Planning Board - Regular Meeting

of November 18th. Um, first thing we're going to do is approve the minutes which Jessica disseminated to everyone about two week and a half ago. Did everyone get a chance to look at the minutes? You want to hear your your usual time? Who's here? Pardon? You want to see who's here? Roll call. Uh, you want to just do this first and then I'll go on to that then. Well, thank you. Um, so the these are the minutes from October 14th. Um, did everyone get a chance to look at them? Any discussion or concerns? Anyone? Okay. So, I'll just need a motion to approve the minutes from October 14th. Make a motion to approve. David second. Second.

Okay. Several here. And all all in favor from Zoom. Can you Yes. And let me Thank you, Marcus, for the reminder. Um, so we'll just take roll call. David Fel. David Austin present. Marcus Cassich here. Julia Weisenberg's here. Matthew Fox here. And we have Shawn Davyy, you're on Zoom here. And Greg Cranford. Yes. Thank you, gentlemen. Okay. Really quick interruption. That means they can't vote on things, correct? Because Yeah. But this evening we we don't have um Okay. But we have enough just to answer your question, we have enough people present to do something, right? second. Okay.

All right. Um we have an invoice um from Wher um Whan Feler for our attorney fees uh which are from October 2025 and those were in the amount of $2,992. When I looked over them, just to clarify for everyone, the bulk was attending uh our meeting in person from October 14th. And um the second percentage of that bill was uh Crescent Beach LLC and the FART subdivision. So that's where most of Rick's uh work went into. Um so I'd like to ask for a motion to approve 2,992 uh for Rick Whan and his I'll make a motion to uh

Thank you, Marcus. A second on that. Second from Matthew. All in favor then? I

I Okay. Second one was from our um engineer. Uh so this is from the Rainer group for professional services that we uh received from October 2025. Um and those were in the amount of 1,600. um and looking over that for everyone. Um uh again, mainly it was the in-person meeting we had on October 14th and um we had Rick do uh two memos for the Crescent Beach LLC for a steep slope analysis and he also sent out the letters to the DEC and Suffach County Health Department services uh to ask for our being being able to be lead agency. So that was the bulk of uh Rick's work. Um, so I would just ask for a motion to um approve uh the Rainer Group for 1,600.

Motion, Matthew. Thank you. Any second? Second. Okay, Marcus, I looked at you, David, but Marcus said it. So, and all in favor on that one. I thank you. All right. Next on our agenda is uh the Crescent Beach LLC minor subdivision. Uh we have to declare lead agency. uh Rick and that would be done verbally uh this evening to go agree with and uh put in your minutes and send out a letter to that effect and we did uh

we did get the notification as I said and actually in the billing was from um some county health department services and the DC approved us and didn't have any objections our being lead agency so anyone uh anyone have any discussion on that or can we go ahead and proceed for the minutes just um declare ourselves agency. So um I'll I'll make that motion. Can I have a second on it? David Creel, I'm looking right at you this time. All right. So all in favor of that, I I Jessica, you noted that. Okay. All right. Uh so I'll need a motion to um close the business meeting. Make a motion to close business.

Second to close the business meeting. Okay. All right, thank you. That was David. Um, so we will go into our work session. Um, we have the Ratican lot line adjustment. Again, we are still waiting for health department um approval. They have until December 9th. So, we'll keep in touch um with that applicant to see what they'd like to do before the 9th or if we get it before then. Uh Defoul and Shear lot line adjustment. It's a similar case to the Ratican. We're just waiting for the health department um approval and they have a similar deadline of December 9th, 2025. Is that our meeting date, too?

Um actually, uh what's our meeting date, Jessica? For it is December 9th. Yeah, so that'll align with that. Hopefully, we usually get it before them.

Yeah. All right. Um subdivision applications. Uh we have the Bloom Minor subdivision. Um they asked for an extension. we uh would they have that until February um 11th and I I went over that last meeting what you know what is the uh delay there again from Sa County Health Department services um Westnet Creek Cottage subdivision we're just waiting for submission of the final application and they asked for an extension we have until April 14th of this next year uh third on our subdivision application is um Fowler Trust subdivision I know Carl all pentecostas here. Um, and we also uh we actually went over uh we went over the staff and the memo from uh Rick last time. So I think it was really you wanted to speak tonight on that.

Uh well yeah I know that one of the uh Carl Benata 860 Mont Highway New York for the applicant. You know that since our public hearing uh and at the public hearing there's discussion about lot five whether or not there is going to be inclusion on further subdivision going forward. Uh the board received uh two letters that I'm aware of. one from uh Trudy Fowler asking that the board consider allowing for the subdivision uh for a future subdivision of that lot five which as you know is uh does have sufficient yield to be subdivided into two lots if it is ultimately subdivided as proposed. And then there was a letter uh uh from Penny Nuff who was actually here this evening. Uh the letter from uh Miss Nuff uh essentially deferred to the board on whatever their preference was they would be supportive. Since those letters are written, the family has had further discussions internally. And the uh position of the applicant at this point is that given um the this the estate uh I don't know if you're familiar with the rule against perpetuities. I'm sure property 101 I knew it one time.

Uh subject to that rule the estate and its dictates uh and mandates go on for essentially a hundred years. It's li 21 years plus lives in being. the youngest life is is Penny's son who's 20 years old. So given the the great extent uh that this trust will uh be governing the workings of this family and the opportunity for this family to grow as um you know uh un as as unknown right now. The members of the family uh after further discussion are asking the board to consider allowing uh removing any preclusion on further subdivision with lot five to affectuate potential changes in the estate planning and potential growth of the family. I know that this board had been disposed to include that prohibition, but again, the request of the applicant is at this point if that could be removed to allow for future subdivision of lot. There is no application pending or in current intent to subdivide this into more than five lots. Just asking at some point in the future if the family decides that that's proven in light of the size of the family, the growth of the family, the evolution of the estate that uh that they be afforded the opportunity to do so. Of course, that would come with application to this board, consideration by this board, uh relevant conditions imposed by this board at that time of the sub. That's basically the position the family asking table. Happy to field any questions or concerns.

Just refresh my memory. What's the size of lot 5? I guess let me just refresh my 4.4. Uh it's 187,000 square ft. 4.3%. It would yield at least two bots at at most two bots.

Um any any thoughts on uh u I know Greg Cranford who's not present he's on Zoom tonight was the one who brought it up at the original discussion. Anyone else? You know, I read the memo you sent out and not trained as a memo. There was a long description of I think it was the most recent of the letters explaining the family. That wasn't me that wasn't Yeah, that was

I frankly didn't follow it actually. It's it's not my area of expertise. Could you just walk us through the organization of it and the structure of and and why now that this is coming up as an issue on at the 11th hour of the estates or the trusts? Well, to work backwards, why is this coming up now that you want to reserve the potential to subdivide lot five? Or is it only because it was mentioned as a stipulation at the last meeting?

That's exactly right. That's when it came up and that's when it was discussed. that's when their concerns were were raised. Um I am not the attorney for either trust or estate except with respect to this application. So I can't talk to you about the global intent of the trust or the estates. What I can tell you what my understanding is is that this is a family-owned property. There are multiple heirs and this was the the cleanest I don't know if any of you have owned property with a family member. It's not the easiest thing. I did for a while and thankfully that ended. This was the cleanest way for each member of the family to be sort of afforded their specific interest in the property was through this trust and and ultimately by by uh by uh this subdivision. And the concerns raised by the family are that if as the trust will continue for decades uh long past any of us are here that they're be afforded some flexibility in managing that trust uh commiserate with the changing and growth of the channel. That's that's what their concern was. Well, it sounds like the future planning would need to involve more than one additional lot. If you're talking about this infinite expansion of the family,

there is if we got to be a lot of fighting over that little lot, well, infinite expansion of the family, but that is what's that is the sole flexibility remaining and they're just asking to maintain the only flexibility they they would have. There's the there's across the street as well as I understood this memo. Yeah. Totally separate and apart from this application. Separate ownership. Separate ownership from this application. But in the question, I didn't really understand. We're getting we're getting to the edge of my comfort with the the trust, but I'll I'll continue. I can talk to

Well, let me just do you mind if I just I want to ask our attorney just a question. So, the concert the easements that we that we have already discussed and that we've pretty much agreed to the front sections. If they were to come back to want to subdivide that last lot, those easements would still hold on that lot despite that they could perhaps subdivide it again, but those things would hold cuz that that would be my only concern.

So, the only lot that's subdividable and right now it's a five lot opponent subdivision. The eastern lot which is lot eastern southern lot which is lot five is as Carl said it's about 4.3 acres. So that is subdividable under current Tony which is double A. Uh there's a CD on most of the road frontage that CD is proposed and that will come into existence. They can still come in at their current drive. There's a driveway cut at the northeastern end of lot five from from National Parkway. Uh they could the only way they could subdivide lot five in the future would be they'd have to come in there. They could use it's 20 ft wide or maybe 40 feet to wide depending how we structure this because it's an adjacent 20 foot strip on lot 4. They could potentially come in there. They'd have to swing the driveway to the south to the Yeah. the south to get to any proposed lot six, if you will. But they wouldn't it wouldn't preclude them. they'd have they'd basically share in a driveway uh and the driveway to the more distant lot from the entrance point would have to go over you know one of the you know the bigger lot

that's something these future owners would have I'm just concerned about that that I'm concerned about the scenic look to that coming down that last lot so it's just as long as it holds driveway cuts no new driveway cuts the easement would that yeah that's that's the only question would if if they would use the common driveway because that's all they could do, which I think is what he's saying, because if there was a new cut for a new driveway, you're taking away essentially more of the easement because you got to cut through stuff to get cut a new path.

The applicant's understanding is we would not be able to touch the conservation. We would not be able to add another driveway that would hold in perpetuity. Do we um could I ask a question?

That's great. Um it seems to me that if um if there isn't um some sort of um uh method of of uh not allowing subdivision of left uh if if we don't place some requirement on that not to be subdivided that we are de facto approve improving a six lot subdivision. And if we are going to do that, it seems to me that we need to have the subdivision represented as a six lot subdivision.

This is establishing one lot. Just to amplify what Greg is saying because I if I was an architect, well, I am an architect. If I was designing a house on lot five, I don't think I could do it without understanding where the second house might go and where the subdivision might be in terms of the setbacks and views and you know, it would be very difficult because you're not going to want to build a house there without knowing what the disposition of the subdivision, the future subdivision would look like.

So why not just include it now? I mean, you may decide that every lot should be 50 ft narrower so you can fit in the sixth lot. Can I just offer that I think the confusion came from just the fact that we received two letters from two different family members and just you know if you don't if you're not privy to all that discussion it could it was perceived to be a little bit confusing as to what the intention was and the one letter mentioned perhaps you know could you what David's asking could you say that a six lot could be approved but since there's no application coming before us in that matter it's just it's a five lot subdivision that we're looking at. Exactly.

Um I think based on our previous agreements on the conservation easement in the frontage of the property, that's where I think our concern lies. So, uh Rick just confirmed for us that those things are going to be held despite any future.

Make a couple comments here. So, I mean Greg Greg's point is is a good one, but right now you're looking at a five sub. What I would recommend in the future if anyone were to come into you with a quote unquote below density subdivision, you should clarify at the outset, is this what you mean to do? You're proposing that these are all the lots you're going to get. Okay? You're proposing an oversized lot. We want restrictions. We want you to tell us right now you agree to restrictions and that that lot can't be subdivided. So, we didn't do all that in front. What we did do, we did what we did and what you know what group did and what you were when you accepted your environmental assessment forms the AS part two and three state that this is a below density subdivision with only five lots where at least seven were would be allowed by zoning. Uh I'm not suggesting that we necessarily have to mend the EAF. I'm not going to worry about that. Uh you're still technically below the allowed density six versus seven. But you know you did proceed on the basis that you were getting a benefit here bonus you know reducing density voluntarily by the applicant by two lots in the future I think we need to make you know we need to clarify right at the outset this is what you mean to do right because if you're going to create an oversized lot we want to make sure that we're getting the benefit of the bargain and that lot won't be subdividable in the future right now though if they were to go to put in a sixth lot they'd have to go to a new hearing in my opinion they could get a hearing in a five lot subdivision. So they're not creating a six lot now. But it is likewise it is true that since lot five is greater than zoning allows unless shelter island changes the zoning between now and for and someday in the future. It would be probably difficult for you to deny the sixth lot if they came in someday because they'd be

proposing two conforming lots. You you probably don't have grounds to deny it at least the way the law is right now. So, they're getting five lots, but they could come back someday to divide lot five. By the way, the map is going to be a filed subdivision map. They come in someday to subdivide lot five. They're going to have to ban lot five out of the map. I mean, I know this is not an issue because they're not going to do it anytime soon, but you can't do that within 3 years. You can't abandon any part of a file map within the first three years after the map is filed. Again, not really an issue for them. someday if they were to try to prop you know propose to divide lot five but we don't know that they will uh they'd have to abandon that out you know the extra lot

and if I could just say something for the record there is no intent or desire even for a six lot right now this is just about flexibility going forward so to amend it for a six lot now that's not what this family wants right now it's just flexibility if those wants or needs change in the future. And why was this lot proportionally so much larger than the other lot? I don't remember how much larger it is, but Oh, I can talk to that. Okay. Um, this is Penny, one of the trusties. Can you come to the podium and just say your name for the record again?

One of the applicants. So, um, we started this process, um, about four years ago, as Jessica may remember, um, uh, hiring an attorney and working amongst family members to determine how many lots would be appropriate. Um, we ultimately, um, because we do own other land, um, it was decided in the family that the waterfront property would be split 50/50 between my brother and myself. Um he currently uh owes as part of estate planning uh a house down the road at 39 Mstream Parkway which is about 3 and 1/2 acres. And then part of the estate planning was that my family conceded um any interest in the interior woods um which is about 50 acres and then um another lot um on Belvadier across the street from that. So um this three ac these three lots is a 10 acre uh parcel is uh the only land that the nut family will have on shelter island um with my brother has a roughly about 50 acres. Um, part of why lot 5 was a little bit larger is that, um, when my grandparents were still living at 59, um, our our neighbors, uh, to the south, um, Sweet Pea Cove put in a few structures that were not run through the building department and they built them right on the property line. And um because of that and because of the topography, you can see that lot five has a lot of sink holes and it's beautiful piece of property, but it is not all buildable. And therefore um any contemplation of a house on lot 5 would be very closely um aligned to the lot

line between lot four and lot five because that's really the only flat area. There's also um uh um a a zone an AE18 zone that sweeps up um and so that puts some restriction on where you could build as well. Um so because of that we made that lot a little bit larger um because of the encroachment and because of the topography and ultimately um I think I mentioned in my letter that I have two children will and I have two children and the long-term plan is that one lot would go to one child like a lot three and lot five would go to the other child and that in the middle there would be shared resources um you know a a swimming pool or tennis court. Um and and with the idea that they would um gather there, they would but ultimately um as Carl mentions, it it can be very challenging for families to co-own uh property together. Uh object uh goals, uh um objectives, they all change over time. And um and because of that, um I think the best way to keep families functional and and enjoying good times together is to make sure they have separate properties to come back to. And that's one of the reasons why, you know, I conceded the two other homes on Shel Island with the idea that I can build my own home, other can build their own home. So that's why lot five is a little bit bigger. Um it's because of that restriction and and the idea that ultimately um there would be only one house there. Um but part of this process being four years into it, it's also about compromise and um working with other family members, you know, I'm

doing the best to move forward with this process, compromise and and and try to meet all objectives and and work with family. So, so I appreciate you um listening to me and and I I understand that that this is not an easy process, especially when you get variety of different letters, but I really appreciate your your um your your thoughtfulness to the matter and that um to echo what Carl said, um it is a circumstance where this trust will be and the land will be in trust for 100 plus years. And um while my intent is you know only one house would ever be built and at that I don't even know if that would happen during my lifetime on lot five but certainly down the road the family will grow and again having some flexibility there is it's um helpful to keep families functional and you know getting together and having fun versus you know arguing over things that really are important

thank you very much thanks everybody So I think that's all I have to say. Yeah. If you have any questions sitting right here. No. Okay.

Julia, I would just say the I mean I think the stipulating that there's I if it moved forward without the restriction stipulating that it regardless only has one access point. I think that gives that gets you part of the way there. I have to admit that, you know, I I was pushing for more a greater conservation easement and certainly the idea that it was only five lots and they had, you know, they were giving up the two was certainly part of that factor in my head. And so I I know I personally then pause now and say well gee now like you know I feel like I have to think back to the beginning of how you know how do I think about the conservation easement and you know

I agree Sean it completely also it makes me I I can't help but wonder what does it mean about the 50 acres across the street you know does that become 20 houses over there. That's a separate property. It's that that law is not in this application.

I I understand. I'm just vocalizing, you know, how I'm I I'm one of the things that was talked about originally when this was presented to Sean's point, uh, was maintaining the character of Norm Parkway and, um, it's, you know, it cumulatively has an impact. So the only thing is the same conservation easement is going to be across the same five lots and even the six lots. It's that's sort of the back and forth agreement that we sort of came to informally, right? Or am I you are all remembering the same history I am?

Yeah. Okay. I mean I think the question for us is if they had come to us originally with a six lot instead of a five lot subdivision, would the thinking about the depth of the conservation easement been any different? And I don't know the answer to that, but I think that's the question. Well, the the size of a conservation ement is tied to the size of parcel. Yes. Whether it's split five ways or six ways would be the same degree of preservation. Yeah. Doesn't change it. No, we're not discussing a six lot application. And they could have come to us with a seven lot. But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the one that was actually applied. That's what we're Which is just a five lot. There is no present intent for six lots.

No. No. From your des, you know, from the topography and the flood zone, it doesn't sound like it's particularly buildable as another lot in any case. I mean, where there's a will, there's a way. If you spend enough money, you can build anything. But it it doesn't sound like anyone's going to rush to build it on a difficult site. Go as far as to say a six slot is unlikely. Yeah. But also, let me just say it's like that would have to go through its own process 100%. And that's not where we are here, right? We can we can future into a thousand different thoughts and like but that's not

okay. So, um Rick, at the uh conclusion of this now, where do we need to go uh to um so don't I don't have the map in front of me, but uh you first of all, you got to make your decision that you close the public hearing closed on October 24th. Um I plan to have a resolution ready uh before your next meeting. Yeah. So let's just look at this real quick. So I just want to you know any conditions. We don't have any building envelopes on the C.

Um we have a conservation easement that would be granted to the town of Shelter Island. It's along the road from the J on N Parkway. Um the other things that come well well also we did specify a certain structural setback from the boundary of that conservation that's depicted on the map. So that's something of a building envelope I guess cuz that's beyond what would be required by zoning. Um, I guess my only other question would be are they so I don't know if you guys you guys have the this would be good if we had if we put the map on the on the screen or something but lots one and two have side by side access points going through the conservation ement and the same thing for um lots four and five over here except that lot four which already has a house its driveway comes in also through a break in the easement on lot three. So here's my first question for you. Do you want com do you want common driveways or will each lot take its own separate driveway or be it two places side by side? about to share a single driveway when they come in off Nast Parkway or will you have two driveways next to one another and another two driveways next to one another maybe a 15

well there was a discussion a few meetings ago about the issue of the driveway crossing scenic easement but I don't remember the conclusion there's a there's a gap in the scenic easement for the for access there so there's 20 foot wide 20 foot wide openings in the scenic easement per lot per lot right now there's one for each of the five lots. And again, kind of the weird thing is that lot three has an existing driveway access. Um although the driveway swings over onto lot four, the house is on lot four. So the driveway for lot four is coming in on lot three right now. It's where it is. That's existing.

Yeah. And that's presumably you don't want to move it apart from the disturbance. Do you have any any plans to maybe do a share on three and four? Is that

Absolutely. So, um so uh with respect to the driveway situation, um we envision for lots 3, four, and five that there would be two driveways. Um we have one coming in on lot three that would serve lot three and lot four. And um the long-term vision would be that that driver would would create a big U and would exit um technically on lot 4 because I don't know if this particular um map does not show, but I have it on my phone. Um there are some amazing big rocks that exist on the property. Um and they make it really quite special, you know, part of the terminal marine that created Long Island. And um those uh rocks are actually right in the middle of the driveway on the map for lot five. So they're staying and we're going to thread the the exit driveway, if you want to call it that, for lot uh three and four. Uh it's really uh right on that line between

four and five and I certainly can pull it up on my very tiny phone or what we can do is we can just do you want to put it up or I'm not sure which one we have right in front of you. I have two then they have 40 two. So I don't know which one. I mean having shared driveways lessens the cut into the easement. So it's nice that we've got three and four together. Five is going to be coming around a circle exiting past. You can do that in lots one too. You could have a single common driveway in lots one too.

So is that something that you might consider having a shared driveway on one and two just as you're going to be doing on three and four? Um, I'm all for that. Those lots, those two lots ultimately will go to my brother. I don't see why he wouldn't be that might. And and just to be clear, when you on lot five, when you mentioned a U, that doesn't mean you're coming both in and out. So, it's two cuts. You're just Oh, it's just one cut. Yeah. I speaking for myself, Julia, if we could get a stipulation that said there were only three entrances to the whole subdivision, I that's what I'm thinking.

I'd be comfortable saying uh we don't need or I don't need uh in my view a restriction on the further subdivision of lot 5. Yeah, I think that's a reasonable compromise. So yeah, right here on the zoom. So okay, so conditions um conservation scenic and conservation easement along Nostrin Parkway is shown on the map. Mhm. Uh

lots. Yeah. Setback the extra little extra setback from that scenic easement uh on each of the lots. And then lots one and two and four and five uh those will be shared single common driveways anywhere within the 40 ft. Um and the connection to connect the two further in has to be totally out of the easement. Right. They they there's actually the map actually they even have meets and bounds on here. There are meets and bounds for the driveway cuts.

But isn't actually you said Rick you said four and five it's three and four right that are shar three and four that are sharing right I want to make sure I it's a little weird because again well three is existing that that runway is on three the house is on four. Oh that's right. Okay. No you're right. You're right. No you're right. You're right. I I I I'll figure it out. Any questions? I'll ask Carl. He can talk to But we don't the object is to have no more than three driveways. Correct. Correct. Serving the whole property coming in not the whole. Yeah. So, just because the specialness of the conservation e easement kind of gets lost when we're if we're cutting it up

because our goal was to protect the forest, you know, the natural bar. There going to be three cuts. Uh there'll be a U starting in lot three going to lot four and coming back out of lot four. I don't know we need to specify that. No, but that's that's the intent. Now four and five would share from a common driveway. And if down the road there's a lot six that would have to share also from that same kind of Yeah, that would be what we put in. So three lots serving with one cup, right? Yeah. Divided. I'm fine with that. Anyone else? I'm good with that. I'm I'm good with that, Y.

Okay. All right, Rick, you got that or Yeah. Um, are there any other Nothing else, right? No, there was nothing else. Okay. All right. That that's that's great compromise. Thank you everyone. I think that's great. That was easy. I just want to thank for it continuing thoughtfulness. Thank you. Thank you. Okay, Rick, you'll work on it, I think, for next for next. You'll have it ready. Yeah, it's on resolution for the next meeting. Perfect.

See you next month. All right. Next. Next, Crescent Beach LLC. So we have we actually have wait technically we have two memos from you Rick right Rick was not speaking we have we have the two different earlier one and then you did a nice contour map addition so technically one memo one extra drawing I'll say it way correct

do you want to just take us through that about the well both the memo and then the um the little drawing you did of steep slopes, which I really appreciated because it definitely put it in perspective. See where the steepness is. So, I made a uh my memo dated November 12th, 2025. Um, I looked at the steep slopes on the property and according to the DEC, steep slopes would be greater than 15%. So, based on this map that I prepared, not really anywhere on lot one that the slopes are less than 15% within the building envelope. majority of them are 35 to 45% within their proposed um improvements. And then for lots two and three, the 15% or less are within their proposed um building envelopes that they show on the their sketch plan. Um so I would recommend that you know on lots two and three conservation easements over the steep slopes where slopes range from you know 25 to 45%. Uh some areas on lot two are even greater than 45%. So, you know, don't don't want to be disrupting any of the soils there, altering drainage patterns, soil slope stabiliz stabilization. I believe that the applicant came back

with a uh letter saying that, you know, they were willing to accept conservation easements on lots two and lots three. Um on lot one their site plan showed some disturbance and reveation in areas where there was no grading really proposed. So it was I wasn't really sure, you know, what the goal was there and why that area would need to be reveated if they weren't proposing to do anything there. Um so maybe they can limit their disturbance there. Um, now that's along like the east side I guess of the the property as the driveway comes in. Other than that, um, you have any questions? I can answer as needed. I in terms of the location of the proposed house pool accessory building driveway, how does that correlate to the edge of the less than 15% band across the the water side of the lot?

So I Yeah. So I drew the line um that's shaded here along the 100 foot set back. Um, so it kind of, you know, extends a little bit past the 100 foot setback from the wetlands. This this is the 100 foot

more more or less. Yeah, it follows that. There might be a little bit of extra. So there's not really any area, you know, within the building envelope that is less than 50%. Have have we ever been presented a site section that shows the implication of uh of the cut and fill to mitigate this steep slope? Uh it seems to me from from looking at the plans that it's the site is site one is basically clearcut with a complete um intervention of cut and fill to to mitigate this steep slope. But I haven't I I don't recall seeing a section.

I don't either, Greg. I was thinking the same thing would be a very useful drawing particularly if it showed showed the the house and the depth of the seller that's proposed assuming there is one. Let me just make a comment because this is a

intellectually very difficult thing to deal with. The applicant has gotten approvals from the DEC got approval from the zoning board of appeals. got a Supreme Court decision which Howard is appealing on site plan all to build the house on what his proposed lot was. The house does not exist. The applicant doesn't have a building permit for it yet. They haven't commenced construction. They don't have vested rights to build what's on lot what they propose on lot one. But the applicant has given you plans to show what they say they would want to build on lot one. And if they were to go ahead and get their final approval, let's say they win the lawsuit, they could get a building permit and they could build that before they subdivide the property, but they don't have permit. They don't have all the permits. They don't have vested rights because they haven't built anything yet. And they've applied for subdivision even though they don't yet have a full rights to build on proposed lot one. So, you kind of have to figure I mean, we know what they would like to do if they get the subdivision map approved the way it is, but you're not locked into that. Okay, this is their proposed subdivision. You have to bear in mind that house on that would go on lot one and all the work, which is a lot of disturbance, it would appear, does not exist. Does not at the moment have the right to exist. Has not been built. And so you're supposed to divorce that

from the subdivision review and the subdivision design, but we can't unsee it. Well, I guess it's really complicated because you're right. You would prove this the way it is. That's what the apparently was built. The other thing too, I just want to mention one other thing cuz you know,

you've just been to team the lead agency. You're now the lead agency on the application. It's an unlisted application. It's not I'm sorry, an unlisted action under secret. So in connection with whatever decision you make going forward and maybe before you make a decision, you have to make a secret determination. Negative declaration, positive declaration. That's a dis with an unlisted action. You have a third option you can do what's called the conditioned negative declaration. If there were conditions that you thought were essential to the to the subdivision that without which you would require DEIS, you can impose them through the am you know what's called the conditioned negative declaration which you can only do on listed actions. So you should be thinking really initially about the environmental the secret review of the application and what you know what secret determination you're going to make.

So we have to have that prepared for next meeting right but you can give guidance to you know you know Rick would do an part two and three but um this is one way they need input from the board. Well, just I I just also want to remind the board that the code does um give us the right to protect steep slopes. Steep slope slopes are mentioned in the code. Rick, you had pointed that out to me.

Yeah. So, the code doesn't exclude any percentage of of steep slopes from either the lot or from the building lot. So, there's nothing you can say, oh, you can't build there. That's not allowed by our code. Your code doesn't say that. But the zone does give you the power to protect sleep so that's an environmental consideration in subdivision design under chapter what's it 111 chapter 111 I think so you know you have the right to try to protect these folks and you also have that that right argument that obligation in your secret right

if if I may jump in Julia quickly one I would note that Mr. Bennett has had his hand up for a while, but I think appropriately approp appropriately waiting because we needed to finish this part of the conversation. Um I just wasn't sure you saw that. No, we saw it in a number of us. We're just waiting.

Yeah. I you know I think one of one of the questions I have is uh I personally clearly have a lot of difficulty with the amount of uh movement of soil and changes in uh the landscape there in order to accommodate what is planned to be built. I think the question is and I think Mr. Bennett tried to get to this or did get to it last time of at this point it's a sketch. So, you know, should we be saying this is only one step in the process? We can approve this sketch while noting we have concerns about all of those things. But, you know, there's that's for that may be for the next stage. you know, I'm not sure where where we apply that kind of concern more fully. Is it is now too early in that context?

Well, I think that's what Rick is trying to advise us on. At the point that we do the seeker review, we could do a uh conditional negative declaration and that's what would happen in the next phase. Yep. So it seems like secret is our opportunity to potentially do something because here all we're doing is just the lines.

But I do feel like I mean unless I hear differently from everyone else that the the concern is the steep slope and and we do uh we do have to be cautious with that. I think that is that's the bigger issue with with the lots and it's not really so much two and three because it seems that they would be building those things closer to the road at some point perhaps but it's the lower lot I think um that you saw in the uh the map that uh Rick Wnavski prepared for us. Um so we we could go ahead tonight and say sketch is okay but on those conditions that we're going to be looking at him during secret. Isn't that correct Rick? Yes way. sketch plan. You're at the sketch plan stage, too.

So, you're really in just sort of it's like preliminary subdivision application, right? Right. Yep. Um John Bennett, I see now you've had your hand up, so I'd like to give you an opportunity to say something there. Go ahead. Um someone's got to let me in. Yeah, we can hear you. I could a second ago. You take your picture down. There you go. There you are. You're You're muted, John. Thank you. How about now? Yeah, both of the council.

Yeah, thank you. No, it's very helpful discussion. Just a couple of thoughts. Um well, before I get the my somewhat broader thoughts, I do want to make sure that everyone got my letter. I think um Rick's um memo was there's nothing I found objectionable um in Rick's memo. did um let you know the ZBA uh had had indeed ex um expired, but um there was no sense going back to this board of appeals because the the Supreme Court directed that the house that you see on lot one should be built. But the town has appealed that. That was argued back in April. And it may surprise some people, probably not Rick Whan, but the appellet division in Second being the busiest appellet courthouse in the United States of America, which they're sort of proud to say, um, uh, uh, hasn't rendered a decision yet. So that's So there was no sense for me going back to the ZBA.

Yep.

At this point, uh, we did send a letter of continued coverage pursuant to general permit. Um the we may require a title wetlands permit from the DEEC. We have one for the house. But interestingly enough, uh there's an argument which the DEEC has adopted in the past, but it depends upon the staff member you're talking to. Since I'm not changing any lot line within the DEC jurisdiction within the 300 ft from the title wetlands, they may very well issue um a a a letter of non-jurisdiction as it relates to the subdivision or if they require a title wetlands permit, we'll we'll we'll get that. Which either way, we're clearly within their density uh limitations. Um, of course, we have to go to the health department, uh, which we'll do. Um, if a site plan review for the improvements on lot one is required, obviously we're going to have to comply with all the site plan approvals. remember and I don't want to do this and I I think it's a good idea to talk about these things but I could I I if the lawsuit is um if the town's um direction to issue this building permit all permits necessary is um upheld I I could simply withdraw this subdivision application obiate all the things you're talking about build the house and then come back in. Um I I I don't I don't want to do that because I think we're here. Let's talk about these things. But remember, it's not like if we prevail on the lawsuit, we're perilous to do that. But having said that, I respect what you folks are doing and I'd like to engage. We were very

aware of this fact that this um lot has some slope issues and we acted as if the town code has the topographic limitations which some other codes contain. we've offered uh we don't show the conservation easements on the lots two and three but certainly it was there's no problem whatsoever in putting there putting them there the lots two and lots three are as as Rick noted in his memo that's and I think it's just common sense that's that's where the building belongs they're not steep slopes um and that's where they belong but certainly to make sure that that is where the building on lots two and three are uh relegated. Uh we don't have any problem whatsoever with putting conservation easements on the balance of two and three. And indeed uh we would more be more than happy to work with you with uh you know protective easements on lot one to make sure that somebody doesn't just come in and you know bulldoze the whole thing. the that that's not to the applicant's um you know that's not going to that doesn't that's not to the applicant's benefit to just do some sort of clear cutting clear cutting there he he owns he owns the house uh he controls

but that's what the site plan show excuse me but that's what the site plan currently shows

yeah because that's what the court directed the town to issue the permits for so what I'm saying to you now, and please listen to me, okay? I I could withdraw the application if the lawsuit is upheld. If the Supreme Court's direction to the town is upheld, I could withdraw the application and build this house. What I'm saying is I'm respectful of what you're trying to do and I'd like to engage with you on this. Okay. Um again, so we talked about the slopes. Um, we'll provide a meets and bounds description for the utility easements. Everything that uh Rick asked for uh when we went to the zoning board of appeal, I'm sorry, when the town what we offered with the ZBA and the town is if we uh if you let us build this large house on lot number one, we'll limit the size of the houses on two and three uh to 6,000 square ft. Rick mentioned that in his memo. uh it comes from the zoning board of appeals decision which again uh uh you know is sitting there waiting for reapplication uh because of the litigation. But if that if that was to happen, I don't think the client has any problem with limiting um you know houses on lots two and three to that square footage regardless. That's a big house. So, um I I I I think we can work with that. But I do want to tell you that one of the things I put in my letter uh and um and um one of my prior letters is as Terry Rice, the primary commentator to the New York State Village Law, which controls subdivisions, stated, sketch plan is an informal is an informal um approval. I I in 30 some odd years of doing this, maybe just

a couple years longer than Rick, um uh um have never seen uh secret done on uh a sketch plan. It's something that you do when you have uh the more information that would come to you on an application. If you would like us to prepare uh a long form that might help you more than happy to do that. Uh but I think the best thing to do right now in terms of the way these things naturally flow remembering that you always have the final say in terms of what you're going to condition this on and what we're going to work out in terms of the final approval. Uh this is where these lots are going to go. uh it's an appropriate time um as your engineer noted uh that the the board to consider sketch plan approval. Then we would um then we would get into the real nitty-gritty uh in terms of um what restrictions are going to be placed on these lots and and talk about that. I I I feel confident that we can give you more than enough restrictions and more than enough information so that you can issue a negative declaration or a conditional negative declaration. I think um if you look at you know yes Rick said something about a positive declaration but having spent an awful lot of time litigating seeker issues as has Rick um you know if you look at the seeker regulations what's a typical type oh and before I forget this is not in the uh you know this is not in the uh hold on a second it's not in the is a term of art that's used in the in the sheltered island code it was the high structural area or whatever um

you're area. Structural high hazard area. Excuse me. Structural high hazard area. Not it is not in the structural the proposed activity is not in the structural high hazard area. So um but in any event you know a type one action if you look at the secret regulations you know you know what a type one action is? A type one action is 50 homes 50 homes 50 homes um that are not connected. John, under the shelter island code, a mere five lasses type one action any major subdivision. Well, this is not this is not a major subdivision.

Yeah, I'm I'm well aware of that. But what I'm I'm saying is you have you have an app. You're hearing what I'm saying. I'm willing to work with you on some of the concerns that you have on lot one. I'm I'm willing to work with you on that even with the understanding that uh you know if the if if the if the lawsuit is affirmed I could simply withdraw this application build the house and come back in. Uh but again uh I'm willing to work with you in terms of these some of these issues on lot number one and uh ultimately uh say okay we'll make that subject to uh site plan approval but we'll try to work out some of those things uh as conditions even even before you get there.

I think that's where we're leading. Uh on sketch plan uh shouldn't there be some talk about the water hookup because I had mentioned that at the last meeting. Well, we did show the easement. Rick wanted Is that a concern I can bring up at the next level? So, yes, that's a that's more of a full application because that that is you do have to have hookup. You do have to be able to and this is part of the heights I believe. So, I mean, yeah, it is. And I don't know if this Have you looked at that yet? I don't know if there's another way to get the water down there or how

There's water in front of the blot, Rick. the water in front of the lot. The qu the question with the heights association, they may want it supplemented, but there's water at the lot and the heights associine drive, John, on Serpentine Drive. Yeah. Yeah. If not, it doesn't go to Shore Road though on Serpentine. No, it's up on Serpentine. It had the pipe going down from there. And you would jet that pipe. I mean, how would you get the water down? You're not getting trench, I hope. Right. Smoke pro. Well, it it it depends. If it's the disturbance by trenching it can be minimal, which is possible, you probably just do it that way. That's a long way to, you know, jet. Um, Rick, um, I do see Stella from the heights.

Let me let me finish, please. Let me let me finish, please. Those are the sort of things those are the sort of things that we would look at on on the actual formal application. We're going to have to come to terms somehow with that. The Heights Association wants a I guess they want more capacity on the road. It's we're going to have to deal with it, but these are the sort of things that we would deal out on the application. But but but please understand what I'm offering here. Uh I'm listening to your concerns. Um, I'm trying to say to you even though, and Rick says we don't have vested rights, but we do have a a determination that is the law of the case right now, uh, that states that this these permits should have been issued. Having said all of that, I'm hearing the board's concerns, uh, on some of these issues and more than willing to work with you.

So, let me just say this, I may go back. I did see John did John did reference Terry Rice who's a well-known commentator on you know his own matters uh in his earlier letter. I have to go back and just reread that John but I believe that John's correct that in sketch plan it's kind of an informal process and what you would be looking at in sketch plan is the basic design of the map. Where do the lots go? Where does the axis go? with a full if if you believe that you can do that and that's up to you whether you're comfortable with the design, you want to change things, whatever. Once you get past site sketch plan and then the applicant submits a formal subdivision application, then at that point you can get into other things such as building envelopes, conservation easements, you know,

tools that you might want to employ to limit the disturbance of steep slopes. I I think John and I are in agreement that you don't have to do that sketch. So I guess I guess what I'm also saying is I guess a sketch plan you probably don't have to make a secret determination at this time. Uh I didn't think that we were I mean we were discussing secret in terms of next steps and preserving this deep but uh Stella did you want to offer something about the water hookup. Uh

good evening. So, I'm Stella Leus and I'm representing the Shelter Island Heights property or its core. Um, and we also own and operate the Shelter Island Heights Water District. And I am by no means an expert in subdivisions. This is actually the first time I've come before you on a subdivision. So, take that with a grain of salt. Um but I do have u a concern about how can we be even this is a sketch plan review and even though it's conceptual um we have sent you some material about the fact that right now we have 6in water mane that dead ends right on the property. And when the initial home was being proposed, our outside engineers, H2M, did a model of the water demand and came back to us and said, "We will not be able to meet based on what we have today, the water demand for the proposed house." So the pro I I know the proposed house is maybe on or off the table depending on what happens with the lawsuit, but assuming there is a house that is built anywhere close to that size with the demand that's required and now you're piling on two more potential homes up to 6,000 square ft each. The question is how can you even conceptually approve this when yes I hear that there have been department of health approvals and CBA despite the fact that it's expired there's been ZBA approvals but the department of health has never issued any kind of approval on the water and they won't do that until we as the water district give them a water

availability letter. So if you tell me that this is absolutely going to be discussed in a lot of detail um but it hasn't been discussed since and I know at the last meeting in October which I wasn't able to attend Mr. Bennett mentioned that we had been we have been in discussions. There had been zero discussions. I didn't say that. You did and it was about 46 minutes into the presentation or into the meeting. So I don't want to quibble. I just want to say we feel like we don't have a place at the table.

And I think it's important that we determine what needs to have happened, how it gets designed, and who pays for it. And if you're telling me it doesn't happen now, that's fine. But we really do need to start having this conversation because all the applications point to public water and I can't tell you that I can provide it and I can't tell you that I can provide it without a diminishing service that I'm giving to those that are up already up there. So that's all I wanted to convey. Okay. Thank you so much. Thank you.

If I may, there is a Suffach County Department of Health Services permit for the house. Number one. Number two, uh we will have to meet with the heights association and particularly in their capacity as the purveyors of water there and if they're are uh and meet with and meet their their concerns uh as long as their concerns are reasonable and within the strictctures of a public service provider. I understand that there's uh an issue that they have and we're going to have to uh come to terms with that. When I said discussions, uh I know there have been discussions with uh Intercience. Uh it's been so long since this uh was approved. Um uh maybe some people's the the notes on the discussions disappeared or something like that. But we don't think that for one second since you are the in effect the public water supplier that we don't have to come to terms with you. That's I've been doing subdivision work for 34 36 years. I understand that it's usually it's the Suffach County Department is Suffach County Water Authority. You know, we we we have we have to deal with that. I'm not suggesting for one second that we don't.

Perfect. Thank you. Great. We're getting somewhere. So, um shall we prepare this then for next meeting? You can work on a resolution for sketch approval. Um I don't know. You need an actual resolution on that. Sure you do, Rick. You got a resolution. You got to sign the map. Yeah. Sign the map on a sketch plan. Yes. Sign the map on a sketch plan. It's been a while, I guess, since you've been on the other side of this. Yeah. You sign them. You have a resolution of approval and you sign the map for a sketch plan.

It's the shelter island code that governs. I have to look and see see how sketch plan is handled under your shelter out. Okay. But at at a minimum, Rick, you you need a resolution and a reference to a map. What map are we approving? the sketch plan that we've presented to you prepared by um you know prepared by uh Rich Warren's company Intercience. It's the three lot sketch plan. It's the one who knows what it is. What date do you have on that job?

July 24th. And it's showing proposed improvements in there that are not part of the not part of the bill. We

we put the improvements there because you asked us to do it. If you want us to take it off, we can do that very easily. It's just a click of a, you know, I I'm not for one second suggesting that you would be uh approving those improvements. That's what our discussion has has has been about as part of the subdivision approval. Uh I I think Rick has a copy of the map without the improvements. Uh we were asked to put those improvements on and so that was part of uh our memo. We asked them to do a check for things and then because the map was inadequate. You have it. You have the old one. Jessica, he has Jessica has the previous file.

I haven't done a sketch plan up. But apparently you did one in on Ballard Trust back in December last year resolution. Yeah, we did. That's again,

well, some of the board members wanted to see where that approved, anyway, judicially approved house sat on the lot, and we gave you a lot of stuff to look at. As part of that exercise, we gave you gosh, we gave you all of the um the the approvals that have been required, a construction methodology, uh you know, Ed Hollanders, we gave you all that stuff a as a tool for you to examine this. And I it it it raised some of the questions that you're talking about now, which means I think it was a good exercise. Uh but we can we can just take those improvements off. You know, they're not meant to. They're only there. They're ghosted in on lot one. They're only there because of the board's request. I think it was back in April.

We gave one April 8. Yeah, there's an April 16th uh we gave you a construction meth methodology prepared by Belgian, a storm water prevention plan. Uh the health department approval, the DEC approval, the ZBA approval. We gave you all that stuff at your request, but it was a letter of uh April 16th, 2025 uh directed to the chairwoman with the enclosures, but it's very easy just to say take I'll just tell Interigns to take that off. Well, John, it it it looks like it maybe that the elaborate plan that doesn't show the ghosted information might be the same physically the same.

I I agree. It's not It's not a big deal. I can either approve the earlier plans or I can uh make it clear that the posted information is not part of our program. Anyway, there was a there was a sketch plan for again I haven't done one yet, but there was one for trust uh and I'm just glancing at it. It would be the kind of format I would probably want to use, you know, here. It looks it looks okay for next. And and the date I'm so sorry. What would the date for that be? I'll just uh Well, the earlier one was 4:11. No, I'm sorry. The date of your next meeting. I'm sorry. Uh December 9th. September 9th. Thank you. Yeah.

All right. Well, thank you. I'm sorry I'm not there in person. I don't like this Zoom stuff. It feels uh strange. I much like being there in person, but I I I I I had some uh some counterveailing uh responsibilities. So, thank you. Thank you. Thanks, Rick. Okay. Um, let me just think, we have a lot still to get through. Um, subdivision. Yeah. Waiting.

Okay. Road minor subdivision. We're still waiting. Um, and the white performance bond. I'm just not even going to still at town board level. All right. So, that ends our discussions on subdivision. Um, moving on to our wetlands permit. Um, actually I was just gonna say, um, Rick, we can probably let you go at this point. Yeah. Um, and actually, no, I still need you, Rick Brown for site plan review, so please stay. I'm just dismissing Rick Rowski. All right. So, uh, Bootsie, which I printed out and left in the printer. It's the thing I emailed you.

I have yours here. Hold on. I have yours right here. The second one. This is Well, no, this is the one with your comments on it, right? But I did comments and I revised them and sent them again. Um, I only have that in email format, I believe. Um, I have Marcus's first draft. Um, yeah, I'm sorry. I only have one copy of my for myself. Let me see if I can find it. Can you pull it up on your phone, maybe? For some reason, my sent email doesn't sort chronologically, and I can't figure out why.

Okay, Marcus, how about you start? While he's looking for that, can you start us off on your draft because you you gentlemen did a site visit. I I went on my own. I went on my own as well. Okay. So, we all went at different times. Is an undeveloped thing, so it's pretty easy. Well, it was once developed. Yeah. Torn down. Uh it's like about a 3 acre lot.

The it looks over Crescent Beach, but they need freshwater from a man-made pond. Um everything they're proposing, none of it is in the uh vegetative buffer. There is a 100 square foot in the adjacent regulated area. Uh and that's what they need the uh the wetlands for. Um this h this property has a history not from the current owner but from previous owners of building oversized housesing oversized houses. Um you know Mr. Herman back in the early 1970s went ahead and built this house with no permits or anything and that was bought by Vela who who proposed a monstrosity of a house. It looked like a you know Las Vegas hotel and it was turned down by the town and it sat there for a while and was recently sold with the new owners proposing a house that's 5900 square ft. Uh it's only uh it's 100 square foot in the era. Nothing that can be what's what's interesting is if the 100 square foot was in the vegetative buffer, it wouldn't need a W at all.

Yep. It looks Yeah, it looks pretty easy to remove it. Um I thought it was like four Isn't it like 4 feet? 3 ft. It's well it's at an angle. It's a kind of triangle that encroaches. It basically it it seemed like just a little bit of work that could get out of Yeah, Jason. That's that was the only It's like it's a lot of So that was my question. Why aren't we just trimming off the little bit there? But but do we believe that they're asking for the use of the 100 foot exemption or going to go to the town board and ask for that? Um, so Rob 100 square foot exemption. It it's not they don't need 100 square feet because it's in the adjacent. It's not in the bedroom proper. You're right.

Ah, gotcha. Adjacent is okay. You can build there. We're trying to we prefer people not to, but it is not. It is. Well, my only thought was like what you said since it's so tiny. This would be really easily resolved just a little adjustment there. It would be nice to understand from the applicant why that's not why it's not viable or why there aren't options that show that. Rob, do you have any explanation as to why that isn't over the hundred just so slightly over the hundred?

Yeah, how are you? Um, I do and it's interesting. We we had this actually identical conversation with the CAC um who I eventually won over. So, I'm I'm hoping to do the same with you all. Um the idea here is obviously this is it's a large lot. Um it's basically constrained by a freshwater pond that has a long history of uh manipulation. It is a a freshwater body that even under the DEC's revamped jurisdictional regulations that were passed on January 1st of this year, uh they got a second second bite at the apple and and reiterated that they have elected not to to regulate it. Um but we have really proceeded uh as if that was not the case. We've we've proceeded really with with the with the utmost um conservative approach in terms of proposing all of the new construction uh outside the the 100 foot setback. And just to clarify, it's it's not just the the pool spillway that requires the wetlands permit. Um the the the physical structure itself uh is not included in the notice of disapproval because the physical house structure itself um because it's outside the 100 foot wetland setback but you couldn't construct the house here without some sort of construction disturbance and regrading etc immediately inside that adjacent regulated area. So, um, the idea here is, it's funny just the one comment with with a little bit of work. I mean, I can't, it's hard to articulate the amount of design work that that went into this to sort of, you know, reap a

reasonable return from a property of this size, particularly in light of the fact that it it really is a fraction of what the prior town board had approved in the way of a wetlands permit previously. um for for what one of the members just described as the monstrosity that was that was proposed by Vela which which I had some involvement with. Um it's a little bit different at the time but the the code is not really changed. So uh you can't have new construction within 75 ft. This new construction is permitted within 75 to 100 ft if it's justifiable. So what we've done here with the design is really work very hard to keep everything outside of that 100 foot wetland setback except for the fact that after trying to twist and turn and reorient and shrink the pool um you know this is an 864 square foot pool 97 ft from the wetlands whereas the town board previously approved almost a 1500 foot pool 76 feet from the wetlands. um and a patio and in in the prior application uh you know was almost 6,000 square feet of raised patio 75 ft from the wetland and and here you know we've got 1,600 square ft that's 100 ft away. So the idea was that we would take the no more than 100 square foot of spillway at a 97 foot setback effectively using the one-time exemption. Because whether it's in the vegetated buffer or not in the vegetated buffer, if you have an existing house with no wetlands permitting history, you can go to the building department and pro propose a 100 square feet of new construction. Whether that's a a gazebo

60 ft from wetlands or it's a 100 square f foot deck addition that's 95 ft from wetlands if you're if you're limiting it to 100 square ft uh the building department will issue a permit um for that construction and so that was sort of the question that the CAC asked and which they were sort of I think enamored with the idea that if we go through this wetlands permitting process at this point and the applicants essentially spending their 100 square f foot exemption as part of this permit then there would not be say in the future some other 100 square ft of new construction that gets plopped down you know maybe 20 ft from the wetland or something like that. So in a way that the applicant is giving away a little something but also offering sort of something to the town to say that if we can squeeze this 100 square feet of of spillway here at a 97 foot setback with all other construction more than 100 ft away, we're we're basically spending our 100 square foot exemption. And I think the CAC committee members like the idea of that because you know whether this pool is 97 feet or 100 feet away from this wetland boundary, there's no material difference in impact to the site. Uh with all the mitigation in terms of the septic for the home, the drainage, um the the proposed vegetative buffers adjacent to this um to the freshwater pond. uh there's a lot of really substantial mitigation that's incorporated into this design and and so the ask for the the spillway I think is it's it's more than a reasonable exchange uh you know given what the code allows given the mitigation proposed given what was you know had been approved here

previously. So, that was that was kind of our pitch. Um, and and that's my best way to answer your question of of of why we chose to make that part of the design. Um, and one of the things I I always try to remember try to remind um, you know, the the the town board and the committees reviewing these wetland applications, the town, if if if everything were just proposed outside 100 ft, none of you would have any input or ability to regulate these types of things. Um and and so you know maybe you'd build you know a house this size and a patio and a pool and everything 10 ft farther back and then there would be nothing to incentivize the homeowner to you know propose uh you know 10 15,000 square feet of vegetation adjacent to the wetlands and the town would have no ability to impose that. So there is a little bit of a give and take in sort of the management element of this where where where both the applicant and and the town you know there's a certain level of engagement where I think the net result of the property uh comes out in in a lot better shape because there's again there's just substantial mitigation proposed uh sort of in connection with this little bit of project that peaks into the the wetlands jurisdictional area and it seems like a really strong tradeoff in favor of the protection of the pond.

Um Rob, I have a question. I mean, unless it's just missing for some reason in mind, I I didn't see the vegetative plan. It's referred to So, you're hitting on another comment. Me, right? Okay.

Yeah. No, no, it's not you. It's You're hitting on another comment. and and what I've been doing with some of these, you know, in addition to the town board, you've now got, you know, your subcommittee, which we've had for years, um the CAC, now there's the town's environmental consultant, Theresa Mason. So, when we propose a a vegetative buffer like this that, you know, you can see Vicky Cardier's designed this. I think she may be on here. Um, you know, 10,360 square foot, 2735t, etc., etc. that's 25 ft in depth. We don't want to actually go through the process of detailing out that whole plan if there are recommendations to perhaps change that. And for example, there already is one. Uh I believe in uh Terresa Mason's comments where she was suggesting that the buffer be even wider. And I don't know where the town board, you know, who's obviously ultimately the permit issuing authority here is going to land on that. But what we try to do in these situations is is offer what we think is a substantial and reasonable buffer. Eventually the town board will uh hopefully either accept that or they might be moved to to ask us to do something different. And so we kind of hold back on the investment in the detailed design until we know really what the final approved buffer is going to be understanding that that a condition of any town board approval would be that we would have to provide you know a detailed plantings plan. So, I know Vicky's office is at the ready to provide that detailed plan, but it just doesn't make sense to to draw out and invest that entire plan if we don't know if that's if what's on this plan is actually what's going to be approved.

So, that's an easy thing to to plug in at the end. Um, I've just never heard of that being done before where after the wetlands permit. Yeah. where we just can't.

No, I mean it's not it's not after the wetlands permit is approved. It would be a condition of of the permit approval. Now, of course, if if you if you were to ask us to say, well, we want we want to see what the details of that proposed vegetated buffer are, we can provide that. You know, Vickiy's office can provide that. The problem is just from a practical, you know, perspective for the applicant is if she goes through the whole process of providing that um and then the town board says, "Well, that's not good enough. You know, we want a different we want a bigger plan." Then we have to provide, you know, we have to go back and and provide a bigger plan. But I don't know if maybe Vicki wants to speak to that because again, you know, she's going to provide an appropriate plan. Um, and we and if you want to see that sooner than the town board hearing, there's no there's no reason I don't think we couldn't provide that. Do you want to give Vicki a chance to respond to that?

Well, let me do Let me ask the board, do do you want to just put in the memo a concept of what you'd like to see and then we can just forward that on to the town board? and then let them figure out what they're going to accept from the applicant and or I mean I mean I guess since we're advisory it doesn't really matter but it's like it this is very strange because we've always seen something a plan part of the application so it seems a little it's just it's hard for me to visualize anything and say well let's do this I don't know

if I can if I can just get get an opportunity to respond to that I don't disagree with that observation I think the difference now is that with a basically with a third advisory report that comes from Teresa and Teresa's reports more often than not suggest a different buffer than what we've proposed. We're at least my firm I'm behaving a little bit differently because I used to be more sure that if we provided say the buffer that's in front of you and gave you a detailed plan in my experience the planning board more often than not would find it acceptable or maybe have some comments about some particular you know vegetation or whatever but when we have a professional person who prepares these kind of plans in the town all the time I'm not really worried about it it being sufficient. But again, I I don't want to belabor this. It we are I don't think at this point I've heard I've I've heard the town board, you know, this this hearing was supposed to be on November 10th. It was going to get bumped to December 22nd because the the board didn't have a quorum. And now I'm understanding because there's been a change in the in the makeup of the town board that we're going to be bumped to January 12th. So, if you'd like to see a a draft plan from Vicki, um I don't know if she can promise that to you by dis before December 9th, but um we can we can get that to you. In other words, I I don't want this plan to become a problem. Rob, that might be helpful because on on the site visit from the you know all of us who went there, we went at different times, but I think the concern was just the steepness and making sure mitigation that was in your memo specifically make you know stringent mitigation

because the run, you know, you're getting the wetlands permit because of the fresh water, but it also runs off into the salt water, right? You don't have road. So, so this buffer is actually pretty important on this particular application. Oh, very very much so. Very much so. I'd certainly favor asking uh for you know a detailed plan so that we can look because I think it is because of the slope um the substance of what is being suggested size of things you know is is going to make a difference of versus something that's uh

you know some grasses and that you know that kind of thing versus right so the you know the detail does matter and it's a little and I would just by no means trying to be rude It's probably not worth having Victoria speak to it verbally because that doesn't really do us any good. We need it in front of us and you know then at the time I think that you know might be worthwhile. Yeah, I I don't disagree. I think my only question was I just wanted to ask Vicki if you're there would you be able to provide a plan to the board before their meeting on the 9th? Yes. Okay, there you go. So we'll get that to you. Maybe she can work if she makes some, you know. Well, she's going to design it for Mason.

Uh, Greg, did you want to say something or No, I'm okay. I thought somebody motion. I have some some questions for Okay. Yes. Ready.

Uh, hello Rob and Vicki. A couple of questions and some from looking at the drawing, some from looking at the site. The survey starting with that I don't think is accurate. It's a 2016 survey and that large area where the I assume it's the old foundation footprint that's sunken substantially uh isn't reflected on that survey at least as I'm reading the survey. Maybe you can look at it again and look at the site photos but if you go to Google Earth or go in person you see there's a big depression on the site. I don't know if the fill wasn't compacted. I suspect that's the case. wasn't done on lifts, but it since the house is touching the AVB, I I feel like we have to look at the house and the elevations of the house are based on what I don't really believe is the the average natural grade, which is what existed for demolition. So, it's going to be a little hard to calculate, but I I have issues with their base plane calculation that ultimately affects the size of the house, which wouldn't be our responsibility except it's now touching the wetland setback. So, it caught my attention. In any case, the survey doesn't show any of the existing trees and there are considerable number of trees in the wetlands that are of substantial, you know, 12in caliber or larger. Um, and given the what I think is going to be a tremendous amount of sight disturbance, I mean, you talk about 1,500 cubic yards of fill, uh, about half of which comes from the site. Um, that's a lot. You know, that's like 140 dump trucks. So, clearly the site's going to be topographically rearranged, which could have an impact on the critical root zone of all these trees. So, I think you have to show them on the

survey for us to assess this. Um, and not in the setback, there are two really nice uh Japanese maples right on the street which look like won't survive the proposed driveway. So, it might be worth taking a look at those just cuz they're nice trees. Um, the um the wall view. Yeah, I think when I went back the drawing was a little confusing because the elevation nodes of the pool were often a side node and not

a spot elevation. So I see the pool is actually at the lower elevation. Um I mean that gets into the whole question of the square foot calculation of the house because they're not counting the basement even though there's a 40 foot long length of French doors. I mean, that's for the building department to resolve, not for us.

Um, in terms of drainage, I'm also a little concerned because this is a very steep sl site, not only the site, but going up slope across the street, across Rocky Point Road, and there's a pretty large area that drains across the site. And I was there a couple of days after the rain, and there's an area by that existing garage where the road is a little muddy. um which I assume is coming down the slope. So how this intervention of the site is going to handle this huge amount of rainfall or huge amount of water flow that sheets down across it uh I think is a site drainage issue that's not really maybe been accounted for and probably should be. Um there have been some uh applications where they've actually calculated for like a 4 inch rainfall that we've had you know where the engineer came back and did it that way that it it might behoove them to do a little bit of higher calculation

but that usually it's the calculation of the site area not what's across the street and that acres of actually from the fert that whole subdivision or that whole not subdivision but the whole undeveloped piece slopes down across this site and I think it needs to be looked at cuz you know your application says you're not going to affect the flow of water on the site and I don't see how that's possible. You're building a house that's aund and something ft long. Um I mean in terms of the encroachment by the the little projection by the pool this is a very large house and and it's unclear to me why the front to back dimension couldn't be reduced. I mean, their living room is literally the size of a middle school basketball court and because we do middle school. So, I mean, there's Yeah, I think it's 18 in or so, you know, especially if you rotated the house a few degrees, it it seems like a pretty easy lift to just get out of the wetlands buffer and avoid this issue.

Agreed. Um, I mean, I I can I can try to respond to Yeah.

what I can from that off the cuff. The I mean, I I can't speak to um the accuracy of, you know, survey. The survey was the topography, the topographical map uh was prepared after the demolition. um by New York State licensed land surveyor. Um the average natural grade for the house was calculated by the surveyor at Reed Karen's request. Um I do want to be careful about the discussion about the house because I again I I wanted to be clear the house is not in the wetlands jurisdiction. The house is not touching the wetlands jurisdiction. The house is not a subject of the wetlands permit and it is not listed uh on the notice of disapproval. Uh there were questions about the square footage and the finished and all that came up a little bit with the CAC too. The the architect and Reed have been going back and forth on issues relating to the house. Um, I don't know that anyone could vet an architectural design any more diligently than Reed has. Um, but again, regardless and respectfully, there really should be no uh commentary about the size of the house um the design of the house or or anything like that because the house is not in fact a subject of the application. Um the only part of the proposed construction uh that is within the wetlands regulated area is that 100 square ft of pool spillway.

And you know you mentioned the size of the house. I mean it's also almost a 3 and a half acre lot. And you know the the lot coverage here is you know just absolutely minimal. Um and the wetlands code allows for construction within the adjacent regulated area. Uh I think there is there is a there has been a growing tendency in the town and I understand if the town changes the code they change the code but the wetlands code does not prohibit construction within the 75 and 100 foot setback.

Oh but it requires approval of the of the plan of the board town board.

Yes. and that you and that you have looked at practical alternatives and so I think we would disagree with your premise. I mean you can say so what it's not just what are the practical alternatives you looked at for the pool right it is all part of one big structure that you look at so you know we could argue then make the pool smaller that's very practical but then you know but in turn you could make the porch a little smaller or then make the living room a little smaller so it pulls it all back so your argument's a little bit you know trying to weave you know it it is all part and parcel of what is a practical alternative for the entirety of what you're doing, right?

Of course it is. Of course it is. And it's and and you know that because it's it's a it's a balance between the applicant's ability to to use the property uh and the town's ability to regulate it. So, you know, they could make everything smaller and just move everything out of the 100 ft and eliminate all the mitigation and have just, you know, continue to have mowed lawn right up to the edge of the wetland. But there's a little bit of the project that peaks, you know, into the wetland jurisdictional area and creates all of this opportunity for review and mitigation and looking at, you know, the site drainage and all these other things. uh because it's not just an as of right building permit. So all I'm all I'm trying to do is is just to remind you that I I actually 100% agree with what you're saying. This is all integrated, but it's all integrated because we need a wetlands permit. If the prop if the project is designed to not need a wetlands permit, then there would be no incentive nor any requirement for a lot of this very significant mitigation uh to be included with the project. So I just think that that's something that you know you have to to keep in mind. That's that's that's all I'm trying to say. Yep.

And and again, as as we talked about with the again, not to repeat myself, but with the CAC is I mean, it sounds stupid. You could build this whole house and the patio and the pool as you know, or or or you know, leave the pool out and have everything be behind 100 foot setback and then go in for a building permit at another day and say, "Well, we're going to add the pool and we're only going to put 100 square feet in the wetlands regulated area." and then the building department would just say, "That's fine. Here's your your building permit. There's your 100 square foot exemption." So what we're trying to do, which we thought would sort of be a welcomed idea, is that we would sort of bake that 100 square foot exemption into this permit, which then creates, you know, sort of an assurance that there isn't going to be some other 100 square foot uh construction located even closer to the wetland at at some other point in time. And it and it just seemed that since the code allows a permanent exemption altogether for 100 square feet that it did not seem unreasonable to include 100 square foot encroachment in this plan.

Um so much an argument that we couldn't do something else. It's just it this seemed to be sort of a it seemed like a good idea actually. But the code doesn't guarantee that you will receive that permit. If that was the case, there'd be no point in having any stipulation at all and we just make it a 75 ft buffer. I mean, no, I understand that. But that's why I'm saying we we didn't just sort of willy-nilly plow part of the construction into the regulated area. We specifically limited it to the 100 square ft that matches the exemption in the code. Okay. These concerns that we have, we can certainly put this in our memo.

Don't see why why not. I think we should definitely put it. I I have a question for you about two two things. One was noted by David Austin on the site visit that there there are um irrigation wells noted on the map and this is near shore. Yeah, we don't I that's on the health department plan and that is Drake site plan. It's on the Drake that's on the site plan. It's on the Drake site plan. Yeah. I just wonder

that's right. So Mike Drake's site plan, I believe that because this came up with the CAC also, I believe that is a relic of a prior plan. It's not current and it's not accurate and that's why it's not on the site plan that has been submitted with the wetlands application. And one of the revisions we plan to make to the to the site plan is a note indicating that there are no irrigation wells proposed. That's great. that's going to be on this plan and I'm sorry about that. That's all right. And the other question was the well I guess that has to do with the distance from the septic but the well David you noted that that's right in the buffer

in the buffer. We're way deep in there with the well. That's that's correct. And uh remember a well doesn't actually need a wetlands permit under the town code. I know. Um so that's that that is just that is the positioning of the well for health department reasons. All right. I think like well wells are allowed within the within the wetlands regulating

I couldn't remember and one thing that that was sort of a question I reviewed the architectural drawings which don't show the pool and the not to harpen the elevation thing but it's stuck with me. So the ele base base elevation calculation is based on the corners of the house because there's no I don't think signed and sealed document that shows the swimming pool. So, I I'm not sure that the building inspector would be calculating the the elevations because really since that swimming pool and masonry patio are connected to the house, that's an extension of the structure and the low point of that spillway should be one of the points used in your averaging of the elevation. And I don't believe they are. So, so my two-pronged response to that is, well, I guess I'll leave it at one is is we were the the natural the average natural grade calculation was based specifically on the instruction from Reed Karen to be provided at the four corners of the house where you see them.

That's because his drawings, if he was reviewing the architectural drawings, didn't show the pool or the patio. He he has Reed is fully aware that there's a a pool and patio there. They have always been proposed on the site plan. I mean, I don't want to speak for Reed. I can you can go ask him or I can go ask him, but but my understanding is is that that we we were asked for those four corners. We provided those four corners and again that the house is not a subject of this application.

Uh I I think we have enough to do our memo with everybody on Okay. Thank you, Rob. But just to be clear, they're coming back with the vegetative plan and then do that and then after that meeting we would do the memo. Correct. We have I'm going to take advantage of the fact that they did not have the meeting as scheduled and they're doing it they're bumping it back to January. Yeah. So we don't have the taste that we normally would. Yep. Yeah. And I would just say because there may be a few other comments that you all have raised this evening. Yeah.

Um I can't promise we can address or fix every one of them to your satisfaction. But if if we can if we can address and and respond to any of them to your satisfaction through a revised site plan, then I would you know I'd take the opportunity to do that. Okay. Might give you might give might give you less to write. And your argument is clear in case you're the case you're trying to make. I think we understand it's whether you know it works for us or not. Yeah, I get it. Thanks, Sean. Yeah. All right. Thanks, Rob. Thanks for having Thank you. I appreciate you you hearing me out.

Sure. Have a good night. Thank you. Okay. Next one. Car pay. Um just carpay again. I know we had carp payments before. Okay. Um so for car pay um some of you were not on board when we did carpay but Marcus and Matt and I and David were you wasn't involved in right but I was involved.

Okay. Um, so, uh, just to review quickly, so Terresa Mason, um, basically noticed that the vegetative plan was not followed exactly. Um, that was in her memo. And she asked that since they didn't follow the vegetative plan per se, that they come back with an updated one showing all the scientific names and all the plantings. And she did note that one of the types of plants were planted a little bit too close together. Um, obviously we're not going to suggest to tear this all out. Um, but I I guess her memo does make sense and I agree with it. Um, we might just want to consider though the part where she said that they were planted too close together. It might not be a bad idea to maybe thin those out. It's not that destructive. I don't know. But we'll see what they that's what she asked them to do. Um the driveway they went ahead with a gravel driveway which was not exactly according to plan but the lesser of the two evils Mason said. So um and she just noted the irrigation cy turns that were uh actually in that application they mentioned that they were not going to use them but it's like they either have to get them permanent or they got to stop using them.

Yeah. So that's what we have. I'm I'm speaking for myself. I'm generally in agreement with what I just read. Um, anyone else have any? There really wasn't much else to say. I mean, it was pretty self-explanatory from Mason's memo. Sean, did you or I just I just noticed that uh she was very prescriptive, Teresa Mason, about um giving container size and density of plantings and all that, which I don't believe they did. they just gave the names of what was there and I can't speak to that but if she thinks

you know that's important for her to understand whether they work as alternatives then they should comply, you know, I think that's for her to opine on. Yeah. there. Uh Julia, as I recall, um she had made u a couple of recommendations uh that were countered. I'm thinking in particular, she had recommended using ink berry plants and there was a a question about not using those since the deer eat them

and to do the um I can't remember what the recommendation was as the alternative. Um, my impression of of going to the the site was while it wasn't completely compliant, it didn't seem to me like an egregious misstep of of landscaping. I think that's why she's just asking for, you know, for the resubmission of the plan. And I should even call it a plan. It's the done. It's done. just what they put in. That's what she said. Supposed to understand it to make sure if there's any issues. Makes sense.

And the the irrigation system. Yeah, that's a problem.

Like, you know, I I guess there's two points I'd make. If if I mean, if if basically Teresa's okay for the most part with plantings, I think we're okay. Um, clearly they need to get a permit for the sistern. Um, and you know, personally, I I I don't think the town is very good on this, but you know, I'd like to see in our memo that we say if you know, if the planter, you know, the people who planted it knew that they were not, you know, you know, conforming to what the requirement was, they should get like a letter or a, hey guys, like, you know, this is unacceptable and who put in the sistern without a permit, you know, and we should be kind of at least asking that those it's not our job to follow up but those are followed up of you know who are the you know who's behaving badly and are you know are they being is it being addressed or we just keep moving on when this happens.

Yeah, I I can tell you the system came up in Care when we first had Cari. It was it was there. It was uh pre-existing. Yeah. Okay. Yeah, it was you weren't on the board yet, but it was it was there. I remember that. Yeah, it's it was there with the property from the very beginning. It wasn't supposed to be used. Yeah. Yeah. All right, we good on that. I'll I'll start a memo. I'm I'm actually I should mention I would start I would start a memo on Bootsie and then we'll just kind of add in when we get the plan, the vegetative plan. Um, all right. Next one is Coleman Rosovski, which is 31B Dickerson Road. We got that like right before our last meeting, so we weren't able to even go. So, I just need to assign three of you to who would like to go to.

I'm happy to go. All right. David CGO and I'm h I'm happy to go, too. Marcus. Okay. Marcus and Sean. They've been before us earlier, so good. Sounds good. Thank you. This this package. Yeah. Okay. Uh Julia Brennan still here. Site plan review. Are you falling asleep now? Okay. Okay. site plan review for Sylvester Manor. Um, do I have to go sit over there? Huh? I have to go sit over there. Yeah. So, the um three of you are recusing. So, Greg, well, you're on Zoom. Greg's on Zoom as it is. Um, will you participate?

Matt, myself, Marcus, and and Sean who's on Zoom. Sean's on Zoom. So, yeah. They're accusing because they spoke uh at a public hearing in favor of Sylvester Matter. So it is advisable that just just to not about this even but just just to preserve the integrity of the board. Do we need to leave the room or just the sit down? Okay. You want to leave? Okay.

Okay. Um, so I I went to go see the site and I I got a tour from Julia Brennan who's here. Um, I sent I sent you all my pictures. Um, they're printed here in case, you know. Yep. But everyone got a chance to um, look at them. Um, so we were asked to look at a number of things. Uh, parking. Well, you have the list. Okay. So, parking, lighting, noise, ADA compliance. Um, do you want to take some notes or you have would you like to start or who would like to begin on this?

I I I think I'm a I know it's just mentioned we're not voting so I can put in my two cents. I assume.

Yeah. So, my own there was a couple of things to me. I felt like we can't adequately do our job without more information. It seems to me that uh I think Sylvester Manor was going back and kind of getting permission to do a lot of things they had been doing historically without formal approval. A lot of those activities take place outside the manor, outside the house and on the grounds. And so when you're talking about uh you know is there proper you know screening and the like how do I know because it doesn't say anywhere in any of the information of where the events are held and it doesn't as far as I see anywhere. where does it say where there's overflow parking and for different events and and the like. So it the only thing that it seems we can appine on is the manor house itself but that's that is only a small amount of what the larger um you know I think covered by the site plan now going through this kind of laundry list of things that they've been permitted to do. Well, when you when I went to the site visit, uh, you know, I I was shown where the overflow parking is, and we we did go over the fact that because it's parking on actual grass that the it's it's on them if they want to have, you know, any any destruction or damage to their grass, it's it's on them. But there's extensive parking area there. They're also going to be uh where the public restrooms are. There's going to be some um ADA parking in that spot as well as up by the up by the manor house. Um they're putting in um a lot of ADA compliant parking. Um

but yeah, I mean the the concerts in terms of noise would be done right on the lawn there of the manor house. Um, it has been the subject of debate about noise before previously. That's not necessarily why I'm, you know, bringing it up. I know that the idea of like sound traveling across the creek and that's come up before. Um, and I don't know if that's still an ongoing complaint or if they've kind of found found an even ground uh, you know, about the way they do things and times of cut offs and volume and stuff, but because so much of it is outdoor and it doesn't say where it is,

I I I don't know how I give an opinion on a number of these things without some direction there. And if I'm the only one that feels that way, you know, then, you know, so be it. But I I I'm a little lost in that context of Well, it's also because what you know I think when when you put the application in it it was unsure there was pieces missing which we just got today. We we were just you got I sent it out to the entire board but we we got that kind of late. So some of the most I'd say most of the board members maybe except me

we just got it like a little bit before the meeting so they didn't get a chance to look at it really. So, real quick, Julia Brandon manager. Um, when we submitted our site plan review application, it was for the manor house rehabilitation project that we had submitted the building permit for that we had gotten our rejection. We had to go before the zoning board and all that. And it was only after the zoning board acted that the town board informed us or the building inspector informed us that indeed what we were going to have site plan review for was for the change in use not just the manner house rehabilitation. And Sean I have some of the same questions that you have which is why I'm here tonight just to try to get a sense of what is the kind of information you need from us

because we're happy to provide it to you. It's just what form should it take. So I provided an example of some things today that Julia and I had talked about just are sort of schematic ideas for um circulation a project that's underway simultaneously to open up the front entry so that two cars can pass um that's being professionally designed. But when it comes to parking on graph I can provide you with screenshots that show you that we have sufficient square footage to park 64 cars here and 25 cars there. and here's the system that we use. We hire a company to um do the parking for us and direct people in so it's not just everybody, you know, parking wherever we like. Um but I I I'm sort of looking for a little bit of direction back and forth with you to see what are the sorts of things that we need to expect to

Well, I guess um to have a diagram showing I mean, if I hadn't gone to the site with you, I wouldn't have it's very hard to see unless you're there where it is, you know. Uh, so I guess to have more diagrams showing where all those where that overflow parking is for the concerts. Um,

yeah, for me I think it would be I I don't think it's that hard, but I think it's kind of just us doing our due diligence is that on those same kind of maps, you say here's where we hold our concerts, here's where we hold like, you know, little, you know, boxes. these are the locations and these are the locations that we use for parking and overflow, you know, then then if I go and walk your property, I'll have a sense of like, so I can vision there's an event here. What do I need to is there anything I need to consider about? And I think for the most part, probably it's all you're all good. You know, you're going to wind up being fine. there's not going to be, you know, many issues. But I I can't do that due diligence myself without kind of that sense. And I don't think it's fair to say, well, come just come. And I'm not criticizing you. I just don't I don't think it's an idea of, well, let's just walk the property and I'll tell you because I think it should be a public record at this point.

And absolutely, um, we're happy to do that. The CBA, um, asked us to say, what are our current uses? Um and we provided a list of what the current uses are, you know, the events and things like that that we have. Some of those are um just for an example, we have a summer youth program. Um the summer youth program doesn't have fixed locations other than for the drop off and the pickup and we can identify for you where those locations would be, general sort of diagrams of how that program works. But when these kids go off on the property and they're doing, you know, various things, maybe one group's walking over to the farm, we don't have pathways that they walk on. They're walking to To me, that's overkill. I think we're talking about like the events where there's a lot of concentrated people in specific places and that have the potential to disturb other parties. They're kind of roaming around the property and doing different things for me is is somewhat irrelevant. The only other thing that comes up and it's not a is are all of the I I note there is a cemetery noted. Are there other historical areas within the confines that are that are uh formalized as you know kind of historical places that you know you don't use, you don't go you know or what have you. or is it really just that one is the only recognized cemetery or excavation sites or you know are there any things that you're that are

That's a great question. We have two um burial grounds. We have the Quaker cemetery which is a fenced in area that has a number of gravestones. Doesn't necessarily correspond to the actual number of graves that are in there but it is surrounded by a fence and it's defined um clearly. And then we have the Afroindigenous burial ground that formerly was surrounded by a fence. It still is marked in the corners with the fence and we've done extensive archaeology there. We know that the former fence boundaries actually do contain um the buried remains of people and that there are no others outside that boundary. Um these are not no go zones for sure. People are welcome in all of these areas. Um we have a number of of uh structures and buildings that are contributing resources. Some of them um due to safety are not open to the public. The windmill interior isn't open to the public. Um but people can visit the windmill. Sometimes we host events there and things like that. So I can give you um as an addendum a list of all of the structures on the site. There's not that many of them. I think there's about 12 or 13. Um, and any associated events or occurrences that regularly go on there for sure if that would be helpful.

Yeah, I mean personally I I think it would be a good record just to show whatever cemeteries or digs that you've fenced in, you know, as part of just on the plan, you know, showing. I don't think that'd be too hard. But um

we don't have any fenced off archaeological digs at all. The only fenced off area that we have is the farm the produce yard of the farm itself around the windmill field. And those fences are to keep deer out. Um they're generally to keep the public out except for when we open them to allow people to come in and do sort of do pick them activities and things like that. Uh but there's no other than agricultural buildings and certain structures that are unsafe. We have a privy that's locked because you'd fall through the floor if you stepped inside of it. Um that kind of thing. Yeah. But but really we don't have a whole lot of fenced off areas right now.

I meant I meant what you whatever you were referring to besides the one formal cemetery that I see on there. I think you referenced two other things. Those are the things that I was referring to. And I think that would come into play when you're looking at the diagram that you included. If you hadn't been there and known it, it a person might read this and wonder, okay, you've got this change of traffic going right around the the African burial ground, but obviously you're not going to be doing anything to these roads, right? You're just roads are existing,

right? But it's but when you look at this, if you didn't know, it's just like, okay, that's there, but it could be helpful to just mark off areas where you're not going to be disturbing. You're not going to have any like construction or digging or like like the road for example, the the historic driveway coming up to the to these trees where you're going to be digging up right over here. You're going to be digging up that whole road to put in the the water canals to be able to put the sprinklers into the house. Like obviously that's not a bur of ground there but it's just helpful I think what Sean is saying to know where these things are so that what the areas you are disturbing they don't correspond to these um preserved you know very important sites. The only other thing I was thinking about was um this came up with the library um renovation because they talked about also some parking on the grass and it was brought up that people who are physically challenged who maybe don't need uh ADA parking walking in wet grass or having your vehicle on grass with you know footwear and so forth. people with different abilities that might that could be concerning like that somebody could you know fall someone using a cane somebody getting out of a vehicle a bunch of vehicles on grass um I don't if you remember that that came up with the library so I don't know if that's something that you want to consider

resolution that was recommended for that situation or was it just something um because I'd be happy to follow Yeah I'm just I'm trying to remember you I think we I think we ended up not I don't think we made a judgment I I don't think you made it. Yeah. Made it into a big thing. It was just a concern that some people have. Yeah. I don't know. It's just something to think about. Yeah. Um we also do have opportunities because we do have um harder surfaces. They're not, you know, paved. It's not asphalt. Um, but the roads that these grassy areas lead to where we also have parking off of that

dirt driveway that could be designated if somebody felt like they were not comfortable walking across a grass field. They could ask for parking closer. But I was just thinking with with the ADA compliant parking that you showed me in the front there. So that would be like that's over here sort of and they and this ramp's going to go through I think right the ramp's going to go

if you look at it it's on the actual plan packet I don't know if you have access to that it should be um on the if it isn't already been distributed by the town um you will be getting access to it as soon as this review begins but it's full of um technical drawings relating to the ADA component parking that we're Yeah. No, it's I mean I was just there with you, but there are things embedded in that very thick document that I'm happy to pull out for you and put together. Here's our organized ADA part. I think that might be good because I'm just since I was just there easier for you

and I'm a visual person. I I'm looking at this makes more sense to me because I was just there. But I was thinking that you have that ramp that that you're going to be putting in, but the concerts are right on the lawn there. So are you go like what would you do if somebody wanted to attend a concert and they're physically challenged like how far is that ramp going to go out? So we have been doing concerts at Sylvester Manor for many years

and the protocol has been if somebody is for whatever reason unable or uncomfortable um walking a great distance. We do have a road that goes down to the area that we're currently using it for the concerts. Okay. and that individual could be dropped off by someone who has driven them there. Um, if they are the driver of the car, we can find a place for them to park in that area. Um, it's the area that our catering trucks, the service trucks that provide like Suffach County comes in with its trailer with a stage behind it. And so it's a very sturdy road. It's not it's not sort of a underused road. Um, so we do have the capacity for people to be brought closer to

Yeah, that's what I was thinking about. Yeah. Okay. And that's something I can share with you what those areas are. I think that right. Yeah. Sean, Greg, I think that we have that. Yeah. I just have another question. Um, Julia, uh, I'm sorry. Um, does the nature of the ZBA approval and eventually coming through the planning board, does that obiate your need to go to the town for permits for the individual events? because that's I think it's what you used to do, right? So, do you have to not do that now?

My understanding is that if you have an event at which you are going to be having amplified sound, the town does like or or a number of cars coming through an entrance off of main road. We want to know about it to see if there's any reason why they might need to be involved. We've gone many times and been told you don't need a permit for this particular event after they found out the particulars of it. Um, but we would we will follow all of the rules about obtaining permits for aspects of events that are going to have any impact on the public. We do lot lots of very small events that have no impact at all. Yes, my my only thought process in that regard was it, you know, if historically you've had events that you now won't need to go get a permit for and and it sounds like maybe that's not the case.

I don't think that's true. Were there stipulations where the town said, "Yes, you're permitted, but do this, that, and whatever thing." But now that's not that's not stipulated anywhere unless you have to go for a town permit. But if you're gonna have to go to for a town permit, so there's still that last level of oversight, it's irrelevant. Does that make sense? Does that make sense?

Yeah. Yeah. And I would also say that we um unlike um other locations in the community and unlike people's private homes, other than our one big farm-to-table fundraiser, we don't do events that require lighting. So most of our events are over by 7:30 at night, 8:00 at night, the last ones walking out in the summertime because we don't have the capacity, we don't have outdoor lighting, we don't have the capacity to light the place effectively. We do it one time for our dinner party, but that's it. That's a one oneoff fundraiser. Yeah. Yep. Is there anything else that

besides definitely better depictions of where these things are going to be because it's just very hard to visualize unless I have to do um this was really good because I know the ZBA was concerned. It was concern of mine that front entrance. So, this was very helpful. Yes. which I knew about but I'm glad we got the plans today for good and that's just the first few there'll be lots of plans um coming through related to that as the pro projects through the design phases okay let me know if there's anything you need I attached my cards if anybody wants to come into the site visit as well please um feel free it's very helpful thank you welcome

David and David going back here we're coming back for safe vacation's over. Vacation. All right. You almost got to go home. You wrecked. Okay. So, that's all right here. Yeah, I know. Let me give you this. But I was slightly revised. Oh, no. You're not allowed to slightly revise. That's why I wrote all over your other one. There wasn't going to be much revision on this one. I am complaining here.

Did you highlight the changes? H well they were supposed to be in color but my office you printed it in black and white black and white for the gray scale of the changes and dark gray specifically and unfortunately Greg and and not a lot but there are some that up for you. So it's the dark gray that is materally different.

Okay. So couple things about this. There's a proposed rewrite of chapter 109 site plan review. Obviously um in doing this I relied primarily obviously I looked at your existing code but I relied primarily on a July uh 2028 draft. I don't know who wrote this. I don't need to know. Um, but it was distributed so I relied on this and I relied on article six of the eastampton town zoning code with which I'm very familiar article six of the east town code recycling. Um, I'm also assuming you took into account our comments at the meeting, right? Okay. And the share drive. Okay. Okay.

So, um, so this is what I've come up with. Um, what I need is, and I don't know when this is going to the town board cuz obviously they got to discuss it. Um, I there are some things I'm going to go over with you what it says the object here. Um, and I'm looking for some input by the way where I have to get a pen out here. Uh, because I do need some input on a few things and you may not be able to give input on it today because um, you know, you may have to think about some things. So that's I'm not saying we're going to finish tonight. So let me Can I can I interject a quick question? Sure. Sorry. Uh do you want uh feedback as we go? Sex is section. How would you like the feedback?

When we get to it to the extent you can provide feedback, give it to me, but there are certain things that you might say well I think I think about that and that's I thought about most I'm ready to go. All right. Starting from the top section 1091. Uh you'll notice there's a there's a gray scale there. I had I had the word article. I changed it to chapter. Okay. It's it's not this is chapter code. Um the way it's organized. So go down to 109-3. Now first of all the draft the July draft was basically you need site plan reing for everything in the whole town except for these things. Right?

I don't like that organization. I don't like that structure. I didn't do it that way. So, what I've broken down to is things that you require site plan or few in residential districts, things that you require site plan for you in in commercial districts. And then, as you'll see, there's a there's a catchual sub paragraph C, subsection C. So, in residential district, what do you need site plan for? Anything any use that would require a special permit? There are a number of things in your zoning code that require special permits. You were just talking about one right now, right? um stuff at at um Sylvester Manor. Sylvester Man, but Sylvester Manners isn't a residential zoning district, is it? Is Sylvester Manor resial residential? I realize

so things that that require a special permit in a residential, you know, any zone, but certainly residential. Um I just as a comment to go through it might be useful to instead of just saying residential zoning because we have so few zoning districts to say AA and CH codes are changed in the future you might add some other zoning district. So they don't go back and change this. It's too hard to come back and change it. You go to the zoning code zoning chapter residential zoning districts they enumerate what they are. I mean, what's confusing in the way the zoning's written in the and the districts is that there are commercial uses in residential zones and vice versa that

yeah, it's still that's that's so so A2 um now and then there's a gray scale under that. This is one thing I need feedback from because I don't know exactly what Chuck Brown wants some of these things. You know, I've been here. Uh so do you want So right now in a residential zoning district, some clearing of grading might require site funding. Now the draft that was done in July, they said something involving substantial timbering activities, which is clearing of land because you don't really have commercial timbering on ground.

Yeah. Um, so but they don't specify what that means. So I don't need an answer right now. I don't expect one right now. The town board would probably have to weigh on this. But do you want site review for clearing a grid? And again, that's not associated with something else. If it's affiliated with some other activity like building a new building that's subject to site, flex clearing is involved. But if somebody wanted to just go in and clear two acres of land, do you want site to be with that? No. Well, I think the question is would it be a percentage or a set number of over a certain square footage? That's right. It could be either. It could be a percentage of the lot area or it could be a above a certain, you know, flat. We never previously required site plan for clearing. Correct.

We didn't previously we did not require a site plan for those things. But that's why we're doing this. No, you're right. We didn't I'm saying I I want I'd like to really clear understand where we're expanding, whether we're contracting and this is an expansion. be expansion. The July draft is not was not actually a real No, I know. Somebody gave input. This didn't I think everyone gave input, but I don't know about I'm not sure which July draft that is. If that's the one came from the July 28, 2025. Again, I don't know where you got that from to know whether that's the one that came from the small group. Okay. So, the

I don't know if it's the came from the group that met that was the cross functional had some board members in it. I was in it. I don't know if that's from that. I would assume so. I don't remember. But then we were all distributed then and we made that sort of work. They got the question is do you does the town want site plan review for a certain amount of clearing that's not associated with some other activity. So that's

if I can jump in for a little background just because so I personally with Tim Purcell who is uh very active within the the town on conservation have been working with the town and trying to advance a tree code so that we can prevent clearing and unnecessary very remove you know there's two stages one is you know just lot clearing in full and other is people just couldn't you know not give caring about the nature of their surroundings and would be happy to just you know reduced to two trees on their property kind of thing that's not likely to progress it's you know slow crawling so I was very excited when I saw that this could at least be a towh hold into starting to address some of that even with potentially maybe a more prescriptive policy in the future. My comments and then I'll stop is that as written it's insufficient because there's no definition of clearing, there's no definition of large tree, etc., etc. And so if you I'm in favor of trying to dig in a little bit and try to do something without getting too far in the weeds, but you it's you can't apply it unless you have further clarity on what those things are. I.e. what if if you don't define clearing, somebody will cut down everything except one tree and say I didn't clear. So

I I think um if I could just make a comment, I I think Sean's uh point is is very good. Um personally um can you hear me? Yes, we can. Yeah, we're listening.

Okay. Uh personally I I think that um even though as David points out, David Austin points out this could potentially well it is uh an increase um of oversight. Um I think it's one that's sorely needed at least uh to be broached. Um and I'll give you an example that just comes to mind. Um there's a site on the corner of Burns Road and St. Mary's that was um I don't know how big it is, maybe an acre and a half. Um that a few years ago was basically clearcut build. Um it's been surrounded now by private hedge but I mean it's it's taken an unused but um highly u treated piece of property and basically turned it into something that's extremely unsightly and for a period of time we know not what I I just think that that should is something that should be addressed. And the the thing that I think is difficult for the town to grasp, this is not 1938. It's moving into the 21st century. And the pressures of development are different and will be much more intensive as we move into the next 20 to 30 year period of time. I'm just making up a number. And we have to have mechanisms to protect the town from irresponsible development.

So that's all that's all I have to say on the matter. So I'm not expecting, you know, definitive answer this that that's why it says at the end of this thing number two, do you really want this? And if you do, what will the parameters be? So that's that's A2. Um, so we should give you ultimately a tree size and I think actually it should be square foot and not percent because if someone owns 50 acres and you say you can clear 50% of it, you know that's right. That's not something you want. So that's one perspective when we say we want to or there's another perspective which is we shouldn't.

Right. So I have a question at the very beginning of that line too uh because you had it highlighted before but it's not highlighted in your updated draft where you said any clearing or grading of a lot of land sufficient size to require a building permit under the provisions of this chapter. I didn't quite know what you meant by under the provisions of actually I don't know why it's not highlight it's a low oh it's so I got I have a color printer I got it but that that's a good point because actually it's something I I highlighted for that reason.

Yeah. I don't know what that means. regulate this. It's a good idea in my opinion to things that would be regulated to tie them to building permits. Otherwise, there's no initiating, you know, approval permit. So, for example, if you were to say clearing of more than 2 acres of land, just throwing that out there, uh, is going to be regulated, well, you need a building permit for it. And to get the building permit, you need cyclone. That's

it. needs to be more clear speak. To David's point, I think it's kind of lawyerly sounding. I was I was I was reviewing some of the East Hampton code and they just have some very clear spoken sentences of, you know, what the goal is and what you have to do. I I think it could benefit from some of that, Rick. Um just in general

I think that to me the I think what you're what you're saying is right that b it's kind of backwards like it's it's it just means if it requires a building permit then and there's clearing and grading then we build under and the your dot dot dots are basically how do we define that clearing and grading size size aspect um but if it's tied to a building frame does it even matter how cuz if it's always tied so but you don't want it tied to a building permit because well this is this is the point we're getting a little bit too much into the weeds of this I got another 11

let me just this section do you want to regulate clearing through cyclone review and if so what will the prior be pointed on the site of at Burns and and St. Mary's was precisely for that reason. Nothing's going on there and there's nothing to prevent them from going in and clear cutting the site and leaving something that looks terrible. Looks terrible. It's not a I think the plan was to build a house and they change ownership. Wait just one second. Uh Sean Marcus, I say it again. I just

you I think the plan there was to build a house and when you build a house you got to clear the loan and see what you got. You know, you got to see and I think the ownership changed there. Well, it's now used for equipment storage. Yeah. Well, you know, Marcus, that is not the way that you see what you've got. And with all due respect, you have to do a building permit. I'm not I'm not I'm not sure I understand the building. Are you saying trick by it needs a building permit? Are you saying if you want to clear a certain amount of area, you should get a building permit. You need a building permit. Otherwise, whether you're proposing a structure or not that's forcing it through a system. Yeah. I think that's the idea. So, let me just keep going here.

Okay. Come on. Let's stay here. Residential zoning districts, garage bling, port sales over three days. That came out of the July draft. Um, four, I don't think this is covering your code right now. With respect to a non-conforming commercial use, I know you have commercial uses in residential zones. You want to regulate them if they do something. What do they might they do something requiring a building permit, which is usually an enlargement.

Uh, now we could be more clear about that. If they need a building permit for an interior renovation, you probably don't want site plan rule for that. All right? But just start with where we are right now. If it needs a building permit, a special permit or variance for something new occurring at an existing non-conforming use, you should have some regulation of that. That's what we usually get. Yeah. Okay. So, number five. Now, again, the draft that I worked off, the July draft I was looking at, they treated this in different ways, but if you um uh if you're doing Oh, well, this actually this was on the agricultural

they accepted remember they did it backwards there in the draft. They said everything needs to liberal except and their exception was for temporary agricultural structure. The correlary that would be that apparently it's a permanent agricultural structure. It needs site plan rule. Yeah. But you probably don't want it if they build a 20 square foot shed, right? So I'm just throwing in either I put in, you know, and again this is I just put in I need feedback from you or the town board. uh above a certain size, a permanent ag, you know, farm building might need cycle. I threw in 500 square feet. Wouldn't it be just if they need a building permit? Cuz in theory, they're building something.

Well, do you want the question is do you want site plan if somebody builds a a farm stand? Now, I know there's not many on Shelter Island other than Sylvester Matter, but um there's quite a few site plan review for a farm stand, permanent farm stand. And if so, above a certain size. No, maybe. I think I think it actually I think it varies because the reality is if it has depends on what it's not even a size necessary. It's like who they are, where they're located because it could cause a large increase in traffic. It could there's all sorts of reasons where it's located. Objective criteria for that. You can't say, "Well, we think you're going to have creative traffic problems, so you need site."

No, I understand. So it seems to me it's like you can go one way or the other. You either go where basically everybody has to come in so you can then call them out in the preliminary right or you put an arbitrary size which I don't know if that directly ties what I'm saying is I don't know if the square footage size will correlate 100% with whether a site plan is warranted. You could say unless if it's on Ferry Road it's got a different size. I suppose, you know, where did you get the 500 square f feet? He made that one up. I just You're going to tell me or the tab board's going to tell me whether you want this and if so, what size. So, I'm just throwing a number there.

No, I think that I mean that I can think of two farm stands actually which have parking lots. Exactly. There are a lot more farm stands, but you park along the road, you run. So I think once it's to the size where you need a parking lot whether it's Al Kilb or yeah it's probably appropriate to do some kind of review but again that's 500 media that seems

kind of arbitrary like how how would we decide? So to to to me because we have once we get past page one we have like a preliminary we have that very early quick site review where we can decide it's administered or we can just say it's not needed. So again I think this needs to be more a broader so that we can go oh that actually doesn't need one cuz basically it's well not actually the way the draft was. going to come to an article minor site of us. It's changed then from what it was. I don't usually term administrative type but I didn't like it. Yeah. Um so then business and restricted business only.

Wait before we can I a thought I had and this came out of prior discussions and some of you will think it's a terrible idea and it may be that you're not allowed to do this but is there a threshold for single family residential which we can say we're asked not to do that. We're supposed to directed by the town. Wait, let's have one person. So, I remember when that came up that we were asked to do this for commercial usage. It's not supposed to be for residential. I put that in an email to you guys at one point, I think. Right. Yes. So, remember that what I'm doing in 109-3 applicability, I'm saying what needs site ownership. Single family residential is not in here.

Not in here. Yeah. So not regulated whether it's in a residential zoning district or as you see even zoning district cuz we have the town was specific about the town was specific about

if you have business or restricted zoning district okay any B1 basically is um um you can see it's for the erection newer new construction or moving or enlargement of a building the structure. Now remember there's going to be exceptions coming below a certain size. We'll go to that. But it said in the second sentence here, this is even in a business district. Second sentence in B1 says this provision shall not apply to one family or two failing dwellings or accessory to those dwellings even if they're in a business district.

So So I had a question about that. What if there's a business in this one or two family business? Say a home business that has an actual business. Well, if it's a home occupation under your code, I'm assuming that's a residence first with the home occupation. If it's a business, that is what in what was formerly a residence. Is that a business building? Okay. That's what I was wondering. What determines is that basically they have a business license? Is that what I mean? How do we separate? Cuz it's a two family house and there's a family living there, but they have like a bottom entryway where they actually have a I don't know, some kind of business. I don't know what it is. It's like woodworking and they come and it's like it's actual business.

I would assume that's a business use even though there's a residential use associated with it. That's why I'm just trying to understand and I I'm sorry I don't understand it because this kind of explicitly does a broader like one or two family dwellings don't apply. Well, one or two family dwelling is a building that is a one or two family period. Period. Without business. Okay, cool. It's not necessary. It's not a one family. That answered my question. Yeah, thank you. That gets it. Um, so let me just go. So, uh, a chain down two. I don't need Yeah, it's it's gray scale on your thing. 109.

Got a color copy if you want. I know. I can resend this by email. So it was a special permanent name. I'm sorry, Rick. I'm Yes, Jessica. Yeah, I gave her a color. She If you you Okay. Two sided. That would make it easier for you. Except of course for Sean and Greg who's well. Well, you can email us. Yeah. So two is if you're changing from one kind of permitted or special permit use to another use and it would increase your site parking requirements.

Yes, that's my one site rule for that. I also put in but I'm not at all saying you should do this but I borrowed it from the town code. Um if it required approval of the wastewater disposal system from the health department. I'm not personally sure why that would require cyclone rule. You had health department rule, right? So the second part of that I don't think you probably should, right? I just Is it only increase in parking? Would you worry about at all decrease in parking? Well, remember if you're increasing the size of the building, it's going to be covered elsewhere. Yeah. Got it.

Could be under I think it should say that it increases the size of the required parking lot or the increases the car because it may be that party requirements. That's the But it may be that they already meet the requirement for a larger capacity. That is a good point. That's a good point. Probably doesn't happen very often. Most people don't overbuild their parking lot, but that's that's a valid point. So, you can keep that in mind if it it because that is really what you're trying to get at. You're right. If if their parking lot is so big that even though the change of use would increase their parking requirements, but they already meet them with their existing parking lot, there's nothing to review. Right. So, I agree. You can word that however

um any use of land requiring a special permit, you know, a new special permit use. Isn't that redundant? Because are we whether there's a structure or not? Uh that's right. That's what that's trying to cover. If it's not a structure, right? uh somebody establish I mean I don't know what this is under your code but if there's a particular use that doesn't involve a structure or a new structure um you know I don't know you change your single family residence to a new use or you don't increase the building's size but the new use requires a special permit you know maybe you wouldn't look at it

yeah it's I think it's interesting like in the residential that's the first thing you talk about a special permit and here it's the third thing I'm wondering if you wanted to get more consistent that's why I kind of got confused oh now we're talking about special permit I think you you generally want to start at the top with things that make buildings bigger because that's the most common uh trigger for cycle review. That's why B1 is is is you know moving construction enlargement of building construction. Um four now again this is sort of like two in a little ways. an activity or change in the land use that would increase the occupancy limits of the building or increase the site park performance. It could be somewhat redundant for two. Um you'll see below that I I'm going to treat small additions as minor site plans.

Yeah, let me put minor site plan is the word you're using instead of administrative administrative plan. Okay. Why don't we like administrative site plan? I didn't like anything about the way the administr the purpose behind the administering cycle as I understood. Now I'm jumping ahead here was that it was intended to make things simpler and faster. Right. Yeah. Here's how they did it. First they required that all site plans start with a preliminary site plan. Why? Why do I submit a preliminary site plan even if it's something simple?

So first you have to submit it's mandatory under this under the draft to submit a draft. I preliminary site plan. I did away with that. I make it discretionary in the letter. Second, when you submit the administrative site plan, you have the board then has to determine if it's complete. Only after you determine it's complete, you send it to a committee which is going to meet outside the normal process which then has to bring it back to the board and then the board can make a decision. Then you have to write a resolution. That's potentially at least four different planning board meetings. That doesn't expedite anything. So, I'm jumping ahead, but the way I the way I did it, I simply a minor site plan, shorter shorter term. You don't have to submit it. If you want to build a a shed on the back, whatever. You need something that dite, but it's simple. You don't need to live in a review with a planning board. That's it's a waste of time. So, just submit your application. If it's below certain thresholds, the pling board can say it's below certain thresholds, which means first of all, in most cases, it will be a type two action under secret. won't be subject to see and you know what should we do then you don't have to have a public hearing what you'll see it would meet certain standards

you think because you were on the committee what happened to the the before even the preliminary for that there was a first meeting that determines whether it should be administrative or this so that the whole idea was that you could quickly bypass and in there it especially stated that you could decide some things are not required and that's where I thought it would take way like you don't need to do all this stuff. So that that that part of it that you have the ability to wave certain site plan elements. Yes. And in fact and you let me let me let me progress with it and we'll get to that. Um

so at any rate under under B5 we're coming back to clearing grading. Do you want to review clearing grading? If so, above what limits? This this paragraph could be identical to the residential paragraph ultimately. Remove it. Yes. Um, it's similar, but remember you're in a business district now. We may have different thresholds. They have different criteria. Well, that's complexity. Okay. Um, give me Matt and Matt has a question. Go ask the question. My my question is, and this is all good work and everything, but what is the purpose of this discussion? What do we hope to achieve by the end of going through this document?

First of all, try to tell you what it covers, how it's structured, and then to get feedback from you on certain things that I don't know that the town has to make a decision. You've gotten some feedback from us, but we didn't determine what we're going to do about land clearing, whether it's percentage or something else like that. So, we're going through this thing and people are bringing up problems that we have right now, but I don't see what we're accomplishing other than going through this document, but with no mandate as to where we're supposed to be when we get to the last page. See what I mean?

No. So, we're we're updating this draft right now verbally. It's on record. So, if Rick needs to go back, you can watch the YouTube video once on recording. Um, I'm assuming I mean, I'm taking some notes. I'm assuming Rick is. We have to update this draft. This drop is going to go back to the term board and then our part's done. Okay. But I don't any updating going. I see a little bit of explanation going on, but I don't hear any moving. We're very slow moving through this. No, I'm trying. That's why I'm trying to move us along here. Um, let me let me hit the phase that I need to I want to I answer your question though. It's the the draft has to be updated.

Are we going to So, this is the first draft. Are we gonna have an opportunity to make notes into a draft in SharePoint or how are we actually going to get our thoughts expressed in into the draft? This is I'm assuming this is going to be dropped into SharePoint and we're going to put these in here. See, I don't know how the town board fits in other than of course the town board has to adopt it. Well, we update it and give it to them when we're when we're good with it. They they want some sort of draft coming back to them. It doesn't have to doesn't have to be perfect, but we need to have input to them. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So, I would suggest and the things I'm raising questions on, you give me your ideas on whether you have another meeting or not, and then we put that in and

Okay. So, if we put this in SharePoint, then we can when we're writing our stuff down here, cuz you're not going to remember or be able to write down every single thing we talk about, and I sure don't want you to have to go back and watch the video. Well, and like you said, you want to think about it. If we can if we can could put our notes in SharePoint, then there's something being accomplished. Otherwise, right now, all we're doing is shooting about it. Well, one other thing, David Creel took notes. I printed those notes for myself. I have that file. I don't know. Did I I may not have distributed to everybody. I think you sent it just to me, but I can drop that in SharePoint, too. You could do. His comments are done. I just didn't want to sit here till whenever

and not accomplish anything. Let me just go through the structure of it and tell you what I wanted to put in and then you can move to you know do that in your spare time. 109-4 A the planning board is being given the authority to grant site plan approvals under this right right now with the town board. So the significance of 109-4A the power of site plan review is going to plan which is what I understand the town wants to do. That's correct. I had a question about C before you even get there, but we can discuss it later. See you about that.

Yeah. I mean, it basically gives the planning board the right to almost say anything requires site plan review. That's a total I mean residential or not, according to that paragraph, if we do a wetlands review, we could say, "Oh, this needs a site plan review." You just we're talking about subdivision and subdivisions earlier today. If you were to approve Crescent Beach for example and you said gee lot one is going to be problematical we think there should be site plan when they you would have discretion under 109-3C to require site plan as a condition of approval of

I mean this little sentence is the most potent sentence in the whole document how often you're going to do it but it does give a reviewing board it could be the zoning board as well it does give that board power to require a site plan from you down the road regardless of all the other criteria. Even though we can't do even though we can't do residential. Yes. Well, you could do it a residential if it was if it's subject to some other purpose. It's not the kind of thing I would expect you would use very often, but it gives you one more tool.

Okay. 109-4. Um, again, the most important thing there is the plenty book is going to be the remission agency 109-5 things. That's very brief now because I have the way I reverted but 109-5A ordinary repair and maintenance is not going to be covered by site. Make that clear and 109-4B certain things involving replacement fuel tanks and hazards materials facilities that require Suffach County Health Department approval even if they might otherwise be triggered. They don't require cycling. 109-6 um based on the existing structures and uses that don't change don't require site plan 109-7 now this part is important this is the way I did

can I go back to 109 for C certificates of occupancy um you talk about a lot about the town board through this is it is that the way it um here's the important here's the important part about this I I deal with it later on when you complete it with a site plan, you should get a CFO certificate of occupancy. All right. Sometimes there might be a condition of the site clinical and I give you a couple examples because this is comes up sometimes. Landscaping or or paving the park.

Well, you get your building permit in October and you do the work and by the time you get around to finishing up, it's January. You can't put the landscaping in. you can't pay in the parking lot, but you'd like to occupy the building and get a CFO. So, this would allow you to post security with the town board so that you could open even if you didn't finish things because due to the season you couldn't do the I see. So, this is not complying. Basically, you're not complying to the site plan, but this gives you an outage. Yeah, you haven't fully complied yet. Thank you. If you don't do the work within the time of given, then your CO There's no TCO on Shelter Island as I remember. temporary certificate of occupancy.

Not in your code. No, this is sort of what this kind of right. Yeah, we don't have one. So, the site plan procedures, preliminary site plan, this is what you guys had before. You were making it mandatory. Some site plans are too simple for that. A lot of them could be too simple for that. So what I say here in the middle is it says um you know it explains why you would do it but it says the submittal of a preliminary cycle is discretionary with the if the wants to go directly to cyclone review let him do it. Okay, that's what A6 is. But so this gets rid of the old like early conference. It's not mandatory. That's right. So, but so in other words, somebody can just show up.

Even if they show up, they certainly have to still have to submit certain things. C 109A1, the way here this draft was written, they can just show up. They don't have to come up with plan. I understand because it was it was to have a conversation. But so so it has to they do have to even if they you're saying they do still have to do all the stuff in subsection B herein.

Right. Now I didn't I took B from the draft that you guys had in July. This is all out of that draft with very few changes I made. You do have you'll see in B right in that first paragraph it says these are the site plan elements unless one or more unless one or more of these elements are waved by the play board upon request of the element and for good for the show. How do you how do you know what to wave or not wave if they haven't done anything and they can't met with us? they're going to submit a site plan and if they don't include certain things instead of you telling them they're they come in they'll say to you you know I didn't give you this and that will you wave that and here's why if you say no then they have to go back and submit it

so so you're going to still discuss their application we're not going to do a review to make sure things are complete we'll be doing well you will but as part of that completeness review if the applicant hasn't submitted certain required elements and they don't want to and they have a good reason for it, they can tell you that and you can weigh that requirement. So, this sounds like the actual site plan application has to have a this is what you need to do or please explain why you did. Right. The site plan as you see there's a long list. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. You want to cover everything you might reasonably need. But is that overkill sometimes? Sure.

So, you want to give the board some discretion to say, you know, okay, we don't need this. So this no longer has the kind of workflow that the other ones had like it goes to the town clerk and then to the building inspector who then I don't think in this draft well it was go town the way I have it worded here and we're coming to that it would go to the building inspector let me let me let me just jump ahead. Okay,

in 1097 which is this procedure you can see A is preliminary site plan that is discretionary. If they don't want to go through disciplinary site plan, they want to go straight to site plan, they can do that. Then the next couple pages, next three pages, most of the next three pages are the elements of site plan, which you have the power to considerably. Go now to C formal cycling procedure. See that that's on I don't want page. Okay. So, so those are the two different ones. Now, it's a preliminary or a formal back side of the page.

The way I've structured this and again I highlighted it. You have to highlight it. So I need feedback on this. My recommendation would be route it through the building inspector. The building inspector can do an initial review. Does it meet zoning? Does it meet the state building code vote if it involves a building? Right? Once the building inspector says, excuse me, he has 21 days, not 20 days because we don't work on weeks or anything. You don't make it 20. Do it on 21 divided by 7. Um once the building inspector certifies that the site plan facially is complete, seems to meet zoning, meet the setbacks, complies with the building code as far as he can determine, then he forwards it to you and then you can start your revision. So it would be routed through the building inspector. That way also the building inspector knows is a site plan application pending which if it doesn't go through he doesn't know. So we can get through we could do a preliminary and a preliminary is purely advisory.

That's right. They still no matter what have to go through a formal. They have to submit a formal and what this now will say from C going forward B E F you go to public F. But then skip ahead to the next section which is the next page 109-8. Oh that's minor

minor site plans. Notwithstanding the provisions in the proceeding 109-7 in your sole discretion, you can wave a public hearing, which means you could basically on a minor site plan, you could review it one night and if it meets the criteria and you agree, we'll talk about that in a moment. You could say, "Yeah, it looks like a minor site plan resolution at the next meeting." You don't have a public theory. It's probably tied to action under the seat. You could theoretically approve it in two meetings. You review it once a you know simple enough you could agree and approve it and then you have a resolution as soon as your next meeting. That's minor cycling. And so the criteria for minor cycling I'm jumping and I've highlighted in yellow some of the things I need input from. Do you want to have certain parameters for lot coverage, building area, floor area or any or some but not all of those? In other words, is it below a certain level? Um, now you'll see 1098A, it has to be an addition or a change to a prior site plan. So, a completely new building. The way I've worded this, completely new building, never been built before. I'm not making that eligible for minor site plan. You can if you want to, but that's not the way it's worded right now. I also say in E, it has to conform to the chapter, meaning it would not would not could not need variances. Again, you could have minor cycle for something that needed variance. You got to go to the zoner board, but that's not the way I'm drafting it right now. Uh, and then there are some criteria and that's G. If you go to the phase page in waving a public hearing, which is which is say approving a minor site plan, you have to lurk at certain things. the size of the property, the proximity of the property to wetlands or other natural features, um potential disturbance to nearby

properties, especially residential properties, compat compatibility with surrounding development or the town property plan. So, you have some standards that you would look at and if it meets the standards and it's within the threshold, you can wave a public hearing. Notice the last section there, the last criteria, H public controversy. Now, it's brand new application, probably won't be, but you guys have a feel for the town. You probably only want to do this if it's if it's something that's not causing significant or you don't believe will cause significant, you know, public controversy. If there's no public hearing, how do you know? How will the public know? Correct. That's that's kind of an issue.

Are all submissions on a public record on the website? Uh, sure. be on your agenda and the agenda shows the application. And then there's also So it will be public. It'll be public now that people won't have a long time. Yeah, it's okay. It doesn't take long if they're going to be loud, right? That's that's my discovery. That's basically how So in other words, it's a formal site plan application and it goes to the procedure requires a public hearing, but if you meet certain parameters that's 109-8, you can treat something that's a minor site plan. And that minor cycle of pacing means you don't have to have a public here.

And and you would do that basically at the first they would submit everything and then you have an initial meeting initial planning board review is probably when it would happen. That's on 1097, right? And that's probably when you might go, uh, it's probably I'm trying to figure out when it would happen. It was simple enough. It was simple enough. My my assumption is that you guys will figure it out pretty soon. If it's simple enough, you'll know whether a minor site plan is eligible. Again, this there are objective criteria such as size. And if it meets the size criteria, you look at yeah, this doesn't seem trouble. Yeah. Minor site plan, you have the power to wave the public hearing, which automatically saves the applicant about two months. Yeah.

Yeah. So 109-9 is standards. Yeah. There are standards for you. Every permit or approval you give should have a set of standards. You can see physical compatibility, protecting residential areas, um parking and access, lights, lighting. I wanted I do want you again, you don't have to tell me tonight, but if you want to go to lights under 109-9 E, I borrowed a lot of this, the East Tennessee code. Do you want lighting specifications and some basic rules?

Well, the way most agencies that we work with when you're doing exterior lighting, it says has to be dark sky.org. You have to explain what that means. We have you give them the link and we have we have it in our code. Uh light lighting code. There's lighting code separately. So, you should refer to that. A separate chapter code and I believe so. Yeah. I'm almost positive. That's why we didn't include it, I think, in our drought. Um because there's a whole

but if it's going to the site plan you know um I have a quick backup just make sure I get the flow right. I see in the site plan uh the preliminary site plan which I would recommend we call an advisory site plan. Uh it has then the criteria that you say you do all this stuff uh uh two uh one or B 1 2 3 4 right all the way down through four with all a throughout. I would assume all those are part of also a formal site plan. Where is it David? You're talking about the required site. Acquired site plan elements. It it's written as if it's only part of the

No, no, no, no. Preliminary site plan is just subsection A. Everything is under 1097 site plan procedure. So site plan application procedure subsection A only applies to preliminary site plan or if you want to rename it advisory site plan, that's only subsection A. Okay. So section B is simply required site elements for the site plan. Yeah, for some reason because that came before the formal site plan, I kind of thought it was part of Yeah, I didn't that was my only thought. I got a little confused. Yeah, great. I wanted to make sure they do that does apply to all. Okay, cool. Well, when you do your what do you call it again? The uh SharePoint. Share point. You make that comment. Yeah. Yeah. Make sure.

Yeah, cool. I think I mean this is a tricky section standards and and I think either you flesh it out and you say screening shall be blah blah tree 3 in you know whatever or you just say it's up to or review which part of you this whole concept of standards because this doesn't really list standards specifically I mean to say it has to be physically compatible according to who you But if I'm if I'm on the other side and I'm submitting an application, how do I know what they mean by physically compatible?

Requirements, for example, whether or not you are a minor site or something else, there should be, in my opinion, objective criteria, right? Okay. Not well, but when it comes to an actual decision to make an approval, those standards are necessarily discretionary. You have to use your judgment. So standards are written in that sense. There there is some great there's gray area to them that requires upon the good juggling of the pinewood. Well, we've we've done that all along with South Ferry and the library and what you want is you want but East Hampton is much more kind of

that's why we standards are taken from East Hampton. They're mix of what was in your draft and East Hampton but East Hampton doesn't the play board uses uses its brain. You got to, you know, you have you have maneuvering room and you have to operate within that maneuvering. Can't expect this. It can't be a simple equation. Yeah. Well, it can for some things. I mean, but you're saying, well, it's not structural design. You can't It's not the load times the blah blah blah. But for something like screening, it is. You can either see through it or you can't. And screen is a lot of different ways you can screen things.

All right. Well, maybe that's not a good example, but the idea of con of of of contextual design, for example, um is is a little subjective where we're screen Julia. Um yeah, I'm going to have to excuse myself and sign off uh for the evening. Okay. Um sorry, I have a five o'clock departure in the morning. get some sleep. Okay, have a good trip. Thank you very much. You should have stopped an hour ago. Don't worry, it'll be delayed three hours anyway. So, the only other thing I want to mention here on the very last very very last paragraph of the whole document.

Yeah. Yeah. Penalties. Got to check with my partner justice. Um, and you'll see I I changed that the blue there. Well, we'll see what if if something is subject to potential term of imprisonment for more than 15 days is treated as a misdemeanor, which is very problematic. Um, and people can't, you know, they Yeah. When I read it, record they plead to it. So, we kept the potential, you know, it's a good idea to have an imprisonment thing even though nobody ever goes to jail these days.

Yeah. Yeah. I wrote down this seems excessive on your previous one, which was 6 months. I I said excessive on imprisonment and dimminimous on dollars. We should charge more dollars. You're probably right. But anyway, I used dimminimous. I was really proud. 15 days on only an offense or violation. It's not a misuse. Yeah. But I think we should charge more. Significantly more in my opinion. Probably right. Is nothing these days. Well, that's the point. If raise it. Yeah. Yeah. I think 10,000 sounds good. Sure. I can tell it too. I I don't know if there's I can see there, you know, for somebody who's spending $15 million on something,

but make some money is nothing. Every week's I think it's every week, right? Every week's continuing violation. I think it's every week. Yes, it's it's every week. It is a separate violation. I know. 10 grand a week. We'll get them to fix it real quick. Well, well, but that's Yeah. So, I mean, personally, I'd suggest a a larger starting one and then, you know, potentially being descriptive in something like if you fail to comply with a cease and desist order, it's a per day on top of what the original fine was. Yeah, I would say there's other law out there that limits ability to do that.

Yep. Can't see. Okay. I like advisory. So, Julia, are are we trying to wrap up here? Well, we are, but I don't think we're going to be able to because like in terms I mean, just for the night. I mean, just for

Yes. Yes. Just I just wanted I just wanted to make or or a question to make sure we're all on the same page. And so if if as I understand it, I think you'd I think before we spend any much time editing or commenting on this, it would be good to have some direction from the town board of whether they're receptive or interested in addressing clearing, you know, in particular. If we wait till January, it'll be a different answer. Well, so it's like

I I I think we should just put forth some direct So, well, my my point is is that if I'm understanding that we're really not supposed to address anything that's strictly residential like there, I think it is 10932 that says if it's in in as part of a res, you know, building a one or two story home or something, you know, it I think that's saying it's out of scope. It has nothing to do with that.

Right. Absolutely. Right. So, so to be honest with you then this is a waste of time because what are we going to do? We're going to stop somebody from and believe me I'm a tree hugger. We're going to stop somebody from clearing according to this, right? But that the building department currently has no power to my knowledge to stop clearing. So somebody can say, "Here's my plan to build a house and and they're clearing it at that point and the building department has no powers to stop them." That's a different code. It's different code. Yeah.

Well, I I understand that. But I think we need to understand then. So are we we're just we're not really stopping it. We're temporarily stopping it. And is that a reasonable We're affecting commercial. Sean Sean, are you talking about residential property or in commercial property? Cuz we're doing commercial. Residential. No, I understand. I mean, So residential there'd be no limitation on clearing a do and that's going to on commercial if they're subject to cyclone view this says they cannot commence clearing a grade until they have yeah and that's I don't think it's a waste of time I don't think

well I mean I I get it I get it if it's if it's it's a very small portion of the real issue like what what he was talking about I I hear you there's still value to it but I think what Greg was talking about for example that's a residential lot probably across from him, which this is has nothing to do with this. Has nothing to do with this. Yeah, exactly. Oh, arguably that lot is being used for commercial purposes. So that's I you know I don't know maybe maybe but I you know I think that I know who owns it and I know whose stuff is sitting on it. So it's being used for commercial purposes. Yeah. Okay. That goes back to code enforcement. Yep.

So the only thing just quickly I just want to say did everyone look at the tentative meeting dates and I mean I'm not going anywhere. So I don't think you moved a couple notes at the end of the year from what was previously or what what's the normal date but that's they seem fine to me. I think it had to do with availability and other meetings. I figured it was a sense. I'm all good. You guys are good with that? This morning right now. So I'm going to make a motion that we meeting second. Agreed. Yes. Thank you.