Planning Board - Regular Meeting

someone. Yes. Yes. We know. We know. We know. Don't worry. We're working on it. Time out. Time out. Now, it's on. Okay. Everyone in Zoom land, can you hear us now? Yes. Okay. I'm sorry. I thought I was going to have to start doing American Sign Language here. All right. So, uh, what you missed was that, um, we took roll call. Everyone is here except Marcus Cassich, who was excused in advance. Uh, we are going over the minutes. We I asked I made the motion to approve the minutes from the November 18th uh, meeting. And I didn't get a second. So, that's kind of where we left off. I'll second that. All right. David Austin, second. All in favor accept the minutes. I Okay, that passed. Um,

okay. We're going to act on the uh payment of our bills now. So we had an invoice from Whan Feler. Um that's our attorney from the month of November in the amount of 4,182. A lot of that was in was the in-person meeting we had on the on the 18th and a lot of work on the site plan review uh legislation. Um second one was just so you know yes the drafting of the site plan basic draft um which we treat that as town board because it's legislative. So while I put the hours in that I work a bill for that. Yes. Yes. We pay the basic rate for the work we do in the town. Right.

Excellent. Thank you for a good clarification. Um, and then we had an invoice for 1,19875 um, from the Rainer Group. That's our uh, engineer who's here tonight. And, um, that was also for the month of November. So, I'd like to make a motion then to uh, conflate these, the 4,182 from our attorney and the 1,9875 from the Rainer Group, our engineer. Um, can I get a second to approve that? I'll second. Matt Fox, second. So all in favor on that I I that pass.

Okay. So we have our uh 2012 Trudy Fowler Trust um preliminary um application approval resolution which is number 18 for this evening. Just give me a second to here. Yeah, but I have um there's a page too. Okay. All right. Um, okay. So, I am going to since we all know this application, we've been working on it for a number of months already. Here, I'm going to jump down to um the the finding of facts on F. Um, actually just one thing. So, it's residential double A nearshore uh peninsula overlay. Uh it's a type one from our secret review. We are the lead agency. It was considered a negative declaration and we did that on August 6th, 2025. We got our letter from the Suffach County Planning Commission who reviewed the application. Um and they did recommend that the planning board require the applicant to acknowledge in writing that the approval of the subdivision does not any way commit either Town of Shelteron or the county to protect the property shoreline from erosion. Additional uh facts are that it's um it has been reduced from um well density has been reduced to five lots where seven lots would have been uh under present town zoning. Um the applicant proposed a 100 ft coastal construction setback from the top of the existing bluff. Um two additional sheds located near the bluff on proposed lot three will also be removed. And they proposed a conservation easement which was approximately 53 feet to 55 ft deep along the property's fun frontage on Nor Parkway with only three openings for common driveways providing access to the

lots and with additional proposed structural setback of 25 ft adjoining the conservation easement on lots 1 2 3 and 5 with a proposed structural setback of 20 ft adjoining the conservation easement on lot four. Uh and again these measures were designed to safeguard the existing rural character of Nor Parkway. And finally, all new residential construction within the lots created by the subdivision um will be served by a low nitrogen uh IIA system. Um now they did meet all the compliance of our town code and other requirements of law. That's from G. Um, by the way, this resolution is a will be available to the public office on our website. Um, and the conditions of approval. Okay, that's probably the most important part. Uh, the applicant shall submit a a final subdivision application within 6 months. The applicant shall obtain Suffach County Department of Health Services approval of the plat and shall as part of the final subdivision application furnish this board with stamped copies of those final plats showing the Suffach County Department of Health approval. The applicant shall propose with its final subdivision application the installment of such fire protection improvements as may be required by the board of fire commissioners of Shelter Island Fire District as detailed in our town code 111-39.1. The final subdivision application shall include the materials required uh by 1117A of the town code, including their application fee, letters from public utility providers if needed uh since the property actually uh already has uh a one family dwelling and the Shuler Island School District. Uh lastly, the final subdivision map shall include notation specifying all buildings and structures except walkways or stairways for beach access. They shall adhere to the 100 foot coastal construction setback from the top of the existing

bluff as shown on the MAC. Uh that all new residential construction shall be served by IIA uh you know uh systems, low nitrogen septic systems, pardon. And that lots one and two shall share a single common driveway and lots four and five shall share a single common driveway but only if a new driveway is constructed to serve the existing house on lot four. Um, so those were our conditions of approval based on all the discussions. Um, I know we gave um Carl copy. Carl, you got a copy of the draft, right? He's got it in front of him right now. Okay. Um, so I will need someone to make a motion then that uh we approve uh the preliminary subdivision um application of 2012 uh Trudy Flet Trust.

I have a question. Yes, Greg. as that um could you just elaborate on the the uh provision or I don't know if it's provision but the clarification that applicant is unwilling to covenant against the future subdivision of the oversized oversized lot one meaning the property's potential overall density could someday become six lots right so that is something that we didn't we didn't put in here So, uh, they they can come back to the planning board in in the future and ask that that be and go through the entire process. Yeah. of,

but they'd be back before us with a full application again. Um, it did also sound like from the owner's description of the lot, which has more detail in my own site investigation. Because of the rock outcroppings and the topography, it would be extremely difficult to get a yield of two lots out of it. Well, they can say whatever they want, but a bulldozer can until they come here. Agreed. Okay.

And I when we discussed uh when we discussed that the compromise was that we are limiting to three curb cuts for all of the lots combined. That was what we had discussed last time. Um, and I would just note that the decision um, in in subsection F, it notes that the oversized lot is lot one. It's actually lot five. So I would just ask that that be changed. But otherwise, oh, in lot Okay. On the first paragraph there, it's the oversized lot is lot five, not lot one. Oh, okay.

But otherwise, got that. Otherwise, you know, I think we're very happy with what Mr. Railen put together and appreciate the board's consideration. Mine is a Q. Yeah. We also just actually Matt just noticed also on uh section D seeker. Uh Rick has an O. It should be a Q. Oh, yeah. It's with that Sora. Sierra. Okay. Sierra. Um, so I I finished my sentence, but I believe I do need someone to make a motion.

Make a motion that we accept this with the uh one change to lot five and the you for the O. Um, but given those changes, uh, second on that one. Second. I'll second. Sean. Okay. All in favor? I I Greg. You're voting no. Um, well, you didn't respond, so I I I am sort of abstaining. Okay. Noted. Thank you all very much. Thank you. Thank you. Have a good evening.

You too. You want to stick around? Um, our second one, which is number 19 for the year, um, Preston Beach LLC sketch plan approval. Do you guys all have that for you? Yeah. Great.

All right. Um, so, um, obviously they've, uh, done the sketch plan as a precursor to the subdivision of lands. Okay. Uh the parcel it's noted here uh designated on 11 serpentine drive and the lands in question also comprise uh 3,840 sorry 384,125 square ft which is approximately 8.82 acres. They also have frontage on both the west side of Serpentine Drive and north side of Shore Road which is also County Road 42. Uh these lands have some 401 ft of shore frontage on Shelter Island Sound. Uh obviously they number two they paid their required application fee. Um they have submitted to the planning board on section three here a sketch plan um which was last dated July 24th and the applicant uh as it appears in the sketch plan proposes to subdivide this 8.82 82 acre into three lots of which two and three have frontage on it and uh will take access from Serpentine Road while the the lot on lot one pardon will have frontage on and will take access from Shore Road. Um all lots are presently vacant. Um the property contains steep slopes is heavily wooded down to the title wetlands um which the applicant's consultant has shown on the uh inland of has shown just inland of the Sheldon Sound shoreline. Um the sketch plan was looked at by Rick, our engineer. Um and uh that was dated from a memo on May 13th, 2025 and then an updated one on October 14th, 2025. Um number five um is pertinent. Slopes of 25% or more predominate throughout the property with slopes exceeding a 45% gradient in some areas. The applicant proposes building envelopes in relatively flat areas on two and three.

Lot one contains exceptionally steep slopes as indicated by the applicant's own topography and by a slope analysis prepared by the planning board's uh engineer dated November 18th, 2025. That was our last meeting. uh protection of these slopes within lot one where no building envelope or other mitigative measures have been identified by the applicant will be an important objective of the planning board during subsequent review of our subject. Um it's an AA I'm in co- compliance. It's an AA uh residential zone district. Um all three lots contain at least 80,000 ft of lot area having road frontage of at least 160 ft. Um the subdivision is located in the nearshore overlay and thus is not eligible for a parkland waiver under our town code. Um the applicant proposes to meet the park requirement also of our town code through the creation of a park area parcel which would consist of 38,475 ft which is approximately 883 acres. Um and that would be on the southeast corner of the property with the frontage on uh Shore Road. Uh obviously we looked at all this and uh we find that the sketch plan conforms to the requirements of article 4. Sketch plan is set forth in our chapter 111 which is our subdivision code of the town co of town code. Um in that the basic lot layout's acceptable. Uh B, uh pursuant to our town code, uh we classify the subject application as a minor subdivision and we direct the applicant to comply with all provisions of the town code applicable to such minor subdivisions. Uh which will include of course a public hearing once the minor subdivision application has been turned in and deemed complete by the planning board. Uh C. The planning board uh preliminarily classifies the proposed subdivision as an unlisted action pursuant to seeker. Um, all procedures

uh applicable to the unlisted action shall be followed prior to the granting of a probably you should say to the grant the granting of minor Rick I don't know grant of okay whatever

okay grant of minor subdivision approval um the most important thing here is four which is our condition of sketch plan approval um so the planning board pursuant to 111-4 of the town code hereby grants sketch plan approval to the afor sketch plan. Uh conditioned upon the following. A submission of the minor subdivision application. The applicant shall comply with all code mapping requirements that would include the final PL mapping requirements set forth in the town code. B. The minor subdivision application shall comply with andor address all issues noted in the review memoranda uh prepared by the planning board's consulting engineers. Uh C. The meets and bounds shall be prepared on the minor subdivision plat for the proposed building envelopes as proposed on two and three. Um D. The applicant shall indicate proposed measures for the protection of steep slopes throughout the subdivision property which may include a building envelope on proposed lot one and scenic and conservation easements over parts of all of the lots shown on the proposed minor subdivision plot. E. The applicant shall indicate as part of its minor subdivision method the intended means of furnishing the proposed lots with a water supply. If it is intended that the lots will be supplies with supplied with public water from the Shelteron Heights water district. Evidence of such an agreement with said water district shall be furnished to the planning board. F. The intended means of installing a public water service line to propose lot one, which is currently proposed to be served by a 20 foot wide utility easement, shall be specified together with proposed measures for avoiding the disturbance of steep slopes during the installation of said water line. G. Wetland setbacks for clearing and construction on lot one shall be depicted on the minor subdivision plat. H. application for subdivision approval shall be made to both Suffet County

Department of Health and the DC uh with the understanding that set approvals or in the case of DC possibly possibly a uh letter of non-jurisdiction will be made a condition of minor subdivision approval by the planning board. uh I meets and bounds shall be provided for the proposed park area and the intended disposition whether it's you know proposed future ownership etc of the park area shall be set forth in writing or labeled on the minor subdivision plaque J the applicant shall submit the sketch plan to the shelter on fire district with the request that the said district specify its fire protection requirements with respect to the proposed subdivision. The applicant shall advise the planning board of such requirements, if any, and any improvements or facilities required by the fire district to be placed or installed on any adjacent uh sorry, installed on or adjacent to the subdivision property shall be shown upon the uh proposed minor subdivision plat. Um I think those were those were the major highlights of the resolution. Um, so I need a member to make a motion that we approve um resolution 19 um for the sketch pan approval for subdivision of Crescent Beach LLC.

So move Greg Cranford. Second. David Creel. All in favor on that. I Okay, that passed. Thank you. Sorry. Yes, John. Go ahead. Oh, we can't hear you yet. Unmute. We can't hear you. You're still muted. There you go. Just give us a Can you hear me now? We can hear you now. Thank you. Sure. That's all. You're welcome. Thanks for the resolution. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you.

Okay. So, it's on the agenda later, but I assume this you're not going to talk about No, we're just going to mention that we already approved it. Yeah. Thank you very much. No surprises there. Everything will take care of. And uh I just want to make sure that on the DEC I I think it I heard you mention it's possible since we're not creating any new lot lines within the 300 ft jurisdiction they may issue on the subdivision application aspect of it. They may issue uh uh nonjurisdiction. Yeah. Well they may not but in any event but if they decide it's non jurisdiction then it's jurisdiction. Okay. Thank you very much.

Um, all right. Next resolution is number 20 for the Radican lot line adjustment extension request. So um what happened here was they changed um surveyors I think Jessica right surveyor. Yeah they they changed surveyors. So they've now since gotten the new new deter like the new letter new picture. Uh, but they need to go over it. And actually, uh, Rick and Rick have, you guys have to go over that. So, Matt, right, Matt Sherman's, well, he hasn't done it yet, but he's going to be submitting it to us for you to double check it.

Um, a survey because they um, switch surveyors, so they have to do it over again and make sure it everything matches up. So, uh, Matt said he just needed an extension on that. That's the only reason. Um, so that's why we did that. Um, yeah. Uh, just checking to make sure. So, just so just so the board knows, we we have grant we have previously granted this applicant extensions on, you know, last year around this time, March 10th of March 11th, pardon, June 10th, September 9th. You know, December 9th will be on. Um, but again, Matt got to us in time and uh, so I I'm I'll make this motion actually that we uh approve the extension for Rick Ratigan for his lot life adjustment. If I can get a second on that.

I'll second it. All right, Matt. Thanks. All in favor? I Okay, that's it.

Okay. Um, so that's it. I I need I need a motion to close the business. Make a motion that we close the business meeting.

Oh, actually I just want to say one thing. Just one thing. Okay. I promise it'll be very quick, but I just wanted to say and I couldn't say before because the mic wasn't working, but today is actually the last meeting of 2025 for us. And I don't I think I should just say a little thing before we just move on to the next year is that this has not been an easy year for us. We uh started off the year change of chair, right? And then we added three new members. Um, we got Rick, but we said goodbye to our previous attorney. We had an interim attorney. Then we were great enough to get Rick. Then we had our our engineer Joe retire. Hence, we got Rick Bisnovski. So, we've had some bumps in the road, but I I guess I just wanted to thank everybody that uh, you know, for coming along with the ride and, you know, being, you know, flexible and going through the growing pains of getting us through the first year. And I think we've we've all been respectful of each other and we've worked well together and I'm just want to say I'm looking forward to continuing on with everybody for next year.

I think I think your leadership made it easier. Thank you. That's my little job and I think we've all worked well together. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah, I'm very happy with that. Sound cool. Now, can I make a motion to close this? Yes. Yeah. Yes. Second on. Okay. All in favor? I knew it's open my mouth. You're going to be like, "No." Okay. It's all good.

All right. So, into our work session. The Okay. So, we just did this actually. We just approved uh Rick Ratigan's adjustment. So, and that's going to be cuz that was due actually today. Okay. So, Defo and Shearer, we got a email from Matt Sherman, uh, who told us that the applicant has decided to withdraw it completely. So, um, and we have that in writing on email. So um this will be coming off the agenda and for whatever reasons which they did not disclose they are just going to was it devour shear that we got it from or is it

uh it it was from sharer it was sharer I think is the is in there from that but it was closed out so I think it was trouble maybe I don't know they didn't say but

I'm not going to guess what the reasons were but it is off the agenda now uh or it will be off the agenda pardon um so that's it for our lot sign uh applications under our subdivision category. Uh the Blooms uh the Bloom minor subdivision we just did last time. So that they have now until February 11th. That had to do with the um water hookup. Okay. Uh Westnet Creek Hodgeges. We're just waiting for I think that's Matt Sherman, too. We're just waiting to see what they're going to do, but they have until April 14th. Fowler Trust major sub major subdivision. We just did. Crescent Beach LLC we just did. Um, Row Miner subdivisions, the same thing. We are just waiting on a sketch plan if they decide to revise anything there. And the famous white performance. I see me is smiling in the audience. So, okay. No, nothing else to say about white performance. Okay. Under our wetlands review. Uh, so Bootsie. So, let me just just remind everyone that at the November 18th meeting, we uh we I think we took a pretty extensive dive into Bootsie. We had the applicant uh online that night. I actually see the I see Vicky Cardiero and I can't see.

Okay, there you are.

Um so, you know, we we did extensive dive into this. Um I got we have our skeleton a draft from Marcus. We have all I have all the comments from David and everybody that night. It's on my desktop. The only thing I I refrain from adding was the vegetation plans. That's the only reason why we didn't send that off yet. Um I was waiting for it. Uh I do appreciate that you folks uh sent that in, but it did come in quite last minute before the meeting and a number of the planning board members do work the business day. So I'm assuming that not everybody got a chance to look at it. My thought was that since we did such an extensive uh talk on it last time that we simply just take a look at at their vegetation plan um we can create a couple sentences that would go into our uh advisory memo to the town board because again this is not our jurisdiction. We're advisory only. We're going to be passing it on to them anyway. I do have again all the comments for everybody. So that was my proposal. I do appreciate however that uh Rob Herman who's on who just mentioned that he was online there. He he did and you saw in the email was quite a nice uh summary

of what they did. So I'm not going to read through it but I think if you just look through one through nine um and look at the vegetation plan. Um Rob, can I just ask you just like if you could keep it brief, but just a quick quick summary of things that we might want to know about Vickiy's plan or

Yeah. So, um so two things. One, I just wanted to mention I don't know who's monitoring, but I think um just two folks who wanted to uh watch this uh the on the applicant, the architect, Jim Nolan and Mike Ebble. I think they're waiting in the waiting room to be let in. If if somebody can do that, they don't necessarily have to speak, but I just know they it's just important if a participant is going to be on Zoom that on their um I guess the notation on their phone that they actually put their name in because it just says iPhone, we don't let people in for obvious reasons.

All right. So, they they can go ahead and do that. But but to honor your request, I I will I will try to be brief because we did send um we submitted two documents.

Yeah. Um, and it was one of the reasons I had had appreciated you uh holding off until uh your meeting this month because at the last meeting uh aside from uh submitting a detailed plantings plan there there was um a lot of comments from several board members who uh were stating uh a pretty strong recommendation as I took it that the swimming pool that was located partially within the 100 foot uh wetlands regulated area should be moved out of it. And I gave what I thought was a pretty wonderful pitch as to why we had designed it that way. Um but I don't I don't think everybody was was happy about it. And so we talked with uh the applicant and so uh along with that plantings plan we submitted a updated site plan uh that shows that uh swimming pool modified so that it is now in fact located uh behind the 100 ft wetlands setback and thus outside the wetlands regulated area. as the planning board members uh were were recommending at the last meeting. Um there were some other comments that had been made some of which were the same as comments that had been made by the CAC andor uh the town's environmental consultant Theresa Mason. Um, so those items that you referenced 1 to nine, those those are all the changes uh that were made to the site plan, but most significantly it was the construction design element that the

board seemed to be pushing for last month uh that this new site plan reflects. So that 864 square ft swimming pool that had 100 square ft uh within the adjacent regulated area has been reduced uh by about 113 square ft to a 751q ft pool now located outside uh the wetlands regulated area. Uh there were other metrics that were updated. there was something like a four square foot change to the patio beneath the overhanging deck. Um, but the overall net coverage of of the patio and the deck didn't change. So there the plan also reflects a slight reduction in proposed lot coverage as a result of uh the reduced pool. Uh there had been a request by uh Terresa Mason, I think, to provide a uh profile to demonstrate the pool would be elevated well above the water table, which was added and included with that email. Uh and some other requests that included comments from the planning board uh that we're hoping to resolve with this change. Uh they added the existing electrical panel. uh a note that aside from the proposed well and associated water line, there would be no there will be no utilities, generators, solar battery, electric or otherwise proposed within the wetlands regulated area. We added a note clarifying that there are no irrigation wells proposed. That was a uh something that had been a a vestage and outofdate notation on the health department approved plan, but this plan is now updated to affirm that there are no irrigation wells proposed, nor would they be allowed. I believe um a note has been added to the buffer area that references the plantings plan that was

separately submitted. Uh and although it's well out of the regulated area, I think Terresa Mason had also asked that the uh second floor decks on the back side of the house be be shown. So what we tried to do with this um you know because it is an extensive review process and there are multiple subcommittees who weigh in. Uh the applicant's effort here was to try to respond to all of the guidance and all the recommendations that we've received from all three subcommittees at this point. Not formally from your board, but at least uh what I was hearing preliminarily at the last meeting. So, um we're hoping that you will uh respond positively to those changes that followed your guidance. Um and that was that was really it. I don't have too much to tell you about the uh the plantings plan. If you have any questions, Vicki is here and I'm happy uh for her to to speak to that. But it it should be pretty straightforward. It's a pretty typical native uh plantings plan. But again, Vicki is here in case you have any questions. No, Rob, this is really terrific actually that the that the applicant went back based on our comments and rethought, you know, pulling that out of the out of the uh wetlands boundary. So, I I I'm particularly pleased about that. And this is really the only piece that we were missing was the vegetation plan. Um, do you guys have any I mean, I think we can easily Are you okay with then us just adding it

creating a few sentences on that last memo and I'll pass it around for town board? I am where does that

I have a few questions while while Vickiy's here the in terms of the vegetation you put a lot of effort and looks wonderful around the pond um which is not going to be an area which with any sight disturbance from construction at least as I understand it where there will be considerable disturbance is probably in the AVB for the construction of the house and the pool and the and the associated patio But no reveation or planting at all in fact is shown in that area and also the existing trees which I had commented on are still not shown. So I the first question is really what are your thoughts on new planting within the AVB which is going to be pretty well flattened probably by construction.

So Vicki can can speak to that. she's here. But I it may just be a a drop in communication as much as anything else. I had um there there will be a complete landscape plan for the site, I'm sure. Um but the area that uh I had understood that the board was looking for was the plantings plan for that proposed uh vegetation buffer around the wetland. Um, and so that's what that's what Vicki provided at this point. I know that's definitely what Terresa Mason and the CAC had both requested. Um, so obviously there will be a a comprehensive landscape plan for the whole site. Um, I don't know, Vicki can speak to this. I don't know how far along she is with that. We don't have a hearing until more than a month from now. So uh that will leave for a little more time to develop that. Uh but that's something certainly we can we can get submitted but I I had understood the initial uh push to be uh related to you know the uh the wetlands buffer plantings that you know the area that would be a non-disturbance buffer basically because you know

typically what we that makes sense and and it it looked like such a barren swath between the house and the reveated area. I was a little curious about what the what the vision was for it.

Yeah, David, it was not certainly not the intention to to not plant anywhere but that that was just that that plantings plan is just for uh that non-disturbance buffer. Vicki, do you want to unmute and pop on and and just speak to your plans to have a landscape plan unless unless you don't unless you all planning board don't think it's needed at this time. I mean, I I don't know whether it's necessary right now because it is going to go to the town board and at that point they can request it and she's going to have to have it ready for that meeting anyway. I mean, I'm satisfied with at least knowing that there's going to be a more in-depth

Yeah, there I I was just going to ask I think you you said it and typically would be all of the species identified in the plan are native. Are you asking? Yes. Yes, they are. And most of them are Long Island provenance. And also the trees within this buffer. We I was just requested to do a 20 foot uh 25 foot deep um around the pond. That was what was requested for the uh reveation. And the trees uh the oak trees that are there are on this plan. If you see the existing trees, there's like five or six notated on that in that area there.

I don't have the plan in front of me, but I'll take your word for it. It's on the new It's on the new one. Thank you. Thank you, Rob. Thanks, Vicki. You're welcome. And just just so you know again, it was a little bit of a fire drill to get that to everyone. Um we are going to deliver hard copies um over the town clerk's office and I believe there should be enough of those to to go around to all the subcommittees. So, uh you'll be able to get your hands on the hard copies. That's great. Thank you. Yeah, we appreciate your responsiveness to our comments. Yeah, no problem. Thank you. Thank you. I'm I'm here for the next one, too. So, I'm gonna

stick around. Okay, that's right. The only thing I'd say in the comments to back to the to the board is do ask for make sure that all actual trees are are matched because it seems like there might be some missing. Just do a check. Okay, cool. Just make sure I don't forget. Yeah, that's my Thank you. Okay. Um, so next one is Coleman Rossovski. Oh, also I did want to know dur while Rob was talking earlier, um, I did dismiss our our engineer Rick because there's really no other to be here. So I I relieved him home a little earlier, too.

Yes. I'm trying to be conscious of the finances. So, okay. Um, all right. So, uh, Colin Rossovski, uh, thank you to David Creel who sort of, uh, summarized the site visit for us and gave us a little draft to work from. Um, and I So, David went, uh, who else? Marcus. Marcus. Marcus is not here this evening. And Sean went. Yep.

Good. All right. So, on this one, um, just uh, some key points just to bring everybody back to one spot here. So, this is the one where there's quite a bit of demolition in, you know, in the act of, you know, red redoing the property. We've got the the case of the two uh ADA ramps, um, which, uh, I and David Creel both wrote to read to get some clarification on that. I'll I'll let David talk about that, but, uh, the wetland setbacks were were not quite clearly indicated on the drawings. Um there's also a 2002 covenant on this property regarding the deck that it cannot be rothed or fully enclosed. And uh Reed's interpretation of the way it was written in the actual covenant was that it applies to the whole deck not just you know a part of it like e the adjacent regulator that's actually it's the whole entire deck. Uh there is obviously a deck and pool expansion in the adjacent regulated area on this one. Um, and according to Reed, it might be a case of the fact that these ADA ramps are were part of uh a dock permit to redo uh the existing dock. And then so when you're talking about docks, when you say ramp, that the ADA ramp is the boardwalk that he was talking about. So

if it's associated with the doc, right? We don't know if that's the case. I I don't I I I had hopes of digging and finding out more about it, but I never got around to it unless somebody else We have the owner on the call. So So we can Can we ask him? You can ask him. Of course. Okay. Yeah. So should I respond to a couple of those things? Let me try to re to phrase the question succinctly. I guess basically first what is the purpose of the ramp?

So uh I will let either the homeowner Steuart Coleman andor the architect Mary Ward respond to that in terms of the purpose and design. I I can tell you that in terms of the permitting jurisdiction and I and I don't know if if I I could be misremembering this but um I I believe my understanding from Reed uh based on other cases is that because this proposed ADA ramp and there are two there's one on the water side and one on the road side um because the ramp is located entirely uh landward of the you know wetland area and is in the wetland regulated area uh and provides basically handicap access to an existing dock. it it must be part of a wetlands permit review and approval as opposed to being able to be separately added to a dock permit which is of course as you know a different type of permit. Um so that is why it's it's on this plan and and was was reviewed as such by Reed I believe. Uh it to my knowledge it doesn't have any relationship to any prior dock per permit. This is something that is being proposed currently due to the needs of the current owners. So with that I don't know Stuart if you want to speak to that directly andor let Mary respond but I'll leave the floor to you.

I'm good evening everybody. Thank you. Um, I'm going to let Mary if she's willing to speak and I will um either fill in or take her place if she runs out of steam. Thank you, Stuart. Um, can you all hear me? Yes.

Uh, my name is Mary Ward. I am the architect on the project and part of the goal of this project is to um make uh accessible um from the road from the driveway to the dock um without steps the the house and the pool and the dock. Um it technically is is not ADA nor does it have to be ADA because it is a single family residence. Um so that's I just want to make that clarification because there there are very specific rules laws that one has to follow to comply with ADA and this because it's a single family residence does not have to comply to like certain soaps slopes and certain distances and landings and all that kind of stuff. But um but it it is um accessible in the way that you can get from the car to the house to the pool to the dock with a walker or a wheelchair or even a cane. Um because there will be no steps involved. Right now there are there are many levels and many steps that we are trying we're trying to resolve. uh make a make a clean cleaner um journey through the property.

Does that answer your question or do you have additional questions? Well, that was the first question and and you've hinted that one of the owners has mobility issues. At least that's what I infer which puts it in a different light. You know, it's

I mean it is it is called out in multiple places as an ADA ramp. I understand it doesn't need to be. It's not a public building and and it doesn't meet as you pointed out, you know, you don't have a landing every 30 ft, etc. Um, my concern with, let's call a ram number two from the deck down to the dock, is that it's almost entirely in the vegetated buffer. Um, and looking at the drawings, it's certainly possible to build a ramp that starts roughly at your 10-ft elevation near the driveway and go goes down entirely within the AVB and gets you down to the 6 1/2 ft elevation. Um, and from there you could do a permeable surface or something built on sleepers over the the vegetated buffer. Whereas the ramp uh is going to require a lot of structure and a lot of posts and footings. And that's not really shown in the drawings. I sort of wish it was, but um it seems to require a lot of disturbance. Um, I think it'll be visually obtrusive as well. And I'm not sure. It seems to me you can probably provide the same level of access, albeit from the other side of the deck, uh, down to the elevation you're trying to get to, um, in as as secure and, uh, and compliant a way. And I, you know, our criteria for approving what's essentially new construction in the vegetative buffer is you have to demonstrate there's no other solution. And I think in this case, if you look at the starting point of the second ramp

parallel to the first ramp only sloping down instead of up, you can get there um in in less obtrusive a way. Uh we can we can certainly look at different options. This um just to clarify the the there are many there are handful of precedents that I looked at in designing what I view as a a light a ramp that is light on the land. It floats above the land. It will have um uh peers that that you know like a like a like any deck would have. But I've gone to national parks to um beautiful like Reed Hiller brand private residences. Um, there's one at the Autobond uh site in uh Connecticut that I went to to look at on site that goes through a wet land. I grew up near one at the Great Swamp in New Jersey. So, I I do think that um I don't know that on Shelter Island there are precedents um for this, but it does one of the one of the tricks in in placing it is finding enough length to have the slope be manageable, but also have it I mean from an architectural point of view feel like a journey. it. We could certainly do a direct ramp from the deck down to the dock, but the slope would actually be quite high. Uh uh steep. Sorry about the mis the misspeaking.

Um but I'm, you know, I I don't I don't disagree. I I think I mean most of the ramps or most of the walkways over wetlands and I've been on a lot of them as well, you know, in Louisiana in particular where there are flooded forests with beautiful, you know, walkways over them. Yep. In this case though, at least in the current planting, you're talking about a ramp over a lawn. It won't be a lawn.

Well, it may not. It'll it'll be different kinds of planting proposed. Of course, it'll be dark and shady under most of it, and I'm not sure how successful you're going to be in in encouraging growth under a an opaque deck. Um, we're working we are working it it will it will follow the wetlands requirements for permeability through a structure and we're also working uh closely with the group for the east end in choosing native um plants that will um that that that will hopefully you know plants are plants but they will hopefully grow and and we have been to sites that also have plants that flow underneath them. I mean right now that it's it is a lawn right now and we are trying to make it um more less you know uh like a no mo a no mo meadow basically where it's it's got uh plants with deeper roots that don't need watering no fertilization no pesticides no I mean very little mowing, the mowing that would be required maybe once or twice a year to keep weeds out, things like that.

I'm sure it's possible to make this a beautiful thing. I I do, again, not to beat a dead horse, but I think you're you really have to stretch the definition of shade tolerant plant when you're talking about under the deck. Um, and I think you could you could make a ramp that is in the adjacent vegetated of buffer and make it a pleasant experience and it doesn't have to be a straight shot and it could follow the the curves of the other ramp you're proposing or what however you want to design it is it um just to clarify I mean we are more than w willing to look at various options um it

take a look I mean I drew it and and you the placement of it that is on the north side of the lot that bothers you or is it it's in the it's entirely in the vegetated buffer. It's in the 75 ft buffer and I don't believe it needs to be. Wouldn't any dock wouldn't any ramp that gets to the dock have to move through the buffer? Yeah, but if you start and you know I'm happy to have a call with you and talk about but if you start why don't maybe we can meet on site sometime.

If you start the ramp at the 10t elevation which is the driveway and go down the 70 or 80 ft to get a 1 and 12 slope you'll end up you know somewhat before the swimming pool and still in the adjacent buffer. And from that point, you could certainly do a a uh ADA compliant walkway, but it would be on the ground, you know, at that elevation 6 and a half as opposed to flying over the lawn.

Rob, is that would that be it through the vegetative area? Yeah, but I I think what David is is saying is the way it's drawn now is that the the elevated structural access is is going all the way to the dock. In other words, you're you're achieving the drop in elevation through the entire through the maximum amount of, you know, the regulated buffers as you possibly could between the deck and the dock. Um, which is not illogical, but I think what David's saying is you could get to that lower elevation sooner, as in farther from the water, closer to the house and deck, so that you could then have a walkway, a lower set walkway that was that would go to the dock. And David will correct me if I'm wrong, but I I think that's what he's getting at. So you would rather have the the planking closer to grade

at grade on sleepers as opposed to requiring footings. It's about less structure. I don't I don't I mean the problem is what what's designed is a ramp where you have to go up and then go down. So you're going from 14 1/2 ft to 6 1/2 ft as opposed to from 10 ft to 6 1/2 ft. So, it's requiring a much longer ramp because of the decision, which is probably a more pleasant experience, frankly, to go from the pool area down to the dock as opposed to going as opposed to having to backtrack to go down. Um well

I mean the good the good the good part is that really what they're proposing in in addition to you know the sort of the wider non-disturbance buffer adjacent to the wetland boundary is I believe the intention uh and Mary or Dorset can correct me if I'm wrong but I believe the intention as it's depicted on the plan is basically to naturalize most of that buffer area. So, in other words, it's not just the non-disturbance buffer which is hatched on the site plan in in green, but even beyond that, there's there's proposed uh meadow uh with native grasses and wild flowers, shade tolerant, etc. throughout that whole area. So, so I think we're we're with you on the overall theme, the owners are with you on the overall theme of naturalizing uh most of that buffer area between the developed portion of the site and the wetland. So, I don't think any of this is is going to be a problem. It might just require a little bit more discussion, not on everybody's time, maybe between you and Mary and Dorsa and the owner to to figure out something that might be more palatable, but also suit the owner's needs.

Yeah, the the creating a natural area may very well be a compensating factor. It's just not clear how big that is, you know, where it is to consider consider it fully.

Sure. Yeah. So, we've got the we've got the uh quantitative and qualitative description for the the non-disturbance buffer, the 25 ft width, which is what's consistent with what Teresa and the town board have been applying to other projects. Um, but I don't see any reason why we couldn't further quantify. I mean, you'll see the note that says proposed meadow in place of existing turf to include native grasses and wild flowersowers for part shade to shade proposed drought tolerant turf lawn on walking paths. So certainly could probably just add some, you know, potential limits and and quantification of those areas as well. Yeah, I think what would be very helpful is if the building elevation looking I forgotten which I guess it's from west to east where you see this the skinny side of the pool in elevation the ramp doesn't show in that drawing and it would be very helpful I think to visualize the ramp and the pitch and the spacing of the structure so we can understand what the whole picture is and

that's true for both ramps but this one in particular. And Mary, didn't we come up with some additional plans like that or are they still in the works? Because I I think the CAC may have asked the same thing. Am I remembering that correctly? Uh, you are remembering that correctly. and Dorsa and I internally have worked out um and with along with our engineer have worked out um some some preliminary drawings, but we didn't, you know, we don't want to overload everyone with lots and lots and lots of drawings until they're asked for. So, we Sounds like now would be a good time.

You've been Yeah. No, I I appreciate the the the need to simplify. That happens to be a very important drawing and and we will um I'll I'll Rob, let's talk about getting that to them, however the proper way is.

Yeah, that sounds good. And and I just wanted to to respond to one other thing which there is that old covenant. I think the um the Hardy permit was one of the first wetland permits that had that was issued by the town after adoption of the wetlands law and the originally approved pool and deck. There was that covenant that the deck could not be roofed and closed etc because the idea was they did not want the creep of um or or the extension of potentially livable space. Um, I would have to get um I I I would have to seek an attorney's opinion uh on on how that covenant relates going forward given that that deck uh will no longer exist. Um, I I did anticipate that this board, well, the town board, um, would probably look to recreate a new covenant, um, that would probably require, you know, have the same limitations on the newly proposed deck. Uh, but I think to that end, and again, Mary, correct me if I'm wrong, I don't think there is there's certainly no proposed enclosure of any part of the deck. And the only so-called covered portion I'm aware of is that open trellis on the side of the house. And I don't know that that would ramp

as a roof over. And that that roof I believe is outside of the wetland area.

I I'm referring to the proposed screen porch. And yes, it's outside the wetland area, but the covenant, which is very brief, says the deck shall never be roofed, fully enclosed, or used as habitable space. And as I and and it was a I had to copy it from one of your drawings, but another drawing so I could see how these things all related. But it it's pretty clear that that a portion of that screen porch about 25% of it is over the the the deck that was built back in 200 would be in place of not not over.

I know. But you're building a you're building a room with a roof on it. Yeah. But it's but it's uh that's within code. That's that I mean we but it's it's I mean you're right. This is a question for the attorney.

My interpretation of it and the building inspector corroborated it is that area of the deck even though it's outside of the ABB is the deck that's referred to in the covenant and it shouldn't be built over. And I think the solution, at least a solution, is you slide the screen porch back 5T or whatever it is, and then you're no longer over the old deck. Um, and it solves the problem, but you lose one view out of the screen porch. But I think it's a pretty solvable issue if you're willing to slide things around and not overlap the footprint of the old deck.

Yeah, we'll have to we'll have to look at it. I I will see that squeeze a step back there a little bit. It's outside of the wetlands per reed is almost always right. But but that covenant was only that covenant was only enforcable in connection with that's what the covenant wetlands regulated area but which this is outside. It's true, but the co I mean unfortunately the attachment with the covenant is not particularly legible and it's at such a small scale that the house is about a quarter of an inch long. So you can't really see the limits exactly of what they were referring to but they used the word the deck.

Yeah. No, I get it. They didn't say the portion of the deck in the AB. Yeah. So he has solve it. We'll have to solve it either

either by modifying it uh getting a legal opinion that reads interpretation is incorrect or ask the town board uh to effectively nullify the covenant that's going to be associated with a deck that doesn't exist anymore uh and impose a a new covenant with essentially the same restriction over the newly proposed deck uh but with an allow allowance for a structure that's outside uh the regulated area. Those are really only three practical outcomes. So, we'll have to we'll have to figure out which one of those ends up working.

So, that David, that's your point in bringing it up that they have between now and when they have the hearing, they can work on this. As you said, Rob, the porch the porch is not is not a subject of this application. Like it's not included in Reed's denial letter because it's not actually within the wetlands regulated area. So I think Reed's point David I think we should let them prepare this for next time. I think I agree with that. Yeah. Uh Greg has a quick question. Yeah. Um it's sort of in the same vein of David's question. It's about ramp A. Uh the one from the driveway

to the deck. Um I assume that it's uh going through the middle of the ABB in order to get additional length so you have a lesser slope. Um, but I wonder if there's a way of sort of mitigating its impact on the AVB by sort of pushing it up a little so it hugs more the um the outer edge of the AV that 100 foot. Um, so it's not just going right through the middle. I don't know if that's a crucial thing, but it it just sort of pops out to me as something that might allow a little more or a little less impact on the ABB here.

You mean pulling it closer to the house? Um, it closer to the 100 foot line. You see the the arc of the AB pulling it up closer to the arc of the AB curves more. Well, so it follows that arc more than just going straight through the middle of the AP like this. And so, you know, it would it would just I think it would allow by by placing it sort of in the middle of the AB, I feel like it sort of impacts the entire width of the AB.

Okay. I I I think that has to get lumped in with the discussion of the other ramp. Yeah, I agree. Okay. But but thank you for bringing it up now because then they can discuss both this ramp start to your hands over here. Um would you permit a question from the least knowledgeable person on this call? Is that you, sir? What's the question sir? Well, thank you. Thank you, Julia. Um, what's the AVB?

That's the 75 to 100 ft wetlands setback area where construction is permissible with a wetlands permit as long as there's good justification and justifiable design that goes along with it. So, I think what you're hearing tonight is not that anyone um would begrudge you uh disability access or the ramps alto together, but are just they're they're trying to uh pry at the idea of whether their design um can be modified in any way to uh reduce or limit uh the overall surface area andor vertical elevation of the structures in a way that you don't have quite as much of those structures cutting through uh that wetlands regulated area.

Yeah.

Okay. So, can I then follow with a question which is clearly naive. If you were inclined to permit the drawings as written, is that are you saying that as written it offends the relevant rules or are you saying something else? the well to answer your first question the A in the VB stands for adjacent vegetated buffer as in in case that acronym is a mystery

but I think yeah I think the criteria for granting the permit is you have to explore alternates that are the least invasive and to put another way you have to show that your your plan is the best one because others are not basically show why yours is the best why it's the best you just have to you just have to according to the rules the best it just has to be offered up as possibility and you know the thinking you'll decide that you want to do this one the thinking is the closer you build to the water the more

potential for having adverse effects so the further you can pull it back the more sustainable it is at least that's my understanding of it. No, no. I I I appreciate that. And I was I live in a lawyer's world because I'm a lawyer. And so my question, which I think you've answered, is does this current plan offend a particular regulation? No.

No. I I and I can talk with you more about this outside this meeting, Stuart. the I I think what what what the board members are saying and remember they are an advisory committee to the town board who eventually decides to approve this or not. Yeah. And you after exploring this further with Mary and Dorsa may decide that you don't think there is any other way

to implement these ramps except as they are uh proposed currently. And despite the planning board's recommendations, the town board could end up agreeing with you and approve these just as they're drawn. But what we're doing is we're taking in the comments and recommendations the planning board, which they'll pass on to the town board, which the town board will then echo back to us, at which point you can say one of two things. Either you've explored this and there is no other alternative and this is a perfectly justifiable design or you might end up saying you did look into it and you were able to come up with some alternative uh that that you know furthered the the comments of the planning board which if you were here you'll see we just did on the prior application regarding the location of a swimming pool. Um, so that's that's the idea. And so you and Mary and Dorsa, I know 100% that that Mary understands what what's being discussed here. Um, and and can discuss this further. And it sounds like David's even offered himself as a a part of that conversation with Mary to see if if there's any part of this design that that can be modified in a way that f you know that that addresses the board's comments. Maybe not, but maybe. So that's what you have to take a look at. That's what they're asking. No, I and and I really appreciate the opportunity to engage in this which I think is a very constructive conversation because I've I now better understand um the planning board's questions which I'm very grateful for and and certainly will follow the board's um requests and

suggestions. questions and we've been so well counseledled by you, Rob, and and Maril and I by Mary and Dorsa as well. Um, but I think you all could appreciate my general desire to understand it and therefore I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to ask these questions and I'm grateful for your responses. Thank you, Stuart. Rob,

um I just want to remind everyone that uh we still have site plan review legislation, but luckily it's only 8:15. I'm done if you if you guys are. Yeah. Thank you so much, Rob, for answering our questions. Thanks for your time. Thank you, Mary. Get back to you with drawings. Thank you. Okay. Thank you. You all appreciate appreciate hearing us. Bye. Bye. Nothing so much.

No. So, um, at our last meeting, I think we all came to the conclusion along with Julia who was here, um, that there's a lot more needed, I think, for us to have clearer diagrams, maybe different quality submission of some of these diagrams. I I didn't I personally did not feel like I was in a position to conjure up in my imagination where things were going to be and unless you're there and seeing everything. So, I think we're just going to wait. And I did speak with Meg that you were going to also touch base with see if they can sort of redo everything or submit further a little bit more clearer documents. I don't know.

Yeah, we're we're getting um the recommendations from all the different consultants and then we'll put it together in a document and send it to them. Okay.

All right. So I think so that that they might need some more direction to know then even what to give us. So I think we can just safe to say we're just going to kind of put it to the side for a while until we get further substantial substantial documents on that. Okay. Um so site plan review. Um all right. I do I do want to start off by saying that I think I as as the planning board leader I think I need to apologize that I in hindsight at the last meeting I probably should have just shut the meeting down at like whenever it was that we started 10 to 10 um because at that hour I just don't we're not working at our optimal performance and you know our brain power has diminished at 1000 p.m. And uh although Rick, I do appreciate we we had a pretty lengthy discussion, in-depth discussion, but I think we probably should have just uh shut it down and kept it going tonight. Um but it was I was just ambitious. I had I I kind of foresaw us getting through this and then maybe moving on to wetlands. But um it had good intentions. My ambitions had good intentions. So I apologize and I will it's you know I take responsibility for that and I'm we'll do better in time management u after that. Um I also just want to say that I I want to recognize two very important things that I found in the notes. Um and one was from David Austin. um who reminded us about, you know, the bigger vision about where are we going with this and what you how do we want No, I I really appreciated your your summary like what we have to go into this with our eyes open about how we want this how the structure should be in legislation for the various types of business applicants that are going to be coming in. And I want to say a few more things about that. Um, by the same token, I also

appreciate appreciated Sean's um, input in the share drive comments in regards to um, clearing and grading because those are those are the two most popular things that are going to come up in the commercial applications. And when I was thinking about this, what what is it really? It's about being transparent about our values. And that's why we have seven board members who may have overlapping values or or differing values. But I do want to recognize that when you think of all the hobbies that all of us uh you know all of the each members here engage in sailing, fishing, we're all outdoorsmen, right? So um I think that's a that's a positive attribute. We we all really care about the environment. We care about conservation. Um, but to be, you know, to be totally transparent about our values is important. And I think what this comes down to is basically ownership that includes responsible conservation, whether it be, you know, a homeowner or like what we're looking at here, a commercial applicant, versus sustaining seasonal business. And that that's where we have to strike a balance. Um, obviously some of us are pretty open about I mean, I'm a tree hugger. I, you know, Hi, I'm Julie. amry hunger. I'm saying that in a good way, but but it it comes from a good place. But I do recognize that in my being a conservationist that my thinking can can be myopic both in my thinking and my planning, which is why we have seven board members and not one board member. Um, so I think we have to find some some sort of balance here. And I also thought of Matt. So Matt Matt and I have both worked in real estate, right? Oh, yeah. Not maybe not so much now, but we have both. And I'm sure Matt will attest as what I'm saying is that you can sometimes easily get uh buyers to want to come to Shelter Island, see something or it's a hard no. So, it's either I

love Shelter Island or I hate the ferry. And I'm sure we all experience that too is like a lovehate relationship with the ferry. And it does influence finance, right? Our goods, our passage, all these things are going to affect our economy. So I think what we really have to go in as David said with their eyes wide open that we have a very unique pool of applicants that are going to be coming for you know for commercial. It's going to be the mom and pop entrepreneur and it's also going to be the corporate entrepreneur. And I don't I don't see that mix changing. I think that's what we uniquely have and it's going to continue because we're if you think about it we're attracting a business owner with a really adventurous spirit. you really have to be you really have to be a little bit of an oddball to be to to first want to even come here and then to start a business, right? So, the way I see it is that you're going to have somebody's going to be considering that 3 to four month economy really three maybe four. Uh the mainland doesn't necessarily attract this sort of, you know, adventurous spirited entrepreneur as we do in the Hamptons. Um, and the corporate entrepreneur is going to be weighing that ferry. You know, is it is it worth is you know the charm of the ferry versus what is the actual profit going to be and the extra uh paying of goods and transporting goods and finding housing for their staff. And I I so I think that those are the two very important things. So when you see Shawn's comments on let's be really specific about how we're going to keep trees on a a certain a certain degree or a certain percentage of trees on a property. How much are we going to clear cut? How much are we going to grade? Those are really important things because when you think about the wetlands and trees, they're both working in a symbiotic relationship. Um, and I I'm not I'm I don't have any, you know, super optimism here where I rose lenses where I think that anything that we vote on or act on is going to stop gentrification of Shelter Island. I

think that we have a responsibility to the residents and we have a responsibility to the comprehensive plan and we have to be very clear about if it's a small business that doesn't just afford you a big excusal slip to do whatever you want to do with the property. That's back to the responsible uh conservation concept. But at the same time, we have to have our eyes open that we're in a business depression right now. We just had I just learned yesterday that Cornucopia is going to be closing. Very sad. Uh it's been here since I was a you know little kid. All dugged up. We have the pharmacy closing. Cheekwood's pulling out. I just learned that Grady Riley is going to pull their their uh application.

I don't know where that's going to lead to. Um but these are businesses that were, you know, long-standing landmarks and now they're going to be gone. So again, uh that's why we have seven board members. But I think where where we where we need to be putting our efforts is how are we going to maybe tailor this down a little bit to find that balance between individual responsible conservation and a commercial applicant and sustaining seasonal business. Um and I think that mix of business owner, it's the fact that we're water locked that's not going to go away. So, I don't see it as let's emulate the Hamptons. Let's let's put everything that they have in our legislation because I that's not the circumstances that we're in.

Does that does that make sense? And we're very unique. Yeah. The closest thing we're more like is more like other small islands. It's like there are which there are not that many. Right. Right. Especially you have the level of commerce that we have a lot of good that's why I mean I don't have the answer but I need the answer from you guys like that's took I took you know some comfort in that context of the minor site plan that using that as often as possible so that it's not as much a burden but I don't know then if do we need to throw in some parameters that give us a nudge in that direction, you know. Yeah.

Um yeah, I think my I can't express it. My my major concern is is Yeah. I totally believe we should be conservative and and make sure we don't destroy the land. That's not the goal. Goal though is the goal is to actually have any commercial stuff here. This is not going to help. This is actually going to go the other direction. And I just want to make sure we thought about that because it's more restrictive than the current code as far as the number of people will have to go through this the way it's read,

but ideally the result of our review is that it's a better looking project. Not that it's more difficult. It's gonna by by just that fact you're going to take more time and in a commercial sense time is money and it's like it's a more level of effort more meetings more time more lawyer fees. So no matter what if you have more things you're doing

I'm not saying I'm not saying it's wrong. I'm just I just want to make sure we're really consciously making that choice because because one of the challenges and I'll I'll get on a soap box for 30 seconds and I'll get off. All right. because we don't have a new comprehensive plan. We're going up with an old comp comprehensive plan which kind of covers this, you know, it's pro business, but it's not it didn't really clarify what's our goal here. What are we trying to have more businesses? Are we trying to have more local businesses? Are we trying to it's it's undecided and we're bottom up doing code with no structure because we don't have a direction. So it's like well if you really believe in conservation then we should do this. If you really believe that people who we should have more commercial local businesses because that's good for the economy and blah blah blah blah blah then we should maybe make it a little more you know. So it's that's that's the challenge we face that's where I got challenged but I came this where it's like I get feedback on things but it's so it's so opinion based and unrelated to any structure of like what is the goal? What are we actually trying to do in changing the site plan review? And that's what I was I got stuck.

I I think we're trying to bring back some notion of conservation that I believe actually was here in Shelter Island and has gotten lost through just general people. But that's an opinion. It isn't the rule, right? No, no, but I'm saying it it's actually it's not my opinion. It's I I think a conservation mindset was out there, you know, 50 years ago. It was here. It was just that if people didn't, you know, we it was just done in a had the tools. It's always been it's been a people going to do the right thing and they're not doing the right thing. Well, I I don't think it was people doing the right thing. It was people we made rules based upon the knowledge of the people at the time and the science at the time.

Right. Uh and also the fact there's a bunch of people that have different opinions, right? It's like it's classic what happens in government. The the thing is though what I don't hear or understand is what is the goal more conservation. But what does that mean? Who do you want to hear it from? I I don't know the answer to that. To me actually cuz I have an opinion. Well, we I think we all have opinions.

We all have an opinion on that. So, we need to articulate it. Um for me I as Julia is saying there is an element of conservation that I think we have to reinvestigate and I step back and say you know you say there's no umbrella for even approaching uh site plan development. I think there is an umbrella. We we have a comprehensive plan even though it's an old

the current one. Yes. Yes. with that. It's an umbrella and part of that is um you know the integrity and nature of 114 which goes from the south fairy to the north fairy and really creates the the impact and the inherent nature of what Shelter Island is. I think that's a relatively clear and definable uh goal. Um, if I look at 114 in just the 25 years I've been here, I do not see it improving. I see it going the path of Montalk Highway. And that for me is a really very sad and totally avoidable situation. And I think if you look at just that one roadway and its impact on the island, I think it can give us all we will have a different opinion about how best to achieve it. But I think it should give us all a very clear understanding of what can happen either in a good way or bad way. Um to sort of impact development and development here in the next 25 years you can guarantee will be different from the development over the last 50 years. Um, you know, if you look at what happened on 114 over the last 50 years, much of the commercial uh space is in little houses that were converted from residential to uh offices and they have a scale that is that retains a residential scale. I fear that that will change and you can

see it changing now. I mean if you look at some of the new development on 114 uh that has gone up in the last five years something going up right now um you know it is not like that and I I mean I look at 114 from um the curve at uh St. Aries to the school and I see a lot of destruction and I think we really need to I think Julia's point about how do we get back to the scale of um preservation that enabled the island to evolve and grow at a certain scale. How how do we retain that? Um, you know, I made the comment about bulldozers can do a lot on a site now that it used to be you wouldn't necessarily bulldoze the site. Um, and I think the methodology of doing development has changed and we have to really think about what we can put into place now to help mitigate and shape not next week necessarily, but 10 years from now. There's almost not a single street tree along 114 anymore that overlaps the street.

So, they're all gone. So perhaps it's it's it's just like a reasonable amount of mitigation coupled with like what what he's talking about to me that's deemed that's that's the conf that's the conservation category but in the same comprehensive plan it talks about sustaining the mix of business the question I how do we incentivize and what do we want to incentivize that's what that's what incentivize

by incentivize is make it easier for people to builds or do certain things commercially versus not, right? So how you write so you can either put in the code lots of you can't do this this and this lots of nodes or you can put in inherently some yeses if you do these things then you'll get through faster and easier right that's the that's the that's I don't know that that's our job to make it faster and easier I don't think that that's our job at any I'm not saying as I said eyes wide open I wanted to make sure that understood that as we're writing it now, we're not making it faster and easier. We're making

taken in the the kind of the other way to say it. We don't want to in inordinately put in roadblocks that deter businesses if we could do it in a better way or more efficient or

it's fig balance. And that was all I was trying to raise was just sort of a be conscious of that as we think about this because it's really hard when we're in the weeds. I that's where I got in the weeds of like this little thing and how's it going to affect like Belle these all have follow on effects but I if I could just say the the small businesses that Julia mentioned some of which have just closed or will be closing those are the ones that should be e as you point out should be easier to process and easier to help um maintain their viability and get through the process quickly. It's the businesses and they will have a smaller impact on the environment theoretically because if they are indeed small businesses small businesses that are uh not you know macrofunded they're going to be doing smaller things that have less of an impact. It's the It's the businesses that come in that have a little money and a little scale that are the ones that are potentially damaging beyond even their um viability as a business. So they can come in, create havoc, and then they go out of business and we've got a ruined uh environment and no business. So to short sell ourselves and say, "Oh, we have to make it really easy for business to come here." Well, okay, you can do that, but the the price you pay may be a ruined landscape and still no business. And I'm not saying that we should be making it easy for everyone. That's what I'm saying. Like, let's pick and choose. And that goes again back to what's the goals, right? If our goal is to have more small businesses that are locally owned, then you could write code that

enables that much easier, right? But it was unclear to me whether that was really what we're and this is where I'm just having a problem like what is our goal? Okay. So, could the goal be that perhaps we perceive in the history of site plan review that there have been some loopholes maybe you call it or some some parts of it that were unclear where unscrupulous applicants maybe tried to take advantage of that. So maybe we have to tighten things up a little bit. I I personally again to total transparency I would like to see a little tightening of some of the conservation portions of it particularly tree cutting

clearing grading or those are my two top things in my mind however I and it's a good reminder from you again that we want to also I think make it more streamlined process yeah and so we're we're not doing that but as but as Greg just said if he's assuming that bomb and pop kind entrepreneur applicants may be coming forth with a less impactful application. What are we going to put in place to possibly make that easier for them? I don't know if we have that yet, but that would be my question to uh Rick,

what elements could we put in that would make those that that those kinds of applications go quicker? Now, you did mention in your email that what's the phrasing that you use? You you didn't like minor um what was the other one? Uh, no. Not administrative. I liked yours better. Tell me again what was your uh I'm trying to remember too. It's Is it advisory? No, advisory. No, that doesn't sound right. No, come on. You had a really good word. I think what it was now. Somebody help me out here. This word that he used last week for Oh, come. No, it was not administrative. You You didn't care for that choice. Um, advisory session like Right. Right. Advisory versus full full life review. But you mentioned in your email that it would still be at the discretion of the planning board.

Yeah. But yes, but why that's why we have seven members. I mean, couldn't we still come to conclusion like look this this applicant is definitely going to be put on the administrative kind of I totally I totally agree. I think the big thing is current the current discretionary is being done at the building inspector. Yeah. Right. So that's a one person's making that discretionary call versus and so

I'm not saying it's it's just different. Right. So it's it means that no matter what he doesn't have that discretion anymore. It has to come to the planning board which means inherently it's going to be time based on when we have our meetings which it means inherently it's going to take longer to get the discretionary done. Okay. So that means this discretionary this or this uh minor can't remember the word either. It really pisses me off. uh this minor site plan that if it is a quote unquote fast track um is already slower start than what they currently have in discretionary. So we have to think about making sure that we don't make it even longer.

But I'm just trying to find your um email cuz I had printed it for myself and it's now it's not in my pile here. So wait, maybe this is it. Oh yes, but never mind. We just got um so so just as a quick thing. So in the existing code, as you just said, site uh site plan was discretionary by the building inspector. Now it's mandated by category as our just as our draft is right now. There's no inspector discretion and there's no work until you have a full site plan review. Yeah, I'm just looking at David's number.

Yeah, it's again I'm not saying that's wrong, but it is a change. I'm trying to figure out what was the impact to somebody coming to do at some point. Did I talk about? Yeah. Have we forgotten all about you? We're just having our own discuss.

I look very carefully at David's email. It's actually the only one I was because really David was dealing with a kind of wrote substantively about this. I know you all these other comments. I hadn't seen them before and they're kind of conversational so they're hard to follow. So a lot of what I'm focusing on is going to relate to what David put in this email. Let me start with the starting point. First of all, what is site plan review about? What's the I have a clear idea of what your site plan is. I don't the town does, but I do. Site planning should be about um creating an attractive community, a safe community. I'm talking particularly in terms of vehicular safety. The site plans are about how do you place buildings, parking areas, and vehicle accesses on a site and how they interact with their neighboring roadways and so forth. So, you want to promote safety, you want to promote community attractiveness, you want to promote just overall good design. All right, that's the basic principle of it. It should be neutral. It's not site plan review is not designed to encourage small businesses. It should not be designed to discourage small businesses. It should be, you know, whether people decide to locate their business in Shelter Island is up to them. I think I'll state the obvious as a non-Shelter Islander though that you know, you are on an island and given all these disadvantages people could perceive you have to have an attract. You have to have something that really Yeah, I really like shelter out. I personally do, although I don't live here. Um, it is still an attractive island and you want to keep it that way because you have these other disadvantages like having to use the ferry to encourage people to come here. So, what I wrote is based off basically three starting points, three things. Your existing chapter of the code, chapter 109, a draft that was done in July and was circulated, including to me. Now, the town, I don't know who wrote this, and you don't have to tell me. I don't know that I want to know. It was the case. I don't

maybe I'm going to refer to it. The town board I believe must have authorized this circulated to me. Um so and I also drew from the east and town code site review because I'm very familiar with that. So those are the three sources from which I drew. Couple of comments. First of all, this idea of building inspector discretion. You don't want discretion as to whether or not a project is subject to site plan for you. I agree.

So the an applicant a property owner should know I either have to go through the permanent process or I don't have to go through the permit process and the criteria as to whether I have to do that should be as objective as possible not subject to the whims of the building spectra. However good he or she may be it should be clearcut. Now, it's not to be perfect, but for the most part, the decision whether or not I mean whether or not you need to go through site plan review should not be a discretion decision. When you're in site plan, obviously the planning board, whoever's reviewing the site plan has discretion as to where they think the driveway should go in the parking lot and all that stuff. That's part of the site. But whether or not you got to go through the process, that should be as clear as possible. You either do or you don't. The current code is very poor in that regard. It is very very discretionary with the building inspector. It really when you read it it's almost like logical. Yeah. If the site plan looks good, it doesn't need site plan review. But if I don't think it meets the standards, they're not making it go to site plan review. That doesn't make sense. So the second thing I want to say is and again I'm working on this draft. I don't know authoriz I don't know who did it. It didn't get adopted. But in terms of process, I'm going to explain to you the process that was set forth in this which I don't think is streamlined. Preconference with the board was mandatory. No submission requirements. The applicant could say, "I want to meet with you guys. You come in."

Done them here. Yeah. Yeah. Sit in front of you. I mean, I assume they'll bring at least bring a survey or cycle in, but they don't have to. So, you're starting from nowhere. It's mandatory. They have to waste at least one night and you only meet once a month as you know, coming in front of you.

Then they submit an application what the what this draft called an administrative site plan. That was supposed to be the expedited cycle. So they've already had their pre-conference. Now they submit their expedit administrative cycle request. Well, the first thing the planning board meets for the first time, they have to decide whether it's complete. And they might decide it's not complete. You want more information. But in the best case scenario, you got to devote one meeting to deciding whether or not it's complete. Then the chair has to has to select two board members to be a subcommittee to review this application, render a report and report back to the planning board. That's at least a third planning board meeting and we're probably beyond that, right? And then having had received that report, the planning board as a whole then decides whether or not it wants to approve the administrative site plan, which probably will require yet another meeting for an actual resolution. So, it's not an expedited process at all.

Right. Can I just interrupt for one second? So, how e expeditious is this? David Austin, I'm just thinking out loud like no, I'm thinking to myself like No, I agree. What do you think? I decided in terms of our goal like I'm this is interesting to me like in terms of our goal like where does this you're talking like for even the simple thing is probably six months at a minimum sounds like, right? It'd be it'd be nice if we could do it in three or four months. You might be able to do it. So, let me talk. I mean, I'm No, I'm talking about the one that you were referring. Right. Right. That's a six months plus. That's right. And that's one of the and that's why I kind of

and asked for administrative and that's why so I that's why I ignored that and made just looking at what you had done and the existing because I also think that was too Okay. So, you did you were aware of what they were doing. Okay. I was one of them. Okay. That was only one voice. He outed him. He outed himself. I am the I am the problem. No. Yes. It got more and more convoluted. Yeah. I found it very hard to follow understand.

Yours is much more straightforward, but it did it makes you so in my in my draft. And one of the things I want to go over with you is there are a lot of because you cover things in your in your email. Maybe there are a lot of there are a lot of things I need input from you on. In other words, if you're making some statements, well, it requires all the Well, no, not necessarily. Everything I put it in bold here, highlighted, I need feedback,

but you can determine that you can establish certain thresholds or an aperture. You can widen the aperture, let more people in more readily. You can narrow the aperture and have more control. But you can establish certain benchmarks. If you are below the if you were you know outside whatever I guess inside the aperture it'll go through where you're below these benchmarks you would be eligible under my draft for minor site plan. What is that? It's site plan approval without a public hearing. That's what it is. Minor site plan. If you meet the require if you meet the first of all the eligibility requirements are below certain thresholds and the board agrees the board can approve it without even scheduling the public hearing. And I mean that could be a four-month process,

maybe 3 months. Although I'm not going to say that'll happen too often, but you could do it very quickly. Yeah. So I mean my basic personal view of things is you take your time in things that are really important and potentially damaging and stuff that's not don't waste people time and your own time trying to get it through. So I did want to get your feedback you know from the things that are in my draft because there's a lot of things for which feedback is needed from the planning board presumably then to go to the town board. So you want to do that? Yes right now. So you all have the I have extra copies. We got it. I have it now. Somebody was nice enough to make copies. Yeah.

This folks I'm going to go through the stuff that we needed. So 109-3 is applicability and first is a the residential zoning district. So again I'm defining what needs that doesn't right. Um, so for one, if the use requires a special permit, if the use requires a special permit, and there are there not many in the residential district there, your code, let me just see if you can in in the residential uh a zone. Um, the following are special permit uses various kinds of clubs. So private and nonprofit organizations can sell clubs those are special perm uses riding rings non-commercial invasive horse batting riding rings educational institutions nursery schools and daycare centers two family houses and any use that's of the same general character as any of the uses mentioned above. So I think for example when you we review you were reviewing um uh

matter I believe that was categorized as similar to but not exactly an educational institution and so it was treated as a special property use. So there are special property uses generally because special per uses are not residential uses and they're in residential zones you want some control over them. I don't think you have a lot of them. You're not going to be good at that, but should they go through site plane? Well, at some level they probably should. There may be some things they could do that are too small and you have to decide that. But in general, yeah, if you're proposing, let's say, a new school, you know, I'm not talking a public school like a private nursery school or whatever in a residential zone, you probably want you probably want site approval. Um, let me continue. So, now this one's bolded A2. any clearing or grading sufficient size to require a building permit unless it's part of something else. So for example, you get a building permit to build a house. You don't need site plan for the house or the clearing. The clearing is with the house.

Suppose someone already has a house or already has a facility in the residential want to do more clearing. Do you and I bolded it to say I don't know if you want to do this and if you do I need to know what you want to do. But what if you just have a residential parcel without the house plan? Um, and you don't apply for building permit and you don't and you just go and clear it. Do you want to regulate? Do you want to have a site plan review over that? I I res was to this under the commercial lens only commercial lens. We're not we're not doing residential on this. It's a different

but that's your but that's the category here is residential. So it's residential. Here's your car. But the the tangent there is like this isn't saying res permit where you're doing kind of a commercial like activity in a residential area. It's not saying residential use. It's a residential zone. This is we have a lot of businesses in res residential zones don't we have in an ideal world I agree with you. I'd love to have control over what's there, but I don't think that this is where where we do it. So, for example, I'm not I'm not determining you guys do and the town board haven't decided.

No, you asked the question. If somebody clears a vacant residential lot, should that be subject to something? It's not my judge. It's time I decide. Do you want it to be subject? Well, our stipulation was you're not supposed to do residential development, meaning houses. It wasn't that you have no jurisdiction in a residential zone. It's the whole idea of site plan, my understanding was is to target commercial use. It's to deal with commercial use in various

What if it's the non-coning use in a residential zone? go back to the question right that that Gregory is asking is what would you do during cipher you know if someone comes in and proposes to clear the residential lot before building a house you deny it approve it I mean if they deny it deny it they can come in for house building purpose I suppose so you know you also have and this will come up with going for example to this to the the yard sale thing what would you get out of sight we don't have

um so anyway that's the clearing issue is something that you need the tenants to address. Do you and if so in what line do you want to have site for agreement for clearing? So that's that. Next thing here A3 garage lawn lawn and port sales that came out of this. I didn't know who wrote this but they put it subject to site plan got taken. What are you going to do for site plan on a yard sale? I don't know. Well, I think what they were I think part of the concern was again if you look at what cycl you know lots of vehicles lots of safety blah blah if you have a long extended thing then you're going to have a lot more vehicles a lot more that's I think was the thinking behind it that was the thinking but

but there's also there's also been a history of several properties I believe around the island that have stuff always out and it's kind of for sale it's become kind of you need to be on a certain Yes. Review. So that becomes more of a code. Yep. Yeah. Okay. Correct. And so does so does then the lot clearing before there's a house in a residential neighborhood. That would be a code. That' be a code. Yeah. A code. I don't think it would be done here now with this. Yeah, it should be done here.

Um so just to continue with regard to the non non-conforming commercial get businesses and residential zones. You can see what I wrote. I will say that in terms of building permit, if they get a building permit to add a bathroom or something inside the building, do we recycle it? No. So, it's really a building permit to enlarge the non-conforming, you know, structure if they get if they could do that. Uh, that was the idea there. But if no other words, it's a business use of the residential zone. If there new things that were expanded, you're probably the one site will ever be I would think expand. So by by business you're including institutional, commercial, religious

special permit use like an institutional use like a school or a club that's probably your special permit use. Okay. And so it would be it would be covered the um expansion. I want to make sure I understand what you mean by expansion. Physical expansion. So actually beyond the envelope with the current space. You have to do that how you want it. You can do it by envelope. You can do it by gross floor area. There's there's, you know, coverage. Yeah.

But that's the parameters that one would need to insert here. And that takes me to the next one. The bottom of the page. Well, actually bought it is agriculture. Again, I I was looking at this. It said that exempted from site review were temporary agriculture buildings. that implied that permanent agriculture buildings were going to be subject to cycle review. So I just threw in greater than 500 square f feet. Maybe you just get too high that's too low. Maybe you want no cycle of agriculture buildings. But where I wherever I highlight him, it's like I need I need advice.

If the regardless of whether it's agriculture or not, wouldn't it be it's a it'd be a commercial thing and they'd be doing expanding the building envelope if they so so let's choose one for the second. Is it possible to give an example that maybe experience from East Hampton or like I I need a tangible example here like well East Hampton for example regulates agricult room for agriculture buildings above a certain size. No but like an actual example like here was business you know parties and they did I did an actual example of something that somebody tried to do and it

agricultural building is like you're talking about like a barn. What's an agricultural building? They they do site energy for above a certain size. What is define an agricultural building? Uh anything from a well farmstead usually too small. Okay. Again this is in a residential zone. Yeah. This is only in a residential zone. We're talking all the agricultural stuff is in residential zones. Yeah. I'm saying this this is about well only through the first subject today is in residential. The reality is we have very few agricultural I know I know the areas that are but it was covered by it was covered in your

if that's the case I think the 500 foot thing is reasonable it's basically we're already saying you can do a small business in your residential area blah blah blah when it gets reach a certain size are you guys going to try to decide on those signs of things are you going to provide feedback you want I thought we did provide feedback I thought that's what always feedback to me in in refining you know inens consensus and feedback because multiple versions multiple opinions that's the problem. Yes. I mean on on the first page we were in grading land. Do you want that to be something to cycle? This is A2. I think we said no.

Well, the answer is no. No. Well, I mean there were two issues because I still don't say no. You say no. But you made the point that chapter 62 addresses excavations, which is true. and and I think it is redundant to add it in this code but 62 doesn't really address uh clearing

but I thought that the we understood both remitt from the town board and otherwise that that was beyond the scope of what we were looking at. I would ideally, and we'll get to it, like to keep that for the commercial side because I think it's a good progress to start that and residential hopefully addressed elsewhere in a code in the future. But but let's not confuse residential uses and residential zoning areas. That's a good point though. He's talking about residential where there's a resial basically nonconforming like you know ramps head in would be an example, right? So just picture that in a different way. In other words, that might be on the expansion of the nonformal use. All right.

But I think I think the consent from A2 is general residential, not for commercial use, just the residential zone. You don't want sites under review. No. Right. Correct. Got that. Um commercial. Yeah. Maybe five was the agricultural building. Um okay. Do you you want a deal? Again, it was I think 500 is a reasonable size. I think it's fine. There won't be very many if any

and I want to review question about that. Could we expand it so that since we have very few agricultural buildings, we're not really saying anything about warehouse buildings or industrial um storage facilities. Well, those inherently have to be. These are only basically agriculture is getting an out at less than 500. Everything else has a BM permit we'll be we'll be covering it will be captured if it's an agriculture warehouse and bigger than 500 square feet it would be sight okay

but if it's any other kind of warehouse less than that even then if it's in a commercial zone while doing business and they're changing things it'll go through cycling or just it's giving an out to the smaller agricultural so now we go into we transfer into the business zone which is where you accommodate cycling be so excited to be Um, so the first part it's pretty straightforward. You need a building permit to erect or construct that's new building construction. Yeah.

Or to move or enlarge an existing commercial building site under now you might have for the building for the enlargement and this comes down to B4 is it B4? Um, yeah B4 in red. You might want to have a cutoff maybe below a certain size you don't want cycle. I don't know if you want to make that call now, but you can have a cut off. You could have something that says we're going to capture we're going to make you go through cycle interview if you're above this. Below that, I'll get a building.

It's so hard because always about the size of the expansion is dependent upon the lot size. So again, it might be a small chain size, but it it has a bigger impact because it's on a smaller lot. This d this draft here used either a a fixed number. I think it or percentage of coverage, which is effectively tied to your lot size. That's the only reason I would worry about putting in a hard number is because of that. As a percentage, I think percentage I think it'd be if you're doing like 10%. Again, I don't know what the right percentage is, but it's also part of the problem. It's like figuring out you can also do a number and a percentage with whatever is greater,

right? You can do below a certain percent, you know, whatever, whichever's smaller over 100 square feet or you know, again, I think this draft they were using a 10% um I forget what the 10% was tight. I think it was coverage. I think it's coverage. I can't remember. Or 500 coverage. Hold on. That's under minor site plan and a lot coverage. Remember this right now is exempting it from we're talking about an exemption a complete exemption from site plan. You don't have to go in the door separately. You could have cut offs for

and who makes that how is that call inherently made? It has to come to us to make the way I've structured this. First of one thing I forgot to mention. This this new law would have site letter undertaken not by the town board but by the flooding board and the initial submission comes into the building inspector for the building inspector to do not just night site need like that at all but for him to judge you know first of all does it meet zoning? Yeah.

Does it meet the state building code? You know, there's certain basic fundamental requirements the building inspector's got to look at before he ships. If they come in with something that doesn't even need zoning, yeah, or some non-compliant with the building code, he might ship it back. Hey, you're not meeting the building code. We do it. But once the building inspector says it's okay for review, then it comes to play. Um, and that would criteria if we said if it's 10% or 550, whatever the thing is, they could use that criteria to decide, oh, you're only doing that much. Well, they're right. The buildings. That's right. The buildings. Let me find what they had. Where the what? They had the standing. They had a They had a threshold. You want to say

All right. Here it is. Here it is. Here it say

they use three different thresholds. They use lot coverage, floor area, and footprint. Choose one of them. In all those cases the lot coverage or the floor area I guess most floor in the building first and second floor or the footprint which is you know that which is kind of coverage the threshold they use was 10% of I guess of the existing building not tied to lot area 10% of if you weren't increasing existing building by more than 10% or 500 square f feet whichever is less If you are below those thresholds, both thresholds, you don't need cycling.

So if you have a 3,000 foot thing, you could go up 300 ft. That's less than the 500. Yeah. Thoughts on that? What you just said to 300 foot, you're going less than 300 more square feet exempt? I would say could mean Yeah, exempt. It's pretty small, right? Yeah. And it's it's like if you like add a small addition or something, what's I think the question is what's the impact of the increase?

And if the impact results in five more parking spaces or whatever the requirement that you know or how much more traffic will it generate, then I think it's a site planning issue. If it's just a 300 ft bump or a 500 foot. So inherently then you couldn't just put it by a size criteria and we shouldn't have anything in there that has to go through us because we have to make an impact. You could again you could also make that be the threshold for minor site. They do have to submit to you then. But if you find that they meet these criteria they don't have to have a public hearing. You can approve them. That's the right answer. So there's the question exemption from minor site review with no hearing or full cycle review public hearing.

So I think that we should we should do the size thing based on because enables minor correct if that's the only there'll be other criteria but that would be one versus just for that. So it does mean that inspector will say okay you're here you might be minor might but you know it has you got to go to the body. No, it's us actually still. We still have to determine minor. We determine minor, but they're going to say they're going to give them hints that it might be minor because they're going to look at the criteria. Right. Right. Cuz frankly, most of the time, I'm guessing you will, you know, you'll get used to this. And if it's below the threshold, 99% of 90% of the time you're going to look,

but you have to go to one, you have to go at least to a meeting, bring your stuff. Um, okay. So, anyway, basic commercial stuff. Uh so four was kind of where I was going to know increases occupancy limits or site parking requirements. Yeah. The occ limit thing is really tied to like sight sight parking. So the real issue with these you know do you want to exempt them below a certain size because remember if it's even a small addition could require additional parking if you don't go through if you don't go through site plan then you don't review either the building or the parking lot. It might be safer to do that than site plan.

I think they should go through minor. I again I think the it should get an eye on it, right? Which is what the minor site plan really is. It's like just to make sure there's nothing else hiding under the covers and and it also says but but I think the key thing is we have to make sure we're really efficient on the minor side incentivizes. So now let me jump to one that could be controversial. This is five again. We're businessing business and research business all clearing and grading. Again, I highlighted this. I'm not saying what you should do. I'm just throwing out there. Glory grading or clearing above a certain

This is commercial. This is No, this is commercial in a commercial zone. Do any clearing grading? Currently in the current code, correct me if I'm wrong, the uh building inspector can approve clearing and grading before it goes through. Anything else? Fire number cr. That's what I think we should re that. It's it's Yeah, there is no clearing, but they can do the excavation and all that kind of stuff. I guess right now there's no clearing, which means anybody can clear whenever they want. Correct. Yes, I think setting a limit is reasonable.

10 I vote for 10,000 ft and any tree over 12 in. I don't it's sort of arbitrary but it it there needs to be something. Well, I I put a whole framework in there. I don't know if you clicked on it that you could see the whole framework regarding trees. I saw something

you'd have to click on the comment and do more. I've had a lot of conversations with the board about tree codes. they're they haven't been in there yet with all the other things they're addressing. But the that's why it kind of it's a tangled web is that you know you got to you can't just say clearing. So you have to start defining all these things to actually have control over it. And so I put it in there. This things, you know, there is um and I'll just kind of briefly it is um basically saying uh you use a term substantially alter and that that becomes a defined term because so people don't go in and just start destroying tree just

better would never substantially alter is such a fudge term. It's a defined term you'd have to go in and read it and whatever. So fine, just before you get there, you know, I'd rather use a percentage because then it becomes objective. Yeah. So you're you're not you're you're jumping into rather than hearing the kind of

the framework. So if you just bear with me and you can go over it later, it is saying that you can't substantially alter more than or the lesser of x number of trees or x percentage of existing trees. Then you define substantially alter as cutting pruning in excess of normal customary you know blah blah blah blah blah so that people can't go in and just start destroy it but they didn't take down the whole tree essentially

I did see so you know so you start to have you know more control you define and you say that it's you're you're defining you can't substantially alter large trees so you put a size on the trees that they can't touch without permission then you say they're an exception for dead and dying or an emergency as long as it's determined by an arborist and then you know um you know then there has to be a standard so right I mean which is you're trying to maintain x percentage of existing large trees on the property unless it reasonably interferes with the ability to conduct necessary business activities and no practical alternatives exist. So it tries to create a framework where you have a standard you have a percentage you're trying to keep you know and you you know etc etc. So you're trying to hit all the bases so that it's not cuz people play games, right? So you can't just say clearing, I left one tree, I didn't clear, you know, you all those kinds of things. So it it builds a framework that is covers the you know the kind of whole thing.

Can I just can I just ask a question? It seems to me that all of that verbiage basically requires that a a tree and topo survey be submitted prior to any kind of um approval and you can't do it just with verbiage. a tree and topo survey would have to be done and then within your verbiage you would have to clarify um as David pointed out any tree uh with a diameter exceeding say 8 in at the 3ft level has to be very

it's it's essent essentially in there what what it is is that if you are coming up against I'm not saying this is the you know the golden rule but I've been in a lot of conversations. And so what I'm trying to emphasize is that this is not just throw in you're not allowed to clear or whatever. You actually have to create in standard exceptions. You have to kind of address it at multiple levels

with that. If you're coming beyond a given threshold, you would then have to come and say here is where I have large trees on the property and this is what I want to cut. I I don't think that you can make it like a a certain threshold. If you are doing clearing, you'll have to submit a tree and topost survey. But what is clearing? So you have to define clearing. So clearing creating a whole new section of code. Yeah. You can't shove a clearing code into site plan review. Yeah, that is a very separate legislation. I

so try to stay focused on the site plan. The tree clearing, am I am I correct? The tree clearing is not necessarily something that site plan review is going to have control over. Well, I'll say this. We're not likely to resolve that tonight because that's that is No, I mean, I said this at the last meeting of, you know, look, I'm a tree hugger. I think it's great to do it. I said ask the town board because I bet you that I bet you bet you the town board's going to say, "No, we don't want to deal with that." that you know whatever you know we can still make the suggestion if we feel strongly but it it it's not a minor thing that you know you just kind of throw in there it is has to be very thoughtful and controlled now I am

you're saying it would have to be a code revision with

well to the extent that Sean is talking about yes it would have to probably be a new chapter of code if you're going to regulate the size and diameter of trees right now what you're allowed to the area you're allowed to clear the am area that has to remain permeable versus hardened is all outlined in your zoning codes. So right now for these businesses, they have to apply the zoning code for the district that they're in to whatever project they're planning on doing. So that would give you the amount of hardcape versus the amount of permeable surface. Um that's what's regulated right now. So, you know, when it comes to screening and things like that, we can write recommendations on, you know, specimen trees that we would like them to keep because it keeps the character of that area. But right now, our code doesn't say, you know, you're not allowed to

clear clear. So, um you know, you're you're working off of the zoning rules for the district that you're working in. So what what protection does the zoning buffers have right now? What are the protections heading on? No, it doesn't really protect against clearing. Well, that's why I'm there is nothing. It doesn't doesn't protect against clearing because you can have hardcapes. The thing is that's probably where it belongs is more there than in the zoning. Yes. Yes. It's a zoning issue. Yes. From a

So how do we want to correct more than just that while we cannot necessarily put it within site plan review that so that it doesn't get lost in the weeds that we recommend that something be studied to work in tandem with what we are producing uh a multi-layered approach so that everything is uh put that in our recommendation to the town board because that's where this is going to go and we're going this the type of thing that I just discussed didn't just come out of my, you know, Mhm. head, you know, quickly. It is because we've been discussing this

with the town board with town board with people that are interested for two years. Uhhuh. Right. And the town to incorporate it, right? And so I think the town board is generally supportive of addressing this. It's just not on the top of their priority list with all the other stuff. So I think we can we can say we believe it is an important part of it and we would like to see them address it. I I can tell you that it's not going to run in tandem with this so that we feel oh this got passed and their tree code is coming you know right behind it.

Maybe it goes as an addendum to our recommendations on the site plan review. put it in this section just the concept of what I was just thinking like in terms of screening like screening is important because if you like he's just like Greg was mentioning the 114 corridor Walter did that right we had some screening that you can put into the site but that would be example like right I'm saying like what's to stop the applicant to like pulling out all the trees and saying well putting in ornamentals and hey there's my hedge and there's my screening something good there like that kind of thing I mean There's nothing it might fall under some screening recommendations.

Yeah. But so like I guess Sean was saying it is a bigger thing. So right when you're doing construction there are all these different requirements, right? You have to do uh propane tanks, right? Those go underground. You've got dry wells, those have to go underground. You've got utilities. There's a whole bunch of stuff that you're going to dig up and tear up. So to say you're not allowed to clear here, here, and here where maybe those are the only places where your required dry wells can get cited because of your wells that bad.

Right. But that's an example what Sean was just describing like septic is a great example for for example example. But often you you don't have a choice. Trees have to come out because you have to put your IIA and that's dictated by the well. Hence, you know, hence you're stuck with you may have to uproot some, right? But I'm just wondering why do we all get a little bit like squeamish whenever we mention about like just a little bit more caution about how we're designed to clear something on commercial. So why is it that it can't be considered here? I'm just No, it can, but I'm just saying it fits in a different code, not necessarily site plan code. By the time you're getting a site plan or notification, it's done.

You know, most of this is a conversion of an existing property. It's not a vacant lot. I mean, can I just I said the biggest issue is really residential, but I I don't know how many commercial lots are around that this is still

going to have an impact specific question about an example. Is that acceptable to cite an example? So, one of our primary intersections occurs at 114 and 114 at the entrance to to Sylvester Manor where IGA is on one side of the intersection and White Oak Nursery is on the other side. IGA has no landscaping to speak of, no screening, no trees. I mean, it's a desert.

Okay. That's the kind of thing that moving forward I think we'd like to mitigate. On the other side is a landscape business which 6 months of the year looks like a bomb site. And that is a great example of a a a clearing that um you know has there's no there's nothing to prevent them from having cleared the way it's done. And you know, there trees sort of partially falling out of the forest and it's uh to me that's what we should be trying to mitigate.

You're you're not going to prevent the clearing, but I would like to think that if IGA came in front of us today for a new build, we would require screening. It wouldn't be a vacant, you know, whatever. So some of that's historical and people didn't think of it and you know and address it at the intersection. So you're not going to want a whole like head. Yeah. you got to see traffic and whatever. There are ways to deal with all of this

and and um you know and for the um and for I don't understand why we can't do any we're talking about clearing why what's happening across the street isn't something that is an example of what doesn't work well. You by across the street you mean over there at White Oak. Oh, White Oak. But no, but that's true there. money. That's true there. They've done massive grading, regrading, and clearing. Um, and which is fine in the summer when it's fully, you know, it's filled with trees. The reason why they do the grading is so they can do that in the summer. So, it's like it's

I understand business,

Dave. I I understand the reason, but the result is a disaster front. So the balance is some in that case we would have done screening had it come forth and you know it's it's done already but it's done already but it's an example of what I think is a problem. That's yeah, that's why I'm bringing it up. And and it's a it it occurs at one of our primary intersections. And David brought up the idea of, you know, the importance of small businesses uh being able to operate in Shelter Island. Well, what Rick said is, I think, absolutely correct. One of the things we have to sell is our uniqueness and beauty. And if that is what we sell just kind of devastation I don't think that's a great our entire central corridors is has a problem the class B B1 which is different that's another more detail that's like there's very specific rules about that and that currently is probably the area that needs the most work right from a something has to happen there or we're going to have a

I guess I'm just trying to figure out on screening how to avoid a situation where you have natural existing thing screening and you're what's to stop the commercial owner from just it's going to happen before it gets to us pre-sight plan that's the point but don't they need a site plan review for the building permit they are before they do a burning pump right they'll go and clear and then they'll go in for the that's the problem that's why it has to be done at a higher level the zoning level they can't just do that's why it doesn't work one thing I do say in here is if you're subject to site plan You you got to get your approval first before you commence to the work. That's

if but they'll do it way before that. That's the it's you're it's a well yeah it's got to be clear whether or not because if you don't if it's not clear whether you decipher you should have people go and do stuff. So anything can I bring back on I think you should sorry I think you could think about it. I think the only as me suggested is to look whether within screening you can add some language that that's what I was encourages maintaining the existing if there is anything

veget maintain encouraging using existing vegetation rather than creating you know new veget you know um let me just this is the most important part of it. We're going right now this what's the jurisdiction I do want to run quickly through this but let me just finish still here under V districts

two and six two roads out there again it's bold this is something I'm looking for feedback about if a change in use increases site parking requirements or requires approval of the wastewater disposal by the health department the second part of it not sure what you if it needs health department approval you get health department approval right not sure side that might be the parking requirements. The parking requirements, look at two and look at six. And this is what I would throw out to you. If you make a change to the use of the building that increases the occupancy and then under your code, and I don't know exactly under the zoning code when this trip's in, but if you do something that requires a larger parking lot and you have to include a larger parking lot, Yes.

then maybe subject to this 10% coverage thing, it seems to me the parking lot expansion should require sight. Yeah. Yes, I agree with that. Okay. So, we could take two and six and just make them into six. Yes. Yes. Right. Cuz really the change in in in occupancy really has to do with the parking. Well, there's the parking side, but there's also the change of c there's the part of the category of permitted or special permit use. So, there's that zoning change separately. The first two the first part of two you want to keep. First talking about the zoning change. Yeah. Any change. Okay. Okay. Right. is that it's it's the highlighted part that essentially you could merge into six which is

well I guess it's the parts in other words site plan view is is really about external manifestation of things if you I it's possible that you might be able to get permit issue by the town board special permit for change of use board zoning board zoning board yeah it's it's it's the reason why I think it was in here was because the zoning board says yes you can do this change But the idea is to go to site plan to make sure that change of use doesn't have an impact on like the number of cars that are going to be there. So basically to to do the site planning part of it was I think if if you're enlarging the building is part of the change of use. If you need more parking it's part of the change of use building site plan.

If you change the use I don't know how but if you change the use of a of a building nursing schools and daycare centers but from nursing school daycare center and outside it doesn't change anything and it doesn't then you don't need site. Um, so I would I would disagree a little bit because again I think the thinking was uh not as nursery to build because those are very similar businesses but dramatically different businesses that may have dramatically different parking requirements and maybe it was done previously where they gave them a break on parking because it wasn't didn't need it. But this new thing, there's going to be all these cars now. And that's why, and isn't necessarily that there's more expansion of parking yet because they don't know because they think they're just doing.

David, how about if Walter Richard's landscaping business, which is a landscaping business, and just parks his his employees there. So, he sold it. Now, it's become a restaurant and they don't have enough parking. They come back to say, "Now we're a restaurant. We used to be a landscaping business." I think what we're trying to target here was they may go come back and go we're going to change this use. Oh, but we're not going to change our park. We don't have to. Even though they really kind of do for the business and that that was what was this was trying to trigger cuz again it's what determines they need more parking currently is construction or expansion of space but it may be because of change of use.

Change of use. So let me see. So in two I think what you're I think what David is saying is if you read two we get into the area I bolded after the word parks parking requirements stop there because the or beyond the or which is approval of the you know health department we don't care about that at all. You need don't need sight. Yeah I would absolutely stop the parking requirements period. Yeah I think it's what you're trying to do is trying to make it all into one. I think it still needs to have it be in both places

two and six separate. Okay, one one more one in C see C because David mentioned this in the email. So this is something I introduced that's new. It does town code. Um in every zoning district an activity or use made subject to site review as a conditioner of any permission by another land. So in East Hampton it has occurred very rarely either as a planning board of conditional planning board approval. It could add a conditional zoning approval. Frankly almost never occurs. But it gives you one tool. Let's just say that you have a very difficult subdivision and one of those lots. I'm not mentioning any of our distinct subdivisions, but you know, planning board says we really wish we could have some sort of when they go to build on this one lot, this could be a difficult lot. We're creating it, but it could be a difficult lot. We'd feel more comfortable if we had site plan review over that lot when it's built on.

Could you put that as a covenant?

Well, you have to give yourself the authority to do it first. In other words, the idea would be to give the planning board the planning board the one with site plan authority for another board. Could be the town board if they have if they're giving a permit to something could be the zoning board a condition of a variance. Could be the planning board condition or or site planning. You want some whatever. You could impose a requirement that further work on a particular property needs to go see the planning board. Don't have to. And it's rarely going to come up. It may never come up. But if you do it, it's one more tool in the toolbox. if you had a particularly sensitive or difficult piece of property and that's why I put in there. So it's not automatic. It requires a first it requires a reviewing the agency to say we want to subject something that we're proving now to to cycle in the future.

Yeah. I was I think what I was concerned about express is because it is discretionary. It is by the reviewing board. And so it gets into that kind of like do we want to give that kind of discussion that that was my only go to the planning board and then we could decide oh it's minor and so it goes to the simple fast way but that was my concern about it either you're going to make it discretionary or you're going to be very specific and say so many feet of this and so many trees which I don't feel like we have the appetite

again right currently if they go and decide you subdivide something and like this property and they're going to go do commercial stuff on it. If it's commercial, it doesn't even build. It's going to go it's going to come in a site plan.

Right. So, it's one of those I'm I was trying to think through my mind of the that when would you be doing this in another board any any uh local agency approval any any other I'm trying to think about other approvals that existed and why how could it not already have to go to site plan for some if it's commercial I just throw it in there um it's in the east code It's almost never utilized, but it does exist. You can decide whether you you want or you don't want it. I'd be really interested in understanding when it was used.

Yeah. I have to go back. I haven't seen it used for a long long. So, so does it. So, do we need it? It's like let's put in more code just because code is good. You know, that's

Let me just go quick through the rest of this because I just want you understand what the what else is in here. So, so 109-4, you can see it says review authorized approval. Basically, you have to go through a site plan interview. You got to get when you get a site plan approval, you have to go get a building permit for most things. And then the building permit authorizes you to do the work. You're not allowed to do the work before you get a building permit. That was, you know, the result of your site plan. And when a certificate when you finish the work and you've completed everything, then you can apply for certificate of occupancy. Sometimes if you get into an issue like paving a parking lot in the dead of winter or installing landscaping in the dead of winter, you can't do those things. So you could go to the town board. I think it's the town board and if they take a an undertaking in security, you could it's not like getting a temporary CO. You could get a you were conditional CMO. You could get a CMO, the town's holding security to make sure that you finish the work you could do.

We did. All right.

Um 109-5 is exceptions. The only really a meaningful exception there is a this is not site plan review for any of these things is not in entailed was not triggered by ordinary repair or maintenance of existing structures or uses existing uses that's 109-6 it doesn't change existing uses you know the play landscaping company that you're talking about for example if they complete everything that they did or you know Greg talked about and they have their you know their sites there they have a CFO they're they exist They're grandfathered. They don't go through site plan unless they do something new that would have a new trigger for site plan review. The procedure 109-7 preliminary site plan application. If you've got one, you can go. It's discretionary with the applicant. So, if you have a fairly simple site plan application and you don't really think you need the benefit of preliminary review, just submit a full submit site application. If it's a more complicated project, maybe you do want to get an initial review by the board. And so that the submission requirements are much easier on the preliminary site plan review and you go through it. But that's an option by the applicant. The required site plan elements. This comes out of a um an appendix in your existing chapter 109. All these requirements for submission. If you don't like any and totally strike them out, but they're pretty much coming out of your own code.

Rich, the 1097, which is the is the preliminary site plan. because you don't have minor sites plan, right? You have preliminary site plan.

Yeah. So, there there is a waiver provision in here. Um actually look at B the site plan that so subsection B required site plan elements. The site plan shall include the elements lifted and a very long list unless one or more of these elements are weighed by the planning board upon request of the applicant and for due to shown. So if there's an out if somebody looks I got to answer all this. Yeah, bro. I'm doing this. I'm building a shed on the property. It's 501 ft. So, I need cyography or whatever. Can you wait? Can I not do this or that? And the board at its discretion for good cause shography and two photography whatever you know it's a flat side. This is the

you don't have to subject the I had I had an application in it's actually for church in Abigans and the planning department the site plan chapter said have the site plan show the circulation within the parking lot. Well parking lot was an aisle going in and there's parking on either side. What do you want me to put in the pip? An arrow in an arrow back out. You know common sense. So, you know, you can use common sense shrink common sense. Um, I do I have one comment about the legal data. Yeah. Name and address of the owner. More and more frequently the owner is an LLC.

That's what you get then. Are we are we can we ask who the members are? I don't I don't think you're allowed to. No, I think New York State now can find out, but I don't think that information is publicly know. But just as we get on our wetlands, we we often have the owner's names on the application. Well, you look someone signed the application. So, let's say it's an LLC. Typically, it's signed by a member of the LLC or the attorney representing the be authorized to sign with the LLC. somebody really trying to preserve their privacy, they can set up in the in the operating agreement, they can they can appoint a manager and the manager may not be a member of the LLC

and you can sign as the manager and you still don't know the real but most people most people don't do that. So the typical LLC you'll actually have somebody's name on that's really a member of the LLC but if they want to hide it other than the state of New York department of taxation or whatever yeah they can hide it their identity. So, we can't ask. Um, you can ask. It's not going to answer. Well, you can ask. They'll say, "We're not going to tell you." Shouldn't impact. They're not obligated to. Yeah. And it cannot impact. Correct. So, so you ask that. Actually, it's best to not know. It makes it

If you ask and they don't tell you, they will then you later if you say no. So, don't ask. The reason I'm saying is it seems that on the ones we get, we just always have the applicant's name. I don't know. No, there's actually some that don't. Some are like signed by or it's you'll see they're actually not Well, I don't know how your form is set up, but you know, usually you want an owner's name on there. So, you know, or the owner's reference, but that's not owner representative is what you get. Well, again, if in LLC, they can they get a point of managing everything else. Oh, just want to point out if you continue down on to on still on 109-7, we're still under the procedure, but you're on the third page.

Formal site plan procedure. Let me just read this. An application for formal site plan approval. This is not for the optional preliminary site plan shall be submitted with the appropriate to the building inspector. He shall refacial completeness. you know, does it seem to comply with what the code requirements are? Conforming with the New York State Uniform Fire Promission building code vote and conforming with chapter 133. Does that mean zoning? Are they meeting the setbacks on the new building? He has 21 days after received the application to certify whether or not it meets the five elements. If it does it, you know, descertifies it and then the application I guess is made to you. I think that's how I so to the clerk, right? It's all

the clerk's name. I don't have the clerk involved. It's just going to the building inspector and then to you. I thought everything goes to the clerk. It goes to the clerk planning. Yeah. I mean the planning board. Yeah. They wouldn't submit to each individual member. It would go to the clerk. She would distribute it.

Yeah. Um so then D initial planning board review upon receipt of the certification uh forget you receive the site from I think you received it from him with his certification. I think that's how I wrote it. So then you do your review. You have to make it you have to determine if it's complete. That's the first thing you always do. But then you have to make a secret determination. You could have an application that was complete technically under the code. But you might say you know this is such a big application we want to require DIS. And if you envax statement is not complete until you accept the DEIS. So that's all under secret. And then finally once it's complete or if you accepted a dis at the end of the DISIS process, you schedule a public hearing and you have to hold the public hearing within 62 days after you determine it was complete. And after the public hearing is closed, you have 62 days in which to render a decision. That's the basic. Now minor site plan is 109-8. Um, I'm going to use what you told me earlier. We go back and revise this, but we're going to have certain thresholds and you're eligible for body cyclone review below these thresholds and you can adjust the threshold, whatever you want to do, but we'll have thresholds. There are some standards to review. If you look at G, the planning board has to find that waving the public hearing. It wouldn't be delotterious to the public interest before. It looks at several things and you can see them. They're listed under G1 through five. By the way, H is public controversy.

Yeah. You also have to have like if there is a lot of public controversy, you got to have it here. You still need to have Yeah. 109-9 is the standards for review of a site plan. If you go through any site, even the minor site effectively, you would look at the standards for review. Is it compatible with the site? Does it have access? Um, does it have some pictures? All of those normal things. Streetscape, is it properly screened or other land otherwise landscape? I highlight a lot of stuff in yellow under lighting. I don't know how intense you get on lighting or want to be on lighting. We have lighting code separately.

I I think I saw that in your code. So, I don't know whether E is necessary or, you know, it's still under site view. So, you still have a plenty word overseeing things, but that's what I highlighted there. You know, I'll probably need some feedback on that. Yeah. before I think we took it out because it we had this whole other lighting thing other thing. Yeah, I don't I think referencing you might want to incorporate wheels inside. I'd say either incorporate or definitely refer to it. Yeah. Um so 109-10 is pretty straightforward. Effective approval effective approval get a building permit. You can do what you got for uh 109-11 validity of approval. I made this I think I did I haven't seen it right now. It's valid for two years. I think I'm good with the code right now.

That's right. I wouldn't do less than that. I know a lot of your time frames in your codes are very way too extensions. People take they got to go get help pool. It takes time faster.

So anyway, the biggest thing was the the first part which is what subject the site would use. Also, one last thing on the whole document. Uh, I just pointed out I changed the blue and things I changed after I sent you the original draft. Penalties. I set the penalty at um between $500 to $1,000 in monthly fine for imprisonment not to exceed 15 days. If you're subject to prison, not that anyone goes to jail for sight violation, but technically you could. The real significance is if you put in a penalty of imprisonment, potential imprisonment more than 15 days, then it's a misdemeanor. Oh yeah.

And it could be on someone's record and then they got to fight because they don't want it on their record. Don't answer that. 15 days or less is only a violation. They have to spend two weeks in jail. It's totally a violation, sir. It's on your record. the public hearing notification stuff and I made this comment where I think it's not enough time. Public hearing advertised 10 days in advance.

Oh, so David I I spoke to the town clerk about basically wetlands is so wetlands is 30 days. Docs are usually 30 days. Site plan has always been 10. Um, but it says unless written otherwise in the New York general municipal law, you can change it to whatever. So the minimum is five, but you can go more than 10. 30 days might be better. That was input from our our own town clerk. Yeah. Remember remember something though your subject report is weekly, right? Sorry. Yeah, it's a weekly. and you publish it immediately. So if you require 30 days, that's, you know, you can't hold the hearing for 2 months, right?

That's the problem. So you're slowing down. I remember something too. I guess I would I guess you would hold the hearing presumably within 62 days, but a hearing on a complete application by law is supposed to occur within 62 days of being deemed complete. Yep. Now, the only default on that is in subdivisions and side planes, there's really no penalty. But in a subdivision, if you miss the state statutory deadlines, I think it's entitled to demand default approval. Y always have to keep that in mind. Some make it.

Can I just can I just reiterate, which is the last comment that I made in there around around penalties is that, you know, we have a history here in Shelter Island of not having adequate deterrence and not having fees codified. Um and then they go to the court and the court is lenient or dismissive or whatever. So people do whatever they want to do. And so I know last time we threw around $5 $10,000, you know, type thing. Um which I think is warranted. Personally, I believe that we should use the opportunity to start the second leg of that which is anyone who facilitates um you know breaking the code so that we have the ability to find you don't have to but you can find a contractor if they're knowingly facilitating and they know that they're not supposed to be doing it because that's the only way.

How do you prove that? That's a good question. Well, I mean something about something that's about they do try to penalize. It's the only way you're going to stop, you know, you're going to start to stop. And I think you're gonna have to use your discretion if it's like a, you know, silly little thing of like, oh, I mean, how can this guy possibly know or whatever, but if it's a big builder who's just, you know, he doesn't care and he's just, you know, following it, you and then lastly, I said, you know, putting in a failure to comply with a cease and desist or, you know, whatever. It should like daily fines. And if you don't put that if you don't put that kind of stuff in the code then we don't have the ability to actually like you know deter the behavior.

First thing I would strengthen though would be in the zoning code because most a lot of stuff is going to even this will still run through zoning building. So I would put that in the recommendation I guess. Yeah. Matched and thrown out. I think you were talking about the leng the schedule the public notice amount I know it's my comment also not you want so you want to increase beyond 10 well was it it was I mean I think 15 is even better because then you get two weeks that should be when did the newspaper record something

Friday Thursday. I also I think the 200 ft is you know for certified mail is is just an inadequate distance. I don't know I don't know if that's tied in with feet to like neighbors. Oh for the Yeah. I mean, if you have if you're in double A zoning, that's one neighbor on either side, which is not a lot, right? The immediate impact of the project on Well, if you live on a street and there's going to be construction going on for three years on the street and you live two houses away, wouldn't you want to know?

Well, that's the triple notice thing is you get three options. First of all, if you are within 200 feet or joining, you're notified directly by mail. There is a sign on the robbery and there's when you drive by. That's true. Um you should be fine. I mean I don't see the harm in you know except a couple of extra stamps instead of saying 200 feet neighbors in you know three neighbors over or pick a number whatever it is. To be safe and just give you okay 600 feet I don't know quarter mile. Oh I don't 2.8. It's 2,000 ft.

And they're all people who will care. I mean, is the point of to get as few people as possible to respond or to get as many people as possible to respond? No. No. The key is people that are really going to be impacted by the project because someone was doing something on your street. I know your street. You think everyone on the street would want to know what's going on. We all know what's going here. Or is this people who live here? You want me to? Yes. Look, I hear you. I want to make sure it lines up with the paper. I mean, I know. I know. That's my concern. I have to make You want It's got to be on to the next paper.

So, we have to make sure that we're giving us enough time to get it in the paper and then have it published. Is is it just David that's concerned about the 10 days or did anyone else think about it like about I think 10 can be a bit short. I I I think 15 would be better good if it works if it's workable. Yeah. So let me look into see if that all lines up. 15 is going to be I'll just you guys traditionally meet on Tuesdays and the paper comes out on Thursday. Yeah. So it's going to be we submit it next week. If we submit it Wednesday after you come out days following 19 days because you have Thursday. Yeah.

The next Thursday the next Thursday and then the meeting is not till Tuesday which is 15 16 17 18 19 days. Make it 20 days. In effect, right now your 10day notice is really what 14 to 15 days right now cuz the paper Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday, 15 days on us right now. So, let's keep it at 10. So, leave it. The and and send out more mail. Take that.

I think we should leave that word way. It's I mean speaking firsthand it's it's not an adequate process. That's like saying that if you know um I mean living across the street from a large subdivision I can I was never notified. Right. But that's because by code you lived significantly far away. But that's the whole point that he's making by code. You said you're across the street, but by impact it is a big it's a big lot. If you across the street, notice isn't required. Okay. Well, we're just beyond the the threshold of

Okay. I I just want bring every back together because it's 10 10 to 10. We're not we're not going to pull another November 18. One last question. No, I I actually want I I want to just say about this draft with all this input now. We're going to be seeing you. Is it the 9th? Jessica, is our next No, the 14th. What's our Well, our next meeting in January, January 13th. Um, can you take the ones that were highlighted? I think it was red. I have a black and white version, but I think on yours it was red or blue. And change those based on how we, you know, make the other comments that we didn't talk about. Oh, the key pieces that you had highlighted for us saying, you know, A, B, C, each one, you know, and we answer for you. Keep it. Yeah. Yeah. Oh, yellow. Sorry.

Oh, what what we just discussed. I'd like to have now like another rework draft for the next meeting. So, I this time I took notes. Okay, good. That's all I can. So, you can always watch the Yeah, again to be complete cuz we should be able to wrap this up. This is I'd like to wrap it up maybe at the next meeting and then um David is that all I had was is fees cuz we were talking about penalties. Is the fees in in this code or is it separate? Uh I didn't specify, right? So I I would say we either put the fees in here too cuz that's I think relevant. The only thing is with fees is but then can't you can you not change them?

You want it so that they can be changed from time to time by a resolution at the temple board. So what otherwise you got to do the whole local. So that's what I thought which is why maybe penalties should also be the same. But I'm just putting it out there, right? I think it's one of the reason why penalties weren't uh I don't know if penalties are are different in that context cuz I I just know that if when they're they're not codified I mean just like the fees are codified. They're just not codified in there. They're codified over here. So town board can do resolutions that way. Well, you the idea to make it easier to change to increase

because I like to increase because mainly I think the problem is we have a lot of dollars in some of the code and it's really small dollars and it doesn't change because it requires too big of a change. Y so keeping it out separate makes it easier for us to if we decide want to ratchet up we can work with the board to do that. Fair enough. I mean that was fine. Yeah. I think if we go high enough it's I Pam. Pam, are you still with us or did you want to ask anything? Anyone? I see Pam on Zoom, but she meant a hand. No hand up. She's sleeping. Um, okay. So, someone needs to make a motion. Motion to close. Motion to close for me. Second that. I second David. All in favor? I.

Thank you, everybody. If the penalty ought to be