered and we'll have to work that out.

Yeah, fair enough. I I I do have one more question and you can choose to answer it or not. And I appreciate that there is a court case pending for me personally and don't think we need to try to litigate it in this forum because we are clearly not the appropriate parties to do that. I think there is some question in my mind as to the court approved something but the nuances of the incursions into the wetland may not have been appreciated or absolved of do as you will and so I think we're trying to understand how we can manage what we think the you have been approved for to what a reasonable outcome. Just bear with me with the one more question. In the back of the house, there is a white area that appears to be not intended for reveation as far as I can tell, but is part of that 25 foot. Are you willing to explain, and if you choose not to, that is your choice. Are you willing to explain? Is that an intent not to reveate? And so it's going to be your intention is lawn.

Yeah. Lawn or something of the sort or what is that? Because when we move into the to disturbing 25 ft of wetland vegetation that is protective and serves a lot of different purposes. I'm surprised that there is no re reveation that area specifically.

I would rely on my prior response to any of the more specific questions that we can ask on on that if this approval ever comes uh back to you. I I will suggest in terms and these are all based upon the plans that were approved. The court directed directed the issuance of the permit for this. I think that those are questions um that would probably be and you can ask the questions in a in a executive session because there is pending legislation litigation but I think those more probably be directed to your council in an executive session to which I would not object because there are there is pending litigation.

Fair enough. Appreciate your indulgence. I I was hoping that we could just be transparent and I'm being very transparent. We we we would the board this this town have the ability uh not you not this board the town board have the ability uh to further go forward with this stuff but they declined to and of the court the faith was so obvious right it's under both the federal and state constitutional law I guess part of it is

if you if you believe you have already been approved for all of these things with a large swath of leeway. What is the inhibition to just make clear what your intention is? But they're not detailed. They're not detailed. And that's fair enough if you choose not to. It's fair enough if you choose not to enter, but if you are so comforted by the I'm not comforted. Supreme Court order said the supposed to approve these and you've appealed and we'll see what happens. You know, I have been a litigator long enough to know that ne there's never anything against a lock.

Yeah. Sometimes you walk into a court think you're going to win and you get a surprise from the judge. Sometimes you think there's no way you're going to get through it and you do. But as it stands right now, it's judicata. It's the court approved this. And this is none of this is I'm not casting any dispersions on this board because you didn't even have the jurisdiction at the time. Yeah. So, let's be clear. It's not pertinent with the subject we're actually here for. Excuse me. That's not that is not pertinent to what we're discussing. We're doing the site plan. We're not doing site. We are doing sketch. Sketch plan. Agreed. Has nothing to do with that 100%.

Let me let me just speak up here. This is a confusing application to do the job. The the nature of the application and this kind of bifurcated process. The applicant went into the town board, right? um for this I guess things were 6,000 square feet or something. Uh the town board arguably did not act in a timely matter. I don't want to comment on the ultimate uh decision but that's what's being litigated. What I when I say bifurcated is the opportunity went for house application to build approved to build a house on the property which is at the moment unsubdivided. Yeah. You don't have jurisdiction over that. Exactly.

Okay. But when you do have jurisdiction is is over subdivision. Exactly.

So sketch plan involves the layout of the lots and potentially use within the lots. For example, under your code, you can require in appropriate cases conservation easements. You can impose building envelopes. You have the right to determine where the access should be taken. That's one of the reasons we're talking about the driveway. And it gets very complicated because you have potentially an approved plan for the residents actually at the moment does have court approval. Obviously the town town board is appealing that and yet the pro and yet the applicant having not yet built these improvements is hidden before you for some. So even you know I'll admit even for me it's kind of complicated. It's a confusing situation. So you know you're asking good questions. We're going to have to resolve this. I would have to go back and bring myself up to speed in all the things that went before then. But there are two things going on. One of which which is the actual house improvements you were not involved with. The other is the subdivision and how that led to a certain extent how that land to be used after subdivision by building envelopes is your private.

Right. So but in a sketch plan post sketch plan in the next stage we can be doing more around envelopes and such. Correct. Yeah, because the sketch plan is just basically an outline of Yeah, but it's hard to split the two. You know, let's take a traditional this one. If I may, it's got Rick, if I if I may. You've got basic layout here. You've got a large lot by the water and you've got two lots up on the road, which is the only place that they're going to go. I think that's pretty

well. Yeah, but I if I may, in my letter, one of the things I said to you is these are those lots up on the street are very large. Of course, we're going to have to talk about building templates. We can talk about clearing restrictions. Just from a self-protective point of view, you know, there's going to be clearing restrictions there. You're not going to be able to go in and take down all those trees. Be foolish. I mean beyond those people theoretically you could without

theoretically you could but I'm just in terms of good faith I've been doing this for years that's the sort of stuff that you guys are going to want to see and I'm willing to engage more and not only engage but implement those sort of protections on this piece of property. All of that is more appropriate down the road. That's all I'm saying. And I'm actually agreeing with you and you're making making it very difficult for me to agree with you argue with it. But I'm not agreeing with you. I said you you said that's down the road and I said agree 100%.

I I have some questions about the general geometry of the site. They're more engineering questions. So perhaps you're I get what I know you're in sites but sorry you're not geotech by any Okay. But in the land use planning, you must of course have understood the area proposed for this house, which is to some degree not really a function of the subdivision because I assume the house was here before the subdivision was even dreamed of. Nothing there. House there's no house. I realize the house is proposed for crying out loud. The house was here on site in in drawing form. There's nothing there. Nothing.

I'm talking about this piece of paper. I'm not talking about settle down please. This is where they proposed and designed the house for that was my question which from a land planning standpoint is possibly except for here a very difficult place to build a I mean the change in elevation as you know is from here to here approximately six stories. Yeah. It goes from 10 ft to 70 ft. Yeah. But the that's not fair because 100 100 ft of that is it's not a matter of fair. It's a statement of fact. The change of elevation from here to is

you got a false benchmark because we're 100 ft back from the sent back. I understand that. I'm looking at the contour lines not this red line in the paper. This is 10 ft. This is what about 15 ft here. I don't it was on this other side. I think so. 20 ft 10. I'm sorry. You're wrong. This is a 10ft contour. This is a 70 ft contour. David ask, would you like to look at the little numbers on here? No, I said my question is this is an extremely difficult place to excavate. You will be clear cutting this entire thing. you'll be which way I do.

It's a statement of fact. I'm talking about the stability of the slope and potential effect which are really geotechnical questions which I'm not qualified to weigh in on which I'd love someone to give us from the board standpoint. It's you know a technical review because I think this is a very difficult construction site. You're not showing any disturbance on the uphill side of the sheathing, which I don't know if that's possible. I mean, I assume there's going to be some disturbance. No, I know what sheet piles are. There's no disturbance on the other side of the sheet pile in this accurate,

but in any case, there's a lot of disturbance here. There's going to be would you say this is the cause of instability at the flow above? None whatsoever. Okay.

It was reviewed by uh two contractors and an engineer. The the the con there was a construction protocol that was old during that time frame. It was submitted to the town as part of that. Um and so it was looked into uh at at the time. Um, and with that said, the the object that's before this board is just whether or not the shape of the lots and the location of the lots make sense. The the the uh proposal that that the uh town board had reviewed under both the wetlands permit code and also the uh special permit code. uh it met the setbacks that was there at the time and also that still exist. Um and it can fit. So there's nothing in the town code that states that we can't put it there. So right now this board only needs to say yes, the sketch plan makes sense and then we can go forward with the actual preliminary site plan where all of the these additional details will be discussed. If indeed, and that's a very tricky legal question, if indeed there's even any jurisdiction left on that, remember you you you have a court order saying the town should issue the permits.

Yeah, we have a court order on a site which after the subdivision will no longer exist. So that's still a question in my mind. I I think you're being very fair and that is my fundamental question and you clearly raised it a as a question too is that you know, look, I get it. It's very unclear and we don't need to litigate it. If you you're allowed to build x square foot of house, boom. Right? Then it's all the ancillary questions and it's not clear whether the judge will reconsider how they consider the idea of damage to wetlands, clearing of wetlands. We we can clearly impose some restrictions on that

chip. Really this is a discussion that you should have and and fair enough. with your counsel and you may disagree with me and they may agree with you but I just I I think it's important and if you're trying to be expedient I appreciate your indulgence I'm trying to understand each other of like where if you're trying to be expedient and it's really just down to you know look it's the lot layout and all of the thing if we approve it all of the idea of clear amount of clearing of wetlands how you know all of that stuff is a later on thing.

There's no clearing of any wetlands going on. You mistake being misspoken. There's no clearing of any wetlands going on. You're clearing within the 100 foot within the buffer. Can I just offer the questions that you're asking Sean and that David Creel is asking the the the only way that these would be pertinent is if the let's say John were to answer or the or you were to answer. Would that change your mind about where the lines have been drawn? That's what you really have to ask that answer. Does that change if I'm understanding correctly? Do you is that what we're getting at here? Yeah. I just don't know where else you would put these two these three lots. I you know I think it's sort of what we call it sort of speaks for itself.

I I like what you're asking and I like what Dave is asking but I I think this might be a better opportunity. And just in terms of of expedience, I spent over two and a half years with a planning board recommendation of approval to the town board, a DEC either approval or non-jurisdiction letter, I forget, a health health department wetlands approval and a wetland back and forth. Every bit bit of information that the town board asked for, I gave to them. So a two and a half year period. And then finally I had to bring a lawsuit because the town was refusing.

What was the planning board approval for? I thought the subdivision planning board gave uh on a referral recommended approval of Yes. But those that that had nothing to do with the subdivision. No subdivision. Absolutely. So I'm not sure why it went to the planning board. At the time the procedure was that the uh town board referred both the both of the applications before them the over thou 6,000 ft and the wetlands permit application to the planning board and to the conservation advisory council for advice or just

for their opinion on the matter and they recommended appro and this board at that time issued a memo to recommend approval of the application as it was designed. Can I just offer also when we got this application back I Jessica did distribute the whole package of all the previous including the current litigation and all the history on it. You have so much more.

I know. I've looked at you literally have on a sketch plan application. You have like so much more. We don't even get near anywhere near the site plan um detail on a typical sketch plan application. You probably have just probably thing that you looked at. Nothing nothing like this is a fully designed permitted uh house. So I mean it's actually very helpful to you. I think if if we were approve to if we were to approve the sketch plan that doesn't cast aside any of your questions and we can still Yeah. I mean you know which we can't do right now anyway because we have to go get jurisdiction that is true also.

Get the coordination with some of these. Yeah. Yes. We're uh Rick's office is going to do that for us. Okay. Thanks everybody. Thank you. Thank you.

Um, so Rick Rick W. Sorry. At this point, Rick and Rick, we do have to make a decision on whether to approve this tonight. Yeah. to approve it tonight. No, we can't. We have to wait until agency. I think it's an action of the Okay, I'll just double check. All right. Uh, are we ready to move on? Yeah.

All right. Uh, road miner subdivision, another sketch plan that we are waiting on. So, we don't have any information right now. Uh, white performance bond still under current town attorney review. That's actually in your department now, Rick, if you're a you're a firm as our town attorney. Um, all right. So, I'm we're done with our subdivision application uh section. We're going to move on to wetlands. So, we have SIMS 31 Pacic Avenue. I'm going to have to recuse myself on this application because I am a neighboring property of the applicant. So, I'm going to turn it over to Marcus and someone can just get me when uh Okay.

when you're done. Thank you. Get some stuff. You send it as well. What was that? You send as well.

Yes. Yeah. Should we How should we open this up? Greg, do you want to talk about this or should we let the applicant do the maybe he could give a little history of Sure. kind of how we got where we are, you know, so to speak.

Uh once again, Michael, Mr. Science research associate on the applicant. Um I also have Kristen Las science here. uh and uh Lan who is the daughter-in-law of Nixon. Uh both her and her husband uh Carrie have been involved in the project from the beginning. Um I would just want to start by saying that yes, there was a violation issued on the site uh because they kind of did more work than they should have. Uh, however, the nature of the site is that it is going to be Lin Sims home. Uh, Lynn Sims is uh, Perry's mother, his 9-year-old mother. And they actually got a building permit to do renovation work to the house, and they were hoping that they would be able to stay within that under 50% in order to get the house done for her as fast as possible. Uh, and then what happens on these old houses a lot, you start taking sheetrock down, you start, and you just find all of the problems that you could potentially find. Uh, termite damage, wood rot, uh, parts of the house were not, uh, parts of the structure of the house were not installed properly. Um, so then they decided to push forward and hope and hope that I guess in this case they wouldn't get bought necessarily, but Brett Polish was uh next door and so we saw what was happening and he said you guys got to stop and go through the wet the process. So we got the uh Lan and Carrie came to Intercience to say you know can you help us out with application? Um, so then we took it and we looked at it and we said, "Okay, so what can we do to give you guys a balance, give the town a balance on

this?" So they had already went through the process and and had uh an IA septic system upgrade that was already part of the the plan that they were doing. Um, the existing cess poolool is on the uh water the the wetland side, so it's very close. It's within the 75 ft uh vegetated buffer. They're moving that on onto the uh more than 100 ft away. Um they are proposing to uh decrease the overall coverage by removing as much decking as possible within the 75 ft setback and also reducing the amount of decking and structure that is within the 100t setback uh by uh 663 ft. Um, and we also uh designed for them a um a buffer, a vegetative buffer uh that's uh 3,884 square ft. Uh it's it consists of plants that are on the town's recommended native planting list. Um and uh they're just hoping that um that this can come to kind of a clear conclusion so they can finish the house for um Miss Sims. So um we we've thought that we've given the town a good amount of uh mitigation and benefit. Oh, and also there's going to be uh drainage on the site where there is currently no drainage. So it it the site is going to be better afterwards. Um and uh so I hope that can consider that as part of their repeater.

How many square feet is your house? 1300 something like that. Not including decks. And the the redo of the house expanded it just slightly. Is that correct? Uh there was a slight expansion towards the landward side, but net net with removing the deck, there's still more being removed from the buffer, right? The expansion is a covered entry. Yeah. Unclosed space.

And only a very small sliver of that is less. And what is the uh plan for the separate structure? Um it's going to be it's going to be well you mean uh it's going to be a shed. It's going to be storage, right?

Yeah. Um so uh if you're wondering if there's more plans for it like so I guess they're going to they're going to paint it. I just let me two things. So I guess questions for me is that was an approved structure already grandfathered. There was permits for it you know is that is that prior to code? I know it existed prior to the wetland regulations. Okay.

Uh we are working to confirm that it was existing prior to zoning. Um, but part of the issue is that there were bunch of trees on I've been looking at aerial photographs going back and there's a lot of trees on the site, so it's a little bit hard to to tell, but we're looking into the documentation of it to uh

and if you could just be clear of I I don't think there's really a foundation there. There's some decking outside of it. What is the real plan for that? Is it is it going to be taken apart and rebuilt? Is it going to be, you know, is it going to are you going to create more of a foundation and build something? And I I didn't I don't recall are the the decks are close. Is it going to connect the decks? Like what is the what are you doing with that part of it?

Um, as Mike said, I'm the daughter-in-law of Lyn Sims. Um, that shed was um, like Mike said, we we're not exactly sure when it was built. David and Murphy's who are the the original and only owners of the house. Um they built it at some point along the way. Um we have not focused on the shed because our main focus is on the house for my mother-in-law. We assume that we could probably repair it and use it for storage, but most of the deck that's surrounding the shed is actually going to be removed because in disrepair. Um, and Sean, to your point, yeah, the I think right now the shed is on block footings at best. Um, we haven't evaluated it honestly. We have only just been focusing on the main house. And, um, just to add to what Mike was saying before, we're not expanding the footprint hardly at all of the main house. Um, I think it's about 30 square ft that we're kind of within the the 100 foot mark.

Yeah. the portion of the covered entrance which is 146 ft only about 30. Yeah. So, our intention has always been to keep the footprint. We're not changing the foundation. We raise the the roof the ridge beam I think about uh 30 in to gain a little bit more height on the interior. But, um for the most part, we're trying to, you know, just preserve what's there because we want the quickest way possible to finish this project. And if they were to do substantial work for it, we'd have to come back to town because once we go over 15% of repair of that, we'd have to come back. But that's So right now,

we're just trying to get to the point where we can they can start finish the house. The shed is not part of application because

well, it's a little hard to to separate and not know what is happening with that. Then you say it's, you know, 50% like given the way the structure is, what is 50%, we clearly had a bit of a problem with that with the house itself. And so a for me anyway, I don't have any problem with the application more generally, but not knowing what is going to happen to that makes it kind of incomplete. like I' I'd have a hard time saying we'll proceed with the house and whatever with the rest of it. It seems like it's all part of it, especially because it sits within the wetlands. And so, you know, I I think some intention with that for me would be, you know,

partial.

Sorry, just a second, please. We have to say something for a few minutes. Um that I think to echo what Sean is saying for me even though you don't have the shed really illustrated as something that you intend to rebuild. uh in in looking at it, David and I went and shed when we looked at the overall house. I just personally I don't see how that could be a 50% rebuilt. The the walls are rotted. There's no foundation. Um as you say, it's sitting on concrete blocks. Um all of the decking around it is totally rotten. The floors inside the shed are rotten. Um the overhangs of the roof are rotten. Um animals are living in the shed. It appears.

Um this is just my opinion. I I I don't know why you would want to present something that you want to expedite getting completed and propose retaining something that is wholly within the wetland setback like that. We did not propose to keep it. We're just not saying that we're doing anything with it. So I guess I guess the question is if you're if you're clear of we're going to remove it, we're going to take it all out because it's

mush. And if and we will come back to you if we want to rebuild something. I think that would be very much clearer. But since you haven't stated that specifically, we don't know whether you're going to try to say we're going to use 50% rule and we're going to start fiddling with it and you know like we just don't we don't really we don't know what the picture is there.

I mean you're here and to put a liner around it and say shed to be reconstructed. I mean you can do it it as of right essentially as long as you have a permit you can reconstruct it. There may be some setback issues with the deck in the back and the way it's measured on the survey is measuring to the corner of the building not to the corner of the deck which is only about 8 ft but whether you take it off or not I it rather than having to come back here for a separate application before it falls down at least I think we can approve the reconstruction of the shed as part of the application um because It's grandfathered in. You have your right to have a shed there. Why not just include it in the scope, even if you're not going to do it immediately? You don't need to file drawings for it. That's the building department's problem.

I think we weren't sure how it would, to be honest, I wasn't sure how it would affect the look of the application. So, another square and it'll say you said to be reconstructed, right? We Yeah, David, I have a different opinion, but about doing that. I I mean I think that if they are wanting to expedite finishing the house, they should get rid of that I think it's Well, then they won't be able to put it back. That's right. Because then it would be considered new construction.

That's exactly right. But they're they they are, you know, doing the new deck. They're doing the the deck in front. Um you know the the rest of the house proposal seems very straightforward and logical. Uh it doesn't seem much to uh you know propose mitigating site by removing it.

We are proposing to mitigate the site by removing 660 some odd square feet of decking. Um, we do not have So, I understand that um in the board's view that it is not in great shape, but they could just paint it and then use it as a shed. I don't think so. You could I didn't want to walk in there cuz there you'd fall through the floor. It's a liability. I mean, it's a liability to have that thing and and you know, you're going to have animals living in your property.

Well, I I disagree actually. Sorry. uh only because you know we haven't had an in-depth conversations with our contractor about again what to do with the sheds. Our focus has been on the main house. Both my mother-in-law and my husband are both artists. So, you know, one one thing that we were talking about was to make it a painting studio. You know, kind of put plywood floors on the, you know, on the floors, try to patch up and repair as much as we can and make it into either storage or like I said, a painting studio. But, you know, we would hate to lose it because it does have a certain charm to it. Um, it has been there for a while. When my mother-in-law purchased it, you know, she, you know, had ideas of using it. So, it would be a shame to give it up since it's already there. And we would probably need to have more conversations with our contractor to see what's involved to um make it useful.

Yeah. What's involved? that's rebuild is building a new shed. But I I mean it's I guess it you know looks like Boo Rley lives there. It's a charming thing but I think it is a liability and once it falls down it's going to be harder to get a permit to rebuild it. So I I don't know. I mean I understand what Greg's saying and you know maybe is this an opportunity for us not to have another building in a wetland setback? Yeah. But the code says if you have an existing building in that 75 to 100 ft with a permit, you can rebuild it. I mean, unless you like kind

I mean, I think there are fair enough. I think there are some nuances in that. You know, if you really try like, hey, we want an artist studio, then we're going to try to build a little more of a foundation than what exists now. Then you're starting to be, you know, hey, this is more inc, you know, more invasive in the wetlands than what exists today. From what I'm hearing, and I only speak myself, I think we want you to be able to move forward,

but your idea of not addressing this to expedite it is one is like is actually problematic because you actually need to address it. And so either we're going to tear it down, we're going to rebuild it, and this is how we're going to do it. I actually when I saw it, my own opinion is because I love preserving wetlands is if you're going to have to actually rebuild it, move it back a little bit, you know, and maybe then you can connect the deck to the rest of the house and it has a more natural flow. I would suggest you give it a month, come back in a month, answer that question, and then you're good to go. That would be my suggestion. You've heard a lot of opinions about the one that I need to hear is from my mother-in-law. So,

the town board that makes the final decision. We just advise them. How much decking total is being removed? 600 and something square feet. It's a lot. It's 6. There's another little shed of some sort on the other being down. That's being removed. How much has already been removed before you got caught? No. None none of the deck has been so the house was essentially well the deck side has been removed has it wasn't expanded no so in the regulated area you're going right on top of the same foundation say that one more time

in the regulated area right on top of the foundation you're not expanding it not expanding it already they went it already had well the house did a little but they gave on the deck Right. Okay. The house a little bit. Which way? It expanded slightly. Right. The house footprint has not expanded nor will it expand. The the the expansion that is happening is a covered entryway on the landward side and only about 30 ft of it is within the regular 30t in the adjacent vegetative. 100 foot. Correct. Yes.

Fine. Yeah. The only other the only other comment I had looking around was when you figure out how you're framing the new deck, there's that I forget what kind of tree it is, 24in tree right overhang the deck just to keep your footing out of the critical root zone of the tree. Yeah. Yeah. And you know there's a little masonry wall that supports one edge of the deck, but it's sort of a hodgepodge of structures there. Yeah. That deck wasn't built properly. No. To begin with. So, uh, you know, we're pulling in the the back of that deck to clear that birch tree. Yeah. Yeah, I noticed that. So, make a recommendation.

I I don't know is part of the question just do we refer it to the town board with a suggestion that they clarify what the intent is. And so in terms of being expedition, if they figure that out and present it with the town board, when they get in front of the town board, they

Well, the thing you have to figure out in all honesty is if you came to us and you had exactly what you're going to do, that might mitigate the fact that you did a bunch of stuff that you shouldn't have done, right? Versus not having fully you have to go to the board and I don't know how the board's going to react to the fact that you did a bunch of stuff that you shouldn't have done ever. They might be in a foul mood and decide to like penalize some but if you have a firm like we're going to do this to the to the shed this to the house we're do me a copo we we got ahead of ourselves but we're doing all these good things you probably have a better chance but all we're going to do is make a recommendation so we can either take what you have make a recommendation based upon what you've done or if you want to clean it up a little bit more and add more clarity exactly what you're going to do then you do it next month. It's your choice.

And we understand your intent which go it's more consequential than probably you believed the what you do with that specific because it's in the wetlands,

right? So that's what we're going to really advise on. So if we advise based upon this in the wetlands it's like with that structure there and given express with your propensity to go ahead and do something without asking that I would be concerned. So that would be what we would express to the p I would write into into our recommendation. But if you come and say we're going to do this exactly and it's within code, we probably say then it's probably okay. So I'm saying it's like you probably have a in my opinion a better chance if you're full clear on what you're going to do versus kind of not mentioning oh there's a shed there and it's drawn slightly differently. And I mean that's a little gives me pause personally. It gives you pause the just to clarify, it gives you pause the fact that we don't know specifically what we want to do with it right now.

But that's what but but but but also the history of the site. Yes. Together with it's a combination combination of unknowns. Right. So is that a choice for them whether they choose to say please just refer it to the town board and make your recommendations or whether you would like to come back so that we can make a clean recommendation to the town. I think I think it's the my understanding correctly, Mark. It's like this is your submitt. You could say we've had this conversation. We'd like to resubmit an update. That's your choice. Or you could say, no, you want to go what we have and then we'll take that from there. That's it's entirely up to you guys. I understand. Um, may I also just I've heard from

four of the members about the shed and I'm just wondering what part of this is also not just on this application but also a little bit selfish for me as a person who helps people get permits and I would like to know kind of what the town's thought is on these existing structures that sometimes need to be because there is kind of a change I'm I'm witnessing a changing of the town's view on some of these structures. that exist and what would like to happen. So, I'm kind of also asking uh you members as of the planning board what your thought is on structures that already exist. Uh whether you think that it would be better for whether we would be able to reconstruct it or not. And and if if you don't have an opinion or you don't feel like saying that, then I'm not going to put you on the spot. But I thought I would ask since I'm here.

Can we go around the room? make a comment. I'm not sure you're going to get a consensus, but of course I didn't expect to. Yeah, I just want to I just want to echo something that Sean brought up just very briefly and that is once again the condition of the ship and the fact that it is in the wetland and and honestly it is on it is supported by a few cinder blocks that are not even in any kind of

foundation. There's no there's no definitive footings. So to make it a stable art studio would require in my opinion doing completely new footings and basically creating a new substructure in the wetlands. To me that is not an existing condition that is just reconstructing say above the foundations or above the floor slab. It is making an existing condition worse within the flood plane. I mean within the wetlands and that's the problem that I'm having.

I I that it that it's not structural. No, let me just finish. It's just not structurally. There's no structural integrity on which to build the argument that's an existing structure that's just being um augmented. Um it it basically is creating a an entirely new structure that happens to be in the location where frankly a shack is located now. So, and I do not think that is the intent of of of repairing an existing structure within the wetlands. So, that's I have a strong opinion about that.

But as as defined and and you know I can only base these decisions my reading of the code and the code is pretty specific. It's if it's more than 50% of the value and then they only measure footprint you know in the same footprint it's reconstruction and in the wetlands set in the 75 ft that's permitted well it's not per it's permitted with approval of this board you saw this structure David I know a foundation would cost more than 50% of the value that's what they're saying if it's more than 50% it's reconstruction construction. If it's less than 50%, it's repair. But you're allowed to do reconstruction.

You're allowed to do reconstruction. Repair without a permit. Reconstruction. We're also allowed to do with no expansion with a permit requ from from my perspective. I think we'd have I personally I have to avoid the wei because I'm just me. I would have a hard time saying you cannot rebuild that structure but it depends on what and how and what like what are you doing with footings? How much digging are you doing? Are you changing the footprint? You know how much impact are you having in that space

from the condition of it? It seems like if you want to have that you probably cross that threshold. So the question is, if you really intend to want to do that, why don't you address it now and think about how you'd want to do that? Personally, I would say if you actually have to do refooting and do it in some substantial way, move it further away because you're you're you're basically trying to do a a new build of sorts, but you have a little gimme factor because there's something existing. So, you know, you can say like, well, I can rebuild it in place and I can fiddle and try to stay within the boundaries. Or I can say I'm going to build like a two-ft foundation. I'm going to do whatever, but I'm going to move it like 6 foot back and create something that can be a real art studio. But that should probably be addressed now than if you're, you know, if you're going to do it so that you have kind of a clean slate. Can I ask if if we would if we are considering rebuilding and moving it this this planning board wouldn't because right now we have the 75 we have the 100 and my understanding is that any new build has would have to be beyond that 100

because of the pre for me because of the pre-existing I think I would look favorably on hey we want to rebuild this and we're going to move it back a little bit in a way the code. That's not what the code you get outside the footprint that's a whole start moving it. Then technically the word no you would actually have to move it back farther than the only place you could put it would be right in front of the covered entry porch that you're looking everything else. You have you have a you have a choice tear it down. You build exactly in place. Those are really your own options. I think what Sean recommended about deciding what you really want to do with it

and and bring it back to us with a plan would give us a better opportunity to review it properly and say, "Okay, we either say, "Yeah, okay, you have the right to do this and we're going to recommend to the board, the town board that it's okay or we think it's disturbing the wetlands too much and we may not recommend for it."

Understood. I mean, I I understand, but um so I'm I I hate the wetlands code and I hate the wet but like the town board just recently approved a house that totally moved but still kept a piece of it within the wetlands. So why would you tell them that that's not a reasonable thing to actually put forth because it's a net benefit? All I can do is is our job is to go by the code. That's our job. The town board can do whatever they want. Yeah.

But our job is to advise based on the coach and my my opinion and that's it. It's not to do what I think would be the better thing to do because I'm not I'm not I am not a I was not voted into this office. So it's like different role, right? So I I'd leave you to make your your decisions. I would, you know, personally say that I that much to my chagrin, the town board has approved things that are still within the 100 foot buffer even with whole houses moving and it you're kind of like also disapproved things. So, you know, I know that. Yeah. So, I've seen both sides. Yeah. I it's I don't like I said you as I I

you may want to come with um humoring me on this and speaking about it open because I I'm I was generally curious as you look at it you maybe want to come with two options and say like you know what is you know if there's something that you prefer or you know or what have you because I think there is some question thereof it much of not what I would prefer but whether there's a net benefit that you could still be allowed to to do that. Understood. Can I just The town board has the public hearing scheduled for the 20th for this. That's Monday. Okay. Okay. So, we got as your

So, we got to hurry up on this. Well, if we decide to defer it, they would defer it. So, it's like I just wanted to be aware if we don't have a But we would have to open up a public hearing. you would probably spill speed at the public hearing or or what what was the big sin here is that they didn't get a wetlands from versus all the good here putting in IA system they're taking out all this decking you know uh and the thing and and they're keeping it the same footprint uh 1,200 square ft the sensible size house they're not putting in some monstrosity of a house you I think there's a lot of good here

I also think If they came to us with what they have for a wetlands permit, they would have gotten it. Well, I think that we would have asked what they're going to do with the shed. If they came with this as a a regular wetland permit, I don't understand what's the big deal about the shed because the shed is in the adjacent area and we want to know what they're buying. But the thing is that shed being so dilapidated, it was probably put there prior to the wetlands code of August. Understood? So, if you're not going to do anything with it, you're not going to touch it, then it wouldn't be an issue. But what's not clear is because it does look like it's changing a little bit like some of the deck the decking that is around it.

So you're you're gonna do something with it. So by nature it's like I'm sorry you're pregnant you're doing something. So you either have to say what you're going to do or you can't touch it from a wetlands perspective right? It's like you you can't kind of kind of do a little bit and and I think the question is if you then say well you know what we really just want to proceed and if I'm correct and we're going to try to fiddle with the shed within the 50% and we think we're going to you're you know are you going to find yourself in a violation and back here again because you're at a point with that shed that is you know can you really do that and you thought you could do that with the house and then you couldn't. That's a decision for you guys of you know how you want to proceed,

right? It's an honest point. Um I it my my feeling is that we would like to move forward at least to the town board's public hearing and so I would think though this board gets to do whatever it wants and that's part of the process. But I was thinking that if you want to say that the town board should consider asking us these questions then feel free to put that into your memo. do it anyway. So, no problem. Right. And and I can understand all of your feelings on this

and they may or may not ask in detail some of those questions. They have some somewhat of a different mindset. I I think we're trying to prepare you so that you can make educated decisions and and try to be able to move forward in a holistic manner. And can I just add Mrs. Sims is 90. Give her her new shed. Just do it. Well, she's not going to want to look at contractors next summer walking around building. That is true. Go in there and try to do a proper foundation in the area pouring concrete. That's what I'm saying. That's the question is what is a decision as to how

the question is if they want something more meaningfully then that that is what they're going to want to do. to discover some new that they can address it and make it make it as less impactful. But I I mean I think it's clear. So I think that we'll I think we'll proceed. We'll write a memo. We'll make our recommendations that they consider and ask questions about your shed. Do you consider about maybe in advance how you want to think about that or what your plans want to be? And you know they'll they'll do what they do. But um the rest of it seems, you know, yeah, I agree with Marcus with the the benefits of the rest of it.

There's no harm. And I I mean, if you can come back with an application for the shed and then yes, you could get this probably approved more. You'd save a month or two. There's no harm in doing that if and we'd get to see you again. Just engineer requests and my requests. keep the shed a separate issue. Yeah. Which is fine. And then so you can go forward with the house. Well, that's their decision. That's the big thing is the current application shows some changes in the shed. It shows some changes to the deck around the shed which is which is I'm just cut which may be holding the shed up.

Yeah. And so I think that's the reality. We can't like ignore the shed because the shed's in in the I I I think that's I think just so you don't have to repeat what you're going through now once someone touches that deck. I mean I think Greg has the same concerns the whole thing may fall over because you know the footings from the shed may be holding up the or the footings from the deck may be holding up the shed. Uh so I think there's some sense in or if it falls down then you can amend the application then I guess decide. Yeah. Okay. We'll thank you. Thanks. Thank you.

Thank you guys. So you guys you guys have already written Did you guys write something up already? I didn't I didn't see it. I for some reason I didn't see it either. I thought I I saw the comments about it but I just I thought I think I got it. I'm pretty sure you got I mean I reply all and maybe it got buried in the probably I hate it when they all like

I say we all review guys feedback so we can get it submitted. We'll do it offline. And I think what I said is should they be contemplating they should add application. I didn't say it's you know approval it's I think we need to put some more stronger word around changes in the drawings to the sh that means inherently it's proposal show that decking different. Yeah they're removing a portion I can't figure out which portion it was. I don't it's

unfortunate the folks who don't I love the people who draw their sts here's what the footprint was before here's what it is now that is so much nicer never like to over well they never like to overlay them both and then they never like to overlay them both with all the wetland boundaries across all of it it's all segregated one person who does that every single time all segregated so that you have to try we have one person who does that and does it consistently um so discussion on We basically just uh excused our attorney and our engineer since we only have two applications left. And actually Bootsie is next. And Bootsy, Huh? Sorry.

Yeah. So Bootsie, if you'll recall, uh we had it was given to us. Then they asked to have us not look at it because they had to uh resubmit. So that sort of shelving and tableabling until now. Um I we have to reassign it, I guess. You want to do it? Okay. Marcus and go of interest. I'll go over there. Okay. David Creel and I need one more for Bootsie. I think I did it the first time. Do it. David Austin. Okay. Thank you. I haven't done one for I haven't done one for Yeah, that's fine. Yeah. Um Okay. So, I you know, I didn't look at it because again, we sort of tabled it and then I was waiting for the new and I'm sure I'm not the only one. I'll So, that'll be on our agenda for next month. Okay. 18. Okay.

Car. Now, Car um I sent you all the previous uh information which I only Marcus and I know that that we were the only board members at that time car pay on 9B kind of came through. Um and I also uh spoke I had a call in with Reed this morning Reed Karen our building inspector and he sent me Theresa Mason's memo which I circulated to everybody.

So a couple things happened here. Uh the as you know our board approved this application in 2023. When Teresa Mason went went to do the inspection, she noted a couple things which were on that memo. Namely, the driveway did not comply with what was originally um permitted. However, we did explain that that was a slight error on on a person at the building department who sort of uh expediently gave this uh driveway permit without getting all the you

right. You and I Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. But I'm saying that when they went for the uh driveway permit, it was sort of given without uh prior knowledge or understanding of the wetland. So, but however, once Teresa Mason got there, she really didn't object too much cuz in general that they support people taking out the asphalt and replacing it with gravel. So, that that wasn't her main concern. But, however, she did notice that a lot of the vegetation that was planted, including trees and shrubs and so forth, were not on the conservation list and were completely different than what was approved in our in our um resolution. And furthermore, uh, you might remember the thing about about the cy term that they had a cy term that they said they were not going to utilize. But, you have that little dot.

Yeah. Well, apparently the cy term was now activated and in in use. So, you'll note that in the memo, too. Um, so you know how that's fed fed how? That's unknown whether it's um runoff collection, whether it's being filled. But the point is they have to go through the whole pro process of having it permitted and they didn't. And sprinklers are only permitted in the nearshore if you have a sister. Grandfather. Yeah. No, if you have a sister, if you have a sister, you can be they're grandfathered right now. Do they have sprinkler? If you Yeah, but they didn't have a sister. They kind back. So, they have to go through the building department in that process.

Anyway, I'm I'm just giving you the the quick summary of Mason, but you all saw it was I mean I'm giving a rough summary, but that that was what she noted. Um, and so it's back to us because I I mean I think I was being accurate in saying and Reed confirmed that they're they went ahead and did and now they're asking for forgiveness. They've done these things and now they have to go back and say, "Hey, can we put these things in? They're in." So, um, cuz I remember that was very challenging the law, you know.

Well, the issue is the plantings, you know, they they did a long planting. What I didn't what I didn't get from her memo was was she saying go through the process and get it all approved cuz the objection is you hadn't gone through the process but I don't see a specific opining on what they used versus what they were supposed to use and I don't know if that's implied to some degree in the way she says sounds like they should just go through the process. I mean like and that's an assumption of you know I'm going to look at

she's okay with what's there but she didn't say that I saw like I object this is it I'm looking at number two it it is recommended that the applicant submit a revised reveation and landscape plan with the required wetland permit modification request that means what was in the original I mean that's not clear to me of whether she's in in saying replant or submit a new with the new stuff for her to maybe not but I like I don't know plants well enough to say would she substitute those like that's the question what she's saying very specifically is all the things they plant which is in this list are not they aren't deer resistant they're not they're basically not native it's like they're not supposed to be there

yeah they're not and so say resubmit with that so then we can say hey those are the wrong ones and then we can say decide do we let them get away with it that's what she does but can I just she does in her defense And she does say the revised plan should provide both the common and scientific names as well the container sizes and proposed that only seems like

that's what's not clear because if it's already planted right then they wouldn't give container size. So I'm I was a little confused by that and maybe that's just I assume maybe she was giving the benefit of the doubt rather than you're pulling it all up and replanting it. The plan I believe says just because you said deer resistant I think part of the things that they were trying to do is put things in that deer aren't eating. So uh I think it's elixabria or whatever I forget the name of it. Deer are eating that now even though it's a native and so I think they were trying to avoid the deer you know eating

their their stuff. I I can't tell you off the top of my head whether that's a reasonable alternative to what's there. But you also mentioned that some of it's planted at a density which is not going to result in in good growth. I don't know what you do with that. Those are big trees. You have to thin it. You have to thin it out. You're going to have to or you you know cuz they were going to die over time and then I keep it's the classic problem of we said you do this do and they didn't do it. Yeah. Right. And so our choices accept it or do we go back and say no, you have to actually do what we said

and I have no problem with saying, you know, I mean, you know, go back and do what we said kind of thing. I think the question is what I don't have a sense of is whether she thinks a lot of it could stay. Well, we should ask part of the process, right? You know, like whether we go back to her and say like recommend the town board ask us. Yeah. Would could a lot of it stay? What do you think is totally objectionable? You know, are are they all dependent on irrigation, you know, because they're not native and you know, if that kind of line of So, that's something that that we can pose to the town board saying that these are questions that they should ask. I'm taking

um or I mean, you could say, "Hey, they didn't comply. I'm throwing out that you could you didn't comply with the original wetlands stipulations and hence it all should come up and they put the right things in. I mean I think our recommendation my opinion should the easiest thing because this is since we're not in charge of wetlands anymore. Okay. So it's like our advice is follow what we said and the town board can then decide if they want to andor get advisement from the whatever engineer of whatever or whether any of these are acceptable reasonable alternatives and

I'm I'm a bit disappointed because I do remember I remember this application and it was it was a great application and we used to actually refer but we used to refer to this application because they right thing to do and then That was one of those one where I don't like we talk to Christian about this one. What Christian guys do? Okay. Can't comment on that, but So, who's going to do this one? Well, I I I'll put together the I mean, do we need

I mean, I I I never like when people don't really follow the letter of the law, but I also give some grace of, you know, a landscaper comes in and says, "Well, the deer are going to eat all that. You could do this instead." And they go, "Okay." And they don't realize that that's actually like varying from Well, again, but that's not that's on them, right? It's like, "I broke the law. I didn't realize it was a law." Like, it's like they very strictly went and got a wetland very you had this. So if they didn't they didn't talk to the council. So for now what I'll do is I'll I'll just put together like a rough skeleton just to get us started. But we won't put the finishing touches on until we've all I mean I'd like to go back again since I was there. I'd like to go look at it. Yeah. I mean obviously everyone should be going to look at this but

it's a challenging situation for them cuz there's water. It's it's in a little roads to it. And just as a side note I never knew that there was a part of Panic Avenue that sat over there. I was very confused cuz I live on Ponic Avenue. It's driving up and down the end of it going where is this that you know that's the reach. It's all the way around on the other side actually. Right. It's on it.

It's across from Crab Creek like if you stand where you are access you access through bootleggers by going up the road back there. Yeah. there and then and actually that was one of our things with the easement and construction vehicles and all that to not affect the neighbor. Yeah. All right. Is that so? So So who's who's going Let me If you're Marks, will you Oh, you've all done. All right. I'm I'm going to go Matt. And one more. It's just like old times. I can I can go. It's You want to come?

Thank you. Okay. Are we good on that? Okay. Now, last I'll just run through this really quickly and then we can turn the meeting. So, uh, I wrote to you all that I touched base with Rick Whan, our attorney, early last week, and I just reminded him that we sort of exhausted our time with the site plan review legislation. We got through the whole draft. His uh co-attorney has access to our share drive, so hence they can see all the comments. They also have YouTube. He took notes. So, he's going to work up a draft for us just for now. We didn't get an answer from the town board. So Gordon and May, we did send you I sent you a memo on the behalf of the town board asking us, sorry, on behalf of the planning board just asking a specific question about how in depth you wanted us to go with site plan review. Did you want us to just stick to commercial applications or did you want us to look in residential so whenever I know you you guys have a lot going on right now, but

keep it commercial. Yeah, let's do it. Okay. All right. So, so, so that's good then because I did task Rick with working up a draft for us to then relook at. I felt at this point we just needed a theme to look at rather than just rehashing it again. So, so my question is I think that when we were talking about wetlands code we said well we're looking at site plan so you know let's deal with one thing at the time. If there is a wetland draft out there I don't see why we don't start that process with us start it now. I think it went it went to CAC first, didn't it? I think we're because we have to wait for Rick and we can move on to the next. That's fine. Good.

Christine sends it to you. Okay, that's great. Y All right. So, um somebody who's making it and put it on the agenda for put it on the agenda for next meeting to at least start to delve into comments on the wetlands. I mean, I don't we'll see how how we how soon Christina can get it to us and we can do some work on it for next meeting. here. And I'm sorry, David, you were about to I did a motion to adjourn. Second. All in favor? I thank you, everybody.